/j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:50 am
/j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Sorry if this is clutter (there ought to be an L&L quickies section. What were the intermediaries of Latin /j/ becoming /dʒ/ in Romance? I guess /j/ > */ʝ/ > */ɟ/ > /dʒ/, but I could be wrong.
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologic ... _of_FrenchA protected /j/ (not preceded by a vowel), stemming from an initial /j/ or from a /dj/, /ɡj/, or /ɡ(eˌi)/ when preceded by a consonant, becomes /dʒ/.
vec
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Now that it's morning I think I can do a better job of explaining.
First of all, Spanish and Portuguese went the same way, /j/ > /dʒ/ and no dialects involve any intermediaries so there is no need to assume them. This is just your basic fortition. But how does an approximant go stop, you ask?
Approximants involve the articulators getting close, but not close enough to create any kind of friction or turbulence in the airflow. It just whisks out smoothly. For some reason, they seem somewhat prone to fortition, moreso than fricatives for example. If we anthropomorphize the process, we can think of it as a case of people getting annoyed with half-assing the pronounciation of the sound. So they jump from one end of the spectrum that has the least occlusion, to the polar opposite, with a full stop of airflow. (Another common change for approximants is to simply fricativize, which is just a one-step change, and not a jump).
Such polar changes occur in many kinds of sounds. A few examples: "Peripheral" stops pairs such as p and k/q, are somewhat liable to interchange. F-sounds often move all the way to the back to h-sounds (but by way of losing their labial component and retaining only the lack of voicedness). Coronals, which are fully tongue-tip-operated sounds, are liable to glottalize, which may seem more surprising than the back-of-the-tongue-operated sounds such as c/k/q which is also common. P is less likely to glottalize for some reason.
When I devise sound changes for languages, I like to "ascribe" motivation to the sound changes. There are impatient sound changes (fortition-type things), lazy ones (lenition-type things and elimination/merger of sounds) and confused (metathesis, haplology, linear transfer of features etc.).
A fourth category would be the OCD-type, where a gap in the system gets fixed by transferring a sound for no other reason from one part of the "IPA table" to another. Often this involves changes in one of the others, but they often make less sense phonologically. The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/). As did the Icelandic change /ɪ/, /ɛ/ > /e/ and /ʏ/, /œ/ > /ø/ which seemed to want to balance the fact that there were only three back vowel heights (/u/, /ɔ/, /a/), but four front vowel heights. This change was thought to be so disgusting that the school system eradicated it in a holy war during the 40s–60s. And yet, a similar change is cropping up again. The sound system has a will of its own.
First of all, Spanish and Portuguese went the same way, /j/ > /dʒ/ and no dialects involve any intermediaries so there is no need to assume them. This is just your basic fortition. But how does an approximant go stop, you ask?
Approximants involve the articulators getting close, but not close enough to create any kind of friction or turbulence in the airflow. It just whisks out smoothly. For some reason, they seem somewhat prone to fortition, moreso than fricatives for example. If we anthropomorphize the process, we can think of it as a case of people getting annoyed with half-assing the pronounciation of the sound. So they jump from one end of the spectrum that has the least occlusion, to the polar opposite, with a full stop of airflow. (Another common change for approximants is to simply fricativize, which is just a one-step change, and not a jump).
Such polar changes occur in many kinds of sounds. A few examples: "Peripheral" stops pairs such as p and k/q, are somewhat liable to interchange. F-sounds often move all the way to the back to h-sounds (but by way of losing their labial component and retaining only the lack of voicedness). Coronals, which are fully tongue-tip-operated sounds, are liable to glottalize, which may seem more surprising than the back-of-the-tongue-operated sounds such as c/k/q which is also common. P is less likely to glottalize for some reason.
When I devise sound changes for languages, I like to "ascribe" motivation to the sound changes. There are impatient sound changes (fortition-type things), lazy ones (lenition-type things and elimination/merger of sounds) and confused (metathesis, haplology, linear transfer of features etc.).
A fourth category would be the OCD-type, where a gap in the system gets fixed by transferring a sound for no other reason from one part of the "IPA table" to another. Often this involves changes in one of the others, but they often make less sense phonologically. The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/). As did the Icelandic change /ɪ/, /ɛ/ > /e/ and /ʏ/, /œ/ > /ø/ which seemed to want to balance the fact that there were only three back vowel heights (/u/, /ɔ/, /a/), but four front vowel heights. This change was thought to be so disgusting that the school system eradicated it in a holy war during the 40s–60s. And yet, a similar change is cropping up again. The sound system has a will of its own.
vec
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Young people today, etcetera. Are there any other examples of a specific sound-change being so determinedly eliminated?vec wrote:A fourth category would be the OCD-type, where a gap in the system gets fixed by transferring a sound for no other reason from one part of the "IPA table" to another. Often this involves changes in one of the others, but they often make less sense phonologically. The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/). As did the Icelandic change /ɪ/, /ɛ/ > /e/ and /ʏ/, /œ/ > /ø/ which seemed to want to balance the fact that there were only three back vowel heights (/u/, /ɔ/, /a/), but four front vowel heights. This change was thought to be so disgusting that the school system eradicated it in a holy war during the 40s–60s. And yet, a similar change is cropping up again. The sound system has a will of its own.
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
The curl-coil merger has apparently been all but exterminated in New York, to the point of hypercorrection. And even people with the merger normally have specifically demerged 'bird' and 'boyd', so we're told.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
FWIW, there was an intermediate stage /ʒ/. Interestingly, there was a sex-linked opposition for awhile: men said [ʒ], women said [ʃ]. But women teach the next generation, so the change is now generalized.vec wrote:The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/).
