reversal of merger, proposal (2)

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

bwald <bwald at HUMNET.UCLA.EDU> wrote:
 
>Similar (and probably related) expressive palatalisation is used in
>Spanish, e.g., in talking to babies and forming nicknames, e.g., Jo*s*e >
>*ch*e,  vamo*n*os > vamo*ny*o etc.  The relevant (part of the) Basque
>expressive rule seems to be:
>
>        s > sh/ch       (by /s/ I mean the phoneme written "z")
 
The phoneme written <s> (apical sibilant) behaves in exactly the same
manner (sagu "mouse" ~ xagu "little mouse").
 
>If I understand right, the rule remains in the relevant area as an
>alternation between s and sh/ch in affected lexical items, keeping it
>transparent and alive.  This souce of (t)sh, on a synchronic level, is
>completely distinct from the historical phonemes sh and ch, which do NOT
>alternate with s (and NEVER did).
 
Such historical phonemes *x and *tx (/S/, /tS/) do not seem to exist.
 
There are a couple of other facts that need to be taken into account.
 
Basque does have a non-expressive palatalization rule, to the effect
that in a sequence -(V)iCV- the consonant C tends to palatalize, at
least if it's one of:
 
/t/           /dit,ut/ "I have them"  <ditut>
/s/           /giSon/  "man"          <gizon>
/s_/          /iSil/   "quiet"        <isil>
/ts/          /itSal/  "shadow"       <itzal>
/ts_/         /itSu/   "blind"        <itsu>
/n/           /ban,o/  "but"          <baino>
/l/           /ol,o/   "chicken"      <oilo>
 
(/d/, /b/, /p/, /g/, /k/, /r/ and /rr/ do not palatalize).  The
palatalization of /t/, /s/ and /ts/ seems to be optional, or less
general (Larry?).
 
This may of course also be relevant in the case of the word <gixajo>.
 
Another aspect is the rule (in Gipuzkoan) that initial x- /S/ > tx-
/tS/ (and /tS/ does not back, as <ch> didn't in Castillian).  The
fact that <xaboi> "soap" (< OCast. xabon(e)) becomes <jaboi> [xaBoi]
would suggest that the change /S/- > /tS/- occurred after the change
/S/ > /x/.  On the other hand, I notice that this rule too seems to
be subject to the effects of the affective/non-affective sense of the
word.  Words like <txakur> "dog" (originally <xakur> "little dog")
and <txekor> "calf" (from <zekor> "calf", in disuse) are affected,
but if my Gipuzkoan doesn't fail me, <xexen> "torito" (as opposed to
<zezen> "toro") and <xagu> "mouslet" (as opposed to <sagu> "mouse")
are not.  I'm not sure what to make of that.
 
 
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam