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


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

Re: De-palatisation in Northern Romance (WAS: Northern Romance chronology and



This should probably be viewed in fixed width
In the Yahoo interface click " Message Option > Use Fixed Width Font"

> --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier"
> <petecollier@...> wrote:
>
> This has been knocked back and forth a few times, and
> split amongst various mails, so I'm going to bring it all
> back together and summarise here in a table, to see if
> we're now both/all singing from the same hymn sheet.
>
>
>| CL          -- WRom / GRom -- NRom
>|
>| pj          -- ( tS ) ^1   -- pj > pp
>| tj          -- ts          -- T ( #s )? ^2
>| kj ki ke    -- ts tsi tse  -- T Ti Te ( #s #si #se )? ^2

Check, but I can't see why initial instances of [ts'] should
get a different shave.  In fact we *want* initial _th/dh > d_
in particular, no?

>| nk / _{i, e}-- nts         -- nT

Check, although I'm not sure what happens to nT in German.

>|
>| bj          -- ( dZ ) ^1   -- bj > bb
>| #dj         -- #dZ         -- #D ^3
>| dj          -- 0           -- 0

I'm much more inclined to #dj > j (possibly #dj > d > t) and
definitely -dj- > dd.

>| gj gi ge    -- dZ dZi dZe  -- D Di De ^3
>| #ga         -- #dZa        -- #Da ^3

As I said before ka > tSa/ga > dZa is of limited validity even
in Gaul.  I'd rather think it simply won't happen in Germano-Romance.

>|
>| sj          -- z           -- s ^4

No, definitely sj > S > x > h. Old French has Vsj > Vis in all
instances, which probably developed from [S] or rather [s\].
Remember there was no /S/ in OF, only /tS/ < k / _a!

>|
>| mj          -- (m; > ndZ) ^1  --mj > mm
>| nj          -- J              --nj > nn
>| gn          -- J              --nj > nn

Check!

>|
>| rj          -- r           -- r

- Old French had rj > ir!
- W.Gmc. simply *preserved* /rj/ (e.g. *nazjan > OE _nerian_)

>| lj          -- L           -- lj > ll

Check!

>| #j          -- #dZ         -- #D ^3

No, definitely just /j/.

>
> - ^1 WRom palatisation after NRom divergence
> - ^2 Possible
> differentiation between initial and intervocalic
> positions?
> - ^3 NRom /D/ from earlier /d/
> - ^4 [s_a]
>
>
> The following de-palatisations were also suggested, but
> I've not found any examples of the corresponding
> palatisations arisng in WRom / GRom, so they are moot:
>
> -  tS > t
> -  S  > x
> -  Z  > j
>
>
>
> Alles klar?

Modulo what I indicated above, certes.

>
> -Pete


--
/ BP