Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic

Kloekhorst, Alwin & Pronk, example, Beekes 2011: 31–33; Ras- Tijmen (eds.). 2019. The precur- mussen 2005) than on the Uralic sors of Proto-Indo-European: side, and that most of the scholars The Indo-Anatolian and Indo- who have worked on the topic in Uralic hypotheses (Leiden Stud- recent years are Indo-Europeanists. ies in Indo-European 21). Leiden This is also reflected in the authors & Boston: Brill. viii + 235 pp. of the book, who are mostly Indo- Europeanists and a few Uralicists Introduction also known for their work with Indo-European (Petri Kallio and The volume at hand presents a se- Mikhail Zhivlov), although it must ries of articles on two hypotheses be noted that many contribut- relevant for Indo-European lin- ing Indo-Europeanists have also guistics: the much-discussed so- worked with contacts or relations called Indo-Anatolian hypothesis between Indo-European and Uralic (previously also known as “Indo- at some point. Hittite hypothesis”), which implies One of the editors, Alwin that the Anatolian branch of Indo- Kloek­horst, is one of the best- European consisting of Hittite, Lu- known scholars of the Anatolian vian and other closely related lan- languages and the author of the guages was the first to branch off Etymological dictionary of Hittite from Proto-Indo-European; and (Kloek­horst 2008a). Kloek­horst has the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, which discussed aspects of the Indo-Ana- claims that the Uralic language tolian hypothesis in several publi- family is related to the Indo-Euro- cations (such as Kloek­horst 2016, pean family. Many of the articles 2018) and has also done work on discuss both hypotheses, albeit to the Indo-Uralic hypothesis from an varying extents, and there are a few Anatolianist point of view (Kloek­ articles that deal exclusively with horst 2008b). the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. It is good to remark here that Notes on the articles the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is in general much more widely accepted The book opens with a short pref- among Indo-Europeanists (see, for ace, followed by a detailed and https://doi.org/10.33339/fuf.99932 155 FUF 65: 155–171 (2020) Sampsa Holopainen lengthy introduction (“Introduc- nological, syntactic, and semantic tion: Reconstructing Proto-Indo- innovations that concern both lexi- Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic”) con and morphology) that have oc- by Kloek­horst and Tijmen Pronk curred either in Proto-Anatolian familiarising the reader with the or in the common predecessor of problems dealt with in the arti- the other Indo-European languag- cles. The reader gets a good impres- es. In total, 23 such innovations are sion of the present situation of re- listed, with semantic (8) and mor- search on these aspects of Indo-Eu- phological (10) innovations being ropean linguistics. The editors ar- much more numerous than pho- gue that since PIE did not “come nological (3) or syntactic (2). (It is out of nowhere”, it is worthwhile good to mention here that Serangeli to look for relatives to it. They have [2019: 7, footnote 3] criticises Kloek­ an optimistic view on Indo-Uralic, horst and Pronk’s listing of innova- but possible further connections in tions and argues that the number the framework of the Nostratic hy- of morphological innovations can pothesis are mentioned only brief- be reduced: she notes that in the list ly. Kloek­horst and Pronk under- of non-Anatolian Indo-European line the need to first proceed with innovations, the thematisation of the internal reconstruction of Pro- nouns could be treated as one inno- to-Indo-European before external vation, but Kloek­horst and Pronk cognates can be found, and they list all of the thematised nouns sep- stress the need to be aware of proto- arately, which makes the number of phonetics, especially when it comes innovations appear higher than it to the Indo-European “laryngeal” actually is.) phonemes. Regardless of whether The editors also discuss the re- one is sceptical or optimistic about search history of the hypotheses, long-range comparison, these re- noting that for most of the 20th cen- marks made by the editors can be tury the Indo-Anatolian hypothe- considered useful for anyone work- sis was neglected, but that in the re- ing with comparisons that involve cent decades it has become widely several language families and re- accepted in Indo-European studies. constructed proto-languages. However, references to more scepti- The presentation of the Indo-­ cal opinions (such as Rieken 2009 Anatolian hypothesis is very in- and Adiego 2016) on the topic are formative, and one gets a good over- also provided. all picture of it. The editors list the It should be noted here that the innovations (morphological, pho- terminological questions related

