# The 'v' and the 'b' in romance languages



## xarruc

What caused the 'v' and 'b' shift that seems to have happened in romance languages?

Spanish and Catalan both pronounce 'v' and 'b' identically. French and Italian retain the difference.

The imperfect tense in Italian is made with 'v':

-avo
-avi
-ava
-avamo
-avate
-avano

Likewise Catalan writes the endings with the letter 'v', but pronounces them as a 'b' 

But Spanish pronounces them, and writes them using a 'b'

-abo
-abas
-aba
-abamos
-abais
-abano

I had previously assumed that it was just a change like many others that occur through time However the word avere in Italian is conjugated like this in the present tense:

ho
hai
ha
a*bb*iamo
a*v*ete
hanno

Which I find very strange. Why does the 'b' suddenly appear in a 'v' word?

Then I came across the "Te*v*ere" in my book, which the dictionary informs me is the Ti*b*er in English. This too is odd, The name for this river which would have arrived to Englang millenia ago has shown a 'v'/'b' confusion in a language that is not derived directly from Latin.

Spanish, I believe, 'broke' from the Roman language before Catalan and French as Spain was invaded and established some form of autonomy first (ALTHOUGH they were still all forms of Latin, prior to becoming the languages they are today), which accounts for early Latin words (fablare >> hablar vs. parlare) and perhaps the lack of the pronouns ne (en) and hi (y, i) seen in Italian, French and Catalan. Did the development of the 'v' sound as distinct from the 'b' sound come late to Latin (the influence of Spanish on Catalan over he last 500 years could account for the use of 'b' pronunciation there (Catalan is noticebly more conservative than Spanish in the use of 'v' in writing))?

Do Portugese, Rumanian and romance-languages have 'v' and 'b' confusion and cross-over?


----------



## Outsider

xarruc said:


> Which I find very strange. Why does the 'b' suddenly appear in a 'v' word?
> 
> Then I came across the "Te*v*ere" in my book, which the dictionary informs me is the Ti*b*er in English. This too is odd, The name for this river which would have arrived to Englang millenia ago has shown a 'v'/'b' confusion in a language that is not derived directly from Latin.


English 'Tiber' probably came directly from Latin.

If you compare Latin and Romance words, you will notice an interesting pattern: in many cases, Latin B became Romance V. This happened early in the history of the Romance languages, or perhaps before they differentiated.

If you read Spanish texts, you will notice another curious pattern: many words now spelled with 'B' used to be spelled with a 'V' in Old Spanish. In short, Spanish spelling used to be closer to that of the other Romance languages, and farther from that of Latin.



xarruc said:


> Spanish, I believe, 'broke' from the Roman language before Catalan and French as Spain was invaded and established some form of autonomy first (ALTHOUGH they were still all forms of Latin, prior to becoming the languages they are today), which accounts for early Latin words (fablare >> hablar vs. parlare) and perhaps the lack of the pronouns ne (en) and hi (y, i) seen in Italian, French and Catalan.


You can't characterize the genetic relations between the Romance languages like that. I'm afraid it's too oversimplified.



xarruc said:


> Did the development of the 'v' sound as distinct from the 'b' sound come late to Latin (the influence of Spanish on Catalan over he last 500 years could account for the use of 'b' pronunciation there (Catalan is noticebly more conservative than Spanish in the use of 'v' in writing))?


We need to understand what we mean by 'a V sound'. See the overview here.



xarruc said:


> Do Portugese, Rumanian and romance-languages have 'v' and 'b' confusion and cross-over?


In the dialects of northern Portugal, B and V represent the same phoneme, as they do in Spanish. It's a characteristic of all the languages of northern Iberia. I'm not sure it's the rule in Catalan, though.


----------



## xarruc

A 'v' sound is the sound used in English, French and Italian with words such as 'very', 'avoir' and 'avere'.

The 'b' sound is the sound used in English and Spanish for 'Barcelona'


----------



## modus.irrealis

To add to Outsider's account, here's a summary of the story told in a book I have about Vulgar Latin:

In Classical Latin you had two sounds, [w] (like English _w_) written _u _(i.e. _v_)_,_ and * (like English b) written b. In Vulgar Latin, [w] became [β] (like Spanish b/v), but  also became [β] in certain positions. Then the various Romance languages treated these sounds differently, so in French and Italian, [β] > [v] and  didn't change, while in Spanish,  eventually became [β] and so the sounds merged completely.

That explains some of the confusion, for example why in French some v go back to Latin u but others go back to Latin b, e.g. avoir < habere. But there's more confusion in that in some words, during the Vulgar Latin period, [β] became  (the sounds are very similar after all), and there's examples like Italian serbare < seruare, French corbeau < coruus, Romanian bătrîn < ueteranus, so here you have modern b for Latin u. So this confusion seems to occur everywhere although it's not the total merging you find in Spanish.

