Extensive borrowing of reindeer terminology in north- eastern Siberia

PETER SAULI PIISPANEN Extensive borrowing of reindeer terminology in northeastern Siberia Piispanen, Peter Sauli 2016. Extensive borrowing of reindeer terminology in northeastern Siberia. Abstract This paper presents further borrowings mostly related to reindeer economy in the far north-eastern Siberian area between several non-genetically affiliated languages. The semantics, phonology and chronology are discussed. The following are etymologized as Ewenki borrowings: Yukaghiric moll’e ‘small wild reindeer’, o ul ‘reindeer’, šaqala ‘fox’, ugur ‘spine’ and joγul ‘nose’, and Pre-Yakut borrowings: Yukaghiric saa-laa are ’south, lit. tree left’, saa are ‘left side of a yurt; West’, šaj r ‘aside’. A possible Turkic borrowing is found with (Proto-)Turkic *qan ‘blood’ > Proto-Samoyed *kem ‘blood’. Lastly, Uralic cognates or borrowings in Yukaghiric consist of kedie- ‘obstinate (of a tied reindeer)’, pet igije ‘reins’, a: ‘domestic reindeer’ and sierdiid-ile ‘reindeer not selected for slaughter’. Peter Sauli Piispanen, Department of Slavic and Baltic Languages, Finnish, German and Dutch, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: peter.piispanen@finska.su.se Keywords: Borrowing, Ewenki, Yukaghiric, Yakut, Ugric, Samoyed, Turkic. Running short title: Borrowings of reindeer terminology in Siberia 1. Introduction 1.1. The languages of reindeer herders Reindeer husbandry is of great economic and cultural importance for many of the populations residing in north-eastern Siberia. The involved herding groups periodically travel very long distances, at least historically, during which they come into contact with populations speaking other genetically or non-genetically related languages. As a consequence of such linguistic contacts, many groups speak not only their own native language, and very often Russian, but also at least one more language easily making them bi-, tri- or multilingual. Since many of the (encountered) populations also deal in reindeer herding and the reindeer industry, interlingual and extensive borrowings related to reindeer terminology is therefore quite expected. Over the centuries several languages have served as lingua franca for reindeer herders – an early example being Chukchi (in Chukotka until the beginning of the 20th century between Russians, Chukchi, Ewen, Yukaghirs, Koryak and Yup’ik; Krupnik, I. 1993) – and the most recent probably being Yakut (along the trail from Dudinka to Khatanga)1; Yakut is still spoken (in the Sakha Republic) by many Dolgans, Ewenkis, Ewens and Yukaghirs as a lingua franca. 1 Yakut also developed into the creole language of the Dolgan a few centuries ago (by mixing Yakut grammar and vocabulary with Ewenki and Russian vocabulary). Even today the Dolgans remain nomadic reindeer herders and hunters in the far away Taymyr Peninsula. 1.2. Populations involved in reindeer economy To the traditional populations engaged in reindeer husbandry over a very large geographical area belong the Ewen and Ewenki (Northern Tungusic languages), Yakut and Dolgan (Turkic languages), Chukchi and Koryak (Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages), Yukaghir (in particular Kolyma Yukaghir (KY) and Tundra Yukaghir (TY); Uralo-Yukaghiric languages2), Ket (a Yeniseian language), Yup’ik (EskimoAleut), some Samoyed groups (Uralic languages), etc. Another such group is the Chuvantsi, originating in the easternmost Yukaghir populations, speaking both Koryak and Chukchi (Gurvič, I. 1982); historically they also spoke the now extinct Yukaghir language of the Chuvantsi before being assimilated by the Koryak. The Koryak were very often represented as invading forces by the Yukaghirs (Bogoras, W. 2009); perhaps this historical aspect would explain the cultural resistance among Yukaghirs to borrow Koryak vocabulary, and there are indeed very few such known borrowings. Relations with the Yakut were traditionally much better, and indeed there are numerous Yakut borrowings in Yukaghiric, as well as Tungusic borrowings. 1.3. The Yukaghirs Taking the Yukaghirs as a further example, there are thus numerous known borrowings at least peripherally related to reindeer terminology (summarized and referenced in Nikolaeva, I. 2006) in the Yukaghiric languages, with the donor languages being Yakut (2),3 Ewen/Ewenki < Tungusic (18),4 Chukchi (1),5 Koryak (1),6 etc. The importance of reindeer terminology among the Yukaghirs is also evident in a related suffixation system: KD -c-, -rej- ‘suffix to get a reindeer-related verb’ and TY -aa ‘suffix to get a reindeer-related noun’. In this paper, borrowings into Yukaghiric are in particular focus. Many Ewen~Ewenki (=Tungusic) and Yakut borrowings into Yukaghiric were summarized in the Comparative dictionary of the Tungus2 The question of Yukaghiric genetic affiliation is a controversial question. Two prevalent schools of thought exist: the relationship between the Uralic and Yukaghiric languages is one of borrowings only, or, the two are actually genetically affiliated language families going back to a common language referred to, by different authors, as Proto-Uralo-Yukaghiric, Proto-Sibero-Uralic (or Uralo-Siberian), or Pre-ProtoUralic (Pre-PU), the last one being my personal preference, with me being a proponent of the genetic affiliation school of thought. I further assume that Pre-PU is very close phonologically, morphologically and lexically to, and immediately preceding, the linguistic stage of Early Proto-Yukaghir, aka EY (> Middle Proto-Yukaghir, aka MY > Late Proto-Yukaghir, aka PY > Kolyma and Tundra Yukaghir, etc.). The question of genetic affiliation, the background to Yukaghir studies and previous research was most recently summarized and discussed both by Piispanen (2013:ii; 2015, 2016) and Aikio (2015), the two being proponents of the different schools of thought. 3 These are: 1. Yakut sanajaq, sanyjaq ‘fur coat’, borrowed as: KY šaja:q ‘coat with fur outside made of a large reindeer skin’, and 2. Yakut u: aq~uguchak ‘saddle-reindeer’, borrowed as: KY u: a , u: aq ‘saddle-reindeer’. Clearly, the Yukaghirs regarded the Yakut mainly as reindeer herders: there is an old Kolyma Yukaghir word, KD ilbied’i ‘Yakut’, which was derived directly from KD ilbe ‘domestic reindeer’. 4 These are: 1. Ewen amarka:n ‘four- or five-year old male reindeer’, borrowed as: TY amarkanel ‘five-year old male reindeer ; 2. Ewen a:w-a:w ‘imitation of the noise made by a reindeer calf’, borrowed as: TY aw e- ‘to make noise (of a reindeer calf)’ ; 3. TU * ur-, ir‘three-year old wild deer’, borrowed as: PY * urq > TY ur a ‘two-year old female reindeer’, ur an-purewre ‘three-year old female reindeer, lit. above two-year old female reindeer’ ; 4. Ewen e:ni ‘one-year old female reindeer with a calf’, borrowed as: TY eenil ‘one-year old female reindeer’ ; 5. Ewen i:te:nken ‘three-year old wild bull reindeer’, borrowed as: TY iiteenken, KD itenken ‘three-year old wild bull reindeer’, TY iiteelnel ‘three-year old male reindeer’ ; 6. Ewen ketem ‘barren (of a female reindeer)’, borrowed as: TY ketemel ‘barren reindeer heifer’ ; 7. TU *lökü- ‘elk, deer’, borrowed as: PY *lö - > TY lögur ‘call of reindeer male’ > MC logu ‘reindeer’ ; 8. Ewenki melele, me:lan ‘elk calf, small tundra reindeer’, borrowed as: PY *mejl’in ’ > KY mejl’id’ ‘one-year old reindeer or elk’ ; 9. Ewen mo:mina ‘reindeer intestine filled with lard’, borrowed as: PY *mo:mina > KY mo:mina: ‘large intestine’, TY momne ‘part of a reindeer intestine’ ; 10. Ewenki na:ra:, nara ‘castrated reindeer’, borrowed as: borrowed as: TY naare ol- ‘half-castrated’ ; 11. TU * ar-gu- ‘new, fresh’, borrowed as: PY * arq > TY arqa-jewlid’e ‘new-born reindeer’ ; 12. Ewen o:rkan, borrowed as: TY uorkanal ‘four- or fiveyear old male reindeer’ ; 13. ?NT *awa-la ’reindeer’, borrowed as: ?PY *o:w > MU endschdsche-ówa ’elk’ ; 14. TU *kula ‘light brown with black mane and tail (of a horse)’, borrowed as: PY *qulu- > TY quluruo- ‘to have hair that has white tips with a dark tinge (of a reindeer)’, TK quluruod’ed-ile ‘white reindeer with a greyish hue’ ; 15. Ewen ke:nde ‘draught reindeer of the Chukchi or Koryak breed’, borrowed as: PY *qunde: > TY qundietege ‘draught reindeer more than six years old’ ; 16. Ewen ku a:- 'to gallop (of a reindeer or a horse)', borrowed as: PY *qu e > TY qu e 'two-year old male reindeer' ; 17. Ewen tambaka , borrowed as: TY tambakaa ‘Chukchi child’s overall made of reindeer skin’, 18. NT *ire ‘male elk, wild reindeer, smoked reindeer skin’, borrowed as: PY *yra- > TY ira al ‘light brown reindeer’, irul ‘biggest wild reindeer’, and 19. Ewen nolima ‘sledge’, borrowed as: PY *lolim > TY lalime ‘sledge’, lalimed’aa ‘people with sledges’, etc. (unless borrowed into Ewen from Yukaghir). 5 This is: 1. Chukchi sawsi, aw u ‘reindeer breeder’, borrowed as: PY * a: a: > TY aa aa ‘a reindeer-breeding Yukaghir tribe’. 6 This is: 1. Koryak ine , borrowed as TY ini ie ‘sledge for transporting lumber and the poles of a yurt’. Manchu languages (TMS 1 & 2), all referenced in Nikolaeva’s A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir (2006). Borrowings, in general, old and new, into Yukaghiric from (Pre-)Yakut were recently discussed elsewhere (Piispanen, P.S. 2013:115-139). Borrowings between languages must naturally be adequately described in lexical, phonological and semantic terms, and attempts at chronology should be made. In the case of borrowings into Yukaghiric, it is known that Tungusic *-u- and *-o- of early borrowings (dated to c:a 1500 BP) are both found as Late Proto-Yukaghir (PY) *-o-, while the Tungusic *-u- and *o- of late borrowings (dated to c:a 1000 BP) are both found as PY *-u- (Nikolaeva, I. 2006:58). It can be assumed that Turkic borrowings into Yukaghiric follow similar vocalic change patterns and chronology (Piispanen, P.S. 2013; reading suggested for a brief background to Yukaghir vowels, prosody and Yakut and Tungusic borrowings and their chronology). Below are presented a number of new borrowings, and a few new suggested Uralic–Yukaghiric cognates directly related to reindeer economy. 