| Part ofa series on |
| Indo-European topics |
|---|
 |
Extant Extinct Reconstructed Hypothetical
Grammar Other |
Archaeology Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Bronze Age Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe
South Asia Iron Age Europe Caucasus Central Asia India |
Peoples and societies Bronze Age Iron AgeIndo-Aryans Iranians Nuristanis East Asia Europe Middle Ages Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian |
Religion and mythology |
 Category |
Languages of theIndo-European family are classified as eithercentum languages orsatem languages according to how thedorsal consonants (sounds of "K", "G" and "Y" type) of the reconstructedProto-Indo-European language (PIE) developed. An example of the different developments is provided by the words for "hundred" found in the earlyattestedIndo-European languages (which is where the two branches get their names). In centum languages, they typically began with a/k/ sound (Latincentum was pronounced with initial /k/), but in satem languages, they often began with/s/ (the examplesatem comes from theAvestan language ofZoroastrian scripture).
The table below shows the traditional reconstruction of the PIE dorsal consonants, with three series, but according tosome more recent theories there may actually have been only two series or three series with different pronunciations from those traditionally ascribed. In centum languages, thepalatovelars, which included the initial consonant of the "hundred" root, merged with the plain velars. In satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars.[1]
| *kʷ | *gʷ | *gʷʰ | labiovelars | Merged insatem languages | |
| Merged incentum languages | *k | *g | *gʰ | plain velars | |
| *ḱ | *ǵ | *ǵʰ | palatovelars | Assibilated insatem languages |
The centum–satem division forms anisogloss insynchronic descriptions of Indo-European languages. It is no longer thought that the PIE language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived. Such a division is made particularly unlikely by the discovery that while the satem group lies generally to the east and the centum group to the west, the most eastward of the known IE language branches,Tocharian, is centum.[2]
The centum languages of the Indo-European family are the "western" branches:Hellenic,Celtic,Italic andGermanic. They merged PIE palatovelars and plain velars, yielding plain velars (k, g, gh) only ("centumisation"), but retained the labiovelars as a distinct set.[1]
TheAnatolian branch probably falls outside the centum–satem division; for instance, theLuwian language indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately inProto-Anatolian.[3]The centumisation observed inHittite is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian into separate languages.[4] However,Craig Melchertproposes that proto-Anatolian is indeed a centum language.
WhileTocharian is generally regarded as a centum language,[5] it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal series (originally nine separate consonants) into a single phoneme,*k. According to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model.[6] However, as Tocharian has replaced some PIE labiovelars with the labiovelar-like, non-original sequence*ku, it has been proposed that labiovelars remained distinct inProto-Tocharian, which would place Tocharian in the centum group (assuming that Proto-Tocharian lost palatovelars while labiovelars were still phonemically distinct).[5]
In the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars. For example, in the PIE numeral*ḱm̥tóm 'hundred', the initial palatovelar*ḱ became a plain velar /k/, as in Latincentum (originally pronounced with /k/, although most modern descendants of Latin have asibilant there),Greek(he)katon,Welshcant,Tocharian Bkante. In theGermanic languages, the /k/ developed regularly byGrimm's law to become /h/, as in Old Englishhund(red).
Centum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row (*kʷ,*gʷ,*gʷʰ) and the plain velars. Historically, it was unclear whether the labiovelar row represented an innovation by a process of labialisation, or whether it was inherited from the parent language (but lost in the satem branches); current mainstream opinion favours the latter possibility. Labiovelars as single phonemes (for example,/kʷ/) as opposed to biphonemes (for example,/kw/) are attested in Greek (theLinear Bq- series), Italic (Latin⟨qu⟩), Germanic (Gothichwair⟨ƕ⟩ andqairþra⟨q⟩) and Celtic (Oghamceirt⟨Q⟩) (in the so-calledP-Celtic languages/kʷ/ developed into /p/; a similar development took place in theOsco-Umbrian branch of Italic and sometimesin Greek and Germanic). Theboukólos rule, however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to*u or*w.
The centum–satem division refers to the development of the dorsal series of sounds only at the time of the earliest separation of PIE into theproto-languages of its individual daughter branches; it does not apply to any later analogous developments within any branch. For example, the palatalization ofLatin/k/ to/t͡ʃ/ or/t͡s/ (often later/s/) in someRomance languages (which means that modernFrench andSpanishcent andcien are pronounced with initial/s/ and/θ/ respectively) is satem-like, as is the merger of*kʷ with*k in theGaelic languages; such later changes do not affect the classification of the languages as centum.
