Re: [tied] Veneti

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, " Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I miss something here
>> Both Phrygian and Armenian are "satem" languages, whereas Greek is a
> "kentum" one, are not they? Even if Phrygian is not very close to
> Armenian, how could it be closer to Greek than to it?
>> Or you meant not cladistic but areal relations here?
>
> No, I mean cladistic relations. I simply don't accept the claim that
> Phrygian was a Satem language
>
> Piotr

Ah!Really?:-))
Me too. But I am afraid we have different reason to argue about this:))
For me the Phrygian could not be a Satem language because even Thracian
was not a Satem one:-)