Re: swallow vs. nighingale, PASSer

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stlatos
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale, PASSer

> >> 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.

I agree; I didn't know what stage you put *passiarum at. In any
event, the dia. status in VL doesn't change my derivation.

> grueso. However, it may have existed a TENDENCY (or: a "weak

phonetic rule")

> to palatalization of all geminants in Spanish (but NOT in Portuguese

All dental geminates? I don't think it's too likely. The specific
environment involves e>a, which could supply the pal. just by movement
of a feature, no diphthongization, etc., required.

> >> (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?

> 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^]:

As you point out, kj /> c^; I never suggested it did. I was careful
to spell out the intermediate stages which allow pal. of ts after it
depal'ed < tsY < kY(y). This would be in the dia. stage when facto+ >
*faytYo+ > hecho (since tY>c^ it's very likely that tsY>c^ would occur).

The first ch- is no problem; (af)fric. assim. is common enough
(chercher ~ search).

> 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.

They are strict enough; my problem, if any exists, is not a lack of
knowledge of Spanish sound changes. Whenever er>ar; a preceding
(af)fric. > pal. There may be other changes causing pal., some may be
irregular or dia., but this particular change looks fine to me.

> If we agreed with the shift of posttonic nonfinal e > ia, then Latin

cicer

> "should" yield **cízaro (through **ciciarum) in Spanish

As I said, the timing is _after_ kYy>kY>tsY>ts. This would be part
of the newly pal'ed (in Sp) series, not VL.

> It is probable useful to remind what were sources of "regular" ch

[c^] in

> Spanish. Some examples:
>
> [pl] ancho < amplum
> [fl] hinchar < i:nfla:re
> [klj] cuchara < cochlea:re (neuter that has become feminine)
> (note that [kl] yielded [x] or [lj]: oculum > *oclo > ojo, cla:vem >

llave)

> [kt] hecho < factum, lechuga < lactu:ca

Maybe regular in Castillian, but kt > kYt > xYt > yt(Y) seems to
give ev. that my timing could work, depending on whether creation of
tY or change tY>c^ is the dia. difference.

> >> Anyway, the example of pájaro shows clearly how valuable are certain
> >> reconstructions, including IE reconstructions. [...]
> >> I am not surprised that plenty of IE words developed irregularly

as well.

>
> > Any number of reasons might make PIE > early IE more regular:
> > fewer speakers (and dialects),
>
> Fewer speakers or fewer dialects? Let's count known main IE dialects

then:

I am not interested in attempting to conclude which conditions, if
any, makes PIE > IE more regular; there's almost no way to be sure. I
was just saying that there could be reasons, and gave some examples.