From: Torsten
Message: 65331
Date: 2009-10-30
>At least later than Tacitus' Germania (written around 98 CE).
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/yjcsxkk
> > > > Danish original
> > > > http://www.verasir.dk/show.php?file=chap22-1-1.html
> > >
> > > He writes:
> > >
> > > I Kalevala har Ukko heitet "ylijumala", der i dag
> > > oversættes til "God of Mercy/Lykkens Gud", men oprindeligt
> > > må have haft betydningen "Julens Herre", jvf. julemandens
> > > navn "Ýlir" i Norge/Island i 900 tallet e.Kr.
> > >
> > > But <ylijumala> is 'high god' (<yli> 'over, above; more
> > > than', <jumala> 'god'). In fact, Václav Blaz^ek thinks that
> > > the name <Ukko> itself is an adaptation of Baltic *uka- >
> > > Prussian <ucka-> 'prefix expressing the superlative' (as in
> > > <ucka-kuslaisin> 'weakest'): the first god of the Prussian
> > > pantheon is in record as <Occopirmus> 'Saturnus' 1530,
> > > <Ockopirmus> 'der erste Gott Himmels vnd Gestirnes' (16th
> > > cent.), and <Occopirnum> 'deum coeli et terrae' 1563. He
> > > concludes: 'It is generally accepted that the compound
> > > *Uka-pirmas meant "most first"'.
> >
> > But where does that leave Öku-Þor then?
> > And on that standard assumption of Baltic Finnic loans from
> > Baltic: don't forget that Baltic is now considered a newcomer to
> > the Baltic
>
> How new exactly? Baltic-Finnic is not original in the area either.
> I've indeed seen it proposed that Baltic Finnic originally expanded
> on a Baltic substrate (south of the Gulf of Finland, that is).
> > which makes a common 'North European' substrate more likely asNo.
> > donor.
>
> Just as with Germanic, plenty of the loans to Finnic are from the
> inherited Baltic lexicon, so direct contacts between the two are
> needed (be it in the Baltic region or further east).
> So direct contacts with Finnic and any substrates to Baltic mayYes.
> still not be necessary.