Re: [tied] Re: Satem shift

I mentioned Balto-Slavic, since that is the group that Germanic is regarded as closely related to by proponents of "desatemisation". Now it's my turn to be a little baffled. If Germanic is a "desatemised satem language", where is it located in the IE family tree? Are you suggesting that Germanic is a desatemised relative of Indo-Iranian? What possible evidence (in terms of shared innovations of any kind) could you offer for that? Or, if you believe that it was an entirely separate branch of Satemic IE that was desatemised to make it different from Iranian -- what's your evidence for that? (I mean, what makes you think that [pre-]Germanic was EVER a satem language)?

You remark about political pressures affecting the development of languages (especially their state-sponsored standard versions) can of course be illustrated with numerous examples, and the one you give is quite typical. I can well imagine hostility as a factor blocking the diffusion of an innovation that might otherwise have spread across linguistic barriers and "purifying" transitional dialects, if any.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 4:49 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Satem shift

> From: tgpedersen@...... > To: cybalist@...... > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:02 PM > Subject: [tied] Re: Satem shift > > > (A) It's nice to hear that I've produced something useful. Could that also serve as an explanation of the proposed re-centumisation of Germanic? > > ... --- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > (A) I have already given my reasons for regarding satemisation as an irreversible process. Quite apart from which, I don't see any compelling reasons for the grouping of Germanic with Balto-Slavic (or the Satemic cluster in general) in genetic terms. The affinities usually cited are either North European areal traits or trivial parallels that are too common cross-linguistically to indicate genetic relationship. The most interesting resemblances (such as *-m- vs. *-bH- endings and adjectival declensions) have been discussed on this list before. > > > Piotr > > I believe this is part of the reasons you referred to? (correct me if I'm wrong) > ----- Original Message ----- But any deliberate "reversal" engineered by non-linguists is likely to leave a residue of older forms overlooked by the "purifiers". Show me a single example of residual satem developments in Germanic. To which I replied that as long as the k's (etc) have not progressed all the way to s's (etc.) they can be identified and therefore purged. I was a bit baffled that you brought Balto-Slavic into it, as presumed opponent. That was not in my mind. I was thinking of the Skiri vs. the Bastarni, to which latter you ascribed the beginning of Germanic. Those writers that mention those two tribes do not mention any (Pre-)Slavic tribes, as far as I know. And if not those two tribes, the opposition would probably have been to an Iranian language. But mostly (as usual) I was thinking local: the typical Danish lenition of stops (p, t, k > b, d, g > B, D, G) takes place in precisely those areas (Denmark, Western Scania, Coastal Southern Norway) where the influence of the Low-German speaking Hanse was the strongest; and Low German, in those Hanse documents I've seen (14th century) already showed High German influence (p, t, k > pf, ts, x, etc). In other ways, at a time of political conflict, Danish and Low German were going in separate directions. Torsten