# Western Romance ʦ vs. ʤ



## ahvalj

The evolution of the Latin _kʲ_ and _gʲ_ in much of Western Romance produced the pair_ ʦ : ʤ_ (_ʦento : ʤente_). The assibilation itself is a very frequent phenomenon in the languages but in all the instances I can recall the voiceless and voiced sounds develop in parallel, i. e. we find either_ ʧ : ʤ_ or _ʦ : ʣ_ or intermediate forms (compare the next assibilation in Northern Gaul: _ʧanter : ʤambe_ or _ʦanter : ʣambe_). Is there any plausible explanation of this asymmetry in Western Romance?


----------



## danielstan

Is Northern Gaul the Walloon dialect? 
I hardly found an English - Walloon dictionary online where the English word _leg _is the Walloon _djambe_.


----------



## CapnPrep

I found this explanation in Zink (_Phonét. hist. du fr_) :


> Effort et ralentissement font naître, à la fin de la tenue, au point de décollement de la langue, un son de passage spirant, chuintant (š/ž) ou sifflant (s/z) suivant l'avancée, qui se combine à l'occlusive pour former une affriquée (palatalisée) : tʲ > tš/ts, dʲ > dž. […] On remarquera que la sonore dʲ, de moindre force, par définition, que la sourde et donc de moindre avancée, s'assibile toujours par chuintement. L'affriquée _dz_ ne procède pas de dʲ, mais de _ts_ sonorisé entre voyelles. (p. 91)


(I had to change some of his phonetic notation.)

The prediction is that one should never find the opposite pattern, where /g/ assibilates to /dz/ while /k/ assibilates to /tʃ/.


----------



## ahvalj

CapnPrep said:


> I found this explanation in Zink (_Phonét. hist. du fr_) :
> (I had to change some of his phonetic notation.)
> 
> The prediction is that one should never find the opposite pattern, where /g/ assibilates to /dz/ while /k/ assibilates to /tʃ/.


This citation rather looks as an explanation _ad hoc: _si _dʲ_ est de moindre force _par définition,_ we could expect this asymmetry to occur frequently, whereas it seems to have developed only once, and in both Central and Eastern Romance and just somewhat later in northern Gallo-Romance itself (the above _chambre, jambe_) the development was always parallel. Curiously, the same approach is used in the Slavic studies to explain why _*kʲ_ has produced _ʨ_ while _*gʲ_ has produced _*ʑ:_ in this case la moindre force _par définition_ must have led to the simplification of the voiced counterpart (again, a rare phenomenon cross-linguistically).

Interestingly, in Italian we find_ prezzo<pretium _but _pregiare<pretiāre_, though _tʲ_ is a different story.


----------



## ahvalj

danielstan said:


> Is Northern Gaul the Walloon dialect?
> I hardly found an English - Walloon dictionary online where the English word _leg _is the Walloon _djambe_.


I meant Old French. Since these processes occurred before Gaul became France, I used the older toponym.


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> Interestingly, in Italian we find_ prezzo<pretium _but _pregiare<pretiāre_, though _tʲ_ is a different story.


Yes.
In Italian, words like _stagione, ragione, pregio, malvagio, pregiare, indugiare, minugia, servigio, -gione (fienagione, partigione), -igia (franchigia)_ are explained according to the Gallo-Italian (and Gallo-Romance) evolution, i.e they were borrowed. 
In Gallo-Italian languages, _ti̯_  has two evolutions (like in Gallo-Romance), the first voiceless, ti̯ > ts > s (_plateam > platja > place_ (French), _plaça_ (ancient Lombard)) and the second voiced, si̯ = ti̯ > dʒ (_statjon > staʤõ, ratjon > raʤõ_ (Milanese)).
source: Rohlfs § 289-290


----------



## Penyafort

Initial [k(j)] developed first into [tʃ]-, and only later into [ts]-. Even if people relate [tʃ]- to 'Eastern Romania' (Italian, Romanian, Dalmatian, etc), remember that it also happened in Iberia (Mozarabic).

[kj] in intervocalic position developed into -[dz]-, though.

In the same way, initial [g(j)] would develop into [dʒ]-, and a good parallelism would likely have made it further develop into [dz], but I guess that both the fact that intervocalic [ts] had become [dz], and confusion with [dʒ]/[ʒ] from initial j-, probably prevented it from happening.


