Richard,
I want to draw your attention as the moderator to this opponent
Arnaud.
It is difficult to overstate how much off-mainstream his Proto-Uralic
is and there is not one proper Uralist around (including me) to
discuss it, because the forum is of course on Indo-European.
And Arnaud,
With all due respect. You have obviously invested much more of time,
effort and creativity in reconstructing Proto-Sino-Tibeto-Sibero-
Uralo-Altaic than I could imagine in my wildest dreams. You are
aiming at no less than a total paradigm shift. I wish you luck in
your effort, sincerely. It is not me you need to convince, it is the
scholarly community in that field.
If I may ask: should your great effort not deserve a more enlightened
audience than you may get here among simple Indo-Europeanists? It
deserves at least a dissertation presented at a reputable university.
And to Richard again,
Every statement below runs contrary to scholarly consensus on Proto-
Uralic. I will comment them below well knowing that Arnaud
will "refute" me, because I am Finnish.
And lastly wasn't Nostraticism and Eurasiaticism forbidden by the
rules of the forum in the first place? Arnaud has stated that he is
looking for regular sound correspondancies between Uralic and Sino-
Tibetan.
Jouppe
See below:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I hope I have not been unclear:
> all Proto-Uralic stems are disyllabic, i/ï-stems as well as a/ä-
stems.
> Jouppe.
> ===========
> No
> PU had CvC words.
> like
> *nol "bow"
>
> These words with no final vowel
> regularly become Cv in Permic.
> Finnish added -i because it does not allow
> CvC words.
>
> Arnaud
> =================
- - - - - -
Scholarly consensus: All PU lexical stems (excludes pronouns and
particles and may be the verb stem used for negations) were
disyllabic.
Possible reconstructions *n´oXlï or rather *n´ïXlï (*ï would be a
close unrounded back vowel, but this one falls short of consensus)
And by the way the word does not mean "bow". It means "arrow".
Jouppe
- - - - - -
> 'jüvä-' is a plain PU stem. There has never been *jevo- which would
> violate two absloute phonotactic rules in PU: no word stem ends in -
o
> and *e never occurs with a back vowel.
>
> Jouppe
> =================
> Wrong
>
> Summer is "gitso"
> Nail is "gudmitsho"
>
> Arnaud
> =================
>
These two words are unknown to me, but
1) final -o is impossible in Uralic
2) i and o/u in the same stem violates vowel harmony, impossible.
3) the latter word is trisyllabic, -tsho is no known suffix,
impossible reconstruction
4) the initial consonant **g- seem to claim that PU had voiced
stops, which it had not
5) The same goes for **-d- unless it is a fricative
6) the cluster **-ts- is unattested in PU, most certainly
phonotactically impossible because Pre-Iranian (as attested by
Nuristani) -ts- was substituted by -ks- in Pre-Finnic (*-teksä <
*detsa 'ten'). I can not come to think of any allowed
cluster /stop+m/ either, and I am too lazy to check this from the
litterature because the reconstructions are not worth the effort.
Jouppe