From: Torsten
Message: 65329
Date: 2009-10-30
> > > > > I'm reading it. And then you tell me I read it wrong, sinceNo, I think they are distinguished by having been non-disproved for longer.
> > > > > 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 theYou guys need to work on your separation anxiety. It is actually possible to survive without adhering to the popular theory.
> difficulties in trying to debate with you.
> > > > If I wish to speculate, I speculate. I don't know what weirdIf I post my thoughts here, then I *am* disseminating them. Doh!
> > > > 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?
>So the derivation must have taken place outside of Uralic.
> 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).
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>OK.
> > > > > 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).
>Why don't you came right out and say what you mean, instead of this convoluted nastiness?
> > > > 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.)
>Those storage huts make sense in connection with hunting expeditions and summer migration. Those presuppose transport technology. Actually all the shared IE - Uralic words I run into seem to have to do with water transport, also in IE, as if those things were foreign concepts in IE.
> > > 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.