Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Urban lithp mythp (Re: Indo-European question)

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2001, 18:42
At 11:50 am -0400 19/6/01, David Peterson wrote:
>In a message dated 6/19/01 6:37:24 AM, thorinn@DIKU.DK writes: > ><< How about if he consistently pronounced the unvoiced sound as /s/, and >the voiced one as /T/? Some people find /s/ much easier to pronounce >than /z/. >> > > No, the *letter* /z/ was supposed to be pronounced [s], not [z]. There >is no [z] sound in Spanish. >
In modern Andalucian & south American Spanish, yes. But even more telling against Lars' theory is that the voiced sibilant would change, if it were going to, to /D/, surely. In fact there's no mystery about the modern Castilian /T/. It derives from the Old Spanish affricate [ts]. All that's happened is that the afffricate has lost its initial stop onset (not an uncommon occurence) but the resulting fricative has retained the dental position of [t], hence [ts] >> [T]; in Andalucia it is simply [ts] >> [s]. Tho it is slightly (tho not much) more complicated in that Old Spanish had two dental affricates: {cz} or 'soft-c' = [ts]; {z} = [dz]. The latter, at some stage, became devoiced and merged with [ts] before changing to [T] or [s]. Similarly, at some time {j} or 'soft-g' = [Z] became devoiced and merged with {x} = [S] before the latter changed to [x]. Hence the old {Mexico} [mESiko] >> [mexiko] and got respelled in Spanish, tho not elsewhere, as 'Mejico'. But AFAIK no king or other noble has been credited with this change. Oh the power of urban myth ;) Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================


Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...>
Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>