glengordon01@... wrote:
<<You mean that it is *assumed* that these are loans. Unfortunately
for you, there is always the equal (if not greater) possibility
that these "loans" could be "cognates" or "red herrings" instead.>>
I don't assume anything. I'm just repeating some conclusions
reported by the Finnish comparativists. BTW, the estimate given by
Ante Anaikio was that, of roughly 300 reconstructed p-Uralic words,
these borrowings accounted for some 40 words or so. The five
examples
I quoted are not the only basis for the conclusion. I do assume that
the correspondences must show some evidence of a regular pattern of
borrowing and not cognacy, because I must assume that these
comparativists considered the other possibilities you mention.
I quoted:
>p-U *toxi- 'bring, give, sell' < p-IE *doH- 'give'
glengordon01@... replied:
<<How do we substantiate the supposed Uralic *-x-?...
This verb is also present in Yukaghir (/taa-/, if I recall)...
and since Yukaghir is *not* a Uralic language but a language
deemed to be part of a larger Uralic-Yukaghir grouping mentioned
in the Enc.Britt, you will have to throw this particular etymon
away. Here's another interpretation:
ProtoSteppe *t:uxi
Boreal *tuxi
UralicYukaghir *tuxi
Uralic *towi-
Yukaghir /taa->>
My reply:
I believe *toxi- is reconstructed for p-Uralic, so I'm not sure where
*tuwi- comes from. In any case, I'll forward my original post and
your response to Anaikio and perhaps he can shed some light for us on
the supposed Uralic *-x-, etc. Hopefully he'll grace us with a reply.
glengordon01@... also wrote:
<<Now we have the following messy proposal:
*?- (*H1-) => *k
*-h- (*-H1-) => *x
*x (*H2) => *k
Am I the only one that sees the looseness of these equations?
It's almost paradoxical.>>
I am sorry, but am I to understand that you find the correspondences
you give above objectional on some phonological grounds? These are
supposed to be borrowings, so I take it you are saying that these
laryngals could not be borrowed in this pattern. Is that correct?
I also wrote:
>Because the terminus (last unity) of P-U is most often dated from
>no later than 5000 BC (e.g., Hajdu 1975),
glengordon01@... replied:
<<That's funny. I could swear 4000 BCE for Uralic and 5000 BCE for
Uralic-Yukaghir.>>
I cited Hajda for a 5000 BC terminus for p-Uralic because that date
is based on the wide dispersal and geographic separation among
assumed
Uralic populations by that time. The only rationale I've seen for
the 4000BC date is that it somehow locks in with the Ukraine theory of
PIE origin - 5000BC being a difficult date to show material contact
between p-Uralic and the usual candidates.
Regards, Steve Long