From: george knysh
Message: 18912
Date: 2003-02-19
> Indo-Iranian > Finno-Ugric******GK: Just as a clarification. Is it definitely
>
> "Will the `real' linguist please stand up? It should
> be obvious that
> linguists have as much difficulty in establishing
> the chronological
> relationships between loanwords as any other
> `historical science'"
> (Mallory, J.P., 1997, The homelands of the
> Indo-Europeans, in:
> Arhaeology and Language, R. Blench and M. Spriggs,
> ed., London,
> Routledge, p. 98).
>
> This exasperation arose from the problem of
> explaining Finno-Ugric
> loans from Indo-Aryan (not Proto-Indo-European;
> Shevoroskin), Indo-
> Iranian (Dolgopolsky and D'iakonov), early Iranian
> (not Old Indic;
> Gamkrelidze and Ivanov), Sanskrit (Lubotsky). S.S.
> Misra cites
> Harmatta who had analyzed eleven consecutive
> chronological periods,
> from the first half of the fifth millennium BCE to
> the invasion of
> Europe by Hun in 4th century CE. (Harmatta, J.,
> 1981, Proto-Iranians
> and Proto-Indians in Central Asia in the 2nd
> millennium BC
> (Linguistic Evidence), in: M.S. Asimov, ed., Ethnic
> Problems of the
> History of Central Asia in the Early Period, Moscow,
> Nauka pp. 75-
> 82.; cf. Harmatta, J., 1992, The emergence of the
> Indo-Iranians: The
> Indo-Iranian Languages, in: A.H.Dani and V.M.
> Masson, ed., History
> of Civilizations of Central Asia, UNESCO, pp. 1:
> 357-378.)
> Considering that the Finno-Ugric loans ar from
> Indo-Iranian,