From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 56048
Date: 2008-03-27
----- Original Message -----
From: jouppe
>
> > ===============
> >
> You answered none of my two questions:
>
> 1) Where did you take the idea that Finnic would have added second
> syllble stem vowels ad hoc to formerly monosyllable stems?
> Jouppe
> =============
>
> I took it from Uralic data :
- - - - - - - - -
I take this to mean that you take all the credit for your
reconstructions yourself. No reference to litterature?
Jouppe
- - - - - - - - -
What is the use of reading the litterature
when you have come to the conclusion
that is irrelevant, wrong and flawed ?
Arnaud
==============
==============
- - - - - - - - -
Here is the complete data for your "monosyllabic" PFU
stem 'house'(with some simplification of vowel translitteration):
Finnish: kota (koti)
Saami: goatte
Ersä: kudo
Moksha: kud
Mari (mountain): kud@
Mari (plain): kudo
Permic (Udmurt): kwala, kowa, kwa, -ka
Permic (Komi): kola, kë, këv, -kë, -ko, -ka, -ku
Ostyak: kat, xot, xat
Hungarian: ház
The material speaks for itself.
Jouppe
- - - - - - - - -
What do you conclude for that ?
Arnaud
============
Omission is a more likely development in the view of language
universals that additions. The former may be due to simple and common
sound laws called apocope. Additions normally needs some morphologic
element to add (cf. IE root-extensions). The supposition that Finnic
would just add on a meaningless /-i/ for the fun of it, is not in
line with good reconstruction principles. I also refer to the data
above. Finnic is not alone.
There was also no tendency towards disyllabic stems otherwise in
Finnic since many stems contracted to monosyllabic ones at the same
time. What would have propelled the addition of /-i/?
Jouppe
============
I believe that -i is a nominalizing morpheme in PU.
While mo, mi, po, pa are derivational.
Inherently nominal roots do not need -i-
But to clearly demonstrate that,
a complete clean reconstruction is required
this is just my intuition.
Arnaud
==================