Re: kentum and satem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

>
> >Current view show Kentum languages as more conservative (so not

necessarily

> >monophyletic), while Satem was a monophyletic branch (k^>

palatals),

>
> No. The palatalisation of k' is also explained as a wave

phenomenon, only

> showing that the satem languages were closer geographically, not

that they

> were monophyletic. Satem is one of the most over-worked

isoglosses; there

> are others far more significant that split the IE languages in

other ways.

>
> A better way to see the kentum/satem isogloss is to ignore the
> palatalisation, and ask what collapses with what. Kentum collapses

k and

> k'; satem collapses k and kW.
>

Or yes. The kentum languages might have reversed the trend, thus k' >
k, in "protest" of their satem neighbor's slushy treatment of the k'.
Something similar happened in 19th century Danish. Compare also Da.,
Sw. hv- > v-, but Norwegian, against nature, hv- > kv-.

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html

Torsten