Is "satem" a gradient?

[ECOLING at aol.com]

"Satem" may be defined in a number of different ways,
and which languages are fully or partly included will be determined
by how one defineds it.

Merger of palatals and velars is *one* way of defining it.
Shift of palatals to /s, ts, dz/ and the like is another way of defining it.

Each has validity, and using a combination of varying ways
of defining "satem" should yield a *gradient* list of languages
included, which may be a *much more realistic* answer
than trying to raise a giant wall and arguing till doomsday
over whether a language is included or not.

>From one perspective, a language may be included,
from another, not.

"Satem" may very well be a gradient concept,
with fuzzy edges.  If so, no amount of "defining"
can remove the fact of the gradient.  All it can do is reveal
that using that definition (from among various ones possible)
yiels such-and-such results.

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics