PIE and Uralic (was: IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/27/00 3:26:03 AM, anaikio at mail.student.oulu.fi wrote:
<<It seems that the only logical option is to place proto-IE in Eastern
Europe north of the Black Sea. This area is just about south from area where
current research usually places the center of the Uralic expansion.>>

Now I have somewhat earlier dates here for the existence of proto-Uralic
(Dolukhanov 1996) -- 10,000 - 7,000BP -- citing (Hajdu 1975).  I also have it
extending all the way to the Black Sea and eastern Caucasus to the Urals.  Do
you have newer data?  It appear here that they are giving a 5000BC date
(consistent with your 4000BC OR EARLIER).  5000BC is a very early date for
PIE in this area - even for Renfrew.

I wrote:
<<I must once again ask why this exchange [of words between proto-Uralic and
IE] must have happened with PIE and not with an early daughter.>>

anaikio at mail.student.oulu.fi also replied:
<<In principle, it could have - providing that the early daughter of p-IE
still had laryngals. But the wide distribution of the loan words in Uralic
speaks against this, since proto-U must be dated 4000 bc or before.>>

Without advocating too much, let me suggest that you might want to familarize
yourself with the thinking that says that the first (but not the last)
expansion of PIE was connected to the spread of agriculture.  (This view at
least at this early date is neither anti-migratory nor anti-diffusionist -
quite the contrary.)

This view would have a very early IE language hitting the Dnieter, Bug and
Dneiper between 4500 and 4000BC.  Since under this hypothesis, the time of
the sound changes in early IE is relative (I guess they are 'relative' in any
view) it might be possible your largynals can still be present.

You wrote:
<<Unless one accepts that p-IE had already differentiated to several daughter
languages by then, the loans must be proto-IE.>>

Well, I don't know that the earliest daughters of PIE have been identified or
dated to the degree that you should automatically rule them out.  The
evidence that I've seen so far woulds suggest there is some leeway in the
dating - although much earlier than 4000BC would be quite tricky.

You wrote:
<<There are also IE loan words with a narrower distribution within Uralic,
which actually seem to derive from "early daughter languages" which still had
laryngals (see my previous mail to the list). The example words I put forward
in my first mail must be older loans, since they go back to proto-U.>>

How you identify the difference between PIE and the IE daughters in this
region - I think - would be interesting.  The specific attributes of
daughters in that region might be of value to IEists, especially if they
retain laryngals.  I am not sure what IE daughter language is supposed to
have been spoken in the Ukraine at such an early time.

<<Words can be borrowed for many reasons, not only because there is a
"need" for them. If the contact is intensive enough and/or the prestige
great enough, basic vocabulary can be borrowed. >>

The vocabulary you mention is both quite basic (it would be at 4000+BC) and I
believe you said quite extensive - I forget, hundreds of words?  Consider
that the retained presence of hundreds of basic cognates from PIE in a
language that was attested when? - well, for 6000+ years would probably
entitle Uralic to a special place on the Swadesh chart - possibly better than
some IE languages.

Perhaps more importantly, it would seem like Uralic might have been in the
process of being Indo-Europeanized.  The neolithic hypothesis needs to
include the idea that many pre-existing mesolithic cultures were assimilated,
often over a long period of time - the archaeology demands this.  I can't
think of a better way to start than by a transfer of hundreds of basic
vocabulary items.  So perhaps it was not simply contact or prestige, but the
appeal of the neolithic or some of its products that encouraged the
borrowings you find.

I wrote:
<< PIE originates just south of where Uralic originates?  So that Uralic did
not expand south because PIE speakers were already there?  Or did somebody
move in? >>

anaikio at mail.student.oulu.fi replied:
<< But yes, p-IE probably originated south of p-U, and Uralic has probably
never expanded south... >>

Is there any reason why this borrowing could not have been done west-east?
>From the direction of the Balkans, the Danube or of Poland?  I mean are you
presuming IE speakers at this point could only make contact with PIE or early
IE in the south?  Renfrew already has early IE at the Danube and moving north
and east at this point.  What or who would have come between the two regions
at that point in time?

You wrote:
<<As for the assumption of "Urverwandtschaft" between U and IE, we are
obviously dealing with loaning here. The loan explanation has more

explanatory power.... This is not the case if one assumes common genetic
origin: it is not possible to demonstrate regular sound correspondences
between the items.>>

Okay, so please follow me here.  If p-U and PIE are both at their place of
origin "4000BC or before" one just north or south of the other - one would
think they would have been in some way related or there would have been
contact between the parents of these two unrelated languages - suggesting
that perhaps one was intrusive.  (Can a language be intrusive in its own
homeland?)  Since you find these PIE elements as definite loans happening at
a definite time - might that not suggest that PIE entered the area - or the
loans would have happened earlier - in the proto-proto-period?

As Jens mentioned in his elegantly fair message: <<They may of course also be
older than PIE; since it is apparently only lexical material, there is little
to tell us anything about the time depth of the donor forms.>>

If the date maybe in fact be 5000BC, then another question comes to mind.  I
remember very early dates for agricultural evidence along the Caucasus.  What
is the archaeological evidence regarding the earliest dirt farming or
domestication in its proto-region or after its proto-period?

Regards,
Steve Long