Search

Four types of archaeogenetic data mining are used to investigate the origin of the Minoans and the Uralic peoples: (1) six SNP mutations related to eye, hair, and skin phenotypes; (2) whole-genome admixture analysis using the G25 system; (3) an analysis of the history of the U5 mitochondrial DNA haplogroup; and (4) an analysis of the origin of each currently known Minoan mitochondrial and y-DNA haplotypes. The uniform result of these analyses is that the Minoans and the Uralic peoples had a common homeland in the lower and middle Danube Basin, as well as the Black Sea coastal regions. This new result helps to reconcile archaeogenetics with linguistics, which have shown that the Minoan language belongs to the Uralic language family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Old Permic, also known as Old Komi, is an extinct variety of Komi that was spoken in the late Middle Ages in the lower Vychegda river basin in Northeastern European Russia, in an area that currently is not Komi-speaking. This language variety is attested in fragmentary records from the 14th to 17th century written both in the Old Permic alphabet and in Cyrillic. These records are of significant importance for research on the history of the Komi language. Here we introduce our attempt towards a new Universal Dependencies treebank that will eventually contain the existing corpus of Old Permic in a structured and CoNLL-U annotated format. This will be the first time this material is being made openly available in digital format, and our contribution describes the current state of the art and remaining challenges.

In the last year two publications shed new light on the linguistic and genomic history of ancient Uralic speakers. Here I show that these novel genetic and linguistic data are compatible with each-other and with the archaeological inferences, allowing us to formulate a very plausible hypothesis about the prehistory of Ugric speakers. Both genetic and archaeological data indicate the admixture of the Mezhovskaya population with northern forest hunters in the late Bronze Age, which gave rise to a "proto-Ugric" community. This finding is consistent with the linguistic reconstruction of the proto-Ugric language. Genetic data indicate an admixture of proto-Hungarians with early Sarmatians and early Huns, and I show that the first admixture can be reconciled with the formation of the Gorokhovo culture and its integration into the early Sarmatian Prokhorovka culture, while the second admixture corresponds to the transformation of the Sargat and Sarmatian cultures due to Xiongnu invasions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on clitics usually distinguishes between syntactic and phonological clitics (e.g. Embick & Noyer 2001; Anderson 2005). The latter ones are treated as highly locally restricted (Embick & Noyer 2001): they can be dislocated to the nearest possible host, i.e. attach to a nearest overtly realized head in the clausal spine or flip order with the nearest full word, irrespective of its category. Such analyses makes a prediction that phonological clitics cannot skip full words or overtly realized heads, when they are seeking for a host. In more recent research some counterarguments to this prediction have been introduced, e.g. Irish pronominal clitics (Bennett et al. 2016) and Tiwa focus clitic (Dawson 2017), which are displaced in the prosodic structure and are sensitive to bigger constituents, i.e. phonological phrases. A goal of this paper is to provide one further counterexample to this generalization and to argue that not only phonological phrases, but also prosodic prominence can play a role in clitic displacement. Namely, I describe the behavior of the conditional clitic in Kazym Khanty (Ob-Ugric, Uralic) and argue that its placement can be only analyzed as a prominence-sensitive displacement in the hierarchically organized prosodic structure. I argue that the conditional clitic in Kazym Khanty attaches to the most prosodically prominent prosodic phrase, which is defined independently. The distribution of Kazym Khanty ki ‘if’ also allows to falsify a descriptive generalization that all C-clitics stay close to the edges of a clause. This is indeed not the case with ki, since the correct analysis of the data must allow it to leave its base-position and occur clause- and phrase-internally (contra Embick & Noyer 1999). The study is based on my own fieldwork with native speakers of Kazym dialect of Nothern Khanty language (Ob-Ugric, Uralic).

Volgo-Kama Neolithic resulted from an expansion of the Elshan culture to Lower Kama c. 5700 BCE. Corresponding “Indo-Uralic” linguistic parallels attest to an expansion of pre-Proto-Indo-European speakers to the area of pre-Proto-Uralic speakers. This supports the evidence of linguistic palaeontology (Proto-Uralic words for ‘cembra pine’ and for ‘bee’ and ‘honey’) for the Kama River Valley as the Uralic homeland. Proto-Uralic had loanwords from pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, whose speakers can now be traced to the Abashevo culture of 2200–2000 BCE: the Abashevo expansion from Lower Kama to the Ural-Tobol interfluve created the Sintashta culture (2000–1900 BCE), which has the earliest archaeological evidence for horse-drawn chariots, matching Proto-Indo-Iranian chariot vocabulary. Between 2200 and 1900 BCE, the Sejma-Turbino network (ST) of warrior-smith-traders distributed high-quality weapons along the border of taiga and steppe between the Upper Ob and Finland. This long but narrow corridor matches the distribution of the intermediate proto-languages of the Uralic family. It is argued that the ST came into being when Abashevo smiths moved from Balanbash on Lower Kama to Turbino on Mid-Kama and there created the ST metal axe-celt to replace the local stone-celt. The metal axe and Abashevo-like lance-heads and other weapons were then traded west and east, to hunter-fisher-cultures of Europe and Siberia (where weapons of tin-bronze were produced), establishing Proto-Uralic as the language of the areas of ST rule.

Introduction. This article is an attempt to extract information about the interactions of dialects of the Indo-European dialect continuum with each other using a comparative analysis of the basic vocabularies of some Indo-European (IE) descendant languages.The search for external borrowings and influence of a common substrate would help to clarify the ethno-linguistic surrounding of the area where the IE proto-dialects developed.In turn, these data are actual being pro and contra arguments of the well-known hypotheses about the IE ancestral home.Methodology and sources. The number of mutually understandable basic lexemes taken in relation to the number of lexemes in the compared lists was chosen as a measure of the interaction of IE dialects, indicators of their commonality.207-word Swadesh lists of 12 languages in their possibly more ancient states were analysed.For geographical binding of the IE language areal we have selected cross-borrowings from/to neighboring / substrate non-IE languages, the ancient settlement areas of native speakers of which are considered well-known.Results and discussion. The results of the comparison of the basic vocabularies of 12 IE languages have been interpreted in the form of a graph demonstrating the relative location of areas of the corresponding IE dialects. Lexemes meaning 'predator (bear, lion, etc.)', 'cattle (bull, ox)' determined the ethno-linguistic surrounding of the IE areal.Conclusion. The relevant linguistic data permitted to identify in the IE dialect continuum the core of proto-dialects: Baltic, Slavic, Aryan and Italic – and partially superimposed dialect subcontinua:– Balto-Greco-Aryo-Tocharo-Anatolian subcontinuum in the northern part of the IE areal;– Tocharo-Celto-Germanic subcontinuum in the eastern part;– Germano-Celto-Italo-Greco-Armeno-Baltic subcontinuum in the southern part;– Balto-Slavo-Italo-Aryan subcontinuum in the western part.The representation of the Proto-IE areal as a dialect continuum solves a number of difficulties inherent in the most common model of a single IE proto-language.

Using etymological methods, the present study has identified two Sinitic and Germanic shared (Sino-Germanic) etymologies (etyma):【南, 陰】. These two etyma form a rhyme correspondence. This regular sound change validates the etymological connection in question. The etymon 【南】 for 'southern sky' has been identified in Sinitic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Albanian, Hellenic, Anatolian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, some Tibeto-Burman, some Uralic and Hungarian. The etymon 【陰】 for 'dark' has been identified in Sinitic, Germanic and Gyalrong. In words of Western linguistics, the Proto-Indo-European root *nebh- 'moist, water from it damp, mist, fog, cloud' is newly identified in Sinitic, some Tibeto-Burman, some Uralic and Hungarian; the Proto-Germanic root *ēbanþ-/ēbunþ- 'evening' is identified in Sinitic and Gyalrong.

