# origin of the Spanish diphthongs /jɛ/ and /wɔ/



## Nino83

Hello everyone. 

Usually, Romance vowel breaking of Vulgar Latin /ɛ/ and /e/, /ɔ/ and /o/ in open syllables is attribued to the influence of Germanic people, like Franks in France, Longobards and Franks in Northern Italy. 
Franks had, like other Germanic people, a stress-timed way of speaking. In Proto-Romance, stressed vowels in open syllables were longer (like it is today in Standard Italian and other Italian languages) than in stressed closed and unstressed syllables. This strong Germanic stress broken these vowels, forming diphthongs. 

In fact, we have: 
French: pied (VL /ɛ/ > /jɛ/), neuf (VL /ɔ/ > /wɔ/ > /ø/), mois (VL /e/ > /ei/ > /oi/ > /wa/), seul (VL /o/ > /ou/ > /eu/ > /ø) 
Piemontese: pé (VL /ɛ/ > /jɛ/ > /e/), növ (VL /ɔ/ > /wɔ/ > /ø/), meis (VL /e/ > /ei/), sol (VL /o/ > /ou/ > /u/) 
Occitan: pè, nòu, mes, sol 
(Old) Tuscan: piede (VL /ɛ/ > /jɛ/), nuovo (VL /ɔ/ > /wɔ/, now in Tuscan dialect is nɔvo), mese, solo 
Roman: pɛde, nɔvo, mese, solo 
Sicilian: pɛdi, nɔvu, misi, sulu 
Catalan: pɛu, nɔu, mes, sol 
Portuguese: pɛ, nɔvo, mes, sɔ  

So, in French all the four vowels (/ɛ/, /ɔ/, /e/,/o/) became diphthongs (/ɔ/ and /o/ became again monophthongs), as in Old Piedmontese (were also /ɛ/ became again a monophthongs) while in Old Tuscan only /ɛ/, /ɔ/ became diphthongs. 
In peninsular Italy, Catalonia and Portugal they remained monophthongs. 

So, Spanish mohophthongs aren't due to Germanic influence, because they appear also in closed syllables and they aren't due to metaphony, because they appears also in words ending with /a/ (like "fiesta") and /e/ (like "siempre"). 

In fact, Neapolitan has metaphonetic diphthongs. For example: 
[bɔnə] (buona, buone, feminine) but [bwɔnə] (buono, buoni, masculine, endnig with "long i" and "short u" in VL)
[vɛkkjə] (vecchia, vecchie, feminine) [vjɛkkjə] (vecchio, vecchi, masculine, endnig with "long i" and "short u" in VL) 

There is another language which has non-metaphonetic diphthongs in closed syllables (of words ending in "a" or "e")   

Friulan: [bjɛle] (bella, feminine) [fwart] (forte, masculine and feminine). 

Is there any Friulan/Spanish connection? 

I read that there was a period in which Vulgar Latin had metaphonetic diphthongs (like in Neapolitan today), like: 

bonum > buɔnu, boni > buɔni
bona > bɔna, bonae > bɔne 

then some Romance languages mantained the difference between VL "short final u" and "long final o", like Neapolitan and some median Italian languages (sapio > saccio/sacc[ə], muru(m) > muru/mur[ə]) and full metaphony (with rising in median Italian languages, bɔna/e and bonu/i, with diphthongs in Neapolitan, bɔn[ə] (bona/bonae), bwɔn[ə] (bonu/boni)), while other languages fused "final short u" and "final long o" in "closed o" (sapio > saccio, muru(m) > muro), mantaining only metaphony with final "i", like Bolognese and Emiliano-Romagnolo (which have gatt/ghett, derived from gatto, without metaphony, and ghetti, with metaphony with final "i"). 

The thesis is that some languages, like Friulan and Spanish, diphthongaized  /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in all positions, open and closed syllables, without metaphony, i.e also in words ending in "a", "e", "o". 

Do you think this thesis is credible? 
Why Friulan and Spanish, which are so distant, from a geographical point of view, developed these diphthongs?


----------



## Cenzontle

> The thesis is that some languages, like Friulan and Spanish, diphthongaized /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in all positions, open and closed syllables, without metaphony, i.e also in words ending in "a", "e", "o".
> Do you think this thesis is credible?


What you've stated as a "thesis" doesn't seem to me like a thesis, to be judged credible or incredible:  it seems like an objective description of what happened in Spanish.
(I don't know about Friulan.)


> Is there any Friulan/Spanish connection?


No.  I'm fairly well acquainted with the history of Spanish and have never heard of any Friulan connection.


----------



## francisgranada

Instead of answering the question, I'd like to add some observations "to complete" the image:

1. In Romanian the diphthongs appear both in open and closed syllables: moare (Sp. muere), soare (sol) ... ; iarbă (hierba), fier (fierro/hierro), foarte (fuerte), moarte (muerte) ... 

2. In Romanian, in open syllables the vowels o/e often change differently (o>u, e>i): bun (Sp. bueno), nou (nuevo), vine (viene), punte (puente) ... 

3. In Spanish, the diphthongs do not appear in all the "expected" cases: pone, dona (from _donar), _vende (but _tiende_), solo (=only, but _suelo_ from _soler_), como (also archaic _cuemo_), ... The same occurs in final closed syllables: don (=regalo), sol (but _pues_), ven!, ten! (but _bien_, _miel_), ...


----------



## Nino83

Spanish diphthongs (/jè/ and /wò/) (like Friulan) derive neither from stress-timed accent nor from metaphony. 

It is a "mistery".  



francisgranada said:


> Instead of answering the question, I'd like to add some observations "to complete" the image:
> 
> 1. In Romanian...



Thank you, Francis. 

I don't know how Romanian vowels developed, so I can't make comparisons.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> Spanish diphthongs (/jè/ and /wò/) (like Friulan) derive neither from stress-timed accent nor from metaphony.


Isn't it possible, that the diphthongs in closed syllables are a secondary phenomenon, i.e. it was only later extended to these syllables (e.g. "by analogy" with open stressed syllables)? 

P.S. Do the Romanian examples (post #3) "fit" your "thesis"?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Isn't it possible, that the diphthongs in closed syllables are a secondary phenomenon, i.e. it was only later extended to these syllables (e.g. "by analogy")?