Linguist Wolfgang P. Schmid argued that someproto-languages likeProto-Baltic were initially centum, but gradually became satem due to their exposure to the latter.[7]
The satem languages belong to the Eastern sub-families, especiallyIndo-Iranian andBalto-Slavic (but notTocharian), with Indo-Iranian being the major Asian branch and Balto-Slavic the major Eurasian branch of the satem group. It lost the labial element of PIE labiovelars and merged them with plain velars, but the palatovelars remained distinct and typically came to be realised assibilants.[8] That set of developments, particularly theassibilation of palatovelars, is referred to assatemisation.
In the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typicallyfricative oraffricate consonants, articulated further forward in the mouth. For example, thePIE root*ḱm̥tóm, "hundred", the initial palatovelar normally became asibilant [s] or [ʃ], as inAvestansatem,Persiansad,Sanskritśatam,sto in all modernSlavic languages,Old Church Slavonicsъto,Latviansimts,Lithuanianšimtas (Lithuanian is between Centum and Satem languages). Another example is the Slavic prefixsъ(n)- ("with"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, asco(n)-;conjoin is cognate with Russiansoyuz ("union")[citation needed]. An [s] is found for PIE*ḱ in such languages asLatvian,Avestan,Russian andArmenian, butLithuanian andSanskrit have[ʃ] (š in Lithuanian,ś in Sanskrit transcriptions). For more reflexes, see thephonetic correspondences section below; note also the effect of theruki sound law.
"Incomplete satemisation" may also be evidenced by remnants of labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic, including Lithuanianungurys "eel" <*angʷi- anddygus "pointy" <*dʰeigʷ-. A few examples are also claimed in Indo-Iranian, such as Sanskritguru "heavy" <*gʷer-,kulam "herd" <*kʷel-, but they may instead be secondary developments, as in the case ofkuru "make" <*kʷer- in which it is clear that theku- group arose inpost-Rigvedic language. It is also asserted that in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonant consonants (denoted by /R/) become /iR/ after plain velars but /uR/ after labiovelars.[citation needed]
Some linguists argue that theAlbanian[9] andArmenian[citation needed] branches are also to be classified as satem,[10] whereas other linguists argue that they show evidence of separate treatment of all three dorsal consonant rows and so may not have merged the labiovelars with the plain velars, unlike the canonical satem branches.
Assibilation of velars in certain phonetic environments is a common phenomenon in language development. Consequently, it is sometimes hard to establish firmly the languages that were part of the original satem diffusion and the ones affected by secondary assibilation later. While extensive documentation of Latin and Old Swedish, for example, shows that the assibilation found in French andSwedish were later developments, there are not enough records of the extinctDacian andThracian languages to settle conclusively when their satem-like features originated.
InArmenian, some assert that /kʷ/ is distinguishable from /k/ before front vowels.[11] Martin Macak (2018) asserts that the merger of *kʷ and *k occurred "within the history of Proto-Armenian itself".[12]
InAlbanian, the three original dorsal rows have remained distinguishable when before historic front vowels.[13][14][15] Labiovelars are for the most part differentiated from all other Indo-European velar series before front vowels (where they developed intos andz ultimately), but they merge with the "pure" (back) velars elsewhere.[13] The palatal velar series, consisting of PIE *ḱ and the merged *ģ andģʰ, usually developed intoth anddh, but were depalatalized to merge with the back velars when in contact withsonorants.[13] Because the original PIE tripartite distinction between dorsals is preserved in such reflexes, Demiraj argues Albanian is therefore to be considered, like Luwian, neither centum nor satem but at the same time it has a "satem-like" realization of the palatal dorsals in most cases.[14] Thus PIE *ḱ, *kʷ and *k becometh (Alb.thom "I say" < PIE*ḱeHsmi),s (Alb.si "how" < PIE.*kʷih1, cf. Latinquī), andq (/c/:pleq "elderly" < *plak-i < PIE*plh2-ko-), respectively.[16]
August Schleicher, an early Indo-Europeanist, in Part I, "Phonology", of his major work, the 1871Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language, published a table of originalmomentane Laute, or "stops", which has only a single velar series (Reihe), *k, *g, *gʰ, under the name ofGutturalen.[17][18] He identifies four palatals (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) but hypothesises that they came from the gutturals along with the nasal *ń and the spirant *ç.[19]
Karl Brugmann, in his 1886 workOutline of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language (abbreviatedGrundriss), promotes the palatals to the original language, recognising two stores ofExplosivae, or "stops", the palatal (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) and the velar(*k, *g, *kʰ, *gʰ),[20] each of which wassimplified to three articulations even in the same work.[21] In the same work, Brugmann notices amongdie velaren Verschlusslaute, "the velar stops", a major contrast betweenreflexes of the same words in differentdaughter languages. In some, the velar is marked with a "u-articulation", which he terms a "labialization", in accordance with the prevailing theory that the labiovelars were velars labialised by combination with au at some later time and were not among the original consonants. He thus divides languages into "the language group with labialization" and "the language group without labialization",[22] which basically correspond to what would later be termed the centum and satem groups:[23]
For words and groups of words, which do not appear in any language with labialized velar-sound [the "pure velars"], it must for the present be left undecided whether they ever had the u-afterclap.
