Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> > As I already said, Kuhn's ar-/ur- language is not limited to
> > Europe.
> >
> > Files > ar-ur- Language > Das letzte Indogermanisch .html
>
> > "This is above all its distribution area. It is bigger than that
> > of Krahe's name groups and seems by far to go beyond the borders
> > of Europe, which I included in my works.
>
> I notice he doesn't actually demonstrate this claim here.

True. But I'll trust him on this one. He's usually reliable.

> And there's a long way from Balkans/ Oder to the Urals.

True too.

> > > But it occurs to me that Proto-Samic has the sound change *u >
> > > *o (while Proto-Finnic doesn't), and you kno what Germanic
> > > speakers would make of that.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Not extensible to central Europe either, however.
> >
> > Now there's your problem!
>
> Not really. It just means there is some language or family that
> also includes an a/u alternation.

No, more than that. It would mean that some substrate in Europe had a root *ka/unt- "hunt etc" which was unrelated to Uralic *kunta "group, to hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump, base".

> It isn't such a weird thing that it couldn't have arisen more than
> once during the last 10000 years within the nearest 10000000 square
> kilometers.

That some substrate in Europe had a root *ka/unt- "hunt etc" which was unrelated to Uralic *kunta "group, to hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump, base" would be a pretty weird thing.

> > > Also the distinction between Uralic *kunta "group, to hunt",
> > > "to hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump, base" is by
> > > all evidence one inherited from PU; I see no links between the
> > > three, other than that they have the same consonants.
> >
> > If you give up your assumption that they are native Uralic words,
> > you will.
>
> It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion.

No, a conclusion needs premises. It's an assumption.

> This is simply a minimal triplet of *u/*ë/*a.

If it's native Uralic, yes.

> It is a disservice to etymology to turn perfectly well-behaving
> words into "substrate lons" just because.

The English words 'democrat' and 'democracy' are obviously not related since the English languages does not have the extensions -t and -cy, and since they are perfectly well-behaving there is no reason to assume they are loans either.

> Down that road, we could as well decide that all words are
> substrate loans and call it a day.

And then you'd have to read up on new foreign languages. We wouldn't want that. Of course we wouldn't to call a word a loan which had no cognates outside and didn't otherwise stick out.

> > > And I have no idea what you are getting at with the other roots
> > > with *ka- you list in msg #62525.
> >
> > And ditto.
>
> You keep linking that message just about every time you mention
> Uralic *kunta and the like. It does not keep getting any clearer
> what are we to make of it.

As I said, you will, if you're willing to give up your assumption that they're Uralic. But you're not.


Torsten