Centum & Satem difference

[Jovani]

I speak French, a centum language, and my understanding is that centum uses k in front of 100, but French uses s sound. I am confused. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Yetos]

it is not only in French,
I heard it is also in another Centum Celtic language,

this has nothing to do with modern sound,
but with how the PIE evolute in Language,
the 'replace of palatovellars with plain velars

another criteria of this is the Labiovelars and plain vellars distinction which seem not in Satem
k^w g^w etc,
Yet the Bukolos rule, makes it complicated


Centum and Satem main criteria is /k/ and /s/
but observing it you will see it expands to more than that.

and is not a geographical division.
Tocharian B is the most east IE language.

proto-Anatolian
like Hettite might not be neither centum, neither satem
and is something against Steppe theory, and kurgans
while salmon problem gives place to kurgans hypothesis

 

[Jovani]

it is not only in French,I heard it is also in another Centum Celtic language,this has nothing to with sound,but with how the PIE evolute in Language,a kind of labialisationanother criteria of this is the Bukolos rule, the turn of K^w g^w etc

Your answer is making me more confused. If this has nothing to do with sounds what else is out there we're talking about

 

[Yetos]

Your answer is making me more confused. If this has nothing to do with sounds what else is out there we're talking about

sorry I add some more

It has nothing to do with modern sound.

it is the formation and changes of palatovelars to plain vellars
and the distiction of labiovellars with plain vellars concerning the formation/evolution of kw gw etc from PIE

(gush sometimes English language is so hard to express)

Notice also Italian cinquecento the c of cento vs Latin C in Centum

one is like c= ts and other c=k

 

[Jovani]

sorry I add some moreIt has nothing to do with modern sound.it is the formation and changes of palatovelars to plain vellarsand the distiction of labiovellars with plain vellars concerning the formation/evolution of kw gw etc from PIE(gush sometimes English language is so hard to express)Notice also Italian cinquecento the c of cento vs Latin C in Centumone is like c= ts and other c=k

So no modern sound, but old sounds, how old? I don't know palatvelur, you as a linguist understand them. What happened to them? Did they become something to make French today satem language?

 

[Yetos]

So no modern sound, but old sounds, how old? I don't know palatvelur, you as a linguist understand them. What happened to them? Did they become something to make French today satem language?

No french is not satem

there are more than this criteria.

No i do not know when

 

[Zeus10]

So no modern sound, but old sounds, how old? I don't know palatvelur, you as a linguist understand them. What happened to them? Did they become something to make French today satem language?

Very good point Jovani. This theory was built following only one criteria to create that division: Centum languages have a /k/ sound in certain words, meanwhile the cognates in Satem languages have one of a kind of /s/ sounds. There is no other criteria, and even if we suppose it had been some other, if it fails the first criteria in one direction or another, doesn't qualify for further examination. Now you will hear, palatals, velars, sibilants and other linguistic terminology which will confuse you. Don't be confused(apparently you already used the common sense to achieve the right conclusion), because these phonetic classifications have to do with the way a sound comes out of our mouth, which part of the mouth has been as an obstacle or a route for our breath. Now the division is geographical, the satem group lies totally to the east and the centum group totally to the west, with the exception of Tocharian, which surprisingly is not even an IE language but some Buddhist liturgical dead language, with no excuse to be found among IE languages family. The only excuse could be political, just to hide the clear geographical(political) division.
Now like you rightly noticed, if we follow the one criteria to decide the position of the French language, its position is clear: SATEM. However when you ask your language professor why this discrepancy occurs, he will tell you, because we are not classifying the language in their actual shape but how they were the moment they split from PIE mother language and after the merge of some hypothetical sounds to the respective groups. It's an absurd theory on all fronts, but serves political goals.

