# por qué se escribe extranjero y no extrangero



## Chasint

Hello

¿por qué se escribe 'extran*j*ero' y no 'extran*g*ero'?

Thank you.


----------



## aztlaniano

My theory is that it is thanks to Wellington. When he drove Napoleon's brother Joseph out of Spain in 1813 all the "afrancesados" (collaborationists) were in danger of reprisals. 
In order to seem more "Spanish" and less "French" they started writing French words such as "étranger", "garage", "reportage", "equipage", or "bagage" with a J instead of a G.


----------



## Chris K

It's probably for reasons of consistency. For example, "bagé," phonetically, would be a correct spelling of the 1ª persona singular (yo) pretérito indicativo, of bajar, but "bagó" wouldn't be phonetically correct for the 3ª persona singular (él/ella/usted) pretérito indicativo (bajó). Thus bajé / bajó, since the "j" isn't affected by the following vowel.


----------



## Adolfo Afogutu

Consistente con las fechas de los hechos que menciona aztlaniano, comento que desde la primera edición en 1732 hasta la de 1822, la palabra figuró con ge. La de 1832 es la primera en que aparece con jota. Biffo estaría contento si la idea que años atrás lanzó García Márquez hubiera tenido mejor acogida (dijo, mitad en serio, mitad en broma, algo así como que había que firmar un tratado de paz entre la jota y la ge, entre otras cosas).
Saludos


----------



## aztlaniano

Chris K said:


> It's probably for reasons of consistency.


Consistency would require spelling all verbs now ending in _ger_ or _gir_ with a J.
Instead, we have coge, corrige etc. (indicative) and co*j*a, corri*j*a, etc. (subjuntive).
There was a Nobel prize winner who did this ... Juan Ramón something, ah, Giménez, J.R. Giménez.


----------



## Chris K

aztlaniano said:


> Consistency would require spelling all verbs now ending in _ger_ or _gir_ with a J.
> Instead, we have coge, corrige etc. (indicative) and co*j*a, corri*j*a, etc. (subjuntive).
> [...]



True.


----------



## Adolfo Afogutu

aztlaniano said:


> J.R. Giménez.


Jiménez.
Un ejemplo que es como anillo al dedo para lo que estamos hablando. 
Saludos


----------



## aztlaniano

Chris K said:


> True.


As Adolfo has pointed out, Juan Ramón's surname was, of course *J*iménez,. Calling him "*G*iménez" was my little joke.
He did, in fact, use a J instead of the G followed by an I or an E:

... otro de sus éxitos fue _Poemas májicos y dolientes, extravagante título en el que se destaca la forma personal de escribir de Juan Ramón, que siempre escribía «j» en vez de «g» antes de «e, i».7
_http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Ramón_Jiménez


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

Biffo said:


> Hello
> 
> ¿por qué se escribe 'extran*j*ero' y no 'extran*g*ero'?
> 
> Thank you.



Tiene que ver con historia de la lengua española. El uso poco a poco fue imponiendo la forma con jota.

Saludos.


----------



## Chasint

Thanks everyone. It seems it wasn't such a crazy question after all. 

I'm interested in the historical aspect. For example, if Wellington was involved, does that mean that the original editions of _Don Quixote De la Mancha_ (150 years or so earlier I believe) would exhibit the old spelling?

I don't know if current editions of Cervantes' work preserve the old spelling or have been updated.


----------



## Adolfo Afogutu

aztlaniano said:


> Calling him "*G*iménez" was my little joke.


Me lo imaginé, sí, que era un error jocoso de tu parte. 
Creo que la mayoría de las familias con ese apellido aquí en mi país son con ge. Supongo que lo mismo ocurrirá en España.
Saludos


----------



## CapnPrep

Biffo said:


> I don't know if current editions of Cervantes' work preserve the old spelling or have been updated.


The current practice is to modernize the spelling to a large extent — the very title of the book has changed from _Quixote _to_ Qui*j*ote_ — but editors have to make a lot of small decisions in specific cases. You can read the relevant discussion in the introduction to the 1998 critical edition (Francisco Rico) here, and on the same website you can find the full digitized text of that edition.

For a searchable facsimile of the first edition (and access to scans of many subsequent editions), see the BNE.