----------



## Sobakus

It seems more plausible that /dj-gj/ merged into /j/, in which case such outcome of affrication is expected. This seems to have happened across Romance with the possible exception of Romanian.


----------



## Nino83

You can find /ge/ > /ze/ in Ligurian, Venetian, Emiliano-Romagnolo, for example _zente < gentem_.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Nino83 said:


> You can find /ge/ > /ze/ in Ligurian, Venetian, Emiliano-Romagnolo, for example _zente < gentem_.



the same happens here:

gente->zente (pronounced "dzente"), it's typical in central and north Sardinia, while in the south is "sa genti"

in other situations the *Ge/Gi* evolved to Gh : gettare>ghettare, gelare>ghelare, angelus>anghelu, or andzelu (with Greek pronounce), while in words like 
Stagione, Ragione, Pregiare, the evolution followed another path : 

Stagione : Istajone (pronounced Istayone, or with French J in some areas), Istasione, Istasone
Ragione : Rejone, Resone
Pregiare : Prejare; but there is also Pretziare (to negotiate); there is also a third pronounce, just used in the adjective "Prethiosu" (snob)
Prigione : Presone

the *Ci/Ce* instead evolved in two different ways in north and south of Sardinia

in the  north : Ci/Ce = K : caelum>chelu, cera>chera, lucem>luche,lughe, nucem>nuche,nughe, pacem>pache,paghe
in the south : Ci/Ce = X (same pronounce of J in French) : xelu, xera, luxi, nuxi, paxi


also the *Ti/Te *evolved in two different ways in north and south of Sardinia

in the north : 
plateam > piatta (Logudorese) pratta (Nuorese) 
notitia > notiscia (Logudorese) notissia (Nuorese)
puteus > puttu
palatium > palattu

in the south : 
plateam > pratza
notitia > notitzia
puteus > putzu
palatium > palatzu


----------



## ahvalj

Penyafort said:


> Initial [k(j)] developed first into [tʃ]-, and only later into [ts]-. Even if people relate [tʃ]- to 'Eastern Romania' (Italian, Romanian, Dalmatian, etc), remember that it also happened in Iberia (Mozarabic).


Is there any evidence that _ʦ_ in Western Romance comes from _*ʧ?_

In Gallo-Romance, Picard has _ʧ _(_cherf, chité, chonc_) (Picard language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).



Penyafort said:


> [kj] in intervocalic position developed into -[dz]-, though.


_Kʲ_ and _kj_ did not necessarily merge everywhere, cp. Romanian _braț<brachium_ "arm", _față<*facia_ "face" vs. _pace<pacem_ "peace".

In Gaul, too, _-kj-_ has preserved as voiceless, cp. French _bras, face_.



Penyafort said:


> In the same way, initial [g(j)] would develop into [dʒ]-, and a good parallelism would likely have made it further develop into [dz], but I guess that both the fact that intervocalic [ts] had become [dz], and confusion with [dʒ]/[ʒ] from initial j-, probably prevented it from happening.


Initial_ gʲ-/j- _has partly preserved in Spanish as _j:_ _yerno<generum, yace<jacet, yugo<jugum_. But cp. _hermano, helar, junto_.

I am writing all this to emphasize that the development was not that simple, yet much of Western Romance firmly exhibits _ʦ : ʤ_.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> You can find /ge/ > /ze/ in Ligurian, Venetian, Emiliano-Romagnolo, for example _zente < gentem_.


And what about its voiceless counterpart, is it _s_ or? (or do you write _z_ in its Italian meaning, for _ʣ?_).


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> And what about its voiceless counterpart, is it _s_ or?


Yes, it is /s/. 
Sena < cenam, zente < gentem.  
As you can see, also in Gallo-Italian languages there was a symmetric evolution.


----------



## Penyafort

ahvalj said:


> Is there any evidence that _ʦ_ in Western Romance comes from _*ʧ?_



I'm not aware now of written evidence, if that is what you mean, but it makes sense to me when sources mention it, as it is a logical previous stage in the place of articulation when coming from kj, and you see it all over the Romance area in old or conservative places (not to mention Church Latin). 



ahvalj said:


> _Kʲ_ and _kj_ did not necessarily merge everywhere, cp. Romanian braț_<brachium_ "arm", _față<*facia_ "face" vs. _pace<pacem_ "peace".



