Quick Update:

This is just to let everyone know what is up with Finngreek at the moment.

I am in the process of adding, revising, and removing entries here on the website. Finngreek is an emerging field of study: So new research is being processed every day.

I am also currently finalizing the first academic paper about Helleno-Uralic Theory. It should hopefully be ready in a draft version for peer reviewal before the winter holidays. If you notice incongruencies in the entries (different presentation, “missing” links, etc.), this is just the process I am going through right now. Eventually, all entries will follow the same format. A consistent template has been established that is based on the academic presentation to be expected in the upcoming paper – but I haven’t had the free time to apply it to the website yet.

That’s about it. Bye!

Suomalainen / Sō̂ma / Σώμα: Finngreek Poetry

Happy Halloween! This week’s post is a Finngreek poem, using words we’ve learned over the past 3 months.

Sō̂ma (Person)


tʰúellan nóītā kǐdạ́
to sō̂ma iaró
mḗlē rotʰízẹ mukʰá
to kaũma to págos

kǐ́rios leúẹ hapsín
daídalo nē̂ma
áīma ripízẹ vē̂non
aídālo ħrē̂ma

English (literal):

windstorm seer praises
the person divine
oar dashes riverbends
the heat the frost

master throws net
artful thread
wind fans ship
unseen treasure

English (revised):

the seer praises the windstorm
the divine being
the oar dashes rivers
the heat and the frost

the captain casts the net
an artful strand
the wind fans the ship
a hidden treasure

Ízdō: Realizing the Finngreek Verb, Part 2

This is our final post of the series! After this, any new terms will be incorporated into the most relevant available post.

Helleno-Uralic verbs offer insight into the activities of the people involved in the Uralo-Hellenic contact period. Verbs have already been partly discussed in Part 1. In Part 2, a special class of verbs are discussed: the -ízdō verbs. These verbs are compared due to their shared suffix; and are currently only etymologized from Greek into the Finnic and Mari languages. In Finnish, the suffix -ista is found; and in Mari, the suffix -(ə)žáš is found: These Uralic suffixes are compared with Hellenic -ízd(ō) and -(á)z(d[ō]), respectively.

In Helleno-Uralic Theory, -zdō is identified along with the nominalizing derivative -(z)mós: Cf. Ma. -(ž)máš. However, it is unclear whether HMa. -mós can be reconstructed; or if they are rather cognates that ultimately descend from a PIE *-mos.

The HU -ízdō verb roots are generally defined as onomatopoeic or descriptive in origin in both Hellenic and Uralic etymologies. However, in certain cases, these verb are derived from a noun, which allows for semantic context.


*arízd- ~ arrízd
HF ‘to growl, snarl / knurren’
Fi. äristä ~ häristä <> He. arrízdō / ἀρρίζω < ?

HF *arízdō is posited due to the variation of He. arázdō ~ arrázdō. I tentatively compare Fi. äreä ‘grumpy / mürrisch’ with He. áreios / ἄρειος ‘martial, warlike’, which would ultimately derive from the name of the god Árēs / Ἄρης. This comparison is possibly fortified by the relevance of the dog to Ares: For example, Spartans sacrificed dogs to Ares. If He. arrízdō can be derived from Árēs, then the loan must be considered F < H, as the attestation of Ares predates the currently proposed timespan of HU contact. However, F < H loaning may not explain the initial h- of häristä, which suggests an original rough breathing – unless psilosis of HF *(h)arízd- was underway during HU contact. Regardless, all terms connected with He. arrízdō are ultimately of an unknown provenance, which formally leaves open the possibility of a F > H loan.

Fi. ‘to crackle (of fire) / knistern (“ritistä”), crumble / bröckeln, flutter down / rieseln, rustle / rascheln’;
He. ‘to blow up or fan (the flame)’
Fi. ripistä <<? He. ripízdō / ῥιπίζω < ripís / ῥιπίς ‘fan’ < ríptō / ῥίπτω ‘to throw (down, out)’ < ?

The exact meaning of HF ripízd- is unclear, due to the semantic variety in both the F and He. terms. Perhaps it described the fanning, and subsequent crackling, of a fire.

Fi. ‘to crash (repeatedly) / krachen’; He. ‘to move something rapidly causing noise’
Fi. rutista, rytistä <<? He. rotʰízdō / ῥοθίζω < rótʰos / ῥόθος < ?

Cf. HS rótʰ-: He. rótʰos also means ‘dash of oars, roar of waves, rushing noise’. These semantics imply nautical contact and/or travel.

HMa. ‘to smile’
see HMa. sarkazmós

Ma. ‘to cry, scream, shout, shriek, squeal, yell’; He. ‘to mangle, speak gibberish, speak like a barbarian / βαρβαρίζω’
Ma. vargəžáš / варгыжаш <> He. varkázdō / βαρκάζω < ?

