C. Darwin Goranson wrote:
> Aaah. So much for that theory, but what does that make Lithuanian,
> satem or centum?
Satem, of course. *k^ generally yields Lithuanian <s^> (with only
sporadic exceptions). It isn't a "theory" but an observation based on
numerous examples.
> Really, I've read, the division of languages between satem and centum
> is no longer a useful means of comparison (especially considering
> Tokharian!).
The Satem/Centum dichotomy is no longer regarded as reflecting a primary
split within IE (into an eastern subfamily and a western one), but the
label "Satem" remains as useful as ever to describe the common
innovation of several branches -- the unconditional fronting and
affrication (or further spirantisation) of the "palatal" series of
stops. Even the geographical distribution of the branches in question
(Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Armenian and Thracian) is
entirely compatible with a single origin of the innovation. The change
did not spread to the western branches, but it also left a
geographically discontinuous residue of non-Satem languages in the east
(Greek, Anatolian, Tocharian).
Piotr