Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Finnic substrate in Slavic?!

Expand Messages
  • Torsten
    ... 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. ... Nor am I. ...
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 1 1:41 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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
    • johnvertical@hotmail.com
      ... Partitiv from *-ta is. I believe I said have no idea about the others (other than that dativs are not used for possesors). ... World Atlas of Language
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 2 9:43 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > > > 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.

        Partitiv from *-ta is. I believe I said have no idea about the others (other than that dativs are not used for possesors).


        > WALS?

        World Atlas of Language Structures: http://wals.info/
        A lovely site for typology needs.


        > > > 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.


        > > 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.

        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.


        > > > 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.

        5. IE and Uralic are related
        6. coincidence


        > > > 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.

        John Vertical
      • Torsten
        ... I am serious. The Finnic speakers have historically been retreating before Balto-Slavic speakers. That process makes Finnic languages substrates to the
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 3 9:09 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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
        • johnvertical@hotmail.com
          ... The historical situation at the Latvia/Estonia boundary more resembles random fluctuation that happen d to be in the Latvians favor, than any constant
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 3 4:31 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > > > > 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.

            The historical situation at the Latvia/Estonia boundary more resembles random fluctuation that happen'd to be in the Latvians' favor, than any constant tendency (as was the case with later Slavic conquests).

            Oh BTW, if Baltic was never spoken north of Latvia, what do you make of the existence of Baltic loans (some of them independant of Finnic) in Samic?


            > > > 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 difficult to say much else than "apparently non-IE, non-Uralic".

            But such a gap would have existed even in most older-date formulations too.


            (re: -t)
            > > > 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

            "Too much to be nothing, too little to be something" or how was it they said of Nostratic?

            > > 6. coincidence
            >
            > Gut feeling: no.

            If it were limited to this one item, mine would be "yes". But it's not (verbal endings etc.)

            Back to the topic however…

            > Arnoud tells me in a mail that Mordva has a dative,

            > Torsten

            Cheers to that, but, he also tells in a further one that it's not used for possessors.
            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/uralica/message/537

            John Vertical
          • Torsten
            ... Slavic speakers are Balto-Slavic speakers, so I take it you agree. ... What you mean to ask is what I make of the presence of cognate words in Baltic and
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 4 4:37 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:
              >
              > > > > > 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.
              >
              > The historical situation at the Latvia/Estonia boundary more
              > resembles random fluctuation that happen'd to be in the Latvians'
              > favor, than any constant tendency (as was the case with later
              > Slavic conquests).

              Slavic speakers are Balto-Slavic speakers, so I take it you agree.


              > Oh BTW, if Baltic was never spoken north of Latvia, what do you
              > make of the existence of Baltic loans (some of them independant of
              > Finnic) in Samic?

              What you mean to ask is what I make of the presence of cognate words in Baltic and Saami. Well there are three possibilities:
              1. Saami borrowed them from Baltic
              2. Baltic borrowed them from Saami
              3. Baltic and Saami borrowed them from some substrate.

              In favor of 3. would be such things as the occurrence of known pre-Saami (Aikio) words outside the present Saami area, eg. *soom-/*sam-. Ahem.



              > > > > 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 difficult to say much else than "apparently non-IE,
              > non-Uralic".
              >
              > But such a gap would have existed even in most older-date
              > formulations too.

              Yes, so people saw the need to assume some language there (or some did).

              > (re: -t)
              > > > > 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
              >
              > "Too much to be nothing, too little to be something" or how was it
              > they said of Nostratic?
              >
              > > > 6. coincidence
              > >
              > > Gut feeling: no.
              >
              > If it were limited to this one item, mine would be "yes". But it's
              > not (verbal endings etc.)

              I think the IE -mi declination is a locativic progressive involving a participle or verbal noun (like the English gerund) personalized in the style of some types of Finnish participles. So
              *<stem>-nu-en,
              *<stem>-sa-en,
              *<stem>-ta-en,
              ->
              *<stem>-n,W-i,
              *<stem>-s-i,
              *<stem>-t-i,
              where *nu, *sa and *ta are deictic pronouns
              "at me", "at thee", "at him".

              This means that originally only those deictics had to be loaned, or borrowed as grammatical particles for there to be the seemingly fundamental correspondence we see today. PIE has deictics in *n- (Armenian), *s- and *t-, so does Estonian. And there's Estonian nüüd "now".


              > Back to the topic however…
              >
              > > Arnoud tells me in a mail that Mordva has a dative,

              Oops, Arnaud. I'm always mentally deriving it from Arnold. I don't know why he gets so upset over that.

              Torsten
            • george knysh
              ... ****GK: This is true as of the partly documented period beginning with the first centuries BCE, esp. in the area of classic central Russia. It wasn t
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 4 6:35 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:





                --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, johnvertical@ ... wrote:
                >
                > > > > > 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.

                ****GK: This is true as of the partly documented period beginning with the first centuries BCE, esp. in the area of "classic" central Russia. It wasn't true earlier, as far as we can tell from archaeology. It's hard to say whether the carriers of the Fatyanovo culture might already be viewed as proto-BaltoSlavs, but the advance of the Finno-Ugrians westward undoubtedly pushed back and assimilated these IE groupings. Some of this was lost in the period 200-600 CE when Balts pushed eastward again at the expense of the FU, reaching once more into the area of the Moscow river. We thus have a geographical configuration between (roughly) Latvia/Lithuania and the Middle Volga where it seems rather difficult to determine what (and when) is "substrate" and what isn't...*****
              • Torsten
                Sorry I haven t answered this before, I seem to be coming down with something ... There s another argument: these features are unique to Balto-Slavic within
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 12 11:30 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry I haven't answered this before, I seem to be coming down with something

                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, johnvertical@ ... wrote:
                  > > > > > > 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.
                  >
                  > ****GK: This is true as of the partly documented period beginning
                  > with the first centuries BCE, esp. in the area of "classic" central
                  > Russia. It wasn't true earlier, as far as we can tell from
                  > archaeology. It's hard to say whether the carriers of the Fatyanovo
                  > culture might already be viewed as proto-BaltoSlavs, but the
                  > advance of the Finno-Ugrians westward undoubtedly pushed back and
                  > assimilated these IE groupings. Some of this was lost in the period
                  > 200-600 CE when Balts pushed eastward again at the expense of the
                  > FU, reaching once more into the area of the Moscow river. We thus
                  > have a geographical configuration between (roughly)
                  > Latvia/Lithuania and the Middle Volga where it seems rather
                  > difficult to determine what (and when) is "substrate" and what
                  > isn't...*****

                  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.



                  Torsten
                • george knysh
                  ... 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
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 13 9:54 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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.

                    Torsten

                    *****GK: Common to BS and BF? Hence the title of the thread should be changed to "X substrate in Finnic and Slavic?!" ?****
                  • Torsten
                    ... 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
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 13 10:40 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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?


                      Torsten
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.