--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's the English version
> >
> >
> Arnaud pointed out the similarity Engl. hunt ~ Mordv. kunda "catch".
> It seems to be bigger than that.
>
> UEW
> [...]
> With that sort of global distribution of the word, there doesn't
> seem to be much need to send the Germani to pay a visit to the
> Yenisseian speakers
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62559
>
> Torsten
>
> ======
>
> I really wonder what you want to show with that kind of long list
> of words with no analysis and no coherence,
In the kant-/katt-/kunt- etc list the internal connections are two
1) a semantic development from words having to do with hunting storage
hut, side of the river, harbor building, to community, 'Hundertschaft,
ie an administrative division; a deveolpment from frontier conditions
to semi-civilization.
2) Morphophonetically the words are related by two types of alternation:
a) alternation between single/geminate/prenasalized stop (in casu
-t-/-nt-/-tt-); this is the mark of Schrijver's 'language of geminates'
b) a/u root vowel alternation; this is the mark of Kuhn's ar-/ur-
language.
It would seem that the word complex belonged to these two languages,
which therefore will be the same language. Also the geographical
extension of the word complex fits the geographical distribution of
the two languages as described by Schrijver and Kuhn. Uralic it ain't,
or UEW and others would have found ways of relating them
derivationally within that language family.
> it amounts to nothing.
> Your conclusion is just propaganda
Propaganda?
> with no support and no data.
I thought you said there was too much data?
Torsten