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.
>
> Into SOME of them.

You are of course referring to the Uralic languages in Australia and South America?

> 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.

But it's not.

> > > 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.)

You can't believe I said what I just said, so you try the sliding term trick again... No, I'm saying I trust he has data which conform to those rules he set up for his ar-/ur- language.

> > > Assuming you do wish to advance the idea.
> >
> > What idea?
>
> That the ar/ur-language occurred in all areas populated by Uralic
> speakers.

As other people may have noticed, I have already put forward my theory, but you are now entertaining the possibility that someone may have forced me to pronounce it against my will?

> 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.

No, it requires it to have occurred along the southern edge of it. 'Kant', as we say in Danish.

> > > 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.

I am sorry to hear that you have spent huge amounts of time in vain on my hypothesis. That time will never come back.

> > > 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.

'Descent'?? You sound like a SvT journalist interviewing a Sweden Democrat.

> Didn't you say *kant- is not from PIE, but a later substrate loan?

And that it was then teleported back to PIE? No, I think *kant- was a loan into PIE.

> > > > > 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.

I think we have different needs.
In the meanwhile, write a treatise proving that Ubykh 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"?
>

Yes, I was, but I think it is the best proposal around, and I can't understand why I haven't got the Nobel Prize for it yet. If they wait too much longer, it will be too late for me to spend it on whores and champagne.

> 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.)

How many percent proof did you say it was? I only do that on festive occasions and since I don't plan on going over the Niagara, I don't need a watertight case either.

> > > 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".

So when you say '100' you really mean 'group'?
PGmc *hund-raða "100", cf Gothic raþjo "number", must mean "'hunt'-number", ie the *hunt- was a group.
(While I'm at it: Gothic hunþs "body of captives", OE hu:þ etc)

> > > 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).

One can always try and use one's head.

> Does anyone else on the group have an opinion?

No, they are afraid of me.

> Or parallels?

How about Uralic?
'group' > 'ten'
cf IE
'group' > 'ten'/'hundred'/'decade'
Now try and reverse the arrows and see how much sense that makes.

> > > > > > 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.

When a ball disappears at one end of a tube and soon after a ball appears at the other end, very small children assume, scientifically correctly, the null hypothesis, namely that there are two balls. Very early on however, children will assume that the two balls are actually one and the same, but that is scientifically wrong, because we have no actual knowledge of what is actually going on inside the tube. Many people unfortunately hang on to these beliefs into adult age. We scientist have a huge enlightenmentatorial task ahead of us. And 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"?

Huh? How would one do that?

> You can think whatever you want,

Boo-hoo, that is the nicest thing anybody ever said to me on cybalist.

> if that's the case.

Oh, there was a proviso. So I can't think what I want after all? It was too good to be true anyway.

> > > > > 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.

I am sorry. How much do I owe you?

From
The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages
p. 251
'This world is composed of various cultures that have continued the basic traditions of the local Bronze Age. The most significant among them are two cultural formations that gave their names to the early (eighth to third centuries bc), and later (second century bc to second century ad) phases of the local Iron Age. These are the Ananyino and the Pyanobor intercommunities, the sites of which are concentrated mainly along the Kama basin (left tributary of the Volga river). Gening (1988) defines this area as the Prikamsky historical and geographical region where the continuous development of economic, social, and cultural processes resulted in the formation of ethnic groups of the western Urals such as: the Komi-Permians, the Udmurts (Votyaks), the Cheremis (Mari), and Mordvins 1 (Goldina 1999; Khalikov 1990). Some Scandinavian scholars regard the northern Fennoscandia as the westernmost component of this world. During the eighth—seventh centuries bc and continuing from that time, the economic and cultural changes that occurred in northern Fenno-Scandia were mainly related to links with the Ananyino culture metallurgical centers (Aronsson & Hedman 2000). Northeastern Europe constituted its part as well.'

p. 262
'This culture [Pyanobor] continued along Ananyino lines but with some Sarmatian (Prokhorovo) influence and with inclusions of population groups coming from beyond the Urals. Nomadic presence here was not limited only by influence; it was more substantial. Some scholars interpret this influence as a result of the process of sedentarization when some part of the nomads passed to a more stable economic and life regime. Researchers distinguish four tribal groups concentrated around the biggest fortified settlements. The Kara-Abyz population was numerous and more heavily armed compared with other cultures of the Pyanobor pan-tribal union. The culture is generally dated to the period between the third century bc and third century AD.'

> You need evidence specific to Uralic-speaking groups to be able to
> make claims about Uralic-speaking groups, OK?

I suppose you could say that this is a specialized case of the rule that you need evidence specific to a subject to be able to make claims about that subject?
Actually I already knew that. But the problem is that I don't make any claims, so it doesn't apply here.

> > > > > 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".

They mean "edge", never "corner". In Dutch it might mean "direction" too ('die kant op' "in that direction"), in Danish it means "area" in some fixed expressions ('på de kanter' "in that geographical area"). It is connected with water's edge, cf German (from Low German) 'Waterkant' "the German North Sea coast".

And besides, I shouldn't have used the word 'flank' since it has connotations of something organically a part of a homogenous army, which 'kant-' isn't, it is a socially and/or ethnically internally homogenous separate part of a heterogenous collection of people.
Cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariovistus#The_battle
'The Germans formed by ethnic group before the Romans: Harudes, Marcomanni, Triboci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii and Suebi'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains#Battle

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

Don't red-herring me. I wrote 'flank' between two '>'s.

> > > > > > > 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...)

Yes, UEW is full of those words with competing Uralic and Germanic pedigree.

> > > 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.

That's exactly what it is.

> (Note to self: never assume anything when discussing with Torsten.)

Sound advice.

> > > ...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.

Pole-vaulting over 5 m is also humanly possible, but I'm afraid I am too old to pick up the sport now.

> > > > > > > > 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;

By 'all evidence' I assume you mean UEW?

> > > > > > > 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.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62535
UEW
'The inclusion of the Saami Norwegian Saami gad'de 'bank' runs into
phonological and semantic difficulties. It can only be admitted if a
semantic change 'ground' -> 'edge' -> 'river bank' has taken place;
see also *kanta 'edge, river bank' Finno-Ugric.'
(note the correspondence of the latter with Low German 'Waterkant')
I think that derivation is wrong. I think it's the doubleness of the two supporting beams of the storage hut which became used as a pattern / metaphor for something alike and placed in parallel, ie the wings, or rather two armies of a battle order.

Therefore, the "carry"/"post" entry should be included in the set of loans from the ar-/ur-language.

> > > 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'".

Wow.

> 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 don't say.

> 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".

Is too.
UEW: 'In SKES the Finnish words kanta and kanto are separated. This seems not to be warranted semantically.' I seek comfort in the fact that either UEW or SKES also seems to be having difficulties in understanding what it means for two words to be the same.

> You have not presented any semantically coherent connection between
> them either.

I think I have.

> > > > > 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?

Their sense is the starting point of the semantic sequence.

> > > > > > 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.

Haven taken a second look at UEW, I take that back.

> 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.

'kant' and 'kanta-' are semantically and phonetically distinct words with some distant resemblance?

> The exact hows of the supposed relationship remain unclear.

Yes.

> > > > > > 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).

You were wrong.

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

And: ball appearing at the low end of tube is different from the one which entered at the high end.

> > > > > 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.

M'kay.

> > > 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.

That was a clever observation. Do you feel I have violated that rule somewhere?

> We'd see all sorts of irregularities if it were later propagation
> from language group to language group.

Probably. So?

> > > > > > 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.

So you are arguing that although hunting storages were cultural items the designations of which might have been loaned along with the article itself, the support on which it stands isn't?

> 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.

Germanic *kot- "hut" etc.

> > Do you have separate organs for talking and thinking?
>
> I even have a third for typing. You don't? :)

I have two. Sorry about your loss.

> > > 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.

If I wish to speculate, I speculate. I don't know what weird laws you have in your country.

> Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time and bandwidth...

Oh no!

> I don't think speculation is *necessarily* worthless,

Thank you!

> but it is, if you are neither willing to *defend* your ideas nor
> *discard* them.

Okay.

> In other words, put up or shut up.

Put up what?

> I'm done with this discussion if you have nothing substantial to
> contribute.

I am sorry to hear that. Vel sim.

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

I don't think so. You'd have to develop the technology for seasonal relocation first.

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

They flew to Africa?



Torsten