# Initial f > h in Iberian Romance



## cheshire

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=1065644&postcount=10



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Also, Mandarin, like French, has palatized many initial consonants, g --> j, k --> chi, s --> sh, and simplified others (ng, m --> w), plus Mandarin does *the Basque/Castilian initial f --> h shift*, again changing the sound relative to Classical Chinese.


Could anyone explain what this grammar term means?


----------



## jabogitlu

It means that in Castilian (and Basque, I suppose, but I don't speak that language so I don't know), some words originally written utilizing initial "f" consonants were softened to "h" consonants.

I believe the oft-cited example here would be Latin "filia" (daughter) which changed to "hija" in Spanish.  For contrast, it is still written "filha" in Portuguese.


----------



## cheshire

I see, thanks!
By the way I remember your name in other language board, expecially Chinese threads.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

cheshire said:


> http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=1065644&postcount=10
> 
> Could anyone explain what this grammar term means?



In terms of phonology, the F lost its buccal qualities (mouth) while retaining its pharyngeal qualities (blowing of air) what remained from F, after loss of buccal qualities was an H.

Some attribute this, oddly, to a "Basque substratum," the idea being that Basques couldn't pronounce word initial F (but had no problem with word internal F) and thus merely "aspirated" this F.  Modern day Felipe yielding Pelipe instead of Helipe notwithstanding, this "basque substratum" is all but thoroughly rejected by anyone who has read linguistics past the 1960s.

Ralph Penny discusses this phenomenon extensively, in his "history of the spanish language," which is better titled simply "historical phonetics."

In short, word initial F became an H, then became 0 (null) zero.


----------



## sound shift

In the Gascon variety of Occitan (or in the Gascon language if you regard it as such) many words derived from a Latin ancestor starting in "F" begin with "H". I only mention this because Gascony adjoins Euskadi.


----------



## Outsider

former_chomsky_advocate said:


> Some attribute this, oddly, to a "Basque substratum," the idea being that Basques couldn't pronounce word initial F (but had no problem with word internal F) and thus merely "aspirated" this F.


Why do you say "oddly"?

I believe the name of the phenomenon in question is debuccalization.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

I say oddly, because there's no evidence whatsoever that this is some sort of unique Basque influence.  Aside from F- words becoming P- words (rather than H- words), F- to H- to 0- is a commonly enough occurring phenomenon cross linguistically.

I've even heard it said that the Basques had an extended lower jaw, thus not allowing the upper teeth to touch the lower lip, and thus explaining the F- to H- phenomenon.  When asked if there had ever been skulls produced that exhibited such phenomenon, the answer was "no."

Nevertheless, this "Basque Substratum" is still widely accepted by many philologists, mainly of the Berkely and Madison (WI) tendencies.


----------



## Outsider

former_chomsky_advocate said:


> I say oddly, because there's no evidence whatsoever that this is some sort of unique Basque influence.  Aside from F- words becoming P- words (rather than H- words), F- to H- to 0- is a commonly enough occurring phenomenon cross linguistically.


But the fact that it happened in three different languages in the same geographical area (Basque, Spanish, and Gascon) seems to support a connection... How is that coincidence explained by modern linguists? 
Or does the problem lie in the word "substratum"?



former_chomsky_advocate said:


> I've even heard it said that the Basques had an extended lower jaw, thus not allowing the upper teeth to touch the lower lip, and thus explaining the F- to H- phenomenon.


That is obvious crackpottery, but it doesn't mean the "Basque substratum" (or "Basque influence") theory is wrong.


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

Outsider said:


> But the fact that it happened in three different languages in the same geographical area (Basque, Spanish, and Gascon) seems to support a connection... How is that coincidence explained by modern linguists?
> Or does the problem lie in the word "substratum"?



The fact that it also happens in languages far removed from not only the same geographical area, as well as far removed from the linguistic family, suggests that it's a natural pheonomenon of language change, versus some sort of direct influence.  Japanese has undergone the same phenomenon, and I don't think that anyone would suggest that it's because of language contact with Basques...  Coincidence?  Possibly.  

This book contains references to many languages that have undergone precisely this phenomenon.    Bybee, Joan L. 2001. _Phonology and language use._ Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press.


She discusses it in part here: http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Mechs%20of%20Change%20as%20Universals%20of%20Language.doc



> It is important to note that the implementation of any sound change is a complex phenomenon, involving differential progress of the change in phonetic and lexical environments and different effects of the change in terms of contrasting segments. These factors are extremely important for an eventual understanding of how and why sound change takes place, as well as for the eventual outcome of the change.
> 
> Moderator note:
> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts except as indicated below. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted. Links to content elsewhere are acceptable and appropriate, provided such links meet the requirements stated elsewhere in these rules. Always acknowledge the source. All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.





> That is obvious crackpottery, but it doesn't mean the "Basque substratum" (or "Basque influence") theory is wrong.


There is one interesting article, whose exact name escapes me, describing a mass exodus from the Italian peninsula circa 100 AD, who had an initial F- dropping going on, who moved en masse to the Iberian peninsula near Osca / Huesca, that does support a language influence phenomena.  The title is something like "An oscan-umbrian influence."  Read in a course with a very knowledgeable professor.

In short, my personal view is that many local phenomena, once contrasted cross linguistically, no longer seem so local.


----------



## Outsider

> Spanish and other Romance languages have undergone a change that reduced word-initial [f] to  and further to [ø].


Apart from Spanish and Gascon, which other Romance languages underwent this sound change, at the same period of history?


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

Outsider said:


> Apart from Spanish and Gascon, which other Romance languages underwent this sound change, at the same period of history?




Are you talking about the F to H, or the H to 0?


----------



## former_chomsky_advocate

http://books.google.com/books?id=u3qPJjpIDrkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22word+initial+f%22+h&source=web&ots=8Vz5400Ske&sig=J8uZ4QrpwDKoR7lYU5sYsArLxdQ#PPA132,M1

This link contains much of the classical argumentation for and against the substratum hypothesis.

Page 132.


----------



## Outsider

former_chomsky_advocate said:


> Are you talking about the F to H, or the H to 0?


Both.


----------



## Outsider

former_chomsky_advocate said:


> http://books.google.com/books?id=u3qPJjpIDrkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22word+initial+f%22+h&source=web&ots=8Vz5400Ske&sig=J8uZ4QrpwDKoR7lYU5sYsArLxdQ#PPA132,M1
> 
> This link contains much of the classical argumentation for and against the substratum hypothesis.
> 
> Page 132.


Thanks a lot. That's very interesting!


----------



## floatingboy

I think that the concept of the Basque substratum is assumed because the shift did not occur in other Romance languages, and not even in other major Iberian dialects (not sure about subdialects such as Asturian, Leonés, etc).  Castille was close to Basque country, so that seems to be the obvious conclusion.  That there is Basque influence in Castillian is undeniable.  Whether or not the conclusion that the f-->h shift is due to a Basque substratum is well-founded is another point altogether.


----------



## clevermizo

I would like to point out that H>0 change is I believe older than the Romance splittings from Vulgar Latin. The fact that F>H>0 also occurred in Castilian is a convergence.


----------



## MarX

In Romanian this shift also occurred:


Istro-Romanian *fil'u*
Aromanian *hilj*
Megleno-Romanian *il'u*
Daco-Romanian *fiu*

Spanish *hijo*, pronounced *ijo*


Istro-Romanian *fl'er*
Aromanian *heru*
Megleno-Romanian *ieru*
Daco-Romanian *fier*

Spanish *hierro*, pronounced *ierro*


----------



## Hulalessar

floatingboy said:


> (not sure about subdialects such as Asturian, Leonés, etc).


 
I have a book of short stories in the various languages of Spain and a quick look shows:

Asturiano

hijos = fios
hace = fai

Leonés

hablar = falare
huían = fuxían
hilera = filera

Aragonés

hojas = fuellas
hierros = fierros

Extremeño

haciéndole = jadiéndulu
hacía = jadía
hacer = jadel


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

I read somewhere that the Basque language in Antiquity was more widespread in SW France, as far north as Bordeaux, and that the Basque Country of Spain was always its historical southern limit, with the rest of the Iberian Peninsula being inhabited by Iberian speakers (an Indo-European language) and Celtic speakers.  I don't know if those languages manifested a similar f to h (to 0) sound change.


----------



## Forero

It is interesting that other Latinate languages kept "v" from merging with "b" by making it into a voiced "f", but Castillian kept the bilabial "v", eventually merging it with "b", while probably making its initial "f" into something like an unvoiced bilabial "v", which was unstable.

Could Chinese have been influenced by Japanese?


----------



## Hulalessar

zpoludnia swiata said:


> I read somewhere that the Basque language in Antiquity was more widespread in SW France, as far north as Bordeaux, and that the Basque Country of Spain was always its historical southern limit, with the rest of the Iberian Peninsula being inhabited by Iberian speakers (an Indo-European language) and Celtic speakers. I don't know if those languages manifested a similar f to h (to 0) sound change.


 
Apparently the Basque language was at one time spoken over quite a wide area of the Iberian Peninsular. Castilian and Gascon both developed in areas where Basque was spoken. However, Aragonese also devloped in an area where Basque was spoken, but does not display the f>h shift.

Iberian was not an Indo-European language. See here: 
http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/index.htm


----------



## Outsider

In fact, Iberian is thought by many to have been related to Basque, although it's difficult to judge because the remaining paleographic evidence is very scarce.


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

Apparently it has never been shown that there was any relationship between Basque and Iberian.  There are ideas that Iberian was Indo European, though based on just a few words.  Probably that hypothesis is no more feasible than its connexion with Basque.


----------



## Outsider

According to the website that Hulalessar linked to, the hypothesis of Iberian being Indo-European is _much less_ plausible than the hypothesis of it being related to Basque!


----------



## cheshire

Thanks for the heated discussion everyone, although I don't undersntand most of them.
I gathered from your discussion that "Iberian" is different from "Spanish language". Right?


----------



## Hulalessar

cheshire said:


> I gathered from your discussion that "Iberian" is different from "Spanish language". Right?


 
In this thread, quite definitely.


----------



## Outsider

The Iberian language was spoken in the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula until the Roman conquest. It is now extinct; or, according to some theories, it was an ancient form of the Basque language. We only know about if from a small number of inscriptions (see Hulalessar's link, above).


----------



## miguel89

Hi,
I have a question related to this thread's topic:

There must have been a time when /h/ was allophone with /f/, in words which kept this phoneme (fuerte, fue, etc.).

Then, when and why did /f/ split from /h/ and was considered a separate phoneme?

Miguel


----------



## Forero

I'll guess that _f_ and _h_ were allophonic only word initially before a full vowel. Words with [fr], [fl], [fw] (as in _fue_), etc., kept the labiodental sound from Latin.


----------



## miguel89

I was referring to /f/ being articulated as [f] in some contexts and  in others (as you say), which at some point should've been distinguished as separate phonemes, hence modern opposition 0/f. My question is about this process.


----------



## merquiades

Forero said:


> I'll guess that _f_ and _h_ were allophonic only word initially before a full vowel. Words with [fr], [fl], [fw] (as in _fue_), etc., kept the labiodental sound from Latin.



If I remember correctly from my studies of Medieval literature,  F became H in standard language systematically only in the initial position followed by a simple vowel.

ex)
hacer but satisfacer
exception almohada for almofada

forno - horno
fillo - hijo
fablar - hablar
fumo - humo

With the dipthongs apparently there was a lot of hesitation ocurring so you could find redoubled forms like huera for fuera, huego for fuego but also fierro for hierro.

Also in later centuries there was a push to reinstate the f,  which was partially successful in cultisms
huerma back to forma


----------



## CapnPrep

miguel89 said:


> Then, when and why did /f/ split from /h/ and was considered a separate phoneme?


The f > h change only applied to popular vocabulary. Learned words and unassimilated borrowings from neighboring languages continued to be pronounced with [f]. But with time, a lot of learned words become normal words, and a lot of borrowings eventually become assimilated… So starting around the 13th century the distribution of initial [f] and  could no longer be acquired as a matter of phonological context and word class. People just had to learn that some ordinary words started with  (_hijo_, _horma_, _hambre_, …), and some with [f] (_fijo_, _forma_, _fama_, …). From this point on, the two sounds correspond to distinct phonemes.


----------



## Beachxhair

Hello

I was wondering why Spanish has the letter 'h' (el humo, hacer) where the other romance languages have 'f' (faire, fazer, fare...)


I know it has something to do with Latin and changing pronunciation...I was wondering how Spanish acquired the 'h' while other Romance languages retained the 'f'?

Thank you


----------



## Peter94

The answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Spanish_language#Phonetics and phonology , at least partially.


----------



## fdb

The Wikipedia article does not actually address the question posed here, which is _why_ Latin (and Old Spanish) f becomes h in Modern Spanish. I think we need to do better than that.


----------



## Peter94

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The letter ⟨f⟩ represented variously a labiodental [f], bilabial [ɸ], or glottal fricative  (like the English ⟨h⟩) that later disappeared from pronunciation (/h/ is completely silent in Vulgar Latin), where now an orthographic ⟨h⟩ represents it, except learned words (i.e. words borrowed directly from Classical Latin), before a glide, or another consonant.



That's quite a good explanation for me. There were changes in pronunciation that later, apparently, led to changes in orthography. Yes, the second part of this sentence is not explicitely backed up by the article, however the article says above what I've quoted:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> When Spanish spelling was changed in 1815, words with ⟨b⟩ and ⟨v⟩ were respelt etymologically in order to match Latin spelling whenever possible.


Now we need to look closer at the Spanish language reforms. This article is a good trail.



fdb said:


> I think we need to do better than that.


Of course we do.


----------



## Cenzontle

The Wikipedia article on the Basque language ("Influence on other languages") discusses the notion that the mellowing and loss of /f/ in Spanish might be due to Basque influence. Caution: The Wiki article notes that the idea is "widely postulated" but "equally strongly disputed".  Substratum influence is often difficult to "prove".


----------



## sotos

Similarly the Russian replaced _th_ with_ f_. Difficulties in hearing and pronounciation.


----------



## Quiviscumque

sotos said:


> [...] Difficulties in hearing and pronounciation.



Basque substratum theory is perhaps disputable; on the other hand, I think that we can safely reject a "generalized deafness" hypotheses. You now, life was then hard and natural selection operating in Alava and Northern Burgos.


----------



## clevermizo

Cenzontle said:


> The Wikipedia article on the Basque language ("Influence on other languages") discusses the notion that the mellowing and loss of /f/ in Spanish might be due to Basque influence. Caution: The Wiki article notes that the idea is "widely postulated" but "equally strongly disputed".  Substratum influence is often difficult to "prove".



I've heard the Basque substratum hypothesis before, but I don't know if I believe it. I think you can get from [f] >  pretty straight forwardly if it proceeds through a bilabial intermediate.

Consider the Japanese series [ha hi fu he ho] (は ひ ふ へ ほ) in which bilabial [ɸ] is the same phoneme as . Then you have a second step in which  becomes null. 

According to the wiki on Asturian, in Eastern Asturian dialects, words that are _facer_ elsewhere in Asturian are pronounced [haser] in this dialect. The wiki distinguishes this from silent grapheme 'h' by a dot (ḥ), but I don't know if people faithfully do this is real life.


----------



## sotos

Quiviscumque said:


> I think that we can safely reject a "generalized deafness" hypotheses.


I think so, but I mean that hearing involves some training, too. For example, we all know the myth that "Japanese cannot pronounce the sound _li". _However, I have  clearly heared some Japanese pronouncing "li" in Japanese words (where the official transliteration is _ri_), without themshelves realizing it. When I  questioned them,  they insisted that they said "ri" and non "li".


----------



## Peter94

That happens when the sound is an allophone in one's language. Poles would also insist on /n/ being always laminal denti-alveolar (usually described "pronounced with tongue touching upper teeth"), but only few people recognize laminal post-alveolar and velar allophones of it, before /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ and /k g/ respectively.


----------



## Hulalessar

The following paper offers all the theories: http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/cjp16/learnsupp/fh.pdf


----------



## Quiviscumque

Hulalessar said:


> The following paper offers all the theories: http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/cjp16/learnsupp/fh.pdf



Thanks!


----------



## merquiades

Quiviscumque said:


> Thanks!



Brilliant article!
Could we say this /ɸ/ sound that occurred before /r/, /l/, /w/ and sometimes /j/ is the voiceless equivalent of /β/ which still is the pronunciation of intervocalic "v" as in "cueva, cava, la vida"?  If so, I've still heard this type of "f" sporadically in some speakers.  I thought it was laziness.


----------



## Forero

merquiades said:


> Brilliant article!
> Could we say this /ɸ/ sound that occurred before /r/, /l/, /w/ and sometimes /j/ is the voiceless equivalent of /β/ which still is the pronunciation of intervocalic "v" as in "cueva, cava, la vida"?  If so, I've still heard this type of "f" sporadically in some speakers.  I thought it was laziness.


That's the right sound. Were these Spanish speakers? (From where?)


----------



## Hulalessar

According to this Wikipedia article: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricativa_bilabial_sorda /ɸ/ occurs as an allophone of /b/ after aspiration in Andalucia.


----------



## Beachxhair

Hulalessar said:


> According to this Wikipedia article: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricativa_bilabial_sorda /ɸ/ occurs as an allophone of /b/ after aspiration in Andalucia.



Does the same thing occur in Latin American Spanish?


----------



## merquiades

Forero said:


> That's the right sound. Were these Spanish speakers? (From where?)



I think most of them were from southern Spain, though not Andalusia, the type of speaker who by nature weakens articulation of consonants.  I hear /ɸ/ as a weakened variant of /f/.


----------



## HUMBERT0

I little off-topic...
But we have some old alternate pronunciations to the normative forms, and can still hear them in some countryside regions; some haches and efes are pronounced as jotas, for example… jediondo instead of the silent hediondo, jiede non hiede, jalar not the foreign halar, juerte instead of fuerte, juerza instead of fuerza, jijo I would guess it comes from hijo, Jelipe for Felipe, jondear for hondear, jondo for hondo, etc.

Saludos


----------



## Peter94

Beachxhair said:


> Does the same thing occur in Latin American Spanish?



I don't think I heard vowel lowering in Venezuelan Spanish, because that's what you need to fully devoice lenited /b/. According to Wikipedia, it's not present in the whole Andalusia either:


> Utterance-final /s/, /x/ and /θ/ (where ceceo or distinción occur) are usually aspirated (pronounced ) or deleted. In Eastern Andalusian dialects, including also Murcian Spanish, the previous vowel is also lowered.




What they're talking about is lowering vowels (pronouncing them "laxer", with the mouth more open) from their usual position: close /i/ /u/ to near-close [i̞] [u̞], mid /e/ /o/ ([e̞] [o̞]) to open-mid [ɛ] [ɔ], and open central /a/ ([ä]) to open front [a], so that these dialects have 10 phonetic vowels. Not phone*m*ic, because they're analyzed as instances of /Vs/, where /V/ stands for any of 5 vowels of standard Spanish.

I heard only aspiration from Venezuelans. If I'm correct, then they would _voice_ the aspirated /s/, because lenited /b/ is voiced too: [loɦ ˈβjexo]

And remember I'm talking about the Venezuelan variety. There's certainly more that aspirate /s/ in Latin American and Caribbean Spanish, Rioplatense dialect for example. But according to Wikipedia, it doesn't lower vowels in the /Vs/ context either:



> In popular speech, the fricative /s/ has a tendency to become 'aspirated' before another consonant (the resulting sound depending on what the consonant is, although stating it is a voiceless glottal fricative, , would give a clear idea of the mechanism) or simply in all syllable-final positions in less educated speech. This change may be realized only at the word level or it may also cross word boundaries. That is, esto es lo mismo "this is the same" is pronounced something like [ˈe̞ʰto̞ ˈe̞ʰ lo̞ ˈmiʰmo̞] *(there's probably an error here, since "mismo" in most dialects has a voiced fricative, so it should be transcribed [ˈmiʱmo] here)*, but in las águilas azules "the blue eagles", /s/ in las and águilas might remain [ s ] as no consonant follows: [las ˈaɣilas aˈsules], or become ; the pronunciation is largely an individual choice.[/S]



So there's even linking /s/ for some speakers. That's very interesting.

I suggest either writing to a phonetician who deals with Spanish, listening very carefully to YouTube videos or doing more research on Wikipedia. Either 3 will do, but if they're combined I think you'll learn everything you want to know about the subject.


----------



## Yuzer

Outsider said:


> Apart from Spanish and Gascon, which other Romance languages underwent this sound change, at the same period of history?


There are manuscripts using favlar and fijo in Judeospanish since 1492. Today it's avlar and ijo. Still fierro and not hierro though.


----------



## killerbee256

Yuzer said:


> There are manuscripts using favlar and fijo in Judeospanish since 1492. Today it's avlar and ijo. Still fierro and not hierro though.


 Interesting in some ways judeo espanol resembles modern portuguese more then modern Spanish. _Favlar_ looks half way between modern Spanish _hablar_ and portuguese _falar_


----------



## Yuzer

killerbee256 said:


> Interesting in some ways judeo espanol resembles modern portuguese more then modern Spanish. _Favlar_ looks half way between modern Spanish _hablar_ and portuguese _falar_


Overall it's still considered some dialect of Spanish by many speakers themselves. It's true that it conserved many Iberian features like x/sh, and there are some words like muncho which resemble Portuguese muito, pronounced "muntu". In some dialects final o tend to be realised as u as well.


----------



## killerbee256

Yuzer said:


> Overall it's still considered some dialect of Spanish by many speakers themselves. It's true that it conserved many Iberian features like x/sh, and there are some words like muncho which resemble Portuguese muito, pronounced "muntu". In some dialects final o tend to be realised as u as well.


 Yes it's more the case that 15th century castilian was much closer to portuguese and visa versa, in that era I almost wonder if they weren't in practical terms still the same speech.


----------



## merquiades

Yuzer said:


> There are manuscripts using favlar and fijo in Judeospanish since 1492. Today it's avlar and ijo. Still fierro and not hierro though.



I'm a bit surprised and don't know what to make of this.  As far as I know the Sephardic Jews left Spain not before 1492.  In my studies I remember that the /f/ at the beginning of a word changed to /h/ before the back vowels by the thirteenth century and before frontal vowels not long later.  It did not change to /h/ before another consonant, and with common diphthongs such as /ie/, /ue/ there was considerable variation.  Actually the /f/ ended up being preserved before many diphthongs.  In written Spanish (contrasting with oral) the "f" continued to be preferred in writing up to the sixteenth century when it was phased out to "h" refecting the pronunciation of the time period.  Sometime starting in fifteenth century the /h/ gradually grew silent from north to south in Spain but not before colonization of Latin America, where the aspiration was transmitted to several areas.
If the Sephardic people spoke Castilian Spanish and left after 1492 the /f/ would either have certainly been /h/ or silent in the words like _hablar_ and _hijo_... depending on where they came from, but hesitation between _hierro/fierro_ is possible.  Perhaps they continued writing "f" longer out of tradition/ isolation???


----------



## Yuzer

As far as I know: In the beginning every one spoke his local dialect. Most were Castilian. They used to live in small communities which cooperated, so that might explain why in Yugoslavia it sounds more like Aragones, Asturiano or Portuguese. Of course there was intermarriage so the dialects merged.

My family says only fierro, but avlar and ijo, perhaps because I'm Castilian by origin.

It should be noted that there was some dialect levelling with modern Castilian in the recent decade. Also, there is not even a letter for h in Sephardic, only used for Hebrew words. In times it was indeed written f but not pronounced. Also the word ella is written as elya but pronounced eya in Hebrew letters by the way.


----------



## merquiades

Yuzer said:


> Overall it's still considered some dialect of Spanish by many speakers themselves. It's true that it conserved many Iberian features like x/sh, and there are some words like muncho which resemble Portuguese muito, pronounced "muntu". In some dialects final o tend to be realised as u as well.



The final solution for the sibilants had not occurred by 1492, a full century more was needed.
"x" of "exemplo, caxa" was starting to move backward in some Castilian speakers but had not reached /x/, it was largely still pronounced /ʃ/ "sh".  Likewise the "z/ç" (cabeça/hazer) was moving forward but had not reached /θ/ "th".  Also, intervocalic "s" had not been universally devoiced so a word like "casa" would have still been /kaza/. Is that the current pronunciation in Sephardic?

Final "o" pronounced /u/ was a trait (still is) of most western dialects... Asturian, Leonese, Extremaduran... also Galician.

I wish many years of life to your wonderful language.


----------



## Yuzer

We say kaza, kavesa/kabesa, azer and enshemplo.

And thanks


----------



## merquiades

Yuzer said:


> We say kaza, kavesa/kabesa, azer and enshemplo.
> 
> And thanks



Thanks.    Interesting.  Sephardic is like a live history book.  So apparently none of the sibilants had been devoiced by 1492.  I thought that had happened a bit earlier judging from literature.


----------



## Yuzer

merquiades said:


> Thanks.    Interesting.  Sephardic is like a live history book.  So apparently none of the sibilants had been devoiced by 1492.  I thought that had happened a bit earlier judging from literature.


It goes vice versa - we also developed a bit different pronunciation. I like to compare the two and see how they developed. We say muevo and not nuevo for example, and have sh in some environments which is not historical: sesh and not seis, sosh and not sois, bushkar and nor buskar.


----------



## merquiades

Yuzer said:


> It goes vice versa - we also developed a bit different pronunciation. I like to compare the two and see how they developed. We say muevo and not nuevo for example, and have sh in some environments which is not historical: sesh and not seis, sosh and not sois, bushkar and nor buskar.



That does remind me quite a bit of Portuguese where "s" is pronounced "sh" at the end of a word and before a consonant, as in the case of all the cognate words you mention.


----------



## G Sanchez

A little tidbit to add.  I had two colleagues directly linked to Italy, one by birth and another one generation removed.  One colleague's mom came to visit and the other colleague said, "Oh, her accent is so cute.  Whereas in my mom's region of Italy the letter "h" is pronounced [either silently or with a "h-," I can't recall], in her mom's part of Italy [I believe she said "north,"], they pronounce them like "f."  I was blown away by that.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

This phenomenon of initial *F > H* happens also in a specific area of central Sardinia, on the mountains of Barbagia, a very isolated area; In Spanish this is due to a Basque substratum, in Sardinian (Barbaricino) it's due to a pre-Roman substratum, a non-Indoeuropean language; according to many academics the pre-Roman language of Sardinia could be related with Basque, hints of this ancient link are found in the toponyms of central Sardinia, 30-40% of them have no meaning in Latin or actual Sardinian, but they make sense in Basque language; moreover Sardinians carry a rare type of DNA : haplogroup I2a1 - I-M26 (over 40% of Sardinian population), that in Europe can be found in such high percentages only in Sardinia, southern Corsica, Basque country, Canaries islands and Azores islands.

https://i2a1tree.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/20131213-131545.jpg?w=960

https://i2a1tree.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/20131213-115026.jpg?w=960

*Examples* of the phenomenon *F > H *(the phenomenon only happens if the *F* is followed by a vowel)

_*Sardinian (Logudorese) - **Sardinian (Barbaricino) - English*

funtana - huntana - fountain
fàghere - hàchere - to do
fogu - hocu - fire
fusìle - husìle - shotgun
ferru - herru - iron
fàula - hàula - lie
fàmene - hàmene - hunger
famìlia - hamìlia - family
fèmina - hèmina - woman
fènu - hènu - hay
fora - hora - out
fòrsis - hòrsis - perhaps
fumu - humu - smoke
fundu - hundu - bottom
furare - hurare - to steal
fuste - huste - stick

etc.etc.etc.
_


----------



## Penyafort

It is certainly a complicated phenomenon, and attributing it to mere Basque substratum, while tempting (even more considering Gascon), is controversial. Specially when the original territory of the Navarro-Aragonese Romance had much more Basque substratum than the Castilian birthplace in the Cantabrian duchy, and yet Navarro-Aragonese has always strongly maintained their initial f's.

*CASTILIAN *(SPANISH) - *NAVARRESE/ARAGONESE* - *GASCON*

*haz *-* faixo/feixo *-* hèish
hecho *- *feito *- *hèit*
*hender *- *fender *- *héner*
*hinojo *- *fenullo* - *h(en)olh*
*horado - forato - horat*
*hoja *-* fuella - huèlha*
*hoz *-* falz *-* hauç*
*huso *- *fuso *- *hus*
_etc_​​


----------

