From: johnvertical@...
Message: 65903
Date: 2010-03-02
> > > 'Several etymologies exist, we don't need another one'. WhatI could go simply with the scenario of _Suomi_ being cognate to _Sami_ etc, either directly or via its Indo-Iranian cognates. Or the somewhat weaker _suomu_ "scales" or _suo-_ "to provide" scenarios.
> > > 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.
>
> The one I proposed relates 'Suomi' to 'suo' "swamp". Tell me what it is you don't need about that?
> Vilh. ThomsenThey've since 1870 found an unproblematic etymology for "Sami" (namely < *Sämä < Baltic *Zeme "land").
> Über den Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf die finnisch-lappischen, p. 14
>
> 'Was dieser name [Suomi etc] bedeutet, ist sehr bestritten und unsicher. Die gewöhnlichste erklärung von suo, sumpf, ist, wie schon längst erwiesen, unmöglich, u. a. weil das m offenbar zur Wurzel gehört, und sollte nicht mehr wiederholt werden. Es ist klar, dass es dasselbe wort ist wie der lapp. name Sabme, gen. Same (vgl. lapp. varre, gen. vare, berg, = finn. vuori, ostfinn. auch vaara); aber was es bedeutet, wage ich nicht zu entscheiden.'
> My proposal is to start from a form with a nasalised vowel, thusIf you allow for an -i suffix, you could as well allow for an -mi suffix.
> *saN- -> *so:, and
> *saN-i- > *so:m-i
> so that the seed, so to speak, of the -m- Thomsen notices is absent in suo, is wrapped up in the basal vowel.
> Note alsoBut we have no evidence on what "sams-" originally meant, do we?
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/26683
> which would fit in with a substrate language (the ar-/ur-, geminate language) being the source of a word which became both the swamp word and the names of those places.
> You were discussing the possibility of suo -> Suomi with Sean, which Thomsen pointed out is not possible;Thomsen's not exactly the most recent word on this subject. It is quite possible if the -m- is part of a suffix such as the 3rd infinitiv -ma (or as Sean proposed, comes from the root _maa_ "land").
> It's a natural development.Perhaps, but this proposed sound law (be it an inherited one, or one occurring in substitutions) of nasality + hiatus > m needs further evidence.
> > > > > > > look at 'sump' here:That's not data, that's your proposal again. The words should be linked because they're all part of your proposal, and because they should be linked, you are proposing this specific proposal? Holy circularity, Batman.
> > > > > > > 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"?
>
> This it:
> *sá:-/*sák-/*sáp-/*sank´-/*samp´-/
> *sú:-/*súk-/*súp-/*sunk´-/*sump´-
> > The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is limited toBut you forget the framework you've been setting up:
> > "swamp". There's no overlap between these and I see no grounds to
> > connect them.
>
> My 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.
> There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver did not see it, nor do I.This is true in some of the words they present. There is one between "suck/supfen", "swamp/sump" and "sap" however.
> > "Swamp" > "mouth of river" > "mouth" would be another of theLooks like a fairly straightforward question to me.
> > semantic chains you pull out of your sleeve. Or is this "mouth of
> > river" attested somewhere?
>
> What do you mean?
> > > *-aN- -> *-aNw- > *-aiw-, cf Portuguese.Given a sufficient number of intermediates (or shall we say, "nefarious routes"), anything is.
> >
> > You just keep making these up on the spot, do you?
>
> Yes, since these are loans, travelling along nefarious routes.
>
> > Any phonetic form is "linkable" in that sense anyway.
>
> No. Of course the transitions must be phonologically plausible.
> > ...Hey, actually it's also not *-jw-, it's *-wj- (Inari SamiYou can. Or it could be related to *salaw via l > w, or various other possibilities.
> > _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).
>
> Nice. Then I can formulate it as *saN-y- -> *saw-y- -> sayw-
> > > > I can propose _säng_ to come from Uralic *s´äNki- "to cut".The "mattress" option is just a side chain: I'm still leaving open if it's that or the "bed of garden" option. This means the likelihood is increased, not decreased (as it's "A or B", not "A and B".)
> > > > 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.
>
> That's pretty horrible, semantically.
> > > > > > > The alternative is that both loaned from an unrelatedI didn't claim they were necessarily completely unrelated; just that they are not necessarily related via the Language of Geminates.
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> No, to the possibility that PIE had two unrelated words of similar > shape.