156 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic to the Indo-Anatolian hypothe- ‘why’, Sanskrit kár-hi ‘when’), and sis are only briefly discussed, and traces of this *-r also appear in in the articles that follow, the vari- nominal formations, such as Greek ous stages of reconstruction (Proto-­ νύκτωρ ‘at night’, νύκτερος ‘night- Indo-Anatolian,­ Proto-Indo-Euro- ly’ and Latin nocturnus ‘nightly’. pean in its classical sense and more Indo-Uralic aspects are also shallow stages of reconstruction) dealt with briefly at the end of the are referred to using various names, paper. The author mentions Komi which might be a bit puzzling to a kor ‘when’ and the Hungarian “da- reader who is not familiar with In- tive” (usually called sublative in do-European linguistics. It would the Hungarian grammar) in -ra/‑re have been good to provide more as possible Uralic cognates of the discussion of the terminological IE locative. However, this is not questions, as the names of the var- very convincing, as the Hungarian ious taxonomical entities can be case ending is probably originally somewhat confusing at times. A a grammaticalised noun (MSzFE: recent article by Thomas Olander 523; UEW: 883, s.v. *raŋɜ; Sárosi (2019) deals with the terminolo- 2003: 171) and, in any case, it does gy concerning Indo-Anatolian and not represent a continuation of any other stages and nodes of Indo-Eu- Proto-Uralic case ending, so it is ropean, and it can be warmly rec- very unlikely that the -r- element ommended as an accompanying here has anything to do with the piece of reading. Indo-European locative *-r. The The introduction is followed by background of the element -r in the article “The Proto-Indo-Euro- Komi kor ‘when’ remains unknown pean suffix *-r revisited” by Steffan to me (KESKJ gives no explanation Heinrich Bauhaus, which discusses for this element), but deriving the the history of the IE locative suf- *-r in this isolated form from an fix -r* . The article offers interesting Indo-Uralic locative suffix would explanations of this suffix, which certainly require more evidence. can be reconstructed to the Indo- The spatial relations in Uralic European proto-language based on that the author refers to (the three relictal forms in the IE languages. series of local cases) are typical of Bauhaus argues that *-r was origi- only certain Uralic languages (such nally a locative suffix, which was as Finnic, Permic or Hungarian) later reanalysed as an adverbial and not of the family as a whole, ending. It can be reconstructed to to say nothing of Proto-Uralic, adverbs such as *kʷor (> Latin cūr which most certainly had a much

157 Sampsa Holopainen simpler spatial case system (Jan- Surprisingly, the “wider affini- hunen 1982: 30–31). ties with Yukaghir” are mentioned In the article “Pronouns and in the article (p. 3). Comparisons particles: Indo-Uralic heritage and with Yukaghir have frequently oc- convergence”, Rasmus Bjørn of- curred in earlier works on Indo- fers an interesting review of the Uralic (such as Hyllested 2009), but old problem of Indo-Uralic pro- Aikio (2014: 41–43) has shown that nouns, which are often considered these affinities can more probably among the most promising piec- be explained as loan relations than es of evidence for the Indo-Ural- genetic affinities, and references to ic hypothesis. His article is a wel- the genetic relationship of Yukaghir come and detailed account of the and Uralic could be left out of these problems involved in the compar- speculations for now. ison of personal and demonstra- The part about the Proto-Ural- tive pronouns, but it does not solve ic interrogative particle (recon- the old problems connected to the structed as *ku by the author) also vowel correspondences between requires some remarks. When list- the Indo-­European and Uralic pro- ing the functions of this particle nouns. It is notable that the recon- in Finnic, or Balto-Fennic in the struction of the vocalism of the per- author’s terminology, the author sonal pronouns is uncertain even mentions “Saami -gŏ” (without within Uralic; see Janhunen (1981: specifying which Saami language 232–233). For an attempted solution is meant here) among the Finnic to this problem, see Honti (2012), forms (p. 34). This gives a mislead- who is not mentioned by Bjørn. ing picture of the taxonomy of One has to ask: if the vocalism of Saami within Uralic. the PU pronouns cannot be proper- Moreover, the idea (mentioned ly reconstructed, how useful is it to only hesitantly by the author) that compare them with their alleged IE the Kamassian particle -go could cognates? Here, it would be wise to be borrowed from Tocharian (p. 37) heed the words of the editors in the seems very unlikely to me, as it is preface about the need to work out hard to fit it into the chronology of inner-IE or inner-U reconstruc- Samoyed and Tocharian linguistic tions before attempting a compari- history. The general uncertainness son between the two families. of Tocharian-Samoyed contacts in There are also various smaller the light of modern research should points of criticism that I would like be kept in mind (Kallio 2004) – to point out: although these contacts remain a

158 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic possibility, very little has actually and Indo-European *s; Holopainen been proved. One would also ex- 2019: 51, 334–336). Also, the compli- pect quite an intensive contact if an cated developments of PU *ś to *k in enclitic particle is borrowed, and Mator (Kümmel 2007: 98; Zhivlov it would be surprising to find this 2018) are better explained if we re- particle only in Kamassian. construct this phoneme as PU *ś (or In footnote 10 (p. 42), Bjørn refers *ć) and not *s. to the “Uralic partitive *-tV”, which Dag Haug and Andrei Sidel- possibly corresponds to Indo-Euro- tsev discuss the problems of Indo- pean -d in inanimate pronouns such Anatolian syntactic reconstruction as *tod ‘this, that’. However, the case in their article “Indo-Anatolian in question is the Proto-Uralic abla- syntax?”, concluding that the Ana- tive (or, at least, this is the function tolian “bare interrogatives” such as generally reconstructed for that Hittite kuiš ‘who’ and kuit ‘what’ case), the partitive function having cannot be derived from the same developed in Proto-Finnic or at an system as the corresponding pro- earlier Finno-Saami-Mordvin stage nouns in the “narrow PIE” system, at best (this case ending is discussed which gives additional support to further in Mikhail Zhivlov’s article the early split of Anatolian from the in the volume, p. 223). proto-language. The reconstruction of PU t* , *s Petri Kallio’s article “Daniel Eu- in footnote 11 gives a misleading ropaeus and Indo-Uralic” is one of picture of Proto-Uralic phonology the two research history-oriented (p. 43). The table implies that PU ś* , papers in the volume, and it deals which yielded Samoyed *s, should with the oft-forgotten contribu- rather be reconstructed as *s, which tions to the Indo-Uralic hypothesis would have then been retained in by the Finnish scholar Daniel Euro- Samoyed, whereas *s (which yield- paeus. Kallio shows that Europaeus ed *t in Samoyed) would have been was indeed the first supporter of an affricate ts* . Whereas the recon- the idea that the Indo-European struction of *s as *ts would make and Uralic languages were related, the change *s > *t in Samoyed less and even though he has been large- odd typologically, there are vari- ly forgotten in recent works and ous counter-arguments to that, one had a questionable reputation in being the loanword evidence (*ś is Finnish linguistic circles in his own usually the substitute of *ć in Indo- time, the other early pioneers of the Iranian loanwords, whereas plain Indo-Uralic field (such as Holger *s is the substitute of Indo-Iranian Pedersen) gave credit to him.

159 Sampsa Holopainen

In the other research history ḫi-conjugation”, arguing, among article in the volume, “Bojan Čop’s other things, that the Indo-Europe- Indo-Uralic hypothesis and its an vowel *o emerged as a result of plausibility”, Simona Klemenčič of- lowering of Proto-Indo-Uralic *u. fers a detailed and interesting pres- The article has relevance for Proto- entation of the Indo-Uralic oeuvre Indo-European and the Indo-Ana- of the famous Slovenian Indo-Eu- tolian hypothesis, but less so for the ropeanist Bojan Čop. Although the Uralic side. The author mentions article serves its purpose well in Indo-Uralic aspects several times providing a good overall picture of but does not present any actual Čop’s ideas, it would have been even data from Uralic languages or any more useful if Čop’s ideas would Proto-Uralic reconstructions. have been compared with more re- Guus Kroonen’s article “The cent research results on Indo-Euro- Proto-Indo-European mediae, Pro- pean and Uralic, as especially many to-Uralic nasals from a glottalic of Čop’s Uralic reconstructions are perspective” is an interesting ac- outdated by now. Of course, the count of the use of the Indo-Euro- listing of Čop’s work in this way pean glottal theory in the recon- makes it easier for other research- struction of Indo-Uralic phonology. ers to refer to his early ideas. Kroonen argues in favour of corre- An especially interesting part in spondences between Indo-Europe- Klemenčič’s paper is her comment an glottal stops (traditionally re- on a Slovene etymological diction- constructed as voiced) and Uralic ary (Bezlaj 1977), which lists Ural- nasals. However, the article is very ic words such as Mordvin paŋgo short, and includes only rather few ‘mushroom’ as cognates (!) to the etymologies, most of which con- Slovenian word spȗžva ‘Spongia tain various problems, as the au- officinalis’. This shows the extent thor himself notes. The article of- to which the representations of the fers interesting prospects, but prov- Indo-Uralic hypothesis can differ ing that these are correct would re- within historical linguistics. quire much more evidence. Fredrik Kortlandt, a researcher As already noted, most of the with a well-known publication re- etymologies contain various prob- cord in Indo-Uralic matters, deals lems, and the author himself states with the reconstruction of Indo- that some of the comparisons are Uralic phonology and morphology uncertain. Regarding Uralic *äŋV- in his article “Indo-European ‘burn’ (in Kroonen’s reconstruc- o-grade presents and the Anatolian tion, *äŋ-), it can be said that the

160 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic distribution of the word is so nar- not provided). Including the actual row that its Proto-Uralic status is forms would have made the article not certain. The comparison (p. 112) easier to follow. between PIE *ped- ‘step; fall’ and Kroonen also mentions the pos- Uralic *pane- ‘put’ (that would be sibility that the words he compares *pi̮ni- in Aikio’s 2015 reconstruc- may be loanwords. These particu- tion) is semantically dubious. The lar cases that show the relationship Uralic word for ‘gill’ can only be between Indo-European stops and considered as a cognate of the IE Uralic nasals can hardly be consid- word for ‘language’ if the nasal *ŋ ered loanwords, at least that does is reconstructed for Proto-Uralic, not seem very convincing to me – which seems unlikely, contra to such sound substitutions are not UEW’s reconstruction (the author attested in any other loanword lay- himself admits that this is a prob- ers of Uralic, and similar problems lem). The suggested analysis of the with reconstructions and seman- word as a compound of *ńi̮ki ‘??’ tics concern possible loanwords as and *ći̮mi ‘scale’ is not convincing do assumed genetic cognates. to me, since the first part of the Martin Kümmel’s contribution compound remains obscure and “Thoughts about Pre-Indo-Europe- the semantic motivation remains an stop systems” deals with a topic unclear. In any case, the compari- that is similar to that of the previ- son of the words for ‘gill’ and ‘lan- ous article, but its scope is much guage’ is semantically far from larger and it discusses both the secure. Indo-Uralic and Indo-Anatolian Some other lexical comparisons sound systems in depth, and it also are more promising, such as the presents many more etymologi- comparison of Uralic *jäŋi-­ ‘ice’ and cal equations. This is arguably one PIE *jeǵ- id. (the same etymology is of the most important studies in also listed in Martin Kümmel’s ar- the volume from the point of view ticle in the book). However, at the of Uralic linguistics, as Kümmel present state, the idea of an Indo- discusses both Indo-European Uralic background for PIE stops and Uralic evidence for the recon- and Uralic nasals remains highly struction the Proto-Indo-Uralic tentative and inconclusive. Very lit- and Proto-Indo-Anatolian stop tle actual Uralic data is presented systems. in Kroonen’s article (for example, Kümmel discusses a recent idea one reconstruction is “based on proposed by Kloekhorst (2016), Mari” but the Mari form itself is who reconstructs a contrast of

