Re: Unity of Satem (was: a discussion on OIT)

At 9:04:15 PM on Sunday, May 25, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>> If I could swallow the idea of the satem shift taking
>> place over an enormous area, and persuade myself that
>> Indo-Iranian had no strong connection with any Central
>> European language,

> Yes, yes, exactly! The connection among IIr and Gk, Ar is
> MUCH closer than that among IIr and BS. See Dyen Kruskal
> Black 1992 chart_0001.pdf and McMahon and McMahon.pdf Dyen
> et al even give the name Mesoeuropic--

> "there is evidence that Romance, Germanic, and Baltoslavic
> are most closely interrelated among the distinct branches
> of Indoeuropean, thus suggesting, though the evidence is
> far from conclusive, that these three divisions form a
> single separate branch, for which the term Mesoeuropeic is
> introduced (Dyen, Kruskal, Black 1992, 5-6)."

I continue to be amused by contradiction between your
contempt for historical linguistics and your willingness to
cite its conclusions when they happen to agree with your
prejudices.

> But sadly the satam/kentum east/west dichotomy is so
> entrenched in Indo-Euroepan linguistics.

You're living in the past again.

> Therefore, it is important to use computers to do this.

Computers per se have nothing to do with it: even you must
be familiar with 'garbage in, garbage out'.

Brian