From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62481
Date: 2009-01-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> I stated that there is a root (STD UEW) *puwe
That is a fact, whether you state it or not.
======
This is not a "fact" at all.
But it makes sense to think so
when Uralic words are taken into account
something you evidently failed to do.
A.
======
> The reflex of that root in Moksha is ufa-ms "to blow".
Sez who?
=====
me
UEW is far from exhaustive
even though it's already a lot of work done.
A.
=======
> It has u < (STD) u
What is STD?
=====
Std Uralic reconstruction.
The problem is you picka-picka words in Uralic
and you don't have any command of Uralic.
not to speak of Proto-Uralic.
A.
=======
> This reflex is not listed in UEW, but it should.
Why?
=====
Because it fits into the mould.
A.
=====
> The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.
Source?
======
Get yourself a good Uralic comparative dictionary
or watch on Starling.ru
A.
=======
> I won't discuss what the reconstruction should be.
Of course you won't. It can't be done within Uralic, and therefore
those several similar roots are from elsewhere. You know that, and
therefore you try to persuade us with pomp and swagger instead.
======
Absurd,
Anything can be discussed within URalic.
but most often you get better insight of what Uralic was or was not when you
compare it with something else.
You could try if you had enough knowledge of something.
It's pointless for me to explain what I think of STD *puwe
whatever STD *u was, we can see that STd *u "seems" to be u
A.
======
> LEt's just see that u in puwe is u in ufams
I don't see that, and you have made no attempt to prove it.
====
u is u
Isn't it clear enough ?
Pure torstenitis at terminal stage.
Do I have to prove that u is u ?
A.
======
> For that reason ponz^aft-öms with u can hardly have the same vowel
> as ufams.
As per above there is no such reason.
======
u is not o.
A.
=====
> And if you believe like some other guys that PIE invented vowel
> ablaut, then you are wrong.
I don't, I have given you no reason to believe so, and who are those
other guys you claim believe it`? Pure obfuscation.
======
You belong to this kind
with your substrates with no ablaut.
A.
=====
> 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.
Which theories??
=======
See above.
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
Your claim that you are denying the statement above is wrong,
=====
You claimed nobody did propose loans from IE into URalic
and I did that long before you repeated it.
A.
=====
> I have long ago suggested that LWs are not just one way.
since in this specimen of your habitual obfuscation of other people's
line of reasoning in order to gain time when you have a weak case you
claim I have claimed that you did not propose they were loans. I didn't.
=======
You should read "Achille Talon"
that's an old-style Cartoon with that kind of dialogues.
The style is heavy but sometimes it sounds funny.
A.
======
> It's northern river-side nephelococcygian.
What exactly do you mean by that, apart from showing off a passing
knowledge of Aristophanes?
====
You have river-side nephelococcygian : I mean Venetian
And some other substrate that are either close to the sea, or on the
northern or southern side of rivers.
Your geminate substrate is northern river-side nephelococcygian.
They were cold and they shuddered and created quite an awful lot of
stuttering geminates.
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.
I would have liked to answer this, but you didn't say anything, so
I'll abstain.
Torsten
========
In more prosaic wording,
Your theory is laughable.
If Proto-Germanic has more Uralic LWs than Balto-Slavic does,
What was the position of these sub-families at that time ?
Do you seriously think Balto-Slavic originally was more eastern than
Germanic but did not receive any LWs ?
Your theory is not even coherent.
A.