![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The classification of the Finnish "languages" is not correct, because it is rather political than linguistical. Meänkieli and Kven Finnish are North Finnish dialects that are spoken in Sweden and Norway, whereas Ingrian Finnish is a southeastern dialect spoken in Ingria (Ingermanland).
I would better say
-- Hippophaë 14:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why palatalization was removed from the list of common features? -- Hippophaë 22:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1) Pending a final decision on this manner, Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages or on these subjects.
-- See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor mav 19:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There was a long discussion regarding cases in Hungarian on this talk page (see archive). I think I got closer to the root of the problem (misunderstanding). Please see: Talk:Hungarian language#Cases in Hungarian. I also tried to include a paragraph on this in Hungarian_language#Nouns. I'd like to ask linguists to review and correct it. Thanks. nyenyec ☎ 17:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Someone replaced "pii" with "hammas" as the Finnish cognate for "tooth". This is obviously not cognate to the rest, but does "pii" have some special semantics we should know about? - Mustafaa 02:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've written an article about Proto-Uralic, but as I am not a linguist, it'd be nice to have an expert to check the facts, as I noticed that the texts were from different years and disagreed on many points. -- Vuo 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to pronounce "Uralic;" can someone put an IPA transcription of the word in the summary? GoodSirJava 22:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good idea. I added it for ya. -- Glengordon01 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"It [the palatalization in the Uralic languages] is different from Russian "palatalization" or "iotation", which means prefixing [ɪ]."
What does this mean? I notice no difference in the palatalization between Russian and the Baltic-Finnic languages for example. -- Hippophaë 15:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the cells in the cognates table have shifted:
I don't know where the 'laamp(a) (Selkup)' cell should be shifted, though. Could someone please correct this? Nyenyec 06:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uralic languages#Selected cognates lists for Erzya Mordvin `to live':
I don't know whether such stem really exists in Erzya (haven't checked a dictionary), but the common one is actually:
which is also listed in the etymology there.
So, I suspect there is an error in this cell. Could someone please check it and correct, if that's true.-- Imz 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This line could use some revision:
"The name "Uralic" refers to the location of the family’s suggested Urheimat (homeland), which is often placed in the vicinity of the Ural mountains."
It's the "... suggested Urheimat (homeland) ..." that bothers me - I find it incredibly ambiguous and clumsy. "Urheimat" in that sentence seems at first glance to be talking about the origin of the word "Uralic", and otherwise could refer to a word common to Uralic languages. The parenthetical doesn't help much with this. I'm puzzled as to how to fix the sentence, though, so I'm leaving it as is for now. Dextrose 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original complaint. I am not a linguist (Wikipedia is NOT strictly for linguists) but I do have a strong fascination with linguistics, particularly with linguistic origins. When I came across the "urheimat" reference (with its obvious Germanic origins), and even though I am familiar with the word and its origins, I had to do some cross-referencing to clarify that it wasn't an attempt to place the Uralic and the IE "urheimat" as identical. Excusing the confusion with paranthetical references is no excuse; the article should stand on its own in the context of its audience. Perhaps switching the reference with its paranthetic counterpart, from "Urheimat (homeland)" to "homeland (see:Urheimat)", would be more appropriate.
The sound laws in the selected cognates are very vague. "s" appears and disappears. "l" appears and disappears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Finnish "k" is variously said to be equivalent to Hungarian "k", "h" and no consonant. No explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The type of vowel, back or front, is mentioned in another article. This does not explain "k" vanishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC) See Finnish Maksa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The first map on the page is misleading. It shows different branches of Uralic languages, and Yukaghir languages, whose relation to Uralic languages is only a weak hypothesis. The map gives an impression that Yukaghir languages are a part of Uralic languages (or that the Uralic languages stretch so far), and you must read the article carefully to find out that this is not the case. There are also many other theories about which language families Uralic languages are related to, but they are not shown on that map either. Tuohirulla puhu 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
My Finnish etymology dictionary (Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, WSOY 2004, Kaisa Häkkinen) has slightly different original forms for most of the selected cognates. Mostly marked as Proto-Finno-Ugric, however. I'll put this up for comments before I change anything:
1) Longer and more specific roots
/ɜ/ marks "vowel of uncertain quality" in the UPA; so do I have newer information here or does the situation go fuzzy between PFU and PU? Also, original /uo/ in "vein" surely is wrong? /o:/ > /uo/ was a change that spread thru northern Finno-Samic during the first millenia AD.
