On the stratification of Indo-Iranian borrowings in the Uralic languages

Sampsa Holopainen
University of Helsinki

The aim of the presentation is to present an updated synthesis on the question of the early contacts between
Indo-Iranian and Uralic (= Finno-Ugric) languages. Although the topic has an impressive research history (see
eg. Joki 1973; Rédei 1986; Koivulehto 1999 & 2001), there is no consensus on the stratigraphy of the different
Indo-Iranian loanword layers in Uralic. Especially the views of Finnish and Russian researchers have
traditionally differed greatly. A central problem is that representatives of different views have rarely
communicated with each other, and especially for a reader who is not familiar with Uralic linguistics the
situation probably seems hard to interprete. This is unfortunate since the topic is very important for both Uralic
as well as Indo-Iranian historical comparative studies, as the Indo-Iranian loans provide crucial evidence for
the Uralic and Indo-Iranian Urheimat and for the study of taxonomy and early divergence of the Uralic family.
Loanwords can also shed light on some unclear features of Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian (such as the
reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatal stops in Proto-Iranian, and the dating of the sound change *l > *r).

The most elaborate effort to establish clear stratification of different layers of Indo-Iranian borrowings is
offered by Koivulehto (2001) who attempts to differentiate the Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian
borrowings through the substitution of the reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatal stops. Koivulehto operates
with more regular developments than Joki (1973) and Rédei (1986), or Katz (2003), whose extreme take on
the topic has been widely criticized (see eg. Aikio & Kallio 2005). Nevertheless, some of Koivulehto’s
etymologies must be reconsidered because of new developments in the study of Uralic historical phonology.

A rather different view is represented by Helimski (1997), who has postulated a language called “Andronovo
Aryan”, which he considers an unattested branch of Indo-Iranian, which could have given a large part of the
loanwords in Uralic. This view is refuted by Napolskikh (2014) and has never gained much attention outside
of Russia.

Also not all of the Uralic languages have been equally well studied, which has hampered the loanword research.
The historical development of the geographically central Uralic branches Ugric, Mari and Permic is still
puzzling, and especially the Indo-Iranian influence in Mari still remains largely unstudied. Traditionally it has
also been thought that the Samoyedic branch of Uralic was already distinct when the Indo-Iranian contacts
took place, but some of the supposed Indo-Iranian loans seem to have Samoyedic cognates, which have been
noticed only lately, such as Proto-Uralic *čača- ‘to grow, to be born’, possibly from Proto-Iranian reduplicated
form *dzadzanH- ‘to give birth’ (Koivulehto 1999: 226; see Aikio 2015: 42 for the Samoyed cognate) and
*tora- ‘to fight’ < Proto-Indo-Iranian *dhāraya- ‘to maintain, bear, support’ (Aikio 2015: 62).
Holopainen 2

In this presentation the various views presented above are criticually evaluated and Indo-Iranian borrowings
presented in the earlier research are reviewed against the light of the recent findings in the Uralic studies. The
simple phonological system of Proto-Uralic and its early daughter languages made a wide variety of
substitutions possible, and the evidence has to be carefully analyzed. Also some new etymologies are
presented, such as Hungarian úr ‘lord, genetleman’ < PII *(H)su-Hrí (-> Sanskrit sūrí-’lord’) and Mari muro,
Mordvin moro ‘song’ < PII *mrauH- ‘to speak’, which shows that it is not impossible to make new findings
in this field.

References
Aikio, Ante 2015: The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. Journal de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne 95. 25–66.
Aikio, Ante & Kallio, Petri 2005: [review] Zu Hartmut Katz: Studien zu den alteren indoiranischen
Lehnwortern in den uralischen Sprachen. Die Sprache: Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 212–222.
Helimski, Eugen 1997: The southern neighbours of Finno-Ugrians: Iranians or an extinct branch of Aryans
(„Andronovo Aryans“)? Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt. Herausg. Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo et. al.
Maastricht. 117–125.
Joki, Aulis J. 1973: Uralier und Indogermaner. MSFOu 151; Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.
Katz, Hartmut 2003: Studien zu den alteren indoiranischen Lehnwortern in den uralischen
Sprachen. Aus dem Nachlas herausgegeben von Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer und Gerson Klumpp.
Indogermanische Bibliothek. 3. Reihe; Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Koivulehto, Jorma 1999a: Varhaiset indoeurooppalaiskontaktit: aika ja paikka lainasanojen valossa. Pohjan
poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Toimittanut Paul Fogelberg. Bidrag till
kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153; Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. 207–236.
Koivulehto, Jorma 2001: The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of
lexical loans. Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: linguistic and archaeological
considerations. Ed. by Christian Carpelan et. al. MSFOu 242; Helsinki: Société Finno Ougrienne. 235–
264.

Napolskikh 2014 = Напольских, В.В. 2014: Проблема начала финно-угорского-иранских контактов.

Ананьинский мир: истоки, развитие, связи, исторические судьбы. Археология евразийских
степей. Вып. 20. Казань. 76–89.

Rédei, Károly 1986: Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.