{"history":[],"article":{"id":"287fd97e-f7b9-435b-b500-e6daeee8df78","title":"Centum and satem languages","slug":"centum-and-satem-languages","content":":::summary\n:::\n\n# \nLanguages of the [Indo-European family](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) are classified as either **centum languages** or **satem languages** according to how the [dorsal consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/dorsal-consonant) (sounds of \"K\", \"G\" and \"Y\" type) of the reconstructed [Proto-Indo-European language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language) (PIE) developed.\nAn example of the different developments is provided by the words for \"hundred\" found in the early [attested](https://bliptext.com/articles/attested-language) [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) (which is where the two branches get their names).\nIn centum languages, they typically began with a sound ([Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) centum was pronounced with initial /k/), but in satem languages, they often began with (the example satem comes from the [Avestan language](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan-language) of [Zoroastrian](https://bliptext.com/articles/zoroastrian) scripture).\nThe table below shows the traditional reconstruction of the PIE [dorsal consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/dorsal-consonant), with three series, but according to [some more recent theories](https://bliptext.com/articles/) there may actually have been only two series or three series with different pronunciations from those traditionally ascribed.\nIn centum languages, the [palatovelars](https://bliptext.com/articles/velar-consonant), which included the initial consonant of the \"hundred\" root, merged with the plain velars.\nIn satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars.\nThe centum–satem division forms an [isogloss](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss) in [synchronic](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchrony-and-diachrony) descriptions of Indo-European languages.\nIt is no longer thought that the PIE language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived.\nSuch a division is made particularly unlikely by the discovery that while the satem group lies generally to the east and the centum group to the west, the most eastward of the known IE language branches, [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-languages), is centum.\n# [Approximate extent of the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals. The darker red (marking the Sintashta/Abashevo/Srubna archaeological cultures' range) is the area of the origin of satemization according to von Bradke's hypothesis, which is not accepted by most linguists. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Centum///Satem///map.png]\n\n# Centum languages\nThe centum languages of the Indo-European family are the \"western\" branches: [Hellenic](https://bliptext.com/articles/hellenic-languages), [Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/celtic-languages), [Italic](https://bliptext.com/articles/italic-languages) and [Germanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages).\nThey merged PIE palatovelars and plain velars, yielding plain velars (k, g, gh) only (\"centumisation\"), but retained the labiovelars as a distinct set.\nThe [Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages) branch probably falls outside the centum–satem division; for instance, the [Luwian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/luwian-language) indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-[Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages).\nThe centumisation observed in [Hittite](https://bliptext.com/articles/hittite-language) is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian into separate languages.\nHowever, [Craig Melchert](https://bliptext.com/articles/craig-melchert) [proposes](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-anatolian-language) that proto-Anatolian is indeed a centum language.\nWhile [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-language) is generally regarded as a centum language, it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal series (originally nine separate consonants) into a single phoneme, *k.\nAccording to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model.\nHowever, as Tocharian has replaced some PIE labiovelars with the labiovelar-like, non-original sequence *ku, it has been proposed that labiovelars remained distinct in [Proto-Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-tocharian-language), which would place Tocharian in the centum group (assuming that [Proto-Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-tocharian-language) lost palatovelars while labiovelars were still phonemically distinct).\nIn the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars.\nFor example, in the PIE numeral * 'hundred', the initial palatovelar * became a plain velar /k/, as in Latin centum (originally pronounced with /k/, although most modern descendants of Latin have a [sibilant](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant) there), [Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/greek-language) (he)katon, [Welsh](https://bliptext.com/articles/welsh-language) cant, [Tocharian B](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-b) kante.