* Re: Push (3)

> > The mould of that root *puwe.
> > A.
> > =======
> So p- in anlaut is lost in Moksha but not in Ersha?
> Please explain.
>
> =======
> I believe *puH is a better reconstruction,
> *puH-a > Erzia puv-a-ms
> but
> Moksha is upH-a > uf-a-ms.
>
> A.
> =======

Mordvin *-pu- > Erzya -up-, or something more general?
That's not a very natural type of metathesis.

>
> > 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?
>
> ======
> There's no rules, I'm afraid.
> I'm trying to propose a coherent system
> but this takes time.
> A.
> =======

I can understand that, given your above rule.

> > 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?
> ========
> I can see nothing Danish,

æ?

> Danish is full of glottal stops, I see none.

Come again?

> Are you really a Dane or a word-processor gone wild ?
> A.

Strangely enough, when I'm about to win an argument with a Swede, they
never fail to change subject to that of the gutturalness of Danish and
Scanian, as if the very euphoniousness of their language ensured the
truth of what they stated in it. You're not *that* stupid, are you?


Torsten