Centum-Satem isogloss

Diachronic map showing the Centum (blue, except that Tocharian on the east is grey) and Satem (red) areals. The hypothetical area of origin of Satemization is shown in darker red, which happens also to be the range of the (Sintashta/Abashevo/Srubna cultures).

The Centum-Satem division is an isogloss of the Indo-European language family, related to the different evolution of the three dorsal consonant rows reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European:

The terms come from the words for the number "one hundred" in a traditional representative language of each group: Latin centum and Avestan satəm. The initial consonant in these two examples comes from the Indo-European palatal consonant, *ḱ, which became in the first case a simple velar, and in the second a sibilant.

The Satem languages (which have the sibilant where the centum equivalents have the velar) include Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and perhaps also a number of barely documented extinct languages, such as Thracian-Dacian.^[1] This group changed PIE-palatovelars into sibilants, retaining PIE-velars and merging PIE-labiovelars into them to form an expanded velar group. The plain velars and the labiovelars were not merged in Proto-Albanian.^[2] Balto-Slavic evidences Centum development in some words and Satem in others, from which it may be concluded:^[3] "It is therefore much more likely that each branch became centum or satem independently."

The Centum group, often incorrectly presented as being identical to "non-Satem", i.e. as including all remaining dialects,^[4] was in fact created by its own sound change independent from and predating the Satem sound change. PIE-palatovelars were merged into PIE-velars to create an expanded velar inventory overlapping on but different from the satem inventory. The Centum group includes Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic and possibly a number of lesser-known extinct groups (such as Ancient Macedonian and Venetic). Tocharian combined all rows into a single velar row by merging the palatovelars into the velars as in Centum and the labiovelars into the velars as in Satem, allowing two points of view: either Tocharian does not fit the model^[5] or it is a Centum language.^[6] The Proto-Anatolian language apparently did not undergo either the Satem or the Centum sound change, as the velar rows remain separate in Luwian.^[6] The closely related Hittite is a Centum language, which it may have become secondarily, but the exact sequence is unclear.^[7]

The isogloss only applies to the parent language with the full inventory of dorsals. Later sound changes within a specific branch of Indo-European that are analogous to one of the Centum or Satem changes, such as the palatalization of Latin k to s in some Romance languages or the merger of *kʷ with *k in the Goidelic languages, are excluded.

Romance Germanic Greek Baltic Slavic Iranian Indic Celt. Alb. Arm.

Modern situation of the centum-satem isogloss (shown in red), except that Greek is bordered by the coast of Turkey.

Proto-Indo-European dorsals

History of the concept

August Schleicher, an early Indo-Europeanist, in Part I, "Phonology", of his major work, the 1871 "Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language", published a table of original momentane laute, or "stops", that has only a single velar row, k, g, gh, under the name of gutteralen.^[8][9] Karl Brugmann in his 1886 Grundriss accepts only two rows, denoting them q, g, gh "velar explosives" vs. k̑, g̑ and g̑h "palatal explosives". Brugmann terms the Centum languages "languages with labialization" or "u̯-languages" and the Satem languages "languages without labialization", and he opines that

For words and groups of words, which do not appear in any language with labialized velar-sound [the "pure velars"], it must for the present be left undecided whether they ever had the u̯-afterclap. (trans. J. Wright)

By the 1897 edition of his work, Brugmann changed his mind, accepting the centum vs. satem terminology introduced by von Badke in 1890. Accordingly, he denoted the labiovelars as q^u̯, q^u̯h, g^u̯, g^u̯h (also introducing voiceless aspirates).

The presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language is not universally accepted. The reconstructed "middle" row may also be an artifact of loaning between early daughter languages during the process of Satemization. For instance, Oswald Szemerényi (e.g., in his 1995 Introduction), while recognizing the usefulness of the distinction *kʷ, *k, *ḱ as symbolizing sound-correspondences, argues that the support for three phonologically distinct rows in PIE is insufficient and prefers a twofold notation of *kʷ, *k. Other scholars who assume two dorsal rows in PIE include Kuryłowicz (1935), Meillet (1937), Lehmann (1952), and Woodhouse (1998).

The likelihood of three dorsal rows has also been disputed on typological grounds, but that argument has little merit, since there are, indeed, languages with such a three-row system, for example Northwest Caucasian languages such as Abkhaz, the Yazgulyam language (an Iranian language, but its system of dorsals is unrelated to PIE phonology), Hausa and Hopi.

The existence of this feature in Northwest Caucasian languages, added to the poor vowel system and glottalic consonants apparently shared between PIE and NW Caucasian, may hint at an early Sprachbund^[10] or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.^[11] This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs and of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.^[12]

Satem

The Satem languages show the characteristic change of the so-called Proto-Indo-European palato-velars (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ) into affricate and fricative consonants articulated in the front of the mouth. For example, *ḱ became Sanskrit ś [ɕ], Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian s, Lithuanian š [ʃ], and Albanian th [θ] (but k before a resonant). At the same time, the protolanguage velars (*k, *g, *gʰ) and labio-velars (*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ) merged in the Satem group, the latter losing their accompanying lip-rounding.

