Re: Finnish KASKI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKI


> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:51:01 -0000, "jouppe"
> <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
> >I can also give you a good regular one:
> >
> >Finno-Ugric /s/ Samoyed /t/
> >
> >Material:
> >*sålå (UEW sala) 'to steal; (fi.) stealth hidden, secret' || Samoj t-
> >*sårkå (UEW sarka) 'crotch, branch (fi. > gusset > strip)' || Samoj t-
> >*suksï (UEW sukse) 'ski' || Samoj- t-
> >*kåxsï (UEW kuse/kose) 'spruce, fir' || Samoj Selkup qu:t Taigi kat
> >etc.
> >
> >Diachroically */s/ is reconstructed for Proto-Uralic.
>
> Yes, but I wonder whether that can be correct, given that
> the Ugric reflex of PU */s/ is PUgr */þ/. I can buy one
> unusual development (s > t in Samoyed), but two (s > þ in
> Ugric) seems a bit too much.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...


***

First, I want to thank everyone for the data they provided in response to my
statement that *s does not become *t.

Some of it missed the point, and that is probably my fault.

My attempted point was that Parent Language A *s does not become Daughter
Language *t.

The fact that two Daughter Languages (*t and *s) have differently treated a
Parent Language *Þ for example has no relevance to the point I was making.

And *Þ cannot be considered a substitute for the *t that I do _not_ expect.

The data above seems to prove me wrong if Proto-Uralic */s/ becomes Samoyed
*/t/ but is it certain that the relationship between the two is that
straightforward.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the other direction of change: */t/ ->
*/s/.


Patrick