Hungarian and Sumerian?

Moderator: Ashucky

User avatar
kibo
Posts: 6942
Joined: 2003-12-16, 18:35
Gender: male
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby kibo » 2009-02-13, 22:49

Please, this is an elite topic, don't degrade it with mundane stuff like evolution. 8-)
Goals:
[flag=]es[/flag] ➜ C1 (DELE)
[flag=]de[/flag] ➜ B2 (Goethe-Zertifikat) / C1
[flag=]sv[/flag] ➜ B1/B2

User avatar
Sean of the Dead
Posts: 3884
Joined: 2008-10-11, 17:51
Real Name: Sean Jorgenson
Gender: male
Location: Kent
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Sean of the Dead » 2009-02-13, 22:56

How can a religious person be a scientist? Those are almost exact opposites. :P

On-Topic: I'm surprised at how similar the 2 are. :hmm:
Main focuses: [flag]kw[/flag] [flag]he[/flag]
Sub focus: Plautdietsch
On my own: [flag]is[/flag]

User avatar
Formiko
Posts: 13388
Joined: 2008-01-25, 10:21
Real Name: Dosvdali
Gender: male
Location: Ashghabat
Country: TM Turkmenistan (Türkmenistan)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Formiko » 2009-02-13, 23:08

sa wulfs wrote:Actually, not believing in the basic tenets of Darwin's theory is a ticket to Wrongville.


Actually, not believing in the basic tenets of Creation laid down by Jesus Christ is a ticket to Wrongville.
Cherokee Indian STILL improving German.
Getting reacquainted with Swahili Msaada!
In no particular order
[flag]eo[/flag][flag]de[/flag][flag]es[/flag][flag]yo[/flag][flag]chr[/flag][flag]ru[/flag]

User avatar
Formiko
Posts: 13388
Joined: 2008-01-25, 10:21
Real Name: Dosvdali
Gender: male
Location: Ashghabat
Country: TM Turkmenistan (Türkmenistan)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Formiko » 2009-02-13, 23:10

sjheiss wrote:How can a religious person be a scientist? Those are almost exact opposites. :P


Isaac Newton, Galileo, Ibn al-Haytham (Creator of the Scientific Method), just to name three.
Cherokee Indian STILL improving German.
Getting reacquainted with Swahili Msaada!
In no particular order
[flag]eo[/flag][flag]de[/flag][flag]es[/flag][flag]yo[/flag][flag]chr[/flag][flag]ru[/flag]

User avatar
Sean of the Dead
Posts: 3884
Joined: 2008-10-11, 17:51
Real Name: Sean Jorgenson
Gender: male
Location: Kent
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Sean of the Dead » 2009-02-13, 23:13

No, believing the basic tenets of Creation laid down by the magical fairy named Jesus Christ, makes you :silly: for thinking that some giant floating guy in the sky that no one has ever seen created the Earth and everything on it.

OH! All you religious nutjobs people watch this.

And how does that work? Religious = created by a magical floating guy, scientist = knows people evolved. I don't see how they add up. :P
Main focuses: [flag]kw[/flag] [flag]he[/flag]
Sub focus: Plautdietsch
On my own: [flag]is[/flag]

User avatar
Formiko
Posts: 13388
Joined: 2008-01-25, 10:21
Real Name: Dosvdali
Gender: male
Location: Ashghabat
Country: TM Turkmenistan (Türkmenistan)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Formiko » 2009-02-13, 23:57

sjheiss wrote:No, believing the basic tenets of Creation laid down by the magical fairy named Jesus Christ, makes you :silly: for thinking that some giant floating guy in the sky that no one has ever seen created the Earth and everything on it.

OH! All you religious nutjobs people watch this.

And how does that work? Religious = created by a magical floating guy, scientist = knows people evolved. I don't see how they add up. :P


I'm a nut job because I believe in a loving creator? Why aren't you the nut job because you believe we came from nothing and evolved even though macro-evolution has not been seen either.
Cherokee Indian STILL improving German.
Getting reacquainted with Swahili Msaada!
In no particular order
[flag]eo[/flag][flag]de[/flag][flag]es[/flag][flag]yo[/flag][flag]chr[/flag][flag]ru[/flag]

User avatar
linguaholic
Posts: 3122
Joined: 2008-06-21, 13:29
Gender: female
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby linguaholic » 2009-02-14, 0:07

Oh please, not another one of those discussions...

The video was funny ... buut the line of "arguments" was a) disrespectful and b) completely beside the point.

I'm going to go to bed now and get my happy agnostic soul some rest. :)
native: Deutsch / advanced: English, Nederlands / intermediate: Esperanto / forgotten: Français / fighting my way through: עברית מקראית / dreaming of: Čeština, עברית / admiring from a safe distance: فارسی

KingHarvest
Posts: 4168
Joined: 2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender: male
Location: New York
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby KingHarvest » 2009-02-14, 0:12

Formiko wrote:
sa wulfs wrote:Actually, not believing in the basic tenets of Darwin's theory is a ticket to Wrongville.


Actually, not believing in the basic tenets of Creation laid down by Jesus Christ is a ticket to Wrongville.


So is pretending to know a lot of languages that you don't.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Comparing Case Markers

Postby millenia » 2009-02-14, 5:38

Case Markers Compared

I have been constructing a couple of comparative tables on various languages. On phonetics , which is not finished. On Grammatical characteristics, Case Markers, Sound rules. The tables have most FU languages, plus Turkish, Etruscan, Sumerian, and for the heck of it I threw in Aymara from South America. Since the Case marker table is the most complete and among the simplest to construct I did a course comparison that included only: Hungarian, Finnish, Ob Ugrian, Turkish, Etruscan, Sumerian and Aymara, to keep it printable. I accepted minor differences such as -tol vs ta or lta ; rol vs ra; nak vs na & ka and so on, since some small variations did occur even in those languages that are closely related.

Then I compared each language one to one, whether their case markers were similar and added up the similarities, resulting in the following comparative list. I would love to post the table but dont know how to get it to keep the table format. I tried yesterday, but it wont take the HTML table formats. If there is a way to do so, someone tell me how.

LANGUAGE..No Cases...ObUg....Hung....Finn....Turk....Aymara....Etruscan
Ob Ugrian........9........X
Hungarian.....>21........4.........X
Finnish..........19........5.........6........X.
Turk..............6........2..........4........2........X.
Aymara.........11........2..........5........5........2.........X
Etruscan.......?15........6.........11.......7........3.........4..........X
Sumerian.......17........4.........12.......6........4.........5..........9

Note that Sumerian is usually claimed to have only 10 cases but, several have more than one function and several aren’t usually listed. The Etruscan cases aren’t all known, I was using some of the interpretations of Mario Alinei for them. Turkish seems to be the odd man out in this list, since it has only a few basic case markers. Even Indo European had more. While there may be a lot of shared words with Turkic languages, their morphemes are quite different. As expected Aymara only has distant links, but even this much is very surprising. Naturally this will be called a coincidence, but I don’t know about that. There is way too many similar cases to explained away with that excuse. I am not saying that its a common language family at all, but only that there is a layer of commonality from some very archaic origin, ?Nostratic perhaps is too general to explain it as it has become a sort of a general collection of too many languages, without the tree that shows those that are more similar to each other. Vocabulary alone isn't enough.

maeng
Posts: 158
Joined: 2003-09-12, 14:23
Gender: male
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby maeng » 2009-02-14, 13:55

I thought that I’d take a look at your wordlist and comment on some of your claims. My reconstructions are in general taken from P. Sammallahti’s article Historical Phonology of the Uralic languages (1988). I’m commenting only on Uralic evidence, since I know nothing about the historical deveploment of Sumerian or other languages on your list.

millenia wrote:Uralic ñele =arrow
Ostjak=nol, not=arrow
Hungarian=nyil=arrow
Sumerian *ŋil > gil-ak=arrow (ak=formative)
Wintu=not=arrow


I have no idea what your sources are, but never have I seen such reconstructions.
*ni̮xli̮ (i̮ = ɨ in Sammallahti’s notation) is nowadays usually reconstructed for ‘arrow’. Also nyíl in Hungarian instead of nyil.

millenia wrote:Uralic=*luwo=bone
Ob-Ugrian=luw=bone
Finnish =luu=bone
Penuitan=lolo, lulu=bone


*li̮xi̮ not luwo is reconstructed.

millenia wrote:Uralic =*eje=night
Finnish=yo=night (j=y)
Hungarian= éj- = night, north
Nisenan=oy=north


Usually reconstructed as *üji , although I got to admit that when looking at this entry in Sammallahti’s article some of the cognates do strike me as being a bit irregular. (for example Zyryan displaying o instead of i̮, which is the usual case for Proto-Uralic *ü in Zyryan). But anyway Finnish entry here is false, it’s yö.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor=uje=north (j =y)!!!
Zyrjen=woj, oj=north
Hungarian= éj-szak =north
Wintu=way=north


Only ä, a, i and i̮ were possible in non-initial syllables in Proto-Uralic, hence it can’t be *uje.

millenia wrote:Finnish=aime=needle with triangular point
Lapp =aime=needle with triangular point
Samoyed S.=ime=needle
Cheremis=ime=needle with triangular point
Nisenan=ym=needle like, awl, harpoon head


Again it should be äimä in Finnish, ai’bme in Sami (Lapp), iimee in Cheremis and it’s usually recontructed as *äjmä.

millenia wrote:Estonian=pahk=lum, node, protruderance, knot of tree
Kamasian=patka=gnarl, knot of a birch tree
Finnish=pohko=ball
Nisenan=posko=football, oak gall


There’s no such word in Finnish.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor= *kala =fish (with long a)
Sumerian = ku-a or ha_ =fish
Hungarian =hal=fish
Finnish =kala =fish
Vogul=hul=fish
Maidu=hol=fish
Wintu=hul hur=salmon


With a long a? Why? Certainly not, as there wasn’t long vowels in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric only *oo, *uu, *ee and *ii.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor *päŋe =to hold, keep, bird type
Sumerian bag =to cage, keep, and bird type
Samoyed Yenisei=foga,pog=net
Hungarian =pók=spider; fog=to catch or hold, fogoy=a bird type
Miwok=poke=bird nest (?) may be coincidental.


*päŋi ‘head’ (or until the 80’s *päŋe, but like I said before no e in non-initial syllables) is indeed a reconstructed word for PU, but it’s reflex in Hungarian is fő ‘head’.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor = *talase =pole
Finnish = talas =a pole
Vogul=tow=central pole of house
Sumerian =dellu =mast; dil-ur=pole; di-m=cosmic post;
Wintu=tow=cenral forked pole of house


I don’t know the actual etymology, but looks a lot like a loanword, in general there are only few words in Finnish ending in -s and most of them are IE loanwords usually from Proto-Germanic (kuningas, ruhtinas etc.)

millenia wrote:FinnUgor *joŋ-kse =bow; *jaŋ-te=bow string
Hungarian = ijj, iv =bow (*ŋ>v ~j)
Vogul=jow-t=bow
Sierra Miwok=jawe=bow


*ji̮ŋsi̮̮, not *joŋ-kse.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor = *woj-che =type of wild duck
Sumerian =_us and _uz =a duck ( w/_/#_ (not a or ä)
Hungarian = vöcs-ök =crested grebe
Ostjak east=paj=duck (*w>p)
Maidu=poje=duck


Is ch = č?, if so then definitely no, since there were no affricates in Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric.

millenia wrote:Uralic =*kätse =knife
Sumerian = guz =to cut ( z=ts)
Hungarian =késh=knife; has-it=cut in two; has-on=alike;
Vogul=kesi=knife
Miwok=kice=knife


Suspicious consonant cluster in *kätse.

millenia wrote:Samoyed=nomeh=rabbit
FinnUgor =numel =rabit
Hungarian =*nyov-ul > nyúl =rabbit.
Miwok=nomeh=cottontail rabbit


Proto-Samoyed *ńåmå, Proto-Uralic *ńomå

millenia wrote:Finnish=veine=extemely old, ancestor Veinemonen
Hungarian =vén (as in vain) =extremely old person
Maidu=wono-mi=death giver, finish (mi,mej=give)


Väinämöinen, not Veinemonen and PU *mexi ‘to give, sell’(probably an old loan from Proto-IE) is reflected in Finnish myy(dä) ‘to sell’. So if you were thinking that Väinämöinen is a compound like wono-mi in Maidu, I’d say that you are harmonizing evidence to your own benefit, claiming that (mi, mej =give) exists in Finnish.
Tell me how can you look for regular sound correspondences if your data is already erronous to begin with? Don’t tell me that people working on Nostratic premises are just looking for words that _today_ look vaguely similar. Imo you are anyway fishing too deep, meaning that the time-depth involved is just too long. And please don’t come back with arguments like “get over your own bias”, but rather take your own advice.

User avatar
CoBB
Posts: 5265
Joined: 2004-08-26, 8:34
Real Name: PG
Gender: male
Location: An island...
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby CoBB » 2009-02-14, 17:21

millenia wrote:Hungarian = ijj, iv =bow (*ŋ>v ~j)

Eye-hurting! :doggy: It’s íj (bow) and ív (arch, curve)...

Szemfájdító! :doggy: Helyesen íj és ív...

maeng wrote:Suspicious consonant cluster in *kätse.

Wow, that brings up some memories! :P

Hű, ez előhozott pár emléket! :P
Tanulni, tanulni, tanulni!

A pő, ha engemély, kimár / De mindegegy, ha vildagár... / ...mert engemély mindet bagul, / Mint vélgaban a bégahur!...

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby millenia » 2009-02-14, 17:28

maeng wrote:I thought that I’d take a look at your wordlist and comment on some of your claims. My reconstructions are in general taken from P. Sammallahti’s article Historical Phonology of the Uralic languages (1988). I’m commenting only on Uralic evidence, since I know nothing about the historical deveploment of Sumerian or other languages on your list.

millenia wrote:Uralic ñele =arrow
Ostjak=nol, not=arrow
Hungarian=nyil=arrow
Sumerian *ŋil > gil-ak=arrow (ak=formative)
Wintu=not=arrow



maeng wrote: I have no idea what your sources are, but never have I seen such reconstructions.
*ni̮xli̮ (i̮ = ɨ in Sammallahti’s notation) is nowadays usually reconstructed for ‘arrow’. Also nyíl in Hungarian instead of nyil.


All I see in your examples are squares and squiggles! Obviously that cant be right either. OK so I try to make my lists leggible by avoiding them. I think that is the least that I can do to make things legible. I also did a few Anglicizations of letters to make them understandable. I never should have bothered because I didnt do it consistently. I will have to correct that. Are all Finns so picky to note whether the i or ü is long or not? and invent such reactionary rhetoric to discredit and to confuse others? This seems to be a common characteristic of FU linguists. The idea that the reconstructed form is so perfectly understood as your religion claims, is also far from proovable, without more deep historic references. Reconstructions are great, but they are still just approximations. By the way one of my references for this was Rhédei & Lakó "a magyar szókészlet FU elemei", Volume 3 ,pg484. I dont speak Finnish and when I make some small error with Finnish, the Finns jump all over me.

millenia wrote:Uralic=*luwo=bone
Ob-Ugrian=luw=bone
Finnish =luu=bone
Penuitan=lolo, lulu=bone


maeng wrote:*li̮xi̮ not luwo is reconstructed.


B.T.W this is totally illegible to me!! My reference was from an article by Hungarian Linguist,
Dr Szadovszky, where I am sure he didnt use the exact phoneme notation. Now I wish I could see the proper form of your squiggles so that I could learn from it.

millenia wrote:Uralic =*eje=night
Finnish=yo=night (j=y)
Hungarian= éj- = night, north
Nisenan=oy=north


maeng wrote:Usually reconstructed as *üji , although I got to admit that when looking at this entry in Sammallahti’s article some of the cognates do strike me as being a bit irregular. (for example Zyryan displaying o instead of i̮, which is the usual case for Proto-Uralic *ü in Zyryan). But anyway Finnish entry here is false, it’s yö.



millenia wrote:FinnUgor=uje=north (j =y)!!!
Zyrjen=woj, oj=north
Hungarian= éj-szak =north
Wintu=way=north


maeng wrote:Only ä, a, i and i̮ were possible in non-initial syllables in Proto-Uralic, hence it can’t be *uje.


Well I took out my magnifying glasses because the umlouts in my reference were not very clear but blurred togehter. So it was *üje or *eje in my reference, rather than uje Rhédei, Vol I, pg 144.

millenia wrote:Finnish=aime=needle with triangular point
Lapp =aime=needle with triangular point
Samoyed S.=ime=needle
Cheremis=ime=needle with triangular point
Nisenan=ym=needle like, awl, harpoon head


maeng wrote:Again it should be äimä in Finnish, ai’bme in Sami (Lapp), iimee in Cheremis and it’s usually recontructed as *äjmä.

Thanks, this definitely came from a non linguistic notation source, in English, so they didnt bother with the dots. You have a great advantage in having at your disposal all the linguistic references which I dont, especially with an archaic word like this.

millenia wrote:Estonian=pahk=lum, node, protruderance, knot of tree
Kamasian=patka=gnarl, knot of a birch tree
Finnish=pohko=ball
Nisenan=posko=football, oak gall


maeng wrote: There’s no such word in Finnish.

Perhaps you may need to look into old Finnish to find it! or there is an umlaut missing ? I have it in an article.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor= *kala =fish (with long a)
Sumerian = ku-a or ha_ =fish
Hungarian =hal=fish
Finnish =kala =fish
Vogul=hul=fish
Maidu=hol=fish
Wintu=hul hur=salmon


maeng wrote:With a long a? Why? Certainly not, as there wasn’t long vowels in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric only *oo, *uu, *ee and *ii.

These to me looks like a long u, just another way of representing them. While in Finnish it may have been short, Samoyed and Lapp has long u, etc. In Hungarian its sort of in the middle, but not accented for long which can be 2 to 3 times long. So here we are arguing over pretty minor things, which dont amount to much more that to try to discredit me for trying.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor *päŋe =to hold, keep, bird type
Sumerian bag =to cage, keep, and bird type
Samoyed Yenisei=foga,pog=net
Hungarian =pók=spider; fog=to catch or hold, fogoy=a bird type
Miwok=poke=bird nest (?) may be coincidental.


maeng wrote:*päŋi ‘head’ (or until the 80’s *päŋe, but like I said before no e in non-initial syllables) is indeed a reconstructed word for PU, but it’s reflex in Hungarian is fő ‘head’.

Again the long and short vowels, which are not easy to enter unless I use a Hungarian keyboard, and then most readers don't even notice the difference.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor = *talase =pole
Finnish = talas =a pole
Vogul=tow=central pole of house
Sumerian =dellu =mast; dil-ur=pole; di-m=cosmic post;
Wintu=tow=cenral forked pole of house


maeng wrote:I don’t know the actual etymology, but looks a lot like a loanword, in general there are only few words in Finnish ending in -s and most of them are IE loanwords usually from Proto-Germanic (kuningas, ruhtinas etc.)


The loan word explanations to much of FinnoUgrian is not very trustworthy and its too bad you guys take it on faith that everything that has any similarity to IE must be from IE. To me thats nonsense. The Aryan scholars will be laughing at how thoroughly they have confused us, to turn on ourselves and deny most of what is our own. There are many examples of words that are claimed by them but are unlikely to be from them simply due to the many other languages that have them. Actually there is much more to most of my word lists that I didnt want to add, because it would make this posting too long. Even so many people complained about its size right at the start. So tell me, when or when did the Ob Ugrians come into contact with the Germans, to adopt this "German" word "tow" ?! and what is this German word, and it's etymology. You may have some insignificant points to make about using the "exact" FU linguistic forms, but that doesnt make the list all wrong as you clearly try to indicate.


millenia wrote:FinnUgor *joŋ-kse =bow; *jaŋ-te=bow string
Hungarian = ijj, iv =bow (*ŋ>v ~j)
Vogul=jow-t=bow
Sierra Miwok=jawe=bow


maeng wrote:*ji̮ŋsi̮̮, not *joŋ-kse.

Thats what my reference say! Rhédei Vol II, pg 317.

millenia wrote:FinnUgor = *woj-che =type of wild duck
Sumerian =_us and _uz =a duck ( w/_/#_ (not a or ä)
Hungarian = vöcs-ök =crested grebe
Ostjak east=paj=duck (*w>p)
Maidu=poje=duck


maeng wrote:Is ch = č?, if so then definitely no, since there were no affricates in Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric.

No this is my attempt to Anglicize for our readers, although I certainly didnt do a consistent job of it,
as in Hungarian vöcsök ie. vöchök.

millenia wrote:Uralic =*kätse =knife
Sumerian = guz =to cut ( z=ts)
Hungarian =késh=knife; has-it=cut in two; has-on=alike;
Vogul=kesi=knife
Miwok=kice=knife


maeng wrote:Suspicious consonant cluster in *kätse.

Again this is my attempt to Anglicize the phoneme, and there isnt a consonant cluster there.

millenia wrote:Samoyed=nomeh=rabbit
FinnUgor =numel =rabit
Hungarian =*nyov-ul > nyúl =rabbit.
Miwok=nomeh=cottontail rabbit


maeng wrote:Proto-Samoyed *ńåmå, Proto-Uralic *ńomå

In my reference Uralic ñoma and FinnUgor ~*ñoma-*le, which is meant to explain the Hungarian
formative which is also used in several other FU languages for this word. Vol III, pg 491

millenia wrote:Finnish=veine=extemely old, ancestor Veinemonen
Hungarian =vén (as in vain) =extremely old person
Maidu=wono-mi=death giver, finish (mi,mej=give)


maeng wrote:Väinämöinen, not Veinemonen and PU *mexi ‘to give, sell’(probably an old loan from Proto-IE) is reflected in Finnish myy(dä) ‘to sell’. So if you were thinking that Väinämöinen is a compound like wono-mi in Maidu, I’d say that you are harmonizing evidence to your own benefit, claiming that (mi, mej =give) exists in Finnish.
Tell me how can you look for regular sound correspondences if your data is already erronous to begin with? Don’t tell me that people working on Nostratic premises are just looking for words that _today_ look vaguely similar. Imo you are anyway fishing too deep, meaning that the time-depth involved is just too long. And please don’t come back with arguments like “get over your own bias”, but rather take your own advice.