The Satem shift is conveniently illustrated with the word for '100', Proto-Indo-European *(d)ḱm̥tóm, which became e.g. Avestan satəm (hence the name of the group), Persian sad, Sanskrit śatam, Latvian simts, Lithuanian šimtas, Old Church Slavonic sъto etc., as contrasted with Latin centum (pron. [kentum]), English hund(red)- (with /h/ from earlier *k, see Grimm's law), Greek (he)katon, Welsh cant, Tocharian B kante, etc. Another example is the Slavic prefix sъ(n)- ("with"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co(n)-; conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz("union").

Satem-like features have arisen multiple times during history (e.g. French cent pron. [sã]). As a result, it is sometimes difficult to firmly establish which languages were part of the original Satem diffusion and which were affected by secondary assibilation in a later time period. For instance, it is known that the assibilation found in French and Luwian were later developments as linguists have extensive documentation of Latin and Hittite. However, in the case of Dacian and Thracian, there is not enough information on the history of these languages to conclusively settle the issue of when their Satem-like features originated. Extensive lexical borrowing, such as Armenian from Iranian, may also add to the difficulty. The status of Armenian as a Satem language as opposed to a Centum language with secondary assibilation rests on the evidence of a very few words.

Centum

In the Centum languages, the palato-velar consonants merged with plain velars (*k, *g, *gʰ). Most of the Centum languages preserve Proto-Indo-European labio-velars (*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ) or their historical reflexes as distinct from plain velars; for example, PIE *k : *kʷ > Latin c /k/ : qu /kʷ/, Greek κ /k/ : π /p/ (or τ /t/ before front vowels), Gothic /h/ : /hʷ/, etc.

The name Centum comes from the Latin word centum '100', < PIE *ḱm̥tóm, illustrating the falling together of *k and *ḱ. (Note that the c in Classical Latin was always pronounced "hard", like modern k.) Compare Sanskrit śata- or Polish sto, in which *ḱ changed into a fricative.

Attestation of labiovelars as actual phonemes /kʷ/, as opposed to simple biphonematic /kw/ is attested in Greek (the Linear B q- series), Italic (Latin qu), Germanic (Gothic hwair ƕ and qairþra q) and Celtic (Ogham ceirt Q). Thus, while usually reconstructed for PIE, the labiovelar quality of this row may also be an innovation of the Centum group, causally related to the depalatalization of the palatovelars. The chief witness for this question is Anatolian, the phonology of which is for orthographical reasons not known in detail. Hittite (and Luwian) in any case chose not to use the existing cuneiform q- series (which stood for a voiceless uvular stop or velar ejective in Akkadian), but represents reflexes of PIE labiovelars as ku. Opinions on whether this represents an Anatolian single phoneme, or a group of /k+w/ are divided. At any rate, Hittite data do support reconstructions with a labialized element, whether a separate segment or not (also suggesting that the more innovative languages in this respect are the Satem group, where no labialized element is preserved in this position at all). There have been recent claims that the Bangani language of India contains traces of a Centum language, but they are widely considered spurious.

Origins of the sound change

In the 19th century, it was sometimes assumed that the centum-satem isogloss was the original dialect division of the Indo-European languages, with the speakers of Proto-Indo-European suggested to have split into western and eastern branches.^[1] However, Karl Brugmann, and in particular Johannes Schmidt, already regarded the Centum/Satem sound changes as an areal feature.

The proposed split was undermined by the discoveries of Hittite and Tocharian.^[1][13] It was also weakened by further research into the various Indo-European isoglosses. Philip Baldi explains:

"...an early dialect split of the type indicated by the centum-satem contrast should be expected to be reflected in other high-order dialect distinctions as well, a pattern which is not evident from an analysis of shared features among eastern and western languages."^[13]

Colin Renfrew notes that the satem-centum distinction "is not in itself accorded much significance today"^[1] as it is considered "too simplistic".^[14] Modern linguists have discovered that this isogloss is just one of many that criss-cross the Indo-European landscape. Satem is generally regarded as an innovation radiating outward from the central Indo-European language communities, but largely failing to reach the peripheries.

Incomplete Satemization in Baltic, and, to a lesser extent, Slavic, is taken as an indication of the diffusion of the satem sound change, or, alternatively, due to loans via early contact of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Germanic speakers. Examples of remnants of labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic include Lithuanian ungurys "eel" < *angʷi- , Lithuanian dygus "pointy" < *dʰeigʷ-, Fewer examples of incomplete Satemization are also known from Indo-Iranian, such as Sanskrit guru "heavy" < *gʷer-, kulam "herd" < *kʷel-; kuru "make" < *kʷer- may be compared, but they arise only post-Rigvedic in attested texts.

References

Literature

• Fortson, Benjamin W. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 
• Lyovin, Anatole (1997). An introduction to the languages of the world. New York: Oxford University Press. 
• Remys, Edmund (2007). "General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian" (in English). Indogermanische Forschungen (IF) 112: 244–276. 
• Renfrew, Colin (1990). Archaelogy and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://books.google.ca/books?id=R645AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA107. 
• Solta, G.R. (1965). "Palatalisierung und Labialisierung" (in German). Indogermanische Forschungen (IF) 70: 276–315.