From: Torsten
Message: 65909
Date: 2010-03-03
>Noone's stopping you.
> > > > 'Several etymologies exist, we don't need another one'. What
> > > > were you thinking?
> > >
> > > I'm not saying it's pointless bringing new etymologies on the
> > > table at all, but that this word had no real NEED for a (new)
> > > etymology.
> >
> > The one I proposed relates 'Suomi' to 'suo' "swamp". Tell me what
> > it is you don't need about that?
>
> I could go simply with the scenario of _Suomi_ being cognate to
> _Sami_ etc, either directly or via its Indo-Iranian cognates.
> Or the somewhat weaker _suomu_ "scales" or _suo-_ "to provide"'Somewhat'?
> scenarios.
> > Vilh. ThomsenGood.
> > Über den Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf die finnisch-
> > lappischen, p. 14
> >
> > 'Was dieser name [Suomi etc] bedeutet, ist sehr bestritten und
> > unsicher. Die gewöhnlichste erklärung von suo, sumpf, ist, wie
> > schon längst erwiesen, unmöglich, u. a. weil das m offenbar zur
> > Wurzel gehört, und sollte nicht mehr wiederholt werden. Es ist
> > klar, dass es dasselbe wort ist wie der lapp. name Sabme, gen.
> > Same (vgl. lapp. varre, gen. vare, berg, = finn. vuori, ostfinn.
> > auch vaara); aber was es bedeutet, wage ich nicht zu
> > entscheiden.'
>
> They've since 1870 found an unproblematic etymology for "Sami"
> (namely < *Sämä < Baltic *Zeme "land").
> The point stands that a relation to _suo_ is not the only proposedThe point you made was that there were also other proposed etymologies for Suomi? I sort of knew that already. Why the hysterics then?
> etymology for _Suomi_.
> > My proposal is to start from a form with a nasalised vowel, thusWhy would I add an -m- to the suffix, when I can derive it from the nasality in the root? Occam.
> > *saN- -> *so:, and
> > *saN-i- > *so:m-i
> > so that the seed, so to speak, of the -m- Thomsen notices is
> > absent in suo, is wrapped up in the basal vowel.
>
> If you allow for an -i suffix, you could as well allow for an -mi
> suffix.
>That would be *sam-, since *-s- is a suffix, as mentioned in that posting, and we have just as much evidence about what that, or the *sam- of Sambia, means, as we have of what Suomi or Sápmi means.
> > Note also
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/26683
> > which would fit in with a substrate language (the ar-/ur-,
> > geminate language) being the source of a word which became both
> > the swamp word and the names of those places.
>
> But we have no evidence on what "sams-" originally meant, do we?
> I'm sure there are place names containing the sequence /sam/ allThat would be an unreasonable claim. The claim that some language which was substrate to Saami was spoken all around the Baltic is not so unreasonable.
> over the world (just for starters: Samarkand, Samaria, Samoa), but
> that doesn't mean the Sami, or some precedessors of them, would
> once have had a global empire.
> > You were discussing the possibility of suo -> Suomi with Sean,So 'Suomi' is the infinitive of the verb 'suo' "to swamp"? I think if you had argued that with Thomsen, he would have gotten the most recent word.
> > which Thomsen pointed out is not possible;
>
> Thomsen's not exactly the most recent word on this subject. It is
> quite possible if the -m- is part of a suffix such as the 3rd
> infinitiv -ma
> (or as Sean proposed, comes from the root _maa_ "land").It's not inflected like 'maa'.
> Or again, alternately, _Suomi_ has no relationship to _suo_ at all.So you have three proposals, the first two of which are proposals for an etymology of 'Suomi' and the third one is a proposal that my proposal for an etymology is wrong?
> > It's a natural development.That would be nice, yes.
>
> Perhaps, but this proposed sound law (be it an inherited one, or
> one occurring in substitutions) of nasality + hiatus > m needs
> further evidence.
> > > > > > > > look at 'sump' here:Yes.
> > > > > > > > http://runeberg.org/svetym/0995.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see a need to assume any velar variants if
> > > > > > > that's all we are explaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are all the "suck" words here:
> > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
> > > > >
> > > > > Semantically quite well-limited. I wouldn't consider this to
> > > > > be from the same root. I see the resemblance to Uralic
> > > > > "mouth" tho.
