Soot in the Saami and Germanic languages

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Soot in the Saami and Germanic languages

Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak

Mikolaj Rychlo

This paper examines the Scandinavian terminology for `soot' in connection with a number of Saami appellatives with a view to deciding which of them are native and which result from borrowing. Special attention is paid to the problem of adopting loanwords in Northern Europe, especially in the Scandinavian Peninsula. Two Proto- Germanic words denoting `soot' are discussed from the morphological and etymological point of view. It is suggested that the West Germanic noun *hrota- m./n. `soot' is closely related to PG. *sota- n. `soot', which, in turn, is derived from the Proto-Indo- European verbal root *sed- `to sit'. The present authors intend to demonstrate that WG. *hrota- derives from the Indo-European archetype *kvu-sddo- `bad soot; thick layer of soot', originally `what a soot!'. The original semantic distinction between PG. *sota- and WG. *hrota- seems to be preserved in the use of two independent Saamic loanwords, cf. Saa.N suohtti `soot (in the chimney)' and ruohtti `big layer of soot'. The remaining Northern Saami words under analysis include cadda `charcoal, soot' (< Proto-Saamic *ceSe `carbon, charcoal, soot, grime' < Ur. *cuSi `coal, charcoal'), giehpa `soot' (< PSaa. *kepe `id' probably a Proto-Baltic loanword) and gozu ~gohccu- `soot, layer of soot, deposit of smoke or soot on things near a fireplace' (< PSaa. *koc5j `soot'). Establishing the etymologies of this rich Saami terminology concerning `soot' is significant to the gradual change of Saami lifestyle from a nomadic hunter-gatherer one towards a nonperipatetic community reliant on farming, animal husbandry and fishing.

Keywords: diachronic morphology, etymology, Finno-Ugric languages, Germanic- Saami relations, Indo-European languages, language contact, lexical borrowings, Norwegian, Old Norse, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Uralic, Saami, Scandivanian peoples, Swedish, word-formation.

Кшиштоф Томаш Витчак

Миколай Рыхло

САЖА В СААМСКИХ И ГЕРМАНСКИХ ЯЗЫКАХ

В статье анализируются пять саамских (лапландских) апеллятивов, служащих для обозначения понятия «сажа», которое означает `копоть, результат сгорания топлива'. Все рассматриваемые апеллятивы принадлежат северному говору саамского языка, ср. сев.-саам. cadda `древесный уголь, сажа' (< прасаам. *ceSe), giehpa `сажа' (< прасаам. *kepe), gozu ~gohccu- `сажа, слой сажи; осадок дыма или сажи на разных предметах, расположенных вблизи костра' (< прасаам. *koc5j), ruohtti `сажа, толстый слой сажи' (< прасаам. *ruotte), suohtti `сажа (в трубе)' (< прасаам. *suotte). Особое внимание уделено двум заимствованиям из германских языков, ср. прасаам. *suotte < герм. *sotan то же (отсюда древнескандинавское sot, англ. soot `сажа') и прасаам. *ruotte `толстый слой сажи' < герм. *hrotan то же (отсюда древнесаксонское hrot, нем. Rufi `сажа'). Германские названия объяснены с этимологической и морфологической точек зрения. Проанализировано также древнее заимствование из восточно-балтийского источника, ср. прасаам. *kepe `сажа' < латыш. kvepji м. мн. `сажа; дым, пар, фимиам', kveps м. `частица сажи'. Кроме того, выделены две прасаамские лексемы, унаследованные от уральского праязыка, а именно: прасаам. *koc5j `сажа' и *ceSe `уголь, древесный уголь, сажа, грязь, нечистота'. Близкие соответствия этих терминов функционируют, между прочим, и в самодийских языках, ср. прасамод. *kamto `сажа' и *sijS `уголь, сажа'. Процессы заимствования слов из иностранных языков, происходящие на протяжении развития почти каждого языка, являются одним из характерных способов обогащения лексики; но развитая саамская терминология, касающаяся понятия «сажа», может быть связана с изменением образа жизни лапландцев и постепенной стабилизацией среды их обитания. Следует подчеркнуть, что финско-пермское название сажи, реконструированное как *suti или *su8i, равным образом должно интерпретироваться и как доисторическое заимствование из индоевропейских языков, ср. жемайтское sudes `сажа'.

Ключевые слова: лексические заимствования, диахроническая морфология, этимология, финно-угорские языки, германо-саамские отношения, индоевропейские языки, языковой контакт, норвежский язык, древнескандинавский язык, протогерманский язык, прауральский язык, саамский язык, скандинавские народы, шведский язык, словообразование.

INTRODUCTION

In his article on early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European tribes Jorma Koivulehto strongly indicates that most Saami terms for `soot' derive from a Germanic or Baltic source [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 297-298]. He quotes the following four examples:

Saa.N gozu (weak grade) ~ gohccu- (strong grade) `soot, layer of soot, deposite of smoke or soot on things near a fireplace' [Nielsen, 1934, p. 160] < PSaa. *koc5j `soot / noki' [Lehtiranta, 1989, p. 52-53] ^ ON. ysja f. `fire, Icel. ysja f. `quicksand, drizzle, loose fresh snow / Treibsand, Spruhregen, loser Neuschnee' < PG. *usjo(n) f. `glowing ash / gluhende Asche' [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 297].

