# Palatalization of K



## luitzen

One feature that distinguishes Anglo-Frisian languages from other Germanic languages is the palatalization of K. Some examples:

English - West Frisian - Dutch - German
cheese - tsiis - kaas - Käse
church - tsjerke - kerk - Kirche
chaff - tsjêf - kaf - (Kaff)
kettle - tsjettel - ketel - Kessel
breach - breuk - breuk - Bruch
break/broke/broken - brek/bruts/brutsen - breek/brak/gebroken - breche/brach/gebrochen
make/made/made - meitsje/makke/makke - maak/maakte/gemaakt - mache/machte/gemacht

This process seems to be fairly common in languages around the world and can also be seen in, for example, Romance languages. I remember that I learnt in high school that _c_ in Classical Latin was consistently pronounced as [k], but in later Latin it also became palatalized. That is also the reason why we pronounce Julius Ceasar nowadays as Julius Sesar instead of Julius Kaisar.

This has led me to conclude that there's a very good reason for the palatalization of [k], but I find it hard to understand why. Maybe that is because modern Frisian and English both have [k] (again?) and to us they're clearly two different sounds while that might not have been true for people that spoke the older varieties of these language.

What also intrigues me is whether this sound [tsj] is considered one consonant or three. For me it's obviously three different consonants (though compared to other consonants they follow up each other rather closely). To my Bulgarian girlfriend _ч​_ is one sound while to me it sounds exactly the same as [tsj]. How do native English speaker perceive the pronounciation of _ch_? Is it one sound or does it consist of t+s+j?


----------



## merquiades

As you say in Western Romance languages [k] is palatalized before fronted vowels.  [k] is guttural, but [e],_ are pronounced in the front of the mouth.  The reason usually given is that it was more natural and easier to move forward the articulation of the consonant to match the position of the vowel. That way we don't need to make the difficult transition from back to front.  It happened slowly over time. It first became [ts] then afterward was simplified to [ʧ] in Italian, [θ] in Spanish, and [s] in French and Portuguese.
From your post I gather this could well be the same process that occurred in Western Germanic language:  kerk > tsjerke > church, for example.  Your examples seem to be followed by front vowels.  Perhaps "cheese" came via Vulgar Latin though rather than Germanic?
I think English speakers perceive [ʧ] as one sound as they are indivisible but [tsj] as three as they represent three different phonemes in English:  Beats you, adds yoghurt.  _


----------



## ahvalj

In the Germanic group, Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese have also palatalized k (and g).


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> That is also the reason why we pronounce Julius Ceasar nowadays as Julius Sesar instead of Julius Kaisar.


The palatalization of /k/ is subequent to change of the diphthong [aɪ] to [ɛː] and later to [e]. Without it no palatalization would have occurred. Palatalization in Germanic language is equally tied to proximity of front vowels or, in case of the comparable allophonic shift from [x] to [ç] in German, to proximity of other consonants.
The palatalization of /k/ in English cannot entirely be explained by the relation to Frisian as the palatalization of the second /k/ in _church_ would not have occurred in Frisian (_tsjerke_ and not *_tsjertsje_). Northern Germanic influence is here the most likely cause.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> The palatalization of /k/ is subequent to change of the diphthong [aɪ] to [ɛː] and later to [e]. Without it no palatalization would have occurred.


Why? I see no connection of the assibilation of _k_ and _g_ with the monophthongization. By the way, _ae_ produced an open vowel (_caelum_>_cielo/ciel_).



berndf said:


> The palatalization of /k/ in English cannot entirely be explained by the relation to Frisian as the palatalization of the second /k/ in _church_ would not have occurred in Frisian (_tsjerke_ and not *_tsjertsje_). Northern Germanic influence is here the most likely cause.


Danish, which was adjacent to the future English dialects and remains adjacent to Frisian, has no assibilation. Plus, the Scandinavian assibilation is several centuries younger.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Why? I see no connection of the assibilation of _k_ and _g_ with the monophthongization.


Because only the monophthongization produced the front vowel after /k/. Without the monophthongization the subsequent vowel would have been [a] which would not have triggered palatalization.


ahvalj said:


> By the way, _ae_ produced an open vowel (_caelum_>_cielo/ciel_).


There is no open vowel. /aɪ/ produced [æː] or [ɛː] in imperial Latin an [e] in Valgau latin (cf. _prae_ > _pré_). The /i/ after palatalized /k/ is an extra development step.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Because only the monophthongization produced the front vowel after /k/. Without the monophthongization the subsequent vowel would have been [a] which would not have triggered palatalization.


I had understood your comment as a general statement, not an explanation of the palatalization in _Caesar_. Sorry.



berndf said:


> There is no open vowel. /aɪ/ produced [æː] or [ɛː] in imperial Latin an [e] in Valgau latin (cf. _prae_ > _pré_). The /i/ after palatalized /k/ is an extra development step.


_Ae_ normally produced an open vowel, which subsequently gave _ie_ in an open syllable, compare in Spanish:
_quaerit_>_quiere_, _caecum_>_ciego_
forms like _faenum_>_heno_ etc. are usually explained as Italic (in Umbrian _ai_>_ē_)
_prae_>_pré_ has simple _e_ after _pr

_


berndf said:


> The /i/ after palatalized /k/ is an extra development step.


_cēna_>_cena _with no _i_, as expected for the reflex of a closed vowel


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> _Ae_ normally produced an open vowel, which subsequently gave _ie_ in an open syllable, compare in Spanish:
> _quaerit_>_quiere_, _caecum_>_ciego_
> forms like _faenum_>_heno_ etc. are usually explained as Italic (in Umbrian _ai_>_ē_)
> _prae_>_pré_ has simple _e_ after _pr_


I cant't see any open vowel there. What is your objection? You only gave example where /aɪ/ produced [e] or, in certain environments, [ie], something we agree about. But there is no open vowel anywhere.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I cant't see any open vowel there. What is your objection? You only gave example where /aɪ/ produced [e] or, in certain environments, [ie], something we agree about. But there is no open vowel anywhere.


Romance _ie_ is a result of diphthongization of an open _ȩ_ that originated from both earlier _ĕ_ and _ae_. The Late Latin closed _ẹ_ comes from _ē_, _ĭ_ (in some areas) and _oe_. It does not diphthongize to _ie_.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Romance _ie_ is a result of diphthongization of an open _ȩ_


 Ah, now I understand. You meant in "open e", not an "open vowel" which _ȩ_ isn't. That was my confusion.


ahvalj said:


> The Late Latin closed _ẹ_ comes from _ē_, _ĭ_ (in some areas) and _oe_.


...and ae as well.


ahvalj said:


> It does not diphthongize to _ie_.


I didn't intend to imply that, sorry if it sounded that way. I already initially wrote that [aɪ] first became [ɛː] (or [æː], who knows). From there it became either [e] or [iɛ]. In _Caesar _it became [e]. That's why I concentrated on that outcome.


----------



## merquiades

In Romance languages, and for what we are concerned with in this thread, all /e/ and /i/, open or closed, brought about palatalization of /k/ and /g/ in Vulgar Latin.  Now, I'm not sure whether the /k/ changed before or after the open /ɛ/ had already diphthonged into /ie/ (the classical Latin diphthong had already become /ɛ/ centuries before and was no longer an issue) but the same result would have occurred regardless.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> In Romance languages, and for what we are concerned with in this thread, all /e/ and /i/, open or closed, brought about palatalization of /k/ and /g/ in Vulgar Latin. Now, I'm not sure whether the /k/ changed before or after the open /ɛ/ had already diphthonged into /ie/ (the classical Latin diphthong had already become /ɛ/ centuries before and was no longer an issue) but the same result would have occurred regardless.


Yes, absolutely. The shift from [aɪ] to [ɛː] was suffient to trigger palatalization. And that's all what matters.


----------



## fdb

The same phenomenon can be observed in Indo-Iranian, where IE gutturals  and labio-gutturals are palatalised before front vowels. But this happened before the proto-Indo-Iranian shift of IE *e and *ē to /a/ and /ā/ respectively. For example, the ancestor of Latin quod becomes Avestan ka-, but the ancestor of Latin –que becomes Avestan –ča.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> The same phenomenon can be observed in Indo-Iranian, where IE gutturals  and labio-gutturals are palatalised before front vowels. But this happened before the proto-Indo-Iranian shift of IE *e and *ē to /a/ and /ā/ respectively. For example, the ancestor of Latin quod becomes Avestan ka-, but the ancestor of Latin –que becomes Avestan –ča.


This kind of assibilation is extremely widespread: among the IE branches it is not attested only in Celtic, otherwise all or some languages of every branch passed through such a shift, often several times.


