The oldest Greek loanwords in Proto-Uralic

I have a new paper out! “The oldest Greek loanwords in Proto-Uralic“. Click the link to read a plain-text document on Academia.edu; but I will also present the information below:

++++

While I continue to draft my first paper on Helleno-Uralic theory, “Helleno-Uralic contact in the 1st millennium BCE”, I’d like to outline here some of the “oldest” Helleno-Uralic etyma, which form the basis of “Gelonian” Greek influence on Archaic Uralic ca. 800-500 BCE (Finngreek 2024).

In my opinion, the most archaic HU etyma are the loans which would have been relevant to initial contact and travel in the Volga-Kama riparian zone, such as hydronymic and nautical terms with a distribution that can fall taxonomically under “Proto-Uralic” (i.e. incl. Samoyedic), or at least with Ugric reflexes. These parameters are set due to the likelihood of a latter Helleno-Finno-Permic contact period, after the eastward departure of Ugric and Samoyedic into their Siberian core zones. Because of this restriction, I will not include here otherwise semantically appropriate etyma without Ugric or Samoyedic reflexes; nor semantically irrelevant etyma with Ugric or Samoyedic reflexes, which could have only been loaned after riparian contact already began. I have also included etyma relevant to the preparation of food with Samoyedic evidence.

++++

The oldest Helleno-Uralic riparian contact and travel terms are:

1. áros ‘flood meadow’ > FU *ara
2. áza ‘dry land’ > FU *aća
3. diáge- ‘to cross, pass’ > FU *jakka-
4. diakhé- ‘to cut up (meat), divide’ > U *jaka-
5. dôma ‘house > bird-cherry tree’ > U *d’ʌmə
6. elá- ‘to go, visit’ > U *elä-
7. ksúlon ‘wooden spoon’ > U *ćulə
8. kuklé- ‘to travel (downstream), wander about’ > U *kulke-
9. múskhǣ ‘bay, bend, corner, creek: riverbend’ > U *mučka
10. ókhtha ‘riverbank > land route along a river’ > U *uktə
11. orgás ‘fertile meadow in a forested river valley’ > FU *orka
12. póros ‘bridge, ferry, river passage’ > FU *pora
13. psúros ‘?weever > pike’ > FU *ćurə
14. psŷksis ‘cooling weather > autumn’ > FU *ćükći
15. sákkos ‘sieve’ > U *sokkə-ta-
16. sargíon ‘type of schooling fish’ > FU *särki
17. skáphǣ ‘small boat, trough: dugout canoe’ > FU *kappə
18. zôma ‘scale armor; animal skin’ > FU *ćʌmə

++++

1. áros ‘flood meadow’
H ἄρος ‘lowland where water gathers’ > FU *ara(w) ‘old river bed, oxbow lake’ (Aikio forthcoming) ~ *arɜ ‘watery place, grassy depression’ (UEW) > F aro ‘meadow, valley’

There are semantic discrepancies in the H forms. The modern Tsakonian form άρε describes small, rocky pits which gather rainwater or groundwater; while the Hsch. gloss <ἄρος> ‘valley, in which rainwater gathers / κοιλάς, ἐν αἷς ὕδωρ ἀθροίζεται ὄμβριον’ leaves open the interpretation of κοιλάς ‘hollow, deep valley’ – but Hesychius himself refers to κοιλάς as ‘fertile land / βαθεῖα γῆ’, as opposed to stony land. In any case, HFU áros appears to have described lowlands that could either be dry or wet, which fits with the seasonal nature of flood meadows next to rivers, where oxbow lakes form.

2. áza ~ ázǣ ~ ázos ‘dry land’
H ἄζα ~ ἄζη ~ ἄζος > FU *aća ~ *aśa ‘meadow (along a stream), valley’ (UEW)

The H forms generally refer to ‘dryness’, but also to ‘dirt’ and ‘dry sediment’. Note the reference to dry land in Komi aź ‘gute, trockene Wiese’ and Hungarian aszó ‘Tal, in dem in Regenperioden und zur Zeit der Frühjahrsschneeschmelze ein kleiner Bach fließt, das aber sonst trocken ist’. These descriptions of dry land perhaps could have made áza ‘dry land’ contrastive to áros ‘flood meadow’ during HU contact. A semantic development ‘dry sediment > dry land’ must be assumed in either Gelonian Greek, or during loan reception by Archaic Uralic. The exact H source term can not be determined, as there are no Samic or Mari reflexes that might evidence final sibilance.

