Uralic languages

aesthetics  →
being  →
complexity  →
database  →
enterprise  →
ethics  →
fiction  →
history  →
internet  →
knowledge  →
language  →
licensing  →
linux  →
logic  →
method  →
news  →
perception  →
philosophy  →
policy  →
purpose  →
religion  →
science  →
sociology  →
software  →
truth  →
unix  →
wiki  →
essay  →
feed  →
help  →
system  →
wiki  →
critical  →
discussion  →
forked  →
imported  →
original  →
Uralic languages
[ temporary import ]
please note:
- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{Distinguish|Urali language}}

(File:Finno ugric languages.png|thumb|Uralic languages (Meänkieli, Kven and Ludic are debated))The Uralic languages ({{IPAc-en|j|ʊəˈr|æ|l|ᵻ|k}}; sometimes called Uralian languages {{IPAc-en|j|ʊəˈr|ei|l|i|ə|n}}) form a language family of 38WEB,weblink Uralic, Simons, Gary F., Fenning, Charles F., Ethnologue, SIL International, 14 February 2018, languages spoken by approximately 25{{nbsp}}million people, predominantly in Northern Eurasia and in eastern and southern Central Europe. The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian, which are official languages in Hungary, Finland, and Estonia, respectively. Other Uralic languages with significant numbers of speakers are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt, and Komi, which are officially recognized languages in various regions of Russia.The name "Uralic" derives from the fact that the areas where the languages are spoken are found on both sides of the Ural Mountains.Finno-Ugric is sometimes used as a synonym for Uralic, though Finno-Ugric is widely understood to exclude the Samoyedic languages.BOOK, Mood in the Languages of Europe, Tommola, Hannu, 2010, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 978-90-272-0587-2, 155, Finnish among the Finno-Ugrian languages,weblink Scholars who do not accept the traditional notion that Samoyedic split first from the rest of the Uralic family may treat the terms as synonymous.




{{further|Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses}}Proposed homelands of the Proto-Uralic language include:
  • The vicinity of the Volga River, west of the Urals, close to the Urheimat of the Indo-European languages, or to the east and southeast of the Urals. Historian Gyula László places its origin in the forest zone between the Oka River and central Poland. E. N. Setälä and M. Zsirai place it between the Volga and Kama Rivers. According to E. Itkonen, the ancestral area extended to the Baltic Sea. Jaakko Häkkinen identifies Proto-Uralic with Eneolithic Garino-Bor (Turbin) culture 3,000-2,500 YBP located in the Lower Kama Basin.WEB,weblink On the Homeland of the Uralic Language Family, Dziebel, German, en-US, 2019-03-21,
  • P. Hajdu has suggested a homeland in western and northwestern Siberia.The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p. 231.
  • Juha Janhunen suggests a homeland in between the Ob and Yenisei drainage areas in Central Siberia.

Genetic evidence

The characteristic genetic marker of peoples speaking Uralic languages is haplogroup N1c-Tat (Y-DNA). Samoyedic peoples mainly have more N1b-P43 than N1c.{{citation |author1=Tambets, Kristiina |display-authors=etal |year=2004 |title=The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami – the story of genetic "outliers" told by mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes}}{{full citation|date=July 2019}} Haplogroup N originated in the northern part of China in 20,000–25,000 years BPJOURNAL, Shi H, Qi X, Zhong H, Peng Y, Zhang X, etal, 2013, Genetic evidence of an East Asian origin and Paleolithic northward migration of Y-chromosome haplogroup N, PLoS ONE, 8, 6, e66102, 10.1371/journal.pone.0066102, 23840409, 3688714, and spread to north Eurasia, through Siberia to Northern Europe. Subgroup N1c1 is frequently seen in non-Samoyedic peoples, N1c2 in Samoyedic peoples. In addition, haplogroup Z (mtDNA), found with low frequency in Saami, Finns, and Siberians, is related to the migration of people speaking Uralic languages.In 2019, a study based on genetics, archaeology and linguistics, found that Uralic speakers arrived from the East, specific from Siberia, at the Baltic region at the beginning of the Iron Age some 2,500 years ago.JOURNAL, Lehti, Saag, Margot, Laneman, Liivi, Varul, Valter, Lang, Mait, Metspal, Kristiina, Tambets, The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East, May 2019, Current Biology, 29, 10, 1701–1711.e16, 10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026, 31080083, 6544527,

Early attestations

The first plausible mention of a people speaking a Uralic language is in Tacitus's Germania (c. 98 AD),BOOK, Anderson, J.G.C. (ed.), Germania, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1938, mentioning the Fenni (usually interpreted as referring to the Sami) and two other possibly Uralic tribes living in the farthest reaches of Scandinavia. There are many possible earlier mentions, including the Iyrcae (perhaps related to Yugra) described by Herodotus living in what is now European Russia, and the Budini, described by Herodotus as notably red-haired (a characteristic feature of the Udmurts) and living in northeast Ukraine and/or adjacent parts of Russia. In the late 15th century, European scholars noted the resemblance of the names Hungaria and Yugria, the names of settlements east of the Ural. They assumed a connection but did not seek linguistic evidence.BOOK, Sebeok, Thomas A., Portrait Of Linguists,weblink 15 August 2002, Bloomsbury Publishing, 978-1-4411-5874-1, 58, 956101732,

