|
|
|
|
Centum-Satem isogloss
|
| |
|
| |
The Centum-Satem division is an isogloss of the Indo-European language family, related to the evolution of the three dorsal consonant rows reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European, * (labiovelars), * (velars), and *; (palatovelars). The terms come from the words for the number "one hundred" in representative languages of each group (Latin centum and Avestan ).
The Satem languages include Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and perhaps also a number of barely documented extinct languages, such as Thracian and Dacian.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Centum-Satem isogloss' Start a new discussion about 'Centum-Satem isogloss' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The Centum-Satem division is an isogloss of the Indo-European language family, related to the evolution of the three dorsal consonant rows reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European, * (labiovelars), * (velars), and *; (palatovelars). The terms come from the words for the number "one hundred" in representative languages of each group (Latin centum and Avestan ).
The Satem languages include Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and perhaps also a number of barely documented extinct languages, such as Thracian and Dacian. This group merged PIE-velars and PIE-labiovelars to develop into velars, and changed PIE-palatovelars into sibilants. Although Albanian is treated as a Satem language, there is some evidence that the plain velars and the labiovelars may not have been completely merged in Proto-Albanian.
The Centum group is often thought of as being identical to "non-Satem", i.e. as including all remaining dialects. However, this group features a merging of PIE-velars and PIE-palatovelars to velars in a separate Centum sound change, independent from and predating the Satem sound change. More specifically, in the sense of Brugmann's "languages with labialization", the Centum group includes Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek and possibly a number of minor and little known extinct groups (such as Ancient Macedonian, Venetic and probably the Illyrian languages). Tocharian combined all rows into a single velar row and although the relative chronology of the change is unknown, it lacks the assibilation typical of "Satem", thus is often considered "Centum".
The Proto-Anatolian language apparently did not undergo either the Satem or the Centum sound change. The velar rows remain separate in Luwian, while Hittite may secondarily have undergone a Centum change, but the exact phonology is unclear.
| | Modern situation of the centum-satem isogloss (shown in red) |
Proto-Indo-European dorsals
The Centum-Satem isogloss explains the evolution of the three dorsal rows reconstructed for PIE, *, *, * (labiovelars), *, *, * (velars), and *, *, *; (palatovelars) in the daughter languages. A division into a Centum and a Satem group only makes sense with a view to the parent language with the full inventory of dorsals. Later sound changes within a specific branch of Indo-European that are similar to one of the changes, such as the palatalization of Latin k to s in some Romance languages or the merger of * with *k in the Goidelic languages, have no effect on the grouping.
August Schleicher in his 1871 Compendium assumes only a single velar row, k, g, gh.
Karl Brugmann in his 1886 Grundriss accepts only two rows, denoting them q, g, gh "velar explosives" vs. , and "palatal explosives". Brugmann terms the Centum languages "languages with labialization" or "-languages" and the Satem languages "languages without labialization", and he opines that
- 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 -afterclap. (trans. J. Wright)
By the 1897 edition of his work, Brugmann changed his mind, accepting the centum vs. satem terminology introduced by von Badke in 1890. Accordingly, he denoted the labiovelars as , , , (also introducing voiceless aspirates).
The presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language is not universally accepted. The reconstructed "middle" row may also be an artifact of loaning between early daughter languages during the process of Satemization. For instance, Oswald Szemerényi (e.g., in his 1995 Introduction), while recognizing the usefulness of the distinction *, *, * as symbolizing sound-correspondences, argues that the support for three phonologically distinct rows in PIE is insufficient and prefers a twofold notation of *, *. Other scholars who assume two dorsal rows in PIE include Kurylowicz (1935), Meillet (1937), Lehmann (1952), and Woodhouse (1998).
The likelihood of three dorsal rows has also been disputed on typological grounds, but that argument has little merit, since there are, indeed, languages with such a three-row system, for example Northwest Caucasian languages such as Abkhaz, the Yazgulyam language (an Iranian language, but its system of dorsals is unrelated to PIE phonology), Hausa and Hopi.
The existence of this feature in Northwest Caucasian languages, added to the poor vowel system and glottalic consonants apparently shared between PIE and NW Caucasian, may hint at an early Sprachbund or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands. This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs and of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.
