From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50172
Date: 2007-09-30
> Saami, supposedly has 25% pre-Uralic substrate and Ihttp://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2005/Aikio.pdf
> have no clue about any substrate in Finnish.
> I've always wondered about shared substrate among
> Germanic, Saami, Balto-Finnic and Baltic --but none
> of
> you will get up off your duffs and figure it out for
> me.
> ===============
> A.F
> If you read Ante Aikio's works,
> you will notice that he rejects the word
> "autochtonous" and "substrate"
> See
>
>=== message truncated ===
> page 10.
>
> Also :
> http://www.oulu.fi/nak22/absu2.html
>
> Ante Aikio, University of Oulu, Giellagas Institute
>
> The origin of Saami: a critical look at
> archaeological and linguistic evidence
> The paper provides a critical review of the
> suggested connections between various archaeological
> cultures and the Saami language. In addition, recent
> results in comparative linguistics are summarized.
> It is shown that the loanword strata in the Saami
> languages are inconsistent with an assumption of a
> long Saami ethnic continuity in Lapland. The
> evidence suggests that the Proto-Saami language and
> Saami ethnic identity first emerged at a more
> southern latitude and spread to its present
> territory only in the early Iron Age. Consequently,
> any archaeological culture in Lapland prior to the
> Iron Age is best characterized as non-Saami.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fournet.arnaud
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed
> as Vasco-Caucasian
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick McCallister
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed
> as Vasco-Caucasian
>
>
> So when do you think the Saami began speaking
> Uralic
>
> ==============
>
> A.F
>
> What do you mean ?
>
> Saami people are obviously Uralic, and never
> spoke anything but Uralic.
>
> Saami is definitely conservative, in the Uralic
> family.
>
> ===================
>
>
> and the Finns moved into Finland?
>
> =================
>
> A.F
>
> They moved into Eastern Europe,
>
> After Germanic split into Westic and Nordic,
>
> and after Iranian split from Indic.
>
> So it must be rather late,
>
> A rough guess : after - 2 000 BC.
>
> ====================
>
>
> Saami, supposedly has 25% pre-Uralic substrate
> and I
> have no clue about any substrate in Finnish.
> I've always wondered about shared substrate
> among
> Germanic, Saami, Balto-Finnic and Baltic --but
> none of
> you will get up off your duffs and figure it out
> for
> me.
>
> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick McCallister
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory
> renamed
> > as Vasco-Caucasian
> >
> >
> > Actually Scandinvia & W Baltic: Sweden,
> Denmark,
> > Lower
> > Saxony, Pomorze --Jastorf, right?
> > Germanic began to split up sometime around 500
> BC,
> > right?
> > And it spread out from there, right?
> > In (continental) Scandinavia, the previous
> > inhabitants
> > spoke Uralic, namely Saami (and Finnish in
> > Finland),
> > right?
> >
> > ============================
> >
> > A.F
> >
> > Germanic reached Scandinavia BEFORE (Western)
> > Uralic.
> >
> > And I think Germanic split much earlier than
> 500
> > BC,
> >
> > English and German were different languages as
> > early as - 2500,
> >
> > if you recalibrate glottochronology erosion
> rate,
> > to avoid having French and Italian split as
> late as
> > in the XV century.
> >
> > (obviously absurd : Standard erosion rate is
> too
> > fast
> >
> > It has to be slowed down and the result is
> that
> > language splits are pushed into the past)
> >
> > ==========================
> >
> >
> > And who knows what they spoke in Denmark and
> > Pomorze,
> > right?
> > Maybe "Folkish"?, maybe "Apple language", who
> > knows,
> > right?
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick
> > McCallister
> > > <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No one says that Scandinavia was the
> original
> > > homeland
> > > > of Germanic --just that it was centered
> there
> > and
> > > the
> > > > NW Baltic
> > >
> > > Why 'centered' there? Where exactly is the
> 'NW
> > > Baltic'?
> > >
> > > > c. 500 BCE.
> > >
> > > Why 500 BCE?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Before that, well, probably present Saxony
> and
> > > Poland.
> > > > Regarding Uralic lexicon --look at
> Scandinavia
>