Re: Ladino, Hs, and Fs

At 9:03 am -0500 4/2/99, Brian Betty wrote:

>Right, so Carlos' statement applies to this situation - if the words are
>being written 'fasis' and 'fue,' might that not suggest that f>h>0 had not
>yet occurred, so 'izo' could *not* be the same as modern Spanish 'hizo.'  I
>think!?!?!
Alas, not so.  'faces' (plural of 'faz') is still the modern Castilian -
the initial /f/ has not changed in this word.  And the change /f/ -> /h/ ->
zero did not take place before [w], so modern Castilian also has 'fue'.  So
i'm a bit puzzled by the thread over 'fasis', 'fue' & 'izo'.  Ladino is
surely in complete conformity with Castillian Spanish here!

No, the the slightly surprising thing to me about 'izo' is that Castilian
[T], should be _voiced_ fricatived [z] in Ladino (since this is surely the
sound implied by spelling the consonant with 'zayin'?)  But IIRC the modern
[T] developed from both earlier [ts] and [dz], the latter being devoiced. I
guess in earlier Spanish we had [hi'dzo] <- [fi'dzo] where the intervocalic
-c- of the Latin perfect 'feci', 'fecisti' etc was voiced as well as
palatalized.  Fascinating.

Ray.