2) Different harmony
I suspect these are just typos in the article - the cognates presented are clearly front-harmonic. -- Tropylium 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I can only suspect that native Hungarian speakers are going to look at the cognate table and continue to add tűz without looking first at the history to see that it keeps getting removed. Perhaps some sort of note in the table itself would be in order? -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a note in the table that says not to add "tűz" to the table, because it is not a cognate. What is the evidence that it is not a cognate? The only information I can find is from Wiktionary [1], which claims that it is. Thanks. — Emiellaiendiay 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been theorising of my own that could the Altaic and Uralic languages be related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennet.mattfolk ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As we seen in the Bulgarian case (converting Turkic language into the another one), Europe wanted to convert both Hungarian and Finnish elites by replacing Swedish and Slavic words to their original languages too, but they didn't succeed, now Vatican and EU want to go with another way. This has nothing to do with science.-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now stop adding that suggestive material and first explain why you think it should be here, I have thoroughly explained myself in the edit summaries already. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to push some personal POV. -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
first you explain yourself, why do you remove it? because it has already been there...-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
im a linguist, this is what people call "genetic relation" and the diagram couldnt be removed.-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to say that Uralic languages lack a "have" verb. It's enough to say that locative or dative constructions are used. Lack of "have" verb is not unique to Uralic (Proto-IE lacked it too), so it bloats the article unnecessarily. -- 88.112.193.101 ( talk) 10:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: I'll probably be eventually splitting most of this section off to a separate Classification of the Uralic languages article. Some of the uncertain stub-sized nodes like Finno-Volgaic languages could be merged there as well. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Uralian" is not a term that is in common use for this language family. Of the two references that were added to support it, one was in French not English, and listed not a single English language source that used "Uralian". The other was a single reference. "Uralian" is not in use on either side of the Atlantic except by a very rare scholar. Multiple sources can be cited for "Uralic" from native speakers of English as well as non-native speakers of English in English-language sources. Aside from one or two rare sources, "Uralian" is not in use. To characterize "Uralian" as British and "Uralic" as American shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the actual sources. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I knew I got it right in the first place, just wasn't able to get the right sources for your review. So I need to revert back to my original edit, unless you'd like to question
Sinor, Denis (1988).
The Uralic languages : description, history, and foreign influences. BRILL. p. 10. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Denis Sinor: Concerning the basic terms of "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" I opted for these forms, used mainly in the United States versus "Uralian" or "Finno-Ugrian" preferred by the Brittish
-- Termer ( talk) 05:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I'm getting instead The term 'Uralic languages' seems to occur for the first time in a work by Klaproth about 135 years ago,and Klaproth has proposed to distinguish this stock of men by the term Uralian. This was published in Julius Klaproth's Asia Polyglotta in 1823.
The first time the term Finno-Ugric appears however is by Jozsef Budenz in his Magyar es finn-ugor nyelvekbeli szoegyezesek (Word comparisons in the field of Hungarian and Finno-Ugric languages) in 1867-88. Next it's Kai Donner who in 1879 spells out "Finno-Ugric" in his Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der Finnisch-Ugrischen Sprachen. Any comments anybody, am I missing something here or? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The location of Uralic languages urheimat has not been identified with Ural mountains for decades. One of the reasons is that there has been a constant flow of loan words from Indo-European languages to Uralic languages as long as can be seen with any precise. This means Uralic languages were "always" spoken in the proximity of Indo-European languages. There are many hypotheses about urheimat of Indo-European languages, but urheimat of Uralic languages must be close that. There are also many other reasons to place the F-U urheimat clearly in the Europe, and not in the border of Europe and Asia. For first aid, see Finnish people and History of Finland. Tuohirulla puhu 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "Uralic people", so I merged that article here. I wonder, however, is there is a Finnic or Samoyed ethnicity either. Are these also just linguistic constructs, or actual? kwami ( talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the some of the phrasing on this page needs a check. This is what it says in reference to the start of Uralic studies
"These two authors were thus the first to outline what was to become the classification of the Finno-Ugric (and later Uralic) family. This proposal received some of its initial impetus from the fact that these languages, unlike most of the other languages spoken in Europe, are not part of the Indo-European family."
However, the beginning of modern Indo-European studies (at least according to the "standard" history of IES) begins in with William Jones in 1786. I have no doubt that there was some Goropianist who made an earlier proposal that resembled Indo-European, but if I remember correctly Vogel's dissertation on a Finnish-Hungarian connection is about a decade older than Jones's famous speech about Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek.
That being the case, it would be more correct to say that part of the initial impetus for comparing Finnish and Hungarian is that they are obviously different from other European languages, and we now understand those differences to result from different family memberships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zloop ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I have been wondering about the origin of the Finnish word "lippu", meaning "flag" (in most senses), and I have found some potential cognates: Estonian lipp (almost certain), Saami (not sure which language thereof) leavga, and Hungarian lobogó, all of which mean "flag" or "banner". Can we verify that this is a common root of Proto-Uralic origin? If so, can we reconstruct a Proto-Uralic form, and if not, can we consider another source for these four terms? Much appreciated, Jackwolfroven ( talk) 18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The presentation of this article is bullshit. It gives the recent politically-biased view propagated by the rulers of Finland and Estonia as the "dominant" one. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 07:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
uralic languages implies the list of languages spoken butthis article is about the family. All discussion about the language family should be about the language family. 99.226.242.202 ( talk) 20:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
From the "typology" section:
"no verb for "have". Note that all Uralic languages have verbs with the meaning of "own" or "possess", but these words are not used in the same way as English "have". Instead, the concept of "have" is indicated with alternative syntactic structures. For example, Finnish uses existential clauses; the subject is the possession, the verb is "to be" (the copula), and the possessor is grammatically a location and in the adessive case: "Minulla on kala", literally "I_on is fish", or "I have a fish (some fish)". In addition, Finnish can also employ possessive suffixes, e.g. "Minulla on kalani", literally "I_on is fish_my", or "I do have my own fish". In Hungarian: "Van egy halam", literally "Is a fish_my", or "I have a fish"."
Is this appropiate to have here? There was no verb for "have" in Proto-Indo-European either (the "have" verbs in different branches of IE have no etymological connection -> no PIE reconstruction available). Instead, PIE used constructions with dative or genitive + third person of "be", cf. Latin mihi est or the first sentence of Schleicher's fable: *owis kwesyo wlna ne est (sheep whose wool no was = a sheep, which didn't have wool).
Also, there is nothing special in mihi est constructions, many other families, including Indo-European, have similar constructions. It seems that "have" is an European areal feature, which by coincidence have not entered e.g. Finnish and Hungarian. According to wals.info, Khanty and Mansi have "have" structure. -- 88.112.227.122 ( talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Translating "minulla on kala" as "I_on is fish" is rather misleading. The literal translation would be "on me is a/the fish" or (in better English) "there is a fish on me" -- definitely "a" fish ("some fish" would be represented as "minulla on kalaa"). The word "on" in this sentence is the third person singular of the verb "to be", i.e., "is". However, no native speaker would understand this to mean that the fish is on top of or all over the person. The form "minulla on kalani" translates as "I have my fish", but while "minä syön kalani" means "I eat (all of) my fish" (both singular and plural) both as a general pattern of behavior and as a future intention (I will ...), "minä syön kalaani" means "I am eating my fish (at the moment)".-- Death Bredon ( talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Another thing is this:
"use of postpositions as opposed to prepositions (prepositions are uncommon)."
