Re: [tied] (unknown)

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

>> 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

It is said the phrygian have been thracians. At least most scholars make
this connection. If so , the "satemisation" of thracian should took
place after the separation of phrygians from thracians. When should have
been this separation and in this respect how strong is this centum/satem
separation?
A very good example is the Moldavian dialect where for the expresion "
ce faci ?" ( how are you/ what do you do) they are speaking "shi fashi?"
with an c>s
This dialect is still the Romanian language and no separation centum /
satem will make the moldavian dialect less romanian just because in
romanian has "c" and in moldavian "s". ( again here, just rom. ce/ce >
moldavian she/shi, the /e/ and /i/ playing in this language a very
important role)

>> 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

A such answer let open what about the languages which palatalised just
"*g^" and did not palatalized properly the rest.