Re: Origin of Spanich /ch/ and /j/

At 13:35 26.11.2002 +0200, you wrote:
>I'm comparing Sp. _ojo_ to Po. _olho_ and
>VL _oclu_ and get lost in doubts...
Well, *kl developed rather differently in the different Romance lgs, and
different from *lj and *ll within most of the languages.

At 10:30 27.11.2002 +0200, Isaac A. Penzev wrote:

>I know. The question still is: how can I know if in OS it was /S/ or /Z/?

 From the etymology, obviously.

Also IIRC Judeo-Spanish doesn't have these mergers, i.e. never lost the
voiced fricatives/affricates.  You could also compare with
Portuguese/French/Italian.

At 13:54 26.11.2002 -0300, Pablo David Flores wrote:
>Maybe the distinction was lost later and there were
>/x/ and /G/ for a while;
Hardly, since then /Z/ would have merged with [G] /g/, and you'd get
_fuejo_ rather than _fuego_.

IIRC I read explicitly somewhere that the sequence was Z > S > x.

BTW you might want to check out

Author: Entwistle, William J.
Title: The Spanish language together with Portuguese, Catalan and Basque
Edition: 2. ed.
Published: London
Year: 1962, pr. 1965
Description: 367 s.
Series: The great languages


/ B.Philip Jonsson B^)>
--
mailto:melrochX@melroch.net (delete X!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No man forgets his original trade: the rights of nations and of kings sink
into questions of grammar, if grammarians discuss them.
-Dr. Samuel Johnson (1707 - 1784)