Re: [tied] kentum and satem

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:54 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] kentum and satem

> I know you believe there is some ontological difference between
garden variety palatalisation plus paradigm regularisation on the one
hand and satemisation on the other. I know we discussed this before,
but what are your reasons for assuming that? Or, stated differently,
if the Phrygians had regularised their paradigms (in the satem
direction) in what way would Phrygian then not have been a satem
language?

The difference is simple -- that between a conditioned change (like Verner's Law) and a context-free one (like Grimm's Law). The Satem shift shows no trace -- let me repeat -- NO TRACE of palatal conditioning of the "garden" variety. The *k^ series sounds were fronted in ALL positions, also before back vowels and consonants, where no "paradigm regularisation" had a chance to occur. The CONDITIONED palatalisation of *k and *kW stops also took place in several Satem branches, but its effects were different and despite paradigmatic levelling-out (as in Sanskrit, where there was a lot thereof) there is enough evidence of the original conditioning context. A Satem language is one in which *k^ is fronted not only before front vowels (or before apophonic *o alternating with *e, where analogy might have been at work), but also in words like *h3ok^to:, *h1ek^wos, *k^lewos, etc., where analogy can be ruled out.

 

Piotr