1169:
occasional
Dorisms possibly: Attic was not spoken in a particularly large area originally, that's why it was so homogeneous at the beginning, and what did spread was probably originally based on the prestigious Athens dialect of the 5th century BC, not some rural form of Attic. So the problem "why do our reconstructs not have any dialectal variety and are so uniform?" is a non-problem: because they're themselves only dialects in a larger continuum, duh. It may be an artifact of the method, but that doesn't mean it doesn't square with historic reality: spreading languages start out fairly homogeneous, because they're prestigious dialects (even if standard languages don't exist in the prehistoric period, prestigious dialects
1188:
When speakers have less contact with each other, their speeches can diverge further. That doesn't stop changes from propagating through the community, but it's no longer guaranteed that changes will always be evened out throughout. That's how dialects probably start off, and this is what led to the first differences in Proto-Finnic. I'm not going to conjecture too much about how speakers were located geographically, but the Inland Finnic speakers must have been slightly separated from the larger community, even if at first the separation was no more than a river or something like that.
1089:, and demote Livonian and South Estonian to closely related outgroups. I think this approach actually has a better degree of backing in the literature. Back in the late 1800s Livonian, Samic and Core Finnic were treated as three equally coordinate branches within "Finnic" (= Finno-Samic; frequently the term "Finnic" was even extended to everything now called Finno-Permic). I've seen authors even in recent times also speak of Finnic arising by the "convergence" of two originally separate branches (though "parallel evolution of closely related dialects" would be more appropriate).
1051:
divergent? The variety within modern
English is probably still more than what can be reconstructed for Late Proto-Finnic. Something like kt versus tt or tk versus ck is a very minor thing and would not have hampered intelligibility in the slightest, it would have just given the inland Proto-Finnic speakers a slight accent. Compare for example the Ekavian and Ijekavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian, which are distinguished by the outcome of the Slavic vowel ě (yat), having either e or (i)je. This does not cause any serious problems in understanding for speakers today.
512:. As far as I know, Proto-Uralic roots always ended in a vowel, which was inherently part of the root. So the only way to account for this that I know of is a regular sound change that syncopated the vowel under some circumstances, some time in Pre-Finnic times (presumably). Are there any sources that describe this phenomenon and the conditions in which it applies? It seems to happen only with stem-final -e, but never with -a or any other vowel (I think Uralic roots could only end in -e or -a).
179:
158:
1231:
prefer to include the changes that lead to both standard languages, even though they are missing in the southern branches. Proto-Finnic proper still has its strengths, didactically, and it would be wise to employ both.) This state of affairs would be easier to tolerate if the article showed clearly the differences between Proto-Finnic proper and Proto-North-Central-Finnic, so that the reader can easily derive Proto-Finnic proper from the data given here. --
734:
So it becomes hard to tell from the few remaining bits of information, whether ə was original and then syncopated, or whether ə was not original but added by epenthesis. There are some loanwords where we can be pretty sure they were loaned as consonant stems originally, like *kuningas. But I don't think *mees is a loanword, and because it's monosyllabic there could hardly have been any apocope. So this might be the only remaining true consonantal root noun.
74:
53:
84:
998:*ci did pass thru a stage *ći, and that this changed to *ci only during the general Finnic loss of palatalization. The fact that *-δ´i also develops to *-ci does turn out to then require two series of depalatalization, but the merger of *δ´ and *δ is found also in Samic and Mordvinic, and has been considered by various researchers a pre-Finnic change that had nothing to do with the shifts *ś : -->
189:
233:
22:
272:
571:. So why was it dropped? Is there a regular sound change that accounts for this? I suppose there's also the more general question of the distinction between vowel stems and consonant stems in Uralic. Roots should have all been vowel stems, but what about derived stems? Were there true consonant stems in Uralic?
1050:
Maybe the "later developments" section should be named "dialectal developments"? This is really quite a common problem, and it's something that even modern languages have to deal with. For example, how do you describe a single "English" language when there are really several dialects that are rather
1030:
are usually recognized as distinct entities. But here the convention in the source literature remains to usually work with Late Proto-Finnic forms, common only to Gulf Finnic (as this is a much more prominent branch than South
Estonian or Livonian). This is what our current phonology section does as
733:
From what I can see, regardless of whether consonant stems were different from ə-stems at an early time, they had a strong tendency to be merged right from the start. The epenthetic -e- in Finnic is one way that could have happened, and as you say perhaps Proto-Uralic also knew such an epenthetic ə.
587:
at all. (My best guess? There does not seem to have been any distinction between zero and an unstressed non-close vowel in PU. The situation may have been something like in contemporary Mansi and Khanty, with an epenthetic vowel * inserted in various places to resolve awkward phonotactic structures.)
1092:
Now here is a further problem: the amount of explicit sources on Middle Proto-Finnic is just about nil — even "Early Proto-Finnic" i.e. Proto-Finno-Samic has better coverage — while Late Proto-Finnic is fairly well-described. So to not OR ourselves in the foot, for now I would favor the strategy of
586:
Consonant stems in Proto-Uralic are pretty much an open question. I don't think any general analysis has been made yet, only observations on the "existence of tendencies" to drop a non-close stem vowel from inflected forms — which turns up widely in those Uralic languages that do retain such vowels
396:
On the other hand, the difference between β and b is much more easy to recognise, because b only occurs after a nasal, just like in Proto-Germanic. The difference between p and b on the other hand, while still predictable, takes a lot more work for the reader to decypher because they have to figure
1588:
Do we still need the obsolete periodizations from 1960s to 1980s in the article? A new scholarly consensus regarding a more shallow timeframe emerged in the 2010s, the most recent work in this area I know being
Schalin, 2019 who uses different nomenclature (Coastal Finnic for the Late Proto-Finnic
1187:
But no language has no diversity whatsoever. Every speaker has their own way of speaking, which is always going to be slightly different from how others speak. However, in small communities, the language of each speaker influences that of the others, so that keeps them from drifting too far apart.
376:
in PGmc compared to their voiceless counterparts. The cover symbol */b/ is thus used to cover two allophones *, *. The analogous level in PF would be the cover symbol */p/ to cover three allophones *, *, *. I don't see why we would need to add a third, imtermediate level of transcription to cover
1323:
Right now the article is a bit vague on what happens with these sounds, but the changes are an important characteristic of Finnic, as they are what led to the creation of monosyllabic stems. So I would like it if the article could elaborate on it more, but I don't have much information available.
1230:
Finnic languages, but only of the North-Central group, excluding
Livonian and South Estonian. (I'd say it's simply because Finnish and Estonian scholars are more interested in the common ancestor of Finnish and Standard Estonian alone, and less interested in the southern branches. Therefore, they
1202:
That's what I said. A language (as in "dialect continuum") has diversity, but a dialect not necessarily. There is diversity even in a local dialect of course, but on the vertical, social level, not on the regional level: in a small town, people keep talking to each other on a daily basis, so they
328:
If we're going to be marking allophones (and it's definitely necessary for a discussion of gradation), I see no reason to not also record the stop/spirant distinction. This also would make difficult discussing the distinction between the Late PF stage and older ones; the original situation likely
859:
Then it seems to me that the article is ok as it is now, with a cited bit stating that ë in unstressed syllables is an archaism, but without saying anything on stressed syllables. The part that says PU *ë developed into *a is interesting though... maybe we should try to include a list of changes
1168:
rule may well be ruralisms). When it actually was spoken across the whole peninsula from about 100 years later on, it began to develop internal diversity. Or think of the way Koine Greek was essentially based on the Attic dialect of Greek, despite some Ionic (and
Boeotic?) influences and a few
1077:
nnic, but that's immaterial.) Reconstructed proto-languages are strictly speaking proto-dialects, that's why they don't have any appreciable internal diversity (except "vertically", i. e., in registers), at least no more than the dialect of any small town or even mid-sized city, or some other
397:
out whether the syllable is closed or open. So for me, the difference between plosive and fricative feels a lot more redundant than the difference between voiced and voiceless. It may not be phonemic synchronically, but from the point of view of a casual reader it would seem that way.
882:
There is something strange about this ending. It's reconstructed in the table as *-tte/Ak, but this is a long consonant in a closed syllable, so it violates consonant gradation. There probably was a final consonant, because final -e becomes -i otherwise. So how is that possible?
