Finno-Ugric (/ˌfɪnoʊˈjuːɡrɪk,-ˈuː-/)[a][1] is a traditional linguistic grouping of all languages in theUralic language family except for theSamoyedic languages. Its once commonly accepted status as a subfamily of Uralic is based on criteria formulated in the 19th century and is criticized by contemporary linguists such as Tapani Salminen andAnte Aikio.[2][3] The three most spoken Uralic languages,Hungarian,Finnish, andEstonian, are all included in Finno-Ugric.
The termFinno-Ugric, which originally referred to the entire family, is occasionally used as a synonym for the termUralic, which includes the Samoyedic languages, as commonly happens when a language family is expanded with further discoveries.[4][5][6] Before the 20th century, the language family might be referred to asFinnish,Ugric,Finno-Hungarian or with a variety of other names.[7] The nameFinno-Ugric came into general use in the late 19th or early 20th century.[8][9]
The validity of Finno-Ugric as a phylogenic grouping is currently disputed,[10][11] with some linguists maintaining that theFinno-Permic languages are as distinct from theUgric languages as they are from theSamoyedic languages spoken in Siberia, or even that none of the Finno-Ugric, Finno-Permic, or Ugric branches has been established. Received opinion is that the easternmost (and last discovered) Samoyed had separated first and the branching into Ugric and Finno-Permic took place later, but this reconstruction does not have strong support in the linguistic data.[11]
Attempts atreconstructing a Proto-Finno-Ugricproto-language, a common ancestor of all Uralic languages except for the Samoyedic languages, are largely indistinguishable fromProto-Uralic, suggesting that Finno-Ugric might not be a historical grouping but a geographical one, with Samoyedic being distinct by lexical borrowing rather than actually being historically divergent. It has been proposed that the area in which Proto-Finno-Ugric was spoken reached between theBaltic Sea and theUral Mountains.[12]
Traditionally, the main set of evidence for the genetic proposal of Proto-Finno-Ugric has come from vocabulary. A large amount of vocabulary (e.g. the numerals "one", "three", "four" and "six"; the body-part terms "hand", "head") is only reconstructed up to the Proto-Finno-Ugric level, and only words with a Samoyedic equivalent have been reconstructed for Proto-Uralic. That methodology has been criticised, as no coherent explanation other than inheritance has been presented for the origin of most of the Finno-Ugric vocabulary (though a small number has been explained as old loanwords fromProto-Indo-European or its immediate successors).
The Samoyedic group has undergone a longer period of independent development, and its divergent vocabulary could be caused by mechanisms of replacement such aslanguage contact. (The Finno-Ugric group is usually dated to approximately 4,000 years ago, the Samoyedic a little over 2,000.) Proponents of the traditional binary division note, however, that the invocation of extensive contact influence on vocabulary is at odds with the grammatical conservatism of Samoyedic.
The consonant*š (voiceless postalveolar fricative,[ʃ]) has not been conclusively shown to occur in the traditional Proto-Uralic lexicon, but it is attested in some of the Proto-Finno-Ugric material. Another feature attested in the Finno-Ugric vocabulary is that*i now behaves as a neutral vowel with respect to front-back vowel harmony, and thus there are roots such as*niwa- "to remove the hair from hides".[13]
Regularsound changes proposed for this stage are few and remain open to interpretation. Sammallahti (1988)[13] proposes five, following Janhunen's (1981) reconstruction of Proto-Finno-Permic:
Compensatory lengthening: development of long vowels from the cluster of vowel plus a particular syllable-final element, of unknown quality, symbolized by*x
Longopen*aa and*ää are then raised tomid*oo and*ee respectively.
Sammallahti (1988) further reconstructs sound changes*oo,*ee →*a,*ä (merging with original*a,*ä) for the development from Proto-Finno-Ugric to Proto-Ugric. Similar sound laws are required for other languages as well. Thus, the origin and raising of long vowels may actually belong at a later stage,[14] and the development of these words from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Ugric can be summarized as simple loss of*x (if it existed in the first place at all; vowel length only surfaces consistently in theBaltic-Finnic languages.[15]) The proposed raising of*o has been alternatively interpreted instead as a lowering*u →*o in Samoyedic (PU *lumi →*lomə →Proto-Samoyedic*jom).[14]
Janhunen (2007, 2009)[16][17] notes a number ofderivational innovations in Finno-Ugric, including*ńoma "hare" →*ńoma-la, (vs. Samoyedic*ńomå),*pexli "side" →*peel-ka →*pelka "thumb", though involving Proto-Uralic derivational elements.
The Finno-Ugric group is not typologically distinct from Uralic as a whole: the most widespread structural features among the group all extend to the Samoyedic languages as well.
The relation of the Finno-Permic and the Ugric groups is adjudged remote by some scholars. On the other hand, with a projected time depth of only 3,000 to 4,000 years, the traditionally accepted Finno-Ugric grouping would be far younger than many major families such asIndo-European orSemitic, and would be about the same age as, for instance, theEastern subfamily ofNilotic. But the grouping is far from transparent or securely established. The absence of early records is a major obstacle. As for the Finno-UgricUrheimat, most of what has been said about it is speculation.
Some linguists criticizing the Finno-Ugric genetic proposal, especially Angela Marcantonio,[18] also question the validity of the entire Uralic family, instead proposing aUral–Altaic hypothesis, within which they believe Finno-Permic may be as distant from Ugric as from Turkic. However, this approach has been rejected by nearly all other specialists in Uralic linguistics.[19][20][21][22][23][24]
One argument in favor of the Finno-Ugric grouping has come fromloanwords. Several loans from theIndo-European languages are present in most or all of the Finno-Ugric languages, while being absent from Samoyedic.[citation needed]
According to Häkkinen (1983) the alleged Proto-Finno-Ugric loanwords are disproportionally well-represented in Hungarian and the Permic languages, and disproportionally poorly represented in the Ob-Ugric languages; hence it is possible that such words have been acquired by the languages only after the initial dissolution of the Uralic family into individual dialects, and that the scarcity of loanwords in Samoyedic results from its peripheric location.[25]
Thenumber systems among the Finno-Ugric languages are particularly distinct from the Samoyedic languages: only the numerals "2", "5", and "7" have cognates in Samoyedic, while also the numerals, "1", "3", "4", "6", "10" are shared by all or most Finno-Ugric languages.
Below are the numbers 1 to 10 in several Finno-Ugric languages. Forms initalic do not descend from the reconstructed forms.
The number '2' descends in Ugric from a front-vocalic variant *kektä.
The numbers '9' and '8' in Finnic through Mari are considered to be derived from the numbers '1' and '2' as '10–1' and '10–2'. One reconstruction is *yk+teksa and *kak+teksa, respectively, where *teksa cf.deka is an Indo-European loan; the difference between /t/ and /d/ is not phonemic, unlike in Indo-European. Another analysis is *ykt-e-ksa, *kakt-e-ksa, with *e being the negative verb.
The four largestethnic groups that speak Finno-Ugric languages are theHungarians (14.5 million),Finns (6.5 million),Estonians (1.1 million), andMordvins (0.85 million). Majorities of three (the Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians) inhabit their respectivenation states in Europe, i.e.Hungary,Finland, andEstonia, while a large minority of Mordvins inhabit the federalMordovian Republic within Russia (Russian Federation).[27]
Proposed flag of the Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples.
In the Finno-Ugric countries of Finland, Estonia and Hungary that find themselves surrounded by speakers of unrelated tongues, language origins and language history have long been relevant tonational identity. In 1992, the 1stWorld Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples was organized inSyktyvkar in the Komi Republic in Russia, the 2nd World Congress in 1996 inBudapest in Hungary, the 3rd Congress in 2000 inHelsinki in Finland, the 4th Congress in 2004 inTallinn in Estonia, the 5th Congress in 2008 inKhanty-Mansiysk in Russia, the 6th Congress in 2012 inSiófok in Hungary,[28][29][30][31] the 7th Congress in 2016 inLahti in Finland,[32] and the 8th Congress in 2021 inTartu in Estonia.[33] The members of the Finno-Ugric Peoples' Consultative Committee include: the Erzyas, Estonians, Finns, Hungarians, Ingrian Finns, Ingrians, Karelians, Khants, Komis, Mansis, Maris, Mokshas, Nenetses, Permian Komis, Saamis, Tver Karelians, Udmurts, Vepsians; Observers: Livonians, Setos.[34][35]
TheInternational Finno-Ugric Students' Conference (IFUSCO) is organised annually by students of Finno-Ugric languages to bring together people from all over the world who are interested in the languages and cultures. The first conference was held in 1984 inGöttingen in Germany. IFUSCO features presentations and workshops on topics such as linguistics, ethnography, history and more.[38][39]
The linguistic reconstruction of the Finno-Ugric language family has led to the postulation that the ancient Proto-Finno-Ugric people were ethnically related, and that even the modern Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples are ethnically related.[44] Such hypotheses are based on the assumption that heredity can be traced through linguistic relatedness,[45] although it must be kept in mind thatlanguage shift and ethnic admixture, a relatively frequent and common occurrence both in recorded history and most likely also in prehistory, confuses the picture and there is no straightforward relationship, if at all, between linguistic and genetic affiliation. Still, the premise that the speakers of the ancient proto-language were ethnically homogeneous is generally accepted.[17]
Modern genetic studies have shown that the Y-chromosomehaplogroup N3, and sometimes N2, is almost specific though certainly not restricted to Uralic- or Finno-Ugric-speaking populations, especially as high frequency or primary paternal haplogroup.[46][47] These haplogroups branched fromhaplogroup N, which probably spread north, then west and east from Northern China about 12,000–14,000 years before present from fatherhaplogroup NO (haplogroup O being the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Southeast Asia).
A study of the Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples of northern Eurasia (i.e., excluding the Hungarians), carried out between 2002 and 2008 in the Department of Forensic Medicine at theUniversity of Helsinki, showed that the Finno-Ugric-speaking populations do not retain genetic evidence of a common founder. Most possess an amalgamation of West and East Eurasian gene pools that may have been present in central Asia, with subsequentgenetic drift andrecurrent founder effects among speakers of various branches of Finno-Ugric. Not all branches show evidence of a single founder effect. North Eurasian Finno-Ugric-speaking populations were found to be genetically a heterogeneous group showing lowerhaplotype diversities compared to more southern populations. North Eurasian Finno-Ugric-speaking populations possess unique genetic features due to complex genetic changes shaped by molecular and population genetics and adaptation to the areas ofBoreal andArctic North Eurasia.[48]
^Tapani Salminen, "The rise of the Finno-Ugric language family." In Carpelan, Parpola, & Koskikallio (eds.),Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: linguistic and archaeological considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242; Helsinki 2001. 385–396.[1]Archived 30 August 2017 at theWayback Machine
^Aikio, Ante (2019)."Proto-Uralic". InBakró-Nagy, Marianne; Laakso, Johanna; Skribnik, Elena (eds.).Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–4.Archived from the original on 10 December 2021. Retrieved18 May 2020.
^Hajdú, Péter (1998). "A magyar–ugor vs. altaji összehasonlítótól az uráli nyelvészetig (via finnugor)". In Domokos, Péter; Csepregi, Márta (eds.).125 éves a Budapesti Finnugor Tanszék: jubileumi kötet [From the Hungarian-Ugric vs. Altaic comparative study to Uralic linguistics (via Finno-Ugric)]. Urálisztikai tanulmányok (in Hungarian). Budapest: ELTE, BFT. pp. 56–62.ISBN978-963-463-213-9.
^Marcantonio, Angela (2002).The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics. Publications of the Philological Society. Vol. 35. Oxford: Blackwell.ISBN978-0-631-23170-7.OCLC803186861.
^Georg, Stefan (2004). "Marcantonio, Angela: The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and Statistics". Book review.Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen. 26/27:155–168.
^Kallio, Petri (2004). "The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics. Angela Marcantonio". Book review.Anthropological Linguistics.46:486–490.
^Kulonen, Ulla-Maija (2004). "Myyttejä uralistiikasta. Angela Marcantonio. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics". Book review.Virittäjä (2/2004):314–320.
^Häkkinen, Kaisa (1983).Suomen kielen vanhimmasta sanastosta ja sen tutkimisesta (PhD) (in Finnish). Turun yliopisto.ISBN951-642-445-7.
^According toZaich, Gábor (2006).Etimológiai szótár (in Hungarian). Tinta. p. 167.ISBN978-963-7094-01-9., the Hungarian word for "one" is an internal development, i.e. it is not related to the Proto-Finno-Ugric*ükte
Oja, Vilja (2007). "Color naming in Estonian and cognate languages". In: MacLaury, Robert E.; Paramei, Galina V.; Dedrick, Don (Ed.).Anthropology of Color: Interdistiplinary multilevel modeling. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins B V Publ. pp. 189–209.
Sinor, Denis (ed.):Studies in Finno-Ugric Linguistics: In Honor of Alo Raun (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series: Volume 131). Indiana Univ Research, 1977,ISBN978-0-933070-00-4.
Vikør, Lars S. (ed.): Fenno-Ugric. In:The Nordic Languages. Their Status and Interrelations. Novus Press, pp. 62–74, 1993.
.png)
