From: Torsten
Message: 65242
Date: 2009-10-14
>unless he's lying, of course,
> > > > > > "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.)
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, you mean that he has the data,
> that he has interpreted it correctly,according to his own theory? I trust he did.
> and that you have assumed correctly *what* data he has.Erh, what?
> I see nothing suggesting that by "far beyond Europa" he meansNo, and?
> Siberia specifically.
> And at any rate, this tangent won't take the burden of proof offWhat? Proof? I didn't write the article. But I can't find the names he refers to in those of his articles I searched. But it doesn't matter, since words of the ar-/ur- etc language are found also in Western Europe, which means either Uralic got that far (which I don't believe), or that those words belong to a common sub- or adstrate to both IE and Uralic (namely the ar-/ur- etc language).
> your back.
> > > > It would mean that some substrate in EuropeWhat is the matter with you? Do you have ADHD??
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No, it's more than that. Try
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56153
> > taking keywords from that.
>
> "Hate" and "woven"? Try connecting the latter with "hidden" et al
> if you wish, but to "hunt"??
> > (whether positive or negative'; OWel, MBret, Corn <cas>) <Why are you attributing other people's proposals to me, proposals I explicitly reject in this quote?
> > PIE *k^ah2d- 'hate'.
>
> So that's the PIE -h2d- > Celtic -ss-?
>
> > PCelt. *kasso- 'curly, woven, twisted' (OIr <cass>, Gaulish
> > <Cassi->, <Bodio-casses>), no PIE.
>
> I'm rather infatuated with Twe-hanti, Þri-hanti vs. Tri-cassi vs.
> Catti/Chatti/Hessen vs. centuria, so I think I'll stick with that
> instead of The Hatefuls or The Curlies, if it's OK with you.'
> > > Okay, so there's *kan-tho- "edge" which looks like it could beOK.
> > > 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.
>
> In fact Samic *kánté could be simply a loan from Proto-
> Scandinavian. No extra intermediaries required.
> > > I continue not to see the semantic link to "hunting group" orSez George and me. Read the interesting (I think) discussion in the archive. Seems they came from within NWB-land.
> > > the 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.
> >
> > Who talks about Germanic? The Chatti weren't.
>
> Says who?
> > From your Pokorny *kan-tho- "edge":'cymr. cant ,Schar', dazu mir.Erh?
> > céte (*kantya:) ,Versammlung', wohl als *,Hundertschaft'
> > identisch mit cymr. cant ,100' oben S. 92;
>
> Oh hello, homophony.
> Or will you insist that "100" is also a part of this substrate loanYes.
> complex?
> Judging by the recent posts you would seem to. This messes up the?? Of?
> dating pretty bad, y'kno.
> > It's apparently Venetic too:This one
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61079
>
> Interesting. Which Venetic is this?
> > BTW, just found this one, I wasn't aware of it:I disagree.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/9416
>
> Looks coincidental.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55551The Chatti weren't Germanic.
>
> Is within Germanic area.
> > > That makes about as much sense as "edge" ~ "a sharp-toothedThose middle terms are your own. I haven't advocated them.
> > > animal" ~ "hound", or "edge" ~ "knife" ~ "handheld tool" ~
> > > "hand",
> See, the key problem with expanding the "flank" connection is thatGoddammit! For the third time:
> it is a very culture-specific one.
> There is no automatical connection between "group" and "edge",What??
> especially not between "hunt" and "edge". Moreover, a flank is a
> special case of both, so whichever direction you begin from, you'd
> need first a specialization of meaning, then a re-generalization in
> another direction with a full loss of the older specialized
> meaning, and even while still retaining the original meaning, it
> seems. That's a tall order!
> You'll need to toss in something more before I'll buy it.Would you like a retread with you new theory? Or perhaps a piece of strawberry shortcake?
> Also, remind me, which one DO you hold to be the original meaning?I used to think it was "carry", but considering the "hand" words ...
