# Karhu; a taboo word?



## jgoti

Hello,
I'm glad to have found this site so here's my first post.

Considering that most Indoeuropean languages lost the original name for "bear" (see exceptions in Latin _Ursus_, Greek _Arktos_, Sanskrit _Rikshas_ etc all stemming back to the same IE root), I was wondering if Finnish _Karhu_ was another case of linguistic taboo.

According to what I have read so far, 
Germanic "bear" means "the brown one".
Baltik "lokis" seems to mean "the hairy one".
Slav "medved" stands for "the honey eater" and a long etcetera.

In Europe, only the romance languages (thanks to Latin) still have that original root.

Thanks in advance and sorry about my Finnish. I'm working on it!
Javier.


----------



## dinji

_Karhu_ could mean something like 'the ragged/rough one'

An older Finnic word was _oksi/ohde-_ (< _*okti)_ from which Finnish _ohto_ and later _otso_, with parallels in Ersä Mordvin _ovto, ofto _and Moksa Mordvin _ofta_


----------



## jgoti

So the Finnish word hasn't become extinct yet?

By the way, "otso" is strikingly similar to IE *rksas (or whatever).

Thanks.


----------



## dinji

Its only used in poesy type of language, AFAIK, unless in some dialect.

The reconstruction of PIE is nowadays _*h2rtk^os_, to be compared with Pre-Finnic (Finno-Mordvin) _*(x)okti_

The PIE syllabic */r/ could MAYBE be substituted with Uralic */o/ but then again one should have to look for a PIE branch with metathesis of _*-tk^_ to _*-kt-_ (not satemisized, therefore centum language) and without the prothetic /a-/ of the greek. 

Maybe we therefore have evidence here for an extinct Pre-Germanic _*H2(u)rktaz_ => PreFinnic _*(x)okti_, but this is too speculative for a serious publication.


----------



## jgoti

dinji said:


> Its only used in poesy type of language, AFAIK, unless in some dialect.
> 
> The reconstruction of PIE is nowadays _*h2rtk^os_, to be compared with Pre-Finnic (Finno-Mordvin) _*(x)okti_
> 
> The PIE syllabic */r/ could MAYBE be substituted with Uralic */o/ but then again one should have to look for a PIE branch with metathesis of _*-tk^_ to _*-kt-_ (not satemisized, therefore centum language) and without the prothetic /a-/ of the greek.
> 
> Maybe we therefore have evidence here for an extinct Pre-Germanic _*H2(u)rktaz_ => PreFinnic _*(x)okti_, but this is too speculative for a serious publication.



That reminds me  about satem or centum; it seems that Finnish must have been influenced by a satem language (eg, sata=100) though you state the centum branch. According to Mario Alinei (I'll post a question on him later in a new thread), the Finno-Ugric people must have inhabited lower and more Eastern latitudes of Europe, perhaps having contact with satem IE groups before moving North with the retreating glaciers.

As to_ *-tk^_ to _*-kt-, _perhaps a more simple explanation might be that it had been subjected to metathesis in the host language (ie, Proto-Finnic), therefore outruling the need to justify a whole new branch of PIE.

Another consideration; would _k_ become _s_ within a consonant cluster such as _*kt/*tk_?

And just for fun; compare Basque _hartz_.


----------



## dinji

Very nice to see that someone is interested in these intriguing questions. And my apologies for a long posting….



jgoti said:


> That reminds me about satem or centum; it seems that Finnish must have been influenced by a satem language (eg, sata=100) though you state the centum branch.


 
Finnic (Finnish+Estonian+ some other neighbouring languages) has been affected by at least three Indo-European branches, two satem and one centum. The branches are:
1) Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan and Iranian as well as the reconstructed common ancestor and its antecedents) 
2) Balto-Slavic (mainly North-Baltic, Proto-Balto-Slavic and its antecedents, a couple of Early Proto- or Pre-Slavonic borrowings have also been spotted ) 
3) Germanic (antecedents of Old Swedish/“East Norse”, Proto-Scandinavian and Proto-Germanic). 
The strata of borrowed words go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European including forms intermediate between PIE proper and the earliest reconstruction levels of each of the three branches. See a non-exhaustive list of such borrowings at http://koti.welho.com/jschalin/ Thus it seems that at least the western dialects of Uralic (“Finno-Permic”) have developed in continous cohabitation with all of the three abovementioned IE branches from the Neolithic era until the Iron age. Borrowings from Proto-Indo-European proper should be dated at least all the way back to common Uralic. 



jgoti said:


> According to Mario Alinei (I'll post a question on him later in a new thread), the Finno-Ugric people must have inhabited lower and more Eastern latitudes of Europe, perhaps having contact with satem IE groups before moving North with the retreating glaciers.


 
I am interested to see your posting on Mario Alinei, whose work I am not familiar with. One problem of dating though: the period possible to reach through linguistics (the comparative method and prehistoric borrowings) range some 5000-6000 years back, whereas the glaciers retracted from the territories in question some 10000-15000 years ago. 



jgoti said:


> As to_ *-tk^_ to _*-kt-, _perhaps a more simple explanation might be that it had been subjected to metathesis in the host language (ie, Proto-Finnic), therefore outruling the need to justify a whole new branch of PIE.


 
The economy of explanation (minimizing ad hoc premises/speculation) is a very central principle and good that you mention it. It is precisely the reason why I don’t think one could publish an etymology of this kind in a serious publication. 
I was not justifying a whole new branch of PIE but I was making assumptions about how the word would have behaved according to known Germanic sound laws if the word had survived from PIE to Pre-Germanic (a stage older than Proto-Germanic). 
Anyway, the cluster *–kt- is well attested in Pre-Finnic and not one case of metathesis of this cluster is known to me. On the other hand the metathesis of _*–tk^_- & _*–d(h)g^(h)-_ to _–kt-/-ks-_ & _–g(h)d(h)-_ is a very famous sound law in IE linguistics, discovered only in the late 20th century. The most commonly used example word of such “thorn clusters” is _*dhg^hem-_ ‘earth’ (cf. Sanskrit _ks.am_, Greek _khthôn_ -and without metathesis: Latin _humus_, Slavonic _zemlja_, Hittite _têkan_, Tokharian A _tkam_. The metathesis of the thorn cluster is known from Germanic in the Old High German word _dehsala_ ‘cover’ < _*tetk^-_ (Robert S.P. Beekes. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. 1995. p.133f.). 



jgoti said:


> Another consideration; would _k_ become _s_ within a consonant cluster such as _*kt/*tk_?


 
As for Indo-European, satem -languages such as Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic has a sibilant here. Some centum languages have not. I am not sure how Latin _ursus _(<_*h2rtkôs_) with the sibilant is explained, but cuneiform Luvian has _in-zagan-_ (< _*en dhg^hôm_) for ‘earthling’ and a pronounciation *[indzgan] has been proposed as the original for PIE by Craig Melchert (in Benjamin W. Fortson IV: Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction. 2007. p.59f.). As for Germanic the OHG word _dehsala_ seems to pose a problem, since one should then by analogy, for ‘bear’, reconstruct Pre-Germanic _*h2rksa-_ rather than _**h2rkta-_.
As for Finnic: don’t be puzzled by the _-ks-_. It is a Late Proto-Finnic development only affecting part of the case forms, and it has nothing to do with the possible borrowing.



jgoti said:


> And just for fun; compare Basque _hartz_.


 
Interesting! Is there an accepted etymology for the word?


----------



## jgoti

dinji said:


> I am interested to see your posting on Mario Alinei, whose work I am not familiar with. One problem of dating though: the period possible to reach through linguistics (the comparative method and prehistoric borrowings) range some 5000-6000 years back, whereas the glaciers retracted from the territories in question some 10000-15000 years ago.
> 
> 
> Interesting! Is there an accepted etymology for the word?



Thanks for your thorough explanation. I don't mind long posts at all As for Basque Hartz I have not been able to find any indepth literature on it's origins unfortunately as I don't live in the Basque Country.
I still have a lot more of Alinei to read but basically he puts forth a theory similar to the _uralilainen__ jatkuvuusteoria_ claiming that it is not possible for PIE languages to have split at such a recent date as the Copper Age (M. Gimbutas) or even the Neolithic (C. Renfrew) because of certain linguistic inconsistencies and abscenses (i.e. the missing bear-words, bow-and-arrow-words, pots, pans and sheep-herding). For example _*h2rtk^os _is supposed to have been changed for a more suitable euphemism (brown one, hairy one, medved) because it began to be regarded as a magic being. And archaeology tells us that the first ritual remains related to Ursus are to be found... precisely in the stratum of the late Paleolithic! Likewise, Mesolithic inventions such as the bow and arrow did not bring about the same cognate in all IE languages, perhaps also because they had already parted. Therefore the end of the last Ice Age for the dialectal split of PIE seems not so far fetched. It is a very compelling text and I couldn't wait to get it out. I'm currently ploughing through it's 700 pages in Italian, the only edition available.

Once again, thanks very much for your detailed information.

Jgoti.


----------



## dinji

The differentiation/substitution of vocabulary may be more or less arbitrary. You cannot prove early split by invoking different words. 
Norwegian _gutt/jente_, Danish _dreng/pige_ and Swedish _pojke/flicka_ (all meaning 'boy/girl') cannot be invoked to claim that the split of the three languages are older than the phenomenon of gender specific offspring.

On the other hand genetically common (not borrowed) PIE vocabulary for usage of a tame horse and chariots and everything pertaining thereto is convincing evidence for unity of language in the relevant era.

The innovation of new taboo words is a fast and continuing process. For 'bear' Finnish already has new ones like: _kontio_ 'crawler/scrambler' and _mesikämmen _'honeypalm'. For 'wolf' it has _hukka_ 'wastage'.


----------



## jgoti

Innovation is of course a continuous process. I'm afraid I have put it a bit too simplisticly (and prematurely) for the sake of economy. Therefore not doing Alinei much of a favour!
There are also very interesting euphemisms for fox, wolf, weasel and other animals in Galician, probably due merely to fear of attacks on poultry! And they certainly can't be too old. Just imagine a prehistoric weasel-ritual.
Nevertheless, abscence of common words does point to some kind of dialectal split and/or geographic barrier. He wonders whether it would be possible for such a drastic language drift to take place in barely more than 5 or 6 millennia. A whole 2000 years have gone by, along with multiple cultural changes, and Latin is still easily recognisable even for a child. These are of course NOT his only arguments. So I think Alinei's point of view is quite sound, though.

But like I said, I'll dwell upon it more deeply when I get through it all.


----------

