Uralic languages

Not to be confused with theUrali language.

"Uralic" redirects here. For other uses, seeUralic (disambiguation).

Uralic
Uralian
Geographic distribution	Central Europe,Northern Europe,Eastern Europe,andNorthern Asia
Linguistic classification	One of the world's primarylanguage families
Proto-language	Proto-Uralic
Subdivisions	Sámi Finnic Mordvinic Mari Permic Hungarian Mansi (Mansic) Khanty Samoyedic
ISO 639-5	urj
Glottolog	ural1272
Distribution of the undisputed branches of the Uralic family at the early 20th century

TheUralic languages(/jʊəˈrælɪk/yoor-AL-ik), sometimes called theUralian languages(/jʊəˈreɪliən/yoor-AY-lee-ən), form alanguage familyof 42languages spoken predominantly inEuropeandNorth Asia.The Uralic languages with the most native speakers areHungarian(which alone accounts for approximately 60% of speakers),Finnish,andEstonian.Other languages with speakers above 100,000 areErzya,Moksha,Mari,UdmurtandKomispoken in the European parts of the Russian Federation. Still smaller minority languages areSámi languagesof the northernFennoscandia;other members of theFinnic languages,ranging fromLivonianin northernLatviatoKarelianin northwesternmost Russia; and theSamoyedic languages,MansiandKhantyspoken inWestern Siberia.

The nameUralicderives from the family's purported "original homeland" (Urheimat) hypothesized to have been somewhere in the vicinity of theUral Mountains,and was first proposed byJulius KlaprothinAsia Polyglotta(1823).

Finno-Ugricis sometimes used as a synonym for Uralic,though Finno-Ugric is widely understood to exclude the Samoyedic languages.Scholars who do not accept the traditional notion that Samoyedic split first from the rest of the Uralic family may treat the terms as synonymous.

Uralic languages are known for their often complexcase systemsandvowel harmony.

Origin and evolution

Homeland

Main article:Proto-Uralic homeland

Proposed homelands of theProto-Uralic languageinclude:

• The vicinity of theVolga River,west of the Urals, close to theUrheimatof theIndo-European languages,or to the east and southeast of the Urals. HistorianGyula Lászlóplaces its origin in the forest zone between theOka Riverand centralPoland.E. N. Setälä and M. Zsirai place it between theVolgaandKama Rivers.According to E. Itkonen, the ancestral area extended to theBaltic Sea.Jaakko Häkkinen identifies Proto-Uralic with Eneolithic Garino-Bor (Turbin) culture 3,000–2,500 YBP located in the Lower Kama Basin.
• Péter Hajdúhas suggested a homeland in western and northwesternSiberia.
• Juha Janhunensuggests a homeland in between theObandYeniseidrainage areas inCentral Siberia.
• By using linguistic, paleoclimatic and archaeological data, a group of scholars around Grünthal et al. 2022, includingJuha Janhunen,traced back the Proto-Uralic homeland to a region East of the Urals, inSiberia,specifically somewhere close to theMinusinsk Basin,and reject a homeland in the Volga/Kama region. They further noted that a number of traits of Uralic are "distinctive in western Eurasia.... typological properties are eastern-looking overall, fitting comfortably into northeast Asia, Siberia, or the North Pacific Rim".Uralic-speakers may have spread westwards with theSeima-Turbino route.

History of Uralic linguistics

Early attestations

The first plausible mention of a people speaking a Uralic language is inTacitus'sGermania(c. 98 AD),mentioning theFenni(usually interpreted as referring to theSámi) and two other possibly Uralic tribes living in the farthest reaches of Scandinavia. There are many possible earlier mentions, including theIyrcae(perhaps related to Yugra) described byHerodotusliving in what is now European Russia, and theBudini,described by Herodotus as notably red-haired (a characteristic feature of theUdmurts) and living in northeast Ukraine and/or adjacent parts of Russia. In the late 15th century, European scholars noted the resemblance of the namesHungariaandYugria,the names of settlements east of the Ural. They assumed a connection but did not seek linguistic evidence.

Uralic studies

The Uralic/Siberian origin of Hungarians was long hypothesized by European scholars. Here,Sigismund von Herberstein's 1549 map ofMoscoviashows in the top right "Yugrafrom where theHungariansoriginated "(Iuhra inde Ungaroru[m] origo), east of theOb River.The Ural Mountains in the middle of the maps are labeledMontes dicti Cingulus Terræ( "The mountains called the Girdle of the Earth" )

The affinity of Hungarian and Finnish was first proposed in the late 17th century. Three candidates can be credited for the discovery: the German scholarMartin Fogel,the Swedish scholarGeorg Stiernhielm,and the Swedish courtierBengt Skytte.Fogel's unpublished study of the relationship, commissioned byCosimo IIIof Tuscany, was clearly the most modern of these: he established severalgrammaticalandlexicalparallels between Finnish and Hungarian as well as Sámi. Stiernhielm commented on the similarities of Sámi, Estonian, and Finnish, and also on a few similar words between Finnish and Hungarian.These authors were the first to outline what was to become the classification of the Finno-Ugric, and later Uralic family. This proposal received some of its initial impetus from the fact that these languages, unlike most of the other languages spoken in Europe, are not part of what is now known as theIndo-Europeanfamily. In 1717, the Swedish professorOlof Rudbeckproposed about 100 etymologies connecting Finnish and Hungarian, of which about 40 are still considered valid.Several early reports comparing Finnish or Hungarian with Mordvin, Mari or Khanty were additionally collected byGottfried Leibnizand edited by his assistantJohann Georg von Eckhart.

In 1730,Philip Johan von Strahlenbergpublished his bookDas Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia(The Northern and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia), surveying the geography, peoples and languages of Russia. All the main groups of the Uralic languages were already identified here.Nonetheless, these relationships were not widely accepted. Hungarian intellectuals especially were not interested in the theory and preferred to assume connections withTurkictribes, an attitude characterized byMerritt Ruhlenas due to "the wild unfetteredRomanticismof the epoch ".Still, in spite of this hostile climate, the HungarianJesuitJános Sajnovicstraveled withMaximilian Hellto survey the alleged relationship between Hungarian and Sámi, while they were also on a mission to observe the1769 Venus transit.Sajnovics published his results in 1770, arguing for a relationship based on several grammatical features.In 1799, the HungarianSámuel Gyarmathipublished the most complete work on Finno-Ugric to that date.

Uralic languages in the Russian Empire (Russian Census of 1897; the census was not held in Finland because it was an autonomous area)

Up to the beginning of the 19th century, knowledge of the Uralic languages spoken in Russia had remained restricted to scanty observations by travelers. Already the Finnish historianHenrik Gabriel Porthanhad stressed that further progress would require dedicated field missions.One of the first of these was undertaken byAnders Johan Sjögren,who brought theVepsiansto general knowledge and elucidated in detail the relatedness of Finnish and Komi.Still more extensive were the field research expeditions made in the 1840s byMatthias Castrén(1813–1852) andAntal Reguly(1819–1858), who focused especially on the Samoyedic and theOb-Ugric languages,respectively. Reguly's materials were worked on by the Hungarian linguistPál Hunfalvy(1810–1891) and GermanJosef Budenz(1836–1892), who both supported the Uralic affinity of Hungarian.Budenz was the first scholar to bring this result to popular consciousness in Hungary and to attempt a reconstruction of the Proto-Finno-Ugric grammar and lexicon.Another late-19th-century Hungarian contribution is that ofIgnácz Halász(1855–1901), who published extensive comparative material of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic in the 1890s,and whose work is at the base of today's wide acceptance of the inclusion of Samoyedic as a part of the Uralic family.Meanwhile, in the autonomousGrand Duchy of Finland,a chair for Finnish language and linguistics at theUniversity of Helsinkiwas created in 1850, first held by Castrén.

In 1883, theFinno-Ugrian Societywas founded in Helsinki on the proposal ofOtto Donner,which would lead to Helsinki overtaking St. Petersburg as the chief northern center of research of the Uralic languages.During the late 19th and early 20th century (until the separation of Finland from Russia following theRussian Revolution), the Society hired many scholars to survey the still less-known Uralic languages. Major researchers of this period includedHeikki Paasonen(studying especially theMordvinic languages),Yrjö Wichmann(studyingPermic),Artturi Kannisto(Mansi), Kustaa Fredrik Karjalainen (Khanty), Toivo Lehtisalo (Nenets), andKai Donner(Kamass).The vast amounts of data collected on these expeditions would provide over a century's worth of editing work for later generations of Finnish Uralicists.

Classification

Relative numbers of speakers of Uralic languages Hungarian   62.72% Finnish   26.05% Estonian   5.31% Mari   1.93% Komi-Zyrian   1.45% Moksha   1.45% Udmurt   1.3% Võro   0.48% Erzya   0.24% Khanty   0.14% Tundra Nenets   0.12% Other   0.29%

The Uralic family comprises nine undisputed groups with no consensus classification between them. (Some of the proposals are listed in the next section.) An agnostic approach treats them as separate branches.

Obsolete or native names are displayed in italics.

• Sámi(Sami, Saami, Samic, Saamic,Lappic, Lappish)
• Finnic(Fennic, Baltic Finnic, Balto-Finnic, Balto-Fennic)
• Mordvinic(Mordvin, Mordvinian)
• Mari(Cheremis)
• Permic(Permian)
• Hungarian(Magyar)
• Mansi(Vogul, Ма̄ньси, Маньсь)
• Khanty(Ostyak, Handi, Hantõ, Хӑнты, Ӄӑнтәӽ)
• Samoyedic(Samoyed)

There is also historical evidence of a number of extinct languages of uncertain affiliation:

• Merya
• Muromian
• Meshcherian(until 16th century?)

Traces of Finno-Ugric substrata, especially in toponymy, in the northern part of European Russia have been proposed as evidence for even more extinct Uralic languages.

Traditional classification

All Uralic languages are thought to have descended, through independent processes oflanguage change,fromProto-Uralic.The internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed.Doubts about the validity of most or all of the proposed higher-order branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common.

A traditional classification of the Uralic languages has existed since the late 19th century.It has enjoyed frequent adaptation in whole or in part in encyclopedias, handbooks, and overviews of the Uralic family. Otto Donner's model from 1879 is as follows:

• Uralic
  • Ugric(Ugrian)
    • Hungarian
    • Ob-Ugric(Ob-Ugrian)
      • Khanty
      • Mansi
  • Finno-Permic(Permian-Finnic)
    • Permic
    • Finno-Volgaic(Finno-Cheremisic, Finno-Mari)
      • Volgaic
        • Mari
        • Mordvinic
      • Finno-Samic(Finno-Saamic,Finno-Lappic)
        • Sámi
        • Finnic

At Donner's time, theSamoyedic languageswere still poorly known, and he was not able to address their position. As they became better known in the early 20th century, they were found to be quite divergent, and they were assumed to have separated already early on. The terminology adopted for this was "Uralic" for the entire family, "Finno-Ugric"for the non-Samoyedic languages (though" Finno-Ugric "has, to this day, remained in use also as a synonym for the whole family). Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic are listed inISO 639-5as primary branches of Uralic.

The following table lists nodes of the traditional family tree that are recognized in some overview sources.

Year	Author(s)	Finno- Ugric	Ugric	Ob-Ugric	Finno- Permic	Finno- Volgaic	Volga- Finnic	Finno- Samic
1910	Szinnyei	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
1921	T. I. Itkonen	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗
1926	Setälä	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗
1962	Hajdú	✓	✗[a]	✓	✓	✓	✗[a]	✗
1965	Collinder	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗
1966	E. Itkonen	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
1968	Austerlitz	✗[b]	✓	✓	✗[b]	✗	✓	✗
1977	Voegelin & Voegelin	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
2002	Kulonen	✗	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓
2002	Michalove	✗	✗	✓	✓		✗
2007	Häkkinen	✗	✗[c]	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗[c]
2007	Lehtinen	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
2007	Salminen	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗
2009	Janhunen	✓	✗[d]	✗	✓	✓	✗	✗?

^{a. Hajdú describes the Ugric and Volgaic groups as areal units.}

^{b. Austerlitz accepts narrower-than-traditional Finno-Ugric and Finno-Permic groups that exclude Sámi}

^{c. Häkkinen groups Hungarian, Ob-Ugric and Samoyed into a Ugro-Samoyed branch, and groups Balto-Finnic, Sámi and Mordvin into a Finno-Mordvin branch}

^{d. Janhunen accepts a reduced Ugric branch, called 'Mansic', that includes Hungarian and Mansi}

Little explicit evidence has however been presented in favour of Donner's model since his original proposal, and numerous alternate schemes have been proposed. Especially in Finland, there has been a growing tendency to reject the Finno-Ugric intermediate protolanguage.A recent competing proposal instead unites Ugric and Samoyedic in an "East Uralic" group for which shared innovations can be noted.

The Finno-Permic grouping still holds some support, though the arrangement of its subgroups is a matter of some dispute. Mordvinic is commonly seen as particularly closely related to or part of Finno-Samic.The termVolgaic(orVolga-Finnic) was used to denote a branch previously believed to include Mari, Mordvinic and a number of the extinct languages, but it is now obsoleteand considered a geographic classification rather than a linguistic one.

Within Ugric, uniting Mansi with Hungarian rather than Khanty has been a competing hypothesis to Ob-Ugric.

Lexical isoglosses

Lexicostatisticshas been used in defense of the traditional family tree. A recent re-evaluation of the evidencehowever fails to find support for Finno-Ugric and Ugric, suggesting four lexically distinct branches (Finno-Permic, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic).

One alternative proposal for a family tree, with emphasis on the development of numerals, is as follows:

• Uralic (*kektä"2",*wixti"5" / "10" )
  • Samoyedic (*op "1", *ketä "2", *näkur "3", *tettə "4", *səmpəleŋkə "5", *məktut "6", *sejtwə "7", *wiət "10" )
  • Finno-Ugric (*üki/*ükti"1",*kormi"3",*ńeljä"4",*wiiti"5",*kuuti"6",*luki"10" )
    • Mansic
      • Mansi
      • Hungarian (hét"7"; replacementegy"1" )
    • Finno-Khantic (reshaping *kolmi "3" on the analogy of "4" )
      • Khanty
      • Finno-Permic (reshaping *kektä > *kakta)
        • Permic
        • Finno-Volgaic (*śećem "7" )
          • Mari
          • Finno-Saamic (*kakteksa, *ükteksa "8, 9" )
            • Saamic
            • Finno-Mordvinic (replacement *kümmen "10" (*luki- "to count", "to read out" ))
              • Mordvinic
              • Finnic

Phonological isoglosses

Another proposed tree, more divergent from the standard, focusing on consonant isoglosses (which does not consider the position of the Samoyedic languages) is presented by Viitso (1997),and refined in Viitso (2000):

• Finno-Ugric
  • Saamic–Fennic (consonant gradation)
    • Saamic
    • Fennic
  • Eastern Finno-Ugric
    • Mordva
    • (node)
      • Mari
      • Permian–Ugric (*δ > *l)
        • Permian
        • Ugric (*s *š *ś > *ɬ *ɬ *s)
          • Hungarian
          • Khanty
          • Mansi

The grouping of the four bottom-level branches remains to some degree open to interpretation, with competing models of Finno-Saamic vs. Eastern Finno-Ugric (Mari, Mordvinic, Permic-Ugric; *k > ɣ between vowels, degemination of stops) and Finno-Volgaic (Finno-Saamic, Mari, Mordvinic; *δʲ > *ð between vowels) vs. Permic-Ugric. Viitso finds no evidence for a Finno-Permic grouping.

Extending this approach to cover the Samoyedic languages suggests affinity with Ugric, resulting in the aforementioned East Uralic grouping, as it also shares the same sibilant developments. A further non-trivial Ugric-Samoyedic isogloss is the reduction *k, *x, *w > ɣ when before *i, and after a vowel (cf. *k > ɣ above), or adjacent to *t, *s, *š, or *ś.

Finno-Ugric consonant developments after Viitso (2000); Samoyedic changes after Sammallahti (1988)

		Saamic	Finnic	Mordvinic	Mari	Permic	Hungarian	Mansi	Khanty	Samoyedic
Medial lenition of*k		no	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Medial lenition of*p,*t		no	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	no	no	no
Degemination		no	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Consonant gradation		yes	yes	no	no	no	no	no	no	yes*
Development of	*δ	*ð	*t	*t	∅	*l	l	*l	*l	*r
	*δʲ				*t, ∅	*lʲ	ɟ ❬gy❭, j	*lʲ	*j	*j
	*s	*s	*s	*s, z	*s, z	*s, z	∅	*t	*ɬ	*t
	*š		*h	*š, ž	*š, ž	*š, ž
	*ś	*č	*s	*ś, ź		*ś, ź	s ❬sz❭	*s, š	*s	*s
	*ć		*c			*ć, ź	č ❬cs❭		*ć
	*č	*c	*t	*č	*č	*č, ž	š ❬s❭	*š	*č̣	*č

• *Only present inNganasan.
• Note: Proto-Uralic *ś becomes Proto-Sámi *č unless before a consonant, where it becomes *š, which, in the western Sámi languages, is vocalized to *j before a stop.
• Note: Proto-Mari *s and *š in only reliably stay distinct in the Malmyž dialect of Eastern Mari. Elsewhere, *s usually becomes *š.
• Note: Proto-Khanty *ɬ in many of the dialects yields *t; Häkkinen assumes this also happened in Mansi and Samoyedic.

The inverse relationship between consonant gradation and medial lenition of stops (the pattern also continuing within the three families where gradationisfound) is noted byHelimski(1995): an original allophonic gradation system between voiceless and voiced stops would have been easily disrupted by a spreading of voicing to previously unvoiced stops as well.

Honkola, et al. (2013)

Acomputational phylogeneticstudy by Honkola, et al. (2013)classifies the Uralic languages as follows.Estimated divergence datesfrom Honkola, et al. (2013) are also given.

