Re: Finnish KASKA

Jouppe,

yes, thank. Very nice indeed.

But was *ü part of PU or did it first come about in Proto-Finnic?

Below, you seem to be saying it was _not_ a part of PU.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "jouppe" <jouppe@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:21 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


Patrick,

As I answered already in another string that /ü/ was part of the
inventory from the start. In a separate posting I have outlined some
descriptions on how /ö/ came about. The process is fundamentally
different from i-umlaut, since vowel harmony per definition extends
much further and occupies the same phonological play ground as german
style i-umlaut. See other posting under same string.

The real reason I write again is to comment on Arnaud's statement
aswell, look below:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> It is precisely Umlaut that is the base of my inquiry.
>
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > Jouppe,
> >
> > let me ask it another way:
> >
> > in your view were *ö and *ü part of the earliest PU vowel
inventory?
> >
> > Patrick

> > =============
> >
> > PU is "standard" Proto-World
> > and had only *a *i *o *u

> > Arnaud
> >
> > ==========

Are you really saying that "Proto-World" is the basis of your Proto-
Uralic reconstruction here, or is it a marvellous coincidence that
you reconstruct the vowel system identically?

What about internal Uralic evidence?

Jouppe