Proto-Romance language

Last updated
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.

Contents

Phonology

Vowels

Monophthongs

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

Diphthong

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

Phonetics

  • Vowels were lengthened in stressed open syllables. [2]
  • Stressed ɔ/ may have yielded incipient diphthongs like [e͡ɛo͡ɔ] in metaphonic conditions. [3] [lower-roman 1]
    • Metaphony, if it is to be projected to Proto-Romance, may have initially been limited to open syllables. That is, it would have targeted allophonically lengthened ɔ/. [4]

Constraints

Consonants

Burger (1955 :25)
Labial Coronal Dorsal
Nasal m n
Plosive voiceless p t k
voiced b d ɡ ɡʲ
Fricative voiceless f s
voiced β βʲ
Approximant l ( j w ) [7]
Trill r

Palatalized consonants

Phonetics

Constraints

Morphology

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

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)
NumberSGPLSGPLSGPLSGPL
NOMcapracaprascaballuscaballifraterfratres/-inoctisnoctes
ACCcaballucaballosfratrefratresnocte
GEN-DATcapraecapriscaballocaballisfratrifratrisnoctinoctis
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)
NumberSGPLSGPL
NOMhómohómines/-imúliermuliéres
ACChóminehóminesmuliére
GEN-DAThóminihóminismuliérimuliéris
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)
NumberSGPLSGPL
NOMbracchiubracchiacorpuscorpora
ACC
GEN-DATbracchiobracchiiscorporicorporis
Gloss‘arm’‘body’

Adjectives

Positive

Lausberg (1973 :§§668–73)
Type-o/-a
GenderMFMF
NumberSGPLSGPLSGPLSGPL
NOMbonusbonibonabonasvirdisvirdes/-ivirdisvirdes
ACCbonubonosvirdevirdesvirde
GEN-DATbonobonisbonaebonisvirdivirdisvirdivirdis
Gloss‘good’‘green’

Comparative

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]

NumberSG
GenderM or FN
NOMméliormélius
ACCmelióre
Gloss‘better’

Superlative

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

Pronouns

Personal

Tonic

The stressed or 'strong' forms: [23]

Person12
NumberSGPLSGPL
NOMegonostuvos
ACCme/menete/tene
DATmi/mibinobisti/tibivobis
Person3 (m)3 (f)
NumberSGPLSGPL
NOMille/illi/ipseilli/ipsiilla/ipsaillas/ipsas
ACCillu/ipsuillos/ipsos
(GEN-)DATillui/ipsuiilloru/ipsoruillaei/ipsaeiilloru/ipsoru
Atonic

The unstressed or 'weak' forms: [24]

Person123 (m)3 (f)
NumberSGPLSGPLSGPLSGPL
ACCmenostevosluloslalas
DATmililislilis

Interrogative/relative

As follows: [25]

GenderM or FN
NOMquiquid

(/quod?)

ACCquem
DATcui

Verbs

Present

van den Bussche (1985 :§2.3.2)
Verb class1P2P3PInfinitive
SGPLSGPLSGPL
Ikántokantámųskántaskantátįskántatkántantkantáre
IIadǫ́rm(j)odormímųsdǫ́rmįsdormítįsdǫ́rmįtdǫ́rmųnt/-entdormíre
IIbflorésko/-í-florímųsfloréskįs/-í-florítįsfloréskįt/-í-floréskųnt/-í-floríre
IIIawį́dd’owįdémųswį́deswįdétįswį́detwį́dųnt/-ent (wį́dd’ųnt)wįdére
IIIbwę́ndowę́ndįmųswę́ndįswę́ndįtįswę́ndįtwę́ndųnt/-entwę́ndere
Irregulardáodámųsdásdátįsdátdánt/dáųnt/dáentdáre
ábjo/ájjoabémųsáes/ásabétįsáet/átánt/áųnt/áentabére

Preterite

van den Bussche (1985 :§2.3.3)
Verb class1P2P3PInfinitive
SGPLSGPLSGPL
Ikantájkantámmųskantástikantástįskantáwt/-átkantárųntkantáre
IIadormíjdormímmųsdormístidormístįsdormíwt/-ítdormírųntdormíre
IIIbbattę́jbattę́mmųsbattę́sti battę́stįsbattę́wt/-ę́tbattę́rųntbáttere
Irregularfékifékįmųs/-kį́mm-fekį́stifekį́stįsfékįtfékerųnt/-ér-fákere
díksidíksįmųs/-kį́mm-dikį́stidikį́stįsdíksįtdíkserųntdíkere

Participles

van den Bussche (1985 :§2.3.4)
Verb Classpresentpreterite
Ikantántekantátų
IIdormę́ntedormítų
IIIwendę́nte(wę́ndįtų/-útų)

See also

Notes

  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 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 (variable) Romance evidence for the gemination of each consonant other than /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 in competition with -as per de Dardel & Wüest (1993:57)). They are in agreement with Lausberg regarding the remaining inflections.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Romance languages</span> Direct descendants of Vulgar Latin

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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veps language</span> Finnic language south of Lake Onega, Russia

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Indo-European language</span> Ancestor of the Indo-European languages

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 word epenthesis comes from epi-'in addition to' and en-'in' and thesis'putting'. Epenthesis may be divided into two types: excrescence for the addition of a consonant, and for the addition of a vowel, svarabhakti or alternatively anaptyxis. The opposite process, where one or more sounds are removed, is referred to as elision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Balto-Slavic language</span> Reconstructed proto-language

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 hypothetical language is thought to have been originally spoken in a small area in about 7000–2000 BCE, and expanded to give differentiated Proto-Languages. Some newer research has pushed the "Proto-Uralic homeland" east of the Ural Mountains into Western Siberia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Indo-Iranian language</span> Reconstructed proto-language

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Tocharian language</span> Reconstructed proto-language

Proto-Tocharian, also spelled Proto-Tokharian, is the reconstructed proto-language of the extinct Tocharian branch of the Indo-European languages.

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.

Nuaulu is a language indigenous to the island of Seram Island in Indonesia, and it is spoken by the Nuaulu people. The language is split into two dialects, a northern and a southern dialect, between which there a communication barrier. The dialect of Nuaulu referred to on this page is the southern dialect, as described in Bolton 1991.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Slavic language</span> Proto-language of all the Slavic languages

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-Finnic or Proto-Baltic-Finnic is the common ancestor of the Finnic languages, which include the national languages Finnish and Estonian. Proto-Finnic is not attested in any texts, but has been reconstructed by linguists. Proto-Finnic is itself descended ultimately from Proto-Uralic.

PalatalizationPA-lə-tə-leye-ZAY-shən 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.

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.

References

  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