# Castillian avoidance of off-gliding



## Beachxhair

I'm reading about the history of Spanish phonology, and one linguist notes that there is an "avoidance of off-gliding diphthongs" in Castillian. 

Is there a reason as to why this was so?

(The linguist was talking about the metaphonic effects produced by the yod, I think.)

Thanks


----------



## CapnPrep

Could you provide the reference, because your brief summary is not very clear (to me). And maybe you could give some examples of words that should have developed a falling diphthong in Spanish, but failed to? It is true that compared to Portuguese and (Old) French, for example, Spanish has a lot fewer "ei" and "ou" and "ai" and "eu" etc. 

As far as I know, metaphony is an assimilation in height/closeness of a simple vowel. It does not produce diphthongs.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

*Beachxhair*, if you take the _y griega_, you'll see that, according to Spanish spelling conventions, it is a (semi-)consonant rather than a (semi-)vowel in all cases but one: when it appears as a sole word (y=and).

I don't know much about Old Spanish, so I cannot even imagine a word with the diphthong "ou" in Spanish (which is/was very frequent in Portuguese). The "ei" does occur (peinar, reino), as does "ai" (although, if I am not mistaken, only as "ay" in word-final position), "eu" is rather rare (only Greek words come to my mind). I think there has been some relatinisation of diphthongs: the few "au" diphthongs are in Greek words, the only exception that comes to my mind is "auto" (as "act" of a play) and "autodafé" ("acto de fé") 
*CapnPrep*, could you provide some examples for "ou" and "eu" (and the others, if you like), please?


----------



## Hulalessar

Angelo di fuoco said:


> if you take the _y griega_, you'll see that, according to Spanish spelling conventions, it is a (semi-)consonant rather than a (semi-)vowel in all cases but one: when it appears as a sole word (y=and).



That is not quite the case. I quote (my translation) from _Ortografía de la lengua española_ published by the Real Academia Española:

The letter _y _can represent two distinct phonemes: one equivalent to that represented by the letter _i_ in words such as _muy_, _estoy_ or _y_; the other consonantal, the palatal sonorant phoneme in words such as _reyes_, _cayado_, _hoyo.
_
However, it is true that _y_ is the only case where the letter is used to represent a vowel not forming part of a diphthong.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

What does the _Ortografía de la lengua española_ say about stress in word-final diphthongs (falling)?

As for all I know, stress in word-final syllables (in polysyllabic words) is marked in Spanish when
- the syllable is open, i. e., ends with a vowel, e. g. _seré_, _café_, _guaraní_, _Alcalá_ etc.
- the syllable is closed (i. e. ends with a consonant)), but ends with either -n or -s, e. g. _jamón_, _barcelonés_, _estáis_, _coméis_

The stress is marked when
- the syllable is closed, i. e., ends with a vowel (exceptions: -n, -s), like _reloj_, _Guadalquivir_ etc.

The stress is not marked in monosyllabic words except when there's need to distinguish homophones (_mi_, _mí_ etc.)
The stress isn't either marked in monosyllabic words including rising diphtongs (vio, fue, fui etc.), but stress is marked when such diphtongs appear in word-final position: _comió_, _encomié_ etc.

The plural is usually formed by adding -s to the stem, except when the word ends with a consonant and you have to add -es.

My conclusion is that in words like _estoy_, _virrey_ etc. the letter _y_ is treated like a consonant, because it's either the unstressed vowel of a diphthong (and the preceding vowel should bear the stress: *estóy, *virréy), or it's a consonant, and the _acento tónico_ in the preceding vowel isn't marked in this syllable.


----------



## CapnPrep

Angelo di fuoco said:


> *CapnPrep*, could you provide some examples for "ou" and "eu" (and the others, if you like), please?


Examples in Spanish? The point is that there aren't any, or fewer than one might expect. There are no relevant examples in the DRAE for _ou_ (they are all loanwords or compounds). For _eu_, one can mention _feudo_, _deuda_, _beudo_, _leudo_, _lleudar_.


