From: Torsten
Message: 67018
Date: 2011-01-01
>You're just trying to pull a fast one.
> > > > Let me see if I got this straight: you (not I) introduced the
> > > > subject of a possibly non-Uralic substrate to Western Uralic,
> > >
> > > No, your original message included both IE and Uralic words.
> >
> > Yes, and then you introduced the subject of a possibly non-Uralic
> > substrate to Western Uralic
>
> So am I reading this right:
> "Yes, I included some Uralic words that may be of substratal origin
> in the original post, and then you introduced the topic of Uralic
> words that may be of substratal origin."
> Or are you pointing to a distinction between substrate words commonYes.
> to all Uralic, and substrate words limited to West Uralic? Or
> between substrate words from a possibly extinct Uralic origin, and
> from a possibly non-Uralic origin? I don't see how those would be
> relevant. They're still non-IE.
> > and then you wanted to move the discussion to another forumOkay, good, cause that's where I started it.
> > because of that.
> >
> > > > and then you tell me that because you did that I'm morally
> > > > obliged to move off this forum? Nice.
> > >
> > > I suggested *us* taking *this* discussion to a forum
> > > specifically suited for the topic it had turn'd to.
> >
> > The discussion stayed on the same topic while it broached the
> > subject of a possibly non-Uralic substrate to Western Uralic.
>
> Still, the original topic also being substrates, it would have fit
> on the Substratum list anyway...
>
> But yes, if the rest of the list doesn't mind, I don't personally
> have a problem with continuing here.
> > > Your reply was to accuseI don't believe you.
> >
> > That was not an accusation but an observation.
>
> You seem to have managed to observe something that wasn't there,
> then.
> > > me of ulterior motives, which, yes, I did find hostile.Okay.
> > > Where does this "you want me to leave the forum!" strawman comeWhat are you talking about? You asked me to leave.
> > > from?
> >
> > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > It comes from my history in this forum which is older than yours.
>
> You mean that if there are others on this forum who want you to
> leave, I must want you to leave as well?
>I never *claimed* that they were too close to not be related. I just felt they were. So did you, since you find them similar too.
> > > You said (in the upmost quote there) that you were talking in
> > > general about what the procedure for words that ARE too close to
> > > not be related is, not that you claim this for your initial
> > > wordlist.
> >
> > I said that I was talking in general about what the procedure for
> > words that are too close to not be related is, which, since I have
> > claimed that is the case for the words my initial wordlist, would
> > also be the procedure for that.
>
> Okay, that puts us back in square one then: what's your evidence for
> the claim of the words being too close to not be related?
> As in, what convinced you of this?I'm not convinced of the similarity, I just think they look (sound) similar. I don't have any strong convictions in this, like my opponents do.
>What's the charge?
> > > > And you haven't even told me what you mean by 'substantiate'.
> > >
> > > I meant the general sense. Present evidence for, argue for,
> > > support somehow.
> >
> > A definition so loose that it is empty. With that you could make
> > me go through various genuflections of your choice
>
> No, you're free to pick how to defend yourself.
> > until you declared yourself satisfiedNo, that is how arguments between people of good will (those who respect predetermined rules for debate) work. Otherwise arguments become attrition battles.
>
> Yes, that's how arguments work: they continue as long as there is
> disagreement (and interest in the argument).
> > which of course would never happen.I don't do 'correct generalizations', they are inferences and as such not logically valid; I do working hypotheses, at the moment I entertain both those you mentioned, but I tend to lean towards the first.
>
> Wrong. You've observed "JV has so far never been satisfied with my
> arguments" - the correct generalization is not "JV will never be
> satisfied with an argument I make", but "JV will never be satisfied
> by the kind of arguments I have been making so far".
> You may have noticed I've even been telling you some examples ofI don't believe you.
> arguments I would be convincible with.
> > > > > The difference between you and Saarikivi is that he pointsPurest nonsense. Of course you can't reconstruct a 'possible loan original' without recourse to the words you are attempting to explain. That's what we do in historical linguistics when reconstructing proto-languages.
> > > > > out possible loan originals and explains why the attested
> > > > > words are derivable from them.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, since his donor language has living relatives. Mine
> > > > doesn't.
> > >
> > > Yes, but that doesn't allow you to skip the stage where you
> > > identify possible loan originals.
> >
> > You can't point out items in a non-existent corpus.
>
> Of course not. The point is that, to demonstrate the loaning of a
> specific word from a specific substrate, you should be able to
> reconstruct the possible loan original(s) *without recourse to the
> word you are attempting to explain*.
> Otherwise, the argument is circular. And, importantly, this includesYou're delusional. Sit down, forget that you're arguing with Torsten and how important it is that he realize the errors of his ways, and try to formulate for yourself how historical linguists reach their results. Then come back and argue.
> the semantics.
> > > For one thing, your "possible derivations" did not in any wayhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66941
> > > predict that there should be derivativs with the meaning "soft,
> > > weak".
> >
> > That objection makes no sense; they were phonetic derivations, not
> > semantic.
>
> Real languages do not have derivations that are purely phonetic and
> lack semantics.
> I recall you've made this precise complaint about PIE rootFail. I assume no root extensions in the above. As a matter of fact I developed the rules in order to avoid having to assume extensions the way Pokorny does, as evident in the quotes in the posting.
> extensions several times.
> > > > I've already walked you through the details ofWhy did you do it then?
> > > > possible derivations from it one long exchange, as everyone
> > > > knows. Why do you insist on being thick?
> > >
> > > As everyone also knows - if we're going to start making appeals
> > > to common knoledge ;) - your walkthrus have been most
> > > unconvincing.
> >
> > As everyone also knows, you are in the habit of when out of facts
> > to appeal to a consensus you don't bother to document.
>
> (As everyone also knows, and as that smiley attempted to draw
> attention to, appeal to consensus is not a valid argument to begin
> with.)
> > > > > (which means you need systematical similarities, not justYou are confused. It is not a PIE reconstruction.
> > > > > look-alike similarities),
> > > >
> > > > all the examples I provided can be derived from *λaN- by the
> > > > rules I've already given; the question of why each one has its
> > > > particular shape I can't answer
> > >
> > > And therein lies the problem. You would need to answer that
> > > question.
> >
> > No I won't. No one else does. Cf.
> > Pokorny
> > 'eregw(h)o-, erogw(h)o- ,Erbse, Hülsenfrucht'.
>
> Bad example; it is indeed apparent from the lack of regularity that
> this is not a good reconstruction
> (as you say, it may well be a loanword rather than a PIE root).I didn't say that, Pokorny did.
> A good example would be how Proto-Germanic *niwjaz, *je:ramBut those are not loans! What are you babbling about? If you are able to set up a straight derivation like that, then the words involved were present in the proto-language, ie by definition they were not loans. So you're saying you might just accept a line of reasoning from my side which proves that the words I proposed were loans actually weren't?
> regularly predict English "new", "year" (or Latin "novus" predicts
> Spanish "nuevo", or Finno-Ugric *ooDi-ta predicts Finnish "vuotta",
> etc.)
> > > For example, how would you derive the Mari-Komi-KhantyEverything is, unless you are a religious fanatic.
> > > #lä(n)c´i "weak"?
> >
> > Something like
> > *λaN- -> *laN- -> *laÅ- -> *laÅk-
> > -> + -i, laÅk-i- -> *lä(n)Äi
> >
> > but since this development would have taken place in an
> undocumented substrate language, it would be wise of me to follow
> Pokorny's example and refrain from making a guess like that.
>
> If you admit that to be only a guess
> (ie. you have no hard evidence for the existence of developmentsI don't, anymore than Pokorny has any 'hard evidence' for the existence of a suffix *-ait- in the donor language of the *eregwh- root or any languages in the loan transmission path to Germanic.
> like Å > Åk, or a suffix -i),
> then I guess this word is after all *not* too close to *λaN- to notThey are about as close as the words Pokorny brings together in his *eregwh- entry, and his standards are good enough for me.
> be related.
> > > The beef I have with your theory is in the methodology, notNo, *while*. As for paranoia, it has happened to me at least once.
> > > in the results per se.
> >
> > Exactly. And while I make a fool of myself in the rat maze you
> > designed for me, you'll make off with my results.
>
> Wait, what? You mean you refuse to explain your results clearly,
> because you fear others would steal them then? Oh hello there,
> paranoia.
> (But I cannot understand why would you talk anything about yourThat's because your analysis was mistaken.
> ideas in the first place of that's the case...)
> > > > > (BTW *lauSa at least has been compared to GermanicThe problem with you Uralicists is that you have not been following the debate on possible substrates in Germanic, which means that you are clueless when it is pointed out to you that a borrowed word you assume was Germanic is actually from a substrate.
> > > > > *lausaz.)
> > > >
> > > > With 'derivation' and/or phonetic statistics?
