 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "History of Latin" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Latin is a member of the broad family ofItalic languages. Its alphabet, theLatin alphabet, emerged from theOld Italic alphabets, which in turn were derived from theEtruscan,Greek andPhoenician scripts. Historical Latin came from the prehistoric language of theLatium region, specifically around the RiverTiber, whereRoman civilization first developed. How and when Latin came to be spoken has long been debated.
Various influences on Latin ofCeltic speeches innorthern Italy, the non-Indo-EuropeanEtruscan language inCentral Italy, and theGreek in some Greek colonies ofsouthern Italy have been detected, but when these influences entered the native Latin is not known for certain.
Surviving Roman-eraLatin literature consists almost entirely ofClassical Latin pieces usually chosen for their importance as help for people learning to write in Latin. Survivals emphasise polished and sometimes highly stylizedliterary language texts sometimes termed Golden Latin, which spans the 1st century BC and the early years of the 1st century AD.
As with any written language, the spoken language differed somewhat in grammar, tone and vocabulary, and is referred to asVulgar Latin. However, theories that the spoken and written languages were more or less different, separated by class or elite education, are now generally rejected.[1]
In addition to Latin, the well-educated elite often spokeGreek. They studied it in school and acquired Greek tutors from among the influx of enslaved educated Greek prisoners of war, captured during theRoman conquest of Greece. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, later referred to as theByzantine Empire, the GreekKoine ofHellenism remained current among peasants and traders, while Latin was used for laws and administrative writings. It continued to influence the Vulgar Latin that would evolve into theEastern Romance languages.
Latin had a long working life beyond the Roman period, as it was the language of theRoman Catholic Church, and later of theCarolingianHoly Roman Empire. It was the dominant language of European learning, literature and academia through theMiddle Ages, and in the early modern period. Latin's relevance as a widely used working language ended around 1800, although examples of its productive use extend well into that century, and in the cases of the Catholic Church andClassical studies, continue to the present day. As a result, the vast majority - over 99.99% of extant Latin texts - belong to these later periods, and especially to theNeo-Latin period.[2]
The name Latin derives from the Italic tribal group namedLatini that settled around the 10th century BC in Latium, and the dialect spoken by these people.[3]
TheItalic languages form acentum subfamily of theIndo-European language family, which include theGermanic,Celtic, andHellenic languages, and a number of extinct ones.
Broadly speaking, in initial syllables the Indo-European simple vowels—*i, *e, (*a), *o, *u; short and long—are usually retained in Latin. Thevocalized laryngeals (*ə) appear in Latin asa (cf. IE*pəter > Lpater). Diphthongs are also preserved in Old Latin, but in Classical Latin some tend to become monophthongs (for exampleoi >ū oroe, andei >ē >ī).[4] In non-initial syllables, there was more vowel reduction. The most extreme case occurs with short vowels in medialopen syllables (i.e. short vowels followed by at most a single consonant, occurring neither in the first nor last syllable): All are reduced to a single vowel, which appears asi in most cases, bute (sometimeso) beforer, andu before anl which is followed byo oru. In final closed syllables, shorte ando are usually raised toi andu, respectively.
Consonants are generally more stable. However, the Indo-European voiced aspiratesbh, dh, gh, gwh are not maintained, becomingf, f, h, f respectively at the beginning of a word, but usuallyb, d, g, v elsewhere. Non-initialdh becomesb next tor oru, e.g.*h₁rudh- "red" >rub-, e.g.rubeō "to be red";*werdh- "word" >verbum.s between vowels becomesr, e.g.flōs "flower", gen.flōris;erō "I will be" vs. rootes-;aurōra "dawn" < *ausōsā (cf.Germanic*aust- >English "east",Vedic Sanskrituṣā́s "dawn");soror "sister" <*sozor <*swezōr <*swésōr (cf.Old Englishsweostor "sister").
