tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post3218259569158439796..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Hey, what do ya know?...Glen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-42851489898385346402008-03-23T02:59:00.000-05:002008-03-23T02:59:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "But said 'obvious loan' keeps looking ...<B>Tropylium: <I>"But said 'obvious loan' keeps looking non-obvious since no relevant Indo-European language, at least going by the linked list that you seem to trust in, contains a palatalized initial, a medial affricate, or a non-labial medial."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Alright, message received. Thanks for clarifying and thank you for being patient with my stubborn bitchiness. I think the above quote Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-50021511646757771502008-03-22T21:16:00.000-05:002008-03-22T21:16:00.000-05:00If I'm being unclear: I'm not arguing anything abo...If I'm being unclear: I'm not arguing anything about the segmentation; the parenthesized part is simply the part I'm not arguing as "watertight". Yes, the /m/ seems fairly secure too. Yes, the /n/ could very well be a Finnish innovation. These are both irrelevant to my question.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm not "holding onto Nostratic" here, I've yet to be convinced with the hypothesis in any direction. Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-18356100036418700862008-03-22T14:48:00.000-05:002008-03-22T14:48:00.000-05:00Just to add, note also the singular/plural paradig...Just to add, note also <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZhSk55yiyk4C&pg=PT589&dq=finnish+kymmenen+numerals+estonian&sig=q__5wm-1_IxceJtb7zmXN_RMtiQ#PPT589,M1" REL="nofollow">the singular/plural paradigm of numbers in Finnish</A> and ponder on how the final <I>-n</I> is deleted when <I>-t</I> is attached in the plural in numbers above '6'. Why would that be unless <I>-n</I> were indeed a Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-91504793709117778852008-03-22T13:40:00.000-05:002008-03-22T13:40:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Well if you ARE still interested, mayb...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Well if you ARE still interested, maybe I will continue..."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I <I>am</I> interested. In facts. Theories are excellent... only when grounded in facts. If you ignore facts, I get bitchy. Think of me as the Judge Judy of linguistics. :)<BR/><BR/><B>Tropylium: <I>"For a younger, fairly watertight intermediate reconstruction, take the Proto-Finno-Samic *śeiće-(män)."<Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-89481836806275605032008-03-20T11:49:00.000-05:002008-03-20T11:49:00.000-05:00Well if you ARE still interested, maybe I will con...Well if you ARE still interested, maybe I will continue...<BR/><BR/>The -ń-, wherever it may originate from, is not the gist of the problem here (tho my hunch would be that it's posited to explain some correspondence for which -j- would not work). For a younger, fairly watertight intermediate reconstruction, take the Proto-Finno-Samic *śeiće-(män). I'm afraid I don't have a <EM>direct</EM> cite Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-44584493121948697542008-03-14T12:48:00.000-05:002008-03-14T12:48:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "I'm not aware of any sound laws capabl...<B>Tropylium: <I>"I'm not aware of any sound laws capable of turning -pt- into Finnic -its-... tho that's not to say that they couldn't exist."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I like to poke people with a metaphorical hot iron until they crack and start asking direct questions instead of vague allusions to problems. Direct questions get direct answers and implied questions only get implied answers, if at all. Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-13244477922164191002008-03-14T05:10:00.000-05:002008-03-14T05:10:00.000-05:00Actually, no, I'm relying here on Kaisa Häkkinen: ...Actually, no, I'm relying here on Kaisa Häkkinen: <EM>Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja</EM> (WSOY 2005, ISBN 951027108X) ("Etymological Dictionary of Modern Finnish") as well as Lauri Hakulinen: <EM>Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys</EM> (4th ed, Otava 1979, ISBN 9789514592218) ("The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language").<BR/><BR/>I was asking if you had something in mind about the Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-57162680170127911842008-03-13T15:40:00.000-05:002008-03-13T15:40:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Still, no explanation there nor in you...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Still, no explanation there nor in your links [...] on the origin of the Proto-Finno-Permic form. (The actual reconstruction staying the same.)"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Since you fail to cite any references, I'm led to suspect that you're depending blindly on <A HREF="http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\uralic\uralet&text_recno=1607&root=config" REL="Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-6981487256658401122008-03-12T04:03:00.000-05:002008-03-12T04:03:00.000-05:00...I'll need to apologize for wrong language famil......I'll need to apologize for wrong language family too, since upon re-checking, my etymological dictionary does have a footnote about the Ugric forms being IA loan(s). Still, no explanation there nor in your links (as far as I got within the viewing limit) on the origin of the Proto-Finno-Permic form. (The actual reconstruction staying the same.)<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, I wasn't expecting youTropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-84003897395823161672008-03-11T10:00:00.000-05:002008-03-11T10:00:00.000-05:00Sorry, that should be Proto-Indo-Aryan, not Proto-...Sorry, that should be Proto-Indo-Aryan, not Proto-Aryan. Mea culpa.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-69247818785541531212008-03-11T09:59:00.000-05:002008-03-11T09:59:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Speaking of '7' again (and since I don...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Speaking of '7' again (and since I don't have any other method of contacting you), have you giv'n any thought on how the Proto-Uralic form *śeńćimä (or *śeńtimä) fits into this? IIRC I've seen that a number of times cited as Nostratic evidence."</I></B><BR/><BR/>This is nonsense because IEists have already solved that riddle long ago. The Finno-Ugric word for "seven" is <A HREF=Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-71210803078684316412008-03-11T06:39:00.000-05:002008-03-11T06:39:00.000-05:00So it's evidently pretty clear that stative verbs ...So it's evidently pretty clear that stative verbs have great trouble becoming perfects. Indeed makes sense to me that *h1es- wouldn't have a perfect. But why is *woid- a 'hi-verb' then. In many ways, that word is reminiscent of the old Anatolian mi/hi-distinction. But Post-Anatolian Indo-European clearly got rid of that distinction. Still we find *woid- functioning like a hi-verb in Greek, PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-551018001982911622008-03-11T06:25:00.000-05:002008-03-11T06:25:00.000-05:00Speaking of "7" again (and since I don't have any ...Speaking of "7" again (and since I don't have any other method of contacting you), have you giv'n any thought on how the Proto-Uralic form *śeńćimä (or *śeńtimä) fits into this? IIRC I've seen that a number of times cited as Nostratic evidence.<BR/><BR/>In the Uralic literature I've browsed, -mä seems to be commonly explained as a fossilized suffix of some sort (like basically all 3rd+ PU root Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-25635175308256171892008-03-09T20:12:00.000-05:002008-03-09T20:12:00.000-05:00Ah, hell. All of us are making mistakes. They say ...Ah, hell. All of us are making mistakes. They say it's part of the human disease ;) And there's so much to learn on this subject that I've been studying this for years and <I>still</I> getting screwed up by some details. It's also harder when there are several different theories around. That's why I find that the only way to keep track of everyting at all is to develop your own theory and to testGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-90437790571157314972008-03-09T17:47:00.000-05:002008-03-09T17:47:00.000-05:00Wow I should really start rereading the stuff I re...Wow I should really start rereading the stuff I read after a night of bad sleeping, I feel ashamed for some of the terrible language mistakes I made in my last post :D<BR/><BR/>I wasn't aware of the CeCoC- reduplication being for perfective and CoC- for stative thing. <BR/><BR/>Are there any other perfects without reduplication? I always thought *weid- was unique in that aspect, and it seems odd PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-54043890921926596302008-03-09T15:24:00.000-05:002008-03-09T15:24:00.000-05:00Phoenix: "Perhaps, one could also argue that the f...<B>Phoenix: <I>"Perhaps, one could also argue that the fact that it's a loanword might explain why the perfect wasn't reduplication."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Excellent! I love a good argument :) However, the lack of reduplication might just have something to do with the fact that <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=ONY_EVd9zNYC&pg=PA113&vq=%22indo-europeanists+have+long+been+puzzled+by+similaritiesGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-61867344558887627482008-03-09T11:29:00.000-05:002008-03-09T11:29:00.000-05:00Perhaps, one could also argue that the fact that i...Perhaps, one could also argue that the fact that it's a loanword might explain why the perfect wasn't reduplication. Though that's of course difficult to say, since it must have been a really old loan, and doesn't 'feel' foreign, once it naturalises into the language.<BR/><BR/>I'm not really sure whether Anatolian has this root. But believe that it might be post-Anatolian.<BR/><BR/>Then of coursePhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.com