Proto-Uralic language

Proto-Uralic is the unattested reconstructed language ancestral to the modern Uralic language
family. The reconstructed language is thought to have been originally spoken in a small area in
about 7000–2000 BCE (estimates vary), and then expanded across northern Eurasia, gradually
diverging into a dialect continuum and then a language family in the process. The location of the
area or Urheimat is not known, and various strongly differing proposals have been advocated, but
the vicinity of the Ural Mountains is generally accepted as the most likely.

Early descendants Proto-Uralic

(may be equivalent to Proto-Finno-Ugric)

According to the traditional binary tree model,
Proto-Uralic diverged into Proto-Samoyedic and Reconstruction of Uralic languages

Proto-Finno-Ugric. However, reconstructed Region near the Ural

Proto-Finno-Ugric differs little from Proto- Mountains or Sayan
Uralic, and many apparent differences follow Mountains[1]
from the methods used. Thus, Proto-Finno-
Era 7,000–2,000 BCE
Ugric may not be separate from Proto-Uralic.
Another reconstruction of the split of Proto- Lower-order Proto-Samoyed

Uralic has three branches (Finno-Permic, Ugric reconstructions Proto-Finno-Ugric

and Samoyedic) from the start.

"Comb" model

In the early 21st century, these tree-like models have been challenged by the hypothesis of larger
number of proto-languages giving an image of a linguistic "comb" rather than a tree.[2] Thus, the
second-order groups of the Uralic phylum would then be: Sami, Finnic, Mordvinic, Mari, Permic,
Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic, all on equal footing. This order is both the order of
geographical positions as well as linguistic similarity, with neighboring languages being more
similar than distant ones.

Phonology

Similarly to the situation for Proto-Indo-European, reconstructions of Proto-Uralic are traditionally

not written in IPA but in UPA.
Vowels

Proto-Uralic had vowel harmony and a rather large inventory of vowels in initial syllables, much like
the modern Finnish or Estonian system:

Front Back

Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded

Close i /i/ ü /y/ ï /ɯ/ u /u/

Mid e /e/ o /o/

Open ä /æ/ a /ɑ/

Sometimes a mid vowel *ë /ɤ/ is reconstructed in place of *ï, or a low back rounded *å /ɒ/ in
place of *a.[3]

There were no monophonemic long vowels nor diphthongs, though sequences of vowel and
semivowel within a single syllable (such as *äj) could exist.

Unstressed vowels

Vowel inventory in non-initial syllables was restricted: only a two-way contrast of open and non-
open vowels is incontestably reconstructible.[4] The actual realization of this contrast is a question
of debate: one view considers this two archiphonemic vowels ⫽a⫽ and ⫽i⫽, realized as four
allophones [æ ɑ], [i ɯ] as per vowel harmony. However, other scholars such as Zhivlov posit the
existence of disharmonic *i-a stems in Proto-Uralic, which would imply that vowel harmony was
not allophonic.[5]

For the non-open vowel(s), most branches reflect a reduced vowel [ə]; only two branches give
evidence for a specific value:

The Finnic languages show /e/ or /ɤ/ depending on harmony, word-finally /i/.

The Samic languages show a variety of reflexes, but these reflexes can be traced back to a
Proto-Samic phoneme *ë, which is also the reflex of Proto-Uralic *i and *ü in stressed syllables.

While vowel reduction is a common sound change, Finnic is known to have adstrate influence
from language groups that would not have known reduced vowels (namely the Baltic languages
and the early Germanic languages), so a value of [ə] already in Proto-Uralic remains a possibility.[6]

Although these three or four stem types were certainly the most prominent ones in Proto-Uralic, it
is possible that other, rarer types may have existed as well.[7] These include for example kinship
terms such as "sister-in-law", found as *kälü in both Proto-Finnic and Proto-Samoyedic. Janhunen
(1981) and Sammallahti (1988) reconstruct here instead a word-final labial glide: *käliw.
A general difficulty in reconstructing unstressed vowels for Proto-Uralic lies in their heavy
reduction and loss in many of the Uralic languages. Especially in the Ugric and Permic languages,
almost no trace of unstressed vowels appears in basic word roots. The original bisyllabic root
structure has been well preserved in only the more peripheral groups: Samic and Finnic in the
northwest, Samoyedic in the east. The main correspondences of unstressed vowels between
these are as follows:

