From: Rick McCallister
Message: 56085
Date: 2008-03-28
> 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 speks for itself.
>
> Jouppe
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> >
> > 2) How do you argue such a development by analogy
> against language
> > universal developments? (Here you should be at
> ease, you have 6000+
> > languages to chose from, and I only know a dozen
> of them).
> >
> > Jouppe
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > What do you mean ?
> >
> > This is completely irrelevant
> > for the current issue about PU ?
> >
> > 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
>
>