Re: Limigantes

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> It occurs to me, why are we discussing this kind of a topic here at
> Cybalist specifically? The Substratum list would seem to be more
> apt:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/substratumlanguages/

This thread got into th subject of substrates about two postings ago. It occurs to to me that you are not interested in dabating my proposals, but in shutting me down.

> Also, does it actually bother anyone to have this sort of off-topic
> discussion here?
>
> Anyway…:
>
> > > > > The modern stance on *lama is that it is a loan from
> > > > > Germanic > Finnic and that the Permic cognates are
> > > > > unrelated (the palatalization and the vocalism are not
> > > > > explainable from a common FP root).
> > > > > Distribution in Komi but not Udmurt, and the a~a
> > > > > correspondence may however suggest loaning from BF.
> > > >
> > > > How? By what movement?
> > >
> > > The eastward expansion of the Vepses and Karelians. There are a
> > > number of other words that have been explain'd as loaned in this
> > > way (see Janne Saarikivi, "Substrata Uralica"). BTW, Veps and
> > > (northern dialects of) Komi also share the soundlaw *l > w
> > > (> v).
> > >
> > > *l > w also explains the initial palatalized lateral, as this
> > > sound change occur'd initially in Komi, but not Veps. So initial
> > > plain /l/ could have then been interpreted as palatalized /l´/
> > > upon loaning.
>
> And yep, upon rechecking, Saarikivi does have further examples of
> this same substitution:
> BF *tallat- "to trample" > Komi tal´- "id."
> BF *palat- "to return, to recover" > Komi pal´- "to recover"
>
> > > > The least problematic proposal is one that ascribes the
> > > > glosses I listed to a pre-IE, pre-Uralic layer.
> > >
> > > Fails to explain the shape of the Komi word. Normally *a > o
> > > or ë (*kama "crust" > komyl´).
> >
> > That objection would make sense if I had proposed that the Komi
> > word was inherited Finno-Permic, but I proposed that it was from
> > a pre-IE, pre-Uralic layer. Please pay attention.
>
> No, I got that, but *a > o is seen even in numerous words of
> limited distribution, where loaning from the Pit-Comb Ware
> substrate,

That substrate being a deviant Uralic langugage, if I understand Sarikivi correctly?

> or around that time is suggested.

Around what time were those loans borrowed?

> You may remember eg.
> *kansa > goz. Another good substrate candidate is *c^amc´a "rotten" > Permic *Zodz´ which is probably not inherited since the sibilants
> don't quite work, and *mc´ is an un-Uralic cluster.
>
> > > If you're talking about ALL the words (not just *lama), the
> > > least problematic proposal is to keep them separate so far.
> >
> > Yes, that is what I am talking about. Standard procedure in cases
> > where words can't be united within the established sound laws for
> > a given language family, but they are too close phonetically and
> > semantically not to be related somehow is to ascribe them to a
> > substrate.
>
> Feel free to substantiate this claim of "too close to not be
> related" at any time.

Your cluttered statements makes it difficult for me to answer, because I have to guess at what you mean. I was talking the general case; that is the procedure. You might mean that I have made such a claim for the the collection of similar roots in IE and (Western) FU meaning "lime; soft; bind", and yes, by implication I have done that. And of course I can't 'substantiate' my claim that they are phonetically and semantically similar, because there are no hard rules for what 'similar' is. In fact, you could deny that they were similar and make them were separate roots with no historical connection. Problem is, to any unbiased observer, those roots *are* similar, to a degree that any linguist would try to find a common ancestor for them if he saw them in some other language family.

> > > > > It's not "alternation", it's a regular dialectal development
> > > > > l > v.
> > > >
> > > > It's not "is", it's "has been proposed to be"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Using "is" for statements of estabilish'd theory is perfectly
> > > acceptable. "The Earth is the third planet from the Sun, its
> > > mean distance from the Sun is 1.5*10^8 km, and its mass is
> > > 6*10^24 kg".
> > >
> >
> > Not in a situation in which a theory, established or not, is
> > being discussed, where it amounts to bias.
>
> We're not discussing Komi dialectology, we're discussing substratal
> etymology.
>

That sentence does not even begin to make sense. The above was a discussion of the theory of science.

> > Anyway, Pekkanen has some data which might corroborate the
> > scenario you mentioned.
>
> (...)
>
> > Pekkanen has earlier identified the Sulones as Suiones. That
> > means that the Fenni were the eastern neighbors of the Suiones on
> > the Baltic coast east of the Vistula, ie the Aestii might have
> > been the Baltic Finns, later migrating north under pressure from
> > the Balts arriving from further south, cf. the exonym Eesti.
> >

>
> Those are Proto-Baltic-Finnic / Pre-Permic times.

No, the time Pekkanen is discussing here is the centuries around the beginning of our era.

> The Vepsian/Karelian ("Ladogan") expansion and the separation of
> the Komis from the Udmurts date to about a millennia later.

When?

> Saarikivi does mention western loans into Pre-Permic or
> Proto-Permic too (*kansa is one example, also eg Gmc *hooka > BF
> kookka "hoe" > Permic *kok), but that's still too late here, and
> doesn't account for the absense of *lama in Udmurt.

I was proposing that the situation Pekkanen describes corresponds to the situation immediately before the Vepsian/Karelian ("Ladogan") expansion which would then have been caused by (the pressure of) refugees from the Baltic Finnic speaking land of the Aestii.


Torsten