SANTERI JUNTTILA

University of Helsinki

Research interests: etymology and comparative linguistics, contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages.

THE LATEST HALF-CENTURY OF RESEARCH ON CONTACTS BETWEEN THE ANCIENT BALTIC AND FINNIC LANGUAGES

The Latest Fifty Years of Studies into the Prehistoric Contacts between Baltic and Finnic

ABSTRACT

The earliest contacts between the Baltic and Finnic languages have been studied mainly by Finnish and Uralic linguists. In this research context, Balticists most often cite Algirdas Sabaliauskas’s 1963 survey of the Lithuanian language. Over the past fifty years, knowledge of language contacts among Uralic language researchers has increased considerably. The article discusses the latest overall state of affairs in all four subgroups described by Sabaliauskas: Finnic loanwords in the Baltic languages, Baltic loanwords in the Finnic languages, grammatical similarities between the two language groups, and linguistic and archaeological circumstances in the context of prehistoric contacts.

ANNOTATION

The oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages have mostly been researched by Finnic and Uralic linguistics. When referring to these studies, Baltologists mainly quote a Lithuanian-language review by Sabaliauskas 1963. However, the Uralicist knowledge on the contacts has substantially increased during the latest half a century. This article presents an updated overall view of all four sub-fields Sabaliauskas treated: Finnic loanwords in Baltic, Baltic loanwords in Finnic, grammatical similarities between the two language groups, and linguistic and archaeological considerations on the prehistoric context of the contacts.

KEYWORDS: contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages, Balticisms in Finnic languages, Finno-Ugric studies, etymology, comparative linguistics, relations between linguistics and archaeology, Algirdas Sabaliauskas.

KEYWORDS: Baltic-Finnic contacts, Baltic loanwords in Finnic, Finno-Ugrian linguistics, etymology, comparative linguistics, relations between linguistics and archaeology, Algirdas Sabaliauskas.

102

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

Fifty years ago, the talented linguist Algirdas Sabaliauskas, who knew Finnish very well, published the article “Relations between the Baltic and Baltic Finnic Languages” in the journal Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. Sabaliauskas’s presentation of the subject was modern for its time and based on the best sources then available for research on loanwords in Finno-Ugric languages. Over the decades, research into contacts between Finnic languages has advanced rapidly, and today the view of ancient Baltic–Finnic contacts is entirely different from that of 1963. Nevertheless, in Lithuanian-language literature dealing with the history and prehistory of the Baltic languages, these contacts are still described on the basis of Sabaliauskas’s writings.

It is understandable to some extent that Lithuanian Balticists have not kept up with the level of discussion among Finno-Ugricists, since no surveys of Baltic–Finnic contacts have been written since Jalo Kalima’s textbook Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat (“Baltic Loanwords in Finnic Languages,” hereafter IBL, 1936), while the most important work in this field remains Vilhelm Thomsen’s Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) sprog (“Relations between the Finnish and Baltic (Lithuanian-Latvian) Languages,” hereafter BFB, 1890). In recent years, however, several brief surveys of the subject have appeared: notably, the English-language articles by Lembit Vaba (2011b) and Santeri Junttila (2012), and Vaba’s article in Estonian (2011a). The most recent lists of loanwords were compiled by Seppo Suhonen (1988) and Vaba (1990a), but these lists differ from one another and are partly outdated; cf. Junttila 2011.

The aim of this article is to offer Lithuanian scholars resources for filling the gaps accumulated over a period of fifty years. It presents the main directions of contact research over the past half-century and its most important sources. In selecting sources, an effort was made to focus on texts written in Indo-European languages, although sources written in Finnish and Estonian are also mentioned in connection with some etymologies.

Sabaliauskas divided his article into four parts: General remarks, Grammatical features, Baltic loanwords in Baltic Finnic languages, and Baltic Finnic loanwords in Baltic languages. All four topics will be discussed, but in reverse order, with the most important points—that is, the conclusions—left until the end.

Sabaliauskas’s term Pabaltijo suomių kalbos (itämerensuomalaiset kielet, läänemeresoome keeled, die ostseefinnische Sprachen) means the same as the later term Finnic languages. Baltic Finns belong to the same set of outdated terms as Volga Finns. Both terms could be misunderstood as referring to Finns living on the shores of the Baltic Sea and the Volga, respectively, so I will use neither here. Instead of the first term, it is better to use Finns; instead of the second, Mordvins and Mari. According to the modern view, the Mordvins and Mari do not form a single Volga Finnic (or Volga-Finnic) group; moreover, the Mordvinic language is more closely related to Finnic languages than to Mari languages.

Straipsniai / Articles

103

SANTERI JUNTTILA

FINNIC LOANWORDS IN THE BALTIC LANGUAGES

As Sabaliauskas wrote, most Finnic loanwords are found only in those Latvian dialects whose areas geographically border the areas of Livonian and Estonian. Others are found only in Latvian, and a few of them later also entered Lithuanian. This suggests that these loanwords are considerably more recent than the old Baltic loanwords in Finnic languages. Their more recent date is also evident from the fact that they show no sound correspondences like those found in the old loanwords. Vaba has investigated these more recent Latvian loanwords from South Finnic languages in detail (cf. Vaba 1997a, 2006). The latest work on them is Katerina Kollerova’s (2013).

Iš Sabaliausko skolinių sąrašo esama pagrindo pašalinti tik vieną žodį, t. y. lie. kadagys ~ la. kadiķis ~ pr. kadegis. Lietuviškas ir prūsiškas žodžiai negali būti pasiskolinti iš latvių kadiķis bei latvių žodis nėra iš finų, bet iš Pabaltijo vokiečių Kaddik, iš kurio kilo es. kadakas. Iš tos pačios reikšmės finougriskų žodžių – suo. kataja, es. kadakas, šiaurės samių gaskkas, komių kač bei mansių tarmių köös ir koś – neįmanoma išvesti jokios bendros pirmykštės formos. Jie yra, ko gero, substrato skoliniai iš nežinomų kalbų, kuriomis kalbėta regione, ir tos pačios kilmės, gali būti, yra lietuvių ir prūsų kalbų žodžiai. Tačiau lie. laiaos < la. laiva < finų kalbos, kaip rašo Sabaliauskas, bet fi. laiva nėra < germ. *hlaiwa-, tik germ. *flauja- (Koivulehto 1970: 178).

Sabaliauskas cites Paulo Ariste’s unsubstantiated claim that the influence of Finnic languages on the Baltic languages has been little studied, but that very old loanwords can still be found if one looks further. We now know that Ariste’s hypothesis is not supported by facts: dozens of Lithuanian and Prussian words have been proposed as Finnicisms, but none can be proven to be of this origin (Junttila 2014).

Researchers of Finnic–Baltic contacts have mentioned two possible reasons why there are no old Finnic loanwords in the Baltic languages. First, the Baltic dialect that was in contact had, of course, disappeared without passing any possible Finnicisms on to other Baltic dialects. Second, it was generally assumed that the prestige of the Baltic contact language was much greater than that of Proto-Finnic. However, according to Vladimir Toporov (1990) and also Petri Kallio (2014: 113), the old Balticisms in Finnic languages are not superstrate borrowings, but substrate ones.