> So your solution is to propose no solution.More to the point, to realize that we have no reason to substantially prefer one solution over any other.
> > I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have someDo the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?
> > resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind your (and some
> > others') reasoning, but this is a false conviction.
>
> 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.
> > > > Livonian was only incompletely documented, while Finnish andIf that's all you're saying, I agree. I'm perfectly content with let's say 99% certainty.
> > > > 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.
>
> That's what I'm saying.
> > > > > Sorry, I was being imprecise: there is an alternation a/uAd hoc? "Salt" does appear with a long vowel in languages such as Lithuanian and Latin (the former in all likelihood more meaningful here).
> > > > > 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.
>
> How is a: > o: relevant to the ad hoc assumption of a > o:?
> > Loaning appears to have taken place independantly in Permic andOr, as Finnic is the only branch of Finno-Volgaic displaying a distinction between *a and *a:, only Finnic needs to come from *a:, the rest can come from either a form that had *a, or one that had *a:. No way to tell.
> > Finno-Volgaic, at a date such that Permic had no *a: and
> > substituted *a.
>
> Okay, that's your proposal then.
> > > > It's all explainable from a root of a shape such as *sa:la.Janhunen, Juha (1981): "Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta", SUSA 77 was AIUI the first systematic formulation of the current standard of Proto-Uralic. The UEW team managed to miss it (being Hungary-based and this paper being a Finnish publication) (or were under a deadline and didn't bother reworking the entire thing).
> > >
> > > UEW obviously disagrees with that.
> >
> > I've told you, UEW is badly outdated in what comes to
> > reconstructions.
>
> If you have knowledge of something what supersedes that, please
> tell me what it is.
> > > > > > The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does not seemOK. I still do not see how this makes the salt/island semantic gap any smaller.
> > > > > > 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?
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65616
> as. solian etc, cf. Danish søle "mud, slush"
> > > > > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.It's a simple fact it IS different.
> > > 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?
>
> Occam. What makes you think it is a different one?
> > That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a substratalWe don't need to presume ANY original alternation, like I explain'd.
> > *o > (Gmc, lacking that, would substitute either *a to retain the
> > quantity, or *o: to retain the quality).
>
> The 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:.
> > > > The prenasalized forms that have -Nk/-mp and do not alternateProbably not. It was to illustrate my own unconvincedness.
> > > > 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.
>
> And calling it a pseudo-root alone doesn't convince me
> > Do you have others?Basing theories on one comparision is the second worst foundation possible (right next to having no data to back things up at all). No data has any inherent special importance.
>
> 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-).
> > > > You could just as well assume let's say incomplete rhoticProto-Algonquian > Arapaho, Atsina, Ojibwe.
> > > > coloring ur > ar, and an incomplete change r > n (> m / _p,
> > > > etc).
> Give an example of r > n.
> > > > Or ablaut that's independant of consonantal context."A split happens for no specific reason" (ie. your 1st-stage split into a:/aG/aw/u:/uG/uw) is not an explanation, just a more complex re-statement of facts.
> > >
> > > Calling something ablaut is a statement of fact, not a
> > > explanation.
> >
> > Indeed. So is calling something "an alternation" (cf. your
> > model).
>
> And after having state that fact I go on to propose an explanation for it, which is more than just giving it a name.
> > > > Or varying reflexes of an *o.One word: "Merger"
> > >
> > > /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.
>
> A plain, non-nasalised vowel can't change much without bumping into the other plain, non-nasalised vowels,
> > > > Or loss of a "laryngeal" that sometimes leaves coloring.It explains only as much as required. Not every word has prenasalized alternants, or labial/velar alternants. I conclude that nasalization alternation is independant of labial/velar or a/u alternations.
> > >
> > > That wouldn't explain the prenasalised forms.
> >
> > Prenasalized forms in this scenario too would come from something
> > that has the nasal to begin with.
>
> Which means you proposal explains less than mine. Fail.
> > You take an alternation, decide it comes from a differentThen you may be explaining things badly.
> > 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).
> >
>
> I don't recognize that as anything I said.
> I never used the word 'trigger'.Usage of that word is not the problem here.
> 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'.Actually, that does help. I've thought you've been using it for a velar nasal. I'm quite open to the idea of nasal vowels being behind nasal/no nasal alternations. Not really other alternations however.
> Torsten