\nIn the [Germanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages), the /k/ developed regularly by [Grimm's law](https://bliptext.com/articles/grimm-s-law) to become /h/, as in Old English hund(red).\nCentum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row (*, *, *) and the plain velars.\nHistorically, it was unclear whether the labiovelar row represented an innovation by a process of labialisation, or whether it was inherited from the parent language (but lost in the satem branches); current mainstream opinion favours the latter possibility.\nLabiovelars as single phonemes (for example, ) as opposed to biphonemes (for example, ) are attested [in Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/mycenaean-greek) (the [Linear B](https://bliptext.com/articles/linear-b) q- series), Italic (Latin ⟨qu⟩), Germanic ([Gothic](https://bliptext.com/articles/gothic-alphabet) [hwair](https://bliptext.com/articles/hwair) ⟨ƕ⟩ and qairþra ⟨q⟩) and Celtic ([Ogham](https://bliptext.com/articles/ogham) ceirt ⟨Q⟩) (in the so-called [P-Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/p-celtic) languages developed into /p/; a similar development took place in the [Osco-Umbrian](https://bliptext.com/articles/osco-umbrian) branch of Italic and sometimes [in Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/mycenaean-greek) and Germanic).\nThe [boukólos rule](https://bliptext.com/articles/bouk-los-rule), however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to or.\nThe centum–satem division refers to the development of the dorsal series of sounds only at the time of the earliest separation of PIE into the [proto-languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-language) of its individual daughter branches; it does not apply to any later analogous developments within any branch.\nFor example, the palatalization of [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) to or (often later ) in some [Romance languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) (which means that modern [French](https://bliptext.com/articles/french-language) and [Spanish](https://bliptext.com/articles/spanish-language) cent and cien are pronounced with initial /s/ and /θ/ respectively) is satem-like, as is the merger of with in the [Gaelic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/gaelic-languages); such later changes do not affect the classification of the languages as centum.\nLinguist Wolfgang P. Schmid argued that some [proto-languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-language) like [Proto-Baltic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-baltic-language) were initially centum, but gradually became satem due to their exposure to the latter.\n\n# Satem languages\nThe satem languages belong to the Eastern sub-families, especially [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) and [Balto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/balto-slavic-languages) (but not [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-languages)), with [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) being the major Asian branch and [Balto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/balto-slavic-languages) the major Eurasian branch of the satem group.\nIt lost the labial element of PIE labiovelars and merged them with plain velars, but the palatovelars remained distinct and typically came to be realised as [sibilants](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant).\nThat set of developments, particularly the [assibilation](https://bliptext.com/articles/assibilation) of palatovelars, is referred to as **satemisation**.\nIn the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typically [fricative](https://bliptext.com/articles/fricative) or [affricate](https://bliptext.com/articles/affricate) consonants, articulated further forward in the mouth.\nFor example, the [PIE root](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-root) *, \"hundred\", the initial palatovelar normally became a [sibilant](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant) [s] or [ʃ], as in [Avestan](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan-language) satem, [Persian](https://bliptext.com/articles/persian-language) sad, [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) śatam, sto in all modern [Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages) languages, [Old Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) sъto, [Latvian](https://bliptext.com/articles/latvian-language) simts, [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) šimtas ([Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) is between Centum and Satem languages).\nAnother example is the Slavic prefix sъ(n)- (\"with\"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co(n)-; conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz (\"union\").