Reflexes of Proto-Uralic unstressed vowels

Proto-Uralic Proto-Samic Proto-Finnic Proto-Samoyedic Notes

[8]
*-a *-a [ɑ] *-å [ɒ]
*-ē [eː]
[9]
*-ä *-ä [æ] *-ä [æ]

∅ after original open syllables [10]

*-ə *-ë [ɤ] *-e
*-ə after original closed syllables [11]

Developments in Mordvinic and Mari are rather more complicated. In the former, Proto-Uralic *-a
and *-ä are usually reduced to *-ə; *-a is however regularly retained whenever the first syllable of
the word contained *u. Proto-Uralic *-ə is regularly lost after open syllables, as well as in some
other positions.[12]

Conditional vowel shifts

A number of roots appear to diverge from the main picture of unstressed syllables in a different
way: while Finnic, Samic and Samoyedic languages all have one of the "typical" stem shapes, they
may not quite match. Words in these classes often feature discrepancies in the vowels of the first
syllable as well, e.g. Finnic *a or *oo (suggesting Proto-Uralic *a or *ë) against Samic *ā
(suggesting Proto-Uralic *ä) or *oa (suggesting Proto-Uralic *o).[6]

A number of such cases may result simply from conditional vowel shifts in unstressed syllables.
In fact, multiple vowel shifts are reconstructed in branches of Uralic sensitive to a particular
combination of stem vowel and following reduced vowel, in which both change at once. A shift *a-
ə > *o-a can be posited for Samic as well as the Mordvinic languages. E.g.:[13]
*a-ə > *o-a in Samic and Mordvinic

Proto-
Proto-Samic Mordvinic Proto-Finnic Hungarian other reflexes meaning
Samoyedic

Erzya сюро /sʲuro/

Moksha сюра
*čoarvē < *ćorwa *sarvi - szarv 'horn'
/sʲura/
< *śorwa-

Erzya сюло /sʲulo/

Moksha сюла [14]
*čoalē < *ćola *sooli < *sali - 'intestine'
/sʲula/
< *śola-

Erzya куло- /kulo-/

*koalō- < Moksha куло- *koole- <
*kåə- hal 'to die'
*kola(w)- /kulə-/ *kali-
< *kola-

Erzya and Moksha

*koamtē < *kanci < Mari комдыш
кунда /kunda/ - kendő 'lid'
*komta *kanti /komdəʃ/
< *komta

The change is, however, masked by the shift of *ë to *a (which later develops to Proto-Samic *uo)
in words such as:

Non-raising of *ë-ə in Samic and Mordvinic

Proto- other
Proto-Samic Mordvinic Proto-Finnic Hungarian meaning
Samoyedic reflexes

*ńuolë < *ńalə Erzya, Moksha нал /nal/ *nooli < *nali *ńël nyíl 'arrow'

Erzya, Moksha сан 'vein,

*suonë < *sanə *sooni < *sani *cën ín
/san/ sinew'

*θuomë < Erzya лём /lʲom/

*toomi < *tami *jëm - 'bird cherry'
*δamə Moksha лайме /lajmɛ/

*(h)apci <
*vuoptë < *aptə - *ëptə - 'hair'
*apti

In a second group, a change *ä-ä > *a-e appears to have taken place in Finnic in words such as:[15]
*ä-ä > *a-e in Finnic

Proto-Finnic Proto-Samic Proto-Samoyedic Hungarian other reflexes meaning

*loomi < *lami - - - Erzya леме /lʲeme/ 'scab'

*pooli < *pali *pealē *pälä fél Erzya пеле /pelʲe/ 'half'

*sappi *sāppē - epe Erzya сэпе /sepe/ 'gall'

*talvi *tālvē - tél Erzya теле /tʲelʲe/ 'winter'

*vaski *veaškē *wäsa vas Mari -вож /βoʒ/ 'ore' 'copper, bronze' ~ 'iron'

Consonants

In the consonant system, palatalization, or palatal-laminal instead of apical articulation, was a

phonemic feature, as it is in many modern Uralic languages. Only one series of stops (unvoiced
unaspirated) existed:

Bilabial Dental Palatal(ized) Retroflex Velar unknown

Plosive and
p /p/ t /t/ (ć /t͡sʲ ~ t͡ɕ/) č /t̠͡ʂ/ k /k/
Affricate

Nasal m /m/ n /n/ ń /nʲ ~ ɲ/ ŋ /ŋ/

Sibilant s /s/ ś /sʲ ~ ɕ/ (š /ʂ/)

Spirants δ /ð/ δ´ /ðʲ/

Lateral l /l/ (ľ /lʲ ~ ʎ/)

Trill r /r/

Semivowel w /w/ j /j/

unknown /x/?

