Reconstruction talk:Proto-Finnic/orpoi
I don't understand this. On what basis the loan relation with Sanskrit has been put forward? Did Sanskrit speakers came to the conclusion to backmigrate into Eastern Europe? I mean, how can one expect to take this even serious? --Odssaid (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Did Sanskrit speakers came to the conclusion to backmigrate into Eastern Europe?" indeed makes no sense. What your message shows is that you simply are ignorant of the language contacts Uralic and Finnic have had over the centuries/millennia. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, the assumed contact zone would be in central Russia, between late common Uralic (not yet Finnic) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (not yet Indo-Aryan let alone Sanskrit). See e.g.
{{R:Holopainen 2019}}for a couple hundred more pages of explanation. --Tropylium (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, the assumed contact zone would be in central Russia, between late common Uralic (not yet Finnic) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (not yet Indo-Aryan let alone Sanskrit). See e.g.
@Surjection @Tropylium This makes a lot of sense, indeed, if Sankrit was spoken in Eastern Europe 4.000 years ago, which is near to impossible. Another explanation would be: Not Indians, but rather Proto-Iranians took the time travel. This would at least explain the absence of this word in all Ir. branches. So, in each case, it makes a lot of sense. Time travel makes it possible. Is this even a serious page to discuss such cases at all? I am just wondering. --Odssaid (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The mainstream scholarly understanding indeed is that 4,000 years ago the ancestor of Sanskrit was still spoken in Central Asia / eastern Europe rather than Southern Asia. See e.g. w:Indo-Aryan migrations. I don't know why you're talking about Sanskrit though, which is not mentioned anywhere on this page (the idea that any loanwords in Uralic would have come directly from Indo-Aryan specifically is discredited by now).
- It would be worth noting here too though that nothing in this particular loanword points especially to Indo-Iranian and not to some other early Indo-European variety, as per e.g. Holopainen's discussion. We already list the various Uralic loanwords under *h₃órbʰos and not *Hárbʰas. --Tropylium (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)