Re: Indo-Uralic?

Why is it by the way that you reconstruct PU **nohu 'woman'?

Mainstream reconstruction is PU *näXi- > Pre-Finnic *naXi-

You should always by means of method respect the internal evidence
before you start coupling up words with hypothetic remote relatives.
Otherwise you will enter the circular evidence route.

Jouppe

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
> Below into text:
> Jouppe
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > PU *nohu "woman" has nothing to do with PIE *gw_n
> > > and has to be compared with :
> > > Sino-tibetan noh "woman"
> > > Chinese nü3 "woman"
> > > Tibetan mnah "a bride"
> > > and you can see that Salish has *nexw "woman"
> > >
> > > Refuted.
> > >
> > > Arnaud
> > ------------
> > 'has to be compared with' is utterly ambiguous. Do you mean loans
or
> > are you establishing cognates here? In either case you have to
> > postulate a lot of speculative presuppositions.
> >
> > Jouppe
> > ------------
> >
> > I don't think "has to be" is ambiguous.
> > Whatever the status of Uralic word *nohu "woman"
> > when it comes to Sino-Tibetan or Salish,
> > the structure of Uralic is nicely exhibited
> > by all the other words.
> > And this refutes any connection between nohu
> > and PIE guneH2.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ==========
> ------
> So you try to establish proper genetic correspondancies according
to
> the comparative method or not?
> You know this has been tried in vain for over a century. A new
> attempt should be the subject of a dissertation, not a chat board
> discussion.
> Jouppe
> -------
> > The reconstruction like pseudo-Finnish kesä is worse than bad.
> > Moksha is kiza : impossibly derivable from this thing **kesä
> >
> > ------------
> > Finnish 'pesä' is Moksha 'piza'
> > Jouppe
> > ------------
> > So what ?
> > Finnish e and Moksha i correspond.
> > These languages are close relatives.
> > I'd be grateful if you add meanings to the words.
> > It means "nest"
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ===============
>
> ---------
> So Moksha kiza 'summer, year' is therefore "derivable from this
> thing" *kesä. Thank you for admitting it.
> Jouppe
> ---------
>
> > ------------
> > Now again we are discussing European languages, like Finno-Permic
> and
> > PIE. What has China and Eastern Eurasia to with it? Pseudoscience
is
> > forbidden by the rules of the forum.
> > Jouppe
> > ------------
> >
> > Uralic originates in Western Siberia
> > Most probably from the Ob and Ienissei Basin.
> >
> > Do you deny this obvious fact ?
>
> The large amount of IE loans, including western ones seems to
> contradict it. But geography is not the subject of linguistics and
i
> will not participate in any discussion here on migrations and
> urheimats.
>
> >
> > Finnish kesä "summer"
> > Moksha kiza
> > Turkish kizdirmak "hot"
> >
> > Finnish pesä "nest"
> > Moksha piza
> > Tungus pubi "nest"
> >
> > It's not pseudo-science.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ========================
> >
>
> As long as you dont apply proper multiple correspondancies i am
> afraid I have no means of excluding that it may be just that. How
> would I know? Throwing isolated word on a chat board prooves no
> relationships in itself.
>
> Jouppe
>