The segments symbolized by č and š were likely retroflex.[16] The phonetic nature of the segment
symbolized by *x is uncertain, though it is usually considered a back consonant;[17] [x], [ɣ], [ɡ], and
[h] have been suggested among others. Janhunen (1981, 2007) takes no explicit stance, leaving
open the option for even a vocalic value. The segment has some similarity to the Indo-European
laryngeals (to which it can correspond in loanwords): it is reconstructed by certain scholars in
syllable-final position in word-stems where a contrastive long vowel later developed (similar to
Turkish ğ), best preserved in the Finnic languages, and where Samoyedic features a vowel
sequence such as *åə. The correlation between these two stem classes is however not perfect,
and alternate possibilities exist for explaining both vowel length in Finnic and vowel sequences in
Samoyedic.[18] *x is also reconstructed word-medially, and in this position it also develops to a
Finnic long vowel, but has clear consonantal reflexes elsewhere: *k in Samic, *j in Mordvinic and *ɣ
in Ugric. If a consonant, it probably derives from lenition of *k at a pre-Uralic stage; it is only found
in words ending in a non-open vowel, while *k is infrequent or nonexistent in similar positions.[17]
The phonetic identity of the consonant *δ´ is also subject to some doubt. It is traditionally
analyzed as the palatalized counterpart of the voiced dental fricative *δ, that is, as [ðʲ]; however,
this a typologically rare sound value for which no direct evidence is found in any Uralic language,
and a pure palatal fricative [ʝ] is another option; a third option is a palatal liquid like, e. g., Czech
ř.[17] Some others propose to adjust the sound values of both this consonant and its plain
counterpart. Ugricist László Honti has advanced a reconstruction with lateral fricatives: [ɬ], [ɬʲ] for
*δ, *δ´,[19] while Frederik Kortlandt reconstructs palatalized [rʲ] and [lʲ], alleging that they pattern
like resonants.[20]

Dubious segments

The phonemes in parentheses—*ć, *š, *ĺ—are supported by only limited evidence, and are not
assumed by all scholars. Sammallahti (1988) notes that while instances of *ć are found in all
three of Permic, Hungarian and Ob-Ugric, there are "very few satisfactory etymologies" showing
any correlation between the branches in whether *ć or *ś appears. In the other languages, no
consistent distinction between these consonants is found.

The evidence for the postalveolar sibilant *š however is "scarce but probably conclusive" (ibid): it
is treated distinctly from *s only in the more western (Finno-Permic) languages, but certain loans
from as far back as the Proto-Indo-European language have reflexes traceable to a postalveolar
fricative (including *piši- or *peši- "to cook"). The possibility of *ĺ is not considered by him at all.

In contrast, Janhunen,[17] who considers Samoyedic evidence necessary for conclusions about
Proto-Uralic, doubts that *š can be reconstructed, preferring to consider it a secondary, post-Proto-
Uralic innovation (p. 210). He agrees with Sammallahti in omitting *ĺ and in only considering a
single palatal obstruent as necessary to reconstruct; for the latter he suggests the sound value of
a palatal stop, [c] (p. 211).

More recently, reflexes of Proto-Uralic *š have been found in Samoyedic, e.g. PU *kajšaw > Proto-
Samoyedic *kåjtåw.[21]

Phonotactics

No final consonant clusters were allowed, so words could end with a maximum of one consonant
only. The single consonants *δ *x *ŋ *r also could not occur word-initially, though at least for the
first of these, this may be a coincidental omission in the data. A reconstruction *δäpδä "spleen"
exists but is not found in Samoyedic and the most stringent criteria for a Proto-Uralic root thus
excludes it. A similar case is *repä "fox", a loanword from Indo-Iranian.

Inside word roots, only clusters of two consonants were permitted. Since *j and *w were
consonants even between a vowel and another consonant, there were no sequences of a
"diphthong" followed by two consonants, like in e.g. Finnish veitsi. While voicing was not a
phonemic feature, double (i.e. geminate) stops probably existed (*ïppi "father-in-law", *witti "five",
*lükkä- "to push"). The singleton–geminate contrast in most descendant languages developed into
a voiced–voiceless distinction, although Finnic is a notable exception, e.g. Finnish appi, lykkää.

