Is it known when Satemization happened in Proto-Indo-Iranian? I am assuming that this sound change was a one time event specific to this branch of Indo-European. But I know that some of the western languages like Proto Slavic also developed this feature, so maybe the question does not make sense.
-
I will remind that Slavic and Iranian peoples were neighbours for thousands years. Scythians (for some time, their capital was in Kamianka), Sarmatians. Satemization could have started in one branch and spread to neighbouring branches.– ArfreverCommented Aug 28 at 21:08
-
French has "developed" this feature as well. Palatalization is not rare and it may happen repeatedly. Incidently, this question appears with proportional frequency.– vectoryCommented Aug 30 at 7:10
-
1@vectory no French hasn't. Palatalisation in French (and the rest of non-Sardinian Romance) is a conditioned change, whereas Satemization involves unconditioned palatalisation of the palatovelars (and then a merger of the labiovelars and plain velars, which are also still at least partially distinct in French). You are correct though that palatalisation itself is not rare and could occur independently. The question is whether this specific unconditioned palatalisation of the palatovelars together with merger of the plain and labio-velars could reasonably occur independently– TristanCommented Aug 30 at 8:22
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Proto-Indo-Iranian: When did Satemization happen? Unfortunately, there is no way to say for sure when satemization took place in Proto-Indo-Iranian; at the end of this answer, however, I will provide a rough estimate based on a few indirect considerations.
The term satemization refers to the palatalization (or, more broadly, the advancement of the place of articulation) of the palatovelars (PIE *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ) in most eastern branches of Indo-European, i.e. Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, maybe also Thracian, but not Tocharian. The situation of Anatolian is complicated in that part of it is clearly centum (Hittite), while the remaining part seems to attest satəm reflexes (Luwian and Lycian). It could be argued that sametization is really an areal feature that originated in Indo-Iranian and then spread into the rest of the eastern branches. This would explain why in Proto-Indo-Iranian the process of satemization appears to be complete (i.e. all palatovelars are affected by it), while Balto-Slavic, Albanian and Armenian present some exceptional developments where such phenomenon failed to occur. As for Balto-Slavic, besides regular satəm reflexes, like Lith. šim̃tas, Latv. sìmts : OCS sŭto ‘hundred’, there are cases in which the palatovelars of Proto-Indo-European display a centum treatment in one of the two sub-branches, such as Lith. šérti ‘to feed’ : PSl *kormъ ‘fodder’; Lith. žvaigždė̃ : PSl *gvězda ‘star’; Lith. klausýti ‘to listen’ : OCS slyšati ‘to hear’. There are also some lexical doublets, especially in Baltic, where the first member shows a satəm reflex and the second a centum reflex, notably Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’ vs. ašmuõ ‘blade’ (see Young 2017: 497). In Albanian, the original palatovelars regularly develop into fricatives, likely via a stage in which they were affricates; however, whenever they formed a cluster with a resonant in Proto-Albanian and ancient varieties, they are continued by pure velars in modern dialects, e.g. Tosk quaj, Old Gheg kluoj ‘to call, give a name’ < PIE *ḱlows- (Rusakov 2017: 570); Tosk grurë, Gheg grunë ‘wheat’ < PIE *ǵr̥h2nóm ‘grain’; Tosk, Gheg krye ‘head’ < PIE *ḱroh2snom ‘head’; Tosk, Gheg mjekër ‘chin, beard’ < PIE *smeḱru- (Orel 2000: 70-71, §1.4.3.9). Armenian exhibits a similar process of depalatalization of palatovelars before r in some words, e.g. OArm. մաւրուք mawruk‘ ‘beard’ < PIE *smVḱru-, where *ḱ > w instead of the regular reflex s (see Beekes 2003: 176, §10.4.4). This suggests that satemization began in Indo-Iranian, since the languages from this branch don’t seem to have irregular developments of this kind, and only afterwards spread to other eastern Indo-European languages.
