Russo LSA 2019
LSA Institute 2019: Sound Change (handout 1)
Phonological change from LATIN to ROMAN: In Latin, vowels had two durations (Phonological Lengths):
(1) Ĭ Ī Ĕ Ē Ă Ā Ŏ Ō Ŭ Ū (10 vowels phonemes) Vowels Quantity
There were five Latin vowels: {a e i o u} and could be all long or short
(2) This vowel quantity was phonological → Minimal pairs with a semantic or functional value and categories (N D V Adj T Case…) LĔVIS ‘light’ LĒVIS ‘smooth’ LĔGO ‘I gather’ LĔGO ‘I send (someone) as an ambassador’ SŎLUM ‘ground’ SŌLUM ‘alone’ VĔNIT ‘he comes’ VĒNIT ‘he came’ FŬGIT ‘he runs away’ FŪGIT ‘he ran away’ MĂLUM ‘the evil’ MĀLUM ‘the apple’ PĂLUS ‘swamp’ PĂLUS ‘pale’ RŌMĂ (NOM.) RŌMĀ (ABL.) HĬC ‘this’ HĪC ‘here’ etc.
(3) Phonetic representation of Latin vowels (length and laxness) Ĭ = [ɪ] Ī = [i:] Ĕ = [ɛ] Ē = [e:] Ă = [a] Ā = [a:] Ŏ = [ɔ] Ō = [o:] Ŭ = [ʊ] Ū = [u:]
front central back unrounded long short rounded high i: u:
ɪ ʊ mid e: o:
ɛ ɔ low a: a
In Romance on the contrary, the vowels are distinguished only by the degree of openness: the quantitative opposition has given way to the qualitative opposition.
(4) Two quantities - vocalic and consonantal
1
Russo LSA 2019
AGER ‘a field’ AGGER ‘pile of materials’ (c -C)
(5) Minimal pairs with vocalic and consonantal duration: anaphoric chain (c -C) vs. constituent (V- v) BĀCA – BĂCCA ‘bay, fruit’ CĀPA – CĂPPA ‘tank, barrel’ STŪPA – STŬPPA ‘tow’
- Third century? Change: quantity differences become phonological differences of vocalic timbre.
(6) Evolutions of Latin stressed vowels to (pan-)Romance: {i e ɛ a ɔ o u} Lat. Ī → /i/ [+ATR] = Advanced Tongue Root Lat. Ĭ/Ē → /e/ [+ATR] Lat. Ĕ → /ɛ/ [-ATR] Lat. Ā/Ă → /a/ Lat. Ŏ → /ɔ/ [-ATR] Lat. Ŭ/Ō → /o/ [+ATR] Lat. Ū → /u/ [+ATR] - except Sardinian language, Romanian and some southern Italian dialects.
(7) The dephonologization of the vowel quantity The quantity neutralization takes place in atonic syllables: Pompeii - Epigraphic Latin (Ist c. A.D.): bibet (CIL IV.6825) colet (CIL IV.9167) contemnet (CIL IV.5370)
Letters of Claudius Terentianus (115 A.D.): nese = nisi sene = sine dicet = dicit
- Most of the Romance languages merge Ĭ/Ē = [e] and Ŭ/Ō = [o], while Ī = [i:] and Ū = [u:]. - The relationship between Ĭ/Ī and Ē/Ĕ is the same, there was an opposition of quantity, but also of laxness. - In Vulgar Latin Ĭ is already replaced by
(8) In Pompeii cases of
2
Russo LSA 2019
veces = vicēs (CIL IV. 1216) pravessimus (CIL IV.8259) domene (posttonic) (CIL IV.1871)
(9) In Medieval Latin (Merovingian and Carolingian Latin < Gallo-Romance):
CORPUS Merovingian and Carolingian Latin: - Monumenta Germaniae Historica online (= eMGH Brepols & Publishers 2009) = Merovingian Latin (486-751) - ARTEM (TELMA) - Actes originaux antérieurs à 1120 conservés en France - Carolingian Latin) http://www.cn-telma.fr//originaux/index/
Atonic Ĭ =
Stressed Ĭ =
(10) Posttonic Ĭ =
(11) See contracted forms already in Latin: vinti (see Medieval French vint) (CIL VI 19007, VIII 8573) trienta = TRĪGINTA (CIL XII 5399) trigenta instead of TRĪGINTA (6 c. - Formulae Merowingici et Karolini) latitudo quinquagenta, altitudo tregenta (Gregory of Tours 6th c., SS rer. Merov.)
instead of QUĪNQUAGINTA
(12) Pretonic Ĭ is lowered =
(13) Confusion between the Latin Diphthong
3
Russo LSA 2019
But also atonic: vicinae instead of vīcīnĕ - Even if
-Doublets : ōlla / aulla, cōlis /caulis (Caton and Varron, see TLL s.v.), cōda (Varr. R. 2, 7, 5) /cauda, plōstrum / plaustrum , clōstra / claustra etc. Ita. chiostro CLAUS.TRU [ɔ] vs. Ita. coda CAU.DA, FAU.CE foce [o:].
