Latin to Spanish: Morpho-syntax

0.0(0)

Studied by 0 people

Learn

Practice Test

Spaced Repetition

Match

Flashcards

Card Sorting

1/149

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics

Name	Mastery	Learn	Test	Matching	Spaced

No study sessions yet.

150 Terms

New cards

ROSA (nom.), ROSA (voc.), ROSAM (acc.), ROSAE (gen.), ROSAE (dat.), ROSĀ (abl.)

rosa (nominal system: case) (here we have the singular forms of ROSA (belonging to the first declension/a-class nouns). Each Latin noun had in principle twelve separate endings, but in practice only seven distinct endings (none had more than eight distinct endings).

This meant that form alone was not always enough to unambiguously specify the role of the noun in a given sentence.

At a spoken level, this system was therefore probably always inadequate, and there is evidence that spoken Latin used additional devices (mainly prepositions) to disambiguate the confusing noun-endings from the earliest times:

For example, instead of the genitive, we occasionally find the preposition DE followed by an ablative, e.g. DE MARMORE TEMPLUM. This analytic construction was inherited directly by Spanish in the form of de + noun (un templo de mármol).
Likewise, instead of the dative, we often find the preposition IN or AD followed by accusative to express the indirect object. The same construction (eventually a + noun) was used in Spanish to express both indirect objects and personal direct objects.
Finally, most values of the Latin ablative required the presence of a preposition even in literary Latin, e.g. the ‘ablative of company’ required the presence of the preposition CUM, whose descendant is Spanish con.

This trend towards prepositional phrases was irreversible, as prepositions indicated the function of a word more efficiently than case endings (this was because the number of prepositions was larger than that of case endings). Therefore, the case-endings became redundant exponents of values better expressed by the accompanying prepositions. This meant that when the case-endings were threatened with phonological convergence, this convergence was not resisted and overtook many pairs of endings:

Loss of final -M frequently caused the merger of accusative singular with ablative singular.
Merger of A and Ā (together with the loss of -M) made distinction impossible between ROSA (nom.), ROSAM (acc.) and ROSĀ (abl.)
Merger of Ō and U made accusative singulars like ANNUM indistinguishable from dative/ablative singulars like ANNŌ
Merger of Ī and I caused merger of MONTĒS (nom./acc. plur) with gen. sing. MONTIS

By the fourth or fifth century AD, these phonological changes (loss of final -M; merger of A and Ā; merger of Ō and U; merger of Ī and I) led to a considerable reduction in the case forms of all singular Latin nouns. Meanwhile, the plural forms were similarly reduced by analogy with the singular. By this period there was probably a maximum of two case forms in both singular and plural:

Nominative/subject case:
/rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.)
/ánnos/ (sing.), /ánni/ (pl.)
/léo/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβes/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)
Oblique case (used in all roles except that of subject):
rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.) (note that a-class nouns already in late spoken Latin lacked any case-inflection, and the fact that no case distinction was possible in a large number of instances undoubtedly set the pattern for the obliteration of such distinction elsewhere)
/ánno/ (sing.), /ánnos/ (pl.)
/leóne/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβe/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)

By this point, there is good evidence that the nominative plural ending of a-class nouns was /-as/ in spoken Latin (by contrast with the -AE of the literary dialect)

This two-case system was reduced further to invariable singular and plural noun forms, as the result of a series of analogical adjustments:

Final /s/ came to analyzed as a marker exclusively of number and no longer of case.
This was because final /s/ occurs in almost all plural forms, but only in some singular forms.
This pattern (/-s/ = plur., /∅/ = sing.) was already established in the first declension in spoken Latin.
Analogical extension of this pattern no doubt led to the loss of /-s/ in those singular instances where it hitherto occurred, bringing immediate further convergence of nominative singular /ánno/ (previously /ánnos/) and /núβe/ (previously /núβes/) with the oblique singular.
Many imparisyllabic nouns of the third declension (nouns in which the nominative singular, e.g. /léo/, has one syllable fewer than the other forms) suffered analogical levelling by means of the expansion of their short nominative singular forms. Evidence from the Appendix Probi: GLĪS NON GLĪRIS. Taken together with the loss of singular /-s/, this change implies merger of nominative singular /leóne/ (<*LEŌNIS < LEŌ) with oblique singular /leóne/.
The previous two changes leaves morphological contrast between nominative and oblique only in the plural of o-class nouns (/ánni/ vs /ánnos/). The internal analogical pressures to level out the contrast between /ánni/ and /ánnos/ must have been practically irresistible. In Spain, /ánnos/ was bound to be preferred as it conformed to the pattern where the plural of most nouns was marked by the addition of /s/ to the same vowel as occurred in the singular. /ánni/ therefore disappeared

As a result of these adjustments, all traces of case distinction are lost from the system of the three major form classes that Spanish inherits: (1) rosa/rosas, (2) año/años, and (3) león/leones, nube/nubes.

Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A. By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día). However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation)

New cards

ANNUS (nom.), ANNE (voc.), ANNUM (acc.), ANNĪ (gen.), ANNŌ (dat.), ANNŌ (abl.)

año (nominal system: case) (here we have the singular forms (belonging to the second declension/o-class nouns) of ANNUS. Each Latin noun had in principle twelve separate endings, but in practice only seven distinct endings (none had more than eight distinct endings).

This meant that form alone was not always enough to unambiguously specify the role of the noun in a given sentence.

For example, instead of the genitive, we occasionally find the preposition DE followed by an ablative, e.g. DE MARMORE TEMPLUM. This analytic construction was inherited directly by Spanish in the form of de + noun (un templo de mármol).
Likewise, instead of the dative, we often find the preposition IN or AD followed by the accusative to express the indirect object. The same construction (eventually a + noun) was used in Spanish to express both indirect objects and personal direct objects.
Finally, most values of the Latin ablative required the presence of a preposition even in literary Latin, e.g. the ‘ablative of company’ required the presence of the preposition CUM, whose descendant is Spanish con.

Loss of final -M frequently caused the merger of accusative singular with ablative singular (e.g. MONTEM (acc.) and MONTE (abl.)
Merger of A and Ā (together with the loss of -M) made distinction impossible between ROSA (nom.), ROSAM (acc.) and ROSĀ (abl.)
Merger of Ō and U made accusative singulars like ANNUM indistinguishable from dative/ablative singulars like ANNŌ
Convergence of Ī and I caused merger of MONTĒS (nom./acc. plur) with gen. sing. MONTIS

Nominative/subject case:
/rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.)
/ánnos/ (sing.), /ánni/ (pl.)
/léo/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβes/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)
Oblique case (used in all roles except that of subject):
rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.) (note that a-class nouns already in late spoken Latin lacked any case-inflection, and the fact that no case distinction was possible in a large number of instances undoubtedly set the pattern for the obliteration of such distinction elsewhere)
/ánno/ (sing.), /ánnos/ (pl.)
/leóne/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβe/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)

By this point, there is good evidence that the nominative plural ending of a-class nouns was /-as/ in spoken Latin (by contrast with the -AE of the literary language).

The two-case system was reduced further to invariable singular and plural noun forms, as the result of a series of analogical adjustments:

Final /s/ came to analyzed as a marker exclusively of number and no longer of case.
This was because final /s/ occurs in almost all plural forms, but only in some singular forms.
This pattern (/-s/ = plur., /∅/ = sing.) was already established in the first declension in spoken Latin.
Analogical extension of this pattern no doubt led to the loss of /-s/ in those singular instances where it hitherto occurred, bringing immediate further convergence of nominative singular /ánno/ (previously /ánnos/) and /núβe/ (previously /núβes/) with the oblique singular.
Many imparisyllabic nouns of the third declension (nouns in which the nominative singular, e.g. /léo/, has one syllable fewer than the other forms) suffered analogical levelling by means of the expansion of their short nominative singular forms. Evidence from the Appendix Probi: GLĪS NON GLĪRIS. Taken together with the loss of singular /-s/, this change implies merger of nominative singular /leóne/ (<*LEŌNIS < LEŌ) with oblique singular /leóne/.
The previous two changes leaves morphological contrast between nominative and oblique only in the plural of o-class nouns (/ánni/ vs /ánnos/). The internal analogical pressures to level out the contrast between /ánni/ and /ánnos/ must have been practically irresistible. In Spain, /ánnos/ was bound to be preferred as it conformed to the pattern where the plural of most nouns was marked by the addition of /s/ to the same vowel as occurred in the singular. /ánni/ therefore disappeared

New cards

MŌNS (nom.), MONTEM (acc.), MONTIS (gen.), MONTĪ (dat.), MONTE (abl.)

