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

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][lower-roman 1]
  • 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
Labialized kʷ
Occlusive p b t d k ɡ j
Fricative f β s
Vibrant r
Lateral l
  • /ɡn/ is probably realized as [ɣn].[7]
  • Palatalized /t k n l/ are realized as [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 /dj/ and /ɡj/ do not occur, having previously merged with /j/.[12]
  • /kʷ/ does not occur before back vowels, having previously delabialized to /k/.[13]
  • /b/ does not occur in intervocalic position, having previously merged with /β/.[14]
  • Initial /sC/ undergoes prosthesis, as in /sˈtare/ [ɪsˈtaːɾe], unless preceded by a vowel.[15]
  • /f/ may have been bilabial, but most scholars prefer to reconstruct it as a labiodental.[16]
  • /b d ɡ/ are possibly realized as fricatives or approximants after /r/ or /l/ and in intervocalic position.[17]
  • /ll/ possibly has a retroflex realization, i.e. [ɭɭ].[18][lower-roman 2]
  • /s/ is possibly apico-alveolar, i.e. [s̪].[19]

Nouns

Proto-Romance nouns have three cases: a nominative, an accusative, and a combined genitive-dative.[20][lower-roman 3]

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.[21]

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.[22]

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.[23]

Number sg. pl. sg. pl.
Original noun fɔ́lju fɔ́lja lɪ́ɡnu lɪ́ɡna
Fem. variant fɔ́lja fɔ́ljas lɪ́ɡna lɪ́ɡnas
Translation leaf firewood

Positive

The inflexions are broadly similar to those of nouns.[24]

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.[25][lower-roman 4]

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.[26]

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.[27]

Possessive

Shown here in the feminine singular. Many of these have 'weak' atonic variants.[28]

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.[29]

Person I II III f. III m.
Number sg. pl. sg. pl. sg. pl. sg. pl.
Nominative ɛ́ɡo 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.[30]

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 /ˈkʷɪd/.

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.[31]

Present indicative

The paradigm is approximately as follows.[32][lower-roman 5]

Verb class 1st person 2nd person 3rd person Translation
sg. pl. sg. pl. sg. pl.
I kánto kantámʊs kántas kantátɪs kántat kántant sing
II.a βɪ́jo βɪdémʊs βɪ́des βɪdétɪs βɪ́det βɪ́jʊnt~βɪ́dʊnt~βɪ́dent see
II.b βɛ́ndo βɛ́ndɪmʊs βɛ́ndɪs βɛ́ndɪtɪs βɛ́ndɪt βɛ́ndʊnt~βɛ́ndent sell
III dɔ́rmo~dɔ́rmjo dormímʊs dɔ́rmɪs dɔrmítɪs dɔ́rmɪt dɔ́rmʊnt~dɔ́rment sleep
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[33] βáɪs~βás ítɪs[33] 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.[34]

Type Present Translation Perfect Translation
I amánte adoring amáta adored
II aβɛ́nte having aβúta had
III finɛ́nte finishing finíta finished

See also

Notes
  1. 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).
  2. For further discussion on outcomes of /ll/ in Romance, refer to Zampaulo (2019: 71–77) or Lausberg (1970: §§494–499).
  3. 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.
  4. All comparatives inflected the same way. Further examples are pɛ́jor, májor, mɪ́nor, fɔ́rtjor, and ɡɛ́ntjor; meaning 'worse', 'greater', 'lesser', 'stronger', and 'nobler' (Hall 1983: 32, 120).
  5. 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 1PL and 2PL conjugations of vadere 'go' because there was suppletion with forms of ire, as by Maiden (1995).

References
  1. Dworkin 2016: 13
  2. Loporcaro 2015; Leppänen & Alho 2018
  3. Ferguson 1976: 78; Gouvert 2015: 73–76
  4. Gouvert 2015: 78–81
  5. Lausberg 1970: §251; Gouvert 2015: 83
  6. Ferguson 1976: 84
  7. Chambon 2013
  8. Gouvert 2015: 86, 92, 111, 115; Zampaulo 2019: 97–98
  9. Lausberg 1970: §§463–464, 468–469; Gouvert 2015: 95, 111, 115
  10. Lausberg 1970: §454; Wilkinson 1976: 11–14
  11. Gouvert 2015: 83–91; Zampaulo 2019: 83–88
  12. Gouvert 2015: 43; Zampaulo 2019: 87
  13. Grandgent 1907: §254; Lausberg 1970: §344
  14. Lausberg 1970: §366; Gouvert 2015: 85
  15. Lloyd 1987: 148–150; Gouvert 2015: 125–126
  16. Lloyd 1987: 80; Gouvert 2016: 28
  17. Gouvert 2016: 48. See also Lloyd 1987: 141.
  18. Gouvert 2015: 15
  19. Lloyd 1987: 80–81; Zampaulo 2019: 93
  20. Lausberg 1973: 29, 32, 66–67
  21. Lausberg 1973: 69, 74, 78; Hall 1983: 28
  22. Lausberg 1973: 47; Hall 1983: 23–4, 29–30
  23. Alkire & Rosen 2010: 193–194
  24. Lausberg 1973: 108–109, 119-122
  25. Lausberg 1983: 129–131; Maltby 2016: 340
  26. Lausberg 1973: 126–127; Maltby 2016: 340–346
  27. Lausberg 1973: §§686–687; Bauer 2016: 340, 359
  28. Lausberg 1973: §§754–755; Lyons 1986: 20–24
  29. Hall 1983: 39; De Dardel & Wüest 1993: 39–43, 57
  30. Elcock 1960: 95–96
  31. Hall 1983: 47–50
  32. Van Den Bussche 1985: §§2.3–2.3.2
  33. Maiden 1995: 135
  34. 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 */ɡn/. 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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.