# Spanish: Indefinite article omission and uncountable use of countable nouns / Arabic influence?



## elroy

I've noticed two features of Spanish that I believe set it apart from French and Italian (not sure about other Romance languages), and I wonder if they might be due to an Arabic influence.

Spanish often allows singular countable nouns with no indefinite article, where the same construction would be ungrammatical in French and Italian.  For example:

SP: No sé si tiene novio. _ _(I don't know if he/she has a boyfriend.)
FR: Je ne sais pas s'il / si elle a petit-ami.  | Je ne sais pas s'il / si elle a *un* petit-ami. 
IT: No so se abbia ragazzo.  | Non so se abbia *un* ragazzo. 

SP: Siempre lleva traje.  (He always wears a suit.)
FR: Il porte toujours costume.  | Il porte toujours *un* costume. 
IT: Sempre indossa abito.  | Sempre indossa *un*'abito. 

The reason I suspect this may be an Arabic influence is that Arabic only has a definite article and no indefinite article, so the above examples would not have an article in Arabic.  Also, to my knowledge Spanish does not generally omit definite articles where French an Italian would have them, but omission of indefinite articles, as in the examples above, is abundant.

Am I right about the behavior of Spanish, French, and Italian?  What about other Iberian and non-Iberian Romance languages?  Does anyone think this may be due to an Arabic influence?

The other phenomenon is similar but distinct.  I believe Spanish allows ordinarily countable nouns to be used in an uncountable sense, again without an indefinite article or any other determiner, while French and Italian do not.  For example:

SP: El bebé ya come manzana.  (The baby already eats apple.)
FR: Le bébé mange déjà pomme.  | Le bébé mange déjà de la pomme.  | Le bébé mange déjà des pommes. 
IT: Il bebè mangia già mela.  | Il bebè mangia già della mela.  | Il bebè mangia già delle mele. 

In this case, I'm not sure if French and Italian allow a singular noun at all, even with a partitive determiner.  I do know that a plural noun with a partitive determiner works, but that might possibly give a different meaning (whole apples as opposed to puréed apple for example).

The reason I think this one may be an Arabic influence is that in Arabic, many nouns, including "apple," have two semantically plural forms: one designating individual items and one called the "collective plural" that designates an uncountable mass or a category.  Crucially, the collective plural is morphologically singular, just like in the Spanish sentence.

تفاحة /tuffa:ħa/, "apple" (morphologically and semantically singular)
تفاحات /tuffa:ħa:t/, "apples" (morphologically and semantically plural) - designates individual apples
تفاح /tuffa:ħ/, "apples" (morphologically singular and semantically plural) - collective plural, designates apples as an uncountable mass or a category

The collective plural is what would be used in this case in Arabic.

My questions in red above apply to this example as well.


----------



## Olaszinhok

Just a couple of comments:



elroy said:


> Sempre indossa *un*'abito.


Indossa *sempre* un abito. Sempre at the beginning of the sentence sounds emphatic and marked, unlike Spanish.


elroy said:


> Il bebè mangia già della mela.


Bebè is fine but in my opinion it is far less common than in other languages, such as Spanish or French, I'd probably use _bimbo_ instead. In your example, Il bebè mangia già *la* mela should also be ok in my view.


----------



## bearded

elroy said:


> Am I right about the behavior of .... Italian?


Yes (but please note it's _un abito_ without apostrophe).



elroy said:


> Il bebè mangia già mela.  | Il bebè mangia già della mela.  | Il bebè mangia già delle mele.


Correct. However, in this case we idiomatically say ... _mangia già la mela_ (in this case a usage similar to Arabic 'tuffah': morphologically singular, semantically plural).

I am not in a position to say anything about a possible influence of Arabic on Spanish, sorry.