LEŌ (nom.), LEŌNEM (acc.), LEŌNIS (gen.), LEŌNĪ (dat.), LEŌNE (abl.)

NŪBĒS (nom.), NŪBEM (acc.), NŪBIS (gen.), NŪBĪ (da.), NŪBE (abl.)

monte (nominal system: case) (here we have the singular forms (belonging to the third declension/consonant or i-class nouns) of MŌNS, LEŌ and NŪBĒS. Each Latin noun had in principle twelve separate endings, but in practice only seven distinct endings (none had more than eight distinct endings).

This meant that form alone was not always enough to unambiguously specify the role of the noun in a given sentence.

For example, instead of the genitive, we occasionally find the preposition DE followed by an ablative, e.g. DE MARMORE TEMPLUM. This analytic construction was inherited directly by Spanish in the form of de + noun (un templo de mármol).
Likewise, instead of the dative, we often find the preposition IN or AD followed by the accusative to express the indirect object. The same construction (eventually a + noun) was used in Spanish to express both indirect objects and personal direct objects.
Finally, most values of the Latin ablative required the presence of a preposition even in literary Latin, e.g. the ‘ablative of company’ required the presence of the preposition CUM, whose descendant is Spanish con.

Loss of final -M frequently caused the merger of accusative singular with ablative singular (e.g. MONTEM (acc.) and MONTE (abl.)
Merger of A and Ā (together with the loss of -M) made distinction impossible between ROSA (nom.), ROSAM (acc.) and ROSĀ (abl.)
Merger of Ō and U made accusative singulars like DOMINUM indistinguishable from dative/ablative singulars like DOMINŌ
Convergence of Ī and I caused merger of MONTĒS (nom./acc. plur) with gen. sing. MONTIS

Nominative/subject case:
/rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.)
/ánnos/ (sing.), /ánni/ (pl.)
/léo/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβes/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)
Oblique case (used in all roles except that of subject):
rósa/ (sing.), /rósas/ (pl.) (note that a-class nouns already in late spoken Latin lacked any case-inflection, and the fact that no case distinction was possible in a large number of instances undoubtedly set the pattern for the obliteration of such distinction elsewhere)
/ánno/ (sing.), /ánnos/ (pl.)
/leóne/ (sing.), /leónes/ (pl.)
/núβe/ (sing.), /núβes/ (pl.)

By this point, there is good evidence that the nominative plural ending of a-class nouns was /-as/ in spoken Latin (by contrast with the -AE of the literary language).

The two-case system was reduced further to invariable singular and plural noun forms, as the result of a series of analogical adjustments:

Final /s/ came to analyzed as a marker exclusively of number and no longer of case.
This was because final /s/ occurs in almost all plural forms, but only in some singular forms.
This pattern (/-s/ = plur., /∅/ = sing.) was already established in the first declension in spoken Latin.
Analogical extension of this pattern no doubt led to the loss of /-s/ in those singular instances where it hitherto occurred, bringing immediate further convergence of nominative singular /ánno/ (previously /ánnos/) and /núβe/ (previously /núβes/) with the oblique singular.
Many imparisyllabic nouns of the third declension (nouns in which the nominative singular, e.g. /léo/, has one syllable fewer than the other forms) suffered analogical levelling by means of the expansion of their short nominative singular forms. Evidence from the Appendix Probi: GLĪS NON GLĪRIS. Taken together with the loss of singular /-s/, this change implies merger of nominative singular /leóne/ (<*LEŌNIS < LEŌ) with oblique singular /leóne/.
The previous two changes leaves morphological contrast between nominative and oblique only in the plural of o-class nouns (/ánni/ vs /ánnos/). The internal analogical pressures to level out the contrast between /ánni/ and /ánnos/ must have been practically irresistible. In Spain, /ánnos/ was bound to be preferred as it conformed to the pattern where the plural of most nouns was marked by the addition of /s/ to the same vowel as occurred in the singular. /ánni/ therefore disappeared

New cards

MANUS (nom.), MANUM (acc.), MANŪS (gen.), MANUĪ (dat.), MANŪ (abl.)

mano (nominal system: case) (here we have the singular forms of the fourth declension/u-class nouns. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A. By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute. At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día)

New cards

RĒS (nom.), REM (acc.), REĪ (gen.), REĪ (dat.), RĒ (abl.)

cosa (nominal system: case) (here we have the singular forms of the fifth declension/e-class nouns)

New cards

PRĀTUM/PRĀTA

prado (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

CORNU/CORNUA

cuerno (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. PRĀTUM (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

CORPUS/CORPORA

cuerpo (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

NŌMEN/NŌMINA

nombre (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So _____ becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

ARMUM/ARMA

arma(s) (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. AMETHYSTUS > ametista (amatista from the 16th century). The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

PĪNUS

pino (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. ____ > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. TOPAZIUS > topacio. The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

TOPAZIUS

topacio (nominal system: gender) (In the development of the noun from Latin to Spanish, the category of gender undergoes two major modifications:

Change from a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter) to a two-gender system (masculine and feminine). The surviving neuter nouns were consequently reassigned to one or other of the remaining genders
Lack of distinctiveness of Latin neuter nouns (only distinctive in the nominative and accusative endings/fact that nom. and acc. plural always ended in /a/; also fact that by the 1st century BC neuters no longer exclusively indicated the class of ‘animates’, as it had once done) meant that there was a lot of interchange in spoken Latin, between neuters and particularly masculine nouns. General principle: if the Latin noun had a back vowel in its final syllable, it was assigned to the masculine class. A few neuters evolved through their plural form (in /-a/) and thus acquired feminine gender. The original plurals of most of these could be understood as -collective-, e.g. neutral ARMUM/ARMA > fem. ARMA/ARMAE > arma(s). When the final vowel was neither /-o/ nor /-a/, the new gender was arbitrarily assigned.
e.g. ____ (noun from the second declension) soon abandoned its plural in /-a/ (PRĀTA) and adopted masculine endings. Neuters of the fourth declension merged in the same way with masculines of the same class, and then the fourth declension merged with the second.
The neuters of the third declension whose nominative/accusative singular was in -US were also eventually absorbed into the masculine class in -o, -os. The subgroup of imparisyllabic nouns whose nom./acc. singular ended in /n/ or /ɾ/ suffered expansion of the nominative and accusative singulars. Since the expanded singular form ended in /e/, these nouns were assimilated tot he third Spanish noun class. Their -A plurals were thus replaced with /-es/, and their gender was arbitrarily assigned, although in some cases association of meaning with pre-existing masculine or feminine nouns may have played a role in assigning the new gender. So NŌMEN becomes *NŌMINE before becoming nombre.
Changes that brought about an increasingly close correspondence between gender and noun-endings.
Most nouns in -A (i.e. those of the first declension) were feminine. Most nouns in -US (i.e. those of the second and fourth declensions) were masculine, leaving aside the neuters of these declensions, which rapidly acquired masculine gender). In spoken Latin, this correlation was strengthened by the abandonment or by gender switch of feminines in -US and masculines in -A.
By the Old Spanish period the correlation was almost absolute, as three groups of words had been adjusted: tree names (feminine in Latin, e.g. PĪNUS > pino), gem-names (often feminine in Latin, ended in -US: e.g. ____ > topacio. The kinship terms SOCRUS and NURUS underwent a change in form to nuera and suegra (attested in the Appendix Probi: NURUS NON NURA). At this stage, probably the only aberrant forms were feminine mano and masculine día. However, from the late Middle Ages the force of this rule has been weakened and there are now large numbers of nouns which contravene it, e.g. clima (m), cura (priest), foto (f) (created through abbreviation).
In nouns ending in /e/ or a consonant, there is no correspondence between gender and form. As a result, gender switch from masculine to feminine is easy and relatively frequent, especially in nouns beginning with a vowel (since in old Spanish the form of a preceding definite article or indefinite article was identical for the two genders. An example of this hesitation of gender includes AMOR (m) > amor (found with both genders in Old Spanish, but became masculine in early Modern Spanish))

New cards

ROSA

rosa (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

RABIĒS

rabia (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

VŌTA

boda (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

DOMINUS

dueño (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

PASSUS

paso (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

MANUS

mano (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

CORPUS

cuerpo (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

NŪBĒS

nube (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

CUPRUM

cobre (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.)

New cards

BOVE

buei (later bueyes) (nominal system: noun classes) (The five noun classes were numerically unequal: the first three classes were large, while the fourth and fifth declensions were small. 3rd-declension nouns were either imparisyllabic or parisyllabic. 4th declension nouns shared many of their endings with those of the second, as did fifth-declension nouns with third-declension nouns.

These similarities of structure intensified as the system of case-endings was weakened. As a result of these similarities, there was a reduction of form classes from five to three:

Nouns of the Latin first declension (e.g. rosa), fifth-declension feminines (e.g. madera), neuter plurals of any declension (e.g. boda), and hypercharacterized feminines of the Latin third declension (e.g. señora) became part of the Spanish /a/ class.
Masculines and neuters of the Latin second declension (e.g. dueño), masculines and neuters of the Latin fourth declension (e.g. paso), single fourth-declension feminine mano, and third-declension neuters whose no./acc. singular contained a back vowel (e.g. cuerpo), and hypercharacterized third-declension masculines became part of the Spanish /o/ class.
Most Latin third-declension nouns (e.g. nube, león), the fifth-declension nouns which did not pass to the a-class (e.g. haz), a few second-declension words (e.g. cobre) became part of the Spanish /e/ or consonant class.

A very few Old Spanish nouns did not fit these declensional patterns. The plural of buei was at first phonologically regular but morphologically irregular. During the course of the Middle Ages, this aberrant noun was accommodated to the e/consonant-class through the remodelling of its plural to bueyes.)

New cards

AMĀRE

amar (verbal system: infinitives/verb classes. Latin had four conjugations, ending in -ĀRE, -ĒRE, -ERE (short [e] and stress on the stem) and -ĪRE. It also had some irregular verbs, such as ESSE (ser).

REDUCTION OF FOUR CLASSES TO THREE:

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another.

This was mostly between the second and third conjugations, to the extent that these two categories merged into one modern conjugation. This meant that verbs from both types are now stressed on the infinitival [é], so FACERE [‘fakeɾe] > hacer [a’θeɾ].

More detail about this change: In order to understand this change, three regular phonological processes must be taken into account:

The loss of the palatal glide [j] (here represented by -E-) from the ending of -ĒRE verbs.
The merger in spoken Latin of Ē and I under all stress conditions.
Accent shift: In infinitives of the first, second and fourth conjugations, like in the majority of verbs, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable ([kan’ta:ɾe], [ha’be:ɾe], [au̯’di:ɾe] according to Latin rules. In infinitives of the third conjugation, on the other hand, the accent fell on the antepenultimate syllable (because the short penultimate syllable could not bear the accent: so ['fakeɾe]. However, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of ['fakeɾe] to the penultimate syllable. The result of this change of stress was that verbs of the third conjugation became identical in their morphology with those of the second.

As a result of these processes, the only difference between the second and third conjugations was the third-person plural of the present indicative: TIMENT vs. VENDUNT, but VENDUNT was analogically adjusted to the rest of the paradigm, giving *VENDENT. Therefore, by the end of the Roman period a single present indicative paradigm (and a single present subjunctive paradigm) had developed for the two verb classes.

CHANGES OF VERB CLASS

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another:

No -ĀRE verb moved to another conjugation.
Most Latin -ĒRE and -ERE verbs remained in the -er class, but a few migrated to the -ar class, e.g. FIDERE > fiar. Many also migrated to the -ir class, e.g. DĪCERE > decir (this was because the root vowels /i/ and /u/ were very rare in -ĒRE and -ERE verbs but frequent in the -ĪRE class, so they became morphological markers of the -ir class. The effect of this was that the few -ĒRE and -ERE verbs which had root Ī or U moved to the fourth conjugation). Finally, the fact that all -ĒRE verbs and some -ERE verbs had a palatal glide in certain endings, the same endings where a glide occurred in -ir verbs, led to the movement of a number of -ĒRE and -ERE verbs into the -ir clalss, where the glide was preserved for longer. An example of this is PUTRĒRE > pudrir.)
The -ir class retained all surviving -ĪRE verbs (except for TUSSĪRE > toser) and acquired a large number of learned borrowings (e.g. definir).

CHOICE OF VOWEL IN THE ROOT:

Something else to note is that the choice of vowel in the root was determined by its conjugational class. In verbs, the contrast between atonic /e/ and /i/ and between atonic /o/ and /u/ was exploited to increase the morphological contrast between -er and -ir verbs. The root of -er verbs could only contain mid vowels or the open vowel /a/: this is why we see temer, but never *timer.

On the other hand, the atonic root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels or mid vowels, hence vacillation between bevir/vivir due to dissimilation of /i/ (also sobir/subir).

However, the mid variant /o/ was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, with only a few verbs retaining it: podrir, abolir and oír.

Meanwhile, the tonic root of -ir verbs could only contain high vowels or /a/ (thus only forms like bive and sube were permissible, as well as sale/salir).

Speakers preferred high vowels for the root of -ir verbs because these root vowels could not appear in -er verbs, thus increasing the morphological contrast between -er and -ir verbs. However, this preference for high vowels in the root of -ir verbs is at odds with the process of vowel dissimilation of /i/ … /í/ > /e/ …. /í/. That is, when the verbal ending contained tonic /í/, it became impossible for the root to contain /i/ in verbs inherited from Latin. So the form pedir was preferred over the OSp. variant pidir, while the forms that lacked tonic /í/ in the ending maintained or imposed a high root vowel (so pido, pides, pide, piden). Only certain learned verbs, such as permitir, escaped this pattern and were allowed to offer the sequence /i/…/í/. A limited number of popular verbs, including vivir~bevir and escrevir/escrivir (which, like pedir, were hesitating between root /e/ and /i/ in the Middle Ages), followed the learned vocalic pattern /i/…/í/ from the Golden Age onwards.

CHOICE OF SEDĒRE > ser:

In some contexts, Latin SEDĒRE was synonymous with ESSE, and therefore provided the source for several paradigms which competed with or replaced forms descending from ESSE. It is also an example of fricatization and loss of /d/ due to lenition)

New cards

HABĒRE

haber (verbal system: infinitives/verb classes. Latin had four conjugations, ending in -ĀRE, -ĒRE, -ERE (short [e] and stress on the stem) and -ĪRE. It also had some irregular verbs, such as ESSE (ser).

REDUCTION OF FOUR CLASSES TO THREE:

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another.

More detail about this change: In order to understand this change, three regular phonological processes must be taken into account:

The loss of the palatal glide [j] (here represented by -E-) from the ending of -ĒRE verbs.
The merger in spoken Latin of Ē and I under all stress conditions.
Accent shift: In infinitives of the first, second and fourth conjugations, like in the majority of verbs, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable ([kan’ta:ɾe], [ha’be:ɾe], [au̯’di:ɾe] according to Latin rules. In infinitives of the third conjugation, on the other hand, the accent fell on the antepenultimate syllable (because the short penultimate syllable could not bear the accent: so ['fakeɾe]. However, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of ['fakeɾe] to the penultimate syllable. The result of this change of stress was that verbs of the third conjugation became identical in their morphology with those of the second.

CHANGES OF VERB CLASS

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another:

No -ĀRE verb moved to another conjugation.
Most Latin -ĒRE and -ERE verbs remained in the -er class, but a few migrated to the -ar class, e.g. FIDERE > fiar. Many also migrated to the -ir class, e.g. DĪCERE > decir (this was because the root vowels /i/ and /u/ were very rare in -ĒRE and -ERE verbs but frequent in the -ĪRE class, so they became morphological markers of the -ir class. The effect of this was that the few -ĒRE and -ERE verbs which had root Ī or U moved to the fourth conjugation). Finally, the fact that all -ĒRE verbs and some -ERE verbs had a palatal glide in certain endings, the same endings where a glide occurred in -ir verbs, led to the movement of a number of -ĒRE and -ERE verbs into the -ir clalss, where the glide was preserved for longer. An example of this is PUTRĒRE > pudrir.)
The -ir class retained all surviving -ĪRE verbs (except for TUSSĪRE > toser) and acquired a large number of learned borrowings (e.g. definir).

CHOICE OF VOWEL IN THE ROOT:

On the other hand, the atonic root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels or mid vowels, hence vacillation between bevir/vivir due to dissimilation of /i/ (also sobir/subir).

However, the mid variant /o/ was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, with only a few verbs retaining it: podrir, abolir and oír.

Meanwhile, the tonic root of -ir verbs could only contain high vowels or /a/ (thus only forms like bive and sube were permissible, as well as sale/salir).