1147:
For example, Latin wasn't spoken (natively at least) across all of Italy in the 2nd century BC, far from it; it was essentially limited to Rome (even the surrounding countryside, like Tibur and
Praeneste, spoke slightly differing "Latin" dialects, where you had things like
1255:
branch, and it is now accepted that Finnic and Sami form two separate branches of Uralic whose further relationship with each other and to the other seven branches accepted by every
Uralicist (Mordvin, Mari, Permic, Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic) remains unclear.
1203:
don't drift apart from each other too much. When a prestige dialect spreads, it comes into contact with more or less closely related (and also, but less frequently, quite unrelated) dialects and languages, which is enough for regional dialectal diversity to develop. --
1567:
On closer thought, these are probably better treated separately in the articles for the individual languages. Their development greatly diverges, and is conditioned on the very language-specific consonant losses — there is nothing especially Proto-Finnic about them.
1013:
Now several protolanguages have similar phenomena as well: dialectal divisions appear much before the last changes common to all attested languages were completed. Knowledge (XXG) has worked around this issue by e.g. forking all Late Proto-Slavic developments from
312:
Is the difference between b and β (and analogously for the others) really useful? The difference between p and b wasn't even phonemic, let alone the difference between b and β. I think it would be better to just write b everywhere.
1225:
The article could at least be more clear from the outset that due to reasons that, if they are obscure even to me, are certainly puzzling to the non-Uralicist reader, this article does not cover the most recent common ancestor of
1538:
There is no up-to-date research published on this topic: the only overview paper to have ever investigated this matter in detail is from 1949. That in mind, it might be premature to put much about it on
Knowledge (XXG)
772:, while those that don't use it only in initial syllables. So I wonder, is this a retention that should be projected back into Proto-Finnic, or was this feature lost on the way to Proto-Finnic and then regained later?
787:
This is a debated point. *ë was considered an archaism up to the mid-20th C. Later on it was determined that in the first syllable, this vowel occurs just about solely in IE loanwords that originally had *e (cf. e.g.
745:
is an archaism (because it's a frequently used form), while the front vowel ä was introduced to the other endings by analogy, once ë and e had merged. On the other hand, Võro has "meri" too, not "mõri", so maybe not.
1010:*ht/*tt. The stage of Proto-Finnic that was common to all three Finnic main groups still closely resembled Proto-Uralic: it featured e.g. postalveolars and palatalization, and had no *h or assibilation of *t.
737:
About the comparative, I wonder why it has *-mpi in the nominative but *-mpa- elsewhere. The nominative should have been *-mpa, so where does the -i come from, and why was that -i not apocopated if it is old
1031:
well. Perhaps we should hence discuss the late Proto-Finnic period still in this same article. Yet, I belive it would be best off explicitly separated from the late changes specific to individual languages.
1129:
language variety at a limited point in space and time — and hence the period following the splitting of a proto-language would still involve people speaking "the" proto-language, just "dialects of it".
590:
I also haven't seen any general treatment of this for Proto-Finnic, though here there could well be something I'm not aware of. FWIW one recent paper to brush on the topic in
English would be Kallio's
741:
Concerning meri in Finnish, do you think this could have been loaned as *mëri originally (it must be an IE loanword after all), and therefore have had back harmony? If that's true, then the partitive
828:
However, I don't think any papers to argue on this topic in detail have come out so far (though I know there are a few forthcoming) so putting this kind of a summary up in the article would end up
768:
Proto-Uralic had a back unrounded vowel (variously noted ï or ë), and so do the southern Finnic languages (written õ). Those that preserve vowel harmony still retain it as a back counterpart of
617:
apocope of *ə occured in open syllables, in all cases before coronal consonants, and in most cases only after coronal consonants too. Though some cases have other contractions: *-mət- : -->
1073:
Finnic languages, not just North Finnic. Therefore, we should go with Viitso and call "Middle Proto-Finnic" plain Proto-Finnic and "Late Proto-Finnic" Proto-North-Finnic. (Viitso writes F
1247:
As for the idea that Livonian and South Estonian are somehow no more closely related to North-Central Finnic than Sami is, I've never seen the slightest evidence for it, and
358:
uses a similar convention of denoting both stops and fricatives allophonically with the same letter, even though they are distinguished in some (but not all) literature.
