Uralic Etymology

This table began as a comparison of Etruscan words to other Indo-European words, and it is clear that the linkage to Etruscan illuminates some new patterns in Indo-European word relationships. We added for further comparison words from the Baltic group (Latvian), Kartvelian (Georgian) and Uralic (Finnish) and Basque, a "language isolate" that looks as much Indo-European as othes in the Indo-European group. For those who advocate Hurrian connections Hurrian words that are available have been added to the table.  *PIE specialists have been speculating on the idea that the three language families, Baltic, Uralic and Kartvelian may be related to Indo-European, perhaps as a super family.
  The Indo-European family of languages is believed to have originated north of the Black Sea (Pontic Region). Some scholars have indicated a Caucasus origin. Although we can't rule out borrowing among [unrelated] languages it appears from the interesting shifts that the languages in our "Indo-European Table may be one family. I found šāl-a, šali, šala (Hurrian)
ასული, asuli, daughter(Georgian); თვით, t’vit’, self (Georgian), sevi, self (Latvian), vete, (Albanian); ხუთი, khut’i, five (Georgian), пяць, piać (Belarussian), pieci (Latvian), pesë (Albanian), pente (Greek) and pajncha (Sanskrit) interesting. (The interesting relationships continue through the table. The table is alphabetically arranged via the right-hand column, Etruscan words.

The purpose of this paper is to prove conclusively that Hungarian and by extension all Uralic languages are not a group of languages developed in isolation of other languages but are instead a unique branch of Indo-Aryan. This was made possible by recognizing that Latin, not Slavic or German, was the source of most Hungarian loans, and then extending the same pattern of reduction observed occurring with Latin words to Sanskrit words. All of the required consonant sound changes are identified, as well as the major steps necessary for a complete reconstruction of the transition from Sanskrit to Hungarian. To support the identified processes of change, a complete Holman list is presented. An additional 2,000 Indic-Hungarian words were reconstructed to rule out random chance as the source of the identified sound changes, but are not included in this paper. Some of those Indic-Hungarian words are already the subject of controversy, so they will be explained in more detail. And finally, from this Indic-Hungarian reconstruction, the meaning of the Hungarian self-reference Magyar is identified. Only Hungarian is discussed in this paper.

NOTE: OBSOLETE. I am going to keep this here in order to preserve session comments, but the current version of the paper is the "Fishing in troubled waters..." one.

This is a very early draft paper dealing with the origin of the following Finnish etyma:
1) Saimaa 'lake in Southwestern Finland'
2) saima, saimasiika 'whitefish, Coregonus'
3) saima, saimaverkko 'wide-meshed net'
4) saima, soima 'boat'

The discussion of Uralic theonyms in this 2012 conference paper have been significantlu developed and discussed in more detail in "Language and Mythology" (2017): https://www.academia.edu/35369652/Language_and_Mythology_Semantic_Correlation_and_Disambiguation_of_Gods_as_Iconic_Signs

The discussion of internal developments in Finnic mythology are discussed with emphasis on the epic Sampo-Cycle in "Confluence, Continuity and Change in the Evolution of Mythology" (2012): https://www.academia.edu/3687105/Confluence_Continuity_and_Change_in_the_Evolution_of_Mythology_The_Case_of_the_Finno-Karelian_Sampo-Cycle
and with emphasis on the role of the ritual specialist in "Shamans, Christians and Things in between":
https://www.academia.edu/4049431/Shamans_Christians_and_Things_in_between_From_Finnic_Germanic_Contacts_to_the_Conversion_of_Karelia

La Lista Swadesh de voces vascas estables resistente a la donación lingüística y lo que revela su comparación con las restantes familias de lenguas del mundo. Aún hallamos en los libros de textos universitarios y en las enciclopedias más autorizadas el viejo paradigma de que el vasco ­como aún es denominado a nivel internacional y por los mismos vascólogos­ es un idioma aislado sin pariente alguno y que por ello mismo no sabemos nada sobre su origen. ¿Es realmente cierto que la lengua vasca no tiene parientes ni siquiera en otros lugares de Eurasia? ¿Surgió espontáneamente de la nada? ¿Acaso fue inventado por una persona que vivía en una de las cuevas paleolíticas del País Vasco y desde entonces se mantuvo el idioma aislado sin apenas evolución? Vamos a intentar dar respuesta a estas preguntas desde las herramientas que nos ofrecen la Lingüística Histórica y la Léxicoestadística comparadas.

