Presentation on theme: "Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin"— Presentation transcript:
1 Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin The Work of Syllable Structure or Linear Sequence?Ranjan SenUniversity of Oxford
2 Phonotactics: Two Approaches Syllable ApproachLinear ApproachRange of contrasts in an environment attributed to position within syllableRange of contrasts in an environment attributed to linear segmental sequence aloneWhich approach tackles best the diachronic phonotactic development seen in the history of Latin?
3 Phonotactic Relevance of the Syllable in Latin Notions “well-formed onset” and “well-formed coda” required in syllabificationONSETC: anyCC: stop (or /f/) + liquids- extrasyllabicCODAC: anyCC: sonorant + voiceless stop-s extrasyllabicWord-based Syllable Hypothesis : iːn.síg.nis ‘notable’ supported by accent-placement, but /g/ not found word-finally, whereas /gn/ found word-initially (gnaːrus ‘having knowledge of’)
4 Voice AssimilationRegular regressive assimilation in biconsonantal sequences (C1C2)Stop + stop: *scriːb-to-s > scriːptus ‘written’, obtinuiː ‘I obtained’ = [pt], e.g. optinviStop + fricative: *nuːbsiː > nuːpsiː ‘I married’Fricative + stop: *is-dem > *izdem > iːdem ‘same’Every obstruent in a consonantal sequence agrees in voice regardless of syllabificationRegardless of syllabification: plebs ‘people’ = [pleps]
5 Dorsal > Labial > Coronal Place and Frication= regressive place and frication assimilationC2C1DorLabCor*ec-ce > ecce ‘look!’ec-pːonoː ‘I bring out’ (= expoːonoː)lact-is ‘milk (gen.)’+ fricative(no dorsal fricative)ec-feroː (Plautus) ‘I carry out’*deik-siː > [diːksiː] ‘I said’*ob-kaidoː > occiːdoː ‘I knock down’*ob-petoː > oppetoː ‘I encounter prematurely’optimus ‘best’opi-ficiːna > *opficiːna > officiːna ‘workshop’*nuːb-siː > nuːpsiː ‘I married’*hod-ce > *hocce > hoc ‘this (neut.)’*quid-pe > quippe ‘for’*pat-tos > *patsos > passus ‘suffered’ad-feroː > afferoː ‘I deliver’*quat-siː > quassiː ‘I shook’The Place Hierarchy:Dorsal > Labial > CoronalStop C1 lower than or level with C2 on hierarchy assimilates to C2 in place and fricationSyllable Approach: “codas stops unspecified for coronal place regardless of the environment, and labial place if followed by dorsal stop” clearly unsatisfactory: no motivation for recourse to syllabic position – linear sequence is necessary and sufficient
6 Manner Fricative C1 Stop C1 Nasal C1 The Manner Hierarchy: (for place assimilation)Fricative > Stop > NasalFricative C1before fricative C2 onlyobeying Place Hierarchy*disfacilis > difficilis ‘difficult’Stop C1before C2 of any mannerobeying Place Hierarchy*quidpe > quippe ‘for’; adferoː > afferoː ‘I deliver’, *kaidmentom > cae(m)mentum ‘rubble’Nasal C1before any obstruent C2 regardless of Place Hierarchybefore nasal C1 obeying Place Hierarchy*kemtom > centum ‘hundred’, *in-maneoː > immineoː ‘I overhang; threaten’ vs. autumnus ‘autumn’
7 Nasality= no nasal or place assimilation= regressive nasal assimilationNasal C2 nasalises stop C1, which also assimilates in place to C2 obeying Place HierarchyException: failure of nasal assimilation in Dor + /m/Again, Syllable Approach unsatisfactoryBetter starting-point: linear configuration Dor + /m/Cf. early epenthesis: Greek dráchma drac(h)uma ‘Greek coin’, tegmen > tegimen/tegumen ‘covering’= regressive nasal and place assimilationNasal C2C1LabCorDor*sekmentom > segmentum = [gm] ‘piece’*deknos > dignus = [ŋn] ‘worthy’*supmos > summus ‘highest’*swepnos > somnus ‘sleep’*kaidmentom > *caimmentum > caementum ‘rubble’*atnos > annus ‘year’
8 Hypothesis – Linear Sequence Feature x, if poorly cued relative to adjacent more robustly cued feature, is neutralised and assimilated to adjacent more robustly cued featureExternal cue: release into vowel, thus C2 features usually more robustly cued than C1 featuresInternal cue: Place Hierarchy – Dor > Lab > CorInternal cue: Manner Hierarchy for place feature – Fricative > Stop > Nasal
9 Scale for occurrence of contrasts Before vowelVoicePlaceManner (with exception)Before liquidMannerall with exceptionsFricative before nasal/ stopNo voiceOther C before nasalPlace if place hierarchy admitsNo manner ex. Dor + /m/Stop before stopObstr before fricativeManner if place hierarchy admitsNasal before obstrNo placeMore contrastsFewer contrasts
10 Sonorant Voice: A Problem Sonorants appear before C2 of any voice specificationcomparoː : combiboː verpa : verbumsonorants unspecified for voice pre-consonantallyNasal C2 triggers voicing of C1: *sekmentom > segmentumnasals voice-specified pre-vocalicallyLiquid C2 allows voice contrast in C1: capra : criːbrumliquids unspecified for voice pre-vocalicallyBUT /s/ > [z] post-vocalically before voiced consonant, including liquids: *preslom > [prezlom] > preːlumliquids voice-specified pre-vocalically??
11 Sonorant Voice Specification Voicing of /r/ at early stageEarly merger in Latin of /sr/ and [ðr] inherited from Proto-Italic: *fuːnesris > fuːnebris ‘funereal’Voiced epenthetic stop before /r/ vs. voiceless epenthetic stop before /l, n/: *gheimrinos > *heimbrinos > hiːbernus ‘wintry’ vs. *exemlom > exemplum ‘example’, autumnus > autumpnus ‘autumn’/l,m,n/ became voice-specified later (in archaic period)/s/ before /l,m,n/ > [z] (with consequent loss of [z] + compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel): *preslom > preːlum ‘wine-/oil-press’, cosmis > coːmis ‘friendly’, *casnos > caːnus ‘white(-haired)’ voice-specified? capra vs. criːbrum?
12 Return of the Syllable: TR Onsets Phonetically based: incline vs. ink-likeWhy does liquid C2 allow preceding voice contrast if voice-specified? Unspecified if in stop + liquid onset (not σ-initial)Divergent syllabifications of identical sequence:*po.plos > populus ‘people’*pop.li.kos > poblikos > puːblicus ‘public’
13 Morphological Pressures More thoroughgoing regressive assimilation in prefix + verbal root contacts*sub-regoː > surrigoː ‘I rise’ vs. eːbrius ‘drunk’More faithful retention of root shape elsewhere in verbal morphology*sum-to-s > *sumptus ‘assumed’ vs. *kemtom > centum ‘hundred’Some morpheme boundaries conditioned syllable boundaries, thus determining the voicing of sonorants*nek-legoː > neg.le.goː ‘I neglect’ vs. Aisclaːpius, poːclum
14 Latin phonotactic development driven by linear segmental sequence, not syllable structure Relevant parameters include internal factors (manner and place hierarchies) and external factors (release features, coarticulatory cues)Syllables relevant in distribution of voice in sonorantsMorphology could directly override phonetic considerations in phonotactics, and indirectly via syllable structureOnly direct influence of syllable structure in Latin phonotactics is in determining what onsets/codas are well-formed
15 Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin Ranjan SenLinguistics, Philology and PhoneticsUniversity of Oxford, U.K.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.