From: Torsten
Message: 65899
Date: 2010-03-01
>The one I proposed relates 'Suomi' to 'suo' "swamp". Tell me what it is you don't need about that?
> > > > > > > > *sá:-/*sák-/*sáp-/*sank´-/*samp´-
> > > > > > > > *sú:-/*súk-/*súp-/*sunk´-/*sump´-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which would solve the 'Suomi' mystery
>
> > 'Several etymologies exist, we don't need another one'. What were
> > you thinking?
>
> I'm not saying it's pointless bringing new etymologies on the table
> at all, but that this word had no real NEED for a (new) etymology.
> Mostly this comes from interpreting your "solving the mystery" toVilh. Thomsen
> mean "I think have found the solution", and not "I think I have
> found yet another possibility" (after all, the latter is not quite
> "solving".)
> This then would imply that you had misunderstood the situation toYou were discussing the possibility of suo -> Suomi with Sean, which Thomsen pointed out is not possible; I presented a solution
> be that there is NO good etymology for _Suomi_ at all, rather than
> that there are several even without your proposal.
>It's a natural development. The tables of variants, as you call them, are derived from Schrijver's article and intended for Germanic.
> > > What are you exactly proposing as the answer, anyway? The long
> > > vowel items here can only explain the _suo_ part.
> >
> > *saN-i- -> *so:mi
>
> *aN > *o:m is not in your table of variants your sound changes can
> derive, so far.
> Since you're basing this cluster on other "swamp" words, justYou are free to do so.
> deriving *so: "swamp" would actually look a bit better. (This word
> by contrast does not have even a proposed etymology.)
> > > > > If we have X number of fairly plausible etymologies, addingNot against this one.
> > > > > one 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.
> >
> > Yes, you don't accept my proposals. That is an unreasoned opinion,
>
> I've tried to explain my reasons several times.
> > > > > > > (at least one involving all sorts of hypothetical...
> > > > > > > forms).
>
> > > > > > look at 'sump' here:This it:
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > It includes 'sump' "swamp",
>
> What "it"?
> The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is limited toMy grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the 'velar series' is that I claim the root they descend from is from the combined ar-/ur- and geminate language, and both the ar-/ur- language and the geminate language, according to their respective authors, have labial/velar alternation in auslaut.
> "swamp". There's no overlap between these and I see no grounds to
> connect them.
> "Swamp" > "mouth of river" > "mouth" would be another of theWhat do you mean?
> semantic chains you pull out of your sleeve. Or is this "mouth of
> river" attested somewhere?
> > > > There is the "sink" stuff:Yes, since these are loans, travelling along nefarious routes.
> > > > 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-.
> >
> > *-aN- -> *-aNw- > *-aiw-, cf Portuguese.
>
> You just keep making these up on the spot, do you?
> Any phonetic form is "linkable" in that sense anyway.No. Of course the transitions must be phonologically plausible.
> If you have more than just that one example of *-Vjw- correspondingNice. Then I can formulate it as *saN-y- -> *saw-y- -> sayw-
> to *-VNk- (or whichever you think of as the closest related form),
> shoot.
>
> ...Hey, actually it's also not *-jw-, it's *-wj- (Inari Sami
> _savja_, Skolt Sami _saujj-)! That suggests Finno-Samic had this
> word first, and it was loan'd by Germanic after the metathesis -wj-
> > -jw- (regular in Finnic, and in most Samic varieties).
> > > I can propose _säng_ to come from Uralic *s´äNki- "to cut".That's pretty horrible, semantically.
> >
> > Why would you cut a bed?
>
> Hold your horses, this is just the summary.
>
> > > The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki primarily means
> > > "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?
>
> "stubble in field" (attested, primary)
> "a section of field which has stubble (has been harvested)"
> (attested as the compound _sänkipelto_)
> "a section of field or garden" (attested)
>
> Also, straws used to be used as a mattress filling. That possibly
> cuts some corners: in a bed (as opposed to just sleeping on a
> bench, or on the floor) one would in fact be sleeping on something
> stubbly.
> > > > > > The alternative is that both loaned from an unrelatedNo, to the possibility that PIE had two unrelated words of similar shape.
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Exactly. And they are possibly related, so bad example.
>
> I gather'd you were objecting to the possibility that PIE had two
> words of similar shape.
> Being related somehow IS one possibilityYes.
> for such words, but such a relationship may well be older than PIE
> (and have no relation to the substrates involved behind Northern
> IE).
> > > Oh and you're now going into a false trichotomy.That conviction of yours is false. I don't exclude the possibility that my proposal is wrong, but i won't accept that it is until someone proves it.
> >
> > I am?
> >
> > > If unrelated, these do not have to come from PIE;
> > > one or both can be loans from unrelated substrates,
> >
> > These two substrate languages have *pan- "swamp" and *bagn-
> > "swamp", respectively, and those two words are not a common loan
> > in both?
>
> It's a possibility.
>
> I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have some
> resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind your (and some
> others') reasoning, but this is a false conviction.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognateSo your solution is to propose no solution.
>
>
> > > or even from a common substrate but unrelated within that too.
> >
> > That just repeats the conundrum in another language.
>
> So it does. There would still be 40,000 years to go backwards until
> the invention of language, so one step of regress is not a problem.
> You're proposing that the words are related within a *specific*I'm not.
> substrate (or family thereof). I don't think you can be very sure
> of that.
> > > > > > > > 1 pin´: (Sal. pinli), pl. pi`n´n´&^D (neu: sùomli,That's what I'm saying.
> > > > > > > > pl. -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.
> >
> > Most likely, but not 100%.
>
> In etymology, nothing is.
> > > > > > Okay, so there is a/u alternation in Komi and Udmurt,How is a: > o: relevant to the ad hoc assumption of a > o:?