3. diáge- ‘to cross, pass’
H διάγω ‘to carry across, cross over; cause to continue, continue; pass (of time)’ (LSJ) > FU *jakka- ‘to go, get to’ (UEW)

Cf. Md. ‘to go, wander’, Old Hu. ‘to let arrive’. The causative semantics of Hungarian iktat- must be attributed to its causative suffix -tat: So this value can not be factored into HFU diáge-, despite its additional attestation as a causative verb.

This etymon was probably originally a travel term associated with crossing a river (cf. HFU póros ‘bridge, ferry, river passage’), as it was used by e.g. Homer and Xenophon to refer to ferry transport.

4. diakhé- ‘to butcher, cut up (meat), divide, separate’
H διαχέω ‘to cut up a victim into joints, disperse, dissolve, pour different ways, scatter’ (LSJ), ‘to divide, separate / разделять’ (RD) > U *jaka- ‘to divide, separate, share’ (UEW)

Cf. F ‘to apportion, divide’, S ‘to apportion, divide’, Md. ‘to detach, divide, separate; solve’, P ‘to cut, distribute, divide, take apart’, Mn. ‘border of the back of the head and neck’, Sy. ‘to cut up bird, fish, or reindeer for cooking’. Kamassian ‘to crumble’ might also be compared with H ‘to dissolve’, if not rather a secondary semantic development due to its limited distribution.

Samoyedic may best preserve an original primary meaning ‘to cut up (meat)’: In Book 3 of Homer’s Odyssey, the aorist form διέχευαν is used to describe the dividing of a slaughtered cow into its joints for a communal feast.

5. dôma ‘house > bird-cherry tree’
H δῶμα ‘house’ > U *d’ʌmə ~ *δ’e̮me ‘bird cherry’ (UEW)

What appears as an odd semantic development is contextualized to the historiographical description of the Argippaeans by Herodotus (see Finngreek 2024): The “Pontic” trees were relied on as houses and sources of food; and have been identified as the bird-cherry. Although I have not identified the Argippaeans with a specific Uralic group, their proximity to the Budini-Iyrcae ~? FP-Ug. scene, and location to the northeasternmost montane boundary of the Helleno-Uralic zone, could approximate the inhabitation of bird-cherry trees to the Upper Kama or Chusovaya rivers. Regarding the broad Uralic distribution of this etymon, I speculate that such a dwelling practice might have already been characteristic of Gamayun migrants from the Lower Ob to the Ananyino zone on the Upper Kama, and from there would have been carried to the Volga-Kama interfluve. However, a Greek origin of this practice may rather be preferred, given the name “Pontic (tree) / pontikón (déndreon) / ποντικόν (δένδρεον)” (So “Pontic house / pontikón dôma”?): The term “Pontic” is still used in modern Greek to refer to Greeks from the Black Sea region.

In its strictest sense of “full” lexical distribution, Proto-Uralic had few deciduous trees: So the bird-cherry would have been a primary source of fruit besides *mura ‘cloudberry’. Bird-cherry trees prefer the moist, well-drained soil alongside rivers, and so they would have been an abundant natural source of shelter for nautical, riparian traders in the Helleno-Uralic zone.

6. elá- ‘to go, visit’
H ἐλάω ‘to go: drive, march, ride, row, sail’ > U *elä- ‘to live; go, visit’ (Aikio forthcoming)

The polysemy ‘to go, visit’ identified by Aikio in U *elä- allows an unproblematic comparison with H ‘to go’. Re: H ‘to visit’, this value may be reflected by the nominal modern Pontic form έλα ‘visit / επίσκεψη, ερχομός’, although this is derivationally ambiguous, and could instead suggest ‘visit’ as a secondary development from ‘coming’. Standard Modern Greek preserves the verb in the 2SG and 2PL IMP forms έλα ‘come’ and ελάτε, respectively. This etymon requires that U ‘to live’ developed as a secondary value, perhaps in the context of the lifestyles of riparian warrior-traders.

7. ksúlon ‘wooden spoon’
H ξύλον ‘piece of wood; spoon (made of fig wood)’ (LSJ) > U *ćulə ~ *śulɜ ‘vessel’ (UEW)

Cf. Es. ‘trough’; P ‘long, round, small wooden trough into which… flour is sifted’, ‘long bowl’; Sy. ‘spoon’, ‘trough-like vessel’.