Uralic studies

File:Herberstein-Moscovia-NE.png|thumb|The Siberian origin of Hungarians was long hypothesized by European scholars. Here, Sigismund von Herberstein's 1549 map of Moscovia shows "Yugra from where the Hungarians originated" (Iuhra inde ungaroru origo), east of the Ob RiverOb RiverThe affinity of Hungarian and Finnish was first proposed in the late 17th century. Three candidates can be credited for the discovery: the German scholar Martin Vogel, the Swedish scholar Georg Stiernhielm and the Swedish courtier Bengt Skytte. Vogel's unpublished study of the relationship, commissioned by Cosimo III of Tuscany, was clearly the most modern of these: he established several grammatical and lexical parallels between Finnish and Hungarian as well as Sami. Stiernhelm commented on the similarities of Sami, Estonian and Finnish, and also on a few similar words between Finnish and Hungarian.{{sfn|Korhonen|1981|p=29}}{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=793–794}} These authors were the first to outline what was to become the classification of the Finno-Ugric, and later Uralic family. This proposal received some of its initial impetus from the fact that these languages, unlike most of the other languages spoken in Europe, are not part of what is now known as the Indo-European family. In 1717, Swedish professor Olof Rudbeck proposed about 100 etymologies connecting Finnish and Hungarian, of which about 40 are still considered valid. Several early reports comparing Finnish or Hungarian with Mordvin, Mari or Khanty were additionally collected by Leibniz and edited by his assistant Johann Georg von Eckhart.{{sfn|Korhonen|1981|pp=29–30}}In 1730, Philip Johan von Strahlenberg published his book (The North and East Parts of Europe and Asia), surveying the geography, peoples and languages of Russia. All the main groups of the Uralic languages were already identified here.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=795–796}} Nonetheless, these relationships were not widely accepted. Hungarian intellectuals especially were not interested in the theory and preferred to assume connections with Turkic tribes, an attitude characterized by Merritt Ruhlen as due to "the wild unfettered Romanticism of the epoch".BOOK, A Guide to the World's Languages, Ruhlen, Merritt, Stanford University Press, 1987, Stanford, 64–71, English, 923421379, harv, Still, in spite of this hostile climate, the Hungarian Jesuit János Sajnovics travelled with Maximilian Hell to survey the alleged relationship between Hungarian and Sami. Sajnovics published his results in 1770, arguing for a relationship based on several grammatical features.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=796–798}} In 1799, the Hungarian Sámuel Gyarmathi published the most complete work on Finno-Ugric to that date.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|p=798}}(File:Uralic languages in the Russian Empire (1897).svg|upright=1.36|thumb|right|Uralic languages in the Russian Empire (Russian Census of 1897; the census was not held in Finland because it was an autonomous area))Up to the beginning of the 19th century, knowledge on the Uralic languages spoken in Russia had remained restricted to scanty observations by travelers. Already Finnish historian Henrik Gabriel Porthan had stressed that further progress would require dedicated field missions.{{sfn|Korhonen|1986|p=32}} One of the first of these was undertaken by Anders Johan Sjögren, who brought the Vepsians to general knowledge and elucidated in detail the relatedness of Finnish and Komi.{{sfn|Korhonen|1986|pp=44–46}} Still more extensive were the field research expeditions made in the 1840s by Matthias Castrén (1813–1852) and Antal Reguly (1819–1858), who focused especially on the Samoyedic and the Ob-Ugric languages, respectively. Reguly's materials were worked on by the Hungarian linguist Pál Hunfalvy (1810–1891) and German Josef Budenz (1836–1892), who both supported the Uralic affinity of Hungarian.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=801–803}} Budenz was the first scholar to bring this result to popular consciousness in Hungary, and to attempt a reconstruction of the Proto-Finno-Ugric grammar and lexicon.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=803–804}} Another late-19th-century Hungarian contribution is that of Ignácz Halász (1855–1901), who published extensive comparative material of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic in the 1890s,JOURNAL, Ignácz, Halász, Az ugor-szamojéd nyelvrokonság kérdése, 1893, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 23:1, 14–34,weblink Hungarian, JOURNAL, Ignácz, Halász, Az ugor-szamojéd nyelvrokonság kérdése II, 1893, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 23:3, 260–278,weblink Hungarian, JOURNAL, Ignácz, Halász, Az ugor-szamojéd nyelvrokonság kérdése III, 1893, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 23:4, 436–447,weblink Hungarian, JOURNAL, Ignácz, Halász, Az ugor-szamojéd nyelvrokonság kérdése IV, 1894, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 24:4, 443–469,weblink Hungarian, and whose work is at the base of today's wide acceptance of the inclusion of Samoyedic as a part of Uralic.JOURNAL, Szabó, László, 1969, Die Erforschung der Verhältnisses Finnougrisch–Samojedisch, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, de, 41, 317–322, Meanwhile, in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, a chair for Finnish language and linguistics at the University of Helsinki was created in 1850, first held by Castrén.{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=799–800}}In 1883, the Finno-Ugrian Society was founded in Helsinki on the proposal of Otto Donner, which would lead to Helsinki overtaking St. Petersburg as the chief northern center of research of the Uralic languages.{{sfn|Korhonen|1986|49}} During the late 19th and early 20th century (until the separation of Finland from Russia following the Russian revolution), a large number of (wikt:stipendiate|stipendiates) were sent by the Society to survey the still less known Uralic languages. Major researchers of this period included Heikki Paasonen (studying especially the Mordvinic languages), Yrjö Wichmann (studying Permic), Artturi Kannisto (Mansi), Kustaa Fredrik Karjalainen (Khanty), Toivo Lehtisalo (Nenets), and Kai Donner (Kamass).{{sfn|Wickman|1988|pp=810–811}} The vast amounts of data collected on these expeditions would provide edition work for later generations of Finnish Uralicists for more than a century.WEB,weblink Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXXV, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, hu,

Classification{| align"right"

| {{bar boxdate=July 2019}}|titlebar=#ddd|width=280px|bars={{bar percent|Hungarian|#008751|56}}{{bar percent|Finnish|#003580|20}}{{bar percent|Estonian|#4891D9|4.2}}{{bar percent|Erzya|Red|0.2}}{{bar percent|Moksha|DeepPink|0.01}}{{bar percent|Mari|Purple|2}}{{bar percent|Udmurt|Black|1.9}}{{bar percent|Komi|#008000|1.6}}{{bar percent|Other|grey|8.9}}}}The Uralic family comprises nine undisputed groups with no consensus classification between them. (Some of the proposals are listed in the next section.) An agnostic approach treats them as separate branches.WEB,weblink Uralic (Finno-Ugrian) languages, Salminen, Tapani, 2009, Obsolete or native names are displayed in italics. There is also historical evidence of a number of extinct languages of uncertain affiliation: Traces of Finno-Ugric substrata, especially in toponymy, in the northern part of European Russia have been proposed as evidence for even more extinct Uralic languages.BOOK, Helimski, Eugene, Eugene Helimski, The Slavicization of the Russian North (Slavica Helsingiensia 27), Nuorluoto, Juhani, The «Northwestern» group of Finno-Ugric languages and its heritage in the place names and substratum vocabulary of the Russian North, 2006, Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures, Helsinki, 978-952-10-2852-6, 109–127,weblink (File:UralicTree.svg|frameless|upright=4.1)

Traditional classification

All Uralic languages are thought to have descended, through independent processes of language change, from Proto-Uralic. The internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed.BOOK, The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics, Marcantonio, Angela, Blackwell, 2002, 978-0-631-23170-7, Publications of the Philological Society, 35, Oxford, 55–68, 803186861, harv, Doubts about the validity of most of the proposed higher-order branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common.WEB,weblink Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies, Salminen, Tapani, 2002, A traditional classification of the Uralic languages has existed since the late 19th century.BOOK, Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der Finnisch-ugrischen sprachen, Donner, Otto, 1879, Helsinki, de, 1014980747, Otto Donner, It has enjoyed frequent adaptation in whole or in part in encyclopedias, handbooks, and overviews of the Uralic family. Donner's model is as follows: Mari Mordvinic Sami FinnicAt Donner's time, the Samoyedic languages were still poorly known, and he was not able to address their position. As they became better known in the early 20th century, they were found to be quite divergent, and they were assumed to have separated already early on. The terminology adopted for this was "Uralic" for the entire family, "Finno-Ugric" for the non-Samoyedic languages (though "Finno-Ugric" has, to this day, remained in use also as a synonym for the whole family). Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic are listed in ISO 639-5 as primary branches of Uralic.Nodes of the traditional family tree recognized in some overview sources:{| class="wikitable sortable"! Year !! Author(s) !!Finno-Ugric !! Ugric !! Ob-Ugric !! Finno-Permic !! Finno-Volgaic !! Volga-Finnic!! Finno-Samic! 1910 || SzinnyeiBOOK, Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft, Szinnyei, Josef, G. J. Göschen'sche Verlagshandlung, 1910, Leipzig, 9–21, de, | {{Y&}}! 1921 || T. I. ItkonenBOOK, Suomensukuiset kansat, Itkonen, T. I., Tietosanakirjaosakeyhtiö, 1921, Helsinki, 7–12, fi, | {{N&}}! 1926 || SetäläBOOK, Suomen suku, Setälä, E. N., Otava, 1926, Helsinki, fi, Kielisukulaisuus ja rotu, | {{N&}}! 1962 || HajdúBOOK, Finnugor népek és nyelvek, Hájdu, Péter, 1962, Budapest, hu, BOOK, Peter, Hajdu, Finno-Ugric Languages and Peoples, Translated by G. F. Cushing, 1975, André Deutch Ltd., London, . English translation of Hajdú (1962).hajdu}} {{Y&}} {{Y&}} {{Y&}} {{N&}}1 {{N&}}! 1965 || CollinderBOOK,weblink An Introduction to the Uralic languages, Collinder, Björn, University of California Press, 1965, Berkeley, 8–27, 34, Björn Collinder, | {{N&}}! 1966 || E. ItkonenBOOK, Suomalais-ugrilaisen kielen- ja historiantutkimuksen alalta, Itkonen, Erkki, Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 1966, Tietolipas, 20, 5–8, fi, | {{Y&}}! 1968 || AusterlitzENCYCLOPEDIA, Robert, Austerlitz, Robert Austerlitz, L'ouralien, André, Martinet, André Martinet, Le langage, 1968, austerlitz| {{N&}}! 1977 || Voegelin & VoegelinBOOK, C. F., F. M., Voegelin, Voegelin, Classification and Index of the World's Languages, 1977, Elsevier, New York/Oxford/Amsterdam, 341–343, | {{Y&}}! 2002 || KulonenBOOK, Ulla-Maija, Kulonen, Kielitiede ja suomen väestön juuret, Riho, Grünthal, Ennen, muinoin. Miten menneisyyttämme tutkitaan, 2002, Tietolipas, 180, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 978-951-746-332-4, 104–108, | {{Y&}}! 2007 || LehtinenBOOK, Lehtinen, Tapani, 2007, Kielen vuosituhannet, Tietolipas, 215, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 978-951-746-896-1, | {{Y&}}! 2009 || JanhunenBOOK, Janhunen, Juha, Proto-Uralic—what, where and when?, 2009, Jussi Ylikoski, The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society, Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 258, Helsinki, Société Finno-Ougrienne, 978-952-5667-11-0, 0355-0230,weblink |{{Note label|hajdu|a. Hajdú describes the Ugric and Volgaic groups as areal units.}}{{Note label|austerlitz|b. Austerlitz accepts narrower-than-traditional Finno-Ugric and Finno-Permic groups that exclude Samic}}Little explicit evidence has however been presented in favour of Donner's model since his original proposal, and numerous alternate schemes have been proposed. Especially in Finland, there has been a growing tendency to reject the Finno-Ugric intermediate protolanguage.Häkkinen, Kaisa 1984: Wäre es schon an der Zeit, den Stammbaum zu fällen? – Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Neue Folge 4. A recent competing proposal instead unites Ugric and Samoyedic in an "East Uralic" group for which shared innovations can be noted.Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. – Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 92.The Finno-Permic grouping still holds some support, though the arrangement of its subgroups is a matter of some dispute. Mordvinic is commonly seen as particularly closely related to or part of Finno-Samic.BOOK
, Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys
, Bartens
, Raija
, 1999
, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
, Helsinki
, 13
, Finnish
, 978-952-5150-22-3, The term Volgaic (or Volga-Finnic) was used to denote a branch previously believed to include Mari, Mordvinic and a number of the extinct languages, but it is now obsolete and considered a geographic classification rather than a linguistic one.
Within Ugric, uniting Mansi with Hungarian rather than Khanty has been a competing hypothesis to Ob-Ugric.

