Uralic-Eskimo intervocalic consonant correspondences and first vowel correspondences (revised and expanded) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Uralic-Eskimo first vowel and second vowel correspondence sound laws
This paper presents sound laws for strictly regular sound correspondences between both first vowels and second vowels in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots. Uralic-Eskimo initial and intervocalic consonant sound laws are also summarized and stated. The paper presents the Uralic-Eskimo vowel pair correspondence classes that follow from these sound laws and correspondences, as well as correspondence sets of lexical examples for each such vowel pair correspondence class. A total of 49 such lexical examples of the Uralic-Eskimo vowel pair correspondences, with strong semantic links, are presented. An appendix presents an additional 45 possible lexical examples of the Uralic-Eskimo vowel pair correspondences, exhibiting greater semantic drift.
Uralic initial *ć- ~ Eskimo *k- correspondence: 18 lexical comparisons
This document proposes a new sound correspondence between Proto-Uralic initial *ć- and Proto-Eskimo initial *k-, presenting a correspondence set of 18 lexical comparisons between such Uralic and Eskimo roots. It is noted that even the most extensive previous proposals of Uralic-Eskimo sound correspondences, such as Fortescue 1998, did not include this correspondence. The document describes the relatively recent proposal by Zhivlov (2014) to reconstruct the Proto-Uralic phoneme as *ć rather than the traditional standard *ś, the support for this proposal in Aikio 2019, and the adoption of this reconstruction in Ánte's draft of the Uralic Etymological Dictionary (2020). The document suggests that this more accurate phonological reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic phoneme motivated the author to consider the PEsk *k ~ PU *ć correspondence as a natural result of a typologically common palatalization sound change *k > *ć in Proto-Uralic, whereas previously it would have been much less natural for anyone to consider a correspondence between *k and the fricative sibilant phoneme *ś. The document notes the distinctive medial intervocalic consonant correspondences found in the possible Uralic-Eskimo comparisons presented in Aikio 2019. The document notes the lack of PU *ći- forms in the comparisons here, and indeed the rarity of PU *ći- in general, and suggests that PUEsk initial *ki- > *kj- > *k j- may have been the original conditioning environment of the palatalization > *ć- in PU, possibly explaining why *i rarely remained to appear after *ć- in PU.
Evaluating the Uralic-Yukaghiric word-initial, proto-sibilant correspondence rules
SUSA/JSFOu, 2015, 95, p. 237-273, 2015
This paper evaluates and expands upon previously suggested sound rules governing the phonological outcome of early root-initial proto-sibilants (*s- and *ś-) and proto-affricates (*š-, *ć- and *č-) in Late Proto-Yukaghir (PY), as shown by cognate correspondences in Proto-Uralic (PU) and by Tungusic and Turkic borrowings. The proto-sibilant *s- underwent deletion (*Ø-), retention (*s-) or lateralization (*l-); *ś- was retained unchanged and earlier *š- had changed into *č- in PY. Universally, PY proto-sibilants and proto-affricates find regular lexical correspondences in PU as described by a set of non-trivial phonological rules: Pre-PY *sVr/k/γ- > PY *lVr/k/γ-: a regular lateralization of the sibilant in Yukaghiric occurred with back vowels and *-r-, *-k- and possibly *-γ-, but not *-q-, through an intermediary hypothetical *θ- stage. Pre-PY *sVl/ŋ- > PY *ØVl/ŋ-: a sibilant deletion rule occurred with any vowel and *-l- or *- ŋ-. However, all structures of the intermediate type Pre-PY *sV1ŋ/l/m/n-k/q-V2-, where V1 is a back vowel, pose an exception wherein sibilant deletion was blocked, and the sibilant was either retained or changed into a lateral. Sibilant deletion still occurred in these cases if V1 was a front vowel. Pre-PY *ś- > PY *ś- > KY š- & TY s-: the Yukaghir lexicon in these cases likely developed through intermediate *š’-/*θ’- from Old Yukaghir. Furthermore, Pre-PY *š- > PY *č- regularly. All of these sound changes are controlled by phonology and affect borrowings as well as inherited vocabulary from before PY, but do not affect post-PY borrowings. The sibilant-deletion rule is clearly an influence from extensive language contacts with Yakut-speakers, and certain roots show that the Yukaghir rules of synharmonism were already in effect prior to sibilant deletion. In addition, the results are concurrent with several older cognate suggestions between Uralic and Yukaghiric and further add to this corpus. Identifying these historical processes also strengthens the evidence that the Yukaghir languages are genetically related to the Uralic language family.
The Indo-Uralic sound correspondences
The Indo-Uralic sound correspondences draft 1, 2023
This paper contains a list of sound correspondences between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic with examples as well as many Indo-Uralic etymologies.
The Non-initial-syllable Vowel Reductions from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finnic
Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, pp. 163-175. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264. Helsinki., 2012
Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue.