Of the original eightcases ofProto-Indo-European, Latin inherited six:nominative,vocative,accusative,genitive,dative, andablative. The Indo-Europeanlocative survived in the declensions of some place names and a few common nouns, such asRoma "Rome" (locativeRomae) anddomus "home" (locativedomī "at home"). Vestiges of theinstrumental case may remain in adverbial forms ending in-ē.[5]
It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century BCfibula known as thePraenestine fibula, which reads roughlyManios med fhefhaked Numasioi "Manius made me for Numerius".[6]
Old Latin (also calledEarly Latin orArchaic Latin) refers to the period of Latin texts before the age ofClassical Latin, extending from textual fragments that probably originated in theRoman monarchy to the written language of the lateRoman Republic about 75 BC. Almost all the writing of its earlier phases is inscriptional.
Some phonological characteristics of older Latin are the case endings-os and-om (later Latin-us and-um). In many locations, classical Latin turned intervocalic /s/ into /r/. This had implications fordeclension: early classical Latin,honos,honosis; Classicalhonor,honoris ("honor"). Some Latin texts preserve /s/ in this position, such as theCarmen Arvale'slases forlares.
Classical Latin is the form of the Latin language used by theancient Romans in Classical Latin literature. In the latest and narrowestphilological model, its use spanned the Golden Age of Latin literature—broadly the 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD—possibly extending to the Silver Age—broadly the 1st and 2nd centuries. It was a polishedwrittenliterary language based on the refined spoken language of the upper classes. Classical Latin differs from Old Latin, the earliest inscriptional language and the earliest authors, such asEnnius,Plautus and others, in a number of ways; for example, the early-om and-os endings shifted into-um and-us ones, and some lexical differences also developed, such as the broadening of the meaning of words.[7] In the broadest and most ancient sense, the classical period includes the authors of Early Latin, the Golden Age and the Silver Age.
TheGolden age of Latin literature is a period consisting roughly of the time from 75 BC to AD 14, covering the end of theRoman Republic and the reign ofAugustus Caesar. In the currently used philological model this period represents the peak of Latin literature. Since the earliest post-classical times the Latin of those authors has been an ideal norm of the best Latin, which other writers should follow.
In reference toRoman literature, theSilver age covers the first two centuries AD directly after theGolden age. Literature from the Silver Age is more embellished with mannerisms.
Late Latin is the administrative and literary language ofLate Antiquity in the late Roman empire and states that succeeded theWestern Roman Empire over the same range. By its broadest definition, it is dated from about 200 AD to about 900 AD, when it was replaced by writtenRomance languages. Opinion concerning whether it should be considered classical is divided. The authors of the period looked back to a classical period which they believed should be imitated and yet their styles were often classical. According to the narrowest definitions, Late Latin did not exist and the authors of the times are to be considered medieval.
Vulgar Latin (in Latin,sermo vulgaris) is a blanket term coveringvernacular usage or dialects of the Latin language spoken from earliest times in Italy until the latest dialects of theWestern Roman Empire, diverging significantly after 500 AD, evolved into the earlyRomance languages, whose writings began to appear about the 9th century.
Spoken Latin differed from theliterary language of Classical Latin in aspects of its grammar and vocabulary, as any language differs in written and spoken registers.[8] It is likely to have evolved over time, with some features not appearing until the late Empire. Other features are likely to have been in place much earlier. Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classicalAppendix Probi) earlier forms of spoken Latin must be studied mainly by indirect methods, such as errors made in texts and transcripts. Nevertheless, while Latin was spoken by native speakers, there is consensus that it was thesame language; there was no "unbridgeable gap" between spoken and written Latin.[9]
Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources.Prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. Thesolecisms and non-Classical usages occasionally found in Late Latin texts also shed light on the spoken language, especially after 500 AD. A windfall source lies in the chance finds ofwax tablets such as those found atVindolanda onHadrian's Wall. Finally, thecomparative method can help test hypotheses about spoken Latin.[10]
TheRomance languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family, comprise all languages that descended from Latin, the language of the Roman Empire. The Romance languages have more than 900 million native speakers worldwide, mainly in theAmericas,Europe, andAfrica, as well as in many smaller regions scattered through the world.
All Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, the language of soldiers, settlers, and slaves of theRoman Empire, which was substantially different from that of the Romanliterati.[dubious –discuss] Between 200 BC and AD 100, the expansion of the Empire and the administrative and educational policies of Rome made Vulgar Latin the dominant vernacular language over a wide area which stretched from theIberian Peninsula to the west coast of theBlack Sea.
During the Empire's decline and after its collapse and fragmentation in the 5th century, spoken Latin began to evolve independently within each local area, and eventually diverged into dozens of distinct languages. The overseas empires established bySpain,Portugal andFrance after the 15th century then spread these languages to other continents; about two thirds of all Romance speakers are now outside Europe.
In spite of the multiple influences of pre-Roman languages and later invasions, thephonology,morphology,lexicon, andsyntax of all Romance languages are predominantly derived from Vulgar Latin. As a result, the group shares a number of linguistic features that set it apart from other Indo-European branches.
Ecclesiastical Latin (sometimes calledChurch Latin) is a broad and analogous term referring to the Latin language as used in documents of theRoman Catholic Church, itsliturgies (mainly in past times) and during some periods the preaching of its ministers. Ecclesiastical Latin is not a single style: the term merely means the language promulgated at any time by the church. In terms of stylistic periods, it belongs to Late Latin in the Late Latin period, Medieval Latin in the Medieval Period, and so on through to the present. One may say that, starting from the church's decision in the early Late Latin period to use a simple and unornamented language that would be comprehensible to ordinary Latin speakers and yet still be elegant and correct, church Latin is usually a discernible substyle within the major style of the period. Its authors in theNeo-Latin period are typically paradigmatic of the best Latin and that is true in contemporary times. The decline in its use within the last 100 years has been a matter of regret to some, who have formed organizations inside and outside the church to support its use and to use it.
Medieval Latin, the literary and administrative Latin used in theMiddle Ages, exhibits much variation between individual authors, mainly due to poor communications in those times between different regions. The individuality is characterised by a different range ofsolecisms and by the borrowing of different words fromVulgar Latin or from local vernaculars. Some styles show features intermediate between Latin and Romance languages; others are closer to classical Latin. The stylistic variations came to an end with the rise ofnation states and new empires in theRenaissance period, and the authority of earlyuniversities imposing a new style:Renaissance Latin.
Renaissance Latin is a name given to the Latin written during the EuropeanRenaissance in the 14th-16th centuries, particularly distinguished by the distinctive Latin style developed bythe humanist movement.Neo-Latin, orNew Latin, is applied to Latin written after the medieval period according to the standards developed in the Renaissance; it is however a modern term.[11][12] The field of Neo Latin studies has gained momentum in the last decades, as Latin was central to European cultural and scientific development in the period.[13]
Ad fontes was the general cry of the humanists, and as such their Latin style sought to purge Latin of themedieval Latin vocabulary and stylistic accretions that it had acquired in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. They looked to Golden Age Latin literature, and especially toCicero inprose andVirgil inpoetry, as the arbiters of Latin style. They abandoned the use of thesequence and other accentual forms ofmeter, and sought instead to revive the Greek formats that were used inLatin poetry during the Roman period. The humanists condemned the large body of medieval Latin literature as "gothic"—for them, a term of abuse—and believed instead that only ancient Latin from the Roman period was "real Latin".
The humanists also sought to purge written Latin of medieval developments in itsorthography. They insisted, for example, thatae be written out in full wherever it occurred in classical Latin; medieval scribes often wrotee instead ofae. They were much more zealous than medieval Latin writers in distinguishingt fromc: because the effects ofpalatalization made themhomophones, medieval scribes often wrote, for example,eciam foretiam. Their reforms even affectedhandwriting: humanists usually wrote Latin in a script derived fromCarolingian minuscule, the ultimate ancestor of most contemporarylower-casetypefaces, avoiding theblack-letter scripts used in the Middle Ages.Erasmus even proposed that thethen-traditional pronunciations of Latin be abolished in favour of hisreconstructed version ofclassical Latin pronunciation.
