Proto-Romance language

Proto-Romance
Reconstruction of	Romance languages
Region	Roman Empire
Reconstructed ancestors	Proto-Indo-European Proto-Italic
Lower-order reconstructions	Common Romanian Proto-Italo-Western Romance

Proto-Romance is the result of applying the comparative method to reconstruct the latest common ancestor of the Romance languages. The closest real-life counterpart to Proto-Romance would have been a colloquial variety of Late Latin sometimes referred to as Vulgar Latin.

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 /ɛɔ/ may have yielded incipient diphthongs like [e͡ɛo͡ɔ] 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 /ɛɔ/. ^[4]

Constraints

• /ɛɔ/ did not occur in unstressed position. ^[5]
• /iu/ did not occur in the second syllable of words with the structure ˌσσˈσσ. ^{[6] [ii]}

Consonants

Burger (1955 :25)

		Labial		Alveolar		Palatal		Velar
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						( j )		( w )
Lateral Approximant				l	lʲ
Trill				r	rʲ

Palatalized consonants

See also: Palatalization in the Romance languages § /Cj/

• There is scholarly disagreement over whether palatalization was phonemic in Proto-Romance. ^{[7] [iii]}
• Palatalized consonants tended to geminate between vowels. The extent of this varied by consonant. ^{[8] [iv]}
• /tʲ/ would have been an affricate like [t͡sʲ] ^[9] or [t͡zʲ]. ^[10]

Phonetics

• /sC/ in word-initial position was assigned a prop-vowel [ɪ], as in /ˈstare/[ɪsˈtaːɾe]. ^{[11] [v]}
• /ɡn/ was likely [ɣn] at first, with later developments varying by region. ^{[12] [vi]}
• /dɡ/ might have been fricatives or approximants between vowels. ^[13]
• /ll/ might have been retroflex. ^{[14] [vii]}
• /f/ might have been bilabial. ^[15]

Constraints

• /b/ did not occur in intervocalic position. ^{[16] [viii]}

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: ^{[17] [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: ^[18]

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. ^[19]

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

Positive

Lausberg (1973 :§§668–73) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)

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

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: ^[20]

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

Superlative

Superlatives would have been formed by adding definite articles to comparatives. ^[21]

Pronouns

Personal

Tonic

The stressed or 'strong' forms: ^[22]

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

The unstressed or 'weak' forms: ^[23]

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

As follows: ^[24]

Gender		M or F	N
NOM		qui	quid (/quod?)
ACC		quem
DAT		cui	–

Verbs

Present

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

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

van den Bussche (1985 :§2.3.4)

Verb Class		present	preterite
I		kantánte	kantátų
II		dormę́nte	dormítų
III		wendę́nte	(wę́ndįtų/-útų)

See also

• Phonological changes from Classical Latin to Proto-Romance

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 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

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. Operstein 2010 :107
8. Lausberg 1970 :§§451–478; Gouvert 2015 :95, 111, 115; Repetti 2016 :659; Barbato 2022 :§1
9. Gouvert 2015 :86, 92
10. Lausberg 1970 :§452
11. Lausberg 1970 :§353; Gouvert 2015 :125–6
12. Lausberg 1970 :§444–8; Chambon 2013 apud Gouvert 2015 :95; Zampaulo 2019 :80–2
13. Gouvert 2016 :48
14. Gouvert 2015 :15
15. Gouvert 2016 :§1
16. Gouvert 2015 :86
17. Lausberg (1973 :§§590–600, 616–27) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
18. Lausberg (1973 :§§628–38) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
19. Lausberg (1973 :§§601–15, 639–45, 668) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
20. Lausberg (1973 :§§679–81) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
21. Lausberg (1973 :§687) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
22. Lausberg (1973 :§§707–22) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
23. Lausberg (1973 :§§723–37) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
24. Lausberg (1973 :§§746–7) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)

Bibliography

• 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.