According to Proto-Indo-European particle, Proto-Indo-European is postpositional too. -- 88.112.227.122 ( talk) 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I find it a bit strange to characterise the Finno-Ugric languages this way. What does it actually tell that those languages are lacking of special characters of Indo-European languages? A good example is the he/she thing; having the separate genders in personal pronouns is a character of Indo-European languages. Finno-Ugric languages are not distinctive in this matter, because a number of other language families don't have this character either. Or could we characterise the Indo-European languages correspondingly as languages without vowel harmony? -- Gwafton ( talk) 00:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead cites Uralic languages with the most native speakers. Shouldn't we mention Mordvin (or Moksha and Erzya) there? According to this [2] source, there were 740.000 people in Russia in 1989 who spoke Mordvin as mother tongue. This source [3] talks about 1,200,000 speakers. Ethnologue shows 514,330 population for them in 2010 (Erzya: [4], Moksha: [5]). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted the lead : Uralic always includes Samoyed . — kwami ( talk) 09:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I know there there are some debates about the internal structure of this language family and some linguists criticize the traditional branches, but still the standard model is the one with (almost) binary splits, such as
at least most textbooks use models like this [10]. Shouldn't we use a standard model like this as the default (at least for the higher levels, like Samoyed and Finno-Ugric), since such a classification still seems to be the mainstream view of textbooks. We should, of course, mention contemporary researches and (potential) problems with the traditional classification as well as other proposed classifications in later sections. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a debate with user Kwamikagami, who thinks that the term "Finno-Ugric" has been "largely abandoned". Based on this view of his, he keeps removing the "Finno-Ugric" word from any articles he finds it in. You can find some examples about this on his talk page. I (and other editors) think that this is not the case and the term is still widely used. I highlighted to him, for example, that the main department of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences also has "Finno-Ugric" in its name (since Hungarian is the largest Finno-Ugric language with one of the strongest Finno-Ugric researches, this is quite relevant). Even in Finland, at the University of Helsinki, there is a Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies [13]. An editor mentioned the World Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples [14]. I have also cited some recent linguistic books which explicitly state, e.g., that Hungarian is a member of the Finno-Ugric group: [15] (Cambridge University Press, 2002), [16] (Indiana University Press, 1999), [17] (Wiley Blackwell, 2010), [18] (Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2005 - also appeared in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development), [19] (Intellect Books, 1997), [20] (Springer, 2007), [21] (Cambridge University Press, 2012), [22] (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), etc. etc. So, I would like to ask your opinion about this, i.e., do you think that the term "Finno-Ugric" has become obsolete and should not be used on WP? In my opinion, it can be used, especially if the applied sources use this term. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Trɔpʏliʊm, for your extensive list of sources about U and FU. I answer here, since these intermadiate edits started to become confusing. Thanks for highlighting that "The Handbook of Language Contact" indeed uses U and FU as synonyms. It also states that FU≠U is not unanimously accepted. Note, however, that this only indicates that there exist researchers who do not accept it (which we already knew), and it does not exclude the case that the majority of Uralic linguists still accept it. Escpecially, since it seems more common to treat them as separate (as your other examples indicate). I am also very interested in your question, i.e., what the current (2010s) situation looks like. However, I am not sure whether we will be able to decide this. As I mentioned earlier, finding few articles which criticize FU does not necessarily indicate that the majority of researches do not accept it any more. I still think that secondary sources (e.g., books) give a much better view on the majority view (of Uralic linguists) than some research articles. Unfortunately, linguistics is not like mathematics where one paper which provides a proper counterexample to a conjecture falsifies the conjecture completely (so finding and citing that one paper would suffice). Linguistics is much softer, so it is hard to decide what the *truth* is. Thus, I think the question is not that what the best model is (since it is subjective, and one researcher may prefer a completely different model than the other), but what is the model that most Uralic linguists accept at the moment... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The classification of the Finnish "languages" is not correct, because it is rather political than linguistical. Meänkieli and Kven Finnish are North Finnish dialects that are spoken in Sweden and Norway, whereas Ingrian Finnish is a southeastern dialect spoken in Ingria (Ingermanland).
