Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies for the

Yukaghir Languages and Dialects

Peter S. Piispaneni

ABSTRACT
In this paper, up to twenty-eight new Yukaghir etymologies are described as Eskimo
borrowings into the Yukaghir languages and dialects of far northeastern Siberia, with
phonological and semantic considerations for each suggestion. These findings
provide new insights into the historical phonology of these ancient borrowings as
well as fairly clear etymologies for a number of isolated Yukaghir words. The
chronology of the borrowings is also considered, and various factors reveal two
different competing hypotheses: the Yukaghir correspondences have either resulted
from chronologically different borrowing layers through the ages, or the
correspondences actually represent the remnants of an ancient genetic language
affiliation between the two, a hypothesis supported by the very divergent phonological
shapes and semantics of the correspondences. It is argued that the Eskimo
correspondences are invariably of the Yup’ik variety (instead of the Inuit variety), and
that Yup’ik language(s) were spoken in much earlier times around the Kolyma River,
where Yukaghir is still spoken, and in particular close to the Tundra Yukaghirs. The
semantic categorization of the borrowings places most of them as elementary
phenomena, actions, and perceptions, and if not actually describing an actual genetic
language relationship, this at least suggests very intense linguistic contacts between
Yup’ik and Yukaghir under bi- or multi-lingual conditions, such as through tribal
marriages and where code-switching was the norm for generations.

KEYWORDS
Lexical borrowing, Eskimo-Aleut, Yup’ik, Inuit, Yukaghir, language contact, genetic
language affiliation

RÉSUMÉ
Étymologies de mots yup’ik empruntés pour les langues et les dialectes youkaguirs
Dans cet article, jusqu’à vingt-huit nouvelles étymologies de youkaguir sont décrites
comme des emprunts esquimaux dans les langues et dialectes youkaguirs de
l’extrême nord-est de la Sibérie, avec des considérations phonologiques et
sémantiques pour chaque suggestion. Ces résultats apportent de nouvelles
perspectives sur la phonologie historique de ces emprunts anciens et fournissent
des étymologies assez claires pour un certain nombre de mots youkaguirs isolés.

i. Department of Baltic Languages, Finnish and German, Stockholm University.

[email protected]

ÉTUDES INUIT STUDIES 46 (1): 193–220

 La chronologie des emprunts est également considérée, et divers facteurs pointent
vers deux hypothèses concurrentes différentes: les correspondances de youkaguir
sont soit le résultat de couches d’emprunt chronologiquement différentes à travers
les âges, soit les correspondances représentent en fait les vestiges d’une ancienne
affiliation de langage génétique entre les deuxièmement, une hypothèse étayée par
les formes phonologiques et la sémantique très divergentes des correspondances
youkaguir. On fait valoir que les correspondances esquimaudes sont invariablement
de la variété yupik (au lieu de la variété inuit), et que la ou les langues yupik étaient
parlées beaucoup plus tôt autour de la rivière Kolyma où youkaguir est actuellement
encore parlé, puis en particulier la proximité des youkaguirs de la toundra. La
catégorisation sémantique des emprunts se place surtout en tant que phénomènes,
actions et perceptions élémentaires, et si elle ne décrit pas réellement une véritable
relation de langage génétique, cela suggère au moins des contacts linguistiques
très intenses pour le yupik et le yukaghir dans des conditions bilingues ou
multilingues susceptibles avec le mariage tribal et où le changement de code était
la norme depuis des générations.

MOTS-CLÉS
Emprunt lexical, Esquimau-Aléout, yupik, inuit, youkaguir, contact linguistique,
affiliation génétique

******

H istorically, Yukaghir languages were spread out over a very large

geographic area constituted mostly by the Chukotka Autonomous
Okrug, northeastern parts of the Sakha Republic, and northern Magadan,
with all such languages going back to Late Proto-Yukaghir (PY); the area is
thus located between the Lena River in the west and the Anadyr River in the
east (Dolgikh 1960). However, only Kolyma Yukaghir (KY) and Tundra
Yukaghir (TY), spoken around the Kolyma River of far northeastern Siberia,
remain today.
Lexical borrowings are the most common form of contact-induced
linguistic change. Numerous lexical borrowings from current and historical
neighboring languages, within every semantic field, can be found in all
existing and extinct Yukaghir languages and dialects. Such donor language
sources include Turkic, Tungusic, Chukchi, Koryak, Mongolic, and Russian
(for a recent overview, see Piispanen (2018)).
There are also some known Eskimo1 borrowings in Yukaghir (see a
broad historical and modern overview of the Eskimo languages below (e.g.,

1. As has also been pointed out elsewhere, the shifting political sensitivities of the day
have rendered the word Eskimo derogatory in eastern Canada and the United States,
at least during the last ten years or so. The term Inuit is preferred there instead,

194 Peter S. Piispanen

Berge 2016), suggesting that these languages (today spoken by over 80,000
speakers, from far northeastern Siberia to Greenland across the North
American northern coastal areas), were more widely spread out in earlier
times than they are today; speaking in favor of this is the fact (mentioned,
for example, in Knut Bergsland’s fairly unknown paper (1979, 8), citing
archaeological data from Oswalt (1967, 36–60)) that Eskimo settlements have
been found dating back to sometime far after 3000 BP around the mouth of
the Kolyma River in far northeastern Russia, where Tundra Yukaghir (TY) is
now spoken.
In more recent times, but before the seventeenth century, a complex
trade network existed, going from the Athabaskans of North America
(speaking the Na-Dené languages of the Athabaskan, Eyak, and Tlingit
people, among others), through the villages of Unalakleet (in Alaska next to
the Bering Strait) and Gambell (on St. Lawrence Island), and the Alaska
North Slope (the Alaskan northern coastal area between the Arctic Ocean,
the Chukchi Sea off the west point of Point Barrow, and the Beaufort Sea in
the east), all the way to the Chukchi and Siberian Eskimo tribes—a network
that was extended to the Kolyma River (where Yukaghirs lived) and to the
Russian city of Anadyr, and along which Chukchi served as Lingua Franca
(between the Chukchi, Yukaghirs, Koryak, Russians, Ewen, and Yup’ik until
the beginning of the twentieth century (Krupnik 1993). I suspect that at least
parts of the same trade network were already active in ancient times, which
would account for many of the historical language contacts in the larger
region between the Yukaghir, Chukchi-Koryak, Itelmen, Northern Nivkh,
Pre-Yakut, Eskimo, and Tungus(-Manchu) languages.
Naturally, therefore, there are also Eskimo borrowings in Chukchi,
spoken in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug (the easternmost extremity of
Siberia) by perhaps some 7,700–15,700 speakers. Although the Chukchi are
quite recent “intruders” on the coast of Bering Strait, some of the Eskimo
borrowings therein are fairly old (Bergsland 1979, 14, 18).2 This assumed
historical geographical spread is further supported by the existence of six
known Eskimo borrowings also in the northern Tungusic languages, with
Ewen being spoken in widely scattered communities in eastern Siberia
between Chukotka in the east, the Lena River in the west, the Arctic Ocean
in the north and the Aldan River in the south, and Ewenki around widely
spaced areas in Inner Mongolia, Chinese Heilongjiang, Russian Krasnoyarsk

whereas Yup’ik is preferred in western Canada and Alaska, as I understand it, even
though these actually denote specific linguistic and cultural groups. That said, the
term Eskimo is used here and in the long-established scientific community—with the
utmost admiration and respect—to describe the many peoples whose languages, and
culture are being studied.
2. I note from the phonology that these borrowings into Chukchi are also clearly from
Yup’ik languages.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 195

Krai, and in a large region in southern Siberia between the Pacific and the
Ural Mountains (Vovin 2015).
Borrowings into Eskimo languages worldwide have often been from
English (where in turn we find the Eskimo borrowings igloo and kayak, for
example), Russian, French, and Danish (Berge and Kaplan 2005), and
actually, also less well known, from German (in Labrador through German
Moravian missionaries; see Heinrich 1971). Naturally, there have also been
local borrowings from other current and historical languages into Eskimo
languages, than from these aforementioned nationally sovereign languages.
In this paper, the subject is loanword etymologies given as Eskimo
borrowings in Yukaghir. It is my hope that the details and the significant
number of new materials presented here will generate renewed interest in
questions regarding historical lexical borrowings in far northeastern Siberia.
Some of the earlier suggested Eskimo (and Chukchi) borrowings into
Yukaghir are commented here:
• Eskimo borrowings in Yukaghir include: Proto-Eskimo *mamaʀ(-) ‘to
taste good, to suck breast’ (CED, 205); borrowed as MC momolo
‘milk’; BO momólo, momólgat ‘milk’ (noted in Nikolaeva 2006, 273–
274). However, this is a common nursery word and therefore may
not be a borrowing at all. The nature of the borrowing of PY *mel-
‘breast’, suggested below, also from an Eskimo source, shows on the
other hand that such lexical borrowings could be possible.
• Proto-Eskimo *apǝ- ‘to become covered in snow’, Proto-Eskimo *apun
‘snow (on the ground)’ (CED, 40), possibly borrowed as KY ebut
‘virgin snow’, etc. (noted in HDY, 166; Fortescue 1998, 145). However,
due to the semantic and phonological differences, I consider this to
be an uncertain borrowing, although the vocalism could be explained
by labialization.
• Proto-Eskimo *malʀuɣ ‘two’ (CED, 205), borrowed as PY *ma:lǝ- >
TY maala- ‘both sides, opposite’; KY ma:lǝɣul’ǝlgǝ ‘around’, etc.
(HDY, 257; Fortescue 1998, 145). This is a definite borrowing,
although a better comparison for semantic reasons might be with the
Proto-Eskimo *malʀi- ‘two, pair’ (CED, 205), which could originally
be from Northern Nivkh (Nikolaev 2015, 305).
• Proto-Eskimo *umǝɣ- ‘to close off or cover’ (CED, 402), borrowed as
TY umusej- ‘to close, to shut’, etc. (HDY, 443; Fortescue 1998, 145).
This is quite likely another borrowing into TY only.
• Proto-Eskimo *qimuɣ- ‘to pull sled’ (CED, 333) > CAY qimuɣ- ‘to pull
vigorously (of dog)’; Sirenikski qǝmpǝ́ɫǝɣáχta ‘driver of a dogsled’;
Chaplino qimúxsaq~kimúxsiq ‘dog sledge’, qimúkaq ‘trained (dog or
reindeer)’; Naukan qimúxsiq ‘dog team’, qimúxtāqā ‘to train dogs to
pull a sledge’, etc. (CED, 333); borrowed as (PY *kemuɣo:r >) TY

