Re: Sos-

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

>
>
> >> > The problem with this Yeniseic word *ses 'river" is that it
> >> > very much looks like a LW from Uralic.
> >

The problem with you is that you decide on faith alone that the
loaning was from Uralic to Ket, not the other way around.

> > What do you think of the River Sos
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sos_River
> > or various Sosva rivers?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosva_River
> >
> ========
> A Sos River in Romania can hardly be Ugric,
> all the more so as the Hungarian cognate is aaz.

I was wondering if the name was Uralic, not whether it was Ugric?

> As you can see Sosva also is Losva.
> Both are tributary to the Tobol.
> Ugric !
>
> Arnaud
> ========

No proof the name wasn't borrowed by Ugric before that anlaut development.

> >> I'm trying to sort out all those hydronyms listed in Werner's
> >> Yeniseic Dictionary (2002).
> >> The first and obvious observation is that the area with Yeniseic
> >> items is much smaller than the area with Uralic items.
> >> The word "substrate" is clearly not neutral.
> >
> > What's that supposed to mean?
>
> =========
>
> Substrate suggests Yeniseic arrived _first_
> I disagree with that theory.
> A.

'not neutral' = 'Arnauld doesn't agree'. I'll make a note of that.

> >> The situation is more that there is a huge Uralic area from Ural
> >> mountains to the eastern tributaries of the Yenisei River with
> >> Yeniseic dots here and there.
> >> Vajda agrees that Yeniseic is more or less intrusive
> >
> > On what?
>
> ============
>
> Uralic was already on the spot.
>
> A.
>
> ===========

Vajda says Yeniseian is intrusive on Uralic?


Torsten