He. varkázdō is an isolated term – contrast with the regular derivation seen in Ma. vargəžáš / варгыжаш > vargəžmáš / варгыжмаш. This suggests H *varkazmós / *βαρκασμός if a Ma. < He. loan. However, Ma. > He. loaning can not be ruled out, due to the lack of further He. etymology, as well as the “barbarian” semantics.

Ma. ‘to call’; He. ‘to squeal like a pig’
Ma. yžáš / ӱжаш <<? He. hyízdō / ὑΐζω < hỹs / ὗς ‘swine’ << PIE *sūs

Also reconstructed is HMa. (h)yizmós: Cf. yžmáš / ӱжмаш ‘call’ <<? He. hyizmós/ ὑϊσμός ‘squealing’.


Now that the first collection of terms has been proposed, focus in future posts will shift to the history and linguistics behind Helleno-Uralic contact. Aídālos mũtʰos ripízdẹ, daídalos vē̃nos rotʰízdẹ…

Ízdō: Realizing the Finngreek Verb, Part 1

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).

Síka: Rewilding the Finngreek Animals

This post discusses terms relevant to animals that would have been present during Helleno-Uralic contact, due to their proposed loaning. Previously discussed were HFS nákā (the skin of an animal) and (e)pʰolkḗ (a vessel that might have been towed by animals, such as reindeer).


apsí– ~ (h)apsí-
mesh of a net (HS); net (HMa.);? mesh net (HSMa.?)
PS *vuopsë;? Ma. vapš / вапш <? He. apsí- / ἀψίς < háptō / ἅπτω < ?
Con.: G hābaz > EPS *ap(a/i)si > PS *vuopsë (Kallio 2009, p. 36)

The phonological advantages of a He. > PS (vs. G > PS) loan are: Initial h- could be optional; medial -ps- is explained; and final -i(-) is explained. However, the syllable stress, and absence of final -s, in S are unclear. It is also unclear how both HS apsí– and HS apʰḗ (> PS *āppē) can be phonologically explained as loans into Sami, given their mutual derivation from He. háptō. However, this incongruency might be explained by rapid pace of PS vowel shifts, as discussed by Petri Kallio re: G > S loans (Kallio 2009, p. 37). In this model, HS apsí– would have been loaned earlier than apʰḗ. Re: Ma.: Cf. vapš < vaptáš / вапташ ‘to tangle up’ with He. (h)apsí- < háptō ‘to fasten or bind to’. However, a paradigm is not reconstructed for He. (h)a- >> Ma. va-.

magpie (HF)
B (cf. Lit. šárka) ?> F harakka ?> He. karakáksa / καρακάξα* < ?

Two phonological problems are presented by the proposal of HF karakáksa: The correspondence of F h- = He. k-; and the He. final-syllable -ksa. These are both left unresolved at present: While F h- = He. kʰ- is precedented, the phonological environment that would result in F h- = He. k- is not identified; and the He. final-syllable -ksa is not identified as a morpheme.

*LSJ:GM defines He. karakáksa as “κίσσα“, which can refer to either a type of jay (Garrulus glandarius) or magpie (Pica caudata) (LSJ:FEE). He.-language Wikipedia identifies the karakáksa / καρακάξα as the Eurasian magpie.

wolf (Ud.), dog (He.)
Ud. kion / кион <? He. kǐ́ōn / κύων << PIE *ḱu̯ōn

Cf. Ko. köin / кӧин. However, Riho Grünthal writes that “the Udmurt and Komi variants suggest different reconstructive forms”. If Ud. kion was loaned from He. kǐ́ōn, this suggests that loaning was synchronous with other HU kǐ- terms.

kórak- ~ korák-
crow (HMa.)
Ma. korák / корак <<? He. kórak- / κόρᾰξ ~ korák- / κοράκι(ον) <1 PIE *kor-

It can be difficult to propose ornithological etymologies due to extra-familial similarities (eg: Fi. kurki ‘crane’ =? Sumerian kur.gi.). If HMa. korak- is correct, it is unclear from which He. form loaning into PMa. would have taken place: He. koráki(on) matches Ma. syllable stress; but a HMa. paradigm has not been reconstructed that would explain Ma. loss of He. -i(on).

squirrel (FP?); tail (He.)
FP? *ora <? He. ourā́ / οὐρά <1 PIE *h₁ors- ‘hindmost’ (cf. He. ὄρρος)

The He. term for ‘squirrel’, skíouros / σκίουρος, has been etymologized from skiá / σκιά ‘shadow’ + ourā́: Thus “shadow-tail”. However, this etymology has been disputed. The significance of the squirrel’s tail is implied in HFP? ourā́.

dirt, excrement (F); dung, mud (He.)
FU *pućka ~ *paćka > F paska ?> He. páskos / πάσκος < ?

