--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, Uralic loans into Indo-Iranian. I bet the OIT
> meshuga-wallas are dancing in the streets
You liked that, huh? And I didn't even say that. But Burrows did in
'The Sanskrit Language', p. 22-24 (the fun part comes last):
"
§5. Indo-Iranian and Finno-ugrian
During the same period there is conclusive evidence of contact between
Indo-Iranian and Finno-ugrian, a neighbouring family of
non-Indo-European languages. This latter family consists of three
European languages which have attained the status of literary
languages, Finnish, Esthonian and Hungarian, and a number of now minor
languages which are spoken by a small number: Lapp. Mordwin, C^eremis,
Zyryan, Votyak, Vogul, Ostyak. Of these Vogul and Ostyak are now found
to the East of the Urals, but are considered to have moved there from
the West. These two, with Hungarian form the Ugrian sub-group, and are
distinguished from the rest by certain common features. The Hungarians
moved from the region of the Volga to the territory they now occupy in
the ninth century. In Siberia there are several Samoyede languages
which as a group are related to Finno-Ugrian. The two families are
classed together as the Uralian languages.
Even before the Indo-Iranian period there is evidence of contact
between Indo-European and Finno-ugrian. Certain remarkable
coincidences (e.g. Lat. sal 'salt', Finn. suola; Skt. mádhu 'honey',
Gk. méthu : Finn. mete-; Skt. na:man-, Gk. ónoma 'name' : Finn. nime-,
Goth, wato: ' water', etc. : Fi. vete-) have long since attracted
attention, but there is lack of agreement as to how exactly they are
to be interpreted. One theory is that the two families are ultimately
related, but the available evidence is not sufficient to establish
this with any certainty. On the whole it seems more probable that the
coincidences, insofar as they are not due to chance, are the result of
mutual contact and influence in the early prehistoric period. 1)
Evidence is both more abundant and easier to interpret when it comes
to early Indo-Iranian contacts with Finno-ugrian. Here it is possible
to point out a considerable number of words in Finno-ugrian which can
be shown to have been borrowed from Indo-Iranian at this stage. The
most important of the Finno-ugrian words which have been ascribed to
Indo-Iranian are as follows :
(1) Finn. sata '100', Lapp. cuotte, Mordv. s´ado, C^er. üðö, Zyry.
s´o, Voty. s´u, Vog. sa:t, a:t, Osty. sòt, sàt, Hung. száz
:
Skt. s´atám, Av. sat&m.
(2) Mordv. azoro, azor 'lord', Voty. uzïr, Zyry. ozïr 'rich'; Vog.
o:ter, å:ter 'hero'
:
Skt. ásura, 'lord', Av. ahura- 'id'.
(3) Finn. vasara 'hammer', Lapp. væc^er, Mordv. viz´ir, uz´er
:
Skt. vájra- 'Indra's weapon', Av. vazra- 'club, mace'.
(4) Finn. porsas, Zyry. pora´, porys´, Voty. pars´, paris´ 'pig'
was ascribed to an Aryan *pars´a-( Lat. porcus) and this is now
attested by Khotanese pa:'sa-.
(5) Finn. oras '(castrated) boar', Mordv. ure:s´ 'id'
:
Skt. vara:há-, Av. vara:za- ' boar'.
(6) Finn. utar, Mordv. odar, C^er. vodar 'udder'
:
Skt. ú:dhar 'id';
(7) Finn. ora, Mordv. uro, Hung. ár 'awl'
:
Skt. á:ra: 'id' (= OHG a:la, etc.);
(8) Hung. ostor 'whip', Vog. oster, C^er. wotyr
:
Skt. ás.t.ra, Av. atra: 'whip' (*aj- ' to drive ') ;
(9) Hung. arany 'gold', Vog. suren´, saren´, Mordv. sirn´e, Zyry.
Voty. zarn´i
:
Skt. híran.ya-, Av. zaranya-;
(10) Finn. arvo 'value, price', Hung. ár, etc.
:
Skt. arghá-, Osset. arG 'id' (Lith. algà, etc.) ;
(11) Finn. sisar 'sister', Mordv. sazor, C^er. uar
:
Skt. svásar-, Av. xyan,har-;
(12) Hung. sör 'beer', Voty. sur, Vog. sor, Osty. sar
:
Skt. súra: 'strong drink', Av. hura: ;
(13) Finn. sarvi 'horn', Mordv. s´uro, C^er. ur, Lapp c^oarvve, Hung.
szarv
:
Av. sru:-, srva: 'horn' ( = Gk. kéras, etc.);
(14) Vog. uorp, o:rp 'elk'
:
Skt. s´arabhá- 'a kind of deer' (from the root of the last);
(15) Mordv. sed' 'bridge'
:
Skt. sétu-, Av. has:tu-;
(16) Mordv. v&rgas 'wolf', Zyry. vörkas´
:
Skt. vr.´ka-, Av. v&hrka-;
(17) Zyry. Voty. turïn 'grass'
:
Skt. tr.´n.a-;
(18) Zyry. vörk 'kidney'
:
Skt. vr.kká-, Av. v&r&ðka- 'id';
(19) Vog. tas 'stranger'
:
Skt. da:sá- 'non-Aryan, slave';
(20) Hung. vászon 'linen'
:
Skt. vásana- 'garment, cloth'.
