Oikológos IV: Toími Oikeías Aikás (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic ai, oi, -i, [V]C-)

“Oikológos IV: Toími Oikeías Aikás (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic ai, oi, -i, [V]C-)” is the fourth chapter of overviews in Helleno-Uralic theory. The title of this Oikológos can be translated from Finngreek into English as “Management IV: Ready at the Right Time”.

All Oikológoi will be incorporated into the second draft of “Helleno-Uralic Contact in the 1st Millennium BCE: Lían Oikeía Mukhá”. Please refer to the main lexical entries therein, and in “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions I” and “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions II” (upcoming).

Please click here to read this paper, and click here if you’d like to join the Academia Discussion.

Finngreek Update January 2023: To Sômas Élama (The Finngreek Journey)

(This post is also available in PDF format on Academia: Click here to view)

It has been one year since I uploaded the first draft of my first paper, “Helleno-Uralic Contact in the 1st Millennium BCE: Lían Oikeía Mukhá”* (abbr. “HUC”) to Academia. I am now in the process of uploading the “Oikológos” papers to Academia, in preparation for “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions II”, and finally the second draft of “HUC”. As of today (01/01/2023), three Oikológoi have been uploaded.

As I outlined in the session comments of “Finngreek Update August 2022: Idá Noitás (Dawn of the Seer)”, I expect to compile 8 Oikológoi, of which the first 7 will address specific phonological scenes of Helleno-Uralic theory, while the 8th Oikológos will be an overview of new anthropological considerations for the identification of the Hellenic and Uralic speakers who would have been involved in this ancient contact.

The release of “Finngreek 101” (an introductory course on the Finngreek language, which is based on Helleno-Uralic theory) has been indefinitely postponed, due to the prioritization of academic research. It will still be made available for new followers and learners of Finngreek; and I am excited about its eventual release! Most of the work is complete: I just want to make sure it is the best it can be, since I probably will not revise the material for a long time. I now plan to upload “Finngreek 101” sometime in 2024, after the second draft of “HUC” is ready for its official review and publication. Until then, I will continue to share new content on Finngreek social media:

Instagram (new etymologies and sentences): https://www.instagram.com/finngreek/
Reddit (same as above, plus misc. content): https://www.reddit.com/r/finngreek/
Youtube (video content [upcoming]): https://www.youtube.com/@finngreek/

*I may revise the title of this paper from “… Lían Oikeía Mukhá” to another phrase: It is evident that múskha (<? H *múkhskā) is original to mukhá; and I may wish to convey a different message using more archaic proposals.

_

It seems that, no matter how far I proceed with my research, there is always that much farther to go. Since having begun Finngreek and Helleno-Uralic theory in August 2019, I have read hundreds of academic papers on Uralic, Hellenic, Indo-European, and Eurasiatic linguistics and archaeogenetics: Yet that has not been nearly enough for a well-rounded theory. There is always another paper, another argument and counterargument, another overlooked consideration to face, which can either fortify or nullify an aspect of my work. Etymology is not always an exact science, but it demands a great deal of meticulous logic.

Still, there is a lot I’ve learned and improved over the past three years. It is a relief to be able to look at a Uralic word, and recognize the likelihood of its provenance as a loan from ancient Greek. Does a Finnish word end in -as? Unlikely to be Helleno-Uralic. Does a Sami word end in -as? Possibly Helleno-Uralic. Does a proposal fit into a clear scene? Or is it riddled with vague semantics and correspondences? If it is true, it should make sense.

It makes sense to consider Helleno-Uralic contact, because there is evidence of both Greco-Scythian syncretism – which borders the Uralic zone – and the historiographical attestation of not only Greco-Scythian contact with the northeastern forest zone, but also the migration of Greeks thereto, where they cohabitated with indigenous nomads – even forming a military alliance against the invading Persians. From this basis, the spacetime and topics of Helleno-Uralic contact could be reconstructed.

If correctly etymologized, there were rivers (múskha) with fish (kálama), boats (skáphæ, mélæ, vênos), woods (kormós, phuá), flowering cones (kókkos), and forest animals (kíssa, ourá, phoíta). There were capes (nâma) to navigate, and moors (nomí) to drive herds (élama), from which wool (pókos) or leather (náka) could be produced. Like the driving of herds, the marching of warrior-traders (sôma) in scale armor (zôma) across hills (ákra) and valleys (ánkos) would facilitate the trade of various goods (ħrêma). The local weather (áima) may have been hot (kaûma), cold (krymós), icy (pgos), and windy (thella). Cultural features could also be illustrated, such as agriculture (krith, lektós, sîtos, thaimós), or even the “bald” (skúlma) seer (noitá). who smiled (sárkase) and slurped (rýphæse) the strained (sakté) berries (karpós) of the bird-cherry tree (dôma).

Of course, this description is a fanciful manipulation of the raw data: The exact context of each term may never be known – although I will try to formally contextualize terms into theoretical phrases in future research. In any case, contact can be roughly summarized by comparing the historiographical and etymological data. I also hope that upcoming archaeogenetic research may be factored into the reconstruction of Helleno-Uralic contact, just as it has recently been relied upon to update the potential origins and migrations of Uralic speakers: As time goes on, the presumption of Continuity theory is being outperformed by the concept of a rapid onset of Uralic influence in the Volga-Kama at the dawn of the Iron Age (which I will discuss at length in “Oikológos VIII”). This could be synchronized with both the appearance of Hellenic influence in Scythia, and intra-Hellenic diachronica: Especially how they may be distributed into the Uralic languages. And while Uralic loans into Hellenic are supported by less evidence, there is at least a layer of trade goods and technologies that could have permeated the Hellenosphere via Pontic colonies. The archaic Hellenic and Uralic cultures were trade economies that simultaneously expanded in northeastern Europe, which may have been ideal for bidirectional contact.

_

My goal is to reconstruct a language and history that may have been lost due to war, migrations, and the drift of time. I look forward to improving Helleno-Uralic theory over these next few years, and throughout my life. The Finngreek Journey (To Sômas Élama) has just begun.


Oikológos III: Múskha Sýrkaze Kîdos (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic u > y > ǐ)

“Oikológos III: Múskha Sýrkaze Kîdos (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic u > y > ǐ)” is the third chapter of acute studies in Helleno-Uralic theory. The title of this Oikológos can be translated from Finngreek into English as “Management III: The River Smiled Praise”.

All Oikológoi will be incorporated into the second draft of “Helleno-Uralic Contact in the 1st Millennium BCE: Lían Oikeía Mukhá”. Please refer to the main lexical entries therein, and in “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions I” and “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions II” (upcoming).

Please click here to read this paper, and click here if you’d like to join the Academia Discussion.

Oikológos II: Logée Pókon Només (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic o)

“Oikológos II: Logée Pókon Només (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic o)” is the second chapter of acute studies in Helleno-Uralic theory. The title of this Oikológos can be translated from Finngreek into English as “Management II: Counting Fleece in the Pasture”.

All Oikológoi will be incorporated into the second draft of “Helleno-Uralic Contact in the 1st Millennium BCE: Lían Oikeía Mukhá”. Please refer to the main lexical entries therein, and in “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions I” and “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions II” (upcoming).

Please click here to read this paper, and click here if you’d like to join the Academia Discussion.

Oikológos I: Aiká Idǽn Kraté (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic a > æ > e)

Oikológos I: Aiká Idǽn Kraté (Uralic Distributions of Hellenic a > æ > e)” is the first chapter in the Oikológos series of acute Helleno-Uralic studies. The title of this paper can be translated from Finngreek into English as “Management I: Time Holds the Dawn”. It is now available on Academia.edu through the link above.

Acute study of the following Helleno-Uralic phonological scenes: HU ā > HFU ā, ǣ > HFP ǣ, ē > HWU, HMa. ē; and solving the problem of nominal HFS -ǣˀ through sound substitutions; and He. a > U *ä . Ultimately to be incorporated into the second draft of “HUC”, as with all other Oikológoi to be drafted.

Finngreek Update August 2022: Idá Noitás (Dawn of the Seer)

If you are one of the over 7 billion people who are following the development of Helleno-Uralic theory, I hope you will enjoy this brief paper on my projects’ latest updates – Plus the basics of Finngreek grammar, illustrated in a short story titled “Idá Noitás (Dawn of the Seer)”.

Póke zôman sômaka skáphæstæ, rýphæ dômas sakté ryphén karpó kaukótha noitáka, lóge mûthon sîtos lektós, ka sopáka sárkaze lían eskhás muskhás krymós págos, k’ iaró hrêma kálama ká!
Wear scale armor with the person in a dugout canoe, slurp a bird cherry’s strained berry porridge from a drinking vessel with the seer, recount the story of the income of a harvest, and silently smile on a very distant riverbend of cold frost, with excellent treasure and fish!

