Proto-Romance language

Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It reflects a late variety of Latin, one of the Italic languages in the broader Indo-European family.

Exceptionally in comparative linguistics, specialists in Proto-Romance can refer to an abundant corpus of texts written in a rough equivalent of their proto-language, namely Latin. This has however had the drawback of leading many to rely excessively on the written record in lieu of reconstructing Proto-Romance proper.[1]

Proto-Romance is an abstraction and should not be taken as equivalent to Latin as it was actually spoken in any particular time or place.[2] The version reconstructed in the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman appears to most closely reflect the spoken Latin of the sixth century AD.[3]

Phonology

Monophthongs
Front Central Back
Close i u
Near-close ɪ ʊ
Close-mid e o
Open-mid ɛ ɔ
Open a
  • The open-mid vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ merge with /e, o/ in all unstressed contexts.[4][5]
  • A further reduction is observed in intertonic syllables where /i, u/ merge with /ɪ, ʊ/.[6]
  • Vowels are lengthened allophonically in stressed open syllables,[7] although perhaps not /ɪ/ or /ʊ/.[8]
  • /i, u/ become [j, w] between a consonant and following vowel. [j] then triggers palatalization, e.g. /basiáre/ [basʲáːɾe].[9]

Diphthong

Only one diphthong can be reconstructed for Proto-Romance, namely /au̯/. It can be found in both stressed and unstressed positions.[10] Its phonemic status is however debatable, as it could also be simply regarded as a sequence of /a/ and /u/.[11]

Consonants
Labial Coronal Velar Palatal
Nasal m n
Occlusive p b t d k g j
Fricative f β s
Labialized kʷ
Vibrant r
Lateral l
  • When palatalized /t, k, n, l/ become [tsʲ, c, ɲ, ʎ].[12][13]
  • Intervocalic [c, ɲ, ʎ] regularly geminate.[12] [tsʲ] does so only sporadically.[14]
  • Words beginning with /sC/ undergo prosthesis, e.g. /stáre/ [ɪstáːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[15][16]
  • It is debated whether /kʷ/ is its own phoneme or merely an allophone of /ku/ before vowels.[17]
  • There is some evidence that /f/ could have been bilabial, but a labiodental is more likely.[18]
  • /b, d, g/ represent the fricatives [β, ð, ɣ] between vowels or in contact with /r/ and /l/.[19]
  • Intervocalic /di, gi/ do not occur, these having previously reduced to /j/.[20][21]
  • /j/ represents [ɟ] in word-initial position; intervocalically [ɟ][22] or [ʝ~ɟɟ].[23]
  • The rhotic may have been [ɾ~r], as in Spanish or Catalan.[24]
  • /ll/ appears to have had the retroflex realization [ɭɭ].[25][26]
  • /gn/ most likely fricativized to [ɣn].[27][28]

Morphology

Nouns

Proto-Romance nouns had three cases: nominative, accusative, and a combined genitive-dative which was only used in reference to humans.[29]

Class I II III m. III f.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative fémɪna fémɪne[lower-greek 1] fíʎʎʊs fíʎʎi pátrɪs~pátre pátri mátre mátres
Accusative fémɪnas fíʎʎu fíʎʎos pátre pátres
Gen-Dat. fémɪne femɪnóru fíʎʎo fiʎʎóru pátri patróru mátri matróru
Translation woman son father mother

Several Class III nouns had inflections that differed by syllable count or stress position.[31]

Nominative ɔ́mo pástor sɔ́ror
Accusative ɔ́mɪne pastóre soróre
Translation man pastor sister

A few Class II nouns were pluralized with -a or -ora, these originally having been neuter in Classical Latin. Though their singular was masculine, the plural was treated as feminine.[32]

Type I II
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Noun[lower-greek 2] ɔ́βu ɔ́βa bráccu brácca tɛ́mpʊs tɛ́mpora pɛ́ktʊs pɛ́ktora
Translation egg arm time chest

The plural was often reanalyzed as a feminine singular, resulting in gender shifts.[33]

Number singular plural singular plural
Original noun fɔ́ʎʎu fɔ́ʎʎa lɪ́ɣnu lɪ́ɣna
Fem. variant fɔ́ʎʎa fɔ́ʎʎas lɪ́ɣna lɪ́ɣnas
Translation leaf firewood

Such a trend had already begun in Classical Latin; for example the feminine noun opera was formed from the plural of neuter opus.

