Re: * Re: Push (3)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:53 PM
Subject: [tied] * Re: Push (3)


>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> In the case of Indo-Iranian, that does seem to be the case. Maybe
> those Indo-Aryans and Iranians who came in contact with Uralians,
> and who did impart plenty of loanwords to them, also borrowed from
> them, but they never took those Uralic loans to Iran and India,
> because they were emigrants *from* there, not migrants on the way
> there.
============

I have no clear example of an Indic or Iranic word that may be of Uralic
origin.
But this is an interesting thing to look for.

We have already discussed *ont?- "beast of burden, donkey, camel"
which more looks like an Altaic LW,
but M. Brighenti absurdly made a complete mess with the data,
contradicting himself and stating one thing and its contrary at the same
time.

A.
============

> By contrast, Germanics who were in touch with Uralians were still
> young (pre-Lautverschiebung, which had yet to take place to turn
> kant- into hand-, see below) and on their way to their historical
> European habitat, passing through Uralic territory while on their
> way from Central Asia and beyond.
>
> Loans from Uralic were taken westward by east-to-west IE migrants.
> No Uralic loans were taken eastward, because there was in the time
> concerned no west-to-east IE migration.

==========

There were no west-to-east Uralic migrations either,
so it's no wonder.

Germanic (and Hungarian) are fairly exceptional,
They are the only clear cases of Western Siberian people succeeding in
establishing in Europe.
This is not a proof that _all_ the other Indo-European people moved the same
way.

A.
=========


> Similar with Semitic: while
> there may be a few Semitic loans in pan-IE (six, seven), later loans
> into specific IE languages affect only those to the west (wine), not
> Indo-Aryan or Tocharic, because the latter never passed through
> Semitic or Semitic-influenced territory.
>
===========
The word for six *s(w)eks can be explained (according to me! ) with IE
material : s(H3)-eks = the (first) one out of (the other hand).
No need for Semitic.
And as regard seven *sep(t)m. this cannot be a Semitic LW as there is no
trace of &ayin here.
And the word wine *wiHnos is most probably an Anatolian word of IE origin.
This Semitic influence is myth.

A.
=======

>>
>> You probably fail to remember I clearly stated that Germanic has
> quite a lot
>> of (often archaic-looking) Uralic LWs.
>> Handi from *kam-t- "hand"
>> etc.
>
> Thanks for that one, see above. Complete list?
>
=======

Not yet done !

A.
==========


>> And there is no particular reason IE languages were more
> developped than
>> URalic languages if you accept the idea that PIE split earlier
> than - 4000
>> BC.
>> And if you agree on early LWs, then you'll have problems with the
> location
>> of Germanic...
>>
>
> Coming from a more hospitable climate to the south, and more in
> contact with yet other centres of civilization, the IEs had a wider
> horizon, a more variegated economy and a more developed culture.
>
==========

I'm not sure it still makes sense to speak of IE people at that time.
PIE was dead for long when "civilisation" started.

A.
=========


> Location of Germanic was once, as I recall Arnaud himself has said
> on this list, pretty far to the east, witness exchanges with Altaic,
> Yeniseian and (as per Chang Tsung-tung) Chinese.
> > Kind regards,
> > KE
>
========

It's interesting to note that Yeniseian and Germanic both have /u/ as
reflect of zero.

H1sr. "blood" > Yeniseian *sur

One more areal feature of Germanic...

A.