You could also add in a third sound in the confusion, if nothing is a sound . Because the French imperfect has the same source as the one in Italian and Spanish, but the original  sound has completely disappeared. And same with the first person singular of "to have", which in Latin was habeo, but I don't know of any Romance language that has a v/b in the equivalent form.

Does anyone know if in Old Spanish the imperfect had v instead of b and that it's written nowadays with b as a historical spelling since Latin had b?*


----------



## jmx

xarruc said:


> Spanish and Catalan both pronounce 'v' and 'b' identically.


Not in the Balearic Islands nor in much of Valencia.


----------



## OldAvatar

> Romanian _bătrîn < ueteranus_, so here you have modern _b_ for Latin _u_



Romanian *bătrân *is from Latin _veteranus _and not from _ueteranus. _


----------



## robbie_SWE

xarruc said:


> Do Portuguese, Rumanian and romance-languages have 'v' and 'b' confusion and cross-over?


 
I believe that there might be some confusion in Romanian too, but maybe not as much as in the other Romance languages. 

If I were to use your example with the verb "to have" (which in Romanian is "*a avea*"), it would look like this in the present tense:

am
ai
are
a*v*em
a*v*eţi
au

Notice the consistent usage of "v" where Italian uses "b". The imperfect is most often formed like this:

-eam
-eai
-ea
-eam
-eaţi
-eau

There's no "v" or "b" involved in the formation. Back to the subject at hand! The example with the word *bătrân *might be the best example to illustrate the shift between the Latin "v" and "b". Other examples of the opposite: 

Ro: *cerb *("deer") from the Latin _cervus_.
Ro: *corb* ("raven") from the Latin _corvus_*.* 

I'm sure that there are many more examples of this trend, but I can't think of any more to give, at this moment. 

Hope this contributed to the ongoing conversation! 

robbie


----------



## pomar

In ancient Latin *v* and *u *had the same sound (w) and were written with a capital *V *at that time, because classical Latin was always written in capital letters. It was only in Middle Age that they began to write in small letters and so all *V* became *u.*
So, VETERANUS and ueteranus are both correct, depending on what method is being followed.


----------



## OldAvatar

pomar said:


> In ancient Latin *v* and *u *had the same sound (w) and were written with a capital *V *at that time, because classical Latin was always written in capital letters. It was only in Middle Age that they began to write in small letters and so all *V* became *u.*
> So, VETERANUS and ueteranus are both correct, depending on what method is being followed.



We learned  about that theory as being an obsolete one and coming only from the fact that Roman sculptures avoided the drawing of letter U when graving letter on stones because of the difficulty of curved lines. Soon it became a rule on writing the different sounds using the same letter. So, some say that's why they preffered to use *V* instead, but they were definitely different sounds...

Evolutions of words in Romanian language demonstrated that *U* and *V* were different sounds...


----------



## pomar

Oldavatar, sorry, I wrote "in ancient Latin", I had to write "early Latin" intead, I think.
I didn't say the sounds remained the same, but in the very beginning it was only one sound, then they differentiated, of course.


----------



## OldAvatar

pomar said:


> I didn't say the sounds remained the same, but in the very beginning it was only one sound, then they differentiated, of course.



I agree. It is just that scholars don't think it happened in medieval ages, since Romanian had little contact if none with medieval Latin. It was a much earlier evolution...


----------



## demalaga

> Does anyone know if in Old Spanish the imperfect had _v_ instead of _b_ and that it's written nowadays with _b_ as a historical spelling since Latin had _b_?[/QUOTE
> 
> From "El Conde Lucanor"
> nin puedo ser jubgado sinon por las buenas obras o malas que oviere fecho
> 
> The whole conjugation of de verb haber was writen with "v" and today is writen with "b".The H is not writen in ovieren ande is changed to "f" in "fecho"


----------



## pomar

OldAvatar said:


> I agree. It is just that scholars don't think it happened in medieval ages, since Romanian had little contact if none with medieval Latin. It was a much earlier evolution...



There's a misunderstanding, Oldavatar. Perhaps I didn't manage to explain it in clear English. Sorry!
I didn't say the sound changed in Middle Age, I said people began to write the small "u"  (writing "u" both U and V sounds) in Middle Age, in Carolingian times. Up to that time, Latin had always been written in capital letters, with only one sign to write both U and V sounds, even when they already had a different sound.
Anyway, in Italian schools we always write Latin with both letters (U, V, u, v) but in other countries (e.g. France) they write V when they write in capital letters and u when in small letters, although they pronounce them differently.
Nobody can say wich one is the best way, so you can write both ueteranus and veteranus.


----------



## modus.irrealis

demalaga said:


> From "El Conde Lucanor"
> nin puedo ser jubgado sinon por las buenas obras o malas que oviere fecho
> 
> The whole conjugation of de verb haber was writen with "v" and today is writen with "b".The H is not writen in ovieren ande is changed to "f" in "fecho"


Thanks. I wasn't very clear with how I worded my question , so what I should have asked was whether the Old Spanish had a _b _or a _v_ in the endings of the imperfect in general, or rather, for those verbs where the question applies, e.g. the imperfect of _cantaba_. But with what you say about _haber, _I strongly suspect it was with a _v_ although a _b_ would be very interesting.



