Very funny story ;) The problem with it is, that the point Helimski
is trying to make contradicts completely what we know about lexical
borrowings in more modern times. Things happen when words are
borrowed and there are plenty of uncontested analogies for the
methodology applied. There is no reason to believe that borrowings
would have followed other rules in the past > more follows below
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:
>
> http://www.christopherculver.com/ignorance/?p=65
>
> Helimski thinks this is entirely without foundation, and offers the
> following mirthful dialogue to illustrate this:"
> M. Kelkar
>
The ridiculing story has been published in Helimski's article in
Carpelan, Christian; Parpola, Asko & Koskikallio, Petteri (eds.):
Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and
Archeological Considerations. Helsinki (Mémoires de la Societé Finno-
Ougrienne *242*) 2001: 201ff. The whole volume is described well in
the internet at
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-934.html
Since I am in possession of the source I may share with you also the
response by Jorma Koivulehto to that story and to the 5 introductory
charges it strives to illustrate (same book page 251f). I have
expanded the bibliographic references and added two ortographic
remarks. I have written it by hand so any misspellings or errors are
on my account. Italics are ignored.
Quote
I hope the readers of this volume had a good laugh at my expense
while reading the fictional scene staged by Eugene Helimski in order
to ridicule my etymology. Seriously speaking, however, there is no
substance in Helimski's criticism. Anything can be borrowed, provided
that the contacts are intensive enough (Laakso, Johanna 1999,
Language contact hypotheses and the history of Uralic morphosyntax.
Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 88: page 62); and words for
means of locomotion are especially likely to be borrowed, unless
there is an acceptable autochthonous etymology, which is not the case
here. The constant flow of lexical borrowings from Indo-European to
Finno-Ugric accounts for the fact that no ancient common Uralic or
Finno-Ugric term for `boat' has been preserved (at least not in
westerly Finno-Ugric languages), although the object itself was, as
an `Einbaum', well known in early Uralic times and for a long time
before. The method chosen by Helimski only shows that he has run
out of serious arguments.
Since Helimski has also chosen to attack my etymological research in
general and to reject my results wholesale, I am obliged to deal with
his accusation in brief.
- Charge number 1: Lexical scope: My loan etymologies contain almost
as many verbs and adjectives as nouns; and, more generally, my loan
etymologies contain words for elementary objects and actions. This
charge is invalidated by the widely-known fact that "in the case of
very intensive language contacts, practically anything can be
borrowed, from words to affixes and structures" (Laakso 1999: 62).
Unfortunately, this basic fact that has controlled and verified by
numerous cases from more recent languages, seems to be ignored by
researchers working on Nostratic premises. Actually, this is quite
understandable: early loans _must_ be rejected because they threaten
the Nostratic positions which presuppose that the words concerned are
genetically related, Nostratic words. It would also be interesting to
know which of the many adjectives claimed by Helimski really are
covered in my paper published her. Among the 56 cases I can find only
the following three: *sera `old, aged' (no. 48), *paksu `thick, fat,
dense' (no 52), *acnas {the c here carries a v-shaped hat in the
source/Jouppe} `greedy, voracious' (no. 53), all of them are Proto-
Iranian loans (additionally there is Finn. kalvas, kalpea `pale',
which is only hinted at in connection with Saami guolbba: no.26). I
will return to this question at the end of this paper.
- Charge no. 2: The Indo-European source words and their Finno-Ugric
counterparts postulated by me, "often" differ semantically. I think
we can safely claim the opposite: most of my cases show a rather far-
going semantic congruence, given the fact that there is a great time-
depth. That there are sometimes minor semantic differences, is of
course unavoidable: the same can be observed also in some recent
loans: cf. e.g. Finn. colloquial snaijata `to understand, comprehend'
from Russian znat', znaet `to know'.
Charge no. 3: Stem structure: "quite often the presumed sources
differ from the words which actually are attested in the Indo-
European languages in the presence or absence of a suffix, in their
Ablautstufen, etc.". In my present paper, at least, where is the
evidence of the first claim? Of course, now and then we can observe
that genuine Finno-Ugric or Proto-Finnic suffixes have been attached
to the borrowed stems, but this is nothing peculiar. E.g. almost all
later verb borrowings have verbalizing suffixes, and suffixation can
occur in nouns, too (e.g. es {the s carries a v-shaped hat in the
source/Jouppe} is a frequent suffix, often without an exact
counterpart in the source word: see Koivulehto, Jorma 1999. Verba
mutuata. Quae vestigia antiquissimi cum Germanis aliisque Indo-
Europaeis contactus in linguis Fennicis reliquerint. [in German].
Helsinki: Mémoires de la societé Finno-Ougrienne 237. ISBN 952-5150-
36-4. pages 309-328). The "omission" (Helimski: "abscence") of a
suffix in the source word, as far as I know, very rare in my material
and easily be accounted for. In no. 10 (*vete) the Indo-European
counterpart is a heteroclitic er/-en-stem, but it is obvious that
this stem has been derived from a root noun *wed- (cf. also Armenian
get `river'). And this is, of course also postulated by
Nostraticists. As to the Ablautstufen, the assertion is simply not
true. In no case do I suggest an Ablautstufe which would not be
attested in the source material, that is in the postulated source
word.
Charge no. 4: Phonetics: Helimski reproaches me for having made new
rules, which, however, are illustrated only with new etymologies
which also stem from me. Helimski obviously refers to new
substitution rules. Helimski's attacks here a standard scientific
procedure. If I claim to have found a new substitution model, the
proof of it can only be produced by showing that "it works", i.e. by
showing that several other cases can also be found which show the
same substitution, i.e. which are explained by the same substitution
rule (cf. e.g. Section 4 in this paper). There is simply no other
way. Reproaching this standard scientific method, Helimski openly
takes a stand against development and innovation within science.
Charge no. 5: A combination of my alleged faults {this is a
reference to the tale quoted by M.Kelkar/Jouppe}. After the above
discussion further words would be superfluous.
Unquote