The complete and unconditional palatalization of palatovelars in Proto-Indo-Iranian is rather ancient, because it is attested in all of its descendants, including the earliest members. Consider, for example, the words aš-šu-wa and ú-a(z)-za in the language of the Indo-Aryan aristocracy of the Mitanni kingdom. These two forms clearly correspond to Skr. अश्व áśva- ‘horse’ (EWA 1: 139-40) and वाज vā́ja- ‘race, prize’ (EWA 2: 540-41), respectively, and therefore come from PIIr *Háćwa- (< PIE *h1eḱwos) and *wā́ȷ́a- (< PIE *woǵos). Such language is sparsely documented in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza (c. 1380 BC), and in Kikkuli’s horse training text (c. 1400 BC). Since these words show traces of the satəm palatalization, we conclude that it must have happened before Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian split. In fact, Beekes (2011: 30) asserts that satemization “took place […], probably not long after the splitting up of Proto-Indo-European”. There are two other examples of borrowings from Indo-Iranian into Uralic that demonstrate the antiquity of satemization. Benveniste (1969: 34-35) pointed out that PIr *párca- ‘piglet’ (< PIE *pórḱos, cf. Lat. porcus, OIr. orc, OE fearh, OHG farah, Lith. par̃šas, OCS prasę, Ru. porosjá, etc.), whence Av. pərəsa- and Khot. pā̮sa-, entered the lexicon of some Finno-Permic languages, such as Finnish porsas, Estonian põrsas, Livonian pūoraz, Mordvin purcos, Udmurt parś, Komi-Zyrian porś. One can even reconstruct a Proto-Finno-Permic form *porćas ~ *porśas ‘pig’ (UEW [1498]). In his study on the Indo-Iranian substratum items, Lubotsky (2001: 309, 312) mentions that Proto-Finno-Volgaic *oraśe ‘wild boar’ (UEW [1458]), which gave rise to Finnish oras and Mordvin urə̑s, is a borrowing from PIIr *warā́ȷ́ʰa- ‘wild boar’, whence Skr. वराह varāhá-, Av. varāza-, MPers. wl’c /warāz/. The forms attested in Uralic clearly reveal the presence of palatal sounds where Proto-Indo-Iranian had the palatalized reflexes of the palatovelars. This means that, as Beekes has suggested, the process of satemization was already complete in Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Given that Finno-Volgaic split from Permic around 2000 BC, and that Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers began to migrate away from the rest of the Indo-European peoples around the 3rd millennium, we can reasonably suppose this was also the period when satemization took place.
Abbreviations
Av. = AvestanKhot. = Khotanese
Lat. = Latin
Latv. = Latvian
Lith. = Lithuanian
MPers. = Middle Persian
OArm = Old Armenian
OCS = Old Church Slavonic
OE = Old English
OHG = Old High German
OIr. = Old Irish
PIE = Proto-Indo-European
PIIr = Proto-Indo-Iranian
PIr = Proto-Iranian
PSl = Proto-Slavic
Ru. = Russian
Skr. = Sanskrit
References
- Beekes, Robert S. P. (2003). Historical Phonology of Classical Armenian. In F. Kortland and S. P. Beekes (eds.), Armeniaca. Comparative Notes. With an appendix on the historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S. P. Beekes, pp. 133-211. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.
- Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction, 2nd Edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Benveniste, Émile (1969). Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 1. Paris: Minuit.
- EWA = Mayrhofer, Manfred (1992-2001). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vols. I-III. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
- Lubotsky, Alexander (2001). The Indo-Iranian substratum. In Chr. Carpelan, A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8-10 January 1999, pp. 301-317. Helsinki.
- Orel, Vladimir (2000). A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
- Rusakov, Alexander (2017). Albanian. In M. Kapović (ed.), The Indo-European Languages, pp. 552-608. New York: Routledge.
- Young, Steven (2017). Baltic. In M. Kapović (ed.), The Indo-European Languages, pp. 486-518. New York: Routledge.
-
2Is it really useful to talk about centum/satem in regards to Anatolian? Since we see separate reflexes of all three velar series across the languages, we know they must have been distinct at least at the point of Proto-Anatolian.– Draconis ♦Commented Sep 2 at 2:07
-
@JanusBahsJacquet I'm not sure I'd call it that much of a coincidence. We could also call Proto-Romance a satem language since it turned /k/ into some sort of sibilant in fronting environments.– Draconis ♦Commented Sep 2 at 15:55
-
@Draconis Indeed, the discussion around the alleged satemization in Anatolian is quite complicated, and, yes, it is not terribly useful in the context of this question (I decided to include it just for completeness). However, as Tristan pointed out in a comment below the main question, there is a difference between Romance "palatalization" and satemization, in that while /k/ turned into a sibilant in Romance languages before front vowels, the palatalization involved in the process of satemization is unconditioned.– TochtliCommented Sep 2 at 16:38
-
1@Draconis I’m not sure where my brain was this morning when I wrote that. Luwian and Lycian of course do not attest satem reflexes – they kept all three series distinct, which is incompatible with centumisation and satemisation. Commented Sep 2 at 16:39