15-11-03 01:25, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> No we don't. But, it is not a reason to not treat Illyrian as satem,
> or Albanian, or Slavic languages, isn't it?
> At least, this problem was solved, concerning Illyrian, thanks to
> Cimohowsky (see message "Illyrian as satem").
Albanian is Satem, because *k^ becomes <th> and *g^(H) becomes <dh> also
in non-palatalising environments. Cimochowski didn't "solve" anything as
regards the status of Illyrian. There's so little data that the very
term "Illyrian" is almost devoid of any concrete meaning. If Messapic
was a form of Illyrian, well, then Illyrian wasn't Satem, and it wasn't
a close cousin of Albanian. If Illyrian was something else, we don't
know what it was. We have a handful of proper names without a certain
etymology. The identification of Illyrian with Proto-Albanian has no
factual basis -- it's just an exercise in wishful thinking.
Piotr