Palatalization in the Romance languages encompasses a variety of sound changes in Late Latin (alternatively described as Vulgar Latin or Proto-Romance) and in the languages descended from it that caused consonants to gain a palatal or palatalized pronunciation, generally through the influence of an adjacent consonant or vowel. This eventually resulted in the development of a series of palatal or postalveolar consonants in most Romance languages, e.g. Italian /ʃ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ t͡s d͡z ɲ ʎ/.

In some contexts, the effects of palatalization are seen in all Romance languages, and can be dated to Late Latin (based on the Romance outcomes and also based on inscriptional evidence). But there are also divergences between languages, both in the conditions where consonants were palatalized, and in the eventual results of palatalization. This implies that palatalization was not a single event. Rather, processes of palatalization occurred multiple times, and in multiple places, across the history of the Romance languages. The outcomes of palatalization depended on the historical stage, the consonants involved, and the languages involved.

Definitions of palatalization

The term “palatalization” can refer either to a specific phonetic feature, or to a broader class of associated sounds and sound changes. In the strict sense, a consonant is said to be phonetically palatalized when it is pronounced with a secondary articulation where the tongue is raised towards the hard palate, in addition to its primary place of articulation. Various palatalized consonants of this type likely existed at some point in the history of Romance languages; however, as they frequently underwent further changes, their presence often has to be reconstructed rather than being directly attested.

Palatalization can also refer to the replacement of a consonant’s original place of articulation with a palatal one, as in the case of a process that changes [n] (an alveolar or dental nasal) into [ɲ] (a palatal nasal).

More loosely, especially when describing sound changes, the term “palatalization” can refer to other changes in pronunciation that occur as close consequences of palatalization, such as the frequent shift from palatalized or palatal plosive consonants to affricates.[1] For example, original [tj] developed in many Romance languages into the affricate [t͡s]: although the end result is not a palatal consonant, this change occurred in a palatalizing context, and is assumed to result from the former presence of phonetic palatalization. When describing Romance sound changes, “palatalization” is often used loosely to refer to this transition from plosives to affricates, or similar related sound changes.

The affricates resulting from palatalization such as /t͡ʃ t͡s d͡z d͡ʒ/ could develop further to fricatives such as /ʃ s θ z ʒ/. Thus Latin CAELUM[lower-roman 1] 'sky', pronounced with an initial [k], became Italian cielo [ˈt͡ʃɛːlo], Romanian cer [ˈt͡ʃer], Spanish cielo [ˈθjelo~ˈsjelo], French ciel [sjɛl], Catalan cel [ˈsɛɫ], and Portuguese céu [ˈsɛw].

Whether palatalization was phonemic in its early stages remains a matter of scholarly disagreement.[2][lower-roman 2] For the purposes of this article a /Cj/ scheme will be followed.

Development of Latin postconsonantal /j/

The first step towards palatalization was the development of the Latin front vowels /e i/ into a palatal approximant /j/ when they were unstressed and followed by a vowel; this occurred regularly in Late Latin.[4]

Subsequent to this change, the consonant preceding /j/ seems to have often been geminated[5] (sustained for a longer duration). For example, FILIUS and VINEA can be reconstructed as developing the pronunciations *[ˈfiːl.ljus] and *[ˈwiːn.nja].[5] According to one hypothesis, this gemination was a means of resolving the "unnatural" syllabifications *[ˈfiːl.jus] and *[ˈwiːn.ja].[5] Every consonant + /j/ cluster other than /sj/ shows some evidence of lengthening in Romance varieties.[6]

Palatalization and affrication of /tj kj/

All Romance languages exhibit palatalization of original Latin /tj kj/, which seem to have first developed into affricates and later into fricatives in some Romance varieties.[6] Evidence of palatalized pronunciations of /tj kj/ is found as early as the 2nd–3rd centuries AD in the form of interchange between the spellings ⟨ti⟩ and ⟨ci⟩ before a vowel (the use of the spelling ⟨ti⟩ in place of ⟨ci⟩, as in ⟨tribunitiae⟩ for ⟨tribuniciae⟩, is assumed to represent the development of a fronted pronunciation of original /k/ as [c] in this context).[7]

Affrication of /tj/ can be dated to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD.[7] Evidence for the affricated pronunciation includes inscriptional use of the spellings ⟨tsi⟩ or ⟨tz⟩ in place of ⟨ti⟩,[8] and commentary by Latin grammarians from the late fourth century onwards about the pronunciation of words spelled with ⟨ti⟩ + vowel: passages addressing this topic occur in Consentius (Ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis, 5th century), Servius, Pompeius (5th/6th century), Papirius (probably the same as Papirianus, dated somewhere between late 4th-early 6th century), and Isidore (7th century).[9]

Affrication of /kj/ seems to have occurred at a later date than that of /tj/,[10] possibly as late as the 6th–7th centuries AD.[7] The sequence /kj/ was preserved without affrication in some loanwords from Latin into West Germanic (such as Old High German echol and Old Saxon ekil 'steel' < ACIARIUM, Middle High German bracke 'wooden beam' < BRACHIUM, and Old Saxon wikkia 'vetch' < VICIAM).[11] Latin loans into Albanian show a palatal stop /c/ (now spelled ⟨q⟩) as the outcome of Latin /kj/ and of /k/ before front vowels, whereas /tj/ became Albanian /s/ or sometimes /t͡s/ (examples: faqe 'cheek' < FACIEM 'face'; kumerq 'toll, duty' < COMMERCIUM 'trade, commerce'; pus 'well, fountain' < PUTEUM 'well'; mars 'March' < MARTIUM 'March').[12] The spelling ⟨JUDIGSIUM⟩ for IUDICIUM,[7] which can be dated to the sixth century, may be the earliest direct evidence for affrication of original /kj/.[13]

Intervocalic outcomes

In Tuscan, Corsican, and some Rhaeto-Romance languages, the outcome of Latin /tj/ is a more anterior (alveolar) affricate than the outcome of /kj/, whereas in other varieties of Romance, /tj kj/ developed into affricates or fricatives sharing the same place of articulation.[7]

In Romanian, [t͡s] is the general outcome of both /tj/ and /kj/ (except before a stressed syllable, where /tj/ became [t͡ʃ]), whereas [t͡ʃ] is the outcome of /k/ before /i e/. Balkan Romance can be reconstructed as initially merging /tj kj/ without affrication as /(t)tj/ and subsequently undergoing a single wave of palatalization that occurred late enough to affect secondary /tj/ derived from diphthongization of Latin /e/, as in TERRAM > *[ˈtjɛrra] > Romanian țară 'country'.[14]

In Sardinia[15] and Southern Italy,[16] the original outcomes of both /tj/ and /kj/ after palatalization can be reconstructed as [t͡s] or [tt͡s].

In Western Romance languages (which generally show voiced outcomes for Latin voiceless stops between vowels) the outcomes of intervocalic /kj/ and /tj/ may differ in voicing. Intervocalic /tj/ can have a voiced outcome,[17] whereas intervocalic /kj/ typically became a voiceless consonant. The voiceless outcome of intervocalic /kj/ implies that this sequence underwent gemination in the history of the Western Romance languages.[18] The voiced outcome of intervocalic /tj/ is assumed to result from the earlier palatalization of /tj/ compared to /kj/.[6] However, there are a number of cases where intervocalic /tj/ developed instead into a voiceless consonant in Western Romance, merging with the outcome of /ttj/[17] or /kj/. There are several proposed explanations for the variable outcome of intervocalic /tj/ in Western Romance. One hypothesis is that /tj/ was lengthened to /ttj/ in certain specific words;[8] for example, that Catalan plaça derives from *plattea[18] < PLATEAM. Another hypothesis is that the voiceless outcome results from confusion between Latin /tj/ and /kj/[19] (perhaps at a time when [tʲ] or [c] was a potential realization of either sequence).

There are competing hypotheses about the origin in Western Romance languages of [t͡s] as the outcome of /kj/ (and also of /k/ before /i e/, for which see below).[7] According to one view, the Western Romance outcomes result from Latin /kj/ initially developing into the affricate [t͡ʃ][7] (or [tt͡ʃ])[20] followed by depalatalization of [(t)t͡ʃ] to [t͡s],[21] but the existence of [t͡ʃ] as an intermediate step in this context is disputed.[6] According to an alternative hypothesis, the original velar stop in /kj/ became a phonetically palatal stop [c], which was reidentified as /tj/ and subsequently affricated to [t͡s].[7]

Outcomes of Latin /tj kj/ in intervocalic position[22]
BranchLanguagetjkj
SardinianCampidanese~Central Sardinian~Logudoreset͡ːs~θː~tː
Western RomanceWest/North Friuliant͡ʃ
East Friulians
Fassant͡st͡ʃ
Comelicanð/θθ
Livinallongheset͡st͡ʃ
Surselvan, Sutselvan, Surmiran, Engadiniant͡st͡ʃ
Venetianss/θ
Ligurians (t͡s)
Lombardss/ʃ
Picardʃ
Frenchjzs
Franco-Provençalz (ʒ, θ)s (ʃ, θ)
Auvergnat, Occitanzs
Catalanz/ð[lower-roman 3]s
Spanishθ[lower-roman 4]
Portuguesezs
OtherRomaniant͡s (t͡ʃ)
Vegliotes
Calabreset͡ːs
Tuscan and Corsicant͡ːst͡ːʃ

Postconsonantal outcomes

The development of these sequences was often modified by a preceding consonant. In Western Romance, /tj/ remained voiceless in this context. The development of /stj/ to /ʃʃ/ in Tuscan likely proceeded via the intermediate stage of */ʃt͡ʃ/.[23]

Some outcomes of Latin postconsonantal /tj kj/
Languagestj, skjptj, ktj, ttj, kkj(n, r, l) + tj, kj
Tuscanʃː(t͡ːs, t͡ːʃ)(t͡s, t͡ʃ)
Frenchjs[24]s[25]s[25]
Old Spanisht͡st͡s[26]t͡s[26]

Outcomes of /dj ɡj/ and /j/

The sequences /dj ɡj/ could both merge with /j/ as the result of lenition.[5][lower-roman 5] Among the first examples of this is the spelling ⟨AIUTOR⟩ for ADIUTOR in the graffiti of Pompeii.[27] In the case of /dj/, it seems to have been possible either for it to be reduced to [j] early on, or for it to survive long enough to develop parallel to /tj/.[5] The outcome could depend on the position in a word.

On the other hand, Latin /j/ underwent fortition in many Romance languages,[28] especially when it occurred at the start of a word or morpheme.

The outcomes in many Romance languages are often explained by reconstructing a stage (sometimes identified with "Vulgar Latin") where /dj ɡj j/, as well as /ɡ/ before a front vowel, were all merged as 'yod',[29][lower-roman 6] which then underwent fortition and became a sibilant affricate [d͡ʒ] (in word-initial and sometimes in other positions). Some Latin inscriptions show interchange between spellings such as ⟨I⟩, ⟨Z⟩, ⟨ZI⟩, ⟨DI⟩ to represent the consonant sound arising from one of these sources, as in ⟨ZANUARIO⟩ for IANUARIO 'January' or ⟨OZE⟩ 'today' for HODIE 'today'.[30]

Some modern Romance languages show a glide in this context, which can be interpreted as showing that the fortition of 'yod' to an affricate was not universally shared:

  • Southern Italian dialects show /j/ as the outcome of /j dj gj/[31]
  • In Spanish, Latin word-initial /j/ shows a split outcome. Before O U, it usually became j, whereas before A E, it usually became y (but was lost instead in unstressed syllables).[32][lower-roman 7] Nearby Gascon is similar.

Some outcomes of /dj ɡj/ by language are as follows:

  • Romanian fairly consistently has /z/ < /d͡z/ from palatalized /d/.
  • In Standard Italian, /ɡj/ becomes /dd͡ʒ/ and /dj/ becomes either [(d)d͡ʒ] or [(d)d͡z] (geminate between vowels, single otherwise). The outcome of /dj/ is always [d͡ʒ] at the start of a word, and always [d͡z] after a consonant[23] (with the exception of [verˈɡoɲɲa] 'shame'[33] < VERECUNDIAM); examples include DIURNUM > giorno [ˈd͡ʒorno] and HORDEUM > orzo [ˈɔrd͡zo]. Between vowels, /dj/ usually results in [dd͡ʒ], but sometimes [dd͡z].[23] Since [(d)d͡ʒ] is also the regular outcome in standard Italian of Latin initial and intervocalic /j/, these results seem consistent with an original merger of /ɡj/ and (initial or intervocalic) /dj/ with /j/, followed by fortition of /j/ to [(d)d͡ʒ].[31] There is no clear explanation for why intervocalic /dj/ sporadically resulted in [(d)d͡z].[34]
  • In Sardinian, /dj/ seems to have merged with /j/ in all contexts.[15]
  • In French, the outcomes of /dj ɡj/ appear consistent with early simplification to /j/ in all positions, followed by fortition of /j/ in word-initial position or after /r/, yielding modern French /ʒ/, as in DIURNUM > jour [ʒuʀ] and HORDEUM > orge [ɔʀʒ].[35] Note however that original /rj/ (see below) shows a different outcome in words such as aire < AREAM and cuir < CORIUM.[36] The sequence /ndj/ developed to /ɲ/ (also the usual outcome of /nj/, for which see below), as in BURGUNDIAM > Bourgogne and VERECUNDIAM > vergogne.[36]
  • In Spanish, original /dj ɡj j/ merged between vowels; the original outcome was likely a geminate palatal consonant [ʝʝ], which was subsequently simplified along with other geminates and became the consonant spelled ⟨y⟩ in modern Spanish.[37] This was lost after a front vowel in early Old Spanish, as in SEDEAM > sea, CORRIGIAM > correa, and PEIOREM > peor.[38] After a consonant, /dj/ developed into the Old Spanish voiceless affricate [t͡s], as in HORDEOLUM > orçuelo, VIRDIAM > berça, VERECUNDIAM > vergüença (but alternatively vergüeña).[39]
Outcomes of Latin /dj ɡj j/[40]
BranchLanguageintervocalicword-initial
ɡjjdjdjj
SardinianCampidanese∅d͡ʒ
Central Sardinian∅j
Logudorese∅jj/d͡ʒ/d͡z
Western RomanceWest/North Friulianj/∅j/zɟ/j/d͡ʒj/(d)ʒ/d͡z
East Friulianj/∅j/zj/ʒ/z
Fassanj/∅ʒzʒ
Comelicanjd/ð
Livinallonghesejj/zʲd͡ʒʒ
Surselvanɟɟ/jd͡zɟ
Sutselvanɟ(ʒ)zɟɟ/ʒ
Surmirand͡z
Engadinianɟ/jd͡zɟ/j
Venetianzz/ðd͡ʒ/zz/ð
Liguriand͡zz(d͡z)d͡zd͡ʒz
Lombardzʒ/zz(d)ʒ
Picardjʒ
Frenchjʒ
Franco-Provençaljj/d͡zd͡z
Auvergnatd͡z
Occitanʒ
Catalan(d)ʒ
Spanishj/∅jj/x
Portugueseʒ
OtherRomanianj/∅jzʒ
Veglioted͡zj/∅d͡z
Calabresej
Tuscandːʒdːʒ, dːzd͡ʒ
Corsicanɟɟ/jɟ/dːzɟɟ/d͡ʒ

Other /Cj/ sequences

The palatalization of dental and velar stops (/t d k ɡ/) before /j/ seems to have been followed by a second wave of palatalization that affected other consonants followed by /j/.[5] The relatively later date of palatalization in this context is supported by differences in the development of preceding vowel sounds in Old Occitan: the sound change of metaphony targeted open-mid vowels that were followed by /j/, and its effects are seen in fuelha < FOLIA but not in forsa < FORTIAM.[5] This implies that at the time metaphony took place, /j/ had been absorbed into the preceding consonant in the case of /tj/, but not yet in the case of /lj/.

/nj/

Central Italian,[41] Southern Italian,[16] and Western Romance[42] languages all show development of the sequence /nj/ into the palatal nasal consonant /ɲ/. In Central and Southern Italian, this is pronounced more specifically as the geminate [ɲɲ], and the evolution of preceding vowel sounds in Western Romance implies that /ɲ/ was originally a geminate consonant in these languages as well.[42] The gemination can be interpreted as resulting from an intermediate stage such as [n.nj].[43]

In Balkan Romance, both /nj/ and /ni/ underwent palatalization.[14] In Romanian, the resulting /ɲ/ came to be denasalized to /j/ or deleted, as in CALCANEUM > Romanian călcâi 'heel' or VINEAM > Romanian vie 'vineyard'[44] (but /n/ was analogically restored in ani 'years', which replaced ai, the regular descendant of Latin ANNI).[14] The palatal nasal /ɲ/ is retained in Aromanian and in the region of Banat north of the Danube.[14]

In French, a few[45] words show an alternative outcome with the fricative [ʒ], which corresponds to an original [d͡ʒ][46] in Old French. (Notably, this is identical to the regular outcome of /mj/,[47] for which see below.) Examples include EXTRANEUM > étrange 'strange',[46] LINEUM 'linen' > linge [lɛ̃ʒ],[48][46] and LANEUM > lange.[49] This outcome may represent cases where /j/ did not palatalize the preceding /n/, but was strengthened into an affricate instead;[50] alternatively, it has been explained as resulting from the affrication of a palatalized nasal[48][49] (via a sequence of changes such as /nj/ > /nʲ͜dʲ/[49] > /nd͡ʒ/). It has also been suggested that the words in question are 'learned',[51] that is, borrowed from Latin early[47] and subjected to the vernacular sound-changes /i e/ > /j/ and /j/ > /d͡ʒ/.[52] (The sequence /mnj/ regularly developed to /◌̃ʒ/ in French,[53] like /mj/. Compare the development of /mn/ to /mm/, shown by words like SOMNIC(U)LUM > sommeil.[53])

In Sardinian, original /nj/ developed into a cluster of a nasal and voiced affricate (e.g. VINEAM > Nuorese [ˈbind͡za],[15] Campidanese [ˈbind͡ʒa],[54] Logudorese [ˈbind͡za][54][49]). A similar outcome is found in some southern varieties of Corsican (e.g. VINEAM > [ˈvinɟa][41]). As in French,[49] the use of nasal + affricate clusters such as [nd͡z] in Sardinian has been interpreted either as the result of reinforcement of syllable-initial /j/ in the cluster /nj/ without palatalization of the nasal,[55] or as the result of palatalization of /nj/ followed by reinforcement of the resulting palatalized consonant.[49]

/lj/

The sequence /lj/ became the palatal lateral consonant /ʎ/ (with gemination) throughout Western Romance as well as in Southern and Central Italy.[56] The palatal lateral /ʎ/ has frequently developed further into a palatal glide /j/ (delateralization).[57]

In Ibero-Romance, /ʎ/ survived as such in the east (Aragonese) and west (Galician-Portuguese). In the centre it yielded either /j/ (Astur-Leonese) or /x/ (Spanish, reflecting an original /ʒ/). The Old Spanish /ʒ/ seems most likely to have arisen from an older stage /j/, although a direct development from /ʎ/ has also been suggested.[58]

In Balkan Romance, palatalization of /lj/, as of other clusters in /j/, appears to have taken place at a relatively late date (after the degemination of LL and the diphthongization of [ɛ] to [jɛ]), and /l/ was also palatalized before /i/.[14] The resulting /ʎ/ was retained in Aromanian but delateralized to /j/ in Romanian.[14] The following examples show the Romanian outcome: FOLIA > *[ˈfɔʎa] > foaie ‘leaf’, LEPOREM > *[ˈljepure] > *[ˈʎepure] > iepure 'rabbit', and GALLINAM > *[ɡaˈʎina] > găină 'hen'.[14]

In some Sardinian varieties, the ultimate outcome of /lj/ is a geminated voiced affricate, as in Logudorese [ˈfɔdd͡za][15] and Campidanese [ˈfɔdd͡ʒa][15] < FOLIA. These can be interpreted as resulting either from palatalization of /l/ followed by affrication of the resulting palatal lateral,[49] or from fortition of a syllable-initial /j/ (as after /n/) followed by assimilation of the preceding /l/ (e.g. *[ˈfɔl.ja] > *[ˈfɔld͡za] > [ˈfɔdd͡za][15]). The dialect of Cagliari has [ll], which probably developed by depalatalization of former [ʎʎ].[15]

/rj/

In Western Romance, /rj/ universally developed via [rʲ] to [i̯r][42] (which can also be written [jr] and interpreted as a case of metathesis[48]). French however shows the cluster /ʀʒ/ as an alternative outcome in some words, such as CEREUM > cierge and BURRIONEM > bourgeon.[59]

Italo-Romance languages show various outcomes including loss of the /r/, loss of the /j/ element, and gemination to /rr/.[48]

In Balkan Romance, [rʲ] seems to have developed variously into [rj], [r], and [j].[14]

Pronunciation of original /rj/ as a cluster is found in Sardinian, with fortition of /j/ in some varieties (e.g. CORIUM > Nuorese [ˈkorju] 'leather', Logudorese [ˈkord͡zu], Campidanese [ˈkord͡ʒu])[15] and in some southern Corsican varieties (e.g. AREAM > [ˈarɟa]).[41]

/sj/

Intervocalic /sj/ (including /nsj/, since Latin /n/ was generally lost early on before /s/) shows the following outcomes:

  • Portuguese has [jʒ], as in CASEUM 'cheese' > [ˈkejʒu][60] or BASIUM > beijo 'kiss'.[61]
  • In Spanish, the outcome can be traced back to [jz]. The [j] combined with a preceding vowel, forming diphthongs that ended up being simplified, and the [z] was eventually devoiced to [s]. Examples of this development are queso 'cheese' < *[ˈkejzo] < *[ˈkajzo] < CASEUM and beso 'kiss' < *[ˈbejzo] < *[ˈbajzo] < BASIUM.[62]
  • In French, /sj/ developed to [jz], as in MANSIONEM > maison 'house',[63] probably via the intermediate stage of a palatalized sibilant such as [zʲ]. The [j] combined with a preceding vowel, forming diphthongs that were often simplified.
  • In Tuscan Italian, intervocalic /sj/ developed to [ʃ] or sometimes to voiced [ʒ];[64] these came to be reinterpreted as the phonemes /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ and spelled as ⟨c(i) g(i)⟩ after the affricate phonemes developed fricative allophones [ʃ ʒ] in intervocalic position.[65][lower-roman 8] In Standard Italian, the phonetic affricates [t͡ʃ d͡ʒ] are found instead, likely as the result of spelling-pronunciation by speakers outside of Tuscany.[67]
  • In Romanian /sj/ became /ʃ/, as in CASEUM > caș 'cheese'.[14] This is also found as the outcome of /s/ before the vowel /i/, as in RESINAM > rășină 'resin'.[14]
  • In Sardinia and the south of Italy, /sj/ developed to /s/[68] (voiced in some areas to phonetic [z]). Examples of this outcome are Nuorese Sardinian [ˈkazu] and Neapolitan caso 'cheese' < CASEUM.[69]

Geminate /ssj/ could develop into [ʃʃ] (as in Old Florentine grascia < *CRASSIAM[41]); this outcome is found in some varieties that show a non-palatal outcome for intervocalic /sj/, such as Neapolitan (with avasciare 'to lower' < *BASSIARE[16]). Per Recasens, such cases of asymmetrical development may be the result of phonetic factors that make palatalization less favored for voiced compared to voiceless consonants.[70] The sequence /rsj/ could have the same outcome, as in Tuscan [roveʃˈʃaːre] < *REVERSIARE[65] (compare the development of -RS- to /ss/ in DORSUM > Italian dosso).

Labial + /j/

The sequences /pj bj vj mj/ show various outcomes in the Romance languages.[71] In Vulgar Latin, /bj vj/ merged in intervocalic position as [βj];[72] it seems [β] in this context was sometimes lost or delabialized early on, and as a result, Latin /bj vj/ > [βj] sporadically has the same outcome as intervocalic /j dj ɡj/. (Examples of this in French include HABEO > ai and DEBEO > dois.[73] Examples in Spanish include FOVEAM > Old Spanish foya and HABEAM > haya.[74]) In a larger set of words, the labial consonant was initially retained but underwent diverse developments in combination with the following /j/ in different Romance languages.

Gemination

In Italian, intervocalic /pj bj vj mj/ show gemination of the labial consonant, resulting in /ppj bbj bbj mmj/ respectively.[72] Examples include SAPIAT > [ˈsappja],[48] RABIAM > rabbia[72] [ˈrabbja],[48] HABEAT > abbia, CAVEAM > gabbia, VINDEMIAM > vendemmia.[72]

Western Romance data shows inconsistent application of gemination in intervocalic labial + /j/ clusters;[42] some forms such as Spanish jibia[42] 'cuttlefish' < SEPIAM show the effects of intervocalic lenition on the labial consonant, implying a lack of gemination. (Penny considers it likely that the form jibia is Mozarabic in origin rather than a native Castilian development.[75])

Metathesis

Portuguese exhibits what is traditionally described as ‘metathesis’ of labial + /j/ sequences: the labial consonant is retained but the /j/ is moved before it. Examples include APIUM > aipo 'celery', RABIAM > raiva 'anger, rage', RUBEUM > ruivo 'red-haired', and NOVIUM > noivo 'fiancé'.[76] It has been argued that the labial consonant and palatal glide did not switch positions in a single abrupt step, but underwent the following series of sound changes:

  1. First, labial + /j/ sequences coalesced into the palatalized labial consonants [mʲ pʲ bʲ vʲ]. Spellings such as ⟨mh vh bh⟩ may attest to the original development of palatalized consonants in this context[77] (compare the still-current use in Portuguese of ⟨nh lh⟩ as spellings for /ɲ ʎ/).
  2. Next, an epenthetic glide [j] developed between a vowel and a following palatalized labial consonant.
  3. Finally, palatalized labial consonants were depalatalized, becoming plain labials preceded by a (now phonemically distinct) palatal glide.

It appears that these changes occurred between Old and Medieval Portuguese, at a later date than the palatalization and ‘metathesis’ of /sj/, /zj/ and /rj/ in Hispano-Romance:[77] metathesis of the preceding sequences is found regularly in both Spanish and Portuguese, and was followed by a shift from [aj] to [ej] that can be seen in Portuguese queijo, eira, queixar, whereas metathesis of labial + /j/ occurs regularly in Portuguese but not in Spanish, and affected Portuguese words show unshifted /aj/.[76] The Portuguese metathesis of labial + /j/ sequences occurred late enough to affect some cases of secondary /j/ that developed after lenition of a following intervocalic consonant (as in LIMPIDUM > *[ˈlim.pjo] > limpho 'clean' and COMEDO > *[ˈko.mjo] > coimo 'I eat').[77] In cases where a palatalized consonant came after another consonant or after the vowel /i/ (e.g. modern Portuguese limpo 'clean'), the original /j/ may be attested only indirectly in the modern language by its effect of raising a preceding vowel (metaphony).

In Spanish, Latin labial + [j] sequences did not systematically undergo metathesis; the general outcome is simply a labial consonant followed by [j].[lower-roman 9] This is shown by the following examples: APIUM > apio 'celery', RABIAM > rabia 'anger, rage'; RUBEUM > rubio 'blond', NOVIUM > novio 'boyfriend'.[76] However, metathesis of original [pj] to [jp] occurred in forms of two Spanish verbs, saber 'to know' and caber 'to fit': the effects of this metathesis are seen in forms like sepa (< SAPIAT) and quepo (< CAPIO).[78] Wireback argues that in Spanish, unlike in Portuguese, there was an abrupt inversion from /pj/ to /jp/ in these verb forms as a result of morphological analogy with vowel + /j/ sequences found in the inflectional paradigms of other verbs.[79][lower-roman 10]

Proto-Romanian shows the development of a diphthongal offglide after a stressed vowel followed by an original sequence of labial consonant + palatal glide, as illustrated by *scupio > Romanian scuip, HABEAT > aibă, and DIFFAMIAM > defaimă.[81] The glide remained after an unstressed syllable, as in APPROPRIARE > apropia.[81]

Glide strengthening

Various Romance languages seem to show strengthening of the palatal glide component of palatalized labial consonants, resulting in the development of palatal obstruents (sometimes accompanied by complete loss of labiality):

  • Some Balkan Romance languages, after the split of Proto-Romanian, show the development of pronunciations like [(p)kʲ~(p)tʲ~(p)t͡ʃ], [(b)ɡʲ~(b)dʲ~(b)d͡ʒ], and [mnʲ~nʲ] from labial consonants followed by /j/ or /i/, as in /koˈpil/ [kopˈkʲil] 'child'.[82] These seem to have arisen from palatalized labials such as [pʲ bʲ mʲ] by 'consonantification' of the offglide.[82]
  • Old Provençal shows [ˈrobd͡ʒe] < RUBEUM and [ˈsapt͡ʃa] < SAPIAT, and the Lombard dialect of Borno shows [ˈbd͡ʒulk] < *bjulk ‘yokel’.[48]
  • Old French shows /t͡ʃ/ as the usual outcome of /pj/; /d͡ʒ/ as the outcome of /bj βj/; and /nd͡ʒ/ as the outcome of /mj mbj mnj/. These correspond to modern French /ʃ/, /ʒ/, and /◌̃ʒ/ respectively. The following examples demonstrate these outcomes: SEPIAM 'cuttlefish' > seiche,[83] SAPIAM > sache,[84] RUBEUM 'red' > rouge,[85] CAVEAM > cage,[85] SALVIAM > sauge,[73] SERVIENTEM > sergent,[73] SIMIUM 'monkey' > singe,[86] CAMBIARE > changer,[72] SOMNIUM > songe.[53] The Old French pronunciations are likely derived from simplification of labial-affricate sequences[87] such as [pt͡ʃ bd͡ʒ md͡ʒ][88] or [vd͡ʒ].[85] These may have developed from palatalized labial consonants by means of offglide consonantization (as in Balkan Romance);[85] e.g. [pʲ] > [pt͡ʃ] > [t͡ʃ]. A competing explanation of the French outcomes is that Latin /pj bj mj/ remained clusters, and then the postconsonantal /j/ underwent fortition (with the resulting affricate being assimilated in voice to the preceding consonant).[88]
  • In Neapolitan (in southern Italy), the ultimate outcome of /pj/ and /bj/ are geminate affricates as in SEPIAM > seccia and RABIAM > arraggia 'rage'.[16] These may have developed from the labial-affricate sequences [pt͡ʃ bd͡ʒ]; an alternative explanation is that the geminated palatalized labials [ppʲ bbʲ] were reinterpreted as palatal consonants due to acoustic similarity.[16]

/k ɡ/ + front vowel

The Latin velar stops /k ɡ/ developed palatalized outcomes before the vowels /i e ɛ/ in all of Romance except certain varieties of Sardinian and Dalmatian.[89][90] Palatalization in this context can be dated to about the fifth century AD,[54] although it is possible that it occurred independently and at a later date in eastern Romance compared to western Romance.[91] In Romanian, unlike most Romance languages, palatalization occurred after the loss of labialization in sequences of [kw] or [ɡw] + front vowel; thus Romanian shows affricates in words such as sânge, acel < SANGUEM, *ECCUM ILLUM.[92]

The Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian shows no palatalization of /k ɡ/ before any vowel.[93] The Vegliote dialect of Dalmatian shows palatalization of /k/ to /t͡ʃ/ before /i/, but this is argued to be an innovation that arose internally in this dialect, rather than a trait shared by inheritance between Vegliote and other palatalizing Romance varieties.[93] The Vegliote palatalization also occurred before the glide [j] found as the first element of the diphthongs /i̯e i̯a/, as in [munˈt͡ʃal] 'hill' < *[munˈkjel] < MONTICELLUM.[93]

/ɡ/

The palatalization of voiced /ɡ/ before a front vowel may have begun earlier than the palatalization of voiceless /k/.[94] Epigraphic evidence indicates that in Latin of the Late Empire onwards, intervocalic /ɡ/ may have already been lost in some words where it occurred between non-back vowels,[95] for example in viginti, frigidus, digitus[95] or legit, sagitta.[5] Loss of intervocalic /ɡ/ may have begun as early as the first century BC.[96]

In most Romance languages, the palatalization of /ɡ/ by a following front vowel resulted in the same outcome as original /j dj ɡj/.[89] Exceptions to this merger include Romanian and some Rhaeto-Romance varieties.[89]

Many languages show different ultimate outcomes depending on the position of /ɡ/ in the word (at the start, after a vowel, or after a consonant). The consonant + /ɡ/ sequences /nɡ/, /lɡ/, /rɡ/ developed as follows:

  • /nɡ/ before a front vowel could evolve into a palatal nasal [ɲ(ɲ)] (merging with the outcome of original /nj/) or into a nasal followed by an affricate or fricative, depending on the language (or sometimes on the word). The regular outcome of a nasal + [ɡ] + a front vowel is [ɲɲ] across nearly all of southern Italy.[97] In contrast, dialects of northern Italy show [nd͡z] or [nz], which probably developed from earlier [nd͡ʒ].[97] In Tuscany, both [ɲɲ] and [nd͡ʒ] are found. Their original distribution seems to have been based on geography, with [ɲɲ] in eastern Tuscany (and in Old Florentine) and [nd͡ʒ] in the west.[97] However, modern Florentine has [nd͡ʒ], and Old Florentine shows a mixture of forms such as piange alongside piagne 'he cries' and spegnere alongside spengere 'to extinguish'[97] (< PLANGERE, EXPINGERE[98]). The reasons for the displacement of [ɲɲ] by [nd͡ʒ] in Florentine are unclear, but it may have been due to influence from northern Italian and from the regions of Tuscany where [nd͡ʒ] was the regular outcome.[97] Standard Italian, like modern Florentine, generally has [nd͡ʒ] (with the exception of spegnere).[97] In Spanish, /nɡ/ + front vowel shows three possible outcomes: Old Spanish /nd͡z/ (modern /nθ/), as in GINGIVAM > enzia > modern encía 'gum'; /ɲ/, as in RINGERE > reñir 'to scold'; and /n/, as in QUINGENTOS >quinientos.[99] The development to [ɲ] seems to be typical in verbs.[100]
  • There are relatively few examples of the outcome of [lɡ] before a front vowel in Italian[101] and Spanish.[99] The sequence -LIG- in the Latin verb forms COLLIGIT and *EXELIGIT developed the same way as original [lj]. This has been cited as evidence that [lɡ] developed to [(ʎ)ʎ] before a front vowel, based on the assumption that -(L)LIG- here underwent syncope to [lɡ]; however, it is possible that these outcomes instead reflect the aforementioned early loss of intervocalic /ɡ/ between non-back vowels, followed by a change of the prior vowel into a glide (yielding [lj]).[lower-roman 11] Malkiel (1982) notes the scarcity of examples of the outcome of [lɡ] + front vowel in Old Spanish and considers there to only be a single indirect example of its outcome, the modern Asturian verb esmucir, tentatively assumed to descend from EXMULGERE via an intermediate stage *esmulzir.[107]
  • /rɡ/ before a front vowel usually developed into [rd͡z] in Old Spanish.[99] In Tuscany, the outcome is [rdʒ] (except for Old Tuscan ariento, an alternative form of argento 'silver'),[101] while [rj] is found in southern Italy.[101]

/k/

Palatalization of the Latin voiceless velar plosive /k/ before /i e ɛ/ appears to have initially resulted in an affricate, either /t͡ʃ/ or /t͡s/.[108] The value /t͡ʃ/ is found in Italian and Romanian; /t͡s/ or a derivative of it is found in many Western Romance languages, as well as in the Eastern Romance language Aromanian. It is often suggested that /t͡ʃ/ was the original result in all languages, with /t͡ʃ/ > /t͡s/ a later innovation in the Western Romance languages.[109] A suggestive fact is that the Mozarabic language in al-Andalus (modern southern Spain) had /t͡ʃ/ as the outcome despite being in the "Western Romance" area and geographically disconnected from the remaining /t͡ʃ/ areas; this can be explained by the hypothesis of a sound change from /t͡ʃ/ to /t͡s/ that had not reached the area where Mozarabic was spoken. (Northern French dialects, such as Norman and Picard, also had /t͡ʃ/, but this may be a secondary development, i.e. due to a later sound change /t͡s/ > /t͡ʃ/.)

In Western Romance, Latin intervocalic /k/ before a front vowel was affected by both palatalization and intervocalic voicing,[42] and so generally had a distinct outcome from word-initial or post-consonantal /ki ke kɛ/. (In Spanish, this is disguised by the eventual devoicing of Old Spanish ⟨z⟩ [d͡z], which resulted in the replacement in modern spelling of Old Spanish intervocalic ⟨ze zi⟩ with ⟨ce ci⟩.)

Some attested outcomes of /k ɡ/ + front vowel in initial and intervocalic position[110]
BranchLanguageki, keɡi, ɡe
initialmedialinitialmedial
SardinianCampidaneset͡ʃʒd͡ʒ∅
Central Sardiniankɡɣ
Logudoresekɣɡ∅
Western RomanceWest/North Friuliant͡ʃʒ(d)ʒ/zj/ʒ
East Friulianszʒ/zj/ʒ
Fassant͡ʃʒ
Comelicanθðd/ð
Livinallongheset͡ʃʒ
Surselvant͡ʃʒɟ
Sutselvant͡ʃʒɟ(ʒ)
Surmirant͡ʃʒd͡ʒd͡z
Engadinian(t)ʃʒɟ/j
Venetianθz(d)z/ðz/ð
Ligurians(t͡s)ʒz(d͡z)
Lombard(t)ʃ/sz(d)ʒ/zʒ
Picardʃz(ʒ)ɡj
Frenchsjzʒj
Franco-Provençals(θ)z(ʒ)d͡z(z)j
Auvergnatszd͡z(d)ʒ/d͡z
Occitanszʒ
Catalansz/ð[lower-roman 3](d)ʒ
Spanishθ[lower-roman 4]j/∅
Portugueseszʒʒ/∅
OtherRomaniant͡ʃd͡ʒ
Vegliotet͡ʃi, ked͡ʒi, ɡed͡ʒi, ɡ(e)
Calabreset͡ʃj
Tuscanʃd͡ʒdːʒ
Corsicant͡ʃɟ/d͡ʒɟ/j

/k ɡ/ + /a/

In some Gallo-Romance languages, /k ɡ/ came to be palatalized before original /a/.[98] This is assumed to have taken place more recently than palatalization before high and mid front vowels,[98] and can have a different outcome. Palatalization and affrication of /k/ before /a/ occurs in all central French dialects,[111] but not in northern varieties (Norman and Picard)[111] beyond the Joret line. Nevertheless, forms such as the Picard kièvre, kier < CAPRAM 'goat', CARUM 'dear' do show a degree of palatalization before fronted outcomes of Latin /a/ (coarticulation but not affrication).[112] Accordingly, it has been proposed that this was the original environment for palatalization in other French dialects as well, at a time when the fronting of original /a/ in this environment was still allophonic, and that it later spread by analogy to any velar + /a/ sequence.[113] An alternative theory holds that /a/ may have been a front vowel in general, as it happens to be in modern French, where as a result the initial consonant of e.g. quatre 'four' may be palatalized to [kʲ] or [c].[114]

In French, original /k/ before /a/ developed to ⟨ch⟩ (pronounced [t͡ʃ] in Old French and [ʃ] today),[115] as in CANTARE 'sing' > chanter[116] /ʃɑ̃te/. Thus, the palatalized outcome of /k/ before /a/ remains distinct in French from the outcome of /k/ before /e i j/, as in CENTUM 'hundred' > cent /sɑ̃/. There was a parallel change of /ɡ/ before /a/ to ⟨j⟩ (pronounced [d͡ʒ] in Old French and [ʒ] today),[115] as in GAMBAM > jambe[117] /ʒɑ̃b/. This palatalization must have preceded the monophthongization of Latin AU to French o, based on outcomes such as CAUSAM > chose and GAUDIA > joie,[115] which allows it to be dated before the end of the eighth century.[118] It possibly occurred at the end of the fifth or start of the sixth century.[119]

Palatalization of /ka ɡa/ is also found in Occitan, where it is attested from the earliest texts in the language. In general, northern dialects have it and southern ones do not, but neither group is entirely uniform in this regard as the geographic extent of palatalization is subject to lexical variation.[120] The overall distribution of palatalization, with a clear weakening from north to south, as well as the presence of toponyms in the north that show retention of /ka ɡa/, suggest that the phenomenon was historically imported into Occitan from French dialects.[121] The Occitan outcomes of palatalized /k ɡ/ before /a/ are variously /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/, /t͡s d͡z/, /s z/, or rarely /θ ð/.[122] Examples include the Lemosin [d͡ʒaˈlinɔ] < GALLINAM 'hen' and southern Auvergnat [t͡sasˈtɛ(r)] < CASTELLUM 'castle'.[123]

Aside from Gallo-Romance, palatalization of /ka ɡa/ is found broadly in Rhaeto-Romance[lower-roman 12] and also, in widely scattered traces, in the dialects of northern Italy (Gallo-Italic and Venetian).[125] This is sometimes interpreted as having a common origin with the northern Gallo-Romance palatalization, though it may instead be a parallel but independent development.[126] Some varieties of Friulian show the affricates [t͡ʃ d͡ʒ] (as in CABALLUM > [t͡ʃaˈval] 'horse', GAMBAM > [ˈd͡ʒambe] 'leg'), while in central and northern Friulian the palatal stops [c ɟ] are found instead.[127]

Velar + coronal

Latin /ɡn kt ks/ yield palatalized reflexes in many Romance varieties. According to some accounts, this resulted from the vocalization of the velar consonant, resulting in a glide [j] that then went to palatalize the following coronal consonant (potentially coalescing with it).[128] It has been alternatively hypothesized that palatalized pronunciations of these clusters could have arisen by gestural blending[129] at a point where the first consonant was not yet fully vocalized.

/ɡn/

The most widespread outcome of the Latin sequence -GN- is the palatal nasal [ɲ(ː)],[130] which merged with the outcome of original /nj/. This development is found throughout Western Romance[42] (e.g. Spanish [ˈpuɲo], Portuguese [ˈpuɲu], Catalan [ˈpuɲ] < PUGNUM[131]) and in Tuscan Italian. (This merger seemingly postdates the raising of the vowel derived from Latin short -Ĭ- in a stressed syllable before original /nj/, as in GRAMĬNEAM > Italian gramigna, since unraised [e] is found in Italian legno < LĬGNUM.[132])

A minority[133] of languages instead show a sequence of a semivowel + /n/:

  • [-jn-] is attested as an outcome in some languages of central and southern Italy.[131]
  • [-wn-] is attested as an outcome in some Southern Italian languages, as in [ˈliwna] 'firewood' < LIGNA.[131] This is found in a more limited area (comprising Basilicata, central southern Puglia, and central northern Calabria).[133]

The sequence -GN- shows non-palatalized outcomes in Romanian, where it developed to [-mn-] (as in LIGNUM > [ˈlemn] 'wood'),[131] and in Sardinian, where it developed to [-nn-] (as in LIGNUM > [ˈlinnu]).[131]

Loans into Albanian show a mix of outcomes: some have nj, such as denjë < DIGNUM and shenjë < SIGNUM; others show the same development as plain n (vgje~vgjê < ABIEGNUM and kunat~kunatën < COGNATUM); a third outcome is seen in peng < PIGNUM.[134]

/kt ks/

In Western Romance languages, Latin intervocalic CT X /kt ks/ were changed to [jt js].[42] The sequence [jt] could develop further into an affricate such as [t͡ʃ], and [js] fell together with the outcome of /ssj/ and shows various final outcomes including [ʃ].[42]

  • French shows original [jt] [js], with later coalescence of the glide with the preceding vowel. These can also be found as outcomes of /pt ps/, implying a merger of these clusters with /kt ks/; this change is sometimes attributed to the influence of a Gaulish substrate.
  • Old Spanish shows [t͡ʃ] and [ʃ] (the latter was later backed to the velar fricative [x]).[135]
  • Portuguese shows [jt] and [jʃ].
  • In Occitan, /kt/ can result either in [jt][136] or in an affricate or fricative such as [t͡ʃ] [t͡s], [d͡ʒ‎], [s].[137] The outcome of /ks/ can be [js], [jʃ] or [ʃ].[136]
  • Rhaeto-Romance languages show a split in the outcome of /kt/. An affricate or palatal stop is found in Surselvan, Sutselvan, and most of Surmeiran.[138] Engadinian dialects of Romansh show [t] (or in a handful of words [c][138]), as in FACTUM > /fat/;[138] the use of [t] is sometimes interpreted as a secondary development from [c] or as an outcome imported from Lombardy.[139] The Italian Rhaeto-Romance languages show /t/ (as in Italian).[138] In Ladin, /kt/ yields [t] and /ks/ generally yields [s], although some alternative outcomes are found.[140] The development of vowels before CT X in Ladin suggests the original presence of coda [j] or of palatalization in this context.[140]

Outside of Western Romance, Latin CT X typically have non-palatalized outcomes:

  • In Italian, /kt ks/ developed to [tt ss] (as in [ˈfatto] < FACTUM) and [ˈasse] < AXEM).[131] However, /ks/ appears to have developed instead to [ʃʃ] in some isolated cases.[130] It is unclear whether both outcomes are indigenous Tuscan developments.[141][lower-roman 13]
  • In Romanian, /kt ks/ developed to [pt ps] (as in [ˈfapt] < FACTUM and [ˈkwapsə] < COXAM).[131] A common alternative outcome of /ks/ is /s/, as in [ləˈsa] < LAXARE.[142] Original /ps/ also developed occasionally to /s/ in Romanian.

Some loans into Albanian show -CT- > jt (such as DIRECTUM > drejtë), which Orel attributes to borrowing from a West Balkan variety showing the same development as in Western Romance, whereas others show -CT- > ft (such as LUCTAM > luftë), with the velar changed to a labial as in Romanian.[143]

/nkt/

The sequence /nkt/ underwent palatalization in much of Western Romance. An evolution like *[nçt] > *[nc] > *[ntʲ] may be reconstructed for the modern outcomes [nt͡ɕ] (found in some Rhaeto-Romance varieties) and [nt͡ʃ] (found in some Occitan varieties). An alternative evolution like *[nçt] > *[ɲt] > [jnt] appears to have taken place in some Occitan varieties as well as French. Other branches of Romance show non-palatal outcomes, predominantly /nt/ (Italian, Catalan, Ibero-Romance)[lower-roman 14] but also /mt~nt/ (Balkan Romance). The outcomes of SANCTUM include Occitan sanch, French saint; Catalan sant, Italian/Portuguese/Spanish santo; and Old Romanian sămtu (modern sânt).[144]

Obstruent + /l/

The Latin sequences /pl bl fl kl ɡl/[lower-roman 15] yield palatalized reflexes in numerous Romance languages. This probably began with /l/ allophonically turning to [ʎ] after a velar consonant;[145] the resulting system *[pl bl fl kʎ ɡʎ] underlies Balkan Romance, northern Abruzzese, old Gallo-Italic, and old Venetian.[146]

Controversially, the outcomes in most of Gallo-Romance and Catalan can also be traced to the same underlying system if one assumes that there followed, for phonological reasons, a reversion of /kl ɡl/ *[kʎ ɡʎ] to [kl ɡl] in fortis positions[lower-roman 16] after the lenition of *[kʎ ɡʎ] to [ʎ] in lenis positions.[lower-roman 17] This is at odds with the traditional view that Latin [kl ɡl] remained unchanged in fortis positions all along.[147]

The outcomes in Italo-Romance (other than northern Abruzzese) can be traced to a system *[pʎ bʎ fʎ kʎ ɡʎ] that probably developed from the older system mentioned above via generalization of post-obstruent [ʎ].[148] The same is true for a U-shaped ring of Gallo-Romance dialects that surround northern France and include most of Franco-Provençal.[149] Ibero-Romance is fairly consistent with this system as far as *[pʎ fʎ kʎ] and word-internal *[ɡʎ bʎ] are concerned, but it shows non-palatalized outcomes of Latin word-initial [bl ɡl].[150]

Outcomes of obstruent + /l/ in certain languages[151]
Language plbl fl kl ɡl
initialmedialinitialmedial initial medial initial medial initial medial
Romanianplbl fl kj ɡj
Italian pj ppjbjbbj fj ffj kj kkj ɡj ɡɡj~ʎʎ
Spanish ʎβllʎ~βl ʎ ʎ~pl ʎ ʒ > x l ʒ > x
Portuguese ʃbɾlʎ~l ʃ ʃ ʎ l ʎ
French pl bl~pl bl fl kl ʎ > j ɡl ʎ > j

Consonant + obstruent + /l/

In postconsonantal position, Spanish shows palatalization of Latin /pl fl kl/ to the voiceless affricate /t͡ʃ/, as in AMPLUM > ancho 'wide', INFLARE > hinchar 'to swell', and MASC(U)LUM > macho 'male'.[152] There are also some cases in Spanish of /ɡl/ being palatalized in postconsonantal position, such as UNG(U)LAM > uña. In contrast, postconsonantal /kl ɡl/ show nonpalatalized outcomes in French and Catalan,[153] as in MASC(U)LUM > French mâle, Catalan mascle[153] and UNG(U)LAM > French ongle, Catalan ungla.