Your whole premise that I am claiming that all of this list implies a close genetic link is wrong. I dont claim that. Only that there appears to be a distant one, and there is something common in many languages that cannot be all explained away by "borrowing" and "coincidence". Certainly some can be.
As I have stated the Penuit language additions were not from my own work at all, and have been presented by its author at FinnUgor linguistic meetings, and he wasn't kicked out of the club, as is usually done to heretics. You have proven yourself to be a nitpicking biased person, who must hate his own kind, who does nothing more than make a mountains out of molehills, with the goal to mislead and discredit. I think everyone who reads this thread can see that if they arent biased and should know that all progress is being thwarted in FU linguistic circles by such obstructionism, where facts, well known and documented facts and physically available proofs are denied because of linguistic dogma. In Hungary they tell archeologists, historians and anthropologists what can and cannot be real based on what was possible 3,000 years ago and it is an impossibly constrictive situation and it really irritates other scientists. In general their methods serve only to exagerate the importance of foreign elements and to mock and ridicule their own kind, so that they will give up their past, culture, traditions and become like the rest of Europe.

maeng
Posts: 158
Joined: 2003-09-12, 14:23
Gender: male
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby maeng » 2009-02-14, 19:11

millenia wrote:Your whole premise that I am claiming that all of this list implies a close genetic link is wrong. I dont claim that. Only that there appears to be a distant one, and there is something common in many languages that cannot be all explained away by "borrowing" and "coincidence". Certainly some can be.
As I have stated the Penuit language additions were not from my own work at all, and have been presented by its author at FinnUgor linguistic meetings, and he wasn't kicked out of the club, as is usually done to heretics. You have proven yourself to be a nitpicking biased person, who must hate his own kind, who does nothing more than make a mountains out of molehills, with the goal to mislead and discredit. I think everyone who reads this thread can see that if they arent biased and should know that all progress is being thwarted in FU linguistic circles by such obstructionism, where facts, well known and documented facts and physically available proofs are denied because of linguistic dogma. In Hungary they tell archeologists, historians and anthropologists what can and cannot be real based on what was possible 3,000 years ago and it is an impossibly constrictive situation and it really irritates other scientists. In general their methods serve only to exagerate the importance of foreign elements and to mock and ridicule their own kind, so that they will give up their past, culture, traditions and become like the rest of Europe.


I never claimed that Ob-Ugric has had contacts with Proto-Germanic speaking people, I merely said that the Finnish word looks a lot like a loan or a derivation (in which case it obviously can't be a cognate with the Ob-Ugric word). And I can certainly see why early loanwords threaten your Nostratic views. I'm not trying to mislead people, far from it. I can't speak on behalf of the whole nation, but when I see Finnish quoted wrong in an attempt to prove some controversial theory, I feel that correcting them is in order, but since you can't obviously understand the difference between long and short vowels I won't bother with it from now on. What people trying to prove their Nostratic theories right usually have in common, is that other people who disagree with their random nonsense are out to get them. And if I'm making mountains out of molehills, it's because I don't see how one can establish systematic and regular sound correspendences relying on errenous data, and it doesn't matter whether you're working on Nostratic premises or otherwise trying to prove genetic relationship between two/several languages. In Finland there are too several self-reclaimed authors on historical linguistics who usually don't have any background in the field and they resort to similar claims that you made in your post. Also I'd be very careful when using Rédei as my source since our knowledge of historical phonology has evolved a lot and some of his works are out-dated.

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Another Ob Ugrian & Penuit short list

Postby millenia » 2009-04-01, 3:43

Another short list of extra words from a letter from Dr Szadovszky’s comparisons with Penuit languages of California. After this I will be changing the subject. This is mainly comparisons with dialects of Miwok & Maidu. I personally claim no genetic relationship, since I know nothing of their grammar. My meager attempt to find a little proved unsuccesful and I don't really like to spend that much time on such distant languages although the ObUgrian and Samoyedic similarities are interesting. To me the grammar is every bit as important, since vocabulary may be a common inheritance also.

I used ú to refer to long u, é =long e. I could give many other language examples but here I will just list what the Dr wrote. He also mentions in his article: “ In this article, for technical reasons, the linguistic items are written without diacritic marks – signs of palatization, glottalization, etc. Consequently, before quoting any of the technical linguistic representations, consult the original sources for the diactitic marks.” This refered to some articles he wrote, not the letter shown here.

Vogul: xuj =dawn;
Hu: haj-nal=dawn;
++Mich: hój =morning
++Miss: ha’je

Vogul: xuj-t=excite?
Hu: haj-t=drive(animals, or a car) ;
++Mib: haj- =drive, driver

Vogul: kuj - =throw
Hu: haj-it=throw,toss;
++Miss: ha’j=throw;

Vogul: xuj-p =more, (count =”+”)
++Mich: he’ji- =more; (count=”+”)

Ostjak-S: xaja=stepfather
++Mich: háj?i =stepfather;

Ostjak-S: xowa =wilt (gray)
++Mich: how’a- =wilt (gray)

Ostjak-S: xút= pine;
++Mib: hút-us =pine;

Vogul: xút= get fat;
Hu: hiz-=get fat; (VtV>z)
++Maidu: hyt=fat (noun or adj)

Vogul: xét=freezing cold
Hu: hid-eg =cold
++Miss: het- =cool off;

Vogul: xúl =fish
Hu: hal=fish;
++Mil: húul=trout;
++Nis hol=fish;

Vogul: xóli =to die;
Hu: hal- =die;
++Mich: húl-wu =to die;

Vogul: xúli =spend night
Hu: hál=rest,sleep;
++Miss: hu’l =find shelter;

Vogul: xili =dig
++Mil: hél-(lam) =digging (stick)

Vogul: xún =throw
Hu: hány=throw up
++Mich: hó’ne= throw up;

OstyakN: xon =belly-(belt)
++Mich: hón- =belly (belt); breats;

Ostyak N: xos =star
Hu: hugy (arch)
++Mich: hós- =star

Vogul: xos’= pine needles;
++Mich: hó’še- =pine needles;

Vogul: xos’=spear
Hu: fo-kos?=battle ax (not a close match, but old battle axes had a point not just a plade)
++Miss: hoča =spear

Vogul: xanśa =pattern, script
++Mim: =hočča =tattoo, script

OstyakN : xax =bitter
++Maidu: hâk =bitter;

OstyakN: xox =loosen
++Miss: hok- =loosen;

I think we can all agree these are words that could have been around many milleniums ago and not the kind one has to borrow. Verry strangely, Szadovszky writes that “On the grounds of hundreds of such examples we can assume, that the “Penuit” people left their Eurasian homeland relatively late, after the time when this *k>x>h sound change developed.” He doesn’t claim that American Indians were not here much earlier, only that this particular group came late.

I however find this to be totally unsubstantiated and it is generally not accepted by American anthropologists. Instead I find the idea that this *k>x>h before vellar vowels, change occured only around 2000 BC to be very wrong, since there are signs of it in other languages long before then,in Some Sumerian and Etruscan words. Unfortunately since there are no written records from this time in FinnUgor languages, it cannot be proven. I can only say that this claim is not proven and is not based on anything concrete.

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Sound changes of the vowels in Sumerian

Postby millenia » 2009-04-15, 4:21

Now for a shortened summary of common phonetic changes found in Sumerian which were based upon the earlier proto Uralic words, that have been reconstructed based on various daughter languages. This is generally a tough topic because Sumerian phonetics and dialects are weakly understood. It is generally believed that Sumerian had more vowels than was recorded by the later Akkadian scribes. However knowing that doesnt do us much good without documentation. The Sumerian we know is how the Semites heard it, with their own phonetic sensitivities and how they could reproduce it with their own "alphabet".

First, the vowels:

A #a before a liquid +vowel or a nasal is deleted, otherwise it remains a. If followed by r it may be either an a, e or u, perhaps indicating two different forms of r. That is indicated also by various experts. Sumerian eliminates most consonant clusters, with a single phoneme or inserts a vowel.