----------



## Hulalessar

Angelo di fuoco said:


> My conclusion is that in words like _estoy_, _virrey_ etc. the letter _y_ is treated like a consonant



Your conclusion would seem to be correct.

The _Ortografía de la lengua española_ says:

Las palabras agudas terminadas en _y_ no llevan tilde. Ejemplos:_ virrey_,_ paipay_,_ convoy_.

and

Palabras agudas son las polisílabas cuya última sílaba es tónica.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Thanks again!


----------



## jmx

Angelo di fuoco said:


> The "ei" does occur (peinar, reino), as does "ai" (although, if I am not mistaken, only as "ay" in word-final position), ...


Not quite: aire, bailar, estáis, cantáis, ...


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Yep, I forgot.


----------



## Beachxhair

CapnPrep said:


> Could you provide the reference, because your brief summary is not very clear (to me). And maybe you could give some examples of words that should have developed a falling diphthong in Spanish, but failed to? It is true that compared to Portuguese and (Old) French, for example, Spanish has a lot fewer "ei" and "ou" and "ai" and "eu" etc.
> 
> As far as I know, metaphony is an assimilation in height/closeness of a simple vowel. It does not produce diphthongs.


 Sorry to reply so late. Yes, that's true - metaphony causes a vowel to raise in its degree of aperture. According to what I read in Penny's A history of the Spanish Language:

He lists 5 environments in which the tonic vowels of Vulgar Latin could be raised, and then says that these 5 environments leave out of account certain pieces of data, because 
certain VL vowels escape raising, depending on the precise sequence of vowel, consonant and glide, or vowel, glide and consonant. 
For instance, /ɔˈ/ or /oˈ/ in conditions 1 ([i̯] immediately after) and 5 (followed by [ɲ]) combined with a following glide to produce [wé], eg SOMINU --> sueño. 
Early textual evidence (spellings, such as 'coiro' and 'agoiro') suggests that 
/ɔˈ/ raised to /oˈ/, eg [kɔˈi̯ro] > [koˈi̯ro]. Then /oˈi/ evolves to /ué/, *in accordance with the Castillian avoidance of off-gliding diphthongs,* forestalling any metaphonic effect of [i̯] on preceeding /o/." 


That's how I got from metaphony to the avoidance of off-gliding. I was wondering why Castillian avoided (still avoids) off-gliding. 

Thanks for your post


----------



## CapnPrep

R. Penny (1991 said:
			
		

> /ói/ evolves to /ué/, in accordance with the Castillian avoidance of off-gliding diphthongs *(see Malkiel 1976)*, thus forestalling any metaphonic effect of [i̯] on preceeding /o/.


You left out this bolded bit of the quotation, which should point you in the right direction for more information…


----------



## Beachxhair

CapnPrep said:


> You left out this bolded bit of the quotation, which should point you in the right direction for more information…


  I can't find the relevant essay/book by Malkiel. Has anyone on here already read it, or does anyone know what he says on the topic? Thanks


----------



## Gavril

Maybe there is a tendency towards off-gliding diphthongs in some non-Castillian dialects, and the Castillian avoidance of such diphthongs is a "reaction" to this tendency? This is just a guess on my part.

For example, Portuguese seems to have off-gliding diphthongs in many common places where Castillian has a monophthong: the preterite endings -_ei _and _-ou _in Portuguese correspond to -_é_ and -_ó _in Castillian (_ganhei_ "I won", _ganhou_ "s/he won" vs. _gané_, _ganó_), and common Portuguese words like _coisa _(Sp. _cosa_) have a diphthong where Spanish doesn't.

I know very little about the dialects spoken in Spain (Estremeñu, Asturianu, etc.), but it's possible that some of these dialects show similar diphthongizing tendencies to those seen in Portuguese.


