Uralic Etymology

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”.

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.

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).

Päivitettyjä permiläisiä etymologioita ja rinnastuksia In this article, new revised etymologies are provided for a selected group of words in the Permic languages. An attempt is made to prove that old, previously proposed cognate sets can be revised and reorganized and that new cognates and loan etymologies can still be found simply by adhering to regularity. The article also explores both synchronic and diachronic derivation as an etymological tool. The Permic words discussed in the article are: 1) Komi ki̮ r-'to dig (up); to wash away, to furrow', Udmurt ki̮ ri̮-'to unpick, to take apart; to burst, to puncture, to crack (dam)', 2) Komi kurćći̮-, Udmurt kurtći̮-'to bite', 3) Komi pe̮ ž-'to steam, to bake', Udmurt pi̮ ži̮-'to bake', 4) Komi-Permyak śe̮ vt, śe̮ vte̮ t 'tether, fetter, shackles', Udmurt śe̮ ltet, śe̮ li̮ t 'fetter', 5) Komi vor(j) 'manger, trough', Udmurt e̮ r '(river) bed'.

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 investigates cases of semantic shifts and proto-language polysemy in the Samoyed core lexicon. This research focuses on the shifts which have analogies in Turkic and Tungusic languages, identified with the help of semantic reconstruction. Special maps were created at LingvoDoc linguistic platform in order to demonstrate areas of similar polysemy and semantic shifts, possibly contact-induced. Using materials from archival and expeditionary dictionaries, the paper proposes a detailed account of the available lexicon of the Samoyed languages within the scope of core lexicon. Our results show 15 semantic shifts in the form of polysemy, semantic evolution and cognates: ‘sun, day’, ‘earth (place), soil’, ‘earth’ > ‘ashes’, ‘earth’ > ‘sand’, ‘earth’ > ‘clay’, ‘sand, pebbles’, ‘human skin, animal skin’, ‘skin’ > ‘bark’, ‘hair, fleece, feather’, ‘feather, wing’, ‘person, man’, ‘meat, body’, ‘neck, throat’, ‘good’ > ‘beautiful’, ‘soft’ > ‘warm’. The maps created at LingvoDoc provide evidence of intense language contacts in the past and present, or display an absence of such evidence. Judging by the shape and the size of the areas on the maps it can be seen that some cases of polysemy are local, while others are widespread on the territory of Western Siberia, whole Siberia or whole Eurasia. The highlight is that 7 Samoyed-Turkic-Tungusic parallels, 5 Samoyed-Turkic parallels and 3 Samoyed-Tungusic parallels have been found within the 100-item Swadesh wordlists of these languages. Also, some cases were identified in which extralinguistic factors might have influenced similar changes in genealogically non-related languages (‘bark’ in the Samoyed, Turkic and Tungusic) and suggested a Turkic influence on the Samoyed inherited lexicon (‘ashes’, ‘clay’).

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.

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'.

The article offers several new or revised Tatar, Chuvash, or Russian loan etymologies for Mari words: 1) MariE č́ükə̑ndə̑r etc. ‘beetroot’ < Tat. čögender id.; 2) MariE jŭɣo ‘heir’ < Cv. yăx(ă) ‘family, tribe’; 3) MariE juŋgo etc. ‘finger wound’ < Tat. yungï ‘splinter’; 4) MariE kalaŋga ‘rutabaga, Brassica napobrassica’ < Ru. dial. голанка id.; 5) MariE kolko ‘fishing float’ < Tat. *kalkï id.; 6) MariE meke ‘sack’ < Ru. мех id.; 7) MariE napala, lapla etc. ‘fishing float’ < Ru. dial. наплав id.; 8) MariE oroδo etc. ‘idiot’ < Ru. dial. урод id.; 9) MariE popə̑lδatem ‘yammer’ < Ru. поболтать id.; 10) MariE Nw sor ‘big; adult; a lot; for a long time’ < Tat. zur id.; 11) MariE šolaš‑ etc. ‘throatlatch on bridle of horse’ < Ru. dial. салазки ‘lower jaw’; 12) MariE ökə̑m etc. ‘by force, compulsory’ < Tat. xökem ‘verdict, authority’; 13) MariE titak etc. ‘blame, guilt, misdeed’ < Tat. titak id.; 14) MariE tutə̑nem ‘to stutter’ < Tat. *totïn id.

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.

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.

Those who are interested in the investigation of the oldest Turkic loan-words into Hungarian have known for a couple of years about the research on this topic conducted in Szeged. It has resulted in a two-volume edition which will certainly inspire many scholars from now onwards. In the present article a handful of remarks and suggestions is presented that were noted down while reading the “new Gombocz”.