CHOICE OF SEDĒRE > ser:

New cards

DĪCERE/FACERE

decir/hacer (verbal system: infinitives/verb classes. Latin had four conjugations, ending in -ĀRE, -ĒRE, -ERE (short [e] and stress on the stem) and -ĪRE. It also had some irregular verbs, such as ESSE (ser).

REDUCTION OF FOUR CLASSES TO THREE:

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another.

More detail about this change: In order to understand this change, three regular phonological processes must be taken into account:

The loss of the palatal glide [j] (here represented by -E-) from the ending of -ĒRE verbs.
The merger in spoken Latin of Ē and I under all stress conditions.
Accent shift: In infinitives of the first, second and fourth conjugations, like in the majority of verbs, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable ([kan’ta:ɾe], [ha’be:ɾe], [au̯’di:ɾe] according to Latin rules. In infinitives of the third conjugation, on the other hand, the accent fell on the antepenultimate syllable (because the short penultimate syllable could not bear the accent: so ['fakeɾe]. However, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of ['fakeɾe] to the penultimate syllable. The result of this change of stress was that verbs of the third conjugation became identical in their morphology with those of the second.

CHANGES OF VERB CLASS

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another:

No -ĀRE verb moved to another conjugation.
Most Latin -ĒRE and -ERE verbs remained in the -er class, but a few migrated to the -ar class, e.g. FIDERE > fiar. Many also migrated to the -ir class, e.g. DĪCERE > decir (this was because the root vowels /i/ and /u/ were very rare in -ĒRE and -ERE verbs but frequent in the -ĪRE class, so they became morphological markers of the -ir class. The effect of this was that the few -ĒRE and -ERE verbs which had root Ī or U moved to the fourth conjugation). Finally, the fact that all -ĒRE verbs and some -ERE verbs had a palatal glide in certain endings, the same endings where a glide occurred in -ir verbs, led to the movement of a number of -ĒRE and -ERE verbs into the -ir clalss, where the glide was preserved for longer. An example of this is PUTRĒRE > pudrir.)
The -ir class retained all surviving -ĪRE verbs (except for TUSSĪRE > toser) and acquired a large number of learned borrowings (e.g. definir).

CHOICE OF VOWEL IN THE ROOT:

On the other hand, the atonic root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels or mid vowels, hence vacillation between bevir/vivir due to dissimilation of /i/ (also sobir/subir).

However, the mid variant /o/ was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, with only a few verbs retaining it: podrir, abolir and oír.

Meanwhile, the tonic root of -ir verbs could only contain high vowels or /a/ (thus only forms like bive and sube were permissible, as well as sale/salir).

CHOICE OF SEDĒRE > ser:

New cards

AUDĪRE

oír (verbal system: infinitives/verb classes. Latin had four conjugations, ending in -ĀRE, -ĒRE, -ERE (short [e] and stress on the stem) and -ĪRE. It also had some irregular verbs, such as ESSE (ser).

REDUCTION OF FOUR CLASSES TO THREE:

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another.

More detail about this change: In order to understand this change, three regular phonological processes must be taken into account:

The loss of the palatal glide [j] (here represented by -E-) from the ending of -ĒRE verbs.
The merger in spoken Latin of Ē and I under all stress conditions.
Accent shift: In infinitives of the first, second and fourth conjugations, like in the majority of verbs, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable ([kan’ta:ɾe], [ha’be:ɾe], [au̯’di:ɾe] according to Latin rules. In infinitives of the third conjugation, on the other hand, the accent fell on the antepenultimate syllable (because the short penultimate syllable could not bear the accent: so ['fakeɾe]. However, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of ['fakeɾe] to the penultimate syllable. The result of this change of stress was that verbs of the third conjugation became identical in their morphology with those of the second.

CHANGES OF VERB CLASS

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another:

No -ĀRE verb moved to another conjugation.
Most Latin -ĒRE and -ERE verbs remained in the -er class, but a few migrated to the -ar class, e.g. FIDERE > fiar. Many also migrated to the -ir class, e.g. DĪCERE > decir (this was because the root vowels /i/ and /u/ were very rare in -ĒRE and -ERE verbs but frequent in the -ĪRE class, so they became morphological markers of the -ir class. The effect of this was that the few -ĒRE and -ERE verbs which had root Ī or U moved to the fourth conjugation). Finally, the fact that all -ĒRE verbs and some -ERE verbs had a palatal glide in certain endings, the same endings where a glide occurred in -ir verbs, led to the movement of a number of -ĒRE and -ERE verbs into the -ir clalss, where the glide was preserved for longer. An example of this is PUTRĒRE > pudrir.)
The -ir class retained all surviving -ĪRE verbs (except for TUSSĪRE > toser) and acquired a large number of learned borrowings (e.g. definir).

CHOICE OF VOWEL IN THE ROOT:

On the other hand, the atonic root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels or mid vowels, hence vacillation between bevir/vivir due to dissimilation of /i/ (also sobir/subir).

However, the mid variant /o/ was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, with only a few verbs retaining it: podrir, abolir and oír.

Meanwhile, the tonic root of -ir verbs could only contain high vowels or /a/ (thus only forms like bive and sube were permissible, as well as sale/salir).

CHOICE OF SEDĒRE > ser:

New cards

SEDĒRE

ser (verbal system: infinitives/verb classes. Latin had four conjugations, ending in -ĀRE, -ĒRE, -ERE (short [e] and stress on the stem) and -ĪRE. It also had some irregular verbs, such as ESSE (ser).

REDUCTION OF FOUR CLASSES TO THREE:

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another.

More detail about this change: In order to understand this change, three regular phonological processes must be taken into account:

The loss of the palatal glide [j] (here represented by -E-) from the ending of -ĒRE verbs.
The merger in spoken Latin of Ē and I under all stress conditions.
Accent shift: In infinitives of the first, second and fourth conjugations, like in the majority of verbs, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable ([kan’ta:ɾe], [ha’be:ɾe], [au̯’di:ɾe] according to Latin rules. In infinitives of the third conjugation, on the other hand, the accent fell on the antepenultimate syllable (because the short penultimate syllable could not bear the accent: so ['fakeɾe]. However, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of ['fakeɾe] to the penultimate syllable. The result of this change of stress was that verbs of the third conjugation became identical in their morphology with those of the second.

CHANGES OF VERB CLASS

In Vulgar Latin, the vast majority of verbs remained where they were, but some moved from one conjugation to another:

No -ĀRE verb moved to another conjugation.
Most Latin -ĒRE and -ERE verbs remained in the -er class, but a few migrated to the -ar class, e.g. FIDERE > fiar. Many also migrated to the -ir class, e.g. DĪCERE > decir (this was because the root vowels /i/ and /u/ were very rare in -ĒRE and -ERE verbs but frequent in the -ĪRE class, so they became morphological markers of the -ir class. The effect of this was that the few -ĒRE and -ERE verbs which had root Ī or U moved to the fourth conjugation). Finally, the fact that all -ĒRE verbs and some -ERE verbs had a palatal glide in certain endings, the same endings where a glide occurred in -ir verbs, led to the movement of a number of -ĒRE and -ERE verbs into the -ir clalss, where the glide was preserved for longer. An example of this is PUTRĒRE > pudrir.)
The -ir class retained all surviving -ĪRE verbs (except for TUSSĪRE > toser) and acquired a large number of learned borrowings (e.g. definir).

CHOICE OF VOWEL IN THE ROOT:

On the other hand, the atonic root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels or mid vowels, hence vacillation between bevir/vivir due to dissimilation of /i/ (also sobir/subir).

However, the mid variant /o/ was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, with only a few verbs retaining it: podrir, abolir and oír.

Meanwhile, the tonic root of -ir verbs could only contain high vowels or /a/ (thus only forms like bive and sube were permissible, as well as sale/salir).

CHOICE OF SEDĒRE > ser:

New cards

VĒNDIMUS

vendemos (verbal system: present indicative.

VERBAL ACCENT: The position of the accent has remained highly stable over the centuries. However, in the third conjugation, the analogical pressure exerted by the accentual pattern of the majority of verbs was instrumental in shifting the accent of VÉNDIMUS and VÉNDITIS to the penultimate syllable: VÉNDĬMUS > /βendémos/, VÉNDǏTIS > /βendétes/.

A second point is that fourth-conjugation verbs such as APÉRĬO, which had a short penultimate syllable and thus carried the accent on the antepenultimate syllable, were analogically adjusted to the forms ÁPĚRĬS (>abres) and ÁPĚRIT (>abre), where the the intertonic unstressed /e/ was eliminated and the stress was moved to the /a/ (now the penultimate syllable).

APOCOPE OF -E: Latin verbal forms whose final syllable contained a front vowel preceded by a dental or alveolar consonant (other than /t/) should lose this final vowel in accordance with regular phonological development. This rule of apocope is often applied to the Old Spanish verb, e.g. tien, vien, sal, val, quier.

SECOND-PERSON PLURAL: Except in the preterite, the -T- of this morpheme was intervocalic in Latin and so became voiced to /d/ in Old Spanish. Instead of passing unchanged into the modern languauge, this /d/ was eliminated from the 2nd-person-plural verb-ending from the fourteenth century onwards. This may have been due to the increased frequency of such verb forms (which were increasingly used to indicate a singular as well as a plural subject). The result of this loss of /d/ was the formation of various hiatuses, each of which was reduced to a single syllabic nucleus in a variety of ways. In the case of -edes, the hiatus /-ée/ was resolved either as /é/ (through assimilation) or as /éi/ (through dissimilation), giving temedes > temées > temés or teméis. Through analogy, other forms suffered similar reductions: cantades > cantáes > cantás/cantáis, sodes > soes > sos/sois, etc (Note that from the mid-sixteenth century, Peninsular Spanish opted for dissimilated forms such as cantáis).

THE GLIDE IN PRESENT-TENSE VERBS:

The palatal glide [j] occurred in all -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs and a subclass of -ERE verbs.

This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

The glide was gradually lost from pronunciation. This was probably for analogical reasons, such as (1) the absence of the glide from all -ĀRE verbs and most -ERE verbs, and (2) its absence from the second and third persons singular and the first and second persons plural of -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs.

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

However, the glide had, for the most part, little effect on the root-final consonant with which it was normally grouped). Therefore, FACIŌ > hago, because the glide ceased to be pronounced before it could have the effect seen in ERĪCIU > erizo. Only three groups of verbs clearly show the assimilatory effect of the glide contained in the verbal ending:

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

PRESENT-TENSE ENDINGS:

These are phonologically regular (other than the verbal accent, apocope of -e and the second person plural). So CANTŌ > canto (merger of Ō and O), CANTAT > canta (loss of final /t/), CANTĀMUS > cantamos (merger of U and O).

CONSONANTAL ALTERNATION:

Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces).

DEVELOPMENT OF SER: Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.

(Alfonso X: Note that ser could still be used to indicate location in the Primera crónica general, e.g. o ell era, although there was a growing tendency in Castilian to use estar for this purpose with animate subjects)

DEVELOPMENT OF IR:

The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

The forms VADO, VADIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT were probably remodelled on the pattern seen in do, das, da, dan, estó, estás, está, están. Following loss of -D-, the root continued to be separate from the person/number marker, that is, vowel reduction of VADIS > /βáes/ > /βais/ > **/βes/, etc., did not take place. Therefore, the Old Spanish paradigms were: vo, imos, vas, ides, va, van.

However, the subjunctive forms vamos (<VADĀMUS) and vades (<VADĀTIS) began to be used in Old Spanish as indicatives, since they chimed batter with the indicative paradigm (vo, vas, va, van) than with the other forms of the subjunctive paradigm (vaya, vayas, etc.). This was a slow change: imos and ides ceased to be used before the 16th century, but vamos and vais occasionally appeared with subjunctive value in the Golden Age, and still today vamos keeps its optative sense.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

APÉRĬO

abro (verbal system: present indicative.

THE GLIDE IN PRESENT-TENSE VERBS:

The palatal glide [j] occurred in all -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs and a subclass of -ERE verbs.

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

PRESENT-TENSE ENDINGS:

CONSONANTAL ALTERNATION:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces).

DEVELOPMENT OF SER: Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.

DEVELOPMENT OF IR:

The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

ÁPĚRĬS

abres (verbal system: present indicative.

THE GLIDE IN PRESENT-TENSE VERBS:

The palatal glide [j] occurred in all -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs and a subclass of -ERE verbs.

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

PRESENT-TENSE ENDINGS:

CONSONANTAL ALTERNATION:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces).

DEVELOPMENT OF SER: Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.

DEVELOPMENT OF IR:

The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

TENET

tien (later tiene) (verbal system: present indicative.

SECOND-PERSON PLURAL: Except in the preterite, the -T- of this morpheme was intervocalic in Latin and so became voiced to /d/ in Old Spanish. Instead of passing unchanged into the modern language, this /d/ was eliminated from the 2nd-person-plural verb-ending from the fourteenth century onwards. This may have been due to the increased frequency of such verb forms (which were increasingly used to indicate a singular as well as a plural subject). The result of this loss of /d/ was the formation of various hiatuses, each of which was reduced to a single syllabic nucleus in a variety of ways. In the case of -edes, the hiatus /-ée/ was resolved either as /é/ (through assimilation) or as /éi/ (through dissimilation), giving temedes > temées > temés or teméis. Through analogy, other forms suffered similar reductions: cantades > cantáes > cantás/cantáis, sodes > soes > sos/sois, etc (Note that from the mid-sixteenth century, Peninsular Spanish opted for dissimilated forms such as cantáis).

THE GLIDE IN PRESENT-TENSE VERBS:

The palatal glide [j] occurred in all -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs and a subclass of -ERE verbs.

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

PRESENT-TENSE ENDINGS:

CONSONANTAL ALTERNATION:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces).

DEVELOPMENT OF SER: Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.

DEVELOPMENT OF IR:

The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

TIMĒTIS

temedes (>teméis) (verbal system: present indicative.

SECOND-PERSON PLURAL: Except in the preterite, the -T- of this morpheme was intervocalic in Latin and so became voiced to /d/ in Old Spanish. Instead of passing unchanged into the modern language, this /d/ was eliminated from the 2nd-person-plural verb-ending from the fourteenth century onwards. This may have been due to the increased frequency of such verb forms (which were increasingly used to indicate a singular as well as a plural subject). The result of this loss of /d/ was the formation of various hiatuses, each of which was reduced to a single syllabic nucleus in a variety of ways. In the case of -edes, the hiatus /-ée/ was resolved either as /é/ (through assimilation) or as /éi/ (through dissimilation), giving temedes > temées > temés or teméis. Through analogy, other forms suffered similar reductions: cantades > cantáes > cantás/cantáis, sodes > soes > sos/sois, etc (Note that from the mid-sixteenth century, Peninsular Spanish opted for dissimilated forms such as cantáis).

THE GLIDE IN PRESENT-TENSE VERBS:

The palatal glide [j] occurred in all -ĒRE and -ĪRE verbs and a subclass of -ERE verbs.

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

PRESENT-TENSE ENDINGS:

CONSONANTAL ALTERNATION:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces).

DEVELOPMENT OF SER: Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.

DEVELOPMENT OF IR:

The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

HABEŌ

he (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

However, the glide had, for the most part, little effect on the root-final consonant with which it was normally grouped. Therefore, FACIŌ > hago, because the glide ceased to be pronounced before it could have the effect seen in ERĪCIU > erizo. Only three groups of verbs clearly show the assimilatory effect of the glide contained in the verbal ending:

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

AUDIŌ

oigo (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

AUDIUNT

oyen (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

HABENT

han (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

FACIŌ

hago (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

VIDEŌ

veo (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

CAPIŌ

quepo (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

VENIŌ

vengo (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo, TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

PONŌ

pongo (verbal system: present indicative: the glide in present-tense verbs. This glide occurred specifically in the first-person singular of the present indicative, e.g. HABEŌ and AUDIŌ, and the third-person plural of the present indicative, except for -ĒRE verbs: so AUDIUNT but HABENT (it also occurred in all forms of the present subjunctive paradigm).