Enlace a tabla comparativa en http://atlantisng.com/blog/genealogia-de-la-lengua-vasca-y-las-lenguas-altaicas-uralicas-y-sino-caucasianas/

It is argued that Proto-Celtic *mokku- ‘pig’, *sukko- ‘sow’ and *turko- ‘wild boar’ are borrowings from Proto-Fennic. Similarly, Latvian cūka ‘pig’ (unrelated to Lith. kiaũlė ‘pig’) must be borrowed from PFc. *tsuka ‘pig’ (> Fi. sika, Kar. čugu; and, as a loan, N Saami dial . sohki ‘id .’), while *pork̑o- ‘piglet’, conventionally reconstucted for PIE, is identified as an Altaic newcomer to the NW IE area . Other Northern European terms can be assigned an Indo-European origin: Welsh cranan ‘wild sow’ and OIr. cráin ‘sow’ have cognates in Germanic (OLFr. chranni-chaltia ‘pig’s den’) and Baltic (Lith. šer̃nas ‘wild boar’), while Fi. karjas ‘wild boar’ is borrowed from an otherwise unattested PGmc. *garjaz corresponding to Gk. χοι̃ρος, Alb. derr, from PIE *g̑ʰor-i̯o-s. The lessons to be drawn are significant both culturally and linguistically: the prominent role of boars in Celtic and Germanic mythology must have been preceded by a centre of cultural gravity further to the north.

The goal of this draft paper is to quickly check if a genetic relationship between Uralic and Indo-European (IE) language families is likely or not.
The conclusion is that such relationship is very likely and deserves further research, because almost 50% of the most stable part of Proto-Uralic reconstructed basic lexicon has promising Indo-European correspondences. This is well above the percentages to be expected from mere chance resemblances and loans.
On the other hand, the PU-PIE genetic relationship does not look exclusive at all: many other Eurasian language families share several PU-PIE isoglosses.

The Uralic language family has often been hypothesized to be related to Yukaghir, even though no widely accepted evidence for this theory has been presented so far. The study of Uralic-Yukaghir relations has in part been held back by the scarcity of basic documentary and comparative work on the Yukaghir languages. The publication of A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir (2006) by Irina Nikolaeva, however, has raised Yukaghir lexicology and historical phonology to a level that allows systematic comparison of Proto-Yukaghir and (Proto-)Uralic to be easily carried out. This paper discusses the lexical correspondences between Uralic and Yukaghir languages, and examines to what extent they can be explained as evidence of genetic relationship, products of language contact, or mere chance resemblances. It is argued that there is no clear lexical evidence supporting a genetic connection between the two families, and that no regular sound correspondences between the two proto-languages can be established. A majority of the Uralic-Yukaghir lexical comparisons suggested in earlier references seem to be chance resemblances, but a smaller corpus of probable loanwords supporting contacts between (Pre-)Proto-Samoyed and Proto-Yukaghir can be established.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION - TOO MANY TYPOS - Please cite ONLY with permission


"This is the text of an oral presentation made at the symposium "Altaique ou pas?", organized by Guillaume Jacques and Anton Antonov on 10 Dec 2011 in Paris.Part of this symposium was an invited exchange of ideas on the "Altaic hypothesis" between the undersigned and Martine Robbeets. I left the text by and large as read at the symposium, with minor edits (nor of which reflects anything which was said at the venue), and, thus preserved its character as an oral presentation, including direct addresses to members of the audience ("Martine" and, in most cases, "you" refers to Martine Robbeets, whom I wish to thank again for agreeing to participate in this journée, as of course, again, to its organizers and all participants in the discussion.The first part, "Avant-propos", is a short text which I prepared for distribution before the event. Bibliographical references were kept to a minimum, and it is clear that some statements would require them.The paper is not thoroughly proofread, my apologies for the plethora of typos still contained."

