At 23:13 14.11.2001 -0200, you wrote:
>*bh, *dh, *gh > b, d, g and *p, *t, *k > ph, th, kh
>two hypothesis:
>1) a "Germanoid" substratum
>2) an "Armenoid" substratum
>
>the point is to know this substratum was satem or kentum.
>
>Carnoy also mentioned similar traits, as Dirke < *dherg and Ke:phisos <
>*gWa:p-
This "Germanoid or Armenoid" substratum, where
*t > th, *dh > d AND *d > t (*g > k)
could be Thracian or Thraco-Phrygian, as proposed after names such as Utus
fl. < *ued-/ud- 'water', or Cabyla < Thr. *kabas 'pool' < *gwebh- 'to wet'.
It was a satem language.
It is not clear to me if also in reconstructed "Pelasgian" there is the
possibility of such a consonant shift,
but for Cephisia fons (Attica), Cephisius fl. (Boeotia and other places, at
least 9) V. Georgiev proposed
< *kap-is(y)o-, so as if in "Pelasgian": *k > k
The root *kap(h)- would be the same in Skr. kapha- 'moss, wetness', OSl.
kapati '(s')egoutter', Avest. kafo- 'ecume'.
Pelasgian was not a satem language, however.
In my opinion, since Dirce fond (Boeotia) and Cephisius etc. are found in
central Greece, they probably have to be attributed to "Pelasgian"
pre-Greek substrate, rather than to Thracian.
Anyway, can you please give (me) the reference of this Carnoy ?
>akh < *akW = satem? cf. Inakos, Akheron, Akheloos (Akhileus?)
Why do you see it as a satem trait ?
Antonio Sciarretta