{"id":758,"date":"2019-06-16T16:57:29","date_gmt":"2019-06-16T16:57:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/?p=758"},"modified":"2020-01-25T13:25:58","modified_gmt":"2020-01-25T13:25:58","slug":"latin-glides-belua","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/latin-glides-belua\/","title":{"rendered":"Latin glides and the case of “belua”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Latin texts leave the distinction between high monophthongs [i, u, \u012b, \u016b] and glides [j, w] unspecified. This has lead some to suggest that the glides are allophones of the monophthongs. For instance, Steriade (1984) implies that the syllabicity of [+high, +vocalic] segments in Latin is largely predictable. Steriade points out two contexts where high vocoids are (almost) always glides: initially before a vowel (# __ V) and intervocalically (V __ V). In these two contexts, the only complications I am aware of arise from competition between generalizations. For instance, in \u016bua<\/em> [u\u02d0.wa] ‘grape’ and \u016buidus<\/em> [u\u02d0.wi.dus] ‘damp’,\u00a0 intervocalic glide formation appears to bleed word-initial glide formation. (Or it could be the case that \u016b<\/em> is ineligible for glide formation by virtue of its length.) And the behavior of two adjacent high vocoids flanked by vowels is somewhat idiosyncratic: compare naevus\u00a0<\/em>[naj.wus] ‘birthmark’ and saeui\u014d<\/em> [saj.wi.o\u02d0] ‘I am furious’, where (by hypothesis) \/ViuV\/ surfaces as [j.w], to d\u0113uius<\/em> [de\u02d0.wi.us] ‘devious’ and\u00a0paui\u014d <\/em>[pa.wi.o\u02d0] ‘I beat’, where (by hypothesis) \/VuiV\/ surfaces as [.wi] but never as *[w.j]. And so on.<\/p>\n

However, Cser (2012) claims that syllabicity of high vocoids is not at all predictable after a consonant and before a vowel, i.e., in the context C __ V. Here we usually observe [w] when the preceding consonant is coda [j, l, r], as in the aforementioned naevus<\/em> or\u00a0silua<\/em> [sil.wa] ‘forest’. Cser contrasts this latter form with belua<\/em> ‘wild beast’, which is trisyllabic rather than bisyllabic. However, it is not clear this is a good near-minimal pair. The word was clearly not pronounced as [be.lu.a] because the first syllable scans heavy. In the following hexameter verse, the word comprises the fifth foot, a dactyl:<\/p>\n

et centumgeminus Briareus, ac belua<\/strong> Lernae<\/em> (Verg., Aen. <\/em>6.287)<\/p>\n

Lewis & Short and the Oxford Latin Dictionary<\/em> both give this word as b\u0113lua\u00a0<\/em>[be\u02d0.lu.a]. However, it seems much more likely that the word is in fact bellua<\/em> [bel.lu.a], as it was sometimes written. (Note also that tautomorphemic geminate ll<\/em> is robustly attested in Latin.)\u00a0In this case we would expect glide formation to be blocked because the [lw] complex onset is totally unattested, just as Cser predicts from general principles of sonority sequencing. Thus the above verse is:<\/p>\n

[et.ken|tu\u0303\u02d0.ge.mi|nus.bri.a|re.u.sak|bel.lu.a<\/strong>|ler.naj]<\/p>\n

As Cser notes, many of the remaining near-minimal pairs occur at morphological boundaries\u2060\u2014and thus look to someone with my theoretical commitments as evidence for the phonological cycle\u2014or relate to the complex onsets qu<\/em> [kw] and\u00a0su<\/em> [sw], which might be treated as contour segments underlyingly. But much work will be needed to show that these apparent exceptions follow from the grammar of Latin.<\/p>\n

References<\/h1>\n

Cser, Andr\u00e1s. 2012. The role of sonority in the phonology of Latin. In Parker, Steve (ed.),\u00a0The sonority controversy<\/em>, pages 39-64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
\nSteriade, Donca. 1984. Glides and vowels in Romanian. In\u00a0Proceedings of the Berkeley Lingusitics Society<\/em>,\u00a0pages 47-64.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Latin texts leave the distinction between high monophthongs [i, u, \u012b, \u016b] and glides [j, w] unspecified. This has lead some to suggest that the glides are allophones of the monophthongs. For instance, Steriade (1984) implies that the syllabicity of [+high, +vocalic] segments in Latin is largely predictable. Steriade points out two contexts where high … Continue reading “Latin glides and the case of “belua””<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,27,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language","category-latin","category-phonology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=758"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":870,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758\/revisions\/870"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellformedness.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}