If FUg. *pućka is the correct form, then Fi. paska shows the greatest phonological affinity with He. páskos. The revision of F -a with He. -os is reminiscent of other F > He. loans, such as HF laĩpʰos and nákos.

red (F); hair (FUg.); red, red hair (He.); red hair? (HU)
FUg. *puna <? He. purrā́ / πυρρά < ?

He. -rr- is unprecedented in HU: So it is unclear what its outcome in a H > U loan might be. If a feminine term, HFUg. purrā́ might have referred to the red squirrel (Fi. punaorava <<<? HU purrā́ ourā́). However, most He. terms for human and animal hair are feminine (cf. θρίξ, κόμη, ἔθειρα, χαίτη): So HFUg. purrā́ could simply be connected to a He. term for hair that hasn’t been reconstructed in HU; or, since ‘hair’ is already implied in He., it could describe a female.

butt (HF); tail (Er.,? He.); butt, tail (HFV?)
Fi. pylly (SSS),? Er. pulo / пуло <?> He. pýnnos / πύννος < ?

The meaning ‘tail’ attributed to He. pýnnos is by equation with πρωκτός. The primary meaning reconstructed is HF ‘butt’. Also compare Ne. pūna ‘behind’ (preposition; Lyublinskaya).

síka ~ s̜íka
pig (HF ~ HFV)
Fi. sika <(<) PF *cika ~ PFV *tika ?> He. síka / σίκα < ?

He. síka is from Laconian Doric: the dialect of Sparta. This does not necessarily mean that Spartans were involved in HF(V) contact: Only that the term was only attested in Laconian. The potential effects of assibilation on a loan into He. are unclear: So it is unclear what FV form might have been loaned into He. Assibilation is already a H feature (cf. HFUg. s͔éhō; HF sō̃ma ~ s͔ō̃mə).

Oikeîa: Rebuilding the Finngreek City

(Photo: Sami goahti in Fatmomakke, by Gunilla G.)

After more than 2,500 years since the hypothetical establishment of Helleno-Uralic contact, and various post-Hellenic lexical influences on the Uralic languages, it is unclear what everyday life would have looked like beyond and between the riparian nautical trade and immaterialism of the Uralo-Hellenic cultures. Furthermore, the Uralic peoples were likely hunter-gatherers (Aikio, p. 48), which might minimize the amount of topical terms for comparison with the urban Greek agriculturalists. Nonetheless, a small number of domestic terms are proposed.


isolated, remote (PS); obscure, unknown, unseen (He.)
SaN áidalas < PS *ājtëlës < He. aídālos / ἀΐδᾱλος <1 PIE *n̥- + *weyd-

If PS *-lës < He. -los, then HS aídālos would have referred to a masculine noun. However, S nouns in the HS lexicon are thus far only feminine, except for HFV vē̃nos. However, the -os in vē̃nos is not certainly FV < He.: So it is unclear which noun(s) that HS aídālos would have described.

building, house (HMa.)
Ma. tóma / тома <? He. dō̃ma / δῶμα <1 PIE *dem-
Con.: PIE *dṓm; Russian dom / дом

HMa. dō̃ma is phonologically similar to both PIE *dṓm and Russian dom / дом – also note adverbial doma / дома ‘at home’. However, PIE lacks final -a; and it seems unlikely that a Ru. > Ma. loan occurred, as a similar term is not found in Erzya or Permic (NDS). He. has a phonological advantage of nom. -a, and a semantic advantage of two paralleled meanings. Ma. t- <(<<) He. d- might be precedented in HMa. dugātā́. However, He. -ō̃- is unprecedented in the HMa. lexicon.

room (HF)
Fi. huone < PF *hooneh <?> He. h͔ō̃ros / χῶρος ~? h͔ṓrē / χώρη < ?

HFV vē̃nos could allow for comparison of PF *-eh with He. -os, although this correspondence is unclear. It would appear to be a secondary vowel reduction after a long vowel, as seen with HF sō̃ma and h͔rē̃ma. However, more examples are necessary for both processes.

door (PU); hatch, hole in the roof, hollow, light opening (He.)
PU *owe <? He. opḗ / ὀπή <1 PIE *h₃ekʷ-

PU *-w- < He. -p- is reminiscent of Finnic consonant gradation; and is precedented in HF kṓpā. However, He. -p- is unprecendented in PU < He. loans: So the validity of this correspondence requires more examples. The type of door described is unclear: It might be a door of a building, a flap of a tent, or a hatch of a ship.

farm, house (F); round building with a conical roof (He.)
? > F talas ~ talo ?> He. tʰólos / θόλος < ?

