# Spanish: concer -> conozco - use of letter z



## Irell

Hola!!

I wonder, the 'z' in conozco, why is that? conocer - conoces, conoce etc
yo conoco... it has to sound like a soft s, I guess, so why not conozo?
I need a real reason, explanation for my grammarexam...

Anyone there to help me out? (in English por favor)

Have a nice evening!   

Irelle


----------



## alc112

hi!!
There is no reason. It sounds horrible conoco. Conocer is just and irregular verb.


----------



## Camui

alc112 said:
			
		

> hi!!
> There is no reason. It sounds horrible conoco. Conocer is just and irregular verb.



El se refiere a por qué es zeta y no ese.

Supongo.

Ja


----------



## Rayines

> Anyone there to help me out? (in English por favor)


*Hallo Irell!: I'll try to make it easy for you. I found it in this page: *

*"los verbos en español >>>> "Conjugación irregular" >>>>>>2.12.4. Irregularidades consonánticas.*

*It's a kind of irregular conjugation, called "of consonants" (?), that consists in adding a consonant to the stem of the verb. Then you find it in every verb finished in "cer", such as >>>"nacer", "renacer", "pacer", "conocer", "reconocer", "desconocer" (excepting "mecer"),.*
*Why?...Don't ask me! . But at least, here you have a rule  .*


----------



## Swettenham

Rayines said:
			
		

> *It's a kind of irregular conjugation, called "of consonants" (<< "of consonants" doesn't sound right, but I don't know  ) (?), that consists of adding a consonant to the stem of the verb. Then You find it in every verb ending in "cer", such as >>>"nacer", "renacer", "pacer", "conocer", "reconocer", "desconocer" (excepting "mecer"),.*
> *Why?...Don't ask me! . But at least, here you have a rule  .*


Actually, Iné, it's all verbs ending in "-ecer" except "mecer" and "remecer," plus the others such as "nacer," "pacer," "conocer."


----------



## Outsider

The word _conocer_ comes from Latin _cognoscere_. The _g_ was assimilated by the _n_, and the _s_ was also assimilated by the _c_ when the latter was 'soft' (followed by _e_ or _i_), but not when it was 'hard' (followed by _a, o, u_).
I can't it explain why it changed from an _s_ into a _z_, though.


----------



## Masood

To me, the reason is clear...it's to maintain the "TH" (z) sound as in the infinitive form of the verb (as _Camui _has already mentioned).
*conocer* (co-no-THer)
yo *conozco * (co-noTH-co)
tú conoces (co-noTH-es)
...etc


----------



## Irell

but Masood, what's wrong with 'conozo'?

Thank you all anyway!! Now I'm wondering maybe it's got something to do with the subjunctivo?

Somehow I think there must be some logic... a system or...

Have a nice day!   

Irelle


----------



## Masood

Irell said:
			
		

> but Masood, what's wrong with 'conozo'?


Now you've got me thinking....  
I have no idea!


----------



## Rayines

> Now you've got me thinking....


*Sorry, but since when grammatical rules have always a reasonable explanation?*


----------



## Outsider

Since this same pattern _-ecer/-ozco_ occurs in many other verbs, there should be some linguistic explanation for it, don't you think?


----------



## Rayines

*Hallo, Outsider: maybe, but my Larousse Grammar is full of rules with regard to irregular verbs, without any explanation about them. Probably a query to the Real Academia could answer it. But I ask, do other languages have in all cases such explanations?*


----------



## robm

Irell said:
			
		

> but Masood, what's wrong with 'conozo'?
> 
> Thank you all anyway!! Now I'm wondering maybe it's got something to do with the subjunctivo?
> 
> Somehow I think there must be some logic... a system or...
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Irelle



I think that conozco probably just sounds better and is easier for spanish speakers to say than conozo.  I don't think that it's anything to do with the subjunctive, other than that conoza is probably equally strange-sounding!


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

I think it has to do with the phonetical evolution laws from Latin to Spanish:

_Conoscere - conocer (/s/ sound has been lost asimilated by /c/ sound so similar)._
_Cono*sc*io - Cono*zc*o (/s/ sound has not been lost in front of /k/ sound)._

A philologist would be very appreciated here.


----------



## Rayines

> A philologist would be very appreciated here.


*What for, Pedro?  You gave a great explanation  . But, anyhow I think that even Spanish speaking people doesn't know these details about the rules, so for someone who is learning Spanish as a foreign language, it should be enough (for the teacher's opinion) that students know that verbs which end in "cer", add a consonant ("z"), to the stem, before the "c". And that's called in Spanish "irregularidad consonántica". Hmm....*


----------



## MiriamArg

For what it's worth, Irell, most of us Spanish speakers don't know the reasons for the "regular forms" either. They are surely somewhere in the early history of the language; but we don't ask because we -and here I mean people in general- tend to feel comfortable with consistency. What's called "regular forms" conforms a majority, and we feel somewhat safe to see uniformity and repeated patterns. An odd lot we are, aren't we? 
Sorry if that doesn't make much sense. My "rambling mode" is on tonight.  
 
