Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension

Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension Geoffrey Caveney Abstract. This paper presents a reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension, from which both the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declension paradigms of case suffix forms can be derived. The paper surveys the state-of-the-art reconstructions of the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declensions. The significant number of striking similarities between the two paradigms are noted. The key differences and discrepancies between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declensions are identified, the discussion of which forms the basis for the following analysis. The paper discusses and analyzes the key question of whether Proto-Uralic-Eskimo was a nominative-accusative language like Proto-Uralic is thought to have been or an absolutive-ergative language like Proto-Eskimo. It is concluded to be probable that the Proto-Eskimo structure is more archaic and more likely to have also been the structure of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. The paper then presents an account of a logical process by which the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n, not proposed here to have been present in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo, could have arisen. In the course of this analysis a partial explanation of the origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive plural ending *-j is also provided. Finally the paper presents a comparative analysis of the Proto-Eskimo and Proto-Uralic tripartite local case systems, leading to a reconstruction of these forms in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. The reconstructed Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension paradigm is then presented in as complete a form as it is possible to reconstruct at the present stage of research. The conclusion is reached that in noun declension, unlike in phonology, lexicon, and the singular and plural possessive suffixes, Proto-Eskimo preserved the original Proto-Uralic-Eskimo structure and forms to a much greater degree than Proto-Uralic did. Introduction As explained at length and in detail in the introductory section of the author’s companion draft paper, “Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm,” these reconstructions of the morphological structure of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo can only be considered valid, if the genetic relationship of Uralic and Eskimo and the existence of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo can be established in the first place. The author is confident that he has done that in his paper “Uralic-Eskimo initial, first vowel, and medial consonant correspondences with 100 lexical examples,” now in the process of publication in the forthcoming issue of the journal Fenno-Ugrica Suecana: Nova Series, by establishing the existence of regular sound correspondences between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo, supported by numerous lexical comparisons. The author directs the interested reader’s attention to the introductory section of the companion draft paper “Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm” for a thorough and substantial discussion of all the theoretical issues related to the relative primacy of regular sound correspondences and shared morphology in demonstrating a genetic relationship between languages or language families. The Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declensions Ante Aikio reconstructs the Proto-Uralic noun declension as follows: (Aikio 2019:24-25) The Comparative Eskimo Dictionary reconstructs the Proto-Eskimo noun declension as follows: singular dual plural absolutive *-Ø *-ɣ *-t relative *-m *-ɣ *-t locative *-mi *-ɣni *-ni ablative/instrumental *-məɣ *-ɣnəɣ *-nəɣ allative *-mun *-ɣnun *-nun vialis *-kun *-ɣkun *-təkun aequative *-tun *-ɣtun *-tətun (CED 487-488) Despite the significant differences in the details, which of course we must examine and analyze below, nevertheless a number of similarities between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declension paradigms stand out: The similarity in the dual and plural number suffixes The tripartite system of local cases The basic syntactic case suffix forms *-Ø and *-m The locative case suffix forms marked with the basic phoneme *-n- The lative/allative case suffix forms marked with a final nasal phoneme The existence of the translative/vialis case as an additional oblique case This is no small number of striking similarities in the general shape and structure of the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declension paradigms! At the same time, a number of key differences and discrepancies between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declension paradigms remain to be explained, if we are to be able to reconstruct a shared Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension from which both of them are derived: The lack of reconstructible Proto-Uralic oblique case suffixes in the dual and plural numbers The discrepancy between the nominative-accusative morphosyntactic alignment in Proto-Uralic and the absolutive-relative (ergative/genitive) alignment in Proto-Eskimo The Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix *-n and its absence in Proto-Eskimo The discrepancy in the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo ablative case suffix forms The discrepancy in the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo translative/vialis case suffix forms Regarding some particular details of these differences and discrepancies: There is not much farther we can go with the reconstruction of the dual and plural number oblique cases, given their uncertain or unknown status at the Proto-Uralic stage. It is equally possible to propose that the Proto-Eskimo forms date back to Proto-Uralic-Eskimo and were simply lost (or are now irrecoverable) in Proto-Uralic, or that Proto-Eskimo innovated these forms after the breakup of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. The status of the Proto-Uralic translative case is itself considered questionable, so it is understandable and not surprising that we cannot expect to reconstruct a shared Proto-Uralic-Eskimo translative/vialis case suffix form. Likewise we cannot expect to be able to reconstruct either the aequative or the caritive case suffix forms at the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo stage. Thus we must focus on the following key issues in order to reconstruct the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension paradigm: Resolution of the discrepancy between Proto-Uralic’s nominative-accusative alignment and Proto-Eskimo’s absolutive-relative (ergative/genitive) alignment Explanation of the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n either as a retention from the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo stage or as an innovation at the Proto-Uralic stage Resolution of the discrepancy in the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo ablative case suffix forms Was Proto-Uralic-Eskimo a nominative-accusative or absolutive-ergative language? Although there has been some debate about the morphosyntactic alignment of Proto-Uralic – perhaps inspired by a similar debate about that of Proto-Indo-European – Aikio’s authoritative summary article concludes that “Proto-Uralic was highly probably a nominative-accusative language” (Aikio 2019:25). However, Aikio does note as a qualification to this conclusion that “Proto-Uralic like most of its descendants probably had differential object marking, allowing also nominative objects” (Aikio 2019:25). Proto-Eskimo on the other hand was an absolutive-ergative language: In both the Inuit and Yupik branches, the basic default case is for both the subject of an intransitive verb and the definite object (patient) of a transitive verb to be marked with the absolutive case (with a zero ending in the singular). Meanwhile, the subject (agent) of a transitive verb with a definite object is marked with the so-called relative case (*-m in the singular), which also serves to mark genitive forms. Thus the “relative case” marks both the ergative and the genitive functions. This is more logical and consistent than it may seem at first glance to those who are only familiar with nominative-accusative languages: A clause with an ergative meaning such as ‘The bear ate the meat’ can be understood to express the concept of ‘the bear’s eating (of) the meat’, in which the transitive verb is understood to represent an action which belongs to the agent performing the action. To reinforce this connection, in Proto-Eskimo such transitive verbs with definite objects have endings which are identical to the possessive endings! That is to say, ‘the eating’ is possessed by ‘the bear’. For the record, in those branches of Uralic which have a distinct transitive/definite/objective conjugation—Samoyed, Khanty, Mansi, Hungarian, and Mordvin—these endings are likewise identical to the possessive endings (Aikio 2019:33-34). In another draft paper earlier this year, “Evidence of a lost objective conjugation in Old Permic and Komi 3rd person verb suffix variation – with a reconstruction of the Proto-Permic verb conjugation,” I have analyzed evidence that such an objective conjugation existed in the Permic branch also (Caveney 2020c). More speculatively, another draft paper “Analysis of Saami 3rd person optative forms as historical passive present participle + possessive constructions” presents a logical argument to identify circumstantial evidence of historical traces of a Uralic objective/definite verb conjugation in Saami verbal morphology as well (Caveney 2020d). The key question is this: If Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo are genetically related, but Proto-Uralic was a nominative-accusative language, while Proto-Eskimo was an absolutive-ergative language, then which type of language was Proto-Uralic-Eskimo? To investigate this question, let us begin by considering the four basic types of syntactic functions that can be marked by any of these noun cases: Agent (subject) of a transitive verb with a definite object; Patient (definite object) of a transitive verb; Subject of an intransitive verb or of a verb with an indefinite object; and Genitive. Now let us provide a breakdown of which noun cases Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo use to mark each type of syntactic function: Proto-Uralic Proto-Eskimo Agent of transitive verb Nominative case (sg. *-Ø) Relative case (sg. *-m) Patient of transitive verb Accusative (sg. *-m) or Nominative (sg. *-Ø) Absolutive case (sg. *-Ø) Subject of intransitive verb Nominative case (sg. *-Ø) Absolutive case (sg. *-Ø) Genitive Genitive case (sg. *-n) Relative case (sg. *-m) Now we must consider the following question: Was it more likely that Proto-Uralic-Eskimo originally had the alignment of Proto-Uralic, which was then reorganized and transformed into the system occurring in Proto-Eskimo, or rather that it originally had the alignment of Proto-Eskimo, which was then reorganized and transformed into the system occurring in Proto-Uralic? So far in my research of Uralic-Eskimo, concerning most issues of phonology, lexicon, and the greater part of the possessive suffix paradigm, I have found that it is the Proto-Uralic forms that usually tend to be more archaic, and more similar to the likely Proto-Uralic-Eskimo forms. (The main exception to date has been the dual number possessor suffixes.) But regarding the morphosyntactic alignment of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo, my analysis is pointing in the opposite direction: It appears to me more plausible and more likely that in this regard it is the Proto-Eskimo structure that is more archaic and more likely to have also been the structure of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. First, on the basic level of typological plausibility, absolutive-ergative alignment is much rarer by far among the world’s languages than nominative-accusative alignment, which is by far the most common type in general. Significantly, in contrast to linguistic features such as head-marking and double-marking of clauses, for which Eskimo-Aleut was very likely to have been influenced by other languages such as Na-Dene in the northwest North American language area (Caveney 2020a:17-18), absolutive-ergative alignment is not a pervasive linguistic feature of this language area. It is true that the Tlingit language in particular has an ergative noun case, but related Dene languages in the area such as Dena’ina do not. Moreover, neither Tlingit nor Dena’ina has a genitive case marker at all—the possessor noun is unmarked and simply placed before the possessed noun—so the areal influence of these languages is unlikely to have been the source for the Proto-Eskimo alignment system in which both the ergative and the genitive functions are marked by the relative case. For all of these reasons, it seems highly unlikely that Proto-Eskimo(-Aleut) underwent a transformation from an original nominative-accusative alignment into an innovative absolutive-ergative alignment. [Please note for the record that I did not at all undertake this investigation and analysis with a preconceived bias toward the identification of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo as an absolutive-ergative language. In fact, at certain points in my research of Tlingit morphology, for example, I fully entertained the possibility that Proto-Uralic-Eskimo was a nominative-accusative language and that Proto-Eskimo(-Aleut) innovated absolutive-ergative alignment as a result of areal contact and influence from Tlingit and other Na-Dene languages. But a deeper investigation of Tlingit and other Na-Dene morphology, as explained above, led me to conclude that the latter course of historical development was in fact quite unlikely.] It makes much more sense to posit that an original and archaic absolutive-ergative alignment system in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo would have undergone a natural transformation into a nominative-accusative system in Proto-Uralic. Nominative-accusative languages are prevalent in northern Eurasia, as in most of the world, so it would have been natural for such a shift to occur as a result of areal influence. Moreover, if the Proto-Uralic paradigm had been the original one in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo, and the Proto-Eskimo paradigm had been derived from it somehow, then the functional development of the *-m suffix form in particular in Proto-Eskimo would have been very strange and typologically implausible indeed: It would have undergone a transformation from an accusative case suffix into a marker of both the Agent and the Genitive functions. This seems to be a highly unlikely functional shift. It is more natural to suppose on the other hand that an original Proto-Uralic-Eskimo “relative case” suffix form *-m underwent a shift in Proto-Uralic, from representing the marked Agent argument in an absolutive-ergative system to representing the marked Patient argument in a nominative-accusative system. What would have remained consistent through this transformation is the role of *-m in signifying the most marked argument in the given morphosyntactic alignment system. Additionally, the existence of differential object marking in Proto-Uralic, allowing nominative objects (Aikio 2019:25), may be interpreted as another piece of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the original Proto-Uralic-Eskimo morphosyntactic alignment system was absolutive-ergative. One logical consequence of this shift in morphosyntactic alignment from Proto-Uralic-Eskimo to Proto-Uralic would have been that the original genitive marker *-m, which made logical sense when it shared its form with that of the ergative Agent marker, would have made much less logical sense sharing its form with that of the accusative Patient marker. Thus it is not surprising that the suffix form *-m came to no longer represent the genitive case in Proto-Uralic. However, this then raises the question of where the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n originated from. The origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n In the companion paper “Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm” I explain the origin of the divergent Proto-Uralic dual possessor suffix forms with final element *-n: “Thus both the origin of final *-n and the ensuing loss of preceding *-k- in Proto-Uralic dual possessor forms can be explained as the logical results of plausible processes ultimately deriving from the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo dual marker *-k- and 3rd person reflexive possessor suffix *-ni” (Caveney 2020b:21). The discussion of the logic behind the entire process can be found in the paper’s final section (Caveney 2020b:16-21). One key link in the chain of logical developments that could have led from the Eskimo 3rd person reflexive possessor suffix *-ni to the Uralic dual possessor suffix forms with final *-n would have been the development of the Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n itself: “As a summary of the argument to be elaborated here, it is proposed that this [Proto-Eskimo] 3rd person reflexive singular possessor suffix (which is simply *-ni for singular and plural possessed objects) may be related to the origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive suffix *-n (Aikio 2019:25), 1.sg. possessor suffix for a genitive singular possessum *-ni (Aikio 2019:30), and/or the final element *-n of the dual possessor suffixes” (Caveney 2020b:17-18). The logic of the process behind such a development needs to be elaborated: At the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo stage, I propose that a statement with a meaning such as ‘Uncle holds his net’ could have been expressed in a form such as the following: Proto-Uralic-Eskimo *ekä-m kalaw-ni pitä-sä uncle-erg net-3sg.refl.poss hold-3sg.trans Note in particular how the ergative/genitive suffix *-m expresses in a certain way possession over both the net and the action of holding the net. But in the transformation to the Proto-Uralic nominative-accusative alignment, the morphosyntactic structure of such a statement would have been disrupted quite significantly. By the stage of the complete transition to Proto-Uralic proper as it is presently reconstructed, the same statement would have been expressed more along the following lines: Proto-Uralic *ekä-Ø kalaw-msa pitä-sä uncle-nom net-acc.3sg.poss hold-3sg.trans But there must have been transitional stages along the way over the course of this development. I propose that as Pre-Proto-Uralic gradually lost the ergative/genitive function of the suffix *-m, an early transitional stage may have entailed the replacement of this suffix on the Agent of the transitive verb with *-n, by a type of assimilation to the suffix of the following word: Early Pre-Proto-Uralic *ekä-n kalaw-ni pitä-sä uncle-erg net-3sg.refl.poss hold-3sg.trans In later stages this suffix would not have been preserved on the Agent of a transitive verb per se. But it may well have been preserved in the very similar phrase that simply comprised the possessor + possessed construction, here meaning ‘Uncle’s net’: Middle Pre-Proto-Uralic *ekä-n kalaw-ni uncle-gen net-3sg.refl.poss The 3rd person reflexive possessive suffix *-ni was not ultimately preserved in Proto-Uralic proper, apparently. Such a phrase would eventually be expressed as follows: Proto-Uralic *ekä-n kalaw-sa uncle-gen net-3sg.poss Thus we may account for the origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n. It is also interesting to observe that a plural agent/genitive form in the above Early and Middle Pre-Proto-Uralic examples may have developed slightly differently, since it would not have been natural to add the single phoneme *-n after the plural *-t-. Rather we would expect forms such as, e.g., *ekä-t-ni kalaw-ni. Deletion of the plural marker *-t- would then have been natural in such a phonetic environment. Although the later deletion of the element *-n- remains to be explained in this scenario, perhaps we may identify here a partial explanation of the origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive plural ending *-j. Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo tripartite local case system As noted above, there is much that is strikingly similar even at first glance between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo local case systems: The tripartite system of local cases The locative case suffix forms marked with the basic phoneme *-n- The lative/allative case suffix forms marked with a final nasal phoneme The most significant problem to resolve is the discrepancy between the Proto-Uralic ablative case suffix form *-tA and the Proto-Eskimo basic ablative/instrumental case suffix form *-nəɣ. It should be noted first of all that the surface representation of the Proto-Eskimo singular local cases are actually rather misleading, since the initial element *-m- in these endings appears to be simply the singular relative case marker *-m. The actual underlying forms of these suffixes are revealed and made clear by the plural and especially by the dual number forms: singular dual plural absolutive *-Ø *-ɣ *-t relative *-m *-ɣ *-t locative *-mi *-ɣni *-ni ablative/instrumental *-məɣ *-ɣnəɣ *-nəɣ allative *-mun *-ɣnun *-nun (CED 487-488) Thus the basic form of the Proto-Eskimo locative case suffix is in fact *-ni, which is strikingly similar to the Proto-Uralic locative case suffix form *-nA. It is interesting