I would better say
-- Hippophaë 14:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why palatalization was removed from the list of common features? -- Hippophaë 22:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1) Pending a final decision on this manner, Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages or on these subjects.
-- See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor mav 19:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There was a long discussion regarding cases in Hungarian on this talk page (see archive). I think I got closer to the root of the problem (misunderstanding). Please see: Talk:Hungarian language#Cases in Hungarian. I also tried to include a paragraph on this in Hungarian_language#Nouns. I'd like to ask linguists to review and correct it. Thanks. nyenyec ☎ 17:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Someone replaced "pii" with "hammas" as the Finnish cognate for "tooth". This is obviously not cognate to the rest, but does "pii" have some special semantics we should know about? - Mustafaa 02:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've written an article about Proto-Uralic, but as I am not a linguist, it'd be nice to have an expert to check the facts, as I noticed that the texts were from different years and disagreed on many points. -- Vuo 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to pronounce "Uralic;" can someone put an IPA transcription of the word in the summary? GoodSirJava 22:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good idea. I added it for ya. -- Glengordon01 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"It [the palatalization in the Uralic languages] is different from Russian "palatalization" or "iotation", which means prefixing [ɪ]."
What does this mean? I notice no difference in the palatalization between Russian and the Baltic-Finnic languages for example. -- Hippophaë 15:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the cells in the cognates table have shifted:
I don't know where the 'laamp(a) (Selkup)' cell should be shifted, though. Could someone please correct this? Nyenyec 06:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uralic languages#Selected cognates lists for Erzya Mordvin `to live':
I don't know whether such stem really exists in Erzya (haven't checked a dictionary), but the common one is actually:
which is also listed in the etymology there.
So, I suspect there is an error in this cell. Could someone please check it and correct, if that's true.-- Imz 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This line could use some revision:
"The name "Uralic" refers to the location of the family’s suggested Urheimat (homeland), which is often placed in the vicinity of the Ural mountains."
It's the "... suggested Urheimat (homeland) ..." that bothers me - I find it incredibly ambiguous and clumsy. "Urheimat" in that sentence seems at first glance to be talking about the origin of the word "Uralic", and otherwise could refer to a word common to Uralic languages. The parenthetical doesn't help much with this. I'm puzzled as to how to fix the sentence, though, so I'm leaving it as is for now. Dextrose 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original complaint. I am not a linguist (Wikipedia is NOT strictly for linguists) but I do have a strong fascination with linguistics, particularly with linguistic origins. When I came across the "urheimat" reference (with its obvious Germanic origins), and even though I am familiar with the word and its origins, I had to do some cross-referencing to clarify that it wasn't an attempt to place the Uralic and the IE "urheimat" as identical. Excusing the confusion with paranthetical references is no excuse; the article should stand on its own in the context of its audience. Perhaps switching the reference with its paranthetic counterpart, from "Urheimat (homeland)" to "homeland (see:Urheimat)", would be more appropriate.
The sound laws in the selected cognates are very vague. "s" appears and disappears. "l" appears and disappears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Finnish "k" is variously said to be equivalent to Hungarian "k", "h" and no consonant. No explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The type of vowel, back or front, is mentioned in another article. This does not explain "k" vanishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC) See Finnish Maksa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The first map on the page is misleading. It shows different branches of Uralic languages, and Yukaghir languages, whose relation to Uralic languages is only a weak hypothesis. The map gives an impression that Yukaghir languages are a part of Uralic languages (or that the Uralic languages stretch so far), and you must read the article carefully to find out that this is not the case. There are also many other theories about which language families Uralic languages are related to, but they are not shown on that map either. Tuohirulla puhu 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
My Finnish etymology dictionary (Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, WSOY 2004, Kaisa Häkkinen) has slightly different original forms for most of the selected cognates. Mostly marked as Proto-Finno-Ugric, however. I'll put this up for comments before I change anything:
1) Longer and more specific roots
/ɜ/ marks "vowel of uncertain quality" in the UPA; so do I have newer information here or does the situation go fuzzy between PFU and PU? Also, original /uo/ in "vein" surely is wrong? /o:/ > /uo/ was a change that spread thru northern Finno-Samic during the first millenia AD.
2) Different harmony
I suspect these are just typos in the article - the cognates presented are clearly front-harmonic. -- Tropylium 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I can only suspect that native Hungarian speakers are going to look at the cognate table and continue to add tűz without looking first at the history to see that it keeps getting removed. Perhaps some sort of note in the table itself would be in order? -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a note in the table that says not to add "tűz" to the table, because it is not a cognate. What is the evidence that it is not a cognate? The only information I can find is from Wiktionary [1], which claims that it is. Thanks. — Emiellaiendiay 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been theorising of my own that could the Altaic and Uralic languages be related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennet.mattfolk ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As we seen in the Bulgarian case (converting Turkic language into the another one), Europe wanted to convert both Hungarian and Finnish elites by replacing Swedish and Slavic words to their original languages too, but they didn't succeed, now Vatican and EU want to go with another way. This has nothing to do with science.-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now stop adding that suggestive material and first explain why you think it should be here, I have thoroughly explained myself in the edit summaries already. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to push some personal POV. -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
first you explain yourself, why do you remove it? because it has already been there...-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
im a linguist, this is what people call "genetic relation" and the diagram couldnt be removed.-- Finn Diesel ( talk) 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to say that Uralic languages lack a "have" verb. It's enough to say that locative or dative constructions are used. Lack of "have" verb is not unique to Uralic (Proto-IE lacked it too), so it bloats the article unnecessarily. -- 88.112.193.101 ( talk) 10:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: I'll probably be eventually splitting most of this section off to a separate Classification of the Uralic languages article. Some of the uncertain stub-sized nodes like Finno-Volgaic languages could be merged there as well. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Uralian" is not a term that is in common use for this language family. Of the two references that were added to support it, one was in French not English, and listed not a single English language source that used "Uralian". The other was a single reference. "Uralian" is not in use on either side of the Atlantic except by a very rare scholar. Multiple sources can be cited for "Uralic" from native speakers of English as well as non-native speakers of English in English-language sources. Aside from one or two rare sources, "Uralian" is not in use. To characterize "Uralian" as British and "Uralic" as American shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the actual sources. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I knew I got it right in the first place, just wasn't able to get the right sources for your review. So I need to revert back to my original edit, unless you'd like to question
Sinor, Denis (1988).
The Uralic languages : description, history, and foreign influences. BRILL. p. 10. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Denis Sinor: Concerning the basic terms of "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" I opted for these forms, used mainly in the United States versus "Uralian" or "Finno-Ugrian" preferred by the Brittish
-- Termer ( talk) 05:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I'm getting instead The term 'Uralic languages' seems to occur for the first time in a work by Klaproth about 135 years ago,and Klaproth has proposed to distinguish this stock of men by the term Uralian. This was published in Julius Klaproth's Asia Polyglotta in 1823.
The first time the term Finno-Ugric appears however is by Jozsef Budenz in his Magyar es finn-ugor nyelvekbeli szoegyezesek (Word comparisons in the field of Hungarian and Finno-Ugric languages) in 1867-88. Next it's Kai Donner who in 1879 spells out "Finno-Ugric" in his Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der Finnisch-Ugrischen Sprachen. Any comments anybody, am I missing something here or? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The location of Uralic languages urheimat has not been identified with Ural mountains for decades. One of the reasons is that there has been a constant flow of loan words from Indo-European languages to Uralic languages as long as can be seen with any precise. This means Uralic languages were "always" spoken in the proximity of Indo-European languages. There are many hypotheses about urheimat of Indo-European languages, but urheimat of Uralic languages must be close that. There are also many other reasons to place the F-U urheimat clearly in the Europe, and not in the border of Europe and Asia. For first aid, see Finnish people and History of Finland. Tuohirulla puhu 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "Uralic people", so I merged that article here. I wonder, however, is there is a Finnic or Samoyed ethnicity either. Are these also just linguistic constructs, or actual? kwami ( talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the some of the phrasing on this page needs a check. This is what it says in reference to the start of Uralic studies
"These two authors were thus the first to outline what was to become the classification of the Finno-Ugric (and later Uralic) family. This proposal received some of its initial impetus from the fact that these languages, unlike most of the other languages spoken in Europe, are not part of the Indo-European family."