Saa.N suohtti `soot (in the chimney) / RuE (im Kamin)', Saa.S suocci `id.' ^ ON. sot `soot' < PG. *sota- `id.' [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 298].

Saa.N ruohtti `(big layer of) soot / (groEer) RuE', Saa.I ryetti `soot' ^ PG. *hrota- `soot', cf. G. Rufi `soot' [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 298].

Saa.N giehpa `soot / RuE' ^ PB. *kvepa- `id.', cf. Latv. kvepji m. pl. `soot; smoke, steam, incense / RuE; Qualm, Dampf, Raucher- werk' < Latv. kvept `to smoke (when burning badly), to fumigate; to emit a smell; to cover with rust', also kvepet `to emit smoke (when burning badly)' [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 298].

It is worth emphasizing that there is also a native term for `soot' in the Saami languages, which is of purely Uralic origin, i. e.

Saa.N cadda `charcoal, soot', Saa.I cidda, Saa.S tj'idde, tj'irre, Saa.U tjadda, Saa.L tjahta, tjada `id.' < PSaa. *ceSe `carbon, charcoal, soot, grime' [Korhonen, 1988, p. 277; Aikio, 2020a, p. 146] < Ur. *cuSi `coal', cf. Fi. sysi (gen. sg. siden) `charcoal', Ol. suzi, Vo. susi (gen. sg. suee), Kar. susi `id.', Ing. susi `blacksmith charcoal', Est. susi (gen. sg. soe) `charcoal', Voro hudsi (gen. sg. hudse), Liv. si'z `id.' (< BFi. *suti ~ *sute-); Mrd.E sed, Mrd.M sed `coal'; Mar. suj, su `charcoal'; Kh. soj `coal'; Mansi (T) suit, suit `coal' [Aikio, 2020a, p. 146-147]. Further related words are attested in the Samoyed languages, which early separated from the Proto-Uralic community. In fact, the Samoyed lexical material registers a number of similar meanings, including `coal, `glowing coal, `ash' and `soot, e. g. Slk. (Ob dialect) sed'a `coal, Slk. (Taz dialect) sici `coal, Slk. (Ket dialect) std' `soot'; Yur.F tun-slj `glowing coal / gluhende Kohle, Yen.T sie `burning coal, tusio `coal; ash'; Kam. si? `glowing coal, Taigi gi `burning or live coal'; Mat. ki `id.' (< PSam. *sij§ `coal / Kohle' [Janhunen, 1977, p. 140] < Ur. *cuSi `coal' (secondarily also `soot'), whereas the Yurak and Yenisei Samoyed forms derive from PSam. *tйn-sijэ `glowing coal, which theoretically goes back to Ur. *tulen-cu8i (literally `fire's coal'), cf. Yur. tu `fire, Yen.T tu, Yen.F tu `id.' < PSam. *tu, gen. sg. tm `fire' < Ur. *tuli `fire, see Fi. tuli, gen. sg. tulen `fire, Est. tuli, gen. sg. tule `id.').

In the following section, we first present the Germanic evidence supporting the Proto-Germanic archetype *dsjon f. `glowing ash, Subsequently, we argue that this reconstructed word cannot be considered the donor of PSaa. *koc5j `soot' (see point 1.1 above).

PROTO-GERMANIC *USJON `FIRE'

ON. ysja f. `fire, Icel. ysja f. `quicksand, drizzle, dusty rain, loose fresh snow / Treibsand, Spruhregen, Staubregen, loser Neuschnee' [de Vries, 1977, p. 680] < PG. *dsjon f. `glowing ash / gluhende Asche' [Koi- vulehto, 2003, p. 297].

The Proto-Germanic term in question is additionally attested in the second part of the following Common Germanic compound:

ON. eimyrja f. `glowing ash / gluhende Asche, Icel. eimyrja, Far. eimur, Norw. eimyrja, OSw. ember, Sw. morja `embers, Dan. em- mer `id., [de Vries, 1977, p. 96]; OE. wmyrge, E. ember; MDu. amerdijn; MLG. emere, amere; OHG. eimuria `pyre' < CG. *aim-uzjon < PG. *aim- usjon f. `glowing ash'. The first member of the compound derives from PG. *aimaz m. `Rauch, Dampf, Feuer, cf. ON. eimr m. `Rauch, Dampf, Feuer, Icel. eimur `Dampf; schwacher Laut, Far. eimur `gluhende Asche'; Norw. eim `id.'; Dan. em `Dampf'; E. dial. oam `warmer Luftstrom'; cf. also ON. eimi m. `Rauch, Dampf, Feuer' (< PG. *aiman- m.) [de Vries, 1977, p. 96].

Both Northern Germanic terms *usjon f. `fire' and *aim-uzjon f. `glowing ash' evidently derive from the reduced (zero) grade (PG. *us- /*uz- < IE. *us- < PIE. *h1us-) of the Proto-Indo-European root *h1eus- `to burn, cf. Ved. osati `to burn, Lat. uro `burn, inflame, destroy by fire, consume, Gk. єиш `to singe' [Pokorny, 1959, p. 347-348; Rix, Kummel, 2001, p. 245; Beekes, 2010, p. 486]. The traditional etymology is convincing semantically and phonologically.

