# The evolution of the Latin consonant cluster "ct"



## Nino83

Hi everyone. 
I was wondering how the Latin consonant cluster _*ct*_ developed in Romance languages. 

In Italian the result is often the same: _*ct --> tt*_ while in Western Romance languages there are more result (*ct, t, it/ch*). 

A few examples (in this order: Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese) 

effe*tt*o, effe*t*,  efe*ct*o, efe*it*o
rispe*tt*o, respe*ct*, respe*ct*o, respe*it*o
perfe*tt*o, parfa*it*, perfe*ct*o, perfe*it*o
corre*tt*o, corre*ct*, corre*ct*o, corre*ct*o (corre*t*o) 
fa*tt*o, fa*it*, he*ch*o, fe*it*o 
diri*tt*o, dro*it*, dere*ch*o, dire*it*o 

The question is this: is there any rule that make us predict whether there is _*ct/t*_ or _*it/ch*_? 

Thanks to everyone


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> The question is this: is there any rule that make us predict whether there is _*ct/t*_ or _*it/ch*_?


The _k_ in clusters like _kt_ vocalized to _i_/_y_ in French, Spanish, and Portuguese (and triggered palatalization in Spanish). You can see this development in the popular outcomes of _factum_ and _directum_ in your list. For further examples, look at basic vocabulary like _noctem_, _octo_, _*lactem__._ The words in your list that retain _kt_ are learned reborrowings.


----------



## Nino83

CapnPrep said:


> The words in your list that retain _kt_ are learned reborrowings.



Thank you! 

Another question: why we have for the same word two different outcomes? For example, perfe*ct*o in Spanish but parfa*it*/perfe*it*o in French and Portuguese or respe*ct*/respe*ct*o in French and Spanish and respe*it*o in Portuguese? 

Were these words reborrowed in a different time? This is not a very persuasive conclusion. 

Why are there these differences? 

In Italian all reborrowings were adapted to the new pronunciation (i.e _*tt*_), also in writing.


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> Another question: why we have for the same word two different outcomes? For example, perfe*ct*o in Spanish but parfa*it*/perfe*it*o in French and Portuguese or respe*ct*/respe*ct*o in French and Spanish and respe*it*o in Portuguese?


The dividing line between popular and learned vocabulary is not always clear, and each word has its own story: when it entered the language, how often it was used, by whom, and in what situations, and how the word was influenced by the other words in the language. This can easily lead to distinct outcomes for similar-looking words in the same language. French _parfait_, for example, is still linked to the verb _faire_, whereas _respect_ is not deverbal, and instead has links with a family of words like _aspect_, _suspect_, _perspective_, _inspection_, _spectacle_. But note also the doublet form _répit_ (cf. _dépit_ < despectum).

Every language has its own history, too, so there is no reason to expect French, Spanish, and Portuguese always to go in the same direction.


Nino83 said:


> In Italian all reborrowings were adapted to the new pronunciation (i.e _*tt*_), also in writing.


Yes, Italian is generally very boring in this respect.  However, you can find _kt_ in more recent loans (not necessarily from Latin) and in specialized vocabulary: _cactus_, _factotum_, _detective_, _directory_, _-ectomia_, etc.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you CapnPrep. 

So English kept the original _*ct*_ while Italian changed it to _*tt*_. 
It's a pity that French, Spanish and Portuguese hadn't regularized this consonant cluster, because one has to search for every single word in the dictionary. 

It doesn't matter  

Ciao


----------



## Quiviscumque

Dear Nino83, do you mean that we Spanish-speakers, even if we say [eʧo], should write "facto" just in order to alleviate your workload ?
Now seriously, the typical Spanish speaker is not aware of the fact that "estrecho" and "estricto" are the same word (if you want to say so). Nor should he, I think.


----------



## Nino83

Quiviscumque said:


> Dear Nino83, do you mean that we Spanish-speakers, even if we say [eʧo], should write "facto" just in order to alleviate your workload ?
> Now seriously, the typical Spanish speaker is not aware of the fact that "estrecho" and "estricto" are the same word (if you want to say so). Nor should he, I think.



No, I wasn't so serious  
I've just said that French, Spanish and Portuguese writing would be easier if this cluster were more regular, but if it's not like that, it's not a problem. 

P.S. 
The Spanish shouldn't write "facto". I was asking why they didn't regularise all these words, for example, saying efecho, respecho, perfecho (just like the Portuguese say efeito, respeito, perfeito), correcho, instead of mantaining the Latin pronunciation.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I'd like to throw in words like auto/acto and cautivo.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> So English kept the original _*ct*_


No it didn't "keep" it. Words like _perfect _(Middle English _parfit_) are early Modern English re-Latinizations.


----------



## CapnPrep

Angelo di fuoco said:


> I'd like to throw in words like auto/acto and cautivo.


Could you also throw in some commentary about why you are throwing in these words? Particularly _auto_, since _cautivo_ is slightly off-topic (< Latin _pt_, not _kt_).


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ...I've just said that French, Spanish and Portuguese writing would be easier if this cluster were more regular ...


The same can be said e.g. in case of the Italian prefixes _re-/ri-/ra_- (though _ra-_ is a bit different as it comes from _re+ad_). We have _recuperare, responsabile, reazione, rappresentare, __rispondere, ritornare, ripetizione _... while in Spanish it's always _re-. 
_


> _... _I was asking why they didn't regularise all these words, for example, saying efecho, respecho, perfecho ...


Because the cluster _ct_ does not "spontaneousely" or automatically become _ch _in Spanish. To obtain _efecho _from _efecto _all the phonetical process explained by CapnPrep (#2) should be repeated somehow which already does not work.


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Because the cluster _ct_ does not "spontaneousely" or automatically become _ch _in Spanish. To obtain _efecho _from _efecto _all the phonetical process explained by CapnPrep (#2) should be repeated somehow which already does not work.



So was it more likely that _*ct*_ becomes _*it*_ in Portuguese than _*ch*_ in Spanish? Why?


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> So is it more likely that _*ct*_ becomes _*it*_ in Portuguese than _*ch*_ in Spanish? Why?


Maybe in a certain period in the past yes (as from _ct _to_ it_ only one "step" was needed), but today I think no more. There are learned words also in Portuguese where _ct _has not become _it_, e.g. _reto (<recto), efetivo, afeto, estrito (_but also _estreito), _etc ... All in all, generally I think the Portuguese rather maintains more words like _perfeito_, while in Spanish they were lost/replaced. By the way _perfecho _exists in the Asturian language.

