# Palatalisation of [k] in [ka]



## Riverplatense

This must be a very well-discussed and well-investigated question, yet I still don't really understand how [k] before [a] could be palatalised in French, Occitan and Rhaeto-Romance. I don't know of any other example of palatalisation before a back vowel. How did it happen?


----------



## ahvalj

To me even the modern French _k_ before _a_ sounds palatalized (e. g. Aussprache von quatre-vingt-quatre: Wie man quatre-vingt-quatre auf Französisch ausspricht).


----------



## Riverplatense

Indeed, if I listen very carefully ... but I guess Russian-native ears are more accurate in this regard. Still it's an interesting development.


----------



## merquiades

/ka/ seems to have become /ke/ before palatalization.

Notice:  caval >  cheval,  car > cher,  cap > chef,  camin > chemin

ka > k'e > tʃe> ʃe


----------



## ahvalj

merquiades said:


> /ka/ seems to have become /ke/ before palatalization.
> 
> Notice:  caval >  cheval,  car > cher,  cap > chef,  camin > chemin
> 
> ka > k'e > tʃe> ʃe


I think these were two separate processes, and the palatalization affected any _ka_ before further changes, cp. _charbon, chaud, chose, arche. _Germanic _ka_ was affected as well: _blanche_.


----------



## Riverplatense

merquiades said:


> /ka/ seems to have become /ke/ before palatalization.
> 
> Notice: caval > cheval, car > cher, cap > chef, camin > chemin



Interesting. I had also considered that the following vowel might have been not [a], but once there is BEC's _Manuel Pratique de Philologie Romane_ II (Paris 1970) writing: « Le processus articulatoire a dû être le suivant : _ka > k'a > t'a > tša; ga > g'a > d'a > dja._ » (p. 414).

And then there is Ladin with _ciaval _[ʧaˈval], _ciamin _[ʧaˈmiŋ] — but also _cer_.

Cross-post with ahvalj
Edit: correction to [ʧaˈval]


----------



## Riverplatense

ahvalj said:


> cp. _charbon, chaud, chose, arche. _Germanic _ka_ was affected as well: _blanche_.



_Chose _is a good example, because the palatalisation must have happened before the monophthongisation of [au].


----------



## ahvalj

Interestingly, Picard and northern Normandian have _k>ʧ_ before _e_ and _i_ and no assibilation before _a,_ and the same with _g,_ whereas they are affected by the change_ a>e,_ so we get _keval_ and _kief_ (Picard language - Wikipedia).


----------



## ahvalj

Riverplatense said:


> _Chose _is a good example, because the palatalisation must have happened before the monophthongisation of [au].


Also in the voiced case: _joie<*gaudia._

Also consider the Germanic loans _rîki>riche,_ _*skina>échine_ (échine - Wiktionary): such examples may suggest that any newly palatalized _k_ developed towards _ʧ_ during that period, simply there were no _ki/ke_ in the inherited vocabulary (_qu_ still retained its labialization or _w_).


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> /ka/ seems to have become /ke/ before palatalization.
> 
> Notice:  caval >  cheval,  car > cher,  cap > chef,  camin > chemin
> 
> ka > k'e > tʃe> ʃe


That applies only to cases with a an i-onset according to Bartsch's law from proto-Romance to Gallo-Roman (_cane > chien, caro > chiero > chèr_). But it does not explain cases like _carro > char _or _campo > champ_. The most plausible theory I have read so far is that during the second, Gallo-Roman palatalization (~600) /a/ must have been fronted to [æ], either completely or, more likely, allophonically, which later reverted to a central [a].


----------



## ahvalj

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the (apparently) subsequent change _u>ü_ in the last third of the 1st millennium and the emergence of _ö_ a few centuries later didn't cause any assibilation of velars (though the modern French _kü_ and _gü_ again sound palatalized to me). The same with the new _ki_ (_qui_), _ke_ (_quelle_) and _ka_ (_quand_) which emerged roughly in the same period.


----------



## Zec

Palatalisation of /k/ before /a/ was discussed at length in this thread. It's obvious that /a/ is in fact a front vowel in Modern French, so it's normal that it palatalizes a preceding velar consonant. As Berndf has said, historical evidence indicates that it's been a front vowel since ancient times (except the allophonic/later phonemic backing to /ɑ/).


----------



## berndf

In modern accents that do not distinguish between _tâche_ and _tache_, which is true for the vast majority of speakers, /a/ is realised centrally and not fronted. What the thread you quoted discussed was a possible palatalization from [k] towards [c] but that cannot explain a palatalization all the way to [t͜ʃ]. For that, /a/ must have been much further fronted at the time of the second palatalization.

