[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Origin of Spanich /ch/ and /j/



Not much to add, but the Dictionary of the Royal Academy of the
Spanish Language (the official "Bible" of Spanish Language at
www.rae.es) says that "muchacho" was formerly pronounced as
"mochacho", and that this word comes from "mocho". But it does not
specify the etimological origin of "mocho", as it says it is unknown
and uncertain.

Bye!

Aingel.
A pagga doul'Aingeljã - La página del Angeliano - Angelian's Homepage
http://es.geocities.com/aingelja
 

--- In romanceconlang@y..., Eric Christopherson <rakko@c...> wrote:
> 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