Re: Limigantes

It occurs to me, why are we discussing this kind of a topic here at Cybalist specifically? The Substratum list would seem to be more apt:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/substratumlanguages/

Also, does it actually bother anyone to have this sort of off-topic discussion here?

Anyway…:

> > > > The modern stance on *lama is that it is a loan from Germanic
> > > > Finnic and that the Permic cognates are unrelated (the
> > > > palatalization and the vocalism are not explainable from a
> > > > common FP root).

> > > > Distribution in Komi but not Udmurt, and the a~a
> > > > correspondence may however suggest loaning from BF.
> > >
> > > How? By what movement?
> >
> > The eastward expansion of the Vepses and Karelians. There are a
> > number of other words that have been explain'd as loaned in this
> > way (see Janne Saarikivi, "Substrata Uralica"). BTW, Veps and
> > (northern dialects of) Komi also share the soundlaw *l > w (> v).
> >
> > *l > w also explains the initial palatalized lateral, as this
> > sound change occur'd initially in Komi, but not Veps. So initial
> > plain /l/ could have then been interpreted as palatalized /l´/
> > upon loaning.

And yep, upon rechecking, Saarikivi does have further examples of this same substitution:
BF *tallat- "to trample" > Komi tal´- "id."
BF *palat- "to return, to recover" > Komi pal´- "to recover"

> > > The least problematic proposal is one that ascribes the glosses
> > > I listed to a pre-IE, pre-Uralic layer.
> >
> > Fails to explain the shape of the Komi word. Normally *a > o or ë
> > (*kama "crust" > komyl´).
>
> That objection would make sense if I had proposed that the Komi word was inherited Finno-Permic, but I proposed that it was from a pre-IE, pre-Uralic layer. Please pay attention.

No, I got that, but *a > o is seen even in numerous words of limited distribution, where loaning from the Pit-Comb Ware substrate, or around that time is suggested. You may remember eg. *kansa > goz. Another good substrate candidate is *c^amc´a "rotten" > Permic *Zodz´ which is probably not inherited since the sibilants don't quite work, and *mc´ is an un-Uralic cluster.

> > If you're talking about ALL the words (not just *lama), the least
> > problematic proposal is to keep them separate so far.
>
> Yes, that is what I am talking about. Standard procedure in cases where words can't be united within the established sound laws for a given language family, but they are too close phonetically and semantically not to be related somehow is to ascribe them to a substrate.

Feel free to substantiate this claim of "too close to not be related" at any time.

> > > > It's not "alternation", it's a regular dialectal development
> > > > l > v.
> > >
> > > It's not "is", it's "has been proposed to be"
> > >
> >
> > Using "is" for statements of estabilish'd theory is perfectly
> > acceptable. "The Earth is the third planet from the Sun, its mean
> > distance from the Sun is 1.5*10^8 km, and its mass is 6*10^24 kg".
> >
>
> Not in a situation in which a theory, established or not, is being discussed, where it amounts to bias.

We're not discussing Komi dialectology, we're discussing substratal etymology.

> Anyway, Pekkanen has some data which might corroborate the scenario you mentioned.

(...)

> Pekkanen has earlier identified the Sulones as Suiones. That means that the Fenni were the eastern neighbors of the Suiones on the Baltic coast east of the Vistula, ie the Aestii might have been the Baltic Finns, later migrating north under pressure from the Balts arriving from further south, cf. the exonym Eesti.
>
> Torsten

Those are Proto-Baltic-Finnic / Pre-Permic times. The Vepsian/Karelian ("Ladogan") expansion and the separation of the Komis from the Udmurts date to about a millennia later.

Saarikivi does mention western loans into Pre-Permic or Proto-Permic too (*kansa is one example, also eg Gmc *hooka > BF kookka "hoe" > Permic *kok), but that's still too late here, and doesn't account for the absense of *lama in Udmurt.

John Vertical