(As for accents that do differentiate between _tâche_ and _tache_, this is a reflex of a former distinction between /a:/ and /a/ that developed in early modern French).


----------



## Zec

I hate to contradict serious studies, but judging by ear, the French /a/ still sounds very fronted compared to my native Croatian /a/. It's even cleared when I listen to older people, who distinguish a front /aː/ and a back /ɒː/, so that I have a point of reference to distinguish a front, a central and a back "a".

Suffice to say that French /a/ is fronted enough to provoke palatalization.


----------



## berndf

Zec said:


> Suffice to say that French /a/ is fronted enough to provoke palatalization.


No, it would need a much stronger fronting, like in modern English ([æ]). The central [a] is not sufficient to explain a palatalization beyond [c].


----------



## Zec

I was referring to Modern French. I accept that Gallo-Romance /a/ could have been more fronted, considering it's later development. Although, doesn't the Picard palatalization to affricates before /i/ and /e/ and only to stops before /a/ speak exactly for the situation I described?

(Also, I think that affrication isn't necessarily caused by a stronger palatalisation, rather that it's an independant later development from [c])


----------



## berndf

Developments with affricatization/i-onset as in _caro > chèr _are unproblematic to explain. The problem is the palatalization in closed stressed syllables as in _carro > char_, where there is no sign that there was a i-onset in the relevant period.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> That applies only to cases with a an i-onset according to Bartsch's law from proto-Romance to Gallo-Roman (_cane > chien, caro > chiero > chèr_). But it does not explain cases like _carro > char _or _campo > champ_. The most plausible theory I have read so far is that during the second, Gallo-Roman palatalization (~600) /a/ must have been fronted to [æ], either completely or, more likely, allophonically, which later reverted to a central [a].


The a > e  change apparently could only occur in open syllable words like _ca-bal-lus_ and _ca-ru_.  In your two examples _car-ru_ and _cam-pu_, the a was not in an open syllable.


----------



## berndf

Agreed (see my #17).


----------



## Riverplatense

I've now also read the thread quoted by Zec and also some handbooks and historical grammar books of French, but the only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that we simply don't know how the weird shift [ka] (> [kʲa] …) > [ʧa] happened. Am I right? As for a possible front pronunciation of <a> I find it interesting that certain Friulian variants today have [ka] > [kʲa], and I wouldn't be able to identify any other sound than [a].


----------



## berndf

You seem to be taken it for granted that [ka] > [ʧa] went via [kʲa]. Just let me repeat, _carro > char_ and _caro > chèr_ are different processes. If _carro > char_ also went through [kʲa] then it would be difficult to explain why these processes yielded so different outcomes.


----------



## Riverplatense

Okay, only now I understand. My limited knowledge of both the necessary terminology in English and the history of French brought me to wrong thoughts. Of course, I don't insist on the step [kʲa], it just seemed to be a reasonable development to me, for there are these Friulian _cjan _‹dog›, _cjante _‹song› etc. And of course the step from [kʲ] to [ʧ] would be short. But again, when I started the thread I didn't postulate anything, because I don't know a lot about French.


----------



## Zec

Something dawned on me when I read these recent posts: as far as consonants and vowels can be compared, front vowels have a palatal place of articulation, while back vowels have a velar place of articulation. The place of articulation of central vowels can thus be describes as back-palatal or front-velar.

Since central vowels are more fronted than velars, they can exert a fronting influence upon them - which is, however, weaker and thus rarer than that of front vowels. I remember reading that in Catalan, the clusters _nc_ and _ng_ were fronted whenever not preceded by a back vowel?



berndf said:


> You seem to be taken it for granted that [ka] > [ʧa] went via [kʲa]. Just let me repeat, _carro > char_ and _caro > chèr_ are different processes. If _carro > char_ also went through [kʲa] then it would be difficult to explain why these processes yielded so different outcomes.



Like in any other case, the difference in the development of /a/ depends primarily on whether the syllable is open or closed. Any inference about how this change interacted with the palatalisation of velars are speculative and difficult to prove. I could easily propose the Old French forms_ chier_, _chief_, _chievre_ (and modern _chien_), with a palatal-consonant induced semivowel as evidence that in fact there was a phase that included [kʲ] (though, admittedly, that doesn't say anything about [kʲa])


----------



## berndf

Zec said:


> I could easily propose the Old French forms_ chier_, _chief_, _chievre_ (and modern _chien_)


Those are the cases we are precisely *not* talking about because the _i_-insertion makes it a no-brainer. 


berndf said:


> Just let me repeat, _carro > char_ and _caro > chèr_ are different processes.


