The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages

Santeri Junttila Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies University of Helsinki The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages Dating and locating the ancient contacts between Baltic and Finnic is a crucial question when searching for the origins of the Finnic languages. Evidence gained from linguistic palaeontology seems to place Proto-Uralic in the VolgaKama Basin, some 2000 kilometres east of the Baltic, in a region where the Uralic Mari and Udmurt languages are still spoken today (see Toivonen 1952 for a well-detailed study of the field and Häkkinen 2009 for a somewhat revised view). However, there is no clear linguistic or archaeological evidence to tell us when Proto-Uralic broke down into its different daughter languages and when one of these, Proto-Finnic, had left this eastern area and spread to the shores of the Baltic Sea. In order to reconstruct the process and its different stages we require information that can be provided by the Baltic loanwords. As the Baltic loanwords are not attested in the more eastern Uralic branches, with the exception of a relatively few lexical items in Mordvinic (cf. van Pareren 2008 and Grünthal, this volume, for a recent detailed overview of the question), we must assume that the contacts took place when Finnic already was an independent branch within the Uralic language family or was at least in the process of breaking off. The contacts cannot be located far away from where the Baltic languages are or have been spoken. The area in which the Baltic languages were spoken was prehistorically much wider than it is today, since the major hydronyms of a vast area between Moscow and the mouth of the Vistula are of Baltic origin (Toporov – Trubačev 1962). The Volga-Kama Basin lies still too far east to be included in a list of possible contact locations. Instead, we could look for the contact area somewhere between Estonia in the west and the surroundings of Moscow in the east, a zone with evidence of Uralic settlement in the north and Baltic on the south side. Since present-day Finland lies quite far away from this zone, the discussion regarding the areal dimension of the contacts has concentrated on whether to include Finland in the contact area or not, and this question has chronological implications. There have been two main concurrent hypotheses concerning the assumed contacts in the territory of present-day Finland, firstly, the alleged migration of the Finnish settlement and, secondly, its continuity on the northern side of the Gulf of Finland. In addition, some other models have also been proposed. Here we shall discuss these theories and their strong and weak points. A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266. Helsinki 2012. 261–296. 2 5 1 4 3 Figure 1. Prehistoric Balts as the southern neighbours of Proto-Finnic speakers. 1 = The approximated area of Proto-Uralic. 2 = The approximated area of Finnic during the Iron Age. 3 = The area of ancient Baltic hydronyms. 4 = The area of Baltic languages in about 1200 AD. 5 = The problem: When did Uralic expand westwards and when did it meet Baltic? The migration theory The migration theory argues that the Proto-Finns arrived at the shores of the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age (cf. also the introduction in this book). Accordingly, the Baltic–Finnic contacts took place somewhere east of present-day Estonia, when the Proto-Finns were still moving westwards. After that, Proto-Finnic split, and the future Finns moved to Finland, either from the east, or from the south over the Gulf of Finland, or both. The large stock of Baltic loanwords indicates very intensive contacts. This hypothesis was first suggested by Vilhelm Thomsen in his magnum opus on the question, Beröringer mellem finske og baltiske Sprog (1890), which still remains the most extensive study on the subject. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 263 The idea of a Finnic migration into Finland in the Iron Age is much older than Thomsen. It had been presented already by Henrik Gabriel Porthan (1859: 46), the initiator of the research into the history of Finland, who actively developed his ideas by adopting an interdisciplinary approach. The idea was probably based on a general conception of the Migration Period as a chaotic era that gave birth to the European nations. Thomsen (1890: 151) still connected the movements of the Finnic peoples with the Slavic migrations northward from about the 8th century, and thus estimated the time of Baltic–Finnic contacts at just a couple of centuries before them, between 0 and 500 AD. According to Thomsen, the Baltic–Finnic contacts would have had to begin before the contacts between Finnic and Germanic, since the Germanic loanwords have not gone through all the same Finnic phonetic changes. In 1905, Finnish archaeologist Alfred Hackman modified Thomsen’s theory based on the archaeological data that had rapidly increased in the meantime. Hackman (1905: 353) claimed an earlier migration of Finns over the sea from Estonia from at least the 4th century on, since the material culture of that period seemed to originate from south of the Gulf of Finland. On this basis, Emil Nestor Setälä (1916: 499–500), the professor of Finnish language who imported the Thomsenian method to Finno-Ugrian studies, assumed that the beginning of Baltic–Finnic contacts took place in the last centuries BC. The continuation theory The continuation theory was presented in Estonian archaeologist Harri Moora’s works (1952, 1956, 1958). Moora insisted that Proto-Finns had inhabited the Baltic Sea shores since at least the Neolithic period. The Baltic–Finnic contacts took place when the local Neolithic Combed Ware culture, claimed to be Uralic, met the intrusive Indo-European Battle Axe culture arriving in Estonia and Finland. Moora dated the Battle Axe culture between 2000 and 1800 BC, and proposed that the contacts with Germanic began in the Bronze Age with influence from Scandinavia. The continuationists claimed a lack of evidence of either any mass migration over the Gulf of Finland or any migration later than the Neolithic period to the Baltic area from the east. This view gained support when Carl Fredrik Meinander (1969), based on new findings in Finland, pointed out that there was continuity from the Finnish Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The similarities between the Iron Age material from Finland and Estonia could be explained as a result of simultaneous Scandinavian influence. Moreover, the Baltic loanwords seem to indicate a level of culture that is clearly lower than that of the Iron Age. This fact was transmitted by the 19th century researchers simply by assuming a Stone Age cultural level for all the Uralic peoples until the Migration Period, a prejudice soon disproved by archaeology. 264 Santeri Junttila Looking for a third option The reason for such a huge divergence between the two approaches lies in the lack of any traces of Baltic influence in Finland after the Neolithic spread of the Battle Axe culture. Either the Battle Axe culture has to be combined with a Baltic language, or a Finnic tongue must have spread later to Finland from the vicinity of the Baltic peoples. A third alternative is to explain the prehistoric role of the Gulf of Finland more as a route of communication than as a barrier, as some Finnish linguists and archaeologists have done since Terho Itkonen first proposed it in 1972. Itkonen (1978, 1983) opposed both too-recent Iron Age and too-distant Stone Age datings for Proto-Finnic, as these were incompatible with linguistic data. On the other hand, the early existence of a Finnic language on the south side of the Gulf of Finland and a pre-Iron Age dating for the Baltic–Finnic contacts there do not conflict with the supposed Iron Age migration of the Finns. These ideas, presented by Moora as early as 1932, were simply not interesting enough for the contemporary Finnish researchers before Meinander combined them with the idea of a continuation of settlement on the Finnish side. Moora combined the Baltic–Finnic contacts with a burial type spreading from East Prussia in the late Bronze Age. Swedish linguist Karl Bernhard Wiklund complemented this Bronze Age model with his theory on the prehistory of the Saami (Wiklund 1947). According to Wiklund, the proposed language shift from a non-Uralic Pre-Saami to the Uralic Proto-Saami took place through contact with the Proto-Finnic culture during migrations caused by an overall climate cooling during the Bronze Age. Thus the Baltic loanwords shared with Saami must be older (cf. also Aikio’s article in this book). Moora’s Bronze Age theory was later refuted by Moora himself (Moora 1956: 75–80), since the burial type in question proved to have spread not from East Prussia but from Scandinavia. Another kind of Bronze Age dating is provided by Alfred Senn (1943, 1951) and Kustaa Vilkuna (1948: 283), who proposed that the Baltic languages had spread from the east to the present-day Baltic States where the Finnic languages were already spoken. This hypothesis is based on a supposed Finnic origin of several toponyms in Lithuania and East Prussia, claimed by i.e. Rozwadowski (1913: 61–61, 66–67), a conception that is highly improbable though still gaining support in Lithuania and Poland. The first plausible attempt to adjust the relative chronology of Uralic linguistics to the discoveries of modern archaeology, free from supposing lengthy continuation periods without any recognisable development in languages, was made by the Finnish archaeologist Ville Luho in 1968. Luho combined the arrival of Proto-Finnic with the eastern contacts of the Bronze Age Textile Ceramics of Finland (and lesser extent, Estonia). Luho’s model seems to fit well with the ideas expressed by Terho Itkonen. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 265 Recent discussion on the topic The loanword studies of Finnish Germanicist Jorma Koivulehto since the 1970s have proved long-lasting contacts between Finnic and Germanic lasting from Pre-Germanic to the present. The oldest Germanic loanwords seem to have gone through all the same phonetic changes as the Baltic ones have. Thus it is no longer correct to assume that the Baltic–Finnic contacts would have begun earlier than the Germanic–Finnic ones. (Cf. Koivulehto 1997 for further details.) The migration theory has very little support today, since there are no changes in the archaeological material, which are considered radical enough to prove a migration into Finland (Salo 1984). The strongest argument to exclude Finland from the contact area is still valid: there are no unambiguous traces of a Baltic population in Finland, neither in archaeological findings nor in toponymy. Moreover, Moora’s continuation theory was based on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates proven to be much too recent, since the calibrating methods have developed to become more accurate. Moora’s model found support from Finnish archaeologists between the 1970s and the 1990s, but all the attempts to adjust it into the relative chronologies of Uralic and Indo-European resulted in controversies. The only linguistically well-grounded version of the Stone Age continuation theory was presented by Mikko Korhonen in 1976. Its validity, however, became heavily threatened when Koivulehto 1983a-b proved the existence of a Late Proto-Indo-European or Pre-Baltic loanword layer in Saami, Finnic, and Mordvinic. Since this layer must precede the Baltic one and it was presumably acquired in the Baltic Sea region, Koivulehto posited it on the horizon of the Battle Axe period. This forces a later dating for the Baltic–Finnic contacts. Today the Battle Axe culture is dated at 3200 to 3000 BC, a period far too remote to correspond linguistically with Proto-Baltic (Kallio 1998a). Petri Kallio (2006) combines the arrival of Uralic in the Baltic area with the SeymaTurbino phenomenon, a Bronze Age trading network dated to about 1900 BC. Kallio (2008) insists that the Baltic–Finnic contacts lasted over a millennium in the Bronze Age, on both the northern and southern shores of the Gulf of Finland, in spite of the lack of toponymic support. Thus the contacts need not have been as intensive as it was previously thought. Since the Baltic contacts began at a very initial phase of Proto-Finnic, the language must have been relatively uniform at that time. Hence, if we consider that the layer of Baltic loanwords may have spread over the Gulf of Finland at that time, we could also insist that the whole of the Proto-Finnic language did so. The distribution of the Baltic loanword stock in the Finnic languages would be explained, if this kind of language diffusion had occurred after the Baltic– Finnic contacts. The Seyma-Turbino phenomenon, or the eastern contacts of Textile Ceramics, may explain the spread of a Uralic language up to Finland and Estonia, but a Finnic language may later have infiltrated into Finland without a mass migration, replacing the earlier Uralic tongue spoken there. 266 Santeri Junttila There is, though, one open question not easily combined with this kind of model: the most plausible candidate for a Pre-Finnic Uralic language of Finland is Proto-Saami, but Saami may possess some Baltic loanwords not existing in Finnic, as claimed by Sammallahti 1977: 123 and 1984: 139. However, these stems are very few and may as well be explained by lexical loss in Finnic. Since Thomsen, there have been several attempts to uncover chronological layers among the Baltic borrowings in Finnic. The most promising phonological criterion has been proposed by Koivulehto (1990: 152): the Baltic *Ʃ and *ē yielded Finnic *a and *ä in the loanwords gained before the Proto-Finnic nonnarrow long vowels had emerged, but Finnic *oo and *ee in later loans. Later, scholars have also discussed the possibility of geographically restricted strata of Baltic loanwords, so-called separate borrowings in northern and southern Finnic. This idea was suggested by Sammallahti (1977: 123) and studied by Seppo Suhonen and Lembit Vaba, both having published a survey of the Finnic distribution of each Baltic loanword (Suhonen 1988 and Vaba 1990b). However, mere distribution is never proof of the separate origin of a loanword, since any word may have disappeared from any dialect or language. The distribution should be compared to phonological substitution patterns. The role of loanword semantics in dating the contacts Since a migration is no longer seen as prerequisite for the spread of language, the very existence of a Finnic language in Finland before the Iron Age remains disputed. More importance should be placed on the semantics of loanwords when dating prehistoric language changes. Borrowings mainly indicate a certain cultural level of the time of contact, since new words, among them words denoting innovations, are much more likely to spread from one language to another than old ones. The more loanwords there are in a specific field, the higher their indicative value: e.g. the oldest terminology for wooden constructions in Finnic languages is mostly of Baltic origin. Even more accurate information may be acquired by asking which innovations the language-speaking community must have been familiar with during the contact period. Thomsen (1890: 152) concluded that hardly any of the Baltic loanwords contradict the assumption that the contacts began during the Stone Age – e.g. Finnic kirves ‘axe’ could initially have been used for the stone axe – though none of these loanwords speak in favour of it either. The latter is actually a superfluous if not even misleading addition, since no loanword, based on its meaning alone, can be dated to an age at least as old as a given date or era. In other words, semantics may never define a terminus ante quem. This restriction, excellently formulated by Cowgill (2012: 66–68), was already realized by Setälä (1891: 460). On the contrary, it should be possible to define a terminus post quem of the contacts based on the semantics of the borrowings, if they include any words The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 267 denoting innovations. Kalima (1936: 199), for instance, opposes Thomsen, expressing from a linguist’s point of view that a Stone Age dating for the Baltic– Finnic contacts seems improbable, since it would be too difficult to use a stone axe to carve the constructions denoted by seinä ‘wall’, silta ‘bridge; floor’, pirtti ‘a small wooden hut for living, bathing or both’, aitta ‘granary’, and orsi ‘perch, beam’. In other words, we cannot actually say anything about the beginning of the contacts on the basis of semantics only. Instead, the terminus post quem of the final phase of the contacts can be defined by looking for the most recent innovation indicated by the borrowings. We just have to keep in mind that the meanings of the words are not stable, but rather keep changing just as any other part of the language changes as a system. For example, Finnish hirsi ‘log’ (cf. B59 below) may be a Baltic loanword, but that does not implicate that the Finnic peoples would have learnt the building of log houses when borrowing the word, since its possible Lithuanian equivalent žardas denotes ‘a grate for drying flax’; the former meaning may have been ‘wattle’ or ‘a branch used in weaving a wattle’, a meaning which has survived in some Estonian dialects. As a construction technique, wattle and daub is certainly much more ancient than log building. Words denoting innovations It would require an uncommon kind of co-operation, activating specialists in linguistics, archaeology, and all other disciplines studying prehistory to find and define the most recent layer of innovations indicated by the Baltic loanwords in Finnic. To start with, in this article we have identified and grouped below all suggested Baltic etymologies for Finnic words possibly datable by means of research into the physical world. Not all Kulturwörter have been listed: all toponyms, ethnonyms, and the relatively well-represented words denoting family members and mythological creatures have been excluded. The erroneous etymologies discussed in Junttila 2011 have also been left out, unless they have reappeared in a more recent study (i.e. Vaba 2011a)1. The words are given in Finnish, if not indicated otherwise. Only the stems missing in Finnish are given in another Finnic language. However, the indicative meanings of a word given aim at covering all its Finnic cognates. 1. The author owes special thanks to Dr. Laimute Balode for checking the Eng. translations for the Lithuanian and Latvian words. 268 Santeri Junttila Group I. Game and hunting In this group, as well as in most of those that follow, it is not possible to sharply and exclusively determine which words denote innovation and which do not. Even the names of wild animals could be added to the list, since their adaptation may indicate a new capturing technique, a change in diet or clothing, or new methods of trade. A. Relatively clear etymologies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ansa ‘trap’ ~ Lith. ąsa ‘ear, handle’, Latv. osa ‘ear, handle’ (Donner 1884: 267). lahto ‘kind of bird trap’ ~ Latv. slazds ‘trap’ (Thomsen 1890: 219). hirvi ‘elk; (Est) deer’ ~ OPr. sirvis ‘deer’ (Thomsen 1890: 225). tarvas ‘aurochs (?)’ ~ Lith. tauras, Latv. taurs ‘aurochs’ (Thomsen 1890: 228). Veps hähk ‘mink’ ~ Lith. šeškas, Latv. sesks ‘polecat’ (Thomsen 1890: 223). SEst kähr ‘European badger’ ~ Lith. keršas ‘black and white striped’ (Vaba 1995: 82). B. Dubious etymologies 1. 2. 3. peura ‘deer, reindeer’ ~ Lith. bendras ‘common’ (Koivulehto 1988: 26). The semantic leap is very large. portimo ‘stoat; (Lude) weasel’ ~ Lith. spartus ‘quick’ (Liukkonen 1999: 106–07 Baltic *sparteiva). The proposed original is an unattested derivative. Finnic m ~ Baltic. v is irregular. The Finnic -ti- implies a borrowing posterior to the Early PFi *ej > i change, which would have yielded *-si-. Kar. utra, Est. udras ‘European otter’ ~ Lith. ūdra, ūdras id. (Nuutinen 1994: 116–27) A Germanic origin (PGmc *utra-) would suit as well. C. Erroneous etymologies 1. 2. 3. paula ‘lace, snare’ ~ Lith. pakelė, Latv. pakeles pl. ‘garter’ (Donner 1884: 269)2. Phonetically unsuitable. kärppä ‘ermine’ ~ Lith. kirbas ‘decorative piece of fur’ (Būga 1908: 191). Baltic -rb- would not yield Finnic -rpp-. Est. naarits ‘mink’ ~ OPr. naricie ‘polecat’ (Saareste 1924b: 84–85). Both Finnic and Baltic words are loans from Slavic (Russ. norica id, Kalima 1952: 130).3 2. In Junttila 2011, there is a mistake in the fi rst table: the Lith. pakelė ‘garter’ mentioned in connection with the Fi word paula is not found in the dictionaries visited. 3. This etymology is missing in Junttila 2011. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 269 Two etymologies, irrespective of their likeliness, should be kept outside this semantic group: virka ‘snare, trap; line, row; career’ ~ Latv. verdze ‘row; heap’ (Kalima 1941: 210–11) and vihi ‘scent, surmise’ ~ Lith. vėžė ‘track’, Latv. vizinƩt ‘to ride’ (Uotila 1986a Late PFi *vihja). The connections with trapping here seem secondary as the original Finnic meaning of Finn. virka and vihi are ‘row’ and ‘path’. Smaller animals represented in the layer of Baltic loanwords fall clearly outside the scope of this article. Bird names are especially numerous among the proposed Baltic etymologies, but their value is highly questionable due to the onomatopoetic character of bird names in general. Since the likeliness of these etymologies is extremely hard to evaluate, a mere list would suffice here: harakka ‘magpie’, kauru ‘curlew, (Est.) loon’ kiuru ‘skylark’, käki ‘cuckoo’, lielo ‘Caprimulgus’, lintu ‘bird’, peippo ‘chaffinch’, rastas ‘blackbird’, teeri ‘black grouse’ Est. värblane ‘sparrow’, SEst. mõltsas ‘green woodpecker’, Liv. kill id., and Liv. palandeks ~ Vote pallas ‘pigeon’. A Baltic origin also has been proposed for siipi ‘wing’ (Vaba 2011b: 48). Group II. Fishing equipment and ish A. Relatively clear etymologies 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. toe ‘fish weir’ ~ Lith. takišys, Latv. tacis id. (Thomsen 1890: 226 Baltic *takis). siula ‘side rope of a seine; side fence of a reindeer enclosure’ ~ Lith. tinklas, Latv. tīkls ‘fish net’ (Koivulehto 1979a: 267–69). tuulas ‘tool for spear fishing with a light’ ~ Latv. dūlƩjs ‘fishing light’, Lith. dūlis ‘smoking punk’ (Thomsen 1890: 168). tuura ‘ice pick’ ~ Latv. dūre ‘fist’, Lith. durti ‘to jab, stick’ (Thomsen 1890: 168–69). lohi ‘salmon’ ~ Lith. lašiša, Latv. lasis id. (Thomsen 1869: 55). sampi ‘sturgeon’ ~ Lith. stambus ‘large’ (Liukkonen 1999: 124). ankerias ‘eel’ ~ Lith. ungurys, OPr. angurgis4 id. (Thomsen 1869: 80). Liv. vägal ‘burbot’ ~ Lith. vėgėlė, Latv. vēdzele id. (Thomsen 1890: 238). Est. vähi ‘crab’ ~ Lith. vėžys, Latv. vēzis id. (Thomsen 1890: 241). 4. Gliwa (2009: 183) combines also Est. vingerjas ‘Misgurnus fossilis’ with Lith. vingurys ‘eel’, a contamination form of ungurys and IE *weng- ‘to bend’. 