At the moment, most of our entries seem to represent the final vowel ⟨o⟩ in medieval Galician-Portuguese as /o/.
However, Williams 1962 (From Latin to Portuguese, pp. 120–121) comments that:
'The pronunciation of final o became [u] at an early date... This extreme closeness of the final vowel increased its assimilating effect on the tonic vowel. It must be assumed that the o of final -os did not acquire this close pronunciation until after the time of the action of metaphony; therefore, final -os did not have any effect on the tonic vowel at all. This is what Almeida Cavacas means when he says that the ending of the plural must have had "um som diferente menos sordo" than the ending of the singular (Cavacas, 145).'
This helps explain why the stressed vowel of, for instance, Portuguese p[ɔ]rcos differs from that of p[o]rco, where the latter was raised by early final /-u/, while the former failed to be raised by early final /-os/.
I see that some of our medieval entries assume a regional difference; e.g. alho is given a pronunciation with final /o/ for Galicia and /ʊ/ for Portugal. It seems, though, that there are both Galician dialects where 'u-metaphony' occurs and Portuguese ones where it does not (per the Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, p. 415). If there is no absolute difference between Galicia and Portugal today, in this regard, it seems even less likely that there would have been one in early medieval times.
For simplicity, I propose representing the medieval stage like so:
/ˈpɔrku/ - singular
/ˈpɔrkos/ - plural
That is, any metaphony would be assumed to be merely allophonic at this stage, since the conditioning variable, namely the difference in the following vowels, is still intact. It is uncertain that metaphony was actually present in the medieval language, and if it wasn't (or if it was simply a regional allophonic phenomenon), that would help explain the highly inconsistent modern outcomes. Nicodene (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the proposal is fine, but I would like to caution that the discussion on whether the atonic final "o" was pronounced /u/ or /o/ in Galician-Portuguese seems to still be quite polarizing. I was distinguishing Portugal and Galician final o pronunciation based on the mapping done by C. Maia (1986) that suggests that metaphony chiefly occurred in documents from the southernmost regions of Galician-Portuguese, being absent in documents from most of Galicia and Alto Minho. It seemed a more diplomatic (but well-argued) approach, though I don't mind adopting your standard instead. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. She does present a mixed situation, saying that some parts of Galicia did appear to have /-u/ (rather than /-o/), while the northern edge of Portugal did not. So if we do represent this regional difference- and her data seem a compelling to do so- then the labelling would need to be more nuanced than (Galicia) versus (Pоrtugal). For example (most of the north) versus (most of the south), or some more elegant phrasing. Nicodene (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
"ao paso que na lingua oral a vogal /-u/ se mantivo ata hoxe en diversas áreas dos dominios asturiano e leonés. Por terras de Asturias e Cantabria esta vogal afectou metafoneticamente a vogal tónica dos masculinos singulares, que quedaron así dobremente caracterizados fronte aos masculinos plurais, nos que o /-o/ etimolóxico non inflexionou a vogal acentuada:
LŬPŬ > llubu (ou tamén llobu) / LŬPŌS > llobos
ŎCULŬ > güiyu / ŎCULŌS > güeyos."
Also:
"En xeral, <-o> é a solución que máis se rexistra nos textos notariais galegos e portugueses tanto para descendentes de formas latinas con -~ coma para descendentes de formas con -Ŭ; non obstante, en instrumentos do século XIII e incluso nalgún do XIV recóllense variantes minoritarias con <-u> átono fina"
But later he ends:
"Pola súa parte, os textos literarios galegos en verso e en prosa mostran desde o século XIII un resultado /-o/ totalmente consolidado como desenvolvemento das vogais átonas finais latinas -Ŏ, -Ō e -Ŭ:"
In a later work, 2017, "Fonética e fonoloxías históricas da lingua galega", page 243, he qualified his remark: "un resultado escrito con <-o> (representante de /-o/ ou talvez de /-ʊ/) totalmente consolidado).", which he maintains along the books. So, according to this autor, in Medieval Galician /-u/ > <-o> ([ʊ] or/and [o]), although at an earlier stage /-u/ (or /-ʊ/) produced methaphony (page 153, 244). - Froaringus (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
What year should we consider the 'end' of Old Galician-Portuguese? This page states that there is no consensus, but it would be useful for us to set our own cutoff for the purposes of Wiktionary, even an arbitrary one. Perhaps 1400? Nicodene (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I'm not sure we should really define a date. I mean, most scholars would rather agree with Clarinda de Azevedo Maia (Lua error in Module:quote at line 884: |date= should contain a full date (year, month, day of month); use |year= for year), who understands the separation of both languages as a long process which was already running by the 13th century and that was more than evident during the 15th.
