# c/k <-> p



## Lusus Naturae

I've seen a few instances where p becomes c/k and vice versa:
καρδαμάλη, παρδαμάλη
vapn, vakn 
Campaspe, Pancaspe (could be metathesis).

Are there many such examples?


----------



## Riverplatense

The first thing that comes to my mind now is Latin PL- to [kj] in Neapolitan and other Southern Italian dialects: PLUS → _cchiù_.

Edit: Oh, and of course CT to [pt] in Romanian: NOCTEM → _noapte_.


----------



## Sobakus

I wonder if this happens as often with /t/ - my gut feeling is no, I suspect due to its greater acoustic difference from the other two stops, especially if non-dental. Or is there something in the articulation of the other two that they don't share with /t/, e.g. the low position of the tongue? It's also interesting to me that the interchange seems to often be conditioned by a following dental.


----------



## Riverplatense

Sobakus said:


> I wonder if this happens as often with /t/



Here we have Ladin: CLARUM → _tler_ (and also voiced: GLACIEM → _dlacia_). And again, always together with the vocalization of L. 

By the way I wonder if the previous state of <l> was dental/alveolar [l] indeed or maybe [ł], which would be typical for the vocalisation, like European vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Russian vs. Belarusian or the development of preconsonantal [l] in Bavarian dialects.


----------



## Sobakus

Riverplatense said:


> Here we have Ladin: CLARUM → _tler_ (and also voiced: GLACIEM → _dlacia_). And again, always together with the vocalization of L.


What do you mean? Does the graphic <L> stand for /w/ in those words?

Frankly it looks like simple assimilation, which in this particular cluster is quite common (other examples include German and English dialects with eg. _dlad_ for _glad_ and _tlein _for_ klein_). There's also plenty of examples of dissimilation in the same clusters, for instance in Lithuanian, proto-Latin and proto-Romance. Those are all regular, clearly specific to this cluster and thus in my opinion don't have much bearing on the standalone, irregular substitutions that are often found in borrowings or rare, obscure and substrate words. Granted, _vakn _seems to fit more into the first category.


> By the way I wonder if the previous state of <l> was dental/alveolar [l] indeed or maybe [ł], which would be typical for the vocalisation, like European vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Russian vs. Belarusian or the development of preconsonantal [l] in Bavarian dialects.


I think velarised L is a prerequisite to L-vocalisation, at least I've never encountered indications or implications of the opposite.


----------



## Riverplatense

Sobakus said:


> What do you mean? Does the graphic <L> stand for /w/ in those words?



No, I shouldn't have written the last sentence: it's wrong, of course. In Ladin L in KL was stable.



Sobakus said:


> Those are all regular, clearly specific to this cluster



Edit: So you say they are spontaneous or conditioned sound shifts?


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> I think velarised L is a prerequisite to L-vocalisation, at least I've never encountered indications or implications of the opposite.


He mentioned an example. Middle-Bavarian _l_ in the syllable code is vocalised to _i_, e.g. Gefühl > G'fuhl  (other Bavarian dialects) > G'fui (West Middle Bavarian) > G'fü (East Middle Bavarian).

And if course there is Italian: Latin _planum_ > Italian _piano_.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> He mentioned an example. Middle-Bavarian _l_ in the syllable code is vocalised to _i_, e.g. Gefühl > G'fuhl  (other Bavarian dialects) > G'fui (West Middle Bavarian) > G'fü (East Middle Bavarian).
> 
> And if course there is Italian: Latin _planum_ > Italian _piano_.


Of course, I meant when the result is a velar. While we're on the topic: is it generally assumed that a palatal reflex necessarily presumes a palatalised/palatal L or can a normal "clear L" result in it too?


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> Of course, I meant when the result is a velar. While we're on the topic: is it generally assumed that a palatal reflex necessarily presumes a palatalised/palatal L or can a normal "clear L" result in it too?


You should be aware that in most Western European languages, the palatal L *is* the "normal clear" one! It is a Slavic peculiarity to have what we call the "dark L" as the standard one.


----------



## Riverplatense

berndf said:


> It is a Slavic peculiarity to have what we call the "dark L" as the standard one.



I doubt that it's possible to define a «standard one». Portuguese has a similar distribution of [l ł] like Russian, for instance. Besides, also Latin had so-called «l pinguis».