As far as I can tell, _extranjero_ does not appear in Don Quijote (with ‹j› or ‹g›), but for example _coraje_ occurs 3 times, and it already has a ‹j› in the 1605 edition. According to the Corpus del Español, the spelling _cora*j*e_ had already overtaken _cora*g*e_ by the 1500s. If this is correct, then Wellington's involvement in this particular change must have been rather limited… But see also the Google N-gram results, which show the two forms diverging only from the mid-19th century.


----------



## Chasint

Many thanks for that. That's a very valuable collection of links that I didn't know about. 

I searched for 'extrangero' in the BNE catálogo and found plenty of examples.


----------



## Yuzer

Chris K said:


> It's probably for reasons of consistency. For example, "bagé," phonetically, would be a correct spelling of the 1ª persona singular (yo) pretérito indicativo, of bajar, but "bagó" wouldn't be phonetically correct for the 3ª persona singular (él/ella/usted) pretérito indicativo (bajó). Thus bajé / bajó, since the "j" isn't affected by the following vowel.


Bajar retains the j because it comes from baxar (x=sh in the world "english").

The words which have "je" or "ji" were mostly pronounced like french j. That's the case to this day with mujer, mensaje (mesaje, to be exact in our dialect), etc. in Djudeospanish. The others with "je" or "ji" like bajo (abasho) had a sound like Portuguese X. Tú dejes is tu deshes in JS. ​Words which have "ge" or "gi" we write and spell: djente, djeografiya, etc.


----------



## CapnPrep

And how do you say and write _extranjero_ in Judeo-Spanish?


----------



## francisgranada

The Spanish _extranjero _comes from the old Frech _estrangier _(according to DRAE and other sources). As far as I know, most of the words in_ -je_ (coraje, mensaje ...) in Spanish are also of French/Provencal ... origin. So a possible explanation could be that in case of _extranjero_  there is no direct Latin "precedent" that would motivate or "justify" the etymological usage of _*g*_ instead of *j* (according to the "philosophy" of the actual Spanish orthography). 

A personal observation: In Italian we have  _straniero _(from Lat. _extraneus_). So if the Spanish _extranjero _were of direct Latin origin, I should expect something like *_estrañero/__extrañero _and not _extranjero_ (see also _extraño < extraneus_). 

Maybe a bit OT, but I have a question: why _estrangier _and not *_estranier _in old French?


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> So a possible explanation could be that in case of extranjero there is no direct Latin "precedent" that would motivate or "justify" the etymological usage of g instead of j


On the other hand, Spanish did go back to Latin to restore the "x"… But you're right, there is no "g" in this word in Latin. Because…


francisgranada said:


> why _estrangier _and not *_estranier _in old French?


Fortition of yod after a consonant produced many instances of [dʒ] in Old French. For example _lineus_​ > _linge_, _laneus_ > _lange_, _vindemia_ > _vendange_. But this context could also give rise to [ɲ], as you suggest, and we do also find the form _estraignier_ (cf. _montanea_ > _montagne_, _campania_ > _champagne_, etc.).


----------



## merquiades

In Romance languages you often find yods that have been intensified/reinforced/palatalized? to /ʒ/:  aid/aiuto/ayuda/ajuda/ajutor/ajut, planear/planejar.  A recent example is all /j/ have become /ʒ/ in Spanish Rioplate dialect.

Straniero - /es-tran-je-ro/ - /es - tran -ʒe -(ro) - /es - tran -ʃe -ro/ - /es -tran -xe -ro/ - extranjero could be possible.

I think there is no real reason for "j" instead of "g".  Having both the same sound, the spelling of many words before -e was random for a long time with much hesitation.  That is true even nowadays with several words: (garaje/garage).  I'm sure in literature you could find extranjero/ extrangero/ estrangero/ estranjero alternating.  Tradition has set it with the -je now.


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> On the other hand, Spanish did go back to Latin to restore the "x"…


Yes and this seems to confirm my idea in the sense that _*g*_ has been "stabilized" in the Spanish orthography in cases when it corresponded to the original Latin _*g*_, otherwise _*j*_ is used. That's why we write _gente, corregir, prójimo, ajeno, Jérez_, etc .. and not _*jente, *correjir, *prógimo, *ageno, *Gérez_ etc ... In other words, the choice between *g* and* j* is not arbitrary. 