Note, 13. July 2013:
In a recently published paper (Genealogically motivated grammaticalization, in: M. Robbeets/H. Cuyckens (edd.): Shared Grammaticalization, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins 2013), M. Robbeets, speaking about the morphological comparanda between he languages in question she presents in several publications of hers, claims (p. 148) that, in this paper, I (St. G.) "have attempted to explain these correspondences in terms of borrowing".
A careful reading of the relevant passages of this paper (towards the end) will reveal to the attentive reader that this is not the case, and that the wording and the line of thought I use here does not lend itself to such an interpretation.


Note 6 July 2020 (sigh)

As of today, the opening remarks on Pallas and Abel-Remusat as "precursors" of something which was *later* to develop into the critique of Altaic as a genealogical (and linguistic) concept came under heavy shelling in some draft on academia.edu. While each and every correction of factual errors contained in this passage (which was also used in a few other public lectures) is of course justified and welcome, but I should add that this *ornamental* introduction is fully aware of the fact (and says so!) that Pallas' early words predate any coherent formulation of the Altaic hypothesis (while I am accused of precisely *not* saying this or, possibly, not even understanding this - there is more which I'm accused of "not mentioning", while I actually *do* mention it). Any careful reading of my passage will quickly reveal that (while everything could still be made and said better and clearer) the recent "criticism" is null and void, since it (I have ample reason to assume, deliberately) misstates content and intent of my words. I am, furthermore, repatedly, not to say constantly, accused of perpetuating a false view on Abel-Rémusat's position  and, an unforgivable sin, not to cite some paper from 1996 in which the record allegedly was set straight on this one. The author of these allegations should still remeber that he, in 2016, received a quite verbose private message from me, which states my reasons for viewing his opinions on Abel-Rémusat as insufficient and *not* dictating to cease repeating what I repeat here, to which the only answer I ever received was a kind of grunt (I am still in the possession of this exchange).

This paper is the fifth part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this fifth part new Uralic etymologies for ten Permic (Komi and Udmurt) words are discussed. The etymologized words are: Udm či̮ž ’rosy, ruddy’ (< PU *čijčii); Udm ki̮Ía- ’be too wide; be shaky’ (< PU *küljä); Komi kurav- ’gather’, Udm kurja- ’scrape’ (< PU *korja-); Komi ne̮d-ki̮l ’riddle’, Udm nod ’cleverness’ (< PU *näki-ntä); Komi pi̮rig, Udm pi̮ri̮ ’crumb’ (< PU *puri-); Komi sot-, Udm suti̮- ’burn’ (< PU *se(w)-ptä-); Komi šog ’grief’, Udm šug ’difficult’ (< PU *šeŋkä); Komi and Udm ti̮š ’battle’ (< PU *tukšV); Komi uńe̮ ’quiet, gentle person; quiet, gentle; cunning’ (< PU *i̮ńa); Komi uź-, Udm iźi̮- ’sleep’ (< PU *i̮śi-w-).

This paper is the fourth part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this fourth part new Uralic etymologies for 18 Ob-Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) words are discussed. The etymologized words are Proto-Mansi (PMs) *äɣt ’channel, head of a river’ (< PU *wiksi/*wiski), Proto-Khanty (PKh) *čǖɣ ’mist’ (< PU *čäki), PKh *č􀉃j􀉉, PMs *šāĺ ’true, truth’ (< PU *čo􀄀i), PKh *č􀎘p, PMs *šup ’piece, block of wood’ (< PU *č􀉃ppa- ’cut, notch (wood)’), PKh *jiɣ, PMs *jäɣ ’father’ (< PU *ekä), PKh *jil- ’go, visit’, PMs *jäl- ’go, walk’ (< PU *elä- ’live, visit’), PKh *jēm ’taboo’ (< PU *jemä), PKh *jipǝḷ ’shadow’ (< PU *eji ’night’ + *pälä ’side’), PKh *küć- ’track, follow’ (< PU *küji-), PKh *kājǝm, PMs *kūĺmǝ ’ashes’ (< PU *kaδ́a- ’leave’), PMs *kär- ’cut, be sharp’ (< PU *kirä-), PKh *Lǟnt ’corn, grain’ (< PU *sewi- ’eat’), PMs *lūp-luw ’shoulder-blade’ (< PU *lapa ’shoulder’ + *luwi ’bone’), PKh *mūɣǝt ’anabranch, side channel of a river’ (< PU *mi̮tka), PKh *pǟɣǝl- ’forge’ (< PU *peksä-), PMs *tim- ’turn soft’, PKh *tintǝl-, PMs *tintǝl- ’soften (skins)’ (< PU *tejmi-), PKh *tam ’trapping pit’, PMs *tam ’hunting fence’ (< PU *tuma), and PKh *wī̮č ’border’ (< PU *woča ’fence’). The principles of reconstruction and the citation of lexical material are explained in the first paper of the series (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Aikio) 2013).

