Re: Proto-Uralic?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:58:10 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg=20Rhiemeier?=
<joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:

>Hallo friends,
>
>Does anyone know whether the currently accepted reconstruction of Proto-
Uralic
>(or what comes closest to such a thing) is available on the Web somewhere?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Jörg.
Unfortunately, there are relatively few resources for Proto-Uralic on the
Web, and what is on there is relatively inconsistent.  I am actually in the
process of compiling information for my own reconstruction of Proto-
Uralic.  However, I can list some commonly accepted features of PU:

1. It had a case system consisting of nominative -0, accusative -m,
genitive -n (possibly palatalized n), ablative -tA, and locative -nA.
There may also have been some kind of lative case in -k(V).

2. Two formants, -s (meaning 'inside/into') and -l (meaning 'outside/out
of') were often used to produce other cases in later Uralic languages.

3. There were two numbers, singular and plural, the former being unmarked
and the latter having a nominative plural in -t and an oblique plural in -j
(A), to which case endings were added (?).  (There was a dual later on, but
I think this was a late formation in Proto-Uralic; it was marked by -k, and
it's likely the same formant as the base for 'two'.)

4. The verb did not distinguish tense as such, but did distinguish aspect
(imperfect vs. perfect).  Imperfect was unmarked; perfect was marked by the
suffix -j(A) (this is the same suffix as the nominal oblique plural, more
on this later).  The personal endings for the verb were 1sg -m, 2sg -t,
3sg - or -sA, 1pl -mek, 2pl -tek, 3pl -s(A)t (this was often reanalyzed in
later languages).  However, I disagree with the 1pl and 2pl endings as they
are commonly reconstructed; I would prefer to reconstruct -mij and -tij,
respectively.  The verb also had a variety of participles; the easiest to
reconstruct is -pA for present active participle.  There was also some kind
of aorist (?) marker in -si or -s', and an imperative marker in -kA.

This is only a brief summary of Proto-Uralic, and I hope to have a more
descriptive grammar soon.  Do you have your own ideas regarding PU?  I
would be interested in hearing them.

- Rob