Re: [tied] Phrygian (was: Veneti)

A Satem language should show the Satem shift, and I don't see any evidence of that in Phrygian. Virtually all the alleged examples of Satem developments in Phrygian are found in palatalising environments (before front vowels); elsewhere we find <k> for *k(^) and <g> for *g(^) and *g(^)H. Cf. Phr. zeuman < *g^Heu-mn., probably also si < *k^i, but gdan 'earth', -gonos (in names < *g^onh1o-), glouros [gluros] 'gold, yellow' < *g^Hlo:ros (cf. Gk. kHlo:ros). As far as I can see, the labiovelars lost their labialisation but were not palatalised (e.g. Phr. kos < *kWos, -ke < *-kWe).

Nobody classifies French as satem just because it has [sa~] for *k^m.tom, since we know that the palatalisation in question has nothing to do with the Satem shift. In my opinion, the same holds for Phrygian. Lexical and morphological similarities between Phrygian and Greek are striking. Some of them are surely areal, but I can't believe it's true of all of them.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Veneti


> What are the main arguments pro et contra?
>
> Alexander
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Veneti
>
>
> > --- 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