H ξύλον has been attested with many semantic values which stem from a meaning ‘wood’, including ‘beam, log, piece of wood, post, stake, timber; bench, table; collar, gallows, stocks’, and others. It is clear that ξύλον was a productive term to refer to wooden materials, such as ‘(wooden) spoon’ in the Greater Hippias of Plato. This text also uses the word τορύνη ‘ladle’ (FEG) in the same comparison of a golden versus wooden spoon for soup. The value ‘ladle’ may help to bridge the semantic range of U ‘trough’, ‘bowl’, and ‘spoon’.

From the Classical Greek value ‘ladle, spoon’, it may be inferred that this meaning already existed in the Gelonian dialect. In this sense, the Samoyedic branch would best reflect the original semantics, with a secondary development in Finno-Permic to ‘trough’. However, it may instead be that ‘trough’ had already developed in Gelonian Greek, given the wide array of meanings that can be assigned to H ξύλον; and that Enets likewise attests ‘trough-like vessel’ – although this value is found neither in Selkup nor Nganasan, which do not form an exclusive taxonomic grouping.

8. kuklé- ‘to travel (downstream), wander about’
H κυκλέω ‘to quest about’ ~ κυκλεύω ‘to travel, traverse’ > U *kulke- ‘to be on the move’ (UEW)

The earlier proposal of U *kulke- < IE *kwelh1- is no longer supported (see Holopainen 2021).

It is necessary here to list some of the reflexes of U *kulke-, as they provide semantic context: Finnish kulke- ‘to go, wander, travel, move’; Saami L kålˈkå- ‘to flow; to roam, wander’, N gǫlˈgâ- ‘to float (with the current), roam, wander about’; Komi S ki̮lal- ‘to drift downstream’; Nenets O χūlā- ‘driven by the current’, Selkup Ta quri̮- ‘to carry (the current)’,? Kamassian kål- ‘to wander’

Across these reflexes, there is a wide distribution of semantics aligning with ‘to wander (about)’ and ‘to float, flow (with the current)’. Although not precedented by H κυκλέω, it appears that U *kulke- would have originally referred to waterborne travel downstream, which can be imagined as one of the fastest modes of transport that would have been available in the Helleno-Uralic zone. It is not clear whether HU kuklé- should be viewed as semantically contrastive from elá-; nor if H κυκλέω or κυκλεύω should formally be viewed as the source term into Uralic.

On the cluster metathesis H *-kl- > U *-lk-, there is no clear evidence of obstruent-sonorant clusters in Proto-Uralic (Aikio 2022): So U *-lk-would have been a phonotactically abundant substitution.

9. múskhǣ ‘bay, bend, corner, creek: riverbend’
H *μύσχη (μύσχαι) ~ μυχός ‘bay, bend (of the shore), corner, creek’ > U *muchka / *mučka ‘bend, curve (of a river)’ (UEW)

If any etymon could be considered the foundational term of HU contact, it would be múskhǣ. This term presents an especially detailed polysemy with S mok’ke ‘bay, bend, corner, creek’ (KK 36245). H ‘riverbend’ is not directly attested, but is reconstructed based on ‘bend’ + ‘bay, creek’: Thus ‘river’ as the connecting body of water between a bay and a creek.

The archaic sibilance of H *μύσχη vs. μυχός seems to have still been continued until μύσχαι ‘μυχαί’ (Hsch.); but Hesychius does not provide an entry for μυχαί. In any case, it can be understood as the plural of μυχή, which was simply an alternative form of μυχός. It is presumed that Gelonian Greek preserved the medial sibilance. The correspondence H -sK- > U *-chk- is corroborated by several etyma, such as HU phúskǣ ‘animal guts’ > *puchkv, and HFMd. káskhe- ‘to cover up’ > *kächke-.

10. ókhtha ~ ókhthǣ ~ ókhthos ‘riverbank > land route along a river’
H ὄχθα ‘river-bank, sea-cliff’ (ES) ~ ὄχθη ‘bank of a river’ (LSJ), ‘raised banks of a river’ (ML) ~ ὄχθος ‘bank, hill’ (LSJ)
> U *uktə ~ *ukti ‘passage, way’ (Aikio forthcoming) ~ *utka ‘track, trail’ (UEW)

Cf. F (*uktV- >) ‘component of hydronyms connected with narrow land passages between water routes’*; Kh. (*ɔ̄ɣǝt >) ‘isthmus between two lakes or rivers over which boats are hauled’; Mn. (*ī̮kǝt ~ *ī̮ktǝ >) ‘anabranch, strait between two lakes’; Hu. út ‘road, way’; Sy. (*utǝ̑ ~ *ut >) ‘road, way’, ‘track’.