----------



## luitzen

merquiades said:


> From your post I gather this could well be the same process that occurred in Western Germanic language:  kerk > tsjerke > church, for example.  Your examples seem to be followed by front vowels.  Perhaps "cheese" came via Vulgar Latin though rather than Germanic?


Why do you think that? To me that sounds very unlikely though.



> I think English speakers perceive [ʧ] as one sound as they are indivisible but [tsj] as three as they represent three different phonemes in English: Beats you, adds yoghurt.


To me they sound exactly the same. Except for maybe adds yoghurt which sounds more like [dsj] or [dzj].


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> The palatalization of /k/ in English cannot entirely be explained by the relation to Frisian as the palatalization of the second /k/ in _church_ would not have occurred in Frisian (_tsjerke_ and not *_tsjertsje_). Northern Germanic influence is here the most likely cause.


Can it be that palatalization is not always consistent, that it is not regular? There are plenty of examples where English does not palatalize while Frisian does. Or could it be that the second _e _in _tsjerke_ is a schwa rather than [ɵ]?

Now I understand that the preterite and past participle of _break/brekke_ is palatalized in West Frisian, but not in English. Kettle, however, was palatalized in Old English and Middle English. Was it borrowed again from German or Dutch?


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, you all call it _palatalization_, whereas this is plain wrong: the process we are discussing is actually the _assibilation_, i. e. developing of a sibilant consonant from a palatalized one. Palatalization itself doesn't imply assibilation — there are languages with stable phonemically (Lithuanian) or positionally (Russian) palatalized _k_ and _g_ (as well as many other consonants).


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> By the way, you all call it _palatalization_, whereas this is plain wrong: the process we are discussing is actually the _assibilation_, i. e. developing of a sibilant consonant from a palatalized one. Palatalization itself doesn't imply assibilation — there are languages with stable phonemically (Lithuanian) or positionally (Russian) palatalized _k_ and _g_ (as well as many other consonants).


Assibilation may or may not occur as a sub-process of a palatalization process. In this case we don't (at least I would consider this a mistake) want to limit our focus on palatalization processes where assibilation occurred and I would no even want to reduce the scope to palatalization of stops. I would e.g. want to include the [k], [x] and [ɣ] palatalizations in Greek the [x] palatalization in German and the [ɣ] palatalization in Old English. I find it therefore correct and wise to speak of palatalization and not of assibilation in this thread.


----------



## merquiades

luitzen said:


> Why do you think that? To me that sounds very unlikely though.
> 
> To me they sound exactly the same. Except for maybe adds yoghurt which sounds more like [dsj] or [dzj].[/COLOR]



I think that based on Romance languages but I admit that applied to the examples from Western Germanic languages you have given it's just an assumption and could very likely be wrong.  I'm just trying to help you along on the road to finding out why a word like _kirke_ could become _church_.  Since you showed us the intermediate form in Frisian _tserkje_, that reminded me very much of the Classical Latin /kentrum/ > Vulgar Latin /tsentru/ > Modern Italian /ʧentro/(centro) process. In that light Frisian could have stayed in an intermediate position.  That also makes much sense to me since putting English on one end, standard German on the other, Frisian and Dutch in the middle, I generally see family resemblance and the relationship one language has to another (how far or close they are situated linguistically).  I totally have no knowledge of Scandinavian languages so I would't know where to place them.

Really?  [ʧ] and [tsj] sound the same to you?  How about "catch you" versus "gets you"?  In Russian there are different Cyrillic letters for these sounds.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Assibilation may or may not occur as a sub-process of a palatalization process. In this case we don't (at least I would consider this a mistake) want to limit our focus on palatalization processes where assibilation occurred and I would no even want to reduce the scope to palatalization of stops. I would e.g. want to include the [k], [x] and [ɣ] palatalizations in Greek the [x] palatalization in German and the [ɣ] palatalization in Old English. I find it therefore correct and wise to speak of palatalization and not of assibilation in this thread.


But the main interest lies in the cases when a palatalized sound turns into a newer one, otherwise it is just a local fluctuation that may get reversed (e. g. Latin _k_ and _g_ not assibilated in part of Sardinian and in Dalmatian). Let's take this thread topic, the Ingaevonic palatalization: since it involves  Friisian, it may perfectly have started in the continent, yet those Saxons, which remained in place, with time brought their _k_ and _gg_ back to the neutral state. Is it still interesting in the context of the thread? No, people want more dramatic sound changes ,-)


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> Can it be that palatalization is not always consistent, that it is not regular? There are plenty of examples where English does not palatalize while Frisian does. Or could it be that the second _e _in _tsjerke_ is a schwa rather than [ɵ]?


