Proto-Uralic is the unattested reconstructed language ancestral to the modern Uralic language family. The reconstructed language is thought to have been originally spoken in a small area, and then expanded across northern Eurasia, gradually diverging into a dialect continuum and then a language family in the process. The location of the area or Urheimat is not known, and various strongly differing proposals have been put forward, but the vicinity of the Ural Mountains is generally viewed as the most likely.
Early descendants According to the traditional binary tree model, Proto-Uralic diverged into Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Finno-Ugric. However, reconstructed Proto-Finno-Ugric differs little from Proto-Uralic, and many apparent differences follow from the methods used. Thus, Proto-Finno-Ugric may not be separate from Proto-Uralic. Another reconstruction of the split of Proto-Uralic has three branches (Finno-Permic, Ugric and Samoyedic) from the start.
"Comb" model In the early 21st century, these tree-like models have been challenged by the hypothesis of larger number of proto-languages giving an image of a linguistic "comb" rather than a tree.Aikio 2019: 3ff. Thus, the second-order groups of the Uralic phylum would then be: Sami, Finnic, Mordvinic, Mari, Permic, Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic, all on equal footing. This order is both the order of geographical positions as well as linguistic similarity, with neighboring languages being more similar than distant ones.
Phonology
Similarly to the situation for Proto-Indo-European, reconstructions of Proto-Uralic are traditionally not written in IPA but in UPA.
Vowels Proto-Uralic had vowel harmony and a rather large inventory of vowels in initial syllables, much like the modern Hungarian, Finnish or Estonian system:
Front Back Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded Close i ü i̮ u Mid e o Open ä a
Sometimes a mid vowel *e̮ is reconstructed in place of *i̮, or a low back rounded *å in place of *a.Janhunen 1981a pp. 24–25
There were no monophonemic long vowels nor diphthongs, though sequences of vowel and semivowel within a single syllable (such as *äj) could exist.
Unstressed vowels Vowel inventory in non-initial syllables was restricted: only a two-way contrast of open and non-open vowels is incontestably reconstructible. The actual realization of this contrast is a question of debate: one view considers this two archiphonemic vowels and , realized as four allophones , as per vowel harmony. However, other scholars such as Zhivlov posit the existence of disharmonic *i-a stems in Proto-Uralic, which would imply that vowel harmony was not allophonic.
For the non-open vowel(s), most branches reflect a reduced vowel , however: The Finnic languages show or depending on harmony, word-finally . The Samic languages show a variety of reflexes, but these reflexes can be traced back to a Proto-Samic phoneme *e̮, which is also the reflex of Proto-Uralic *i and *ü in stressed syllables.
While vowel reduction is a common sound change, Finnic is known to have adstrate influence from language groups that would not have known reduced vowels (namely the Baltic languages and the early Germanic languages), so a value of already in Proto-Uralic remains a possibility.
Although these three or four stem types were certainly the most prominent ones in Proto-Uralic, it is possible that other, rarer types may have existed as well. These include for example kinship terms such as "sister-in-law", found as *kälü in both Proto-Finnic and Proto-Samoyedic. Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) reconstruct here instead a word-final labial glide: *käliw.
A general difficulty in reconstructing unstressed vowels for Proto-Uralic lies in their heavy reduction and loss in many of the Uralic languages. Especially in the Ugric and Permic languages, almost no trace of unstressed vowels appears in basic word roots. The original bisyllabic root structure has been well preserved in only the more peripheral groups: Samic and Finnic in the northwest, Samoyedic in the east. The main correspondences of unstressed vowels between these are as follows: + Reflexes of Proto-Uralic unstressed vowels Proto-Uralic Proto-Samic Proto-Finnic Proto-Samoyedic Notes *-a *-ē *-a *-å *-ä *-ä *-ä *-i *-e̮ *-e ∅ after original open syllables *-ə after original closed syllables Developments in Mordvinic and Mari are rather more complicated. In the former, Proto-Uralic *-a and *-ä are usually reduced to *-ə; *-a is however regularly retained whenever the first syllable of the word contained *u. Proto-Uralic *-i is regularly lost after open syllables, as well as in some other positions.
Conditional vowel shifts
A number of roots appear to diverge from the main picture of unstressed syllables in a different way: while Finnic, Samic and Samoyedic languages all have one of the "typical" stem shapes, they may not quite match. Words in these classes often feature discrepancies in the vowels of the first syllable as well, e.g. Finnic *a or *oo (suggesting Proto-Uralic *a or *i̮) against Samic *ā (suggesting Proto-Uralic *ä) or *oa (suggesting Proto-Uralic *o).