The same is valid for *x*, it was "restored" according to the Latin usage/pronounciation (perhaps the intention was to distinguish_ es<s_ [_estar, esperar .._.] from _es<ex_ [_extraño, extraer _...], but this is another question).

(This doesn't mean, of course, that there are no "exceptions" or inconsitencies ...)


----------



## CapnPrep

merquiades said:


> Straniero - /es-tran-je-ro/ - /es - tran -ʒe -(ro) - /es - tran -ʃe -ro/ - /es -tran -xe -ro/ - extranjero could be possible.


Why do you give _straniero_ as the initial form? 


francisgranada said:


> (This doesn't mean, of course, that there are no "exceptions" or inconsitencies ...)


For example _li*g*ero_, from French _léger_ (< Latin _leviarius)_, and _sar*g*ente_/_sar*g*ento_/_ser*g*enta_ from French (< Latin _servientem_). The French words have a non-etymological "g" for the same reason as _étranger_, but in these cases Spanish kept it instead of changing it to "j". Also _*g*inebra_ (Fr. _genièvre_ < *_ieniperus _class. _iuniperus_), _guardaman*g*ier_ (Fr. _garde-manger_ < _manducare_), _men*g*e_ (Cat./Occ. _metge _< _medicus_).


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> ... For example _li*g*ero_, from French _léger_ (< Latin _leviarius)_, and _sar*g*ente_/_sar*g*ento_/_ser*g*enta_ from French (< Latin _servientem_). The French words have a non-etymological "g" for the same reason as _étranger_, but in these cases Spanish kept it instead of changing it to "j". Also _*g*inebra_ (Fr. _genièvre_ < *_ieniperus _class. _iuniperus_), _guardaman*g*ier_ (Fr. _garde-manger_ < _manducare_), _men*g*e_ (Cat./Occ. _metge _< _medicus_).


Yes, but I think this is understandable. Your examples are words that could be seen/perceived simply as _loanwords _without no _evident/clear _connection with any Spanish word of direct Latin origin that could "spontaneousely" serve as a kind of "reference" for orthographical purposes. It's also important when these words entered in Spanish.  

However, my formulation (#19)


> ... *g* has been "stabilized" in the Spanish orthography in cases when it corresponded to the original Latin _*g*_, otherwise _*j*_ is used ...


is, of course, not precise .


----------



## merquiades

CapnPrep said:


> Why do you give _straniero_ as the initial form?



No, I don't think _straniero_ is the original form, but it's the only form we have available prior to or without the /ʒ/ addition (extranjero, étranger, estranger, estrangeiro, stranger).  I don't think _extraneus_ is the original form because we lack the -er/-ero/-erus suffix.  Perhaps there was an *_extranerus_ form in Vulgar Latin from which they all arose.


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> ...  Straniero - /es-tran-je-ro/ - /es - tran -ʒe -(ro) - /es - tran -ʃe -ro/ - /es -tran -xe -ro/ - extranjero could be possible.


Perhaps *_extranearius _(??) or something similar could be the "proto-form" ... 

But I want to say/ask something else. It is true, of course, that _yod _produces [dʒ] in many cases (including the examples of CapnPrep #17 or e.g. the Italian _maggiore_,  Catalan _jo, _French _je _etc ...). However, I wonder if it is typical for the combination _n_+_yod _to become [ndʒ] and later [nx] in Spanish.

(at the moment no examples come to my mind except of loanwords ...)


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> Perhaps *_extranearius _(??) or something similar could be the "proto-form" ...
> 
> But I want to say/ask something else. It is true, of course, that the Latin yod produces [dʒ] in many cases (including the examples of CapnPrep #17 or e.g. the Italian _maggiore_,  Catalan _jo, _French _je _etc ...). However, I wonder if it is typical for the combination _n_+_yod _to become [ndʒ] and later [nx] in Spanish?



No, I don't think so, not with n+yod in direct evolution, in most other cases yes.  The normal result is ñ:   Tinea > tiña, vinea > viña, balneum > baño, cuneus > cuño

A home grown _extranjero_ based on a root word with the same origin would have given something like _extrañero_ (from _extraño_).  The traditional word is _forastero_.


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> No, I don't think so, not with n+yod in direct evolution ...


Ok, my question was motivated by this: 





> Straniero - /es-tran-je-ro/ - /es - tran -ʒe -(ro) - /es - tran -ʃe -ro/ - /es -tran -xe -ro/ - extranjero could be possible.