As regards the North Indo-European origin of PSaa. *koc5j `soot' (< *kucoj), suggested by Koivulehto [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 297], it seems to be completely impossible from the point of view of phonology and semantics. Firstly, it is uncertain whether the Proto-Indo-European laryngeal *h1 was preserved in Proto-Germanic and rendered as *k in some Saami borrowings. Secondly, it is doubtful whether PG. *sj might have been adapted as Proto-Saami *c (or its earlier pronounciation *c). The Proto-Germanic cluster *sj (or *si) should be rendered as *s in Finno- Ugric. Thirdly, the discussed Germanic terms never demonstrate the basic meaning `soot', which is clearly attested in the Saami languages (cf. Saa.N gozu ~gohccu- `soot, layer of soot, deposite of smoke or soot on things near a fireplace'). This is why Koivulehto's explanation of PSaa. *koc5j `soot' as an early borrowing from Proto-Germanic (or Late Indo- European) should be rejected.

An alternative (and native) etymology of the Saami words for `soot' will be discussed below in the following section.

/ копчу' < PSam. *kamts `to get smoky / rauchig werden' [Janhunen, 1977, p. 64].

The Saami-Samoyed term in question represents such a lexical idiom of Uralic origin, which is clearly preserved in the Western and Eastern peripheries.

PROTO-GERMANIC *SOTAN

soot saami germanic language

Germanic lexical data may be presented as follows:

ON. sot n. `soot, Icel. sot, Far. sot, Norw. sot, Sw. sot, Dan. sod `id.'; OE. sot n. `soot, E. soot; MDu. soet `soot'; MLG. sot n. `soot' < PG. *sotan n. (a-stem) `soot / сажа' [Zalizniak, 1963, p. 143; de Vries, 1977, p. 531; Magnusson, 1989, p. 930; Bjorvand, Lindeman, 2000, p. 837; Wessen, 2002, p. 422; Orel, 2003, p. 360; Levitskiy, 2010, p. 446]. A North Germanic loanword is perfectly attested in Saamic, e. g. Saa.N suohtti `soot (in the chimney), Saa.S suocci `soot' [de Vries, 1977, p. 531; Koivu- lehto, 2003, p. 298].

According to Orel [Orel, 2003, p. 360], PG. *sotan sb.n. is “[d]erived from *setjanan" which implies that the word was formed in Proto-Germanic times. If we assume that this is the case, then the similar derivatives with lengthened o-grade such as OIr. suide `soot' (< PC. *sodia), Lith. suodziai m. pl., also suodzios f. pl. `soot, black sediment from smoke, and PSl. *sadja f. `soot' must be considered independent formations. Let us consider a different interpretation: is it possible that the Celtic and Balto-Slavic evidence indicates that PG. *sotan was not derived in Proto-Germanic times but inherited from a North Indo-European common ancestor of these languages. One argument in support of a much older time of derivation is the presence of apophony which was highly productive in Indo-European word-formation. This kind of derivation is reminiscent of some vrddhi formations in the Indo-European protolanguage, as stressed by Ranko Matasovic [Matasovic, 2016], who concentrates on the ones attested in Balto-Slavic. Although this process may have been productive in later times, there is no doubt that the origins of the lengthened o-grade formations lie in Proto-Indo-European.

As far as parallel derivatives in Germanic are concerned, lengthened o-grade form *por- can be found in the suffixed form *for-ja-, which in Old English, as a result of i-mutation, comes down as OE. (ge)fera, `fellow-traveler, companion' (cf. E. fere). The same root, also in lengthened о-grade form (Germanic causative *for-jan) appears in OHG. fuoren `to lead' the verb which underlies German fuhrer. All these words belong to PIE. *per- `to blow, inspire, spiritually arouse' [Pokorny, 1959, p. 816].

Another example of lengthened o-grade formation in Germanic is Old English Woden, the name of the chief Teutonic god `Woden, which can be presented as PG. *wod-eno-, *wod-ono- `raging', `mad, `inspired, from PIE. *uet- `to blow, inspire, spiritually arouse,

Similarly, PG. *sotan n. `soot' can represent the apophonic vrddhi formation (IE. *sod-), which should be derived from the root *sed- `to sit' [Orel, 2003, p. 360; Levitskiy, 2010, p. 446]. The Germanic *t goes back to PIE *d by Grimm's Law and the root vowel appears in lengthened о-grade form. The etymological meaning of this derivative can be reconstructed as: `that which settles' [Hoad, 1986, p. 449; Room, 2000, p. 578] or `was sich ansetzt / that which has settled' [Hirt, 1913, p. 311; de Vries, 1977, p. 531; Smoczynski, 2018, p. 1328].

What is problematic for the Proto-Indo-European origin of soot is the fact that the Celtic and Balto-Slavic cognates of PG. *sotan are not exact. One difference consists in gender: neuter in Germanic, feminine in Slavic, masculine (plural) in Lithuanian. Another discrepancy lies in the suffix: *-ja in Proto-Slavic vs *-a- in Proto-Germanic. Although the Slavic material does not represent an exactly identical formation, it is possible to interpret it as a cognate sensu lato [cf. Rychlo, 2019, p. 7181], i. e. one exhibiting a morphological change of the suffix and the gender. In support of this interpretation, it is worth observing that a- stems (i. e. o-stems in Indo-European) are very productive in Germanic, which makes a possible transferral more likely. Moreover, it is not only the Slavic which contains a front segment in the suffix, but also Celtic (OIr. suide `soot, if from PC. *sodia), and Baltic (Lith. sdodziai).