The various proposed etymologies of F talas ~ talo have been addressed by Sampsa Holopainen (Holopainen 2019, pp. 272-273). He. tʰólos has been compared with tʰálamos / θάλαμος ‘house, inner room, store-room, temple’, but Biliana Mihaylova describes tʰálamos from PIE *telh₂- (Mihaylova 2016, pp. 311-312). The round, conical shape of He. tʰólos is reminiscent of the Sami goahti. However, the purpose and material of the HF tʰólos is not reconstructed.

fitting, proper (HFi.); ? (HFV)
Fi. oikea << PFV *wojke < He. (w)oike- / (ϝ)οἰκεῖος < woĩkos / ϝοἶκος << PIE *u̯óiḱo-s

The FV meaning ‘straight’ might be a secondary development from ‘fitting’ that prevailed due to an unknown relevance: What was “straight” at the time of contact is unclear – perhaps amphorae or other containers in the HFV vē̃nos; or building materials for a home, such as poles for a hut.

Logéė: Recounting the Finngreek Economy

The Finngreek economy involved the exchange of goods and services between the Hellenic and Uralic peoples. I have previously discussed the transportation of contact and goods in the post Vē̃nos: Resailing the Finngreek Ship; as well as topographical features of the range of contact in the post Mukʰá: Reviewing the Finngreek Landscape. In this post, items and terms of communication of the Helleno-Uralic contact period are discussed.


now (HMa.)
Ma. ə́nde / ынде <? He. árti / ἄρτι << PIE *h₂rti (Matasović 2020, p. 14)

This loan is uncertain due to the Armenian cognate ard / արդ ‘now’; but due to synchronicity, PIE *h₂rti could not be the source of Ma. ə́nde, unless U cognates can be presented from a PIE loan – or if IU were confirmed, and the Ma. form was a sole U reflex. Because HMa. is (along with HF[S]) the best-supported HU subgroup – and there is no established basis for (Graeco-)Armenian <> Mari contact (along with the absence of final -i in the Arm. form) – He. árti is still considered exceptional in its affinity. Ma. ə́nde also means ‘already’; and He. árti also means ‘just now, recently’: So it appears that HMa. ‘now’ would have described both the present and recent past.

shirt (PG, PF); coat (PG, PH)
PG *paidō ?> PF *paita <?> He. baítā / βαίτα < ?

All paths of loaning are marked as uncertain, due to the overall unknown provenance of these terms. It is unclear whether the PF and He. terms demonstrate HU contact, or whether they are indirectly related.

amber, bead, gem, pearl (F); goods, heirlooms, money, riches, temple-treasures (He.)
Fi. helmi < PF *helmi < He. h͔rē̃ma / χρῆμα <1? PIE *ĝher-

F secondary-vowel reduction is assumed due to the length He. -ē̃- (cf. HF sō̃ma). The original HF semantic value is unclear: While it is tempting to suggest ‘amber’ due to Baltic > Mycenaean amber trade, this meaning is not found in He. It may have rather been a general term for luxury goods.

bread, cereal, grain (Ma.), barley (He.)
Ma. kínde / кинде <? He. krītʰḗ / κρῑθή < ?

Liquid metathesis to avoid initial consonant clusters is precedented in HU (cf. h͔rē̃ma, brokʰā́). Re: He. -rT- > Ma. -nd-, cf. HMa. árti. Because recessive accent does not seem applicable in the context of HMa., the initial-vowel stress of Ma. kínde must be due to long He. -ī-. This would also need to be the explanation for Ma. -í-, where -é- might rather be expected. It is difficult to make a phonological conclusion, as this is the only HU proposal including He. ī / ῑ.

too much (HF)
Fi. liian < PF *liian ~ *liiɣan > He. lían / λίαν < ?
Loaning from PF must have occurred after the weakening of gradated medial PF *-g- to /ɣ/, or H *lígan would be expected (cf. He. olígos / ὀλίγος). It also must have been an early loan, already present in Homeric (cf. λίην).

to calculate (HU)
PFU ~ PU *luke <? He. logéō / λογέω <1 PIE *leǵ-
Con.: PIE *loǵ-? (cf. He. lógos / λόγος)

conversation, speech, word (HMa.)
Ma. mut / мут <> He. mũtʰos / μῦθος < ?

*nákā ~ nákē
leather (PF); woolly/hairy skin, fleece (He.)
PF *nahka ~ PS *nākkē > He. nákē / νάκη < ?

oukí ~ oukʰí
no, not (HMa.)
Ma. uké / уке < He. oukí / οὐκί << PIE *(ne) h₂óyu kʷid (Kim 2016, p. 45)

Re: Ma. u- < He. ou-, cf. HU ourā́.

rypʰ– ~ rypʰé- ~ rýpʰō
to drink, sip (Fi.); to gulp, slurp, sup greedily up (He.)
Fi. ryypätä << He. rypʰé- / ῥυφέω << PIE *srobʰéyeti < *srebʰ-

The HF root would appear to require He. rýpʰ-, with recessive accent.

PS ‘medicine’; He. ‘pain’
PS tālkkës <? He. tálgos / τἄλγος < álgos / ἄλγος ?

