Jump to content

Proto-Romance language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Proto-Romance Language)
Proto-Romance
Reconstruction ofRomance languages
RegionRoman Empire
Reconstructed
ancestors
Lower-order reconstructions

Proto-Romance is the result of applying the comparative method to reconstruct the latest common ancestor of the Romance languages. To what extent, if any, such a reconstruction reflects a real état de langue is controversial. The closest real-life counterpart would have been (vernacular) Late Latin.

Phonology

[edit]

Vowels

[edit]

Monophthongs

[edit]
Front Central Back
Close i u
Near-close ɪ ʊ
Close-mid e o
Open-mid ɛ ɔ
Open a

Diphthong

[edit]

/au̯/ appears to be the only phonemic diphthong that can be reconstructed.[1]

Phonetics

[edit]
  • Vowels were lengthened in stressed open syllables.[2]
  • Stressed /ɛ ɔ/ may have yielded incipient diphthongs like [e͡ɛ o͡ɔ] in metaphonic conditions.[3][i]
    • Metaphony, if it can be projected back to Proto-Romance, may have initially been limited to open syllables. That is, it would have targeted allophonically lengthened /ɛ ɔ/.[4]

Constraints

[edit]
  • /ɛ ɔ/ did not occur in unstressed position.[5]
  • /i u/ did not occur in the second syllable of words with the structure ˌσσˈσσ.[6][ii]

Consonants

[edit]
Burger (1955:25)
Labial Coronal Dorsal
Nasal m mʲ n nʲ
Plosive voiceless p pʲ t tʲ k kʲ
voiced b bʲ d dʲ ɡ ɡʲ
Fricative voiceless f fʲ s sʲ
voiced β βʲ
Approximant l lʲ (j w)[7]
Trill r rʲ

Palatalized consonants

[edit]
For more information, see Palatalization_in_the_Romance_languages § /Cj/.
  • There is scholarly disagreement over whether palatalization was phonemic in Proto-Romance.[8][iii]
  • Palatalized consonants tended to geminate between vowels. The extent of this varied by consonant.[9][iv]
  • /tʲ/ would have been an affricate like [t͡sʲ][10] or [t͡zʲ].[11]

Phonetics

[edit]
  • /sC/ in word-initial position was assigned a prop-vowel [ɪ], as in /ˈstare/ [ɪsˈtaːɾe].[12][v]
  • /ɡn/ was likely [ɣn] at first, with later developments varying by region.[13][vi]
  • /d ɡ/ might have been fricatives or approximants between vowels.[14]
  • /ll/ might have been retroflex.[15][vii]
  • /f/ might have been bilabial.[16]

Constraints

[edit]
  • /b/ did not occur in intervocalic position.[17][viii]

Morphology

[edit]

The forms below are spelt as they are in the cited sources, either in Latin style or in phonetic notation. The latter may not always agree with the phonology given above.

Nouns

[edit]

Nouns are reconstructed as having three cases: a nominative, an accusative, and a genitive-dative:[18][ix]

Type -a (f) -o (m) -C (m) -C (f)
Number SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL
NOM capra capras caballus caballi frater fratres/-i noctis noctes
ACC caballu caballos fratre fratres nocte
GEN-DAT caprae capris caballo caballis fratri fratris nocti noctis
Gloss ‘goat’ ‘horse’ ‘brother’ ‘night’

Some nouns of the –C type had inflections with alternating stress or syllable count:[19]

Type -C (m) -C (f)
Number SG PL SG PL
NOM hómo hómines/-i múlier muliéres
ACC hómine hómines muliére
GEN-DAT hómini hóminis muliéri muliéris
Gloss ‘man’ ‘woman’

There were also ‘neuter’ nouns. In the singular they would have been treated as masculine and in the plural as feminine, often with a collective sense.[20]

Type -o (n) -C (n)
Number SG PL SG PL
NOM bracchiu bracchia corpus corpora
ACC
GEN-DAT bracchio bracchiis corpori corporis
Gloss ‘arm’ ‘body’

Adjectives

[edit]

Positive

[edit]
Lausberg (1973:§§668–73)
Type -o/-a
Gender M F M F
Number SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL
NOM bonus boni bona bonas virdis virdes/-i virdis virdes
ACC bonu bonos virde virdes virde
GEN-DAT bono bonis bonae bonis virdi virdis virdi virdis
Gloss ‘good’ ‘green’

Comparative

[edit]

For the most part, the typical way to form a comparative would have been to add magis or plus (‘more’) to a positive adjective. A few words can be reconstructed as having a comparative ending -ior, which would have been inflected as follows:[21]

Number SG
Gender M or F N
NOM mélior mélius
ACC melióre
Gloss ‘better’

Superlative

[edit]

Superlatives would have been formed by adding definite articles to comparatives.[22]

Pronouns

[edit]

Personal

[edit]
Tonic
[edit]