OldAvatar said:


> Romanian *bătrân *is from Latin _veteranus _and not from _ueteranus. _


Like pomar said, it's just a different spelling convention, one which the book I was summarizing happened to be using. (For some reason using two separate letters for _u/v_ seems to be much more popular than using two for _i/j_ in Latin texts -- I wonder why.)


----------



## xarruc

Does South American use the 'v' or 'b' sound?

The changes seen in European languages would have happened long before the discovery of America, so any change there must have been an independent change -right?


----------



## Outsider

I presume you mean South American Spanish.
You will hear contradictory statements about this. Some Latin Americans claim to distinguish B and V in pronunciation, but you should bear in mind that in the last century there was a period when children in Latin American schools were indoctrinated to distinguish the two letters by prescriptionist teachers who thought it was "wrong" to pronounce them the same way.



> The changes seen in European languages would have happened long before the discovery of America, so any change there must have been an independent change -right?


I'm not sure I agree with that. It's not as if there were no cultural exchanges between Europe and America after that date.


----------



## Forero

modus.irrealis said:


> Does anyone know if in Old Spanish the imperfect had _v_ instead of _b_ and that it's written nowadays with _b_ as a historical spelling since Latin had _b_?



Good explanation, modus.

Yes, Old Spanish imperfects did have _v_ (_-ava_ and _-iva_).  And _huve_, _huvo_, etc.

_Huevo_ and similar words came to be spelled with _h_ so that the _u_ would not be read as a _v_.


----------



## demalaga

The pronuntiation of "v" and "b" in Spanish.
Nowadays there's no distinction.Some people whose mother language is different from Spanish or Castillian Language make difference.
Anyway there are two different sounds one stronger at the beginning of the word and one more gentle between two vowels.
Examples   Beber (to drink) and Vivir  (to live)
The first letter of each of these two words sounds like English B
The second letter is not like english v, since the teeth dont get closer to the inferior lip, but the two lips get closer as if they were to pronounce B but dont close completely but just get very close.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Forero said:


> Yes, Old Spanish imperfects did have _v_ (_-ava_ and _-iva_).  And _huve_, _huvo_, etc.


Forero, thanks for the information. So I guess the original Latin _b_ of the imperfect came to be the same sound as _v _throughout the Romance languages and then I guess disappearing in some. Is there any explanation why this sound sometimes disappears?


----------



## Outsider

Latin * (written "b") and Latin [w] (written "v") both became [ß] in intervocalic position, in Vulgar Latin. Hence the confusion and the occasional exchange of one by the other. It seems that medieval Romance languages (at least those of Iberia) wrote "b" for  and "v" for [ß]. Then there was a fork:


In most languages, the sound [ß] eventually changed into a [v], and remained a separate phoneme from . 

[*]In the languages of northern Iberia, including Spanish, the phoneme [ß] remained [ß], but merged with . Later, Spanish orthography was reformed to match that of classical Latin.

*


----------



## JGreco

> I presume you mean South American Spanish.
> You will hear contradictory statements about this. Some Latin Americans claim to distinguish B and V in pronunciation, but you should bear in mind that in the last century there was a period when children in Latin American schools were indoctrinated to distinguish the two letters by prescriptionist teachers who thought it was "wrong" to pronounce them the same way.



It depends. In Caribbean regions (particularly in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba (in some cases),  and Panama) there is distinction between B and V mainly from what I read because of the influence of English on those varieties. I think in other regions there tends to be no distinction but I think it would be better for a person from those regions to answer for them.


----------



## Forero

modus.irrealis said:


> Forero, thanks for the information. So I guess the original Latin _b_ of the imperfect came to be the same sound as _v _throughout the Romance languages and then I guess disappearing in some. Is there any explanation why this sound sometimes disappears?



While other languages changed [ß] to the position of [f], making it [v], Spanish apparently changed initial [f] to the position of [ß], making it [φ], which then became  (as in Japanese), which now is silent.  For example, Latin _faba_ = [faba] -> [faßa] -> [φaßa] -> [haßa] -> [aßa] = _haba_ castellano.


----------



## Outsider

How to pronounce "v" in (modern) Spanish.


----------



## Barbara S.

Many words that were written in Spanish "v" changed their spelling in the 18th century (maybe 17th- I forget) to "by" by dictum of the Royal Academy. The thinking was that since both sounds were the same, the spelling should be dictated by etyology. Thus the -ava imperfect ending became -aba as it was in classical Latin.


----------



## Forero

Barbara S. said:


> Many words that were written in Spanish "v" changed their spelling in the 18th century (maybe 17th- I forget) to "by" by dictum of the Royal Academy. The thinking was that since both sounds were the same, the spelling should be dictated by ety*m*ology. Thus the -ava imperfect ending became -aba as it was in classical Latin.



And "huvo" became "hubo" because of the "b" in "habuit".


