Re: Finnish KASKI

From: jouppe
Message: 56110
Date: 2008-03-28

--- In, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jouppe
> > =========
> > the issue is more that Jouppe should explain how
> > kud, kwa, kë, kwala
> > derive from *kud reconstructoid.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > =============
> *kota + apocope, spirantisation of plosive, spirant d becoming l (or
> v>w in labial environment), all very common stuff, moving towards
> shorter forms and more sonority, as usually in languages, also in
> particular in French language history.
> The opposite: spirant d > t and monosyllabics CVC becoming
> CVCV are on the contrary abnormal.
> I made the second point a couple of times already (see below). The
> first should be obvious on this forum. I will not go into
> trivialities once more.
> Jouppe
> >
> =========
> We're not discussing general truths.
> and French even less.
> The questions are :
> Why did Permic lose the final consonant
> when it did not in some other words
> of the same language ?
> Why should -d- become -l-
> when it did not in some other words
> of the same language ?
> Why should u become wa
> when it did not in some other words
> of the same language ?
> This is where the issue is.
> You little shameless cheater !
> Arnaud
> ==================
This question abaut Permic is a good case to illustrate one
fundamental problem with this noahistic superfamily-endevour. In
order to master just one language family you need an enormous amount
of knowledge of conditioning and morphophonemics etc in different
daughter languages. I don't have that knowledge for Permic and Arnaud
has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have it in uralistics on
any level. He just rambles around in the data. I was disappointed
that even for Moksha, which I thought was your strength Arnaud, you
would not even recognize the suffixes to follow me- < *mün,ä-. Have I
pretended to know Permic or launched innovative theories for
understanding it? Is it reasonable to call me cheater?

I would also remind you that Sammallahti, one of the main refiners of
the mainstream reconstruction of Proto-Uralic, also has excelled in
reconstructing Proto-Permic, which is found in his article in Sinor,
Denis (red.) Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. 8, Handbook of Uralic
studies, Vol. 1, The Uralic languages : description, history and
foreign influences (1988) Leiden: E.J. Brill. ISBN 90-04-07741-3.

As for Proto-Uralic, if you want to change the reconstructions, the
family external comparisons severly damages the credibility of your
argument. The method becomes finalistic and will inevitably distort
the interprtation.

What would really be needed to create credibility for establishing
superfamilies, is to respect the primacy of family-internal
reconstruction, and take the reconstructed forms created by
verifiable science as a starting point. One should work from the
known towards the unknown, not vice versa.

If on the other hand you want to change the paradigm for family-
internal reconstruction (e.g. of Uralic) you have full plate in that
task in itself. Others have tried and failed catastrophically the
best known example being the flawed work "The Uralic Language
Family: Facts, Myths, and Statistics" by Angela Marcantonio from 2002
(the reference to a sober critisism of this book is found at

Why is it by the way that I don't see any references to Proto-Semitic
on cybalist. This is in contrast to the great number of anachronistic
comparisons between PIE and Arabic, PIE and Hebrew, which I also find
in Arnouds article. Is this "not a valid node" either nowadays? For
the finalité of accomodating Proto-World?