Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

26-01-04 10:09, Glen Gordon wrote:

> But all this talk gave me another idea that may or may not blow
> people's socks off. Let's say that IE (at say 4500 BCE) had suddenly
> spread out a bit, leaving a small easterly group with *[k^ k kW]
> (satem), a westerly group with simplified *[k kW]. The group
> was still intact enough to evolve together for another 500 years
> or so. If the above is true about Luwian, then it would seem that
> at least a part of the Anatolian branch had to have been of
> the eastern group where *k^ and *k hadn't merged yet. So
> Luwian would remedy the situation with partial sibilantizing,
> while Hittite, being part of the "centum" side of Anatolian, didn't
> need to deal with the phonological implications of *k^.

That looks like an attempt at restoring Satem/Centum as the primary
split within IE. What, then, is the origin of Tocharian? There might
have been other eastern groups without the Satem realisation of *k^
(such as the Bangani substrate, if real).

Piotr