Palatalization In The Romance Languages

Palatalization in the Romance languages encompasses various historical sound changes which caused consonants to develop a palatal articulation or secondary articulation, as well as certain further developments such as affrication. It resulted in the creation of several consonants that had not existed in Classical Latin, such as the Italian .

Certain types of palatalization affected all Romance languages, and were in some cases discernible in Late Latin, while others affected only a subset of languages and are only known from later evidence. Palatalization was not a single event but rather occurred multiple times in the development of Romance, in different places and in different ways.

Definition

Palatalization strictly speaking refers either to a change in a consonant's place of articulation, such as when the alveolar nasal develops to a palatal nasal , or to a change in secondary articulation, such as when develops to (still alveolar but with the tongue body lifted towards the palate).

In Romance linguistics, palatalization is also loosely used to refer to certain sound-changes that are assumed to have followed from 'true' palatalization. For instance, the development from the Latin in to the Italian in is referred to as 'palatalization', despite the resulting not being a palatal sound, because intermediate stages like , may be inferred.

The Latin front vowels developed into a palatal approximant when they were unstressed and followed by another vowel. This occurred regularly by Late Latin. The resulting could then palatalize a preceding consonant. Whether this is best modelled as allophonic () or phonemic () is a matter of scholarly disagreement. This article uses the representation .

In addition to palatalization, often geminated preceding consonants. For example and can be reconstructed as developing the pronunciations and , which may have been a means of resolving the "unnatural" syllabifications and . In any case every sequence other than shows some evidence of lengthening in Romance.

Palatalization of may have occurred in more than one wave. This has been argued on the grounds that in Western Romance the vowels were not affected by metaphony if followed by original but were affected if followed by other sequences. The implication is that original had lost their palatal element by the time metaphony began to operate. Compare French outcomes like < * < (without metaphony) versus < * < (with metaphony).

Palatalization of may have occurred later (and independently) in Balkan Romance than elsewhere. This has been argued on the grounds that languages like Romanian show the same outcomes for consonants followed by primary (from Late Latin), secondary (from later diphthongization), and the vowel . Compare Romanian outcomes like < , < * < , and < .

/tj kj/

Early evidence

Evidence of the palatalization of appears as early as the 2nd–3rd centuries AD in the form of spelling mistakes interchanging and before a following vowel, as in for . This is assumed to reflect the development of in this environment to .

The affrication of can also be dated to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. The evidence includes inscriptional use of or in place of and commentary by grammarians from the late 4th century onwards about the pronunciation of words spelled with + vowel. The latter include Consentius (5th century), Servius, Pompeius (5th–6th century), Papirius (probably the same as Papirianus, ca. late 4th to early 6th century), and Isidore (7th century).

The affrication of seems to have occurred at a later date than that of , possibly as late as the 6th–7th centuries AD. Non-affricated reflexes of are found in some borrowings into West Germanic, for instance the Old High German and Old Saxon 'steel' < , Middle High German 'wooden beam' < , and Old Saxon 'vetch' < . Borrowings into Albanian show a palatal stop (spelt ) as the outcome of both Latin and /k/ before front vowels, whereas yields Albanian or sometimes . Examples include 'cheek' < 'face'; 'toll, duty' < 'trade'; 'well, fountain' < 'well'; and 'March' < 'March'. Evidence for affrication of includes the spelling for , which can be dated to the sixth century. Procopius, writing in Greek circa 553-555, uses the spellings () for and () for (''De Aedificiis'' 4.4.3), which suggests that Latin had developed to an affricate. On the other hand he writes for Latin before a front vowel, as in () for , which suggests that at the time was not affricated in that context.

Romance outcomes

All Romance languages reflect the palatalization of Latin , which can be reconstructed as developing into affricates and later, in some languages, into fricatives.

In Tuscan, Corsican, and some Rhaeto-Romance languages, the outcomes of are more anterior (alveolar) affricates than the outcomes of , whereas in other varieties of Romance, the outcomes of share the same place of articulation.

In Romanian, yield and sometimes . According to one view, the regular outcome of was before or word-final , as in , < *, ; and before non-final , as in , < , .

In Sardinia and Southern Italy the original outcome of can be reconstructed as or .

There are competing explanations for the Western Romance outcome for (and likewise for /k/ before front vowels). One is that the initial result was (or ) which later depalatalized to . (That this process necessarily implies a stage is disputed.) Another is that the in palatalized to and then the sequence was reidentified as , which then affricated to .

= Intervocalic

=
In Western Romance, intervocalic typically has a voiceless outcome (which implies that it was initially geminated) whereas intervocalic can have a voiced outcome. This contrast in voicing is assumed to result from the earlier palatalization of compared to . However, intervocalic can alternatively show a voiceless outcome identical to that of or . There are several proposed explanations for the divergent outcomes of intervocalic in Western Romance languages. One is that geminated to only in certain words, with Catalan for example reflecting * < . Another is that the voiceless outcomes resulted from early confusion between and , perhaps at a time when or was a potential realization of either sequence.

The voiced outcome normally associated with is sometimes found in words that originally had intervocalic , such as Portuguese < and < .

= Postconsonantal

=
When preceded by a consonant, remained voiceless in Western Romance. The development of to in Tuscan likely proceeded via an intermediate stage of *.

Intervocalically, the sequences could both merge with in an early type of lenition. Among the first examples of this is the spelling for in the graffiti of Pompeii. could either participate in this merger or survive long enough to develop in parallel with .

The outcomes in many Romance languages are often explained by reconstructing a stage where in general (as well as /ɡ/ before a front vowel) merged with which then underwent fortition (especially at the start of a word or morpheme), often yielding an affricate like . Some inscriptions show interchange between the spellings , as in for 'deacon' or for 'today'.

Evidence for the fortition of original includes for and for , found in inscriptions from the third century AD. Initial appears to have remained a palatal glide in Southern Italian, some dialects of Sardinian, and (in some contexts) Castilian, which suggests that its fortition to an affricate or fricative may not been complete in Late Latin or Proto-Romance. However, it is possible that Southern Italian and Castilian did not conserve the original value of Latin but rather redeveloped the glide via later lenition (note that intervocalic shows the same outcome).

Some outcomes of and :
* Southern Italian dialects show for all three.
* Spanish shows a split outcome for Latin word-initial . Before it usually became , whereas before , it usually became (but was lost in unstressed syllables). Nearby Gascon is similar. Between vowels, all merged; the original outcome was likely a geminate palatal consonant �ʝ which was then simplified along with other geminates and became the consonant spelled in modern Spanish. This palatal consonant was lost after a front vowel in Old Spanish, as in > , > , and > . After a consonant, developed into the Old Spanish voiceless affricate , as in > or > (but also ).
* In Romanian, regularly became (from earlier *), as in 'kernel' < . This is distinct from the outcomes of medial and .
* In Standard Italian, and yield and yields either or . (Between vowels, the outcomes are geminates.) The outcome of is always at the start of a word and always after a consonant (with the exception of < 'shame'). Further examples include > and > . Between vowels, usually results in but sometimes also . These outcomes seem consistent with an original merger of , and (initial or intervocalic) as , followed by fortition of to . The reason for the variation in outcomes of is unclear.
* In Sardinian, seems to have merged with in all contexts.
* In French, the outcomes of appear consistent with an early merger into in all positions followed by fortition of word-initially or after , yielding modern French . Examples include > and > . (The outcome of is different from the usual outcome of original /rj/ in French.) The sequence developed to (also the usual outcome of /nj/), as in > and > .

In Central Italian, Southern Italian, and Western Romance languages, Latin became . In Central and Southern Italian, this occurs as a geminate between vowels. A geminate can be inferred for early Western Romance as well based on the evolution of preceding vowels.

In French, a few words show an alternative outcome with the fricative , corresponding to an original in Old French (and identical to the regular outcome of /mj/). Examples include 'linen' > , > 'strange', and > . This outcome may represent cases where /j/ did not palatalize the preceding /n/ but was strengthened into an affricate instead; alternatively, it has been explained as resulting from the affrication of a palatalized nasal (via a sequence of changes such as > > ). It has also been suggested that the words in question are 'learned', that is, borrowed from Latin early and subjected to the vernacular sound-changes > and > . As for the sequence , it regularly developed to ��̃ʒ again like /mj/; compare the regular development of to in words like > .