--cross-posted--


----------



## elroy

@Olaszinhok 
Thank you!  I've purged my Italian of a lot of Spanish influences, but clearly some still remain!   I consciously made sure to place "già" after the verb and not before, but clearly failed to do that with "sempre"!  French is more ingrained in me so I generally get the word order right intuitively, but with Italian I have to consciously remind myself that with certain adverbs it works like French and not like Spanish!  As for "un abito," this is another frequent error of mine.  Apparently I think the default is "uno" and it gets contracted before a vowel.  I should train myself to think of the default as "un" and think of the "o" as only surfacing before certain sounds (like "s").  Yes, I was skeptical about "bebè" (is it "bebé" or "bebè"?) but did find some evidence for its use so I went for it.  "la mela": ah, yes!  Italian loves the definite article much more than Spanish and French!  So are you saying both "mangia già *della* mela" and "mangia già *la* mela" are okay?


----------



## Olaszinhok

elroy said:


> "mangia già *della* mela"


The partitive article sounds weird in your example, due to the usage of _già. Vuoi della mela/un pezzetto di /un po' di mela _would be okay_._


elroy said:


> was skeptical about "bebè" (is it "bebé" or "bebè"?)


You're right, it's bebè with an open-mid ɛ.


----------



## Dymn

elroy said:


> Am I right about the behavior of Spanish, French, and Italian? What about other Iberian and non-Iberian Romance languages?


Right about Spanish, in Catalan it's usually omitted too.



elroy said:


> The other phenomenon is similar but distinct. I believe Spanish allows ordinarily countable nouns to be used in an uncountable sense, again without an indefinite article or any other determiner, while French and Italian do not. For example:
> 
> SP: El bebé ya come manzana.  (The baby already eats apple.)


If you refer to puréed apple, "_come manzana_" is the only way to say it, if it's whole apples I'd expect the plural. Same for Catalan.

I think for countable collectives you use the plural in Spanish. Singular use for countable collectives is marked and not usual:

"I hate men":
_Odio a los hombres_ (normal translation)
_Odio al hombre_ (kind of like an institution, it's even more derogatory and othering)

Now in Brazilian Portuguese the bare singular "_Odeio homem_" seems to be colloquial but perfectly normal. And in both Portugal and Brazil "_Odeio homens_" seems ok, which would be ungrammatical in other Romance languages.

How would you translate this into Arabic?

Now if you're asking about partitive articles, Catalan doesn't have the partitive article and has never had it, and Gascon Occitan either, whereas most other Occitan dialects have it.

Spanish: _Como pan / Como manzanas_
Catalan: _Menjo pa / Menjo pomes_
Gascon: _Que mingi pan / Que mingi pomas_
Lengadocian: _Mangi de pan / Mangi de pomas_
French: _Je mange du pain / Je mange des pommes_


----------



## fdb

In English too we say "he drinks wine", "I eat pork".

Also with some otherwise countable nouns: "I like cake".


----------



## pollohispanizado

While it's true that a partitve preposition never coalesced in Spanish as it did in French, there was a partitive pronoun (ende/en/ne; cf. FR., CA. en, IT. ne) used up until the 15th century, i.e. when the Moors were expelled.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> I've noticed two features of Spanish that I believe set it apart from French and Italian (not sure about other Romance languages), and I wonder if they might be due to an Arabic influence.
> 
> Spanish often allows singular countable nouns with no indefinite article, where the same construction would be ungrammatical in French and Italian.  For example:
> 
> SP: No sé si tiene novio. __(I don't know if he/she has a boyfriend.)
> FR: Je ne sais pas s'il / si elle a petit-ami.  | Je ne sais pas s'il / si elle a *un* petit-ami.
> IT: No so se abbia ragazzo.  | Non so se abbia *un* ragazzo.
> 
> SP: Siempre lleva traje.  (He always wears a suit.)
> FR: Il porte toujours costume.  | Il porte toujours *un* costume.
> IT: Sempre indossa abito.  | Sempre indossa *un*'abito.
> 
> Am I right about the behavior of Spanish, French, and Italian?  What about other Iberian and non-Iberian Romance languages?  Does anyone think this may be due to an Arabic influence?


Catalan and Aragonese do not have a partitive article, but it is common to use the pronoun _en _(< ENDE), followed by the noun introduced by the partitive _de_. This does not happen in the West Iberian cluster, which as pollohispanizado said, lost it long ago.

Aragonese: No sé si *en *tien, *de *novio.
Catalan: No sé si *en *té, *de *xicot.

Aragonese: *En *leva siempre, *de *trache.
Catalan: *En *du sempre, *de *vestit.


----------



## raamez

If old Spanish already had this feature from the beginning then we could also argument that this came about as an influence from Celtic existence in pre Roman Iberia since Celtic languages also don't use the indefinite articles.


----------



## Terio

In French, the omission is also possible in some circumstances. For example, in idiomatic expressions like _prendre mari_, of for stylistic reasons : _Elle portait robe et chapeau pour aller au bal._


----------



## Olaszinhok

Terio said:


> For example, in idiomatic expressions like _prendre mari_, of for stylistic reasons : _Elle portait robe et chapeau pour aller au bal._


Those expressions could be used in Italian as well, with the omission of the indefinite article.


----------



## Demiurg

elroy said:


> SP: Siempre lleva traje.  (He always wears a suit.)
> FR: Il porte toujours costume.  | Il porte toujours *un* costume.
> IT: Sempre indossa abito.  | Sempre indossa *un*'abito.


That's also possible in German:
DE: Er trägt immer Anzug.


----------



## Aliph

fdb said:


> In English too we say "he drinks wine", "I eat pork".
> 
> .


In Italian too, one can say “beve vino” , “mangio carne di maiale” without an article.


----------



## S.V.

Aliph said:


> In Italian


Also _sono amate da chi non ha moglie_ (Sacchetti, _Spos_. 1378-1381) & _Il detto Velluto ebbe moglie_ (Velluti, _Cron_. 1367-1370).

After Leiss 2000 ('the loss of verbal aspect morphology as the main trigger for the emergence of the article system'), Spanish would be in the 'middle' & non-dynamic verbs would keep these_ escuetos_ (_Todavía no posee __título_). A 'middle' that allows for the types ˚_ha mujer_ & _ha moglie_, ˚_nin por oro_ &_ Ne por or_7 to survive. Then you could claim the centuries of language contact were a 'nudge', as if they were tiny spheres in a Galton board. Hard to prove.


----------



## WadiH

I can't comment on Spanish grammar, but just historically speaking isn't modern Spanish descended from dialects that were spoken in the north where Arabic was not spoken?  There was a Romance language that was spoken side-by-side with Arabic in the southern parts of the peninsula and it was influenced by Arabic (and written in the Arabic script), but it disappeared with the Reconquista and is not the ancestor of modern Spanish.  For this reason alone, a grammatical influence seems unlikely, though some Arabic words did make it into Spanish vocabulary through contact.


----------



## Hulalessar

Wadi Hanifa said:


> I can't comment on Spanish grammar, but just historically speaking isn't modern Spanish descended from dialects that were spoken in the north where Arabic was not spoken?  There was a Romance language that was spoken side-by-side with Arabic in the southern parts of the peninsula and it was influenced by Arabic (and written in the Arabic script), but it disappeared with the Reconquista and is not the ancestor of modern Spanish.  For this reason alone, a grammatical influence seems unlikely, though some Arabic words did make it into Spanish vocabulary through contact.



The above is more or less the case. The Arabs/Moors were in the Iberian Peninsula for a very long time. It was not always a question of Christians v Moors. There were shifting alliances with Christians and Moors allied against Christians and Moors. Whilst Castilian originated in the north, with the advance of the Reconquista the centre of power shifted south to Toledo and it is there that what can today be recognised as Castilian first emerged. There would have been trade contacts which is always a vehicle for language borrowings. At times Mozarabs may have found it convenient to relocate northwards to avoid conflict.

The influence is almost exclusively restricted to borrowing nouns. The influence on grammar is absolutely minimal if not non-existent.


----------



## Penyafort

Hulalessar said:


> Whilst Castilian originated in the north, with the advance of the Reconquista the centre of power shifted south to Toledo and it is there that what can today be recognised as Castilian first emerged.


Castilian wasn't Castilian before reaching Toledo? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## Hulalessar

Penyafort said:


> Castilian wasn't Castilian before reaching Toledo? That doesn't make sense.



I am not saying that was spoken in the north was not Castilian, but that in Toledo Castilian reached a form which is sufficiently like modern Castilian to be recognised as Castilian rather than something else.


----------



## S.V.

Regarding modern _el _+SUBJECT, the NGLE mentions cc. XIII-XV (14.1h). The type in Alfonso X continued throughout this period:



S.V. said:


> _No han seso de mantenerle_; _han natura de volar muy bajas cerca del agua_ (1);_ por tentación del diablo habían sabor de dejar sus monasterios_; _hombres que habían sabor de morir antes que ser vencidos_; _habían corazón de vengarse si pudiesen_ (2); _como habían costumbre de hacer_; _no habías codicia de ser emperador_;_ habían ocasión de salir_ (3);_ habemos voluntad de guardar las órdenes_; _haber achaque de ir a alguna parte  _(4, 5)



During the same centuries Italian & Spanish got to_ tiene ∅ mujer_ coexisting with a 'modern'  _UNA mujer_ _~ LA mujer _system, a 'nudge' could be caused by different forms of stress on that system. You are not talking about Arabic 'causing' it, but rather the conquests of Toledo→Sevilla coinciding with volatility, in a lang. that kept a wider _∅ _+OBJECT type.


----------



## S.V.

It seems Sant Vicent Ferrer, b. 1350 in Valencia, gave some examples. Below, among many with _aver_ +OBJ; at a time modern ˚_el_ + [subject] & ˚_el_ + [_specific_ object] is mostly complete: _E desque ovieren çelebrado e dicho missa, asconderán el cáliçe e la ara e las vestimentas_1; _Mas en el pecado de la invidia non fallarás una semejança sola de plazer_2;  _Lo sol... La luna_... _prenen mullers _(p.7; EN).



Spoiler



_la segunda promisión es a personas que vençerán el pecado de avariçia por largueza verdadera (__EN__)
la terçera promisión es a personas que vençerán　peccado de luxuria por linpia castidat
las personas que vençerán　pecado de invidia por amor e karidat
en esta manera avrán　victoria contra　pecado de luxuria__3_
_escogerán resçebir e padesçer　martirio con alegría
çelebrarán e dirán　missa, los quales non traerán　corona nin hábito saçerdotal
e farán llanto assí como　llanto de uno engendrado
entre sí farán　penitençia infructuosa
Esso mismo, quando estás faziendo　oraçión, la tu boca ha　dignidat

quant [...] vench del cel en terra a pendre humanitat tot simplement (__p.5__ ¶2)
en les sues obres, donant-nos　exemple (ib. below Matth. XX)
a pendre　carn humana (ib. above last line)
qui james feren　peccat contra Deu (p.7 ¶2)
¿que faran　homens e dones, los renegadors, juradors, los superbios, etc? (ib.)_


----------



## Penyafort

S.V. said:


> It seems Sant Vicent Ferrer, b. 1350 in Valencia, gave some examples. Below, among many with _aver_ +OBJ; at a time modern ˚_el_ + [subject] & ˚_el_ + [_specific_ object] is mostly complete: _E desque ovieren çelebrado e dicho missa, asconderán el cáliçe e la ara e las vestimentas_1; _Mas en el pecado de la invidia non fallarás una semejança sola de plazer_2;  _Lo sol... La luna_... _prenen mullers _(p.7; EN).


Saint Vicent Ferrer was from the Kingdom of Valencia and everything he preached was in the Catalan language, the only one he could speak according to some biographers. In fact, it is often stated he had _the gift of tongues_, because he was understood everywhere without changing the language. So those examples must be from translations of his sermons, as apparently he didn't write down what he preached, but the faithful who followed him.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Penyafort said:


> In fact, it is often stated he had _the gift of tongues_, because he was understood everywhere without changing the language


I wonder if this was just a quirk of the time, i.e. the Romance languages were still pretty well mutually intelligible.


----------



## Penyafort

pollohispanizado said:


> I wonder if this was just a quirk of the time, i.e. the Romance languages were still pretty well mutually intelligible.


Even today, if there is willingness among the speakers, more than 70% is easily understandable. One can see it just by checking some videos about this. 

Besides, Catalan occupied then an even more central position. I don't think the same would have been said if the preacher would have been from Liege.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Penyafort said:


> Even today, if there is willingness among the speakers, more than 70% is easily understandable. One can see it just by checking some videos about this


I started learning Catalan and I was pleasantly surprised that, despite the very different orthography, I understood quite a lot when spoken (I'm sure that speaking two of its closest relatives --plus a couple of more distant cousins-- helps a lot). But in the 14th century, almost all of them had the same or very similar phonologies (much more than today).


----------



## S.V.

pollohispanizado said:


> the Romance languages were still pretty well mutually intelligible.


Oh, his work in Toledo may be embellished, but I agree in that context. Even if all you change from those _dos sermones_ is two articles and 7 core verbs.  If we 'see' all the vowel endings floating in the air, Castilian can also represent a simplification ('_just add -o & -a, to these nouns I know_').

Some examples may point to legalese; compare_ quant deu donar sentencia_ in p. 9 ¶3 with _dar, oyr, recebir sentençia_ (a couple hundred in 1300-1500 range). But in both langs, he may be more representative of generations after the Black Plague, than some poems often quoted. In line with _illas cupas_, _illas tegolas_, _illa ammica tua _(p. 15) by the 7th century & _per illa defeſa, per illo lombo, per illo colato, ad illa cote de illa Lopeira_ (p. 30) by 1011.

Regarding an edge of_ intelligible_, a mention of Mozarabic on p. 42. Compare _Gar qué fareyo / Cóm vivreyo / Est’ al-habib, as saber / por él morreyo_ (p. 22) with _ta jugá yo_ in Chabacano.  Though of course, we talk of Castilian's sisters, in a garden like Generalife's (cf. "conquest of Seville"+"two and a half million" olive trees; still long before the quotes on scarcity & the expulsions).

This last point may then be stressed, if you want to link it to Elroy's question. You may now see

　♠　♣　　　♠　♣　　　♠ ♣ ♦　　　♠ ♣ ♦

across different languages, along ♦ in _both_ the 'target' that heard _oxalá_ at home, long before 1400, & the 'Castilian at Church' (˚_dezir misa_), in a reorganization _a la francesa_, through the clergy. You talk of a 'potential' in sister languages, and a 'nudge' by contact & stress. We may see a separate line, from the Roman _colonia_ (_"almost complete romanization"; "the Visigoths were the most Romanized"; "In the fifth and sixth centuries, Spain remained the most Romanized of all western lands"_) to that Toledo of 2.5M olive trees & a Cordoba of "700 mosques"; while many still said_ ˚faré yo_, along some Arabic nouns & sounds. 

In the larger context of centuries of migration and 'repopulation', since the first _fueros_; a discussion on _Arabic bilingual%_ may miss the point, as you also merge 'back' old branches. As you mix hundreds of thousands, in some waves. Just as you'd talk of 'easier'_ calques_ between two close languages; at a time the modern patterns are being forged & other factors keep the potential alive. Like_ not_ losing those vowels at the end of your nouns, or later changing /a/, /e/ from_ aver_ into_ tiene_,_ tengo_ &c, for that meaning. Or Andalusian segregation ←XI c.


----------

