Proto-Uralic PDF

Preview

Summary

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 f...

Description

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 protolanguage 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 farreaching 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, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. Oxford University Press.

 

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 ProtoUralic. 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

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.

 

Uralic Finno-Ugric Finno-Permic

Ugric

Finno-Volgaic Finno-Saamic

Saami

Finnic Mordvin

Ob-Ugric

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

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.

 

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 “ProtoFinno-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

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.

 

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 CARDINAL

CLOSE MID OPEN

i   e   ä  

BACK NON -

NON -

CARDINAL

CARDINAL

ü      

i̮      

CARDINAL

u   o   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

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.

 

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 wellknown 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

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.

 

CORONAL

NASAL SONORANT

LATERAL RHOTIC GLIDE

(UNCLEAR)

m

VELAR

k

AFFRICATE SIBILANT

PALATAL

t

POSTALVEOLAR

p

ALVEOLO-PALATAL

ALVEOLAR

OBSTRUENT

LABIAL STOP

DORSAL

s

ś

n l r

ń

w

č ?š ŋ

j 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 wordinitial 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

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.

INTERVOCALIC  CONSONANTS  

WORD-­‐INITIAL  CONSONANTS  

  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  

*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    

*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    

*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  

*s  

*s  

*s  

*z  

*z  

*z  

s  ?  

*t  

*l  

*t  

*ś  

*ć  

*s  

*ź  

*ž  

*ź  

s    

*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    

*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  <...