196 Peter S. Piispanen

 kemuguor ‘whim (of a reindeer), a reindeer in folklore’ (borrowing
suggested in Piispanen 2018, 133).
• A number of additional Eskimo and Yukaghir (as well as Uralic,
Tungusic, Chukchi, Turkic, Mongolic, etc.) correspondences were
also suggested by Fortescue (1998); however, all of the Eskimo in the
Yukaghir borrowing suggestions presented in this paper are, to the
best of my knowledge, new suggestions.
• Chukchi borrowings in Yukaghir include: Chukchi sawsi ‘reindeer
breeder’ (ESRD, 672), borrowed as TY čaačaa ‘a reindeer-breeding
Chukchi tribe’ (noted in HDY, 121). The word has undergone some
irregular sound changes in Yukaghir, including a progressive vowel
assimilation; despite these issues, this is no doubt a borrowing, as is
evidenced in the semantics.
• Chukchi ǝɫwǝlu, ǝɫwe- ‘(wild) reindeer’ (Mudrak 2000, 32), borrowed
as PY *ilwǝ > KD ilbe ‘domestic reindeer’; RS ilwa, etc. ‘domestic
reindeer’; TY ilwiiče ‘pasture’, ilwii- ‘to graze (TR)’; KD ilbied’i ‘Yakut’,
etc. (HDY, 173). The word is no doubt an early borrowing, as shown
by the spread in Yukaghir.
Of importance is that in general, such borrowings into Yukaghir likely
did not come directly from Proto-Eskimo-Aleut3 (nor directly from the
descending Proto-Inuit4 or Proto-Yup’ik5), which must have been spoken
elsewhere,6 but rather from a descending yet currently unidentified daughter
language. Also, the sound correspondences of Eskimo borrowings in
Yukaghir are far from fully understood—because the prosody, phonology,
suffixation patterns, length of lexical roots, etc., are different—and thus,

3. A grouping also known as Eskaleut or Inuit-Yup’ik-Unangan languages. Throughout

this paper, I refer to the original common proto-language of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut (PEA)
only as Proto-Eskimo. PEA is believed to have diverged into Proto-Eskimo and Proto-
Aleut (which as of yet has not been reconstructed) as early as 4000–6000 BP (Bergsland
1986, 1989), with Proto-Eskimo later changing into the descending branches of Proto-
Yup’ik and Proto-Inuit.
4. This is also the common ancestor of all Inuit languages (also called Inupik) of
Greenlandic, Inuktitut, Inupiaq, Inuinnaqtun, Inuvialuktun, etc. spoken on the
American side, thus ranging from Big Diomede Island in the Bering Strait to the east
coast of Greenland.
5. This is the common ancestor of all the Yup’ik languages, spoken both in western and
south-central Alaska and in northeast Siberia. Some researchers, including myself,
place Sirenikski as a separate fourth branch of Eskimo languages (in addition to
Yup’ik, Inuit, and Aleut) originating in Proto-Sirenikski (e.g., Hitch 2017, 2). Though
this may be correct, a separate Sirenikski grouping is actually not of any importance
for the larger thesis presented here, namely, the study of general etymologies based in
(Yup’ik) Eskimo borrowings into Yukaghir.
6. The homeland of all the Eskimo languages is believed to have been in Alaska not
Siberia (CED, XI).

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 197

determining the exact donor language (which is likely now extinct) is very
difficult (see the phonological summary at the end of this text). Furthermore,
the history of the Siberian Yup’ik language is less clear, and so, with this
paper, I hope to fill in some gaps in the understanding of such matters.
I take heed of Bergsland’s warning (regarding comparisons between
the Eskimo languages and other far northeastern Siberian languages):

Also, for drawing conclusions of this sort, the comparisons would of

course have to be based on an adequate descriptive analysis and should
be critically weighed in their short-range perspective. For the question
of possible ancient contacts with Samoyed or Yukaghir, for example,
there is little point in adducing forms characteristic of some Eskimo
subdialect only. In such cases, the resemblance can easily be shown to
be accidental. (Bergsland 1979, 10)

Thus, great care in attempting to use well-attested Eskimo roots in the

lexical comparisons. On occasion, I will discuss some common features
between any known Eskimo daughter language and the Yukaghir form, if
applicable and detectable. The directionality of the suggested borrowings
will be Eskimo > Yukaghir because each respective root is (usually) widely
attested in many Eskimo languages and usually only (but not always) with
limited spread in Yukaghir.
I who am not a trained Eskimologist but rather specializing in Yukaghir
studies, will for each borrowing determine the donor language, as being
either Inuit Eskimo or Yup’ik variety, based on phonology and semantics.
One would expect that, as a default, the borrowings in Yukaghir would
invariably be of the Yup’ik variety due to geographical reasons, and, indeed,
this is what is found with most of the borrowings. I believe that several
different chronological waves of Eskimo borrowings may have occurred in
Yukaghir, and I trust that future research will shed light on the phonology,
prospective donor language, and historical conditions under which the
borrowings took place.
Some researchers over many years have directly or indirectly suggested
a genetic language relationship in different groupings involving Yukaghir
and the Eskimo languages (e.g., as Uralo-Eskimo in Rask 1818;7 Uhlenbeck
1905, 1941; Sauvageot 1924, 1953; Bergsland 1959, 1979; Hajdú 1975, 1979;
Georg and Seefloth 2001;8 and as Uralo-Siberian in Swadesh 1962; Fortescue

7. Indeed, the early Danish linguist Rasmus Rask, usually appreciated for his great
insights into Germanic linguistics, also provided numerous interesting ideas presented
through fairly convincing comparisons between Finno-Ugric, Tungusic, Turkic, Eskimo,
etc. languages—ideas that today are still worthy of pursuit, evaluation, and study.
8. It should be noted that they based their evidence of a long-range genetic relationship
on paradigmatic morphology, which is usually considered to be unassailable.

198 Peter S. Piispanen

1998). As a working hypothesis, all similarities, including those in the
lexicon, are due to ancient language contact situations; hence, for now, I will
refer to all lexical correspondences as (ancient) borrowings.
In contrast, however, I firmly believe that Uralic and Yukaghir are
genetically related to each other, as both go back to a common Pre-Proto
Uralic language stage (also known as Proto-Uralo-Yukaghir); evidence for
this can be found not only within the lexical domain, but also with similar
phonology (with regular sound laws linking the two branches together),
morphological marking, pronominal systems (personal and demonstrative),
numerals, negation, typology, and compounding and derivational suffixes.
The semantics of a borrowed root is often narrowed down from that
found in Eskimo to that found in Yukaghir. In the literature, all the Eskimo
borrowings in Yukaghir have thus far been been described only as general
Eskimo borrowings; this paper, however, I have tried to conclusively
demonstrate that all the Eskimo borrowings are from the Yup’ik branch of
languages. Recently, several Northern Nivkh borrowings into Yukaghir, Yakut,
Tungusic, Chukchi, and the Eskimo languages—sometimes independently,
sometimes seemingly as Wanderwörter—have been suggested (Nikolaev
2015), and the findings presented below are assumed to also relate to these
extensive historical language contacts. I suspect that both the Eskimo and
hypothetical Northern Nivkh borrowings in Yukaghir constitute a
considerably older layer of borrowings (as is also supported by the
archaeological finding of a very early Eskimo presence at the mouth of the
Kolyma River) than those from the considerably younger Altaic Turkic,
Mongolic, and Tungusic sources, but such considerations and comparisons
remain outside the scope of the current paper.

New Eskimo Borrowings into Yukaghir

Twenty-eight new loanword suggestions can be added to the corpus
of Eskimo borrowings into Yukaghir languages and dialects. To my
knowledge, none of these have been mentioned in any of the areal
comparative works, including those of Fortescue (1998), Nikolaeva (the HDY
2006), and EDAL (2003), among others. In all the Eskimo vocabulary, the
symbology/orthography of the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary (CED, 2nd
ed. 2010) is used. The dialect and source abbreviations of the CED, as are its
sometimes narrowed down sources within brackets, are also reproduced and
used in my presentation. I have opted to include only the Proto-Eskimo, CAY,
Sirenikski, and NAI forms, that is, one representative of each branch, in
detail; other forms of interest are on occasion mentioned due to further
semantic or phonological importance. Furthermore, I have assumed that
Proto-Eskimo split up into Proto-Yup’ik and Proto-Inuit, respectively (and
perhaps also separately into Aleut and Sirenikski). As the latter proto-forms

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 199

are not specifically reconstructed in the CED, I have opted to adhere to the
forms reconstructed by Professor Oleg A. Mudrak (his Proto-Yup’ik and
Proto-Inuit reconstructions are available on the StarLing Database server
since 2005).

Proto-Eskimo *mǝluɣ- ‘to suck (breast)’ (CED, 216) > Proto-Yup’ik

*mǝluɣ- ‘to suck’ and Proto-Inuit *mǝluɣ- ‘to suck, milk’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in AAY, CAY mǝluɣ- ‘to suck’, NSY, CSY mǝluɣ-, Sirenikski
mǝłǝɣ- ‘to suck or breathe in’, SPI, NAI miluk- ‘to suck’, WCI, ECI, and
GRI (CED, 216); ?borrowed as PY *mel- ‘breast’ > KY melut ‘breast’; MO
melur; etc. (HDY, 263).

