--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's why the presence of kentum relics in Bangani is so important.
> It removes that particular argument against OIT.
>
>
>
>
Weirdly enough for me is that I realized that one could argue that
although kentum velars are (hypothetically) more original than satem
palatals, the IE languages of the hypothetical eastern urheimat did
originally have kentum velars, as preserved in Bangani, and migrations
to the west (>Greek, Italic, Celtic, Germanic) occurred before these
velars were later palatalized in the east. This would then support
OIT. Do you or anyone know of other linguistic phenomena that argue
against OIT, since I have refuted my own argument? Also, isn't it
often claimed that languages that remain nearest to a homeland tend to
preserve more archaic features (e.g. Italian among Romance
languages)-- Sanskrit and its descendants were the only ones to
preserve voiced aspirates, AFAIK. I'm not saying I'm necessarily a
supporter of OIT, just following the maxim "audi alterem partem",
trying to weigh both sides fairly.
Andrew