1 arguments relationship between indo-european , uralic
1.1 morphological
1.2 lexical
1.2.1 objections interpretation
arguments relationship between indo-european , uralic
morphological
the common arguments in favour of relationship between indo-european , uralic based on seemingly common elements of morphology, such pronominal roots (*m- first person; *t- second person; *i- third person), case markings (accusative *-m; ablative/partitive *-ta), interrogative/relative pronouns (*kʷ- who?, which? ; *y- who, signal relative clauses) , common sov word order. other, less obvious correspondences suggested, such indo-european plural marker *-es (or *-s in accusative plural *-m̥-s) , uralic counterpart *-t. same word-final assibilation of *-t *-s may present in indo-european second-person singular *-s in comparison uralic second-person singular *-t. compare, within indo-european itself, *-s second-person singular injunctive, *-si second-person singular present indicative, *-tha second-person singular perfect, *-te second-person plural present indicative, *tu (singular) nominative, *tei (singular) enclitic pronoun. these forms suggest underlying second-person marker in indo-european may *t , *u found in forms such *tu affixal particle.
similarities have long been noted between verb conjugation systems of uralic languages (e.g. of finnish) , indo-european languages (e.g. of latin, russian, , lithuanian). although not uncommon language borrow heavily vocabulary of language (as in cases of english french, persian arabic, , korean chinese), extremely unusual language borrow basic system of verb conjugation another. supporters of existence of indo-uralic have used morphological arguments support indo-uralic thesis by, example, arguing finnish verb conjugations , pronouns more closely related indo-european expected chance; , since borrowing basic grammar rare, suggest common origin indo-european. (finnish preferred argument on saami or hungarian because seems more conservative, i.e. have diverged less others have proto-uralic.)
given morphemes involved short , comparisons concern single phoneme, probability of accidental resemblances seems uncomfortably high. divergent sound systems of proto-indo-european , proto-uralic aggravating factor both in morphological , lexical realm, making additionally difficult judge resemblances , interpret them either borrowings, possible cognates or chance resemblances.
lexical
a second type of evidence advanced in favor of indo-uralic family lexical. numerous words in indo-european , uralic resemble each other (see list below). problem weed out cognates due borrowing. uralic languages have been in contact succession of indo-european languages millennia. result, many words have been borrowed between them, indo-european languages uralic ones.
an example of uralic word cannot original finno-ugric *śata hundred . proto-indo-european form of word *ḱm̥tóm (compare latin centum), became *ćatám in indo-iranian (reanalyzed neuter nominative–accusative singular of stem > sanskrit śatá-, avestan sata-). evidence word borrowed finno-ugric indo-iranian or indo-aryan. borrowing may have occurred in region north of pontic-caspian steppes around 2100–1800 bc, approximate floruit of indo-iranian (anthony 2007:371–411). provides linguistic evidence geographical location of these languages around time, agreeing archeological evidence indo-european speakers present in pontic-caspian steppes around 4500 bce (the kurgan hypothesis) , uralic speakers may have been established in pit-comb ware culture north in fifth millennium bce (carpelan & parpola 2001:79).
another ancient borrowing finno-ugric *porćas piglet . word corresponds closely in form proto-indo-european word reconstructed *porḱos, attested such forms latin porcus hog , old english fearh (> english farrow young pig ), lithuanian par̃šas piglet, castrated boar , kurdish purs pig , , saka pāsa (< *pārsa) pig . in indo-european word, *-os (> finno-ugric *-as) masculine nominative singular ending, quite meaningless in uralic languages. shows whole word borrowed unit , not part of original uralic vocabulary. (further details on *porćas given in appendix.)
one of famous borrowings finnish word kuningas king (< proto-finnic *kuningas), borrowed proto-germanic *kuningaz. finnish has been conservative in retaining basic structure of borrowed word, preserving nominative singular case marker reconstructed proto-germanic masculine -stems. furthermore, proto-germanic *-az ending corresponds *-os ending reconstructable proto-indo-european masculine o-stems.
thus, *śata cannot indo-uralic on account of phonology, while *porćas , *kuningas cannot indo-uralic on account of morphology.
such words hundred , pig , , king have in common: represent cultural vocabulary opposed basic vocabulary . have been acquired along more complex number system , domestic pig more advanced indo-europeans south. similarly, indo-europeans had acquired such words , cultural items peoples south or west, including possibly words ox , *gʷou- (compare english cow) , grain , *bʰars- (compare english barley). in contrast, basic vocabulary – words such me , hand , water , , – less readily borrowed between languages. if indo-european , uralic genetically related, should show agreements in basic vocabulary, more agreements if closely related, fewer if less closely related.
advocates of genetic relation between indo-european , uralic maintain borrowings can filtered out application of phonological , morphological analysis , core of vocabulary common indo-european , uralic remains. examples advance such comparisons proto-uralic *weti- (or *wete-) : proto-indo-european *wodr̥, oblique stem *wedn-, both meaning water , , proto-uralic *nimi- (or *nime-) : proto-indo-european *h₁nōmn̥, both meaning name . in contrast *śata , *kuningas, phonology of these words shows no sound changes indo-european daughter languages such indo-iranian. in contrast *kuningas , *porćas, show no morphological affixes indo-european absent in uralic. according advocates of indo-uralic hypothesis, resulting core of common vocabulary can explained hypothesis of common origin.
objections interpretation
it has been countered nothing prevents common vocabulary having been borrowed proto-indo-european proto-uralic.
for old loans, uncontroversial ones proto-baltic , proto-germanic, more rule exception stem borrowed, without case-endings. proto-uralic *nimi- has been explained according sound laws governing substitutions in borrowings (koivulehto 1999), on assumption original zero-grade oblique stem pie *(h)nmen- attested in later balto-slavic *inmen- , proto-celtic *anmen-. proto-uralic *weti- loan pie oblique e-grade form water or indirectly attested cognate root noun *wed-. proto-uralic *tohį- give , pfu *wetä- lead make perfect phonologic sense borrowings.
the number systems of indo-european , uralic show no commonalities. moreover, while numbers in indo-european languages can traced reconstructed proto-indo-european numbers, cannot done uralic numbers, 2 , 5 common of family (roots 3-6 common subgroups other samoyedic, , less widespread roots known 1 , 10). appear show if proto-indo-european , proto-uralic related, connection must lie far families developed number systems independently , did not inherit them purported common ancestor. although, fact uralic languages not share same numbers suggest not indo-european languages in case.
it objected or of common vocabulary items claimed false cognates – words resemblance merely coincidental, english bad , persian bad.
Comments
Post a Comment