--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> > And how do you explain this:
> > >> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46174
> > >
> > >> Hm
> > >> What am I (or are we) supposed to explain ?
> > >>
> ...
> >
> > It would certainly be easier if you could explicitly list what
> > "that set (those sets) of cognate candidates" is.
> >
>
> Alright.
> Let's restrict ourselves to
> your comparison
> > >> >> /kutte/ (back vowel) "penis" < */gVns-/
> plus Schrijver's list of the cognates of one of the words of his
> 'language of geminates'
>
> '
> Proto-Saami *ku:ti-
> Norwegian Lappish guttâ 'fish roe, fish sausage'
> [Finnish kusi, gSg kuden "piss"]
>
> *ku:ti- or a derived *ku:tian-.
> Middle Low German ku:t, ku:te,
> Modern Low German (dialect of Mecklenburg)
> kü(h)t 'entrails, weak parts of the animal body, roe, calf of the
> leg'
> Middle Dutch cute, cuut, kiet, kijte
> Modern Icelandic kut-magi 'fish stomach'
> kýta 'fish stomach, roe'
> Frisian ku:t 'roe, calf
>
> *kunt-:
> Middle Low German kunte,
> Dutch kont,
> English cunt 'buttocks, cunnus'
>
> *kutt-:
> Dutch kut 'cunnus',
> Bavarian kütze 'part of intestines',
> Middle High German kotze 'prostitute',
> Middle Low German kutte 'cunnus'
> '
> And let me add, from Starostin
> Basque,
> High Navarrese: (Baztan) ema-kuntza "vulva (of cattle)"
>
> Latvian
> ku:se "Schamhaare; weibliche Scham",
> ku:sa "Schamhaare",
> ku:sis "Schamhaare, weibl. Scham"
> su:ds "Mist, Dünger, Exkremente, Dreck, Unflatt; Eiter"
>
> Lithuanian:
> ku:s^i-s "(Haarbüschel über der) weibl. Scham"
> s^ú:da-s "Dreck, Mist, excrementum"
>
> By the standards you use in comparison, these words are related.
> How do you explain that?
> Torsten
>
> ===========
> I'm afraid this is more the way you work,
Actually, this from Schrijver.
> lumping together words with some look-alike structure
> and looking for some obscure substratic connection.
Circular. You assume as given there is no substrate, therefore the
listed words are unrelated, therefore there is no substrate.
> The word "urine" is pan-Uralic
Which Schrijver seems to ignore, although he quotes UEW, which leads
him to claim independence for the substrate he finds.
> so it certainly is not substratic to Europe.
Circular.
> And it has nothing to do with the following word.
That 'certainly' follows from your arbitrary premise.
> What's the problem with IE 951 *s-keu :
> lat. cutis `Haut'; cunnus `pudendum muliebre' (*kut-nos);
> hence
> Latvian
> ku:se "Schamhaare; weibliche Scham",
> ku:sa "Schamhaare",
> ku:sis "Schamhaare, weibl. Scham"
> Lithuanian:
> ku:s^i-s "(Haarbüschel über der) weibl. Scham"
>
> Basque, LW
> High Navarrese: (Baztan) ema-kuntza "vulva (of cattle)"
>
See Schrijver's discussion below why it can't be IE.
> Plus with -r- infix :
> Irish croth f. `Bauch, uterus, vulva' < *kru:t
IE r-infix??
I'd rather assume initial consonant cluster reduction.
> German words are possible LWs (from Celtic ?).
You just can't get yourself to say NWBlock, can you?
What Celtic words would that be?
> Basically a PIE word *kuH(t) with different morphological
> derivatives :
> ku:t, kru:t, ku(:)nt
> Apparently there is no **klu:t
And how about 'klutz' ;-) ?
What are those 'different morphological derivatives', and in what way
are they IE?
> Arnaud
>
Here's Scrijver's article.
Please read it before you respond.
Peter Schrijver
Lost Languages in Northern Europe
in: Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European
'As we now know, not least from the recent work of Jorma Koivulehto,
Finno-Ugric languages abound with loanwords that were taken from
Indo-European at various stages of its development. Yet this statement
does not sum up all there is to say about the relation between Uralic
and Indo-European. Leaving aside the issue that Indo-European and
Uralic are probably ultimately genetically related, I shall
concentrate on another subject, which so far has attracted little
attention: the nature and origin of words of non-Indo-European stock
in northern Indo-European languages (Germanic, Celtic) which have
cognates in Lappish and/or Finnish.
