# Chien



## Cilquiestsuens

Good day to all,     I recently read an article claiming that the etymology of 'chien' as coming from latin can- was doubtful. Mostly because, it was claimed of the impossiblity to have this (i) sound in 'chien' derive from the (a) in 'can-'.    I am therefore asking the expert etymologists from this forum: what is your opinion?


----------



## CapnPrep

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Mostly because, it was claimed of the impossiblity to have this (i) sound in 'chien' derive from the (a) in 'can-'.


 This _i_ sound is a textbook example of Bartsch's Law. It is true that the phonetic mechanism behind this sound change is poorly understood, but the facts themselves are not in question. The development of _chien_ from _cane(m)_ is totally regular.

Could you please provide a reference for the article you read?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Thanks CapnPrep for your answer and for the very interesting link.  I can't find the article right now. It is in French the abstract of a dissertation from some Polish university, about the Gaulish substratum in French, asserting - rightfully in my opinion, that in a number of etymologies, the possibility of an influence of the Gaulish substratum wasn't even considered... (one example: ''char'' given from 'Latin' carrus). He quoted a few more convincing examples and.... chien... claiming a possible connection with the Celtic root 'ki' (plural: koun) (breton) / cu (Irish) that would better explain the (i) in French... This part, I thought was the weakest of his dissertation, hence my question. I'll find the abstract tomorrow and give you the exact reference. That part of his thesis isn't very well documented, it seems he is just throwing ideas around,  food for thought...


----------



## CapnPrep

Cilquiestsuens said:


> in a number of etymologies, the possibility of an influence of the Gaulish substratum wasn't even considered... (one example: ''char'' given from 'Latin' carrus)


Again, … The Gaulish origin of Latin _carrus_ or _carrum_ is widely accepted. See e.g. Ernout & Meillet:


> Les Romains, peuple sédentaire de propriétaires cultivant leur terre, n'avaient pas les grands chars à quatre roues où les groupes de conquérants gaulois transportaient leurs bagages et qui, la nuit, leur servaient à entourer leur camp. Ils en ont emprunté le nom aux Gaulois dont l'action en Italie a contribué à les délivrer de l'emprise étrusque. […] [L]es noms latins de véhicules de transport sont en général empruntés au gaulois.


The passage from Latin _carru(m)_ to French _char_ is again completely regular, and I don't see any need for, or evidence in favor of, supposing additional influence from Gaulish, although it could very well be the case that Gaulish speakers in the proto-French period used a word like _karro_ with the same meaning.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

*Moderator note: Off-topic question about Gaulish substratum theory moved to new thread.*

In the case of 'chien', my query was motivated by the fact that in Modern Breton, 'chien' is *-ki* (plural *koun*) as well as in all Celtic languages and the word is attested in Old Irish too. 

I was struck by the similarity with a few northern 'dialects' of French (picard, chti), in which 'chien' is pronounced as '*kien*' (sometimes spelt '*quien*').


----------



## berndf

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I was struck by the similarity with a few northern 'dialects' of French (picard, chti), in which 'chien' is pronounced as '*kien*' (sometimes spelt '*quien*').


The non-palatalization of Latin /k/ in _can-_ in Northern dialects (today only survived in Piccard today but originally also typical for Norman dialect; cf. modern French _chasser_ (> English _chase_) and AF_ cacher_ (> English _catch_)) is completely regular and does not require any special explanation. The spelling with <k> or <qu> just means that the word should not be pronounced with [s] (originally [ts]) front of the letter <i>.


----------



## CapnPrep

Cilquiestsuens said:


> In the case of 'chien', my query was motivated by the fact that in Modern Breton, 'chien' is *-ki* (plural *koun*) as well as in all Celtic languages and the word is attested in Old Irish too.


Sure, there are cognates in Celtic that also have the sounds _k_ and _n_ (and several different vowels). How does this help explain the phonetic form of French _chien_ (or Picard _kien_) any better than the regular development from Latin _cane(m)_?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Who said it does?

It is just that I thought that if I were a linguist, I'd think it would be an interesting track to follow, and wouldn't dismiss it wholesale at first sight. 

But you might have good reasons to think it doesn't make sense. I am no expert to contradict you.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Dans la _Chanson de Roland_ on trouve 





> Vos li durrez urs e leuns e chens
> [Vous lui donnerez ours et lions et chiens]


Ou encore





> Leverunt nos en bieres sur sumers, [...], Enfuerunt nos en aitres de musters, N’en mangerunt ne lu ne porc ne chen.
> [Ils nous mettront en bières, [...], ils nous enfouiront en aîtres d’églises, Ni loups, ni chiens, ni porcs ne nous mangeront.


