# Proto-Germanic h, not x, from proto-IE k



## CyrusSH

In most cases, we see proto-IE _k_ is changed to _s_ in the Satem languages and _x_ in proto-Germanic and then _h_ in the Germanic languages, but in some cases, we see another thing happens, this is _k_ in almost all Indo-European languages but _h_ in proto-Germanic.

What is the reason that proto-IE _k_ has been directly changed to _h_ in proto-Germanic?

I think a sound change in the western Iranian languages can explain it, let's look at some examples:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hen&allowed_in_frame=0 & https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/keh₂n-

PIE root **kan-* 
Meaning: to sing

Italic: *kanō* (Latin canō)
Slavic: *kanja*
Celtic: *kan-*
Sanskrit: *kanati*
Persian: *xan-* (xanidan)
Germanic: *hanô*

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hap&allowed_in_frame=0

PIE root **kob-* 
Meaning: suit, fit, succeed

Celtic: *kob* (victory)
Slavic: *kobu* (fate, foreboding, omen)
Sanskrit: *kob* (good omen; congratulations, good wishes)
Persian: *xub* (good, fit, suit)
Germanic: *hap* (hap, good luck & convenient, fit)


----------



## Gavril

The "h" here is just the convention used by this source for representing the Germanic outcome of IE *k, probably because  is the sound attested in the majority of Germanic languages. If the person(s) who compiled the source were using more precise notation, they would probably write *x instead. They aren't trying to imply that IE *k had a different outcome in these Germanic words than in others.


----------



## Dib

CyrusSH said:


> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendixroto-Indo-European/keh₂n-
> 
> PIE root **kan-*
> Meaning: to sing
> 
> Italic: *kanō* (Latin canō)
> Slavic: *kanja*
> Celtic: *kan-*
> Sanskrit: *kanati*
> Persian: *xan-* (xandan)
> Germanic: *hanô*



I am surprised to see Persian x(v)ān- on this list. Is the graphical /v/ in the Persian spelling secondary/hypercorrection? I had always connected this with Sanskrit svan- (to sound), just like Sanskrit svasar- ~ Persian x(v)āhar, Sanskrt svap- ~ Persian x(v)āb, etc.



> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hap&allowed_in_frame=0
> 
> PIE root **kob-*
> Meaning: suit, fit, succeed
> 
> Celtic: *kob* (victory)
> Slavic: *kobu* (fate, foreboding, omen)
> Sanskrit: *kob* (good omen; congratulations, good wishes)
> Persian: *xub* (good, fit, suit)
> Germanic: *hap* (hap, good luck & convenient, fit)



I am again wondering what Sanskrit word "kob" is a typo for. I can't find anything similar in Monier-Williams' dictionary.


----------



## CyrusSH

Dib said:


> I am surprised to see Persian x(v)ān- on this list. Is the graphical /v/ in the Persian spelling secondary/hypercorrection? I had always connected this with Sanskrit svan- (to sound), just like Sanskrit svasar- ~ Persian x(v)āhar, Sanskrt svap- ~ Persian x(v)āb, etc.



I corrected my first post, the Persian verb which means "to sing" is *xanidan* (خنیدن): https://www.vajehyab.com/moein/خنیدن not *xvāndan* (خواندن), the second one means "to read" in Persian.


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> In most cases, we see proto-IE _k_ is changed to _s_ in the Satem languages and _x_ in proto-Germanic and then _h_ in the Germanic languages, but in some cases, we see another thing happens, this is _k_ in almost all Indo-European languages but _h_ in proto-Germanic.



The usual formulation of Indo-Europeanist theory is that there are two "k" sounds in proto-IE: "k" (which becomes "s" or the like in the satem languages) and "q" (which remains as "k" or "c" in most IE languages). Your examples belong to the latter.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> The usual formulation of Indo-Europeanist theory is that there are two "k" sounds in proto-IE: "k" (which becomes "s" or the like in the satem languages) and "q" (which remains as "k" or "c" in most IE languages).


This postulation of only two series of velars is a (strange) fashion among the scholars speaking _centum_ languages. In reality, there are PIE roots and suffixes where velars are continued as velars everywhere, and those where velars tend to be reflected as sibilants in the _satəm_ branches, and regarding them as continuing the same series makes the PIE lemmata unpredictable. Plus, there is no explanation of some details of such palatalization: e. g. the origin of the palatalized velars in words like *_ksu̯ekʲs _"six" or *_okʲtōu̯<*hₒekʲtohₓu _"eight" or the existence of the clusters _*kʲu̯_ (_śvetaḥ — šviesti — světъ — white_). All of them were surely present in late PIE, which makes the existence of the three series a PIE feature.


----------



## berndf

I am not quite sure what you mean. What I have read, the variant theories differ only in the location of the back stops: palatalized - velar - labialized and velar - uvular - labialized. The number of distinguished stop phonemes is the same, 14 or 15, depending if there bas a _b_ or not.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure what you mean. What I have read, the variant theories differ only in the location of the back stops: palatalized - velar - labialized and velar - uvular - labialized. The number of distinguished stop phonemes is the same, 14 or 15, depending if there bas a _b_ or not.


Fdb wrote "The usual formulation of Indo-Europeanist theory is that there are _two_ "k" sounds in proto-IE" — I argue that the _usual formulation_ is that there are _three:_ _k, kʲ_ and _kʷ,_ since it is impossible to predict when a _satəm_ language has reflexes of *_k_ or _*kʲ_ in the place of the _centum_ _k,_ and there are roots and suffixes where _k_ is found across the entire IE range (e. g. _*-kos_ or _*-kā_). Even if someone believes that he can explain this distribution of *_k_ and *_kʲ _as originally complementary, the source of it lies deeper in time than the late PIE stage.


----------



## berndf

I am sure he didn't deny existence of labialized velars. They simply don't matter in this context because they were preserved (of course subjected to Grimm's law) in Germanic and only the other two series merged in all three forms. He was obviously citing the tradition that distinguishes _q, k _and _kʷ _rather than _k, kʲ_ and _kʷ._


----------



## Dib

CyrusSH said:


> I corrected my first post, the Persian verb which means "to sing" is *xanidan* (خنیدن): https://www.vajehyab.com/moein/خنیدن not *xvāndan* (خواندن), the second one means "to read" in Persian.


 
Thanks for the clarification. But also apologies from my side for having confused *xan- *with *xvān-* in your original post.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I am sure he didn't deny existence of labialized velars. They simply don't matter in this context because they were preserved (of course subjected to Grimm's law) in Germanic and only the other two series merged in all three forms. He was obviously citing the tradition that distinguishes _q, k _and _kʷ _rather than _k, kʲ_ and _kʷ._


There is indeed an old tradition in IE studies (mostly among Germanic and Romance speaking scholars, as I had written) to deny the antiquity of the _palatalized _velars in PIE: proponents of this point of view suggest that only the opposition preserved in _centum_ languages _(K:Kʷ)_ is ancient, whereas the _satəm_ _Kʲ_ is an innovation, which has affected most, but not all, old _K'_s. It is a long and never-ending discussion and, again as I have written, the postulation of the binary opposition of plain vs. labialized velars in PIE makes the appearance of PIE words unpredictable: we never know, will a certain _k_ result in e. g. the Sanskrit _k_ or _ś,_ so in any case it is more pragmatic to operate with three PIE series of velars — at least, until some new discoveries are made.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> There is indeed an old tradition in IE studies


I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of recent theories ("Glottalic Theory") that claim exactly what I wrote, that there were three series but they were different than the traditional theory claims:


berndf said:


> _q, k _and _kʷ _rather than _k, kʲ_ and _kʷ_


i.e. the non-labialized ones are assumed to have been one notch further back: _k _becomes_ q _and _kʲ_ becomes _k _under this theory. If this theory is right then the _satəm _languages have shifted _q_ and _k_ forward.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of recent theories ("Glottalic Theory") that claim exactly what I wrote, that there were three series but they were different:
> 
> i.e. the non-labialized ones are assumed to have been one notch further back: _k _becomes_ q _and _kʲ_ becomes _k _under this theory.


Thank you for the information: I somehow have missed this direction of the glottalic theory. I wonder how such a development can be substantiated.


----------



## berndf

You find it here under "Revised proposal". The Wiki article does not say much but there are a few bibliographic references that might interest you.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> You find it here under "Revised proposal". The Wiki article does not say much but there are a few bibliographic references that might interest you.


Many thanks. PIE becomes less and less pronounceable.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> This postulation of only two series of velars is a (strange) fashion among the scholars speaking _centum_ languages. In reality, there are PIE roots and suffixes where velars are continued as velars everywhere, and those where velars tend to be reflected as sibilants in the _satəm_ branches, and regarding them as continuing the same series makes the PIE lemmata unpredictable. Plus, there is no explanation of some details of such palatalization: e. g. the origin of the palatalized velars in words like *_ksu̯ekʲs _"six" or *_okʲtōu̯<*hₒekʲtohₓu _"eight" or the existence of the clusters _*kʲu̯_ (_śvetaḥ — šviesti — světъ — white_). All of them were surely present in late PIE, which makes the existence of the three series a PIE feature.