270 Santeri Junttila B. Dubious etymologies 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Est. obs. näri : närju ‘weir’ ~ Lith. nėris ‘knitwork’ (Vaba 1992 < Baltic *nērija). As a weir is not knit but vowen, Russ. ner′ot ‘fish trap’ suits semantically better as a source, though it implies a shortening of the Est. word (< *närjut). ailo ‘string of a fish net’ ~ Lith. ailė ‘stick holding a net’, Latv. ailis ‘wooden support of a fish weir’ (Endzelīns 1923–25: 13 (Būga)). However, synonymous with aina ? < PGmc *ainia- ‘juniper’ (Karsten 1936: 435–37). ahrain ‘fish spear’ ~ Russ. ostrogá id. (Liukkonen 1999: 102 Baltic *aštragƩ). The variation -hr- ~ -tr- in Finnic could be, according to Liukkonen, better explained from Baltic *-štr- like in ohra (B17) than Slavic *-str-. Liukkonen ignores the Eastern Finnic variant -sr-. SEst. eherüs, iherüs ‘brown trout’ ~ Lith. ešerys, Latv. asaris ‘perch’ (Ojansuu 1921: 5). However, brown trout and perch look quite different from one another. seipi ‘dace’ ~ Latv. dial. stiepats id. (Nuutinen 1987). The Latvian words remain without etymology. C. Erroneous etymologies 4. vata ‘type of small seine’ ~ Lith. nevadas id. (Donner 1884: 265). Finnic < Germanic, cf. Swed. vad ‘seine’ (Thomsen 1890: 234). 5. ahingas ‘fish spear’ ~ Lith. asnis, ašnis ‘mane hair; rye sprouts; scythe blade’, Latv. asns ‘erupting germ’ (Liukkonen 1999: 15–16). Phonological problems (Baltic *-šn- ~ Finnic -h-) and hardly compatible semantics. 6. tarpa ~ tarpo ‘fisherman’s stick’ ~ Latv. dalba ~ dalbs ‘fork; stem; fishing stick’, Lith. dalba ‘crowbar, lever’, OPr. dalptan ‘iron pick’ (Thomsen 1890: 165–66). The relation Baltic l ~ Finnic r is problematic. The Latv. meaning ‘fishing stick’ may be < Finnic. Finnic tarpa ? < PGmc *staura-, cf. Swed. stör ‘stick’ (Koivulehto 1977: 175). 7. kuuja ‘type of salmon’ ~ Lith. kuoja ‘roach’ (Endzelīns 1909: 30). The two fish species are very different. Probably Finnic kuuja ← kuu ‘fat’ (Sebestyén 1935: 73). 8. taimen ‘trout’ ~ Lith. dygti ‘to germ’, daigas, diegas ‘shoot, spear; seedling’ (Ritter 1993: 156 Baltic *daigmen). Semantically unfounded. 9. ahven ‘perch’ ~ Lith. ašmuo ‘sharp’ (Thomsen 1890: 147, Liukkonen 1999: 16–18). A very speculative etymology and phonologically excluding Saa vuosko ‘perch’. 10. Est. lest ‘flounder’ ~ Lith. plekšnė, Latv. plekste id. (Viitso 1983: 272) or ~ Latv. leste id., Lith. lekštas ‘flat’ (EES). Phonologically only a recent loan from Latvian is possible (Est. s ~ Latv. s). 11. hauki ‘pike’ ~ Lith. šauti, Latv. šaut ‘to shoot’ (Liukkonen 1999: 40–42 Baltic *šaukē). The proposed original is a hypothetical derivative from a root with no credible connection to the fish name. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 271 12. särki ‘roach’ ~ Latv. sarkans ‘red’ (Liukkonen 1999: 138–40 Baltic *sar-k-). The Finnic word = Md(E) İerge id. shares the front vocalism. Moreover, the word has phonologically regular cognates in Mari and Ob-Ugrian (see SSA III: 241). 13. Est. linask ‘tench’ ~ Lith. lynas id. (Ojansuu 1921: 22–23). Est. < Russ. lin′, lin′ok id. (Thomsen 1890: 197). The Baltic explanation for pola ‘float or hook of a kind of fish trap’ (~ Latv. spals ‘handle of a tool’ < Baltic *spala-, Koivulehto 1987: 204) should be left out, since the meaning of both the proposed original and the Md cognates of the Finnic word (Erzya pulo, Moksha pulə̑) may be reverted to ‘handle, shaft’ and are not necessarily connected to fishing. The same applies to ahingas (C5), if it is connected to Lith. akstinas ‘thorn; reason’ as suggested by Thomsen (1890: 157). Group III. Forest beekeeping This semantic category has been researched especially by Vaba, who has posited a hypothesis that the forest beekeeping in southern Estonia emerged as a result of Baltic contacts (Vaba 1990a). A. Relatively clear etymologies 16. vaha ‘wax’ ~ Lith. vaškas, Latv. vasks id. (Weske 1890: 170) B. Dubious etymologies 9. Est. kärg (dial. kärr, käri, kärv) ‘honeycomb’ ~ Lith. korys, Latv. kƩres id. (Vaba 1990a: 174–75). Est. kärg = MdE keŕaz; possibly = Mari karaš, käraš, Udm. karas (see Pareren 2008: 27). Perhaps Udmurt and Mari have borrowed the Finnic-Mordvinic word, as Tatar and Chuvash have? 10. SEst. obs. kõno ‘rope ladder (used in collecting honey)’ ~ Lith. genys, Latv. dzenis ‘foot hook for climbing on trees’ (Vaba 1990a: 176–77). Semantically problematic. 11. SEst. obs. läng ‘hoist’ ~ Latv. liedzējs ‘safety cord’ or = Mari leŋŋe id. (Vaba 1990a: 177) C. Erroneous etymologies 14. Est. taru ‘hive’ ~ Lith. dravis, Latv. drava ‘forest beehive’ (Manninen 1926: 18). There are no certain cases of a metathesis of an initial consonant cluster among the Baltic loanwords (cf. C31). Certainly ← tarha (A17). 272 Santeri Junttila Group IV. Agriculture A. Relatively clear etymologies 17. tarha ‘garden, enclosure’ ~ Lith. daržas, Latv. dƩrzs id. (Thomsen 1869: 73). 18. kulo ‘forest fire; unmown hay’ ~ Latv. kūla ‘last year’s grass’, Lith. kūlė ‘threshing’ (Thomsen 1890: 190–91). 19. Est. kõblas ‘hoe’ ~ Lith. kaplys, skaplis ‘pick’ (Toivonen 1917b: 36–38)5. 20. vako ‘furrow’ ~ Lith., Latv. vaga id. (Donner 1884: 267). 21. siemen ‘seed’ ~ Lith. pl sėmenys ‘linseed’ (Thomsen 1869: 5). 22. siikanen ‘(barley) awn’ ~ Lith. dygas Latv. dial. dīgs ‘thorn’ (Posti 1969). 23. pelu ‘husk, chip’ ~ Lith., Latv. pelus, OPr pelwo ‘husk’ (Thomsen 1890: 207). 24. rouhia ‘to bruise, mill’ ~ Latv. krausēt id., Lith. kraušyti ‘to strike’. (Kalima 1936: 156). 25. vakka ‘type of wooden vessel with a cap; cereal gauge’ ~ Lith. voka ‘cover, eyelid’, vokas ‘cereal gauge’, Latv. vƩks ‘lid, cover’ (Koivulehto 1990: 152). 26. talkoot ‘bee, work party’ ~ Lith., Latv. talka id. (Donner 1884: 266). 27. herne ‘pea’ ~ Lith. žirnis, Latv. zirnis id. (Thomsen 1869: 48). 28. puuro ‘porridge’ ~ Lith., Latv. putra id. (Thomsen 1890: 210). 29. hiiva ‘yeast’ ~ Lith. šyvas ‘gray; home-made ale’ (Plöger 1982: 93 (Koivulehto)). B. Dubious etymologies 12. metsä ‘forest’ ~ Lith. medis ‘tree; wood’, Latv. mežs ‘forest’ (Thomsen 1869: 80). However, the word has also been compared to Saa meahčči ‘periphery’ and Hungarian messze ‘far away’ (see SSA II: 163). 13. halme ‘swidden being cultivated’ ~ Lith. želmuo, Latv. zelmenis ‘sprout’ (Thomsen 1890: 245–46). The concurring Germanic etymology (~ Swed. halm < PGmc *halmaz, cf. ‘straw’, Toivonen 1917b: 6–8) is not worse in any sense. 14. huhta ‘burnt swidden’ ~ Baltic *šukta ‘set in fire’ (Koivulehto 1991: 31–32). Later, Koivulehto (1999: 225–26) has preferred an Iranian original, since the proposed stem is not attested in Baltic. 15. ätelä ‘aftergrass’ ~ Lith. atolas, Latv. atƩls id. (Thomsen 1890: 159–60). The Finnish word is attested only on the islands of the Gulf of Finland, and is thus most probably borrowed from Est. where it may in turn be a Latv. borrowing (Ojansuu 1916: 202). 16. taimi ‘seedling, plant’, cf. C7 (Thomsen 1869: 151). The Baltic form is hypothetical. 5. Est. kõblas certainly not ~ Lith. kopla ‘kind of ax’ (Nieminen 1945: 528) The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 273 17. ohra ‘barley’ ~ Lith. aštrus ‘acute, bitter’ (Ojansuu 1921: 27–28). In this book, Petri Kallio proposes an elegant possibility to avoid reconstructing *str as the only three-consonant cluster in Early PFi by supposing ohra an Aryan etymology. That would drop also ahrain (B6) from among the Baltic loanwords. 18. Est. lina ‘flax, linen’ ~ Lith. linai, Latv. lini id. (Donner 1884: 265). As well < Slavic, cf. Russ. l′on (Thomsen 1890: 196). 19. SEst. judras, Liv. juddõrz ‘Camelina sativa’ ~ Lith. judrios Latv. judras (Thomsen 1890: 175). The Baltic word has remained thus far without an IE etymology, but it may be connected with Germanic *duđra-, a name of diverse (yellow) plants, including Camelina sativa (either < PIE *dhewdh‘yellow’ as in Schindler 1967, or ~ Sanskrit dudhra- ‘violent’, as in Orel 2003: 78), if the initial j- can be explained by a contamination with Lith. judrus ‘agile, frisky, stirring’. The South Estonian and Livonian words are probably of a later Latvian origin. 20. sato ‘harvest, (obs.) hayrick’ ~ Lith. statà, stãtas ‘row of shocks’, Latv. stats ‘unit of grain or flax’ (Nuutinen 1989: 28–29). The Germanic cognate of the Baltic words (PGmc *staþa-) suits as well as source. 21. äes ‘harrow’ Lith. akėčios, obs. ekėčios id. (Donner 1884: 263). A Germanic origin (PGmc *a iþ- ~ *a eþ-) is equally possible (Koivulehto 1971b: 591). 22. viikate ‘scythe’ ~ Latv. izkaptis id. (Nieminen 1955: 79). The explanation is phonologically very problematic, but perhaps not totally impossible. 23. ruumen ‘husk’ ~ Lith. grūsti ‘to beat, crush’ Latv. grūst ‘to shove, thrust’ (Thomsen 1890: 173 Baltic *grūd-men-). The concurring Germanic explanation (~ Germ. Krume ‘crumb’, Hahmo 1990: 212) is semantically less satisfactory. 24. pahmas ‘cereal gauge; threshing vessel in a mill’ ~ Lith. obs. bažmas ‘amount, mass’ (Ojansuu 1921: 29). Vaba (1996b) tries to bridge the semantic gap. 25. kärväs ‘(a grain drying rack made of) a branchy tree stump’ ~ Lith. kerėbla, kerėža ‘small wizened tree, stump’ (Uotila 1970: 3–6). Both the Baltic and the alternative Germanic etymology (~ Old Norse harfr ‘harrow’ < PGmc *harbaz, Koivulehto 1971b: 585–92) are phonologically somewhat tricky. 26. olut ‘beer’ ~ Lith., Latv. alus id. (Thomsen 1869: 55, 88). A Gmc origin is at least as plausible (PGmc *aluþ, see SSA II: 264–65). Baltic < Germanic? 27. metu ‘mead’ ~ Lith., Latv. medus ‘honey’ (Setälä 1897). A Germanic origin is equally possible (PGmc *među-, see SSA II: 164). 274 Santeri Junttila C. Erroneous etymologies 15. moisio ‘remote field; (Est.) manor’ ~ Lith. mietas ‘pale, picket, stake’, Latv. miets id. (Wiklund 1927: 308 Baltic *maita-+ -iōn). An etymology with impossible phonology, highly hypothetical morphology and clumsy semantics. 16. vannas ’ploughshare’ ~ OPr. wagnis id. (Paasonen 1909). Both the Finnic and the OPr words are borrowed from Germanic *wa naz (Karsten 1915: 84–85, Nieminen 1944: 28–30). The ploughshare arrived in Finland during the Viking era (<http://www.helsinki.fi/kansatiede/histmaatalous/peltoviljely/vetojuhdin.htm>). 17. sirppi ‘sickle’ ~ Latv. sirpis id. (Donner 1884: 269). Both < Slavic, cf. Russ. serp (Thomsen 1890: 12). 18. jyvä ‘grain’ ~ Lith. javai ‘grain’ (Donner 1884: 264). A more remote IE origin is evident since the Finnic word has cognates in Permic (Paasonen 1896: 12–13). 19. Est. singas ‘sheath where the cereal germ grows’ ~ Lith. digna ‘rainbow, corona’, dingti ‘to disappear’ (Vaba 1997a). Implies overly long semantic leaps. 20. sora ‘gravel’ ~ Lith. sora ‘millet’. (Tihomirov 1906: 146). The relation is phonologically impossible and the Lith. word lacks any IE etymology (Smoczyński 2007: 583). 21. ruis ‘rye’ ~ Lith. rugys id. (Thomsen 1869: 144). Surely < Germanic *ru iz; there are no Finnic *ihi-stems among the Baltic borrowings; the Baltic form would have yielded a Finn. form **rue (Thomsen 1890: 212–13). 22. SEst. rügä ‘rye’, cf. C19 (Ojansuu 1921: 35). Probably a contaminated form of Finnic *rukis ‘rye’ (Mägiste 1934: 80). 23. SEst. kesv ‘barley’ ~ Latv. dial. ciesva ‘hard grass’ (Ojansuu 1921: 16–17). Nieminen (1946) has disproved this comparison by pointing out Lith. kieša ‘thicket’. 24. porkkana ‘carrot’ ~ Lith. burkantas, Latv. burkƩns id. (Donner 1884: 266). The sound structure of the Finnic word is relatively recent and the first syllable o cannot result from Baltic *u. Possible explanations have been suggested by Bentlin 2008: 246–49. 25. Est. uba ‘bean’ ~ Lith., Latv. pupa id. (Kalima 1936: 174). Phonologically very suspect. 