I mean, if you take a private document issued by 1300 in either Galicia or Portugal, there were already differences in spelling, vocabulary, style and grammar that would allow a scholar to say if it is Galician or Portuguese, but by 1400 those differences were much, much more notable, because of additional phonetic and grammatical divergence.
So, if I must, I would say 1300, in base to the medieval prose; or 1370, when most of Galicia (both noblemen, churchmen and town councils, after the defeat and dead of supported king Peter of Castile) decided to name king the Portuguese Ferdinand I, but he relinquished most of Galicia that same year because Castilians were assaulting Lisbon. That was perhaps the last political opportunity for Galician-Portuguese to maintain its unity.
Thank you for your detailed answer. The reason I ask is that under lontra there is a quote dating to 1439, but "Old Galician-Portuguese *lontra" is mentioned only as a reconstruction. So the question arises: how early is early enough? It sounds as though a cut-off in the fourteenth century would make sense. Nicodene (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see you point, Nicodene; reading both the Galician and Portuguese entry one can only think that the asterisk makes no sense, especially when both Galician and Portuguese forms are still the same. What about "from Old Galician-Portuguese lontra (attested in 1439 in Galicia)"? Maybe we can expand when a particular word is first attested in this way till circa 1400, or later when there is no divergence(?) - Froaringus (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene Just to complement Froaringus answer, Fernando Venâncio, also argues that the death of Ferdinand I was a crucial blow to the Galician-Portuguese unity. He argues that, despite living in Lisbon, the most influential nobles that supported the house of Burgundy were from the north of Portugal. As Ferdinand died heirless, a cadet branch, the house of Avis, succeeded in the throne. As a family from the south, the southern nobility gained influence and with it, the prestigious dialect eventually shifted to the southern one (concurrently, Portuguese also was greatly influenced by Spanish, which was seen as a more prestigious language). So 1400 would be a good cut-off date, I would say. That being said, there are authors who consider Gil Vicente (1465 – 1536) as the last vestige of Old Portuguese and his death as the period of Classical Portuguese. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion
The page mentions that spellings using ~ as an abbreviation of n should have their lemmas normalized even if unattested. What about cases where a word is written with "m" at the end? It seems like they're variants of (some?) words ending in n/~. Should they all be turned into "n"s? MedK1 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lemme page @Froaringus and @Stríðsdrengur so we can discuss this more formally. Should "m" endings get normalized as "n"s or should they receive separate articles as alternative forms? If it's the latter, then what about words that are only attested one way or another? MedK1 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
This issue of verb forms ending in m and n is very complex and needs a lot of attention and care. In my table I've put them in separate forms and listed them as "used in Galicia" and "used in Portugal", although this doesn't mean much and isn't listed in any study/book/dictionary/work. The change/alternation between these two letters didn't represent much, it was more to do with variations in writing from author to author and year to year, just like the normal s and the long s. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I mean, yeah, if that's the case, @Stríðsdrengur, then having "used in Portugal" and "used in Galicia" is pretty misleading. If they're pretty much random, then they shouldn't have any footnotes most likely. If, say, M/N are both common in Portugal and then Galicia pretty much only uses N, then there should be no footnotes on "-n" and "-m"s should have "chiefly Portugal" or something. The way it is right now, it looks like a distinction similar to modern-day Antônio vs António. MedK1 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Froaringus' reply makes me think it's something like Portugal using exclusively M while Galicia uses both, but mostly N. Maybe it should be "Used in Portugal exclusively, but not uncommon in Galicia." for the M footnote and "Chiefly Galicia" for the N footnote? MedK1 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
In Galicia -m was not rare, but -n, tilde or other signs could also be used, and were more common. We have again the problem of the edition and transmission of the original documents. Later today I'll see what de Maia and others wrote on the subject. Froaringus (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the palaeographical or linguistic editions appear to say that in Galicia tilde was the preferred way of marking either a final nasal or a final nasal vowel. Editions for historians use -n. -m was occasionally used. Froaringus (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't know. One problem we have is that the many editors and editions of OGP/OP/MG documents don't always follow the same rules. In any case -m was not uncommon in Galicia, but -n was usually preferred. Froaringus (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I'm consulting the norms they use in, say, Gallaeciae Monumenta Historica, and they allow (in some types of transcription) the regularization of the use of v/u, or i/j/y (according to it being a consonant or a vowel), ~ before consonant as <nC>... So the problem is that we have very precise diplomatic transcriptions side by side with transcriptions for historians... Two centuries of that, in fact. Anyway, I understand that -m/-n should be treated as alternative forms. Froaringus (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I myself am trying to undo the mistakes I have made[edit]
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
In 2020, I started creating the conjugation for the Old Galician-Portuguese language with the assistance of "Corpus do Português", "Vocabulário histórico-cronológico do Português Medieval", "Universo Cantigas", "Compêndio de Gramática Histórica Portuguesa", "O português arcaico: morfologia e sintaxe", "From Latin to Portuguese: Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language" and many other sources. Besides, I compared many Old Galician-Portuguese verbs with those of Old Castilian to reconstruct other verbs successfully. It worked, for example, for verbs like "estar" and "seer". In short, because of both linguistic works and the comparative methods, I managed to add many verbal forms. It's not nonsensical at all. The unattested forms are quite explainable.
