Bears and why they mostly are called otherwise

[Ante Aikio]

[I wrote]
> the only thing one could object to is Aryan *-as > Finnic > *-u (why not
> Finnish karhas : karhaa- ?). But this is not a big problem, I guess -
> e.g., back-formation of non-attested karhas seems possible.

[Xavier Delamarre]
> I have adressed this question in my article, but not in a very satisfying
> manner, proposing a back-formation, like you. I think now a more obvious
> solution would be to see the -u of karhu as a reflex of the Aryan ending
> -o: of the thematic nominative (cf the Avestan & O.ind. treatment  -o: of
> the ending -as) ; but we have the counter-exemples of _porsas_, _taivas_
> (against _orpo_, _arvo_), maybe a question of time when the loans were made
> (those in -as being earlier than those in -o/-u).

Finnish orpo 'orphan' is a back-formation of *orpas - it includes the
deminutive suffix *-j (*orpa-j > Proto-Finnic *orpoi > Finnish
orpo). The other languages show *-s: Saami oarbbis, Mordvin uros, and
probably also Hungarian árva (*s > zero being regular in Hungarian). The
-o in arvo 'value' must be secondary, since there is Finnish arva-ta 'to
guess, estimate'.

But there is at least one loan where some languages show *-s and some don't:
Pre-Ary. *erdhos 'side' > Uralic *ertäs (> Mordvin ir´d´es, Mari
ördEZ) ~ *ertä (> Saami earti, Udmurt urd-lï, Komi ord-lï). So,
*harkSas > Pre-Finnic *kar(k)Sa seems perfectly possible - but Finnish -u would
have to be a suffix (< *-Vw).

[I wrote]
>>>. "Eurasian" is a wide concept - what do you mean, more precisely?

[X.D.]
> I only mean that the IE were, since remote times, in close contact with the
> Uralic tribes, that is somewhere in present Russia (so, let us say Eastern
> Europe rather than Eurasia)

Yes - I fully agree.

[I wrote]
>> Actually,
>> Pre-Finnish *wr > Finnic / Finnish rv seems to be a regular sound law -
>> there are no counterexamples, and several Baltic loan words have undergone
>> the same sound shift (e.g. Finnish torvi 'horn (instrument)', Finnish
>> karva 'hair (not on head)', cf. Lithuanian taure~, gau~ras). Finnish
>> tarvas is thus < *tawras < Baltic.

[X.D.]
> Thank you for the information, I did not know this law.

I don't think it has been explicitly stated anywhere.

[X.D.]
> What comparative
> grammar  do you use ? (I have Laanest's "Einführung" and I have been
> looking for years for Hakulinen's "Rakenne & Kehitys", out-of-print,
> introuvable).

Laanest is a bit outdated, but it's still the best, I'd say. There
really isn't a more up-to-date presentation. Häkkinen's "Suomen kielen
äänne- ja muotorakenteen historiallista taustaa" (1985) is a short
presentation on historical phonology and morphology written mainly for
teaching purposes, but it might also be handy. There would really be a
need for an up-to-date comparative grammar of Finnic (and Uralic, for that
matter).

Regards,
Ante Aikio