Re: Satem shift

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> 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

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

Nothing so detailed. 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?

>
> 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.
True, if it couldn't be illustrated with examples it would be a
rather ill-advised remark.

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

Having thought about it it occurred to me that might have reacted to
an implied Kaiser-Wilhelm type suggestion of a primeval hatred
between Germans and Slavs. To which I would say:

The idea of an ethnic rivalry playing a role in differentiating
phonemes between ethnic groups was supposed to be limited to the time
of interaction. That's why it would be difficult to recover later on,
when one or both groups have migrated elsewhere, or one might have
disappeared altogether.

And, in Danish (and even more in other Scandinavian) history, also
the nationalistic ones, the Slavs disappear over the horizon with the
Wends (except for faraway Russia), only to re-appear after WWI.

Torsten