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).
apʰḗ 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.
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-.
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.
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.
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’.
sō̃ma ~ s͔ō̃mə 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.
An unclear phonological development re: HU final vowels involves comparison and synchronization with the development of U secondary vowels: As U *-e, *-i, and *-ə are all differing interpretations of U *-V – and as He. final vowels are highly variable due to both grammatical and dialectal distinctions – HU final vowels are sometimes ambiguous. In the case of HF sō̃ma, it is possible that – in addition to the assumed result Fi. Suomi < PF *sooma (cf. Kallio’s PF *ćoma re: *-a) – the potential presence of He. -ə could reinforce the Fi. result -i from HF s͔ō̃mə (cf. HF h͔rē̃ma, HFP tʰúella). However, it is currently unclear whether HU -a / -α held the value <a> or <ə>.
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.
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, 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.
kũma 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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
pʰy̌̃ma 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.
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.
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.
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.
The shift PS *-ō < HS -a is unprecedented and unclear: There are no other HS terms involving PS *-ō; and in loans, PS *-ō appears to primarily reflex from either PG *-ō (PS *ājrō < PG *airō) or PF *-o (PS *vājmō < PF *vaimo; PS *arvō < PF *arvo [if not directly from PFU *arwa]). However, there are other phonemes which result in PS *-ō: PS *pārō < Old Norse bára is one example; although it’s unclear how this change could apply to HS áīma over the result of PS *vājmō. Perhaps PS *-ō occurred within PS to avoid homophony with *ājmē ‘needle’ – the expected outcome of He. áīma – which would have already been present in the language. Perhaps PS *ājmō could have also been influenced by *vājmō.
The U variation *-a ~ *-i might be compared to the dialectal variation and/or chronological progression of He. -ā ~ (-ǣ) ~ -ē ~ -ī. U CVLC- < H CLVC- is a common feature of HU proposals, due to Uralic restrictions on initial consonant clusters. A phonological and semantic puzzle arises when considering He. purkaiā́ re: U ‘smoke’: It is unclear whether He. brokʰā́ and purkaiā́ could have both influenced the outcome of U *purkV, which would ultimately depend on whether the original meaning was ‘(snow)storm’ or ‘smoke’. Aikio describes the semantic bridge as ‘pouring, whirling in the air’. He. purkaiā́ is included as material for consideration; but brokʰā́ ~ brokʰī́ > U *purka ~ *purki is considered regular, while there is no precedent from which to analyze -iā́ loss from He. purkaiā́ into Uralic – nor the Uralic variation *-a ~ *-i.
U < H loans appear to lose their initial vowel in HU -aũ-/-eũ- diphthongs – and possibly in other environments – although the nature of this process is unclear due to few comparable proposals. In this proposal, the original He. term would have been adjectivized after loaning into Finno-Volgaic.
In HS, PS *-ës < He. -os / -ος. As with HFV kaũma, HFS págos is a noun that has been adjectivized in either PFS or PS: I suppose the latter, as PF seems to preserve the original meaning. The suffixation of PF *pakka- with *-inen is like *hepoinen ‘horse’, derived from *hepo(i?) ‘horse’ (cf. Fi. hepo ‘horse’). It is curious that, in their combining forms, Fi. pakkas- (eg: pakkaskausi ‘period of frost’) and hevos- (eg: hevosvoima ‘horsepower’) resemble He. -os (i.e. págos / πάγος, híppos / ἵππος) – although this is more likely a coincidence, given the overwhelming regularity of He -os >> Fi. -o/u∅.
pneũma sky, god (PU); air, spirit, spiritual being (He.) PU *nu-mɜ <? He. pneũma / πνεῦμα << PIE *pnéwmn̥ ‘breath’ Con.: PIE *pnéwmn̥
Although phonologically and semantically suitable, chronology is an issue: Loaning into Proto-Uralic is considered permissible in the context of “Pseudo-Proto-Uralic” (i.e. loaning across a a wide geolinguistic span), but PU *nu-mɜ only reflexes in the Ugro-Samoyedic languages, while some presence in the West Uralic languages would be expected from a Helleno-Uralic loan. Although only reconstructed with the meaning ‘breath’, PIE *pnéwmn̥ includes the Albanian reflex frymë ‘breath, wind, spirit’, which might suggest that the semantics ‘sky/air/wind’ and ‘spirit’ could be reconstructed back to PIE (if the Alb. semantics were not the result of secondary contact with He., given their long history of lexical exchange).
In his 1991 work “Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie”, Jorma Koivulehto compares PFP *tuxli with PIE *dʰuh₂-li-s < *dʰewh₂- ‘smoke, mist, haze’, on the basis of the laryngeal parallel PFP *-x- = PIE *h₂. However, the UEW presents *tule; Ante Aikio presents *tuuli (p. 229); and Petri Kallio presents *tuulə̑ (p. 166). The “long-vowel; *x ~ *w” problem is reminiscent of the varying reconstructions of PU *puwe ~ *puxi > PF *puu; PU *luwe ~ *luxi > PF *luu; and PU *śuwe ~ *śuxi > PF *suu. Re: the phonetic value of the final vowel, a H > U loan can be interpreted regardless: He. tʰú(w)ellā > U *tuulə̑; or HFP *tʰú(w)ellē (cf. θυέλλη) > PFP *tule ~ *tuuli.