Lexical isoglosses

Lexicostatistics has been used in defense of the traditional family tree. A recent re-evaluation of the evidenceMichalove, Peter A. (2002) The Classification of the Uralic Languages: Lexical Evidence from Finno-Ugric. In: Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, vol. 57 however fails to find support for Finno-Ugric and Ugric, suggesting four lexically distinct branches (Finno-Permic, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic).One alternate proposal for a family tree, with emphasis on the development of numerals, is as follows:
  • Uralic (kektä "2", wixti "5" / "10")
    • Samoyedic (op "1", ketä "2", näkur "3", tettÉ™ "4", sÉ™mpÉ™leÅ‹kÉ™ "5", mÉ™ktut "6", sejtwÉ™ "7", wiÉ™t "10")
    • Finno-Ugric (üki/ükti "1", kormi "3", Å„eljä "4", wiiti "5", kuuti "6", luki "10")
      • Mansic
Mansi Hungarian (hét "7"; replacement egy "1")
      • Finno-Khantic (reshaping kolmi "3" on the analogy of "4")
Khanty Finno-Permic (reshaping *kektä > *kakta)* Permic* Finno-Volgaic (*śećem "7")** Mari** Finno-Saamic (*kakteksa, *ükteksa "8, 9")*** Saamic*** Finno-Mordvinic (replacement *kümmen "10" (*luki- "to count", "to read out")) Mordvinic Finnic

Phonological isoglosses

Another proposed tree, more divergent from the standard, focusing on consonant isoglosses (which does not consider the position of the Samoyedic languages) is presented by Viitso (1997),Viitso, Tiit-Rein. Keelesugulus ja soome-ugri keelepuu. Akadeemia 9/5 (1997) and refined in Viitso (2000):Viitso, Tiit-Rein. Finnic Affinity. Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I:Orationes plenariae & Orationes publicae. (2000)
  • Finno-Ugric
Mari Permian–Ugric (*δ > *l)* Permian* Ugric (*s *š *ś > *ɬ *ɬ *s)** Hungarian** Khanty** MansiThe grouping of the four bottom-level branches remains to some degree open to interpretation, with competing models of Finno-Saamic vs. Eastern Finno-Ugric (Mari, Mordvinic, Permic-Ugric; *k > ɣ between vowels, degemination of stops) and Finno-Volgaic (Finno-Saamic, Mari, Mordvinic; *δʲ > *ð between vowels) vs. Permic-Ugric. Viitso finds no evidence for a Finno-Permic grouping.Extending this approach to cover the Samoyedic languages suggests affinity with Ugric, resulting in the aforementioned East Uralic grouping, as it also shares the same sibilant developments. A further non-trivial Ugric-Samoyedic isogloss is the reduction *k, *x, *w > ɣ when before *i, and after a vowel (cf. *k > ɣ above), or adjacent to *t, *s, *š, or *ś.Finno-Ugric consonant developments after Viitso (2000); Samoyedic changes after Sammallahti (1988)BOOK, The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences, Sammallahti, Pekka, E.J. Brill, 1988, 978-90-04-07741-6, Sinor, Denis, Leiden, 478–554, English, Historical phonology of the Uralic Languages, 466103653, harv, {| class="wikitable" border="1"! colspan="2"| !! Saamic !! Finnic !! Mordvinic !! Mari !! Permic !! Hungarian !! Mansi !! Khanty !! Samoyedic! colspan="2"| Medial lenition of {{IPA|*k}}| yes! colspan="2"| Medial lenition of {{IPA|*p, *t}}| no! colspan="2"| Degemination| yes! colspan="2"| Consonant gradation| yes! rowspan="6" | Development of! *δ *ð rowspan="2" *t ∅ *l {{IPA| *r! *δʲ/ð/}} *lʲ {{IPAgy}}, {{IPA| *j! *s *s *s *s rowspan="4"/ʃ/}} *s rowspan="2" *t rowspan="2" *t! *š| *š! *ś *ć rowspan="2" *ś *ś {{IPAsz}} *ʃ *s rowspan="2"| *s! *ć/tʃ/}} {{angle bracket| *ć
  • Note: Proto-Khanty ɬ in many of the dialects yields t; Häkkinen assumes this also happened in Mansi and Samoyedic.
The inverse relationship between consonant gradation and medial lenition of stops (the pattern also continuing within the three families where gradation is found) is noted by Helimski (1995): an original allophonic gradation system between voiceless and voiced stops would have been easily disrupted by a spreading of voicing to previously unvoiced stops as well.Helimski, Eugen. Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. In Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales. Jyväskylä, 1995. WEB,weblink Archived copy, 2012-02-24, dead,weblink" title="">weblink 2011-10-02,

Honkola, et al. (2013)

A computational phylogenetic study by Honkola, et al. (2013)JOURNAL, 10.1111/jeb.12107, 23675756, Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 6, 1244–1253, 2013, Honkola, T., Vesakoski, O., Korhonen, K., Lehtinen, J., Syrjänen, K., Wahlberg, N., classifies the Uralic languages as follows. Estimated divergence dates from Honkola, et al. (2013) are also given.
Uralic (5300 YBP)
KhantyMansi UdmurtKomi Mari (3200 YBP)(core branch)*Erzya (2900 YBP) (Mordvinic)*Finno-Saami**Sami (800 YBP)**Finnic (1200 YBP)


Structural characteristics generally said to be typical of Uralic languages include:


