From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62901
Date: 2009-02-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
I go back to a previous topic about North Sami Substrate.
You have challenged the possibility that a Satem Baltic-looking language
could be spoken in Carelia and North Scandinavia _before_ Uralic intruded
there.
And you have invoked the toponymy.
There's an interesting paper from Helimski here :
http://helimski.com/2.223.pdf
I agree with him that toponyms like Onega are Uralic.
I also agree with the rejection of the Uralic continuity theory.
There's a certain number of interesting words :
p12
Finnish :
vuolle ‘current, eddy, whirl’,
vuolas ‘rapid, abundant, violent [stream]’, etc.
It's extremely interesting to compare that word with
North saami Substrate
fielbmá ~ vielbmmis (AA) 'small but deep river'
And with
Alt Europäisch : Valme
The ablaut uo / ie reminds me of PIE *o / *e.
These items are not Uralic, anyway.
Cf . Root: wel-7, welǝ-, ulē-
English meaning: to turn, wind; round, etc.
German meaning: `drehen, winden, wälzen'
aus *ulH-mi-: ai. u:rmí- m. f. `Woge, Welle', av. var&miS ds.
Next : P12
Besides, Finnish has a suffix of nomina loci -nto (Hakulinen 1957: 159).
I suppose this formant is not URalic, otherwise Helimski would propose
comparanda.
Again, this obviously reminds of PIE -nto-
P12 ondo
und-ozero or undoSa
I really wonder why this is not just PIE "water" + "lake"
P13 oksi
Cf. PIE akwa
P13 laC
The lake is called laC (sic !)
Obviously PIE *lak with satem treatment.
P14 woZe wayside
ohitie "detour"
Why not Pok 1118 *weg^h ?
P15 ken-ozero "fork lake"
Cf. PIE 537 *ken-k "fork"
These words have a consistent IE outlook.
I'm afraid the possibility of a Baltic-looking substrate in Carelia and
Scandinavia is seriously underestimated.
Not to say dogmatically rejected, even by Helimski :
P15 vaga
"its comparison with Lith. vagà ‘furrow, riverbed, riverarm’ (Pospelov
1998: 87) is historically preposterous and semantically doubtful".
"Historically preposterous" ??
On what grounds ?
Best
Arnaud