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.
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:
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 Uralicis 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.
The IE term shows wide distribution; and FU *aja- ‘to drive / jagen, treiben’ (UED) is ultimately from the same source. HMa. ág- is reliant upon the isolation of its semantics and phonology from other IE reflexes which would have been areally relevant to the development of the Ma. branch.
Ma. andále ‘messy’ suggests an original noun *andá ‘mess’: Cf. paidále / пайдале ‘useful’ (MED) < paidá / пайда ‘use’; ajárle / аярле ‘poisonous’ < ajár / аяр ‘poison’, etc. Because He. árdalos shows derivation from nominal árda, Ma. << He. loaning is proposed. It is unclear whether Ma. -le should be morphologically compared with He. -los.
Re: Ma. -nd- << He. (C)r(V)T-, cf. HMa. kritʰḗ.
arv- ~? **(h)arv-* HF ‘scanty, thin’, ‘seldom / ὀλιγάκις’ F harva (SK, SSA) ?> He. arvón / ἀρβόν (Hsch.; cf. ἀραιός [LSJ, FEE]) < ? F ~ Es. harva (cf. Fi. harva [SSA]) ?> He. arvákis / ἀρβάκις (LSJ) < ?
*Re: HF h-: Cf. He. har- / ἁρ- (cf. ἀραιός [FEE]). H **harv/w- is my hypothetical reconstruction, which would then connect (h)araiós / ἀραιός ~ **harvaiós, arvákis / ἀρβάκις, and arvón / ἀρβόν.
Fi. kiinni (SK, SSA), kiinnittää (SK), kiinteä (SK, SSA), kiinto- (SK) <<?> He. kǐ́ndalos / κύνδαλος (LSJ, FEE) ~? kǐndós / κυνδός (LSJ) < ?
The morphological comparison is unclear: Perhaps cf. He. aítʰalos / αἴθαλος ‘smoky flame, thick smoke; smoky’ (LSJ, FB), aítʰós ‘burnt, red-brown, shining / αἰθός (LSJ, FB), aĩtʰos / αἶθος ‘burning heat, flame’ (LSJ, FB) < aítʰō / αἴθω ‘to burn, kindle’ (LSJ). This may suggest H *kǐ̃ndos / *κῦνδος ‘nail, peg,? fastener’ (or in light of HMa. árdalos < árda: H *kǐ́nda / *κύνδα) < *kǐ́ndō / *κύνδω ‘to nail, peg;? to fasten’. Regardless, He. kǐ́ndalos is assumed to be derivative; and the act of fastening or fixing would have been semantically relevant to the original HFS term.
The HF vocalism ǐ suggests F << He. loaning; but the lack of He. etymology leaves the possibility of a sound substitution of F -ii- > He. -y/?ȳ-.
kíssa Ma. ‘tit’; He. ‘jay (Garrulus glandarius), magpie (Pica caudata)’;? HMa. ‘type of bird (with blue coloring and a rapid birdsong)’ Ma. kisá / киса (MED) <<? He. kíssa / κίσσα (FEE) < ?
Examples of tits found in the zone of Mari speakers include the blue tit / кандалге киса (Cyanistes caeruleus), azure tit / ошалге-канде киса (Cyanistes cyanus), and great tit / ужар оҥан киса (Parus major). A comparison with the Eurasian jay and Eurasian magpie is unclear: The blue and azure tits, and Eurasian jay and magpie, all have vibrant blue wings; the great tit and the magpie both have black heads and beaks (although the former also has white cheeks); and of their birdsongs, the blue and azure tits have in common with the Eurasian magpie a rapidly repeating call, the progressive tone of which may be mid > low. The greatest perceived similarities are thus between the blue and azure tits with the Eurasian magpie. However, tits are smaller than magpies; and their birdsongs are of a higher pitch.
He. kónis / κόνις ‘ashes’ is virtually identical to PIE *konis ‘ashes’. However, FP distribution weakens synchronicity with PIE; and there is not an IE reflex with the proper intial vocalism or semantics (‘lye’) to formally dissociate from the He. term. However, the HFP secondary vowel is unclear.
kóre-; koré- ~ koríz- F ‘beautiful / kaunis’; He. ‘maidenly*, of a maiden’;? HF ‘beautiful (of a girl or woman)’ Fi. korea (SSA) <<? kóreios / κόρειος (GML) < κόρη (FEE) <1 IE *ḱerh₁-; Fi. ‘to decorate’, Es. ‘to clean’ <<? He. ‘to purify, sweep out’ ~ ‘to clean, sweep’ Fi. koristaa (SK, SSA), Es. koristama (EE) <<? He. koréō / κορέω (FEE) ~ korízō / κορίζω (LSJ) < ?
The He. terms are all derived from a root kor-, or rather multiple homophonous roots; but the etymology of the latter terms (‘to sweep’) is unknown: The base of korízō / κορίζω (GML) is koréō / κορέω, with no further source. Re: HF comparisons, cf. also He. koúrios / κούριος ‘youthful’ < koũros / κοῦρος, Ionic for kóros / κόρος ‘boy, youth; besom’ (LSJ, FEE), which is the masculine counterpart to kórē / κόρη ‘bride, girl, maiden, virgin’ (LSJ, ML). F -o- (vs. -u-) << He. -o- is unclear; but perhaps cf. HFP ourā́ with He. koúrios and koúrē / κούρη (LSJ) re: vowel length, if not due to another aspect of its environment.
The semantic context of HF kóre- is unclear: It might refer to a specific state of beauty of a maiden or bride, or it might instead refer to the general beauty of a girl or woman.
*reasoned from ‘of a maiden’: Cf. παρθένιος ‘maidenly, of a maiden’ (LSJ).
roik- ~? roisk- ~ ruísk- Fi. ‘diarrhea / Durchfall / ripuli’; He. ‘fluid / ρευστός; he who suffers from diarrhea / αυτός που πάσχει από διάρροια’; HF ‘diarrhea’ Fi. ruikku (cf. ruikata [SSA]) <<? He. roikós / ῥοικός (GML) < ῥόος (GMT) < ῥέω (FEE) <1 IE *sreu̯-
If Ma. šokté < šoktáš is the correct derivation, then an original H *saktō verb must be reconstructed. However, a Ma. back-formation is perhaps worth consideration, with the noun as an original loan from a nominalized He. *saktós ‘sieve, strainer’ (cf. HF raktós for internal He. nominalization of an adjective; as well as F -otk- <<? He. -akt-. The vocalism may be relevant to Ma. šokt- <<? He. sakt-). In lieu of He. saktós, cf. sáktas / σάκτας ‘sack’ (LSJ) ~ sáktēs / σάκτης ‘sack’ (ML).
*Cf. He. sákkos / σάκκος ‘bag, sieve’ (FEE) + sakéō ‘to sieve’ (earlier form of sakeúō).