Re: Kuhn's ar-/ur-language

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

>
>
> > I'm afraid the possibility of a Baltic-looking substrate in
> > Carelia and Scandinavia is seriously underestimated.
> > Not to say dogmatically rejected, even by Helimski :
> > P15 vaga
> > "its comparison with Lith. vagà â?~furrow, riverbed, riverarmâ?T
> > (Pospelov 1998: 87) is historically preposterous and semantically
> > doubtful".
> >
> > "Historically preposterous" ??
> > On what grounds ?
>
> What would he say to Sp. vega?
>
> =========
> What's the connection of Spanish (?) vega with Lit vaga ?

Do you find it historically preposterous and semantically doubtful? ;-)

>>
> There are three possibilities:
>
> 1) IE or some dialect of it is a substrate of Uralic (in which case
> IE stretches east of the Ural mountains)
> 2) Uralic or some dialect of it is a substrate of IE (in which case
> Uralic stretches to England)
> 3) The above word belongs to a substrate of IE and Uralic.
>
> ============
> I can see more than one word.
> As usual, you make a huge heap of words
> and draw a rather unexpected conclusion out of it.
> Could you explain how you reach that conclusion ?

That *ak^- etc root in Pokorny is a mess. It has a lot of side forms
with strange unexplained extensions. It looks like the whole complex
was formed in another language than IE.

The reconstructed roots I quote from UEW are phonetically and
semantically similar, but the authors have not managed to relate them
to each other with any known Uralic derivation process.

And recently I found an article, but I can't find it again, which
claimed the IE and Baltic Finnic ares had two separate paternal gene
lines, but the same maternal gene lines. Which would mean IE and FU
are both foreign in Europe, and you'd expect loans from the same
extinct European substrate in both.

BTW, I think the U *utka "Spur" should be "leg/stage of a journey"
(étape to you), note the obs. Hung. sense "times".


Torsten