> > > > > > under 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.
> >
> > But there is one of a necessary ad hoc assumption of a
> > development /a/ > /o:/
>
> No, a: > o: is a regular soundlaw of Finnic. Compare eg. "vein": F
> _suoni_, Mordvinic /san/ (from PU *sëxni > *së:ni > *sa:ni).
> > and in Komi (Zyrian) further to /u/.Okay, that's your proposal then.
>
> Komi is /sol/, and /o/ is the regular reflex of *a.
> http://tinyurl.com/yzkaemo
>
> Loaning appears to have taken place independantly in Permic and
> Finno-Volgaic, at a date such that Permic had no *a: and
> substituted *a.
>German Sülze
> > This corresponds to the ad hoc assumption necessary for Germanic
> > of an alternation a/u for the "salt" word.
> What Germanic language calls it "sult" again?
> > > It's all explainable from a root of a shape such as *sa:la.If you have knowledge of something what supersedes that, please tell me what it is.
> >
> > UEW obviously disagrees with that.
>
> I've told you, UEW is badly outdated in what comes to
> reconstructions.
> > > > > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does not seemhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65616
> > > > > any smaller in other languages.
>
> > As for the semantics gap, "slush" is a stepping-stone.
>
> I don't really see that. They didn't use road salt in those days.
> ;) Nor are islands made of slush. Nor am I aware what actual form
> you're alluding to?
> > > > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.Occam. What makes you think it is a different one?
> > >
> > > Which alternation, and where?
> >
> > Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class VI strong
> > verbs
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Class_6
>
> What makes you think this is the same alternation and not a
> different one?
> That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a substratal *o > (Gmc, lacking that, would substitute either *a to retain theThe easiest is no doubt to see it as reflecting an alternation either o/o: or a/a: in the substrate, since both would become a/o:.
> quantity, or *o: to retain the quality).
> And isn't "cook" from Latin anyway?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate
> > > > > So you've now turn'd an apparent ar/ur alternation into aAnd calling it a pseudo-root alone doesn't convince me
> > > > > 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?
>
> > For a word which does occur before a word boundary, look at a
> > noun like *aN- "water"(-> *ur-, *var- and -> *akW-, *am-).
>
> This one pseudo-root alone does not convince me.
> Do you have others?It's the only one that comes to mind, but it's an important one. It's also the one that convinced me that Schrijver's language of bird names is identical to the two other ones, the ar-/ur- language and the language of geminates (by alternating both *áNW-/*GWó-, -a-/-u- and -VkW-/-Vp-).
> > > I see no evidence that the vowel alternation has to be link'dI don't, as I explained.
> > > to nasality.
> >
> > There is no other evidence than that other options are worse.
>
> I disagree, I think at least the *o option and the ablaut option
> are quite firmly in the game.
> > > You could just as well assume let's say incomplete rhotic-n > -r exists in e.g. Tosk Albanian
> > > coloring ur > ar, and an incomplete change r > n (> m / _p,
> > > etc).
> >
> > r > n? You can't be serious.
>
> What? You yourself proposed n > r.
> > > Or ablaut that's independant of consonantal context.And after having state that fact I go on to propose an explanation for it, which is more than just giving it a name.
> >
> > Calling something ablaut is a statement of fact, not a
> > explanation.
>
> Indeed. So is calling something "an alternation" (cf. your model).
> > > Or varying reflexes of an *o.A plain, non-nasalised vowel can't change much without bumping into the other plain, non-nasalised vowels, which means they have to move too, generally in the same direction within the vowel triangle.
> >
> > /o/ is part of the vowel triangle, with intermediates. An /o/
> > which moves around like that would imply the whole vowel triangle
> > etc did;
>
> No, one vowel change does not need to imply others.
> One of the features of the ar/ur hydronymy is the *lack* of /o/, soThat's true, but a non-nasalised vowel *o still wouldn't explain the auslaut prenasalised stop alternants.
> it's possible that in some languages (or contexts) o > a, in others
> o > u.
> > > Or umlaut of some sort.Occam.
> >
> > Umlaut is conditioned by a following vowel. I don't see what that
> > would be.
>
> Something that's decayed since then.
> BTW your lack or presence of prenasalization was conditioned byI proposed that rule to account for Winther lengthening in Baltic, which Jens observed would occur only in pretobic syllable; see eg here:
> position of stress. Have you evidenced that yet either?
> > > Or reduction + lowering of a short counterpart of *u.No, it wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
> >
> > That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
>
> It would if the vowel length alternation was independant of
> consonant quality.
> > > Or loss of a "laryngeal" that sometimes leaves coloring.Which means you proposal explains less than mine. Fail.
> >
> > That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
>
> Prenasalized forms in this scenario too would come from something
> that has the nasal to begin with.
> > > Or any of a zillion other mecanisms that are possible but notYou keep saying that without substantiating it.
> > > really reflected in the data.
> >
> > Why would I propose a mechanism that is possible but not really
> > reflected in the data?
>
> Because that's pretty much all I've ever seen you propose.
> You take an alternation, decide it comes from a differentI don't recognize that as anything I said. I never used the word 'trigger'. As far as I can make sense of what you wrote, it seems you have misunderstood the notation that is used in cymbalist: capitals are used for superscripts, thus /aN/ is a-superscript-n, which stands for one phoneme, a nasalised 'a'. Elsewhere I've used a comma for the nasalisation, thus /a,/, in imitation of the cedilla used in Polish. Now, with this insight, go back and read the relevant postings.
> alternation, invent a trigger for this new alternation, and finally
> invent some soundlaws that turn this alternation into the attested
> one.
>
> For example *N (invented trigger) > *G/*w (invented alternation) >
> *g/b > *k/*p (attested alternation).
>