satemization : what causes?

[MOESAN]

could somebody (like Taranis) explain us (roughly) the official explanation of the satemization process ?- I shall add some personal remarks on this basis implying slavic languages and modern french without go too deeply into details?

 

[LeBrok]

This will be interesting.

 

[Ike]

I'd say it' because English read Cyrillic S like K.
For example psycho, cat, macro, reconcile.

In some words they do read it as it is:
For example: Cyrillic, Macedonia, reconcile.

But that would imply that both scripts existed before the "schizm" so it's not possible

 

[mihaitzateo]

I got a question:
Why Germanic languages are said to be Centum languages?

hundred:
Gothic - hund
Old Norse - hundrað
Old High German - hunt
Old English - hundred
So,why Germanics languages are said to Centum languages?

 

[ElHorsto]

I have a question too which I hope is not off-topic in this thread. I got the amateurish idea that Basque pronounciation is (coincidentally?) more close to centum than satem, while being non-IE of course. I noticed that Basque does not know 'V' and 'W'. That's why Basques say 'Bideo' instead of 'Video'. 'SH' and 'S' seems also to be very rare. Satem-IE on the other hand is especially rich in 'W', 'V', 'S', 'SH' and 'ZH'. So could basque be some kind of 'pre-centum', which influenced pronounciation of proto-IE such that centum-IE was the result?

 

[Ike]

For speaking ZS, ZH, V, S and similar consonants one has to have good front teeth. It may be that there were some peoples that had different type of "mandibular anthropology" and had problems with pronunciation. One of my guesses could be E-V13, because they have very specific teeth and jaws.

 

[MOESAN]

wow: I got a lot of questions upon my one, without having the basis to begin to discuss - I suppose I 'll be obliged to search the "official" version of satemization causes -
the basic process is evident: palatalization of velars as a whole - but I believe the reconstruction of PIE obliged someones to imagine a serie of PIE velars "pre-halfpalatalized" (*K' / *G' and *Gh') common to ALL PIE speakers before they reached the stage of palatal fricatives - this version supposes the breaking of centum-satem groups occurred on a yet common language - the problem is that centum languages knew some centuries later a process more or less alike, principally the oïl french dialects, except north-normand (high-normand) an pickard - even low-auvergnat (north occitan) is touched -

 

[MOESAN]

I have a question too which I hope is not off-topic in this thread. I got the amateurish idea that Basque pronounciation is (coincidentally?) more close to centum than satem, while being non-IE of course. I noticed that Basque does not know 'V' and 'W'. That's why Basques say 'Bideo' instead of 'Video'. 'SH' and 'S' seems also to be very rare. Satem-IE on the other hand is especially rich in 'W', 'V', 'S', 'SH' and 'ZH'. So could basque be some kind of 'pre-centum', which influenced pronounciation of proto-IE such that centum-IE was the result?

the satem I-E languages have no special love for 'V' - 'W' is today absent among them!!!
the specificity of satem languages is their "attirance" for 'SH', 'ZH', 'TCH', 'TS', 'TCHY', 'TSY', 'DZH', 'DZ', 'Z' sounds all of them linked to 'K' 'G' sounds + some old 'S'
concerning basque it is an different question- they have a tendancy to pronounce 'S' between /S/ and /SH/ but other Spanyards have the same tendancy and Dutches and Scandinavian too, even if these languages have more (very) velars than palatal stops as a whole -
the 'V'/'B' problem is an other one too as the 'F'/'H' evolution -
basque have also some fricatives I think - I have no enough knowledge of basque language (particularly ancient basque) to compare it ot I-E languages - let's be cautious: the global complete phenomenon of palatalization concerning previous SIMPLE velars is sometimes confused with a palatalized result of GROUPS of consonnants (FL-/KL-/GL-/PL- in some spanish, portuguese and frecnh dialects, -KT/-KHT/-PT in some celtic dialects, SN-, SM-, SK-, SL- in german etc...)

 

[MOESAN]

could somebody (like Taranis) explain us (roughly) the official explanation of the satemization process ?- I shall add some personal remarks on this basis implying slavic languages and modern french without go too deeply into details?

