Re: Uralic Loanwords in Germanic

> > > I proposed that the *IE* s-stems were based on a
> > > reinterpretation of the *IE* genitive -Vs as nominative (which
> > > BTW I think is the origin of the IE nom.sg. -(V)-s.
> >
> > Okay. Then what does Finnic have to do with it?
>
> It borrowed both from PIE thematic stems (Germanic a-stems) (like rengas) and PIE s-stems, and PIE (and Germanic) s-stems (like lammas), with the same result (the vieras declension). One explanation for that is that they borrowed the stem of the nom.sg., which would have the same *-os ending (<- *-as in PPIE and -> *-as in some dialects, including Germanic), but *not* in Germanic, which had lost the s-stem nom.sg *-s. The cognates of the borrowed items may be found in Germanic, but the donor language can't be PGmc, as you also remarked (below).

Aaah. So the lack or presence of -s in Finnic would be not so erratic after all? It IS commonly left away entirely or substituted (hanhi "goose" < B. *Zansis, karja "cattle" < Gmc *xarjaz, mair-ea "smeering" < Gmc *smairjaz), but you're saying that where it does appear, all have it if not from the nom.sg, then from an old -s- stem. Right?

The words of wider Finnic distribution where this -s appears appended to an Uralic root seem, then, like an issue here, if we are to make this suffix unproductiv. Some of them could be explained by being original -ks stems that were changed to -s due to the example of IE loans (old Finnic words in -aks are rare), as _oras_ "thorn" vs. Livonian _voraaks_ explicitly suggests. The Uralic status of _uros_ "male" and _nauris_ "turnip" is uncertain - Hungarian _úr_ "lord" "has been considered a separate Iranian loan" according to Häkkinen, and Ob-Ugric _*nëëG@... means "cedar nut" (this would also be the only Uralic root featuring *-kr-), with no other internal cognates.

Also have you spotted any examples of -s- stem correlation other than *lambaz? A word lacking an IE etymology is not really a prime candidate for loaning from a para-Germanic language, or pre-Germanic.

> > > > > But the problem is here that this s-stem *-s# in the
> > > > > nominative must be earlier than PGmc,
> > > >
> > > > Oldest loans into Finnic are thought to predate PGmc.
> > > > (*z would also naturally be substituted by *s, if that's what
> > > > you're worried about.)
> > >
> > > Of course not, since -z- occurs outside of nom.sg.
> >
> > I've not idea what you're trying to say, but I'm saying that
> > Finnic has no *z and therefore must substitute *s,
>
> Obviously. Why do you say that?
>
> Torsten

I was not clear on what your "Of course not" refers to. Just making sure.

John Vertical