The humanist plan to remake Latin was largely successful, at least ineducation. Schools now taught the humanistic spellings, and encouraged the study of the texts selected by the humanists, largely to the exclusion of later Latin literature. On the other hand, while humanist Latin was an elegantliterary language, it became much harder to write books aboutlaw,medicine,science or contemporarypolitics in Latin while observing all of the humanists' norms of vocabulary purging and classical usage. Humanist Latin continued to use neologisms, however; as a working language, it could not rely wholly on Classical vocabulary.[14][15]
Their attempts at literary work, especially poetry, can be viewed as having a strong element ofpastiche; however, many modern Latinists, lacking a deep knowledge of the works of the period, are prone to see the obvious links with Classical period authors, without necessarily seeing the interplay that would have been understood at the time, or may dismiss genres such as poetry for patrons and official events as lacking merit, because these are so far from our mental model of creative spontenaity based on individual emotional inspiration.[16]
Latin continued to be significantly used in education, academia, government and literature through the 1500s and 1600s. It declined, at least in Western Europe, from about 1650 onwards, gradually giving way to vernacular languages. However, it remained important until at least 1800, and was a central part of education into the mid twentieth century.
Modern scholarly and technicalnomenclature, such as in zoological and botanicaltaxonomy andinternational scientific vocabulary, draws extensively from Neo-Latin vocabulary.
In such use, Neo-Latin is subject tonew word formation. As a language for full expression inprose orpoetry, however, it is often distinguished from its successor,Contemporary Latin.
Various kinds of contemporary Latin can be distinguished, including the use of single words intaxonomy, and the fullerecclesiastical use in the Catholic Church.
As a relic of the great importance ofNeo-Latin as the formerly dominant internationallingua franca down to the 19th century in a great number of fields, Latin is still present in words or phrases used in many languages around the world, and some minorcommunities use Latin in their speech.
Proto-Italic inherited all ten of the early post-Proto-Indo-European simple vowels (i.e. at a time when laryngeals had colored and often lengthened adjacent vowels and then disappeared in many circumstances):*i, *e, *a, *o, *u, *ī, *ē, *ā, *ō, *ū. It also inherited all of the post-PIE diphthongs except for*eu, which became*ou.
Proto-Italic andOld Latin had astress accent on the first syllable of a word, and this caused steady reduction and eventual deletion of many short vowels in non-initial syllables while affecting initial syllables much less. Long vowels were largely unaffected in general except in final syllables, where they had a tendency to shorten.
| Initial | Medial | Final | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proto-Italic | +r | +lpinguis | +labial (/p, b, f, m/) | +v (/w/) | +other | +one consonant | +cluster | absolutely final | ||||
| one consonant | cluster | s | m, n | other | ||||||||
| i | i | e[a] | i? | ʏ(sonus medius)[b] | u | e > i[c] | i[d] | i | e | i | e | e |
| e | e | o > u[e] | e[f] | |||||||||
| a | a | o > u[g] | ||||||||||
| o | o | o > u[h] | o > u[i] | u | ||||||||
| u | u | u[j] | u[k] | |||||||||
| ī | ī | i | ī? | |||||||||
| ē | ē | e | ē? | |||||||||
| ā | ā | a | a, ā | |||||||||
| ō | ō | o | ō | |||||||||
| ū | ū | u | ū? | |||||||||
| ei | ī | |||||||||||
| ai | ae | ī | ||||||||||
| oi | ū, oe | ū | ī | |||||||||
| au | au | ū | ||||||||||
| ou | ū | |||||||||||
Notes:
Note: For the following examples, it helps to keep in mind the normal correspondences between PIE and certain other languages:
| (post-)PIE | Ancient Greek | Sanskrit | Gothic | Old English | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *i | i | i | i, aí/ɛ/ | i | |
| *e | e | a | i, aí/ɛ/ | e | |
| *a | a | a | a | a | |
| *o | o | a | a | a | |
| *u | u | u | u, aú/ɔ/ | u, o | |
| *ī | ī | ī | ei /ī/ | ī | |
| *ē | ē | ā | ē | ā | |
| *ā | ā; ē (Attic) | ā | ō | ō | |
| *ō | ō | ā | ō | ō | |
| *ū | ū | ū | ū | ū | |
| *ei | ei | ē | ei /ī/ | ī | |
| *ai | ai | ē | ái | ā | |
| *oi | oi | ē | ái | ā | |
| *eu | eu | ō | iu | ēo | |
| *au | au | ō | áu | ēa | |
| *ou | ou | ō | áu | ēa | |
| *p | p | p | f; b | f | b in Gothic byVerner's law |
| *t | t | t | þ; d | þ/ð; d | þ andð are different graphs for the same sound;d in theGermanic languages byVerner's law |
| *ḱ | k | ś | h; g | h; g | g in theGermanic languages byVerner's law |
| *k | k; c (+ PIE e/i) | ||||
| *kʷ | p; t (+ e/i) | ƕ/hʷ/; g, w, gw | hw, h; g, w | g, w, gw in theGermanic languages byVerner's law | |
| *b | b | b | p | p | |
| *d | d | d | t | t | |
| *ǵ | g | j | k | k | |
| *g | g; j (+ PIE e/i) | ||||
| *gʷ | b; d (+ i) | q | q, c | ||
| *bʰ | ph; p | bh; b | b | b | Greekp, Sanskritb before anyaspirated consonant (Grassmann's law) |
| *dʰ | th; t | dh; d | d | d | Greekt, Sanskritd before any aspirated consonant |
| *ǵʰ | kh; k | h; j | g | g | Greekk, Sanskritj before any aspirated consonant |
| *gʰ | gh; g h; j (+ PIE e/i) | Greekk, Sanskritg, j before any aspirated consonant | |||
| *gʷʰ | ph; p th; t (+ e/i) | b (word-initially); g, w, gw | b (word-initially); g, w | Greekp, t, Sanskritg, j before any aspirated consonant | |
| *s | h (word-initially); s, - | s, ṣ | s; z | s; r | r, z in Germanic byVerner's law; Sanskrit ṣ byRuki sound law |
| *y | h, z (word-initially); - | y | j /j/ | g(e) /j/ | |
| *w | - | v | w | w |
In initial syllables, Latin generally preserves all of the simple vowels of Proto-Italic (see above):[18]
Short vowel changes in initial syllables:[19]
There are numerous examples where PIE*o appears to result in Latina instead of expectedo, mostly next to labial or labializing consonants. A group of cases showing*-ow- >*-aw- >-av- (before stress),*-ōw- >*-āw- >-āv- is known asThurneysen–Havet's law:[21] examples include:
Other cases remain more disputed, such as:
De Vaan suggests a general shift*o >a in open syllables when preceded by any of*b,*m;*kʷ,*w;*l.[22] Vine (2011)[23] disputes the cases with*moCV, but proposes inversely that*mo- >ma- when followed byr plus a velar (k org).
In non-initial syllables, there was more vowel reduction of short vowels. The most extreme case occurs with short vowels in medial syllables (i.e. short vowels in a syllable that is neither the first nor the last), where all five vowels usually merge into a single vowel:
1. They merge intoe beforer (sometimes originalo is unaffected)[24]
2. They become Old Latino >u beforel pinguis, i.e., anl not followed byi, ī, orl:[24]
3. But they remaino beforel pinguis when immediately following a vowel:[25]
4. Before /w/ the result is alwaysu, in which case the /w/ is not written:[25]
5. They becomei before one consonant other thanr orl pinguis:[24]
6. But they sometimes becomee before one consonant other thanr orl pinguis, when immediately following a vowel:[26]
7. Variation betweeni and (often earlier)u is common before a single labial consonant (p, b, f, m), underlyingly thesonus medius vowel:
Medially before two consonants, when the first is notr orl pinguis, the vowels do not merge to the same degree:
1. Originala,e andu merge intoe:[24]
2. But originali is unaffected:[24]
3. And originalo raises tou:[25]
Exon's law, named afterCharles Exon,[28] dictates that if there are two light medial syllables in a row (schematically,σσ̆σ̆σ, whereσ = syllable andσ̆ = light syllable, where "light" means a short vowel followed by only a single consonant), the first syllable syncopates (i.e. the vowel is deleted):[29]
Syncopation tends to occur afterr andl in all non-initial syllables, sometimes even in initial syllables.[30]
Sometimes early syncope causes apparent violations of Exon's Law:
Syncope of-i- also occurred in-ndis,-ntis and-rtis.[30]-nts then became-ns with lengthening of the preceding vowel, while-rts was simplified to-rs without lengthening.
In final syllables of polysyllabic words before a final consonant or cluster, shorta, e, i merge into eithere ori depending on the following consonant, and shorto, u merge intou.
1. Shorta, e, i merge intoi before a single non-nasal consonant:[31]
2. Shorta, e, i merge intoe before a cluster or a single nasal consonant:[31]
3. Shorto, u merge intou:
4. All short vowels apparently merge into-e in absolute final position.[31]
Long vowels in final syllables shorten before most consonants (but not finals), yielding apparent exceptions to the above rules:[32]
Absolutely final long vowels are apparently maintained with the exception ofā, which is shortened in the 1st declension nominative singular and the neuter plural ending (both < PIE*-eh₂) but maintained in the 1st conjugation 2nd sg. imperative (< PIE*-eh₂-yé).[32]
Proto-Italic maintained all PIE diphthongs except for the change*eu >*ou. The Proto-Italic diphthongs tend to remain intoOld Latin but generally reduce to pure long vowels by Classical Latin.
1. PIE*ei > Old Latinei >ẹ̄, a vowel higher thanē < PIE*ē. This then developed toī normally, but toē beforev:
2. PIE (*h₂ei >)*ai >ae:
3. PIE*oi > Old Latinoi, oe >ū (occasionally preserved asoe):
4. PIE*eu, *ou > Proto-Italic*ou > Old Latinou >ọ̄ (higher thanō < PIE*ō) >ū:[33]
5. PIE (*h₂eu >)*au >au:
All diphthongs in medial syllables becomeī orū.
1. (Post-)PIE*ei >ī, just as in initial syllables:[34]
2. Post-PIE*ai > Old Latinei >ī:[34]
3. (Post-)PIE*oi >ū, just as in initial syllables:[34]
4. (Post-)PIE*eu, *ou > Proto-Italic*ou >ū, just as in initial syllables:[34]
5. Post-PIE*au >ū (rarelyoe):[34]
Mostly like medial syllables:
Different from medial syllables:
The PIE syllabic resonants*m̥, *n̥, *r̥, *l̥ generally becomeem, en, or, ol[n 4] (cf. Greekam/a, an/a, ar/ra, al/la; Germanicum, un, ur, ul; Sanskritam/a, an/a, r̥, r̥;Lithuanianim̃, iñ, ir̃, il̃):
The laryngeals*h₁, *h₂, *h₃ appear in Latin asa[n 4] when between consonants, as in most languages (butGreeke/a/o respectively, Sanskriti):
A sequence of syllabic resonant + laryngeal, when before a consonant, producedmā, nā, rā, lā (as also in Celtic, cf. Greeknē/nā/nō, rē/rā/rō, etc. depending on the laryngeal; Germanicum, un, ur, ul; Sanskritā, ā, īr/ūr, īr/ūr; Lithuanianím, ín, ír, íl):
The Indo-European voiced aspiratesbʰ, dʰ, gʰ, gʷʰ, which were probably breathy voiced stops, first devoiced in initial position (fortition), then fricatized in all positions, producing pairs of voiceless/voicedfricatives inProto-Italic:f ~β,θ ~ð,χ ~ɣ,χʷ ~ɣʷ respectively.[36] The fricatives were voiceless in initial position. However, between vowels and other voiced sounds, there are indications—in particular, their evolution in Latin—that the sounds were actuallyvoiced. Likewise, Proto-Italic /s/ apparently had a voiced allophone [z] in the same position.
