Re: Uusisuom's influences

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>
>Andreas skrev:
>
> > > Well, if I understand things correctly, the Finns originally spoke
> > > some Proto-Indo-European language, but later took over the language
> > > of the proto-Saami when the Finns came to what is now known as
>Finland.
> > > So I'd say it's more than "ties" to Saami ;-). Finnish is Saami with
> > > a PIE substrate.
[snip]
> > After checking up several encyclopaedias,
>
>Well. They might be a bit old. The theory above is what I know
>from the recent documentaries on TV and the class on European
>languages I took two months ago. Although "new" isn't always
>"correct". ;)
We-ell, one of them was from the 70s. Britannica.com and ne.se should be
quite up-to-date, but of course a theory usually doesn't get into them
before it's became commonly accepted.
>
> > I find they all agree that Saami is a group of its own within the
> > Finnic langs, while Finnish is counted to the Baltic-Finnic group,
> > which also includes Estonian, Karelian, Ingrian and several other
> > langs. If the Finns originally spoke a IE lang, mustn't the lang they
> > took over rather been a Baltic-Finnic lang?
>
>Wouldn't that depend on when the Finns took over their language
>compared to when Finno-Lappic split up into Balto-Finnic and
>Lappic? Does anyone know when the Finns got to Finland and when
>Finno-Lappic split up?
If the Finns' ancestors took over Proto-Finnic (the britannica's term - the
same as your "Finno-Lappic" AFAICT), then they didn't take over Saami, did
they? ;-)

I don't think anyone knows when the Finns came to Finland, and as for when
Finnic split into Baltic-Finnic and Saami one can only make educated guesses
from the closeness of the groups and various loans in various directions.
>
> > Also, tho' I know that it's not very popular to mix genetics into
> > discussions on language, rather reliable sources tell me that
> > genetically, the Saami can be considered a mix of the "Germanic"
> > peoples who came to Norden from the south and the "Finnic" peoples
> > that came to Norden from the east. Genetically, the Finns are closer
> > to the other Finnic-speaking groups than the Saami are, which
> > suggests that they may be closer linguio-historically (is that a
> > word?)
>
>Now it is. :)
>
> > too.
>
>Yes. From what I've heard, the Saami are (I'm very *very*
>bad at this genetic stuff, but bear with me) related to
>the people who 15.000 (?) years ago made graffiti all over the
>Lascaux caves in France. Some peoples wandered north and some
>wandered east. Does anyone know more about this? I feel I'm out
>on a limb here.
>
>If the time-frame is 15.000 years, then a whole lot of things
>have had time to happen with language and stuff.
Hm, palaeoanthropology isn't exactly my field ...

Some think that the Saami are descended from the people that supposedly
lived on the ice-free bits of the Norwegian coast during the Ice Age, but if
this is the case they almost certainly must have acquired their Uralic
language from post-glacial immigrants from the east.

Speaking of the Lascaux people, I've seen a page that claims that the
artists were Basques! I can grant that it's probable that the artists where
related to the "Palaeoeuropeans" that were displaced or assimilated by the
IEans, and the Basques are, genetically speaking, the closest group to these
you'll find nowadays. But to claim they actually were Basques ... well, why
not Aquitanians instead? The Aquitanians are also thought to've been
"Palaeoeuropean", their lang was related to basque, and they even lived
closer to Lascaux! :-)

                                                   Andreas
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.