From: Torsten
Message: 65270
Date: 2009-10-20
>It's not necessarily post-PU.
> > > > 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.'
>
> > > > 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 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.
>
> Ie. even if the area does stretch eastwards, it does not
> necessarily stretch all the way across the Uralic territory.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> It's not, now? Let me quote a previous message of yours:
>
> > > 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 slidingI am, since a couple of postings ago.
> > 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 intoYes.
> > > 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.
>
> "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.
> > > > I think IE *k^ent-om is gen.pl. of *kant- "group of people"No, those were probably borrowed from a substrate somewhere in Europe, which in turn borrowed it (or got it as a superstrate term) from the east.
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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"?The Venetic word is probably borrowed from wherever Germanic, Celtic and 'Chattic' got it from.
> Just the Venetic word we suspect to refer to an ethnic group?
> > > > > *kmtom is from PIE (what with being found in Indo-Iranian,What would it take?
> > > > > 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.
>
> 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 areNot really. I don't proselytize.
> on to something.
> Now, different standards on what counts as convincing that seemsTrue.
> likely.
>I'm pretty sure about what I'm saying; I'm not sure that's what
> > > > > > It's apparently Venetic too:
> > > > > > 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,
>
> And that implies not being sure about what you are saying.
> > but I think it is the best proposal around, and I can'tAssuming those are predicates, that makes sense, but how is that relevant?
> > 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.I disagree.
> > > >
> > > > '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'?
>
> No. I mean that the "kant-" in question could mean "group", but it
> would etymologically be a later derivation from "100".
>
> > PGmc *hund-raða "100", cf Gothic raþjo "number", must mean "'hunt'Yes, and?
> > number", ie the *hunt- was a group.
> > (While I'm at it: Gothic hunþs "body of captives", OE hu:þ etc)
>
> 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.Blah-blah-blah.
> > > Does anyone else on the group have an opinion?M'kay.
> >
> > No, they are afraid of me.
>
> Or bored of you, I suspect. Debating with you doesn't have a very
> good results-to-effort ratio.
> > > Or parallels?Within Uralic there isn't. Perhaps there is outside it, but then between *kaN-t- and *kaN-, ie I'd have to assume the *kaNt- word is composite.
> >
> > How about Uralic?
> > 'group' > 'ten'
>
> There's no discernible derivational relationship between *kunta and
> *kümmen,
> and the latter is an innovation of Finnic & Mordvinic anyway (soTold ya.
> probably a loan).
> (PU for "10" is *luki. Also note that PU distinguishes *mt and *nt.)Is not.
>
>
> > > "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.
>
> I'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 anBeautiful metaphor. What does it prove?
> identical toy car, rather than the previously inserted ball, etc.)
>
> You, however, have a tube that upon inputting an apple produces a
> pear - or perhaps, an apple that tastes like an orange.
> > > > > Yes, fine, whatever. There's your military alright. I don'tI don't think that's what they mean. They stress elsewhere the necessity for the nomadic way of life of some sedentary civilization at their border which in part provides them with certain items they can't produce themselves, and in part becomes the victims of their predation. The integration of nomads in the Pyanibor culture must have been more like customers who decided to overstay their welcome and became the local mafia.
> > > > > 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.'
>
> "More substantial" is annoyingly vague, but since they contrast it
> with "influence", I would interpret it to mean nomads and sedentary
> population coexisting.
> I've no problem with the sedentarization stuff. It is theOf course they will. Those cultures are dotted with defensive fortresses. Those require some administrative division of the population whose defense they are. And the former nomads would have been the specialists here.
> traditional way of life among the more southwestern Uralic speakers
> after all (= Finno-Permic minus Samic). That's actually a point in
> opposition: settled farmers won't organize large armies spanning
> several ethnic groups all by their own (even if they have some
> former nomads among them).
>No, I'm proposing/suggesting it, not claiming it. I thought most people would know the difference?
> > > 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?
>
> Definitely.
>
> > 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 didn't get that? Who said it didn't mean "edge"?
> > > > > 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.
>
> So it doesn't mean "edge" after all? Just "component"? Getting
> worse.
> > > If this were derived from "flank", we would expect that to beIt doesn't matter to its being one of the primary meanings that it derives itself from somewhere else?
> > > one of the primary meanings. But it's not.
> >
> > Don't red-herring me. I wrote 'flank' between two '>'s.
>
> Hm, 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.
> > > > I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I mean,No.
> > > > 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.
>
> Um, those are three different things.
> "Things fall to the ground "All of those are hypotheses.
> Wild speculation: " because demons are pulling them. No, pushing?"
> Working hypothesis: " because they are seeking their place in the
> hierarchy of the elements."
> Theory: " because of gravity."
> Or, from a more pragmatical viewpointWrong. You can't establish anything from evidence. Popper.
> Wild speculation: "I'll be tossing out some thoughts. Interrupt me
> if you hear anything that makes sense."
> Working hypothesis: "I can explain this as well as that by assuming
> B. Can you add anything in support of or in opposition to B?"
> Theory: "We have establish'd from plenty of evidence that this is
> how it goes, and counterarguments have been rebuked thus far."
>If you can't read German, please tell me so, then I'll have to translate the quotes I use.
> > > > 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?
>
> 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.
>I recall from Grimm's German dictionary that German Kante f. was a loan from Dutch/Low German (probably Dutch kant, kante became German Kante, Kanten by false division of the un-German plural)
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, me too. I told you I agree with connecting this with Germanic
> *kant- insted; the semantic development with that is rather simpler.
> NB Samic also has a regular reflex of *kënta, namely *kónt-ójDoes that -o- have a semantic function?
> "roots of a tree":
> http://kaino.kotus.fi/algu/index.php?t=sanue&sanue_id=13930
>
> (Note the presence of the labial suffix in Finnic *kant-o "tree
> stump" as well)
> > > You seem to be having difficulties in understanding what itNo.
> > > 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.
>
> Sigh. Okay, will you keep opposing if I rephrase that as them not
> being _identical_?
> In particular, not identical in meaning.But relatable.
> > UEW: 'In SKES the Finnish words kanta and kanto are separated.Except I don't see languages in Scandinavia being Germanic before an invasion somewhere 1st cent BCE - 1st cent. CE.
> > 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.
>
> The usual connection has been later loaning from Finnic to Samic,
> but as said, loaning from Germanic to Samic works better
> semantics-wise.
> BTW, do you realize they mean the noun _kanta_ "base of something""Support"?
> here, not the verb _kanta-_ "to carry"?
>
> > > You have not presented any semantically coherent connectionYes.
> > > between them either.
> >
> > I think I have.
>
> Namely:
> > 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?
> I file this under "wild speculation" rather than "workingOk.
> hypothesis".
> > > What do you mean by "them being the starting point", to begin"Support".
> > > with?
> >
> > Their sense is the starting point of the semantic sequence.
>
> I get what you want to do with "base (of tree)", but where do you
> bring "to carry" in?
> Also, wouldn't them being "the starting point" imply that theyYes. As you can see, I'm not decided. However, *k-t- "hunt" appears in Yeniseian too, as does *kar- "war" (also IE, not Uralic). Yeniseian river names have been traced also to the Kama area.
> aren't substrate loans, but rather Uralic is the ultimate donor?
>So they are not related within Uralic.
> > > 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?
>
> Let 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.
> *ë and *a merge together in Finnic, Samic & Mordvinic, but remainUnsurprisingly.
> distinct elsewhere (for example, Mansi has /ë:/ from the former,
> /u:/ from the latter).
>
> And the resemblance gets rather more distant once you bring in
> _kansa_, _Chatti_ etc.
> > > > > What you NEED is attestation in a language known to haveI don't.
> > > > > 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?
>
> If you think substrate influence in all Uralic languages having the
> words is not necessary, then yes (per the next).
> > > We'd see all sorts of irregularities if it were laterThat they were loaned from the same source.
> > > propagation from language group to language group.
> >
> > Probably. So?
>
> We don't see any of them. What can we conclude from this?
> > > > > > > > The words I stumble over look from the semantics toThe other possibility is that the "tree stump" word spread with the storage hut technology and was later generalized (those people were not botanists or zoologists; they had words for what was necessary to stay alive).
> > > > > > > > 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?
>
> The 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.
> But are you arguing that the concept of hunting storages was aMost likely an invention of some other linguistic community. Yeniseian? Chinese?
> post-PU innovation?
>
> > > And comparing the semantics elsewhere, this is obviously aBoth. Cf. German Kotte, Engl cot, cottage etc.
> > > 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.
>
> If this is connected to Uralic (what specific words are you
> referring to anyway? "Hut"? "Cot"?
> *kënta.Same thing.
> > > > > You have not managed to show (apparently in part due to aNo, I don't.
> > > > > 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.
>
> No law. But that's on the further assumption that you expect others
> to care.
> Since you choose to explain your thoughts at a public discussionOkay.
> forum, I think that's a reasonable assumption.
> > > > > > > Proto-Uralians invented hunting-gathering and/or storingYes. I think it was Redei who called the Uralics water nomads? And didn't they find a 4000 year old 'Uralic' dugout?
> > > > > > > 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.
>
>
> Boats. Pick a river and sail north, optionally trek inlands for a
> while.
>
> Newbies could start from the shores of Black Sea or Caspian Sea.
> Somewhat later, say, Amu Darya. And eventually Irtysh, Yenisei, etc.