 

[Yetos]

Very good point Jovani. This theory was built following only one criteria to create that division: Centum languages have a /k/ sound in certain words, meanwhile the cognates in Satem languages have one of a kind of /s/ sounds. There is no other criteria, and even if we suppose it had been some other, if it fails the first criteria in one direction or another, doesn't qualify for further examination. Now you will hear, palatals, velars, sibilants and other linguistic terminology which will confuse you. Don't be confused(apparently you already used the common sense to achieve the right conclusion), because these phonetic classifications have to do with the way a sound comes out of our mouth, which part of the mouth has been as an obstacle or a route for our breath. Now the division is geographical, the satem group lies totally to the east and the centum group totally to the west, with the exception of Tocharian, which surprisingly is not even an IE language but some Buddhist liturgical dead language, with no excuse to be found among IE languages family. The only excuse could be political, just to hide the clear geographical(political) division.
Now like you rightly noticed, if we follow the one criteria to decide the position of the French language, its position is clear: SATEM. However when you ask your language professor why this discrepancy occurs, he will tell you, because we are not classifying the language in their actual shape but how they were the moment they split from PIE mother language and after the merge of some hypothetical sounds to the respective groups. It's an absurd theory on all fronts, but serves political goals.

That is a new 'scientific' declaration
Francais sont Satem.

2 centuries of Linguistic search
blown away by the new linguistic method of Zeus10

YEAAH
ZEUS10 THE NEW MASTER OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE

After all the linguistic explains he gave like Star= dark
NOW he declares Francais ce sont SATEM

WHEN is Next Hit?
I want to were my helmet!!!!


Another RUINED THREAD BY HIS MASTER THE GREAT LINGUISTIC SCIENTIST ZEUS10


ZEUS10 IN MANY OF YOUR POST YOU DENY THE IE LANGUAGES CONNECTIVITY.
WHY YOU ANSWER TO A THREAD THAT AFFAIRS IE LANGUAGES?

Now we have 2 theories:
1. Standard etymological, "scientific" "well-known", "mainstream", "well-accepted" theory, which find a etymological explanation, to the empiric-hypothetical PIE primitive roots(!).
2. My modest theory, which finds the etymological explanation, to other words, which carry a primitive meaning or borrow their meaning from the sounds in nature.
Let's take them 1 by 1
1. PIE theory
"Past
gone by in time and no longer existing."
ok, so far so good
[If had not been obvious that the word "past" is acquired from another word, like they do with majority of the words (my explanation)], the theory will explain like this:
origin: from the PIE root *pesd or stative *psd-éh₁ye-ti bullshit.
Ok.....and then what?!
2. My theory
"Past" is a transformation of the participle of the verb "pass" -->passed, after a vowel treatment between two ending consonants, occurring at the same time with shifting from the voiced 'd' to the homologous unvoiced 't'. As a matter of fact 'past' and 'passed' are pronounced the same. All we have to do is to find the origin of the word pass, which the theory (1) inevitably mistakenly finds on the primitive root *pess- which presumably yields the old English : 'fæsl'.
By the way, the same primitive root *pess-, yield 'πέος' in Greek and 'penis' in Latin .
Now I will let the other judge, which theory is more convincing.

ok me too

Now I will let the other judge, which theory is more convincing.

• I disagree with you, but this doesn't mean that I am writing this to prove you wrong. I don't think your Lithuanian expression 'pėda' comes DIRECTLY from PIE language, and I will tell you why. I don't even think that PIE language, ever existed on the first place at all. That language, is an invention, created by the modern linguists, in an effort to give an answer to the similarity of the words, in different languages.I will keep it simple and clean. Our example:
  
  pėda(lithuan)------piede(ital)------pied(french)---pie or pata(spanish)
  
  they all come DIRECTLY from Latin NOT directly from PIE language
  
  You should keep in mind, that Latin language is the language of the Latin Church, NOT the language of the Latin people(it became afterwards). I don't even need to look at the religion the Lithuanian people beleive, and just by that expression I could tell that at some point in time the Latin Church, must have been established in Lithuania.
  
  Therefore, it is the the Latin 'ped' the real word which was pronounced pėda in lithuan, piede in italian, pied in french), pie or pata(spanish), languages which become as such after being a local respective dialect.
  
  Now let's study the word itself, it variate from pé(portugese) to ped(+ending vowel) to the rest of the Romance languages, and it has the tendency to change the ending "d" to the easily pronounceable homologues, the voiceless "t". Now pat-a(spanish) is easily comparable to the Albanian put(ër-a modern ending), and this last one is easily comparable to the English foot(after phonetic transformation p--ph--f).
  The English itself, although developed a new term from the original Latin "ped", maintained these root, to create relative terminology, like: pedestrian, centipede, expedite, impediment, pedometer, pedestal etc.
  As for the Greek being an older version of the same Church language, preserve the same phonetic vector, from the Latin pes-ped to the Greek πους-πόδι, which "gave birth" to the other Greek word παις(AG)--παιδί(MG)=child.
  This is the real way the language lexicon is acquired, within the language and from language to language. Then the PIE language is a scientific bs.

When claiming that PIE is BS

and Lithuanian Pedas is from Latin!!!!!!
Now we declare Francais as SATEM!!!!

YEAH

 

[Zeus10]

That is a new 'scientific' declaration
Francais sont Satem.

2 centuries of Linguistic search
blown away by the new linguistic method of Zeus10

Yetos, partial quoting and taking out of context, is your continuous fallacy as part of a personal crusade against me. Read again my whole sentence and my whole reasoning:

Originally Posted by Zeus10
Very good point Jovani. This theory was built following only one criteria to create that division: Centum languages have a /k/ sound in certain words, meanwhile the cognates in Satem languages have one of a kind of /s/ sounds. There is no other criteria, and even if we suppose it had been some other, if it fails the first criteria in one direction or another, doesn't qualify for further examination. Now you will hear, palatals, velars, sibilants and other linguistic terminology which will confuse you. Don't be confused(apparently you already used the common sense to achieve the right conclusion), because these phonetic classifications have to do with the way a sound comes out of our mouth, which part of the mouth has been as an obstacle or a route for our breath. Now the division is geographical, the satem group lies totally to the east and the centum group totally to the west, with the exception of Tocharian, which surprisingly is not even an IE language but some Buddhist liturgical dead language, with no excuse to be found among IE languages family. The only excuse could be political, just to hide the clear geographical(political) division.
Now like you rightly noticed, if we follow the one criteria to decide the position of the French language, its position is clear: SATEM.However when you ask your language professor why this discrepancy occurs, he will tell you, because we are not classifying the language in their actual shape but how they were the moment they split from PIE mother language and after the merge of some hypothetical sounds to the respective groups. It's an absurd theory on all fronts, but serves political goals.

you have highlighted only : French language, its position is clear: SATEM

This is called "partial quote" to remove the surrounding matter in order to distort its intended meaning. Now let me discuss in my objective understanding, without spamming every single post of mine. I bring my opinion, which might be right or wrong, but if you don't like it, you can oppose with an objective counterargument or simply remain silent. Two things will happen for sure, after your personal attacks:
1. You will never get my nerves
2. I will keep posting my objective independent opinions in all their fairness, without attacking anyone, even when they say that L and R are vowels:

Originally Posted by Yetos
MUST KNOW THAT IN GREEK LETTER Ρ/R IS also a VOWEL as also the other liquid the λ/L
AND ALSO TAKES ASPIRATION
JUST LOOK EXAMPLE
ΑΡΡΗΤΟΣ ARR-ETOS
ΑΛΛΟΣ ALL-OS

NOTICE THIS
ῥοαί R is a vowel, and takes aspiration that little mark above ρ/r

so if you do not know Greek, and also Linguistic

And you judge me about Linguistics, despite the fact you must have a bare minimum required knowledge in the matter which you don't have. So let it be, if I am wrong I am wrong, and if I am right I am right. The fate of the world is not decided by this.

