The State of the Finno-Permic Lexicon

Contextualizing historical lexicology - – = ≡ = – -

Juho Pystynen, University of Helsinki juho.pystynen@helsinki.fi

2017-05-15

Outline

1.  Finno-Permic? 2.  Demonstrable archaisms 3.  Loanwords 4.  Potential archaisms 5.  What remains?

Finno-Permic

Finno-Permic

•  The Uralic language family comprises nine principal language groups, whose subgrouping has been long subject to debate.

•  Presently few, if any, hypotheses can be said to enjoy full acceptance. – At one extreme, Salminen (2002) denies the

reliability of all traditionally proposed ”intermediate” subgroups.

Finno-Permic •  The putative Finno-Permic subgroup, first

introduced by Donner (1879), covers the five westernmost groups: Samic (S), Finnic (F), Mordvinic (Mo), Mari (Ma), Permic (P).

•  Donner’s morphological classification criteria have eventually been rendered obsolete by later research, as shown by Häkkinen (1984).

•  Persistent lack of phonological evidence has been highlighted e.g. by Viitso (2000).

The Finno-Permic Lexicon

•  Comparative lexis forms a third category of linguistic data often attributed to a distinct ”Proto-Finno-Permic”.

•  Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: 528 ”Finno-Permic” entries, of which 371 claimed secure. – Some posited rather for (equally disputed)

lower intermediate groups, e.g. ”Finno-Volgaic” = FP minus Permic.

The Finno-Permic Lexicon

•  Sammallahti (1988): Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages – Notable for its vetted index of reconstructed

vocabulary, deemed to show ”regular enough” sound correspondences.

– 123 items reconstructed as Proto-Uralic – 263 items ” Proto-Finno-Ugric – 142 items ” Proto-Finno-Permic

The Finno-Permic Lexicon

•  Implicit position in earlier research: the comparative lexical material labeled (Proto-)Finno-Permic consists of shared innovations, and therefore attests to a separate Finno-Permic subgroup.

The Finno-Permic Lexicon

•  Antithesis: the Finno-Permic lexicon consists of shared retentions; parallel innovations; or internal loanwords; and does not provide clear evidence for Finno-Permic as a separate subgroup.

•  This presentation will focus on Sammallahti’s sub-lexicon.

Demonstrable archaisms

Demonstrable archaisms •  Newer etymological research has presented

cognates for some of Sammallahti’s PFP items from the more eastern Uralic languages; hence they constitute shared retentions.

•  Many have also earlier-known eastern cognates, omitted in the word list for unclear reasons (phonetics irregular? or just poorly understood?)

•  Newly discovered cognates within Finno-Permic will not be covered in the forthgoing.

Demonstrable archaisms •  Four cases are duplicated in various sections of the word

list, likely simply as an oversight. –  *lumi ’snow’ (S F Mo Ma P): already under PU

~ Hungarian lom, Samoyedic *jom- –  *pitä- ’to keep, hold’ (S F Mo Ma): already under PFU

~ Hu fűz- or ~ Mansi N pat-, Khanty N pit- etc. (UEW)

–  *poośi ’mitten’ (– – – Ma P): already under PFU ~ Ms *pɨɨsɣaa, Kh *paas

–  *šëčV- ’to grow’ (– – Mo Ma P): identical to *čëčV- ’to grow’

•  One case of two competing etymologies: –  PFU *peeri- ’enter’ > P *pɨr- (~ Hu fér-) –  PFP *pura- ’enter’ > P *pɨr- (~ Ma *pŭr-)

Demonstrable archaisms (UEW) *optV- ’to bark’ (– – – Ma P)

~ MsN ūt-, KhN apət- etc. *ora ’squirrel’ (S F Mo Ma P)

~ Mator orop *ooti ’year’ (S F – – P)

~ Hu (tav)aly, KhE al etc. *ükti ’1’ (S F Mo Ma P)

~ MsN akʷ etc. *jäsi ’joint’ (– F Mo Ma P)

~ ? Hu íz *jëka- ’to divide’ (S F – – P)

~ Smy *jəkə- *kaččV ’bitter’ (S – – Ma P)

~ MsN χāssi, KhE ki ̮č etc.

*kulma ’eyebrow’ (– F – – P) ~ KhN χuľəm etc.

*läkti- ’to depart’ (S F – Ma P) ~ KhE lüɣət- etc.

*ńëčkV ’wet’ (S F Mo Ma P) ~ KhN ńăsaχ etc.

*ńokśi ’swan’ (S F – Ma P) ~ ? Ms †josch-woi

*ńulka ’silver fir’ (– – – Ma P) ~ MsN ńuli, KhN ńălχa etc.

*peksä- ’to beat’ (– F Mo – P) ~ Smy *pet-

*pelkä ’thumb’ (S F Mo – P) ~ Smy *pej-

Demonstrable archaisms (UEW) *perä ’back’ (– F Mo – P)

~ MsS pärəw, KhN pȧ̆rtȧ etc. *peeli ’column’ (– F Mo – P)

~ Hu félfa *piśla ’rowan’ (– F Mo Ma P)

~ MsN paśar, KhN piśȧr etc. *poji ’aspen’ (– – Mo – P)

~ KhN paj etc. *poŋi ’bosom’ (S F Mo Ma P)

~ MsN pūťi, KhE puɣəl etc. *pura ’ice pick’ (– F – – P)

= *pura ’drill’ (PU)

*puski- ’to sting’ (S F – Ma –) ~ MsN puwt-, KhN poχəl- etc.

*serV ’vein’ (– – – Ma P) ~ Hu ér, MsN tār, KhN ler etc.

*sëlkV- ’to stand’ (– – – Ma P) ~ Hu áll-

*śiŋi ’spar’ (– F – – P) ~ KhE siŋi etc.

*wotta- ’to take’ (– F – – P) ~ MsN wāt- etc.

*wooli- ’to whittle’ (S F – – P) ~ MsN wolt-, KhN wălt- etc.

Demonstrable archaisms (new) *kajwa- ’to dig’ (S F – Ma P)

~ Smy *kajwə- (Aikio 2002) *kačka- ’to bite’ (S – – Ma P)

~ MsN xūs-, KhN χĭs- etc. (Aikio 2014)

*käśV- ’to freeze’ (– – – Ma P) ~ Smy *kənsə- (Aikio 2002)

New proposal: *jëksa- ’to take off’ (S F – – P) in F. also: ’to have energy’

= *jaksV ’people’ (F P Kh) (Katz 1987)

*meeli ’mind’ (S F Mo – P) ~ MsN mālaśl-, KhN mȧləs- etc. (O’Rourke 2016; UEW s.v. *mälɜ-)

*pečä ’pine’ (S F Mo Ma P) ~ Nganasan hiδiḿďə (Normanskaya & Dybo 2010)

*tola ’wedge’ (– – – Mo P) ~ Smy *tajwå (Aikio 2002)

Loanwords

Loanwords

•  Part of Sammallahti’s PFP items had received a known Indo-European loan etymology already long ago.

•  A small number of loanwords with a FP distribution have indeed been excluded. –  e.g. *jewä ’corn’ (UIG #48); *känä ’hemp’ (UIG #59);

*porćas ’pig’ (UIG #117)

•  Again for unclear reasons, many remain.

Loanwords (old) *ertä ’side’ (S – Mo Ma P)

← preII *erdʰa- (UIG #18)

*ošV ’stallion’ (– – – Ma P) ← II *ukšan- (UIG #187)

or ← Ir *acwa- (Koivulehto 2001) or ← II *r̥šā- (Katz 2003)

*ooši ’shaft’ (– – Mo – P) ← II *aiša- (UIG #15)

*mertä ’man’ (– – Mo – P) ← preII *merta- (UIG #75b)

*ponti ’shaft’ (– F Mo Ma P) but: P ← pre-II *pad- (UIG #116)

*puntVsV ’basis’ (– – – Ma P) ← II *budʰnas (UIG #121)

*repä(śV) ’fox’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← preII *reupāća- (UIG #128)

*sa/ola ’salt’ (– F Mo – P) ← IE *sal- (UIG #145)

*tërna ’grass’ (– F – – P) ← II *tr̥na- (UIG #166)

*wëŋka ’handle’ (– F – – P) ← II *wanka- (UIG #192)

*wirtV- ’to tend’ (– – – Ma P) ← preII *(H)werdʰ- (UIG #218)

*wiša ’green’ (– F Mo Ma P) ← II *wiša- (UIG #216)

*wärkV ’kidney’ (– – – Ma P) ← II *wr̥tka- (UIG #205)

Loanwords

•  More recent research has also uncovered numerous new loanword etymologies among the material.

•  Even if some etymologies may be questionable, the loanword portion of the FP lexicon regardless must be today considered substantially larger.

Loanwords (newer) *ešti- ’to manage’ (S F – Ma P)

< *ješ-tä-j- ← preB *jeh₁g- (Koivulehto 1991)

*iša ’skin’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← Ir *iza- (Koivulehto 2001b)

*uuči ’sheep’ < *owi- (– F – Ma P) ← IE *Howi- (Koivulehto 1991)

or ← preSl *ovičā- (Napoľskich 2002)

*čëčV- ’to grow’ (– – Mo Ma P) ← Ir *dzadz- (Koivulehto 1999)

*jowkkV ’crowd’ (– F – – P) ← preG *jougjo- (Koivulehto 1981)

*kämä ’shoe’ (S – Mo Ma P) ← preG *xamā (Koivulehto 2007a)

*kertti- ’to bind’ (S – – – P) ← IE *kert- (Koivulehto 2001a)

*kirä- ’to hit’ (– – Mo Ma P) ← IE (s)ker- (Grünthal 2002)

*kuda- ’to weave’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← IE *h₂udʰah₂- (Koivulehto 1991)

*kuuni ’ashes’ (S – – Ma P) ← IE *koni- (Koivulehto 2001a)

*külmä ’cold’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← preB *gʷeluma (Koivulehto 1983)

Loanwords (newer) *lënti ’pasture’ (– F – – P, Smy?)

← IE *lomdʰo- (Koivulehto 2001a)

*lowna ’south, day’ (– F – – P) ← IE *louksno- (Katz 2003)

*mukšV ’fist’ (– – – Ma P) ← II *mušti- (Katz 2003)

*penä ’dog’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← preII *ḱwena- (Katz 2003)

*përa ’good’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← II *paras (Koivulehto 1999)

*pinta ’surface’ (– F – – P) ← G *spinda- (Koivulehto 1986)

*poča ’reindeer’ (S – – Ma P) ← II *paću- (Koivulehto 2007b)

*ponši- ’sieve’ (– F Mo – P) ← IE √peuH- (Koivulehto 2001a)

*portta ’vessel’ (S – – – P) ← preG *pōtro- (Koivulehto 1999)

*se(e)ćVmi ’7’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← BSl *setem (Napoľskich 2002)

*sitta ’dirt’ (– F – – P) ← G *skīta- (Katz 1990)

*so/aja ’shelter’ (S F – – P) ← Ir *scāya- (Koivulehto 2001b)

Loanwords (newer) *sünti- ’to grow’ (– F – – P)

← preIr *dzenH- (Koivulehto 2001a) *śiśtV ’wax’ (– – – Ma P)

← II *śišta- (Blažek 1990)

*śolkama ’attachment’ (S F Mo Ma P) ← IE *ḱolHo- (Koivulehto 2001a)

*tuuli ’wind’ (– F – Ma P) ← IE *dʰuHli- (Koivulehto 1991)

*wanša ’old’ (– F – – P) but: F ← G *wanha- (Koivulehto 2001a)

P ← B *wetuša- (Zhivlov 2008) *wiša ’hatred’ (≠ ’green’!) (– F – – P)

← II *dwiš- (Parpola 1999) *woša ’fork, branch’ (– – Mo Ma P)

← II *woiHā (Koivulehto 1991)

Loanwords

•  Loanwords can, in principle, constitute shared innovations.

•  Many potential arguments for parallel or mediated loaning are individually possible: –  unrelated loans: e.g. F *vaha ’wax’ (≠ *śiśtV) –  parallel loan variants: e.g. F *mardas ’dead’ (≠ *mertä) –  phonological irregularity: e.g. F *uuhi < *uuši (≠ *uuči) –  phonological anachronisms: e.g. *jowkkV?! –  implausible direct loaning,: e.g. Germanic → Permic?!

Loanwords •  The above list also shows skewed lexical

distribution, compared to inherited vocabulary. –  Samic: 16/43 ≈ 37% – Finnic: 25/43 ≈ 58%

inherited < PU: ≈ 68% inherited < PU: ≈ 75% –  Mordvinic: 19/43 ≈ 44% – Mari: 26/43 ≈ 60%

inherited < PU: ≈ 53% inherited < PU: ≈ 52% –  (Permic: 100%, by definition.)

•  Instead of concentrated loss of loanwords in particular, especially in Samic, parallel loaning into the less peripheral western Uralic varieties is likely.

Internal loanwords

Internal loanwords •  Several layers of loanwords between different

Uralic groups have been well documented. –  E.g. Samic ↔ Finnish, Finnic → Komi, Komi → Mansi, Khanty.

•  Most relevant here are the Permic loanwords in Mari. Three cases given by Bereczki (1992) will eliminate a proposed PFP item: –  Mari lüs, lüjəš ’conifer branch’ ← Udmurt li ̮s

(and not both < PFP *lüksi) –  Mari lüšte- ’to milk’ ← Permic *li ̮śti ̮-

(and not both < PFP *lüśtV-) –  Mari serməc, šörməć ’halter’ ← Permic *sermet

(and not both < PFP *śermVtti)

Checkpoint

•  The three groups of vocabulary treated above, unlikely to constitute shared innovations, already cover 84/142 ≈ 59% of Sammallahti’s ”Proto-Finno-Permic” word list.

•  Among words attested in at least four subgroups: 27/40 ≈ 68%

•  …in all five: 14/19 ≈ 74%!

Potential archaisms

Potential archaisms •  After the above considerations, a number

of PFP items with wide distribution still remain.

•  In the absense of loan or derivational etymologies, positing secondary origin is unwarranted / circular.

•  Inheritance from Proto-Uralic however remains possible in principle, even if assuming a PFP subgroup.

Potential archaisms •  ”Weak topological principle”: If a term for a given

concept can be reconstructed for one primary branch of a language family, but not for any others, it is therefore the best candidate also for the parent proto-language. (Cf. Kassian, Zhivlov & Starostin 2015)

•  If a subgroup turns out to invalid, leads to the corresponding ”strong” principle. (= A term reflected in multiple branches is a better candidate for the common proto-language than a term reflected in only one branch.)

Potential archaisms

’Dog’ (KZS 2015): 1.  Finno-Permic *penä ← ? preII. oblique *ḱwena- (see above) (Perhaps better: ← Central Iranian *spana-)

2.  Ugric *ämpV 3.  Samoyedic *wën ← ? Tocharian oblique *kwënə (already Kallio 2004)

Potential archaisms

’Meat’ (KZS 2015): 1.  ”Finno-Permic” *silV (Ma P) (Sammallahti)

/ *siwɜľɜ (Mo Ma P) (UEW) (And cf. *silɜ ~ *śilä ’fat’?)

2.  Ob-Ugric *ńooɣəδ´ 3.  Samoyedic *åjå

< PU *oďa > Permic *uľ ’raw’ (Aikio 2002)

Potential archaisms

’Nose’ (KZS 2015): 1.  ”Finno-Permic” *neeri (S Mo Ma P)

Better: *näri (cf. Aikio 2012). Here thus likely also *närkä ’badger’ (Mo Ma P Smy; Normanskaya et al. 2015)

2.  Ob-Ugric *ńal 3.  Samoyedic *pïjå

Potential archaisms

’Sun’ (KZS 2015) 1.  *päjwä (S F) (~ Smy ’warm’) 2.  ”Finno-Permic” *keččä (F Mo Ma P)

But meaning ’sun’ only in Mo, Ma. In F, P ’ring’, for which loan origin can be proposed: parallel forms to *kečrä ’spindle’ (← preII *ketstra-; Koivulehto 2001a)?

3.  Smy *kåjå (~ S F Mo Ma ’to be visible’)

Potential archaisms Roots with wide distribution, stable semantics and no notable competition in Proto-Uralic: likely to constitute archaisms.

–  *oksi- ’to vomit’ (S F Mo Ma P) –  *kočka ’eagle’ (S F Mo Ma P) (~ Trk. *küčigen)

–  *komta ’lid’ (S F Mo Ma P) (~ Tg. *komtan)

–  *päški ’nut’ (– F Mo Ma P) –  *pišti ’tongs’ (S F Mo – P) (– unlikely per semantics)

(To be sure, the first three and the last have distinct Samoyedic equivalents. However, even if assuming Samoyedic as the earliest outgroup, the roots here can still be analyzed as likely Proto-Finno-Ugric archaisms.)

Potential archaisms Roots with wide distribution and stable semantics, with competing synonyms. At least one side is likely innovative; however, the other may be archaic.

–  ’branch’: ”FP” *oksa | *θaŋɜ (Ugric) –  ’beaver’: ”FP” *majaka | *kuntɜ (Hu Ms)

(? ← Trk. *kumtuz)

–  ’ant’: ”FP” *kutki | *kuńćɜ (F P Hu Ms) (likely ← *kuńći ’urine’!)

–  ’woodpecker’: ”FP” *śäśnä | *karɜ (Ugric) ”FP” *kärki (not in Sammallahti)

What remains?

What remains? •  A decent amount of lexical evidence remains

consistent with a Finno-Permic subgroup. •  However, very little evidence unambigiously

points to it. •  Rooting lexicon remains highly challenging. •  Quite evidently, belief in the subgroup has

come from elsewhere, and ”PFP” items have been collected simply on the grounds of their distribution across the Uralic languages.

What remains?

•  Would competing subgroup proposals fare any better?

•  E.g. Viitso (2000): Finno-Volgaic vs. Permic-Ugric? Finno-Samic vs. Central? – Sammallahti (1988) already has 88 items with

a ”Central” (Mo Ma P Ug) distribution. – however, as we have seen: bare counts of

shared vocabulary are unlikely to be especially informative for subgrouping.

Abbreviations •  B = Baltic •  BSl = Balto-Slavic •  F = Finnic •  FP = Finno-Permic •  G = Germanic •  Hu = Hungarian •  IE = Indo-European •  II = Indo-Iranian •  Ir = Iranian •  Kh = Khanty •  Ma = Mari

•  Mo = Mordvinic •  Ms = Mansi •  P = Permic •  PFP = Proto-Finno-Permic •  PU = Proto-Uralic •  S = Samic •  Smy = Samoyedic •  Tg = Tungusic •  Trk = Turkic •  Ug = Ugric

References •  Aikio, Ante (2002): New and Old Samoyedic Etymologies. — Finnisch-Ugrische

Forschungen 56, pp. 9–57. •  Aikio (2012) = Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): On Finnic long vowels,

Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x. — In: Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue, pp. 227–250. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 264.

•  Aikio (2014) = Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): Studies in Uralic Etymology II: Finnic Etymologies. — Linguistica Uralica 1/2014, pp. 1–19.

•  Bereczki, Gábor (1992): Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgesichte II. Studia Uralo-Altaica 34. Szeged.

•  Blažek, Václav (1990): New Fenno-Ugric – Indo-Iranian lexical parallels. — In: Uralo-Indogermanica II. Materials of the 3rd Balto-Slavic Conference, pp. 40–43. Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki.

•  Donner, Otto (1879): Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der Finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Helsinki.

•  Grünthal, Riho (2002): Prehistoric contacts between Mordvin and Indo-European. — In: Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts, pp. 84–91. Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2.

•  Häkkinen, Kaisa (1984): Wäre es schon an der Zeit, den Stammbaum zu fällen? — Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Neue Folge 4, pp. 1–24.

