Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.

Also, is "macho" strictly a Latin-American word or does it creep into
European Spanish too?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:

Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.

macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.

masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus"). This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)

, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:

cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho

-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).

There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:

sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:

Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me
thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked
in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin
"masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill
in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still
very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 GMT, Miguel Carrasquer
mcv@wxs.nl> wrote:


macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.

masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus").

mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)

To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.

Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.

, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:

cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho

-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).

But also <nch> as <cincho> above.

There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:

sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).

To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.

Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@wxs.nl> mælte sligt:

To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.

What does ^ denote here?

Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?

masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus").

Was "App. Probi" one of the Latin texts urging writers to use "good" Latin,
with "masculus" being recommended as the "correct" word and "masclus" as a
vulgarism to be avoided?

This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)

To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.

Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.

, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:

cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho

And masc(u)lu(m) >macho!!!!

-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).

But also <nch> as <cincho> above.

There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:

sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).

Wow! Thanks so much! That was all so neat! You've made it all look so
regular and the changes so (sort of) logical.

Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 GMT, Miguel Carrasquer
mcv@wxs.nl> wrote:


On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:34:39 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:


Some of the responses to my inquiry concerning "La Chingada" got me thinking
about the equally Mexican words "macho" and "machismo". When I looked in my
Webster's Collegiate, it says the word is derived from Latin "masculinus".
That looks like quite a jump. Does anyone have any more on this to fill in
the interstices? I find it a little odd because "masculino" is still very
much alive in Mexican Spanish.

macho comes from masculus "male" (itself originally the
diminutive of mas, maris "male"). masculinus is a
derivative of masculus.

masculus was reduced already in Latin to masclus (App. Probi
"masculus non masclus"). This gives It. maschio, Cat.
mascle, Fr. mâle (< masle < mascle), etc. (Romanian <mare
"big" comes from mas, maris). In Spanish -cl- usually
develops to /z^/ > /s^/ > /x/ (oric(u)la > oreja)


To be exact kl > kl^ > l^ > z^ > s^ > x.

Italian and Romanian got as far as kl^, and then (k)ky
(orecchia). French, Catalan and Portuguese have l^ (oreille
[l^ > y], orella, orelha). The development l^ > z^ etc. all
the way to /x/ is Castilian only.

What about Sard?

, but when
/l/, /n/, /s/ or /k/ preceeds, the result is /c^/:

cacc(u)lu(m) > cacho
cing(u)lu(m) > cincho
conc(u)la(m) > concha
manc(u)la(m) > mancha
trunc(u)lu(m) > troncho

-ngl- generally gives ñ (ung(u)la(m) > uña).


But also <nch> as <cincho> above.


There are some exceptions in the cases of -scl- and -ngl-:

sing(u)lu(m) > sendo
misc(u)lare > mezclar (perhaps a later learned borrowing)
musc(u)lu(m) > muslo (perhaps to avoid confusion with mucho
multu(m)).



=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:27:51 GMT, "Joseph W. Murphy"
jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote:

Now for a probably very dumb general question. Bear in mind I've never
studied linguistics and I don't know much about phonological change, but
were any of the above developments predictable? In other words, does
phonology always have to work from the present backward into the past to
determine what happened to a word over time, or does it also have any rules
that can be used sometimes to predict, more or less, how a word may come to
sound in the future?

I have nothing substantial to add to PTD's answer here.

Language change is not predictable. It's explainable, though.

Of course, some changes are common and some are even surprising.

Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/

John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:


Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/


So they do have both sounds? I take it they are not distinct phonemes?
How are they distributed?

/Rasmus

John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:


Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam' /kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/


So they do have both sounds? I take it they are not distinct phonemes?
How are they distributed?

/Rasmus

Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com> mælte sligt:


Sard /orikra/; for 'singulum' /singru/; for 'cingulam'
/kingra/;
and for 'oculum' either /orka/ or /okra: actually, having
spent
my formative years in the Cincinnati geosyncline area, I don't
care much for 'okra'. En passant (an expression that is not
Sard) the people of that magic island have what the outlander
might call an /r/ - /l/ problem. On the whole the word for
'more' is /prus/, and the word for 'beard' is /balba/
[...]
In the variety of Sard I was showing, /r/ and /l/ contrast on
the
whole. Thust /kelu/ 'sky' and /karu/ 'dear; expensive'; and
/luke/
'light' and /rosa/ 'rose'. However there are positional
restrictions
that may apply. In much of the north, after a consonant, only
/r/ occurs /kraru/ 'clear', and before a consonant, only /l/,
/polta/ 'door'. Warning: Sard is a real language, and there is
considerable regional variation. In some areas of the southeast
intervocalic /l/ is replaced by glottal stop as in /sa?e/; amd
in some of the south intervocalic /n/ is lost, with accompanying
vowel nasalization /ma~u/ 'hand' sounding much like Portuguese!

Enjoy

Jack
there

G. Leo Sahakian wrote:
"John A Rea" <j.rea2@insightbb.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: UDWae.13209$WI3.378@attbi_s71...
[...]
since you have
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
why don't you write ã instead of a~ ? this is a portuguese
letter
and ISO-8859-1 has everything needed for pt., es., fr., de.,
is.,
sv., da., no., fi., etc.
I haven't the slightest idea what these preceding lines say: