# st > s



## Gavril

Hello,


What cases do you know of where the cluster _*st*_ has been simplified to _*s*_?

I'm aware of three examples so far:


1) IE *_st_ > Celtic *(_s_)_s_, possibly via metathesis to *_ts_: Irish _sessam_ “standing” (*_stistam_-), Welsh _ser_ "stars" (< *_ster_), etc. (this change was not completely regular in British Celtic; it may have been affected by varying syllabification)


2) Some words with initial _s_- in the Finnic languages are thought to come from words with initial _st_- in IE languages, possibly via metathesis to *_ts_: e.g. Finnish _seiväs_ "pole" is probably from the same source as Lithuanian _stiebas_ "stalk", and Finnish _sara_ "sedge" seems to be connected to Icelandic _stör_, Norwegian _starr_ "sedge"


3) Various IE languages may show _st_ > _s_ in the context of verb reduplication: e.g., forms such as Latin _sistere_ "to stand" (transitive) and Greek _héstēka_ (< *_sestāka_) "I have stood", may be simplified from reduplicated *_stista_- (Latin) and *_stesta_- (Greek)

(It is also possible that only one component of the _st_-cluster was “selected” for reduplication in the first place, i.e. there may have been no intermediate stage of
*_stVst_-, in which case these would not qualify as examples of _st_ > _s_.)


----------



## ahvalj

Leaving aside the non-systematic simplifications (Germanic _ist_ > English _is_), the only non-Celtic language I am able to recall is Lycian, where we find Praes. Sg. 3 _esi_ <*_hₑesti, _Hittite _ešzi, _Sanskrit _asti_ and Imperat. Sg. 3 _esu_ < *_hₑestu, _Hittite _eštu,_ Sanskrit_ astu_ (_Kloekhorst A · 2008 · Studies in Lycian and Carian phonology and morphology:_ 124 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeGJ2a293UUxNd2s).


----------



## Dan2

Gavril said:


> What cases do you know of where the cluster _*st*_ has been simplified to _*s*_?
> 
> I'm aware of three examples so far:


Jus' three?


----------



## bigic

Many dialects of Serbian drop the 't' in words ending with -st.


----------



## ahvalj

Both latter examples show _st_ in a weak position. Gavril's explanation, in contrast, shows strong _st_'s, which are not subject of the trivial final weakening.


----------



## Dan2

ahvalj said:


> Both latter examples show _st_ in a weak position. Gavril's explanation, in contrast, shows strong _st_'s, which are not subject of the trivial final weakening.


Important observation.  I'd only point out that Gavril asked only "What cases do you know of where the cluster _*st*_ has been simplified to _*s*_?".  Note also the thread title.

I think the English case is actually of some interest, since it seems to be a change in progress.  We have
- cases where the /t/ is totally gone:
_Christmas _(also _wrestle_, _whistle_, etc if, as I think, the t was pronounced in an earlier version of English)
- cases where the /t/ would be pronounced only in careful speech:
_postpone, mostly_
- cases where the /t/ is retained in the lexical item, but its actual appearance depends strongly on context; for ex., the word "just":
--- _just three_ (quite unnatural to pronounce the t)
--- _just five_ (optional)
--- _just a minute_ (unnatural NOT to include the t)

I think these are significant observations, and given the form of the OP question, relevant to the thread.


----------



## Gavril

Dan2 said:


> Important observation.  I'd only point out that Gavril asked only "What cases do you know of where the cluster _*st*_ has been simplified to _*s*_?".  Note also the thread title.



Your examples are welcome on this thread. The erosion of _st_ to _s_ does seem more phonetically likely when the _st_ is word-final, especially when it coalesces with a consonant in the following word (_ju*st f*ive_), and maybe even more so when that following consonant is a dental or alveolar (_ju*st th*ree_).