The stressed or 'strong' forms:[23]

Person 1 2
Number SG PL SG PL
NOM ego nos tu vos
ACC me/mene te/tene
DAT mi/mibi nobis ti/tibi vobis
Person 3 (m) 3 (f)
Number SG PL SG PL
NOM ille/illi/ipse illi/ipsi illa/ipsa illas/ipsas
ACC illu/ipsu illos/ipsos
(GEN-)DAT illui/ipsui illoru/ipsoru illaei/ipsaei illoru/ipsoru
Atonic
[edit]

The unstressed or 'weak' forms:[24]

Person 1 2 3 (m) 3 (f)
Number SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL
ACC me nos te vos lu los la las
DAT mi tī li lis li lis

Interrogative/relative

[edit]

As follows:[25]

Gender M or F N
NOM qui quid

(/quod?)

ACC quem
DAT cui –

Verbs

[edit]

Present

[edit]
van den Bussche (1985:§2.3.2)
Verb class 1P 2P 3P Infinitive
SG PL SG PL SG PL
I kánto kantámųs kántas kantátįs kántat kántant kantáre
IIa dǫ́rm(j)o dormímųs dǫ́rmįs dormítįs dǫ́rmįt dǫ́rmųnt/-ent dormíre
IIb florésko/-í- florímųs floréskįs/-í- florítįs floréskįt/-í- floréskųnt/-í- floríre
IIIa wį́dd’o wįdémųs wį́des wįdétįs wį́det wį́dųnt/-ent (wį́dd’ųnt) wįdére
IIIb wę́ndo wę́ndįmųs wę́ndįs wę́ndįtįs wę́ndįt wę́ndųnt/-ent wę́ndere
Irregular dáo dámųs dás dátįs dát dánt/dáųnt/dáent dáre
ábjo/ájjo abémųs áes/ás abétįs áet/át ánt/áųnt/áent abére

Preterite

[edit]
van den Bussche (1985:§2.3.3)
Verb class 1P 2P 3P Infinitive
SG PL SG PL SG PL
I kantáj kantámmųs kantásti kantástįs kantáwt/-át kantárųnt kantáre
IIa dormíj dormímmųs dormísti dormístįs dormíwt/-ít dormírųnt dormíre
IIIb battę́j battę́mmųs battę́sti  battę́stįs battę́wt/-ę́t battę́rųnt báttere
Irregular féki fékįmųs/-kį́mm- fekį́sti fekį́stįs fékįt fékerųnt/-ér- fákere
díksi díksįmųs/-kį́mm- dikį́sti dikį́stįs díksįt díkserųnt díkere

Participles

[edit]
van den Bussche (1985:§2.3.4)
Verb Class present preterite
I kantánte kantátų
II dormę́nte dormítų
III wendę́nte (wę́ndįtų/-útų)

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ That is, when followed by a syllable containing a close vowel.
  2. ^ Diachronically this reflects the ‘weakening’ of vowels in this context, for which see Lausberg 1970:§§292–6. An example, per the latter, is Latin dormītorium > French dortoir.
  3. ^ In representing it as such this article follows Burger 1955 and Petrovici 1956. Similarly, van den Bussche 1985 proposes a Proto-Romance consonant inventory with /ʎʎ ɲɲ (t)tʲ (d)dʲ (k)kʲ (ɡ)ɡʲ/ (p. 226) and Pope 1952 reconstructs Proto-Gallo-Romance with a series of palatalized consonants (§168). Gouvert 2015 prefers a phonetic palatalization rule for Proto-Romance, as in /basiˈare/ [baˈsʲaːɾe] (p. 83).
  4. ^ Gouvert assumes regular (phonetic) gemination of palatalized intervocalic /n l k/ to [ɲɲ ʎʎ cc]. Repetti points out that there exists (mixed) Romance evidence for the gemination of all consonants in this context other than original /s/.
  5. ^ Example from Gouvert. Per Lausberg the prop-vowel would have been added only after a consonant or pause.
  6. ^ Lausberg supposes an initial [ɣn~i̯n].
  7. ^ For further discussion on /ll/, see Zampaulo 2019:71–7 and Lausberg 1970:§§494–9.
  8. ^ Diachronically this reflects the development of Latin intervocalic [b] to [β], and likewise [bj] to [βj], for which see Lausberg 1970:§§366, 475.
  9. ^ de Dardel & Gaeng (1992:104) differ from Lausberg on the following points: 1) They believe that the genitive-dative case was limited to animate nouns. 2) They reconstruct a universal gen-dat. plural ending -orum. 3) They reconstruct, for class -a type nouns, a nominative plural -ae, albeit one in competition with -as according to de Dardel & Wüest (1993:57). They are in agreement with Lausberg regarding the remaining inflections.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Ferguson 1976:84; Gouvert 2015:81
  2. ^ Gouvert 2015:118‒9; Loporcaro 2015
  3. ^ Ferguson 1976:chapter 7
  4. ^ Maiden 2016
  5. ^ Ferguson 1976:76; Gouvert 2015:78–81, 121–2
  6. ^ Gouvert 2015:78–9
  7. ^ van den Bussche 1985:226
  8. ^ Operstein 2010:107
  9. ^ Lausberg 1970:§§451–478; Gouvert 2015:95, 111, 115; Repetti 2016:659; Barbato 2022:§1
  10. ^ Gouvert 2015:86, 92
  11. ^ Lausberg 1970:§452
  12. ^ Lausberg 1970:§353; Gouvert 2015:125–6
  13. ^ Lausberg 1970:§444–8; Chambon 2013 apud Gouvert 2015:95; Zampaulo 2019:80–2
  14. ^ Gouvert 2016:48
  15. ^ Gouvert 2015:15
  16. ^ Gouvert 2016:§1
  17. ^ Gouvert 2015:86
  18. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§590–600, 616–27)
  19. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§628–38)
  20. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§601–15, 639–45, 668)
  21. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§679–81)
  22. ^ Lausberg (1973:§687)
  23. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§707–22)
  24. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§723–37)
  25. ^ Lausberg (1973:§§746–7)

