Re: Limigantes

> > > Let me see if I got this straight: you (not I) introduced the
> > > subject of a possibly non-Uralic substrate to Western Uralic,
> >
> > No, your original message included both IE and Uralic words.
>
> Yes, and then you introduced the subject of a possibly non-Uralic substrate to Western Uralic

So am I reading this right:
"Yes, I included some Uralic words that may be of substratal origin in the original post, and then you introduced the topic of Uralic words that may be of substratal origin."

Or are you pointing to a distinction between substrate words common to all Uralic, and substrate words limited to West Uralic? Or between substrate words from a possibly extinct Uralic origin, and from a possibly non-Uralic origin? I don't see how those would be relevant. They're still non-IE.

>and then you wanted to move the discussion to another forum because of that.
>
> > > and then you tell me that because you did that I'm morally
> > > obliged to move off this forum? Nice.
> >
> > I suggested *us* taking *this* discussion to a forum specifically
> > suited for the topic it had turn'd to.
>
> The discussion stayed on the same topic while it broached the subject of a possibly non-Uralic substrate to Western Uralic.

Still, the original topic also being substrates, it would have fit on the Substratum list anyway...

But yes, if the rest of the list doesn't mind, I don't personally have a problem with continuing here.

> > Your reply was to accuse
>
> That was not an accusation but an observation.

You seem to have managed to observe something that wasn't there, then.

> > me of ulterior motives, which, yes, I did find hostile.
> > Where does this "you want me to leave the forum!" strawman come
> > from?
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> It comes from my history in this forum which is older than yours.

You mean that if there are others on this forum who want you to leave, I must want you to leave as well?

> > You said (in the upmost quote there) that you were talking in
> > general about what the procedure for words that ARE too close to
> > not be related is, not that you claim this for your initial
> > wordlist.
>
> I said that I was talking in general about what the procedure for words that are too close to not be related is, which, since I have claimed that is the case for the words my initial wordlist, would also be the procedure for that.

Okay, that puts us back in square one then: what's your evidence for the claim of the words being too close to not be related? As in, what convinced you of this?

> > > And you haven't even told me what you mean by 'substantiate'.
> >
> > I meant the general sense. Present evidence for, argue for,
> > support somehow.
>
> A definition so loose that it is empty. With that you could make me go through various genuflections of your choice

No, you're free to pick how to defend yourself.

> until you declared yourself satisfied

Yes, that's how arguments work: they continue as long as there is disagreement (and interest in the argument).

> which of course would never happen.

Wrong. You've observed "JV has so far never been satisfied with my arguments" - the correct generalization is not "JV will never be satisfied with an argument I make", but "JV will never be satisfied by the kind of arguments I have been making so far".

You may have noticed I've even been telling you some examples of arguments I would be convincible with.

> > > > The difference between you and Saarikivi is that he points
> > > > out possible loan originals and explains why the attested
> > > > words are derivable from them.
> > >
> > > Of course, since his donor language has living relatives. Mine
> > > doesn't.
> >
> > Yes, but that doesn't allow you to skip the stage where you
> > identify possible loan originals.
>
> You can't point out items in a non-existent corpus.

Of course not. The point is that, to demonstrate the loaning of a specific word from a specific substrate, you should be able to reconstruct the possible loan original(s) *without recourse to the word you are attempting to explain*. Otherwise, the argument is circular. And, importantly, this includes the semantics.

> > For one thing, your "possible derivations" did not in any way
> > predict that there should be derivativs with the meaning "soft,
> > weak".
>
> That objection makes no sense; they were phonetic derivations, not
> semantic.

Real languages do not have derivations that are purely phonetic and lack semantics. I recall you've made this precise complaint about PIE root extensions several times.

> > > I've already walked you through the details of
> > > possible derivations from it one long exchange, as everyone
> > > knows. Why do you insist on being thick?
> >
> > As everyone also knows - if we're going to start making appeals
> > to common knoledge ;) - your walkthrus have been most
> > unconvincing.
>
> As everyone also knows, you are in the habit of when out of facts to appeal to a consensus you don't bother to document.

(As everyone also knows, and as that smiley attempted to draw attention to, appeal to consensus is not a valid argument to begin with.)

> > > > (which means you need systematical similarities, not just
> > > > look-alike similarities),
> > >
> > > all the examples I provided can be derived from *λaN- by the
> > > rules I've already given; the question of why each one has its
> > > particular shape I can't answer
> >
> > And therein lies the problem. You would need to answer that
> > question.
>
> No I won't. No one else does. Cf.
> Pokorny
> 'eregw(h)o-, erogw(h)o- ,Erbse, Hülsenfrucht'.

Bad example; it is indeed apparent from the lack of regularity that this is not a good reconstruction (as you say, it may well be a loanword rather than a PIE root).

A good example would be how Proto-Germanic *niwjaz, *je:ram regularly predict English "new", "year" (or Latin "novus" predicts Spanish "nuevo", or Finno-Ugric *ooDi-ta predicts Finnish "vuotta", etc.)

> > For example, how would you derive the Mari-Komi-Khanty
> > #lä(n)c´i "weak"?
>
> Something like
> *λaN- -> *laN- -> *laŋ- -> *laŋk-
> -> + -i, laŋk-i- -> *lä(n)ći
>
> but since this development would have taken place in an undocumented substrate language, it would be wise of me to follow Pokorny's example and refrain from making a guess like that.

If you admit that to be only a guess (ie. you have no hard evidence for the existence of developments like ŋ > ŋk, or a suffix -i), then I guess this word is after all *not* too close to *λaN- to not be related.

> > The beef I have with your theory is in the methodology, not
> > in the results per se.
>
> Exactly. And while I make a fool of myself in the rat maze you designed for me, you'll make off with my results.

Wait, what? You mean you refuse to explain your results clearly, because you fear others would steal them then? Oh hello there, paranoia.

(But I cannot understand why would you talk anything about your ideas in the first place of that's the case...)

> > > > (BTW *lauSa at least has been compared to Germanic
> > > > *lausaz.)
> > >
> > > With 'derivation' and/or phonetic statistics?
> >
> > With regular phonetic correspondence. No need for any
> > morphological adjustments.
> >
> > (So phonetic statistics, really.
>
> So, no phonetic statistics, that's right.
>
> > It's clear even without a detailed calculation that two
> > semantically close words having the same CVCCV phonetic shape by
> > accident is unlikely.
>
> Oh, is it. So it's okay that whoever proposed the FP(?)

Just Baltic Finnic - the Samic and Mordvinic words do not correspond regularly (expected: **luovse, **laZo) and are best explained thru loaning from BF or independantly from Gmc.

(IMO the best choice is Gmc > S, BF > Mo, as there are plenty of Gmc-S comparisions but just about no Gmc-Mo that wouldn't also have a BF counterpart.)

> *lauSa / Germanic *lausaz doesn't do phonetic statistics on the word, but I should? Different standards, in other words.

No. We can consider it a previously proven result that a 5-segment match is unlikely to be chance. We don't need to prove that again every time.

(I'm not sure if this actually was rigorously proven before it was put to use, but again, it's fairly obvious if you understand something about statistics and linguistics.)

What I don't think has been calculated, nor seems immediately obvious, is the probability of having two dozen-ish different roots having one-and-a-half-segment agreement (plus what other boundary conditions you may have).

And I'm not saying you *should* do that calculation, I'm saying I would be convinced if you *would* and the result came out around "unlikely".

> > > I meant that you shouldn't refer to the contents of a set
> > > of proposals (in your words 'a theory') by *is* since that
> > > implies existence.
> >
> > No, it only implies acceptance of the theory,
>
> You are insane. Things don't *is* just because you say so.
>
> > as long as we are discussing worldly matters and not pure logic.
>
> No, especially in worldly matters this is an important epistemo-ontological point: things don't come into existence because you say they should.

Wait, I think I see where the problem is. When I say "l > v is a regular dialectal soundlaw in Komi", that is not something I just made up on the spot, it is a result that has been estabilish'd by previous research and I'm only alluding to.

If you want a source, I'm getting this from R. Bartens' _Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys_.

> 'Zero grade' implies ablaut which entails IE- (or Kartvelian-) ness.

Any suggestions for a better term? "Apparent pretonic vowel loss" is a bit long.

> > > > For _glesum_ an origin from PIE *ghel- "glitter, yellow" seems
> > > > much better than an Uralic origin.
> > >
> > > I disagree. It would leave *käl- an orphan
> >
> > What do you mean by "orphan"? It has been reconstructed all the
> > way to Proto-Uralic,
> UEW kälɜ 1 '(geronnenes) Blut' U
> > which should be sufficient.
>
> So has > UEW kälɜ 2 '(versumpfter) See, Bucht' FU, ? U
> They look like they would like a family reunion.

I disagree. They're quite far off semantically. The 2nd looks better associated with PU *kälä- "to ford".

Anyway, do I notice correctly you changed your mind on that "glesum" is to be linked with a Uralic *käl- root not because it means "something that has coagulated", but because it means "something associated with beaches"?

> > > and Slavic glaz- "eye" would be stranded semantically.
> > >
> > > As I wrote, I think the original sense is "sea beach flotsam,
> > > dead jellyfish, semi-transparent gunk (> vitreous body of the
> > > eye)".
> >
> > With the evidence being?
>
> It is a semantic reconstruction.

Based on what exactly? I still see no reflexes referring to flotsam or dead jellyfish.

> It should therefore fulfill the demand of being derivable to the semantics of the descendants of the reconstructed *gl-áN-s etc, which it does.
>
> > I'm not aware of any *ghel- words with meanings like that; only
> > meanings like "yellow, golden".
>
> Venetic, so I count on *gel- (no Grimm).

Ah I see, Venetic treats aspirates a la Italic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic#Phonology

But that's only about the Venetic from Mediterranean. How sure are you that that holds for your northern Venetic as well?

> > *käl- doesn't mean any of that either.
>
> 1 "coagulated blood", 2 "(overgrown) lake, bay"

Yep, and that list does not include anything like "sea beach flotsam, dead jellyfish, semi-transparent gunk (> vitreous body of the eye)".

> > *gel- "to freeze" doesn't seem to help either.
>
> Think "coagulate".

I can accept linking that to the Uralic "blood clot", perhaps also the Slavic "eye". I don't see how this cluster links to all these yellow, golden, amber words however. Didn't you just say the Baltic natives did not understand amber being fossilized, ie. coagulated resin?

> > > > *käl- "blood clot" does not occur in Baltic Finnic or any
> > > > other southern Uralic branch,
> > >
> > > It occurs in Saami.
> >
> > Which is not in contact with Baltic.
>
> As you said, it has been reconstructed for Uralic.

Yes. PU was not in contact with Baltic either, so no help there.

> > I see no reason why Venetic would have substituted g-.
>
> But Uralic could have substituted k-.

So now you're switching from "Venetic got the root from Uralic" to "Uralic got the root from something that also transmitted it to Venetic"? That wrecks your linguistic argument for an Uralic component behind the Aestii.

> > > > This is far off from the standard view. For starters, if
> > > > the speakers of Proto-Baltic-Finnic were the Aestii, then the
> > > > Vepses and Karelians descend from them, rather than being
> > > > contemporary with them.
>
> Other possibilites:
> 1) the Aestii spoke (initially) *a* Baltic Finnic language
> 2) the Veps and Karelians were driven out by arriving Aestii occupying Finland and Eesti.

> > ****R Aren't Veps and Karelian closer to Finnish than Estonian?
> >
>
> Dammit, you're right.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages

Oh my. You've been making proposals about the Vepses and the Karelians without knowing who and where they are?

> How about this then:
>
> Southern Baltic Finnic (Estonian, South Estonian, Võro, Livonian
> and Votic) are the old Aesti, having in their present territories
> replaced
> Northern Baltic Finnic (Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian proper, Lude,
> Olonets Karelian, Veps), pushing them north and east?

I'm aware of no reason to think V&K ever were in Finland/Estonia. The standard position is to place their origin near Lake Ladoga. Likewise, I'm aware of no evidence for anything like Southern BF having displaced Northern BF.

(BTW, these are areal groupings, not genetic. Genetically, Võro split first, Livonian 2nd. Veps may be the 3rd but this is less clear.)

> > > > The point is that, linguistically, they are entirely Baltic
> > > > Finnic, and thus they must postdate Proto-BF.
> > >
> > > Who 'they' now?
> > >
> >
> > The Vepsians and the Karelians.
>
> The Vepsian and Karelian loans, you mean.
>
>
> Torsten

No, I don't, I mean the Vepsian and Karelian people. Loanwords do not get driven out by invasions, people do.

For the record, I don't think there is any hard linguistic evidence placing the late loans into Permic/Komi as being from Karelian/Veps specifically; that assignment is only because we have no evidence of any other BF languages that far east.

John Vertical