----------



## Forero

Interesting tidbit:

Inscription from Rome (before 700 C.E.): “Si aliquis sepuchru istum biolare bolueri abea anathema da patre et filiu et scm spm”.  Spelling errors (that should have been “uiolare uolueri”) tell us that sound and spelling had already diverged and “b” and “v” had merged in speech.





xarruc said:


> I had previously assumed that it was just a change like many others that occur through time However the word avere in Italian is conjugated like this in the present tense:
> 
> ho
> hai
> ha
> a*bb*iamo
> a*v*ete
> hanno
> 
> Which I find very strange. Why does the 'b' suddenly appear in a 'v' word?


I think there must be a logical explanation for "b" in “abbiamo” and some other forms of "avere" but not in all the forms.  Here’s my (first) attempt at a theory:

1. Italian preserves the “b” where Latin had stress on the “a” preceding and a diphthong following: Latin “habui”, “habuit”, “habeam”/“habeas”/“habeat”, “habeant” become Italian “abbi”, “abbe”, “abbia”, “abbiano”.

2. Subjunctive “abbiamo” and “abbiate” follow the pattern of the rest of the present subjunctive, and “abbero” follows the pattern of “abbi” and “abbe”.  The same thing happens in Spanish (“hayamos” and “hayáis” are like “haya”, etc., and “hubieron” is like “hube” and “hubo”).

3. The “iamo” form of Italian verbs is used for indicative as well as for subjunctive.  “Abbiamo” is no exception.

4. Imperative forms are taken from the subjunctive (cf. “abbi il corpo” = “habeas corpus”).

5. Future and conditional endings are generally the endings of “avere”, beginning with the stressed vowel.  The exceptions are future “emo”, not “iamo” - possibly from an indicative form later replaced by the subjunctive - and conditional “ei”, not “ebbi”.  The latter could be a contraction to keep the future tense form reasonable short, as the infinitive stem may also contract, or it could be an earlier form with no "b" or "v", like "ho", etc.

That's complicated enough.  Now let's shoot it full of holes.


----------



## Barbara S.

Venezuela means large Venice. But the Spaniards who came to California founded a city named for Venice which they called Benicia. I don't know why the capital of Cuba, La Habana, is spelled with a v in English, but perhaps that was the 16th century spelling.


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

As for a "b" appearing in a "v" word in Italian (abbiamo, avete).  There's a simple historical phonetics explanation:  Irregular phonetic development in words of frequent use.  That's also how irregular verb forms can be explained.
To confuse things a little:  In Chile, there is a tendency to pronounce all "b and v" more like a "v" (of course also the bilabial continuous sound is used).  "b" as a bilabial stop is never heard, except when preceded by "m" (example:  tambien), however bueno, and sabía could sound more like vueno and savía.


----------



## miguel89

I've come across this quotation:


> Beati hispanii quibus *bibere vivere* est


Is it authentic?
Was the difference between /b/ and /w/ or /v/ already lost in Roman times?


----------



## OBrasilo

Forero said:


> Interesting tidbit:
> 
> Inscription from Rome (before 700 C.E.): “Si aliquis sepuchru istum biolare bolueri abea anathema da patre et filiu et scm spm”.  Spelling errors (that should have been “uiolare uolueri”) tell us that sound and spelling had already diverged and “b” and “v” had merged in speech.I think there must be a logical explanation for "b" in “abbiamo” and some other forms of "avere" but not in all the forms.  Here’s my (first) attempt at a theory:
> 
> 1. Italian preserves the “b” where Latin had stress on the “a” preceding and a diphthong following: Latin “habui”, “habuit”, “habeam”/“habeas”/“habeat”, “habeant” become Italian “abbi”, “abbe”, “abbia”, “abbiano”.
> 
> 2. Subjunctive “abbiamo” and “abbiate” follow the pattern of the rest of the present subjunctive, and “abbero” follows the pattern of “abbi” and “abbe”.  The same thing happens in Spanish (“hayamos” and “hayáis” are like “haya”, etc., and “hubieron” is like “hube” and “hubo”).
> 
> 3. The “iamo” form of Italian verbs is used for indicative as well as for subjunctive.  “Abbiamo” is no exception.
> 
> 4. Imperative forms are taken from the subjunctive (cf. “abbi il corpo” = “habeas corpus”).
> 
> 5. Future and conditional endings are generally the endings of “avere”, beginning with the stressed vowel.  The exceptions are future “emo”, not “iamo” - possibly from an indicative form later replaced by the subjunctive - and conditional “ei”, not “ebbi”.  The latter could be a contraction to keep the future tense form reasonable short, as the infinitive stem may also contract, or it could be an earlier form with no "b" or "v", like "ho", etc.
> 
> That's complicated enough.  Now let's shoot it full of holes.



1. Preterite in Italian of avere is: (io) ebbi, (tu) avesti, (lui) ebbe, (noi) ebbemo, (voi) aveste, (loro) ebbero.
From Latin (ego) habui, (tu) habisti, (ille) habuit, (nos) habuimus, (vos) habistis, (illi) habuirunt.
This diverged A LOT from Latin in Italian.

