I do not recognize this Finnish über alles dogma at all.
If you take a glimps on my homepage
http:/koti.welho.com/jschalin/prefinnic.htm you will find numerous
cases where Finnish (often Finnic as well, sometimes Finno-Permic as
a whole ) is the irregular odd man out, namely:
hapsi, hiha, huhmar, hyypi-, hähnä, joki, jälki, järvi, kaksi, kuusi,
kuusi, köysi, mela, nainen, peukalo, pimeä, poika, polvi, pysyä,
saivar, sappi, sarvi, seisoa, setä, sieni, sislisko, sonsar, as well
as: sulka 'feather', talvi 'winter', tammi 'oak', vaski 'metal',
viisi 'five'. I draw attention to the fact that flora and fauna is
overrepresented in these and other problematic irregular etymologies.
Where I do agree is that the number of fully acceptable etymologies
is falling due to stricter criteria. Also entries on the above
subpage of my homepage (I am not here referring to the page on IE-
borrowings) will disappear over time. As a result the reconstruction
will become more reliable, not less reliable. IE-borrowings are also
often irregular, and some of the words may be referred to that
category over time.
I also agree that research operates with a strange time lag. Some
etymologies which would never pass today's criteria are dragged along
since they have been there for so long. This also relates to a few
loan etymologies.
I also agree that for some features the reconstruction of Proto-
Uralic does rely on the conservatism of Baltic-Finnic vocalism, and
true the second syllable stem-vowel is a case in point. These
considerations are however methodologically determined and subject to
objective scrutiny by the international research community as a
whole. They are no Finnish inventions.
The idea that Finnic would have added second syllble stem vowels ad
hoc to formerly monosyllable stems seems very excentric
or "innovative" to say the least, especially considering that the
opposite development for the same time period is well documented:
Finnic made Pre-Finnic disyllabic stems monosyllabic by vowel
contraction after omission of 1) semivowels, 2) the velar nasal and
3) the laryngeal. I will not use the word pseudo-science until I hear
where Arnaud took this idea and how he argues such a development by
analogy against language universal developments?
Jouppe
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> >
> > > ==========
> >
> > Linguistics is not about "I don't think". Its about science.
> > Parallells and analogies:
> > In Finnish the stem has some of the following meanings: myö-tä
> > is 'with'. myö-tä-tuuli is 'wind from behind' and myö-hemmin
> > is 'later'.
> > ==========
> > ok
> > It's the usual theorem "Finnish ueber alles"
> > "It's true in Finnish, hence it's true for all PU".
> >
> > I disagree...
> > Arnaud
>
> You're implying that Jouppe is a German nationalist and therefore
> you're right? It's true in Estonian too. It's true in PIE too, for
> that matter, the *xant- root is a noun in Hittite and a
> pre-/postposition/preverb in a case form elsewhere in IE.
>
> Torsten
>
> ============
> I suppose my assessment of PIE and PU
> is no surprise.
> I have already stated that I think PIE studies
> have a strong central-PIE bias,
> whereby supposedly PIE reconstructions are
> often pre-central-PIE reconstructions.
> The worst example of that bias is probably
> M. Carrasquer Vidal's theory of Pre-PIE vowels.
> A central PIE innovation projected in the past
> of PIE common stage !! Wow.
>
> As regards PU, the situation is worse than with PIE
> because standard uralicists work *without*
> any methodology and Finnish look-alike
> reconstructoids are held to be PU proto-forms.
>
> My wording taken from the German Hymn
> describes my judgment about Finnish reconstructoids
> People obsessed with autochthony at all costs
> (we got some dark-siders from India)
> are suspect, I want
> N--ot
> S--o
> D--ark
> A
> P--roto-Uralic
>
> This is my point of view.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===========
>