A
*aja > _ŋe =chase, go after; *ala=low,down >_lá; *aŋe=opening>_ku =mouth, ka=gate {ŋ>g or k};
*amta > _de-hi =tax, support, _dah=add to,give {mt>d}; *aŋke >_gu-n=anxious, worry; {ŋk>g}

*alte > al-ad=protective spirit; *ajŋe > a’gu =brain; *akta =to hang up> ag=to place;
*arappe =mothers relatives > erib2=daughter in law; *arwa > ára=praise;
atta > ada=father etc.

The internal A becomes an i if followed by a liquid plus Vowel sound usually although its more complex than that. a becomes a ~ u followed by a nasal or r, otherwise remains a. However there appears to be two types of r. If the word final liquid is deleted the vowel also becomes u.

*kaja =toss > _illu-ru =throwing stick; *kajle =bent > gil- =twist, bend, bow;
*tala-se > dil-ur ~ del-lu =pole,mast;

*kalke > gu_ =net; *naje > nu11 =fire, light; *lama > lám=captivate,charm;
*mane > mu =say,tell; *taŋe >dug =body member;
*raŋke =chew > rig 7=graze; *kale > ku_, hu-ŋ=lie down;

Ä
The lead Ä is often deleted when followed by an unvoiced stop or followed by a liquid +vowel. Otherwise it becomes an e or i.

*äle > _il =lift; *äne =sound > _en2=song; *älü =tree sap >_lá-l=honey;
*äle=lap, groin > hal=crotch (difference due to the addition of h);

*ätte =temper metal >_ti-bir =metal worker; *äpper-ke >_buru7=berry; ?äti >_sa+n=lady

*äste =hot,fierry > izi =fire; *äŋe =fire,burn> uk-uk=fire; (in the Emesal dialects e/i > u change)

The internal Ä becomes an e when followed by a palatal sibilant +Vowel. It becomes a u following a deletable lead w, as is the case with other vowels. It becomes e or i, when preceeded by ñ of the protoword . Otherwise it normally become a or u. When followed by an r it can change to a front vowel.

*päśe=unravel,stretch out > peš =expand; *ñäkke > nig-in =enclosure (-in=locative sfx);
*ñäle-ma =tongue> ŋèle, ŋili=pharinx; *ñäre > nir=grab, obtain;

*käppa >gaba =chest,breast; *kälä > gal-am=arise,climb up;
*käte >a-kuš=forearm; kis-ib=hand;

*kärte =metal, sword > giri =sword; *päre =small piece>bir =rip to pieces;
*ćäre >sir=feverish;

*läje =weak, immature > lal=light; *lämpi >_ambar=swamp;
*nämi =don’t, no >nam, na-me, nu-; *pälä =likeness, half > bala=fraction, bara4=divide;
*päŋe > pag =cage, confine,hold; *täwte >tab 2=to burn; *nä-ke > nu =look;

E
When the lead e is followed by a Nasal it becomes a or u. This rarely includes the *nt, which changed to th, then a d.

*ema > ama, uma-mu =mother, older woman;
When it is followed by a liquid +vowel it changes to e or i. When followed by č it becomes u.

elä(t) > tila (metathesis); ele > ilu =damp; e
eče > šu-šu > _šuš =night; ečke = _šu-gid;
Otherwise eće =_šeš =brethren; eće-(ke) = _šeŋ =rain;

The vowel preceeded by a w becomes u or a.

*wiδa > _ùs =lead (δ>t>s); *were > ùri =blood; *weća >_aš;
(except *wete > _eš, _e_=water ?)


Whether preceeded or followed by a nasal the e becomes u or a, unless a liquid sound follows the e. Similarly when followed by just a liquid sound, it also becomes a or u.

*mel’e > meli =deep; *ńele > gil-ak=arrow; (the *ń_ could also cause e>i)

*leme > lum =broth, juice, syrup; *meñe > men >ma_=leave, go;
*penŋe > buŋ=fart,blow; *tempe >dab2,4,5==ripp off,take;
*ćene- > sun, suŋ=decayed,old; *čeŋkä >saŋ=break off;
*čeme > sum-un=spoiled,sour; *śeŋe > sag2,3=weave;

*keje > kul=lust; *kele=need > gala=to value; *kel-ke > kal-ag, kala;
*ćelke >zal-ag=shine>star; *pejće > pasu=ax; *pel-ke >bul-uh;

When a bilabial follows the e it becomes a or u;

*śeppä > suba ; *lewe > lah, lá_; *tewe > du_ ; *ćeppe >šab;

E also often alternates with an I.

*enten > edin=plate, jug; *keñer > ŋiŋ-ara=groats; *ñekke > ŋig-in=enclosure;
*pesä > peš=nest,womb; *śette > sed=distant, far; *leś > liš=meal,morsel ;


I
The lead I follwed by a palatized sibilant is deleted. When followed by a nasal it become u or a; Otherwise it remains i.

*ićä > _su-n =elder,ancestor,father (n=personal marker); *ića > _še-š=brethren;
*iće > _zi =sould, spirit,breath;

*ina > ini, in_=drink,irrigate; ike > e_ =sweat,flood; iče-ppe > isi =mud,dirt;
*ir > ir10 =move about (fast)

Internal I changes to a or u when followed by a Nasal + Vowel as is common with other vowels, except in a few exceptions, that aren’t understood yet.

*kime > kun, *kima > kam; *kińä- > gaŋ; *lampi > _amb-ar; *mińa > mun-uš;
*nime > nam; *pime > pa, bil, _u=grass,herbe; *tin > za-, zu- =you;
*wińća > _ugu(la) =watch,beware; *wiŋe > _ug=end, death; *śiŋe > šag4 =center,essence, heart; * śińćä > šag4=insides; *wińśa=green, gangrene >_ùš 11=poison;

Otherwise it remains an e or i, since e and i alternate in dialects.

*kile > a-kil= shout ; *kinte=fog,mist or *kutte =behind > gidi =eclipsed;
*kil’a > ki =place; *lil, lewle=air,spirit > lil; *mi > me =we;
*niδe > ŋeš (δ>t>š) =shaft,handle of a tool or weapon; *pile > bil =burn;
*pilwe > u-billa=cloud,plume; *piša > peš=cook,bake; tire > dir-ga=cult center;
*wilä > _íla, íli =top,up, lift (unusual due to i not becoming u, perhaps due to ES dialect)

O
Since the O was not recorded by the later Akkadian scribes, it has simply been converted to U or A. It may be that words that have both a or u forms, really represent o sounds which is in between these sounds. The bulk of the words with o however become u in Sumerian, with a few exceptions that may be dialectical or due to differences in the way the o was perceived.

U
Strangely enough the proto U in many cases changes to a. There are many variations and few categories that are immune to this alteration however. One perhaps is u followed by r remains u. U followed by Nasal +consonant remains u. U following a lead Palatal or Sibilant becomes a. U preceeded by by the lead ń, changes to i, as is so common with other vowels. U becomes a when followed by a Liquid plus consonant, otherwise it remains a U or A.

*kurje > gur =ox; *kurwe > hur =incise,etch; *kurńa > kur5=to groove,furrow;
*pura > bùru=revolve; *pure > buru14 =boil,hot (hot season); *mura > mú_ =mill,chrush;

*tuŋke > dug=container ; muŋk-er > mug2 =seed,semen,body (in heat);
*puŋke > bun=twisted, bent; xonta > gud2 =war, warrior;
*kuńće > kug, ku_= “star,shine”; *nume > num-un =procreate,seed;
*muna > nu-mun =egg;

*ćukka > sah-ab =to lock; *ćukke-le >šag5=show affection;
*ćure > šar =herd> multitude,mulitply; *ćule > sal;
*śurwe > sar ~šur=to stabb,pierce,insert; *sula > zal =melt, disolve; *śuwe =mouth,word> sa_4=call,voice; ćuppe > u-šub =bare,naked;

*ńume > nim ~num=high; *ńula=lick > ŋili=throat;
*nume > *ńume > nim?=seed,inseminate;

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby millenia » 2009-04-15, 5:07

An American Indian ??Siux question and a translation from a Hungarian Dr Simon Peter who had partaken of some Siux ceremonies. Which language is this in?

calumet-= peace pipe.