Many of the supposed Germanic loanwords in Finnish and Lappish have no
reliable Indo-European etymology whatsoever. While the Uralist usually
ascribes a Germanic, and hence Indo-European, origin to such words,
the Indo-Europeanist would be perfectly happy to accept a Finnish or
Lappish origin. A case in point is a word for 'fish roe, fish
sausage'. This occurs as guttâ in Norwegian Lappish and the etymon is
widespread throughout the Lappish dialects (Lehtiranta 1989, no. 501).
The attested forms all go back to *ku:ti-. This shows a striking
resemblance to Middle Low German ku:t, ku:te, Modern Low German
(dialect of Mecklenburg) kü(h)t 'entrails, weak parts of the animal
body, roe, calf of the leg', Middle Dutch cute, cuut, kiet, kijte,
which reflect *ku:ti- or a derived *ku:tian-. The Dutch - Low-German
form was borrowed by other Germanic languages, e.g. Modern Icelandic
kút-magi 'fish stomach', kýta 'fish stomach, roe', Frisian ku:t 'roe,
calf. The details of the etymology have been worked out by Koivulehto
(1992: 88-90), who regards the Lappish word as a particularly early
borrowing from Germanic (Germanic *u: > Proto-Lappish *u:, not uv;
Germanic *t > Proto-Lappish *t, not *tt: Koivulehto 1992: 89). Yet it
remains a mystery where Germanic got the word from, as it is
doubtlessly not of Indo-European origin. If one does consider an
Indo-European origin, one would have to reconstruct *guHd-i-. This is
phonotactically inadmissible, with its two voiced unaspirated stops,
or, according to the glottalic theory, glottalized stops. Moreover,
there are no reliable cognates in any other Indo-European language.
Pokorny's *ge:u, *g&u, *gu:, *gu 'bend, arch' (IEW, p. 393) is very
much a mixed bag, both formally and semantically, which, moreover,
does not account for the final *d. The supposedly Macedonian form
góda-entera. Makedónes; (Hesychius) seems at first sight to correspond
to the Germanic forms, but as we know next to nothing about the
historical phonology of Macedonian this impression may be an illusion.
Moreover, various suggestions have been made to interpret góda in a
completely different way (see Frisk 1960-73,1: 319, III: 64;
Chantraine 1968, I: 232). Vedic gúda:- 'bowel', gudá-'bowel, rectum,
vagina' corresponds more closely to the Germanic forms, but its
un-Indo-European root structure (two glottalized stops) and the
irregular correspondence between Germanic *u: and Vedic *u throw up
serious problems.
Now if *ku:ti does not have an Indo-European origin, and a Uralic
origin is most unlikely in view of the absence of the etymon outside
Lappish, the question of where the word came from arises. The answer
no doubt is: from a lost non-Indo-European, non-Uralic language that
was once spoken in northern Europe.
In the last decade, some progress has been achieved in the
identification of non-Indo-European substratum languages in Middle and
Northern Europe. At the moment it is too soon to present a
well-balanced account. Research into the various lexical layers of the
Indo-European languages of the area has just started to be conducted
within the framework of the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
Project at Leiden University. For the moment it seems safe to say that
at least three substratum languages can be identified:
(1) The language of the so-called "Old European hydronymy". It is the
great merit of Hans Krahe to have collected and evaluated large
amounts of hydronyms and to have argued persuasively that these belong
to one and the same language (Krahe 1954; 1964). Krahe thought that
the language was Indo-European, an idea that is still occasionally
entertained,, mainly among scholars specializing in onomastics (e.g.
Kitson 1996). However, weighty arguments have been produced to show
that this cannot be the case (Vennemann 1994; Kuiper 1995), such as
the nearly complete failure of elements in the Old European hydronymy
to turn up as lexical items in Indo-European languages. Furthermore,
the language of the Old European hydronymy has remarkable
phonotactics: the vowel a is by far the most frequent vowel, whereas
it did not exist, or was at best very rare, in Proto-Indo-European;
another point is the inordinately high frequency of resonants and s as
opposed to stops, which, again, is an un-Indo-European situation.