The palatalization of the first /k/ in _church _(Old English _cyrice_) is triggered by following <y> and of the second by the preceding <i>. In Old English, [k], [x] and [ɣ] palatalization can both be triggered by preceding and by subsequent front vowels. I think k-palatalization did only occur before front vowels in Frisian but I am not sure, my knowledge about Frisian is rather limited.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> But the main interest lies in the cases when a palatalized sound turns into a newer one, otherwise it is just a local fluctuation that may get reversed (e. g. Latin _k_ and _g_ not assibilated in part of Sardinian and in Dalmatian). Let's take this thread topic, the Ingaevonic palatalization: since it involves  Friisian, it may perfectly have started in the continent, yet those Saxons, which remained in place, with time brought their _k_ and _gg_ back to the neutral state. Is it still interesting in the context of the thread? No, people want more dramatic sound changes ,-)


You are very welcome to differentiate between palatalisations with or without assibilation and to constructs theories about them but I would still want to consider both. I find btw, your theory (I understand you made it up ad hoc to demonstrate your point, but I nevertheless want to react to it) not too plausible as al Frisian dialects show this palatalization, even when "surrounded" and otherwise heavily influenced by Saxons.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> You are very welcome to differentiate between palatalisations with or without assibilation and to constructs theories about them but I would still want to consider both. I find btw, your theory (I understand you made it up ad hoc to demonstrate your point, but I nevertheless want to react to it) not too plausible as al Frisian dialects show this palatalization, even when "surrounded" and otherwise heavily influenced by Saxons.


I didn't mean any Saxon influence. What I meant is that since Saxons were part of the Ingaevonic group, it is likely that they, like Frisians, Angles and Jutes, had a tendency to palatalize k and g, which did not evolve into subsequent assibilation in the speech of those Saxons who remained on the continent, but produced sibilants in the dialects of those Saxons who migrated to Britain (to Wessex and Essex).

Also, there is a language, Lithuanian, that since the 1st millennium AD has a stable opposition between plain and palatalized _k_ and _g_ with absolutely no tendency towards any assibilation (though it has assibilated the reflexes of *_tj_ and *_dj_). There are hundreds of languages that palatalize _k_ and _g_ before front vowels (e. g. French) with no further development for centuries.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> I didn't mean any Saxon influence.


But I meant Saxon influence. If the palatalization had really been that instable, it should have been reversed in Frisian dialects with strong Saxon influence.



ahvalj said:


> Also, there is a language, Lithuanian, that since the 1st millennium AD has a stable opposition between plain and palatalized _k_ and _g_ with absolutely no tendency towards any assibilation (though it has assibilated the reflexes of *_tj_ and *_dj_).


This only shows that palatalization without assibilation can just be as stable as palatalization with assibilation. So, why is assibilation so important to you?


----------



## jakowo

fdb said:


> The same phenomenon can be observed in Indo-Iranian, where IE gutturals  and labio-gutturals are palatalised before front vowels. But this happened before the proto-Indo-Iranian shift of IE *e and *ē to /a/ and /ā/ respectively. For example, the ancestor of Latin quod becomes Avestan ka-, but the ancestor of Latin –que becomes Avestan –ča.




*gṷen- > γυνή, but avest. jani-

*gṷhen- > ϑείνω, but skt. hanti.


----------



## ahvalj

jakowo said:


> *gṷen- > γυνή, but avest. jani-


It was not *gṷen- but g°en-, so the Indo-Iranian reflex is regular.



jakowo said:


> *gṷhen- > ϑείνω, but skt. hanti.


jh>h in Indic. Again regular.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> But I meant Saxon influence. If the palatalization had really been that instable, it should have been reversed in Frisian dialects with strong Saxon influence.


We are entering a purely speculative area. For example, the strong Saxon influence may have started after Frisian palatalized velars got assibilated. I don't insist, simply this is the first thing that comes to mind. 



berndf said:


> This only shows that palatalization without assibilation can just be as stable as palatalization with assibilation. So, why is assibilation so important to you?


Because it produces perceptively different sounds. If the only living Italic language were Sardinian, nobody would have cared that some time in the late Roman period its _k_ and _g_ had some allophones before front vowels. Well, anyway, the positions have been expressed, other people are free to join either one.