However, before it was lost from pronunciation, this glide had certain assimilatory/metaphonic effects on the root vowel of -ir verbs

Verbs in /dj/, /gj/ and /bj/, which show normal development of these groups. That is, the group > mid-palatal fricative /ǰ/, which was then eliminated after a front vowel. So VIDEŌ > veo (SEDEAM > sea, HABEAM > haya)
Verbs in /pj/: The glide was preserved after root-final /p/ and was then transferred to the previous syllable, so CAPIŌ > quepo.
Verbs in /nj/: The glide which followed root-final /n/ was kept long enough in pronunciation to palatalize this consonant. The result was a consonantal alternation (/ɲ/ vs /n/) which was unprecedented in Spanish, and therefore replaced by /ng/, e.g. VENIŌ > vengo TENEŌ > tengo. Note that another verb which soon adopted this pattern is PONŌ > pongo, even though it never had /nj/ in Latin)

New cards

CANTŌ

canto (verbal system: present indicative: present tense endings. These are phonologically regular (other than the verbal accent, apocope of -e and the second person plural). So CANTŌ > canto (merger of Ō and O), CANTAT > canta (loss of final /t/), CANTĀMUS > cantamos (merger of U and O))

New cards

CANTAT

canta (verbal system: present indicative: present tense endings. These are phonologically regular (other than the verbal accent, apocope of -e and the second person plural). So CANTŌ > canto (merger of Ō and O), CANTAT > canta (loss of final /t/), CANTĀMUS > cantamos (merger of U and O))

New cards

CANTĀMUS

cantamos (verbal system: present indicative: present tense endings. These are phonologically regular (other than the verbal accent, apocope of -e and the second person plural). So CANTŌ > canto (merger of Ō and O), CANTAT > canta (loss of final /t/), CANTĀMUS > cantamos (merger of U and O))

New cards

DĪCŌ

digo (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

DĪCIS

dizes (>dices) (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

SPARGŌ

espargo (later esparzo) (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

SPARGIS

esparzes (>esparces) (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. COGNŌSCO. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

COGNŌSCO

conozco (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. CŌGNŌSCŌ. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

CŌGNŌSCIS

cono(s)ces > conoces (verbal system: present indicative: consonantal alternation. Almost all the consonantal alternations in the root of Spanish verbs are due to the double phonological development of Latin consonants: palatalized before front vowels but velar before other vowels. However, no -ar verb displays this effect. In -er and -ir verbs, once the glide had been eliminated from the ending and (-I)UNT > -ENT in the third-person plural endings, if the root-final consonant was velar followed by a front vowel, it is predicted to be palatalized, whereas if the ending contained /o/ or /a/ the consonant should maintain its velar place of articulation. There were three groups of Latin verbs with a velar-root final consonant:

Verbs in vowel + /k/, e.g. DĪCERE. In this case, intervocalic /k/ + /o/ or /a/ > /g/, so DĪCŌ > digo. On the other hand, /k/ + front vowel > /d^z/ (and later > θ), so DĪCIS > dizes.
Verbs in /ɾg/ or /ng/, e.g. SPARGERE.
The velar remains unchanged before a non-front vowel, so /ɾg/ or /ng/ + /o/ or /a/ > /ɾg/ or /ng/. So SPARGŌ > espargo,
On the other hand, the velar is palatalized before a front vowel, so /ɾg/ + /e/, /i/ > /ɾd^z/ (and later > ɾθ), and /ng/ > /nd^z/ (and later > nθ) or /ɲ/. So SPARGIS > esparzes. These verbs thus come to join with verbs in vowel + /k/ despite having phonological structures in Latin, characterized by alternation between /g/ and either /d^z/ or /ɲ/at the end of the root. This pattern (the addition of /g/ to the seven relevant forms of new verbs) spread to verbs whose Latin root had not ended in a velar. It can be seen from earliest times in those whose root ended in /n/ (e.g. VENIŌ > vengo) and gradually affects those with root /ɾ/ or /l/ (e.g. SAL(I)Ō > salgo).
Verbs with root-final /sk/, e.g. CŌGNŌSCŌ. In this case, /sk/ + /a/ or /o/ > /sk/ (So conosco > conozco), while /sk/ + /e/ or /i/ > /t^s/ (>/θ/) (So cono(s)ces > conoces)

New cards

SUMUS

somos (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

SUNT

son (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

SUM

so > soy (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

EST

es (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

ERIS

eres (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

*SUTIS

sodes > sois (verbal system: present tense: development of ser. Only some forms of the present indicative of ser descend from the corresponding forms of ESSE: SUM, SUMUS, ES, ESTIS, EST, SUNT:

SUMUS > somos (normal phonological development)
SUNT > son (normal phonolological development)
SUM > so (this shows irregular loss of -M, which is normally preserved as /n/ in monosyllables (cf. TAM > tan). It is probably lost because its retention would have created an unprecedented first-person ending: **son. Note that the change so > soy has received no definitive explanation. It began in the fourteenth century, and is inseparable from the changes do > doy, estó > estoy, vo > voy. It is also similar to the development of ha > hay, although in the case of hay the added element can be positively identified as the adverb y (<IBĪ). Penny favours the theory that the addition of -y (<IBĪ) served to clarify the distinction between these present tense forms (do, estó, vo, where the stressed /ó/ contrasted with the atonic /o/ of other present-tense forms) and the -ó of the preterite
EST > es (this shows regular reduction of -ST > /s/, but threatened merger with Latin second-person ES, which was replaced by the corresponding member of the future paradigm: ERIS. As a copular and therefore fully stressed form, ES(T) and ERIS could be expected to undergo diphthongization of the root vowel E (> /ie/). However, they had a frequent auxiliary function (demanding less than full stress) in the perfect of intransitives and in the passive (es llegado and es amado respectively). This meant that they remained undiphthongized)
ERIS > eres (ERIS is the corresponding member of the future paradigm; see above for explanation of why ERES does not show diphthongization of stressed /ɛ/)
ESTIS did not survive in the Latin of Spain, but was replaced by *SUTIS (> sodes), which was modelled analogically on SUMUS and SUNT. The change sodes > sois follows the normal rule (fricatization and loss of intervocalic /d/)

Note that the present subjunctive of ESSE does not survive in Romance, and is replaced by the corresponding forms of SEDĒRE.)

New cards

EŌ/VADŌ

voy (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

ĪMUS/VADĀMUS

vamos (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

ĪS/VADIS

vas (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

ĪT/VADIT

va (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

ĪTIS/VADĀTIS

vais (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

EUNT/VADUNT/*VADENT

van (verbal system: present tense: development of ir. The present-tense forms of ĪRE (EŌ, ĪMUS, ĪS, ĪTIS, IT, EUNT) had no consonant in the root, a disadvantage that caused the majority of them to be replaced by longer forms taken from other verbs.

The verb which most frequently provided these longer forms was VADERE. In the spoken Latin of Spain, therefore, the paradigms were probably VADO, ĪMUS, VADIS, ĪTIS, VADIT, VADUNT/*VADENT.

Thus emerged the modern paradigms: vo, vamos, vas, vais, va, van. See above discussion of so for the change vo > voy)

New cards

CANTĀBĀMUS

cantávamos (>cantábamos) (verbal system: the imperfect.

LATIN SYSTEM: For -ĀRE verbs, the first-person-singular ending was -ĀBAM. For -ĒRE verbs it was -ĒBAM. For some -ERE verbs it was also -ĒBAM, but for others it was -IĒBAM. For -ĪRE verbs it was -IĒBAM. However, in the last two classes -ĪBAM also existed from archaic Latin onwards, and this was the form which passed into Hispanic Latin.

ACCENT SHIFT: In Latin, the accent fell on the penultimate syllable in the 1st and 2nd persons plural of all Latin paradigms (apart from the preterite and certain present indicative forms): CANTABá̄MUS and CANTĀBá̄TIS). However, in all of these forms, the accent was analogically shifted to the antepenultimate syllable, so it would occupy the same position as the remaining forms of each paradigm, i.e. the accent shifts in respect to the root: CANTABá̄MUS > *CANTÁBAMUS > cantábamos, CANTá̄Bá̄TIS > *cantábatis > cantabais). The forms maintained their /d/ until the Golden Age (and thus continued to be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable): only in the 16th and 17th centuries was /d/ lost from these forms, whereupon the resulting hiatus was reduced to a diphthong in Peninsular Spanish.

LOSS OF -B-: Latin intervocalic -B- is normally preserved in Spanish, as can be seen in the imperfect of -ĀRE verbs (e.g. CANTĀBAM > cantava > cantaba). By contrast, /-B-/ is lost in other verb classes, for reasons that are unclear. It may have been because the root of some highly frequent -ĒRE, -ERE and -ĪRE verbs ended in -B- or -V- (e.g. HABĒBAM, VIVĒBAM), and the /-B-/ in the imperfect was lost because of dissimilation. In any case, Spanish shows no trace of the -B- marker in the imperfect of -er verbs.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries (Alfonso X: In the Fuero real (1255), the imperfect and conditional is formulated in -ié). However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

In a given Old Spanish -ir verb, there was variation between /e/ & /i/ and /o/ & /u/ in forms which lacked root stress and did not have a glide in the ending, e.g. sobía~subía~sobíe~subíe~. The high vowel was usually preferred when the ending was -ié (subié).