(15) Latin diphthong
(16) Formal representation: - In the opposition Ĭ – Ī, Ĕ – Ē, Ă – Ā, Ŏ – Ō, Ŭ – Ū the length is associated by default to a phonological laxness - The laxness V [+ARL] - V [- ARL] has been transformed macroscopically in the Romance languages in an aperture opposition.
- Sanford Schane’s proposal (2005) : The aperture particle a. Its role and functions - Particle Phonology Three elementary particles characterise the abstract structure of vowels: a = aperture (or height) u = labiality (or rounding) i = palatality (or frontness) (17) Particles tonality Tonality Palatality i u Labiality
a Aperture
4
Russo LSA 2019
- Vowels systems with more than two degrees of aperture require additional occurrences of the particle a ‘aperture’. - In the opposition long vowel vs. short, the short vowel is characterized by a particle a which is extra. (18) a-laxness: [ɪ] = V { i a} [ɪ] = Ĭ V i a a -laxness (19) The phonological representation of the Latin vowel system in Schane’ s framework (2005): [i:] [ɪ] [e:] [ɛ] [a:] [a] [ɔ] [o:] [ʊ] [u:] V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V i i i i a a u u u u a a a a a a a a a
- In the structure of the short vowels Ĭ, Ĕ, Ŏ, Ŭ the particle a indicates laxness, while in the structure of the long vowels Ē, Ō, the same particle represents the vocalic height. (20) New Vowels System = (pan-)Romance: /i/ = i /e/ = i a /E/ = i a a /a/ = a /O/ = u a a /o/ = u a /u/ = u
(21) In the evolution of the Latin, the stressed vowels of short tonality become long vowels, with a degree lower in height: Ĭ/Ē → /e/ and Ŭ/Ō → /o/ /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ merge with /e/ and /o/
(22) Their merger is possible due to their internal structure: /ɪ/ = i a /ʊ/ = u a /e/ = i a /o/ = u a - [ɪ] /[ ʊ] = [e o]:
5
Russo LSA 2019
[ɪ]/[ʊ] [e] /[o] i u i u a a a a
- What had been functioning formerly in classical Latin as ‘laxness’ when the vowel was short is reinterpreted as a ‘lowering of height’ once it becomes long - The differences in length ceased to be contrastive and the vowels lengthened - Therefore, there have been an elimination of the laxness that depends on the length contrast: (23) Elimination of the laxness phonological opposition (high vowels): Ī = /i:/ = VV = i Ĭ = [ɪ] = V = i a a → → /i:/
- Because length differences ceased to be contrastive, all vowels ultimately would be represented by a single V - As a consequence, there would be the elimination of laxness (which depends on a length contrast) as a possible interpretation for the particle a. - Former [ɪ]/[ʊ], with one aperture particle each have representations indistinguishable from those of [e, o] respectively, and former [E O] (= ɛ/ɔ), with two aperture particles, are then viewed as a new lowest height within each of the tonality series. - In the Romance languages [E, O] are realized [jɛ, wɔ] (e.g. Italian), that is to say the short vowels have been lengthened VV → NŎVUM ‘nuovo/new’, MĔL ‘miele/honey’
(24) – (while) long vowels become laxed in closed syllable Ē → [ɛ] instead of [e] in closed syllable: LĒCTUS and RĒCTUS → [ɛ] Italian letto ‘bed’ and retto ‘straight’ FĒSTA ‘party’ → Romance [ɛ]
(25) Ī → [e] instead of [i] in closed syllable: FĪRMUS → Romance [e] FRĪG(I)DUS → Ita. freddo, Fr. froid ‘cold’ Ū → Romance [o] instead of [u] : LŪRDUS → Ita. lordo ‘dirthy’, fr. lourd ‘gross’
(26) Word stress in Latin Classical Latin – word stress: laudāre vs. vendĕre - In the polysyllables, the accent is on the penultimate syllable, if it is heavy, and on the antepenultimate syllable, if the penultimate syllable is light.
6
Russo LSA 2019
- The Grammarian Sacerdos (ca. 300) under the reign of Diocletian and Servius (ca. 400) reveals a system in which the action of the accent is evident - Servius (4th c.) : « accentus in ea syllaba est, quae plus sonat »
(27) Protosyllabic stress = Initial Word Stress (Archaic Latin) - Before the literary period (from the beginning to the end of the second century B. C.): protosyllabic stress = initial word stress Two consequences : - Latin Apophony : facio/cōnficio, dămno / condĕmno, claudo / conclūdo - Syncope valdē or balneum - Pre-stress Syncope - e.g. officina from *op(i)ficīna - Syncope and apophony: rego – surgo (from surrigo) In Romance generally the stress remains the same as in Latin: CĪVITĀTE → Ita. città, Sp. ciudad, Fr. cité ‘town’, etc.
(28) Strategies for stress assignment in Classical Latin Classical Latin did not have lexical stress – It is predictable. It falls: a. On the leftmost syllable in dissyllabic (and trivially in monosyllabic) words b. On the penultimate syllable if it was heavy (a 2μ-syllable), and on the antepenultimate (whatever its weight) if the penultimate was light (1μ), in 2+ syllable words.
(29) This allows a few generalizations: - First, assuming that final syllables (save in monosyllables) are intrinsically light, the stress window comprises from two (monosyllabic and LL words) up to three moras (HL and 2+ syllable words), stress falling on the left edge of the window, whence a constraint that will be called FOOTUNEVEN: wherever possible feet are trimoraic. - The question arises if we have to make use of uneven trochees (like Jacobs 2000) rather than strictly bimoraic trochees. - It seems that trochees in Latin can be uneven, i.e. consist of up to three moras. Secondly, as stress placement is determined by syllable weight, Latin obeys the constraint called WEIGHT-TO-STRESS (WTS), according to which heavy syllables are stressed.
(30) Special Word Stress cases - Greek accentuation : - butúrum (with long υ) → Fr. beurre ‘butter’ From Greek βoύτυρον BUTRUM Glossaire de Reichenau 8th century - incaustum → medieval Fr. enque ‘ink’ / modern Fr. encre But Ita. inchiostro From Greek
7
Russo LSA 2019
Celtic loans: Bitúrīges → Fr. Bourges (5th c. Sidonius ) Némausus → Occ. Nemse and Fr. Nîmes (6th c.) Tricasses → Fr. Troyes
Other loans : Písaurum → Pésaro Tárentum → Táranto
(31) OL Groups (Obstruants + Liquids) → Stress Shift:
Muta cum Liquida groups were inseparable in Classical Latin, e.g. in-te-grum, te-ne-bras HOWEVER: The short penultimate vowel followed by an occlusive + /r/ or /l/ Group receives the accent in Late Latin: INTĔGRUM → Fr. entier, Ita. intero - Primitive Syllabification: *INTAG-ROM (Archaic Latin) INTĔGRUM: the apophonic vowel /e/ instead of /i/ indicates the heterosyllabic syllabification of [g.r]
(32) Antepenultimate stress (3rd to the last): stressed Ĭ and Ĕ in hiatus before Ĕ or Ŏ Stress shift on the 2nd vocalic element = 2μ from the end- = /j/ = Ĭ can be deleted: ABĬĔTE ‘fir tree’ (Ennius, ca. 200 B.C.) Ita. abete (Elision of = /j/ in hiatus) PARĬĔTE ‘wall’ → PARĒTE Fr. paroi / Ita. parete -Epigraphic Latin: paretes (Roma) (CIL VI.3714) parite (= pariete) (Ravenna) (half 7th c. R II 4262. 31) pariite (5th c., Tj 24, 3) ii = this orthography is a sign of confusion between the stressed Ē and Ĭ QUĬĒTU ‘quiet’ → Fr. coi Ita. cheto (Ita. quieto is a Latin Loan) Epigraphic Latin : queti = QUĬĒTĪ (Pompeii) quetus = quietus (Afrique du Nord - Lambaesis) (CIL VIII.2847) But ARĬĔTE Ita. ariete ‘ram’ (Stress Shift without elision) MULIĒRIS instead of MULIĔRIS ‘wife’ (in metric - the poet Dracontius 5th c.)