710:
The superlative, then, is not as different a story as it looks on the basis of Finnish. This originally ended in just *-in : *-ime- and is inflected in Finnish with
975:
PF section. This is the point where South Estonian already diverges, as *čk develops to *ck rather than *tk there. Note also the following points of chronology:
140:
1276:
The Later Developments section is getting a bit long really… Maybe it is time to summarize a bit more, and to fork the full details to a separate article
250:
1620:
130:
1635:
240:
1338:
I made a small table with the reflexes I could find for a following *e. You can hover over the reflexes to see the words that I found that had it.
1625:
106:
1542:
I will probably publish an article revisiting this within the next 5 years, though. And I do have just about all the data collected by now. See
1640:
423:
In Finnish and many other Finnic languages, there are words that syncopate stem-final vowels under some conditions. For example, Finnish has:
1078:
close-knit community. Proto-Finnic was part of the Uralic dialect continuum, there is no need at all for it to have any internal diversity.
211:
796:
On the other hand: the Southern Finnic group has by now turned out to be areal; and we also know that Votic and South Estonian distinguish
1593:
1590:
1615:
97:
58:
1630:
666:
syncope of *ə was regular beyond the 2nd syllable. Hence in the inherited lexicon of the Finnic languages there are only words like
298:
551:
of the nominative has been dropped. But it must have been there at some point because that's the only way to account for the final
811:
So there has been in recent times (the last 20 years or so) some support for a more complex history. Something along these lines:
515:
It seems that final vowels were also apocopated in some situations. In Finnish there is a rather large word class with the suffix
202:
163:
1019:
1543:
33:
1009:
Hence much of this has at least as good claim for the "Later developments" section as the cluster reductions like *kt : -->
1277:
1261:
1236:
1208:
1178:
1110:
I don't agree with the conventional idea of proto-languages covering areas comparable to an entire country at all.
1069:
The traditional terminology is simply misleading. Proto-Finnic is, by definition, the latest common ancestor of
808:
where 2ndary harmonization is not an option. This seems to require an original phonemic status for *ë after all.
597:
Oh wait, I see you've already cited him in the article. Still worth noting for anyone else reading, I guess. --
950:
template automatically adds the appropriate argument so that Harvard-style citations work; the other's don't.
39:
1251:
blatantly contradicts it. The three-branch classification is simply outdated, as well as the whole idea of a
1597:
820:
Later on, *ë shifts back to *e in the North Finnic group (which may have a better claim for not being areal)
793:*ë-a had occurred in the South Finnic languages. This is what most current general-level references state.
497:
Finnish even has a few words where this contraction in the partitive results in a break of vowel harmony:
1257:
1252:
1232:
1204:
1174:
288:
210:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
690:. OTOH, this probably was not direct loss, but went thru the *i stage (as indicated by your example of
1591:
https://www.academia.edu/40362178/Scandinavian_Finnic_Language_Contact_and_Problems_of_Periodisation
284:
21:
1575:
1553:
1287:
1137:
1100:
1041:
851:
725:
604:
388:
347:
291:
on 30 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
969:
We seem to be running here two different standards on where to cover Middle Proto-Finnic changes.
594:
if you want to start digging up references. Most of the relevant literature is in Finnish though.
912:
829:
1528:
1329:
1301:
1193:
1056:
955:
944:
902:
888:
865:
777:
751:
576:
402:
363:
318:
1248:
714:
by analogy to the comparative. Several Finnic varieties only have analogized this as far as
814:
The Proto-Uralic non-open stem vowel becomes a full vowel *e/*ë depending on vowel harmony
178:
157:
89:
1569:
1547:
1318:
1281:
1131:
1094:
1035:
927:
845:
719:
598:
382:
355:
341:
194:
1609:
1115:
591:
1524:
1325:
1297:
1189:
1052:
1015:
951:
934:
923:
884:
861:
773:
747:
572:
398:
359:
314:
1081:
There's an alternate option as well: to interpret only Gulf Finnic / Core Finnic
1601:
1578:
1556:
1532:
1333:
1305:
1290:
1265:
1240:
1212:
1197:
1182:
1140:
1121:
1103:
1060:
1044:
1023:
959:
892:
869:
854:
781:
755:
728:
607:
580:
406:
391:
367:
350:
322:
940:
links don't work because you're using the wrong kind of citation template. The
83:
73:
52:
184:
79:
1083:(not "North Finnic", which is usually taken as Finnish+Karelian+Ingrian+Veps)
555:
in the pattern of alternations. There's also the superlative which goes like
1027:
332:
Also, if you want to argue for a single symbol, most of the literature uses
592:
The non-initial-syllable vowel reductions from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finnic
1113:
Clearly true, yes. The problem is people who treat a proto-language as an
835:— PU *ë, though, develops to PF *a in all cases (e.g. *mëksa "liver" : -->
707:
Citations might have to be pieced together from disparate sources, though.
