Talk:caixa

Catalan being the source of the other languages

This seems a bit absurd, (vulgar) latin 'ss' sometimes becomes 'x', others remains 'ss'; furthermore this word follows the exact same pattern of 'bassus' in the daughter languages, so i dont see why they cant be considered derived directly from latin, Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Nicodene, who added that line. Ultimateria (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is even a single example of an original [ps] (without a following [j]) yielding [x] in a native Spanish word, I've yet to encounter it. “Absurd” indeed.

Spanish bajo was influenced by bajar < *bassiāre, per Coromines, and the same is just as applicable to other palatalized outcomes of bassus, hence *bassius. The entries are, admittedly, in need of a cleanup. Nicodene (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? How do you explain passer > páxaro then? Was it also *passiarum?

Also, it shouldnt be seen as if from latin [ps], but from vulgar latin [ss]. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i just realised this wasnt the best example because 'a' doesnt become 'ai', so you win this round, but i'm gonna do some research and i'll be back. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Pájaro (< páxaro) is in fact attested in Old Spanish as passaro, whatever the reason for the change.

Appealing to “Vulgar Latin” is only slightly better than appealing to voodoo magic. I suggest you try something else, like considering the results of original [ps] (without following [j]) in Spanish and Portuguese. Nicodene (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Appealing to “Vulgar Latin” is only slightly better than appealing to voodoo magic"

I want to have a productive discussion and not to start an argument, but that sentence is extremely ignorant. There are plenty of features common to all or most romance languages that cannot be accounted for by simply look at classical latin, like for instance the palatals "ll" and "ñ" and the affricate "ts" that dont exist in latin (i'm using a phone so i dont have access to IPA). Or portuguese "fazer" (to do) vs "faço" (i do): latin "facere" became /fatsere/ > /fadzere/ > /fazer/, while "facio" became /fattso/ > /fatso/ > /faso/, following the same pattern of /pp tt kk/ > /p t k/, and /p t k/ >/b d g/; because /j/, beyond causing palatisation also caused gemination, similar to what happened to a group of germanic languages (west germanic? I cant remember now but there's a wikipedia page on that.)

To finish, appealing to vulgar latin is not, in fact, "voodoo magic", it's just basic science. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sérgio R R Santos If you meant to have a civilized discussion, you should perhaps not have started by immediately throwing out the word “absurd”.

“Vulgar Latin” is a famously outdated and, by the standards of modern Romance Linguistics, frankly nonsensical concept. If you mean to refer to a reconstruction like Proto-Romance, or any later attempted reconstruction (“Proto-Western-Romance” etc.) then you should have said so. Of course that doesn't help you here since whatever you mean by “Vulgar Latin” cannot even be the ancestor of for example Catalan, which shows distinct regular outcomes for Latin intervocalic [ss] and [ps] (> [s] and [(j)ʃ] respectively, as opposed to Spanish and Portuguese having [s] for both), which is—among other things, which you could've learnt by simply looking up the cited sources—a major reason why Coromines & Pascual consider the Spanish word to probably be borrowed from Catalan. That's not even mentioning the /aj/ in Galician and Portuguese, which matches the original diphthong in Catalan and would be even more absurd to attempt to explain as “magically” arising from [ˈa] followed by [ps] and [a].

As mentioned, I suggest you try something else. Nicodene (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, someone's sensitive. To be honest, as I was re-reading this talk page I thought to myself "maybe 'absurd' was to strong of a word to use", so i'll grant you that. However, i did say 'a bit absurd', as opposed to just 'absurd'. I wasn't aware that Vulgar Latin was a "famously outdated and nonsensical concept"; maybe you should request for the wikipedia page on Vulgar Latin to be deleted. I did noticed that you are becoming more aggravated every time you reply to me, like i'm questioning your whole life's work or something. To be honest, i din't think anyone was gonna reply to me! I just have a great interest and curiosity regarding historical linguistics, particularly phonology, and I have a hard time accepting that such simple vocabulary, like 'caixa' and 'baixo' had to be borrowed from a neighbouring language. As i was trying to think of portuguese words with the sequence 'aix', I remembered baixela, and by looking at the history of that page i see that you've been there - nothing wrong about that, but it also says it comes from catalan; even spanish vajilla is given as coming from aragonese and not directly from Vulgar Latin. But, as you surely are aware, having studying romance languages yourself, galician/portuguese [ɛl] corresponding to castillian [iʎ] and catalan [eʎ] points to a common ancestor to all words ( like castelo / castillo / castell); if the portuguese word is borrowd from catalan how do you explain [ʎ] > [l] and [e] > [ɛ]? Like I said i'm not interested in starting a fight, i'm just curious so could you provide more words that come from latin [ps] to prove your point, because i can't think of any, i don't think there are many. Cheers. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, you do not even deserve a response after throwing out “extremely ignorant”, especially in a subject which you, demonstrably, do not know much about. I don't know why I've bothered to reply at all.

Had you actually read that article before citing it, perhaps you'd have noticed that it contradicts your point of view. The very second sentence reads “Vulgar Latin as a term is both controversial and imprecise”, not to mention the following section.

Re vascellum, first of all, the “translation”, in a borrowing, of synonymous and obviously related elements (Catalan -ella, Portuguese -ela, Spanish -illa) would hardly come as a surprise. Second, I was not the one who added the etymology deriving baixela from Catalan. Third, I don't particularly care to explore that topic because it is entirely irrelevant to a discussion regarding outcomes of original [ps].

Cf. *accum ipse, gypsum, ipse, metipse/*metipsimus, or scripsi (> Old Spanish escrisse). Nicodene (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)