Proto-Romance language
Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It reflects a late variety of 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 to rely excessively on the written record in lieu of reconstructing Proto-Romance proper.[1]
Proto-Romance is an abstraction and should not be taken as equivalent to Latin as it was actually spoken in any particular time or place.[2] The version reconstructed in the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman appears to most closely reflect the spoken Latin of the sixth century AD.[3]
Phonology
Monophthongs
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | u | |
Near-close | ɪ | ʊ | |
Close-mid | e | o | |
Open-mid | ɛ | ɔ | |
Open | a |
- A further reduction is observed in intertonic syllables where /i, u/ merge with /ɪ, ʊ/.[6]
- Vowels are lengthened allophonically in stressed open syllables,[7] although perhaps not /ɪ/ or /ʊ/.[8]
- /i, u/ become [j, w] between a consonant and following vowel. [j] then triggers palatalization, e.g. /basiáre/ [basʲáːɾe].[9]
Diphthong
Only one diphthong can be reconstructed for Proto-Romance, namely /aw/. It can be found in both stressed and unstressed positions.[10] Its phonemic status is however debatable, as it could also be simply regarded as a sequence of /a/ and /u/.[11]
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].[12][13]
- Intervocalic [c, ɲ, ʎ] regularly geminate.[12] [tsʲ] does so only sporadically.[14]
- Words beginning with /sC/ undergo prosthesis, e.g. /stáre/ [ɪstáːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[15][16]
- It is debated whether /kʷ/ is its own phoneme or merely an allophone of /ku/ before vowels.[17]
- There is some evidence that /f/ could have been bilabial, but a labiodental is still more likely.[18]
- /b, d, g/ fricativize to [β, ð, ɣ] between vowels or in contact with /r/ and /l/.[19]
- Intervocalic /di, gi/ do not occur, these having previously reduced to /j/.[20][21]
- The rhotic may have been [ɾ~r], as in Spanish or Catalan.[22]
- Word-initial /j/ underwent fortition to [ɟ].[23][24]
- /ll/ had a retroflex realization: [ɭɭ].[25][26]
- /gn/ fricativizes to [ɣn].[27][28]
Morphology
Nouns
Proto-Romance nouns had three cases: nominative, accusative, and a combined genitive-dative which was only used in reference to humans.[29]
Class | I | II | III f. | III m. | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||||
Nominative | fémɪna | fémɪne | fíʎʎʊs | fíʎʎi | mátrɪs[α] | mátres | pátrɪs | pátri | ||||
Accusative | fémɪnas | fíʎʎu[β] | fíʎʎos | mátre | pátre | pátres | ||||||
Gen-Dat. | fémɪne | femɪnóru[γ] | fíʎʎo | fiʎʎóru | mátri | matróru | pátri | patróru | ||||
Translation | woman | son | mother | father |
Several Class III nouns had inflections that differed by syllable count or stress position.[30]
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.[31]
Type | I | II | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||||
Noun[δ] | ɔ́βu | ɔ́βa | braccu | bracca | tɛ́mpʊs | tɛ́mpora | pɛ́ktʊs | pɛ́ktora | ||||
Translation | egg | arm | time | chest |
The plural was often reanalyzed as a feminine singular, resulting in gender shifts.[32]
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Original noun | fɔ́ʎʎu | fɔ́ʎʎa | lɪ́ɣnu | lɪ́ɣna | ||
Fem. variant | fɔ́ʎʎa | fɔ́ʎʎas | lɪ́ɣna | lɪ́ɣnas | ||
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.
Adjectives
Absolute
Broadly speaking, these decline as nouns do.[33]
Type | I | II | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | |||
Gender | feminine | masculine | either | ||||||
Nominative | blánda | blánde | blándʊs | blándi | dʊ́lkɪs | dʊ́lkes | |||
Accusative | blándas | blándu | blándos | dʊ́lke | |||||
Gen-Dat. | blánde | blandóru | blándi | blandóru | dʊ́lki | - | |||
Translation | pleasant | pleasant | sweet |
Comparative
While the original Latin ending -(i)or still existed, it was only used in a limited number of adjectives.[34][35]
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nominative | mɛ́ʎʎor | meʎʎóres | pɛ́jor | pejóres | májor | majóres | mɪ́nor | mɪnóres | ||||
Accusative | meʎʎóre | pejóre | majóre | mɪnóre | ||||||||
Gen-Dat. | meʎʎóri | - | pejóri | - | majóri | - | mɪnóri | - | ||||
Translation | better | worse | larger | smaller |
The typical way to form a comparative was to add either plús or máɣɪs (meaning 'more') to an absolute adjective, which had been done sporadically in Classical Latin as well.[36]
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 comparative.[37]
Possessive
Shown here in the feminine singular.[38]
First person | Second person | Third person | |
---|---|---|---|
singular | mɛ́a | tʊ́a | sʊ́a |
plural | nɔ́stra | βɔ́stra | - |
Pronouns
Personal
These are the equivalents of 'you', 'me', etc.[39][40]
Person | I | II | III f. | III m. | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||||
Nominative | ɛ́ɣo | nós | tú | βós | ɪ́lla | ɪ́lle | ɪ́lli | |||||
Accusative | mé, méne | té, téne | ɪ́llas | ɪ́llu | ɪ́llos | |||||||
Gen-Dat. | mí, mɪ́βɪ | nóβɪs | tí, tɪ́βɪ | βóβɪs | ɪlléi | ɪllóru | ɪllúi | ɪllóru |
Interrogative
These are the equivalents of 'who' and 'what'.[41]
Animacy | Animate | Inanimate | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | ||
Nominative | kuí | kuɪ́d | kuɛ́ | |||
Accusative | kuɛ́ne | kuɛ́ | ||||
Gen-Dat. | kúi | kúi |
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.[42] Only one chart is shown below; the rest will be explained in a separate article.
Present indicative
On occasion this could also refer to the future.[43]
First person | Second person | Third person | Translation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | singular | plural | singular | plural | singular | plural | |||||
Class I | kánto | kantámʊs | kántas | kantátɪs | kántat | kántant | sing | ||||
Class II | dɔ́rmo | dormímʊs | dɔ́rmɪs | dɔrmítɪs | dɔ́rmɪt | dɔ́rment ~dɔ́rmʊnt |
sleep | ||||
Class III | bátto | battémʊs | báttes | battétɪs | báttet | báttent | beat | ||||
Irregular | sʊ́n | sʊ́mʊs | ɛ́s | ɛ́stɪs~sɛ́tɪs~sʊ́tɪs | ɛ́st | sʊ́nt | am/are/is | ||||
ájo | aβémʊs | ás | aβétɪs | át | ánt~áunt | have/has |
Participles
Of these there were only two: a present active and a preterite passive. They declined like adjectives.[44]
Present Active | Translation | Preterite Passive | Translation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class I | amánte | (is) adoring | amáta | (was) adored | ||||
Class II | finɛ́nte | (is) finishing | finíta | (was) finished | ||||
Class III | aβɛ́nte | (is) possessing | aβúta | (was) possessed |
Relation to written Latin
Contrary to the traditional view, Wright argues that at first there was no distinction between Latin and Romance —the former being only a written representation of the latter. For instance in ninth-century Spain ⟨saeculum⟩ was simply the correct way to spell [sjeglo], meaning 'century'. The writer would not have actually said [sɛkulum] any more than a modern English speaker would pronounce ⟨knight⟩ as *[knɪxt].[45]
Ecclesiastical Latin, in its spoken form, was created later during the Carolingian Renaissance. The British scholar Alcuin, tasked by Charlemagne with improving the standards of Latin writing in France, prescribed a pronunciation based on a fairly literal interpretation of Latin spelling. A word such as ⟨viridiarium⟩ 'orchard' now had to be read aloud precisely as it was spelled, with all six syllables, rather than as the Old French equivalent vergier.[46]
This had the effect of rendering sermons completely unintelligible to the general public, which prompted officials a few years later —at the Council of Tours— to order them to be rendered in rusticam romanam linguam, 'in plain roman speech' i.e. in Romance.[47] Another issue was that now two types of speech, Romance and Church Latin, had to coexist within one writing system. Within the same century the first attempts were made to devise an orthography specifically for Romance, viz. the Oaths of Strasbourg and Canticle of Saint Eulalia, both written in France. As the Carolingian reforms spread to other Romance-speaking areas, local scholars devised orthographies for their own varieties of Romance as well.[48]
Notes
- ^ De Dardel hesitates to posit this form, giving mátre as a possible alternative. Likewise pátrɪs~pátre.
- ^ For final -u versus -ʊs, see Gouvert (2014), p. 78.
- ^ Unlike De Dardel, Hall (1976, p. 18) has -aru as the feminine ending, as it was in Classical Latin. On the next page, however, he admits that the evidence for it is flimsy.
- ^ Forms given in the accusative.
References
- ^ Dworkin (2016), p. 2
- ^ Hall (1976), pp. 10-11
- ^ Kramer (2014), p. 295
- ^ Gouvert (2014), pp. 73–6
- ^ Ferguson (1976), p. 78
- ^ Gouvert (2014), pp. 78–81
- ^ Loporcaro (2015), pp. 25–30
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 69
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 83
- ^ Ferguson (1976), p. 84
- ^ Gouvert, p. 81
- ^ a b Gouvert (2014), pp. 92–115
- ^ Zampaulo (2019), pp. 50, 78, 94
- ^ Wilkin (1926), pp. 11–14
- ^ Gouvert (2014), pp. 125–6
- ^ Hall (1976), p. 128
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 100
- ^ Gouvert (2016), p. 38
- ^ Gouvert (2016), p. 48
- ^ Zampaulo (2019), p. 87
- ^ Gouvert (2016), p. 43
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 113
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 83
- ^ Zampaulo (2019), p. 84
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 115
- ^ Zampaulo (2019), p. 164
- ^ Gouvert (2014), p. 95
- ^ Zampaulo (2019), p. 80
- ^ De Dardel & Gaenge (1992), p. 104
- ^ Hall (1983), p. 28
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 23–4, 29–30.
- ^ Akire & Rosen (2010), pp. 193–4
- ^ Hall (1983), p. 32
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 32, 119-20
- ^ Maltby (2016), p. 340
- ^ Maltby (2016), pp. 340–5.
- ^ Bauer (2016), pp. 340, 359
- ^ Hall (1983), p. 122
- ^ De Dardel & Wüest (1993), p. 43
- ^ Hall (1983), p. 39
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 42–43
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 47–50
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 52–7
- ^ Hall (1983), pp. 122–3
- ^ Wright (1982), pp. 44–50
- ^ Wright (1982), pp. 104–7
- ^ Wright (1982), pp. 118-20
- ^ Wright (1982), pp. 122–32, 143–4
Bibliography
- Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (July 2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521717847.
- Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang; Gouvert, Xavier; Kramer, Johannes, eds. (2014-11-14). "Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom)". Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. doi:10.1515/9783110313482.
- Buchi, Éva; Gouvert, Xavier, eds. (2016). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom) 2. De Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-045361-4. OCLC 963581913.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - De Dardel, R.; Gaeng, P. A. (1992). "La Declinaison Nominale du Latin Non Classique: Essai d'une Methode de Synthese". Probus. 4 (2). doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91. ISSN 0921-4771.
- De Dardel, Robert; Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du prototoman". Vox Romanica. 52 (1): 25–65. ISSN 0042-899X – via eLibrary.
- Dworkin, Steven N. (2016-01-01). "Do Romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance?". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 132 (1): 2. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001. ISSN 1865-9063.
- Ferguson, Thaddeus (1976-01-31). A History of the Romance Vowel Systems through Paradigmatic Reconstruction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. p. 78. ISBN 978-3-11-080696-0.
- Hall, Robert Anderson, 1911- (1976). Proto-Romance phonology. Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-00183-2. OCLC 422266905.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Hall, Robert A. (Robert Anderson), 1911-1997. (1983). Proto-Romance Morphology. John Benjamins Pub. Co. ISBN 90-272-3522-8. OCLC 10773070.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Loporcaro, Michele (2015). Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press. pp. 25–30. ISBN 978-0-19-965655-4. OCLC 1107082342.
- Vincent, Nigel; Adams, J. N.; Maltby, Robert (2016). Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13225-2.
- Wilkinson, Hugh E. (1926). Notes on the development of -KJ-, -TJ- in Spanish and Portuguese. Aoyama Gakuin University. pp. 11–14. OCLC 1055897845.
- Wright, Roger (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. ISBN 0-905205-12-X.
- Zampaulo, André (2019-08-22), "Palatal Sound Change in the Romance languages", Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages, Oxford University Press, pp. 150–199, ISBN 978-0-19-880738-4, retrieved 2020-04-01