This is a good question for Cenzontle. 



francisgranada said:


> Do the Romanian examples (post #3) "fit" your "thesis"?



Here (page 16) it is said that: 

"In Romanian, late Latin /i/ produced /i/; /e/ (from the merger of /ĭ/ and /ē/) emerged as /e/; */ĕ/ diphthongized to /jɛ/ in both open and closed syllables*; /a/ remained /a/, and /o/ merged with /ɔ/ to give /o/; and late Latin /u/ remains /u/ in Romanian."

So, now, we have also Romanian for /ɛ/ breaking (but not for /ɔ/, which is absent in this language). 
Spanish (Western-Ibero-Romance), Friulan (Rhaeto-Romance) and Romanian (Balcan-Romance).


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> This is a good question for Cenzontle...


I have an other question, too (for whoever ): is there any explanation why not all the o's and e's did underwent the diphthongization process in stressed syllables in Spanish? (Especially in open syllables, like in _pone, dona, solo_ ...).   

An other question: is this diphthongization in open syllables _surely_ due to the influence of Germanic languages? If so, then why also in Romanian, but not in Portuguese, for example?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> I have an other question, too (for whoever ): is there any explanation why not all the o's and e's did underwent the diphthongization process in stressed syllables in Spanish? (Especially in open syllables, like in _pone, dona, solo_ ...).



All these three "o" derive from VL /o/ which is not diphthongized. Only Vulgar Latin /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are diphthongized (except for French and Gallo-Italian languages, which have diphghongized also /e/ and /o/, only in open syllables, due to Germanic stress-timed way of speaking).  



francisgranada said:


> An other question: is this diphthongization in open syllables _surely_ due to the influence of Germanic languages? If so, then why also in Romanian, but not in Portuguese, for example?



If the diphthongization happened only in open syllables, yes, because in open syllables vowels are longer. 

If you read here (at page 8) it is said: 

"Mid-high vowel diphthongization in General French and in other territoeries where Germanic influence was strong (N. Italy, Rhaeto-Romance dialects) parallels an analogous process in English lengthened stress vowels have led to [falling diphthongs]". 

"However, according to Schürr, spontaneous diphthongization could be reminiscent of an ancient, generalized situation of conditioned diphthongization through vowel metaphony in at least some Romance areas, e.g., the Italian peninsula, were the process may have started in open syllables in the context of high vowels and extended to closed syllables later on". 

The fact is that, Spanish diphthongization of /jè/ and /wò/: 
- doesn't depend on stress, because it happens also in closed syllables and because, in general, Spanish doesn't show stress-time and vowel reduction (which is strong in French and in Gallo-Italian languages), and this conditioned (stressed open syllables) diphthongization is present only in those territories influenced by Germanic people (plus Tuscan, which is very close to Emilia and Liguria)
- doesn't depend on metaphony, because, contrary to "dialetti mediani e centromeridionali (Neapolitan)", it happens also when the final vowel is an "a", "e" (fiesta, siempre).


----------



## francisgranada

Thanks, Nino, for the detailed answer. I'll have to think over all the details to have a more complex image of the "situation"... 

However, if we suppose - at least in oldest stages - an initial common Vulgar Latin "source" of this phenomenon (in case of /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in open syllables - due to the Germanic influence), then I would expect it's existence also in Portuguese, at least approximately in positions where we have _uo/ie_ in standard Italian. Am I mistaken?... 

In other words, either the Germanic languages initiated the diphthongization process already in the common Pre-Romance period (regardless of the later different evolution in particular Romance-speaking areas), or the Germanic languages influenced various (Pre-Modern) Romance languages separetely/independently. The latter seems to me a bit improbable "at the first glance", due to the very similar results all over the Romance-speaking area (including the Romanian, where I wouldn't expect an intensive Germanic influence, however I do not know too much about the history of the Romanian language). 

If so, then why did the Galaico-Portuguese languages/dialects resist to this phenomenon? Or, they were affected as well, but later on the original  /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ were "restored" for some reason? (This could hypothetically explain some forms of the Port. verb _ser_, e.g. _foram _< Lat. _fuerunt _as a certain kind of hypercorrection: _ue>o_).



> The fact is that, Spanish diphthongization of /jè/ and /wò/:
> - doesn't depend on stress, because it happens also in closed syllables....


But it depends on stress, at least in the sense that this diphthongization occures only in stressed syllables. This might confirm the hypothesis that initially only the open syllables were diphthongized also in Spanish, as we can suppose that once the open stressed syllables were prounced markantly longer then the closed stressed ones.


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> 3. In Spanish, the diphthongs do not appear in all the "expected" cases: pone, dona (from _donar), _vende (but _tiende_), solo (=only, but _suelo_ from _soler_), como (also archaic _cuemo_), ... The same occurs in final closed syllables: don (=regalo), sol (but _pues_), ven!, ten! (but _bien_, _miel_), ...



Francis, nasal consonants closed the vowel in Spanish impeding the diphthong from forming.  
At times a high vowel (i,u) could also close the syllable from a distance.



			
				francisgranada said:
			
		

> Isn't it possible, that the diphthongs in closed syllables are a secondary phenomenon, i.e. it was only later extended to these syllables (e.g. "by analogy" with open stressed syllables)?


  At least if we are basing it on literature, diphthongs like (fuerte, puerta, diestro) were routine from the very beginning.



			
				Nino83 said:
			
		

> Spanish doesn't show stress-time and vowel reduction


  Yes, old Spanish did.  All vowels except "a" following or preceding the stressed syllable were lost in Spanish.  There was also a tendency to lose the last syllable if it ended in "e" too.  However, the accented vowel had a particularly strong stress.  Longer words are almost always cultisms, that's why you have so many duplicates like raudo/rápido.

Spanish was born in a bilingual area where Basque was also spoken, and the two languages share a similar  5 vowel system.  When open vowels became diphthongs it reduced Spanish to 5 vowels.

By the way, this older thread on diphthongs brought some insight into the matter.


----------



## merquiades

Lathrop on Spanish diphthongs says

El proceso que produjo el diptongo en castellano parece haber dado dos tipos de fenómenos:  en primer lugar, un alargamiento de la vocal y una incipiente diferenciación en su timbre (è èe ée)/ (ò, òo, óo);  en una segunda etapa los dos elementos se diferenciarían progresivamente (ié, ia)/ (uo, ua, ue).


