# Phonology of Indo-European Languages



## CyrusSH

What were the main reasons for differences in phonology between IE languages? Could it be related to the languages of aboriginal people that they migrated to their lands? Or were there geographical reasons? Or were there interrelated phonological processes?

I think these types of consonants are more frequent (by considering differences) in IE languages:

*Sanskrit*: aspirated + Palatal (_tʰ,dʰ,j,c_)
*Balto-Slavic*: sibilant + Palatal (_s,z,š,ž_)
*Avestan*: fricative + Palatal (_θ,x,š,č_)
*Italo-Celtic*: plosive + Labial–velar (_k,g,kʷ,gʷ_) [Italic _Labial_ but Celtic _Velar_]
*Germanic*: fricative + Velar (_θ,x,k,g_)
*Persian*: fricative + Coronal (_θ,x,t,s_)
*Graeco-Armenian*: aspirated + Coronal (_tʰ,kʰ,t,s_)


----------



## CyrusSH

About *proto-IE* itself: aspirated + Palatal (_gʰ,ǵʰ,ǵ,ḱ_)


----------



## ahvalj

Such differences do not always need substrate. Danish is spoken by immigrants from southern Sweden, which came to an empty land, yet modern Danish phonetics is dramatically different from Swedish one.


----------



## CyrusSH

It seems to be clear that ancient Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Italic, Celtic and Germanic peoples had problems in the pronunciation of aspirated consonants, the same thing can be said about ancient Indian, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Celtic and Armenian peoples and Labiovelar consonants.

About Labiovelar consonants, there is a difference between IE peoples, ancient Greek, Celtic and some Italic people knew some proto-IE consonants were Labiovelar but it was probably easier for them to pronounce them as Labial or Velar (like proto-IE *_gʷ_>_g/b/v_) but Iranians probably didn't know this thing (those sounds had been changed in Indo-Iranian), however they could pronounce labiovelars (like proto-IE *_sw_>_xʷ_).


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Such differences do not always need substrate. Danish is spoken by immigrants from southern Sweden, which came to an empty land, yet modern Danish phonetics is dramatically different from Swedish one.



I really doubt Denmark was an empty land before the migration of Swedes, but I don't deny that geography and environment can be also important factors.


----------



## CyrusSH

For example about these four consonants: _kʰ, kʷ, x, xʷ_

Land of A: In this land people can pronounce _kʰ_, but not _kʷ_, _x_, _xʷ_.
Land of B: In this land people can pronounce _kʰ_ and _kʷ_, but not _x_ and _xʷ_.
Land of C: In this land people can pronounce _kʷ_ but not _kʰ_, _x_ and _xʷ_.
Land of D: In this land people can pronounce _kʷ_, _x_ and _xʷ_, but not _kʰ_.

-> indicates migration.

Indo-Iranian -> *A* then Iranian -> *D*
Italo-Celtic and Greek -> *B* then Celtic -> *C*
Proto-Germanic -> *D* then Germanic -> *C*


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> I really doubt Denmark was an empty land before the migration of Swedes, but I don't deny that geography and environment can be also important factors.


Jutland (don't know about Zealand) became vacant after the migration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes to Britain. Even if some considerable amount of West Germanic speakers remained in Jutland, the phonology of Danish is as far from the English one as it is from the Swedish. Interestingly, Icelandic, which branched off from Norwegian, shares some peculiarities with Danish (e. g. devoicing), though it is still more human-sounding.

Concerning your substrate ideas. I doubt one can come to any fruitful conclusions on the available linguistic material. For example, with the exception of pre-Greek, Hattic, Elamite and Dravidian, we hardly have any information about the possible substrate/adstrate languages. Next, judging from loans to Uralic, Indo-Iranic shaped in many essential aspects in the north, most probably in the Andronovo culture (Andronovo culture - Wikipedia), so its original bearers were even anthropologically different from the south Asians that speak Indo-Iranic languages now (compare the ancient depictions of Scythians/Sarmatians/Alanians that lacked south Asian admixture: Scythians - Wikipedia ; compare also the hair color of a Scythian mummy: Stock Photo - The mummy of a Scythian warrior pictured at the Museum for Art and Craft in Hamburg, Germany, 13 February 2008. The mummy forms part of the spectacular exhibition on the). Finally, when you write that some people was not disposed to pronouncing certain sounds, you are based on very late attestations: except Anatolian (which, anyway, seems to have separated earlier than the other groups), Greek and occasional words of Mitanni Aryan, all the other branches are attested two to four and a half millennia after the split of Proto-Indo-European, and we have no idea how soon certain traits you mention had developed (Uralic doesn't reflect aspiration and labialization in Indo-Iranic loans).


----------



## CyrusSH

Before those consonants, it was better that I mentioned these ones: _kʷ_ and _š_

Land of X: In this land people can pronounce _kʷ_ but not _š_.
Land of Y: In this land people can pronounce _š_, but not _kʷ_.