The interesting thing is that about Iranian languages they believe in opposite thing, they say proto-Indo-Iranian sibilants were changed to velars in the Iranian languages, it seems it is just important that Centum languages are considered as original ones.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> The interesting thing is that about Iranian languages they believe in opposite thing, they say proto-Indo-Iranian sibilants were changed to velars in the Iranian languages, it seems it is just important that Centum languages are considered as original ones.


Which _sibilants _that_ changed to velars_ do you mean?
_
Centum_ languages are peculiar in that they are located at the periphery, whereas the _satəm_ area occupies the center of the IE territory and is characterized by a number of other features that can be interpreted as shared innovations, in contrast to the _centum_ languages which are not especially related to each other (i. e. Celtic/Italic/Germanic vs. Greek vs. Anatolian vs. Tocharian). On the other hand, Greek is most closely related to the Indo-Iranic branch, while being a _centum_ language. All that (without the Anatolian and Tocharian data) has been known since the mid-nineteenth century, but nothing really convincing has emerged since that time (regardless of the claims appearing in the literature).


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> The interesting thing is that about Iranian languages they believe in opposite thing, they say proto-Indo-Iranian sibilants were changed to velars in the Iranian languages



IE *s is mostly retained in Sanskrit, but usually becomes h in all Iranian languages (except in certain clusters, like st, or after r, k, u, i, where it becomes š). For example, the word for “seven” is sapta in Sanskrit, but hapta in Avestan (New Persian haft).

IE *k and *ĝ become s and z respectively in most Iranian languages, but in Old Persian (South-West Iranian) they usually become ϑ and δ respectively (though there are exceptions, due probably to dialect mixture in Old Persian). In Middle and New Persian old ϑ generally becomes h, which in some words is then hardened to x, but here again there are lots of exceptions. For example, the word for “ten” (Avestan dasā) develops regularly to NP dah, but the word for “hundred” (Avestan satəm) gives NP sad, not *had.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Which _sibilants _that_ changed to velars_ do you mean?



Indian _sapta_ > Iranian _hapta_, Indian _sindh_ > Iranian _hind_, Indian _asura_ > Iranian _ahura_, ... or those ones Dib mentioned.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> IE *k and *ĝ become s and z respectively in most Iranian languages, but in Old Persian (South-West Iranian) they usually become ϑ and δ respectively (though there are exceptions, due probably to dialect mixture in Old Persian). In Middle and New Persian old ϑ generally becomes h, which in some words is then hardened to x, but here again there are lots of exceptions. For example, the word for “ten” (Avestan dasā) develops regularly to NP dah, but the word for “hundred” (Avestan satəm) gives NP sad, not *had.



It sounds logical that s and z gradually are changed to th and then h and hardened to x and finally k, but not just about Iranian languages.


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> ... and finally k....



That bit is wrong.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It sounds logical that s and z gradually are changed to th and then h and hardened to x and finally k, but not just about Iranian languages.


Yes, this *is* _just about Iranian languages_.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> That bit is wrong.



It is true if we consider loanwords from Persian in the European languages, like calabash and caviar.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Yes, this *is* _just about Iranian languages_.



If we consider Balto-Slavic languages as the closest languages to proto-Indo-European then it can be true about all Indo-European languages.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> If we consider Balto-Slavic languages as the closest languages to proto-Indo-European then it can be true about all Indo-European languages.


The question is not if it can be true but if it is true. If sound changes worked the same way everywhere than the languages would not have deviated. That is exactly the methodology of proto-language reconstruction: You assume different changes in different language groups and look for a combination of laws that explain as many cognates as possible in as many languages as possible simultaneously. That is also why reconstruction can only claim some degree of reliability, if there is a large number of attested descendant languages and the more the more of these shifts can be verified by attestation in old languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

Why should we believe k > s & k > x > h from Centum languages in the west, east and south to Satem languages in the center but not just s > h > x > k from Satem languages to the west (Germanic, Latin, Greek, ...), east (Tocharian) and south (Hittite)?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> Why should we believe k > s & k > x > h from Centum languages in the west, east and south to Satem languages in the center but not just s > h > x > k from Satem languages to the west (Germanic, Latin, Greek, ...), east (Tocharian) and south (Hittite)?


The shift _k>ʦ>s_ is directly attested in French, Portuguese and parts of Spanish.
The shift _k>ʦ>ϑ _is directly attested in Spanish.
The shift _k>ʧ _is directly attested in Italian, Romanian and French _(cantāre>chanter), _Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese as well as in the Iron dialect of Ossetic (where it occurred only in the 18th century) and in Votic.