Adjectives

Absolute

These inflect the same way as nouns.[34]

Comparative

While the original Latin ending -(i)or still existed, it was only used in a limited number of adjectives.[35][36]

Adjective mɛ́ʎʎor pɛ́ɟor máɟor mɪ́nor
Translation better worse larger smaller

Otherwise, the typical way to form a comparative was to add either plús or máis (meaning 'more') to an absolute adjective. This had been done in Classical Latin as well, albeit sporadically.[37]

Superlative

No dedicated ending existed to express the superlative. A variety of alternatives were used instead, such as an intensifying adverb (mʊ́ltu, bɛ́ne, etc.) or a simple comparative.[38]

Possessive

Shown here in the feminine singular. Many of these had atonic ('weak') forms.[39]

First person Second person Third person Interrogative
singular mɛ́a~ma tʊ́a~ta sʊ́a~sa kúɟa
plural nɔ́stra βɔ́stra

Pronouns

Personal

These are the equivalents of 'you, me' etc.[40][41]

Person I II III f. III m.
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural singular plural
Nominative ɛ́ɣo nos tu βos ɪɭɭa ɪɭɭe[lower-greek 3] ɪlle~ɪɭɭi
Accusative me~mene te~tene ɪɭɭas ɪɭɭu ɪɭɭos
Gen-Dat. mi~mɪβɪ noβɪs ti~tɪβɪ βoβɪs ɪɭɭi~ɪɭɭɛ́i ɪɭɭis~ɪɭɭóru ɪɭɭi~ɪɭɭúi ɪɭɭis~ɪɭɭóru

Relative and Interrogative

These are equivalent to 'who, which, what' etc. in English.[43]

Masc. or Fem. Neuter
Nominative ku̯i ku̯ɪd~ku̯od[lower-greek 4]
Accusative ku̯ɛn
Gen-Dat. kui̯

Notably, kúi̯ was lost in Ibero-Romance.

Verbs

Proto Romance verbs belong to three main classes, each of which is characterized by a different thematic vowel. Their conjugations are built on three stems and involve various combinations of mood, aspect, and tense.[44]

Present indicative

On occasion this could also refer to the future.[45]

First person Second person Third person Translation
Number singular plural singular plural singular plural
Class I kánto kantámʊs kántas kantátɪs kántat kántant sing
Class II dɔ́rmo dormímʊs dɔ́rmɪs dɔrmítɪs dɔ́rmɪt dɔ́rment
~dɔ́rmʊnt		 sleep
Class III bátto battémʊs báttes battétɪs báttet báttent beat
Irregular sʊ́n sʊ́mʊs~sémʊs ɛ́s ɛ́stɪs~sɛ́tɪs~sʊ́tɪs ɛ́st sʊ́nt am/are/is
áo~áɟo aβémʊs ás aβétɪs át ánt~áu̯nt have/has

Participles

Of these there were only two: a present active and a preterite passive. They declined like adjectives.[46]

Present Active Translation Preterite Passive Translation
Class I amánte (is) adoring amáta (was) adored
Class II finɛ́nte (is) finishing finíta (was) finished
Class III aβɛ́nte (is) having aβúta (was) had

Relation to written Latin

At first there was no distinction between Latin and Romance, the former being the archaic written form of the latter. For instance in early medieval Spain the word [sjeglo] 'century' was routinely spelled ⟨saeculum⟩. The writer would not actually read it aloud as /sɛkulum/ any more than an English speaker today would pronounce ⟨knight⟩ as */knɪxt/.[47]

The spoken version of Ecclesiastical Latin was created later during the Carolingian Renaissance by the British scholar Alcuin, who ordered the French clergy to read aloud Latin precisely as it was spelled. This represented a radical break from the traditional system; for instance the word ⟨viridiarium⟩, which had until then been pronounced */verdʒjær/ ('orchard' in Old French), now had to be read aloud as /viridiarium/.[48] Officials soon found it necessary to instruct priests to read Latin sermons in the old way so that they might be understood by the general public.[49]

Since this left French without a dedicated orthography, various attempts were soon made to devise one, as can be seen in the Oaths of Strasbourg and Sequence of Saint Eulalia. As the Carolingian reforms brought Church Latin to other lands where Romance was spoken, local scholars devised spelling systems for their own dialects as well.[50]

Notes
  1. This ending was steadily being replaced in Proto-Romance by -as.[30]
  2. Forms given in the accusative.
  3. This ending was steadily being replaced in Proto-Romance by -as.[42]
  4. Quod was restricted to the relative role, where it was steadily being replaced by quid.
gollark: NEVER remove random Perl modules because probably some critical program needs them.
gollark: Can't wait for TIS-100 miners.
gollark: What is the advantage of this? Laughing at software which foolishly assumes the x86 memory model?
gollark: Wow, ironwolf disks cost moderately more now.
gollark: Shrink it further.

