Re: kentum and satem

From: tgpedersen
Message: 22104
Date: 2003-05-21

--- 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