From: Torsten
Message: 65893
Date: 2010-02-28
>'Several etymologies exist, we don't need another one'. What were you thinking?
> > > > > > *sá:-/*sák-/*sáp-/*sank´-/*samp´-
> > > > > > *sú:-/*súk-/*súp-/*sunk´-/*sump´-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which would solve the 'Suomi' mystery
> > >
> > > > > Several possible etymologies exist, there's no need to
> > > > > posit a yet another one
> > > >
> > > > You don't really want me to comment on that, do you?
> > >
> > > Why wouldn't I?
> >
> > Because it is difficult to do without making you look like a fool.
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at.
> My point is that you appear to be turning a situation of "we don'tBy proposing a new etymology? I can't make heads or tails of the preceding paragraph.
> have an accepted etymology for _Suomi_ (because there are several
> contesting possibilities)" into "we don't have an accepted
> etymology (we have no idea where it could have come from)".
> Otherwise, I don't understand what you would mean by "solving theThat was tongue in cheek, of course.
> mystery". It's not a mystery, it's a regular old dispute.
> What are you exactly proposing as the answer, anyway? The long*saN-i- -> *so:mi
> vowel items here can only explain the _suo_ part.
> > > If we have X number of fairly plausible etymologies, adding oneYes, you don't accept my proposals. That is an unreasoned opinion, not a fact, and if you add that to the opinion you stated before we reach the conclusion that you don't think it's progress to propose something you don't like. And?
> > > that seems less plausible is not progress.
> >
> > That's not what you just said, you added a new and subjective
> > premise. Why are you cheating on the scale?
>
> I would've thought that me considering anything based on your
> substrate alternations not a plausible explanation was implicitly
> quite well estabilish'd by now.
> > > > > (at least one involving all sorts of hypothetical forms).The sound laws apply to a limited set of words, yes, as in Schrijver's article. For the whole set, you'd probably need to consult
> > > >
> > > > Reconstructions are hypothesis. I thought you knew?
> > >
> > > Reconstructions within extant families are one layer of
> > > hypothesis.
> > > I'm referring to the substratal layer you're proposing
> > > underneath it, which does not appear to be a reconstruction in
> > > the comparativ sense.
> >
> > What exactly about it is it you object to?
>
> My prime issue is that the involved soundlaws do not appear to be
> based on regular correspondences, but on a very limited set of
> attested words and thus they're fairly ad hoc.
> I was writing some stuff on methodology of dealing withIt includes 'sump' "swamp", thus it is not well-limited to putative derivatives of the Uralic 'mouth' word, which is probably semantically connected to the *saN- root via "mouth of a river"
> unconditional changes, but it started getting long and rambling -
> that issue may deserve a separate topic...
>
>
> > > > If you are asking for which forms it purports to explain
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly it.
> > >
> > > > look at 'sump' here:
> > > > http://runeberg.org/svetym/0995.html
> > >
> > > I don't see a need to assume any velar variants if that's all
> > > we are explaining.
> >
> > There are all the "suck" words here:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
>
> Semantically quite well-limited. I wouldn't consider this to be
> from the same root. I see the resemblance to Uralic "mouth" tho.
> > There is the "sink" stuff:*-aN- -> *-aNw- > *-aiw-, cf Portuguese.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/43771
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/43779
>
> *saiwa does not appear to be linkable - referring to clear, not
> muddy, water and containing the difthong -ai-.
> I can propose _säng_ to come from Uralic *s´äNki- "to cut".Why would you cut a bed?
> The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki primarily meansI wouldn't want to sleep on that.
> "stubble".
> A later development of sense is "a patch of field or garden",From "stubble"? Why would you want to have your garden there, of all places?
> in which sense it would have been loan'd into Scandinavian (myI know.
> etymological dictionary tells this is attested, oh and so does
> Lars). From there "bed" would be a Scandinavian-specific
> development (cf. "a bed of roses"), with a backloan to Finnic.
> (This has mostly replaced the older word for "bed", seen in F.
> vuode, Liv. uodil´d.)
> So _säng_ would have no etymological connection to _sink_ etc.In your proposal.
> The existence of that could have contributed to the semanticExactly. And they are possibly related, so bad example.
> evolution however.
>
>
> > > > The alternative is that both loaned from an unrelated
> > > > substrate, ie the ar-/ur- etc language.
> > >
> > > False dichotomy. I'm going with the default alternativ of
> > > "unrelated".
> >
> > Which entails that PIE had
> > 1. bagn- "swamp"
> > 2. pan- "swamp"
> > Are you sure that holds up?
>
> Why not? You've seen it's quite possible for a language to
> simultaneously have words such as _deep_, _dive_, _dip_ and so on.
> There's no law that states that proto-languages have to have beenHave I stated that proto-languages must have been free of lexical substrates?
> some sort of pristine creations free of irregularities, lexical
> substrates and so on forth.
