Re: Sos-

>
> No. This is not the point I tried to make. You misunderstand. What I
> have been saying all the time is that transcriptional variation in the
> Pumpokol data is completely normal. It is normal to the extent that we
> cannot really rely on them, we can hardly infer anything from a
> difference in the non-native orthography caused by imperfect
> perception and transcription by non-native speakers.
>
> If you have a better explanation, please, put it forth right now and
> here. Is /but/ a loanword? Then state clearly where it could be from.

========
ok, I understand.
It does not seem *be?s is a LW.
A.
=====

>
> No, Pumpokol doesn't have /a/ in /tat/. It has /a/ in /tataN/, which
> is the plural form. The variation is parallel to Ket/Yugh/Kottish
> singular /-e-/ versus plural /-a-/. Hence, we could reconstruct */ses/
> in the singular and */sas/ in the plural (in the post-tonogenetic
> Yeniseic). Is there a way to explain this by the Uralic origin?
>

========
It's possible the original form in Uralic was *soGs-(i) with a voiced velar
fricative, if we accept a connection with Eskimo aR and Altaic *z^io-lu, all
from *zoG-.
We may hypothesize that Yeniseic first encountered southern Vogul, which
might have been *seGsi at that time, now /tit/.
It was borrowed as *seGis hence *ses with tone 1.
Plural neutral (possibly stressed) hence *s&GseH2 > *sas-a with tone 4
because the "laryngeal" G is syllable coda.
The problem is how to explain pre-tonogenetic Yeniseic.

Arnaud
========

>
>> How come that none of the languages surrounding Basque share its
>> typological profile? Why has Basque not influenced Romance
>> considerably?
>>
>> ======
>>
>> Because Basque is a fossil language !
>> A.
>> ====
>
> Please, define what "fossil language" is. I do not see how this can be
> an explanation of anything in any way.

==========
I think Basque is what is left from the first languages spoken in western
Europe, before IE languages flooded the place.
A.
========

> Ok. So, what are the homelands of the Proto-Uralians,
> Proto-Tungus-Manchurians, Proto-Koreans, Proto-Turkish, Proto-Japonic
> in your opinion? I would like to know more about the picture you
> envisage.

===========
I think these languages are certainly related.
I would put one sub-family by each great river.
Finno-Ugric = Ob
Samoyed = Yenisei
Turcic = Lena
Tungus = Amour
etc.

A.

========

>
> Well, I disagree. Why would the burden of proof that Yeniseic is NOT
> from somewhere else than where it is located today or from somewhere
> else than the oldest records seem to suggest be on MY shoulders?

=======
Because the study of Hydronyms suggest that Yeniseic moved
Something like Isset in Tobol valley is fish-river in Yeniseic and there is
no good Uralic counter-explanation.

It seems to me that the die-hard Yeniseic autochthonists are mainly Werner
and Vajda.
Maloletko who collected these data seems to have a different point of view.
(I have not read him directly)

In Werner tome 3 :
In Maloletko 2000 werden Toponyme gebracht, die sehr an die üblichen
jenissejischen Flußnamen in West- und Mittelsibirien erinnern und sich
außerhalb
der Gebiete befinden, die, wie man mit Sicherheit vermuten kann,
einst von jenissejischen Stämmen bewohnt wurden. Am interessantesten
scheinen mir jene von ihnen zu sein, die westlicher vom Irtysch bis zum
Ural im Stromgebiet der Kama verbreitet sind (Zas, Mukzas, Kazes, Kazeska,
Iktym, Intym, Kostym, Kyrtym, Lektym, Loktym). Sollte es sich in diesem
Fall nicht um zufällige Ähnlichkeit handeln, so muß man sich fragen,
in welcher Zeit, von welchen Stämmen und auf welchen Migrationswegen
sie hinterlassen werden konnten? Von Jenissejern, die einst nach dem Westen
bis zum Kamabecken vorgedrungen waren, vielleicht zusammen mit
uralischen Stämmen, oder von Urjenissejern auf ihrem hypothetischen
Migrationszug
vom Nordkaukasus über den Ural nach Westsibirien bis zum
Jenissej, wie es A. M. Maloletko vermutet?

