From: george knysh
Message: 18955
Date: 2003-02-20
>*****GK: This summation is much appreciated , Piotr.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied]
> "Will_the_'real'_linguist_please_stand_up?"
>
>
> > GK: Just as a clarification. Is it
> definitely
> > established that the ONLY ancient loan words in PU
> are
> > II, viz., that there is no evidence of ANY loans
> from
> > PIE or from some other ancient (and
> > non-II)Indo-European language(s)?
>
> I can't find any good evidence of PIE labiovelars in
> words borrowed by FU (sic! FU rather than Uralic),
> whereas even the oldest layer of loans discovered by
> Koivulehto show palatal reflexes of the *K^ series.
> In fact, IE *g^(H) --> FU *j is one of the securest
> substitution patterns in the "Koivulehto loans".
> Koivulehto identifies some of the IE --> FU
> correspondences as involving laryngeals, but that's
> no big deal, since at least some of the PIE
> laryngeals were preserved as consonantal segments as
> late as PIIr. (for example, their presence blocked
> the operation of Brugmann's Law). A fortiori, they
> must have been present in Proto-Satem. The oldest
> loans in FU show no palatalisation of *K(W) before
> front vowels. All this evidence taken together
> points to Proto-Satem IE as the source of the oldest
> identifiable loans in Finno-Ugric. They are not as
> numerous as later loans from Iranian and Baltic, but
> appear to be real enough to me. The contemporaneity
> of PFU and PSat. ca. 3000 BC could be accepted by
> most historical linguists, I believe.
>
> Piotr