> > > >
> > > > It includes 'sump' "swamp",
> > >
> > > What "it"?
> >
> > This it:
> > *sá:-/*sák-/*sáp-/*sank´-/*samp´-/
> > *sú:-/*súk-/*súp-/*sunk´-/*sump´-
>
> That's not data, that's your proposal again.
> The words should be linked because they're all part of yourMy proposal is that the words are linked, yes. Do you have a problem with that, Robin?
> proposal, and because they should be linked, you are proposing this
> specific proposal? Holy circularity, Batman.
> > > The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is limited toExactly. Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver all surmise that this auslaut alternation is caused by an original labiovelar, and I've gone along with that till now, but then I got the idea that it could be handled by deriving the auslaut consonants from the diphthongs which were the result of the denasalisation of the nasal vowel I posited for another reason (that of accounting for the a/u alternation). So I am proposing not a labiovelar stop in auslaut in the reconstructed root, but labial and velar stops as a result of the once nasalised root vowel. The mechanism I proposed for the development of prenasalisation, namely stress alternation, is now redundant, BTW, and there only for 'historical' reasons, since I proposed it elsewhere to account for the IE n-infix.
> > > "swamp". There's no overlap between these and I see no grounds
> > > to connect them.
> >
> > My grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the 'velar
> > series' is that I claim the root they descend from is from the
> > combined ar-/ur- and geminate language, and both the ar-/ur-
> > language and the geminate language, according to their respective
> > authors, have labial/velar alternation in auslaut.
>
> But you forget the framework you've been setting up:
> * nasality alternation results from nasal vowels
> * labial/velar alternation results from labiovelars
>
> You do not need (and shouldn't) assume both nasality and
> labiovelars in every root. A non-nasal root (yeah, imagine that)
> with a labiovelar would yield exactly the observed suk-/sup-
> alternation. A nasal root without a labiovelar would yield exactly
> the observed sump/sap alternation.
> Actually, "sap" looks like it remains quite finely separate as well.???
> > There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn, Kuiper and'supfen'?
> > Schrijver did not see it, nor do I.
>
> This is true in some of the words they present. There is one
> between "suck/supfen", "swamp/sump" and "sap" however.
> If you didn't figure out yet, I'm not here objecting to theI did figure out that you didn't object to the generally accepted principles my proposal was built on, but only my use of them.
> labial/velar or nasal/non-nasal alternations in general, I'm
> objecting to your attempt to link these three etymons by means of
> them.
> > > "Swamp" > "mouth of river" > "mouth" would be another of theOh that.
> > > semantic chains you pull out of your sleeve. Or is this "mouth
> > > of river" attested somewhere?
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
> Looks like a fairly straightforward question to me.
> > > > *-aN- -> *-aNw- > *-aiw-, cf Portuguese.I take note of the level you think my insight into linguistics is at.
> > >
> > > You just keep making these up on the spot, do you?
> >
> > Yes, since these are loans, travelling along nefarious routes.
> >
> > > Any phonetic form is "linkable" in that sense anyway.
> >
> > No. Of course the transitions must be phonologically plausible.
>
> Given a sufficient number of intermediates (or shall we say,
> "nefarious routes"), anything is.
>
> dawn > Daw~ > aw > av > af > ap
> wan > k_waN > k_waw > käw > cäw > tew > tu:
> jes > jeh > jeh~ > n_jeh > nej > noj > no: > now
> san > Tan > fa:n > vo:n > v~o:n > mo:n > mu:n
> dOg > dOg@ > d_wage > d_wadZe > g_wadZe > gade > kate > kät@ > kät
> spru:s > pruS > burS > burtS > b3:tS
> brOk@... > brOk@... > bÖrk@... > bElk@... > bjElx@... > dZEl@... > sEl@...
> ämplIfaj > jEmlIfej > JEmnIfi > dEm@... > 'dImInIC > dI'mInIS
> (Yours seem to hang onto a principle "do not assume word-initialYou'd have to ask Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver, since I'm using their examples. Presumably the languages which borrowed these roots had problems rendering the nasal vowel (if that's what it was) but not the consonants those borrowed roots had in anlaut.
