>
> ==========
>
> There are at least two roots "bitter" and "to burn".
Yes, in the UEW, and they stress it. But if UEW can't find a way to
connect them, who am I to try? I must then conclude that they are
loans there too. BTW, that pre-stop nasal infix Schrijver postulated
for his language of geminates seems to appear in a lotr of double
roots in the UEW, with no explanation as to hoe they are related. That
smells of loan too.
If you want to know the connection between "bitter" and "burn" check
the Kuhn text. Basically he's saying that the old style of sharpening
a spear was through singeing it. Try it with a wooden match, it works
the same way.
=======
The words for 'burn' look very like a LW of PIE *gwher
with a satem change : gr.v- / gerv-
Cf. Germanic *garw-
There's nothing compelling in lumping "bitter" with "burn".
A.
=======
> It's unclear how Moksha krvast- could really be cognate with
> Finnish karv or korv-
> This really looks strange.
Could you be more specific? That Erzya kurva- "blaze" and kurvas´t´e-
"light fire" should be related doesn't seem particularly strange to
me, even though I don't know that -s´t´e- suffix
=======
Syllabic r. in Moksha is very often related with Indo-Iranian LWs.
This is another one *ghwer- > kr.v-
Cf. vl.kas > vrgaz
A.
========
>
> Obviously !?
>
> Which substrate ?
If I should give it a name, I'd say Venetic/Urnfeld.
> To the Atlantic coast ?
You have heard of the Atlantic Ocean?
Torsten
=====
What's the connection with your beloved substrate and the words you have
lumped together ?
I can't see any logical connection.
A.