Re: * Re: Push (3)

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>


Here are some nice complications for you to ponder:
Jorma Koivulehto
The Earliest Contacts between IE and Uralic Speakers
'18. Finn. pohta-, inf. pohtaa 'to winnow' < *po(w)Å¡-ta- (-ta- is a
normal verbal [causative] suffix)
...
30. Mordvin ponžavtoms 'to winnow' < *punše-kta- (-kta- is a normal
verbal [causative] suffix)
<â?" PIE *puneH-/*punH- > OInd. puná:ti / punánti 'cleans, winnows /
they clean, winnow'; *u > o is regular in Mordvin. (Koivulehto 1991: 93.)

========

ponz^a-ft- /-vt- (Moksha/Erzia)
I disagree that u could ever become o in Mordvin.
And it's also clear that you could never derive ponz^a-(ft-) from *puneH
(what PIE is this ??)

Moksha o usually derive from long vowels like a? o? or ow-, ob- or oN
A variant of puw-a "to blow" like pow-n/m-c^-a-kt- can make it.

There's no particular reason to think this is a LW.
It can be explained with Uralic material.

A.
======

Koivulehto, like everybody else who proposes loan connections between
IE and Uralic languages, make the unwarranted assumption that loans
are always from (the more developed) IE to (the less developed) Uralic
language
Torsten

=======

You probably fail to remember I clearly stated that Germanic has quite a lot
of (often archaic-looking) Uralic LWs.
Handi from *kam-t- "hand"
etc.
And there is no particular reason IE languages were more developped than
URalic languages if you accept the idea that PIE split earlier than - 4000
BC.
And if you agree on early LWs, then you'll have problems with the location
of Germanic...

A.