161 Sampsa Holopainen length for the Proto-Anatolian stop and many of the Indo-Uralic com- system, instead of the traditional parisons involve a similar semantic system of contrast of voice. Küm- haziness, as is noted by Kroonen; mel compares these possibilities some of the comparisons are the to reconstruct the Indo-Anatolian same as those made by Kroonen. background for this system and Some reconstructions are uncer- compares the developments in tain: to mention the most prob- Anatolian and the non-Anatolian lematic cases, the possible Uralic IE languages, basing his discus- word for ‘woman’, *niŋä in UEW’s sion on typological data (he also reconstruction, is an infamously discusses the substitution of voiced difficult etymology (it is not at all and voiceless stops in Germanic certain that the words grouped un- and Slavic loanwords into Finnic der this entry in the UEW are real and Saami as parallel evidence, as cognates), see Helimski (2005: 34), these also show the voiced stops be- *ńiŋV ‘maggot’ is considered uncer- coming single voiceless stops and tain even by UEW due to the un- the voiceless stops being substi- certain vowel correspondences, and tuted by geminate stops). Kümmel some other Uralic forms involve concludes that it is more likely that arbitrary segmentation of Uralic Kloek­horst’s Anatolian stop system forms (in Kümmel’s reconstruc- developed from a system of voiced- tion, *ïm-ta- ‘feed’, *saŋ-ća ‘stand’, voiceless contrast, rather than as- *je̮ŋ-si ‘bow’), even though these suming that PIA had the system forms are opaque in the light of that can be reconstructed for Proto- Proto-Uralic derivation rules. This Anatolian and that the non-Anato- means that even the more rigor- lian Indo-European system would ously assembled lists of Indo-Uralic have resulted from degemination. cognates contain many uncertain Kümmel also provides an inter- and problematic cases, and the esting list of Indo-European-Uralic lexical evidence in favour of Indo- cognates. Kümmel is clearly aware Uralic is really far from conclusive. of the problem that the discrepancy The appendix to Kümmel’s ar- between the Proto-Indo-European ticle contains an impressive list and Proto-Uralic stop systems pre- of possible cognates in the field of sents, as PU had only one series morphology, as well as a longer list of voiceless stops. He admits that of possible Indo-Uralic lexical cog- “[a]ll of these potential equations nates than the ones discussed in the must be considered quite tentative main text. In the list of potential In- at our present state of knowledge”, do-Uralic etymologies, those which

162 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic are commonly considered loans are tolian hypothesis, he nevertheless marked separately. These include admits that the Indo-Anatolian and cases like PU *metǝ ~ PIE *medu- Indo-Uralic hypotheses are quite (or medʰu in a more traditional re- different. In his view, Indo-Ana- construction) ‘honey’, which is al- tolian and non-Anatolian Indo- most universally considered a loan. European are quite similar, and the Not all of the etymologies can be chronological gap between the two discussed here in detail, but some stages cannot have been very long, remarks can be made: For ‘horn’, whereas Proto-Indo-Anatolian and the traditional more traditional re- Proto-Indo-Uralic are quite dif- construction of *ćorwa is still given, ferent and the difference in time contrary to the new reconstruction between the two proto-languages (*śarwi or *ćarwi) by Aikio (2015; cf. must have been significant. also Zhivlov 2014). The complicated In the article “The Anato- etymology of *juki- ‘drink’ is also lian ‘ergative’”, Milan Lopuhaä- mentioned here; this is discussed Zwakenberg writes about the ori- in more detail by Michaël Peyrot in gin of the Anatolian suffix (Hit- the same volume (see below). tite sg. -anza, pl. -anteš and its It is good to note that Kloek­ cognates in other Anatolian lan- horst’s Proto-Indo-Anatolian sys- guages) used as the case-form of tem of stops has also recently been neuter nouns in subject position. discussed by Simon (2019). Küm- Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg concludes mel does not criticise Kloekhorst’s that the “Classical Indo-European” Proto-Anatolian reconstruction (post-Anatolian Indo-European) but according to Simon’s critical alignment system with *-om as the observations, Kloekhorst’s ideas suffix for neuter nouns in nomina- should be rethought, as his argu- tive is a common innovation. This ments do not exclude contrast in gives further support for the Indo- voice, and evidence from Anato- Anatolian hypothesis, although the lian loanwords into neighbouring author claims that this innovation languages such as Ugaritic or Neo- alone is not enough to prove the Assyrian support the traditional early separation of Anatolian. interpretation. It will be interesting Alexander Lubotsky’s article to see what further research brings “The Indo-European suffix-ens- * to this discussion about Anatolian and its Indo-Uralic origin” discuss- and Indo-Anatolian stops. es an Indo-European suffix that Even though Kümmel gives has received only marginal atten- cautious support for the Indo-Ana- tion in the field of Indo-European

163 Sampsa Holopainen linguistics. The possible Indo-Ural- Proto-Indo-European syntax. The ic background of the suffix-ens * is author’s ideas about Proto-Indo- dealt with only very briefly in the Uralic syntax would certainly re- end, although it would have been quire more data from the other interesting and useful to see a more Uralic languages. The author con- detailed discussion of its possible cludes that “convergent head direc- Uralic cognates; the simple refer- tionality structures can be used as ence to Collinder (1960) and Mikola proof of a common proto-language (1988) without presenting any actu- for Uralic and Indo-European with al data is hardly enough for those Hittite as the main exponent of the readers who are not familiar with Indo-European branch” but notes Uralic. It is, of course, legitimate that “more evidence is needed”. to discuss only the Indo-European Lühr’s article can be seen as an in- or Indo-Anatolian aspects of this teresting account of possible Proto- problem, but the title of the article Indo-Uralic syntactic features, but gives hope of a wider Indo-Uralic the issue is far from settled. treatment. Michaël Peyrot’s article “Indo-­ Rosemarie Lühr’s article “Head- Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Toch- edness in Indo-Uralic” deals with arian” lists evidence for both the questions of Indo-Uralic syntax Indo-Uralic and Indo-Anatolian and the concept of headedness in hypotheses, as well as for Indo- particular. The author must be giv- Tocharian (the latter hypothesis, en credit for tackling a very compli- widespread but not universally ac- cated problem. However, the article cepted in IE studies, is that Toch- suffers from some methodological arian was the next branch to split issues. The author uses Old Hun- off after Anatolian). The article is garian syntax to represent the most a detailed account of the evidence archaic state of affairs in Uralic for Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Toch- syntax, but it is not at all obvious arian, and it also gives an unac- that this is the best representation quainted reader a good overview of Uralic in this respect. Despite of the topic. Peyrot provides many the relatively early attestation of detailed remarks on some prob- Old Hungarian, it does not reflect lematic Indo-Uralic cognates, too. the best possible example of Pro- On pages 191–195, he discusses the to-Uralic syntax, and its value for problems of the Uralic verb for Uralic reconstruction can in no way ‘drink’ (*juke- in UEW, recently be compared to the value of Hittite reconstructed as *ji̮γi- by Zhivlov or Vedic for the reconstruction of 2014: 116–117) and its possible

164 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic

Indo-European (Indo-Anatolian) reconstructed, at least on a pho- cognate *h₁egʷʰ- ‘drink’ (reflected nological level. As both Hungar- by Hittite ekuᶻⁱ- ‘drink’, Tocharian ian i- and Mari jüa- quite clearly A & B yok- ‘drink’ and some deriv- point to *i̮, it is obvious that no atives in other Indo-European lan- Finno-Ugric stage for this word guages). This Indo-Uralic compari- can be reconstructed, and that the son has recently been argued for by u reflexes in Western Uralic must Kassian et al. (2015), and it has been be explained as later developments. criticised by Kallio (2015: 370), es- The parallel cases showing similar pecially due to discrepancies on the vocalism in Proto-Finno-Ugric/ Uralic side: Kallio has argued that Proto-Uralic can also, in most cas- the reconstruction of the word-ini- es, be explained as something other tial *j- in the Uralic form makes the than Finno-Ugric innovations, Indo-Uralic etymology unlikely. while some other cases, such as PU Peyrot is more optimistic about *joŋsi ~ *ji̮ŋsi ‘bow’, still pose prob- the etymology and argues in favour lems that have not been solved by of the more traditional Uralic re- even the best specialists in Uralic construction with *u-vocalism. In historical phonology (see Zhivlov this regard, a reference to Zhivlov 2014: 139; Aikio 2015: 65). (2014: 115–117) would have been in Peyrot also discusses the inter- order, as he deals precisely with the rogatives with *m- in Indo-Europe- reflexes of i* ̮ in the words in ques- an with their possible relations to tion, arguing for specific West- Uralic interrogatives. The Indo-Eu- Uralic changes suggesting that the ropean *m- interrogatives include labial vowels in Finnic and Saami forms like Hittite maši- ‘how many’ are later innovations, and the Hun- and Tocharian A mänt ‘how’, and garian and Samoyed cognates more possibly Celtic forms like Old Irish archaic, contrary to what Peyrot má ‘if’. Peyrot notes that these claims. might reflect a Proto-Indo-Europe- In his criticism of the new re- an system that has been lost in most constructions of this verb, Peyrot branches, and that the Indo-Euro- is, in a way, correct in noting that it pean forms with *m- might be cog- is difficult to assume a “changei * ̮ > nates with the well-attested Ural- *u in Finno-Ugric” – it is indeed ic interrogatives (such as Hungari- so that there is no such change in an mi, Finnish mi-kä, etc.). To me, the Finno-Ugric branch, but this this looks like more promising and is rather because no Finno-Ugric interesting proof of a possible rela- proto-language can be securely tionship than the lexical cognates