I answer to myself (I hope I shall be amiable and tolerant for myself! what a humour)

Centumization and satemization: short abstract (very simplified, maybe simplistic?)


the affected stops of the supposed PIE serie:
*k / *g / *kh / *gh (normal) + *kw / *gw / *khw / * ghw / (rounded velar) + / *k' / *g' / * kh' / *gh' (palatal)
the division, not precisely dated but considered as very early after PIE birth, could have known two phasis; a centumization based on the lost of supposed palatal stops (stops or 'explosivae' with a 'j' or 'y' appendix) being the consequence a primary impossibility to palatalize these stops and AFTER a satemization by lost of the velar stops (with a 'w' appendix, 'u' afterclap as said someones), being the consequence an easier palatalization; shortly said, the palatals were pronounced more in the front of the mouth, the velars more in the back top of the mouth: do hear a popular parisian and the english pronounciations of «car» (/k'a.R/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]>< [/FONT]/k[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]°[/FONT]^hA:/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]or more evident fr. «quiet» [/FONT]/jE/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]>< eng. «quiz» [/FONT]/k[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]°[/FONT]wiz/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif](sorry for the phonetic signs, I have not all the symbols) -[/FONT]
&: the centum stage is not considered as the original one, based on the anatolian I-E languages -
the satemization considered as an 'area' phenomenon (supradialectal spread of phonetic tendancies from a cultural center of diffusion) would be arrived in the North Caspian Sea area – on the mergins (West: ex: baltic – East: indo-aryanic) the satemization is not complete-
&&: the existence of the palatals is supposed by someones as the result of the absorbtion by an explisve consonnant of a faded palatl vowel (front vowel as 'i', 'e' or german 'ü' /y/[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]) [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]what I am very ready to believe: children rarely pronounce palatal stops at beginning for I know (but I can mistake here)[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] - [/FONT]


secondary palalizations occurred in languages previously considered as 'centum' – and in slavics, later palatizations occurred too – we can see that later -


if someone, interested and «qualified» as Taranis, want to explain better than me this rough explanation, he mays do it – he would be welcomed!

 

[MOESAN]

Last post resumed: stops serie retained by «centumists»
*k / *g / *kh / *gh / *k^w / *g^w / *kh^w / *gh^w
stops serie retained by «satemists»
*k / *g / *kh / *gh / *k' / *g' / *kh' / *gh'


the slavic languages underwent a first palatalization at the stage of 'common slavic' (not well dated) – it is not precised if it was the first result of the satemization process or a later phenomenon – I suppose it is a typical slavic evolution after the first shift because PIE cognates for 'k', 'g' are often >> 's', 'z' : fricatives and not affricated consonnants – older stage with simplification as in modern franch compared to old french -
*: équivalences: /c/-/Z/-/X/- /j/ > [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][tch] – [zh] – [sh] - [y][/FONT]
all the way the result has been: /k/ > /c/ - /g/ > /Z/ - /X/ > /S/
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]this occurred before palatalized /e:/ > /ja/ or «yod» /j/[/FONT]
the same results was obtained in russian for the groups:
/tj/ > /c/ - /dj/ > /Z/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]different from the old-slavic (& slavon) [/FONT]/tj/ > /Sc/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][shtch][/FONT]- /dj/ > /Zd/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][zhd][/FONT]
this evolution of 'tj'/'dj' was known in late romance languages with different results in portuguese, castillan, french, italian...but in some of the late romance languages and dialects this confusion of 'kj'/'tj' and 'gj'/dj' seems the same, with the exception that 'dj' >> //[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]in place of[/FONT] /Z/ [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]or [/FONT]/Z/[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]only when[/FONT] /kj/ > /S/- it's to say: a symetric palatalization in romance languages, not assymetric as in slavics -


a second palatalization occurred in slavic with the same reasons: following palatalized vowels (by internal evolution as: 'ei' >> 'i' – 'oi' >> 'i' – this implosive 'i' became a kind of '^j' incorporated in the preceding stop:
/kj/ > /ts^j/ - /gj/ > /z^j/ - /Xj/ > /s^j/



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a third palatalization occurred caused by following palatized vowels of nasalized origin /i/, /i:/, /e:/>/ja/[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]/kj/ > /ts/ - /gj/ > /z/ - /Xj/ > /s/ ([ovika] >> [ovtsa] «ewe» – [devika] >> [dyevitsa] «young girl» -[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]&: by ultra-simplification we could say all these phenomenons are linked to anticipation of subsequent vowel (the slavics story is a very constant example of this phenomenon of displaced accentuation and its effect on vowels and consonnants) – the evolution of slavic languages proves that languages with certain tendancies keep these ones over time and the slavic interactions of stops with palatal vowels could be the continuation of the same process that occurred sooner among satem languages – we see that very often a 'yod' half-vowel is the result of an ancient frontal vowel ('i', 'e') out of the strength stress - [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]so slavic evolution could be the repetition of what was occurred earlier among PIE languages: and the «palatals» of PIE could very well be (as supposed by some linguists) the result of fusion of velars with subsequant palatal vowels... (the same for the *-^w stops serie << back rounded vowel)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I 'm tempted to see the proof that all that is at first a phonetic environmental phenomenon and not a structure one in the slavic languages morphology (dérivation system?) where we see the same stabilized word root undergoing different treatment according to vowel environment (the same basic mutations occurred again, but not definitely acquired: only the roots keep the mutation) - [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Srb-Cro [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]kru[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]g[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] = [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«circle», «round» -[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]kru[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ž[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]iti = [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«to drive along»[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] - [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Bulg- [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]kra[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]g[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ov = [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«circular» - [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]okra[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ž[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]nost = [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«circle»[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Rus- [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]korot[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]k[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ij [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]= «short» - [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ykoro[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]č[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ennij[/FONT]= «shortened» - Srb-Cro oko «eye» >> o[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]či[/FONT] «eyeS» - Srb-Cro [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]vazdu[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]h[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif][kh][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«air» [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]>> vazdu[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]š[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ni [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]«air» ! - [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]&: all that did not exclude a stronger or a weaker tendancy to palatization according to populations ...[/FONT]

 

[MOESAN]

the continuation of the palatalization process in slavic languages before (palatal vowels and long vowels diphtongued with a 'yod' first appendix) long time after the first precoess of satemization seems to me a mark of a latent phonetic tendancy among the populations concerned - and the "yodish" pronounciation of vowels seems far more inrooted among Russians, Polish and Czech people than among southern Slaves (ex Yugoslavians, Macedonians and Bulgarians -
it could have some implication concerning History: yet the satemization of PIE could have been the result of EITHER the 1) adoption of I-Ean OR 2) the reinforcement in the population of one element that took part in the "creation" of I-Ean on the basis of a maybe proto-semitic or proto-caucasian language with an ouralic one - the palatizing element could be the ouralic one, linked to the COmb Cermaic or Pit Grave people of the northern forest???
the denser the ouralic element, the stronger the tendancy to palatizing ??? in the lands were this (hypothetic) element was strong enough, the platizing kept on working ?
&: for now I 'm not trying to link the same phenomenon in France to a "genetic" link with Puralians or Proto-Ouralians! I link only the two phonetic evolutions -
&&: I have not enough knowledge of Indo-iranic languages to compare their evolution with slavics -
&&&: the (proto-)ouralic speaking population envolved in the (aventurous) hypothesis here was not by force of the very same hereditary composition as other ouralic speaking populations of modern and ancient times: finnic language of Finland is a branch of first ouralic language but it seems very far from the notion of palatalized language - maybe the proto-finnic languages were more palatalized???
&&&&: the implication could be too that first PIE was passed to some of the north steppic- south forest populations which exagerated the first palatalizing tendancy at long?
if the tendancy to palatalizing is not confirmed over time among Indo-iranic speaking of today ("southern" today)compared to their first satem stage it would prove the indo-iranic variant of I-Ean is well got down from more northern lands (Steppes) and is not an eastern variant of PIE passed directly into Indies, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Kurdistan through the South-Caucasus pass -
just speculation

 

[Ike]

Oh, you've made it look too complicated
The third palatalization (it's progressive) actually happened before the second (regressive). It's ancient, old Slavonic, probably even before first two.

	I palatalization	II palatalization	III palatalization
K	Č	C	C
G	Ž	Z	Z
H	Š	S	S

	I palatalization	II palatalization
majka (mother)	majčin (mother's)	majci (to mother)
bubreg (kidney)	bubrežni (of kidney)	bubgrezi (kidneys)
duh (ghost)	duše (hey, ghost)	dusi (ghosts)

 

[MOESAN]

Oh, you've made it look too complicated
The third palatalization (it's progressive) actually happened before the second (regressive). It's ancient, old Slavonic, probably even before first two.

	I palatalization	II palatalization	III palatalization
K	Č	C	C
G	Ž	Z	Z
H	Š	S	S

	I palatalization	II palatalization
majka (mother)	majčin (mother's)	majci (to mother)
bubreg (kidney)	bubrežni (of kidney)	bubgrezi (kidneys)
duh (ghost)	duše (hey, ghost)	dusi (ghosts)

I 'm not sure - thanks for the exemples, but lastly I was speaking about the 'morphologic' palatalizations caused in slavic languages by the adding of a suffix: the suffixed word is palatalized BUT NOT the stem word - it is different from the historical palatalization which (whatever the first cause) affects definitly the root of the word, without any coming back - OK? by instance majka remains the same, it will not become majc^a nor majca -
in old satem process, the following vowell responsible (maybe) for palatalization of the stop, can disappear (absorbed by the stop or fallen down by tonic accentuation shift but the palatalization and its effects ont the stop remainds...? later, in russian it seems in some words an ancient unaccentued 'I' became a kind of 'yod' appendix of the precedent stop, without anymore vowel sound, only a 'wet clap'
good night (dobar noc?)

 

[Ike]

Ye ye, what you're talking about is the third palatalization.
All I know is that it's nature takes it back to the early language states (as RUKI sound law is), and that i probably happened before first and second palatalization, probably ending by 400 AD.

 

[MOESAN]

I have some difficulty to understand this classification of mutations: is it just an arbitrary one, or is it supposed reflect the chronology of them???: I took my "knowledge" from a booklet about the history of the russian language it is ture, not about the all slavic language - I 'll put my eye again in it to try understand well

 

[Taranis]

The cause for palatalization (including 'satemization' and similar processes, see below) are triggered by a "g" or "k" (or "d" or "t") sound next to a front vowel like "e" or "i".

An example of this for example is also in French, which is basically a Romance language that behaves somewhat like Satem language, eg. Latin "canis" > French "chien" ("k" > "sh").

I got a question:
Why Germanic languages are said to be Centum languages?

hundred:
Gothic - hund
Old Norse - hundrað
Old High German - hunt
Old English - hundred
So,why Germanics languages are said to Centum languages?

That is because the "h" in the Germanic languages was a "k" before Grimm's Law occured. In a similar fashion, "g" became "k":

English "to work", German "werken".
Greek "εργο" - (ergo) to work.
Russian "вершить" (vershit) - to work, to direct.

 

[MOESAN]

The cause for palatalization (including 'satemization' and similar processes, see below) are triggered by a "g" or "k" (or "d" or "t") sound next to a front vowel like "e" or "i".

An example of this for example is also in French, which is basically a Romance language that behaves somewhat like Satem language, eg. Latin "canis" > French "chien" ("k" > "sh").



That is because the "h" in the Germanic languages was a "k" before Grimm's Law occured. In a similar fashion, "g" became "k":

English "to work", German "werken".
Greek "εργο" - (ergo) to work.
Russian "вершить" (vershit) - to work, to direct.

So the satemization (what I was thinking) is a phonetical process in some populations, linked to these populations tendancies but also linked to the phonetical environment the velar stops was in before - and the supposed I-E palatal or velar (not neutral) stops were themselves the result of this kind of environment, some ancient etymological subsequent vowel became a consonnantal "appendix" (/¤'/ >< /¤°/) during the proto-I-E maturation???
I think structure ( a well known "horse" of some linguists) has little to play here, just trying to slowen down the evolution -
I know you know, but forsome people the evolution is something like that:
[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif]k > ky > tch > sh[/FONT]
[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif] > ts > s[/FONT]

[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif]g > gy > dj > zh[/FONT]
[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif] > dz > z[/FONT]

[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif]t > ty > tch[/FONT]
[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif] > ts[/FONT]

[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif]d > dy > dj [/FONT]
[FONT=Tunga, sans-serif] > dz [/FONT]

 

[martiko]

I have a question too which I hope is not off-topic in this thread. I got the amateurish idea that Basque pronounciation is (coincidentally?) more close to centum than satem, while being non-IE of course. I noticed that Basque does not know 'V' and 'W'. That's why Basques say 'Bideo' instead of 'Video'. 'SH' and 'S' seems also to be very rare. Satem-IE on the other hand is especially rich in 'W', 'V', 'S', 'SH' and 'ZH'. So could basque be some kind of 'pre-centum', which influenced pronounciation of proto-IE such that centum-IE was the result?

I a bit smiled by reading you, you are very badly informed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIxYlmAQAs

in Basque B is V because B as French does not exist, it often has are him with P light. Z is S or "ts" because Z do not exist in Basque; X is ' Tsh ' or long ' Shhh ', because X as French does not exist. Then S short ' Sh '....
EXAMPLE:
Biarritz is Miarliz(a); Exeberia is Etcheverry.....

Numerous A mean the form of names of subject word for an ergative language and do not mean the feminine which does not exist in Basque, this use of A is a recent modernization of Basque language for the simplification of this language.

 

[Aberdeen]

........

in Basque B is V because B as French does not exist, it often has are him with P light. Z is S or "ts" because Z do not exist in Basque; X is ' Tsh ' or long ' Shhh ', because X as French does not exist. Then S short ' Sh '....
EXAMPLE:
Biarritz is Miarliz(a); Exeberia is Etcheverry.....
.........

Wrong!!! In what universe do the letters B and X not exist in the French language?

 

[martiko]

Wrong!!! In what universe do the letters B and X not exist in the French language?

in French B has sound B but in Basque B has sound V safe if he begins word at the beginning but not always. Example: Basque or gascon is for French pronunciation of vashk vashko, vashkoin, wasgonde, ?shkoin, eushka....
X in French pronunciation ' ks ' is, but in Basque X is pronounced with long ' Chh ' or ' Tch '. Example the Basque to ape Xabier Lete. sings ' Xalbadorren heriotzean '. Tchavier Lete sings ' Chalvadorren (El Salvador, sauviur) heriotzean

OPEL is it a bird, one known car manufacturer or a city?
According to the value of used pictographic characters. And I could say that the Slavonic do not know the letter R that they replace by one P )
For russian P=R