Re: Early Indo-European loanwords preserved in Finnish

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- 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.
>

Why would this word have been taken into Uralic without the suffix,
rather than with one or another form of this suffix? I don't see how
the former option is any more probable than the latter.