origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Does anyone know of any theories on what motivated Proto-Semitic /ɡ/ to develop into /ɟ/ in Arabic? Is this sound change attested crosslinguistically?
I started wondering about this while musing on the centum/satem split in Indo-European. If Proto-Indo-European, like Classical Arabic, had /ɟ/ and /k/ but no /ɡ/ or /c/, then both centumisation and satemisation would simply be a levelling of the gaps in the sound system rather mergers. The not-so-numerous instances of /k/ in satem languages that are traditionally reconstructed as original *k rather than *kʷ would represent sporadic failure to front analogically rather than a separate underlying phoneme.
I believe I've heard that Proto-Indo-European *ǵ and *ǵʰ have palatal reflexes in Uralic, but I'm not sure if the same correspondence is attested for *ḱ.
I started wondering about this while musing on the centum/satem split in Indo-European. If Proto-Indo-European, like Classical Arabic, had /ɟ/ and /k/ but no /ɡ/ or /c/, then both centumisation and satemisation would simply be a levelling of the gaps in the sound system rather mergers. The not-so-numerous instances of /k/ in satem languages that are traditionally reconstructed as original *k rather than *kʷ would represent sporadic failure to front analogically rather than a separate underlying phoneme.
I believe I've heard that Proto-Indo-European *ǵ and *ǵʰ have palatal reflexes in Uralic, but I'm not sure if the same correspondence is attested for *ḱ.
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Palatalization?Šọ̈́gala wrote:Does anyone know of any theories on what motivated Proto-Semitic /ɡ/ to develop into /ɟ/ in Arabic? Is this sound change attested crosslinguistically?
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
More specifically, unconditioned palatalisation of the voiced velar stop while the voiceless equivalent remains velar.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Yes, that's very common. Well no, it's not, it's rare, but it's a well-known, relatively common rarity.Šọ̈́gala wrote:More specifically, unconditioned palatalisation of the voiced velar stop while the voiceless equivalent remains velar.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
In some varieties of Arabic, *k also has a palatalized reflex. The ones I know about only have this conditionally (e.g. near front vowels and stuff like that) but it's possible some have this as an unconditional change as well.
Also, it seems like the common change of *q to [g] in some varieties of Arabic would be related somehow. I don't know if it's better classified as a push or a pull, but apparently some modern varieties of Arabic use a voiced uvular stop [ɢ] for this phoneme, and some historical grammatical descriptions of Classical Arabic classified it with voiced sounds (however, maybe this just reflected a lack of aspiration compared to other plosives or something).
Also, it seems like the common change of *q to [g] in some varieties of Arabic would be related somehow. I don't know if it's better classified as a push or a pull, but apparently some modern varieties of Arabic use a voiced uvular stop [ɢ] for this phoneme, and some historical grammatical descriptions of Classical Arabic classified it with voiced sounds (however, maybe this just reflected a lack of aspiration compared to other plosives or something).
Last edited by Sumelic on Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
I follow the interpretation that palatovelars were actually plain and the plain velars were actually uvular.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
- Pogostick Man
- Avisaru
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:21 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Is this in the wrong thread?mèþru wrote:I follow the interpretation that palatovelars were actually plain and the plain velars were actually uvular.
(Avatar via Happy Wheels Wiki)
Index Diachronica PDF v.10.2
Conworld megathread
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
Index Diachronica PDF v.10.2
Conworld megathread
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
I agree, that one's pretty good. And, indeed, not altogether incompatible with what I said above: could be there was originally /ɟ/ /k/ /ɡʷ/ /kʷ/ /ɢ/ /q/. Indeed there do seem to be more than zero solid etymologies for a separate series (traditionally velars) contrasting with traditional palatovelars. A chain shift ɢ > ɡ and ɡ > ɟ, along the lines of what sumelic said, is plausible.mèþru wrote:I follow the interpretation that palatovelars were actually plain and the plain velars were actually uvular.
If you start out with no palatovelars at all, then it might be hard to explain the palatal reflexes in Uralic (assuming I have that part right in the first place). Arguably also hard to explain the unconditioned fronting of /k/ in satem languages in this scenario, although I think it's worth noting that, since most vowels in PIE are *e, a conditioned fronting would naturally be very frequent and might be generalised by analogy.
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Semitic languages are difficult to find analogies for in other language families because of the way their grammar restricts what types of sound changes can occur. Conditional sound changes of consonants are rare because the same consonant in a root can appear in almost any environment in different forms of the same word. Hebrew managed to pull off the begadkefat shift, but even in Hebrew most sound changes for consonants seem to be unconditional. It is possible that Arabic at some point originally palatalized the velar stop too, though why that one would snap back to [k] while the other didnt I cant say. There does not seem to have been a preexisting /č/-type sound that would have gotten in the way of the voiceless velar shift. Perhaps its merely that very few languages have no /k/, but missing /g/ is common. One could similarly muse why it is that /p/, but not /b/, became a fricative in all positions in Arabic.
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Not really, afaik most Uralic loans come from satem languages that already would have had fronting of some kind by the time borrowing occurred.Šọ̈́gala wrote:If you start out with no palatovelars at all, then it might be hard to explain the palatal reflexes in Uralic (assuming I have that part right in the first place).
"Satemization" shifts of q>k>tS aren't too uncommon. Southern Athabascan and Western Mayan languages have had similar shifts, for example, and it crops up in Neo-Aramaic dialects. In fact, Western Mayan and Neo-Aramaic are evidence of "satemization" and "centumization" popping up in closely-related language varieties, some have q>k>tS while others only have a merger of q>k, and in Neo-Aramaic you also have distinction between the two, while Chujean, on the border between "satemizing" languages to the east, "centumizing" Yucatec to the north, and conservative /k q/ languages to the east, as far as I can tell only partially completed k>tS but fully completed q>k.Arguably also hard to explain the unconditioned fronting of /k/ in satem languages in this scenario
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
It is. For example, '100' is *śëta > sata in Finnish, száz in Hungarian, čuohti in Northern Sami. (Contrary to the traditional transcription, *ś may have been a palatal stop originally.) This, and probably all similar loans, is also obviously from Proto-Indo-Iranian rather than PIE proper, what with the *m̥ >> /a/.Šọ̈́gala wrote:I believe I've heard that Proto-Indo-European *ǵ and *ǵʰ have palatal reflexes in Uralic, but I'm not sure if the same correspondence is attested for *ḱ.
Are you sure you're not confusing this with unconditional lenition of *g? I don't think I've heard of any languages with the same thing as Arabic; and in fact I know of several that have a kind of opposite fronting asymmetry (e.g. /tʃ ɟ/ in Spanish, /ts dʒ/ in Gallo-Romance).Salmoneus wrote:Yes, that's very common. Well no, it's not, it's rare, but it's a well-known, relatively common rarity.Šọ̈́gala wrote:More specifically, unconditioned palatalisation of the voiced velar stop while the voiceless equivalent remains velar.
Now unconditional ɣ > j is attested though, and unconditional j > ɟ is perfectly normal, so that would still predict that unconditional g > ɣ > j > ɟ should be possible (if rare). Doesn't help us a whole lot in the Arabic case of course, since the language retains /ɣ/ and /j/ all the way since Proto-Semitic. Unless we assumed that *ɣ was actually /ʁ/ at the time, and that the fronting was through /ʝ/?
---
As long as we're on Arabic and POA chainshifts BTW, here's one speculation to ponder on: Proto-Semitic might actually have had a full series of postalveolars! The *ṯ *ṱ *ḏ series, traditionally reconstructed as interdentals *(t)θ *(t)θʼ *(d)ð, is actually only based on the Arabic reflexes /θ ðˤ ð/: just about everywhere else they merge with other things (usually the plain sibilant series, but in Aramaic the dental stops). Afro-Asiatic reconstructions however suggest that these come at some time depth from postalveolars *č *čʼ *dž: e.g. *ṯawr 'bull' ~ Cushitic *čawr 'id.'. But if so, there's no particular reason for the fronting to be pre-Proto-Semitic! It could well be a late shift particular to Arabic.
This would give a bit more leeway on how to route the later developments such as *ṯ > š. We would not need to assume that this was earlier than the retraction of *s to /ʃ/ + the deaffrication of *ts to /s/ (which seem to be pretty widespread), and it could have instead been simply */tʃ/ > /ʃ/. One other possibly relevant thing is that Ugaritic allegedly later on recycles the letter for ḏ as a letter for /ʒ/ (where that comes from though, I don't know; it's not actually from older †ḏ, which rather merges with /d/).
