Proto-Uralic: Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)

Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): Proto-Uralic.
— To appear in: Marianne Bakró-Nagy,

Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. Oxford University Press.
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)
1. Proto-Uralic
1.1 Introduction
The Uralic languages form one of the most firmly established and thoroughly studied
ancient languages families in the world. Uralic comparative linguistics is recognized
as a highly advanced field of research, surpassed in breadth and depth of study only
by the Indo-European family (Campbell 1998a: 164–165). The long and productive
history of research has established a solid overall picture of the history of the
language family, including a partial reconstruction of the Uralic proto-language
described in this chapter.
Despite the breadth of research, the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic remains much
more fragmentary than that of Proto-Indo-European and many aspects of the proto-
language remain poorly understood and open to debate. This is due not only to the
shallow philological records but also to the uneven state of research between different
levels of language: phonological and lexical reconstruction have received the most
attention, whereas the comparative study of morphology has been less systematic and
methodologically less advanced, and research in diachronic syntax has been scarce
indeed.
1.2 The structure of the Uralic language family
Comparative Uralic linguistics operates on two principal levels of reconstruction,

which could be called the ‘shallow’ and the ‘deep’ level. On the shallow level the
language family consists of nine obvious branches whose statuses as separate
taxonomic entities are beyond doubt: 1) Saami, 2) Finnic, 3) Mordvin, 4) Mari, 5)
Permic, 6) Mansi, 7) Khanty, 8) Hungarian, and 9) Samoyed. In terms of their original
core areas these branches can be organized into a rough geographical continuum with
main orientation along the east-west axis (Figure 1.1); Hungarian is a geographical
outlier which despite its present location in the Pannonian basin is originally most
closely associated with the Mansi and Khanty branches. The branches show far-
reaching differences from each other on all levels of language, and no transitional
1
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): Proto-Uralic. — To appear in: Marianne Bakró-Nagy,

varieties between the branches exist. The nine branches form the primary level of
linguistic reconstruction in the Uralic family. Eight of them consist of relatively
closely related languages or linguistic varieties on the basis of which branch-level
proto-languages can be reconstructed in much detail; here, too, the exception is
Hungarian which is a single language.
Figure 1.1 The branches of the Uralic family in an approximate geographical order
along the east-west axis (slightly modified from Salminen 1999: 20)
The deep level of comparative Uralic linguistics concerns the more remote genetic
connections between the nine branches and the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic.
Knowledge regarding the latter mainly derives from comparison of the intermediate
branch-level proto-languages, and thus forms a secondary level of reconstruction.
Consensus is lacking regarding the taxonomy of the Uralic languages on the deep
level, and the hierarchy of genetic relationships between the nine branches is an issue
of major disagreement. This state of affairs has implications for the reconstruction of
Proto-Uralic. As there are conflicting views regarding what the primary branches are,
there are also conflicting views regarding what exactly can be reconstructed to Proto-
Uralic.
According to a traditional model the taxonomic structure of the family can be
described by a mostly binarily branching tree scheme in which the time depth of the
intermediate subgroups tends to decrease toward the west (Figure 1.2). This model
was the received view in Uralic studies until the 1980s and has been applied in
standard works such as etymological dictionaries (e.g., Rédei 1988–1991) and the
important studies on Uralic historical phonology by Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti
(1988). Since then, however, the model has met with increasing criticism (e.g., K.
Häkkinen 1983; Salminen 2001, 2002), and at present it has few active proponents
(see, however, Janhunen 2001b; 2009).
2
Uralic
Finno-Ugric
Finno-Permic Ugric
Finno-Volgaic
Finno-Saamic Ob-Ugric
Saami Finnic Mordvin Mari Permic Hungarian Mansi Khanty Samoyed

Figure 1.2. The taxonomical structure of the Uralic language family according to the
view commonly held until the 1980s, but now widely contested
The main problem in the traditional taxonomic scheme is that the intermediate nodes
between Proto-Uralic and the nine low-level branches are not supported by sufficient
evidence. Proponents of this model have invoked lexicostatistic arguments, but
evidence in form of sound changes (Sammallahti 1988) remains both limited and
ambiguous (Salminen 2002). On the other hand, various alternative models of Uralic
taxonomy have been proposed (e.g., Michalove 2002; J. Häkkinen 2009; Syrjänen et
al. 2013), but they are based on widely varying methods and data and none of them
enjoys wide support. Such models may also include unorthodox subgroups, such as
the grouping of “Ugric” and Samoyed together into an “East Uralic” node by J.
Häkkinen (2009); these, however, are not backed up by more systematic or
convincing evidence than the traditional subgroups (Zhivlov 2018). Therefore, the
present results of Uralic taxonomic research hardly warrant other than an agnostic
stance.
The most crucial unresolved taxonomic question concerns the supposed primary
divergence between Samoyed and a “Finno-Ugric” node comprising all the other
Uralic languages. The low number of Uralic word stems in the Samoyed lexicon
might indicate an early divergence from the rest of the family. However, the “deviant”
3

character of the Samoyed lexicon has also been exaggerated, and it partly stems from
paucity of research and documentation.
As the binary division of the family into Samoyed and ‘Finno-Ugric’ is under
serious doubt and no well-argued alternative taxonomy exists, it remains unclear in
which branches cognate linguistic material must be attested in order to qualify as
Proto-Uralic. The present chapter will employ a somewhat ad hoc practical solution: a
feature is considered definitely to derive from Proto-Uralic if the distance between its
attested reflexes reaches at least either 1) from Samoyed to Permic, or 2) from
“Ugric” to Mordvin. Thus, in the present framework the traditional concept of “Proto-
Finno-Ugric” is essentially synonymous with Proto-Uralic.
1.3 Phonology
1.3.1 State of research
Phonological reconstruction has for long formed the hard core of Uralic comparative
linguistics, and therefore phonology is the most comprehensively reconstructed level
of structure in Proto-Uralic. Research into the westernmost Uralic languages made
major advances already well over a hundred years ago already; for instance, the
complicated system of regular vowel correspondences between Finnic, Saami and
Mordvin was in large part worked out by Genetz (1896). Since then, research slowly
progressed towards the more eastern branches; highly influential works in the field
include, e.g., E. Itkonen (1956) on Mari and Permic, Lytkin (1964) on Permic, Honti
(1982) on Khanty and Mansi, and Janhunen (1976; 1977) on Samoyed. The present
understanding of Proto-Uralic phonology is largely congruous with the
groundbreaking studies by Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988); these two
papers combined a synthesis of previous studies on historical phonology with a
critical reappraisal of the etymological corpus (see 1.6.1), and for the first time
outlined a coherent theory of Uralic historical phonology that integrated all branches
of the family. The description of Proto-Uralic phonology that follows largely
conforms to the picture established by Janhunen and Sammallahti, but revisions on
some details have been made by subsequent research.
1.3.2 Phoneme inventory

Eight vowel phonemes have been reconstructed to Proto-Uralic (see Table 1.1), which
represents a “large vowel inventory” according to the WALS framework (Maddieson
2013a). The phonological oppositions between the vowels can be described in terms
4

of backness, height and roundedness. The sets of front and back vowels were
symmetrical: each contained three cardinal vowels contrasting in height, and an
additional non-cardinal vowel differentiated from the corresponding cardinal vowel
by its value of roundedness. The last feature is typologically notable, as vowel
oppositions based on roundedness are not very common. Moreover, front rounded
vowels occur predominantly in languages of northern Eurasia, many of which also
have vowel harmony (Maddieson 2013b), a feature also present in Proto-Uralic (see
1.3.3, 1.3.5).1
FRONT BACK
CARDINAL NON - NON - CARDINAL
CARDINAL CARDINAL
CLOSE i ü i̮ u
MID e o
OPEN ä a
Table 1.1 The Proto-Uralic vowel inventory.
The approximate phonetic qualities of most vowel phonemes can be quite

unambiguously established, but the non-cardinal back vowel *i̮ remains unclear in this
regard. Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) interpret it as a close vowel (≈ IPA
[ɯ] ~ [ɨ]), but it could instead have belonged to the series of mid vowels, and in terms
of phonetic quality even open-mid realizations cannot be ruled out (≈ IPA [ɤ] ~ [ɘ] ~
[ʌ] ~ [ɜ]). This is suggested by the tendency of *i̮ to merge with *a in various
branches, as well as by the fact that *i̮ appears as a substitute for foreign *a in a
couple of old loanwords (e.g., *śi̮ ta ‘hundred’ and *pi̮ ŋka ‘psychedelic mushroom’
from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatam- ‘hundred’ and *bhanga- ‘a drug plant’). In any case,
*i̮ can be described as a non-open unrounded back vowel. As regards the open back
vowel *a, Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) reconstruct it as a rounded vowel
(*å ≈ IPA [ɒ]), but this solution appears less likely in typological terms and is not
necessitated by the data. At any rate, roundedness did not function as a phonologically
distinctive feature in the case of *a, so the question is inconsequential in regard to the
phonological system.
1
For the reconstructed protolanguages, italicized FUT characters will be used; see chapter 6.7.
5

The theory of eight Proto-Uralic vowel phonemes has been very successful in
explaining the complicated vowel correspondences between the Uralic branches.
These correspondences are too complex to be discussed in detail here, but some
general tendencies of vowel development can be noted. The Finnic branch is well-
known for its conservative vowel system, and indeed, it appears almost bizarrely
archaic that modern Finnic languages often preserve the quality of Proto-Uralic
vowels as such (as in Finnish käsi ‘hand’, olka ‘shoulder’ and silmä ‘eye’ from PU
*käti, *wolka and *śilmä, respectively). However, also Mordvin and Samoyed show
relatively conservative vowel systems. Even Saami vowels derive highly consistently
and regularly from Proto-Uralic, despite the fact that this branch has restructured its
vowel system in a most radical way; the situation in Khanty and Mansi appears to be
similar, even though the issue has been less studied. The development of vowels in
Mari, Permic and Hungarian remains somewhat less clear: main outlines have been
established, but numerous details beg further research.
As regards the consonant inventory of Proto-Uralic, 16 consonant phonemes can
be unequivocally established, and two more can be reconstructed with a fair degree of
certainty (Table 1.2). Overall, the Proto-Uralic consonant system was fairly simple
and represents a “moderately small” inventory according to the WALS classification
(Maddieson 2013c). Voicing does not appear to have been a distinctive feature. In
phonological terms, all obstruents were unvoiced and all sonorants were voiced;
allophonic variation in voicing may have occurred, of course.
6
CORONAL DORSAL
ALVEOLO-PALATAL
POSTALVEOLAR
ALVEOLAR
PALATAL
LABIAL
VELAR
STOP p t k
OBSTRUENT AFFRICATE č
SIBILANT s ś ?š
NASAL m n ń ŋ
LATERAL l
SONORANT
RHOTIC r
GLIDE w j
(UNCLEAR) d ď ?x
Table 1.2 The Proto-Uralic consonant inventory.
Each reconstructed consonant can be established as an independent phoneme on

the basis of distinct patterns of regular sound correspondences between the daughter
branches of Uralic. Table 1.3 shows the regular consonant correspondences in word-
initial position and in intervocalic position following a stressed (first-syllable) vowel.
Note that in most cases where multiple reflexes occur conditioning factors have been
established; some minor conditioned developments that only concern highly specific
environments have been ignored. For most consonant phonemes also their place and
manner of articulation can be quite unambiguously reconstructed, but some
unresolved questions regarding phonological status and phonetic realizations remain.
7
PU Saami Finnic Mordvin Mari Permic Hung. Mansi Khanty Samoyed
*p *p *p *p *p *p f *p *p *p
*t *t *t *t, *ť *t *t t *t *t *t
WORD-‐INITIAL CONSONANTS
*k *k *k *k *k *k k, h *k *k *k
*č *c *t *č *č *č ? *š *č *č
*s *s *s *s *s *s Ø *t *ʟ *t
*ś *ć *s *ś *š *ś s <sz> *s. *š *s *s
*š *s *h *č *š *š Ø *t *ʟ ?
*m *m *m *m *m *m m *m *m *m
*n *n *n *n, *ń *n *n n *n *n *n
*ń *ń *n *n, *ń *n *ń nʲ <ny> *ń *ń *ń
*ď *ϑ *t *l, *ľ *l *ľ ? *ľ *j *j
*l *l *l *l, *ľ *l *l l *l *l *j, *l
*w *v, Ø *v, Ø *v, Ø *w, Ø *v v *w *w *w
*j *j, Ø *j, Ø *j, Ø *j, Ø *j j, Ø *j *j *j
*p *p *p *v *w, Ø Ø ? *p *p *p
*t *t *t *d, *ď *d Ø z *t *t *t
*k *k *k *v, *j Ø Ø v, Ø *ɣ, *w *ɣ *k, Ø
*č *c *t *č *č *ǯ, *ž ? *š *č *č
INTERVOCALIC CONSONANTS
*s *s *s *z *z *z s <sz>? *t *l *t
*ś *ć *s *ź *ž *ź s <sz> *s, *š *s *s
*š *s *h *ž *ž *ž ? *t? *l? ?
*m *m *m *m *m *m m, v *m *m *m
*n *n *n *n, *ń *n, Ø *n n *n *n *n
*ń *ń *n *ń *ń? *ń nʲ <ny> *ń *ń *ń
*ŋ *ŋ *v, Ø *ŋ *ŋ, Ø *ŋ, Ø g, Ø *w, *ŋk *ŋ, *ŋk *ŋ
*d *δ *t *d, *ď *d, Ø Ø l *l *l *r
*ď *δ *t *d, *ď *d, Ø *ľ ɟ <gy> *ľ *j *j
*l *l *l *l, *ľ *l *l l *l *l *l, *j, Ø
*r *r *r *r, *ŕ *r *r r *r *r *r
*w *v *v, Ø *v Ø Ø v, Ø *w *w, *ɣ Ø
*j *j *j,*i,Ø *j *j, Ø *j j, Ø *j *j *j, Ø
*x *k Ø *j Ø Ø v, Ø *ɣ,*w,*j *ɣ,*w,*j Ø
Table 1.3 The reflexes of Proto-Uralic word-initial and intervocalic consonants in the
nine branches of the family. Question marks indicate cases where conclusive data is
lacking.
Three sibilants contrasting solely by their place of articulation are traditionally

reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (*s : *ś : *š), but alternative interpretations recognizing
two sibilants or even just one are also possible. The reconstruction of the postalveolar
8

sibilant *š remains problematic, as it is scarcely represented in the etymological
material, and most of the proposed examples involve etymological problems such as
deviant phonotactic patterns, irregular sound correspondences, and a distribution
skewed toward the western part of the language family (Aikio 2015: 44–46).
Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) suggest that *š arose as a secondary
innovation after the breaking up of Proto-Uralic, but nevertheless, a couple of well-
behaved etymons with a wide distribution (such as *jäkši- ‘cold’, *šiŋir(i) ‘mouse’
and *kajši- ‘be sick’) suggest that *š nevertheless occurred as a low-frequency
phoneme in Proto-Uralic.
Another kind of problem is involved in the reconstruction of the alveolo-palatal
sibilant *ś. While its status as an independent phoneme is not in doubt, its sibilant
quality is less certain. Janhunen (2007a: 211) interprets it as a palatal stop; Zhivlov
(2014: 114) reconstructs it as an alveolo-palatal affricate (*ć ≈ IPA [t͡ sʲ]), pointing out
that its phonotactic distribution resembles that of the affricate *č rather than that of
the sibilants *s and *š, and that Saami shows an affricate as its default reflex which
could represent an archaism instead of an innovation. In support of this interpretation
one can add that also a few other branches show occasional affricate reflexes, even
though the default reflex is a sibilant: cf., e.g., Võro (Finnic) lats [lat͡ sʲ] ‘child’ <
Proto-Uralic *li̮ pśi ‘cradle’ and dialectal Komi (Permic) [kod͡ zʲin] ‘dowry’ < PU
*kaśa- ‘give (as a gift)’.
The sound values of the two coronal consonants *d and *ď are particularly
difficult to reconstruct, but at any rate they are not to be interpreted as voiced stops
despite the notational practice deriving from Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti
(1988), and despite Janhunen’s (2007a: 212) suggestion that the two phonemes could
have been “weak obstruents, which may or may not have involved a fricative
pronunciation”. Judging from their phonotactic distribution, *d and *ď seem to have
been sonorants: they occur in consonant clusters such as *dm, *dw and *ďw, but
clusters of the type obstruent+sonorant seem to have been absent in Proto-Uralic (see
1.3.3).
Traditional reconstructions have identified the two consonants as “spirants”, i.e.
non-sibilant fricatives, and employed the symbols <δ> and <δ́>. As regards *d, it is
indeed reflected as a voiced dental fricative (IPA [ð]) in several Saami varieties, but
elsewhere its reflexes have merged with those of *t, *l or *r. The consonant *ď, on
the other hand, appears to have been the palato-alveolar counterpart of *d: the two
phonemes have merged in western branches (Saami, Finnic, Mordvin, Mari) but
9

elsewhere the reflexes of *ď are voiced alveolo-palatal and palatal consonants: an
alveolo-palatal lateral [lʲ] (Permic, Mansi), a palatal glide [j] (Khanty, Samoyed), and
a palatal stop [ɟ] (Hungarian).
Considering its reflexes, *d might reasonably be reconstructed as a voiced dental
fricative, but it seems impossible to apply this analysis to the alveolo-palatal
consonant *ď. From the point of view of articulatory phonetics and phonological
typology a “voiced palatalized dental fricative” (≈ IPA [ðʲ]) appears too implausible a
consonant phoneme to be reconstructed, as has been noted by Janhunen (2007a: 212).
Moreover, such a phoneme would also be an odd member in the Proto-Uralic
consonant inventory, which features no other oppositions based on a palatal
coarticulatory gesture – the phonemes *ś and *ń being properly described as alveolo-
palatal and not as “palatalized” consonants. On the other hand, it is perhaps not
necessary to assume that *d and *ď shared the same manner of articulation. In fact,
one phonotactic constraint suggests that they did not belong in the same category in
the phonological system: *ď occurred in word-initial position, whereas *d did not (see
1.3.3). In any case, the question of the phonetic quality of the two consonants remains
unresolved.
The most enigmatic member of the Proto-Uralic phoneme inventory is the
consonant that Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) mark with *x (the symbol
indicates its unknown phonetic quality, and is not to be confused with IPA [x], the
unvoiced velar fricative). *x is mostly either reflected as a glide (IPA [v], [β], [j], [ɣ])
or completely lost, the exception being Saami where *x has merged with the velar
stop *k. Considering these reflexes, *x can be tentatively identified as a velar
consonant, perhaps a voiced velar fricative or glide (≈ IPA [ɣ]). A more extensive
discussion on the issue is presented by Janhunen (2007a) who classifies *x to the
broad group of “laryngeal” consonants. It has also been claimed that in loanwords *x
occurs as substitute for the phonetically likewise ambiguous Proto-Indo-European
laryngeals (Koivulehto 1991), but this remains debatable (see 1.6.3).
The most obscure feature of *x is not its sound value, however, but its status in
the phonological system. According to Janhunen’s (1981) original proposal *x only
occurred in two specific phonological environments: in word stems of the shape
*CVxi- and *CVxCi-. The latter stem type was reconstructed by Janhunen for those
words in which a long vowel (*V̄ ) in Finnic corresponds to a vowel sequence *Vǝ in
Samoyed. For these stem types, Janhunen assumed the vocalization of *x in coda
position: e.g., Estonian keel ‘tongue, language’ (< Proto-Finnic *kēli) ~ Nganasan
10

