Proto-Romance language

Short description: Reconstructed ancestor of the Romance languages.

Proto-Romance

Reconstruction of| Romance languages
Region| Roman Empire
Era| c. 3rd–4th centuries CE?

Reconstructed
ancestors

Proto-Indo-European

* Proto-Italic

Lower-order reconstructions|

* Common Romanian
* Proto-Italo-Western Romance

Proto-Romance is the comparatively reconstructed ancestor of all Romance languages. It reflects a late variety of spoken Latin prior to regional fragmentation.[1]

## Contents

* 1 Phonology
* 1.1 Vowels
* 1.1.1 Monophthongs
* 1.1.2 Diphthong
* 1.1.3 Phonetics
* 1.1.4 Constraints
* 1.2 Consonants
* 1.2.1 Palatalized consonants
* 1.2.2 Phonetics
* 1.2.3 Constraints
* 2 Morphology
* 2.1 Nouns
* 2.2 Adjectives
* 2.2.1 Positive
* 2.2.2 Comparative
* 2.2.3 Superlative
* 2.2.4 Possessive
* 2.3 Pronouns
* 2.3.1 Personal
* 2.3.2 Relative
* 2.4 Verbs
* 2.4.1 Present indicative
* 2.4.2 Participles
* 3 See also
* 4 Notes
* 5 References
* 6 Bibliography

## Phonology

### Vowels

#### Monophthongs

| Front  | Central  | Back

|
|
|

Close  | i  |  | u
Near-close  | ɪ  |  | ʊ
Close-mid  | e  |  | o
Open-mid  | ɛ  |  | ɔ
Open  |  | a  |

#### Diphthong

The only phonemic diphthong was /au̯/.[2]

#### Phonetics

* Vowels were lengthened in stressed open syllables.[3]
* Stressed /ɛ ɔ/ may have yielded the incipient diphthongs [e͡ɛ o͡ɔ] when followed, in the same word, by a syllable containing a close vowel.[4]
* Whatever the precise outcome, Maiden argues that this phenomenon would have been limited, at the Proto-Romance stage, to open syllables. That is, it would have applied only to instances of /ɛ ɔ/ subjected to stressed-open-syllable lengthening.[5]

#### Constraints

* Neither a distinct /ɛ/ nor /ɔ/ occurred in unstressed position on account of having merged into /e/ and /o/ respectively.[6]
* Neither a distinct /i/ nor /u/ occurred in the second syllable of words with the structure /ˌσσˈσσ/ (such as càntatóre 'singer') on account of having merged into /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ respectively.[7]

### Consonants

Per Burger (1955:25)  | Labial  | Coronal  | Palatal  | Velar

|
|
|
|

non-labial  | labial
Nasal  |  | m mʲ |  | n nʲ |  |  |  |  |  |
Plosive  | p pʲ | b bʲ | t tʲ | d dʲ |  | j[8] | k kʲ | ɡ ɡʲ | kʷ[8] |
Fricative  | f fʲ | β βʲ | s sʲ |  |  |  |  |
Vibrant  |  |  |  | r rʲ |  |  |  |  |  |
Approximant  |  |  |  | l lʲ |  |  |  |  |  |

#### Palatalized consonants

* There is disagreement over whether Proto-Romance had phonemic palatalization.[9] For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that it did.[lower-roman 1]
* Palatalized consonants tended to geminate in intervocalic position, though the extent of this varied by consonant.[10][lower-roman 2]
* There appears to have been a tendency to merge /dʲ/, /ɡʲ/, and occasionally /βʲ/ into /j/.[12]
* /tʲ/ was affricated to [t͡sʲ][13] or [t͡zʲ].[14]

#### Phonetics

* A prop-vowel [ɪ] was added before word-initial /sC/ clusters not already preceded by a vowel (as in /sˈtare/ [ɪsˈtaːɾe]).[15]
* The sequence /ɡn/ was likely realized as [ɣn] at first, with subsequent developments varying by region.[16][lower-roman 3]
* /j/ was likely realized as [ʝ] or [ɟ], possibly with gemination in intervocalic position.[17]
* /d/ and /ɡ/ might have been fricatives or approximants in intervocalic position.[18]
* /s/ might have been apico-alveolar.[19]
* /ll/ might have been retroflex.[20][lower-roman 4]
* /f/ might have been bilabial.[21]

#### Constraints

* /b bʲ/ did not occur intervocalically on account of having merged into /β βʲ/.[22]
* The same merger may also have occurred after the consonants /r l/, but this is not entirely clear.[23]
* /kʷ/ did not occur before back (rounded) vowels on account of having delabialized to /k/.[24]

## Morphology

Note: the spellings provided below are based on those used in Latin and not indicative of reconstructed Proto-Romance pronunciation.

### Nouns

Nouns appear to have had three cases: a nominative, an accusative, and a combined genitive-dative.

Per Lausberg (1973:29, 32, 66–67)[lower-roman 5] Class  |  | I  |  | II  |  | III.M  |  | III.F

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Number  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL
NOM  | capra  | capras  | caballus  | caballi  | pater  | patres~patri  | mater  | matres
ACC  | caballum  | caballos  | patrem  | patres
GEN-DAT  | capre  | capris  | caballo  | caballis  | patri  | patris  | matri  | matris
Translation  | goat  | horse  | father  | mother

Several Class III nouns had inflections that differed by syllable count or stress position.

Per Hall (1983:28)  Number  |  | SG

|
|

NOM  | homo  |  | pastor  |  | soror
ACC  | hominem  | pastorem  | sororem
GEN-DAT  | homini  | pastori  | sorori
Translation  | man  | pastor  | sister

Some nouns were pluralized with -a or -ora, having originally been neuter in Classical Latin. Their singular was treated as grammatically masculine, while their plural was treated as feminine.[25]

Per Lausberg (1973:47)  Class  |  | II  |  | III

|
|
|
|

Number  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL
NOM  | brachium  | brachia  | tempus  | tempora
ACC
GEN-DAT  | brachio  | brachiis  | tempori  | temporis
Translation  | arm  | time

Such nouns, due to their plurals, were often reanalyzed as collective feminine nouns.

Per Alkire & Rosen (2010:193–194)  Number  |  | SG  | PL  |  | SG  | PL

|
|
|
|
|
|

Original noun  | folium  | folia  | lignum  | ligna
Fem. variant  | folia  | folias  | ligna  | lignas
Translation  | leaf, leaves  | firewood

### Adjectives

#### Positive

Per Lausberg (1973:108–109, 119–122)  Class  |  | I/II  |  | III

|
|
|
|

Gender  | M  |  | F  | M  |  | F
Number  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL
NOM  | bonus  | boni  | bona  | bonas  | viridis  | virides~viridi  | viridis  | virides
ACC  | bonum  | bonos  | viridem  | virides  | viridem
GEN-DAT  | bono  | bonis  | bone  | bonis  | viridi  | viridis  | viridi  | viridis
Translation  | good  | green

#### Comparative

Proto-Romance inherited the comparative suffix -ior from Latin, but only in a limited number of adjectives.[26][lower-roman 6]

Per Lausberg (1973:129–131)  Number  |  | SG

|
|

Gender  | M+F  |  | N
NOM  | melior  | melius
ACC  | meliorem
Translation  | better

Otherwise, the typical way to form a comparative seems to have been to add either plus or magis (meaning 'more') to a positive adjective.[27]

#### Superlative

With the exception of a few fossilized forms, such as /ˈpɛssɪmʊs/ 'worst', superlatives were formed by adding an intensifying adverb or prefix (/mʊltu, bɛne, per-, tras-/ etc.) to a positive adjective. Comparative forms could also have been made superlative by adding a demonstrative adjective.[28]

#### Possessive

Feminine singular forms shown below. In certain cases there was an opposition between 'strong' (stressed) and 'weak' (unstressed) variants.[29]

Per Lausberg (1973:§§754–755)  |  | 1P  | 2P  | 3P  | INT

|
|
|
|
|

SG  | mea~ma  | tua~ta  | sua~sa  | cuia
PL  | nostra  | vostra

### Pronouns

#### Personal

Numerous variant forms appear to have existed. For the third-person genitive-dative inflections, there appears to have been an opposition between 'strong' (stressed) and 'weak' (unstressed) variants, as also with the possessive adjectives.

Per Hall (1983:39) and De Dardel & Wüest (1993:39–43, 57)  |  | 1P  |  | 2P  |  | 3P.M  |  | 3P.F

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Number  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL
NOM  | ego  | nos  | tu  | vos  | ille~illi  | illi  | illa  | illas
ACC  | me~mene  | te~tene  | illum  | illos
GEN-DAT  | mi~mibi  | nobis  | ti~tibi  | vobis  | illi~illui  | illis~illorum  | illi~illaei  | illis~illorum

#### Relative

Per Elcock (1960:95–96)  Gender  |  | M+F  | N

|
|
|

NOM  | qui  | quod
ACC  | quem
GEN-DAT  | cui

The interrogative pronouns were the same, except that the neuter nominative-accusative form was quid.

### Verbs

Proto-Romance verbs belonged to three main classes, each characterized by a different thematic vowel. Their conjugations were built on three stems and involved various combinations of mood, aspect, and tense.[30]

#### Present indicative

Per Van Den Bussche (1985:§§2.3–2.3.2)[lower-roman 7] Verb class  |  | 1P  |  | 2P  |  | 3P  |  | Translation

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

SG  | PL  | SG  | PL  | SG  | PL
I  | canto  | cantamus  | cantas  | cantatis  | cantat  | cantant  | sing
II.a  | video  | videmus  | vides  | videtis  | videt  | videunt~vidunt~vident  | see
II.b  | vendo  | vendimus  | vendis  | venditis  | vendit  | vendunt~vendent  | sell
III  | dormo~dormio  | dormimus  | dormis  | dormitis  | dormit  | dormunt~dorment  | sleep
Irregular  | sum  | sumus~semus  | es  | estis~setis~sutis  | est  | sunt  | be
habeo~aio  | habemus  | aes~as  | habetis  | aet~at  | aunt~aent~ant  | have
dao  | damus  | das  | datis  | dat  | daunt~daent~dant  | give
vado~vao  | imus[31] | vais~vas  | itis[31] | vait~vat  | vaunt~vaent~vant  | go

#### Participles

As in Latin, present participles had an active sense and inflected like class III adjectives, while past participles had a passive sense and inflected like class I/II adjectives. Regular forms would have been as follows (in the accusative feminine singular):

Per Hall (1983:122–3)  Type  |  | PRES.ACT  | Translation  |  | PERF.PASS  | Translation

|
|
|
|
|
|

I  | amantem  | adoring  | amatam  | adored
II  | habentem  | having  | habutam  | had
III  | finentem  | finishing  | finitam  | finished

## See also

* Palatalization in the Romance languages
* Phonological changes from Classical Latin to Proto-Romance

## Notes

1. ↑ Following Burger 1955 and Petrovici 1956. Similarly, Pope 1934 reconstructs phonemic palatalization for both Late Latin and Early Gallo-Roman (§§258, 268). Gouvert 2015 prefers a phonetic palatalization rule for Proto-Romance, e.g. /basiˈare/ [baˈsʲaːɾe] (p. 83).
2. ↑ All palatalized consonants except /s/ show at least some sign of gemination in Romance.[11] Gouvert 2015 assumes regular (phonetic) gemination of palatalized intervocalic /n l k/ to [ɲɲ ʎʎ cc] (pp. 95, 111, 115).
3. ↑ Per the cited sources, the ultimate outcome of /ɡn/ in most of Romance is /ɲ/. Exceptions include Balkan Romance and Dalmatian, where it yielded /mn/; Sardinian, where it yielded /nn/; and certain dialects of southern Italy, where it yielded /u̯n/ or /i̯n/.
4. ↑ For further discussion on /ll/, see Zampaulo 2019:71–77 and Lausberg 1970:§§494–499.
5. ↑ De Dardel & Gaeng (1992:104) differ from Lausberg on the following points: 1) They believe that the genitive-dative case was limited to animate nouns. 2) They reconstruct a universal GEN-DAT.PL ending -orum. 3) They reconstruct, for class I nouns, a NOM.PL -ae, albeit in competition with -as per De Dardel & Wüest (1993:57). They are in agreement with Lausberg regarding the remaining inflections.
6. ↑ All comparatives inflected the same way. Further examples are peior, maior, minor, fortior, gentior; meaning 'worse, greater, lesser, stronger, nobler' Hall (1983:32, 120).
7. ↑ Nearly all of the below is per Van Den Bussche (1985), a critique of, and elaboration on, Hall (1983). Since the former does not discuss the inflections of essere 'to be', those have been taken unchanged from Hall (p. 55). Van Den Bussche leaves out the 1PL and 2PL inflections of vadere 'to go' because there was suppletion with forms of Latin ire, as indicated more explicitly by Maiden (1995:135).