Miriam


----------



## Irell

The reason why I want to know is that I heard from a former student that the teacher is gonna ask this question each year! She told us something but it wasn't clear to me and I can't contact her for she's in the hospital (operation to her eyes, so I don't want to bother her and she won't be able to read anyway) So, in an other two weeks I'm gonna have a exam... Besides that, it's easier to remember how things work when there's a system, at least it works better for me 

Have a nice day!
Irelle


----------



## Rayines

*Hola!: Yo ya no sé qué hacer para que Irell aprenda lo de los verbos irregulares con zc . Encontré esta paginilla, que me parece un poco mejor que la que puse anteriormente: LOS VERBOS IRREGULARES . Alguno de los hispanoparlantes aquí presentes, no le puede dar un "look", para ver si se les ocurre explicarlo de alguna otra manera? De todos modos reproduzco acá unos pedacitos que me parecen los más pertinentes para esta discusión:*


"Las irregularidades de los verbos solo pueden tener una explicación racional - y sencilla a veces - en la gramática histórica. Es decir, muchas de las modificaciones de la raíz verbal y algunas aparentes anomalías o irregularidades obedecen simplemente a *principios generales fonológicos* o *leyes fonéticas *del sistema español que han llevado a cambios fonéticos a partir del latín vulgar."
........................................................................................................

*Verbos de irregularidad común* 
Se llaman así porque comparten ciertas modificaciones de la raíz vebal y se pueden agrupar según la irregularidad que tengan en común. Las modificaciones de la raíz verbal pueden ser: 
*-*diptongación de una vocal del tema (radical): _pensar_ > _pienso / mover > muevo_
*-*debilitación o cierre de una vocal del tema: _pedir > pido_
*-*adición de una consonante a la última vocal de la raíz: _huir > huyo_
*-*intercalación de una consonante: _conocer > conozco_ "
_........................................................................................................_ 

*Y esto es lo principal, referido a la regla consultada:* 

*"Verbos terminados en -acer, -ecer, -ocer, -ducir *​*intercalan una z ante la c final de la raíz cuando la desinencia es a / o"*
_........................................................................................................._​


----------



## Nany_10

hi,

Last rule that Rayines has mentioned is correct, when you speak in spanish phonetically you need use a "z" to maintain sense of the original word.


I hope this could be useful to Irell.


----------



## Pity

Hello,
In Spain as far as know the "z" says th like in think, here in Latin America it says "s" like in sun.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Rayines said:
			
		

> *Y esto es lo principal, referido a la regla consultada:*
> 
> *"Verbos terminados en -acer, -ecer, -ocer, -ducir *​*intercalan una z ante la c final de la raíz cuando la desinencia es a / o"*
> 
> 
> _........................................................................................................._​


 
To make things even worse:

c*ocer* (=to boil)

*Presente de Indicativo*​ 
*cuezo cuezco *
cueces / cocés
cuece
cocemos
cocéis / cuecen
cuecen


*Presente de Subjuntivo*

*cueza cuezca *

*cuezas cuezcas *

*cueza cuezca *

cozamos
cozáis / cuezan

*cuezan cuezcan *​


----------



## Outsider

But in that case the _o_ changes to _ue_...


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Outsider said:
			
		

> But in that case the _o_ changes to _ue_...


Yes, you are right, I was focused on the rule where it says:

*Verbos terminados en -acer, -ecer, -ocer, -ducir intercalan una z ante la c final de la raíz cuando la desinencia es a / o"*





*Ps.:*
Outsider you're my forum hero!


----------



## Rayines

> To make things even worse:


*Oh!, I renounce to my own participation in this thread, for the moment  !*


----------



## sergio11

Maybe what your teacher is expecting you to know is that, in words having a c or a z,

1) When you want to maintain the s sound before a letter other than an e or an i, the c changes to z, never to s.  The opposite change is also true: when a z comes in front of an e or an i, it changes to c, not to s. 

2) When the k sound of the c is maintained in front of an e or an i, it always changes to qu, never to k.  

Whenever there is a change of consonant, either from the k sound to the s sound or viceversa, or the maintaining of the k or s sounds, it is always a c-z exchange, never c-s, and always a c-qu exchange, never a c-k.  

More than that would be too much to expect from beginners.

Saludos

Of course, our friends from Spain are thinking "What is this clown talking about? neither the c nor the z have an 's' sound."  I know. And if we all pronounced as they do in Spain, many of our spelling difficulties woud be eliminated, which is also true.


----------



## ROZZY

What is the history of the z in the conjugation of conocer?

_<< Moderator edit: This question was merged with a previous thread about the same subject. Please search the forum before opening a new thread, to avoid repetition of topics. >>_


----------



## geostan

I found the following on the web.

