Re: Nasal infixion in Indo-European languages and in Quenya
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., "p_iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:
> ... palatalization as a phonologically relevant feature, butPronouncing Latin C and G soft before front vowels, and J as [dzh],
> Romanian does. Should we assume it was there in Latin? ...
did not happen in Julius Caesar's time, but it did when the Western
Empire fell, and it got into all the Romance languages except
Sardinian. The next stage was analogical levelling across declensions
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., "anthonyappleyard" <Anthony.Appleyard@u...>
> --- In lambengolmor@y..., "p_iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:declensions
> > ... palatalization as a phonologically relevant feature, but
> > Romanian does. Should we assume it was there in Latin? ...
> Pronouncing Latin C and G soft before front vowels, and J as [dzh],
> did not happen in Julius Caesar's time, but it did when the Western
> Empire fell, and it got into all the Romance languages except
> Sardinian. The next stage was analogical levelling across
> and conjugations.Well, the grammarians did not recognise palatalization in Latin in
Caesar's time, but there was palatalization in an extinct Italic
language (Oscan, I think) and it might have come that way to rustic
Latin (and rustic pronunciation of cultured Latin) already then.
You should not say "when the Western Empire fell", but "when Odoacar
deposed Romulus Augustulus", which did not mean the complete downfall
of the Empire even in the West. Syagrius kept on the Empire in Gaul,
St Rémi kept up his work, and when he crowned Clovis, the first King
of France was accorded the title of Roman Consul by the Eastern
Hans Georg Lundahl
- To return to the main issue: there was a theory about, claiming that
nasal infixion was originally a nasal suffix in IE, like fingo from
*fig-n-o. When JRRT wrote the original Proto-Eldarin background for Q
and S, he might very well have taken account of that theory, though
it is abandoned. So, maybe the nasal suffix theory of nasal infixion
in Q should be abandoned as well - or retained as an optional
explanation in IE too.
As for palatals, they are between the dentals and the velars and the
tyelpetéma becomes dental (telpe) in Telerin, velar in Sindarin
(celeb). I do not know of any historic language having originally any
distinction between palatals and both velars and dentals, but
palatals may come from either. In Rom. languges they come from velars
(compare Church Latin and Italian "Caesar" with Gk "Kaisar") but in
Gaelic they come from dentals: "is" (pron. ish) "teine" (pron.
chayney). So they are between velars and palatals, just as velars are
between palatals and labialised velars: in Satem-languages the
labialised series become velar, in Centum-languages the palatalised
velars (not pure palatals! or?) become pure velars.
The old and abandoned theory held PIE had all three series - and,
once again, JRRT may have used that in Proto-Eldarin "reconstruction".
Hans Georg Lundahl