Greek, Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Hittite -> *X*
Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Tocharian -> *Y*

Tocharian is considered as a Centum language but it has palato-alveolar sibilant (_š_) and not any labiovelars.


----------



## desi4life

ahvalj said:


> Finally, when you write that some people was not disposed to pronouncing certain sounds, you are based on very late attestations: except Anatolian (which, anyway, seems to have separated earlier than the other groups), Greek and occasional words of Mitanni Aryan, all the other branches are attested two to four and a half millennia after the split of Proto-Indo-European, and we have no idea how soon certain traits you mention had developed (Uralic doesn't reflect aspiration and labialization in Indo-Iranic loans).



Well, Vedic and Avestan texts (especially the early ones) are believed to have been composed sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE, roughly from a similar time period as Greek and Mitanni (give or take 100-200 years).


----------



## ahvalj

Between 15th and 1th century BCE the majority of Greek speakers were perfectly able to pronounce aspirated voiceless stops, at the turn of the eras they lost this ability (without any obvious foreign influence, by the way, and almost 20 centuries after the arrival of proto-Greek speakers to the Mediterranean shores). Imagine Greek to have been attested since Byzantine times: you would have discussed here that _f, þ _and _x_ are characteristic outcomes of the Greek branch.

Likewise, we don't know when most other lineages acquired their peculiar traits. For example, I am not sure that the First Germanic sound shift was not occurring in the last centuries BCE (if Cimbri [Cimbri - Wikipedia] were Germanics and if Himmerland [Himmerland - Wikipedia] is the later rendering of the same word): actually it could have happened at any period between the separation of this branch and the first attestation of Germanic words. In palaeo-Balkanic languages the consonant shift seems to have been occurring in the course of the 1st millennium BCE, i. e. already in their historical homelands.


----------



## ahvalj

desi4life said:


> Well, Vedic and Avestan texts (especially the early forms) are believed to have been composed sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE, roughly from a similar time period as Greek and Mitanni (give or take 100-200 years).


Yet the texts we have (especially Avestan) have passed through long centuries of oral transmission: e. g. did the original Vedas and Avesta preserve the laryngeal (as Beekes argues for Avestan), were _ai_ and _au_ still diphthongs in Vedas, did _-s_ and _-m_ become what they were in the attested texts etc. etc.?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Jutland (don't know about Zealand) became vacant after the migration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes to Britain. Even if some considerable amount of West Germanic speakers remained in Jutland, the phonology of Danish is as far from the English one as it is from the Swedish. Interestingly, Icelandic, which branched off from Norwegian, shares some peculiarities with Danish (e. g. devoicing), though it is still more human-sounding.



I really don't see phonetic differences between Danish and other Germanic languages, of course there can be some minor differences between labial or velar consonants but for example there was not a labiovelar like _ŋʷ_ that we see in proto-Germanic and Avestan languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Concerning your substrate ideas. I doubt one can come to any fruitful conclusions on the available linguistic material. For example, with the exception of pre-Greek, Hattic, Elamite and Dravidian, we hardly have any information about the possible substrate/adstrate languages.



Knowing pre-Indo-European languages is another issue, I talk about something which can happen always, for example one of our neighbors was born in the UK from a British mother and an Iranian father and lived there for just five years, he is already 38 years old (33 years in Iran) but he still can't pronounce _x_ correctly, however his 10 years old son can do it very well, of course this thing can be true about normal migrations, the situation about invasions or mass migrations can be different.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Next, judging from loans to Uralic, Indo-Iranic shaped in many essential aspects in the north, most probably in the Andronovo culture (Andronovo culture - Wikipedia), so its original bearers were even anthropologically different from the south Asians that speak Indo-Iranic languages now (compare the ancient depictions of Scythians/Sarmatians/Alanians that lacked south Asian admixture: Scythians - Wikipedia ; compare also the hair color of a Scythian mummy: Stock Photo - The mummy of a Scythian warrior pictured at the Museum for Art and Craft in Hamburg, Germany, 13 February 2008. The mummy forms part of the spectacular exhibition on the). Finally, when you write that some people was not disposed to pronouncing certain sounds, you are based on very late attestations: except Anatolian (which, anyway, seems to have separated earlier than the other groups), Greek and occasional words of Mitanni Aryan, all the other branches are attested two to four and a half millennia after the split of Proto-Indo-European, and we have no idea how soon certain traits you mention had developed (Uralic doesn't reflect aspiration and labialization in Indo-Iranic loans).



I think sound changes in the IE languages actually show that none of Indo-European peoples wanted to create a new language, in fact they wanted to preserve the original one but in different lands this thing was dependent on the phonology of aboriginal languages. Of course there could be also some mass migrations or invasions, in this case they could preserve their own phonology too.

