Lexical differences between Spanish and Portuguese
Ruud Harmsen
Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
2006-Oct-14 Difs betw es & pt: http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm
Ken Berry
> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
>
You might want to consider adding the words for basil (manjericão in
Portuguese, and albahaca in Spanish) and rosemary (alecrim/romero).
Might I also gently suggest that you look at the last item in your 'not
included' list (llorar/chorar) where the explanation reads "Pl regularly
developed to ch..." -- an obvious typo for 'Ll'.
And in your main list, there is also a typo in the spelling of the
Portuguese guitar in Spanish ('guirarra').
While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
Ken Berry
> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
>
previous message, relates to the word for 'pasta'. In Portuguese, it is
'massa', whereas in Spanish I believe it is 'pasta'. However, in Spanish
'masa' refers specifically to pastry (puff, etc), and the Portuguese
'massa' also carries this meaning.
As for the related concept of 'noodle' (in the sense of something like
spaghetti), in Portuguese it is 'talharim', while in Spanish it is 'fideo'.
As you may have guessed, I am a bit of a food-lover! And indeed, it
could be worth your while to give some thought to other food-related
words. One which springs to mind is the word for saucepan: 'panela' in
Portuguese; and cacerola/cazo, or olla for a larger one, in Spanish...
But I am sure there are other differences in commonly used cooking
implements. And indeed simple things like forks (garfo in Portuguese,
tenedor in Spanish)...
Boa sorte!
John Atkinson
"Ken Berry" <ken....@gmail.com> wrote...
> Might I also gently suggest that you look at the last item in your
> 'not included' list (llorar/chorar) where the explanation reads "Pl
> regularly developed to ch..." -- an obvious typo for 'Ll'.
Not so, I believe. In Spanish, pl developed to ll, apparently in late
pre-literary Castilian. In Galico-Portuguese and Leonese pl developed
to ch at around the same time. Whether it passed through ll on the way
there I don't know, though I bet someone here does.
John.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
>> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
>>
>Thank you for that. I found it very interesting.
>
>You might want to consider adding the words for basil (manjericão in
>Portuguese, and albahaca in Spanish) and rosemary (alecrim/romero).
Will consider later.
>Might I also gently suggest that you look at the last item in your 'not
>included' list (llorar/chorar) where the explanation reads "Pl regularly
>developed to ch..." -- an obvious typo for 'Ll'.
I don't think it was wrong, but it was confusing due to the different
order of the languages in table and comment. The latter now reversed.
>And in your main list, there is also a typo in the spelling of the
>Portuguese guitar in Spanish ('guirarra').
Thanks for spotting, typos corrected.
>While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
>terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
>Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
>commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
>however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
That may be a Brazil vs.Portugal thing. Michaelis pt>en gives "guitar"
as the only meaning of violão, and doesn't list viola with a guitar
meaning at all. I only ever heard "violoão" in the famous song "Manhã
de carnaval": "as cordas do meu violão".
Portugal-based dictionaries list both viola and violão with various
guitar-like descriptions.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
2006-Oct-14 http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm
1) Accents in gl and pt
2) Difs betw es & pt -
Ekkehard Dengler
"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:9nt3j29dv8oauiqu8...@4ax.com...
> Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:29:31 +1000: Ken Berry <ken....@gmail.com>: in
> sci.lang:
>
> >Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> >> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
> >>
> >Thank you for that. I found it very interesting.
> >
> >You might want to consider adding the words for basil (manjericão in
> >Portuguese, and albahaca in Spanish) and rosemary (alecrim/romero).
>
> Will consider later.
>
> >Might I also gently suggest that you look at the last item in your 'not
> >included' list (llorar/chorar) where the explanation reads "Pl regularly
> >developed to ch..." -- an obvious typo for 'Ll'.
>
> I don't think it was wrong, but it was confusing due to the different
> order of the languages in table and comment. The latter now reversed.
>
> >And in your main list, there is also a typo in the spelling of the
> >Portuguese guitar in Spanish ('guirarra').
>
> Thanks for spotting, typos corrected.
>
> >While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
> >terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
> >Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
> >commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
> >however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
>
> That may be a Brazil vs.Portugal thing.
Yes -- in Portugal, "viola" is the normal word for an acoustic guitar, while
"guitarra" means "Portuguese guitar". Illogically, an electric guitar is
called "guitarra eléctrica".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Mike Wright
> "Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9nt3j29dv8oauiqu8...@4ax.com...
>
>>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:29:31 +1000: Ken Berry <ken....@gmail.com>: in
>>sci.lang:
>>
>>>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
>>>>Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
>>>>
>>>And in your main list, there is also a typo in the spelling of the
>>>Portuguese guitar in Spanish ('guirarra').
>>
>>Thanks for spotting, typos corrected.
>>
>>>While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
>>>terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
>>>Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
>>>commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
>>>however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
>>
>>That may be a Brazil vs.Portugal thing.
>
> Yes -- in Portugal, "viola" is the normal word for an acoustic guitar, while
> "guitarra" means "Portuguese guitar". Illogically, an electric guitar is
> called "guitarra eléctrica".
Don't know whether this is relevant, but note that English "viola", used
alone, refers to a member of the violin family--the next size up from
the violin, all strings tuned a fifth lower.