I add :
Most of the western hydronyms are most probably Uralic but there are clear
exceptions.
Tobol : is-set fish-river
Irtysh : balan-zas bird cherry tree river
Ishim : ratsi-dat (impossibly Uralic)

A.
=======

>
>> I have already provided about 20 clean cognates between Yeniseic and PIE
>> and you have provided NOTHING that supports Siberian autochthony.
>
> They are comparanda rather than cognates. Nobody has accepted your
> theory yet. Yes, it might change in the future, I might even be the
> first one to accept it, why not, but 20 examples are a very weak
> proof, if proof at all. Just keep up the work and prepare a more
> detailed, more convincing, more coherent theory and I am ready to
> accept it once it makes a good sense. I am by no means against that
> possibility a priori.

=======
We'll see !
A.
======

>
>> By the way, Maloletko who is the collector of the hydronyms we are
>> discussing makes Yeniseic come from the Caucasus Area.
>>
>> A.
>> ========
>
> Why not, but arguments does he have? I just insist that Yeniseic may
> have been spoken in Siberia for a bit longer time than you propose.
> Yes, it may have come from a totally different area some time in the
> deeper past, but you have not given us evidence enough to reject their
> "autochthonous origin". (Moreover, what does autochthonous mean?) The
> formerly Yeniseic speaking areas may have been overridden by
> non-Yeniseic speakers leaving little or no traces. Substrate influence
> is not obligatory. Its extent cannot be predicted, especially when we
> do not know what the socio-linguistic situation was like.

=======
Autochthonous would mean that it may well be from the first language spoken
on that spot 10^n k.years ago.
A.
======

> Anyway, precisely which typological features link Yeniseic to PIE, for
> example (apart from the 4-way gender system) and how stable
> diachronically are these features?

=======
I thought it had only 3 genders !?

I've been reading Werner's dictionary and I found a couple of interesting
things.
like :
a-lup "tongue" : a- morpheme + *l_bh "lick"
anuntus < anun 'Verstand' + -tu (Derivationssuffix der Adjektiv)
Cf. barba-tus !
Preterit is made with suffix -l-

A.
======

> Moreover, you somewhat neglect the geological history of that region,
> Arnaud.
> By the way, does archaelogy support your hypothesis at least indirectly?
>

========
What is the relevance of archaelogy here ?

A.
=======

> Dear Arnaud, what is so "stalinist" (a term which is really insulting
> in relation to the past of my country, but I am an easy-going person
> ;-), so...let us forget about it) in demanding more evidence?

========
Well, the demand that ALL words should be explained is a bit excessive, I
think.
A.
======

The

> glimpses you have offered are simply not enough and I wonder who on
> this forum thinks they are.

======
Only one, I'm afraid.
A.
=====

You want to convince others, do you not? I

> am not trying to discourage you, do not take it as a negative
> approach. I just need something to be able to say: "Wow, this is it!"
> All I can say at the moment is: "Hm, maybe..." and "Hm, why not?" at
> best.
>
> You know, what we need is a system of correspondences that is both
> productive and predictive, which we do not have at present.
> Interlocking jigsaw pieces, Yeniseic explaining PIE explaining
> Yeniseic.
>
> Cordially and supportingly,
>
> Petr
>

========
I have it.
A.
=======

> P.S.: I have not forgotten about the conditioning factors, no worries!
> ;-) Yet still, you have not answered my question: If /t/ is not a
> reflex of */s/ in Yeniseic, what is? And if all the /t/-cognates in
> Pumpokol are Uralic, what is left? And if nothing is left, did
> Proto-Yeniseic have */s/ at all? And if it did not have */s/, are all
> those */s/-etyma loanwords from Uralic?
>
> You know, claiming that the /t/-correspondence does not exist in the
> native lexicon may have (de)vast(ing) implications.

=========

The reflex of "sky, god" in Pumpokol is ec^
If the word is from PIE 48 *ansu, as it seems to be !
Then s > t with back vowels is dead.
All the words exhibit this s/t alternation are LWs.
This is what I tend to believe.

What are the implications ?

A.