Hi Piotr,
I wrote my post a bit carelessly because the
"Proto-Germanic" label did not actually come
Koivulehto himself but from Carpelan and Parpola who
were endorsing Koivulahti�s views - and they took
recourse to abbreviating "Pre/Proto-Germanic" to mere
"Proto-Germanic" while being more meticulous
elsewhere.
However, it is certainly true that Koivulehto argues
in favour of "Pre-Germanic" as well as
"Proto-Germanic" loans in Western Finno-Ugric and he
does seem to think that Nordic Bronze Age was
Proto-Germanic...
And I would gladly satisfy your wish for both of these
cases if I had now - readily available � an explicit
lists by Koivulehto distinguishing the great number of
(pre 500 CE) Pre/Proto/Germanic loans from each other.
Not least because distinguishing the different strata
of Pre/Proto/Germanic loan words from each other does
not seem to be easy by any means. Unfortunately, I can
provide here only a list of loan words which according
to Koivulehto come from North-Western
Proto-Indo-European and mention some words which Kaisa
H�kkinen � basing her views mainly on Koivulehto �
deems as possible early (hence presumably
Proto-Germanic) loans. Whether Koivulehto would
himself assert that these words were loans
specifically from Nordic Bronze-Age Proto-Germanic I
do not know as I write this, but I hope to become
wiser in this respect in the future.
Anyway, Koivulehto�s list of North Western IE loans in
westerly Finno-Ugric (the following are attested in
Finnish): kalja (�beer�), kasa (�sharp point�,
�edge�), kaski (�burnt-over clearing�), kyrs�
(�unleavened, thin bread, perjorative bread, not risen
or which went wrong; crust; something small,
insignificant�), lansi (�lowland, low�), lehti (�leaf,
blade�), pohtaa (�to winnow�), porsas (�piglet�),
rohto (�medicine�, medicinal plant; weed; green herb;
cattle feed�), solki (�fibula, (thorn pin to attach
clothes with), buckle, broach�), tahdas (�dough,
paste�) etc. etc. There are also similar loans
attested only in Saami. That these loans are NWIE
Koivulehto tries to establish by phonetic-phonological
arguments - and they are generally accepted by the
Finnish practioners of the comparative art.
As far as properly Proto-Germanic loans are
considered, I think that the following words, viewed
as early by Kaisa H�kkinen, might be interesting:
pelto (�field�), heitt�� (�to throw�), rengas
(�ring�), sairas (�sick�), k�rsi� (�to suffer�), sara
(�column�), vitsa (�twig�), kana (�chicken�), rauta
(�iron�), kansa (� people�).
And Pekka Sammallahti explains that the Proto-Saamic
words for �red�, �edge�, �to borrow�, and �periphery�
are Early Proto-Germanic loans (I can try to provide
the reconstructed forms when I learn how to produce
them properly!).
It is well worth mentioning that Koivulehto fully
accepts that purely linguistic argument cannot show
that his NWIE loans were adopted in what is now
present-day Finland. Rather, he uses plausibility
arguments to suggest that the Nordic Bronze Age of
1700 BCE to 500 BCE was Proto-Germanic (what else
could it be, given the known later history of the
area?)and that it followed an earlier Corded Ware NWIE
intrusion into Scandinavia.
Similarly, basing his views both on archaeology and
linguistic considerations, Koivulehto argues (against
the Aikio brothers) that it is unlikely that all the
NWIE loans were adopted in present-day Estonia and
Ingria (the Nordic Bronze Age was not as well
represented in Estonia and Ingria as in Finland and
fewer loans have remained there)
Morover, we should remember here that since 1969 the
earlier theory of gaps in the population theory of
Finland has been pretty much as good as dead (although
the Aikio brothers and Juha Janhunen disagree).
Given the attested areal distribution of Uralic
languages, all this transforms into the scholarly
common opinion of Finnish comparative linguistists and
archaeologists, namely, that already the Typical
Combed Ware (or Combed Ware 2) population in Finland
might have spoken a variety of Proto Fenno-Ugric from
4900 BCE onwards and that Proto-Finnic began to
develop at the time of the Corded Ware intrusion.
Time to stop now, I will come back to this as soon as
my time permits.
Best regards, Juha
P.S. In case somebody thinks that I have a hobby-horse
of my own in defending a great ancestry for my
fellow-Finnish speakers in Finland, I will say this:
I have no desires or interests whatsoever here; it is
just that Indo-Europeanists should know, for their own
good, more about what is going on on the other side of
the linguistic/archaeological/genetic fence. Indeed,
there is the school of Kalevi Wiik and his followers
who do advocate unmistakably indigenist ideas on
Finno-Ugric prehistory. They are much frowned upon by
the Finnish scholarly mainstream - and me too...
Best regards, Juha
--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "juhavs" <juhavs@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:20 AM
> Subject: [tied] Uralic languages vis-a-vis
> Indo-European dispersal
>
>
>
> > JS: Indeed, Jorma Koivulehto has advocated since
> 1976 that the
> speakers of an earlier phase of Finnic must have
> come to Finland at
> least as early as the Bronze Age. Koivulehto has
> shown that there are
> Germanic loanwords in Finnic that have gone the
> phonetic changes that
> are likely to have taken place between Early
> Proto-Finnic and late
> Proto-Finnic and therefore must have been adopted
> during the
> Proto-Finnic period (actually, a surprising number
> of these loans are
> attested in Saami, too). Given the archaeological
> evidence, it is
> clear that (a) the Jastorf culture did not have any
> contacts with
> Finland and (b) contacts after the Jastorf culture
> are too late to be
> contacts with Proto-Germanic. Hence these contacts
> must have taken
> place before the Jastorf culture, more specifically,
> with the Nordic
> Bronze Age culture, which exerted from 1600 calBC
> onwards a strong
> influence on coastal Finland.
>
> The argument appears to me to be based on unprovable
> underlying
> assumptions -- e.g. that the carriers of the Nordic
> Bronze Age culture spoke
> a language ancestral to Germanic; then the local
> continuity of Germanic is
> supposed to guarantee the local continuity of
> Finnic-S�mi. I also wonder how
> Koivulehto knows that a given loan is pre-Germanic
> (certainly not
> _Proto_-Germanic if we're talking of dates in the
> second millennium BC).
> Have you got any examples of such putative Germanic
> loans to hand?
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus