Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

> > > > > "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.

> > I see nothing suggesting that by "far beyond Europa" he means
> > Siberia specifically.
>
> No, and?

Therefore you can't just say that you "trust" that the distribution of the ar/ur language includes the Uralic(/Ugric/Samoyedic) homeland(s). You're not trusting an explicit claim, you're making an interpretation.

Furthermore, *I* couldn't care if you have "trust" in such an idea, you have to provide evidence if you wish to advance the idea.

Assuming you do wish to advance the idea. After reading this latest message I'm more confused than ever about what you are trying to say at all. Do you really have anything you hold as more than hypothesis?

> But it doesn't matter, since words of the ar-/ur- etc language are found also in Western Europe,

That IS where they are found. I'm disputing your assertion that they occur in Uralic at all (aside from later loans into the more Western branches).

> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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"??
>
> What is the matter with you? Do you have ADHD??

Information overload. Sorry, wrong keywords. Okay, I'm not interested in arguing what role Celtic, Chatti etc. exactly play, so I'll just amend "Germanic" to "West European".

> > > From your Pokorny *kan-tho- "edge":'cymr. cant ,Schar', dazu
> > > mir. céte (*kantya:) ,Versammlung', wohl als *,Hundertschaft'
> > > identisch mit cymr. cant ,100' oben S. 92;
> >
> > Oh hello, homophony.
>
> Erh?

Do you expect me to believe a word meaning "a group of hundred" would be just coincidentally similar to the word meaning "hundred", and insted deriving from a word meaning "military organization", or "edge"?

> > Or will you insist that "100" is also a part of this substrate
> > loan complex?
>
> Yes.
>
> > This messes up the dating pretty bad, y'kno.
>
> ?? Of?

*kmtom is from PIE (what with being found in Indo-Iranian, Tocharian etc.) Up until now you've operated on supposed post-PIE loans into Germanic/Celtic. This one is at least a millennium or two older, and at a completely different location.

Then again, in another message you do state that you

> tentatively broke up the root to see if that would explain part of
> the corpus.

Any chance for a recap for what words go in which part?

> > > It's apparently Venetic too:
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61079
> >
> > Interesting. Which Venetic is this?
>
> This one
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic

OK.
Anyway, too small of a corpus there to say for sure, it seems. Could be from "100" again just as well. A semantic development "100" > "group" makes more sense to me than the opposite (and again, "100" is also better reconstructible).

> > > BTW, just found this one, I wasn't aware of it:
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/9416
> >
> > Looks coincidental.
>
> I disagree.

Well, let's see some arguments then.

> > See, the key problem with expanding the "flank" connection is
> > that it is a very culture-specific one.
>
> Goddammit! For the third time:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65159
> 'The tribe could be of dual (left and right "wings") or triple (left and right wings plus a center), and was militarily organized by the decimal structure (i.e., units of thousands, hundred, and tens with a hierarchy of leaders) (Taskin 1989).'
> and the title of the chapter was
> 'Social Organizations of Eurasian Nomads'
> So, pay attention now: this is the very culture-specific social organization of Eurasian nomads.

Yes, fine, whatever. There's your military alright. I don't really care as long as you have zero evidence for this kind of organization in hunter-gatherer cultures, or in ancient Uralic speakers. And that is what you need if you want for some reason trace all this back to Uralic as well.

> > 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!
>
> What??
> Now I don't know how far you can count (maybe counting on your fingers will help?) or how many fancy words you know, but here's the trick: 'dual' means there were two, and 'triple' means there were three. In the first case both 'wings' would be 'flanks', and in the second two thirds of them would be (yes, those on the sides).

I understand what "flank" means, thank you very much. I'm pointing at the problem that these *kVNT words never seem to mean "flank" explicitly.

> > > > (OTOH hound ~ hunt might have something to it, but it's
> > > > 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,
> > but I'm discussing the issue of if any of these kVNT words have
> > been loaned to Uralic.
>
> OK, so that one hasn't.

Excellent. So it is then NOT relevant for determining what part Uralic plays here.

Yes, it is relevant for the cluster as a whole, but I have far too little expertise with IE to tackle the whole thing.

> > > > Finnic *kansa is a kno'n loan, so not relevant.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> 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 ...).

I only said "a loan", nothing about Germanic.

> > > > "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).

> > I don't think this will fly. "Loosely having something to do with
> > war" is not sufficient (what doesn't link that way, if you have
> > some imagination?)
>
> And that's why I was trying to keep it out.

What's stopping you from trying?

> > > "hidden",
> > > 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).
>
> I don't think I claimed we had to do that.

What are you claiming then? Your second link there definitely seems to argue for linking "hidden" and "edge" (paraphrased from Udolph, but I see no stance of your own).

> > > > If you are saying what I think you are saying (ie. that these
> > > > 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!?
>
> That pretty much exhausts that set.

9 options, then. How many of them do you have a sound-law explanation for?

> > > > 2) Forget all about semantics
> > > No.
>
> > Only a minor exaggerration what I think you're doing here.
>
> It's a gross distortion.

