From: tgpedersen
Message: 62619
Date: 2009-01-27
>How do you know Ostyak doesn't have a Yeniseian substrate?
>
> >
> > 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 LWBut if the first component is limited to just one particular branch of
> 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
> =======
>Care to elucidate?
> 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:Why 'drink'?
>
> Ir-tys^ is "river Ir"? As in River Or-pe?
>
> =======
>
> Maybe just "drink-water".
>