>> >> > The problem with this Yeniseic word *ses 'river" is that it
>> >> > very much looks like a LW from Uralic.
>> >
> The problem with you is that you decide on faith alone that the
> loaning was from Uralic to Ket, not the other way around.
>
========
I cannot figure out how this word could have been borrowed by many Uralic
languages from Yeniseian which then spread this name all about the place.
On the contrary, I can figure out how the five Yeniseian languages possibly
independently borrowed from some Uralic dialects (but not all) the attested
forms.
The places with Yeniseian hydronyms with that morpheme seems to be rather
clearly identifiable, when Uralic hydronyms show no limitation at all.
The next argument is s > t is supposed to be regular in Yeniseian, I'm not
convinced at all by this idea,
whereas there is no doubt that s > l y t s depending on the dialect in
Uralic is certain.
I'm still waiting for a conditioning factor in Yeniseic.
The next argument is this is not at all the only LW from Uralic.
Many words dealing with Siberian realia are borrowed.
A.
========
>> > What do you think of the River Sos
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sos_River
>> > or various Sosva rivers?
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosva_River
>> >
>> ========
>> A Sos River in Romania can hardly be Ugric,
>> all the more so as the Hungarian cognate is aaz.
>
> I was wondering if the name was Uralic, not whether it was Ugric?
======
Which Uralic languages are spoken in _Romania_, according to you ?
A.
========
>
>> As you can see Sosva also is Losva.
>> Both are tributary to the Tobol.
>> Ugric !
>>
>> Arnaud
>> ========
>
> No proof the name wasn't borrowed by Ugric before that anlaut development.
>
=========
This requires a borrowing into proto-Uralic, as this is not just Ugric, but
common Uralic.
A
======
>
>> >> I'm trying to sort out all those hydronyms listed in Werner's
>> >> Yeniseic Dictionary (2002).
>> >> The first and obvious observation is that the area with Yeniseic
>> >> items is much smaller than the area with Uralic items.
>> >> The word "substrate" is clearly not neutral.
>> >
>> > What's that supposed to mean?
>>
>> =========
>>
>> Substrate suggests Yeniseic arrived _first_
>> I disagree with that theory.
>> A.
>
> 'not neutral' = 'Arnauld doesn't agree'. I'll make a note of that.
>
=======
The point is more that using such a word as "substrate" is not descriptively
neutral.
It already __contains__ a certain number of prejudices.
A _layer_ of hydronyms is neutral.
A.
=======
>
>> ============
>>
>> Uralic was already on the spot.
>>
>> A.
>>
>> ===========
>
> Vajda says Yeniseian is intrusive on Uralic?
> > Torsten
>
=======
I'm not entitled to be his spokeman.
One major and unescapable problem with making Yeniseic autochtonous is the
massive typological difference between all Siberian languages, which are
coherent, and Yeniseic.
It's worse than Basque versus IE.
You can claim that Uralic homeland is unknown,
This is a rather comfortable idea to carve out a pseudo-homeland for
Yeniseic,
among Ugric and Samoyedic languages.
but ultimately this does not stand on its feet,
why is there clear indications Yeniseic used to be in Tobol and Irtysh
valleys ?
You can't stabilize a coherent theory.
And on top of that, you need to claim Yeniseic has been impervious to
(lexical) influence by its Siberian neighbors for thousands of year.
The claim is clearly wrong.
The implicit premiss of Yeniseic being autochtonous in Yenissei (upstream)
valley is that all other languages (Uralic, Turcic, Mongolian, Etc) came
from somewhere else than Siberia...
I wonder what is left once you have removed Uralic and Yeniseic Hydronyms.
Even Turcic languages have Uralic hydronyms !
A.