--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> 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
Unless of course satemisation in IE results from paradigm leveling
from a stage as the one you describe for Phrygian.
Torsten