The exact semantic correspondence is unclear. HS semantic reversal (cf. HS omós, HFS págos) is worth consideration. However, an etymological connection has been proposed between He. álgos and alégō / ἀλέγω ‘to care for’. This connection has been dismissed due to the semantic gap: But if ‘pain’ was an enantiosemic variant of ‘care’, then perhaps a meaning along the lines of ‘medicine, remedy, treatment’ could be considered.

PS ‘shoe hay / kenkäheinä’; He. ‘branch, gift, leaves’, ‘twigs for fodder’ (LSJ: English [Autenrieth])
PS *tāllës <? He. tʰallós / θαλλός < tʰállō / θάλλω ‘to flourish, grow’ <1 PIE *dʰ(e)h₂-l-

He. tʰallós generally refers to a young branch – especially of the olive plant – but can also refer to palm leaves. Re: ‘leaves’, cf. thallía / θαλλία ‘foliage, leaf-buds, twigs’. As hay is a common type of fodder, it is posited that HS tʰallós could have referred to hay.

Sō̃ma: Remeeting the Finngreek People

This post focuses on the reconstruction of people who would have been relevant to Helleno-Uralic contact.

There is a great deal of human action and interaction that can be inferred from verbs and economic terms I will share in separate posts. Here, I will only address the people themselves who are theorized to have existed within the Helleno-Uralic sphere.

The role of the noītá has already been discussed in an earlier post: They would have been a central figure in Helleno-Uralic contact, as an exalted spiritualist. In addition, it is assumed that nautical crew (rowers, dockmen, etc.), traders, and other workers were part of Helleno-Uralic exchange. However, terms for these roles have not yet been proposed.

Re: the proposals herein, the following Helleno-Uralic people are reconstructed: Warriors (apʰḗ?, iskʰús?, ry̌̃ma), crafters (daídalos), nobility (kǐ́rios), and Proto-Finns (sō̃ma).


strength (PS), wrestling grip (He.)
PS *āppē <? He. (h)apʰḗ / ἁφή < (h)áptō / ἅπτω ‘to attack, take hold of’ < ?

Regardless of whether He. (h)apʰḗ retained h- during PS < He. loaning, it appears that h- was not loaned into PS.

artistic (HF ~ HFS)
NSa. dáiddalaš << PS *tājδētēk <? PF *taitadak ‘to know how’ <?> He. daidállō / δαιδάλλω, daídalos / δαίδαλος <1? PIE *dens- ~ *dn̥s- ‘to learn’

Fi. taito ‘skill, art’ and SaN dáidu ‘skill, know-how’ imply HFS *daídos / *δαίδος ‘artistic skill, cunning, proficiency’. The He. verb daidállō is identified as PreΗ – but if Fi. taitaa is furthermore connected via F *taj- with taju ‘consciousness, sense’, then compare also with He. dáios / δάϊος ‘knowing, cunning’ ~ daē̃nai / δαῆναι ‘learn’, inf. aor. of dáō / δάω ‘to learn, know, teach’ <1 PIE *dens- ~ *dn̥s- (cf. He. διδάσκω). If the Sa. adjectival suffix -laš was loaned from He. or earlier IE (vs. being a “Calque of Finnish -llinen by replacing the inflectional part -ise- with the existing native Sami cognate -žža-.”), then it would be cognate with, or reflexed from, SaN -las < PS *-lës – although the phonological resemblance could rather be a coincidence, which would leave the reconstruction HF(S) *dai-, *daidV-.

attack, impact (Fi.); brute force, might (He.)
F isku ?> He. iskʰús / ἰσχύς < ?

Fi. iskeä would imply H *iskʰéō, whereas He. iskʰúō / ἰσχύω is instead the attested form. Because of this, it is difficult to argue for F < He. loaning. Along with the unknown He. etymology, a F > He. loan is considered.

lord, master, mister (HEr.)
Er. čirjaz / чиряз << He. kǐ́rios / κύριος <1 PIE *ḱeuh₂- ‘to swell, be strong’

NDS defines Er. čirjaz as ‘барин, господин (Ru.); herra (Fi.)’: These are all honorifics to politely address a man (historically a nobleman); and originally meant ‘lord, master’. This semantic development is paralleled in HEr. kǐ́rios.

friend (Man.); defense, protection (He.); ally? (HUg.)
Man. ruma / рума <<? He. ry̌̃ma / ῥῦμα < ἐρύω <1? PIE *u̯eru- ‘to draw’

In light of HUg. pʰy̌̃ma, the primary form proposed is ry̌̃ma vs. rũma.

smile (ΗMa.)
Ma. šərgəžmáš / шыргыжмаш << He. sarkazmós / σαρκασμός
to smile (HMa.)
Ma. šərgəž- << sarkaz(d)- / σαρκάζ- (cf. σαρκάζει ‘smiles’ / ‘μειδιᾷ‘ [Hsch.])
cheek, face (Ma.); flesh, body (He.)
Ma. šərɣə, šürɣö < PMa. *šǚrgə (Aikio 2014, p. 132) < He. sýrks ~ sýrka / σύρκ- <1 PIE *turḱ- ‘to cut’
cut, slit (PS); ? (He.)
PS *sārkē <? He. sárks ~ sárka / σάρκ- (cf. σαρκάζω ‘to tear flesh’)

