# x > ʃ



## Gavril

How common (cross-linguistically) is the phonetic change [x] > [ʃ], or similar changes in which a back fricative becomes an (alveo)palatal fricative?

The opposite change ([ʃ] > [x]) is quite common, but I only know of a few cases of [x] > [ʃ]: for example, on an old WR thread, it was mentioned that this happened in certain German dialects (I'm not sure exactly which ones). Also, many currently-popular etymologies in Finnic (the group that includes Finnish, Estonian, Sami etc.) depend on [x] > [ʃ] or a similar change, but in my opinion, none of these etymologies has been solidly proved.

Does anyone know of any other instances of [x] > [ʃ]?


----------



## berndf

Gavril said:


> The opposite change ([ʃ] > [x]) is quite common, but I only know of a few cases of [x] > [ʃ]: for example, on an old WR thread, it was mentioned that this happened in certain German dialects (I'm not sure exactly which ones). Also, many currently-popular etymologies in Finnic (the group that includes Finnish, Estonian, Sami etc.) depend on [x] > [ʃ] or a similar change, but in my opinion, none of these etymologies has been solidly proved.


In German, only the [ç] allophone of the "ch" changed to [ʃ] in some dialects, not the [x]~[χ] allophone. The most famous example for "the opposite change", i.e. [ʃ] > [x], is of cause the shift in pronunciation of the Spanish letters "x" and "j" in the 17th century (following the earlier [ʒ] > [ʃ] shift and consequent merger of "x" and "j" for "j").


----------



## bibax

The change [x] > [ʃ] before a front vowel is quite regular in the Slavic languages.

Russian/Czech examples (х > ш, ch > š):
ходить/choditi, шедший/šedši;
слух/sluch, слышь/slyš;
etc.


----------



## berndf

bibax said:


> The change [x] > [ʃ] before a front vowel is quite regular in the Slavic languages.
> 
> Russian/Czech examples (х > ш, ch > š):
> ходить/choditi, шедший/šedši;
> слух/sluch, слышь/slyš;
> etc.


Is this an etymological shift or an allophonic change as Greek [x] and [ç] for the letter χ only that the palatalization it to [ʃ] rather than [ç]?


----------



## Gavril

bibax said:


> The change [x] > [ʃ] before a front vowel is quite regular in the Slavic languages.
> 
> Russian/Czech examples (х > ш, ch > š):
> ходить/choditi, шедший/šedši;
> слух/sluch, слышь/slyš;
> etc.



In the changes you describe (_х > ш, ch > š, _etc.), is it thought that [x] passed through the intermediate stage of [ç] before becoming [ʃ]?


----------



## itreius

In dialectal Croatian (more specifically - Kajkavian, as well as in some easternmost Slovene dialects according to what I've found via scholar.google.com),

Old Slavic choteti (ch = х) turned into šteti (š = ʃ), however, I don't know if there were any intermediate stages. The same dialect also had a k > ʃ change (kteri > šteri).
The reflex in other dialects is _htjeti_.


----------



## jazyk

I know it's not what you are talking about, but in a few languages, like Catalan, Basque, Portuguese, Galician, the letter x maybe be pronounced as sh.


----------



## CapnPrep

bibax said:


> ходить/choditi, шедший/šedši;


This is not a great example, because as I understand it, the etymological link between _šьd_- and _xod-_ is not certain. Anyway, the traditional story is that they are both derived from _sed-_, and that the sequence of changes was therefore _s _> _š_ > _x_ (in other words, this would not be an example of  [x] > [ʃ]).

And it would be hard to argue that modern speakers derive _šedši_ from _choditi_ (or vice versa), since they are not part of the same morphological paradigm.


----------



## Flaminius

berndf said:


> In German, only the [ç] allophone of the "ch" changed to [ʃ] in some dialects, not the [x]~[χ] allophone.


I am just wondering if allophones [ç] and [x]~[χ] are in complementary distribution in that the former is derived from the latter only after front close vowels such as I and E.