On the other hand, the viola da gamba (AKA viola di gamba) family of
instruments seems to be descended from the guitar:
<http://jonathan.dunford.free.fr/html/what_is_.htm>. These instruments
traditionally have a flat back, six strings (tuned in fourths, but with
one third), and frets, where the violin family instruments have an
arched back, four strings (tuned in fifths), and no frets.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.raccoonbend.com
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>>>>While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
>>>>terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
>>>>Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
>>>>commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
>>>>however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
>>>
>>>That may be a Brazil vs.Portugal thing.
>>
>> Yes -- in Portugal, "viola" is the normal word for an acoustic guitar, while
>> "guitarra" means "Portuguese guitar". Illogically, an electric guitar is
>> called "guitarra eléctrica".
>
>Don't know whether this is relevant, but note that English "viola", used
>alone, refers to a member of the violin family--the next size up from
>the violin, all strings tuned a fifth lower.
Yes. It can mean that in Portuguese too, but much less usually. This
is an endless source of misunderstandings in translations.
António Marques
> While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
> terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
> Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
> commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
> however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
'Violao' isn't usually heard in Portugal.
'Viola' (br. 'Violao') is the common word for 'guitarra classica'.
'Guitarra' is used for the 'Lisbon/portuguese guitar' or the 'Coimbra
guitar', depending where you are on. 'Viola braguesa' is a different
kind of medieval guitar. 'Viola de arco' is a viol.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezhoneg : smalltalk : stargate
António Marques
> As for the related concept of 'noodle' (in the sense of something
> like spaghetti), in Portuguese it is 'talharim', while in Spanish it
> is 'fideo'.
Yet I'd never heard it before, and if told it was massa-related my only
guess would be tagliatelle. The usual is 'espa[r]guete', and 'macarrao'
if it's thick and hollow (in Brazil, I think, the latter covers
everything). When made of rice, it's known as 'aletria', if used in
pastry, and maybe 'massa de arroz' otherwise.
António Marques
> Not so, I believe. In Spanish, pl developed to ll, apparently in late
> pre-literary Castilian. In Galico-Portuguese and Leonese pl developed
> to ch at around the same time. Whether it passed through ll on the way
> there I don't know, though I bet someone here does.
That I know, it's /(p k f) l/ > /(p k f) j/ > /(p k f) dZ/ > consonant
disappears but first devoices the affricate to /tS/ > modern /S/.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
Is "cuando" the same in Spanish and Portuguese?
Paulo da Costa
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
>> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
>
> Is "cuando" the same in Spanish and Portuguese?
Modulo spelling, yes (Portuguese is "quando").
Portuguese "enquanto" is Spanish "mientras", not Spanish "encuanto" :)
Paulo
Nigel Greenwood
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
Nice list. Here are a few other random terms that occur to me,
including a typo I noticed:
Gostar in Pt (not "gustar")
Encontrar in both languages = "find" (Hallar used in Es in certain
idioms only)
Azeite in Pt = olive oil only (but Brazilian usage may be closer to Es:
I'm not sure)
Comprido Pt = long (Largo Es), hence:
Comprimento (length) but Complemento Es = complement
Jangada Pt = raft (Balsa Es)
Nigel
--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Nigel Greenwood
Alfândega Pt & Aduana Es ("customs" [at ports of entry])
Paulo da Costa
> Azeite in Pt = olive oil only (but Brazilian usage may be closer to Es:
> I'm not sure)
No, azeite is only olive oil in Brazil too.
I still can't get over reading "aceite de motor". Sounds so wrong :)
Paulo
Nathan
> As for the related concept of 'noodle' (in the sense of something like
> spaghetti), in Portuguese it is 'talharim', while in Spanish it is 'fideo'.
My dictionary has 'tallarin' (accent over i, not going to try it on
Usenet) as the first Spanish translation for 'noodle', followed by
'fideo'.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>My dictionary has 'tallarin' (accent over i, not going to try it on
>Usenet)
Works fine: tallarín.
wugi
> A first version of a compilation of lexical differences between
> Spanish and Portuguese: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
Sp. gustar, not gostar.
"still, yet" entry mixed up.
My wife uses "carpa" for tent (arg.)
Anyway, what's fascinating me, between Sp-Pt, is not lexical (I'm also bored
of those endless Dutch-Flemish lists in nl.taal:-o). It's the sound schemes:
how could they have come to so utterly differ, whereas in writing you could
virtually speak of a two-variant idiom?
In this respect, there are similar cases: Dutch-German (admittedly, less
conspicuous), and again, between those and Scandinavian. At times Swedish
would sound West-Flemish, and when reading Norwegian I'm struck by
a-letter-amiss Dutch words (eiedom...). But the sound schemes are
unintelligible, and the sentence build is at times weird: another
interesting comparison feature between lookalikes. (Again, all this may be
put in reverse by some Scandinavian friend:-o)
Such features then, appeal more to me than lexlists.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499
Nigel Greenwood
Well, given that the Brazilians use sugarcane as a source of fuel for
their cars, they might well use olive oil for lubrication, don't you
think?
