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 23 This system underwent changes which were not very significant phonetically but phonologically resulted in a new system of front-back harmony and an opposition of high-middle and low levels, present in PU: i и e о ä a If we assume that a kind of level harmony existed at an early stage of PU and the vowels of Vi of UEW reflect this stage, then we can establish the following percentages for high-middle (i, e, u) and low-middle (a, a, o) groups: in Vi highmiddle: i (57), e (48), и (115), total 220, against low-middle ä (48), a (ПО), о (13), total 251. The V2 vowels can be reconstructed for low vowels:

ä (36), a (121) and their total number is close to that of Vi (158). Let us assume that among the etymons with final e (110) and the not-reconstructed з (201) the share of о was similar to that of Vi (c. 30% = 94) and the remaining V2 vowels (217) were high-middle, to which 4 etymons with и ~ о are to be added. Then the total number of low-middle vowels (Vi 251, V2 251) and high-middle vowels (Vi 220, V2 221) reflects a relatively well balanced distribution. It can be related to a level harmony proposed by Greenberg (1990) despite the hypothetical figures of e and з in V2 position. The frequency data reflect the approximative quantitative correspondences between early and late Uralic, but cannot account for qualitative changes. Initially there was no qualitative difference between the systems of Vi and V2. The loss of quality of vowels in V

2

took place during the change in the system, when e could be both a front and a back vowel, but was clearly opposed to ä. This explains why e in V2 can be combined with both front and back vowels and possibly correspond to early /, e, и, о in V2. It would be an interesting problem for areal typology to compare the change of vowel harmony, level opposition and the evolution of V2

vowels in the protolanguages of NEA area. These languages seem to manifest a number of typological possible routes, or to use my term, itineraries, from early level harmony to front-back harmony and from the relative preservation of V2

vowel quality to their loss under the condition of fixed accent. Another type of change took place with non-fixed accent as in Proto-Indo-European. The pronominal roots of PU are compared to those of other proto-languages in Greenberg's recent work (1995) and in UEW. I shall present the data of demonstrative and interrogative pronominal roots according to UEW. From its references to other proto-languages only the languages are indicated without the concrete forms. To the data of UEW I added references to the sections of Greenberg's monograph (1995), in which etymological items are examined.