Re: * Re: Push (3)

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> ========
>
> 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.

=========
I stated that there is a root (STD UEW) *puwe
The reflex of that root in Moksha is ufa-ms "to blow".
It has u < (STD) u
This reflex is not listed in UEW, but it should.
The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.
I won't discuss what the reconstruction should be.
LEt's just see that u in puwe is u in ufams
For that reason ponz^aft-öms with u can hardly have the same vowel as ufams.

And if you believe like some other guys that PIE invented vowel ablaut,
then you are wrong.
For example one more example in Eskimo,
ciiR-naq "to be sour" with -i-
caR-ayak "to get spoiled (food)"
All these theories about pre-Ablaut whatever are absurd.

A.
=====

> 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.

========
Your statement above is wrong
I have long ago suggested that LWs are not just one way.

Example :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50077

A.
=======


> 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

======
yes and no,
I think this "language of geminate" is basically useless.
It can be discarded.
It's northern river-side nephelococcygian.

A.
======

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

Only you do.

======
There are about 20 theories about PIE split and spread.
the split in - 4 000 is the more recent of all.
A.
=======

> 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
====

What a bold theory !
Fifty years of reading to reach this conclusion. wow.
At the time proto-Germanic was spoken, Yenissei was flowing in Silesia, you
know.
Silesia must have been bigger than now.

A.