In Balkan Romance became , which is retained in Aromanian and the Banat dialect of Romanian. In Romanian, was denasalized to , and then often deleted, as in , > , 'heel', 'vineyard'. The Latin geminate seems to have developed likewise to before (the only clear example is > Old Romanian , later replaced by the analogical plural ), whereas originally singleton remained before (as in > , > ), which Barbato interprets as a sign that was previously geminated (although not palatalized until the original length contrast between and had been replaced with a fortis-lenis contrast). Based on the development of preceding vowels, Sampson 1995 reconstructs an initial stage with a heterosyllabic nasal + glide sequence (containing a coda nasal archiphoneme ) at the point where vowel nasalization and raising occurred in early Romanian.

In Sardinian, original developed into a cluster of a nasal and voiced affricate, as in > Nuorese , Campidanese , Logudorese . A similar outcome is found in some southern varieties of Corsican, as in > . As in French, the nasal + affricate clusters in Sardinian have been interpreted either as the result of reinforcement of syllable-initial in without palatalization of the nasal or as the result of a palatalization of /nj/ followed by reinforcement of the resulting palatalized consonant.

The sequence yielded the palatal lateral throughout Western Romance as well as in Southern and Central Italy. Like , the resulting is geminated in Central and Southern Italian, and was in Western Romance prior to the general simplification of geminates in most languages from that branch. In many cases subsequently delateralized to .

In Iberia, remains in Aragonese and Portuguese but developed to in Asturian and in Old Spanish. In Catalan the outcomes are regionally split: most eastern and all Balearic dialects have , while the remaining dialects (including that of Barcelona) have . In dialects of central and eastern Iberia that retained , this consonant merged with a later that developed from Latin /ll/; this can be seen in the aforementioned Catalan dialects as well as Navarro-Aragonese and some western varieties of Leonese.

In Balkan Romance yielded * (apparently a geminate at first). In Romanian this was delateralized to , as in > * > 'leaf'. The stage survives in the Banat dialect as well as Aromanian.

In some Sardinian varieties, the ultimate outcome of is a geminate voiced affricate, as in > Logudorese or Campidanese . These can be interpreted as resulting either from palatalization of followed by affrication of the resulting palatal lateral or from fortition of a syllable-initial (as after ) followed by assimilation of the preceding , as in * > * > . The dialect of Cagliari has , which probably developed via depalatalization of former .

In Western Romance, universally developed via to (which can also be written rand interpreted as a case of metathesis). French displays this development, as in < and < , as well as an alternative outcome , as in > and > .

Italo-Romance languages show various outcomes including loss of the , loss of the , and gemination to .

In Balkan Romance, seems to have developed variously into , , and . Examples of variable reflexes in Romanian are > 'farmyard', > , and > 'I appear (dialectal)'.

survives as a consonant cluster in Sardinian, as in 'leather' > Nuorese , Logudorese , and Campidanese ; and also some varieties of southern Corsican, as in > .

Intervocalic shows the following outcomes:
* Portuguese has , as in 'cheese' > or > 'kiss'.
* In Spanish the outcome can be traced back to an original . The combined with a preceding vowel, forming diphthongs that were later modified, and the eventually devoiced to . Examples of this development are 'cheese' < < < and 'kiss' < < < .
* In French, also developed to , as in > 'house', probably via the intermediate stage of a palatalized sibilant such as . The combined with a preceding vowel, forming various diphthongs that were later modified.
* In Tuscan, intervocalic developed at first to or sometimes ; these eventually merged with the phonemes when the latter developed the allophones in intervocalic position. Standard Italian today has a uniform pronunciation of as (with no intervocalic ), likely the result of spelling-pronunciation by speakers outside of Tuscany.
* In Romanian became , as in > 'cheese'.
* In Sardinia and the south of Italy, developed to (voiced in some areas to phonetic ). Examples of this outcome are Nuorese Sardinian and Neapolitan 'cheese' < .

Geminate could develop into , as in Old Florentine < *; this outcome is also found in some varieties that show a non-palatal outcome for intervocalic , as in the Neapolitan 'to lower' < *. 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. The sequence could have the same outcome, as in Tuscan < *; compare the development of to in > Italian .

Labial +

The palatalization of labials is cross-linguistically rare and a variety of strategies for avoiding it are attested such as preservation of the cluster , gemination of the consonant before , metathesis of , and change of to a palatal consonant. All of these outcomes are found in Romance.

Intervocalic and merged as in 'Vulgar Latin'. When this sound was followed by , it was sometimes lost or delabialized early on, causing to yield the same outcome as (and /dj ɡj/) in some words. This can be seen in French from and from , or Spanish from and (archaic) from . In a larger set of words, was initially retained but underwent diverse developments in different Romance languages.

Gemination

In Italian, intervocalic show gemination of the labial consonant, resulting in . Examples include > , > , > , > , > .

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

Metathesis

Portuguese exhibits what is traditionally described as ' metathesis' of labial + sequences: that is, the appears to have been moved before the labial consonant. Examples include > 'celery', > 'anger, rage', > 'red-haired', and > 'fiancé'. 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:
# First, labial + sequences coalesced into palatalized labial consonants . Spellings such as may attest to the original development of palatalized consonants in this context (compare the still-current use in Portuguese of as spellings for ).
# Next, an epenthetic glide developed between a vowel and a following palatalized labial consonant.
# 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 , and in Hispano-Romance: metathesis of + is found regularly in both Spanish and Portuguese, and was followed by a shift from to that can be seen in Portuguese , , , whereas metathesis of labial + occurs regularly in Portuguese but not in Spanish, and affected Portuguese words show unshifted . The Portuguese metathesis of labial + sequences occurred late enough to affect some cases of secondary that developed after lenition of a following intervocalic consonant (as in > * > 'clean' and > * > 'I eat'). In cases where a palatalized consonant came after another consonant or after the vowel (e.g. modern Portuguese 'clean'), the original may be attested only indirectly in the modern language by its effect of raising a preceding vowel (metaphony).

In Spanish, Latin labial + sequences did not systematically undergo metathesis; the general outcome is simply a labial consonant followed by . This is shown by the following examples: > 'celery', > 'anger, rage'; > 'blond', > 'boyfriend'. However, metathesis of original to is seen in forms of two Spanish verbs, 'to know' and 'to fit': the effects of this metathesis are seen in forms like (< ) and (< ). Wireback argues that in Spanish, unlike in Portuguese, there was an abrupt inversion from to in these verb forms as a result of morphological analogy with vowel + sequences found in the inflectional paradigms of other verbs.

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 , > , and > . The glide remained after an unstressed syllable, as in > .

Glide strengthening

In various Romance languages, original labial + sequences gave rise to palatal obstruents (sometimes accompanied or followed by loss of the labial articulation). Palatal obstruents may have developed in this context by strengthening of the palatal glide component of palatalized labial consonants.

* Some Balkan Romance languages, after the split of Proto-Romanian, show the development of pronunciations like , , and from labial consonants followed by or , as in 'child'. These seem to have arisen from palatalized labials such as by 'consonantification' of the offglide.
* Old Provençal shows < and < , and the Lombard dialect of Borno shows < 'yokel'.
* Old French shows as the usual outcome of ; as the outcome of ; and as the outcome of . These correspond to modern French , , and respectively. The following examples demonstrate these outcomes: 'cuttlefish' > , > , 'red' > , > , > , > , 'monkey' > , > , > . The Old French pronunciations are likely derived from simplification of labial-affricate sequences such as or . These may have developed from palatalized labial consonants by means of offglide consonantization (as in Balkan Romance); e.g. > > . A competing explanation of the French outcomes is that Latin remained clusters, and then the postconsonantal /j/ underwent fortition (with the resulting affricate being assimilated in voice to the preceding consonant).
* In Neapolitan (in southern Italy), and ultimately became geminate affricates as in > and > 'rage'. These may have developed from sequences; an alternative explanation is that geminated palatalized labials were reinterpreted as palatal consonants due to acoustic similarity.

+ front vowel

were palatalized before in all of Romance except certain varieties of Sardinian and Dalmatian. Palatalization in this context can be dated to about the fifth century AD, although it is possible that it occurred independently and at a later date in eastern Romance compared to western Romance. In Romanian, unlike most Romance languages, palatalization occurred after the loss of the in sequences of or + front vowel, hence the affricates in , < , *.

The Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian showed no palatalization of before any vowel. The Vegliote dialect of Dalmatian showed palatalization of to before , but this is argued to be an separate internal innovation rather than an inherited trait in common with other Romance varieties. It also occurred before the of diphthongs, as in 'hill' < * < .

The palatalization of before may have begun earlier than that of . Epigraphic evidence indicates that in the Latin of the Late Empire onwards, intervocalic may have already been lost in some words where it occurred between non-back vowels, for example in , , or , . This may have begun as early as the first century BC.

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

Postconsonantal

* before a front vowel could evolve into a palatal nasal (merging with the outcome of /nj/) or into a nasal followed by an affricate or fricative, depending on the language or sometimes on the word. The regular outcome of nasal + + front vowel is across nearly all of southern Italy; in contrast, dialects of northern Italy show or , which probably developed from earlier . In Tuscany, both and are found. Their original distribution seems to have been based on geography, with in eastern Tuscany (and in Old Florentine) and in the west. However, modern Florentine has , and Old Florentine shows a mixture of forms such as alongside 'he cries' and alongside 'to extinguish' < , *. The reason for the displacement of by in Florentine are unclear, but it may have been due to influence from northern Italian and from the regions of Tuscany where was the regular outcome. Standard Italian, like modern Florentine, generally has , with the exception of . In Spanish, + front vowel shows three possible outcomes: Old Spanish (modern ), as in > > modern 'gum'; , as in > 'to scold'; and , as in >. The development to seems to be typical in verbs.
* There are relatively few examples of the outcome of before a front vowel in Italian and Spanish. The sequence in the Latin verb forms and * developed the same way as original . This has been cited as evidence that developed to before a front vowel, based on the assumption that here underwent syncope to ; however, it is possible that these outcomes instead reflect the aforementioned early loss of intervocalic between non-back vowels, followed by a change of the prior vowel into a glide (yielding ). Malkiel (1982) notes the scarcity of examples for the outcome of + front vowel in Old Spanish and considers there to only be a single indirect example of its outcome, the modern Asturian verb , tentatively assumed to descend from via an intermediate stage *.
* before a front vowel usually yielded in Old Spanish. Alternatively it could reduce to ; compare the eleventh-century spellings for ‘silver’ and for . In Tuscany the outcome is , apart from (again) , an early variant of . In southern Italy the outcome is .

The palatalization of before appears to have initially resulted in an affricate, either or . The outcome is found in Italian and Romanian, while or a derivative thereof is found in many Western Romance languages and also Aromanian. (Possible reasons for the outcome were mentioned earlier.)

In Western Romance, intervocalic Latin before a front vowel was affected by both palatalization and voicing and so generally had an outcome distinct from that of initial or post-consonantal before .

Postconsonantal

When preceded by a consonant, remained voiceless in Western Romance (as in Portuguese from ). In some languages, shows a special outcome. In Portuguese, before a front vowel became , as in , from , . In Tuscan, + front vowel became when intervocalic, elsewhere (seemingly via > > ).

In some Gallo-Romance languages, came to be palatalized before original . This is assumed to have taken place more recently than palatalization before high and mid front vowels and can have a different outcome from the latter. Palatalization and affrication of before occurred in all central French dialects, but not in Norman and Picard dialects that lie north or west of the Joret line. Nevertheless, outcomes such as the Picard , < 'goat', 'dear' do show a sort of partial palatalization before fronted outcomes of Latin (coarticulation but not affrication). Accordingly, it has been suggested that this was the original environment for palatalization in other French dialects as well, at a time when the fronting of original in this context was still allophonic, and that the phenomenon later spread by analogy to any velar + sequence. An alternative theory holds that in general may have been a front vowel at the time, making it a trigger for palatalization. This happens to be the case in modern French, where the initial consonant in words like 'four' may be palatalized to or .

In French, original before developed to a sound spelt ( in Old French and today), as in 'sing' > . This remains distinct from the outcome of before and , as in 'hundred' > . Similarly, before developed to a sound spelt ( in Old French and today), as in > . This apparently predated the general monophthongization of Latin to French , as it affected words like > and > . The implication, then, is that palatalization occurred before the end of the eighth century, perhaps as early as the end of the fifth or start of the sixth century.

The phenomenon is also found in Occitan, where it is attested since the earliest texts in that language. Northern dialects tend to have it and southern ones tend not to, but neither group is uniform in this regard, and the geographic extent of palatalization is subject to considerable lexical variation. That its distribution shows a clear weakening from north to south, and that toponyms with apparent retention of can be found in northern palatalizing areas, suggests that this kind of palatalization was historically imported into Occitan from French dialects. The Occitan outcomes of palatalized by vary by dialect; they include , , , and rarely . Compare Lemosin < 'hen' and southern Auvergnat < 'castle'.

Aside from Gallo-Romance, palatalization of is also found in Rhaeto-Romance and, in widely scattered traces, across the dialects of northern Italy (Gallo-Italic and Venetian). This is often thought to have a common origin with the aforementioned Gallo-Romance phenomenon, but it has also been suggested to be an independent development. Some varieties of Friulian show the affricate outcomes , as in > 'horse' and > 'leg', while in central and northern Friulian the plosive outcomes are found instead.

Velar + coronal

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

The most widespread outcome of is , identical to the outcome of /nj/. This is the case throughout Western Romance (cf. Spanish , Portuguese , Catalan < ) and in Tuscan.

A few languages instead show a sequence of semivowel + :
* in some dialects of central and southern Italy.
* in some dialects of southern Italy, as in 'firewood' < . This is found in a more limited area comprising Basilicata, central-southern Puglia, and central-northern Calabria.

Latin shows non-palatalized outcomes in Romanian, where it developed to (as in > 'wood'), and in Sardinian, where it developed to (as in > ).

Loans into Albanian show a mixture of outcomes: sometimes as in , < , ; sometimes as in ~ < ; and sometimes as in < .

In Western Romance, intervocalic Latin developed to ; could develop further into an affricate such as , and fell together with the outcome of and shows various final outcomes including .
* French shows original , with later coalescence of the glide with the preceding vowel. These are also sometimes found as outcomes of , implying a merger of these clusters with ; the latter change is sometimes attributed to a Gaulish substrate.
* Old Spanish shows and (the latter backed to in later Spanish). But became in Spanish when preceded by the vowel (from Latin ), as in > .
* Portuguese shows and .
* In Occitan, can result either in or in an affricate or fricative such as , , . The outcome of can be , or .
* Rhaeto-Romance languages show a split in the outcome of . An affricate or palatal stop is found in Surselvan, Sutselvan, and most of Surmeiran. Engadinian dialects of Romansh show (or in a handful of words ), as in > ; the use of is sometimes interpreted as a secondary development from or as an outcome imported from Lombardy. The Italian Rhaeto-Romance languages show (as in Italian). In Ladin, yields and generally yields , although some alternative outcomes are also found. The development of vowels before in Ladin suggests the original presence of coda or of palatalization in this context.

Outside of Western Romance, Latin typically have non-palatalized outcomes:
* In Italian they developed to , as in < or < . However, appears to have developed instead to in some isolated cases. It is unclear whether both outcomes are indigenous Tuscan developments.
* In Romanian, they developed to , as in < and < . A common alternative outcome of is , as in < . Original also developed occasionally to in Romanian.

Some loans into Albanian show > (as in > ), which Orel attributes to borrowing from a West Balkan variety showing the same development as Western Romance, whereas others show the outcome (as in > ), with the velar changed to a labial as in Romanian.

/nkt/

The sequence underwent palatalization in much of Western Romance. An evolution like * > * > * may be reconstructed for the modern outcomes (found in some Rhaeto-Romance varieties) and (found in some Occitan varieties). An alternative evolution like * > * > appears to have taken place in some other Occitan varieties as well as French. Other branches of Romance show non-palatalized outcomes, predominantly (Italian, Catalan, Ibero-Romance) but also (Balkan Romance). The outcomes of 'holy' include Occitan , French ; Catalan , Italian-Portuguese-Spanish ; and Old Romanian (modern ).

/uls ult/

In Spanish, Latin show the same palatalized outcomes as . This is probably a consequence of velarization of in this context. Per Penny, before developed to * and then *. Subsequently * palatalized the following consonant, as in , > , . (This was blocked by a following consonant, as in > .) Similarly, Latin yielded in Aragonese (cf. for in the Glosas Emilianenses) and in Portuguese (cf. < < ).

Obstruent + /l/

The Latin sequences yield palatalized reflexes in numerous Romance languages. This probably began with allophonically turning to after a velar consonant; the resulting system * underlies Balkan Romance, northern Abruzzese, old Gallo-Italic, and old Venetian.

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 * to in fortis positions after the lenition of * to in lenis positions. This is at odds with the traditional view that Latin remained unchanged in fortis positions all along.

The outcomes in Italo-Romance (other than northern Abruzzese) can be traced to a system * that probably developed from the system described above via generalization of post-obstruent .; The same is true for a U-shaped band of Gallo-Romance dialects that surround northern France and include most of Franco-Provençal.

In Ibero-Romance most often have palatalized outcomes, but there are numerous exceptions. Traditionally the latter have been blamed on borrowing or some form of 'learned' influence from Latin, but it has also been suggested that the discrepancy may have to do with lexical frequency, perhaps alongside factors like dissimilation or avoidance of homonymy. The results of are also mixed but consistently non-palatal in word-initial position.

The earliest evidence for the Spanish merger of palatalized initial to one sound is found in eleventh-century documents with forms like for , for , and for .

Postconsonantal

After a consonant, Spanish and Portuguese show palatalization of Latin to the voiceless affricate , as in Spanish > 'wide', > 'to swell', and > 'male' (Portuguese , , ; in Portuguese developed from to ). There are also some cases in Spanish of being palatalized in postconsonantal position, such as > (cf. the Mozarabic ''unya'' attested in the tenth century). In contrast, postconsonantal show nonpalatalized outcomes in French and Catalan, as in > French , Catalan and > French , Catalan .

Intervocalic /kl ɡl/

In Gallo– and Ibero-Romance, intervocalic developed to , merging with the outcome of /lj/. There are competing explanations for this: one is > > > , another is > > > > (the latter parallel to the development of /-kt ks-/).

In Italian and Romanian, intervocalic instead shows loss of lateral articulation rather than loss of the original stop, as in > Italian 'eye' (with ) or > Romanian 'ear' (with ).

In Friulian, the general outcome of intervocalic is with a number of words showing instead, sometimes in variation with . It has been proposed that the different outcomes can be explained by word-stress, but the data seem too inconsistent to support this. In Ladin, intervocalic was conserved in the dialects of Sol and Non; voiced to in the dialect of Fodom; and (perhaps under Germanic influence) turned to in the dialects of Gardena, Badia, and Mareo.

/ll nn/ and initial /l n/

/ll l-/

Latin was palatalized to in Asturian, Leonese, Spanish, Aragonese, and Catalan. This appears to have been a relatively late development. In some areas this merged with an identical outcome of Latin /lj/ (and /kl ɡl/).

In Catalan, as well as some western dialects of Asturian, word-initial was also palatalized to . In other western dialects of Asturian, and also of Leonese, there are a variety of outcomes collectively dubbed the ' che vaqueira'. The earliest evidence for the palatalization of is found in tenth-century documents from the Kingdom of León, which show forms like and for and .

