'Uralo-Siberian' is a hypothetical
language family consisting of
Uralic,
Yukaghir,
Chukotko-Kamchatkan and
Eskimo-Aleut. Most linguists still consider this hypothesis speculative and its evidence insufficient to conclusively prove the
existence of this family.
History
Structural similarities between Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut languages
were observed early. In
1746, the Danish theologian
Marcus Wöldike
compared
Greenlandic to
Hungarian. In 1818,
Rasmus Rask considered
Greenlandic to be related to the Uralic languages, and presented
a list of lexical correspondences. (Rask also considered
Uralic and
Altaic to be related to each other.) In
1959,
Knut Bergsland published the paper ''The Eskimo-Uralic Hypothesis'',
in which he, like other authors before him, presented a number of
grammatical similarities and a small number of lexical correspondences.
In
1962,
Morris Swadesh proposed a relationship between the
Eskimo-Aleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan language families.
In
1998,
Michael Fortescue presented more detailed arguments in his
book, ''Language Relations across Bering Strait''.
Evidence
Phonology
The consonant inventories of the reconstructed
proto-languages of the four Uralo-Siberian families are very similar to each other. A common feature is that there are only voiceless and no voiced
stops, while there is a set of voiced (but no voiceless) non-sibilant
fricatives with the same places of articulation (
labial,
dental,
palatal, and
velar; in Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut also
uvular). There are also
nasals in the same places of articulation. In addition, there are three
sibilants, as well as
liquids and
semivowels.
Morphology
Apparently shared elements of Uralo-Siberian morphology include
the following:
' ★ -t' | plural |
' ★ -k' | dual |
' ★ m-' | 1st person |
' ★ t-' | 2nd person |
' ★ ka' | interrogative pronoun |
' ★ -n' | genitive case |
Proponents of the
Nostratic hypothesis consider these apparent correspondences to be evidence in support of the proposed larger Nostratic family.
Lexicon
Fortescue (
1998) lists 95
lexical correspondence sets
with reflexes in at least three of the four language families,
and even more shared by two of the languages. Examples are
'
★ ap(p)a' 'grandfather', '
★ kað'a' 'mountain' and
many others.
Urheimat
Fortescue argues that the Uralo-Siberian proto-language (or a complex of related proto-languages) may have been spoken by
mesolithic hunting and fishing people in south-central
Siberia (roughly, from the upper
Yenisei river to
Lake Baikal) between 8000 and 6000 BC, and that the proto-languages of the derived families may have been carried northward out of this homeland in several successive waves down to about 4000 BC, leaving the
Samoyedic branch of Uralic in occupation of the
Urheimat thereafter.
Relationships
Some or all of the four Uralo-Siberian families have been included in more extensive groupings of languages (see links below). Fortescue's hypothesis does not oppose or exclude these various proposals. In particular, he considers that a remote relationship between Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (or some part of Altaic) is likely. However, Fortescue holds that Uralo-Siberian lies within the bounds of the provable, whereas Nostratic may be too remote a grouping to ever be convincingly demonstrated.
Sources
★ Knut Bergsland (
1959) The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis. ''Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne'', 61, 1-29.
★ Michael Fortescue (
1998) ''Language Relations across Bering Strait''. ISBN 0-304-70330-3.
Further reading
★ Künnap, A. (1999). ''Indo-European-Uralic-Siberian linguistic and cultural contacts''. Tartu, Estonia: University of Tartu, Division of Uralic languages.
See also
★
Eurasiatic languages
★
Indo-Uralic languages
★
Nostratic languages
★
Ural-Altaic languages
External links
★
Linguistlist post about Uralo-Eskimo grammar as reconstructed by Uwe Seefloth, who finds Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut to be each other's closest relatives within Uralo-Siberian
★
Discussion of the above and comparisons to
Indo-European
★
more discussion of the above