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> You should be aware that in most Western European languages, the palatal L *is* the "normal clear" one! It is a Slavic peculiarity to have what we call the "dark L" as the standard one.


No, the palatal L is very much distinct from the normal European clear L, but both can be hard to distinguish from the Russian _palatalised _L which is basically halfway between those two. My question does indeed relate to Latin as it's said to have had the hard Russian L and what in all probability must have been the Russian palatalised L (conditioning front vowels in its vicinity). The problem is that it's unclear if there was also a middle "clear L" when not followed by either a front vowel or a consonant (the two environments for the other two sounds). Which frankly sounds like 1 L too many; besides, to repeat what has been said twice already, stop+L clusters often result in stop+j in Romance, and also /ll/ >> /ʎ/ which points to a palatalised sound, but then why would it be palatalised there exactly?


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> No, the palatal L


Then we are talking cross purposes. That is an l-approximant. I wouldn't call this an "L" at all.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> Then we are talking cross purposes. That is an l-approximant. I wouldn't call this an "L" at all.


But all L sounds are approximants  The only difference between this and the German clear L is place of articulation (palatal vs alveolar). The Russian soft L is alveolo-palatal and the hard one is velarised (denti-)alveolar.


----------



## berndf

Riverplatense said:


> I doubt that it's possible to define a «standard one». Portuguese has a similar distribution of [l ł] like Russian, for instance. Besides, also Latin had so-called «l pinguis».


I consciously said "most" not all.


Riverplatense said:


> Besides, also Latin had so-called «l pinguis».


A dark allophone exists in quite a few WE but it is still clear what is the base and what is the variant.


----------



## Riverplatense

I'd agree with berndf:

[l] (_*l*isten_) = alveolar lateral
[ʎ] (_fi*gl*ia_) = palatal lateral
[lʲ] (_со*л*ить_) = palatalised alveolar lateral

However, isn't it just a terminological question?


----------



## Sobakus

My question is does it have to be palatalised/palatal to vocalise into [j]? I don't see anything terminological about it: an alveolar (or even dental) coronal shifting into a palatal dorsal would seem very strange to me. Just like if it shifted to the labialised velar [w] all of a sudden.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> You should be aware that in most Western European languages, the palatal L *is* the "normal clear" one! It is a Slavic peculiarity to have what we call the "dark L" as the standard one.


The dark _l_ seems to have been standard in prehistoric Umbrian. _Wallace RE · 2007 · The Sabellic languages of ancient Italy: _14:


> The lateral liquid /l/ was not found in word-initial position. In prehistoric Umbrian it developed to /w/, e.g. *vuku* 'grove, woods', LOC SG MASC < _*lowkōd._



49:


> (1) *vuvçis titis teteies* : (Um 1, lb 45)
> 'Lucius, of Titus, Tetteius = Lucius Tetteius, (son) of Titus'


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> You should be aware that in most Western European languages, the palatal L *is* the "normal clear" one! It is a Slavic peculiarity to have what we call the "dark L" as the standard one.


The first table on this page Çâóêîâàÿ ôîðìà ðóññêîé ðå÷è mentions the relative occurrence of consonants in Russian texts according to two studies: the place of _l_ is 12th in one study and 18th in another, and the place of _lʲ_ is 18th and 13th, so both seem to be more or less equally frequent (and that's my impression too).

The exactly same two _l'_s as in Russian are found in Lithuanian, perhaps as a result of longstanding Lithuanian / East Slavic bilingualism, e. g.:
_baltas alus_ — baltas alus pronunciation: How to pronounce baltas alus in Lithuanian
_liūtas —_ liūtas / Liūtas [lt.] pronunciation: How to pronounce liūtas / Liūtas [lt.] in Lithuanian
_žalias_ — žalias (m. bdv.) pronunciation: How to pronounce žalias (m. bdv.) in Lithuanian
The frequency must be roughly the same as in Russian as in both languages _lʲ_ comes from both _l_ before front vowels and from the former_ *lj._

Latvian opposes a dark_ l_ (which is the standard variant, with, I would say, more than 95% of occurrences) to a palatal _ļ_ (coming from _*lj _before back vowels only):
_Alberta iela_ — Alberta iela pronunciation: How to pronounce Alberta iela in Latvian
_lielā zīlīte_ — lielā zīlīte pronunciation: How to pronounce lielā zīlīte in Latvian
_ļaudis_ — ļaudis pronunciation: How to pronounce ļaudis in Latvian


----------



## Riverplatense

Sobakus said:


> My question is does it have to be palatalised/palatal to vocalise into [j]?