Los verbos latinos en _-scere suprimieron la s ante c y la conservaron como z ante c velar sólo en la primera persona del singular del presente de indicativo y subjuntivo: conozco, conozca, etc. La reducción sc a c, tan normal como la de pisces > peces, no se consumó hasta el siglo XVII, porque mantenía el grupo la alternativa conosco, conosces, aunque la tendencia a la reducción fue muy antigua._


----------



## Cenzontle

Look at Outsider's explanation (#6 above).  With the Latin root  "cognosc-", all persons except the first singular had the final "c" of  the root before an "e" in the ending.
This situation behaved regularly and produced a laminodental  sibilant—an [s]-like sound produced with the blade of the tongue—which  "absorbed" the similar sound of the orthographic "s", and was spelled  "c" ("cono*c*e").
But in the first-person singular, the same "sc" maintained its [Sk] sound 
(I use uppercase "S" for the apicoalveolar sibilant that is heard for orthographic "s" in northern and central Spain), 
and that form occasionally appears as "cono*s*co" in Old Spanish.
But why change the spelling from "s" to "z"?
Because the pronunciation evidently changed from  to [s] (from apical  to laminal, that is, from the tongue tip to the flat surface just  behind the tip)
in imitation of the laminal [s] of the other persons.  (I can't say why they didn't also drop the [k] sound, to be even _more _like the other persons.)
The old scribes were careful to spell the apical  with "s" and the laminal [s] with "z", or with "c" before "e" or "i".
Still, the difficulty of maintaining the distinction between  and [s]  is usually given as the explanation of why Castilians changed [s] to  the "th-sound", 
and speakers in southern Spain and the Americas merged the two sibilants.
See Ramón Menéndez Pidal, _Manual de gramática histórica española_, Sec. 112.3.


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> Look at Outsider's explanation (#6 above).  With the Latin root  "cognosc-", all persons except the first singular had the final "c" of  the root before an "e" in the ending.
> This situation behaved regularly and produced a laminodental  sibilant—an [s]-like sound produced with the blade of the tongue—which  "absorbed" the similar sound of the orthographic "s", and was spelled  "c" ("cono*c*e").
> But in the first-person singular, the same "sc" maintained its [Sk] sound
> (I use uppercase "S" for the apicoalveolar sibilant that is heard for orthographic "s" in northern and central Spain),
> and that form occasionally appears as "cono*s*co" in Old Spanish.
> But why change the spelling from "s" to "z"?
> Because the pronunciation evidently changed from  to [s] (from apical  to laminal, that is, from the tongue tip to the flat surface just  behind the tip)
> in imitation of the laminal [s] of the other persons.  (I can't say why they didn't also drop the [k] sound, to be even _more _like the other persons.)
> The old scribes were careful to spell the apical  with "s" and the laminal [s] with "z", or with "c" before "e" or "i".
> Still, the difficulty of maintaining the distinction between  and [s]  is usually given as the explanation of why Castilians changed [s] to  the "th-sound",
> and speakers in southern Spain and the Americas merged the two sibilants.
> See Ramón Menéndez Pidal, _Manual de gramática histórica española_, Sec. 112.3.




Thanks for the very good summary about the phonetics.  With that, I would just add (using your phonetics S and s) the evolution: 
"cognosco, cognoscis, cognoscit" (SK in all forms in classical latin) 
> [konoSko, konoSkes, konoSkes] 
> [konSko, konoStses, konoStse] /k/ was palatized to /ts/ before (e, i) in Iberian Peninsula Proto-romance 
> [konoSko, konoSses, konoSse] simplification of /ts/ into /s/ at the end of the middle ages as you said (it is possible to see "conosces" on occasion in old Spanish even till 1500's) 
> assimilation of Ss into s, then movement of all laminodental /s/ forward to /θ/ [konoSko, konoθes, konoθe] 
> finally [konoθko, konoθes, konoθe] a change of /S/ to /θ/ out of analogy with the infinitive and all other verb tenses so that they would have the same sound in all forms as was originally the case.  

N.B. I don't think it could have become "conozo".  That option seems to have been given only to -cer/-cir verbs that change (o to ue) in the stem like cocer.

Edit:  By the way, I don't believe all apicoalveolar S merged with laminodental s in seseo (later ceceo) dialects, only before vowel sounds, not consonants. So that wouldn't have affected "conosco" per se which would have merged at least orally with /ʃ/ and followed the long evolution to /x/ > /h/ > (then sometimes in this case) ø.  At any rate, the spelling only reflects the evolution in North/central Spain (above) and the standardized reforms made there after the 17th century.


----------



## b.tabs

Masood said:


> To me, the reason is clear...it's to maintain the "TH" (z) sound as in the infinitive form of the verb (as _Camui _has already mentioned).
> *conocer* (co-no-THer)
> yo *conozco * (co-noTH-co)
> tú conoces (co-noTH-es)
> ...etc



Interesting Masood... I never thought about it that way, most likely because I do not speak Iberic Spanish


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Swettenham said:


> Actually, Iné, it's all verbs ending in "-ecer" *except "mecer" and "remecer,"* plus the others such as "nacer," "pacer," "conocer."



Gracias. Acabo de aprender algo.


----------



## merquiades

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Gracias. Acabo de aprender algo.



mecer (miscére) proviene de otro grupo de verbos en latín.  La e es larga y acentuada y tiene una evolución normal.  Los demás verbos que tienen (-ecer) eran originalmente verbos en -ir que añadieron posteriormente el sufijo incoativo -ecer (florir > florecer, etc. -esc-)


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Ya sabemos hasta qué punto se extendió la mala herba de los verbos incoativos en catalán...
Me sorprende, sin embargo, que el verbo "mescere" tenga el acento tónico en la raíz antes que en la vocal temática... aparentemente algunos acentos se desplazaron a lo largo de la evolución del latín a los idiomas romances.
Por extraño que parezca, nunca hice el nexo lógico entre los verbos del tipo "finir" o "finire" y los verbos en -ecer en castellano ("fenecer" sería lo más cercano).


----------



## merquiades

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Por extraño que parezca, nunca hice el nexo lógico entre los verbos del tipo "finir" o "finire" y los verbos en -ecer en castellano ("fenecer" sería lo más cercano).



Pues sí, es interesante notar como en algunas lenguas románticas el sufijo incoativo afecta solamente a unas cuantas formas del presente de indicativo y el presente de subjuntivo (y también hay menos verbos que admiten el sufijo). Luego, en castellano son más numerosos y logran cambiar el infinitivo y toda la conjugación del verbo. En la historia de la lengua ocurrió bastante recientemente (Edad Media).  Tienes razón en cuanto a finir(e) que se conviritió en fenecer.  WR nos ofrece una buena lista de 113 verbos -ecer.  Intenta reconstruir los infinitivos en -ir y verás fácilmente sus equivalentes en otros idiomas.  El verbo garantizar es interesante porque toma el sufijo "iza" en lugar de "ece" (garantir).   
Para no alejarnos tanto del tema original quiero señalar que "cognoscĕre > conocer" y "miscēre > mecer" no son verbos con sufijo incoativo.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Como lo veo yo, la gran mayoría de estos verbos son verbos incoativos no sólo morfológica, sino también semánticamente (contrariamente a lo que sucede en catalán), y sólo poquísimos verbos como "nacer", "crecer", "conocer", "pacer" y sus derivados han sido heredados del latín, siendo los demás creaciones genuinamente castellanas o modificaciones de verbos ya existentes.
Lo interesante de "fenecer" es la existencia del verbo alternativo "finar", más conocido por el participio substantivado "finado".


----------



## merquiades

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Como lo veo yo, la gran mayoría de estos verbos son verbos incoativos no sólo morfológica, sino también semánticamente (contrariamente a lo que sucede en catalán), y sólo poquísimos verbos como "nacer", "crecer", "conocer", "pacer" y sus derivados han sido heredados del latín, siendo los demás creaciones genuinamente castellanas o modificaciones de verbos ya existentes.
> Lo interesante de "fenecer" es la existencia del verbo alternativo "finar", más conocido por el participio substantivado "finado".



Sí, yo también he visto que las terminaciones incoativas se han generalizado a todos los verbos catalanes en -ir en su conjunto pero curiosamente no a los infinitivos.  En el dialecto oriental la terminación es con -isc.  ¿Crees que los verbos como agradecer o parecer podrían considerarse semánticamente incoativos?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Inicialmente no, pero un análisis más profundo creo que daría una respuesta positiva. "agradecer" no sólo contiene el sufijo incoativo, sino también el prefijo latín "ad-", de lo cual concluimos que deriva del adjetivo "gratus". Supongo entonces que al inicio se trataba de un verbo semánticamente incoativo, pero su sentido pasó al verbo agradar. Su pariente más cercano en italiano es "gradire". ¿Te recuerdas de la famosa Gradisca de "Amarcord"?

Parecer.... no sé, tiene derivados que, arguyendo del mismo modo, son incoativos (aparecer etc.), ¿pero el verbo mismo?


----------



## OBrasilo

merquiades said:
			
		

> N.B. I don't think it could have become "conozo". That option seems to have been given only to -cer/-cir verbs that change (o to ue) in the stem like cocer.



But why not? In Portuguese which is also an Ibero-Romance language, the 1st person is _conheço_ (infinitive _conhecer_), so I can't see why _conozo_ wouldn't have been possible to form in Spanish. Though maybe in Portuguese, the _c_ (/k/) was lost by analogy with the other verb forms, while it remained in Spanish. Or both lost it and Spanish reintroduced it for some reason (maybe etymological?). Who knows.


----------



## mataripis

It is impossible for that verb to become conocco(conotho), I think it is correct to use z instead c because c in spanish has 3 sounds- se , ka and the(cce), z is final sound for s and hard th.In this case I(yo) is the one knowing something with related form ego of Greek and Ako of Austronesian.It is correct to have the form of verb with z - conozco. But in the case of verb cocer-to boil , it is the water that boil not I(yo) and this made clear explanation that there is no need to use c, in usual form cuezo( not I but the water).


----------



## Erkattäññe

Portuguese -_eço -__eça_ forms come from analogy, is spanish the contrast of sibilant and velars in roots remains, take for example: _digo, diga_ but _dice_
this is a natural sound change from late latin. velar sounds (k,g) changed their pronunciation before e and i, this change is documented in other languages.
the confusion comes because the non native spanish learner tries to derive the personal forms from the infinitive, but as the infinitive ends in -er the velar sound changed and thus the form conozco is more original in terms of its phonology.
the evolutions is likely this regardless to spelling:_


konnosko: - konnoskit
konosko  - konoske _(vowel evolution, final occlusive dropped)_
konosko -  kono*ts*e (_palatalization before front vowel, _here the s before the new ts is dropped)
konosko - kono__θe_
_kono__θko - kono__θe_ (here the θ is introduced from the second form by analogy)

_di:ko: - di:kit_
_diko - dike_ (vowel evolution, final occlusive dropped)
_digo - dige_ (intervocalic voicing)
_digo - di*dze*_ (palatalization before front vowel)
_digo - ditse_ 
_digo - di__θe_


----------



## Forero

The following is an analogy, not a history, but I think it helps explain why _conozco_ is more consistent within the language than _conosco_:

_Tener_ -> _tengo_.
_Venir_ -> _vengo_.
_Conocer_ -> _conozgo_ -> _conozco_.
_Yacer_ -> _yazgo_ -> _yazco_.