The He. semantics are preferred in comparison with PFP *tuuli vs. PIE *dʰuh₂-li-s, as the PFP form’s reflexes only show ‘wind, weather, storm, breeze’, while the PIE form’s reflexes show none of these meanings. Although not listed as a primary meaning in the UEW, I reconstruct ‘storm’ back to PFU due to its presence in Finnic, Mari, and Ugric (exclusively so in the latter two, according to UEW).
A variant of Fi. usva, I consider usma to represent an original value -m-. Although written as -s- in He. (h)úsma, the pronunciation would have originally been /z/: This is reflected in HMa. proposals (eg: sarkazmós). As there was no /z/ in Proto-Finnic, /s/ would have been the closest approximation available in its phonology. It is unclear whether He. h- would have been inherited into the F(S?) term.
In my previous post, I discussed the hypothetical Helleno-Uralic immaterial culture. In this post, I will now discuss the foundations of the Helleno-Uralic material culture: The methods of physical exchange between the ancient Greek and Uralic peoples.
Once again, I partly draw on the the reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic material culture by Ante Aikio in his paper Proto-Uralic (p. 47), as an outline for which objects can be considered relevant to the reconstruction of the Helleno-Uralic contact period.
The Helleno-Uralic material culture, as I reconstruct it, was relevant to the settlement of Hellenic colonists along the northern Black Sea during the Archaic period of ancient Greece. This expansion relied on nautical transportation between the Greek homeland and what is today southern Ukraine and southwest Russia. As such, the Helleno-Uralic material culture centered on ships. During this contact period, ships would have been used for travel along the river systems of northeast Europe: Especially the Dnieper and Don rivers, at the mouths of which were founded the Hellenic settlements of Olbia and Tanais*, respectively. In addition, through the use of portages, travel might have been made possible to neighboring rivers. This will be discussed in detail in an upcoming post on the dating and locating of Helleno-Uralic contact.
For now, I will focus on the lexical reconstruction of the Helleno-Uralic ship, its accessories; and other terms I find relevant to the traveling material culture (but not the traded materials themselves, which I will discuss in a later post). I will address one term found in Aikio’s material reconstruction (*tukta = *dugātā́), as well as my own additions pertaining to specifically Helleno-Uralic contact. These terms are not representative of all the material culture(s) of the period, but represent the catalyst for the development and continuation of exchange between the Hellenic and Uralic peoples.
*Tanais was not founded until the Hellenistic period of ancient Greece, which postdates the beginning of Helleno-Uralic contact. However, Greeks were present in the locale of the Tanais settlement since the 7th century BCE (cf. Taganrog settlement). In addition, the major and relatively nearby Archaic settlement of Pantikapaion had already been established in the 7th century BCE.
The Uralic languages have inherited various terms for ‘boat’ from the IE languages. Jorma Koivulehto describes PFV *veneš < PIE/PreII/Early PII *wen-(e/o-) (cf. PII *wán- ‘tree, wood’ > Sanskrit vána / वन – with PFV *veneš being “… so far, the only case on the strength of which an old deverbal suffix -eš has been posited…”. I do not have an opinion on the validity of U *-eš; but I rather reconstruct an original PFV *venos < IE *-os (eg: He. -os / -ος), based on HS aídalos and pā̃ros (PS *-ës < He. -ος), and Fi. venho, from which I reconstruct venho < PF *venoh < PFV **venos (cf. Fi. venhe < PF *veneh). The provenance of He. βῆνος is unclear, but it can not be directly inherited from PIE *wen-, as He. would not reflex β- from PIE *w-: So its consideration as a loan is more likely. Loaning from II (i.e. Scythian) does not explain well the presence of He. -ē̃-, unless it were an Attic-Ionic development from an original Doric *βᾶνος. This is perhaps a worthwhile consideration in light of HU *dugātā́; but re: Uralic, PFV *ven- shows a stronger correspondence, which rather suggests U > H loaning, regardless of the ultimate origin of the PFV term. However, given the morphology of the term (*-os), U < H loaning can not be ruled out – in which case the appropriate HFV reconstruction might rather include initial v͔- (representative of a previous /b/).
*My reconstruction of PFV **venos is incomplete due to 1. Lack of clarity on the Moksha reflex (Koivulehto provides Mo. venəš, while Neahttadigisánit provides venež / венеж; and 2. The perceived irregularity of Er. venč, where venaz might be expected (cf. HEr. kʰówos, kǐ́rios): Perhaps the Er. phonology relates to the partial FS process of -nVs>-ns/h(V), as seen in Kildin Sa. vens, Ter Sa. vâns, and Fi. venho/e.
This proposal assumes s- loss due to Uralic restrictions on initial consonant clusters. PFU *k > Man. χ is regular (cf. PFU *konɜ (*kana) >> Man. χanəl / ханул). On these grounds, He. >(>) Man. loaning seems reasonable; but FEE describes potential loaning of the He. verb σκάπτω from a European substratum: So a conclusion would be premature.
