Editing Phrygian language (section)

== Classification ==
{{Paleo-Balkanic family tree}}
Phrygian is a member of the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] linguistic family, but because of the fragmentary evidence, its exact position within that family is uncertain.<ref name=Obrador-Cursach/> Phrygian is placed among the [[Palaeo-Balkan languages]], either through [[Sprachbund|areal contact]] or [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic relationship]].{{sfn|Sowa|2020|pp=810–811}}{{sfn|Cotticelli|Dahl|2022|p=103}} Phrygian shares important features mainly with [[Greek language|Greek]], but also with [[Armenian language|Armenian]] and [[Albanian language|Albanian]].<ref name=Obrador-Cursach/><ref>{{harvnb|Obrador-Cursach|2020|p=243}}</ref>{{sfn|Hyllested|Joseph|2022|p=241}}{{sfn|Holst|2009|p=65–66}} Also [[Ancient Macedonian language|Macedonian]] and [[Thracian language|Thracian]], ancient languages of the Balkans, are often regarded as being closely related to Phrygian, however they are considered problematic sources for comparison due to their scarce attestation.{{sfn|Obrador-Cursach|2022|p=121}}

Between the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, Phrygian was mostly considered a [[Centum and satem languages|satem language]], and thus closer to Armenian and Thracian, while today it is commonly considered to be a centum language and thus closer to Greek.<ref name=Obrador-Cursach>{{harvnb|Obrador-Cursach|2018|p=101|ps=:Scholars have long debated the exact position of Phrygian in the Indo-European language family. Although this position is not a closed question because of the fragmentary nature of our current knowledge, Phrygian has many important features which show that it is somehow related to Greek and Armenian.{{nbsp}}... Indeed, between the 19th and the first half of the 20th c. BCE Phrygian was mostly considered a satem language (a feature once considered important to establishing the position of a language) and, especially after Alf Torp's study, closer to Armenian (and Thracian), whereas it is now commonly considered to be closer to Greek.{{nbsp}}... Brixhe (1968), Neumann (1988) and, through an accurate analysis, Matzinger (2005) showed the inconsistency of the Phrygo-Armenian assumption and argued that Phrygian was a language closely related to Greek.}}</ref> The reason that in the past Phrygian had the guise of a satem language was due to two secondary processes that affected it. Namely, Phrygian merged the old labiovelar with the plain velar, and secondly, when in contact with palatal vowels /e/ and /i/, especially in initial position, some consonants became palatalized. Furthermore, [[Frederik Kortlandt|Kortlandt]] (1988) presented common sound changes of Thracian and Armenian and their separation from Phrygian and the rest of the [[palaeo-Balkan languages]] from an early stage.<ref>{{harvnb|Woodhouse|2009|p=171|ps=:This question is of course only just separable from the question of which languages within Indo-European are most closely related to Phrygian, which has also been hotly debated. A turning point in this debate was Kortlandt's (1988) demonstration on the basis of shared sound changes that Thraco-Armenian had separated from Phrygian and other originally Balkan languages at an early stage. The consensus has now returned to regarding Greek as the closest relative.}}</ref>{{sfn|Obrador-Cursach|2020|p=234|ps=:2.1.4. Phrygian belongs to the centum group of IE languages (Ligorio and Lubotsky 2018: 1824). Together with Greek, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Hittite and Tocharian, Phrygian merged the old palatovelars with plain velars in a first step: NPhr. (τιτ-)τετικμενος 'condemned' < PIE *deiḱ-; NPhr. γεγαριτμενος 'devoted, at the mercy of' < PIE *ǵhr̥Hit-; NPhr. γλουρεος 'golden' < PIE *ǵhl̥h3-ro-. However, two shifts affected this language. Phrygian merged the old labiovelar with the plain velar (the etymological and the resulting ones): OPhr. ke(y), NPhr. κε (passim) 'and' < PIE *ku̯e; OPhr. knais (B-07), NPhr. κ̣ναικαν 'wife' (16.1 = 116) < *gu̯neh2i-. Secondly, in contact with palatal vowels (/e/ and /i/, see de Lamberterie 2013: 25–26), and especially in initial position, some consonants became palatalised:PIE *ǵhes-r- 'hand' > OPhr. ↑iray (B-05),7NPhr. ζειρα (40.1 = 12) 'id.' (Hämmig 2013: 150–151). It also occurs in glosses: *ǵheu̯-mn̻ >ζευμαν 'fount, source' (Hesychius ζ 128). These two secondary processes, as happened in Tocharian and the Romance languages, lend Phrygian the guise of a satem language.}}