When did _tengo_ and _vengo_ come to have their current form?

I have seen somewhere that _conozco_ was actually pronounced "conotsco" in the Middle Ages. Is there any truth to this rumor?


----------



## Erkattäññe

Forero said:


> The following is an analogy, not a history, but I think it helps explain why _conozco_ is more consistent within the language than _conosco_:
> 
> _Tener_ -> _tengo_.
> _Venir_ -> _vengo_.
> _Conocer_ -> _conozgo_ -> _conozco_.
> _Yacer_ -> _yazgo_ -> _yazco_.
> 
> When did _tengo_ and _vengo_ come to have their current form?
> 
> I have seen somewhere that _conozco_ was actually pronounced "conotsco" in the Middle Ages. Is there any truth to this rumor?



En el caso de tener y venir, las formas latinas de primera persona eran _teneo: y uenio:_, con esas vocales entre la raíz y la /o:/ las formas evolucionaron a tenio y venio, con "yod" o glide, luego, y esto va por cuenta mía, estimo que la semiconsonante se velarizó por acción de la vocal posterior, aunque lo mismo pasa ante /a/ como en _ueniat > venia > venga_, si pronuncias la forma intermedia te darás cuenta de que no hace falta mucho cambio en la pronunciación para llegar a la forma actual.
Sobre _yacer,_ es una analogía con los verbos latinos en -scere, la forma original derivada sigue existiendo, es _yago, yaga.

_


----------



## Cenzontle

> estimo que la semiconsonante se velarizó por acción de la vocal posterior


Creo que será difícil explicar este cambio a base de razones puramente fonéticas, ya que ocurre sólo en verbos (los cuales están sujetos a fuerzas analógicas).
En la historia de palabras como "señor" (lat. _seniōre_) o "extraño" (lat. extraneu), no hay registro de formas como *"sengor" ni *"extrango".
Según Menéndez Pidal (113.2.b),





> hay unos cuantos verbos en que la yod desarrolló una *g* a imitación de los verbos en -_ngo_ que vacilaban [p.ej.] _plaño plango_


(Español antiguo _plañir_ < lat. _plangĕre_—es decir, este verbo ya tenía /g/ en latín.)


----------



## Cenzontle

> I have seen somewhere that _conozco was actually pronounced "conotsco" in the Middle Ages. Is there any truth to this rumor?_


It is generally accepted that in Old Spanish, "z" was pronounced [dz] or [ts], and "ç"—or "c" before "e" or "i"—was [ts].
But, in the 13th through 15th centuries, although "cono*z*co" does appear in manuscripts, it is outnumbered by "cono*s*co".
Once you get to the 16th century, when "cono*z*co" becmes the majority form, the [ts] pronunciation is already giving way to [s] (and has not yet gone to the interdental "th-sound").
So whether there was a brief moment in history with [tsk] is anybody's guess.


----------



## Erkattäññe

Cenzontle said:


> Creo que será difícil explicar este cambio a base de razones puramente fonéticas, ya que ocurre sólo en verbos (los cuales están sujetos a fuerzas analógicas).
> En la historia de palabras como "señor" (lat. _seniōre_) o "extraño" (lat. extraneu), no hay registro de formas como *"sengor" ni *"extrango".
> Según Menéndez Pidal (113.2.b),
> (Español antiguo _plañir_ < lat. _plangĕre_—es decir, este verbo ya tenía /g/ en latín.)



Los ejemplos de Menéndez Pidal no son del todo correctos:

- Diferente contexto vocálico para /extraniu/ con vocal u después de yod pero /tenio/ de vocal o después de yod. (oposición de vocal cerrada con media durante el cambio)
- Diferente contexto de acentuación para /seniore/ donde el acento es después de la yod.

El ejemplo de /_plagere/_ requiere la vocalización de la oclusiva, pero la diferencia es que la nueva yod ocurre en todo el paradigma_. tene / planie _para la tercera persona, por lo que se puede entender una analogía hacia la primera persona por presión de todo el paradigma.


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> when "cono*z*co" becmes the majority form, the [ts] pronunciation is already giving way to[s]  (and has not yet gone to the interdental "th-sound").


  Yes, but at the time it was not really an [s] sound per se, not alveolar in any case, it was dental, pronounced forward, (the symbol is accented s' but it's not on this keyboard)


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Yes, but at the time it was not really an [s] sound per se, not alveolar in any case, it was dental, pronounced forward, (the symbol is accented s' but it's not on this keyboard)


It was an "ordinary" [s] like in French, English, Italian, German or American Spanish. It is the apical Iberian Spanish <s> that is not "an [s] sound per se". The only other modern European languages I am aware of that use the apical [s] as the standard realization of /s/ are Dutch and Greek. It was probably much more common in earlier European language but the invention of the /ʃ/ phoneme usually pushes the /s/ from apical to laminal. It is most likely not an accident that those three languages still have the apical /s/ (Spanish has lost the /ʃ/ and Dutch and Greek have never developed them).


