From: johnvertical@...
Message: 65267
Date: 2009-10-19
> > > Here is the original quote:You can go east from Europe, bump into let's say Mari, and stop there without ever venturing so far as to bump into Khanty, or Nganasan, or Selkup.
> > > '"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.'
> > > 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- "toIt's not, now? Let me quote a previous message of yours:
> > carry" in Samoyedic, if it's to be a post-PU substrate loan from
> > this specific substrate.
>
> But it's not.
> > 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.
> 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.Fine. I do not trust that he has data east of Europe that conforms to his rules. Are we done yet rehashing this point?
> > Do note that your idea of turning pan-Uralic roots into substrate"Along the whole southern border" might work for most branches (other than Samic), but given the largely lateral distribution of the Uralic family, it is not a much less tight criterion than "along the whole area". Samoyedic is where you run into problems here again. Either this would date to before it went off (and could then just as well predate PU itself), or it would have to stretch quite far east and north.
> > 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.
> > > I think IE *k^ent-om is gen.pl. of *kant- "group of people"Germanic *kant-, *hans- and *hunt- can not be inherited from that; neither "Chatti" nor "Chassi", within Celtic nor Germanic. So what IS inherited from this supposed PIE root, other than "100"? Just the Venetic word we suspect to refer to an ethnic group?
> > 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.
> > > > *kmtom is from PIE (what with being found in Indo-Iranian,I dunno. I have a need to be convinced that you are on to something. I presume you have a need to convince me (and others) that you are on to something.
> > > > 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.
> > > > > It's apparently Venetic too:And that implies not being sure about what you are saying.
> > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61079
> > > >
> > > > 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.Neither of "best proposed etymology" and "accepted etymology" implies the other.
> > > > Could be from "100" again just as well.No. I mean that the "kant-" in question could mean "group", but it would etymologically be a later derivation from "100".
> > >
> > > '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'Except the *km=t- element, when occurring independantly elsewhere in IE (and in some Germanic branches!), means "100" rather than "group" or "to hunt". Not only does this not fly, it has no wings to begin with.
> number", ie the *hunt- was a group.
> (While I'm at it: Gothic hunþs "body of captives", OE hu:þ etc)
> > Does anyone else on the group have an opinion?Or bored of you, I suspect. Debating with you doesn't have a very good results-to-effort ratio.
>
> No, they are afraid of me.
> > Or parallels?There's no discernible derivational relationship between *kunta and *kümmen, and the latter is an innovation of Finnic & Mordvinic anyway (so probably a loan). (PU for "10" is *luki. Also note that PU distinguishes *mt and *nt.)
>
> How about Uralic?
> 'group' > 'ten'
> > "No relation" is the zero hypothesis. You need solid argumentsI'm not sure what you are getting at here. The correct conclusion IS that there is only one ball (even before you can test if inserting a toy car results in an identical toy car, rather than the previously inserted ball, etc.)
> > 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.
> > > > Yes, fine, whatever. There's your military alright. I don't"More substantial" is annoyingly vague, but since they contrast it with "influence", I would interpret it to mean nomads and sedentary population coexisting.
> > > > 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.'
> > You need evidence specific to Uralic-speaking groups to be ableDefinitely.
> > 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.You do not make a claim about Uralic speakers having been introduced to decadic organization? That's funny, it very much looks like you just were presenting arguments for that.
> > > > I'm pointing at the problem that these *kVNT words never seemSo it doesn't mean "edge" after all? Just "component"? Getting worse.
> > > > 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.
> > If this were derived from "flank", we would expect that to be oneHm, your herring-color-identification skills need work. Each step in a derivation sequence is a derivation in itself. It doesn't matter if "flank" derives itself from somewhere else.
> > of the primary meanings. But it's not.
>
> Don't red-herring me. I wrote 'flank' between two '>'s.
> > > I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I mean, readUm, those are three different things.
> > > 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.
> > > Also the distinction between Uralic *kunta "group,I mean "all the data united under the roots". I'm not dependant on the UEW, to the contrary I don't even have the book.
> > > 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?
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62535Yeah, me too. I told you I agree with connecting this with Germanic *kant- insted; the semantic development with that is rather simpler.
> 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.
> > You seem to be having difficulties in understanding what it meansSigh. Okay, will you keep opposing if I rephrase that as them not being _identical_? In particular, not identical in meaning.
> > 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.'Agreed. And yet, these can not be directly cognate to Samic *kánté, since Samic *á comes from erlier *ä, not *a.
> > You have not presented any semantically coherent connectionNamely:
> > between them either.
>
> I think I have.
> 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.Right?
> > What do you mean by "them being the starting point", to beginI get what you want to do with "base (of tree)", but where do you bring "to carry" in?
> > with?
>
> Their sense is the starting point of the semantic sequence.
> > You have not shown that they CAN be related. You've merelyLet me remind again, the root "base (of tree)" is not *kanta but *kënta (which you couldn't see from the UEW, since the existence of *ë as a separate vowel had not yet been recognized by then). *ë here is to be taken as a mid unrounded back vowel. "To carry" meanwhile DOES have *a. They're not homophonic roots.
> > 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?
> > > > What you NEED is attestation in a language known to haveIf you think substrate influence in all Uralic languages having the words is not necessary, then yes (per the next).
> > > > 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 propagationWe don't see any of them. What can we conclude from this?
> > from language group to language group.
>
> Probably. So?
> > > > > > > The words I stumble over look from the semantics to beThe support is simply the base of a tree. Yes, I'm arguing that there is no need to loan a specific word for that, given that the meaning "base of tree" is confirm'd the original one by the other Uralic languages.
> > > > > > > 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 recentIf this is connected to Uralic (what specific words are you referring to anyway? "Hut"? "Cot"?) it in all likelihood belongs together with *kota "hut", not with *kënta.
> > 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.
> > > > You have not managed to show (apparently in part due to aNo law. But that's on the further assumption that you expect others to care. Since you choose to explain your thoughts at a public discussion forum, I think that's a reasonable assumption.
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > Proto-Uralians invented hunting-gathering and/or storingBoats. Pick a river and sail north, optionally trek inlands for a while.
> > > > > > 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.
> Torsten