From: Rick McCallister
Message: 62528
Date: 2009-01-20
> From: Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@...>Or to be accurate, their ancestors never left Central Asia/Eurasian Steppe. Their descendants may not have done so either if they were northern branches who just stayed where I-I arose and never moved.
> Subject: [tied] * Re: Push (3)
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 6:53 AM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Koivulehto, like everybody else who proposes loan
> connections
> between
> > IE and Uralic languages, make the unwarranted
> assumption that loans
> > are always from (the more developed) IE to (the less
> developed)
> Uralic
> > language
> > Torsten
> >
> >
>
> In the case of Indo-Iranian, that does seem to be the case.
> Maybe
> those Indo-Aryans and Iranians who came in contact with
> Uralians,
> and who did impart plenty of loanmwords to them, also
> borrowed from
> them, but they never took those Uralic loans to Iran and
> India,
> because they were emigrants *from* there, not migrants on
> the way
> there.
>
> By contrast, Germanics who were in touch with Uralians were
> still
> young (pre-Lautverschiebung, which had yet to take place to
> turn
> kant- into hand-, see below) and on their way to their
> historical
> European habitat, passing through Uralic territory while on
> their
> way from Central Asia and beyond.
>
> Loans from Uralic were taken westward by east-to-west IE
> migrants.
> No Uralic loans were taken eastward, because there was in
> the time
> concerned no west-to-east IE migration. Similar with
> Semitic: while
> there may be a few Semitic loans in pan-IE (six, seven),
> later loans
> into specific IE languages affect only those to the west
> (wine), not
> Indo-Aryan or Tocharic, because the latter never passed
> through
> Semitic or Semitic-influenced territory.
>
>
> =======
> >
> > You probably fail to remember I clearly stated that
> Germanic has
> quite a lot
> > of (often archaic-looking) Uralic LWs.
> > Handi from *kam-t- "hand"
> > etc.
>
> Thanks for that one, see above. Complete list?
>
> > And there is no particular reason IE languages were
> more
> developped than
> > URalic languages if you accept the idea that PIE split
> earlier
> than - 4000
> > BC.
> > And if you agree on early LWs, then you'll have
> problems with the
> location
> > of Germanic...
> >
>
> Coming from a more hospitable climate to the south, and
> more in
> contact with yet other centres of civilization, the IEs had
> a wider
> horizon, a more variegated economy and a more developed
> culture.
>
> Location of Germanic was once, as I recall Arnaud himself
> has said
> on this list, pretty far to the east, witness exchanges
> with Altaic,
> Yeniseian and (as per Chang Tsung-tung) Chinese.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> KE