> The next argument is s > t is supposed to be regular in Yeniseian, I'm not
> convinced at all by this idea,
Well, that the correspondence exists in Yeniseic is an undeniable
fact. You can hardly ignore the following. Unless you provide
plausible Uralic parallels to the following items, the existence of
the correspondence cannot be rejected:
/tuj/ (back vowel) "moon" < */suj/
/but/ (back vowel) "hare" < */be?s/
/dat/ (back vowel) "eye" < */des/
/kut/ (back vowel) "horse" < */ku?s/
/lat/ (back vowel) "vulva" < */rJOs/
/tak/ (back vowel) "squirrel" < */sa?qa/
/to_/l (back vowel) "spend the night" < */saGar1/
/tú/ (back vowel) "half" < */su-/
/tuk/ (back vowel) "back" < */suga/
/túl-/ (back vowel) "red" < */sur/
/útu/ (back vowel) "to sleep" < */xus/
/uta/ (back vowel) "birch" < */xu:sa/
/hu-kút/ (back vowel) "house" < */Xu?s/
/xúta/ (backvowel) "one" < */Xusa/
a) Notice that I only listed the clear cases.
=======
Good evening, Petr,
Very nice to hear from you,
and thank you for the explanations.
I agree with some of the examples :
/túl-/ (back vowel) "red" < */sur/ < PIE *H1sr. "blood"
/kut/ (back vowel) "horse" < */ku?s/ < PIE *kr.s "run"
/tú/ (back vowel) "half" < */su-/ < PIE *sm-
Zero grade is *u in Yeniseian.
I also agree with :
/uta/ (back vowel) "birch" < */xu:sa/ < Uralic *ku:s-
/lat/ (back vowel) "vulva" < */rJOs/ < Uralic *low-k^ "hole"
Loan-words behave the same.
So a "back vowel" is mainly *u
Now I don't understand these examples :
/but/ (back vowel) "hare" < */be?s/
/dat/ (back vowel) "eye" < */des/
Where is the back vowel of C-e-C ??
A.
========
b) Let me ask you a question, Arnaud: If Pumpokol /t/ is not a reflex
of PY (> also Ket) */s/, what is???
=====
It may also be different loanwords.
/útu/ (back vowel) "to sleep" < */xus/
I wonder what the relationship is with Mordvin ud-oms "sleep" and PIE swep-
A.
========
> whereas there is no doubt that s > l y t s depending on the dialect in
> Uralic is certain.
Let us not talk about /l/ here now. I agree it is far from certain
that the /let/, /lat/ hydronyms are Yeniseic. We can also leave /y/
and focus on the /t/ ~ /s/ variation, which IS attested in Yeniseic.
======
I would rephrase : it remains to be proved that any single one of these
lat-let hydronyms can receive a Yeniseic explanation that is better than the
URalic one.
And it's interesting to note these hydronyms are concentrated near the
ostyak dialects that are l-sigmatic in Ob mid-stream.
A.
======
Hence, if all the words that show this variation are somehow descended
from Uralic, this pressupposes that Pumpokol was a neighbour to the
/t/-reflex Uralic group, whereas Northern Yeniseic languages such as
Ket and Yugh were neighbours to the /s/-dialects of
Ugric/Samoyedic/Uralic/whatever subgroup may have been there.
====
Pumpokol hydronyms, as far as I have understood the data, are mainly
concentrated between the Ket and Tchulym rivers of the Ob valley, in the
ostyak t-sigmatic.
BUT, it should also be noted that there seems to be non-Uralic hydronyms
with tat/dat pumpokol hydronyms in the Ishim valley of Irtysh.
So this might be a spontaneous feature of Pumpokol ! God*it This is
definitely a complicated case.
A.
=======
So, the phonological change /s/ > /t/ must have started somewhere (a
cultural centre of some sort?) and began to spread. By the time it
began to influence Yeniseic, its speakers had to have settled there
for some time in order to become affected. This areal spread,
supported by lexical diffusion, may have equally affected the native
vocabulary resulting what is actually a regular correspondence today.
Would that be acceptable for you?
Still, I don't think you can just throw the correspondence away.
===
I agree
even though I'm still expecting some further explanations about the cases
which don't work !