The doubt introduced in that passage suggests he already suspected the "afterclap"u was not that but was part of an original sound.
In 1890, Peter von Bradke publishedConcerning Method and Conclusions of Aryan (Indogermanic) Studies, in which he identified the same division, as did Brugmann, but he defined it in a different way. He said that the original Indo-Europeans had two kinds of "guttural sounds", the "guttural or velar, and palatal series", each of which were aspirated and unaspirated. The velars were to be viewed as gutturals in a "narrow sense". They were a "pure K-sound". Palatals were "frequently with subsequent labialization". The latter distinction led him to divide the "palatal series" into a "group as fricative" (Spirant) and a "pure K-sound", typified by the wordssatem andcentum respectively.[24] Later in the book[25] he speaks of an original "centum group", from which on the north of the Black and Caspian Seas the "satem tribes" dissimilated among the "nomadic peoples" or "steppe peoples", distinguished by further palatalization of the palatal gutturals.
By the 1897 edition ofGrundriss, Brugmann (andDelbrück) had adopted Von Bradke's view: "The Proto-Indo-European palatals ... appear in Greek, Italic, Celtic and Germanic as a rule as K-sounds, as opposed to in Aryan, Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic,Phrygian and Thracian ... for the most part sibilants."[26]
There was no more mention of labialized and non-labialized language groups after Brugmann changed his mind regarding the labialized velars. The labio-velars now appeared under that name as one of the five series ofstop consonants (Explosivae), comprising the "labial stops", thedental stops", the "palatal stops", the "purely velar stops", and the "labiovelar stops". It was Brugmann who pointed out that labiovelars had merged into the velars in the satem group,[27] accounting for the coincidence of the discarded non-labialized group with thesatem group.
When von Bradke first published his definition of the centum and satem sound changes, he viewed his classification as "the oldest perceivable division" in Indo-European, which he elucidated as "a division between eastern and western cultural provinces" (Kulturkreise).[28] The proposed split was undermined by the decipherment ofHittite andTocharian in the early 20th century. Both languages show nosatem-likeassibilation in spite of being located in the satem area.[29]
The proposedphylogenetic division of Indo-European into satem and centum "sub-families" was further weakened by the identification of other Indo-Europeanisoglosses running across the centum–satem boundary, some of which seemed of equal or greater importance in the development of daughter languages.[30] Consequently, since the early 20th century at least, the centum–satem isogloss has been considered an earlyareal phenomenon rather than a true phylogenetic division of daughter languages.
The actual pronunciation of the velar series in PIE is not certain. One current idea is that the "palatovelars" were in fact simple velars*[k],*[ɡ],*[ɡʰ], and the "plain velars" were pronounced farther back, perhaps asuvular consonants:*[q],*[ɢ],*[ɢʰ].[31] If labiovelars were justlabialized forms of the "plain velars", they would have been pronounced*[qʷ],*[ɢʷ],*[ɢʷʰ] but the pronunciation of the labiovelars as*[kʷ],*[gʷ],*[gʷʰ] would still be possible in uvular theory, if the satem languages first shifted the "palatovelars" then later merged the "plain velars" and "labiovelars".The uvular theory is supported by the following evidence.
On the above interpretation, the split between the centum and satem groups would not have been a straightforward loss of an articulatory feature (palatalization or labialization). Instead, the uvulars*q,*ɢ,*ɢʰ (the "plain velars" of the traditional reconstruction) would have been fronted to velars across all branches. In the satem languages, it caused achain shift, and the existing velars (traditionally "palatovelars") were shifted further forward to avoid a merger, becoming palatal:/k/ >/c/;/q/ >/k/. In the centum languages, no chain shift occurred, and the uvulars merged into the velars. The delabialisation in the satem languages would have occurred later, in a separate stage (or not at all in the case of Albanian).
Related to the uvular theory is theglottalic theory. Both these theories have some support if PIE was spoken near the Caucasus, where both uvular and glottal consonants are common and many languages have a paucity of distinctive vowels.
The presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language has been the mainstream hypothesis since at least the mid-20th century. There remain, however, several alternative proposals with just two rows in the parent language, which describe either "satemisation" or "centumisation", as the emergence of a new phonematic category rather than the disappearance of an inherited one.
