Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96. kötet (1998-1999)

Tanulmányok - Dezső László: Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European. [Az uráli és korai indoeurópai tőstruktúrák tipológiai összevetése] 3

Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European 17 1) e 2) i y ä a ä à In Rédei's version ä follows front vowels, a cornes after back vowels, e is neutral for vowel harmony; the high vowels i, u and the middle o are lacking. Sammalahti's System reflects front and back harmony, but ü, u and the two middle vowels e, o do not occur in V2 position. The two approaches admit only vowels of two levels in unstressed position. The low vowels are the same, the différence lies in the reconstructed higher vowel. It is e, more precisely e and e± because they can follow both front and back vowels in the first version; in the second version there are two vowels: / and y. The objective of the following comparative list and its analysis is to establish the relationship between the list of Sammalahti's PU etymons (1988: 536-41) and the corresponding forms in Rédei's dictionary (here abbreviated as S and R). This is the only way to arrive at a vocabulary which belongs to the same historical level according to both sources (except a couple of etymons). The two lists, S and R, are the results of two typologically acceptable means of reconstruction. Their comparison reveals a number of factors, relevant for late PU and, possibly, the period preceding it. The two lists can be used for an areal typological analysis of Proto-Uralic and other proto-languages of Central Eurasia in phonology and lexical parallels. However I do not think that the PU vocabulary can be limited to this list, therefore, I shall comment on the vowels in the entire Uralic lexicon of UEW which is nearly four times larger than the S and R lists (for a detailed analysis cf. Décsy 1990). The présentation of S and R vocabulary will be followed by a concise analysis of vowels in V] and V2 positions and in root structures. It explains the reconstructed forms which seem rather différent at first sight. A closer inspection, however, reveals the vowel System properties of PU behind the différent reconstructions. In the list, the sound i is rendered by y, à by a in Sammalahti's data, the letter ö of UEW is replaced by d as in the items of S. Three etymons on list S can not be identified with the etymons of UEW (43, 60, 107). 1 elä-ELÄ'live' 2 emäEMÄ 3 WW/-IME- • 'suck' 4 ipsi l?3(SA) 5 ykta- AKTA- (FU) 'hang, put' 6 yla ALA 7 yna ANA 'mother-in-law' 8 yny ON3 9 yppy APPE (FU) 'father-in-law' 10 ypty APTA 11 ojwaOJWA 'head' 12 ukty UTKA 13 uli WOLE (-O:-) 'pole' 14 uxy- UJE-15 i//i WILÄ(ü) 'over,on' 16 ?iixjiWÏY]A 'mother' 'smeir 'under' 'tarne' 'hair on head' 'track' 'swim' 'belt'