5 ms·

> … it isn't particularly closely related to Sanskritic languages, nor to Western Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, Germanic, Slavic). This is actually an

by bradrn 4y ago

> … it isn't particularly closely related to Sanskritic languages, nor to Western Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, Germanic, Slavic). This is actually an interesting and rather subtle point! The IE languages are usually divided into two groups: the *centum and *satem languages. Originally PIE had three different kinds of plosive phonemes, usually notated *k *ḱ *kʷ; centum descendants such as Latin and Germanic merged PIE *ḱ into *k while leaving *kʷ separate, whereas satem descendants such as Slavic and Indo–Iranian languages merged *kʷ into *k while leaving *ḱ separate. You may note that this seems very much like an east/west division, with centum languages in the west and satem languages in the east. It was thus proposed that PIE split early on into two languages, one of which underwent centumisation and the other satemisation. However, the discovery of Tocharian changed this situation: Tocharian was the easternmost of all early IE languages, yet was a centum language! Thus, the theory had to be abandoned. We now think that neither centum nor satem languages form particularly closely-related groups; rather, the various groups each independently underwent centumisation or satemisation, though probably with some influence from neighbouring languages too.

danans 4y ago
> rather, the various groups each independently underwent centumisation or satemisation, Yeah, just as Romance languages themselves later converted /k/ to /s/ when it came before /e/ or /i/.
- nirimda 4y ago
  That is not an independent undergoing of centumisation or satemisation. The terms specifically relate to the development of the three PIE velars. "Satemisation" is not simply a synonym for "velar palatalisation"; it means the the language is a PIE language that merged *k *kʷ but kept *ḱ distinct at some critical threshold. All Romance languages are centum languages on the other hand because they treat *k and *ḱ the same (palatalising both before front vowels without consideration of its origin) but *kʷ was distinct (even if nowadays the labialisation is often dropped, so that que is pronounced /ke/ - but it is clear that it was treated distinctly from *k which would have been palatalised in that context).
  - danans 4y ago
    I understand that, but I meant it as more of an example that languages can experience independent changes.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> However, the discovery of Tocharian changed this situation: Tocharian was the easternmost of all early IE languages, yet was a centum language! Thus, the theory had to be abandoned. We now think that neither centum nor satem languages form particularly closely-related groups; rather, the various groups each independently underwent centumisation or satemisation I have some questions about this: 1. If the various language groups underwent independent centumization or satemization, it seems like that should have happened somewhat differently to different groups. 1a. Are there satem languages that didn't lose the /n/ in their word for 100? 1b. Are there centum languages that merged k into ḱ rather than the other way around? 1c. (Anything else along these lines? You're the expert.) 2. Why does the geography of Tocharian matter to the hypothesis that centum / satem reflects an early split between "proto-centum" and "proto-satem"? People move; it would be easy for the centum languages to divide from the satem languages and then rearrange their own geography.[1] Tocharian is spoken in a region known for its extreme mobility and ethnic turnover. Just to the west of the Tarim basin there was a region that spoke Greek ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayuan ); what does this tell us about how and where the division between Hellenic and its sister branches occurred? Similarly, the Indo-Iranian languages are currently distributed with Indic languages to the east of Iranian languages, but they used to be the other way around. [1] It would also be easy for the division to take place just as described, one time early on, but without affecting some places that are to the east of a particular longitude. Happens all the time. A distribution like this: ooxxxxoxx oxxxoxxxx tends to suggest that if the X-O split was a unitary event, the O people must have been overrun by X people afterward. But a distribution like this: kkkkkkkkk kkkkkssss says nothing of the kind. That could easily be a unitary split that just remained in place over time.
- danans 4y ago
  > 1a. Are there satem languages that didn't lose the /n/ in their word for 100? the /n/ in the word for "hundred" in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) was a vocalic nasal /m̥/, and is reconstructed as *ḱm̥tóm. PIE Sanskrit Old Persian Latin English --- -------- ----------- ----- ------- \*ḱm̥tóm śatám satem centum "hundred" In Indo-European vowel gradation, this is known as the zero-grade form [1], and its phonetic realization evolved differently in daughter languages. /m̥/ became the -en' in Latin "centum" (the /n/ is due to assimilation with the following /t/, and "a" (schwa) in Sanskrit "śatám" (Old Persian "satem") Furthermore, this transformation occurred in all instances of the zero-grade vocalic nasal, regardless of whether it is adjacent to a PIE *ḱ. For another example, PIE *gʷmsḱeti ("goes/goeth") becomes Sanskrit "gacchati". Notice that in this case, the /m̥/ transforms to "a", just like in *ḱm̥tóm -> śatám, but here after *gʷ. This demonstrates that the transformation is independent of whether the preceding velar sound is palatalized or labialized. The original nasal /m/ is however retained in other forms of this Sanskrit verb, like its root form "gam-" (PIE: *gʷem-) which is in the lengthened grade [2]. > 1b. Are there centum languages that merged k into ḱ rather than the other way around? None that I'm aware of, but happy to learn of an example. > Why does the geography of Tocharian matter to the hypothesis that centum / satem reflects an early split between "proto-centum" and "proto-satem"? People move; You're right that geography isn't deterministic, especially as it pertains to language, and Indo European has been a very mobile language family. That said, most of the centum languages to this day are western languages and most of the satem are eastern. The big exceptions are Slavic (satem), Mittani (satem), and Tocharian (centum). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut#Zero_grade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut#Zero_grad... 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E...

