SV: Fortunatov's Law and tolkAppiyar's rules

Jacob Baltuch jacob.baltuch at EURONET.BE
Wed Aug 12 21:36:16 UTC 1998

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:

>Indeed.  We know that for instance the change *k(w)e > c^e is
>independent in Slavic (c^etyre), Indo-Iranian (catva:ra-) and
>Armenian (c^'ork') [PIE *kwetwores "4"].  This is very common sound
>change, which makes it unsurprising that it should have happened
>independently many times over.  The "satem"-change (*k^ becomes some
>kind of s(h)ibilant) is just as common and trivial, but there are
>reasons to believe that this change was not independent, but affected
>a single dialect of IE.  This has to do with the fact that the
>"satem" languages have several other things in common, things that
>less trivial.  One of them is the RUKI-rule (*s > /s^/ after i, u, r,
>k (and H?)).  This makes it more likely that we are dealing with a
>set of shared innovations, and that it is probably justified to speak
>of a "satem" subgroup of IE (on the other hand, there is no "centum"
>group: those are just the languages that fail to be "satem").

Wouldn't it be better then to speak of "rooky" IE? (since satm includes

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list