26. Est. pakal ‘tow’ ~ Lith. pl. pakulos, Latv. pl. pakulas id. The Est. word may rather be explained through Slavic (Est. < Russian pakl′a ? < Baltic, Thomsen 1890: 205)6 27. karpio ‘cereal gauge’ ~ Lith. karbija ‘big woven vessel’, OPr. carbio ‘mill case’ (Donner 1884: 267). Most possibly all these are from Slavic (Thomsen 1890: 183). 6. This etymology is missing in Junttila 2011. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 275 28. Est. rääts ‘kind of sieve or basket’ ~ Lith. rėtis ‘sieve’ (Thomsen 1890: 141). The long ä and the final -ts indicate a later origin. 29. sima ‘mead’ ~ Lith. syvas ‘juice’ (Ojansuu 1921a: 36). 30. kalja ‘low-alcohol ale’ ~ Lith. galia ‘might, strength’ (Liukkonen 1999: 68–69). The semantic leap is too wide. Maybe < PIE *h2al-ew-jo (Kallio 1998b). It is noteworthy that the stems A18 and B13–15 refer to primitive slash and burn agriculture, while none of the etymologies indicate more developed field cultivation: pelto ‘field’ is most likely a Germanic loan. Stem B12, the most common word for ‘forest’ in Finnic, is included here, since its existence implies an environment opposed to forest. An abundance of weather expressions among the Baltic etymologies may also indicate a connection with agriculture, especially since they all indicate harmful phenomena from a farmer’s point of view: helle ‘hot weather’, halla ‘summer night frost’, härmä ‘mildew’, ?kylmä ‘cold’, kirsi ‘ground frost’, räntä ‘sleet’ and ?pälvi ‘snow-free spot on ground’. Note that all of these, with the exception of the first one, refer to cold weather events. Group V. Milk cattle A. Relatively clear etymologies 30. vuohi ‘goat’ ~ Lith. ožys id. (Thomsen 1869: 58) 31. rieska ‘fresh; fresh milk; fresh bread’ ~ Lith. prėskas ‘fresh, unsalted’ (Thomsen 1890: 209) 32. mäntä ‘piston’ ~ Lith. mentė ‘shoulder-blade’ (Budenz 1875: 389 ?) B. Dubious etymologies 28. muli ‘hornless cow’ ~ Samog. šmulas, Latv. obs. mūle id. (Thomsen 1890: 226). The Finnic word is an i-stem, i.e. younger than PFi. However, the Finnic word may be ← *mula- < Baltic just as keli ← *keljä < Baltic (A53). See also B29 below. 29. vohla ‘kid’ ~ Lith. (diminutive) oželis ‘goat’ (Kalima 1936: 181). The absence of the vowel in the original second syllable may have been caused by the preceding h. 30. hehko ‘heifer’ ~ Lith. ašva, older eschwa ‘mare’ (Thomsen 1890: 146–47). The Finnic word could as well be ~ PGmc *exwaz ‘horse’ although its feminine counterpart has not been attested. 31. piimä ‘sour milk; (Est) milk’ ~ Lith. pyti ‘to take milk’ (Larsson 1984 Baltic *pijimas). The suggested original Baltic derivative is not attested. 276 Santeri Junttila C. Erroneous etymologies 31. nauta ‘cattle, bovine’ ~ Lith. naudà ‘advantage; property’ (Mikkola 1912). A Germanic origin (PGmc *nauta-) is semantically much better: Swed. nöt ‘neat’ (see SSA II: 210) 32. Est. tõug ‘race’ ~ Lith. daug ‘much’, Latv. daudz id. (Kalima 1936: 170). Probably = tõug ‘harvest’ 33. kerma ‘cream’ ~ Lith. grėjimas, Latv. krējums id. (Mäkeläinen 1978). There are no sure cases of metathesis of an initial consonant cluster among the Baltic loanwords. 34. Vote suura ‘cheese’ ~ Lith. sūris id. (Suhonen 1980: 205 (Ariste)). Most probably the Vote word is just a variant of syyra id. < Russ. syr id. 35. Liv. sõira ‘cheese’ ~ Latv. siers id. (Fraenkel 1965: 944–45). The regular Livonian representation of the Baltic diphthong *ai ~ *ei (> Lith., Latv. ie) is ai; õi is possible in somewhat more recent loans. 36. Liv. mändrõks ‘piston’ ~ Lith. menturė id., Latv. dial. mieturis id. (Thomsen 1890: 141). A relatively recent loan because of the -ks-stem. 37. maito ‘milk’ ~ Lith., Latv. maita ‘carcass’ (Liukkonen 1999: 92–93). Semantically impossible. Finnic karja ‘cattle’ may be excluded from this group, since its proposed Baltic and Germanic originals mean ‘army’ (OPr. karia, Lith. obs. karias, Germanic *harja-. (Būga 1980: 27, Nissilä 1954: 254–55). The same applies to two names of milk vessels: rainta ‘milking vessel’ ~ Lith. rakandas ‘kitchen utensil’ (Ojansuu 1921: 34–35) and lännikkö ‘a shallow wooden milk vessel’ ~ Lith. lenta ‘board, plank, table’ (Uotila 1970: 8–10 ← *läntä ‘linden’). Group VI. Sheep and wool A. Relatively clear etymologies 33. oinas ‘ram’ ~ Lith. avinas id. (Thomsen 1869: 55 73) 34. villa ‘wool’ ~ Lith., Latv. vilna id. (Thomsen 1869: 79) B. Dubious etymologies 32. vuona ‘lambkin’ ~ Baltic *ōgnas, cf. similar words in Latin, Greek and Slavic with same meaning; not attested in Baltic (Paasonen 1917) 33. karsta ‘wool comb’ ~ Lith. karšti ‘to comb’ (Mikkola 1894: 126–27 Baltic *karšta). An Early PFi *-ršt- could have in fact developed to rst since **rht is impossible in Finnic. However, the suggested original Baltic derivative is not attested. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 277 C. Erroneous etymologies 38. jäärä ‘buck’ ~ Lith. dial. jėras, Latv. jērs ‘lamb’ (Donner 1884: 264). The word could be < Slavic (~ Russ. jarka ‘lamb’) as Finnic ää is of late origin. 39. Est. utt ‘ewe; lamb’ is not < Baltic as claimed by Vaba 2011a: 753 but = Finn. uuhi id., with sure cognates at least in Md, Mari, and Permic (see SSA III: 379). Group VII. Other words connected with domesticated animals When this group is defined broadly, words denoting fodder, meadows and wetlands suitable for pasture, vegetation, and even insects living in these environments may be included. These are quite well represented among the Baltic etymologies. Some of the plants and insects named may be endemic in the Finnic area, but it would be worth studying how much their spread and conspicuousness is due to cattle breeding. It is possible that the first two words below, pahr and hanhi have initially referred to game (Group I). A. Relatively clear etymologies 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. SEst. pahr ‘boar’ ~ Lith. paršas ‘piglet’ (Anderson 1893: 240). hanhi ‘goose’ ~ Lith. žąsis, Latv. zoss id. (Thomsen 1869: 83). paimen ‘herd’ ~ Lith. piemuo id. (Thomsen 1869: 5 33)7. torvi ‘pipe, horn’ ~ Latv. taure ‘trumpet, horn’, Lith. taurė ‘bowl, glass’ (Thomsen 1890: 230–31). väive ‘chewing louse’ ~ Lith. vievesa id. (Thomsen 1890: 241). kupo ‘wisp (of hay)’ ~ Lith. Latv. guba ‘(hay) shock’ (Nieminen 1934: 27). suova ‘haystack’~ Lith. stovas ‘rack, stand’, Latv. stƩvs ‘stature; storey’ (Nuutinen 1987: 59)8. luhta ‘flood meadow’ ~ Lith. lukštas ‘Caltha palustris’ (Thomsen 1890: 197). heinä ‘hay’ ~ Lith. šienas, Latv. siens id. (Thomsen 1869: 33). korsi ‘cane’ ~ Lith. kartis ‘thin rod’, kartis ‘mowing, raking’, karčiai (pl.) ‘mane’ (Koivulehto 1979a: 137–39) takiainen ‘burdock’ Lith. dagys id. (Donner 1884: 268)9. vihvilä ‘rush’ ~ Lith. viksva ‘Carex’ (Thomsen 1890: 242). 7. The Baltic origin has been considered certain since Thomsen. However, a cognate of the Baltic word exists also in Germanic, though only as a feminine form (Old Norse feima ‘bashful girl, young lass’). A masculine form *faimōn may have existed in Proto Germanic. 8. This etymology is missing in Junttila 2011, where only an older Baltic explanation for suova by Kalima has been analysed and disqualified. Nuutinen’s etymology, instead, seems fully acceptable. 9. Another similar plant, the thistle, may have got its Finnic name ohdake as a derivative from *ohta- < Baltic, but the original meaning of the stem has supposedly been ‘awn, husk, small fish bone’ (Lith. ašaka, Latv. asaka, Posti 1977: 268) 278 Santeri Junttila B. Dubious etymologies 34. laukki ‘white spot on a large animal’s forehead; an animal with a white spot on the forehead’ ~ Lith. laukis, Latv. lauks ‘cow, horse, etc. with a white spot’ (Donner 1884: 268). In Finnic, neither the sound structure -VVCCnor the i-stems are old10. 35. karsina ‘pen (for animals)’ ~ Lith. gardinas ‘enclosure’ (Tunkelo 1928: 285–87). On the other hand, Gothic garda (Gen. gardins) ‘barrier, enclosure’ is both phonologically and semantically as close to the Finnic word. 36. tiine ‘pregnant (of animals)’ ~ Lith. dieni id. (Lõo 1911: 86). Liukkonen (1999: 144) has proposed here a PFi sound change *ei > ii, but it is impossible to reconstruct in the first syllable of inherited words. The other possible way to combine tiine with Baltic *deini- would be to suppose *ei > ii as a substitution pattern and posit the borrowing posterior to Finnic *ti > si, but no other such late cases have been proposed. 37. kiiliäinen ‘gadfly, botfly (a fly annoying livestock)’ ~ Lith. gylys id. (Mikkola 1906: 78). A Khanty cognate has also been proposed (Toivonen 1929: 67–68) 38. apila ‘clover’ ~ Lith. dobilas, Latv. Ʃboliņš, OPr. wobilis ‘apple; clover’ (Thomsen 1890: 156 Baltic *obilas). The Baltic word is originally with *dand its origin is unknown (Smoczyński 2007: 117). 39. angervo ‘Filipendula’ ~ Lith. vingiarykštė id. (Liukkonen 1999: 21). Liukkonen explains the omission of Baltic v- as being a result of dissimilation; however, this implies an unattested derivative Ba *vangarvƩ. C. Erroneous etymologies 40. Kar. kartta ‘manger’ ~ Lith. prakartas id., OPr. pracartis ‘trough’ (Mikkola 1894: 127 Baltic *karta). The semantics of the Baltic word is restricted to the prefixed form (Lith. kartas cf. kartis A44) and the sound structure of the Finnic word is relatively recent (-rCC-). 41. kyäs, kykäs ‘sheaf’ ~ Lith. kūgis ‘cone, stack’ (Toivonen 1917b: 38). The Germanic originals (PGmc *skukka- or *hukka-) proposed by Koivulehto (1971b: 581–83) are phonologically much better. 42. laukku ‘hole; dell’ ~ Lith. laukas ‘field’ Latv. lauks id. (Saareste 1922: 144). The Germanic etymology (~ PGmc *lauka- ‘opening’) by Koivulehto (1971a: 20–22) is both phonologically (a recent sound structure -VVCC-) and semantically more suitable. 10. Two other proposed i-stems of Baltic origin are adjective-like nouns describing the colours of domestic animals: halli ‘light grey animal’ ~ Lith. šalnis id. and harmi ‘grey animal’ ~ Lith. širmis id. Since all the mentioned Lith. words are Baltic deadjectival *-ij-a-derivatives, Thomsen (1890: 117–18) suggested that the Baltic *-ij-suffix has also been borrowed to Finnic to form names of domestic animals from adjectives (musti ‘black dog’ ← musta ‘black’). However, the similarity of the suffixes may be purely coincidental. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 279 43. luoma ‘brook; dell’ ~ Lith. loma, Latv. lƩma ‘depression, valley’ (Tunkelo 1928: 301–02). The intonation pattern of the Lith. and Latv. words implies a foreign origin. The Finnic word may be ← luoda ‘to create’. 44. loma ‘hole; valley’, cf. C41. (Sammallahti 1977: 124). The Finnic word has possible cognates in Saa, Md, and Mari, but the vowel of the first syllable does not correspond to Baltic *Ʃ (> Lith. o). 45. lamu ‘plateau, lowland, dell’, Est. lamakas ‘large block’ ~ Lith. lamakas, lamantas ‘block’ (SSA 2: 43). The Finnish word corresponds rather to Russ. lom ‘scrap, breakage; (dial.) marsh’, whereas Est. lamakas may be borrowed from Russ. lomot′ ‘slice’. 46. Liv. keŗk ‘cricket’ ~ Latv. circenis id. (Penttilä 1938: 495). The PFi shape of the Livonian word cannot be reconstructed without a relatively recent cluster *-rCC-. Vaba (2011a: 753) has included here also the anatomic terms karva ‘hair (not of the human head)’, Est. obs. hürn ‘fallen hair’, harja ‘mane; brush’, and sapa ‘tail’. The semantic connection with cattle, as opposed to wild animals, is still not obvious. Group VIII. Horses, oxen, and vehicles A. Relatively clear etymologies 47. juhta ‘draft animal’ ~ Lith. jungti ‘to attach, join’, Latv. jūgt ‘to yoke, team, harness’ (Thomsen 1890: 175). 48. härkä ‘ox’ ~ Lith. žirgas ‘steed’, Latv. zirgs ‘horse’, OPr. sirgis ‘stallion’ (Thomsen 1890: 249). 49. ratas ‘wheel’ ~ Lith. ratas id. (Thomsen 1869: 73). A PGmc masc. *raþaz id. would also be a suitable source, though only neuter forms (*raþan) have been attested, but another Proto-Baltic word for ‘wheel’, *kelan, has been borrowed with a different meaning (A72), which supports the Baltic origin of Finnic ratas. 50. kaplas ‘vertical support between skid and bottom of a sleigh’ ~ Lith. kablys ‘hook’, Latv. kablis ‘clasp’ (Liukkonen 1973: 25–30). The referents share a common shape. 51. ketara ‘kaplas (A50)’ ~ Lith. (s)ketaras ‘nape’ (Būga 1980: 72, Posti 1977: 265–66). 52. kausta ‘upper beam of a sleigh’ ~ Latv. skausts ‘nape’ (Posti 1970) 53. keli ‘road conditions’ ~ Lith. kelias ‘road’ (Thomsen 1869: 80). 54. lojo ‘kind of sleigh’ ~ Lith. šlajos id. (Liukkonen 1999: 86–87). 280 Santeri Junttila B. Dubious etymologies 40. orhi ‘stallion’ ~ Lith. aržilas, eržilas id. (Ojansuu 1921: 29). Another possibility is a derivation from ora ‘awl; penis’ (Ruoppila 1943: 38–45), but the derivational relation is not clear. The Lith. words ← PBa *aržis ‘testicle’ (Smoczyński 2007: 24). 41. Est. täkk ‘stallion’ ~ Latv. tekis ‘ram’, Lith. tekis, takis id. (Saareste 1924a: 47). The Est. word is a u-stem and thus preferably of later Latv. origin. 42. Liv. kēv ‘mare’ ~ Lith. kėvė ‘nag’, Latv. ķēve ‘mare’ (Toivonen 1917b: 36 = Skolt Saa. kiev). The Liv. word is an i-stem and thus most probably of late Latv. origin. The Latv. word is recent as well, because of ķ-. No certain IE etymology. 43. valjaat ‘harness’ ~ OPr walis ‘swingle-tree’ (Sköld 1982). Sköld suggests that the swingle-tree was very essential to the new kind of harness learnt by the Baltic neighbours, which could explain the meaning shift11. 44. jutta ‘yokeband’ ~ Latv. jūtis ‘joint, crossroads’ (Posti 1977: 263–64 < PBa *jutas). No certain Baltic original. 45. vehmaro ‘shaft of a yoke’ ~ Lith. vežimas ‘carriage’ (Posti 1972). The Baltic original would have been a *-ma-derivative *vež-ma-. 46. aisa ‘wagon shaft’ ~ Baltic *aisƩ ~ *aisa, cf. similar Slavic and Old Indian words with same meaning; not attested in Baltic (Lidén 1897: 60) 47. reki ‘sleigh’ ~ Lith. dial. ragės, Latv. ragavas, obs. raga id. (Thomsen 1890: 211). The vowel in the first syllable creates some trouble that Vaba (1997c) has tried to solve. C. Erroneous etymologies 47. paatsa ‘saddle cushion’ ~ OPr. paddis ‘harness’ Lith. padis ‘gantry’12. (Thomsen 1890: 205). Finn. < Old Swed. baza ‘saddle blanket’ (Mikkola 1893: 388) 48. hevonen ‘horse’ ~ Lith. obs. ašvienis ‘working horse’ (Liukkonen 1999: 44–48 < Baltic *ešvåinis). Finn. hevonen ← hepo id. ? < PGmc *exwa(Nikkilä 1991). Both Veps hebo and Liv. õbbi ibbi imply a development PFi *-p- > Finn. -v- and not vice versa. 49. kavio ‘hoof’ ~ Baltic *kapūta-, Russ kopýto id. (Liukkonen 1999: 69–70) No *-t- can be reconstructed in the PFi form (Veps kabj, Liv. käbƩ). The Baltic form is not attested. Finnic ? < Early PGmc. * Ʃfa-z (Hahmo 1988: 118–19). 11. Liukkonen (1999: 113) combines valjaat with Lith. pavalkai ‘horse-collar’, which is semantically (see C48) as well as phonologically impossible. 12. This Baltic stem was also combined with patja ‘mattress; (Est. Liv.) pillow’ by Būga (1911: 243), though the correct etymology (< Gmc *bađja-) was already given by Thomsen (1869: 140). The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 281 48. ranget ‘horse collar’ ~ Lith. arklio apranga ‘harness’ (Suhonen 1989: 213). The horse collar was an East Asian innovation that spread to Europe during the 10th century AD (Needham 1986: 317–28). The Finn. word has been explained from Swed. dial. vrang ‘boat frame’ (Mikkola 1894: 16–17). 49. länget ‘horse collar’ ~ Lith. lenkė ‘sleigh runner’ (Liukkonen 1999: 113). See C48. Finn. länget is most probably ← länkä ‘crooked, bent’ (see SSA II: 125). 50. ohja ‘rein’ ~ Latv. dial. važa id. (Ritter 1995: 196 EBa *wadžja- or Liukkonen 1999: 100–101 Baltic *våžja). Ritter’s explanation is phonologically invalid, whereas Liukkonen’s explanation is based on an erroneous hypothesis on the origin of Lith. važa (see Koivulehto 2001: 56). The Finnic word has a good Germanic etymology (~ PGerm *ansjō, Koivulehto 1981: 168). 51. rahje ‘strap connecting yoke or collar with wagon shafts’ ~ Lith. rezgis ‘plait, basket’, Latv. režģis ‘grid, grating’ (Liukkonen 1999: 112–114 Baltic *razgis). Liukkonen’s explanation of the semantics is not convincing. 52. ies ‘yoke’ < Baltic *ingis ~ Lith. engti ‘press, oppress’ (Liukkonen 1999: 57–59). The Baltic original is merely hypothetical, the semantic distance is long and the suggested substitution pattern Baltic *-ng- > PFi *ŋ has no support among the Baltic borrowings of Finnic. 53. rakentaa ‘to harness; (Finn. also) to build’ ~ Lith. užrakinti ‘to shut’ (Liukkonen 1999: 113). However, the basic meaning of the Baltic verb root rakis ‘to dig’ and the meaning ‘to close, cover’ of užrakinti is carried by the prefix už-. In addition, lava (A70), hihna (A71), and Est. sugar may originally have been connected with vehicles. The use of draft animals for work and transport seems to be fairly well represented in the Baltic layer of borrowings. In most of the dubious cases, comparative research into the semantic processes involving draft animal and vehicle terminology in other languages, especially in better-documented IE languages, could help in evaluating the proposed correlations. Group IX. Waterways and water transport A. Relatively clear etymologies 55. järvi ‘lake’ ~ Lith. jaura ‘marsh’ (Būga 1922b: 31 & a: 292–95 (Nieminen)) 56. lahti ‘bay’ ~ Lith. lanktis ‘reel, swift’ (Posti 1977: 267–68) 57. malo ‘brow, edge; crack; bay, shore’ ~ Lith. mala ‘edge, shore’ Latv. mala id. (Loorits 1929: 175–76) 282 Santeri Junttila B. Dubious etymologies 48. karvas ‘light kind of boat’ ~ Lith. karbas ‘basket’, Latv. kƩrba ‘basket; kind of fishing boat’ (Thomsen 1890: 181–83). Presupposes that the Baltic words are = Latin corbis ‘basket’ and not < Germ. Korb id. < Latin. There are diverse opinions, see i.e. Orel 2003: 163 and Smoczyński 2007: 255. The Finnic word may otherwise be < Old Norse karfi ‘inland waterway vessel’ (see SSA I: 320). 49. meri ‘sea’ ~ Lith. marios, OPr. mary ‘bay, lagoon’ (Thomsen 1890: 199). As well < PGmc *mariz. See Vaba 1997c for phonological arguments in favour of the Baltic etymology. 50. Est. rahu ‘reef; shelf’ ~ Latv. graužas ‘gravel; tidal sand pile’ (Vaba 1989: 215). The etymology would be unproblematic if there were not an equally good Germanic explanation < PGmc *hrauza- (Tunkelo 1913–18: 24–26). 51. ranta ‘shore’ ~ Lith. krantas id. (Būga 1908: 30). More probably < Germanic, cf. Swed. strand id. (see SSA III: 48) 52. liiva ‘mud; slime; sand’ ~ Lith. glyvas ‘sea slime’, Latv. obs. glīve (Thomsen 1890: 173). Maybe < PGmc *slīwa-, cf. Norwegian sly ‘slime’. SSA (II: 73–74) proposes that there are two homonymous words, liiva1 ‘sand’ < Baltic, and liiva2 ‘mud, slime’ < Germanic. 53. lampi ‘pond’ ~ Lith. klampa ‘marsh, swamp’ (Kilian 1986: 494). On the other hand, some proposed Samoyed cognates should be taken into account (see SSA II: 42). 54. valkama ‘haven’ ~ Lith. vilkti, Latv. vilkt ‘drag, pull’ (Nuutinen 1989: 44). Nuutinen proposed also a Slavic etymology (~ Russ. volok ‘portage’). A third possibility is ← valkaa ‘to leak, drip’, which is maintained by SSA (III: 339) to have a wide FU background. 55. laito ‘shallow water, grassy shore; (Est.) reef’ ~ either Lith. šlaitas ‘slope’ or Latv. slaids ‘sloping, slender’ (Kalima 1941: 210). More probably ← laita (C56). 56. Est. dial. tabas ‘fastening pole for a boat’ ~ Lith. stabas ‘pillar, column’, Latv. stabs id., OPr. stabis ‘stone’ (Vaba 1997b: 178). The distribution of the Est. word is limited to one parish at the Latvian border; thus it is more convenient to interpret tabas as a recent Latv. loan with Latv. -s nativised to -as. C. Erroneous etymologies 54. laiva ‘ship’ ~ Lith. laivas ‘ship’, Latv. laiva ‘boat’ (Donner 1884: 265) or ~ Lith. plauti ‘to bathe’ (Liukkonen 1999: 34 Baltic *plauja). Lith. laivas < Latv. laiva < Finnic < PGmc *flauja- (~ Old Norse fley ‘raft, ship’, Koivulehto 1970), since the Germanic original is fully documented, unlike its Baltic cognate suggested by Liukkonen. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 283 55. purje ‘sail’ ~ Lith. burė, Latv. bura id. (Thomsen 1890: 124 163–64 Baltic *burjė). Finnic < Germanic *burja- (~ Old Norse byrr ‘tailwind’, Koivulehto 1970: 182). Most probably the Baltic words are also < Germanic. 56. laita ‘(ship) board’ ~ Latv. laide ‘butt, stock’, Lith. nuolaida ‘allowance’ (Thomsen 1890: 193). No semantic connection. A homonymous Latv. word has a more specific meaning connected to boat building, but it is certainly not a borrowing from Finnic (Kalima 1936: 128). 57. lautta ‘float, ferry’ ~ Lith. plaustas ‘float, raft’ (Liukkonen 1999: 34). Liukkonen suggested a borrowing before the change *d-d > *zd, which, however, had already started in PIE (Meyer-Brügger 2010: 268). Group X. Textiles and weaving, clothing and shoes. A. Relatively clear etymologies 58. niisi ‘heddle’ ~ Lith. nytis, Latv. nītis pl. id. (Weske 1890: 215). 59. vuota ‘pelt, hide’ ~ Lith. oda ‘bark, leather’, Latv. Ʃda ‘skin, fell’ (Thomsen 1890: 205). 60. kypärä ‘helmet; (Est.) hat’ ~ Lith. kepurė, Latv. cepure ‘hat’ (Thomsen 1890: 185). 61. kinnas ‘glove’ ~ Latv. cimds id. (Lule Saa kamtes < Finnic < Baltic *kimdas, Thomsen 1890: 187). 62. kurpponen ‘winter shoe’ ~ Lith. kurpė, Latv. kurpe ‘shoe’ (Donner 1884: 269). The Finn. -rpp- is the result of a secondary lengthened < -rp-, attested in dialects. B. Dubious etymologies 57. Liv. vērbikšõ, Veps. bärbitada ‘to spin’ ~ Lith. verpti, Latv. vērpt id. (Thomsen 1890: 141 240 Liv., Posti 1946: 386 Veps). In any case, this is not the earliest word for spinning in Finnic, since kehrätä, a Finnic–Saamic– Mordvinic verb, is of Aryan origin (Koivulehto 1979b) 58. verho ‘curtain, cloth, Est. võru ‘ring, hoop, bond’ ~ Lith. veržti ‘to screw, tighten, tie together’ (Baltic *verža, Thomsen 1890: 241). It is questionable whether there is any connection between the Finn. and Est. word. An appropriate Baltic derivative is missing. 284 Santeri Junttila C. Erroneous etymologies 58. Liv. kȭidaz ‘weaver’s reed’ ~ Lith. skietas, Latv. šķiets id. (Thomsen 1890: 141). Cf. C33. 59. mytyri ‘kind of headwear’ ~ Lith. muturas ‘kind of headscarf’ (Toivonen 1917a: 87). This obsolete Finn. word is an i-stem without any Finnic cognates, and thus a recent loan from Scandinavian (~ Old Norse mitr ‘miter’, Toivonen 1917a: 87). 60. Est. kulit ‘pocket’ ~ Latv. kule ‘bag, sack’, Lith. dial. kulis ‘testicle, bag’ (Saareste 1922: 141). The Est. word is a recent borrowing from a Latv. diminutive kulīte, since Latv. kule < Russ. kul′ (Endzelīns 1925–27: 306). 61. Est. kaugas ‘pocket’ ~ Latv. kabata id. (Uibo 2010: 758–59). Implies very improbable, complex phonological processes 62. nartsu ‘rag’ ~ OPr. northe, nurtue ‘shirt’ (Vaba 1998: 178–80). A recent word, as revealed by the consonant cluster -rts-. 