Phonological changes from Classical Latin to Proto-Romance

As Latin developed into Proto-Romance it underwent several sound changes, which are summarized below.

General changes
  • Word-final /m/ is lost in polysyllabic words.[4] In monosyllables it tends to survive as /n/.[5]
    • In Classical poetry /m/ generally elided before a following vowel.[6]
  • Clusters consisting of a stop followed by a liquid consonant (/r/ or /l/) draw the stress position forward[7] e.g. íntegram > intégram, with some exceptions, as demonstrated by Old French palpres, poltre < Latin pálpebras, púllitra.[8]
    • In Classical poetry such clusters could form a ‘heavy’ (in this case, closed) syllable or not, depending on metrical needs.[9]
  • /n/ was usually lost before fricatives, resulting in compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (sponsa ‘fiancée’ > spōsa).[10]
    • However /n/ would often be restored if it belonged to the prefixes in or con.[11]
  • /ī ĭ ē ĕ/ in hiatus (after a consonant and before another vowel) become [j][18] and then the word stress, if it was on them, passes to the following vowel, e.g. mulíeris > muliéris. A similar phenomenon occurred with /ū ŭ/, except that the stress tended to move backwards, as in battúere > báttuere > báttere ‘hit’. Both changes may be due to analogy with other inflexions where the vowel in question was already atonic, such as múlier or báttuo.[19]
    • /ī, ĭ/ in hiatus before an unstressed /ī, ĭ/ generally deletes, as in audíi > audí or consílii > consíli.[20]
    • [w] before an unstressed back vowel is deleted, as in cóquus, cóquo > cócus, cóco; occasionally it would do so before other vowels as well, as in februárius > febrárius. After velar consonants it is also deleted before stressed back vowels[21] as in quómodo > cómodo.[22]
    • [j] tends to delete a preceding [β], as in *caveola, *plovia > Old French pluie, jaiole.[23]
      • Not, however, in cases like *leviarius > */leβjárju/ > Old French legier, which was perhaps influenced by the related levis.
    • [j] palatalizes a preceding consonant.[24]
      • Palatalized /t k n l/ become [tsʲ c ɲ ʎ] respectively.[25][26]
        • In intervocalic position [c ɲ ʎ] regularly geminate[27] while [tsʲ] does so only sporadically.[28]
  • In certain rural accents the diphthongs /ae̯/ and /au̯/ had merged to /ē/ and /ō/ by Classical times, and this variant pronunciation seems to have occasionally entered ‘mainstream’ words. In later Latin /ae̯/ would monophthongize to [ɛː] (much like /oe̯/ merged to [eː])[29] but /au̯/ would generally remain in place for centuries to come.[30][31]
    • /au̯/ however simplified to /a/ when unstressed and followed by a syllable containing /u/ or /ʊ/, as in augústus > agústus or auscultáre > ascultáre.[32][33]
  • Word-initial and intervocalic /j/ undergo fortition, perhaps to [ɟ] in the former case and [ɟ][34] or [ʝ~ɟɟ][35] in the latter.
  • /w/ (except after /k/) and intervocalic /-b-/ (or /b/ in contact with a liquid consonant) give rise to the fricative /β/.[36][37]
  • Intervocalic /-β-/ in contact with a back vowel tends to disappear[38] as in rivus > rius ‘river’.[39]
    • It is often later restored if alternate inflexions of the same word (in this case e.g. the plural rivi) lacked a back vowel and so never lost the /-β-/ to begin with.[40]
  • /ks/ before or after a consonant, or at the end of a word, reduces to /s/. Intervocalic /-ks-/ sporadically metathesizes to /sk/.[44]
  • Intervocalic /-g-/ before a front vowel palatalizes to [ɟ][45] and then usually disappears if that vowel is stressed, as in re(g)ína or ma(g)íster.[46]
  • /g/ before /n/ appears to have at first fricativized to [ɣ], then vocalized to [i̯], and finally— in most regions— merged with the following /n/ to make /ɲ(ɲ)/.[51][52]
    • Alternately, the path may have been [gn] > [ŋn] and then [ɲ(ɲ)] via ‘gestural blending’.[53]
  • Compound verbs stressed on a prefix are generally reformed with stress on the verb root[54] and this process eliminates any previous vowel reduction. CL dísplicet, for instance, is replaced by *displácet.[55]
    • Récipit simply becomes recípit, perhaps because the word, while recognized as a compound, was not easy to identify with the original verb capere.
    • A number of words such as cólligo ‘adhere’ appear to not have been recognized as compounds at all and escaped both changes entirely.
  • Word-final /t/ appears to have been confused with /d/.[56]
    • It is also occasionally dropped, especially when preceded by /s/ and followed by another consonant, as in pos(t) me ‘after me’.[57]
  • The system of phonemic vowel length collapses, leaving quality differences as the distinguishing factor between adjacent vowels; the vowel paradigm thus changes from /ī ĭ ē ĕ ā ă ŏ ō ŭ ū/ to /i ɪ e ɛ a ɔ o ʊ u/.[58]
    • Atonic /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ merge with /e/ and /o/ respectively.[59][60]
    • In intertonic position /i/ and /u/ merge with /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ respectively.[61]
    • All stressed vowels in open syllables come to be pronounced as long.[62][63]
      • Lengthened /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ went on to diphthongize in most languages, which suggests that in some cases[lower-roman 1] their Proto-Romance realization was perhaps *[eɛ́] and *[oɔ́]. In some dialects these would later close to *[iɛ́] and *[uɔ́], eventually turning into the diphthongs [jɛ́] and [wɔ́].[64][65]
  • Words beginning with /s/ followed by another consonant receive an initial [ɪ] as a supporting vowel, e.g. schola > ischola[66] unless the preceding word ends with a vowel.[67][68]
  • Unified Proto-Romance comes to an end with the merger of /ĭ/ with /ē/ in most of the Empire, a sound change that fails to reach a number of areas such as Sardinia[69] and Africa.[70][lower-roman 2] Although some signs of this appear in Pompeiian graffiti, towards the end of the first century AD, the merger does not appear to have completed until the later collapse of phonemic vowel length.[71]

