Re: IELang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of BP Jonsson
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:47 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG
> Subject: IELang
> Neither
> does it distinguish between palatal and plain dorsals in the
> headwords, since English and its loanword-sources are all centum
> languages for the most part, but at the end of each entry there is
> given a transcription according to Pokornys classic
> "Indogermanisches Woerterbuch", where palatals are indicated with
> a circumflex over {g} and {k}.
[...]
> My guess is that
> /kj, gj, gjh/ were actual dorso-mediopalatals like [c, J] and /kv,
> gv, gvh/ were true labiovelars [kp, gb] as found e.g. in West
> African languages.
In _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin,_ Andrew Sihler argues that
the plain "guttural" stops were originally velar and the labialized ones
were just that, labialized, and possibly farther back than the velars. Then,
he argues, the satem languages were the innovators, palatalizing the velars
and losing the labialization of the labiovelars. His argument sounds rather
good to me; I don't remember the specifics offhand, but I know that he
claims that there are NO known examples of palatal stops becoming velar in a
language, and that even if it had happened, it would have had to have
happened at least three *separate* times because the centum languages
surround the satem ones and do not appear to touch.

> As it happens I have a xerox copy of the supplement edition, and I
> have thought of maybe basing an online list on it. Anyone
> interested in helping with such a project? Chances are reasonably
> good that one can find an edition of the dictionary at ones
> nearest public library. Perhaps some conlangers who know they have
> the list available could supply other people living closer to them
> than I do with xerox copies.
I'd love to help in this, but what are the copyright ramifications? Would it
be "fair use" to copy it or enter it into a computer? Or would we have to
change the list enough for it to be considered a derivative work?

> It is
> even likely that Greek, Thracian and Armenian form a branch where
> one member (Armenian) has become satemized, the others remaining
> centum!  Baltic and Germanic are probably closer to each other
> than any of them is to Celtic or Slavic.  Apparent Balto-Slavic
> isoglosses are due to long contact after the primary split, and
> the fact that both are satem while Germanic is not.
I don't understand your reasoning here. I read that Baltic and Slavic are
very closely related...