----------



## ahvalj

ahvalj said:


> It was not *gṷen- but g°en-, so the Indo-Iranian reflex is regular.


Why I insist in this notation: the IE had consonant clusters _kṷ, gṷ, ghṷ, k'ṷ, g'ṷ_ and _g'hṷ_ vs. the labiovelars that were single consonants (e. g. _ek'ṷeH2_>_ašva_ in Lithuanian)


----------



## jakowo

ahvalj said:


> It was not *gṷen- but g°en-, so the Indo-Iranian reflex is regular.
> jh>h in Indic. Again regular.




Of course regular. It was no objection but an additional example to fdb's remark.


----------



## luitzen

merquiades said:


> I'm just trying to help you along on the road to finding out why a word like _kirke_ could become _church_.  Since you showed us the intermediate form in Frisian _tserkje_, that reminded me very much of the Classical Latin /kentrum/ > Vulgar Latin /tsentru/ > Modern Italian /ʧentro/(centro) process.


I never brought up _tserkje._ The word _tsjerkje _however means little church. Maybe that's a reason that we don't have _tsjertsje_, because it would first have to go through _tsjerkje _and thereby change its meaning.



> In that light Frisian could have stayed in an intermediate position.


Frisian is not in an intermediate position. There are plenty of Frisian words that sound more English than their English counterparts. For the palatalization of /sk/ that's a different situation though. In English /sk/ almost completely palatalized into /sh/ while it's still /sk/ in Frisian.



> Really?  [ʧ] and [tsj] sound the same to you?  How about "catch you" versus "gets you"?  In Russian there are different Cyrillic letters for these sounds.


No difference whatsoever.


----------



## luitzen

I did a little bit of thinking. I don't think that it's random that _tsjerke_ only partially palatalized, but that there is a certain rule because in other Frisian languages it's also the first [k] that's only palatalized. In Saterfrisian it is _Säärke_, in Mooring North Frisian it is _schörk_ and in Föhr-Amrum North Frisian it is _sarke _and Old Frisian has _kerke, zerke, ziurke, zarke_. In West Frisian an [r] is not pronounced before a [t], but it is pronounced before a [k], so if [k] palatalizes into [tsj] after [r], than it would not only change the sound itself, it would also change the syllable before it. In English this is not the case because an [r] is not pronounced before either sound. I don't know what the rule was in Old Frisian and I also don't know whether [r] is pronounced before [k] and [t] in North Frisian or Saterfrisian, but I guess that this might very well be the reason.


----------



## luitzen

merquiades said:


> Really?  [ʧ] and [tsj] sound the same to you?  How about "catch you" versus "gets you"?  In Russian there are different Cyrillic letters for these sounds.


I tried with a couple of words that sound similar to English words such as _tsjil_ (wheel) and _chill,_ and _tsjinst _(service) and _changed_ and I noticed that the sounds are indeed somewhat different. [tsj] is pronounced a little more in the front of the mouth than [ʧ].


----------



## Helisabet

"This process (palatalization of velars, I think) seems to be fairly common in languages around the world and can also be seen in, for example, Romance languages. I remember that I learnt in high school that _c_ in Classical Latin was consistently pronounced as [k], but in later Latin it also became palatalized."

First, /k/ > /s/ seems to require more that /s/ is a "palatal" or /k/ became (merely) "palatalized" if we are precise as to cause and effect. I would describe /s/ as a "sibilant" at the head of the explanation of /s/ and get to "palatal" two or three words further on. The Classical authenticity movement in Latin teaching (Restored Classical Pronunciation) moved Cicero [si–se] to [ki-ke] in the time of Mr. Chips (<+Cips /kips/?),

In the same vein, could someone comment on the following element: caput > chief (head) in Old French. Exceptions are probably learned (administrative, professional, Church) or items that entered the language at later periods.

The development above, /k/>/s/, is described in a university lesson for beginners in French linguistics as "becoming a palatal" with no further clues. In my view, the event requires a more precise explanation. Is it common to give such truncated conclusions to students (or to anyone)? 1887–19teens.

In Romance, does /k/ followed by /a/ (canis, canem > chien, for example) often behave like /k/ followed by /i/ or /e/ as to circumstance for "palatalization."

Thank you, for the opening comment and responses, experts, esp, merquiades, for your (to me) simple, perfect examples.


----------



## berndf

Helisabet said:


> First, /k/ > /s/


Can you explain in which language and when there was a /k/ > /s/ shift?


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Can you explain in which language and when there was a /k/ > /s/ shift?


I think he is probably referring to French where you know _c _before _e,i _and _ç_ (nowadays pronounced /s/)  often come from Classical latin _c_ pronounced /k/.  There was an intermediate phase when /k/ was palatalized to /ts/ then sometime later it was simplified to /s/. 
cinque >  cinq
caelus >  ciel
centrum > centre

 German loanwords from Latin kept that _k_ for some reason.


----------



## berndf

The late Latin patalisation /k/>/ts/ and the late Old French deaffricatisation /ts/>/s/ are completely unrelated shifts with about 1000 years in between.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> The late Latin patalisation /k/>/ts/ and the late Old French deaffricatisation /ts/>/s/ are completely unrelated shifts with about 1000 years in between.


Yes, they are totally unrelated, but /s/ is the final result for these words that had /k/ 1000 years earlier.  People often look at the beginning (Classical Latin) and the end (Modern French) without taking into consideration the different steps that occurred in between.

If he isn't referring to French, I don't know what language then.
He refers to Cicero as Ki-ke and Si-se....


> The development above, /k/>/s/, is described in a university lesson for beginners in French linguistics as "becoming a palatal" with no further clues. In my view, the event requires a more precise explanation. Is it common to give such truncated conclusions to students (or to anyone)? 1887–19teens.


Anyway you have answered his question.  You need to give students the whole picture of the language with the different changes and when they happened so they can get a complete idea.


----------



## Penyafort

merquiades said:


> Classical Latin /kentrum/ > Vulgar Latin /tsentru/ > Modern Italian /ʧentro/(centro) process



Are you sure /ʧentro/ comes from /tsentru/? Same for Romanian and Mozarabic?


----------



## merquiades

Penyafort said:


> Are you sure /ʧentro/ comes from /tsentru/? Same for Romanian and Mozarabic?


-um > -u > -o  is a kind of a normal evolution, isn't it?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> -um > -u > -o  is a kind of a normal evolution, isn't it?


Classical Latin was [-̰ʊ̃:]. The _-m_ written but not pronounced. In VL the nasalisation got lost. In conjunction with the [ʊ]-[o:] merger, this produced _-o_ or _-u_, depending on dialect.

The _k_-patalisation happened before the _s/ʃ_ split. It is probably meaningless to ask if the initial step was _ts _or_ tʃ_.


----------



## pimlicodude

ʧ and tsj are very different to an English speaker. When I hear Swedes speak English, it seems to me that they don't have proper affricates, eg they (or some of them) say "child" with tsj, which is not right. 

English affricates - well let's say in British English - are used by most speakers in "Tuesday", with ʧ. tj>ʧ. They are some people who try to say tj, although I think it sounds affected. In the word "tissue", most say ʃu: in the final syllable, but some English people say sju:, although once again a little affected.


----------



## Helisabet

merquiades said:


> Yes, they are totally unrelated, but /s/ is the final result for these words that had /k/ 1000 years earlier.  People often look at the beginning (Classical Latin) and the end (Modern French) without taking into consideration the different steps that occurred in between.
> 
> If he isn't referring to French, I don't know what language then.
> He refers to Cicero as Ki-ke and Si-se....
> 
> Anyway you have answered his question.  You need to give students the whole picture of the language with the different changes and when they happened so they can get a complete idea.


Thank you for clarity and comments.


----------



## Penyafort

merquiades said:


> -um > -u > -o  is a kind of a normal evolution, isn't it?





berndf said:


> Classical Latin was [-̰ʊ̃:]. The _-m_ written but not pronounced. In VL the nasalisation got lost. In conjunction with the [ʊ]-[o:] merger, this produced _-o_ or _-u_, depending on dialect.



I was referring to the palatalization. Sorry, I didnd't specify it.



berndf said:


> The _k_-patalisation happened before the _s/ʃ_ split. It is probably meaningless to ask if the initial step was _ts _or_ tʃ_.



It may be meaningless, but I had always assumed that a _tʃ > ts _evolution was much likelier than the other way round. Specially when considering it's the norm in Romanian and Italian, but only in Mozarabic when it comes to Western Romance.


----------



## berndf

Penyafort said:


> It may be meaningless, but I had always assumed that a _tʃ > ts _evolution was much likelier than the other way round.


