Proto-Romance language
Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It reflects a late variety of spoken Latin prior to regional fragmentation.[1]
Phonology[]
Vowels[]
Monophthongs[]
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | u | |
Near-close | ɪ | ʊ | |
Close-mid | e | o | |
Open-mid | ɛ | ɔ | |
Open | a |
- Vowels are lengthened allophonically in stressed open syllables.[2][i]
- In unstressed position the open-mid vowels merge with their close-mid counterparts.[3]
- In intertonic (unstressed word-internal) position, close vowels merge with their near-close counterparts.[4]
- /i u/ become [j w] between a consonant and following vowel. [j] then triggers palatalization.[5]
Diphthong[]
The only phonemic diphthong in Proto-Romance is /au̯/; it can be found in both stressed and unstressed position.[6]
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 |
- The sequence /gn/ was realized as [ɣn].[7]
- When palatalized /t k n l/ become [tsʲ c ɲ ʎ].[8]
- Intervocalic [c ɲ ʎ] regularly geminate.[9] [tsʲ] does so irregularly.[10]
- /j/ is realized as perhaps [ɟ] word-initially and [ɟ] or [ʝ~ɟɟ] intervocalically.[11]
- Intervocalic /-di-/ and /-gi-/ do not occur, having previously merged with /j/.[12]
- /kʷ/ does not occur before back vowels, having previously delabialized to /k/.[13]
- Word-initial /sC/ undergoes prothesis, as in /stáre/ [ɪstáːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[14]
- Some evidence suggests a bilabial /ɸ/, but most scholars prefer to reconstruct a labiodental /f/.[15]
- /b d g/ possibly have the fricative realizations [β ð ɣ] in intervocalic position and after /r/ or /l/.[16]
- /ll/ possibly has a retroflex realization, i.e. [ɭɭ].[17][ii]
- /s/ possibly has a retracted realization, i.e. [s̠].[18]
Morphology[]
Nouns[]
Proto-Romance nouns have three cases: a nominative, an accusative, and a combined genitive-dative.[19][iii]
Class | I | II | III m. | III f. | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||||
Nominative | kápra | kápras | kaβállʊs | kaβálli | páter | pátres~pátri | máter | mátres | ||||
Accusative | kaβállu | kaβállos | pátre | pátres | ||||||||
Gen-Dat. | kápre | kápris | kaβállo | kaβállis | pátri | pátris | mátri | mátris | ||||
Translation | goat | horse | father | mother |
Several Class III nouns have inflexions that differ by syllable count or stress position.[20]
Number | singular | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nominative | ɔ́mo | pástor | sɔ́ror | |||
Accusative | ɔ́mɪne | pastóre | soróre | |||
Gen-Dat. | ɔ́mɪni | pastóri | soróri | |||
Translation | man | pastor | sister |
Some nouns are pluralized with -a or -ora, these having originally been neuter in Classical Latin. Though their singular is grammatically masculine, their plural is treated as feminine.[21]
Class | II | III | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||
Nominative | brákju | brákja | tɛ́mpʊs | tɛ́mpora | ||
Accusative | ||||||
Gen-Dat. | brákjo | brákjis | tɛ́mpori | tɛ́mporis | ||
Translation | arm | time |
Such nouns, due to their plurals, are often reanalyzed as collective feminine nouns.[22]
Number | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Original noun | fɔ́lju | fɔ́lja | lɪ́gnu | lɪ́gna | ||
Fem. variant | fɔ́lja | fɔ́ljas | lɪ́gna | lɪ́gnas | ||
Translation | leaf | firewood |
Adjectives[]
Positive[]
The inflexions are broadly similar to those of nouns.[23]
Class | I/II | III | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | m. | f. | m. | f. | ||||||||
Number | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||||
Nominative | bɔ́nʊs | bɔ́ni | bɔ́na | bɔ́nas | βɪ́rdɪs | βɪ́rdes~βɪ́rdi | βɪ́rdɪs | βɪ́rdes | ||||
Accusative | bɔ́nu | bɔ́nos | βɪ́rde | βɪ́rdes | βɪ́rde | |||||||
Gen-Dat. | bɔ́no | bɔ́nis | bɔ́ne | bɔ́nis | βɪ́rdi | βɪ́rdis | βɪ́rdi | βɪ́rdis | ||||
Translation | good | green |
Comparative[]
Proto-Romance has inherited the comparative suffix -jor from Latin, but it only uses it for a limited number of adjectives.[24][iv]
Number | singular | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | m./f. | neut. | ||
Nominative | mɛ́ljor | mɛ́ljʊs | ||
Accusative | meljóre | |||
Translation | better |
Otherwise, the typical way to form a comparative is to add either plus or mais (meaning 'more') to a positive adjective.[25]
Superlative[]
With the exception of a few fossilized forms such as pɛ́ssɪmʊs, meaning 'worst', superlatives are formed by the addition of an intensifying adverb or prefix (mʊ́ltu, bɛ́ne, per-, tras-, etc.) to a positive adjective. Comparative forms may also be made superlative by the addition of a demonstrative adjective.[26]
Possessive[]
Shown here in the feminine singular. Many of these have 'weak' atonic variants.[27]
1st person | 2nd person | 3rd person | Interrogative | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
singular | mɛ́a~ma | tʊ́a~ta | sʊ́a~sa | kʊ́ja | |
plural | nɔ́stra | βɔ́stra |
Pronouns[]
Personal[]
There appear to be considerable variations in inflexion.[28]
Person | I | II | III f. | III m. | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||||
Nominative | ɛ́go | nós | tú | βós | ɪlla | ɪllas | ɪlle~ɪlli | |||||
Accusative | mé~méne | té~téne | ɪllu | ɪllos | ||||||||
Gen-Dat. | mí~mɪ́βɪ | nóβɪs | tí~tɪ́βɪ | βóβɪs | ɪlli~ɪllɛ́i | ɪllis~ɪllóru | ɪlli~ɪllúi | ɪllis~ɪllóru |
Relative[]
No singular-plural distinction appears to exist.[29]
Gender | m./f. | neut. | |
---|---|---|---|
Nominative | kʷí | kɔ́d | |
Accusative | kʷɛ́n | ||
Gen-Dat. | kúi |
The interrogative pronouns are the same, except that the neuter nominative and accusative form is /kʷɪ́d/.
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.[30]
Present indicative[]
The paradigm is approximately as follows.[31][v]
Verb class | 1st person | 2nd person | 3rd person | Translation | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | sg. | pl. | ||||||
I | kánto | kantámʊs | kántas | kantátɪs | kántat | kántant | sing | ||||
II | dɔ́rmo~dɔ́rmjo | dormímʊs | dɔ́rmɪs | dɔrmítɪs | dɔ́rmɪt | dɔ́rmʊnt~dɔ́rment | sleep | ||||
III.a | βɪ́jo | βɪdémʊs | βɪ́des | βɪdétɪs | βɪ́det | βɪ́jʊnt~βɪ́dʊnt~βɪ́dent | see | ||||
III.b | βɛ́ndo | βɛ́ndɪmʊs | βɛ́ndɪs | βɛ́ndɪtɪs | βɛ́ndɪt | βɛ́ndʊnt~βɛ́ndent | sell | ||||
Irregular | sʊ́n | sʊ́mʊs~sémʊs | ɛ́s | ɛ́stɪs~sétɪs~sʊ́tɪs | ɛ́st | sʊ́nt | be | ||||
áβjo~ájo | aβémʊs | áes~ás | aβétɪs | áet~át | áu̯nt~áent~ánt | have | |||||
dáo | dámʊs | dás | dátɪs | dát | dáu̯nt~dáent~dánt | give | |||||
βádo~βáo | ímʊs[32] | βáɪs~βás | ítɪs[32] | βáɪt~βát | βáu̯nt~βáent~βánt | go |
Participles[]
Present participles have an active sense and inflect like class III adjectives, while past participles have a passive sense and inflect like class I/II adjectives.[33]
Class | Present | Translation | Perfect | Translation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | amánte | adoring | amáta | adored | ||||
II | finɛ́nte | finishing | finíta | finished | ||||
III | aβɛ́nte | having | aβúta | had |
See also[]
- Lexical changes from Classical Latin to Proto-Romance
- Phonological changes from Classical Latin to Proto-Romance
Notes[]
- ^ Lengthened /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are possibly realized as [eɛ] and [oɔ] if the following syllable contains a high vowel such as [i] or [u] (Ferguson 1976: §7).
- ^ For a discussion on outcomes of /ll/ in Romance, refer to Zampaulo (2019: 71–77).
- ^ De Dardel & Gaeng (1992: 104) differ from Lausberg (1973) on the following points: 1) they believe that the gen-dat. case was limited to animate nouns, 2) they reconstruct a universal gen-dat. plural ending -óru, 3) they reconstruct a class I nominative feminine plural -e (albeit in competition with -as, cf. De Dardel & Wüest 1993: 57). They are in agreement with Lausberg regarding the remaining inflexions.
- ^ All comparatives inflected the same way. Further examples are pɛ́jor, májor, mɪ́nor, fɔ́rtjor, and gɛ́ntjor; meaning 'worse', 'greater', 'lesser', 'stronger', and 'nobler' (Hall 1983: 32, 120).
- ^ Since Van Den Bussche does not mention essere 'to be' in his critique of Hall (1983), the conjugations shown below for that verb have been copied over unchanged from the latter.
He leaves blank the 1.PL and 2.PL conjugations of vadere 'go' because there was suppletion with forms of ire, as shown more explicitly by Maiden (1995).