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Adams, James Noel (2013). Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511843433. ISBN 978-0-511-84343-3.
  • Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (2010). Romance languages: A historical introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88915-5.
  • Barbato, Marcello (2022). "The early history of Romance palatalizations". Oxford Research Encyclopedias. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.750. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5.
  • Burger, André (1955). "Phonématique et diachronie à propos de la palatalisation des consonnes romanes". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure. 13 (13): 19–33. JSTOR 27757997.
  • Chambon, Jean-Pierre (2013). "Notes sur un problème de la reconstruction phonétique et phonologique du protoroman: Le groupe */ɡn/". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. CVIII (1): 273–282. doi:10.2143/BSL.108.1.3019219.
  • de Dardel, Robert & Gaeng, Paul Ami (1992). "La declinaison nominale du latin non classique: Essai d'une methode de synthese". Probus. 4 (2): 91–125. doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91.
  • de Dardel, Robert & Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du protoroman: Les deux cycles de simplification". Vox Romanica (52): 25–65.
  • Dworkin, Steven N. (2016). "Do romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance? The case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman project". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (132): 1–19. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001.
  • Elcock, William Dennis (1960). The Romance languages. London: Faber and Faber.
  • Ferguson, Thaddeus (1976). A history of the Romance vowel systems through paradigmatic reconstruction. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110806960. ISBN 978-3-11-080696-0.
  • Gouvert, Xavier (2015). "Le système phonologique du protoroman: essai de reconstruction". In Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 61–128. doi:10.1515/9783110313482. ISBN 978-3-11-031244-7.
  • Gouvert, Xavier (2016). "Du protoitalique au protoroman: deux problèmes de reconstruction phonologique". In Buchi, Éva & Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman 2. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 27–51. doi:10.1515/9783110453614. ISBN 978-3-11-045361-4.
  • Grandgent, Charles Hall (1907). An introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson (1976). Proto-Romance phonology. New York: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-00183-2.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson (1983). Proto-Romance morphology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ISBN 978-90-272-3522-0.
  • Lausberg, Heinrich (1970) [1965]. Lingüística románica. Vol. I–II. Translated by Pérez Riesco, José; Pascual Rodríguez, E. (2nd ed.). Madrid: Gredos.
    • Original in German: Romanische Sprachwissenshaft. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1956–62.
  • Loporcaro, Michele (2015). Vowel length from Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656554.003.0001.
  • Lloyd, Paul Max (1987). From Latin to Spanish: Historical phonology and morphology of the Spanish language. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN 978-0-87169-173-6.
  • Lyons, Christopher (1986). "On the origin of the Old French strong-weak possessive distinction". Transactions of the Philological Society. 84 (1): 1–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1986.tb01046.x.
  • Maiden, Martin (2016). "Diphthongization". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 647–57. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.
  • Operstein, Natalie (2010). Consonant structure and prevocalization. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cilt.312. ISBN 978-90-272-4828-2.
  • Petrovici, Emil (1956). "Problema moştenirii din romanica comună a corelaţiei palatale a consoanelor în limba romînă". Ştudii şi Cercetări Lingvistice. 7: 163–9.
  • Pope, Mildred Katherine (1952) [1934]. From Latin to Modern French (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.
  • Repetti, Lori (2016). "Palatalization". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 658–68. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.
  • van den Bussche, Henri (1985). "Proto-Romance inflectional morphology. Review of Proto-Romance morphology by Robert Hall". Lingua. 66 (2–3): 225–60. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(85)90336-5.
  • Zampaulo, André (2019). Palatal sound change in the Romance languages: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198807384.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-880738-4.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-Romance_language&oldid=1242516170"