to note that the Proto-Eskimo singular local case forms demonstrate that the underlying initial element *-n- could be readily deleted under the influence of a preceding phoneme. This observation suggests the hypothesis that such a process could have likewise occurred during the transition from Proto-Uralic-Eskimo to Proto-Uralic, which only retained the initial element *-n- in the locative case suffix form. Thus I propose as the most likely scenario that the initial element *-n- was originally present in the basic underlying forms of all three local case suffixes in the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo tripartite system. I propose a reconstruction along the following approximate lines: locative sg. *-nə ablative sg. *-nək lative sg. *-nəŋ This Proto-Uralic-Eskimo lative case suffix form underwent changes in both daughter language families: In Proto-Eskimo the vowel was backed to *-u- under the influence of the back final nasal *-ŋ, while this final nasal itself then became *-n, perhaps by assimilation to the preceding *-n- in this form. In Proto-Uralic the initial nasal element *-n- was lost, but the final velar nasal element *-ŋ was preserved. The greatest change took place in the Proto-Uralic ablative case suffix form: The loss of the final *-k via lenition > *-ɣ (as in Proto-Eskimo) > *-Ø, a natural phonetic process in any case, would have created confusing homonymy between the locative and ablative forms. It is not clear whether the Proto-Uralic ablative case form *-tA arose as a result of strengthening of the initial element *-n- to an alveolar stop phoneme, or whether this change was simply a case of suppletion of one form by another unrelated form. The reconstructed Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension paradigm We may now put together the reconstructed Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension paradigm in as complete a form as it is possible to reconstruct at the present stage of research: singular dual plural absolutive *-Ø *-k *-t ergative *-m *-k *-t genitive *-m *-k *-t locative *-nə ablative *-nək lative *-nəŋ It is clear that in noun declension, unlike in phonology, lexicon, and the singular and plural possessive suffixes, Proto-Eskimo preserved the original Proto-Uralic-Eskimo structure and forms to a much greater degree than Proto-Uralic did.  References Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2019. Proto-Uralic. To appear in: Bakró-Nagy, M., Laasko, J. and Skribnik, E. (eds.): The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages. Oxford. Bergsland, Knut. 1959. The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 61: 1-29. Bergsland, Knut. 1979. The Comparison of Eskimo-Aleut and Uralic. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 2: 7-18. Caveney, Geoffrey. 2020a. Uralic-Eskimo initial, first vowel, and medial consonant correspondences with 100 lexical examples. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana: Nova Series x: x-xx. Caveney, Geoffrey. 2020b. Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm. Caveney, Geoffrey. 2020c. Evidence of a lost objective conjugation in Old Permic and Komi 3rd person verb suffix variation – with a reconstruction of the Proto-Permic verb conjugation. Caveney, Geoffrey. 2020d. Analysis of Saami 3rd person optative forms as historical passive present participle + possessive constructions. Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations across Bering Strait. London / New York: Cassell Academic. Fortescue, Michael & Jacobson, Steven & Kaplan, Lawrence. 2010. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates (2nd edition). Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center Press, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Georg, Stefan & Seefloth, Uwe. 2001. Uralo-Eskimo?. (https://www.academia.edu/1652208/Uralo-Eskimo) (Accessed 2019-08-30.) Janhunen, Juha. 2009. Proto-Uralic—what, where and when?. In: Jussi Ylikoski (ed.): The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 258. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. (https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf ) (Accessed 2019-08-30.) Miyaoka, Osahito. 1996. Sketch of Central Alaskan Yupik, an Eskimoan Language. In: I. Goddard (ed.): Languages. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 17. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Pp. 325-363. Salminen, Tapani. 1996. A commentary address to László Honti’s “Zur Morphotaktik und Morphosyntax der uralischen/finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache”. — ... (ed.), Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum VIII, Pars VIII: 25– 27. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. In: Denis Sinor (ed.): The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden & New York & København & Köln: E.J. Brill. Pp. 478-554. Seefloth, Uwe. 2000. Polypersonale Paradigmen im Uralo-Sibirischen. Zentralasiatische Studien 30: 163-191. Starostin, George. 2012. Dene-Yeniseian: a critical assessment. Vajda, Edward J. 2010. A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages. In: Kari, J.; Potter, B. (eds.): The Dene–Yeniseian Connection. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, new series. 5. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Department of Anthropology. Pp. 33–99. Xelimskij, E.A. 1982. = Хелимский, Е.А. 1982. Древнейшие венгерско-самодийские языковые параллели. Москва: Наука. 15 16