References[]
- ^ Dworkin 2016: 13
- ^ Loporcaro 2015; Leppänen & Alho 2018
- ^ Ferguson 1976: 78; Gouvert 2015: 73–76
- ^ Gouvert 2015: 78–81
- ^ Lausberg 1970: §251; Gouvert 2015: 83
- ^ Ferguson 1976: 84
- ^ Chambon 2013
- ^ Gouvert 2015: 86, 92, 111, 115; Zampaulo 2019: 97–98
- ^ Lausberg 1970: §§463–464, 468–469; Gouvert 2015: 95, 111, 115
- ^ Lausberg 1970: §454; Wilkinson 1976: 11–14
- ^ Gouvert 2015: 83–91; Zampaulo 2019: 83–88
- ^ Gouvert 2015: 43; Zampaulo 2019: 87
- ^ Grandgent 1907: §254; Lausberg 1970: §344
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 148–150; Gouvert 2015: 125–126
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 80; Gouvert 2016: 28
- ^ Gouvert 2016: 48
- ^ Gouvert 2015: 15
- ^ Lloyd 1987: 80–81; Zampaulo 2019: 93
- ^ Lausberg 1973: 29, 32, 66–67
- ^ Lausberg 1973: 69, 74, 78; Hall 1983: 28
- ^ Lausberg 1973: 47; Hall 1983: 23–4, 29–30
- ^ Alkire & Rosen 2010: 193–194
- ^ Lausberg 1973: 108–109, 119-122
- ^ Lausberg 1983: 129–131; Maltby 2016: 340
- ^ Lausberg 1973: 126–127; Maltby 2016: 340–346
- ^ Lausberg 1973: §§686–687; Bauer 2016: 340, 359
- ^ Lausberg 1973: §§754–755; Lyons 1986: 20–24
- ^ Hall 1983: 39; De Dardel & Wüest 1993: 39–43, 57
- ^ Elcock 1960: 95–96
- ^ Hall 1983: 47–50
- ^ Van Den Bussche 1985: §§2.3–2.3.2
- ^ Jump up to: a b Maiden 1995: 135
- ^ Hall 1983: 122–3
Bibliography[]
- Adams, J. N. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521886147.
- Alkire, Ti & Rosen, Carol (2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. ASIN B003VS0CSS.
- Bauer, Brigitte (2016). "The development of the comparative in Latin texts". In Adams, J.N. & Vincent, Nigel (eds.). Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. pp. 313–339. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316450826.015. ISBN 9781316450826.
- Chambon, Jean-Pierre. 2013. Notes sur un problème de la reconstruction phonétique et phonologique du protoroman: Le groupe */gn/. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris. CVIII, 273–282.
- De Dardel, R. & Gaeng, P. A. (1992). "La declinaison nominale du latin non classique: Essai d'une methode de synthese". Probus (in French). 4 (2): 91–125. doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91.
- De Dardel, R. & Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du protoroman: Les deux cycles de simplification". Vox Romanica (52): 25–65.
- Dworkin, Steven N. (2016). "Do Romanists Need to Reconstruct Proto-Romance? The Case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman Project" (PDF). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (132): 1–19. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001.
- Elcock, W. D. (1960). The Romance Languages. London: Faber and Faber.
- Ferguson, Thaddeus (1976). A History of the Romance Vowel Systems through Paradigmatic Reconstruction. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Gouvert, Xavier (2015). "Le système phonologique du protoroman: essai de reconstruction". In Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 381. De Gruyter. ISBN 9783110453614.
- Gouvert, Xavier (2016). "Du protoitalique au protoroman: deux problèmes de reconstruction phonologique". In Buchi, Éva & Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman 2. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 402. De Gruyter. pp. 27–51.
- Grandgent, C. H. (1907). An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
- Hall, Robert Anderson (1976). Proto-Romance Phonology. New York: Elsevier.
- Hall, Robert Anderson (1983). Proto-Romance Morphology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Lausberg, Heinrich. 1970. Lingüística románica, I: Fonética. Madrid: Gredos.
- Lausberg, Heinrich. 1973. Lingüística románica, II: Morfología. Madrid: Gredos.
- Leppänen, V., & Alho, T. 2018. On the mergers of Latin close-mid vowels. Transactions of the Philological Society 116. 460–483.
- Loporcaro, Michele (2015). Vowel Length From Latin to Romance. Oxford University Press.
- Lloyd, Paul M. 1987. From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philological Society.
- 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.
- Maiden, Marten (1995). A Linguistic History of Italian. New York: Routledge.
- Maltby, Robert (2016). "Analytic and synthetic forms of the comparative and superlative from early to late Latin". In Adams, J.N.; Vincent, Nigel (eds.). Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. pp. 340–366.
- Van Den Bussche, H. (1985). "Proto-Romance Inflectional Morphology. Review of Proto-Romance Morphology by Robert Hall". Lingua. 66 (2–3): 225–260. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(85)90336-5.
- Wilkinson, Hugh E. (1976). "Notes on the development of -kj-, -tj- in Spanish and Portuguese". Ronshu. 17: 19–36.
- Zampaulo, André (2019). Palatal Sound Change in the Romance languages: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. 38. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192534293.
- Latin language
- Linguistics
- Romance languages