Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

> As I already said, Kuhn's ar-/ur- language is not limited to Europe.
>
> Files > ar-ur- Language > Das letzte Indogermanisch .html

> "This is above all its distribution area. It is bigger than that of Krahe's name groups and seems by far to go beyond the borders of Europe, which I included in my works.

I notice he doesn't actually demonstrate this claim here. And there's a long way from Balkans/ Oder to the Urals.

> > But it occurs to me that Proto-Samic has the sound change *u > *o
> > (while Proto-Finnic doesn't), and you kno what Germanic speakers
> > would make of that.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Not extensible to central Europe either, however.
>
> Now there's your problem!

Not really. It just means there is some language or family that also includes an a/u alternation. It isn't such a weird thing that it couldn't have arisen more than once during the last 10000 years within the nearest 10000000 square kilometers.

> > Also the distinction between Uralic *kunta "group, to hunt", "to
> > hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump, base" is by all
> > evidence one inherited from PU; I see no links between the three,
> > other than that they have the same consonants.
>
> If you give up your assumption that they are native Uralic words, you will.

It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. This is simply a minimal triplet of *u/*ë/*a. It is a disservice to etymology to turn perfectly well-behaving words into "substrate lons" just because. Down that road, we could as well decide that all words are substrate loans and call it a day.

> > And I have no idea what you are getting at with the other roots
> > with *ka- you list in msg #62525.
>
> And ditto.
>
> Torsten

You keep linking that message just about every time you mention Uralic *kunta and the like. It does not keep getting any clearer what are we to make of it.

John Vertical