It is disputed whether Messapic is to be classed with the centum-languages or with the satem-languages. Discussion of this problem has been unduly influenced by comparison with Albanian (a satem-language) and by the commonly made assumption that Albanian can only be the modern representative of an ancient Illyrian dialect. It is at least clear that Illyrian did not represent the IE palatal stops by sibilants, see Hirt, Indogermanen 2.609, and ‘Stellung des Illayrischen’ in Festschrift für Kiepert 181ff. (1894) where Kretschmer's view to the contrary is criticised. The fact that Messapic appears on the available evidence to have nothing corresponding to the labiovelars or labials of the centum-languages (Lat. quinque, Gr. πϵμπτós: Alb. pes∈) that represent the IE velar stops (*penku̯e), would seem to make it a priori likely that the palatals should have been treated as in the satem-languages. But the conclusion is not inevitable. It is probable that Venetic, which was also an ancient Illyrian dialect, neither labialised the velars nor sibilised the palatals; and it has been suggested accordingly that Venetic belongs to a stratum of IE speech earlier than the cleavage into centum-dialects and satem-dialects, see Conway, Annual Brit. Sch. at Athens 8.152 (1901–2).