165 Sampsa Holopainen discussed by Peyrot, and it will be an acrostatic paradigm correspond- interesting to see whether future ing to Uralic *i-stems), and that it is research will shed more light on possible to reconstruct Proto-Indo- the history of these Indo-European Uralic predecessors for them (these interrogatives. Proto-Indo-Uralic stems are largely Michiel de Vaan (“Proto-Indo- similar to the ones that can be re- European *sm and *si ‘one’”) dis- constructed for Proto-Uralic). The cusses the history of the Indo-Euro- situation in Proto-Indo-European pean numeral *sem-, *sm- ‘one’ and would then have been produced its relation to the Indo-European through reductive developments, demonstrative pronouns. Some in- whereas in Proto-Uralic the Indo- teresting Indo-Uralic ideas (such as Uralic stem types would have been the relationship of the Indo-Euro- largely retained. pean pronouns *so, *to to Uralic de- Zhivlov (p. 221) argues that his monstrative pronouns like Finnish hypothesis requires that PIE ablaut se, tuo) are presented in the latter be studied separately from the ac- part of the article, but these would cent system. He then offers various certainly require further study. In arguments for why this is so, main- general, de Vaan is very support- ly that there is no synchronic corre- ive of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, spondence between accent and ab- basing his assumptions mostly on laut and it cannot be reconstructed Fredrik Kortlandt’s earlier ideas. for Proto-Indo-European, and that Mikhail Zhivlov’s article “Indo- such a correspondence can only be Uralic and the origin of Indo-Eu- assumed to have occurred at some ropean ablaut” is one of the most Pre-PIE stage. interesting and thought-provoking Zhivlov also presents a re- papers in the book. Zhivlov builds construction of the Proto-Indo- on an old idea of Bojan Čop (1975), Uralic case system (pp. 221–223). which, he argues, has been largely For Proto-Uralic ablative (p. 221), neglected in the Indo-Europeanist Zhivlov reconstructs “*tA instead literature. The main argument is that of Janhunen’s *ti”. Zhivlov’s argu- the different Indo-European ablaut ments (Samoyed *ǝ can reflect PU classes correspond to the different *a in non-initial syllables) for this stem types of Proto-Uralic (with the are promising, and this has rele- Indo-European root nouns display- vance for Uralic studies in general. ing a mobile ablaut paradigm cor- Regarding the Indo-European and responding to Uralic *-a-stems, and Uralic accusative *-m, which is often the Indo-European root nouns with taken as evidence of the Indo-Uralic

166 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic genetic relationship, it is interesting Zhivlov also argues (p. 224) to note that a non-accusative back- that the Proto-Indo-European vo- ground for Indo-European *-m has calism can be explained through recently been suggested: Pooth et al. the following changes: any Proto- (2019: 258) argue that Proto-Indo- Indo-Uralic short vowel > PIE *e, European (= Proto-Indo-Anatolian) any long vowel > PIE *o. While *-m was originally an allative mark- this may of course be correct, the er of non-neuter nouns, and that the chances of finding an Indo-Uralic accusative function developed later. cognate with these rules are quite If we assume that the Indo-Euro- high, with the Proto-Uralic system pean and Uralic *-m-accusative of eight vowels (which likewise do markers are inherited from Proto- not include any long vowels). This Indo-Uralic, we should then explain is in disagreement with the ideas what the function of the ending that Kortlandt suggests in the same was in Proto-Indo-Uralic, because, volume about the origin of PIE *o, if we follow Pooth et al., it would which is a good example of two not have been accusative, whereas scholars of Indo-Uralic working Proto-Uralic *-m is universally con- with different rules of historical sidered to be the accusative ending. phonology. Similar remarks can This casts doubt on the relationship be made about Zhivlov’s idea of of the Uralic and Indo-European a pre-Indo-European change *t > *-m-accusatives, and it will be inter- *s in word-final position. The idea esting to see what further research that *t > *s happened precisely in will say on this matter. word-final position contradicts Dual *-k and Indo-European the more widespread idea that the *h₁ have often been considered cog- change was *ti > *si, and that it also nates, but Zhivlov notes that since occurred in other environments, the origin of *(V)ń in the Samoyed not only word-finally (for example, and Ob-Ugric dual suffixes is -un see de Vaan’s article in the volume, certain, this question will not be p. 213, where the change *ti > *si is discussed. I agree that this is a good essential for the explanation of the approach – as noted earlier, if there phonological developments that is some phonological problem in have produced the Indo-European the reconstruction of a grammati- system of demonstrative pronouns cal marker in one of the languages with *s- and *t-). being compared, it is futile to com- Zhivlov’s ideas also include pare it with data from other lan- points that are relevant not only for guage families. Indo-Uralic but also for Indo-Ana-

167 Sampsa Holopainen tolian. For example, on pp. 231–232, very similar to that of Proto-Ural- Zhivlov offers an interesting ac- ic; however, there is no immediate count of ablaut in the kinship terms need to do so, and it is not at all cer- with *-ter, arguing for root ablaut tain that Proto-Uralic would have levelling in PIE after the separation retained the Proto-Indo-Uralic sys- of Anatolian. tem of stem types so well. Theoreti- In general, Zhivlov’s account cally, a number of different preced- of the Indo-Uralic background of ing systems could be proposed for Indo-European ablaut is promis- Indo-European, and if enough re- ing, but more lexical cognates could ductive developments are assumed, have been presented to support his it becomes very difficult to prove ideas, and in the present form, the that the hypothetical pre-Indo-Eu- article is a bit hard to follow. As ropean reconstructions are correct. noted by author, the reconstruc- tion of paradigms and not just in- Concluding remarks dividual morphemes or lexemes is definitely a good sign. But this kind To conclude, this volume contains of hypothesis should be backed many interesting studies, which are up with sound correspondences; a in general of high quality, and it comparison of stem types is simply can be recommended to any Indo- not enough. It is difficult to under- Europeanist or Uralicist who is in- stand how certain Uralic and Indo- terested in long-range comparison European stem types correspond to and the early relations of the two one another if no lexical cognates families. It is good that the mate- are presented. Zhivlov argues that rial here is not mixed up with more this is because not very many con- distant Nostratic comparisons. The vincing Indo-Uralic cognates can critical remarks presented above be found, but Zhivlov’s (2017) study do not lessen the value of the book, on another Indo-Uralic topic pro- but I hope they show that the Indo- vides more tentative lexical mate- Uralic hypothesis is still too shak- rial; let us hope he returns to this ily grounded to be accepted, and at topic in the future. least I remain unconvinced by it. I must also remark that one can Regarding the Indo-Uralic hy- only arrive at these conclusions pothesis in general, a Caucasian about the history of ablaut by sim- superstrate is often mentioned (see ply assuming that the Proto-Indo- Introduction, p. 10; Bjørn, p. 40; European phonological system can and Kortlandt, p. 102) as the reason be derived from a system that was PIE and PU are typologically so

168 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic divergent and as an explanation for approaches to Uralic are not made. why the PIE vowel system (recon- It is also troubling that very little structed as a one-vowel-system by data from the attested Uralic lan- some) has become so radically sim- guages is presented in the articles, ple. However, it seems that the idea which mostly employ evidence of a Caucasian substrate is obscure from reconstructions, which is al- and not well established and is used ways tricky. as a kind of deus ex machina. Even some supporters of the hypothesis Sampsa Holopainen (Matasović 2012: 306–307) admit that part of the evidence for a Cau- References casian superstrate depends on the viewpoints of PIE reconstruction, Adiego, Ignasi-Xavier. 2016. Ana- and in any case the idea of a super- tolian languages and Proto-Indo- European. Veleia 33. 49–64. strate is hindered by the lack or at Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sám- least very small number of Cauca- mol Ánte). 2014. The Uralic-Yu- sian loanwords (Matasović ibid.). kaghiric lexical correspondences: One general thing that should Genetic inheritance, contact of be noted is that in many articles, chance resemblance? Finnisch-Ug- rische Forschungen 62. 7–76. the Uralic data is neglected or re- Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sám- ceives too little attention, or it is mol Ánte). 2015. The Finnic ‘sec- dealt with in a misleading man- ondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic ner. More actual Uralic data from vocalism. Journal de la Société the attested languages would have Finno-Ougrienne 95. 26–66. Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul. 2011. enriched several of the articles, Comparative Indo-European lin- as in many cases only reconstruc- guistics. Second edition. Revised tions are given. For future confer- and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. ences and publications about the Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John relationship of Indo-European and Benjamins. Bezlaj, France. 1977–2007. Etimolo- Uralic, more contributions from ški slovar slovenskega jezika I–V. Uralicists would be desirable. Most Ljubljana: SAZU ZRC. of the contributions dealing with Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative Indo-Uralic also approach the topic grammar of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. from an Indo-European point of Čop, Bojan. 1975. Die indogermanische view, and various problems and de- Deklination im Lichte der indoura- velopments on the Indo-European lischen vergleichenden Grammatik. side are explained through Indo- Ljubljana: SAZU. Uralic comparisons, but similar

