From: Torsten
Message: 65182
Date: 2009-10-04
>You're mixing up things. When I say I trust Kuhn on this one I obviously mean that I believe that he has the data he says he has. When you are talking about Pokorny or Redei or Sammallahti or whomever you are talking about taking on faith their interpretation of the data. Those are two different things.
> > > > "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.
> >
> > True. But I'll trust him on this one. He's usually reliable.
>
> I don't tho, and I don't plan on starting to back on trust in
> matters of science. Or hey, I could just tell that I trust Pokorny
> or Redei or Sammallahti or whomever on the matter and we'd have
> nothing to discuss. (Which might actually be the smart choice if
> the experts were still cracking at the topic too, but Krahe won't
> be around to defend anything anymore.)
> I get the impression your view here goes beyond Krahe's, too.You mean Kuhn's do?
>No, it's more than that. Try
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > No, more than that. It would mean that some substrate in Europe
> had a root *ka/unt- "hunt etc" which was unrelated to Uralic *kunta
> "group, to hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump, base".
>
> This was Germanic, no? Perhaps I should look deeper into past
> discussions.
> ---M'kay.
>
> Okay, so there's *kan-tho- "edge" which looks like it could be
> related to Uralic *känta (up to minimal quadruplet now). The
> distribution and semantics here are sufficiently bad that I can
> believe it might be two separate words, with Samic "shore" related
> to the IE complex.
> I continue not to see the semantic link to "hunting group" or theWho talks about Germanic? The Chatti weren't.
> other Uralic words. The idea of a link in the form of "edge" ~
> "cavalry wing of 100 horsemen" ~ "group" is unconvincing even for
> Germanic alone.
> That makes about as much sense as "edge" ~ "a sharp-toothed animal"I don't think so.
> ~ "hound", or "edge" ~ "knife" ~ "handheld tool" ~ "hand",
> and those kind of links can be created between any two sufficientlyYes, that kind can.
> basic words
> (OTOH hound ~ hunt might have something to it, but it'sOf course it is.
> not directly relevant now).
> Finnic *kansa is a kno'n loan, so not relevant.Finnic *kansa is an assumed loan, so relevant.
> "Hat" ~ "hose",I'm trying to keep 'hat'/'hood'/'cassis'out of the picture, but it might be necessary to include it (as 'helmet' as implement for war). Note the a/o: alternation in Germanic, like Class VI strong verbs.
> only put the semantical bredth further out of hand.Check out the links I provided for more focus.
> If you are saying what I think you are saying (ie. that these areIsn't that a kind of bird?
> all "related somehow") the criteria for related-somehow-ness seem
> to come down to:
> 1) Forget all about MOA
> 2) Forget all about semanticsNo.
> 3) Look for vowels that adhere to a pre-decided setAre part of.
> 4) List any words that have consonants of the same POA and vowelsWhat's a POA?
> Heck, why not change #3 toBecause that would not be in the ar-/ur- language.
> 3b) Forget all about vowels
> and add in "hit", "hint", "hind", "hiss", "kit", "kid", "Kind",Actually, Kuhn admits the existence of variants with /i/ in his a/u pairs, but I think that for my investigation that would be overdoing it. I wouldn't know how to fit in the roots you mention (perhaps 'hit and '(be-)hind').
> "kind", "kiss" etc. as well?
>They occur far to the west of the Uralic area, and by using Uralic sound laws you get no further than claiming three, possibly four Uralic roots.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > No, a conclusion needs premises. It's an assumption.
>
> The premises are that the words have a good distribution and adhere
> to regular Uralic sound laws.
> If you use a method other than the presense of phoneticalThat's the one I use.
> irregularities, or spotty distribution combined with parallels
> elsewhere (or the lack of a deeper etymology - but that's not
> applicable here) for identifying latter loanwords in a protolang's
> reconstructed lexicon, I'd like to hear about it.
> > > It is a disservice to etymology to turn perfectly well-behavingBut no coherent semantics, so no explanation needed.
> > > words into "substrate lons" just because.
> >
> > The English words 'democrat' and 'democracy' are obviously not
> > related since the English languages does not have the extensions
> > -t and -cy, and since they are perfectly well-behaving there is
> > no reason to assume they are loans either.
>
> As long as we're doing satire, did you hear about this new
> substrate, the i-language (iish for short)? It has the curious
> feature of containing the vowel /i/. See, there are several words
> in the world's languages that both lack an etymology and contain
> the vowel /i/. This is an obvious pattern that needs an
> explanation. ;)
> More seriously tho, there is an obvious semantic connection betweenNo, you'd have to assume a semantic historic development that went "support" -> "one of two supports, carrying pole" > "flank" > "social/military organization". I don't know how comfortable you are with German, otherwise I'll translate; look at the ostjakisch entry here:
> "democrat" and "democracy" that does not exist between "stump" and
> "to hunt".
> Likewise, this alternation of non-suffixes **-t and **-cy isYes.
> exactly what makes a word not "well-behaving".
> > > Down that road, we could as well decide that all words areNo.
> > > substrate loans and call it a day.
> >
> > And then you'd have to read up on new foreign languages. We
> > wouldn't want that.
>
> The correct objection to that is that taken to its logical
> conclusion, it would abolish the concept of regular descent of
> lexicon from a reconstructable proto-language.
> An English word resembling a German word? Must be because they'reAnd you'd end up with a huge corpus from that 'substrate' which would turn out to be regular descent.
> cross-loans, or both loaned from the same substrate... hm, looks
> like this substrate contains alternations such as -k ~ -x... and
> -t- ~ -ts-...
> > Of course we wouldn't to call a word a loan which had no cognatesThey do in IE. Note the *ka-.
> > outside and didn't otherwise stick out.
>
> And I repeat that these words in fact do not "stick out".
> Also external comparisions can just as well point to commonI usually avoid that. The words I stumble over look from the semantics to be Kulturwörter.
> inheritance
> (if not straight out coincidence).Hardly.
> All I'm saying is that these go back to proto-Uralic.I thought you had a lot to say on method?
>I don't even have a final conjecture, because new unexpected discoveries still send me on new tracks. But I think it's this: a way of life developed in the forest-steppe, the home of the Uralic and Yeniseian speakers, which had to do with hunting storages and hunting for small animals and fishing, and the social organization resulting from that was somehow transferred to the steppe, home of the Iranian-speakers and somehow ended up in even the westernmost IE elites.
> > > > > And I have no idea what you are getting at with the other
> > > > > roots with *ka- you list in msg #62525.
> > >
> > > It does not keep getting any clearer what are we to make of it.
> >
> > As I said, you will, if you're willing to give up your assumption
> > that they're Uralic. But you're not.
>
> I'd appreciate if you for once just told us what your thesis is on
> them, insted of expecting others to read your thoughts on the
> matter.
> We won't arrive to the same conclusions just because we have theM'kay.
> same group of data available, if only because we come from
> different backgrounds (our "full sets of data" are different).
> For the record, I'm quite open to the idea that the UEW containsThat might be a place to look further.
> fair amounts of substrate loans (take for instance the prevalence
> of Finnic-Samic-Mordvinic isoglosses, and their different
> phonotactical properties compared to common Uralic).
> Or are you trying to say that *ka is an un-Uralic combination andYou tell me. It's an un-IE combination.
> therefore sufficient grounds for a word being a loan? ;)
> Also remember, the paucity of *k and *a in PIE is an exception, notThe paucity of *k and *a in PIE is a fact.
> a rule...