The Uralic languages () constitute a language family of 39 languages spoken by approximately 25 million people. The healthiest Uralic languages in terms of the number of native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Mari and Udmurt. Countries that are home to a significant number of speakers of Uralic languages include Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Slovakia. The name "Uralic" refers to the suggested Urheimat (original homeland) of the Uralic family, which was often located in the vicinity of the Ural Mountains, as the modern languages are spoken on both sides of this mountain range. However, there is no reliable indication of any specific homeland. In recent times, linguists often place the Urheimat further to the west and south and in the vicinity of the Volga River, close to the Urheimat of the Indo-European languages, or to the east and southeast of the Urals. Family treeThe internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed. Nevertheless, three distinct subfamilies are usually recognized: Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic. Historically, Finno-Permic and Ugric have tended to be grouped as the Finno-Ugric family. All Uralic languages are thought to have descended, through independent processes of language change, from Proto-Uralic. There is some disagreement in the two views as to whether Proto-Uralic originally split into two or three branches. However, severe doubt has been raised about the validity of most of the higher-order branchings, and the traditional binary tree. The homeland of Proto-UralicThere are three main theories on the Urheimat—the 'original homeland'—of the people who spoke the Proto-Uralic language. Gy. Laszlo 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. P. Hajdu has suggested that the Uralic homeland was in western and northwestern Siberia. Possible relations with other familiesMany relationships between Uralic and other language families have been suggested, but none of these are generally accepted by linguists at the present time. Ural-AltaicTheories 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 presence of agglutination and vowel harmony in both sets of languages. These theories are now generally rejected and most such similarities are attributed to coincidence or language contact, and a few to possible relationship at a deeper genetic level. In either case, an especially close relationship with Altaic is widely considered to be improbable. The theories that include Uralic as a node in a proposed macrofamily and that have any significant currency among linguists today are the following: Indo-UralicThe Indo-Uralic (or Uralo-Indo-European) theory 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. It is viewed as certain by a few linguists and as possible by a larger number. Uralic-YukaghirThe Uralic-Yukaghir theory identifies Uralic and Yukaghir as independent members of a single language family. It is accepted by a few linguists and viewed as attractive by a somewhat larger number. It is currently widely accepted that the similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir languages are due to ancient contacts. Eskimo-UralicThe Eskimo-Uralic theory 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. Uralo-SiberianUralo-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. NostraticNostratic associates Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic and various other language families, usually including the South Caucasian languages and Dravidian. Earlier versions also included Hamito-Semitic (now replaced by Afroasiatic). The Nostratic theory was first propounded by Holger Pedersen in 1903 and subsequently revived by Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aharon Dolgopolsky in the 1960s. The theory that the Dravidian languages display similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the past, is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of scholars, including Robert Caldwell, Thomas Burrow, Kamil Zvelebil, [Zvelebil, Kamal (2006). Dravidian Languages. In Encyclopædia Britannica (DVD edition).] and Mikhail Andronov This theory has, however, been rejected by some specialists in Uralic languages, and has in recent times also been criticised by other Dravidian linguists like Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. EurasiaticEurasiatic 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. Similar ideas had earlier been expressed by Björn Collinder (1965:30–34). All of these theories are very much minority views at the present time in Uralic studies. Classification of languagesThe traditional classification of the Uralic languages is as follows. Obsolete names are displayed in italics. Samoyedic- * Enets (Yenets, Yenisei-Samoyed) – Nearly extinct
- * Nganasan (Tavgy, Tavgi, Tawgi, Tawgi-Samoyed)
- * Mator (Motor) – Extinct (19th century)
Finno-Ugric- ** Komi (Komi-Zyrian, Zyrian)
- ** Extinct Finno-Volgaic languages of uncertain position
- ** Finno-Lappic (Finno-Saamic, Finno-Samic)
- *** Sami (Samic, Saamic, Lappic, Lappish)
- **** Western Sami (Western Samic)
- **** Eastern Sami (Eastern Samic)
- ****** Võro (Voro, Võru, Voru; including Seto or Setu)
- **** Ingrian (Izhorian) – Nearly extinct
- ***** Lude (Ludic, Ludian)
- **** Votic (Votian, Vod) – Nearly extinct
The term Volgaic was used to denote a branch previously believed to include Mari and Mordvinic, but is now obsolete. Modern linguistic research has shown that it was a geographic classification rather than a linguistic one. The Mordvinic languages are more closely related to the Finno-Lappic languages than to Mari languages. TypologyStructural characteristics generally said to be typical of Uralic languages include: - a large set of grammatical cases marked with agglutinative suffixes (13–14 cases on average; mainly coincidental: Proto-Uralic had 6 cases), e.g.:
- * Estonian: 14 cases (and one is still under some debate)
- * Hungarian: 18 cases (and some more case-like suffixes)
- * Komi: in certain dialects as many as 27 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.
- vowel harmony (recently lost in standard Estonian, but exists in dialects).
- negative verb, which exists in almost all Uralic languages, e.g., Nganasan, Enets, Nenets, Kamassian, Komi, Meadow Mari, Erzya (in the first preterite, the conjunctional, optative and imperative moods, sometimes there are alterations in choice of negative verb stems), North Sami (and other Samic languages), Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, etc. (Some innovative languages have lost this feature, e.g., Hungarian.)
- palatalization of consonants; in this context, palatalization means a secondary articulation, where the middle of the tongue is tense. For example, pairs like – [n], or [c] – [t] are contrasted in Hungarian, as in hattyú "swan". Some Sami languages, for example Skolt Sami, distinguish three degrees: plain [l], palatalized <'l> , and palatal , where <'l> has a primary alveolar articulation, while has a primary palatal articulation. Original Uralic palatalization is phonemic, independent of the following vowel and traceable to the 6000-year-old Proto-Uralic. It is different from Russian palatalization, which is of more recent origin. The Baltic-Finnic languages have lost palatalization, but the eastern varieties have reacquired it, so Baltic-Finnic palatalization (where extant) was originally dependent on the following vowel.
- lack of phonologically contrastive tone.
- lots of postpositions (prepositions are very rare).
- 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.
- dual, which exists, e.g., in the Samoyedic, Ob Ugrian and Samic languages.
- plural markers -j (i) and -t (-d) have a common origin (e.g., in Finnish, Estonian, Erzya, Samic languages, Samoyedic languages). Hungarian, however, has -i- before the possessive suffixes and -k elsewhere. In the old orthographies, the plural marker -k was also used in the Samic languages.
- no verb for "have". Note that all Uralic languages have verbs with the meaning of "own" or "possess", but these words are not used in the same way as English "have". Instead, the concept of "have" is indicated with alternative syntactic structures. For example, Finnish uses existential clauses; the subject is the possession, the verb is "to be" (the copula), and the possessor is grammatically a location and in the adessive case: "Minulla on kala", literally "I_on is fish", or "I have a fish (some fish)". In addition, Finnish can also employ possessive suffixes, e.g. "Minulla on kalani", literally "I_on is fish_my", or "I do have my own fish". In Hungarian: "Van egy halam", literally "Is a fish_my", or "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 inaccurate for Finnish and Estonian, where the singular is in the partitive case, such that the number points to a part of a larger mass, like "four of knot(s)".)
- the stress is always on the first syllable, except for the Mari, Udmurt and Komi-Permyak languages. The Erzya language can vary its stress in words to give specific nuances to sentential meaning.
Selected cognatesThe 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. 1Võro dialect See also
|
|
