5

I found the following phonological development (from PIE to Greek) patterns very interesting.

*kw>t / __ {e, i}

(e.g., *penkwe- > πέντε)

*gw>d / __ e

(*gwelbhu- > δελψύς)

*gwh>th / __ e

(*gwhen- > θείνω)

What I’m curious is that the letter “i” can’t be applied to *gw and *gwh to make the consonants change into an alveolar or a dental just like *kw does. When “i” follows *gw and *gwh, the results are “bi” and “fi” respectively (which are labials like when *kw changes into p when followed by a consonant, as in *penkwtos- > πεμπτός), as in *gwih- > βίος and *hegwhi- > ὄφις.

I’m wondering if it is about voicing (vibration)? Don’t know if “i” can’t be applied to voiced consonants and make them change into an alveolar or a dental. If so, are there any other sound change patterns similar to these?

Edit: ὄφις, not ὄψις, thanks for the typo correction. Thanks for all the answers and comments!

3
  • 2
    You may want to take a look at linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/2395/445
    – Alex B.
    Jan 3 at 14:55
  • 1
    Also see latin.stackexchange.com/q/13611/40
    – TKR
    Jan 3 at 19:21
  • labiovelars do generally dentalise before PIE i cf τῑ́νω < kʷi-néw-ti,. Dentalisation of labiovelars is also dialect dependent (e.g. in Aeolic they always labialise) so it's possible ophis labialising rather than dentalising is due to interdialect borrowing
    – Tristan
    Jan 6 at 17:45

1 Answer 1

7

I assume you mean ὄφις, not ὄψις. The process where etc become [kp] is reasonably well-attested in the languages of Africa as well as in Indo-European where the outcome would be [p] ([kp] is a typologically anomalous outcome limited mostly to a band of languages in Africa). The lingual outcome can be explained as an acoustically-driven modification of the shift forward of the primary place of articulation, triggered by a front vowel. Labialization as a secondary articulation is primarily identifiable by a significant lowering of a consonant's formants, whereas front vowels lead to palatalization which is identifiable from raised consonant formants.

A voicing-related asymmetry is predicted to be possible, because at the C-to-V transition with a voiceless consonant, there will be a brief voiceless period with turbulent airflow, which is lacking with voiced consonants. That transition then creates more of a fricative-like transition which is easily identifiable, and before a front vowel it is likely to have a more palatal identity, hence an ultimate outcome as a dental rather than a labial. So there are at least two perceptual factors: palatalization leading to a dental, and greater probability of dentalization of a voiceless consonant.

The final puzzle is why dentalization before [e] is the general rule and doesn't have voicing-relation complications. The greater frequency of occurrence of labio-velar plus [e] may well be a systemic factor that encourages maximum generality of the labio-velar to dental shift (examples like ὄφις are not plentiful). A perceptual basis for the asymmetry is not obvious.

1
  • 1
    What do you make of the fact that palatalization before front vowels occurs so widely with labiovelars, but never with plain velars?
    – TKR
    Jan 3 at 23:03

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.