From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53859
Date: 2008-02-21
> Popular encyclopedia have their point of view; Orelhttp://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
> & Stolbova had theirs.
>
> I prefer Afrasian myself but O&S had principled
> (whether right or wrong)
> reasons for their terminology.
>
> Actually, as I get into their work, my disdain has
> ebbed significantly.
>
> IMHO, they did a much better job with difficult
> material than I thought
> before studying it in greater detail.
>
> I am approximately 80% through my first pass for
> PIE-PA cognates.
>
> Anyone interested in my progress:
>
>
>=== message truncated ===
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Early Indo-European loanwords
> preserved in Finnish
>
>
> > I found the term Semito-Hamitic telling. By 1970
> or
> > so, popular encyclopedias such as Funk & Wagnalls
> were
> > already using Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian and
> explaining
> > how outdated S-H was.
> >
> >
> > --- jouppe <jouppe@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Very funny story ;) The problem with it is, that
> the
> > > point Helimski
> > > is trying to make contradicts completely what we
> > > know about lexical
> > > borrowings in more modern times. Things happen
> when
> > > words are
> > > borrowed and there are plenty of uncontested
> > > analogies for the
> > > methodology applied. There is no reason to
> believe
> > > that borrowings
> > > would have followed other rules in the past >
> more
> > > follows below
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> > > <swatimkelkar@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.christopherculver.com/ignorance/?p=65
> > > >
> > > > Helimski thinks this is entirely without
> > > foundation, and offers the
> > > > following mirthful dialogue to illustrate
> this:"
> > >
> > > > M. Kelkar
> > > >
> > >
> > > The ridiculing story has been published in
> > > Helimski's article in
> > > Carpelan, Christian; Parpola, Asko &
> Koskikallio,
> > > Petteri (eds.):
> > > Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European:
> > > Linguistic and
> > > Archeological Considerations. Helsinki (Mémoires
> de
> > > la Societé Finno-
> > > Ougrienne *242*) 2001: 201ff. The whole volume
> is
> > > described well in
> > > the internet at
> > > http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-934.html
> > >
> > > Since I am in possession of the source I may
> share
> > > with you also the
> > > response by Jorma Koivulehto to that story and
> to
> > > the 5 introductory
> > > charges it strives to illustrate (same book page
> > > 251f). I have
> > > expanded the bibliographic references and added
> two
> > > ortographic
> > > remarks. I have written it by hand so any
> > > misspellings or errors are
> > > on my account. Italics are ignored.
> > >
> > > Quote
> > > I hope the readers of this volume had a good
> laugh
> > > at my expense
> > > while reading the fictional scene staged by
> Eugene
> > > Helimski in order
> > > to ridicule my etymology. Seriously speaking,
> > > however, there is no
> > > substance in Helimski's criticism. Anything can
> be
> > > borrowed, provided
> > > that the contacts are intensive enough (Laakso,
> > > Johanna 1999,
> > > Language contact hypotheses and the history of
> > > Uralic morphosyntax.
> > > Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 88: page
> 62);
> > > and words for
> > > means of locomotion are especially likely to be
> > > borrowed, unless
> > > there is an acceptable autochthonous etymology,
> > > which is not the case
> > > here. The constant flow of lexical borrowings
> from
> > > Indo-European to
> > > Finno-Ugric accounts for the fact that no
> ancient
> > > common Uralic or
> > > Finno-Ugric term for `boat' has been preserved
> (at
> > > least not in
> > > westerly Finno-Ugric languages), although the
> object
> > > itself was, as
> > > an `Einbaum', well known in early Uralic times
> and
> > > for a long time
> > > before. - The method chosen by Helimski only
> shows
> > > that he has run
> > > out of serious arguments.
> > > Since Helimski has also chosen to attack my
> > > etymological research in
> > > general and to reject my results wholesale, I am
> > > obliged to deal with
> > > his accusation in brief.
> > > - Charge number 1: Lexical scope: My loan
> > > etymologies contain almost
> > > as many verbs and adjectives as nouns; and, more
> > > generally, my loan
> > > etymologies contain words for elementary objects
> and
> > > actions. - This
> > > charge is invalidated by the widely-known fact
> that
> > > "in the case of
> > > very intensive language contacts, practically
> > > anything can be
> > > borrowed, from words to affixes and structures"
> > > (Laakso 1999: 62).
> > > Unfortunately, this basic fact that has
> controlled
> > > and verified by
> > > numerous cases from more recent languages, seems
> to
> > > be ignored by
> > > researchers working on Nostratic premises.
> Actually,
> > > this is quite
> > > understandable: early loans _must_ be rejected
> > > because they threaten
> > > the Nostratic positions which presuppose that
> the
> > > words concerned are
> > > genetically related, Nostratic words. It would
> also
> > > be interesting to
> > > know which of the many adjectives claimed by
> > > Helimski really are
> > > covered in my paper published her. Among the 56
> > > cases I can find only
> > > the following three: *sera `old, aged' (no. 48),
> > > *paksu `thick, fat,
> > > dense' (no 52), *acnas {the c here carries a
> > > v-shaped hat in the
> > > source/Jouppe} `greedy, voracious' (no. 53), all
> of
> > > them are Proto-
> > > Iranian loans (additionally there is Finn.
> kalvas,
> > > kalpea `pale',
> > > which is only hinted at in connection with Saami
>