# Hallar



## merquiades

The etymology of the Spanish verb "_hallar_" (to find) is usually given as _hallar > fallar > afflar > ad flare_.  The original meaning was to smell (actively), then to find something by smelling,  later to find something by effort, then just simply to discover or find.
The phonetic evolution doesn't make sense to me though.  First, if the evolution from _fallar_ to _hallar_ occurred regularly from the thirteen century until the seventeen century as the /f/ > /h/ > /ø/ leads us to believe, the "ll" should have simultaneous followed the process /ʎ/ > /ʒ/ >  /ʃ / > /χ/ at roughly the same time periods. However, this did not occur.  The verb did not become *_hajar_. The step between _afflar_ and _fallar_ is also unclear.  Did the initial -a drop (early?) because it was initially a preposition?  Yet, that would have given *_flar_ or *_llar_.  If _afflar_ had evolved naturally it could have produced *_allar_, in which case the "h" might have been added later on by mistake or for aesthetic purposes.  That could explain the lack of /χ/ as well.  Still all sources give _fallar_ as the direct ancestor.  Can anyone shed some more light on the origins of "_hallar_"?

Gracias de antemano


----------



## Nino83

In Portuguese it became ad + flare > a(d) + char > achar.
In Spanish it became ad + flare > a(d) llar > allar. Probably the initial "h" is not etymological.
You're mixing two different things.
In Spanish, -kl-, -tl- (both -kl- in Vulgar Latin, see the appendix Probi "ve*t*ulus non ve*c*lus") merged with -gl- when intervocally (sonorization of intervocalic non geminate consonants), so we had vet(u)lu(m), spec(u)lu(m), teg(u)la(m) > gl > /ʎ/ > /ʒ/ > /ʃ / > /χ/, viejo, espejo, teja.
While initial pl-, kl-, fl- > /ʎ/, like planu(m), clave(m), flamma(m) > llano, llave, llama.


----------



## jmx

At some point in the middle ages, in Spanish, Catalan and probably other peninsular Romance varieties, there was not just one /ʎ/ phoneme but at least two. I mean, two sounds that were similar to [ʎ]. I don't think historical linguists know what made them different, but the fact that some lines of change from latin didn't mix cannot be explained any other way.


----------



## Nino83

jmx said:


> At some point in the middle ages, in Spanish, Catalan and probably other peninsular Romance varieties, there was not just one /ʎ/ phoneme but at least two. I mean, two sounds that were similar to [ʎ].


It is not sure.
The change kl-, -tl-, -gl- > /ʎ/ could have happened earlier, because it is present in all Western Romance languages, for example oculum > oklo > œil (FR), ojo (ES), uèlh (OC), ull (CAT), olho (PT), ollo (GAL), while fl- > /ʎ/ or fl- > /ʃ / is present only in Iberian Romance languages, llama (ES), chama (PT), but flamme (FR), flamba (OC), flama (CAT).
It could be possible that when flamma(m) > llama, the word oculum was just pronounced with /ʒ/, vieʒo, oʒo, espeʒo, in Spanish.


----------



## jmx

In Catalan, the two hypothesized phonemes were not the result of fl- / pl- / cl- > /ʎ/, something that didn't happen in this language. Instead, there seems to be evidence of a different evolution of c'l > /ʎ/ (ull, vell) and ly > /ʎ/ (millor, fulla) on one hand, and of -ll- > /ʎ/ (cavall, vall) on the other hand. So perhaps it has nothing to do with "hallar", after all.


----------



## Nino83

jmx said:


> In Catalan [...] there seems to be evidence of a different evolution of c'l > /ʎ/ (ull, vell) and ly > /ʎ/ (millor, fulla) on one hand, and of -ll- > /ʎ/ (cavall, vall) on the other hand.


These phonemes, /g'l/ and /lj/, merged in all Western Romance languages, and the Old French spelling, _ueil_ and _fueille_, suggests that they were pronounced with the same sound very early.


