Re: Why is PIE more centum than satem?

--- In cybalist@..., "michael_donne" <michael_donne@...> wrote:

> > In the list of over 300 words listed by Kuiper, many are satem
> forms. > > But if they were Dravidian then they couldn't be

IE 'satem' could > they? Wouldn't they have to be confined to Indo-
Aryan to be > considered Dravidian?

Why can't the evidence presented by Kuiper be treated as part of
Proto-Satem -- with Proto-Munda and Proto-Indo-Iranian -- in the
following sequence:

> 7600 BP --- PIE
> 6500 BP --- non-Anatolian IE
> 5000 BP --- Proto-Satem