BALTIC LOANWORDS IN FINNIC LANGUAGES

Sabaliausko baltizmų sąrašo pagrindinis šaltinis buvo IBL 1936, kaip antraeiliai šaltiniai naudoti: BFB 1890, suomių kalbos etimologinio žodyno pirmosios dvi dalys (toliau – SKES 1955 ir 1958) bei Laurio Hakulineno „Suomių kalbos sandara ir raida“ vertimas į rusų kalbą su Paulo Ariste’s priedais (Ariste 1953 ir 1955). Atskirą etimologijas Sabaliauskas ėmė iš Karlo Abeno (1947), Eino Niemineno

104

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

(1955 and 1963b) and the works of Toporov and Trubachev (1962). On the basis of the principal works on this subject, Sabaliauskas published an article presenting an overview for Lithuanian readers. It cannot be said that any individual Finnish source was better than Sabaliauskas’s Lithuanian article.

Sabaliauskas listed a total of 109 certain and 116 uncertain Finnic loanwords. He also included two Balticisms missing from IBL: heitii ~ heide ~ hedelmä (Toporov and Trubachev) and sii (Nieminen). In addition, many etymologies disputed by Kalima are listed in Sabaliauskas’s catalogue as uncertain (karsta, karta, kekäle, kirstu, laita, lielo, liika, riitta (Sabaliauskas misspelled it as riita), ruskea, sammas, teeri, varsi, Estonian karistama, Estonian kukru, Livonian kēv) or even as certain etymologies (Vepsian hähk). Sabaliauskas treated the uncertain etymologies in IBL as certain words: härk ä, tuohi and Estonian kurb. Sabaliauskas also marked etymologies regarded by Kalima as certain as uncertain, especially when another researcher had questioned them: those regarded as uncertain in Thomsen’s BFB, arta, meri, tarista and Livonian äistar; in SKES, elki, kelle, kääppä, laiska, lunka, napa and märkä; in Ariste’s work, hanhi, hihna and kappale; and, without a source, sapa, vinka and vuona.

Sabaliauskas did not accept all of Kalima’s loanword etymologies. In all, he omitted 11 etymologies of Baltic loanwords from IBL, among which metsä, halme, luhistua and vohla are nevertheless correct. IBL lacks a relatively large number of Balticisms proposed by Thomsen and other researchers. Consequently, the number of loanword etymologies in Sabaliauskas’s article remained fairly small. Had he collected all the etymologies from the first two volumes of SKES, he would have had 11 more, of which the possible ones would have been aatkela, ativo, kampi, kilijäinen and liiva. In addition, Sabaliauskas’s article omits good etymologies proposed by Thomsen: hara, juhta, oka, tumma, varpa and virta. Some likely or possible Balticisms went unnoticed by Sabaliauskas: järvi (Būga 1922b: 292–95), Estonian Kura (Endzelīns 1912: 71–72), kutsua (Mägiste 1923: 35–36), malo (Loorits 1929: 175–76), Estonian nuum (Nieminen 1959: 204), orhi (Ojansuu 1921: 29), Votic täudäs (Ojansuu 1921: 38), Livonian vērbiks ~ Vepsian bärbitada (Posti 1946: 386), and virka (Kalima 1941: 210–11).

Over the past fifty years, many of the etymologies mentioned by Sabaliauskas have been rejected and new ones discovered. Among the new etymologies, those proposed by Kari Liukkonen (1999) and Eeva Elina Uotila (2000) have been discussed in Lithuanian (Venckutė 2001 and 2002; cf. also kaplas and reikā, Liukkonen 1973). However, only a small proportion of the likely Baltic loanword etymologies discovered over the past fifty years are discussed here. More Balticisms have been identified by Lauri Posti (siikanen 1969, kausta 1970, vehmaro 1972, lahti, ohdake and Livonian kilandõks 1977), Jorma Koivulehto (karsi, kirsi, korsi, varsi 1979a, siula 1979b, pouta 1986, huoli, pola and vilja, 1987, peura 1988, joutaa, lieue 1989, lapa and vakka 1990b, Votic mõskma 1990a, huone 1992, väljä 1993, kaukalo 1994, kiire 1998, syrjä and Estonian matma 1999,

Straipsniai / Articles

105

päre 2001b, vuoro SSA III 475 ir hiiva LÄGLOS I 102–03), Olli Nuutinen (suova 1987a, seipi 1987b, sato ir valkama 1989, pälvi 1992), Vaba (es. lohm, es. loja ir es. rahu 1989, es. käblik, vs. kähr 1992a, es. näri 1992c, tarmo, vehmas, vs. välimäs 1994, es. ihne 1996a, ryhmä 1996b, es. hürn 1997b, es. sugar 1997c, rampa 1997d, es. vang 1998, es. vagel 2012) ir daug kitų tyrėjų (haitta Orrman 1993: 99–100, halea ir lenko Suhonen 1989, hanka Linde 1994, haven Hahmo 1990: 212, heijastaa Uibo 2007, helma Aikio 2012: 107, kuhista ir laukea Terentjev 1990: 30, leina Nirvi 1964: 138–64, muhea Salmela 1965, paukama Hahmo 1998: 228, peijas ~ peikko Ritter 1977, säetä Sammallahti 1998: 123, särky Ritter 1993: 14, valjaat Sköld 1982 ir varras Nieminen 1963a). Vabos (1990b) ir Eckerto (1990) išvados apie bendrą slavų, baltų ir finų bitininkystės leksiką irgi yra labai įdomios.

Arguments against the etymologies of Baltic loanwords proposed by Sabaliauskas did not make it into Lithuanian literature at all. This is especially regrettable in the case of words used as evidence in discussions of Baltic prehistory. The book Tautos kilmė (Zinkevičius, Luchtanas, Česnys 2006, hereafter TK) states: “The word pirtti ‘a dwelling hut with a smoke vent’ borrowed by the Finns shows that, at the time of borrowing, the Balts’ dwelling hut was smoky and had no chimney; people not only lived in it but also bathed there” (TK 2006: 41). However, Nieminen (1940: 384) had already demonstrated that pirtti is a Slavic loanword: it belongs to the Finnish i-stems, which are much more recent than the contacts with the Balts (cf. also Nieminen 1953:216–17, Vahros 1966:61–68). Finnish taivas ‘sky’ is likewise, on phonetic and semantic grounds, an Aryan loanword (Larsson 1984b: 132, Koivulehto 1990b: 149, Anttila 2002: 97); therefore, no claims about the ancient Baltic pantheon can be based on it, as TK attempts to do (p. 49). Important agricultural terms vannas ‘ploughshare’ and äes ‘harrow’ are Germanic loanwords (Karsten 1915: 84–85, Vilkuna 1971: 47–55, Koivulehto 1971: 591).

There is also well-founded criticism of the following loanword etymologies that Sabaliauskas presented as certain: Vepsian hä́hk (Wichmann 1911: 253, Kiparsky 1972), jäärä (Nieminen 1944), karsina (Junttila 2012: 278), kurko (Aikio 2009: 189–191), kypärä (Nilsson 1996), Votic kärpima (Mägiste 1977: 167–68), panu (Mägiste 1966: 117), salo (Ankeria 1954: 119–20, Saarikivi 2004: 204 and 208), sii (Linde 2007: 149–50), tapa (Kettunen 1934: 224–25, Koivulehto 1974: 115–118), Estonian uba (Mägiste 1977: 173–74), vaaja (Hofstra 1985: 189), vaikku (Mägiste 1960–61: 296–98), and virpi (Mägiste 1962: 26).