----------



## Cenzontle

> the "ll" should have simultaneous[ly] followed the process /ʎ/ > /ʒ/ > /ʃ / > /χ/ at roughly the same time periods. However, this did not occur. The verb did not become *_hajar_.


No.  By the 13th century, the time for "/ʎ/ > /ʒ/" was past (and waiting to reappear in Argentina); "fallar" and "cavallo" coexisted with "muger" and "espejo".



> At some point *During different, non-overlapping periods* in the middle ages, in Spanish, Catalan and probably other peninsular Romance varieties, there was not just one /ʎ/ phoneme but at least two.


The two "kinds" of /ʎ/ didn't coexist.  The series _oculu _> /oʎo/ > /oʒo/ had reached the stage of /oʒo/ before /kavallo/ began the change to /kavaʎo/. 



> The step between _afflar_ and _fallar_ is also unclear.


Yes.  The question is, How "should" _-ffl-_ develop word-internally?
Word-*initially*, we have the example of _flamma_ > _llama_ — but that's *the only such word* listed by Corominas (_Breve diccionario etimológico..._)—cf. _flaco_, _flojo_, _flor_.
Still, if we apply the same change to Lat. _afflare_, we can get something that sounds as if it should be spelled _allar._
That would be "end of story" if we didn't have medieval _*f*allar_.
If there was a stage of /afʎar/, it would take a case of "rogue metathesis" to get /faʎar/.  There's no precedent for it.


----------



## merquiades

That is the crux of the matter.  We can make _afflare _evolve into_ allar_ then add an h for good measure.  That makes sense given that the Portuguese word is _achar._
[_hinchar _derives from _inflare_]

But etymologists are unanimous in that there was this intermediate _fallar _step:  _hallar > fallar > afflar > ad flare_
Did _fallar _exist in early medieval literature with the meaning find or discover?  Examples?
And not the Latinism _fallar _coming from _falla _(fail, miss, let down) which appeared later.


----------



## jmx

Cenzontle said:


> The two "kinds" of /ʎ/ didn't coexist.  The series _oculu _> /oʎo/ > /oʒo/ had reached the stage of /oʒo/ before /kavallo/ began the change to /kavaʎo/.


Ok. Álvaro Galmés, in Dialectología mozárabe (1983), defends the "2 (simultaneous) kinds of /ʎ/", more specifically for "Mozarabic" but also for Spanish and Catalan. How are you so sure he was wrong?


----------



## merquiades

jmx said:


> Ok. Álvaro Galmés, in Dialectología mozárabe (1983), defends the "2 (simultaneous) kinds of /ʎ/", more specifically for "Mozarabic" but also for Spanish and Catalan. How are you so sure he was wrong?


Even so, how different can two /ʎ/ be?  Perhaps muller, millor could have been /lj/ as originally and never became /ʎ/......

Edit:  the wikipedia article on /ʎ/ admits there is much variation in the exact pronunciation of the palatal lateral consonant.



> Many languages that were previously thought to have a palatal lateral approximant actually have a lateral approximant that is, broadly alveolo-palatal; that is to say, it is articulated at a place in-between the alveolar ridge and the hard palate(excluded), and it may be variously described as alveolo-palatal, lamino-postalveolar, or postalveolo-prepalatal. Of 13 languages investigated by Recasens 2013, many of them Romance, none have a 'true' palatal.  Some languages, like Portuguese and Catalan, have a lateral approximant that varies between alveolar and alveolo-palatal


  Given the variation in the point of articulation among speakers of any given Romance language, I'm not sure such a precise minuscule distinction, 2 palatal consonants, could be kept with minimal pairs.  You would need fine ears and a very clear consistent pronunciation.


----------



## Cenzontle

_hallar < fallar < afflar < ad flare afflare _in Classical Latin, with presumed _af- < ad._ 


> Did _fallar _exist in early medieval literature with the meaning find or discover? Examples?