  • extensive use of independent suffixes (agglutination)
  • a large set of grammatical cases marked with agglutinative suffixes (13–14 cases on average; mainly later developments: Proto-Uralic is reconstructed with 6 cases), e.g.:
    • Erzya: 12 cases
    • Estonian: 14 cases (15 cases with instructive)
    • Finnish: 15 cases
    • Hungarian: 18 cases (together 34 grammatical cases and case-like suffixes)
    • Inari Sami: 9 cases
    • Komi: in certain dialects as many as 27 cases
    • Moksha: 13 cases
    • Nenets: 7 cases
    • North Sami: 6 cases
    • Udmurt: 16 cases
    • Veps: 24 cases
  • unique Uralic case system, from which all modern Uralic languages derive their case systems.
    • nominative singular has no case suffix.
    • accusative and genitive suffixes are nasal sounds (-n, -m, etc.)
    • three-way distinction in the local case system, with each set of local cases being divided into forms corresponding roughly to "from", "to", and "in/at"; especially evident, e.g. in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian, which have several sets of local cases, such as the "inner", "outer" and "on top" systems in Hungarian, while in Finnish the "on top" forms have merged to the "outer" forms.
    • the Uralic locative suffix exists in all Uralic languages in various cases, e.g. Hungarian superessive, Finnish essive (-na), North Sami essive, Erzyan inessive, and Nenets locative.
    • the Uralic lative suffix exists in various cases in many Uralic languages, e.g. Hungarian illative, Finnish lative (-s as in ulos 'out' and rannemmas 'more towards the shore'), Erzyan illative, Komi approximative, and Northern Sami locative.
  • a lack of grammatical gender, including one pronoun for both he and she; for example, hän in Finnish, tämä in Votic, tema in Estonian, sijÉ™ in Komi, Å‘ in Hungarian.
  • negative verb, which exists in almost all Uralic languages (notably absent in Hungarian)
  • use of postpositions as opposed to prepositions (prepositions are uncommon).
  • possessive suffixes
  • dual, in the Samoyedic, Ob-Ugric and Samic languages and reconstructed for Proto-Uralic
  • plural markers -j (i) and -t (-d, -q) have a common origin (e.g. in Finnish, Estonian, Võro, Erzya, Samic languages, Samoyedic languages). Hungarian, however, has -i- before the possessive suffixes and -k elsewhere. The plural marker -k is also used in the Samic languages, but there is a regular merging of final -k and -t in Samic, so it can come from either ending.
  • Possessions are expressed by a possessor in the adessive or dative case, the verb "be" (the copula, instead of the verb "have") and the possessed with or without a possessive suffix. The grammatical subject of the sentence is thus the possessed. In Finnish, for example, the possessor is in the adessive case: "Minulla on kala", literally "At me is fish", i.e. "I have a fish", whereas in Hungarian, the possessor is in the dative case, but appears overtly only if it is contrastive, while the possessed has a possessive ending indicating the number and person of the possessor: "(Nekem) van egy halam", literally "(To me [dative]) is a fish-my" ("(For me) there is a fish of mine"), i.e. "(As for me,) I have a fish".
  • expressions that include a numeral are singular if they refer to things which form a single group, e.g. "négy csomó" in Hungarian, "njeallje čuolmma" in Northern Sami, "neli sõlme" in Estonian, and "neljä solmua" in Finnish, each of which means "four knots", but the literal approximation is "four knot". (This approximation is accurate only for Hungarian among these examples, as in Northern Sami the noun is in the singular accusative/genitive case and in Finnish and Estonian the singular noun is in the partitive case, such that the number points to a part of a larger mass, like "four of knot(s)".)


  • Vowel harmony: this is present in many but by no means all Uralic languages. It exists in Hungarian and various Baltic-Finnic languages, and is present to some degree elsewhere, such as in Mordvinic, Mari, Eastern Khanty, and Samoyedic. It is lacking in Sami, Permic and standard Estonian, while it does exist in Võro and elsewhere in South Estonian, as well as in Kihnu Island subdialect of North Estonian.Austerlitz, Robert (1990). "Uralic Languages" (pp. 567–576) in Comrie, Bernard, editor. The World's Major Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford (p. 573). WEB, Estonian Language,weblink Estonian Institute, 2013-04-16, 14, Türk, Helen (2010). "Kihnu murraku vokaalidest". University of Tartu. (Although umlaut letters are used in writing Uralic languages, the languages do not exhibit Germanic umlaut; front and back values are intrinsic features of words and modify suffixes, not vice versa as in umlaut.)
  • Large vowel inventories. For example, some Selkup varieties have over twenty different monophthongs, and Estonian has over twenty different diphthongs.
  • Palatalization of consonants; in this context, palatalization means a secondary articulation, where the middle of the tongue is tense. For example, pairs like {{IPA|[ɲ]}} – [n], or [c] – [t] are contrasted in Hungarian, as in hattyú {{IPA|[hÉ’cːuː]}} "swan". Some Sami languages, for example Skolt Sami, distinguish three degrees: plain {{angle bracket|l}} [l], palatalized {{angle bracket|'l}} {{IPA|[lʲ]}}, and palatal {{angle bracket|lj}} {{IPA|[ÊŽ]}}, where {{angle bracket|'l}} has a primary alveolar articulation, while {{angle bracket|lj}} has a primary palatal articulation. Original Uralic palatalization is phonemic, independent of the following vowel and traceable to the millennia-old Proto-Uralic. It is different from Slavic palatalization, which is of more recent origin. The Finnic languages have lost palatalization, but the eastern varieties have reacquired it, so Finnic palatalization (where extant) was originally dependent on the following vowel and does not correlate to palatalization elsewhere in Uralic.
  • Lack of phonologically contrastive tone.
  • In many Uralic languages, the stress is always on the first syllable, though Nganasan shows (essentially) penultimate stress, and a number of languages of the central region (Erzya, Mari, Udmurt and Komi-Permyak) synchronically exhibit a lexical accent. The Erzya language can vary its stress in words to give specific nuances to sentential meaning.


