Proto-Romance | |
---|---|
Reconstruction of | Romance languages |
Region | Roman Empire |
Reconstructed ancestors | |
Lower-order reconstructions |
|
Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of the Romance languages. It is effectively Late Latin viewed retrospectively through its descendants.
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | u | |
Near-close | ɪ | ʊ | |
Close-mid | e | o | |
Open-mid | ɛ | ɔ | |
Open | a |
/au̯/ appears to be the only phonemic diphthong that can be reconstructed. [1]
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 |
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 are reconstructed as having three cases: a nominative, an accusative, and a genitive-dative: [18] [lower-roman 9]
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’ |
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’ |
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 were inherited with a comparative suffix -ior. Their inflections can be reconstructed as follows: [21]
Number | SG | ||
---|---|---|---|
Gender | M or F | N | |
NOM | mélior | mélius | |
ACC | melióre | ||
Gloss | ‘better’ |
Superlatives would have been formed by adding definite articles to comparatives. [22]
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 |
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 |
As follows: [25]
Gender | M or F | N | |
---|---|---|---|
NOM | qui | quid (/quod?) | |
ACC | quem | ||
DAT | cui | – |
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 |
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 |
Verb Class | present | preterite | |
---|---|---|---|
I | kantánte | kantátų | |
II | dormę́nte | dormítų | |
III | wendę́nte | (wę́ndįtų/-útų) |
The Romance languages, also known as the Latin or Neo-Latin languages, are the languages that are directly descended from Vulgar Latin. They are the only extant subgroup of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family.
In linguistics, the Indo-European ablaut is a system of apophony in the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE).
Veps, also known as Vepsian, is a Finnic language from the Uralic language family, that is spoken by Vepsians. The language is written in the Latin script, and is closely related to Finnish and Karelian.
Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages.
In phonology, epenthesis means the addition of one or more sounds to a word, especially in the beginning syllable (prothesis) or in the ending syllable (paragoge) or in-between two syllabic sounds in a word. The opposite process, where one or more sounds are removed, is referred to as elision.
Proto-Balto-Slavic is a reconstructed hypothetical proto-language descending from Proto-Indo-European (PIE). From Proto-Balto-Slavic, the later Balto-Slavic languages are thought to have developed, composed of the Baltic and Slavic sub-branches, and including modern Lithuanian, Polish, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, among others.
Proto-Uralic is the unattested reconstructed language ancestral to the modern Uralic language family. The reconstructed language is thought to have been originally spoken in a small area in about 7000–2000 BCE, and then expanded across northern Eurasia, gradually diverging into a dialect continuum and then a language family in the process. The location of the area or Urheimat is not known, and various strongly differing proposals have been advocated, but the vicinity of the Ural Mountains is generally accepted as the most likely.
Proto-Indo-Iranian, also called Proto-Indo-Iranic or Proto-Aryan, is the reconstructed proto-language of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European. Its speakers, the hypothetical Proto-Indo-Iranians, are assumed to have lived in the late 3rd millennium BC, and are often connected with the Sintashta culture of the Eurasian Steppe and the early Andronovo archaeological horizon.
The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) has been reconstructed by linguists, based on the similarities and differences among current and extinct Indo-European languages. Because PIE was not written, linguists must rely on the evidence of its earliest attested descendants, such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Latin, to reconstruct its phonology.
The following list is a comparison of basic Proto-Slavic vocabulary and the corresponding reflexes in the modern languages, for assistance in understanding the discussion in Proto-Slavic and History of the Slavic languages. The word list is based on the Swadesh word list, developed by the linguist Morris Swadesh, a tool to study the evolution of languages via comparison, containing a set of 207 basic words which can be found in every language and are rarely borrowed. However, the words given as the modern versions are not necessarily the normal words with the given meaning in the various modern languages, but the words directly descended from the corresponding Proto-Slavic word. The list here is given both in the orthography of each language, with accent marks added as necessary to aid in pronunciation and Proto-Slavic reconstruction. See below for a capsule summary of how to pronounce each language, as well as some discussion of the conventions used.
Ottawa is a dialect of the Ojibwe language spoken in a series of communities in southern Ontario and a smaller number of communities in northern Michigan. Ottawa has a phonological inventory of seventeen consonants and seven oral vowels; in addition, there are long nasal vowels the phonological status of which are discussed below. An overview of general Ojibwa phonology and phonetics can be found in the article on Ojibwe phonology. The Ottawa writing system described in Modern orthography is used to write Ottawa words, with transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) used as needed.
The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, most notably Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages. It is not directly attested in writing, but has been reconstructed to some degree through the comparative method. Proto-Italic descended from the earlier Proto-Indo-European language.
French exhibits perhaps the most extensive phonetic changes of any of the Romance languages. Similar changes are seen in some of the northern Italian regional languages, such as Lombard or Ligurian. Most other Romance languages are significantly more conservative phonetically, with Spanish, Italian, and especially Sardinian showing the most conservatism, and Portuguese, Occitan, Catalan, and Romanian showing moderate conservatism.
Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 2nd millennium BC through the 6th century AD. As with most other proto-languages, no attested writings have been found; scholars have reconstructed the language by applying the comparative method to all the attested Slavic languages and by taking into account other Indo-European languages.
Proto-Slavic accent is the accentual system of Proto-Slavic and is closely related to the accentual system of some Baltic languages with which it shares many common innovations that occurred in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. Deeper, it inherits from the Proto-Indo-European accent. In modern languages the prototypical accent is reflected in various ways, some preserving the Proto-Slavic situation to a greater degree than others.
Palatalization is a historical-linguistic sound change that results in a palatalized articulation of a consonant or, in certain cases, a front vowel. Palatalization involves change in the place or manner of articulation of consonants, or the fronting or raising of vowels. In some cases, palatalization involves assimilation or lenition.
This article describes the grammar of the Old Irish language. The grammar of the language has been described with exhaustive detail by various authors, including Thurneysen, Binchy and Bergin, McCone, O'Connell, Stifter, among many others.
Proto-Ryukyuan is the reconstructed ancestor of the Ryukyuan languages, probably associated with the Gusuku culture in the early second millennium AD.
As Classical Latin developed into Proto-Romance it experienced various sound changes. An approximate summary of changes on the phonemic level is provided below. Their precise order is uncertain.
Palatalization in the Romance languages encompasses various historical sound changes which caused consonants to develop a palatal articulation or secondary articulation, as well as certain further developments such as affrication. It resulted in the creation of several consonants that had not existed in Classical Latin, such as the Italian.