Yes, profusely documented.
13th century:
"Demandó por Alfonsso do lo podríe *fallar*" (Cantar de Mio Cid, 27v, line 1311; "dónde lo podría hallar").
"ca no podien *fallar* uiandas & murien de fambre." (Alfonso el Sabio, _Estoria de España_, v. 1; "porque no podían hallar comida y morían de hambre"). 
Hundreds more examples at _Corpus del Español.
_


> How are you so sure he [Galmés] was wrong?


I can't say about Mozarabic.  
In Castilian, cases of Latin /li/ + vowel (muliere > mujer, alienu > ajeno) and /c'l/ (oculu > ojo, speculu > espejo) 
are thought to have passed through a stage of /ʎ/ on their way to modern /x/.
The change that presumably moved them from /ʎ/ to /ʒ/ must have been finished and forgotten by the time we started getting /ʎ/ from double L;
otherwise, instead of modern _caballo_, _valle_, _bello_, _pollo_,we would be seeing *_cabajo_, *_vaje_, *_bejo_, *_pojo_.  A question of timing.
_
_


----------



## Nino83

Cenzontle said:


> _hallar < fallar < afflar < ad flare afflare _in Classical Latin


Yes, I know, but why the verb "sufflare" became "soprar" in Portuguese and "soplar" in Spanish? Two different evolutions for the same phoneme /-ffl-/ in two popular words? 
And note that the Portuguese "achar" doesn't have any /f/.


----------



## Cenzontle

Corominas's _Breve diccionario... _says "Del lat. SUFFLARE [...] vulgarmente ***SUPPLARE".
Note the asterisk:  Corominas or someone else is speculating, not citing a documented form.
The speculation is supported by Spanish and Portuguese
(and the /l/ > /r/ of Portuguese must have antedated the /pl/ > /tʃ / > /ʃ / series that gave us Lat. _pl-_ > Port. _ch-_, so we don't have Port. *_sochar_).
(I apologize for the /ʃ / symbol for "esh"—not very clear on my screen.)
A supposed ***SUPPLARE is also supported, according to Corominas, by "varios dialectos italianos", including "Lombardía, Véneto, Emilia y Cerdeña".
Some common ancestor seems to have fed /pp/ to all those modern forms—but it's still a speculation,
and if it's true we are no closer to understanding why /ff/ > /pp/ "vulgarmente".
Is there any other instance of /f/ > /p/ in vernacular Latin?


> And note that the Portuguese "achar" doesn't have any /f/.


Right.  That seems like an unproblematic derivation.  The problem is in the /f/ of Old Spanish _fallar_.


----------



## jmx

Cenzontle said:


> The change that presumably moved them from /ʎ/ to /ʒ/ must have been finished and forgotten by the time we started getting /ʎ/ from double L;
> otherwise, instead of modern _caballo_, _valle_, _bello_, _pollo_,we would be seeing *_cabajo_, *_vaje_, *_bejo_, *_pojo_.  A question of timing.


 ... or, again, the sounds were different. The main clue for a /ʎ/ on the way from _oculus_ to _ojo_ is that the sound *eventually* became [ʎ] in Catalan (ull). And I wonder if LL was the only geminate consonant from Latin that survived, waiting for other changes to complete. 


merquiades said:


> Even so, how different can two /ʎ/ be?  Perhaps muller, millor could have been /lj/ as originally and never became /ʎ/......


Galmés proposes a sound that still exists (or existed until very recently) in some Leonese dialects, and apparently in Sicilian too, a sound that is sometimes written as [ḍḍ], called a "cacuminal retroflex" or something like that.


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> _hallar < fallar < afflar < ad flare afflare _in Classical Latin, with presumed _af- < ad._
> 
> Yes, profusely documented.
> 13th century:
> "Demandó por Alfonsso do lo podríe *fallar*" (Cantar de Mio Cid, 27v, line 1311; "dónde lo podría hallar").
> "ca no podien *fallar* uiandas & murien de fambre." (Alfonso el Sabio, _Estoria de España_, v. 1; "porque no podían hallar comida y morían de hambre").
> Hundreds more examples at _Corpus del Español._


I think _adflare_ as the originator is the only way to explain this strange evolution.
Thanks for the examples.  So _fallar_ must be present.

1.  Ad - fla - re
2.  Af - fla - re
3.  Af - llar
4.  Fa - llar
5.  Ha - llar

Number 3. is perhaps the missing link.  The first "f" remains in the first syllable and at some point inverts with the "a".  The second "f" combines normally with "l" to become geminate "l·l" like in _flama_ > _llama_.  In point 4, geminate "l·l"  is probably maintained throughout the Middle Ages even after initial f- becomes h-, otherwise this word would have participated in the /ʎ/ > /ʒ/ change.  There also might have been this other lateral palatal consonant to contrast with /ʎ/.  Afterwards, between the thirteenth and sixteenth century _fallar_ evolves normally:  /faʎar/ > /haʎar/ > /aʎar/.
This is strange but the only way to make it fit.
But why doesn't Portuguese have _fachar _instead of _achar_?



			
				jmx said:
			
		

> Galmés proposes a sound that still exists (or existed until very recently) in some Leonese dialects, and apparently in Sicilian too, a sound that is sometimes written as [ḍḍ], called a "cacuminal retroflex" or something like that.


  I think I know the sound you are talking about.  In Extremadura, I noticed that a type of sound that mixes d and y or rather integrates them is used for "ll".  _Calle_ is pronounced something like /Cadje/, but it is hard to transcribe because the two sounds are integrated and articulated quickly.  The speakers would not acquaint it with a "d".  In Césaria Évora songs she says a similar sound in her Portuguese creole,  _ Olho _being somthing like_ /Odju/._
Edit:
How does the way this guy pronounces ll sound to you? Pronounced words by septemtrionis in Forvo.


----------



## Nino83

jmx said:


> Galmés proposes a sound that still exists (or existed until very recently) in some *Leonese dialects*, and apparently in *Sicilian* too, a sound that is sometimes written as [ḍḍ], called a "cacuminal retroflex" or something like that.


The sound you're speaking about is the  retroflex stop .
In Sicilian we have: caballu(m) > /kavaɖɖu/ but folia(m) > /fɔggja/ and oc(u)lu(m) > /ɔkkju/, planu(m) > /kjanu/
In Astiernan dialect they have:  caballu(m) > /kaβaɖo/ but folia(m) > /fweja/ and oc(u)lu(m) > /gwejo/.
In other words, in these languages there is a difference between /ll/ and /lj/, /-kl-/, /kl, pl/, while in Spanish, /ll/ and /kl, pl/, and in Catalan, /ll/ and /lj/, are equal. Is there any proof, like old spelling, about the fact that there were two different /ʎ/?


----------



## Cenzontle

> 3. Af - llar


 I don't follow.  Are you saying that it's a phonetically geminate /l/, or is it Spanish orthography for /ʎ/?


> The first "f" remains in the first syllable and at some point *inverts* with the "a".  [...] This is strange but the only way to make it fit.


I agree, it's strange.  It seems to be the only word with such a metathesis.  
I suppose that should inspire us to look for other "causes", such as hypercorrection, or contamination from some other word.


> But why doesn't Portuguese have _fachar _instead of _achar_?


Don't ask Portuguese to participate in the strangeness of Spanish's moving /f/ to the front (if that's what Spanish did).
Lat. _ffl_ > Port. _ch_ seems pretty normal.


----------



## jmx

merquiades said:


> How does the way this guy pronounces ll sound to you? Pronounced words by septemtrionis in Forvo.


It sounds like the standard way to pronounce ll/y in Spain, probably not unlike mine. That's true for "Sevilla" and "ella", and also for "Illas Cíes", which is Galician. This speaker is yeísta.





Nino83 said:


> Is there any proof, like old spelling, about the fact that there were two different /ʎ/?


Galmés finds a spelling difference in Romance loanwords in Arabic from medieval Spain. For Spanish and Catalan, he relies on other authors.


----------



## Cenzontle

> Galmés finds a spelling difference in Romance loanwords in Arabic from medieval Spain.