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Anyway, what's fascinating me, between Sp-Pt, is not lexical (I'm also bored
>of those endless Dutch-Flemish lists in nl.taal:-o). It's the sound schemes:
>how could they have come to so utterly differ, whereas in writing you could
>virtually speak of a two-variant idiom?
Listening to Galician, and looking at it's two spellings, may give you
an answer.
And in fact, I don't really think es and pt really differ that much in
pronunciation. The difference is superficial, underlying, they are
still much closer.
António Marques
>>> Azeite in Pt = olive oil only (but Brazilian usage may be closer
>>> to Es: I'm not sure)
>> No, azeite is only olive oil in Brazil too.
>
>> I still can't get over reading "aceite de motor". Sounds so wrong
>> :)
>
> Well, given that the Brazilians use sugarcane as a source of fuel for
> their cars, they might well use olive oil for lubrication, don't you
> think?
In the 80s or something, some spanish company or something exported to
us a batch of cooking oil contaminated by car oil or something.
António Marques
> Encontrar in both languages = "find" (Hallar used in Es in certain
> idioms only)
Also pt achar.
> Azeite in Pt = olive oil only (but Brazilian usage may be closer to Es:
> I'm not sure)
I don't think so.
> Comprido Pt = long (Largo Es), hence:
And largo (pt) = ancho (es)
> Comprimento (length) but Complemento Es = complement
Complemento is in pt too.
> Jangada Pt = raft (Balsa Es)
Ditto balsa.
António Marques
> Oh yes, what about:
>
> Alfândega Pt & Aduana Es ("customs" [at ports of entry])
If you're going to make a list of all words that are different between
pt and es, you'll need a large book!
Peter T. Daniels
António Marques wrote:
> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, what about:
> >
> > Alfândega Pt & Aduana Es ("customs" [at ports of entry])
>
> If you're going to make a list of all words that are different between
> pt and es, you'll need a large book!
More useful would be a list of faux amis.
Ruud Harmsen
>> If you're going to make a list of all words that are different between
>> pt and es, you'll need a large book!
>
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>More useful would be a list of faux amis.
True. My http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm
includes a hyperlink to:
http://ec.europa.eu/translation/bulletins/puntoycoma/47/pyc476.htm
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Sp. gustar, not gostar.
>"still, yet" entry mixed up.
This and other mistakes corrected. Most suggestions added. Notes
added. Made groupings in the table. Repeated language headers to avoid
confusion between languages.
Many thanks to all contributors.
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
Which of pl-->pr and pl-->ch happened first in Galician-Portuguese,
and when? pl>pr is also in Galician, so it too must be pretty old too.
In some cases, both changes occured, which different Portuguese words
as a result.
Ex.: chaga/praga, chata/prata.
Ref. http://rudhar.com/etymolog/prantoen.htm ,
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/ptesdiff.htm .
John Atkinson
"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
I don't know Portuguese, but in Spanish, as I'm sure you know, people
talk about "popular words", directly descended from proto-Romance and
undergoing all the sound changes, "semicultismos" which have not
undergone all the changes, due in many cases to the influence of related
words in church Latin, and "cultismos", borrowed after the changes took
place.
A quick look at the words in the dictionary starting with <ll-> gives
the following examples of doubles, and a couple of triples, each of
which, I believe, comes from the same Latin original. The learned and
semilearned words tend to have less colloquial meanings, 'tis said (just
like in English).
llaga, ulcer; plaga, plague
llano, plain, level, homely; plano, level, smooth
llanta, tyre; planta, sole of foot; plantacion (?)
llave, key; clave, key (music); clavero, keeper of the keys
llegar, to arrive; plegar, to fold; complicacion.
lleno, full, pleno, complete, plenitud.
llover, to rain; lluvia, rain; pluvial, rainy
Also derecho, right; directo, straight, and a thousand others.
How many of these are also doublets or triplets in Portuguese? (No
doubt chaga/praga = llaga/plaga; is chata/prata = llanta/planta?.)
Returning to your question, is it plausible that the pl- --> pr- words
are semicultismos, and thus didn't undergo the change pl --> ch of the
popular words, so that pl- was still there to later on change to pr-?
John.
Ekkehard Dengler
"Ruud Harmsen" <realema...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:mijej29djs5o5hd6a...@4ax.com...
> in sci.lang:
>
> >"Ken Berry" <ken....@gmail.com> wrote...
> >> Might I also gently suggest that you look at the last item in your
> >> 'not included' list (llorar/chorar) where the explanation reads "Pl
> >> regularly developed to ch..." -- an obvious typo for 'Ll'.
> >
> >Not so, I believe. In Spanish, pl developed to ll, apparently in late
> >pre-literary Castilian. In Galico-Portuguese and Leonese pl developed
> >to ch at around the same time. Whether it passed through ll on the way
> >there I don't know, though I bet someone here does.
>
> Which of pl-->pr and pl-->ch happened first in Galician-Portuguese,
> and when? pl>pr is also in Galician, so it too must be pretty old too.
Hi Ruud. We discussed this last year. Google for:
"According to Paul Teyssier's 'História da Língua Portuguesa', 'l' in
word-initial consonant clusters changed to 'r' very early on, at a stage
where Portuguese and Galician were still one language."
Regards,
Ekkehard
nandodick
> As for the related concept of 'noodle' (in the sense of something like
> spaghetti), in Portuguese it is 'talharim', while in Spanish it is 'fideo'.
Tallarin or tallarines are a kind of fideos in spanish.
> And indeed simple things like forks (garfo in Portuguese,
> tenedor in Spanish)...
faca (port) and cuchillo (esp) for knife, or being a a food lover
Frango in portuguese for Pollo in spanish (or as brazilian think the
spanish word is: Posho)
> Boa sorte!
Nao por esso, Por nada
Ruud Harmsen
>> Which of pl-->pr and pl-->ch happened first in Galician-Portuguese,
>> and when? pl>pr is also in Galician, so it too must be pretty old too.
Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:31:40 +0200: "Ekkehard Dengler"
<ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>Hi Ruud. We discussed this last year. Google for:
I see, I must have half-missed that then, although I was in that
thread too.
>"According to Paul Teyssier's 'História da Língua Portuguesa', 'l' in
>word-initial consonant clusters changed to 'r' very early on, at a stage
>where Portuguese and Galician were still one language."
Found it:
http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/2b7272ef7fda380e/065e37c2e33dd32d
where you wrote:
>He [Paul Teyssier] also states, however, that "l" > "r"
>was largely restricted to words used in a relatively
>formal register, the normal vernacular development
>being "voiceless consonant + l > ch", e.g. "clave"
>"chave", "clamar" > "chamar". "
Does this mean that both changes (cl>ch and cl>cr etc.) happened in
approximately the same period of teh language development?
You went on:
>(I believe Galician has "cramar", though.)
From searches in combination with the typical Galician word "unha" (or
"umha" in the other spelling system), I conclude that it is.
One hit is actually about this sound change:
http://usuarios.lycos.es/aureano/galego_asturiano.htm
(and there is that word "semicultos" that "John Atkinson" referred to
elsewhere in this thread (as "semicultismos")):
===
Resultados semicultos dos grupos CL, FL e PL
cravo / clavo
branco / blanco
prato / plato
Os resultados que o galego ofrece de CL, FL e PL están en todo o
Eo-Navia, incluídas as zonas de transición de Navia, Villaión e Ibias
e Degaña. Recóllese en Tox (Navia) branco, cravo, prato, praia ou
fretar. En La Azoreira (Villaión) recóllese branco e prato. En La
Folgueirosa, pretiño de La Azoreira, comentan que dicir prato e traba
é propio da fala dos vellos, algo que tamén se comenta na Galiza pola
presión do castelán. En El Vao (Ibias) dise cravada, nubrado, afroxa,
arredobrados, etc.
O fenómeno que se dá no galego tamén se dá en determinados lugares
do ámbito asturleonés, mais só naqueles que están en contacto
inmediato co galego, coma El Rebollu ou Par??eiro (Allande e Villaión
respectivamente). En Tinéu ou Allande Oriental non se recolle o
fenómeno. Salvo exemplos illados (vendendu lus bochus brancus), o
fenómeno non se observa en Asturias. Fóra de Asturias (recolleitas no
ano 1962) tense recollido prantar, igresia, tabra, puebro, pruma,
praza e cravo en Astorga e Curueña; e frol, froles, igresia, pruma e
puebro fronte a plaos, suflagio e flaire en La Bañeza. En Sayago
(Zamora) recolleuse igresia, praza e umbrigo fronte a plonto e flaire.
Exemplos de Salamanca son prega, obrigar, cramar, frecha ou crego.
===
Nigel Greenwood
António Marques wrote:
> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>
> Ditto balsa.
I only mentioned this because of Saramago's novel A Jangada de Pedra.
What is the distinction between J & B in Pt?
António Marques
> Does this mean that both changes (cl>ch and cl>cr etc.) happened in
> approximately the same period of teh language development?
That would be possible but very unlikely. (cpf)l > ch is very early,
(cpf)l > (cpf)r is pre-literary, (cpf)l unchanged is post-medieval.
Every language with any kind of literary tradition has such words,
what's special about it?
>> You went on:
>> (I believe Galician has "cramar", though.)
>
> From searches in combination with the typical Galician word "unha" (or
> "umha" in the other spelling system), I conclude that it is.
_Cramar_ means 'cry (for someone/thing)', not very far from _clamar_ but
much more common.
Generally speaking, many (cpf)r words had their l restored after the
Middle Ages in Portugal (mostly only in the literary language until
recently), but not in Galicia, for obvious reasons.
> One hit is actually about this sound change:
> http://usuarios.lycos.es/aureano/galego_asturiano.htm
> (and there is that word "semicultos" that "John Atkinson" referred to
> elsewhere in this thread (as "semicultismos")):
...semicultos being an adjective (pt semi-eruditos).
Your page is from someone familiar with the Eo-Navia galician dialect,
the one where the article is 'el' among other interesting
particularities (the toponyms given are spanish, not dialect).
António Marques
>>> Jangada Pt = raft (Balsa Es)
>> Ditto balsa.
>
> I only mentioned this because of Saramago's novel A Jangada de Pedra.
You don't have to apologise, of course; this just goes to show that,
many times, it is't the case that two languages/dialects use different
words/roots, just that what is common in one may be less common and have
a slightly different meaning in another.
> What is the distinction between J & B in Pt?
Jangada is standard for a robust raft, made of solid tied logs, and
possibly sea able. Balsa (the word is much older, I suspect) is quite
vague, but tends to refer to slender/fragile rivercraft ('balsa de
pedra' would thus sound hopelessly wrong). And if a balsa-like thing
were found more than fifty metres from the coast, I think people would
call it 'jangada'. Whereas any jangada-like thing would be a 'jangada',
even if in a small river.
There's a village called Balsa and a Balsinha surname. No Jangadas that
I know of, though (the word, even if perfectly integrated, can't help
but sounding amerindian - it is asian rather, I think).
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezhoneg : smalltalk : stargate
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paulo da Costa
> António Marques wrote:
>> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>>> Jangada Pt = raft (Balsa Es)
>> Ditto balsa.
>
> I only mentioned this because of Saramago's novel A Jangada de Pedra.
> What is the distinction between J & B in Pt?
At least for me in Brazil, a seagoing fishing raft would be a Jangada,
while a ferry that takes cars across a river would be a Balsa. Charon
had a "balsa", sometimes "barca", definitely not a "jangada".
Paulo
António Marques
> Does this mean that both changes (cl>ch and cl>cr etc.) happened in
> approximately the same period of teh language development?
That would be possible but very unlikely. (cpf)l > ch is very early,
(cpf)l > (cpf)r is pre-literary, (cpf)l unchanged is post-medieval.
Every language with any kind of literary tradition has such words,
what's special about it?
>> You went on:
>> (I believe Galician has "cramar", though.)
>
> From searches in combination with the typical Galician word "unha" (or
> "umha" in the other spelling system), I conclude that it is.
_Cramar_ means 'cry (for someone/thing)', not very far from _clamar_ but
much more common.
Generally speaking, many (cpf)r words had their l restored after the
Middle Ages in Portugal (mostly only in the literary language until
recently), but not in Galicia, for obvious reasons.
> One hit is actually about this sound change:
> http://usuarios.lycos.es/aureano/galego_asturiano.htm
> (and there is that word "semicultos" that "John Atkinson" referred to
> elsewhere in this thread (as "semicultismos")):
...semicultos being an adjective (pt semi-eruditos).
Your page is from someone familiar with the Eo-Navia galician dialect,
the one where the article is 'el' among other interesting
particularities (the toponyms given are spanish, not dialect).
António Marques
> Not so, I believe. In Spanish, pl developed to ll, apparently in late
> pre-literary Castilian. In Galico-Portuguese and Leonese pl developed
> to ch at around the same time. Whether it passed through ll on the way
> there I don't know, though I bet someone here does.
That I know, it's /(p k f) l/ > /(p k f) j/ > /(p k f) dZ/ > consonant
disappears but first devoices the affricate to /tS/ > modern /S/.
António Marques
> As for the related concept of 'noodle' (in the sense of something
> like spaghetti), in Portuguese it is 'talharim', while in Spanish it
> is 'fideo'.
Yet I'd never heard it before, and if told it was massa-related my only
guess would be tagliatelle. The usual is 'espa[r]guete', and 'macarrao'
if it's thick and hollow (in Brazil, I think, the latter covers
everything). When made of rice, it's known as 'aletria', if used in
pastry, and maybe 'massa de arroz' otherwise.
António Marques
> While on the subject of guitars, I have no problem with your current
> terms and descriptions. I nonetheless wonder where you would fit in the
> Portuguese 'violão', which to my mind, in Portugal at least, is more
> commonly used for a Portuguese guitar than 'guitarra'... I could,
> however, be mistaken and would really appreciate your views...
'Violao' isn't usually heard in Portugal.
'Viola' (br. 'Violao') is the common word for 'guitarra classica'.
'Guitarra' is used for the 'Lisbon/portuguese guitar' or the 'Coimbra
guitar', depending where you are on. 'Viola braguesa' is a different
kind of medieval guitar. 'Viola de arco' is a viol.
António Marques
> faca (port) and cuchillo (esp) for knife, or being a a food lover
> Frango in portuguese for Pollo in spanish (or as brazilian think the
> spanish word is: Posho)
_Polo_ [polo] survives in Galicia (cf. 'poleiro'), and pt _cutelo_ (gal.
_coitelo_) is a butching knife, the sort with a 5cm high and 5mm thick
blade.
John Atkinson
> nandodick wrote:
>
>> faca (port) and cuchillo (esp) for knife, or being a a food lover
>> Frango in portuguese for Pollo in spanish (or as brazilian think the
>> spanish word is: Posho)
>
> _Polo_ [polo] survives in Galicia (cf. 'poleiro'), and pt _cutelo_
> (gal. _coitelo_) is a butching knife, the sort with a 5cm high and 5mm
> thick blade.
Does Portuguese have 'cutela' too -- analogous to the cuchillo/cuchilla
pair in Spanish?
John.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that both changes (cl>ch and cl>cr etc.) happened in
>> approximately the same period of teh language development?
>
>That would be possible but very unlikely. (cpf)l > ch is very early,
>(cpf)l > (cpf)r is pre-literary, (cpf)l unchanged is post-medieval.
