Richard:
> I don't think Albanian and Armenian need any
> elaboration. For Anatolia, I see the geographical
> connection between Anatolian and Indo-European
> proper as being across the Bosporus.
Yes, that sounds reasonable. Now, in keeping
with the idea that Luwian is an Anatolian dialect
lying on the initial satem side of things (retaining
the most basic Satem change of plain *k to palatal
*c^), we would then expect that parts of the satem
area already were extending into Northern Anatolia
right after 'centum Anatolian' had entered.
The preservation of a three-way contrast in the
velar series would be natural in this scheme if
Proto-Luwian contains the satemic reflex of
*k-*c^-*kW for the former *k-*q-*kW of IE.
Nifty, eh? :) I love Satem!
> It is possible that there may not have been a
> connection - Phrygian and possibly Tyrrhenian
> complicate the picture.
I don't think Tyrrhenian complicates much. It has
nothing to do with the satemization in IE as far as
I can tell and methinks that Proto-Tyrrhenian would
have centered around Greece, Crete, Aegean islands,
and Western Turkey at the time of the entry of
Anatolian. It would have only contained plain *k and
'emphatic' *kH. I don't see any instance of *k/*kH >
*c^ in Tyrrhenian at all, at any stage. Only IndoTyr
*tW > Tyr *c^ > Etruscan /z/.
PS: Would it be impossible to conceive that the 'satem
area' originated in the north-east of the IE area
because of influence from a southern para-Uralic
dialect?
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com