In all Italic languages, the word-initial voiceless fricativesf,θ, andχʷ all merged tof, whereasχ debuccalized toh (except before a liquid where it becameg); thus, in Latin, the normal outcome of initial PIE*bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ, *gʷʰ isf, f, h, f, respectively. Examples:[37]
Word-internal*-bʰ-, *-dʰ-, *-gʰ-, *-gʷʰ- evolved into Proto-Italicβ,ð,ɣ,ɣʷ. In Osco-Umbrian, the same type of merger occurred as that affecting voiceless fricatives, withβ,ð, andɣʷ merging toβ. In Latin, this did not happen, and instead the fricatives defricatized, givingb, d ~ b, g ~ h, g ~ v ~ gu.[38]
*-bʰ- is the simplest case, consistently becomingb.[39]
*-dʰ- usually becomesd,[40] but becomesb next tor oru, or beforel.[41]
The development of*-gʰ- is twofold:*-gʰ- becomesh[ɦ] between vowels butg elsewhere:[38]
*-gʷʰ- has three outcomes, becominggu aftern,v between vowels, andg next to other consonants. All three variants are visible in the same root*snigʷʰ- "snow" (cf. Irishsnigid "snows", Greeknípha):[42]
Other examples:
*gʷ has results much like non-initial*-gʷʰ-, becomingv /w/ in most circumstances, butgu after a nasal andg next to other consonants:[43]
*kʷ remains asqu before a vowel, but reduces toc /k/ before a consonant or next to au:[44]
The sequence*p *kʷ assimilates to*kʷ *kʷ, an innovation shared with Celtic:
The sequences*ḱw, *ǵw, *ǵʰw develop identically to*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ:[45]
Indo-Europeans between vowels was first voiced to [z] in lateProto-Italic and becamer in Latin andUmbrian, a change known asrhotacism. Early Old Latin documents still haves [z], andCicero once remarked that a certain Papirius Crassus officially changed his name from Papisius in 339b.c.,[46] indicating the approximate time of this change. This produces many alternations in Latin declension:
Other examples:
However, before anotherr,dissimilation occurred withsr [zr] becomingbr (likely via an intermediate*ðr):[47]
In groups of stop + /s/ before unvoiced consonants, the stop was lost:[48]
Syncopated words likedexter (<*deksiteros) were not affected by this change. Additionally, words beginning with recognizable prepositions likeex- orob- frequently restored the stop.
/s/ was lost before voiced consonants, with compensatory lengthening:[49]
Clusters involving /s/ were also lost before voiced consonants, also with compensatory lengthening:[50]
Sequences ofdl, ld, nl, ln, rl, ls, andlw becamell:[50]
As shown byagellus this assimilation occurred after syncopation.[52]
Original sequences ofrs (i.e not derived from other sources or from syncopation) becamerr:[53]
Sequences ofnr becomerr:[52]
Sequences of labial stops and nasals becomemm andmn respectively:[54]
/k/ became /g/ before /n/ (possibly later becoming [ŋn]); word initially this /g/ (no matter its source) was also often later dropped:[54]
Final /d/ was lost after long vowels beginning in the late 3rd century BCE:[55]
Initial*dw- (attested in Old Latin asdu-) becomesb-, thus compensating for the dearth of words beginning with*b in PIE:
/n/ underwentdissimilation to /r/ when followed by /m/.[56]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)