>
>Every language with any kind of literary tradition has such words,
>what's special about it?
That there are so many, and that the (cpf)r words are rather common
and everyday words too.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Jangada is standard for a robust raft, made of solid tied logs, and
>possibly sea able. Balsa (the word is much older, I suspect) is quite
>vague, but tends to refer to slender/fragile rivercraft ('balsa de
>pedra' would thus sound hopelessly wrong). And if a balsa-like thing
>were found more than fifty metres from the coast, I think people would
>call it 'jangada'. Whereas any jangada-like thing would be a 'jangada',
>even if in a small river.
A songtitle by Baden Powell was "Jangada voltou só".
http://jangadanantes.free.fr/chansons.htm Written by Dorival Caymmi,
really.
>There's a village called Balsa and a Balsinha surname. No Jangadas that
>I know of, though (the word, even if perfectly integrated, can't help
>but sounding amerindian - /
That's what I tought too, having seen it in a Brazilian song title
first.
>/ it is asian rather, I think).
From malaiala, says PE. That's Ranjit Mathews' Malayalam, I suppose?
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/Malayalam/alveolar.htm
Nigel Greenwood
António Marques wrote:
> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>
> >>> Jangada Pt = raft (Balsa Es)
> >> Ditto balsa.
> >
> > I only mentioned this because of Saramago's novel A Jangada de Pedra.
>
> You don't have to apologise, of course;
I think I was being defensive/explanatory rather than apologetic!
> > What is the distinction between J & B in Pt?
>
> Jangada is standard for a robust raft, made of solid tied logs, and
> possibly sea able. Balsa (the word is much older, I suspect) is quite
> vague, but tends to refer to slender/fragile rivercraft ('balsa de
> pedra' would thus sound hopelessly wrong).
Balsa wood is -- or was -- familiar to generations of British
schoolboys, as it was used to build model aeroplanes. Whether it's
strong enough to get you over the Styx is something we shall all find
out eventually.
> And if a balsa-like thing
> were found more than fifty metres from the coast, I think people would
> call it 'jangada'. Whereas any jangada-like thing would be a 'jangada',
> even if in a small river.
Do you happen to know the etymology of jangada?
Antonio Marques
>>> Does this mean that both changes (cl>ch and cl>cr etc.) happened in
>>> approximately the same period of teh language development?
>>
>> That would be possible but very unlikely. (cpf)l > ch is very early,
>> (cpf)l > (cpf)r is pre-literary, (cpf)l unchanged is post-medieval.
>>
>> Every language with any kind of literary tradition has such words,
>> what's special about it?
>
> That there are so many, and that the (cpf)r words are rather common
> and everyday words too.
I only asked because I don't think it is 'worse' than in, say, english.
Maybe I'm just accustomed to it and assume it's like that in every language.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezhoneg : smalltalk : stargate
--
Ekkehard Dengler
John Atkinson wrote:
> (No
> doubt chaga/praga = llaga/plaga; is chata/prata = llanta/planta?.)
Not quite. Port. "chato" ("annoying") derives from Lat. "platus", as does
"prato" ("plate"), while "prata" ("silver") corresponds to Sp. "plata". The
Portuguese word for "plant" is "planta".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Antonio Marques
If it does, I'm not familiar with it.
Which means, it may occur in specialised context but not in the general
language, but I don't really think it exists.
Many -o/-a pairs with slightly different meanings are available, of course.
Nigel Greenwood
John Atkinson wrote:
> Does Portuguese have 'cutela' too -- analogous to the cuchillo/cuchilla
> pair in Spanish?
I don't know whether "cutelo" is still used in any special sense, but
there is certainly a surname Cutileiro, as in the
diplomat/academic/poet José Cutileiro & his brother (?), the sculptor
João.
Ekkehard Dengler
"John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:AlXZg.50092$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I've never come across the word, but it does exist
(http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/definir_resultados.aspx): "s. f., espécie de
cutelo pequeno ou podão usado pelos podadores do Douro; faca larga e grossa
para cortar carne."
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
"Nigel Greenwood" <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161338965.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>Do you happen to know the etymology of jangada?
http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/definir_resultados.aspx: "Do Malaiala,
changadam?".
This might be relevant, too: "janga: s. f., antiga embarcação de remos".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Antonio Marques
>> (No
>> doubt chaga/praga = llaga/plaga; is chata/prata = llanta/planta?.)
>
> Not quite. Port. "chato" ("annoying") derives from Lat. "platus", as does
> "prato" ("plate"), while "prata" ("silver") corresponds to Sp. "plata". The
> Portuguese word for "plant" is "planta".
There's a _(re)chantar_ 'transplant' verb in the countryside.
John Atkinson
"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote...
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> (No
>> doubt chaga/praga = llaga/plaga; is chata/prata = llanta/planta?.)
>
> Not quite. Port. "chato" ("annoying") derives from Lat. "platus", as
> does
> "prato" ("plate"), while "prata" ("silver") corresponds to Sp.
> "plata".
Yes, I realised that as soon as I read Ruud's web-page properly!
I was stupid not to think of "plata" in the first place.
John.
Antonio Marques
I gorfot to point out that the primary meaning of chato is 'flat',
thence 'boring', and 'annoying' is a shade of the latter.
John Atkinson
"Antonio Marques" <m....@sapo.pt> wrote...
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>>> That would be possible but very unlikely. (cpf)l > ch is very early,
>>> (cpf)l > (cpf)r is pre-literary, (cpf)l unchanged is post-medieval.
>>>
>>> Every language with any kind of literary tradition has such words,
>>> what's special about it?
>>
>> That there are so many, and that the (cpf)r words are rather common
>> and everyday words too.
>
> I only asked because I don't think it is 'worse' than in, say,
> english. Maybe I'm just accustomed to it and assume it's like that in
> every language.
English has the same three classes. But the equivalent of the middle
class -- the semicultismos -- is the Old French words brought over by
the Norman invaders. They are at least as common as their Iberian
equivalents, but unlike them they are borrowings, not inherited words
which haven't undergone the usual changes, and are rarely very similar
to the corresponding words from OE with similar meanings.
Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
The Indo-Aryan languages, in particular Hindi, might be most like the
Iberian ones in this. Popular words that have evolved freely, words
influenced by Sanskrit, words recently borrowed from Sanskrit, there's
lots of each. Though I suspect the overall situation there is messier.
John.
Ekkehard Dengler
"Antonio Marques" <m....@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:4538cd72$0$19694$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote...
> >>
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>
> >>> (No
> >>> doubt chaga/praga = llaga/plaga; is chata/prata = llanta/planta?.)
> >>
> >> Not quite. Port. "chato" ("annoying") derives from Lat. "platus", as
does
> >> "prato" ("plate"), while "prata" ("silver") corresponds to Sp. "plata".
> >
> > Yes, I realised that as soon as I read Ruud's web-page properly!
> >
> > I was stupid not to think of "plata" in the first place.
>
> I gorfot to point out that the primary meaning of chato is 'flat',
> thence 'boring', and 'annoying' is a shade of the latter.
"Flat" is probably the oldest, but also the least common of the three
meanings.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Nigel Greenwood
John Atkinson wrote:
> Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
> the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
> related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
> and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
> from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
> simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
"milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
Ekkehard Dengler
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
> > the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
> > related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
> > and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
> > from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
> > simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
>
> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
Such pairs abound in Portuguese, too: "lua" ("moon"), "lunar" ("lunar").
Regards,
Ekkehard
John Atkinson
"Nigel Greenwood" <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would
>> be
>> the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being
>> closely
>> related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in
>> Spanish
>> and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate
>> word
>> from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
>> simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
>
> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS
> than
> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
It was indeed. Thanks. Though those particular examples aren't perfect
analogs of the Iberian situation, where both the popular and semilearned
words started the same and only the popular ones changed.
In proto-Slavonic, the latest common ancestor of Russian and OCS, head
was /galva/ (cf Lithuanian <galva>), . In South Slav. (and therefore
in OCS) this changed to /gla:va/. In East Slav., however, it changed
to /galUva/ (where U is a jer), and then to /golova/. So there was
never a time in the direct evolution of Russian when "golova" was
"glava"
Similarly for milk, except it started from PS /melko/ (PIE /melk-/ I
think), with /e/ instead of /a/.
Not sure if those were long or short /a/ and /e/ in Proto-Sl, but the
results would be the same AFAICT -- unless maybe it influences the fact
that stress moves to the first syllable in some cases in <golova'>,
while it stays put in <moloko'> ( I think).
John.
Colin Fine
>
> "Nigel Greenwood" <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>>
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
>>> the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
>>> related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
>>> and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
>>> from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
>>> simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
>>
>> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
>> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
>> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
>> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
>
> It was indeed. Thanks. Though those particular examples aren't perfect
> analogs of the Iberian situation, where both the popular and semilearned
> words started the same and only the popular ones changed.
>
> In proto-Slavonic, the latest common ancestor of Russian and OCS, head
> was /galva/ (cf Lithuanian <galva>), . In South Slav. (and therefore
> in OCS) this changed to /gla:va/. In East Slav., however, it changed
> to /galUva/ (where U is a jer), and then to /golova/. So there was
> never a time in the direct evolution of Russian when "golova" was "glava"
How do names in '-grad' arise then? Different accentuation? Or are they
not echt-Russian?
Colin
António Marques
>>> Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
>>> the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
>>> related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
>>> and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
>>> from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
>>> simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
>> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
>> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
>> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
>> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
>
> Such pairs abound in Portuguese, too: "lua" ("moon"), "lunar" ("lunar").
Though in this particular case, there is a _luar_ 'moonlight' (which
somehow feels - not behaves - like a verb but that's a story for another
time). In fact, there's losts of them. Cf. bocal 'mouthpiece' (boca
<bucca + al <alis), bucal 'mouth-related' (<neo?-latin buccalis).
António Marques
>> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
>> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
>> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
>> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
>
> It was indeed. Thanks. Though those particular examples aren't perfect
> analogs of the Iberian situation, where both the popular and semilearned
> words started the same and only the popular ones changed.
You mean, I think, that they were originally identical in form, rather
than your possible implication that they started off at the same time
and phonetic changes only affected popular words. The reason why there
are (semi-)learned words is chiefly that they were introduced into the
language at different times, latter introductions being spared earlier
phonetic transformations.
There is a handful of words that were kept form phonological change
since Latin it seems, such as _Deus_ (and it is a nominative).
António Marques
> How do names in '-grad' arise then? Different accentuation? Or are they
> not echt-Russian?
Cf. Novgorod ~ Novograd.
Colin Fine
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
>
>>>> Russian might be more like Iberian -- there the semicultismos would be
>>>> the stuff from Old Church Slavonic via the church -- OCS being closely
>>>> related to proto-East Slavonic, there are likely pairs like in Spanish
>>>> and Portuguese, consisting of a popular Russian word and a cognate word
>>>> from OCS which, perhaps, differs only by not having undergone some
>>>> simple sound changes. Is this indeed so?
>>> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
>>> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS than
>>> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
>>> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
>>
>> Such pairs abound in Portuguese, too: "lua" ("moon"), "lunar" ("lunar").
>
> Though in this particular case, there is a _luar_ 'moonlight' (which
> somehow feels - not behaves - like a verb but that's a story for another
> time). In fact, there's losts of them. Cf. bocal 'mouthpiece' (boca
> <bucca + al <alis), bucal 'mouth-related' (<neo?-latin buccalis).
I have encountered 'bocal' in English, meaning the crook for blowing a
bass recorder (though mine is direct-blown). The word is not in Collins
1979 I have by me, but I haven't consulted any other dictionaries.
Colin
John Atkinson
"António Marques" <m....@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:453bdc39$0$19609$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>> If this is the simple request for information I take it to be, the
>>> answer seems to be Yes. Many adjectives are closer in form to OCS
>>> than
>>> are the corresponding nouns: eg mlechnyi (" "lactic" ", cf moloko,
>>> "milk") & glavnyi ("chief, principal", cf golova, "head").
>>
>> It was indeed. Thanks. Though those particular examples aren't
>> perfect analogs of the Iberian situation, where both the popular and
>> semilearned words started the same and only the popular ones changed.
>
> You mean, I think, that they were originally identical in form, rather
> than your possible implication that they started off at the same time
> and phonetic changes only affected popular words. The reason why there
> are (semi-)learned words is chiefly that they were introduced into the
> language at different times, latter introductions being spared earlier
> phonetic transformations.
In Spanish at any rate, there seems to be considerable controversy as to
whether the majority of semilearned words were "later borrowings", or
whether they were always there but the sound changes didn't take place
in certain speech registers (in particular, the higher registers of
those who knew church Latin). In some cases, I suspect the change did
take place, and the re-introduction of the semi-learned form may be a
spelling pronunciation. (Prior to about 1000 AD, that would mean the
Latin spelling, since writing in the vernacular was rare to
nonexistent.)
>
> There is a handful of words that were kept form phonological change
> since Latin it seems, such as _Deus_ (and it is a nominative).
Yes. This is an extreme example of the continuing influence of church
Latin.
John.
John Atkinson
"Colin Fine" <ne...@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote...
I think the latter. Towns that have been around for a long time in E
Slav areas have "-gorod":
Belgorod (white-town)
Novgorod (new-town)
Bolgrad (big-town) is right down in the SW corner, probably originally
South Slav country.
Mirgorod (peace-town), in Ukraine. I'm not sure if this is old
Slavgorod, on the Khazak border, is obviously a recent invention.
Towns in "-grad" are either named after saints (therefore in OCS?):
Petrograd
Pavlograd
Or other Great Men (therefore "learned"?):
Voloshilovgrad
Leningrad
Stalingrad
Or Soviet inventions in traditionally non-East-Slav-speaking areas:
Tselinograd (virgin-soil-town)
Zernograd (grain-town)
Svetlograd (shining-town)
Volgograd (Volga-town)
Krasnograd (red-town) and Kirovograd (Kirov-town) may also fall into
this set. I'm not sure.
Novograd (in Ukraine) doesn't though. Seems to be a definite exception.
Kungrad (in Uzbekhistan) is probably an Uzbekh word, not Russian, at all
(?)
So, the contention that "-grad" is semi-learned sort of makes sense.
But there is a simple alternative that fits the data at least as well,
viz.: "Aim for three or more syllables. If the first morpheme has only
one syllable, use '-gorod', otherwise '-grad'."
Kungrad would be the only apparent exception to this rule.
John.
Nigel Greenwood
Colin Fine wrote:
> António Marques wrote:
> > Though in this particular case, there is a _luar_ 'moonlight' (which
> > somehow feels - not behaves - like a verb but that's a story for another
> > time). In fact, there's losts of them. Cf. bocal 'mouthpiece' (boca
> > <bucca + al <alis), bucal 'mouth-related' (<neo?-latin buccalis).
>
> I have encountered 'bocal' in English, meaning the crook for blowing a
> bass recorder (though mine is direct-blown). The word is not in Collins
> 1979 I have by me, but I haven't consulted any other dictionaries.
There's also the (semi?)-learned form "buccal", which in medical
parlance refers specifically to the cheek. It's used in the sense
"oral" in -- where else? -- Ulysses, describing one of Bloom's erotic
postcards.