* Re: Push (3)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> >
> > ========
> >
> > 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.
>
> You posit a variant with o since u > o cant happen i Uralic and then
> you claim it's all Uralic? That doesn't make sense.
>
> =========
> I stated that there is a root (STD UEW) *puwe

That is a fact, whether you state it or not.

> The reflex of that root in Moksha is ufa-ms "to blow".

Sez who?

> It has u < (STD) u

What is STD?

> This reflex is not listed in UEW, but it should.

Why?

> The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.

Source?

> I won't discuss what the reconstruction should be.

Of course you won't. It can't be done within Uralic, and therefore
those several similar roots are from elsewhere. You know that, and
therefore you try to persuade us with pomp and swagger instead.

> LEt's just see that u in puwe is u in ufams

I don't see that, and you have made no attempt to prove it.

> For that reason ponz^aft-öms with u can hardly have the same vowel
> as ufams.

As per above there is no such reason.

> And if you believe like some other guys that PIE invented vowel
> ablaut, then you are wrong.

I don't, I have given you no reason to believe so, and who are those
other guys you claim believe it`? Pure obfuscation.

> For example one more example in Eskimo,
> ciiR-naq "to be sour" with -i-
> caR-ayak "to get spoiled (food)"
> All these theories about pre-Ablaut whatever are absurd.

Which theories??

> =====
>
> > 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
>
> You mean you proposed it, right? If you insist on behaving like le
> président de la République giving orders to a bunch of chtis, you
> will get responses you didn't expect.
>
> ========
> Your statement above is wrong

Your claim that you are denying the statement above is wrong,

> I have long ago suggested that LWs are not just one way.

since in this specimen of your habitual obfuscation of other people's
line of reasoning in order to gain time when you have a weak case you
claim I have claimed that you did not propose they were loans. I didn't.

> Example :
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50077
>
> A.
> =======
>
>
> > that Germanic has
> > quite a lot of (often archaic-looking) Uralic LWs.
> > Handi from *kam-t- "hand"
> > etc.
> Like Schrijver a long time ago.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21865
>
> ======
> yes and no,
> I think this "language of geminate" is basically useless.
> It can be discarded.

If you keep posting non-argued value judgments like that, people are
going to make their own estimations of what or who is basically
useless and can be discarded.

> It's northern river-side nephelococcygian.

What exactly do you mean by that, apart from showing off a passing
knowledge of Aristophanes?

> > And if you agree on early LWs, then you'll have problems with the
> > location of Germanic...
>
> I won't have problems with early Uralic loans in Germanic if I
> assume Proto-Germanic was spoken in Silesia and some Uralic
> language in the neighborhood.
> Torsten
> ====
>
> What a bold theory !
> Fifty years of reading to reach this conclusion. wow.
> At the time proto-Germanic was spoken, Yenissei was flowing in
> Silesia, you know.
> Silesia must have been bigger than now.

I would have liked to answer this, but you didn't say anything, so
I'll abstain.


Torsten