----------



## Cenzontle

> Isn't it possible, that the diphthongs in closed syllables are a secondary phenomenon, i.e. it was only later extended to these syllables (e.g. "by analogy")?


I suppose it's possible, but I haven't encountered that possibility suggested by experts.
The problem is that spelling conventions for Spanish don't settle down until the 13th century, and earlier scribes showed some variety in how they represented the diphthongs.
For example, the 12th-century "Auto de los Reyes Magos" contains "poco *timpo *a que es nacida" ("timpo" for "tiempo")—
but I don't think anyone believes that they pronounced it /timpo/.
Similarly, in the Auto, the /ue/ diphthong is represented by its first element alone:  "non *pudet* seer otra sennal[?]" (¿No puede ser otra señal?)  (Final "t" probably a silent Latinism.)


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> Yes, old Spanish did.  All vowels except "a" following or preceding the stressed syllable were lost in Spanish.  There was also a tendency to lose the last syllable if it ended in "e" too.  However, the accented vowel had a particularly strong stress.  Longer words are almost always cultisms, that's why you have so many duplicates like raudo/rápido.



Also in your link there are words like "enemigo", "christiano", "mano", "caualleros", which in Piedmontese or Emiliano Romagnolo don't have the final vowel. 
This makes me think that also Old Spanish was more syllable-timed than French, Piedmontese, Lumbard, Emiliano Romagnolo, Occitan and Catalan, which, at the time, lost all final unstressed vowel, except "a", and a lot of pre-tonic syllables. 
Compare "dinero" (present in your link) with the Piedmontese "dne". 

Not even the languages having more vowel reduction and being more stress-timed like French and Piedmontese didn't succede in breaking /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in closed syllables (not even English, which is an example of stress-timed language did it), because, simply, they were too short (compapre "port" with "puerto", present in the link). 




merquiades said:


> Francis, nasal consonants closed the vowel in Spanish impeding the diphthong from forming.
> At times a high vowel (i,u) could also close the syllable from a distance.



Those words weren't diphthongized because the stressed vowel was/is an /o/. 
See words like "bueno", "cuenta", "luenga", "bien" (present in Old Spanish).


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Not even the languages having more vowel reduction and being more stress-timed like French and Piedmontese didn't succede in breaking /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in closed syllables (not even English, which is an example of stress-timed language did it), because, simply, they were too short (compapre "port" with "puerto", present in the link).


  The open vowels were lengthened in Spanish even in closed syllables-



> "enemigo", "christiano", "mano", "caualleros ..... don't have the final vowel


Final "o" was kept, but other unstressed syllables were generally lost.  "Enemigo" is indeed a rarity.  Something like "Enmigo" or "Eñigo" would be excepted.  "Christiano" has nothing to drop in Spanish.  /Krstian/ is impossible in Spanish logic.  "Mano" is also normal.   As for "caballero" nothing to drop either.  All "a" were kept in Castilian regardless of position ("a" is unique in that sense), then "e" is the stressed vowel and "o" is the ending. 
At a time it seemed like final -"e" would be eliminated completely which would have left only "-o" and "-a" but that trend was reversed after 1400.



> Those words weren't diphthongized because the stressed vowel was/is an /o/.
> See words like "bueno", "cuenta", "luenga", "bien" (present in Old Spanish).


In a word like "conde, monte, hombre" from "comite, homine, monte" the vowel was originally open and then the nasal consonant m,n closed it.  That prevented the diphthong from happening since it could only develop from open vowels.  In non-Castilian dialects the diphthong could occure "cuende, uemne".  There are a few examples of the vowel not being closed even in Castilian though "fuente, puente".


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> The open vowels were lengthened in Spanish even in closed syllables



That's interesting! 

Can you link some page?


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> That's interesting!
> 
> Can you link some page?



As I said check out T.A Lathrop (Gramática Histórica Española), Ariel, Barcelona 1989,  that I mentioned in post 11.


----------



## Nino83

But is there any passage where he specifically said that this happened also in closed syllables?


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> But is there any passage where he specifically said that this happened also in closed syllables?



He said lengthening happened in open and closed syllables.  He doesn't draw attention to the closed syllable but says it in a matter of fact way.  The book explains chapter by chapter how Latin became Spanish with examples, century by century, the objective being how to predict a Latin result in Spanish or trace a word back towards Latin.  He gives the impression that one of the reasons for forming diphthongs was to simplify the language and precisely to get rid of the long open vowels which is portrayed as problematic in an environment with strong stressed syllables.  He does not even speak of Germanic influences, just pre-roman influences based on Basque which he considers fundamental.  The text analyses are particularly useful.

I think the book is from a Spanish-centric position.  The general impression given is that changes that occurred seem practical, logical and inevitable, not just in regards to diphthongs but everything.  Even the realignment of the sibilants seems normal, even though I could imagine seeing all that happened it could be argued that keeping the sounds as they were pre-fifteenth century would have saved a lot of hassle and be normal.  Portuguese is a normal language with open vowels, the original sbiliants etc.


----------



## Cossue

francisgranada said:


> If so, then why did the Galaico-Portuguese languages/dialects resist to this phenomenon? Or, they were affected as well, but later on the original /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ were "restored" for some reason? (This could hypothetically explain some forms of the Port. verb _ser_, e.g. _foram _< Lat. _fuerunt _as a certain kind of hypercorrection: _ue>o_)


I'm rather well acquainted with Galician documents from the 9th century on, and IMO there's no single clue in them about a possible diphthongation of tonic open vowels. In fact, the current/historical absence/presence of that diphthongation is one of the isoglosses used to tell apart Galician from Asturian in the region of transition in western Asturias and León. 

Old Spanish was also more affected by pretonic/posttonic vowel reduction than Galicia-Portuguese, cf. Spanish _codo _(< *_cobdo_) vs. G _cóbado _P _cotovelo _'elbow' < Latin _cubitum_.


----------



## merquiades

Cossue said:


> Old Spanish was also more affected by pretonic/posttonic vowel reduction than Galicia-Portuguese, cf. Spanish _codo _(< *_cobdo_) vs. G _cóbado _P _cotovelo _'elbow' < Latin _cubitum_.


Thanks I've been searching for that vocabulary since yesterday:  pretonic/postonic.  Yes, in Castilian Spanish it was systematic except when the vowel was "a".

In Galician I assume there are no stem-changing verbs because of lack of dipththongs, or does it alternate closed/open according to the verb form?


----------



## Nino83

Cossue said:


> Old Spanish was also more affected by pretonic/posttonic vowel reduction than Galicia-Portuguese, cf. Spanish _codo _(< *_cobdo_) vs. G _cóbado _P _cotovelo _'elbow' < Latin _cubitum_.



But (Old) Catalan, Occitan, French, Piemontese, Lombardo, Emiliano Romagnolo, had a stronger pre/post-tonic vowel reduction than Old Spanish (they droppen also final "o") and they didn't break phonetically short /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in stressed closed syllables. It's hard to say that Old Spanish was more stress-timed than Old French (which retained /fɛst/ and /pɔrt/, compared to Spanish /fjesta/ and /puerto/). 

Spanish diphthongs in closed syllables are unique from Portugal to Friuli.


----------



## Cossue

merquiades said:


> In Galician I assume there are no stem-changing verbs because of lack of dipththongs, or does it alternate closed/open according to the verb form?



Yep. Open and closed vowels alternate:


*Galician**Spanish*mintomientom*e*ntes [ɛ]m*ie*ntesm*e*nte [ɛ]m*ie*ntementimosmentimosmentidesmentísm*e*nten [ɛ]m*ie*nten


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> But (Old) Catalan, Occitan, French, Piemontese, Lombardo, Emiliano Romagnolo, had a stronger pre/post-tonic vowel reduction than Old Spanish (they droppen also final "o") and they didn't break phonetically short /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in stressed closed syllables. It's hard to say that Old Spanish was more stress-timed than Old French (which retained /fɛst/ and /pɔrt/, compared to Spanish /fjesta/ and /puerto/).
> 
> Spanish diphthongs in closed syllables are unique from Portugal to Friuli.



But all of these languages still have open /ɛ/ and /ɔ/, so at least 7 vowels in their inventory.  Not so good if the goal was to get rid of them completely or to simplify to 5 simple vowels.



Cossue said:


> Yep. Open and closed vowels alternate:
> 
> 
> *Galician**Spanish*mintomientom*e*ntes [ɛ]m*ie*ntesm*e*nte [ɛ]m*ie*ntementimosmentimosmentidesmentísm*e*nten [ɛ]m*ie*nten



How would you account for the "i" in the first person singular?


----------



## Nino83

For the Friulan, there are two possible explanations: 

1) It derives from the metaphony present in the variety of Vulgar Latin of the peninsular Italy (i.e apɛrta/ap*j**ɛ*rt*u* and pɔrta/p*w**ɔ*rt*u*), then the Tuscan assimilation of final unstressed /ǔ/ and /ō/ in /o/, which spread in Veneto and Friuli (I recall that Italian dialects from lower Lazio and center Marche to Southern Campania/Northern Calabria and central Puglia retain the distinction between final unstressed VL /ǔ/ and /ō/, for example sapiō has an /o/ but murǔ(m) has an /u/, and they retain metaphony today) leaded to the loss of metaphony in Veneto and, on the contrary, to the spread of metaphonic diphthpongs in all the enviroments, also before an /a/, i.e leaded to a generalization, ap*j**ɛ*rta/ap*j**ɛ*rto and p*w**ɔ*rta/p*w**ɔ*rto, in Friuli. 

2) Schürr ("La Diphtongaison Romane") argues that this generalization happened during the reconstruction of Friuli after the Hungarian invasion of the 10th century and that the generalization of the diphthong came from the West (I don't know if it is plausible but in Dalmatian there is "nuestro" for "nɔstru(m)"). 

Can Spanish diphthongs have the same origin? 
I don't know if it is plausible, because I can't understand how this feature could be spread in Castille but not in Catalonia, which was geographically closer to southern Lazio and Napoli. 




merquiades said:


> But all of these languages still have open /ɛ/ and /ɔ/, so at least 7 vowels in their inventory. Not so good if the goal was to get rid of them completely or to simplify to 5 simple vowels.



Yes. I was wondering if there is some theory about this historical process in Spanish. 

Some linguists think that metaphonetic diphthongs of /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ (apɛrta/ap*j**ɛ*rt*u* and pɔrta/p*w**ɔ*rt*u*) was common in Vulgar Latin but when /ǔ/ and /ō/ merged in /o/, this assimilation was no more possible (because metaphony happens when there is a final "i" or a final "u", i.e a final high vowel). 

It's possible that some languages (Spanish, Friulan and Romanian, the latter only with /ɛ/ because /ɔ/ merged with /o/) generalized this diphthong also in closed syllable. 
Someone says that it is plausible for Friuli but I've not read any theory about Spain and Romania.


----------



## francisgranada

I have two questions a propos:

1. Why s*ie*rvo (noun), but s*i*rvo, s*i*rves, s*i*rve ... (conjugated forms of the verb servir) in Spanish?

2. Also, even if in unstressed syllable, why d*o*rmimos, m*e*ntimos but d*u*rmamos, m*i*ntamos?
(when stressed, then the expected diphthong occurs: d*ue*rmo, m*ie*nto)

If this e~i~ie and o~u~ue alternations reflect an older stage when the diphthongation of e/u was not yet stabilized or completed, then it could perhaps explain also the quite consequent spelling in the _Auto de los Reyes Magos_, cited by Cenzontle (post #12): timpo, tirra, quin, bine, vinet, pudet, cumo, morto, pusto ...


----------



## Nino83

I add that sometimes in Friulan, VL /ɛ/ in open stressed syllables becomes /i:/. 
For example: pɛtra > pjɛtra (Friulan) pjetra (Spanish) but pɛde > pi:d (Friulan, written pîd) and pje (Spanish). 

So the systems are not always the same, but the diphthongs of /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in closed syllables are peculiar of Spanish, Friulan and Romanian.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Yes. I was wondering if there is some theory about this historical process in Spanish.


