Search

Volgo-Kama Neolithic resulted from an expansion of the Elshan culture to Lower Kama c. 5700 BCE. Corresponding “Indo-Uralic” linguistic parallels attest to an expansion of pre-Proto-Indo-European speakers to the area of pre-Proto-Uralic speakers. This supports the evidence of linguistic palaeontology (Proto-Uralic words for ‘cembra pine’ and for ‘bee’ and ‘honey’) for the Kama River Valley as the Uralic homeland. Proto-Uralic had loanwords from pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, whose speakers can now be traced to the Abashevo culture of 2200–2000 BCE: the Abashevo expansion from Lower Kama to the Ural-Tobol interfluve created the Sintashta culture (2000–1900 BCE), which has the earliest archaeological evidence for horse-drawn chariots, matching Proto-Indo-Iranian chariot vocabulary. Between 2200 and 1900 BCE, the Sejma-Turbino network (ST) of warrior-smith-traders distributed high-quality weapons along the border of taiga and steppe between the Upper Ob and Finland. This long but narrow corridor matches the distribution of the intermediate proto-languages of the Uralic family. It is argued that the ST came into being when Abashevo smiths moved from Balanbash on Lower Kama to Turbino on Mid-Kama and there created the ST metal axe-celt to replace the local stone-celt. The metal axe and Abashevo-like lance-heads and other weapons were then traded west and east, to hunter-fisher-cultures of Europe and Siberia (where weapons of tin-bronze were produced), establishing Proto-Uralic as the language of the areas of ST rule.

Introduction. This article is an attempt to extract information about the interactions of dialects of the Indo-European dialect continuum with each other using a comparative analysis of the basic vocabularies of some Indo-European (IE) descendant languages.The search for external borrowings and influence of a common substrate would help to clarify the ethno-linguistic surrounding of the area where the IE proto-dialects developed.In turn, these data are actual being pro and contra arguments of the well-known hypotheses about the IE ancestral home.Methodology and sources. The number of mutually understandable basic lexemes taken in relation to the number of lexemes in the compared lists was chosen as a measure of the interaction of IE dialects, indicators of their commonality.207-word Swadesh lists of 12 languages in their possibly more ancient states were analysed.For geographical binding of the IE language areal we have selected cross-borrowings from/to neighboring / substrate non-IE languages, the ancient settlement areas of native speakers of which are considered well-known.Results and discussion. The results of the comparison of the basic vocabularies of 12 IE languages have been interpreted in the form of a graph demonstrating the relative location of areas of the corresponding IE dialects. Lexemes meaning 'predator (bear, lion, etc.)', 'cattle (bull, ox)' determined the ethno-linguistic surrounding of the IE areal.Conclusion. The relevant linguistic data permitted to identify in the IE dialect continuum the core of proto-dialects: Baltic, Slavic, Aryan and Italic – and partially superimposed dialect subcontinua:– Balto-Greco-Aryo-Tocharo-Anatolian subcontinuum in the northern part of the IE areal;– Tocharo-Celto-Germanic subcontinuum in the eastern part;– Germano-Celto-Italo-Greco-Armeno-Baltic subcontinuum in the southern part;– Balto-Slavo-Italo-Aryan subcontinuum in the western part.The representation of the Proto-IE areal as a dialect continuum solves a number of difficulties inherent in the most common model of a single IE proto-language.

Copyright of Diachronica is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Using etymological methods, the present study has identified two Sinitic and Germanic shared (Sino-Germanic) etymologies (etyma):【南, 陰】. These two etyma form a rhyme correspondence. This regular sound change validates the etymological connection in question. The etymon 【南】 for 'southern sky' has been identified in Sinitic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Albanian, Hellenic, Anatolian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, some Tibeto-Burman, some Uralic and Hungarian. The etymon 【陰】 for 'dark' has been identified in Sinitic, Germanic and Gyalrong. In words of Western linguistics, the Proto-Indo-European root *nebh- 'moist, water from it damp, mist, fog, cloud' is newly identified in Sinitic, some Tibeto-Burman, some Uralic and Hungarian; the Proto-Germanic root *ēbanþ-/ēbunþ- 'evening' is identified in Sinitic and Gyalrong.

Using etymological methods, the present study has researched four Sinitic and Germanic shared (Sino-Germanic) etymologies (etyma) and two Sinitic and Uralic shared (Sino-Uralic) etyma. Two of the Sino-Germanic etyma form a rhyme correspondence. Three of the Sino-Germanic etyma form an onset correspondence. Two of the Sino-Uralic etyma form another rhyme correspondence. These regular sound changes validate the etymological connections in question. The Sino-Germanic term for 'star' and Sino-Uralic term for 'star' are supported.

Using etymological methods, the present study has identified seven Sinitic and Uralic shared etymologies (etyma). Three of them form a rhyme correspondence. Two of them form an onset correspondence. Four of them form another rhyme correspondence. These regular sound changes validate the genetic connection between Sinitic and Uralic. The Sino-Uralic etymology (etymon) for 'Jupiter, year' is among these etyma. It is demonstrated that this term should be aboriginal in Sino-Uralic languages.

Loanword analysis is a unique contribution of historical linguistics to our understanding of prehistoric cultural interfaces. As language reflects the lives of its speakers, the substantiation of loanwords draws on the composite evidence from linguistic as well as auxiliary data from archaeology and genetics through triangulation. The Bronze Age of Central Asia is in principle linguistically mute, but a host of recent independent observations that tie languages, cultures and genetics together in various ways invites a comprehensive reassessment of six highly diagnostic loanwords (‘seven’, ‘name/fame’, ‘sister-in-law’, ‘honey’, ‘metal’ and ‘horse’) that are associated with the Bronze Age. Moreover, they are shared between Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic and sometimes Old Chinese. The successful identification of the interfaces for these loanwords can help settle longstanding debates on languages, migrations and the items themselves. Each item is analysed using the comparative method with reference to the archaeological record to assess the plausibility of a transfer. I argue that the six items can be dated to have entered Central and East Asian languages from immigrant Indo-European languages spoken in the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures, including a novel source for the ‘horse’ in Old Chinese.

In this article I shall review the field of studies: “Uralic vs Indo-European contacts”. I shall report the thesis of what can be called the “old” and the “new” school, respectively, dealing with this topic. According to the old school, the contacts took place, essentially, among the historical languages, whereby the criteria for identifying loanwords are often unclear. According to the new school, instead, the (intensive) Uralic vs Indo-European contacts took place, essentially, at the level of protolanguages, and the loanwords are easily identifiable, thanks to the regularity of the relevant sound changes and substitutions. I shall claim that the thesis of new school is unlikely to be correct, on methodological and factual grounds: borrowing among proto-languages is impossible a priori; sound changes and substitutions are not always regular and systematic; the “binary” analysis “borrowing vs inherited” is out-of-date; the Uralic and Indo-European languages belong to different, distant “areal contexts”. Kokkuvõte. Angela Marcantonio: Uurali ja indoeuroopa keelte kontaktid: laenamine, kohalik kujunemine, juhuslik sarnasus. Artiklis annan ülevaate uurimisteemast “Uurali ja indoeuroopa keelte kontaktid”. Käsitlen küsimust, mida võib selle teemaga seoses nimetada “uueks” ja “vanaks” koolkonnaks. Vana koolkonna järgi toimusid kontaktid ajalooliste keelte vahel, kusjuures laensõnade kindlakstegemise kriteeriumid on sageli ebaselged. Uue koolkonna järgi aga toimusid (intensiivsed) uurali ja indoeuroopa kontaktid algkeelte tasandil ja laensõnu on lihtne kindlaks teha tänu oluliste häälikumuutuste ja häälikuasenduste reeglipärasusele. Väidan, et uue koolkonna tees ei näi metodoloogiliselt ja faktiliselt aluselt korrektne: algkeelte vaheline laenamine on a priori võimatu, häälikumuutused ja -asendused ei ole alati reeglipärased ja süsteemsed, “binaarne” jaotus “laenatud või genuiinne” on aegunud, uurali ja indoeuroopa keeled kuuluvad erinevasse, teineteisest kaugesse “areaalsesse konteksti”. Märksõnad: uurali keeled, indoeuroopa keeled, konvergents, divergents, juhuslik sarnasus, sugulassõnad, laensõnad, keeleareaalid

Copyright of Journal of Estonian & Finno-Ugric Linguistics / Eesti ja Soome-ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Linguistica Uralica is the property of Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)