(21) Fi. mehiläinen 'bee', Mordv. mek, C^er. mük, Zyry. Voty. mu,
Hung. méh
:
Skt. máks.-, máks.a:, máks.ika: 'bee, fly', Av. maxui: 'fly';
(22) Fi. siika-nen 'beard of grain, etc.', Mordv. s´uva, C^er. s´u,
Zyry. s´u
:
Skt. s´u:ka- 'id';
(23) Mordv. s´a:va, s´eja 'goat'
:
Skt. chá:ga-.
The detailed problems raised by these and other comparisons are not
without complications, but certain general conclusions emerge clearly.
Most important of all is the fact that, taking the words as a whole,
the primitive forms which have to be assumed after a comparison of the
Finno-ugrian forms, are identical with those which have been
reconstructed for primitive Indo-Iranian, and are free of any of the
later sound changes which are characteristic of Iranian on the one
hand and Indo-Aryan on the other. This is quite well illustrated by
the lust word which represents a primitive form s´ata- (the
Indo-Iranian and Sanskrit form) and not sata- (the Iranian form). The
characteristic Iranian change of s to h is uniformly absent (3 Mordv.
azoro, 11 Mordv. sazor, 15 Mordv. sed', etc.). Likewise characteristic
Indo-Aryan changes such as of z´h, jh to h are not to be found (5
Finn. oras, etc.). There is therefore not the slightest doubt that the
period when these borrowings took place was the primitive Indo-Iranian
period, and it appears probable that the seat of this primitive
Indo-Iranian must have been in the region of the middle Volga and the
Urals for this contact to have been possible.
One point that is noticeable when looking at a few of these words is
that the change of Indo-European l, l. to Aryan r, r. has already
taken place (7 Finn. ora, 9. Vog. saren´, etc., 16. Mordv. vargas).
This is a change which is complete in Iranian, but incomplete in
Indo-Aryan. That is to say that there were dialects in early
Indo-Aryan which preserved IE l (not l.), as well as those (the
Rigvedic) which agreed with Iranian in this respect. The Finno-ugrian
forms show that this feature must have already been widespread in the
earlier, Indo-Aryan period, and the existence of r-forms in the Aryan
of the Near East corroborates this. It cannot however have been
universal, for in that case no l-forms would have been found in
Sanskrit at all.
It is usually quite clear that these words have been borrowed by
Finno-ugrian from Indo-Iranian and not vice versa. We have equivalents
of the words in other IE languages, and before being borrowed into
Finno-ugrian they have undergone the changes characteristic of the
Aryan branch. Even where an Indo-Iranian word has no actual equivalent
in the other IE languages, its structure and the possibility of
deriving it from a known IE root will often show it to be an old
inherited word. For instance Skt. vájra-, Av. vazra-, is formed with
the well-known suffix -ra (IE -ro), and can be derived from the IE
root which appears in Gk. (w)ágnumi 'break, smash'. There are however
a few words in the above list where it is not possible to be certain
in this way. Nothing like the Indo-Iranian word for 'bee' (No. 21) is
found in any other IE language, and this makes it more likely on the
whole that in this case the Indo-Iranians have adopted a Finno-ugrian
word. Similar considerations apply to Nos. 22 (Skt. s´u:ka-) and 23
(Skt. chá:ga-). There may be further examples of Finno-ugrian words in
Indo-Iranian, but the matter has never been investigated from this
point of view. As plausible equations we may mention :
Skt. kapha- 'phlegm', Av. kafa-, Pers. kaf 'foam, scum'
:
Hung. háb 'foam, froth, cream', Veps. kob´e 'wave, foam', Sam. (Kam.)
khòwü ' foam';
Skt. kú:pa 'pit, well'
:
Fi. kuoppa 'pit', Lapp guöppe, C^er. kup, Voty. gop, etc.;
Skt. s´ala:ka: 'splinter, etc'
:
Hung. szilank 'chip, splinter', Fi. sale, 3. saleen 'id', etc.
In cases like these, and others could be added, no IE etymology has
been found for the Sanskrit words. Since it is certain that we must
assume long contact between the early Indo-Iranians and the
neighbouring Finno-ugrians, and since there is no reason why the
movement of words should have been entirely one way, we should
consider Finno-ugrian to be a likely source of Aryan words in cases
like the above where striking similarity in form and meaning is found.
1 Borrowings are likely to have occurred in both directions, and
usually it is difficult to decide which family has been the borrower.
As an example of a probable loan from Finno-ugrian we may quote Engl.
whale, O.N. hvalr, O. Pruss. kalis : Av. kara- 'mythical fish living
in the Ran,ha: (= Volga) : Finn. kala 'fish' etc. The restriction of
the meaning indicates that the IE languages are the borrowers, and it
is likely that Iranian and the northern IE languages have done so
separately.
"
Torsten