Re: Questions about Hungarian

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 08:55:32PM +0100, Racsko Tamas wrote:
> On 5 May 2004 vehke <vaksje@...> wrote:
>
>   I've learned the discussion with Rob Haden, theat Sammallahti suppose
> harmonic front */i/ (UPA i) ~ back */1/ (UPA i with breve below) pair
> in place of neural /e/ of the Hungarian school.  According to this
> Sammallahti's PU *-ti should be rather harmonic *-ti/t1. The other
> problems still exist.
At least in the book I'm citing from, Sammallahti mentions PU *-na/nä,
but *-ti.

>   However, do you and Rob study the same Sammallahti? Rob "wagers that
> there was no partitive in Proto-Uralic".
Perhaps not, then he might either have committed a huge (but
consistent) typing error, or revised his opinion, in which case I'd have
to read his other works.

>   (Unfortunately, my e-mail client is not Unicode-compatible, thus I
> wasn't able decode _kĹŤli_.)
It should read _ku-li_.

--
vehke.