However, the beginning of modern Indo-European studies (at least according to the "standard" history of IES) begins in with William Jones in 1786. I have no doubt that there was some Goropianist who made an earlier proposal that resembled Indo-European, but if I remember correctly Vogel's dissertation on a Finnish-Hungarian connection is about a decade older than Jones's famous speech about Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek.
That being the case, it would be more correct to say that part of the initial impetus for comparing Finnish and Hungarian is that they are obviously different from other European languages, and we now understand those differences to result from different family memberships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zloop ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I have been wondering about the origin of the Finnish word "lippu", meaning "flag" (in most senses), and I have found some potential cognates: Estonian lipp (almost certain), Saami (not sure which language thereof) leavga, and Hungarian lobogó, all of which mean "flag" or "banner". Can we verify that this is a common root of Proto-Uralic origin? If so, can we reconstruct a Proto-Uralic form, and if not, can we consider another source for these four terms? Much appreciated, Jackwolfroven ( talk) 18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The presentation of this article is bullshit. It gives the recent politically-biased view propagated by the rulers of Finland and Estonia as the "dominant" one. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 07:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
uralic languages implies the list of languages spoken butthis article is about the family. All discussion about the language family should be about the language family. 99.226.242.202 ( talk) 20:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
From the "typology" section:
"no verb for "have". Note that all Uralic languages have verbs with the meaning of "own" or "possess", but these words are not used in the same way as English "have". Instead, the concept of "have" is indicated with alternative syntactic structures. For example, Finnish uses existential clauses; the subject is the possession, the verb is "to be" (the copula), and the possessor is grammatically a location and in the adessive case: "Minulla on kala", literally "I_on is fish", or "I have a fish (some fish)". In addition, Finnish can also employ possessive suffixes, e.g. "Minulla on kalani", literally "I_on is fish_my", or "I do have my own fish". In Hungarian: "Van egy halam", literally "Is a fish_my", or "I have a fish"."
Is this appropiate to have here? There was no verb for "have" in Proto-Indo-European either (the "have" verbs in different branches of IE have no etymological connection -> no PIE reconstruction available). Instead, PIE used constructions with dative or genitive + third person of "be", cf. Latin mihi est or the first sentence of Schleicher's fable: *owis kwesyo wlna ne est (sheep whose wool no was = a sheep, which didn't have wool).
Also, there is nothing special in mihi est constructions, many other families, including Indo-European, have similar constructions. It seems that "have" is an European areal feature, which by coincidence have not entered e.g. Finnish and Hungarian. According to wals.info, Khanty and Mansi have "have" structure. -- 88.112.227.122 ( talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Translating "minulla on kala" as "I_on is fish" is rather misleading. The literal translation would be "on me is a/the fish" or (in better English) "there is a fish on me" -- definitely "a" fish ("some fish" would be represented as "minulla on kalaa"). The word "on" in this sentence is the third person singular of the verb "to be", i.e., "is". However, no native speaker would understand this to mean that the fish is on top of or all over the person. The form "minulla on kalani" translates as "I have my fish", but while "minä syön kalani" means "I eat (all of) my fish" (both singular and plural) both as a general pattern of behavior and as a future intention (I will ...), "minä syön kalaani" means "I am eating my fish (at the moment)".-- Death Bredon ( talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Another thing is this:
"use of postpositions as opposed to prepositions (prepositions are uncommon)."
