> --- In cybalist@..., "michael_donne" <michael_donne@...> wrote:
> > Is it possible that this 'kh' sound could be some kind of distant
> > memory of what later gave rise to the Centum branch from an
> > originally Satem-like PIE?
>
> PIE was not originally Satem-like. The Centum dialects maintained
> the sounds in question in a more conservative form than did the
> Satem dialects. So PIE was more Centum-like, at least in regard
> to the sound shift that we're discussing.
I didn't mean to give the impression that the current theory
considers PIE to be Satem-like. I'm aware that it is more Centum. I'm
in the process of deepening my understanding of this whole issue and
therefore, re-examining all of the basic assumptions. One of the
pleasures of being a new-comer is you get to ask all of the stupid
questions! Sometimes you turn up something previously overlooked. At
the very least, the discussion inspires me to read more of the texts
and gives me a valuable perspective and deeper understanding when
reading them. Most people study linguistics by learning the "received
wisdom" first and only later, if at all, do they investigate the
historical circumstances and assumptions behind the current opinion.
> In any case, languages can't
> have memories of previous stages.
No, that is reserved for linguists!
> Bangani is not a Centum, but an Indo-Aryan language. What some
> believe is that it may have had an otherwise unknown Centum
> language as a substrate.
Thanks for emphasizing that. That's another value of these
discussions: now that you have pointed this out in public, I can
assure you that I will never make that foolish assertion again! This
an important distinction which allows me to restate the question in
as what is probably a more likely scenario:
Is there any possible way that the 'kh' sound could be due to Centum
substratum influence?
> The Satem dialects all together and at the same time took part in
> a sound shift called the 'first palatalization'.
What is interesting is that this 'kh' seems to be somewhat reversing
that -- I'm not ignoring everyone's previous points (in fact I give
them greater weight than my uninformed speculations) but given the
subjective nature of linguistic research, I wonder what might be
uncovered if someone looked at this a little closer. I just wonder
what he might look for.
Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer these posts! It's much
more palat-able to learn linguistics in a discussion format and it
makes it much easier for me to get back down to reading the rather
turgid historical linguistics texts.