Proto-Romance language

Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It developed from Latin, one of the Italic languages in the broader Indo-European family.

Exceptionally in comparative linguistics, specialists in Proto-Romance can refer to an abundant corpus of texts written in a rough equivalent of their proto-language, namely Latin. This has however had the drawback of leading many scholars to rely excessively on Latin texts in lieu of reconstructing Proto-Romance from its descendant languages.[1]

Proto-Romance is necessarily an abstraction and should not be taken as an exact equivalent to vernacular Latin from a specific time or place.[2] The first major breach in its unity[3] appear to have come with the merger of /ĭ/ with /ē/ in most of the Latin-speaking world,[lower-roman 1] a change which appears to have been completed only towards the end of the Roman Empire.[6]

Phonology

Monophthongs
Front Central Back
Close i u
Near-close ɪ ʊ
Close-mid e o
Open-mid ɛ ɔ
Open a
  • The open-mid vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ merge with /e, o/ in all unstressed contexts.[7][8]
  • A further reduction is observed in intertonic syllables where /i, u/ merge with /ɪ, ʊ/.[9]
  • Vowels are lengthened allophonically in stressed open syllables,[10] although perhaps not /ɪ/ or /ʊ/.[11]
  • /i, u/ become [j, w] between a consonant and following vowel. [j] then triggers palatalization, e.g. /basiáre/ [basʲáːɾe].[12]

Diphthong

Only one phonemic diphthong can be reconstructed for Proto-Romance, namely /au̯/.[13] It can be found in both stressed and unstressed positions.[14]

Consonants
Labial Coronal Velar Palatal
Nasal m n
Occlusive p b t d k g j
Fricative f β s
Labialized kʷ
Vibrant r
Lateral l
  • When palatalized /t, k, n, l/ become [tsʲ, c, ɲ, ʎ].[15][16]
  • Intervocalic [c, ɲ, ʎ] regularly geminate.[15] [tsʲ] does so only sporadically.[17]
  • A following back vowel, namely /u ʊ ɔ/ or /o/, triggers the simplification of /kʷ/ to /k/.[18]
  • Word-initial /sC/ undergoes prosthesis, e.g. /stáre/ [ɪstáːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[19][20]
  • It is debatable whether /kʷ/ is its own phoneme or merely the realization of /ku/ before vowels.[lower-roman 2]
  • Some evidence suggests that /f/ may have been bilabial, but it was likelier labiodental.[22]
  • /b, d, g/ represent the fricatives [β, ð, ɣ] between vowels or in contact with /r/ and /l/.[23]
  • Intervocalic /di, gi/ do not occur, these having previously reduced to /j/.[24][25]
  • /j/ represents [ɟ] in word-initial position; intervocalically [ɟ][26] or [ʝ~ɟɟ].[27]
  • /ll/ appears to have had the retroflex realization [ɭɭ].[28][29]
  • /gn/ most likely fricativized to [ɣn].[30][31]
  • /s/ may have been apical, i.e. [s̺].[32]

Morphology

Nouns

Proto-Romance nouns had three cases: nominative, accusative, and a combined genitive-dative only used in reference to humans.[33]

Class I II III m. III f.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative fémɪna fémɪne[lower-roman 3] fíljʊs fílji pátrɪs~pátre pátri mátre mátres
Accusative fémɪnas fílju fíljos pátre pátres
Gen-Dat. fémɪne femɪnóru fíljo filjóru pátri patróru mátri matróru
Translation woman son father mother

Several Class III nouns had inflections that differed by syllable count or stress position.[35]

Nominative ɔ́mo pástor sɔ́ror
Accusative ɔ́mɪne pastóre soróre
Translation man pastor sister

A few Class II nouns were pluralized with -a or -ora, these originally having been neuter in Classical Latin. Though their singular was masculine, the plural was treated as feminine.[36]

Type I II
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Noun[lower-roman 4] ɔ́βu ɔ́βa brákju brákja tɛ́mpʊs tɛ́mpora pɛ́ktʊs pɛ́ktora
Translation egg arm time chest

The plural was often reanalyzed as a feminine singular, resulting in gender shifts.[37]

Number singular plural singular plural
Original noun fɔ́lju fɔ́lja lɪ́gnu lɪ́gna
Fem. variant fɔ́lja fɔ́ljas lɪ́gna lɪ́gnas
Translation leaf firewood

Such a trend had already begun in Classical Latin; for example the feminine noun opera was formed from the plural of neuter opus.