However, the dissimilation /i/…/í/ > /e/…/í/ meant that root /e/ became standard in all verbs with a front root vowel (e.g. after a period of variation between servía~sirvía~servíe~sirvíe, speakers opted for servía), except in a few orally transmitted verbs (e.g. escribía) and some learned verbs (e.g. dirigía). In -ir verbs with a back vowel in the root, /u/ became the norm (subía, etc.) with only three exceptions (dormía, moría, oía).

DEVELOPMENT OF HABĒRE: This verb had regular imperfects (avía, etc.), but it also had a paradigm of reduced forms which were used with auxiliary value, together with the infinitive, to form the conditional. The reduced imperfect forms result from the complete loss of the root, leaving only the ending: (HAB)ĒAS, etc. > ías, etc. In Old Spanish, these conditional endings showed the same variation as those of the imperfect, with the same later preference for the -ía forms.)

New cards

CANTĀBĀTIS

cantávades (>cantabais) (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

CANTĀBAM

cantava (>cantaba) (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

HABĒBAM

avía (>había) (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

VIVĒBAM

vivía (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

SUBĪRE

subir (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

SERVĪRE

servir (verbal system: the imperfect.

MERGER OF IMPERFECT -ER and -IR ENDINGS INTO FORMS WITH TONIC /Í/: This outcome arose due to the regular development of the sequence /éa/ > /ía/ (cf. MEA > /méa/ > mía).

COMPETITION OF -ÍA, -ÍE and -IÉ ENDINGS: In Old Spanish, the -ía endings competed with endings in -íe and especially in -ié, except in the first person singular. According to Malkiel (1959), this was caused by the transferrence of -ié forms in preterites such as vendiemos and vendiestes to the present tense. Imperfects with /e/ appear in the 11th century and dominate in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they began to decline in the 14th century, though there are frequent examples of /e/ imperfects in the 15th century and even some in the 16th century (e.g. in Santa Teresa). The eventual preference for forms in /a/ is probably due to analogical pressure from the first person singular (which rarely showed -ie) and the -ar verbs (where the imperfect always included an /a/ marker).

ROOT VOWELS: The contrast between -er verbs and -ir verbs lay in the fact that -er verbs only allow /a/, /e/ or /o/ in the root, whereas -ir verbs allow the full range of root vowels in Old Spanish.

New cards

HABUĪ

ove (>hube) (verbal morphology: the preterite.

IMPACT OF LABIOVELAR GLIDE ON CERTAIN IRREGULAR PRETERITES: It was possible for a labiovelar glide to be transferred to a preceding syllable, combining with tonic /a/ to produce /o/ (as in the case of AU). The only examples of this are certain irregular preterites: HABUĪ > [‘au̯βi] > OSp. ove (MSp. hube), SAPUĪ > [‘sau̯pi] > OSp. sope (MSp. supe).

APOCOPE OF -E: Latin verbal forms whose final syllable contained a front vowel preceded by a dental or alveolar consonant should lose this final vowel in accordance with regular phonological development. This rule was frequently applied to the Old Spanish verb, so we can observe the following medieval forms (although they were never obligatory, and are found alongside unapocopated forms): first-person singular strong preterites vin, fiz, quis. Medieval Spanish phonology additionally allowed the loss of final /e/ in other environments, so we find apocopated forms like vinist, llegast, etc., beside the full forms which later displaced them.

However, the near-disappearance of apocope can be explained by the analogical pressure exerted by the respective verbal paradigms, where in the overwhelming majority of forms the person/number marker consists of at least one vowel.

ROOT VOWELS: Old Spanish showed a certain instability with regard to the aperture of atonic vowels, esp. to the contrast between /e/ & /i/ and between /o/ & /u/. This hesitation was exploited in the verb to increase the morphological contrast between -er and -ir verbs, as the differences between the endings of these classes were minimal. The high vowels /i/ and /u/ were excluded from the root of -er verbs, while the root of -ir verbs could contain high vowels, while mid vowels were excluded from tonic roots (but not from atonic roots).

However, speakers increased the morphological contrast between -er and -ir verbs by preferring /i/ and /u/ as the root vowels for -ir verbs (as they could not appear in -er verbs. So the mid variant /o/ in -ir verbs was eliminated towards the end of the Middle Ages, only surviving in podrir, abolir and oír. In the case of verbs whose root shows a front vowel, the preference for high vowels in the root of -ir verbs was at odds with the process of vowel dissimilation /i/…/í/ > /e/…/í/.

A preterite form affected by this dissimilatory process was OSp. pedí/pidí > MSp. pedía. By contrast, in forms which lacked tonic /í/ in the ending, these verbs maintained or imposed a high root vowel: thus OSp. pedió/pidió/pedieron/pidieron > MSp. pidió/pidieron.

In the case of strong preterites, there developed a similar preference for high root vowels except where these were prevented by dissimilation from following /í/. The medieval irregular preterites which had /ó/ in the first and third-person singular (e.g. estove/-o) showed a strong preference for the same root vowel where the latter was atonic (estoviste, estovimos, estovieron). However, a high vowel occasionally appeared (estuviste, estuvimos, etc.), and this solution became the norm towards the end of the fifteenth century, in keeping with the process which at that time affected the regular -ir preterites. The preference for high root vowels went so far as to impose /u/ even in the strong forms of the paradigm (so estove/-o > estuve/o, etc.). The root vowel /e/ became impermissible before the end of the 15th century, making /i/ the only front vowel possible in the root of irregular preterites, and also making these forms (e.g. dijiste, hicimos, vinisteis) the only ones (other than a few learned verbs) not subject to the dissimilatory process /i/…/í/ > /e/…/í/.

MORPHOLOGY OF THE PRETERITE: Two broad classes of Latin perfects should be distinguished:

A large majority of -ĀRE and -ĪRE verbs had endings which always bore the accent (weak perfects, e.g. AMĀVĪ).
In contrast, almost all -ĒRE and -ERE verbs bore the accent on the root in some forms of their paradigms (strong preterites, e.g. HABUĪ)

Historically, the weak preterites have deeply influenced the strong preterites. This influence had a number of effects:

Many verbs which were strong in Latin have become week, e.g. DEBUĪ > debí. Only a minority of very frequent verbs preserved their strong accentuation.
Only the first and third persons singular of the strong paradigm kept the accent of the root (hice, hizo), while the other members of the paradigm became weak (hiciste, hicimos, etc.)
In certain cases, the endings of strong preterites have been taken from the weak paradigm.)

New cards

HABĒO + participle

he + participle (verbal system: present perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRODUCTION OF HABEŌ + PARTICIPLE: The great aspectual innovation of spoken Latin was the introduction of forms that could unambiguously indicate perfect aspect. This process began with the structure HABEŌ + participle. At first, it expressed current possession and thus could only apply to transitive verbs.

For instance, in HABEŌ CULTELLUM COMPARĀTUM (‘I have the knife, which I bought’), the direct object of the verb (CULTELLUM) agrees with the participle (COMPARĀTUM). This structure was close to conveying ‘I have bought the knife’, as current possession implied that the action (contained in COMPARĀTUM) belonged to a period of time still current. Consequently, the introduction of HABEŌ COMPARĀTUM made possible a perfect/perfective distinction between HABĒO COMPARĀTUM (‘I have bought’) and COMPARĀVĪ (‘I bought’).

ENDURANCE OF IDEA OF POSSESSION: Note that the idea of possession expressed by HABEŌ was not completely lost for centuries. The first stage in its semantic weakening can be seen when it begins to be used with participles which were logically incompatible with the notion of possession, e.g. HABEŌ ILLUD AUDĪTUM. When we find examples of HABEŌ + participle without an overt direct object, e.g. HABEŌ INTELLECTUM, we can conclude that HABEŌ has been grammaticalized as a morpheme expressing perfect aspect. Nevertheless, in early old Spanish the participle was still made to agree in number and gender with its direct object (e.g. bien os he casadas in the PMC (c. 1207)), although by the thirteenth century this agreement was no longer obligatory and it was gradually abandoned between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries.

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. (Alfonso X: ser is used as a perfect auxiliary in ‘Eran tornados uiles’ in the º). Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

EXTENSION TO OTHER TENSES AND MOODS: The new forms HABĒBAM CANTĀTUM, etc. gradually replaced the Latin forms CANTĀVERAM, etc., but this was a slow process and had stilll not been completed by the fifteenth century, since CANTĀVERAM could still then be used as a pluperfect as cantara beside analytic competitors such as avía cantado.

