From: Joao S. Lopes
Message: 45659
Date: 2006-08-08
On 2006-08-08 19:08, Joao S. Lopes wrote:
> But theses changes are frequently symmetric. English palatalized g-, and
> also k-.
Well, there is no asymmetry in Baltic or Slavic. Armenian developments
look slightly odd, but oddities of this type are not so rare (cf. the
Proto-Celtic shift of *gW to *b but no parallel change of *kW or *gWH).
> I know this is not a obrigatory law, but the assymmetry seems odd.
> It leads me to a question: is Satem a monophyletic group, or an
> independent evolution?
The jury's still out. My personal opinion is that Satem is likely to be
a monophyletic grouping. But the palatalisation of PIE labiovelars
(and/or plain velars) before front vowels is _not_ a satem synapomorphy
(i.e. not a shared trait derived from their common ancestor) but a later
innovation that occurred at different times in various Satem lineages
(but not in all of them).
> And I'd add to this group Greek, that is kentum, but palatalized
> labio-velars: kWo->po, but kWe>kYe>c^e> te
It's interesting to note that Greek, like Albanian, palatalised its
labiovelars but not plain velars.
Piotr
O Yahoo! está de cara nova. Venha conferir!