| Eskimo–Uralic | |
|---|---|
| (proposed) | |
| Geographic distribution | northernEurasia and far northernNorth America |
| Linguistic classification | Proposed language family |
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | None |
 Eskimo–Uralic languages[image reference needed] | |
TheEskimo–Uralic hypothesis posits that theUralic andEskimo–Aleut language families belong to a commonmacrofamily. It is not generally accepted bylinguists because the similarities can also be merelyareal features, common to unrelated language families. In 1818, the Danish linguistRasmus Rask grouped together the languages ofGreenlandic andFinnish. The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis was put forward byKnut Bergsland in 1959.[1][2][3] Ante Aikio has stated that it is possible that there is some connection between the two families, but exact conclusions cannot be drawn.[4]
A similar theory was suggested in 1998 byMichael Fortescue, in his bookLanguage Relations across Bering Strait where he proposed theUralo-Siberian theory, which, unlike the Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis includes theYukaghir languages, argues that Uralo-Siberian influenced Chukotko-Kamchatkan and some have includedNivkh as a part of the family.[5]
At present the arguments used to defend the Eskimo-Uralic theory are insufficient to even suspect a relationship between the languages, let alone to make an affirmative case for their relationship.[6]
Comparisons between Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut languages were made early. In 1746, the Danish theologianMarcus Wøldike [da] comparedGreenlandic toHungarian. In 1818,Rasmus Rask considered Greenlandic to be related to the Uralic languages,Finnish in particular, and presented a list of lexical correspondences (Rask also considered Uralic andAltaic to be related to each other). In 1871, H. Rink made a similar proposal.[2] In 1959,Knut Bergsland published the paperThe Eskimo–Uralic Hypothesis, in which he, like other authors before him, presented a number of grammatical similarities and a small number of lexical correspondences.[7]
In 1998,Michael Fortescue presented more detailed arguments in his book,Language Relations across Bering Strait. His title evokes Morris Swadesh's 1962 article, "Linguistic relations across the Bering Strait".[8] Besides new proposed linguistic evidence, Fortescue (2016) presents several genetic studies that he argued to support a common origin of the included groups, with a suggested homeland inNortheast Asia.[9]
A few potential lexical cognates betweenProto-Uralic andEskimo–Aleut are pointed out in Aikio (2019: 53–54).[4] These are:
| Proto-Uralic | Proto-Eskimo |
|---|---|
| *ila-'place under or below' | *at(ǝ)-'down'; *alaq'sole' |
| *elä-'to live' | *ǝt(ǝ)-'to be' |
| *tuli-'to come' | *tut-'to arrive, land'; *tulaɣ- |
| *kuda'morning, dawn' | *qilaɣ-'sky' |
| *kuda-'to weave' | *qilaɣ-'to knit, weave' |
A possible regular sound correspondence with Uralic *-l- and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut *-t can be argued to exist.[4]
According to Ante Aikio, the words'morning' and'to weave' appear to be completely unrelated, which means there is an instance of coincidental homonymy, which very rarely happens by accident. Aikio thus states that he believes it to be likely that there is some connection between the two families, however exact conclusions cannot be drawn.[4]
This problem, in reality, had already been taken up earlier, first by the Danish eskimologist H. Rink, later by the French linguist Lucien Adam. The former, in 1871, had referred to the agreement in the dual and plural endings (-k and -t) between the Eskimo language and the Samoyede-Finnish languages The latter had rejected the possibility of classifying the Eskimo either with any American Indian language or with the Uralo-Altaic languages
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)