Basic vocabulary of about 200 words, including body parts (e.g. eye, heart, head, foot, mouth), family members (e.g. father, mother-in-law), animals (e.g. viper, partridge, fish), nature objects (e.g. tree, stone, nest, water), basic verbs (e.g. live, fall, run, make, see, suck, go, die, swim, know), basic pronouns (e.g. who, what, we, you, I), numerals (e.g. two, five); derivatives increase the number of common words.

Selected cognates

The following is a very brief selection of cognates in basic vocabulary across the Uralic family, which may serve to give an idea of the sound changes involved. This is not a list of translations: cognates have a common origin, but their meaning may be shifted and loanwords may have replaced them.{| border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse" cellpadding="3"! rowspan="2" style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | English! rowspan="2" style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | Proto-Uralic! colspan="3" style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Finnic! colspan="3" style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Sámi! style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Mordvin! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Mari! colspan="2" style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Permic! rowspan="2" style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Hungarian! colspan="1" style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Mansi! colspan="2" style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Khanty! style="background-color: #EFEFFF"| Samoyed! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Finnish! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Estonian! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Võro! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | South! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | North! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Kildin! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Erzya! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Meadow! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Komi! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Udmurt! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Northern! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Kazym! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Vakh! style="background-color: #EFEFFF" | Tundra Nenets| 'fire'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/tule|*tuli)| tuli(tulõ-)[tolːə]}} dolla tōll| tol| tul| tɨl| – | –| –| –| tuu| 'water'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/wete|*weti)| vesi(vii-)| –| ved´| wüt| vu| víz| wit| –| –| jiʔ| 'ice'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/jäŋe|*jäŋe)| ijä[jɨeŋə]}} jiekŋa īŋŋ| ej| i| jə| jég| jaaŋk| jeŋk| jeŋk| –| 'fish'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kala|*kala)| kala[kʉelie]}} guolli kūll’| kal| kol| –| hal| xuul| xŭɬ| kul| xalʲa| 'nest'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/pesä|*pesä)| pesä[piesie]}} beassi piess’| pize| pəžaš| poz| puz | fészek| pitʲi| –| pĕl| pʲidʲa| 'hand, arm'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/käte|*käte)| käsi(käe-)[kɨedə]}} giehta kīdt| ked´| kit| ki| kéz| kaat| –| köt| –| 'eye'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/śilmä|*śilmä)| silm(silmä-)[t͡ʃɛlmie]}} čalbmi čall’m| śeĺme| šinča| śin(śinm-)| szem| sam| sem| sem| sæwə| 'fathom'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/süle|*süle)| –[sʲɨllə]}} salla sē̮ll| seĺ| šülö| sul| öl(el) | tal| ɬăɬ| lö̆l| tʲíbʲa| 'vein / sinew'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/sëne|*sëne)| suuń(soonõ-)[suonə]}} suotna sūnn| san| šün| sən| ín| taan| ɬɔn| lan| teʔ| 'bone'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/luwe|*luwe)| luu| –| lovaža| lu| lɨ| – | luw| ɬŭw| lŏγ| le| 'blood'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/were|*were)| veri[vʲɨrrə]}} varra vē̮rr| veŕ| wür| vir| vér| wiɣr| wŭr| wər| –| 'liver'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mëksa|*mëksa)| mass(massa-)[mʉeksie]}} – –| makso| mokš| mus(musk-)| máj| maat| mŏxəɬ| muγəl| mudə| 'urine' /'to urinate'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kuńśe|*kuńśe)| kusi(kusõ-)[kɑdd͡ʒə]}}- gožžat(gožža-) kōnnče| –| kəž| kɨź| húgy| xuńś-| xŏs-| kŏs-| –| 'to go'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mene-|*mene-)| minemä[mʲɨnnə]}}- mannat mē̮nne| –| mija-| mun-| mɨn-| menni| men-| măn-| mĕn-| mʲin-| 'to live'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/elä-|*elä-)| elää(elä-)| elama(ela-)| elämä(elä-)[jielə]}}-| eallit| jēll’e| –| ila-| ul-| él-| –| –| –| jilʲe-| 'to die'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kale-|*kale-)| kuulma(kool-)| –| kulo-| kola-| kul-| hal-| xool-| xăɬ-| kăla-| xa-| 'to wash'! style="background-color: #E0E0FF" | (wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mośke-|*mośke-)| – | – | mõskma| –| muśke-| muška-| mɨśk-| mos-| –| –| –| masø-Orthographical notes: The hacek denotes postalveolar articulation ({{angbr|ž}} {{IPA|[ʒ]}}, {{angbr|š}} {{IPA|[ʃ]}}, {{angbr|č}} {{IPA|[t͡ʃ]}}) (In Northern Sami, ({{angbr|ž}} {{IPA|[dʒ]}}), while the acute denotes a secondary palatal articulation ({{angbr|ś}} {{IPA|[sʲ ~ ɕ]}}, {{angbr|ć}} {{IPA|[tsʲ ~ tɕ]}}, {{angbr|l}} {{IPA|[lʲ]}}) or, in Hungarian, vowel length. The Finnish letter {{angbr|y}} and the letter {{angbr|ü}} in other languages represent the high rounded vowel {{IPA|[y]}}; the letters {{angbr|ä}} and {{angbr|ö}} are the front vowels {{IPA|[æ]}} and {{IPA|[ø]}}.As is apparent from the list, Finnish is the most conservative of the Uralic languages presented here, with nearly half the words on the list below identical to their Proto-Uralic reconstructions and most of the remainder only having minor changes, such as the conflation of *ś into /s/, or widespread changes such as the loss of *x and alteration of *ï. Finnish has even preserved old Indo-European borrowings relatively unchanged as well. (An example is porsas ("pig"), loaned from Proto-Indo-European *porḱos or pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian *porśos, unchanged since loaning save for loss of palatalization, *ś > s.)

Mutual intelligibility

The Estonian philologist Mall Hellam proposed cognate sentences that she asserted to be mutually intelligible among the three most widely spoken Uralic languages: Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian:{{citation |title = The Finno-Ugrics: The dying fish swims in water |journal = The Economist |pages = 73–74 |date = December 24, 2005 – January 6, 2006 |url =weblink |accessdate=2013-01-19}}
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • English: A living fish swims underwater.
However, linguist Geoffrey Pullum reports that neither Finns nor Hungarians could understand the other language's version of the sentence.{{citation|last=Pullum|first=Geoffrey K.|authorlink=Geoffrey Pullum|url=|title=The Udmurtian code: saving Finno-Ugric in Russia|date=2005-12-26|accessdate=2009-12-21|work=Language Log}}


No Uralic language has exactly the idealized typological profile of the family. Typological features with varying presence among the modern Uralic language groups include:JOURNAL, Péter, Hájdu, 1975, Arealógia és urálisztika, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 77, 147–152, 0029-6791,weblink Hungarian, {| class="wikitable"! Feature! Samoyedic !! Ob-Ugric !! Hungarian !! Permic !! Mari !! Mordvin !! Finnic !! Samicalign="center"! Palatalization| +align="center"! Consonant length| +align="center"! Consonant gradation| +align="center"! Vowel harmony| −align="center"! Grammatical vowel alternation(ablaut or umlaut)| +align="center"! Dual number| +align="center"! Distinction betweeninner and outer local cases| −align="center"! Determinative inflection(verbal marking of definiteness)| −align="center"! Passive voice| +align="center"! Negative verb| +align="center"! SVO word order| +Notes:
  1. Clearly present only in Nganasan.
  2. Vowel harmony is present in the Uralic languages of Siberia only in some marginal archaic varieties: Nganasan, Southern Mansi and Eastern Khanty.
  3. A number of umlaut processes are found in Livonian.
  4. In Komi, but not in Udmurt.

Proposed relations with other language families

Many relationships between Uralic and other language families have been suggested, but none of these are generally accepted by linguists at the present time: All of the following hypotheses are minority views at the present time in Uralic studies.


The Uralic–Yukaghir hypothesis identifies Uralic and Yukaghir as independent members of a single language family. It is currently widely accepted that the similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir languages are due to ancient contacts.JOURNAL, Rédei, Károly, 1999, Zu den uralisch-jukagirischen Sprachkontakten, Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 55, 1–58, Regardless, the hypothesis is accepted by a few linguists and viewed as attractive by a somewhat larger number.


The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis associates Uralic with the Eskimo–Aleut languages. This is an old thesis whose antecedents go back to the 18th century. An important restatement of it is Bergsland 1959.JOURNAL, Bergsland, Knut, 1959, The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis, Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 61, 1–29, harv,


Uralo-Siberian is an expanded form of the Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis. It associates Uralic with Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded by Michael Fortescue in 1998.BOOK, Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence, Fortescue, Michael D, Cassell, 1998, 978-0-304-70330-2, Open linguistics series, London, 237319639, harv, It is currently the most supported hypothesis regarding close relatives of Uralic. Modern supporters include Morris Swadesh, Juha Janhunen and Häkkinen. Michael Fortescue (2017) present next to new linguistic evidence also several genetic studies, that support a common origin of the included groups, with a suggested homeland somewhere in Northeast Asia.WEB, Correlating Palaeo-Siberian languages and populations: Recent advances in the Uralo-Siberian hypothesis,weblink PDF, ResearchGate, en, 2019-03-22, dmy-all,


Theories proposing a close relationship with the Altaic languages were formerly popular, based on similarities in vocabulary as well as in grammatical and phonological features, in particular the similarities in the Uralic and Altaic pronouns and the presence of agglutination in both sets of languages, as well as vowel harmony in some. For example, the word for "language" is similar in Estonian (keel) and Mongolian (хэл (hel)). These theories are now generally rejectedJOURNAL, Georg, Stefan, Michalove, Peter A., Ramer, Alexis Manaster, Sidwell, Paul J., March 1999, Telling general linguists about Altaic,weblink Journal of Linguistics, 35, 1, 65–98, 1469-7742, harv, 10.1017/S0022226798007312, and most such similarities are attributed to language contact or coincidence.


The Indo-Uralic (or Uralo-Indo-European) hypothesis suggests that Uralic and Indo-European are related at a fairly close level or, in its stronger form, that they are more closely related than either is to any other language family.


The hypothesis that the Dravidian languages display similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the past,JOURNAL, Tyler, Stephen, 1968, Dravidian and Uralian: The lexical evidence, Language, 44, 4, 798–812, 10.2307/411899, 411899, is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of scholars, including Robert Caldwell,JOURNAL, Webb, Edward, 1860, Evidences of the Scythian Affinities of the Dravidian Languages, Condensed and Arranged from Rev. R. Caldwell's Comparative Dravidian Grammar, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 7, 271–298, 10.2307/592159, 592159, Thomas Burrow,JOURNAL, Burrow, T., 1944, Dravidian Studies IV: The body in Dravidian and Uralian, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 11, 2, 328–356, 10.1017/s0041977x00072517, Kamil Zvelebil,ENCYCLOPEDIA, Zvelebil, Kamil, 2006, Dravidian Languages, Encyclopædia Britannica, DVD, and Mikhail Andronov.CONFERENCE, Andronov, Mikhail S., 1971, Comparative studies on the nature of Dravidian-Uralian parallels: A peep into the prehistory of language families, Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Tamil Studies, Madras, 267–277, This hypothesis has, however, been rejected by some specialists in Uralic languages,BOOK, Zvelebil, Kamil, 1970, Comparative Dravidian Phonology, Mouton, The Hauge, 22, bibliography of articles supporting and opposing the hypothesis, and has in recent times also been criticised by other Dravidian linguists, such as Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.BOOK, Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju, 2003, The Dravidian Languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 0-521-77111-0, 43,


Nostratic associates Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic, Dravidian, and various other language families of Asia. The Nostratic hypothesis was first propounded by Holger Pedersen in 1903JOURNAL, Pedersen, Holger, 1903, Türkische Lautgesetze, Turkish Phonetic Laws, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, German, 57, 3, 535–561, 0341-0137, 5919317968, harv, and subsequently revived by Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aharon Dolgopolsky in the 1960s.


