dive (was Re: Sos-)

> > > 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.
>
> Noone's stopping you.

Yes, and that's why I don't "need" a substratal etymology.

> The point you made was that there were also other proposed etymologies for Suomi? I sort of knew that already. Why the hysterics then?

To recap, it comes from having misinterpreted your claim to have "solved the mystery" to think that you weren't aware of the other etymologies.

> > > My proposal is to start from a form with a nasalised vowel, thus
> > > *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.
>
> Why would I add an -m- to the suffix, when I can derive it from the nasality in the root? Occam.

Why would you assume nasality in the root rather than in the suffix, if it only occurs in the suffixed form?

> > I'm sure there are place names containing the sequence /sam/ all
> > 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.
>
> That 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.

No, it's not so unreasonable. But taken this one instance alone, it is not reasonable either to think that this WAS the case.

> > > You were discussing the possibility of suo -> Suomi with Sean,
> > > 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
>
> So 'Suomi' is the infinitive of the verb 'suo' "to swamp"?

No, that goes with the "provide" option (_suoma_ "that which is provided").

> > (or as Sean proposed, comes from the root _maa_ "land").
>
> It's not inflected like 'maa'.

Yes, and that was part of the reasons why I do not consider his explanation to be "almost certain".

> > The words should be linked because they're all part of your
> > proposal, and because they should be linked, you are proposing
> > this specific proposal? Holy circularity, Batman.
>
> My proposal is that the words are linked, yes. Do you have a problem with that, Robin?

If you try to use your proposal to argue for it, then I do. Which is what you appear to be doing here:
"It includes 'sump' "swamp", thus it is not well-limited to putative derivatives of the Uralic 'mouth' word"

My argument of semantical well-limitedness is based on the data; your "counterargument" appears to be based on just restating your proposal.

> > 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.
>
> Exactly. 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,

So far so good.

> 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).

This is where you go off the track of conclusions and into the woods of wild speculation.

> > Actually, "sap" looks like it remains quite finely separate as
> > well.
>
> ???

This is what your runeberg.org link lists under "sump" as well, but I don't see why that would be the same root. So that leaves no nasality alternation to explain in this case either, just the u/wa alternation.

> > > There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn, Kuiper and
> > > 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.
>
> 'supfen'?

Sorry, "saufen".

The first two of these are the "k set" and "mp set" you wonder about in another message BTW.

> > > > "Swamp" > "mouth of river" > "mouth" would be another of the
> > > > 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.
>
> Oh that.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46346
> Note the unexplained i/u alternation and the a- prefix reminiscent
> of Schrijver's language of bird names.

Doesn't seem to phonetically fit as an intermediate. Also, it geographically appears in the wrong place.

> BTW, note also Schrijver's remark about that substrate language that
> 'it had a diphthong alien to Germanic and Celtic,
> something like [a&], which was rendered as a in British Celtic and
> ai in Germanic'
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
> which might once have been a nasal vowel.

Or it might have not. Nasal vowels aren't a particularly common source of difthongs.

> > > > 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
>
> I take note of the level you think my insight into linguistics is
> at.

Try not proposing sound changes based on single forms if you strive to be held in higher esteem.

Tho the examples mostly just aim to illustrate the general point of "any phonetic forms are in principle linkable".

> BTW Danish savl "saliva"

I continue to see no coherent semantics for the set of words you bring up here.

> > > > > > I can propose _säng_ to come from Uralic *s´äNki- "to
> > > > > > cut". The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki
> > > > > > primarily means "stubble".
> > > > > > A later development of sense is "a patch of field or
> > > > > > garden",

> > > > "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".)
>
> 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.

Appear, perhaps, but here's a basic fact of statistics: if I propose it's either of them, this is necessarily at least as probable if I only proposed one of them.

> > Moreover, this allows me to formulate an etymology that involves
> > no substrate roots.
>
> The 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.

Perhaps not. I do get some however for attempting a solution involving only one original root in place of two (substratal "bed", Uralic "cut").

> > Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?
>
> 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.

Not quite all: it seems to be quite possible to just speculate ("what if these words for 'island' were related to these words for 'salt'? oh, and this word for 'saliva' too?") without ever getting to the level of real arguments. At that point the burden of proof (or, more correctly, burden of argumentation) is still on you.

I, and I imagine others as well, would just gladly ignore your wild goose chases, if it weren't so difficult to figure out if you're proposing something because you got a random idea or because you think you actually have some arguments for it.

> > > 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).
>
> How are Lithuanian and Latin relevant to ad hoc assumption in UEW
> of a change /a/ > /o:/?

We do not need to assume any such change, as Finnic can have gotten the word from a language where it had long *a:, which would then have regularly changed into *o:.

> > > > > > > > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does not
> > > > > > > > seem any smaller in other languages.
> > > >
> > > > > As for the semantics gap, "slush" is a stepping-stone.

> > > 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.
>
> No, 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?

And there's it again - a conviction that there is something to be solved here.

I'll continue to simply reject the comparision if you cannot come up with any argument better than "they all have /sal/" for why we should attempt to relate these.

> > > > > > > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.
> >
> > > > > 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.
>
> No, and you using capitals doesn't make it a fact.

/o:/ is not /u/. This is a simple fact.

> > > > That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a
> > > > substratal *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 vowel sequence in class VI verbs is a/o:/o:/a. Are you saying that alternation was introduced by those who loaned it?

No, my proposal only works for nouns. Whatever happens in the verbs is obviously some kind of inherent development involving ablaut and possibly some generalizations (esp. since not all of these are limited to Germanic).

Or do you have any examples where a paradigmatic alternation was retain'd when loaning?

> > > > > > The prenasalized forms that have -Nk/-mp and do not
> > > > > > 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-).

> > > > Do you have others?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> The importance of the "water" root is not inherent, but comes from
> its many diverse forms.

I see no reason to think it's not just many diverse roots.

> The 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.

So what? The absolute number of parallels is what matters, not percentages.

> > > > > > 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.
>
> I don't find that in Wikipedia. Examples?

For Ojibwe, the guy I got these from was referring to this:
http://tinyurl.com/yfyznx3
and for the first two:
Ives Goddard, 1974. "An Outline of the Historical Phonology of Arapaho and Atsina." International Journal of American Linguistics 40:102-16

(Note that Proto-Alg. *r was previously reconstructed as *l.)

> > > > > 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.
>
> You could say the same of Grimm's law. And?

Grimm's law has no splits - and is not based on idle speculation on what pre-Germanic might have look'd like, but on systematic external cognates.

> Also, I don't recognize your quote as something I said. Could you show me where you got that from?

It's not a quote, but it is what I get from your proposals such as this just now:

> What I *really* mean is of course a general
> *aN ->

(...)

> *a:/*ap/*amp/*an,k/*ak/
> *u:/*up/*ump/*un,k/*uk/

where quite a lot of splits appear to happen for no specific reason.

> > > > > > 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;

> > One word: "Merger"
>
> /a/ merged with /u/?

*o merged with *a or *u.

> > > > > > Or loss of a "laryngeal" that sometimes leaves coloring.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> Your conclusion is unwarranted. There is also the possibility that the prenasalised variant have been discarded.

If in most cases there's no nasal variant, Occam suggests it's because there never was one.

So far it seems to me that nasal variation and POA variation co-occur only in your semantically far-fetch'd "suck/swamp", "duck/damp" (what else, "luck/lamp"?) comparisions.

> > > As far as I can make sense of what you wrote, it seems you have
> > > 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.
>
> You realize of course that what you are open to or not has no probative value in linguistics.

Yes. Its relevance is to whether or not we need to discuss that particular point anymore.

John Vertical