Ziilike kirjoitti:But what do you think that why this table gives only Finnic derivations of word "pohja", and does not mention other Finno-Ugric?
For example i've found from dictionaries that other Finno-Ugric lanuages have this word that means a same thing (bottom) as "pohja" and looks like it also. :
udmurt - пыдэс (roughly põdes), зарезь пыдэс - seabottom
komi - пыдӧс (põdös) (ю пыдӧс (ju põdös) - jõe põhi/fi joki pohja; му пыдӧс (mu põdös) - maa põhi/fi maa pohja)
mari - пындаш (põndaš)
erzya - потмакс, почва (potmaks, potšva)
moksha - потмакс
It happens to be the case that
we know where these words come from (by far most likely): they're loans derived from Indo-Iranian *bʰudʰna- 'bottom' (e.g. Sanskrit
budhna-), which is from
the same Indo-European root as the Germanic "bottom" words. So, partially correct!
I would still continue to claim, alongside other linguists, that this group
doesn't look like põhi/pohja in any linguistically useful extent, though. The first two sounds kinda match, but that is all; -hj- in
pohja does not even remotely match -tt-, -dn- -nd- or so on.
Samic *vuoðō is not related to either of these. It probably comes from a Finno-Ugric root meaning 'bed, bottom layer', which was approximately *aďə (its descendants include Hungarian
ágy 'bed'). This could be also the origin of Finnish
vuode, Estonian
voodi 'bed'.
You seem to be following the "naive" method that you suppose similarity indicates relatedness between words. This can be the case when similarity is close and the differences can be explained (the way how e.g. Fi.
lamppu 'lamp' is normally considered a loanword from Swedish
lampa). But when we start talking about ancient heritage, what matters more is the
regularity of sound correspondences, not superficial phonetic similarity. So for example, it is completely normal for a Uralic *a to turn into
vuo- in Sami (some other examples are
vuodjit 'to drive' ~
ajaa/
ajama;
vuohppa 'father-in-law' ~ Fi.
appi), while there is no known reason why a Uralic *p- or Indo-European *b- or *bʰ- would turn into a
v-.
Ziilike kirjoitti:Sometimes it seems to be also thatway that 't' is prone to change int 'š'. Thisway this hypothetical protoword may have been 'potja'.. it's like first i'ts 't', then like 'th' in english the, then it becomes something like 'tshs', then 'š''
Lots of sound changes are possible. If we allow putting enough of them together, anything can turn into anything. Much fewer things are actually probable, however. We know no other examples of the Finnic languages turning *tj into
hj (or even just *t into *š). In old words, *tj rather turns into
ts: as in
mets(ä) 'forest' from Baltic *medja-.
Ziilike kirjoitti:I think fi 'pohjoinen' could be in estonian 'põhine'. But 'põhine' for 'north' is not used, i've seen this form only once in book from 1780.
It seems to be known from
some coastal dialects. It could be an import (calqued to be
põhine and not anything like **
pohune) from traders from Finland, though.
Sigfrid kirjoitti:You can read those old newspapers and see that pohjoinen was earlier pohja, meaning also bottom. So we can assume that pohjoinen is a new invention.
Was this, in your opinion, perhaps the same person who invented Karelian
pohjaine, Ludian
pohďaińe and Veps
pohďaińe? Veps also has
pohjoi. Finnish
pohjoinen looks to me the most like a mixing of these two forms, *pohjainen and *pohjoi. A lot of "inventions" in literary Finnish were already used in a dialect somewhere and were just introduced to the wider Finnish community, so same here probably.
(Ludian and Veps
ď, by the way, comes from earlier *j: consider also e.g.
ďärv 'lake',
ďälg 'footprint', and their Fi./Es. relatives
järv(i),
jälki/
jälg.)
No minä lainaan sitä tekstiä. Paitsi että hälsingar Ruotsista muuttivat Suomeen, he muuttivat myös Västerbotteniin ja Norrbotteniin.