Using etymological methods, the present study has researched four Sinitic and Germanic shared (Sino-Germanic) etymologies (etyma) and two Sinitic and Uralic shared (Sino-Uralic) etyma. Two of the Sino-Germanic etyma form a rhyme correspondence. Three of the Sino-Germanic etyma form an onset correspondence. Two of the Sino-Uralic etyma form another rhyme correspondence. These regular sound changes validate the etymological connections in question. The Sino-Germanic term for 'star' and Sino-Uralic term for 'star' are supported.

Using etymological methods, the present study has identified seven Sinitic and Uralic shared etymologies (etyma). Three of them form a rhyme correspondence. Two of them form an onset correspondence. Four of them form another rhyme correspondence. These regular sound changes validate the genetic connection between Sinitic and Uralic. The Sino-Uralic etymology (etymon) for 'Jupiter, year' is among these etyma. It is demonstrated that this term should be aboriginal in Sino-Uralic languages.

Using etymological methods, the present study has researched four Sinitic and Uralic shared etymologies (etyma). Two of them form a rhyme correspondence. Three of them form an onset correspondence. These regular sound changes validate the genetic connection between Sinitic and Uralic. The Sino-Finnic term for 'moon, month' is among these four etyma. It is demonstrated that this term should be aboriginal in Sino-Uralic languages.

Loanword analysis is a unique contribution of historical linguistics to our understanding of prehistoric cultural interfaces. As language reflects the lives of its speakers, the substantiation of loanwords draws on the composite evidence from linguistic as well as auxiliary data from archaeology and genetics through triangulation. The Bronze Age of Central Asia is in principle linguistically mute, but a host of recent independent observations that tie languages, cultures and genetics together in various ways invites a comprehensive reassessment of six highly diagnostic loanwords (‘seven’, ‘name/fame’, ‘sister-in-law’, ‘honey’, ‘metal’ and ‘horse’) that are associated with the Bronze Age. Moreover, they are shared between Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic and sometimes Old Chinese. The successful identification of the interfaces for these loanwords can help settle longstanding debates on languages, migrations and the items themselves. Each item is analysed using the comparative method with reference to the archaeological record to assess the plausibility of a transfer. I argue that the six items can be dated to have entered Central and East Asian languages from immigrant Indo-European languages spoken in the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures, including a novel source for the ‘horse’ in Old Chinese.

During their migration from the Eastern European steppes to the Tarim Basin, the ancestors of the Tocharians must have come into contact with speakers of different languages, which may have influenced the early Tocharian language. Early Uralic has been identified as possibly having been the source of such influence, especially in the domain of phonology and nominal morphology. In a 2019 article, Michaël Peyrot focused specifically on pre-Proto-Samoyed influence on Tocharian, proposing among other things a comparison of the vowel systems. I will discuss this comparison and give an alternative interpretation. Three difficulties remained with Peyrot's comparison regarding details of 1) the relative chronology of Tocharian sound changes, 2) the mechanism of change, and 3) the relative chronology of sound changes in Samoyed. After addressing these problems in more detail, I conclude that a different vowel comparison is possible, so that the hypothesis that pre-Proto-Tocharians were in contact with pre-Proto-Samoyed substrate is still plausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using etymological methods, the present study has identified five Sinitic and Uralic shared etymologies. These five etymologies form a rhyme correspondence. This regular sound change validates the etymological connection between Sinitic and Uralic. The Finnic term for 'sky' is among these five etymologies. It is demonstrated that this word root should be aboriginal in Sino-Uralic languages.