.  





merquiades said:


> ... Perhaps there was an *_extranerus_ form in Vulgar Latin from which they all arose.


In *_extranerus_ I miss the _yod _after the consonant "_n_".


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> Ok, my question was motivated by this: .  In *_extranerus_ I miss the _yod _after the consonant "_n_".



Ok, I see.  I thought the yod would have arisen from the diphthonging of the open /ɛ/ in *_extranerus_ which the Italian _straniero_ would seem to indicate.  The yod making /es tran je ro/ would have strengthened in Gallo-Roman to become /ʒe/.  This would have been the form when it was taken by Spanish.  It would have been needed to be introduced quite early for the /es - tran -ʒe -ro - /es - tran -ʃe -ro/ - /es -tran -xe -ro/ evolution to be possible.


----------



## CapnPrep

merquiades said:


> I thought the yod would have arisen from the diphthonging of the open /ɛ/ in *_extranerus_ which the Italian _straniero_ would seem to indicate.


It would have to be *_extranĕrius _or *_extranĕreus_ for this to work (so that the stress falls in the right place), but I don't believe there is a Latin suffixation pattern that would give you either of those forms starting from _extraneus_. 

francisgranada's *_extranearius_ is the better guess (cf. _balneum_ → _balnearius_, _caseus_ → _casearius_); see for example Piangiani for Italian _straniero_ (where the form of the suffix may show French or other Gallo-Romance influence).


----------



## HUMBERT0

merquiades said:


> No, I don't think so, not with n+yod in direct evolution, in most other cases yes.  The normal result is ñ:   Tinea > tiña, vinea > viña, balneum > baño, cuneus > cuño
> 
> A home grown _extranjero_ based on a root word with the same origin would have given something like _extrañero_ (from _extraño_).  The traditional word is _forastero_.


We also have—at least in Mexico, "fuereño". It's pronounced with an _efe_ or with a more vernacular pronunciation using a _jota _  at the beginning of the word.

Regards


----------



## Yuzer

CapnPrep said:


> And how do you say and write _extranjero_ in Judeo-Spanish?


Traditionally Hebrew script was used. Some words changed spelling, I can only tell you that according to rules that I know, and to possible variants that I spelled on Google, there are: איטראנז'ירו and איסטראנז'ירו.
In writing with Hebrew letters Judeospanish didn't differentiate e or i (while it did in pronunciation, as two separate vowel).
In romanized writing it would be estranjero, or etranjero, with j as in french.

Even before searching I had a guess that you wouldn't find "ex" as it doesn't sound native in my ears (I understand from my grandparent's house, not fully native though). My guess would be estra or etra - I have an intuition that "etra" is an "uneducated" pronounciation of recent decades, especially because it's in an unaccented syllable.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

CapnPrep said:


> Why do you give _straniero_ as the initial form?
> For example _li*g*ero_, from French _léger_ (< Latin _leviarius)_, and _sar*g*ente_/_sar*g*ento_/_ser*g*enta_ from French (< Latin _servientem_). The French words have a non-etymological "g" for the same reason as _étranger_, but in these cases Spanish kept it instead of changing it to "j". Also _*g*inebra_ (Fr. _genièvre_ < *_ieniperus _class. _iuniperus_), _guardaman*g*ier_ (Fr. _garde-manger_ < _manducare_), _men*g*e_ (Cat./Occ. _metge _< _medicus_).


Catalan is consistent: j before a, o, u and g before e, i.


----------



## CapnPrep

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Catalan is consistent: j before a, o, u and g before e, i.


You could say something similar for French but, there are many contexts in both languages where you find "je". For example (in Catalan):

_jac_-/_jact_-: projecte, objectiu, adjectival, conjectura, trajectòria, ejecció, jeure, ajeure, … 
_hiero_-: jerarquia, jerarquitzar, jeroglífic, … 
_Jesu_: Jesús, jesuïta, … (similarly: jerònim, jeremiada, jerosolimità, …) 
_maior_: majestat, majestuós 
The sequence "ji" is indeed marginal in Catalan and French.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

There's jaure & ajaure in Valencian...
However, If I think about it, the rule I was speaking about is valid first & foremost for nominal endings (including adjectives) & conjugation patterns.


----------