Here is more on the theory that Castilian was strongly influenced by Basque in its developmental stage.  It includes diphthongs and 5 closed vowels.  Historically Euskera was much more widespread than it is today.
Other articles about Basque:  wikipedia sustrato vasco en lenguas romances


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> I have two questions a propos:
> 
> 1. Why s*ie*rvo (noun), but s*i*rvo, s*i*rves, s*i*rve ... (conjugated forms of the verb servir) in Spanish?
> 
> 2. Also, even if in unstressed syllable, why d*o*rmimos, m*e*ntimos but d*u*rmamos, m*i*ntamos?
> (when stressed, then the expected diphthong occurs: d*ue*rmo, m*ie*nto)
> 
> If this e~i~ie and o~u~ue alternations reflect an older stage when the diphthongation of e/u was not yet stabilized or completed, then it could perhaps explain also the quite consequent spelling in the _Auto de los Reyes Magos_, cited by Cenzontle (post #12): timpo, tirra, quin, bine, vinet, pudet, cumo, morto, pusto ...



-IR verbs in Spanish developed according to the influence of the -i in the first person singular form and then in analogy with other verbs in an attempt to streamline the conjugation.
1)Explanation of "servir" (strange,complicated ):  The noun "siervo" develops normally from "sèrvus".   The verb "servir" had originally a yod in the first person singular "servio",  this yod closed the stressed /ɛ/ into /e/, so no diphthong /ie/ ever occurred.  This was extended to all the other forms (2nd person singular, 3rd person singular and plural, all present subjunctive etc.).  Then we see the first person plural "servimos, servís" rhymes with "medimos, medís" and "pedimos, pedís".  Again out of analogy with these verbs (medir, pedir, etc.), the vowel of the other forms was again raised once more to /i/ and they became "sirvo, sirves, sirve, sirven, sirva" so all the forms were harmonious (sirvo, servimos, sirva; mido, medimos, mida; pido, pedimos, pida etc.).  
2) For the other "ir" verbs there is the theory of /i/.  All these verbs developed a need for an /i/ somewhere in the form.   "Mentimos, mentís" has the /i/,  "*mentamos, *mentáis" would not have one, so it changes to "mintamos, mintáis".  Granted this is a strange theory but it always works.  Go through an "ir" verb conjugation and you'll always find one /i/.  Why not two in the case of "*mintimos, *mintís"? Well, apparently two /i/ are too many, and the linguistic forces made it so they need to differentiate from one another, so the first one become /e/.
3) There are no longer many -ir verbs with "o" in the stem because the tendency is for the /i/  to raise the /o/ in the infinitive to /u/ and afterwards the whole verb conjugation is remade with /u/ in every form: examples:  (subir, pudrir, cubrir...).  The "o" in "morir/dormir" is unique not only because they are the last of the "o" in -ir verbs but because the stem "o" is open /ɔ/ and as such had brought about the diphthong /ue/ in the same places as other stem changing (o > ue) verbs which are almost all in the -ar verb category.  However, under this force to change forms to /u/,  those with no diphthong are under strong pressure to become  /u/: "durmió, durmieron, durmiendo, durmamos, durmáis" have changed.  This process is currently active, and popularly we have "*durmía, *durmiste, *durmir"... etc.  "Jogar" similarly became "jugar" with /u/ alternating with /ue/ but it's an -ar verb.  Why?

Source for 1) is Lathrop, 2 and 3) is Jean Bouzet.


----------



## Cossue

merquiades said:


> How would you account for the "i" in the first person singular?



I'm not sure. According to the historical Galician grammar by Manuel Ferreiro (ISBN 84-89896437, p. 311), the 1st person of the present of many verbs (and also the subjunctive: _eu minta, ti mintas, el/a minta, nós mintamos, vós mintades, eles/as mintan_), which in Latin had a yod, were reformulated in last six centuries...  So maybe that yod have some responsibility here. Anyway, popularly people -at least in western Galicia, were I live- usually say "_eu minto, ti mintes, el minte, nós mentimos, vós mentides, eles minten_" (so closing the tonic vowel a pair of degrees) and also, but less frequently since it is considered "rural", _mintir _'to lie' instead of _mentir_, _mintirán _'lier' instead of _mentirán_; now, the nasal in the coda usually closes the vowel which precedes it, if it is the tonic one, plus we have metaphony/vowel harmony...


----------



## francisgranada

Thanks, Merquiades, for your interesting answer (post #28). For curiosity, I noticed (long time ago) that I could "guess" quite reliably in which verbs the _e>i_ change took place , even if I had never heard or seen the given verb before.  I.e. "the theory of _i_ for _ir_ verbs" seems to work also subconsciousely (even in case of non-natives ).





> "Jogar" similarly became "jugar" with /u/ alternating with /ue/ but it's an -ar verb. Why?


I have no idea why, but spontaneousely it seems to me rather a mixture of two parallel verbs: _jugar _and _jogar_, something like _andare _and *_vadere _in Italian: _vado_, _vai_, _va_, _vanno_, but _andiamo, andate; andare; andava; andrà _etc ... (i.e. as if it had nothing to do with the "_d*o*rmir/d*u*rmamos_" phenomenon)


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> merquiades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jogar" similarly became "jugar" with /u/ alternating with /ue/ but it's an -ar verb. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why, but spontaneousely it seems to me rather a mixture of two parallel verbs: _jugar _and _jogar_, something like _andare _and *_vadere _in Italian: _vado_, _vai_, _va_, _vanno_, but _andiamo, andate; andare; andava; andrà _etc ... (i.e. as if it had nothing to do with the "_d*o*rmir/d*u*rmamos_" phenomenon)
Click to expand...

  I've never heard of two different verbs "jogar" and "jugar", just the first one that gives way to the second one over time.  It's almost like it were an -ir verb "*joguir/*juguir" like "*cobrir/cubrir".  The stem nowadays is "u" except in the stressed verb forms that have "ue" as a reminder that it could have once been "jogar".  One difference is the verb endings are always -ar, never -ir:  "juega, jugaba, jugó, jugaré, jugara".  

Edit:  Actually maybe it has to do with the "j" that changed pronunciation from /ʒ/ to /ʃ/ to /χ/.  It could have affected the vowel.


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> I've never heard of two different verbs "jogar" and "jugar", just the first one that gives way to the second one over time ...


