Juha Janhunen has recently presented his new theory on the formation and spread of the Uralian language family, according to which Proto-Uralic emerged in eastern Siberia in the vicinity of Proto-Altaic. The Uralic languages later spread from this region as far as Scandinavia and Central Europe. However, this theory is essentially no more than hypothetical linguistic speculation since it does not take into account the evidence of the history of various peoples, principally the fact that there is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate that there was a large-scale migration from eastern Siberia to eastern Europe during the Stone Age.
This paper is concerned with the origins and the function of the objective verbal conjugation especially in Hungarian but with an eye to general typology and Uralic. Previous attempts at solving problems associated with it are given a critical survey. The author argues that since objective conjugation is neither specific to Hungarian nor to its relatives, whether close or distant, but is found in various language families and language types all over the world, one should seek explanations in universal tendencies rather than giving ad hoc accounts. The universal tendency of medialisation is pointed out here-especially in the first and second persons of the paradigm-, which differentiated what is now called the (unmarked) general or indefinite conjugation from the original unitary conjugation. It is here proposed that what now functions as the objective conjugation results historically from a reinterpretation of the original paradigm as in contrast with the medial (then general) paradigm. This explains the curious fact that although the objective paradigm is now seen as the new marked member of the opposition, it is this paradigm that preserves the personal endings going back to the ancestral pronouns. The author also argues that the emergence of an objective conjugation in those Uralic languages that have one represents independent developments, though the preconditions for its evolution may have been there in Proto-Uralic in the form of object syntagms.
Linguistics . Bloomington, pp. 99–121.
Raun, A. (1988): Proto-Uralic Comparative-historical Morphosyntax. In: Sinor, D. (ed.): The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences . Leiden, pp. 555
overwrites the inherent case. Morphological evidence (e.g., the preservation of the Proto-Uralic - m accusative suffix) suggests that Eastern Mansi represents the most conservative dialect of the Ugric languages ( Abondolo 1998 ). Syntactic reconstruction