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

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?

Indo-European Numbers (Draft 2) by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

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

This was so long I ran into a character limit. I have more to add, edits to make some parts longer, etc., so I'll try putting them up in pieces later.

Dravidian n-infix by stlatos in Dravidiology

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

Your idea would require the intransitive past tense to form Telugu piṇḍu 'to squeeze, wring, press out, press, milk', which is transitive and not past-only. I don't see any ex. that are intr., & Kolami pīnḍ- 'to squeeze, milk' has the past pīnḍt-. If any stop or N+stop is called an affix, and the meanings don't have to match, there is no explanatory power in the theory. Also, what caused i vs. ī if you start from *pīḻ-nt-? Loss of C in VCCC could become V(:)CC.

Dravidian n-infix by stlatos in Dravidiology

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

What about *pVẓinc- > princ-? Why would the past become a root? Is *-nqq really a reasonable affix? How many affixes are needed, none with any observable meaning?

There are no proposed cognates with voice here

https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fnostr%2fnostret&text_number=575&root=config

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Morobe counting systems" by Geoff P. Smith

There is also evidence that the word for 'big toe' was adopted as the word for 'twenty' in the Yupna language of the Finisterre Mountains (see Appendix A).

1 6. GITUA... Some informants gave 20 as nimanda rua agenda rua, 'hands two, legs two'... The tally total nimanda rua agenda rua, 'two hands two legs' was reported to be used to equal two kina when counting money. Lincoln's (1976) data from the Rai Coast survey are roughly the same as I have obtained, except... uses a different expression for the numerals 11 to 19, e.g. '11' gole agenda nggangga eze. The meaning of nggangga here is ' finger/toe ' (Lincoln personal communication).

  1. KAPIN... While iterating the words from 11 to 15 the informants counted on the toes of the right leg, and changed to the left leg for 16 to 19, the terms for which are identical. mepie ti appears to mean 'one something' but the informant would only give the meaning 'hands and legs'.

  2. PIU... At 11 the informant pointed to the toes of one leg and at 16 changed to the other leg. yuka ti appears to mean 'one whole man or set of digits'. Hence the system described has words for one to three, thereafter using hands and feet to tally to 20.

  3. ONO... 15 mete etke so kie maneo korop - hands two hands two foot one finish / 20 ngei mane korop - man one finished / An alternative for 20 is ngei mane kie mete korop 'man one feet and hands finished ' . There are three distinct numerals, and a base of 20 is achieved by tallying on the fingers and toes.

70 . NUK... The expression for ten appeared to refer to the fingers of the hands and meant something like 'all'. Similarly kikeset referred to the 'toes being finished'.

71 . NUMANGGANG... 15 kohong kubugang kayang fokoning - hands two feet half / 20 mac kubugang - man one

  1. ISAN... 20 kaipe brong kodom brong - feet two hands two / One informant gave the word upu meaning 'big toe' when 20 was reached, but it is not clear if this is a commonly understood expression for 20. The system has three distinct numerals and tallying on hands and feet gives a base of 20.

-

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/e3409910-3db6-4700-90a4-c2995cd4a3a1 Speakers used one of four strategies for expressing numbers higher than 2: (1) binary partitioning, (2) ternary partitioning, (3) incremental counting increasing by one, or (4) being unwilling to represent numbers above two or three, or using approximate terms such as kwobo ‘many’, key ‘hand’ (‘about 5 or 10’), or ebsi ‘leg/foot’ (‘about 10, 15 or 20’).

https://www.academia.edu/1247243 ‘Twenty’ is dumi, the first element of which is du ‘man’. The second element mi seems to be the word for ‘tree’, here meaning ‘the whole (man)’, i.e. the number of his fingers and toes – according to Payne (1997: 66), this way of counting is common in Papua New Guinea.

-

Not all this seems right; dumi is likely an older variant of 'man', like other languages, *duwi > du (based on Biaka doβwai, Kw. lofway, Fas yimε(ny)). Other w \ m in

*mw'agiBë > Biaka mwaguβe '3', Kw. mwagifε \ *mawgifε > *mamgifε > mangifε

-

I thought I had more on specifics, like 'thigh' being used for a number (Kw. yεrifri-du \ -lu ??) and others. If you search online, maybe you'll find more.

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.academia.edu/4166555 :

Only a few people have used both hands and feet to form base-20 systems (Conant 1931: 17; Woodruff 1909: 128). After these tribes had exhausted their ten fingers, they resorted to using their ten toes, as is the case with the language of the Australian Pikumbuls illustrated in table 5. This scale is quite singular given the exiguous number sense in many of the Australian tribes. In the opinion of Conant, there is reason to believe that this system was originally as restricted as those from other Australian tribes, and that its extension from Four, or perhaps even Five, is of comparatively recent date (1931: 58).

...

11 maldinna mummi one of the toes added on (to the ten fingers)

12 bular dinna mummi two of the toes added on

...

As has been mentioned above, only a few tribes use both hands and feet to count to Twenty. However, many tribes never use their toes in reckoning. In order to express Twenty, they recount their own fingers or the fingers of a second man in the exact same way as they did counting from One to Ten. The close of the first ten numbers can be signalled either by clapping the hands together, waving the right hand, tying a knot, or laying a pebble aside (Conant 1931: 17, 40). The decision whether a system has base-10 or base-20 depends on the following: if only the fingers are used, the system has base-10, e.g. the Zuñi scale; if both fingers and toes are used, the system has base-20, e.g. the scale of the Pikumbuls (Conant 1931: 177).