(e)pʰolkḗ pulk, small sled pulled by a person or animal (PS); small boat towed after a ship (He. [as ἐφολκίς]) PS *pulkke < He. epʰolkḗ / ἐφολκή? ‘tension, pull, dragging, towing’ <1 PIE *selk-
PS *pulkke appears to align phonologically with He. ἐφολκή, but semantically with ἐφολκίς. Perhaps *pulkke was a unique nominalization of fem. adj. ἐφολκή < ἐφολκός > Fi. polku (cf. polkea << He. *ἐφολκέω [*= ἐφέλκω ‘to drag or trail after one’] < επί ‘upon’ + ὁλκέω ‘to pull, haul [esp. a ship]’).
There is a discussion that needs to take place re: initial e- loss – as well as PF *-edak vs. He. -έω (there are a variety of situations where F and H terms and morphemes are phonologically identical with the exception of *-d- between two vowels) – but I will save this discussion for Phonology.
*dugātā́ crossbar or seat in a boat (PU); rowing bench in a ship (He.) PU *tukta < He. *dugātā́ / *δυγατά ~ zdugētḗ / ζυγητή <1? PIE *yugóm ‘yoke’
The semantics, as found in Hsch., rely on “= κλεὶς”: ‘bar, bolt, rowing bench in a ship’. It is easy to assume this meaning applied, because the more basic He. form zdugón / ζυγόν likewise meant ‘crossbar, thwarts/benches joining the opposite sides of a ship (in pl. ζυγά)’. As for the phonetics, the He. form is somewhat ambiguous: PU *-a parallels Dor. -ά – further justified in an expected Dor. δ- for Att./Ion. ζ- (cf. δυγός ~ ζυγός) – although a Dor. form of ζυγητή is not attested, requiring my own reconstruction as HU *dugātā́. However, Ko. sti̮k ‘crossbar’ shows s-, not found in other U reflexes. This is explained as “secondary”, which I neither agree nor disagree with. If it is secondary, He. d- > PU *t- could be attributed – if rather primary, He zd- > PU *(s)t- could also be suitable. Re. medial -ā- loss in Uralic, a comparison is drawn with HFS tʰy̌́gatēr > Early PS *tüktär. This does not explain HU *-gāt- > PU *-kt- >> Sa. -tk- in totko: But since PU *tukta >> Sa. totko has already been reconstructed, I do not attempt to resolve this.
The overall vowel correspondence is unclear, as the reconstruction mḗlǣ would imply that α>η occurred asymmetrically (if μήλη < *μα-λα). Alternatively, FP > He. loaning is not ruled out, given the unknown etymology of He. μήλη. Re. semantic distance: Compare the shape of the specillum.
púndaks bottom (of a vessel) PFP *puntɜ-ksɜ ~ PU *puntaksi > PMa. *pŭndaš ~ (Pre)PMa. **pŭndakS? > He. púndaks / πύνδαξ < ? Con. “Germanic loanword mediated through a northern Balkan language” (Mihaylova 2016, p. 312), as would be evidenced by H Púdna / Πύδνα (a place in Macedonia; see Kretschmer 1933, pp. 115-119). However, FEE describes this proposal (along with several others) as unconvincing. I am also unconvinced, due to the lack of both evidence and need for H -dn- > -nd-; or PreH -dn- > H -nd- metathesis (see below).
If PU *puntaksi < PII b(ʰ)udʰna- continues to be accepted without objection (Holopainen 2019, p. 194), then He. πύνδαξ, of PreH origin, bears closer affinity to U than II in three regards: p-, -nd/t-, and -k-:
p-: Α “convincing” explanation has not been made for He. π- vs. φ- (FEE), which could rather be derived from a U *p- without phonological issue.
-nd/t-: He. presents -tn- (πότνια), -tʰ- (ἔθνος), and -dn- (ὕδνον – from PreH): So internal metathesis from an II or Pre-Greek loan would be unnecessary. This does not, however, explain -nd- < PU *-nt-, where instead PMa. *pŭndaš agrees with He. -nd-.
-k-: Neither -ks nor -Hs are present in PII *bʰudʰnás, leaving open the comparison of the denominative PU suffix *-ksɜ (UUE p. 117) with He. -(α)ξ, although this comparison is made strictly on a phonological vs. morphological basis, since “-ks(V)” has not yet been demonstrated as a HU suffix; and He. -αξ is a suffix found in both IE and PreH etymologies (eg: IE κόραξ and μεῖραξ, PreH λάβραξ and σκύλαξ). However, in light of the Ma. variant pŭntakš (UEW #1512), I posit (Pre)PMa. **pŭndakS, which would phonologically parallel He. púndaks, and imply a PMa. ~ PrePMa. > He. loan. Based on this, I reconstruct HMa. púndaks ~ *púndakS with the meaning ‘bottom (of a vessel)’, where “vessel” could refer to a container, sled, or possibly ship (cf. Ma. pundaš / пундаш “кленча, тер пундаш” = ‘bottom of a bottle, sled’ [MED]).
Based on this information, I reconstruct HMa. púndaks ~ púndakS with the meaning ‘bottom (of a vessel)’, where “vessel” could refer to a container, sled, or possibly ship.
kṓpā handle (Fi.); handle, handle of an oar, oar (He.) PF kahva <? He. kṓpā (cf. kṓpē / κώπη) << PIE *kóh₂p-eh₂
The exact reasoning behind the phonological shifts is uncertain. He. -ṓ- > PF *-a- vs. He. ō̃ > PF *-oo- may be due to the acute vs. circumflex accentuation. The original reconstruction of F *-h- is reminiscent of PIE *-h₂-: Perhaps this laryngeal was still pronounced in archaic Greek; or perhaps it was a F innovation (cf. Fi. kahvi < Swe. kaffe). He. -p- > F -v- is regular.
The definition of He. λαίβα as τρίβων ‘worn garment, threadbare cloak’ may relate to λαῖφος/λαίφη ‘shabby, tattered garment; piece of cloth or canvas, sail’ (modern He. λαίφος means ‘small sail’); and is also defined as ἀσπίς ‘shield’, as with laĩpʰa / λαῖφα (and pl. acc. λαίας). The etymological connection between these terms is unknown; but all are defined as “Pre-Greek” due to the phonetic variations. Since PF *laiva has a clear etymology with regular phonology, it is suitable to consider the various He. terms as the result of PF > H loaning. The semantic discrepancy of Fi. ‘ship’ with He. ‘sail’ and ‘shield’ is unresolved; I speculate that the He. terms may have originally described the Finnic sails and vessels – perhaps in a pejorative manner. He. λαῖφος is attested in Homer’s Odyssey with the meaning ‘ragged cloth, poor garment’, with the meaning ‘sail’ found in other Archaic poetry: So it is unclear which meaning was original. The phonetic ambiguity of HF -f͔- ~ -v͔-, along with the the semantic variation between terms, makes this proposal uncertain. The HU value f͔ suggests a later loan, but these terms were present since the Archaic period, which is synchronous with initial contact: So it may rather be that He. pʰ / φ was the closest phonetic approximation (along with b / β for PF *v) that was available at the time and place of loaning.
The direction of loaning is unclear due to ambiguity of the PU suffix *-li; but PU has a more basal verb root *aśke ~ *aćka- ‘to step’. He. ἀσκέρα ‘winter shoe with fur lining’ has been compared with ἄσκαρος ‘type of shoe’, compared with askós / ἀσκός ‘bag made of animal skin’, compared with askéō / ἀσκέω ‘to work on, form, exercise, train’ – which are all of Pre-Greek or unknown etymologies. Also compare Fi. askare ‘chore’, of unknown etymology. The discrepancy *-śk- vs. *-ćk- is reminiscent of He. páskos / πάσκος <? PF *paska < PU *paćka ~ *pućka. This might strengthen the argument for a H < U loan.
The type(s) of boat(s) used is unclear; but it is inferred that, due to its description as an ‘ark’, the vē̃nos boat was flat-bottomed: This description is suitable to a boat used for river travel, as it would prevent its púndaks from running aground on the riverbeds – as well as on the shallow depths of the Sea of Azov. Perhaps long-distance travelers would have embarked and disembarked the vē̃nos in one of the colonies of the Bosporus, such as Pantikapaion or Phanagoria (or Olbia if on the Dnieper). From there, the vē̃nos would have been rowed north up the river(s) of Scythia during ice-free months. The rowers of the vē̃nos would have sat upon the *dugātā́, and rowed their mḗlē in unison. Sails were probably not a major feature of this boat.
The skápʰos appears to be (in the Helleno-Uralic world) a Ugric phenomenon, which might attest nautical travel along rivers better suited to small vessels, in an area outside the more central Helleno-Finno-Volgaic(-Permic) zone. This will be discussed more in an upcoming post.
The pʰolkḗ might have been a barge towed by the vē̃nos; or alternatively, a sled pulled over land and ice by some means – perhaps the primary form of winter travel, perhaps on the same frozen rivers as would have been traveled by the vē̃nos when ice-free. It would be contextually related to the pʰolkós as the path itself, showing tracks of the pʰolkḗ.
The askérā may have been a winter shoe that was suitable to wear in the cold weather of the northern contact zones. It is unclear what roles the kṓpā and laĩf͔os would have played in Helleno-Uralic contact. If they are tenable proposals, they would appear confined to Helleno-Finnic contact.
As my research on Helleno-Uralic theory continues, I have pinpointed two essential areas of focus for the identification of the time, place, and genre of Helleno-Uralic contact: A material culture, and an immaterial culture. This post addresses the latter, in its current state of research.
I draw on the research of Ante Aikio in his paper Proto-Uralic (pp. 47-48) for the comparison of topical lexemes regarding Uralic immaterial culture; and also offer terms of my own, to contribute to the illustration of Helleno-Uralic spiritualism.
First, on the term “shaman”: In the Helleno-Uralic sense, I define a shaman as ‘a spiritual figure who, in an altered state of consciousness, communicates with the metaphysical realm, especially the deceased, in order to tell the future’. This definition is based on the semantics of proposed terms which are relevant to Hellenic and/or Uralic mystic rites.
