Comparisons with words in other Uralic languages
In The Uralic languages
: description, history and foreign influences, 314-350.
It is typical of Uralic languages
that third person forms are often diachronically nominalised verb forms, and in the case of Erzya diachronically the morpheme occurring in the third person is not a person marker, but a suffix of the present tense participle (e.g.
Perhaps because the ice retreated in the eastern part of northern Siberia before it retreated in western Siberia, their ancestors were the first to separate from the other speakers of Uralic languages
. Perhaps this is why they have diverged so far from the Uralic peoples both physically and linguistically that until recently it was not shown that the isolated Yukaghir language is related to the Uralic family, and especially to the Samoyedic languages.
It could result from differing adaptations to cold climates as well as the separation of northern groups, which spoke Uralic languages
, from Indo-European speakers.
Even more, as Casper de Groot, the initiator and editor of the volume under discussion, remarks, sporting a dedicated case form for this function, namely the essive case, is a characteristic of the Uralic languages
in particular (Chapter 1, p.
For example, Comrie (1988: 465), referring to Tauli (1966: 148), writes that some Uralic languages
"use the third person singular possessive suffix as a general marker of definiteness." Komi, Southern Permyak dialect (39) et-piris secce woktis ruc.
1960, Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages
, despite their close proximity to Indo-European languages with predominance of the anticausative type, still show predominance either of the causative type (Finnish, Udmurt), or of the equipollent type (Hungarian), the latter perhaps reflecting a compromise between the putative predominance of the causative type in Proto-Uralic and contact with Indo-European.
Wh-fronting in content questions is common to most European languages, including the Finno-Ugric languages such as Estonian (see Metslang 1981), Finnish (see Vainikka 1989; Huhmarniemi 2012), Hungarian (see Toft 2001), Udmurt (see [phrase omitted] 1970), Komi and the Saami languages (see The Uralic Languages
In the Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic, northeast and northwest Caucasian, and Uralic languages
of the former Soviet Union, Comrie notes that subordinating conjunctions have been calqued on the model of Russian as with Adyge (nw Caucasian) s'da p'ome `because' (Comrie 1981: 34).
A non-possessive, direct anaphoric use of the possessive suffix to mark an already mentioned referent, which is known to be a common feature of many Uralic languages
(Budzisch 2017), is found in the text about a willow grouse, where the mention of the bird in a subsequent sentence requires marking with a possessive affix:
The first talk by Lyle Campbell and Bryn Hauk from the University of Hawaii presented data about Uralic languages
from the aspect of endangerment.
Some of those differences have been shown to be relevant for other Uralic languages
(Bielecki 2012, namely lexical associativity and linear separability).
For the same reason, seen from the perspective of Indo-European languages (and through the eye-glass of grammarians trained in symbolic logic) negation in most Uralic languages
looks "exotic", since it appears not as a separate operation, but as one combined with grammatical categories such as person, tense and mood.