/ɕiǝdʲǝ/ ‘tongue’ (< Proto-Samoyed *käǝ(-)jǝ) would reflect Proto-Uralic *käxli.
However, recent analysis has revealed major problems in this interpretation and
presented alternative explanations for both Finnic long vowels and Samoyed vowel
sequences (Aikio 2012b).
The situation with stems of the shape *CVxi- is different: in this environment it
indeed appears necessary to postulate *x as an independent phoneme. However, only
about ten word stems of this type can be reliably reconstructed. Despite the scarcity of
material, these kinds of stems clearly display a unique pattern of sound
correspondence (see Table 1.3) which necessitates the reconstruction of *x as a
phoneme distinct from other consonants. This result is odd, however: it is difficult to
see why the occurrence of any consonant phoneme should be restricted to such a
specific environment as V_i. Moreover, considering the marginal position of *x in the
phonological system it is counterintuitive that most examples of it are core items of
basic vocabulary (such as *ji̮ xi- ‘drink’, *mexi- ‘give/sell’, *toxi- ‘bring/give’, *wixi-
‘take, transport’, *mi̮ xi ‘earth’). One is tempted to speculate that the consonant *x is
an artefact of reconstruction and the correspondences exhibited by stems currently
reconstructed as *CVxi- could be accounted for in some other way that remains to be
discovered. Another possibility is that *x also occurred in other phonological
environments which have not yet been identified.
It should be noted that traditional reconstructions also assume some additional
alveolo-palatal phonemes, most commonly the lateral *ľ and the affricate *ć; in
traditional reconstructions the latter is considered a phoneme distinct from the
“sibilant” *ś, whose possible affricate quality was discussed above. However, the
evidence supporting the reconstruction of these consonants is weak, and even
Sammallahti’s (1988: 490–491) cautious view on the issue seems to be too optimistic:
the relevant material seems to consist of dubious etymologies and misanalyzed
instances of *ď and *ś.
1.3.3 Phonotactics
Proto-Uralic had a relatively simple syllable structure which imposed strict limitations
on the distribution of consonants and vowels. Word-initial syllables had the form
(C)V(C): the syllable nucleus consisted of a single vowel phoneme, and a single
consonant phoneme could appear in both the syllable onset and the coda position.
Non-initial syllables had the form CV(C); sequences of two heterosyllabic vowels
11

were apparently not allowed. There is some evidence suggesting that the semivowel
*j had an exceptional status in that it could occur between the nuclear vowel and the
coda consonant, producing the syllable structure (C)VjC. The same has been claimed
to hold for the semivowel *w (Janhunen 1982: 25), but no clear evidence seems to be
found in support of this.
As the syllable nucleus always consisted of a single vowel, neither long vowels
nor diphthongs could occur. Homosyllabic sequences of the type Vj and Vw did occur
(as in *ojwa ‘head’, *täwdi ‘full’), but such sequences cannot be phonologically
analyzed as diphthongs: the synchronic reflexes of these postvocalic glides still
function as consonants in Saami, participating in consonant gradation (see 7.?.?).
Further restrictions on vowel distribution were connected with word stress. In
Proto-Uralic primary stress fell invariably on the initial syllable of the word, which
due to the lack of prefixes also always was the initial syllable of a word stem. Only in
this syllable the full inventory of eight vowels (see 1.3.2) was in use, while the
following non-initial syllables featured a restricted vowel inventory (with the
exception of words containing more than one word stem, i.e. compounds). According
to the standard reconstruction the restricted inventory comprised only three
phonemes: the open vowels *a and *ä, and a non-open unrounded vowel that has
been varyingly reconstructed as *i, *e and *ǝ; the first option is used in the present
paper.
Furthermore, the distribution of *a and *ä in non-initial syllables was governed
by vowel harmony: *a occurred after initial-syllable back vowels, and *ä after initial-
syllable front vowels (as in *pala ‘bit’, *pälä ‘half’). Vowel harmony also resulted in
morphophonological alternations in the shape of suffixes containing an open vowel
(see 1.3.5). Non-initial syllable *i, however, does not appear to have been affected by
vowel harmony, as it freely occurred in both front and back harmonic stems (e.g.,
*süli ‘fathom’, *tuli ‘fire’). Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) do reconstruct a
harmonic pair *i / *i̮ in non-initial syllables, but this view seems to be motivated more
by considerations of system symmetry than by actual comparative evidence. More
recently, Janhunen (2000: 69) has doubted the presence of vowel harmony in Proto-
Uralic, but the harmonic behaviour of the open vowels *a and *ä in both Finnic and
Samoyed does not look like a coincidental parallel development.
There is still one unresolved problem regarding vowel harmony. It is possible
that even in initial syllables the vowel *i was neutral and could occur in back
harmonic stems. This is suggested by a few etymologies displaying a correspondence
12

between Finnish i in a back-harmonic stem and a back vowel in certain other branches
(e.g., Finnish nila ‘phloem’ ~ Erzya Mordvin nola ‘sapwood, bast’; Finnish kisko-
‘tear’ ~ Hungarian has-ad ‘bursts, cracks’). If the Finnic forms have preserved the
original harmonic structure, this implies the reconstruction of back harmonic stems
such as PU ?*ńila ‘phloem’ and ?*kiśka- ‘tear’. However, alternative solutions can
also be envisaged, and the issue requires further scrutiny.
The description above would imply that only a single vowel opposition (*a/*ä :
*i) occurred in non-initial syllables, with the possible exception of stems with *i in
the first syllable. Nevertheless, this picture must be an oversimplification, as there is
evidence suggesting that also some other vowels occurred in non-initial syllables,
albeit not as frequently. One possible trace of this is found in word stems where *a in
the westernmost branches unexpectedly corresponds to a reduced vowel in Samoyed
(as in Finnish maksa ~ Nganasan mitǝ ‘liver’); the same correspondence also occurs
in some suffixal morphemes, e.g. in the ablative suffix (*-tA in the west vs. *-tǝ in
Samoyed). In Janhunen’s (1981: 226–230) view the Samoyed forms have undergone
secondary vowel reduction, but Zhivlov (2014: 117–121) has proposed that the
correspondence reflects a distinct vowel phoneme, traces of which would also be
found in Mari, Khanty and Hungarian. On the other hand, also correspondences
between rounded vowels in non-initial syllables can be established, at least in
derivatives: cf., e.g., North Saami doarru- ‘fight (verb)’ ~ Tundra Nenets taro-
‘wrestle’ < PU ?*toro-, derived from *tora ‘fight, quarrel (noun)’; the phenomenon is
further discussed by Aikio (2015: 37–39). Some cases of non-initial syllable rounded
vowels have been convincingly explained as deriving from an original unrounded
vowel followed by the glide *w, but it is unlikely that all rounded vowels could be
accounted for in the same way, considering the diverse sound correspondence patterns
involved. Thus, further research is needed.
As regards consonant distribution, Proto-Uralic syllable structure imposed three
major restrictions on the combinatory properties of consonants:
a) No consonant clusters occurred in word-initial position.

b) In word-internal positions consonant clusters could consist of no more than
two consonants (with the possible exception of clusters of type *jCC).
c) No consonant clusters occurred in word-final position (with the possible
exception of clusters of the type *jC).
13

There were also many more specific restrictions: for example, the consonants
*ŋ, *r, *d and *x did not occur in word-initial position. Nearly all instances of final
consonants involve suffixes, and the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic morphology
remains quite incomplete (see section 1.4), but even so, there appears to be no clear
evidence of the consonants *p, *č, *ś, *š, *ń, *d, *ď and *x in word-final position.
With the exception of *p and *ś these consonants may have been banned from
suffixal morphemes altogether (see 1.3.4).
In word-internal positions geminates and many clusters of two consonants were
allowed. A contrast between single and geminate consonants can be definitely
established for the stops (*pp, *tt, *kk) and the postalveolar affricate (*čč).
Concerning other geminates, at least *mm is suggested by Finnic evidence in a few
stems (*amma- ‘ladle’, *ammi- ‘old, ancient’, *kämmin(i) ‘palm’, *kumma ‘shady,
dark’). Reconstructed consonant clusters, in turn, can be divided into three major
groups based on whether an obstruent or a sonorant appears as the first and the second
member. The following categorization lists all clusters in each category that can with
a high degree of certainty be reconstructed in at least one Proto-Uralic word stem:
a) obstruent + obstruent: *pt, *kt, *čt, *st, *śt, *tk, *čk, *sk, *śk, *ps, *ks,
*pś, *kś, *kš
b) sonorant + obstruent: *mp, *mt, *nt, *ŋt, *ŋk, *nč, *ŋs, *mś, *ńś, *rp, *rt,
*rk, *lt, *lk, *dk, *ďk, *jt, *jk, *jč, *jš
c) sonorant + sonorant: *rm, *lm, *lŋ, *dm, *jm, *jn, *jŋ, *wn, *wŋ, *jr, *wl,
*wd, *rw, *lw, *dw, *ďw, *jw, *rj, *lj, *wj
Most of these clusters are found in monomorphemic word stems, but some can only
be established on morpheme boundaries in derivatives: *čt (*mač-ta- ‘be able to’ ←
*manči ‘capacity’), *st (*pis-tä- ‘stick, sting’ ← *pisi- ‘get stuck’), *lt (*kul-ta- ‘fish
with a dragnet’ ← *kulki- ‘run, flow’), *mś (*ńim-śä ‘breast / milk’ ← *ńimi- ‘suck’),
*jr (*koj-ra ‘male animal’ ← *koji ‘man, male’), *dm (*ad-ma ‘sleep (noun)’ ←
*adi- ‘sleep (verb)’). The few plausible examples of three-consonant clusters of the
type *jCC are all found in derivatives such as ?*tejm-tä- ‘soften’ ← *tejmi- ‘turn
soft’. Some further clusters can be reconstructed for inflectional forms, e.g. *ln (*ül-
nä above-LOC), *ms, *ns (*ojwa-m-sa head-ACC-POSS.3SG, *ojwa-n-sa head-GEN-
POSS.3SG), *sn (*läs-nä ‘near-LOC’).
14

It is notable that there is no clear evidence of consonant clusters consisting of an
obstruent followed by a sonorant within word stems (Janhunen 1982: 26). Some
etymologies featuring such clusters have been proposed, but most of them involve
severe phonological irregularities and other problems, and the ones that have a
reasonable chance of being correct may involve clusters that secondarily arose
through syncope in the individual branches (e.g., ?*kupla ~ ?*kupVla ~ *kum(p)Vla
‘bubble, bladder’). Moreover, even on morpheme boundaries such clusters appear to
have been extremely rare; perhaps the only convincing example is Finnish läsnä
‘present, in attendance’ ~ Meadow Mari /liʃne/ ‘close, nearby’ ~ Tundra Nenets
/jeʔnʲa/ ‘against, opposite to’ (< PU *läs-nä). Hence, clusters of this type could
probably only occur across morpheme boundaries.
Of course, the list above cannot come even close to a full inventory of consonant
clusters that actually occurred in Proto-Uralic. However, it is rather difficult to
determine whether the absence of particular clusters in the reconstruction is due to a
true phonotactic constraint or an accidental gap in the limited material, and hence, the
exact rules of consonant combining are difficult to reconstruct. It is reasonable to
assume that we are dealing with a true phonotactic constraint when not only is the
cluster absent in the Proto-Uralic corpus, but also its predictable reflexes in the lower-
level proto-languages are either absent or clearly secondary (e.g., they only occur in
loanwords). By such a criterion one can identify a few specific types of consonant
clusters that were probably not allowed in Proto-Uralic, for example the following:
● obstruent + *p
● *w + labial consonant (*p or *m)
● nasal + heterorganic non-coronal stop (*p or *k)
● nasal + non-nasal sonorant
1.3.4 Morpheme structure
In terms of their phonological structure, Proto-Uralic morphemes can be divided in

three categories: content word stems, function word stems, and suffixes. Content word
stems and function word stems showed a major structural difference: the former were
always polysyllabic, whereas no such limitation was imposed on the latter. The
canonical shape of monomorphemic content words was a disyllabic stem ending in a
vowel: *(C)V(C)CV-. Furthermore, due to the phonotactic limitations of vowel
15

distribution, the stem-final vowels in the second syllable were mostly (or perhaps
completely) limited to *a, *ä and *i (see 1.3.3). No structural differences between
stems of different word classes (nouns vs. verbs) seem to have occurred. In contrast,
most function word stems had a monosyllabic shape *(C)V-; less than 20 such stems
have been reliably reconstructed. The following serve as examples of canonical stem
shapes:
Content word stems: *elä- ‘live’, *muna ‘egg’, *suxi- ‘row’, *śilmä ‘eye’, *i̮ kta-
‘hang’, *täwdi ‘full’
Function word stems: *me- 1PL personal pronoun, *ku- content interrogative, *tä-
proximal demonstrative, *e- negative auxiliary
This structural pattern is preserved basically intact in many Saami languages, where
monosyllabic content word stems are still synchronically disallowed. All other
daughter branches of Uralic, however, have developed content word stems of the
shape (C)V-, (C)VV- or (C)VC(C)- through reductive sound changes.
While the overwhelming majority of reconstructed monomorphemic content word
stems display the canonical shape *(C)V(C)CV-, also other marginal stem shapes can
be reconstructed. The most obvious cases involve noun stems of the shape
*(C)V(C)CVw- (e.g., *käliw ‘brother- or sister-in-law’, *śi̮ lkaw ‘pole, rod’) and
*(C)V(C)CVC(i)- (e.g., *wVdim(i) ‘marrow’, *jekin(i) ‘gums’, *šiŋir(i) ‘mouse’,
*epik(i) ‘owl’); regarding the latter type, it is difficult to determine whether the final
vowel *i originally was a part of the stem or an epenthetic vowel added before
suffixes in inflected forms. Also trisyllabic noun stems ending in a low vowel did
occur although rarely (e.g., *peŋärä ‘round / round object, wheel’). In regard to these
non-canonical stem types nouns might also have differed from verbs: apparently,
every single verb for which a non-canonical trisyllabic stem can be reconstructed is a
semantically obscured derivative formed from a canonical stem of the type
*(C)V(C)CV- (e.g., *pintäli- ‘defend, protect’ ← *pintä- ‘cover’; *puwali- ‘swell’ ←
*puwa- ‘blow’). However, also many of the non-canonical noun stems correspond
formally to known derivative types, and may thus have originally been bimorphemic.
On the other hand, there is also scattered evidence suggesting that non-canonical noun
stems may have been more common than is generally assumed. In some lexical items
a canonical stem shape in one language or variety corresponds to a non-canonical
16

shape in another, as in the noun meaning ‘autumn’: cf. the canonical modern Finnish
syksy, North Saami čakča, Erzya Mordvin śokś vs. the non-canonical archaic Finnish
syys (< *sügüs) and Hungarian ősz /øːs/ (< *öɣös). In such cases the latter kinds of
forms have usually been considered secondary, but it appears more natural to interpret
the canonical forms as innovations that arose through syncope (e.g., PU ?*sükiś(i)
‘autumn’ > *sükśi).
As regards suffixal morphemes, their phonological structure differed markedly
from that of word stems. The details also are much less clear, as the reconstruction of
Proto-Uralic morphology remains fragmentary, and exact sound correspondences for
suffixes are more difficult to establish due to the massively reductive developments
that non-initial syllables have undergone in most branches. In any case, most suffixes
either consisted of a single consonant (*-C) or contained a single syllable (*-CV(C),
*-CCV(C)). However, even some polysyllabic suffixes can be reconstructed, the
longest being the trisyllabic negative participle suffix *-mAktAmA (see 1.4.5); most
polysyllabic suffixes can be interpreted as originating in combinations of simpler
suffixes. The vowels in suffixes were subject to the general phonotactic restrictions
that applied to non-initial syllables (see 1.3.3): at least in most cases, the vowel was
either *i or the open vowel (*a / *ä) whose frontness was further determined by
vowel harmony (see 1.3.5). Also the consonant inventory in suffixes seems to have
been restricted: the consonants *č, *š, *ń, *d, *ď, and *x are not known to have
occurred in any suffix.
1.3.5 Morphophonology
Proto-Uralic can be reconstructed as an agglutinating language with very little