----------



## Beachxhair

Gavril said:


> Maybe there is a tendency towards off-gliding diphthongs in some non-Castillian dialects, and the Castillian avoidance of such diphthongs is a "reaction" to this tendency? This is just a guess on my part.
> 
> For example, Portuguese seems to have off-gliding diphthongs in many common places where Castillian has a monophthong: the preterite endings -_ei _and _-ou _in Portuguese correspond to -_é_ and -_ó _in Castillian (_ganhei_ "I won", _ganhou_ "s/he won" vs. _gané_, _ganó_), and common Portuguese words like _coisa _(Sp. _cosa_) have a diphthong where Spanish doesn't.
> 
> I know very little about the dialects spoken in Spain (Estremeñu, Asturianu, etc.), but it's possible that some of these dialects show similar diphthongizing tendencies to those seen in Portuguese.


 I have read that in the history of Portuguese, there was a tendency to avoid Castillian features. Could the same have been true in Castillian? Thanks everyone


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

If my observations are correct, Castilian has either gone one step further (feito -> hecho) or one back (auto -> acto, although auto still exists, in the meaning "act of a play" or "one-act play").


----------



## Quiviscumque

Angelo di fuoco said:


> If my observations are correct, Castilian has either gone one step further (feito -> hecho) or one back (auto -> acto, although auto still exists, in the meaning "act of a play" or "one-act play").



Please notice that neither "acto" nor "auto" is true Castilian. 
"ACTO, 2ª mitad s. XIII, tomado del latín _actus, -us_ ... variante semiculta de _acto_ es _auto_..." (Corominas)


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Pensaba que "auto" era fruto de la evolución de la fonología del castellano, mientras que "acto" era una relatinización, fenomeno muy frecuente en aquellas alturas.


----------



## Beachxhair

Apparently, Makiel's 1976 article is about the change from falling to rising diphthongs in Old Spanish, the case of -io < eu. Does anyone know what factors are thought to have influenced the change from falling -io to rising -eu?


----------



## CapnPrep

Beachxhair said:


> Apparently, Makiel's 1976 article is about the change from falling to rising diphthongs in Old Spanish, the case of -io < eu.


It's the other way around, from falling _eu _to rising _io_. Compare e.g. Portuguese _eu, deus_ and Spanish _yo_, _dios_.

You may have better luck finding this article, which builds upon Malkiel's proposals:
Craddock, J. (1983) "Descending diphthongs and the regular preterite in Hispano-Romance." _BHS_ 60(1):1–14.


----------



## Beachxhair

CapnPrep said:


> It's the other way around, from falling _eu _to rising _io_. Compare e.g. Portuguese _eu, deus_ and Spanish _yo_, _dios_.
> 
> You may have better luck finding this article, which builds upon Malkiel's proposals:
> Craddock, J. (1983) "Descending diphthongs and the regular preterite in Hispano-Romance." _BHS_ 60(1):1–14.


  I did find the article, but only on two websites where you have to purchase it. Did you find a site where you could read it online for free? Thank you


----------



## Cenzontle

1. Hey, everybody, double-check your spelling of "Castilian".  Single L in English, in spite of the LL of "castellano".
2. In my opinion we would all be better off without the terms "rising" and "falling" diphthongs.  I'm sure I've seen them used in contrary ways in published sources.  
Usually, it seems that what is "rising" is the degree of sonority, or syllabicity, as in Spanish "b*ue*no"; 
but some respected linguists have used the terms so that what "rises" is the height of the tongue, as in Spanish "d*eu*da".
"On-gliding" and "off-gliding" seem to me like more reliable terms.
3. Beachxhair, I admire your persistence.  Never stop asking Why.  But, in historical linguistics, be prepared for a disappointing answer like "drift".
In the case of Spanish diphthongs, we're trying to fathom mostly unconscious processes in the minds of speakers who lived centuries ago.  
That said, here's a notion that I have entertained (but please don't quote me as being convinced about this):
Castilian diphthongization of Latin stressed short /e/ and /o/ proceeded in both open and closed syllables (FOCU > fuego, FONTE > fuente).
French and Italian diphthongized only in open syllables (feu, fuoco; font, fonte).  Portuguese (fogo, fonte) didn't even enter the contest.
So, more than most other Romance languages, Castilian has a large supply of on-gliding diphthongs.
Maybe (here's the speculative part) languages have a limited tolerance for the complexity of having both kinds of diphthongs simultaneously.
So when other changes throw together vowels in a potential off-gliding diphthong (e.g. "coiro"), "something" in the language says
"Let's move this diphthong into an already-existing category:  hence "cuero".


