This post discusses verbs that would have been exchanged during Helleno-Uralic contact. Previously discussed were the verbs ennustá-, iál-, logé-, maín-, and rypʰá-. Additional verbs can be inferred due to the presence of HU nouns (eg: Ma. mutayáš / мутаяш ~ He. muthéō / μυθέω ‘to speak’ < HMa. mũtʰos ‘word’), but can not necessarily be reconstructed. A special class of verbs called “-ízdō verbs” will be discussed in Part 2.

Uralo-Hellenic verbs are scant when compared with nouns: Although the -ízdō verbs attest to an intensive degree of verbal exchange, Helleno-Uralic verbs otherwise appear to be few and far between. This evaluation may be subject to change as the Uralic lexica are further dissected.

These will be the last two posts of the “Re-” series, in which I have described the foundational terms of Helleno-Uralic Theory. After this series is completed, focus will shift to related topics, such as dating and locating Uralo-Hellenic contact. I hope you have enjoyed this series as much as I have enjoyed sharing it with you, lían oikeĩa sṓmatá mů.


to sit (HFV)
Fi. istua << FV *isɜ- <? hízdō / ἵζω << PIE *sisd- (cf. He. ἕζομαι)

The FV dating of the U term, and the prerequisite for debuccalization > psilosis* from an IE form, leaves the He. form to stand out in its parallelism. However, the overall correspondence is unclear: He. Dor. hísdō / ἵσδω can account for FV *-s- (although not necessary, given HFV -ízdō verbs); but the description of HS -t- as part of a “compound derivative suffix” is against the expectation of FV **-st- < He. -zd-. The absence of FV *-t- must be accounted for: It does not seem that He. /zd/ > /z/ would have yet taken place – perhaps Mord. -z- could rather be compared with Ma. -ž- as a secondary Volgaic development.

*It is perhaps more likely that U < H loans with initial h- were generally loaned without /h/, as psilosis was probably not yet completed in He. during HU contact.

kǐdá- ~ *kǐ̄dá- ~ *kǐ̃dá-
to praise, thank (HF)
Fi. kiittää <<? He. kǐdáō / κυδάω (cf. κῡδαίνω ~ κῦδαίνω) <1? PIE *keuH-

Also compare Fi. kiitos with He. kǐ̃dos / κῦδος for vowel length; although the suffixes may be coincidental (cf. HF séhō). Although not addressed in SSA, Fi. kiittää has been etymologized from B *geid- ‘to sing’. However, there is no semantic overlap between B and FS.

leú- ~ leúe
to throw (FU); to stone (He.)
FU *lewe- < He. leúō / λεύω < ?

There is unfortunately no other U *-ewe- verb found to compare with H for the fortification of this correspondence. If FU secondary *-e- is to be accounted for, then a He. conjugation with -e-, such as 3rd sng. act. ind. leúei / λεύει, might be considered.

to sleep (F); to fall asleep, snooze (S); to pass the night (He.); ? (HFS)
F nukku- (cf. Fi. nukkua), PS *nokkë– <? He. nukʰeúō / νυχεύω < núks / νύξ <1 PIE nokʷt-

The original meaning and form of HFS nukʰ- is unclear; but the correspondence FS -kk- = He. -kʰ- is precedented in HFS? mukʰá.

to blow (HU)
U *pušɜ- <?> He. pʰusáō / φυσάω (cf. pʰũsa / φῦσα) < ?

The secondary vowel correspondence is unclear due to the unstressed U *-ɜ- when compared with the He. variation -á- ~ -é- ~ -ō̃-; and U *-š- = He. -s-. The provenance of He. pʰũsa is unclear: Although compared with other IE terms, the final -sa is not explained; and the derivation pʰũsiŋks / φῦσιγξ contains the PreH suffix -iŋks / -ιγξ.

*vál– ~ váll
to pour (HFV)
FV *wala- <? He. vállō / βάλλω <1 IE *gʷelh₁-

The outcome FV *-al- < He. -áll- is unclear, but Fi. valaa suggests H *válō / *βάλω (cf. HU iálō).

One thought on “Ízdō: Realizing the Finngreek Verb, Part 1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s