> A clear case is the word 'moth' where the substitution could have
> worked Saami > Gmc but not the other way. Phonological criteria
> leaves no mercy. But you are right, it is controversal because of
> the lack of parallell borrowings. That's why I threw it out to you.
> The fact that the language were neighbours at that time is not
> controversial though, because borrowings in the other direction are
> plenty.
But that is not a fact, it is a convention. The null hypothesis, so to
speak, that lkanguages don't move unless we can prove orherwise. I'm
not basing this on Snorri alone, there are other things:
1) Why do Caesar and Tacitus state that the Germani had never been
heard of before?
2) Why do earlier Greek and Roman writers never mention anything
recognizably Germanic from the areas where Caesar and Tacitus know
them and where they live today?
3) Why would the Germanic language family that was supposedly stable
for thousands of years suddenly break up 2000 years ago?
4) Is it not more likely that such a breakup would occur if there had
been a rapid expansion of its original area at that time?
5)
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50154
and follow the links.
In short, I think the Germanic language is a product of the Przeworsk
or Oder-Warthe group. Whatever contact existed between Germanic and
Finnish pre-Grimm, ie loans with substitutions 'Gmc.' -> Finn., must
have taken place there or further east. And given that one can argue
for a Fennic substrate for all of Balto-Slavic, not just for Russian,
perhaps that's not so impossible.
Torsten