References
  1. Dworkin (2016), p. 2
  2. Hall (1976), pp. 10-11
  3. Kramer (2014), p. 295
  4. Gouvert (2014), pp. 73–6
  5. Ferguson (1976), p. 78
  6. Gouvert (2014), pp. 78–81
  7. Loporcaro (2015), pp. 25–30
  8. Gouvert (2014), p. 69
  9. Gouvert (2014), p. 83
  10. Ferguson (1976), p. 84
  11. Gouvert, p. 81
  12. Gouvert (2014), pp. 92–115
  13. Zampaulo (2019), pp. 50, 78, 94
  14. Wilkin (1926), pp. 11–14
  15. Gouvert (2014), pp. 125–6
  16. Hall (1976), p. 128
  17. Gouvert (2014), p. 100
  18. Gouvert (2016), p. 38
  19. Gouvert (2016), p. 48
  20. Zampaulo (2019), p. 87
  21. Gouvert (2016), p. 43
  22. Zampaulo (2019), pp. 83-8
  23. Gouvert (2014), pp. 83-91
  24. Gouvert (2014), p. 113
  25. Gouvert (2014), p. 115
  26. Zampaulo (2019), pp. 71-77
  27. Gouvert (2014), p. 95
  28. Zampaulo (2019), p. 80
  29. De Dardel & Gaenge (1992), p. 104
  30. De Dardel & Wüest (1993), p. 57
  31. Hall (1983), p. 28
  32. Hall (1983), pp. 23–4, 29–30.
  33. Akire & Rosen (2010), pp. 193–4
  34. Hall (1983), pp. 31-33
  35. Hall (1983), pp. 32, 119-20
  36. Maltby (2016), p. 340
  37. Maltby (2016), pp. 340–5.
  38. Bauer (2016), pp. 340, 359
  39. Lyons (1986), pp. 20-4
  40. De Dardel & Wüest (1993), pp. 39-43
  41. Hall (1983), p. 39
  42. De Dardel & Wüest (1993), p. 57
  43. Elcock (1975), pp. 95-6
  44. Hall (1983), pp. 47–50
  45. Hall (1983), pp. 52–7
  46. Hall (1983), pp. 122–3
  47. Wright (1982), pp. 44–50
  48. Wright (1982), pp. 104–7
  49. Wright (1982), pp. 118-20
  50. Wright (1982), pp. 122–32, 143–4

Bibliography
  • Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (July 2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521717847.
  • Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang; Gouvert, Xavier; Kramer, Johannes, eds. (2014-11-14). "Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom)". Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. doi:10.1515/9783110313482.
  • Buchi, Éva; Gouvert, Xavier, eds. (2016). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom) 2. De Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-045361-4. OCLC 963581913.CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • De Dardel, R.; Gaeng, P. A. (1992). "La Declinaison Nominale du Latin Non Classique: Essai d'une Methode de Synthese". Probus. 4 (2). doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91. ISSN 0921-4771.
  • De Dardel, Robert; Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du prototoman". Vox Romanica. 52 (1): 25–65. ISSN 0042-899X – via eLibrary.
  • Dworkin, Steven N. (2016-01-01). "Do Romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance?". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 132 (1): 2. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001. ISSN 1865-9063.
  • Ferguson, Thaddeus (1976-01-31). A History of the Romance Vowel Systems through Paradigmatic Reconstruction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. p. 78. ISBN 978-3-11-080696-0.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson, 1911- (1976). Proto-Romance phonology. Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-00183-2. OCLC 422266905.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Hall, Robert A. (Robert Anderson), 1911-1997. (1983). Proto-Romance Morphology. John Benjamins Pub. Co. ISBN 90-272-3522-8. OCLC 10773070.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Loporcaro, Michele (2015). Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press. pp. 25–30. ISBN 978-0-19-965655-4. OCLC 1107082342.
  • Vincent, Nigel; Adams, J. N.; Maltby, Robert (2016). Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13225-2.
  • Wilkinson, Hugh E. (1926). Notes on the development of -KJ-, -TJ- in Spanish and Portuguese. Aoyama Gakuin University. pp. 11–14. OCLC 1055897845.
  • Wright, Roger (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. ISBN 0-905205-12-X.
  • Zampaulo, André (2019-08-22), "Palatal Sound Change in the Romance languages", Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages, Oxford University Press, pp. 150–199, ISBN 978-0-19-880738-4, retrieved 2020-04-01
  • Elcock, W. D. (1975). The Romance Languages. Faber and Faber. OCLC 604561391.
  • Lyons, Christopher (1986). "On the Origin of the Old French Strong-Weak Possessive Distinction". Transactions of the Philological Society. 84 (1): 1–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968x.1986.tb01046.x. ISSN 0079-1636.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.