P.S. I can imagine (but I don't know) that some words in Spanish never had the variant with _ch_, but they were replaced by the Latin variant earlier (i.e. when the _it_ was not yet palatalized to _ch_) or simply, they never existed in the spoken language.


----------



## Youngfun

The most common mistake for me in Portuguese is that I used to never remember _corre(c)to_ and write _correito_ instead, which coincidentally is the pronunciation in many Brazilian accents. 
So instead of a foreigner, I could pass for an ignorant Brazilian.


----------



## francisgranada

Youngfun said:


> ... which coincidentally is the pronunciation in many Brazilian accents.


Is this valid also for other words with original _ct_?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Maybe in a certain period in the past yes (as from _ct _to_ it_ only one "step" was needed), but today I think no more.



Right, I didn't think about this step. 



francisgranada said:


> Is this valid also for other words with original _ct_?



The Cariocas tend to pronounce vowels before final [s] as diphthongs (for example [ũma veiʃ] for uma vez), so it could be a dialectal feature.


----------



## Youngfun

Now that I think about it, I think I got confused. Paulistas only add "i" before s (_três_ [treis]) or nasal (_viagem_ [vjaʒeĩ]). 
Not sure if they add it in "correto". So let's wait for a Brazilian to confirm.


----------



## Cossue

Incidentally, and as a speaker of Galician, a sister language of Portuguese, I can confirm that many clusters ([k.t], [b.s], [p.t], [k.k]...) present in learned words are difficult for many popular speakers, who tend to pronounce them either as a single stop consonant, or as a closed vowel or semivowel and a consonant, so regularizing them to the inherited lexicon. An anecdote: I work in an employment office in western Galicia (in Barbanza), which means that many people come by me in a daily basis asking about the "subsidio" (dole, unemployment subsidy). Now, while most people speaking Castilian Spanish would pronounce it [sub'si.dio], many Galician speakers would say [su:si.di.o] and some even [sui'si.di.o]... which sound exactly as a local would pronounce "suicidio" 'suicide'  (which anyway is another learned word who no popular speaker would use, using "matou-se" "he/she killed him/herself" instead). And although I don't longer hear it, [dow'tor] was in the past the common pronunciation of "doctor".


----------



## Youngfun

Cossue said:


> many Galician speakers would say [su:si.di.o] and some even [sui'si.di.o]... which sound exactly as a local would pronounce "suicidio" 'suicide'


In Brazil _subsídio_ would be pronounced [subi'sid(ʒ)iu].



> [dow'tor] was in the past the common pronunciation of "doctor".


Which is the standard in Portuguese: _doutor_.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

CapnPrep said:


> Could you also throw in some commentary about why you are throwing in these words? Particularly _auto_, since _cautivo_ is slightly off-topic (< Latin _pt_, not _kt_).



It's a similar phenomenon: the vocalisation of the first consonant in a consonant cluster, although with a somewhar different outcome. While preceding e seems to convert ct in it- in -ch, a seems to favorise -uCt, be that consonant c (auto), p (cautivo) or (at least, in writing) b, like in ausencia.


----------



## bearded

Hello
To the languages mentioned, I think that also Romanian could be added:
(usually) *ct > pt*
Example: nocte(m) > noapte.
The reason for this evolution is not very clear, it seems.


----------



## CapnPrep

Angelo di fuoco said:


> While preceding e seems to convert ct in it- in -ch, a seems to favorise -uCt, be that consonant c (auto), p (cautivo) or (at least, in writing) b, like in ausencia.


But _factum_ has an _a_… I think examples like _auto_ and _pauta_ must be non-Castilian dialectal forms.

The _u_ in _cautivo_, _ausencia_ is probably linked to the labial articulation of _p_ and _b_, since you also get it after _e_, e.g. deb_ta > deuda._


----------



## danielstan

bearded man said:


> Hello
> To the languages mentioned, I think that also Romanian could be added:
> (usually) *ct > pt*
> Example: nocte(m) > noapte.
> The reason for this evolution is not very clear, it seems.



Try to find "reason" in the evolution of a language is just to distinguish possible situations for 1 change like the above:
1) internal evolution of the language (the "dictatorship" of the speakers who could modify the language in any aspect, unconsciously)
2) the influence of another language, influence which is received by bilingual speakers

For the case of Latin group _*ct*_ - it is remarkable this group was not stable (unchanged) in any Romance language.

I will not solve the above Romanian case (I believe it is an internal evolution of the language).
====================
Romanian phonetic rule:
Latin ct > Romanian pt

Rule is satisfied by all cases of applicability.
lat. _octo _> rom. _opt_
lat. _lucta _> rom. lupta
lat. _directus _> rom. _drept_
lat. accusative _noctem _> rom. _noapte_
lat. acc. _lactem _> rom. _lapte_
lat. _factum _> rom. _fapt _
I don't know exceptions.
===============
Albanian(*) phonetic rule:
Latin ct > Albanian ft
Rule is satisfied by almost all cases of applicability.
lat. _lucta_ > alb. _luftë_ 
lat. *trocta > alb. troftë
lat. cotoneum > alb. ftua
Exceptions, dependant of the previous syllable:
lat. directus > alb. dreitë
lat. tractare > alb. traitoj

(*) Although Albanian is not a Romance language, it has suffered a great influence from Balkanic Vulgar Latin.
Some linguists consider Albanian as a half-Romanised language.


----------



## Delvo

Nino83 said:


> So English kept the original _*ct*_ while Italian changed it to _*tt*_.





berndf said:


> No it didn't "keep" it. Words like _perfect _(Middle English _parfit_) are early Modern English re-Latinizations.


... as can be seen from other examples which were adopted earlier in which "ct" became "t": joint (junct-), point (punct-), saint (sanct-).


----------



## Nino83

danielstan said:


> Romanian phonetic rule: Latin ct > Romanian pt
> Rule is satisfied by all cases of applicability. I don't know exceptions.



_actus > act_, while in Italian it is _atto_.

It seems that Latin learned words in Italian were adapted to the common pronunciation while in French, Spanish, Catalan and Romanian the Classical Latin pronunciation was retained, against the common pronunciation.
In Portuguese these words were written according to the Classical Latin spelling but the cluster was reduced to a single /t/ in most words and the last _acordo ortográfico_ follows the common pronunciation, see _ato_ and _fato_ (insteid of _acto_ and _facto_).