 

[Jovani]

That is a new 'scientific' declarationFrancais sont Satem. 2 centuries of Linguistic searchblown away by the new linguistic method of Zeus10 YEAAHZEUS10 THE NEW MASTER OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE.After all the linguistic explains he gave like Star= dark NOW he declares Francais ce sont SATEMWHEN is Next Hit?I want to were my helmet!!!!Another RUINED THREAD BY HIS MASTER THE GREAT LINGUISTIC SCIENTIST ZEUS10ZEUS10 IN MANY OF YOUR POST YOU DENY THE IE LANGUAGES CONNECTIVITY.WHY YOU ANSWER TO A THREAD THAT AFFAIRS IE LANGUAGES? ok me tooNow I will let the other judge, which theory is more convincing.

When claiming that PIE is BSand Lithuanian Pedas is from Latin!!!!!! Now we declare Francais as SATEM!!!! YEAH

Yetos you are making unnecessary comments. My topic was intended about centum and satem, I find nothing wrong with Zeus10 answer who you are misquoting.

 

[Zeus10]

I speak French, a centum language, and my understanding is that centum uses k in front of 100, but French uses s sound. I am confused. Can someone explain this to me?

French is a Neo-Latin language, and we know for a fact that Latin itself following the given criteria is the prototype of a centum language, but apparently French could have inherited the tendency to retain /s/ from the Celtic substratum, and this is very interesting.

 

[Zeus10]

Yetos you are making unnecessary comments. My topic was intended about centum and satem, I find nothing wrong with Zeus10 answer who you are misquoting.

Just ignore him.

I speak French, a centum language, and my understanding is that centum uses k in front of 100, but French uses s sound. I am confused. Can someone explain this to me?

French is a Neo-Latin language, and we know for a fact that Latin itself following the given criteria is the prototype of a centum language, but apparently French could have inherited the tendency to retain /s/ from the Celtic substratum, and this is very interesting.

 

[Ygorcs]

I speak French, a centum language, and my understanding is that centum uses k in front of 100, but French uses s sound. I am confused. Can someone explain this to me?

It's actually very simple: French is considered a centum language because the division between centum and satem takes into account phonetic changes that happened during the early development of the Indo-European branches, and not much later phonetic evolution in the daughter languages in each of those branches. Latin was completely centum, and it underwent its own, totally distinctive "satemization-like" process (except the Sardinian language) during the Middle Ages, when almost all Romance languages, coming straight from Latin, started a process of turning velars into fricatives akin to the much older "satemization" that happened in Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic languages. French was even more radical than the others and "satemized" even the [k] and [g] before "a", not just before "e" or "i".

The IE satemization involved mostly the palatalized "k" and "g" consonants losing their palatalization in Centum languages (i.e. they became a usual "k" and "g"), whereas they were further developed into a fricative sound ("ch", "sh" or similar sounds) in the Satem languages, but the non-palatalized velars "k" and "g" went mostly unaffected. What happened in French, Portuguese and most other Neo-Latin languages was a change quite different from PIE satemization in its very nature, not only in chronology. The "common" [k] and [g] started to become palatalized by Latin speakers, something like "kje" and "gje", and later became fricatives sounding like "ch", "ts" or "dj". This wasn't the same process.

But it's mostly a matter of chronology: satem vs. centum refers to the split of the Proto-Indo-European language during the Bronze Age, some time between 3,000 and 2,000 BC, while what you see in French is a phonetic evolution that happened more likely between 300 and 600 AD, several milennia later, and it was a specific development within Latin dialects, not something that affected the Indo-European family as a whole. So, French and all other Romance languages are considered "centum" because that classifications considers the language where they came from, not how they sound like today.

 

[Ygorcs]

French is a Neo-Latin language, and we know for a fact that Latin itself following the given criteria is the prototype of a centum language, but apparently French could have inherited the tendency to retain /s/ from the Celtic substratum, and this is very interesting.

This doesn't make sense, because Gaulish was exactly like Latin in its preservation of [k] and [g] before those vowels. French is not unique at all. It just went through the same phonetic change that affected all Latin dialects in the Late Antiquity Middle Ages and went even further fricativizing also the [k] and [g] before "a".

Jovani, honestly, if I were you I wouldn't take the "alternative facts", "post-truth" science of Zeus very seriously. Look for actual explanations provided by professional linguists. I'm stating to you what they say, but you may be interested in proving it for yourself.

 

[Zeus10]

It's actually very simple: French is considered a centum language because the division between centum and satem takes into account phonetic changes that happened during the early development of the Indo-European branches, and not much later phonetic evolution in the daughter languages in each of those branches. Latin was completely centum, and it underwent its own, totally distinctive "satemization" process (except the Sardinian language) during the Middle Ages, when almost all Romance languages, coming straight from Latin, started a process of turning velars into fricatives akin to the much older "satemization" that happened in Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic languages. French was even more radical than the others and "satemized" even the [k] and [g] before "a", not just before "e" or "i".

The IE satemization involved mostly the palatalized "k" and "g" consonants losing their palatalization in Centum languages (i.e. they became a usual "k" and "g"), whereas they were further developed into a fricative sound ("ch", "sh" or similar sounds) in the Satem languages, but the non-palatalized velars "k" and "g" went mostly unaffected. What happened in French, Portuguese and most other Neo-Latin languages was a change quite different in its very nature, not only in chronology. The "common" [k] and [g] started to become palatalized by Latin speakers, something like "kje" and "gje", and later became fricatives sounding like "ch", "ts" or "dj". This wasn't the same process.

But it's mostly a matter of chronology: satem vs. centum refers to the split of the Proto-Indo-European language during the Bronze Age, some time between 3,000 and 2,000 BC, while what you see in French is a phonetic evolution that happened more likely between 300 and 600 AD, several milennia later, and it was a specific development within Latin dialects, not something that affected the Indo-European family as a whole. So, French and all other Romance languages are considered "centum" because that classifications considers the language where they came from, not how they sound like today.

Actually your explanation doesn't sound so simple, beside the fact that what you are saying, is not true and has been never verified. All the Italian dialects including Italian which are directly derived from Latin never have undergone this hypothetical so called "satemization" process, and according to the theory itself, the entire process ended long ago when languages split from the PIE itself. There is no linguist around to suggest a Middle Age "satemization" for Latin dialects. The palatalization happened only in the Italian dialects( which are the direct Latin language-daughters ), meanwhile all other major Latin dialects in periphery, like French, Spanish, Portugese and the semi-Latin English, who had a CELTIC SUBSTRATUM, are actually using sibilants:

 

[Zeus10]

This doesn't make sense, because Gaulish was exactly like Latin in its preservation of [k] and [g] before those vowels. French is not unique at all. It just went through the same phonetic change that affected all Latin dialects in the Late Antiquity Middle Ages and went even further fricativizing also the [k] and [g] before "a".

Jovani, honestly, if I were you I wouldn't take the "alternative facts", "post-truth" science of Zeus very seriously. Look for actual explanations provided by professional linguists. I'm stating to you what they say, but you may be interested in proving it for yourself.

Are you a professional linguist Ygorcs, and if you are I will show you my credentials in the same way you show yours and we will have a professional discussion. If you are not keep humble, because I warn you you will look like a foolish. The fact that I don't accept the PIE root theory, doesn't mean that I don't know it, it means, simply that it's already been dropped this very moment we are writing, and the linguists have gone from "cognates comparison" to "similar words comparison" for the same reasons I don't accept it.

 

[Ygorcs]

Actually your explanation doesn't sound so simple, beside the fact that what you are saying, is not true and has been never verified. All the Italian dialects including Italian which are directly derived from Latin never have undergone this hypothetical so called "satemization" process, and according to the theory itself, the entire process ended long ago when languages split from the PIE itself. There is no linguist around to suggest a Middle Age "satemization" for Latin dialects. The palatalization happened only in the Italian dialects( which are the direct Latin language-daughters ), meanwhile all other major Latin dialects in periphery, like French, Spanish, Portugese and the semi-Latin English, who had a CELTIC SUBSTRATUM, are actually using sibilants:

You're wrong, sorry. The sibilants are a modern development, but we know for a fact that they were a "ts" and "dz" sound until the end of the Middle Ages. That is why Castillian Spanish has no sibilant at all in the place of Latin "ce" and "ci", but a fricative sound like English "think", which is a development from the fricative "ts", while in other regions that "ts" was simplified into a sibilant "s". The same process happened in Portuguese and in French, and that is why words that sound exactly the same today (like French "ça" and "sa", or Portuguese "paço" and "passo") are still written in distinct ways, because in the past "s" only meant the phoneme (the sibilant that you talk about), while "ç" was the sound that represented the "ts" sound when it was followed by an "a" instead of an "e" or "i". When the orthography of those languages was being devised by the late Middle Ages they already distinguished both sounds, so it shows that the sibilant sound is a modern phenomenon derived from the previous palatalized consonants.

Sorry, but I know well enough the phonetic development of Romance languages, as I speak one such Romance languages as my own mother tongue.

Don't spread misinformation, even worse while rebuking other people bluntly for simply not agreeing with the hypotheses that you alone make up in your mind with little backing up from professional linguists that really make a living out of this science, and even though you know all too well that what I say is backed up by thousands of linguists, unlike your alternative hypotheses. That's a shame. You can even talk of a Celtic substratum when at least you provide some modicum of evidence that Celtic languages like Gaulish had a sibilant where we should expect a "k" or "g" sound, and not, as all the real evidences point out, they were also almost exclusively "centum" like Latin.

 

[Ygorcs]

Are you a professional linguist Ygorcs, and if you are I will show you my credentials in the same way you show yours and we will have a professional discussion. If you are not keep humble, because I warn you you will look like a foolish. The fact that I don't accept the PIE root theory, doesn't mean that I don't know it, it means, simply that it's already been dropped this very moment we are writing, and the linguists have gone from "cognates comparison" to "similar words comparison" for the same reasons I don't accept it.

I'm waiting patiently for you to show me the articles and books by PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTS who work in reknown universities and agree with you in that "it's already been dropped this very moment we are writing". That'll be interesting. Meanwhile, all you've done in every post is present your own hypothesis but never backing them up with the works of real linguists who study this subject scientifically and professionally for years. I don't have to show my credentials. What I have to do is to show that they are backed up by science and not the mere result of my imagination and fancy creativity. The authority of one's arguments is demonstrated by what they say and not by what they are, dude.

 

[Zeus10]

You're wrong, sorry. The sibilants are a modern development, but we know for a fact that they were a "ts" and "dz" sound until the end of the Middle Ages.

OMG, why am I having this discussion with you. The palatalization goes in the opposite direction of the satemization process. It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Listen Ygorcs, you have no idea, what you are talking about, probably you are learning from the internet right now, and come here to present some chopped knowledge.

 

[Zeus10]

I'm waiting patiently for you to show me the articles and books by PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTS who work in reknown universities and agree with you in that "it's already been dropped this very moment we are writing". That'll be interesting. Meanwhile, all you've done in every post is present your own hypothesis but never backing them up with the works of real linguists who study this subject scientifically and professionally for years. I don't have to show my credentials. What I have to do is to show that they are backed up by science and not the mere result of my imagination and fancy creativity..

You don't show your credentials because you don't have ones,

The authority of one's arguments is demonstrated by what they say and not by what they are, dude

This is true, but goes against of what you wrote in the first paragraph.