Modern consensus views Greek as the closest relative of Phrygian. Furthermore, out of 36 isoglosses collected by Obrador Cursach, Phrygian shared 34 with Greek, with 22 being exclusive between them.<ref name=":0" />{{sfn|Woodhouse|2009|p=171|ps=:This question is of course only just separable from the question of which languages within Indo-European are most closely related to Phrygian, which has also been hotly debated. A turning point in this debate was Kortlandt's (1988) demonstration on the basis of shared sound changes that Thraco-Armenian had separated from Phrygian and other originally Balkan languages at an early stage. The consensus has now returned to regarding Greek as the closest relative.}}{{sfn|Obrador-Cursach|2020|pp=238–239|ps=:To the best of our current knowledge, Phrygian was closely related to Greek. This affirmation is consistent with the vision offered by Neumann (1988: 23), Brixhe (2006) and Ligorio and Lubotsky (2018: 1816) and with many observations given by ancient authors. Both languages share 34 of the 36 features considered in this paper, some of them of great significance:{{nbsp}}... The available data suggest that Phrygian and Greek coexisted broadly from pre-historic to historic times, and both belong to a common linguistic area (Brixhe 2006: 39–44).}} The last 50 years of Phrygian scholarship developed a hypothesis that proposes a [[Graeco-Phrygian|proto-Graeco-Phrygian]] stage out of which Greek and Phrygian originated, and if Phrygian was more sufficiently attested, that stage could perhaps be reconstructed.{{sfn|Obrador-Cursach|2018|p=102|ps=:Furthermore, if Phrygian were not so-poorly attested perhaps we could reconstruct a Proto-Greco-Phrygian stage of both languages.}}<ref name="Obrador-Cursach2020">{{harvnb|Obrador-Cursach|2020|p=243|ps=: "With the current state of our knowledge, we can affirm that Phrygian is closely related to Greek. This is not a surprising conclusion: ancient sources and modern scholars agree that Phrygians did not live far from Greece in pre-historic times. Moreover, the last half century of scientific study of Phrygian has approached both languages and developed the hypothesis of a Proto-Greco-Phrygian language, to the detriment to other theories like Phrygio-Armenian or Thraco-Phrygian."}}</ref><ref name="Olander2022">{{harvnb|Olander|2022|pp=12, 14}}: "The mutual relationship between the "Balkanic" languages – Greek (Chapter 11), Armenian (Chapter 12), Albanian (Chapter 13) as well as scantily attested languages such as Phrygian and Messapic – is evaluated differently by the authors of this book. While Greek is thought to constitute a phylogenetic unit together with Phrygian in all three chapters, the hypothesis of a Graeco-Armenian subgroup is given a negative appraisal by van Beek (Chapter 11), while Olsen and Thorsø (Chapter 12) are positive. A third position is taken by Hyllested and Joseph (Chapter 13), who argue that Greek forms a subgroup with the notoriously difficult Albanian."</ref>

An alternative theory, suggested by [[Eric P. Hamp]], is that Phrygian was most closely related to [[Italo-Celtic]] languages.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hamp|first=Eric P.|date=1976|title=On Some Gaulish Names in -Ant- and Celtic Verbal Nouns|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007665|journal=Ériu|volume=27|pages=9|jstor=30007665|issn=0332-0758|quote=We have already seen that Celtic nāmant- gives an excellent cognate to Lat. amāre. Vendryes (loc. cit.) points out that ad is shared by the Northwest IE group (Celtic, Italic and Germanic) and additionally by Phrygian, citing the well known αδδακετ and αββερετ. But the agreement goes much deeper than that. The noun (from which the verb ἀδαμνεῖν must be derived) ἅδαμνα has every appearance of being a participle in -n- (perhaps -no-) of a verb ad-am-. We may then make the surprising equation: ad-nāmat(o)- < *ad-n-H amH a-to- = ἅδ-αμ-να. This agreement in detail makes a substantial addition to the Phrygian-Celtic equation that Marstrander observed (NTS ii (1929) 297) for OIr. eitech < *eti-teg-. It would appear from this that we have a slender but growing body of evidence for a close connexion between Celtic (and Italic) and Phrygian. The Phrygian evidence, now being sifted and reevaluated by Lejeune, could well bear close scrutiny in this light. It may not be too bold at this point to suggest a stronger link here with Celtic.}}</ref>