Ce n'est que vers le XIIe que "chien" a remplacé "chen".


----------



## CapnPrep

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Who said it does?


Quentel did, in the article that lead you to start this thread:


> Le mot français « chien » est supposé dériver du latin « canis » : l’italien a obtenu « cane » à partir de cette même racine. Admettons alors que les Français ont manifesté un sens de la déformation phonétique particulièrement aigü pour que le résultat final soit à ce point méconnaissable. Le Breton dit « ki » pour « chien » (« cy en gallois »), qui mute en « c’hi », on est donc en droit de s’interroger à la fois sur l’origine du mot et sur les règles qui nous font passer de l’étymon latin à sa version finale en français contemporain.


So he thinks that the Latin etymology could be wrong and that a Celtic source could be better. But he provides no solid arguments here, either against Latin or in favor of Celtic. He just points out that _chien_ looks pretty different from _canis_ while _c'hi_ looks kind of like _chien_. (Does he know that Breton _c'h_ is not the same sound as French _ch_?)


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

JeanDeSponde said:


> Dans la _Chanson de Roland_ on trouve Ou encoreCe n'est que vers le XIIe que "chien" a remplacé "chen".



Merci JeanDeSponde, this is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. Interesting. Thanks for the research!


----------



## berndf

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Merci JeanDeSponde, this is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. Interesting. Thanks for the research!


It is usually a good idea to check the easy facts first, like looking up the development of forms here. I didn't mention the early form _chen_ because I assumed you were aware of it.


----------



## CapnPrep

We also find one instance of the form with _i_ in _Roland_:


> Si cum li cerfs s'en vait devant les chiens,
> Devant Rollant si s'en fuient paiens. (1875)


See for yourselves in the Bodleian manuscript, f. 34r.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

*Moderator note: Part of reply moved here (about the merits of the Gaulish substratum theory).*

<...>



CapnPrep said:


> We also find one instance of the form with _i_ in _Roland_:
> See for yourselves in the Bodleian manuscript, f. 34r.



Well, Old French spelling has a few lapses (less than Modern French, maybe), I guess chen and chien must be pronounced the same...

Is it so?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

C'est le cheminement inverse de _chèvre_, qui n'a cessé d'être _chièvre / kièvre_ que vers le XVe...


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

How were *chen* and *chien* in time of the Chanson de Roland  pronounced?

[tsjẽn] or [tʃjẽn] or [tʃẽn] ?


----------



## sotos

Cilquiestsuens said:


> *Moderator note: Off-topic question about Gaulish substratum theory moved to new thread.*
> 
> In the case of 'chien', my query was motivated by the fact that in Modern Breton, 'chien' is *-ki* (plural *koun*) as well as in all Celtic languages and the word is attested in Old Irish too.
> 
> I was struck by the similarity with a few northern 'dialects' of French (picard, chti), in which 'chien' is pronounced as '*kien*' (sometimes spelt '*quien*').



Notice also the similarity with the Greek κυν (pronounced _kin _by the Greeks).


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

sotos said:


> Notice also the similarity with the Greek κυν (pronounced _kin _by the Greeks).



Thanks, sotos. The word seems to be widespread and well attested throughout the Indo-European languages.

I could get a hold of Xavier Delamarre's 'Dictionnaire de la Langue Gauloise', the article for Dog says the following (pg. 132):



> *cuno-, 'chien' ('loup')*
> Nominatif probable *cû, génitif *cunos et forme de composition cuno- qu'on retrouve dans les NP Cuno-barrus 'Tête-de-Chien' ('-de-Loup'), Cuno-pennus, même sens (= gall. cynnben, v.irl. coinchenn), Cuno-belinus (= gall. Cynfelyn, bret. Convelen)...


By the way, at the end of the same article, it says, after mentioning IE equivalents in other languages :



> le latin canis est une forme refaite qui fait difficulté au plan phonétique (cf. Szemerényi SM II,876-881, E.P. Hamp IF 85 [1980] 35-42)



Can someone explain me the last part here?


----------



## CapnPrep

JeanDeSponde said:


> C'est le cheminement inverse de _chèvre_, qui n'a cessé d'être _chièvre / kièvre_ que vers le XVe...


Les deux mots ont divergé en moyen français, mais leur évolution antérieure était en principe parallèle. C'est à dire que les graphies avec ‹i› sont majoritaires pendant toute la période de l'ancien français (les effets de la loi de Bartsch étant intervenus vers le VIe siècle). Les _chen_, _chef_, _cher_, etc. dans _Roland_ sont un trait anglo-normand ; si le mot _chèvre_ avait été présent dans ce texte, je suppose qu'il se serait écrit sans ‹i› aussi.


Cilquiestsuens said:


> How were *chen* and *chien* in time of the Chanson de Roland  pronounced?


Keep in mind that there were many dialectal pronunciations at the time, and that _Roland_ does not represent central French. This is how Zink retraces the development of _cane(m)_ (1999, p. 236):


KÁNE(M)Ve s.k'tšétšíeneVIIe s.tšíenXe s.tšíẽnXII2–XIII1šyẽnXIII2 šyɛ̃nXVII1šyɛ̃

 (I had to modify some of his phonetic characters.)


Cilquiestsuens said:


> Can someone explain me the last part here?


We would expect Latin to have a rounded vowel _u _or a labial _w_, given the comparison with other languages (which suggest a PIE root *_kwon_). _Canis_ may have replaced an earlier Latin nominative _*cō_ (see Ernout & Meillet).

Since Gaulish had the expected vowel _u_ in this word, I wonder if anything is left of the suggestion that the vocalism in French _chien_  is a Celtic substratum effect…


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

CapnPrep said:


> Les deux mots ont divergé en moyen français,  mais leur évolution antérieure était en principe parallèle. C'est à dire  que les graphies avec ‹i› sont majoritaires pendant toute la période de  l'ancien français (les effets de la loi de Bartsch étant intervenus  vers le VIe siècle). Les _chen_, _chef_, _cher_, etc. dans _Roland_ sont un trait anglo-normand ; si le mot _chèvre_ avait été présent dans ce texte, je suppose qu'il se serait écrit sans ‹i› aussi.
> Keep in mind that there were many dialectal pronunciations at the time, and that _Roland_ does not represent central French. This is how Zink retraces the development of _cane(m)_ (1999, p. 236):
> 
> 
> KÁNE(M)Ve s.k'tšétšíeneVIIe s.tšíenXe s.tšíẽnXII2–XIII1šyẽnXIII2 šyɛ̃nXVII1šyɛ̃
> 
> (I had to modify some of his phonetic characters.)
> We would expect Latin to have a rounded vowel _u _or a labial _w_, given the comparison with other languages (which suggest a PIE root *_kwon_). _Canis_ may have replaced an earlier Latin nominative _*cō_ (see Ernout & Meillet).



Thank you very much for your research and your detailed and very informative answer.



CapnPrep said:


> Since Gaulish had the expected vowel _u_ in this word, I wonder if anything is left of the suggestion that the vocalism in French _chien_  is a Celtic substratum effect…



Moreover, the vowel change from *u > i *in Celtic must have been taking place at the same time or even later than the *a>e* change in Proto-French.


----------



## aefrizzo

Hello.
Thanks to this fascinating thread and with the help of TLF, I am trying to trace some french words from the classic latin items.
"Chier" (verb)  from "cacare"?
"Cher" (adj.) from "carus"?
"Chair" (subs.) from "caro"?

I do not understand though the different changes from the same first syllable "ca-". 
Thank you.


----------



## CapnPrep

For nouns and adjectives, the surviving form usually corresponds to the Latin accusative:

caru(m) > cher
carne(m) > charn → chair



aefrizzo said:


> I do not understand though the different changes from the same first syllable "ca-".


See the following threads:
French: Latin c to French ch
palatalization of Latin ca-, ga- in French


----------



## aefrizzo

Thank you, *CP*, very useful links.
I have not fully grasped the evolution from "ca-ca-re" to "chier".
According to the rule about open syllables, and assuming it holds for inside syllables too, I would expect some intermediate terms like, e.g., "checher" or anything else. TLF reports just and abruptly "chier" on 1202.


----------



## CapnPrep

aefrizzo said:


> assuming it holds for inside syllables too


It does, unless the _ca_ follows a vowel. In the case of _cácat_/_cacáre_, the _k_ between two _a_ sounds becomes a yod. As in e.g. _pa*c*are _>_ pa*y*er_, _ba*c*a_ > _ba*i*e_. So we have:

cácat > chiéie > chíe
cacáre > cheiér → chiér


----------