According to Proto-Indo-European particle, Proto-Indo-European is postpositional too. -- 88.112.227.122 ( talk) 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I find it a bit strange to characterise the Finno-Ugric languages this way. What does it actually tell that those languages are lacking of special characters of Indo-European languages? A good example is the he/she thing; having the separate genders in personal pronouns is a character of Indo-European languages. Finno-Ugric languages are not distinctive in this matter, because a number of other language families don't have this character either. Or could we characterise the Indo-European languages correspondingly as languages without vowel harmony? -- Gwafton ( talk) 00:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead cites Uralic languages with the most native speakers. Shouldn't we mention Mordvin (or Moksha and Erzya) there? According to this [2] source, there were 740.000 people in Russia in 1989 who spoke Mordvin as mother tongue. This source [3] talks about 1,200,000 speakers. Ethnologue shows 514,330 population for them in 2010 (Erzya: [4], Moksha: [5]). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted the lead : Uralic always includes Samoyed . — kwami ( talk) 09:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I know there there are some debates about the internal structure of this language family and some linguists criticize the traditional branches, but still the standard model is the one with (almost) binary splits, such as
at least most textbooks use models like this [10]. Shouldn't we use a standard model like this as the default (at least for the higher levels, like Samoyed and Finno-Ugric), since such a classification still seems to be the mainstream view of textbooks. We should, of course, mention contemporary researches and (potential) problems with the traditional classification as well as other proposed classifications in later sections. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a debate with user Kwamikagami, who thinks that the term "Finno-Ugric" has been "largely abandoned". Based on this view of his, he keeps removing the "Finno-Ugric" word from any articles he finds it in. You can find some examples about this on his talk page. I (and other editors) think that this is not the case and the term is still widely used. I highlighted to him, for example, that the main department of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences also has "Finno-Ugric" in its name (since Hungarian is the largest Finno-Ugric language with one of the strongest Finno-Ugric researches, this is quite relevant). Even in Finland, at the University of Helsinki, there is a Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies [13]. An editor mentioned the World Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples [14]. I have also cited some recent linguistic books which explicitly state, e.g., that Hungarian is a member of the Finno-Ugric group: [15] (Cambridge University Press, 2002), [16] (Indiana University Press, 1999), [17] (Wiley Blackwell, 2010), [18] (Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2005 - also appeared in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development), [19] (Intellect Books, 1997), [20] (Springer, 2007), [21] (Cambridge University Press, 2012), [22] (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), etc. etc. So, I would like to ask your opinion about this, i.e., do you think that the term "Finno-Ugric" has become obsolete and should not be used on WP? In my opinion, it can be used, especially if the applied sources use this term. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Trɔpʏliʊm, for your extensive list of sources about U and FU. I answer here, since these intermadiate edits started to become confusing. Thanks for highlighting that "The Handbook of Language Contact" indeed uses U and FU as synonyms. It also states that FU≠U is not unanimously accepted. Note, however, that this only indicates that there exist researchers who do not accept it (which we already knew), and it does not exclude the case that the majority of Uralic linguists still accept it. Escpecially, since it seems more common to treat them as separate (as your other examples indicate). I am also very interested in your question, i.e., what the current (2010s) situation looks like. However, I am not sure whether we will be able to decide this. As I mentioned earlier, finding few articles which criticize FU does not necessarily indicate that the majority of researches do not accept it any more. I still think that secondary sources (e.g., books) give a much better view on the majority view (of Uralic linguists) than some research articles. Unfortunately, linguistics is not like mathematics where one paper which provides a proper counterexample to a conjecture falsifies the conjecture completely (so finding and citing that one paper would suffice). Linguistics is much softer, so it is hard to decide what the *truth* is. Thus, I think the question is not that what the best model is (since it is subjective, and one researcher may prefer a completely different model than the other), but what is the model that most Uralic linguists accept at the moment... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)