Absolute

These inflect similarly to nouns.[38]

Comparative

While the Latin suffix -ior still existed, it was only used in a limited number of adjectives.[39][40]

Adjective mɛ́ljor pɛ́jor májor mɪ́nor
Translation better worse larger smaller

Otherwise, the typical way to form a comparative was to add either plus or mais (meaning 'more') to an absolute adjective. This had been done in Classical Latin as well, albeit sporadically.[41]

Superlative

No dedicated ending existed to express the superlative. A variety of alternatives were used instead, such as an intensifying adverb (mʊ́ltu, bɛ́ne, etc.) or a simple comparative.[42]

Possessive

Shown here in the feminine singular. Many of these had atonic ('weak') variants.[43]

First person Second person Third person Interrogative
singular mɛ́a~ma tʊ́a~ta sʊ́a~sa kʊ́ja
plural nɔ́stra βɔ́stra

Personal

Equivalent to 'you, me' etc.[44][45]

Person I II III f. III m.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative ɛ́go nós tú βós ɪlla ɪlle[lower-roman 5] ɪlle~ɪlli
Accusative mé~méne té~téne ɪllas ɪllu ɪllos
Gen-Dat. mí~mɪ́βɪ nóβɪs tí~tɪ́βɪ βoβɪs ɪlli~ɪllɛ́i ɪllis~ɪllóru ɪlli~ɪllúi ɪllis~ɪllóru

Relative

Notably, kúi was lost in Ibero-Romance.[47]

Masc. or Fem. Neuter
Nominative kʷí kɔ́d
Accusative kʷɛ́n
Gen-Dat. kúi

The interrogative pronouns are the same, except that the neuter nominative and accusative form is [kʷɪ́d].

Verbs

Proto Romance verbs belong to three main classes, each of which is characterized by a different thematic vowel. Their conjugations are built on three stems and involve various combinations of mood, aspect, and tense.[48]

Present indicative

The paradigm is approximately as follows.[49][lower-roman 6]

Verb Class First Person Second Person Third Person Translation
singular plural singular plural singular plural
I kánto kantámʊs kántas kantátɪs kántat kántant sing
II dɔ́rmo~dɔ́rmjo dormímʊs dɔ́rmɪs dɔrmítɪs dɔ́rmɪt dɔ́rmʊnt~dɔ́rment sleep
III.a βɪ́jo βɪdémʊs βɪ́des βɪdétɪs βɪ́det βɪ́jʊnt~βɪ́dʊnt~βɪ́dent see
III.b βɛ́ndo βɛ́ndɪmʊs βɛ́ndɪs βɛ́ndɪtɪs βɛ́ndɪt βɛ́ndʊnt~βɛ́ndent sell
Misc. Irregular sʊ́n sʊ́mʊs~sémʊs ɛ́s ɛ́stɪs~sétɪs~sʊ́tɪs ɛ́st sʊ́nt be
áβjo~ájo aβémʊs áes~ás aβétɪs áet~át áu̯nt~áent~ánt have
dáo dámʊs dás dátɪs dát dáu̯nt~dáent~dánt give
βádo~βáo ímʊs[50] βáɪs~βás ítɪs[50] βáɪt~βát βáu̯nt~βáent~βánt go

Participles

These inflect the same way that adjectives do.[51]

Present Active Translation Preterite Passive Translation
Class I amánte adoring amáta adored
Class II finɛ́nte finishing finíta finished
Class III aβɛ́nte having aβúta had

Relation to written Latin

According to Roger Wright, at first there was no distinction between Latin and Romance, the former being the archaic written form of the latter. For instance, although in early medieval Spain the word /sjeglo/ 'century' was routinely spelled ⟨saeculum⟩, the scribe would not actually have read it aloud as /sɛkulum/ any more than an English speaker today would pronounce ⟨knight⟩ as */knɪxt/.[52]

Non-native speakers of Latin, however—such as clergy of Anglo-Saxon or Irish origin—appear to have used a rather different pronunciation, presumably attempting to sound out each word according to its spelling.[53] The Carolingian Renaissance in France introduced this artificial pronunciation for the first time to native speakers as well. No longer would, for instance, the word ⟨viridiarium⟩ 'orchard' be read aloud as the equivalent Old French word */verdʒjǽr/. It now had to be pronounced precisely as spelled, with all six syllables: /viridiarium/.[54]

Such a radical change had the effect of rendering Latin sermons completely unintelligible to the general romance-speaking public, which prompted officials a few years later, at the Council of Tours, to instruct priests to read sermons aloud in the old way, in rusticam romanam linguam or 'plain roman[ce] speech'.[55]

As there was now no unambiguous way to indicate whether a given text was to be read aloud as Latin or Romance, various attempts were made in France to devise a new orthography for the latter; among the earliest examples are parts of the Oaths of Strasbourg and the Sequence of Saint Eulalia. As the Carolingian Reforms spread the 'proper' Latin pronunciation from France to other Romance-speaking areas, local scholars felt the need to devise spelling systems for their own dialects as well, thereby initiating the literary phase of Medieval Romance.[56]

Notes
  1. But not in Sardinia, part of Corsica, or a small region in Southern Italy[4] (the so-called 'Lausberg Area'), where /ĭ/ instead merged with /ī/. The same appears to have been true of Roman Africa as well.[5]
  2. Gouvert believes that it qualifies as a phoneme in its own right on account of the frequency with which it occurs.[21]
  3. This ending was steadily being replaced by -as.[34]
  4. Forms given in the accusative.
  5. This ending was steadily being replaced by -as.[46]
  6. Since Vandenbussche does not mention essere 'to be' in his critique of Hall 1981, the conjugations shown below for that verb have been copied over unchanged from the latter (p. 55).