Judging from the distribution of Old-European hydronyms, the language
reflected in them was spoken over large areas of western and northern
Europe, including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Germany, Poland and
the Baltic region. According to Vennemann (1994), the language is
related to Basque. Incidentally, Vennemann (most recently 1998, with
references to earlier articles) and Beekes (1998) have claimed that
this language has indeed donated loanwords to Indo-European languages.
None of the alleged instances carries conviction, however.
In view of the extreme rarity with which elements belonging to this
language turn up as lexical items in the languages of Europe, it is
not to be expected that this substratum played an important part in
donating lexical material to the Indo-European and Uralic languages of
Northern Europe.
(2) The second substratum language I shall label "the language of bird
names", as a number of non-Indo-European bird names in western
Indo-European languages provide evidence on some significant points of
the structure of that language (Schrijver 1997). Most importantly, it
had a prefix a-, which was probably stressed and accompanied by
syncope of vowels in the rest of the word; the language had fricatives
such as x, ð, and it had a diphthong alien to Germanic and Celtic,
something like [a&], which was rendered as a in British Celtic and ai
in Germanic. Note the following examples:
*mesVl-, *a-m(V)sl- 'blackbird' > Welsh mwyalch, Latin merula; Old
High German amsla, amasla, amisla, amusla, Old English o:sle
*la&wað-, *a-lawð- 'lark' > Old Icelandic lævirki, Old English
la:werce, Old High German le:rahha, le:rihha, Middle Dutch le:werke,
Finnish leivo(nen); Gaulish (in Latin) alauda
*raud-, *a-ru/id- 'ore' > Latin raudus 'lump of ore', Old High German
aruz, ariz, Old Saxon arut (also Finnish rauta, Northern Lappish
ruow'de, Old Icelandic rauði; or these directly from a descendant of
Proto-Indo-European *h1roudh- 'red')
*steroP-, *a-str(a)P- 'lightning, sulphur' > Greek (á)steropé:,
(a)strapé: 'lightning', Old Irish straif, sraib 'sulphur'
Other examples include: *kr&xar- 'heron' > Welsh crehyr,
Proto-Germanic *h(r)aiGar-, Finnish haikara; *spra&w > Breton frao
'crow, jackdaw', Proto-Germanic *spraiw- 'starling'; *ba&s- 'boar' >
Welsh baedd, Proto-Germanic *baiza-.
The "language of bird names" is attested through Germanic, Celtic,
Italic and, probably, through Greek as well, which would make up a
sizeable territory in Middle Europe. Its relation to certain elements
of Vennemann's (1995) "Atlantic", Kuiper's (1995) A1, Huld's (1990)
"North Balkan Substrate" and Beekes' (1996) "European" is unclear, but
there is as yet no reason to separate these from the language of bird
names. So far there is no evidence for direct contact between this
language and Uralic languages: the Finnish and Lappish forms mentioned
above can easily be explained as borrowings from Germanic.
(3) The third substratum language will be of more immediate concern.
Kuiper (1995), who may be credited with the identification of this
substratum, prosaically called it A2, but I shall label it here the
"language of geminates". This substratum is heavily present in
Germanic (see e.g. Boutkan 1998), but there is also some material in
Celtic and Balto-Slavic. As a consequence, the territory of this
language may be sought somewhere in Northern Europe, however vague
this may be. Relevant etyma can probably be found among the materials
in Polomé 1986 and 1992.
A highly characteristic feature of words deriving from this language
is the variation of the final root consonant, which may be single or
double, voiced or voiceless, and prenasalized. To illustrate this, I
present one of Kuiper's examples:
Proto-Germanic *du:B-: Old Icelandic du:fa 'to immerse' Proto-Germanic
*duff-: Faeroese duffa 'to bob up and down (of a ship)' Proto-Germanic
*dubb-: Norwegian dubba 'to stoop', Middle Dutch dubben 'to
immerse'
Proto-Germanic *dup: Dutch duypen 'to hang one's head', Proto-Germanic
*dupp-: German düppen, Norwegian duppa 'to dive' Proto-Germanic
*dump-: Norwegian, English, Danish dump 'hole, pit, pond', East
Frisian dumpen 'dive' Cognates: Lithuanian dubùs 'deep', dum~blas 'mud
in water, marsh'; Old Irish
domain, Welsh dwfn 'deep' < *dubni- and others.