> consonants to undergo any changes" however. Any particular reason
> for this?)
> > > ...Hey, actually it's also not *-jw-, it's *-wj- (Inari SamiBTW Danish savl "saliva"
> > > _savja_, Skolt Sami _saujj-)! That suggests Finno-Samic had
> > > this word first, and it was loan'd by Germanic after the
> > > metathesis -wj- > -jw- (regular in Finnic, and in most Samic
> > > varieties).
> >
> > Nice. Then I can formulate it as *saN-y- -> *saw-y- -> sayw-
>
> You can. Or it could be related to *salaw via l > w, or various
> other possibilities.
> > > > > I can propose _säng_ to come from Uralic *s´äNki- "to cut".If you don't try to connect that last lame etymology to that which brought you to "field in the garden" it will appear more likely, yes.
> > > > > The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki primarily means
> > > > > "stubble".
> > > > > A later development of sense is "a patch of field or
> > > > > garden",
> > > >
> > > > From "stubble"? Why would you want to have your garden there,
> > > > of all places?
> > >
> > > "stubble in field" (attested, primary)
> > > "a section of field which has stubble (has been harvested)"
> > > (attested as the compound _sänkipelto_)
> > > "a section of field or garden" (attested)
> > >
> > > Also, straws used to be used as a mattress filling. That
> > > possibly cuts some corners: in a bed (as opposed to just
> > > sleeping on a bench, or on the floor) one would in fact be
> > > sleeping on something stubbly.
> >
> > That's pretty horrible, semantically.
>
> The "mattress" option is just a side chain: I'm still leaving open
> if it's that or the "bed of garden" option. This means the
> likelihood is increased, not decreased (as it's "A or B", not "A
> and B".)
> Moreover, this allows me to formulate an etymology that involves noThe existence of one or more substrate languages in Northern Europe has been demonstrated to at least my satisfaction by Kuhn, Kuiper, Schrijver et al., so I don't get any Occam points by attempting a substrate-free solution.
> substrate roots.
> > > > > > > > The alternative is that both loaned from an unrelatedOkay.
> > > > > > > > substrate, ie the ar-/ur- etc language.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > False dichotomy. I'm going with the default alternativ
> > > > > > > of "unrelated".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which entails that PIE had
> > > > > > 1. bagn- "swamp"
> > > > > > 2. pan- "swamp"
> > > > > > Are you sure that holds up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? You've seen it's quite possible for a language to
> > > > > simultaneously have words such as _deep_, _dive_, _dip_ and
> > > > > so on.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. And they are possibly related, so bad example.
> > >
> > > I gather'd you were objecting to the possibility that PIE had
> > > two words of similar shape.
> >
> > No, to the possibility that PIE had two unrelated words of
> > similar shape.
>
> I didn't claim they were necessarily completely unrelated; just
> that they are not necessarily related via the Language of Geminates.
> > So your solution is to propose no solution.Yes, they would have been relevant if I had been a had worked in a court of law where those I have to convince are judges and jurors whose job it is to be as impartial as possible. In a forum such as this all anybody can do is propose a theory and show that attempts to disprove it are faulty. Convince is not an option.
>
> More to the point, to realize that we have no reason to
> substantially prefer one solution over any other.
>
> NB, realize that this is essentially what "unrelated" means in the
> first place. Nobody could defend a claim that two words of unknown
> etymology are definitely not related in any concievable way.
>
>
> > > I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have some
> > > resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind your (and some
> > > others') reasoning, but this is a false conviction.
> >
> > That conviction of yours is false. I don't exclude the
> > possibility that my proposal is wrong, but i won't accept that it
> > is until someone proves it.
>
> Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?
>Whatever.
> > > > > Livonian was only incompletely documented, while Finnish
> > > > > and Estonian dialects are documented in exceeding detail.
> > > > > If the word still only occurs in Livonian (out of all
> > > > > Uralic languages), we can be rather sure it's not inherited
> > > > > from Proto-Finnic, ie. it's of later loan origin.
> > > >
> > > > Most likely, but not 100%.
> > >
> > > In etymology, nothing is.
> >
> > That's what I'm saying.
>
> If that's all you're saying, I agree. I'm perfectly content with
> let's say 99% certainty.
