Re: gl > gr attested in Romance?

> Subject:
> Re: gl > gr attested in Romance?
> From:R A Brown
> Reply-To:Constructed Languages List
> Date:Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:56:06 +0000
> Content-Type:text/plain
>
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Is the sound shift /gl/ > /gr/ and/or /kl/ > /kr/ attested in Romance?
> >
> > Or at least, would you think it's feasible like the /bl/ > /br/ in
> > pt. 'branco' < BLANCU(M)?
>
> Not that I know of, but IMO it is at least as feasible as Port.
> 'branco'. I think it's just an historical accident that Port. (AFAIK)
> doesn't have any examples of gl --> gr - there aren't many Latin words
> beginning gl- and Port. & Spanish didn't adopt VL *glacia for 'ice'.
>
> As for /kl/ of course on the Iberian peninsular this developed to /L/
Which makes one wonder if /gl/ wouldn't have done so to.

> > I am thinking about 'grorie' < GLORIA(M) in a new toy romlang I
> > started yesterday.
>
> Wouldn't the tendency to dissimilate r....r sequences counteract that? cf.
> Latin 'arbore(m) "tree" --> Span. árbol, Italian albero
>
> Of course one could have 'grolie'    :)
Exactly what I thought too.

>
> > Also, what about /Nn/ > /Ngr/ like /mn/ > /mbr/ (sp. 'nombre' < NOM(I)NE(M))?
>
> Sort of like Spanish _sangre_ <-- 'sang(ui)ne(m) ?
>
>
> > Tere, I'm thinking of 'ringre' < RE:GNU(M).
>
> Um - but the Spanish shift of /mn/ --> /mbr/ and /Ngn/ --> /Ngr/ is post
> VL and ....
> =========================================
> Alex Fink wrote:
>  > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:31:19 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson
>  >
>  wrote:
> [snip]
>  >>The only snag is that [Nn] for _gn_ is AFAIK unattested in
>  >>Romance, which IIANM has /J/ or /nn/ > /n/, in all the
>  >>relevand words, e.g. Old French _renne_.
>
> Yes, in western VL a velar before a dental shifted to a palatal, so in
> north Italy, Gaul & the Iberian peninsular we find [kt] --> [ct] -->
> [Ct], at which point [C] gains voicing from the preceding vowel with
> which it then forms a diphthong.
Yes there was a general rule

    [velar] > [palatal] / __ [dental]  ?

But if the /k/ always became a fricative [C] in this context,
how do you explain NOCTE > _noche_ /'notSe/ in Castilian?
I have been assuming something like /kt/ > [ct] > [cc] > /tS/,
but it seems you would rather have metathesis then:
    /kt/ > [Ct] > [tC] > /tS/  ?
If so I'd expect /St/ as the result at least somewhere!

>
> So /Nn/ --> /Jn/ which then generally became through assimilation /JJ/,
> in Gaul and Italy
> agnellu(m) "lamb" --> Fr. agneau /aJo/, It. agnello /aJJello/
> regnu(m) ---> Old French regne, It. regno (Mod. Fr. has _royaume_ from a
> different origin.
>
> But Span. & Port. _reino_ presumably is from /Jn/ --> /jn/
I've thought this was
    gn > J\n > J\J > JJ > J
or
    gn > J\n > jn
but  your version clearly requires fewer steps to get from Nn > J

>  >But wait, Rumanian
>  >>has LIGNU > _lemn_, and I guess all of /J/, /n(n)/, /mn/ may
>  >>be derivable from [Nn] if one wants to.
>
> Yep - just as _octo_ --> opt and nocte --> noapte
>
> Velar + dental --> labial + dental in Eastern Romance
>
>  >
>  > I thought that Latin
>  was generally understood to be [Nn], and
> Latin's
>
> Precisely!! That's why Henrik was asking if it was realistic for this
> [Nn] to become [Ngr] is a derivative language.
>
>  > Or are you suggesting this was a CL pronunciation that didn't survive
> into VL?
>
> Well it didn't, did it? See above.
It was I who did. I was evidently a little befuddled, but I'm still
worried by kt > tS in Castilian.
--
/ BP

Reply