The semantics of U *ukti are very similar to that of *mvtka ‘way’, which could also be reconstructed with an original meaning ‘detour’ (Aikio 2015b: 14). Both terms in their reflexes refer to not only a general land path, but also an isthmus or similar land formation used as a portage, as well as a side channel or anabranch. It could be reasoned that U *ukti was likewise a detour or bypass, wherever a river could have been more easily traveled along the banks instead of its primary nautical course. In both *ukti and *mvtka, the semantics ‘anabranch, strait’ are restricted to Ob-Ugric: So this may have been a secondary development from ‘detour’ for terms that originally referred to land routes, where the main course of a river in the Ugric sprachbund was not as navigable as its anabranch.

*Paraphrased from the original text

11. orgás ‘fertile meadow in a forested river valley’
H ὀργάς ‘clearing, uninhabited area of forests, any well-watered, fertile spot of land, meadow-land, partially wooded, with or without cultivated fields’ (LSJ), ‘a moist, well-watered, lushly fertile area, marshland… esp. floodplain, pasture’ (GP), ‘bushy and mountainous place’ (Hsch.)
> FU *orka(w) ~ *orko ‘riverbed, valley’ (Aikio forthcoming) ~ *orkɜ ‘depression, flat valley, river valley’ (UEW)

Cf. S (*oarkō >) ‘valley with pine and birch forest’; F (*orko >) ‘small, damp, forested valley; gully, ravine’, ‘lowland; dense forest, thicket’, ‘valley’, ‘depression in terrain’; P (*u̇r >) ‘riverbed’; Mn. (*ī̮ɣrak >) ‘steep riverbank’ (Aikio forthcoming). Note here also the previously unetymologized Ma. orgáž / оргаж ‘brushwood, thicket’ (MED) – this may however be a later loan, given its final sibilance.

The semantics of HFU orgás require an interesting confluence of natural features: A tract of land where the forest, water, and mountains were all in its immediate vicinity. It is unclear whether or not this land would have been used for agriculture (i.e. “with or without cultivated fields”), although Herodotus does describe the Gelonian Greeks as agriculturalists. It is also unclear how this term might be related to e.g. HFU áros ‘flood meadow’ and áza ‘dry land’, which can each likewise refer to riparian meadows in their Hellenic and/or Uralic semantic reflexes. It is assumed that there must have been a topographical contrast of these etyma in the Gelonian dialect which required multiple terms: At the very least, orgás is unique for its reference to local woods and mountains.

H -ás / -άς is not well-documented in HU etyma (although FU non-sibilance is expected here); and Aikio’s reconstruction of a secondary *-o (vs. *-aw) here is without explanation: FU *orka(w) may be equally suitable. One might posit that S *oarkō was borrowed from F *orko, for which S *oa- and *-ō were both regular substitutions.

12. póros ‘bridge, ferry, river passage’
H πόρος ‘bridge, ferry, river passage’ > FU *pora ‘raft, float’ (UEW)

Most of the Uralic reflexes generally refer to a wooden beam raft or ferry, but more semantic value might be found in S N boar’re ‘logs placed together to form a primitive bridge over a river or a lake’.

The earliest HU loans do not seem to have substituted H -os with FP *-vsh / *-əš, which may imply that Samic and Mari had not yet diverged as unique branches: Contrast e.g. HS+Ma. kormós ‘piece of log’ > *kolməš ‘tree bark’.

13. psóros ~ psúros ‘?weever > pike’
H ψόρος ‘an unknown fish’ (LSJ) ~ ψύρος > FU (P+Ug.) *ćurə ~ *śurɜ ‘pike’ (UEW)

The psoros fish is discussed in Book 7 of the Deipnosophistae by Athenaeus of Naucratis. This ambiguous fish is summarized among the “Melanouros”, or black-tailed fish (see Olson 2006: 469): “Speusippus… claims that what is referred as psuros resembles the melanouros. Numenius refers to the fish as a psoros… or saupes or a shore-hugging weever-fish.”

Similarities between the pike and weever include black-striped tails, long bodies, and being ambush predators. However, their faces are of different shapes; and the weever is unique for its venomous spines on its first dorsal fin. Also, the term melanouros / μελάνουρος (LSJ) referred to the saddled seabream (as does the modern Greek form μελανούρι), which bears little resemblance to either the pike or weever. Still, the approximation of the weever to the pike during Helleno-Uralic contact could have been due to a limited distribution of the pike in Greece, where today it is known as the “river barracuda” / λούτσος των ποταμών or “freshwater barracuda” / λούτσος του γλυκού νερού – with λούτσος (GML) being a loan from Venetian.

Interestingly, HFU psóros is restricted to Permic and Ob-Ugric, much as HFU skáphǣ ‘boat’. It is unclear if these terms could have been synchronous in some type of Permic-Ugric sprachbund (see the reconstructional discussion of HFU psŷksis).

14. psŷksis ‘cooling weather > autumn’
H ψῦξις ‘a chilling, cooling (from e.g. snow), becoming cold’ > FU *ćükći ~ *sükśe ‘autumn’ (UEW)

Cf. H psŷkhos / ψῦχος ‘cold, cold weather, coolness, frost, winter-time’ (LSJ) and ψύχω ‘to blow, grow cool or dry (of e.g. wind), refresh’ (LSJ). Hesychius defines ψῦξις as “πνοή”, which generally means ‘breath, breeze’ (LSJ), but in his own words as “ἀνάψυξις” ‘cooling, drying up, relief, respite’ (LSJ), which is then defined as “ἀνάπαυσις” ‘repose, rest (from a thing); cadence of a period’ (LSJ), for which he provides no entry.

It seems likely that HFU psŷksis was simply the Gelonian dialectal term for ‘autumn’: Much as the closely related term ψῦχος described cold weather, frost, and winter, ψῦξις could describe becoming cold from the snow. A similar word formation and semantic development of a term for a season can be seen in Η ánoiksis / ἄνοιξις ‘opening’ (LSJ) > Greek ániksi / άνοιξη ‘springtime’, where an action noun evolved to mean a period of time. Therefore, autumn in the Helleno-Uralic zone was noted by the seasonal arrival of cold (and dry?) air and precipitation. Although modern climate data can not necessarily be informative of ancient weather, cities located along the Volga-Kama (e.g. Kazan) all show a sudden drop in temperature, and increase in snowy days, in the month of October. The early arrival of cold weather and snow might have allowed for a semantic association with ‘autumn’ rather than ‘winter’ for the Gelonians, who originated from far to the southwest of the Ananyino horizon.

FU *ćükći ~ *sükśe is notoriously difficult to reconstruct. The common perspective on the initial consonantism seems to be that the branch reflexes which would reflect an original palatal FU *ć/ś- (S *čëkčë, Md. *śokś, Kh. *söɣəs) could be explained as a subsequent assimilation to the secondary sibilant, whereas P *siźïl, Mn. *tüks, and Hu. ősz would reflect an original plain sibilant *s-. There is, however, no preconceived phylogenetic or areal grouping that could explain how only the Samic, Mordvinic, and Khanty branches reflect this innovation: So these assimilations must be treated as separate events in order for an original FU *s- to be supported. From my view, the Permic, Mansi, and Hungarian branches could be a more likely areal grouping for a secondary dissimilation from an original FU *ćükći, since the core zones of these three branches were previously neighbors (see Saarikivi 2022: Map 2.8). Furthermore, P *siźïl is not regular in its initial vocalism, which should rather be **ú than *i here. If the Permic form were rather a later loan from e.g. Finnic (F *süksü ~ *sügüs > Fi. syksy ~ syys, Es. sügis), then only the Mansi and Hungarian reflexes would require an original *s-, which would be easier to explain as an innovation in the western Ugric sprachbund, rather than to posit a shared innovation between Samic and Khanty.

15. sákkos ‘sieve’
H σάκκος ‘sack, sieve’ > U *sokkə-ta- ‘to sieve’ ~ *sokta- ‘to stir, mix’ (UEW)

Cf. Md.+Ma. ‘to sieve’, Selkup ‘to mix, stir’.

The UEW describes a Finno-Volgaic semantic shift ‘to stir by shaking’ > ‘to sieve’, but this is only to presume the Narym Selkup value ‘to stir’ is original, even though the primary semantic value across the Selkup dialects is clearly ‘to mix’. The Finno-Volgaic value ‘to sieve’ should instead be viewed as original, with Selkup ‘to mix’ as secondary.

16. sargíon ~ sargînos ~ sargós ‘type of schooling fish’
H σαργίον ~ σαργῖνος ‘type of schooling fish’ ~ σαργός ‘white seabream’ > FU *särki ‘roach: Rutilus rutilus’ (Aikio 2015) ~ *särkä ‘a species of fish’ (UEW)

Although this is the only current reconstruction of a specific type of fish in Helleno-Uralic theory, there are only three fish species reconstructed to Proto-Uralic itself (Aikio 2022). The two HU fish species do not match, but the general commonality between the white seabream and the roach fish is that they are both small, silver schooling or shoaling fish.