This seems very strange to me, it is like French and Spanish didn't find their pronunciation appropriate, like they felt ashamed of their popular pronunciation.
Why one would retain a pronunciation that is 1500 years old?


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> It seems that Latin learned words in Italian were adapted to the common pronunciation while in French, Spanish, Catalan and Romanian the Classical Latin pronunciation was retained, against the common pronunciation.


But how can you tell that those words are learned in Italian? What would have been the common pronunciation/popular development of _actum_ or _factum_? As I mentioned in an earlier message (#4 above), Italian does have unassimilated _kt_ clusters in some types of words.


----------



## Nino83

CapnPrep said:


> But how can you tell that those words are learned in Italian? What would have been the common pronunciation/popular development of _actum_ or _factum_? As I mentioned in an earlier message (#4 above), Italian does have unassimilated _kt_ clusters in some types of words.



_Atto_ and _effettivo_ are not "popular" words, but they were reintroducted with the popular pronunciation of the Classical Latin cluster /kt/.
In fact, we have _act, efectiv_ (Romanian), _acte, effectif_ (French), _acte, efectiu_ (Catalan), _acto, efectivo_ (Spanish, Portuguese before _acordo ortográfico_).

In your example, _detective_ and _directory_ are borrowed from English, they are foreign words whose spelling is unalterated, _factotum_ and _cactus_ are non-translated Latin words (like _forum_), they retain the _um_ and _us_ endings, _-ectomia_ is a specialistic  suffix from the Greek.

Another example is _stretto_: _estricto/estrecho/estreito_ (Spanish, Portuguese before _acordo ortográfico_), _strict_ (Romanian), _strict_ (French), _estricte/estret_ (Catalan). 

In Italian both meaning ("strict" and "thin") are _stretto_, while in the other language we have a learned form for the first meaning and a popular form for the second one.  

It is evident that there were two different strategies between Italian and the other Romance languages.


----------



## Villeggiatura

Can you list the exceptions in Italian?
I know one, perhaps two:
practica - pratica
cybiosactes - cibiosacte? cibiosatte?


----------



## bearded

Hi, Villeggiatura
I think that there are several, but the following is just occurring to me:
Arcticu(m) - artico.


----------



## Nino83

Villeggiatura said:


> Can you list the exceptions in Italian?
> I know one, perhaps two:
> practica - pratica
> cybiosactes - cibiosacte? cibiosatte?



I have a master in law and I've never read _practica_, but only _pratica_.

Cybiosactes, cibiosacte, cibiosatte doesn't exist in Italian.
http://www.dizionario-latino.com/dizionario-latino-italiano.php?lemma=CYBIOSACTES100



bearded man said:


> Hi, Villeggiatura
> I think that there are several, but the following is just occurring to me:
> Arcticu(m) - artico.



Hi bearded man. Where have you read this word?
It is not present in _vocabolario Treccani_.

Note: I'm speaking of Romance words, not of words retaining the _-um_ and _-us_ endings (which are Latin) or borrowed from English without any spelling change.

EDIT: ah, you mean arcticum *>* artico, ok.


----------



## Villeggiatura

I mean from practica (Latin) to pratica (Italian)


bearded man said:


> Hi, Villeggiatura
> I think that there are several, but the following is just occurring to me:
> Arcticu(m) - artico.


_ct_ only please, no _nct rct, no ct+i-diphthong_


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> Hi bearded man. Where have you read this word?
> It is not present in _vocabolario Treccani_.


Well, 'artico' and 'antartico' are very common Italian words, and the absence in Treccani surprises me.
Artico from 'arcticu(m)' from Greek adjective _arktikòs (originally ''under the constellation of the bear/arktos'') _relating to the North Pole.
Anyhow, apparently Villeggiatura does not accept examples of ''consonant+ct'', although to me 'artico'' seemed to be a good example of reduction of ct to simple t.  But yes, he is right: the cluster rct is something different.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, bearded man, I didn't get the meaning of the symbol "-" instead of ">".

Yes, _rct_ is different.
We're speaking of the evolution of intervocalic _ct_ (not followed by yod), which became _it_ in Western Romance languages, mantained in Portuguese but evolved in French (/t/ not pronounced and /i/ coalesced with the preceeding vowel) and Spanish (_ch_).

About _practica > pratica_, it derives from Greek and it is a proparoxytone word, so the stress could have influenced the normal evolution.
In Latin words _ct_ is often present in paroxytone words, if we exclude those words formed with suffixes, for example _-arius_, where by analogy with the simple word, the evolution was the same, for example _refractus, refractarius > refra*tt*ario_ (also this is not a popular word, it is learned).


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> About _practica > pratica_, it derives from Greek and it is a proparoxytone word, so the stress could have influenced the normal evolution.


Then how do you explain 'eclettico' which is also proparoxytone and also derived from Greek (_eklektikòs)_? Why is it not 'eclètico'?


----------



## Nino83

bearded man said:


> Then how do you explain 'eclettico' which is also proparoxytone and also derived from Greek (_eklektikòs)_? Why is it not 'eclètico'?



The word _practica_ derives from the verb _practico_, so -_ctica_ is in the stem while _eklektikos_ derives from _ἐκλέγω_, _eklego_, so it could be that in this case _-cticus_ was seen as a suffix, like in _refrattario_.
This is only a possible explanation, I'm not sure of it and I don't strongly propose it. 

It can be that _pratica_ is an exception. But, also in this case, the Classical Latin pronunciation /kt/ was not retained, while the other Romance languages retained it.


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> The word _pratica_ derives from the verb _pratico_, so -_ctica_ is in the stem


That is only true if 'pratica' is a verb (3rd person), but not if it is a noun or an adjective, as it can well be in our language. Like _eklekticos, _also _praktikos_ is from a verb (_prasso < prak-so)..._so there should be no real difference.
I think that 'pratico/a' is a real exception, as I do not see why the pronunciation ct>tt has not been retained.
_''Val meglio la pratica della grammatica''_


----------



## Nino83

bearded man said:


> I think that 'pratico/a' is a real exception, as I do not see why the pronunciation ct>tt has not been retained. _''Val meglio la pratica della grammatica''_


----------



## Penyafort

Catalan reduced -IT- into -T-.

*FACTU *[faktu] > [fajtu] > feyt > *fet */fet/
*LACTE *[lakte] > [lajte] > lleit > *llet */ʎet/
*LÈCTU *[lɛktu] > [lejtu] > *llit */ʎit/
*PÈCTUS *[pɛktus] > [pejtus] > pits > *pit *
*STRÌCTU *> [strejtu] > *estret*
*DICTU* > [diktu] > [dijtu] > *dit*
*NÒCTE *[nɔkte] > [nojte] > nuit > *nit
LUCTA *[lukta] > [lujta] > *lluita */'ʎujtə/

But it was preserved if at the beginning:
*ÒCTO* [ɔkto] > [ojto] > uit > *vuit*, (Valencian) *huit*


----------



## bearded

Re: (Italian) pratico < practicu(m)
My theory is that the c was dropped to form a word with -atico ending in analogy with numerous other adjectives - of Latin and Greek origin -  having the suffix -atico.
Simpatico estatico selvatico pratico.


----------



## Nino83

Penyafort said:


> Catalan reduced -IT- into -T-



In popular words, but in learned words it follows the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian strategy, i.e it retains the Classical Latin pronunciation and spelling.



Penyafort said:


> *LÈCTU *[lɛktu] > *[ljeit] > [liit]* > *llit */ʎit/
> *NÒCTE *[nɔkte] > *[nwoit]* > nuit > *nit*



Some passage (diphthong) missing here.



bearded man said:


> Re: (Italian) pratico < practicu(m)
> My theory is that the c was dropped to form a word with -atico ending in analogy with numerous other adjectives - of Latin and Greek origin -  having the suffix -atico. Simpatico estatico selvatico pratico.



Convincing, it could be.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I would like to add an exception to Danielstan's post about the Romanian evolution of Latin -ct-.

*a vătăma *("to wound, to injure" < Latin _victimāre_) -> something similar happened in Portuguese _vitimar_.

Although not a part of this discussion, it is interesting to extend the discussion to why Latin -pt- also underwent significant changes in Romance languages.

Latin _septem_ / _ruptus_ / _neptis_ / _tempto_:

Catalan - set / - / néta, nét / tentar
French - sept* / - / nièce / tenter
Italian - sette / rotto / - / tentare
Portuguese - sete / roto / neta, neto / tentar
Romanian - șapte / rupt / - / - 
Spanish - siete / roto /nieta, nieto / tentar

* (N.B. silent "p")


----------



## Testing1234567

Seeing that French seldom mentioned here, I'm trying to throw in my little bit of knowledge in here:
*FACTU *[faktu] > [fajt] > [fɛt] > *fait */fɛ/
*LACTE *[lakte] > [lajt] > [lɛt] > *lait */lɛ/
*LÈCTU *[lɛktu] > [ljɛjt] > [lit] > *lit */li/
*PÈCTUS *[pɛktus] > [pjɛjts] > [pis] > *pis* /pi/
*TÉCTU* [tektu] > [tejt] > [toit] > *toit* /twa/
*DIRÉCTU* [direktu] > [dəreit] > [droit] > *droit* /dʁwa/
*STRÌCTU *[striktu] > [(ɛ)strejt] > [ɛstroit] > *étroit* /etʁwa/
*DICTU* [diktu] > [dejt] > [dit] > *dit* /di/
*NÒCTE *[nɔkte] > [nwɔjt] > [nyjt] > *nuit* /nɥi/
* FRUCTU *[fruktu] > [fryjt] > [fryjt] > *fruit */fʁɥi/

Also:
*OCTO* [ɔkto] > [wɔjt] > [yjt] > *huit* /ɥit/

--

EDIT: inserted "DIRECTU > droit"


----------



## Testing1234567

robbie_SWE said:


> Latin _septem_ / _ruptus_ / _neptis_ / _tempto_:
> 
> French - sept* / - / nièce / tenter
> * (N.B. silent "p")



*SEPTE* [sɛpte] > [sɛtt] > *sept* /sɛt/ ("*p*" is a learned insertion)
*NEPTIS *> (V.L.) *NEPTIA* [nɛptja] > [njɛttʲə] > [njɛsə] > *nièce* /njɛs/
*TEMPTARE* [temptare] > [tẽmtær] > [tẽtɛr] > *tenter* /tɑ̃te/


----------



## francisgranada

If we can extend this discussion also to _-pt_, then in modern Italian we have _opzione _and _optare_, that "normally" should have become *_ozione _and *_ottare_.


----------



## Testing1234567

More "pt" evolution to French:

*SCRIPTU* [skriptu] > [(ɛ)skritt] > [ɛskrit] > [ɛkrit] > [ekrit] > [ekri] > *écrit* /ekʁi/
*SUPTUS* [suptus] > [sots] > [sous]> [su] > *sous* /su/

EDIT: corrected some steps in "*SUPTUS*>*sous*"


----------



## Testing1234567

francisgranada said:


> If we can extend this discussion also to _-pt_, then in modern Italian we have _opzione _and _optare_, that "normally" should have become *_ozione _and *_ottare_.


This can be easily explained by "they are borrowed after the pt>tt change".


----------



## danielstan

robbie_SWE said:


> I would like to add an exception to Danielstan's post about the Romanian evolution of Latin -ct-.
> 
> *a vătăma *("to wound, to injure" < Latin _victimāre_) -> something similar happened in Portuguese _vitimar_.


Thank you!
I have not known this exception and it escaped to some Romanian linguists, too (because the _*ct > pt*_ phonetic rule is treated in many Romanian books).

Another one is:
_strâmt _("narrow" < lat. *strinctus < Classical Latin strictus)
I don't know how they reconstructed the *_strinctus_, but I guess this *_strinctus _could reasonably explain words in other Romance languages or dialects.
I also know that _strâmt _was also spelled _strimt _in some Romanian texts of 16th century - probably it was pronounced like this in some regions with dialectal differences.

Out of topic: The online Romanian dictionary I use is: http://www.dex.ro (DEX = *d*ictionar *ex*plicativ (al limbii române))
which uses printed dictionaries edited by the Romanian Academy.


----------



## Testing1234567

danielstan said:


> I don't know how they reconstructed the *_strinctus_, but I guess this *_strinctus _could reasonably explain words in other Romance languages or dialects.



French *étreint* < estreint < streint, which only correspond to *strínctus*, because **strentus* would give **étrent*
Italian *strinto* < strintus, which can also correspond to *strínctus*


----------



## Testing1234567

Or by comparing with other words.

Latin *cinctus* > *CINCTU* [kinktu] > [kʲeint] > [seĩt] > *ceint* /sɛ̃/
Latin *tinctus* > *TINCTU* [tinctu] > [teint] > [teĩt] > *teint* /tɛ̃/ 
Latin *punctus* > *PUNCTU* [punktu] > [point] > [poĩt] > *point* /pwɛ̃/

(Oops, all of them are French.)


----------



## Testing1234567

(I know this is off-topic)

It's fun to predict what *CORRECTUS* would become if it went through the dark ages.

*CORRÈCTU* [kɔrˈrɛktu] > [kərˈrjɛjt] > [krjɛjt] > [krit] > **crit* /kʁi/


----------



## Nino83

It is a bit off-topic, /pt/ cluster was a lot more regular among Western and Italian Romance languages.
There should be a different thread about it.



francisgranada said:


> If we can extend this discussion also to _-pt_, then in modern Italian we have _opzione _and _optare_, that "normally" should have become *_ozione _and *_ottare_.



There is an alternative form, _ottare_. http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/ottare/
I'd like to make this form the most common.  



Testing1234567 said:


> *CORRÈCTU* [kɔrˈrɛktu] > [kərˈrjɛjt] > [krjɛjt] > [krit] > **crit* /kʁi/



In French pretonic vowels in closed syllables are often retained (it is different from _directum_). 

It would be _courit_ or _corit_ (see _córrere > courir_).


----------



## Testing1234567

Courir actually comes from currere:
*CURRERE* [ˈkurrere] > [korˈrir] > [kouˈrir] > [kuˈrir] > *courir* /kuˈʁiʁ/
cf. *SUBTUS* [ˈsuptus] > [ˈsottəs] > [ˈsots] > [ˈsous] > *sous* /su/

"O" in Latin corresponds to "o" in French:
*CÒRRÈCTU* [kɔrˈrɛktu] > [kɔrˈrjɛjt] > [kɔrit] > [kɔrit] > **corit* /kɔʁi/

Thanks for your teaching also.


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Courir actually comes from currere



More precisely cǔrrěre (then /ǔ/ > /ó/, córrere in Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance).

In Romance languages, /ó/ and /ò/ are reduced to /ó/ in unstressed syllables (like /é/ and /è/ to /é/).
Then córrere and córrecto have the same vowel, i.e /ó/ that became /u/ in Old French.


----------



## Testing1234567

Looks like courre is from the same word.
*CURRERE* > /kórere/ > /kórre/ > /kourre/ > *courre*



Nino83 said:


> More precisely cǔrrěre (then /ǔ/ > /ó/, córrere in Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance).


Sorry, I misunderstood the "ó" (I thought it was a stress).


----------



## Testing1234567

So, we have this?
*CÒRRÈCTU* [kɔrˈrɛktu] > [korˈrjɛjt] > [korit] > [kourit] > **courit* /kuʁi/


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> So, we have this?
> *CÒRRÈCTU* [kɔrˈrɛktu] > [korˈrjɛjt] > [korit] > [kourit] > **courit* /kuʁi/



Yes.


----------



## Testing1234567

More:

*EFFECTU* [ɛfˈfɛktu] > [eˈfɛkt] > [əˈfjɛjt] > [əˈfit] > **efit* /əˈfi/
(respectus actually gave rise to répit)
*OPTIONE* [ɔpˈtjone] > [oˈt͡sʲon] > [oˈsũ] > **oçon* /oˈsɔ̃/

A side note: I was not aware of any "-tion" that got into the dark ages, so I evolved it according to the common rules, and when I saw "çon", "leçon" immediately comes to my mind, and it miraculously confirms my evolution.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, in French they would be: act > è, èct > i, éct > wa, òct > ɥi, óct > wa, uct > ɥi.


----------



## merquiades

@Nino83   For French *étroit *and strict.

I have often been perplexed over Italian.  Strangely it seems to me not to have evolved as much as other Romance languages (tectum > tetto, techo, toit)  but at the same time the link to its Latin origins has disappeared.  For example, the h is gone, lli is written gl, and more relevant to this thread all consonant clusters have been simplified in one way or another.  Here ct = pretty much always tt (esatto, exacto, exact).  

Spanish underwent strong re-Latinization during the Renaissance, Siglo de Oro, Baroque, Neoclassic periods.  It was thought that it was impure and needed to be purified and dignified.  The most bastardized characteristics had to be tweaked out.  It was phonetic (if there is an initial f in any word in Spanish it's due to re-latinization,  final -e was also reinstated after it was lost, etc.) but also grammatical (verb tenses like the simple pluperfect were reintroducted, hyperbaton= giving the language a more latin word order) and lexical (thousands of words were taken directly from Latin).  At times you could feel free take any word remove the -um or -us and the -o and it became correct correct Castilian.  Read Gongora's poetry and you can see just how far it could be taken.  I'm sure in he was capable of inventing  *el tecto or *la lacte or *estrecto.  Many of these Latinizations did not stick but quite a bit did too.  For example we have hondo and fondo along with a form coming from the old pronunciation jondo.  But horma for forma is long gone.  Perhaps there were words like correcho but they could have passed into history without a trace.  I'm sure we could we could look at pre-Renaissance texts and find lots of dead forms.

French is a little bit difference.  It also suffered strong re-Latinization.  The spelling attests that and has fortunately remained fixed for many centuries, so someone with direct knowledge of Latin or indirect through Spanish or English can read it easily.  However the pronunciation has continued changing, and at times rather quickly too.  Digitus > Doigt but pronounced Dwa.   As for the ct combination which has been retained, it is now normally silent.   Respect (respè), aspect (aspè) which rhyme with parfait (parfè), fait (fè) and effet (effè).  Largely in oral speech it doesn't matter how it finally was written the pronunciation is the same.   Excepte, actus > acte (act).

Perhaps the fact that Latin in itself was so often used in Italy during the 14-19th centuries, and Italian was more of an oral language, this preserved Italian from re-latinization?   Why do you need to re-latinize when you've got Latin already?  Maybe the political divisions also played a role.


----------



## Testing1234567

French went as far as writing sçavoir for savoir (because they thought it comes from scire).


----------



## Testing1234567

Why is "ct" > "it" but "pt" > "tt"? Is it because the "c" is palatalized in French? But this phenomenon is also observed in Portugese and Spanish where "c" is not palatalized?


----------



## Penyafort

Nino83 said:


> In popular words, but in learned words it follows the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian strategy, i.e it retains the Classical Latin pronunciation and spelling.



Obviously, but it is their evolution that is the most interesting and make the languages different. Otherwise it would all be mostly reduced to mere endings.



Nino83 said:


> Some passage (diphthong) missing here.



Quite possibly, specially comparing it to Occitan, Aragonese and French. But if so, the reduction of the diphthong in Catalan must have taken place very early, as there are attested samples of it in placenames and early non-literary texts of the 10th and 11th centuries.

Could we reformulate it as:

NOCTE ['nɔkte]
> *['nɔjte]
> *[nwɔjt/nwejt]
> Aragonese: nueyt [nwejt] > *nueit*, *nuet*
> Gascon: nueit > *nuèit*, *nèit*, *net*
> Occitan: nueit > *nuèit*, *nuèch*, *nuòch*​> *[nwujt]
> *[n(w)it]
> Catalan: *nit*​> *[nyit]
> French: *nuit */nɥi/​


merquiades said:


> @Nino83
> Spanish underwent strong re-Latinization during the Renaissance, Siglo de Oro, Baroque, Neoclassic periods.  It was thought that it was impure and needed to be purified and dignified.  The most bastardized characteristics had to be tweaked out.  It was phonetic (if there is an initial f in any word in Spanish it's due to re-latinization,  final -e was also reinstated after it was lost, etc.) but also grammatical (verb tenses like the simple pluperfect were reintroducted, hyperbaton= giving the language a more latin word order) and lexical (thousands of words were taken directly from Latin).  At times you could feel free take any word remove the -um or -us and the -o and it became correct correct Castilian.  Read Gongora's poetry and you can see just how far it could be taken.  I'm sure in he was capable of inventing  *el tecto or *la lacte or *estrecto.  Many of these Latinizations did not stick but quite a bit did too.  For example we have hondo and fondo along with a form coming from the old pronunciation jondo.  But horma for forma is long gone.  Perhaps there were words like correcho but they could have passed into history without a trace.  I'm sure we could we could look at pre-Renaissance texts and find lots of dead forms.



In my opinion, going back to _lacte _or _estrecto _might have been a bit too far-fetched, since they were words used by common people. But I guess that literary forms could be re-Latinized much better. In many cases, the doublets contributed to set certain interesting differences, the 'native' one being more common or obvious/physical, the 'Latin' one being more used for a more elaborated concept (as, for example, we see in _estrecho _and _estricto_). In a certain way, it reminds me of English using Germanic words for daily things and Latin/Romance words for more abstract concepts.

_Correcho_, by the way, appears indeed in the Spanish diachronical corpus (CORDE), but only used once in the 13th-century Alfonso X's partidas.


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> Why is "ct" > "it" but "pt" > "tt"? Is it because the "c" is palatalized in French? But this phenomenon is also observed in Portugese and Spanish where "c" is not palatalized?


What do you mean by "_c_ is palatalized in French"? In fact, the sound _k_ after a vowel and before another consonant palatalized to yod in all of the languages you mentioned. The sound _p_ did not undergo this change, because it is a very different sound from _k_.


----------



## Testing1234567

*PLUS DE LINGUAS*

Latin: FACTVM LACTEM LECTVM PECTUS STRICTVM STRICTVM DICTVM NOCTEM LVCTAM OCTO
Vulgar Latin: [FACTU] [LACTÉ] [LÈCTU] [PÈCTUS] [STRICTU] [STRINCTU] [DICTU] [NÒCTÉ] [LUCTA] [ÒCTO]
Aragonese: feito - - peito - - - nueit luita ueit(o)
Aromanian: faptu lapti - cheptu - strimtu/strãmtu - noapti lumtã optu
Asturian: fechu lleche - pechu estrechu - dichu nueche llucha ocho
Catalan: fet llet llit pit estret - dit nit lluita vuit
Dalmatian: - - ljat - - - dat nuat - uapto/guapto/uat
Extremaduran: - lechi - - - - - nochi - -
French: fait lait lit pis étroit étreint dit nuit lutte huit
Friulian: fat lat jet pet stret strent dit gnot lote vot
Galician: feito leite - peito - - dito noite loita oito
Istriot: fato - - - - strento deîto n(u)oto - uot(t)o
Italian: fatto latte letto petto stretto strinto detto notte lotta otto
Occitan: fach lach/lait lèit pitre/pièch estrech/estreit - dich nuèit/nuèch lucha uèch/uèit/uòch
Piedmontese: - - - - - - neuit - -
Portuguese: feito leite leito peito estreito/estrito dito noite luta oito
Romanian: fapt lapte - piept - strâmt zis noapte luptă opt
Romansch: fat(g) lat(g) letg pet/pèz stret(g) - - not(g) lutga/lotga/luotta ot(g)/och
Sardinian: fat(t)u late/lati letu petus - (i)strintu - not(t)i - òto/òtu
Sicilian: fattu latti lettu pettu strittu - dittu notti lutta ottu
Spanish: hecho leche lecho pecho estrecho - dicho noche lucha ocho
Venetian: fato lat(e) łeto peto stret(o) strent(o) dito note lota oto
Walloon: - laecea - - stroet - - nute - ût

*"/" MOSTRAT VARIATIONE
"-" MOSTRAT ASSENTIA*


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> I have often been perplexed over Italian.  Strangely it seems to me not to have evolved as much as other Romance languages (tectum > tetto, techo, toit)  but at the same time the link to its Latin origins has disappeared.



Hi, merquiades.  
I'm not saying that retaining Classical Latin spelling and pronunciation is good or bad.  
My question is if French, Spanish, Catalan and, partially, Portuguese, retained Classical Latin spelling in learned words while Italian adapted those words to the common/popular pronunciation. 
It seems it is so.  



Penyafort said:


> Quite possibly, specially comparing it to Occitan, Aragonese and French. But if so, the reduction of the diphthong in Catalan must have taken place very early, as there are attested samples of it in placenames and early non-literary texts of the 10th and 11th centuries.





> Diphthongization of /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ before palatal consonants (with subsequent loss of middle vowel if a triphthong is produced). Spanish and Portuguese instead raise the vowel to become mid-high; in Spanish, this prevents diphthongization. (But diphthongization between palatals does occur in Aragonese.)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Catalan 

Yes, it took place before /oi/ > /we/ in French (1250) because _nocte > noit > nwet > nwa_ and _tecto > teit > toit > twa_ changed like closed /é/ in open syllables (_mese > meis > mois > mwes > mwa_).


----------



## francisgranada

Testing1234567 said:


> This can be easily explained by "they are borrowed after the pt>tt change".


Nevertheless it is rather an exception, probably influenced by the English _option_. According to the dictionary of Treccany also _ottare _does exist in Italian (with a slightly different meaning).


----------



## Testing1234567

francisgranada said:


> Nevertheless it is rather an exception, probably influenced by the English _option_. According to the dictionary of Treccany also _ottare _does exist in Italian (with a slightly different meaning).



I see. I forgot another explanation: re-latinization.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> For French *étroit *and strict.
> 
> French is a little bit difference.
> As for the ct combination which has been retained, it is now normally silent.
> Respect (respè), aspect (aspè) which rhyme with parfait (parfè), fait (fè) and effet (effè).  Largely in oral speech it doesn't matter how it finally was written the pronunciation is the same.   Excepte, actus > acte (act).



Probably for the _ect_ ending but in _correct, direct, select, affect,_ /kt/ is pronounced, and also other endings, for example _tact, pacte, exacte, tract, impact, compact, abstract_ and so on.


----------



## Testing1234567

FACTVM
>[faktu]
---->[fattu]
---------------->Italian: fatto
-------------------->Istriot: fato
-------------------->Venetian: fato
---------------->Sardinian: fattu, fatu
---------------->Sicilian: fattu
---->[faptu]
---------------->Aromanian: faptu
---------------->Romanian: fapt
---->[fajtu]
-------->[fatʲu]
---------------->Romansch: fatg, fat
---------------->Occitan: fach
-------->[fajtʲu]
---------------->Asturian: fechu
---------------->Spanish: hecho
-------->[fajt]
---------------->French: fait
---------------->Catalan: fet
---------------->Friulian: fat
-------->[fejtu]
---------------->Aragonese: feito
---------------->Galician: feito
---------------->Portuguese: feito


----------



## Testing1234567

Nino83 said:


> Probably for the _ect_ ending but in _correct, direct, select, affect,_ /kt/ is pronounced, and also other endings, for example _tact, pacte, exacte, tract, impact, compact, abstract_ and so on.



It seems to me that the "-ct" is pronounced when it is an adjective, and not when it is a noun.

"select" and "tact" are borrowed from English, hence "-ct" pronounced.
Is "affect" a word?

I can't explain other words.


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> "select" and "tact" are borrowed from English, hence "-ct" pronounced.



Yes, _select_ is borrowed from English, but _tact_ and _affect_ from Latin. 

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tact 
http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/affect


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> My question is if French, Spanish, Catalan and, partially, Portuguese, retained Classical Latin spelling in learned words while Italian adapted those words to the common/popular pronunciation ...


I have the impression that in Italian it's _natural _to assimilate/simplify spontaneously some consonant clusters in  pronunciation (in foreign words) even today, or at least until the recent times. Plus, from -_ct-_ to_ -tt- _ there is only one step.

For example, the Latin _factura _(in the "modern" sense of _invoice_) in my opinion "naturally" becomes _fattura _in Italian, and this word is also easy to associate with _fatto_, past participle of _fare _- to do. This is not possible in Spanish, as neither the complex sound shift _act>eit>ech_ nor the sound shift _f>h_ was actual any more when this word was "adopted". Plus, the connection with _hecho_ is not automatically obvious_. _So practically the only solution was to maintain the Latin form _factura _both in spelling and pronunciation. Of course, this doesn't exclude further possible evolution of the pronunciation, e.g. _ct>t.  
_
In other words, while the Italian _fattura _is (only) an "adaptation", the Spanish _hechura* _would be a (complex)  "retrospective reconstruction".

*** There is also _hechura _in Spanish


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

merquiades said:


> @Nino83   For French *étroit *and strict.
> 
> I have often been perplexed over Italian.  Strangely it seems to me not to have evolved as much as other Romance languages (tectum > tetto, techo, toit)  but at the same time the link to its Latin origins has disappeared.  For example, the h is gone, lli is written gl, and more relevant to this thread all consonant clusters have been simplified in one way or another.  Here ct = pretty much always tt (esatto, exacto, exact).
> 
> [...]
> 
> Perhaps the fact that Latin in itself was so often used in Italy during the 14-19th centuries, and Italian was more of an oral language, this preserved Italian from re-latinization?   Why do you need to re-latinize when you've got Latin already?  Maybe the political divisions also played a role.



Nope. The culprits are the Tuscan writers who at a very early stage established the preeminence of their _volgare_. Tuscan had a great prestige, both as oral and as written language with a great ininterrupted literary tradition. Debates about standardisation of the Italian (Tuscan) language go back to Dante. Besides, at least Napoletan and Venetian enjoyed official status for some time (even if Napoletan was very early replaced by Tuscan), they also have their own literary traditions, although authors from all regions of Italy mostly wrote in Tuscan. Italian (Tuscan) poetry (the Tre Corone, in first place) has influenced poetry all over the Romance-speaking countries of Western Europe, Italian influenced French (not last thanks to the Medici queens). The Accademia della Crusca is even older (by several decades) than the Académie Française. 

Dante, Petrarca & Boccaccio tended to relatinise the language somewhat. This includes some features like h (like in huomo), the letter y and the digraph ph, correcly etymological spelling not corresponding to the pronunciation and even falsely etymological hypercorrect spelling, to sum up in very few words some phenomena I see described in the preface to Vittore Branca's critical edition of the Decameron.
One of the biggest problems of the Italian language for me are its maddening doublets and triplets. E. g. for "I see" older Italian knows veggio & veggo (cf. modern vedo - definitely more Latinate in shape), you have the e/i oscillation (irregular and impredictable), the double consonants (not very consistent if you compare it with Latin) and so on. It's not as bad as in Dante's time, but still enough to make me check the spelling more often than in Spanish and even French (there my principal problem is the use of the accent aigu, also not quite regular). 
You can speak of a standardisation process of the Tuscan vernacular since Pietro Bembo in the early 16th century. The model taken was the popular upper-class written Florentine vernacular (as opposed to the purist policy of the Académie Française). Even so, Italian has got a great number of Latinisms: learned, reintroduced, kept almost unchanged or selected amongst competing forms of more popular origin. E. g. past participle assorbito vs. adj. assorto (with a different meaning), or desiderio & desiderare (desio, disio, desiare, disiderare), ratto (nowadays rare) vs. rapido.



Nino83 said:


> Probably for the _ect_ ending but in _correct, direct, select, affect,_ /kt/ is pronounced, and also other endings, for example _tact, pacte, exacte, tract, impact, compact, abstract_ and so on.



Are you sure all of these words exist in French in these very forms? I know "abstrait", but not "abstract", at least as adjective.


----------



## Testing1234567

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Are you sure all of these words exist in French in these very forms? I know "abstrait", but not "abstract", at least as adjective.


http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/abstract

ABSTRACT, subst. masc.
Étymol. ET HIST. − xxes. terme de docum. Empr. à l'angl. _abstract_ attesté au sens de « résumé » dep. 1528 (Gardiner ds Pocock, Rec. of Ref., I, 1, 117 ds NED : We send herein enclosed, abstracts of such letters as hath been sent to the pope's holiness);

ABSTRACT, substantif masculin
Étymologie ET HISTOIRE - vingtième siècle. terme de document. Emporté à l'anglais. _abstract_ attesté au sens de « résumé » depuis 1528 (Gardiner ds Pocock, Rec. of Ref., I, 1, 117 ds NED : We send herein enclosed, abstracts of such letters as hath been sent to the pope's holiness);


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Testing1234567 said:


> http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/abstract
> 
> ABSTRACT, subst. masc.
> Étymol. ET HIST. − xxes. terme de docum. Empr. à l'angl. _abstract_ attesté au sens de « résumé » dep. 1528 (Gardiner ds Pocock, Rec. of Ref., I, 1, 117 ds NED : We send herein enclosed, abstracts of such letters as hath been sent to the pope's holiness);
> 
> ABSTRACT, substantif masculin
> Étymologie ET HISTOIRE - vingtième siècle. terme de document. Emporté à l'anglais. _abstract_ attesté au sens de « résumé » depuis 1528 (Gardiner ds Pocock, Rec. of Ref., I, 1, 117 ds NED : We send herein enclosed, abstracts of such letters as hath been sent to the pope's holiness);



OK, thanks. Since this is a very recent loanword, I wouldn't add it to the discussion.


----------



## wtrmute

There is also the Portuguese noun _correição_, which can also be used as an alternative to _corre(c)ção_ "correction" and some other specialised meanings besides, which should go point to a vulgar form _*correito_.

As for _auto_, well, maybe it received influence from _autor_, considering one of the meanings is a kind of mediaeval allegorical play.


----------



## Penyafort

Testing1234567 said:


> FACTVM
> >[faktu]
> -------->[fajt]
> ---------------->French: fait
> *---------------->Catalan: fet*
> ---------------->Friulian: fat
> -------->[fejtu]
> ---------------->Aragonese: feito
> ---------------->Galician: feito
> ---------------->Portuguese: feito



There was a [fejt] stage attested in Old Catalan. In fact, one of the first important literary texts in Catalan is called the _Llibre dels *Feyts  *_'Book of the Deeds (Chronicle of James I)', written between 1240s-1270s. But the reduction into *fet *had probably become common already by the beginning of that century, before the conquest of Majorca (1229-1231).

Central Aragonese also reduces feito to *feto*.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

wtrmute said:


> There is also the Portuguese noun _correição_, which can also be used as an alternative to _corre(c)ção_ "correction" and some other specialised meanings besides, which should go point to a vulgar form _*correito_.
> 
> As for _auto_, well, maybe it received influence from _autor_, considering one of the meanings is a kind of mediaeval allegorical play.



Cf. absentia(m) -> ausencia.


----------



## danielstan

Testing1234567 said:


> *PLUS DE LINGUAS*
> 
> Latin: FACTVM LACTEM LECTVM PECTUS STRICTVM STRICTVM DICTVM NOCTEM LVCTAM OCTO
> Vulgar Latin: [FACTU] [LACTÉ] [LÈCTU] [PÈCTUS] [STRICTU] [STRINCTU] [DICTU] [NÒCTÉ] [LUCTA] [ÒCTO]
> Aragonese: feito - - peito - - - nueit luita ueit(o)
> ...
> *"/" MOSTRAT VARIATIONE
> "-" MOSTRAT ASSENTIA*



And few other words:

Latin: FRICTUS COCTUS DIRECTUS PECTEN
Aromanian: friptu coptu ãndreptu/ndreptu/dreptu cheaptini/chiaptini
Asturian: fritu - derechu peñe/peine
Catalan: frit cuit dret pinta
Dalmatian: frete - drat piacno
French: frit cuit droit peigne
Friulian: frit cuet/cott dret pietin
Italian: fritto cotto diritto/dritto pettine
Ladin: - - dërt/diret -
Occitan: - cuèch drech/drèit/dret penche
Megleno-Romanian: - - dirept -
Portuguese: frito cocto direito/direto pente
Romanian: fript copt drept/dirept (old Romanian) pieptene
Romansch: - cot(g) dret(g) petgen/pettan
Sardinian: fritu cottu daretu/deretu/diritu/dritu petene/petini/petiri
Sicilian: frittu cottu drittu/dirittu pèttini
Spanish: frito cocho (old Spanish) derecho peine/pendejo
Venetian: frito - dirito petene/peten
Walloon: - - droet -


----------



## Penyafort

danielstan said:


> And few other words:
> 
> Latin: FRICTUS COCTUS DIRECTUS PECTEN
> 
> Catalan: *frit *cuit dret pinta



_Frit _would be the logical solution and is attested in Old Catalan, but it probably never was a common word. The only word used for it is the analogical past participle _fregit_.

Spanish, on the other side, prefers _frito _to _freído_. But has forgotten _cocho _in favour of _cocido_.

Aragonese also seems to prefer the analogical solutions _freyiu _and _cociu_, but FRITO and CUEITO/CUETO exist.


----------