In this article, I introduce the terms and concepts semantic correlation and semantic disambiguation as tools for examining aspects of mythological thinking that interface with the lexicon. Semantic correlation describes a phenomenon whereby the name of the god and of the phenomenon become the same. In other words, a change in the theonym affects a change in the common noun or vice versa. In a culture where semantic correlation is a basic principle of mythological thinking, theonym and noun co-vary so that the god ‘Thunder’ is always called the same thing as ‘thunder’, the god ‘Sky’ and phenomenon ‘sky’ are called the same thing, and so on. Semantic correlation reflects the iconicity of the god, which becomes built into the lexicon. Semantic disambiguation describes the change from a theonym and corresponding noun being the same to becoming lexically distinct: either the name of the god or the noun for the phenomenon change independent of the other. Semantic disambiguation is an indicator that the god is no longer iconic of a natural phenomenon per se: a god may be identified with the sky as a location or be identified as producing thunder by, for example, driving a chariot, but the agent does not converge with the phenomenon. Recognizing semantic disambiguation can be significant because it is an indicator of change in a fundamental principle of mythological thinking.

Discussion is organized in three case studies. The first is of Uralic sky-gods. This study by language family includes discussion of the development spread of a Finnic theonym Ilma-ri to Udmurt, Sámi and probably Chuvash, and also addresses the problem of Finnic juma-la ['god']. The second case study explores an isogloss of changes in the Mari and Mordvin branches of Uralic and the Baltic and Germanic branches of Indo-European, as well as probably an Indo-Iranian language which was in contact with Finnic as well as potentially other languages subsumed by Finnic language spread. In these languages, the inherited theonym 'Sky' disappears as does the corresponding noun, and in its place appears a common noun 'God' as a theonym. This process is proposed to derive from a spread of religious change that moved across languages, quite possibly already in the Bronze Age. The third case examines names of the thunder-god in the Circum-Baltic area, revealing an isogloss in which the theonym underwent semantic disambiguation in some, but not all, branches of Finnic, Germanic and Sámi languages.

Many readers may only be superficially familiar with the history of some of the languages discussed, and even readers familiar with these languages may not be aware of the transformations in understanding that have developed during the past decade in particular. In order to make the discussion accessible to a wider range of readers, information on the historical spread and change of these languages is introduced as it becomes relevant. Although the individual case studies may each stand on their own merits, the overarching aim here is to illustrate the phenomena of semantic correlation and disambiguation and to illustrate their value as tools for examining historical changes encoded in a lexicon.

It is well-known that in the Finnic languages there is group of Uralic word-roots which appear to have undergone an unexplained vowel shift in the first and second syllables: e.g., Finnish sarvi : sarve- ‘antler’ (< Proto-Uralic *śorwa) and talvi : talve- ‘winter’ (< Proto-Uralic *tälwä). These words have been referred to as ‘secondary e-stems’, as the shape of their cognates outside Finnic suggests a proto-form with the stem vowel *a or *ä. This paper proposes a solution which provides a regular phonological account of the development of this class of word-roots. The solution involves the revision of certain aspects in the theory of historical vocalism of Saami and Mordvin.

