Hmmm… You know, I think I’ll do a little more research on that linguistic phenomenon, because I suspect that elision is actually less in Spanish than in Latin or Italian. One thing, however, seems suspicious about that article, namely, that we put a “soft vowel” between two consonants. The example of AGuRUPADO seems to me to be a regionalism, because I never heard it pronounced that way (and I also don’t say GeRACIAS or GaRACIAS, but GRACIAS). But, again, I think I’d like to look into that further, as it could be I’m just not that self-aware of my own language.
Meanwhile, I have been looking for nasalization of vowels in Romance languages. The evidence is strong in French and Portuguese but weak for Italian and Spanish (both of which are closer to Latin than French or Portuguese). That suggests nasalization in French and Portuguese coming from a different direction and late, and, indeed, you find research talking about Catalan, Celtic, Polish and Danish influence in nasalization, not Classical Latin influence.
Intereâ, testimonia sonoritatis vocalium nasalis in linguis Romanicis inveniebam. Pluria sunt indicia linguis Gallaico-Lusitanis, sed rara Hispanicâ Italicâque (quae posterae propiùs linguae latinae sunt similes). Quod indicit ut, linguis Gallaico-Lusitanis, sonoritas vocalium nasalis alterâ directione vel modo quà m è Latino Classico veniret et serò, --exempli gratiâ, e linguâ Catalanâ, Celticâ, Polonicâ, Danicâ et caeteris de investigationibus quibusdam.
But the nasalization is intimately tied to inflected endings and to a case system, both of which having been dropped in the Romance languages (save Romanian). The evidence, in fact, for the nasalization in Latin, is that the ‘-m’ was so easily dropped in Romance.
