Yes, the epenthesis /mr/ > /mbr/ was a regular sound change, which is also visible in words such as nombre (< nomine), lumbre (< lumine), hombro (< humeru), or sembrar (< seminare).Are there other Spanish words of the type hombre and hembra? So where a -br- is inserted where it historically didn't exist?
Yes, according to the RAE dictionary, hambre is from famen, like English famine. It's almost perfectly analogous to hembra in its development.Two other words came into my mind: nombre and hambre. They seem to originate from /mn/ > /mr/ > /mbr/ too.
Have a look at this (p. 406-407).One thing that puzzles me slightly is why dominus (or rather whatever it was in late Vulgar Latin) had already lost the vowel between /m/ and /n/ by the time the /mn/ > //ɲ/ change was taking place, so it ended up as dueño, whereas *(h)omine obviously didn't (or otherwise it would have ended up as *(h)oñe instead of hombre).
Thanks for the link!Have a look at this (p. 406-407).
Wouldnt it be because dominus had an o between two clearly pronounced consonants, while homine lost its initial h very early?Yes, according to the RAE dictionary, hambre is from famen, like English famine. It's almost perfectly analogous to hembra in its development.
One thing that puzzles me slightly is why dominus (or rather whatever it was in late Vulgar Latin) had already lost the vowel between /m/ and /n/ by the time the /mn/ > /ɲ/ change was taking place, so it ended up as dueño, whereas *(h)omine obviously didn't (or otherwise it would have ended up as *(h)oñe instead of hombre).
Sí que nos sirve. Gracias!No sé si te sirve, pero en unas zonas de España, al fuego se le llama "lumbre" que, sin duda, viene de lumen, luminis, luz.
Zouzou
Are you sure those are two distinct steps?...omne > omre > ombre
Yes, but the /b/ is no longer an artifact. I'd say it's distinct stages because when it was pronounced [omre], there may have occasionally been an artifactual but perhaps not always. However at some point this became the standard pronunciation, and then we arrive at the [ombre] stage. Perhaps: omne > (omre,ombre) > ombre.Are you sure those are two distinct steps?
In my understanding (which may be wrong) the shift is caused by a reduction of [n] to a tap and the quick succession of [mr] causes a plosive release producing a /b/ as an artifact.
Possible; so it might be a second step but a practically inevitable one. To my knowledge, the tendency to insert /b/ between /m/ and /r/ is extremely strong in Spanish. I was just to days ago told of a Mexican boy whom his parents gave the Hungarian name "Imre" and he was consistently called "Imbre" by other children.Yes, but the /b/ is no longer an artifact. I'd say it's distinct stages because when it was pronounced [omre], there may have occasionally been an artifactual but perhaps not always. However at some point this became the standard pronunciation, and then we arrive at the [ombre] stage. Perhaps: omne > (omre,ombre) > ombre.
Dinji mentioned costumbre above, which in principle goes back to co(n)suetudo, -inis, but the DRAE mentions an intermediate VL form *cosuetumen. So it would be the same process as for hombre: cosuetuminem > costumbre. However, -dumbre also became a productive suffix in Spanish corresponding to Latin -tudo, so I suppose that derived forms like muchedumbre, certidumbre, podredumbre, etc. could also be analogical formations (without requiring the hypothesis of a vulgar form *multitumen, *certitumen, etc. in every case).Pues en este caso qué proceso podría resultar en la conversión del latin multitudo al muchedumbre? Lo que habia escribido más arriba o algo otro?
Thanks for the link!
Another possibility that occurred to me is that words like dominus, which are used in formal address, may undergo irregular loss of phonemes because of frequent invocation (like for example vuestra merced got gradually shortened to usted, which obviously doesn't follow from regular sound changes). I wonder if it's possible that the /i/ in dominus was lost earlier than vowels in the analogous -mVn- sequences in other words for this reason. This is just my amateurish speculation, though.
In the case of dominus, there is second parallel evolution in cases when it was used as a title with a name: Domine Antoniu became Don Antonio. It is an irregular contraction and resembles the case of vuestra merced becoming usted. When Domine was followed by a name it was logical the tonic accent would fall on the name. This favored the contraction: Dominantóniu > Donantónio. I suppose native speakers no longer see the connection between Don and dueño. At any rate such a frequent word giving different results from the very beginning cannot follow regular patterns. It would be interesting to do a literary search and see if Dombre ever existed.Wouldnt it be because dominus had an o between two clearly pronounced consonants, while homine lost its initial h very early?
Indeed, Appendix Probi (supposedly written in 3rd or 4th century AD) acknowledges this phenomenon (continued in Romance languages):The loss of the medial i might have been a very early phenomenon.
Wow, so on the feminine side, dona/donna are actually cognates of dueña and all descend from dominam. That is a big change in meaning.Dominam also seems to work like mn-words in Portuguese, Catalan and Italian (dona, dona, donna). The loss of the medial i might have been a very early phenomenon.
Yes, but given the different results between hominem and somnum, for instance, I presume mn had moved to something else before the medial i was lost in hominem.Indeed, Appendix Probi (supposedly written in 3rd or 4th century AD) acknowledges this phenomenon (continued in Romance languages):
calida non calda
frigida non fricda
orbis non orbs
viridis non virdis
It would have been natural if uemne or uemre had existed. The o was open in vulgar Latin so it should have produced a diphthong like uomo in Italian.CapnPrep, your link to "this" (#5) went to a page in a book that gives "ueme" for 'man' in Old Spanish.
For the record, Prof. Davies's Corpus del Español shows zero instances of "ueme" (or "hueme", or "veme") in the 13th-15th centuries. (Compare more than 16,000 for "omne".)
It's not exactly the same case but there's also nombre and cambra where a /b/ appears that isn't in the Latin original.Catalan also features mbr in fembra (< feminam) and sembrar (< seminare), but not in any other words of the kind.
Diphthongized forms do appear in Oelschläger's A Medieval Spanish Word-List,It would have been natural if uemne or uemre had existed.
Uemne existed. It's quoted on the link provided by @Cenzontle on #26 and the CORDE gives two results for it.It would have been natural if uemne or uemre had existed
The question is...... why don't we have Huembre nowadays?Uemne existed. It's quoted on the link provided by @Cenzontle on #26 and the CORDE gives two results for it.
I agree, they're too old to be the result of influence. My impression is that there could have been vulgar and half-learned variants at the same time, and sembrar/semenar would be an example, but also combregar and comenegar, both from Latin communicare.Catalan also features mbr in fembra (< feminam) and sembrar (< seminare), but not in any other words of the kind. And it doesn't seem to be Castilian influence because those words are attested since quite old.