by bradrn 4y ago

danans 4y ago

> rather, the various groups each independently underwent centumisation or satemisation, Yeah, just as Romance languages themselves later converted /k/ to /s/ when it came before /e/ or /i/.

nirimda 4y ago
That is not an independent undergoing of centumisation or satemisation. The terms specifically relate to the development of the three PIE velars. "Satemisation" is not simply a synonym for "velar palatalisation"; it means the the language is a PIE language that merged *k *kʷ but kept *ḱ distinct at some critical threshold. All Romance languages are centum languages on the other hand because they treat *k and *ḱ the same (palatalising both before front vowels without consideration of its origin) but *kʷ was distinct (even if nowadays the labialisation is often dropped, so that que is pronounced /ke/ - but it is clear that it was treated distinctly from *k which would have been palatalised in that context).
- danans 4y ago
  I understand that, but I meant it as more of an example that languages can experience independent changes.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> However, the discovery of Tocharian changed this situation: Tocharian was the easternmost of all early IE languages, yet was a centum language! Thus, the theory had to be abandoned. We now think that neither centum nor satem languages form particularly closely-related groups; rather, the various groups each independently underwent centumisation or satemisation I have some questions about this: 1. If the various language groups underwent independent centumization or satemization, it seems like that should have happened somewhat differently to different groups. 1a. Are there satem languages that didn't lose the /n/ in their word for 100? 1b. Are there centum languages that merged k into ḱ rather than the other way around? 1c. (Anything else along these lines? You're the expert.) 2. Why does the geography of Tocharian matter to the hypothesis that centum / satem reflects an early split between "proto-centum" and "proto-satem"? People move; it would be easy for the centum languages to divide from the satem languages and then rearrange their own geography.[1] Tocharian is spoken in a region known for its extreme mobility and ethnic turnover. Just to the west of the Tarim basin there was a region that spoke Greek ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayuan ); what does this tell us about how and where the division between Hellenic and its sister branches occurred? Similarly, the Indo-Iranian languages are currently distributed with Indic languages to the east of Iranian languages, but they used to be the other way around. [1] It would also be easy for the division to take place just as described, one time early on, but without affecting some places that are to the east of a particular longitude. Happens all the time. A distribution like this: ooxxxxoxx oxxxoxxxx tends to suggest that if the X-O split was a unitary event, the O people must have been overrun by X people afterward. But a distribution like this: kkkkkkkkk kkkkkssss says nothing of the kind. That could easily be a unitary split that just remained in place over time.

danans 4y ago
> 1a. Are there satem languages that didn't lose the /n/ in their word for 100? the /n/ in the word for "hundred" in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) was a vocalic nasal /m̥/, and is reconstructed as *ḱm̥tóm. PIE Sanskrit Old Persian Latin English --- -------- ----------- ----- ------- \*ḱm̥tóm śatám satem centum "hundred" In Indo-European vowel gradation, this is known as the zero-grade form [1], and its phonetic realization evolved differently in daughter languages. /m̥/ became the -en' in Latin "centum" (the /n/ is due to assimilation with the following /t/, and "a" (schwa) in Sanskrit "śatám" (Old Persian "satem") Furthermore, this transformation occurred in all instances of the zero-grade vocalic nasal, regardless of whether it is adjacent to a PIE *ḱ. For another example, PIE *gʷmsḱeti ("goes/goeth") becomes Sanskrit "gacchati". Notice that in this case, the /m̥/ transforms to "a", just like in *ḱm̥tóm -> śatám, but here after *gʷ. This demonstrates that the transformation is independent of whether the preceding velar sound is palatalized or labialized. The original nasal /m/ is however retained in other forms of this Sanskrit verb, like its root form "gam-" (PIE: *gʷem-) which is in the lengthened grade [2]. > 1b. Are there centum languages that merged k into ḱ rather than the other way around? None that I'm aware of, but happy to learn of an example. > Why does the geography of Tocharian matter to the hypothesis that centum / satem reflects an early split between "proto-centum" and "proto-satem"? People move; You're right that geography isn't deterministic, especially as it pertains to language, and Indo European has been a very mobile language family. That said, most of the centum languages to this day are western languages and most of the satem are eastern. The big exceptions are Slavic (satem), Mittani (satem), and Tocharian (centum). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut#Zero_grade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut#Zero_grad... 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E...