This paper is the second part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this second part new Uralic etymologies for the following Finnish words are discussed: aita ’fence’ (< PU *ajta), ammottaa ’gape open’ (< PU *ammV- ’yawn’), kaiho ’longing, yearning’ (< PU *kajšV ’illness’), katkera ’bitter’, katku ’burnt smell’, katketa ’break in two’ (< PU *kačka- ’bite’), korpi ’dense forest, wildwood’ (< PU *korpi), ohut ’thin’ (< PU *wokši), puhjeta ’burst; open (of flowers)’, putkahtaa ’emerge, come up, pop up’ (< PU *pučki ’hollow stalk, tube’), and sato ’harvest, crops’, sataa ’yield harvest’ (< PU *čača- ’grow’). The principles of reconstruction and the citation of lexical material are explained in the first paper of the series (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Aikio) 2013).

On the History of the Concepts 'salt' and 'salty' in Finno-Ugric Languages After reconsidering the existing Finno-Ugric etymologies for taste and smell terms (such as 'salty', 'sour', 'bitter', 'spoiled', 'rancid' etc.), two FU etyma for taste (and smell) of food are reconstructed: *k É cɜ(rɜ/-kɜ) 'sour, salty, bitter' (in a positive sense), denoting, in its optimal sense, the sour-salty taste of fermented food, and in its maximum expression (mainly in derivatives) the taste of too sour or too salty (up to unpleasant) food (in modern Udmurt the meaning is 'salty'); and *kačke 'spoiled, rancid, uneatable' with derivatives (suffix *-mз) meaning 'smoke, burning' or 'mould'. Possibly, the two reconstructed roots could represent cases of Proto-Finno-Ugric palatal-velar alternation similar to the Hungarian döböz 'small box' ~ doboz 'box'. From the historical point of view it is important that these reconstructions demonstrate the absence of the use of salt in the dietary and food-preservation tradition among the speakers of Proto-Finno-Ugrian, which relates to hunting and fishing being the base of their economy and accounts for the later borrowings of words for salt from different sources.

This note is dedicated to the study of the motif of raven as a scavenging post-Flood scout and its &quot;White Raven&quot; version. In her monograph The Raven and the Carcass, Anna Birgi tta Rooth proposed that this motif was brought to all parts of the New World from Western Europe by Catholic missionaries. The article suggests that both &quot;The Raven and the Carcass&quot; motif and its &quot;White Raven&quot; version existed in the New World prior to the European colonization of Americas.

This paper is the third part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this third part new Uralic etymologies for the following Mari words are discussed: MariE jǝ̑me-, MariW jǝme- ’go numb’ (< PU *jämä-), MariE jičke-, MariW jǝčke- ’pick, pluck, pull’ (< PU *ńičkä-), MariE wüt-kowǝ̑, MariW koe, ko ’wave’ (< PU *kompa), MariE lewe, MariW liwe ’warm’ (< PU *lämpi), MariE nöńča- ’shape, form’ (< PU *ńi̮nča-/*ńanča- ’stretch’), MariE lüδa-, MariW lüδä- ’be afraid’ (< PU *li̮dV-), MariE pǝ̑ze-, MariW pǝze- ’hold, cling to’ (< PU *pitä-), MariE šuma-, MariW šǝ̑ma- ’become tired, languish’ (< PU *śoma-), MariE šüδa-, MariW šüδä- ’clear (wood, road, field, etc.)’ (< PU *si̮nti-), MariE tüž, tüjüž, MariW tüž ’pregnant (of animals)’ (< PU *tejniš). The principles of reconstruction and the citation of lexical material are explained in the first paper of the series (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte 2013). The reconstruction of Proto-Mari vocalism applied in this paper is argued in more detail by Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (2014).

