Re: Satem shift

>
> ... I only read your comment about some linguists proposing having

proposed that Germanic at some time had been de-satemised

>
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6366)
>
> So, logically, your questions should be directed to them. Obviously

you don't subscribe to their view. But if you would give me some
references to their work, maybe I can work something coherent out of
what was initially just a thought?

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

Oh, it's a long tradition. The first IE family tree ever drawn
(Schleicher, ca. 1860) divided IE into "Sclavo-Teutonic" and "Aryo-
Graeco-Italo-Keltic". The Sclavo-Teutonic subfamily was divided
into "Teutonic" (Germanic) and "Sclavo-Lithuanian" (Balto-Slavic).
There is a good overview of currently discussed subgrouping schemes
(including those in which Germanic splits off from Balto-Slavic) in
the EIEC.
>
> Piotr
>
I see, but I wasn't so much interested in family trees as in the
claim that Germanic was once satemized. I assumed that those that
claimed it also would forward arguments for their claim, and if so I
would like to know what they were. I know for a fact that Danish has
been "de-satemised" (k > c^ > k, g > dy > g; of course historically,
it's a different process), and since this is closer in time, it has
been documented; I thought perhaps that some of the sociological and
political changes Danish went through at the time might have
parallels in a (hypothetical) de-satemisation of Germanic. So, once
again, does any of the said writers offer any arguments (linguistic
ones, that is) for that postulated de-satemisation of Germanic?

Torsten