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> It was an "ordinary" [s] like in French, English, Italian, German or American Spanish. It is the apical Iberian Spanish <s> that is not "an [s] sound per se". The only other modern European languages I am aware of that use the apical [s] as the standard realization of /s/ are Dutch and Greek. It was probably much more common in earlier European language but the invention of the /ʃ/ phoneme usually pushes the /s/ from apical to laminal. It is most likely not an accident that those three languages still have the apical /s/ (Spanish has lost the /ʃ/ and Dutch and Greek have never developed them).



The point of articulation for Spanish /s'/ (of what became "c", "z") was further forward than the modern /s/ in English (I'm not sure all the languages you mentioned have the exact same s sound but that could be another thread).  But the Spanish /s/ ("s") was indeed apical. 
Your theory does not work for Spanish, not to say that is not the case in Dutch or Greek.  At the time period we are talking (circa 1400-1550...) about when three very closely pronounced sibilants existed in Castilian, /s'/, /s/, and /ʃ/, it is considered that the central sound, the apical alveolar /s/, is what triggered both the /ʃ/ to be retracted to /x/ and the /s'/ to move forward to /θ̟/.  The /s/ has not changed position since the fourteenth century, at that time it had been devoiced from /z/.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> The point of articulation for Spanish /s'/ (of "c", "z") was further forward than the modern /s/ in English


It was further forward than the *Spanish */s/ and its mode of articulation is different; really different. Nuances between say different laminal s-es as to their degree of fronting are totally negligible by contrast.. The important difference it that the sound of <c> and <z> was laminal while the sound of <s> was apical. It is exactly the same phonological process as in German where the laminal [s] was created by de-affricatization of [ts] which produced two phonemically contrasting types of /s/, the native apical one and the newly created de-affricate [ts]. This opposition is rarely stable and they often merge.In German and in Andalusian Spanish they merged to become the laminal /s/ (seseo merger). 



merquiades said:


> Your theory does not work for Spanish, not to say that is not the case  in Dutch or Greek.  At the time period we are talking about when three  very closely pronounced sibilants existed in Castilian, /s'/, /s/, and  /ʃ/


Such a distinction can exist for a while (it also did in German) but it is seldom stable. I wasn't stable in German and it wasn't stable in Spanish. So, yes, my theory works for Spanish.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> No, it was further forward than the Spanish /s/. The important difference it that the sound of <c> and <z> was laminal. It is exactly the same phonological process as in German where the laminal [s] was created by de-affricatization of [ts] which produced two phonemically contrasting types of /s/, the native apical one and the newly created de-affricate [ts]. This opposition is rarely stable and they often merge.In German and in Andalusian Spanish they merged to become the laminal /s/ (seseo merger).


 Partly merged, only at the beginning of syllable (and in highland Andalusia into dental s), otherwise it merged with /ʃ/ when it ended a syllable and was later retracted with this sound. In Lowland Andalusia the sounds merged into /θ̟/.  



> Such a distinction can exist for a while (it also did in German) but it is seldom stable. I wasn't stable in German and it wasn't stable in Spanish. So, yes, my theory works for Spanish.


  But your theory was that the /ʃ/ forced /s/ to move, not the other way around as in Spanish where /ʃ/ was retracted to create distance from /s/.
There is a small list of /s/ + vowel words that were surprising retracted to /x/ as if they had been with /ʃ/ originally, like Sabón (modern day Jabón) [soap], Pásaro (Pájaro) [bird], and for example, the simple preterites of many verbs.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> But your theory was that the /ʃ/ forced /s/ to moved, not the other way around as in Spanish where /ʃ/ was retracted to create distance from /s/.


I only said that the apical /s/ and /ʃ/ are unlikely to co-exist stably for a long time. They are simply too close.

In a tree-way distinction, the apical /s/ tends to merge either into the laminal /s/ or into /ʃ/, as you said:


merquiades said:


> Partly merged, only at the beginning of  syllable (and in highland Andalusia into dental s), otherwise it merged  with /ʃ/ when it ended a syllable and was later retracted with this  sound.


Again the same process as in German, though the conditions when the apical /s/ merges into the laminal one and when it merges into /ʃ/ are different:
in Modern German _aus _and _Haus _rhyme, the apical /s/ of _Haus_ merged into the laminal /s/ auf _aus_; _snell _became _schnell_, i.e. apical /s/ at the beginning of a consonant cluster merged into /ʃ/.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> I only said that the apical /s/ and /ʃ/ are unlikely to co-exist stably for a long time. They are simply too close.
> 
> In a tree-way distinction, the apical /s/ tends to merge either into the laminal /s/ or into /ʃ/, as you said


  That merger (either the highland or lowland way) occurred only in Andalusia as opposed to elsewhere, otherwise there were just sporadic changes (sapato > zapato, for example). /ʃ/ was retracted everywhere without an exception, though not as far back in Andalusia.



> Again the same process as in German, though the conditions when the apical /s/ merges into the laminal one and when it merges into /ʃ/ are different:
> in Modern German _aus _and _Haus _rhyme, the apical /s/ of _Haus_ merged into the laminal /s/ auf _aus_; _snell _became _schnell_, i.e. apical /s/ at the beginning of a consonant cluster merged into /ʃ/.


