Hot answers tagged

35

Turkish and Hungarian are typologically similar: They are both agglutinating languages with vowel harmony and rather rich vowel inventories. They are, to our best knowledge, not genetically related. Hungarian belongs to the Uralic language family including Finnish, Estonian, Sami, and about a dozen languages spoken in Russia. Turkish belongs to the Turkic ...


12

Hungarian belongs to the Ugric subgroup of the Uralic language family, while Turkish belongs to the controversial Altaic language family. Nevertheless, Hungarian has had some kind of contact with Turkic languages, hence the influence in its vocabulary. However language relationship cannot be based on loanwords and contact based influence, but systematic ...


8

In general, anything can be borrowed, given intensive and prolonged language contact (Thomason 2001: 63) Borrowed relative pronouns (sources didn't mention examples): Gondi (Dravidian) has borrowed a Hindi relative pronoun (Thomason 2001: 116) Bodo and Rabha (Tibeto-Burman) have borrowed a relative pronoun from Indo-Aryan (Subharao 2011: 276) After a ...


7

... is said to derive from ... This is folk etymology. In a case like this, where it's a similar sounding word in many unrelated languages across a region, you should be especially skeptical. The Wiktionary entry for kömény: A wanderword, arrived to Hungarian possibly via German, but a West Slavic borrowing cannot be excluded, either. Compare German ...


6

If you distinguish Finno-Ugric from Uralic, Samoyedic isn't Finno-Ugric, and is often considered a sister of Finno-Ugric. In referring to the Nenets as being Asian people, it's not clear if you're making a geographic statement or a racial one. The geographical interpretation is easy to dispose of. The Nenets live on both sides of the Ural mountains, the ...


5

Turkish borrowed "ki" from Farsi. Among other uses, it's a general purpose relative pronoun akin to English "that". It's interesting because Turkish doesn't have native relative pronouns; ordinarily, it uses a different strategy for forming relative clauses, which consists of converting the relative clause into a participal construction. "ki" is a more ...


4

Just to add a bit to Adam's excellent answer: "Cumin" is what's called a Wanderwort or wander-word: it's a word associated with some sort of trade good, which spreads from language to language along with the thing it describes. A famous modern example is "tea"; almost every language in the world now refers to the drink with a word that ...


4

Indo-European and Uralic are low-level families, the existence of which is not questioned by linguists and has been recognized for at least three centuries now, even by people with no particular training (merchants, soldiers, etc.), on the sheer comparison of word lists. The issue of comparing PIE and PU is more challenging, as it involves non-obvious ...


4

According to this Wiki page, Hungarian voiced stops and fricatives result from regular sound change: voiced stops result from a nasal+stop sequence, e.g. nt > d; except for /g/, which comes from Proto-Uralic *ŋ voiced fricatives result from intervocalic stops: VtV > VzV, VpV > VvV As for /f/, it results from lenition of initial /p/; and likewise /h/ from ...


4

Although most linguists would agree that there is a considerable amount of vocabulary shared by Uralic and Indo-European languages, there is not really any consensus as to why this is the case. The mainstream view is probably still that developed by Björn Collinder in his copious publications, which distinguishes various strata of IE borrowings into Uralic: ...


3

Borrowings like that happen quite often between related languages (in cases of diglossia). For example, Russian language borrowed several interrogative/relative pronouns from Old Church Slavonic (a Slavic language, too), although now most of them are out of use (regarded as archaic). Some basic words were also borrowed from Polish (for example, jesli "if", ...


3

The IE-to-Uralic loanword transfer phenomenon is quite messy. There are those basic vocabulary terms that look alike, but it goes beyond that sometimes. The conjecture that the borrowings are borrowings is moderately well accepted, though people have been pointing out the exact same problems you just did: they are so fundamentally basic it's almost silly. ...


2

Some languages (e.g. Georgian) have adverbial case which turns adjectives and nouns into adverbs, and it's a 'real' case. However, as far as I know, it's not used in the multiplicative meaning. Generally speaking, if in a language several parts of speech can be declined, there can hardly exist a case which is used exclusively with just one part of speech, ...


2

The reconstruction as PIE root h₁n̥gʷnís is highly dubious. IMO better is H3egni-, even though some comparanda do not fit very well into it (They don't fit in h₁n̥gʷnís either...). A connection with Mari, Khanty and Hungarian is thinkable, but Komi with a palatal nasal does not seem to fit.


2

Have you read this article by Kortlandt? http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art213e.pdf In it he explains how he understands the development of I-E stops from Indo-Uralic stops on the basis of stress patterns.


2

Yes, but only to certain limits. While its completely obvious that there is no evidence or only very small evidence that Proto-Indo-Uralic actually existed, there are some attempts to reconstruct it. This paper attempts to reconstruct Schleicher's Fable in Proto-Indo-Uralic. Go to the page 30 and you will find this. Keep in mind that either Proto-Indo-...


2

No. The general consensus among linguists is that there's no compelling evidence for any sort of "Indo-Uralic" language family. Basically, the null hypothesis is that there's no genetic relationship, and nobody's ever presented enough evidence to reject that. If one wanted to fully reconstruct "Proto-Indo-Uralic", they would need to show ...


2

The exact nature of the relationship between Uralic and "Altaic" languages has so far remained quite obscure. Most specialists of these languages tend to be negative, though this might be a bit too severe. Finnish kieli has good comparanda in the rest of Uralic and indeed somehow looks related to Mongolian. Turkic dil is obviously another word.


2

If such a testimony of ancient Hungarian existed, I think handbooks would be very happy to show it. I'm afraid there's hardly anything older than the years 1600-1700 on most Uralic languages, when European travelers (Witsen) or soldiers (Strahlenberg) began assembling glossaries on Mordvin, Vogul-Mansi, Ostyak-Khanty, etc.


1

Nope We have only two proto-languages to compare, and the list of attested roots is already sparse. The set of potential cognates is even sparser and leaves not enough material for reconstruction. It is also hard to decide whether the cognate candidates are real cognates or chance coincidences. Is there any chance to do better? Maybe, by throwing in more ...


1

The "Altaic" languages are generally not considered a valid group, not to speak of Ural-Altaic, so the words you mention do not go back to one original source, but rather to two separate sources, one for each family. The Uralic words you mention, go back to Proto-Uralic *käle: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/k%C3%A4le The ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible