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.
>
> 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.

Into SOME of them. You'll be hard-pressed to explain the occurrence of *kane- "to carry" in Samoyedic, if it's to be a post-PU substrate loan from this specific substrate.

> > 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.

Okay, so you're not saying "I trust he has data that demonstrates that...", but "I trust that he has some data east of Europe"? I can trust that he does, but it leaves it undemonstrated that said data actually reflects the ar/ur-language. (And I do not trust *that* part without seeing the data.)

> > Assuming you do wish to advance the idea.
>
> What idea?

That the ar/ur-language occurred in all areas populated by Uralic speakers.

Do note that your idea of turning pan-Uralic roots into substrate loans DOES require the substrate to have occurred across ALL of the Uralic area (at some point in history), not just some corner or border of it.

> > Do you really have anything you hold as more than hypothesis?
>
> No, that's exactly what it is. A hypothesis.

And if this is true, this discussion has been a huge waste of time.

> > 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"

The descent is getting confusing now. Didn't you say *kant- is not from PIE, but a later substrate loan?

> > > > Or will you insist that "100" is also a part of this substrate
> > > > loan complex?
> > >
> > > Yes.

> > *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 in order to hold on to the relationship, you need to demonstrate that your supposed later north European substrate is related to this supposed older substrate to PIE. You also need to demonstrate that said substrate to PIE even exists.

> > > > > 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.

So you claim you CAN say for sure? Weren't you "just speculating"?

If that's the case, then please provide a statistical proof that the likelihood of this word being related to your other supposed substrate loans word is substantially higher (let's say, at a meagre 95% confidence level) than it being coincidentally similar. Because I definitely think this is an insufficiently small corpus here.

(Statistical proof, as an aside, is the tool you can use when you are *sure* that you have a watertight case alreddy and your opponents are just being needlessly stubborn.)

> > Could be from "100" again just as well.
>
> 'Roman 100'? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

No, "group" as derived from "100".

> > A semantic development "100" > "group" makes more sense to me
> > than the opposite (and again, "100" is also better
> > reconstructible).
>
> Not to me.

Well, this is going nowhere fast (since unfortunately, there are no hard-and-fast rules for how semantics can change). Does anyone else on the group have an opinion? Or parallels?

> > > > > 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?

"No relation" is the zero hypothesis. You need solid arguments before you can conclude anything to the contrary. I hope this doesn't come as news to you.

Or this another case of "I *think* it looks similar, but I'm not going to try defend this position"? You can think whatever you want, if that's the case.

> > > > 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.

Yes. We kno pretty well there were contacts between Uralic and Iranian speakers. This does not mean you get to assume for free that the former adopted some facet of cultural organization of the latter. You need evidence specific to Uralic-speaking groups to be able to make claims about Uralic-speaking groups, OK?

> > > > 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!

> > 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".

Which mean "corner", "edge" in general, not "flank".

If this were derived from "flank", we would expect that to be one of the primary meanings. But it's not.

> > > > > > 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 ...).
> >
> > I only said "a loan", nothing about Germanic.
>
> Well, everybody says it's from Germanic.

You'll be delighted then to hear that I'm intending to look into the issue in depth. There are some funny correspondences in some supposed Germanic loans; and some even have a competing Uralic etymology (so, potential Finnic > Germanic loans...)

> > 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.

I'm reading it. And then you tell me I read it wrong, since you rarely if ever mention if you are writing something as wild speculation / working hypothesis / part of your theory. (Note to self: never assume anything when discussing with Torsten.)

> > ...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.

Picking data depending on if it fits a theory is definitely belo what is humanly possible.

> > > > > > > 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.

Yeah, you have them IN URALIC. You do NOT have anything similar in IE. This means you have no evidence for them being loaned anywhere, and the distribution is best explained by inheritance from PU.

> > 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.

Let me try an analogy: "The word 'lame' occurs in Finnish, except in the form _liemi_ and meaning 'broth'".

Or in case that's going to send you on a crazy errand to etymologize "lame" from Uralic (I honestly couldn't tell), something more caricaturized: "The word 'catacomb' occurs in Finnish, except in the form _kanakoppi_ and meaning 'chicken coop'."

You seem to be having difficulties in understanding what it means for two words to be the same. *kan-(ta-) "to carry" or *kënta "base (of tree)" is NOT the "same word" as "hunt", nor "Kante", nor "Chatti". You have not presented any semantically coherent connection between them either.

> > > > 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?

What do you mean by "them being the starting point", to begin with?

> > > > > and by using Uralic sound laws you get no further than
> > > > > claiming three, possibly four Uralic roots.

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

You have not shown that they CAN be related. You've merely pointed out semantically and phonetically distinct words elsewhere that have some distant resemblance. The exact hows of the supposed relationship remain unclear.

> > > > > 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?

That was just my assumption on how you were trying to relate "pole" and "flank" (since you did not elaborate).

I still hang on to the zero hypothesis: "base of tree, supporting pole" has nothing to do with "flank", or "hunt", or "edge".

> > > > 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

> > 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.

One can conjecture anything (for example, I can conjecture the 'catacomb' vs. 'kanakoppi' example erlier). Evidence, man. My interest in continuing this discussion is rapidly running out if you do not procure evidence.

> > What you NEED is attestation in a language known to have
> > influenced all required Uralic groups.
>
> Of course I don't.

Yes you do. Otherwise the loanword argument is not feasible. Loaning into, say, Finnic does not cause the word to propagate backwards in time to Proto-Uralic and then redistribute itself to Ugric with all expected sound changes. We'd see all sorts of irregularities if it were later propagation from language group to language group.

> > > > > 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.

No, the Ob-Ugric meaning is "the pole that supports a storage", not the whole storage. And comparing the semantics elsewhere, this is obviously a recent development, not the original meaning of the word. You might note that for example Samic does not retain this sense, despite using the same kind of hunting storage.

> Do you have separate organs for talking and thinking?

I even have a third for typing. You don't? :)

> > 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.

If you wish to "speculate" that they have been, you are expected to try. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time and bandwidth... I don't think speculation is *necessarily* worthless, but it is, if you are neither willing to *defend* your ideas nor *discard* them.

In other words, put up or shut up. I'm done with this discussion if you have nothing substantial to contribute.

> > > > 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?

> Torsten

Hehe. No, us humans, just in less cold but still non-tropical environment (before the invention of Siberian-winter-proof clothing).

And there are plenty of migratory animals to provide example...

John Vertical