--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
> Koivulehto himself considers the laryngeal reflexes
> to prove that the earliest loans came from PIE
> itself. This, however, is not a valid argument,
> since as I have pointed out the laryngeals had not
> been lost in pre-Satem times but survived into PIIr.
> (and PBSl., for that matter). I think it's much more
> significant that his loans show FU palatals for the
> *K^ series and no trace of rounding or whatever
> accompanying PIE labiovelars. The words are
> definitely Satem, if you ask me.
>
> Piotr
*****GK: One problem with the 3000 BC dating of the
earliest borrowings into FU from a Satemized IE (prob.
from the Yamna area) is that it does not seemingly
correlate well with the archaeological data,
irrespectively of one's preferred theory about the
European locus of the IE homeland. It is generally
accepted that the Pit-comb culture was that of the
early Finno-Ugrians. But Pit-comb was in very close
contact with the Dnipro-Donetsk culture, and then
(from the mid-4th millennium BC) with that of Trypilia
and Serednyj Stih. Now according to my (and others')
view, Serednyj Stih (and perhaps already
Dnipro-Donetsk) was IE, and according to yours
Trypilia would have had to be (?). Is it plausible to
see all or any of these as Satem IE long before 3000
BC, and if not, is it credible that for nearly 2000
years there were no (at least no clearly discernible)
IE linguistic borrowings from the West/South into FU,
at a time (worth repeating this) of fairly intense and
constant trade relationships?******
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/