morphophonological alternation. Nevertheless, two morphophonological phenomena
can be reconstructed. The first is vowel harmony, which governed the distribution of
the open vowels *a and *ä in non-initial syllables (see 1.3.3). Due to the application
of vowel harmony, suffixes containing an open vowel had front and back vocalic
variants: cf., e.g., the allomorphs of the locative case suffix in *taka-na ‘behind’ and
*ül-nä ‘on’. In such cases the underlying suffix can be written as *-nA, containing an
archiphoneme *A whose phonemic realization was determined by the harmonic class
of the stem it attaches to.
The second morphophonological process is the formation of consonant stems. In
word stems of the shape *(C)V(C)Ci- the stem-final *i could alternate with zero,
17

producing a stem allomorph of the shape *(C)VC-, called the “consonant stem”. The
process was triggered by the addition of a suffix consisting of a full syllable (*-
CV(C)), and it was productive in both inflection and derivation. An example of the
former is provided by the local case forms of the relational noun stem *üli- ‘space
above, upper surface’: LOC *ül-nä, ABL *ül-tä vs. DAT *üli-ŋ. Reconstructed
derivatives based on consonant stems include causative verbs (e.g., *kan-ta-
‘transport, carry’ ← *kani- ‘go away’) and various deverbal nouns (e.g., *ad-ma
‘sleep (noun)’ ← *adi- ‘sleep (verb)’, *ńim-śä ‘breast / milk’ ← *ńimi- ‘suck’).
While the phenomenon of consonant stem formation can be unambiguously
reconstructed into Proto-Uralic, many details remain unclear. Janhunen (1982: 27)
describes the process as purely phonologically conditioned, maintaining that the stem
vowel was dropped in any suffixed form of the type *(C)VC-CV(C)-, provided that
the phonotactic rules of consonant combination were not violated. However, the
underlying rules have evidently been more complex. First, inflectional forms based on
consonant stems actually appear to have contained consonant clusters which
otherwise did not occur in the language; e.g., the cluster *sn occurred in *läs-nä (the
locative form of the relational noun *läsi- ‘near / opposite to’) even though clusters
consisting of an obstruent followed by a sonorant seem to have been forbidden within
word stems (see 1.4.3.). Second, consonant stems have even been formed from some
stems with consonant clusters (*(C)VCCi-), and in these cases concomitant cluster
simplifications took place in order to avoid a three-consonant cluster not allowed by
Proto-Uralic phonotactics (see 1.3.3). At least two rules of cluster simplification can
be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic:
● n > Ø /_CC (e.g., *mač-ta- ‘be able to’ ← *manči ‘capacity’ + verbalizer *-
tA-)
● k > Ø /C_C (e.g., *kul-ta- ‘fish with a dragnet’ ← *kulki- ‘run, flow’ +
causative *-tA-)
In individual branches examples of even other types of cluster simplifications are

found; cf. e.g. Finnish lapsi ‘child’: PART las-ta (< PU *li̮ pśi ‘cradle’ : ABL ?*li̮ ś-ta).
The Uralic origin of such alternations appears plausible, but this remains an
unverified hypothesis; the phenomena associated with consonant stems require further
comparative study.
18

1.4 Morphology
The Uralic languages are well-known for their rich inflectional and derivational
morphology, and thus, comparative morphological research has played an important
role in Uralic historical linguistics since the very establishment of the language
family. Nevertheless, the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic morphology remains quite
sketchy. In fact, relatively little research has been conducted with the primary aim of
reconstructing the system of Proto-Uralic morphology; a large part of research has
been aimed at explaining the historical morphology of the individual branches or
accounting for the origin of specific forms or categories of forms.
The received paradigm of Proto-Uralic morphology is composed of research
results that have accumulated over a long time. However, the reconstruction of Proto-
Uralic morphology has not yet been systematically and critically reevaluated in the
same way as phonological and lexical reconstruction were in the 1980s (see 1.3.1,
1.6.1). Moreover, information is scattered over a wide range of publications, the most
readily accessible of which are general handbooks (Sinor 1988 and Abondolo 1998a,
in addition to the present volume) and monograph-length introductions to individual
branches (e.g., Korhonen 1981, Sammallahti 1998a on Saami; Bartens 2000, Csúcs
2005 on Permic). Rarely has there been any attempt to provide an integrated
description of the Proto-Uralic morphological system as a whole, the most notable
exception being the brief overview presented by Janhunen (1982: 27–38).
It goes without saying that the time depth of the Uralic language family,
combined with general lack of early documentation, causes major difficulties for the
reconstruction of Proto-Uralic morphology. Nevertheless, Uralic historical
morphology has probably relied too heavily on mere phonological correspondences
between suffixes, without a systemic perspective on language change: the functions
and semantics of morphemes have tended to play only a minor role, and the nature of
grammatical morphemes as interacting components of a highly integrated system of
morphosyntax has been largely ignored. Therefore, two misguided principles of
explanation have become well-established. First, phonologically simple suffixes of
the types -C and -CV tend to be viewed as historically related whenever they share the
same shape (or merely the same consonant) and show whatever vague similarity of
meaning or function. Second, phonologically more complex suffixes (-CCV, -CVC,
etc.) are then claimed to consist of combinations of simple suffixes, with epenthetic
19

vowels occasionally added for phonotactic reasons. Little attention is usually paid to
semantic, functional and typological questions connected with the alleged
morphological developments.
To take an example from verbal morphology, the 2SG imperative suffix *-k, the
connegative suffix *-k and the present tense marker *-k- (see 1.4.4) are frequently
conflated instead of reconstructing three homonymous suffixes, and occasionally even
further connected with the Finno-Saamic derivational suffix *-(i)k(i) for deverbal
nouns (a view most recently supported by Janhunen, forthcoming). The semantic and
functional connections of these suffixes are far from transparent, however, and chance
resemblance remains an evident possibility in a case where the compared forms
consist of a single high-frequency consonant. Despite this, a further manifestation of
this hypothetical PU “nominalizer” *-k has even been seen in the causative verb suffix
*-k(-)tA- (cf. 1.4.5).
A particularly curious manifestation of the principles discussed above is what
Ylikoski (2001: 256) calls the “lative paradigm”: a persistent assumption that Proto-
Uralic had several different directional (“lative”) case endings of the shape *-C (at
least *-k, *-n, *-ń, *-ŋ, *-s, and *-j are commonly suggested, and even others have
been proposed), and that particularly many morphologically complex suffixes have
arisen by combining these “lative” endings both with other morphemes and with each
other. Consequently, an unreasonably large part of nominal case endings, non-finite
verb morphology and even derivational suffixes in the modern Uralic languages have
been viewed as having its source in the alleged “lative” case endings. Many
hypotheses of this kind were first suggested during the first half of the 20th century
and then illegitimately canonized in later references, although they lacked detailed
semantic and functional arguments and never were reevaluated on the basis of what is
currently known about typology and change in morphology. More detailed critiques
of this tradition are provided by Ylikoski (2011) and Aikio & Ylikoski (2016); the
following discussion on Proto-Uralic morphology will ignore these kinds of
speculations, despite their popularity in literature on Uralic historical morphology.
1.4.2 Word classes

By morphological criteria one can distinguish two basic open word classes, nouns and
verbs, in Proto-Uralic. Nouns were inflected for number, case and possessor person,
whereas verbs were inflected for tense and mood, and they displayed subject
agreement; there may also have been a separate definite conjugation displaying
20

agreement with a definite object. Nominal and verbal morphology is described in
more detail in sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4.
In older research one frequently encounters claims that the distinction between
nouns and verbs was somehow weakly developed in Proto-Uralic, a view that appears
implausible in light of modern knowledge of linguistic typology. The issue is
connected with the question of the so-called “nomenverbum” stems that appear to
function both as nouns and intransitive verbs. Such stems occur in varying numbers in
modern Uralic languages and can also be reconstructed into Proto-Uralic. However,
they are rather few in number and their semantic scope is restricted: many are
associated with body functions (e.g., PU *kuńśi- ‘urine; urinate’, *kusi- ‘cough’,
*śülki- ‘spit’) even though also other types occur (e.g., PU *śoji- ‘sound’, *wuwa-
‘current; flow’). Instead of postulating a special “nomenverbum” word class, such
cases are best analyzed as instances of cross-category homonymy of parallel lexical
items in Proto-Uralic, exactly as in the case of their modern reflexes (e.g., PU *śülki
‘spit (noun)’ : *śülki- ‘spit (verb)’ > North Saami čolga : čolga-). That a handful of
such pairs occurred in Proto-Uralic does not imply that the boundary between nouns
and verbs in general was any more ambiguous than it is in the modern Uralic
languages, contrary to Janhunen (forthcoming).
No morphological criteria seem to support the reconstruction of open word
classes other than nouns and verbs. In modern Uralic languages adjectives share most
of their grammatical properties with nouns (with the partial exception of Samoyed
where mixed systems are found, with one class of adjectives associated with nouns
and another associated with verbs), but usually some morphological criteria for
distinguishing a separate adjective class can be found, such as distinct inflected or
derived forms for comparative, superlative, adverbial or adnominal functions. No
such forms can be traced back to Proto-Uralic, however, so adjectives appear to have
been originally inflected as regular nouns. Even so, adjectives obviously existed as a
distinct syntactic and semantic category (see 1.5).
It should be noted that Proto-Uralic had at least three derivational suffixes for
forming adjectives: the proprietive adjective suffixes *-ŋa and *-ji and the caritive
adjective suffix *-ktAmA (see 1.4.5). Excluding such derivatives, however, only very
few reconstructed words can be unambiguously classified as adjectives; the clearest
cases are PU *wuďi ‘new’, *küsi ‘thick’, *pid-kä ‘long / high’ and *i̮ ńa ‘tame’. Much
more often, however, adjectives in one branch correspond etymologically to nouns in
another: cf., e.g., Finnish nuori ‘young’ ~ Meadow Mari nørø ‘moist, wet; flexible’ ~
21

Moksha Mordvin nar ‘grass; cartilage’ ~ Tundra Nenets /nʲer/ ‘cartilage’ (< PU *ńi̮ ri);
Finnish seppä ‘smith’ ~ North Saami čeahppi ‘skillful’ ~ Hungarian szép ‘beautiful’
(< PU *śeppä). Often also synchronic ambiguity is observed: e.g., Finnish nuori is not
only an adjective (‘young’) but also a noun (‘young person’), and Finnish seppä is
also dialectally attested as an adjective (‘skillful’). Straightforward pathways for shift
of word class are created by the identical behaviour of nouns and adjectives in many
syntactic constructions, such as in predicate noun and predicate adjective position (see
1.5).
Numerals as well seem to have been inflected as regular nouns, but due to their
special quantifying function they might have displayed syntactic idiosyncracies, as
they do in many contemporary Uralic languages. A specific derivational suffix *-mtV
for ordinal numerals existed already in Proto-Uralic. Non-numeral quantifiers were
obviously present in Proto-Uralic, but none of them have been successfully
reconstructed.
Relational nouns, sometimes called ‘spatial nouns’ in Uralic linguistics, are a
special subgroup of nouns with abstract, more or less grammaticalized functions.
Their most important role was to function as postpositions and adverbs in their local
case forms. Morphologically, however, Proto-Uralic relational nouns do not seem to
have differed from other nouns: e.g., PU *ül-nä LOC ‘on’, *ül-tä ABL ‘off (from)’ and
*üli-ŋ LAT ‘onto’ seem to be formally quite regular local case forms (see 1.4.3) of the
relational noun *üli ‘space on or above’, but these word-forms were syntactically
exceptional in that they functioned as postpositions. In modern Uralic languages,
however, such case forms of relational nouns have tended to become lexicalized and
opaque; sometimes they have even lost their status as phonologically independent
words, being reduced to clitics and eventually grammaticalized as new case suffixes
(see 1.4.3). That relational nouns originally resembled ordinary nouns can, however,
be seen from several factors. On the one hand, Proto-Uralic relational nouns have
functioned as bases of derivatives just like ordinary nouns have (cf., e.g., Finnish yltä-
‘reach’, ylevä ‘noble, sublime’, ylänkö ‘highlands’ ← PU *üli ‘space on or above’),
and on the other, various word stems which appear to have been ordinary nouns in
Proto-Uralic have secondarily developed into relational nouns in some Uralic
languages. In fact, the number of stems reconstructible as relational nouns in Proto-
Uralic is quite limited, the clearest cases being *üli- ‘space on or above’, *i̮ la- ‘space
under or below’, *edi- ‘space in front of’, *taka- ‘space behind (on the other side of)’,
*läsi- ‘space near or opposite to’, *müŋä- ‘space behind (one’s back)’. During the
22

independent development of the various Uralic branches many more relational nouns
have developed from diverse sources, for example from the PU nouns *peŋä ‘end’,
*mi̮ xi ‘earth’, *tüŋi ‘base’, and *muka ‘back (body part)’.
Nearly all postpositions and adverbs that can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic
are case forms of relational nouns. However, rare examples of other types of adverbs
are also known, e.g. Lule Saami mieddel(a) ‘past’ ~ East Mansi mæntǝl ‘along,
through; during’ (< PU *mentälä(-n), apparently derived with an unclear suffix *-lA
from the verb *mentä- ‘miss, cause to go’, which in turn is a causative derivative of
*meni- ‘go’); but these may also involve lexicalized case forms of nouns (at least Lule
Saami mieddela reflects a genitive form). Janhunen (1982: 28) maintains that no
evidence exists for any separate group of indeclinable words in Proto-Uralic.
However, as languages in general tend to have also lexicalized and opaque forms, also
Proto-Uralic has probably had such even if they remain difficult to reconstruct.
As regards closed word classes with grammatical functions, relatively little
evidence survives. Personal pronouns are difficult to reconstruct (Abondolo 1998b:
24), and only a highly tentative reconstruction of singular and plural personal
pronouns can be presented: ?*mi(-)nä 1SG, ?*ti(-)nä 2SG, ?*sV- (*sä-?) 3SG, ?*me.
1PL, ?*te 2PL, ?*se 3PL. The correspondences between personal pronouns are rife with
irregularities, the background of some of which is not well understood. The most
notable anomalies are the irregular initial *n instead of *t in 2nd person pronouns in
Khanty and Mansi (cf. Kulonen 2001), the loss of initial *m in the 1SG pronoun in
Mansi and Hungarian, and the development of the singular personal pronouns into the
shape *mu(-)n 1SG : *tu(-)n 2SG : *su(-)n 3SG in Saami and Mordvin. Proto-Uralic
*mun 1SG and *tun 2SG were formerly reconstructed for Samoyed as well (Janhunen
1981: 232–233), but it has recently become clear that the Samoyed pronouns reflect
front vocalic forms (*min(ä)-, *tin(ä)-) after all. Dual personal pronouns cannot be
reconstructed, but they most probably existed because dual number occurred as a
category of both nominal and verbal morphology in Proto-Uralic (see 1.4.3, 1.4.4).
Personal pronouns may originally have been indeclinable or at least showed a
defective case declension; this is suggested, for instance, by the fact that languages
such as Samoyed and Hungarian show supplementary oblique case forms of personal
pronouns that have originated in word stems of diverse background (such as Tundra
Nenets puxǝdᵊ ‘body’ and PU *keti ‘skin’ > ‘person’) (Janhunen, forthcoming).
In addition to personal pronouns a couple of other pronouns can be established,
the most unambiguous cases being *tä- (a proximal demonstrative), ?*to-/?*tu- (a
23

distal demonstrative), *mi- ‘what’, *ke- ‘who’, and *ku- (a general content
interrogative). From these stems, various kinds of adverbs and other function words
have later been derived, but the concrete formations mostly cannot be traced back to
Proto-Uralic. Besides personal, demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, no other
types of pronouns can apparently be reconstructed. The branches from Saami to
Permic have a shared reflexive pronoun (e.g., North Saami ieš, Finnish itse, Komi
at͡ sʲ-, asʲ-), but it developed through grammaticalization from a Proto-Uralic noun
meaning ‘(shadow-)soul’ (cf. Irtysh Khanty is ‘shadow-soul’, North Mansi is
‘shadow, shadow-soul, ghost’).
A couple of Proto-Uralic auxiliary verbs can be reconstructed. Clausal negation
was expressed with a construction containing the negative auxiliary *e-, and negative
imperative constructions were formed with the prohibitive auxiliary ?*älä- ~ ?*elä-
(see 1.5); the latter might have been derived from the former with an unknown
derivational suffix *-lA-. The verb *woli- ‘be’ is attested as a copula and an auxiliary
in all branches except for Saami, and must thus have had various grammaticalized
functions in Proto-Uralic already, but also the concrete lexical meanings ‘be alive’,
‘live’ and ‘dwell’ are marginally attested and may be more archaic. Certain irregular
forms such as Võro um 3SG : ummaq 3PL (? < *wo-ma : *wo-ma-t) suggest that *woli-
could have been derived from a monosyllabic primary auxiliary *wo- (see 1.3.4), but
an irregular loss of *l could also be assumed, considering the special status and high
frequency of the verb *woli-. A clearer example of a secondary monosyllabic
auxiliary is (North) Saami (*)lea- ‘be’ and its cognates. They have been claimed to
derive from a Proto-Uralic auxiliary *le- ‘be / become’, but more probably they
represent a reduced and grammaticalized form of an originally bisyllabic content verb
stem ?*lewV-, preserved in its more original sense in Meadow Mari lij- and Nganasan
dʲiǝ- ‘give birth (of animals)’ (Aikio 2014: 23).
No other function word classes (e.g. conjunctions, discourse particles, pro-
sentences, interjections) can be reconstructed. This, however, does not mean that such
word classes did not exist in Proto-Uralic.
1.4.3 Noun declension

Proto-Uralic nouns were inflected for case, number and possession. The case system
consisted of at least six cases, which can be divided into two groups. Three
grammatical cases were used for marking core syntactic functions, in addition to
24

which there were three local cases. Yet two other adverbial cases may have existed in
Proto-Uralic, but their reconstruction remains somewhat uncertain. (See Table 1.4.)
SG DU PL
NOM -Ø ?*-k(V) *-t

