5

I've come across a fairly frequent claim that gn was pronounced as ɲn in vulgar Latin. However, I haven't been able to find any kind of academic sources to back that up. I've found a few sources (and questions answered here) specific to Classical Latin, but none for Vulgar Latin.

I hate to put forth something as a known fact without having any kind of evidence to back me up, so I'd like to know more. Are there any good sources for this claim? How do we know that gn was pronounced as ɲn in vulgar latin?

Lind
  • 53
  • 4

1 Answers1

6

The main evidence is the evolution in Romance languages. Latin GN generally becomes /ɲ/, like Spanish maño; in languages that preserve contrastive consonant length, it becomes a geminate /ɲɲ/, as in Italian magno.

We know it was originally something like /gn/, due to etymology: the first half of magnus also appears in magis, for example. And the most plausible path for /gn/ to become /ɲɲ/ involves the first half assimilating in manner, then both halves assimilating in place.

Draconis
  • 66,625
  • 6
  • 117
  • 269
  • Thank you! Some places I've read that /gn/ might have first evolved into /ŋn/, then /ɲn/, and finally /ɲɲ/. Do you believe this is supported? – Lind Jun 22 '23 at 18:04
  • 1
    @Lind That seems very reasonable; I'm not sure if there's any direct evidence for how the path went, though. – Draconis Jun 22 '23 at 19:39
  • I find this latin digraph weird, because in Portuguese it became "nh" (it sounds exactly like the Spanish "ñ") in some words like "lenha/lignum, but ligneo/ligneus, it kept the "gn". –  Jun 22 '23 at 23:05
  • 3
    @Lind: Hmm I'm having trouble pronouncing /ɲn/, is that really a thing? – Cerberus Jun 23 '23 at 00:04
  • @ManuelCauãRebouças: Perhaps some words were later borrowings from Latin? – Cerberus Jun 23 '23 at 00:05
  • Cerberus, actually, a few words wich latin roots changed the "gn" to "nh" in Portuguese. I never learnt why. –  Jun 23 '23 at 01:12
  • @Manuel /ɲ/ (that is, ⟨nh⟩) is the regular outcome. If a word has ⟨gn⟩, such as ígneo, that means it’s a later (≈ Mediaeval or later) re-borrowing from Classical Latin. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 23 '23 at 03:33
  • @Cerberus I recall seeing a suggestion (though I don’t recall the evidence for it) that it went /ɡn/ > /ŋn/ > /ŋɲ/ (i.e., dorsal velar + laminal alveolar/dental assimilated to dorsal velar + dorsal palatal) > /ɲɲ/. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 23 '23 at 03:36
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: That sounds far more plausible to me. Except that I cannot understand the last one, with the same consonant twice? – Cerberus Jun 23 '23 at 04:17
  • @Cerberus That’s just the more-or-less end result, /ɲː/, as still found in Italian (later shortened in Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc.). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 23 '23 at 09:21
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: Ahh so the same symbol twice doesn't mean the same sound twice, but just a lengthening, OK, then it makes sense. – Cerberus Jun 23 '23 at 14:04