| 词条 | Draft:Classification of Uralic languages | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 释义 |
The Uralic language family comprises nine undisputed groups with no consensus classification between them. An agnostic approach treats them as separate branches.[1] All Uralic languages are thought to have descended, through independent processes of language change, from Proto-Uralic. The internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed.[2] Obsolete names are displayed in italics.
HistoryTraditional classificationA traditional in-depth classification of the Uralic languages has existed since the late 19th century, tracing back to Donner (1879)[3]. It has enjoyed frequent adaptation in whole or in part in encyclopedias, handbooks, and overviews of the Uralic family. Specialist literature in explicit favor of the model is however scarce, and numerous alternate schemes have been proposed. (See below for detailed arguments on each subgroup.) Donner's model recognized two branches of the Finno-Ugric languages: {{col-begin|width=75%}}{{col-2}}
At Donner's time, the Samoyedic languages were still poorly known. Samoyedic as a sister group to Finno-Ugric had, however, already been postulated earlier by Matthias Castrén. As the Samoyedic languages became better known in the early 20th century, and their relationship to Finno-Ugric confirmed, they were found to be quite divergent, and Castrén's assumption of an early separation was retained. 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). Donner's "Volga-Finnic" group has been widely rejected, and is often replaced with a Finnic-Samic-Mordvinic group.[4] Nodes of the traditional family tree recognized in some overview sources:
Professional reviews have however been much more skeptical of the model:
Doubts about the validity of most of the proposed higher-order branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common.[2]{{verify source}} Active genetic proposalsFinno-UgricThe Finno-Ugric grouping has enjoyed nearly universal acceptance since establishment of the separate Uralic family, and is enshrined in ISO 639-5. Abondolo (1998)[23] still reports "close to universal agreement" on the primary split having been between Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric. Regardless, little explicit evidence in its support has ever been presented. Phonologically, no unambiguous Finno-Ugric innovations have been located (contrasted with a large body of unambiguous sound changes common to all Samoyedic languages). The rise of long vowels was proposed by Sammallahti (1988) as a Finno-Ugric innovation. This change has however been later shown to be particular to Finnic, and even to have postdated certain developments particular to the group (Aikio 2012, cf. also Kallio 2012). Several of the supposed contrasts between long vowels and their supposed Proto-Uralic sources are moreover not reflected at all in the Ugric evidence (Sammallahti 1988:500). For the most part this applies to Samic and Mordvinic as well (Häkkinen 2009). Lexical evidence has been frequently cited in support of the Finno-Ugric grouping. The number of inherited vocabulary in Samoyedic is not especially high, and is reported varyingly as 150[24]. Recent studies however appear to indicate this being an artefact of research history. Aikio (2002) presents __ new Uralic etymologies reaching the Samoyedic languages, and argues that the previous low numbers only reflect the Samoyedic languages having been for long less researched than the other Uralic languages, which has led to several cognates going undetected. {{cn}} notes that a lower number of preserved Proto-Uralic vocabulary is in fact a statistically expected asymmetry: Proto-Samoyedic must be dated as considerably younger than Proto-Uralic, while very little time, if any, can have elapsed between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric levels. Similarly, some thirty languages comprise the alleged Finno-Ugric group, while the Samoyedic group only has 6-8 members. Häkkinen (2012) argues that the number is moreover not aberrantly low: by comparision, only about __ lexemes can be safely considered inherited from a Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric level in Hungarian.A different type of lexical evidence in favor of the Finno-Ugric hypothesis has been basic vocabulary. Several pan-Finno-Ugric words such as 'blood', 'marrow', 'hand', 'head', 'cloud', 'stone' lack Samoyedic cognates, as do the numerals 3, 4, 6. The numeral 5 in Finno-Ugric has a Samoyedic cognate with the meaning '10'. The position that all these numerals are post-Proto-Uralic innovations requires the implicit supposition that Proto-Uralic had a number system comprising only 'two' and 'five/ten'. This has been criticized as typologically implausible by __, Aikio (2002), … (see Honti) Other words may also be innovations in Samoyedic rather than Finno-Ugric, especially as many of the Samoyedic words show phonologically aberrant shape (Aikio). (Abondolo 1998:35: kätə kiwə pilwə ≠ (j)uta pə̈j tiə; Aikio 2002:51: kätə werə widəm jäŋə sükśə kolmə neljä kuttə ≠ utå këm kåjmå sër ërö näkur tettə məktut) A number of Indo-Iranian loanwords with a distribution covering various Finno-Ugric languages are also known. Häkkinen (1983), Kallio (2006) argue that it is not clear whether these have been adopted into a unitary Proto-Finno-Ugric, or into various slightly differentiated late Proto-Uralic dialects. Janhunen (2009) identifies two morphological innovations with a Finno-Ugric distribution:
East UralicIn contrast to the Finno-Ugric hypothesis, the East Uralic hypothesis groups Samoyedic together with its neighboring branches: Khanty, Mansi and Hungarian. Although Samoyedic has not been shown to have especial lexical affinity to the others, several phonological innovations characterizing this grouping can be instead found: (Häkkinen 2007, 2009)[25]
UgricThe Ugric hypothesis groups together Khanty, Mansi and Hungarian. The hypothesis was formed already in the early 19th century, starting from the similarity of the names "Hungary" and "Yugra".[26] Doubts on the reality of the group were raised in the mid-20th century, followed by a detailed defense by László Honti in several publications.[27][28]
Several lexical innovations common to Ugric are also known: approximately __160 lexemes shared only by the three languages, as well as __ lexemes shared by Hungarian and either Mansi or Khanty. The phonological reconstruction of common Proto-Ugric has resisted efforts. Several researchers (Abondolo 1998: 5) have suggested that any common period must have been rather brief, and {{cn}} even calls it "unreconstructible". Phonologically as well as lexically the three Ugric groups are some of the most innovative units within Uralic (Abondolo 1998: 5), which is expected to contribute to difficulties of reconstruction. Honti regardless suggests several distinct Ugric features:
Ob-UgricThe Ob-Ugric hypothesis groups together Mansi and Khanty. Areal features uniting western varieties of Khanty and northern/eastern varieties of Mansi are common. However no unambiguous phonological innovations shared by Mansi and Khanty as a whole have been found. __. Honti[27] and Viitso (199_, 200_) suggest the shortening of geminate stops as a common innovation. This change has also occurred in most other Uralic languages, including the immediate neighbors Hungarian and Samoyedic; but contrary to most other languages, in Mansi and Khanty the change has not been preceded by the voicing or spirantization of non-geminate stops. The two languages share a large amount of vocabulary not found in the other Uralic languages.[29][30] A possible common substrate has been proposed by Helimski (2000).[31] Finno-PermicFinno-Permic comprises all Uralic languages not covered by East Uralic. The group has traditionally been defined as the languages closer related to Finnish than to Hungarian, and was originally known as simply "Finnic" (a name now reserved for the closest relatives of Finnish: the Baltic-Finnish languages). No clear phonetic innovations characteristic of Finno-Permic as a whole are known[21], but a high amount of shared vocabulary within the group is apparent.