8
Russo LSA 2019
(33) Stress shift on the 2nd vocalic element = 2μ from the end- Hiatus ĔŎ → J : PUTĔŎLIS – Epigraphic Latin: Toponym (litt. ‘little well’) Putiolana (North Africa - Lambaesis) CIL VIII. 2622 Putiolanae (Southern Italy - Puteoli) CIL X. 2384 Putiulanus (Roma) R II 4262
-ĔŎLUS → *JŎLUS : LINTĔŎLU → Ita. lenzuolo, Fr. linceul ‘sheet’
(34) Stress shift on the 2nd vocalic element = 2μ from the end -ĔŎLUS → -*JŌLUS e.g. in Southern Medieval Italian dialects Metaphony Ō → [u] and in French: Medieval Neap. Pecczulo (before1475) Toponym Medieval Neap. fegliulo (1360ca.) ‘sonny boy’ vs. Ita. figliòlo or Fr. filleul de Ŏ As LINTĔŎLU → LINTJŌLU ‘sheet’, PHASĔŎLU → PHASJŌLU ‘bean’, etc.
(35) Stress shift - Proparoxytonic verbal forms with prefixes: Stress Shift on the ROOT: e.g. cóntĭnet → conténet ON TĔNET supsténet amicos FROM sustĭnet.. (Pompeii CIL IV.4456)
(36) Uneven trochee in Latin (and in Italian)?
- As is well known, the Late Latin changes eliminated stressed light syllables, as well as overheavy syllables: a. LĂTUS ‘side’ > It. [laato] = lātus ‘wide’ > Ita. [laato] b. STĒl.la ‘star’ > It. [stella]
- Thus, Italian stressed syllables are necessarily heavy by exploiting either vowel or consonant length.
(37) However, according to a general view (see Bertinetto 1981), the stressed vowels of proparoxytonic words represent an intermediate degree of length which is supposed to explain the absence of the diphthongs /jɛ/ and /wɔ/ in such words as:
a. PĔCORAM b. pecora ‘sheep’ TĔNERUM tenero ‘tender’ PŎPULUM popolo ‘people’ ŎPERAM opera ‘work’
9
Russo LSA 2019
as opposed to piede ‘foot’ (< Lat. PĔDEM), etc. - Leaving aside a few counterexamples like tiepido ‘warm’ (< Lat. tĕpidum), diphthongs do not develop in this position in Standard Tuscan Italian, though in some dialects they do.
(38) Proparoxytonic words show another specificity, which is non-etymological gemination, stress falling on a closed syllable:
a. ĂTOMU b. attimo FĒMINAM femmina CHŎLERAM collera MĀCHINAM macchina PŪBLICUM pubblico
- Where does the variation concerning proparoxytones come from? - Why does Italian have either pecora instead of *peccora / *piecora, or femmina instead of *femina / *fiemina?
(39) The variation shown by Italian proparoxytones (pecora, tiepido, femmina) is a hint of the ways Italo-Romance rebuilt the Latin accentual system. - By the vowel lengthening in open stressed syllables of the paroxytones, Italo-Romance replaced the WTS constraint of Latin with STRESS-TO-WEIGHT (STW), according to which stressed syllables are heavy. - Romance dialects, and especially Italo-Romance, do not have lost the constraint on the size of the stress window: FOOTUNEVEN. - Both STW and FOOTUNEVEN coexist in Italo-Romance grammars. Indeed, these constraints have conflictual effects, and the variable reflexes of proparoxytones are a sign thereof, standard modern Italo-Tuscan = Standard Italian showing words that may come from dialects which have diverged by the mutual ranking of FOOTUNEVEN and STW. (40) In those dialects where FOOTUNEVEN outranked STW, *peccora is naturally ruled out, as it implies a 4-mora accentual window; pecora is the winner.
- In those dialects where STW outranked FOOTUNEVEN, *femina is impossible, because it has a light stressed syllable; femmina is selected. - Further research is still needed on two points. The first concerns the femmina / tiepido divergence. - Both are supposed to satisfy STW, as the diphthong supposes a lengthened nucleus (cf. piede versus terra). - However, it remains to be seen what determines either the consonantal or the vocalic realization of syllable weight, and why gemination only occurs in proparoxytones, and never in paroxytones (lătus > *latto). - Suffice it to say at this stage that interesting evidence for the relevance of FOOTUNEVEN comes from Repetti (1998) study of the evolution of vowels in the Italian dialects.