\nAn [s] is found for PIE in such languages as [Latvian](https://bliptext.com/articles/latvian-language), [Avestan](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan), [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language) and [Armenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/armenian-language), but [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) and [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) have (š in [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language), ś in [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) transcriptions).\nFor more reflexes, see the [phonetic correspondences](https://bliptext.com/articles/) section below; note also the effect of the [ruki sound law](https://bliptext.com/articles/ruki-sound-law).\n\"Incomplete satemisation\" may also be evidenced by remnants of labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic, including Lithuanian ungurys \"eel\" < * and dygus \"pointy\" < *.\nA few examples are also claimed in Indo-Iranian, such as Sanskrit [guru](https://bliptext.com/articles/guru) \"heavy\" < *, kulam \"herd\" < *, but they may instead be secondary developments, as in the case of kuru \"make\" < * in which it is clear that the ku- group arose in [post-Rigvedic](https://bliptext.com/articles/vedic-sanskrit) language.\nIt is also asserted that in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonant consonants (denoted by /R/) become /iR/ after plain velars but /uR/ after labiovelars.\nSome linguists argue that the [Albanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/albanian-language) and [Armenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/armenian-language) branches are also to be classified as satem, whereas other linguists argue that they show evidence of separate treatment of all three dorsal consonant rows and so may not have merged the labiovelars with the plain velars, unlike the canonical satem branches.\nAssibilation of velars in certain phonetic environments is a common phenomenon in language development.\nConsequently, it is sometimes hard to establish firmly the languages that were part of the original satem diffusion and the ones affected by secondary assibilation later.\nWhile extensive documentation of Latin and Old [Swedish](https://bliptext.com/articles/swedish-language), for example, shows that the assibilation found in French and [Swedish](https://bliptext.com/articles/swedish-language) were later developments, there are not enough records of the extinct [Dacian](https://bliptext.com/articles/dacian-language) and [Thracian](https://bliptext.com/articles/thracian-language) languages to settle conclusively when their satem-like features originated.\nIn [Armenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/armenian-language), some assert that /kʷ/ is distinguishable from /k/ before front vowels.\nMartin Macak (2018) asserts that the merger of *kʷ and *k occurred \"within the history of Proto-Armenian itself\".\nIn [Albanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/albanian-language), the three original dorsal rows have remained distinguishable when before historic front vowels.\nLabiovelars are for the most part differentiated from all other Indo-European velar series before front vowels (where they developed into s and z ultimately), but they merge with the \"pure\" (back) velars elsewhere.\nThe palatal velar series, consisting of PIE *ḱ and the merged *ģ and ģʰ, usually developed into th and dh, but were depalatalized to merge with the back velars when in contact with [sonorants](https://bliptext.com/articles/sonorant).\nBecause the original PIE tripartite distinction between dorsals is preserved in such reflexes, Demiraj argues Albanian is therefore to be considered, like Luwian, neither centum nor satem but at the same time it has a \"satem-like\" realization of the palatal dorsals in most cases.\nThus PIE *ḱ, *kʷ and *k become th (Alb. thom \"I say\" < PIE *ḱeHsmi), s (Alb. si \"how\" < PIE. kʷih1, cf. Latin quī), and q (/c/: pleq \"elderly\" < *plak-i < PIE *plh2-ko-), respectively.\n\n# History of concept\n\n## Schleicher's single guttural row\n[August Schleicher](https://bliptext.com/articles/august-schleicher), an early Indo-Europeanist, in Part I, \"Phonology\", of his major work, the 1871 Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language, published a table of original momentane Laute, or \"stops\", which has only a single velar row, *k, *g, *gʰ, under the name of Gutturalen.\nHe identifies four palatals (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) but hypothesises that they came from the gutturals along with the nasal *ń and the spirant *ç.\n\n## Brugmann's labialized and unlabialized language groups\n[Karl Brugmann](https://bliptext.com/articles/karl-brugmann), in his 1886 work Outline of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language ([Grundriss](https://bliptext.com/articles/grundriss)...), promotes the palatals to the original language, recognising two rows of Explosivae, or \"stops\", the palatal (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) and the velar (*k, *g, *kʰ, *gʰ), each of which was [simplified to three articulations](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-phonology) even in the same work.\nIn the same work, Brugmann notices among die velaren Verschlusslaute, \"the velar stops\", a major contrast between [reflexes](https://bliptext.com/articles/reflex-linguistics) of the same words in different [daughter languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/daughter-language).\nIn some, the velar is marked with a u-Sprache, \"u-articulation\", which he terms a Labialisierung, \"labialization\", in accordance with the prevailing theory that the labiovelars were velars labialised by combination with a u at some later time and were not among the original consonants.\nHe thus divides languages into die Sprachgruppe mit Labialisierung and die Sprachgruppe ohne Labialisierung, \"the language group with (or without) labialization\", which basically correspond to what would later be termed the centum and satem groups:\n\"For words and groups of words, which do not appear in any language with labialized velar-sound [the 'pure velars'], it must for the present be left undecided whether they ever had the u-afterclap.\"\nThe doubt introduced in that passage suggests he already suspected the \"afterclap\" u was not that but was part of an original sound.\n\n## Von Bradke's centum and satem groups\nIn 1890, Peter von Bradke published Concerning Method and Conclusions of Aryan (Indogermanic) Studies, in which he identified the same division (Trennung) as did Brugmann, but he defined it in a different way.\nHe said that the original Indo-Europeans had two kinds of gutturaler Laute, \"guttural sounds\" the gutturale oder velare, und die palatale Reihe, \"guttural or velar, and palatal rows\", each of which were aspirated and unaspirated.\nThe velars were to be viewed as gutturals in an engerer Sinn, \"narrow sense\".\nThey were a reiner K-Laut, \"pure K-sound\".\nPalatals were häufig mit nachfolgender Labialisierung, \"frequently with subsequent labialization\".\nThe latter distinction led him to divide the palatale Reihe into a Gruppe als Spirant and a reiner K-Laut, typified by the words satem and centum respectively.\nLater in the book he speaks of an original centum-Gruppe, from which on the north of the Black and Caspian Seas the satem-Stämme, \"satem tribes\", dissimilated among the Nomadenvölker or Steppenvölker, distinguished by further palatalization of the palatal gutturals.\n\n## Brugmann's identification of labialized and centum\nBy the 1897 edition of [Grundriss](https://bliptext.com/articles/grundriss), Brugmann (and [Delbrück](https://bliptext.com/articles/berthold-delbr-ck)) had adopted Von Bradke's view: \"The Proto-Indo-European palatals... appear in Greek, Italic, Celtic and Germanic as a rule as K-sounds, as opposed to in Aryan, Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic, [Phrygian](https://bliptext.com/articles/phrygian-language) and Thracian... for the most part sibilants.\"\nThere was no more mention of labialized and non-labialized language groups after Brugmann changed his mind regarding the labialized velars.\nThe labio-velars now appeared under that name as one of the five rows of Verschlusslaute (Explosivae) ([plosives/stops](https://bliptext.com/articles/stop-consonant)), comprising die [labialen](https://bliptext.com/articles/labial-consonant) V., die [dentalen](https://bliptext.com/articles/dental-consonants) V., die [palatalen](https://bliptext.com/articles/palatal-consonants) V., die [reinvelaren](https://bliptext.com/articles/velar-consonant) V. and die [labiovelaren](https://bliptext.com/articles/labialized-velar-consonant) V. It was Brugmann who pointed out that labiovelars had merged into the velars in the satem group, accounting for the coincidence of the discarded non-labialized group with the satem group.\n\n## Discovery of Anatolian and Tocharian\nWhen von Bradke first published his definition of the centum and satem sound changes, he viewed his classification as \"the oldest perceivable division\" in Indo-European, which he elucidated as \"a division between eastern and western cultural provinces (Kulturkreise)\".\nThe proposed split was undermined by the decipherment of [Hittite](https://bliptext.com/articles/hittite-language) and [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-languages) in the early 20th century.\nBoth languages show no satem-like [assibilation](https://bliptext.com/articles/assibilation) in spite of being located in the satem area.\nThe proposed [phylogenetic](https://bliptext.com/articles/phylogeny) division of Indo-European into satem and centum \"sub-families\" was further weakened by the identification of other Indo-European [isoglosses](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss) running across the centum–satem boundary, some of which seemed of equal or greater importance in the development of daughter languages.\nConsequently, since the early 20th century at least, the centum–satem isogloss has been considered an early [areal phenomenon](https://bliptext.com/articles/areal-feature) rather than a true phylogenetic division of daughter languages.\n\n# Alternative interpretations\n\n## Different realizations\nThe actual pronunciation of the velar series in PIE is not certain.\nOne current idea is that the \"palatovelars\" were in fact simple velars, and the \"plain velars\" were pronounced farther back, perhaps as [uvular consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/uvular-consonant):.\nIf labiovelars were just [labialized](https://bliptext.com/articles/labialization) forms of the \"plain velars\", they would have been pronounced but the pronunciation of the labiovelars as would still be possible in uvular theory, if the satem languages first shifted the \"palatovelars\" then later merged the \"plain velars\" and \"labiovelars\".