Of, course. I didn't mean two _different _verbs, but variants of the same verb (with o and with u). We know that _jogar _had to exist and we also know that _jugar _does exist. So the idea is that they could also co-exist during a certain period (be it on a dialectal level).

Or alternatively: primarily there existed only the verb _jogar_, having a "regular" conjugation: _juego, juegas, juega, jogamos, jogáis, juegan etc_ ... Later _jogar _was replaced by _jugar_ (for whatever reason, phonetical or other) letting untouched the already diphthongized verbal forms.

All in all, the difference between_ dormir/morir_ and _jugar_ is not only their belonging to differnt conjugations (-ir resp. -ar), but also the fact that in case of _jugar _we have consequently "u" in all the unstressed positions, while in case of _dormir/morir _we have both "o" and "u", e.g. _ dormir, dormimos__ ... _and also_ durmiendo, durmió etc... _(That's why I wrote in my previous post "... as if it had nothing to do with the "d*o*rmir/d*u*rmamos" phenomenon").


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> Of, course. I didn't mean two _different _verbs, but variants of the same verb (with o and with u). We know that _jogar _had to exist and we also know that _jugar _does exist. So the idea is that they could also co-exist during a certain period (be it on a dialectal level).
> 
> Or alternatively: primarily there existed only the verb _jogar_, having a "regular" conjugation: _juego, juegas, juega, jogamos, jogáis, juegan etc_ ... Later _jogar _was replaced by _jugar_ (for whatever reason, phonetical or other) letting untouched the already diphthongized verbal forms.
> 
> All in all, the difference between_ dormir/morir_ and _jugar_ is not only their belonging to differnt conjugations (-ir resp. -ar), but also the fact that in case of _jugar _we have consequently "u" in all the unstressed forms, while in case of _dormir/morir _we have e.g. _ dormir, dormimos__ ... _and also_ durmiendo, durmió etc... _



Yes, it seems as if "jugar < jogar" were already situated at the end of this active ir-verb process that is to turn "dormir/ morir" into "durmir/ murir".  Except it is not an -ir verb.   
By the way, it is "jogar" in Portuguese.



As a side, French formed many more diphthongs than the 4 mentioned in post #1.  They have rebecome simple vowels since then though but changed in quality


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> Yes, it seems as if "jugar < jogar" were already situated at the end of this active ir-verb process that is to turn "dormir/ morir" into "durmir/ murir".  Except it is not an -ir verb.


If true, then I think this is understandable: there is no direct or "spontaneous" reason to connect this phenomenon with _-ir_ (unlike in case of e>i verbs).


----------



## Nino83

After going into this matter, it seems that Spanish diphthongs /je/ and /wo/ in closed syllables are not generated by a strong stress accent. 

In Vulgar Latin, vowels lengthened in open syllables, so we have /mare > ma:re/, /pɛde > pɛ:de/, bɔno > bɔ:no/, /mese > me:se/, /actore > acto:re/, /filo > fi:lo/, /muro > mu:ro/. 

Then, those languages who had a strong stress accent: 
raised /a:/ to /ɛ:/ (French, Bolognese, Barese, /mɛ:r/) 
broke /ɛ:/ and /ɔ:/ into /jɛ/ and /wɔ/ (French /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /we/ > óe > ø, Bolognese /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/ > /i:/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /u:/, Barese /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/ > /iə/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /uə/ 
broke /e:/ and /o:/ into /ei/ and /ou/ (French /e:/ > /ei/ > /oè/ > /wè/ > /wa/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /u/, Bolognese /e:/ > /ei/ > /ɛi/ > /ai/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /ɔu/ > /au/, Barese /e:/ > /ei/ > /ɛi/ > /ai/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /ɔu/) 
broke /i:/ and /u:/ into /ei/ and /ou/ (Barese /i:/ > /ei/, /u:/ > /ou/) 
lost pre-tonic vowels: French fənêtre, Bolognese fnestra, tlè (telaio) Barese fənestrə, təlerə
lost all final unstressed vowels but /a/: French blanc, Bolognese bianc, Barese biancə 

All these languages, who have a strong stress accent and vowel reduction didn't break vowels in closed syllables, i.e phonetic short vowels. 

Spanish and Old Spanish don't have such strong stress accent and vowel reduction and don't have mid-high vowel breaking in open syllables. 

The Cambridge History of Romance Languages says only that there are four different system for diphthongization of Vulgar Latin /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ but doesn't say anything about the developement of Spanish diphthongs in closed syllables. 

This process is not known very well.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> After going into this matter, it seems that Spanish diphthongs /je/ and /wo/ in closed syllables are not generated by a strong stress accent.
> 
> In Vulgar Latin, vowels lengthened in open syllables, so we have /mare > ma:re/, /pɛde > pɛ:de/, bɔno > bɔ:no/, /mese > me:se/, /actore > acto:re/, /filo > fi:lo/, /muro > mu:ro/.
> 
> Then, those languages who had a strong stress accent:
> raised /a:/ to /ɛ:/ (French, Bolognese, Barese, /mɛ:r/)
> broke /ɛ:/ and /ɔ:/ into /jɛ/ and /wɔ/ (French /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /we/ > óe > ø, Bolognese /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/ > /i:/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /u:/, Barese /ɛ:/ > /jɛ/ > /iə/, /ɔ:/ > /wɔ/ > /uə/
> broke /e:/ and /o:/ into /ei/ and /ou/ (French /e:/ > /ei/ > /oè/ > /wè/ > /wa/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /u/, Bolognese /e:/ > /ei/ > /ɛi/ > /ai/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /ɔu/ > /au/, Barese /e:/ > /ei/ > /ɛi/ > /ai/, /o:/ > /ou/ > /ɔu/)
> broke /i:/ and /u:/ into /ei/ and /ou/ (Barese /i:/ > /ei/, /u:/ > /ou/)
> lost pre-tonic vowels: French fənêtre, Bolognese fnestra, tlè (telaio) Barese fənestrə, təlerə
> lost all final unstressed vowels but /a/: French blanc, Bolognese bianc, Barese biancə
> 
> All these languages, who have a strong stress accent and vowel reduction didn't break vowels in closed syllables, i.e phonemic short vowels.
> 
> Spanish and Old Spanish don't have such strong stress accent and vowel reduction and don't have mid-high vowel breaking in open syllables.
> 
> The Cambridge History of Romance Languages says only that there are four different system for diphthongization of Vulgar Latin /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ but don't say anything about the developement of Spanish diphthongs in closed syllables.
> 
> This process is not known very well.


  I have always learnt the exact opposite, that Old Castilian did indeed have a very strong stress, thus all the diphthongs out of historic long open vowels in all stressed syllables and the loss of most pretonic and postonic vowels but /a/.   
Why didn't Spanish make diphthongs of closed vowels too?  Why did they not drop final -o too? 
Does Spanish have to act exactly like Gallo-Roman languages?  I don't think so.  There is not a model all modern Romance languages have to follow.  Iberian Romance languages do develop from the same strain of Western Vulgar, as such many traits are shared, but they did go their separate ways and developed differently, phonetically, grammatically and lexically.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> Does Spanish have to act exactly like Gallo-Roman languages?  I don't think so.



The dialect of Bari and those of Southern Abruzzo and North and Central Puglia are neither Gallo-Romance nor Gallo-Italic. 
These features are common to different stress-timed languages, like English (where only long vowels were broken into diphthongs, like in French or in Barese). 
The same is true for Central Catalan (where there was the partial reversal of /ɛ/ and /e/, probably due to a preceeding diphthong) and in Modern European Portuguese (where the final /u/ disappears in the South Portugal and in fast speech), which is Iberian-Romance (but there are not modern diphthongs because vowels in open syllables are no more pronounced long in Portuguese).


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino. I still have the impression that the diphthongization process in Spanish (or "volgare ispanico") didn't necessarily happen "at once", but rather in more phases. I.e. the reason for the diphthongs in the open syllables may be the same/similar to that in Italian, but the diphthongs in the closed syllables may have a different "story". 

Only for illustration, without any details: in Slovak there is _žena _(woman) but _žien _(genitve pl. of woman), _kone _(horses) but _kôň _(horse) - the letter _ô_ is pronounced like the Italian "uo". I.e. the diphthongs appear rather in closed syllables and not in the open ones like in Italian. I can imagine something similar also in Spanish, independently on a previous diphtongization of the open syllables (this is only an idea, nothing more ...).

A question: do the rules of the Neapolitan metaphoric diphthongation explain also the diphthongs in closed syllables like e.g. in: _tuorne _(2nd pers. sg. present indicative, but _torna _- imperative); _Surriento_; _juorne _(plural, but _jurnata_), _uocchie _etc ...?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> A question: do the rules of the Neapolitan metaphoric diphthongation explain also the diphthongs in closed syllables like e.g. in: _tuorne _(2nd pers. sg. present indicative, but _torna _- imperative); _Surriento_; _juorne _(plural, but _jurnata_), _uocchie _etc ...?



Ciao Francis.  
Yes, in Neapolitan and other South/Central languages it is clear. 
What is unclear is why Spanish has "fiesta" (without metaphony). 

I don't think that it is related to stress accent (and there is no book which supports the thesis of the stress accent) only because if it was so: 
1) long vowels in open syllables are more easily broken 
2) when a vowel is broken, if it becomes again a monophthong, it is raised (for example e: > je > iə > i: or o: > wo > uə > u: )
3) stress-timed rhythm is related to vowel reduction 

But Spanish /e/ and /o/ (in open syllables) are the same of those present in Vulgar Latin, so they were never broken. 

One explanaition could be that there was a previous metaphony that later was generalized to feminine nouns and singular nouns in -e. But when there is metaphony (in Romance languages), also /e/ and /o/ are raised to /i/ and /u/, and this is not present in Spanish. 

For example, in Neapolitan we have: /sekkə/ (secca, secche) > /sikkə/ (secco, secchi), /korrə/ (corre) > /kurrə/ (corri). 

N.B. 

o juorne (il giorno), e juorne (i giorni)


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino, now I am going to play the role of _advocatus diaboli _ (Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate ):


Nino83 said:


> I don't think that it is related to stress accent ... only because if it was so


Not only because it was so, but e.g. because the stressed syllable was pronounced longer, even if closed (for whatever reason, like e.g. in Italian there is a tendency to pronounce longer the stressed syllables ending in _*r*_: Roberto, aperto ...)





> long vowels in open syllables are more easily broken


Why only in open syllables? The Sovak examples in my previous post show that it works also in (some) closed syllables (the corresponding syllables were probably long before they turned into diphthongs). 


> when a vowel is broken, if it becomes again a monophthong, it is raised (for example e: > je > iə > i: or o: > wo > uə > u: )


When a vowel is broken, it does not "remember" any more it's previous unbroken status, so the question is if _je_ can become _e_ and _wo _can become _o_. I think that yes (perhaps through some intermediate stages, but yes). 





> stress-timed rhythm is related to vowel reduction


I think this depends on the strength of the stress, but I'd need some examples to understand it better. 


> (in Romance languages)


The Romance languages from a certain "moment" develop independently, so no Romance feature is "everlasting" or obligatory ...


----------



## Nino83

In order. 
1) Because the "e" in "Roberto" is shorter than the "e" in "vero". 
2) Because in Proto-Romance there are short vowels in closed syllables (similar to the English Great Vowel Shift). 
3) Right, the vowel can go up or down but rarely it comes back to the initial quality because the other element of the diphthong is higher or lower than the original vowel. 
4) Germanic languages, English, Germanic-influenced languages (French, Gallo-Italian languages), other languages like Central and Eastern Catalan, languages of Southern Abruzzo and Puglia, Modern European Portuguese. 
5) Yes, but Spanish has non-metaphonetic diphthongs in closed syllables and I'm looking for a book where there is some explanation.


----------



## Cenzontle

> I'm looking for a book where there is some explanation.


Through Google Books you can consult Paul Lloyd's _From Latin to Spanish_.  Start on page 116.  (Sorry, this link doesn't work.)
How about this link for Lloyd?
Or Ralph Penny's _A History of the Spanish Language_, starting on page 51.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you Cenzontle. 