Eurasiatic resembles Nostratic in including Uralic, Indo-European, and Altaic, but differs from it in excluding the South Caucasian languages, Dravidian, and Afroasiatic and including Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded by Joseph Greenberg in 2000–2002.BOOK, Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 1: Grammar, Greenberg, Joseph Harold, Stanford University Press, 2000, 978-0-8047-3812-5, Stanford, CA, English, 491123067, harv, BOOK, Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 2: Lexicon, Greenberg, Joseph H., Stanford University Press, 2002, 978-0-8047-4624-3, Stanford, CA, English, 895918332, harv, Similar ideas had earlier been expressed by Heinrich Koppelmann in 1933 and by Björn Collinder in 1965.BOOK, Die Eurasische Sprachfamilie: Indogermanisch, Koreanisch und Verwandtes, Koppelmann, Heinrich L., Carl Winter, 1933, Heidelberg, de, harv, BOOK,weblink An Introduction to the Uralic Languages, Collinder, Björn, University of California Press, 1965, 30–34, en, harv,

Uralic skepticism

In her book, The Uralic language family: facts, myths, and statistics, linguist Angela Marcantonio argues against the existence of the Uralic family, claiming that the languages are no more closely related to each other than they are to various other Eurasian languages. According to her the several subgroups of Uralic do not form a genetic unity. She continues to argue that Hungarian is not demonstrably related to the Ob-Ugric languages (or other included branches) and thus a language isolate.BOOK, The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics, Marcantonio, Angela, Blackwell, 2002, 978-0-631-23170-7, Publications of the Philological Society, 35, Oxford, 803186861, harv, Marcantonio's proposal has been strongly dismissed by most reviewers as unfounded and methodolocially flawed.JOURNAL, Aikio, Ante, 2003, Angela Marcantonio, The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics, Word, 54, 3, 401–412, Book review,weblink 10.1080/00437956.2003.11432539, JOURNAL, Bakro-Nagy, Marianne, The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and Statistics, 2005, Lingua, 115, 7, 1053–1062, Book review,weblink 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.008, JOURNAL, Laakso, Johanna, 2004, Sprachwissenschaftliche Spiegelfechterei (Angela Marcantonio: The Uralic language family. Facts, myths and statistics), Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen, 58, 296–307, Book review, de,weblink A more moderate review was made by linguist Edward J. Vajda. Although he also rejects the book's main proposal (i.e. the author's dismissal of Uralic as a language family), he partially agrees with Marcantonio's critique and argues that both Uralicists and non-Uralicists should take the critique by Marcantonio seriously.WEB,weblink The Uralic language family: Facts, myths, and statistics, a review by Dr. Edward Vajda, Edward, Vajda,

Other comparisons

Various unorthodox comparisons have been advanced. These are considered at best spurious fringe-theories by specialists:
  • Finno-BasqueBOOK, Larry Trask, Trask, R.L., The History of Basque, Routledge, 1997, 0-415-13116-2,
  • Hungarian-EtruscanBOOK, Alinei, Mario, 2003, Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese, Bologna, IT, Il Mulino,

See also




  • Abondolo, Daniel M. (editor). 1998. The Uralic Languages. London and New York: Routledge. {{ISBN|0-415-08198-X}}.
  • Collinder, Björn. 1955. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary: An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages. (Collective work.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Viksell. (Second, revised edition: Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1977.)
  • Collinder, Björn. 1957. Survey of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm.
  • Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
  • Comrie, Bernhard. 1988. "General Features of the Uralic Languages." In The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor, pp. 451–477. Leiden: Brill.
  • Décsy, Gyula. 1990. The Uralic Protolanguage: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Bloomington, Indiana.
  • Hajdu, Péter. 1963. Finnugor népek és nyelvek. Budapest: Gondolat kiadó.
  • Helimski, Eugene''. Comparative Linguistics, Uralic Studies. Lectures and Articles. Moscow. 2000. ()
  • Laakso, Johanna. 1992. Uralilaiset kansat ('Uralic Peoples'). Porvoo – Helsinki – Juva. {{ISBN|951-0-16485-2}}.
  • BOOK, Korhonen, Mikko, 1986, Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828-1918, Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 951-653-135-0, harv, .
  • Napolskikh, Vladimir. The First Stages of Origin of People of Uralic Language Family: Material of Mythological Reconstruction. Moscow, 1991. ()
  • Rédei, Károly (editor). 1986–88. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch ('Uralic Etymological Dictionary'). Budapest.
  • BOOK, Sinor, Denis, Wickman, Bo, The Uralic Languages: Description, History, and Foreign Influences, The History of Uralic Languages, harv, Leiden, 1988, 792–818, 16580570, Brill, 978-90-04-07741-6,

External classification

  • Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1930. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des langues ouralo-altaïques ('Research on the Vocabulary of the Uralo-Altaic Languages'). Paris.

Linguistic issues

  • Künnap, A. 2000. Contact-induced Perspectives in Uralic Linguistics. LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 39. München: LINCOM Europa. {{ISBN|3-89586-964-3}}.
  • Wickman, Bo. 1955. The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln.

External links

{{Commons category|Uralic languages}}
  • "The Finno-Ugrics" The Economist, December 20, 2005
  • Kulonen, Ulla-Maija: weblink" title="">Origin of Finnish and related languages. thisisFINLAND, Finland Promotion Board. Cited 30.10.2009.
  • WEB,weblink Early Indo-Iranic loans in Uralic: Sounds and strata, Martin Joachim Kümmel, Seminar for Indo-European Studies,

"Rebel" Uralists

{{Uralic languages}}{{Authority control}}

- content above as imported from Wikipedia
- "Uralic languages" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 4:35am EDT - Thu, Oct 17 2019
[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
Eastern Philosophy
History of Philosophy
M.R.M. Parrott