Common Finno-Ugric traits include the following:
· General OV order.
· Further development of copula support, including copular verb, indefinite/definite terms, third/non-third persons, present/past and indicative/non-indicative oppositions.
o Collective marker *-k.
o Ablative or separative *-ta/-tä.
o Innovation trend with further distinction of the three local cases, although precise details for a common stage are obscured by later developments.
o Locative adverb in *-t(t).
· Coaffix *-s- from western languages is probably to be traced back to the expanding lative of this period.
· Verbal developments:
o Past tense marker *-i/i̯, apart from the common in *-ś.
o Past perfect *-ma/-mä and present in *-pa/-pä may be traced back to this stage, too.
o Development of a common passive construction can be attributed to this stage, although the innovation continues differently in Proto-Finno-Permic and Proto-Ugric.
· Development of subordinating conjunctions to combine sentences (apart from the use of nonfinite constructions), probably under the influence of neighbouring Indo-European languages.
· Reflexive probably formed at this stage from demonstrative pronouns *e- + *čV, but also possibly from a noun meaning ‘(shadow) soul’ (compare the reflexive from Proto-Samoyedic).
· Regular phonetic changes include:
o In the first syllable, LPU *äx → PFU *ē, LPU *ax → PFU *ō, as well as *VV → *V in a closed syllable, and *o → *u in open syllables before a second syllable *-i.
o In the second syllable, the opposition *i vs. *ë is probably already neutralised, and only *i is retained. This leads eventually (in a process that continued in the different dialects) to the abolition of *ë—and *ë̅—in the first syllable, and *i may then be found with *a or *ä in the second syllable.
o The consonantal system undergoes little change, with only one systematic evolution of *Vx → *VV before a consonant.
Contacts between Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Indo-Iranian were intense and long-lasting, as revealed by the different loanwords proposed to have been acquired in different stages (Koivulehto 1991; Carpelan and Parpola 2001; Katz et al. 2003; Blažek 2005)—even if some are disputed (Aikio and Kallio 2005)—which have survived in spite of strong posterior Indo-European influences, such as that of Palaeo-Germanic on Finno-Samic (see below §18.104.22.168. Palaeo-Germanic borrowings).
Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords include the following:
· PFU *aiša ‘shaft’< Pre-PII *aīšā́ ‘shaft’ (< CIE *ħihseħ/ʕwihseħ ‘shaft’)‚ cf. OInd. īšā́, Av. aēsa-.
· PFU *i̯en-ti < Pre-PII *gjen-ti <*genh- ‘be born’.
· PU *inš-mi → *išmi ‘wonder, sign’ < *gjn̥-né/n-ˀ- ‘know, recognise’ (Koivulehto 1991). Similarly, PFU *inši ‘man’ < PII *gjn̥ˀ-(i)e ‘generate’ (Kümmel et al. 2001) hence ‘offshoot; creation, being; kin, family’. The substitution of *gjn̥- by *in is explained by the impossibility of the consonant group **i̯n- in Uralic (Koivulehto 1991), while the presence of a laryngeal may be explained by the late survival in specific groups (see below §II.2.5.2. *CR̥HC). Compare for the adoption from a palatalised velar PFU *seu̯i- ‘eat’ < (Pre-)PII *j́i̯eu̯- <*gi̯eu̯h- ‘chew’ (Koivulehto 2003).
· PFU *kekrä ‘cycle’ < Pre-PII *kekro-‚ cf. Skt. cakra- ‘wheel, cycle’.
· PFU *kesträ ‘spindle, spin’ < Pre-PII *kētstro-, cf. Skt. cāttra-m ‘spindle’.
· PFU *mertä ‘man, person’ < Pre-PII *mr̥-tó- ‘death; mortal’ cf. OInd. mr̥tá, OAv. mərəta ‘dead’, also in other LPIE dialects ‘mortal, person’. For o-grade Pre-PII *mor-to- ‘mortal, man’, cf. OInd. márta, Av. masa-, hence PFP *marta, ‘dry(cow), farrow’ < PII *márta-.
· Maybe from this period LPU *oča ‘see; beware, guard; wait’ ~ Av. axša- < Pre-PII *ok-se- ‘watch’ < *Hokw-se- ‘see; watch’, although it is difficult to explain the apparent Pre-PII *-ks- → PU *-č-, so possibly a later, PII loanword that diffused also to Samoyedic. This word has also been explained as from the same root as PU *att- (*ott-) ‘see, look’, also ‘watch, guard, etc.’, although the medial *-t(t)- → *-č- is equally difficult to explain.
· Ob-Ugric *peečəɣ ‘cattle’ ~ Pre-PII obl. *pečeu- points probably to an early, Pre-PII loanword, before the evolution into PII *pačau-. The PFP equivalent, *poča(u̯), may point thus to a slightly later PII stage, which may in turn suggest more continued contact of Finno-Permic with Indo-Iranian languages after the separation of the Ugric community.
· Difficult to pinpoint is the origin of PFP porćas ‘piglet’ ~ PIr. *párĉah (cf. Av. pərəsa), because of the adoption with o-vocalism, which suggest an ancestral (palatalised) *porĉos.
· PFU *-teksä ‘ten’ < Pre-PII *dek-s-, cf. Skt. daśa- ‘ten’.
Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords include:
· PFU *aru̯a ‘value, price’ < PII *argha- < *algwha- ‘value, price’, also applied to the value of a slave (see above §22.214.171.124. Economy and technology).
· PFU *asëra ‘lord, leader’ < PII *asura- ‘god; leader, lord’, cf. OInd. Ásura-, Av. Ahura- ‘lord’.
· PFU *ćata ‘one hundred’ < PII *ćatá- (<*km̥tóm), cf. Skt. śatám.
· PFU *i̯ama < PII *i̯ama- ‘twin’.
· PFU *kurë ‘dig’ < PII *kar-, enlarged *karš- ‘pull; plough’, cf. PII *kr̥ší- ‘ploughing, furrow’, PIr. *kārai̯a ‘to sow, plant, plough’, etc.
· PFU *mëkšë ‘bee’ < PII *makš- ‘fly, bee’(Lubotsky 2001).
· PFU *ora ‘awl’ ~ OInd. *ā́rā- (<*ēlā), after the merging of liquids, probably PII and not Pre-Indo-Aryan as proposed by Koivulehto (1991), since it is found in other LPIE dialects with the same meaning. Also, Gmc. *ala(n)- <*HoH-ló-? remains unsuccessfully explained, and a borrowing from a Pre-PII cognate is thus possible, although not warranted with the current data.
· PFU *ori̯a ‘slave’ < Pre-PII *ari̯a-, the self-denomination of Indo-Iranians, hence ‘Aryan taken as a war-captive, prisoner’, with a semantic shift mirroring Medieval Latin sclāvus ‘slave’, from Late Latin Sclāvus ‘Slav’, because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages.
· PFU *šistV (*šikśtV) ~ OInd. siktha- ‘beeswax’.
· PFU *sosra ‘one thousand’ < PII *sa-j́hasra- / Pre-PII *sm̥-gjhesro- (<*sm̥-ghéslo-), cf. OInd. sahásram, Av. hazanram.
· PFP *śuka ‘awn, chaff’ < PII / Pre-PIAr. *śuka- ‘needle’, cf. OInd. *śuka- ‘insect’s sting, ear of corn’, Av. *śuka- ‘needle, pin’.
· PP *sur ‘beer’ < PII *surā- ‘alcohol’, PFU borrowing due to the *s- (Lubotsky 2001).
· PFP *taštä ‘star’ < PII (or PIr.) *tištrii̯a- ‘Sirius’.
It is difficult to distinguish any Pre-Proto-Indo-Aryan or Proto-Indo-Aryan loans from those usually proposed:
· PFU *anta ‘grass’ < PIAr. ándhas- ‘sprout of the soma plant’. The Old Indian word has been connected to Gk. ánthos ‘flower’, less likely to Alb. endë ‘flour’ and Arm. and ‘field’; if so, then any cognate from DIE *andho- ‘sprout’ to Proto-Indo-Iranian would be as good a candidate for the loanword as the Pre-Indo-Aryan stage.
· PFU *i̯uχë- ‘drink’ ~ OInd. źuhṓti ‘pour in fire, sacrifice’; the initial *i̯ points to an earlier stage, cf. PII *j́ʰu-j́ʰeu- <*gu-gheu- ‘pour’.
· PFU *kuŋe ‘moon; month’ ~ OInd. Guṅgū́ ‘lunar Goddess’.
· PFU *reśmä ‘rope’ < PIAr. *raśmi ‘rein’, is probably from a previous PII *raćmí- < Pre-PII *rećmí- given its vocalism, from IE *rek- ‘bind’ (Lubotsky 2001).
Loans closer to Proto-Iranian, identified by their meaning or phonology, include the following (Lubotsky 2001):
· Ob-Ugric *ku̯oras ‘god; heavens’ < Middle Iranian *xu̯ar- ‘bright sun’.
· PP *mai̯äk/mai̯äg ‘stake’ ~ PII *mai̯ūkha-.
· PP *ńań ‘bread’ ~ PII *nagna-.
· FV *oraśe ‘(castrated) boar’ ~ PII *u̯arā́j́ha ‘wild boar’, a non-IE word (see §3.4.3. Asian agricultural substratum).
· PFP *śaka ‘goat’ ~ PII *sćāga-/sćaga.
· PFU *šorńi or *šar(a)ńa ‘gold’ ~ PII j́ʰaranya (<*gholʕw-) ‘gold’, cf. Av. zaranya-.
· FP *śuka ‘chaff, awn’, only found in Iranian, cf. YAv. śuka- ‘needle’.
· Vog. tas ‘stranger’ < Pre-PIr. *dasi̯u- ‘foreigner’ (meaning shift from PII ‘people’, see §126.96.36.199. Society and laws); an early borrowing due to the *s- (Lubotsky 2001).
· PP *vork ‘kidney’ ~ PII *vr̥tka-.
uči – šepät
uči, ńarana u̯olima,
će küsä u̯iχim u̯iχitä,
će enäm kantam,
će koi̯im suχim kantata.
uči šepäi̯ moni:
uräm šepäi̯ ai̯atam u̯äntitä.”
šepät monit: “kuntal, uči!
śüðjämät ćärkë u̯äntitä:
urä, asëra, učin śäχrätä
eči päu̯im u̯erčam teki,
učin aptë epä u̯olik.”
e kulimä uči ńurmik kulkiśa.
· For ‘not having wool’, the more specific PFU word *ńarV ‘hairless skin’ is found in the first sentence in the essive case (in *-na), with the use of a copulative verb, and both terms in the nominative, with the dependent construction in the past perfect (or participle?).
· For the negative verb, a system similar to Proto-Finno-Samic is used, conjugating it with the third person singular marked by dialectal LPU present *-pa/-pä.