# Romance languages: l > r



## Gavril

Hello,

Many Romance languages show at least a sporadic change of _l_ > _r_ next to a consonant:

Romanian _v*r*ut_ "wanted" (past participle) ~ Italian _vo*l*uto_

Sardinian _ab*r*u_, _a*r*bidu _"white" ~ Latin _a*l*bum_

Neapolitan _pu*r*pu _"octopus" ~ Italian _po*l*po_

Portuguese _esc*r*avo_ "slave" ~ Spanish _esc*l*avo_


At least in Sardinian, there are also examples of the opposite change, _r_ > _l_:

_ba*l*tzu_ "arm" ~ French _b*r*as_ (Sardinian also seems to have variants of this word with "r": _bartzu_, _bratzu_)


Is there thought to have been a single change of _l_ > _r_ (before or after a consonant) which then spread into many Romance dialects, or does this change seem to have happened independently in different areas?

Thanks for any info


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Neapolitan _pu*r*pu _"octopus" ~ Italian _po*l*po_
> 
> Is there thought to have been a single change of _l_ > _r_ (before or after a consonant) which then spread into many Romance dialects, or does this change seem to have happened independently in different areas?



For "l" before consonants, we have:

Neapolitan (and "dialetti meridionali"): "l > w" ['alto] > ['awtə] (normal) or "l > -" ['altra] > ['aːtə] (often) 
Sicilian (and "dialetti meridionali estremi"): "l > w" ['alto] > ['awtu], ['altra] > ['awʈɽa] 
Roman: "l > r": ['alto] > ['arto], ['altra] > ['artra] 

Brazilian Portuguese: "l > w": [voɫ'tar] > [vow'tah] 
Caipira (Brazilian Portuguese) dialect: "l > r": [voɫ'tar] > [vor'ta]  

For "l" after consonants, we have: 

"pl > pj": pluit > ['pjɔve] (Tuscan, Roman, piove) 
"pl > kj": pluit > ['kjɔvə] (Neapolitan, chiove),['kjɔvi] or ['gjɔvi] (Sicilian, chiovi) 
"fl > fj": flore > ['fjore] (Tuscan, Roman, fiore) 
"fl > ʧ": flore > ['ʧurə] (Neapolitan, ciure), ['ʧuri] (Sicilian, ciuri) 



Gavril said:


> Portuguese _esc*r*avo_ "slave" ~ Spanish _esc*l*avo_



In Portuguese, initial "pl" > sometimes "ʃ" (plenu > cheio) sometimes pr" (platea > praça).


----------



## Cenzontle

In the history of Spanish, the l/r changes are traditionally called "sporadic", meaning not governed by rule.
So I suspect that the second clause of your question is the answer:  independent changes.


----------



## Hulalessar

In Andalusian Spanish there is both_ l > r_ and_ r > l _compared with standard Spanish.


----------



## francisgranada

There is another nice example: the Latin _a*r*bo*r*e(m)_ is _á*r*bo*l* _in Spanish and _a*l*be*r*o _in Italian. 

In such cases, i.e. when there are two "r" or both "r" and "l" in the same word in a "certain" position, there is a "tendency" (or probability) to sporadically interchange/mix them (r <> l) also in other languages, for reasons of articulation. See e.g. the Hungarian _ka*r*a*l*ábé _(turnip cabbage, kohlrabi), but also the dialectal  _ka*l*ará*b*é _(finally, related with the Sp. _colirábano_, It. _cavolo rapa_ etc.).

As to the Spanish vs. Italian, there is also e.g.  _elementa*l* _vs. _elementa*r*e_, _parlamenta*l* _vs. _parlamenta*r*e_, etc ...  Perhaps in these cases the reason is not phonetical, but rather the possible adjectiv endings _-al(e)_ and _-ar(e)_ are "interchanged".


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> For "l" before consonants, we have:
> 
> Neapolitan (and "dialetti meridionali"): "l > w" ['alto] > ['awtə] (normal) or "l > -" ['altra] > ['aːtə] (often)



Does this mean that purpu is taken from a different dialect where l > r occurred? Or does the "r" of purpu represent something closer to [w]?



> In Portuguese, initial "pl" > sometimes "ʃ" (plenu > cheio) sometimes pr" (platea > praça).



Portuguese Cl > Cr seems like a relatively recent change given the (relative) newness of words like _escravo _and _branco _in the Romance languages.


----------



## merquiades

Hulalessar said:


> In Andalusian Spanish there is both_ l > r_ and_ r > l _compared with standard Spanish.



Which was transmitted to Caribbean Spanish too.

Examples:  "Er amigo" for "el amigo", "cardo" for "caldo",  "fácir" for "fácil",  "Puelto Rico"....


Comparing Portuguese and Spanish,  clusters in the former usually have r where in the later they have l.
Branco -  Blanco
Praça -  Plaza
Cravo - Clavo

Edit:  Okay, saw recent message.  I don't think these changes were recent.  They can be seen in the Cantigas de Santa Maria.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Does this mean that purpu is taken from a different dialect where l > r occurred? Or does the "r" of purpu represent something closer to [w]?



You're right, it's [purpə] (like in the proverb "‘o purpo se coce ‘int all’acqua soja") but it is not the "unique" evolution. 

"L + consonante. Il nesso latino l + consonante ha in genere tre esiti, *compresenti* nelle stesse varietà e oggi indipendenti dal contesto fonetico (*la natura della consonante successiva non è più rilevante*): il rotacismo (napol. [kurˈtjelːə] «coltello»); la velarizzazione, cioè il passaggio a /-w-/ o /-və-/: a Campobasso [kawˈʦonə] «calzone»; a Ravello (Sa), [ˈfavəʧə] «falce»; il dileguo (napol. [ˈroʧə] «dolce»). Nel Teramano prevalgono esiti assimilati, e successivi a una sonorizzazione della seconda consonante ([ˈfadːʒə] «falce», [kaˈdːʒʌtːə] «calzetta»), che sconfinano nelle Marche contigue." 

So, you can have [ku*r*ˈtjelːə], ['a*w*tə] or ['aːtə] in Neapolitan (all preceeding the same consonant, "t"). 

The "l" before a consonant becomes "r" in Roman and it is one of the most important features of the Roman dialect, even in the definite article "er".


----------



## Gavril

merquiades said:


> Comparing Portuguese and Spanish,  clusters in the former usually have r where in the later they have l.
> Branco -  Blanco
> Praça -  Plaza
> Cravo - Clavo
> 
> Edit:  Okay, saw recent message.  I don't think these changes were recent.  They can be seen in the Cantigas de Santa Maria.



I just meant recent relative to the oldest stratum/strata of vocabulary. For example, the Latin word from which _praça _comes should have given something like *_chaça_ (and correspondingly *_llaza_ in Spanish) if it had developed uninterrupted from Latin to Portuguese, without any "restoration" by later speakers.


----------



## relativamente

Gavril said:


> I just meant recent relative to the oldest stratum/strata of vocabulary. For example, the Latin word from which _praça _comes should have given something like *_chaça_ (and correspondingly *_llaza_ in Spanish) if it had developed uninterrupted from Latin to Portuguese, without any "restoration" by later speakers.



The words blanco and branco in fact are from Germanic origin not Latin
DRAE gives(Del germ. *blank; cf. a. al. ant. blank)in consequence from more recent origin
Most romances have germanic origin for white except Romanian alb)
Maybe to prevent confusions as "al pont" with "alb pont" for example.This is not possible in Romanian "alb pontul"


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Portuguese Cl > Cr seems like a relatively recent change given the (relative) newness of words like _escravo _and _branco _in the Romance languages.



Do you mean that /sklave/ and /blank/ were borrowed before in Tuscan, which has the regular developement, ['skjavo] and only in a second time in Spanish and Portuguese? 

It seems strange to me because Germanic populations invaded Northern Italy, France, Spain and Portugal in the same period.


----------



## Gavril

Hi,



Nino83 said:


> Do you mean that /sklave/ and /blank/ were borrowed before in Tuscan, which has the regular developement, ['skjavo] and only in a second time in Spanish and Portuguese?



I don't know how far back the change _Kl_/_Pl_ > _Ki_/_Pi_ in Italian is normally dated, but forms like _schiavo_ / _bianco_ seem to imply that either 1) the clusters Kl/Pl had not yet lost their "l" at the time Italian acquired these words (*blank/*sklav), or 2) the change _Kl_/_Pl_ > _Ki_/_Pi_ happened more than once in Italian.


----------



## merquiades

Gavril said:


> 2) the change _Kl_/_Pl_ > _Ki_/_Pi_ happened more than once in Italian.


 It happened ALL the time in Italian with all liquid clusters.


----------



## Cossue

Gavril said:


> Portuguese Cl > Cr seems like a relatively recent change given the (relative) newness of words like _escravo _and _branco _in the Romance languages.



