Re: Early Indo-European loanwords preserved in Finnish

----- Original Message -----
From: "gprosti" <gprosti@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 8:08 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Early Indo-European loanwords preserved in Finnish



--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
[Snip]
The "omission" (Helimski: "abscence") of a
> suffix in the source word, as far as I know, very rare in my material
> and easily be accounted for. In no. 10 (*vete) the Indo-European
> counterpart is a heteroclitic -er/-en-stem, but it is obvious that
> this stem has been derived from a root noun *wed- (cf. also Armenian
> get `river').

Is the above Armenian word typically traced to a suffix-less *wed-? (I
recall that the IEW traces it to *wedo:(r).) Is there any other
possible attestation of a root noun that the heteroclitic "water" stem
would have been derived from?

============

I don't think there is any problem with PIE *wed-(or/-en) becoming LW *wed
in Uralic.
Most LWs from IE languages into Uralic languages are rearranged to fit into
Uralic morphology.
The alternation -or/-en makes no sense from the Uralic PofV.

A.