Talk:Indo-Uralic languages

message: I decided to add a meaty list of possible cognates for budding Indo-Uralicists since this article looked a little empty.--Glengordon01 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cognate table

message: Added by Vuo 
 
  Word-final assibilation of -ti occurs in modern Finnish, a Uralic language.
Irrelevant. This IE-Uralic correspondance works for both the plural (IE *-es, Ur *-t) and the 2ps (IE *-s, Ur *-t). Finnic assibilation (as in Ur *weti > vesi) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the preceding sentences in that  paragraph. --Glengordon01 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assibilation

message: I deleted a couple of sentences which included somewhat unclear or dubious claims:
* "Indo-European and Uralic languages look remarkably similar for neighbouring languages traditionally considered unrelated." -- This is a subjective impression, and as such hardly relevant; moreover, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European look rather different to me at least.
* "One challenge to this research is that it is often assumed that similar words in Uralic and Indo-European languages are simply loans from IE to Uralic, even if this is not chronologically possible" -- I deleted the part after the comma - this could be reintroduced to the article if explained and referenced.
*"We know now that IE and Uralic, both dated to approximately 4000 BCE, were probably very distant from each other at the time. Uralic would have been northward up the Volga River while, if the Ukrainian thesis is correct, PIE would have been centered in the north-west Pontic region." -- While I'm inclined to agree with the idea, I think that the verb know is too strong in claims of speaking areas of proto-languages in remote prehistory; at least, a reference should be provided. --AAikio 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I strongly agree. We "know" nothing, because pots regrettably cannot speak up to now. And let me cancel 
one more sentence: "Critics of these efforts object to the potential circularity of the logical basis, since Kloekhorst and Kortlandt are both members of the Leiden School of Indo-European Linguistics, and often write mutually supportive works.", because writing mutually supportive works may, but must not necessarily imply circularity. HJJHolm (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sentences

message: (quote: Ante Aikio)
"rv - this is regarded an IE loan by standard etymological dictionaries"
Isn't "nimi" and "myydä" also regarded IE loans by standard etymological dictionaries?
The word "vetää" is in the Illich-Svitych's Nostratic poem:
k̥aλai palh-k̥ na wetä
--Muhaha 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vetää

message: A user with the IP address 82.181.182.83 has reverted a large number of edits back to a previous version of his. Might I offer a few suggestions:  
(1) If you wish to remove extensive sections of correctly referenced and formatted text, it might be desirable to get a username so we can track your edits and you can participate with maximum credibility in the Wikipedia process. 
(2) You have reverted several formatting errors that I had (at the cost of some labor) corrected, for example in italicization and in use of ś rather than š as per standard Indo-Europeanist usage. (Indo-Iranian šatam gets š as per Indo-European, as does Old Iranian when this sound occurs, e.g. in xšwaš '6'; Sanskrit śatam gets ś because of the standard transcription adopted in the late 19th century. Thus there is inconsistency in the standard transcriptions, but these both stand for the same sound.)
(3) You have eliminated the example kuningas, but this is a standard example in comparing Indo-European and Uralic, used for instance by Henry Sweet in The History of Language (1900) and by Raimo Anttila in Historical and Comparative Linguistics (rev. ed. 1989). In addition, the phonology of this word happens to be particularly clear and easy to convey. Readers deserve to be informed of it. I grant that kuningas is a more recent loan than porćas (also a standard example), but this usefully emphasizes the very long period during which Indo-European and Uralic languages have been in contact  and, consequently, have had the opportunity to interact. Let’s give readers both. 
Please note that I did not eliminate your addition of porćas but strove to integrate it with the existing text of the article. It is a real contribution. 
(4) As to the information you provide on Koivulehto’s arguments, I welcome this. He is clearly a major authority in the field. 
(5) You are obviously in a position to make substantial contributions to this and other Wikipedia articles. Please, let’s not get into an editing war (the bane of the wiki format). If you think there are points of view which are left out or need to be emphasized more, I’m sure I would be sympathetic. 
(6) There is no article on Koivulehto which is why his name appears in red in the “References” list. Perhaps you could contribute one? 
Regards, VikSol 04:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On ''kuningas'' etc.