----------



## Testing1234567

Dan2 said:


> Important observation.  I'd only point out that Gavril asked only "What cases do you know of where the cluster _*st*_ has been simplified to _*s*_?".  Note also the thread title.
> 
> I think the English case is actually of some interest, since it seems to be a change in progress.  We have
> - cases where the /t/ is totally gone:
> _Christmas _(also _wrestle_, _whistle_, etc if, as I think, the t was pronounced in an earlier version of English)
> - cases where the /t/ would be pronounced only in careful speech:
> _postpone, mostly_
> - cases where the /t/ is retained in the lexical item, but its actual appearance depends strongly on context; for ex., the word "just":
> --- _just three_ (quite unnatural to pronounce the t)
> --- _just five_ (optional)
> --- _just a minute_ (unnatural NOT to include the t)
> 
> I think these are significant observations, and given the form of the OP question, relevant to the thread.



I would say that the "st"s in _Christmas_, _wrestle_, and _whistle_ are in a weak position, because it is a cluster of three consonants.

_Listen_ and _hasten_ would be better examples.


----------



## Delvo

Testing1234567 said:


> _Listen_ and _hasten_ would be better examples.


And they give us a possible explanation for the dropping of "t" from "often": it could be by analogy.


----------



## Dan2

Hi Testing...


Testing1234567 said:


> I would say that the "st"s in _Christmas_, _wrestle_, and _whistle_ are in a weak position, because it is a cluster of three consonants.
> 
> _Listen_ and _hasten_ would be better examples.


1. Given that my point was merely that there are a lot of interesting facts regarding /st/ > /s/ in English, _listen/hasten_ are at best _additional _examples, not _better _examples.

2. Might you be confusing letters (spelling) with pronunciation?  If a /t/ were pronounced in _wrestle _(my example) and _listen_ (your example) they would be [rɛstəl] and [lɪstən]: the [st] would be in the same between-vowels position.  (Compare the words _vestal _and _Liston_, where the /t/ is pronounced.)

The above assumes your comment was based on the current spelling of the words in question (because that's all you mention).  A separate, more interesting issue is the form of the words at the time the /t/ was dropped.  I'm not knowledgeable about Middle English, but I see forms _wrestlen _and _listnen _in dictionaries, where again the /t/s are in similar environments.  However I'm not in a position to make any general claims about the environments in which English /st/ > /s/ historically and I suspect the situation is complicated.


----------



## fdb

Gavril said:


> 3) Various IE languages may show _st_ > _s_ in the context of verb reduplication: e.g., forms such as Latin _sistere_ "to stand" (transitive) and Greek _héstēka_ (< *_sestāka_) "I have stood", may be simplified from reduplicated *_stista_- (Latin) and *_stesta_- (Greek)



Not a good argument for your point. In Greek, at least, roots beginning with a consonant cluster reduplicate only the first consonant of the cluster, e.g. γράφω, pf. γέγραφα.

Latin spondeo, pf. spopondi shows simplification of sp > p, not in the prefix but in the stem, like sisto, pf. steti. So in these examples sp and st behave identically. They are not evidence for a special treatment of st.


----------



## Testing1234567

Dan2 said:


> Hi Testing...
> 
> 1. Given that my point was merely that there are a lot of interesting facts regarding /st/ > /s/ in English, _listen/hasten_ are at best _additional _examples, not _better _examples.
> 
> 2. Might you be confusing letters (spelling) with pronunciation?  If a /t/ were pronounced in _wrestle _(my example) and _listen_ (your example) they would be [rɛstəl] and [lɪstən]: the [st] would be in the same between-vowels position.  (Compare the words _vestal _and _Liston_, where the /t/ is pronounced.)
> 
> The above assumes your comment was based on the current spelling of the words in question (because that's all you mention).  A separate, more interesting issue is the form of the words at the time the /t/ was dropped.  I'm not knowledgeable about Middle English, but I see forms _wrestlen _and _listnen _in dictionaries, where again the /t/s are in similar environments.  However I'm not in a position to make any general claims about the environments in which English /st/ > /s/ historically and I suspect the situation is complicated.



My fault of word choice.

