CRUZ DEL EJE

In this work I follow the Uralic loanword research tradition from recent decades as described above. The well-argued stratigraphy of Germanic and Baltic, as well as Slavic loanwords in Finnic (and Saami) serve as a model of this work (cf. Thomsen 1869; 1890; Mikkola 1894). The former loanword layer is well-presented in LÄGLOS which was compiled by a team led by A .D. Kylstra in Groeningen. Methodological questions in connection with the Baltic loanwords have been discussed in detail by Junttila (2015). Also Koivulehto’s own works (2001a&d; 2016: 210–211, 356–358) include a useful presentation of the methodology of research into prehistoric loanword layers.

Although the reasons for borrowing of words have been rather heavily discussed in handbooks of historical linguistics, some general methodological remarks are provided here, especially as methodological introductions to loanword studies are lacking in many earlier presentations of the topic (such as Joki 1973 or Rédei 1986c). The reader is referred to Campbell (1999: 59–60), Hock & Joseph (2009: 258–262), and Anttila (1989: 154–177), Durkin (2009: 132–178) as well as Haugen (1950) for more comprehensive theoretical introductions on borrowing in general. It is, however, worth noting that research into

prehistoric language contacts, contacts between reconstructed proto-languages, is in many cases fundamentally different from the loans in attested, literary languages, and many of the handbooks discuss mostly the latter. The methodological literature of Uralic linguists such as Koivulehto and Junttila mentioned above is often the best source.

Borrowing very often results from the need of new names for new things and concepts (the so-called “Wörter und Sachen” loans; see Seebold [1981: 194]; Algeo [1990b: 409]), and many of the loanwords discussed in this work indeed fall into groups of such cultural words. Important cultural terms have been borrowed from Indo-Iranian into Uralic, such as names for some domestic animals, grains, metals and tools. A different kind of cultural borrowings are the substrate borrowings, which represent “local” vocabulary often relating to nature and geography (Saarikivi 2016: 72–74).

On the other hand, as many have pointed out (e.g. Campbell 1999: 59–60; Seebold 1981: 194–197; Hock & Joseph 2009: 258–262), another main reason for borrowing is prestige (= the words are borrowed from speakers of a culturally superior or attractive language without a real need to borrow), and many of the loanwords discussed here have to be considered prestige loans. Kinship terms, some elementary adjectives and verbs can be considered these kinds of prestige borrowings, as they represent concepts that already existed in the language. K. Häkkinen (1983: 101–102) has argued that many early Indo- European loanwords in Uralic and the objects that they denote are often of different ages (this is of course based on the assumption that prehistoric linguistic areas and archaeological cultures correlate in some way), pointing to the fact that it is a very simplified picture to assume that the loanwords have been acquired with the new material concepts that they describe.

Seebold also notes that affection can be considered a reason for borrowing: when negative meanings develop for earlier words, newer words are borrowed to avoid those.

It has been repeatedly stressed (K. Häkkinen 1983; Koivulehto 1991: 12–13; 1999b: 4–7; Junttila 2015: 246–247) that new words do not just appear, i.e. Urschöpfung is a very unlikely way to increase the lexicon of a language (naturally this is not true of modern, conscious language planning, such as the case of the Estonian, Finnish or Hungarian language revivals). In addition to the disputed Urschöpfung, onomatopoeia, borrowing, compounding and derivation are considered as the main ways to increase the vocabulary of a language.

For recognizing borrowings, Koivulehto lists both language-internal and language- external criteria. Language-internal criteria are the phoneme systems of the contact languages (here Koivulehto lists the differences in Finnic and Germanic consonants and vowels and the substitutions stemming from these differences: Finnic’s richer system of vowels and vowel harmony, the richer sibilant system of early Proto-Finnic). Phonotactic criteria can also point towards borrowing (some combinations can have risen with borrowing and are only found in loans, not in inherited vocabulary, and the phonotactics always influence the substitutions). Also morphological arguments are mentioned by Koivulehto.

As language-external criteria Koivulehto mentions cultural innovations that are visible in loanwords, and related to this, “attraction centres” where words with certain meanings are easily borrowed, and some words are borrowed several times in different periods.

In addition to the reasons for borrowing, also different types of loanwords have been listed in the research literature. Algeo (1990b: 409–410), following Haugen (1950: 214–

215) differentiates between loanwords, loanshifts and loanblends. Loanshifts are more often called calques. Although all these three types are important in loanword research, in this work mostly the first one is relevant. For loanwords that have been acquired in the prehistoric period, the notion of loanshifts or calques, as well as loanblends is very difficult to use.

Methodological questions about recognizing loanwords have also been discussed extensively in the literature (Seebold 1981: 210–212; Junttila 2015: 53). As is the case with etymologists in general, researchers of loanwords have to be able to judge the arguments on phonology, morphology and semantics (Durkin 2009: 2–3). In principle, it is crucial to be able to distinguish between borrowing and code-switching, but in the study of prehistoric language-contacts, there is in practice no danger of mixing these two topics. Lushnikova (1990: 8) lists phonetic (= phonological), morphological, geographical, and semantic (“realno-semantičeskij”) criteria for the identification of loanwords. The latter notion implies that the assumed loans have to denote objects that existed at the time of contacts. For example, for Proto-Indo-Iranian various names for metals can be reconstructed, and it is logical that some of these were borrowed into Uralic, while on the other hand, the vocabulary denoting agriculture in Proto-Indo-Iranian is more scarce, cf. Kümmel (2017), making it more unlikely to search for the origin of Uralic agricultural terms in Indo-Iranian.

The importance of word history (tracing the development of the loanword and its meaning in context with the cultural development of the object that it denotes) in the study of borrowing has also been stressed (Polomé 1990: 428–429). Although this is important when the contacts in historical periods are studied, this is less useful when prehistoric contacts are discussed, and especially when the exact datings and locations of the contacts are uncertain. Nevertheless, word history is important in the context of the Avestan, Old Persian and Sanskrit words that reflect the Indo-Iranian source material. Without knowing the context of the texts where these words appear, one could easily mistake later derivations, analogical formations and semantically divergent forms as reflecting earlier stages of linguistic history. One can also attempt to follow the word history on the basis of archaeological cultures, but this is difficult as languages and archaeological cultures do not always correlate ( Saarikivi & Lavento 2012).

Junttila’s (2015) presentation of prehistoric Baltic loanwords in Finnic includes the most comprehensive discussion of methods for loanword research within Uralic linguistics. Junttila raises several important points especially on the arguments in favor of loanwords and in the stratigraphy of borrowings. According to Junttila (2015: 136–139), in the study of Baltic loanwords in Finnic the following arguments have been used to argue in favor of the Baltic origin of the etymologies: formal criteria (muotoargumentit): sound substitution, sound structure; semantic criteria: semantic correspondence, semantic category; evidence of the source word (lähtökieliargumentit); evidence of the loanword layer (loanword layer arguments): existence of the loanword layer, statistical probability; homonymy argument (a different kind of sound substitution is used to avoid homonymy); exceptionality arguments (some words or word classes, such as pronouns, are treated differently from other loanwords); morphological and semantic nativization; etymological nativization and alienization (see the chapter below for a description of this); phonotactic arguments (phonological traits pointing to a borrowing); distribution in the target

language family: inclusive and exclusive distributional criteria. Junttila also argues that the distinction of language-internal derivatives and parallel borrowings is important.

Anttila (1989: 158–160) also lists criteria for identifying the direction of borrowing. As mentioned above, the direction of borrowing is usually very easy to determine with regard to the etymologies that are discussed in this work, but it is still essential to keep the basic criteria in mind, as not all cases are so obvious, and especially in older research one can find contradicting statements on the direction of borrowing. Distribution in either language family is, of course, a crucial criterion. Cultural influence and the more advanced culture of the Indo-Iranians, as well as known historical circumstances such as the wide areal distribution of the Indo-Iranian languages, often make the direction of borrowing obvious.