[ref]incl. Michalove (2002)[/ref] Finno-VolgaicThe Finno-Volgaic group comprises all members of Finno-Permic except Permic (i.e. Samic, Finnic, Mordvinic and Mari). It was proposed by Donner (1879) on the grounds of morphological and lexical evidence, and it has largely persisted in tertiary literature. K. Häkkinen (1983) reviews the evidence and finds that after a century of later research, the evidential value of Donner's arguments has all but evaporated: for most of the innovations he lists, either parallels elsewhere in Uralic have been discovered, or their status as common inheritance rather than independent innovations has been questioned. A phonetic innovation of Finno-Volgaic distribution is *δ´ > *δ between vowels (Viitso 1997). This, however, is in Mari predated by the loss of original *δ in the same position. As lexical evidence, Janhunen (2009) lists the numerals "8" and "9", derived across the Finno-Volgaic groups from the numerals "2" and "1": Samic *kāvcē, *ëvcē; Finnic *kahdeksa, *ühdeksä; Mordvinic *kav__, *vejksə; Mari *kandekša, *ĭndekšä. Central UralicAn alternate hypothesis to Finno-Volgaic is the Central Uralic grouping, comprising Mari and Permic. Already Bereczki (1974, 1988) has noted several features shared by Mari and Permic: Blazhek (2012) and Lehtinen et al. (201_) have reported that statistical analysis of the Uralic core lexicon supports the group. West UralicIn contrast to the Volgaic hypothesis, numerous studies and overviews have supported aligning Mordvinic instead with Finnic and Samic. This hypothesis is accepted by Korhonen (1981), Grünthal (2007), Janhunen (2009). The peripheral position of Mari within Finno-Volgaic is additionally noted also by Bartens (1999)[32] and Itkonen (1997). Häkkinen (2007) notes two uniquely shared phonological innovations within the group:
The internal structure of the group is not clear. Saarikivi and Lavento (__) note that pairwise isoglosses for all three __ can be found. __ has noted that Erzya shares a slightly higher proportion of vocabulary with Finnic than Moksha does, and Häkkinen (2012) proposes an early isogloss uniting Samic with a northwestern subset of the Mordvinic dialects in particular. Finno-SamicConsonant gradation has been viewed as a Finno-Samic innovation; however, a form of consonant gradation is also found in the Samoyedic Nganasan and, to some extent, Selkup. Helimski (1995)[33] has argued that consonant gradation in Finnic and Samic should be considered a shared retention, and therefore undiagnostic for subgrouping. Samic-MordvinicSeveral innovations in the vowel system being shared by Samic and Mordvinic have been noted by Zhivlov (2014):[34]
Other proposalsIn detailed studies on Uralic classification, frequently also subgroups that have not been confirmed by other studies have been proposed.
The oldest Uralic subgrouping for which classification criteria were presented (Häkkinen 1983). Proposed by Budenz (1879)[35] on the grounds of an assumed phonetic split *n > *n, *ń. Later research has instead supported the view that this contrast was already present in Proto-Uralic and was in some positions secondarily lost in the languages called "southern" by Budenz (Finnic, Mordvinic and Mari).
Mentioned by Salminen (2002) as a __"potential" grouping.
Occasionally posited in place of Ob-Ugric, e.g. by Janhunen (2009) (as "Mansic"). A notable feature shared by these languages is the shape of the numeral 'three', with /r/ instead of a lateral consonant (Hungarian három, Northern Mansi хӯрум /xuːrəm/).[36] However, it is unknown if this represents a shared innovation or a shared retention. Janhunen proposes a retention status, though accepts the grouping regardless. Kulonen (2002)[37] also proposes that *r is original, and that languages indicating {{UPA|*l}} have gained it by analogy from the adjacent numeral *neljä 'four'.
Suggested early on by Pál Hunfalvy in the 1860s (as "Ugric"). [19] Re-suggested later by Viitso (1995, 1997, 2000) on the basis of the lenition of *k to *ɣ between vowels. The innovation extends also to Samoyedic (Aikio 2002), which Viitso's study does not cover. Viitso (1997) additionally suggests the loss of gemination of stops, though the idea is abandoned in Viitso (2000): in Mordvinic, Mari, Permic and Hungarian the change is later than the voicing of *p and *t between vowels, while in Ob-Ugric, it leads to a merger of *pp and *tt with *p and *t. The same has been noted by Honti (1983)[27], who considers loss of gemination to have occurred separately in Hungarian and Ob-Ugric.
Known areal groupsLater influences between the Uralic languages have been an important force in shaping their development after their initial differentiation, and several areal groups can be identified. Volga-Kama language areaThe languages spoken along the Volga and Kama rivers have evolved an especially remarkable number of similar features. On the Uralic side, the strongest-affected languages have been Mari and Udmurt; the other core members are the Turkic languages Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir. Mordvinic and Komi show features of this area as well. Two typical features of this area are:[38]
There is some evidence that the first of these features once extended even wider, to an ancestor of Hungarian as well. Core UralicBefore the formation of the Volga-Kama language area, it is possible to assume an earlier language area covering loosely the same territory. This would have however included in addition to Mordvinic, Mari and the Permic languages also all Ugric languages. In a number of ways, these are the most innovative members of the Uralic family, contrasting with the preservation of archaic features in Samic and Finnic on the other hand, the Samoyedic languages on the other. To this area can be assigned especially the following features affecting the general prosody of the languages:
Abondolo (1998:5) notes a number of features shared in particular by Hungarian and the Permic languages:
Ob-Ugric{{main|Ob-Ugric languages}}A high number of secondary areal developments are found in the Ob-Ugric languages, especially between the more western varieties of Khanty and the more eastern varieties of Mansi. As noted above, it has been proposed that perhaps all similarities between Mansi and Khanty may have an explanation of this kind.[38] Areal groups with tangential Uralic membersThe status of Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian as national literary languages has resulted in their shifting towards the Standard Average European language profile. In contrast, the Uralic languages of Russia show by now a considerable extent of Russification, especially Komi, the Mordvinic languages, and the more eastern Finnic languages (Karelian, Veps, Ingrian and Votic). A degree of Russian influence can be found also in Finnish, Estonian, and the Eastern Samic languages.[38] The extinct Southern Samoyedic languages Kamass and Mator showed several similarities to the Siberian Turkic languages, in particular to Khakas and Shor. Mator and the Koibal dialect of Kamass were eventually lost entirely, their speakers shifting to Turkic languages.[38] Lexical isoglossesLexicostatistics has been used in defense of the traditional family tree. A recent re-evaluation of the evidence[39] however fails to find support for Finno-Ugric and Ugric, suggesting four lexically distinct branches (Finno-Permic, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic). One alternate proposal for a family tree, with emphasis on the development of numerals, is as follows:
Phonological isoglossesAnother, more divergent from the standard, focusing on consonant isoglosses (which does not consider the position of the Samoyedic languages) is presented by Viitso (1997),[40] and refined in Viitso (2000):[41]
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; *δ́ > δ 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.[25] Abondolo (1998:5): general lenition a Mo-Ma-P-H areal Finno-Ugric consonant developments after Viitso (2000); Samoyedic changes after Sammallahti (1988)
The inverse relationship between consonant gradation and medial lenition of stops (the pattern also continuing within the three families where gradation is found) is noted by Helimski (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.[33] Obsolete groupingsA Volgaic or Volga-Finnic group, comprised of Mordvinic and Mari, has been proposed in the past, but has not been defended in decades. __ proposed the sound change *ń > *n in word-initial position only as a common innovation. The grouping has been closely scrutitinized by __, who notes that several features indicate closer or equally close affinity of Mordvinic to Finnic and Samic. Blažek (2012) shows that also the lexicostatistical evidence supports the inclusion of Mordvinic in West Uralic. The position of extinct branches