/nn n-/

Latin was palatalized in much the same area as . Cf. 'year' > Astur-Leonese ''a'u'', Spanish ''a'o,'' Aragonese ''a'o'', and Catalan ''a''.

Palatalization of word-initial to is also found in Astur-Leonese.

Morphological effects

Verbs

The original presence of either or a front vowel in some conjugations 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 they could alternatively be extended by analogy to verbs with different etymologies; these competing tendencies often resulted in irregular verb outcomes.

The outcomes of the verb ( discussed above) provide examples of leveling and analogical extension. In Spanish, it initially developed to , but this was later changed under the influence of the form to , which in modern Spanish has been fully leveled to .

In Italian, the found in the forms , < , * was extended by analogy to some verb forms that originally had , such as > (by regular sound change) and (analogical), > (by analogy), and .

Nouns

In Romanian, the masculine plural ending and the feminine regularly palatalize a preceding velar consonant. For example, the plurals of and oˈleɡə('colleague', masculine and feminine respectively) are and .

The Italian masculine plural often does so as well, but this is not systematic; compare the alternating 'male friend(s)' with the non-alternating 'desk(s)'.

Spelling effects

Spelling of palatalized consonants

In some cases, the spelling of palatalized consonants simply remained the same as that of the Latin sounds or sequences that they originated from. For instance, in Spanish represents the palatal lateral (which often developed from Latin , as in < ) and (originally an abbreviated version of ) represents the palatal nasal (which often developed from Latin , as in < ). Spellings like these could be extended to words where palatalized consonants had other etymological origins, as in Spanish 'flame' < and 'mister' < . In some cases, a spelling convention passed beyond its language of origin, as in the use of for in Galician (cf. < ) even though Galician never changed Latin to .

Similarly, the historic palatalization of before front vowels is responsible for the letters standing for various 'soft' sounds when written before a front vowel (in French and Portuguese , in Italian and Romanian ). This spread to English via Old French and replaced the Old English use of the letters . To represent before a back vowel, Italian uses followed by a silent , as in < . This can lead to orthographic ambiguity with learned borrowings from Latin where represents a genuine ; cf. the borrowed and the native .

Latin (which eventually developed into a separate letter ) became generalized in a number of languages as a means of representing or .

Latin , originally limited to words of Greek origin, became generalized as a means of representing , thus for instance Old Spanish < . In Italian the same spelling was also applied to (despite the resulting ambiguity), as in < . In Iberia the letter (originally a variant form of ) came to be used for , as in Old Galician-Portuguese ''praça'' < ; this practice also spread into France and Italy. The grapheme came to be reinterpreted as a version of with a diacritic marking its 'soft' pronunciation in contexts where it would otherwise be pronounced 'hard' (in the combinations or at the end of a word).

Spelling of velar + front vowel

After the palatalization of before front vowels, many Romance languages simplified to in this context, creating new sequences of + front vowel. As a result, in a number of languages the Latin spellings became reinterpreted as a means of indicating that a consonant was velar despite being followed by a front vowel. Thus for instance * > Portuguese , with also extended to words that never had a , as in < .

Italian, which often retained Latin in that context (cf. < *), did not end up using for + front vowel. Instead, it borrowed the scholarly Latin practice of using to indicate (no matter the following sound) with an analogical added for . Thus < or < .

Spelling alternations

In many cases front vowels occurring in noun– or verb-endings did not trigger the palatalization of a preceding velar consonant. This is broadly the case for the present subjunctive in Italo-Western Romance, which leads to spelling alternations of the type seen in Catalan 'he touches' versus 'hathe touch', pronounced and respectively. In Italian such alternations occur not only in verbs but also nouns, since velar consonants often remain unpalatalized before the masculine plural ending and always before the feminine . Thus the plurals of 'place' and 'girlfriend' are and , pronounced and .

Notes

References

Bibliography

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
** Original in German:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
** Original in German:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* {{cite book , last=Zampaulo , first=André , date=2019 , title=Palatal sound change in the Romance languages: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives , publisher=Oxford University Press , doi=10.1093/oso/9780198807384.001.0001, isbn=978-0-19-880738-4

Forms of Latin
Italic sound laws