[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:35:06PM +0200, Isaac A. Penzev wrote: > Shalom! > > Can anybody help me to find the origins of Spanish phonemes /ch/ and /j/ for > my Arabo-Romance project? > > I know that /ch/ in many positions originates from consonant clusters *-ct- > like in noche < *nocte and *-lt- like in escuchar < *a(u)scultare. But how > do we get all those _chiquitas_ and _muchachos_? As I recall, <chico> seems to be derived from a Latin form <ciccus> (or something similar). It *should* have become /Tiko/ of course, according to the more general rules. What I read said that it was unknown how the initial sound became /tS/ instead of /T/ (or /s/). Not sure about <muchacho>. But in most cases, /tS/ comes from a palatalized earlier /t/, e.g. [kt] > [xt] > [Ct] > [jt] > [t'] > [tS]; [lt] > [Lt] > [jt] > [t'] > [tS]. > As for /j/. I know it hides several Old Spanish phonemes: /S/, /Z/, /dZ/. I > can fugure somehow that in e.g. _dije_ it was /S/ comparing with Portuguese: > dije < *dixe ["diSe] < *dissi < *dixit. Actually from Latin <dixi>, "I said." > But what on earth made /L/ turn into > jota? What stages had the process? I'm comparing Sp. _ojo_ to Po. _olho_ and > VL _oclu_ and get lost in doubts... Well, that "jota," which is today pronounced [h] or [x], was formerly [S], and even before that [Z]. The /L/ became [Z], which isn't so strange since they're both voiced, more or less palatal, sounds; the /L/ lost its lateral quality, similar to how a *different* /L/ phoneme shows up simply as [j] in a lot of modern dialects. So: [L] > [Z] > [S] (at the stage where all voiced sibilants lost voicing) > [x] (general change of [S] from any source). -- Furrfu! r a k k o at c h a r t e r dot n e t