From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50446
Date: 2007-10-27
>=== message truncated ===
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stlatos
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale, PASSer
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz
> Jagodzinski"
> >> <<
> >> § 85. Desarrollo regular: ssi, sse entre voc. > j
> > [s^] > [x]:
> >>
> >> *bassia:re > bajar, russeum > rojo
> > >>
> >>
> >> Btw. single -si- yielded -s- in Spanish, not -j-,
> like in ba:sio: >
> beso.
> >>
> >> In other words, -j- in pájaro is regular if we
> accepted the
> >> intermediate form *passiarum
>
> > This just leaves the Portuguese and Romanian forms
> irregular.
>
> Personally, I doubt that a language called Vulgar
> Latin (or: Popular Latin)
> ever existed; instead, it was rather an L-complex: a
> bunch of loosely
> connected dialects with very little phonetic rules
> common to all dialects.
> As a concequence, the discussed rule -sse- > *-ssia-
> [ssja] was valid only
> for Spanish, not for Portuguese or Romanian. So, the
> Portuguese pássaro may
> be fully regular, and the same Romanian pasare (the
> breve sign over the
> second a).
>
> The change ss > [ssj] might be irregular: but in
> other positions / words the
> Latin -ss- (not followed by i [j]) yields just -s-
> in Spanish, cf. grossum >
> grueso. However, it may have existed a TENDENCY (or:
> a "weak phonetic rule")
> to palatalization of all geminants in Spanish (but
> NOT in Portuguese for
> instance). That tendency became a phonetic rule in
> the instances of nn and
> ll:
>
> Latin nn = Spanish ñ = Portuguese n
> ex. annum - año - ano
>
> Latin ll = Spanish ll (palatalized l) = Portuguese l
> ex. caballum - caballo - cavalo
>
> Whatever we can say on the change passerem >
> *passiarum (*passiaro) (which
> was irregular at least partially: -em > -um (-o)),
> two next statements seem
> to be correct (under the condition that *passiarum /
> *passiaro ever
> existed):
>
> 1. This form was neither "Latin" nor "Popular
> Latin": it was limited to
> those dialects which next became parts of the
> Spanish language (a logical
> conclusion from the statement that so called "Vulgar
> Latin" was only an
> L-complex, not a "true" language).
>
> 2. The development *passiaro > pájaro has been fully
> regular (i.e. it has
> subdued to all rules of Spanish phonetic
> development)
>
> >> (btw. chícharo is irregular or dialectal, as
> Latin c [k] should not
> >> yield ch [c^] in Spanish at all so any parallels
> between the
> >> development of -c- and -ss- in cicer and passer
> are wrong
>
> > The intermediate stages of ke > kYe > tse > etc.
> leave room for ts >
> > tsY > ts^ in a specific environment.
>
> OK, but in what environment exactly?
>
> Before a front vowel, c [k] > [þ] in Spanish (I use
> here the thorn symbol
> instead of theta for technical reason), ex.
> ci:vita:tem > ciudad, ce:la:re >
> celar, caelum > cielo and hundreds of others.
>
> However, there are instances of the other
> development c [k] > ch [c^], like
> in
>
> ci:micem > chinche,
> *marci:tum > marchito, or
> cistellam > chistera (here ll > r is irregular as
> well).
>
> Personally I doubt whether you can formulate a
> phonetic rule here. Prof.
> Man'czak is helpless as well; he terms "chinche" and
> "marchito" "préstamos
> de los dial." = borrowings from dialects (what
> dialects?). "Chistera" is to
> be Basque (it is listed under "préstamos del
> vasco"). In "chícharo" we have
> the same problem with the first [c^].
>
> The group [kj] (from groups what were spelt "ce" or
> "ci" in Latin before a
> vowel) yielded [þ] in Spanish (spelt z or c), not
> [c^]:
>
> lanceam > lanza,
> e:ri:cium > erizo,
> corticeam > corteza, and also
> bracchium > brazo (with - probably - [kkj] in late
> Latin).
>
> And again, we have single examples of the other
> development here, like in
> "capacho" (from unattested *capa:ceum), "capucho"
> (*cappu:ceum). Man'czak
> qualifies the former as a borrowing from a dialect
> (note intervocalic -p-
> preserved without lenition!) and the latter as an
> Italianism (= a borrowing
> from Italian).
>
> There also numerous "préstamos del lat.", like
> juicio (ju:dicium), Galicia
> (Galliciam) with yet another development (yes, they
> have [þ] but with -i-
> preserved!; in Galliciam - note -ll- > -l-) - but
> perhaps it is better to
> leave them apart.
>
> So, after Man'czak, no example of c [k] > ch [c^] is
> regular in Spanish. If
> you want to contradict this opinion, and try to
> formulate strict rules when
> [k] > [þ] and when [k] > [c^], give it a try.
>
> If we agreed with the shift of posttonic nonfinal e
> > ia, then Latin cicer
> "should" yield **cízaro (through **ciciarum) in
> Spanish (with the shift to
> the -o class, common among neuter nouns). Note that
> Latin cicer had
> short -i- but in Spanish -i- < -i- is regular before
> -i- [j].
>
> In other words, the development of [ssj] (as in
> *passiarum) in Spanish is
> NOT parallel to [kj] (as in *ciciarum) as the latter
> "should not" have [c^]
> at all. Or, in other words, as there is not known a
> rule for [kj] > [c^] and
> instances of such a development are exceptional and
> considered borrowings by
> specialists, your argumentation that the development
> [ssj] > [s^] is
> parallel is incorrect (also because of the
> difference between double [ss]
> and single [k]).
>
> > Since I've already said er>Yar
> > in one, the same changes in another (of e>a before
> r with a pal. of
> > the preceding C) make 3 points of similarity
> between these two words.
>
> The only point is that e > ia. The presence of -r-
> is unimportant because
> similar changes e > a in unstressed syllable may be
> observed in other
> Spanish words with "irregular" development, like
> trabajo < *tripa:lium,
> balanza < bilancem (here short -i- should yield
> (close) "e" but yielded "a"
> instead).
>
> > I think that's too much to be a coincidence
> instead of a rule. Even
> > if you just call them irregular, they are
> irregular in the same way.
>
> Probably your another mistake is that you consider
> only [c^], not [þ],
> palatalized. But notice that all instances of [þ]
> come