If I read this correctly, we need to ask you (or Galmés) what words were involved, and how the Arabic alphabet was used to portray different kinds of  /ʎ/.


----------



## merquiades

Cenzontle said:


> I don't follow.  Are you saying that it's a phonetically geminate /l/, or is it Spanish orthography for /ʎ/?


  geminate l (with both l sounding) became /ʎ/.  It regularly happened in words with _pl > ll > ʎ_.   _Flama > llama_ is the only fl I can think of.



> I agree, it's strange.  It seems to be the only word with such a metathesis.
> I suppose that should inspire us to look for other "causes", such as hypercorrection, or contamination from some other word.



I was just trying to find an explanation.  To make _afflare_ become _fallar_, not only do we have to move one f to the front, the other f would have to combine with the l and become geminate l and afterwards /ʎ/.  Thus, _fallar._
Maybe it is too much to consider that the two f were separated and in separate syllables:  af flar


----------



## Cenzontle

In some phonological theories, separating a geminate is a no-no; they see it as a single, long phoneme, not a series of two phonemes.  
Does anyone know of an (other) example in which a geminate becomes separated by metathesis?


> It regularly happened in words with _pl > ll > ʎ_. _Flama > llama_ is the only fl I can think of.


I have been assuming that the intermediate stage between /pl/ and /ʎ/ is /pʎ/.
A hypothetical /pʎano/ is well-positioned to produce Italian _piano_.

Other examples besides _llama_ from Lat. _flamma_ are hard to find, but Corominas's _Breve diccionario_ and
Penny's _A History of the Spanish Language_ (p. 71) cite also "FLACCIDU > _llacio _(later _lacio_) 'lank'."
And documented examples of _llacio_ are hard to find, but one does occur in Berceo's _Milagros de Nuestra Señora_ (early 13th century), 
according to the Academy's online historical corpus: "trobó so vientre llacio, la cinta muy delgada".


----------



## Cenzontle

Of possible support for an earlier /ʎ/ and a later /ʎ/ not coexisting:
Ralph Penny's _History _gives a relative chronology of sound changes in which 
an *earlier */ʎ/ becomes (I would say "finishes becoming") /*Z*/ before the geminate /ll/ becomes the *later */ʎ/.  
(That red letter *Z* is for the "zh" sound; the IPA symbol didn't transfer.)
Click on the book title, above; then go to page 109 (scroll down to the 18th snippet offered) and click on it to see the whole page.
I'm referring to "rule" 19 preceding 20(a).


----------



## merquiades

It makes sense that the older /ʎ/ would have had to change to /ʒ/ long before geminate /ll/ changed to /ʎ/. 
I remember from later examples that French words /ʒ/ garage > garaje (now /x/) ceased to be taken for a "j" in the eighteenth and became incorporated into Spanish as "s" bijouterie > bisutería.  This was supposed to mean that connection between "j" and /ʒ/ no longer existed and they had to search for the next closest equivalent.
I'm wondering if between _afflare_ and _fallar_,  _faflar_ existed.



			
				jmx said:
			
		

> It sounds like the standard way to pronounce ll/y in Spain, probably not unlike mine. That's true for "Sevilla" and "ella", and also for "Illas Cíes", which is Galician. This speaker is yeísta.


I thought the more typical Spanish yeista way would be how the favorite on forvo frandominguez pronouces Sevilla.


----------



## jmx

merquiades said:


> I thought the more typical Spanish yeista way would be how the favorite on forvo frandominguez pronouces Sevilla.


It sounds rather southern to me, though still "standard", because there is wide phonetical space for the "ll/y" to sound in many slightly different ways. I have noticed that in "tortilla de patatas" the "ll" is hardly audible, he could be saying "tortía" as well, this is probably due to the fact that "ll" follows a stressed /i/.

EDIT: I've made a quick tour around Forvo; the Spanish pronunciations tend to be, just as I expected, incredibly artificial and unreliable. These people speak as they think they are expected to speak, not as they really speak in their daily lives.


----------