Yep. In Galician and Portuguese inherited words experimented cl-, fl-, pl- > ch- [ʧ]; words incorporated later (from the 11th-12th), or restored by learned use, turned l into r in the same context. So L flammam > G/P chama, L pluviam > G choiva / P chuva, L clavem > G/P chave; but praça, praia, branco, etc...

Blanc-, already under the form _branco_, is present in Galician documents from the 12th century on; in Iberia I'm assuming that it was present sooner in Catalonia. It was probably acquired though French or Occitan.


----------



## danielstan

Both /L/ and /R/ are liquid consonants, thus the best explanation for all those linguistic fact (L > R  or R > L transformations)
is the movements of the tongue for /L/ and /R/ have many similarities, so by internal mechanisms of every language could be explain the evolution in one or other direction.

One can notice that some little children cannot pronounce correctly the /R/ (at the age of 2 or 3) and systematically replace it by /L/.



Gavril said:


> Hello,
> 
> Many Romance languages show at least a sporadic change of _l_ > _r_ next to a consonant:
> 
> Romanian _v*r*ut_ "wanted" (past participle) ~ Italian _vo*l*uto_



The Romanian case is an exception (there is no phonetic rule in Romanian: "consonant + /L/" > "consonant + /R/")
and your example could be explained in another way.

_vrut_ is past participle of the Romanian verb "_a vrea / vrere_" ("_vrere_" = long form of infinitive which is used very rarely).
rom. _a vrea/vrere_ < Vulgar Latin _*volere_ (supposedly derived from Classical Latin_ vellere_)

There are 2 phonetic rules with high degree of applicability in Romanian regarding the intervocalic /L/ and /LL/:

1) intervocalic /LL/ in Latin > intervocalic /L/ in Romanian (e.g. lat. accusative _pellem_ > rom. _piele_) [this rule is not to be considered in our discussion]
2) intervocalic /L/ in Latin > intervocalic /R/ in Romanian (e.g. lat. _scala_ > rom. _scară_)

The phonetic rule 2) (known as "the rothacism of intervocalic /R/") applied to VL *_volere_
would have give _vorere_ which later passed in rom. _vrere _(there is no phonetic rule for this transformation, thus it is an exception)
The past participle: VL_ *volutum > vorut > _rom._ vrut.

_


----------



## Penyafort

Catalan either preserves it clearly or drops it. 

In fact, I can only think now of *teranyina *'spider web', from _tela aranyina > teraranyina. _There probably are a few other cases, but they must be isolated ones.


----------



## wtrmute

The l > r change happened most emphatically several times and in several places.  For instance, this is a change that happens in certain Brazilian sociolects even today, for example turning _Flamengo_ "a soccer team" into _Framengo_, or _problema_ "problem" into _pobrema_.  This is a completely different phenomenon from the rhotacism of l which gave us _branco_ from *_blanco_ and _prato_ from *_plato_, which was already completed by the Age of Discovery, not to mention the other instances in Catalan, Romanian, Romanesco, etc.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Penyafort said:


> Catalan either preserves it clearly or drops it.
> 
> In fact, I can only think now of *teranyina *'spider web', from _tela aranyina > teraranyina. _There probably are a few other cases, but they must be isolated ones.



I know that Catalan dictionaries give this etymology, but, with *teraranyina being a hypothetical form, I'd just go for a simple syncope: *[telaranyina]->teranyna.



danielstan said:


> _vrut_ is past participle of the Romanian verb "_a vrea / vrere_" ("_vrere_" = long form of infinitive which is used very rarely).
> rom. _a vrea/vrere_ < Vulgar Latin _*volere_ (supposedly derived from Classical Latin_ vellere_)



Classical Latin is just velle, not *vellere.
As for *volere, this is also the infinitive form in Standard Italian.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Neapolitan _pu*r*pu _"octopus" ~ Italian _po*l*po_



About l > r before consonants it depends on the followeing consonant.

Before /t, d, n, s/ (alveolars) it becomes /u/ or it is dropped while before /b, p, v, k/ (labials and velars) in some parts of Italy (_Piemonte, Liguria, Campania_) it becomes /r/.
It seems that there were two different types of /l/ before consonants in these varieties, a velar /l/ before alveolar consonants and a normal /l/ before labials and velars. 
In Sicilian /l/ before labials and velars assimilates with the following consonants, for example _succu < solco, vuppi < volpe, abba < alba, commu < colmo_ while before alveolars it becomes /u/, _autu < alto, cauddu < caldo, fausu < falso_ and sometimes is elided, like in _vota < volta_, so also in Sicilian there is this difference depending on the following consonant.


----------

