From: tgpedersen
Message: 53521
Date: 2008-02-17
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW, interestingly, he has
> > > > http://koti.welho.com/jschalin/lexicon.htm
> > > > both Fi. kalja "weak beer" and Fi. olut "beer" corresponding
> > > > to the PIE "ale" word. Now the latter is an areal word,
> > > > covering Germanic, Baltic, Baltic Finnic and Slavic, it seems
> > > > it must have belonged to some erased culture of the area. So
> > > > did the older loan survive two invasions?
> >
> > > The two words are semantically distinguishable, even today.
> > > 'kalja' is an artesanal home made (weak) beer. 'olut' is a beer
> > > made from raw materials and by techniques learned from iron age
> > > foreigners.
> > >
> > True, but that was not my point. If 'olut' is an areal substrate
> > word then it was picked up by the Finns when they arrived in their
> > present territory, which means they picked up 'kalja' somewhere
> > else. The reason I think Germanic *aluþ- (and the corresponding
> > roots in Baltic and Slavic) is probably a loan from the substrate,
> > but PIE language of the area, from *leu- "dissolve" (that sense
> > would also take care of the semantic gap to the proposed cognate,
> > Latin alu:men, Germ. Alun), with an a- prefix as in Schrijver's
> > substrate 'bird language' (Germn. Amsel, Ameise, Du. merle, mier).
> > However, as to the the PIE-ness of *leu itself, see
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44457
> >
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
> Regardless of the origin of the Baltic, Slavic and German forms, it
> would be the most economical interpretation to see finnic kalja and
> olut as two borowings, the former being the older one on account of
> the initial consonantal reflex.
And I didn't propose otherwise.
> Of course you could see kalja as a
> direct loan from the substarate (maybe a fricative there if not a
> laryngeal) and olut as a younger one from for example Germanic. But
> with this sort of extra assumptions we would only complicate things,
> wouldn't we.
Yes, that is true, but I never proposed that.
> And as I have mentioned elsewhere Balto-Slavic seems to have
> preserved the laryngeals rather late, so any speculative sequence
> involving migrations and substrates could be fitted in with this
> basic etymological approach.
>
Not really. The 'ale' word is distributed in a solid block which also
has the 'thousand' word. It is very tempting to identify that block
with the Corded Ware culture that preced the subsequent Baltic and
Narva cultures (I can't find my references right now, but I'm pretty
sure that's what I reas. Vel sim.) If Germanic originated in the
Przeworsk culture they would be in position to feast on a common
substrate. Since that kills substrate languages, Finnish must have
been somewhere else when it borrowed 'kalja'.
BTW note Ernout-Meillet:
"
alu:men, -inis n.: alun. Non attesté avant Claudius Quadrig.
Panroman, sauf roumain. M.L.389 et germ.: ags. alifne; celt.: irl.
ailim, gall. alyf, Cf. bitu:men, et comme celui-ci sans doute mot
étranger.
Dérivés: alu:mina:rius, -i; alu:mina:tus (ex-), -mino:sus. Peut-être
faut-il y rattacher: alu:ta, -ae f.: cuir assoupli avec l'alun, peau
souple (déjà dans Caton?). M.L.390, d'où alu:ta:cius, -a, -um.
Le seul terme qui se laisse rapprocher est un mot grec occidental:
alud(o)mion: pikròn parà Só:proni, Hes.
Terme technique d'origine obscure.
"
So the area in which the word means "ale" is surrounded by a larger
one in which it means "concoction" in general. Nice.
> PS. The melting iceflake of substrate etymologies in Finnic is
> continuously shrinking as indo-european originals are gaining
> acceptance.
That is very poetic. Could you provide an explanatory footnote for my
benefit?
Torsten