There are countless cases when the assibilation of _k_ is not attested directly but confidently presumed, e. g. the reconstructed PIE _*kʲ_ in Indo-Iranic produces _ʦ_ in Nuristani, _ɕ_ in Indic, _s_ or _ϑ_ in Iranic (cp. the development of the Latin _kentum > ʧento_ in Italian, _ʦent_ in Old French, _sã_ in modern French, _ϑı̯ento~sı̯ento_ in modern Spanish). Which of these sounds you suggest to regard as original? _S?_ And why?


----------



## berndf

_k > x > h_ is not a characteristic of _Centum _languages it occurs only in some _Centum _languages. That is why they are called _Centum_ and not _*Hentum _languages.

In Centum languages, like Latin, _k_ and _kw_ remained separate. _k > x > h_/_kw > xw > hw_ is a specialty of Germanic languages. That is why you have _centum _in Latin and _hundred _in English and _quod _in Latin and _what _in English.

In Satem languages _k_ and _kw_ merged and _ḱ_ remained separate and _ḱ _moved on to become a sibilant.

To repeat again, because I think think it hasn't properly sunk in: PIE had (according to current theories) three and not just two or one type of _k_-like sounds.

PS: Cross posted


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The shift _k>ʦ>s_ is directly attested in French, Portuguese and parts of Spanish.
> The shift _k>ʦ>ϑ _is directly attested in Spanish.
> The shift _k>ʧ _is directly attested in Italian, Romanian and French _(cantāre>chanter), _Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese as well as in the Iron dialect of Ossetic (where it occurred only in the 18th century) and in Votic.


Exactly. They are attested, later changes and they are not reconstructions. They are all independent of the Centum/Satem separation which is a reconstructed and not an observed one. This separation only pertains to the _ḱ-k _(Centum) or _k-kw _(Satem) mergers.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The shift _k>ʧ _is directly attested in Italian, Romanian and French _(cantāre>chanter), _Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese


And in French _ʧ_ moved on to_ ʃ_ and in Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese to _ɕ_.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> The shift _k>ʦ>s_ is directly attested in French, Portuguese and parts of Spanish.
> The shift _k>ʦ>ϑ _is directly attested in Spanish.
> The shift _k>ʧ _is directly attested in Italian, Romanian and French _(cantāre>chanter), _Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese as well as in the Iron dialect of Ossetic (where it occurred only in the 18th century) and in Votic.
> 
> There are countless cases when the assibilation of _k_ is not attested directly but confidently presumed, e. g. the reconstructed PIE _*kʲ_ in Indo-Iranic produces _ʦ_ in Nuristani, _ɕ_ in Indic, _s_ or _ϑ_ in Iranic (cp. the development of the Latin _kentum > ʧento_ in Italian, _ʦent_ in Old French, _sã_ in modern French, _ϑı̯ento~sı̯ento_ in modern Spanish). Which of these sounds you suggest to regard as original? _S?_ And why?



I didn't say it is impossible but I'm talking about the logic, the problem is about an initial sound change in major Indo-European languages, it is believed that it is "k/h > s" but I say the opposite thing ("s > h/k") is more possible, a reason can be that we can see s > h in both Satem and Centum languages, like Iranian _hapta_ and Greek _hepta_ from proto-IE _*septm_.


----------



## berndf

Nobody ever talked about an h>s shift. Simply because PIE did not have a surviving h. The h sounds of different languages have different origins. The Greek initial h is from s and the Germanic initial h originated as an allophone of x. This is also why, contrary to e.g. Arabic you find h only in initial positions in European languages.

The s in Satem languages is from _ḱ _and not from k. Please stop confusing the two.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> I didn't say it is impossible but I'm talking about the logic, the problem is about an initial sound change in major Indo-European languages, it is believed that it is "k/h > s" but I say the opposite thing ("s > h/k") is more possible, a reason can be that we can see s > h in both Satem and Centum languages, like Iranian _hapta_ and Greek _hepta_ from proto-IE _*septm_.


You strangely forget that besides what others call _*kʲ_ and you call _*s_ there are two more sounds, _*gʲ_ (>Indic _j,_ Avestan _z,_ Old Persian _d: γόνυ : jānu : zānu — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/ǵónu_) and _*gʲʰ _(Indic _h,_ Iranic as the previous one:_ χείμα : heman : zima_- — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiems). Were they _*z_ according to your ideas? And what about the distinction between the non-aspirated sound and the aspirated one?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Nobody ever talked about an h>s shift. Simply because PIE did not have a surviving h. The h sounds of different languages have different origins. The Greek initial h is from s and the Germanic initial h originated as an allophone of x. This is also why, contrary to e.g. Arabic you find h only in initial positions in European languages.
> 
> The s in Satem languages is from _ḱ _and not from k. Please stop confusing the two.