Phonological Issues in North Alaskan Inupiaq. Alaska Native Language Center Research Papers No. 6
1981
Regressive assimilation in Barrow 39 2.21 At morpheme boundaries 39 2.22 Morpheme-internal assimilation 42. 2.3 Regressive assimilation in Kobuk 43 2.31 Failure of assimilation before cluster-initial suffixes 45 2.32 Failure of assimilation conditioned by syncope 50 2.33 Additional suffixes before which assimilation fails 55 2.4 Progressive assimilation 57 2.5 Collapsing the assimilation rules 59 2.6 Assimilation preceding enclitics 62 2.7 Assimilation in the subordinative verb mood 65 2.8 Assimilatory changes in point of articulation 69 2.81 The case of nigig 70 2.82 Other cases 73 3 Assibilation and Palatalization 76 3.1 Introduction 76 3.2 Palatalization in Barrow 79 3.21 Palatalization following verb stems. 79 3.22 Palatalization following noun stems. 82 3.23 A synchronic approach to palatalization 83 3.24 The palatalization rule 85 3.25 Non-alternating palatals 87 3.251 i preceding non-coronals. .. 87 3.252 Accounting for non-alternating palatals 88 5 5.23 Lenition 171 5.24 Alternation involving s and y 176 5.25 Alternation involving t 180 5.3
A prosody-controlled semi-vowel alternation in Yukaghir
Journal of Historical Linguistics, 2016, 6(2), p. 247-296, 2016
This paper shows that Yukaghir underwent a regular sound change whereby all word-internal and -final w phonemes became j, probably in Early Proto-Yukaghir. After degemination had occurred, possibly in Middle Proto-Yukaghir, any j in an intervocalic position of disyllabic roots was followed by an epenthetic l as it still is in the modern Yukaghir languages. Palatalization, labialization, uvularization and assimilative effects finally formed the Late Proto-Yukaghir forms from which the modern languages have arisen. Word-class prosody controls epenthesis, vowel lengthening and any further word-final vowel changes. Identifying these historical processes also strengthens the evidence that Yukaghir is genealogically related to Uralic. The Uralic and Yukaghiric correspondences are carefully analyzed as to phonology and semantics, resulting in over fifty new or revised cognate suggestions. Further, Yukaghiric shows a trend towards a reduction of the number of root syllables in the comparison. The semi-vowel w remained unchanged word-initially in Tundra Yukaghir, and has thus been a continuous part of the Yukaghir phonemic register. Lexemes containing the semi-vowel w found in modern Yukaghir in word-internal and final positions arose from other sources only after the semi-vowel alternation sound change rule.
Comments on Uralic historical phonology
Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 2013
In this paper, the author poses three questions of historical phonology and gives explanations that are meant to be rational: 1. With respect to the Hungarian reflexes of Proto-Uralic/Proto-Finno-Ugric/Proto-Ugric word initial *p, *t, and *k, two reasons are suggested for the dual reflexes *p > H f ∼ b and *t > H t ∼ d: (a) the word internal (primary or secondary) voiced consonant triggered the assimilation (that is, voicing) of the initial consonant; (b) subsequently, due to an effort to eliminate homonymy, the closest congener of the initial consonant (that is, its voiced counterpart) replaced the original voiceless stop. It is also discussed why *k does not similarly have dual reflexes (k ∼ g) in Hungarian. 2. Concerning the phonological reality of Proto-Uralic/Proto-Finno-Ugric/Proto-Ugric *δ and *D, as well as the potential etymological correspondence of s-initial Finnic words with t-initial words of the other Uralic languages, it is proposed that *2 and *2 should be assumed rather than *δ and *D, and the correspondence "Finnic s-∼ other Uralic t-" is explained by positing a PU/PFU *ϑ. 3. Reflexes in present-day Uralic languages of the PU/PFU word internal clusters "*l/*ľ /*r /*j/*δ (= *2)/*D (= *2) + (some vowel +) *m" are explained by the palatalisation and subsequent semivocalisation of the first consonant; the resulting semivowel either remained as it was, or underwent partial assimilation to the other consonant, or it was dropped: "C > Ć > j > 0 / /ń".
2021
The Eskimo–Aleut languages are believed to represent a separate prehistoric migration of people from Asia. The more credible proposals on the external relations and prehistoric contacts of Eskimo–Aleut concern one or more of the language families of northern Eurasia. The two serious genetic hypotheses are (1) 'Uralo-Siberian'/'Altaic' or more inclusively (2) 'Nostratic' ('Eurasiatic'). The comparative word-list provides data for connections between Eskimo-Aleut and Austronesian languages. The Part I contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences/with one other final sound in PE (only in words with the uncontroversial PAN stops and sonants *p, *t, *k, *q, *m, *n + *l, *ŋ) or with regular sound correspondences (PAN *S – PE *c, PAN *s – PE *c, PAN CeC > Yupik CeC, Inupik CiC) and identical or close semantics. Examples: PAN *sekel 'bend, bow' - PE *cikə- 'to bend down, to lower', PAN *sukud 'walking stick, cane, staff' - PE *cuka- 'post, pole', PMP *akaR 'root' - PE *aku 'root of a plant’. The Part II contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences (or with regular sound correspondences) in initial clusters CVC(V) (in words with AN *p, *t, *k, *q-, *m, *n, *S , *c + *-l-, *-ŋ- + *b, *-y-) and identical or close semantics. We can explain the lexical similarities as a result of language convergence (convergence of proto- languages or convergence with peripheral prehistoric Austronesian subgroups with PAN *S > *s or before PAN *S > PMP *h, ~ between Eastern China and Amur).