When, due to suffixation, consonant clusters arose that were not permitted, the non-low vowel
was inserted as a prop vowel. This process was obscured in the Finnic languages by an opposing
process which syncopated unstressed *e in many cases.

Prosody

Proto-Uralic did not have contrastive tone. The majority view considers stress to have been fixed
on the first syllable, although this is not universally accepted.[22]

Phonological processes

Consonant gradation may have occurred already in Proto-Uralic: if it did, it was probably an
allophonic alternation involving voicing of the stop consonants: [p] ~ [b], [t] ~ [d], [k] ~ [g].[23]

Grammar

Grammatically, Proto-Uralic was an agglutinative nominative–accusative language.

Nouns

Proto-Uralic nouns are reconstructed with at least six noun cases and three numbers, singular,
dual and plural. The dual number has been lost in many of the contemporary Uralic languages,
however. Grammatical gender is absent in reconstructions given that no Uralic language has ever
been attested to have gender systems. Definite or indefinite articles are not reconstructed either.

The plural marker of nouns was *-t in final position and *-j- in non-final position, as seen in Finnish
talot and talojen ("house" nom. pl. and gen. pl.). The dual marker has been reconstructed as *-k-.

The reconstructed cases are:

nominative (no suffix)

accusative *-m

genitive *-n

locative *-na / *-nä

 ablative *-ta / *-tä

lative *-ŋ

The cases had only one three-way locative contrast of entering, residing and exiting (lative,
locative and ablative respectively). This is the origin of the three-way systems as the three
different ones in Karelian Finnish (illative/inessive/elative, allative/adessive/ablative,
translative/essive/exessive). The partitive case, developed from the ablative, was a later
innovation in the Finnic and Samic languages. Further cases are occasionally mentioned, e.g.
Robert Austerlitz's reconstruction of Proto-Finno-Ugric includes a seventh, adverbial.

A further noun case likely already found in Proto-Uralic is the translative *-ksi. The abessive *-ktak
/ *-ktäk is not completely certain as it could also have been a derivational category rather than a
noun case. So as many as seven or eight noun cases can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic with
high plausibility.[24]

The nouns also had possessive suffixes, one for each combination of number and person. These
took the place of possessive pronouns, which did not exist.

Verbs

Verbs were conjugated at least according to number, person and tense. The reconstructions of
mood markers are controversial. Some scholars argue that there were separate subjective and
objective conjugations, but this is disputed; clear reflexes of the objective conjugation are found in
only the easternmost branches, and hence it may also represent an areal innovation. Negation
was expressed with the means of a negative verb *e-, found as such in e.g. Finnish e+mme "we
don't".

Ergativity hypothesis

Merlijn De Smit of Stockholm University has argued for ergativity in Proto-Uralic, reinterpreting the
accusative case as a lative one and arguing for a marked subject via the genitive case and a
verbal ending, *mV-. Support for this theory comes from the Finnish agent participle
constructions, e.g. miehen ajama auto — car driven by the man, Naisen leipoma kakku — the cake
that woman baked.[25] In these constructions the subject, which is usually unmarked, is in the
genitive case, while the direct object, usually marked with -n is unmarked.

This resembles a passive construction such as pater amatur a filio, filio being declined in the
ablative case, except that the word order in Finnish is reversed.

This construction also occurs in Udmurt, Mari, Mordvinic (the -mV participle is absent), and
Karelian. However, unlike Finnish, the construction is also used with intransitive sentences,
characterized by the same -mV suffix on the verb, e.g. Udmurt gyrem busy, "a ploughed field, a
field that has been ploughed", lyktem kišnomurt, "the arrived lady, the lady who has arrived". The -
mV participle ending in Mari denotes a preterite passive meaning, e.g. in Eastern Mari omsam
počmo, "the door (has been) opened", təj kaləkən mondəmo ulat, "you are forgotten by the people",
and memnan tolmo korno, "the road that we have come".[26]