ACC *-m
GEN *-n
}*-j
LOC *-nA
ABL *-tA
LAT *-ŋ
?TRANS ?*-ksi
?CAR ?*-ktAk
Table 1.4 The Proto-Uralic case suffixes.
In terms of morphosyntactic alignment Proto-Uralic was highly probably a

nominative-accusative language. The subject arguments of both intransitive and
transitive verbs were in the nominative case, the singular form of which was
morphologically unmarked. The accusative case in *-m can be reconstructed, but
Proto-Uralic like most of its descendants probably had differential object marking,
allowing also nominative objects (see section 1.5). The main function of the third
grammatical case, the genitive in *-n, was to mark nouns appearing in adnominal
modifier position, especially as possessive modifiers. The system of Proto-Uralic
grammatical case endings survived basically intact in Saami, Mari and Samoyed;
Finnic and Mordvin developed syncretism of the accusative and the genitive through a
sound change *m > *n in word-final position.
The local cases formed a tripartite system, with one case expressing a static
location (the locative in *-nA) and two dynamic cases expressing movement away
from a location (the ablative in *-tA) and to a location (the lative in *-ŋ). Unlike the
system of grammatical cases, the system of original local cases is nowhere preserved
in its entirety, even though some languages have retained one or two of these cases in
a local function: e.g., Khanty has a locative case in *-nǝ (< PU *-nA), and Permic has
both an inessive case in *-i̮ n (< PU *-nA) and an illative case in *-e̮ (with a lost final
consonant, possibly PU *-ŋ). Vestiges of the complete set of three local cases are,
however, found in sets of postpositions and adverbs that originated as local case forms
25

of relational nouns: cf. Erzya Mordvin alo, aldo, alov ~ Nganasan ŋilʲenu, ŋilʲeðǝ, ŋilʲe
(< PU *i̮ l(a)-na ‘under-LOC’, *i̮ l(a)-ta ‘under-ABL’, *i̮ la-ŋ ‘under-LAT’).
The Proto-Uralic local case endings have tended to develop more abstract
grammatical functions or to lose their productivity and become confined to lexicalized
forms. At the same time, new tripartite series of local cases have developed mostly by
agglutination and grammaticalization of original postpositions. For example, in Saami
and Finnic the locative *-nA developed into an essive case, the ablative *-tA
developed into a partitive case (which became subsequently marginalized in Saami),
and the lative case *-ŋ was lost in both branches. The primary local functions of these
cases were, in turn, taken over by secondary case forms combining an element *-s(i)-
with the primary local case endings (*-s-nA : *-s-tA : *-si-n < *-si-ŋ). These
secondary local case endings appear to have partial cognate forms in Samoyed and to
originate from Uralic postpositions (Ylikoski 2016b). Later Finnic also developed
another tripartite set of “external” local cases (*-l-nA : *-l-tA : *-le-n < *-li-ŋ) via
agglutination of the PU postpositions *ül-nä LOC ‘on’, *ül-tä ABL ‘off (from)’ and
*üli-ŋ LAT ‘onto’, which in turn were local case forms of the relational noun *üli
‘place on or above’ (Aikio & Ylikoski 2016).
The Proto-Uralic case system comprised at least the six cases described above, but
there are also two other cases whose reconstruction appears plausible, though
somewhat uncertain. A caritive (also called abessive or privative) case with the suffix
*-ktAk is found in Saami, Finnic, Mari and Permic, and T. Itkonen (1992) has
presented plausible arguments for the view that precisely the same suffix ultimately
lies behind the phonologically anomalous Khanty *-lǝɣ and Mansi *-tǟl which
function as both caritive case endings and caritive adjective derivatives. Thus, it is
probable that *-ktAk functioned as a case ending in Proto-Uralic already (see
Janhunen 1982: 31; 2014: 317). The ending must originally be bimorphemic, as the
component *-ktA- also occurs in the derivational suffix *-ktAmA which forms caritive
adjectives (and in Mordvin also functions as a caritive case suffix); in individual
branches also other complex suffixes containing *-ktA- are attested. Moreover, *-
ktAmA in turn acts as a component of the negative participle suffix *-mAktAmA.
Hence, the caritive morpheme *-ktA is in any case of Uralic ancestry, although it
remains somewhat unclear whether caritive was a true noun case (instead of a
derivational category) in Proto-Uralic.
The eighth possible Proto-Uralic case is the translative in *-ksi. This case is
traditionally assumed to occur only in two western branches, Finnic and Mordvin, but
26

Ylikoski (2017a) argues that the same suffix probably also underlies the Mari lative
case ending -(e)ʃ (which despite its name is not really a directional local case).
Moreover, according to Janhunen (1989b) the suffix is cognate with the Samoyed
predestinative (also called destinative or benefactive) marker *-tǝ-. The Samoyed
predestinative is a special category of noun declension that expresses a sense of ‘for,
for the benefit of’ and usually occurs in combination with possessive suffixes. In
objection to Janhunen’s proposal it has been pointed out that the uses of translative
case forms and predestinative forms show notable differences in regard to argument
structure (Siegl 2013a: 401–402). Nevertheless, one can also find far-reaching
congruence between the use of a Samoyed predestinative form and the Finnic
translative case in many quite prototypical constructions, for example:
(1) Tundra Nenets (Tereščenko 1965: 291)

nʲe nʲuːm nʲedᵊnta meᵊda
woman child woman.DST.GEN.POSS.3SG take.3SG>SG
(Finnish:)
otti tytön vaimoksensa
take.PAST.3SG girl.ACC wife.TRSL.POSS.3SG
‘he took the girl as a wife for him’
(2) Tundra Nenets (Tereščenko 1965: 688)

tʲikiᵊ nʲem nʲebʲadǝnᵊ pæᵊrŋawǝsʲᵊ
that woman.ACC mother.DST.GEN.POSS.1SG regard.PST.1SG>SG
(Finnish:)
luulin sitä naista äidikseni
think.PST.1SG that.PART woman.PART mother.TRSL.POSS.1SG
‘I mistook that woman for my mother’
(3) Forest Enets (Siegl 2013: 386)

uu biiðunʲ ebut soiða
2SG son-in-law.DST.GEN.POSS.1SG be.COND.GEN.POSS.2SG good.3SG
(Finnish)
sinä olisit hyvä vävykseni
2SG be.COND.2SG good son-in-law.TRSL.POSS.1SG
‘you would be a good son-in-law for me’
27

It is notable that these examples do not only show an exact semantic and functional
equivalence, but also a fully regular sound correspondence of suffixal morphology:
Tundra Nenets -dᵊnta, -dǝnᵊ ~ Finnish -ksensa, -kseni (< PU *-ksi-n-sa, *-ksi-ni). In
the last example even the word-form in its entirety matches: Forest Enets biiðunʲ ~
Finnish vävykseni (< PU *wäŋiwi-ksi-ni). Some further illustrative examples are
discussed by Salminen (2014: 291–296) and Ylikoski (2017a). Thus, it is very
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the predestinative and translative morphemes are
cognate and derive from PU *-ksi. Lehtinen (2007: 67) goes as far as to say that
“according to the present view” there were seven noun cases in Proto-Uralic, the
translative in *-ksi being one of them, and also Janhunen (2014: 317) laconically
postulates a “predestinative case” for the proto-language. Nevertheless, it remains
somewhat unclear whether the Proto-Uralic *-ksi suffix was really a marker of case
and not some other morphological category.
Three grammatical numbers can be distinguished in Proto-Uralic: singular, dual,
and plural. However, the categories of case and number seem to have been mutually
almost completely exclusive in nominal declension. A full paradigm of 6–8 cases can
only be established in the singular, whereas for plural only two distinct forms can be
reconstructed, and neither of them is based on the singular case endings: the
nominative plural in *-t, and another form with the suffix *-j (Honti 1997 argues for a
different view). Regarding the former, it is worth noting that apparently *-t occurred
as a plural marker also in possessive suffixes (see below) and subject personal
endings of verbs (see 1.4.4). The latter suffix has been hypothesized to have been a
“conjunctive” form used in both accusative and genitive functions (Janhunen 1982:
29). The actual status of this form remains unclear, however; the suffix *-j marks the
genitive plural in Saami but the accusative plural in Samoyed. Elsewhere the suffix
does not occur as the sole marker of any form; most branches have simply lost the
suffix, whereas in Finnic it was generalized as a regular marker of nominal plurality
that occurs in combination with case suffixes; Hungarian -i-, which marks plural
possessa in conjunction with possessive suffixes, might be of the same origin.
As regards dual number, it can be unambiguously reconstructed for Proto-Uralic
possessive and verbal morphology, and is likely to have also been a subcategory of
nominal number. However, the reconstruction of dual markers for nouns remains
problematic. Dual as a grammatical subcategory has only been retained in Samoyed,
Khanty, Mansi and Saami, and unambiguous reflexes of the nominal dual suffix *-
k(V) are only found in Mansi (*-ɣ-), Khanty (*-ɣǝn-, *-ɣǝl-), and Samoyed (*-kǝń-).
28

The Samoyed form and the Khanty allomorph *-ɣǝn- seem to consists of two distinct
plural markers, the nominal dual marker PU *-k(V) and the dual marker *-(j)n which
occurs in possessive suffixes on nouns (see below) and subject personal endings on
verbs (see 1.4.4).
In Saami the use of dual number is restricted to definite persons, and nominal dual
can be expressed by transparent yet fully grammaticalized compound forms (such as
North Saami nieidda-guovttos girl.GENACC-DU ‘the two girls’, with a dual marker
derived from the numeral guokte ‘two’). Thus, as clear material evidence of the dual
suffix *-k(V) is limited to the Siberian branches, its reconstruction to Proto-Uralic
remains somewhat hypothetical. However, it is not impossible that a trace of it
survives in the now moribund Návuotna Sea Saami dialect of North Saami, in which
dual predicate nouns and adjectives (with a lost final consonant, possibly PU *-k)
were distinct from plural ones (in -t < PU *-t) (Larsen 2014: 219); the issue requires
further research.
Proto-Uralic nouns could also be declined for possessor person: a set of nine
possessive suffixes, distinguishing three numbers and three persons, can be
reconstructed. The possessive suffixes were attached after the suffix for case and
number. The original suffix order is preserved in the lateral parts of the family –
Saami, Finnic and Mordvin in the west, and Samoyed in the east – and the reverse
order attested in Ugric and partially also in Permic and Mari represents an innovation
(Nichols 1972). Minor morphophonological alternations can be reconstructed into
Proto-Uralic in connection with the first person possessive suffixes beginning with
*m: when attached after the accusative suffix *-m or the genitive suffix *-n, the
sequence of two nasals was simplified: *m–m > *m; *n–m > *n (Janhunen 1982: 31).
The endings of the possessive declension in the singular forms of the three
grammatical cases are shown in Table 1.5.
29
NOM ACC GEN
1SG *-mi *-mi *-ni

2SG *-ti *-mti *-nti
3SG *-sA *-msA *-nsA
1DU *-mi(j)n *-mi(j)n *-ni(j)n
2DU *-ti(j)n *-mti(j)n *-nti(j)n
3DU *-sA(j)n *-msA(j)n *-nsA(j)n
1PL *-mAt *-mAt *-nAt
2PL *-tAt *-mtAt *-ntAt
3PL *-sAt *-msAt *-nsAt
Table 1.5 The Proto-Uralic suffixes marking different possessor persons in the
nominative, accusative and genitive singular.
Possessor person marking in noun declension can be reconstructed in detail

because the system happens to be preserved nearly unchanged in the western and
eastern extremes of the language family, i.e., in Saami and Samoyed (Salminen 1996);
in other branches the system has been more or less restructured. Even so, unclear
issues remain, such as the marking of plural possessees: western branches (e.g., Saami
and Mordvin) have a suffix *-n-, whereas Samoyed indicates *-j- in the same
function.
The possessive suffixes as well as the personal endings of verbs (see 1.4.4)
display the same initial consonants (*m for 1st person, *t for 2nd person, *s for 3rd
person) as the personal pronouns (see 1.4.2). Thus, it has often been assumed that the
suffixes arose through agglutination of original pronouns. However, if such a
grammaticalization process indeed has taken place, it was completed already well
before the disintegration of Proto-Uralic.
Yet another category sometimes postulated for Proto-Uralic noun morphology is
the so-called predicative or nominal conjugation. While most Uralic languages allow
nominal predication without a copula (see chapter 52), in Mordvin and Samoyed such
predicate nouns can display subject person and number markers and even past tense
markers identical to verbs. This feature has occasionally been interpreted as an
archaism (Janhunen 1982: 38), but as the phenomenon is absent in all other branches
of Uralic, it probably represents an innovation.
30

1.4.4 Verb conjugation
While Proto-Uralic noun declension can be reconstructed in relatively good detail (see
1.4.3), the picture of verb conjugation is less clear. Numerous cognate morphemes in
verb conjugation have been identified, but it is much more difficult to establish entire
cognate forms with a definite combination of cognate suffixes. This is because the
systems of verbal morphology in the various branches of Uralic show major
discrepancies, of which at least three types can be distinguished:
a) Presence vs. absence of a grammatical category: e.g., a distinction between the

so-called objective conjugation (marking of the object on the verb) and
subjective conjugation is present in five branches (Mordvin, Mansi, Khanty,
Hungarian, Samoyed) but absent in four (Saami, Finnic, Mari, Permic).
b) Presence vs. absence of overt marking of a grammatical category: the present
tense is mostly unmarked, but a present-tense marker *-k- nevertheless occurs
in Mansi and possible traces of it are also found elsewhere.
c) Different phonological shapes and paradigmatic distributions of markers for a
grammatical category: e.g, the past tense can be marked with either *-j- or *-
ś(A)-, or even both; when both suffixes are present in the same branch, they
show an idiosyncratic paradigmatic distribution.
Such variation obviously poses major problems for reconstruction. In the present state
of research it is possible to identify a common pool of ancient verb suffixes and to
roughly outline the main features of Proto-Uralic verb conjugation, but not to
reconstruct entire paradigms or even subsets of paradigms. Several issues remain
unresolved, and for a number of details alternative solutions can be proposed. At any
rate, it seems clear the morphological skeleton of Proto-Uralic finite verb forms
consisted of the verb stem followed by two suffix slots – the first for a marker of tense
or mood, and the latter for a subject person suffix. Tense and mood seem to have been
mutually exclusive categories.
The Proto-Uralic verb distinguished between at least two tenses, the present (or
more exactly, the present-future) and the past tense. Most Uralic languages suggest
that present tense forms were formed by directly attaching subject person suffixes to
the verb stem, as in Skolt Saami mõõnâ-m, Finnish mene-n, Meadow Mari mij-em ‘I
go’ (< *meni-m). On the other hand, a completely different situation is found in
Samoyed, where a stem-extending element must always be attached to the verb stem
31

before the subject person suffixes; the tense in Samoyed most closely corresponding
to the present tense in other Uralic languages is the so-called aorist, which is marked
with suffixes of more or less unclear origin (Proto-Samoyed *-j-, *-ŋA- and *-ǝ-).
While this feature of Samoyed is likely to represent an innovation (Janhunen 1998:
471–472), it is not so clear that the former type would represent the original system
either, as in the Ob-Ugric languages also present tense suffixes are attested. The
Khanty present tense marker -l- (as in East Khanty men-l-ǝm ‘I go’) is obviously
innovative and originated in a derivational suffix (Honti 1998a: 346), but the Mansi
present tense marker *-ɣ- (as in Konda Mansi min-ɔːm ~ mǝn-ɣ-ǝm, North Mansi
min-eːɣ-ǝm ‘I go’ < ?*min-ǝj-(ǝ)ɣ-ǝm) may have a different origin, possibly
reflecting the present tense marker *-k-. This marker is not found as a productive
element of verb conjugation in other branches, but fossilized vestiges of it may
survive in certain forms of the negative auxiliary in Mari and Permic, as well as in the
otherwise unexplained geminate consonants of Finnic 1PL and 2PL person suffixes
(see chapter 14.3.2). Therefore, the Proto-Uralic present tense was not necessarily
unmarked.
Two past tense markers, *-j- and *-ś(A)-, can apparently be reconstructed. Most
branches seem to have generalized one of the two suffixes: in Mansi and Samoyed
only *-ś(A)- is attested, whereas Saami, Finnic and Permic use *-j- as the default past
tense marker. In Saami and Finnic, however, *-ś- is found in past tense forms of the
negation auxiliary; this was probably the original situation in Mordvin, too, where
third-person past tense forms with *-ś- appear to have secondarily developed to avoid
homophony with present-tense forms (Zaicz 1998: 200). However, in two branches
both suffixes play key roles in verbal conjugation, albeit with a completely different
functional opposition. Mari uses *-j- in conjugation I verbs and *-ś- in conjugation II
verbs; the former type mainly derives from Proto-Uralic verbs with stem-final *i and
the latter from ones with stem-final *A. In East Khanty, on the other hand, the two
markers encode different tense categories, even though synchronically *-j- is reflected
as zero: cf., e.g., archaic Surgut Khanty /mǝnsǝm/ ‘I was going’ (< *meni-śV-m) vs.
/mǝnǝm/ ‘I went’ (< *meni-j(i)-m); note that in modern language the distinction
between the two past tenses has become obsolete. It is obviously quite difficult to
reconstruct the original system behind the diffuse synchronic patterns, but it seems
clear that both past tense markers must have been in one way or the other present in
Proto-Uralic. The marker *-ś(A)- may ultimately have been grammaticalized from
32

