[Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case system (Proto-Uralic)

[Jussi Ylikoski]

Dear colleagues,

I am looking for an attested real-life analogue to the noun inflection paradigm conventionally reconstructed for Proto-Uralic.

Although the exact number of Proto-Uralic cases varies, one of the most commonly accepted truths about the reconstructed case system is that although the nouns were inflected in 6–8 cases in singular, there were only two forms in plural – the nominative plural in *-t and the accusative-cum-genitive plural in *-j (comprising the functions of the accusative and genitive singular):

             Singular Plural
Nominative   *-Ø      *-t
Accusative   *-m      *-j
Genitive     *-n      *-j
Locative     *-nA     –
Ablative     *-tA     –
Lative       *-ŋ      –
----------------------------
?Translative *-ksi    –
?Caritive    *-ktAk   –

There might also have been a dual number in Proto-Uralic, although such forms can hardly be reconstructed, but my main question today is about the naturalness or plausibility of a case system seen above: Do you know any real-life case paradigms that would make the above reconstruction typologically plausible? I am especially interested about the plausibility of the accusative-genitive plural *-j within a case system like this.

Best regards,

Jussi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250728/dbe6762c/attachment.htm>