Re: Laryngeals Indo-Uralic

From: tgpedersen
Message: 64966
Date: 2009-09-02

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Tue, 9/1/09, Etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> From: Etherman23 <etherman23@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: Laryngeals Indo-Uralic
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 7:38 PM
>
>--- In cybalist@... s.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Given that a few people out there are postulating Indo-Uralic,
> > how would Indo-Uralic layngeals look? What would they have
> > transformed into in Uralic? Apologies if IU is off topic --we can
> > move this over to Nostratic if the moderators wish.
>
> There's some debate about this. My personal view is that in initial position *h1 is Uralic *0, and *h2/*h3 is *k. In non-initial position all are *k. However, there are two distinct sources for the laryngeals. IE *H also corresponds to Uralic *j. This seems pretty solid in word initial position, but I'm also coming to think that this held in non-word initial position as well (perhaps in all syllable initial positions, it's not perfectly clear yet). This second correspondence is important because examples of the first correspondence are often considered to be borrowings from IE into PU (or one of its daughters). 

***R Would English ice < gicel < *Hieg/k- (vel sim) and Uralic *jäNe work as examples?
>
Loans is nicer.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60884
It accounts for two traditionally unconnected IE roots.
Form in donor language something like *in,g- (note B.-Sl. forms with -n-), partitive genitive *in,g-s- (as in *gl-á-s- "coagulated, jelly stuff") -> *i:-s- -> *ei-s-. If so it came from the same source as *gl-á-s-.


Torsten