This draft has been submitted to a journal, but I would welcome any comments on it. It deals with the etymologies of some terms for coastal and island geography in Finnic and Saami, focusing on (supposed) substrate vocabulary but also some other terms. I'm very happy with some of my suggestions, whereas with others I'm a bit on thin ice. As said, comments welcome.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of regular sound correspondences between well-established reconstructed Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots, supported by numerous lexical examples. The sources referenced and cited for the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots are restricted to those considered the most reliable and authoritative in their respective fields: Sammallahti’s 1988 article “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages” and the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary. The paper presents regular sound correspondences not only for the initial consonants of all Uralic and Eskimo roots cited here, but also for the first vowels and medial consonants of all of these same roots. Each of the 100 Uralic-Eskimo lexical comparisons presented in this paper is effectively cross-listed three times, by three separate classifications: first by initial onset correspondence (pp. 9-26), then by first vowel correspondence (pp. 27-45), and finally by medial consonant correspondence (pp. 46-66). The paper presents precisely defined rules governing the comparison of medial consonant clusters in the medial consonant correspondences section. The primary main rule is that in most cases, it is the first medial consonants in the respective root forms which correspond.

This paper aims to establish three new sound laws regarding the development of specific consonant clusters in Hungarian: 1) Proto-Uralic *nč > Hungarian r; 2) Proto-Uralic *jŋ > Hungarian gy; 3) Proto-Uralic *ŋt > Hungarian ld. To validate these sound laws, new Uralic etymologies for the words köröm ‘nail’, far ‘buttocks, ass’, and vágy ‘desire, wish’ are proposed, and previous etymologies of agy ‘brain’, old ‘untie, unfasten’, and oldal ‘side’ are corroborated by new phonological arguments.

The paper discusses three issues in the history of Uralic vocalism: the change of Proto-Uralic vowel combination *ä-ä to Proto-Finnic *a-e, the fate of Proto-Uralic *ï before velar consonants in Finnic, Saami and Mordvin, and the possibility of reconstructing two distinct vowels in PU non-initial syllables instead of *a of the traditional reconstruction. It is argued that the development of Uralic vocalism must be described in terms of strict sound laws, and not of “sporadic developments”.

In the current article, a critical analysis is conducted of the corpus of proposed Finnic-Saamic etymological cognates showing second-syllable labial vowels in both language groups. The data is taken from the etymological dictionary Suomen sanojen alkuperä (SSA, 1992–2000) and assessed in the light of current research on Uralic sound history and language contacts. The analysis reveals that more than half of the cognate pairs previously suggested by SSA cannot be regarded as actual cognates including their stem vowels, but should instead be viewed as the results of loan contacts and parallel developments. There are, however, a dozen cognate pairs with sound correspondences undeniably showing inheritance from a common protolanguage and thus suggesting that the development of second-syllable labial vowels may have originated in a common Finno-Saamic protolanguage, even if their wider adoption in the phonological and morphological systems of these languages did not take place until later.

This is Part 10 of a 11 Part table of Indo-European words, as they relate to the Etruscan/Latin languages as well as each other. We have added non-Indo-European languages to the table because of a continuing pattern of liaisons. These include Finnish, Latvian, Georgian and Hurrian, Urartian and Akkadian when possible. The liaisons are placed in color. Purple-colored words are generally with East Anatolian, Hittite, etc. liaisons; orange, east European to west European links,  Red, Latin liaisons, and Green Celtic/ western liaisons. Throughout the 11 tables one will find interesting liaisons between Irish and Scots-Gaelic, and Georgian, causing one to muse whether those connections had to do with the early movements of the Celts from the Caucasus Mountains involving the transport and practice of metallurgy, perhaps focused upon the need for tin. Albanian is of interest in terms of probably originally been located near the Caspian sea and having similar liaisons with the area. Romanian is of interest in terms of identification of liaisons that may reveal the root Thracian language.  What appears to be the case is that Romanian is predominately a mix of Latin,  Gaelic,  and Slavic. Many Romanian Latin liaisons curiously reflect Etruscan declensions. The Shift from Latin to Etruscan seems very similar to the shift from Latin to Romanian, as well as French.
Because of formatting problems with the PDF file, viewers may find the web page http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table1E.html (link below) easier to work with.

The focus of this dissertation is on etymology and lexicon of Mari and Permic languages (Udmurt and Komi), two branches of the Uralic language family spoken presently in Central Russia. Using the etymological method, my aim is to study the development of their respective lexicons-often intertwined in etymological research-both from the point of view of inheritance and intra language family borrowing. In addition, several other topics related to this aim are discussed in length, these include historical word derivation and (Indo-)Iranian loanwords in Mari and especially in Permic. The reconstructed earlier stages of Mari and Permic languages, Proto-Mari and Proto-Permic, both contain several hundreds of words of unknown origin. Basic etymological research into this vocabulary has been wanting in recent years and in this dissertation an attempt is made to explain some of these words through inheritance by presenting etymologically valid cognates in other Uralic languages. As a result several dozen new etymological comparisons for Mari and Permic words arise. Taking a fresh look at inherited vocabulary is also done in order to determine what can be regarded as regular phonological development as assessing loanwords within the language family has to be done against what is thought to be regular in inherited Uralic vocabulary. Historical phonologies written on Mari and Permic are based on outdated data and thus contain several assertations about the historical phonology of these languages that cannot be maintained. An updated list of Uralic cognates in Mari and Permic is compiled and based on this list a brief overview of their historical phonology is provided in the dissertation. Along with inheritance, borrowing within the Uralic language family is the other main topic of this study. This dissertation examines critically two proposed historical loanword layers: Proto-Permic loanwords in Mari and Proto-Finnic loanwords in Permic. The assumed Proto-Permic loanword layer in Mari is shown to be of heterogeneous origin, consisting mostly of erroneous comparisons. A few words in Mari can be regarded as borrowings from Permic but even in these cases borrowing from Proto-Permic has to be rejected and instead a more recent Proto-Udmurt chronology can be established. With the help of (Indo-)Iranian loanwords in Permic, a more nuanced chronology of sound changes in Permic is formulated. After comparing Proto-Finnic loanwords in Permic against this newly acquired chronology, they are mostly deemed doubtful. A new (Indo-)Iranian loan etymology is also proposed for several dozen Permic words. Many of the new etymologies proposed for Mari and Permic rely on analyzing the words as historical derivatives. Because of this a significant portion of the dissertation is dedicated to examining this possibility in detail. The dissertation also discusses general questions conserning etymological research and Uralic lexicon.

This Indo-European Table was updated to include Akkadian, Hurrian, Urartian.  This table shows interesting, perhaps extraordinary to some scholars, relationships among Indo-European and other languages listed in the Indo-European Table, The table was created to compare Etruscan and Latin words with other languages and because of the interesting correspondences in comparing the languages, the table was expanded to include Akkadian. For the correspondence  in word relationships among the languages in the Indo-European Table, see the Copeland-English-Akkadian Dictionary on academia.edu. The latest update of this table can be accessed at the  link below.

(from a work published in 1981) This table has Indo-European, Hurrian, Georgian (Kartlevian), Latvian (Baltic), Finnish (Uralic), Hittite, Akkadian and Altaic selections. We have colored words that may be related among the various languages/families. The coloring provides an unusual view of the spectrum of the cited languages. A Concordance of the cited languages is available in our Copeland-English-Akkadian Dictionary, our English-Hittite Dictionary Dictionary, an English alphabetized index to the Indo-European Table and our work, "Indo-European-Eurasian Words Linking Ancient Pastoralists." (350 pp.)

В статье представлен этимологический и лингвогеографический анализ слов пучка и умра, зафиксированных в русских говорах Прикамья и обозначающих различные зонтичные растения (Heracleum sibiricum L., Angelica archangelica L., Conium maculatum L. и др.) или дудчатый стебель зонтичных. Представлен опыт таксономической идентификации растений, которые обозначаются лексемами пучка и умра, их вариантами и производными. Прикамский диалектный материал нанесен на карту и сопоставлен со сходным севернорусским. Утверждается финно-угорское происхождение лексем (для слова умра этимология предлагается впервые).
[The paper proposes an etymological and geographical-distribution analysis of the words puchka and umra, recorded in Russian dialects in the Kama Region. They denote various Umbelliferae plants (Heracleum sibiricum L., Angelica archangelica L., Conium maculatum L., etc.) or the fistular stem of Umbelliferae plants. A tentative taxonomic identification of plants denoted by the lexemes puchka and umra or their variants/ derivatives is proposed. All Kama Region dialect data are mapped and compared with similar Northern Russian data. The Finno-Ugric origin of the lexemes is established, with an etymology of umra proposed for the first time.]

