Centum & Satem difference

[Ygorcs]

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.

Who's talking about satemization? I already made it clear in my first answer, to Jovani, that what happened in the Middle Ages was different in nature, and not only in chronology, from the phonetic change that caused the satemization of some IE branches in the Bronze Age. You're really confused, man. lol

By the way, I reinforce: if what happened was "exactly the opposite of what" I am saying, provide links to articles of professional linguists confirming your criticism. I'm pretty sure you won't find them, unless you look for the "amateur linguists" and their wildly deluded blogs on the internet.

Anyway, my aim was just to give an answer to Jovani's doubts about French. I already did that and also provided the scientific explanation that is given by most linguists of mainstream science. Now he can look this subject up better for himself and find other better evidences and sources to reach his own conclusion. What I definitely couldn't let happen is that he is only informed by someone who has as his own mission the debunking of the entire field of historical linguistics on Indo-European and proving, very scientifically, that Albanian language has an inherent "divine force". LOL. Now go look for something useful to do, because that's exactly what I'm doing right now and have no time to waste with fruitless discussions about fringe speculations.

 

[Zeus10]

Who's talking about satemization? I already made it clear in my first answer, to Jovani, that what happened in the Middle Ages was different in nature, and not only in chronology, from the phonetic change that caused the satemization of some IE branches in the Bronze Age. You're really confused, man. lol

By the way, I reinforce: if what happened was "exactly the opposite of what" I am saying, provide links to articles of professional linguists confirming your criticism. I'm pretty sure you won't find them, unless you look for the "amateur linguists" and their wildly deluded blogs on the internet.

So you want me to quote the others(scientists), and then to face the difficulties I might encounter defending their method after a possible criticism? Why should I do that? I can give you arguments, about my opinion, but I will never come here to declare like you do:

"

but we know for a fact that they were a "ts" and "dz" sound until the end of the Middle Ages.

"

How do you know, you were there? How do you know the phonetic values, of the dead languages?

 

[Zeus10]

How do you know that PIE itself really existed?
Do you have any archaeological evidence to support it?
Have you heard the fact that TODAY you need a different set of reconstructed (of so called PIE) roots for every modern language?
How could you possibly know?

 

[Ygorcs]

So you want me to quote the others(scientists), and then to face the difficulties I might encounter defending their method after a possible criticism? Why should I do that? I can give you arguments, about my opinion, but I will never come here to declare like you do:

""

How do you know, you were there? How do you know the phonetic values, of the dead languages?

I already explained some of the reasons we know that with a high degree of probability (if you want absolute certainty in historic sciences you should definitely not look for real science, because it's based on probabilities, not on dogmas). As for the questions of your answer that sound absolutely childish provocations, I'll just ignore them, of course, while only pointing out that you're wrong, those are not dead languages, as of course every one here already knows.

 

[Ygorcs]

How do you know that PIE itself really existed?
Do you have any archaeological evidence to support it?
Have you heard the fact that TODAY you need a different set of reconstructed (of so called PIE) roots for every modern language?
How could you possibly know?

Sorry, but the person that needs to prove their points is the one who's trying to debunk the entire theory and the entire field of historical linguistics, not I. Whether you like it or not, what I'm saying, be it true or wrong, is more than sufficiently explained and demonstrated in hundreds of books and articles and scientific research. What you say is not. So, it is you who have to prove why you claim that PIE never existed, and that the best conclusion is that there was never any common PIE language since there is a striking diversity and differentiation of roots and lexical formation between different MODERN IE languages (a "tiny" gap of some 5,000-6,000 years of phonetic evolution between them, why oh why don't they share 100% of the same PIE roots? It mustn't be very difficult to at least assume why is that so). I'd be very interesting if you found at least one modern, historically documented evidence of a group of languages that share a lot of their core vocabulary and core syntax, but were NEVER descended from one common older language, that that happened just by sheer coincidence or merely because of geographical proximity between the languages.

The burden is on you, dude. Take it since you want to prove everyone else wrong and are so certain that you alone have a "new method" to uncover the truth.

 

[Zeus10]

I already explained some of the reasons we know that with a high degree of probability (if you want absolute certainty in historic sciences you should definitely not look for real science, because it's based on probabilities, not on dogmas). As for the questions of your answer that sound absolutely childish provocations, I'll just ignore them, of course, while only pointing out that you're wrong, those are not dead languages, as of course every one here already knows.

You said it yourself, it's based on probabilities not "it's a fact" because it comes from the science-religion.

 

[Zeus10]

Sorry, but the person that needs to prove their points is the one who's trying to debunk the entire theory and the entire field of historical linguistics, not I. Whether you like it or not, what I'm saying, be it true or wrong, is more than sufficiently explained and demonstrated in hundreds of books and articles and scientific research. What you say is not. So, it is you who have to prove why you claim that PIE never existed, and that the best conclusion is that there was never any common PIE language since there is a striking diversity and differentiation of roots and lexical formation between different MODERN IE languages (a "tiny" gap of some 5,000-6,000 years of phonetic evolution between them, why oh why don't they share 100% of the same PIE roots? It mustn't be very difficult to at least assume why is that so). I'd be very interesting if you found at least one modern, historically documented evidence of a group of languages that share a lot of their core vocabulary and core syntax, but were NEVER descended from one common older language, that that happened just by sheer coincidence or merely because of geographical proximity between the languages.

The burden is on you, dude. Take it since you want to prove everyone else wrong and are so certain that you alone have a "new method" to uncover the truth.

That's exactly what I am trying to do, but if you keep saying "science is written on stone" or is the "new religion" after every argument I give then you intentionally put the debate in a vicious circle.
And beside that, I never said my methods were "the replacing religion", but I am pretty sure, my arguments against the validity of some Modern Linguistics aspects are solid as stone: si-gur(albanian) ---> sicuro(italian).

 

[Ygorcs]

That's exactly what I am trying to do, but if you keep saying "science is written on stone" or is the "new religion" after every argument I give then you intentionally put the debate in a vicious circle.
And beside that, I never said my methods were "the replacing religion", but I am pretty sure, my arguments against the validity of some Modern Linguistics aspects are solid as stone: si-gur(albanian) ---> sicuro(italian).

Rock-solid "arguments" based on "it's so similar that it CAN ONLY be true" or "this COULD THEORETICALLY be be written in a quite similar way using these foreign-language roots, so it makes perfect sense that those words were borrowed from that foreign language"? Hmm, let me see... No, thanks. Ad-hoc emonstrations of similarities (I have the word "sicuro", then I'll look for some Albanian-based etyomological explanation, one which doesn't sound completely crazy, for that word) are not a scientific method. I'm completely open to new scientific hypothesis and to get rid of older scientific expalantions that are superseded by better hypotheses, but I'm sorry, yours aren't one of those better hypotheses, and I of course am not willing to throw away decades of works of professional linguists because of new hypotheses that are made up with a very sloppy and suspicious method.

 

[Yetos]

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:


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:



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.

Ι Quote all of your post


AND YES SOMETIMES GREEK R and L are VOWELS

Like 'ΡΟΑΙ, ΑΡΡΗΤΟΣ, ΑΤ SUCH WORDS R and L ARE LIKE VOWELS.


WANT IT OR NOT YOU ARE AN IGNORANT

CAUSE YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT ASPIRATIONS ON R and L

take a look at Englis L on word Little


But from a genious of your Size what should someone expect.

 

[hrvclv]

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.

Yes. There is no valid explanation other than that. Latin was a Centum language. French underwent a gradual process of palatalization. Roughly : k --> kj --> ʧ --> ∫
In the variant of Occitan my grandparents spoke here in Auvergne, the process of palatalization stopped halfway through :
- Latin : capra (goat) - Auvergnat : tsabrà - French : chèvre
- Latin : camminus (from Celtic) - Auvergnat : tsami - French : chemin
- Latin : cantare - Auvergnat : tsañtä - French : chanter

 

[Zeus10]

Rock-solid "arguments" based on "it's so similar that it CAN ONLY be true" or "this COULD THEORETICALLY be be written in a quite similar way using these foreign-language roots, so it makes perfect sense that those words were borrowed from that foreign language"? Hmm, let me see... No, thanks. Ad-hoc emonstrations of similarities (I have the word "sicuro", then I'll look for some Albanian-based etyomological explanation, one which doesn't sound completely crazy, for that word) are not a scientific method. I'm completely open to new scientific hypothesis and to get rid of older scientific expalantions that are superseded by better hypotheses, but I'm sorry, yours aren't one of those better hypotheses, and I of course am not willing to throw away decades of works of professional linguists because of new hypotheses that are made up with a very sloppy and suspicious method.

We won't get rid of anything, especially if it is scientific, because it includes the enormous work of the most wise people, BUT when you come here and on the very first post, you write:

"......is simple"

forwarding a theory of yours as a fact, whereas is never supported from any valid linguistic source, then we have a big problem. Then you have the nerve to criticize me why I don't support my theories on the same sources. And thinking that I claimed in the first place, that they are MY ALTERNATIVE VIEW, which is not necessary correct. What do you do thereafter, you call them sloppy and suspicious like not only you know better, but like the fate of the whole linguistics would be decided in our threads.

 

[Yetos]

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.

Zeus10
Cymraeg language is Neo-Latin? or Celtic?
cause the 100 in them is cant,
How is pronounced? /k/ant or /s/ant?

maybe they speak neo-Latin cause they were catholic like the Lithuanian foot 'pedas'?

 

[Zeus10]

Zeus10
Cymraeg language is Neo-Latin? or Celtic?
cause the 100 in them is cant,
How is pronounced? /k/ant or /s/ant?

maybe they speak neo-Latin cause they were catholic like the Lithuanian foot 'pedas'?

I don't know, and I differently from Ygorcs that knows everything about the phonetics of the dead languages during prehistoric and middle times, don't pretend to know anything. But what religion has to do with the centum-satem topic?

 

[Yetos]

Hey ZEUS10

ASK A LINGUIST WITH DIPLOMA,

DOES L and R sometimes considered Vowels?
YES OR NOT?

And then Quote Me,


ΑΡ-Ρητοι
'ΡΟΑΙ r with aspiration

AT Least Go one step above Erasmian Greek,
to Reconstructed Proto-Greek
There you will find your answer,

L and R Many times are considered Vowels
and not only in Greek


at least can you tell me at the word Little, second L can considered as Vowel?

English word arrow has 2 rr?

 

[Yetos]

I don't know, and I differently from Ygorcs that knows everything about the phonetics of the dead languages during prehistoric and middle times, don't pretend to know anything. But what religion has to do with the centum-satem topic?

just I remember somewhere you said that Lithuanian took 'foot'
from Latin, cause they were Catholics

Cymraeg took word Cant=100 from Latin? or it is Celtic?

 

[Zeus10]

Ι Quote all of your post


AND YES SOMETIMES GREEK R and L are VOWELS

Like 'ΡΟΑΙ, ΑΡΡΗΤΟΣ, ΑΤ SUCH WORDS R and L ARE LIKE VOWELS.


WANT IT OR NOT YOU ARE AN IGNORANT

CAUSE YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT ASPIRATIONS ON R and L

take a look at Englis L on word Little


But from a genious of your Size what should someone expect.

Of course I am an ignorant when I don't know that:

AND YES SOMETIMES GREEK R and L are VOWELS

but pardon me, I want to remain that ignorant, who will never accept your ignorance.

 

[hrvclv]

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?

Poor Jovani... who asked a simple question, with a simple answer known to anyone who has given it a thought - and who had his thread once again confiscated by pseudo-linguists uttering nonsense.

 

[Zeus10]

Hey ZEUS10

ASK A LINGUIST WITH DIPLOMA,

DOES L and R sometimes considered Vowels?
YES OR NOT?

And then Quote Me,


ΑΡ-Ρητοι
'ΡΟΑΙ r with aspiration

AT Least Go one step above Erasmian Greek,
to Reconstructed Proto-Greek
There you will find your answer,

L and R Many times are considered Vowels
and not only in Greek


at least can you tell me at the word Little, second L can considered as Vowel?

English word arrow has 2 rr?

Well, Yetos, why do you keep having a discussion when you completely disagree with me. I agree 1000% you don't quote me, and I promise you, I will never quote you. Because it looks senseless to me to lower the level of the conversation, to the debate, if L and R are vowels or not.

 

[Yetos]

Of course I am an ignorant when I don't know that:



but pardon me, I want to remain that ignorant, who will never accept your ignorance.

THEN HOW COME YOU DEVELOPED A METHOD,
THAT IS BETTER OF IE
AND CERTIFY IT, AND CLAIM IT
SINCE YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT,
YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS,
YOU DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER,

COME ON MAN!!!


ARE YOU KIDDING US ALL HERE?

At Least
THAT IS WRITTEN MANY TIMES IN FORUM
WHY LATIN WORD FOR HORSE IS EQUUS
AND CELTIC WORD EPOS* Godess Epona

Can you explain that?
and where else you will find it?

*(maybe Epphos or Epphew, my memory sometimes blocks)

 

[Zeus10]

Yes. There is no valid explanation other than that. Latin was a Centum language. French underwent a gradual process of palatalization. Roughly : k --> kj --> ʧ --> ∫
In the variant of Occitan my grandparents spoke here in Auvergne, the process of palatalization stopped halfway through :
- Latin : capra (goat) - Auvergnat : tsabrà - French : chèvre
- Latin : camminus (from Celtic) - Auvergnat : tsami - French : chemin
- Latin : cantare - Auvergnat : tsañtä - French : chanter

This argument, just proves that the theory is wrong, or at least French as a distinct language was never centum. And not only French, but English, Spanish, Portuguese basically half Europe.