The Yukaghir root has been suggested cognate with PFU *mälke
‘breast’ (UEW, 267) in numerous publications (e.g., Bouda, Nikolaeva,
Fortescue, Dolgopolskij, Piispanen and so on). However, it could instead be
an old Eskimo borrowing, as indicated by both the phonology and the
semantics. There are no distinguishing phonological or semantic features to
distinguish between these options. As a Pre-PU cognate *mälke, the Yukaghir
form would phonologically have become *mal- as a monosyllabic root—
because PU *-ä- always corresponds to *-a- in Yukaghir—which then could
easily have undergone labialization to PY *mel-, although *mel- is also the
expected form as an Eskimo borrowing (< *mǝluɣ).
The Uralic and Yukaghir forms have both been compared to Proto-Inuit
*malak ‘front of throat’ elsewhere (Fortescue 1998, 142; CED, 204). The
meaning of ‘breast’, specifically, is found throughout the Inuit branch of
languages (missing in Yup’ik), and this poses problems. Inuit could not be
a source of borrowings into Yukaghir because they are spoken on different
continents.
Practically all the Eskimo borrowings in Yukaghir must be from Yup’ik
languages, but the meaning of ‘breast’ could have disappeared from the latter
after the borrowing took place (the preceding Proto-Eskimo root also has
the reconstructed meaning of ‘breast’).
The root has a nominal derivational suffix (KY -t < PY *-δ > TY -r)
(HDY 2006, 83), along with an epenthetic -u-. Phonologically, the Eskimo
forms can be divided as follows: *mulǝ(ɣ) ‘nipple’ (CED, 221) and *mǝluɣ
‘plur. breasts of a woman, milk, to suck’, probably due to contaminations.
Assuming a borrowing as a monosyllabic root, PY *mel- provides no
advantages to assuming Uralic cognancy. Semantically, we have ‘breast (of
woman), to suck, milk’ > ‘breast’, and is perhaps also paralleled in other
languages.

Proto-Eskimo *ałɣiʀ- ‘oldsquaw duck (long-tailed duck)’ (CED, 23) >

Proto-Yup’ik *a Г l ǝ - ~ *al ɣǝ - ‘eider’ and Proto-Inuit *al ɣ i- ~

200 Peter S. Piispanen

 *ajɣi- ‘long-tailed duck’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in CAY ałxiaʀ(aq)
‘oldsquaw duck’, CSY, Sireniksi aɣlǝkǝsǝɣax ‘Steller’s eider’, NAI ažɣiq
‘oldsquaw duck’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *al’q- >) TY
al’ɣure- ‘to cackle (of birds)’ (HDY, 101).

A direct borrowing into modern TY only, although there are some

phonological concerns. An unidentified Inuit language could have provided
the word (given the cluster *-lɣ- and the semantics), however the Proto-
Yup’ik reconstruction is lacking. All Eskimo forms contain a non-metathesized
cluster *-lɣ-, demonstrating Proto-Yup’ik *alɣǝ-. Bird names, are subject to
onomatopoetic interpretation, which is the reason for the doubly
reconstructed proto-forms. The Yukaghir form also indicates *alɣǝ- (but with
unclear palatalization.9 If borrowed, the following applies: TY -re (< PY *-δe)
is an intransitive verbal suffix (HDY, 79), and the -u- is epenthetic.
Semantically, the typical behavior of the duck (i.e., cackling), has
simply become ‘to cackle’ by adding a verbal suffix; in other words, ‘duck’ >
‘to behave like a duck, i.e., to cackle’. Similar semantic changes can also be
observed with other borrowings, such as: Ewen kuńa:- ‘to gallop (of a horse
or reindeer)’, borrowed as TY quńe ‘two-year old male reindeer’ (HDY, 390).
Borrowings of reindeer terminology in Yukaghir are treated elsewhere (see
Piispanen 2015).

Proto-Eskimo *alu(C)un ‘spoon’ (CED, 22) > Proto-Yup’ik *aluŋ- (-unt)

‘to lick, spoon’ and Proto-Inuit *aòlu-ɣ- ‘to lick, spoon, tongue’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in AAY, CAY aluŋun ‘dog-feeding trough’, SPI, NAI
aluuttaq ‘spoon’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *aluj >) TD alui
‘spoon’ (HDY, 102).

This is another borrowing from a Yup’ik language directly into TD that

only retains the original meaning. The donor language cannot readily be
identified but the combination of root phonology and semantics makes this
a secure borrowing. The meaning of ‘spoon’ is very widely distributed
throughout the Eskimo languages.

Proto-Eskimo *alǝmqaʀ- ‘to eat greedily’ (CED, 18) > Proto-Yup’ik

*am(ǝ)qǝ- ‘to bite (off), to nibble lips’ and Proto-Inuit *apqa-la- ‘to eat
quickly’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY alǝmqaʀ ‘to sneak a taste’,
CSY, Sirenikski alǝqaʀ- ‘to lick’, amqaʀ- ‘to bite’, SPI, NAI apqałak- ‘to
eat greedily’, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as PY *amlə- > KY amli:- ‘to
swallow’, amlaj- ‘to sink’; TY emlerej-; KY amlujbə ‘sunset’; KD amlibe
‘digestive tract’, etc. (HDY, 103).

9. In Yukaghir, both *-l(‘)q- and *-ql- are phonologically acceptable clusters.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 201

 This stem is attested in two harmonic variants: the back variant amlə-
and the front variant emlə-; all Eskimo forms indicate that the former is the
primary one. This Yup’ik borrowing has become monosyllabic and suffixed.
Roots of the type *(h)am- ‘to eat’ are present in a considerable number of
North Amerindian languages, such as in this Proto-Eskimo root. Because the
root is already re-constructible in PY (or even earlier), this may represent
one of the earliest borrowing layers into Yukaghir. The semantic development
is outlined as follows: ‘to bite’ > ‘to swallow’ > ‘digestive tract, to cut down’
> ‘to disappear’ > ‘sunset, to sink, to dive’.

Proto-Eskimo *at(a)- ‘to be attached or persisting’ (CED, 54) > Proto-

Yup’ik *atV- ‘together’ and Proto-Inuit *atta-nt- ‘to be attached’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in AAY, CAY ata- ‘to be attached’, NSY, CSY, Sirenikski
atinax ‘together’, SPI, NAI ata- ‘to be attached’, WCI, ECI, and GRI;
borrowed as (PY *attə- >) KY attəč- ‘to get stuck’ (HDY, 114).

The meaning in the Yup’ik languages is clearly ‘to be attached,

together’. This was borrowed into the KY branch only and given -č-, an
iterative verbal suffix (HDY, 79). The semantics thus follow ‘to be attached’ >
‘to remain attached, to get stuck’. The geminate in KY is a curiosity also
found in the Inuit forms but not in the Yup’ik forms.

Proto-Eskimo *caŋimmiʀ- ‘to want more’ (CED, 74) > Proto-Yup’ik *caŋi-
miʁ-tə-‘to want more’ and Proto-Inuit *caŋiaɣ ~ *caŋi-m(m)iʁ- ‘jealous,
to want more’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY caŋimixtǝ- ‘to want
more’, SPI, and NAI saŋimmiq; borrowed as PY *čaŋa-~*čoŋo- > KY
čaŋ- ‘to protect, to defend’; TY čoŋ- ‘id.’, čoŋole- ‘to feel pity for
(TR)’,čoŋorii- ‘to feel pity (TR)’, čoŋoledi- ‘to grieve over (TR)’, čančuore-
‘to protect, to care for (TR)’ TK t’ambi-, t’ambe, -d’amba, КY čaŋužə- ‘to
protect, to defend’; čaŋbə- ‘to help’, etc. (HDY, 123).

This early borrowing justifies a PY reconstruction. This stem is an

example of the rare correspondence К -a- ~ T -o- (HDY, 114); perhaps
borrowing is the reason for this discrepancy. All the Eskimo forms suggest
that the proper PY reconstruction is *čaŋa-, however the exact donor
language (branch) cannot be readily determined from phonological or
semantic considerations.
Semantically, we have ‘to want more’ and ‘jealous’ > ‘defending
(jealously)’ and ‘to protect (what one desires/wants)’. The meaning ‘to feel
pity for’ is secondary. The semantics should be compared to another
borrowing: Yakut maanɯ ‘dear’, borrowed as PY *ma:n- > TY maanńe- ‘to
protect jealously without letting somebody go near someone else’ (Piispanen
2013, 126–127).

202 Peter S. Piispanen

 Proto-Eskimo *kit- ‘to sink’ (CED, 193) > Proto-Yup’ik *kitə- ‘to sink, to
drown, to overflow, to immerse in’ and Proto-Inuit *kitə- ‘to sink, to
settle (water)’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY kittǝ- ‘to sink, to set
(of a celestial body)’, NSY, Sirenikski kit(ǝ)- ‘to drown’, SPI, NAI kit- ‘to
settle (water)’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *kitńe- >) KY kitńe-
‘to suffocate, to choke’ (HDY, 214).

This is another example of borrowing from an unidentified Yup’ik

language found only in KY (no PY reconstruction is necessary), where -ńe- is
a comitative or proprietive verbal suffix (HDY, 79; Nagasaki 2014).
Semantically, the meaning of ‘to drown’ is now found in Yukaghir only as ‘to
suffocate, to choke’.

Proto-Eskimo *nukaʀ ‘younger sibling (of same sex)’ (CED, 260) >
Proto-Yup’ik *nuka- (-lpiɣa-, -ʁa-) ‘young man, boy, man (in his prime),
sister, second wife’ and Proto-Inuit *nuka- (-tpi(ʁ)a-, -ʁa-) ‘younger
sibling of the same sex, boy, young unmarried man’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in CAY nukaq ‘beaver in second year’, NSY, Sirenikski nuka
‘sister’, SPI, NAI nuka(q) ‘younger sibling’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed
as (PY *ńuɣe:- >) TY ńuugel ‘half-brothers’ (HDY, 313).

This is another borrowing found only in TY, where -l is a common

nominal derivational suffix (HDY, 81). As for semantics, the Chugach nuka[ʁ]
aq ‘foster daughter’ is comparable to the ‘half-brothers’ in Yukaghir, a kinship
term, where the relation is not of full blood. It is assumed that the borrowing
took place through intermarriages between Yukaghir and Eskimo populations,
where ‘half-brothers’ and ‘half-sisters’ may have been quite common.

Proto-Eskimo *qəlanər(aʀ)- ‘to want something urgently’ (CED, 321–322) >

Proto-Yup’ik *qəla- ‘to need, to urge dogs on, to shoo dogs away, to long
for something with impatience, to cause’ and Proto-Inuit *qəla- ‘quickly,
immediately, to want urgently’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in CAY
qǝlanǝʀnaxqǝ- ‘to cause to waste time’, CSY, SPI, NAI qɨlanaaq- ‘to want
urgently’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as PY *qoll- > KY qolluj- ‘to
envy (INTR)’; TY qollej-, qollerii ‘a dog in folklore [lit. envy]’, etc. (HDY, 384).

This root is widely attested in Yukaghir, and borrowing must have

already occurred into PY. The Yukaghir geminate could have arisen due to
affective syntax. Phonotactic considerations showed this to be a borrowing
from Proto-Chukchi *ǝqLe-t- ‘to be in need, to need’ into Proto-Yup’ik, later
providing the borrowing into Yukagir. Semantically, we have ‘to long for with
impatience’ and ‘to want urgently’ > ‘to envy very much > ‘to cause to envy’
when someone else has what one longs for urgently.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 203

 Proto-Eskimo *uLəvkaʀ- ‘to fill or to be full’ (CED, 398) > Proto-Yup’ik
*ul əv- ‘to overfill, to overload (e.g., a car by people), to fill to
overflowing’ and Proto-Inuit *ulipka- ‘to fill, to be full’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in NSY, NAI ulipkaaq- ‘to fill completely’, WCI, and GRI;
borrowed as (PY *ule- >) KY uldiču:- ‘filled’, uldu:- ‘to stick, to choke’,
ultədej- ‘to fill’, etc. (HDY, 442).

Here we have another Yup’ik borrowing into KY only. The original

semantics of ‘to fill’ is retained in most languages. The Proto-Eskimo root
already had the dual meaning of ‘to fill, to fill to overflowing’.

Proto-Eskimo *ulɨʀ ‘to crack (open)’ (CED, 401) > Proto-Yup’ik *uɫiГ- ‘to
cut open’ and Proto-Inuit *uli-ʁ- ‘to break, to crack, to chip’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in AAY, CAY ułixtə- ‘to open or cut something as to
expose the inside’, SPI, NAI uliq- ‘crack, chip (china, enamel)’, WCI, and
ECI; borrowed as (PY *yl’- >) KY il’(l’)aj-, il’(l’)a:- ‘to rip up, to open,
to undo’; KD il’ailuol ‘line’, etc. (HDY, 460).

This is another Yup’ik borrowing into KY only. The phonological

changes are trivial, and the Yukaghir palatal liquid –l’- may be a direct
phonological equivalent to an original *-ɫ(i)-, followed by suffixation.
Semantically, we have ‘to cut open’ (Yup’ik) > ‘to rip open > to open’
(Yukaghir) > ‘to undo’.

Proto-Eskimo *iqa(ʀ) ‘dirt’ (CED, 154) > Proto-Yup’ik *iqa ‘dirt, dirty,
clean’ and Proto-Inuit *ika- ɣ-, (-ŋa-) ‘untidy, dirty’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in AAY, CAY iqa(q) ‘dirt’, NSY, CSY, SPI, NAI iqaʀɨ- ‘to wash’,
and WCI; borrowed as (PY *yɣ- >) TY jaɣul’, aɣul’, eɣul ‘mud, dirt,
sludge’, etc. (HDY, 460).

This constitutes another Yup’ik borrowing into TY only (thus no PY

form needs to be reconstructed, although this is useful to understand the
parallel phonological correspondence, Yup’ik *iq- <> PY *yɣ-, as is also
evidenced in the next borrowing). In Yukaghir, *-l (> TY –l) is a nominal
derivational suffix (HDY, 81).

Proto-Eskimo *iqquʀ ~*iqquɣ ‘buttocks or end of something’ (CED,

156–157) > Proto-Yup’ik *íqruɣ ‘end, edge’ and Proto-Inuit *iqpa-ʁ- ‘to
spread out’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY iquk ‘end’, NSY, CSY,
Sirenikski iqcəx ‘end, edge’, SPI, NAI iqquk ‘buttock’, WCI, ECI, and GRI;
borrowed as PY *yɣ- ‘edge, border, riverbank’ > KY jaɣil ‘edge, border,
riverbank’; TY eɣal, aɣil; KY jaɣilə-a:- ‘to wave [lit. to make an edge]’;

204 Peter S. Piispanen

 TY aɣaduol’, aɣaduol, eɣaduol’ ‘bank of a lake where a boat and nets
are placed to dry’; TK aɣat’i- ‘to cut skins (several times)’, etc. (HDY, 460).

This is another secure Yup’ik borrowing in Yukaghir, where again we

have the phonological correspondence of Yup’ik *iq- <> PY *yɣ-. This can
also be compared phonologically to the Proto-Tungusic (TU) *iče- ‘to see’
(EDAL, 579), borrowed as PY *y:čə- ‘to see’ (noted in HDY, 460), a root that
is also borrowed into Ket, as TU *iče- ‘to see’ > Ewenki ičede ‘colour’,
borrowed as Ket eɂtl ‘color’ (Khabtagaeva 2017, 83). Semantically, we have
‘end, edge’ (Yup’ik) to > ‘edge’ (Yukaghir) > ‘border’ and ‘riverbank’. A similar
semantic development through demarcation is found with KY čoɣ- ‘to cut’ >
čoɣočə ‘steep riverbank’ (HDY, 136). In this set, we also have the opposite
but equally logical ‘edge, border, riverbank’ > ‘to cut out (also while sewing)’
and ‘to wave [lit. to make an edge]’.

Proto-Eskimo *kaki- ‘to pierce or prick’ (CED, 166) > Proto-Yup’ik

*kaki- (-n, -aʁ) ‘to spear, to pierce or prick, pin, large fork, fish spear’
and Proto-Inuit *kạkị- ‘to prick, large fork, fish spear, pin’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in AAY, CAY kaki- ‘to take a stitch’, NSY, Sirenikski
kakit(ə)- ‘to fasten, to pierce with needle, to thrust’, SPI, NAI kaki- ‘to
prick’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as PY *kiɣe-/*kiŋkə- > KY kigi:-,
kige:-, kiŋi:- ‘to gore, to prick, to stick, to stab’; TY kige-, etc. (HDY, 210).

This widespread borrowing into Yukaghir is from a very well-attested

Yup’ik root. The vocalism is unexpected, but the consonantism and semantics
indicate this as a borrowing. Based on the Eskimo phonology, the PY form
can only be reconstructed as *ki ɣe- (the original *-k- has undergone
sonorization (> *-g-) and spirantization (> *-ɣ-) between vowels, which I
believe is a regular process in Yukaghir, given certain hitherto unexplored
phonological conditioning factors). Semantically, we have ‘to spear, to pierce,
to prick’ (Eskimo) > ‘to gore, to prick, to stick, to stab’ (Yukaghir).

Proto-Eskimo *qiŋŋaʀ- ‘to show displeasure’ (CED, 335) > Proto-Yup’ik

*qiŋa-(ʁ-) ‘to refuse, to do against, to dislike something’ and Proto-Inuit
*qǝʁu-ɣ- ‘to show displeasure, to have a fierce look’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in AAY, CAY qiŋaq ‘fetus’, qiŋaʀ- ‘to be pregnant’, NSY, CSY,
Sirenikski qiŋaʀ(naʀ)- ‘to be frightening’, SPI, NAI qiŋałłuak- ‘to show
displeasure by being sullen’, WCI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *keŋtǝ- >)
KY keŋdǝ- ‘to feel sorry for (TR)’, etc. (HDY, 206).

This Yup’ik language borrowing is attested only in KY. In Yukaghir, a

bare monosyllabic verbal root (*qeŋ) was borrowed, and the root-initial
consonant was changed to k-, which is preferred with front vowels (instead

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 205

of q- due to rules of synharmonism); PY *-tə- (> KY -tə-), on the other hand,
is a transitivizing verbal suffix (HDY, 83), resulting in *keŋtə-. Semantically,
there is a connection between ‘to dislike’ (Eskimo) and the semantically
changed, less judgmental ‘to feel sorry for’ (Yukaghir).
There exists a somewhat similar Proto-Eskimo *qənəʁ- ‘to be angry’
(CED, 324). Compare (Yup’ik) Naukan qináʁjuɣāquq (< *qiŋa-ʁ-) ‘to be
discontent with guests’ with (Inuit) SPI Dialects Imaq qíŋaʁjóqtoq (< *qənəʁ-)
‘to be discontented with guests’. These are likely connected forms. They may
actually be connected through an earlier etymon (Pre-Proto-Eskimo?) for
phonological and semantic reasons; also, in the same vein, could the
previously non-etymologized and isolated form of TY kiid’ə (< *kin-ćə)
‘demon, evil spirit, soul’ (HDY, 212) be an Eskimo borrowing from one of
these sources?

Proto-Eskimo *taʀəʀ- ‘to be dark’ (CED, 362) > Proto-Yup’ik *tarrú-

‘darkness, dusk, to become dark’ and Proto-Inuit *tau-ʁ-(-si-) ~ *taru-ʁa-
‘darkness, dark, black’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in CAY taaləx ‘darkness’,
NSY, Sirenikski taʀa ‘soot’, SPI, NAI taaq ‘darkness, to be dark’, WCI,
ECI, and GRI; borrowed as PY *toro- > TY torońe- ‘black, dark, gloomy’;
torojaɣa ‘elk’, toroje ‘birthmark, torojaa ‘a woman in folklore, torojaɣa-
ńanme ‘long purple willows [lit. elk willow]’, toraqa ~ toroqodie ‘a man
in folklore’, torońej-burie ‘crowberry [lit. black berry]’, etc. (HDY, 436).

This other fairly obvious Yup’ik borrowing into TY only. There also
exists a derivative, non-donor form with Proto-Eskimo *taRəRnəR ‘darkness
or dark thing’ (CED, 333). Siberian Yup’ik has only three non-derived color
terms (black, white, and red) (Fortescue 2016, 35), while Yukaghir has at
least five or six, non-derived color terms with black, white, red, yellow, green,
and blue, created in unison according to the so-called evolutionary color
system by Berlin and Kay (1969). Because Yukaghir is often exceptionally
descriptive and semantically innovative, perhaps there is a culturally aesthetic
element involved with using a borrowed lexicon and derived forms. Another
comparison of relevance may be with the Proto-Indo-European *dherg- ‘to
dim, to darken’ (> Tocharian A tärkär; Tocharian B tarkar ‘cloud’), though I
believe this is only coincidental.

Proto-Eskimo *tǝnu- ‘to push or poke’ (CED, 371) > Proto-Yup’ik *tǝnu-
‘to poke, to push into, to knife, to stick, to nudge’ and Proto-Inuit *tǝnu-
‘to push, to shove’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY ənuuʀ- ‘to push,
to shove’, NSY, Sirenikski tənpižaqaʀ- ‘to knock into’, SPI, NAI tɨnu-,
WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *tont- >) KY tondu- ‘to stick
(INTR)’, tottəč- ‘to stick (TR)’, tottaj- ‘to grease’, tottəyərə- ‘to take hold
of, to catch (TR)’, etc. (HDY, 435).

206 Peter S. Piispanen

 Although the phonology gives few hints as to the donor language
(branch), the semantics appear to suggest a Yup’ik language. Nikolaeva notes
for this root that the geminate -tt- is the result of assimilation of an *-nd-,
which also shows us that the root was suffixed with PY *-δə- (> KY -də-~-d-),
an intransitivizing verbal suffix (HDY, 79). While a PY reconstruction is not
readily warranted for this KY root, the widespread semantic developments
suggest that this is an old borrowing. I suggest that *tonδə- (not *tont-) was
borrowed, followed by *tondə- > *tontə- > *tottə- (and also the progressive
assimilated forms of *tontu- and *tonto-). Though the semantics are
agreeable, it is unclear why the original first syllable *-ə- was irregularly
reflected as *-o-, instead of the expected *-e-, as in other Eskimo borrowings.

Proto-Eskimo *tuluʀ- ‘to butt or bump into’ (CED, 380–381) > Proto-
Yup’ik *tuluʁ- ‘sharp-pointed, tusk’ and Proto-Inuit *tuluʁ- ‘to hit with
tusks, to bump into something, canine tooth, fang’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in CAY tuluʀ- ‘to lean on, to be supported on’, tuluq ‘ivory, tusk’,
NSY, CSY, SPI, NAI tuluq- ‘to butt, to hit with head or tusk, to attack (of
bird), to reach shore (of boat)’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY
*tolč- >) KY tol’či:- ‘to hammer, to knock, to beat, to peck’, etc. (HDY, 433).

Here is another very limited Eskimo borrowing, but it is an oddity. The

phonology of either the Inuit or Yup’ik forms could explain Yukaghir,
however the semantics best agrees with the Inuit ‘to butt, to hit with head
or tusk, to poke’. Such meanings may have existed but were lost from Yup’ik
after borrowing into Yukaghir. The vocalism of *-u- > *-o- is typical of early
borrowings (HDY, 63). The cluster of -l’č- is atypical morpheme-internal, and
borrowing of a bare bisyllabic root (*tolə- ‘to bump’) of Yukaghir prosody,
followed by suffixation (PY *-či:- (> KY -či:-), a delimitative verbal marker
(HDY, 79), and assimilation (*toləči:- into *tolči:-, not *tolč-, as suggested),
could explain this well, followed by an assimilative influence of the following
long –i:- (i.e., *tolči:- > KY tol’či:-). It is not unusual to mark intransitive verbs
for continuous long actions, action only once, etc., and so we get ‘to hammer
for a while’, etc.

Proto-Eskimo *talu ‘screen or partition’ (CED, 356–357) > Proto-Yup’ik

*talu-(H)i- ‘to hide oneself, to move out of sight, shadow, shade, hunting
blind, to go out of sight behind shelter’ and Proto-Inuit *talu- ~ *tälịt
‘to cover, covering, hunting screen, to disappear from view, to set (of
sun or moon)’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY talu ‘partition
between two family areas in a house’, NSY, SPI, NAI talu- ‘shooting
screen, covering, to cover’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *tol >)
KJ tol ‘supply of food for a journey’, etc. (HDY, 433).

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 207

 This Yup’ik borrowing is attested only in one dialect of KY.
Phonologically, only a short bare root was borrowed, and the vowel
labialized. Arctic survival is not easy—in a milieu where perhaps 3,500–6,000
calories are required per day—therefore borrowing a word for ‘supply of
food for a journey’ makes great sense. Semantically, the Inuit meanings are
a better match, but this should be another Yup’ik borrowing. We have ‘cover,
shelter’ > ‘to get in under cover, to be hidden, to set (of sun or moon)’
(Eskimo) > ‘covered (or hidden or sheltered) partition/package’ > ‘supply of
food for a journey’ (Yukaghir). Compare semantically to TY pońi- ‘to put, to
leave, to abandon’ > TY pońinube ‘place where clothes and other things are
left’ (HDY, 359) (which is cognate with PU *pani- ‘to put’ and PU *pane- ‘to
put’ (UEW, 353–354). Another comparison can be made, namely with Proto-
Uralic *tolwa ‘to bring, to take’ < PU *tolï- ‘to come’ (Aikio 2002, 29) which,
being cognate, would entirely invalidate this borrowing suggestion.

Proto-Eskimo *qulliquliaq ‘a species of small bird, plover’ (CED, 344)

> Proto-Yup’ik *quli- ~ *kuli- ‘a kind of seabird’ and ?Proto-Inuit
*qulu’cuɣ ‘back of bird’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in WCI and ECI;
borrowed as Proto-Tungusic *kilu- ‘grey goose, heron, gull, swan’ >
Ewen kular ‘gull’, kil’arqa ‘name of a bird’; Ewenki kuluk ‘gull’, etc.
(TMS) 1, 392–393, 429); borrowed as (PY *qulerqə >) KY qalerqə ‘Ross
gull (Larus rosea)’; TY qularqaa, qul’arqaa ‘id., a woman in folklore’,
etc. (HDY, 389, with comparison to the Ewen kular, instead of kil’arqa).

This is an old known borrowing from Tungusic into Yukaghir, although

it actually dates back further to the Eskimo languages. Semantically, the
Proto-Tungusic root *kilu- meant ‘a kind of sea bird’ plover, etc.’, meanings
borrowed with the Eskimo word *kuli-. These then changed throughout
different Tungusic languages, including the Ewen kil’arqa ‘name of a bird
(likely a gull species)’ with a Tungusic suffix, specifically borrowed as KY
qalerqə ‘Ross gull (Larus rosea)’, etc. Despite the irregular vowel switch, the
suggested chain of borrowings presented herein should be correct, given the
phonology and suffixation. Moreover, the Eskimo root is clearly a derivative
of the Proto-Eskimo *quliR ‘upper part’, attested in CAY, NSY, CSY, Sirenikski,
SPI, NAI, WCI, ECI, and GRI (CED, 343), because the ‘plover’ has a very
characteristic look, as only its upper part is colored; the superlative form is
also found with *qulliR ‘uppermost one’.

Proto-Eskimo *cikðiɣ ‘squirrel’ (CED, 83) > Proto-Yup’ik *ciKi(ɣ)- ~

*cuku- ‘lemming’ and Proto-Inuit *cịkrịɣ ‘squirrel, marmot’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in CAY cikik ‘arctic ground squirrel’, cikixpak ‘marmot’
CSY, SPI, NAI sikšɨk ‘arctic ground squirrel’, sikšikpak ‘hoary marmot’,

208 Peter S. Piispanen

 WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as PY *čuɣur- ‘chipmunk’ > KY čugurube
‘chipmunk’, etc. (HDY, 144).

The Kolyma Yukaghir word for ‘chipmunk’ (I assume Tamias sibiricus,

a species of ground squirrel) is an Eskimo borrowing meaning ‘squirrel’. The
phonology (*čuku-) indicates a Yup’ik donor language, yet the semantics
instead point at Inuit. The meaning of ‘squirrel’, however, was already evident
at the Proto-Eskimo (and Proto-Yup’ik) stage, as daughter languages have
the meaning. The suffixation in KY, however, is unusual as -r is a suffix, it is
generally found as a nominal derivational suffix in TY only (TY -r; KY -t <
PY *-δ (HDY, 83). Perhaps the final -r in the KY form is from Eskimo with
epenthesis.

Proto-Eskimo *qaqutluɣ ‘fulmar’ (CED, 313) > Proto-Yup’ik *(q)aquɫuɣ

‘fulmar’ and Proto-Inuit *qaqu’luɣ ‘fulmar, storm bird’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in CSY, Sirenikski qaqə’łukáyəɣax ’fulmar’, SPI, WCI, ECI, and
GRI; borrowed as Ewen ko:gas ‘loon’; Yakut kuoɣas ‘loon’ (TMS 1, 403);
(PY *qaɣe:-) KY qaɣe:l ‘loon (Gavia arctica)’, etc. (HDY, 374).

The correspondence between Yakut, Ewen, and Yukaghir has been

noted before, however Eskimo also has the same root. A relevant comparison
can be made with Proto-Nivkh *qhask ‘spotted bird’ > Amuran Nivkh qaskc
‘gull with dark spots’, tol-xasqr ‘falcon’. According to the CED, Proto-Eskimo
did not have the phoneme *s, but the reflex of the Proto-Eskimo *c always
appears to me to correspond to either -s- or -h- in the daughter languages;
this raises the question as to what was the real phonetic value of the Proto-
Eskimo *c. Furthermore, if *s did not yet exist, what could have been the
exact correspondence and native Eskimo sound equivalents of Nivkh *qhask?
Could it have been *qhahk or *qhahq, the latter becoming *qaqut-luɣ with
Eskimo prosody and suffixation patterns? This root has the properties of a
Wanderwort.

Proto-Eskimo *təmə ‘body or main part’ (CED, 370) > Proto-Yup’ik *təmə
‘basic part of something, body’ and Proto-Inuit *təmə ‘body, shank of
boot, main part of something’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY təma
‘body, main part of something that is attached’, NSY, CSY, Sirenikski
təma ‘handle’ SPI, NAI timɨ ‘body, body of boot above sole’, WCI, ECI,
and GRI; borrowed as (PY *tamnə >) MU tamna ‘bone’ (HDY, 426).

This isolated historical Yukaghir form could be a suffixed borrowing.

The phonology is acceptable whereas the semantics are not a perfect fit. The
Eskimo root also means ‘(body) trunk’, which could have become ‘bone’ in
Yukaghir.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 209

 Proto-Eskimo *uqila- ‘to be fast’ (CED, 414) > Proto-Yup’ik *uqila-
‘running (on feet), fast’ and Proto-Inuit *uqila- ‘to be a fast runner’
(Mudrak 2005), attested in AAY, CAY uqila- ‘to be fast (on one’s feet)’,
NSY, SRI, NAI uqilya-, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *ölkə- >) TY
olke- ‘to run’, ölkije ‘runner (a person)’, ölked-amude ‘period of time
during which a runner runs quickly [lit. running goodness]’; TK ölkebo-
‘person who likes running’, etc. (HDY, 324).

This tentative borrowing suggestion not only presupposes a metathesis,

but could also explain the morpheme-internal atypical -Ik- cluster in
Yukaghir. The Eskimo-Yukaghir semantics match, and if this is an Eskimo
borrowing, the PY form should be reconstructed as *olkə- ‘to run’, with *-u- >
*-o- being typical of early borrowings (HDY, 63) because the öl- could have
resulted from palatalization.

Proto-Eskimo *citə(ɣ)- ‘to be hard‘ (CED, 93) > Proto-Yup’ik *cətəq-(ni-)

‘to abut against, to balk, to resist, to tense muscles’ and Proto-Inuit *citə-̣
~ *cit-rə- ‘hard’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in CAY cətəŋqitə- ‘to be frozen
stiff’, cətəxtaq ‘frozen fish or meat’ CSY, Sirenikski sisəqnəx ‘endurance,
self-control’, SPI, NAI sisɨ- ‘to harden’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as
(PY *ča:tika: >) TY čaatikaa ‘joint disease of old age, formation of liquid
on a reindeer’s joints’, etc. (HDY, 127).

Enter a very tentative case: Could this constitute an isolated borrowing

only into TY with irregular synharmonism? Semantically, a joint or leg disease
could equate well with the hardening or stiffening of joints, and at least in
terms of consonantism, this is phonologically a good match.

Proto-Eskimo *əpəʀ ‘dirt’ (CED, 123) > Proto-Yup’ik *əpʁ-u- (-nAʁ) ‘dirt,
to clean’ and Proto-Inuit *əpəʁ- ‘dirt, to get dirty, dirty, clean’ (Mudrak
2005), attested in CSY, Sirenikski pəʀnəx ‘dirt’, pəʀnəʀiʀ- ‘clean’, SPI, NAI
ipɨq ‘dirt’, ippak- ‘to get dirty’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY
*epel’ə- >) KY epel’ə- ‘to soil, to dirty oneself, to stain oneself’, etc. (HDY,
163).

This is yet another Yup’ik borrowing into KY only. In Eskimo, a base

root meaning ‘dirt, dirty’ can be reconstructed, as well as another root that
is the negative of said root, thus rendering the meaning of ‘to clean’, that is,
‘to un-dirty’. Again, the first syllable Eskimo ə corresponds directly to e in
the borrowed Yukaghir form, as is evidenced in several of the aforementioned
borrowings. The KY word bears the suffix -l’ə-, an intransitive verbal marker
(HDY, 81) attached to *epe- ‘dirt’, a bare, borrowed root. Semantically, we
have ‘dirt’ > ‘to dirty oneself’.

210 Peter S. Piispanen

 An interesting parallel is found for this borrowing into KY only, with
another Yup’ik root also meaning ‘dirt’ (cf. Proto-Yup’ik *iqa ‘dirt, dirty,
clean’) borrowed into TY only (cf. TY jaɣul’, aɣul’, еɣul ‘mud, dirt, sludge’),
as described above.

Proto-Eskimo *ikviɣ- ‘to suffer’ (CED, 137) > Proto-Yup’ik *ikvi-qə- ‘to
feel anguish, to be in need’ and Proto-Inuit *ikpi-ɣǝ- ‘to feel pain from,
to suffer’ (Mudrak 2005), attested in CSY, Sirenikski forkəpəqšuqə(s)- ‘to
be tormented’, kəpəqšuqałəx ‘torture’, SPI, NAI ikpigɨ- ‘to feel a slight
pain from’, WCI, ECI, and GRI; borrowed as (PY *ikiwə- >) TY ikiwii- ‘to
frighten, to threaten’; TK ikiwije(ŋ) ‘fright, scarecrow’; TD ikowal ‘ghost’,
etc. (Angere 1957, 71; HDY, 171).

Although this Eskimo form is no longer attested in any of the Siberian

languages beyond the distant Chaplino Island, here, the Yup’ik Eskimo root
*ikvi- ‘to feel anguish’ found itself borrowed only into TY as the semantically
connected *ikiwə- ‘to scare’, suffixed in various ways. The Eskimo root is
attested in a different phonological form in the Inupik branch, with the
Proto-Inupik *ikpi-ɣə- ‘to feel a pain from, to suffer’ (CED, 125).
Let us raise an interesting semantic question from an histoire des
mentalités perspective: Could a complex psychological category such as
‘anguish’ be already expressed in Proto-Yup’ik? Ancient and prehistoric
societies were not very psychologically inclined. Indeed, on the Yup’ik side,
only the meaning ‘to feel anguish, to be in need’ is attested (in Chaplino).
On the Inupik side, the meanings are ‘to suffer’ > ‘to cause suffering’, ‘to feel
pain’, ‘to experience discomfort’ and ‘to be offensive’. We may conclude that
the original root meant ‘to suffer, to feel pain’. On the Proto-language level,
it appears that meanings such as ‘heavy, difficult, to suffer, to feel pain, to
scare, to be scared’ are valid abstract psychological concepts; beyond that,
however, we may never know.

Proto-Eskimo *aðuɣyar ‘clotted blood’ (CED, 5) > Proto-Yup’ik *áruɣ(-ja-)

‘blood, clotted blood’ and Proto-Inuit *ạ(r)uɣ(-ia-) ~ *arrə-ʁ- ‘blood, to
bleed, clotted blood, red, to work with something bloody’ (Mudrak 2005),
attested in AAY, CAY auɣyaq ‘dark mole on skin’, NSY, CSY, Sirenikski
aawyax ‘(clotted) blood’, SPI, NAI auɣiaq ‘clotted blood’, WCI, ECI, and
GRI; borrowed as (*awjaq- >) B yavoa ‘menstruation’ (HDY, 186).

This isolated B word for ‘menstruation’ is phonologically and prosodically

odd and is possibly borrowed from Yup’ik. Phonologically, we may assume
something akin to the CAY auɣyaq (cf. CSY aawyaq) > *awjaq > *avoa(q) >
yavoa, and semantically ‘clotted blood’ > ‘menstruation’. The phonological
development is highly irregular from the Eskimo forms. Old Yukaghir records

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 211

are often aberrant in comparison with the cognate forms found in later
Yukaghir dialects. These words should be compared with the phonologically
close Yup’ik Eskimo aya- ‘to undergo menarche’ (and the likely therefrom
borrowed Aleut aya- ‘to menstruate’), another possible donor form.

On the Phonology of Eskimo Borrowings in Yukaghir

The phonology of the found borrowings is summarized in the following
table. The donor language will by necessity be of the Yup’ik variety. The term
“Late Proto-Yukaghir” is used here to mean either PY or a later daughter
language into which the borrowing was made. The older borrowing
suggestions discussed at the beginning of this paper are also presented in
the table 1.
The rather significant number of correspondences do show fairly clear
tendencies toward borrowings (regarding statistical analyses of these results
on the determination of cognates and genetic language relationships, see
Bengtson and Ruhlen 1994). Phonologically, original Eskimo *a, *i, and *u
generally correspond to *a, *i, and *u, respectively, in the borrowed root,
unless palatalization (fronting and closing of vowels) or labialization
(heightening and closing of vowels) effects are also taking place (for more
on this, see Piispanen 2016, 259).
Palatalization effects can occur with *ń, *j, *ĺ, and č, with this last one
in KY only. In addition, the unstressed *a can change to *i following a
palatalized consonant. Labialization effects can occur with *kw, *p, and *m.
Uvularization effects could theoretically occur with *q in borrowings, though
this has not been observed in the dataset.10 The Eskimo *i can spontaneously
change into *e in Yukaghir, while the Eskimo root-initial *i- will regularly be
found as Yukaghir *y-. Furthermore, the Eskimo first-syllable schwa -ə-
generally corresponds to a re-phonologization as a full Yukaghir -e-. Beyond
this, the schwa ə is always found in prosodically predictable positions in
Yukaghir (i.e., in the second or third root syllable) in native or borrowed
vocabulary, given some time. As for the consonants (including *p, *t, *m, *n,
*ŋ, *c, *l, and *r), these tend to remain unaltered in Yukaghir as derived from
the Eskimo form, except for the aforementioned possible alternations
between *k~*g~*q~*ɣ as synharmonism dictates.

10. Uvularization effects are observable in the Yukaghir lexicon but are comparatively
rare, which may suggest that the development of the Yukaghir phoneme q itself,
causing uvularization (as well as γ), has developed late in the Yukaghir phonetic
inventory. I put forth that Yukaghir, much earlier, only had k (and possibly also g), as
in the Proto-Uralic (with both hailing from the common Pre-PU), and by Late Proto-
Yukaghir, all four phonemes (k, g, q, and γ) were fully formed and used in the
common lexicon, perhaps due to external linguistic influences through contacts with
Eskimo, Yakut, etc.).

212 Peter S. Piispanen

Table 1. Summary of the phonology of all suggested lexical borrowings
Proto-Eskimo Proto-Yup’ik Proto-Inuit Late
Proto-Yukaghir
1 *mǝluɣ - *mǝluɣ- *mǝluɣ- *mel-
2 *ałɣir- *aГlǝ-~*alɣǝ *alɣi-~*ajɣi *al’q-
3 *alu(C)un *aluŋ-(-unt) *ạlu-ɣ- *aluj
4 *alǝmqaʀ *am(ǝ)qǝ- *apqa-la- *am-lə-
5 *at(a)- *atV- *atta-nt- *attə-
6 *caŋimmiʀ- *caŋi-miʁ-tə- *caŋi-m(m)iʁ- *čaŋa-
7 *kit- *kitə- *kitə- *kit-ńe-
8 *nukaʀ- *nuka- (-lpiɣa-, -ʁa-) *nụkạ- (-tpi(ʁ)a-, -ʁa-) *ńuɣe:-
9 *qəlanər(aʀ)- *qəla- *qəla- *qoll-
10 * uLəvkaʀ *ulǝv- *ulipka- *ule-
11 *ulɨʀ- *uɫiГ- *uli-ʁ- *yl’-
12 *iqa(ʀ) *iqa *ika-ɣ-, (-ŋa-) *yɣ-
13 *iqquʀ-~*iqquɣ- *íqruɣ *iqpa-ʁ- *yɣ-
14 *kaki- *kaki- (-n, -aʁ) *kạkị- *kiɣe-
15 *qiŋŋaʀ- *qiŋa-ʁ- *qǝʁu-ɣ- *keŋ-tə-
16 *taʀəʀ- *tarrú- *tau-ʁ-(-si-), *taru-ʁa- *toro-
17 *tǝnu- *tǝnu- *tǝnu- *ton-t-
18 *tuluʀ- *tuluʁ- *tuluʁ- *tol-č-
19 *talu- *talu-(H)i- *tälịt *tol
20 *qulliquliaq- *quli-~*kuli- *qulu’cuɣ *qulerqǝ
21 *cikðiɣ *ciKi(ɣ)-~*cuku- *cịkrịɣ *cuɣur-
22 *qaqutluɣ *(q)aquɫuɣ *qaqu’luɣ *qaɣe:-
23 *tǝmǝ *tǝmǝ *tǝmǝ *tamnǝ
24 *uqila- *uqila- *uqila- *olkə-
25 *citǝ(ɣ)- *cǝtǝq-(ni-) *cịtǝ̣-~*cịt-rǝ- *ča:tika:
26 *ǝpǝʀ- *ǝpʁ-u- (-nAʁ) *ǝpǝʁ- *epe-l’ə-
27 *ikviɣ- *ikvi-qǝ- *ikpi-ɣǝ- *ikiwǝ-
28 *aðuɣyar *áruɣ(-ja-) *ạ(r)uɣ(-ia-) ~ *arrǝ-ʁ- *avoaq
Phonological correspondences of older borrowing suggestions
(Eskimo proto-forms from the CED)
- *apǝ- *apǝ- *apǝ-, *ạp-unt *ew-
- *malǝʁu- (-*(r)i) *malǝʁu, *malǝʁi *mạlʁų-,*malʁu-i- *ma:lǝ-
- *umǝɣ *umǝɣ, *umǝt *ų̣mǝ̨ɣ- *um-
- *qimuɣ *qimuɣ-tǝ- *qimuɣ *kemuɣo:r

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 213

On the Chronology of the Borrowings
The phonology of Yup’ik borrowings—from one or several donor
languages—can be mostly explained, except for a few unruly forms. In
contrast, the vocalism of Chukchi borrowings in Yukaghir appears to be
more regular than is that of the Eskimo borrowings. Could these Eskimo
borrowings constitute some of the oldest chronological layer of borrowings
in Yukaghir?
Using the chronological system presented elsewhere for borrowings
(Piispanen 2018,110–113), we can preliminarily divide all borrowings into
Yukaghir as: very early borrowings (2000–2500 BP, i.e., Pre-PY); early
borrowings (1500 BP, i.e., into the earliest stages of Late Proto-Yukaghir);
late borrowings (1000 BP, i.e., into the latest stages of Late Proto-Yukaghir);
and very recent borrowings (a few centuries old, made only into individual
Yukaghir dialects or languages). The data suggests this initial thesis: Eskimo
and Nivkh borrowings in Yukaghir are very old, though there are some later
Eskimo borrowings. Eskimo borrowings have occurred through different
chronological waves in several different places. Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic,
and Chukchi borrowings, then, are all much more recent, and Russian
borrowings are the youngest. However, the entire methodology of using
various simple phonological criteria and peculiarities as an indicator of the
chronology of lexical borrowings in Yukaghir must be re-analyzed,
re-evaluated, and perfected, and likely revised and improved at a future date.

Discussion on Semantics
A fairly significant number of lexical borrowings between languages
that are no longer spoken close to each other were found. Tundra Yukaghir
has been the recipient of somewhat more Yup’ik borrowings than has KY.
This correlates well with the earlier known Yup’ik presence at the mouth of
the Kolyma River. It appears as if Yup’ik speakers may have lived close to
Yukaghirs, and in particular the Tundra Yukaghirs.
Semantically, the borrowings take on a wide variety of roles and are
particularly focused on basic verbs; this is contrary to the majority of
borrowings in the world’s languages, which mostly consist of nouns (Hock
and Joseph 2009; van Hout and Muysken 1994). An alternative interpretation
of the results, which are similar when we compare the lexicon of the
genetically affiliated Uralic and Yukaghir languages to each other, could be
an implied valid genetic language relationship between Yukaghir and
the Eskimo languages. In that case, these findings indicate cognates instead
of borrowings; if correct, then the Eskimo languages are, per definition,
also genetically related to the Uralic languages (as suggested by Bergsland
1959, 1979, among others). This tentative interpretation requires extensive

214 Peter S. Piispanen

comparative research, including the comparisons of typology, morphology,
suffixation, pronominal systems, etc., to fully evaluate.
Most borrowings are captured by the semantic heading of “elementary
phenomena, actions and perceptions”. The following semantic groups
(according to the system used in Rédei 1999) describe the borrowings:
a) body parts of humans and animals: breast, possibly bone
b) animal kingdom: dog, duck, gull, chipmunk, possibly storm bird
c) types of work and tools: spoon
d) trade: supply
e) social life and kinship terms: half-brothers
f) health, illness and death: menstruation, possibly joint disease
g) elementary phenomena, actions and perceptions: to lay down, to
swallow, to get stuck, to protect, to suffocate, to envy, to fill, to rip up,
to prick, to stick, to feel sorry for, to knock, possibly to run, to frighten
h) other: dirt (x2), edge, black

Conclusions: Borrowings or Cognates?

An anonymous reviewer suggested that the found correspondences
between Yukaghir and Eskimo are not necessarily lexical borrowings but
could instead be ancient cognates, and even claimed that borrowings would
require more solid and detailed argumentation to be convincing. However,
only when sufficient lexical, pronominal, numeric, phonological,
morphological, and semantic similarities and correspondences are collected
(not to mention a few solid sound change laws)— the very edict of the
comparative historical linguistics methodology—can we assume possible
cognancy. Therefore, all similarities between Yukaghir and Eskimo are now
presented as lexical borrowings, though future research may change this
view considerably.
It is difficult to take the comparisons beyond what appears to be look-
alikes; there are phonological problems and correspondences to explain, and
in some cases, the semantics diverge significantly (which is expected after
long periods of change). Admittedly, an old genetic language relationship is
an attractive hypothesis because it is suggested by phonologically highly
distorted and semantically divergent forms. Otherwise, the hypothetical
contacts between the Eskimo and Yukaghir languages around the Kolyma
River appear to have been too recent to have produced such divergent forms
after said borrowings took place. In other words, we may actually be dealing
with the ancient remnants of an old genetic language relationship between
Yukaghir and Eskimo. If so, then the age of this relationship must go far
beyond 4000 BP, the minimum approximate age of the Eskimo-Aleut
language family itself (CED, xi), and possibly as far back as 6000 BP or

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 215

beyond. Furthermore, because Uralic and Yukaghir, I will boldly claim, are
also genetically related languages, we could be forced to posit the existence
of a truly ancient Uralo-Yukaghir-Eskimo proto-language in excess of at least
7 or 8 thousand years of age.
Taking the lexical borrowing hypothesis to its conclusion, this paper
suggests that a now extinct Yup’ik variety used to be spoken, at least around
the Kolyma River, in much earlier times. Can anything be learned about this
extinct language and was it similar to the currently existing Eskimo languages
on the Asian side? Another study of interest would be to trace possible
ancient Yup’ik language branch (lexical and morphological) substrata
features in the modern languages of Yakut, Ewen, Ewenki, and Yukaghir.
Furthermore, in light of the recently discovered possible Northern Nivkh
borrowings in all of these languages (and in Eskimo), it may also be desirable
to seek Nivkh substrata features in the languages (particularly as some
researchers believe that Nivkh is related to Chukchi).
This line of research could benefit considerably by using the
comparative method with a wide assortment of newly published materials
of modern and historical dictionaries, including numerous dictionaries
published by the Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, on the languages of both sides of the Bering Strait.

Acknowledgements
Marko Crnobrnja, Alexander Vovin, Juho Pystynen, Arnaud Fournet,
Onno Hovers, Roman Belolipetsky, and two anonymous reviewers are
gratefully acknowledged for their valuable input, much improving the details
of my argumentation during the manuscript preparation. I also thank Claire
Kingston for her excellent language improvement of this paper. I also wish
to thank Michael Fortescue for providing me with a copy of his book
“Comparative Eskimo Dictionary” (the CED, 2nd ed.), which was immensely
helpful.

Abbreviations of Eskimo Linguistic Sources

AAY = Alutiiq Alaskan Yup’ik; CAY = Central Alaskan Yup’ik;
CSY = Central Siberian Yup’ik; ECI = Eastern Canadian Inuit (Tarramiut
dialect); GRI = Greenlandic Inuit (West Greenlandic); NAI = North Alaskan
Inuit (Barrow dialect); NSY = Naukanski Siberian Yup’ik; Sirenikski = The
Sirenikski language, a separate branch of the Eskimo-Aleut languages; SPI
= Seward Peninsula Inuit; WCI = Western Canadian Inuit.