Sporadic changes
  • In cases where a long vowel was followed by a geminate consonant, one of the elements was often shortened unpredictably, leading to such doublets as cŭppa~cūpa. Sometimes both forms were even preserved in the same Romance language, as in Spanish cuba, copa; French cuve, coupe.[72]
    • Long vowels sometimes shorten in closed syllables in general, even if followed by two different consonants, leading to variations like nūtrire~nŭtrire ‘nourish’.[73]
  • /r/ tended to dissimilate to /l/ when a nearby syllable also had an /r/, as in peregrinus > pelegrinus. Sometimes one /r/ would simply delete, as in marmor > mamor.[77]
  • Word-final /s/ tended to disappear in parts of Italy and Dacia, a habit which was carried over into the modern dialects spoken there.[81]
    • Final /s/ was however preserved in monosyllables, where it ultimately became [i̯].
  • The consonant cluster [ŋk] sometimes lengthened preceding vowels, so quĭnque > quīnque.[82]
  • The endings /or/ and /er/ in unemphasized words can metathesize to /ro/ and /re/ respectively, as in inter, semper > *intre, *sempre.[83]
  • /i/ sometimes dissimilated to /e/ if the following syllable also contained /i/[85] as in dividere, divinus, vicinus > *devidere, devinus, vecinus.[86]
  • Atonic /o/ sometimes changes to /e/ if the following syllable contains a back vowel (rotúndus, soróre > retúndus, seróre).[87]
  • Sometimes short vowels in hiatus were raised, leading to variations like deus~dius or meus~mius. Before [u ʊ w], the vowel /o/ appears to have differentiated to /ɔ/; thus CL ōvum ‘egg’ > Italian uovo, Spanish huevo, French œuf. [88]
  • Consonants were sporadically doubled before [r] or [w], especially in Italy and Africa, leading to spellings like acqua for aqua.[89]
  • In some areas of Italy /nd/ changed to /nn/, and this tendency may be seen today in a number of Romance words, such as the derivatives of grundire~grunnire.[90]

Notes
  1. Namely in metaphonic environments, i.e. when the following syllable contained the high vowels [i] or [u], according to Ferguson. This view is challenged by Loporcaro (2011), who argues that diphthongization was triggered only by vowel lengthening in open syllables, with metaphony being an unrelated phenomenon. However Ferguson's view has since been defended, and Loporcaro's rebuttal itself attacked, in Maiden (2016).
  2. For more information on the Latin spoken in this region, see African Romance.

