From: Torsten
Message: 66077
Date: 2010-04-10
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:Oops! Actually it was his
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > I proposed that the *IE* s-stems were based on a
> > > > > > reinterpretation of the *IE* genitive -Vs as nominative
> > > > > > (which BTW I think is the origin of the IE nom.sg. -(V)-s.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay. Then what does Finnic have to do with it?
> > > >
> > > > It borrowed both from PIE thematic stems (Germanic a-stems)
> > > > (like rengas) and PIE s-stems, and PIE (and Germanic) s-stems
> > > > (like lammas), with the same result (the vieras declension).
> > > > One explanation for that is that they borrowed the stem of
> > > > the nom.sg., which would have the same *-os ending (<- *-as
> > > > in PPIE and -> *-as in some dialects, including Germanic),
> > > > but *not* in Germanic, which had lost the s-stem nom.sg *-s.
> > > > The cognates of the borrowed items may be found in Germanic,
> > > > but the donor language can't be PGmc, as you also remarked
> > > > (below).
> > >
> > > Aaah. So the lack or presence of -s in Finnic would be not so
> > > erratic after all? It IS commonly left away entirely or
> > > substituted (hanhi "goose" < B. *Zansis, karja "cattle" < Gmc
> > > *xarjaz, mair-ea "smeering" < Gmc *smairjaz), but you're saying
> > > that where it does appear, all have it if not from the nom.sg,
> > > then from an old -s- stem. Right?
> >
> > No, that's what Vilhelm Thomsen said might be the case in
> > 'Über den Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf die finnisch-
> > lappischen.
> > Eine sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchung (1870)'
> > http://tinyurl.com/yllj6f6
> > and what de Vries tacitly implied
> > http://tinyurl.com/yf4ugrs
> >
> >
> > > The words of wider Finnic distribution where this -s appears
> > > appended to an Uralic root seem, then, like an issue here, if
> > > we are to make this suffix unproductiv.
> >
> > There's no way of avoiding it being an issue if we insist that
> > its origin is in loans from Germanic.
> >
> > > Some of them could be
> > > explained by being original -ks stems that were changed to -s
> > > due to the example of IE loans (old Finnic words in -aks are
> > > rare), as _oras_ "thorn" vs. Livonian _voraaks_ explicitly
> > > suggests. The Uralic status of _uros_ "male" and _nauris_
> > > "turnip" is uncertain - Hungarian _úr_ "lord" "has been
> > > considered a separate Iranian loan" according to Häkkinen, and
> > > Ob-Ugric _*nëëG@... means "cedar nut" (this would also be the
> > > only Uralic root featuring *-kr-), with no other internal
> > > cognates.
> >
> >
> > > Also have you spotted any examples of -s- stem correlation
> > > other than *lambaz?
> >
> > As you can see in the Thomsen locus
> > http://tinyurl.com/yllj6f6
> > there are
> > Finnish
> > lammas "sheep"
> > mallas "malt"
> > Saami
> > labbes "lamb"
> > males "meal"
> > more dubious are
> > Finnish
> > lannas "ground, beach"
> > lunnas "ransom" (cf. German Lohn), with lunnastaa "to ransom"
> > porras "stair, path"
> > teuras "animal for slaughter"
> >
> > > A word lacking an IE etymology is not really a prime
> > > candidate for loaning from a para-Germanic language, or
> > > pre-Germanic.
> >
> > That's what I thought too.
> > Food for thought:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/37461
> > or not, as the case may be.
>
>
> I read up on Thomsen's (above) text
> on the occurrence of pairs of nouns with and without suffixed -sTorsten
> (only in nom. and part., otherwise identical) in Livonian; seems to
> have been widespread, and not limited to loans from Baltic and
> Germanic. It occurred to me that this corresponds to the IE
> situation for m vs. n. paradigms, with certain modifications.
> Assume we have a substrate which is a tripartite language, it has
> ergative -s (= genitive, locative?)
> absolutive -Ø
> accusative -m
> and split ergativity based on the type of noun, so
> for subject nouns of type a,
> we have in intransitive sentences
> S-Ø V and in transitive sentences
> S-s V O-m and
> for subject nouns of type b, we have in intransitive sentences
> S-Ø V and in transitive sentences
> S-Ø V O-m
>
> In the IE thematic declension with type b subjects the absolutive
> is replaced by the accusative
> a, intransitive S-Ø V and
> a, transitive S-s V O-m and
> b, intransitive S-m V and
> b, transitive S-m V O-m
> and later type a subjects (not only in the thematic declension) are
> given the ergative (now nominative) suffix -s
> a, intransitive S-s V
>
> and it now turns out that type a = masc., type b = neut.