some sort of participle suffix of the shape *-śA, which is attested in fossilized
derivatives (Janhunen 1998: 472; see 1.4.5).
As regards mood, the only category that can be completely unambiguously
reconstructed is the imperative, which in the 2SG form was marked with the suffix *-k,
as in PU *meni-k ‘go!’ (> South Saami mïnnh, Finnish mene(ʔ), Tundra Nenets
/mʲinᵊʔ/, etc.). This suffix is homonymous with (and perhaps related to) the suffix *-k
of the connegative form (see below) and the present-tense marker *-k- discussed
above, as far as the latter can indeed be reconstructed into Proto-Uralic. Note that the
2SG imperative contained no subject person suffix, unlike the other finite verb forms.
The reconstruction of other imperative forms is less clear; they may have evolved
later, often on the basis of the 2SG form.
Markers for other moods in the Uralic languages are highly heterogeneous, and
they usually originate from either verbal derivative suffixes with an aspectual function
or auxiliary verbs. Nevertheless, a mood marker possibly reconstructible for Proto-
Uralic is *-ni-, attested in at least Finnic as a marker of potential mood and in Mari as
a marker of desiderative mood (cf. Finnish men-ne-n ‘I might go’, Meadow Mari
mijəә-ne-m ‘I want to go’ < *men(i)-ni-m). The same morpheme likely also occurs as a
component of what appears to be a bimorphemic marker (?*-ni-kV-) of conditional
mood in Mansi and Hungarian: cf., e.g., North Mansi min-nuw-ǝm ‘I would go’ <
?*meni-ni-kV-m. However, no trace of the mood marker *-ni- seems to be found in
other branches, nor does it have any obvious cognate morphemes in other functions.
Therefore, it is uncertain whether a mood marker *-ni- occurred in Proto-Uralic, and
even if it did, its exact original function remains unclear.
Regarding subject person suffixes, the Uralic languages are divided as to whether
they possess one or two sets of such endings. Several branches possess a distinct set
of suffixes that is generally used with transitive verbs and marking the presence of a
topical/definite object (the so-called objective or definite conjugation), and another set
of suffixes used with intransitive verbs and transitive verbs with a non-
topical/indefinite object (the so-called subjective or indefinite conjugation); the exact
criteria determining the choice of conjugation are complex and varying, however. The
four easternmost branches, Samoyed, Khanty, Mansi, and Hungarian, have a system
of objective conjugation encoding the presence (and, with the exception of Hungarian,
also the number) of a definite object. In the west, Mordvin has an even more
extensive system of objective conjugation which encodes both the person and the
number of a definite object. On the other hand, in Saami, Finnic, Mari and Permic no
33

obvious traces of two separate conjugations seem to be found; the subject person
suffixes in these branches show correspondences with the respective suffixes of the
subjective conjugation in the other branches.
The Mordvin system of objective conjugation differs so radically from the others
that it is highly probably an innovation (Keresztes 1999), but the objective
conjugation in the easternmost branches might nevertheless represent a Proto-Uralic
archaism that was lost in the more western branches (Janhunen 1982: 35). On the
other hand, it is equally possible that the Saami, Finnic, Mari and Permic branches
possess a more archaic verb system, and the definite conjugation in the eastern
branches is an areal innovation (Salminen 1996).
Thus, one can alternatively reconstruct one or two sets of subject person suffixes
for verbs, depending on whether definite conjugation is assumed to have existed in
Proto-Uralic or not. Table 1.6 shows the two sets of endings: the default or subjective
conjugation endings can be reconstructed in any case, whereas the objective
conjugation endings remain more hypothetical. It is important to note that the
personal endings that may have been used in the objective conjugation are identical
with the possessive suffixes on nouns (see 1.4.3).
CONJUGATION: PERSON: SG DU PL
DEFAULT / 1 *-m *-mi(j)n *-mAt

INDEFINITE? 2 ?*-t / ?*-n *-ti(j)n *-tAt
3 ?-Ø ?*-kA(j)n ?*-t
DEFINITE? 1 ?*-mi ?*-mi(j)n ?*-mAt

2 ?*-ti ?*-ti(j)n ?*-tAt
3 ?*-sA ?*-sA(j)n ?*-sAt
Table 1.6 The subject person suffixes of Proto-Uralic verbs.
Some issues in the reconstruction of the default set of subject person suffixes also
remain uncertain. The most unclear case is the 2SG category for which two endings
occur, *-t and *-n. The four westernmost branches (Saami, Finnic, Mordvin and Mari)
agree on *-t, whereas Khanty and Mansi point to *-n exclusively (and also show *n
instead of *t in all second-person morphemes, including personal pronouns, which
must be a secondary development). Samoyed has *-n in the indefinite conjugation.
The Permic branch shows a most peculiar duality, with *-n occurring primarily in
34

Komi and *-t in Udmurt. It is possible that both endings go back to Proto-Uralic in
one way or the other. On the other hand, it is not unthinkable that the original 2SG
ending was *-n, and the ending *-t secondarily emerged through analogy: the model
would have been provided by the stop *t in the 2DU and 2PL endings, the 2SG
possessive suffix *-ti (see 1.4.3), and the 2SG personal pronoun ?*ti(-)nä (see 1.4.2).
As regards the third person suffixes in the default set, many Uralic languages have
innovated secondary third person suffixes: cf., e.g., Finnish puree, (archaic) purevi
3SG ‘(s)he bites’, purevat 3PL ‘they bite’ (< *puri-pa, *puri-pa-t, with an active
participle suffix *-pA), Erzya Mordvin porʲi 3SG ‘(s)he chews’, Konda Mansi pori 3SG
‘(s)he bites’ (< *puri-ja), Erzya Mordvin porʲitʲ 3PL ‘they bite’ (< *puri-ja-t; with a
deverbal agent noun suffix *-jA) (see 1.4.5). Originally, however, third person verb
forms were probably unmarked for person: the 3SG form apparently had a zero (-Ø)
ending and the 3PL form merely contained the plural marker *-t (see 1.4.3). The same
analysis applies to the 3DU form at least as far as Samoyed is concerned: the 3DU
suffix in the indefinite conjugation, Proto-Samoyed *-kǝń, was homonymous with the
dual marker of nouns. Apparently, this suffix can be analyzed as containing two
separate dual markers, *-k(V) and *-(j)n (see 1.4.3). Nevertheless, in verb conjugation
the combined suffix as a whole must date back to Proto-Uralic: it is quite obviously
also reflected as the 3DU person suffix *-kān in western Saami languages, even
though this suffix has been formerly regarded as a secondary element of obscure
origin (Sammallahti 1998a: 79, 218) or a product of an analogical development
(Korhonen 1981: 278–279).
In addition to finite conjugation, several non-finite verb forms most probably
existed in Proto-Uralic, considering their prominence in modern Uralic languages.
Indeed, many derivational suffixes forming deverbal nouns (such as *-mA, *-pA, *-jA,
*-ntA; see 1.4.5) are also attested as markers of non-finite forms. However, it is not
clear whether these varying and diverse forms reflect categories of verb inflection
(rather than deverbal derivation) in Proto-Uralic. The only non-finite form that has
been unambiguously reconstructed is the connegative form used in clausal negation
(see 1.5). As noted above, the connegative form was homonymous with the 2SG
imperative, a feature preserved to the present day in many branches.
1.4.5 Word formation

Word formation is the least systematically studied part of Proto-Uralic morphology.
The synchronic systems of derivation and compounding of most branches of the
35

family are well described (a concise overview of derivation in Uralic languages is
provided by Kiefer & Laakso 2014), but in-depth comparative study on the topic has
been scarce. Lehtisalo (1936) remains the most thorough treatment of Proto-Uralic
derivation in spite of being severely outdated, while modern knowledge on the topic
remains scattered in diverse papers and monographs.
The following list presents a total of 35 derivational suffixes that can highly
probably be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic. For each one or two example formations
are given together with their reflexes in at least two branches. Note that even if the
suffixes are Proto-Uralic, the reconstructed derived lexemes may be quasi-cognates
that were separately formed at later stages.
A. Deverbal nouns
(i) *-mA (general nominalizer): e.g., PU *elä- ‘live’ → *elämä > North
Saami eallin, Finnish elämä ‘life’, Meadow Mari ilem ‘farmstead,
settlement’, Nganasan nʲilɨmɨ ‘herd’.
(ii) ?*-o / ?*-w (general nominalizer): e.g., PU *elä- ‘live’ → ?*elo/?*eläw >
North Saami eallu ‘herd’, Finnish elo ‘life; crops; livestock; household
property’, Nganasan nʲilu ‘life’.
(iii) *-pA (active participle): e.g., PU *elä- ‘live’ → *eläpä > Finnish elävä
PRS.PTCP ‘living, live’, Udmurt ulep ‘living, live, alive’, East Khanty jǝlǝw
‘new, fresh’.
(iv) *-ntA (action noun): e.g., PU *elä- ‘live’ → *eläntä > South Saami jielede
‘life’, Olonetsian eländy ‘living, life; dwelling’, Tundra Nenets jilʲenʲa
IPFV.PTCP ‘living’.
(v) *-jA (agent noun): e.g., PU *sala- ‘steal’ → *salaja > Moksha Mordvin
sɑlɑj, Nganasan tolɨǝ ‘thief’
(vi) *-śA (participle with unclear semantics): e.g., PU *kali- ‘die’ → *kaliśa >
Erzya Mordvin kulozʲ PFV.PTCP ‘dead, deceased’, Konda Mansi kɔls
‘person, human being’ (< *‘mortal’), Tundra Nenets xasa ‘late, deceased’
(vii) *-kkAs(i) (inclinative adjective or agent noun): e.g., PU *sala- ‘steal’ →
*salakkas(i) > Mator tælǝgæt ‘thief’; *sala- → *salanti- → *salantikkas(i)
> North Saami suoládahkes ‘thievish’.
(viii) *-mAktAmA (negative participle): e.g., PU *tumti- ‘know, recognize’ →
*tumtimaktama > Finnish tuntematon ‘unknown’, Tundra Nenets
36

tumtǝwᵊdawe-jᵊ NEG.PTCP ‘unrecognized’. — A combination of *-mA (i)
and *-ktAmA (xvii).
B. Denominal nouns
(ix) *-kA (unclear semantics, forms both nouns and adjectives): e.g., PU *ńi̮ ri
‘soft, tender’ → *ńi̮ rka > Hill Mari nørgəӛ, North Mansi nʲɑːrəәɣ ‘cartilage;
young; tender’; PU *pidi ‘long / high’ → *pidkä > Finnish pitkä ‘long’,
Tundra Nenets pʲirt͡ sʲa ‘high’.
(x) *-kkA (unclear semantics, forms both nouns and adjectives): e.g., PU
*pälä ‘side, half’ → *päläkkä > Hill Mari pelæk, East Khanty peːɭəәk
‘half’; PU *kuwa ‘long’ → *kuwakka > North Saami guhkki, Erzya
Mordvin kuvɑkɑ ‘long’, Nganasan kuogu-nu ‘long ago’.
(xi) *-kśi (relational animate noun): e.g., PU *käliw ‘brother- or sister-in-law’
→ *käliwikśi-t NOM.PL > Finnish kälykset, Tundra Nenets sʲelǝsᵊʔ ‘in-laws
(to each other)’ (Salminen 2014: 296–297).
(xii) *-ńśA (collective animate noun): e.g., PU *ekä ‘uncle / father’ → *ekäńśä
> North Saami egeš ‘uncle (father’s older brother) and nephew/niece’,
Konda Mansi jeɣǝnʲsʲ ‘father and son/daughter’.
(xiii) *-ksi (unclear semantics): e.g., PU *śepä ‘neck’ → *śepäksi > Erzya
Mordvin sʲiveks ‘harness’, Meadow Mari ʃyjɑʃ ‘necklace; collar’, Komi
ɕijɘs ‘horse collar’; PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk, tube’ → *pučkiksi > Komi
pɨt͡ ʃɘs ‘inside, interior; cavity’, Nganasan /hytəәðəә/ ‘body, figure’.
(xiv) *-wiksi (unclear semantics): e.g., PU *i̮ la ‘space under or below’ →
*i̮ lawiksi > North Saami vuolus ‘lower part of fishing net’, Finnish alus
‘ship; bottom, underlay’, Komi ulɘs ‘chair’, Tundra Enets iruð ‘bottom;
sole’. — A homonymous, potentially related deverbal noun suffix is
attested in at least Saami, Finnic and Mordvin; this can be analyzed as a
combination of ?*-w / *-o (ii) and *-ksi (xiii).
(xv) *-ŋA (proprietive adjective): e.g., PU *wäki ‘strength’ → *wäkiŋä >
Finnish väkevä, Erzya Mordvin vijev, East Khanty wøːkǝŋ ‘strong’.
(xvi) *-ji (proprietive adjective): e.g., PU *kala ‘fish’ → *kalaji > North Saami
guol'lái ‘rich in fish’, East Khanty kuːlɨ, Nganasan kolɨǝ ‘fish-’.
(xvii) *-ktAmA (caritive adjective): e.g., PU *wäki ‘strength’ → *wäkiktämä >
Skolt Saami viõǥǥte´m, Estonian väeti, Meadow Mari βijdǝme, Kazym
Khanty weːwtɑm ‘weak’. — The suffix is bimorphemic: *-ktA- also
occurs in the abessive case suffix (see 1.4.3).
37

(xviii) *-mpV (moderative or comparative adjective): e.g., PU *śoma ‘nice /
good’ → *śomampV > Fi somempi ‘prettier, nicer’, Tundra Nenets
sǝwɑmpo-jᵊ ‘rather good’. — Possibly a bimorphemic suffix consisting of
the translative verb suffix *-mi- (xxiii) and the active pariciple suffix *-pA
(iii) (Ramstedt 1917).
(xix) *-mtV (ordinal numeral): e.g., PU *wij(i)t(t)i ‘five / ten’ → *wij(i)t(t)i-mtV
> North Saami viđát, Finnish viides : viidente- ‘fifth’, Nganasan biimti-ǝ
‘tenth’.
C. Denominal verbs
(xx) *-tA- (general verbalizer): e.g., PU *suŋi ‘summer / thaw’ → *suŋita- >
Finnish suvea- ‘get mild (of weather)’, East Khanty joŋǝt- ‘melt (of snow);
come (of summer)’, Taz Selkup tɑŋɨrɨ- ‘spend the summer (somewhere)’;
PU *nimi ‘name’ → *nimtä- > North Saami navdit, Meadow Mari lymdəә-,
Tundra Nenets nʲumtʲe- ‘give a name’. — Presumably the same suffix as
the deverbal causative suffix *-tA- (xxvii).
(xxi) *-ji- (general verbalizer): e.g., PU *muna ‘egg’ → *munaji- > North
Saami mon'ne-, Finnish muni- ‘lay eggs’; PU *nimi ‘name’ → *nimiji- >
Izhma Komi ɲimjɨ-, Irtysh Khanty neːmǝj- ‘give a name’.
(xxii) *-li- (general verbalizer): e.g., PU *kama ‘crust, rind’ → *kamali- >
Meadow Mari komle- ‘cover, give a cover, bind’, Hungarian háml-ik
‘peel, flake off, come off in layers’; PU *lämi ‘broth, soup’ → *lämili- >
Konda Mansi løæməәl- ‘cook soup’, Tundra Nenets jewǝl- ‘mix (fluids),
dilute’. — Possibly the same suffix as the deverbal aspectual suffix *-li-
(xxxi).
(xxiii) *-mi- (transformative): e.g., PU *pidi- ‘long / high’ → *pidimi- > Finnish
pitene- ‘become longer’, Tundra Nenets pʲirǝm- ‘become higher’.
(xxiv) *-mtA- (factitive): e.g., PU *pidi- ‘long / high’ → *pidimtä- > Finnish
pidentä- ‘make longer’, Tundra Nenets pʲirǝmtʲe- ‘make higher’. — A
bimorphemic suffix consisting of *-mi- (xxiii) and *-tA- (xxvii).
(xxv) *-mtAw- (transformative / stative?): PU *pidi ‘long / high’ → *pidimtäw-
> Fin pidentyä ‘become longer’, NenT pʲirᵊmtʲo- ‘rise, tower (above),
appear tall’. — A trimorphemic suffix consisting of *-mi- (xxiii), *-tA-
(xxvii) and *-w- (xxx).
(xxvi) ?*-o- (unclear semantics): e.g., PU *tora ‘quarrel, fight (N)’ → ?*toro- >
North Saami doarru- ‘fight’, Tundra Nenets taro- ‘wrestle’.
38

D. Deverbal verbs:
(xxvii) *-tA- (causative): e.g., PU *peji- ‘cook, be cooking (INTR)’ → *pejtä- >
Erzya Mordvin pidʲe-, Tundra Nenets pʲirʲe- ‘cook (TR)’. — Cf. denominal
*-tA- (xx).
(xxviii)*-ptA- (causative): e.g., PU *sewi- ‘eat’ → *se(w)ptä- > Vote süttä- ‘set
on fire’, Komi sot- ‘burn (TR)’, East Khanty læːwǝt- ‘feed; burn (TR)’. —
Possibly a bimorphemic suffix consisting of an unclear morpheme *-p-
and the causative suffix *-tA- (xxvii).
(xxix) *-ktA- (causative): e.g., PU *kuma- ‘fall over’ → *kumakta- > North
Saami gomih-, Meadow Mari kuməәktəә- ‘overturn, turn upside down (TR)’,
Tundra Nenets xəәwᵊdɑ- ‘knock down’. — Possibly a bimorphemic suffix
consisting of an unclear morpheme *-k- and the causative suffix *-tA-
(xxvii).
(xxx) *-w- (stative / automative passive): e.g., PU *kaďa- ‘leave (TR)’ →
*kaďaw- > North Saami guđ'đo- ‘be left’, Estonian kadu- ‘disappear’,
Tundra Nenets xɑjo- ‘stay’.
(xxxi) *-li- (momentative / inchoative?): e.g., PU *puwa- ‘blow’ → *puwali- >
Meadow Mari puɑl-, Far East Khanty poɣǝl- ‘blow (once); swell’,
Nganasan hüolǝ- ‘blow’, Tym Selkup pul- ‘swell’.
(xxxii) *-lta- (momentative?): e.g., PU *suxi- ‘row’ → *suxilta- > Meadow Mari
ʃuɑltəә-, Kazym Khanty ɬɔːwǝɬt- ‘row’. — A bimorphemic suffix consisting
of *-li- (xxxi) and *-tA- (xxvii).
(xxxiii)*-nti- (frequentative / imperfective?): e.g., PU *peli- ‘be afraid’ →
*pelinti- > North Saami balad-, Moksha Mordvin pelʲǝnʲdʲǝ- ‘be afraid
(frequentative)’, Tundra Nenets pʲiːnǝ- ‘be afraid’.
(xxxiv) *-kśi- (frequentative?): e.g., PU *ńali- ‘lick’ → *ńalikśi- > Finnish
nuoleksi- ‘lick (repeatedly)’, Komi nʲulsʲɨ- ‘lick (repeatedly); lick oneself’,
Kazym Khanty nʲoɬɛs- ‘lick, lick off’
(xxxv) *-ji- (unclear semantics): e.g., PU *woppi- ‘inspect, go and see’ →
*woppiji- > Finnish oppi- ‘learn’, Nizyam Khanty wɔːpij- ‘spy; visit’,
Konda Mansi wopj- ‘notice’. — Possibly the same suffix as denominal *-
ji- (xxi).
In general, the derivational suffixes reconstructed above represent rather well the
types of derivatives that are also synchronically widely attested in Uralic. A notable
39

gap, however, is that no suffixes for forming adverbs have been reliably
reconstructed, but some fossilized formations nevertheless suggest that such may have
existed (cf., e.g., PU *mentälä(-n) ‘past / along’ ← *mentä- ‘miss, cause to go’
mentioned in 1.4.2). The exact semantic functions of many of the suffixes remain
unclear, and further study is needed. Of course, some derivational suffixes may have
been polyfunctional in the proto-language already. A case in point are the three
denominal verb suffixes *-tA-, *-ji- and *-li-, for which hardly more than a general
verbalizing function can be reconstructed (Laakso 1997).
Besides derivation, compounding must also have been a highly productive method
of word formation in Proto-Uralic. However, individual compound words can be
reliably reconstructed for Proto-Uralic only if they have been retained in an opaque,
monomorphemized form in all or nearly all branches, and very few attested
compounds fulfill these conditions. Unsurprisingly, all known examples are nouns. A
few words for body parts appear to derive from compounds with the word *li̮ wi
‘bone’ as their head. These examples suggest that endocentric compounds could be
formed by simple conjunction of two noun stems, without any specific morphological
processes:
– South Saami boelve, Finnish polvi, Tundra Nenets puːliᵊ ‘knee’ < ?*po/ux/wi-
‘knee’ + *li̮ wi ‘bone’ (Aikio 2012: 230).
– Komi ɕili ‘neck, withers’, East Khanty sæːwǝl ‘neck’ < *śepä ‘neck’ + *li̮ wi
‘bone’; the compound is preserved transparent in North Mansi sip-luw ‘neck’.
– Meadow Mari oŋəәl-ɑʃ ‘lower jaw, chin’, Surgut Khanty uːŋǝɬ ‘jaw, jawbone’
< *aŋi ‘mouth’ + *li̮ wi ‘bone’.
There is also one apparent case of an obscured compound with the relational noun
stem as the head: the Uralic word for ‘armpit’ (Finnish kainalo, Udmurt kunul, North
Mansi xɑːnl, Hungarian hónalj, etc.) probably consists of ?*ka/ojV-n (an otherwise
unattested noun) and the relational noun *i̮ la ‘space under or below’. This example
differs structurally from the previous type in that the modifier seems to be in the
genitive case form (with the suffix *-n; see 1.4.3).
Nearly all examples involve endocentric compounds. However, an archaic
exoncentric compound is probably involved in Hungarian hajnal ‘dawn, daybreak’
and East Khanty kuːnʲǝl ‘red sky (at dawn or dusk)’, apparently consisting of *kaja-n
‘sun-GEN’ and *i̮ la ‘space under or below’ (cf. English sundown ‘sunset’), but due to
40

its limited distribution this does not qualify as a true Proto-Uralic item. Interestingly,
the most reliably reconstructed Proto-Uralic compound word is neither endocentric
nor exocentric. There is a cognate set of words meaning ‘mother-in-law’ (Finnish
anoppi, Surgut Khanty ontǝp, North Mansi ɔːnip) and ‘father-in-law’ (Tundra Nenets
ŋinǝbǝ, Nganasan ŋinǝbǝ) which reflects a copulative compound *i̮ na-i̮ ppi, consisting
of PU *i̮ na- ‘mother-in-law’ (> North Saami vuoni) and *i̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ (> North
Saami vuohppa, Finnish appi, Hungarian ipa) (Janhunen 1981: 227–228). The
original meaning of the compound was probably ‘parents-in-law’. Similar copulative
compounds are widely attested in the Uralic languages (e.g., Komi ɑj-mɑm, Konda
Mansi jeɣ-sʲyk, Nganasan dʲesɨ-nʲemɨ “father-mother” = ‘parents’), and this cross-
linguistically less common compound type thus turns out to be a Proto-Uralic
archaism.
1.5 Syntax
Compared to other levels of language, not much is known about Uralic historical
syntax. Very little work has been done on syntactic reconstruction even within low-
level branches of the family, to say nothing of more remote time depths. In fact, much
of what has been claimed regarding Proto-Uralic syntax is not based on any
systematic research at all, but instead on educated guesswork or even speculation.
This being the case, only some most general remarks on syntax will be made here.
The following sketchy overview is essentially based on an extrapolation of those
syntactic features that are most widespread and give the impression of being most
archaic in the Uralic languages.
As regards constituent order, Proto-Uralic was most obviously an SOV language
with postpositions. The morphosyntactic alignment of Proto-Uralic was almost
certainly of the nominative-accusative type, as is the case with all modern Uralic
languages with the sole exception of East Khanty which makes limited use of an
ergative-like construction (the ergative suffix derives from the Uralic locative case in
*-nA; see 32.4.2.1 and 44.1). There have been attempts to uncover traces of an earlier
ergative or split-ergative system in Uralic (e.g., de Smit 2014); the evidence is far
from conclusive, but one cannot exclude the possibility that such a system indeed
existed in Pre-Proto-Uralic and the nominative-accusative alignment of Proto-Uralic
was an innovation. Even if this is the case, the East Khanty ergative construction is
41

best explained as a recent innovation; the claim that it is a vestige of more original
ergative alignment in Uralic (Havas 2006) lacks substantiation.
The core arguments were at least partly marked by case: subject arguments
appeared in the nominative case, whereas direct objects of transitive verbs could take
the accusative case (with the suffix *-m in the singular). However, many Uralic
languages display a differential object marking with nominative objects alongside
accusative ones (see 44.4.1 and 54.2.4.1). Finnic and Nenets indicate that objects of
second-person imperative forms took the nominative case; this feature is, in fact, one
of the very few morphosyntactic rules whose reconstruction to Proto-Uralic has been
argued in detail (Janhunen 2002).
As regards noun phrase structure, adnominal modifiers precede nouns in all
Uralic languages, and the situation in Proto-Uralic was evidently the same. In
morphological terms, adjectives were a subclass of nouns (see 1.4.2), but modifier
adjectives most likely took the unmarked nominative singular form and displayed no
agreement with the head noun in either case or number: e.g., *wuďi kota ‘new tent’
SG.NOM : *wuďi kota-m SG.ACC : *wuďi kota-t PL.NOM (> South Saami orre gåetie :
orre gåetie-m : orre gåetie-h). In contrast with adjectives, true nouns prototypically
took the genitive case (with the suffix *-n in the singular) when appearing as
adnominal (possessor) modifiers. Postpositional complements were marked with the
genitive case, and all known Proto-Uralic postpositions were actually local case forms
of relational nouns (see 1.4.2). Thus, postpositional phrases like *kota-n taka-na [tent-
GEN behind-LOC] ‘behind the tent’ and *jäŋi-n üli-ŋ [ice-GEN on-LAT] ‘onto the ice’
appear not to have differed formally from noun phrases like *śodka-n pesä-nä
[goldeneye-GEN nest-LOC] ‘in the goldeneye’s nest’ and *emä-n süli-ŋ [mother-GEN
lap-LAT] ‘into mother’s arms’. This parallelism is, however, not retained in today’s
Uralic: the primary local case suffixes have tended to become lost or secondarily
develop more abstract grammatical functions, which in turn has rendered the
morphosyntactic structure of postpositional phrases opaque.
Simple verbal predicates consisted of a single finite verb form, marked by
conjugation for tense, mood, subject person, and possibly also the presence and
number of a definite object (see 1.4.4). Complex predicates involving e.g. modals
must also have occurred, but essentially nothing is known of their syntactic properties.
Clausal negation was marked with a periphrastic construction that consisted of a finite
form of the negative auxiliary *e-, which probably carried all marking of grammatical
categories associated with verbs, followed by the lexical verb in the connegative form
42

with the suffix *-k. Negative imperatives were based on a similar periphrastic
construction with the prohibitive auxiliary ?*älä- ~ ?*elä-. The later development of
clausal negation in the Uralic languages shows a general trend of gradual reduction in
the verbal nature of the negator. The Ugric languages have proceeded farthest on this
path by innovating particle negation, but also in the more western Uralic languages
one can observe a drift in the same direction: tense and mood marking has often
shifted from the negative auxiliary to the lexical verb, and even subsystems of particle
negation have been created by obliterating subject person marking in parts of the
paradigm of the negative auxiliary. For instance, Estonian has generalized original
NEG.3SG ei as a particle marking clausal negation, but still retains the prohibitive
auxiliary as a verb with distinct subject person forms. Samoyed languages, in contrast,
have more consistently retained the marking of grammatical categories on the
negative auxiliary.
Adjectives and noun phrases could act as nominal predicates without any
preceding copula, as in *kota wuďi [tent new] (> South Saami gåetie orre ‘the tent is
new’), *kota wara-n ül-nä [tent mountain-GEN on-LOC] (> South Saami gåetie vaerien
nelnie ‘the tent is up on the mountain’). In order to mark tense, mood or negation,
however, a construction with the copula *woli- ‘be’ had to be used. As mentioned in
1.4.3, in Mordvin and Samoyed nominal predicates take subject person and number
markers and past tense markers identical to verbs, but this feature is probably a
secondary innovation.
In addition to the basic transitive, intransitive and nominal-predicate sentences,
one can also reconstruct a more marginal agentless sentence type predicating natural
phenomena, with the bare predicate verb in 3SG (e.g., Finnish sataa ~ Forest Nenets
xɑːrɑː [rain.3SG] ‘it is raining’). Beyond this, the syntactic properties of other
sentence types remain largely unknown. A case in point is predicative possession,
which is expressed by tremendously diverse structures in the modern Uralic
languages, including at least transitive, nominative, genitive, locational and
adjectivized possessives; some of these types have emerged multiple times in the
Uralic languages, as parallel innovations with distinct material sources. The picture is
heterogeneous also in the case of several other sentence types, including
comparatives, reflexives, reciprocals, causatives, passives, and polar questions; the
morphosyntactic expression of these categories in Proto-Uralic thus remains
unknown.
43

As regards subordinate clauses, the general view is that Proto-Uralic lacked both
conjunctions and relative pronouns, and that both relative and complement clauses
were built around non-finite nominalized verb forms (Janhunen 1982: 39). This view
is in agreement with the generally archaic look of non-finite subordinate clauses and
the clearly recent origin of most conjunctive words in the Uralic languages. However,
the fact that no conjunctions or relative pronouns have been reconstructed to Proto-
Uralic cannot, in itself, prove that such words did not exist at all. No concrete
reconstructions of the structure of the assumed non-finite subordinate clauses have
been presented either; the features of clause embedding in Proto-Uralic thus remain
uncertain.
1.6 Lexicon
Progress in Uralic lexical reconstruction has been intimately connected with advances
in historical phonology. Prior to the 1980s etymological research was encumbered by
the lack of a well-defined reconstruction of Proto-Uralic phonology. Therefore, sound
correspondences were often dealt with in an imprecise and impressionistic manner,
especially in the case of Khanty, Mansi, and Samoyed, whose phonological
development remained the least well understood. The etymological dictionary
Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Rédei 1988–1991) presents a comprehensive
synthesis of the results of this era of research, but does not reflect the major turn in the
field in the 1980s. In Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti’s (1988) studies on
phonological and lexical reconstruction the focus shifted from search for new lexical
comparisons to a critical reevaluation of proposed Uralic etymologies. The
establishment of exact criteria of regular sound correspondence decreased the number
of reliable reconstructs dramatically, as shown by a comparison of the numbers of
etymologies accepted by Rédei & al. (1988) on the one hand, and Sammallahti (1988)
on the other (note that both references operate with the traditional taxonomic
distinction between “Uralic”, “Finno-Ugric” and “Finno-Permic” discussed in section
2):
Uralic: Finno-Ugric: Finno-Permic: total:

Rédei & al. (1988) 284 419 197 900
Sammallahti (1988) 124 267 142 533
44

The most striking feature of Janhunen and Sammallahti’s revised corpus of
etymologies was that Samoyed appeared to share very little lexical material with the
rest of Uralic. Janhunen (1998: 475) maintains that Samoyed only has about 150
underived word-stems of Uralic origin, which in his view supports the traditional
binary division of Uralic into Samoyed and a “Finno-Ugric” branch. However, the
established rigorous framework of regular sound correspondences has also greatly
facilitated subsequent discovery of new etymologies, in the field of Samoyed
etymology in particular (see, e.g., Aikio 2002; 2006a; forthcoming). The estimated
number of reliable Uralic etymologies for Samoyed words might therefore be doubled
to 300. Knowledge of the Proto-Uralic lexicon has significantly increased since the
word-lists of Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988), and this new picture differs
dramatically from that presented in Rédei & al. (1988). Unfortunately, however, there
is no up-to-date etymological dictionary of Uralic.
1.6.2 Semantic overview

The bulk of the reconstructed Proto-Uralic lexicon consists of monomorphemic word
stems. Derivatives and compounds must have been numerous, but only very few of
them can be reliably reconstructed (see 1.4.5). Applying the distributional criteria
outlined in section 1.2 and reasonably strict criteria of phonological and semantic
correspondence, approximately 500 Proto-Uralic lexemes can be reconstructed. The
material is heavily concentrated in basic vocabulary, and obviously represents only a
fraction of the actual lexicon of the proto-language. In fact, the bulk of the material
can be classified in only a couple of broad semantic groups.
About 120 lexemes are connected with body and mind. Roughly half of them are
words for body parts (e.g., *ojwa ‘head’, *śilmä ‘eye’, *i̮ pti ‘hair on the head’, *käli
‘tongue’, *piŋi ‘tooth’, *künči ‘nail’, *keti ‘skin’, *mi̮ ksa ‘liver’, *śali ‘gut’, *weri
‘blood’). There are also words for physiological states (e.g., *elä- ‘live’, *kali- ‘die’,
*tarki- ‘shiver’, *poči- ‘be sick or exhausted’), body functions (e.g., *kusi- ‘cough’,
*kuńśi- ‘urinate’), sensory experiences (e.g., *näki- ‘see’, *kuwli- ‘hear’, *ipsä-
‘smell’), cognitive functions (e.g., *tumti- ‘know’) and mental states (e.g., *peli- ‘be
afraid’). A surprisingly comprehensive set of “mouth verbs” can be reconstructed:
*sewi- ‘eat’, *puri- ‘bite’, *soski- ‘chew’, *jürä- ‘gnaw’, *ji̮ xi- / *juxi- ‘drink’, *ńimi-
‘suck’, *ńali- ‘lick’, *ńäli- ‘swallow’, *pala- ‘eat up’, *appa- ‘devour, eat
voraciously’, *puwa- ‘blow’, *śülki- ‘spit’.
45

About 100 lexemes are verbs for various elementary and universally known
actions not covered by the previous category. These include, for instance, verbs for
motion (e.g., *tuli- ‘come’, *meni- ‘go’, *läkti- ‘leave, go out’, *wi̮ lka- ‘come down’,
*uji- ‘swim’), transferring objects (e.g., *wixi- ‘take, transport’, *toxi- ‘bring’,
*kanta- ‘carry’, *kaďa- ‘leave (TR)’, *pi̮ ni- ‘put’), object manipulation (e.g., *panča-
‘open’, *ńükä- ‘pull out’, *peksä- ‘beat’, *puśa- ‘wring, squeeze’, *mośki- ‘wash’),
and also a few social actions (e.g., *jupta- ‘speak, tell’, *kaśa- ‘give as a gift’, *i̮ śiw-
‘set up a camp’, *kätki- ‘tuck (a child) in the cradle’).
About 120 lexemes are connected with the natural environment. These include
words connected with the diurnal and seasonal cycles (e.g., *päjwä ‘day / warmth’,
*eji ‘night’, *kaja ‘sun / dawn’, *sükiśi ‘autumn’, *tälwä ‘winter’, *i̮ di ‘year’), basic
elements and objects of the natural world (e.g., *weti ‘water’, *lumi ‘snow’, *jäŋi
‘ice’, *kiwi ‘stone’), topographic terms (e.g., *tuwi ‘lake’, *jäŋkä ‘bog’, *li̮ nti
‘lowland’) and weather (e.g., *lupsa ‘dew’, *künti ‘fog’, *śada- ‘rain’, *purki
‘snowstorm’). Words for flora are few, and mainly include tree names (e.g., *kowsi
‘spruce’, *ďi̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’, *si̮ ksa ‘Siberian pine, Pinus sibirica’). The last word is
relevant for narrowing down possible homeland hypotheses, as the tree grows widely
in Siberia, but in Europe only in a limited region in the proximity of the central and
northern parts of the Ural mountains. Also an alleged Proto-Uralic word for ‘Siberian
fir, Abies sibirica’ (cf. Komi nʲɨv, Taz Selkup nʲulqɨ, etc.) has frequently featured in
homeland theories, but it involves too many phonological irregularities to be reliably
reconstructed (contra J. Häkkinen 2009: 36). As regards animals, there are general
words connected with fish (e.g., *kala ‘fish’, *kuďi- ‘spawn’, *śi̮ mi ‘scales, fish skin’)
and birds (e.g., *pesä ‘nest’, *muna ‘egg’, *tulka ‘feather’), but species names are
few. Most frequent are bird names (e.g., *śäkśi ‘osprey’, *śodka ‘goldeneye’, *kurki /
*ki̮ rki ‘crane’, *lunta ‘goose’, *epik(i) ‘eagle owl’, *ti̮ ktV / *tuktV ‘black-throated
loon’), in addition to which there are five words for mammal species (*ńoma(-la)
‘hare’, *ńukiś(i) ‘marten / sable’, *ora(-pa) ‘squirrel’, *śijil(i) ‘hedgehog’, *šiŋir(i)
‘mouse’), three fish names (*särki ‘roach / ruffe’, *säwni / *sewni ‘ide’, *totki
‘tench’), and a couple of words for reptiles and insects (e.g. *küji ‘snake’, *täji
‘louse’). Interestingly, most words denote species that must have been of little or no
economic significance; words for animal species that were important for subsistence
were apparently more easily replaced.
The three broad semantic groups outlined above cover about two thirds of the
reconstructed lexicon. On the other hand, some parts of basic vocabulary remain
46