In which Centum languages these two (k and ḱ) are distinguishable, without looking at Satem cognates? In the Satem languages, s and č/š can show this difference.


----------



## berndf

None. It is exactly the characteristic of a Centum language that the distinction disappeared.

Modern Greek has allophonic distribution of palatalized an plain k. But that is a later development. Much later.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> You strangely forget that besides what others call _*kʲ_ and you call _*s_ there are two more sounds, _*gʲ_ (>Indic _j,_ Avestan _z,_ Old Persian _d: γόνυ : jānu : zānu — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/ǵónu_) and _*gʲʰ _(Indic _h,_ Iranic as the previous one:_ χείμα : heman : zima_- — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiems). Were they _*z_ according to your ideas? And what about the distinction between the non-aspirated sound and the aspirated one?



As I said in another thread. the original sound could be *ž*, Persian ژ has really a combination of d+z+h sounds and if we want to pronounce it harder it will be j and g.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> As I said in another thread. the original sound could be *ž*, Persian ژ has really a combination of d+z+h sounds and if we want to pronounce it harder it will be j and g.


You haven't explained how do you imagine two _ž_'s: one as a source of _γ_ and _j,_ and another as a source of _χ_ and _h_.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> You haven't explained how do you imagine two _ž_'s: one as a source of _γ_ and _j,_ and another as a source of _χ_ and _h_.



I don't know about Baltic languages but in Persian ž can be pronounced harder in some words, this difference can be seen in Arabicized version of Persia words:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cassock&allowed_in_frame=0  cassock: from Arabic kazagand, from Persian kazhagand "padded coat," from kazh "raw silk" + agand "stuffed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrekord: In antiquity, before the Islamic occupation of Persia, it had been called "Dezh Gord" (دژگرد). The word Dezh (دژ) means fortress and the word Gord (گرد) means "Hero". After the Muslim conquest of Persia and the supremacy of the Arabic language, its name was changed to "Deh Kord" (دهکرد), because the arabic alphabet lacks the letters “zh” (ژ) and “g” (گ).

So ž could be changed to both z/j and harder to h/x.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> The usual formulation of Indo-Europeanist theory is that there are two "k" sounds in proto-IE: "k" (which becomes "s" or the like in the satem languages) and "q" (which remains as "k" or "c" in most IE languages). Your examples belong to the latter.



About PIE root **kan-* (Latin _cantare_, Sanskrit _kanati_, ..), or as you say **qan*, there can be Germanic words for _sang_, _song_, ... instead of _hen_!! Compare to slot from proto-IE PIE root **klau*, or **qlau*.

Anyway from PIE *kan or *qan-, there is Proto-Baltic: **kan-tl-ia* (a musical instrument) source, like Lithuanian Kanklės, isn't it almost the same as Persian Santur?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> About PIE root **kan-* (Latin _cantare_, Sanskrit _kanati_, ..), or as you say **qan*, there can be Germanic words for _sang_, _song_, ... instead of _hen_!! Compare to slot from proto-IE PIE root **klau*, or **qlau*.


Germanic has *_xanōn_ "cock, rooster" (<"singer", cp. semantically in Slavic: _pěti_ "to sing" → _pětuxъ_ "cock, rooster"), cp. the modern German _Hahn_, and *_xanjō(n)_ "hen", cp. the English word. In Greek and Sanskrit we find _ἠϊκανός _and _uṣākalaḥ_ "rooster" ← "dawn singer", < _*hₐēusi-khₐ(e)nos_ and _*hₐusehₐ-khₐenos _(?) (Sanskrit has a non-etymological _n>l_).


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> About PIE root **kan-* (Latin _cantare_, Sanskrit _kanati_, ..), or as you say **qan*, there can be Germanic words for _sang_, _song_, ... instead of _hen_!! Compare to slot from proto-IE PIE root **klau*, or **qlau*.


_Sing_ and Latin _canere_ are different IE root. Ahvalj told you about the Germanic relations of _canere_. The original meaning of the origin of _canere_ was probably sing in the sense of cast a spell, a meaning that survived in Romance, cf. _enchant_.
The initial /s/ in _slot, _German _schließen_ has to be explained differently. If the origin were a palatalized /k/ then we would have expected /s/ in Slavic cognates of Latin _clavis_. But instead we find, e.g., Russian _ключ_.


----------