63. Est. vanik ‘wreath, garland’ ~ Lith. vainikas ‘crown, wreath’ (Thomsen 1890: 235). The first syllable vowels do not correspond; a Slavic origin (Polish wianek ‘crown’) could be possible, possibly mediated by Baltic Germanic? Vaba (2011a: 757) seems to suppose that Finnic kelta ‘Diphasiastrum complanatum, some other yellow plants; yellow colour’ has been borrowed from Baltic as a name for the above-mentioned plant, traditionally used for the dyeing of fabrics, and that the name of the colour has been derived from it. This is not in any way granted, since only Latv. dzelta has the dialectal meaning of ‘Diphasiastrum complanatum’, whereas Lith. gelta is simply ‘yellow colour’. Thus no innovation has to be combined with the borrowing. Group XI. Construction A. Relatively clear etymologies 63. lauta ‘board’ ~ Lith. plautas ‘kind of table’, Latv. plauts, plaukts ‘shelf’ (Thomsen 1890: 209) 64. malka ‘roof batten’ ~ Lith., Latv. malka ‘firewood, splinter’, OPr malko ‘wood’ (Donner 1884: 267) 65. seinä ‘wall’ ~ Lith., Latv. siena ‘wall; border’ (Thomsen 1869: 34) 66. uksi ‘door’ ~ Lith. uoksas ‘hollow’ (Koivulehto 1993: 34) 67. sakara ‘cusp, lobe; hinge’ ~ Lith. stagaras ‘dried up plant stem or branch’, cf. Serbian stožer ‘hinge’ (Kalima 1936: 203). 68. huone ‘room, building’ ~ Lith. šonas’cheek; side’, Latv. sƩns ‘side’ (Koivulehto 1992: 169–75). The original Finnic meaning should be ‘annexe’. 69. silta ‘bridge; floor’ ~ Lith. tiltas, Latv. tilts ‘bridge’ (Budenz 1873: 98) 70. lava ‘stage, platform’ ~ Lith. lova, Latv. lƩva ‘plank bed’ (Wiklund 1896: 45–46) The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 285 B. Dubious etymologies 59. hirsi ‘log, building timber; (Est.) pole, perch, rail’ ~ Lith. obs. žardis ‘long pole’ (Nieminen 1945: 531–33 Baltic *žirdis). A Baltic apophonic variant with *ir required for the etymology is not attested. Another possibility is a very old Slavic loan (~ PSl *žr d , cf. Russ. žerd′ ‘pole’), and it is not excluded that also Lith. obs. žardis is a borrowing from the same stem (preferably from Belarusian, see Nieminen 1949: 110). 60. sii ‘eaves beam’ ~ Lith., Latv. sija ‘bar, beam’ (Nieminen 1963 Baltic (Curonian) *sije). The Finnic word has also been proposed cognates in Saa, Permic, and Samoyed (see SSA III: 175). 61. sammas ‘column, pole, cairn’ ~ Lith. stambas ‘plant stem’, cf. Sanskrit stambhaḥ ‘column, pole’ (Būga 1908: 27–28). Kalima (1930) explains the Finnic word from Aryan. 62. talas ‘boathouse; (Est.) scaffolding’ ~ OPr. talus ‘floor’, Lith. patalas ‘(made up) bed’ if not < PGmc *stallaz (Hofstra 1985: 102) or = PPermic *tulys (~ Udmurt tylys ‘hut, tent’) < PAryan *tala- (Joki 1973: 324–25). 63. Est. keris ‘pile of stones in top of an oven or sauna stove’ ~ Latv. pl. ceri, ceras ‘oven stones’ (Vaba 1996a). It is hard to decide the direction of borrowing, since both the Latv. and Est. words have possible cognates (Latv. ceri ~ cerēt ‘to hope’ and Est. keris ~ Komi gor ‘oven’). A later loan Latv. > Est. is also possible, since keris has a recent stem form -ise- and the initial k- may be due to etymological nativisation. 64. sarana ‘hinge’ ~ Lith. sąnarys ‘joint’ (Liukkonen 1999: 127–28). Finnic sarana has also been connected to some Permic and Ugric words (see SSA III: 158). C. Erroneous etymologies 64. Est. dial. karts, kartsas ‘ladder’ ~ Lith. pl. gardys id. (Nieminen 1959: 209). Certainly a later loan < Latv. dial. kƩrde id. because of the cluster -rts-. 65. aitta ‘granary’ ~ PBa *aitƩ, a form reconstructed by Lidén (1911: 198–202) based on Slavic forms like Polish jata ‘granary’. Lidén analysed Lith. aitvaras ‘kite; evil spirit’ as *ait-varas ‘granary-guard’, but it can also be interpreted ← *ati-varyti ‘to chase away’ (Smoczyński 2007: 5); thus, there is no undisputed Baltic evidence of *aitƩ. The Finnic word has a relatively recent sound structure -VVCC-. 66. aita ‘fence’ ~ Lith. eiti ‘to go’ (Liukkonen 1999: 20–21 PBa *aitƩ). The Baltic derivative is hypothetical and the semantic distance is long. Finnic ? < PGmc *aiđa- ‘strait’ (LÄGLOS I: 17–18) if not = Khanty DN o´t ‘type of fish weir’, as proposed by Janne Saarikivi in a private message. 67. pirtti ‘cottage; sauna; kitchen’ ~ Lith. pirtis, Latv. pirts ‘sauna’. (Thomsen 1869: 83). Finnic < Slavic, cf. Old Russ. p rt ‘bathhouse’ (Nieminen 1953) because of the sound structure -rCC- and the distribution of the word: in Southern Finnic, it occurs only as a Finn. loan in Est. pirt ‘Dianthus deltoides’, but the Russ. word has been borrowed even in Mari and Chuvash. 286 Santeri Junttila 68. hulas ‘timber joint, round edge over hollow point, shelter in front of a building’ ~ Lith. šulas ‘pillar; beam; building timber’ (Nuutinen 1984). Smoczyński (2007: 651) explains the Lith. word as a loan from Polish szuło ‘wooden pole’ and the Germanic etymology for Finnic hulas (PGmc *hulaz ‘hollow’, Toivonen 1944) seems acceptable. Apart from A63–64 and B59–62, several different names for laths, slats, sticks and poles could be included to this group: aarto, ?hako, ?hara, kärväs, ?maila, orsi, ?pahla, ?parsi, seiväs, ?vanko, ?varras, ?varsi, ?varsta, Est. ?matar, sugar, tuber, and ?tõlv. However, they are extremely difficult to combine with a certain technological level due to their versatility and the simple design of the items denoted. Vaba (2011a: 754) has amplified the semantic group of building and technology by some words originally denoting something not belonging here. The original meaning of kohta ‘place, spot’ must be ‘front’ to be combinable with Lith. kakta ‘forehead’, Latv. kakts ‘nook’ (Uotila 1985). Rako ‘slit, gap’ (~ Lith., Latv. spraga id., Thomsen 1890: 219) and vaaja (B68) do not have to be borrowed as construction words, and riitta ‘pile, stack (of wood)’ is neither a construction word nor a Baltic borrowing. Group XII. Other A. Relatively clear etymologies 71. hihna ‘belt, strap’ ~ Lith. šikšna, Latv. siksna ‘leather’ (Donner 1884: 266 = Md kšna id.) 72. kela ‘reel, spool’ ~ OPr. kelan ‘wheel’ (Thomsen 1890: 185) 73. kirves ‘axe’ ~ Lith. kirvis id. (Thomsen 1869: 80) 74. lapio ‘shovel’ ~ Lith. lopeta, OPr. lopta id. (Donner 1884: 266) 75. luuta ‘broom’ ~ Lith. šluota, Latv. slota ‘broom’ (Donner 1884: 266) 76. kauha ‘ladle’ ~ Lith. kaušas, Latv. kauss ‘basket, bucket, scoop’ (Donner 1884: 264) 77. kannel ‘kind of harp’ ~ Lith. kanklės, Latv. kokle id. (Thomsen 1890: 178–81) 78. SEst. välmäs, välm ‘hank’ ~ Lith. velti ‘to felt, full, tousle, ruffle’, Latv. velt ‘to roll’ (Vaba 1994: 245 < Baltic *velma-). B. Dubious etymologies 65. kampi ‘crank’ ~ Lith. kampas ‘angle, corner’ (Leskien 1891: 214). Another possibility is < Germanic *hamfaz (~ Goth. hamfs ‘mutilated, maimed’, Toivonen 1917b: 12–17). An earlier suggestion ~ Lith. gembė ‘bracket, holder’ (Donner 1884: 269) is not correct. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 287 66. lasta ‘spatula, shake; (Est.) bar connecting wagon axles’ ~ Lith. lazda ‘stick; hazel’, Latv. lagzda, Opr. laxde ‘hazel’. As a highly durable and elastic material, hazel wood has been used to make several utensils; the semantic connection is still somewhat unclear. 67. pauna ‘bag’ ~ Latv. pauna ‘bundle, pack’ (Kalima 1936: 146). The IE etymologies proposed for Latv. pauna (see Kiparsky 1959: 424) are not semantically satisfactory. Thus the direction of borrowing is unknown. Since the Finn. word is most probably < Est., a recent borrowing from Latv. is also possible. 68. vaaja ‘wedge’ ~ Lith. vagis, Latv. vadzis ‘crook, hook’ (Thomsen 1869: 156). It is impossible to decide, whether the Finnic word is from Baltic or Germanic, since the PGmc form *wa jaz is almost identical to PBa *vagjas. 69. talpa ‘wedge, cleat’ ~ C6 (Koponen 1998: 182). Since Finn. talpa < Est. talb id., the Est. word could be < Latv. Semantically, the Lith. and OPr. forms may be closer to Finnic. 70. Kar. ola ‘silicon’ ~ Lith. uola ‘cliff, rock’, Latv. ola ‘egg, round stone’ (Toivonen 1952: 30–31 = Mord. al < Baltic). Another possibility is < PAryan *ola- ‘ball, round stone’ (see SSA II 262–63). 71. rauta ‘iron’ ~ Lith. rauda ‘ruddiness, red colour’(Wiklund 1896: 142–43). The older and better-known etymology ~ PGmc *rauđa- ‘red’ (Thomsen 1869: 143) is as well justified. 72. karta ‘sheet metal’ ~ Lith. skarda, Latv. skƩrds ‘tin plate’ (Donner 1884: 265). This etymology would be of great historical interest if it were the only sure Baltic loanword witnessing a use of metal, since viikate (B22) and rauta (B71) are considered dubious. However, karta could be alternatively combined to Germanic *skarda-: cf. Old Frisian skerd ‘section, piece’ ← Germanic *skeranan ‘to cut’. Even the Baltic words may be < Germanic, if they are not derivable from the same IE stem (Lith. skirti ‘to cut’). 73. SEst. kuvvas : kuuda ‘axe shaft’ ~ Lith. kotas ‘stem; handle, shaft’, Latv. kƩts id. (Thomsen 1890: 190). Nieminen (1959: 202) links the first syllable *ū to a recent Latgalian origin, but it is unclear if there is any Latgalian influence on SEst. 74. suola ‘salt’ ~ Latv. sƩls id. (Būga 1980: 131 Baltic *sƩlƩ). In principle, the Finnic word may be older and related to Md and Permic words (Erzyan sal, Komi sol, etc.), but this necessitates an irregular sound correspondence (see SSA III: 215); i.e. the Baltic explanation is phonologically the most suitable. 75. terva ‘tar’ ~ Lith. derva, Latv. darva id. (Thomsen 1869: 152 = Saa tarve). Again, the Baltic stem has a PGmc cognate *terwō- as an equally good source for the Finnic word. 76. SEst. täüdäs ‘(birch) tar’ ~ Lith. degutas, Latv. deguts ‘tar’ (Ojansuu 1921: 38 Pre-Latv. *degutas). The absence of *-g- in the SEst. word is somewhat hard to explain. 288 Santeri Junttila C. Erroneous etymologies 69. latu ‘ski track’ ~ Lith. latakas ‘duct, passage’ (Sammallahti 1977: 124 = Mari laŁə). The Lith. word is a loan from Belarusian, see Smoczyński 2007: 338. 70. turku ‘market’ ~ Lith. turgus id. (Thomsen 1869: 88).) Finnic < Slavic t rg (Thomsen 1890: 127). 71. rahko ‘splinter holder’ ~ Lith. raška ‘apple picking stick’ (Liukkonen 1999: 114). The original meaning of the Finnic word is evidently ‘forked’ (Nilsson 2001: 185). 72. SEst. palask ‘worn out thing’ ~ Lith. peilis ‘knife’ (Vaba 1988: 183). The words do not match phonetically or semantically. 73. suka ‘currycomb’ ~ Lith. šukos ‘comb’ (Thomsen 1890: 226) is a possible combination (Kallio 2009: 32) but the borrowing must be earlier than Baltic (i.e. Pre- Baltic, Proto-Balto-Slavic or Western Indo-European) because of the Finnic s-. There are two words distributed in Northern Finnic variants which have a proposed Baltic origin, but their phonology makes it impossible to situate them in the ancient loanword layer: Finn. puusniekka ‘husband living in wife’s parents’ household; stepfather’ (Būga 1980: 22 ~ Lith. pusininkas, Latv. pusenieks ‘coowner of land’) and Kar. tšiitalo ‘leftover animal fat’ (Kalima 1941: 209 < PreLatv., cf. Latv. cīkstalas id.). These could be connected with stems such as kirstu ‘coffin’ and kousa ‘large drinking cup’, which originate from Baltic languages but have spread through the region through mediation by Russ., Germ., or Swed. Conclusion To sum up, the context of the old Baltic contacts remains one of the key questions with regard to the prehistory of not only Finnic and Baltic, Saami and Mordvinic, but also Northern Indo-European as a whole. The key issue when studying the context is, in turn, the semantics of the loanwords, a matter still involving many open questions. A great part of the etymologies have not been critically evaluated yet, and a conclusive research on their context in the history of innovations should be performed as a co-operative endeavour involving all disciplines studying prehistory. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 289 References Aikio, Ante & Aslak Aikio 2001: Heimovaelluksista jatkuvuuteen – suomalaisen väestöhistorian tutkimuksen pirstoutuminen – Muinaistutkija 4/2001: 2–21. Anderson, Nikolai 1893: Wandlungen der anlautenden dentalen Spirans im Ostjakischen. Ein Beitrag zur ugrofinnischen Lautlehre. Mémoires de l’Académie Imperiale des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, VIIe Série. Tome XL, No 2 et dernier. StPétersbourg: L’Académie Imperiale des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg. Bentlin, Mikko 2008: Niederdeutsch-finnische Sprachkontakte. Der lexikalische Einfluß des Niederdeutschen auf die finnische Sprache während des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. MSFOu 256. Helsinki. Budenz, József 1873: Magyar-ugor összehasonlító szótár. I füzet. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. — 1875: Magyar-ugor összehasonlító szótár. II füzet. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Būga, Kazimieras 1908: Aistiški studijai. Tyrinėjimai lygintijo prūsų, latvjų ir liėtuvjų kalbômoksljo srityjẹ: I-oji dalis. Peterburgas: Imperatoriškosjos Mokslų Akademijos Spaustuve. — 1911: Baltica. – ѣ LXVI: 218–55. — 1922a: Marios ir jūrės. – Švietimo Darbas III 3–6: 285–95. — 1922b: Vókia, miksai ir Kuršas. – Švietimo Darbas III 1–2: 22–31. Cowgill, Warren 2012: Einleitung. – Warren Cowgill, Manfred Mayrhofer: Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I – 1/2. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 9–71. Donner, Otto 1884: Über den Einfluss des Litauischen auf die finnischen Sprachen. – Techmers Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft I: 257–71. EES = Iris Metsmägi, Meeli Sedrik, Sven-Erik Soosaar (eds) 2012: Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Endzelīns, Jānis 1909: Būga, Kazimir: Aistiški studijai. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, Anzeiger 9: 28–32. — 1923–25: K. Mü̃ lenbacha Latviešu valodas vƩrdnīca. Rediģējis, papildinƩjis, turpinƩjis J. Endzelīns. I sējums. Rīga: Izglītības ministrija. — 1925–27: K. Mü̃ lenbacha Latviešu valodas vƩrdnīca. Rediģējis, papildinƩjis, turpinƩjis J. Endzelīns. II sējums. Rīga: Kultūras fonds. Fraenkel, Ernst 1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2. Heidelberg: Winter. Gliwa, Bernd 2009: Zu einigen baltisch-ostseefinnischen Kontakten. – Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 14: 177–202. Hackman, Alfred 1905: Die ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland I. Die Funde aus den fünf ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr. Akademische Abhandlung. Helsingfors. Hahmo, Sirkka-Liisa 1988: Hepenistä hitusiin. – Omaa vai lainattua. Itämerensuomen germaanisiin lainasanoihin liittyviä kirjoitelmia 1. Helsinki. 95–120. — 1990: Itämerensuomen *-n : *-ne- -vartaloiset nominit. – Congressus Septimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Debrecen 27. VIII.–2. IX. 1990. 3 B. Sessiones sectionum. Dissertationes. Linguistica. Debrecen. 209–14. Hofstra, Tette 1985: Ostseefinnisch und Germanisch. Frühe Lehnbeziehungen im nördlichen Ostseeraum im Lichte der Forschung seit 1961. Groningen: Drukkerij van Denderen. Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. – JSFOu 92: 9–56. 290 Santeri Junttila Itkonen, Terho 1972: Historiantakaiset Häme ja Suomi kielentutkijan näkökulmasta. – Historiallinen Aikakauskirja LXX: 85–112. — 1978: Kantasuomesta suomeen. – Pertti Pesonen & Risto Kautto (eds), Suomen tieteen ulottuvuuksia. Porvoo & Helsinki: WSOY. 63–82. — 1983: Välikatsaus suomen kielen juuriin. – Virittäjä 87: 190–229, 349–86. Joki, Aulis Johannes 1973: Uralier und Indogermanen. Die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. MSFOu 151. Helsinki. Junttila, Santeri 2011: Collection of forgotten etymologies. Revisiting the most improbable Baltic loanwords in Finnic. – Cornelius Hasselblatt, Peter Houtzagers & Remco van Pareren (eds), Language Contact in Times of Globalization. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 38. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 77–132. Kalima, Jalo 1930: Parista suomen s-alkuisesta sanasta. – Virittäjä 34: 346–48. — 1936: Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia XV. Helsinki. — 1941: Balticofennica. – Virittäjä 45: 206–11. — 1952: Slaavilaisperäinen sanastomme. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 243. Helsinki. Kallio, Petri 1998a: Vanhojen balttilaisten lainasanojen ajoittamisesta. – Riho Grünthal & Johanna Laakso (eds), Oekeeta asijoo. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Seppo Suhonen sexagenerii 16.V.1998. MSFOu 228. Helsinki. 209–217. — 1998b: Kalja. – Sananjalka 40: 87–94. — 2006: Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. – Virittäjä 110: 2–26. — 2008: On the “Early Baltic” loanwords in Common Finnic. – Evidence and counter-evidence. Festschrift Frederik Kortlandt 1. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 265–77. — 2009: Stratigraphy of Indo-European loanwords in Saami. – Tiina Äikäs (ed.), Máttut – máddagat: The Roots of Saami Ethnicities, Societies and Spaces / Places. Publications of the Giellagas Institute 12. Oulu. 30–45. Karsten, Tor Evert 1915: Germanisch-finnische Lehnwortstudien. Ein Beitrag zu der ältesten Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der Germanen. Acta Societatis scientiarum Fennicae XLV, 2. Helsingfors: Druckerei der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft. — 1936: Beröringar mellan svenskt och finskt folkspråk i Finland med särskild hänsyn till Österbotten. – Folkmålsstudier IV: 435–542. Kilian, Lothar 1986: Zur Frage eines westfinnischen Substrats in Litauen aus der Sicht von Archäologie und Hydronymie. – Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 35: 481–502. Koivulehto, Jorma 1970: Suomen laiva-sanasta. – Virittäjä 74: 178–83. — 1971a: “Jäten” in deutschen Mundarten. Wortgeographisch-etymologische Untersuchungen. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia. Sarja B nide 170. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. — 1971b: Germanisch-finnische Lehnbeziehungen I. – Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72: 577–607. — 1977: Germanisch-finnische Lehnbeziehungen: drei Wörter mit fi. -aav- ~ ugrerm. -aww- > urn. -aggw-. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XLII: 132–47. — 1979a: Baltisches und Germanisches im Finnischen: die finn. Stämme auf -rte und die finn. Sequenz VrtV. – Erhard F. Schiefer (ed.), Explanationes et tractationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Hans Fromm. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. 129–64. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 291 — 1979b: Phonotaktik als Wegweiser in der Lehnwortforschung: die osfi. -str-Wörter. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XLIII: 67–79. — 1981: Zur Erforschung der germanisch-finnischen Lehnbeziehungen. – XVII: 161–75. — 1983a: Seit wann leben die Urfinnen im Ostseeraum? Zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der alten idg. Lehnwortschichten im Ostseefinnischen. – Juha Janhunen, Anneli Peräniitty & Seppo Suhonen (eds), Symposium saeculare Societatis Fenno-Ugricae. MSFOu 185. Helsinki. 135–57. — 1983b: Suomalaisten maahanmuutto indoeurooppalaisten lainasanojen valossa. – JSFOu 78: 107–32. — 1987: Zu den frühen Kontakten zwischen Indogermanisch und Finnisch-Ugrisch. – Parallelismus und Etymologie. Studien zu Ehren von Wolfgang Steinitz anläßlich seines 80. Geburtstags am 28. Februar 1985. Linguistiche Studien. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 161/II. Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. 195–218. — 1988: Lapin ja itämerensuomen suhteesta. Ieur. -Tr-yhtymän korvautuminen lainoissa. – Virittäjä 92: 26–51. — 1990: Zu den ältesten Kontakten zwischen Ostseefinnisch und Balto-Slavisch. Kommentar zum Vortrag von Tiit-Rein Viitso. – Sari Vaula (ed.), Itämerensuomalaiset kielikontaktit. Itämerensuomalainen symposium 7. kansainvälisessä fennougristikongressissa Debrecenissä 27.8. – 1.9.1990. Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus. 148–53. — 1991: Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 566. Band. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung Nr. 24. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. — 1992: Der Typus palje ‘(Blase)balg’, turve ‘Torf’ unter den Lehnwörtern des Ostseefinnischen. – JSFOu 84: 163–90. — 1993: Zur Etymologie von fi. susi, tosi – und kesi: eine Entgegnung. – Linguistica Uralica XXIX: 21–37. — 1997: Die datierung der germanisch-finnischen Kontakte, revidiert. – SirkkaLiisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, László Honti, Paul van Linde & Osmo Nikkilä (eds), Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt. Vorträge des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Finnougristik an der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 21.–23. November 1996. Maastricht: Shaker. 11–33. — 1999: Varhaiset indoeurooppalaiskontaktit: aika ja paikka lainasanojen valossa. – Paul Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 207–36. — 2001: Etymologie und Lehnwortforschung: ein Überblick um 2000. – FinnischUgrische Forschungen 56: 42–78. Koponen, Eino 1998: Eteläviron murteen sanaston alkuperä. Itämerensuomalaista etymologiaa. MSFOu 230. Helsinki. Korhonen, Mikko 1976: Suomen kantakielten kronologiaa. – Virittäjä 80: 3–18. LÄGLOS I–III = A. D. Kylstra, Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra & Osmo Nikkilä 1991–2012: Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. 292 Santeri Junttila Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 1984: Estnisch piim und finnisch piimä – ein baltisches Lehnwort? – Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 7: 129–40. Lidén, Evald 1897: Studien zur altindischen und vergleichenden Sprachgeschichte. Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala; 6, 1. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. — 1911: Baltisch-slavische worterklarungen. – Le Monde Oriental V: 197–204. Liukkonen, Kari 1973: Lisiä balttilais-suomalaisten lainasanasuhteiden tutkimiseen. – Virittäjä 77: 17–32. — 1999: Baltisches im Finnischen. MSFOu 235. Helsinki. Loorits, Oskar 1929: Mõningad läti laensõnad eestis. – Eesti Keel VIII: 168–89. Luho, Ville 1968: Die kammkeramische Kultur und die finno-ugrische Frage. – Congressus Secundus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum Helsingiae habitus 23. – 28. VIII. 1965 II. Helsinki. 47–57. Lõo, Jaan 1911: Meie koduloomade nimetused. – Eesti Kirjandus VI: 49–61, 81–89. Mägiste, Julius 1934a: Eesti laimama-verbi seletuseks. – Eesti Keel XIII: 108–10. Mäkeläinen, Osmo 1978: Suomen kerma-sanan balttilaisuus. – Virittäjä 82: 370–4. Manninen, Ilmari 1926: Ethnographica – etymologica. – Eesti Keel V: 13–19. Meinander, Carl Fredrik 1969: Dåvits. En essä om förromersk järnålder. – Finskt Museum 76: 27–69. Meyer-Brügger, Michael 2010: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9. durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter. Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius 1893: Etymologisches. – Mémoires de la Société Néo-philologique à Helsingfors I. Helsingfors: Société Néo-philologique à Helsingfors. 388–91. — 1894: Berührungen zwischen den westfinnischen und slavischen Sprachen. I. Slavische Lehnwörter in den westfinnischen Sprachen. MSFOu VIII. Helsingfors. — 1906: Eräs baltilainen lainasana – Virittäjä 10: 78. — 1912: Über einige altgermanische Lehnwörter im Finnischen. – Festschrift Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 25. Januar 1912 dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. 174–75. Moora, Harri 1952: PirmatnējƩ kopienas iekƩrta un agrƩ feodalƩ sabiedrība Latvijas PSR teritorijƩ. Rīgā: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. — 1956: Eesti rahva ja naaberrahvaste kujunemisest arheoloogia andmeil. – Harri Moora (ed.), Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Artiklite kogumik. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. 41–119. — 1958: Zur ethnischen Geschichte der ostseefinnischen Stämme. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 59: 3. Needham, Joseph 1986: Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering. Taipei: Caves Books. Nieminen, Eino 1934: Der stammauslaut der ins urfinnische entlehnten baltischen ā-feminina und die herkunftsfrage. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 22: 5–66. — 1944: Jäärä ja vuona sanojen oletetuista balttilaisista vastineista. – Virittäjä 48: 24–31. — 1945: Orsi, aarto ja hirsi. – Virittäjä 49: 524–33. — 1946: Südestnisch kezv und lettisch ciezva. − Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XXIX: 69−75. — 1949: Fińskie hirsi ‚belka’ – Lingua Posnaniensis I: 99–120. — 1953: Ein Beitrag zu der ostslawischen und ostseefinnischen Badeterminologie. – Lingua Posnaniensis IV: 211–28. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 293 — 1955: Die baltischen und ostseefinnischen Ausdrücke für Segel. – Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Neue Folge 72: 128–60. — 1959: Beiträge zu den baltisch-ostseefinnischen Berührunger. – Rakstu krƩjums. Veltījums akadēmiķim profesoram Dr. JƩnim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei. Rīgā: Latvijas PSR Zinātnu Akadēmijas izdevniecība. 201– 10. — 1963 = E. Nieminenas: Finnisch sii. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai VI: 177–82. Nikkilä, Osmo 1991: Auf den Spuren des Pferdes: Ist ostseefinnisch hepo doch ein germanisches Lehnwort? – Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher NF 10: 1–7. Nilsson, Torbjörn 2001: A new treatise on Baltic loanwords in Finnish – Linguistica Baltica 9: 177–94. Nuutinen, Olli 1987: Balttilaisten lainojen substituutiotapauksia. – Virittäjä 91: 52–63. — 1989: Satakunnan synty ja Kainuun kato. – Virittäjä 93: 11–49. — 1992: Pälvi – balttilainen laina. – Virittäjä 96: 403–09. — 1994: Hetkisen pituus ja muita kirjoituksia kielestä. Tietolipas 128. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Ojansuu, Heikki 1916: Suomen kielen tutkimuksen työmaalta. Sarja esitelmiä I. Helsinki. — 1921: Lisiä suomalais-balttilaisiin kosketuksiin. Vähäisiä kirjelmiä XLIX. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Orel, Vladimir 2003: A handbook of Germanic etymology. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Paasonen, Heikki 1896: Kielellisiä lisiä suomalaisten sivistyshistoriaan. Suomi, III jakso, 13. osa, 4. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. — 1909: Eräs liettualaisperäinen sivistyssana. – Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Esitelmät ja pöytäkirjat 1: 16–17. — 1917: Eräs liettualaisperäinen sana länsisuomalaisissa kielissä. – Virittäjä 21: 11–13. Pareren, Remco van 2008: Die direkten baltischen Lehnwörter im Mordwinischen. – Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 30/31: 69–147. Penttilä, Aarni 1938: Suuri liivin sanakirja. – Virittäjä 42: 491–97. Plöger, Angela 1982: Über die Entstehung des finnischen Stammtyps CV̄ C(C)a/ä. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XLIV: 66–98. Porthan, Henrik Gabriel 1859: Opera Selecta I. Helsingfors. Posti, Lauri 1946: Etymologisia huomioita. – Virittäjä 50: 385–386. — 1969: Siikanen sinun nimesi. – Juhlakirja Paavo Siron täyttäessä 60 vuotta 2.8.1969. Suomen kielen laitoksen julkaisuja 1. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis ser. A vol. 26. Tampere. 146–48. — 1970: Reen kausta. – Virittäjä 74: 165–7. — 1972: Vehmaro ja kysymys itämerensuomalaisen vetohärkäkulttuurin iästä. – Kotiseutu 1972: 153–6. — 1977: Some new contributions to the stock of Baltic loanwords in Finnic languages. – Baltistica XIII: 263–70. Ritter, Ralf-Peter 1993: Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Entlehnungen im Ostseefinnischen. Opuscula Fenno-ugrica Gottingiensia V. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang, — 1995: Über das Alter der baltischen Elemente des ostseefinnischen Wortschatzes. – Linguistica Baltica 4: 193–8. 294 Santeri Junttila Rozwadowski, Jan 1913: Kilka uwag do przedhistoricznych stostunków wschodniej Europy i praojczyzny indoeuropejskiej na podstawie nazw wod. – Rocznik Slawistyczny VI: 39–73. Ruoppila, Veikko 1943: Kotieläinten nimitykset suomen murteissa 1. Helsinki. Saareste, Albert 1922: Etümoloogilised märkused I–II. – Eesti Keel I: 15–24, 140–50. — 1924a: Leksikaalseist vahekordadest eesti murretes I. Analüüs 60 kaardi ja 1 skeemiga. Eesti Vabariigi Tartu Ülikooli Toimetused B VI 1. Tartu. — 1924b: Etümoloogilised märkused IV. – Eesti Keel III: 83–85. Salo, Unto 1984: Esihistoriallisen asutuksen jatkuvuudesta Suomen rannikolla. – Jarl Gallén (ed.), Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Tvärminnen symposiumi 17.– 19.1.1980. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 131. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 175–90. Sammallahti, Pekka 1977: Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä. – Virittäjä 81: 119– 36. — 1984: Saamelaisten esihistoriallinen tausta kielitieteen valossa. – Jarl Gallén (ed.), Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Tvärminnen symposiumi 17.–19.1.1980. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 131. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 137–56. Schindler, Jochem, 1967: Idg. *dheudh- in Farbbezeichnungen. – Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 68–71. Sebestyén, Iréne 1935: Az uráli nyelvek régi halnevei. – Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 49: 1–97. Senn, Alfred 1943: The Historical Development of the Lithuanian Vocabulary. — 1951: Alter und Herkunft der germanischen Lehnwörter im Finnischen. – Die Sprache III: 59–73. Setälä, Emil Nestor 1891: Vilh. Thomsenin tutkimukset suomalaisen kielihistorian alalla. – Valvoja 11: 459–71. — 1897: Suomalainen sana met u. – Virittäjä 1: 33–34. — 1916: Suomensukuisten kansojen esihistoria. – J. W. Ruuth (ed.), Maailmanhistoria 2. Helsinki. 476–516. Sköld, Tryggve 1982: Finnish valjaat ‘harness’ a Baltic loanword. – Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 5: 292–304. Smoczyński, Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Uniwersytet Wileński. SSA I–III = Itkonen, Erkki & Ulla-Maija Kulonen (eds) 1992–2000: Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 556, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 62. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus & Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Suhonen, Seppo 1980: Balttilaisten lainasanojen levikistä ja merkityspiirteistä itämerensuomalaisissa kielissä. – Virittäjä 84: 189–210. — 1988: Die baltischen Lehnwörter der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. – The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden & New York & København & Köln: E. J. Brill. 596–615. — 1989: Baltische und slavische Etymologien. – JSFOu 82: 211–21. Thomsen, Vilhelm 1869: Den gotiske sprogklasses indflydelse på den finske. En sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Den Gyldendalske boghandel. — 1890: Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) sprog: en sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Blanco Lunos. The Early Contacts between Baltic and Finnic 295 Tihomirov, I. A. 1906 = T xo ipo , . .: c a poc a c ie p a . – opo o ac o epc o ѣ 1903 o a 10–20 A yc a. T ep . 87–248. Toivonen, Yrjö Henrik 1917a: Etymologisia huomioita. – Virittäjä 21: 81–87. — 1917b: Huomioita lainasanatutkimuksemme alalta. – JSFOu XXXIV,2. — 1929: Beiträge zur geschichte der finnisch-ugrischen l-laute. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 20: 47–82. — 1944: Etymologisia huomioita. – Virittäjä 48: 348–56. — 1952: Zur Frage der finnisch-ugrischen Urheimat. – JSFOu 56,1. Toporov & Trubačev 1962 = B. H. To opo O. H. Tpy a e : c ec a a po o epx e o o e po . : . Tunkelo, Eemil Aukusti 1913–18: Suomalais-germaanisten kosketusten alalta. – JSFOu XXX,39. — 1928: Pari balttilaisperäiseltä näyttävää suomen sanaa. – Juhlakirja Yrjö Wichmannin kuusikymmenvuotispäiväksi. MSFOu LVIII. Helsinki. 273–302. Uibo, Udo 2010: Etümoloogilisi märkmeid (X). – Keel ja Kirjandus 51: 758–64. Uotila-Arcelli, Eeva 1969: Suomen sanojen mähkä, mähkiä alkuperästä. – Virittäjä 73: 179–82. Uotila, Eeva 1970: Baltofennica II. (Finn. *kärhä / *kärpä-.; finl. perkele, lännys). Euroasiatica 1970: 9. Napoli: Istituto Universario Orientale. — 1985: Kohta paikalleen. – Virittäjä 88: 310–8. — 1986a: Vihi, another Finnish trapping term from Baltic. – Baltistica XXII: 62–68. — 1986b: Baltic impetus on the Baltic Finnic diphtongs. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 47: 206–22. Vaba, Lembit 1988 = , . .: ax. – Baltistica XXIV: 178–84. — 1990a: Gibt es ein baltisches Fragment im estnischen Wortschatz der Waldimkerei? – Keel ja Kirjandus 31: 173–79. — 1990b: Die baltischen Sonderentlehnungen in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Sari Vaula (ed.), Itämerensuomalaiset kielikontaktit. Itämerensuomalainen symposium 7. kansainvälisessä fenno-ugristikongressissa Debrecenissä 27.8. – 1.9.1990. Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus. 125–39. — 1992: Eesti kalatõkkenimetus näri ja balti *ē läänemeresoome substituutidest. – Keel ja Kirjandus 35: 726–27. — 1995: Über eine Wortgruppe baltischer Herkunft mit südestnischer Verbreitung. – Linguistica Uralica XXXI: 81–5. — 1996a: Über die Herkunft von est. keris. – Linguistica Uralica XXXII: 33–35. — 1996b: Über die baltische Herkunft von osfi. pahmas. – Linguistica Uralica XXXII: 81–4. — 1997a: Über die baltische Herkunft von est. singas. – Linguistica Uralica XXXIII: 112–4. — 1997b: Ergänzungen zur Substitution des baltischen wortanlautenden *st-. – Linguistica Uralica XXXIII: 177–80. — 1997c: Ostseefinnisches meri ‘Meer’ – doch ein baltisches Lehnwort. – SirkkaLiisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, László Honti, Paul van Linde, Osmo Nikkilä (eds), Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt. Vorträge des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Finnougristik an der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 21. – 23. November 1996. Maastricht: Shaker. 225–31. 296 Santeri Junttila — 1998: Die Rolle des Altpreussischen Sprachmaterials in etymologischen Untersuchungen ostseefinnischer Baltismen. – Colloquium Pruthenicum secundum. Kraków–Warszawa: Universitas. 167–75. — 2011a: Balti laenude uurimine avab meie kauget minevikku. – Keel ja Kirjandus 54: 734–63. — 2011b: Language contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages – an exhausted issue in linguistic research? – Congressus XI. Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Piliscsaba, 9–14. VIII. 2010. Pars VI. Dissertationes symposiorum ad linguisticam. Piliscsaba. 44–52. Viitso, Tiit-Rein 1983: Läänemeresoome: maahõive ja varaseimad kontaktid. – Symposium Saeculare Societatis Fenno-Ugricae. MSFOu 185. Helsinki. 265–81. Vilkuna, Kustaa 1948: Vanhimmat suomalais-slaavilaiset kosketukset ja suomalaisten esihistoriaa Itämeren partailla. – Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja 27–28: 260–90. — 1965: Lahturi ja sima. – Virittäjä 69: 373–83. Weske 1890 = , . .: і і . ѣ і і , і і ѣ. VIII, . 1. : і . Wiklund, Karl Bernhard 1896: Entwurf einer urlappischen lautlehre I. Einleitung, quantitätsgesetze, accent, geschichte der hauptbetonten vokale. MSFOu X,1. Helsingfors. — 1927: Tahtoa, tahdoin, moisio. – Virittäjä 31: 301–10. — 1947: Lapparna. Nordisk kultur X. Stockholm, Oslo, København.