A King changed the pronunciation of Z and C?

[rpgray]

Someone told me that the reason that “z” and “c” are pronounced differently in Spain than in Latin America is because there was a Spanish King who had a lisp and people in Spain mimicked his pronunciation of these letters. Does anyone have more information on this? Which King was it? Are there regions of Castilian-Speaking Spain where these letters are pronounced more like they are in Latin America? How about the reverse? Is there somewhere in Latin America where these letters are pronounced like they are in Contemporary Castilian-speaking Spain?

Thanks,

rpg

[CrOtALiTo]

At least here in my country the Z and the C sound same.

Zeta, CE

Sincerely yours.

[JPablo]

The LEGEND of the Spanish King seems to be quite widespread in the US. It is a myth. And just that. It is a fact that in any language, the language spoken in the court is what others, seeking higher status, try to imitate. That happens with French, with Spanish, and any other language that I know. There is a "high" standard and a "low" standard. (Yet, it would be more difficult for you to learn one of the Southerner-slang accent from Spain, than the "standard" Castilian. Same way I would have a real hard time learning cockney...)

The majority of Latin American accent is very similar to the accent of Sevilla, and that zone of the South of Spain, the place where everyone going to the Americas would have to depart from... (and also spend 1 year or so, I believe, before leaving.) This is the Andalusian 'dialect' of the Spanish. There are 2 phenomena, "seseo" and "ceceo". Probably there is already threads on this.

The 'ceceo' is to pronounce the "s" sound as "th". casa [house] = [catha] = caza [hunting]

The 'seseo' is to pronunce the "th" sound as "s". Cerveza [Therbetha] said as [servesa] caza [hunting] pronounced [casa].

In few words, there are places in the South of Spain where you have "seseo" (Western part of Andalucía) and others where you have "ceceo" (East part of Andalucía)

I am writing from memory, but Rafael Lapesa, in his book HISTORIA DEL ESPAÑOL, gives ample data on how this evolved.

I believe that some parts of Colombia (?) may have a similar accent to the Peninsular Castilian, probably in Bogotá. Argentina, has its own very accent, and in the wide extent of Mexico, Central and South America, there are enough different accents so as to drive any linguist up the wall... :rolleyes:

I hope I gave you the answers you were looking for. Otherwise, if any confusion, let me know and I'll clarify... :)

[rpgray]

¡Muchas gracias!:)

[JPablo]

¡De nada! ¡Un placer! :)

[irmamar]

Maybe you're referring to Alfonso X, el Sabio, who worked hard to get a linguistic unification. However, neither a king nor the RAE are able to change the people's pronunciation. Alfonso X wrote in Castilian as it was spoken, although some phonemes have two ways of writing (such as z and c). :)

[JPablo]

Well, Alfonso X, el Sabio, (the Wise, or the Learned) has a good entry in Wikipedia. I remember him because he got a lot of the scientific and philosophical data from the Arabs (and from Greece, through the Arabic) into "Castilian". "La Escuela de Traductores de Toledo" was part of his creation, and "Jewish, Romance, Latin, and Arabic tongues got translated... they had a Tomisimus-Tomisum forum... [no, no, I am inventing now...] ;)
In Wikipedia says, "He surrounded himself with mostly Jewish translators who rendered Arabic scientific texts into Castilian at Toledo."
At any rate, in the 1200s Castilian was in its infancy... but many of the phonetic characteristics of today's Castilian were starting to 'consolidate'. I believe the basque (euskera) phonetics was a key factor to make Castilian more different than other "romance languages". (I.e., Portuguese and Catalan have more similarities than Castilian and these two languages...) (I'll take a look at my volume by Lapesa, and will refresh this data... so I can write with his usually plausible theories fresh in my mind...) :)

[explorator]

The story as I heard it, it is quite different. In my version, the seseist king was Philip the Second of Spain. Probably you'll remember him because he ordered to buid an Armada to conquer Great Britain. Well, in spite of all, inside Spain, he became into a very loved and admired King and it is said that the people started to imitate his special way of pronunciation. This would have been the cause of seseism in the Spanish-American pronunciation. Anyway, today this story is considered just a legend and it is not accepted as a true explanation of that fact.

