Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen

Mihail Mosin 1940–2022

2023-09-26T14:02:56+03:00

Tiit-Rein Viitso 1938–2022

2023-10-26T13:41:09+03:00

Raimo Anttila 1935–2023

2023-09-26T14:29:46+03:00

Hunting for the Uralic accusative(s)

2023-10-12T00:49:38+03:00

Besprechung

Honti, László. 2022: Az ősi uráli tárgyragok története és vesszőfutása: Accusatum et expulsum. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. 283 pp.

The largest bidirectional dictionary of North Saami and Swedish to date

2023-10-23T12:33:07+03:00

Besprechung

Svonni, Mikael. 2023. Davvisámegiela-ruoŧagiela, ruoŧagiela-davvisámegiela sátnegirji = Nordsamisk-svensk, svensk-nordsamisk ordbok. Kiruna: Ravda Lágádus. 503 pp.

A North Saami dialect dictionary in a new format

2023-10-23T12:47:39+03:00

Besprechung

Skåden, Asbjørg (ed.). 2022. Márkku sánit. Ravda Lágádus. (Android app.)

Ein Opus magnum der historischen Phraseologie

2023-09-07T18:46:08+03:00

Besprechung

Forgács, Tamás. 2021. Történeti frazeológia: A történeti szólás- és közmondáskutatás kézikönyve [Historische Phraseologie: Handbuch der historischen phraseologischen Forschung] (Segédkönyvek a nyelvészeti tanulmányozásához 218). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. 476 S.

On adverbial clauses in Udmurt

2022-09-12T17:17:57+03:00

This paper presents three types of non-finite adverbial clauses in Udmurt: the ones encoded with the suffixes -(e)mja, -(o)nja, and -(o)ńńa. I propose that these suffixes should be decomposed morphologically and that these non-finite adverbial clauses are to be analyzed as postpositional phrases. In this way, the paper contributes to the analysis of non-finite adverbial subordination in Udmurt. Moreover, the description of -(o)ńńa-clauses in the Middle Cheptsa dialect, which have not been previously described in the literature, also deepens our knowledge of Udmurt dialectal syntax. Additionally, this study has implications for our understanding of the Udmurt case system, as it makes a novel proposal regarding the adverbial case in Udmurt.

On locating Proto-Uralic

2022-09-12T21:20:48+03:00

In recent years the debate regarding the Proto-Uralic homeland has again intensified. However, not all the relevant arguments have been considered thoroughly. Therefore, in the present article their validity and weight are evaluated. The article also develops further concepts and methodology for reconstruction of stages of Uralic, making it possible to compare Uralic stages to the Indo-Iranian loanword layers with higher resolution than before. As a result, the paper locates Late Proto-Uralic and successive stages in the Central Ural Region, matching the Koptyaki Culture (dated to the early 2nd millennium BCE) and its local predecessor.

Notes on an old problem of Hungarian historical vocalism: the sporadic (?) change of Uralic *u > Hungarian a, á

2023-01-12T23:55:55+02:00

This article discusses the alleged sound change Proto-Uralic *u > Hungarian a, á. The etymologies manifesting this change that have been presented in earlier etymological literature are critically examined, and it is shown that a significant portion of them are wrong or based on outdated reconstructions. New explanations for many etymologies are presented, and possible causes for the few convincing examples of *u > a are discussed.

Borrowability of kinship terms in Uralic languages

2022-09-09T14:11:14+03:00

Kinship terms are assumed to be universal and central to social life, and consequently they are not particularly prone to borrowing. Borrowing of kinship terms does happen, however, and this provides us a lens with which to evaluate the nature and intensity of contact situations. In this study, we provide a general overview of the borrowability of kinship terms into the Uralic languages. We collected kinship terms from twenty Uralic languages and used a list of 146 kin categories total as the basis for our data collection. We found that affinal kin categories such as those denoting spouses, spouse’s siblings, and sibling’s spouses had the largest number of loanwords. However, among the kin categories with the largest number of loanwords were also consanguineal categories such as those of ‘mother’ and ‘father’. We also found that the Uralic languages vary notably in how large a percentage of their kinship terminology has been borrowed: the Mordvin languages have borrowed the most, more than 40 percent of their kinship terms, while for many Samoyedic languages no loanwords were detected in their kinship terminology. In addition to the quantitative approach, we also delve into the kin categories with the largest number of loanwords and discuss the patterns of these loanwords in certain languages, and the occurrence of semantic change as a factor explaining the large number of loanwords of terms for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. All in all, borrowing of kin terms is a context-dependent process and it is challenging to make global generalizations. Nevertheless, we propose that borrowed kin terms could provide us the best possible material through which individual contact situations of the past could be studied. This study also summarizes the borrowed kin terms in the Uralic languages, brings the topic into the spotlight, and pinpoints cases where more research is needed.

Nova Turco-Samoiedica

2022-09-09T16:33:20+03:00

The present paper focuses on the lexical contact between Turkic and Samoyedic and discusses nine new possible Turkic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic and eight new possible Samoyedic loanwords in Turkic. The introduction offers a modest bibliography of the scattered studies on the subject. Two of the new Turkic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic suggest that they reached the recipient language through the mediation of Yeniseian languages.