169 Sampsa Holopainen

Helimski, Eugene. 2005. The 13th Festschrift fur Jorma Koivulehto Proto-Samoyedic vowel. In Wag- zum 70. Geburtstag (Mémoires de ner-Nagy, Beáta (ed.), Mikola-kon- la Société Neophilologique de Hel- ferencia 2004, 27–40. Szeged: SzTE. sinki 63), 129–137. Helsinki: Société Holopainen, Sampsa. 2019. Indo-Ira- Neophilologique. nian borrowings in Uralic: Critical Kallio, Petri. 2015. Nugae Indo-Ura- overview of the sound substitutions licae. Journal of Indo-European and distribution criterion. Helsin- Studies 43. 368–375. ki: University of Helsinki. Kassian, Aleksei & Zhivlov, Mi- http://hdl.handle.net/10138/307582 khail & Starostin, George. (Doctoral dissertation.) 2015. Proto-Indo-European-Uralic Honti, László. 2012. Das Zeitalter comparison from the probabilistic und die Entstehung der Personal- point of view. Journal of Indo-Euro- pronomina mit velaren Vokalen. In pean Studies 43. 301–347. Hyytiäinen, Tiina & Jalava, Lotta & KESKJ = Лыткин, В. И. & Гуляев, Е. С. Saarikivi, Janne & Sandman, Eri- 1999. Краткий этимологический ka (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem: словарь коми языка. Сыктывкар: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Коми книжное издательство. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008a. Etymo- på hans sextioårsdag den 12 febru- logical dictionary of the Hittite in- ari 2012 (Mémoires de la Société herited lexicon (Leiden Etymologi- Finno-Ougrienne 264), 121–129. cal Dictionary Series, Vol 5). Leiden Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. & Boston: Brill. Hyllested, Adam. 2009. Internal re- Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008b. Some construction vs. external compari- Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite. son: The case of the Indo-Uralic Journal of Indo-European studies laryngeals. In Olander, Thomas & 36. 88–95. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (eds.), Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2016. The Ana- Internal reconstruction in Indo- tolian stop system and the Indo- European: Methods, results, and Hittite hypothesis. Indogermani- problems (Copenhagen studies in sche Forschungen 121. 213–247. Indo-European 3), 3–28. Copenha- Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2018. Anatolian gen: Museum Tusculanum Press. evidence suggests that the Indo- Janhunen, Juha. 1981. Uralilaisen European laryngeals *h₂ and *h₃ kantakielen sanastosta. Journal were uvular stops. Indo-European de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 77. linguistics 6. 69–94. 219–274. Kümmel, Martin. 2007. Konsonanten- Janhunen, Juha. 1982. On the struc- wandel: Bausteine zu einer Typolo- ture of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ug- gie des Lautwandels und ihre Kon- rische Forschungen 44. 23–42. sequenzen für die vergleichende Re- Kallio, Petri. 2004. Tocharian loan- konstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichelt. words in Samoyed? In Hyvärinen, Matasović, Ranko. 2012. Areal ty- Irma & Kallio, Petri & Korhonen, pology of PIE: the case for Cauca- Jarmo (eds.), Etymologie, Ent- sian connections. Transactions of lehnungen und Entwicklungen: the Philological Society 110. 283–310.

170 Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic

Mikola, Tibor. 1988. Geschichte der archaeological considerations on samojedischen Sprachen. In Sinor, the early stages of Indo-European, Denis (ed.), The Uralic languages: 1–20. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Description, history and foreign Simon, Zsolt. 2019. The Anatolian stop influences (Handbuch der Orienta- system and the Indo-Anatolian hy- listik 8: Handbook of Uralic studies pothesis – revisited. In Serangeli, 1), 219–263. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Matilde & Olander, Thomas (eds.), MSzFE = Lakó, György. 1971–1978. A Dispersals and diversification: magyar szókészlet finnugor elemei. Linguistic and archaeological con- Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. siderations on the early stages of Olander, Thomas. 2019. Indo-Eu- Indo-European, 236–250. Leiden & ropean cladistic nomenclature. Boston: Brill. Indogermanische Forschungen 124. UEW = Redei, Károly. 1988. Urali- 231–244. sches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Pooth, Roland & Kerkhof, Peter Band I–II: Unter Mitarbeit von Alexander & Kulikov, Leonid & Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Sándor Barđ­dal, Jó­han­na. 2019. The ori- Csúcs, István Erdélyi †, László gin of non-canonical case marking Honti, Éva Korenchy †, Éva K. Sal of subjects in Proto-Indo-Europe- und Edit Vértes, Band III: Register an. Indogermanische Forschungen Zusammengestellt von Attila Dobó 124. 245–263. und Éva Fancsaly. Wiesbaden: Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 2005. Harrassowitz. Der Akkusativ auf *-m im Indo- Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2014. Studies in germanischen und Uralischen: Uralic vocalism III. Journal of Lan- Kontakt oder Erbe? In Meiser, guage Relationship / Вопросы яы- Gerhadt & Hackstein, Olav (eds.), зыкого родства 12. 113−148. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel: Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2017. Отражение Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indo- ностратических огубленных germanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. гласных в индоевропейском. September 2000, Halle an der Saale, In Саенко, М. Н. (ed.), Памяти 525–535. Wiesbaden: Reichert. В. М. Иллич-Свитыча: Матери- Rieken, Elisabeth. 2009. Der Archa- алы круглого стола. Москва: Ин- ismus des Hethitischen: Eine Be- ститут славяноведения РАН. standsaufnahme. Incontri Lingui- Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2018. Праса- stici 32. 37–52. модийский *s – фонология и Sárosi, Zsófia. 2003. Az ősmagyar фонетика. (Presentation at Се- kor: morfématörténet. In Kiss, Jenő минар по сравнительно-исто- & Pusztai, Ferenc (eds.), Magyar рической фонетике самодий- nyelvtörténet, 129–173. Budapest: ских языков, Институт язы- Osiris Kiadó. кознания РАН, 25.–26.3.2018.) Serangeli, Matilde. 2019. Intro- https://www.academia.edu/ duction. In Serangeli, Matilde & 38048065/Прасамодийский_s_ Olander, Thomas (eds.), Dispersals фонология_и_фонетика and diversification: Linguistic and

171