Also, I noticed there were some confusion and duplicates I myself made along the previous years. For example, I added "tiña" and "tinha"; "tivesse" and "tivese", and so on. The "n" and "m" topic isn't well resolved. Its usage being specific to Galicia and Portugal is somewhat misleading. The verb "(h)aver": "over-" isn't possible. There can only be "oer-", "ouer-" and "ouver-". What happened was that I confused the letter "v" for "u". "Over-" should be "ouer-". It's due to the script they used, thus stopping me from figuring out what was written as both letters could be used interchangeably. Source: https://universocantigas.gal/glosario/termo/362. What I mean is that I highly disagree with some of the editions I have made since 2020. I tried undoing and correcting them, however, it wasn't possible. In addition to the attesting forms part, I'm talking more about duplication than standardization itself in this specific topic. At that time, as unfounded as it could be, I thought that "-ss" as in "tivesse" had an /s/ sound whereas the "-s" as in "tivese" had a /z/ sound. I'm trying to advise you that there are some things I am supposed to change, otherwise, they will remain incorrect.
In the past from when I was working on the verb "tẽer", I proceeded to delete the sources of its forms, however, I will put them back. "Tenho" is a duplicate of "teño"; "tevesse" is a duplicate of "tevese", and so forth. The tables are supposed to represent pronunciations, not spelling. Were one to add "tijan" instead of "tiian", such form would have been considered as dissimilar. I am currently thinking whether "tẽ" is the same as "ten", as the letter "n" could have been pronounced in the Middle Ages. For example, "non o" often became "nono" to be pronounced /'no.no/. Thalyson2019 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, I think they would be unnecessary but I've already used one of them so we could also talk about the others. Recently I've been focusing on making the quotations' text as similar to the original manuscripts as possible. The first one is ezh (ʒ). I've used it in a few edits, because since I noticed it was there, all the manuscripts used ezh instead of z (it may only be Alfonso X though, he uses some weird stuff sometimes). The second is the insular d (ꝺ), (the closest there is to a medieval d in Unicode), that's used in some manuscripts instead of a d. I was also going to talk about the medieval comma, but it looks like Wiktionary (or at least my browser) doesn't render it.
This is more focused in the ezh, I also included the insular d and the medieval comma because I haven't found anyone pondering about using them. Have a good day! Amanyn (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess I don't mind it if they're in quotations? Provided they don't go to page names at all, that is. One consideration, though: I'm pretty sure ç comes from ʒ; wouldn't that mean that ʒs are manuscript versions of Çs rather than Zs? MedK1 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oops. I was researching to answer and found out that I shouldn't be using ezh, but ꝣ. About the origin of ç, you're right, I checked the Portuguese entry for ç and the etymology says "C + Old Galician-Portuguese Ꝣ (Visigothic z)", but I think that at that time ç was already in use, and the words in modern-day languages use z (for example feꝣeron, now Portuguese fizeram). The inscriptions and Wiktionary's entries also use z, so the origin might be of the way it's written only.
@MedK1 You can see the proof at the facsimile of the first quotation of orto. The right part, that has music notes, has ꝣ in the 6th line of text and ç in the 8th. So yeah, the origin might just be the way it is written. Amanyn (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to Rosa Virgínia Mattos e Silva, during the Galician-Portuguese phase [(which goes up to approximately 1380)], in the northeast of the [Iberian] Peninsula, there would be an opposition between "bilabial oclusiva" and "bilabial constritiva" (/b/: /β/) which coexisted with the southern Portuguese dialects in which there would be the "bilabial oclusiva" and "constritiva labiodental" opposition (/b/: /v/). In the second phase [(ranging from 1380 to 1516)], the opposition /b/ : /β/ would have disappeared in the northern dialects, therefore neutralizing the historical results of /b/ and /v/ which are maintained in the central-southern dialects, by reinforcing the Mozarabic substrate. This last situation configures the standard Portuguese dialect, at least since the 16th century and marks the neutralization already carried out since the archaic period in northern dialects as regional and stigmatized.
Where Mattos e Silva says "/b/ : /β/ would have disappeared in the northern dialects", she might be generalizing, as the world is dynamic.
In short, within the Galician-Portuguese language, "Bever", for example, should supposedly be pronounced with a /β/ or /v/ depending on the speaker; and "Beber", with a /b/. Of course people impose, just as nowadays, their personal preferences on matters, i.e., pronouncing "bever" with a /b/ or "beber" with a /β/ or /v/. However, it doesn't deny the differentiation of /β/, /v/ and /b/ from each other.
It's for when editors will add the pronunciation module for the Old Galician-Portuguese language. There, probably, were 2 main preferences in the past: one led by Douro e Minho axis and the other led by Lisbon and Coimbra axis. Thalyson2019 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it's just /b/ and /β/ with /β/ being realized as either [β] or [v]. Then, Mattos e Silva says that the /b—β/ distinction disappeared in the North. This matches up with modern-day speakers as well. I'd infer from this that it went somewhat like this (where the final arrow points to where things stand in the 21st century):
In Medieval Galician studies it is understood that, before the late 14th century, <b> represented /b/, while <v/u> represented /β/. From that moment on, both phonemes coalesced into just one, pronounced [b] in strong position, and [β] otherwise. So "o boi" [β], but "un boi" [b]. Froaringus (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"The reason for the specific value of this tense in Portuguese is different. According to several linguists, it should be sought in the evolution of the simple past (pretérito perfeito simples) in the Portuguese language. While in other Romance languages, the simple form of the past perfect tended to be used less and less frequently in favor of the compound form. In Portuguese, the simple form has retained its full vitality to this day[1]. In Old Portuguese, the two tenses, which had approximately the same tense-aspect value, competed. This competition was resolved [in Modern Portuguese] by the semantic differentiation of the compound variant which assumed the values of duration or iterativeness[2] which the simple form lacked (Brocardo 2014: 142). The semanticist [of] Portuguese Maria Henriqueta Costa Campos, adds that[, indeed,] it is the co-occurrence of the auxiliary verb ter with the present tense [...] which acquired [the values of duration or iterativeness of] the present perfect within Portuguese."
______________________________
1. The "simple past" of the Portuguese language came from the Latin "perfect active". In modern Portuguese, the "simple past" can be used to represent finished actions as well as the "current relevance", i.e., a past action connected with the present time in some ways. It's a meaning of the present perfect. The same happened to Latin. See: The Perfect Tense
— YouTube video published by "latintutorial. 2. However, "duration or iterativeness" is different from "current relevance".
______________________________
It can be deduced that in the 14th century (unlike what happens in Contemporary Portuguese), the present perfect (pretérito perfeito composto) expressed processes prior to the moment of enunciation (ex. 3, 5, 9). In some examples, the compound perfect tense expressed a past process with an obvious relationship to the present (ex. 5) (Cardoso and Pereira 2003: 169). See:
3. "E, se eu per ventuira a elle posso chegar, eu me cuydo a vyngar do torto que nos tem feito e das sobervhas que ha ditas contra nos, ca elles nõ sõ tam boos como nos, como quer que nos sejamos poucos, ca os seus maaos fugiram e farã aos outros boos fazer mal e fugir.";
5. "Mays a m¨j semella que nos ualería mays de nós seer todos mortos, ante que sofrer tal torto et tal onta, qual delles temos rreçebudo.";
9. "Quando o conde ouve acabada sua razon, como avees ouvido, ficaron todos muy confortados.".
The three examples above are from Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344.