The second process, _caro > cher_, went through OF _chier_, i.e. with _i_-insertion. In the first process, _carro > char_, this is not the case.


----------



## Zec

Thing is, i-insertion presupposes previous palatalisation (unintentional alliteration ): it always happened when /a/ was preceded by a palatal or palatalized consonant of various sources. So, in order for _carus_ to become _chier_, it's /k/ had to be palatalised before /i/ was inserted... so, the inserted /i/ doesn't solve the problem of palatalisation: it's its effect, not its cause.

This minimizes the difference between _carus_ and _carrus_, but doesn't remove it completely. I-insertion still only happened before /a/ and /e/ in open syllables, so the /a/ of _carus_ may already have been a different sound than /a/ in _carrus_ when it happened.


----------



## berndf

Zec said:


> Thing is, i-insertion presupposes previous palatalisation ... it's its effect, not its cause.


I disagree. Diphthongization of etymologically  short vowels in open syllables is a much broader phenomenon (_mourir_ vs. _mort_). Unless you have a really good argument to the opposite, i-insertion is the cause of the palatalisation and not the effect.


----------



## Zec

Vulgar Latin _a_ in stressed open syllables does not normally become _ie_ - this change is universally accepted to be conditioned by a preceding palatal consonant. 

We can distinguish two phases of diphthongization in the history of French (both occurring in stressed open syllables), the so-called _romance diphthongization_ by which VL. _ɛ_ > _ie_ and VL. _ɔ_ > _uo_, and the so-called _french diphthongization_ by which VL. _e_ > _ei_, VL. _o_ > _ou_ and VL. _a_ > *_ae_ > _ai_ before nasals, _e_ otherwise (I'm showing the earliest attested Old French forms. The hypothetical diphthong *_ae_ monophthongized in preliterary and alternative explanations of the development _a_ > _e_ have been proposed).

They differ by the number of Romance idioms which they affected (the first is shared by most Romance languages, the second is limited to northern Gallo-Romance) and by their results: the first one gives rising diphthongs, the second one gives falling diphthongs_._

To give some examples where VL. _a_ was preceded by a labial, a dental or a labiovelar consonant:

Lat._ talem_ > Fr. _tel_, Lat. _qualem_ > Fr. _quel_, Lat. _patrem_, _matrem_ > Fr. _père_,_ mère_, Lat. _panem_ > Fr. _pain_, Lat. _manum_ > Fr. _main
_
That _a_ > _ie_ is limited to palatal contexts is clear in Old French, where Latin first (a-) conjugation split into two groups depending of whether the root ended with a palatalized or an unpalatalized consonant. Palatalized consonants come from various sources (yod-induced palatalization, Romance and Gallo-romance palatalization of velars, contact with a preceding yod), but all have the same effect:

Lat. _cantare_, _cantatis_, _canta(ve)runt_, _cantatum_ > OF. _chant*e*r_, _chant*e*z_, _chant*e*rent_, _chant*é*_

Lat. *_captiare_, *_captiatis_, *_captia(ve)runt_, *_captiatum_ > OF. _chac*ie*r_, _chac*ie*z_, _chac*ie*rent_, _chac*ié*_

Lat. _circare_, _circatis_, _circa(ve)runt_, _circatum_ > OF. _cerch*ie*r_, _cerch*ie*z_, _cerch*ie*rent_, _cerch*ié*_


Many other examples will confirm this rule: VL. _a_ becomes OF. _ie_ only after palatalized consonants, including velars palatalized by the Gallo-romance palatalization (before itself).

The only thing we're lacking are examples of word-initial _a_ preceded by a palatal consonant, since, with the exception of velars, that could only be yod (this is a historical accident). The only word in which this happened was Lat. _iacet_ > OF. _gist_, and the development was obscured by further changes.


----------



## merquiades

It would be a good idea to note here that all stressed a in stressed open syllables became e in old French systematically with an intermediate stage of ae. That is enough to palatalize k and g in these environments. Carus, hacar. When nasalization occurred it kept the final change from happening. That is why we have pain, main, faim.


----------



## ahvalj

merquiades said:


> It would be a good idea to note here that all stressed a in stressed open syllables became e in old French systematically with an intermediate stage of ae. That is enough to palatalize k and g in these environments. Carus, hacar. When nasalization occurred it kept the final change from happening. That is why we have pain, main, faim.


The issue is not the palatalization of _k_ and _g_ before _*æ,_ it's trivial: the issue is the palatalization>assibilation before the vowel reflected in Old French as _a_ (_<a_ in a closed syllable, including Frankish loans: _Charles_) or even _o_ (_<au: chose, joie_).


----------