DRAMATIC PHONOLOGICAL REDUCTION: As a grammatical marker, HABĒRE enormously increased in frequency in Latin. This led to its dramatic phonological reduction, which consisted in the total loss of the root (while as a lexical verb it maintained its full form for some time as (h)e, aves, ave, avemos, avedes, aven, although in reality, apart from avemos and avedes, the full forms were infrequent in Old Spanish. On the other hand, havemos, havéis continued to be used until the Golden Age, when they were pushed out by tenemos, tenéis). The development HABEŌ > (h)e can only be explained as occurring in a partly proclitic form. After the change [bj] > /ǰ/, whence /áǰo/, the final /o/ can have been lost only when this form was used as an auxiliary before a participle or infinitive (cf. bueno > buen, uno > un when preceding a noun). The lexical verb HABEŌ would not be expected to undergo this apocope, so that the form (h)e in this function represents a first example of confusion between the two paradigms. This confusion gradually spread to other forms of the paradigms)

New cards

COMPARĀVĪ

compré/he comprado (verbal system: present perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

New cards

HABEŌ CULTELLUM COMPARĀTUM

he comprado el cuchillo (verbal system: present perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

New cards

HABEŌ ILLUD AUDĪTUM

lo he oído (verbal system: present perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

New cards

HABEŌ INTELLECTUM

he entendido (verbal system: present perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

New cards

CANTĀVERAM/HABĒBAM CANTĀTUM

había cantado (verbal system: perfect aspect. Latin only allowed a morphological distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects. It did not, therefore, allow a morphological distinction between perfect and perfective aspects: in the indicative, both were expressed by CANTĀVĪ (i.e., this could mean both ‘I have sung’ and ‘I sang’).

INTRANSITIVE VERBS: Also note that throughout the Middle Ages, HABEŌ + participle still could not be used with intransitive verbs: the structure he comprado beloved exclusively to transitive verbs, which were the only ones capable of having a direct object. Instead, the perfect aspect was expressed with ser + participle in the case of intransitive verbs, e.g. son idos, where the participle normally agreed with the verbal subject. Around the 16th century, the modern structure haber + participle became the norm for the perfect of all intransitives, and therefore of all Spanish verbs

New cards

CANTĀBŌ

cantaré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

The structure HABEŌ + infinitive enjoyed the greatest success as a duture construction. The auxiliary rarely kept its most basic sense of ‘I possess’=, but gave the clause a nuance of intention, obligation and finally simple futurity. It also underwent radical shortening: each member of the paradigm was reduced to its tonic vowel followed by the appropriate person and number marker. It then lost its independent status and became an inflectional morpheme.

SYNTHETIC/ANALYTIC FUTURE TENSES: In Old Spanish, the future tense could be analytic synthetic. It was analytic when an atonic pronoun was inserted between the infinitive and the auxiliary (e.g. cantarlo (h)e), and synthetic elsewhere (cantaré). The possibility of separating the two elements, in which case the infinitive and the auxiliary would both carry stress (while the combined forms had only carried stress on the auxiliary), persisted until the early seventeenth century (note that the same went for conditional forms). In fact, the analytic form of the future (and the conditional) was obligatory when the verb headed its clause or was preceded by certain atonic words (e, mas).

EFFECT OF SINGLE STRESS ON AUXILIARY IN SYNTHETIC FORMS: The fact that in the synthetic forms only the auxiliary carried the stress meant that the theme vowel of the infinitive (cantAré, debEré, sentIré) had become atonic and was now in pretonic position. This provided the conditions for syncope of the vowel.

The low vowel /a/ was exempt from this loss due to its ‘inherent audibility’, thus ensuring that the stress-pattern of synthetic forms had no impact on -ar verbs. However, the infinitival /e/ and /i/ were subject to syncope in Old Spanish when the preceding consonant allowed this loss (as the following consonant /ɾ/ always favours syncope).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Therefore, syncope was impossible in oiré, fuiré, caeré, but it occurred most frequently when the new consonant group was identical to an already existing group. For example, the group /dɾ/ in poderá > podrá posed no articulatory problems, since /dɾ/ appeared in many long-established Spanish words, e.g. madre and padre. In other cases, however, the groups resulting from syncope were modified in various ways:

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

However, these forms competed with unsyncopated forms, and only a few syncopated forms survived beyond the 16th century: querrá, habrá, sabrá, pondrá, tendrá, vendrá, valdrá, saldrá, dirá. This can be attributed to twofold analogical pressure:

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

TIMĒBŌ

temeré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

VENDAM

venderé (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

AUDIAM

oiré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

CANTĀRE HABEŌ

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

AUDĪRE HABEŌ

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

SALĪRE HABEŌ

saldré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

However, these forms competed with unsyncopated forms, and only a few syncopated forms survived beyond the 16th century: querrá, habrá, sabrá, pondrá, tendrá, vendrá, valdrá, saldrá, dirá. This can be attributed to twofold analogical pressure:

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

DĪCERE HABEŌ

diré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

However, these forms competed with unsyncopated forms, and only a few syncopated forms survived beyond the 16th century: querrá, habrá, sabrá, pondrá, tendrá, vendrá, valdrá, saldrá, dirá. This can be attributed to twofold analogical pressure:

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

*POTĒRE HABEŌ

podré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Therefore, syncope was impossible in oiré, fuiré, caeré, but it occurred most frequently when the new consonant group was identical to an already existing group. For example, the group /dɾ/ in poderá > podrá posed no articulatory problems, since /dɾ/ appeared in many long-established Spanish words, e.g. madre and padre. In other cases, however, the groups resulting from syncope were modified in various ways:

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

However, these forms competed with unsyncopated forms, and only a few syncopated forms survived beyond the 16th century: podrá, querrá, habrá, sabrá, pondrá, tendrá, vendrá, valdrá, saldrá, dirá. This can be attributed to twofold analogical pressure:

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

COMEDERE HABEŌ

comeré (verbal morphology: future tense. The Latin future form has no descendant in any Romance language, but was replaced by new constructions in spoken Latin. Part of the reason for this was the lack of formal similarity between the endings of the first and second conjugations (-ĀBŌ/-ĒBŌ) and those of the third and fourth conjugations (-AM, -IAM).

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

New cards

CANTĀRE HABĒBAM

cantaría (verbal system: conditional tense.

CHOICE OF THE CONDITIONAL FOR APODOSES:

Classical Latin used the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive in the apodosis of conditional sentences, and it was only in the Middle Ages that the conditional began to be used under these circumstances. Likewise, Classical Latin used the ‘accusative + infinitive’ construction to convey in indirect speech, while in Peninsular Spanish this was replaced with the conditional: creía que (él/ella) cantaría.

CONTRACTION OF HABĒBAM AND ALTERNATION OF ENDINGS: The evolution of the auxiliary HABĒBAM showed the same kind of contraction as HABEŌ underwent in the future: the forms were reduced to the tonic vowel, followed by the person/number ending. As descendants of the imperfect indicative of HABĒRE, the conditional endings showed the same variation as other -er and -ir imperfects, namely between /ía/, /íe/, /ié/ and, infrequently, /í/.

ANALYTIC OR SYNTHETIC FORMS: In Old Spanish, conditionals could be analytic (with the insertion of one or more atonic/clitic pronouns, e.g. cantarlo (h)ía) or synthetic (cantaría). Until the seventeenth century, it was possible to separate the infinitive and the auxiliary, resulting in either double stress (on the infinitive and on the auxiliary) in analytic forms or single stress (on the auxiliary) in synthetic forms. In fact, the analytic form of the conditional (and the future) was obligatory when the verb headed its clause or was preceded by certain atonic words (e, mas).

EFFECT OF SINGLE STRESS ON THE AUXILIARY: The fact that in the synthetic forms only the auxiliary carried the stress meant that the theme vowel of the infinitive (cantAré, debEré, sentIré) had become atonic and was now in pretonic position. This provided the conditions for syncope of the vowel.

Thus, in cases where the theme vowel was not in hiatus with the root vowel, it could be eliminated (with or without modification of the preceding consonant).

Reinforcement of /ɾ/ following the lost vowel: salirá > salrrá
Epenthesis (insertion) of a transitional consonant: comerá > combrá
Metathesis of two consonants: *ponerá > porná
Total or partial assimilation of the first consonant: *dezirá > dirá.

However, these forms competed with unsyncopated forms, and only a few syncopated forms survived beyond the 16th century: querría, habría, sabría, pondría, tendría, vendría, valdría, saldría, diría. This can be attributed to twofold analogical pressure:

The -ar future forms were never syncopated and therefore provided a model in which the full infinitive was clearly audible.
All syncopated forms coexisted with full analytic forms.)

100

New cards