Talk:Indo-Uralic languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cognate table
I decided to add a meaty list of possible cognates for budding Indo-Uralicists since this article looked a little empty.--Glengordon01 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I took a link out of the entry of 'I, me'. I didn't think that a site written entirely in Finnish is going to be helpful to the average non-Finnish speaking Anglophone, quite frankly. Secondly, it will get godawful-nasty if we add links like this to every word in this table. Kinda pointless. If people want to track individual words down, they can get a dictionary. This article is about Indo-Uralic -- not Finnish, or Hungarian, or Samoyedic, etc. I think it makes more sense to restrict the topic here to IE and Uralic reconstruction, void of the specifics. The specifics will be found in their respective articles afterall, n'est-ce pas? --Glengordon01 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assibilation
Added by Vuo
Word-final assibilation of -ti occurs in modern Finnish, a Uralic language.
Irrelevant. This IE-Uralic correspondance works for both the plural (IE *-es, Ur *-t) and the 2ps (IE *-s, Ur *-t). Finnic assibilation (as in Ur *weti > vesi) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the preceding sentences in that paragraph. --Glengordon01 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The third person and the stem *i-
i for thir person? Proto-Uralic had -βa. -- anonymous
Yes, Proto-Uralic *sa- (Finnish hän). I'm afraid you're right: There is no expression of the equivalent of IE *ʔi- in Uralic. I'm thinking Altaic and mixing diachrony too. Horrible! Personally, I still think there is an early stem *i for 3rd person oblique here but my views on Indo-Uralic are different and I have trouble calling this stage we're talking about "Indo-Uralic". I consider Uralic, IE and Altaic representatives of three seperate branches (so I don't quite accept the Indo-Uralic hypothesis in its purest form). Indo-Aegean (IE plus Aegean) and Altaic shared special isoglosses since they were both located in the southern regions of this main proto-group, situated somewhere in Central Asia circa 9,000 BCE. With the three language families, *i could be better established. Internally in Indo-Aegean, both *ʔi- and *ʔe- are relatable due to the Centralization event when *i and *u were replaced with central vowels early on in pre-IE: merging to schwa *ɜ (> IE *e) in accented closed syllables, becoming diphthongs *ei and *eu respectively in accented open syllables, or becoming *ɜ and *a respectively in unaccented syllables. This was probably due to areal influence with an early form of Proto-Abkhaz-Adyghe. I reconstruct Indo-Aegean 3ps animate *i, inanimate *in and general 3ps oblique *e, all from earlier 3ps *i / *in and therefore relatable to Altaic *an. It gets more complicated because of split ergativity in the 3ps inanimate 'n' stuff. But that's just my shtick and Wikipedia isn't interested in that because it's too "POV". --Glengordon01 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's all very interesting because you seem to reach the same conclusions as the Nostratic hypothesis! According to the latter, PIE went through a Great Vowel Steamrollering (as it should IMHO be called) that turned all vowels into *e, except when preceded by **/ʔ/ or when **/i/ and **/u/ became *ai/ei/au/eu. That seems to be the same as your centralization. I only wonder how you arrive at the precise value [ɜ]. Isn't that so precise as to be untestable? – Split ergativity occurs in Kartvelian, another Nostratic branch.
- Have you published any of this? I'd like to read more… and of course, if it's published, it's no longer Original Research…
- David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:13 CEST | 2006/10/29
[edit] Deleted sentences
I deleted a couple of sentences which included somewhat unclear or dubious claims:
- "Indo-European and Uralic languages look remarkably similar for neighbouring languages traditionally considered unrelated." -- This is a subjective impression, and as such hardly relevant; moreover, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European look rather different to me at least.
- "One challenge to this research is that it is often assumed that similar words in Uralic and Indo-European languages are simply loans from IE to Uralic, even if this is not chronologically possible" -- I deleted the part after the comma - this could be reintroduced to the article if explained and referenced.
- "We know now that IE and Uralic, both dated to approximately 4000 BCE, were probably very distant from each other at the time. Uralic would have been northward up the Volga River while, if the Ukrainian thesis is correct, PIE would have been centered in the north-west Pontic region." -- While I'm inclined to agree with the idea, I think that the verb know is too strong in claims of speaking areas of proto-languages in remote prehistory; at least, a reference should be provided. --AAikio 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This seems very reasonable to me, actually. --Glengordon01 05:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vetää
(quote: Ante Aikio) "rv - this is regarded an IE loan by standard etymological dictionaries"
Isn't "nimi" and "myydä" also regarded IE loans by standard etymological dictionaries?
The word "vetää" is in the Illich-Svitych's Nostratic poem: k̥aλai palhʌ-k̥ʌ na wetä --Muhaha 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