The background of this alternation is unknown, but it seems likely
that the alternation found in Germanic reflects a similar alternation
in the substratum language. The only regularity is that after a long
vowel no geminate consonants seem to occur. Incidentally, the language
of geminates cannot be Uralic, as another of its characteristics is
the frequent occurrence of word-initial *kn- and *kl-, and Uralic
languages do not allow consonant clusters at the beginning of the
word. On the other hand, and at the risk of explaining obscura per
obscuriora, one might consider the possibility that the consonant
gradation of Lappish and Baltic Finnic is somehow connected with the
alternation of consonants at the end of the first syllable in the
"language of geminates". Since most Uralists now agree that consonant
gradation is an innovation of Lappish and Baltic Finnic, its rise may
be connected with the phonetic peculiarities of speakers of the
language of geminates who turned to speaking Finno-Ugric (but see
Helimski 1995 for a plea for Proto-Uralic gradation). Such a scenario
would not necessarily be incompatible with the traditional connection
of consonant gradation with Verner's law in Germanic, but the details
lie outside the scope of this article.
We may now return to our word for 'roe, calf, weak body parts', which
was reconstructed as *ku:ti(-) for both Lappish and Germanic. It turns
out that a number of other cognates within Germanic indicate that the
etymon ultimately goes back to the language of geminates:
*kunt-: Middle Low German kunte, Dutch kont, English cunt 'buttocks,
cunnus' *kutt-: Dutch kut 'cunnus', Bavarian kiüze 'part of
intestines', Middle High German kotze 'prostitute', Middle Low German
kutte 'cunnus'
In view of this conclusion, various scenarios to account for the
history of Proto-Lappish *ku:ti and Proto-Germanic *ku:ti- present
themselves. Either the word was borrowed by Germanic from the language
of geminates, and Lappish borrowed the word from Germanic; or
Proto-Lappish borrowed the word from the language of geminates, and
Germanic borrowed it from Proto-Lappish; or, finally, Germanic and
Lappish borrowed the word from the language of geminates independently.
In view of this relatively wide range of possible scenarios, one could
maintain that there is as yet no compelling evidence for direct
contact between Uralic and the language of geminates. Yet some such
evidence can be produced.
Proto-Finno-Ugric *urå 'man, male' (Sammallahti 1988: 542; UEW, p.
545) is represented by Hungarian úr 'lord, sir', Finnish uros genitive
singular ur(h)oon 'hero', uros genitive singular uroksen 'male (of
animals)', urho 'hero, fighter', Proto-Lappish *ore:s 'male'
(Lehtiranta 1989, no. 811). The Hungarian form has received various
alternative explanations, which render the Finno-Ugric etymology
somewhat less secure. Semantically, the application of Finnish uros to
male animals is matched by various Lappish forms, such as Southern
Lappish orra (Meraker) 'male reindeer', hurrä 'one year old male
reindeer', and Western Lappish hurrie 'grouse' (Lagercrantz 1939:
1511-1513, 4516, 8356; orthography simplified; note, however, that the
latter has been explained as a loan from the Scandinavian word for
'grouse', on which see below).
This application of *urå to fauna offers a possible clue to the
understanding of an element *u:r-, *urr- in Germanic words for
'aurochs' and 'capercaillie, black grouse', in other words, two of the
biggest and most majestic animals of Northern Europe: Old High German
u:ro 'aurochs' < *u:ro:n, Old High German u:r-ochso, Old English u:r,
Old Icelandic urr 'id.' < *u:raz, Old High German u:r-hano 'male
capercaillie'; Old High German orre-huon 'female capercaillie', Old
Icelandic orri 'black grouse', Modern Norwegian, Modern Swedish orre
'id.' < *urr-.
Proto-Germanic *urr- is usually explained on the basis of
Proto-Indo-European *wr.s- or *h1r.s- 'male', but the former would
have yielded **wurr-(cf. *wlkwos 'wolf > Gothic wulfs), while *h1r.s-
would account for *urr- but not for *u:r-. It seems more likely that
*u:r- and *urr-, showing as they do an alternation of single and
double r and a concomitant alternation of long and short *u, were
borrowed by Germanic from the language of geminates. The language of
geminates would then have borrowed the item from Finno-Ugric if
Hungarian ur is cognate; if not, Lappish and Finnish may have borrowed
the word from the language of geminates. It is possible to bypass the
language of geminates, however, by assuming that Germanic borrowed the
etymon directly from Proto-Lappish, including the consonant gradation
r - rr. Either way, it is more likely that Finno-Ugric was the donor
language than that Germanic was.
