7

Traditional reconstruction gives the following velars in PIE:

*/ḱ/, */ǵ/, */ǵʰ/

*/k/, */g/, */gʰ/

*/kʷ/, */gʷ/, */gʷʰ/

I wonder what evidence is there to consider velars */kʷ/, */gʷ/, */gʷʰ/ separate phonemes rather than combinations of a velar and a labial sounds: */kw/, */gw/, */gʰw/?

I know there is a word for "horse" *h1eḱwos but here ḱ reconstructed to be palatal so it is not a minimal pair. Is there any occurrence of /kw/ in the language, so to take it as a minimal pair?

6

Andrew Sihler (Sihler 1995) argues that Greek is "the only centum language [...] attesting a contrast between reflexes of ḱw and *kʷ". In Greek "two distinct sounds *ḱw give a double consonant medially, while the unitary *kʷ gives a single consonant" (p. 159). For example,

PIE *ḱw > Greek ππ, e.g. Greek ἵππος, Latin equus, equos, Myc. iqo

PIE *kʷ > Greek π, e.g. Greek ἕπομαι, Lat. sequitur

He also acknowledges the fact that this argumentation is based on one word only, Greek ἵππος, "whose peculiarities do not inspire confidence" (p. 160) [emphasis mine - Alex B.].

As for the contrast PIE *kw - PIE *kʷ, I think the evidence also comes from Greek (and Mycenaean): e.g. the so called boukolos rule states that "a labiovelar lost its labial element when adjacent to the vowel *u" (Fortson 2010: 70). For example,

Greek βουκόλος 'cowherd' (PIE *gʷoukʷolos > PIE *gʷoukolos), but αἰπόλος 'goatherd' (PIE*aikʷolos).

To conclude: PIE was not a monolithic, 'timeless' language that never changed. There is good reason to believe that there were different stages in its development, too.

| improve this answer | |
  • No, in h1eḱwos there is no *kw, only *ḱw. Look at the question, I already mentioned this word. – Anixx Nov 13 '12 at 3:44
  • Okay, but this is not an example of contrast between kʷ and kw. What is the proof that these two different varuants existed in the proto-language? I saw numerous reconstructions with *kʷ but all reconstructions with *kw were doubtful and different by different authors. Actually my hypothesis is that there was only kw and no kʷ (more exactly, it was uvular *qw) – Anixx Nov 13 '12 at 16:57
  • @Anixx, your hypothesis cannot explain the boukolos rule, for starters. – Alex B. Nov 13 '12 at 21:18
  • why this rule cannot be formulated without labiovelars? Something this way: wkw->wk – Anixx Nov 13 '12 at 21:22
  • Why uvular? I hope you don't read the letter "q" as an IPA uvular sound? – Alex B. Nov 13 '12 at 21:22
2

-w- can act as a vowel: *drew- > *drw- (zero grade) > *dru- etc. If kʷ was -kw- we would see kʷ "disintegrate" in certain situations into -kew-, -kow-, -ku- etc. which doesn't happen.

| improve this answer | |
  • Could you please elaborate so that it becomes clearer how this answers the question? – robert Feb 20 '14 at 18:41
1

All these arguments are legitimate. But you could also ask whether there is any real human language (not reconstructed) that has a phonological contrast between /kʷ/ and /kw/.

| improve this answer | |
  • Probably not /kʷ/ and /kw/ but /q/ and /kw/. – Eleshar Aug 31 '16 at 13:42
  • @Eleshar: I don't know of anyone who reconstructs traditional PIE *kʷ (labialized velar stop) as /q/ (uvular stop). Some people think it was /qʷ/, a labialized uvular stop. This would contrast with non-labialized /q/ (traditional PIE *k). – ewawe Aug 31 '16 at 19:35
  • I believe this is actually quite pointless since most historical linguist reconstruct just more or less empty phonemes without much ambition to know how these were realised (and some will actually admit it), so it is largely irrelevant if you mark it as *kʷ, *q, *qʷ, or k2 - the "k" there is there mostly to symbolise that the reconstructed phoneme evolved into k-like sounds. – Eleshar Aug 31 '16 at 19:47
  • My idea of the system is 4 degree positional contrast (*p, *t, *kʲ, *q) which would be far from unheard of in existing languages. I find this more plausible than 3 degree contrast where just the last one differentiates roundedness. – Eleshar Aug 31 '16 at 19:54
  • None of this actually addresses my question, which was whether there is any evidence for a phonological contrast between /Xʷ/ and /Xw/, whatever /X/ might be. – fdb Aug 31 '16 at 19:58
1

There are several indications this was not just combination of *k+*w.

1) Morphology: Semi-vowels were vocalised in zero grade verbs but this does not happen for *kʷ. To the contrary, there are cases where there is *ḱ followed by /w/ that can vocalise to /u/ ("dog" - a.gr.: kyón, gen.: kynos, skrt.: śván, gen. śunah) which would be fairly peculiar if it did not happen for regular /k/.

2) Alphabetic representation: Some pre-classical Greek dialects use letter "koppa" where *kʷ is reconstructed (which is actually the source of Roman letter Q). There is little reason to assume they would record one particular combination of phonemes as a single phoneme (not that it would be unprecedented in Greek, just the coincidence seems unlikely).

3) Contrast type: It seems certain that PIE *ḱ corresponded to some sort of mildly palatal form of [k] as in the so-called satem languages, it developed quite indiscriminately to sibilants. Therefore if you have a palatal version of [k], and another version of [k], it is likely the contrast will be somewhat reinforced by distancing the places of articulation from each other, the latter being moved more to the post-velar regions of the mouth (as in [q] in IPA), which tends to produced effect not entirely dissimilar to labialisation (same as back vowels tend to be rounded too). I believe it is not difficult to find supporting evidence in linguistic typology for this.

4) Satemisation: When IE languages changed the spawn of *ḱ into something else (either by satemisation or frequent palatalisation), the spawn of *kʷ tended to lose the labial element, as if it were no longer needed to distinguish a contrast because the contrast ceased to exist due to one part of it changing almost entirely to something wildly different. Also it makes sense with regards to (3) - the contrast might have been lost due to it being reinforced too much one way or the other. Again, this is not ubiquitous and does not constitute a proof but it points out in this direction.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    The other arguments are good ones but 2 is incorrect: koppa was used for any [k] that did not precede a front vowel. Most such instances did not come from labiovelars, which had been lost centuries earlier. – TKR Aug 31 '16 at 21:01
  • if wonder if the Greek kyon can be just leveling by analogy with oblique cases such as kynos – Constantine Geist Apr 19 '17 at 21:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.