However, hasten does come from haste + en.


----------



## Gavril

fdb said:


> Not a good argument for your point. In Greek, at least, roots beginning with a consonant cluster reduplicate only the first consonant of the cluster, e.g. γράφω, pf. γέγραφα.



True, this does seem to be a more regular process in Greek than in Latin. An even closer point of comparison to _hestēka _would be _kéktēmai_, the perfect of _ktáomai_ "acquire, possess".



> Latin spondeo, pf. spopondi shows simplification of sp > s, not in the prefix but in the stem, like sisto, pf. steti. So in these examples sp and st behave identically. They are not evidence for a special treatment of st.



I'm not following your argument. _spopondi_ shows the simplification _sp_ > _p_, not _sp_ > _s_. This is analogous to forms like _steti, _but not to _sisto_, where the first (rather than the second) consonant of the cluster "survives" the process of reduplication.


----------



## fdb

Gavril said:


> _spopondi_ shows the simplification _sp_ > _p_, not _sp_ > _s_.



yes, corrected.


----------



## ahvalj

Actually, the three cases mentioned in the topic question represent three independent and absolutely unrelated phenomena:

(1) true unconditioned phonetic shift in a strong position,

(2) substitution of prohibited initial consonant clusters during borrowing,

(3) morphologically conditioned avoidance of haplology (_st…st>s…st/t…st_).

The English examples of _st>s_ discussed above don't fall in either category and can be interpreted, as I had written, as a simplification of a cluster in a weak position (cp. also the Dutch prounciation of -_sch_ as -s).


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> (2) substitution of prohibited initial consonant clusters during borrowing,



What's exceptional about apparent cases of IE _st-_ > Finnic _s-_ is that foreign words with an initial consonant cluster _C1C2- _usually become _C2_- in Finnic. E.g. Finnish _tanko_ "bar, rail" (related to German _Stange_, etc.) and _tulppa_ "plug" (related to Icelandic _stólpi _"pole") show this type of development with words beginning in *_st_-.

This suggests that either

1) apparent cases of *st > s were mediated by another language or languages, meaning that Finnic did not necessarily receive these words in the form we see them in attested IE languages

or

2) The change of *_st_ > _s_ was a sporadic, word-specific process: e.g., _seiväs_ may show assimilation of the first consonant to the final one in the process of loaning (compare Estonian _teivas_ "pole", which underwent a different development from the same source).


----------



## ahvalj

I agree, though I am puzzled by this _seiväs: _are there other examples in Finnic (_sara _looks too generic to me)? In principle, if the Baltic palatalization before front vowels is old enough, and _*stʲeı̯bas_ was borrowed at the time when Finnic was at the process of assibilating _ti>tʲi>ʦi>si,_ this palatalized Baltic _tʲ _could have passed the same route (cp. _*tilta>silta_ "bridge" [modern Lithuanian _tiltas _and Latvian _tilts, _since the neuter has been abandoned] before _i_ proper).

_Tulppa_ could have also been borrowed from Late Common Slavic *_stulpV_ "pole, column, pillar" (Old East Slavic _стълпъ/stъlpъ_, Modern Russian _столп/stolp_), for the _u_ cp. also _turku<*turgu _(>_търгъ/tъrgъ_>_торг/torg, _Lithuanian _turgus_), _tulkki<tulkV _(>_тълкъ/tъlkъ_>_толк/tolk, _Lithuanian _tulkas_).