> > > (OTOH hound ~ hunt might have something to it, but it'sAnd?
> > > not directly relevant now).
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, we have no sense of "dog" in Uralic.
> I'm most of the time not sure what you are discussing exactly, butOK, so that one hasn't. And?
> I'm discussing the issue of if any of these kVNT words have been
> loaned to Uralic.
> > > Finnic *kansa is a kno'n loan, so not relevant.No, you and everybody assume it's a loan to Uralic from Germanic, and then shine up the assumption by calling it a conclusion. I assume it's a loan from the ar-/ur- etc language to Uralic and Germanic (and Celtic and ...).
> >
> > Finnic *kansa is an assumed loan, so relevant.
>
> Clarifying: it's not relevant to the issue of if PU was in contact
> with these ar/ur/geminate substrate thingamajigs, because this
> lacks an Uralic etymology. Again, we do not assume it to be a loan,
> we conclude it to be.
> Or are you referring to there being a regular Permic cognate (*goozYou go on with your 'loan from Germanic'.
> "pair")? Yes, it could in theory be inherited until Finno-Permic.
> Nothing in Mari and Mordvinic (or Ugric/Samoyed) however, so
> possibly a loan thru Finnic?
> I'd need to check if that correspondence exists in any otherNo.
> supposed F > P loans. It does look a bit too old for that.
>
>
> > > "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).
>
> And then "hand" as something you hit people with?
> I don't think this will fly. "Loosely having something to do withAnd that's why I was trying to keep it out.
> war" is not sufficient (what doesn't link that way, if you have
> some imagination?)
> > "hidden",I don't think I claimed we had to do that.
> > Check these
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50960
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/51056
> > for 'hude'.
>
> Just because we have a word that could go with the "hide" etymon,
> or with the "edge" etymon, we don't have to make them one and the
> same (at least not the same on the post-PIE timescale).
> > "cunt" ~ "kusi" etc.Or you could drag in *kunc^V *kuc^V "tapeworm"
> > If there's any connection, it's as "fish meat"/"inferior meat",
> cf. Sw. kött and Eng. chitlings, ie. as the food of the conquered,
> originally the object of the hunting/fishing expedition.
> "Food of the conquered"? I'm going to say this idea is stillborn.
> Especially from the Uralic POV, given that *kuns´i is near
> pan-Uralic with the exclusiv meaning of "urine". You could much
> better argue for "that which is to be hidden" (not that I would
> think of that as convincing either, however).
> > > If you are saying what I think you are saying (ie. that theseThat pretty much exhausts that set.
> > > are all "related somehow") the criteria for
> > > related-somehow-ness seem to come down to:
> > > 1) Forget all about MOA
> > Isn't that a kind of bird?
>
> Manner of Articulation. nt~t~tt~nd~d~dd~ns~ss~s~... anything goes!?
> Likewise, POA = Place of Articulation.It's a gross distortion.
> > > 2) Forget all about semantics
> > No.
> Only a minor exaggerration what I think you're doing here.
> Sticking with the "people" words first is what I would do in yourBut you're not.
> stead.
> > > 3) Look for vowels that adhere to a pre-decided setOf course.
> > Are part of.
>
> As you will; keyword being "pre-decided" however.
> > > Heck, why not change #3 toYes.
> > > 3b) Forget all about vowels
> > Because that would not be in the ar-/ur- language.
>
> That's a telling answer.
> > > > > > > Also the distinction between Uralic *kunta "group, toNo.
> > > > > > > hunt", "to hunt", *kan-ta "to carry" and *kënta "stump,
> > > > > > > base" is by all evidence one inherited from PU;
> > > > > > If you give up your assumption that they are native Uralic
> > > > > > words, you will.
>
> > They occur far to the west of the Uralic area,
>
> Something very very loosely resembling them.
> Do you have anything that actually means "to carry", or "base (ofNo.
> tree)"?
> If not, just admit that these are unrelated.No, I think they are the starting point.