[irmamar]

"Yo envié mis naves a luchar contra los hombres, no contra los elementos". Felipe II.

Well, it is said that Felipe II was not good at spelling at all. ;)

[ookami]

Imagine if Spain would have had (hubiera tenido?) a stammering or a lame king, or something like that. Or if instead of "Alfonso the Wise", the king was "Catalina the Gorgeous", and the same thing happened. I would be living in Spain for sure! :P

[pjt33]

Imagine if Spain would have had (hubiera tenido?) a stammering or a lame king, or something like that. Or if instead of "Alfonso the Wise", the monarch was "Catalina the Gorgeous", and the same thing happened. I would be living in Spain for sure! :P
"King" se puede usar únicamente para monarcas varones.

[hermit]

"Hubiera tenido" = "had had" in this context.

Example: : "If he had had the money, he would have bought the car;
if he had bought the car, he would have had a vehicle that same day."

"Si hubiera tenido el dinero, habría comprado el coche; si hubiera comprado
el coche, habría tenido un vehículo el mismo día."

(Igualmente, favor de corregir mi castellano)

[pjt33]

"Hubiera tenido" = "had had" in this context.
There appear to be common dialects of en-us which use the conditional for the condition as well as the consequent; here the conditional perfect is unremarkable although in en-gb (and, judging from your reaction, en-ca) it would be the pluperfect.

[CrOtALiTo]

"Hubiera tenido" = "had had" in this context.

Example: : "If he had had the money, he would have bought the car;
if he had bought the car, he would have had a vehicle that same day."

"Si hubiera tenido el dinero, habría comprado el coche;
Si hubiera comprado el coche, habría tenido un vehículo el mismo día."


(Igualmente, favor de corregir mi castellano)


Hello Hermit.

I saw your post and I can see that everything is right.
Only I set the phrase at its place.

Greetings.

[ookami]

There appear to be common dialects of en-us which use the conditional for the condition as well as the consequent; here the conditional perfect is unremarkable although in en-gb (and, judging from your reaction, en-ca) it would be the pluperfect.
Es decir, ¿mi opción estaría bien en Br y la de hermit sería la más común en Us?

Gracias por sendas colaboraciones.

[irmamar]

Imagine if Spain would have had (hubiera tenido?) a stammering or a lame king, or something like that. Or if instead of "Alfonso the Wise", the king was "Catalina the Gorgeous", and the same thing happened. I would be living in Spain for sure! :P

Why would you, Ookami? :thinking: :)

And if I told you the kind of kings and queens we have had... :eek: :D

[pjt33]

Es decir, ¿mi opción estaría bien en Br y la de hermit sería la más común en Us?
Al revés.

[ookami]

Why would you, Ookami? :thinking: :)

And if I told you the kind of kings and queens we have had... :eek: :D

You ought me that chat (siempre quise usar ese verbo)

Al revés.

Crystal clear, thank you very much:thumbsup:

[flamencoguy]

I've also heard the myth about the lisping king and been the butt of many a joke about sounding homosexual when speaking in the peninsular dialect. According to David Pharies in A Brief History of The Spanish Language, the myth is totally false. The z/c sounding like [th] was happening before Philip II came to power. Apparently it developed from several different sounds coming down through Latin and the early Romance Languages. Pharies also uses a lot of LaPesa's work in his book. It's a great read.

Going off of what Jpablo said about the different types of Spanish spoken in the Americas, I've heard a theory that says the first regions explored in the Americas, such as rivers, coasts, and islands, have a Spanish that closely resembles that of Andalucia where many of the explorers/sailors came from. However, the inland areas and capital cities have a Spanish that more closely resembles that of Madrid, since aristocrats and nobility were sent to run them and settlers from all parts of Spain came once the coastal/river areas were established.

A lot of the Caribbean Spanish sounds an awful lot like Andalusian Spanish, just without the zeta [th] sound, but I haven't spoken with enough South American folks of different geographic areas to know if that theory of dialect development holds true. I can't cite specific examples, but I do feel like I've heard a little bit of the z/c [th] in a couple cases from Argentinians or Columbians a couple times, but that usage is very rare and probably only for specific words in specific instances...