2. Future in Italian is strictly v-, avrò, avrai, ecc. From Latin habere habeo, habere habes, etc.

3. Subjunctive: (io) abbia, (tu) abbia, (lui) abbia, (noi) abbiamo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbiano.
Strictly bb-.

4. Imperative: (tu) abbi, (Lei) abbia, (noi) abbimo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbino.
Strictly bb-.
Italian Imperatives seem to be related to the subjunctives, and not to the old Latin imperatives.

No idea why this development was like this, though.

As for the v and u in Latin question... capital V for U is used a lot in modern Italy when writing Latin, and in official insignia, even for Italian. "REPVBBLICA ITALIANA" is a very common sighting.


----------



## jmx

miguel89 said:


> I've come across this quotation:
> 
> 
> 
> Beati hispanii quibus *bibere vivere* est
> 
> 
> 
> Is it authentic?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I've heard and read about it at least half a dozen times.


----------



## jazyk

> 1. Preterite in Italian of avere is: (io) ebbi, (tu) avesti, (lui) ebbe, (noi) ebbemo, (voi) aveste, (loro) ebbero.


I don't know how relevat this is, but it's actually avemmo, not ebbemo (there is a rare ebbimo, though).



> 4. Imperative: (tu) abbi, (Lei) abbia, (noi) abbimo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbino.


Abbiamo, not abbimo, and abbiano, not abbino.


----------



## DoNotUseYourRealName_

_V and B at least on italian are classified as " labial letters" (the others are p f m) so, they can shift ,in a way relatively,easy,simple.Another observation that i can do is based on dialects .Often the dialects contains "a part of evolution".For example on my dialect,but also in other dialects in italy,there  are__ many__ words where the  pronunciation oscillate between B and V , in some cases i pronounce__ that specific word as if there is a B in other cases as if there is a V._


----------



## hadronic

OBrasilo said:


> 1. Preterite in Italian of avere is: (io) ebbi, (tu) avesti, (lui) ebbe, (noi) ebbemo, (voi) aveste, (loro) ebbero.
> From Latin (ego) habui, (tu) habisti, (ille) habuit, (nos) habuimus, (vos) habistis, (illi) habuirunt.
> This diverged A LOT from Latin in Italian.
> 
> 2. Future in Italian is strictly v-, avrò, avrai, ecc. From Latin habere habeo, habere habes, etc.
> 
> 3. Subjunctive: (io) abbia, (tu) abbia, (lui) abbia, (noi) abbiamo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbiano.
> Strictly bb-.
> 
> 4. Imperative: (tu) abbi, (Lei) abbia, (noi) abbimo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbino.
> Strictly bb-.



Could an Italian here indicate where the various forms are stressed ? I would posit that _b _after stressed syllable ended up geminated, and otherwise, lenified to _v_.

This can also be seen I think with other labials : dàmmi, repùbblica, vàbbene, sàppi, ..
Someone corrects me I got the stress location bad ?


----------



## koniecswiata

The shift or confusion between /b/ and /v/ (and their intermediate bilabial sound) is probably fairly common among human languages.  So, it shouldn't be surprising that in Ancient Rome, there already was confusion, or that various Romance languages treated these sounds differently (b to v, or vice versa) in their evolution.  
The same happened in Germanic languages, English "evening" vs. German "Abend" or English "over" vs. German "über".  In this case, English seems to be the /v/ language, while German the /b/.


----------



## Forero

hadronic said:


> Could an Italian here indicate where the various forms are stressed ? I would posit that _b _after stressed syllable ended up geminated, and otherwise, lenified to _v_.
> 
> This can also be seen I think with other labials : dàmmi, repùbblica, vàbbene, sàppi, ..
> Someone corrects me I got the stress location bad ?


I'm not Italian, but I'll indicate where I think the stress goes (by boldface):

1. Preterite: (io) *e*bbi, (tu) av*e*sti, (lui) *e*bbe, (noi) av*e*mmo, (voi) av*e*ste, (loro) *e*bbero.

 2. Future: avr*ò*, avr*a*i, avr*à*, avr*e*mo, avr*e*te, avr*a*nno.

 3. Subjunctive: (io) *a*bbia, (tu) *a*bbia, (lui) *a*bbia, (noi) abbi*a*mo, (voi) abbi*a*te, (loro) *a*bbiano.

 4. Imperative: (tu) *a*bbi, (Lei) *a*bbia, (noi) abbi*a*mo, (voi) abbi*a*te, (loro) *a*bbiano.

The exceptions are in red. My guess is that the stress used to be on the first _a_ in these forms.


----------



## CapnPrep

Forero said:


> My guess is that the stress used to be on the first _a_ in these forms.


No, the 12pl forms have always had penultimate stress.