In view of the criticism expressed, the following loanword etymologies, which Sabaliauskas marked as uncertain, must be rejected outright: aitta (Linde 2007: 17–19, Junttila 2012: 285), ajattara (Lidén 1911: 201, Junttila 2011: 103), harakka (Mägiste 1953), jäytää (Koivulehto 2006: 191–92), Vepsian kabuta (Mägiste 1977: 162–63), kaleva (Eisen 1910: 11–13, Mikkola 1934, Toivonen 1955: 109–22, Junttila 2011: 107), Estonian karistarna (IBL 107), Karelian kartta (Junttila 2012: 278), kina (Koivulehto 2001b: 51), kirstu (Kalima 1919:

SANTERI JUNTTILA

106

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

113–14, Büga 1922a: 170–71), kyyttö (Matikainen 1962), kyäs (LÄGLOS II 138–39), laita ‘condition’ (Karsten 1937: 183, Skardžius 1957: 377, LÄGLOS II 157), laita ‘side’ (Karsten 1937: 183, LÄGLOS II 157, Junttila 2012: 283), Est. nuulk (Vasmer 1920), mytyri (Junttila 2012: 284), Karel. nautti (Junttila 2011: 103), paarre (Wiklund 1904: 156), rahna (Nieminen 1940: 380, Junttila 2011: 103), rahtu (Mägiste 1977: 169–70, Junttila 2011: 113), raisu (Junttila 2011: 103), rasti (Närhi 1960), rata (Nieminen 1940: 381), riitta (IBL 156), ruopas (Junttila 2011: 103), ruskea (IBL 158), suova (Nuutinen 1987a), tarpa (Junttila 2012: 270), teeri (Larsson 1981b: 37–39, Linde 2007: 165–66), and varsi (IBL 177–78).

A misconception found in the Lithuanian-language tradition concerning the history of research on Balticisms needs to be corrected. It arose only after Sabaliauskas’s article relating to the publication of Kazimieras Jaunius’s manuscript. Klimavičius (1977: 6) writes that at the beginning of the research “the palm of precedence should be awarded to K. Jaunius, who wrote two substantial etymological booklets” in 1879, before V. Thomsen. Thomsen’s work on Balticisms did not begin, however, with the publication of his major work in 1890, but as early as 1869, when his dissertation on Germanic loanwords in Finnic languages appeared. In it, he succeeded in characterizing the Finnic layer of Balticisms in much the same way as Sabaliauskas wrote about it roughly a hundred years later.

GRAMMATICAL FEATURES

With regard to the possibilities of grammatical change in (pre)historical language contact, contemporary researchers have more to say than their predecessors did 50 years ago, primarily because we now know much more about the world’s languages than was known then. In particular, Thomsen’s and Kaufman’s early works in this field provided researchers with tools for assessing language changes arising from contact. Thomsen and Kaufman divided the effects of contact into superstrate-induced borrowing (borrowing) and substrate influence (shift-induced interference): in the first case, the speech communities do not disappear through contact, and the community transmitting linguistic material occupies a stronger position than the community receiving it; in the second case, speakers of the language receiving linguistic material shift to the language transmitting it.

In borrowing, it is primarily the lexicon that spreads from one language to another, and only subsequently other linguistic material, such as phonetic and syntactic features. There are no old Finnic loanwords in Lithuanian, so no other kind of loanword influence can be assumed. However, Finnic languages contain so many lexical Balticisms that it is possible to assume that Baltic languages also influenced syntax and phonetics.

Lauri Posti (1953–54) wrote about the influence of a Baltic superstrate on Finnic phonetics, but Sabaliauskas did not mention his research (for a critique of Posti, see also Kallio 2000).

Straipsniai / Articles

107

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Despite this, Sabaliauskas listed the main (morpho)syntactic phenomena presented as effects of contact: compound past-tense forms of verbs, agreement of modifiers, the use of the instrumental as a predicate, and the genitive as the complement of a negative clause. He also mentioned two morphological categories: the Lithuanian endings of the conditional mood and the illative.

In terms of their use, compound forms of Finnic verbs (Est. olen lugenud, olin lugenud) are much closer to Germanic than to Baltic tenses. Ariste devised a connection between them and Baltic contacts, having no basis for it other than a desire to downplay the influence of Germanic languages on Finnic. Likewise, modifier agreement (uus maja; uuele majale) is more plausibly attributed to Germanic than to Baltic influence.

Sabaliauskas presented the other grammatical features he mentioned as possible effects of a Finnic substrate on Baltic languages. According to current concepts, substrate influence generally begins with syntax and phonology and affects only well-defined lexical domains, such as terms for nature and places. Since Lithuanian has no phonetic Finno-Ugricisms (Kallio 2001), nor words of Finno-Ugric origin, and no place names can be identified, it is easier to assume that the semantic features reflect Baltic influence on Finnic languages—if they are not a common substrate inherited from some unknown language of the past.

At least in Lithuanian, the use of the instrumental as a predicate is more likely due to Polish influence than to a Finno-Ugric substrate. A more complex phenomenon is the Finnic partitive, whose use corresponds quite closely to the use of the Lithuanian partitive genitive. Other Finno-Ugric languages have no partitive category, but similar phenomena occur in Polish and in Russian dialects. Thus, contrary to Sabaliauskas’s view, this may be considered Baltic influence on Finnic languages. Lars-Gunnar Larsson has extensively studied the partitive and its relations to the Lithuanian genitive (1981a, 1984a and 2001).

A shift in morphological categories is the least likely effect of either type of contact. Thus, the Lithuanian k-imperative is only weakly connected with Finnic, as is the illative ending, which Sabaliauskas quite rightly doubted was anything more than something that accidentally resembled the Finnish illative. However, the Lithuanian system of secondary local cases, unique within the Indo-European language family, points to an explanation involving some substrate that also influenced the development of the Finnic local-case system—that is, it is not a feature common to the Finno-Ugric languages.

GENERAL REMARKS

The most important part of Sabaliauskas’s article, the one presenting its conclusion, is unfortunately also the most outdated. At the very beginning of the article, Sabaliauskas states that “there are various opinions about the antiquity of the relations between the Balts and their northern neighbors, the Baltic Finns.” He first presents the view of the “Soviet archaeologists” Briusov and Moora, according to which “the ancestors of the present-day

108

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

Finno-Ugric peoples” lived “in the third millennium BCE in the forest zone of Eastern Europe, which also included the Baltic region,” “subsisting mainly on hunting and fishing” and making “pit-and-comb, or comb, pottery.” Later, “in the third millennium BCE,” “the ancestors of the present-day Balts” arrived in the Baltic region; they “were well acquainted with animal husbandry and agriculture and used corded pottery.” According to Sabaliauskas, this theory is supported by “other Soviet historians and scholars as well” (Sabaliauskas 1963: 109).

Such an opening should prompt readers to ask critical questions. How can archaeologists know what kind of pottery the ancestors of present-day Finno-Ugric peoples or Balts made, in which part of the world they lived, and what language they spoke? How can they know that some speakers of Proto-Baltic did not change their language as circumstances changed, and that their descendants do not speak other languages today? How can we know that all producers of corded pottery, and only they, spoke Baltic from beginning to end, over millennia? Are “Balts” and “Finno-Ugric peoples” not linguistically defined groups, whose identification belongs to linguistics rather than archaeology? Unfortunately, these questions have still not been raised in Lithuanian linguistics; even decades after Sabaliauskas’s article, archaeological texts continue to dominate the discussion, presenting “Balticness” and “Finno-Ugricness” as properties of known prehistoric archaeological cultures, irrespective of linguistic arguments.

