Re: Sos-

2009/1/30 Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>:

> It's possible the original form in Uralic was *soGs-(i) with a voiced velar

A plausible suggestion!

> 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
> ========

I see.

>>> 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.
> ========

But where is the difference between Yeniseic and Basque then?

It is only in your personal premise that Basque is autochthonous
whereas Yeniseic is not. We could easily imagine the same scenario in
Siberia: Yeniseians coming first, before the region flooded the place.
;-) So this is not really an argument, since considering Yeniseic to
be a newcomer based on considering it to be a newcomer is clearly
circular (I am not saying this is the basis of your argumentation, to
be sure).

>> 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 tend to agree.

> I would put one sub-family by each great river.
> Finno-Ugric = Ob
> Samoyed = Yenisei
> Turcic = Lena
> Tungus = Amour
> etc.
>
> A.
>
> ========

I see.

>> 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

Yes, but it is barely certain to what extent, how far, when, whence,
which part of it...we are still at the begining and need to do a lot
of further work.

> 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.

Maybe, although I do not think Vajda is that "die-hard", as he would
accept a reasonable alternative if it made better sense.

> Maloletko who collected these data seems to have a different point of view.
> (I have not read him directly)

I wonder whether we can acquire the paper in any way. I will ask some
friends of mine if they can help.

> 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?

Interesting! That would - to certain extent - support the Starostinian
hypothesis, I suppose.

> 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.
> =======

Interesting. I wonder if we could assume a tribal union of
linguistically unrelated groups (we have had such groupings, so...).

>>> 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.
> ======

Good! :-)

>>
>>> 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.
> ======

Aha, I see. The same for Basque in you opinion?

>> 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 !?

Oops! Three, of course! That damn tiny keyboard on my laptop that I am
never going to get used to! :-D

> 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.
> =======

Just asking. I am not claiming archaeology can provide us direct evidence here.

>> 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.
> ======

That is not what I demand. I demand that vast majority is explained in
an alternative way that proves to be more fruitful than the older one.
That is the actual burden.

> 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.
> =====

If you are right, this will change sooner or later. ;-)

>> 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.

Hold on. I cannot see any logic in this.

1) PIE > PY
2) PY /s/ > Pum. /t/ + Vback OR /c^/ + Vfront OR /s/ + dissim. due to /t/ < */t/
3) Pump. /ec^/ < PY */?es/ < PIE */ansu/

Since the Pump. /t/ < PY /s/ < PIE /s/ (as far as I can understand
your hypothesis), how does that invalidate the /t/ ~ /s/
correspondence??????

> What are the implications ?
>
> A.

Another piece in favour of your hypothesis?
On the other hand, consider this: http://tinyurl.com/b9rdpf

You still have not anwered my question: What is the Pumpokol reflex of
PY */s/, if /t/ is not???

Best,

Petr