Re: a discussion on OIT

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:

> 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.

The problem then is that either satemisation has to occur over a very
wide area (Central Europe to India) or you need a later expansion of
Satem languages. There are two related types of problems with a later
expansion (other than a West to East Aryan expansion - AIT!)

(1) The satem languages are not very coherent - tree analyses don't
easily find a satem group

(2) Greek and Germanic seem to have Satem affinities, and I've a
feeling there are some Italic-Albanian affinities.

Note that in most homeland theories, the homeland of non-Anatolian PIE
ends up speaking a Satem language, demolishing:

> 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.

How is Italian more archaic than Romanian?

The glottalic theory, of course, makes voiced aspirates an
Indo-Iranian innovation.

Richard.