Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... Because having roots *kant- and *xant- in one language for the (approx.) same concept is not what a language would do out of the blue. There must be some
    Message 1 of 134 , Feb 28, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > otsa <= *antj- 'forhead'
      > > > > maha 'belly'
      >
      > > > - - - - - - - - - -
      > > > *h2entiós does not have **a in the root. It is a colouring of
      > > > the e-grade.
      > >
      > > which is PPIE *a, preserved before and after -x- (h2). But some
      > > thing else occurred to me: it should have had *k- as a loan in
      > > Fennic. Which it doesn't, so post-PIE loan (post laryngel
      > > disappearance anyway.
      > - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > The period is different.
      > *onc´c´a <= *antja/anthja
      > would be from paleogermanic, last part of last millennium BCE.
      > Laryngeals were substituted by k some 1500-2500 years earlier.
      > Jouppe
      > - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > > But
      > > look at this:
      > >
      > > DEO
      > > "
      > > kant, Sw, Nw, id. "edge", like German Kante borrowed through MLG
      > > kant(e), MDu. cant from OFr. cant "corner, hook", from Lat. cantus
      > > "iron rail" ... orig. of Gallic orig, corr. cant "wheel rim",
      > > Bret. cant "circle"
      > > "
      > > cf. Kent.
      > >
      > > The distribution indicates NWBlock, cf Low German Waterkant
      > > "waterfront". Pre-IE substrate *kant- > PIE xant-?
      > - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > Why not PIE *kant-? The plosive was available?

      Because having roots *kant- and *xant- in one language for the
      (approx.) same concept is not what a language would do out of the
      blue. There must be some explanation.

      > Maybe you should
      > assume PIE *h2- => substrate *k => Latin k ?
      > Jouppe

      But some people (eg. Miguel) already assume an alternation k/x (=h2).
      It seems reasonable that its predecessor was k. And if that survived
      in some substrate, we would be able to unite those two roots. Further,
      the Finn. substitution of laryngeals with k would not be a
      substitution at all.


      Torsten
    • caotope
      ... Uralic (Finno-Permic, if you will) *s uka chaff (which BTW should be connected to Finnic *suka bristle , not _siika_). A clear cognate, but how do we
      Message 134 of 134 , Aug 7, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > > > "(...) There are however a few words in the
        > > > above list where it is not possible to be certain in this way.
        > > > Nothing like the Indo-Iranian word for 'bee' (No. 21) is
        > > > found in any other IE language, and this makes it more likely
        > > > on the whole that in this case the Indo-Iranians have adopted a
        > > > Finno-ugrian word. Similar considerations apply to Nos. 22
        > > > (Skt. s´u:ka-)

        Uralic (Finno-Permic, if you will) *s'uka "chaff" (which BTW should be connected to Finnic *suka "bristle", not _siika_). A clear cognate, but how do we explain the IA long vowel if the word is to be from Uralic? In the opposite direction the problem doesn't exist, since long Uralic vowels are not allowed before *-a.


        > > > and 23 (Skt. chá:ga-).

        Mordvinic s'ava, s'eja ?? This can't go back to even proto-Mordvinic, let alone any farther.


        > > > There may be further examples of Finno-ugrian words in Indo
        > > > Iranian, but the matter has never been investigated from this
        > > > point of view. As plausible equations we may mention :
        > > >
        > > > Skt. kapha- 'phlegm', Av. kafa-, Pers. kaf 'foam, scum'
        > > > :
        > > > Hung. háb 'foam, froth, cream', Veps. kob´e 'wave, foam', Sam.
        > > > (Kam.) khòwü ' foam';

        Veps and Kamass might belong together, also with Mari _kowo_, which would then make up *kopi "wave". Permic *gï possibly also belongs here.

        Hungarian -b- is from *-mp- however - more specifically, it's from Ugric *kompa "wave" (Mansi _kump_) which is (not entirely regularly) compareable to West Uralic *kumpo. These roots may be related in some fashion to the previous, however.

        The biggest problem I see here is that the meaning "foam" seems to be a secondary development of Veps and Hungarian.


        > > > Skt. kú:pa 'pit, well'
        > > > :
        > > > Fi. kuoppa 'pit', Lapp guöppe, C^er. kup, Voty. gop, etc.;

        Samic is analyzed as a loan from Finnish, which may be derived in some fashion from _kuopi-_ "to dig, to scrape". Phonotactically (long vowel + geminate + a-stem) this cannot be an original Uralic word. Permic and Mari might still belong together with the IA item, but then I think we can call this of equally unclear origin in both families.


        > > > Skt. s´ala:ka: 'splinter, etc'
        > > > :
        > > > Hung. szilank 'chip, splinter', Fi. sale, 3. saleen 'id', etc.

        Both probably variants of *s'äla- "to cut" (> F. säle-, H. sel-), but that seems to work equally well as an Uralic original. The meaning "splinter" is again secondary, but quite reasonable.


        > > or locally borrowed, that it didn't share with the other branches,
        >
        > Assuming IA borrowed a word from an otherwise unknown language and then passed it on to the Uralic languages is surely less parsimonious than assuming it borrowed it from the Uralic languages.

        Of course, this only works if the Uralic item is inherited. If it has numerous irregular variants (like with "wave"), origin from an unknown language is not a bad choice.


        > > the close-to-Uralic Urheimat hypothesis ought to have come up
        > > with more and better proof from the Uralic vocabulary.

        I'm not following here. Are you questioning the location of the Uralic Urheimat?

        John Vertical
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.