> > > > > > Sorry, I was being imprecise: there is an alternation a/uHow are Lithuanian and Latin relevant to ad hoc assumption in UEW of a change /a/ > /o:/?
> > > > > > within Uralic
> > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62618
> > > > >
> > > > > I see reference to no such thing in this link.
> > > >
> > > > But there is one of a necessary ad hoc assumption of a
> > > > development /a/ > /o:/
> > >
> > > No, a: > o: is a regular soundlaw of Finnic.
> >
> > How is a: > o: relevant to the ad hoc assumption of a > o:?
>
> Ad hoc? "Salt" does appear with a long vowel in languages such as
> Lithuanian and Latin (the former in all likelihood more meaningful
> here).
>Okay, so it's a loan. What is your problem then?
> > > Loaning appears to have taken place independantly in Permic and
> > > Finno-Volgaic, at a date such that Permic had no *a: and
> > > substituted *a.
> >
> > Okay, that's your proposal then.
>
> Or, as Finnic is the only branch of Finno-Volgaic displaying a
> distinction between *a and *a:, only Finnic needs to come from *a:,
> the rest can come from either a form that had *a, or one that had
> *a:. No way to tell.
>
> In fact that this word retains a long vowel before -a (a disallowed
> root structure in older stages of Uralic) tells it's quite a young
> loan.
>Okay, and could you tell me why UEW is wrong in assuming an ad hoc change /a/ > /o:/ here?
> > > > > It's all explainable from a root of a shape such as *sa:la.
> > > >
> > > > UEW obviously disagrees with that.
> > >
> > > I've told you, UEW is badly outdated in what comes to
> > > reconstructions.
> >
> > If you have knowledge of something what supersedes that, please
> > tell me what it is.
>
> Janhunen, Juha (1981): "Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta", SUSA
> 77 was AIUI the first systematic formulation of the current
> standard of Proto-Uralic. The UEW team managed to miss it (being
> Hungary-based and this paper being a Finnish publication) (or were
> under a deadline and didn't bother reworking the entire thing).
>
> A synopsis with slight further adjustments: Sammallahti, Pekka
> (1988): "Historical phonology of the Uralic Languages", in "The
> Uralic languages" (ed. Sinor, Denis)
> which you can mostly read on Google Books
> http://tinyurl.com/y9e6az3
> > > > > > > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does notNo, it's a problem, but greater men than myself have ignored it before. Who knows if the reinterpretation of *saN- as "immortalizing (?) will bring them any closer. Sacred island?
> > > > > > > seem any smaller in other languages.
> > >
> > > > As for the semantics gap, "slush" is a stepping-stone.
> > >
> > > I don't really see that. They didn't use road salt in those
> > > days.
> > > ;) Nor are islands made of slush. Nor am I aware what actual
> > > form you're alluding to?
> >
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65616
> > as. solian etc, cf. Danish søle "mud, slush"
>
> OK. I still do not see how this makes the salt/island semantic gap
> any smaller.
> > > > > > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.No, and you using capitals doesn't make it a fact.
>
> > > > Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class VI
> > > > strong verbs
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Class_6
> > >
> > > What makes you think this is the same alternation and not a
> > > different one?
> >
> > Occam. What makes you think it is a different one?
>
> It's a simple fact it IS different.
> > > That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a substratalThe vowel sequence in class VI verbs is a/o:/o:/a. Are you saying that alternation was introduced by those who loaned it? Why? No other class has the same vowel (here o:) in pret. sg. and pl.
> > > *o > (Gmc, lacking that, would substitute either *a to retain
> > > the quantity, or *o: to retain the quality).
> >
> > The easiest is no doubt to see it as reflecting an alternation
> > either o/o: or a/a: in the substrate, since both would become
> > a/o:.
>
> We don't need to presume ANY original alternation, like I explain'd.
> > > > > The prenasalized forms that have -Nk/-mp and do notYou have demonstrated it to everyone's satisfaction. You may proceed to facts.
> > > > > alternate with a rhotic?
> > >
> > > > For a word which does occur before a word boundary, look at a
> > > > noun like *aN- "water"(-> *ur-, *var- and -> *akW-, *am-).
> > >
> > > This one pseudo-root alone does not convince me.
> >
> > And calling it a pseudo-root alone doesn't convince me
>
> Probably not. It was to illustrate my own unconvincedness.
> > > Do you have others?The importance of the "water" root is not inherent, but comes from its many diverse forms.
> >
> > It's the only one that comes to mind, but it's an important one.
> > It's also the one that convinced me that Schrijver's language of
> > bird names is identical to the two other ones, the ar-/ur-
> > language and the language of geminates (by alternating both
> > *áNW-/*GWó-, -a-/-u- and -VkW-/-Vp-).
>
> Basing theories on one comparision is the second worst foundation
> possible (right next to having no data to back things up at all).
> No data has any inherent special importance.
> Comparativ Method 101: a non-recurring correspondence is aThe problem is that given the small number of know roots of the ar-/ur- etc language a single occurrence makes up a large percentage of them.
> non-correspondence.
>I don't find that in Wikipedia. Examples?
> > > > > You could just as well assume let's say incomplete rhotic
> > > > > coloring ur > ar, and an incomplete change r > n (> m / _p,
> > > > > etc).
>
> > Give an example of r > n.
>
> Proto-Algonquian > Arapaho, Atsina, Ojibwe.
>You could say the same of Grimm's law. And?
> > > > > Or ablaut that's independant of consonantal context.
> > > >
> > > > Calling something ablaut is a statement of fact, not a
> > > > explanation.
> > >
> > > Indeed. So is calling something "an alternation" (cf. your
> > > model).
> >
> > And after having stated that fact I go on to propose an
> > explanation for it, which is more than just giving it a name.
>
> "A split happens for no specific reason" (ie. your 1st-stage split
> into a:/aG/aw/u:/uG/uw) is not an explanation, just a more complex
> re-statement of facts.
>/a/ merged with /u/?
> > > > > Or varying reflexes of an *o.
> > > >
> > > > /o/ is part of the vowel triangle, with intermediates. An /o/
> > > > which moves around like that would imply the whole vowel
> > > > triangle etc did;
> > >
> > > No, one vowel change does not need to imply others.
> >
> > A plain, non-nasalised vowel can't change much without bumping
> > into the other plain, non-nasalised vowels,
>
> One word: "Merger"
> > > > > Or loss of a "laryngeal" that sometimes leaves coloring.Your conclusion is unwarranted. There is also the possibility that the prenasalised variant have been discarded.
> > > >
> > > > That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
> > >
> > > Prenasalized forms in this scenario too would come from
> > > something that has the nasal to begin with.
> >
> > Which means you proposal explains less than mine. Fail.
>
> It explains only as much as required. Not every word has
> prenasalized alternants, or labial/velar alternants. I conclude
> that nasalization alternation is independant of labial/velar or a/u
> alternations.
> > > You take an alternation, decide it comes from a differentI don't have forehand knowledge of which of the conventions used in cybalist you are unfamiliar with.
> > > alternation, invent a trigger for this new alternation, and
> > > finally invent some soundlaws that turn this alternation into
> > > the attested one.
> > >
> > > For example *N (invented trigger) > *G/*w (invented
> > > alternation) > > *g/b > *k/*p (attested alternation).
> > >
> >
> > I don't recognize that as anything I said.
>
> Then you may be explaining things badly.
> > I never used the word 'trigger'.Misrepresenting what I said is.
>
> Usage of that word is not the problem here.
> > As far as I can make sense of what you wrote, it seems you haveYou realize of course that what you are open to or not has no probative value in linguistics.
> > misunderstood the notation that is used in cymbalist: capitals
> > are used for superscripts, thus /aN/ is a-superscript-n, which
> > stands for one phoneme, a nasalised 'a'.
>
> Actually, that does help. I've thought you've been using it for a
> velar nasal. I'm quite open to the idea of nasal vowels being
> behind nasal/no nasal alternations. Not really other alternations
> however.
> Are there any other pitfalls of notation I should be aware of?I use /n,/ for velar nasal. In general on cybalist /&/ is used for schwa instead of the at-sign, since it made the yahoo groups reader act up (it thought it was an e-mail address).
> Every halfway standardized ASCII-IPA variant I'm aware of (SAMPA
> and Kirshenbaum, most importantly) uses capital N for the velar
> nasal and a tilde for nasalization.