Re: Uralic Continuity Theory ; Paleo-Germanic lexical borrowings in

From: tgpedersen
Message: 53992
Date: 2008-02-22

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
> Comments below:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > but for you,
> > > which seems to me like a logically thinking person, I shall
> > > provide two solid references:
> >
> > Oh, there is still hope for me.
> - - - - - -
> Is it a common habit on this discussion site to turn cranky when you
> disagree on something?

No, it's only me. Everyone else here is real nice and friendly, as you
will learn if you hang around long enough.


> What is your problem?
> Jouppe

I am being persecuted. Every time I tell the list how things really
are, they contradict me and offer solutions which are obviously wrong.
It is insufferable.


>
> It is simply a futile uphill task to deny Germanic-Finnic/Saami
> language contact during the two last millenia BC.

That sounds bad. Good thing I haven't done that then.

> There is far too much 'explaining away' to be done. But feel free to
> try. I am just informing you where research stands right now on
> Finnish etymology (may be I am underestimating the readers here,
> maybe some of you know this research, just that from what I read I
> reckon most of you don't).

I recognized some of the etymologies. We might have discussed them here.


> Again I state my belief that challenging properly published
> mainstream research is not doable on a chat board, you need to take
> on the ph.d. guys at a university with a proper dissertation or with
> a massive and scientifically convincing monograph.
> Jouppe

Ouch. There must be an easier way.

> - - - - - - - - - -
> > > You will also find a Ph.D. dissertation of high quality
> > > dedicated solely to the subject of Germanic loans in Baltic
> > > Finnic by feeding 'Tette Hofstra Ostseefinnisch' into Google.
> > > Even if the research is lacking material discovered since 1985,
> > > it is very useful on discussing criteria for the dating of
> > > Bronze and Iron age loans.
> >
> > Thank you. I looked them up on the national library service
> > instead. Those sources Piotr used to refer me poor misguided soul
> > to were also invariably excellent and of high quality. Don't
> > worry. I know the men in the white suits are here to help me.
> - - - - - - - - - - -
> I was holding your approach in high regard until know, even if I
> disagreed with some views, but this here is a paranoid reaction,

No no, I am actually being persecuted! They disagree all the time!

> such which is typical when running out of arguments.
> Jouppe

True. I ran out of arguments when you referred me to those two books.

> >
> > > You may have fun looking at the entry 'mato' engl. 'moth' at my
> > > homepage. This is an excellent etymology by Petri Kallio. Enjoy.
> > >
> >
> > I did, at
> > http://koti.welho.com/jschalin/lexiconie.htm
> > and had fun reading:
> > moth
> > Fi. mato 'worm' < PreF *mac^a-/*mac^o- >
> Saami muohci,
> > muohcu 'moth'
> > Sw. mott 'moth' <~ Early PIr *matsa >
> Pashto ma:šay <
> > *ma:sijaka 'moskito'
> > Gmc. *muþþo:- <- borrowed from Proto-Saami ~>
> OInd. mas´a-ka,
> > mas´a- 'moskito, gadfly'
> > Gmc. not cognate to Indo-Iranian or Baltic (cf.
> upper right)
> > Lith. ma:ša-la 'gnat, black fly'
> >
>
>
> > Torsten
> >
> - - - - - - - - -
> Just to say that the Swedish cognates on my homepage are placed
> there for reference only. The "lesser than" sign "<" is accompanied
> by a <~ in order to avoid the implication that Swedish would derive
> from the same original as Finnic, here early Proto-Iranian.

What exactly do you mean by ~> ?

> In the case of Sw 'mott' < gmc *muþþo:- which in turn is borrowed
> from Proto-Saami.

So the the origin of Eng. moth, Germ. Motte is Saami? That's
controversial.

> Again I used too much of my time, and you don't even seem to need my
> help.
> Jouppe

I ordered those books, and I even plan reading in them. Thanks for the
advice.


Actually what I criticize is this:

Typical approach: Researcher NN finds a root in PGerm. that is similar
to a root in PFinn. (or vice versa). Why are they similar? If it's a
loan, there are three logical possibilities

1) PGerm. -> PFinn.

2) PGerm. <- PFinn.

3) Some unknown language X -> PGerm., PFinn.

Invariably, NN chooses 1).

Why?


Torsten