A second example of direct contact between the language of geminates
and a branch of Uralic is the Germanic word hand (Gothic handus etc.)
< Proto-Germanic *hand-. All attempts at an Indo-European etymology of
this word remain unconvincing (see recently Kluge & Seebold 1989:
353). Yet if we take Grimm's and Verner's Laws into account, we may
reconstruct *hand- as *kant-. This looks strikingly like a cognate of
Proto-Finno-Ugric *käti 'hand, arm', but with a nasal infixed into the
root. Since this nasalization is not a feature of Finno-Ugric, or of
Indo-European (outside the nasal presents, that is), and since it is a
feature of the language of geminates, it is reasonable to conclude
that Finno-Ugric *käti was borrowed by the language of geminates, from
which it subsequently entered Germanic before Verner's Law and Grimm's
Law.
Another word that one may suspect of having been borrowed from
Finno-Ugric is Proto-Germanic *manag-, *manig- 'many' (German manche,
Dutch menig etc.), Old Church Slavonic mUnogU 'much', and Proto-Celtic
*menekki- 'often' (Welsh mynych, OIr. menic): the erratic vocalism,
the alternation of *g(h) and *kk and the limited geographical
distribution brand this etymon as of non-Indo-European origin (cf.
Boutkan 1998: 124-125). The alternation of the final velar consonant
suggests that the etymon was taken over from the language of
geminates, but it is hard to deny an ultimate connection with
Finno-Permian *moni (> Finnish moni 'many a'; UEW, p. 279). I suggest,
with due hesitation, that either Finno-Ugric or the language of
geminates, but certainly not Indo-European, is the ultimate source of
this etymon.
The idea that the Northern European language of geminates could play
an intermediary role in loan contacts between Northern and Western
Indo-European on the one hand and Finno-Ugric on the other may also
account for the fact that Finno-Ugric words could end up as far away
as Celtic, which as far as we know was never in direct contact with a
branch of Uralic. I would like to suggest two candidates. The first is
Finno-Ugric *mïxï 'land' > *mëxi > *maxï > Finnish maa (Sammallahti
1988: 546; UEW, p. 263 reconstructs maGe). This shows an uncanny
resemblance to Proto-Celtic *magos, phonetically [maGos], which means
'field, plain', and which has no cognates in Germanic and no etymology
whatsoever. The second etymon is Proto-Finno-Ugric *kårkï 'crane' >
LpN guor'gâ, and Finnish kurki (which has irregular -u-). This
resembles *korkijos or *kurkijos 'heron', which underlies Welsh
crychydd, Breton kerc'heiz (Wagner 1962-64: 301; Schrijver 1997:
297-298 and note 10).
Another etymon that may originally have belonged to the language of
geminates is *sugh-, *sug-, *su:k- 'to suck', which is found in Italic
(Latin su:gere 'to suck', su:cus 'sap'), Celtic (Welsh sugno 'to suck'
< *seuk-, Old Irish súgid < *su:g(h)-), Baltic (Latvian sùkt 'to
suck') and, notably, Germanic (Old English su:can, Dutch zuiken <
*su:g-, Old English socian 'to soak' < *sug-; Old English and Old High
German su:gan 'to suck' < *su:k/gh-, with various ablaut grades; and
also Germanic *su:p- > Germ. saufen, *supp- > German Suppe, etc.). An
interchange of voiced and voiceless velar stops and also of velar and
labial stops is one of the characteristics of the language of
geminates, as Kuiper has pointed out. In an etymon such as this one
might admittedly expect erratic changes of a sound-symbolic nature,
but the fact remains that what we find here closely resembles the
pattern seen in other, non-expressive etyma belonging to the language
of geminates. Now these forms show more than a passing resemblance to
the Proto-Uralic word for 'mouth', *s´oxï, which developed into
Proto-Finno-Ugric *s´uxï (> Finnish suu, perhaps Northern Lappish
c^ovvâ; Sammallahti 1988: 540; UEW, p. 492 reconstructs *s´uwe). One
might again argue that the Uralic word was borrowed by the language of
geminates, which passed it on, after processing, to Indo-European
languages in the neighbourhood. For those who may doubt that Uralic
words could have been passed on to such remote Indo-European branches
as Italic, there is a perfectly plausible parallel, namely the Uralic
word for 'fish', *kålå (Sammallahti 1988: 538, UEW, p. 119) > Finnish
kala, Northern Lappish guolle etc. This was borrowed into
Indo-European languages as Latin squalus 'a big seafish', Old
Icelandic hvalr, English whale, and Old Prussian kalis (Burrow 1955:
24, note 1; Koivulehto 1995: 101; cf. Joki 1973: 266). The
reconstructable proto-form for these Indo-European forms is *kwolos or
*kwalos.
In conclusion, there is evidence, however limited, for Finno-Ugric
loanwords in Indo-European (see also Hofstra 1996), and there is
evidence that "the language of geminates", which is neiter
Indo-European nor Uralic (but see Kort-landt 1997), played an
intermediary role in transmitting such loanwords. It seems likely that
our understanding of the structure of the language of geminates will
continue to grow for some time to come. Subtle questions, such as the
affiliation of this language, will have to be postponed for the
future. Meanwhile, however, nothing prevents the archeologist
interested in such matters to search for the speakers of this language
somewhere in Northern Europe.
REFERENCES
Beekes, R. 1996. Ancient European loanwords. Historische
Sprachforschung 109: 215-236. ------
1998. The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teuta: 'people'.
Journal of Indo-European Studies 26: 459-466.
Boutkan, D. 1998. On the form of North European substratum words in
Germanic.
Historische Sprachforschung 111: 102-133.
Burrow, T. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London.
Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque,
I-II. Paris.
Frisk, H. 1960-73. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg.
Helimski, E. 1995. Proto-Uralic grad[i]ation: continuation and traces.
In: Heikki Leskinen(ed.), Congressus Octavus Internationalis
Fenno-Ugristarum, I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales.
Jyväskylä: 17-51.
Hofstra, T. 1996. Zu mutmaßlichen frühen ostseefinnischen
Lehnwörtern im Nordgermanischen.
In: S.-L. Hahmo et al. (eds.), Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt:
127-134. Maastricht.
Huld, M. 1990. The linguistic typology of the Old European substrata
in North Central Europe.
Journal of Indo-European Studies 18: 389-423.
IEW = J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern,
1949-59.
Joki, A. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen. Die älteren Berührungen
zwischen den uralischen Kortlandt, F. 1997. Labials, velars and
labiovelars in Germanic.
NOWELE 30: 45-50.
Krahe, H. 1954. Sprache und Vorzeit. Göttingen.
------ 1964. Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden.
Kuiper, F. 1995. Gothic bagms and Old Icelandic ylgr. NOWELE 25: 72-76.
Lagercrantz, E. 1939. Lappischer Wortschatz, I-II. Helsinki.
Lehtiranta, Juhani 1989. Yhteissaamelainen sanasto. (Memoires de la
Société Finno-Ougrienne, 200.) Helsinki.
Polomé, E. 1986. The non-Indo-European component of the Germanic lexicon.
In: A. Etter (ed.), O-o-pe-ro-si: 661-672. Berlin. -----
1992. Indo-European and substrate languages in the West.
Archivio glottologico italiano 11: 66-85.
Sammallahti, P. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages.
In: Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History, and
Foreign Influences.
(Handbuch der Orientalistik, 8:1): 478-554. Leiden.
Schrijver, P. 1997. Animal, vegetable and mineral: some Western
European substratum words.
In: A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy: 293-316. Amsterdam.
UEW = K. Rédei et al., Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I-III.
Wiesbaden, 1988-91.
Vennemann, T. 1994. Linguistic reconstruction in the context of
European prehistory.
Transactions of the Philological Society 92(2): 215-284.
----- 1995. Etymologische Beziehungen im Alten Europa.
Der Ginkgo Baum 13: 39-115.
----- 1998. Basken, Semiten, Indogermanen - Urheimatfragen in
linguistischer und anthropologicher Sicht.
In: W. Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen (Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 93): 119-138 Innsbruck.
Wagner, H. 1962-64. Zur Bezeichnung des Kranichs im Keltischen.
Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 29: 301-304.'
Torsten