[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Tertzafeyra, en 26 de Noyemre 2002 15:19:48 -0600 Eric Christopherson eskribiw: <<<As I recall, <chico> seems to be derived from a Latin form <ciccus> (or something similar).>>> :-) I have known it since this morning when Pablo Flores explained it to me in CONLANG list <<<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].>>> My sources give the same picture. Most ch's indeed come from consonantal clusters. So it was not a question. The question was the origin of /ch/ in other cases. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > 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." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops! You are right. I mixed persons :-( <<<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).>>> Thank you very much for your detailed explanations. Or, in Rumiya (aka Arabo-Romance) [given here for convenience in approximate transcription with Latin characters / el-khorufo nätzraniyo]: "Muyta shukrã por Su tawdzikhos mofässälos" Yitzik ~~~~~~~~~~~~~