• Uralic(5300YBP)
  • Samoyedic
  • Finno-Ugric(3900YBP)
    • Ugric(3300 YBP)
      • Hungarian
      • Ob-Ugric(1900 YBP)
        • Khanty
        • Mansi
    • Finno-Permic(3700 YBP)
      • Permian
        • Udmurt
        • Komi
      • Finno-Volgaic
        • Mari(3200 YBP)
        • (core branch)
          • Erzya(2900 YBP) (Mordvinic)
          • Finno-Samic
            • Sámi(800 YBP)
            • Finnic(1200 YBP)

Typology

Structural characteristics generally said to be typical of Uralic languages include:

Grammar

• extensive use of independentsuffixes(agglutination)
• a large set ofgrammatical casesmarked with agglutinative suffixes (13–14 cases on average; mainly later developments: Proto-Uralic is reconstructed with 6 cases), e.g.:
  • Erzya: 12 cases
  • Estonian: 14 cases (15 cases with instructive)
  • Finnish: 15 cases
  • Hungarian: 18 cases (together 34 grammatical cases and case-like suffixes)
  • Inari Sámi: 9 cases
  • Komi: in certain dialects as many as 27 cases
  • Moksha: 13 cases
  • Nenets: 7 cases
  • Northern Sámi: 6 cases
  • Udmurt: 16 cases
  • Veps: 24 cases
  • Northern Mansi: 6 cases
  • Eastern Mansi: 8 cases
• unique Uralic case system, from which all modern Uralic languages derive their case systems.
  • nominative singular has no case suffix.
  • accusative and genitive suffixes arenasal consonants(-n,-m,etc.)
  • three-way distinction in the local case system, with each set of local cases being divided into forms corresponding roughly to "from", "to", and "in/at"; especially evident, e.g. in Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian, which have several sets of local cases, such as the "inner", "outer" and "on top" systems in Hungarian, while in Finnish the "on top" forms have merged to the "outer" forms.
  • the Uralic locative suffix exists in all Uralic languages in various cases, e.g. Hungariansuperessive,Finnishessive(-na), Northern Sámiessive,Erzyaninessive,and Nenetslocative.
  • the Uraliclativesuffix exists in various cases in many Uralic languages, e.g. Hungarianillative,Finnishlative(-sas inulos'out' andrannemmas'more towards the shore'), Erzyanillative,Komiapproximative,and Northern Sámilocative.
• a lack ofgrammatical gender,including one pronoun for bothheandshe;for example,hänin Finnish,tämäin Votic,tämāorta(short form for tämā) in Livonian,temaorta(short form for tema) in Estonian,сійӧ([sijɘ]) in Komi,őin Hungarian.
• negative verb,which exists in many Uralic languages (notably absent in Hungarian)
• use of postpositions as opposed to prepositions (prepositions are uncommon).
• possessive suffixes
  • thegenitiveis also used to express possession in some languages, e.g.Estonianmu koer,colloquial Finnishmun koira,Northern Sámimu beana'my dog' (literally 'dog of me'). Separatepossessive adjectivesandpossessive pronouns,such asmyandyour,are rare.
• dual,in the Samoyedic, Ob-Ugric and Sámi languages and reconstructed for Proto-Uralic
• pluralmarkers -j (i) and -t (-d, -q) have a common origin (e.g. in Finnish, Estonian, Võro, Erzya, Sámi languages, Samoyedic languages). Hungarian, however, has -i- before the possessive suffixes and -k elsewhere. The plural marker -k is also used in the Sámi languages, but there is a regular merging of final -k and -t in Sámi, so it can come from either ending.
• Possessions are expressed by a possessor in the adessive or dative case, the verb "be" (thecopula,instead of the verb "have" ) and the possessed with or without a possessive suffix. The grammatical subject of the sentence is thus the possessed. In Finnish, for example, the possessor is in theadessive case:"Minulla on kala", literally "At me is fish", i.e. "I have a fish", whereas in Hungarian, the possessor is in thedative case,but appears overtly only if it is contrastive, while the possessed has a possessive ending indicating the number and person of the possessor: "(Nekem) van egy halam", literally "(To me [dative]) is a fish-my" ( "(For me) there is a fish of mine" ), i.e. "(As for me,) I have a fish".
• expressions that include anumeralare singular if they refer to things which form a single group, e.g. "négy csomó" in Hungarian, "njeallje čuolmma" in Northern Sámi, "neli sõlme" in Estonian, and "neljä solmua" in Finnish, each of which means "four knots", but the literal approximation is "four knot". (This approximation is accurate only for Hungarian among these examples, as in Northern Sámi the noun is in the singularaccusative/genitivecase and in Finnish and Estonian the singular noun is in thepartitivecase, such that the number points to a part of a larger mass, like "four of knot(s)".)

Phonology

• Vowel harmony:this is present in many but by no means all Uralic languages. It exists in Hungarian and variousBaltic-Finniclanguages, and is present to some degree elsewhere, such as in Mordvinic, Mari, Eastern Khanty, and Samoyedic. It is lacking in Sámi,Permic,Selkupandstandard Estonian,while it does exist inVõroand elsewhere inSouth Estonian,as well as inKihnu Islandsubdialect of North Estonian.(Althoughdouble dot diacriticsare used in writing Uralic languages, the languages do not exhibitGermanic umlaut,a different type of vowelassimilation.)
• Large vowel inventories. For example, someSelkupvarieties have over twenty differentmonophthongs,andEstonianhas over twenty differentdiphthongs.
• Palatalizationof consonants; in this context, palatalization means a secondary articulation, where the middle of the tongue is tense. For example, pairs like[ɲ]– [n], or [c] – [t] are contrasted in Hungarian, as inhattyú[hɒcːuː]"swan". Some Sámi languages, for exampleSkolt Sámi,distinguish three degrees: plain⟨l⟩[l], palatalized⟨'l⟩[lʲ],and palatal⟨lj⟩[ʎ],where⟨'l⟩has a primary alveolar articulation, while⟨lj⟩has a primary palatal articulation. Original Uralic palatalization is phonemic, independent of the following vowel and traceable to the millennia-oldProto-Uralic.It is different from Slavic palatalization, which is of more recent origin. TheFinnic languageshave lost palatalization, but several of them have reacquired it, so Finnic palatalization (where extant) was originally dependent on the following vowel and does not correlate to palatalization elsewhere in Uralic.
• Lack of phonologically contrastivetone.
• In many Uralic languages, the stress is always on the first syllable, though Nganasan shows (essentially) penultimate stress, and a number of languages of the central region (Erzya, Mari, Udmurt and Komi-Permyak) synchronically exhibit a lexical accent. The Erzya language can vary its stress in words to give specific nuances to sentential meaning.

