Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> > > > > > "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.

Here is the original quote:
'"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. It reaches both in the North and in the West to the outer coasts of our continent, and in the Southeast at least into the countries around the Black Sea. An eastern border is quite in the dark for me. In most of the countries
these names, AFAI see, are spread out thinly. In some great landscapes they are practically absent, in others their accumulation goes far above the average.
'
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65178

And you can't go east from Europe without bumping into the Uralic languages.

> 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.

Don't try the sliding term thing on me. I said I trusted Kuhn to have the data he claimed to have, not some 'idea' from wherever.

> Assuming you do wish to advance the idea.

What 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?

No, that's exactly what it is. A 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).

Dispute to your heart's content. I'm a nice and tolerant person.

> > > > > > 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.

'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"?

No, I think IE *k^ent-om is gen-pl. of *kant- "group of people"

> > > 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.

So?

> > 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?
>

No, not yet.

> > > > 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.

Nonsense.

> Could be from "100" again just as well.

'Roman 100'? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

> A semantic development "100" > "group" makes more sense to me than
> the opposite (and again, "100" is also better reconstructible).

Not to me.

> > > > 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.

For its looking coincidental or not? I don't get it?

> > > 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.

They always had a common border. The peoples of the forest-steppe zone in the north spoke Uralic, those on the steppe in the south spoke Iranian.
Koryakova, Epimakhov
The Urals in the Bronze and Iron Ages
'The big transit rivers — the Ob', Irtysh, Ishim, and Tobol — are of the Kazakhstan type, which is characterized by a high level of spring water (up to 90 percent) and a small water level during other seasons. The rivers flow from steppe to the forest zone, and from early prehistory they have served as the main way of communication between the south and north. Although the navigational season of these rivers ranging from six to three months was a serious obstacle to transportation, pathways formed by the frozen surface of rivers were usually used for overland movement.'

Which means Uralic-speakers would have met with Southern military organization, probably not under happy circumstances.

> > > 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.

Sw. kant (Dutch kant, Germ. Kante, Ital. canto, Da. kant "edge".

>
> > > > > (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.

Plays where?

> 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.

Well, everybody says it's from 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?)

It was sota all over the place then. Peace was the exception.

> > And that's why I was trying to keep it out.
>
> What's stopping you from trying?

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

> > > > "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).

Let me clarify that statement:
I don't think I claimed we *had* to do that.

> > > > > 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?

I have a hunch the prenasalization or not is stress-dependent. Schrijver had no soundlaws.

> > > > > 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"

I'm not sure about 'urine'

> with "hand", "hundred" etc. because they begin with *k and contain
> a coda nasal,

True.

> and more similar inanities.

Nope. There was clear possible semantics route for each pair.

> > > 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?

No, I say some of them I'm not so sure of.

> 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.

I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I mean, read what I wrote.

> > > > > 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.

Of course. I'm only human. And then I present my theory here so that other people can point out discrepancies.

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

No, it's 'because that not match the ar-/ur- language, because i am trying to show that it is a possible donor of those words.

> > > > > > 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.

No.

> Either you have words that mean eg. "to carry", or you do not.

Neither, I have them in Uralic, not in IE.

> And if you do not, then "these words" DO NOT occur elsewhere, plain
> and simple. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Yes, very, as are a large number of your other sentences.

> > > 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.
>

Erh, what?

> > > > 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.

OK, so they are containable within Uralic. But they can be related to word complexes outside of Uralic which form connections between them.

> > > > > 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".

'Standard'? Where did that come from?
Note in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62525
'ostjakisch (315)
Vasjugan-Dialekt kant : c^om&l k. 'an dem Pfosten des Waldspeichers
befestigter waagerechter Balken, auf den der ganze Speicher gebaut
wird (es sind davon zwei, einer an jedem Fuß vorhanden)',
Dialekt an der unteren Demjanka (Gewährsmann Tailakov) xont 'Gitter,
das um den Fuß des auf einem Pfosten stehenden Waldspeichers gemacht
und auf dem der Fußboden angebracht wird; (hypokor.) Hinterbeine des
Bären',
Kazym-Dialekt xont 'Fuß, Pfeiler des Speichers od. Waldspeichers' |'

which I pointed out before,

translation:
"Khanty (315)
Vasyugan dialect kant : c^om&l k. 'horizontal beam fastened to the post of the forest storage, on which the whole storage construction is built (there are two of them, one at each foot)',
dialect of the lower Demyanka (informant Tailakov) xont 'lattice which is built around the foot of the storage construction which stands on a post and which is placed on the foot of the floor; (hypochor.) hind legs of the bear',
Kazym dialect xont 'foot, post of the storage or forest storage' |"

> > > > > 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",

Yes.

> then, as admitted before, you need further evidence to conclude
> that Uralic *kunta is a post-PU substrate loan.

I'm not concluding anything. It's a conjecture. Theory.

> 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.

Similar, not loosely.

> What you NEED is attestation in a language known to have influenced
> all required Uralic groups.

Of course I don't.

> 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."

M'kay.

> > > > > 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?

No, because no one did it right till now, I suspect going down that path isn't worth it.

> > > > 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.

Same. Releveant.

> > > > > (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.

Do you have separate organs for talking and thinking?

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

M'kay.

> > > > > 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 haven't even tried. Nor do I have to.

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

I did, for lack of knowledge.
Actually I saw some Slovenian loony trying to relate Slav. 'konec' "end" to Scand. 'kant'. No good etymology exists, and -t might have been reinterpreted as -ec.

> > > > > > > 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.

By whom? Siberian snow monkeys?

> > > 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 ..."

That's a pretty good description.

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

I don't think speculations are worthless. In the meanwhile, write and present a dissertation to me on why Ptolemaic epicycles don't work. Until then I shall demand that everybody professes as truth that the sun revolves around the earth.

> 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.)

M'kay.



Torsten