--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande
<aquila_grande@...>" <aquila_grande@...> wrote:> So- is it nessary
to assume a IA wave from east to west, to explain > loanwords in
Uralic?.
Good point.
In addition to Misra, there are Harmatta and Johanna Nichols who
hold views different from Piotr's.
As I understand the unresolved problem, it is related to fine-tuning
Proto-Indo-Aryan as distinct from Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Burrow notes that some Finno-Ugric forms are borrowings from Indo-
Iranian and not from Old Indo-Aryan (e.g.Finn. seta, '100; Sanskrit
s'atam, Av. satem; Finn. arvo, 'value'; Sanskrit argha; Finn.
sisar, 'sister'; Sanskrit svasar-, Av Xvanhar; Mordv. s'va, 'goat';
Sanskrit cha_ga). The rule: Sanskrit s' = Iranian s, Finno-Ugric s';
Sanskrit s = Iranian h, Finno-Ugric s. Witness initial h- of Hung
aranya (Sanskrit hiran.ya).
V.I. Abayev, 1981, Pre-hisory of Indo-Iranians in the Light of Aryo-
Uralic contacts,in: Ethnic problems of the history of central Asia,
in the early period, Moscow. All the forms attested as Proto-Aryan
borrowings are present in Sanskrit (e.g. Saami arjan, 'southern;
Sanskrit arya, Av. airya; Finn. jvya, 'corn'; Sanskrit yava, Av.
yava; Finn. vermen, 'thin skin'; Sanskrit varman, 'cover'; Finn.
marras, 'dead', Indo-Iranian mr.tas, Sanskrit mr.tas, 'dead').
Misra notes: aj is Rigvedic as the corresponding Indo-Iranian form
should be az' and Iranian az (< Indo-European ag'), as Indo-European
g' becomes z' in Indo-Iranian and j in Sanskrit.
Thanks, Juhav, for the reference (I will certainly read it, since it
appears to be the latest update): Carpelan, Christian, and Asko
Parpola, 2001. Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-
European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological
perspective. Pp. 55-150 in: Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola and
Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-
European: Linguistic and archaeological considerations. (Mémoires de
la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 242.)Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.