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

[Jussi Ylikoski]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the Georgian data – this is something I didn't know and looks very interesting indeed. In the absence of other replies, I presume that paradigms like these are not that common, though.

The distribution of the Georgian plural form in -ta also makes me more precise in describing Proto-Uralic: I must add that although the cases without plural forms are usually labeled singular forms, no one has claimed that a locative plural, for example, was zero-marked just like the nominative singular – most plural forms simply do not exist. Of course, one could imagine that the locative would simply be a number-neutral locative case then, but this is usually not claimed either.

Best regards,

Jussi


________________________________
Frá: Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>
Sent: mánudagur, 28. júlí 2025 23:42
Til: Jussi Ylikoski; Linguistic Typology
Efni: Re: [Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case system (Proto-Uralic)

+ lingtyp@

Dear Jussi,

this is not an exact parallel, but still appears to be close: in Old Georgian (as well as in the learned register of modern Georgian, with some adjustments) the case paradigm has the following form (e.g. Schanidse, Akaki. 1982. Altgeorgisches Elementarbuch. Teil I. Grammatik der Altgeorgischen Sprache. Aus dem Georgischen von Heinz Fähnrich. Tbilissi: Tbilisis universit’et’is gamomcemloba, S. 36):
                      Sg           Pl
Nominative     -i             -n-i
Ergative          -man       -ta
Dative             -s(a)        -ta
Genitive          -is(a)       -ta
Aditive            -isa          -ta
Instrumental   -it(a)        -ta
Adverbial        -(a)d        -ta
Vocative         -o             -n-o

Thus a single undifferentiated form for most of the plural cases.

Best regards,

Peter

----------------
Кому: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org (lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org);
Тема: [Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case system (Proto-Uralic);
28.07.2025, 21:40, "Jussi Ylikoski via Lingtyp" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:

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

,

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp



--
Peter Arkadiev, PhD Habil.
https://peterarkadiev.github.io/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250729/a0f5e025/attachment.htm>