Intervocalic /kl ɡl/

In Gallo– and Ibero-Romance, the original outcome of intervocalic /kl ɡl/ can be reconstructed as /ʎ/, identical to the outcome of original /lj/.[154] There are competing explanations for this development; one supposes the series of changes /kl/ > [kʎ] > [çʎ] > [ʎ], while according to another the development was /kl/ > [çl] > [jl] > [jʎ] > [ʎ][155] (parallel to that of intervocalic /kt ks/).[lower-roman 18]

In Italian and Romanian, intervocalic /kl/ instead shows loss of lateral articulation rather than loss of the original stop, as in OCULUM > Italian occhio 'eye' (with /kkj/[154]) or AURICULAM > Romanian ureche 'ear' (with /c/[154]).

In Friulian, the general outcome of intervocalic /kl/ is /l/, while a number of words instead show the result /ɡl/, sometimes in variation with /l/. It has been proposed that the different outcomes can be attributed to word-stress, but the data appear to be too mixed to support this.[156] In Ladin, intervocalic /kl/ was conserved in the dialects of Sol and Non;[lower-roman 19] voiced to /ɡl/ in the dialect of Fodom; and (perhaps due to Germanic influence) turned to /dl/ in the dialects of Gardena, Badia, and Mareo.[158]

Morphological consequences

Palatalization gave rise to various morphological effects across the Romance languages.

Verb inflection

In verb conjugation, the original presence of either [j] or of a front vowel in some forms but not in others resulted in patterns of alternation between different stems for different person-number combinations. These alternations were frequently subject to morphological leveling, but could also be extended by analogy to verbs with different etymologies; both of these competing tendencies resulted in the creation of verb forms that are different from those predicted by applying regular sound changes to the corresponding Latin forms.

The outcomes of the verb COLLIGO, COLLIGERE, discussed above, provide examples of leveling and analogical extension.

In Spanish, COLLIGO initially developed to cuelgo,[106] but this was later changed under the influence of coge to coxgo,[106] which in modern Spanish has been fully leveled to cojo.

In Italian, the [lg] found in the forms colgo, scelgo < COLLIGO, *EXELIGO was extended by analogy[159] to some verb forms that originally had [lj], such as DOLEO > doglio (by regular sound change) and dolgo (analogical), SALIO > salgo (by analogy),[160] and valgo.[159]

Noun inflection

In Romanian, the plural endings /i/ (masculine plural) and /e/ (feminine plural) regularly cause a preceding velar plosive to be converted into an affricate, as in [koˈleɡ], [koˈleɡə] 'colleague.M, colleague.F' vs. [koˈled͡ʒʲ], [koˈled͡ʒe] 'colleagues.M, colleagues.F'.[161]

Similar alternations are found, although less systematically, in Italian between some singular and plural masculine nouns, such as [aˈmiko], [aˈmit͡ʃi] 'friend.M, friends.M' (vs. the non-alternating [ˈbaŋko], [ˈbaŋki] 'desk, desks').[161]

Spelling of palatalized consonants

Effects of palatalization can be seen in the writing systems of almost all Romance languages. For a number of Romance languages, the conventions used by the modern spelling system were influenced not only by the historical development of sounds in that language, but also by sound changes in other Romance varieties that had influential written traditions. For example, the use in certain Iberian Romance languages of the digraph ⟨ll⟩ to spell the palatal lateral /ʎ/ (or a later derivative of this sound) developed as a result of the sound change from geminate /ll/ to /ʎ/ that can be seen in varieties such as Castilian Spanish; however, this digraph also came to be used in some languages where /ll/ did not undergo that sound change (for example, medieval Galician-Portuguese ⟨filla⟩ from Latin fīlia).

A notable effect of palatalization is the development of two pronunciations for the letters ⟨c g⟩ depending on the following letter. Generally, they have the "hard" pronunciations [k ɡ] in most situations, but "soft" pronunciations (e.g. French/Portuguese [s ʒ], Italian/Romanian [t͡ʃ d͡ʒ]) before ⟨e i y⟩.[162] (This orthographic trait has passed into Modern English through Norman French-speaking scribes writing Middle English, replacing the Old English use of the letters ⟨c g⟩.)

As a result, the hard sounds must be written differently before ⟨e i y⟩ (e.g. Italian ⟨ch gh⟩, Portuguese ⟨qu gu⟩), and likewise for the soft sounds when not before these letters (e.g. Italian ⟨ci gi⟩, Portuguese ⟨ç j⟩). Furthermore, in Spanish, Catalan, Occitan and Brazilian Portuguese, the use of digraphs containing ⟨u⟩ to signal the hard pronunciation before ⟨e i y⟩ means that a different spelling is also needed to signal the sounds /kw ɡw/ before these vowels (Spanish ⟨cu gü⟩, Catalan, Occitan and Brazilian Portuguese ⟨qü gü⟩).[lower-roman 20] This produces a number of spelling alternations in verbs whose pronunciation is entirely regular. The following are examples of corresponding first-person plural indicative and subjunctive in a number of regular Portuguese verbs: marcamos, marquemos "we mark"; caçamos, cacemos "we hunt"; chegamos, cheguemos "we arrive"; averiguamos, averigüemos "we verify"; adequamos, adeqüemos "we adapt"; oferecemos, ofereçamos "we offer"; dirigimos, dirijamos "we drive" erguemos, ergamos "we raise"; delinquimos, delincamos "we commit a crime".

In Italian, the digraphs ⟨ch gh⟩ are used to represent /k ɡ/ before ⟨e i⟩, resulting in similar orthographic alternations, such as baco /ˈbako/ 'worm', bachi /ˈbaki/ 'worms' and pago /ˈpaɡo/ 'I pay', paghi /ˈpaɡi/ 'you pay'. The digraphs ⟨ci gi⟩ are used to represent /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ before ⟨a o u⟩ (as in camicia 'shirt' /kaˈmit͡ʃa/ and valigia 'suitcase' /vaˈlid͡ʒa/). This convention results in ambiguity, as ⟨ci gi⟩ are also used to spell words that contain the syllables /t͡ʃi d͡ʒi/ in hiatus with a following vowel (as in farmacia (/farmaˈt͡ʃia/ and astrologia /astroloˈd͡ʒia/).

Spelling of results of palatalization and related sounds
SoundLatin SardinianSpanishPortugueseFrenchCatalanItalianRomanian
hard ⟨c⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		⟨c⟩ ⟨c⟩ ⟨c⟩
soft ⟨c⟩
+ ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		 ⟨ch⟩
soft ⟨c⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		– -⟨z⟩⟨ç⟩⟨ci⟩
/kw/
⟨qu⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		⟨qu⟩ ⟨b⟩⟨cu⟩⟨qu⟩⟨cu⟩
/k/
+ ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩ (inherited)		– ⟨ch⟩ ⟨qu⟩⟨ch⟩
/kw/
⟨qu⟩ (learned)		⟨qu⟩ -⟨cu⟩⟨qu⟩[lower-roman 21]⟨qü⟩⟨qu⟩⟨cf⟩
/ku/ ⟨cu⟩ ⟨cu⟩⟨cou⟩⟨cu⟩
hard ⟨g⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		⟨g⟩ ⟨g⟩ ⟨g⟩
soft ⟨g⟩
+ ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		 ⟨gh⟩
soft ⟨g⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		– -⟨j⟩⟨g(e)⟩⟨j⟩⟨gi⟩
/ɡw/
⟨gu⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩		⟨(n)gu⟩ ⟨b⟩ ⟨gu⟩
/ɡ/
+ ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩ (inherited)		– ⟨gh⟩ ⟨gu⟩⟨gh⟩
/ɡw/
⟨gu⟩ (learned)		⟨(n)gu⟩ -⟨gü⟩⟨gu⟩[lower-roman 22]⟨gü⟩⟨gu⟩⟨gv⟩
/ɡu/ ⟨gu⟩ ⟨gu⟩⟨gou⟩⟨gu⟩
soft ⟨ti⟩
not + ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩ (inherited)		⟨ti⟩ ⟨tz⟩⟨z⟩⟨ç⟩⟨(z)z⟩⟨ț⟩
soft ⟨ti⟩
+ ⟨e, i, y, ae, oe⟩ (inherited)		⟨c⟩
soft ⟨ti⟩ (learned) ⟨tzi⟩⟨ci⟩⟨ti⟩⟨ci⟩⟨zi⟩⟨ți⟩
/ʎ/– ⟨z⟩⟨ll⟩⟨lh⟩⟨il(l)⟩⟨ll⟩⟨gli⟩–
/ɲ/– -⟨ñ⟩⟨nh⟩⟨gn⟩⟨ny⟩⟨gn⟩–