Satem
The Satem languages show the characteristic change of the so-called Proto-Indo-European palato-velars into affricate and fricative consonants articulated in the front of the mouth. For example, became Sanskrit s , Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian s, Lithuanian š , and Albanian th . At the same time, the protolanguage velars and labio-velars merged in the Satem group, the latter losing their accompanying lip-rounding.
The Satem shift is conveniently illustrated with the word for '100', Proto-Indo-European , which became e.g. Avestan sat?m (hence the name of the group), Persian sad, Sanskrit satam, Latvian simts, Lithuanian šimtas, Old Church Slavonic s?to etc., as contrasted with Latin centum (pron. [kentum]), English hund(red)- (with /h/ from earlier *k, see Grimm's law), Greek (he)katon, Welsh cant, Tocharian B kante, etc. Another example is the Slavic prefix so- ("with"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, as con-; conjoin ("union") is in fact cognate with soyuz.
Satem-like features have arisen multiple times during history (e.g. French cent pron. [să]), thus, it is sometimes difficult to firmly establish which languages were part of the original Satem diffusion and which were affected by secondary assibilation in a later time period. For instance, it is known that the assibilation found in French and Luwian were later developments as linguists have extensive documentation of Latin and Hittite. However, in the case of Dacian and Thracian, there is not enough information on the history of these languages to conclusively settle the issue of when their Satem-like features originated. Extensive lexical borrowing, such as Armenian from Iranian, may also add to the difficulty. The status of Armenian as a Satem language as opposed to a Centum language with secondary assibilation rests on the evidence of a very few words.
Centum
In the Centum languages, the palato-velar consonants merged with plain velars (*, *, *). Most of the Centum languages preserve Proto-Indo-European labio-velars (*, *, *) or their historical reflexes as distinct from plain velars; for example, PIE * : * > Latin c : qu , Greek ? : p (or t before front vowels), Gothic : , etc.
The name Centum comes from the Latin word centum '100', < PIE *, illustrating the falling together of * and *. (Note that the c in Classical Latin was always pronounced "hard", like modern k.) Compare Sanskrit sata- or Polish sto, in which * changed into a fricative.
Attestation of labiovelars as actual phonemes , as opposed to simple biphonematic is attested in Greek (the Linear B q- series), Italic (Latin qu), Germanic (Gothic hwair and qairţra q) and Celtic (Ogham ceirt Q). Thus, while usually reconstructed for PIE, the labiovelar quality of this row may also be an innovation of the Centum group, causally related to the fronting of the palatovelars. The chief witness for this question is Anatolian, the phonology of which is for orthographical reasons not known in detail. Hittite (and Luwian) in any case chose not to use the existing cuneiform q- series (which stood for a voiceless uvular stop in Akkadian), but represents reflexes of PIE labiovelars as ku. Opinions on whether this represents an Anatolian single phoneme, or a group of /k+w/ are divided.
There have been recent claims that the Bangani language of India contains traces of a Centum language, but they are widely considered spurious.
Origins of the sound change
In the 19th century, it was sometimes assumed that the centum-satem isogloss was the original dialect division of the Indo-European languages.
However, Karl Brugmann, and in particular Johannes Schmidt, already regarded the Centum/Satem sound changes as an areal feature.
Incomplete Satemization in Baltic, and, to a lesser extent, Slavic, is taken as an indication of the diffusion of the satem sound change, or, alternatively, due to loans via early contact of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Germanic speakers. Examples of remnants of labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic include
Lithuanian ungurys "eel" < *- ,
Lithuanian dygus "pointy" < *-,
Fewer examples of incomplete Satemization are also known from Indo-Iranian, such as Sanskrit guru "heavy" < *-, kulam "herd" < *-; kuru "make" < *- may be compared, but they arise only post-Rigvedic in attested texts.
Whether areal or dialectal, the centum/satem distinction was long considered to represent a division of Proto-Indo-European into western and eastern zones. The example of Tocharian, though, has led to a competing view of the satem sound change as an innovation radiating outward from the central Indo-European language communities, but largely failing to reach the west-European or eastern (Tocharian) peripheries.
Literature
Palatalisierung und Labialisierung, IF 70 (1965), 276–315.Edmund Remys, General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian, Indogermanische Forschungen, Band 112, 2007, 244–76.
|
| |
|
|