A.
======
>Apart from the 14 regular cases above, we have the following somewhat
>less regular (or otherwise problematic) items supporting the /t/
>correspondence:
>/úttU-/ (back vowel) "warm" < */xus-/
AF => PIE 399 gew "coal"
> /kutte/ (back vowel) "penis" < */gVns-/
AF => Maybe a euphemism of *genu/genos- "generating instrument".
> /tag/ (back vowel) "larch" < */sas/
AF => a LW of Uralic *sVHs-
< /tUt-/ (back vowel) "to sit" < */sVs/
AF => PIE *Hes "to sit"
I wonder how to explain Hes > *sus (reduplication with zero grade ??)
A.
========
Also, remember that deaffrication of alveolars is characteristic of
Pumpokol (PY */c/ > /t/ in non-initial positions, PY */dz/ > /d/ in
non-initiail positions) and it has been extreme in Ket, where PY */t/
has merged with */c/ and /*c^/ (Pre-Ket */t/), and where PY */d/ has
merged with */dz/ and */dz^/ (Pre-Ket */d/), and much less so in Yugh
(PY */d/ and */dz/ > Pre-Yugh */d/).
As for the other correspondences, the situation is less clear, of
course, but the most transparent cases can be exemplified as follows:
/bic^-/ < */bis/ "evening" (front vowel, auslaut)
AF => PIE wes
/bic^/ < */b[i]s/ "brother/sister" (front vowel, auslaut)
AF => PIE *s-wes-ter
/ec^/, /eg/ < */?es/ "sky", "God" (front vowel, auslaut)
AF => PIE Hans-
/cía-N/ < */si-/ "four" (front vowel, anlaut)
/ciku/ < */s[U]Ga/ "year" (front vowel, anlaut)
/cel/ < */so?ol/ "sleigh" (front vowel, anlaut)
=> this last one looks like Turcic.
We could add:
/b[a~i]rc^oj/ < */pa(r)sa/ "high/height"
AF => PIE *bherg^h
/kónc^adin/ < */?es-/ "to sow"???
AF => PIE *seH
But they are both dubious. The first might be a loanword from Russian
/bols^oj/ "big" or contaminated by it. The second is quite opaque and
may not be related to the other Yeniseic words at all.
The following exampmles seem to be irregular, too, since despite the
front vowels, we have /t/:
/ur-áit/ < */xur-?es/ "rain"
AF => PIE *s-ku:ro "shower"
/tet/ < */ses/ "river"
AF => URalic *soHs-i
/tec^/ < */siG/ "night"
/teksul-/ < */sVNgVL-/ "stump"
/lUcU/ < */K[u?u]s/ "ghost" (doubtful)
AF => PIE *gheis
---
/sa_t/ < */sa?L/ "crucian" (following liquid)
/sálat/ < */se:Le/ "deer (rangifer)" (following liquid)
AF => URalic *s'är-ta
/selJ-/ < */seL/ "bad" (following liquid)
/sogo/ < */si:-/ "to eat" (???)
AF => looks Uralic *si(m)
> I'm still waiting for a conditioning factor in Yeniseic.
See above for some examples.
=========
Nearly ok
A.
========
> The next argument is this is not at all the only LW from Uralic.
> Many words dealing with Siberian realia are borrowed.
Please, be more specific as to what exactly "many" means and which
words are borrowed from which languages. That "river" is a borrowing
is only an opinion. "Snow" looks plausible, indeed, but these are two
words. Animals, ok, realia can be borrowed, the usual source being the
culturally more prestigious language. While rivers keep their names
when you arrive, why would you not force the few leftover aborigines
to use your terminology for the goods you want to trade?
=======
I suppose Uralic people will appreciate your approach of the "few leftover
aborigines" !!
Bist du uebermuetig oder uebermuedet ?
Arnaud
======
Anyway, I do not rule out the possibility of Uralic loanwords in
Yeniseic. Of course not. But I reject the idea that the /s/ ~ /t/
variation is not a valid correspondence. /t/ is by far the most
regular reflex of PY */s/ next to back vowels. At least until you
prove the opposite, Arnaud. ;-)
Best wishes,
Petr
=======
ok
I hope my answer provides some clues.
Best
Arnaud