If the terms “Balts” and “Finns” are defined as “speakers of Baltic and Finnic languages,” then Sabaliauskas cannot criticize Eino Nieminen’s (Nieminen 1934 and 1956) idea, as he does, that Baltic loanwords derive not from Proto-Baltic but from its northern dialects, whose speakers Nieminen called the ancient Curonians. Sabaliauskas’s only argument was that “it is difficult to imagine that in the second millennium BCE Proto-Baltic could have split into separate languages,” since archaeologists dated corded pottery to the second millennium BCE. But Nieminen considered the contacts to be much more recent and did not associate them with corded pottery. He relied on arguments concerning the phonetic features of the loanwords, which confirmed that their source was later than Proto-Baltic. It is true that the Proto-Baltic period could not have ended in the era of corded pottery, but this means that its contacts with Proto-Finnic must also have taken place later.

Sabaliauskas goes on to present the views of “foreign linguists,” that is, Thomsen and the Finno-Ugric scholars, on contacts between the Balts and Finns, criticizing them for being based on linguistic arguments alone. Here Sabaliauskas is mistaken: besides linguistic arguments, the views of Finnish Finno-Ugric scholars were also based on archaeologist Alfred Hackman’s theory of Finnish migration in the first centuries CE (Hackman 1905). On this basis, Setälä and other Finno-Ugric scholars dated the contacts to the period before the migration, that is, to the beginning of the Common Era. This indeed strongly supported Thomsen’s view that Proto-Finnic was spoken in eastern Russia up until the Slavic expansion of the seventh and eighth centuries (cf. Junttila 2012).

Straipsniai / Articles

109

SANTERI JUNTILA

Sabaliauskas mentions that Kazimieras Būga was inclined to date Baltic contacts to somewhat earlier times (1000–500 BCE), but forgets that Būga had taken this idea from the Finnish Germanist Tor Evert Karsten and the Swedish Finno-Ugric scholar Karl Bernhard Wiklund (Būga 1921a). Karsten, Wiklund, and Būga sought to establish dates on the basis of archaeology. Thus, Moora’s theory was not as new and unique as Sabaliauskas wished to present it.

A true revolution in the prehistory of the Finnic languages was brought about only by the work of the Germanist Jorma Koivulehto (1934–2014) in the late 1970s. At first, Koivulehto (1972) supported Moora’s continuity theory, but abandoned it after identifying in Finnic and other western Finno-Ugric languages a Northwest Indo-European, pre-Balto-Slavic–pre-Germanic layer older than the Baltic loanword layer. On the basis of their distribution, the Northwest Indo-European loanwords were borrowed in the Baltic Sea region, so they may be connected with the arrival of Proto-Finnic in the Baltic region and the first contacts with the local Indo-Europeans (Koivulehto 1983). For phonetic reasons, the Baltic loanwords must be considerably more recent.

Thus, Finno-Ugric scholars have long ceased to connect the date of Finnic-Baltic contacts with the appearance of the Battle Axe culture. Koivulehto and his contemporaries placed them in the late Neolithic Kiukainen culture, but their dates (Carpelan-Parpola (2001: 89–90) mention 2300–1600 BCE) did not differ greatly from Moora’s dating. This was possible because in the 1980s archaeologists began using calibrated C14 dates, which indicated that prehistoric cultures were older than previously thought (Carpelan-Parpola 2001: 55–58); in other words, all dates shifted earlier. Moora initially dated the Battle Axe (Corded Ware) culture to 2000–1800 BCE, but according to calibrated dates it began as early as 3200–3000 BCE (Parpola 2012: 129). It is strange that old, uncalibrated dates are still mentioned in some Lithuanian literature (e.g. TK 2006). Modern calibrated dates clearly indicate that Proto-Baltic cannot be associated with corded pottery, since at that time Lithuanian would have had to remain almost unchanged for millennia (Koivulehto 1983: 136).

The views of Finno-Ugric scholars changed rapidly over the past ten years, and syntheses produced around the turn of the millennium, such as Carpelan-Parpola 2001, are already outdated (see Parpola 2012: 119–21). Almost everyone now acknowledges that comb-and-pit pottery, which spread from 4200 BCE, is too distant in time to be associated with Proto-Finnic (Aikio 2012: 98–99). A language cannot remain unchanged for so long. Moreover, Finno-Ugric languages also contain shared metallurgical terms, ruling out Stone Age datings, as well as relatively recent Aryan loanwords, which must have been borrowed before the Finns arrived on the shores of the Baltic Sea (Parpola 2012).

Most of the younger generation of Finno-Ugric scholars have abandoned the assumption that the spread of languages always left archaeological traces (Aikio 2012: 81, 97–102). Some of them

110

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

no longer attempts to link Proto-Finnic with any known archaeological culture (Saarikivi-Lavento 2012), and is supported by some archaeologists who have begun to doubt that prehistoric cultures existed as real-world objects (Damm 2012). Those Finno-Ugrists who, when dating language contacts, still rely on archaeologists’ views about prehistoric cultural periods associate the spread of Finno-Ugric languages, for example, with the Seima-Turbino intercultural trade network of the Early Bronze Age (Parpola 2012).

It seems that the Indo-European variety from which Proto-Baltic developed was spoken in the Baltic region even before Proto-Finnic spread northward into the eastern Baltic from the east (Junttila 2012, Parpola 2012: 133). Sabaliauskas once argued for the opposing view of archaeologists on the basis of possible Lithuanian place names of Finnish origin. He maintained that there were few of them and that they were contentious. In fact, there is not a single place name in Lithuania, East Prussia, or southern Latvia whose Finnic character is clear. The hypothesis of a substrate of Proto-Finnic place names was proposed by Rozwadowski as early as 1913, and Vasmer (1934) had already presented substantial arguments against it. However, Zinkevičius (1984: 154–58) expressed a less critical view than Sabaliauskas regarding “Finnish place names” and repeats it verbatim in his latest works (Zinkevičius 2005: 29–34).

Those place names have not yet been studied using modern onomastic methods. It is true that settlements and finds belonging to the Comb and Pit Ware culture, dating to the fourth to second millennia BC, have been discovered in places where Balticists believe there are “suspicious” Finno-Ugric hydronyms. But if we cannot associate Finnic languages with Comb and Pit Ware, we cannot associate them with these place names either. Since the time of Aleksandras Vanagas, the methods of onomastics have developed rapidly (cf. Vanagas 1966 and Saarikivi 2007: the former merely mentioned Finnish words resembling elements of Lithuanian hydronymy, while the latter sought patterns by which clearly ancient Finnic place names had formed).

Where Zinkevičius’s account of Finnic and Baltic contacts differs from Sabaliauskas’s, it relies on sources of the lowest scholarly standing and is less critical. Sabaliauskas wrote that “only after coming into contact with the Balts did the Baltic Finns come into contact with the Germans and Slavs.” This, too, was the standard view until the early 1970s; it was based on Thomsen’s (1890) argument that Finnic languages contain no Germanic loans old enough to have undergone Proto-Finnic phonetic changes as Baltic loans *š > h and *ti > si (cf. Lithuanian šienas ~ Finnish heinā and Lithuanian tiltas ~ Finnish silta). Koivulehto (1972: 622), however, found several Germanisms that had undergone the same changes, but Zinkevičius does not mention Koivulehto (as, indeed, no other Lithuanian Balticist does). He does (Zinkevičius 1984: 176), however, emphasize Būga’s old claim (1921b: 13–14) that the Germanic origin of Finnic metal names supposedly proves that contacts with the Balts took place in the Stone Age, although it is impossible to prove that possible Baltic-origin metal names could not have been displaced from Finnic languages by loans of Germanic origin.

