Proto-Romance language

Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It reflects a late variety of Latin, one of the Italic languages in the broader Indo-European family.

Exceptionally in comparative linguistics, specialists in Proto-Romance can refer to an abundant corpus of texts written in a rough equivalent of their proto-language, namely Latin. This has however had the drawback of leading many to rely excessively on the written record in lieu of reconstructing Proto-Romance proper.[1]

Proto-Romance is an abstraction and should not be taken as equivalent to Latin as it was actually spoken in any particular time or place.[2] The version reconstructed in the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman appears to most closely reflect the spoken Latin of the sixth century AD.[3]

Phonology

Monophthongs
Front Central Back
Close i u
Near-close ɪ ʊ
Close-mid e o
Open-mid ɛ ɔ
Open a
  • The open-mid vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ merge with /e, o/ in all unstressed contexts.[4][5]
  • A further reduction is observed in intertonic syllables where /i, u/ merge with /ɪ, ʊ/.[6]
  • Vowels are lengthened allophonically in stressed open syllables,[7] although perhaps not /ɪ/ or /ʊ/.[8]
  • /i, u/ become [j, w] between a consonant and following vowel. [j] then triggers palatalization, e.g. /basiáre/ [basʲáːɾe].[9]

Diphthong

Only one diphthong can be reconstructed for Proto-Romance, namely /aw/. It can be found in both stressed and unstressed positions.[10] Its phonemic status is however debatable, as it could also be simply regarded as a sequence of /a/ and /u/.[11]

Consonants
Labial Coronal Velar Palatal
Nasal m n
Occlusive p b t d k g j
Fricative f β s
Labialized kʷ
Vibrant r
Lateral l
  • When palatalized /t, k, n, l/ become [tsʲ, c, ɲ, ʎ].[12][13]
  • Intervocalic [c, ɲ, ʎ] regularly geminate.[12] [tsʲ] does so only sporadically.[14]
  • Words beginning with /sC/ undergo prosthesis, e.g. /stáre/ [ɪstáːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[15][16]
  • It is debated whether /kʷ/ is its own phoneme or merely an allophone of /ku/ before vowels.[17]
  • There is some evidence that /f/ could have been bilabial, but a labiodental is still more likely.[18]
  • /b, d, g/ fricativize to [β, ð, ɣ] between vowels or in contact with /r/ and /l/.[19]
  • Intervocalic /di, gi/ do not occur, these having previously reduced to /j/.[20][21]
  • The rhotic may have been [ɾ~r], as in Spanish or Catalan.[22]
  • Word-initial /j/ underwent fortition to [ɟ].[23][24]
  • /ll/ had a retroflex realization: [ɭɭ].[25][26]
  • /gn/ fricativizes to [ɣn].[27][28]

Morphology

Nouns

Proto-Romance nouns had three cases: nominative, accusative, and a combined genitive-dative which was only used in reference to humans.[29]

Class I II III f. III m.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative fémɪna fémɪne fíʎʎʊs fíʎʎi mátrɪs[lower-greek 1] mátres pátrɪs pátri
Accusative fémɪnas fíʎʎu[lower-greek 2] fíʎʎos mátre pátre pátres
Gen-Dat. fémɪne femɪnóru[lower-greek 3] fíʎʎo fiʎʎóru mátri matróru pátri patróru
Translation woman son mother father

Several Class III nouns had inflections that differed by syllable count or stress position.[30]

Nominative ɔ́mo pástor sɔ́ror
Accusative ɔ́mɪne pastóre soróre
Translation man pastor sister

A few Class II nouns were pluralized with -a or -ora, these originally having been neuter in Classical Latin. Though their singular was masculine, the plural was treated as feminine.[31]

Type I II
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Noun[lower-greek 4] ɔ́βu ɔ́βa braccu bracca tɛ́mpʊs tɛ́mpora pɛ́ktʊs pɛ́ktora
Translation egg arm time chest

The plural was often reanalyzed as a feminine singular, resulting in gender shifts.[32]

Number singular plural singular plural
Original noun fɔ́ʎʎu fɔ́ʎʎa lɪ́ɣnu lɪ́ɣna
Fem. variant fɔ́ʎʎa fɔ́ʎʎas lɪ́ɣna lɪ́ɣnas
Translation leaf firewood

Such a trend had already begun in Classical Latin; for example the feminine noun opera was formed from the plural of neuter opus.