Second, on the scope of Helleno-Uralic immaterial culture: Helleno-Uralic, as I see it, is a specific convergence and syncretism between Hellenic and Uralic peoples, who otherwise originated from mutually exclusive immaterial cultures. One will not find significant parallels in the foundational Hellenic and Uralic mythologems, which rather formed from the spacetimes of their respective histories prior to Helleno-Uralic contact. Helleno-Uralic religion is rather based on the aforementioned “shaman”, who in a frenzied state, communicated between the physical and imaginary realms. This imaginary ability would have been exalted above all other forms of spiritualism, much as “divine madness” was revered by the ancient Greeks.
The primary Greek god associated with Helleno-Uralic immaterial culture would have been Apollo (Phoibos); and Dionysus, Gaia, and Artemis may have been significant as well. In this post, I will discuss Apollo centrally, and Dionysus peripherally: In this sense, the Helleno-Uralic religion was probably related to (and synchronous with) Orphism, the Oracle of Delphi, and perhaps the Eleusinian Mysteries – although it’s unclear in what manner these practices corresponded to each other, and to Helleno-Uralic shamanism. The underlying theme, however, is a focus on the realm of the dead: And an altered state of consciousness in order to connect with it.
Likewise, Helleno-Uralic shamanism was not necessarily representative of all forms of Uralic shamanism. The Samoyedic peoples, for example, have a complex shamanistic culture consisting of roles and terms I do not (at least currently) reconstruct in the Helleno-Uralic contact period. Even in Sami shamanism, with which I draw the most parallels to Helleno-Uralic shamanism, there are various aspects I can not yet, and possibly will never be able to, reconstruct with confidence.
Regardless, I find it evident that, somewhere between the Uralic and Hellenic spiritualities, a syncretic immaterial culture was formed, which centered on worship of the sun, divine madness, and shamanic necromancy. That having been said, I will now discuss some of the terms on which I have based this claim. The first two are relevant to Aikio’s description of the Proto-Uralic immaterial culture (PU *nojta and *jada-), and the other seven are based on my own research. These are not all the proposed terms I correlate with the Helleno-Uralic immaterial culture, but represent a core selection.
(Note: These proposals are based on a phonologically synchronous orthography, which I devised to represent the values I reason should be attributed to the terms. I will discuss this in much greater detail in an upcoming post titled Phonology: But for now, it is to be understood that the Latin script I use is not identical to the transliterations of ancient Greek, although they represent the same phonemes. Also: The labels Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugric, etc. [abbreviated at PU, PFU, etc.] are not indicative of the chronology of these stages of the proto-languages when in the context of Helleno-Uralic proposals: These terms are rather proposed to have been loaned between Hellenic and Uralic at a later date, c. 700 BC onward.)
I define the meaning of He. νοητής ‘seer’ through the analysis of its source verb noéō / νοέω ‘to observe, perceive, think, conceive’. GM defines νοητής as “αυτός που σκέπτεται, που συλλαμβάνει τα πάντα με τον νου, δηλ. ο Θεός.” = ‘he who thinks, who grasps everything with the mind, i.e. God’. Νοητής is ultimately from nóos / νόος ‘mind, sense, intellect’, of an unknown etymology. In his book Hermetica, Walter Scott defined νοητός θεός as a “soul without body… direct from God.” (Scott 1985, p. 116). The Helleno-Uralic term noītā́ is not connected to an attested historical role in ancient Greece (notwithstanding the νοητάρχης); and its Uralic reflexes are only found in the Finno-Samic and Ugric languages (cf. HFU séhō). However, I roughly equate noītā́ with He. pʰoiv͔ás / φοιβάς ‘priestess of Phoebus, inspired woman, prophetess’ (cf. HF pʰoiv͔ǣtḗr, discussed below), although noītā́ may have just as well been a role originally exclusive to Uralic, and subsequently retitled with a He. term from a people whose closest approximation to the Uralic shamanic tradition would have been roles relevant to Apollo.
In Helleno-Uralic is also the term noerā́ ~ *nógera* (Fi. nokkela ‘clever’ << He. νοερά ‘intellectual, spiritual, wise’; also an epithet of Apollo): This would make Fi. noita and nokkela derived from the same no- root (i.e. νόος). Although the He. etymology is unknown, I propose that U < H loaning occurred, due to the absence of a more basal root in Uralic. This also agrees with adjectival F -lV < H -rV.
