Talk:echar

Spanish

Hi @El Mexicano.

You do have a point about it being possible, phonologically speaking, for Spanish echar to reflect jactāre directly, without passage via the form *jectāre. Coromines & Pascual mention this but argue, in the end, for *jectāre on the following grounds:

- Comparison with outcomes from any other branch of Romance (Italian gettare, etc.)

- The fact that Aragonese has the conjugation yeta, with diphthongization.

They also point out the existence of the form ⟨zetare⟩ in the archaic Glosas Silenses. If the verb came directly from Latin jactāre, we would expect it to still show a diphthong *⟨ai⟩ at this stage. Compare the following forms, which are found in the same glosses:

⟨adduitos⟩ = Latin adductōs, ~Spanish duchos

⟨laiscare, laiscaret⟩ (several times) = Latin laxāre, laxāret, Spanish dejar, dejare

⟨streita⟩ = Latin strĭcta, Spanish estrecha

Compare also the following, taken from the similar Glosas Emilianenses:

⟨lebantai⟩ = Latin *levantā(v)ī, Spanish levanté

⟨laisces⟩ = Latin laxēs, Spanish dejes

The FEW is in agreement with Coromines & Pascual, stating that all Romance forms originated in jectare, which is apparently attested. Nicodene (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't know about the other Romance forms. However, the Spanish outcome of iactāre would have been "echar" even if we didn't suppose a vulgar form *iectāre. The explanation is that -CT- gives primitively -jt- in all Occidental Romance varieties from Lombard to Portuguese. Then the evolution follows *[-ajt-] > [-ejt-] > *[-ec-] and finally -etʃ- in Spanish. El Mexicano (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Also compare factum > feito, hecho; or lactem > leite, leche. Nobody has supposed forms like *fectum or *lectem. El Mexicano (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course they haven't. Because none of the above arguments can be made in favour of a supposed *fectum, nor *lectem. Nicodene (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)