From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62492
Date: 2009-01-14
----- 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.
==========
You are confusing the fact it is written on the paper and the fact it might
have been a real root in a putative proto-language.
In reconstruction, there is no fact, only coherent hypotheses that make
sense in the light of data, methods and typology, etc.
A.
=========
> But it makes sense to think so
> when Uralic words are taken into account
Yes, because it is true.
========
Grotesquely naive.
There's no truth here.
A.
=======
> something you evidently failed to do.
Obfuscation.
=======
See above.
A.
======
> =======
What is your source for Moksha ufa-ms "to blow"?
==========
Mokshansko-Russkij Slovarj, 1998, p.791
ufams, gl 1) dutj, podutj (o vetre).
gl is for glagol
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?
=======
In this mail, you have used UEW as well
so I'm not supposed to explain it, or am I ?
Std is standard.
I have made no mystery,
I disagree with most current reconstructions of URalic words.
A.
========
> > This reflex is not listed in UEW, but it should.
> Why?
> =====
> Because it fits into the mould.
> A.
> =====
What mould?
The mould of that root *puwe.
A.
=======
> > The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.
> Source?
> ======
> Get yourself a good Uralic comparative dictionary
I have the UEW.
=======
What game are you playing then ?
A.
=====
> 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).
===========
This is a little bit easy and quick.
The first obvious observation is that the roots cannot all have the same
vowel as they do not have the same pattern of vocalic correspondences.
Basically this means -as usual- that the supposed reconstructions are
garbage. For example, Vogul Pelymka putääs < **puS^e and then Vogul Pelymka
püwt < **puske
This is why I have been saying this std system of reconstruction is bad.
Every word you touch is bad.
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.
No one claimed it was. Obfuscation.
> =====
You did !
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?
> ======
Vowel alternation exists in all the (proto-)languages I have studied so far,
It looks like a universal.
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.
> ======
Is this French sarcasm?
======
Sarcasm about your approach of substrates for sure.
A.
> 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.
========
Ah
They changed river-sides in nepheloghdhonia, I suppose,
and they were coming from the east. A fact, as you say.
A.
=====
> 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
=======
Yes, and Chinese feng1 "wind" is from *puHm as well
What about an (inherited) onomatopeia ?
Do you have a word that does not sound like an obvious onomatopeia ?
A.