# Spanish: -ss-/s > j (pájaro)



## MarX

Hello!

How come the _-ss-_ in _pássaro_ became _*-j-*_ in Spanish?
Are there other words containing J originating from _-ss-_ or an _s-sound_?
Is *dije* one of them (in Portuguese _disse_)?
*Jabón* also developed from an _s-sound_ (Latin _sapônem_).

Gracias!


----------



## CapnPrep

Before the 16th century, the sibilant sounds /s/ (written "-ss-" between vowels) and /ʃ/ (written "x") were apparently pronounced similarly enough to cause confusion in some words. I guess most of these errors were eventually sorted out, but the shift from _passaro_ to _paxaro_ — I believe you can find this spelling in Old Spanish — apparently stuck. (And then as you know "x" later merged with "j".)

On the other hand, I think that _dije_ is the normal result of Latin _dixi_ /diksi/.


----------



## MarX

Thank you!



CapnPrep said:


> Before the 16th century, the sibilant sounds /s/ (written "-ss-" between vowels) and /ʃ/ (written "x") were apparently pronounced similarly enough to cause confusion in some words. I guess most of these errors were eventually sorted out, but the shift from _passaro_ to _paxaro_ — I believe you can find this spelling in Old Spanish — apparently stuck. (And then as you know "x" later merged with "j".)


I guess this also explains why _Ressurgimento_ is called _Rexurdimento_ in Galician. 



CapnPrep said:


> On the other hand, I think that _dije_ is the normal result of Latin _dixi_ /diksi/.


Did Latin _dixi_ went through a phase where it was pronounced as _dissi_ or _diši_?


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> (And then as you know "x" later merged with "j".)


I've always been curious how this merger exactly happened. In Latin American Spanish there is [ç]. A development like [ʃ],[ʒ]>[ɕ]>[ç]>[x] would appear logical. Is this about how it happend? I don't really know.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I've always been curious how this merger exactly happened. In Latin American Spanish there is [ç]. A development like [ʃ],[ʒ]>[ɕ]>[ç]>[x] would appear logical. Is this about how it happend? I don't really know.


That would make sense, but in this type of change it isn't absolutely necessary to go through all the intermediate stages. You just need a situation where speakers come to accept, say, both [ʃ] and [x] as possible pronunciations of the same phoneme, and that can happen within one generation. However, some spellings from the mid-16th century like "mexior" (_mejor_), "oxios" (_ojos_) seem to indicate a new kind of mediopalatal pronunciation, but of course this could be limited to those specific regions.

Even towards the "end" of the change, the pronunciation [ʃ] was still in limited use. Many books mention the fact that "Quijote" was translated as French "Quichotte" and Italian "Chisciotto" (early 17th century). But then again, it's a proper name, and even if it was already pronounced "Qui[x]ote", I don't see how one could translate that into French/Italian.


----------



## berndf

So, this means the development is not sufficiently documented to reliably reconstruct it in detail. Right?


----------



## MarX

berndf said:


> I've always been curious how this merger exactly happened. In Latin American Spanish there is [ç]. A development like [ʃ],[ʒ]>[ɕ]>[ç]>[x] would appear logical. Is this about how it happend? I don't really know.


As this page illustrates, there was a general merge between voiced and voiceless sibilants in Old Spanish. 
Š and Ž merged into Š, which then developed into [x]. This evolution may seem unusual, but a similar thing is actually still going on in Swedish, where historically Š sound has a wide ranging variations of pronunciation from  Š to [x].


----------



## berndf

That is actually why I asked. In Nordic languages the connection is via [ɕ] which is in between  [ʃ] and [ç] and [ç] and [x] are or were allophones in several languages. Today the two are still allophonic in German and Greek. If I am not mistaken, in Dutch [ç] merged into [x] about the same time as the change happened in Spanish and the Netherland were Spanish at the time.

For this reason I was interestin in the details how this merger happened.


----------



## MarX

I never really realized that something similar also exists in German. 
You're right. The 'ch' in dur ch can be pronounced as [ɕ] or [ʃ] or [ç] or [x].

So after the merge of [ʃ] and [ʒ] into [ʃ] in Spanish there were for some time also varying pronunciations of X/J, just like in Swedish and German, and then they merged into [x], which evolved further like into  or, interestingly, [ç] like in Chile.


----------



## berndf

The [ɕ] exists in Scandinavian languages. Standard German has only [ç] or [x]. But there are dialects (Rheinisch) where [ʃ] and [ç] are poorly distinguished and "sch" and "ch" can be realized anywhere in the range  [ʃ]-[ɕ]-[ç].

The development sequence [ʃ]>[ɕ]>[ç]>[x] is just a surmise of mine put together from analogies from other languages and South American Spanish. I was just curious whether there was any proof for such a development.


----------



## dinji

berndf said:


> That is actually why I asked. In Nordic languages the connection is via [ɕ] which is in between  [ʃ] and [ç] and [ç] and [x] are or were allophones in several languages. Today the two are still allophonic in German and Greek. If I am not mistaken, in Dutch [ç] merged into [x] about the same time as the change happened in Spanish and the Netherland were Spanish at the time.
> 
> For this reason I was interestin in the details how this merger happened.


I am trying to understand your point but the analogy between German and Scandinavian languages works poorly because in Swedish [ɕ] is a different phoneme /ɕ/ (with an allophone  [tɕ]), whereas as different phoneme /ʃ/ is developing into something very close to [x] completely avoiding confusion with the other phoneme /ɕ/. The trick is that all realisations of /ʃ/ are somewhat or even extremely lip-rounded, which seems to be an essential element. In addition the element of velarasation is optional, which makes it a phoneme with multiple places of articulation.