> The available methods of reconstruction probably make them usuallyThe available methods of reconstruction need semantics-less 'extension' suffixes for these words.
> seem more regular they actually were.
> Oh and you're now going into a false trichotomy.I am?
> If unrelated, these do not have to come from PIE;These two substrate languages have *pan- "swamp" and *bagn- "swamp", respectively, and those two words are not a common loan in both?
> one or both can be loans from unrelated substrates,
> or even from a common substrate but unrelated within that too.That just repeats the conundrum in another language.
> > > > > > 1 pin´: (Sal. pinli), pl. pi`n´n´&^D (neu: sùomli, pl.Most likely, but not 100%.
> > > > > > -st) finne (finnländer);
> > > > > > s. pin´-mo:, pi`n´n´&^mìez.
> > > > >
> > > > > Transparently a loan from _Finn_. This provides no new
> > > > > insight.
>
> > > Another thing is that this word only occurs in Livonian.
> >
> > What would that prove?
>
> Livonian was only incompletely documented, while Finnish and
> Estonian dialects are documented in exceeding detail. If the word
> still only occurs in Livonian (out of all Uralic languages), we can
> be rather sure it's not inherited from Proto-Finnic, ie. it's of
> later loan origin.
> > > > Okay, so there is a/u alternation in Komi and Udmurt, underBut there is one of a necessary ad hoc assumption of a development /a/ > /o:/, and in Komi (Zyrian) further to /u/. This corresponds to the ad hoc assumption necessary for Germanic of an alternation a/u for the "salt" word.
> > > > some conditions.
> > >
> > > Um no, I said there's a development u > ï in Udmurt in some
> > > words in some dialects (no alternation, no /a/, and not in
> > > Komi).
> >
> > Sorry, I was being imprecise: there is an alternation a/u within
> > Uralic
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62618
>
> I see reference to no such thing in this link.
> It's all explainable from a root of a shape such as *sa:la.UEW obviously disagrees with that.
> > > > > Connecting this to "salt" has semantical problems, /ï/;I did, and I didn't get it.
> > > > > long *a: regularly > *o: in Finnic.
> > > >
> > > > Don't try connecting them in Finnic then.
> > >
> > > You managed to mess my quote somehow. That vowel part went with
> > > the previous section.
> >
> > ???
>
> Cf. the original, you'll see.
> We'll find out which was the intended part depending on your replyAs for the semantics gap, "slush" is a stepping-stone.
> to the next:
>
> > > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does not seem any
> > > smaller in other languages.
> >
> > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" is the same in all
> > languages since it is a semantic gap.
>
> And so I think "in Finnic" is redundant in "don't try connecting
> them in Finnic".
> > > > The a/u-alternation I am referring to is that of the ar-/ur-Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class VI strong verbs
> > > > language; I suspect it arises from denasalization of a nasal
> > > > vowel -aN- (cf. -aN- > -u- in Russian).
> > >
> > > That has no relation to denasalization; it's a~: > o~: > o: >
> > > u: > u, plain old long vowel raising.
> >
> > OK, so aN >> (o: >) u:.
> > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.
>
> Which alternation, and where?
>The prenasalized forms I've cited so far have been verbs, in those the nasalised vowel would not have occurred without a suffix, thus not before a word boundary (except for possibly the imperative, and that was most likely changed back by analogy). For a word which does occur before a word boundary, look at a noun like *aN- "water"(-> *ur-, *var- and -> *akW-, *am-).
>
> > > > which means there must have been a word or morpheme boundary
> > > > after the -ar-'s and -ur-'s Kuhn found in river names etc.
> > >
> > > So you've now turn'd an apparent ar/ur alternation into a
> > > hypothetized aN/uN alternation. What did this accomplish, other
> > > than the addition of some extra assumptions?
> >
> > It gives me an alternative way to explain the prenasalized forms.
>
> The prenasalized forms that have -Nk/-mp and do not alternate with
> a rhotic?
> I see no evidence that the vowel alternation has to be link'd toThere is no other evidence than that other options are worse.
> nasality.
> You could just as well assume let's say incomplete rhotic coloringr > n? You can't be serious.
> ur > ar, and an incomplete change r > n (> m / _p, etc).
> Or ablaut that's independant of consonantal context.Calling something ablaut is a statement of fact, not a explanation.
> Or varying reflexes of an *o./o/ is part of the vowel triangle, with intermediates. An /o/ which moves around like that would imply the whole vowel triangle etc did; that assumption is not necessary with a nasal vowel (cf. Russian).
> Or umlaut of some sort.Umlaut is conditioned by a following vowel. I don't see what that would be.
> Or reduction + lowering of a short counterpart of *u.That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
> Or loss of a "laryngeal" that sometimes leaves coloring.That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
> Or any of a zillion other mecanisms that are possible but notWhy would I propose a mechanism that is possible but not really reflected in the data?
> really reflected in the data.