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.

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.

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.

Áīma: Refeeling the Finngreek Climate

This post focuses on the description of the climate of the Helleno-Uralic contact period, through the semantics of topical term proposals.

air, weather (S); wind (He.)
PS *ājmō <? He. áīma / ἄημα < ἄημι <1 PIE *h₂weh₁-

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.

brokʰā́ ~ brokʰḗ ~ brokʰī́; purkaiā́
snowstorm, blizzard, smoke, spray (U); rainstorm (He.); pyre, fire, flame (He.)
PFP ~ PU? *purkɜ ~ PU ~ PFU *purka ~ *purki (pp. 25-27) < He. brokʰḗ / βροχή <1 PIE *mergʰ-?; <? He. purkaiā́ / πυρκαϊά < pũr / πῦρ + kaíō / καίω << PIE *péh₂wr̥ + *keh₂w-?
Con.: Nostratic *burV ‘storm’, but Lyle Campbell considers the absence of -ki/-kV unjustifiable (p. 132).

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.

hot, red hot, fever (PFV); heat, burning heat, fever heat (He.)
PFV *kūma < He. kaũma / καῦμα

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.

cold, hot (PFS); frost (PF *pakkainen); frost (He.)
PFS *pakka- ~ PS *pākkës < He. págos / πάγος <1 PIE *peh₂ǵ-

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∅.

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).

storm, wind (U); stormwind (He.)
PFP ~ PFU? *tule ~ *tuuli ~ *tuulə̑ < He. tʰúellā / θύελλα < He. tʰúō / θύω + áella / ἄελλα < PH *aweľľā / *ἀϜελ-ι̯α < PIE *h₂eu-el- ~ *h₂ewh₁eleh₂ ~ *h₂uh₁-l-yeh₂

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).

mist, fog (F); rain (He.)
Fi. usma << He. húsma / ὕσμα

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.