A number of such cases may result simply from conditional vowel shifts in unstressed syllables. In fact, multiple vowel shifts are reconstructed in branches of Uralic sensitive to a particular combination of stem vowel and following reduced vowel, in which both change at once. A shift *a-i > *o-a can be posited for Samic as well as the Mordvinic languages. E.g.: + *a-i > *o-a in Samic and Mordvinic Proto-Samic Mordvinic Proto-Finnic Proto-Samoyedic Hungarian other reflexes meaning *čoarvē < *ćorwa Erzya сюро Moksha сюра < *śorwa- *sarvi - szarv 'horn' *čoalē < *ćola Erzya сюло Moksha сюла < *śola- *sooli < *sali - Possibly szál 'thread' 'intestine' *koalō- < *kola(w)- Erzya куло- Moksha куло- < *kola- *koole- < *kali- *kåə- hal 'to die' *koamtē < *komta Erzya and Mokshaкунда < *komta *kanci < *kanti - kendő Mari комдыш 'lid' The change is, however, masked by the shift of *i̮ to *a (which later develops to Proto-Samic *uo) in words such as: + Non-raising of *i̮-i in Samic and Mordvinic Proto-Samic Mordvinic Proto-Finnic Proto-Samoyedic Hungarian other reflexes meaning *ńuole̮ < *ńali Erzya, Moksha нал *nooli < *nali *ńe̮l nyíl 'arrow' *suone̮ < *sani Erzya, Moksha сан *sooni < *sani *ce̮n ín 'vein, sinew' *ϑuome̮ < *δami Erzya лём Moksha лайме *toomi < *tami *je̮m - 'bird cherry' *vuopte̮ < *apti - *(h)apci < *apti *e̮pti - 'hair' In a second group, a change *ä-ä > *a-e appears to have taken place in Finnic in words such as: + *ä-ä > *a-e in Finnic Proto-Finnic Proto-Samic Proto-Samoyedic Hungarian other reflexes meaning *loomi < *lami - - - Erzya леме 'scab' *pooli < *pali *pealē *pälä fél Erzya пеле 'half' *sappi *sāppē - epe Erzya сэпе 'gall' *talvi *tālvē - tél Erzya теле 'winter' *vaski *veaškē *wäsa vas Mari -вож 'ore' 'copper, bronze' ~ 'iron'
Consonants In the consonant system, palatalization, or palatal-laminal instead of apical articulation, was a phonemic feature, as it is in many modern Uralic languages. Only one series of stops (unvoiced unaspirated) existed:
Bilabial Dental Palatal(ized) Retroflex Velar unknown Plosive andAffricate p t (ć ) č k Nasal m n ń ŋ Sibilant s ś (š ) Spirants δ δ´ Lateral l (ľ ) Trill r Semivowel w j unknown
The segments symbolized by č and š were likely retroflex. The phonetic nature of the segment symbolized by *x is uncertain, though it is usually considered a back consonant; , , , and have been suggested among others. Janhunen (1981, 2007) takes no explicit stance, leaving open the option for even a vocalic value. It is reconstructed by certain scholars in syllable-final position in word-stems where a contrastive long vowel later developed (similar to Turkish ğ), best preserved in the Finnic languages, and where Samoyedic features a vowel sequence such as *åə. The correlation between these two stem classes is however not perfect, and alternate possibilities exist for explaining both vowel length in Finnic and vowel sequences in Samoyedic. *x is also reconstructed word-medially, and in this position it also develops to a Finnic long vowel, but has clear consonantal reflexes elsewhere: *k in Samic, *j in Mordvinic and *ɣ in Ugric. If a consonant, it probably derives from lenition of *k at a pre-Uralic stage; it is only found in words ending in a non-open vowel, while *k is infrequent or nonexistent in similar positions.
The phonetic identity of the consonant is also subject to some doubt. It is traditionally analyzed as the palatalized counterpart of the voiced dental fricative , that is, as ; however, this a typologically rare sound value for which no direct evidence is found in any Uralic language, and a pure palatal fricative is another option; a third option is a palatal liquid like, e. g., Czech ř. Some others propose to adjust the sound values of both this consonant and its plain counterpart. Ugricist László Honti has advanced a reconstruction with lateral fricatives: , for , while Frederik Kortlandt reconstructs palatalized and , alleging that they pattern like resonants.
Dubious segments
The phonemes in parentheses—*ć, *š, *ĺ—are supported by only limited evidence, and are not assumed by all scholars. Sammallahti (1988) notes that while instances of *ć are found in all three of Permic, Hungarian and Ob-Ugric, there are "very few satisfactory etymologies" showing any correlation between the branches in whether *ć or *ś appears. In the other languages, no consistent distinction between these consonants is found.
The evidence for the postalveolar sibilant *š however is "scarce but probably conclusive" (ibid): it is treated distinctly from *s only in the more western (Finno-Permic) languages, but certain loans from as far back as the Proto-Indo-European language have reflexes traceable to a postalveolar fricative (including *piši- or *peši- "to cook"). The possibility of *ĺ is not considered by him at all.
In contrast, Janhunen, who considers Samoyedic evidence necessary for conclusions about Proto-Uralic, doubts that *š can be reconstructed, preferring to consider it a secondary, post-Proto-Uralic innovation (p. 210). He agrees with Sammallahti in omitting *ĺ and in only considering a single palatal obstruent as necessary to reconstruct; for the latter he suggests the sound value of a palatal stop, (p. 211).
More recently, reflexes of Proto-Uralic *š have been found in Samoyedic, e.g. PU *kajšaw > Proto-Samoyedic *kåjtåw.
Phonotactics
No final consonant clusters were allowed, so words could end with a maximum of one consonant only. The single consonants also could not occur word-initially, though at least for the first of these, this may be a coincidental omission in the data. A reconstruction "spleen" exists but is not found in Samoyedic and the most stringent criteria for a Proto-Uralic root thus excludes it. A similar case is "fox", a loanword from Indo-Iranian.
Inside word roots, only clusters of two consonants were permitted. Since *j and *w were consonants even between a vowel and another consonant, there were no sequences of a "diphthong" followed by two consonants, like in Finnish veitsi. While voicing was not a phonemic feature, double (i.e. geminate) stops probably existed ( "father-in-law", "five", "to push"). The singleton–geminate contrast in several descendant languages developed into a voiced–voiceless distinction, although Finnic is a notable exception, e.g. Finnish appi, lykkää.
When, due to suffixation, consonant clusters arose that were not permitted, the non-low vowel was inserted as a prop vowel. This process was obscured in the Finnic languages by an opposing process which syncopated unstressed *e in many cases.
Prosody
Proto-Uralic did not have contrastive tone. The majority view considers stress to have been fixed on the first syllable, although this is not universally accepted.
Phonological processes