614:
What we do know to have happened in Proto-Finnic or earlier is at least:
102:
804:
even in unstressed syllables, including in some words after the neutral
1156:, and some irregularities like the prematurely monophthongised Romance
997:
Kallio (2007), most other research has continued to hold that *ti : -->
232:
207:
1324:
Ideally there should be a table of each combination and the outcome.
823:
Even later, vowel harmony is lost in Livonian and Standard Estonian
535:. As far as the singular is concerned, this very clearly resembles
817:
Loanwords of a shape *e-a assimilate to *ë-a in Proto-Finnic times
648:*ə was also lost after semivowels, creating diphthong stems like
1312:
Elaborate on the outcomes of lost *ŋ and *x, and also *w and *j?
792:"ring"), which led to a theory that an assimilation *e-a : -->
266:
15:
1093:
just sketching out the MPF era and then focusing on LPF. --
764:
Is the back unrounded vowel an archaism or an innovation?
293:
279:
1272:
separate discussion of PF from discussion of history?
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
372:True. The difference is that voiced obstruents are
336:. I don't have Laakso (2001) at hand to check, but
567:, where the apocopated vowel seems to have been
972:Problems would begin if we were to add *č : -->
694:adjectives, as well as ordinal numbers: e.g.
8:
340:sounds like some kind of an idiosyncrasy. --
297:; for the discussion at that location, see
152:
47:
1584:Time to implement a periodization update
1340:
154:
49:
19:
1544:wikt:User:Tropylium/Proto-Finnic/notes
1439:
844:) and is not related to this issue.--
481:Superlative obsolete essive singular
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Languages
7:
1004:h also happened later than *ti : -->
860:leading up to Proto-Finnic as well?
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
220:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Finland
38:It is of interest to the following
329:still involved in most positions.
14:
1408:
1392:
1363:
1160:or the occasional failure of the
878:The 2nd person plural verb ending
1621:Low-importance language articles
981:*ci: e.g. *künči : *künče- : -->
270:
231:
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1636:Low-importance Finland articles
1481:
1463:
1278:History of the Finnic languages
1020:History of the Slavic languages
245:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
1626:WikiProject Languages articles
619:*-nt- is fairly regular, e.g.
118:Template:WikiProject Languages
1:
1641:All WikiProject Finland pages
1602:19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
1579:21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1533:21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1486:
1431:
1426:
1387:
1334:20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
870:13:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
855:09:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
782:19:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
756:13:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
729:11:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
608:11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
581:14:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
308:Notation of voiced obstruents
214:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1563:Second-syllable contractions
1508:
1468:
1458:
1413:
1371:
1306:16:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1291:11:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1005:*ci, as *lehti 'leaf' shows.
280:Proto-Finnic locative system
223:Template:WikiProject Finland
1516:
1504:
1491:
1454:
1449:
1213:01:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1198:01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1183:01:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1141:13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1104:13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1061:21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
1045:21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
980:*t does feed into *ti : -->
656:, or long vowel stems like
1657:
251:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
1616:C-Class language articles
1557:15:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
1296:I would be ok with that.