References
  1. Dworkin, p. 2
  2. Hall 1976, pp. 10-11
  3. Hall 1976, pp. 185-6
  4. Hall 1976, p. 185
  5. Adams, pp. 626-9
  6. Adams, pp. 60-1
  7. Gouvert 2015, pp. 73–6
  8. Ferguson, p. 78
  9. Gouvert 2015, pp. 78–81
  10. Loporcaro, pp. 25–30
  11. Gouvert 2015, p. 69
  12. Gouvert 2015, p. 83
  13. Gouvert 2015, p. 81
  14. Ferguson, p. 84
  15. Gouvert 2015, pp. 92–115
  16. Zampaulo, pp. 50, 78, 94
  17. Wilkinson, pp. 11–14
  18. Grandgent § 254
  19. Gouvert 2015, pp. 125–6
  20. Hall 1976, p. 128
  21. Gouvert 2015, p. 100
  22. Gouvert 2016, p. 38
  23. Gouvert 2016, p. 48
  24. Zampaulo, p. 87
  25. Gouvert 2016, p. 43
  26. Zampaulo, pp. 83-8
  27. Gouvert 2015, pp. 83-91
  28. Gouvert 2015, p. 115
  29. Zampaulo 2019, pp. 71-77
  30. Gouvert 2015, p. 95
  31. Zampaulo, p. 80
  32. Vijunas, passim
  33. De Dardel & Gaenge, p. 104
  34. De Dardel & Wüest, p. 57
  35. Hall 1983, p. 28
  36. Hall 1983, pp. 23–4, 29–30.
  37. Akire & Rosen, pp. 193–4
  38. Hall 1983, pp. 31-33
  39. Hall 1983, pp. 32, 119-20
  40. Maltby, p. 340
  41. Maltby, pp. 340–5.
  42. Bauer, pp. 340, 359
  43. Lyons, pp. 20-4
  44. De Dardel & Wüest, pp. 39-43
  45. Hall 1983, p. 39
  46. De Dardel & Wüest, p. 57
  47. Elcock, pp. 95-6
  48. Hall 1983, pp. 47–50
  49. Vandenbussche §§ 2.3-2.3.2
  50. Maiden, p. 135
  51. Hall 1983, pp. 122–3
  52. Wright, pp. 44–50
  53. Wright, pp. 98-103
  54. Wright, pp. 104–7
  55. Wright, pp. 118-20
  56. Wright, pp. 122–32, 143–4

Bibliography
  • Adams, J. N. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol. 2010. Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bauer, Brigitte. 2016. The development of the comparative in Latin texts. In: Adams, J.N.; Vincent, Nigel (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press, 313-339.
  • De Dardel, R.; Gaeng, P. A. 1992. La declinaison nominale du latin non classique: Essai d’une methode de synthese. Probus, 4 (2), 91-125.
  • De Dardel, R.; Wüest, Jakob. 1993. Les systèmes casuels du protoroman: Les deux cycles de simplification. Vox Romanica, 52, 25-65.
  • Dworkin, Steven N. 2016. Do Romanists Need to Reconstruct Proto-Romance? The Case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman Project. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 132, 1-19.
  • 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.
  • ---. 1981. Proto-Romance Morphology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Loporcaro, Michele. 2015. Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press.
  • Lyons, Christopher. 1986. On the Origin of the Old French Strong-Weak Possessive Distinction. Transactions of the Philological Society, 84 (1), 1-41.
  • Maiden, Marten. 1995. A Linguistic History of Italian. Routledge: New York.
  • Maltby, Robert. 2016. Analytic and synthetic forms of the comparative and superlative from early to late Latin. In: Adams, J.N.; Vincent, Nigel (eds.): Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press, 340-366.
  • Vandenbussche H. 1985. Proto-Romance Inflectional Morphology. Review of Proto-Romance Morphology by Robert Hall. Lingua, 66 (2-3), 225-260.
  • Vijunas, Aurelijus. 2010. The Proto-Indo-European Sibilant */s/. Historical Linguistics, 123 (1), 40–55.
  • Wilkinson, Hugh E. 1976. Notes on the development of -kj-, -tj- in Spanish and Portuguese. Ronshu, 17, 19–36.
  • Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.
  • 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.