216 Peter S. Piispanen

Abbreviations of Yukaghir Linguistic Sources
B= Materials of Billings 1787
BO = Materials of Boensing 1781
KD = Kolyma Yukaghir from Jochelson’s manuscript dictionary
KJ = Kolyma Yukaghir materials of Jochelson (1898 and 1900)
KY = Modern Kolyma Yukaghir
M= Materials by Maydell, in Schiefner (1871a, 1871b)
MC = Chuvan materials of Matjuškin, in Wrangel (1841)
ME = Materials of Merk 1787
MO = Omok materials of Matjuškin, in Wrangel (1841)
MU = Ust’-Janskoe materials of Mueller/Lindenau 1741
SU = Materials by Suvorov, in Schiefner (1871a)
TD = Tundra Yukaghir materials of Jochelson (1926)
TK = Tundra Yukaghir materials of Krejnovič (1958, 1982)
TY = Modern Tundra Yukaghir
W= Early materials of Witsen 1692
All the older materials are fully described and referenced in the HDY

References
Aikio, Ante. 2002. “New and Old Samoyed Etymologies.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen
57: 9–57.
Bengtson, John D., and Merritt Ruhlen. 1994. “Global Etymologies.” In On the Origin of
Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy, edited by M. Ruhlen, 277–336.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Berge, Anna. 2016. “Eskimo-Aleut.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Linguistics. http://
linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/
acrefore-9780199384655-e-9.
Berge, Anna, and Lawrence Kaplan. 2005. “Contact-Induced Lexical Development in Yupik
and Inuit Languages.” Études Inuit Studies 29 (1-2): 285–300.
Bergsland, Knut. 1959. “The Eskimo-Uralic Hypothesis.” Journal de la Societé Finno-
Ougrienne 61: 1–29.
——— . 1979. “The Comparison of Eskimo-Aleut and Uralic.” Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 2:
7–18.
——— . 1986. “Comparative Eskimo-Aleut Phonology and Lexicon.” Journal de la Société
Finno-Ougrienne 80: 63–137.
——— . 1989. “Comparative Aspects of Aleut Syntax.” Journal de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne 82: 7–74.
Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
CED = Fortescue, Michael, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan. 2010. Comparative
Eskimo Dictionary: With Aleut Cognates. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native
Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 217

Dolgikh, Boris O. 1960. Rodovoj i plemennoj sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII v [Ancestral and
tribal composition of the peoples of Siberia in the 17th century.]. Moscow:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
EDAL = Starostin, S. A., A. V. Dybo, and O. A. Mudrak. 2003. An Etymological Dictionary
of Altaic Languages (assisted by Ilya Gruntov and Vladimir Glumov). Vols. 1-3.
Leiden: Brill.
ESRD = Anikin, A. E. 2000. Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkix dialektov sibiri [Etymological
Dictionary of Russian Siberian dialects]. Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberia,
Institute of Philology. Moscow: Novosibirsk Science.
Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait – Reappraising the
Archaeological and Linguistics Evidence. Open Linguistics Series. London and
New York: Cassell.
——— . 2005. Comparative Chukotko-Kamtchatkan Dictionary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
——— . 2016. “The Colours of the Arctic.” Amerindia 38: 25–46.
Georg, Stefan, and Uwe Seefloth. 2001. “Uralo-Eskimo?” Online: https://www.academia.
edu/1652208/Uralo_Eskimo [Retrieved 2022-03-08].
Hajdú, Péter. 1975. “Samojedische Schrifter.” Studia Uralo-Altaica 6. Szeged.
——— . 1979. “Contacts in Northwest Siberia.” Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 2: 19–32.
HDY = Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. “Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir.” In Trends in Linguistics
Documentation 25, edited by H. Bisang, H. Hock, and W. Winter. Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter Mouton.
Hitch, Doug. 2017. “Proto-Inuit Phonology.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 39:
1–35.
Hock, Hans H., and Brian D. Joseph. 2009. Language History, Language Change and
Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative
Linguistics. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Khabtagaeva, Bayarma. 2017. “Tungusic Loanwords in Yeniseian Languages.” In Uralic
and Siberian Lexicology and Lexicography, Proceedings of the Fourth Mikola
Conference, edited by S. Szeverényi and B. Khabtagaeva, 75–88. University of
Szeged, November 14-15, 2014.
Krupnik, Igor 1993. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern
Eurasia. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Kurilov, G. N. 1990. Jukagirsko-Russkij slovar [Yukagir-Russian Dictionary]. Akademija
Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoje Otdelenije, Russkij Institut Jazyka, Literatury i istorii,
Jakutsk: Jakutskoje Knizhnoje Izdatel’stvo.
Mudrak, Oleg A. 2000. Etimologičeskij slovar čukotsko-kamčatskij jazykov [Etymological
Dictionary of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan Languages]. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj
Kul’tury.
——— . 2005. StarLing Databaser server: Eskimo Etymology. http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\esq\esqet.
Nagasaki, Iku. 2013. “Relative Clauses in Kolyma Yukaghir.” Asian and African Languages
and Linguistics 8: 79–98.
Nikolaev, Sergei L. 2015. “Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part
1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship.” Journal of Language
Relationship 13 (1): 23–61.

218 Peter S. Piispanen

——— . 2016. “Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 2:
Algonquian-Wakashan Sound Correspondences.” Journal of Language
Relationship 13 (4): 289–328.
——— . 2017. “Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The
Algonquian-Wakashan-110-Item Wordlist.” Journal of Language Relationship 15
(4): 250–278.
Oswalt, Wendell H. 1967. Alaska Eskimos. San Francisco: Chandler Publications.
Piispanen, P. S. 2013. “Further Lexical Borrowings from (Pre-)Yakut into the Yukaghiric
Languages.” Turkic Languages 17: 115–139.
——— . 2015. “Evaluating the Uralic-Yukaghiric Word-Initial, Proto-Sibilant
Correspondence Rules.” SUSA /Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95:
237–273.
——— . 2016. “A Prosody-Controlled Semi-Vowel Alternation in Yukaghir.” Journal of
Historical Linguistics 6 (2): 247–296.
——— . 2018. “Additional Turkic and Tungusic Borrowings into Yukaghir.” Turkic
Languages 22: 108–138.
Rask, Rasmus. 1818. Undersøgelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse
[The Origin of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language]. Copenhagen: Danish Royal
Society of Science.
Rédei, Károly. 1999. “Zu den uralisch-jukagirischen Sprachkontakten [On the Uralic-
Yukagir language contacts].” Finnisch-Ugrischen Forschungen 55: 1–58.
Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1924. « Eskimo et Ouralien. » Journal de la Société des Américanistes
de Paris, 21: 296–297.
——— . 1953. « Caractère ouraloïde du verbe eskimo. » Bulletin de la Société Linguistique
de Paris 49 (1): 107–121.
Swadesh, Morris. 1962. “Linguistic Relations Across Bering Strait.” American Anthropologist
64 (6): 1262–1291.
TMS 1 = Tsintsius, V. et al. 1975–1977. Сравнительный словарь тунгусоманьчжурских
языков [A Comparative Dictionary of Tungus-Manchu Languages]. Vol. 1.
Leningrad: Nauka.
UEW = Rédei, K. 1988–1991. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Ural Etymological
Dictionary]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Uhlenbeck, Christian C. 1905. “Uralische Anklänge in den Eskimosprachen [Uralic Appeals
in the Eskimo Languages].” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 59: 757–765.
——— . 1941. “Oude Aziatische contacten von het Eskimo [Old Asian Contacts of the
Eskimo].” Mededeelingen der Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen –
Letterkunde 4 (7): 201–227.
van Hout, Roeland, and Pieter Muysken. 1994. “Modeling Lexical Borrowability.” Language
Variation and Change 6: 39–62.
Vovin, Alexander. 2015. “Eskimo Loanwords in Northern Tungusic.” Iran and the Caucasus
19: 87–95.

Yup’ik Loanword Etymologies 219

 LA REVUE FRANCOPHONE D’ ANTHROPOLOGIE EN AMÉR IQUE
www.anthropologie-societes.ant.ulaval.ca/

Anthropologie politique
du religieux
VOLUME 45, NUMÉRO 3 (2021)

Présentation. Anthropologie politique du religieux

Jean-Michel Landry et Katherine Lemons

Gouvernance de la philanthropie et pratiques caritatives musulmanes

en Inde. Les rapports entre religieux et politique vus à travers le don
Catherine Larouche

Les croyants comme un corps souffrant. Remarques depuis la frontière

jordano-syrienne
Basit Kareem Iqbal

La solidarité contre la souveraineté. Penser autrement le phénomène

du « djihad sans frontières »
Darryl Li

Les tribunaux et la configuration des identités spirituelles autochtones.

Une comparaison des contextes canadien et australien
Claude Gélinas

Les vertus de l’obéissance. Éthique et gouvernement dans une école

biblique pentecôtiste
Bruno Reinhardt

Ac h e t e z l e n u m é r o e n l i g n e Marsillah de Jeita. Hérésie, sexualité et raison d’État

et abonnez-vous ! (note de recherche)
www.anthropologie-societes.ant.ulaval.ca/ Jean-Michel Landry

A BO N N EM E NT 2 0 2 2 DOSSIER
Présentation. Renouveler l’ethnobiologie. Approche comparative d’un
Canada Étranger ver marin
Simonne Pauwels et Laurent Dousset
Étudiant 55 $ 81 $ CAN
Particulier 90 $ 115 $ CAN
Un prince charmant ou les ancêtres. Balolo, calendrier, rituels et
Institution sans agence 145 $ 200 $ CAN cosmologie aux Fidji
Simonne Pauwels
Institution avec agence 140 $ 175 $ CAN

Les morts et les asticots. Palolo, calendrier et cosmologie à Malekula,

Prochains numéros Vanuatu
Citoyennetés en Inde contemporaine Laurent Dousset
46-1, 2022. Catherine Larouche et Pierre-Alexandre
Paquet
HORS THÈME
Épidémies/pandémies
46-2, 2022. Ève Dubé et Fabienne Labbé Le culte des mères-protectrices chez les pêcheurs artisanaux de la
Enfants et descendants, des acteurs de la parenté mer de Chine. La femme célébrée dans un monde d’hommes
Nguyen Quoc-Thanh
46-3, 2022. Alice Sophie Sarcinelli, Agnès Martial et Anaïs
Martin

1030, av. des Sciences-Humaines, bureau 3433  Université Laval (Québec) G1V 0A6 CANADA
Tél. : 1 418 656-2131, poste 403027  Courriel : [email protected]
220 Peter S. Piispanen