Latin "sc"

[Amuere]

I'm curious about the history of Latin "sc". In Latin's daughters it evolved into [sk], [s], or [S] was its original pronunciation only [sk] (was fascio [faskio] or [faSio])?

[Aurora Rossa]

I am pretty sure it was pronounced [sk] in Classical Latin but may have shifted to [S] or something in Vulgar Latin, certainly by the time of the daughter languages.

[linguoboy]

IIRC, there are Romance varieties with /skj/ > [sʧ] ~ [sc], indicating that /skj/ > [ʃ] is post-VL. I'll go check Meyer-Lübke when I get a chance.

[Legion]

sc was [sk]. Palatalisation before front vowel or [j] causes it to become [stS] > [S:] in Italian, but expectedly [s] in French. I'm not sure about other Romance languages, but I think Portuguese and Spanish are somewhat similar to French.

[Nannalu]

It was most likely [sk] in Classical Latin but evolved to [S] in Vulgar Latin.
I'd say it was [S] in V.L. because in Italian, it's closest descendant, <sc> is [S] before <i e> but [sk] everywhere else.

[Mr. Z]

It was most likely [sk] in Classical Latin but evolved to [S] in Vulgar Latin.
I'd say it was [S] in V.L. because in Italian, it's closest descendant, <sc> is [S] before <i e> but [sk] everywhere else.

I think Legion is right, and it wasn't [S] in Vulgar Latin. Your explanation does not change anything; in Italian <sc> is indeed [S] only before <i e> because [sk] is palatalized to [S] only before these vowels/semivowel. You also have examples of other evolutions of [sk] in other Romance languages: it became [T] in Spanish, and the cluster [stS], which seems to have been simplified to [S] in Italian, does occur in some other Romance languages. I'm no expert, but these changes, along with the sound changes here http://kneequickie.com/kq/TCL/Indo-European and the probability of this theory make me believe in it.

Anyway, Classical Latin <sc> is always pronounced [sk].

[Terra]

Here's how I understand it.

"sc" in Classical Latin was always [sk] (and /sk/).

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [stS]
VL -> Italian: [stS] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [stS] -> [sts] -> [s:] (Perhaps it was [stS] -> [sS] -> [s:] though?)

I wonder, what did "fascia" and "fascis" become in Norman French?

[spats]

Here's how I understand it.

"sc" in Classical Latin was always [sk] (and /sk/).

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [stS]
VL -> Italian: [stS] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [stS] -> [sts] -> [s:] (Perhaps it was [stS] -> [sS] -> [s:] though?)

I wonder, what did "fascia" and "fascis" become in Norman French?

Except that in Western Romance, c > [tsʲ] / _i, e

As best I can tell from Wikipedia, the Early Old French would have probably been something like ['fas.tsə], which would have probably subsequently merged with <face> or differed only by having [ɑ] instead of [a].

[zompist]

According to Allen, there's no evidence for softening of /k/ before front vowels before the fifth century AD.

Transliterations into Greek use kappa (and Germanic and Celtic borrowings also use k) in the classical period.

[brandrinn]

sc was [sk]. Palatalisation before front vowel or [j] causes it to become [stS] > [S:] in Italian, but expectedly [s] in French. I'm not sure about other Romance languages, but I think Portuguese and Spanish are somewhat similar to French.

Doesn't [sk] become [ek] in French?

[Astraios]

Doesn't [sk] become [ek] in French?

Only initially.

[Aszev]

Doesn't [sk] become [ek] in French?

Only initially.

As part of the larger change of Ø > e / #_sC, e.g. étoile < estoile < stella, which occured in most Western Romance languages (cf. Spanish estrella). The French s > Ø / _C (or at least something similar) is a later change.

[Ser]

sc was [sk]. Palatalisation before front vowel or [j] causes it to become [stS] > [S:] in Italian, but expectedly [s] in French. I'm not sure about other Romance languages, but I think Portuguese and Spanish are somewhat similar to French.

Doesn't [sk] become [ek] in French?

Yes, initially, what Legion and Erde posted is just part of the whole thing that happened. Also look at [sk] > [st] in Latin nāscere > Old French naistre, Classical Lat. crescere > OFr croistre (and how it totally died in OFr (je) nais, (je) croy, ne, cru > ModFr je nais, je croîs, né, crû). CL [sk] > [sts] was a thing found in later learnèd borrowings. Also, modern French doesn't have [s:]. I know very little about Latin > French stuff so can't comment further on that...

In Spanish Classical Latin [sk] generally survived as such except before [e, i, j]: CL schola [skOla] > Old Spanish escuela [eskwela], CL scribere ["skrIbErE] > OSp escreuir~escriuir [eskre"Bir~eskri"Bir]. (note: "[r]" here doesn't imply it's a trill, could be a flap too)

It seems the idea that VL had [stS] before [e, i, j] is shaky at best in Romance studies. Ralph Penny in History of the Spanish language prefers to explain it as CL [sk] > Vulgar Latin of Spain *[tts] > OSp [ts] e.g. CL piscēs ["pIske:s] > VL of Sp. *["pettses] > OSp peçes ["petses].

(Towards modern dialects just take on account whatever happened to OSp [ts]: [T], [s_m], [s_d], [h], [h\].)

[Legion]

Note: k > t and g > d (jungere > joindre) only happens as the result of incomplete palatalisation, blocked by the vowel reduction, so it's really:

"naskere > "nask'ere > "nas't'ere > "naistr@ (more or less, I'm not sure about the exact order of the sequence).

The preceding s has nothing to do with it.

[spats]

Note: k > t and g > d (jungere > joindre) only happens as the result of incomplete palatalisation, blocked by the vowel reduction, so it's really:

"naskere > "nask'ere > "nas't'ere > "naistr@ (more or less, I'm not sure about the exact order of the sequence).

The preceding s has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I was a little confused in my earlier analysis of "fascia" about whether the palatalization would eject backwards with a preceding s, but it seems like it would from your example.

... and in fact, when I look up "faisse" (the expected end product), it turns out that it does exist, but has been verbified and respelled as "fesser", "to spank" in MF (due to folk etymology? fesse = "butt crack"). Kind of funny.

[Legion]

Actually, I was a little confused in my earlier analysis of "fascia" about whether the palatalization would eject backwards with a preceding s, but it seems like it would from your example.

... and in fact, when I look up "faisse" (the expected end product), it turns out that it does exist, but has been verbified and respelled as "fesser", "to spank" in MF (due to folk etymology? fesse = "butt crack"). Kind of funny.

This was helped with the meaning of the old word "faisse" as "switch, birch" thus "faissier" > "to hit with a switch" then > "to hit with a switch on the buttocks" (by influence of "fesse", which means "buttock", not "butt crack") > "to hit on the buttocks"!

And yeah, backward yode ejection happened even if the preceding syllable was closed.

[Ser]

Note: k > t and g > d (jungere > joindre) only happens as the result of incomplete palatalisation, blocked by the vowel reduction, so it's really:

"naskere > "nask'ere > "nas't'ere > "naistr@ (more or less, I'm not sure about the exact order of the sequence).

The preceding s has nothing to do with it.

Oh I see. I like the idea of "incomplete palatalisation".

I still find it relevant as one of the various fates that CL [sk] went, regardless of how it was analyzed diachronically.

sc was [sk]. Palatalisation before front vowel or [j] causes it to become [stS] > [S:] in Italian, but expectedly [s] in French.

Actually, I'm finding quite a number of examples where it seems to have gone CL [sk] > OFr [stS] > [tS] > ModFr [S]:

Old Low Frankish *eskina > OFr eschine [es"tSin@] > ModFr échine [e"Sin(@)] (source)
CL scalarium > OFr eschalier [estSa"lier] > ModFr échalier [eSa"lie] (source)
Medieval Latin scalongia + *-ote > Old/Middle French eschalote > ModFr échalote [eSa"lOt] (source)

Are you sure that [sk] > [stS] > [s] was the natural development of Lat [sk(e, i, j, a?)] and not that of borrowings?

[Legion]

First there's something I badly formulated:

sk > stS before front vowel was only in Italian

The French sequence is

sk > sts > s


Then, those examples you give:

scalarium > échalier
scalongia > échalote

Those are simply explained by k > tS before a
There are numerous examples for this one:
canem > chien
caballus > cheval
calidum > chaud
carum > cher
cantare > chanter
campum > champ

etc; exceptions are borrowings (from Norman, Occitan, Latin and others…)

échine is more problematic, but I can see two possible explanations:
—By the time that word is attested, High German has already undergone the shift k > x in medial and final position, and the subsequent sx > S change was happening as well. So while the word is of Frankish origin, the form could have been influenced from High German.
—There is another word "échine", originally meaning "needle", borrowed from Latin "echinus", from Greek "ekhinos" (urchin); here the /S/ results from spelling pronounciation. That word could have influenced the other phonetically, especially given the proximity of meaning (original Frankish word meant "stick"; and for the meaning of échine (backbone) French also has "épine dorsal" (lit: "dorsal thorn").

[Terra]

Here's how I understand it.

"sc" in Classical Latin was always [sk] (and /sk/).

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [stS]
VL -> Italian: [stS] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [stS] -> [sts] -> [s:] (Perhaps it was [stS] -> [sS] -> [s:] though?)

I wonder, what did "fascia" and "fascis" become in Norman French?

Let me redo this:

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [sk'] -> [st']
VL -> Italian: [st'] -> [stS] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [st'] -> [sts] -> [s:]

Is that right now?

* * *

scalongia > échalote

no "échalogne"?

* * *

Edit: Fixed Italian sound changes.

[Legion]

Let me redo this:

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [sk'] -> [st']
VL -> Italian: [st'] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [st'] -> [sts] -> [s:]

Is that right now?

More like it yeah, though Italian probably has a stS stage?

scalongia > échalote

no "échalogne"?

Change of suffix; "eschalogne" is the Old French word.

[Terra]

More like it yeah, though Italian probably has a stS stage?

I meant to include that...

[Ser]

The French sequence is

sk > sts > s

Could you give an example of this sequence too?

Let me redo this:

CL -> VL: [sk(e, i)] -> [sk'] -> [st']
VL -> Italian: [st'] -> [sS] -> [S:]
VL -> French: [st'] -> [sts] -> [s:]

Is that right now?

More like it yeah

What is an example of a ModFr word with a geminate [s:]?

The sequence for French should have the caveat that it accounts for words before a stressed /e, i, jV/, maybe /a/ too, right?

Also, I know one's ideas for Vulgar Latin vary, but I guess you could make Spanish fit with a [st'] > [ts] sound change? (It'd disagree with Penny's ideas but...)

[Legion]

Examples of sk > s in modern French:

nascebatur > *naskebat > naissait
pareat > *pareskjat > paraisse
finiam > *finiskjam > finisse

…and in fact the entire so-called "2nd conjugation", where the -iss- infix is from Latin -isc-


There's no gemination in modern French but sk' > sts > s: is acceptable if we're talking about intermediate steps, I guess.

The sequence for French should have the caveat that it accounts for words before a stressed /e, i, jV/, maybe /a/ too, right?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.