Aikio’s more recent potential recontruction *särki could complement a similar proposed U deletion of final syllabism in HU trisyllabic etyma, such as HFU keiríǣ ‘swathe’ > *keri ‘bark, bast’ and HFP koníæ ‘ash, lye’ > *koni, allowing the consideration of HU sargíon ~ sargînos > *särki.

17. skáphǣ ‘small boat, trough: dugout canoe’
H σκάφη ‘small boat, trough’ > FU *kappv ~ *kappɜ ‘processable wood: poplar, aspen, fir’ (UEW) > Ud. ‘tree trunk, trough at a well’; Kh. ‘aspen, boat’, Mn. ‘fir, poplar, boat’

While this etymon formally has a Finno-Ugric distribution, reflexes are only found in Permic and Ob-Ugric. It is unclear whether this should be interpreted as an archaic retention that was lost from other branches, or if Permic and Ob-Ugric rather had an areal proximity prior to Ugro-Samoyedic dispersal from the FP sprachbund. While the UEW defines FU *kappv as a general term for wood that can be processed, Udmurt and Ob-Ugric each reflex ‘trough’ and ‘boat’ respectively, which fits perfectly with the H polysemy. The independent P+Ob Ug. dendronyms should instead be viewed as secondary developments from a popular material terminology for “single-tree” products, namely dugout wooden vessels. In an early HU riparian context, HFU skáphǣ could primarily be viewed as a dugout canoe that was used on the Kama and its relevant tributaries, such as the Chusovaya.

18. zôma ‘scale armor; animal skin;? money’
H ζῶμα > FU *ćʌmə ‘scale; skin; money’ ~ *će̬mi (Aikio forthcoming) ~ *śe̮me ‘fish scale’ (UEW)

The exact definition of HFU zôma is difficult due to polysemy. As with HU kuklé-, it is necessary to review the semantic reflexes of the individual Uralic branches for a better overview: S ‘fish skin, scale’; F ‘scale’; Md. ‘money’; Ma. ‘scale; peel, skin’; P ‘scale; money’; Kh. ‘scale; money’; Mn. ‘scale, crust, bark’.

It is undeniable that the meaning ‘scale’ must be reconstructed, as it appears in all branches except for Mordvinic. However, the additional semantics ‘skin’ and ‘money’ should not be discounted, as each are present in at least two branches without a known taxonomical affinity. The Khanty reflex ‘money’ is described as a “secret word” that can not be original according to Aikio, but we are still left with Permic to fortify this semantic value, which allows at least FP distribution in a FU etymon.

There is a complex of related Greek terms, which describe similar items, that I wish to semantically factor into the ultimate reconstruction of HFU zôma: ζῶμα ‘apron made of leather or felt extending from the flank to upper thigh for defense, band, covering, garment, girdle, lower part of the θώραξ, through which the ζωστήρ passed’, θώραξ ‘coat of mail, scale armor, shed snake skin; bandage for the chest, cuirass’, ζωστήρ ‘warrior’s belt made of leather and covered with metal plates’; and further ζῶμα = ζώνη ‘belt, girdle, girdle-money: belt used as a purse’.

From this set of terms, the semantics ‘scale armor; animal skin, leather’, and also perhaps ‘money’, can be compared to FU ‘scale; skin;? money’. However, ‘money’ must also be viewed as uncertain from the H etyma, as its description is by association with the girdle itself. There might also be a more general value ‘covering’ that could be inferred from e.g. Ma. ‘peel’ and Mn. ‘crust, bark’ when compared with H ‘band, belt, covering, girdle’, but these individual values are not mutual enough to be informative. We therefore get HFU zôma ‘scale armor; animal skin;? money’. This term would have mostly continued as ‘fish scale’ into the Uralic branches, due to their riparian locations. Again, the meaning ‘scale armor’ may have been contextual to riparian Helleno-Uralic warrior-traders.

++++

What can be concluded from these oldest Helleno-Uralic etyma is that both Archaic Hellenic and Uralic speakers would have been mutually familiar with local riparian zones, and their relevant features such as trees, animals, and nautical materials. From a riparian basis, further developments of cultural affinity would have organically evolved through sustained contact. In addition, speakers of Gelonian Greek and Archaic Uralic shared methods of food preparation.