Re: a discussion on OIT

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:

>
> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, David Russell Watson <liberty@...>

wrote:

> >
> > I recall it differently. Piotr argued that the Satem group
> > represents a proper genetic grouping,

- edit -

> Piotr is not the only person on the list.

No, but he is the most linguistically informed person on
the list, and when the rest of you differ with him, you
usually turn out to be wrong.

In any case, if there truly was a discussion on cybalist
where a convincing argument was made against Satem being
a proper genetic grouping, then please direct me to its
location in the archives, if you will.

> > The change seen in Italian 'cento' isn't comparable to the
> > Satem change, for it's conditioned by the frontality of 'e',
>
> and /i/

Yes, of course. It is also a front vowel.

> > while the Satem change was unconditioned.
>
> Wrong,

No, it's right. The palatovelar column was fronted and
affricativized unconditionally in Satem, meaning that
each and every occurence of a palatovelar was changed
regardless of its phonetic context, including disregard
for what vowel or glide followed.

> it happened to palatovelars, but not to velars.

Of course, but that's not what's meant by a "conditioned
change". In Proto-Indo-European the palatovelars, plain
velars, and labiovelars could, all alike, occur before
front vowels or back, either set.

> The phenomenon in Franco and Ibero-Romance also occured in
> palatovelars.

You appear to be using 'palatovelar' for something other
than the palatovelar series of Proto-Indo-European, which
will tend to create confusion.

> It is true that palatovelars in those languages only occured
> before palatal vowels,

In other words they came about in the first place due to
a "conditioned change", the condition being the presence
of a following front vowel. Moreover these post-Proto-
Indo-European sounds to which you refer as 'palatovelars'
include the reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatovelars
and plain velars alike, and is where confusion about what
you mean can result.

> but the process is the same.

No, not the same, as the Satem change was unconditioned,
and what you are describing for Romance was not.

> > Naturally. One would never expect an affricate to change
> > into a stop.
>
> That's my point

And that point, that the palatovelars were stops before
they were affricates, is correct. My other corrections
still stand.

David