* Re: Push (3)

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

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
>
> Here are some nice complications for you to ponder:
> Jorma Koivulehto
> The Earliest Contacts between IE and Uralic Speakers
> '18. Finn. pohta-, inf. pohtaa 'to winnow' < *po(w)Å¡-ta- (-ta- is a
> normal verbal [causative] suffix)
> ...
> 30. Mordvin ponžavtoms 'to winnow' < *punše-kta- (-kta- is a normal
> verbal [causative] suffix)
> < ? PIE *puneH-/*punH- > OInd. puná:ti / punánti 'cleans, winnows /
> they clean, winnow'; *u > o is regular in Mordvin. (Koivulehto
> 1991: 93.)
>
> ========
>
> ponz^a-ft- /-vt- (Moksha/Erzia)
> I disagree that u could ever become o in Mordvin.
> And it's also clear that you could never derive ponz^a-(ft-) from
> *puneH
> (what PIE is this ??)
>
> Moksha o usually derive from long vowels like a? o? or ow-, ob- or
> oN
> A variant of puw-a "to blow" like pow-n/m-c^-a-kt- can make it.

> There's no particular reason to think this is a LW.
> It can be explained with Uralic material.

You posit a variant with o since u > o cant happen i Uralic and then
you claim it's all Uralic? That doesn't make sense.

> Koivulehto, like everybody else who proposes loan connections
> between IE and Uralic languages, make the unwarranted assumption
> that loans are always from (the more developed) IE to (the less
> developed) Uralic language
> Torsten
>
> =======
>
> You probably fail to remember I clearly stated

You mean you proposed it, right? If you insist on behaving like le
président de la République giving orders to a bunch of chtis, you will
get responses you didn't expect.

> that Germanic has
> quite a lot of (often archaic-looking) Uralic LWs.
> Handi from *kam-t- "hand"
> etc.

Like Schrijver a long time ago.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21865

> And there is no particular reason IE languages were more developped
> than URalic languages

That idea was implied to be the idea of other scholars, not mine as I
thought was clear from the quote.

> if you accept the idea that PIE split earlier than - 4000 BC.

Only you do.

> And if you agree on early LWs, then you'll have problems with the
> location of Germanic...

I won't have problems with early Uralic loans in Germanic if I assume
Proto-Germanic was spoken in Silesia and some Uralic language in the
neighborhood.


Torsten