This paper presents a detailed etymological analysis of words for 'fox' in Indo-European (IE) languages. We argue that most IE 'fox'-words go back to two distinct PIE stems: * h₂lō̆p-eḱ - 'fox' and * ulp-i - 'wildcat, fox'. We provide a revised analysis of the etymology and relationship among the various Indo-Iranian 'fox'-words, and we argue that Baltic preserves remnants of the ḱ -suffix found in Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian. Additionally, we describe how * h₂lō̆p-eḱ - was borrowed from Indo-Iranian into Uralic and we outline the relationship among the reflexes of this word in various Uralic languages. Finally, we reconstruct the paradigm of * h₂lō̆p-eḱ - as a unique type of hysterodynamic stem, which nonetheless has close parallels in PIE. We observe that a similar ḱ -suffix is found in PIE adjectives and animal names. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study inspects Karl August Hermann's article published in 1895, in which he compared Mandarin Chinese to Uralic languages, especially to Finnish and Estonian, and concluded that these languages are related. His proofs of phonology, morphology, and syntax domains are various. His findings of conception similarities are original. The present author estimates that of Hermann's eight etymological comparisons, five are valid, one is doubtful, two are invalid. The author has amended the valid comparisons and corrected invalid comparisons. In order to verify these comparisons, further 12 etymological comparisons are given, which form onset or rhyme correspondences. As a result, a total of 19 Sino-Uralic etymologies are given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tocharian agglutinative case inflexion as well as its single series of voiceless stops, the two most striking typological deviations from Proto-Indo-European, can be explained through influence from Uralic. A number of other typological features of Tocharian may likewise be interpreted as due to contact with a Uralic language. The supposed contacts are likely to be associated with the Afanas'evo Culture of South Siberia. This Indo-European culture probably represents an intermediate phase in the movement of speakers of early Tocharian from the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Eastern European steppe to the Tarim Basin in Northwest China. At the same time, the Proto-Samoyedic homeland must have been in or close to the Afanas'evo area. A close match between the Pre-Proto-Tocharian and Pre-Proto-Samoyedic vowel systems is a strong indication that the Uralic contact language was an early form of Samoyedic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I shall review the field of studies: “Uralic vs Indo-European contacts”. I shall report the thesis of what can be called the “old” and the “new” school, respectively, dealing with this topic. According to the old school, the contacts took place, essentially, among the historical languages, whereby the criteria for identifying loanwords are often unclear. According to the new school, instead, the (intensive) Uralic vs Indo-European contacts took place, essentially, at the level of protolanguages, and the loanwords are easily identifiable, thanks to the regularity of the relevant sound changes and substitutions. I shall claim that the thesis of new school is unlikely to be correct, on methodological and factual grounds: borrowing among proto-languages is impossible a priori; sound changes and substitutions are not always regular and systematic; the “binary” analysis “borrowing vs inherited” is out-of-date; the Uralic and Indo-European languages belong to different, distant “areal contexts”. Kokkuvõte. Angela Marcantonio: Uurali ja indoeuroopa keelte kontaktid: laenamine, kohalik kujunemine, juhuslik sarnasus. Artiklis annan ülevaate uurimisteemast “Uurali ja indoeuroopa keelte kontaktid”. Käsitlen küsimust, mida võib selle teemaga seoses nimetada “uueks” ja “vanaks” koolkonnaks. Vana koolkonna järgi toimusid kontaktid ajalooliste keelte vahel, kusjuures laensõnade kindlakstegemise kriteeriumid on sageli ebaselged. Uue koolkonna järgi aga toimusid (intensiivsed) uurali ja indoeuroopa kontaktid algkeelte tasandil ja laensõnu on lihtne kindlaks teha tänu oluliste häälikumuutuste ja häälikuasenduste reeglipärasusele. Väidan, et uue koolkonna tees ei näi metodoloogiliselt ja faktiliselt aluselt korrektne: algkeelte vaheline laenamine on a priori võimatu, häälikumuutused ja -asendused ei ole alati reeglipärased ja süsteemsed, “binaarne” jaotus “laenatud või genuiinne” on aegunud, uurali ja indoeuroopa keeled kuuluvad erinevasse, teineteisest kaugesse “areaalsesse konteksti”. Märksõnad: uurali keeled, indoeuroopa keeled, konvergents, divergents, juhuslik sarnasus, sugulassõnad, laensõnad, keeleareaalid