Upon raising the peace pipe high above the following prayer was said.
This may not fit with the English alphabet, and may not be the proper pronunciation.

„Rakattu jya dizet, ill ya füsti Hezod – Rakattu ya dizet, ill ya füsti hezod”
„Wakonda Dédpa, att mö nek Atonhe! – Wakonda Dédpa, att mö nek Atonhe!”

After the ceremony he asked the meaning of this from his translator. He was told that:
"The fire was made?piled, its smoke flies to you - Great spirit ancestor father, give us
your spirit." (ie wisdom)

No doubt the translation is far from perfect and perhaps colored by the listener who did not understand it. The article was written in Hungarian where:

Made/piled a fire = "rakattu ja dizet "which is "rakot tüzet" in Hungarian.
Its smoke flies/raises up to you= "il ja füsti hezod" which is "száll füst-je hozzád"in Hungarian.

great spirit ancestor/old god? give us your spirit
"wakonda dadpa, att mö nek Atonhe! "
"wakonda"? dédapa, add mi nek(ünk) iz-ten (iz =spirit) + ten=sky/spirit/god

The Hungarian word for great spirit or god could be interpreted from the same source
is=ancestor or iz=spirit + ten = god ( linked to Turkic Tengri or Sumerian dingir =sky god or Etruscan tin (related or not in this case is irrelevant!) A homonym of spirit is ész =mind, wisdom.

I cannot break down Atonhe since I dont know its etymology.

The dakota siux addition.
„Ketó ketó hetyen topa, ketó ketó hetyen topa.” =2 & 2 be 4 /Siux
Kettö és kettö legyen topa /Hungarian (topa is an archaic synonym for 4=négy) still used about 100 years ago and refered to being down on the ground on your fours.

No claims are made to relatedness at all, only basic awe at such common terms.

User avatar
Formiko
Posts: 13388
Joined: 2008-01-25, 10:21
Real Name: Dosvdali
Gender: male
Location: Ashghabat
Country: TM Turkmenistan (Türkmenistan)

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby Formiko » 2009-04-15, 7:55

millenia wrote:An American Indian ??Siux question and a translation from a Hungarian Dr Simon Peter who had partaken of some Siux ceremonies. Which language is this in?

calumet-= peace pipe.


cannumpa is peace pipe in Lakota.

The language referenced seems to be Algonquin or Siouan
Cherokee Indian STILL improving German.
Getting reacquainted with Swahili Msaada!
In no particular order
[flag]eo[/flag][flag]de[/flag][flag]es[/flag][flag]yo[/flag][flag]chr[/flag][flag]ru[/flag]

User avatar
Peeves
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-12-14, 16:46
Real Name: Emily
Gender: female
Country: US United States (United States)

Postby Peeves » 2009-04-16, 17:09

nJohn West-Hungary wrote:To Kubi !



Image


I met a Hungarian guy today who had a drawing of one of those with him. He showed it to me while trying to convince me that Hungarian is actually Sumerian and has nothing to do with the Uralic languages other than loanwords it has from the original language of the Magyars.

He actually wouldn't believe me when I told him that the word for "you" (formal and plural) in Finnish is "Te", because, according to him, this is the word for you in Sumerian/Hungarian, and Finnish has nothing to do with either of them.

So he actually made me prove it to him that Te means "you".

I personally think connection many Hungarians are trying to make between their language and Sumerian is largely politically motivated, just like when they tried to prove that their language was related to the Turkic languages instead of those languages of "the most primitive peoples of Eurasia".

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby millenia » 2009-04-17, 2:04

Reeves

I find your reply ridiculous. Your Hungarian informant may have a lot turned on its head or incompletely understood, but so do you. So you are no better.

Uralic .........mu-n =I, tun=you, so-n =he/she mi =we, ti =you (pl), se =them
Finnish........minä =I, si-na=you, hän = he/she, me=we, te =you(pl), hen=them
Hungarian........én=I, te=you, ö =he,she mi=we, ti=you ök =them
Sumerian..me, nga=I, za =you, ani=he/she, me, za-nene=you, e-nene=them
nene=plural. (archaic Hungarian used un not ö for he/she )

The Uralic n endings are pronoun markers, as they are in Sumerian, used with Verbal suffixing.
By the way some pronouns are often shared across language families, so they are of marginal use in comparing, when used only by themselves.

Your remark that anyone who dares talk of other relations, than what is allowed on the Hungarian
"reservation" only prooves to me that you are one of those, who is offended by any feeling of self respect and pride of being Hungarian or the bearer of Hungarian culture. That makes you a racist.
We are all nationalists to a degree, especially in America, where its an order of magnitude larger than in Hungary. If you would have looked closer at my list, you would have seen that the protowords listed are based for the most part on Uralic and FinnoUgrian protowords (some Altaic) and not Sumerian, which was derived from it using sound rules. So who is denying FinnoUgrian origin of the root language when the words are derived from FinnoUgrian? Not me. Therefore how can this be nationalistic, when its not exclusive at all to one language or race and doesn't try to exclude anyone? OK so maybe I am a pro-human racist. I can accept that.

By the way I have read quite a lot of articles by the so called "experts" who write articles for the sole purpose of belittling people, by associating them indirectly to some yokel and what nonsense he said, that is totally unrelated to the person being ridiculed for trying to advance our linguistic boundaries. By the way most linguistic advances would not have happened without those pesky "amateurs". Their comments are identical to yours, so you are a plagerist also, and equally closed minded. Your comments have no substance, because you never talk about the subject and only name call the individual. They proove nothing and are a waste of time to respond to. Knowledge will expand whether you like it or not. I will keep on posting because I have volumes of things to write about.

millenia
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-09-22, 6:33
Real Name: Fred Hamori
Gender: male
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hungarian and Sumerian?

Postby millenia » 2009-04-17, 3:05

Unfortunately some of you cannot see the UTF8 letters and may see squiggles and squares.
Try to fix your browser to have the extended alphabet, which is so important here. Some of my references in the footnotes marked by / were also blown away when I exported this segment.

4.2 The Sumerian Consonants

The consonants were also minimized by the later scribes, just as the vowel system was minimized. There are many indications based on Sumerian loanwords into Semitic languages which indicate that the old forms of Sumerian consonants were different than the late written forms. The studies of Gelb, 1961 emphasized the evolution from before Old Babylonian to Old Babylonian and later, which showed that early Sumerian did not have voiced stops, but over time it had either aspirated or voiced stops./Th.pg43

The Uralic ancestor to Finno-Ugrian consonant system was rich in palletized consonants, but only one series of stops, the unaspirated and unvoiced p, t, k was used and b, d, g and bh, dh, gh (β,δ,γ) were not./ However the later Finno-Ugrian did have aspirated stops internal to the word. The Sumerian pronunciation, transliterated by the later Semitic scribes, however had no way of symbolizing these palletized consonants, except the “sh”, since Semitic languages didn’t have these sounds in their language. Without getting too involved in the history of how all of this was discovered and skipping to what concerns the readers. Dietz/ has summarized the researches of Gelb on the Sumerian consonants into the following types:

The lack of voiced stops in Old Sumerian is also shared by proto Finno-Ugrian/ , Etruscan and several old dead languages. Those voiced stops that exist in F.U. languages today are mainly found in loan words, except in Hungarian, which has systematically changed many of the unvoiced stops to voiced (*p>b, *t>t/d, *kB>g,h)./ In Sumerian there are many examples of words, which are sometimes written with a “t” while at other times the same word is written with a “d”, showing a transition and an uncertainty or insensitivity toward voiced stops. For example:

tah~dah=to add; ud~ut=sun, time; utug~udug=pitfall; utul~udul=herdsman ...

B~W
The b is also used to represent glides like w or bw, a feature that constantly repeats in many of the shared FU and Sumerian words where the w is followed by “a” or “ä” in pFU the Sumerian version changes w to a b.

*wole >ba, bi=was ; *walka >bal=tear down; *wamta=wilderness>bad4=inarrable land, *wänte=defend,guard>a-bad =shelter; *waŋe >bi6, bal=cut; *ware > bar=daybreak; *waŋe > ba =cut, cuting tool;

Otherwise the lead w is deleted, but then it will usually affect the following vowel making it u or a.

*wojćε=type of wild duck > uš~uz; *wače =wise , aware > usu>zu; *wäľe 2= light>ul4,5; *were =blood> _ùri; *weća=all, entire >_aš=one; *wiŋe =end , death > _ug; *wura=wait , guard >_ùru;



J >ŋ ~g
The Sumerian words didn’t indicate any symbol for a j =“y”, ń = “ ñ” or w =”bw” but originally it probably did use them in the spoken language, since these were replaced later with similar type phonemes, such as *j> ŋ or g and *w > b or ø, *ñ >ŋ >n.

*jaje > gag-ig=pain; *jo-ke=river >gu=riverbank; *jor-ke=revolve,travel>gur, gur4;
*jone >ŋan = come; *jore=scraper > gur10.14;

Some instances of the lead “j” are also deleted, especially when followed by front vowels.
*jela > ila~ili =light; *kaje > gil-im=twist,bend;
There are insufficient examples of such words to explain their development. Intervocalic j normally changes to l, especially those preceeded by front vowels or they are simply deleted.

*peje=heat,cook > bil; *keje =mating >kul=sexually mature; *kaja=toss > _ulu-ra; *naje =light, fire > nu_11; *woje=fat, butter > _u; *soja=arm length > su13;

The j after a consonant is deleted.
*kaðja =cover,blanket,tarp,clothes > gada; *kolja=devil > galla;
*orje=slave >ur-du2, ar-ad; *pelja=ear (akkad pil) , bur [l~r];

The intervocalic ‘*p’ often become ‘b’ or ‘m’ in Sumerian, depending on the dialect, however there is also an m~b alteration that corresponds to FU m ~w alteration found in Finnish and Hungarian in derivations from a common root word. Hungarian also changes the intervocalic ‘p’ to ‘v’, unless the p is geminated. Sumerian however changed v to b.

*arape=relative >úrum~erib2; *lepe=leaf, cover> lam; *čapa=sour >sum-un.
*bwole > ba ~me =forms of ‘is’; mammi~mabi; marun~barun...

The velar nasal ‘ŋ’, is like the ‘ng’ in such words as “la-ng-uage” is often written in Sumerian references as a ğ or a g with a ~ on top, however early Sumerian word lists often simply wrote it as a ‘g’ since it often evolved later to be written as a ‘g’ or ‘n’. To be more recognizable and closer to it’s apparent sound and to be compatible to the generally used conventions, I changed this ‘ğ’ to it’s equivalent ‘ŋ’ in this document, because it’s easier to recognize and compare it to other languages which use this font. The Sumerian “ŋ” was also used to represent the old palatized “ñ” as well as several other sounds like the palatal ‘j’ (y), that were uncommon in Semitic languages, but it could change later to n or g.

*ñele =swallow > ŋili=throat; *ñare=grab, win > ŋar~nir; *ñuŋe=rest>niŋ-in2
*ñiŋä=woman,wife > nin; *kuña=repose,close the eye >huŋ~hun; *kiŋ-är= joint > gaŋ...

The Sumerian ‘h’ was a hard ‘h’ like German or Scottish ‘ch’ or the Ugrian ‘x’ pronounced like an aspirated “kh”. It is often written as an ‘h’ with a curve below it, which I haven’t bothered to try to duplicate in this document, for there aren’t any available fonts for it. The lead ‘k’ in the protolanguage, followed by a front vowel or long vowel usually remains ‘k’ or later a ‘g’ in Sumerian, while it becomes g or h, when followed by a back vowel, similar to the sound changes in Ugrian languages, except that the Sumerian rules are a bit more selective than that. The resulting lead ‘h’ is also deleted sometimes when k is followed by “a+l or j”.

H
*koće =long>guz; *kuje=fat >he_2 , _ia; *kul’ke =run, travel> hal;
*kuña=shut eye> huŋ~hun; *kappa > gaba=chest;
Ø
*kuśe=flesh> _uzu; *kaja=toss > _illu-ru=throwing stick;

The ‘k’ or ‘g’ at the end of the word is also normally deleted, unless followed by a morpheme in Sumerian grammar, as well as common derivations from proto-forms of the word./

*jor-ke = spin , wind , roll >gur4; *kuk-ku = anger, angry, dislike >gig, hul gig; *küt-ke = tie > kad4,5; *lol-ke = limb > lill-an =stalk; *lu-ke = figure, count, recon, number > lu =many; *lük-ke = shove, toss, push >lah 4,5; *mer-ke = closed palm , hold > mar_= enclose, lockup, keep; ...about a hundred examples. These are especially common in FU verbs because the verbative was “kV”, but Sumerian and many others have deleted the kV endings except the Finnic languages.

S,Š
There were quite a lot of variations in the sound changes for the sibilants ‘š, s, z’. More than what I can explain. Their usage had probably changed in various periods of history and in different dialects of Sumerian as their notation was not used very consistently by the later scribes. Even in modern American English we hear “s~sh” variations by different people, who don’t follow the older ‘correct’ pronunciation. Sumerian writing did not use a single standard dialect, but used the words in accordance with their local dialect, so that there were multiple pronunciations for the same word even at the same time even though they were mutually understandable. In certain situations the lead sibilant was deleted and also the trailing sibilant was often dropped. *č >z~š; *ś >š>s; *ć >š >s; The lead s is often deleted especially when followed by a Vowel plus a liquid sound like l or j or ŋ or certain “V+r” sounds. This is somewhat similar to a Hungarian sound rule, which has a much simpler sound rule, since all lead ‘s’ are deleted from all proto-words unconditionally.

*š.eŋe=true, right >_gen; *s.al-ke=stand>_al_ ; *s.oŋe = enter> _ka=gate; *s.oŋ-ke = spike >_ga-k; s.äŋ-ke=sky>_an_; s.üle=embrace, fathom(as length) >_ul=length unit; *sula =melt >?zal;

It has been claimed that ‘š’ represents a palletized ‘sh’ sound, but it has also been noticed to be like a ‘ch’ at times and therefore it may represent both the ‘sh’ and ‘ch’ derivation from the proto-word. This is also a common sound rule in Hungarian where “ch” can remain or change to ‘sh’ then ‘s’ and much later in history the ‘ch’ can also become “gy”, causing such changes as Mecher vs. Megyer then Magyar, for the Hungarian ethnic name. In our examples ć represents ch.

*ćakä=drift ice>šeŋ=ice; *ćappe=smash, strike > ša_ 5=cut, break; *ćare =excrement > šur-im~sur-un; *ćatta =war >sad ; *ćadha =mating season,run >šed~sud=to couple;
*ćečä =uncle, father's brother >šeš =brethren, brother; *ćoppe =drip >šub=fall;
*ćore =flow , drible >šur~sur, *ćelke=sparkle, shimmer > sulug~zalag;....