Not everyone would agree that the etymology of PG. *sotan n. `soot' is connected with the Proto-Indo-European verb *sed- and that the structural meaning is `that which has settled'. For example, Joseph Ven- dryes [Vendryes, 1971, p. S-201] strongly suggested that the Old Irish noun represents a different word (“un mot different”) than ON. sot from the etymological point of view. Also Ranko Matasovic in connection with the Celtic material concludes: “I do not believe these words have anything to do with the PIE root *sed- `to sit, as suggested in IEW (886). Rather, the comparison with Lith. suodziai `soot' and OE. sot `soot' seems to show that we have a PIE *seh3wd-” [Matasovic, 2009, p. 358-359]. Such a reconstruction does not offer any advantages for the Balto-Slavic or Germanic material. Even for the Celtic words, it is not unproblematic, which Matasovic admits: “The stem *sud- in Celtic could be due to laryngeal metathesis (*sh3ud- > *suHd-), while the Brittonic forms seem to point to PIE *sh3ewd-. The Schwebeablaut that needs to be posited appears strange, however” [Matasovic, 2009, p. 359].

The Insular Celtic term for `soot' (cf. OIr. suide f. `id.'; W. huddygl m., Co. hudhyl, hylgeth m.; Bret. huzel f. `soot') can alternatively be reconstructed as PC. *sodia [Stokes, Bezzenberger, 1894, p. 298; de Vries, 1977, p. 531], i. e. with the short apophonic vowel *-o-. In this situation it cannot be excluded that the Insular Celtic lexical data should be compared directly with Gk. апобіа, Epic and Ionic апобір f. `ash, pile of ashes; slag (of metal)', pl. апобіа `dust, filth' [Montanari, 2018, p. 1949]. The loss of the labial voiceless stop *p is the most characteristic feature of the Celtic languages.

It is worth emphasizing that a phonologically similar term for `soot' is attested in the Volgaic and Permic languages of the Finno-Ugric family. It is tentatively reconstructed as FP. *sdt3 `soot':

Mrd. sod `soot'; Mar. sue, dial. (Kozmodemjansk-Berg) s3c, s§c `soot'; Udm. (Sarapul dialect) su `soot'; Zyr. sa `soot' < FP. *sdt3 `soot / Rufi' [Redei, 1986-1988, p. 769].

The grapheme d in the Finno-Permian archetype represents an unclear front vowel. According to Karoly Redei [Redei, 1986-1988, p. 769], the Mordvinian and Mari forms seem to point to FU. *i or *u, the Udmurt and Zyrian cognates to FU. *e. In our opinion, the preserved lexical material suggests the Finno-Permian prototype *suti or *su8i `soot' (see Table 1). It is not impossible to suggest an Indo- European borrowing in Finno-Permian. Note that Zem. (South) sudes f. `soot' represents a cognate of Lith. dial. suodes f. `id.' with a regular change of the long vowel *o to South Samogitian [Smoczynski, 2018, p. 1328]. The same development is also attested in Latgalian, cf. Latg. ddt `to give', Lith. dUoti, Latv. duot `id.' < PB. *d6tei `to give'; Latg. dzuls m. `oak', Lith. qzuolas m., Latv. uozuols m. `id.' < PB. *anzolas m. `oak'; Latg. dga f. `berry', Lith. Uoga f., Latv. uoga f. `id.' < PB. *oga f. `berry' [Lelis, 1961, p. 34, 40, 50, 61, 74].

Theoretically, it cannot be excluded that the Balto-Finnic terms for `charcoal' (cf. Est. susi, gen. soe, Fi. sysi, gen. siden, Liv. si'z `id.' etc. < BFi.

*suti ~ *sute- `charcoal'), mentioned earlier under a different heading (see 1.5: Ur. *cuSi `coal', also `soot'), should be directly connected with the Volgaic and Permic forms for `soot'. Unfortunately, the Balto-Finnic reflexes of FU. *suti (or *su8i) `soot' and Ur. *cuSi `coal' are impossible to be distinguished (see Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of the regular reflexes of some selected Uralic phonemes

WEST GERMANIC *HROTAN

In his recent paper, Luobbal Sammol Sammol Ante (known as Ante Aikio) suggests that the Northern Saami ruohtti `soot' derives from Proto-Saami archetype *ruotte, which was borrowed from an unattested Nordic term *hrota- [Aikio, 2020b, p. 9]. In other words, he disagrees with Koivulehto [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 298], who tried to explain Saa.N ruohtti `(big layer of) soot' as a West Germanic borrowing (“aus dem Germanischen”). Of course, it is impossible to suggest a borrowing directly from G. Rufi m. `soot', nor from OHG. ruoz m. `id.' for the phonological reasons. The related forms, attested in West Germanic, may be treated as a source, e. g. OSax. hrot m. `soot', MDu. roet n. `grease, soot', Du. roet n. `soot'. All of them preserve the phoneme *t, which is regularly rendered as -tt- in Saami. Theoretically, a Low German source may be an alternative, though it is difficult to image how an Old Saxon or Dutch loan word appeared in Northern Saami. This is why Aikio's hypothesis, according to which the Saa.N ruohtti `big layer of soot' represents a borrowing from an unattested Nordic source, has to be taken seriously into account. The Saami scholar gives the following commentary to his proposal:

The origin of the Germanic word remains unknown [...], but the Saami form shows that it must have once occurred in Norse, too. The distribution of the word is limited to North and Inari Saami, but despite this the borrowing is probably quite old, considering that no trace of the word survives in Norse. The loan etymology is both phonogically and semantically completely transparent, and as such requires no further comment [Aikio, 2020b, p. 9].

The Germanic lexical material is presented below:

OSax. hrot m. `soot, MDu. roet n. `grease, soot, Du. roet n. `soot'; OHG. ruoz m. `soot, G. Rufi m. `id' < WG. *hrotaz m. / *hrotan n. (a-stem) `soot' [Kroonen, 2013, p. 249]. According to Aikio [Aikio, 2020b, p. 9], an unattested Nordic term *hrot (< NG. *hrotan n. `soot') can be reflected as a loanword in Saamic, cf. Saa.N ruohtti `big layer of soot / grower RuB, Saa.I ryetti `soot' (< PSaa. *ruotte `id' < NG. *hrotan n. `soot').

The etymology of WG. *hrota- m./n. `soot' is unknown [Kluge, See- bold, 1999, p. 697: “Herkunft unklar”; Kroonen, 2013, p. 249: “No certain etymology”]. Guus Kroonen suggests a possible comparison with OE. hrum m. `soot' (< PG. dial. *hrumaz m.), stressing additionally that “the suffixation remains unclear” [Kroonen, 2013, p. 249]. In our opinion, CG. *hrota- can be treated as a native innovative compound containing the basic noun (PG.) *sota- n. `soot'. This interpretation is possible if CG. *h- (earlier *h~- < *huu-) represents a trace after the augmentative or pejorative prefix *k-u- (with the sense `bad'). The intervocalic phoneme *-s- is always preserved as PG. *s in the position after the original (Indo-European) stress and changed to PG. *-z- and later to *-r- in the position before stress. In other words, the phonological development of Common Germanic *hrota- `soot' can be reconstructed as follows:

CG. *hrota- m./n. `soot' < Early CG. *h-rota- < Late PG. hurota- < PG. huzota- < Early PG. *huu-sota- < IE. dial. (Northern) *k~ u-sodo- n. (secondarily m.) `bad soot; big layer of soot' vs. PG. *sota-n. `soot' < IE. dial. (Northern) *sodo- n. `soot'.

The Indo-European prefix *ku u- can also be distinguished in the Proto-Germanic noun *hwtlo f. `while, e. g.

Go. heila f. `period, while, ON. hvila f. `bed' (originally `period of resting'), Far. hvila f. `rest. repose; bed, Elfd. waila f. `while'; OE. hwtl f. `while, E. while; OFri. hwtl(e) f. `while'; OSax. hwtla f. `while'; MDu.

wile f. `while'; OHG. wila, hwila `while', G. Weile `while' [Lehmann, 1986, p. 199-200; Kroonen, 2013, p. 266-267]. It evidently derives from Northern IE. *kueila f. `period, while', cf. OCz. cila f. `while', adv. vcile `now, at once, immediately' < PSl. *cila f. `while, period' [Slawski, 1976, p. 198]. The Germanic-Slavic pair seems to go back to the primitive archetype (PIE.) *kuu-ueil-eh2- f. `bad period; bad time', cf. Ved. vela- f. `limit, boundary, end; distance; coast, shore; limit of time, period, season, time of day, hour' [Monier-Williams, 1999, p. 1018], Pa. vela- f. `time', Hi. ber f. `Grenze, Jahreszeit, Zeit' [Mayrhofer, 1970, p. 261], Bal. vela `a mealtime, time', Psht. dial. (Wanetsi) vel f. `dinner, a mealtime; food' [Morgenstierne, 2003, p. 87] < Indo-Iranian *vaila f. `period, time' < IE. dial. *ueila.

It is obvious that the original Proto-Indo-European cluster *kuuu- was simplified to *ku- in some northern dialects of Late Indo-European, including Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic. The Indo-Aryan languages preserved the primitive status of the compound, cf. P. kuvel f. `lateness'; P. kuvela `late'; K. kovizi, kozi adv. `at a bad or inauspicious time'; L. koel `unsuitable, untimely' < Indo-Aryan *ku-vela f. `bad time', *ku-velya- adv. `untimely' [Turner, 1966, p. 173].

Also the primitive Proto-Indo-European cluster *guuu- was regularly simplified to *k- in Proto-Germanic, e. g.

ON. kursi, kussi m. `bull calf' < NG. *kursan- m. `bull calf' [Kroonen, 2013, p. 312] < Northern IE. *gUu-urson- m. `bull' < PIE. *gUh3u-urson- m. `cow-bull', cf. Ved. go-vrsan- m. `bull', Toch. A kayurs, Toch. B kaurse `bull' (< IE. *guou-urson- m. `bull').

The simplification of the cluster *kuuu- had to appear as early as in the Late Indo-European times, as documented by two similar terms for `worm': IE. *k-rmis and IE. *urmis. According to most etymologists [Porzig, 1954, p. 208, 215; Pokorny, 1959, p. 649, 1152], both these nouns can be easily reconstructed in the Indo-European protolanguage. What is more, they are frequently treated as “zwei Reimworter” [Porzig, 1954, p. 208].

Late IE. *kurmis m. `a kind of worm', earlier PIE. *kuu-urmis (orig. `bad worm' or `what a worm!'): Ved. krmih m. (i-stem) `worm, insect', Skt. krimih `a silk-worm; a shield-louse; an ant' (lex.) [Monier-Williams, 1999, p. 305]; MPers. kirm `worm, dragon, snake', NPers. kirm `id.', Sogd. kyrm- `snake'; Alb. krim(b) `worm, maggot, catterpillar'; Lith. kirmls f. (i-stem), kirmis m. (jo-stem) `grub, worm; tapeworm; viper', coll. `eggs or larvas of bees, kirminas m. `grub, worm'; Latv. cirmis `grub, worm'; OPr. girmis `grub / Made' [Smoczynski, 2018, p. 549]; Sla. dial. crm `big wasp, dimin. crmak m. `id.'; OPol. czyrzmien f. `grub' (< PSl. <sup>1</sup> The lexical pair denoting `vermin; swarm of insects' (PG. *wurmijan n. coll. = PSl. vbrmbje n. coll.) should be added to a tentative list of possible Germano-Slavic collec-tives of Indo-European origin [Habrajska, Rychlo, Witczak, 2020, p. 261-283; Witczak, Habrajska, Rychlo, 2022, p. 157-173].crmb m. `worm, Polish cochineal / robak, czerw' [Slawski, 1976, p. 224, 225]); OIr. cruim f. (i-stem) `worm, maggot'; OW. prem, MW. pryf m. `worm'; OCo. prif gl. `vermis, MCo. pref `worm'; MBret. preff, Bret. prenv m. `worm' < PC. *kurimi- [Matasovic, 2009, p. 181-182].

IE. *urmis m. `worm, also IE. dial. *urmos and *uormos m. `id.': Lat. vermis m. (i-stem) `worm, maggot' (< Proto-Italic *wormis < IE. *urmis) [de Vaan, 2008, p. 665]; Go. waUrms m. (o-stem or i-stem) `snake / Schlange'; ON. ormr m. `snake / Schlange, Icel. ormur, Far. ormur, Elfd. uorm `snake, Norw. orm, Sw. orm `snake, Dan. orm `worm' (< NG. *wurmaz); OE. wyrm m. `snake, dragon, worm, OFri. wirm m. `worm, OSax. wurm, worm `worm, Du. worm, wurm c. `worm, OHG. wurm m. `worm, snake, G. Wurm `worm, also `cochineal, roundworm, poet. `viper, reptile, dragon' (< WG. *wurmiz m. `worm') [Zalizniak, 1965, p. 191; Magnusson, 1989, p. 693; Kroonen, 2013, p. 600]; Lith. (Zem.) varmas, dial. varmas m. (o-stem) `mosquito, dial. `horsefly; any stinging insect; flying ant' < IE. *uormos [Smoczynski, 2018, p. 1609]; OCS. vbrmbje n. coll. `insects, ORu. вермие n. coll. `(swarm of) locusts; insects' (= ON. yrmi n. coll. `vermin / Gewurm'; G. Gewurm n. coll. `vermin, (swarm of) amphibians' < PG. *wurmijan / *ga-wurmijan n. coll.)1; Gk. dial. (Aeolic?) popoc; `wood-worm, tree-boring beetle' (as if from PGk. *urmos) [Beekes, 2010, p. 1291]; Toch. B warme m. `ant' < IE. *urmos [Adams, 2013, p. 630]; Ved. vamrah m. `ant, if from *uormos by an irregular metathesis of the cluster -rm- > -mr- [Pokorny, 1959, p. 1152].

According to Michiel de Vaan, the observed distribution “might be the result of a development of *kwrmi- > *wrmi- in Latin and Germanic” [de Vaan, 2008, p. 665]. This seems to be an ad hoc guess. It is more probable to accept that two Indo-European archetypes, IE. *urmis m. `worm' and IE. *krfmis m. `a kind of worm, are related to each other. In our opinion, the former reconstructed noun seems to be a primary formation, the latter one appears to be a secondary creation by means of the augmentative or pejorative suffix *kuu- (`bad').

SAAMI *КЁРЕ `SOOT'

Lexical data: Saa.N giehpa `soot / RuB, Saa.L kiehpa, Saa.P kiepak, Saa.I kiepa, Saa.Sk kiopp, Saa.Kld ktbb, Saa.T kipp `id.' < PSaa. *kepe `soot / noki' [Lehtiranta, 1989, p. 52-53], as if from Finno-Saami *kapi or *kepi.

Most researchers believe that the Proto-Saami word in question should be interpreted as a borrowing of Baltic origin [Sammallahti, 1998, p. 127; Koivulehto, 2003, p. 298; Aikio, 2006, p. 40; Hofirkova, Blazek, 2011, p. 63], cf. Latv. kvepji m. pl. `soot; smoke, steam, incense / RuB; Qualm, Dampf, Raucherwerk, kveps m. `a soot flake / eine Russ- flocke' [Mulenbach, Endzelins, 1925-1927, p. 354] < Latv. kvept `to smoke (when burning badly), to fumigate; to emit a smell; to cover with rust, also kvepet `to emit smoke (when burning badly), Lith. kvepiti `to emit a smell; to stink; to breathe (upon sth), blow' [Fraenkel, 1962, p. 325; Smoczynski, 2018, p. 649].

The suggested direction of borrowing (PSaa. e PB.) seems to be firmly motivated. There are also phonologically similar terms for `soot, black' in the Northern Slavic vocabulary, e. g. Pol. kopec m. `soot separating from the wick of the lamp or candle; thick smoke with soot'; LSorb. kops m. `smoke with soot, burnt part of the wick'; Cz. kop m. `soot, black, also kopt m. `id.'; Sla. kopt m. `soot, black'; Ru. копоть f. `black, soot, dial. `the pit where tar is made; gunpowder, dust; snow dust; fumes in severe frost; speed, e. g. while running'; Bel. dial. копот m., копоць f. `smoke from the tar pitch'; Ukr. ктоть f. `smoke with soot' [Slawski, 1958-1965, s. 454-455]. All these Slavic words, which derive from PSl. *kopъ m., dimin. ^^Ыь m./f. `soot, black, cannot be treated as a source of the Saami words for the phonological reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough analysis of the Saamic and North Germanic lexical data has led us to the following conclusions:

Contrary to Koivulehto's explanation [Koivulehto, 2003, p. 297], the Proto-Saami noun *koc5j `soot' (e. g. Saa.N gozu ~gohccu- `soot, layer of soot, deposite of smoke or soot on things near a fireplace') cannot be considered an early borrowing from Proto-Germanic (or Late Indo- European).

There are closely related equivalents of PSaa. *koc5j `soot' which can be interpreted as cognates. They are attested in most Samoyed languages, including Yurak (Nenets), Selkup, Kamassian and Mator Samo- yed, e. g. Mat. камде `soot' < PSam. *kamt§ `id.' The archaic Samoyed languages also demonstrate verbal forms with the meaning `to get smoky' derivable from the same Samoyed root *kamt§ (of Uralic origin).

Proto-Germanic *sotan n. `soot' and Proto-Slavic *sadja f. `id.', as well as some Baltic and Celtic forms (cf. Lith. smdziai; OIr. suide `soot'), are cognates and point to the Proto-Indo-European vrddhi formation (IE. *sod-), which should be derived from the root *sed- `to sit'. The etymological meaning of PG. *sotan n. `soot' is `that which settles'.

The Proto-Slavic noun *sad-ja f. `soot' does not represent an exactly the same formation as PG. *sot-a-n n. `soot', but it is possible to interpret the pair as cognates sensu lato, a morphological change of the suffix and the gender must have occurred in Germanic.

It is possible to suggest an alternative view, according to which the Insular Celtic lexical data denoting `soot' should be compared directly with Gk. апобіа, Epic and Ionic апобір f. `ash, pile of ashes; slag (of metal)', pl. апобіа `dust, filth'. The loss of the labial voiceless stop *p is the most characteristic feature of the Celtic languages.

Instead of FP. *sHt3 `soot / RuE [Redei, 1986-1988, p. 769], the preserved lexical material, attested in Mordvinian, Mari, Udmurt, Zyr- ian (e. g. Mrd. sod `soot', Udm. su, Zyr. sa `id.') and perhaps also in Balto- Finnic (cf. Est. susi, gen. soe `coal, charcoal', Fi. sysi, gen. siden `charcoal', Liv. si'z `id.' < BFi. *suti ~ *sute- `charcoal'), points to the Finno-Permian prototype *suti or *su8i `soot'. It is not impossible to suggest an Indo- European borrowing in Finno-Permian.

WG. *hrota- `soot' can be treated as a native innovative compound containing the basic Proto-Germanic noun *sota- n. `soot', accompanied by an augmentative or pejorative prefix *kuu- (with the sense `bad'). This hypothesis may be supported (among others) with a number of parallel examples.

The Proto-Saamic word *kepe `soot' (attested in most Saami dialects, e. g. Saa.N giehpa `soot', Saa.L kiehpa etc.) should be regarded as an early borrowing of East Baltic origin.

The Saami people inherited two native appellatives for `soot' (PSaa. *koc5j `soot' and PSaa. *cebe `carbon, charcoal, soot, grime') after their Uralic ancestors (cf. especially PSam. *kamt3 `soot' and PSam. *sij§ `coal', also `soot'). Later they borrowed three different terms for `soot' from their Northern Indo-European neighbours (PSaa. *kepe `soot' from Baltic; PSaa. *suotte `soot' and PSaa. *ruotte `big layer of soot' from Germanic).

Lexical borrowings from foreign languages, observed throughout the histories of almost every language, are a frequent way of enriching the vocabulary. Nevertheless, the rich Saami terminology concerning `soot' may be associated with something more significant than just some words being borrowed. The meaning and reference of these lexical items is indicative of the change in the Saami's lifestyle: from a nomadic hunter gatherer culture towards a gradual stabilization of their settlement and the related agriculture and animal husbandry.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Penny Shefton for proofreading the whole text and making several stylistic improvements, as well as Aleksandr Tsoi and Jan Sosnowski for their help in translating the Russian resume. For all the shortcomings that still remain we alone are responsible.

LANGUAGE ABBREVIATIONS

REFERENCES

Adams D. Q. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 2013. 964 p.

Aikio A. (Luobbal Sammol Sammol Ante). Loanwords from unattested Nordic source forms in Saami. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 65, 2020b. P. 5-24.

Aikio A. (Luobbal Sammol Sammol Ante). Uralic Etymological Dictionary (draft version of entries A-C). 2020a. 165 p. Available at: https://www.academia. edu/41659514/URALIC_ETYMOLOGICAL_DICTIONARY_draft_version_ of_entries_A_%C4%86_ (accessed: 17.01.2020).

Aikio A. On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne, 91, 2006. P. 9-55.

Beekes R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Vol. 1-2. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010. 1808 p.

Bjorvand H., Lindeman F. Vare Arveord. Etymologisk Ordbok. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2000. 1142 s.

Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1962. 656 S.

Habrajska G., Rychlo M., Witczak K. T. Collective Nouns Denoting Trees in the Scandinavian Languages. Scandinavian Philology, 18 (2), 2020. P. 261-283.

Helimsky E. Die matorische Sprache. Worterverzeichnis -- Grundztige der Gram- matik -- Sprachgeschichte. Unter Mitarbeit vob Beata Nagy. (Studia Uralo- Altaica No. 42). Szeged: Typo System, JATE Finnougor Tanszek, 1997. 475 S.

Hirt H. Fragen des Vokalismus und der Stammbildung im Indogermanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen, 32, 1913. S. 209-318.

Hoad T. F. The Concise Oford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1986. 552 p.

Hofirkova L., Blazek V. Baltske vypujcky v samstine. Linguistica Brunensia, 52, 2011. S. 61-71.

Janhunen J. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, 1977. 186 S.

Kluge F., Seebold E. Etymologisches Worterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. 921 S.

Koivulehto J. Fruhe Kontakte zwischen Uralisch und Indogermanisch im nord- westindogermanischen Raum. Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Eds A. Bammes- berger, T. Vennemann. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2003. S. 279-317.

Korhonen M. The History of the Lapp Language. The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences. Ed. D. Sinor. Leiden, New York, Koben- havn, Koln: E. J. Brill, 1988. P. 264-287.

Kroonen G. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013. 794 p.

Lehmann W. P. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. 712 p.

Lehtiranta J. Yhteissammelainensanasto [Common Saami vocabulary]. (Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne, No. 200). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1989. 180 s.

Lelis J. The Place of Latgalian among the Baltic Dialects. Doctoral thesis. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University, 1961. 198 p.

Levitskiy V. V. An Etymological Dictionary of Germanic Languages. Vol. 1. Vinnitsa: Nova Knyga Publ., 2010. 614 p. (In Russian)

Magnusson A. B. Islensk ordsifjabok. Reykjavik: Ordabok Haskolans, 1989. XLI + 1231 s.

Matasovic R. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009. XI + 458 p.

Matasovic R. The Accentuation of Balto-Slavic Vrddhi Formations and the Origin of the Acute. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 133, 2016. P. 115-123. https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL. 16.009.5155

Mayrhofer M. Kurzgefafites etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindischen. B. 3. Lief. 21. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1970. 461 S.

Monier-Williams M. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banasidass Publishers, 1999. 1333 p.

Montanari F. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2018. 2433 p.

Morgenstierne G. A New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003. 140 p.

Mulenbach K., Endzelins J. Lettisch-deutsches Worterbuch. Vol. 2. Riga: Lettische Kulturfond, 1925-1927. 909 S.

Nielsen K. Lappisk ordbok /Lapp Dictionary. Vol. 2. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammen- lignende Kulturforskning, 1934. VIII+718 p.

Orel V. A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. 683 p.

Pokorny J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern, Munchen: Francke Verlag, 1959. 1183 S.

Porzig W. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1954. 251 S.

Redei K. Uralisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Vol. 1. Budapest: Akademiai Ki- ado. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1986-1988. 903 S.

Rix H., Kummel M. (eds). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primarstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichelt Verlag, 2001.823 S.

Room A. Cassells Dictionary of Word History. London: Cassell & Co., 2000. 690 p.

Rychlo M. Contrasting Cognates in Modern Languages from a Diachronic Perspective. Gdansk: Gdansk University Press, 2019. 170 p.

Sammallahti P. Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages. The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences. Ed. Sinor D. Leiden, New York, Kobenhavn, Koln: E. J. Brill, 1988. P. 478-554.

Sammallahti P. The Saami Languages. An Introduction. Karasjohka: Davvi Girji, 1998. 268 p.

Slawski F. (ed.) Slownikpraslowianski. Vol. 2. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolinskich, Wydawnictwo PAN, 1976

Slawski F. Slownik etymologiczny jfzyka polskiego. Vol. 2. Krakow: Towarzystwo Milosnikow J^zyka Polskiego, 1958-1965. 560 s.

Smoczynski W. Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1-5. Berlin: Peter Lang, 2018. 2256 p.

Stokes W., Bezzenberger A. Urkeltischer Sprachschatz. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894. 337 S.

Turner R. L. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. 841 p.

Vaan de M. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008. 825 p.

Vendryes J. Lexique etymologique de l'irlandais ancien. Lettres RS. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies & Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scienti- fique, 1971. VIII+R-55 + S-206 p.

Vries de J. Altnordisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1977. 689 S. Wessen E. Vara ord. Kortfattad etymologisk ordbok. Stockholm: Norstedts Ord- bok, 2002. 530 s.

Witczak K. T., Habrajska G., Rychlo M. Proto-Slavic Collectives in -bje from a Historical and Comparative Perspective. Slavisticna Revija, 70 (2), 2022. P. 157-173.

Zalizniak A. A. Materials for the study of the morphological structure of Old Germanic nouns. Part I. Etymology. Research in Russian and other languages. Ed. O. N. Trubachev. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR Publ., 1963. P. 124-160. (In Russian)

Zalizniak A. A. Materials for the study of the morphological structure of Old Germanic nouns. Part II. Etymology. Principles of reconstruction and research methodology. Ed. O. N. Trubachev. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965. P. 160-235. (In Russian)

Размещено на Allbest.ru