RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

> > You're not paying attention. Let's go over this again - there are
> > two Baltic-Finnic words here, and you seem to be confused as to
> > what applies to what:
> > *piki "pitch", a trivial loan from Germanic (which might itself
> > be a substrate loan, but that's not relevant for BF)
> > *pihka "resin", regularly cognate with Khanty *peG@...; this link
> > means it cannot be a West European substrate loan, and confirms
> > that the *h is from former *S.
>
> No, *you* are not paying attention. I said 'substrate loan', not 'West European substrate loan'. A substrate common to FU/Uralic and northern IE.

How far do you think this stretches exactly? Khanty is spoken a few thousands of kilometers away from the Germanic hartlands. I don't buy the idea that pre-IE/Uralic northern Europe/Siberia spoke only one language.

Anyway, you were saying

> > > you shouldn't have taken the easy option
> > > of choosing Germanic in the first place.

But I'm positing Germanic origin only for Finnic *piki, and this link works without problems AFAICT (and as you say, it is also the easiest explanation). It seemed to me you thought I was trying to make *piSka also a Germanic loan?

And to repeat the part you're failing to grasp with *piSka: Khanty *L (voiceless lateral fricativ) can in no way come from "preaspiration" or anything of the sort. Taken together with Finnic, this unequivocally points to *-Sk-.

If we want to devise a deeper connection, I would rather compare this with *pec^a.

> > > Not if the loans was later.
> >
> > Too hypothetical for my taste, I like the contamination
> > explanation
> > better (thanks for bringing the 2nd word to my attention BTW).
>
> Well, suit yourself. But the presence of two similar-sounding reconstructions for similar-meaning sets of cognates should have alerted you to suspect loan.

To clarify: I don't like positing "substrate alternation" or other non-explanations (strikes me as akin to sweeping dirt under a carpet) for irregularities that can be done solidly away in some other fashion.

Now sure, there might still be a relation between the two roots we have remaining after this. That's a whole different topic. But I think the evidence points to at least *pec^a being an original Finno-Permic root, not something that was independantly loaned to each branch.

> > > > *s'äla > salava "crack willow" (back-harmonized by influence
> > > > from:)
> > > > Gmc *salaka > halava "willow"
> > >
> > > That one is odd. I see that so many times: Uralic or FU word
> > > gets influenced in Finnish by some Gmc/IE word which happens to
> > > sound like it and mean something similar.

> > The only thing coming to my mind are cases where an insecure and
> > irregular Uralic etymology has later simply been replaced by a
> > Germanic loan etymology.
>
> What's insecure about *s´ala-, *kansa- and *sal3- ?

*kansa "people": Outside of Fennoscandia, the only posited cognates are Udmurt kuz, Komi goz, which do not correspond even to _one another_ (viz. the initial stop voicing; otherwise possible from *kansa). Also, they mean "pair". Germanic > Samic contacts are kno'n to exist so that doesn't pose a problem.

Question remains what should we make of the Permic words, but it's clear this cannot be an inherited Uralic word.

And I see no "influence" taking place here at any step - it's quite straightforward.

*sal3" "salt": no coherence in vocalic correspondences, and the Finnic vocalic structure VV_a points to a loan origin. The initial c'- in Mari is also irregular. Finnic *uo ~ Mordvinic *a exists in other Iranian loans (eg. *jaana "streak").

*s'ala "elm": Finnic *sala- and Mari *Sol are back-vocalic, Mordvinic *s'äl'ej and Hungarian /sil/ front-vocalic. So one possible explanation might be:

1) original Uralic root *s'äla- "to cut"
2) a tree name "crack willow" is derived from this
3a) a secondary (tertiary?) meaning of "elm" develops
3b) Finnic and Mari, under IE influence, revert to front-vocalism

I however don't get why should there be a common switch to "elm", and why should Mari be influenced after that. (Note that elmwood is quite sturdy, so the derivation from "to cut" > "tree whose wood easily splinters, is easily cut" only works via "willow").

Alternate scenario:
- Finnic *salaka is an older IE loan (the substitution *s > *h in *halaka is typical of Germanic loans only)
- The "elm" words are unrelated, and since the vocalic correspondences are irregular, likely from a substrate of some sort.

The UEW apparently proposes:
- original Uralic root *s'ala "elm"
- *a > *ä in Mordvinic, > i in Hungarian (for whatever ill-defined reason)
- meaning shifts to "willow" in Finnic
But this is all fairly ad hoc, I'm afraid. At least, I think original *ä would work better, since Finnic does have a motivation for the change to *a.

> And all UEW has to say is 'cf.'

Well, I've said it before: the UEW works mostly as a repository of data. (Aluckily a more up-to-date Uralic etymological dictionary is in the works.)

> (BTW Danish 'savl' "saliva", guessed, with '?', to be from 'a side form' *sak- of *sag- "humidity", seems to suggest a substrate word *saG-l- instead, which could > *sal- or (metathesis) *sal-G-,

What does saliva have to do with willows anyway?

> Remember also that the fact that some Baltic Finnic dialect was spoken in eastern Poland

No. This is very much not a fact, but your own hypothesis. It would be advisable to keep the two separate.

> > > > > I add
> > > > > Lerchner
> > > > > Studien zum NWGermanischen Wortschatz
> > > > > 'pit, peddik "merg, zaadkorrel; kracht"
> > > > (etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Stretching the semantics here. I don't think this can be
> > > > related to "pitch", "resin", "pine".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I disagree.
> > > Pokorny *pei-, *pi- "fat" etc. (I'd say, rather *pi(:)-)
> >
> > Via an indirect derivational link
> > and a variety of suffixes - maybe. But not directly to the
> > "resin" cluster (the different medial also prohibits that).
>
> I've explained how to get rid of the reconstructed BF *-s^-, after
> that, no problem.
>
> Torsten

Derive *pik- from *pei, fine; also derive *piT- from *pei, maybe. However, I don't see *piT being derivable from *pik (or vice versa).

One thing I think makes your thought process hard to follow is that you list huge amounts of data but do not explain how exactly do you think it's all related.

John Vertical