Pre-PIE as a PIE substrate?

[Ante Aikio]

[I wrote]
>>However, there are lexical correspondences between western Uralic and
>>Germanic which have no further etymologies in either language family[.]

[Anthony Appleyard]
>Please where can I find a complete list of these words which are found in
>both Germanic and western Uralic?

Regrettably, nowhere. If you're interested in this, you must compile it
yourself. You could e.g. start with going through the material in "Lexikon
der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen" by
A.D. Kylstra et al, 1991-. But this dictionary does not present the
etymologies of the Germanic loan originals, so you would need to check
them in other sources. Moreover, only the first two volumes have been
published so far, so only Finnish words from A to O are included. The rest
could be checked in e.g. the new etymological dictionary "Suomen sanojen
alkuperä" ('The origin of Finnish words'); however, the dictionary is in
Finnish, so you have to know some Finnish in order to effectively use it.
However, SSA does not include all the Germanic loan words, as its attitude
towards loan etymologies seems to be a bit overcritical in general.

However, an excellent book on the research of Germanic loan words in
Finnic is Jorma Koivulehto's book "Verba Mutuata" (Mémoires de la Société
Finno-Ougrienne #237) The book is in German and it contains 16 articles
(some 450 pages in total) by him, dealing with IE-U contacts and focusing
mostly on Finnic and Germanic. I can recommend this as the best
introduction on the topic.

>Someone said in gothic-l at egroups.com that archaeologies ancestral to the
>modern South Saami (= Lappish) culture have been found in all of Scandinavia
>dand as far south as Hamburg in Germany. If so, then perhaps in South Saamic
>we have a living descendant of one of the many aboriginal substratum
>languages that incoming Indo-European overrode so long ago, and the above
>words and their like are pre-IE substratum words. If Finno-Ugrian languages
>were once spoken in all Scandinavia and Denmark and a long way into
>Schleswig-Holstein, then their speakers in those southern areas would have
>changed from tundra hunters to a denser population and more settled mode of
>life as the climate got warmer as the Ice Age ended and then farming and
>livestock herding came in.

Actually, the most coherent theory explains the Sami as Iron Age newcomers
in the north and Scandinavia that spread from Southern / Mid-Finland and
Carelia. This theory is supported by both archeological and linguistic
evidence. And even though some scholars (notably Pekka Sammallahti)
maintain that a Uralic language ancestral to Samic was spoken in
Mid-Scandinavia, Northern Finland, and the Kola Peninsula already in the
stone age, there is no evidence pointing to an earlier "Samic"
inhabitation in Southern Scandinavia, let alone Denmark. But instead,
there is overwhelming evidence (e.g. substrate toponyms borrowed into
Finnic from Samic) for the view that the Samic "original home" stretched
in the Bronze Age from inland Southern Finland to the east, at least to
Lake Ladoga and Onega (the exact northern eastern borders have not been
determined, as no one has done any systematic research on this; however,
there seem to be several very Samic-looking toponyms even east of Onega).

Moreover, the ideas you refer to above seem to be linguistically
anachronistic in the sense that it does not make sense to speak of "Samic"
(let alone "South Sami", which is one of the ten Sami languages which
quite recently diverged from Proto-Samic) on these time levels (the end of
the Ice Age). Actually, even Proto-Uralic must be dated later, and it is
quite certain that by the end of the Ice Age there were no Uralians
anywhere in the vicinity of the Baltic Sea. Some researchers (e.g.
Dolukhanov, Wiik, Nuñez) have proposed quite different scenarios, but
these have been rejected by the majority of Uralists, as criticism has
pointed out fatal flaws in the thoery.

>That increases the chance that Germanic started
>as Indo-European spoken with a "south coast of the Baltic" type Finno-Ugrian
>accent.

E.g. Kalevi Wiik has proposed several Uralic substrate features in
Germanic, but his theory is very unconvincing; for criticism see e.g.
Petri Kallio: "Uralic Substrate Features in Germanic?", Journal de la
Socété Finno-Ougrienne 87.

>That might also explain peculiar Germanic features such as weak-type
>adjectives declining different from 1st and 2nd declension nouns.

Could you elaborate, as my knowledge of Proto-Germanic is quite
superficial?

>Perhaps also, Balto-Slavonic (Lithuanian etc) started as IE spoken with a
>"south-east coast of the Baltic" Finno-Ugrian accent; Estonian and Livonian
>would be the nearest living relatives of that area's pre-IE substratum.

The case for a Uralic substrate in Proto-Slavic is much stronger, but the
evidence cannot be (at least as yet) concidered compelling.

Regards,
Ante Aikio