Re: Uralic Continuity Theory ; Paleo-Germanic lexical borrowings in

> As for why not choose 3) (separate borrowings from substrate): Given
> a situation where the explanation 1) PGerm. -> PFinn. works well
> without irregularities it is impossible to construct an etymology
> under 3), which would benefit from 'economy of presumptions'. It
> will always be a more complicated solution.

> The scope for explanations under 3) is therefore limited, unless
>
> A) it would be possible to come up with extradisciplinary reasons,
> e.g. making the presumption of contact impossible.
>
> B) A completely different situation would occur if it would be
> possible to find enough cases, for which neither 1) or 2) works, but
> the similarity is striking and distribution on both sides narrow.
> Strangely enough not very many has occured to my knowledge. The so
> calle "substrate words" are different on both sides.

I can't agree there. It seems to me many of the proposed cognates in
Germanic are part of the 30% roots which have a Germanic, but not a
convincing PIE pedigree, and many more have a, as you called it,
skewed distribution, ie. they are only known in NWEuropean languages.
Calling it a loan from Germanic for methodological reasons alone in
that case is flawed. It is a loan from whatever was the substrate of
Germanic and might have been the substrate of Finnish and Estonian too.

> The word for salo 'island' fullfills the criteria of narrow
> distribution on both sides, but here unfortunatey substitution rules
> are reversible so 1) and 2) works. Can you think of any better
> examples?

'Salo' works good enough for me. What do you think of these
etymologies of Sjælland and Lat. insula (*enk^-salaw):

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50268
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50271

?

Perhaps Germ. Insel is not a loan?


Torsten