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Proto-Semitic's one of those wondefully complicated areas of research that I'd love to learn more about some time.
- Curlyjimsam
- Lebom
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:57 am
- Location: Elsewhere
- Contact:
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
This isn't an explanation so much as a more detailed description of what happened. What caused this palatalisation? Why was it unconditional? Why did whatever caused it not affect the voiceless velar?Šọ̈́gala wrote:More specifically, unconditioned palatalisation of the voiced velar stop while the voiceless equivalent remains velar.
(These are questions of a sort which often do not have easy answers.)
- Chengjiang
- Avisaru
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Davis, CA
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
I've always suspected that the voiced velar fronted due to pressure from the uvular stop, which some sources reconstruct as voiced in early Arabic. In this model, /k/ didn't have a correspondingly voiceless uvular to trigger fronting.Curlyjimsam wrote:This isn't an explanation so much as a more detailed description of what happened. What caused this palatalisation? Why was it unconditional? Why did whatever caused it not affect the voiceless velar?Šọ̈́gala wrote:More specifically, unconditioned palatalisation of the voiced velar stop while the voiceless equivalent remains velar.
(These are questions of a sort which often do not have easy answers.)
Also, I do think there's something fishy about the three Proto-Semitic sounds traditionally reconstructed as interdentals, since the only descendant in which we're sure they had those values is Arabic. Myself, I've kind of leaned toward Proto-Semitic contrasting two columns of sibilants (possibly with a marginal third in plain voiceless fricatives only) for a while.
[ʈʂʰɤŋtɕjɑŋ], or whatever you can comfortably pronounce that's close to that
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Proto-Semitic relies too heavily on Arabic in exactly the same way that Proto-Indo-European relies too heavily on Greek and Sanskrit.
- Chengjiang
- Avisaru
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Davis, CA
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
Absolutely.KathTheDragon wrote:Proto-Semitic relies too heavily on Arabic in exactly the same way that Proto-Indo-European relies too heavily on Greek and Sanskrit.
The only thing that even makes me hesitate in saying that the "interdentals" were a sibilant series is Aramaic reflecting them as stops; I'm not aware of many instances of sibilant affricates or fricatives unconditionally hardening to stops. (Spirants hardening, yes.) The only one I can think of off the top of my head is apparent [s] > [t] in Vietnamese.
[ʈʂʰɤŋtɕjɑŋ], or whatever you can comfortably pronounce that's close to that
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
ts > t : Proto Austronesian to Proto Malayo Polynesian, Proto Austronesian to Kavalan, Amis, Bunun, Siraya ; Mpi, Bola (Sino-Tibetan)
s > t : Proto-Oceanic to a variety of languages including groups in the Southeast Solomons, New Caledonia, Micronesia, etc. (these are independent developments); many examples in Kamarupan (Sino-Tibetan)
tʃ > t : Blackfoot, Bola (ST)
ʃ > t : also Blackfoot, Ugong (sort of, it's dental)(ST)
P.S.: s > t in Vietnamese is more than just apparent, it's the accepted theory by scholars
s > t : Proto-Oceanic to a variety of languages including groups in the Southeast Solomons, New Caledonia, Micronesia, etc. (these are independent developments); many examples in Kamarupan (Sino-Tibetan)
tʃ > t : Blackfoot, Bola (ST)
ʃ > t : also Blackfoot, Ugong (sort of, it's dental)(ST)
P.S.: s > t in Vietnamese is more than just apparent, it's the accepted theory by scholars
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
I feel like there should be more emphasis on Hebrew and South Semitic languages (especially the latter).
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
Re: origin of Arabic /ɟ/ (plus centum/satem musings)
To my knowledge, the PS "interdentals" are written as such as a matter of tradition (like Akkadian sibilants), and most Semiticists these days reconstruct them as something like /ʦ ʦʼ ʣ/ or /ʧ ʧʼ ʤ/, which not only makes more sense in terms of Semitic but also broader Afro-Asiatic reconstruction.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”