Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T05:17:48.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Initial alternation in Proto-Romance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Clifford S. Leonard Jr.
Clifford S. Leonard Jr.*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional explanation of Proto-Romance geminate initials (as in Italian rafforzamento), in terms of a progressive assimilation subsequent to Latin, is here rejected in favor of a theory of cognation between the strikingly parallel initial morphophonemics of Romance and Celtic. To sustain this, it is necessary to redefine geminates as units and medial so-called single consonants as phonemically composite. Romance syntactic ‘gemination’ is thus replaced by syntactic ‘lenition’, as in Celtic. Lenition actually handles certain Italian features better than does gemination.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 44 , Issue 2-Part1 , June 1968 , pp. 267 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agard, Frederick B. 1958. Structural sketch of Rumanian. (Language monographs, 26.) Baltimore, LSA.Google Scholar
Bourciez, Édouard. 1946. Éléments de linguistique romane. 4th ed. Paris, Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Camilli, Amerindo. 1941. I rafforzamenti iniziali. Lingua Nostra 3.44–45.Google Scholar
Chavarría-Aguilar, O. L. 1951. The phonemes of Costa-Rican Spanish. Lg. 27.248–253.Google Scholar
Coustenoble, Hélène N. 1945. La phonétique du provençal moderne en terre d'Arles. Hertford, Austin.Google Scholar
Densusianu, Ovide. 1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine, vol. 2. Paris, Leroux.Google Scholar
Festa, Giovanni Battista. 1917. II dialetto di Matera. ZRP 38.129–62, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figge, Udo L. 1966. Die romanische Anlautsonorisation. Bonn.Google Scholar
Gray, Louis H. 1944. Mutation in Gaulish. Lg. 20.223–230.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1943. Occurrence and orthographical representation of phonemes in Brazilian Portuguese. SIL 2.6–13.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1948. Descriptive Italian grammar. Ithaca, Linguistica.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1950. The reconstruction of Proto-Romance. Lg. 26.6–27.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1964. Initial consonants and syntactic doubling in West Romance. Lg. 40.551–556.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. 1951. Morphophonemics of the Keltic mutations. Lg. 27.230–247.Google Scholar
Heinertz, N. Otto. 1925. Eine Lautverschiebungstheorie. Acta Universitatis Lundensis, nova series, 20:7. Lund.Google Scholar
Hills, E. C., Ford, J. D. M., Coutinho, J. de S., and Moffatt, L. G.. 1944. Portuguese grammar. Boston, Holt.Google Scholar
King, Harold V. 1952. Outline of Mexican Spanish phonology. SIL 10.51–62.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1939. Die Mundarten Südlukaniens. Halle, Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Clifford S. Jr. 1964. Strong /R/ and weak /r/ in Gallo-Romance. Romance Philology 18.296–299.Google Scholar
Lewis, Henry, and Pedersen, Holger. 1937. A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Marstrander, C. J. S. 1929. De l'unité italo-celtique. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 3.241–258.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Bern, Francke.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1956. La description phonologique d'Hauteville (Savoie). Geneva and Paris, Droz.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1928. Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine. Paris, Hachette.Google Scholar
Nandris, Octave. 1963. Phonétique historique du roumain. Paris, Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Norman, Hilda L. 1937. Reduplication of consonants. Italica 14.55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palay, Simin. 1961. Dictionnaire du béarnais et du gascon modernes. Paris, CNRS.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Holger. 1931. Linguistic science in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University. (Reprinted as The discovery of language. Bloomington, Indiana University, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pop, Sever. 1948. Grammaire roumaine. Berne, Francke.Google Scholar
Reed, David W., and Leite, Yolanda. 1947. The segmental phonemes of Brazilian Portuguese: standard Paulista dialect. Phonemics, by Kenneth, L. Pike, 194–202. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten, vol. 1. Bern, Francke.Google Scholar
Sala, Marius. 1963. La Romania occidentale et la Romania orientale: sur le traitement des sonantes. Studia Linguistica 17.26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1874. Les modifications syntactiques de la consonne initiale dans les dialectes de la Sardaigne, du Centre et du Sud d'Italie. Romania 3.1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, N. C. W. 1960. A glossary of Jersey-French. (Publications of the Philological Society, 18.) Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1909. Handbuch des Alt-irischen. Heidelberg, Winter.Google Scholar
Wagner, Max L. 1950. La lingua sarda. Bern, Francke.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 1958. Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte. (Forschungen zur romanischen Philologie, 6.) Münster, Aschendorff.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin B. 1955. Spanish and English dictionary. New York, Holt.Google Scholar