10
Russo LSA 2019
(41) Stress shift, stressed enclitics in Italo-Romance - In Central and Southern Italian (medieval and modern dialects) we find several verbal forms which show double enclitics Cl1Cl2 where we observe a stress shift on Cl1 or on final V before a Cl (iff only one clitic is present):
Cl1Cl2 Stress shift - Type Neapolitan diciteméllo (mello)UnFt = Ita. ‘dìtemelo/ say that to me’
Cl1 /te, me.../DAT + Cl2 = /lo le.../ACC (a) Lat. illud = (lo) diciteméllo /dicite#(me#lo)/ MASS (b) Lat. illas = (le) portomélle /porto#(me#le)/ F.PL. = Ita. ‘pòrtamele/ bring them to me’
(42) After the stress shift, any initial consonant of Cl2 can geminate: Neap. portanotte ‘(they) bring you’ = Ita. ti portano
Here in Neap. , the VIPersPres. ind. /#-no/< Lat. -unt behaviors as clitic (Cl1). (43) NO STRESS SHIFT in ITALIAN and in SPANISH In Italian (and in Spanish but not in Catalan) the stress is not shifted on clitics in parallel forms as: it. pòrtalo or pòrtatelo:
It. portatelo porta
(44) Do we have geminates by STRESS-TO-WEIGHT (STW) in Southern Italian ?
- In Standard Italian, final stress of Wd1 is always FT-BIN (μμ) and it licenses an identified consonantal position, as STW inserts 1μ. - This creates the Syntactic Doubling (Raddoppiamento Sintattico) phonologically conditioned as shown by the ranked constraints in (b), already in Medieval Tuscan (a):
RS stress-conditioned - (H)Wd1 As in modern Ita. città tua città[tt]ua ‘your city’
(a) Wd1 FT-BIN -μμ STW -Vμ /andoμ + lo/ (final -V stressed) IIIPERS.PERF. Medieval Florentine rekolle (1211) andollo (II half XIV c.)
(b) STW (Wd1), WTIDENT(C) >> WTIDENT(V)*, UNEVEN TROCHEE*, NO-EMPTY-μ
(45) These forms, where Cl2 is derived by Latin illu, are close to the forms found in Catalan (of Barcelona and of the Balearic Islands): - They have been interpreted in the litterature very differently.
11
Russo LSA 2019
- For such forms Ordóñez & Repetti (2006) suggested a syntactic hierarchy between the two clitics: a Cl1 + a weak pronoun ACC : [VP[DAT[ACC]] with ACC in SPEC position. - I have proposed that in Southern Italian clitics always behaviour, contrarily to the Italian type ‘pòrtatelo’, as autonomous phonological words and they follow what I call the ‘three moras constraint’: - In Southern Italian dialects, as in Italian, the place of the accent is born only to one of last three moras of the word. - Therefore, in dialects the stress shift takes place on clitics to avoid the stress to fall on the fourth mora
- Thus, the geminate in clitics (Cl1) is conditioned by STW. This is supported by the fact that Standard Italian has geminates in verbal forms type as in (46):
(46) /#-no/ behaviors with verbal roots as a clitic in Standard Italian FT-BIN (H) STW(μμ) LEFTHEAD = RS VI PERS.IND. III PERS. IND. (a) stànno = sta#no ‘(they) stay’ staμ ‘(he) stays’ (b) dànno = dà#no ‘(they) give’ dàμ ‘(he) gives’
- In Standard Italian (46), as we said above for Neapolitan, -unt = /#-no/ behaviors with verbal roots as a clitic. - The evidence for the application of RS phonologically conditioned in (46) comes also from the alternated forms in (47):
(47) Ita stanno ‘(they) stay’ opposed to cantano ‘(they) sing’ without geminate: Computation of sta#no -RS phonologically conditioned vs. cantano (non-etymological) VI PRES.IND. /-no/
sta#no = staμ stanno FT-BIN (H) STW(μμ) LEFTHEAD STW (Wd1), WTIDENT(C) >> WTIDENT(V)*, UNEVEN TROCHEE*, NO-EMPTY-μ cantano FT-UNEVEN (LLL) STW* (FOOTUNEVEN) >> PARSE-SYL >> STW, STW violation
- We can also put these prosodic facts in a direct interface using GP empty syllabic space effects instead of prosodic domains, to see whether a theory of representational direct effects can provide better representations than other computational devices. - Independent on the theoretical framework used, it seems that the process shown above for Southern Italian provides arguments for a phase-theoretic approach against the output-output correspondence approach.
12