> > > > *tout-/tu:t-s-k^ant-/-k^unt- (metathesis in Lith. tukst- ?)
> > > > in which *tout-/tu:t-s is genitive of *tout-/tu:t- "all;
> > > > totality" and ka^nt-/k^unt- is my usual "troop" word is good
> > > > enough for me. "Troop of all".
> > > > And I'm beginning to wonder whether the IE formant
> > > > -ent-/-ont- is related.
> > >
> > > At the time-depth in question, would we not expect the first
> > > element of such a compound to exhibit the stem-form, as in
> > > Alamanni, Alaric, Teutorix, etc.?
> >
> > Erh, what is the time depth in question? My idea is that the
> > whole *tout-/tu:t-s-k^ant-/-k^unt- thing is a loan anyway and
> > that that form is not necessarily the one the word had at the
> > time of borrowing (ie. it might have had some phonetic
> > development within the unknown donor language itself).
>
> It had to antedate Grimm's shift.
Which happened around the beginning of our era, according to Kuhn's data.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29016
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/34439
> For me to be convinced that such a formation, with genitival /s/
> between two consonants in the middle of a compound, could exist in
> any IE language at the time and place in question, I would need
> other plausible examples.
I have a suspicion that IE once had an endingless nominative, like a good accusative language should, and that the present -s suffix is the old genitive suffix which being used in bound constructions and that s-stems came about or formal subjects came to be seen as a nominative marker, hence the confusing, which NB is not constrained to IE, for some strange reason
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63871
which same confusion is the reason for the appearance of IE s-stems.
And notice, BTW, that Finno-Ugric (etc) also has that mysterious dental 'extension'.
> > > Postulating a 'beeswax'-like formation with infixed genitive
> > > seems to me like a serious anachronism.
> >
> > In IE, yes, not necessarily one of the descendant languages.
>
> But again, we need other evidence for such formations in NOB (or
> whatever we decide to call the pre-Baltic IE substrate responsible
> for Rozwandowski's change).
>
> > > And *-tsk^- in the middle of such a compound should have
> > > yielded *-Tsk- in Germanic, preserved in Gothic at least. Tsk,
> > > tsk, tsk ...
> >
> > Oh. German deutsch, Da., Sw. tysk. Tsk, tsk.
> > But I admit that more than phonetically I like it semantically:
> > hunda-faþ- "centurion", leader of a *kant- in a people consisting
> > of several *kant-'s, þus-hundi-faþ- "generalissimo", leader of
> > all the *kant-'s.
>
> That might help explain folk-etymological insertion (or retention)
> of /h/ in Old Norse and Frankish, but we still need to account for
> the absence of /h/ in the Gothic word. Then again we do have
> <carrago> 'circle of wagons' in Vegetius and Ammianus, and if this
> represents the compound 'car-hedge' (thus Kluge), it is an example
> of practically contemporary loss of /h/ in a compound (unless the
> Latin authors simply had no convenient way of rendering *-rrx-,
> since <rrh> would look like the middle of a Greek word).
>
> > BTW, how do you like this one
> >
> > UEW
> > 'ton,V- (tan,V-) '(auf/an)schwellen' FU
> > ? Syrj.
> > S dundi-, P tundi- (intr.) '(an/auf)schwellen (z. B. Körper,
> > Bauch infolge einer Krankheit)',
> > PO dundi.- 'schwellen (vom Magen)' |
> >
> > ? ung. dagad '(auf)schwellen', dagaszt- 'schwellen; kneten'
> > (151619): ffeltagaztot, JordK 34).
> >
> > Syrj. d und ung. d, szt sind Ableitungssuffixe.
> >
> > Die Zusammenstellung ist nur im Falle eines Lautwandels
> > syrj. *dun,-d > *dum-d od. *dun,-d -> dund- bzw. ung. *n, > *n,k
> > > g richtig. Das anlautende (t > ) d ist unter dem Einfluß des
> > inlautenden syrj. nd bzw. ung. g im Sonderleben der syrj. und
> > ung. Sprache entstanden.
> >
> > Onomat.
>
> Yeah, right, the sound of swelling, the way /s/ is the sound of
> silence. Hello darkness, my old friend. This might have been
> brought into the Nostratic-L discussion on Basque <onddi> etc.
> several months ago.
