Fennougristiikan historiaa Virittäjän valossa

Artikkeli tarkastelee yhtäältä 125 vuotta täyttävän aikakauslehti Virittäjän historiaa fennougristiikan valossa, toisaalta fennougristiikan historiaa Virittäjän valossa. Päähuomio on erityisesti suomen etäsukukielten tutkimuksessa. Virittäjässäkin fennougristiikkaa ovat tyypillisimmin edustaneet konkreettiset pyrkimykset suomen ja sen sukukielten menneisyyden valaisemiseksi: keskiössä ovat olleet toisiinsa kietoutuneet etymologia ja äännehistoria sekä niiden kehyksiksi hahmotellut kantakielet eri vaiheineen ja kontaktikielineen. Tämän fennougristiikan kovan ytimen lisäksi Virittäjässä ovat kuitenkin aina olleet näkyvissä myös tieteenalan suuremmat kehykset: yhtäältä pohdinnat siitä, miksi ja miten tällaista tutkimusta harjoitetaan, toisaalta halu kertoa fennougristisen tutkimuksen tuloksista myös suurelle yleisölle. Erityisesti Suomi ja täällä etenkin Virittäjä ovat ympäristöjä, joissa suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten tutkijat ovat kerta toisensa jälkeen eksplisiittisesti pohtineet olemassaolonsa tarkoitusta. Vaikka ala mielletään usein kielihistorian tutkimukseksi, fennougristit ovat aina harjoittaneet myös synkronista kielentutkimusta; myös suomen sukukielten uhan­alaisuuteen ja vähemmistökielten puhujien oikeuksiin on kiinnitetty huomiota jo 1800-luvulta lähtien. Artikkeli keskittyy lähinnä Virittäjän ensimmäiselle vuosisadalle, mutta 2020-luvulle tultaessa fennougristiikka ja sen ilmenemismuodot Virittäjässä ovat muuttuneet lehden yleisilmeeseen verrattuna suhteellisen vähän. On the history of Uralic linguistics in Virittäjä The article provides an account of Virittäjä, the major journal of Finnish linguistics established in 1897, and its relation to the study of Uralic languages during the first 125 years of the journal’s history. At its most typical, the study of Uralic languages has been a branch of historical-comparative linguistics aiming to pursue the distant past of Finnish and other Uralic languages: etymology, historical phonology, questions of proto-languages and their chronology and geography as well as language contacts. Beyond this hard core of Uralic linguistics, Virittäjä has continuously provided a forum for discussing the larger frameworks of the discipline: questions of why and how Uralic linguistics is conducted in the first place. Virittäjä has also provided a forum for Uralicists to communicate the results of their research to scholars of Finnish and the wider general public. Moreover, Finland in general and Virittäjä in particular have traditionally been places where Uralicists have pondered and discussed the purpose of their own existence. In addition to historical linguistics, Uralicists have also engaged in synchronic linguistics, and from as early as the 19th century they have also paid attention to language endangerment and the linguistic rights of minorities. This article focuses mainly on the first century of Virittäjä’s history, though by the 2020s Uralistics and the manifestations of the discipline in the pages of Virittäjä have remained largely unchanged.

Rhotic degemination in Sanskrit and the etymology of Vedic ūrú- ‘thigh’, Hittite UZU(u)walla- ‘id.’

This paper examines the absence of geminate -rr- in Sanskrit and argues that the synchronic ban on this sequence results from continued high ranking of an Obligatory Contour Principle constraint against heteromorphemic geminates (inherited from PIE) combined with the substrate influence of Dravidian languages in which the rhotics are non-geminable. New -rr- sequences that arose in Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Aryan from PIE *-LL- or *-LHL- after loss of the laryngeal and merger of *l with the rhotic were repaired through degemination. This hypothesis predicts a development of PIE *(-)CL̥HLV- to Sanskrit (-)Cī/ūrV- which has not been previously recognized in the treatments of Indic historical phonology. This development is arguably found in mūrá- ‘stupid’ < *mūrra- < *mr̥hx-lo- (cf. Hitt. marlant- ‘stupid’), ūrú- ‘thigh’ < *u̯ūrru- < *(hx)u̯l̥hx-Lu- ← *(hx)u̯l̥hx-Lo- (cf. Hitt. walla- ‘thigh’), śīrá- ‘fervent’ < *śīrrá- < *k̑l̥hx-Ló- (cf. śrā́ya-ti ‘be fervent’), and perhaps in several other examples.

On the inflection of palatal stems in Vedic

This paper re-examines the historical phonology and morphology of the palatal-stem declension of Vedic and concludes that the phonologically regular outcome of the animate nominative singular was -ṭ, while the “bh-cases” should by regular sound change have contained a cluster *°dbh°, the former existence of which can be inferred but which was replaced by °ḍbh° (or °gbh°) under the influence of the nominative singular.

The lateralization of labio-dorsals in Hmongic

This paper provides support for Ratliff’s hypothesis of a highly unusual shift from labio-dorsal to lateral affricates in some Hmongic languages. It proposes that this shift, which results from a series of sound changes, constitutes evidence for positing a ‘Tlowic’ subgroup within Hmongic. In addition, it disproves attempts to use correspondences between Chinese labiovelars and Hmongic lateral affricates in borrowings as evidence to revise Chinese historical phonology.

On the comparative method, internal reconstruction, and other analytical tools for the reconstruction of the evolution of the Basque language: An assessment

This paper is an attempt to present the state of the art in Basque historical phonology. The accomplishments and limitations of different methodologies are evaluated. These methodologies include the application of the comparative method to Basque dialects, the analysis of old borrowings in Michelena’s work, internal reconstruction, and Lakarra’s canonical root hypothesis. I also discuss the possibilities afforded by internal reconstruction and root theory for discovering genetic relationships between Basque and other languages, focusing on recent proposals.

Contributions to a relative chronology of Persian

Old Persian shows a change of postconsonantal y, w to iy, uw, respectively. However, if one applies (pre-)Middle Persian sound changes to the Old Persian forms, the result is at variance with certain Middle Persian forms. If one were to assume a syncope reversing the Old Persian change of y, w to iy, uw, this would also affect old cases of iy, uw and likewise yield incorrect results for Middle Persian. The Old Persian change can thus not have operated in the prehistory of Middle Persian, and there is a dialectal difference between attested Old Persian and the later stages of the language, which is to be added to those already noted. The paper also discusses some sound changes that are connected to the Old Persian change in one way or the other. Cases in point are the processes called Epenthesis and Umlaut in previous scholarship, which this article suggests to interpret as occurring in different contexts and in different periods. The former is limited to Vry, which yields Vir and feeds into a monophthongisation that, as shown by some late Old Persian word forms, occurred within Achaemenid times, giving ēr and īr from ary and əry. Epenthesis did not occur in the prehistory of Parthian, whereas the monophthongisation did. The Appendix presents a tentative sequence of the processes discussed in this article, which is intended as a contribution to the relative chronology of Persian historical phonology.