----------



## CapnPrep

Cenzontle said:


> "On-gliding" and "off-gliding" seem to me like more reliable terms.


There doesn't seem to be any confusion in this thread so far. To describe the change in aperture or closeness between the two elements of a diphthong, the standard terms are "opening" and "closing", as in Beachxhair's other thread about Old English diphthongs. I don't object to "on-gliding" and "off-gliding", except that in some cases neither element of the diphthong can be analyzed a glide (i.e. non-syllabic).


Cenzontle said:


> Castilian diphthongization of Latin stressed short /e/ and /o/ proceeded in both open and closed syllables (FOCU > fuego, FONTE > fuente).
> […]
> So, more than most other Romance languages, Castilian has a large supply of on-gliding diphthongs.


Keep in mind, though, that many (most?) philologists believe that at the time when these vowels first underwent segmentation, the accentuation was on the first element: _íe_ and _úo_. The shift to _ié_ and _uó_/_ué_ could perhaps be described as an elimination of off-gliding or falling/descending diphthongs (except in this case it would not be specific to Castilian).


----------



## Beachxhair

Cenzontle said:


> 1. Hey, everybody, double-check your spelling of "Castilian".  Single L in English, in spite of the LL of "castellano".
> 2. In my opinion we would all be better off without the terms "rising" and "falling" diphthongs.  I'm sure I've seen them used in contrary ways in published sources.
> Usually, it seems that what is "rising" is the degree of sonority, or syllabicity, as in Spanish "b*ue*no";
> but some respected linguists have used the terms so that what "rises" is the height of the tongue, as in Spanish "d*eu*da".
> "On-gliding" and "off-gliding" seem to me like more reliable terms.
> 3. Beachxhair, I admire your persistence.  Never stop asking Why.  But, in historical linguistics, be prepared for a disappointing answer like "drift".
> In the case of Spanish diphthongs, we're trying to fathom mostly unconscious processes in the minds of speakers who lived centuries ago.
> That said, here's a notion that I have entertained (but please don't quote me as being convinced about this):
> Castilian diphthongization of Latin stressed short /e/ and /o/ proceeded in both open and closed syllables (FOCU > fuego, FONTE > fuente).
> French and Italian diphthongized only in open syllables (feu, fuoco; font, fonte).  Portuguese (fogo, fonte) didn't even enter the contest.
> So, more than most other Romance languages, Castilian has a large supply of on-gliding diphthongs.
> Maybe (here's the speculative part) languages have a limited tolerance for the complexity of having both kinds of diphthongs simultaneously.
> So when other changes throw together vowels in a potential off-gliding diphthong (e.g. "coiro"), "something" in the language says
> "Let's move this diphthong into an already-existing category:  hence "cuero".


  Very helpful, thank you Cenzontle


----------



## Cenzontle

Oops!  I just checked my chronology for (1) Glide Metathesis (/korjo/ > /kojro/), (2) Diphthongization (/bɔno/ > /bweno/), and (3) Diphthong Nucleus Shift (/kojro/ > /kwero/).
By my reckoning, the diphthong of /kojro/ existed before the diphthong of /bweno/ did.  My alleged "limited tolerance for...both kinds of diphthongs" didn't keep the /we/ diphthong from appearing in Castilian.
So my "notion" described above needs some further development if it is to survive.


----------

