--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> ===================
> I'm afraid you are unaware
> that Finnish is *not* Uralic
Yes I am unaware of that. It seems pointless to discuss Uralistics
with somebody holding that opinion. It reveals a lot about your
approach for someone knowledgable.
But for the benefit of many readers: you have earlier claimed that
mainstream PU reconstructions are "Pre-Finnic" modified/improved.
Well I hate to brake it, most of the phonotactic rules of PU that I
have been explaining to you do not apply to Finnish, because Finnish
has changed under influence of IE languages.
>
> Word skin :
> Reference word : PIE kuHti
> kuHt-i > Moksha ked'
> kuHt > kuor > Finnish kuori.
> The -i- is a late addition in Finnish
> and in Mordvin it must be early.
It would be easier to follow your point if you were using different
symbols for substitutions and developments.
I take it that you mean *kuHt => *kuor > fi kuori ???
This is not possible. First of all fi. -uo- is attested in the 16th
century as older -oo-. Estonian still uses -oo- for fi -uo-. You
cannot reconstruct **-uo- here.
The word in Mordvinic, which is a genetic parallell to kuori is kar'
not ked'.
And t => r is not a known substitution rule for IE loans. I refer to
151 etymologies at
http://koti.welho.com/jschalin/lexiconie.htm.
Can you give two parallells?
Jouppe