From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62543
Date: 2009-01-21
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
Burrows, The Sanskrit Language
on that subject, p. 24 - 27
'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. s^üðö, Zyry.
s´o, Voty. s´u, Vog. sa:t, s^a:t, Osty. sòt, sàt, Hung. száz : Skt.
s´atám, Av. sat&m.
=====
You need two forms to explain the data : *sjat- and *sa:t-
A.
=======
(3) Finn. vasara "hammer", Lapp. væc^er, Mordv. viz´ir, uz´er :
Skt. vájra- "Indra's weapon", Av. vazra- "club, mace".
========
The correspondance between Finnish va- and Moksha u- is typical of Tocharian
A LWs.
Even though, some examples do not have any Tocharian attestation, some
examples are compelling.
ypoзи ur&zi 'hog / porc' < *wäräs- (Latin verre:s)
ycькe uske 'cable, chain / fil, chaîne' < wäs-(ke) 'gold, metal' (Toch A :
wäs-
yштop uSt&r 'maple / érable' < *wäkStär
yзepь uzer 'ax / hâche' < wäzer (Toch B waza'r)
ycькaз uskaz 'couch-grass / chiendent' < *wäskac- (Toch B : ask(w)ace
'darbha-grass')
yp ur 'squirrel / écureuil' < *wär
**Tocharian**
A.
=======
(5) Finn. oras "(castrated) boar", Mordv. ure:s´ "id" :
Skt. vara:há-, Av. vara:za- "boar".
======
Wrong. **Tocharian**
A.
========
(19) Vog. tas "stranger" :
Skt. da:sá- "non-Aryan, slave";
======
Very dubious.
As da:s is substratic in Indic.
A.
=======
(23) Mordv. s´a:va, s´eja "goat" :
Skt. chá:ga-.
=======
phonetics ?
A.
======
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,
=======
Wrong.
A.
========
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.
======
Too simple.
Mordvin must have had contact with Tocharian speakers for a longer time that
Finnic.
A.
======