> > and by using Uralic sound laws you get no further than claimingSemantics, no. Phonetics, within Uralic, yes.
> > three, possibly four Uralic roots.
>
> Not a problem. They contrast in numerous languages, and have
> consistently distinct semantics and phonetics.
> > > If you use a method other than the presense of phoneticalIs too.
> > > 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.
> >
> > That's the one I use.
>
> Good, we agree on something.
>
>
> > > More seriously tho, there is an obvious semantic connection
> > > between "democrat" and "democracy" that does not exist between
> > > "stump" and "to hunt".
> >
> > No, you'd have to assume a semantic historic development that
> > went "support" -> "one of two supports, carrying pole" > "flank"
> > "social/military organization".
>
> As I said, no obvious connection.
> Too many assumptions.No.
> The meaning of "pole" is limited to Ob-Ugric, ie. east (and youNo, I use only the first.
> seem to be sneaking in a polysemy of "carrying pole", as
> "weight-carrying" vs. "that which is carried, standard" - only the
> 1st is attested);
> west there is only "tree stump", "base".Yes.
> Again, you also cannot extrapolate ~Germanic society toWhat on earth are you talking about?
> Proto-Uralic.
> > > > > Down that road, we could as well decide that all words areNo, Why Majority Sets Of Words With Regular Correspondences Aren't
> > > > > substrate loans and call it a day.
> > >
> > > 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're cross-loans, or both loaned from the same substrate...
> > > hm, looks like this substrate contains alternations such as -k
> > > ~ -x... and -t- ~ -ts-...
> >
> > And you'd end up with a huge corpus from that 'substrate' which
> > would turn out to be regular descent.
>
> Yes. Thus concludes our demonstration of Why Words With Regular
> Correspondences Aren't Later Substrate Loans.
> Next we could put said result to use.No, because it is wrong.
>Because the comparison attempts I've seem don't seem to go past sets of words, no account of grammatical development.
> > > Also external comparisions can just as well point to common
> > > inheritance
> >
> > I usually avoid that.
>
> Because?
> > The words I stumble over look from the semantics to be'Hunting storage' is. It goes with a way of life.
> > Kulturwörter.
>
> Are "tree stump", "to carry" cultural words too?
> "Urine"? "Hate"?I never included those.
> > > (if not straight out coincidence).What?
> > Hardly.
>
> Oh, but you'll need statistical proof to be able to back that up.
>What is it you're trying to say here?
> > > All I'm saying is that these go back to proto-Uralic.
> > I thought you had a lot to say on method?
>
> Well, all I'm saying on the origin of *kunta *kanta- *kënta within
> Uralic. And some method inevitable comes up with even that, if I
> need to explain how does one end at that conclusion.
> > > > > > > And I have no idea what you are getting at with theNo, someone before them invented the idea of relocating to a hunting base for the summer. They used to do that until recently on Greenland.
> > > > > > > other roots with *ka- you list in msg #62525.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Proto-Uralians invented hunting-gathering and/or storing food?
> Either you're having problems communicating the gist of your idea,Pfft.
> or you're doing comedy.
> And anyway, I meant: what is your thesis on the relationships ofThat they are loans from a sub- or adstrate.
> the Uralic words you list?
> Think a little smaller, please.No.
> Getting something anything solid together first, insted ofM'kay.
> trying to juggle all the strings simultaneously, would definitely
> help others to agree if you are on to something at all, too.
> > > Or are you trying to say that *ka is an un-Uralic combinationDoes too, if the words belong together.
> > > and therefore sufficient grounds for a word being a loan? ;)
> >
> > You tell me. It's an un-IE combination.
>
> > The paucity of *k and *a in PIE is a fact.
> >
> Yeah, I'm not contesting that, it just doesn't matter diddly squat
> when dealing with another language family.
> They're quite common in Uralic, especially together,Erh, and?
> in case you didn't gather yetI did, actually.
> (apparently you have access to the UEW to check, too).Yes, we need to tighten the procedures on access to our sacred books.