About Indo-Iranian, why you just talk about Uralic but not Altaic?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Likewise, we don't know when most other lineages acquired their peculiar traits. For example, I am not sure that the First Germanic sound shift was not occurring in the last centuries BCE (if Cimbri [Cimbri - Wikipedia] were Germanics and if Himmerland [Himmerland - Wikipedia] is the later rendering of the same word): actually it could have happened at any period between the separation of this branch and the first attestation of Germanic words. In palaeo-Balkanic languages the consonant shift seems to have been occurring in the course of the 1st millennium BCE, i. e. already in their historical homelands.



I don't think an obscure name of a people can prove anything, were Cimbri a Celtic or Germanic people? What about Sicambrians? Did they relate to ancient Cimmerians? Where was their original land? Was Himmerland the land the same people? ...

You can be sure that the First Germanic sound shift was not occurring in the last centuries BCE because the name of Caesar in proto-Germanic was Kaisaraz.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I really don't see phonetic differences between Danish and other Germanic languages,


You have never been to Demark or heard any Danish, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't say such a thing.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> You have never been to Demark or heard any Danish, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't say such a thing.



I just heard something here: Danish language, alphabet and pronunciation What is the strange thing? Compare it with Gilaki: Gilaki language, alphabet and pronunciation Phonetically Gilaki is a mixture of Caucasian, Persian, Armenian, Turkic, Arabic and Russian.


----------



## Red Arrow

The strange thing about Danish is:
1. Stød
Stød - Wikipedia
2. The plosives, especially d

To me it sounds quite different from all other Germanic languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

Ok, according to your link: "scholars have suggested that it goes back to the original population groups and that the line between stød and non-stød dialects represent an ancient invasion from the south."

So there was even a reason for this thing, a real difference is that you say for example unlike other Germanic peoples, Danes can pronounce this Persian word correctly: ژخش (žaxš)


----------



## CyrusSH

Now let's compare, consider these eight consonants: *kʰ, kʷ, x, xʷ, š, θ, č, f*

*Indo-European*: _kʰ, kʷ_

*Mycenaean Greek*: _kʰ, kʷ_ - Southern Europe (Eastern part)
*Etruscan*: _kʰ, š, f_  - Southern Europe (Western part)
*Basque*: _(x), č, f_ - Southeastern Europe (Northern part)
*Semitic*: _x, š, θ, (f)_ - Middle East (Western part)
*Altaic*: _kʰ, š, č_ - Central Asia 
*Uralic*: _š, č_ - North Eurasia
*Dravidian*: _kʰ, č_ - South Asia
*Kartvelian*: _kʰ, š, x, č_ - Caucasus

*Ancient Greek*: _kʰ_
*Sanskrit*: _kʰ, (š), č_
*Avestan*: _x, xʷ, š, θ, č, f_
*Italic*: _kʷ, f_
*Celtic*: _kʷ, (x), f_
*Balto-Slavic*: _š, č_
*Slavic*: _š, č, x_
*Armenian*: _kʰ, š, x, č_
*Germanic*: _kʷ, x, xʷ, θ, f_
*Tocharian*: _š, č_

Greek -> Southern Europe (Eastern part)

Indo-Iranian -> Central Asia
.. Indian -> South Asia
.. Iranian -> ?

Italic -> Southern Europe (Western part)

Celtic -> Southeastern Europe (Northern part)

Balto-Slavic -> North Eurasia
.. Slavic -> ?

Armenian -> Caucasus

Germanic -> ?

Tocharian -> North Eurasia

About questions marks:

proto-Germanic -> Middle East
.. Iranian -> Middle East  -> Eastern Europe
.. .. Slavic -> Eastern Europe
.. Germanic -> Eastern Europe -> Northern Europe


----------



## CyrusSH

The interesting point is that Celtic has _x_ sound in a few clusters (_xs_ and _xt_), but in early loanwords from proto-Celtic, this sound was changed to _k_ in Germanic, like Gothic reiks from Proto-Celtic *_rīxs_ "king".


----------



## CyrusSH

I missed *Albanian* in this thread, in the continuation of post #20:

*Albanian*: š, θ, f

So the original land of Albanians could be also Middle East (Western part), similar to Semitic and Old Persian.


----------



## berndf

Or from the Balkans or from anywhere else in the world. From mere existence or non-existence of a handful of widespread consonants you cannot deduce world history.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Or from the Balkans or from anywhere else in the world. From mere existence or non-existence of a handful of widespread consonants you cannot deduce world history.



Of course Balkans is also possible but the problem is that we know almost nothing about Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian languages, Albanian phonology clearly differs from Greek and Italic ones. In another thread a Romanian member talked about the sound change of Albanian _th_ in Romanian loanwords, it shows this sound didn't belong to this region.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In another thread a Romanian member talked about the sound change of Albanian _th_ in Romanian loanwords, it shows this sound didn't belong to this region.


It shows nothing. A sound shift that happened at one stage of the development (medieval period) allows no conclusion as to what happened in earlier development stages of a language.


----------