References •  Kallio, Petri (2004): Tocharian loanwords in Samoyed? — In: Etymologie, Entlehnungen

und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 129–137. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63.

•  Kassian, Alexei; Zhivlov, Mikhail; Starostin, George (2015): Proto-Indo-European-Uralic comparison from the probabilistic point of view. — The Journal of Indo-European Studies 43/3–4, pp. 301–347.

•  Katz, Hartmut (1987): Kalajas, enojas: erään johtimen etymologiasta. — Virittäjä 91, pp. 209–210.

•  Katz, Hartmut (1990): Bume und Korpsion. Zur Behandlung konsonantischer Anlautkluster in urgermanischen Lehnwörtern des Ostseefinnischen. Innsbrucker Studien zur Ural-Altaistik 3.

•  Katz, Hartmut (2003): Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörter in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.

•  Koivulehto, Jorma (1981): Paikan ja joukon tulo kieleen. — Virittäjä 85, pp. 195–213. •  Koivulehto, Jorma (1983): Suomalaisten maahanmuutto indoeurooppalaisten lainasanojen

valossa. — Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 78, pp. 107–132. •  Koivulehto, Jorma (1986): Pinta ja rasva. — Virittäjä 90, pp. 164–177. •  Koivulehto, Jorma (1991): Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Wien: Verlag der

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

References •  Koivulehto, Jorma (1999): Varhaiset indoeurooppalaiskontaktit: aika ja paikka lainasanojen

valossa. — In: Pohjan poluilla: Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, pp. 207–236. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura.

•  Koivulehto, Jorma (2001a): The Earliest Contacts between IE and Uralic Speakers. — In: Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European, pp. 235–263. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242.

•  Koivulehto, Jorma (2001b): Zum frühen iranischen und indoiranischen lexikalischen Einfluss auf das Finnisch-Ugrische. — In: Vidyārṇavavandanam. Essays in Honour of Asko Parpola, pp. 361–378. Studia Orientalia 94.

•  Koivulehto, Jorma (2007a): Auf der Suche nach germanischen Elementen im heutigen Wortschatz des Ostseefinnischen und Samischen. — Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108, pp. 577–589.

•  Koivulehto, Jorma (2007b): Saamen ja suomen ’poro’. — In: Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, pp. 251–258. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 253.

•  Napoľskich, Wladimir (2002): Zu den ältesten Beziehungen zwischen Finno-Ugrien und zentraleuropäischen Indogermanen. — In: Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts, pp. 263–271. Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2.

•  Normanskaya, Julia; Dybo, Anna; Basharin, Pavel; Amelina, Maria (2015): Новые прасамодийские этимолгии. — Ural-Altaic Linguistics 16, pp. 62–72.

•  Normanskaya, Julia & Dybo, Anna (2010): Лексика природного окружения в уральских языках. Moscow: Тезаурус.

References •  O’Rourke, Patrick (2016): Comments of Proto-Uralic etymology: derivations and lexemes.

— Linguistica Uralica 4/2016, pp. 241–246. •  Parpola, Asko (1999): Varhaisten indoeurooppalaiskontaktien ajoitus ja paikannus

kielellisen ja arkeologisen aineiston perusteella. — In: Pohjan poluilla: Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, pp. 180–206. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura.

•  Sammallahti, Pekka (1988): Historical Phonology of the Uralic languages, with Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic. — In: The Uralic Languages, pp. 478–554. Leiden: Brill.

•  Salminen, Tapani (2002): Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies. — In: Лингвистический беспредел. Сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой, pp. 44–55. Moscow: Издательство Московского университета.

•  UEW = Rédei, Károly (ed.) (1986–1991): Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

•  UIG = Joki, Aulis J. (1973): Uralier und Indogermanen. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 151.

•  Viitso, Tiit-Rein (2000): Finnic affinity. — In: Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I: Orationes plenariae & Orationes publicae, pp. 153–178.

•  Zhivlov (2008) = Живлов, М. А: Этимология прапермского *våž ’старый’. — In: Языковые контакты в аспекте истории. Moscow.