Adjectives

Absolute

Broadly speaking, these decline as nouns do.[33]

Type I II
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural
Gender feminine masculine either
Nominative blánda blánde blándʊs blándi dʊ́lkɪs dʊ́lkes
Accusative blándas blándu blándos dʊ́lke
Gen-Dat. blánde blandóru blándi blandóru dʊ́lki -
Translation pleasant pleasant sweet

Comparative

While the original Latin ending -(i)or still existed, it was only used in a limited number of adjectives.[34][35]

Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative mɛ́ʎʎor meʎʎóres pɛ́jor pejóres májor majóres mɪ́nor mɪnóres
Accusative meʎʎóre pejóre majóre mɪnóre
Gen-Dat. meʎʎóri - pejóri - majóri - mɪnóri -
Translation better worse larger smaller

The typical way to form a comparative was to add either plús or máɣɪs (meaning 'more') to an absolute adjective, which had been done sporadically in Classical Latin as well.[36]

Superlative

No dedicated ending existed to express the superlative. A variety of alternatives were used instead, such as an intensifying adverb (mʊ́ltu, bɛ́ne, etc.) or a comparative.[37]

Possessive

Shown here in the feminine singular.[38]

First person Second person Third person
singular mɛ́a tʊ́a sʊ́a
plural nɔ́stra βɔ́stra -

Pronouns

Personal

These are the equivalents of 'you', 'me', etc.[39][40]

Person I II III f. III m.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative ɛ́ɣo nós tú βós ɪ́lla ɪ́lle ɪ́lli
Accusative mé, méne té, téne ɪ́llas ɪ́llu ɪ́llos
Gen-Dat. mí, mɪ́βɪ nóβɪs tí, tɪ́βɪ βóβɪs ɪlléi ɪllóru ɪllúi ɪllóru

Interrogative

These are the equivalents of 'who' and 'what'.[41]

Animacy Animate Inanimate
Number singular plural singular plural
Nominative kuí kuɪ́d kuɛ́
Accusative kuɛ́ne kuɛ́
Gen-Dat. kúi kúi

Verbs

Proto Romance verbs belong to three main classes, each of which is characterized by a different thematic vowel. Their conjugations are built on three stems and involve various combinations of mood, aspect, and tense.[42] Only one chart is shown below; the rest will be explained in a separate article.

Present indicative

On occasion this could also refer to the future.[43]

First person Second person Third person Translation
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural
Class I kánto kantámʊs kántas kantátɪs kántat kántant sing
Class II dɔ́rmo dormímʊs dɔ́rmɪs dɔrmítɪs dɔ́rmɪt dɔ́rment
~dɔ́rmʊnt		 sleep
Class III bátto battémʊs báttes battétɪs báttet báttent beat
Irregular sʊ́n sʊ́mʊs ɛ́s ɛ́stɪs~sɛ́tɪs~sʊ́tɪs ɛ́st sʊ́nt am/are/is
ájo aβémʊs ás aβétɪs át ánt~áunt have/has

Participles

Of these there were only two: a present active and a preterite passive. They declined like adjectives.[44]

Present Active Translation Preterite Passive Translation
Class I amánte (is) adoring amáta (was) adored
Class II finɛ́nte (is) finishing finíta (was) finished
Class III aβɛ́nte (is) possessing aβúta (was) possessed

Relation to written Latin

Contrary to the traditional view, Wright argues that at first there was no distinction between Latin and Romance —the former being only a written representation of the latter. For instance in ninth-century Spain ⟨saeculum⟩ was simply the correct way to spell [sjeglo], meaning 'century'. The writer would not have actually said [sɛkulum] any more than a modern English speaker would pronounce ⟨knight⟩ as *[knɪxt].[45]

Ecclesiastical Latin, in its spoken form, was created later during the Carolingian Renaissance. The British scholar Alcuin, tasked by Charlemagne with improving the standards of Latin writing in France, prescribed a pronunciation based on a fairly literal interpretation of Latin spelling. A word such as ⟨viridiarium⟩ 'orchard' now had to be read aloud precisely as it was spelled, with all six syllables, rather than as the Old French equivalent vergier.[46]

This had the effect of rendering sermons completely unintelligible to the general public, which prompted officials a few years later —at the Council of Tours— to order them to be rendered in rusticam romanam linguam, 'in plain roman speech' i.e. in Romance.[47] Another issue was that now two types of speech, Romance and Church Latin, had to coexist within one writing system. Within the same century the first attempts were made to devise an orthography specifically for Romance, viz. the Oaths of Strasbourg and Canticle of Saint Eulalia, both written in France. As the Carolingian reforms spread to other Romance-speaking areas, local scholars devised orthographies for their own varieties of Romance as well.[48]

Notes
  1. De Dardel hesitates to posit this form, giving mátre as a possible alternative. Likewise pátrɪs~pátre.
  2. For final -u versus -ʊs, see Gouvert (2014), p. 78.
  3. Unlike De Dardel, Hall (1976, p. 18) has -aru as the feminine ending, as it was in Classical Latin. On the next page, however, he admits that the evidence for it is flimsy.
  4. Forms given in the accusative.

References
  1. Dworkin (2016), p. 2
  2. Hall (1976), pp. 10-11
  3. Kramer (2014), p. 295
  4. Gouvert (2014), pp. 73–6
  5. Ferguson (1976), p. 78
  6. Gouvert (2014), pp. 78–81
  7. Loporcaro (2015), pp. 25–30
  8. Gouvert (2014), p. 69
  9. Gouvert (2014), p. 83
  10. Ferguson (1976), p. 84
  11. Gouvert, p. 81
  12. Gouvert (2014), pp. 92–115
  13. Zampaulo (2019), pp. 50, 78, 94
  14. Wilkin (1926), pp. 11–14
  15. Gouvert (2014), pp. 125–6
  16. Hall (1976), p. 128
  17. Gouvert (2014), p. 100
  18. Gouvert (2016), p. 38
  19. Gouvert (2016), p. 48
  20. Zampaulo (2019), p. 87
  21. Gouvert (2016), p. 43
  22. Gouvert (2014), p. 113
  23. Gouvert (2014), p. 83
  24. Zampaulo (2019), p. 84
  25. Gouvert (2014), p. 115
  26. Zampaulo (2019), p. 164
  27. Gouvert (2014), p. 95
  28. Zampaulo (2019), p. 80
  29. De Dardel & Gaenge (1992), p. 104
  30. Hall (1983), p. 28
  31. Hall (1983), pp. 23–4, 29–30.
  32. Akire & Rosen (2010), pp. 193–4
  33. Hall (1983), p. 32
  34. Hall (1983), pp. 32, 119-20
  35. Maltby (2016), p. 340
  36. Maltby (2016), pp. 340–5.
  37. Bauer (2016), pp. 340, 359
  38. Hall (1983), p. 122
  39. De Dardel & Wüest (1993), p. 43
  40. Hall (1983), p. 39
  41. Hall (1983), pp. 42–43
  42. Hall (1983), pp. 47–50
  43. Hall (1983), pp. 52–7
  44. Hall (1983), pp. 122–3
  45. Wright (1982), pp. 44–50
  46. Wright (1982), pp. 104–7
  47. Wright (1982), pp. 118-20
  48. Wright (1982), pp. 122–32, 143–4

Bibliography
  • Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (July 2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521717847.
  • Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang; Gouvert, Xavier; Kramer, Johannes, eds. (2014-11-14). "Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom)". Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. doi:10.1515/9783110313482.
  • Buchi, Éva; Gouvert, Xavier, eds. (2016). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom) 2. De Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-045361-4. OCLC 963581913.CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • De Dardel, R.; Gaeng, P. A. (1992). "La Declinaison Nominale du Latin Non Classique: Essai d'une Methode de Synthese". Probus. 4 (2). doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91. ISSN 0921-4771.
  • De Dardel, Robert; Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du prototoman". Vox Romanica. 52 (1): 25–65. ISSN 0042-899X – via eLibrary.
  • Dworkin, Steven N. (2016-01-01). "Do Romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance?". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 132 (1): 2. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001. ISSN 1865-9063.
  • Ferguson, Thaddeus (1976-01-31). A History of the Romance Vowel Systems through Paradigmatic Reconstruction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. p. 78. ISBN 978-3-11-080696-0.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson, 1911- (1976). Proto-Romance phonology. Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-00183-2. OCLC 422266905.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Hall, Robert A. (Robert Anderson), 1911-1997. (1983). Proto-Romance Morphology. John Benjamins Pub. Co. ISBN 90-272-3522-8. OCLC 10773070.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Loporcaro, Michele (2015). Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press. pp. 25–30. ISBN 978-0-19-965655-4. OCLC 1107082342.
  • Vincent, Nigel; Adams, J. N.; Maltby, Robert (2016). Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13225-2.
  • Wilkinson, Hugh E. (1926). Notes on the development of -KJ-, -TJ- in Spanish and Portuguese. Aoyama Gakuin University. pp. 11–14. OCLC 1055897845.
  • Wright, Roger (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. ISBN 0-905205-12-X.
  • Zampaulo, André (2019-08-22), "Palatal Sound Change in the Romance languages", Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages, Oxford University Press, pp. 150–199, ISBN 978-0-19-880738-4, retrieved 2020-04-01
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.