----------



## Montesacro

hadronic said:


> OBrasilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Preterite in Italian of avere is: (io) ebbi, (tu) avesti, (lui) ebbe, (noi) avemmo, (voi) aveste, (loro) ebbero.
> From Latin (ego) habui, (tu) habisti, (ille) habuit, (nos) habuimus, (vos) habistis, (illi) habuirunt.
> This diverged A LOT from Latin in Italian.
> 
> 2. Future in Italian is strictly v-, avrò, avrai, ecc. From Latin habere habeo, habere habes, etc.
> 
> 3. Subjunctive: (io) abbia, (tu) abbia, (lui) abbia, (noi) abbiamo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbiano.
> Strictly bb-.
> 
> 4. Imperative: (tu) abbi, (Lei) abbia, (noi) abbiamo, (voi) abbiate, (loro) abbiano.
> Strictly bb-.
> 
> 
> 
> Could an Italian here indicate where the various forms are stressed ?
Click to expand...


Forero (post #36) answered correctly.




hadronic said:


> I would posit that _b _after stressed syllable ended up geminated, and otherwise, lenified to _v_.
> 
> This can also be seen I think with other labials : dàmmi, repùbblica, vàbbene  (the correct pronunciation is _vabbène_; anyway it is always written _va bene_), sàppi, ..
> Someone corrects me I got the stress location bad ?



Your assumption is wrong.
Take a look at the verb _dovere_ (from Latin _debere_), for example:

1. Present: (io) d*e*vo/d*e*bbo, (tu) d*e*vi, (egli) d*e*ve, (noi) dobbi*a*mo, (voi) dov*e*te, (essi) d*e*vono/d*e*bbono.

2. Present subjunctive: (io, tu, egli) d*e*bba (_also dated_ d*e*va), (noi) dobbi*a*mo, (voi) dobbi*a*te, (essi) d*e*bbano (_also dated_ d*e*vano).


----------



## hadronic

Thank you all. At least, we can see it's either _v _or _bb_, never _b._
Which raises my second question : Do words with intervocalic single -_b_- exist in Italian ? (I mean real Italian words, not Latin or other languages' late imports).
I guess there are, so now we are left with a three-way split in Italian _b > v, b, bb, _that still remains to explain.


----------



## CapnPrep

hadronic said:


> I would posit that _b _after stressed syllable ended up geminated, and otherwise, lenified to _v_.
> 
> This can also be seen I think with other labials : dàmmi, repùbblica, vàbbene, sàppi, ..


You are mixing up two different types of examples here. In words like _abbiamo_, _repubblica_, and _sappi_, the gemination was triggered by a following glide [j] or [w], or by the lateral [l]. This gemination was not limited to labials and I don't think it was conditioned by stress placement (e.g. _januárius_ > _ge*nn*aio_).

On the other hand, examples like _dammi_ and _va bene_ are cases of _raddoppiamento fonosintattico_.



hadronic said:


> Do words with intervocalic single -_b_- exist in Italian ? (I mean real Italian words, not Latin or other languages' late imports).


Not very many. I don't know if you would count _libero_, _subito_, _rubare_, etc. And there are lots of words in -_abile_/-_ibile_; they are mostly learned words, but the suffix itself has always existed in Italian.


----------



## Montesacro

CapnPrep said:


> In words like _(...) __sappi_, the gemination was triggered by a following glide [j] or [w], or by the lateral [l].


 
_Sappi_ (second person singular of the imperative) comes from Latin _sape_, if I'm not mistaken. No glides, no laterals.



CapnPrep said:


> hadronic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do words with intervocalic single -_b_- exist in Italian ? (I mean real Italian words, not Latin or other languages' late imports).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many. I don't know if you would count _libero_, _subito_, _rubare_, etc. And there are lots of words in -_abile_/-_ibile_; they are mostly learned words, but the suffix itself has always existed in Italian.
Click to expand...

 
What does "not very many" mean? 
How do you actually count words?


----------



## CapnPrep

Montesacro said:


> _Sappi_ (second person singular of the imperative) comes from Latin _sape_, if I'm not mistaken. No glides, no laterals.


The imperative of _sapere_ is based on the subjunctive stem, which was affected by the glide [j].


----------



## Montesacro

CapnPrep said:


> The imperative of _sapere_ is based on the subjunctive stem, which was affected by the glide [j].



I'm a bit thick, I don't understand.
The present subjunctive of Latin _sapere_ is:

_sepam, sepas, sepat, sepamus, sepatis, sepant._

Where's the glide?

Or maybe you meant that the imperative of Italian _sapere_ is based on the Italian subjunctive stem _sappia, sappiamo_, etc. and not on the Latin one?
Are you sure? That would be a weird exception.


----------



## berndf

Montesacro said:


> I'm a bit thick, I don't understand.
> The present subjunctive of Latin _sapere_ is:
> 
> _sepam, sepas, sepat, sepamus, sepatis, sepant._
> 
> Where's the glide?


Here:
_sap*i*am, sap__*i*__as, sap__*i*__at, ..._ (*)

Where did you get _sepam, sepas, sepat, sepamus, sepatis, sepant _from?


