Re: Finnic substrate in Slavic?!

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

...
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Seriously now.

I am serious. The Finnic speakers have historically been retreating before Balto-Slavic speakers. That process makes Finnic languages substrates to the Balto-Slavic ones, as you yourself mentioned is known for Nortwestern Russian.


> > > 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.
>
> A similar consensus is emerging for Baltic-Finnic and Samic
> languages, so that doesn't really help.

So that leaves a big gap between them, unto which they have expanded, which should make us wonder what language(s) was/were spoken in the gap.

> It's possible that if there was any substrate influence either way
> around, that could have occurred farther to the east, before these
> language groups made their way to the Baltic coast.

Yes.


> > > > IIRC, the -d/-t ablative suffix is documented only in Italic
> > > > and Indo-Iranian.

And it seems now I can add Celtiberian to those.

> > > 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.
>
> 5. IE and Uralic are related

If so, then so far back it's irretrievable. The fundamental matches usually cited are too few and too little changed for me to accept as other than substrate influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages


> 6. coincidence

Gut feeling: no.


> > > > 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
>
> Your shared feature #1 was to contrast a locativ or prepositional
> formation to using a dativ for possessors. This latter option is
> obviously not possible if such a case doesn't exist.

Arnoud tells me in a mail that Mordva has a dative,
Gábor Zaicz, Mordva, in
Abondolo, The Uralic Languages
tells me Mordva Moksha has a dative/allative (late?).


Torsten