"centum"/"satem" "exceptions" [was Re: Northwest IE attributes]

[Richard M. Alderson III]

On 11 Jan 2000, Rick Mc Callister wrote:

> Why the exception kravih?
> Is it because of the vowel or a combination of /r/ and non-palatal vowel?

> Is pekus exceptional because of the velar vowel?

These and similar "exceptions" to so-called "satemization" were seen by the
Neogrammarians as evidence for a third series of dorsal obstruents in PIE, that
is, that along side the palatovelar *k{^y} and the labiovelar *k{^w}, there was
a "plain" velar (or possibly back velar) *k.

Since then, it has been argued that PIE had either (1) palatals and velars, and
labiovelars are a late development, or (2) plain velars and labiovelars, and
palatals are a late development.  Today's consensus view seems to be a third
alternative, that PIE had palatals and labiovelars, and plain velars are an odd
development of one or both.

> Is Balto-Slavic Satem necessarily linked to Indo-Iranian Satem?

Given that the two branches share not only the assibilation of the palatals but
also special treatment of *s following *r, *k, *i, and *u, it seems unlikely
that they are *not* linked.  Further, remember that there are other "satem"
branches, such as Armenian and Albanian.

								Rich Alderson