\nThe uvular theory is supported by the following evidence.\nOn the above interpretation, the split between the centum and satem groups would not have been a straightforward loss of an articulatory feature (palatalization or labialization).\nInstead, the uvulars (the \"plain velars\" of the traditional reconstruction) would have been fronted to velars across all branches.\nIn the satem languages, it caused a [chain shift](https://bliptext.com/articles/chain-shift), and the existing velars (traditionally \"palatovelars\") were shifted further forward to avoid a merger, becoming palatal: > ; >.\nIn the centum languages, no chain shift occurred, and the uvulars merged into the velars.\nThe delabialisation in the satem languages would have occurred later, in a separate stage.\nRelated to the uvular theory is the [glottalic theory](https://bliptext.com/articles/glottalic-theory).\nBoth these theories have some support if PIE was spoken near the Caucasus, where both uvular and glottal consonants are common and many languages have a paucity of distinctive vowels.\n\n## Only two velar series\nThe presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language has been the mainstream hypothesis since at least the mid-20th century.\nThere remain, however, several alternative proposals with just two rows in the parent language, which describe either \"satemisation\" or \"centumisation\", as the emergence of a new phonematic category rather than the disappearance of an inherited one.\n[Antoine Meillet](https://bliptext.com/articles/antoine-meillet) (1937) proposed that the original rows were the labiovelars and palatovelars, with the plain velars being [allophones](https://bliptext.com/articles/allophone) of the palatovelars in some cases, such as depalatalisation before a resonant.\nThe etymologies establishing the presence of velars in the parent language are explained as artefacts of either borrowing between daughter languages or of false etymologies.\nHaving only labiovelars and palatovelars would also parallel languages such as Russian or Irish, where consonants can be either broad and unpalatalized, or slender and palatalized, and is also seen in some [Northwest Caucasian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/northwest-caucasian-languages).\nOther scholars who assume two dorsal rows in PIE include [Kuryłowicz](https://bliptext.com/articles/jerzy-kury-owicz) (1935) and [Lehmann](https://bliptext.com/articles/winfred-p-lehmann) (1952), as well as [Frederik Kortlandt](https://bliptext.com/articles/frederik-kortlandt) and others.\nThe argument is that PIE had only two series, a simple velar and a labiovelar.\nThe satem languages palatalized the plain velar series in most positions, but the plain velars remained in some environments: typically reconstructed as before or after /u/, after /s/, and before /r/ or /a/ and also before /m/ and /n/ in some Baltic dialects.\nThe original allophonic distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were merged with the plain velars.\nThat produced a new phonemic distinction between palatal and plain velars, with an unpredictable alternation between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those from original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars).\nSubsequent analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal consonant in all forms of a particular root.\nThe roots in which the plain consonant was generalized are those traditionally reconstructed as having \"plain velars\" in the parent language in contrast to \"palatovelars\".\n[Oswald Szemerényi](https://bliptext.com/articles/oswald-szemer-nyi) (1990) considers the palatovelars as an innovation, proposing that the \"preconsonantal palatals probably owe their origin, at least in part, to a lost palatal vowel\" and a velar was palatalised by a following vowel subsequently lost.\nThe palatal row would therefore postdate the original velar and labiovelar rows, but Szemerényi is not clear whether that would have happened before or after the breakup of the parent-language (in a table showing the system of stops \"shortly before the break-up\", he includes palatovelars with a question mark after them).\nWoodhouse (1998; 2005) introduced a \"bitectal\" notation, labelling the two rows of dorsals as k1, g1, g1h and k2, g2, g2h.\nThe first row represents \"prevelars\", which developed into either palatovelars or plain velars in the satem group but just into plain velars into the centum group; the second row represents \"backvelars\", which developed into either labiovelars or plain velars in the centum group but just plain velars in the satem group.\nThe following are arguments that have been listed in support of a two-series hypothesis:\nArguments in support of three series:\n\n# Phonetic correspondences in daughter languages\nThe following table summarizes the outcomes of the reconstructed PIE palatals and labiovelars in the various daughter branches, both centum and satem.\n(The outcomes of the \"plain velars\" can be assumed to be the same as those of the palatals in the centum branches and those of the labiovelars in the satem branches.)\n\n\n# Sources","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-26T12:15:37.955Z","updated_at":"2025-01-26T12:15:37.955Z","search_vector":"'centum':1 'languag':4 'satem':3","search_content":" \n \n\n# \nLanguages of the [Indo-European family](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) are classified as either **centum languages** or **satem languages** according to how the [dorsal consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/dorsal-consonant) (sounds of \"K\", \"G\" and \"Y\" type) of the reconstructed [Proto-Indo-European language](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language) (PIE) developed.\nAn example of the different developments is provided by the words for \"hundred\" found in the early [attested](https://bliptext.com/articles/attested-language) [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages) (which is where the two branches get their names).\nIn centum languages, they typically began with a sound ([Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) centum was pronounced with initial /k/), but in satem languages, they often began with (the example satem comes from the [Avestan language](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan-language) of [Zoroastrian](https://bliptext.com/articles/zoroastrian) scripture).\nThe table below shows the traditional reconstruction of the PIE [dorsal consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/dorsal-consonant), with three series, but according to [some more recent theories](https://bliptext.com/articles/) there may actually have been only two series or three series with different pronunciations from those traditionally ascribed.\nIn centum languages, the [palatovelars](https://bliptext.com/articles/velar-consonant), which included the initial consonant of the \"hundred\" root, merged with the plain velars.\nIn satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars.\nThe centum–satem division forms an [isogloss](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss) in [synchronic](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchrony-and-diachrony) descriptions of Indo-European languages.\nIt is no longer thought that the PIE language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived.\nSuch a division is made particularly unlikely by the discovery that while the satem group lies generally to the east and the centum group to the west, the most eastward of the known IE language branches, [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-languages), is centum.\n# [Approximate extent of the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals. The darker red (marking the Sintashta/Abashevo/Srubna archaeological cultures' range) is the area of the origin of satemization according to von Bradke's hypothesis, which is not accepted by most linguists. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Centum///Satem///map.png]\n\n# Centum languages\nThe centum languages of the Indo-European family are the \"western\" branches: [Hellenic](https://bliptext.com/articles/hellenic-languages), [Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/celtic-languages), [Italic](https://bliptext.com/articles/italic-languages) and [Germanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages).\nThey merged PIE palatovelars and plain velars, yielding plain velars (k, g, gh) only (\"centumisation\"), but retained the labiovelars as a distinct set.\nThe [Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages) branch probably falls outside the centum–satem division; for instance, the [Luwian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/luwian-language) indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-[Anatolian](https://bliptext.com/articles/anatolian-languages).\nThe centumisation observed in [Hittite](https://bliptext.com/articles/hittite-language) is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian into separate languages.\nHowever, [Craig Melchert](https://bliptext.com/articles/craig-melchert) [proposes](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-anatolian-language) that proto-Anatolian is indeed a centum language.\nWhile [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-language) is generally regarded as a centum language, it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal series (originally nine separate consonants) into a single phoneme, *k.\nAccording to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model.\nHowever, as Tocharian has replaced some PIE labiovelars with the labiovelar-like, non-original sequence *ku, it has been proposed that labiovelars remained distinct in [Proto-Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-tocharian-language), which would place Tocharian in the centum group (assuming that [Proto-Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-tocharian-language) lost palatovelars while labiovelars were still phonemically distinct).\nIn the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars.\nFor example, in the PIE numeral * 'hundred', the initial palatovelar * became a plain velar /k/, as in Latin centum (originally pronounced with /k/, although most modern descendants of Latin have a [sibilant](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant) there), [Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/greek-language) (he)katon, [Welsh](https://bliptext.com/articles/welsh-language) cant, [Tocharian B](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-b) kante.\nIn the [Germanic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages), the /k/ developed regularly by [Grimm's law](https://bliptext.com/articles/grimm-s-law) to become /h/, as in Old English hund(red).\nCentum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row (*, *, *) and the plain velars.\nHistorically, it was unclear whether the labiovelar row represented an innovation by a process of labialisation, or whether it was inherited from the parent language (but lost in the satem branches); current mainstream opinion favours the latter possibility.\nLabiovelars as single phonemes (for example, ) as opposed to biphonemes (for example, ) are attested [in Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/mycenaean-greek) (the [Linear B](https://bliptext.com/articles/linear-b) q- series), Italic (Latin ⟨qu⟩), Germanic ([Gothic](https://bliptext.com/articles/gothic-alphabet) [hwair](https://bliptext.com/articles/hwair) ⟨ƕ⟩ and qairþra ⟨q⟩) and Celtic ([Ogham](https://bliptext.com/articles/ogham) ceirt ⟨Q⟩) (in the so-called [P-Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/p-celtic) languages developed into /p/; a similar development took place in the [Osco-Umbrian](https://bliptext.com/articles/osco-umbrian) branch of Italic and sometimes [in Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/mycenaean-greek) and Germanic).\nThe [boukólos rule](https://bliptext.com/articles/bouk-los-rule), however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to or.\nThe centum–satem division refers to the development of the dorsal series of sounds only at the time of the earliest separation of PIE into the [proto-languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-language) of its individual daughter branches; it does not apply to any later analogous developments within any branch.\nFor example, the palatalization of [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) to or (often later ) in some [Romance languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) (which means that modern [French](https://bliptext.com/articles/french-language) and [Spanish](https://bliptext.com/articles/spanish-language) cent and cien are pronounced with initial /s/ and /θ/ respectively) is satem-like, as is the merger of with in the [Gaelic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/gaelic-languages); such later changes do not affect the classification of the languages as centum.\nLinguist Wolfgang P. Schmid argued that some [proto-languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-language) like [Proto-Baltic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-baltic-language) were initially centum, but gradually became satem due to their exposure to the latter.\n\n# Satem languages\nThe satem languages belong to the Eastern sub-families, especially [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) and [Balto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/balto-slavic-languages) (but not [Tocharian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tocharian-languages)), with [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) being the major Asian branch and [Balto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/balto-slavic-languages) the major Eurasian branch of the satem group.\nIt lost the labial element of PIE labiovelars and merged them with plain velars, but the palatovelars remained distinct and typically came to be realised as [sibilants](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant).\nThat set of developments, particularly the [assibilation](https://bliptext.com/articles/assibilation) of palatovelars, is referred to as **satemisation**.\nIn the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typically [fricative](https://bliptext.com/articles/fricative) or [affricate](https://bliptext.com/articles/affricate) consonants, articulated further forward in the mouth.\nFor example, the [PIE root](https://bliptext.com/articles/pie-root) *, \"hundred\", the initial palatovelar normally became a [sibilant](https://bliptext.com/articles/sibilant) [s] or [ʃ], as in [Avestan](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan-language) satem, [Persian](https://bliptext.com/articles/persian-language) sad, [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) śatam, sto in all modern [Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages) languages, [Old Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) sъto, [Latvian](https://bliptext.com/articles/latvian-language) simts, [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) šimtas ([Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) is between Centum and Satem languages).\nAnother example is the Slavic prefix sъ(n)- (\"with\"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co(n)-; conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz (\"union\").\nAn [s] is found for PIE in such languages as [Latvian](https://bliptext.com/articles/latvian-language), [Avestan](https://bliptext.com/articles/avestan), [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language) and [Armenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/armenian-language), but [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language) and [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) have (š in [Lithuanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/lithuanian-language), ś in [Sanskrit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sanskrit) transcriptions).\nFor more reflexes, see the [phonetic correspondences](https://bliptext.com/articles/) section below; note also the effect of the [ruki sound law](https://bliptext.com/articles/ruki-sound-law).\n\"Incomplete satemisation\" may also be evidenced by remnants of labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic, including Lithuanian ungurys \"eel\" ; >.\nIn the centum languages, no chain shift occurred, and the uvulars merged into the velars.\nThe delabialisation in the satem languages would have occurred later, in a separate stage.\nRelated to the uvular theory is the [glottalic theory](https://bliptext.com/articles/glottalic-theory).\nBoth these theories have some support if PIE was spoken near the Caucasus, where both uvular and glottal consonants are common and many languages have a paucity of distinctive vowels.\n\n## Only two velar series\nThe presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language has been the mainstream hypothesis since at least the mid-20th century.\nThere remain, however, several alternative proposals with just two rows in the parent language, which describe either \"satemisation\" or \"centumisation\", as the emergence of a new phonematic category rather than the disappearance of an inherited one.\n[Antoine Meillet](https://bliptext.com/articles/antoine-meillet) (1937) proposed that the original rows were the labiovelars and palatovelars, with the plain velars being [allophones](https://bliptext.com/articles/allophone) of the palatovelars in some cases, such as depalatalisation before a resonant.\nThe etymologies establishing the presence of velars in the parent language are explained as artefacts of either borrowing between daughter languages or of false etymologies.\nHaving only labiovelars and palatovelars would also parallel languages such as Russian or Irish, where consonants can be either broad and unpalatalized, or slender and palatalized, and is also seen in some [Northwest Caucasian languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/northwest-caucasian-languages).\nOther scholars who assume two dorsal rows in PIE include [Kuryłowicz](https://bliptext.com/articles/jerzy-kury-owicz) (1935) and [Lehmann](https://bliptext.com/articles/winfred-p-lehmann) (1952), as well as [Frederik Kortlandt](https://bliptext.com/articles/frederik-kortlandt) and others.\nThe argument is that PIE had only two series, a simple velar and a labiovelar.\nThe satem languages palatalized the plain velar series in most positions, but the plain velars remained in some environments: typically reconstructed as before or after /u/, after /s/, and before /r/ or /a/ and also before /m/ and /n/ in some Baltic dialects.\nThe original allophonic distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were merged with the plain velars.\nThat produced a new phonemic distinction between palatal and plain velars, with an unpredictable alternation between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those from original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars).\nSubsequent analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal consonant in all forms of a particular root.\nThe roots in which the plain consonant was generalized are those traditionally reconstructed as having \"plain velars\" in the parent language in contrast to \"palatovelars\".\n[Oswald Szemerényi](https://bliptext.com/articles/oswald-szemer-nyi) (1990) considers the palatovelars as an innovation, proposing that the \"preconsonantal palatals probably owe their origin, at least in part, to a lost palatal vowel\" and a velar was palatalised by a following vowel subsequently lost.\nThe palatal row would therefore postdate the original velar and labiovelar rows, but Szemerényi is not clear whether that would have happened before or after the breakup of the parent-language (in a table showing the system of stops \"shortly before the break-up\", he includes palatovelars with a question mark after them).\nWoodhouse (1998; 2005) introduced a \"bitectal\" notation, labelling the two rows of dorsals as k1, g1, g1h and k2, g2, g2h.\nThe first row represents \"prevelars\", which developed into either palatovelars or plain velars in the satem group but just into plain velars into the centum group; the second row represents \"backvelars\", which developed into either labiovelars or plain velars in the centum group but just plain velars in the satem group.\nThe following are arguments that have been listed in support of a two-series hypothesis:\nArguments in support of three series:\n\n# Phonetic correspondences in daughter languages\nThe following table summarizes the outcomes of the reconstructed PIE palatals and labiovelars in the various daughter branches, both centum and satem.\n(The outcomes of the \"plain velars\" can be assumed to be the same as those of the palatals in the centum branches and those of the labiovelars in the satem branches.)\n \n\n# Sources","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}