Re: [tied] Re: kentum and satem

That's OK but "depalatalization" is just possible in slight palatalization k^>k. If k^ palatalizes to c^ or s^, revertion is virtually impossible, isn't it?

So, I think "kentum wave" must have been very old.

Joao SL

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:45 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: kentum and satem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote: > > >Current view show Kentum languages as more conservative (so not necessarily > >monophyletic), while Satem was a monophyletic branch (k^> palatals), > > No. The palatalisation of k' is also explained as a wave phenomenon, only > showing that the satem languages were closer geographically, not that they > were monophyletic. Satem is one of the most over-worked isoglosses; there > are others far more significant that split the IE languages in other ways. > > A better way to see the kentum/satem isogloss is to ignore the > palatalisation, and ask what collapses with what. Kentum collapses k and > k'; satem collapses k and kW. > Or yes. The kentum languages might have reversed the trend, thus k' > k, in "protest" of their satem neighbor's slushy treatment of the k'. Something similar happened in 19th century Danish. Compare also Da., Sw. hv- > v-, but Norwegian, against nature, hv- > kv-. http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html Torsten

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.