This is problematic for the ergative theory because the -mV participle, labelled the ergative marker,
is a passive marker in most of the languages that use it, and the Finnish agent participle
constructions may in fact derive from similar constructions in Baltic languages, e.g. Lithuanian
tėvo perkamas automobilis or automobilis (yra) tėvo perkamas. Notable is the unmistakable
resemblance between the Baltic and Finnic verbal suffixes, and the fact that -mV is missing in
both Estonian and Mordvinic, despite being two very close relatives of Finnish. However, the Baltic
participle in -ma does not represent the most common Indo-European ending of a passive
participle, even though it does have parallels in other Indo-European languages.[27] Even if the
ending derives from Proto-Uralic and not the Baltic languages, the transition from a passive to
ergative construction is very common and has been observed in Indo-Aryan, Salish, and
Polynesian. The transition begins when the unmarked subject of the passive sentence, usually
marked in active sentences (if the language is inflectional), is re-analyzed as an unmarked
absolutive, and the marked agent as ergative.[28]

Syntax

Proto-Uralic was a SOV language with postpositions and without finite subordination.[29][30]

Vocabulary

Approximately 500 Uralic lemmas can be reconstructed. However, not all of them contain reflexes
in every Uralic branch, particularly the Samoyedic branch.[31]

The reconstructed vocabulary is compatible with a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer culture and a north
Eurasian landscape (spruce, Siberian pine, and various other species found in the Siberian taiga),
and contains interesting hints on kinship structure. On the other hand, agricultural terms cannot
be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic. Words for ‘sheep’, ‘wheat / barley’ and ‘flour’ are phonologically
irregular within Uralic and all have limited distribution. In addition, the word for ‘metal’ or ‘copper’ is
actually a Wanderwort (cf. North Saami veaiki, Finnish vaski ‘copper, bronze’, Hungarian vas, and
Nganasan basa ‘iron’).[31]

Examples of vocabulary correspondences between the modern Uralic languages are provided in
the list of comparisons at the Finnish Wikipedia.
Plants

Tree names[31]

*kowsi ‘spruce’

*ďi̮mi ‘bird-cherry’

*si̮ksa ‘Siberian pine, Pinus sibirica’

Additional selected plant names from the Uralic Etymological Database:[32]

proto-
scientific name common name proto-form no.
language

429 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Picea abies spruce, fir *kawse, *kaxse Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=429)

cloudberry, 564 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Rubus chamaemorus *mura Proto-Uralic
cranberry, knotberry ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=564)

787 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Populus tremula aspen *pojɜ Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=787)

*soksɜ (*saksɜ), 903 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Pinus cembra Siberian pine Proto-Uralic
*se̮ksɜ ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=903)

Proto-Finno- 591 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Larix sibirica larch *näŋɜ
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=591)

Proto-Finno- 706 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Amanita muscaria fly agaric *paŋka
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=706)

Proto-Finno- 1163 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Ledum palustre wild rosemary *woĺɜ
Ugric eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1163)

Proto-Finno- 83 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ein
Ribes nigrum black currant *ćɜkčɜ(-kkɜ)
Ugric trag.cgi?id_eintrag=83)

Proto-Finno- 1346 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Lonicera xylosteum honeysuckle *kusa
Permic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1346)

Proto-Finno- 1446 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Ulmus elm *ńolkɜ, *ńalkɜ
Permic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1446)

Proto-Finno- 1475 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Pinus sylvestris Scots pine *pe(n)čä
Permic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1475)

Viburnum opulus, Acer snowball tree, field Proto-Finno- 1612 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

*šewɜ
campestre maple Permic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1612)

Proto-Finno- 1609 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Populus tremula aspen *šapa
Volgaic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1609)

Proto-Finno- 1209 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Ribes currant *ćɜkčɜ-tɜrɜ
Volgaic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1209)

*wakš-tɜre Proto-Finno- 1683 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Acer platanoides maple
(*wokštɜre) Volgaic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1683)
Animals

Selected Proto-Uralic animal vocabulary:[31]

*kala ‘fish’

*kuďi- ‘spawn’

*śi̮mi ‘scales, fish skin'

*pesä ‘nest’

*muna ‘egg’

*tulka ‘feather’

*küji ‘snake’

*täji ‘louse’

Fish species

*särki ‘roach / ruffe’

*säwni / *sewni ‘ide’

*totki ‘tench’

Bird species

*śäkśi ‘osprey’

*śodka ‘goldeneye’

*kurki / *ki̮rki ‘crane’

*lunta ‘goose’

*epik(i) ‘eagle owl’

*ti̮ktV / *tuktV ‘black-throated loon’

Mammal species

*ńoma(-la) ‘hare’

*ńukiś(i) ‘marten / sable’

*ora(-pa) ‘squirrel’

*śijil(i) ‘hedgehog’

