Search

In comparison to Indo-European languages, the Uralic language family is quite famous for its rich case inventories, although the number of Proto-Indo-European cases is usually reconstructed slightly higher than that of Proto-Uralic. Most studies on the development of Uralic and Indo-European case systems have focused on the general trends within the two families: Uralicists have been largely occupied with trying to understand the rise of new cases, while Indo-Europeanists have been concerned about the reconstruction of ancient case systems and the causes and effects of their gradual loss. This paper takes an alternative stance to a small part of the phenomena in question and provides a diachronic and synchronic comparison of a semantically restricted set of secondary cases in Uralic and Indo-European by comparing the emergence of ‘on’ cases such as the so-called adessive or superessive cases in languages like Finnish and Karelian on one hand, and in Iron and Digor Ossetic on the other. While the formal similarity of the adessives like Livvi Karelian divanal ‘on a couch’ and Iron Ossetic диваныл [divanəl] id. is only accidental, a closer look at the similarities and differences of such forms as well as at their analogous origins in ancient adpositions makes it possible to identify a number of factors that have made these quite similar yet typologically less common cases emerge and develop to their present forms.

Besprechung Vajda, Edward & Fortescue, Michael. 2022. Mid-Holocene language connections between Asia and North America (Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas 17). Leiden & Boston: Brill. 531 + XIV p.

Besprechung Klima, László & Türk, Attila (eds.). 2021. Párhuzamos történetek: Interdiszciplináris őstörténeti konferencia a PPKE Régészettudományi Intézetének szervezésében. Budapest, 2020. november 11‒13. / Parallel stories: Interdisciplinary conference on Hungarian prehistory, organized by the Institute for Archaeology, PPCU, Budapest, 11‒13 November 2020. Studia ad Archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 23 & Magyar Őstörténeti Kutatócsoport Kiadványok 2. Budapest. 245 pp.

In this paper, the Indo-European etymologies of Uralic words are analysed that allegedly contain reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatal stops (palatovelars) *ḱ, *ǵ and *ǵh. Especially Jorma Koivulehto has in many works argued that words that show these reflexes manifest of very early contacts between Indo-European and Uralic, and these ideas have been very influential in the discussion of location of dating of early varieties of Uralic, and to a lesser extent, Indo-European languages. While most of these etymologies are convincing in that they are indeed borrowed from Indo-European, a critical scrutiny leads to the conclusion that they can be considered loanwords from later branches (such as Indo-Iranian) that had already went through satemization. Some etymologies also turn out to be unconvincing in the light of modern views of Uralic and Indo-European historical phonology. These results support other recent, more sceptic views of contacts between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic, and mean that many of the extra-linguistic conclusions based on earlier loanword studies have to be considered unreliable, which is in line with recent studies of prehistory.

Artikkelissa käsitellään suomen kielen lainasanakerrostumien tutkimushistoriaa Suomessa, erityisesti Virittäjän sivuilla, vuodesta 1869 (jolloin Vilhelm Thomse­nin Den gotiske sprogklasses indflydelse på den finske julkaistiin) nykypäivään. Kir­joituksessa keskitytään suomen vanhimpien (esihistoriallisten) lainasanojen käsit­telyyn. Lainasanatutkimus voidaan jakaa kolmeen aikakauteen: nuorgrammaattiseen klassiseen kauteen, pimeään keskiaikaan (äännelaittomuuksien aikaan) sekä strukturalistiseen renessanssiin (uuteen aikaan). Nuorgrammatiikan aika alkoi Thomsenin myötä, ja se oli Virittä­jässä produktiivisen ja korkeatasoisen lainasanatutkimuksen aikaa. Tämä päättyi vä­hitellen 1920- ja 1930-luvulle tultaessa, kun suomalaiset tutkijat ryhtyivät vieroksu­maan lainaetymologioita, joita pidettiin epäisänmaallisina osassa tutkijayhteisöä. Tänä ”omaperäisiä” etymologioita suosineena aikana julkaistiin kuitenkin yksittäisiä laadukkaita lainasanatutkimuksia myös Virittäjän sivuilla. Vuodesta 1970 alkaen Jorma Koivulehto ja seuraajansa veivät lainasanatutkimuksen uuteen aikaan, ja myös Virittäjässä esitettiin useita uusia germaanisia ja balttilaisia sekä joitakin arjalaisia ja muita indoeurooppalaisia lainaetymologioita. Tästä lähtien lainasanatutkimukselle on ollut ominaista strukturalistinen lähestymistapa ja jo Thomsenin painottamien äännesubstituutioiden merkityksen korostaminen. Kuitenkin 2000- ja erityisesti 2010-luvulla lainasanatutkimus on jäänyt Virittäjässä varsin vähäiseen asemaan, vaikka yksittäisiä hyviä lainaetymologioita lehden sivuilla on viime vuosikymmeninäkin julkaistu. Loanword research in Virittäjä and elsewhere The article discusses the history of Finnish loanword research in Finland, especially in the journal Virittäjä, from 1869 (the year when Vilhelm Thomsen’s Den gotiske sprogklasses indflydelse på den finske was published) to the present day, concentrating on the earliest (prehistoric) loanwords in Finnish. The history of loanword research can be split to three distinct periods: the neogrammarian classical age, the dark middle ages (the age of ‘sound lawlessness’) and the structuralist renaissance (the modern age). The classical age started with Thomsen, and in Virittäjä this was a fruitful period featuring many high-quality loan etymologies. This period gradually came to an end during the 1920s and 1930s, when Finnish researchers became more wary of loan etymologies, which were considered by some to be unpatriotic. However, during this period when ‘native’ etymologies were preferred, a number of accomplished loanword studies were published in Virittäjä. From 1970 onwards, Jorma Koivulehto and his colleagues began a revival of loanword research, and Virittäjä too saw the publication of many new Germanic and Baltic etymologies, in addition to several Indo-Iranian and other Indo-European studies. The structuralist approach and the emphasis on sound substitution (already explored by Thomsen) became characteristic of loanword research during this period. However, throughout the 2000s and notably the 2010s, loanword research has become a more peripheral part of Virittäjä’s content, though some good etymologies have been published in the journal during the last two decades.

Besprechung Kloekhorst, Alwin & Pronk, Tijmen (eds.). 2019. The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 21). Leiden & Boston: Brill. viii + 235 pp.

Sampsa Holopaisen suomalais-ugrilaisen kielentutkimukseen alaan kuuluva väitöskirja tarkastettiin Helsingin ylipistossa lauantaina 14. joulukuuta 2019. Vastaväittäjänä toimi professori Matin Kümmel Jenan yliopistosta ja kustoksena professori Janne Saarikivi. Sampsa Holopainen: Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic: critical overview of sound-substitutions and distribution criterion. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto 2019. Kirja on luettavissa osoitteessa http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5729-4

In this paper, the Indo-European etymologies of Uralic words are analysed that allegedly contain reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatal stops (palatovelars) *ḱ, *ǵ and *ǵh. Especially Jorma Koivulehto has in many works argued that words that show these reflexes manifest of very early contacts between Indo-European and Uralic, and these ideas have been very influential in the discussion of location of dating of early varieties of Uralic, and to a lesser extent, Indo-European languages. While most of these etymologies are convincing in that they are indeed borrowed from Indo-European, a critical scrutiny leads to the conclusion that they can be considered loanwords from later branches (such as Indo-Iranian) that had already went through satemization. Some etymologies also turn out to be unconvincing in the light of modern views of Uralic and Indo-European historical phonology. These results support other recent, more sceptic views of contacts between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic, and mean that many of the extra-linguistic conclusions based on earlier loanword studies have to be considered unreliable, which is in line with recent studies of prehistory., In this paper, the Indo-European etymologies of Uralic words are analyzed that allegedly contain reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatal stops (palatovelars) *ḱ, *ǵ and *ǵh. Especially Jorma Koivulehto has in many works argued that words that show these reflexes attest to very early contacts between Indo-European and Uralic, and these ideas have been very influential in the discussion of the location and dating of early varieties of Uralic, and to a lesser extent, Indo-European languages. While most of these etymologies are convincing in that they are indeed borrowed from Indo-European, a critical examination leads to the conclusion that they can be considered loanwords from later branches (such as Indo-Iranian) that had already gone through satemization (the merger of plain velars with labiovelars and change of palatovelars to affricates or sibilants). Some etymologies also turn out to be unconvincing in the light of modern views of Uralic and Indo-European historical phonology. These results support other recent, more skeptical views of contacts between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic and mean that many of the extra-linguistic conclusions based on earlier loanword studies have to be considered unreliable, which is in line with recent studies of prehistory.