From: Torsten
Message: 65087
Date: 2009-09-22
>Wörter mirror Sachen. Your visual pictures is my semantics.
> > > In your extensive citations from the UEW I don't see any
> > > *kantu-, or anything suggesting *kantu-, in the donor
> > > language. Whence -u- if not an inherited IE formation?
> >
> > But the donor language is not necessarily Uralic, we have to
> > consider the fact of Yeneseian *k-t- "hunt". On the other hand,
> > the semantic spread of the root (hunt, hunting lodge, mooring on
> > side of river) seems to point to water-borne seasonal migration,
> > which fits with the picture from Proto-Uralic.
>
> An appealing picture indeed, but the tail of visual pictures should
> not be wagging the dog of comparative linguistics.
> > > I'm working on 'glass', have some old papers to read.It was more like an observation, I think.
> > > Regarding the long list of words with gramm. Wechsel, I'll pick
> > > a few and try to prove they are IE, inherited the usual way.
> >
> > Don't forget to explain also why they,
> > 1) in spite of alternating stress, supposedly of IE origin, show
> > very little ablaut
> > 2) why what ablaut there is seems to be a/u
> > 3) why the root vowels seem to a|i|u, not the expected IE
> > a(?)|eI|eU
> > 4) why *kas-an- "hare" has Latin 'mot populaire' cognates, also
> > with /a/, in Latin cascus and ca(s)nus, as does *laGu- with lacus
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/38063
>
> I have argued for years that <lacus> and <mare> are geomorphic
> loanwords into Latin from a language of the Illyrian type.
>
> Meillet's theory of /a/ as a marker for 'mots populaires' is rather
> outdated.
> > 5) why derivatives seem to carry stress in *gl-á-s, *xr-ínt- and cause root zero grade, where possible7) why *xarða- "Wald, Bergwald" and *xaruxa- : *xaruGa- "Opferstätte, Heiligtum" are on the list which have suspiciously many foreign realtions
> > 6) why the documented pre-Saami *skaid- "division" occurs on the list
> >
> > etc etc. Maybe I'm just being too critical ;-)The constant across languages here is the gender dichotomy in hand/foot and sun/moon. If "foot" was already m., "hand" must be made f.
>
> No, your points are appreciated. If everyone agreed with me,
> something would be wrong.
>
> > Note also, re your concern wrt. PPGerm *kant-ú- section VII
> containing 'Die maskulinen u-Stämme mit grammatischem Wechsel' and
> 'U-stämmige Adjektiva mit grammatischem Wechsel'. Feminine gender
> could be imposed on the basis of "hand" f. / "foot" m. found in
> other IE languages.
>
> A real stretch, since 'hand' is masc. in some IE lgs. And note the
> discrepancy of Frau Sonne, Herr Mond vs. Latin/Greek.
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62525Some Central European language had /u(:)/ (> /ü(:)/) > /i(:)/
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62535
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64139
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61079
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59612
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63465
> > >
> > > Mixed bag of memories. I missed the obvious problem the first
> > > time around with your reading Venetic <ka.n.ta ruma.n[.]na> as
> > > 'Roman tribe' or whatever.
> >
> > More like "(of the) Roman community" vel sim.
> >
> > > In <dona.s.to> the first <o> represents /o:/ (cf. Lat.
> > > <do:na:vit>) so <u> cannot represent /o:/ in the same
> > > position.
> >
> > It doesn't have to. *Ruma is an old and/or by-form of Roma, cf.
> > Etruscan Ruma, Arabic Rûm, Slavic Rim-.
>
> Etr. has no phonemic distinction between /o/ and /u/, and class.
> Arabic has only /a:/, /i:/, /u:/ for long vowels.