What I meant was that the very question is meaningless. In languages without ʃ-s distinction, the realisation of the /s/ phoneme often unpredicably varieties between speakers and even between different utterances by the same speaker. When, e.g., a Greek pronounces the English word _switch_, anything among _sweetch_, _sweets, shweets _and _shweetch_ may be the result. I have recently worked on an IT project in Athens where the implementation of a security switch order was a hotly debated topic and I have heard all four variants in completely random variation.


----------



## Dymn

berndf said:


> In languages without ʃ-s distinction, the realisation of the /s/ phoneme often unpredicably varieties between speakers and even between different utterances by the same speaker. When, e.g., a Greek pronounces the English word _switch_, anything among _sweetch_, _sweets, shweets _and _shweetch_ may be the result.


This is because both /s/ and /ʃ/ exist in English and Greek speakers may overcorrect. Like Germans saying _wery_ for _very_. But I suppose when they speak Greek the realization of the /s/ phoneme is usually the same for each person and variety. Spanish has no ʃ-s distinction but even then I've almost never heard a native speaker pronouncing a /ʃ/ for a /s/.


----------



## berndf

Dymn said:


> Spanish has no ʃ-s distinction but even then I've almost never heard a native speaker pronouncing a /ʃ/ for a /s/.


The Iberian Spanish /s/ is pretty much in the middle between [s] and [ʃ] and it can sound like strange forms of either to ears of speakers with /s/-/ʃ/ distinction. This is true for most languages with an apical /s/ (like Latin presumably was) and an /s/-/ʃ/ split almost inevitably leads to a shift from apical to laminal /s/. In my Language this happened to and it lead to some former apical /s/ becoming (laminal) /s/ (_hu*s* > Hau*s*_) and some becoming /ʃ/ (_*s*ne > *Sch*nee_).


----------



## Dymn

To be honest, I don't think what you're saying is of any importance. My point is that the fact many different realizations fall under the umbrella of a single phoneme doesn't mean speakers don't pronounce each phoneme consistently. 

For example /s/ has a wide range in Iberian "Northern" Spanish, but all speakers (unless speech-impedimented) will consistently pronounce, say, _*s*aco _with an apical s as you're saying. Neither a laminal s, nor a postalveolar sh.

So probably Vulgar Latin speakers would pronounce _ce/ci_ with either /tʃ/ or /ts/, in a consistent way.


----------



## apmoy70

In MoGr the palatal /c/ is the allophone of velar /k/ before the front vowels /e/, /i/.

Some MoGr dialects affricate the palatal stop /c/ and realise it as /t͡s/ e.g. Latin masc. *decānus* --> _Roman officer in command of ten men_ > Byzantine Greek masc. *«δεκανός» dekanós* (idem) > ByzGr neuter *«δεκανίκι(ο)ν» dekaníki(o)n* --> _swagger stick carried by the δεκανός as a symbol of rank_ > MoGr neuter *«δεκανίκι»* [ðe̞.ka.ˈni.*ci*] --> _crutch, walking stick_ = Megaran dialect neuter *«δεκανίτσι»* [ðe̞.ka.ˈni.*t̠͡s̠*i]. A phenomenon called «τσιτακισμός» (tsitakism).

In Cretan Greek, the tsitakism has its own realisation of /t͡ɕ/ e.g MoGr conjunction *«και* [ce̞] --> _and_ = Cretan [t̠͡ɕe̞]. 
In Cypriot Greek it's /t͡ʃ/ = [t̠͡ʃe̞]. 

Also in Cypriot Greek when the palatal /c/ is preceded by the alveolar fricative /s/ a double palatalisation occurs e.g. Koine Greek *«σκύλ(λ)ος»  skúl(l)ŏs* (masc.) --> _young dog, puppy_, eventually _generic name for canis familiaris_ > MoGr masc. *«σκύλος»* [ˈs̠*ci*.lo̞s̠] --> _dog_ = Cypriot Greek masc. *«σ̌σ̌ύλος»* [ˈ*ʃʃi*.lo̞s̠]


----------



## berndf

Dymn said:


> For example /s/ has a wide range in Iberian "Northern" Spanish, but all speakers (unless speech-impedimented) will consistently pronounce, say, _*s*aco _with an apical s as you're saying. Neither a laminal s, nor a postalveolar sh.