*The phonology of HU noītā́s requires a brief discussion on the dialects of ancient Greek. It is difficult to derive PU *nojta from the Attic form noītḗs, because -ā́- is taken as the original He. value; and corresponds to PU and F *-a > PS *-ē, as seen throughout Helleno-Uralic proposals. However, derivation from Doric would also be problematic, in that the form *noātā́s might instead be expected (cf. Att. γοητής = Dor. γοατάς < γοάω; Att. βοητής = Dor. βοᾶτις [with fem. suffix] < βοάω). Re: noītā́s, the phonology does not seem as plainly bound: < νοέω (vs. -άω); and the adjectival νοατός listed as “hyper-Doric” for Att. νοητός, which describes a hypercorrection rather than a natural formation (although I do not assume this as universal: There may have very well been He. dialects where νοατάς was natural). I hope to eventually identify the He. dialect(s) specific to HU contact if enough attestations can be relied upon – but until then, I can only assert that the He. form, as loaned into “PU”, must have been noītā́(s): So noētā́s would be suitable, but not noātā́s. He. -οη- always corresponds to Uralic <oj>/<oi>. Ancient Greek consisted of myriad sub-dialects, which complicates identification. In addition, it may very well be that PU *nojta was adopted from the voc. He. νοητά, since Sa. -s (which is demonstrable in HU) is absent; and in light of kóptēs. Vocative is rare in HU, but might be suitable in the context of an honorary title (cf. Latin Kyrie < He. Κύριε, voc. of Κύριος) – although this may rather contradict Erzya čirjaz < He. κύριος. Assuming loaning from voc. case would remove the need for a dialectal quest (and explain -s absence in Sami), but I’m not prepared to make that assumption at this time. On top of that, it is worth consideration that noītā́ could be a nominalization of the fem. adj. νοητά (masc. νοητός).
**This is an example of phonological variation involving a recessive accent, epenthetic HF <g> (cf. νογώ) , and the ambiguity of number and gender re: U -a.
iálō to perform necromancy (HU) PU *jada- <?> He. iálō / ἰάλω ~ iállō / ἰάλλω
Regarding HU semantic reconstruction: *jada- ‘to conjure, tell fortunes, shamanize; curse/quarrel?’ (Aikio, p. 48) ἰάλλω ‘to send forth, assail, send oneself on, flee, fly’ LSJ:GM also offers ἰάλω = προπέμπτω ‘to send forth, conduct, escort, “esp. follow a corpse to the grave”, pursue’. GM does not list examples specific to ἰάλω: But the paralleled semantics ‘to send forth’ and ‘assail/pursue’ stand out between ἰάλλω and προπέμπτω. This might represent an intense metaphysical dialogue between the noītā́ and the spirit.
Etymologizing this proposal is difficult, due to the isolated affinity of He. ἰάλλω with Sanskrit iyarti / इयर्ति < PIE *h₃i-h₃ér-ti. On that note, an important phonological discussion must take place: The value of the unclear Proto-Uralic phoneme *-d- (Aikio, pp. 7-10). I will not completely discuss this topic until Phonology; but in Helleno-Uralic theory, PU *-d- = H *-l- (HU psīlē = PU *pide ; HFU tele- = PFU *täwde ~ *tälke, etc.). However, that is not to say that PU *-d- was /l/. Relative chronology is a problem here; and will have to be saved for later. For now, this is a tentative proposal.
This is perhaps the most unusual proposal in Helleno-Uralic theory, due to ambiguities throughout the Uralic and Hellenic proto-forms and reflexes. First, I present HU pʰoív͔ǣ as the primary form for two reasons: 1. The expected Finno-Samic suffixal variation of PF *-a/-ä, PS *-ē (>NSa. -i), which indicates a feminine He. noun ending in -ā>-ǣ>-ē>-ī. In these diachronica, F -ä and H -ǣ* are also synchronous with archaic Greece (to be discussed in the upcoming post “Phonology”; this correspondence dates the exchange of pʰoív͔ǣ to c. 700 BCE), which is suitable to the northeastward expansion of the Hellenic colonists to the northern shores of the Black Sea, and the historical rise of Apollonian worship. As a feminine noun, it suits the primarily female association with the Sami sun-deity Beaivi. Furthermore, in this context, the deer is relevant as sacrificed to Beaivi, and sacred to Artemis (φοίβη). The shift U Pai- < H Poi would have taken place, with Uralic front-vowel harmonization due to -ǣ. 2. The HF term pʰoiv͔ǣtḗr / φοιβητήρ ‘prophet’, which I propose as the source of Fi. Päivätär ‘Sun goddess’ (contradicting PF *tüt’är < PBS *duktḗ [I rather etymologize PF < He. tʰýgatēr / θύγατηρ], which I will, once again, discuss in Phonology, in order to remain topical).
However, there are other important considerations: That Apollo was male (although the sun’s gender is evidently somewhat flexible in Sami mythology); and that there was another term relevant to Apollo: Pai(w)án ‘song addressed to Apollo or Artemis, epithet of Apollo, physician-healer’. If Beekes’ ideation is correct, the meaning “who heals illnesses through magic (Apollon)” is also to be attributed, which is relevant to the role of the Sami noaidi as a healer; and would derive παιάν from paíō / παίω ‘to strike, smite’: Compare with *päjwä and *päjä reflexes in Khanty and Sami, semantically ‘thunder, lightning’, which I consider a preferable attribution to PFU *päjä vs. ‘fire’, given its wider geographic distribution. Perhaps the meanings ‘smite’ and ‘thunder, lightning’ could relate παίω with *päjä, although morphological affinity is unestablished. With the He. terms lacking certain etymologies, the direction of loaning is unclear for both HFU pʰoív͔ǣ and *paiwán.