References
  1. Pope § 155.1
  2. Grandgent §§ 249-50
  3. Allen, p. 34
  4. Pope § 156.2
  5. Hall, p. 180
  6. Allen, pp. 30-31
  7. Pope § 214.2
  8. Grandgent § 134
  9. Allen, pp. 89-90
  10. Allen, pp. 27-9
  11. Grandgent § 31
  12. Pope § 262
  13. Penny p. 59
  14. Grandgent § 229
  15. Grandgent § 325
  16. Pope § 156.5
  17. Grandgent § 234
  18. Pope § 156.1
  19. Grandgent §§ 136-7
  20. Grandgent § 227
  21. Pope § 187.b
  22. Grandgent § 226
  23. Pope § 187.c
  24. Gouvert 2015, p. 83
  25. Gouvert 2014, pp. 92–115
  26. Zampaulo, pp. 50, 78, 94
  27. Gouvert 2015, pp. 92–115
  28. Wilkinson, pp. 11–14
  29. Pope § 154
  30. Grandgent §§ 209-12
  31. Allen, pp. 60-2
  32. Allen, p. 61
  33. Grandgent § 228
  34. Zampaulo, pp. 83-8
  35. Gouvert 2015, pp. 83-91
  36. Gouvert 2016, p. 48
  37. Pope § 155
  38. Pope § 163.7
  39. Grandgent § 324
  40. Pope § 188
  41. Zampaulo, p. 87
  42. Gouvert 2016, p. 43
  43. Lloyd, p. 255
  44. Grandgent § 255
  45. Pope § 155.ii
  46. Grandgent §§ 258-9
  47. Pope § 156.3
  48. Grandgent § 267
  49. Pope § 156.3
  50. Grandgent § 268
  51. Gouvert 2014, p. 95
  52. Zampaulo, p. 80
  53. Zampaulo, p. 81
  54. Pope § 217
  55. Grandgent §139
  56. Grandgent § 282
  57. Grandgent § 285
  58. Elcock, p. 43
  59. Gouvert 2015, pp. 73–6
  60. Ferguson, p. 78
  61. Gouvert 2015, pp. 78-81
  62. Grandgent §§ 174-6
  63. Loporcaro, passim
  64. Ferguson, p. 126
  65. Penny, p. 52
  66. Grandgent § 230
  67. Hall, p. 128
  68. Pope § 156.4
  69. Hall, pp. 185-6
  70. Adams 2007, pp. 626-9
  71. Adams 2013, pp. 60-1, 67
  72. Grandgent § 163
  73. Grandgent § 166
  74. Grandgent § 288
  75. Pope § 156.3
  76. Grandgent § 291
  77. Grandgent § 282
  78. Grandgent § 270
  79. Grandgent § 257
  80. Pope § 202
  81. Grandgent § 298
  82. Grandgent § 172
  83. Grandgent § 245
  84. Grandgent § 229.1
  85. Pope § 156.6
  86. Grandgent § 229.4
  87. Grandgent § 229.6
  88. Grandgent § 167
  89. Grandgent § 164
  90. Elcock, p. 33

Bibliography
  • Adams J.N. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin. Cambridge University Press.
  • ---. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Allen, William Sidney. 1965. Vox Latina—a Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge University Press.
  • Elcock, W. D. 1975. The Romance Languages. London: Faber and Faber.
  • Ferguson, Thaddeus. 1976. A History of the Romance Vowel Systems through Paradigmatic Reconstruction. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Grandgent, C. H. 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
  • Gouvert, Xavier. 2015. Le système phonologique du protoroman: essai de reconstruction. In: Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang: Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 381. De Gruyter.
  • ---. 2016. Du protoitalique au protoroman: deux problèmes de reconstruction phonologique. In: Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang: Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman 2. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 402. De Gruyter.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson. 1976. Proto-Romance Phonology. New York: Elsevier.
  • Lloyd, Paul M. 1987. From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
  • Maiden, Martin. 2016. Diphthongization. In: Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, M. (eds.): The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford, 647-57.
  • Loporcaro, Michele. 2011. Phonological processes. In: Maiden, M.; Smith, J.C.; Ledgeway, A. (eds.): The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Cambridge, vol. 1: Structures, 109-54.
  • ---. 2015. Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press.
  • Penny, Ralph. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Pope, Mildred K. 1934. From Latin to French, with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman. Manchester University Press.
  • Wilkinson, Hugh E. 1976. Notes on the development of -kj-, -tj- in Spanish and Portuguese. Ronshu, 17, 19–36.
  • Zampaulo, André. 2019. Palatal Sound Change in the Romance languages. Oxford University Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.