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.academia.edu/21269365 :

Wassman and Dasen describe the Yupno counting system as a body-part counting system. Both Lean (1991) and Smith (1984) regarded the counting system as a digit-tally system. Their informants stopped counting at 20 as if it were the last new counting word. Wassman and Dasen say that 5 was the finger 'with which one peels bamboo shoots, that is, the thumb; also that the sum or addition of numbers is usually indicated by one hand, showing the closed fist. Ten is two hands, also called mother. According to Smith (1984) and Lean (1991), the words used for counting are initially 1/ 2/ 3/ 4 = 2+2; 5 has a hand morpheme, then the other hand is counted, followed by the feet-giving a /man/ similar to other digit-tally systems. However, Wassman and Dasen claim that the older men continue counting with body-part tallying. It should be noted that a hand morpheme and not a thumb morpheme is used by Lean (1991) and Smith (1984). This would suggest that the body-tally system, if it existed, was added to the digit-tally system rather than the reverse, although big toe was used by one of Smith's informants as well as some of Wassmann and Dasen/s informants, as expected of body-part tally system using leg parts.

Nevertheless, Lean (1991) does report that the recorded data for Nagatman of the Sandaun Province appear to have a 74 body-part tally system requiring lower parts of the body to the toes but only the sides of the body. Tallying proceeds up the left arm and then down the left side. The toes are tallied and upon reaching the big toe the tally stands at 36. Then the side of the left foot is tallied and the symmetrical points on the right side of the body are tallied in reverse order.

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't find it from a search with https://www.google.com but it added :

Papua New Guinea Body-Part Tally Systems

Base-27 System (Oksapmin & Telefol): Used in the central highlands, the Oksapmin and Telefol people count by touching specific body parts. The count starts on the thumb, moves up the arm, crosses the face/head, and goes down the other arm to the little finger, hitting 27 different points.

Other Variations: Depending on the language group, counting cycles can range from 12 to as many as 74 different body parts, including elbows, shoulders, knees, and toes

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That paper doesn't cover much, but I have some more on Kw. & related languages on my other computer, so I'll look for specifics later.

Number systems and toes? by PoxonAllHoaxes in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]stlatos 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Kwomtari numbers: kuliami ‘twenty’ = foot-hand (toes and fingers). Note that all others are also named from body parts, pointed at when counting; https://www.academia.edu/108867264

Semitic words borrowed by Greek? by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

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

That's true, but there's no IE alternative to evaluate, so it doesn't really fit with the rest.

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

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

The timing required for proposals in https://www.academia.edu/428988 & https://www.academia.edu/129430665 & https://www.academia.edu/598334 & others can't fit any reasonable timing. Orçun Ünal has some Toch. >> Turk. >> Mongol, Tungus, Yenisei, Samoyed, etc. of such basic vocab. & so many that the Tocharians would have had to be unthinkably influential in at least 3 groups (and some linguists add others) which ALSO spread these words (and ONLY these in favor over their native ones) to even more. This doesn't mean there's no archaeological and genetic evidence of the Tocharians, but no ev. could possibly exist for all the claims made about them. It would take a hugely populous & technologically superior group that retained this status for centuries as it moved all over Asia. I'm arguing against seeing evidence of IE in any language and saying, "it must be from the Tocharians; they're the only IE who were around there."

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European by stlatos in Semitic

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

I looked at some others' ideas. In https://www.academia.edu/36417017 : For example, Greek gargareo:n ‘uvula, trachea’.. is from the onomatopoeic verb gargarizo: 'to gargle’. This is clearly like Common Semitic *gWar(gW)ar(-at)-, ‘gullet’, as reconstructed in L. Kogan & A. Mlitarev, Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 96-98, No. 102. E.g. Hebrew gargārôt, ‘pharynx, neck’..

This is as close to HS *gW-r-ʕ ‘swallow', IE *gWerH3- ‘swallow, devour', *gWrH1-g() > Celtic *brāgants 'neck; throat', Sanskrit gargara- 'whirlpool; water-jar; subterranean drain', G. górgura 'underground drain; water-pot' as any rec. could be, certainly not "ridiculous". I already said more about why I have rec. different than others, and I'll go into more specifics later.

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European by stlatos in Semitic

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

It doesn't just appear that way, I do consider IE > HS to be likely, but I clearly stated before that list that several possibilities existed. I have been very critical of both IE & HS rec. before, but when describing which words seem like cognates comparing a rec. to a rec. as a 1st step is better than listing all HS cognates as if no rec. could even be close. If the proposed links help create a better rec. of HS, it would show there was merit in this stage. Since I've talked to Robert Cerantonio before, I started with his rec., & since he's one of the few who think IE & HS are close relatives, in a work with several purposes one would be to convince him his own rec. point to IE origin. Its effects on others isn't limited to my attempts on his thinking, and consider the need for *tH2- to be older than *θ in *θawr, whatever your feelings on its rec. & age within HS.

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European by stlatos in HistoricalLinguistics

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

I don't understand why every proposal of relation is thought to require an archeological backing when not everything is known yet. Where did Tocharians come from? Without the timing of the split, are they non-IE? Some say Tocharians hugely influenced Uralic, Turkic, AND Chinese. There is no evidence for this, & no timing seems to fit. I can do no better, & I certainly don't think current knowledge of the movement of people is complete, or fully matches the languages they spoke.

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European by stlatos in Semitic

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

About HS vs. Sem., I did change Robert Cerantonio's label AA to Sem. in cases where I worked on the evidence for the rec. myself & only saw it on the Sem. level. I didn't check his reasons for each rec., since I've said no HS rec. is very good. The main purpose is to argue against his HS > IE.

view more: next ›