> I'm afraid the possibility of a Baltic-looking substrate in Carelia
> and Scandinavia is seriously underestimated.
> Not to say dogmatically rejected, even by Helimski :
> P15 vaga
> "its comparison with Lith. vagà â?~furrow, riverbed, riverarmâ?T
> (Pospelov 1998: 87) is historically preposterous and semantically
> doubtful".
>
> "Historically preposterous" ??
> On what grounds ?
What would he say to Sp. vega?
=========
What's the connection of Spanish (?) vega with Lit vaga ?
A.
=========
Anyway, the problem is you're too unambitious:
========
Maybe,
but I'm not a blAksprutte
so I have reason not to.
A.
==========
UEW
an,tV (on,tV) "Horn" U
Ostj. (34) V an,&t, DN on,&t, O an,&t "Horn" |
=======
Uralic is *amt "horn"
It's unclear what Ostyak aN&t is doing here.
Probably another word.
A.
=======
[quote deleted]
There are three possibilities:
1) IE or some dialect of it is a substrate of Uralic (in which case IE
stretches east of the Ural mountains)
2) Uralic or some dialect of it is a substrate of IE (in which case
Uralic stretches to England)
3) The above word belongs to a substrate of IE and Uralic.
============
I can see more than one word.
As usual, you make a huge heap of words
and draw a rather unexpected conclusion out of it.
Could you explain how you reach that conclusion ?
A.