Ugric includes three subgroups:Hungarian,Khanty, andMansi. The latter two are traditionally considered to be single languages, though they are sometimes considered to be small subdivisions of the Ugric language family due to considerable dialectical differences. A commonProto-Ugric language is posited to have been spoken from the end of the 3rd millennium BC until the first half of the 1st millennium BC, in WesternSiberia, east of the southernUral Mountains. Of the three languages, Khanty and Mansi have sometimes been set apart from Hungarian asOb-Ugric, though features uniting Mansi and Hungarian in particular are known as well.
The name Ugric is derived fromugry (угры), aRussian exonym of theMagyars (Hungarians) and also the name of the historical northernRussian region ofYugra.[3] A connection between these words was first suggested in the beginning of 16th century. However, according to István Vásáry the etymological connection between these two words has not been verified, and the nameUgric is based on afolk etymology.[4]
PU *s and *š merged and developed into a non-sibilant sound (possibly[θ] or[ɬ]), yielding Mansi/t/, Khanty *ɬ →/t/ or/l/ (depending on dialect), and were lost in Hungarian.
It has however been pointed out that these changes are applicable to theSamoyedic languages as well.[6]
The consonant cluster *lm is in the Ugric languages mostly reduced to plain/m/ (e.g. PU*śilmä 'eye' → Hungarianszem, Mansi сам/sam/, Khanty сем/sem/). A peculiar exception is the numeral '3', in which Hungarian (három) and Mansi (хурэм/xuːrəm/) point to an original cluster *rm, whereas the rest of the Uralic family suggests original *lm (Khanty холәм, Finnishkolme, Estoniankolm, Inari Samikulma, Erzya колмо, etc.) This has frequently been listed as an argument for considering Hungarian more closely related to Mansi than Khanty. The reverse has also been suggested—Hungarian and Mansi retaining the original form of the numeral, whereas Khanty and all theFinno-Permic languages would have innovated/l/ for some reason.[7]
Hungarian and the current literary standard of Mansi and Khanty[clarification needed] all share a spirantization of Proto-Uralic *k to/h/ or/x/ beforeback vowels, e.g. 'fish': PU*kala → Hungarianhal, Mansi хул/xuːl/, Khanty хул/xul/. This is itself not a common Ugric feature —/k/ remains in other Mansi and Khanty dialects (e.g. Eastern Khanty/kul/, Southern Mansi/koːl/ 'fish'), but it has been argued to result from a proto-Ugric split of *k to front and back allophones[k] ~[q], with the latter then independently spirantizing in each three cases.
The three Ugric varieties also share the lateralization of Proto-Uralic *δ to *l (as do thePermic languages), but it is possible this postcedes the emergence of retroflex *ɭ from PU *l in Khanty.[5] Another possible counterargument is the similar lateralization of the palatalized counterpart *δ́ → Mansi/lʲ/, likely to have been a simultaneous change with the lateralization of *ð. In Khanty the reflex is/j/, whereas instances of/lʲ/ also exist, which may suggest a separate development. An original *ĺ is no longer reconstructed for older stages of Uralic, however, which leaves the origin of Khanty/lʲ/ an open question.
An innovation clearly limited to the Ugric languages is the development of *ŋ to *ŋk, though there are numerous exceptions in each language to this.
The development of the vowel system remains subject to interpretation. All three Ugric branches contrastvowel length; in Hungarian this is late, generally derived bycompensatory lengthening after loss of unstressed vowels and *ɣ. The Ob-Ugric languages, however, derive their quantity contrasts mainly from PU quality contrasts: thus for example in Northern Mansi, PU*peljä 'ear' → *päĺ →/palʲ/, but PU*pälä 'half' → *pääl →/paːl/.
Contrasts between PU stem vowels (*a/*ä vs. *i) do not survive as such in modern Ugric languages, but they commonly leave their mark on vowel qualities in the first syllable, suggesting retention of the contrast at least to the Proto-Ugric stage. For example, PU *ńïxli 'arrow' → Hungariannyíl, but PU *mïksa 'liver' → Hungarianmáj. Remnants of original stem vowels are also found in the oldest Hungarian records, such as PU *konta 'group, hunting party' → Old Hungarianhodu 'army' (→ Modern Hungarianhad).
The Ugric languages share considerable amounts of common lexicon not found in the other Uralic languages. This includes both basic vocabulary, e.g. 'fire' (Hungariantűz, Mansi таўт/taːwt/, Khanty тут/tut/) as well as more specialized terminology, particularly the word for 'horse' (Hló, lov-, M луў/luw/, Kh лав/law/) and related items such as 'saddle' (Hnyereg, M нагэр/naɣər/). This latter fact together with an importance of horse motifs in Ob-Ugric folklore has been used to argue for locating Proto-Ugric in the southernmost parts of Siberia, in close contact with nomadic steppe peoples if not nomadic themselves. Some loanwords from such sources into Ugric are known as well, perhaps most prominently the numeral '7': *θäpt(V) → Hhét,[a] M сат/sat/, Kh тапәт/tapət/ (from anIndo-Iranian source; cf.Sanskritsaptá,Avestanhapta, both fromProto-Indo-Iranian*saptá <Proto-Indo-European*septḿ̥).
Endonyms of two of the Ugric peoples are cognate as well: the root of Hungarianmagyar 'Hungarian' can be equated withMansi (from an original root *mäńć-). A related word[which?] in Khanty denotes a specificphratry.
A common derivational innovation is seen in the word for 'louse': Proto-Uralic *täji → *tä(j)-ktVmV → Htetű, M такэм, Kh тевтәм.
Holopainen (2023)[8] argues that many known loanwords and suspectablesubstrate vocabulary show too much irregularity in sound correspondences to be derived from a common Ugric proto-language, and may have been borrowed independently into Hungarian and Ob-Ugric, or even all three of Hungarian, Mansi and Khanty; while for others, it is unclear if they were actually innovated, or represent rather common retention from Proto-Uralic.
A class of "instable" verb stems, in which alternation between CV and CVC stem variants occurs, e.g. ‘to take’: Hungarianve- ~vev- ~vesz-, Mansi*wi- ~*wæj-, Khanty*wĕ- ~*wĕj-.
Distinct attributive and nominal forms of the numeral '2': Hungariankét vs.kettő, Mansi кит vs. китиг, Khanty (Northern) кат vs. катән, (Eastern)/kæt/ vs./kætəɣ/
Found in Hungarian and Mansi, an extended form of thecaritive suffix containing-l.
Distinct verb conjugations according to thetransitivity of the verb. It is sometimes termed as “definite” versus “indefinite” conjugation, because also thedefiniteness of theobject can play a role when selecting between the two. This feature is within the Uralic family also found in theMordvinic languages, and it is likely to not represent a common Ugric innovation; the particular details of the construction are different in all three Ugric languages.
Verbal prefixes, which modify the meaning of the verb in both concrete and abstract ways
Examples from Mansi
ēl(a) – 'forwards, onwards, away'
jōm- 'to go, to stride'
ēl-jōm- 'to go away/on'
tinal- 'to sell'
ēl-tinal- 'to sell off'
xot – 'direction away from something and other nuances of action intensity'
min- 'to go'
xot-min- 'to go away, to stop'
roxt- 'to be frightened'
xot-roxt- 'to take fright suddenly'
Examples from Hungarian
el – 'away, off'
ugrik 'to jump'
elugrik 'to jump away'
mosolyog 'to smile'
elmosolyodik 'to start to smile' (implying a lack of control)
ki – 'out (of)'
ugrik 'to jump'
kiugrik 'to jump out'
néz 'to look'
kinéz 'to look out'
In Hungarian, thecitation form of verbs is the present tense indicative of the 3rd person singular form, which is given here, which does not have any suffixes.
^Vásáry, István (1982). "The 'Yugria' Problem". InRóna-Tas, András (ed.).Chuvash studies. Bibliotheca orientalis hungarica. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.ISBN978-963-05-2851-1.
^abSammallahti, Pekka (1988), "Historical phonology of the Uralic languages, with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic", in Denis Sinor (ed.),The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences, Leiden: Brill, pp. 478–554
Honti, László (1979). "Features of Ugric Languages (Observations on the Question of Ugric Unity)".Acta Linguistica Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae.29:1–25.
Honti, László (1998). "Ugrilainen kantakieli – erheellinen vai reaalinen hypoteesi?".Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia.228.ISBN952-5150-15-1.
.png)