Lexicography

Basic vocabulary of about 200 words, including body parts (e.g. eye, heart, head, foot, mouth), family members (e.g. father, mother-in-law), animals (e.g. viper, partridge, fish), nature objects (e.g. tree, stone, nest, water), basic verbs (e.g. live, fall, run, make, see, suck, go, die, swim, know), basic pronouns (e.g. who, what, we, you, I), numerals (e.g. two, five); derivatives increase the number of common words.

Selected cognates

The following is a very brief selection of cognates in basic vocabulary across the Uralic family, which may serve to give an idea of the sound changes involved. This is not a list of translations: cognates have a common origin, but their meaning may be shifted and loanwords may have replaced them.

English	Proto-Uralic	Finnic			Sámi			Mordvin	Mari	Permic		Hungarian	Mansi			Khanty		Samoyed
		Finnish	Estonian	Võro	Southern Sámi	Northern Sámi	Kildin	Erzya	Meadow	Komi	Udmurt		Northern	Eastern	Southern	Kazym	Vakh	Tundra Nenets
'fire'	*tule	tuli (tule-)	tuli (tule-)	tuli (tulõ-)	dålle [tolːə]	dolla	то̄лл [toːlː]	тол [tol]	тул [tul]	тыв (тыл-) [tɯʋ]([tɯl-])	тыл [tɯl]	tűz	-	тав, тов	(täuˈt)	тўт	tez	ту [tu]
'water'	*wete	vesi (vete-)	vesi (vee-)	vesi (vii-)	–	–	–	ведь [vedʲ]	вӱд [βyd]	ва [ʋa]	ву [ʋu]	víz	вит [βit]	вить	(üt́)	–	–	иˮ [jiʔ]
'ice'	*jäŋe	jää	jää	ijä	jïenge [jɨeŋə]	jiekŋa	ӣӈӈ [jiːŋː]	эй [ej]	и [i]	йи [ji]	йӧ [jɘ]	jég	я̄ӈк [jaːŋk]	янгк	(ľɑ̄ŋ)/(ľäŋ)	йєӈк	jeŋk	–
'fish'	*kala	kala	kala	kala	guelie [kʉelie]	guolli	кӯлль [kuːlʲː]	кал [kal]	кол [kol]	–	–	hal	хӯл [xuːl]	хул	(kho̰l)	хўԓ	kul	халя [hʌlʲɐ]
'nest'	*pesä	pesä	pesa	pesä	biesie [piesie]	beassi	пе̄ссь [pʲi͜esʲː~pʲeːsʲː]	пизэ [pize]	пыжаш [pəʒaʃ]	поз [poz]	пуз [puz]	fészek	пити [pitʲi]	пить аня	(pit́ī)	–	pĕl	пидя [pʲidʲɐ]
'hand, arm'	*käte	käsi (käte-)	käsi (käe-)	käsi (käe-)	gïete [kɨedə]	giehta	кӣдт [kʲiːd̥ː]	кедь [kedʲ]	кид [kid]	ки [ki]	ки [ki]	kéz	ка̄т [kaːt]	кат, коат	(kät)	–	köt	–
'eye'	*śilmä	silmä	silm (silma-)	silm (silmä-)	tjelmie [t͡ʃɛlmie]	čalbmi	чалльм [t͡ʃalʲːm]	сельме [sʲelʲme]	шинча [ʃint͡ɕa]	син (синм-) [ɕin]([ɕinm-]	син (синм-) [ɕin]([ɕinm-]	szem	сам [sam]	сам	(šøm)	сєм	sem	сэв [sæw(ə̥)]
'fathom'	*süle	syli (syle-)	süli (süle-)	–	sïlle [sʲɨllə]	salla	сэ̄лл [sɛːlː]	сэль [selʲ]	шӱлӧ [ʃylø]	сыв (сыл-) [sɯʋ]([sɯl-]	сул [sul]	öl(el)	тал [tal]	тал	(täl)	ԓăԓ	lö̆l	тибя [tʲibʲɐ]
'vein / sinew'	*sëne	suoni (suone-)	soon (soone-)	suuń (soonõ-)	soene [suonə]	suotna	сӯнн [suːnː]	сан [san]	шӱн [ʃyn]	сӧн [sɘn]	сӧн [sɘn]	ín	та̄н [taːn]	тан	(tɛ̮̄n)/(tǟn)	ԓон	lan	тэʼ [tɤʔ]
'bone'	*luwe	luu	luu	luu	–	–	–	ловажа [lovaʒa]	лу [lu]	лы [lɯ]	лы [lɯ]	–	лув [luβ]	ласм (?)	(täuˈt)	ԓўв	lŏγ	лы [lɨ]
'blood'	*were	veri	veri	veri	vïrre [vʲɨrrə]	varra	вэ̄рр [vɛːrː]	верь [verʲ]	вӱр [βyr]	вир [ʋir]	вир [ʋir]	vér	-	выр (?)	(ūr)	вўр	wər	–
'liver'	*mëksa	maksa	maks (maksa-)	mass (massa-)	mueksie [mʉeksie]	–	–	максо [makso]	мокш [mokʃ]	мус (муск-) [mus]([musk-]	мус (муск-) [mus]([musk-]	máj	ма̄йт [maːjt]	мяйт	(majət)	мухәԓ	muγəl	мыд [mɨd(ə̥)]
'urine' / 'to urinate'	*kuńśe	kusi (kuse-)	kusi (kuse-)	kusi (kusõ-)	gadtjedh (gadtje-) [kɑdd͡ʒə]-	gožžat (gožža-)	коннч [koɲːt͡ʃ]	–	кыж [kəʒ]	кудз [kud͡ʑ]	кызь [kɯʑ]	húgy	хуньсь [xunʲɕ]	хос-вить	(kho̰ś-üt́)	(xŏs-)	kŏs-	–
'to go'	*mene-	mennä (men-)	minema (min-)	minemä (min-)	mïnnedh [mʲɨnnə]-	mannat	мэ̄ннэ [mɛːnːɛ]	–	мияш (мий-) [mijaʃ]([mij-])	мунны (мун-) [munnɯ]([mun-])	мыныны (мын-) [mɯnɯnɯ]([mɯn-])	menni	минуӈкве [minuŋkʷe]	мыных	(mińo̰ŋ)	мăнты	mĕn-	минзь (мин-) [mʲinzʲ(ə̥)]([mʲin-])
'to live'	*elä-	elää (elä-)	elama (ela-)	elämä (elä-)	jieledh [jielə]	eallit	е̄лле [ji͜elʲːe~jeːlʲːe]	–	илаш (ила-) [ilaʃ]([il-])	овны (ол-) [oʋnɯ]([ol-])	улыны (ул-) [ulɯnɯ]([ul-])	élni	ялтуӈкве [jaltuŋkʷe]	ялтых	(ilto̰ŋ)	–	–	илесь (иль-) [jilʲesʲ(ə̥)]([jilʲ-])
'to die'	*kale-	kuolla (kuol-)	koolma (kool-)	kuulma (kool-)	–	–	–	куломс (кул-) [kuloms]([kul-])	колаш (кол-) [kolaʃ]([kol-])	кувны (кул-) [kuʋnɯ]([kul-])	кулыны (кул-) [kulɯnɯ]([kul-])	halni	-	-	(khåləŋ)	хăԓты	kăla-	хась (ха-) [hʌsʲ(ə̥)]([hʌ-])
'to wash'	*mośke-	–	–	mõskma (mõsk-)	–	–	–	муськемс (муськ-) [musʲkems]([musʲk-])	мушкаш (мушк-) [muʃkaʃ]([muʃk-])	мыськыны (мыськ-) [mɯɕkɯnɯ]([mɯɕk-])	миськыны (миськ-) [miɕkɯnɯ]([miɕk-])	mosni	–	-	-	–	–	масась (мас-) [mʌsəsʲ(ə̥)]([mʌs-])

Orthographical notes: The hacek denotes postalveolar articulation (⟨ž⟩[ʒ],⟨š⟩[ʃ],⟨č⟩[t͡ʃ]) (In Northern Sámi, (⟨ž⟩[dʒ]), while the acute denotes a secondary palatal articulation (⟨ś⟩[sʲ~ɕ],⟨ć⟩[tsʲ~tɕ],⟨l⟩[lʲ]) or, in Hungarian, vowel length. The Finnish letter⟨y⟩and the letter⟨ü⟩in other languages represent the high rounded vowel[y];the letters⟨ä⟩and⟨ö⟩are the front vowels[æ]and[ø].

As is apparent from the list, Finnish is the most conservative of the Uralic languages presented here, with nearly half the words on the list above identical to their Proto-Uralic reconstructions and most of the remainder only having minor changes, such as the conflation of *ś into /s/, or widespread changes such as the loss of *x and alteration of *ï. Finnish has also preserved old Indo-European borrowings relatively unchanged. (An example isporsas( "pig" ), loaned fromProto-Indo-European*porḱosor pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian*porśos,unchanged since loaning save for loss ofpalatalization,*ś > s.)

Mutual intelligibility

The Estonian philologistMall Hellamproposed cognate sentences that she asserted to be mutually intelligible among the three most widely spoken Uralic languages: Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian:

• Estonian:Elav kala ujub vee all.
• Finnish:Elävä kala ui veden alla.
• Hungarian:(Egy) élő hal úszik a víz alatt.
• English:A living fish swims underwater.

However, linguistGeoffrey Pullumreports that neither Finns nor Hungarians could understand the other language's version of the sentence.

Comparison

No Uralic language has exactly the idealized typological profile of the family. Typological features with varying presence among the modern Uralic language groups include:

Feature	Samoyedic	Ob-Ugric	Hungarian	Permic	Mari	Mordvin	Finnic	Sámi
Palatalization	+	+	+	+	−	+	−	+
Consonant length	−	−	+	−	−	−	+	+
Consonant gradation	−1	−	−	−	−	−	+	+
Vowel harmony	−2	−2	+	−	+	+	+3	−
Grammatical vowel alternation (ablautorumlaut)	+	+	−	−	−	−	−4	+
Dual number	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	+
Distinction between inner and outer local cases	−	−	+	+	+	+	+	−
Determinative inflection (verbal marking ofdefiniteness)	+	+	+	−	−	+	−	−
Passive voice	−	+	+	−	−	+	+	+
Negative verb	+	−	−	+	+	±	+	+
SVOword order	−	−	−	±5	−	+	+	+

Notes:

1. Clearly present only inNganasan.
2. Vowel harmony is present in the Uralic languages of Siberia only in some marginal archaic varieties:Nganasan,Southern MansiandEastern Khanty.
3. Only recently lost in modern Estonian
4. A number of umlaut processes are found inLivonian.
5. InKomi,but not inUdmurt.

Proposed relations with other language families

Many relationships between Uralic and other language families have been suggested, but none of these is generally accepted by linguists at the present time: All of the following hypotheses are minority views at the present time in Uralic studies.

Uralic-Yukaghir

Main article:Uralic–Yukaghir languages

TheUralic–Yukaghirhypothesis identifies Uralic andYukaghiras independent members of a single language family. It is currently widely accepted that the similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir languages are due to ancient contacts.Regardless, the hypothesis is accepted by a few linguists and viewed as attractive by a somewhat larger number.

Eskimo-Uralic

Main article:Eskimo–Uralic languages

TheEskimo–Uralichypothesis associates Uralic with theEskimo–Aleut languages.This is an old thesis whose antecedents go back to the 18th century. An important restatement of it was made byBergsland(1959).

Uralo-Siberian

Main article:Uralo-Siberian languages

Uralo-Siberianis an expanded form of the Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis. It associates Uralic with Yukaghir,Chukotko-Kamchatkan,and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded byMichael Fortescuein 1998.Michael Fortescue (2017) presented new evidence in favor for a connection between Uralic and other Paleo-Siberian languages.

Ural-Altaic

Main article:Ural–Altaic languages

Theories proposing a close relationship with theAltaic languageswere formerly popular, based on similarities in vocabulary as well as in grammatical and phonological features, in particular the similarities in the Uralic and Altaic pronouns and the presence ofagglutinationin both sets of languages, as well asvowel harmonyin some. For example, the word for "language" is similar inEstonian(keel) andMongolian(хэл(hel)). These theories are now generally rejectedand most such similarities are attributed tolanguage contactor coincidence.

Indo-Uralic

Main article:Indo-Uralic languages

TheIndo-Uralic(or "Indo-Euralic" ) hypothesis suggests that Uralic andIndo-Europeanare related at a fairly close level or, in its stronger form, that they are more closely related than either is to any other language family.

Uralo-Dravidian

The hypothesis that theDravidian languagesdisplay similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the past,is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of scholars, includingRobert Caldwell,Thomas Burrow,Kamil Zvelebil,and Mikhail Andronov.This hypothesis has, however, been rejected by some specialists in Uralic languages,and has in recent times also been criticised by other Dravidian linguists, such asBhadriraju Krishnamurti.Stefan Georgdescribes the theory as "outlandish" and "not meriting a second look" even in contrast to hypotheses such as Uralo-Yukaghir or Indo-Uralic.

Nostratic

Main article:Nostratic languages

Nostraticassociates Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic, Dravidian, Afroasiatic, and various other language families of Asia. The Nostratic hypothesis was first propounded byHolger Pedersenin 1903and subsequently revived byVladislav Illich-SvitychandAharon Dolgopolskyin the 1960s.

Eurasiatic

Main article:Eurasiatic languages

Eurasiaticresembles Nostratic in including Uralic, Indo-European, and Altaic, but differs from it in excluding the South Caucasian languages, Dravidian, and Afroasiatic and including Chukotko-Kamchatkan,Nivkh,Ainu,and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded byJoseph Greenbergin 2000–2002.Similar ideas had earlier been expressed by Heinrich Koppelmann in 1933 and byBjörn Collinderin 1965.

Uralic skepticism

The linguist Angela Marcantonio has argued against the validity of several subgroups of the Uralic family, as well against the family itself, claiming that many of the languages are no more closely related to each other than they are to various other Eurasian languages (e.g. Yukaghir or Turkic), and that in particular Hungarian is a language isolate.

Marcantonio's proposal has been strongly dismissed by most reviewers as unfounded and methodologically flawed.Problems identified by reviewers include:

• Misrepresentation of the amount of comparative evidence behind the Uralic family, by arbitrarily ignoring data and mis-counting the number of examples known of various regular sound correspondences
• After arguing against the proposal of a Ugric subgroup within Uralic, claiming that this would constitute evidence that Hungarian and the Ob-Ugric languages have no relationship at all
• Excessive focus on criticizing the work of early pioneer studies on the Uralic family, while ignoring newer, more detailed work published in the 20th century
• Criticizing the evidence for the Uralic family as unsystematic and statistically insignificant, yet freely proposing alternate relationships based on even scarcer and even less systematic evidence.

Other comparisons

Various unorthodox comparisons have been advanced. These are considered at best spurious fringe-theories by specialists:

• Finno-Basque
• Hungarian-Etruscan
• Sino-Uralic languages
• Cal-Ugrian theory
• Dené-Finnish (Sino-Tibetan,Na-Denéand Uralic)
• Minoan-Uralic
• Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins

Comparison

Article 1 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights(in English):All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Comparison of the text in prominent Uralic languages:

• Finnish:Kaikki ihmiset syntyvät vapaina ja tasavertaisina arvoltaan ja oikeuksiltaan. Heille on annettu järki ja omatunto, ja heidän on toimittava toisiaan kohtaan veljeyden hengessä.
• Livvi:Kai rahvas roittahes vällinny da taza-arvozinnu omas arvos da oigevuksis. Jogahizele heis on annettu mieli da omatundo da heil vältämättäh pidäy olla keskenäh, kui vellil.
• Veps:Kaik mehed sünduba joudajin i kohtaižin, ühtejiččin ičeze arvokahudes i oiktusiš. Heile om anttud mel’ i huiktusentund i heile tariž kožuda toine toiženke kut vel’l’kundad.
• Estonian:Kõik inimesed sünnivad vabadena ja võrdsetena oma väärikuselt ja õigustelt. Neile on antud mõistus ja südametunnistus ja nende suhtumist üksteisesse peab kandma vendluse vaim.
• Livonian:Amād rovzt attõ sindõnd brīd ja īdlizt eņtš vǟrtitõks ja õigiztõks. Näntõn um andtõd mūoštõks ja sidāmtundimi, ja näntõn um īdtuoisõ tuoimõmõst veļkub vaimsõ.
• Northern Sami:Buot olbmot leat riegádan friddjan ja olmmošárvvu ja olmmošvuoigatvuođaid dáfus. Sii leat jierbmalaš olbmot geain lea oamedovdu ja sii gálggaše leat dego vieljačagat.
• Erzya:Весе ломантне чачить олякс ды правасост весе вейкетекс. Сынст улить превест-чарьксчист ды визькстэ чарькодемаст, вейке-вейкень коряс прясь тенст ветяма братонь ёжо марто.,romanized:Veśe lomańt́ńe čačit́ oĺaks di pravasost veśe vejket́eks. Sinst uĺit́ pŕevest-čaŕksčist di viźkste čaŕkod́emast, vejke-vejkeń koŕas pŕaś t́eńst vet́ama bratoń jožo marto.
• Komi-Permyak:Быдӧс отирыс чужӧны вольнӧйезӧн да ӧткоддезӧн достоинствоын да правоэзын. Нылӧ сетӧм мывкыд да совесть овны ӧтамӧдныскӧт кыдз воннэзлӧ.,romanized:Bydös oťirys ćužöny voľnöjjezön da ötkoďďezön dostoinstvoyn da pravoezyn. Nylö śetöm myvkyd da sovesť ovny ötamödnysköt kydź vonnezlö.
• Nenets:Ет хибяри ненэць соямарианта хуркари правада тнява, ӈобой ненэця ниду нись токалба, ӈыбтамба илевату тара.,romanized:Jet° x́ibaŕi ńeneć° sojamaŕianta xurkaŕi pravada tńawa, ŋoboj° ńeneća ńidu ńiś° tokalba, ŋibtamba iľewatu tara.,lit. 'Each person is born with all the rights, one person to another one should relate similarly.'
• Hungarian:Minden emberi lény szabadon születik és egyenlő méltósága és joga van. Az emberek, ésszel és lelkiismerettel bírván, egymással szemben testvéri szellemben kell hogy viseltessenek.

Comparison of the text in other Uralic languages:

• NorthernMansi:Ма̄ янытыл о̄лнэ мир пуссын аквхольт самын патэ̄гыт, аквтēм вос о̄лэ̄гыт, аквтēм нё̄тмил вос кинсэ̄гыт. Та̄н пуӈк о̄ньщēгыт, номсуӈкве вēрмēгыт, э̄сырма о̄ньщэ̄гыт, халанылт ягпыгыӈыщ-яга̄гиӈыщ вос о̄лэ̄гыт.,romanized:Mā ânytyl ōlnè mir pussyn akvholʹt samyn patè̄gyt, akvtēm vos ōlè̄gyt, akvtēm në̄tmil vos kinsè̄gyt. Tān puňk ōnʹsēgyt, nomsuňkve vērmēgyt, è̄syrma ōnʹsʹè̄gyt, halanylt âgpygyňysʹ-âgāgiňysʹ vos ōlè̄gyt.
• NorthernKhanty:Хуԯыева мирӑт вәԯьня па имуртӑн вәԯты щира сєма питԯӑт. Ԯыв нумсаңӑт па ԯывеԯа еԯєм атум ут вєрты па кўтэԯн ԯыв ԯәхсӑңа вәԯԯӑт.,romanized:Xułyewa mirăt wəł’nâ pa imurtăn wəłty ŝira sêma pitłăt. Ływ numsan̦ăt pa ływeła ełêm atum ut wêrty pa kŭtèłn ływ łəxsăn̦a wəłłăt.

See also

• List of Uralic languages

References

• Abondolo, Daniel M. (editor). 1998.The Uralic Languages.London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-08198-X.
• Aikio, Ante(24 March 2022)."Chapter 1: Proto-Uralic".In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne; Laakso, Johanna; Skribnik, Elena (eds.).The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages.Oxford University Press.ISBN9780198767664.
• Collinder, Björn. 1955.Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary: An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages.(Collective work.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Viksell. (Second, revised edition: Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1977.)
• Collinder, Björn. 1957.Survey of the Uralic Languages.Stockholm.
• Collinder, Björn. 1960.Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
• Comrie, Bernhard. 1988. "General Features of the Uralic Languages." InThe Uralic Languages,edited by Denis Sinor, pp. 451–477. Leiden: Brill.
• Décsy, Gyula. 1990.The Uralic Protolanguage: A Comprehensive Reconstruction.Bloomington, Indiana.
• Hajdu, Péter. 1963.Finnugor népek és nyelvek.Budapest: Gondolat kiadó.
• Helimski, Eugene.Comparative Linguistics, Uralic Studies. Lectures and Articles.Moscow. 2000. (Russian:Хелимский Е.А. Компаративистика, уралистика. Лекции и статьи. М., 2000.)
• Laakso, Johanna.1992.Uralilaiset kansat('Uralic Peoples'). Porvoo – Helsinki – Juva.ISBN951-0-16485-2.
• Korhonen, Mikko (1986).Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918.Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.ISBN951-653-135-0..
• Napolskikh, Vladimir.The First Stages of Origin of People of Uralic Language Family: Material of Mythological Reconstruction. Moscow, 1991. (Russian:Напольских В. В. Древнейшие этапы происхождения народов уральской языковой семьи: данные мифологической реконструкции. М., 1991.)
• Rédei, Károly (editor). 1986–88.Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch('Uralic Etymological Dictionary'). Budapest.
• Wickman, Bo (1988). "The History of Uralic Linguistics". In Sinor, Denis (ed.).The Uralic Languages: Description, History, and Foreign Influences.Leiden: Brill. pp.792–818.ISBN978-90-04-07741-6.OCLC16580570.

External classification

• Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1930.Recherches sur le vocabulaire des langues ouralo-altaïques('Research on the Vocabulary of the Uralo-Altaic Languages'). Paris.

Linguistic issues

• Künnap, A. 2000.Contact-induced Perspectives in Uralic Linguistics.LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 39. München: LINCOM Europa.ISBN3-89586-964-3.
• Wickman, Bo. 1955.The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages.Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln.

Further reading

• Preda-Balanica, Bianca Elena. "Contacts: Programme and Abstracts."University of Helsinki(2019).
• Bakró-Nagy, Marianne (2012)."The Uralic Languages".Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire(in French).90(3): 1001–1027.doi:10.3406/rbph.2012.8272.ISSN0035-0818.
• Kallio, Petri[in Norwegian Nynorsk](2015-01-01)."The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe".In Robert Mailhammer; Theo Vennemann gen. Nierfeld; Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.).The Linguistic Roots of Europe: Origin and Development of European Languages.Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European. Vol. 6. pp. 77–102.
• Holopainen, S. (2023). "The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts with Uralic". In Nikolaos Lavidas; Alexander Bergs; Elly van Gelderen; Ioanna Sitaridou (eds.).Internal and External Causes of Language Change: The Naxos Papers.Springer Nature. pp. 315–346.doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_11.ISBN9783031309762.

External links

• "Early Indo-Iranic loans in Uralic: Sounds and strata"(PDF).Martin Joachim Kümmel, Seminar for Indo-European Studies.
• Syrjänen, Kaj, Lehtinen, Jyri, Vesakoski, Outi, de Heer, Mervi, Suutari, Toni, Dunn, Michael,… Leino, Unni-Päivä. (2018). lexibank/uralex: UraLex basic vocabulary dataset (Version v1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo.doi:10.5281/zenodo.1459402