The article is introduced by a survey and discussion of previous models of classification of the Samoyedic languages. The main part is devoted to a new model of classification, based on application of so-called recalibrated glottochronology, including a full documentation of wordlists with etymological remarks, statistics and sources. Finally, the present results are compared with previous models. The article follows the study of Hofírková & Blažek 2012, completing so the Uralic language family, consisting of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic. The most important result of the present contribution is a dating of disintegration of Samoyedic to the 3rd – 2nd cent. BCE, i. e. between disintegrations of its neighbours, Ob-Ugric around 400 BCE and Turkic around 100 BCE. Applying the cladistic strategy based on average values of percentages expressing mutual relations, in the Samoyedic dialect continuum three primarily parallel branches may be determined: North Samoyedic, Selkup and Sayan Samoyedic. Relatively low scores of Nganasan with all other languages (with exception of Enets) probably indicate an influence of a pre-Samoyedic substratum of the Taimyr Peninsula. On the other hand, it is not excluded that the Sayan Samoyedic branch was secondarily 'formed' thanks to the geographical neighbourhood of Kamasin (& Koibal) and Mator (& Taigi and Karagas). In this case, the idea of Helimski (1982) of four coordinate branches would be confirmed.

In the article the personal pronouns of all Uralic languages are collected and summarized from the point of view of their declension. Personal pronouns of Balto-Finnic and Saamic languages are collected and analyzed on the basis of their internal structure and external comparison with all other branches of Uralic languages. Applying the methods of internal reconstruction, finally the minimal paradigm was reconstructed.

The Fenno-Ugric case system serves as a chrestomathian example of agglutination. Although it is not always apparent in the living languages, their partial reconstructions in the groups confirm this structure. The present contribution analyzes in details the Fenno-Saamic nominal declension which is further compared with the case systems of other groups of the Fenno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages and finally the Uralic protosystem is reconstructed. The present analysis demonstrates the closer relationship of the Mordvinian case system to Fenno-Saamic than to Mari.

In this article I shall review the field of studies: "Uralic vs Indo-European contacts". I shall report the thesis of what can be called the "old" and the "new" school, respectively, dealing with this topic. According to the old school, the contacts took place, essentially, among the historical languages, whereby the criteria for identifying loanwords are often unclear. According to the new school, instead, the (intensive) Uralic vs Indo-European contacts took place, essentially, at the level of protolanguages, and the loanwords are easily identifiable, thanks to the regularity of the relevant sound changes and substitutions. I shall claim that the thesis of new school is unlikely to be correct, on methodological and factual grounds: borrowing among proto-languages is impossible a priori; sound changes and substitutions are not always regular and systematic; the "binary" analysis "borrowing vs inherited" is out-of-date; the Uralic and Indo-European languages belong to different, distant "areal contexts". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loanword analysis is a unique contribution of historical linguistics to our understanding of prehistoric cultural interfaces. As language reflects the lives of its speakers, the substantiation of loanwords draws on the composite evidence from linguistic as well as auxiliary data from archaeology and genetics through triangulation. The Bronze Age of Central Asia is in principle linguistically mute, but a host of recent independent observations that tie languages, cultures and genetics together in various ways invites a comprehensive reassessment of six highly diagnostic loanwords ('seven', 'name/fame', 'sister-in-law', 'honey', 'metal' and 'horse') that are associated with the Bronze Age. Moreover, they are shared between Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic and sometimes Old Chinese. The successful identification of the interfaces for these loanwords can help settle longstanding debates on languages, migrations and the items themselves. Each item is analysed using the comparative method with reference to the archaeological record to assess the plausibility of a transfer. I argue that the six items can be dated to have entered Central and East Asian languages from immigrant Indo-European languages spoken in the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures, including a novel source for the 'horse' in Old Chinese., (© The Author(s) 2022.)