>
> They apply to rivers,
> they are etymologizable from either Uralic *el or *sos "wet" ...
> they have a first component which is also Uralic
>
>
> And this word most probably has been borrowed into Yeniseic where
> it is used to create Yeniseic hydronyms.
> Which causes a very huge mess if one is looking for Yeniseic
> homeland using that word (in fact a word and a LW that looks the
> same !) because this area is now stretching for the Volga to
> Mongolia !
Actually to Arizona, it seems.
http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/vajda-2008.pdf
quote:
[...]
======
A first point is Vogul has sis and soos for "brook"
Quite amazingly not listed in the UEW !
Any time I open that book I find a new marvel...
The problem with this Yeniseic word *ses 'river" is that it very much looks
like a LW from Uralic.
And the pattern s / t supposedly "native" to Yeniseic follows the pattern of
Ostyak l / y / s / t which explains more hydronyms than Yeniseic can.
The same thing is true with *se?s "conifer", most probably a LW according to
me.
But the situation is complex because this "morpheme" is used by Uralic and
Yeniseic.
You have to look at the first component to tell where to assign the origin.
Arnaud
=======
The "river" word is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_languages
For any of the proposed proto-forms for this Yeniseian "river,
sandbar", Uralic sose (sase) "Schneebrei; schwammig, porös (Knochen,
Baum)" would make sense as a loan, adapted to Uralic phonologigical
constraints (note that both forms have 'ablaut').
=====
Absurd.
Arnaud
====
Side remarks:
Ir-tys^ is "river Ir"? As in River Or-pe?
=======
Maybe just "drink-water".
A.