It appears that the original vowel of the PMa. < He. loan was /y/ (PMa. *šǚrgə <? HMa. sýrka), which later, perhaps independently, evolved into Ma. -ə- / He. -a-. This must have been a popular word, because it can be compared through multiple derivations. It is unclear whether the U terms illustrate loaning from the acc. He. form, or if the absence of -s is due to a limitation on consonant clusters. It is also unclear whether PS *sārkē ‘cut, slit’ might be included in this proposal: Its phonology would be distinctly He., but its reconstructed meaning differs. However, the Sa. reflexes themselves have varied meanings (cf. SaI särgi ‘rib’, SaN sárgi ‘a single rib with the flesh on it’, SaS+SaSk. ‘mark/slit on a reindeer’s ear’), which might suggest a HS meaning ‘cut flesh’ that bridges the semantic gap. It is unclear whether the HMa. and HSa. forms represent separate He. loans, or if they might rather descend from a HFV loan: This ambiguity is reminiscent of HFS págos ‘frost’ vs. HEr. págos ‘hill, mountain’.

Finland, Finn (Fi.); body, human, person (He.)
Fi. Suomi, suoma- < PF *sooma < He. sō̃ma / σῶμα < PH tsṓmə < *twṓmə <? PIE *tu̯ō-mn̥
Con.: PrePG *ǵʰm̥-ōn ~ PrePBS *ǵʰom-yā- (Kallio 1998, p. 617); PFS *sama- < I zam (De Smit, unpublished)

Fi. Suomi is a puzzle for etymologists seeking its ultimate provenance: The conflicts listed are just two of many proposals. De Smit excellently summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of proposals from Kallio and Koivulehto. Although I have objections to each conflicting proposal, I will not argue here against them, as they all appear to me to be reasonable enough. I will rather offer my own solution, and let it be subject to its own share of criticism.

PF *sooma can be regularly derived from HF(S?) sō̃ma (cf. PG *kookka < PG *χōka-; PF *rooka < PG *rōkā). The implication of a demonymic loan from He. is that HF(S) contact must be have been exceptionally intensive; or that it at least occurred in a geographical environment not subject to other IE adstrates (i.e. G, B, and II) to a degree greater than H. One tentative argument in favor of He. > F(S) meeting this criterion is that F(S) > He. is demonstrable in HU theory, which can not be so well-demonstrated elsewhere from U (perhaps notwithstanding Ma. > He.): Cf. HF(S) aktī́, iskʰús, laĩf͔os, lían, nákē, páskos, síka. This implies a direct line of contact between early F(S) and He. speakers – likely via the Dnieper river.

I do not attempt to connect the Sami ethnonym to this proposal, at least until a viable phonological environment can be replicated through further HU proposals.

Mukʰá: Reviewing the Finngreek Landscape

This post focuses on reconstructed geographical features of Helleno-Uralic contact, which would have primarily taken place in northeast Europe, through the lands known as Scythia. During Helleno-Uralic contact, the mukʰá (riverbend[s]) of the Scythian rivers would have been the center(s) of trade and travel. It is unclear whether this term was used by the ancient Greeks to describe the rivers themselves – which is possible within Greek – or whether a specific term just for ‘river’ can be reconstructed from terms not currently compared. The ancient Greeks certainly had names for the Scythian rivers, such as the Borysthenes (Dnieper), the Tanais (Don), and the Rha (Volga). There are historical records of Greeks traveling these rivers, and settling upstream among the locals (eg: Gelonus).

In addition to the mukʰá, there were dams, moors, hills, cliffs, capes, and roads. There may have also been swamps. This is a smaller collection of the terms I originally wished to share; the terms not yet shared may offer a much broader description of the landscapes, but they need more in-depth research. Over time, I will expand on this post.

wave (HU)
PU *kumpa <? He. kũma / κῦμᾰ < PH *kūmə < PIE *ḱéwh₁-mn̥ < *ḱewh₁- ‘to swell’
Con.: PU *-p-; PU *kompa? (per Aikio)

If a U < H loan, it must have been an early loan, given its wide distribution, and /u/ vs. /y/. However, PU *-p- is unexplained. Also, I am awaiting more information re: *kompa (vs. the commonplace reconstruction *kumpa). This is already an irregular proposal due to *-p-; and if I am satisfied with the reasoning for *-o-, then I will remove this proposal.

dam, dike? (HEr.)
Er. kavaz / каваз < He. *kʰówos / *χόϜος (cf. χόος, LSJ:FB) < khéō / χέω <1 PIE *ǵʰew- ‘to pour’

A citation for the Erzya term kavaz has been difficult to find: It is plainly listed on Wiktionary as ‘dam, dike’, but is without a source; and it is allegedly defined as ‘dam, pond’ / ‘плотина, пруд’ in the Erzya-language book Сырнень човалят: Стувтовозь ды чуросто вастневиця валт (Russian: Золотые бисеринки: Забытые и редко встречающиеся слова [English: Gold beads: Forgotten and rare words]), by Evgeny Vladimirovich / Евгений Владимирович. As for He. kʰó(w)os / χόος, it is defined as ‘mound, bank of earth’ (cf. χοῦς, LSJ:EW), ‘dike’ (LSJ:E>GW); and described by Hsch. as “χῶμα” = ‘mound, dike, dam’.

pond, puddle, bog (PU); damp, mud, scum (He.); mud? (HU)
PU *lampe <?> He. lámpē / λάμπη < ?
Con.: Lit. klampa ‘marsh, swamp’ (cf. Junttila, p. 282); Geo. loṗo / ლოპო ‘slime?’

It appears that the unifying HU semantic value is ‘mud’: Compare Ma. lop ‘deep-lying moist soil’ / ‘tiefliegender feuchter Boden’ and Ne. limbad ‘sand with water on the riverbank, sand with an admixture of clay’ / ‘вязкий песок с водой на берегу реки, песок с примесью глины’. However, also compare Ma. lop and Geo. loṗo, as well as the He. variant lápē / λάπη. However, the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia defines loṗo as ‘slippery moisture that settles between tree bark and timber in the spring’ / ‘ლიპი სისველე, რომელიც ხის ქერქსა და მერქანს შორის ჩადგება გაზაფხულზე’, which does not describe moist ground as seen in the U, He., and Lit. terms. If the Sy. terms are correctly attributed to PU *lampe, then it could not likely be a B loan. Re: HU, the PU phonology is ideal for a U<H loan; but as the He. term is without etymology, the direction of loaning is unclear. If U>H, it would most likely be from disintegrating PFS – or a FS descendant language.

moss (HFP)
PFP *rekɜ (lichen) <? He. leikʰḗn / λειχήν <1 PIE *leiǵh- ‘to lick’

Cf. Ma. reγeńə. Ma. -ńə ~ -ńćə̑ ~ -ńće is listed as a denominative suffix; and it is unclear how this might (or might not) correspond to the He. -n(a[s]) suffix(es) (cf. λειχήνα ~ λειχήνας). FP *r- < He. *l- is unprecedented; and the primary FP < H form must have been rendered with FP *r-, perhaps due to II influence. If the FP term(s) were in fact loaned from He., it is relevant to note that reflexes are only found in Mari and Permic (i.e. Central Uralic): This might lexically nudge the range of HU contact towards the Volga-Kama interfluve, which would likely rely on travel on the Volga river.

mukʰá(s) ~ *mukʰā́ ~ múkʰē 
bend of a river (PU); bend of the shore, nook, a bay or creek running far inland (He.)
PU *mučka > PF *mutka ?> He. mukʰá / μυχά (cf. μυχός) ~ mukʰás / μυχάς ~ múkʰē / μύχη ~ mukʰḗ / μυχή (thus *múkʰā ~ *mukʰā́) < ?

The language or proto-language from which U > H would have occurred is unclear. The term could not have been inherited from Sy. due to lack of -k-; but the PU and PF forms are too similar for disambiguation. As -tk- does not occur in He., -t- loss might be expected. However, there are examples of intra-U -t- loss in both F (cf. Fi. mukka; McCoy 2017, p. 207) and S (PS *mokkē). However, Fi. mukka is not likely synchronous with HU contact; and the S reflexes exhibit -o-, which has not demonstrably resulted in He. -u- (but compare Cypriot loc. mokʰoĩ / μοχοῖ). Although not listed in the UEW, I also tentatively suggest Ma. mugər / мугыр ‘bend, wind, meander, curve (of river, road)’ as a reflex of PU *mučka – this would open loaning into He. from the FV continuum – although the Ma. -r suffix is unclear.

Fi. ‘peninsula / Halbinsel, spit of land / Landzunge’; He. ‘thread’
Fi. niemi < PF *neemi <? He. nē̃ma / νῆμα < néō / νέω ‘to spin’ << PIE *sneh₁-

Also compare He. nē̃sos / νῆσος ‘island’, of a debated etymology: Either ultimately from PIE *sneh₂- ‘to swim’ via He. néō / νέω ‘to swim’, or from an unknown or Pre-Greek origin. Perhaps the semantics of He. nē̃sos influenced nē̃ma: Spits of land are very common along the northern Black Sea and Sea of Azov; as well as along the southeastern Baltic Sea. In this context, HF nē̃ma would have meant ‘thread of land’.

heath, moor (F); pasture (He.)
PF *nummi < He. nomī́ / νομή << PIE *nom-éh₂ < *nem-
Con.: PIE *nom-éh₂?

If the word can not be attested within U outside of F, it is not likely to have been inherited into F from PIE via U.

hill, mountain (HMor.)
Er. pando / пандо << He. págos / πάγος <1 *peh₂ǵ- ‘to attach’

It is unclear whether HFS págos ‘frost’ and HMor. págos ‘hill, mountain’ were unified, or if they represent separate borrowings: Both meanings are found in He. págos. If unified, they could represent HFV págo(s). The Mor. result -nd- would apparently be regular (cf. PFU *towkɜ > Er. tundo).

psīlḗ ~ *psī́lē
tall (HU)
PU *pide <? He. psīlḗ / ψηλή <1 PIE *h₃ewps-

Aphetic, fem. form of He. hupsīlós / ὑψηλός. The gender might connect with HU fem. nouns, such as HU pʰúē ‘tree’. Assymetric HU -īlḗ is reminiscent of -ḗlǣ: A possibility that medial -η- evolved before final -η is considered.

grass (PUg.); that which grows (He.)
PUg. *pimɜ < He. pʰy̌̃ma / φῦμα << PIE *bʰúH-mn̥

In the Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Károly Rédei describes Ug. -u- as secondary (cf. Khanty and Mansi pum < PUg. *pimɜ). However, this is not the outcome of U *(-)imɜ in the Ug. languages (cf. PU *imɜ > Kha. imə ~ imi; PFP? *simɜ > Kha. sɑ̆mĭ ~ sĭm- etc., Man. sämi ~ siməl etc.). Unfortunately, I haven’t found any example of PU *-üm- reflexed in PUg. for a potential regular phonological comparison: In this event, the best explanation I offer is that its origin as a loanword explains the unusual vowel correspondences. In light of this, I suggest the correction of PUg. *pimɜ to *pümɜ ~ HUg. pʰy̌̃ma.

raktós ~ ráktos
ravine (HF)
Fi. rotko <<? He. raktós / ῥακτός ~ ráktos / ῥάκτος <1? PIE *wreh₁ǵ- ‘to break’
Con.: Irr.

Although a perfect semantic match, the phonology is unusual: Fi. *rahto might be expected (cf. HF ah͔tī́); but if Sa. -tk- < U *-kt- is a demonstrable irregularity (cf. PU *tuktɜ >> Sa. totko), perhaps the same could be applied to a F < He. loan. Fi. ro- << He. ra- is unexplained.

rótʰos ~ *róθē
winter road (SaN); mountain path, path, trail (He.)
SaN raŧŧi < PS *rëθē <? He. rótʰos / ῥόθος ~ *róθē / ῥόθη < PreH

Due to HU phonological standards, HS /θ/ is presented as a possibility. However, secondary development is not ruled out. The PS form suggests *rëθē < He. *róθē. However, a feminine variant of He. rótʰos is not attested.

edge (Fi.); chasm (He.)
Fi. särmä <<> He. sárma / σάρμα < saírō / σαίρω < ?

The ultimate origins of both Fi. särmä and He. sárma are unknown, so the direction of loaning can not be ascertained.

Woikeĩe Noītá = True Seer

I need another week until my next post is ready about the reconstruction of Helleno-Uralic contact; and I thought that it would be good to fill in the gap with a comparative poem. Each Uralic and Greek word can be selected to be externally linked to detailed information. The phonological and semantic reasonings will not be explained for each term within this post (some have already been shared, and some will be shared soon). The Finngreek words herein include Uralic < Hellenic and Uralic > Hellenic loans; and they are not always equal to the linked Greek and Uralic forms (eg: Sami áidalas < Proto-Sami *ājtëlës shows Greek aídalos / αίδαλος – but the Greek form aídalā is used to match the grammatical gender of mukʰā́; the He. term mukʰā́ is glossed with Proto-Uralic mučka, but the loaning is proposed from Finno-Samic during a later period). The English translation is not always literal, but provides the best semantic approximation to the Helleno-Uralic / Finngreek terms.

pide puwe psīlḗ pʰuḗ ψηλή φυή tall tree
puna ora purrā́ ourā́ πυρρά ουράred squirrel
dáiddalaš kavazdaídalos kʰówosδαίδαλος χόϝοςartful dam
áidalas mučkaaídalā mukʰā́αίδαλα μυχάhidden river
jalo čirjaz íaros kǐ́riosίαρος κύριοςthe sacred master
mut pušɜ-mũtʰo pʰusáμῦθο φυσάexhales the word:
kiihkeä tule kǐkeĩe tʰuéllē κυκεῖε θυέλλη“frenzied wind,
wojke nojta woikeĩe noītá ϝοικεῖε νοητά true seer!”
to sooma jada-to sō̃ma iálei το σῶμα ιάλειthat person summons
täwde purka teleíā brokʰā́ τελεία βροχάthe perfect storm.