Spanish & Romanian: "h" and "f" confusion

robbie_SWE

robbie_SWE

Senior Member
Sweden
Trilingual: Swedish, Romanian & English
Hi guys,

I just couldn't help myself from asking this question!

I've been wondering about this for some time now, because I can't seem to understand how these two quite seperate sounds are interchangeable.

In Spanish there was a morphologic change from f to h.

E.g.:

hablar < lat. fabulari.
hacer < lat. facere.
halcón < lat. falco.
hecho < lat. factus.
hijo < lat. filius.

However, in Romanian the opposite change happened with words of Slavic origin, where h became f.

E.g.

marfă <sl. marha.
ofili < rus. ohilet'.
pofti < sl. pohotĕti.
praf < sl. prachŭ.
rufă < sl. ruho.

I just can't find any common denominator in these cases for both Spanish and Romanian. Why did this morphologic change happen in Spanish and Romanian? Did it happen in any other Romance languages? Romanian maintained the Latin f, where Spanish didn't. Why?


Hope you guys know more than I do!


:) robbie
 
    • In Spanish, this phenomenon is commonly attributed to Basque influence. It not only affected dialects in the Iberian peninsula, but also those zones on the other side of the Pyrenees where there were Basque populations.

    It consisted in a change from a bilabial consonant before a vowel to an aspirate. This aspirate disappeared gradually until it was entirely lost, although it seems to have survived in some regions.

    I believe it is independent from other similar changes that may have occurred in other Romance languages.
     
    Although it may seem unnatural to some of us, the sound change <> [f] is fairly common. You find it in archaic Latin as well, and in Japanese. This can be easily explained by an intermediate stage with the voiceless labial fricative [​ɸ], a sort of "blown f" pronounced with both lips touching instead of the upper teeth touching the lower lip.

    The Basque theory for the origin of word-initial shift [f] > in Spanish is disputed. As Miguel notes, the same sound change can be found in other Romance languages, namely in some (though not all) dialects of Occitan.
     
    Last edited:
    Isn't this comparable to q<>p that happened somewhere between Greek and Latin in pre-classical period? (qui - ποίος, quercus - πεύκος ).
     
    Ok, I see what you guys mean. The Spanish change appears to be quite feasible.

    However, why did the opposite change happen in Romanian with Slavic loans?

    I now see how f can mutate into h, but the leap seems greater from h to f.

    I've checked out how these words appear in Slavic languages, but they all incorporate the voiceless velar fricative [x].

    :) robbie
     
    My guess is that, at the time the words were borrowed, Romanian had no (or [x]) sound. So Romanian speakers replaced it with a "close" sound they did have, which turned out to be [f].
     
    Outsider said:
    My guess is that, at the time the words were borrowed, Romanian had no (or [x]) sound. So Romanian speakers looked for a "close" sound they did have, and they chose [f].
    Click to expand...


    Hmm...Romanian has the sound in quite many words, but I don't know if that's a recent development or an old one. Taking into consideration that words inherited from Latin lost initial h (e.g. iarbă < lat. herba, iederă < lat. hedera etc.), your guess seems quite plausible.

    :) robbie
     
    artion said:
    Isn't this comparable to q<>p that happened somewhere between Greek and Latin in pre-classical period? (qui - ποίος, quercus - πεύκος ).
    Click to expand...
    This change may have happened much later, when the Italic languages differentiated. Oscan, for example has pompe for Latin quinque, so it seems that p was older than qu. Also other languages have an initial p in the name for 5 PIE: penkwe (Slavic pet/piat, Welsh pump, Persian pancha).
     
    I have no reference for this:
    Years ago when living for a while in Spain, I inquired of a Spanish language scholar the "Why" for the shift from "f" to "h".
    With great authority he told me that the native Iberian speakers in Spain did not have the "f" sound in their native (non-indo-european) language.
    I asked him if these native speakers were "Basque" speakers (or of a similar related heritage)? He answered "No." It was a total unrelated tongue.
    And so, to negotiate the Latin "f", these speakers would proximate the effort with an aspirant "h".

    Fascinating.
    Whether 'twas true, who knows.
    I enjoyed the answer then as I do today.
    :)
     
    Outsider said:
    Although it may seem unnatural to some of us, the sound change <> [f] is fairly common. You find it in archaic Latin as well, and in Japanese. This can be easily explained by an intermediate stage with the voiceless labial fricative [​ɸ], a sort of "blown f" pronounced with both lips touching instead of the upper teeth touching the lower lip.

    The Basque theory for the origin of word-initial shift [f] > in Spanish is disputed. As Miguel notes, the same sound change can be found in other Romance languages, namely in some (though not all) dialects of Occitan.
    Click to expand...



    English had this shift as well: Middle English [ro:x] to present-day [rʌf] "rough"- [x] being an allophone of /h/ in non-initial position, there was probably another allophone [ç] when it followed front vowels like /i/ or /e/, similar to German today.

    These Old English velar and palatal fricatives end up all over the place in Middle and Modern English:

    [fuɣɔl]- [fu:wɘl]- [faʊl] fowl, today a homophone of foul (OE [fu:l])
    [mɑɣa]- [mɑ:wɘ]- [mɔ:], maw, in nonrhotic dialects a homophone of more, and often moor as well.
    [θʊrx]- [θrox]- [θru:] through

    [le:ɘx] lea/lee/leigh; found mainly but not exclusively in placenames, turns up as [li:], [leɪ], [li:ɘ], [lɪ], and doubtless others, it's a close thing whether it has more discrete pronunciations or spellings!
     
    I don't think > [f] is that more difficult to understand than [f] > .

    If you just gradually bring your lips closer together when you say "hi" or "hu" for example, you get the intermediate [φu] and [φi] which are close to [fu] and [fi]. [Fu<->hu] is the most obvious because your lips are already rounded for the vowel .
     
    robbie_SWE said:
    In Spanish there was a morphologic change from f to h.
    Click to expand...
    But when did it happen? Why are still there some doublets like Fernando ~ Hernán/Hernando (cfr. surnames Fernández and Hernández). It's Germanic name, so that change was pretty recent, wasn't it? And why did it affect also some words that had originally a /g/ like hielo and hermano? Besides before a raisng diphthong the change usually didn't happen: e.g. fiesta, fuego but hierro.
     
    Linnets said:
    But when did it happen? Why are still there some doublets like Fernando ~ Hernán/Hernando (cfr. surnames Fernández and Hernández). It's Germanic name, so that change was pretty recent, wasn't it? And why did it affect also some words that had originally a /g/ like hielo and hermano? Besides before a raisng diphthong the change usually didn't happen: e.g. fiesta, fuego but hierro.
    Click to expand...
    An easy answer would be Hernández is Spanish (i.e., Castilian), Fernández is Asturian/Leonese (with the exception of the eastern area, that also aspirates). Fernández, while being a very common surname all over Spain, is indeed even much more common in the historical Asturian-Leonese area.

    Following that, one might even think that words from Latin F- that didn't change into H- in Castilian might be early borrowings from either Leonese or Aragonese. In some cases, that's probably true. But in my opinion, words should be analyzed independently. In some cases there were probably duets and the one with F- prevailed for some reason. In others, it didn't change because of phonological context, as it's the case in diphthongs: hoguera but fuego, hontanar but fuente, etc. Notice how the other neighbour language that does it, Gascon, goes further than Spanish and turns them into H too: huec.

    As for your question regarding those with origin in G/J- like hielo and hermano, they are totally different, as the H there has never been aspirated and it's just a spelling thing. Notice how Galician-Portuguese doesn't even write an H: irmán/irmão.
     
    Last edited:
    Linnets said:
    But when did it happen? Why are still there some doublets like Fernando ~ Hernán/Hernando (cfr. surnames Fernández and Hernández). It's Germanic name, so that change was pretty recent, wasn't it? And why did it affect also some words that had originally a /g/ like hielo and hermano? Besides before a raisng diphthong the change usually didn't happen: e.g. fiesta, fuego but hierro.
    Click to expand...
    What do you mean by pretty recent? The Goths and Vandals' speech dissolved in the Iberian late Latin by the VII or VIÌI century.
     
    Linnets said:
    When did the name Ferdinand originate?
    Click to expand...
    It is a Gothic name (friþnanþ) that ended up as Fernando in Spanish. Ferdinand is the German rendition brought to the German language area by the Habsburgs in the 16th century (Emperor Ferdinand I, brother of emperor Karl V=Spanish King Carlos I).
     
    berndf said:
    It is a Gothic name (friþnanþ) that ended up as Fernando in Spanish. Ferdinand is the German rendition brought to the German language area by the Habsburgs in the 16th century (Emperor Ferdinand I, brother of emperor Karl V=Spanish King Carlos I).
    Click to expand...
    It's Hernán or Hernando in modern Castilian.
     
    merquiades said:
    It's Hernán or Hernando in modern Castilian.
    Click to expand...
    Close to 200000 people named Fernando in Spain vs. less than 600 named Hernando and less than 3000 named Hernán.

    Both Fernando and Hernando have been in use, at least, since XVth Century (I didn't search earlier).
     
    Circunflejo said:
    Close to 200000 people named Fernando in Spain vs. less than 600 named Hernando and less than 3000 named Hernán.

    Both Fernando and Hernando have been in use, at least, since XVth Century (I didn't search earlier).
    Click to expand...
    I didn't say the contrary, just that the natural inherited form is with H. Fernando must have been reconstructed in centuries after the H was lost, possibly under the influence of another language... Similar to Hernández-Fernández, Herrero-Ferrero, hondo-fondo, hilo-filo, hierro-fierro...
     
    Last edited:
    berndf said:
    Yes, you did:
    Click to expand...
    The modern form is Hernando, Hernán.... Fernando and Fernán were the older forms and were brought back probably during one of the relatinizing time periods. There are lots of doublets in Spanish... raudo the inherited form, rápido the relatinized form (fast). Sometimes the latinized forms stuck, sometimes they both coexist, often the inherited form still prevails.
     
    merquiades said:
    The modern form is Hernando, Hernán.... Fernando and Fernán were the older forms and were brought back probably during one of the relatinizing time periods.
    Click to expand...
    Still, Fernando is the predominant form in modern Castilian (i.e. since the 16th century), irrespective of if it is the naturally inherited form or a re-loan from earlier Iberian-Romance dialects.
     
    Linnets said:
    My Italian onomastics books (De Felice, Rossebastiano-Papa) state it was Ferdinando (Fredenandus in Latinate language) in Old Spanish (921 CE) whereas Fernando (Fernandus) is more recent (1204 CE).
    Click to expand...
    So you are suggesting the German form Ferdinand is derived from an earlier version of the Spanish name?
     
    Linnets said:
    Or perhaps they both derive indipendently from the Gothic one or from a Frankish/Early French version of the name.
    Click to expand...
    No, the German name is definitely from Spanish and didn't exist before emperor Ferdinand I, who was born in Spain.
     
    King Alfonso X granted some privilege on landed property to a town in Ávila, Burgohondo, and several kings renewed that granting in the following years. One was Ferdinand IV, who wrote by 1297:

    Sepan quantos esta carta vieren cómo yo, don Hernando, por la gracia de Dios rey de Castilla, de León, de Toledo... [...]​
    E yo, el sobredicho rey don Fernando, por les hazer bien e merced a los del Burgo, ...​
    ​
    He calls himself Hernando and Fernando in the same document. It seems to me that, while it's true that Hernando is the genuine Castilian evolution, doublets existed for many words and we know how proper names don't necessarily follow the same patterns as common ones, as trends vary quite a lot in this regard.
     
    Penyafort said:
    He calls himself Hernando and Fernando in the same document. It seems to me that, while it's true that Hernando is the genuine Castilian evolution, doublets existed for many words and we know how proper names don't necessarily follow the same patterns as common ones, as trends vary quite a lot in this regard.
    Click to expand...
    Yep, but what about the earlier form Ferdinando or Fredinandus in the X century?
     
    robbie_SWE said:
    However, in Romanian the opposite change happened with words of Slavic origin, where h became f.

    E.g.

    marfă <sl. marha.
    ofili < rus. ohilet'.
    pofti < sl. pohotĕti.
    praf < sl. prachŭ.
    rufă < sl. ruho.
    Click to expand...

    From one hand some of these examples have regional variants which kept the original "h" (instead of "f").
    See the examples below in some dictionaries [abbreviation ("îrg" = "învechit si regional" - old and regional) ]:
    DEX online - marfă - see the line:
    marfă [At: CORESI, ap. GCR I, 23/34 / V: (îrg) ~rhă (Pl: ~rhe, ~rhă), (Ban) ~rvă (Pl: ~rve, ~rvă), mară (Pl: ~re, ~ră), (sst) mărhă...
    DEX online - pofti - see the line:
    pofti [At: PSALT. HUR. 35v/3 / V: (înv) ~hti,...
    DEX online - praf - see the line:
    praf sn [At: PSALT. HUR. 28v/20 / V: (îrg) prah, prau, prav, (reg) pra, praj, praure ...

    On other hand there are other Romanian words of Slavic origin which kept the original "h" in phonetic context similar to the above examples:
    puhav < srb-cr. buhav (compare to rufă < sl. ruho)
    șleahtă < pol. szlachta (compare to pofti < sl. pohoteti)

    Last, but not least, the vast majority of Slavic loanwords in Romanian have kept their original "h".

    In the case of pofti there is an attested form pohti in 1600 in a short note of Michael the Brave on a document:
    "pohta ce-am pohtit":
    POHTA CE-A POHTIT - Testamentul politic al lui Mihai Viteazu - Modelul De Ţară
    (this short note raised a historical debate in Romania, that's what the article above is about).

    After seeing these linguistic facts I guess the transformation "h" > "f" was a phonetic accident in some words, but definitely is not a phonetic law.
     
    The name Fernando is attested since early 9th century, both in a more primitive spelling Fredinandus and in the modern form Fernando. It was also common in Galicia and Portugal, where its genitive is the etymon of place names such as Freande, Friande (Piel & Kremer, Hispano-gotisches Namenbuch, p. 134-135).

    In Spanish, /f/ > /h/ appears to be documented already in the 9th century in Castile proper, but it doesn't looks as a finished process at that moment, and the region affected was very limited and absolutely unrelated to Iberian language or people.

    Medieval Galician rendered as /f/ a number of words containing /h/ or similar, both from Arabic and from Germanic (Faraldo, now a surname, from herald). So it is probably an usual substitution whenever your language don't have other aspirated sounds.
     
    Last edited:
    Do we know what sound that <h> stood for? The old Latin h had long been extinct already so it could stand for a lot of things. In Germanic languages at that time <h> stood for [x].
     
    In Spanish the intermediate sound /f/ > /h/ > 0 has been preserved locally. In particular, in Andalucisms now written with j [x] in Spanish: jamelgo < famelgo < famelicu, juerga < fuelga <= follicare.
     
    It turned into h in the 11th century but continued to be written f for several centuries. This h started disappearing in the 16th century but not before being transmitted to some rural places in Latin America where it is still pronounced h
     
    Cossue said:
    In Spanish the intermediate sound /f/ > /h/ > 0 has been preserved locally. In particular, in Andalucisms now written with j [x] in Spanish: jamelgo < famelgo < famelicu, juerga < fuelga <= follicare.
    Click to expand...
    That doesn't directly answer the question which sound (phone not phoneme) h actually stood for but I understand the comparison as that you think it stood for [x] and not for [h].
     
    Last edited:
    More or less; I understand that it was an aspirated sound. Modern pronunciation of jamelgo or juerga with [x] is probably not exactly the same sound, but a good approximation.
     
    Cossue said:
    In Spanish the intermediate sound /f/ > /h/ > 0 has been preserved locally. In particular, in Andalucisms now written with j [x] in Spanish: jamelgo < famelgo < famelicu, juerga < fuelga <= follicare.
    Click to expand...
    The disappearing h started in the north and worked its way southwards during the 16th century, which is why it could be taken to Latin America by southern colonizers.
    It disappeared late in Andalusia and went away word by word. This left a few h stragglers that never disappeared and changed to /x/ after the 18th century. One of the most famous ones was fútuere (copulate) > foder > hoder > joder (f*ck that! origin in Andalusia, now everywhere). There is also jarto and jartar in the south (for harto and hartar) from farto/fartar > (fartus/fartare- stuffed). Apparently there is jambre in some areas in lieu of hambre, (faminem-hunger). There are strange doublets too (follicare-blow, pant): follica> folga > fuelga > huelga (h going silent) (a strike, work stoppage); h surviving in Andalusia changing to /x/ > juerga (partying, revelry)
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top