1266:01:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1241:01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
960:20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
893:20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
419:Vowel syncope and apocope
244:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1631:C-Class Finland articles
547:, except that the final
407:16:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
392:16:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
368:15:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
351:15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
323:15:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
1018:to a separate article
982:*künci : *künte- : -->
898:Hey guys, need to use
28:This article is rated
289:Proto-Finnic language
277:The contents of the
98:WikiProject Languages
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
974:tš into the PU : -->
643:ˣmähdä ˣluhda ˣpuhda
1085:as "Baltic Finnic"
1003:The change *š : -->
203:WikiProject Finland
629:*-ht- is found in
531:~ plural inessive
34:content assessment
1522:
1521:
1084:
641:etc. rather than
639:mäkeä lukea pukea
489:, compare modern
485:(< presumably
305:
304:
265:
264:
261:
260:
257:
256:
151:
150:
147:
146:
121:language articles
1648:
1572:
1550:
1518:
1510:
1506:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1441:
1433:
1428:
1415:
1410:
1394:
1389:
1373:
1365:
1341:
1322:
1284:
1258:Florian Blaschke
1249:Finnic languages
1233:Florian Blaschke
1205:Florian Blaschke
1175:Florian Blaschke
1134:
1097:
1082:
1038:
949:
943:
939:
933:
917:
911:
907:
901:
848:
722:
601:
519:that goes like:
385:
344:
296:
274:
273:
267:
235:
228:
227:
226:Finland articles
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1606:
1605:
1586:
1570:
1565:
1548:
1316:
1314:
1282:
1274:
1132:
1125:, instead of a
1095:
1036:
967:
965:Middle vs. Late
947:
941:
937:
931:
920:
915:
909:
905:
899:
880:
846:
766:
720:
627:); *-kət- : -->
599:
421:
383:
342:
310:
292:
271:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
90:Language portal
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1654:
1652:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1608:
1607:
1585:
1582:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1540:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1511:
1502:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1452:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1437:
1434:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1403:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1313:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1244:
1243:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1090:
1064:
1063:
1007:
1006:
1001:
999:*s or *ń : -->
992:
966:
963:
919:
896:
879:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
833:
826:
825:
824:
821:
818:
815:
809:
794:
765:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
739:
735:
708:
705:
704:
703:
664:
646:
612:
611:
610:
588:
495:
494:
479:
461:
443:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
356:Proto-Germanic
330:
309:
306:
303:
302:
275:
263:
262:
259:
258:
255:
254:
247:Low-importance
243:
237:
236:
229:
212:the discussion
199:
198:
195:Finland portal
182:
170:
169:
167:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1653:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1611:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1594:5.178.188.143
1592:
1583:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1573:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1551:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1515:
1512:
1503:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1467:
1462:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1412:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1320:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1279:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1116:Ausbausprache
1112:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1091:
1088:
1087:sensu stricto
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1002:
996:
993:
990:
986:
978:
977:
976:
973:*t, *čč : -->
970:
964:
962:
961:
957:
953:
946:
936:
929:
925:
914:
904:
897:
895:
894:
890:
886:
877:
871:
867:
863:
858:
857:
856:
853:
849:
843:
839:
834:
831:
827:
822:
819:
816:
813:
812:
810:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
763:
757:
753:
749:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
727:
723:
717:
713:
709:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
626:
622:
616:
615:
613:
609:
606:
602:
596:
595:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
513:
511:
510:
504:
500:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
444:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:
424:
418:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
380:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
352:
349:
345:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
307:
300:
299:its talk page
295:
290:
286:
282:
281:
276:
269:
268:
252:
248:
242:
239:
238:
234:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1587:
1566:
1523:
1337:
1315:
1275:
1227:
1170:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1126:
1120:
1114:
1086:
1074:
1070:
1033:
1016:Proto-Slavic
1012:
1008:
994:
988:
984:
971:
968:
921:
881:
841:
837:
805:
801:
797:
789:
769:
767:
742:
715:
711:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:, none like
679:
675:
671:
667:
661:
657:
653:
649:
642:
638:
634:
630:
624:
620:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
514:
508:
506:
502:
498:
496:
490:
486:
482:
475:
471:
467:
463:
457:
453:
449:
445:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
378:
373:
337:
333:
311:
278:
246:
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1253:Finno-Samic
1152:instead of
1122:Dachsprache
1024:Proto-Norse
1022:. Likewise
637:(but still
635:näke- teke-
631:nähdä tehdä
628:*-kt- : -->
618:*-mt- : -->
523:~ genitive
294:its history
1610:Categories
1173:exist). --
1119:or even a
718:, IIRC. --
474:(expected
456:(expected
438:(expected
283:page were
1571:Trɔpʏliʊm
1549:Trɔpʏliʊm
1319:Tropylium
1283:Trɔpʏliʊm
1133:Trɔpʏliʊm
1096:Trɔpʏliʊm
1037:Trɔpʏliʊm
1028:Old Norse
928:Tropylium
913:cite book
847:Trɔpʏliʊm
836:Estonian
721:Trɔpʏliʊm
700:neljännen
600:Trɔpʏliʊm
527:~ essive
384:Trɔpʏliʊm
377:and but
343:Trɔpʏliʊm
112:Languages
103:languages
59:Languages
1166:Iuppiter
983:Finnish
979:*č : -->
945:citation
903:citation
840:, Votic
830:WP:SYNTH
533:-uksissa
374:phonemic
1525:CodeCat
1326:CodeCat
1298:CodeCat
1190:CodeCat
1162:littera
1053:CodeCat
991:'nail'.
