From HandWiki - Reading time: 6 min
| Eskimo–Uralic | |
|---|---|
| (proposed) | |
| Geographic distribution | northern Eurasia and far northern North America |
| Linguistic classification | Proposed language family |
| Subdivisions | |
| Glottolog | None |
Eskimo–Uralic languages[image reference needed] | |
The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis posits that the Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut language families belong to a common macrofamily. In 1818, the Danish linguist Rasmus Rask grouped together the languages of Greenlandic and Finnish. The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis was put forward by Knut Bergsland in 1959.[1][2][3]
The evidence is currently not sufficient to establish a relationship between Eskaleut and Uralic, and thus the theory remains speculative.
Comparisons between Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut languages were made early. In 1746, the Danish theologian Marcus Wøldike (da) compared Greenlandic to Hungarian. In 1818, Rasmus Rask considered Greenlandic to be related to the Uralic languages, Finnish in particular, and presented a list of lexical correspondences (Rask also considered Uralic and Altaic to be related to each other). In 1871, H. Rink made a similar proposal.[2] In 1959, Knut Bergsland published the paper The Eskimo–Uralic Hypothesis, in which he, like other authors before him, presented a number of grammatical similarities and a small number of lexical correspondences.[4]
In 1998, Michael Fortescue presented more detailed arguments in his book, Language Relations across Bering Strait. His title evokes Morris Swadesh's 1962 article, "Linguistic relations across the Bering Strait".[5] Besides new proposed linguistic evidence, Fortescue (2016) presents several genetic studies that he argued to support a common origin of the included groups, with a suggested homeland in Northeast Asia.[6]
A few potential lexical cognates between Proto-Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut are pointed out in Aikio (2019: 53–54).[7] These are:
| Proto-Uralic | Proto-Eskimo |
|---|---|
| *ila- 'place under or below' | *at(ǝ)- 'down'; *alaq 'sole' |
| *elä- 'to live' | *ǝt(ǝ)- 'to be' |
| *tuli- 'to come' | *tut- 'to arrive, land'; *tulaɣ- |
| *kuda 'morning, dawn' | *qilaɣ- 'sky' |
| *kuda- 'to weave' | *qilaɣ- 'to knit, weave' |
A possible regular sound correspondence with Uralic *-l- and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut *-t can be argued to exist.[7]
According to Ante Aikio, the words 'morning' and 'to weave' appear to be completely unrelated, which means there is an instance of coincidental homonymy, which very rarely happens by accident. Aikio thus states that he believes it to be likely that there is some connection between the two families, however exact conclusions cannot be drawn.[7]
A similar theory was suggested in 1998 by Michael Fortescue, in his book Language Relations across Bering Strait where he proposed the Uralo-Siberian theory, which, unlike the Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis includes the Yukaghir languages.[8] Fortescue's observations have been evaluated by specialists with a limited degree of positivity but are viewed as scattered evidence and still remain highly speculative and unproven and the soundness of the reconstructed common ancestors are challenging to evaluate.[9][10] Ante Aikio has stated that it is likely that there is some connection between The Eskaleut languages and the Uralic languages, but exact conclusions about the nature of this connection cannot presently be drawn.[7]
At present the arguments used to defend the Eskimo-Uralic theory are insufficient to suspect a relationship between the languages, let alone to make an affirmative case for their relationship.[11]