The regular ‘s’ is the same as in English ‘sun’. The “z” however is unlikely to be a voiced sibilant as we normally used it, but another way of representing either a ‘ch’ or the ‘č’=ts which also softened over time to an s. John Hayes also refers to this in his book/ .

R, R’, DR
The ‘dr’ sound is the least accepted and has the fewest examples. Sumerian also avoids such clustering of dissimilar consonants and it absorbs or deletes the softer adjacent consonants. The comparison of the very few examples given for the use of “dr” phoneme have not helped to identify what ‘dr’ might have been/Th pg. 44 or what it might have derived from, since their equivalent words in other languages simply use “d” or “tt” instead. There are also claims that there were two types of ‘r’ sounds/Th pg 46/. My analysis of the sound rules also showed two types of sound rule affects on adjacent sounds, indicating some unknown differences for “r”. Perhaps a hard thrilled and a soft sounding r which may also change to l. The r ~ l alteration is common in Sumerian.

M, N
The nasals ‘m’ or ‘n’ may also alternate in the final positions of the stem of the word, /Th pg46/ as well as ‘m~ŋ’dialectical changes, but especially the ‘n~ŋ’.

m~n
hirin~hirim=nard grass; girin~girim=piece of clay; gin7~gim=like,as; gazin-bu~gazim-bu=pole; ezen~ezem=festival; (ezinu=cereal); erin~erim=man, soldier; edin~edim=vat, container;

m~ŋ
diŋir~dimir=god; ŋu10~ma=my; ŋar7~mar=spade; ŋèle~méli=throat; suŋ-in~sum-un=old, decay;

n~ŋ
gin~giŋ=hatchet; kun-in~kún-iŋ=bitumen; pisaŋ2~pisan2=basket; saŋ-tag~san-tak=pillow, wedge;

TH>D
Another important sound change in Sumerian is the conversion of most dental spirants found in Finno-Ugrian forms δ=dh or ð=dj to “d” or at least recording them as a ‘d’. This phonetic change also occurred in Ugrian languages, except that the aspirated ‘*dh’ changed to ‘l’ instead of d./

*edhe=front,lead > éd>è=away from, rise; *kodhe>kud=remove;
*kudha=dawn >húd=morning; *odha>ùdi=sleep; *padhe> bad3=wall,

There are also indications that there was an interdental ð somewhat like dj / , that is also found in Uralic. This is indicated by the fact that because the later Semitic scribes had no way to represent this sound, they usually represented it with a “d” but sometimes “s” for it. This is what happens frequently in foreighn pronounciation of the Hungarian gy, which they pronounce as ch, d, or sh.

Adab ~ Asab=goddess of scribes “dab”, ud5 ~ uz =she goat;
perhaps: ŋe ~dili ~aš_ =one (the aš would require metathesis to explain)

There are many examples where a similar word can be found using d or z, but they are mostly coincidental. Intervocalic proto consonants with *t usually convert to s or z in Sumerian. These are usually not from ð.

T~d
The intervocalic ‘t’, which is surrounded by vowels, becomes a sibilant, similar to Hungarian, however the geminated ‘tt’ changes to t, possibly th or d’.

*kota=tent, house > ku-eš3=tent; *käte =hand >kiš-ib=hand, wrist; *wetä = guide, lead _uš; *wete > eš >e =water; There are a very few exceptions which converted *t to tt >d like: *kute=drag >gíd; *kota=tent, house >ki-tuš=dwelling ; *mete=honey >? mud-gi=sweetness.

*NT >d
*kinte =fog >gid-im6 =eclipsed,darkened; *-ent=verbative >du; *xont=warrior > gud2;
*pente=roof,cover >a-bad=shelter; This nt>d change is also found in Hungarian, but it appears to be a relatively recent change, perhaps 1,500 years ago./

TT>d
*atta =father > ada; *atta=say, tell > du-g4; *otte=visible > éd>è; *katte=back > _ed-in; *kutt-ur=border, separation > gud; *latte=observe > u-lut-in; *ćatta =war, battle >sad_;
There are a very few exceptions of words that converted *tt >t>š early, which indicates an early change that allowed another sound rule, the intervocalic t “VtV > š”.

Vowel assimilation occurs only in morphemes, rather than in the word stems/Th pg 40/, since the consonants alone carried the meaning in appended morphemes. Vowel + Consonant (VC) words sometimes also switched positions to (CV). Root words were unchanged by inflection, and used the same ideogram signs regardless of the conjugation of the word, similar to Uralic and Altaic languages. The prefix and suffix vowels adapted to the vowel class type of the root word in Old Sumerian, because of what is commonly called the influence of “vowel harmony” which is quite common in agglutinative languages like FU and Altaic, but are not universal in all agglutinative languages, not even within all FU languages. It is important to remember this fact, since the examples may or may not show the changing of the vowel in the morpheme appended to the root words. Early Sumerian utilized light vowel harmony reflecting the characteristic of the spoken language, but late Sumerian of the scribes did not. Since morphemes were often written phonetically, while the root word was written symbolically these changes could be noted. The vowel in a morpheme may also be dropped, or moved from the front to the back (VC >CV) to make the pronunciation flow better, without any change in it’s meaning.

L
The L in Sumerian is often deleted or absorbed by adjacent consonants that lead it and is the most stable when it is in the lead consonant positions. Some of these deletions explain the missing L at the end of some protowords. Rarely the L is deleted at the start of the word also.

*ala =down, lessen > lá=lessen; *alte=protect from harm > al; *alu >lal=false; *alwe=far away, other side > ulli, ul; *ele-ma=lift > íl; *ele > al-kin=sharpened;
*kajle > gil-im=bend; *kuwla > _ell-ag=bladder {*k>h>ø}; *kille > a-kil =shout; *mäle>mèl=hot; *kolle > gal4=genitalia; *kele>gala=speech; *kolja>galla=demon; *leil>lil=air; *tulle > dalla=fire, shine;
{lm > l} *ilma > imi =air, wind; *kulme >a’gia-um=garment;
*ćolmo =knot, clump, bulb > ki-sum-ak > súm= onion, garlic;
{lk> l} *jalke > gal-am; *kalke > gu; *lolke>lill-an=limb, stalk;
{Long Back vowel+l#>ø} *kūle >kuŋ>ku=lie down; *kūla >ku-a=fish;
*kūle>a-ka_=hear;

L~N
The L in many trailing positions can become an N, in a modest number of cases. This is also common in some FU languages, but its usually not in large numbers. For example:

an=high ~ ila =to be high, to lift; bun2 ~ bul4 =to blow
Ka-na-ág ~ Kalama =Sumeria; nu- ~ la = negative prefix;
ne ~ lu =person; tán=become clear, dun=student ~ tal-tal=knowledge
tin ~ til =life, to live
for these reasons the following comparisons also make sense:
*nelja=4 > nin=40; *leme=syrup > làl =honey;
dül=topple,lean > dùn=knock down; (Hu: dül~dön-t)

L > R
The trailing l is sometimes converted to an r. The cause of this change isn’t known, since some words even have both r and l forms and there is no consistent rule which defines when this happens. I suspect it indicates that there were two forms of R, one of which was softer that could change to L.

*ala =down,under >ur/D203,7; *ala+? >ur/D401,10 =foundation; *peljä > bur(u) [Akkad pil] =ear/D411,10; *wol-ka > bar~bal=shoulder; *pal-khe > bar /D74,302 =town (kh>ø); *jal-ga > gir =feet; (j>g) ; (-kV# or –gV# endings are deleted)

Other examples of the L >R change in Sumerian words.
dilina~ dúruna =baking oven; ásal~ásar =poplar tree; bala=fraction ~ bara=divide; meli=sink ~ mar=immerse; <relatively few examples are available>


Return to “Ancient, Classical and Extinct Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest