Научная статья на тему 'The origin of Khanty retroflex nasal'

The origin of Khanty retroflex nasal Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

CC BY-NC-ND
222
23
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
Ключевые слова
UGRIC LANGUAGES / HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY / RETROFLEX CONSONANTS / PROTO-URALIC / УГОРСКИЕ ЯЗЫКИ / ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ФОНОЛОГИЯ / РЕТРОФЛЕКСНЫЕ СОГЛАСНЫЕ / ПРАУРАЛЬСКИЙ ЯЗЫК

Аннотация научной статьи по языкознанию и литературоведению, автор научной работы — Zhivlov Mikhail

Proto-Khanty is traditionally reconstructed with a retroflex nasal phoneme *ṇ, whose origin remains disputed. According to one theory, it is directly inherited from Proto-Uralic. The other theory holds that Proto-Uralic *n, usually preserved as *n in Khanty, sporadically yielded *ṇ. We argue that Proto-Khanty *ṇ results from a regularly conditioned sound change.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.

Текст научной работы на тему «The origin of Khanty retroflex nasal»

Mikhail A. Zhivlov

Russian State University for the Humanities; School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Russia, Moscow); zhivlov@yandex.ru

The origin of Khanty retroflex nasal *

Proto-Khanty is traditionally reconstructed with a retroflex nasal phoneme *n, whose origin remains disputed. According to one theory, it is directly inherited from Proto-Uralic. The other theory holds that Proto-Uralic *n, usually preserved as *n in Khanty, sporadically yielded *n. We argue that Proto-Khanty *n results from a regularly conditioned sound change.

Keywords: Ugric languages, historical phonology, retroflex consonants, Proto-Uralic.

1. Introduction

Khanty is unique among branches of the Uralic family in that it has a retroflex nasal phoneme /n/ (often called "cacuminal" in Uralistic literature), distinct from both alveolar /n/ and palatalized) /n/. The Proto-Khanty opposition of alveolar vs. retroflex vs. palatal(ized) nasals is reconstructed on the basis of the following correspondences:

PKh V Vj. Vart. Likr. Mj. Trj. J Irt. Ni. S Kaz. Sy. O

*n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

*n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

*n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Proto-Khanty also had a similar triple opposition in the lateral series: alveolar *l, retroflex */ and palatal(ized) *F. Together with the retroflex affricate *c (usually transcribed as *c), inherited from Proto-Uralic, *n and *l form part of a tightly integrated consonant system of Proto-Khanty:

labial alveolar retroflex palatal(ized) velar

stops P t k

affricates с с

sibilant fricative s

lateral fricative л

nasals m n n n

lateral approximants l 1 1'

trill r

glides w j Y

Each of the five places of articulation could also be used to form homorganic clusters of nasals and stops (or affricates): *mp, *nt, *nc, *nc, *r/k (Honti 1999: 105). Unlike most other clus-

* I am grateful to Anna Dybo for comments that have helped to improve this paper. Any remaining mistakes are my own responsibility.

Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 14/4 (2016) • Pp. 293—302 • © The authors, 2016

ters, these homorganic clusters could never be broken up by epenthetic schwa (Nikolaeva 2000). Proto-Khanty had a morphophonological rule whereby *n plus *t yielded *nc (Honti 1999: 98). Also, proto-Khanty *t and *n, on the one hand, and *c and *n, on the other, could not co-occur within the same stem (Helimski 2002).

The existence of a retroflex nasal in Proto-Khanty and the absence of anything similar in other Uralic languages raises the issue of the origin of this phoneme. There is one group of cases where this origin is immediately clear: Proto-Uralic *nc always yields Khanty *nc (note that *c is a retroflex affricate both in Khanty and Proto-Uralic), while Proto-Uralic *nt is regularly preserved as Khanty *nt. However, there are many instances of inherited words with Khanty *n in other positions as well, so the question of its origin remains unsolved.

From the early 20th century, there were two principal answers to this question in the Ural-istic literature. The first was formulated already by Kustaa Fredrik Karjalainen, who had discovered the triple opposition of coronal nasals during his fieldwork on Khanty. According to Karjalainen, this opposition goes back to at least Proto-Finno-Ugric (Karjalainen 1913-1918: 6). He shows that when Khanty has *n and all other Finno-Ugric languages, including Mansi, have n, Hungarian has ny. Thus there are not two, but three series of regular correspondences:

Khanty Hungarian other Uralic

n n n

n ny n

n ny n

Karjalainen also tried to find traces of original *n in other Uralic branches, notably Permic, but in order to do this, he needed to assume that in certain cases original *n yielded Khanty n for no apparent reason (Karjalainen 1913-1918: 28-30).

In his "Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages" (1960), Bjorn Collinder, following Karjalainen's theory, reconstructed both *n and *n (*n in his notation) for Proto-Uralic. However, for some reason, he failed to mention that Hungarian has distinct reflexes of these consonants (Collinder 1960: 73, 133-134), thus losing the most powerful argument in favor of his reconstruction. Karjalainen's theory was also adopted by V. M. Illich-Svitych, who projected the reconstruction of the retroflex nasal back to Proto-Nostratic (Illich-Svitych 1967: 323; 1971: 150), and by E. Helimski (1985: 75). All the abovementioned scholars were following the Neogrammarian paradigm, prohibiting unmotivated splits in historical phonology.

The alternative theory of the origin of the retroflex nasal in Khanty stems from scholars working outside the Neogrammarian paradigm. Formulated already by Erkki Itkonen (1957), it was most succinctly summarized by Laszlo Honti:

The cacuminals (*n *1) are the result of a secondary development within pO: they originally occurred as allo-phonic variants when adjacent to the (non-distinctively) cacuminal affricate *c, then spread, beginning with affective and descriptive vocabulary, to other positions, where they became phonemic. (Honti 1998: 337)

The secondary origin of Khanty *n was accepted by P. Sammallahti, although his wording is more cautious and does not necessarily suggest sporadic sound change:

An additional change in the consonantal system was caused by the 'split-genesis' of retroflex /1/ and /n/. At least /n/ was originally a contextual variant of /n/ before /c/, but for /lc/ no reliable etymologies can be found. (Sammallahti 1988: 512)

So far, all scholars either projected the Khanty retroflex nasal back to Proto-Uralic, or were willing to accept an unconditioned phonemic split in the prehistory of Proto-Khanty. As far as we know, nobody has tried to explain the origin of Khanty *n in terms of a conditioned split of reflexes. Below, we will try to show that no sporadic sound changes need to be invoked in order to solve this problem.

2. Rules accounting for Proto-Khanty *n

The following rules can be postulated for the development of Proto-Khanty *n from Proto-Uralic *n.

Rule 1: PU *nc > PKh *nc.

• We will not list any examples for this rule here, since it is self-evident and uncontroversial. Rule 2: PU *kVnV > PKh *kVn

• PU *kana- 'to dig' > PKh *kin- > V Vj. VK Likr. Trj. kin-, Mj. J kin-, DN Kam. KoP Kr. Ts. Xen-, Fil. xen-, Kaz. Sy. xon-, O Xan- 'to dig; to scoop' (DEWOS: 508; UEW: 125, Sammal-lahti 1988: 545). Cf. PMs *kun- > TJ kon-, KU xun-, P kun-, So. xun- 'to scoop'; Hung hany-'to throw'. The word is ultimately borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian *khan- 'to dig'.

• PU *kunV 'belly' > PKh *kun > V Vj. VK Vart, Likr. Trj. kon, Mj. J kon, DN-Sal. Fil. KoP Kr. Sog. Ts. Ni. S O xon, Kaz. Sy. xon 'belly' (DEWOS: 509-510; UEW: 208).

• PU *ka/oni 'on one's back' > PKh *kun-cay > V Vj. koncay, Trj. konyi, J konyi, DN xonca, KoP xonca, Kr. xanca, -a, Ni. S xonsa, Kaz. Sy. xonsa, O xonsa 'on one's back' (DEWOS: 514; UEW: 179). Cf. PMs *kan- > TJ TC kanaw, KU xoni, P kondy, So. xoni 'on one's back'; Hung hanyatt 'on one's back'. One might think that in this word a trivial development *nc > *nc has taken place, but in reality what we are dealing with here is the Proto-Khanty mor-phophonological rule (already mentioned above), according to which, *n plus *t on a morpheme boundary yields *nc. The adverb *kun-cay 'on one's back' contains the adverbial suffix *-tay found also in the following words:

PU *kuma- 'face down; to turn over' > PKh *kom-tay > V Vj. komtay, Trj. J kamdtyi, DN xomta, DT x&mta, KoP Xamta, xomta, Kr. xamta, -a, Ni. S Kaz. xomta, O xamta 'prone, facedown' (DEWOS: 502; UEW 201; Sammallahti 1988: 537);

PU *pera 'behind' > PKh *pir-tay > V Vj. partay, Trj. J par'yi, DN KoP Kr. -parta, Kaz. Sy. parta, O parta 'backwards' (DEWOS: 1220; UEW 373; Sammallahti 1988: 553).

• PU *kuna- 'elbow' > PKh *kunc- > Ni. S kuns-otdr/, Kaz. kuns-oadi], O kuns-aldr/ 'elbow'; PKh *kunc-riaj > V Vj. Likr. kon]i, VK Vart. Mj. J kon]i, Trj. kon]i, DN Fil. Kos. kosraj, Ts. kosraj, KoP Kr. Ts. kornaj 'elbow' (DEWOS: 647; UEW: 158; Sammallahti 1988: 544). Cf. PMs *kun-> KU kodnydl, So. konl-owl 'elbow'; Hung konyok 'elbow'. Although not everything in this etymology is clear (the Proto-Saamic reflex *kernele is especially hard to explain), at least the Mansi form shows the reflex of *-n-. Khanty *c may well result from the aforementioned morphophonological change *t > *c; but the identity and function of the suffix remain unknown.

• PUg *knnnk 'light' (adj.) > PKh *kdndy > Mj. kondy, J kondy, DN KoP Kr. Ts. Ni. S kend, Kaz. ken, Sy. ken, O kon 'light' (adj.) (DEWOS: 648; UEW: 862). Cf. PMs *kinya > KO kiynd, LU kinna 'light' (adj.); Hung konnyu 'light' (adj.).

• PKh *kandy-1 > Vj. kondy-, kondy-, Trj. kondy-, kondy-, J kondy-, KoP Kr. kdndj-, Kaz. keni-, Sy. keni- 'to growl (of bear, dog)' (DEWOS: 648; UEW: 856). Cf. PMs *kindy- > KM keny-, So. keny- 'to growl (of bear)'. Comparison with Hung konyorog- 'to pray', accepted in UEW, seems improbable. The word can be onomatopoeic. Still, it shows the expected development of *n.

• PU *kara-ila 'armpit' > PKh *kVndr > V kundr-pdt3, VT kumr-pdtd, Vj. kumr-pdta, Trj. kundr-pdts, J kundr-pdtd, DN xondr-pdt, DT KoP Kr. xandr-pdt, Ni. xur^n-pat, S xur^n-itpd, Mul. xurdn-pati, Kaz. xQrdn-pati, XQndr-pati, Sy. xondr-pat, O xondm-pat 'armpit' (DEWOS: 515516; UEW: 178; Sammallahti 1988: 543). Cf. PMs *kandl > TJ TC kalna, KU xandl, P kandl, So. Xandl 'armpit'; Hung Hon (dial. hony, hany, holn) 'armpit'. Here the Proto-Uralic form apparently had *-r-, but forms in daughter languages suffered various assimilations and me-tatheses. At least the Khanty word goes back to something like *kanVrV-. The Mansi word reflects *kanVlV, while the Hungarian form goes back to *kalnV.

Exceptions:

• PKh *kamr > V Vj. kamr, Trj. J kandr, DN KoP Kr xondr, Ni. S Kaz. x^ndr 'bank (of a river); edge (of a forest, shawl etc.)' (DEWOS: 514-515; UEW: 124-125). This word is compared in UEW to PMs *kant- > KU -jant, KM -kant 'near, close to', Hung (dial.) hany 'swamp' and Komi-Permyak (dial.) kan 'side'. These words are not especially close semantically or morphologically. The dubious nature of the comparison is recognized in UEW, where all parts of it are supplied with question marks. The most obvious connection of the Khanty word is with Proto-Selkup *kamk 'bank (of a river)' (Alatalo 2004: 289). The Selkup word is thought to be a Khanty loan (UEW: 124-125), but the only reason for this is the supposed Finno-Ugric ancestry of the Khanty form. If the Finno-Ugric etymology is erroneous, the direction of the loan can be reversed. The Selkup word, in its turn, has been compared to similar words in Yeniseian languages: Kott hanar 'shore' and Pumpokol konnor 'mountain' (Helimski 1982: 249). According to S. Starostin, "Pump. konnoq (despite Helimski KC 249) should be distinguished from Kott. hanaq 'shore', which — as rightly pointed out by the author — is a Uralism (Selk. qaniq, Khant. xonaq 'shore')" (Starostin 2005). The Pumpokol form is compared by Starostin to Ket qarner — plural of qa?j 'mountain (wooded)' < Proto-Yeniseian *qa?j. It seems that the only reason to treat the Kott form as a Uralism is once again the supposed inherited nature of the Khanty word. If this premise is erroneous, we have two available options. One is to compare Pum-pokol konnor 'mountain' with Kott hanar 'shore' and abandon the idea of a connection between the former and the Ket plural. Then we can reconstruct Proto-Yeniseian *kanar2 (consonant correspondences are regular, Starostin 1982: 148, 160, 162; as for vowels, we would expect Pumpokol (a), but it is not quite clear to what extent we can rely on transcription of vowels in 18th century sources). Another option is to accept Starostin's etymology of the Pumpokol word and take the Kott word to be a loan from Pumpokol (Kott initial h- regularly goes back to *k-, Starostin 1982: 160). In both cases, the Selkup word can be considered a Yeniseian loan that was further transferred to Khanty. Either scenario seems preferable to accepting the traditional Uralic etymology of the Khanty word.

• PKh *kin- > Trj. J kan-, DN DT KoP Kr. Ni. Kaz. Sy. O xan- 'to stick (to), adhere (to) (intr.); to touch, move'; PKh *kan-t- > V kont-, Vj. kont-, Trj. kont-, Ni. xunt-, Kaz. xQnt- 'to stick

1 Here and below we do not provide PU/PUg reconstructions for exclusively Ob-Ugric words.

2 Reconstructions *konoy, *kanoy and *konay are also possible.

(to), to glue (tr.)' (DEWOS: 504-505). Cf. PMs *kan- > TC kan-, KU xan-, P kan-, So. xan- 'to touch; to hang (intr.); to stick (to) (intr.)'; PM *kan-t- > KM kant-, P kant- 'to hang (tr.)'. This is a genuine exception, but the root is exclusively Ob-Ugric. If (as we argue below in section 4) the shift *n > *n has taken place in Proto-Ugric times, a word that was borrowed from an unknown source into Proto-Ob-Ugric need not be subject to this sound law.

Rule 3: PU *...kVn(V) > PKh *...yVn

• PU *ikin > PKh *aydn > V VK aydn, Vart. Likr. Trj. dydn, Mj. J dydn, DN Fil. KoP Kr. drdn, Ni. S ardn, Kaz. Sy. Pit. ardn, O drdn 'chin; lower jaw' (DEWOS: 43-44; Sammallahti 1988: 541). Cf. PMs *iydn > TC in, KU iydn, P jen, So. erdn 'chin'; Hung iny 'gum; palate'.

• PKh *kiydn > V Vj. Trj. kdydn, VT J kdym, DN Kr. Ts. kdrdn, Ni. S Mul. kirdn, Kaz. kiwdn, Sy. kijdn, O kijdn 'laces, strings (on clothes, shoes); button' (DEWOS: 605-606). Cf. PMs *kiydn > TJ TC kin, KU kiydn, P kin, So. kerdn 'button; string on clothes'.

• PKh *coydn > V Vj. VK Vart. Likr. taydn, Mj. taydn, J tawn, KoP tdrdn, Kaz. surdn 'fist; knuckles' (DEWOS: 1503-1504). Cf. PMs *cakni > TC caxne, KU saxdn, P saxdn, So. saxni 'fist'. In the last two cases a PU reconstruction is not possible, since the words are limited to Ob-Ugric. Nevertheless, the environment is the same as in the first case.

Rule 4: PU *nVkkV (POU *nVkV) > PKh *nVk

• PU *nikka- 'to stick in, push' > PKh *nik- > VK ndk-, Likr. ndk-, Trj. J ndk- 'to push (smb) lightly'; PKh *nikdj- > Kaz. naki- 'to push, nudge' (DEWOS: 984; UEW: 304-305). Cf. PMs *nak- > KM nak- 'to push'.

• PKh *neki > V niy, VT niy, Vj. niki, Trj. J niki, DN Kam. KoP Kr. Ts. nekd, Ni. nak, Kaz. neki 'trigger (of a trap), peg (for strings in a musical instrument), etc.' (DEWOS: 986). Cf. PMs *nark > KM nox, P nax (pl. narkdt) 'pintle, pivot'. If the P plural form narkdt was created by analogy with nouns that have the alternation -j / -rk-, the PMs form can be reconstructed as *nak, which would agree better with PKh *nek.

• PKh *n^k- > V noy-, Vj. my- (noka), VK Vart noy-, Likr. nay,-, nako-, Mj. nok, noko-, Trj. nok-, J nok-, DN Fil. KoP Kr. Ts. nox-, Ni. S nux-, Kaz. nQx-, Sy. nux-, O nox- 'to peck' (DEWOS: 987-988). Cf. PMs *mko- > TJ TC nak-, KU nax-, P nek,-, nek-, So. nax,- 'to peck'.

• PKh *nak- > Ni. nox-, Kaz. Sy. nox-, O nax- 'to limp' (DEWOS: 988). Cf. PMs *nak- > KU nox-, P ndk-, So. nox- 'to limp'.

• PKh *nik > Ni. nak, Kaz. nak 'joint' (Ni.), 'spell (of weather)' (Kaz.) (DEWOS: 983-984). Cf. PMs *nak > TJ TC KU P nax, So. nak 'joint'. Judging by its distribution in Khanty, the word can be a Mansi loan; but the correspondences are still regular and we list it here for the sake of completeness.

Rule 5: POU *...nVy > PKh *...nVy

Here, in the only example that has a Uralic etymology, final *-y is a suffix, added in (Ob-)Ugric

times. So it makes little sense to formulate the input of the rule in terms of Proto-Uralic reconstruction.

• PU *snni 'tinder, bracket fungus' > PKh *sandy > V -sandy, V Vj. VK -sandy, Trj. sdndy, J sdndy, DN KoP Kos. Kr. Sog. Ts. sdnd, KoP sdndk, Fil. sdnd, Ni. sand, Kaz. Sy. san, O sdn 'bracket fungus' (DEWOS: 1345; UEW: 494-495; Sammallahti 1988: 548). Cf. PMs *sindy > TJ TC sindw, KU seni, P seniy, So. seniy 'bracket fungus'.

• PKh *amy > V Vj. dndy, Likr. Mj. Trj. andy, J andy, DN KoP Kr. and, Ni. S and, Kaz. Sy. Pit. an, O an 'cup; plate' (DEWOS: 114-115). Cf. PMs *ani > TJ TC ani, KU ond, P ona, So. ani 'cup, plate, vessel'.

• PKh *sdndy > V Vj. VK sendy, Likr. Mj. Trj. sandy, J sandy, DN KoP Kr. Ts. Ni. send, Kaz. sen, Sy. sen, O sen 'nit; crab louse' (DEWOS: 1345-1346). Cf. PMs *sandy > TJ TC sandw, KU soni, P soniy, So. saniy 'nit'.

Rule 6: PU *mVnV > PKh *mVn

• PU *muna 'egg; testicle' > PKh *man > V Vj. mon, Trj. mon, J mon, DN Fil. KoP Kr. mun, DT man, Ni. mun, Kaz. mQn, O mon 'penis; testicle' (DEWOS: 935; UEW 285-286; Sammallahti 1988: 538). Cf. PMs *man > TJ man, KU man, P mon, LO mon 'testicle'; Hung (obs., dial.) mony 'egg; testicle; penis'.

• PUg *minV- 'to tear; to dislocate' > PKh *mdndm- > Ni. S O mendm-, Kaz. mendm- 'to tear off' (DEWOS: 935-936; UEW: 870-871). Cf. PMs *mdndmt- > TJ mdndmt-, KU mdndmt-, P mdndmt-, So. mandmt- 'to tear'; Hung (dial.) ki-menyul- 'to be dislocated (of joint)', ki-menyit- 'to dislocate (of joint)'.

Exception:

• PU *meni- 'to go' > PKh *min- > V Vj. VK Sur. Irt. mdn-, Ni. S Kaz. Sy. man-, O man- 'to go' (DEWOS: 931-932; UEW: 272; Sammallahti 1988: 538). Cf. PMs *min- > TJ min-, KU P So. min- 'to go'; Hung men- 'to go'. See section 3 below on the possible cause of this exception.

Forms with unexpected PKh *n3

• PU *end > PKh *dna > V Vj. VK en3, Vart. Likr. Trj. ans, Mj. ans, an3, J and, DN KoP Kr. end 'thick; big' (DEWOS: 109-110; UEW: 74-75; Sammallahti 1988: 541). Cf. PMs *jdndy > TJ jindw, KU jani, P janiy, So. janiy 'big'. Cf., however, another derivative from the same root: PKh *dndm- > V Vj. VK endm-, Likr. Mj. Trj. J andm-, Irt. Ni. S endm-, Kaz. endm-, Sy. endm-, (rarely) endm- 'to grow'. It is possible that the Mansi word with -dry directly reflects the Proto-Ob-Ugric form, while in Khanty -dy was secondarily replaced with another suffix. If so, both the presence of *n in the adjective and its absence in the verb can be explained by Rule 5.

• PUg *pnn3- 'to fart' > PKh *pin > DN pan, Kr. pan-, Ni. pon, Kaz. pon, O pan 'a fart'; PKh *pamy- > V Vj pondy-, Trj. pondy-, J pondy-, DN KoP Kr. pand-, Ni. punij-, Kaz. pQni- 'to fart' (DEWOS: 1169; UEW: 413). Cf. PMs *pondy > TJ ponx, KM pandy, P pondy, LO pondy 'a fart'; Hung fing 'to fart'. The verb has a regular *n (Rule 5), whereas the noun apparently acquired the retroflex nasal under the analogical influence of the verb.

• PU *niwa- 'to remove hair from skin' > PKh *naw- > Kaz. Sy. now-, O naw- 'to remove hair from reindeer hide' (DEWOS: 1024; UEW: 306; Sammallahti 1988: 546). A genuine exception.

3. The problem of secondary ny in Hungarian

Hungarian parallels to Khanty words listed above demonstrate the validity of the correspondence between Khanty n and Hungarian ny, discovered already by Karjalainen (1913-1918:

3 We list here only those words that have parallels in Mansi or other Uralic languages. Actually, many other Khanty words without external parallels also follow the rules formulated above.

24-25). Below we will separately list all reliable etymologies with Hungarian ny going back to PU *n. These etymologies are not especially numerous, and it would be hard to formulate the conditions of the change, were it not for the fact that the same conditions are valid for the Khanty change *n > *n. Rules 2, 3, 4 and 6, formulated above for Khanty, work for Hungarian as well. Rule 1 (PU *nc > PKh *nc) has no counterpart in Hungarian, since Hungarian has simplified all clusters of nasals and homorganic obstruents. The Hungarian reflex of PU *nc is r (Aikio in press).

We do not have relevant examples for a possible Hungarian counterpart of Rule 5 (POU *...nVy > PKh *...nVy). The remaining rules have their counterparts in Hungarian.

Rule 2: PU *kVnV > PKh *kVn, Hung h/kVny.

• PU *kana- 'to dig' > Hung hany- 'to throw' (UEW: 125, Sammallahti 1988: 545). Cf. PKh *km- 'to dig; to scoop', PMs *kun- 'to scoop'.

• PU *ka/oni 'on one's back' > Hung hanyatt 'id.' (UEW: 179). Cf. PKh *kun-cay 'id.', PMs *kan- 'id.'.

• PU *kuna- 'elbow' > Hung konyok 'id.' (UEW: 158; Sammallahti 1988: 544). Cf. PKh *kunc-'id.', PMs *kun- 'id.'.

• PUg *kvnvy 'light' (adj.) > Hung konnyu 'id.' (UEW: 862). Cf. PKh *kandy 'id.', PMs *kinya 'id.'.

Rule 3: PU *...kVn(V) > PKh *...yVn, Hung ...ny. We have only one example for this rule in Hungarian, so it could hardly be formulated without the Khanty parallel.

• PU *ikin 'gums' > Hung iny 'gum; palate' (UEW: 80-81; Sammallahti 1988: 541). Cf. PKh *aydn 'chin; lower jaw', PMs *iydn 'chin'.

Rule 4: PU *nVkkV > PKh *nVk, Hung nyVk. Here the Hungarian part of the rule can also be illustrated by one example only.

• PU *nokki 'nape of the neck' > Hung nyak 'neck', PSelk *nuku 'nape of the neck' (UEW: 328-329; Alatalo 2004, #1385). This etymology, rejected by Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988), can be rehabilitated if we compare it to two other cases with the same vowel correspondence:

PU *soski- 'to chew' > PSelk *tutu- 'id.' (UEW: 448-449; Alatalo 2004, #1068);

PU *totki 'tench' > Hung tat hal 'id.', PSelk *tutu 'crucian carp' (UEW: 532; Alatalo 2004, #1066).

While the details of development, especially the origin of PSelk *u in the second syllable,

are not clear, the regularity of the correspondence is not in doubt.

Rule 6: PU *mVnV > PKh *mVn, Hung mVny.

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

• PU *muna 'egg; testicle' > Hung (obs., dial.) mony 'egg; testicle; penis' (UEW 285-286; Sammallahti 1988: 538). Cf. PKh *man 'penis; testicle', PMs *man 'testicle'.

• PUg *minV- 'to tear; to dislocate' > Hung (dial.) ki-menyul- 'to be dislocated (of joint)', ki-menyit- 'to dislocate (of joint)' (UEW: 870-871). Cf. PKh *mandm- 'to tear off', PMs *mandmt- 'to tear'.

Exception:

• PU *meni- 'to go' > Hung men- 'id.' (UEW: 272; Sammallahti 1988: 538). Cf. PKh *min- 'id.', PMs *min- 'id.'. The exceptional behaviour of this verb may have something to do with its morphophonological peculiarity in Ugric. Helimski (1990: 64-66) has shown that Hungarian reflexes of Proto-Uralic verbs *meni- 'to go' and *woli- 'to be' build their present stems

with the same suffix *-s- that forms present stems of Hungarian monosyllabic verbs of the shape CV-: megy- 'to go' < *men-s-, vagy- 'to be' < *wol-s-, esz- 'to eat' < *se-s- < *sewi-s-, vesz-'to take' < *we-s- < *weyi-s- etc. We can suppose that these two verbs became (or remained) monosyllabic already in common Ugric times. This can explain the exceptional preservation of *n: the final consonant of a monosyllabic stem was protected from change by the immediately following initial consonants of affixes, after which the unchanged *n was generalized to prevocalic position. It is especially important for the chronology of the change in question that this exception is common to Hungarian and Khanty.

One more rule can be tentatively formulated for Hungarian only (Khanty has *n in the words in question):

Rule 7: pre-Hungarian *nVl/r > Hung nyVl/r.

• PU *nu5i 'handle' > Hung nyel (acc. nyelet) 'id.'. Cf. PKh *nul 'id.', PMs *ndl 'id.' (DEWOS: 997-998; UEW: 304; Sammallahti 1988: 538).

• PUg *ndrk3 'saddle' > Hung nyereg (acc. nyerget) 'id.'. Cf. PKh *noydr 'id.', PMs *nayra 'id.' (DEWOS: 996; UEW: 874). Judging by irregular vowel correspondences, the word for 'saddle', together with other horse-related terms, was borrowed separately by different Ugric languages in Common Ugric times from an unknown source. However, this does not explain the discrepancy in initial consonants. Since the position before -r- in this word is reminiscent of the position before -l- in nyel, and these are the only reliable etymologies where secondary ny in Hungarian corresponds to Khanty *n, we prefer to postulate a separate rule for these cases.

The rule can be confirmed by one more etymology:

• PU *nara or *nora 'spring' > Hung nyar (acc. nyarat) 'summer', PS *nara 'snow crust; spring (season)' (see Janhunen 1977: 98 for Samoyed data; the comparison of Hungarian and Samoyed words was suggested by A. Dybo 2007: 170). Two etymologies of the Hungarian word are discussed in EWUng: 1) an inner-Hungarian semantic development nyar 'swamp' > nyar 'summer' and 2) borrowing from Proto-Turkic *jar2 'spring, summer' (more precisely, from pre-Proto-Turkic *nar2). The first etymology involves an improbable semantic shift: parallel cases adduced in EWUng demonstrate developments like 'summer' > 'melted water', 'a place free from snow', not vice versa. Borrowing from pre-Proto-Turkic is also highly dubious, since no certain traces of such a layer of loanwords are known (see additional arguments against this etymology in Dybo 2007: 169-170). In the earliest layer of Hungarian loanwords from Turkic languages, Turkic *j- is rendered by Hungarian gy- (Dybo 2007: 29-30).

4. Conclusion

We can see that Hungarian shares with Khanty Rules 2, 3, 4 and 6 together with a common exception from Rule 6 — the reflex of PU *meni-. Moreover, despite the fact that most of the rules formulated above involve presence of a velar consonant, PU *nVkV yields *nV(y/w) both in Khanty and Hungarian: PU *ndki- 'to see' > PKh *nu(w)-, Hung nez-.

Of the three possible explanations — completely independent parallel development, diffusion of rules between closely related languages and common inheritance from an intermediate parent language — the first one can be definitely excluded. The rules formulated above are

typologically uncommon, and the existence of a common exception betrays a historical connection between Khanty and Hungarian developments. "Diffusionist" account remains a possibility, but were it true, we would expect more differences between Hungarian and Khanty rules (cf. subtle differences between effects of RUKI-rule in Indo-European languages). The remaining possibility involves a common intermediate node on the Uralic tree. As far as we know, no one has ever suggested a Uralic subgroup that would include Khanty and Hungarian, but exclude Mansi. The development of nasals is hardly sufficient for the postulation of such a subgroup. The only reasonable version of a "genetic" account would involve acceptance of the Ugric node. Then we could formulate Rules 2, 3, 4 and 6 as having taken place between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Ugric stages. Under this account, Proto-Ugric *n that resulted from these rules became (marginally) phonemic as a result of analogical leveling (PKh *min-, Hung men- 'to go') and, perhaps, common borrowings from unknown languages (PKh *kin-, PMs *kan- 'to stick'). Later, Proto-Ugric *n was preserved in Proto-Khanty, merged with *n in Proto-Mansi (cf. the fate of *n in a number of Khanty varieties) and yielded ny in Hungarian.

Abbreviations for languages and dialects4

Hung — Hungarian PMs — Proto-Mansi PS — Proto-Samoyed PU — Proto-Uralic

PKh — Proto-Khanty POU — Proto-Ob-Ugric PSelk — Proto-Selkup PUg — Proto-Ugric

References

Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sammol Sammol Ante). In press. Notes on the development of some consonant clusters in Hungarian. In: Sampsa Holopainen, Janne Saarikivi (eds.). Peri orthotetos etymon. Uusiutuva uralilainen etymologia (Uralica Helsingiensia). Alatalo, Jarmo 2004. Sölkupisches Wörterbuch aus Aufzeichnungen von Kai Donner, U. T. Sirelius und Jarmo Alatalo. Zusammengestellt und herausgegeben von Jarmo Alatalo (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXX). Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft. Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. DEWOS = Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1966-1993. Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wörterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache.

Lfg. 1-15. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Dybo, A. V. 2007. Lingvisticheskie kontakty rannikh tyurkov: leksicheskiy fond: pratyurkskiy period. Moskva: Vostoch-naya literatura.

EWUng = Benko, Lorand (ed.). 1992-1997. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Helimski, Eugen. 1982. Keto-Uralica. In Ketskiy sbornik. Antropologiya, etnografiya, mifologiya, lingvistika: 238-251. Leningrad: Nauka.

Helimski, Eugen. 1985. Rez.: L. Honti, Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der ersten Silbe. Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 21(1): 63-76.

Helimski, Eugen. 1990. Ugrica: etimologii s istoriko-foneticheskim podtekstom. Nyelvtudomanyi Közlemenyek 91: 63-68.

Helimski, Eugen. 2002. Eine Regel der Konsonantenkompatibilität im Ostjakischen. In: E. Helimski und A. Widmer (Hg.). Wüsa wüsa — Sei gegrüßt!: Beiträge zur Finnougristik zu Ehren von Gert Sauer dargebracht zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 57). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 111-116. Honti, Laszlo. 1998. ObUgrian. In: D. Abondolo (ed.). The Uralic Languages. London / New York: Routledge. Honti, Laszlo. 1999. Az Obi-Ugor konszonantizmus törtenete (Studia uralo-altaica: Supplementum 9). Szeged: Uni-versitas Szegediensis de Attila Jozsef Nominata.

4 We use standard abbreviations for Khanty and Mansi varieties, see DEWOS for Khanty and Steinitz 1955 for Mansi.

Illich-Svitych, V. M. 1967. Materialy k sravnitel'nomu slovaryu nostraticheskikh yazykov (indoevropeyskiy, altay-skiy, ural'skiy, dravidskiy, kartvel'skiy, semitokhamitskiy). In Etimologiya 1965 (Materialy i issledovaniya po in-doevropeyskim i drugim yazykam): 321-373. Moskva: Nauka.

Illich-Svitych, V. M. 1971. Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov (semitokhamitskiy, kartvel'skiy, indoevropeyskiy, ural'skiy, dravidiyskiy, altayskiy). Vvedenie. Sravnitel'nyy slovar' (b-K). Pod redakciey i s vstupitel'noy stat'ey V. A. Dybo. Moskva: Nauka.

Itkonen, Erkki. 1957. Suomalais-ugrilaisen kantakielen äänne- ja muotorakenteesta. Virittäjä 61/1: 1-22.

Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. (Castrenianumin toimitteita 17.) Helsinki.

Janhunen, Juha. 1981. Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 77: 219-274.

Karjalainen, K. F. 1913-1918. Beiträge zur geschichte der finnisch-ugrischen dentalen nasale. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30(24).

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2000. The status of schwa in the phonological description of Northern Ostyak. Finnisch-ugrische Mitteilungen 23: 121-148.

Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. Historical Phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. In: D. Sinor (ed.). The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden / New York: Brill: 478-554.

Starostin, Sergei. 1982. Praeniseyskaya rekonstrukciya i vneshnie svyazi eniseyskikh yazykov. In Ketskiy sbornik. Antropologiya, etnografiya, mifologiya, lingvistika: 144-237. Leningrad: Nauka.

Starostin, Sergei. 2005. Yenisseian etymology. Available: http://starling.rinet.ru/ [Accessed 27.11.2016].

Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1955. Geschichte des wogulischen Vokalismus (Finnisch-ugrische Studien II). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

UEW = Rédei, Karoly. 1988-1991. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado.

М. А. Живлов. Происхождение хантыйского ретрофлексного носового.

Для прахантыйского традиционно восстанавливается ретрофлексный носовой согласный *п, происхождение которого остаётся спорным. Согласно одной теории, он непосредственно унаследован из прауральского. По другой теории, прауральская фонема *n, обычно сохраняющаяся в хантыйском как *n, спорадически давала *п. Мы приводим доводы в пользу того, что прахантыйский ретрофлексный носовой *п является результатом регулярных позиционно обусловленных фонетических изменений.

Ключевые слова: угорские языки, историческая фонология, ретрофлексные согласные, прауральский язык.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.