The theory of metaphony is not convincing because: 
1) _metafonia napoletana/sannita_, where /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ become /we/ and /wo/ when there is a final /i/ or /u/, is a more recent phenomenon while _metafonia sabina_, where /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ become /e/ and /o/, is the oldest, and it is present also in Galician-Portuguese and in Asturian-Leonese (where both ɛ/, /ɔ/ and /e/, /o/ become /i/ and /u/) 
2) in Old Spanish there are some diphthongs which are unexpected, like "cuerto" (Soaria, Burgos) and "cuerro" (valle de Losa, north of Burgos), because there is no final /i/ or /u/ and those vowels are high /o/ in closed syllable 

(source: The Cambride History of Romance Languages, page 130 e ss.) 

In "A History of the Spanish Language" (page 52), it is simply said that with the passage from some type of melodic accent to the stress accent, /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ were a little raised, so there was confusion between /ɛ/ and /e/, /ɔ/ and /o/, /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ were lengthened in open and closed syllables (and later there was diphthongization) in order to differenciate them from /e/ and /o/. 

So, there is a completely different developement which is not related neither with stress-timed rhythm/diphthongization in open syllables/vowel reduction nor with metaphony. 

We can note that this "confusion" between /ɛ/, /ɔ/ and /e/ and /o/ is peculiar to Old Castillan, because other languages (except Romanian, which has 5 vowels and merged /ɔ/ with /o/ and Sardinian, which has an older 5 vowel system) retained this distinction. 

N.B. 
The five vowel system of Sicilian language has the same distribution/distinction of the common Romance system with seven vowels. 
vènti = /vɛntɪ/ (winds), vénti = vɪntɪ (twenty) 
bòtti = /bɔttɪ/ (bangs, thuds), botti = /bʊttɪ/ (casks) 
In other words, Sicilian was influenced by Byzantine Greek pronunciation, so /e/ and /o/ were raised to /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ (and merged with /i/ and /u/). 
Spanish retains this distinction with diphthongs.


----------



## aefrizzo

Nino83 said:


> The five vowel system of Sicilian language has the same distribution/distinction of the common Romance system with seven vowels.
> vènti = /vɛntɪ/ (winds), vénti = vɪntɪ (twenty)
> bòtti = /bɔttɪ/ (bangs, thuds), botti = /bʊttɪ/ (casks)
> In other words, Sicilian was influenced by Byzantine Greek pronunciation, so /e/ and /o/ were raised to /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ (and merged with /i/ and /u/).
> Spanish retains this distinction with diphthongs.



I assume you refer to the standard literary ortography and to an allegedly common pronunciation  of Sicilian. Nothing to object. 
Actually this Spanish-like diphtongization *is the rule*, till nowaday and regardless of age, among the Palermo natives when they are strictly speaking Sicilian. 
vènto = /vi-ɛntu/ (wind), vénti = vɪntɪ (twenty) 
bòtto = /bu-ɔttu/ (bang), botte = /vʊttɪ/ (cask)
I quote just two examples of yours for stressed closed syllables, but it occurs for  open syllables too:
mo/rire= /mu-oriri (to die)

Be patient with my lack of familiarity with IPA symbols: by inserting the hyphen within the diphtong I mean its first vowel is strongly stressed and "lengthened". 
I do not adventure in offering an explanation, you have one?


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> Actually this Spanish-like diphtongization *is the rule*, till nowaday and regardless of age, among the Palermo natives when they are strictly speaking Sicilian.



This is only a recent phenomenon which is present only in Palermo. 

http://web.tiscali.it/lpweb/rel_dittongazione_sic.pdf 



> Nel gruppo siciliano occidentale, in particolare nel dialetto palermitano e dintorni, vige un tipo di dittongo detto “incondizionato”: cioè lo sviluppo sistematico di Ie e Uo da qualsiasi e ed o. Il trapanese e l’agrigentino centro occidentale, invece, non presentano alcun fenomeno di dittongazione.



While metaphony (the Neapolitan type) is present only in _ennese/nisseno_ and _ragusano_ and, according to Treccani: 



> Diffusione della metafonia in Sicilia (bieddu 'bello' ma bedda 'bella', buonu ma bona). Riguarda due aree separate: una centrale che occupa le province di Enna e Caltanissetta con vari sconfinamenti a settentrione, a oriente e a occidente, e una sudorientale intorno a Ragusa. Secondo Piccitto (1951) queste due zone formavano un tempo un'area compatta, poi sgretolata dal cuneo gallo-italico. Ma in generale *in Sicilia la metafonia è considerata un fenomeno tardo di origine 'napoletana'*; tra i testi antichi non è attestata che nel Contrasto di Cielo d'Alcamo (per mediazione continentale o deliberato ibridismo) e nella Confessione in caratteri greci (la cui localizzazione è controversa).



In other words, in Palermo diphthongization is a recent phenomenon while the Neapolitan metaphony in Enna, Caltanissetta and Ragusa is imported by Napoli. 
Sicilian, in general, doesn't have diphthongs for ɛ/, /ɔ/, like Romanesco. According to Piero Maturi, the lack of metaphony in Tuscan, Sicilian, Romanesco (after 1500) and Veneto (the lack of metaphony is imported from Tuscan in Veneto, Old Venetian had some metaphony, like in "toso/tusi") is due to conservatism while _metafonia napoletana_ and _sabina _are innovations. 

In fact, Tuscan, Sicilian and Romanesco retain all final unstressed vowel (Venetian and Ligurian dropped them but they were introduced again during 1300 due to Tuscan influence), i.e there is no vowel reduction. These languages are conservative in phonology.


----------



## aefrizzo

Nino83 said:


> http://web.tiscali.it/lpweb/rel_dittongazione_sic.pdf[/URL]



Grazie


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> I assume you refer to the standard literary ortography and to an allegedly common pronunciation  of Sicilian. Nothing to object.



I was comparing Italian with Sicilian, in order to show that the distribution between /ɛ/ and /e/, /ɔ/ and /o/ is the same (in other words, Sicilian vowel system belongs to the common Romance system). 

Said that, there is the common Romance (and Sicilian) system wich retain the difference between /ɛ/ and /e/, /ɔ/ and /o/, the Sardinian system (where long and short /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/ merged, forming a five vowel system), the Spanish system (with diphthongized /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ in open and closed syllables and a five vowels system) and the Romanian system (which is equal to Spanish for /ɛ/ and equal to Sardinian for /o/ and /u/, with a five vowel system). 



aefrizzo said:


> Grazie



Di niente


----------