Two points can be inferred from this proposal: That it was loaned from Doric or Northern He. (although this is not certain: F -al- < H -o/eL- is a topic to discuss in Phonology); and that it was used to describe a masculine or neuter noun (eg: It could refer to Phoibos or Apollo, but not Phoibe or Artemis). The Aeolic form íaros / ἴαρος is noted for its recessive accent and smooth breathing, although neither feature is necessarily required in HU proposals.
I tentatively suggest a direct loaning into Sami from He. κόπτης, with a reconstructed meaning *’striker, beater, knocker, mourner’ (cf. σκώπτω ‘to scoff’ > σκώπτης ‘scoffer’, λάπτω ‘to slurp’ > λάπτης ‘slurper’) – compare English terms such as toaster and computer – but this runs into a problem: The active vs. passive connotation of HFU kóptēs. In light of HF ennustázdō, one speculative alternate proposal is a Sa. back-formation from He. kóptestʰai / κόπτεσθαι ‘to beat the breast, mourn for the dead’, which might bring into relevance an act directed to the deceased (cf. HU iálō; the death of Orpheus as mentioned in maínō) – however, this example would be otherwise morphologically unprecedented in the HS etymological paradigm. With confidence, I can only reconstruct the HS root kópt-, from which would ultimately be derived the name for the Sami shaman’s drum.
Fi. kiihkeä is likely from kiihko, which makes it easy to reconstruct H(F) *kǐ̃kos / *κῦκος, as the suffix in κυκεία is identical to the feminine singular form of the adjectival suffix -eĩos / -εῖος, whence nominal -os can be traced (compare oĩkos / οἶκος and oikeíā / οἰκείᾱ). Semantically, I reconstruct the meaning ‘frenzy’ from He. mĩksis / μῖξις ‘mixing (*of the κυκεών), intercourse’ and tarakʰḗ / ταραχή ‘disturbance, commotion’. This seems to me to be relevant to Aikio’s description of shamanistic “sexual and spiritual excitement” (Aikio, p. 48 re: PU *kixi-; although I do not infer an etymological connection between Fi. kiihk- and PU *kixi-). In this context, HF *kǐ̃keiǣ (with recessive accent) might be contextually related to the entheogenic drink kykeṓn / κυκεών , with which the root kǐk- is shared.
s͔éhō; séhos ~ séos mixture (Fi.), inside (of a vessel [Man.]), disorder (Sa.); earthquake, commotion, shaking/stirring (He.) PFU *seka < He. sé(h)ōs / σέως < seí(h)ō / σείω < PH *tséhō << PIE *tweys- ~ *tu̯ei(s)- Fi. se(k)os <? He. sé(h)os ~ séos / σέος Con.: In HF séhos, He. and Fi. -os may be a false equivalence. Fi. seos can not be directly < sé(h)ōs, because Fi. -a << He. -ō. Fi. seos (assuming earlier *sekos as seen with teos < *tekos) must either be directly < He. sé(h)os, or be a native Fi. -os suffix unconnected with He. -os.
The HU value s͔ (/ts/) can not be reconstructed in PFU, but is expected because of PH *ts-; and medial PFU *-k- < H -h-. UEW describes PFU *seka as semantically and existentially uncertain, due to only being found in FS and Mansi with divergent meanings. However, the attested reflexing of a FU term only in FS and Man. is not unprecedented: This is paralleled in PFU *nojta = HFU noītā́. In light of this – although it could be a mere coincidence – I consider at least the remote possibility that two or more HFU noītā́ shamans were part of Helleno-Uralic contact, perhaps one in a western and one in an eastern zone (i.e. Finno-Samic and Ugric). This hypothesis will require more research.
In this context, my speculation for the semantics of HFU (t)sé(h)o(s) is ‘a mixture or shaking/stirring inside a vessel’. My inclination is to broach the nature of a drink such as the aforementioned κυκεών (cf. HF kǐ̃k-). I do not reconstruct the meaning ‘earthquake’, due to the Uralic geographical range* of HU contact not being seismically active; and the absence of such a meaning in U reflexes (Sa. ‘disorder’ is also a contextually limited meaning).
*I will discuss the theoretical locations of Helleno-Uralic contact in another post.
maínō ~ maíno- to praise (PS); to rave (He.) Fi. mainoa << PS *mājnōtēk < He. maínō / μαίνω ~ maíno- / μαίνομαι <1 PIE *men- ‘to be excited’
I assume Fi. << PS as it’s been stated in the Wiktionary article for Fi. mainos, although no source is provided. I reject the relation of Fi. mainoa with mainita < PG *mainijaną < PIE *mey-: The phonological similarity of Fi. main-oa and main-ita is rather a coincidence, as the He. semantic and contextual similarities (cf. Maenad < μαινάς) denote the relevance of Dionysianesque worship in the HU immaterial culture. The act of attaining a state of divine “ecstatic frenzy” through intoxication and music is very similar to the shamanic template: Compare the artwork of this ancient Greek mixing bowl, depicting a Maenad beating a hand drum in the company of Dionysus and a satyr (I also tentatively compare Nganasan satərə / сатәрә ‘arctic’ fox <?> He. sáturos / σάτυρος ‘a satyr‘ < Pre-Greek). This mixing bowl also depicts the death of Orpheus: A central theme in Orphism; and relevant to death in HU shamanism.
