Re: Indo-European Origins and Geography

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:19:45 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Darkstar wrote:
> >>
> >> To Bobby D. Bryant:
> >>
> >> > There are _scores_ of replies to you here, and they bring up piles
> >> > of criticisms that you simply haven't addressed.
> >>
> >> I have provided a coulpe of ideas on how glottochronology could be
> >> fixed to work again, at least in theory. Unfortunately, there were no
> >> replies based on facts, logic or logical arguments, and here I have
> >> that no-facts-or-references Bobby Bryant again politely calling me
> >> "fool", and that is that. That's exactly what I've been afraid of.
> >> Hopefully, this will change.
> >>
> >> As to Satem/Centum, Italo-Celtic/no-Italo-Celtic issue, well half of
> >> the people say the idea is outdated, the other half say it's still
> >> good. Now, what? Whom should we believe?... Apparently, we may claim
> >> with some good probability that these languages DID form special
> >> subgroups within the IE family, but there's still no sufficient
> >> evidence to corroborate these hypotheses - this is the most likely
> >> outcome as far as this part of our debate is concerned.
> >
> >They formed _subgroupS_ within the IE family. There is no reason to
> >suppose there was a single Satem subgroup.
>
> There is no reason to suppose there was a single centum
> group. The satem group is a different matter.

Wasn't it you who listed 3 or 4 different routes by which palatals
became sibilants in the different families, showing that they didn't do
so as a single subgroup?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.