Proto-Khanty is traditionally reconstructed with a retroflex nasal phoneme *ṇ, whose origin remains disputed. According to one theory, it is directly inherited from Proto-Uralic. The other theory holds that Proto-Uralic *n, usually preserved as *n in Khanty, sporadically yielded *ṇ. We argue that Proto-Khanty *ṇ results from a regularly conditioned sound change.

The article revisits the development of Proto-Uralic close front *i in Proto-Permic. Two regular reflexes of *i have been posited in earlier literature: *i and *e. In a survey of preexisting etymological research, a third reflex *i̮ is identified as also being similarly abundant, which motivates rehabilitating several etymological comparisons that have been rejected as irregular in recent critical works. Altogether 17 examples of PP *i̮ continuing earlier *i are discussed in some detail. Typical phonological environments for the development of *i̮ are further identified, and several open problems are shown to remain. Lastly some implications of the results for future research are suggested.

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.

This is a second draft version of my paper on saima-stems.

Suggested etymologies:

1. Fi. hydronym Saimaa ?< *sajma 'black' from Early Iranian syāma-'black' (IE *k´iéh1-mó 'dark grey')
2. Fi. sama-, same- in samea 'troubled, thick (porridge)' ?< Iranian sāma 'black' (same IE stem)
3. Proto-Uralic *śäχmä 'black' (represented in Mari and Mansi) < PIE *k´iéh1-mó 'dark grey'
4.. Fi. hämä-rä 'dark, obscure' < Baltic, Lith. šė́mas 'light grey, dark grey, bluish grey' (same IE stem); _not_ < Germanic *sǣma- 'dark' which occurs isolated in Scandinavian, e.g. Old Norse sámr 'dunkelgrau', which in turn might be < Fi. sama-, same- above.
5. Fi. saimasiika 'Coregonus' ?? < *sajma 'black', e.g. musta siika 'black Coregonus', or ?< saima 'net'.
6. Fi. saima 'net' _not_ < Scandinavian, Old Norse seimr 'gold, golden thread'; ?? < North Saami sáibma 'net' from Fi. saimi, derived from saa- 'catch, acquire' (~ Fi. saama 'net').
7. Proto-Saami *ćōjmē 'pole, quant-pole' < Indo-Iranian, Sanskrit śámya- 'stick, staff (IE *k´em-ieh2-, *k´-om-ieh2-)
8. Fi. saima, soima 'boat' ?< Saami, PS *ćōjmē 'pole, quant-pole' or ???< Indo-Iranian *sav- 'make move, allot', assuming this stem survives in F i. soi-ttaa 'travel, move quickly'.

As is well-known, the Saami languages possess a large number of old loanwords from Proto-Norse, the ancestral form of the Nordic (North Germanic) languages. While Proto-Norse is not strictly speaking a solely reconstructed language, being rudimentarily attested in Elder Futhark inscriptions, most of what is known about the language is nevertheless based on reconstruction though the comparative method. As the period of extensive attestation of Norse began only several centuries after the Proto-Norse period, it is quite obvious that Proto-Norse has differed considerably from even the earliest attested forms of Old Norse. This is most evident in the realm of phonology, but it must also be true in regard to the language’s lexicon.
A productive avenue of loanword research is opened by the assumption that Proto- Norse had preserved lexical archaisms of Proto-Germanic ancestry, which later became lost in Nordic languages prior to their attestation. Thus, it is conceivable that Saami has adopted some Nordic words which are not found in the attested Nordic languages at all, but which have been preserved in their more southern Germanic sister languages. Indeed, in earlier research a couple of such borrowings have been proposed. In this brief paper I will present some additional remarks on seven etymologies of this type that have been put forward by earlier research, as well as present fourteen entirely new etymological comparisons of the same type.