Antoine Meillet (1937) proposed that the original rows were the labiovelars and palatovelars, with the plain velars beingallophones of the palatovelars in some cases, such as depalatalisation before a resonant.[32]The etymologies establishing the presence of velars in the parent language are explained as artefacts of either borrowing between daughter languages or of false etymologies. Having only labiovelars and palatovelars would also parallel languages such as Russian or Irish, where consonants can be either broad and unpalatalized, or slender and palatalized, and is also seen in someNorthwest Caucasian languages.
Other scholars who assume two dorsal rows in PIE includeKuryłowicz (1935) andLehmann (1952), as well asFrederik Kortlandt and others.[33] The argument is that PIE had only two series, a simple velar and a labiovelar. The satem languages palatalized the plain velar series in most positions, but the plain velars remained in some environments: typically reconstructed as before or after /u/, after /s/, and before /r/ or /a/ and also before /m/ and /n/ in some Baltic dialects. The original allophonic distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were merged with the plain velars. That produced a new phonemic distinction between palatal and plain velars, with an unpredictable alternation between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those from original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars). Subsequent analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal consonant in all forms of a particular root. The roots in which the plain consonant was generalized are those traditionally reconstructed as having "plain velars" in the parent language in contrast to "palatovelars".
Oswald Szemerényi (1990) considers the palatovelars as an innovation, proposing that the "preconsonantal palatals probably owe their origin, at least in part, to a lost palatal vowel" and a velar was palatalised by a following vowel subsequently lost.[34] The palatal row would therefore postdate the original velar and labiovelar rows, but Szemerényi is not clear whether that would have happened before or after the breakup of the parent-language (in a table showing the system of stops "shortly before the break-up", he includes palatovelars with a question mark after them).
Woodhouse (1998; 2005) introduced a "bitectal" notation, labelling the two rows of dorsals ask1, g1, g1h andk2, g2, g2h. The first row represents "prevelars", which developed into either palatovelars or plain velars in the satem group but just into plain velars into the centum group; the second row represents "backvelars", which developed into either labiovelars or plain velars in the centum group but just plain velars in the satem group.[35]
The following are arguments that have been listed in support of a two-series hypothesis:[citation needed]
Arguments in support of three series:
The following table summarizes the outcomes of the reconstructed PIE palatals and labiovelars in the various daughter branches, both centum and satem. (The outcomes of the "plain velars" can be assumed to be the same as those of the palatals in the centum branches and those of the labiovelars in the satem branches.)
| PIE | *ḱ | *ǵ | *ǵʰ | *kʷ | *gʷ | *gʷʰ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Celtic | k | g | kw, p[* 1] | b | gw | |
| Italic | g | g, h[* 2] | kw, p[* 3] | gw, v, b[* 3] | f, v | |
| Venetic | h | kw | ? | |||
| Hellenic | kh | p, t, k[* 4] | b, d, g[* 4] | ph, kh, th[* 4] | ||
| Germanic | h | k | g ~ ɣ[* 5] | hw | kw | gw[* 6] ~ w[* 5] |
| Albanian[39] | θ, c, k[* 7] | ð, d[* 7] | k, c, s | g, ɟ, z | ||
| Anatolian | k,[* 8] kk[* 9] | g,[* 10] k[* 11] | kw, kkw[* 9] | gw,[* 12] kw[* 11] | ||
| Tocharian | k | k, kw | ||||
| Phrygian | k[* 13] | g | k | g | ||
| Armenian | s | c | dz | kh | k | g |
| Baltic | ś | ź | k | g | ||
| Thracian | s | z | k, kh | g, k | g | |
| Dacian | k, č | g, j ~ z | ||||
| Slavic | g, j ~ ž/z | |||||
| Iranian | s | z | k, č[* 14] | g, j[* 14] | ||
| Indic | ś | j | h[* 15] | k, c[* 14] | g, j[* 14] | gh, h[* 14] |
| Nuristani | ć,[* 16] s[* 17] | ź,[* 18] z | k, č[* 14] | g, j[* 14] | ||
A characteristic feature of satem languages, the merger of *K and *K u̯ , seems to have taken place within the history of PA itself... After the merger of *K and *K u̯ , a preceding labial segment "satemizes" the velar so that the latter shows reflex- es identical to those of the original PIE palatovelar *K̑...
and the outcomes of the three dorsal series suggest that Albanian, like Luwian, may have originally retained this three-way opposition intact and therefore is neither centum nor satem, despite the clear satem-like outcome of its palatal dorsals in most instances
the evidence of Albanian's support for the three-way distinction of gutturals in IE
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)