Talk:Proto-Uralic language

message: "One view is that there were only two archiphonemic non-initial vowels /a/ and /i/, realized as four allophones as per vowel harmony"
This is technicly wrong, for a, ä, i and ï were phonems.
:But not noninitially, that's the point in the theory. --Vuo 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lative ending *-ŋ is found in Samoyed and Mordvin, and this also probably gave the Saami lative *-k and Finnic *-k ~ *-n through sound change in word-final position. And you're right, lative is the traditional term; I'll fix this. The reconstructions derive from J. Janhunen, Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta (1981) and P. Sammallahti, Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages (1988); these are generally considered the most up-to-date references on Proto-Uralic word-root reconstructions. --AAikio 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I just added the IPA. Please tell me if I made any mistakes – no, don't tell me, just correct them. :-)
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 12:45 CEST | 2006/9/15
Hm, I think a should be swiched to ɑ?
:I'm not sure if it is entirely appropriate to give the IPA equivalents in this article. IPA is a transcription used primarily by phoneticians for phonetic reasons. Since we have a reconstructed proto-language, we can't know the exact sound valuys of the reconstructed phonemes anyway, and using IPA might perhaps give a misleading impression of a phonetically exact reconstruction. In general, there's a lot of controversy surrounding the phonetic values of some of the reconstructed Proto-Uralic sounds - such as the vowel *ï and the "spirants".--AAikio 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: Does this protolanguage have a ISO language code? As Proto-Indo-European is ine-pro? Jackwolfroven (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language code

message: I might be starting a new article Uralic sound laws at some point (to which material from the slightly messily framed page Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages could also be moved), but for now I will be adding some details on this article. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 23:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound laws 

message: In the section "grammar", under the paragraph "verbs", the text claims that "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."
As far as I know, Hungarian is a western Uralic language featuring subjective and objective verb conjugations as well. Could this be an error?
What do you all think? Does the author of the text dismiss Hungarian as a non-Uralic language? Etelai (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hungarian is an eastern branch, with its closest relatives Khanty and Mansi. Rua (mew) 10:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective and objective conjugations 

message: The earlier list deleted by User:Sagotreespirit was from Janhunen (1981b), who also discusses the evidential value of these words for the dating and location of Proto-Uralic. A slightly newer version of the same approach is found in Häkkinen (2007) , if anyone feels like working on this. The reconstructions should be probably cited separately though, Häkkinen simply follows UEW instead of updating them in any way. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the citation. Now that I know it's from a reliable source, you can restore the list if you'd like. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example vocabulary