Laryngeal theory

The laryngeals were three consonant sounds that appear in most current reconstructions of the Proto-Indo-European language. The theory was first proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1879; however, it did not begin to achieve any general acceptance until Hittite was discovered and slowly deciphered in the mid-20th century. It soon became apparent that Hittite had phonemes for which the laryngeal theory was the best explanation, and as such the laryngeal theory is accepted by most Indo-Europeanists.

The existence of these sounds was not suspected for quite some time, because Hittite and the Anatolian languages are the only Indo-European languages where they ever survive in writing as phonemes in the records we have of those extinct languages. Most philologists have accepted that laryngeals existed, because positing their existence simplifies some otherwise hard-to-explain sound changes that appear in the descendant languages of PIE.

There were three such laryngeals:

h₁, the "neutral" laryngeal;
h₂, the "a-colouring" laryngeal; and
h₃, the "o-colouring" laryngeal

Winfred P. Lehmann, however, has maintained that *h₁ was actually two separate sounds, due to inconsistent reflexes in Hittite. (He assumed that one was a glottal stop and the other a glottal fricative. See below.)

In Greek, between consonants and initially h₁ > e, h₂ > a, and h₃ > o. In Indo-Iranian languages such as Sanskrit, each laryngeal becomes i, and in all other Indo-European languages, each (non-initial) laryngeal becomes a. This explains such observed phenomena as:

PIE: *ph₂tér; Greek πατηρ; Sanskrit pitá; Latin pater (father)
PIE: *ish₁ros; Greek 'ιερος, Sanskrit (sacred)
PIE: *dh₃tos; Greek δοτος, Latin datus (given)

The chief evidence of laryngeals was that when in connection with the PIE vowel *e-, h₂ coloured it to *a-, and h₃ to *o-. In Anatolian, however, h₂ was preserved, and h₃ was preserved in some positions. For example:

PIE: *h₂enti; Hittite hanti; Greek αντι; Latin ante (before, against)
PIE: *h₃eui-; Luwian hawi-; Latin ovis (sheep)

The laryngeal theory has been posited as the best explanation of the otherwise mysterious appearance of h- in the Anatolian words, and the vowel difference between the Anatolian languages and most other Indo-European languages, such as Latin ovis = "sheep".

Evidence from Uralic

Further evidence of the laryngeals comes from Uralic (Finno-Ugric) languages. While Proto-Uralic and PIE had no regular phonological correspondences and therefore were genetically unrelated, some words reconstructed into Uralic 'proto-dialects' (such as Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-Finno-Permic etc.) have been borrowed from PIE-dialects (cf. Finnish nimi < name and porsas < pork). After assuming that PIE laryngeals could have translated into guttural phonemes in the borrowing language, new loan words are being revealed in increasing numbers.

Three Uralic phonemes turn up in positions where PIE had laryngeals. Unfortunately Uralic, which was rich in alveolars, had few guttural phonemes to choose from. After vowels both the post-alveolar fricatives that ever existed in Uralic are represented, an extinct (velar?) one in the very oldest borrowings and a grooved one (*/š/ as in shoe becoming modern Finnic /h/) in some younger ones. The velar plosive /k/ is the third correspondence and the only one found word-initially, as is to be expected under relevant Uralic phonological limitations. Thus Finnish lehti (leaf, sheet) ← PIE *b^hlh₁-to (Uralic only reflects the last consonant in initial clusters) giving later Scandinavian 'blad' (blade, leaf, sheet), and Finnish kal-ja (beer) derived by suffix from *kale- ← PIE *h₂alu- giving English ale and Scandinavian öl (beer).

The Finnish teh- / teke- (to do) is usually presented as a borrowing from *d^heh₁- → Proto-Germanic *do:n (to do), but this reconstruction contains the assumption that all Indo-European words in Uralic are borrowings, which assumption has not been criticized thoroughly. On the contrary, an Indo-Uralic etymology may be reconstructed. (See Kortlandt.)

PIE feminines in -ā

The laryngeal theory requires fairly widespread adjustments in our view of the inflections of Indo-European. The feminine gender that most of the oldest Indo-European languages share appears to have been formed by a suffix, *-eh₂, which was coloured by the laryngeal to *-a, which was then lengthened compensatorily after the loss of the laryngeal. This makes the feminine nouns and adjectives originally consonant stems rather than original vowel stems, and helps explain why they are inflected differently from other nouns that are true vowel stems.

Since the feminine gender is formed through a recognizable suffix, some scholars feel that it was a recent innovation. According to this view, early PIE had only two original grammatical genders, masculine, or animate, and neuter, or inanimate.

Effect on ablaut

The laryngeal theory also explains some ablaut sequences that appear in many Indo-European roots, and makes them seem less arbitrary and more regular. For example, the observed sequences:

ê/ô/ə is explained as eh₁/oh₁/h₁;
â/ô/ə is explained as eh₂/oh₂/h₂;
ô/ô/ə is explained as eh₃/oh₃/h₃

Pronunciation

Considerable debate still surrounds the pronunciation of the laryngeals. The evidence from Hittite and Uralic is sufficient to conclude that these sounds were "guttural" or pronounced rather back in the buccal cavity. The same evidence is also consistent with the assumption that they were fricative sounds (as opposed to approximants or stops), an assumption which is strongly supported by the behaviour of laryngeals in consonant clusters. The assumption that *h₁ is a glottal stop is still very widespread. A glottal stop would however be unlikely to be reflected as a fricative in Uralic borrowings, as appears to be the case, for example in the word lehti < *lešte <= PIE *b^hlh₁-to. Furthermore, all three laryngeals pattern the same phonologically, in a way that is quite different from the PIE stops but similar to the (only) fricative "*s".

If, as some evidence points to, there were two *h₁ sounds, then one may have been the glottal stop and the other may have been the h sound as in English "hat".

Various arguments have been given to pinpoint the exact place of articulation of the laryngeals. Firstly the effect these sounds have had on adjacent phonemes is well documented. From what is known of such phonetic conditioning in contemporary languages, notably Semitic languages, *h₂ (the "a-colouring" laryngeal) could have been a pharyngeal fricative. Pharyngeal fricatives (like the Arabic letter ح as in Muħammad) often cause a-coloring in the Semitic languages (this occurs in Hebrew, for example). For this reason, the pharyngeal assumption is a strong one.

Likewise it is generally assumed that *h₃ was rounded (labialized) due to its o-coloring effects. It is often taken to be voiced based on the perfect form *pibh₃- from the root *peh₃. Based on the analogy of Arabic, some linguists have assumed that *h₃ was also pharyngeal like Arabic ع (ayin, as in Arabic muعallim = "teacher"), although the assumption that it was velar is probably more common. (The reflexes in Uralic languages could be the same whether the original phonemes were velar or pharyngeal.)

References

External links

Indo-European | Historical linguistics