Straipsniai / Articles

111

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Koivulehto (1990b: 152, 2000) nurodė du skirtingus baltiškų skolinių *ā ir *ē pakaitalus, pagal kuriuos skolinius galima skirstyti į senesnį ir naujesnį sluoksnį. Kallio (2008) senesnį sluoksnį laiko prabaltišku arba prabaltoslavišku, o naujesnį – šiaurės baltų (plg. Niemineno senovės kuršius). Liukkonenas (1973) ir Vaba (1997e) taip pat pateikė naujų įžvalgų apie baltizmų fonetines ypatybes. Be to, Vaba (1990a, 1997c, 2011b) tyrė atskirą baltiškų skolinių pietų finų kalbose sluoksnį.

I will briefly mention what modern research can tell us about the influence of Baltic languages on Uralic languages other than Finnic. Sabaliauskas completely forgot to mention the influence of Baltic languages on Saami, and consequently it is entirely absent from later texts written in Lithuanian. It was previously thought that Saami had only about 30 Baltic loanwords, all of which had entered via Proto-Finnic. This is no longer certain, however, since Pekka Sammallahti (1977, 1998) identified several such Baltisms that are absent from Finnic languages. Koivulehto (2006) and Aikio (2012:70–76) also wrote about them. Hofírková and Blažek (2011) offer a fresh and principled perspective on Baltic influence on Saami languages.

Two surveys have been written on Baltic lexicon in Mordvin: Pareren 2008 and Grünt-hal 2012. Its precise origin nevertheless remains unclear. The existence of Baltic loanwords in Mari is somewhat doubtful: Mägiste (1959) last expressed a negative view of them, and there have been no more recent scholarly studies of the subject. By any standard, the writings by Gordejev cited by Zinkevičius cannot be taken seriously. Sabaliauskas mentioned Serebrennikov’s hypothesis that many Mari and Mordvin words regarded as being of Baltic origin derive from an unknown Indo-European language spoken in the Volga-Klyazma region before the arrival of the Slavs. Sabaliauskas correctly points out that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis (see Vaba 1983). The subject still has many unanswered questions that require research.

Finally, I would like to mention the field of genetics, which has completely supplanted the physical anthropology of the last century in research into the past of human populations. Genetic results are, as is well known, more reliable than craniological measurements, but linking them to explanations of the past of languages is also problematic. Archaeology, genetics, and linguistics study different things. Language is not often inherited through genes, since language shift in ancient times was as commonplace as it is today. Modern speakers of Finnic languages are genetically very close to the Balts, but distant from the Saami, even though the linguistic relationships run in precisely the opposite directions. Finnic and Finno-Ugric are linguistic concepts. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, it is incorrect to claim that the Balts had “Finno-Ugric genes,” or vice versa. Genetics or archaeology cannot explain when a language spread across a given area or where it came from. That is the task of linguistics.

112

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

LITERATŪRA

Aben Karl 1947: Eesti ja liivi laenud läti sõnavaras. Kultuurilooline uurimus. Dissertatsioon. Tartus.

Aikio Ante 2009: The Saami loanwords in Finnish and Karelian. Doctoral dissertation. Oulu: University of Oulu.

Aikio Ante 2012: An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory. – Riho Grünthal, Petri Kallio (eds.): A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266, 63–118.

Ankeria Juho 1954: Einige uralische Etymologien. – Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala förhandlingar Jan. 1952 – Dec. 1954, 119–24. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1954: 10. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Anttila Raimo 2002: Crossing the Fin(n)ish Line. – Journal of Finnish Studies 6, 93–108.

Ariste Paul 1953 – Аристе П. А.: Примечания – Л. Хакулинен: Развитие и структура финского языка. Часть I. Фонетика и морфология. Издательство иностранной литературы, Москва.

Ariste Paul 1955 – Аристе П. А.: Примечания – Л. Хакулинен: Развитие и структура финского языка. Часть II. Лексикология и синтаксис. Издательство иностранной литературы, Москва.

BFB – Thomsen Vilhelm. Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) sprog: en sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Blanco Lunos, 1890.

Būga Kazimieras 1921a: Priesagos –ūnas ir dvibalsio uo kilmė – Lietuvos mokykla 11–12, 420–57.

Būga Kazimieras 1921b: Visų senieji lietuvių santykiai su germanais. – Švietimo Darbas 5–6, 12–28.

Būga Kazimieras 1922a: Kalba ir senovė. I dalis. Kaunas: Švietimo Ministerijos leidykla.

Būga Kazimieras 1922b: Marios ir jūrės. – Švietimo Darbas III 3–6, 285–95.

Carpelan Christian, Parpola Asko 2001: Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. – Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, Petteri Koskikallio (eds.): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European. Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8–10 January, 1999. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242, 55–150.

Damm Charlotte 2012: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission. – Riho Grünthal, Petri Kallio (eds.): A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266, 41–62.

Straipsniai / Articles

113

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Eckert Rainer 1990: Baltisch-slawisch-finnougrische Entsprechungen im Wortschatz der Waldimkerei. – Uralo-Indogermanica. Балто-славянские языки и проблема урало-индо-европейских связей. Материалы 3-ей балто-славянской конференции, 18–22 июня 1990 г. Часть I, 111–15. Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР.

Eisen Matthias Johann 1910: Kalewipoja esi-isad. Tartus: Hermann,

Endzelīns Jānis 1912: Über die nationalität und sprache der kuren. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 12, 59–72.

Grünthal Riho 2012b: Baltic loanwords in Mordvin. – Riho Grünthal, Petri Kallio (eds.): A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266, 297–343.

Hackman Alfred 1905: Die ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland I. Die Funde aus den fünf ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr. Akademische Abhandlung. Helsingfors.

Hahmo Sirkka-Liisa 1990: Itämerensuomen *-n: *-ne- -vartaloiset nominit. – Congressus Septimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Debrecen 27. VIII.–2. IX. 1990. 3 B. Sessiones sectionum. Dissertationes. Linguistica, 209–14. Debrecen.

Hahmo Sirkka-Liisa 1998: Paukama ja pukama: deskriptiivisanoja vai lainoja? – Oekeeta asioo. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Seppo Suhonen sexagenarii. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 228, 121–26.

Hofírková Lucie, Blažek Václav 2011: Baltic loanwords in Saami. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 64–65, 51–64.

Hofstra Tette 1985: Ostseefinnisch und Germanisch. Frühe Lehnbeziehungen im nördlichen Ostseeraum im Lichte der Forschung seit 1961. Groningen: Drukkerij van Denderen B. V.

Haavio Martti 1965: Bjar mien vallan kukoistus ja tuho. Porvoo – Helsinki: WSOY.

IBL – Kalima Jalo. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat. SKST XV. Helsinki, 1936.

Junttila Santeri 2011: Collection of forgotten etymologies. Revisiting the most improbable Baltic loanwords in Finnic. – Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 38, 77–132.

Junttila Santeri 2012: The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages. – Riho Grünthal, Petri Kallio (eds.): A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266, 261–96.

Junttila Santeri 2014: Proto-Finnic loanwords in the Baltic languages – are there any? – Contacts between the Baltic and Finnic languages. Uralica Helsingiensia 7 (rengiamas spaudai).

Kalima Jalo 1919: Die ostseefinnischen lehnwörter im Russischen. – Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 64.

Kalima Jalo 1941: Balticofennica. – Virittäjä 45, 206–11.

114

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

K a l l i o P e t r i 2001: Phonetic Uralisms in Indo European? – Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, Petteri Koskikallio (eds.): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European. Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8–10 January, 1999. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242, s.221–34.

K a l l i o P e t r i 2008: On the ’Early Baltic’ Loanwords in Common Finnic. – Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32, 265–77. Amsterdam – New York.

K a l l i o P e t r i 2014: Substrates in Finnic. – Ante Aikio, Santeri Palviainen (eds.): Substrate Languages in Northern Europe: Case Studies and Methodological Perspectives. Studies in Language Change. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter (rengiamas spaudai).

K a r s t e n T o r s t e n 1915: Germanisch-finnische Lehnwortstudien. Ein Beitrag zu der ältesten Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der Germanen. – Acta Societatis scientiarum Fennicae 45, 2.

K a r s t e n T o r s t e n E v e r t 1937: Beröringar mellan svenskt och finskt folkspråk i Finland med särskild hänsyn till Österbotten. – Folkmålsstudier. Årgång V, 177–220.

K e t t u n e n L a u r i 1934: Liivin sanojen selityksiä. – Virittäjä 38, 223–27.

K i p a r s k y V a l e n t i n 1972: Zur Etymologie des lit. šeškas, lett. sesks ’Iltis’. – Baltistica 8, 157–9.

K l i m a v i č i u s J o n a s 1977: Aistės – Kalevalos šalies marčios. – Žmonės ir kalba, 102–19.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1970: Suomen laiva-sanasta. – Virittäjä 74, 178–83.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1971: Germanisch-finnische Lehnbeziehungen I. – Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72, 577–607.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1972: Germanisch-finnische Lehnbeziehungen II. – Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73, 575–628.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1974: Lisiä germaanis-suomalaisiin lainakosketuksiin. – Virittäjä 78, 111–27.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1979a: Baltisches und Germanisches im Finnischen: die finn. Stämme auf -rte und die finn. Sequenz VrtV – Explanationes et tractationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Hans Fromm, 129–64. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1979b: Lainoja ja lainakerrostumia. – Virittäjä 83, 267–301.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1983: Seit wann leben die Urfinnen im Ostseeraum? Zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der alten idg. Lehnwortschichten im Ostseefinnischen – Symposium saeculare Societatis Fenno-Ugricae. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 185, 135–57.

K o i v u l e h t o J o r m a 1986: Zur ALE-Karte “Belette”: Die Etymologie von Harm und Hermelin. – Aspects of Language. Studies in Honour of Mario Alinei. Volume I. Geolinguistics, 133–47. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Straipsniai / Articles

115

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Koivulehto Jorma 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. Linguistische Studien. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 161/II, 195–218. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Koivulehto Jorma 1988: Lapin ja itämerensuomen suhteesta. Ieur. -Tr-yhtymän korvautuminen lainoissa. – Virittäjä 92, 26–51.

Koivulehto Jorma 1989: Ehkä ja ehto, yskä ja ystävä. – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82, 171–92.

Koivulehto Jorma 1990a: Frühe indogermanisch-uralische Sprachkontakte. – Uralo-Indogermanica. Балто-славянские языки и проблема урало-индоевропейских связей. Материалы 3-ей балто-славянской конференции, 18–22 июня 1990. г. Часть II, 3–9. Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР.

Koivulehto Jorma 1990b: Zu den ältesten Kontakten zwischen Ostseefinnisch und Balto-Slavisch. Kommentar zum Vortrag von Tiit-Rein Viitso. – Itämerensuomalaiset kielikontaktit. Itämerensuomalainen symposium 7. kansainvälisessä fenno-ugristikongressissa Debrecenissä 27.8. – 1.9.1990, 148–53. Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus.

Koivulehto Jorma 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.

Koivulehto Jorma 1992: Der Typus palje’(Blase)balg’, turve ‘Torf’ unter den Lehnwörtern des Ostseefinnischen. – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 84, 163–90.

Koivulehto Jorma 1993: Zur Etymologie von fi. susi, tosi und kesi: eine Entgegnung – Linguistica Uralica 29, 21–37.

Koivulehto Jorma 1994: Ein zeitgemäßes Nachschlagewerk für germanische Lehnwörter. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 52, 220–34.

Koivulehto Jorma 1998: Kiire ’päälaki’ ja muuta etymologista rajankäyntiä. – Oekee-ta asjao. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Seppo Suhonen sexagenarii. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 228, 235–46.

Koivulehto Jorma 1999: Verba mutuata. Quae vestigia antiquissimi cum Germanis aliisque Indo-Europaeis contactus in linguis Fennicis relinquerint. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 237.

Koivulehto Jorma 2000: Reflexe des ur baltischen *ā in baltischen Lehnwörtern des Ostseefinnischen. – Linguistica Baltica 8, 103–24.

Koivulehto Jorma 2001a: The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of lexical loans. – Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, Petteri Koskikal-

116

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausiasis senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

lio (eds.): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European. Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8–10 January, 1999. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242, 235–63.

Koivulehto Jorma 2001b: Päre­kö pärähtämisestä, turvako turisemisesta? – Tieteessä tapahtuu 5/2001, 48–51.

Koivulehto Jorma 2006: Wie alt sind die Kontakte zwischen Finnisch-Ugrisch und Balto-Slavisch? – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.): The Slavicization of the Russian North. Mechanisms and Chronology. Slavica Helsingiensia 27, 179–96.

Kollerová Kateřina 2013: Baltofinské výpůjčky v baltských jazycích. Magisterská diplomová prace. Ústav jazykovědy a baltistiky, Filozofická fakulta, Masarykova Univerzita.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 1981a: Studier i de östersjöfinska språkens partitivbruk. Uppsala: Finsk-ugriska institutionen.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 1981b: Three Baltic loanwords in Fennic. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Upsaliensis, Nova series 3: 2. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 1984a: The Rôle Of Baltic Influence In The Aspectual System Of Finnish. – C. De Groot, H. Tommola (eds.): Aspect Bound. A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian aspectology, 97–109. Dordrecht.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 1984b: Estnisch piim und finnisch piimä – ein baltisches Lehnwort? – Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 7, 129–40.

Larsson Lars-Gunnar 2001: Baltic influence on Finnic languages. – The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact. Volume I: Past and Present, 237–53. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lidén Evald 1911: Baltisch-slavische worterklärungen. – Le Monde Oriental V, 197–204. A.-B. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln.

Linde Paul van 1994: Zur Etymologie von hanka, hanko. – Linguistica Uralica 30, 255–8.

Linde Paul van 2007: The Finnic vocabulary against the background of interference. Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Letteren aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 25 oktober 2007 om 14.45 uur. Groningen.

Liukkonen Kari 1973: Lisiä balttilais-suomalaisten lainasanasuhteiden tutkimiseen. – Virittäjä 77, 17–32.

Liukkonen Kari 1999: Baltisches im Finnischen. MSFOu 235. Helsinki.

Loorits Oskar 1929: Mõningad läti laensõnad eestis. – Eesti Keel VIII, 168–89.

Straipsniai / Articles

117

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Läglos – A. D. Kylstra Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, Osmo Nikkilä 1991–2012: Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.

Matikainen Hanna 1962: Suomen kyyttö-sanan alkuperä. – Virittäjä 66, 37–47.

Mikkola Jooseppi Julius 1934: Kaleva. – Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja 14, 106–10.

Mägiste Julius 1923: Etümologiseerimiskatseid. – Eesti Keel 2, 33–39.

Mägiste Julius 1927: Lmsm. keelte kuradimestikust. – Eesti Keel 6, 66–84.

Mägiste Julius 1953: Zum fi. „harakka“ ‚Elster’ und seiner Sippe. – Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 25, 296–99.

Mägiste Julius 1959: Gibt es im Tscheremissischen baltische Lehnwörter? – Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 31, 169–76.

Mägiste Julius 1960–61: Ostseefinnische und wolgafinnische etymologische Betrachtungen II. Commentationes Balticae 8/9, 4.

Mägiste Julius 1962: Äldre ryska lånord i estniskan, särskilt i det gamla estniska skriftspråket. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift. Avd. 1. Bd 55. Nr 1.

Mägiste Julius 1966: Merjalaisten kansallisuusnimi ja merjalaisprobleemi. – Virittäjä 70, 114–20.

Mägiste Julius 1977: Zu einigen vermeintlichen baltischen Lehnwörtern in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Studies in Finno-Ugric Languages In Honor of Alo Raun. Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series. Volume 131, 155–75.

Nieminen Eino 1934: Der stammsauslaut der ins urfinnische entlehnten baltischen ā-feminina und die herkunftsfrage. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 22, 5–66.

Nieminen Eino 1940: Itämerensuomalaisten ja balttilaisten kielten välisten kosketusten tutkimuksesta. – Virittäjä 44, 376–84.

Nieminen Eino 1944: Jääri ja vuona sanojen oletetuista balttilaisista vastineista. – Virittäjä 48, 24–31.

Nieminen Eino 1953: Ein Beitrag zu der ostslawischen und ostseefinnischen Badeterminologie. – Lingua Posnaniensis 4, 211–28.

Nieminen Eino 1955: Die baltischen und ostseefinnischen Ausdrücke für Segel. – Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Neue Folge, 72. Band, 128–60.

Nieminen Eino 1956: Über einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten Lehnwörtern der ostseefinnischen Sprachen abspiegelt. Vortrag, gehalten am 9. XI. 1956 – Sitzungsberichte der Finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1956, 185–206.

118

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

Nieminen Eino 1959: Beiträge zu den baltisch-ostseefinnischen Berührungen. – Rakstu krājums. Veltījums akadēmiķim profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei, 201–10. Rīgā: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas izdevniecība.

Nieminen Eino 1963a: Ausdrücke für Bau-, Arbeits- und Nutzhölzer fremden Ursprungs im Finnischen – Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 31, 233–41.

Nieminen Eino 1963b: Finnisch sii. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 6, 177–82.

Nilsson Torbjörn 1996: Is Balto-Finnic kypärä ‘helm, casque’ really a loanword from Baltic, or is it indigenous? – Word, volume 47, number 2, 185–91.

Nirvi Ruben 1964: Sanoja ja käyttäytymistä. Sanahistoriallisia tutkimuksia II. Suomi 111: 1. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden Seura.

Nuutinen Olli 1987a: Balttilaisten lainojen substituutiotapauksia. – Virittäjä 91, 52–63.

Nuutinen Olli 1987b: Kalannimi seipi – Fennistica festiva in honorem Göran Karlsson septuagenarii. Fennistica 9, 107–15.

Nuutinen Olli 1989: Satakunnan synty ja Kainuun kato – Virittäjä 93, 11–49.

Nuutinen Olli 1992: Pälvi – balttilainen laina – Virittäjä 96, 403–06.

Närhi Eeva Maria 1960: Tienviittaa merkitsevistä sanoista rasti, tikka ja osviitta. – Sananjalka 2, 62–77.

Ojansuu Heikki 1921: Lisiä suomalais-balttilaisiin kosketuksiin. Vähäisiä kirjelmiä 59.

Orrman Jaakko 1993: Mahdollisia balttilaisia etymologioita: haitta, huttu, rovio. – Virittäjä 97, 99–101.

Parpola Asko 2012: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated ’total’ correlations. – Riho Grünthal, Petri Kallio (eds.): A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266, 119–84.

Posti Lauri 1946: Etymologisia huomioita. – Virittäjä 50, 385–86.

Posti Lauri 1953–54: From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 31, 1–91.

Posti Lauri 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, 146–48.

Posti Lauri 1970: Reen kausta – Virittäjä 74, 165–7.

Posti Lauri 1972: Vehmaro ja kysymys itämerensuomalaisen vetohärkäkulttuurin iästä – Kotiseutu 1972, 153–6.

Posti Lauri 1977: Some new contributions to the stock of Baltic loanwords in Finnic languages – Baltistica 13, 263–70.

Straipsniai / Articles

119

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Ritter Ralf-Peter 1977: Zur Frage der finnischen Evidenz für die Sievers’sche Regel im Germanischen. – Die Sprache 23, 171–9.

Ritter Ralf-Peter 1993: Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Entlehnungen im Ostsee-finnischen. Opuscula Fenno-ugrica Gottingiensia V. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,

Rozwadowski Jan 1913: Kilka uwag do przedhistorycznych stosunków wschodniej Europy i praojczyzny indoeuropejskiej na podstawie nazw wod. – Rocznik Slawistyczny T. VI, 39–73.

Saareste Albert 1923: Etümoloogilised märkused III. – Eesti Keel 2, 10–15.

Saarikivi Janne 2004: Is there Palaeo-European substratum interference in western branches of Uralic? – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90, 187–214.

Saarikivi Janne 2007: On the Uralic substrate toponymy of Arkhangelsk region: Problems of research methodology and ethnohistorical interpretation. – Ritva Liisa Pitkänen, Janne Saarikivi (eds.): Borrowing of Place Names in the Uralian Languages. Onomastica Uralica 4, 45–109. Debrecen – Helsinki.

Saarikivi Janne, Lavento Mika 2012: Linguistics and Archaeology: A Critical View of an Interdisciplinary Approach with Reference to the Prehistory of Northern Scandinavia. – Charlotte Damm & Janne Saarikivi (eds.): Networks, Interaction and Emerging Identities in Fennoscandia and Beyond: Papers from the conference held in Tromsø, Norway, October 13–16 2009. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 265, 177–217

Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1963: Baltų ir Pabaltijo suomių kalbų santykiai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 6, 109–36.

Salmela Alfred 1965: Suomen muha ja muhi. – Virittäjä 69, 289–91.

Sammallahti Pekka 1977: Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä. – Virittäjä 81, 119–36.

Sammallahti Pekka 1998: The Saami Languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji.

Skardžius Pranas 1957: Zum Wandel ai, ei > ie im Litauischen.– Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 26, 375–82.

SKES – Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja 1–7. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1955–1979.

Sköld Tryggve 1982: Finnish valjaat ‘harness’ a Baltic loanword. – Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 5, 292–304.

SSA – Suomen sanojen alkuperä 1–3. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 1992–2000.

Suhonen Seppo 1988: Die baltischen Lehnwörter der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. – The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, 596–615. Leiden – New York – Köbenhavn – Köln: E. J. Brill.

120

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

Suhonen Seppo 1989: Baltische und slavische Etymologien. – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82, 211–21.

Terent’ev V. 1990: Corrections to the “Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja” concerning the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic Loanwords – Uralo-Indogermanica. Балто-славянские языки и проблема урало-индоевропейских связей. Материалы 3-ей балто-славянской конференции, 18–22 июня 1990. г. Часть II, 30–32. Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР.

Thomsen Vilhelm 1869: Den gotiske sproglasses indflydelse på den finske. En sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Den Gyldendalske boghandel.

TK – Zigmas Zinkevičius, Aleksiejus Luchtanas, Gintautas Česnys. Tautos kilmė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2006.

Toivonen Yrjö Henrik 1955: Sana sanasta, kaksi parhaasta. Porvoo: WSOY.

Toporov 1990 – В. Н. Топоров: О характере древнейших балто-финноугорских контактов по материалам гидронимии. – Uralo-Indogermanica. Балто-славянские языки и проблема урало-индоевропейских связей. Материалы 3-ей балто-славянской конференции, 18–22 июня 1990. г. Часть I, 101–07. Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР.

Toporov, Trubačev 1962 – В. Н. Топоров, И. О. Н. Трубачев: Лингвистический анализ гидронимов верхнего Поднепровья. Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

Uibo Udo 2007: Etümoloogilisi märkmeid (III). – Keel ja Kirjandus 50, 571–75.

Uotila Eeva Elina 2000: Selected loans into Finnish and Baltic-Finnic (and some aspects of Finnish grammar). A memorial volume published on the 60th anniversary of her birth. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Vaba Lembit 1983: Baltische Lehnwörter der Wolga-Sprachen im Lichte neuerer Forschungsergebnisse. – Советское финно-угроведение 19, 138–45.

Vaba Lembit 1989: Balti laenud läänemeresoome maastikusõnavaras. – Keel ja Kirjandus 32, 138–41 ja 206–18.

Vaba Lembit 1990a: Die baltischen Sonderentlehnungen in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Itämerensuomalaiset kielikontaktit. Itämerensuomalainen symposium 7. kansainvälisessä fenno-ugristikongressissa Debrecenissä 27.8. – 1.9.1990, 125–39. Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus,

Vaba Lembit 1990b: Gibt es ein baltisches Fragment im estnischen Wortschatz der Waldimkerei? – Linguistica Uralica 26, 173–9.

Vaba Lembit 1992a: Käblik on ahjulind! – Keel ja Kirjandus 35, 459–62.

Vaba Lembit 1992b: A. D. Kylstra, Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, Osmo Nikkilä, Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Linguistica Uralica 28, 219–23.

Straipsniai / Articles

121

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Vaba Lembit 1992c: Eesti kalatõkkenimetus näri ja balti *ē läänemeresoome substituutidest. – Keel ja Kirjandus 35, 726–7.

Vaba Lembit 1994: Zu den baltischen m-Deverbalen in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Linguistica Uralica 30, 241–7.

Vaba Lembit 1996a: Über die baltische Herkunft von est. ihne, ihnus und die Substitution von balt. *kš. – Linguistica Uralica 32, 161–3.

Vaba Lembit 1996b: Über die baltische Herkunft von est. rühm und seinen ostseefinnischen Entsprechungen. – Linguistica Uralica 32, 241–2.

Vaba Lembit 1997a: Uurimusi läti-eesti keelesuhetest. Tallinn – Tampere.

Vaba Lembit 1997b: Über die baltische Herkunft von est. hürn. – Linguistica Uralica 33, 1–3.

Vaba Lembit 1997c: Ergänzungen zur Substitution des baltischen wortanlautenden *st. – Linguistica Uralica 33, 177–80.

Vaba Lembit 1997d: Über die baltische Herkunft des ostseefinnischen rampa-Stammes. – Linguistica Uralica 33, 281–3.

Vaba Lembit 1997e: Ostseefinnisches meri ‘Meer’ - doch ein baltisches Lehnwort – Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt. Vorträge des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Finnougristik an der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, November 1996. Maastricht: Shaker 1997, 225–231.

Vaba Lembit 1998: Die Rolle des altpreussischen Sprachmaterials in etymologischen Untersuchungen ostseefinnischer Baltismen. – Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.): Colloquium Pruthenicum secundum. Papers from the Second International Conference on Old Prussian held in Mogilany near Kraków, October 3rd–6th, 1996, 177–85. Kraków: Universitas.

Vaba Lembit 2006: Über Probleme bei der Erforschung der ostseefinnisch-lettischen lexikalischen Beziehungen. – Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of Dialectologists and Geolinguists, 490–9. Rīga.

Vaba Lembit 2011a: Balti laenude uurimine avab meie kauget minevikku. – Keel ja Kirjandus 54, 734–63.

Vaba Lembit 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 symposium ad linguisticam, 44–52. Piliscsaba.

Vaba Lembit 2012: Vagel: kas etümoloogiline umbsõlm? – Keel ja Kirjandus 55, 202–10.

Vahros Igor 1966: Zur Geschichte und Folklore der grossrussischen Sauna. FF Communications N:o 197. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

122

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI

Naujausias senovės baltų ir finų kalbų kontaktų tyrimų penkiasdešimtmetis

Vanagas Aleksandras 1966: Suomiški vietovardžiai Lietuvoje. – Mokslas ir gyvenimas 1966: 4, 28–29.

Vasmer Max 1920: Indo-Germaani laensõnad Eesti keeles. – Eesti Kirjandus 14, 343–46.

Vasmer Max 1934: Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas II. Die ehemalige Ausbreitung der Westfinnen in den heutigen slavischen Ländern. Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Venckutė Regina 2001: Kari Liukkonen, Baltisches im Finnischen. – Baltistica 36, 125–30.

Venckutė Regina 2002: E. E. Uotila, Selected Loans into Finnish and Baltic-Finnic. – Baltistica 37, 172–77.

Vilkkuna Kustaa 1971: Die Pfluggeräte Finnlands. – Studia Fennica 16, 5–178.

Wichmann Yrjö 1911: Zur geschichte der finnisch-ugrischen anlautenden affrikaten, bes. im ungarischen und im finnischen. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 11, 173–290.

Wiklund Karl Bernhard 1904: En finsk metates i lånord. – Nordiska studier tillegnade Adolf Noreen på hans 50-årsdag den 13 mars 1904, 153–67. Uppsala: K. W. Appelbergs Boktryckeri.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1984: Lietuvių kalbos istorija I. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 2005: Lietuvių tautos kilmė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

The Latest Fifty Years of Studies into the Prehistoric Contacts between Baltic and Finnic

S U M M A R Y

In terms of Finnic loanwords in Baltic and Baltic loanwords in Finnic, the main conclusion of Sabaliauskas is still valid: the oldest Baltic borrowings have reached the Proto-Finnic stage, whereas all Finnic borrowings in Baltic languages are much more recent. However, several loanword etymologies presented by him have been proven erroneous, and many new etymologies have been presented. Therefore, some claims, which still occur in recent Lithuanian-language literature on cultural history, have become obsolete.

The development of linguistic typology and increasing knowledge of the structures of languages have globally enabled evaluation of the grammatical similarities between Baltic and Finnic languages in a way that was not possible ever before. Some shared features mentioned by Sabaliauskas have been shown to be accidental, but some others are still being considered contact-induced.

Straipsniai / Articles

123

SANTERI JUNTTILA

The most substantial part of Sabaliauskas paper, dealing with the prehistoric context of the contacts, has become obsolete for two reasons, which have not reached the Lithuanian or Baltologic discussion so far. Firstly, the etymological studies of Jorma Koivulehto since the 1970’s have revolutionized our understanding of the relative chronology of prehistoric contacts between Uralic and Indo-European languages. Secondly, the 20^th century practice of equating language, archaeological culture and genetic (“racial”) features in the past has proven to be very problematic. Instead of Sabaliauskas’ Neolithic dating, the Bronze Age seems a more likely context for the Baltic-Finnic contacts.

Įteikta 2014 m. spalio 26 d.

SANTERI JUNTTILA

Helsinkio universiteto

Suomių kalbos, finų-ugrų ir skandinavų kalbų ir literatūrų institutas

Lepiku 8–4, 51007 Tartu, Estija

[email protected]

124

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI