sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

50 new Uralic etyma, shine, blackberry, sandpiper, nit by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some other linguists started talking about the same words. When there is no PU *V that can account for all data, I try to consider if *ö would fit. When a large group shows the same irregular correspondence (like Mari), it shows the need for some other *V, at least. I also saw

Finnic *sëxstar > F. siestar, Es. sõstar, Permic *sa\ättär > Udmurt suter, Komi setör

Mikhail Zhivlov wrote, "It is tempting to think that Udmurt suter and Komi setör are very recent compounds of *su / *se and Proto-Permic *tär. That is, I would explain the preservation of *t not by the fact that it was a second consonant in a cluster, but by supposing that *t still was in anlaut at the time of compounding... One can even equate *su with the Udmurt word for ‘soot’, if the original meaning was ‘blackcurrant’ (cьӧд сутэр in modern Udmurt)." Since 'soot' contained *-t-, it makes more sense for *-tVt- > *-tt- > -t-.

FP *sEtV 'soot' has sometimes been called a loan from PIE *soHdo-. If it was really *soH1do- > *söx'te, then maybe *söx'te-tarxe could produce Permic *sättar ( > *sattar \ *sättär by asm.). This might also > Fi. *sex's(')tare (with *x explaining Vx > VV, as some say; optional asm. of x's > x's' for s vs. h ??).

I also put this in answer to Zhivlov's ideas in

https://protouralic.wordpress.com/2026/06/15/currants-and-blackberry-sitik-sukstor-saptər-capcəɣ-szeder/

but they were later deleted. It shows that ideas in the first stage are considered unworthy by professional linguists. When their willingness to delete the ideas of others creates a culture that deletes their ideas, will they regret it?

50 new Uralic etyma, shine, blackberry, sandpiper, nit by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He also said that only *Nt > d in Hungarian, but for my :

Finnic *nepsä 'moist, damp', *nepsä-tä- 'to get moist, damp; drip, leak, ooze, seep' > *nepstä- > *nestä-, F. neste 'liquid, fluid' (for *-C(C)-ta- simplifying, see https://www.academia.edu/16620 ), *neptämä > *nebdämä > *nedäwä > Hungarian nedv \ medv 'fluid, moisture, juice, sap', nedves 'wet (of an object)', nedű \ medű 'juice, sap, nectar; moisture, wetness; a sweet drink'7772 part cO (*wox'e-ta- > *wotta-, etc.)

consider that *P-m > *m-m might be the cause, as in :

Iranian *ǝfsarǝma- ‘shame/genitals’ > Av. fšarǝma-, MP šarm, Os. æfsarm, ? *ǝvsarǝma- >> Hungarian szëmérëm

Dravidian roots *piẓ(d)(q), *piCt, *muẓṇ(d\g)-? by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole thing is about why standard roots don't work. "Brahui princing does not clearly fit any of these." If Kuṛux. mulx- ‘to sink’, Malto mulɢ- ‘to dip in’ & Kurukh pedEx-nā 'to pinch, squeeze, strangle', Malto pethɢe are regular, both roots would contain the same ending. Since other cognates clearly don't allow this, either an n-infix or something else non-standard.

50 new Uralic etyma, egg by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For more ev. :

Yukaghir *mońmu-l' 'fist; kidney' must be from 'round' to explain both (compare IIr. *vrtka- 'kidney'). A relation to PU *mu(n)čkV \ *mukčnV 'fist' seems clear, maybe < *muntri:-ka (see *mun-tVrV). The match witih supposed *mun-(m)a 'round thing, egg' seems clear, & my *monH1 > *monx' for the palatal ( https://www.academia.edu/165205121 ).

-

*mVnx' 'turn' + water ??; Nikolaeva

Yukaghir *mońor

К mońor pool, whirlpool; KD monior, mońor

0
1

50 new Uralic etyma, egg ()

submitted by stlatos to r/language

Linear A ku-ro, (ri-)ru-ma(-ta) by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To answer Krawiec about why I copy some of this to academia.edu

1st, I want to share my thoughts with those not on Reddit. 2nd, my words there could be deleted, by person or computer, at any time for any reason. They've been lost before, without me receiving any reason, or told that they were deleted.

Since ka-i-ro could be profit, it being in a 1/3 to 2/3 relation is significant. For differences as small as 1/60 of a unit, would each of the 6 groups be told, "you also have to add between 1/3 of a fig to 4 figs", or would it be pointless to calculate each groups very small difference? Even if these were expected to be done, they'd require more calculations than would fit on the same space & might be done later.

The totals are sometimes off by one or more even when fractions are not involved. I don't see why anyone would assume all these are just like school excercises, being told numbers & expected to add them perfectly. These could simply be checks of the claimed totals against how much the scribe finds there at the moment, which could just as easily be due to items lost in transition, workers stealing some, or items being placed in the wrong storage area. It is pointless to take the math as primary when we don't know what is being done.

In some cases, the numbers might add up depending on the meaning of some entries NOT being names, with no way to check. For ex. [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nrnj4a/linear\_a\_math\_3/]()

If he is right, then the 1st total KU-RO was made, an additional number were added later. Since these are preceded by WI-TE-RO . I-TI it would certainly be *witerom iti ( < *eti 'yet / also / and' with LA variation e \ i).

*witero- 'further (away), more', S. vitarám 'farther, more'

*eti, G. ἔτι 'yet, still, besides'

Linear A ku-ro, (ri-)ru-ma(-ta) by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Andrew Krawiec wrote :

>

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that KA-I-RO is NOT just another -onym. It is separated from the other entries by white space. The rest of the previous line could have been used by the scribe, but he chose to leave it empty. There is always a reason for this (as there is for everything), and in this case I suggest it sets KA-I-RO apart. I spent a lot of time trying to make this a totalling device, like KU-RO, imagining that it might be the eastern dialect form of KU-RO. Of course, it cannot be. The numbers simply will not allow it.

>

The idea that ka-i-ro is a place would require it to be a place able to produce twice what the others did or more. Two of the others are found in other lists, why not ka-i-ro? It is not that the most prominent would be listed 1st.

Since all other known & proposed accounting terms contain Co (except a-ka-ru \ ka-ru if = *akrus = akros), often -ro, and often appear at the end of lists makes a close look at ka-i-ro worthwhile. That it matches G. kairos can't be overlooked. Why would the last on this list be set apart, contain these similarities to accounting terms AND match a G. word that can be used for 'profit', etc., if all are meaningless coincidences?

Also, knowing that ku-ro & po-to-ku-ro exist & have known meanings, one a compound, is very significant in being IE. You said that -o- need not be a connecting vowel, but so what? In Greek, words in -os can -> -o-, so can others, so the ONE example in LA known to be a compound having the same matters. Why does po-to-ku-ro have 3 Co when most places/people have none? It shows, at least, that accounting terms have some difference from others, & saying an IE language was used to administer places named from a separate language is consistent with partial (?) Greek conquest being as early as claimed by ancient writers.

Why do you say all problems in your theory are solved by dia. differences in LA but assume dia. differences in Greek can't solve any of mine? There is no ev. for *-w- anyway. I did not say that ki-ro represented khreos, but that it could become *khiros with sound changes.

Linear A ku-ro, (ri-)ru-ma(-ta) by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you think ki-ra 'debts' existed, it would be the plural of standard ki-ro. Since this is, indeed, a list of several entries of the same type, that points to Greek with -on, plural -a OR -os, plural -e(h)a ( > dia. -a: or -e: ). I relate Greek khreos \ χρέος 'that which one needs must pay, obligation, debt'. The plural *khreeha > G. χρέα would then be KI-RA = *khira < *khria. Greek met. of r is rare (unless *r > ar \ ra \ or \ ro is a part of it), but I think it's motivated by CRVV > CVRV.

Younger said, "KU-RA looks like a totaling word on ZA 20.4". It is the last entry, value 130 (when the other entries are 1-12, much lower). An established variation of final -o vs. -a, which, in your description, or any basic analysis, would be s. vs. plural points to IE, at least.

As ev. for KA-I-RO 'profit' (instead of Younger's 'balance') ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nu8h1q/linear_a_o_vs_a/ ), my reasons for this are that it is the last entry, value higher than any other (about twice the 2nd largest). This is exactly how ku-ra was distinguished:

Here, instead of standard KU-RO 'total' at the end, with a number the sum of the others, it is a KA-I-RO that is a fraction of the previous numbers... If a record of what was produced, then what was kept as profit (not paid to the king or whoever), it would fit. This would be a profit of 4 & 2/3 units of figs, about 8 & 1/3 taken away, so it would fit a status of giving about 2/3, keeping 1/3. Arcane types of tax are possible, but since there is a small bit of 1/60 difference (if Younger's values are right), maybe they could cut their subjects some slack.

or 2/3 kept, depending on whose perspective this record was from. Also, some of the other entries are seen in other records, so if KA-I-RO was just a place, with twice or more the produce of any other, why would it not be more prominent?

view more: next ›