Abondolo (1998:4): association with the Finno-Volgaic area. 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.[42] Notes1. ^Salminen, Tapani, 2009. Uralic (Finno-Ugrian) languages. 2. ^1 Angela Marcantonio. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics (2002, Publications of the Philological Society 35). Pages 55-68. 3. ^{{cite book|first=Otto|last=Donner|authorlink=Otto Donner|title=Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der Finnisch-ugrischen sprachen|year=1879|location=Helsinki}} 4. ^{{cite book|first=Josef|last=Szinnyei|title=Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft|year=1910|publisher=G. J. Göschen'sche Verlagshandlung|location=Leipzig|pp=9–21}} 5. ^{{cite book|first=T. I.|last=Itkonen|title=Suomensukuiset kansat|year=1921|publisher=Tietosanakirjaosakeyhtiö|location=Helsinki|pp=7–12}} 6. ^{{cite book|first=E. N.|last=Setälä|chapter=Kielisukulaisuus ja rotu|title=Suomen suku|year=1926|publisher=Otava|location=Helsinki}} 7. ^{{cite book|first=Péter|last=Hajdú|title=Finnugor népek és nyelvek|year=1962|location=Budapest}} 8. ^{{cite book|first=Peter|last=Hajdu|title=Finno-Ugric Languages and Peoples|others=Translated by G. F. Cushing|year=1975|publisher=André Deutch Ltd.|location=London}}. English translation of Hajdú (1962). 9. ^{{cite book|first=Björn|last=Collinder|authorlink=Björn Collinder|title=An Introduction to the Uralic languages|pp=8–27|location=Berkeley / Los Angeles|publisher=University of California Press}} 10. ^{{cite book|first=Erkki|last=Itkonen|title=Suomalais-ugrilaisen kielen- ja historiantutkimuksen alalta|year=1966|series=Tietolipas|issue=20|publisher=Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura|pp=5–8}} 11. ^{{cite encyclopedia|first=Robert|last=Austerlitz|authorlink=Robert Austerlitz|chapter=L'ouralien|editor-first=André|editor-last=Martinet|editor-link=André Martinet|encyclopedia=Le langage|year=1968}} 12. ^{{cite book|first1=C. F.|first2=F. M.|last1=Voegelin|last2=Voegelin|title=Classification and Index of the World's Languages|year=1977|publisher=Elsevier|location=New York/Oxford/Amsterdam|pp=341–343}} 13. ^{{cite book|first=Mikko|last=Korhonen|title=Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan|year=1981|language=Finnish|series=Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia|issue=370|publisher=Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura|location=Helsinki|p=27}} 14. ^{{cite book|first=Ulla-Maija|last=Kulonen|chapter=Kielitiede ja suomen väestön juuret|editor-first=Riho|editor-last=Grünthal|title=Ennen, muinoin. Miten menneisyyttämme tutkitaan|year=2002|series=Tietolipas|issue=180|publisher=Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura|ISBN=951-746-332-4|pp=104–108}} 15. ^{{cite book|last=Lehtinen|first=Tapani|title=Kielen vuosituhannet |year=2007|series=Tietolipas|issue=215|publisher=Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura|isbn=978-951-746-896-1}} 16. ^{{cite journal|last=Janhunen|first=Juha|authorlink=Juha Janhunen|title=Proto-Uralic – what, where and when?|year=2009|journal=Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia|issue=258|isbn=978-952-5667-11-0|issn=0355-0230|url=http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf|format=pdf}} 17. ^{{cite encyclopedia|last=Marcantonio|first=Angela|chapter=Uralic languages|pages=1129-1133|encyclopedia=Concise Encylopedia of Languages of the World||editor1-last=Brown|editor1-first=Keith|editor2-last=Ogilvie|editor2-first=Sarah|year=2009|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-0-08-087774-7}} 18. ^{{cite book|last=Pereltsvaig|first=Asya|title=Languages of the World|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|ISBN=978-1-107-00278-4}} 19. ^1 {{cite book|last=Hájdu|first=Péter|year=1979|contribution=Über Versuche der Gruppierung der uralischen Sprachen|editor-first=Erhard F.|editor-last=Schiefer|title=Explanationes Et Tractationes Fenno-Ugricae In Honorem Hans Fromm|publisher= Wilhelm Fink Verlag|location=Munich|ISBN=3-7705-1813-6}} 20. ^{{cite journal|first=Kaisa|last=Häkkinen|title=Wäre es schon an der Zeit, den Stammbaum zu fällen?|year=1984|journal=Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Neue Folge|issue=4|pp=1–24}} 21. ^1 {{cite encyclopedia|first=Tiit-Rein|last=Viitso|title=On Classifying the Finno-Ugric Languages|encyclopedia=Congressus octavus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum|volume=1|year=1995}} 22. ^1 Salminen, Tapani (2002): Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies 23. ^The Uralic Languages (intro, p. 1) 24. ^Abondolo 1998:2 25. ^1 {{cite journal|last=Häkkinen,|first=Jaakko|year=2009|title=Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa|journal= Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja|issue=92|url=http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf}} 26. ^{{cite journal|journal=Linguistica Uralica|issue=2/2001|author1-first=Angela|author1-last=Marcantonio|author2-first=Pirjo|author2-last=Nummenaho|author3-first=Michela|author3-last=Salvagni|url=http://www.kirj.ee/public/va_lu/l37-2-1.pdf|format=PDF|title=The "Ugric-Turkic Battle": A Critical Review|accessdate=8 October 2017|year=2001}} 27. ^1 2 {{cite journal|first=László|last=Honti|title=Zur ugrischen Lautgeschichte. Beiträge zur relative Chronologie einiger Lautwandel in der ugrischen Sprachen|year=1983|journal=Acta Linguistica Hungarica|issue=33|pp=113-122|language=German}} {{cite book|first=László|last=Honti|chapter=Az ugor hangtörténethez|title=Az ugor alapnyelv kérdéséhez|year=1997|ISBN=963-463-106-1|series=Budapesti finnugor füzetek|issue=7|pp=31–39|language=Hungarian}} 28. ^{{cite book|first=László|last=Honti|chapter=Ugrilainen kantakieli – erheellinen vai reaalinen hypoteesi?|title=Oekeeta asijoo. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Seppo Suhonen sexagenarii|year=1998|series=Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia|issue=228|pp=176–187|language=Finnish}} {{cite book|first=László|last=Honti|chapter=Ugor alapnyelv: téves vagy reális hipotézis?|title=Az ugor alapnyelv kérdéséhez|year=1997|ISBN=963-463-106-1|series=Budapesti finnugor füzetek|issue=7|pp=40–61|language=Hungarian}} 29. ^{{cite journal|first=Maria|last=Sipos|title=Az obi-ugor alapnyelv lexikális innovációi I|year=2002|journal=Nyelvtudományi Közlemények|issue=99|pp=7–56|url=http://www.nytud.hu/nyk/99/sipos99.pdf|format=pdf|language=Hungarian}} 30. ^{{cite journal|first=Maria|last=Sipos|title=Az obi-ugor alapnyelv lexikális innovációi II|year=2003|journal=Nyelvtudományi Közlemények|issue=100|pp=245–263|url=http://www.nytud.hu/nyk/100/sipos100.pdf|format=pdf|language=Hungarian}} 31. ^{{cite conference|first=Eugene|last=Helimski|year=2000|title=Before the Uralians came: White spots on the historical language map of Northern Eurasia and the Uralic languages|booktitle=Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars II: Summaria acroasium in sectionibus et symposiis factarum. Linguistica.|location=Tartu|pp=72–73}} 32. ^{{cite book |title=Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys |last=Bartens |first=Raija |year=1999 |publisher=Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura |location=Helsinki |page=13 |language=Finnish |isbn=952-5150-22-4}} 33. ^1 Helimski, Eugen. Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. In Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales. Jyväskylä, 1995. 34. ^{{cite journal|first=Mikhail|last=Zhivlov|title=Studies in Uralic etymology III|year=2014|journal=Journal of Language Relationship|ISSN=1998-6769|issue=12|pp=113–148}} 35. ^{{cite book|first=József|last=Budenz|title=Über die Verzweigung der ugrischen Sprache|year=1879|location=Göttingen}} 36. ^{{cite book|first=László|last=Honti|title=Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen|year=1993|series=Bibliotheca Uralica|issue=11|publisher=Akadémiai Kiadó|location=Budapest|ISBN=963-05-6458-0|p=91}} 37. ^{{cite book|contributor-first=Ulla-Maija|contributor-last=Kulonen|year=2002|contribution=Suomalaiset ja suomalais-ugrilaiset luvut ja lukusanat|first=Graham|last=Flegg|title=Lukujen historia: Sormilla laskemisesta tietokoneisiin|pp=258–301|location=Helsinki|publisher=Art House|ISBN=951-884-335-X}} 38. ^1 2 3 {{cite journal|first=Eugene|last=Helimski|title=Areal groupings (Sprachbünde) within and across the borders of the Uralic language family: A survey|year=2003|journal=Nyelvtudományi Közlemenyek|ISSN=0029-6791|url=http://www.nytud.hu/nyk/100/helimski.pdf|accessdate=2014-10-31}} 39. ^Michalove, Peter A. (2002) The Classification of the Uralic Languages: Lexical Evidence from Finno-Ugric. In: Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, vol. 57 40. ^Viitso, Tiit-Rein. Keelesugulus ja soome-ugri keelepuu. Akadeemia 9/5 (1997) 41. ^Viitso, Tiit-Rein. Finnic Affinity. Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I:Orationes plenariae & Orationes publicae. (2000) 42. ^{{cite book |last=Helimski |first=Eugene |authorlink=Eugene Helimski |title=The Slavicization of the Russian North (Slavica Helsingiensia 27) |editor-last=Nuorluoto |editor-first=Juhani |chapter=The «Northwestern» group of Finno-Ugric languages and its heritage in the place names and substratum vocabulary of the Russian North |year=2006 |publisher=Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures |location=Helsinki |isbn=978-952-10-2852-6 |pages=109–127 |url=http://www.helsinki.fi/venaja/nwrussia/eng/Conference/pdf/Helimski.pdf }} References |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 随便看 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。