Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

> > > > 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?

> It's not necessarily post-PU.

Ah, that's good to hear, as it's essentially the main point I've been trying to get at here (I only would state it as "there's no reason to think it is post-PU").

> > > > 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.
>
> No.

> > "Things fall to the ground…"
> > 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."
>
> All of those are hypotheses.

> They are [different] in everyday usage, where they indicate
> progressively greater distance from the communis opinio. People who
> use them in science at the same time introduce a bias towards the
> communis opinio.

Well, this explains a lot... you really think being popular is the only thing distinguishing a scientific theory from any random idea?

And yes, I agree with Brian that it would explain some of the difficulties in trying to debate with you.

> > > 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.
>
> No, I don't.

No? Why do you post your thoughts here anyway if you are not interested in disseminating them?

---

And next for one more round of Uralic facts.

> > NB Samic also has a regular reflex of *kënta, namely *kónt-ój
> > "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)
>
> Does that -o- have a semantic function?

Not a single one as such, it's fairly common. In this case I would say, no, there isn't one clearly identifiable semantic function (but see later).

> > > 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.
> >
> > The usual connection has been later loaning from Finnic to Samic,
> > but as said, loaning from Germanic to Samic works better
> > semantics-wise.
>
> Except I don't see languages in Scandinavia being Germanic before an invasion somewhere 1st cent BCE - 1st cent. CE.

Who said anything about the dating? Put the loaning at around that timeframe then.

> > BTW, do you realize they mean the noun _kanta_ "base of
> > something" here, not the verb _kanta-_ "to carry"?
> >
> "Support"?

The morphology doesn't fit. For verbs, -o quite regularly derives either a nomen verbum:
_osta-_ "to buy" > _osto_ "an act of purchase"
_hiihtä-_ "to ski" > _hiihto_ "skiing"
_pelkä-_ "to fear" > _pelko_ "fear"
and indeed, the homonymic _kanto_ "an act of carrying".

Or a patient:
_kaiva-_ "to dig" > _kaivo_ "a well"
_liittä-_ "to join" > _liitto_ "alliance"

kanta- > kanto would however be deriving the subject. And the zero-derived subject kanta- > kanta would be even more out of the ordinary.

> > > > We'd see all sorts of irregularities if it were later
> > > > propagation from language group to language group.
> > >
> > > Probably. So?
> >
> > We don't see any of them. What can we conclude from this?
>
> That they were loaned from the same source.

Not sufficient. They would also have to be loaned before any branch changed any of the vowels involved, ie. practically into Proto-Uralic. For a parallel, loans from Indo-Iranian (*s´ata "100" and a few others) appear to sho a dual treatment of *a > *a in Finno-Permic but > *ë in Ugric (or *a in FP and Hungarian, > *ëë in Ob-Ugric).

> > > 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.
>
> The 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).

As phytology goes, the concept of "tree stump" is kindergarten level. (Also a popular sorce of insect protein for hunter-gatherers.)

> > But are you arguing that the concept of hunting storages was a
> > post-PU innovation?
> >
> Most likely an invention of some other linguistic community. Yeniseian? Chinese?

Some others, most likely. But there have been hunters in Siberia for 40,000+ years. Most likely they first thought of storing food much longer than 5000 years ago.

John Vertical