> > >
> > > With regular phonetic correspondence. No need for any
> > > morphological adjustments.
> > >
> > > (So phonetic statistics, really.
> >
> > So, no phonetic statistics, that's right.
> >
> > > It's clear even without a detailed calculation that two
> > > semantically close words having the same CVCCV phonetic shape by
> > > accident is unlikely.
> >
> > Oh, is it. So it's okay that whoever proposed the FP(?)
> Just Baltic Finnic - the Samic and Mordvinic words do not correspond
> regularly (expected: **luovse, **laZo) and are best explained thru
> loaning from BF or independantly from Gmc.
>
> (IMO the best choice is Gmc > S, BF > Mo, as there are plenty of
> Gmc-S comparisions but just about no Gmc-Mo that wouldn't also have
> a BF counterpart.)
> > *lauSa / Germanic *lausaz doesn't do phonetic statistics on the4-segment. S ~ s.
> > word, but I should? Different standards, in other words.
>
> No. We can consider it a previously proven result that a 5-segment
> match is unlikely to be chance.
> We don't need to prove that again every time.Two-segment *phonetic* agreement with *λaN-, agreement defined according to the rules I set up (see above), plus semantic agreement.
> (I'm not sure if this actually was rigorously proven before it was
> put to use, but again, it's fairly obvious if you understand
> something about statistics and linguistics.)
>
> What I don't think has been calculated, nor seems immediately
> obvious, is the probability of having two dozen-ish different roots
> having one-and-a-half-segment agreement (plus what other boundary
> conditions you may have).
> And I'm not saying you *should* do that calculation, I'm saying INo the problem is that you are using *is* of a proposal that is true only if what I proposed is wrong, ie. you are using it in a situation where referring to that theory as established fact is wrong.
> would be convinced if you *would* and the result came out around
> "unlikely".
> > > > I meant that you shouldn't refer to the contents of a set
> > > > of proposals (in your words 'a theory') by *is* since that
> > > > implies existence.
> > >
> > > No, it only implies acceptance of the theory,
> >
> > You are insane. Things don't *is* just because you say so.
> >
> > > as long as we are discussing worldly matters and not pure logic.
> >
> > No, especially in worldly matters this is an important
> > epistemo-ontological point: things don't come into existence
> > because you say they should.
>
> Wait, I think I see where the problem is. When I say "l > v is a
> regular dialectal soundlaw in Komi", that is not something I just
> made up on the spot, it is a result that has been estabilish'd by
> previous research and I'm only alluding to.
> If you want a source, I'm getting this from R. Bartens'I don't doubt it.
> _Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys_.
>
> > 'Zero grade' implies ablaut which entails IE- (or Kartvelian-)Whatever you choose eg. 'pretonic vowel loss', 'zero-grade' is wrong.
> > ness.
>
> Any suggestions for a better term? "Apparent pretonic vowel loss" is
> a bit long.
> > > > > For _glesum_ an origin from PIE *ghel- "glitter, yellow"And I disagree with you.
> > > > > seems much better than an Uralic origin.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. It would leave *käl- an orphan
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "orphan"? It has been reconstructed all the
> > > way to Proto-Uralic,
> > UEW kälÉ 1 '(geronnenes) Blut' U
> > > which should be sufficient.
> >
> > So has > UEW kälÉ 2 '(versumpfter) See, Bucht' FU, ? U
> > They look like they would like a family reunion.
>
> I disagree.
> They're quite far off semantically.No. Mud.
> The 2nd looks better associated with PU *kälä- "to ford".No.
>
> Anyway, do I notice correctly you changed your mind on that "glesum"
> is to be linked with a Uralic *käl- root not because it means
> "something that has coagulated", but because it means "something
> associated with beaches"?
>Please refrain from commenting on sentences before you read the full paragraph.
> > > > and Slavic glaz- "eye" would be stranded semantically.
> > > >
> > > > As I wrote, I think the original sense is "sea beach flotsam,
> > > > dead jellyfish, semi-transparent gunk (> vitreous body of the
> > > > eye)".
> > >
> > > With the evidence being?
> >
> > It is a semantic reconstruction.
>
> Based on what exactly? I still see no reflexes referring to flotsam
> or dead jellyfish.
>I can't be; it's the null hypothesis, let's see how it works out.
> > It should therefore fulfill the demand of being derivable to the
> > semantics of the descendants of the reconstructed *gl-áN-s etc,
> > which it does.
> >
> > > I'm not aware of any *ghel- words with meanings like that; only
> > > meanings like "yellow, golden".
> >
> > Venetic, so I count on *gel- (no Grimm).
>
> Ah I see, Venetic treats aspirates a la Italic:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic#Phonology
>
> But that's only about the Venetic from Mediterranean. How sure are
> you that that holds for your northern Venetic as well?
> > > *käl- doesn't mean any of that either.No, but it's close.
> >
> > 1 "coagulated blood", 2 "(overgrown) lake, bay"
>
> Yep, and that list does not include anything like "sea beach
> flotsam, dead jellyfish, semi-transparent gunk (> vitreous body of
> the eye)".
> > > *gel- "to freeze" doesn't seem to help either.Which ones? Those from *ghel-?
> >
> > Think "coagulate".
>
> I can accept linking that to the Uralic "blood clot", perhaps also
> the Slavic "eye". I don't see how this cluster links to all these
> yellow, golden, amber words however.
> Didn't you just say the Baltic natives did not understand amberAnd I also said that therefore the natives called it with the word they used for the organic flotsam on the beach among which it was found, because, as far as they were concerned, that's was it was. Amber, when wet, becomes semi-transparent, not unlike dead jellyfish.
> being fossilized, ie. coagulated resin?
> > > > > *käl- "blood clot" does not occur in Baltic Finnic or anyI don't get what you mean. Proto-BF was derived from PU, so there must have been contact.
> > > > > other southern Uralic branch,
> > > >
> > > > It occurs in Saami.
> > >
> > > Which is not in contact with Baltic.
> >
> > As you said, it has been reconstructed for Uralic.
>
> Yes. PU was not in contact with Baltic either, so no help there.
>
> > > I see no reason why Venetic would have substituted g-.No, because it would have been a loan in Aestian too.
> >
> > But Uralic could have substituted k-.
>
> So now you're switching from "Venetic got the root from Uralic" to
> "Uralic got the root from something that also transmitted it to
> Venetic"? That wrecks your linguistic argument for an Uralic
> component behind the Aestii.
>I know who they are and where they live, I wasn't aware of the subdivision of Baltic Finnic into Northern and Southern. It's not my area of expertise. It's one of the advantages of doing internet discussions, you get corrected fast on erroneous details.
> > > > > This is far off from the standard view. For starters, if
> > > > > the speakers of Proto-Baltic-Finnic were the Aestii, then
> > > > > the Vepses and Karelians descend from them, rather than
> > > > > being contemporary with them.
> >
> > Other possibilites:
> > 1) the Aestii spoke (initially) *a* Baltic Finnic language
> > 2) the Veps and Karelians were driven out by arriving Aestii
> > occupying Finland and Eesti.
>
> > > ****R Aren't Veps and Karelian closer to Finnish than Estonian?
> > >
> >
> > Dammit, you're right.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages
>
> Oh my. You've been making proposals about the Vepses and the
> Karelians without knowing who and where they are?
> > How about this then:Wasn't there an invasion on the coasts 2000 years ago? Jury still out on that one?
> >
> > Southern Baltic Finnic (Estonian, South Estonian, Võro, Livonian
> > and Votic) are the old Aesti, having in their present territories
> > replaced
> > Northern Baltic Finnic (Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian proper, Lude,
> > Olonets Karelian, Veps), pushing them north and east?
>
> I'm aware of no reason to think V&K ever were in Finland/Estonia.
> The standard position is to place their origin near Lake Ladoga.
> Likewise, I'm aware of no evidence for anything like Southern BF
> having displaced Northern BF.
>So Võro split first from Southern BF, then Livonian from Southern BF, then Veps split from Northern BF. How do you rank that sequence spanning two groups developing independently?
> (BTW, these are areal groupings, not genetic. Genetically, Võro
> split first, Livonian 2nd. Veps may be the 3rd but this is less
> clear.)
>Torsten
> > > > > The point is that, linguistically, they are entirely Baltic
> > > > > Finnic, and thus they must postdate Proto-BF.
> > > >
> > > > Who 'they' now?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Vepsians and the Karelians.
> >
> > The Vepsian and Karelian loans, you mean.
> >
> >
> No, I don't, I mean the Vepsian and Karelian people. Loanwords do
> not get driven out by invasions, people do.
>
> For the record, I don't think there is any hard linguistic evidence
> placing the late loans into Permic/Komi as being from Karelian/Veps
> specifically; that assignment is only because we have no evidence of
> any other BF languages that far east.