## References

1. ↑ Dworkin 2016:13
2. ↑ Ferguson 1976:84; Gouvert 2015:81
3. ↑ Gouvert 2015:118‒119; Loporcaro 2015; Leppänen & Alho 2018:§§5.1, 6
4. ↑ Ferguson 1976:chapter 7
5. ↑ Maiden 2016
6. ↑ Ferguson 1976:76; Gouvert 2015:78–81, 121–122
7. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§§192–196 apud Gouvert 2015:78–79
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Gouvert 2015:25
9. ↑ Operstein 2010:107
10. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§§451–478
11. ↑ Repetti 2016:659
12. ↑ Barbato 2022:§1; Recasens 2020:§3.1.2
13. ↑ Gouvert 2015:86, 92
14. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§452
15. ↑ Lloyd 1987:148–150; Gouvert 2015:125–126
16. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§444; Chambon 2013 apud Gouvert 2015:95; Zampaulo 2019:80
17. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§§329, 471; Lloyd 1987:132; Gouvert 2015:83, 91; Zampaulo 2019:83‒84, 88
18. ↑ Lloyd 1987:141; Gouvert 2016:48; Barbato 2022:§1
19. ↑ Lloyd 1987:80–81; Zampaulo 2019:93
20. ↑ Gouvert 2015:15
21. ↑ Lloyd 1987:80; Gouvert 2016:28
22. ↑ Lausberg 1970:§§366, 475; Gouvert 2015:86
23. ↑ Gouvert 2015:84
24. ↑ Grandgent 1907:§§226, 254; Lausberg 1970:§§344, 486
25. ↑ Hall 1983:23–4, 29–30
26. ↑ Maltby 2016:340
27. ↑ Lausberg 1973:126–127; Maltby 2016:340–346
28. ↑ Lausberg 1973:§§686–687; Bauer 2016:340, 359
29. ↑ Lyons 1986:20–24
30. ↑ Hall 1983:47–50
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Maiden 1995:135

## 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.
* Barbato, Marcello (2022). "The early history of Romance palatalizations". doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.750. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.750.
* Bauer, Brigitte (2016). "The development of the comparative in Latin texts". in Adams, J.N.; Vincent, Nigel. Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. pp. 313–339. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316450826.015. ISBN 9781316450826. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/development-of-the-comparative-in-latin-texts/5DCFF6BE64BC810413CF8087428062D6.
* Burger, André (1955). "Phonématique et diachronie a propos de la palatalisation des consonnes romanes" (in fr). Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure (Librairie Droz) (13): 19–33.
* 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" (in fr). Probus 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". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (132): 1–19. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001. https://apps.atilf.fr/homepages/buchi/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/08/Dworkin-2016.pdf.
* 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". 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". 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 (3): 460–483. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.12130.
* 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.
* Maiden, Martin (2016). "Diphthongization". in Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 647–57.
* Maltby, Robert (2016). "Analytic and synthetic forms of the comparative and superlative from early to late Latin". Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?. Cambridge University Press. pp. 340–366.
* Operstein, Natalie (2010). Consonant structure and prevocalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
* Petrovici, Emil (1956). "Problema moştenirii din romanica comună a corelaţiei palatale a consoanelor în limba romînă". Ştudii şi Cercetări Lingvistice 7: 163–169. http://dspace.bcu-iasi.ro/handle/123456789/9336.
* Pope, Mildred K. (1934) (in en). From Latin to Modern French. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
* Recasens, Daniel (2020). "Palatalizations in the Romance Languages". doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.435. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.435.
* Repetti, Lori (2016). "Chapter 39: Palatalization". in Ledgeway, Adam. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 658–668.
* 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.
* 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.

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Romance language. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Proto-Romance_language&oldid=1007588"