Re: a discussion on OIT

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> wrote:
> >
> > ...if the centum velars are the more original sounds, why did
> > all languages nearest to the urheimat (excluding Tocharian)
> > participate in a shift velar > palatal; if the satem palatals
> > are more original, why did all the most western languages
> > participate in a shift palatal > velar, which I personally
> > find rather implausible? Isn't it easier to suggest that the
> > velars are the more original, and in like fashion the original
> > homeland was (much) nearer than India to those languages that
> > had the velars rather than the palatals?
>
> That's why the presence of kentum relics in Bangani is so
> important. It removes that particular argument against OIT.

Yes, but please also keep in mind that the kentum relics in Bangani,
admitted they indeed exist (see the earlier discussion thread on
this subject from last April at http://tinyurl.com/3mxqy4 ), may
have come to Garhwal (the Himalayan district where Bangani is
spoken) in two ways, neither of which necessitates an OIT scenario:

1) along with the Indo-Aryans through the northwestern passes of the
Indian sub-continent (as dialectal relics from the IE homeland?);

2) across the mountains from Xinjiang, where the speakers of an
undetermined IE language that one may hold, by hypothesis,
responsible from the kentum relics in Bangani could have had some
contacts with Tocharian (a kentum sub-branch of IE) before moving to
the western Himalayas.

Regards,
Francesco