* Re: Push (3)

From: tgpedersen
Message: 62488
Date: 2009-01-13

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- 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.
I just OCR'ed the UEW. I looked up the root *puwe. It is there. That
is a fact.

> But it makes sense to think so
> when Uralic words are taken into account
Yes, because it is true.
> something you evidently failed to do.
Obfuscation.
> ======
>
> > 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.
> =======
What is your source for Moksha ufa-ms "to blow"?

> > 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.
> =======
The problem is you use confusing abbreviations (like 'STD UEW')
without explanation. As for your supposed command of Uralic, why don't
you document your sources?


> > This reflex is not listed in UEW, but it should.
> Why?
> =====
> Because it fits into the mould.
> A.
> =====
What mould?

> > The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.
> Source?
> ======
> Get yourself a good Uralic comparative dictionary
I have the UEW.
> or watch on Starling.ru
That link doesn't work. Please supply a better one.
> =======
>
> > 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.
UEW has
pus^e- 'blasen' U
puske- 'stechen, stoßen' FU
puc^ke- '(durch)stechen, stoßen' finnisch-permisch
pule- 'stecken, stoßen' ugrisch

They all seem to have cognates in Germanic (with p-, so that's not the
donor) and in other IE languages. UEW can't unify those roots and
doesn't try. You have made no attempt to do so. Therefore Uralic can't
be the source (or the roots are several times over re-borrowed
wanderwords).

> but most often you get better insight of what Uralic was or was not
> when you compare it with something else.
That's what I've been doing.
> You could try if you had enough knowledge of something.
So why don't you, o fount of wisdom?
> 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.
Especially since no one asked you to.
> ======
>
>
> > 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.
Obfuscation again.
> ======
>
> > 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.
No one claimed it was. Obfuscation.
> =====
>
> > 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
What kind? Obfuscation.
> 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.
Eskimo has vowel alternation, which you call ablaut, and therefore no
IE language had an IE substrate without ablaut?
> ======
>
> > =====
> >
> > > 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'm sorry. I didn't count you as somebody.


> > 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.
> ======

Would you like me to unwind my sentences so that can understand them?

> > 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.
> ======
Is this French sarcasm?

>
> > > 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,
That's your claim. Please prove it.

> What was the position of these sub-families at that time ?
I was wondering if Aestian might have been Uralic. The Aestians would
have switched to Venetic by Pliny's and Tacitus' time (the initial
consonant cluster of glesum can't be Uralic), and to Baltic/Slavic
later, as those expanded from W. Ukraine.


> Do you seriously think Balto-Slavic originally was more eastern
> than Germanic but did not receive any LWs ?

That is your claim. I don't have any Baltic etymological dictionary,
but here is something from Vasmer:

pýl, -a 'Eifer, Hitze, Glut, Zorn, Flamme',
pýlkij 'feurig, hitzig, aufbrausend',
dial. pýlkoj veter 'starker Wind' Arch.,
pylU f. 'Staub', dial. 'Schaum auf dem Wasser bei Sturm', Arch.
(Podv.), 'Flamme',
Kolyma-G. (Bogor.),
pylátI 'lodern, flammen, lichterloh brennen',
pylítI 'stäuben', dial. 'schäumen' Arch.,
ukr. pýl/, -i 'Staub',
wruss. pyl/ 'Hitze, Staub',
c^ech. pyl 'Blütenstaub', pel dass.,
slk. pyl,
poln. pyl/ 'feiner Staub.' ||
Die Bed. 'Staub, Wogenschaum, Feuerfunke, Flamme' lassen sich bei
diesen Wörtern, wie die Ableitungen zeigen, nicht auseinanderhalten.
Daher muß von *p(h)u:- 'blasen' ausgegangen werden wie bei pyxátI, pux
(s. d.).
Vgl. lit. pu~sti, puc^iù 'blase, wehe', putà 'Schaum',
lett. pùst, pùs^u 'blasen, wehen, hauchen',
griech. phu~sa f. 'Blasen, Hauch', phu~siáo: 'blase', phusáo: 'blase',
... . ...
Beziehung von pýl zu fìnn. pòly 'Staub' (Preobr. c. 1.) ist durchaus
fraglich.
Die Redensart: puskátI pyl v glazá, nhd. Sand in die Augen streuen,
frz. jeter de la poudre aux yeux, lat. pulverem ob oculos aspergere,
(Gellius), auch ndl.. norweg. u. in a. Spr. beschreibt einen alten
Kampfkniff (s. Falk-Torp 950).'

which shows that at least in the "blow" sense the word(s) we've been
discussing existed in Baltic too. Now if you want to claim that there
are words in Germanic which are loans from Uralic but do not occur in
Balto-Slavic, please make a list of them.

Torsten