952:Benwing
930:: Your
924:CodeCat
885:CodeCat
862:CodeCat
774:CodeCat
748:CodeCat
738:enough?
688:ˣavaimi
684:ˣaskeli
680:avaime-
672:askele-
573:CodeCat
565:-impana
503:merissä
491:-impana
458:*lapsea
399:CodeCat
360:CodeCat
315:CodeCat
249:on the
217:Finland
208:Finland
164:Finland
139:on the
30:C-class
1589:here)
1127:single
995:Contra
989:kynte-
790:rõngas
716:-impe-
712:-impa-
696:neljäs
561:-imman
545:uutena
529:-utena
487:-impna
476:*näkeä
472:näkevä
450:lapsen
440:*veteä
285:merged
36:scale.
1150:lōsna
985:kynsi
842:mahsa
800:from
743:merta
676:avain
668:askel
625:lunta
541:uuden
525:-uden
483:-inna
464:nähdä
454:lasta
446:lapsi
436:vettä
432:veden
338:b d g
334:β δ γ
287:into
1598:talk
1576:blah
1554:blah
1546:. --
1539:yet.
1529:talk
1355:-je
1330:talk
1302:talk
1288:blah
1280:? --
1262:talk
1237:talk
1209:talk
1194:talk
1179:talk
1158:cōda
1154:lūna
1138:blah
1101:blah
1057:talk
1042:blah
1026:and
956:talk
926:and
918:etc.
908:not
889:talk
866:talk
852:blah
838:maks
778:talk
752:talk
726:blah
674:and
662:vie-
658:syö-
650:soi-
621:lumi
605:blah
577:talk
537:uusi
507:mert
505:but
499:meri
468:näen
428:vesi
403:talk
389:blah
381:? --
364:talk
348:blah
319:talk
1509:üwe
1498:ü-
1475:ä-
1459:uwe
1446:u-
1423:o-
1414:iwe
1402:i-
1381:e-
1372:awe
1360:a-
1352:-we
1349:-ŋe
1346:-xe
1228:all
1071:all
1000:*n.
935:sfn
922:To
692:-us
686:or
654:täi
557:-in
521:-us
517:-us
379:not
241:Low
131:Low
1612::
1600:)
1574:•
1568:--
1552:•
1531:)
1517:üü
1513:?
1507:,
1505:üü
1501:?
1492:äj
1487:äw
1482:ää
1478:?
1469:ui
1464:uu
1457:,
1455:uu
1450:uu
1440:oi
1436:?
1432:oo
1427:oo
1418:?
1409:ii
1405:?
1397:?
1393:öö
1388:öö
1384:?
1376:?
1368:?
1364:aa
1332:)
1304:)
1286:•
1264:)
1256:--
1239:)
1211:)
1196:)
1181:)
1171:do
1136:•
1130:--
1099:•
1059:)
1040:•
1034:--
987::
958:)
948:}}
942:{{
938:}}
932:{{
916:}}
910:{{
906:}}
900:{{
891:)
868:)
850:•
780:)
754:)
724:•
702:.)
698::
678::
670::
660:,
652:,
645:).
633::
623::
603:•
579:)
569:-a
563:~
559:~
553:-s
549:-i
543:~
539:~
501:~
470:~
466:~
452:~
448:~
434:~
430:~
405:)
387:•
366:)
346:•
321:)
1596:(
1527:(
1328:(
1321::
1317:@
1300:(
1260:(
1235:(
1207:(
1192:(
1177:(
1164:/
1075:e
1055:(
954:(
887:(
864:(
832:…
806:i
802:e
798:õ
776:(
770:e
750:(
575:(
509:a
493:)
478:)
460:)
442:)
401:(
362:(
317:(
301:.
253:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
