Talk:Centum

Regarding the sentence about phylogenetic unit

Alright, this is like 90 percent jargon. I was going to try to clean it up by going to all the linked pages and trying to decipher what everything means. But that last line has me kind of hesitant. It SEEMS like it might be an NPOV issue...like someone is taking one side on whether a paraphylatic group can be considered a phylogenetic unit, and that this is not widely agreed upon.

I'm changing it, and I'll likely get to other parts of it later, but if someone who knows this topic better wants to revert it, feel free. User:Andy Christ

Centum/Satem

The Satem page wikilinks to Centum like this "By contrast, in the remainder of the Indo-European family (the then-called Centum languages), palato-velars lost their palatal component and merged with plain velars, while labio-velars remained distinct." Wouldn't it be an idea for Centum to wikilink to Satem in a similar way? --Nantonos 17:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was a separate satem page. I think the two should be merged into a single page, as neither group really makes sense independent of the other. How about merging them both to Centum-satem division or the like? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are two sides of the same coin and a merged page is a good idea, provided those pages that link to Centum or Satem were edited to link to Centum-satem division#Centum and Centum-satem division#Satem respectively. --Nantonos 11:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something should also be added about the ruki rule (which is even more diagnostic of a satem language) and the subsequent palatalization of the Romance centum languages (hence English borrowing 'cent' done as a homophone of 'scent' and not as in the British county of Kent.

Perhaps the articles should be merged. --FourthAve 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]