Blog Archives

Notes on Mari stem vowels

Though I often enough blog here about issues of consonantism too, it is clear that the largest challenges remaining in Uralic historical phonology concern vocalism. Our current standard model of Uralic vowel history is mainly rooted in Samic, Finnic, and

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

A slice of Finno-Ugric research interests across time

A tabulation project I’ve assembled a while ago: a topical index of the Finno-Ugrian Society’s by now approaching-300-long monograph series Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia / Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. Aside from being handy for looking up what has been done

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

On comparison in Proto-Uralic

Here is a somewhat speculative idea that recently occurred to me. I don’t think I will be able to deliberate on all the comparative implications just now, but it wouldn’t surprize me too much if something similar had already been

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Etymology, Reconstruction

Indo-Iranisms galore?

Currently I am making my way through a fascinating and peculiar book: Hartmut Katz’s posthumously released Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 2003). Fascinating, in that the book’s ~700 loan etymologies, some

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Etymology

Close vowel reduction in Samoyedic

A well-known feature of the Samoyedic languages is a split development of Proto-Uralic *u. The standard analysis (as first proposed, IIUC, by Janhunen 1981) is that this occurred depending on the original stem type. *u becomes *ə before original 2nd

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

The case of Mansi *ś > *š, part 1

A long-standing mystery of Uralic historical linguistics is a split representation of Proto-Uralic *ś in Mansi. Aside from confusion between *ś and *ć (widespread across the entire Uralic family), there are also two plain sibilant reflexes: *s and *š. What

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

Laterals, palatals and more

A recent volume (1/2013) of Acta Linguistica Hungarica sports an interesting article from longtime Ugricist László Honti, “Comments on Uralic historical phonology”. I’m tempted to add some thoughts of my own. (Who knows, maybe I’ll make a habit out of

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Reconstruction

The newest chapter in far-reaching comparisons involving Uralic

Appears in the current (Spring 2013) issue of California Linguistics Notes. A Preliminary Survey of Some Uralic Elements in Costanoan, Esselen, Chimariko and Salinan, by one A. Fournet, proposes the possibility of a relationship of the Uralic languages — especially

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Uncategorized

Index of old posts

For an outline of this blog’s preliminary run on Tumblr for the time being. (As stated in the introduction here on WordPress, these will probably be mostly imported at some point — we’ll see if I can backdate them or

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Meta

Derivational addenda on *a-ə

Several bits of additional evidence in favor of (or, if you will, additional bits of data explainable by) Aikio’s new model of the Proto-Uralic root type *a-ə seem to be found in word derivation. 1. In the appendix of his

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.