In fact, I find the change x > ʃ quite unnatural without supposing an intermediate stage where the point of articulation is moved at least to the alveolar ridge.  In the Indo-European framework, an example I can think of now is the development of PIE *ok'to into Baltic *ačtō̂-n-, which then turned into Lithuanian aštuoni.


----------



## apmoy70

The palato-alveolar [ʃ] is common in the Cretan, Cypriot and Rhodian dialects of Greek as the palatalization of [x] before the front vowels [e, i]:
Standard Greek: /x/ --> /ç/ (before the front vowels)
Cypriot-Cretan-Rhodian Greek: /x/ --> /ʃ/ (before the front vowels).
E.g
Standard Greek «χέρι» /'çeri/ (hand), becomes /'ʃera/ in Cretan and /'ʃeri/ in Cypriot, Greek


----------



## berndf

Flaminius said:


> I am just wondering if allophones [ç] and [x]~[χ] are in complementary distribution in that the former is derived from the latter only after front close vowels such as I and E.


Difficult to say which is derived from which. At any rate, yes, they are in complementary distribution: [x]~[χ] after back vowels including /a/, even if fronted; in all other cases [ç]. In the suffix _-chen_ always [ç] irrespective of preceding sound. This applies to Northern dialects and to Standard German.


----------



## bibax

> This is not a great example, because as I understand it, the etymological link between šьd- and xod- is not certain. Anyway, the traditional story is that they are both derived from sed-, and that the sequence of changes was therefore s > š > x (in other words, this would not be an example of [x] > [ʃ]).


Well, some Protoslavic [x]'s evolved from the PIE consonant [s]. Examples: uxo (ear, cf. Latin *ausis/auris), sux- (dry, cf. Lith. sausas), *myxь (mouse, cf. Latin mus), muxa (fly, cf. Latin mus-ca).

However later the consonant x changed in š before e (ě, ę), i, ь and [j]. Examples: myxь > myš, mux-ьka > muška (little fly), ušesa/uši (ears), sux-i-ti > sušiti (to dry), dux-ja > duša (soul), dyx-jo (nasal o) > dyšu (I breathe), etc.

So the change is: s > x > š (it still may be that the roots xod-/šed- are not the case).


> In the changes you describe (х > ш, ch > š, etc.), is it thought that [x] passed through the intermediate stage of [ç] before becoming [ʃ]?


I don't know (probably nobody knows it for sure). The result is: x > š before the front vowels and the consonant [j].


----------



## merquiades

Dialects of Chilean Spanish have [x] which is fronted to [ç] before the frontal vowels e and i.  Example:  jinete (horse rider) [çi-né-te] rather than the expected [xi-né-te].
For info:  fronting can happen with other velar consonants too [k] or [g], queso (cheese)[c'é-so], guía (guide) [ʝí-a].


----------



## Dymn

In Mandarin /k kʰ x/ became /tɕ tɕʰ ɕ/ before close front vowels, quite recently.


----------



## Oranje

Synchronically, /x/ > /ʃ/ is an example of the First Slavic Palatalisation hence:

[RU] _чех_ n.  >  _чешский_ adj.
[HR] _duh_ /dux/ NOM  >  _duše_ /duʃe/ VOC​Bibax explained this above. The change is conditioned by the presence of a front vowel after a velar consonant. /x/ > /ʃ/ , /k/ > /tʃ/, /g/ > /z/.

Diachronically, it's very possible but I have no examples. /x/ is a rare phoneme. /k/ > /ʃ/ is much more common as witnessed in most Western Romance languages.


----------



## fdb

The Avestan word haxāii- “companion” (Skt. sakhāy-) has instr. sing. hašā, dat. sing. haše, and gen. pl. hašąm. This “sound shift” seems to be unique to this one root.

There are two different possible explanations here: AVESTISCHE LAUT UND FLEXIONSLEHRE ( PDF) : KARL HOFFMANN & BERNHARD FORSSMAN : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive, p. 101.


----------