*P. S. *As a sidenote. Slavs came into contact with Finnic speakers around the 6–7th centuries, when the tribes known several centuries later as Slovenes and Krivichis conquered what has become now North-West Russia. The earliest Slavic loanwords into Finnic preserve (as in the case with Germanic ones) the otherwise unattested archaic stage of the language: in particular, the Balto-Slavic _a, i, u _in the place of the later _o, ь, ъ._ The final vowels, however, in these early loanwords look rather inconsistent: sometimes we find -_u_ (_turkku, _see above, which may be explained by its original _u_-declension, cp. the Lithuanian word), sometimes -_a_ (_pakana_), sometimes -_i_ (_risti, pappi, sirppi). _The latter ending was traditionally regarded as a sign of newer loanwords, made from the stage when the East Slavic words possessed already no final vowel (_крест/krest, поп/pop, серп/serp). _This is, however, in stark contrast with the archaic vocalism. I just came to the idea that this dualism can be nicely explained by the dialectal source of the borrowing: in the thematic masculine declension, the later Slovenian dialect had the standard Slavic Nom. Sg. ending -_ъ_, which at the time of the earliest loanwords may have represented here a vowel reasonably close to the Finnic -_a_; in contrast, the later Krivichian dialect (reflected in the Novgorod and Pskov birch bark manuscripts), had an unusual ending -_е_ with the palatalization of the consonants before it (i. e. Slovenian _столъ/stolъ_ vs. Krivichian _столе/stole_ from Balto-Slavic *_stalas_) — this ending was naturally substituted with the Finnic -_i_.


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> I agree, though I am puzzled by this _seiväs: _are there other examples in Finnic (_sara _looks too generic to me)?



Other examples of _st_ > _s_, you mean?

Another possible case is Finnish _saparo_ "(short) tail, pigtail": compare Lithuanian _stabaras_ "stalk, stem". My Finnish etymological dictionary says that three other Finnic languages have cognates of _saparo_ beginning with _s_-, but Livonian has _tābar _(the dictionary doesn't mention any Estonian cognate). It's interesting that Livonian also has _tāibaz_ as a cognate of Finnish _seiväs_.

The initial _s_- of Finnic _saparo_ may have been influenced by the example of _seiväs_, since the putative Baltic source words (as reflected in Lith. _stiebas _/ _stabaras_) are similar both semantically and phonetically, perhaps ultimately cognate.


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, this is more serious since _st_ stands before _a_: either the word was influenced by _seiväs_ as you suggest (which may save my scenario), or this second substitution _st>s_ did, indeed, take place. The Finns had less contact with the Balts and probably lack the Baltic substrate (R1a haplogroup and craniological features) found in more southern Finnic speakers, so the Finnish reflexation may have been natural, whereas the Estonian and Livonian ones may have been secondarily corrected after the Baltic substrate/adstrate examples.

P. S. I wrote an update to my previous post. Interestingly, the name Slovenes is found in two exactly opposite ends of the Slavic continuum. Don't know if both are closely related: the Russian Slovenes, archeologically and anthropologically, are believed to be descendants of Baltic Slavs (which inhabited modern Northern Poland and North-Eastern Germany).


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> (_risti, pappi, sirppi) _[...] the later Krivichian dialect (reflected in the Novgorod and Pskov birch bark manuscripts), had an unusual ending -_е_ with the palatalization of the consonants before it (i. e. Slovenian _столъ/stolъ_ vs. Krivichian _столе/stole_ from Balto-Slavic *_stalas_) — this ending was naturally substituted with the Finnic -_i_.



It may be significant that _sirppi_, _pappi_ and_ risti_ belong to the newer _i_-declension, where the _i_-vowel is preserved through most or all of the case forms -- nom. plural _rist*i*t_ "crosses", partitive singular _rist*i*ä _-- rather than the older -_i_/-_e_-declension, where nominative singular -_i_ is replaced in many of the case forms with -_e_- or zero: e.g. _huuli_ "lip" > nom. pl._ huul*e*t_, partitive singular _huulta_.

I am not sure exactly when the Finnic _i_/_e_-alternation stopped being productive (I think it is rare if not absent in Proto-Scandinavian loanwords), but if it were still productive when the Krivichian _e_-stem nouns were acquired, one might expect these nouns to be assimilated into the _i/e_-stems rather than the newer _i_-stems.


----------



## ahvalj

Gavril said:


> It may be significant that _sirppi_, _pappi_ and_ risti_ belong to the newer _i_-declension, where the _i_-vowel is preserved through most or all of the case forms -- nom. plural _rist*i*t_ "crosses", partitive singular _rist*i*ä _-- rather than the older -_i_/-_e_-declension, where nominative singular -_i_ is replaced in many of the case forms with -_e_- or zero: e.g. _huuli_ "lip" > nom. pl._ huul*e*t_, partitive singular _huulta_.
> 
> I am not sure exactly when the Finnic _i_/_e_-alternation stopped being productive (I think it is rare if not absent in Proto-Scandinavian loanwords), but if it were still productive when the Krivichian _e_-stem nouns were acquired, one might expect these nouns to be assimilated into the _i/e_-stems rather than the newer _i_-stems.


How new is the _i_-declension? I know that the Common Uralic stage is reconstructed with only two, the _a/ä_- and _e_-declensions, but the _u_-, _i_- and even _o_-types emerged in Finnic before the first Slavic loanwords (cp. _juusto:_ _j_- was lost in Norse in the middle of the 1st millennium). The _e/i_-declension is inconvenient in preferring the Part. Sg. _-ta _added to the consonant stem, which caused problems with stems ending on -_st_- and -_pp_- (was the _ovi_-type [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Finnish_nominal_inflection/ovi] productive in loanwords?).

On the other hand, while the _o_ may have been open enough in the first centuries of its existence to be still heard by the Finns as _a (γράμμ*α*τα>грам*о*та/gram*o*ta>raam*a*ttu),_ I think the_ i_ and _u_ in the roots almost certainly exclude the possibility of the later borrowing. In the first East Slavic texts of the 11th century, we already find _*il>ъl_ in the closed syllables (_*dilgas>дългъ/dъlgъ_ "long", _*u̯ilkas>вълкъ/vъlkъ_ "wolf", parallel to *_el>ol:_ *_melka>молоко/moloko _"milk"). The original front vowel was preserved only after palatal consonants (_*ilmas >*jьlmъ> _Modern Russian _ильм/ilʲm_ "elm", _žьltъ_ "yellow", _šьlkъ_ "silk", _čьlnъ_ "shuttle"), all of which suggests that (1) the outcomes of _*i_ and _*u_ were already rather muted when this shift was happening, so that the front vowel _*i _was able to produce the back vowel _*ъ _(the East Slavic _ъ_ was a back vowel, since in most dialects its later reflexes are _o_), and (2) this change preceded the considerable palatalization of consonants before the front vowels, as suggested by their hard pronunciation before these newer _ъ_ (modern _долгий/dolgʲij,_ _волк/volk;_ cp. the pre-existing palatal consonants _j, č, š_ and _ž,_ which blocked the shift to _ъ_). So, it is reasonable to assume that the development  _*i>ь_ took part at least a couple of centuries before the 1000's, at the time when East Slavic certainly had vocalic endings in this and any other paradigm (the fall of the final yers is attested in East Slavic since the second half of the 11th century, i. e. much later). This may help to calibrate the periodization of the relative productivity of the _i_- and _e/i_-types in Finnic.


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> How new is the _i_-declension? I know that the Common Uralic stage is reconstructed with only two, the _a/ä_- and _e_-declensions, but the _u_-, _i_- and even _o_-types emerged in Finnic before the first Slavic loanwords (cp. _juusto:_ _j_- was lost in Norse in the middle of the 1st millennium).



The newer _i_-stems originally came from the contraction of *-_ei > -i_, and this contraction seems to have happened during Proto-Finnic times (thus no later than the first few centuries of the common era).



> (was the _ovi_-type [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Finnish_nominal_inflection/ovi] productive in loanwords?).



Yes -- for example, in standard Finnish, any word in the _e_/_i_-declension (loanword or not) whose stem ends in -_p(p)_- or -_v-_ has -_ea _in the partitive singular. _hirvi_ "elk" (pt. sg. _hirveä_) is from Baltic (cf. Old Prussian_ sirwis_ "deer").


----------

