From: Petr Hrubis
Message: 62632
Date: 2009-01-28
> I agree with some of the examples :Hm, let us stay downstairs now. I know you consider IE and Y related,
> /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 :Yes, quite often.
> /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 :Sorry. Pumpokol back vowel, i.e. /u/ in /but/ and /a/ in /dat/.
> /but/ (back vowel) "hare" < */be?s/
> /dat/ (back vowel) "eye" < */des/
> Where is the back vowel of C-e-C ??
> A.This is not an answer, Arnaud. Tell me, what is the actual reflex of
> ========
>
> 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/Agreed.
> 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 theI see. Good observation.
> ostyak dialects that are l-sigmatic in Ob mid-stream.
> A.
> ======
> Hence, if all the words that show this variation are somehow descendedWell, have you read Vovin's article on the possible Yeniseic
> 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.
> So, the phonological change /s/ > /t/ must have started somewhere (aI hope to get to them as soon as I have some spare time, again.
> 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.
> ======
> /cía-N/ < */si-/ "four" (front vowel, anlaut)Dear Arnaud, this is typical you. :-) You throw a claim here and don't
> /ciku/ < */s[U]Ga/ "year" (front vowel, anlaut)
> /cel/ < */so?ol/ "sleigh" (front vowel, anlaut)
> => this last one looks like Turcic.
>> I'm still waiting for a conditioning factor in Yeniseic.Mostly the factor is the back/front opposition in (Pre-)Pumpokol, but
>> The next argument is this is not at all the only LW from Uralic.Where's the problem, Arnaud? What I meant was that the few last bits
>> 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
> ======
> okYes, thank you. I must make a list of your comparand to be able to
> I hope my answer provides some clues.