(Also FWIW Argentine Spanish bordered some languages with /ʃ/— Quechua and Portuguese.)
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
I see. So maybe it's not such a good example of the sound system "fixing" itself. I'm supposed to know some other examples but it might be too early in the day.zompist wrote:FWIW, there was an intermediate stage /ʒ/. Interestingly, there was a sex-linked opposition for awhile: men said [ʒ], women said [ʃ]. But women teach the next generation, so the change is now generalized.vec wrote:The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/).
(Also FWIW Argentine Spanish bordered some languages with /ʃ/— Quechua and Portuguese.)
vec
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
In terms of balancing out an uneven phonology, I'm not aware of any language with /tɬ/ that doesn't have [ɬ], generally as its own phoneme, but sometimes as an allophone of /l/ before voiceless stops and/or finally. The other affricates have tendencies in that direction, either to deaffricate or have another sound change to fill the gap, but afaik none are as strong as the lateral. s>h seems especially common in languages that have /s/ as the only fricative, and š>x in languages that don't have postalveolar/retroflex/palatal stops. A lot of vowel changes probably fall into this, things simply too close together so they change; o>u after u is lost, monophthongization of ai/au after length becomes quality. And languages with only voiced fricatives (plus /s/) are extremely rare; the only one I know of for sure are some Inuit dialects which devoice geminates to fill in the gap. And less certainly, it feels to me like languages with a context-limited [j] tends to recreate it in other contexts pretty quickly.
On the other hand, /g/ OR /ɣ/ to the absence of the other doesn't seem too uncommon, /v/ without /f/ is pretty common, fewer back vowels than front isn't noteworthy and fewer front-rounded or back-unrounded than either front or back is the rule and not the exception, and palatals to my knowledge never contrast stops and affricates even when they're present in t/ts (and ʈ/ʈʂ, which is itself very rare). Except maybe f/v these are probably all acoustically motivated, though, unlike things like s>h or recreating [j].
On the other hand, /g/ OR /ɣ/ to the absence of the other doesn't seem too uncommon, /v/ without /f/ is pretty common, fewer back vowels than front isn't noteworthy and fewer front-rounded or back-unrounded than either front or back is the rule and not the exception, and palatals to my knowledge never contrast stops and affricates even when they're present in t/ts (and ʈ/ʈʂ, which is itself very rare). Except maybe f/v these are probably all acoustically motivated, though, unlike things like s>h or recreating [j].
- Hallow XIII
- Avisaru
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
- Location: Under Heaven
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Nahuatl.
陳第 wrote:蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。
Read all about my excellent conlangsR.Rusanov wrote:seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg
Basic Conlanging Advice
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
For an even more bizarre change of this type, there was a Indo-European language that changed /j/ to effin' /ð/ of all the crazy things. I don't even think that there was a /θ/ to contrast it against. I'm pretty the language is dead now though, it was one of those wacky ones deep in Asia.vec wrote:
A fourth category would be the OCD-type, where a gap in the system gets fixed by transferring a sound for no other reason from one part of the "IPA table" to another. Often this involves changes in one of the others, but they often make less sense phonologically. The Argentinian change of intervocalic /j/ > /ʃ/, which is a bit strange, fits this bill (to make up for the fact that there is a /tʃ/). As did the Icelandic change /ɪ/, /ɛ/ > /e/ and /ʏ/, /œ/ > /ø/ which seemed to want to balance the fact that there were only three back vowel heights (/u/, /ɔ/, /a/), but four front vowel heights. This change was thought to be so disgusting that the school system eradicated it in a holy war during the 40s–60s. And yet, a similar change is cropping up again. The sound system has a will of its own.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
If that's directed at me and my claim about /tɬ/, as far as I'm aware dialects that maintain /tɬ/ devoice /l/ to [ɬ] in certain positions. I haven't gone out of my way to try and find information on it, but I have yet to run into any counterexamples.Hallow XIII wrote:Nahuatl.
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
This happened in Osage as well. It's one of the chief isoglosses that distinguishes it from Kansa.Chagen wrote:For an even more bizarre change of this type, there was a Indo-European language that changed /j/ to effin' /ð/ of all the crazy things.
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
The Brythonic languages also did this, albeit restricted to intervocalic position.Chagen wrote:For an even more bizarre change of this type, there was a Indo-European language that changed /j/ to effin' /ð/ of all the crazy things. I don't even think that there was a /θ/ to contrast it against. I'm pretty the language is dead now though, it was one of those wacky ones deep in Asia.
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
For some reason, /j/ and /w/ tend to be pretty stable adjacent to consonants but they can do whatever they want intervocalically.
vec
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Cubeo did this between nonhigh vowels.linguoboy wrote:This happened in Osage as well. It's one of the chief isoglosses that distinguishes it from Kansa.Chagen wrote:For an even more bizarre change of this type, there was a Indo-European language that changed /j/ to effin' /ð/ of all the crazy things.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: /j/ to /dʒ/ in Romance
Gothic also. Though Gothic had /θ/ and Brythonic languages also developed /θ/.Dewrad wrote:The Brythonic languages also did this, albeit restricted to intervocalic position.Chagen wrote:For an even more bizarre change of this type, there was a Indo-European language that changed /j/ to effin' /ð/ of all the crazy things. I don't even think that there was a /θ/ to contrast it against. I'm pretty the language is dead now though, it was one of those wacky ones deep in Asia.
Actually, the change of something sounding something like a palatal stop to an interdental fricative is not so unusual. We have Spanish soft 'c' = /θ/, palatalised dentals are hypothesised to have changed to interdental fricatives as Afroasiatic developed to Semitic, and IE k̂ and ĝ have regular reflexes /θ/ and /ð/ in Albanian.