ennustázdō ~ *ennustáō to predict the future (Fi.); “para someterse a la oniromancia” = to undergo oneiromancy (He.) Fi. ennustaa < He. ennustázdō / ἐννυστάζω
This proposal, if tenable, would invalidate the Fi. etymology “ennus + -taa” (thus rejecting “ennus < [probably] ensi- + -us”; although ensi is in fact in a HF proposal, which I’ll discuss in a more relevant post), instead etymologizing ennus as a back-formation from ennustaa < He. ἐννυστάζω. The semantic value of ennustázdō is thus ‘to divine the future through the interpretation of dreams’. This is central to the role of the Pythia (cf. egkoimisi) of the Oracle of Delphi, and perhaps relevant to HF nukʰeúō (Fi. nukkua ‘to sleep’ < He. νυχεύω ‘to pass the night’).
I would like to conclude this post in reiteration that I do not equate Uralic shamanism with Helleno-Uralic shamanism. In Aikio’s description of the Proto-Uralic immaterial culture – for which he describes evidence as “very limited” – I do not have proposals to compare with Proto-Uralic *wajŋi, *lewli(w), *eśi / iśi / ićći (I may have a comparison for this term, but not one I’m yet confident to reconstruct), or *kixi-. Furthermore, PU *pi̬ŋka evidences the well-established contact between Uralic and Indo-Iranian peoples: So when Hellenic would have entered the horizon of the Uralic immaterial culture(s), shamanism was already present for millennia. The same can not be said of ancient Greek religion, where any practices comparable to (although not necessarily equivalent with) shamanism are generally limited to specific locations (eg: Delphi) and figures (eg: Orpheus, the Maenads, and the Pythia).
Helleno-Uralic contact and religion were esoteric. The terms that I propose were exchanged are topical to isolated material and immaterial cultures, which were intentionally syncretized; and lexically influential on the Hellenic and Uralic languages due to their status vs. population size. I could go on about this subject: The role of the Pythia in the establishment of Greek colonies on the northern Black Sea, the adoption of Apollo as the patron deity of those colonies; the parallels between archaic Greek religion and the northern Eurasian locale (such as the Ceryneian Hind) – but in the spirit of the noītā́, I’d rather end with some music. Kǐ̃dos pollʲón.
So much done, yet so much to do. I am now proposing new terms on Reddit on a daily basis – we’ll see how long that can last.
I have been working on Helleno-Uralic theory for almost two years now. When I started, I had no idea what I was doing, with only maniacal enthusiasm to guide me in lieu of an education in historical linguistics. The current form of Finngreek is actually the third version I created (plus a recent, important orthographical revision): The other two versions now a distant memory. I look back at words and ideas I proposed two years ago with self-pity – and yet somehow, through every flaw, I am at a point now where I am more confident than ever to share my research with the world.
The main project I am working on now is my first academic paper. I hope for it to be complete before the year’s end. In this paper, I will divulge the anthropological and linguistic reasonings behind my theory. It will be an expansive – but hopefully succinct – foray into my current state of mind regarding Helleno-Uralic contact.
I have removed virtually all content from this website, because it is terribly outdated. The “About” page also requires extensive revision: I will probably rewrite the entire page from scratch, once I have finished my current studies regarding the background information behind my proposed contact period(s).
When I had started Finngreek – back when it was not Helleno-Uralic theory but “Helleno-Finnic theory” – my inspiration was to create an auxiliary language through which Finnish and Greek speakers could easily communicate, helping to re-cement a bond I had felt existed since 3,000 years ago.
More than ever, I continue to believe that around 2,700 years ago, a Hellenic adstrate in the Uralic language continuum resulted in a considerable amount of lexical affinity between (ancient) Greek and Finnish, Estonian, Sami, Hungarian, Khanty, Mansi, Mari, Moksha, Erzya, Udmurt, Komi, Nenets, Nganasan, Selkup, and so on. However, the more new proposals that have come into play, the more painfully evident it has been made that a mutually intelligible auxlang for any single Uralic language with Greek is simply out of the question. Even just within Greek, it is impossible to achieve mutual intelligibility with Finngreek, due to the considerable amount of obscure and obsolete Hellenic terms involved.
On the bright side, this inevitable truth has allowed for Finngreek to become a unique and abundant – if not grammatically stunted – (re)constructed language, offering great insight into the cross-cultural basis for Helleno-Uralic theory. While there are still various problems requiring attention (eg: Differentiating between Hellenic and Proto-Indo-European in ambiguous contexts), I have finally established a reliable phonological paradigm for the evaluation of my proposals: And through this, I am steadily nearing the moment when I can publish my research to share with the world. Once my paper is finally released, I will be able to contribute more time to blogging here, and creating educational and artistic content on Youtube and other platforms for the discussion and celebration of Finngreek and Helleno-Uralic theory.
I’d like to wish you all onḗnkǐkeíān (frenzied fortune) and kǐ̃dos pollʲón (much praise)!