EUROPA DEBE SER SUPRIMIDA

In research on loanwords, semantics obviously plays an important role, as rarely are the meanings of the donor and recipient form exactly identical. However, the role of semantics can be seen as less central than that of phonological criteria described above: it is futile to search for Uralic and Indo-Iranian words with similar or identical meanings and then try to work out the substitution rules. Usually the method works the other way around.

Lexical typology and the study of semantic change has seen great leaps starting from the 1990s, thanks to such studies as Haspelmath & Tadmor (eds. 2008) and Koptjevskaja- Tamm (2008), but the results of semantic and lexical typology have not been utilized to the full extent in Uralic loanword research. The recent developments have also been included in useful databases, notably WOLD and DatSemShift. Even though their scope and material is far from perfect, they provide useful tools for loanword researchers, and they have been utilized in this work as far as possible.

It is often noted that compared to phonology, morphology and other areas of historical linguistics, semantics is a more challenging sub-discipline because it has no “laws” or absolute rules that would guide semantic development in a similar way (Campbell 1999: 267; Zimmer 2017: 76–77). Algeo (1990a: 399–401) notes that following the Neogrammarian model in phonology, attempts have been made to establish laws or universals of semantic developments (Algeo refers especially to Bréal 1883; see also Durkin 2009: 243–253). However, it remains uncertain how well these universals work in practice. Campbell (1999: 255, 267) notes that in semantic change one can assume tendencies; this seems a more fruitful approach than the quest for semantic “laws”. An important notion is the view that semantic change usually develops through the initial stage of polysemy, and reconstructing the earlier polysemy on the basis of the divergent meanings can help in tracking down the semantic developments. Furthermore, although one cannot establish precise rules for semantic developments, in order to argue for a particular semantic path in loanwords one should always be able to provide semantic parallels (Durkin 2009: 254).

Campbell (1999: 266) further notes that sociocultural historical facts are often relevant for semantic change, and because of this some have argued that generalizations are useless. However, some generalizations can and have to be made.

Despite the problems described above, one has to make use of the theory of linguistic semantics, which identifies various types of semantic correspondences. Algeo (1990a: 399–400) mentions the following kinds of changes:

1) substitution, i.e. “a change of a referent or in our knowledge of it or in our attitude towards it”: for example, ‘ship’ in modern English means a different kind of ship than the word’s predecessor denoted in Old English;

2) analogy (including popular etymology): a word changes its meaning because it resembles another word (here one could mention useful examples from the Uralic languages, such as Finnish ahtaa < PU *i̮kta-, which has changed its original meaning ‘to hang’ to ‘to stuff, squeeze into’ due to influence from the homonymous Baltic borrowing

ahdas ‘narrow’ ← Baltic *ankštas.

3) shortening: English the blue devils ‘melancholy’ was shortened to the blues.

4) nomination: the intentional naming of a referent with a term not previously used for it.

5) transfer: the use of a word for a new referent that somehow is similar to older referents of the word (Algeo lists examples such as sharp taste, sweet sight).

6) permutation: a meaning change resulting from a shift of focus (English want ‘to lack’ > ‘to desire’).

7) adequation: a shift in which characteristics of the referent are considered central to the meaning of the word: generalization, restriction, amelioration and pejoration. Connected to this category are the different types of semantic change that are listed by Campbell (1999: 254–266): widening (in Durkin’s 2009 terminology broadening), narrowing, metaphor, metanomy, synecdoche (inclusion), degeneration (= pejoration), amelioration, taboo replacement, hyperbole (exaggeration) and litotes (exaggeration through understatement). Campbell also mentions semantic change due to contact: for example, the Lake Miwok word kó:no originally meant ‘bow’, but it has acquired the meaning of ‘gun’ after contact with European settlers who used guns.

It is easy to observe that not all of these categories are equally relevant in loanword studies. Various types of adequation take place regularly, but rarely is the entire “package” of meanings borrowed, so restriction or narrowing is very frequent. Some useful examples of this are listed by Anttila (1989: 155–156).

Among the Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, one can easily mention examples that follow the classification of semantic change as described above. For widening or generalization, vasara ‘hammer’ is a good example: the Indo-Iranian original denotes ‘the weapon of the god Indra’ in Indic and ‘the weapon of the god Mithra’ in Avestan, whereas Finnish ‘hammer’ (and the Mordvin meaning ‘axe’) are more general meanings of tools. Fi huhta is a good example of narrowing: Iranian *tsuxta- means simply ‘burned’, whereas in Finnic huhta means specifically ‘a burned patch used in slash-and-burn agriculture’. Metonomy has taken place in Mordvin, where čuvto denotes simply ‘tree’; this probably developed through the meaning ‘wood burned for agriculture’. Khanty (South) wǟrəs

denotes ‘horse’s mane’, but its Iranian original probably had a more general meaning of hair (cf. Avestan varəsa- ‘hair of human and animal, mostly hair of the head’).

An interesting example of degeneration is the etymology of Finnic orja ‘slave’, probably borrowed from the Indo-Iranian ethnonym *(H)ārya- ‘Aryan’ (for the original semantics of this word, see the entry *orja in Chapter 2). A similar development is seen in English

slave which is etymologically connected to the ethnonym Slav.

Campbell (1998: 279–280) also notes that obsolescence and taboo are important sources for semantic developments (cf. the discussion above in the context of lexical loss).

Regarding semantics, one also has to realize that when working with reconstructed vocabulary and especially with lexical contacts between two or more reconstructed and non-attested languages, one has to be especially careful. In this case all the semantics are reconstructed, and although they are based on the attested meanings from the daughter languages, it is always possible that something turns out to be wrong. The difficulties in dealing with reconstructed lexicon are emphasized by Ringe (2004: 1023–1024), who notes that the reconstructed proto-language lexicon is always incomplete, and semantic reconstruction is often challenging. On the Indo-Iranian side one can rely both on the evidence of the attested Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages as well as that of the cognates in other branches of the Indo-European family, but still the matter of semantic error is a considerable threat. Avestan and Vedic texts are hymns which employ rich poetic language, and not all of the meanings are well understood. Due to the very long and rich attestation

of Sanskrit, the meanings of the words abound. Especially the meanings of Classical Sanskrit words that might differ from the meanings known from the earlier Vedic texts have to be approached carefully.