From: tgpedersen
Message: 62488
Date: 2009-01-13
>I just OCR'ed the UEW. I looked up the root *puwe. It is there. That
>
> ----- 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 soYes, because it is true.
> when Uralic words are taken into account
> something you evidently failed to do.Obfuscation.
> ======What is your source for Moksha ufa-ms "to blow"?
>
> > 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) uThe problem is you use confusing abbreviations (like 'STD UEW')
> 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.What mould?
> Why?
> =====
> Because it fits into the mould.
> A.
> =====
> > The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.I have the UEW.
> Source?
> ======
> Get yourself a good Uralic comparative dictionary
> or watch on Starling.ruThat link doesn't work. Please supply a better one.
> =======UEW has
>
> > 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 notThat's what I've been doing.
> when you compare it with something else.
> 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 *puweEspecially since no one asked you to.
> whatever STD *u was, we can see that STd *u "seems" to be u
> A.
> ======Obfuscation again.
>
>
> > 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.
> ======No one claimed it was. Obfuscation.
>
> > 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.
> =====What kind? 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
> with your substrates with no ablaut.Eskimo has vowel alternation, which you call ablaut, and therefore no
> 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.
> ======I'm sorry. I didn't count you as somebody.
>
> > =====
> >
> > > 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.Would you like me to unwind my sentences so that can understand them?
> 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.
> ======
> > It's northern river-side nephelococcygian.Is this French sarcasm?
> 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.
> ======
>That's your claim. Please prove it.
> > > 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 ?I was wondering if Aestian might have been Uralic. The Aestians would
> Do you seriously think Balto-Slavic originally was more easternThat is your claim. I don't have any Baltic etymological dictionary,
> than Germanic but did not receive any LWs ?