Notes

  1. ↑ In this article Latin lexemes will be provided in their normal spelling, even in cases where the cited source writes them in some modified way, for instance without final ⟨M⟩. They are written in small capitals, as is often the practice in Romance linguistics, since this provides a convenient way to indicate Latin words without having to repeat the word 'Latin'.
  2. ↑ Among other things, outcomes such as *MANSIONATAM > Old French maisniede /maizˈnieðə/[3] may imply a late persistence of phonemic palatalization if one assumes intermediate stages like */mazʲ(o)ˈnada/ > */mazʲˈnʲeːðə/, with a forward propagation of palatalization following late syncope.
  3. 1 2 Subsequently changed further: in modern Catalan, Latin intervocalic -TJ- and Latin -C- followed by E or I were ultimately lost between vowels (e.g. RATIONEM > raó; VECINUM > veí) and vocalized to /w/ word-finally or before a consonant (e.g. PALATIUM > palau, PUTEUM > pou, PRETIUM > preu; DECEM > deu, VICEM > veu). This is identical to the outcome of Latin intervocalic -D-.
  4. 1 2 In most of European Spanish; Latin America instead has /s/.
  5. ↑ Note that between vowels, Latin /j/ was in fact normally a geminate consonant [jj], as in MAIUS [ˈmajjus], although many of the Romance outcomes imply development of intervocalic /j/ into a single consonant.[5]
  6. ↑ Some non-sibilant palatal consonant [ɟ~ʝ~j]. The exact level of phonetic constriction is not reconstructible and may have varied by context.
  7. ↑ In Old Spanish, j was a sibilant [d͡ʒ~ʒ] while y was a voiced non-sibilant palatal. However, in modern Spanish, the phonetic realization of y is highly variable: it can be an affricate [ɟ͡ʝ], especially in postpausal position, or can be generally pronounced as a sibilant in some accents.
  8. ↑ In Old Tuscan texts, intervocalic /ʃ ʒ/ were still phonemically distinct from /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/, and spellings like ⟨sc(i)⟩ and ⟨sg(i)⟩ are found for /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ respectively.[66] After the lenition of intervocalic affricates (which seems to be attested by confusion in spelling since the second half of the 13th century for /d͡ʒ/, and since the early 15th century for /t͡ʃ/), the usual spellings of intervocalic [ʃ ʒ] (phonemically /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/) in Tuscan texts came to be ⟨c(i)⟩ and ⟨g(i)⟩, as in ⟨bacio⟩ and ⟨pertugio⟩.[65]
  9. ↑ In Spanish phonology, the palatal semivowel [j] is usually analyzed in this context as a non-syllabic allophone of the vowel /i/.
  10. ↑ These two verbs also show metathesis of /pw/ to /wp/ in their preterite stems. For example, saber in Old Spanish had the preterite form sope 'I knew' (< *[ˈsawpi] < *[ˈsapwi] < SAPUI) (/o/ here was later replaced analogically by /u/, yielding modern Spanish supe).[80] Even though the cognate Portuguese verbs saber and caber also show metathesis of labial + /j/ and labial + /w/ sequences (in forms such as saiba, caibo, soube, coube), it is thought that metathesis occurred in Spanish and Portuguese at different times, rather than occurring once in their immediate common ancestor.
  11. ↑ In the case of Italian, Rohlfs[98] (1966) cites cogliere < COLLIGERE and scegliere < *EXELIGERE as evidence that a palatal lateral was the usual outcome in Tuscan of [lɡ] before a front vowel (words such as algere, emulgere, fulgere, indulgere are disregarded as non-inherited forms).[102] Likewise, Maiden[98] (2013) derives Italian [ˈkɔʎʎe] 'he plucks' and [ˈʃeʎʎe] 'he chooses' from *[ˈkɔlɡe] and *[ekˈselɡe].[101] On the other hand, Boyd-Bowman (1980) traces Italian cogliere 'collect' to COLLI(G)ERE and views it as showing the same development as in ALLIUM > aglio.[103] As for Spanish, although Hanssen (1913) derives coges from a syncopated form *COLGIS,[104] Penny (2002) prefers the derivation COLLIGIS > *[ˈkɔllees] > *[ˈkɔlljes] > *[ˈkɔʎes] > coges 'you grasp',[105] and Tuttle (1912) argues that coge does not descend from *COLGET, but instead harks back to a form like *colliet that developed by elision of intervocalic [ɡ].[106]
  12. ↑ Everywhere except Western Romansh, where the palatalization only occurs before stressed /a/. This seems to reflect the original environment from which Eastern Romansh, and perhaps the rest of Rhaeto-Romance, later extended the phenomenon to unstressed syllables. Curiously, in the Western Romansh (Sutselvan) dialect of Ems, the original velar /k/ appears to have been restored before stressed /a/.[124]
  13. ↑ Some cases of [ʃʃ] in Italian can be explained as actually developing from metathesis of /ks/ to /sk/, which was then regularly palatalized by a following front vowel, as in the case of ascella, which can be traced to ASCELLA, ASCILLA, attested Late Latin variants of AXILLA.[130] Others, such as coscia < COXAM, may have been borrowed from a non-Tuscan variety, such as Old French or Provençal.[130] However, the words in which [ʃ] occurs in Tuscan do not appear to otherwise show signs of being words of exotic or north-western origin.[141]
  14. ↑ However, a preceding stage like *[ŋt] or *[ɲt] may be implied by the vowel raising seen in outcomes like *PĬNCTUM > Italian and Spanish pinto, Catalan pint (and not *pento, *pent).
  15. ↑ Including cases where these sequences developed in word-internal position via syncope of the Classical Latin unstressed U vowel: PUL BUL CUL GUL > /pl bl kl ɡl/. Syncope in TUL resulted in /kl/, as in VETULUS > Late Latin VECLUS.
  16. ↑ Post-pausal or post-consonantal. Most commonly word-initial, even more so after the Gallo-Roman loss of most final vowels reduced the incidence of word-initial intervocalic contexts.
  17. ↑ Intervocalic, commonly word-internal.
  18. ↑ Possible evidence against the latter can be seen in the differing French vowel outcomes before intervocalic /kl/ on the one hand and /ks kt/ on the other. Compare ŎC(U)LUM, *TRŎC(U)LUM, GUBERNAC(U)LUM, MAC(U)LAM > œil, treuil, gouvernail, maille /œj tʁœj ɡuvɛʁnaj maj/ with CŎXAM, NŎCTEM, AXEM, FACTUM > cuisse, nuit, ais, fait /kɥis nɥi ɛ fɛ/.
  19. ↑ In the dialect of Non, a vowel was later inserted after /k/ in various masculine words, which led to palatalization. Cf. BATT(U)ACULUM > batèc(j)el 'chatterbox, talkative man' versus the feminine batècla.[157]
  20. ↑ The current Portuguese spelling has abolished the use of the diaeresis for this purpose.
  21. ↑ Formerly ⟨qü⟩ in Brazilian Portuguese
  22. ↑ Formerly ⟨gü⟩ in Brazilian Portuguese

References

  1. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 2.
  2. ↑ Operstein 2010:107
  3. ↑ Pope 1934, §317
  4. ↑ Repetti 2016, p. 658.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Barbato 2022, §1.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Repetti 2016, p. 659.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Recasens 2020, §3.1.1.
  8. 1 2 Kerkhof 2018, p. 128.
  9. ↑ Mari 2016, p. 277.
  10. ↑ Repetti 2016:659; Kerkhof 2018:129; Recasens 2020, §3.1.1
  11. ↑ Kerkhof 2018, p. 129.
  12. ↑ Orel 2000, p. 108.
  13. ↑ Carnoy 1916, p. 146.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Barbato 2022, §6.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Barbato 2022, §2.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Barbato 2022, §3.
  17. 1 2 Kerkhof 2018, p. 127.
  18. 1 2 Recasens 2020, §3.5.
  19. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 130.
  20. ↑ Kerkhof 2018:127); Barbato 2022, §5
  21. ↑ Kerkhof 2018:127-130; Recasens 2020, §3.1.1
  22. ↑ Recasens 2020, §3.1.1, Table 1a.
  23. 1 2 3 Maiden 2013, p. 53.
  24. ↑ Pope 1934, p. 132.
  25. 1 2 Pope 1934, p. 130.
  26. 1 2 Penny 2002, p. 73.
  27. ↑ Väänänen 1966, p. 63.
  28. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 83.
  29. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 65, 69.
  30. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 84.
  31. 1 2 Maiden 2013, p. 54.
  32. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 65.
  33. ↑ Maiden 2013, p. 87.
  34. ↑ Maiden 2013, p. 54-55.
  35. ↑ Kutzner 1982, pp. 84–87.
  36. 1 2 Kutzner 1982, pp. 85.
  37. ↑ Mackenzie 1999–2022, "History of Spanish Consonants", §2.2, 3.2, 4.1.
  38. ↑ Penny 2002, pp. 64–65.
  39. ↑ Penny 2002, p. 65.
  40. ↑ Recasens 2020, §3.1.1, Table 1a; §3.1.2, Table 2; §3.3, Table 4b.
  41. 1 2 3 4 Barbato 2022, §4.
  42. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Barbato 2022, §5.
  43. ↑ Barbato 2022, §1, 5.
  44. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 78.
  45. ↑ Nyrop 1914, p. 422.
  46. 1 2 3 Zampaulo 2019, p. 79.
  47. 1 2 Bourciez 1921, p. 253.
  48. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Repetti 2016, p. 661.
  49. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Burger 1955, p. 24.
  50. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 78-79.
  51. ↑ Brittain 1900, p. 64.
  52. ↑ Pope 1934, p. 229.
  53. 1 2 3 Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 89.
  54. 1 2 3 Repetti 2016, p. 662.
  55. ↑ Repetti 2016:661; Barbato 2022, §2
  56. ↑ Barbato 2022, §3, 4, 5.
  57. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, p. 186.
  58. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, pp. 50, 58–62.
  59. ↑ Kutzner 1982, pp. 84–85.
  60. ↑ Repetti 2016, p. 660.
  61. ↑ Operstein 2010, p. 118.
  62. ↑ Wireback 2002, p. 311.
  63. ↑ Operstein 2010, p. 114.
  64. ↑ Canalis 2017, p. 157.
  65. 1 2 3 Canalis 2017, p. 162.
  66. ↑ Canalis 2017, p. 161.
  67. ↑ Canalis 2017, p. 163.
  68. ↑ Repetti 2016:660; Barbato 2022, §2, 3
  69. ↑ Barbato 2022, §2, 3.
  70. ↑ Recasens 2020, §2.1.4.
  71. ↑ Repetti 2016, p. 661-662.
  72. 1 2 3 4 5 Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 107.
  73. 1 2 3 Brittain 1900, p. 63.
  74. ↑ Lloyd 1987, p. 264.
  75. ↑ Penny 2002, p. 84, 272.
  76. 1 2 3 Wireback 2002, p. 312.
  77. 1 2 3 Wireback 2002, p. 321.
  78. ↑ Wireback 2002, p. 311-312.
  79. ↑ Wireback 2002, p. 322-326.
  80. ↑ Mackenzie 1999–2022, History of the Spanish Verb", §6.
  81. 1 2 Operstein 2010, p. 109.
  82. 1 2 Operstein 2010, p. 110.
  83. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 106.
  84. ↑ Brittain 1900, p. 62.
  85. 1 2 3 4 Operstein 2010, p. 115.
  86. ↑ Operstein 2010:115; Repetti 2016:662
  87. ↑ Repetti 2016:661; Barbato 2022, §5
  88. 1 2 Kerkhof 2018, p. 149.
  89. 1 2 3 Repetti 2016, p. 662-663.
  90. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, pp. 89–90.
  91. ↑ Merlo 2014; Repetti 2016:663
  92. ↑ Merlo 2014, p. 171.
  93. 1 2 3 Maiden 2016, p. 127.
  94. ↑ Loporcaro 2009, p. 145.
  95. 1 2 Kerkhof 2018, p. 139.
  96. ↑ Alkire & Rosen 2010, p. 61.
  97. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maiden 2013, p. 58.
  98. 1 2 3 4 5 Repetti 2016, p. 664.
  99. 1 2 3 Penny 2002, p. 69.
  100. ↑ Mackenzie 1999–2022, "History of Spanish Consonants", §3.2.
  101. 1 2 3 4 Maiden 2013, p. 59.
  102. ↑ Rohlfs 1966, p. 377.
  103. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 77.
  104. ↑ Hanssen 1913, p. 99.
  105. ↑ Penny 2002, p. 49.
  106. 1 2 3 Tuttle 1912, p. 422.
  107. ↑ Malkiel 1982, p. 249.
  108. ↑ Repetti 2016, p. 663.
  109. ↑ Recasens 2020.
  110. ↑ Recasens 2020, §3.3, Table 4a.
  111. 1 2 Kerkhof 2018, p. 150.
  112. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 56–57.
  113. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 1.
  114. ↑ Buckley 2009, §7.
  115. 1 2 3 Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 30.
  116. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 29.
  117. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 31.
  118. ↑ Pope 1934, p. 128.
  119. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 40, §3.2.
  120. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 57–58.
  121. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 58.
  122. ↑ Buckley 2009, p. 58, §6.
  123. ↑ Mooney 2022, p. 716.
  124. ↑ Haiman & Benincà 1992, §1.2.3.1a.
  125. ↑ Repetti 2016:664; De Cia & Iubini-Hampton 2020, §3
  126. ↑ Kerkhof 2018, pp. 150–151.
  127. ↑ Repetti 2016:664; De Cia & Iubini-Hampton 2020, §2.1
  128. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, pp. 52, 80.
  129. ↑ Zampaulo 2019, pp. 57, 81.
  130. 1 2 3 4 Baglioni 2014, p. 10.
  131. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Repetti 2016, p. 667.
  132. ↑ Baglioni 2014, p. 14.
  133. 1 2 Baglioni 2014, p. 15.
  134. ↑ Orel 2000, p. 115.
  135. ↑ Mackenzie 1999–2022, "History of Spanish Consonants", §5.1 Syllable-final velars.
  136. 1 2 Recasens 2023, p. 93.
  137. ↑ Kristol 2023, 2.2.
  138. 1 2 3 4 Haiman & Benincà 1992, p. 70.
  139. ↑ Recasens 2023, p. 220.
  140. 1 2 Recasens 2023, p. 195.
  141. 1 2 Maiden 2013, p. 57.
  142. ↑ Sala 1976, pp. 171–185.
  143. ↑ Orel 2000, p. 116.
  144. ↑ Lausberg 1970, §§437–438
  145. ↑ Lausberg 1970:334; Repetti & Tuttle 1987:57
  146. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, §§1.0–1.1.
  147. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, §1.2.
  148. ↑ Lausberg 1970:334; Repetti & Tuttle 1987, §2.0
  149. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, pp. 79, 83.
  150. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, §§2.5–2.6.
  151. ↑ Lausberg 1970, §§340–341, 422.
  152. ↑ Mackenzie 1999–2022, "History of Spanish Consonants", §6.3 Latin initial pl-, fl- and cl-.
  153. 1 2 Zampaulo 2019, p. 55.
  154. 1 2 3 Zampaulo 2019, p. 51.
  155. ↑ Recasens 2020, §4.3.
  156. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, p. 59.
  157. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, pp. 62–63.
  158. ↑ Repetti & Tuttle 1987, pp. 60–61.
  159. 1 2 Grandgent 1927, p. 122.
  160. ↑ Grandgent 1927, p. 106.
  161. 1 2 Repetti 2016, p. 665.
  162. ↑ Boyd-Bowman 1980, p. 33.

Bibliography

  • Alkire, Ti; Rosen, Carol (2010). Romance Languages: a historical introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-72975-1.
  • Baglioni, Daniele (2014). Molinelli, Piera; Cuzzolin, Pierluigi; Fedriani, Chiara (eds.). "Il nesso GN dal latino alle lingue romanze: questioni aperte e prospettive di ricerca". Latin vulgaire, latin tardif X: Actes du Xe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Bergamo University Press: Sestante Edizioni. 1: 3–24.
  • Barbato, Marcello (20 June 2022). "The Early History of Romance Palatalizations". oxfordre.com. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.750. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  • Bourciez, Édouard (1921). Précis historique de phonétique française (5th ed.). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
  • Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1980). From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9780878400775.
  • Brittain, Margaret S. (1900). Historical Primer of French Phonetics and Inflection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Buckley, Eugene (2009). "Phonetics and phonology in Gallo-Romance palatalisation". Transactions of the Philological Society. 107: 31–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00212.x.
  • Burger, André (1955). "Phonématique et Diachronie a Propos de La Palatalisation Des Consonnes Romanes". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure. 13 (13): 19–33. JSTOR 27757997. Retrieved 12 September 2023.
  • Canalis, Stefano (2017). "The voiced and voiceless outcomes of intervocalic -sj- in Old Tuscan". Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali / Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies. 3: 157–182.
  • Carnoy, Albert J. (1916). "Some Obscurities in the Assibilation of ti and di before a Vowel in Vulgar Latin". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 47: 145–152. doi:10.2307/282832. JSTOR 282832. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  • De Cia, Simone; Iubini-Hampton, Jessica (2020). "Debunking Rhaeto-Romance: Synchronic evidence from two peripheral Northern Italian dialects". Modern Languages Open. 7 (1): 1–18. doi:10.3828/mlo.v0i0.309. S2CID 219912356.
  • Grandgent, Charles H. (1927). From Latin to Italian: An Historical Outline of the Phonology and Morphology of the Italian Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Haiman, John; Benincà, Paola (1992). The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
  • Hanssen, Federico (1913). Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana (in Spanish). Halle, Max Niemeyer.
  • Kerkhof, P.A. (9 October 2018). Language, law and loanwords in early medieval Gaul: language contact and studies in Gallo-Romance phonology (Thesis). hdl:1887/66116. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  • Kristol, Andres M. (19 July 2023). "Southern Gallo-Romance: Occitan and Gascon". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.740. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5.
  • Kutzner, Evelyn Beatrice (May 1982). A synchronic study of dental consonants preceding yod in French and its implications for a diachronic analysis (Thesis).
  • Lausberg, Heinrich (1970). Lingüística románica. Vol. I: Fonética. Madrid: Gredos.
  • Loporcaro, Michele (2009). "Chapter 3: Phonological processes". In Martin, Maiden; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Cambridge University Press. pp. 109–154.
  • Lloyd, Paul M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish: Historical phonology and morphology of the Spanish Language. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. American Philosophical Society.
  • Mackenzie, Ian (1999–2022). "The Linguistics of Spanish". Retrieved 12 September 2023.
  • Maiden, Martin (2013) [1st pub. 1995]. Robins, R. H.; Harris, Martin; Horrocks, Geoffrey (eds.). A Linguistic History of Italian. Longman Linguistics Library. Routledge.
  • Maiden, Martin (2016). "Chapter 9: Dalmatian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 658–668.
  • Malkiel, Yakov (1982). "Interplay of Sounds and Forms in the Shaping of Three Old Spanish Medial Consonant Clusters". Hispanic Review. 50 (3): 247–266. doi:10.2307/472853. JSTOR 472853.
  • Mari, Tommaso (2016). Consentius' De barbarismis et metaplasmis: critical edition, translation, and commentary (PhD thesis). University of Oxford.
  • Merlo, Roberto (2014). "Un problema trascurato di fonetica storica romena: la "palatalizzazione delle velari" tra eredità latina e interferenze slave" (PDF). Dacoromania. 19: 165–197. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
  • Mooney, Damien (2022). "Chapter 22: Occitan". In Gabriel, Christoph; Gess, Randall; Meisenburg, Trudel (eds.). Manual of Romance Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 709–742.
  • Nyrop, Kristoffer (1914). Grammaire historique de la langue française. Vol. 1 (3rd ed.). Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.
  • Operstein, Natalie (2010). Consonant Structure and Prevocalization. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 312. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Orel, Vladimir (2000). A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Brill.
  • Penny, Ralph (2002). A History of the Spanish Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pope, Mildred K. (1934). From Latin to modern French. Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester University Press.
  • Recasens, Daniel (30 July 2020). "Palatalizations in the Romance Languages". oxfordre.com. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.435. ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5. Retrieved 11 September 2023.
  • Recasens, Daniel (2023). Consonant-induced sound changes in stressed vowels in Romance. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. Walter de Gruyter.
  • Repetti, Lori; Tuttle, Edward F. (1987). "The Evolution of Latin PL, BL, and CL, GL in Western Romance". Studi mediolatini e volgari. 33: 53–115.
  • Repetti, Lori (2016). "Chapter 39: Palatalization". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 658–668.
  • Rohlfs, Gerhard (1966). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: fonetica. Turin: Giulio Einaudi.
  • Sala, Marius (1976). Contributions à la phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck.
  • Tuttle, E. H. (1912). "Colligere in Spanish". Romanic Review, the. Columbia University Press. 3: 422–423.
  • Väänänen, Veikko (1966). Le latein vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes (3 ed.). Berlin: Verlag.
  • Wireback, Kenneth J. (2002). "On the Metathesis of Labials + /j/ in Hispano-Romance". Hispanic Review. 70 (3): 311–331. doi:10.2307/3247205. JSTOR 3247205.
  • Zampaulo, André (2019). Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.