In article <1992Dec22.211442.25…@enea.se>, som…@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
|> This is a translated conversation from a Swedish-speaking group:
|>
|> )Erland Sommarskog (som…@enea.se) writes:
|> ))Despite Hungarian and Finnish are related, it is supposedly only
|> ))the numbers 1-6 which are the same. (And you have to look twice
|> ))to see it.)
|> )
|> )Actually one has now concluded that Finnish and Hungarian are not
|> )related.
|> )One still has a division of Finnish-Ugrian languages, but where the
|> )parts are not related to each other.
|> )The reason one earlier believed them to be related, is surely due
|> )to that that they sound superficially dissimilar.
|>
|> I have to say, I am quite surprised over this piece of information.
|> Any of you linguists out there who can shed a light on this?
As far as I know, the hypothesis that the Fennic and Ugric languages
are related as Fenno-Ugric is uncontested. Bjorn Collinder discusses
Uralic (Fenno-Ugric plus Samoyedic) in An introduction to the Uralic
languages (Berkeley, CA: U of California Press, 1965). and provides
about 100 cognate sets (not all including specifically Finnish or
Hungarian examples), as well as tables of sound correspondences,
lists of cognate inflectional endings and derivational endings, etc.
The cognate sets go far beyond the numerals. Numerals are actually
not very good places to look for cognates and regular
correspondences. They are particularly subject to analogical
reformation, and, as cultural vocabulary, they are often borrowed.
Again, as far as I know, the literature on Uralic in English is not
very extensive. Collinder’s Introduction doesn’t really discuss the
literature, so I’m not sure what to recommend apart from it.
—-
John E. Koontz (koo…@bldr.nist.gov)
Disclaimer: Views and recommendations, express or implied, are my own, and
do not reflect the opinion or policy of my employers.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have
No Comments