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