Thus it seems that Swedish is de facto a counter example, demonstrating that the development need not pass through the palatal area of articulation at all.

Also in Proto-Finnish a similar development has happend. Needless to say, the exact sequence of development is not reconstructable. Today this original /ʃ/ is already a laryngeal fricative . In one of its intermediate stages the phoneme has in Proto-Germanic loanwords substituted the Proto-German velar fricatives, voiced and voiceless alike.


----------



## berndf

So you are saying valarization of [ʃ] is not uncommon and there is no need for any "middle stages" to explain [ʃ] > [x]? Do I understand you correctly?


----------



## dinji

berndf said:


> So you are saying valarization of [ʃ] is not uncommon and there is no need for any "middle stages" to explain [ʃ] > [x]? Do I understand you correctly?


I am not sure about that. If the process was phonemically speaking a confusion between two phonemes, one velar and one post-alveolar, that could have happened. In Swedish this is not the case. In Swedish we are in an intermediate phase characterized by lip rounding, which makes an opposition to the palatalized phoneme, which is separate.


----------



## dinji

One more remark: We know from vowels systems generally that lip-rounding and velarisation tend to go together (the universality of back rounded vowels /o/ and/or /u/ as opposed to the relatively scarce occurrance of back unrounded vowels and front rounded vowels).

Therefore it is quite natural that if we get an opposition between an unrounded (with spread lips like the vowel i or e) fricative /ɕ/ (or /ç/) and a lip-rounded one /ʃw/, then the latter will be subject to a tendency of velarisation. This seems to be the case in Swedish at least. For Proto-Finnic this could also have been the case since there was a contrastive palatalized sibilant (supposedly without lip-rounding). 

As for Medieval Spanish I am not aware of a palatalized sibilant, the opposition to which would have triggered the lip rounding => velarisation process. May be the palatal lateral [ll] could have served as such a catalyzing counter-part? 

In modern Spanish also the semivowel [y] has a fricative allophone, in some dialects almost a sibilant. May be this is old enough to serve as the catalyzing counterpart?


----------



## berndf

I am not aware of any Romance language where lip-rounding were phonemically significant for [ʃ]. In French, e.g., you would pronounce "ch" rounded in "chose" (because followed by a rounded vowel) and unrounded in "cherie" (because followed by an unrounded vowel).

If lip-rounding in [ʃ] is phonemic in Swedish (which I wasn't aware of) then Swedish indeed is not a good comparison; unless there is any indication of phonemically relevant lip-rounding associated with Old-Spanish "x".


----------



## berndf

One additional question on this topic: Do we know a precise time line for the [ʃ],[ʒ]>[ʃ] merger and for the [ʃ]>[x] shift? As far as I know, we are talking about the 16th to 18th century. Is this correct and do we have enough information to be more precise?


----------



## CapnPrep

It's probably still not precise enough for you… but this is what my references say:

[ʃ],[ʒ]>[ʃ]: 16th century (starting in Aragon & Castile, reaching the south somewhat later)

[ʃ]>[x]: starting in late 16th century, established by mid 17th century

The speed of the second change makes me think that there were very few (if any) intermediate stages, or else there must have been a lot of overlap. That is, there may have been a period during which [ʃ], [ɕ], [ç], and [x] were all more or less acceptable pronunciations of the letters "x" and "j".


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> [ʃ]>[x]: starting in late 16th century, established by mid 17th century.


This speed is really astonishing! So when Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, “x”=[x] was already heard but not yet common.

When did spelling change from “x” to “j”?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> When did spelling change from “x” to “j”?


Officially not until 1815, so this was one of the last significant orthographic reforms (the 1815 spelling is pretty much the same one in use today). And in Latin America they still write "_México_", "_Oaxaca_", etc.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> That would make sense, but in this type of change it isn't absolutely necessary to go through all the intermediate stages. You just need a situation where speakers come to accept, say, both [ʃ] and [x] as possible pronunciations of the same phoneme, and that can happen within one generation. However, some spellings from the mid-16th century like "mexior" (_mejor_), "oxios" (_ojos_) seem to indicate a new kind of mediopalatal pronunciation, but of course this could be limited to those specific regions.
> 
> Even towards the "end" of the change, the pronunciation [ʃ] was still in limited use. Many books mention the fact that "Quijote" was translated as French "Quichotte" and Italian "Chisciotto" (early 17th century). But then again, it's a proper name, and even if it was already pronounced "Qui[x]ote", I don't see how one could translate that into French/Italian.


Digging up this old thread because I just saw the diagram here which also assumes an intermediate stage /ç/ for the transition from /ʃ/ to /x/.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

MarX said:


> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> CapnPrep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 16th century, the sibilant sounds /s/ (written "-ss-" between vowels) and /ʃ/ (written "x") were apparently pronounced similarly enough to cause confusion in some words. I guess most of these errors were eventually sorted out, but the shift from _passaro_ to _paxaro_ — I believe you can find this spelling in Old Spanish — apparently stuck. (And then as you know "x" later merged with "j".)
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this also explains why _Ressurgimento_ is called _Rexurdimento_ in Galician.
Click to expand...

 In Standard Catalan, it's still very easy to confuse, s and x (xeix - shesh) in words like anys (years).



MarX said:


> CapnPrep said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I think that _dije_ is the normal result of Latin _dixi_ /diksi/.
> 
> 
> 
> Did Latin _dixi_ went through a phase where it was pronounced as _dissi_ or _diši_?
Click to expand...


In Italian, it's still dissi...


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

I know in Ladino, "dij-" (the preterite forms of decir), one still pronounces the "j" as the alveolar-palatal voiceless fricative "sh." (as well as in "dejar", etc.).


----------