I can't give a clear answer, but it's also interesting that in standard Italian not the entire nexus CL was palatalised. This only happened in Northern Italian dialects as a secondary sound shift (CLARUM → It. [ˈkjaro], Lombard [ʧar]), while in French (_clair_) and Rhaeto-Romance (Friul. _clâr_, Lad. _tler _etc.) it was conserved. 

As for [ʎ] being a step between in this group, Spanish would be a hint. Here we have CL → [ʎ] (CLAMARE → [ʎaˈmar] in Old Spanish). And of course the process [ʎ] → [j] is a very frequent one.


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> My question is does it have to be palatalised/palatal to vocalise into [j]?


I think, outside of a consonant cluster, "vocalise" and "into [j]" is not the same process. _l > j_ is usually via _ʎ_ (or maybe via _lʲ_); vocalisation, i.e _l > i_, usually not.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> the place of _l_ is 12th in one study and 18th in another, and the place of _lʲ_ is 18th and 13th, so both seem to be more or less equally frequent (and that's my impression too).


I thought you didn't have [l] at all, only either [ɫ] or [lʲ]. Is that wrong?


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I thought you didn't have [l] at all, only either [ɫ] or [lʲ]. Is that wrong?


You're right, simply since all non-palatalized consonants in most East Slavic and Lithuanian dialects are more or less velarized (especially the dentals), this is not marked in the phonemic transcription. So, yes I meant [ł]. Some Russian dialects do have the middle _l_ though.

Interestingly, Finnish, which lacks phonemic palatalization in the standard language and in most dialects, has a darker _l:
Lapin kulta_ — Lapin Kulta pronunciation: How to pronounce Lapin Kulta in Finnish
_palli_ — palli pronunciation: How to pronounce palli in Finnish

Whereas Estonian has a much less velarized basic _l:
kuld lehelind_ — kuld-lehelind pronunciation: How to pronounce kuld-lehelind in Estonian

and a special pre/postpalatalized_ ʲlʲ:
pall_ — pall pronunciation: How to pronounce pall in Estonian

I would compare the Estonian situation with that in pre-modern French, where there was a _l,_ more palatalized than normally in West Europe, and _ʎ_ (>_j_).


----------



## Dymn

In the traditional Ribagorzan variety of Aragonese, _pllaça _is /ˈpʎaθa/, but since the spread of yeísmo in Spain, a young speaker I know pronounces it /ˈpjaθa/. Same with _cll_: /kʎ/ > /kj/.

In Portuguese /lt/ > /jt/ (_muito_), and the plural of words in -l is -is (_animal > animais_), yet European Portuguese has dark l at least in codas, which is further vocalized to /w/ in Brazil.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> I think, outside of a consonant cluster, "vocalise" and "into [j]" is not the same process. _l > j_ is usually via _ʎ_ (or maybe via _lʲ_); vocalisation, i.e _l > i_, usually not.


I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. The "vocalisation" part doesn't mean it necessarily develops into a syllabic vowel, just that it's a semivowel. To get an actual vocalic instead of consonantal /i/ the original vowel in the same syllable as the vocalised L must be lost - that or there must be no vowel originally. All the cases of L-vocalisation I've seen result in consonantal glides (/w/ in English, Dutch, Polish, Bulgarian, Portuguese, Old French); /j/ in Italian, Spanish, French, Middle Bavarian) that may or may not be treated as part of a diphthong depending on the language's phonology, but that's secondary.


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> but that's secondary.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> Look at my example above.


I see no examples besides _G'fui_ which is not a syllabic vowel. In a language that doesn't have phonemic diphthongs it would be treated as a standalone consonant.


berndf said:


>


A standalone vowel and a standalone consonant forming a diphthong is a secondary process to that consonant undergoing a shift.


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> I see no examples besides _G'fui_ which is not a syllabic vowel. In a language that doesn't have phonemic diphthongs it would be treated as a standalone consonant.
> 
> A standalone vowel and a standalone consonant forming a diphthong is a secondary process to that consonant undergoing a shift.


I don't agree that [ui] and [uj] are two transcriptions of essentially the same thing.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> I don't agree that [ui] and [uj] are two transcriptions of essentially the same thing.


I've yet to see a sufficient set of objective criteria to support this view, but as I already said it's rather irrelevant: the original shift was consonant->consonant, not consonant->syllabic vowel. Unless you postulate that vowels don't need to be syllabic to be vowels, in which case either 1) Ls of course become vowels in their own right and we have a vowel-vowel shift - at which point the term "vocalisation" becomes meaningless, - or 2) the L disappears and a wild vowel appears (possible in the sequence /ul/->/uil/->/ui/ but then we aren't talking about L-vocalisation anymore but about diphthongisation followed by deletion).


----------



## berndf

Sobakus said:


> the original shift was consonant->consonant


That's exactly what I was doubting. I don't think that either a _ʎ _or a _lʲ_ was involved in the Middle Bavarian _l_ vocalisation. I can of course be wrong but I see no reason to take it for granted there ever was.


----------



## Sobakus

berndf said:


> That's exactly what I was doubting. I don't think that either a _ʎ _or a _lʲ_ was involved in the Middle Bavarian _l_ vocalisation. I can of course be wrong but I see no reason to take it for granted there ever was.


So do you think it was the diphthongisation-deletion sequence, or that /ul/ was a diphthong, or that there was a front final vowel there, or that (to imagine unimaginable) the /i/ was originally syllabic? All of those seem very improbable to me compared to a straightforward vocalisation.


----------



## berndf

Under poetic licence many things are possible. But Rilke used _reichlich_ and not _reich_ which are totally different words. And _reichlich_ means exactly what is intended (_abundant, ample_) here without any recourse to poetic licence and without any ambiguity.


----------



## Riverplatense

Lusus Naturae said:


> Are there many such examples?



So again back to the initial question: Also Celtic languages are divided in a p-group and a q-group, depending on how *_k_ʷ developed. So in the p-languages it was shifted to [p], while in the q-languages the sound remained velar.


----------



## Lusus Naturae

Riverplatense said:


> .


I saw a voiced example: anguilla > anguidda / anghidda > ambidda


----------



## Dymn

*Sardinian*: _lingua > limba; aqua > abba; quattuor > bàtoro_
*Romanian*: _lingua > limbă; aqua > apă; quattuor > patru_


----------



## Sardokan1.0

There are certain areas of Sardinia where original the C or Q or K or G has become B, like mentioned by Dymn.
_*
Latin - Sardinian (Nuorese) - Sardinian (Logudorese)*_

*jactare -> ghettare -> bettare = to throw - *(I wonder if the English "to bet" is someway related, meaning in origin something like "to throw the dice" -> and then passed as synonymous of "to gamble")
*gula -> gula -> bula = throat
cattus -> cattu, gattu -> cattu, battu = cat
equa -> egua (in Campidanese) -> ebba (in Nuorese-Logudorese) = female horse
genuculum -> ghenucru, ghenugu -> benuju = knee
gutta -> guttìu -> guttìu, buttìu = drop
guttare? -> guttìare -> guttìare, buttìare = to drop*


----------



## Riverplatense

Lusus Naturae said:


> I saw a voiced example: anguilla > anguidda / anghidda > ambidda



An interesting example. As for the shift [nkʷ] → [mb], I guess it's a secondary assimilated voicing of *[mp]: QUINQUE → _*kimpe_ → _kimbe_, so there would be the analogy [ngʷ] → [mb] : [nkʷ] → [mp]. This kind of assimilation is also typical for Southern Italian dialects: CAMPUM → _cambë_.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Riverplatense said:


> An interesting example. As for the shift [nkʷ] → [mb], I guess it's a secondary assimilated voicing of *[mp]: QUINQUE → _*kimpe_ → _kimbe_, so there would be the analogy [ngʷ] → [mb] : [nkʷ] → [mp]. This kind of assimilation is also typical for Southern Italian dialects: CAMPUM → _cambë_.



It reminds me also of the Italian : _"cambiare"_ = to change vs _"cangiare"_ = to change (antiquated)


----------



## Riverplatense

Sardokan1.0 said:


> It reminds me also of the Italian : _"cambiare"_ = to change vs _"cangiare"_ = to change (antiquated)



Interesting, yes. On the one hand I think that _cangiare _is a kind of Frenchism (Latin [bj] → [ʒ]: RABIAM → _rage_, CAMBIARE → _changer _etc.). But then there's also Neapolitan (and others) _cagnà_. I wonder if it's an isolated development.


----------