I do not provide an etymologized lexicon of the Finngreek terms herein; but please feel free to request the resources for select terms if you are an academic reader with a question about a proposed etymology or usage. Most lexemes already appear in “Helleno-Uralic Contact in the 1st Milennium BCE: Lían Oikeía Mukhá” and “Helleno-Uralic Additions and Subtractions I”: So please check there first. I also post new entries on my Instagram if you’d like to browse the latest proposals as they are conceived. If you are a Uralicist who has a comment or critique about this paper or one of the previous two (a spurious etymology; an archaeological site you’d like to bring to my attention, etc.), I always appreciate your input.

Finno-Ugric, Archaic Uralic, and Helleno-Uralic

In the first draft of the first academic paper on Helleno-Uralic theory, I discuss sub-Uralic interrelations via quantitative affinity and kinship. This post provides key points of that study.

There are numerous models of Uralic phylogeny, such as the traditional model, Jaakko Häkkinen‘s model, and Asko Parpola‘s model (p. 169; based on Häkkinen).

There is still not a consensus about the interrelations of the Uralic branches. I do not strictly adhere to one phylogenetic model. However, I propose two sub-Uralic lexicosemantic areal groupings:

Lexicostatistical groupings of the Uralic language family (Finngreek 2022, draft)

The two triadic groupings – Finno-Ugric and Archaic Uralic – represent quantitative affinity: the overall number of Uralic proto-terms shared between any two or more groupings, per the Uralic Etymological Database (UEDB). When the co-representation of kinship terms is factored in, the Finno-Ugric triad is interrupted between Central Uralic and Ugric; while the Archaic Uralic triad is uninterrupted, due to the requirement of all three included branches’ lexical participation in the reconstruction of kinship.

Finno-Ugric as a grouping has existed since the 19th century CE. Support for Finno-Ugric in my study is influenced by my reliance upon data from the 20th century. As I explain in my paper, this study will need to be redone upon the release of a new Uralic etymological dictionary for the 21st century.

Archaic Uralic is my own proposal, which is essentially formulated from the perspective of the Samoyedic branch. Traditionally, Samoyedic has been viewed as the first branch of Uralic to diverge, leaving behind Finno-Ugric. In Häkkinen’s model, Samoyedic is instead grouped with Ugric as “Ugro-Samoyedic” or “East Uralic”.

The Finngreek model groups Samoyedic as having been originally equidistant from both West Uralic (Finnic + Mordvinic + Samic) and Ugric. Meanwhile, Samoyedic shares the least affinity with Central Uralic (Mari + Permic). both quantitatively and familially.

Archaic Uralic is named thus due to its proposed attestation of the Helleno-Uralic root arkʰ- ‘beginning; to begin’, whence indirectly English “archaic”. In Helleno-Uralic theory, Archaic Uralic represents a geolinguistic bond between Samoyedic and West Uralic, perhaps through which loans could have been exchanged with Archaic Greek.

Ultimately, the Finngreek model represents a continuum of disintegrating Uralic during the early 1st millennium BCE. West Uralic is the most interconnected group; and may have been the primary group in contact with Hellenic – although it is considered that Central Uralic and Ugric were not far from the area(s) of contact, as would be evidenced in the growing number of Helleno-Mari proposals (eg: HMa. ákrā ‘hill’, árdalos ‘dirty’, ásāmos ‘nonsensical’, glyk- ‘sweet’, mũtʰos ‘word’, oukí ‘no’, sarkáz- ‘to smile’, etc.), and terms reconstructed to Finno-Ugric (eg: HFU ama- ‘to shovel’, leúe- ‘to stone’, noītā ‘seer’, skápʰ- ‘small boat’, etc.). In regards to Helleno-Samoyedic potential, significant research will be undertaken to identify isolated terms, as Helleno-Uralic theory currently only represents Samoyedic in U < H proposals which can be reconstructed to a “Uralic” stage (eg: HU (z)dugātā́ ‘crossbar’, log- ‘to calculate’, ourā́ ‘squirrel < tail’, pʰus- ‘to blow’, etc.). The potential role of Samoyedic (via Archaic Uralic) in Helleno-Uralic exchange is therefore unclear until further notice.