*šiŋir(i) ‘mouse’

Additional selected animal names from the Uralic Etymological Database:[32]

 proto-
scientific name common name proto-form no.
language

440 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Salmo a species of trout *kȣmɜ Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=440)

494 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Mustela martes pine marten *lujɜ Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=494)

Salvelinus alpinus, Salmo 642 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

salmon spp. *ńowŋa Proto-Uralic
trutta, Hucho taimen ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=642)

nelma, Siberian 669 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Stenodus nelma *ončɜ Proto-Uralic
white salmon ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=669)

770 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Tetrastes bonasia hazel grouse *piŋe (*püŋe) Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=770)

786 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Mustela erminea ermine *pojta Proto-Uralic
ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=786)

1068 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/
Tinca tinca tench *totke Proto-Uralic
eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1068)

a species of Proto-Finno- 446 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Picus *kȣ̈rɜ
woodpecker Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=446)

Proto-Finno- 534 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Apis mellifera Western honey bee *mekše
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=534)

Proto-Finno- 688 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Tetrao urogallus male of capercaillie *paδ̕tɜ
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=688)

Proto-Finno- 711 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Hirundo rustica swallow *päćkɜ
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=711)

Proto-Finno- 932 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei

Acipenser sturio sturgeon *śampe
Ugric ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=932)

Proto-Finno- 1062 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Gavia arctica black-throated diver *tokta
Ugric eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1062)

*kopa-la Proto-Finno-
(*koppa-la), Ugric or 353 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/ei
Tetrao urogallus capercaillie
*kopa-ľ́a Proto-Finno- ntrag.cgi?id_eintrag=353)
(*koppa-ľ́a) Volgaic

Proto-Finno- 1206 (http://uralonet.nytud.hu/

Parus tit *ćȣńɜ
Permic eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1206)

In popular culture

The film Unna ja Nuuk (2006) has extensive dialogue in reconstructed Proto-Finno-Samic (Early
Proto-Finnic), the proto-language of the Finno-Samic languages.[33][34]
See also

Proto-Finnic language

Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses

References

1. Grünthal, Riho; Heyd, Volker; Holopainen, Sampsa; Janhunen, Juha A.; Khanina, Olesya;
Miestamo, Matti; Nichols, Johanna; Saarikivi, Janne; Sinnemäki, Kaius (2022). "Drastic
demographic events triggered the Uralic spread" (https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publica
tions/drastic-demographic-events-triggered-the-uralic-spread) . Diachronica. 39 (4): 490–
524. doi:10.1075/dia.20038.gru (https://doi.org/10.1075%2Fdia.20038.gru) .
hdl:10138/347633 (https://hdl.handle.net/10138%2F347633) . S2CID 248059749 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248059749) .

2. Aikio 2019: 3ff.

3. Janhunen 1981a pp. 24–25

4. Helimski 1984, p. 248.

5. Zhivlov, Mikhail (2023). "Reconstruction of Proto-Uralic". In Abondolo, Daniel; Valijärvi, Riitta-

Liisa (eds.). The Uralic languages (Second ed.). Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.
p. 121. ISBN 9781032436562.

6. Petri, Kallio (2012), "The non-initial-syllable vowel reductions from Proto-Uralic to Proto-
Finnic", Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia, 264, ISSN 0355-0230 (https://search.world
cat.org/issn/0355-0230)

7. Helimski 1984, p. 249.

8. Janhunen 1981, pp. 2–3.

9. Janhunen 1981, p. 6.

10. Janhunen 1981, p. 12.

11. Janhunen 1981, pp. 16–17.

12. Ravila, Paavo (1929), "Über eine doppelte vertretung des urfinnischwolgaischen *a der
nichtersten silbe im mordwinischen", Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 20, ISSN 0355-1253 (h
ttps://search.worldcat.org/issn/0355-1253)

13. Aikio, Ante (2013), Uralilaisen kantakielen vokaalistosta

14. Possibly szál 'thread'

15. Zhivlov, Mikhail (2014), "Studies in Uralic Vocalism III", Journal of Language Relationship, 12

16. Zhivlov, Mikhail (2023). Abondolo, Daniel; Valijärvi, Riitta-Liisa (eds.). The Uralic languages
(Second ed.). London New York: Routledge. p. 118. ISBN 9781032436562.