>
> > Wog. tan,ert- usw. 'drücken' und ostj. ten,&rt- 'pressen,
> > drücken' (Wichmann. FUF 11:233, vgl. Mikola: NéprNytud. 8:23)
> > können wegen des ursprünglich palalalen Vokals nicht hierher
> > gehören.'
> >
> > or this one
> >
> > 'tan,ka 'Quaste, Troddel, Franse' Finno-Permic
> > Lapp.
> > N duog'ge -gg- 'lump of hair, lump of wool; tangled beard',
> > L tuogge: 'Knoten, Knäuel von etw. Verfilztem, Verwickeltem
> > (z.B. von Haaren, Wolle)', (T. I. Itk., WbKKlp. 614)
> > Ko. Not. tua`Gka- 'sich verfitzen (z.B. Haar, Wolle)' |
> >
> > wotj. S K G tug 'Quaste, Troddel, Franse' |
> >
> > syrj. S Ud. tug (tugj-) 'Quaste, Troddel;
> > (Ud. auch) Haarflechte, -zopf.'
>
> Reminds of Gmc. *todd-, but we cannot simply change /dd/ to /gg/ in
> this context, can we?
>
> > or this one
> >
> > 'tun,ke- 'drängen, hineindrängen, dringen, stopfen,
> > hineinstecken' FU
> > Finn. tunke- 'drängen, hineindrängen, dringen';
> > est. tungi- 'dringen, sich drängen' |
> >
> > mord. E M tongo- 'hineinstecken' |
> >
> > ? wog. (WV 111) TJ P tokr-, KU So. toxr- 'stopfen' |
> >
> > ung. dug- 'stopfen, einstecken, verbergen'.
> >
> > Vgl. alt. *tïG ~ *tïn, ~ *tïq:
> > türk. tïG 'stark, dicht', tïG- 'abstumpfen, stopfen',
> > mong. c^igiraq 'massiv, stark', c^igj^i- 'stopfen, pfropfen'.'
> >
> > or
> >
> > 'tun,a Kern' FW
> > Finn. tuma, (dial.) tuuma, tuumi 'Kern, Zellkern';
> > est. tuum (Gen. tuume, tuuma) 'Kern (in der Samenschale)'
> > (? > wot. tu:mi 'marjan luu, siemen; Stein der Beere, Kern') |
> >
> > mord. E tov, ton,, M tov 'Kern (Nußkern usw.)' |
> >
> > tscher. KB ton,, JU tomu, C tom 'Kern'.
> >
> > Finn. dial. und est. uu ist das Ergebnis einer sekundären
> > Dehnung.
> >
> > Finn. m entspricht sporadisch einem *n,.'
> >
> > or this one
> >
> > 'tuppa- 'stopfen, füllen' FW
> > ? Finn. tuppaa- 'stopfen, packen, zwängen, drängen; dringen, sich
> > drängen', tuppaa-täyteen 'vollstopfen' |
> >
> > ? mord.
> > E topavt´e-, M topafto- 'füllen, sättigen, befriedigen',
> > E M topod´e- 'voll werden, satt werden; genügen; ausreichen'.
> >
> > Finn. aa < *aða und mord. vt´e, d´e sind Ableitungssuffixe.
> > Auf die Bedeutung und Verbreitung des finn. Wortes hat schwed.
> > stoppa 'stopfen' eingewirkt, das eine ähnliche Lautform und
> > Bedeutung hat [yeah, right].'
>
> This looks semantically more like the 'Zapfen' group, but I can see
> no principled way to fit it in, and the root-vowel is difficult.
>
> > or this one
> >
> > de Vries
> > 'þungr adj. 'schwer',
> > nisl. þungur, fär. tungur, nnorw. schw. dä. tung.
> > Dazu viell.
> > langob. -gathungi 'mann eines gesellschaftlichen ranges'
> > (v. Grienberger AfdA 23, 1896, 130).
>
> Cf. Tungri??
I like this one better
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65289
> > - asl. ta,ga 'beschwerde', lit. tìngiu, tingéti 'träge sein' (IEW
> > 1067), vgl. noch toch. B tan.k-, A tän.k- 'verhindern' (v.
> > Windekens 135).
> >
> > vgl. þyngd, þyngja 1 und þyngsl.'
> >
> > Obviously the Uralic, FU etc entries are no better or no worse
> > interconnected than Pokorny's 'te:u-, t&u-, tew&-, two:-, tu(:)-
> > "schwellen"; erweitert mit bh, g, k, 1, m, n, r, s, t;' root, and
> > the best solution seems to me again to assign this family to a
> > third language.
>
> Pokorny does have the habit of making excessive use of
> Erweiterungen; this would be more convincing (as you have noted) if
> reasonable semantic or functional values could be assigned to the
> extensions. I think the root *teuh1- is valid, but not everything
> assigned there by P. belongs there; we may have borrowings between
> IE and Uralic in both directions, and certainly borrowings from
> other sources. But it seems rash to propose assigning the WHOLE
> FAMILY to a third source. That is merely passing the lumping
> problem from the IEW and UEW to an unwritten third dictionary.
True, it's inconsistent of me to ascribe the *tuN-(?) to a third language and not *kaN-t-(?) but I couldn't find a good semantic origin for it like I could for *kan,-t-
Those things take more insight in what actually did go down on the Russian steppe. I recommend
Ludmila Koryakova, Andrej Epimakhov
The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron ages
It contains all the stuff now accessible which linguists should know beyond what they know already from Gimbutas etc.
And for those who want to know what the connection is between the Yamnaya/kurgan culture and Anatolia, the Indo-Hittite thing, here comes:
pp-178-184
'Summary: Bronze Age Trajectory
We have now discussed more than a thousand years of the cultural development in the central part of northern Eurasia. Archaeologically, this is reflected in numerous sites representing a kaleidoscope of local and regional cultural traditions, some of which had a wider spatial distribution than the area under study.
This development is characterized by a significant technoeconomic rise toward the wide introduction of bronze industry and other crafts, strengthening of pastoral stockbreeding, and demographic growth. However, the cultural situation could seem to the reader very intricate. Instead of the rather monotonous Eneolithic cultures that spread over vast territories, we have to deal with dynamic cultural diversity, conditioned by various interplaying factors. Therefore, we will summarize the trajectory of cultural development and emphasize its most significant occurrences. Figure 4.9 gives the approximate image of relationships that might have existed in the Urals and western Siberia during the third and second millennia bc. Several "nodal points" were determinative for the area under study: (1) the spread of bronze metallurgy and animal husbandry associated with expansion of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures; (2) the formation of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures, stimulated by the decomposition of the Circumpontic technocultural network and expansionist activity of the Catacombnaya population; (3) the formation of the Andronovo and Srubnaya cultural families and development of the Eurasian technocultural network; and (4) the transformation and disintegration of these entities as the background of the collapse of regional economic systems.
The earliest sites with remains of a food-producing economy livestock-breeding and metallurgy are attributed to the Yamnaya culture, which appeared in the southern Urals in about 3400/3300 cal bc and developed up to the beginning of the second millennium bc in Poltavka variant. The Yamnaya culture people transformed the monotonous steppe landscape by erecting a great number of earthen mounds above the graves of their tribesmen. The kurgan funeral tradition was established there for many centuries.
According to up-to-date knowledge, the formation of the Yamnaya culture in the Urals resulted from the eastward population movement from the Volga-Caspian steppes. The pastoral economy and possession of wheeled transport could have facilitated this process.
The evidence of specialized metallurgical production in the Yamnaya culture context, which is well represented by the earliest deposits of the Kargaly complex, is very important. It allows us to suppose that one of the push-factors, which conditioned an appearance of the Yamnaya groups in the Urals, was connected with the seeking of new mineral resources. This, in its turn, could reflect the tendency to expand an influence of the Caucasian metallurgical center one of the most powerful centers within the Circumpontic technocultural network. This hypothesis can have two variants. First, the discovery of the Urals copper ores could have resulted from the deliberate movement toward this region. Second, this discovery could have happened accidentally in the course of its territorial expansion to the east. Yet, it is logical to suggest that in both variants some people familiar with the process of metal production should have been among the newcomers.
The Kargaly metal flowed mainly to the west. Perhaps in the beginning, its production was directed by needs of some powerful groups of the low Volga area. However, later, at the second half of the third millennium bc, to which the greatest number of big kurgans is related, the Yamnaya population in the Urals became more numerous.
Although we said that in the very beginning bronze metallurgy did not play a revolutionary role, we should, however, stress its growing significance. Regions with rich deposits of raw materials became very attractive and dominated surrounding areas, forming the centers of more active development and intensive communication. Such centers were in the Caucasus and Caspian-Pontic steppe, where a great role was played by societies represented by Catcombnaya cultures (28001800 cal bc), engaged in a large network of CaucasusPontic-Balkan interactions. The Catacomnaya cultural society is characterized as having a strong economic basis, a branching structure of social/professional stratification, and a militarized image (Pustovalov 1992; 1994).
At the turn of the third and second millennia bc, the system of connections within Circumpontic network came to a gradual decline, which was caused by many factors, including an emergence and rise of new productive centers competing for influence, strengthening of new elite, population movements, and the appearance of new cultural traditions. Moreover, we see some indications of technological concurrence, especially at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (early second millennium bc) when two major technological traditions: western (Circumpontic) and eastern (Seima-Turbino) competed for dominance.
In the course of these processes, significant transformations occurred in the eastern European steppe and forest-steppe. Active interrelations between societies with late Yamnaya, Catacombnaya and Corded Ware traditions resulted in formation of the Abashevo cultural intercommunity one of the key cultural entities of eastern Europe in the Middle Bronze Age. Animal husbandry and bronze metallurgy were introduced into the forest-steppe and transmitted to the forest of north-eastern Europe into the Eneolithic milieu.
In the southern Trans-Urals, a strong impulse of the cultural process was given by the spontaneous appearance of the Sintashta cultural complex, which dramatically contrasted with the poor archaeological presentation of local Eneolithic background. In particular, this complex pottery and the composition of metal objects found many similarities within the Abashevo and late Catacombnaya contexts. Yet the nuclear settlement pattern, with its systemic distribution within the compact territory, closed layout, and clustered regular plan, together with the stable architectural tradition (which has no roots in any local culture but finds some parallels in western Anatolia, the Balkans, and Pontic region) alludes to the area of its origin (in a broad sense) There is no doubt that this tradition was brought to the southern Trans-Urals in the course of some migration from the west or southwest, but neither its mechanism nor its form is as yet clear. We will be bold and say that to transmit the settlement tradition in such a canonical form is only possible by a socially organized group of people possessing a strong corporatist ideology. It is possible that this migration was motivated by necessity to find the resources for metallurgy, although this does not deny the other factors. It is worthwhile to remember that ecological conditions in the Sintashta period were arid, but soil, water, and mineral resources were quite rich All this, together with a picturesque landscape, could possibly correspond to that image that incomers had in their mind. Although this land was poorly populated, incomers had to be in contact with local groups, from which they tried to separate themselves.
At the same time, in the Petrovka culture (the daughter-culture of the Sintashta culture), some elements, especially m pottery design, are explained by the contribution of an indigenous component.
In general, the funeral ritual of the Sintashta population continued the kurgan tradition; small kurgans organized into compact cemeteries are associated with certain settlements This pattern is typical of a settled mode of life, and an abundant and sophisticated system of animal sacrifices that reflects the ideas of fertility, reproduction and social unity. Animal husbandry in its pastoral variant, supplemented by bronze metallurgy and other crafts, characterises the economic basis of the Sintashta population. The spoked wheeled transport of the southern Urals is one of the earliest discoveries in Eurasia in this field. A chariotry complex spread over the Eurasian steppe, not only in a west-east direction but also to the south. Many scholars believe that the spread of horse, horse harness (bone disc-like cheek pieces), and hand-made pottery indicates the influence of the Sintashta and Petrovka tradition to the Central Asia (Kuzmina 1994; Masson 1999)
It is not easy to estimate the level of the Sintashta society. Obviously, it demonstrates some explosion of complexity, which maybe does not match its classical evolutionist model, which was chiefly developed in the contexts of agricultural societies. What we clearly see that landscape and use of resources were well organized, settlement layout with its emphasis on fortification and cluster planning was systematic, and ritual activity, first of all, in funerary sphere was rather sophisticated and significant. It is difficult to imagine that one or two thousands people, or even five hundreds, dwelt in side-by-side houses, were in egalitarian relations. This society was structured and "knew" some economic specialization, sex-age and status gradations, prestige goods and wealth, but it was conducted by corporatist ideology. The elite played the organizational role, which however was not visibly materialized.
Active cultural interactions, which took place in the beginning of the second millennium BC in the Volga-Ural area, were provoked by and revolved around the Sintashta phenomenon. They have generated a series of new traditions archaeologically represented by a specific combination of cultural attributes. One group of cultures is characterized by a visible genetic link with the Sintashta complex: Petrovka and Alakul cultures. Their territorial and chronological positions partly overlap; they developed on the way of territorial expansion and obliteration of the Sintashta heritage. The nucleated settlement pattern was being replaced by a dispersal model and free standing houses; animal sacrifice became simpler, and pottery became more standard within the corresponding tradition. At the same time, the new form of funeral ritual, cremation, had appeared. The Fyodorovo culture, whose territorial spread was maximal, differs from the forenamed by funeral biritualism: in the west it was cremation under kurgans; in the east, inhumation in the flat and kurgans cemeteries. The process of diversification involved as did the funeral constructions, which varied from simple pit to stone cist. The groups of populations identified with the Alakul and Fyodorovo cultures coexisted in some regions; in other areas, they left mixed complexes.
The formation of the Andronovo family of cultures in the Trans-Urals and western Siberia was paralleled with the development of the Srubnaya cultures in the eastern European steppe and forest-steppe. A large zone of their close interactions covered the southern Urals, where one can find "pure" as well as mixed complexes of both traditions.
These two entities covered a huge area, which, despite the regional and local specifics, was open to mutual contacts stimulated by a significant rise of bronze production and growing needs in metal tools and weapons. Pastoral stock breeding was a common means of subsistence for populations of both the Srubnaya and Andronovo areas. Yet regional ecological conditions and climatic fluctuations conditioned its variations from settled to more mobile forms. Craft production and trade also played an important role in the overall structure of economic life in the Late Bronze Age of Eurasia.
The life was mainly concentrated in river valleys. Drainless open steppes were practically unpopulated. The settlements, predominantly of dispersal model, varied in size: from relatively large village with dozens of houses to small farm or temporary camp. Three to four settlements formed clusters located 5-10 km from each other; these were concentrated along the major rivers (Fig. 3.5). According to paleodemographic reconstructions accomplished by Evdokimov (2002: 8791), the upper Tobol basin may has been inhabited by 450-550 people lived in eight synchronous Srubnaya and Alakul settlements.
The population density in this local region was about 0.0080.011 individuals per one km2. As he estimates, in central and northern Kazakhstan (total area about 400,000 km2), minimally thirty-five hundred to seven thousand people could live simultaneously. Probably they were organized into aggregates of taxonomic segments (tribal formations of different scale), which were linked by real or fictitious affinity, having common territory, name, rituals, culture, and possibly common language dialect.
By the mid-second millennium bc, the area of hunting-fishing economies was greatly reduced and concentrated only in the northern taiga (which covered a huge expanse). This was a result of the Andronovo colonization, which was accompanied with a spread of animal husbandry and metallurgy. The latter together with traditional hunting and fishing composed a diverse economy in the forest-steppe and southern taiga where a series of hybrid cultural traditions came into being. It is interesting to notice that such a cultural peculiarity as the bone dice was in common use in the Urals and western Siberia in the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 4.10).
One more cultural transformation relates to the last centuries of the second millennium bc. It took shape by a gradual deformation of the Alakul and Fyodorovo core-traditions and a growing influence of eastern components (Karasuk culture).
As we promised, we did not delve deeply into the ethnic field because we think there is no much material for this. At the same time, one tendency is visible through the archaeological record the spread of Indo-European languages, most probably Indo-Iranian, to the east and the rise of cultural diversity and regional and local traditions against the technological unification of metal production.
The western Siberian forest-steppe was the area of active interaction between the Indo-Iranian and Finno-Ugrian groups. It is possible that an Iranian language was the lingua franca of communication, just as a Turkic language was in medieval time.
The descendants of the Andronovo heritage met the first millennium bc with a great deal of experience in pastoralism, metallurgy, and with a high ecological and spiritual culture. However, their economic and social potential was not strong enough to resist the growing crisis developing from the combination of many factors, which included ecological deterioration, technological difficulties, demographic decline, and a weakening of interregional connections.