Catalina Zecchin ID: 7643357

LING 336: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics

Assignment 1

1) Based on the given data, I would consider the following as possible affiliations between

these languages:

• Languages A, B, C, G and I do not seem to be related to any of the languages presented in the chart or to each other. Any similarity between the words in these languages is too vague and isolated to suggest a genetic relation. For example, the word for seven seitsemän (Language B) looks similar to sɛtɛ (Language A), but there is no other resemblance to support the connection.

• Languages D, E, F and H, on the other hand, seem to have enough common features to posit a genetic relation between them. On the first place, D and E use an interdental at the beginning of the word for two, and the variation, o-au, is consistent with the variation oh-aw in the word for nine, where they share the nasal. Another similarities are dah-deg, cahār-pedwar (where we see another regularity, ah becoming e both in four and ten) and panj-pump. On the second place, F and H both share with E a voiceless interdental in the word for three (fricative or plosive) and a liquid following. On the third place, all four languages share a similar ending for the word four, that seems to have ended originally with a semivowel and a liquid. On the fourth place, D, E and H start the word five with a voiceless labial stop, followed by a vowel and a nasal. D, F and H share a sibilant at the word-initial position of the word for six. E, F and H share the same sound, in the same position, for the word seven. In the word eight we observe a correspondence between D, F and H, which begin either with an aspiration, a vowel and an aspiration or a vowel and a velar. We believe the proto-word could have had ah-, and then lost the vowel in one language, and velarize the aspirated in the other. Finally, we notice that all these languages have a nasal in the word for nine, followed by different vowels.

2) Reconstruction of words:

• *de-deh3 –ti: de-dō-ti • *meh2 -tēr: mā-tēr • *uoid-h2e: uoid-a • * h2eg-oh2: agā • *h3eku ̯ -ih1: ok u ̯ ē

3.A) *k u ̯ od

• Centum: *k u ̯ od • Satem: *kod

*k̂leuos • Centum: *kleuos • Satem: *k̂ leuos

*g u ̯ enh2 • Centum: *g u ̯ enh2 • Satem: *genh2

*meg̑h2

• Centum: *megh2 • Satem: *meg̑ h2

*gʰostis • Centum: *gʰostis • Satem: *gʰostis

3.B) Based on these two words alone, I would consider it probable for the language to be in the centum group: the <w> could be a trace left by the delabialisation of the labiovelar that the centum languages kept distinct. Being the language part of the satem group, there is no available explanation for this semivowel. The other word, <klebe>, doesn’t throw much light in the matter, given that both centum and satem languages kept the plain velars unchanged. To prove our hypothesis we would need to attest a word with a plain velar where Proto Indo-European had a palatal, like *meg̑h2 or *k̂leuos.