Re: Substrate X in Finnic and Balto/Slavic?

--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

--- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There's another argument: these features are unique to Balto-Slavic
> within IE and to Baltic Finnic within Uralic (IIRC). On the basis
> of that, you'd assign it a common substrate.
>

>
> GK: Common to BS and BF? Hence the title of the thread should
> be changed to "X substrate in Finnic and Slavic?!" ?

I keep on vacillating between those two options (which, typically, I've opted for since no one else does). From the perspective of your own model of the genesis of the Slavic language family, perhaps you should ask yourself whether some of the splinter groups you see as having made up the Kiev culture were originally Finnic-speaking?

****GK: (1) that would be too late. The Kyiv culture begins to form in the second century CE and is full blown by 200 CE. According to your perspective it is its Baltic groups which would have been the carriers of "substrate X".
(2) BS means an early linguistic grouping whence developed both B and S, with B retaining more of the old BS than S (where more innovations). So the absorption of "substrate X" would have occured much earlier than the emergence of the Kyiv culture. This substrate would have been assimilated by BS and by BF coming from different directions. Whom do you include among the BF? *****