Video summary

¿Dónde nació el CASTELLANO realmente?

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas and lessons

  • Questioning a common school narrative: The video challenges the idea that Castilian (“castellano”) originated in La Rioja, typically taught because of the early written evidence found there.
  • Using linguistic comparison as evidence: The speaker argues that the Emilian glosses (often cited as the first Castilian text) do not match key features of later Castilian when compared across specific phonetic and grammatical developments.
  • “First written document” ≠ “origin of the language”: Even if a text is early, it may reflect a different Ibero-Romance variety. The “origin” of a language is not a single place or moment.
  • Proposing a closer alternative: The Emilian glosses are presented as belonging to a neighboring Romance continuum, likely Navarrese–Aragonese / Aragonese / Riojan Romance, not Castilian.
  • Evidence for later or different early Castilian candidates:
    • Cheese News (Cardena/monastery of León region text): suggested as early but more Leonese-Asturian than Castilian.
    • Cartularies of Valpuesta (9th–11th c.): proposed as the earliest clearer written samples associated with what becomes Castilian/Spanish, due to several specific linguistic traits.
  • Languages evolve gradually and continuously: The speaker emphasizes that linguistic change is a slow continuum, making it misleading to pinpoint a language’s birth to a province or century.
  • Terminology is conventional: Dates and labels (e.g., “Romance languages,” “Castilian”) follow political or scholarly conventions rather than exact linguistic boundaries.

Linguistic arguments presented (structured)

1) Emilian glosses: why they don’t “look like” Castilian

The speaker lists “things that don’t add up” by comparing features in the glosses with expected Castilian outcomes:

  • Diphthongization / verb forms

    • Latin third-person singular of to be (EST) should yield “es” in Spanish.
    • Some neighboring languages show different intermediate outcomes due to diphthongization (examples cited: Asturian-Leonese/Aragonese patterns like “mus…”/“is” variants).
    • In the glosses, a diphthongized form appears, which the speaker interprets as evidence against Castilian.

  • Spelling / consonant treatment suggesting a different variety

    • The scribe allegedly chose g to write a sound because orthography wasn’t standardized and he may have copied from other traditions—used as another sign the glosses are not Castilian.

  • Preservation of Latin consonant sequences (FL/PL)

    • Latin FLC/PL are preserved in the glosses where medieval Castilian is expected to show different evolution.
    • Examples (as presented):
      • FLAMMA → medieval Castilian expected “fl-” outcome like “llama,” but the glosses retain FL (contrasting “fl” vs “llama/flame” evolution).
      • CLAMARE and PLEGARE are also used as comparisons where the glosses don’t match Castilian developments at the same stage.

  • Evolution of the consonant cluster AL

    • Latin ALTER / ALTERUM is used as the example.
    • The speaker claims that in western Romance languages (often through accusative forms) AL + consonant evolves in Castilian via steps such as:
      • L + consonant → au → ou → o
    • In the glosses, this expected evolution is said not to occur, implying the text reflects a different linguistic system.

  • Masculine singular article

    • Castilian article: “el”
    • The glosses are described as using “o” (or a standard that becomes “o” in that variety).
    • The speaker argues Castilian almost never used “or/o” in standard form historically (claiming it is extremely rare).

  • Voicing of intervocalic stops (P, T, K)

    • In Spanish, Latin P/T/K between vowels typically become voiced (B/D/G).
    • The glosses are said to preserve T in some positions where Castilian would show D (examples like forms derived from ADIUTARE → expected “ayuda” vs gloss forms like “ayutorio/salvatore” patterns).

  • Conclusion on Emilian glosses’ language

    • The speaker states the debate outcome: the glosses are not written in Castilian, even if they share many Romance traits with it.
    • The remaining question is whether the glosses reflect Aragonese vs Navarrese—i.e., whether these were dialects of one language or two different languages (with an implied trend toward separation).

2) “Cheese News” (León area) as a possible early candidate

  • Claims about dating and style

    • It’s from the 10th century.
    • It is highly Latinized, making it hard to separate “Latin” from “early Romance.”

  • Why it’s considered more Leonese-Asturian

    • The text’s region is argued to be inside León.
    • A key supporting word:
      • BACILLAR (“vineyard group”) is described as used almost exclusively in provinces like León, Salamanca, Zamora, not as generally Castilian.

  • Result

    • The monk’s spoken language is argued not to have ended up as Castilian, but rather Asturian-Leonese.

3) Cartularies of Valpuesta: presented as the first clearer Castilian-like writing

  • What they are

    • Documents from the 9th to the 11th centuries.
    • Written in Latin, but copied by monks with limited Latin knowledge, producing Latin mixed with Romance features.
    • The speaker emphasizes that this kind of in-between language matches the period when Romance features were emerging.

  • Specific linguistic traits claimed to align with Castilian/Spanish

    • Diphthongization of Latin short e and o
      • Example: PELLIS → pielle → connects to later Spanish piel-type outcomes.
    • Loss of final -e and resulting phonotactics
      • The speaker argues about why palatal sounds at word end aren’t maintained like in Catalan; an analogy leads to the observed evolution.
    • Voicing of intervocalic stops
      • Latin P/T/K between vowels become B/D/G, with examples like:
        • CAPITIA → “head” forms analogous to Spanish outcomes.
    • Verb forms similar to modern Spanish
      • Forms described as matching modern Spanish patterns (examples given like “fitso” related to “hizo/was” pattern; and “donated/goes/are” parallels).
    • Early status of certain consonants
      • The speaker notes that the sound corresponding to later Z is not yet present in the same way (described as shifting later), influencing spellings.
    • F → aspiration → loss leading to modern “h”
      • Explains why an H exists in modern spelling despite vanished pronunciation.
    • Reduction of falling diphthongs
      • Example: carrera vs older forms like carreira, linked to how colloquial Latin evolved and to residual street-name usage.
    • Palatalization strategy for writing “ch”
      • Example town name: Fontecha.
      • Since Latin didn’t have a direct “ch” sound representation, the scribe uses a workaround:
        • writes something like “gi + vowel” (because that sequence approximates the needed sound, compared conceptually to how other Romance languages did similar transcription issues).

  • Where they were produced

    • In the Valpuesta monastery, in Burgos, near Álava.
    • The speaker adds a geographic argument: the area is within a plausible region for where Castilian “emerged” within the broader northern/Castilian corridor.

Methodology used (as an approach described by the speaker)

  • Collect early texts often claimed as “first Castilian.”
  • Compare linguistic “expected Castilian outcomes” (sound changes, articles, diphthongs, consonant clusters, intervocalic voicing).
  • Match or mismatch those outcomes to determine whether the text aligns with Castilian development.
  • Use regional vocabulary clues when linguistic outcomes are ambiguous (e.g., terms tied to León provinces).
  • Interpret writing evidence cautiously:
    • writing is more conservative than speech,
    • scribes can Latinize,
    • orthography and standardization are uneven,
    • and a text’s “variety” may differ from later standard Castilian.

Speakers / sources featured (as mentioned)

  • The speaker/host: “me” / “my” (the video narrator; no personal name provided in the subtitles).
  • Nebrija Institute of Professional Competencies: institution sponsoring course/certificate offer.
  • RAE (Real Academia Española): Spanish dictionary referenced (“dictionary of the Spanish language of the RAE”).
  • Ray: mentioned as a source/authority (“it’s not me saying this, Ray is…”; last name not provided).
  • Carlos: implied by “Thanks to a king…” but the reference appears incomplete in the subtitles; no clear source named beyond “a king.”

Original video