If it is, I've completely misunderstood what you are trying to do. I certainly have been under the impression that you are trying to link "urine" with "hand", "hundred" etc. because they begin with *k and contain a coda nasal, and more similar inanities.

> > Sticking with the "people" words first is what I would do in your
> > stead.
>
> But you're not.

You keep linking me to messages where you discuss semantically obviously unrelated words, and then claim that I am trying to drag them in? At least you could tell what am I supposed to gleam from each link you post. I should not have to plow thru every message of every previous discussion on the topic before I can understand what you are saying.

> > > > 3) Look for vowels that adhere to a pre-decided set
> > > Are part of.
> >
> > As you will; keyword being "pre-decided" however.
>
> Of course.
>
> > > > Heck, why not change #3 to
> > > > 3b) Forget all about vowels
> > > Because that would not be in the ar-/ur- language.
> >
> > That's a telling answer.
>
> Yes.

...namely, it tells that you account or ignore things basing on if they fit your pet theory.

The correct answer to "why not forget all about the vowels" is naturally "because that would be unscientific distortion of data".

> > > > > 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;
>
> > > > 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.
> No.
>
> > Do you have anything that actually means "to carry", or "base (of
> > tree)"?
> No.

These two previous "no"s are directly at odds. Either you have words that mean eg. "to carry", or you do not. And if you do not, then "these words" DO NOT occur elsewhere, plain and simple. Is it really that hard to grasp?

> > If not, just admit that these are unrelated.
>
> No, I think they are the starting point.

What evidence supports this derivation? None as far as I can tell.

> > > and by using Uralic sound laws you get no further than claiming
> > > three, possibly four Uralic roots.
> >
> > Not a problem. They contrast in numerous languages, and have
> > consistently distinct semantics and phonetics.
>
> Semantics, no. Phonetics, within Uralic, yes.

Semantics, within Uralic, yes.

> > > > 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.
> Is too.

"Supporting pole" has nothing to do with "flank", especially if you do not support a derivation via "standard".

> > > > 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.
>
> No, Why Majority Sets Of Words With Regular Correspondences Aren't
> Later Substrate Loans

1) What do you mean by "majority set"?

2) In case it is simply "most", then, as admitted before, you need further evidence to conclude that Uralic *kunta is a post-PU substrate loan. It has a good distribution, good semantics and good phonetics, ie. every hallmark of an inherited word. All you have is the presence of some loosely similar words in western IE. What you NEED is attestation in a language known to have influenced all required Uralic groups. Preferrably without a circular argument of the shape "this is a substrate loan from X, therefore substrate X extended that far, therefore this is a substrate loan."

> > > > Also external comparisions can just as well point to common
> > > > inheritance
> > >
> > > I usually avoid that.
> >
> > Because?
>
> Because the comparison attempts I've seem don't seem to go past sets of words, no account of grammatical development.

So because someone did it wrong, there can be no genetic relationship?

> > > The words I stumble over look from the semantics to be
> > > Kulturwörter.
> >
> > Are "tree stump", "to carry" cultural words too?
>
> 'Hunting storage' is. It goes with a way of life.

Different word. Irrelevant.

> > > > (if not straight out coincidence).
> > > Hardly.
> >
> > Oh, but you'll need statistical proof to be able to back that up.
>
> What?

Statistical proof for the assertion that these external comparisions involving phonetically dissimilar *kVNT words are "hardly" just coincidentally similar.

Or perhaps, more & better arguments. Whichever suits you...

> > > > 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.
>
> What is it you're trying to say here?

You have not managed to show (apparently in part due to a flawed method) that these words would not be inherited from PU, but would rather be substrate loans related to various words found in western IE branches.

I seem to even notice a lack of examples from Balto-Slavic. How did the "substrate" skip them over?

> > > > > > And I have no idea what you are getting at with the
> > > > > > 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?
>
> No, someone before them invented the idea of relocating to a hunting base for the summer.

I would think that was invented about as soon as Homo sapiens first populated Siberia, if not sooner.

> > And anyway, I meant: what is your thesis on the relationships of
> > the Uralic words you list?
>
> That they are loans from a sub- or adstrate.

Sigh. Maybe I'll need to demonstrate. I would like to see something like this:

"I think word A contains a root *ka-, which has been suffixed with -X in word B and -Y in word C. Word C was then loaned to language N, where it was altered to word D, which was then loaned back as word E (which is therefore not inherited). I have no solid idea of the etymology word F, but I think it is also related to the same root behind A and B, since the semantics can be linked thus ..."

> > > > Or are you trying to say that *ka is an un-Uralic combination
> > > > 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.
>
> Does too, if the words belong together.

> Torsten

If and if. This is worthless speculation before you actually demonstrate that that they really DO belong together with some IE words.

Just to make sure, this refers to the longer list of words like *kawa- "to climb" and *kutta- "to run", in msg #62525.

(And yes, both of those examples DO happen look like good substrate loan candidates - they have bad phonetics and distribution. But this does not yet mean they have any connection to other words we've discuss'd here, or that the substrate in question has anything to do with substrates to Germanic/Celtic/etc.)

John Vertical