Yea, but it is neither of the sounds that exist in a language with s-ʃ contrast. I.e. before the split, there was a sibilant that is in modern notation transcribed /s/ and after the split, it had two sound transcribed /s/ and /ʃ/. That the same symbol (/s/) is used for two of the three sounds is a notational inaccuracy and does not mean they are the same. That's what I mean by the questions being irrelevant. What I claim to be the more accurate descriptions is sound x splitting into sounds y and z, none of which is the original one and therefore the question which of the two sounds y and z is the older one does not make sense.

In my language, which underwent a similar split but later and better documented, there was an intermediary stage, where all three sounds existed with phonemic contrast but they were too close to provide a stable three-way contrast and the original sound merged into either of the two new ones, depending on context (into the "new" /s/ at the end of a syllable or in front of a vowel and into /ʃ/ in front of a consonant as part of a cluster).


----------



## Dymn

berndf said:


> What I claim to be the more accurate descriptions is sound x splitting into sounds y and z, *none of which is the original one* and therefore the question which of the two sounds y and z is the older one does not make sense.


I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. You're saying the predecessor to the _ce/ci_ sounds in Romance was /ts̺/ which then split into /ts̻/ in the West and /tʃ/ in the East?


----------



## berndf

I am saying that early VL had an affricate that one *might *transcribe /ts/ that eventually led to sounds on *might *transcribe /ts/ and /tʃ/ in various offspring languages. How the various outcomes precisely relate to the original affricate is unclear and depends on the precise development in the respective offspring languages and one should not draw any conclusions from the coincidences of modern phonetic transcription conventions.


----------



## Dymn

Okay, now I see where the discussion comes from. What about -tj- > -ts(j)- though (e.g. _fortia > forts(i)a_)? Wouldn't that entail a contrast between /tʃ/ and /ts/ within Vulgar Latin?


----------



## merquiades

@Dymn Good point.  The same difference still preserved in Italian *z *from Latin *ti/te * _piazza_ /ts/, versus Italian *ci/ce *from Latin /k/ _piaccia_ /tʃ/.   It must have also existed in Italian Vulgar Latin.


----------



## berndf

Dymn said:


> Okay, now I see where the discussion comes from. What about -tj- > -ts(j)- though (e.g. _fortia > forts(i)a_)? Wouldn't that entail a contrast between /tʃ/ and /ts/ within Vulgar Latin?


If this opposition existed in VL from the beginning then this would mean that /tʃ/ would be the outcome of palatalized /k/ before a front vowel and /ts/ the outcome of /t/ palatalization before /j/. It makes indeed some sense.

This would in turn mean that a process /k/ > /ts/ > /tʃ/ would be impossible and it would rather have been an immediate /k/ > /tʃ/ shift.


----------



## Penyafort

berndf said:


> This would in turn mean that a process /k/ > /ts/ > /tʃ/ would be impossible and it would rather have been an immediate /k/ > /tʃ/ shift.



That's actually what I meant.

And Mozarabic being the only remnant in the West would also reveal its 'age'.


----------



## merquiades

Penyafort said:


> That's actually what I meant.
> 
> And Mozarabic being the only remnant in the West would also reveal its 'age'.


How might we know what the Mozarabic pronunciation of ce/ci was?  

I doubt the pronunciation was uniform throughout Al-Andalus too.


----------



## Penyafort

merquiades said:


> How might we know what the Mozarabic pronunciation of ce/ci was?



Very quickly, because of the loanwords to the other Romance languages of Iberia (Spanish: _chinche, gazpacho, corcho, chícharo; _Catalan:_ clòtxina, llangardaix, xirivia; _Aragonese: _fardacho, regacho; etc_), as well as placenames from coast to coast such as many of those ending in -che or -chel.



merquiades said:


> I doubt the pronunciation was uniform throughout Al-Andalus too.



It very likely wasn't.


----------



## S.V.

berndf said:


> sound x splitting into sounds y and z, none of which is the original one...  /k/ > ? > /tʃ/ shift


A slip of the tongue, after _*in cielu_, _*in celo_, thousands of times.  _In heaven_.

The surrounding pressure from high-freq. combinations is obscure to me. Maybe not a coincidence, if they all moved _es_ to the front, *_es ciertu_. We then create a pattern, for another /k/ to follow. And even after a language loses that -_s_, from _est_, a small part of it lives on.

We can repeat _certum est_, in our best Latin, without seeing its origin, but *_es certu_ and others may reveal a clue, on the pressure.


----------

