>>As far as I can see there was a real Common Satem language but there were
no >"Common >Centum language" (if we don't want to apply this term to PIE
proper).
>>That Common Satem produced later Common IndoIranian, Common BaltoSlavic,
>>Common ArmenoPhrygian, Common Thracian ... What else?
>Piotr, what should be put instead of the very last group of dots in your
scheme?
>I mean, what language was the _last_ who separated from the future Common
Satem?
Surely the idea of a common BaltoSlavic is open to dispute? (I say
"surely" because it must be open to dispute, since it is in fact disputed).
The whole idea of a common Satem may also be unnecessary, if we go with a
wave theory, which would explain some of the forms in Baltic and Slavic
rather more easily.
A Common Satem would, I suppose, be characterised by satemisation. We would
then have to suppose Baltic (and Slavic?) had re-centumised the items which
do not show satemisation, which is a bit unbelievable.
Peter