# Anniculu > añejo



## Alma Shofner

Hola, tengo que pasar la evolución de la palabra latina anniculu a añejo.
Este es mi intento: 
Anniculu>añejo (3) confluencia vocálica: La a (átona o tónica) inicial continúa en a. (16) palatalización de nn (n geminada) a ñ. (3) confluencia vocálica i intertónica (corta o larga) pasa a e. (8) pérdida de vocal intertónica u. (9) palatalización de consonantes velares en grupo interior. [kl] > [jl]> [*l*]. (3) confluencia vocálica u átona final corta pasa a o. Anniculu > [añék’lu] > [añéjlu] > [añe*l*o] (> [añezo] > cast. med. añejo [añézo]) 
Trato de poner el signo de lambda pero no puedo, lo puse en negritas y subrayado.
Gracias por su ayuda,
Alma


----------



## CapnPrep

Es correcto, excepto la vocal tónica:


Alma Shofner said:


> (3) confluencia vocálica i intertónica (corta o larga) pasa a e.






> Trato de poner el signo de lambda pero no puedo, lo puse en negritas y subrayado.


Veo que se usa otro sistema en tu libro, pero en AFI no hay lambda ‹λ›, sino la i griega ‹y› puesta al revés : ‹ʎ›.
 [aɲe*ʎ*o] > [aɲe*ʒ*o] > [aɲe*ʃ*o] > [aɲe*x*o]


----------



## Alma Shofner

La volví a checar y en efecto es lamba λ. Gracias por poner el signo y por las correcciones. Muy valiosa ayuda.
Saludos


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> Es correcto, excepto la vocal tónica:
> 
> Veo que se usa otro sistema en tu libro, pero en AFI no hay lambda ‹λ›, sino la i griega ‹y› puesta al revés : ‹ʎ›.
> [aɲe*ʎ*o] > [aɲe*ʒ*o] > [aɲe*ʃ*o] > [aɲe*x*o]


The missing link for my is_ -cul- > -cl- > _*<ʎ>. *I do not understand the loss of <u> here. At least this loss can't be systematic, otherwise we should have _*vehijo_ and not _vehiculo_. I also do not understand palatalization of -cl- should produce *<ʎ>.  *Are there examples of *<ʎ>* not originating from Latin -ll-?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> The missing link for my is_ -cul- > -cl- > _*<ʎ>. *I do not understand the loss of <u> here. At least this loss can't be systematic, otherwise we should have _*vehijo_ and not _vehiculo_.


The loss of posttonic vowels (other than [a]) was quite systematic  in VL. Remember the Appendix Probi? VETULUS NON VECLUS, SPECULUM NON SPECLUM, VIRIDIS NON VIRDIS and so on. Unfortunately, nobody paid any attention and now we have _viejo_, _espejo_, _verde_, etc.

Words like _vehículo_, _ángulo_, _fábula _are learned borrowings or semi-learned words.


> I also do not understand palatalization of -cl- should produce *<ʎ>.*


As Alma indicated, syllable-final [k] before another consonant became an off-glide [j] and caused palatalization of this following consonant.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> As Alma indicated, syllable-final [k] before another consonant became an off-glide [j] and caused palatalization of this following consonant.


But this is then a peculiarity to Old Spanish and not common VL any more, right? I didn't find any mentioning of this in the book you gave in the _ille>ell>el_ thread.


----------



## miguel89

berndf said:


> Are there examples of *<ʎ>* not originating from Latin -ll-?



lluvia, llanto, llama, etc. from pluvia, planctus, flama


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> But this is then a peculiarity to Old Spanish and not common VL any more, right? I didn't find any mentioning of this in the book you gave in the _ille>ell>el_ thread.


It's in §2.5.2.4. But it happened quite early (ca. 3rd cent.), so it's not limited to Spanish. E.g. French VEC(U)LU > _vieil_, OC(U)LU > _œil_, SOLIC(U)LU > _soleil_, all with [ʎ] (now [j]).*
*


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> It's in §2.5.2.4. But it happened quite early (ca. 3rd cent.), so it's not limited to Spanish. E.g. French VEC(U)LU > _vieil_, OC(U)LU > _œil_, SOLIC(U)LU > _soleil_, all with [ʎ] (now [j]).*
> *


Right, makes sense. So it is common to Gallo-Romance VL but obviously not to other VL dialects as we have e.g. _vecchio_ and _occhio _in Italian.


----------



## XiaoRoel

El paso de anniculu a añejo es así anniculu > annic'lu > annello > añello > añejo. La *ll* prodente de _*c'l*_ debió tener en el s. XV una pronunciación [*dʒ*]que evolucionaría a [ʒ] y de ahí a [x], nuestra moderna jota, como ojo, viejo, etc.
Sería un fenómeno de rehilamiento.


----------



## berndf

If then the "c'l" developed into a  [ʎ]  identical to an "ll", why then would it move on to a "j" with the well known development [dʒ] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] > [χ] while etymological "ll" remained [ʎ] to the present day? This contradicts one of the "axioms" of sound shifts, namely that then have "no memory", i.e. once sounds have merged they won't diverge again along purely etymological lines.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> If then the "c'l" developed into a  [ʎ]  identical to an "ll", why then would it move on to a "j" with the well known development [dʒ] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] > [χ] while etymological "ll" remained [ʎ] to the present day? This contradicts one of the "axioms" of sound shifts, namely that then have "no memory", i.e. once sounds have merged they won't diverge again along purely etymological lines.


In such cases one can always claim that the merger was not complete. 

However, in this specific example, the solution is simply chronological: the palatalization of simple [l] (i.e. [lj]/[jl] > [ʎ]) happened before [ll] > [ʎ] (and this second change may have caused the existing phoneme [ʎ] to become [ʒ], in order to _prevent_ merger). See Penny, p. 64. Or just go ahead and read the whole book.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Además, fíjate que el grupo /c'l/ en estos casos en que hoy pronunciamos jota es interior. El grupo *cl* originario en principio de palabra da /ll/.


----------



## berndf

Which then corroborates my point. Non-initial "c'l" cannot have completely merged with "ll"; it must always have been slightly different from  [ʎ].


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Non-initial "c'l" cannot have completely merged with "ll"; it must always have been slightly different from [ʎ].


I don't think anyone in this thread ever claimed that ‹cl› and ‹ll› merged completely.

As I tried to explain above, we can say that medial [kl] and [ll] both evolved into [ʎ], but at different times:


Latin kl > jl > ʎ in late Latin > ʒ in OSp > x in ModSp
Latin ll …… =    ll in late Latin > ʎ in OSp = ʎ in ModSp


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> As I tried to explain above...


Oops, sorry. I overlooked your last post. I just saw Xiaos's #13.


----------

