# Latin: final M in monosyllables and its evolution



## Sobakus

While the quality of the sound seems pretty straightforward to me, I'd like some thoughts or clarification on why it was preserved as /n/ specifically in monosyllables (_rien, mon, con, qien)_. Currently I assume this has to do with the effect it had on the following word (_cum + _velar -> /ŋC/, _cum + _labial -> /mC/, _cum_ + dental -> /nC/), but, considering that monosyllables didn't bear stress just like endings of polysyllables, I don't see why this would produce a different reflex. This is assuming, as one often reads, that the Accusative ending coincided with the Ablative one phonetically. A view more consistent with the discussed development would be that the coalescence was purely of syntactic nature, with the Ablative form used in place of the Accusative, and where no such merger happened (or was possible, as with prepositions), the still-present /n~ŋ~m/ was reinterpreted to be part of the former word (it was part of the latter to the Romans, as I understand). Is there anything I'm missing in this explanation?


----------



## ahvalj

Sobakus said:


> Is there anything I'm missing in this explanation?


Yes: _sum>sono._


----------



## Sobakus

ahvalj said:


> Yes: _sum>sono._


I remember seeing Medieval Italian texts where the /o/ was absent at least in 3.p.pl., which leads me to believe this is a later development to open all closed syllables. Sardinian, for example, has closed syllables and thus no /o/ in 3.p.pl., but also no /n/ in _so._

I wonder if there's a determined geographical distribution of preserving final M as /n/. Meanwhile, I suppose I'll have to check wiktionary for the listed cognates of _cum _and _sum_.


----------



## ahvalj

Actually, the shift _m>n_ is widespread in ancient Indo-European languages, and in Gaulish it is virtually caught in the act in the inscriptions. It also occurred in various languages at later periods. For example, the modern German _den_ (Acc. Sg.) < Old High German _den_ < Late Common Germanic _*þan_ < PIE _*tom_ and _den_ (Dat. Pl.) < Old High German _dēm_ < Late Common Germanic _*þaimiz_ < PIE _*toı̯mis. _We see that the original final _m_ turned to _n_ in Common Germanic and then the newly final _m_ turned to _n_ in Middle High German (English still preserves -_m_ in _them_). The latter development is also seen in _bin_ "I am" < Old High German _bim _(English again preserves _-m_ in _am_). In Slavic, the south-western Serbo-Croatian dialects also turn _-m_ to _-n_ (e. g. _bim_ "I would be" > _bin_). The same occurred in Baltic-Finnic (e. g. the Finnish _sydän_ "heart" but _sydämen_ "of heart").

I think it may be a casualty that in early Romance this shift affected only several words: after all, in early Germanic languages the only instances of the PIE _-m>-n_ were the monosyllabics as well (_þan_ etc.): the remaining *_-m/-n_ had been dropped to the time of the first Gothic or Norse texts.


----------



## Sobakus

I'm aware that Latin was the only attested IE language apart from Sanskrit that hadn't shifted PIE final _m_ to _n_, even though, as Lindsay writes, in both the exact quality of it is disputed. However, I haven't seen anything either ibidem or in other sources (Sihler) suggesting that final M in monosyllables was treated by the Romans any differently from final M in other words. In fact, it's stated that it was regularly omitted early on (no mention on distribution in relation to the number of syllables), and elided in poetry and in compounds with the prefix _com_. However, the parallel with Germanic is interesting.


----------



## ahvalj

Aside of Indo-Iranic and Italic, the _-m_ was attested in early Celtic, Lusitanian and (if I am not mistaken) Venetic, i. e. at both ends of the IE range. The central languages all shifted _-m>-n_ to the time of their first attestation. In Celtic, as I had written, this was occurring at the turn of the eras.

There are no disputes as to the exact quality of _-m_ in e. g. the verbal Sg. 1, where the Latin and Indo-Iranic _-m_ correspond to the Greek _-ν_ (_-μ-_ remains before the vowels). I see no compelling reasons to doubt the originality of _-m_ in the nominal endings as well.

I didn't mean that _-m_ was changing into _-n_ in Latin itself (though grammarians wrote that this wasn't a pure _m_ either  — I can find citations tonight): rather it was a phenomenon of late Latin / early Romance, and casually most _-m'_s had been lost to that time.


----------



## Sobakus

Yes, surely it wasn't a "pure m" by the time of early Latin, the descriptions I've read say it was anything from an approximant to a nasalised glide to nasalisation marker (they were all probably allophones to a Roman), and Lindsay provides similar descriptions from Sanskrit grammars. I just don't see why this sound, whatever it was, was dropped only in polysyllabic words if it had the exact same effect. I don't think I've ever encountered a case where nasalisation (and its effects on the following word) was dropped in longer words but sustained in shorter ones, including unstressed clitics. And it's not like they were any more frequent than the Accusative case itself.


----------



## ahvalj

Sobakus said:


> I don't think I've ever encountered a case where nasalisation (and its effects on the following word) was dropped in longer words but sustained in shorter ones, including unstressed clitics. And it's not like they were any more frequent than the Accusative case itself.


What if the final _m_ in the Latin monosyllabics was stronger? For example, Eastern Romance preserves traces of -_s_ in monosyllabics (_noi, stai_) but drops it elsewhere.

In Late Common Germanic, the final -_n_ is often assumed to have nasalized the preceding vowels in di- and polysyllabic words (though I don't recall having ever read any substantiation of this: it is probably extrapolated from the early runic Norse data) while remaining intact in monosyllabic ones.


----------



## wtrmute

ahvalj said:


> What if the final _m_ in the Latin monosyllabics was stronger? For example, Eastern Romance preserves traces of -_s_ in monosyllabics (_noi, stai_) but drops it elsewhere.



Isn't it because, in the vast majority of those languages, the final syllable in polysyllabic words was unstressed?  Of course, there are unstressed monosyllables in Latin and in Romance, too, but most reflexes are in words which are at least weakly stressed.


----------



## ahvalj

wtrmute said:


> Isn't it because, in the vast majority of those languages, the final syllable in polysyllabic words was unstressed?  Of course, there are unstressed monosyllables in Latin and in Romance, too, but most reflexes are in words which are at least weakly stressed.


Is the preposition _com_ stressed in Portuguese? (I realize that the Portuguese _-m_ is an orthographic convention).


----------



## ahvalj

Interestingly, _comigo, contigo, consigo, connosco, convosco_ have preserved the nasal in the prepositional _cum_ and lost it in the postpositional one (_contigo < cum tēcum _etc.).


----------



## 360°

^

To #11:

The products of univerbation given above show conservation of the nasal in non-final position. Correspondingly, final _-m_ in unstressed monosyllables is rather medial than final, as - from a prosodical point of view - a sequence of proclitic + following word has to be regarded as one entity. This could be the reason why Auslaut laws did not apply in_ cum_ etc.

Cf. epenthetic _n_ in Russian third person pronouns _него_,_ нее_ etc. after prepositions (instead of _его, ее_), originally taken from final _*-n_ in CSl prepositions like *sъn.


----------



## ahvalj

360° said:


> ^
> 
> To #11:
> 
> The products of univerbation given above show conservation of the nasal in non-final position. Correspondingly, final _-m_ in unstressed monosyllables is rather medial than final, as - from a prosodical point of view - a sequence of proclitic + following word has to be regarded as one entity. This could be the reason why Auslaut laws did not apply in_ cum_ etc.
> 
> Cf. epenthetic _n_ in Russian third person pronouns _него_,_ нее_ etc. after prepositions (instead of _его, ее_), originally taken from final _*-n_ in CSl prepositions like *sъn.


I agree: the post #11 wasn't really contributing to the discussion, it was just a funny observation.


----------



## 360°

I really appreciate your contribution of _contigo _etc. It perfectly illustrates the problem discussed in this thread and gives an answer to the initial question since _contigo_ features both medial and final outcomes of _m _in a single word.


----------



## Sobakus

360° said:


> The products of univerbation given above show conservation of the nasal in non-final position. Correspondingly, final _-m_ in unstressed monosyllables is rather medial than final, as - from a prosodical point of view - a sequence of proclitic + following word has to be regarded as one entity. This could be the reason why Auslaut laws did not apply in_ cum_ etc.
> 
> Cf. epenthetic _n_ in Russian third person pronouns _него_,_ нее_ etc. after prepositions (instead of _его, ее_), originally taken from final _*-n_ in CSl prepositions like *sъn.


The difference here is that in Latin, the M had the above-described realisation both phrase-finally and intervocalically, as evident from the preposition _co-_ and the elision of monosyllables in poetry – the M wasn't restored between vowels, therefore the only feasible explanation is that the modern forms are the result analogical levelling from the preposition's allomorph _con_ before dentals and not due to either being "stronger" or escaping elision. Incidentally, the tendency to neutralise syllable-coda nasals led to both N and M having the same syllable-coda allophones before consonants (_in + _labial -> /imC/, _in + _velar -> /iŋC/), and it seems that the more common one (n~ŋ) simply won out when it came to levelling.

Worth noting is also a parallel development with the abovementioned prefix/preposition _in_, where the nasal was deleted before fricatives independent of stress in the Classical pronunciation (cf. Sp. _mensa -> mesa) _but was later restored seemingly analogically at morpheme boundaries.

Still, _"Nasal Vowel Evolution in Romance"_ proposes in a similar way that _tam_ and _cum_ "develope[d] as prefixal elements", while _quem _and _rem_ are explained as having "often carried sentential stress". The unstressed _iam_ is noted as having lead to Sp. _ya_, but I'm not so sure how "unstressed" this word was in many of its meanings_._ I'm also not sure what to make of _sum_, including such reflexes as Sard. _so_, Port. _sou_, Occ. _soi_, Fr. _sui(s)_ and Cat. _soc_ (!), but Rom. _sunt_ for both 1. and 3.p. may well explain the same situation in Italian and some other languages as simple conflation of final nasals just as described above – suggesting that the M (or at least its preconsonantal allophones) in _sum_ never went away.

My ultimate goal here is to ascertain whether the final M had the same realisation independent of the number of syllables, and whether polysyllabic words triggered what can be described as nasal mutation of the following consonant.


----------



## Nino83

In spoken Classical Latin, the final _-m_ of the accusative indicated nasalization of the preceeding vowel: rosǎ [rɔsa] (nominative, vocative), rosae [rɔsaɛ]/[rɔsɛ] (genitive, dative), rosǎm [rɔsã] (accusative), rosā [rɔsaː] (ablative).
In monosyllabic words, in Classical Latin, the final consonant had some assimilation  "cum grano salis" [ku*ŋ*'graːnoː 'salɪs], "cum libro" [ku*l*'lɪbroː], like it is still today in Italian, "con grazia" [ko*ŋ*'graʦʦja], "con poco" [ko*ɱ*'pɔːko], "con l'arancia" [ko*l*la'ranʧa]. As you can see, even if it is written with a final "n", its pronunciation is different, depending on the following word. One thing is orthography, another (different) one is pronunciation.
In Portuguese it is always nasalized, "com" [kõ], "quem" [kẽĩ̯].
In some "dialects" the final consonant was lost, "co" (southern part of Lazio), "cu" (Neapolitan, Apulian, Sicilian) but there is _raddoppiamento fonosintattico_, for example "cu tia" [ku*t*'tia] (Sicilian).
Sources:
La pronuncia "neutra" del latino classico
Rohlfs, Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti


----------



## Penyafort

Sobakus said:


> Still, _"Nasal Vowel Evolution in Romance"_ proposes in a similar way that _tam_ and _cum_ "develope[d] as prefixal elements", while _quem _and _rem_ are explained as having "often carried sentential stress". The unstressed _iam_ is noted as having lead to Sp. _ya_, but I'm not so sure how "unstressed" this word was in many of its meanings_._ I'm also not sure what to make of _sum_, including such reflexes as Sard. _so_, Port. _sou_, Occ. _soi_, Fr. _sui(s)_ and *Cat. soc (!)*, but Rom. _sunt_ for both 1. and 3.p. may well explain the same situation in Italian and some other languages as simple conflation of final nasals just as described above – suggesting that the M (or at least its preconsonantal allophones) in _sum_ never went away.



The c in Catalan _sóc _is probably a modern analogy, as it was _só/som _in Old Catalan (_som _still being used in Majorcan). Useful in order to distinguish it from the _som _of the 1st person plural, I guess.

Interestingly, the possessive _suum _is _son_, even when it is coincidental with _son _'sleep' < SOMNU and _són _(3rd plural Present).

Generally though, the -m is lost. But regarding _rem_, in Catalan both _re _and _res_ (from the Nom.) are used.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> In spoken Classical Latin, the final _-m_ of the accusative indicated nasalization of the preceeding vowel: … rosǎm [rɔsã] (accusative) …


Do we have enough reasons to regard this as nasalization? Quintilian writes:


> [W]herever this same letter _m_ comes at the end of a word and is brought into contact with the opening vowel of the next word in such a manner as to render coalescence possible, it is, although written, so faintly pronounced (_e.g._ in phrases such as _multum ille_ and _quantum erat_) that it may almost be regarded as producing the sound of a new letter. For it is not elided, but merely obscured, and may be considered as a symbol occurring between two vowels simply to prevent their coalescence.


LacusCurtius • Quintilian — Institutio Oratoria — Book IX, Chapter 4

Verrius Flaccus suggested to introduce a new letter for this kind of _m:_


> …ut ubicumque prima vox M littera finiretur, sequens a vocali inciperet, M non tota, sed pars illius prior tantum scriberetur, ut appareret exprimi non debere. (_Velius Longus, de Orthogr_., p. 2238.)


Verrius Flaccus: Fragmenta

The modern authors point out that _-m_ and _-n_ almost never get confused in the Latin inscriptions, which apparently suggests that this final _-m_ preserved its labial character.


----------



## wtrmute

ahvalj said:


> Is the preposition _com_ stressed in Portuguese? (I realize that the Portuguese _-m_ is an orthographic convention).


It is usually unstressed, true, but in this case there might have been analogical influence from the opposite _sem_ (< Latin _sine_)?  The same thing happened in _sim_ (< Latin _sic_) which acquired a nasal coda by analogy with _não_.

Otherwise, it may be an influence due to the prefix _con-_ as in _comparar_, _conjurar_, _confrade_, etc.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Penyafort said:


> The c in Catalan _sóc _is probably a modern analogy, as it was _só/som _in Old Catalan (_som _still being used in Majorcan). Useful in order to distinguish it from the _som _of the 1st person plural, I guess.
> 
> Interestingly, the possessive _suum _is _son_, even when it is coincidental with _son _'sleep' < SOMNU and _són _(3rd plural Present).
> 
> Generally though, the -m is lost. But regarding _rem_, in Catalan both _re _and _res_ (from the Nom.) are used.




The C like in Catalan is present also in Corsican and Gallurese (a Corsican dialect spoken in north east Sardinia)

Corsican = eu/eiu socu
Gallurese = eu socu
Sassarese = eu soggu
Sardinian (Logudorese) = eo/deo so
Sardinian (Campidanese) = deu seu


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all

It is with trepidation that I enter into dispute with such an expert as ahvalj (#18). But may I just point out that in his indices the incomparable Dessau (_ILS_ V, pp. 824f.) shows some scores of Latin inscriptions, from all periods, in which 'm', final or intervocalic, is omitted - if "omitted" is the right word.

Also (perhaps I have missed this somewhere earlier in the Thread, _um Vergebung_ if that is so), it is hard to explain the standard elision of syllables ending -_am_, _-em_, -_um_ &c. in Latin prosody and poetic metre except on the understanding that these were (nasalised) semi-vowels.

Σ


----------



## ahvalj

No miracles, unfortunately: the "expert" ahvalj consults the manuals on the history of Latin where all that has been discussed already, with citations and examples.



Scholiast said:


> But may I just point out that in his indices the incomparable Dessau (_ILS_ V, pp. 824f.) shows some scores of Latin inscriptions, from all periods, in which 'm', final or intervocalic, is omitted - if "omitted" is the right word.


As is _s,_ which then was restored in the educated Roman speech. Cicero writes:


> Quin etiam, quod iam subrusticum videtur, olim autem politius, eorum verborum, quorum eaedem erant postremae duae litterae, quae sunt in _optimus,_ postremam litteram detrahebant, nisi vocalis insequebatur. Ita non erat ea offensio in versibus quam nunc fugiunt poetae novi. Sic enim loquebamur:
> _
> qui est omnibu' princeps_
> non _omnibus princeps, _
> 
> et: _vita illa dignu' locoque_
> non_ dignus._


Orator - Wikisource

Pre-Classical inscriptions know _M. Fourio C. F. tribunos militare (= Fūrius tribūnus mīlitāris)_ or _Pisaurese (=Pisaurēnsēs). _All this suggests that the tendencies to drop _-s_ (as well as _-m_) were pretty old, but it can't tell us exactly what was the situation in the standard language (after all, _-s_ is still alive in many varieties of modern Ibero-Romance, 22 centuries later). Perhaps, the situation with _-s_ in the pre-classical period resembled that in modern Spanish, where, especially in Latin America, _-s_ appears facultative (I've been listening recently to an Internet radio from Buenos Aires).



Scholiast said:


> Also (perhaps if I have missed this somewhere earlier in the Thread, _um Vergebung_ if that is so), it is hard to explain the standard elision of syllables ending -_am_, _-em_, -_um_ &c. in Latin prosody and poetic metre except on the understanding that these were (nasalised) semi-vowels.


That's probably the matter of terminology. Since _m_ is a nasal consonant, its merger with the preceding vowel can be called _nasalization._ But since this _-m_ is not confused with _-n_ in Latin, this suggests, as I had written, that the labial element persisted there and hence the pronunciation was unlike that in the Romance nasalized vowels that (to my ears) contain a clear _n_. Plus, from the above citation of Quintilian and the suggestion by Flaccus it appears that the nasal element followed the vowel as a separate entity.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again


ahvalj said:


> No miracles, unfortunately: the "expert" ahvalj consults the manuals on the history of Latin where all that has been discussed already, with citations and examples.


Of course I was not expecting or demanding "miracles", I only meant to say that I have the highest regard for ahvalj's scholarship. Unfortunately I have no ready access to, for instance, Allen's _Vox Latina_, and therefore draw only on my own accumulated and inferential thoughts, which tally with those of...


Nino83 said:


> In spoken Classical Latin, the final _-m_ of the accusative indicated nasalization of the preceeding vowel: rosǎ [rɔsa] (nominative, vocative), rosae [rɔsaɛ]/[rɔsɛ] (genitive, dative), *rosǎm [rɔsã] (accusative)*, rosā [rɔsaː] (ablative).


[my emphasis]

Which phonologically would work too as an explanation for multitudinous epigraphic attestations of, for instance, _cosul_ (rather than _consul_).

Σ


----------



## ahvalj

ahvalj said:


> I didn't mean that _-m_ was changing into _-n_ in Latin itself (though grammarians wrote that this wasn't a pure _m_ either  — I can find citations tonight): rather it was a phenomenon of late Latin / early Romance, and casually most _-m'_s had been lost to that time.


I think there is a good parallel to this in the Romance development _w>gw_ (W -> Gu/Gh): the vast majority of the Latin _w'_s had changed into _v_ to the Early Romance times, but in the few cases when _w_ reappeared in the language (in loanwords or due to phonetic changes), it showed a tendency to develop into _gw._


----------

