Linguistically, why pez > pescado
I am wondering about the inconsistency of this inflection:
- luz > luces
- cruz > cruces
- lápiz > lápices
BUT pez > pescado (not the s in place of z) why not: pezcado?
14 Answers
The question is, why does the z in pez change to an s in pezcado. Unlike the other examples, there is no need for a change. AND, if you change it to an s, it changes it's pronunciation in Castillian Spanish.
I think that you may be working with a faulty supposition here. The introduction and development of these words in the Spanish lexicon cannot be traced back to a single paradigm. I think that the best way to approach this topic might be to comment on three distinct phenomena: The inherited patterns of noun pluralization; the introduction and derivation of certain noun/verb pairs; and the phonetic development of Spanish over time.
Inherited Patterns of Pluralization
In many cases, this pattern of pluralization can be traced back to Latin. Many third declension Latin nouns, from which Spanish derives many of these words, typically followed a similar pattern of pluralization whereby the nominative singular ending would be pluralized by changing the ending to -c?s. Of this type, there are at least three patterns pertinent to our discussion:
Pattern 1
In nouns of this group, the singular nominative ending -x would be replaced with the plural ending -c?s:
| Spanish | Latin Singular | Latin Plural |
| cruz | crux | cruc?s |
| luz | l?x | l?c?s |
| nuez | nux | nuc?s |
| lombriz | lombrix | lombrices |
| juez | i?dex | i?dic?s |
| voz | v?x | v?c?s |
| paz | p?x | p?c?s |
Pattern 2:
Following a similar paradigm are the Spanish words "vez" and "pez," the former of which had no singular nominative form in Latin (but did have a singular genitive form "vicis," from which the Spanish word appears to have been derived). In this case the pluralization pattern is similar to that described above.
| Spanish | Latin Singular | Latin Plural |
| vez | vicis (gen.) | vic?s |
| pez | piscis | pisc?s |
Pattern 3:
Finally, you have the Spanish word "lápiz," also derived from a third declension Latin noun, "lapis." In this case, the word lapis was pluralized in Latin by exchanging the final -s ending for -d?s
| Spanish | Latin Singular | Latin Plural |
| lápiz | lapis | lapid?s |
Noun-Verb Pairs and their Derivations
Of the nouns originally listed (pez, lápiz, cruz, luz), each has a corresponding verb which shares a similar root (pescar, lapizar, cruzar, lucir). However, this does not mean that each verb entered the Spanish language by the same route. If we examine more closely the derivation of each of these word pairs, we will find that some verb forms were inherited directly from Latin; whereas, others were derived from Spanish nouns already in the Spanish lexicon.
Spanish Verbs Derived from Spanish Nouns:
As was mentioned earlier, the Spanish nouns pez, lápiz, cruz and luz all originated in Latin third declension nouns. Of these, neither lápiz (lapis) nor cruz (crux) had a corresponding Latin verb form that was passed on to Spanish. Instead, the verbs "cruzar" and "lapizar" were formed directly from the Spanish noun forms by the addition of the -ar ending.
?lápiz + -ar ? lapizar (to draw or mark lead, etc)
?cruz + -ar ? cruzar (to cross)
Spanish Verbs Derived Directly from Latin:
Distinct from those verbs mentioned above, verbs like "lucir (l?c?re)," "juzgar (iudic?re)" and "pescar (pisc?r?)" already had established Latin verb forms which were passed directly through the disfiguring lens of Vulgar Latin to Spanish (i.e. these words were inherited by way of the dialectic Latin variants characteristic of early Castellano)
It might be mentioned that the word "pescado" is likewise passed down directly from the perfect active participle of the verb Latin verb pisc?r?:
Phonetic Developments
From here, we can focus our attention directly on the two which were giving you the most problems: pez and pescado. As has already been mentioned, the past participle "pescado" was passed down from the Latin participle
piscatus
The manner in which this word was molded to form the current Spanish word "pescado" involved three phonetic processes:
(1).i ? e: As was true of most varieties of Vulgar Latin, the near-close vowel ? became more open and merged with the long vowel ?
(2). t ? d: Over time, the /t/ of the Latin piscatus became [ð] (An example of diachronic lenition).
(3). -um ? -o: This change actually involves two modifications to spoken Latin. First, suppression of the final consonant -m (apocope), a phenomenon which was thought to have been common even in classical Latin, combined with the lowering of the /u/ sound to /o/ and led to the contemporary Spanish pronunciation.
From here we can examine the phonetic changes that occurred with the noun
piscis.
(1).i ? e: As we have already witnessed, it was common in Vulgar Latin for the short ? to become more open, merging with the long vowel ?
(2). scis ? ?is ? ?: In early Spanish, when the consonant cluster /sc/ was followed by an e or an i the sound became either an inter-dental fricative /?/ or a voiceless alveolar fricative /s/. This was a result of the phonemic reduction that was seen in Old Spanish in which (and this is a bit of an oversimplification) the letters ç (before a, o and u), c (before i and e) and z (before i or e), representing the voiceless and voiced alveolar affricatives ([ts] and [dz], respectively), began to merge into the single phoneme [ts]. This phoneme itself would undergo further neutralization (in terms of both manner of articulation and voicing), eventually forming (in many areas of Spain) the voiceless inter-dental fricative /?/.
It is safe to say that the (relevant) spelling conventions that were later established by the RAE were largely influenced by these phonemic developments. The letter ç, for example, fell into disuse as it merged with the letter "z." By the same token, words which were formerly written with a "zi" or "ze" have been replaced with either "ci" or "ce."
You're mixing apples and oranges.
Your first examples are of how to say those items in plural. In that case, pez is consistent....
pez -- peces
Pescado is the past participle of the verb pescar. It's also the word you need to order fish off the menu.
A pez on your plate has been "pescado" - fished.
Espero que te sirva.
In Spanish the phoneme /s/ is represented by "z" when it comes before the vowels "a" and "o", and by "c" when it comes before the vowel "e". For example, in the infinitive "cruzar" the "s" sound is represented by "z" because an "a" follows it. If this verb is conjugated to "crucé" the "s" sound is represented by "c" because of the "e" that follows. When your first three examples are pluralized the vowel "e" comes after the "s" sound so the "z" changes to "c". In "pescado" the "s" is followed by the consonant "c" so no change occurs.
I believe pez is usually used for live fish and pescado for the fish we eat.
That's the way I learned it, as well.
The plural of "pez" is "peces":
Hay muchos peces en el océano.
Sorry, but you guys are completely missing the point of my question! I totally understand that pez is live fish and pescado is fish for cooking and eating. The question is, why does the z in pez change to an s in pezcado. Unlike the other examples, there is no need for a change. AND, if you change it to an s, it changes it's pronunciation in Castillian Spanish. Do you understand my queston now?
I don't see how pez and pescado have anything to do with it. (I don't see an inconsistency, but I understand your question)
Your 3 examples are from a rule for forming plurals of nouns ending in z. It would pertain to pez and peces; not to pez and pescado. You are asking why something doesn't follow a pattern that it has nothing to do with.
I believe pez is usually used for live fish and pescado for the fish we eat. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Incidentally British Sign language has two distinct signs for fish too.
This is going too deep and getting no-where. The original poster wont accept that some things are as they are for no apparent reason and there is no scientific explanation.
Estoy aburrida
pez is the fish thats still alive. peces is the plural form of pez. pescado is the dead fish that you eat
I think there may be a typo here - it's not pezcado - it's pescado, Pez become plural peces and are alive fish in the sea, when it's dead and on our plates it becomes pescado - and that's Spanish - as they say!
Este pez es viejo ahora, necesitamos a cocinar y comer este pescado. 
Thats just the way Spanish phonetics is! It is very rare to see a "z" followed by a consonant, especially if it isn't in the end of a word. In fact, as you mentioned in your comment, the only time that I know this occurs is with verb forms whose infinitives end in "-cer". Conocer, agradecer, merecer, obedecer, etc.
Certainly not.
Certainly so.
Even Michel Thomas, a polyglot linguist, explains that things have changed over time simply because they were too difficult to say.
Sorry, but you guys are completely missing the point of my question! I totally understand that pez is live fish and pescado is fish for cooking and eating. The question is, why does the z in pez change to an s in pezcado. Unlike the other examples, there is no need for a change. AND, if you change it to an s, it changes it's pronunciation in Castillian Spanish. Do you understand my question now?
Probably for ease of pronunciation, you know. Because in Spain, the "z" is pronounced differently. Changing it to an "s" no doubt makes it easier for them.