----------



## Montesacro

berndf said:


> Here:
> _sap*i*am, sap__*i*__as, sap__*i*__at, ..._ (*)
> 
> Where did you get _sepam, sepas, sepat, sepamus, sepatis, sepant _from?



I made a terrible mess.  I had the Spanish conjugation in mind.


----------



## berndf

Montesacro said:


> I made a terrible mess.  I had the Spanish conjugation in mind.


I see.


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> Not very many. I don't know if you would count _libero_, _subito_, _rubare_, etc. And there are lots of words in -_abile_/-_ibile_; they are mostly learned words, but the suffix itself has always existed in Italian.


 
The -_abile_/-_ibile _suffixes seem to be "learned", too. The traditional (popular) Italian suffix is *-e*_*vole *(amichevole, ragionevole ...) _


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> The -_abile_/-_ibile _suffixes seem to be "learned", too. The traditional (popular) italian suffix is *-*_*vole *(amichevole, ragionevole ...) _


Ah, you're right, of course. There are a couple of threads about this suffix in the Italian forums:
*vole - piacevole, favorevole*
*-evole*
*Ragionabile x ragionevole*


----------



## francisgranada

koniecswiata said:


> ...The same happened in Germanic languages, English "evening" vs. German "Abend" or English "over" vs. German "über". In this case, English seems to be the /v/ language, while German the /b/.


 
Even more, this phenomenon can happen also today in the colloquial speach, even if we don't always notice it. Let me tell you my "story" about this:

Some years ago, I was in Italy (Bologna) with my 7 year old son, who didn't speak Italian at all. He asked me several times what did "_babene_" mean in Italian. So I started to listen a little bit more carefully to the pronouciation of my Italian friends, and I found that sometimes, in the absolute beginning, the "v" sounded like "b". So "_babene_" is "_va bene_", of course. But not only, I remember also words like _lavorare_ prounced spontaneousely as _laborare/laßorare._ Then I made some "innocent" experiments with my dear friends, i.e. when speaking to them, I prounounced sometimes deliberately "b" (or some kind of "_ß" _in intervocalic positions) instead of "v". Nobody noticed anything .

Of course, it is not an Italian or a bolognese peculiarity, but it could not work very well e.g. in Hungarian or in the western Slavic languages, where the "distance" between "b" and "v" seem to have a much higher distinctive function than in the romance languages.


----------



## francisgranada

hadronic said:


> Thank you all. At least, we can see it's either _v _or _bb_, never _b._
> Which raises my second question : Do words with intervocalic single -_b_- exist in Italian ? (I mean real Italian words, not Latin or other languages' late imports).
> I guess there are, so now we are left with a three-way split in Italian _b > v, b, bb, _that still remains to explain.


 
As all the phonetical changements occure in a certain period, but not from one day to another, I suppose that there existed a certain period of "oscillation", or with other words, when the pronountiation of the intervocalic single "b" was instable. At the same time, the geminates (bb, vv, ...) were pronouced "clearly". 

That's to say, as if there were only two "extreme" solutions: either _"v"_ or _"bb"._ I don't know what could be the criterion for "_v"_ or "_bb"_, but as it was already mentioned before, sometimes we have both the solutions even in the same word (_devo/debbo etc...)._ Even for _abbiamo,_ there are dialectal variations with _"v" _(e.g. _avemo_). Perhaps, it's the result of interdialectal influences or of the superposition of other phonetical tendences ... 

Even today, we can here e.g. "_subbito_" instead of "_subito_", especially in the southern part of Italy. It seems that a single _"b"_ in an intervocalic position continues to be (at least partially) unusual even today, in the South.

It would be intersting to know, what happened with the original latin "_bb_" in the Italian language or dialects (I suppose it has remained unchanged, but no such word comes into my mind at the moment ... )


----------



## Montesacro

francisgranada said:


> Some years ago, I was in Italy (Bologna) with my 7 year old son, who didn't speak Italian at all. He asked me several times what did "_babene_" mean in Italian. So I started to listen a little bit more carefully to the pronouciation of my Italian friends, and I found that sometimes, in the absolute beginning, the "v" sounded like "b". So "_babene_" is "_va bene_", of course. But not only, I remember also words like _lavorare_ prounced spontaneousely as _laborare/laßorare._ Then I made some "innocent" experiments with my dear friends, i.e. when speaking to them, I prounounced sometimes deliberately "b" (or some kind of "_ß" _in intervocalic positions) instead of "v". Nobody noticed anything .
> 
> Of course, it is not an Italian or a bolognese peculiarity, but it could not work very well e.g. in Hungarian or in the western Slavic languages, where the "distance" between "b" and "v" seem to have a much higher distinctive function than in the romance languages.



I actually think I sometimes pronounce intervocalic /v/ as /ß/, for example in _uva_ or in _avevo_. In casual fast speech, of course.
Interesting post, Francis 



francisgranada said:


> Even for _abbiamo,_ there are dialectal variations with _"v" _(e.g. _avemo_). Perhaps, it's the result of interdialectal influences or of the superposition of other phonetical tendences ...



