academia.edu

THE PHONETICS OF NASAL-FRICATIVE SEQUENCES IN LATIN

  • ️https://ucla.academia.edu/JessicaDeLisi

Inscriptional material and descriptions by grammarians from the classical period indicate that vowels were regularly lengthened before-ns-and-nf-sequences in Latin, e.g., c onsul andīnfēlīx. Additionally, nasals were often lost in this environment. The nasal deletion was driven by articulatory mechanisms, namely the difficulty of articulating a nasal directly before an anterior fricative. Diverting air to the nasal cavity reduces oral air pressure; however, the articulation of fricatives requires high air pressure at the point of constriction in order for frication of the air stream to occur. Speakers of Latin reduced the articulatory burden of these sequences by reducing nasal air flow, and over time the nasals were deleted. Preceding vowels were then lengthened to compensate for the lost mora associated with the deleted nasal. The articulatory explanation for the development of nasal-fricative sequences will be supported by the facts of sociolinguistics: the reintroduction of nasals inns and -nf-sequences is associated with elite speech and formal contexts, where the coarticulation between these two segments can be closely monitored by speakers.

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact

Figures (5)

lengthening is driven by the loss of pre-fricative nasals, which are then sporadically restored by speakers: The last step in this sequence, the restoration of the nasal, must have been sporadic in order to account for nasal-less forms in the inscriptional record and accounts of nasal-less pronunciations by the grammarians.’ In the derivation in example (7) above, the final step (with restoration of the nasal), retains the long vowel. This length is based on spellings such as CéNSOR and xfvowe, as well as the Oscan spelling keenzstur, discussed in section 1 above. This phonological model is descriptively adequate, but the nasal loss itself is largely
lengthening is driven by the loss of pre-fricative nasals, which are then sporadically restored by speakers: The last step in this sequence, the restoration of the nasal, must have been sporadic in order to account for nasal-less forms in the inscriptional record and accounts of nasal-less pronunciations by the grammarians.’ In the derivation in example (7) above, the final step (with restoration of the nasal), retains the long vowel. This length is based on spellings such as CéNSOR and xfvowe, as well as the Oscan spelling keenzstur, discussed in section 1 above. This phonological model is descriptively adequate, but the nasal loss itself is largely
In order to avoid the problem of stipulative or theory-internal motivations, an explanatio should be sought in the phonetics of nasal-fricative sequences specifically. Two possibilitie arise: either a perceptual or articulatory issue must force the deletion of pre-fricative nasals i early Latin, triggering compensatory lengthening with later restoration of the nasal by at lea: some speakers. The perceptual account will be evaluated in section 3, followed by th articulatory account in section 4 and section 5. I will argue that the deletions of pre-fricativ nasals found in Latin and elsewhere stem directly from the conflicting aerodynamic propertie of nasals and fricatives. I will also demonstrate that this articulatory explanation predicts the nasals will only be deleted before anterior fricatives, while dorsal fricatives should not trigge the deletions, as we see in the contrast between mfélix and inhiimanus. Binally cartinn 6 wraill avamine tha anrinlingiiectir iecnecdc nf naecal ractnratinn That th
In order to avoid the problem of stipulative or theory-internal motivations, an explanatio should be sought in the phonetics of nasal-fricative sequences specifically. Two possibilitie arise: either a perceptual or articulatory issue must force the deletion of pre-fricative nasals i early Latin, triggering compensatory lengthening with later restoration of the nasal by at lea: some speakers. The perceptual account will be evaluated in section 3, followed by th articulatory account in section 4 and section 5. I will argue that the deletions of pre-fricativ nasals found in Latin and elsewhere stem directly from the conflicting aerodynamic propertie of nasals and fricatives. I will also demonstrate that this articulatory explanation predicts the nasals will only be deleted before anterior fricatives, while dorsal fricatives should not trigge the deletions, as we see in the contrast between mfélix and inhiimanus. Binally cartinn 6 wraill avamine tha anrinlingiiectir iecnecdc nf naecal ractnratinn That th
Figure 3. Waveform, spectrogram, oral airflow, and nasal airflow for a mhaide ‘his stick.’ Shading indicates elevated nasal airflow, and the arrow indicates the fricative under investigation (Warner et al. 2015: 213). Note the inverse relationship between oral and nasal airflow: as oral airflow is reduced, nasal airflow rises, and vice versa.
Figure 3. Waveform, spectrogram, oral airflow, and nasal airflow for a mhaide ‘his stick.’ Shading indicates elevated nasal airflow, and the arrow indicates the fricative under investigation (Warner et al. 2015: 213). Note the inverse relationship between oral and nasal airflow: as oral airflow is reduced, nasal airflow rises, and vice versa.
The second reason that Vuh is different from other nasal-fricative sequences in Latin is that the segment [h] was only weakly articulated, if at all. The process of [h]-loss, complete today in modern Romance languages, was already underway in classical times. In scansion of classical poetry, does not prevent elision:
The second reason that Vuh is different from other nasal-fricative sequences in Latin is that the segment [h] was only weakly articulated, if at all. The process of [h]-loss, complete today in modern Romance languages, was already underway in classical times. In scansion of classical poetry, does not prevent elision:

Related papers

The development of the intervocalic laryngeal in Latin

The development of laryngeals in the traditional interpretation depends purely on their sound environment and at least in the development into Latin no role is ascribed to in what morpheme or morphemes and on what position within the morpheme the relevant sound sequence occurs. However, in the process of elimination of laryngeals the extra-phonetic factors evidently also come into play that complicate the well-arranged rules and that have not yet been systematically explained. The article is concerned with a partial problem of this complex issue, namely the question of development of intervocalic laryngeal on the morphemic boundary between the root and the suffix. In Latin there are examples where for semantic reasons the deletion of the laryngeal is not followed by the contraction of vowels, but where an epenthetic consonant occurs in its place.

The Relative Chronology of Some Major Latin Sound Changes

1986

Parker, Holt. Dissertation, Yale Univ. 1986. The text is the UMI microfilm and unfortunately the text is only imperfectly searchable. This dissertation attempts a historical ordering of various Latin phonological rules. The starting point is the phonemic split of I into bright and dark allophones. Ch. 1 assembles the evidence for their phonetic quality. Ch. 2 concerns the assimilations of ld, ln, ls and lv to ll. Ch. 3 examines the sources for surface ld, In, Is and lv, in particular the case of helvus. Ch. 4 and 5 treat consonant clusters: rules of loss of stops before sC in Latin, and the loss of nasals with compensatory lengthening before spirants with parallels in Osco-Umbrian and Celtic (Ch. 4); the loss of liquids (Ch. 5). Part lI deals with changes in vowels. Changes in short vowels in initial syllables (Ch. 6). Changes of diphthongs in initial syllables (Ch. 7). Ch. 8 presents the weakening of vowels in medial syllables as an ordered series of rules. Ch. 9 details the process of R-Lowering (i > e, o > u before r in an open syllable) as a single rule. An excursus on dereduplication of the perfects of compound verbs, and a second on mollis and the adjectives in -ui- complete the work.

Related papers

Related topics