Northwest IE attributes

[Stefan Georg]

>>rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu writes:

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

>-- in a word... yes.

>Unless you're going to postulate that two geographically adjacent
>dialect-clusters of PIE underwent the same process at the same time but for
>completely distinct reasons.

Well, we donm't know at what time both dialect-clusters underwent the
satemization-processes, so we cannot tell whether it was "the same time".
Then, although Baltic, Slavic, and Indo-Iranian share a great deal of very
specific details in the process, there are also differences (incomplete
satemization in Baltic and Slavic; traces of labiovelars in Indian etc.),
which may strengthen a position which tends to keep the languages apart.
The major argument for not laying too much weight on Satem for
classificatory reasons is the very naturalness of assibilations of
inherently palatal consonants (or velars in palatalizing contexts. for that
matter). There is hardly a language family in the world, where not one or
two lgs. or branches could be called "satem".
When the issue of satemization is defined very strictly, it consists - not
of the assibilations and spirantizations - but of the merger of velars and
labiovelars (with the old palatals showing distinct reflexes), as opposed
to kentum lgs., where palatals and velars merged and labiovelars show
autonomous reflexes. If this definition is fololwed strictly, Armenian and
Albanian are out (no merger at all); Baltic and Slavic are mostly in (but
not entirely, because of the sizable number not-at-all satemized elements).
Which leaves us with Indo-Iranian as the only real and true-blue satem
branch (and if we look at the remnants of labiovelars there, even that is
not entirely sure).

In short:

- palatalizations and assibilations of palatal consonants (especially of
tectal ones), is maybe the one most common sound-change in the languages of
the world
- the so-called "satemization" processes in Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian
do indeed show a great deal of specificity, but also important differences

which leads to:

- kentum/satem should not be overemphasized as a major dialect-dividing
isogloss in Indo-European, though

- it is likely that a contact-induced Schmidtian "wave" comprises
Indo-Iranian, most of Slavic and most of Baltic (satemization peters out a
bit in the west, there being slightly more non-satemized elements than in
Slavic [I think; please, correct me someone].

- Armenian and Albanian are out, there being autonomous reflexes of the
three series of tectal stops.

>Which is highly unlikely.

Not *so* unlikely, after all. Palatalizations are, so to speak, the
garden-variety of sound-changes.

St.G.

Dr. Stefan Georg
Heerstraße 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
Tel./Fax +49-228-691332