In Roman dialect we actually say _avemo_.
Often the v is dropped altogether:
_we have told him_ 
_Gli abbiamo detto_ (Italian)
_Je avemo detto_ (Roman, clearly uttered)
_J'amo detto_ /'jamo 'detto/ (Roman, at normal pace)



francisgranada said:


> Even today, we can here e.g. "_subbito_" instead of "_subito_", especially in the southern part of Italy. It seems that a single _"b"_ in an intervocalic position continues to be (at least partially) unusual even today, in the South.



That holds true for Rome as well.
And the same thing occurs for the intervocalic palatal g sound, e.g. "_maggico_" instead of "_magico_".
I always pronounce intervocalic b's and g's geminated, except in the most formal contexts. If I didn't I would feel stiff and pretentious. Of course this is due to the phonetic structure of my dialect (Roman) which influences the way I speak Italian (only Italian; I never geminate intervocalic b's and g's when speaking foreign languages)


----------



## jazyk

There are some words in Portuguese that can be spelled and pronounced either with a v or a b: taberna and taverna (tavern), assobiar and assoviar (to whistle), carabina and clavina (rifle), sobaco and sovaco (armpit)...

I've heard nonstandard bassoura insteado of vassoura (broom) and barrer instead of varrer (to sweep) a couple of times. This dictionary says barrer is old-fashioned or folksy and arises due to the confusion between b and v. It doesn't know the word bassoura.

But in general I don't think Brazilians mix up the two sounds/letters.


----------



## francisgranada

Outsider said:


> ... If you read Spanish texts, you will notice another curious pattern: many words now spelled with 'B' used to be spelled with a 'V' in Old Spanish. In short, Spanish spelling used to be closer to that of the other Romance languages, and farther from that of Latin...


 
It seems to me, that in Old Spanish after or before a consonant, the "B" was often preferred, regardless of the original Latin spelling (maybe it's also the case of the Romanian _cerb_, _corb_ discussed before):

_vevetura de la ierba ..._ (Glosas Silenses)
_salbatore, serbicio_ ... (Glosas Emilianenses)
_palabra, cabdo, conbidar_ ... (Cantar de mio Cid)


----------



## Outsider

What those examples suggest to me is that by the time those texts were written "b" and "v" were no longer distinguished in pronunciation, but some scribes wrote "b" at syllable boundaries simply to prevent the letter from being misread as the vowel "u", which at the time was spelled the same as "v".



miguel89 said:


> I've come across this quotation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beati hispanii quibus bibere vivere est
> 
> 
> 
> Is it authentic?
> Was the difference between /b/ and /w/ or /v/ already lost in Roman times?
Click to expand...

See the previous thread about that saying.

In short: it seems to be authentic, in the sense that it's hundreds of years old, but it does not date from Roman or even medieval times.


----------



## Istriano

In Brazilian Portuguese both *assobiar *and *assoviar *(meaning to whistle) are used with no difference in meaning or usage.

With *bravo *and *brabo *there is a contrast:  
*bravo *is normally used for _brave _or _wild_, while
*brabo *means _bad _or _strong _(_uma gripe braba_ = bad flu)

In Continental Portuguese they use _cobarde _for coward,
but in Brazilian Portuguse it's *covarde*.

Intervocalic *b*'s are pronounced softened [β] in Continental Portuguese:_ rou*b*ar_, sometimes even in other positions:_ Lis*b*oa._
This is similar to Spanish.
It sounds pretty different/exotic to a Brazilian ear. 


And last but not least:

*Spanish singers seem to pronounce all writen V's as V's and all written B's as B's ** when they sing.
I think it's called SPELLING PRONUNCIATION. They read written lyrics and pronounce them as they're written!!!*


----------



## hadronic

Yes, we can witness the glide in subjunctive / imperative of _sapere_ in French too, but the outcome is still another consonant phoneme : _sache, sachons, ... 
_Labials + yod gave very regularly "sh" or "zh" sounds in French : simies > singe, salvia > sauge, sepia > seiche, cambio > change,...


----------



## hadronic

CapnPrep said:


> You are mixing up two different types of examples here. In words like _abbiamo_, _repubblica_, and _sappi_, the gemination was triggered by a following glide [j] or [w], or by the lateral [l]. This gemination was not limited to labials and I don't think it was conditioned by stress placement (e.g. _januárius_ > _ge*nn*aio_).
> 
> On the other hand, examples like _dammi_ and _va bene_ are cases of _raddoppiamento fonosintattico_.



I didn't mix up the two types of gemination, I put them together on purpose. My opinion is that the gemination in _abbiamo, repubblica, sappi_ etc... are just as phonotactic as the other traditional such examples like _da(m)mi, va(b)bene. _Italian has a unique and natural propension to geminate where there's no historical ground for that (and I don't think that presence of glides or laterals is one, for that matter).


----------