Source: Evolução dos verbos auxiliares na língua portuguesa, pages 170~172; 183 — by Jan Hricsina
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
[The past anterior] expresses the immediate anteriority to the denoted process in the main clause. This temporal value is also co-designated by temporal conjunctions (ex. 2, 3 and 4). See:
2. Quand’ esto ll’ ouve dito, logo ss’ ia; e o freir’ a outros freires dizia est’, e cada ûu deles respondia." (Cantigas de Santa Maria 3);
3. Logo que est’ ouve dito, / foi de todo mui ben são, e quantos aquesto viron / loaron poren de chão a Virgen Santa Maria." (Cantigas de Santa Maria 2);
4. "E pois aquest’ ouve feito / e conpriu ssa oraçon, viu log’ as portas abertas, / e foi en seu coraçon muit’ ende maravillada, porque moller nen baron non vira que llas abrisse." (Cantigas de Santa Maria 2).
The same can be said about the example number 9 of the "Existence of present perfect" topic.
"Past anterior" no longer exists in Portuguese, as it can simply be substituted by the simple past. The last remains of it are found in 2 instances within writings of the 16th century.
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@Froaringus and @MedK1, could you tell me how does one know the date of an OGP quotation? I'm trying to add the etymology to Cornoalha, that I think is borrowed from Cornuaille, either from Old French (that existed until ~1350's) or Middle French. Cornoalha is attested at the cantiga Maestre, tôdolos vossos cantares. I've asked Stríðsdrengur but he told me you guys have more experience. Amanyn (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi. For the cantigas collected in the cancioneiros (other than the Cantigas de Santa Maria) they are dated based on the author's lifespan (which isn't always well known). In this particular case, Gonçalo Anes do Vinhal's, who died probably in 1285. So, b. 1285, or something like that. Froaringus (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
In general, vocabulary borrowed from French and attested in the Cancioneiros must have been borrowed from Old French, not Middle French, since the common Galician-Portuguese lyric scene ended by the first half of the 14th century. Froaringus (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Should I consider Fala as being part of the Galician-Portuguese division? I have attested words as "ei", "mei", "tei" etc. being used in place of "eu", "meu", teu" etc. Thalyson2019 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. It is debated if that language is due to Galicians settling there in the 12th century, or simply if it is the local result of Old Galician-Portuguese (in both cases, Leonese is an adstrate). But the language is a integral part of the family/macro-language. For us, Galicians, it sounds as a weird Galician. Froaringus (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So things are going to get even more complex. I saw that they even say "batei" instead of "bateu" (-eu > -ei). Apart from that, I'm not sure about how such language and its phonology were back in the Middle Ages — if they still retained the d in verbs like "amades" or the tonic syllable in "amarades"; or if they would add an L to infinitive verbs to replace the R as in amar > amal. Indeed I was confused and still am about that settling. If I'm not wrong, Maia, in her work, said that documents containing -eu being replaced by -ei were found in Galicia or Northern Portugal. If you look closely, you'll notice speakers of Fala are situated in the Spanish borders along with the eastern most parts of Portugal. Thalyson2019 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are situated in their own valley, with not that great communications around. Those phenomena belong in part to the internal evolution of their language and, also in part, to the contact with Leonese speakers before Leonese was substituted by Spanish. Fala, the name they give to their language, is also the alternative name we Galicians give to ours. Froaringus (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Chamar, seja, cem/paço, cozer, passo and coser[edit]
Latest comment: 18 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The double "s" in passo had 2 pronunciations: s̺ → s̪.
The "j" in seja had possibily 3 pronunciations: dʒ(?) → ʒ → ʃ in Galicia. Or 2 in Portugal: dʒ → ʒ.
The respective "c" and "ç" in cem and paço had 2 pronunciations: ts → s̪.
The "z" in cozer had possibly 3 pronunciations: dz → z̪ → s̪ (?) in Galicia. Or 2 in Portugal: dz → z̪.
The "s" in coser had possibly 3 pronunciations: z̺ → z̪ → s̪ (?) in Galicia. Or 1 in Portugal: z̺.
The ch in chamar had 1 pronunciation: tʃ.
Not sure when dʒ disappeared in (some) Galician accents.
Did the seseo affect cozer and coser? Do you agree with the given pronunciations? I got the information from Mattos e Silva, Ramón Mariño Paz and Maia Clarinda. I'll use them for later. Apart from ʒ → ʃ, I don't know exactly when the other sounds took place or stopped being used, but it's said they already existed in the Middle Ages.
According to Ramón Mariño Paz (Fonética e fonoloxía históricas da lingua galega, 343-349) dz → z, ts → s was a Medieval process completed by the 16th century. Essentially, by the 16th century Galician had three sibilants: s̪ (coser, passo) s (cozer, paço, cedo) ʃ (gente, queijo, queixo), a system still partially maintained in the extreme NW of Galicia. The modern Galician standard is s̪ (coser, paso) θ (cocer, pazo, cedo) ʃ (xente, queixo, queixo). In the West ("seseo") it is reduced to s̪ (sometimes, s̺: coser, paso, sedo) and ʃ (xente, queixo). Froaringus (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mattos e Silva says that it's ts → s̪ and dz → z̪ instead of ts → s and dz → z. The question is, is there any difference between s̪ and s, and z̪ and z? Maia (pages 504, 505, 506 and 507 - História do Galego... Estado Linguístico) says that seseo was a linguistic change that was already happening in the 13th century. Where Maia (page 504 - História do Galego) says "s/z", Mattos (page 91 - O Portugues arcaico fonologia morfologia e sintaxe) translates it to s̪/z̪. Also, Maia basically says that everything was already being reduced to s̪ and ʃ (literally 2 sibilants) in the 13th century, at least in the major Galician accent at the time. The real question is: are they both correct? Or is Ramón correct? Ramón's work (2017) is the most recent if compared to those of Maia (1987(?)) and Mattos (1991 concerning the phonology). Thalyson2019 (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Amávades existed in the Middle Ages. Do you support my theory?[edit]
Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In Old Portuguese, first plural verbs conjugated in imperfect past tense, pluperfect past tense, present future tense and preterite future tense were paroxytonic words. In modern Portuguese, they are proparoxytones due to the influence of other grammatical persons. Second person plural verbs would become proparoxytones if it were not for the process of semivocalization or diphthongization. However, the question is whether this linguistic phenomenon already occurred in the Middle Ages. In Old Portuguese, the metaplasms preceded by the drop of the intervocalic <d> in the verbal desinences of the 2nd person plural, in verbs of the first conjugation, provide information. So, amavades > amavaes. The <d> remained in verbal desinences until the first decades of the 15th century, but began to disappear afterwards. And its total disappearance probably occurred around the time when contemporaries to Gil Vicente and he himself died. Gil Vicente died in 1536. Proof of this is that in his masterpiece written between 1502 and the date of his death, his female and elderly characters said olhade, queredes or cobride. After the vowel meeting (PT: encontro vocálico) of <a> and <e>, amavaes (a-ma-va-es), of 4 syllables, began to have 3 in the following metaplasms due to semivocalization or diphthongization, amavaes (a-ma-vaes). Then, there was vowel assimilation in favor of <e>, amavees, and again another semivocalization or diphthongization, amavees > amaveis. This could be an indication that there would be an occurrence of verbs in this category being pronounced as proparoxytones in the first half of the 15th century or earlier, at least in the main dialects of Portugal at the time, since it was only possible to verify this phenomenon when the non-tonic vowel <a> was assimilated by <e> which is also not tonic. Furthermore, Portugal would later colonize and linguistically influence Brazil. Marilza de Oliveira and Jânia Ramos, on Old Portuguese, say that “the drop of intervocalic /d/ in verbal morphemes gave rise to vowel sequences in hiatus, undone through two phonological processes: semivocalization (podees > podeis) and crase (podees > podês) [...]. This does not contradict what I think, since semivocalization is the solution most followed today among Portuguese dialects, but I also do not contradict the second solution showed by them. Both linguists, in fact, accentuate the Old Portuguese words and end up describing the linguistic phenomenon I speak of: “amavaes (deletion of /d/) > amávees (assimilation) > amáveis”. So, alongside amavades, there could be amávades. Amavades could become amavás with the last <a> being tonic and amávades would become amáveis. "Podês" = "you can" (plural). I'll even add it to the conjugation tables!
Sources:
HISTÓRIA DA LÍNGUA PORTUGUESA PAUL TEYSSIER. Pags. 37 e 38.
Para uma caracterização do período arcaico do português. Pag. 255.
O estatuto de ‘você’ no preenchimento do sujeito. Pag. 3.
Lingua, texto, diacronía Estudos de lingüística histórica. Pag. 280. Thalyson2019 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
