User:Nicodene/sandbox
As Proto-Romance developed into Spanish, it underwent numerous sound changes, an approximate chronology of which is provided below.[1]
Timeline
[edit]– The near-close vowels /ɪ ʊ/ merge with their close-mid counterparts /e o/; cf. /ˈkʊβɪtu/ > */ˈkoβedu/ > OSp. /ˈkobdo/ 'elbow'.[2]
– Syllable-initial /k/ and /ɡ/ palatalize before front vowels.[3]
- Palatalized /k/ then affricates to /tʃ/, which subsequently fronts to /ts/; cf. /ˈkɛlu/ > */ˈtʃi͡ɛlu/ > OSp. /ˈtsjelo/ 'sky'.
- Palatalized /ɡ/ spirantizes to [ʝ], thereby merging with the phoneme /j/; cf. /ˈɡɪpsu/ > */ˈjessu/ > OSp. /ˈjeso/ 'plaster'.
– /k ɡ/ before a following consonant spirantize to /x/ and then vocalize to /i̯/; /l/ in the sequence /olt/ velarizes and then vocalizes to /i̯/.[4]
- When followed by /t/, /i̯/ is simply absorbed by a preceding /i/; cf. /ˈfriktu/ > */ɸɾii̯tu/ > OSp. /ˈɸɾito/ 'fried'.
- When followed by either of the consonants /t s/, /i̯/ raises preceding /a/ to /e/; cf. /'faktu/ > */'ɸai̯tu/ > OSp. /'ɸetʃo/ 'deed'.
- When followed by any of the consonants /n t s/, /i̯/ raises a preceding /o/ to /u/; cf. /'lʊkta/ > /'loi̯ta/ > OSp. /'lutʃa/ 'fight'.
- When followed by any of the consonants /l n t s/, /i̯/ raises preceding /ɛ ɔ/ to /e o/; cf. /'kɔksu/ > */'kɔi̯su/ > OSp. /'koʃo/ (not */'kweʃo/) 'crippled'. (The single counterexample is viejo.)
- If the following consonant is not syllable-final, and does not become so as a result of syncope, then /i̯/ palatalizes it in the following manner:
- /l/ > /ʎ/
- /n/ > /ɲ/
- /t/ > /tʃ/
- /s/ > /ʃ/
- After the above, /i̯/ is usually deleted.
– Various consonant clusters undergo assimilation:[5]
- /rs/ > /ss/
- /ps/ > /ss/
- /pt/ > /tt/
- /mn/ > /nn/
- /mb/ > /mm/
– Stressed /ɛ ɔ/ diphthongize to /i͡ɛ u͡ɔ/.[6]
- Subsequently /i͡ɛ u͡ɔ/ > /je wo/, with loss of contrast between open-mid and close-mid vowels; cf. /ˈβɛrsu/ > */ˈβjessu/ > OSp. /ˈβjeso/ 'verse'.
- /wo/ changes to /we/, possibly by analogy with /je/; cf. /ˈlɔku/ > */ˈlwoɡu/ > OSp. /ˈlweɡo/ 'then'.
– /ɸ/[i] undergoes allophonic changes in the following order:[7]
- It takes on a glottal or velar articulation, [ʍ] or [hɸ], before newly-formed /w/; cf. /ˈfɔku/ >*/ˈɸwoku/ > OSp. [ˈʍweɡo] 'fire'.
- It loses its bilabial quality before the rounded ('labial') vowels /o u/, resulting in [h]; cf. /ˈfɔlja/ > */ˈɸoʎa/ > OSp. [ˈhoʒa] 'leaf'.
- By analogy with the above, it turns to [h] before the non-back vowels /i e a/ and possibly /j/ as well.
– /pj rj sj/ undergo metathesis to /i̯p i̯r i̯s/; cf. /ferˈrarju/ > */ɸeˈrai̯ɾu/ > OSp. [heˈreɾo] 'blacksmith'.[8]
– [ʎ] turns to the fricative /ʒ/; cf. /ˈalju/ > *[ˈaʎu] > OSp. /ˈaʒo/ 'garlic'.[9]
– Intervocalic consonants undergo lenition in a chain shift:[10]
- Original doubled consonants degeminate; cf. /ˈbʊkka/ > OSp. /ˈboka/ 'mouth'.
- /nn/ and /ll/ yield the palatalized outcomes /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ respectively; cf. /roˈtɛlla/ > OSp. /roˈdjeʎa/ 'knee'.
- /rr/ yields /r/, while original /r/ yields a tap /ɾ/ (thereby preserving a distinction); cf. /ˈfɛru/, /ˈfɛrru/ > OSp. /ˈɸjeɾo/, /ˈɸjero/ 'wild', 'iron'.
- Original voiceless single consonants voice; cf. /ˈfikatu/ > OSp. /ˈɸiɡado/ 'liver'.
- Original /-b d ɡ-/ spirantize to /-β ð ɣ-/;[ii] cf. /ˈpɛlaɡu/ > OSp. /ˈpjelaɣo/ 'sea'.
[...]
– /j/ may develop into a postalveolar fricative, likely under French influence; cf. /ˈjustu/ > OSp. /ˈʒusto/.
Notes
[edit]- ^ Derived from Latin /f/. The timing of this change and its underlying causes have been the subject of extensive debate. Various scholars see in it a pre-Roman or Basque influence; some see Latin itself as having originally had a bilabial /ɸ/. Somewhat reconciling the two views, Lloyd (1987: 222) posits that there was an early variation [f~ɸ], with the influence of Basque speakers (who played a prominent role in early Castile) contributing to the 'triumph' of the latter realization in local Romance.
- ^ If they had not already done so previously.
References
[edit]- ^ Following Penny's chronology (2002: §2.7).
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 108–109; Penny 2002: §2.4.2.6
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 135–137, 258; Penny 2002: §2.5.2.3
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 252–254; Penny 2002: 48–50, §§2.4.2.1, 2.5.2.4
- ^ Penny 2002: 75
- ^ Ferguson 1976: §7; Penny 2002: §2.4.2.2
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 214–216, 322–323; Penny 2002: 92
- ^ Penny 2002: §2.5.2.2.6
- ^ Penny 2002: §2.5.2.2.2
- ^ Penny 2002: §2.5.3.2