* Re: Push (3)

--- 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.
> ==========
> 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.

No, I am trying to read your statement as it stands.

> In reconstruction, there is no fact, only coherent hypotheses that
> make sense in the light of data, methods and typology, etc.
> A.
> =========

Aha.

> > 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.
> =======

Trying to make sense of your statement makes me grotesquely naive?

> > something you evidently failed to do.
> Obfuscation.
> =======
> See above.
> A.
> ======

Erh, okay.

> > =======
> 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.
> =======

That wasn't so hard now, was it?
Please quote sources in the future, otherwise people won't believe you.

> > =======
> 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 ?

And from that you might conclude I asked what you meant by 'STD'.

> Std is standard.

Yes, 'Std.' is the usual abbreviation for "standard", not 'STD'.
Now I considered whether that was what you meant, but 'standard UEW'
did not make any sense (there is only one UEW), so I asked.

> I have made no mystery,

If you say so.

> 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.
> =======

So p- in anlaut is lost in Moksha but not in Ersha?
Please explain.

>
> > > The same is true in Erzia puva-ms.


> > 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.

I made the observation that UEW doesn't begin to try to unify these
roots and that you haven't. You then split them up further and then
proceed to behave like you just disproved what I said?

> Basically this means -as usual- that the supposed reconstructions
> are garbage. For example, Vogul Pelymka putääs < **puS^e and then
> Vogul Pelymka püwt < **puske

Do you know the rules that have been used to explain these
developments, and if yes, have you proposed alternative ones?

> This is why I have been saying this std system of reconstruction is
> bad. Every word you touch is bad.
> A.
> =====

See above.

> >
> > > 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.
> ========

I'm afraid I don't recall having done that.

> >
> > > 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.
> =======

Is that functional alternation, or seemingly random 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.

Is this considered witty where you come from?
Do you have anything substantial to say about it?

> > 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.
> =====

How about this:
your criticism is eiorughpfuhiodufghous, your knowledge on the subject
is oudfghidofhljdfæljkhhgcal, and your behavior on cybalist is
oæsdfihjpdosæfbæsdfuvnhous.
Please note how élégantly I have skewered you with my Danish ésprit.
Hahahaha. You were saying?

> > 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.
>
> =======
>
> Yes, and Chinese feng1 "wind" is from *puHm as well

Since both "blow" and "missile" was part of the semantic range of the
roots we discussed, I looked up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowpipe
with these interesting links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowgun
and further
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukiya
which latter word in Japonic would have been *puk-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Japanese

It seems the blowpipe wasn't known in Europe.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbacane_(Loire)
But note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowpipe_(tool)

> What about an (inherited) onomatopeia ?

Inherited onomatopeia?

> Do you have a word that does not sound like an obvious onomatopeia ?

This discussion started with Eng. 'push' and Uralic *puske, I recall?


Torsten