Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white peo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > otsa <= *antj- 'forhead'
> > > > maha 'belly'
>
> > > - - - - - - - - - -
> > > *h2entiós does not have **a in the root. It is a colouring of
> > > the e-grade.
> >
> > which is PPIE *a, preserved before and after -x- (h2). But some
> > thing else occurred to me: it should have had *k- as a loan in
> > Fennic. Which it doesn't, so post-PIE loan (post laryngel
> > disappearance anyway.
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The period is different.
> *onc´c´a <= *antja/anthja
> would be from paleogermanic, last part of last millennium BCE.
> Laryngeals were substituted by k some 1500-2500 years earlier.
> Jouppe
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > But
> > look at this:
> >
> > DEO
> > "
> > kant, Sw, Nw, id. "edge", like German Kante borrowed through MLG
> > kant(e), MDu. cant from OFr. cant "corner, hook", from Lat. cantus
> > "iron rail" ... orig. of Gallic orig, corr. cant "wheel rim",
> > Bret. cant "circle"
> > "
> > cf. Kent.
> >
> > The distribution indicates NWBlock, cf Low German Waterkant
> > "waterfront". Pre-IE substrate *kant- > PIE xant-?
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Why not PIE *kant-? The plosive was available?

Because having roots *kant- and *xant- in one language for the
(approx.) same concept is not what a language would do out of the
blue. There must be some explanation.

> Maybe you should
> assume PIE *h2- => substrate *k => Latin k ?
> Jouppe

But some people (eg. Miguel) already assume an alternation k/x (=h2).
It seems reasonable that its predecessor was k. And if that survived
in some substrate, we would be able to unite those two roots. Further,
the Finn. substitution of laryngeals with k would not be a
substitution at all.


Torsten