--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> I would not expect shared phonological innovations of a non-trivial
kind connecting Greek with the Satem group, because I don't believe
these languages form a valid genetic grouping. There are, however,
similarities pointing to an old Sprachbund relationship involving
Greek (+ Phrygian), Indo-Iranian, Armenian and (at least in some
respects) the ancestor of Albanian. To name a few: the use of the
augment *e with the preterite, prohibitive *me:, shared lexical items
and poetic formulas.
>
> Piotr
This is exactly my understanding of what the usual consensus regarding
the Graceo-Armeno-Indo-Iranian cluster represents, tho' Piotr has
stated it with an exquisite, to-the-point clarity.
This group probably needs to come to a clear understanding of what we
mean by 'sprachbund'. We also probably need to discuss when it is
proper to speak of a distinct stock ('proto-anything') vs. vague
labels such as 'late NW IE'.
In the case of Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian, we are speaking of a
cluster of related languages -- post PIE, but perhaps at a state where
'dialect' might still be used in its broadest sense.
One the other hand, when you set you mind to consider these languages
as they were way back then, they were still very closely related;
comparativists would probably group them *then* as a single stock, but
since each of these languages later fully differentiated into fully
independent stocks, we push the origin of each of the stocks to
practically the first moment something distinctive happened. English,
Swedish, Dutch and German are all very different but are currently
considered to be closely related; I think it's fair to say Greek,
Armenian and Indo-Iranian (or for that matter, what became Celtic or
Italic) were as closely related *then* as German and English are
*today* (and probably, closer).
It all depends on how you are looking at the question. Tree vs. bush,
wave vs. particle, phylum vs. clade, etc.