Re: Verner's Law could be a result of interfamilial contact

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Verner's Law could be a result of interfamilial
contact


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:12 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Verner's Law could be a result
> of
> interfamilial contact
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > "Wilk suggest that one of the Finno-Ugric substratum features in
> > Indo-European is the generalized initial stress in Germanic (as well
> > as in Latvian (see section 2.3) and in the north-western Russian
> > dialects, known for a number of Finnic-substratum phenomena). This
> > `main event in the split of Proto-Indo-European into Prot-Germanic and
> > the other IE languages' had dramatical consequences within Germanic,
> > known as Verner'law, which was later introduced into Finnic in the
> > form of consonant gradation. Wilk also proposes a few other
> > FU-substratum features in Germanic-for example, umlaut as a reflex
> > vowel harmony. Some of Wilk's suggestions have met with a
> > considerable skepticism and criticism on the part of historical
> > linguistics. The accent shift in Germanic is probably the most
> > plausible candidate for a contact-induced change. Here, Wilk follows
> > Salmons (1992) who suggests a shared Germanic-Celtic accent shift
> > talking (sic) place in prehistoric north-western Europe on the basis
> > of early and profound contact with a Finno-Ugric language. This is
> > based on a vernally accepted view that Proto-Finno-Ugric had an
> > initial stress-a view that might be disputed (Viitso, 1997; 224-5).
> > There are also additional considerations that cast some doubt on the
> > Salmons-Wilk suggestion (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Walchli, 2001: 640)."
> >
> > Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2006). The circle that won't come full: two
> > potential isoglosses in the circum Baltic area. In linguistic areas:
> > convergence in historical and typological perspective. Matras, Y.,
> > McMahon, A., and Vincent, N. (eds.), pp. 182-226. New York: Palgrave
> > McMillan. ISBN: 1-4039-9657-1
> >
>
> correction: "This is
> based on a generally accepted view that...."
>
> M. Kelkar
> ============
> Two main assertions about Uralic languages need serious reservations.
> Most Uralic languages have mobile stress,
> and most Uralic languagues _do_not_ exhibit any kind of vowel harmony,
> contrary to cliches about Uralic.
>
> In fact, the best known members of Uralic, Finnish + Estonian and
> Hungarian,
> have both but they are not at all representative of Uralic.
> The idea that these languages are a substrate to Germanic does not make
> logical sense.
> Germanic initialy stress most probably influenced Finnish, Estonian and
> Hungarian.
> and the influence is certainly not in the other way.
>
> And It's also clear that Celtic had not initial stress,
> As far as I know, only Irish displays that feature.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==============

***

Patrick:


It is not that FU was a substrate but that FU's adopted IE - imperfectly.


**