 Syllable final /s/ as in Los castillos merged with /ʃ/ before being retracted to /h/.  This merger is wider and occurred in all southern Spain, not just Andalusia. This same merger occurred in Portuguese but no retraction occurred.  They still have /ʃ/ in Os castelos.
Why are both "aus" and "Haus" written with "s" then?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> That merger (either the highland or lowland way) occurred only in Andalusia as opposed to elsewhere,  otherwise there were just sporadic changes (sapato > zapato, for  example). /ʃ/ was retracted everywhere without an exception, though not  as far back in Andalusia.
> 
> Syllable final /s/ as in Los castillos merged with /ʃ/ before being  retracted to /h/.  This merger is wider and occurred in all southern Spain,  not just Andalusia. This same merger occurred in Portuguese but no  retraction occurred.  They still have /ʃ/ in Os castelos.


Of course, the re-arrangement patters were quite diverse. The big picture, and that was my point to raise the comparison, was that the apical /s/ is in between the laminal /s/ and /ʃ/ and all three are unlikely to co-exist for long. Actually, even in the absence of the laminal /s/, the apical /s/ and /ʃ/ are unlikely to co-exist. The French /s/ was also most likely apical in the middle ages and its shift to laminal coincides with the de-affricatization of <ch>, i.e. the emergence of /ʃ/.


merquiades said:


> Why are both "aus" and "Haus" written with "s" then?


Spelling change after the merger. MHG spellings were _uz_ and _hus_.


----------



## jmx

Catalan and Galician both have an apico-alveolar [s], along with a /ʃ/ phoneme. Same thing for Asturian and, I think, for northern Portuguese dialects. It seems that apico-alveolar [s] is an "areal" feature, I guess it's present in some Occitan dialects too. In Catalan at least, I can't think of any sign of instability in this sound contrast.


----------



## berndf

jmx said:


> Catalan and Galician both have an apico-alveolar [s], along with a /ʃ/ phoneme. Same thing for Asturian and, I think, for northern Portuguese dialects. It seems that apico-alveolar [s] is an "areal" feature, I guess it's present in some Occitan dialects too. In Catalan at least, I can't think of any sign of instability in this sound contrast.


But non of it has maintained a three-way phonemic contrast. That is definitely unstable.

The stability of the apical /s/ - /ʃ/ contrast might indeed be regional, i.e. caused by Spanish influence. The apical /s/ probably once was the predominant one in all of Western Europe and /ʃ/ rarely existed anywhere. Today it is the other way round. This can hardly be coincidence.


----------



## Cenzontle

> Syllable final /s/ as in Los castillos merged with /ʃ/ before being retracted to /h/.


What syllable-final /ʃ/ was there to merge with?
Are you saying there is evidence that Andalusian syllable-final /s/ passed through a stage of [ʃ]
on its way from [s] to ?


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> What syllable-final /ʃ/ was there to merge with?
> Are you saying there is evidence that Andalusian syllable-final /s/ passed through a stage of [ʃ]
> on its way from [s] to ?




Well, the problem of the three sibilants being pronounced so closely together was solved differently in Andalusia than in the rest of Spain, where the distance was gradually increased between them, the frontal consonant moving slowly forward to eventually become /θ̟/ and the back consonant retracting slowly to become /x/. The final position being fixed around 1700.  In Andalusia to solve the problem the middle sibilant was eliminated and words with s had to be repositioned.  Before a vowel they merged with the frontal sibilant and at the end of a syllable they merged with the back sibilant.  It was especially convenient that the /ʃ/ was not present in many words at the end of syllable.  Modern language only shows 3 (reloj, boj, troj), there may have been a few more in the sixteen century?? so the final -s could slip into that position very comfortably and not cause conflict.  Though I haven't studied Portuguese linguistics in itself, this seems to have happened in the standard language since syllable final -s is always  /ʃ/.  At a slightly later time changes happening further north in Spain spread southward with population movement and like elsewhere all words locally pronounced with /ʃ/ began to be retracted and reached /h/ where in a few varieties it stopped, in others it didn't.

This subject is interesting but it has strayed from the original question, maybe part of the thread could be broken and deal just with evolution of sibilants in European languages?


----------



## merquiades

jmx said:


> Catalan and Galician both have an apico-alveolar [s], along with a /ʃ/ phoneme. Same thing for Asturian and, I think, for northern Portuguese dialects. It seems that apico-alveolar [s] is an "areal" feature, I guess it's present in some Occitan dialects too. In Catalan at least, I can't think of any sign of instability in this sound contrast.



Can you think of any minimal pairs in Catalan between /ʃ/ and /s/?  I've been trying to think up some but cannot manage to.


----------



## Cenzontle

> ...the frontal consonant moving *slowly *forward to eventually become /θ̟/ and the back consonant retracting *slowly *to become /x/.


If "slowly" means "with gradually increasing frequency", I can agree.
But if it means "occupying each intervening point of articulation successively", then I have doubts.
Yes, we have indeed wandered a little off the original question, haven't we.  It's all connected!


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> If "slowly" means "with gradually increasing frequency", I can agree.
> But if it means "occupying each intervening point of articulation successively", then I have doubts.
> Yes, we have indeed wandered a little off the original question, haven't we.  It's all connected!



Good question.  I always took that "slowly but surely" that the professors said in Madrid to mean that between 1500-1700 with each generation the movement forward and backward continued unabated, always a bit more, maybe depending on town, region, social class, individual in what stage of the change they were in... but by about 1700 the change was complete to the extent it couldn't be ignored anymore and they ended it up reforming spelling to make note of it.  
I remember hearing that the Castilian conquest and colonization of central America in the 1500's showed that the priests who documented the Aztec and Maya languages rich in /ʃ/ decided to write the sound still with "x", not with "ch" or "s" as other priests did in other areas in later times.  They wrote "Meshico" consistently as "Mexico", not any other way. On the other hand there are other writings/ or comments from people throughout the seventeenth century that make some believe that in Toledo, the modern /x/ and /θ̟/ were already established.


----------



## jmx

merquiades said:


> Well, the problem of the three sibilants being pronounced so closely together was solved differently in Andalusia than in the rest of Spain, where the distance was gradually increased between them, the frontal consonant moving slowly forward to eventually become /θ̟/ and the back consonant retracting slowly to become /x/. The final position being fixed around 1700.  In Andalusia to solve the problem the middle sibilant was eliminated and words with s had to be repositioned.  Before a vowel they merged with the frontal sibilant and at the end of a syllable they merged with the back sibilant.  It was especially convenient that the /ʃ/ was not present in many words at the end of syllable.  Modern language only shows 3 (reloj, boj, troj), there may have been a few more in the sixteen century?? so the final -s could slip into that position very comfortably and not cause conflict.  Though I haven't studied Portuguese linguistics in itself, this seems to have happened in the standard language since syllable final -s is always  /ʃ/.  At a slightly later time changes happening further north in Spain spread southward with population movement and like elsewhere all words locally pronounced with /ʃ/ began to be retracted and reached /h/ where in a few varieties it stopped, in others it didn't.


There are 2 facts that don't seem to me to fit in that scenario:

1) Recent research finds the first documental clues of s-aspiration happening in the south-central area (Toledo, Extremadura), and only later in Andalusia.

2) The move from [ʃ/ʒ] to [x] is first documented around Seville.


----------



## jmx

merquiades said:


> Can you think of any minimal pairs in Catalan between /ʃ/ and /s/?  I've been trying to think up some but cannot manage to.


A native would give better examples, especially because I have trouble with ò/ó and è/é. I can think of these:

xalar/salar, xarrar/serrar, xoc/soc, caixa/caça, coix/cos. (xarrar/serrar only works in eastern dialects)


----------



## merquiades

jmx said:


> There are 2 facts that don't seem to me to fit in that scenario:
> 
> 1) Recent research finds the first documental clues of s-aspiration happening in the south-central area (Toledo, Extremadura), and only later in Andalusia.
> 
> 2) The move from [ʃ/ʒ] to [x] is first documented around Seville.



Do you think the exact moment in time when something happened and at what precise point in southern Spain is really relevant? Especially since the whole area finally ended up changing in the same way?  Maybe so... I have the impression that Mérida, Badajoz, Córdoba, Sevilla are so close and connected by an ancient road that maybe it could have been happening in one town or another, or maybe all of them, but wasn't necessarily documented back then. It's by chance when we find proof of language articulation in literature.
It would be interesting to find the epicenter of the whole process.
I do remember reading texts by Sevillians writers who had commented on the guttural sound pronounced by Toledans coming south, at a time when it still sounded strange in Seville. 


¿Has creado otros mapas? Son impresionantes.


----------



## merquiades

jmx said:


> A native would give better examples, especially because I have trouble with ò/ó and è/é. I can think of these:
> 
> xalar/salar, xarrar/serrar, xoc/soc, caixa/caça, coix/cos. (xarrar/serrar only works in eastern dialects)



I suppose these words wouldn't be too easy to confuse in a conversation.  But then again context gives everything I think, even when caja-casa-caza were more similarly pronounced.


----------



## jmx

merquiades said:


> Do you think the exact moment in time when something happened and at what precise point in southern Spain is really relevant?


Yes, because when a sound change is first documented, it could have been already around even for centuries, so these changes might easily have been born when Andalusia was still part of Al-Andalus. 





merquiades said:


> I do remember reading texts by Sevillians writers who had commented on the guttural sound pronounced by Toledans coming south, at a time when it still sounded strange in Seville.


Comments about the harsh and unpleasant [x] sound seem to be common from southern Spaniards and Latin Americans. However, this is not in contradiction with this sound appearing in Seville around the XV century and later merging in that area (not in others) with the already stablished /h/ phoneme.


----------



## mjb1005

Irell said:


> Hola!!
> 
> I wonder, the 'z' in conozco, why is that? conocer - conoces, conoce etc
> yo conoco... it has to sound like a soft s, I guess, so why not conozo?
> I need a real reason, explanation for my grammarexam...
> 
> Anyone there to help me out? (in English por favor)
> 
> Have a nice evening!
> 
> Irelle



Hola,

As I was reading all the threads, everything turned to phonetics. I will say simply that what I learned in my history of the Spanish language course, that -z- in verbs like "conocer" has to do with how it evolved historically from Latin and that is a suffixation of the inchoative, which involves types of verbs that denote the beginning of action, state, or occurrence.

-Mateo


----------

