From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 53638
Date: 2008-02-18
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick McCallister
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of
Aryan: now, "white people"?)
I'm curious about how so many Gmc loanwords entered
before the Swedish invasion of Finland. Was Finland or
part of Finland populated by Gmc speakers before
Finnish speakers arrived? I know, it sounds far out,
but I'm curious.
===========
I disagree with both assumptions that
PIE is so late that independent varieties of language
like indo-iranian are so late as - 3000.
and PU is also definitely older.
All this "draw-down" toward present day is absurd.
A word like *porkos has been borrowed
independently by individual Uralic languages.
*porsas (Baltic) in Finnish and Mordvin
*pors' (Iranian) in Permic
*porsh (Indian) in Ugric and Samoyed
The disregard for phonetic details
is widespread in Uralistics.
PU and PIE are probably about as old
in my opinion, they split before -10 000.
Arnaud
===============
> However, loanword studies contradict the dating of
> Proto-Uralic to 4000 BC. Two reasons are given for
> this.
> First, Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords with a wide
> distribution in the Finno-Ugrian languages suggest
> that
> the branches of Finno-Ugrian had not yet
> linguistically
> diverged from one another in the latter half of
> the third
> millennium BC, when Proto-Indo-Iranian was most
> likely
> spoken. Second, Northwest Germanic loanwords in
> Finnic and
> Sámic similarly suggest that Finnic and Sámic were
> still
> two dialects of the same Proto-Finno-Sámic
> language as
> late as the latter half of the first millennium
> BC, when
> Northwest Germanic most likely came into being.
>
> Brian
===============