Re: Finnic substrate in Slavic?!

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> > > I've seen Torsten mention this a few times. I've also never
> > > seen anyone else even suggest this…
> > >
> > > From the "dive" topic:
> > >
> > > > 1. For "have", Slavic has a prepositional phrase with a
> > > > locality preposition, Finnic has a local case (neither has
> > > > dative as in Latin)
> > > > 2. For the object of negative statements Slavic uses genitive,
> > > > Finnic partitive.
> > > > 3. Slavic m.n. genitive is derived from the old PIE ablative
> > > > which ended in -t, the Finnic partitive suffix is *-ta (IIRC)
> > > >
> > > > And I'm talking all of Slavic.
> > >
> > > I don't see how that suggests a substrate.
> >
> > For the purpose of explaining such striking correspondences
> > between languages A and B,
>
> The thing is they don't seem very striking to me.

I can tell you those features are unique among the IE branches; according to what you state below, in Uralic they are unique to Finnic.

> Preliminarily I'm not ruling out pure chance, or milder contact
> influence.

Nor am I.

> At least 2 & 3 should rather be one entry, not two: "uses a case
> derived for an ablativ for the object of negativ statements". As
> the case in question is otherwise different.

Ultimately I think the IE ablative derives from postposition wbich was the ancestor of Slavic ot, Latin de.

> Unfortunately WALS

WALS?

> does not have anything on these particular
> topics, so that leaves me in the blind on how cross-linguistically
> typical or atypical arrangements these are.

Google 'ablative slavic finnic partitive', 1970 hits, among which
http://tinyurl.com/y8kyzxt

>
> > For the purpose of explaining such striking correspondences
> > between languages A and B, it is common to posit a substrate,
> > either as
> > 1. some language related to A was a substrate of B, or
> > 2. some language related to B was a substrate of A, or
> > 3. some language unrelated to either was a substrate to both.
>
> What leads you to choose a Finnic substrate in Slavic over a
> Balto-Slavic substrate in Finnic?

Because historically the Finnics were the losers.

> Now this contrary view I HAVE seen previously suggested in
> literature (and it has some support from the considerable amount of
> Baltic loanwords in Finnic, a situation which has no parallel for
> Slavic).

I know. But lately the consensus seems to be that the Baltic languages are relatively recent at the Baltic coast, appr. 2000 years ago. And for words which appear in both Baltic and Baltic Finnic there are these possibilities:
1. some language related to Baltic was a substrate of B. Finnic, or
2. some language related to B. Finnic was a substrate of Baltic, or
3. some language unrelated to either was a substrate to both, or, since these are just loans,
4. loans between neighboring languages.

> > > Also the phonetical similarity (cognancy?) of these
> > > case-markers exists between IE and Uralic as a whole, not just
> > > Finnic and Slavic.

I know.

> > IIRC, the -d/-t ablative suffix is documented only in Italic and
> > Indo-Iranian.
>
> I do not presume you're suggesting an Uralic substrate in those (+
> Celtic?) however.

We have these logical possibilities:
1. some language related to PIE was a substrate of Finnic, or
2. some language related to Finnic was a substrate of PIE, or
3. some language unrelated to either was a substrate to both, or, if it was just a case of a loan of a postposition -t-
4. loan between neighboring languages.

> This parallel at least is either chance or of older origin.

Yes.

> > > Also, what does Baltic do here?
> >
> > The once bipartite Balto-Slavic is now considered tripartite West
> > Baltic - East Baltic - Slavic.
>
> I'm aware, but it's still a convenient shorthand for "non-Slavic
> Balto-Slavic" (tho perhaps it would be less misleading if "Baltic"
> was restricted to refer to East Baltic, and West Baltic renamed
> something else.)

I introduced this distinction because it is relevant to the answer to your question, which you seem not to have understood.

> > East Baltic and Slavic have a m.n. gen. -a from the partitive,
> > West Baltic doesn't.
>
> And would this be a case of retention or common innovation in EB
> and S?

It is a case of the same innovation in Eastern Baltic and Slavic as in Finnic, whatever the reason.

> I figure an Uralic substrate in Balto-Slavic in general would be
> less problematic than a Finnic substrate in Slavic only (as, well,
> Slavic used to be separated from Uralic by Baltic).


> And again, a BS substrate in Finnic even less so.


>
> > BTW, how widespread within Uralic are the features I mentioned?
> >

> The partitiv case is a Finnic innovation. I'm not sure about 1 & 2,
> but IIRC no westerly Uralic language has a dativ case at all.

How does dative come into that question??



Torsten