poorly known, kinship terms being a case in point. Words for close blood kin mostly
remain unclear: the word for ‘mother’ was *emä / *ämä, but words for ‘father’,
‘brother’ or ‘sister’ cannot be reliably reconstructed. Some cognate sets in this sphere
involve semantic variation which makes the original meaning difficult to determine:
cf. *čečä ‘uncle / paternal uncle / maternal uncle’, *koska ‘maternal aunt /
grandmother’, *ekä ‘father / paternal uncle / grandfather’. Interestingly, words for in-
laws seem to have been better preserved: cf. *i̮ na ‘mother-in-law’, *i̮ ppi ‘father-in-
law’, *mińä ‘daughter-in-law’, *wäŋiw ‘son-in-law’, *ańi ‘sister-in-law’, *käliw
‘sister- or brother-in-law’, *nataw ‘sister- or brother-in-law’. Besides kinship
terminology very little vocabulary connected with social relationships can be
reconstructed. Malicious or hostile relationships are evidenced by *sala- ‘steal’, *tora
‘quarrel, fight’ and *śoďa ‘warfare’. No vocabulary pertaining to any kind of social
organization is known.
There are about 50 lexemes broadly connected to material culture and
technology. This vocabulary offers little basis for linguistic paleontology, as it merely
testifies of a level of technology that by far predates Proto-Uralic. The most extensive
subgroups are formed by words connected to use of fire (*tuli ‘fire’, *śüďi ‘charcoal’,
*küči- ‘smolder’, *kupsa- ‘go out (of fire)’, *peji- ‘cook’, *japśi- / *jepśi- ‘roast on a
spit’, *lämi ‘broth, soup’) and bows (*ji̮ ŋsi / *joŋsi ‘bow’, *jänti(ŋi) ‘bowstring’, *ńi̮ li
‘arrow’, *lewi- ‘shoot’). Some other notable words in this sphere are *äjmä ‘needle’,
*pura ‘drill’, *ďimä ‘glue’ and *pata ‘clay pot’ (for discussion on the last word see
Kallio 2006a: 5–6). Means of transportation included skis (*suksi) and boats (cf.
*suxi- ‘row’, *tukta ‘seat in a boat’; no word for ‘boat’ can be reconstructed), possibly
also sleds (?*śona). Fishing methods included use of nets (cf. *kala- ‘fish with a net’,
*kulta- ‘fish with a dragnet’, *pado ‘fish weir’).
Evidence of immaterial culture is very limited, but a couple of lexical items can
be seen as pointing to a shamanistic system of beliefs and practices. The concept of
soul dualism, widely attested among Uralic peoples, likely dates back to Proto-Uralic,
as at least two words for ‘soul’ can be reconstructed. Samoyed and Saami share the
word *wajŋi ‘breath; soul, spirit’, which was probably used in reference to the
‘breath-soul’, believed to be bound to the living body and only leaving at the moment
of death (note that Permic and Ugric languages share another word for ‘breath’ and
‘soul’, *lewli(w), but it may have originally meant ‘vapor’). The ‘breath-soul’ is
distinct from the ‘shadow-soul’ thought to be able to leave the body, as during
dreaming, unconsciousness or a shaman’s spirit journey. The word for the latter was
47

*eśi / *iśi / *ićći (phonological reconstruction is difficult); the meaning ‘shadow-soul’
is only preserved in Khanty and Mansi, whereas more western languages
grammaticalized the word as a reflexive pronoun (‘my soul’ > ‘myself’, etc.). The
Proto-Uralic word for shaman (?*nojta) is probably preserved in North Saami noaidi
‘shaman’, Finnish noita ‘witch; shaman’, and Tavda Mansi /nɛjt/ ‘shaman’, even
though this etymology is somewhat uncertain. Some kind of shamanistic practice was
referred to by the verb *jada-, but the cognates show much semantic variation (cf.
Erzya Mordvin jɑdɑ- ‘conjure, do magic, bewitch’, East Khanty jɔːl- ‘tell fortunes,
shamanize’, Ket Selkup tʲɑːrəә- ‘curse; quarrel’). The verb *kixi- ‘court (of birds)’ has
also the widely attested parallel meaning ‘sing a shamanistic song’, suggesting that it
referred to states of both sexual and spiritual excitement already in Proto-Uralic.
Shamans’ altered states of consciousness may have been induced by use of
psychedelic mushrooms (presumably the fly agaric, Amanita muscaria), referred to by
the Indo-Iranian loanword *pi̮ ŋka (see 6.3).
The most significant conclusions regarding Proto-Uralic society can, however, be
based on what is absent in the reconstructed lexicon. Most evident is the complete
lack of any vocabulary connected with agriculture, which indicates that Proto-Uralic
was spoken in a hunter-gatherer speech community. Contrary to this communis
opinio, J. Häkkinen (2009: 28–30) maintains that four such lexical items could be
reconstructed to Proto-Uralic after all, but the material does not stand critical scrutiny:
the alleged cognate sets for ‘sheep’, ‘wheat / barley’ and ‘flour’ suffer from
phonological irregularities and limited distribution, whereas the suggested word for
‘butter’ (*waji) seems to have originally meant ‘grease’. An issue of more
disagreement is whether any vocabulary connected to metallurgy can be traced back
to Proto-Uralic. It has often been claimed that a word meaning ‘metal’ or ‘copper’ can
be reconstructed on the basis of forms such as North Saami veaiki, Finnish vaski
‘copper, bronze’, Hungarian vas, and Nganasan basa ‘iron’ (e.g., Kallio 2006: 6–8).
However, also this etymology involves many phonological irregularities, which
suggests it is a “Wanderwort” that spread after the disintegration of the proto-
language (Aikio 2015: 42–43).
The numeral system forms an interesting and much-discussed part of the Proto-
Uralic lexicon (see, e.g., Honti 1993; Janhunen 2000). One can identify cognate
numerals up to seven, even though they pose some difficulties for phonological
reconstruction: *ükti / *äkti ‘1’, *kVkta / *kVktä ‘2’, *kolmi / *kulmi / *kurmi ‘3’,
*neljä ‘4’, *wij(i)t(t)i ‘5’, *kuw(V)t(t)i ‘6’, *śäjśimä / *śä(j)ććimä ‘7’. These numerals
48

are retained in the “Finno-Ugric” languages, with the exception that Khanty and
Hungarian replaced ‘1’ with a stem of unknown origin (*eďi) and all Ugric languages
replaced ‘7’ with Indo-Iranian loanwords (e.g., Hungarian hét). Higher numerals are
etymologically more diverse, but *luka ‘10’ (with a morphologically opaque
relationship to the verb *luki- ‘count’) can be reconstructed on the basis of Saami,
Mari and Mansi. Moreover, all “Finno-Ugric” languages share the Indo-Iranian
loanword *śi̮ ta ‘hundred’ (see 1.6.3).
In Samoyed, few cognates for the numerals are found, which according to
Janhunen (2000: 60–61) implies that “the numeral system in the Proto-Uralic stage
was still incipient”. Nevertheless, Samoyed retains three Uralic numerals: Proto-
Samoyed *kitä ‘2’, *wüǝt ‘10’ (cognate with Finno-Ugric numerals for ‘5’), and
*säjʔwǝ ‘7’. The Uralic origin of the last has remained a matter of dispute, but its
strikingly regular correspondence with Proto-Finnic *säiccemä ‘7’ can hardly be due
to chance – especially as the alleged alternative etymology connecting *säjʔwǝ to
Tocharian or other Indo-European numerals for ‘7’ (Janhunen 1983: 119; Napoľskikh
2001: 373) has turned out to be phonologically untenable (Kallio 2004: 131–132).
Thus, Proto-Uralic must have had a well-developed system of low numerals after all,
as one can hardly imagine that a language with a defective numeral system
nevertheless possessed words for ‘seven’ and ‘five’ (or ‘ten’). The innovative
Samoyed numerals show phonological structures quite foreign to Uralic vocabulary
(Proto-Samoyed *nakur ‘3’, *tättǝ ‘4’, *sǝmpǝläŋkǝ ‘5’, *mǝ̑ktut ‘6’), which suggests
that they may have been borrowed from an unknown source.
1.6.3 External connections

The more remote etymologies of most Proto-Uralic words remain entirely unknown,
as they appear to be monomorphemic and nothing is known of the further genetic
relationships of the family. Existing theories of long-range genetic connections are
generally based on evidence of poor quality; for example, the untenability of attempts
to relate Uralic to the “Nostratic” macrofamily is demonstrated in ample detail by
Campbell (1998b).
For a fraction of Proto-Uralic word stems, however, an Indo-European loan
etymology has been proposed. It is unanimously recognized that the Uralic family
came to contact with Indo-European already in an early stage of its development, and
some scholars maintain that the contacts reflected by the oldest loanwords took place
between the respective proto-languages of the two families already. The etymological
49

material evoked in support of the latter theory (e.g., Koivulehto 1991; 2001) is by no
means free of problems, however (Campbell & Garrett 1993). Nevertheless, there
certainly are a few striking lexical parallels, and some of them even include apparent
reflexes of reconstructed Indo-European laryngeal phonemes in Uralic; for example:
PU *aja- ‘drive; flee’ ~ PIE *h2aǵ- (cf. Sanskrit ájati ‘drives’)

PU *kaja ‘dawn / sun’ ~ PIE *h2ay-en/r- (cf. Avestan aiiarǝ ‘day’)
PU *kulki- ‘go, run, flow’ ~ PIE *kwelh1-e- (cf. Sanskrit cárati ‘moves, walks’)
PU *teki- ‘do; put’ ~ PIE *dheh1- (cf. Sanskrit dádhāti ‘puts’)
PU *toxi- ‘bring ~ PIE *doh3- ‘give’ (cf. Sanskrit dádāti ‘gives’)
PU *weti ‘water’ ~ PIE *wed-en/r- (cf. Hittite wedār ‘water’)
How such parallels are to be interpreted remains a matter of controversy. The number
of plausible etymological comparisons is quite small, and as far as they are correct in
the first place, the words in question might also have been borrowed into an early
Uralic dialect continuum that postdated the disintegration and spread of Proto-Uralic.
This interpretation is especially attractive because Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-
European represented language typologies so radically different that they are simply
unlikely to have originated as neighbouring languages in the same linguistic area
(Janhunen 2001a); instead, in typological terms (Proto-)Uralic is strikingly close to
the so-called Altaic languages and one can even speak of a “Ural-Altaic” typological
zone spanning across northern Eurasia (Janhunen 2007b). Notably, however, Proto-
Uralic shares no evident material parallels with Altaic language families, making the
Ural-Altaic theory invalid in the genetic sense.
Another possibility is to assume that Proto-Indo-European words were not
borrowed directly into Uralic, but mediated by unknown intermediate languages. Such
a hypothesis could also better explain those apparent lexical parallels which involve a
less precise phonological match, such as PU *nimi ‘name’ ~ PIE *h3noh3men- ‘name’.
However, also chance similarities probably feature in the scarce material, especially
as the more complex phoneme system of Proto-Indo-European can be represented in
Uralic by way of various simplifying sound substitutions, which makes possible
matches easier to find. A particularly likely case of a coincidental correspondence is
PU *koki- ‘check, go and see’, which Koivulehto (1991: 44–47) considers a loan from
PIE *h3okw-(ye/o-) ‘see’ (cf. Ancient Greek ὄπωπα ‘watch, observe, view’, ὄσσοµαι
‘look, forebode’); but because he derives PU *k from as many as nine distinct Indo-
50

European consonant phonemes (*k, *g, *gh, *kw, *gw, *gwh, *h1, *h2, *h3), a very large
number of theoretical forms could be matched with a Uralic word stem with two velar
stops.
While only few plausible lexical parallels point to a level of reconstruction
corresponding to Proto-Indo-European, a rather large number of old Indo-Iranian
loanwords is found in the Uralic languages. Most such loans clearly postdate Proto-
Uralic, but a small number of apparent Indo-Iranian loans are technically
reconstructible into Proto-Uralic. The clearest cases are the following:
PU *ora ‘awl’ ~ PII *ārā (cf. Sanskrit ā́ rā ‘goad, awl’)

PU *ki̮ nta ‘tree trunk’ ~ PII *skandha- (cf. Sanskrit skandhá- ‘shoulder; tree
trunk; large branch’)
PU *mekši ‘bee’ ~ PII *mekš- (cf. Sanskrit mákṣ- ‘fly, bee’)
PU *meti ‘honey’ ~ PII *medhu- (cf. Sanskrit mádhu- ‘honey’)
PU *pi̮ ŋka ‘psychedelic mushroom’ ~ PII *bhangā- (cf. Sanskrit bhaṅgā́ - ‘hemp;
an intoxicating drink made of hemp’)
PU *śarwi ‘antler, horn’ ~ PII *ćrwā- (cf. Avestan sruuā- ‘horn; nail’)
PU *śi̮ ta ‘hundred’ ~ PII *ćatam- (cf. Sanskrit śatám ‘hundred’)
These loanwords do not occur in Samoyed languages, which in the traditional

taxonomic framework (see 1.2) was seen as evidence for the view that “Finno-Ugric”
came into contact with Indo-Iranian after the Samoyed branch had split off. On the
other hand, in the context of his revised taxonomy, J. Häkkinen (2009: 20–25) views
such loans as implying that Proto-Uralic disintegrated only after the adoption of the
earliest Indo-Iranian loanwords. Both interpretations are unconvincing, however. The
great majority of the Indo-Iranian loanwords show phonological irregularities or
limited distribution within Uralic, and thus must have spread between already distinct
dialects or languages after the disintegration of Proto-Uralic. The few exceptions to
this general pattern can simply be interpreted as words that became adjusted to the
sound correspondences occurring in native vocabulary as they spread in an early
Uralic dialect continuum; analogous phenomena occur in the sound correspondences
displayed by Nordic and Finnic loanwords in Saami languages, for instance (Aikio
2006b; 2007).
Summing up, there are obviously some very old Indo-European and specifically
Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, but they are unlikely to reflect a direct contact of
51

Proto-Uralic with Proto-Indo-European or its descendant Proto-Indo-Iranian.
However, the two language families must have come into contact at a very early
phase of their evolution, soon after Proto-Uralic disintegrated into a dialect
continuum. More exact dating of the onset of these contacts remains difficult, but at
any rate the material confirms the time depth of the Uralic family as roughly
analogous to that of Indo-European.
Proto-Uralic also shows some notable lexical similarities with Yukaghir, a
Siberian language family that was formerly spread at least as far as the Lena River in
the west but today survives only as two moribund languages in the basin of the
Kolyma River of the Russian Far East. The number of promising Uralic-Yukaghir
lexical parallels is small, hardly more than 30 words, but the material does include
quite appealing similarities in basic vocabulary. The following examples are among
the most striking (regarding Yukaghir reconstructions and lexical data, see Nikolaeva
2006):
PU *aŋi ‘mouth, opening’ ~ PYuk *aŋa ‘mouth’

PU *emä / *ämä ~ PYuk *eme ‘mother’
PU *i̮ la- ~ PYuk *āl- ‘place under or below’
PU *kälä- ‘wade / rise’ ~ PYuk *kile- ‘wade’
PU *käliw ‘brother- or sister-in-law’ ~ PYuk *keľ- ‘brother-in-law’
PU *kani- ‘go away’ ~ PYuk *qon- ‘go’
PU *koji ‘male, man, husband’ ~ PYuk *köj ‘fellow, boy, young man’
PU *mälki ~ PYuk *mel- ‘breast’
PU *nimi ~ PYuk *ńim / *nim ‘name’
PU *ńali- ~ PYuk *ńel- ‘lick’
PU *pidi- ‘long / high’ ~ PYuk *puδe ‘place on or above’, *puδe-nmē- ‘tall,
high’
PU *pi̮ ni- ‘put’ ~ PYuk *pöń- / *peń- ‘put; leave’
PU *sala- ~ PYuk *olo- ‘steal’
PU *sula- ~ PYuk *aľ- ‘melt, thaw’
PU *wanča(w) ~ PYuk *wonč- ‘root’
PU *wixi- ‘take, transport’ ~ PYuk *weɣ- ‘lead, carry’
Such lexical similarities have been seen as evidence of distant genetic

relationship (see e.g. Collinder 1940), but newer research has also pursued other
52

explanations. A majority of Uralic-Yukaghir etymologies proposed earlier are quite
evidently erroneous, but the material also includes some obvious borrowings from
Uralic to Yukaghir. This view was first argued in detail by Rédei (1999), and further
corroborated by J. Häkkinen (2012a, 2012b) and Aikio (2014). Phonological criteria
suggest that the earliest source of Uralic loans in Yukaghir was Proto-Samoyed or
Pre-Proto-Samoyed. Borrowing could also account for similarities in basic
vocabulary. While this hypothesis is debatable, it would be even more problematic to
interpret the words as genetic cognates when no system of regular sound
correspondences has been established between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Yukaghir, nor
has any clear evidence of shared morphology been presented (Aikio 2014; Rédei
1999).
Last, one can mention the generally overlooked issue that Proto-Uralic also
shows some interesting lexical similarities with Eskimo-Aleut. The idea of an
“Eskimo-Uralic” genetic relationship has only been developed by some individual
scholars, most notably Bergsland (1959) and Seefloth (2000), and mostly ignored by
the mainstream of Uralic linguistics. It is interesting, however, that in an unbiased
inspection the potential lexical correspondences between Proto-Uralic and Proto-
Eskimo-Aleut do not seem to be any less promising than those between Proto-Uralic
and Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Yukaghir. One could reasonably present something
in the range of 20–30 comparanda, some of which even show possible vestiges of
regular but phonetically opaque correspondences. An example of this is the
hypothetical correspondence between PU intervocalic *-l- and Proto-Eskimo *-t,
Aleut -c, which in turn may display a fossilized unproductive alternation with *-l-
before a derivational suffix (regarding Eskimo-Aleut reconstructions and lexical data
see Fortescue, Jacobson & Kaplan 1994):
PU *i̮ la- ‘place under or below’ ~ PEsk *at(ǝ)- ‘down’, Aleut ac- ‘lower part,
place below, bottom’; PEsk *alaq ‘sole’ (no Aleut cognate)
PU *elä- ‘live’ ~ PEsk *ǝt(ǝ)- ‘be’ (no Aleut cognate)
PU *tuli- ‘come’ ~ PEsk *tut- ‘arrive, land’ (no Aleut cognate); PEsk *tulaɣ-,
Aleut cala- ‘land’
The most surprising correspondence involves matching pairs of homonyms that can,
quite plausibly, be reconstructed into both Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut:
53

PU *kuda ‘morning, dawn’ ~ PEsk *qilaɣ- ‘sky’, Aleut qila-ẋ ‘morning, dawn’
PU *kuda- ‘weave’ (no Ugric or Samoyed cognates) ~ PEsk *qilaɣ- ‘knit,
weave’ (no Aleut cognate)
The meanings ‘weave’ and ‘morning, dawn’ appear to be completely unrelated, which
implies that these must be instances of coincidental homonymy. It appears rather
improbable that a correspondence like this was produced by chance, considering that
lexical homonymy is a rare phenomenon, and only extremely few homonyms have
even been reconstructed in the two proto-languages in the first place. The example
strongly suggests that there has been some kind of historical connection between the
two language families, but more exact conclusions cannot be drawn in the present
state of research. The existence of such parallels suggests that future research should
evaluate the possible connections of Proto-Uralic to Proto-Eskimo-Aleut as
thoroughly as those to Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Yukaghir.
54

References
Abondolo, Daniel (ed.) 1998a. The Uralic languages. London & New York:
Routledge.
Abondolo, Daniel 1998b. Introduction. — Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic
languages. London & New York: Routledge. Pp. 1–42.
Aikio, Ante 2002. New and old Samoyed etymologies. — Finnisch-Ugrische
Forschungen 57: 9–57.
Aikio, Ante 2006a. New and old Samoyed etymologies (part 2). — Finnisch-Ugrische
Aikio, Ante 2006b. On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. — Journal de
la Société Finno-Ougrienne 91: 9–55.
Aikio, Ante 2007. Etymological Nativization of Loanwords: a Case Study of Saami
and Finnish. — Ida Toivonen & Diane Nelson (eds.), Saami linguistics.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 17–52.
Aikio 2012 = Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio) 2012. On Finnic long
vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x. — Tiina Hyytiäinen,
Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem:
Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans
sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne
264: 227–250.
Aikio 2014 = Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio) 2014. The Uralic-
Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or
chance resemblance? — Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 62: 7–76.
Aikio, Ante 2015. The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. —
Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95: 25–66.
Aikio, Ante (forthcoming). New and old Samoyed etymologies (part 3).
Aikio, Ante & Ylikoski, Jussi 2016. The origin of the Finnic l-cases. — Fenno-
Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15: 59–158.
<http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.356087.1510165998!/menu/standard/file/FUS2
016-15_06c-JY_AA-Final.pdf>, accessed 12/15/2017.
Bartens, Raija 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Mémoires de la Société
Finno-Ougrienne 238.
Bergsland, Knut 1959. The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis. — Journal de la Société
Finno-Ougrienne 61: 1–29.
Campbell, Lyle 1998. Nostratic: a personal assessment. — Joseph D. Salmons &
Brian D. Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: sifting the evidence. Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory 142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 107–
152.
Campbell, Lyle 1998. Historical linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
55

Campbell, Lyle & Garrett, Andrew 1993. Review: Jorma Koivulehto, Uralische
Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie (1991). — Language 69: 832–836.
Collinder, Björn 1940. Jukagirisch und Uralisch. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Csúcs, Sándor 2005. Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest:
Akadémiai kiadó.
de Smit, Merlijn 2014. Proto-Uralic ergativity reconsidered. — Finnisch-Ugrische
Mitteilungen 38: 1–34.
Fortescue, Micahel & Jacobson, Steven & Kaplan, Lawrence 1994. Comparative
Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Alaska Native Language Center
Research Paper Number 9. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Genetz, Arvid 1896: Ensi tavuun vokaalit suomen, lapin ja mordvan kaksi- ja
useampitavuisissa sanoissa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.
Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. —
Häkkinen, Jaakko 2012a. Early contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir. — Tiina
Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad
Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på
hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Mémoires de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne 264: 227–250.
Häkkinen, Jaakko 2012b. Uralic-Yukaghir wordlist. Appendix to: Early contacts
between Uralic and Yukaghir.
<http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicYukaghirWordlist.pdf>, accessed
1/17/2018.
Häkkinen, Kaisa 1983. Suomen kielen vanhimmasta sanastosta ja sen tutkimisesta.
Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten etymologisen tutkimuksen perusteita ja
metodiikkaa. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen
julkaisuja 17.
Havas, Ferenc 2006. Die ergativität und die uralischen Sprachen. — Finnisch-
Ugrische Forschungen 59: ...
Helimski, Eugene 1995. Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. — ... (eds.),
Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I: Orationes plenariae et
conspectus quinquennales. Jyväskylä: Moderatores. Pp. 17-51.
Honti, László 1982. Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der ersten Silbe.
Budapest: Akdemiai kiadó.
Honti, László 1993. Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. Budapest:
Akadémiai kiadó.
Honti, László 1997. Numerusprobleme (Ein Erkundungszug durch den Dschungel der
uralischen Numeri). — Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 54: ...
Honti, László 1998. ObUgrian. — Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages.
London & New York: Routledge. Pp. 327–357.
56

Itkonen, Erkki 1956. Zur Geschichte des Vokalismus der ersten Silbe im
Tscheremissischen und in den permischen Sprachen. — Finnisch-Ugrische
Itkonen, Terho 1992. Ugrilaisten kielten karitiivista. — Pál Deréky, Timothy Riese,
Marianne Sz. Bakró-Nagy & Péter Hajdú (eds.), Festschrift für Károly Rédei zum
60. Geburtstag. Studia Uralica 6: 221–237.
Janhunen, Juha 1976. Adalékok az északi-szamojéd hangtörténethez: vokalizmus, az
első szótagi magánhangzók. — Néprajz és nyelvtudomány XIX–XX: 165–188.
Janhunen, Juha 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien.
Castrenianumin toimitteita 17.
Janhunen, Juha 1981. Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. — Journal de la Société
Janhunen, Juha 1982. On the Structure of Proto-Uralic. — Finnisch-Ugrische
Forschungen : 23–42.
Janhunen, Juha 1983. On early Indo-European–Samoyed contacts. — Juha Janhunen,
Anneli Peräniitty & Seppo Suhonen (eds.), Symposium saeculare Societatis
Fenno-Ugricae. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 185: 115–127.
Janhunen, Juha 1989. Samojedin predesinatiivisen deklinaation alkuperästä. —
Janhunen, Juha 1998. Samoyedic. — Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages.
Janhunen, Juha 2000. Reconstructing Pre-Proto-Uralic typology spanning the
millennia of linguistic evolution. – Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-
Ugristarum I: Orationes plenariae & Orationes publicae. Tartu. Pp. 59–76.
Janhunen, Juha 2001a. Indo-Uralic and Ural-Altaic: On the diachronic implications of
areal typology. — Christian Carpelan & Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio
(eds.): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and
Archaeological Considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242:
207–220.
Janhunen, Juha 2001b. On the paradigms of Uralic comparative studies. — Finnisch-
Ugrische Forschungen 56: ...
Janhunen, Juha 2002. The Nenets imperative sentence and its background. —
Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 24/25: 71–85.
Janhunen, Juha 2007a. The primary laryngeal in Uralic and beyond. — Jussi Ylikoski
& Ante Aikio (eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit: Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii
miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 253:
203–227.
Janhunen, Juha 2007b. Typological expansion in the Ural-Altaic belt. — Incontri
Linguistici 30: 71–83.
57

Janhunen, Juha 2009. Proto-Uralic — what, where, and when? — Jussi Ylikoski (ed.),
The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Mémoires de la Société
Janhunen, Juha 2014. Ural-Altaic: The Polygenetic Origins of Nominal Morphology
in the Transeurasian Zone. — Martine Robbeets & Walter Bisang (eds.),
Paradigm change in the Transeurasian languages and beyond. Studies in
Language Companion Series 161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pp. 311–336.
Janhunen, Juha (forthcoming). Grammaticalization in Uralic as viewed from a general
Eurasian perspective.
Kallio, Petri 2004. Tocharian loanwords in Samoyed? — Irma Hyvärinen & Petri
Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen:
Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag,. Mémoires de la Société
Néophilologique de Helsinki 63: 129–137.
Kallio, Petri 2006. Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. — Virittäjä 110:
2–25.
Keresztes, László 1999. Development of Mordvin definite conjugation. — Mémoires
de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 233.
Kiefer, Ferenc & Laakso, Johanna 2014. Uralic. — Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology.
Koivulehto, Jorma 1991. Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Wien: Verlag
der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Koivulehto, Jorma 2001. The Earliest Contacts between Indo-European and Uralic
Speakers in the Light of Lexical Loans. — Christian Carpelan & Asko Parpola &
Petteri Koskikallio (eds.): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European:
Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne 242: 235–263.
Korhonen, Mikko 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen
kirjallisuuden seura.
Kulonen, Ulla-Maija 2001. Zum n-Element der zweiten Personen besonders im
Obugrischen. — Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 56: ...
Laakso, Johanna 1997. On verbalizing nouns in Uralic. — Finnisch-Ugrische
Forschungen 54: ...
Larsen, Anders 2014. “Mearrasámiid birra” ja eará čállosat – “Om sjøsamene” og
andre skrifter. Ed. by Ivar Bjørklund & Harald Gaski.
Lehtinen, Tapani 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet: suomen kielen kehitys kantauralista
varhaissuomeen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.
Lytkin 1964 = В. И. Лыткин 1964. Исторический вокализм пермских языков.
Москва: издательство “Наука”.
58

Maddieson, Ian 2013a. Vowel Quality Inventories. — Matthew Dryer & Martin
Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
<http://wals.info/chapter/2>, accessed on 1/17/2018.
Maddieson, Ian 2013b. Front Rounded Vowels. — Matthew Dryer & Martin
Maddieson, Ian 2013c. Consonant Inventories. — Matthew Dryer & Martin
Michalove, Peter 2002. The classification of the Uralic languages: Lexical evidence
from Finno-Ugric. — Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 57: 58–67.
Napoľskikh, Vladimir 2001. Tocharisch-Uralische Berührungen: Sprache und
Archäologie. — Christian Carpelan & Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.):
Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and
Archaeological Considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242:
367–383.
Nichols, Johanna 1972. Suffix ordering in Proto-Uralic. — Lingua 32: 227–238.
Nikolaeva, Irina 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ramstedt, G. J. 1917. Suomalais-ugrilaisen komparatiivin syntyperä. — Virittäjä 21:
37–39.
Rédei, Károly 1988–1991. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Band I–III. Unter
Mitarbeit von Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Sándor Csúcs, István Erdélyi, László
Honti, Éva Korenchy, Éva K. Sal und Edit Vértes. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Rédei, Károly 1999. Zu den uralisch-jukagirischen Sprachkontakten. — Finnisch-
Ugrische Forschuingen 55: 1–58.
Salminen, Tapani 1996. A commentary address to László Honti’s “Zur Morphotaktik
und Morphosyntax der uralischen/finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache”. — ...
(ed.), Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum VIII, Pars VIII: 25–
27. Online version: <http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/cifu8.html>, accessed
1/17/2018.
Salminen, Tapani 1999. Euroopan kielet muinoin ja nykyisin. — Paul Fogelberg (ed.),
Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till
kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153: 13–26.
Salminen, Tapani 2001. The rise of the Finno-Ugric language family. Christian
Carpelan & Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.): Early Contacts between
59

Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations.
Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242: 385–396. Online version:
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/tvarminne.html>, accessed 1/17/2018.
Salminen, Tapani 2002. Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light
of modern comparative studies. — А. Е. Кибрик (ed.), Лингвистический
беспредел: сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой. Москва:
Издательство Московского университета. Pp. 44–55. Online version:
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/kuzn.html>, accessed 1/17/2018.
Salminen, Tapani 2014. Suomalais-samojedilaisia muotovertailuja. — Nobufumi
Inaba, Jorma Luutonen, Arja Hamari & Elina Ahola (eds.), Juuret marin
murteissa, latvus yltää Uraliin. Juhlakirja Sirkka Saarisen 60-vuotispäiväksi
21.12.2014. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 270: 289–300.
Sammallahti, Pekka 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special
reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. — Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic
languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden & New York &
København & Köln: E.J. Brill. Pp. 478–554.
Sammallahti, Pekka 1998. The Saami Languages: an Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi
Girji OS.
Seefloth, Uwe 2000. Die Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im Uralo-
Sibirischen. — Zentralasiatische Studien 30: 163–191.
Siegl, Florian 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern
Siberia. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 267.
Sinor, Denis (ed.) 1988. The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign
influences. Leiden & New York & København & Köln: E.J. Brill.
Syrjänen & al. 2013 = Syrjänen, Kaj & Honkola, Terhi & Korhonen, Kalle &
Lehtinen, Jyri & Vesakoski, Outi & Wahlberg, Niklas 2013. Shedding more light
on language classification using basic vocabulies and phylogenetic methods. A
case study of Uralic. — Diachronica 30:3: 323–352.
Tereshchenko 1965 = Терещенко, Н. М. 1965. Ненетско-русский словарь.
Москва: издательство “Советская энциклопедия”.
Ylikoski, Jussi 2011. A survey of the origins of directional case suffixes in European
Uralic.
Ylikoski, Jussi 2016. The origins of the western Uralic s-cases revisited:
historiographical, functional-typological and Samoyedic perspectives.
Ylikoski, Jussi (forthcoming). On the tracks of the Proto-Uralic suffix *-ksi – a new
but old perspective on the origin of the Mari lative.
Zaicz, Gábor 1998. Mordva. — Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages.
Zhivlov, Mikhail 2014. Studies in Uralic Vocalism III. — Journal of Language
Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 12: 113–148.
60

Zhivlov 2018 = Живлов, М. А. Историческая фонетика и внутренняя
классификация уральских языков. XIII традиционные чтения памяти С. А.
Старостина, Институт восточных культур и античности РГГУ. Mar 22–23,
2018.
<http://www.academia.edu/38048089/Историческая_фонетика_и_внутренняя
_классификация_уральских_языков>, accessed 1/21/2019.
61

Proto-Uralic: Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proto-Uralic: Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proto-Uralic: Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): Proto-Uralic.

— To appear in: Marianne Bakró-Nagy,

Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio)

1.2 The structure of the Uralic language family

Comparative Uralic linguistics operates on two principal levels of reconstruction,

Saami Finnic Mordvin Mari Permic Hungarian Mansi Khanty Samoyed

1.3.2 Phoneme inventory

CARDINAL NON - NON - CARDINAL

Table 1.1 The Proto-Uralic vowel inventory.

The approximate phonetic qualities of most vowel phonemes can be quite

Table 1.2 The Proto-Uralic consonant inventory.

Each reconstructed consonant can be established as an independent phoneme on

PU Saami Finnic Mordvin Mari Permic Hung. Mansi Khanty Samoyed

Three sibilants contrasting solely by their place of articulation are traditionally

a) No consonant clusters occurred in word-initial position.

1.3.4 Morpheme structure

In terms of their phonological structure, Proto-Uralic morphemes can be divided in

Proto-Uralic can be reconstructed as an agglutinating language with very little

In individual branches examples of even other types of cluster simplifications are

1.4.2 Word classes

1.4.3 Noun declension

NOM -Ø ?*-k(V) *-t

Table 1.4 The Proto-Uralic case suffixes.

In terms of morphosyntactic alignment Proto-Uralic was highly probably a

(1) Tundra Nenets (Tereščenko 1965: 291)

(2) Tundra Nenets (Tereščenko 1965: 688)

(3) Forest Enets (Siegl 2013: 386)

NOM ACC GEN

1SG *-mi *-mi *-ni

Possessor person marking in noun declension can be reconstructed in detail

a) Presence vs. absence of a grammatical category: e.g., a distinction between the

DEFAULT / 1 *-m *-mi(j)n *-mAt

DEFINITE? 1 ?*-mi ?*-mi(j)n ?*-mAt

Table 1.6 The subject person suffixes of Proto-Uralic verbs.

1.4.5 Word formation

Uralic: Finno-Ugric: Finno-Permic: total:

1.6.2 Semantic overview

1.6.3 External connections

PU *aja- ‘drive; flee’ ~ PIE *h2aǵ- (cf. Sanskrit ájati ‘drives’)

PU *ora ‘awl’ ~ PII *ārā (cf. Sanskrit ā́ rā ‘goad, awl’)

These loanwords do not occur in Samoyed languages, which in the traditional

PU *aŋi ‘mouth, opening’ ~ PYuk *aŋa ‘mouth’

Such lexical similarities have been seen as evidence of distant genetic

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

NOM -Ø ?-k(V) -t

1SG -mi -mi *-ni

DEFAULT / 1 -m -mi(j)n *-mAt

DEFINITE? 1 ?-mi ?-mi(j)n ?*-mAt

PU aja- ‘drive; flee’ ~ PIE h2aǵ- (cf. Sanskrit ájati ‘drives’)

PU ora ‘awl’ ~ PII ārā (cf. Sanskrit ā́ rā ‘goad, awl’)

PU aŋi ‘mouth, opening’ ~ PYuk aŋa ‘mouth’