17. Janhunen, Juha (2007), "The primary laryngeal in Uralic and beyond" (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/
sust253/sust253_janhunen.pdf) (PDF), Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia, 253,
ISSN 0355-0230 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0355-0230) , retrieved 5 May 2010

18. Aikio, Ante (2012), "On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x",
Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia, 264, ISSN 0355-0230 (https://search.worldcat.org/
issn/0355-0230)

19. László, Honti (2013), "Comments on Uralic historical phonology" (http://www.akademiai.co

m/content/44721l5vmn94466l/fulltext.pdf) (PDF), Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 60: 1–68,
doi:10.1556/ALing.60.2013.1.1 (https://doi.org/10.1556%2FALing.60.2013.1.1) , ISSN 1588-
2624 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1588-2624) , retrieved 10 April 2013

20. Kortlandt, Frederik (2001). "The Indo-Uralic Verb" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1451468

5.pdf) (PDF).

21. Salminen, Tapani (2024). "The Samoyed languages". In Vajda, Edward (ed.). The Languages
and Linguistics of Northern Asia: Language Families. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. p. 176.
ISBN 9783110554038.

22. Normanskaya, Julia. "The first books as evidence of paradigmatic stress variation in the Mari
language in the XIX century | Обско-угорский институт прикладных исследований и
разработок" (https://vestnik-ugrovedenia.ru/en/content/first-books-evidence-paradigmatic-s
tress-variation-mari-language-xix-century) . vestnik-ugrovedenia.ru. Bulletin of Ugric Studies.
Retrieved 18 October 2024.

23. Helimski, Eugene. Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces – In: Congressus Octavus
Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales.
Jyväskylä, 1995. "Archived copy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20111002150529/http://heli
mski.com/2.140.PDF) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://helimski.com/2.140.PDF)
(PDF) on 2 October 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2012.

24. Aikio 2019: 24ff.

25. Smit, Merlijn De. "Proto-Uralic ergativity reconsidered" (https://www.academia.edu/984549

9) .

26. Maria Polinsky, Circum-Baltic Languages: Volume 1: Past and Present, Oxford University
Press 2016, p 248

27. Maria Polinsky, Circum-Baltic Languages: Volume 1: Past and Present, Oxford University
Press 2016, p 249
 28. Elena E. Kuz'mina, Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their
Features, edited by Östen Dahl, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Oxford University Press 2016, p
30

29. Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte. 2022. Proto-Uralic. The Oxford Guide to the Uralic
Languages The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. Pages 3–27.

30. Janhunen, Juha. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finno-Ugrische Forschungen 44. 23–
42. Cited in Katalin É. Kiss. 2023. The (non-)finiteness of subordination correlates with basic
word order: Evidence from Uralic.

31. 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.

32. (in Hungarian) Uralic Etymological Database (http://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/) . Uralonet.

33. "Unna ja Nuuk vie aikamatkalle kivikauteen" (https://www.ts.fi/kulttuuri/1074095107) . 19

January 2006.

34. Kovanen, Tarja (February 2006). "Kutsu sisäinen lapsesi kivikaudelle" (https://www.jylkkari.fi/
arkisto/0602/pdf/12.pdf) (PDF). Jyväskylän Ylioppilaslehti (in Finnish). p. 12. Retrieved
13 March 2024.

Sources

Aikio, Ante (2019). "Chapter 1: Proto-Uralic" (https://www.academia.edu/40193033) . In Bakró-

Nagy, Marianne; Laakso, Johanna; Skribnik, Elena (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Uralic
Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–27. ISBN 9780198767664. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20211210230034/https://www.academia.edu/40193033) from the
original on 10 December 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2020.

Janhunen, Juha. 1981a. "On the structure of Proto-Uralic." Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44,
23–42. Helsinki: Société finno-ougrienne.

Janhunen, Juha. 1981b. "Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta ('On the vocabulary of the Uralic
proto-language')." Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 77, 219–274. Helsinki: Société finno-
ougrienne.

Helimski, Eugene (1984). Problems of phonological reconstruction in modern Uralic linguistics.

Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. "Historical phonology of the Uralic languages, with special reference
to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic." In The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign
Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 478–554. Leiden: Brill.
External links

(in Hungarian) Uralic Etymological Database (http://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/) (Uralonet)

(in German) Uralic Etymological Database (http://uralothek.uni-koblenz.de:8080/Uralothek/pdo

m/basis.html)

Criticism of binary tree model (https://web.archive.org/web/20190213141116/http://helsinki.fi/

~tasalmin/kuzn.html)