message: The section Arguments for relationship between Indo-European and Uralic mainly gives arguments against. Somewhere in the history, I believe, someone actually wrote a section of arguments for the theory. Then others developed the text so that each paragraph also held counterarguments, and so, without keeping an overview, the paras became kind of a negotiation consensus of the opinions proponed by the editors. This is wrong and in disaccord with the principes of wikipedia, which intends to be a reflection of the debate outside, not of the opinions inside. The article should be layouted approximately:
* the arguments for should contain a discourse, a coherent set of arguments leading to the conclusion that PIU is reasonable to believe,
* the arguments against should as systematically as possible try to disprove each argument for, and probably also refer to scientific principles used within linguistics and general philosophy.
Now they're mixed, in such a way that for and against cannot be understood by a non-linguist: for example para 2 in "Arguments for...":
* Numerous words in Indo-European and Uralic resemble each other. The problem is to weed out words due to borrowing...
Now, is "the problem..." an argument against, or is it a sweeping reference to a set of methods used for "weeding out" true cognates? Then a specific method should be referred to, or the "weeding out" problem is a counterargument that shouldn't be the second sentence in the second para in a for-section. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm inclined to write a short method for writing a compact article. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad quality article

message: From a scientific standpoint, the methods which serve to identify borrowed words leave genetic cognates as their residue, should there be any, so it makes no difference whether they are applied from an "anti-" or a "pro-" perspective, in principle. There may of course be tendentiousness on the part of some applying them, but if correctly applied the methods should work. It is just as important to weed out borrowings for those who hope to establish genetic relationship as for those who hope to disprove it. With all due respect, it's a little over the top to condemn an entire article on this ground. Nevertheless, I may give some thought to clarifying some of the phonological material which in my opinion is a bit abstrusely presented. Sincerely, VikSol 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not if you read it more carefully

message: I have removed the section “Some example words” on the ground that it focuses on words in modern languages, whereas to establish genetic relationship between languages it is ordinarily preferable to use the earliest forms available, e.g. not Russian but Old Russian, or better still Old Church Slavic, likewise not English but Old English or better still Proto-Germanic, since it can be reliably reconstructed and is nearly identical with the earliest runic inscriptions. For example, we can more easily see that Proto-Germanic ek is related to Indo-European *egom than that English I or even Old English ic is, especially once we know the sound law that Indo-European g became Proto-Germanic k. Also, this section was largely superseded when the table "Possible cognates" was added. On the other hand, I think this section retains enough interest that I have moved it here rather than simply deleting it. VikSol 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed

message: Indo-European: French 'moi', English 'me', Russian 'menja'; Finno-Ugric: Estonian 'ma', 'mina', Finnish 'minä'.
IE: English 'water', 'wet', Russian 'vodá'; FU: Finnish and Estonian 'vesi' (oblique 'vete-'), Hungarian 'víz'
IE: Russian 'vodít' (to lead), FU: Finnish 'vetää' (to pull, to lead), Hungarian 'vezetni' (to lead)
Some Indo-European roots (I.E.) and their equivalents in Finno-Ugric languages (F.U.)(examples are added from different languages too):
I.E. mey-, to exchange (derivatives include Latin 'mutare' (to change), German 'mischen' (to mix)), , F.U. meqi-, to sell, give > Estonian 'müük'
I.E. mesg-, to wash, F.U. moski-, to wash > Estonian 'mõskma', Hungarian 'mosni'
::Well, but these are most probably borrowings, because the Indo-Uralic hypothesis doesn't make any sense from the view of genetics. As far as I can interfere from the spread of the Comb ceramic pottery, the ancestors of Ugrofinians crossed the Urals around 5200 BC. And all the Uralic groups were not behind the Urals much longer, because originally they came from northern China and during their way northwards, they heavily mixed with Proto-Turkic tribes in the Altai region (ca. 5000-8000 BC). Since their language is not close to Turkic languages, they obviously preserved their original one. Thus, the hypothesis is simply nonsensical. How could the language of Indo-Europeans be closely related to a language from northern China?! By the way, the maternal lineages of Ugrofinians show a heavy European influence, which means that Ugrofinian men took women of the Corded Ware culture and this is why many Ugrofinian groups now look European and even blonde. The mystery of many borrowings is thus easily explained. After all, if you steal a European woman, the first thing you ask her is what's her name. And then she will probably ask you for a bit of water. LOL 82.100.61.114 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some example words

message: I have tentatively revised the table “Some possible cognates”. The old version of the table is preserved below, in case anybody wants to work with the forms it includes. 
The changes made are: 
The entry on "stative *-s-" is removed because the basis for it is obscure to me. There is a good case the IE s-aorist is a desiderative in origin.
The entry on yo- rpn : -ja agent noun is removed because their equivalence is far from established, in my opinion. 
1p –m and 2p –s are placed under the pronouns they correspond to, as these forms are likely to have a common origin. 
Changed "definitive accusative" to "accusative", as the qualification "definite" is meaningless for IE. 
A few minor typographical retouches. 
Regards, VikSol 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions to table

message: Dead external link at bottom of page:
"Early Indo-Uralic linguistic relationships: Real kinship and imagined contacts" by Eugene Helimski (1999) .
A search on google.ca gave url http://aluarium.net/forum/attachment.php?aid=123 which may perhaps be new link to use.
Cool dude ragnar (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The following section has been removed from the article as it basically represents a retort to parts of the article, using discursive but unencyclopedic language suited to the talk page but not to the article, such as "we need a little explanation on how [something stated in the contested section]", or "If the Uralic word is borrowed from Indo-European, why is it found in nearly identical form right across Siberia?". Please discuss these disagreements on this talk page, not in the article itself, and when you can come up with a unitary summary (not a sequel of sections and ounter-sections) of the state of things and the stances of the parties involved, add that to the article. LjL (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section moved from article 

message: JOURNAL ARTICLE: C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian
Author: Frederik Kortlandt
Journal: Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics
Bd. 122 (2009), pp. 39-47 (9 pages)
Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG)
Relevant text: "The idea of a genetic relationship between Indo-European and Uralic has become fairly well accepted among specialists (e.g. Collinder 1965, 1974). Gimbutas's theory that the Indo-Europeans moved from a primary homeland north of the Caspian Sea to a secondary homeland north of the Black Sea (e.g. 1985) is fully in agreement with the view that their language developed from an Indo-Uralic proto-system which was modified under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum, perhaps in the sixth millennium ВС (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f., Kortlandt 1990, 2002). Johannes Knobloch has suggested that the thematic vowel *-e/o- in the Indo-European verbal inflection represents an earlier object marker (1953). I have argued that the thematic present and the perfect originally had a dative subject, reflecting an earlier intransitive construction with an indirect object (1983). For Proto-Indo-Uralic we can reconstruct a genitive in *-n, which is reflected in the oblique stem form of the Indo-European heteroclitics, a lative-accusative in *-m, a  dative-locative in *-i, an ablative-instrumental in *-t, which is reflected as both -t and -s in Indo-European, plural markers *-t and dual *-ki, personal pronouns *mi 'I', *ti 'thou', *me 'we', *te 'you' and cor-responding verbal endings, reflexive *u, demonstratives, participles, derivational suffixes of nouns and verbs, negative *n- and interrogative *k- (cf. Kortlandt 2002). The rise of the ergative construction, gram- matical gender and adjectival agreement can be attributed to North Caucasian influence and may have proceeded as indicated by Pedersen (1907). It is important to note that the accusative is of Indo-Uralic origin and therefore older than the ergative. This explains the peculiar construction of Russian vetrom sneslo krysu 'the wind blew off the roof, where the inanimate agent is in the instrumental and the object is in the accusative. While the Indo-Uralic component of the lexicon (Uhlenbeck's A) has been a focus of research in the past, the identification of the non-Indo-Uralic component (Uhlenbeck's B) remains a task for the future. In view of the large number of consonants and the minimal vowel system of Proto-Indo-European, the northern Caucasus seems to be the obvious place to look (cf. Starostin 2007)."
8.36.251.209 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found material that might be useful, but I'm not sure how to add 

message: I'm not saying I'm giving this Indo-Uralic any credence, but the languages were just elements of an Indo-European and a Uralic culture and there are some fascinating parallels between Uralic and Indo-European religion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: In the "Some possible cognates" table, the accusative case lists a Uralic example "Ket -m". However, Ket is Yeniseian, not Uralic. It also doesn't have an accusative case. Is there some other language the table meant to refer to? Or is that just a nonsense part of the entry?
204.195.47.196 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ket is not a Uralic language 

message: If Uralic *nimi was borrowed from PIE, how could we explain that in 17th century Yukaghir, the word for "name" was recorded as Nim?
Also the word for 10. In 18th century Omok Yukaghir it's kimneľ, which is much more similar to Finnic and Mordvin and shows nothing resembling Samoyedic.
I suggest when we are talking about Indo-Uralic, we'd better not ignore the Yukaghir languages, which is very unlikely having contact with PIE.
Furthermore, the root *nimi seems to have contact with Tungusic, or related to it, as in Proto-Tungusic the root for "name" is reconstructed as *gerbǖ. Also the acc. suffixes in Manchu (-be) and Evenki (-me/-ve),, and 1st person pronouns and more.
m-T personal pronouns are very common through northern Eurasia, but only there. They are very rare in other parts of the world, and cannot be explained as coincidence.
It's possible that some PIE roots once came from Siberia, before the oldest PIE form already reconstructed. There are evidences that a/some Siberian population(s) had affected Karelian mesolithic EHGs and Steppe Maykop. 17lcxdudu (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several similarities of IE and Uralic languages are more eastern-looking rather than IE borrowings