Romanian is not part of Western Romance, so the -dz- does not apply. But _braț _is not a good candidate anyway, as it comes from _bracchiu(m)_ [brak:iu], so not really intervocalic. (That is why you see _braço _['bratso] in Old Spanish and not _brazo _['bradzo])



ahvalj said:


> In Gaul, too, _-kj-_ has preserved as voiceless, cp. French _bras, face_.



_Bras_, as I said, may not be a good example. The intervocalic solution is most clearly seen when there is no final vowel dropping.

*VICI:NU *(v. VECINU)
> vi'ʧino/ve'ʧino 
> Italian _vicino_, Romanian _vecin_​_>> _ve'tsino > ve'dzino
> Old Spanish _vezino _[be'dzino] > [be'zino] > [be's̺ ino] > Modern Spanish _vecino _[be'θino / be'sino]
> Old Portuguese _vezinno/vizinno_​> ve'dzin/ve'zin
> Old Catalan _vehí / vesí _[ve'í]/[ve'zi] > Modern Catalan _veí _[bə'i / ve'i]
> Old Occitan _vesin _[ve'dzin] > Modern Occitan _vesin _[ve'zin]
> *Old French* _veisin _[vei'zin] > *Modern French* _voisin _[vwa'zɛ̃]​
*RACE:MU *(v. RACIMU)
> ra'ʧemo
> Italian _racemo_​>> ra'tsimo > ra'dzimo
> Old Spanish _razimo _[ra'dzimo] > [ra'zimo] > [ra's̺ imo] > Modern Spanish _racimo _[ra'θimo / ra'simo]​> ra'dzim/ra'zin
> Old Catalan _raym / rasim _[ra'im]/[ra'zim] > Modern Catalan _raïm _[ra'im]
> *Old French* _raisin _[raj'sin] > *Modern French* _raisin _[ʁɛ'zɛ̃]​


ahvalj said:


> Initial_ gʲ-/j- _has partly preserved in Spanish as _j:_ _yerno<generum, yace<jacet, yugo<jugum_. But cp. _hermano, helar, junto_.



In Old Spanish it was [ʒ], not [j] yet: _gerno, jugo_. 

It is true that there is dropping when unstressed, as you mention in _hermano _and _helar_. In the case of _junto_, just like as in _gente_, more genuine medieval solutions were _yunto _and _yente_.



ahvalj said:


> I am writing all this to emphasize that the development was not that simple, yet much of Western Romance firmly exhibits _ʦ : ʤ_.



Seeing that dz/z- forms exist in northern Italy and Sardinia, I do see a certain symmetry in kj- > ʧ- > ts- > s- and gj- > dʒ- > dz- > z-. Only that, for the latter, most of the West interrupted it at the dʒ- stage due to merging it with results from Latin initial I-. But yes, developments are never exact and local exceptions are found all over the place.


----------



## CapnPrep

According to Loporcaro (in the 2011 Cambridge volume, p. 143ff), palatalization by yod i̯ and palatalization by a full vowel e/i must be distinguished, as well as palatalization of voiceless vs. voiced consonants (t/k vs d/g). The changes took place at different times, and so there is a (potential) absence of parallelism in both dimensions.

1st cent.: merger of gi̯ / di̯ / i̯ > [j(ː)]

2nd cent.: affrication of ti̯, followed by affrication of ki̯ > [ts]

2nd cent.: merger of g+e/i with original gi̯ / di̯ / i̯ > [ɟ] in most varieties, followed by affrication > [dʒ] (later > [dz] in most of northern Italo-Romance)

much later (5th century): palatalization of k+e/i (merger with original ki̯) > [ts]/[tʃ]
So this confirms what was said above about the merger of the voiced sounds, with gi̯/di̯ and ge/gi losing their velar and dental closure and merging with original yod into a palatal consonant [ɟ]. So the next step is [dʒ], and if a variety has [dz] for original [g] we have to assume gʲ > ɟ >  dʒ > dz and not gʲ > dz directly.

But for the voiceless velar, Loporcaro in part contradicts what was said above and the very first step was [ts], not [tʃ], but this only involves affrication by yod. By the time ke/ki joined the process several centuries later, some varieties may already have undergone [ts] > [tʃ] for the outcome of original ti̯ / ki̯.

If this account is correct, then the French pattern of g → (d)ʒ and k > (t)s actually represents the most conservative stage (leaving aside varieties that did not palatalize at all, or not until after the general Romance developments described here). And varieties that show parallelism had to go through some extra steps to achieve it.


----------



## danielstan

Although the title of this topic suggest these phenomena are specific to Western Romance, I found them in Aromanian, too.
Tache Papahagi (Romanian linguist, native speaker of Aromanian) treats the topic in his book
*Din epoca de formațiune a limbei române*
(published post mortem from his manuscripts).
Sorry, I don't have a digital copy of this book, I have only a printed version and I will make a summary of his approach.
-----------------------------------------
Latin CE, CI > Romanian [ʧ], Aromanian [ts]
Latin GE, GI > Romanian [dʒ], Aromanian [dz]

Examples with CE/CI, GE/GI in different positions inside the word:

Lat. _cera _> Arom. _țeară _['tsea-rə], Rom. _ceară _['ʧea-rə]
Lat. _cervus _> Arom. _țerb_, Rom. _cerb_
Lat. _porcellus _> Arom. _purțel_, Rom. _purcel_
Lat. _quinque _> *_cinque _> Arom. _ținți_, Rom. _cinci_

Lat. _digitus _> Arom. _deadzit_, Rom. _deget _['de-dʒet]
Lat. _generus_/_generem _acc. > Arom. _dzinire_, Rom. _ginere_
Lat. _longae _pl. > Arom. _lundzi_, Rom. _lungi_

(a list of more than 20 examples is in the book)
The above phonetic rules are applicable no matter what vowels are after I or E.

Papahagi investigates further if neighboring languages could be a source for the Aromanian [ts] and [dz].
Old Greek did not have [dz], nor [ts]. It is true that the sound [ts] appear in Byzantines chronicles, (ts, tθ), but there are no Greek words with this sound imported in Aromanian.
Also the influence of (Medieval) Greek in Romanian is minimal, some lexic being imported, but without phonetic changes.

Old Albanian was proven to not have a phonetic influence on Aromanian. Also the Latin CE/CI has been imported as [ke], [ki]  in Albanian:
Lat. _caelum _> Alb. _kell_, Arom. _țer_,
Lat. _caepa _> Alb. _kepë_, Arom. _țeapă_

Slavic influence:
Some  Slavic words with the palatal [ʧ] imported in Aromanian:
Sl. čekani > Arom. ciocan [ʧio-can]
Sl. kloči > Arom. cloce [clo-ʧe]
etc.
The examples from Old Slavic, Bulgarian and Serbian imported in Aromanian do not show an influence on the transformation CE/CI > [ts]
Neither the transformation Lat. GE/GI > Arom. dz cannot be proved by any Slavic influence.

The conclusion of Papahagi, confirmed by the opinions of other linguist quoted by him:
The transformations CE/CI > ts and GE/GI > dz have happened in Aromanian before the massive Slavic invasion in Balkans, in the time when Proto-Romanian has been formed (probably in the VI-VII centuries) and the Daco-Romanian and Aromanian speakers where not yet separated by the Slavs.

Not surprisingly Papahagi observes some similarities between Aromanian and Old French:
Lat. CE/CI > Old Fr. ts > Fr. c
Lat. CE/CI > Arom. ts

----------------------------------------
It is not the first coincidence in the evolution of so remote languages like Aromanian and French.
I read somewhere about the theory of "waves" in the propagation of some changes in a _dialectum continuum_ space:
- a certain phonetic change happens in a center of "iradiation" and in certain cases may propagate itself like a "wave" in the (almost) entire mass of speakers (in our case the entire Romance population); the propagation is not instantaneous, it may take centuries
- after a time the mass of the speakers may react and "correct" what they perceive as a wrong pronunciation and the phonetic change disappears in certain areas.

There are examples of punctual similarities between Romanian and Spanish or Romanian and Sardinian, although the languages geographically situated in between do not have them.


----------



## ahvalj

Yet Aromanian follows the regular pattern in opposing two sounds that differ only in voice — _ʦ : ʣ_ like in Romanian, Italian and Old Picard _ʧ : ʤ_ or in north-east Italian _s : z._ My question was why Western Romance is dominated by the asymmetrical opposition _ʦ : ʤ_.

P. S. Latin palatalized velars have normally produced the Albanian _q_ and _gj_ (_Orel VE · 2000 · A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language∶ Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian: _108–109):

_faciēm>faqe
ēricium>iriq
commercium>kumerq_

_gentem>gjinde
lēgem>ligj
rēgem>regj
evangelium>ungjill
gregem>grigj_

Latin _tj_ and _dj_ normally produce _s_ and _z_ (ibidem: 107–108):

_puteum>pus
*nūptiam>nuse
vitium>ves
scorteam>shkorsë

gaudium>gaz
radium>rreze
spodium>shpuzë_


----------



## ahvalj

CapnPrep said:


> According to Loporcaro (in the 2011 Cambridge volume, p. 143ff), palatalization by yod i̯ and palatalization by a full vowel e/i must be distinguished, as well as palatalization of voiceless vs. voiced consonants (t/k vs d/g). The changes took place at different times, and so there is a (potential) absence of parallelism in both dimensions.
> 
> 1st cent.: merger of gi̯ / di̯ / i̯ > [j(ː)]
> 
> 2nd cent.: affrication of ti̯, followed by affrication of ki̯ > [ts]
> 
> 2nd cent.: merger of g+e/i with original gi̯ / di̯ / i̯ > [ɟ] in most varieties, followed by affrication > [dʒ] (later > [dz] in most of northern Italo-Romance)
> 
> much later (5th century): palatalization of k+e/i (merger with original ki̯) > [ts]/[tʃ]
> So this confirms what was said above about the merger of the voiced sounds, with gi̯/di̯ and ge/gi losing their velar and dental closure and merging with original yod into a palatal consonant [ɟ]. So the next step is [dʒ], and if a variety has [dz] for original [g] we have to assume gʲ > ɟ >  dʒ > dz and not gʲ > dz directly.
> 
> But for the voiceless velar, Loporcaro in part contradicts what was said above and the very first step was [ts], not [tʃ], but this only involves affrication by yod. By the time ke/ki joined the process several centuries later, some varieties may already have undergone [ts] > [tʃ] for the outcome of original ti̯ / ki̯.
> 
> If this account is correct, then the French pattern of g → (d)ʒ and k > (t)s actually represents the most conservative stage (leaving aside varieties that did not palatalize at all, or not until after the general Romance developments described here). And varieties that show parallelism had to go through some extra steps to achieve it.



I am very skeptical to such detailed scenarios since they are largely based on the writing mistakes in a language spoken from Britain to Egypt and from Mauritania to Pontus by people of countless ethnic groups. Moreover, is there any major influx of new evidence comparing to what was known 100 years ago and has entered the manuals?

We know for sure that Standard Roman Latin had experienced the shift_ tı̯>ʦı̯_ to the 5th century as the grammarian Papirius writes:
_
Justitia cum scribitur, tertia syllaba sic sonat quasi constet ex tribus litteris, t, z et i _(The Latin Language). The same about the voiced sound (which suggests that Rome didn't experience the above change _dı̯>j_).

We also know that late Standard Latin didn't merge the outcomes of _tı̯ (>ʦı̯)_ and _kı̯ (>ʧı̯)_ as Consentius (Consentius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the 5th century writes:

_Alterum sonum habet i post t et alterum post c. Nam post c habet pinguem sonum, post t gracilem_ (Grundriss Der Romanischen Philologie Unter Mitwirkung Von G. Baist [u.a.] Herausgegeben Von Gustav Gröber)

But how reliable are the estimations for provincial Latin?


----------



## danielstan

Well, since you raised the problem of evidence about the evolution of Latin and Romance languages reconstructed by spelling errors (deviations from Classical Latin) in written sources I will say my opinions and hopefully I will be corrected by more knowledgeable people.
It seems to me that the current topic is concluded, so I go off topic.

What new evidence we have now comparing with 100 years ago?

In Romania (the case I followed closely as native):
-------------
The archeological findings have "exploded" after the WWII when the communist regime has allocated funds for them.
I read somwhere that around 3.500 Latin inscriptions have been found on Romanian territory, most of them in the 1960 - 1980's.
The inscriptions found in the former Roman province of Dacia are in relatively large number comparing to other provinces.
I expected to read in Romanian philology about features of Romanian language proven by these inscriptions and I have not read such ideas.
I know these inscriptions (most of them in stone) are dated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and they contain spelling errors (deviations from Classical Latin), but not in a repetitive manner so that one could extract linguistic evidence from them and certainly not proving essential phonetic rules of Romanian.

On a personal thought: I imagine that in antiquity when a monument in stone was carved, the architect (or the stone mason himself) was compelled to propose a project for the text he would incise in the stone and a high Roman official would have approved such text, including here the standard orthography of Classical Latin. I have not read studies about such ideas, but it seems logical to me. Feel free to confirm or infirm.

When I read in Romanian phylology of some spelling errors which "prove" some reconstructed form of a Vulgar Latin word I never find an elaborate study containing statistics of how many instances of a certain spelling error have been found and in what percentage were found in the inscriptions from the same century and the same area.
I deduce from the above post that reconstructed Vulgar Latin words based on spelling errors are made by carefully selecting the spelling errors sustaining the reconstruction and ignoring the correct spellings which may be in the vast majority of the cases and ignoring spelling errors that do not match a reconstructed word.

-------------------------
Written evidence from manuscripts:

Most of the manuscripts originally written in Antiquity have not survived in originals, but in copies made chiefly between 9th and 14th century, most of them in the _scriptoriums _of monasteries.
By comparing copies from different centuries of the same original usually the copies have been proven to be reliable in their narrative part, but with a good amount of mistakes in toponyms and antroponyms.
While the narrative part would normally have been originally written in Classical Latin (as the antiques writters were educated people who had access to libraries for consulting texts of their predecessors), I don't find it reliable for proving phonetic rules that happened in certain Romance language.
The toponyms, instead, do reflect in some cases the phonetical changes in Romance, but often they were mispelled by medieval copists.

I read that a good amount of copies from different centuries have been found in the last 100 years in personal libraries of some medieval aristocrats or in monasteries from Greece or other parts of Europe. But they don't bring anything new that would change significantly the knowledge of Latin. 

Internet is full of speculations about secret archives at Vatican or at the monasteries of Mount Athos... but I stop here my comments.


----------



## CapnPrep

danielstan said:


> On a personal thought: I imagine that in antiquity when a monument in stone was carved, the architect (or the stone mason himself) was compelled to propose a project for the text he would incise in the stone and a high Roman official would have approved such text, including here the standard orthography of Classical Latin. I have not read studies about such ideas, but it seems logical to me. Feel free to confirm or infirm.


There is a great variety of epigraphic sources, from monumental inscriptions on huge public works, to private inscriptions on portable objects. The quality of the Latin is accordingly variable, and the context of the inscription is of course taken into account when evaluating the linguistic evidence that it provides.  


ahvalj said:


> I am very skeptical to such detailed scenarios since they are largely based on the writing mistakes in a language spoken from Britain to Egypt and from Mauritania to Pontus by people of countless ethnic groups. Moreover, is there any major influx of new evidence comparing to what was known 100 years ago and has entered the manuals?


New epigraphic (and even paleographic) evidence from the early centuries is uncovered all the time. As you said, there is a lot of ground and time depth to cover, but researchers today have access to a lot more data than authors from 100 years ago, which allows them to make more detailed hypotheses about the chronology and propagation of sound changes in this period (long before the Latin Grammarians had anything to say). But you should continue to be skeptical and challenge their methods, hopefully without crossing the line into dismissiveness.

To get back to the original question, I came across this quote from Maiden's history of Italian that also plays down the expectation of parallelism between [k] and [g]:


> The apparent parallelism between the evolution of [kj] (> [ʧ]) and [gj] (> [ʤ]) may in reality be an historical accident. We suggest below that [gj] originally became [j], which only later gave [ʤ]. (p. 87n)


----------

