Read on Twitter
Ok, let's see if I can summaise this in English. I'll go one tweet at a time and try and pick out the main points, but my English is far from perfect so I hope I can do it justice to some extent at least. The original draft paper is available online so if you can, do check it out https://twitter.com/l_linguist/status/1349307210099269633
Finno-Ugrian here = the following 10 languages: Finnish (fi.), Estonian (es.), Saami (sa.), Mordvin (md.), Mari (mr.), Udmurt (ud.), Komi (ko.), Hungarian (ma.), Mansi (ms.) Khanty (ha.).
Samoyedic = : Nenets (ne.), Enets (en.), Nganasans (ng.), Selkup (sk.), Kamasins (km.) Koibal (kb.) and Mator (mt.).
(NB Koibal is here really the extict Samoyedic language, not the Turkic Koybal variety, which is considered a dialect of Xakas.)
(NB Koibal is here really the extict Samoyedic language, not the Turkic Koybal variety, which is considered a dialect of Xakas.)
The numeralia common to all FU languages are restricted to the numerals 2-6 (all single digits), and to the numeral 100 which is an Iranian loan in all FU languages. (table from draft paper, p. 9)
The UEW states that the forms of many numerls are only reconstructable in variants, e.g. 2*kakta ~käktä (this could reflect different lects of Proto-FU too: velar variants are typical for Finno-Permic, palatals for Ugric).
Cf. also variants in 3 *kolme (kulme), 4*ńeljä (neljä).
Cf. also variants in 3 *kolme (kulme), 4*ńeljä (neljä).
Janurik assumes that because of the Finnic vocalisation of the first consonant in the cluster, 5 *witte and 6 *kutte should rather be reconstructed as *wiγte, *kuγte or *wikte, *kukte.
The numerals 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 20, however, do not point to a common reconstructable FU ancestor: (table from draft paper, p. 10)
The form *ikte (ükte) of the numeral 1 can be traced back to Finno-Permic. Finnish üksi (ühte-), Estonian üks (ühe-) show a regular development of word-internal -kt- cluster. Saami doesn't have ü, word final e > a is regular, -kt- is preserved.
In Mordvin , the -t- of the -kt- cluster is elided, and the word onset developed ü > vej. The Mari long form ikte is probably the closest to the Proto-FU form, while Udmurt od and Komi eť have -kt- > -t-, the endings in ig, ik are derivational suffixes.
Connecting Mansi akwa is not plausible from the phonological point of view, so the etymology cannot be extended to the FU level. Hungarian egy seems to go back to a suffixed form of the proximal demonstrative -e, and Khanty j(əl) may be of similar (but independent) origin.
The numeral 7 seems to have been "alien to the system" at the time of Proto-FU. It was probably introduced together with the decimal system and the numerals 8-10 because of the "silent trade" with the Iranians along the Volga.
The Finno-Permic numerals for 7 are going back to Indo-Iranian *sept borrowed in Proto-FU times, the loss of word final -m is regular in Estonian and Saami.
Hungarian hét, Mansi sāt and Khanty läwet all go back to Old Iranian saptá, borrowed as *δäptз into Ugric.
Hungarian hét, Mansi sāt and Khanty läwet all go back to Old Iranian saptá, borrowed as *δäptз into Ugric.
Word onset *δ- is ultimately lost in Hungarian, > t- in Mansi and depending on dialects > -t, -ʌ, -l in Khanty, which makes the Khanty form *δäptз > *läpt > *läwt > läwet the only regular continuation of *δäptз.
The regular Proto-Hungarian form would have been *äte (*δ-> *h- > ∅- -*pt- >-t-), but probably due to analogy to hat '6' an unetymologycal onset h- was added.
Mansi should have *täpt > *tǟt instead of sāt < *sǟt (maybe *s > *ś induced by the palatal vowel). Sāt ’7’ is also homphonous with sāt '100', so for the latter, the Mansi also frequently use jānγ sāt ’big sāt’.
Ok, that's it for today, I'll do another thread of the decimal numbers (10-100) maybe tomorrow.
