Re: [tied] (unknown)

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 19177
Date: 2003-02-24

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael J Smith" <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: [tied] (unknown)


> I have some questions:
> Was Macedonian a Centum or Satem language?

Centum, and very close to Greek.

> And is Illyrian a Centum language

Opinions vary (and depend on what one understands by "Illyrian"). I think the Illyrian group was centum, especially if Messapic was an Illyrian language.

> and Thracian, Dacian

These two were satem.

> and Phrygian Satem languages?

Here, again, the jury is out. I believe Phrygian was a relatively close cousin of Greek (and a centum language), but the evidence is so uncertain that I may well be wrong.

> Also, would the following grouping be correct, regarding which languages are most closely related and were part of one sub-branch?-
>
> Italo-Celtic-Tocharian-Hittite

No. Anatolian is clearly an outgroup with respect to the rest of IE, and Tocharian may have split very early too.

> Balto-Slavic-Germanic

It goes almost without saying that Balto-Slavic is a single taxon. But I don't believe in a Balto-Slavic/Germanic cluster (except as an areal phenomenon)

> Thraco-Illyro-Venetian-Phrygian-Macedonian-Greco-Armenian-Albanian-Indo-Iranian

They may have formed an areal grouping (once upon a prehistoric time), i.e. a set of languages that converged in some respects because they were in rather close contact at some point. They do not form a valid _genetic_ grouping.

> Or should Centum languages be joined with each other and Satem with each other? But how crucial is one letter, or is there more factors in
determining a Centum or Satem language?

For Satem, the answer is "probably yes", since they share a non-trivial innovation. For the centum group, no, because what they simply retain the archaic state of affairs. The Satem shift was not a change affecting one sound (not "letter"). It was a major phonological upheaval: the palatalisation affected _three_ phonemes (*k^, *g^ and *g^H) and changed the whole system of contrast among the back consonants (*kW, *gW and *gWH lost their labial component).

Piotr