2. New borrowings between Tungusic and Yukaghiric New borrowing Ewenki mullikan ‘reindeer which cannot be trained’ (Nedjalkov, I. 1997:333), mulliikaan ‘wild reindeer; reindeer strayed from the flock’ (Vasilevitch, G.M. 1958:261), borrowed as: PY *moll’ > TY moll’e, KJ molle, mole, KD molle ‘small wild reindeer’. This constitutes another borrowing related to reindeer economy between Yukaghir and Ewenki. The direction of borrowing is from Ewenki to Yukaghir, even though the end suffix is missing in Yukaghir, since there are also other known reindeer-related borrowings in this direction (as found in the earlier footnotes). Furthermore, there are also Ewen mụlqan ‘deer’, Negidal (a dialect of Eastern Ewenki) molkān ‘deer’ (TMS 1 534, 555), clearly making this a fully Tungusic word, but neither of the two which can be the source of borrowing due to phonological reasons. While Yukaghir usually borrows only roots this could possibly be a Pre-Ewenki borrowing before the suffix –kan was added, although the presence of the same suffix also in the Ewen and Negidal words shows that the suffix was already in place by the time of borrowing; the Yukaghirs thus only borrowed the root, obviously knowing that the suffix was indeed a suffix. Indeed, the vowel correspondence PY -o- ~ Ewenki -u- would suggest that it is an old borrowing placing it at perhaps 1500 BP (Piispanen, P.S. 2013:120). Further, the geminate in Yukaghir, which would have been lost far earlier with universal degemination (Piispanen, P.S. 2013:ii) also suggests that the Yukaghir words are (Pre-)Ewenki borrowings post-dating degemination (in EY or MY). The palatalization of -l- is of course related to the easily palatalized cluster -li-. Semantically, there is a clear connection between ‘wild animal’ and ‘animal that cannot be trained’ as many trained animals have been raised as domesticated animals; an untrainable animal is a wild animal. Curiously, there is also Finnish mulli ‘young oxen’, although this must be only a chance similarity. The PY root in itself means ‘small wild reindeer’. In this case, the Ewenki item was suffixed with -kan which exactly has a diminutive meaning (Nedjalkov, I. 1997:298). The same suffix is found in other reindeer terms in Ewenki as well, and probably constitutes an early productive suffix in several Tungusic languages. Examples (Ewenki vocabulary taken from Nedjalkov, I. 1997:333-334) include avlakan ‘1-year-old reindeer’, ńogarkan~ńovarkan ‘4-year old reindeer’, amarkan ‘5-year-old reindeer’, bagdakatkan ‘wild calf-reindeer’ and I conjecture that the suffix may also have been present earlier in other reindeer terms such as bagdaka: (I suggest: < *bagdakan) ‘wild reindeer’, engneken (I suggest: < *engnekan) ‘young calf-reindeer’ and kumaka (I suggest: < *kumakan) ‘red deer’.7 However, terms such as songgachan ‘new-born calf-reindeer’ and epkacha:n ‘less than 1year-old female reindeer’ likely instead bear the suffix -chan which has pejorative meanings, which semantically is traced to the fact that very young reindeer may appear not only small, but also fragile and weak. Given this, it is noteworthy that the meaning of ‘small’ is still found in Yukaghiric, suggesting that the (Pre-)Ewenki word was already suffixed and carrying this exact meaning. New borrowing Ewenki aŋa ‘wild game; beast’ (Vasilevitch, G.M. 1958:30), aŋa- ‘to graze (of deer)’, aŋan ‘enclosure for deer’, dial. anaŋ ‘mountain ram’, also: ongkovor, ongoskocho ‘reindeer with a skewbald patch, spot on a muzzle’, borrowed as: PY *oŋ-, SU oŋyl, B onye, ME ongei ‘reindeer’. A likely borrowing from Ewenki into Yukaghiric. The Tungusic forms appear to originate in the root *aŋ-, which generally relates to (rein)deers. This has been raised phonologically with ong- in compounds meaning ‘reindeer with skewbald patch’. The same ong- (orthographically more properly oŋ-) – meaning ‘reindeer’ – is a found borrowed into Yukaghiric with a very limited geographic spread, i.e. in dialects only (where different suffixation patterns have been applied). This root is suffixed in Yukaghiric (*-l is a nominal derivational suffix in Yukaghir (Nikolaeva, I. 2006:81)). Assuming that the change *aŋ- > *oŋ- predates the borrowing, the vocalism of Tungusic *-o- > Yukaghiric *-o- suggests that this is an early borrowing, i.e. from around 1500 BP (Piispanen, P.S. 2013:120). The semantics do suggest ‘(rein)deer’ for all words relating to both the Ewenki and Yukaghiric sets. In dialectal Ewenki the semantically shifted meaning ‘mountain ram’ is also found, while ‘wild game’ is a quite natural referent for ‘reindeer’ for populations mainly involved in reindeer economy. The meaning of ‘reindeer with a skewbald patch’ is semantically specified in Ewenki, constructed either through a complex, non-identified suffixation pattern (less likely) or through some sort of lexical compounding (more likely) to the ancient root *aŋ- (> *oŋ-). New borrowing Ewenki sulaki ‘fox’ (Nedjalkov, I. 1997:334) sulakii ‘fox’ (Boldyrev, B.V. 1994:182), borrowed as: PY *saqoli (*saqa- in Nikolaeva, I. 2006:396) > KY šaqala ‘fox’, šaqal n- ‘yellow’, šaqal’ lbo:‘yellowish’, šaqal daj- ‘to become yellow’, šaqal’ nilbo:- ‘pitted’ > šaqan ‘foxy, fox’, šaqadabut (< *saqa/on-t-aw-ut) ‘a place in the upper Jasačnaja, lit. den of the fox’, TY saaqid’eń~saaqičeń- ‘yellowish-grey’, saaqiń ‘a man in a story, lit. foxy, sly’, saaqid’aa ‘a man in a story; 7 Actually, the words for many animals in Ewenki – big or small – also surprisingly have the suffix –kan, including kulikan, amika:n ‘bear’, chipkan ‘sable’ and munnukan ‘hare’. The very same suffix seems to be present also in kungakan ‘child’. yellowish-grey dog with a black tinge’, RS šakoli ‘fox’, šoxolonei ‘yellow’, SU čoxóla, čoxolod‘fox’, KD caxale~cexel’e ‘fox’, čaxaladail’el~caxaladailel ‘isterus’, caxaluo ‘one-year old elk’, KL čoqolojent ‘fox’, B tshakala ‘fox’, tshakolonni ‘yellow’, ME tschokola ‘fox’, tschakolonni ‘yellow’, MK tschochála- ‘fox’, tschochólani ‘green’, etc. In this borrowing, interestingly exhibiting metathesis, the direction is Ewenki > Yukaghir. First, the KY form appears to be homogenized into all-identical vowels, a form that would not at all have yielded the heterogeneous vowels of the Ewenki word. Second, on the Tungusic side, there are also Ewen hụlää ‘fox’ and Negidal solaxịị ‘fox’, clearly showing that the borrowing is from Ewenki to Yukaghiric. The presence of the word-initial sibilant must be taken carefully into account. Early *s- in Yukaghir – in both inherited and borrowed vocabulary – would be subject to either retention (producing š- in KY (Nikolaeva, I. 2006:66-68)), deletion (producing ø-) or lateralization (producing l-) depending on the exact phonological surrounding (Piispanen, P.S. 2015); the structure *sul- would have had the sibilant deleted altogether, which has not occurred here, while *saq- would have retained the sibilant (in contrast to *sak-). Therefore, we must assume that this word was metathesized already during borrowing, and that the -k- changed into -q- due to Yukaghir rules of synharmonism.8 The different Yukaghir languages display a large number of vowel variations. The previously suggested *saqa- does not take into account neither the presence of the high-voweled forms nor the *-l- present in practically all the words and should therefore be reconstructed as *saqo- or even *saqoli (as perhaps directly shown by the archaic RS form!). In other borrowings found in A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir, we find TU *-a- > PY *-a- or, rarely, *-o- or *-y-, which explains the various Yukaghir forms. Further, the shift of Ewenki -u- to Yukaghir -o- suggests that this is an early borrowing from c:a 1500 BP (Piispanen, P.S. 2013), which also accounts for the presence in practically all Yukaghir languages and dialects. Yukaghirs have also borrowed other names of fauna from surrounding populations, an example given by Chukchi milúte ‘hare’, borrowed as PY *milúte > KY melate ‘hare’ (noted in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 269), a vocalism that would also be consistent with an early borrowing. Furthermore, ‘fox’ is also borrowed into certain other Yukaghiric dialects such as MC jajdel’ ‘fox’, borrowed from Chukchi jájcol~játjol ‘fox’ (noted in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 626). While the source has not been determined, MK indéndsche ‘fox’, RS kinliž’a ‘fox’, MO kille ‘fox’ (< *kinle) and RS ńandimide ‘black and grey fox’ are also quite likely borrowings. New borrowing Ewenki ikeri ‘spine, vertebrae’ (Nedjalkov, I. 1997:329) iikeerii ‘spinal cord; bone’ (Vasilevitch, G.M. 1958:161; Boldyrev, B.V. 1994:302), borrowed as: KY ugur ‘spine, ridge’, KJ ugur ‘spine’ (? < PY *öγur in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 1591). The form has limited spread in Yukaghiric, perhaps suggesting borrowing. The vowelism of this prospective borrowing is irregular – which, however, is extremely common with Tungusic borrowings in Yukaghiric. Perusing A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir one finds the borrowing correspondences: 8 Interestingly, there is also Ewenki ekalan ‘lynx’, which has the same consonants and in the same order as Yukaghiric *saqoli. Perhaps the metathesis exhibited with the Yukaghiric borrowing (*sulaki > *saqoli) was influenced by the lexical structure of this animal name in Ewenki, even though a lynx and a fox are rather different in physical shape, color and manner. TU *-a- > PY *-a- or, rarely, *-o- or *-y-; TU *-o- > PY *-o- or *-u-, or rarely, *-ö-; TU *-ö- > PY *-ö-; TU *-u- > PY *-u- or *-o- or, more rarely, *-i- or *-a- or *-ö- or *-y-; TU *-ü- > PY *-u-; TU *-i- > PY *-e- or *-i- or, more rarely *-y-; TU *-e- > PY *-e- or, more rarely *-y- or *-u- or *-ö-. As mentioned, in particular, changes to *-o- and *-u- readily show the age of the borrowing with Tungusic and likely also (Pre-)Yakut and other borrowings. However, one may assume that in rootinitial positions vowels are changed extra prominently. One may therefore posit the following not fully satisfactory development: ?*ikeri > *yker (desyllabilification with the borrowing) > *ukur (progressive vowel assimilation) > KY ugur (voicing of intervocalic plosive). Semantically, of course, all the meanings are practically identical. The direction of borrowing (Ewenki > Yukaghiric) is indicated by the homogenization of vowels that has occurred in Yukaghiric. New borrowing Ewenki oŋokto ‘nose’ (Nedjalkov, I. 1997:329; Boldyrev, B.V. 1994:232), borrowed as: PY *joŋq- > KY joγul ‘nose, cape, promontory’, joγud-aŋil’ ‘nostril, lit. nose opening’ (< *joŋq-u(l)nt-aŋ-i-l), joŋ-ža: ‘beak, spout’, joγul -qoqš š- ‘to snore, lit. to choke the nose’, TY joγul ‘nose’, BO júngol ‘nose’, MO niongol’ ‘nose’, etc. Suggestion: *oŋok-to > *oŋk- > *joŋq- > KY joγul ‘nose’. The common Yukaghir word for ‘nose’ is an Ewenki borrowing. There are also Negidal (a Western Ewenki dialect) oŋokto ‘nose’, Ulchi (southern Tungusic) χoŋqo ‘front part of a boat’ and Nanai (southern Tungusic) qoŋtoro ‘nose’ (<?Proto-Tungusic *xoŋo-), showing that this is indeed a Tungusic word. The -k- of the Ewenki word, finding a direct correspondence in PY *-q- after assimilation clearly shows that this is an Ewenki borrowing, far after the Proto-Tungusic stage. Further, the cluster *-ŋktis impossible in PY, forcing cluster simplification (> *-ŋk-) after assimilation if the Ewenki 3rd syllable had also originally been borrowed. This is an early borrowing (likely from around 1500 BP) as shown by the correspondence Tungusic *-o- > Late Proto-Yukaghir (PY) *-o- (Piispanen, P.S. 2013). PY *j- has likely developed secondarily for some vowel-initial roots due to the influence of the following cluster *-ŋk- (> KY -γ- regularly; again, *-l is a nominal derivational suffix in Yukaghir (Nikolaeva, I. 2006:81)); note that there are very few PY roots of the type *oŋk-~*oŋq-, all of which could be alternatively reconstructed as *oγ-.9 Actually, many if not all PY roots having the cluster *Vŋk/q-, with V being a front vowel like *-e-, *-i-, *-ü-, *-ö-, have possibly originated from forms that originally had the proto-sibilant *s- (Piispanen, P.S. 2016). On the other hand, the numerous PY roots with the back vowel *-o- like *joŋq-, *joŋč-, *joŋl-, *joŋn- and *joŋt-, may suggest that the root-initial *j- is secondary for roots that originally had *o- only; such a secondary phonologic development would also be evident with this borrowing. Furthermore, many *e- initial PY roots have alternatively been constructed as *je-, again perhaps suggesting epenthetic *j- with some vowel-initial roots as a (semi)regular change in Yukaghiric. Such epenthetic effects could in some cases be Russian influences. 9 The only exception would appear to be PY *ö k - > KY o o:- ‘to stand’. 3. New borrowings between Turkic and Yukaghiric New borrowing (Pre-)Yakut soγuruu ’south’, saγuruuŋu ‘southern, south’ <> TY saa-laaγare ’south, lit. tree left’ <> TY sespe-saaγare ‘Southern part of the yurt, left of the entrance, lit. entrance left’, TY jawun-saaγara ‘southern side of a road, lit. road left’, TY saaγare ‘left side of a yurt; West’, TK saγand’a ‘a little aside from smth’, saγar ‘side’, saγargudeŋ ‘aside’, and also KY šajγ r ‘aside’ (< PY *sa:γ r). While fairly certainly a borrowing between Yakut and Yukaghiric, the direction of borrowing cannot be readily determined in this case. In Yakut, all word-initial s- disappeared, and the modern s-initial words are therefore believed to be borrowings from other Turkic languages or other sources (Anderson, G.D.S. 1998); these words are therefore likely borrowings in Yakut – either from other Turkic languages or from the languages of the surrounding neighbours – even though the full complex picture of Yakut phonology in this regard remains to be uncovered. In Yukaghiric, the protosibilant *s- would be retained, lateralized or deleted in the modern languages depending on a number of phonological factors (Piispanen, P.S. 2016; this also discusses Yakut root-initial sibilants); Pre-PY *sVγ- > *θVγ- > PY *lVγ-, with back vowels, is expected. This lateralization is indeed realized in TY saa-laaγare ’south, lit. tree left’, the only form also preceded by a low back vowel. The other (compound) forms all retain the sibilant, the reason for which being that the borrowed PY form was the long-voweled *sa:γ r, and not the theoretical *saŋq r – as is still found with some TY forms and with the KY form (demonstrating *-a:γ- > -ajγ-) – as this likely blocked the lateralization in most cases (Piispanen, P.S. 2016). These factors at least clearly show that the Yukaghir forms are not very recent, and so could be old borrowings. Yakut saγuruuŋu has a 1st syllable low vowel, just like in the Yukaghir forms, suggesting that a form close to this one may have been present as the source of the borrowing; however, this does not explain the presence of Yakut soγuruu, a form with a 1st syllable high vowel. Perhaps an original Yakut 3rd syllable long vowel could have been realized as a Yukaghiric 1st syllable long vowel in the borrowing, but this is not phonologically satisfactory. It is known that Tungusic borrowings with *-owere retained as *-o- in Yukaghiric, but also that such sporadically changed to *-a- with early borrowings. Since such vocalism may also be the case her – if the Yakut form with a high 1st syllable vowel was indeed the original form – then one may assume that the borrowing took place after 1630 BP (Piispanen, P.S. 2013:134). If the Yakut form with a low 1st syllable vowel was the original form, however, then it is not possible to determine the time of borrowing merely from a phonological perspective, but could have occurred a bit later as a late borrowing from 900-1300 BP. The Yakut forms are phonologically odd and analysis of (Pre-)Yakut phonology cannot offer much insight into the question of chronology either because to me it appears as if both Yakut soγuruu and saγuruuŋu present reconstructive difficulties if they are of Turkic origin. The word-initial s- would simply go back to *y-, but original *-oγur- and *-aγur- would both have changed into -uor- in Yakut, meaning Yakut -oγur- and -aγur- have other (unknown) origins. Instead, I suggest, Yakut -oγur- and aγur- could go back through metathesis to *-orγu- or *-arγu-, respectively, as such clusters would probably behave differently and perhaps retain the *-γ-. Further, Yakut -uu- often goes back to *uγu- (Anderson, G.D.S. 1998:1-32). A tentative Proto-Turkic reconstruction would thus be *yorγuuγu~*yarγuuγu ’south’, but as far as I can tell these match absolutely nothing else in any other Turkic language. The conclusion should be that the Yakut word – with the stem saγuruu- – is in itself a borrowing from some unidentified source, perhaps even from Yukaghiric. As to the semantics, Yukaghir appears to be a west-oriented system, and so turning left from there would lead to the south. The meaning of ‘left (not west)’ would then be ‘south’ in a Yukaghir borrowing into Yakut if Yakut is also a west-oriented system. The matter is not easily resolved even from a semantic perspective, and again the direction of borrowing cannot be readily determined. Comparing the orientation systems to those of Kyrgyz, another Turkic language, offers no additional insight either: in Kyrgyz directions are instead given by specifying which ‘side’: Kyrgyz zhak ‘side’ > tyn zhak ‘north’ (< tyn ‘true; firstborn’), kyn zhak ‘south’ (< kyn ‘sun’), kybla zhak ‘west’ (Judaxin, K.K. 1985:217) and kökurök zhak ‘east’ (< kökurök ‘breast, chest’)(Judaxin, K.K. 1985:419). In fact, these phonological and semantical problems may suggest that the Yakut word is a Yukaghir borrowing, which is very rare (this being standard Yakut and not merely dialectal)! The pure number of (Pre-)Yakut borrowings into Yukaghir, on the other hand, suggests that Yakut was the donor language. Whichever the case may be, there is little doubt that the Yakut and Yukaghiric words are related through borrowing. 4. New borrowings between Turkic and Uralic New borrowing Proto-Turkic *qan~*kan ‘blood’; Old Turkish qan ‘blood’, qanlïγ ‘bloody’ (Nadeljaev, V.M. et al. 1969:416-417); Turkish kan ‘blood’, kanamak ‘to bleed’; Azerbaijani qan ‘blood’; Turkmen gan ‘blood’; Tatar qan ‘blood’; Bashkir qan ‘blood’; Kazakh qan ‘blood’; Kyrgyz kan ‘blood’ (Yudaxin, K.K. 1985:338); Uzbek qon ‘blood’; Uyghur qan ‘blood’; Yakut qa:n ‘blood’; Chuvash jun ‘blood’, etc., borrowed as: PS *kem ‘blood’ (SW 65): Nganasan ka(a)m ‘blood’; Enets kî’ (gen.sg. kio’) ‘blood’; Yurak χyva ‘he bleeds’; Tundra Nenets χ3m’ ‘blood’, χ3vas’ ‘to go (of blood)’ (?< *kemå-); Forest Nenets ki`em ‘blood’; Selkup kem ‘blood’; Kamassian kC `m ‘blood’; Koibal kam ‘blood’; Mator kem ‘blood’, borrowed as: Tofalar gomdu ‘he bleeds’. While this case may have little to do with reindeer economy – unless the word for ‘blood’ was borrowed exactly due to reindeer economy – it may solve a long unetymologized problem. The common Samoyed root for ‘blood’ has been reconstructed as PS *ke̮m and a noteworthy resemblance to Turkic words meaning ‘blood’ can be noted. This may suggest that the Samoyed root is a Turkic borrowing. The phonology, however, is complicated, and the tentative chronology is uncertain. Old Turkish is attested in the 7th century, while Proto-Turkic (the ancestor of both the Eastern Turkic languages (Siberian, Kyrgyz-Kipchak, Arghu) and the Western Turkic (Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk, Oghur)) must be quite a lot older; Clauson suggests that Proto-Turkic existed long before the Christian era and then broke up at the start of the Christian era into the Shaz-Turkic and Lir-Turkic branches (Clauson, G. 1962). Róna-Tas estimates the beginning of Proto-Turkic at around 4000-4500 BCE (Róna-Tas, A. 1998:67-80). Proto-Samoyed, however, is dated at perhaps no more than 2000 BCE, which suggests that the borrowing would have to be from a specific Turkic language, and there are many from which to choose. Borrowing could even have taken place from a now extinct Turkic source. I suggest the following scenario: The Samoyed root is a Turkic borrowing from a form like *kan or, more likely, *qan, which had the root-final sonorant altered from *-n to *-m, possibly during the borrowing itself, or due to the influence of an original final vowel.10 Such alternations between *-m and *-n are both known and not uncommon in other Uralic languages; cf. Fin. minä olen ‘I am’ < PU *mon wolem ‘I am’. Further parallels of changes between m and n can be found in the other direction, for example, with Toch. B. kauṃ ‘sun, day’ > Toch. B. kauṃ-parki ‘sunrise’ & Toch. B. kauṃkläsko ‘west, lit. sunset’, but Toch. B. kaun-yaṣi ‘a day and a night’ (note the following vowel). Since Proto-Samoyed had no *q it would have been borrowed as PS *k. The Proto-Samoyed vowel, then, has been reconstructed as *-e-, although some of the languages indeed do have an -a(Nganasan and Koibal), and even -e-, -o-, -î-, - - and -3- (!) are encountered. In this context, the possible change of *-a- > *e is interesting, as it is also encountered, for example, with: PU *apte ‘hair’ (UEW 14-15) > PS *ept ‘(head) hair’; PU *ajtV ‘to get loose; to free oneself’ > Kamassian el’èm ‘I let loose’, as well as the similar: PU *jäsne~*jäsen ’joint, limb’ > PS *esen~*es n ’joint, limb’ (in detail also: EM ezńe ’knee, joint’, KB M Mari jež ŋ 'Gelenk; Knötchen einer Pflanze', VO KZ jez 'Gelenk', je̮ zvi̮j 'Gliedgelenk', P KZ je̮ zna 'muscle; joint’, Tundra Nenets ŋeso’(n) ’joint; section, segment’). Hence, an argument can be made for Turkic *qan ‘blood’, borrowed as: PS *kem ‘blood’. The vowel change may actually be motivated by avoidance of homonymy with PU *kama ‘peel, crust’ (UEW 121-122) > PS *kam ‘Schuppe’ (PS *käm ‘Schuppe’ in SW 63; PS *ä should rather be reconstructed as PS *a according to Helimski, E. 2005) > O. Nenets śāw, J. Nenets śem ’scale, flake’; Nganasan kamu ‘peel, crust’; Selkup q m ‘fish scale’; Kamassian kåm ‘scale’; Mator kamengapty. While the full details remain to be worked out with this borrowing scenario, it is at least a worthvile and rather reasonable one. Further, an alternative thesis could be entertained: Proto-Turkic *kem ‘river; Yenisei’ (> Old Turkic *kem (*käm) ‘river; Yenisei’) > Tuvan xem ‘river’, Khakas kim ‘Yenisei’ (Janhunen, J. 2012:70-73) borrowed as PS *ke̮m ‘blood’. The phonology is closer than with the main suggestion, and semantically it is possible to see blood as the river inside the body. This seems to be paralleled semantically by PIE *bhlo-to- ‘to swell, to gush, to spurt; that which bursts out’ > Old Eng. blod ‘blood’ > Eng. blood (Etymon). However, the identical semantics in the main suggestion above seems much more convincing and so the phonological similarities of this second suggestion must be ascribed to a chance occurrence only. 5. Likely borrowings or cognates between Uralic and Yukaghiric New borrowing or cognate PY *kent , TY kedie- ‘obstinate (of a tied reindeer that does not want to follow a sledge)’ is either a Ugric borrowing or cognate with: Khanty kĕnt 'wrath, anger, malice', kănt 'anger', Mansi känt, kant, kant ŋ 'angry', Hung. kedv '(to be in a) mood, emotional, desire', PUg *kVntV- ‘whim, mood, caprice’ (UEW 861-862). 10 Most PS roots are shortened forms of PU roots; disyllabic roots have often become monosyllabic roots, which may also apply to PS *kem, thus possibly originally borrowed as *kani or *kan (?> *kam) from a Turkic source. In Yukaghir, a valid disyllabic noun root must have a prosodic structure of (C)VCC -. Therefore, the final vowel could have been anything else in MY (if inherited) or in an original donor language (if borrowed). Semantically, the meanings of the TY item – ‘stubborn, obstinate, scornful’ – are mirrored by the meanings found in PUg ‘mood, caprice’, as well as in Hungarian ‘to be in a mood’ and Khanty/Mansi ‘angry’. The Hungarian form suggests an original 1st syllable front vowel. The correspondences may thus suggest an earlier, prospective Pre-PU *kentV- ‘whim, mood, caprice’ – as a cognate – had a front-voweled 1st syllable (likely *-e-), or that an Uralic donor language, such as early Khanty, was of the form *kent(V). New borrowing or cognate PY *pet-, TY petčigije ‘reins’ (> petčigije-moojnijaa ‘skilled reindeer-driver’), petče ‘light sledge for carrying people’, pettes- ‘to drive reindeer (TR)’, petčigijes- ‘to put the front part of the harness on a reindeer’ <> Nenets pod’er ‘collar for horse, dog’, Enets fóre , fòde ‘pull strap’, ?poδida~poδer ‘reindeer harness’, Nganasan fúdar ‘yoke, pull strap’, hutur - ‘to harness’, ?Selkup paater ‘garter’, PS *potV ‘harness, gear for the sleigh’ (UED 794). A rare reindeer economy-related borrowing can be presented between Proto-Samoyed and Yukaghir to show that borrowings are indeed possible between the geographically closest modern Uralic languages and Yukaghir. The semantics have good correlations which have been further expanded after PY through suffixation, which can be expected in a culture deeply involved in reindeer economy. No other earlier correspondences have shown the specific vowel correspondence as seen with PS *pot(V)- <> PY *pet- (i.e back contra front vocalism), which makes this something of a special case; it could suggest palatalization in the PS branch only, which would be unusual. While one could imagine labialization in Proto-Samoyed, this could possibly constitute a rare borrowing between Samoyed and Yukaghir both populations being far-traveling exactly due to reindeer economy. If it is a borrowing, it may go back perhaps to ~1 500 BP, but the direction of borrowing is not at all clear from the phonological correspondences alone either. This root pertains to reindeer technology and it seems non-plausible that it could constitute a common Pre-PU root going back several millennia; reindeer husbandry may simply not be old enough to have been present as common terminology that reaches back thousands of years. Still, if it were a cognate it would go very well in accordance with the fact that PU *-o- is often found as PY *-e- with other cognate suggestions; examples include PFU *kolV ‘rift, cleft, interval’ (UEW 174-175) <> PY *ke:- > KY ke:l ‘slot’, etc. (noted in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 768); PFU *wolka ‘shoulder’ (UEW 581) <> PY *wele- > KY ejeji:- ‘to carry’, etc. (noted in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 2603); PU *ńole~*ńo:le- ‘to lick’ (UEW 321) <> PY *ńel- > KY ńel’i:- ‘to lick’ (noted in Nikolaeva, I. 2006, entry 1401), etc. The Samoyed words do not have any spread in other Uralic languages either, not even in the Ugric languages. For these reasons this set may best be described as a rarely borrowed technological term instead of a cognate set. Enets poδida~poδer is my own prospective addition to this set. New borrowing or cognate PY *a:č ~*wa:č , KY a:č ‘domestic reindeer’ > KY a: ‘domestic reindeer’, B aaitsha ‘domestic reindeer, ? ishakalloo ‘young reindeer’, M á a, á apul, aa a, aa e ‘domestic reindeer’, ?ME tschakalloa ‘young reindeer’, etc. <> PFV *wača~*waća ‘young animal, female reindeer, foal’ (UEW 808-809), ?Fin. vaadin, dial. vaame, vaami, vaatimo, vain, vaija 'reindeer cow' (possibly < N. Saami v a - am- 'full-grown female reindeer (which already has or has had a calf)', L. Saami v tjav (L) 'reindeer cow', T. Saami v 'young reindeer cow', Kld. Saami v DìZì, vaÌij(a) 'reindeer cow' ( > Russ. > KZ & Udm. važenka?)), Kar. voajin ‘reindeer cow’, ?EM vašo, ?MM vaša 'foal'. Also possibly: PFU *wasa ’calf, deer calf’ (UEW 814-815), Fin. vasa 'Kalb, einjähriges Renkalb', vasikka 'Kalb', Est. vasik, vasikas, I. Saami vyesi, T. Saami viisse, Kld. v iss 'kleines Rentierkalb, bis es um den Peterstag neues Haar bekommt', EM & MM vaz, EM vaznìe, MM vaznìä 'calf', ?Mansi w s j, w s γ, w siγ 'elk calf'. In the UEW, Rédei considered PFU *wasa an independent Iranian borrowing. However, while such a hypothesis is certainly possible, if it were an original Uralic item one could trace the proto-form back to at least the Proto-Finno-Ugric stage. It seems to me that the etymons *wača & *wasa could both be traced back to some earlier common etymon related to young elks or (rein)deers even though the phonological details are not at all clear since an earlier *-č- may regularly reflect a later *-t-, but not really an *-s-; perhaps the two roots are independently borrowed into the two proto-languages, but actually originating in one foreign etymon changed over time. The Late Proto-Yukaghir form *wa:č is particularly close to PFV *wača, both in phonological and semantical terms, meaning that the two could constitute either true cognates (< Pre-PU *wača) or ancient borrowings, with the common semantics appearing to mainly pertain to ‘young reindeer’. The 1st syllable long vowel and the 2nd syllable final vowel of the PY root are explained by Yukaghir prosody where CV:C - is one of the valid disyllabic nominal root structures. New borrowing or cognate PY *se:rti:, TY sierdiid-ile ‘reindeer not selected for slaughter’ (< TY ile ‘domestic reindeer’) <> PU *śarta ‘young deer, reindeer’ (UEW 464), EM & MM śarda, EM śardo 'elk, dial. reindeer', Mari šarδ , šorδo, 'elk', Khanty surti '1-year-old tame reindeer', s rt '1-year-old calf/foal of a cow, horse, elk or tame reindeer', Mansi surti 'year-old reindeer calf', Nenets siraj '1-year-old reindeer cow' (> Khanty sirȧ, sirȧj '1.5-year-old reindeer' > Ewenki siru ‘male reindeer in the period of pairing’), ?Selkup sjaera 'Cervus tarandus'. An interesting set showing both Uralic and Yukaghiric cognancy (or borrowing) and further borrowing into the Tungusic language of the Ewenki (the latter being noted in the UEW). The UEW entry also compares the Uralic words with the Turkic Shor sartak ‘reindeer’ and sagaisch-koibalisch sardak ‘einjähriges Maral’, and with Mongol sarluγ and Khalkha Mongolian sarlaγ ‘yak’. As such, this may be an ancient Wanderwort, and the borrowing sequence would therefore be extremely difficult to trace. Several factors point also at the PY root itself being a borrowing: first, a long vowel in a closed syllable, the anomalous vocalism (front contra back vocalism as compared to Uralic), second, the root is only found with TY and no other dialects and as no other derivatives, third, the disyllabic prosodic structure of CV:CCV: appears in this case to result from a contraction of a final short vowel *-i- with a word-final glide like *-j (i.e. < *se:rtij)(Nikolaeva, I. 2006:76) – just like what happens to be found word-finally in the Nenets word (> Khanty > Ewenki) – but *-j is no known or fitting suffix. On the other hand, Yukaghir has a nominal derivational marker PY *-i: (Nikolaeva, I. 2006:80), which might explain the form of the PY root. If a borrowing, it is likely from around 1500 BP, as was suggested with the case of PS *potV <> PY *pet- above. The PY form should probably be newly reconstructed as *śe:rtij. Semantically, the entire set pertains to young reindeers (semantically shifted to yak in Mongolic). A ‘tame reindeer’ may in some regard be considered ‘reindeer not selected for slaughter’, since pets are usually not slaughtered. Furthermore, Ewenki siru appears to be a direct Khanty borrowing; indeed, a male reindeer becomes independent in early fall after almost one year as a calf (being born around May–June) and can then partake in the period of pairing the following year in October– January, depending on species, at an approximate age of 1.5 years. Likewise, female reindeers can be sexually mature at 16 months of age (~1.5 years), but more commonly so one year later (i.e. at the following pairing season). 6. Structured semantic fields Most of the borrowings presented in this paper pertain to reindeer terminology. Further dividing the borrowings into cultural or technological sub-spheres of semantics (such as those presented in Rédei, K. 1999) yields the following categories: a. body parts of humans and animals – KY ugur, TY joγul, PS *kem b. animal kingdom (i.e. fauna) – PY *moll’ , PY *oŋ-, PY *saqoli, PY *wa:čə, PY *se:rti: d. nature, natural phenomena and natural places – KY šajγ r e. types of work and tools – PY *petm. elementary phenomena, actions and perceptions – PY *kent Most of the borrowings pertain to fauna, and then, in particular, semantically specified descriptions of reindeers as seen from the point of reindeer economy (age, level of domestication, suitability, etc.). Interestingly, a technological term, or, rather, a root, also pertaining to reindeers, was found as a borrowing between Yukaghiric and Samoyedic. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, a few body parts were also found as borrowings into Yukaghiric (as well as Samoyedic), as were a geographic direction and an emotion, which is now only used about reindeers in Yukaghir. Practically all the borrowings were found, as based in vocalism, to be considered chronologically old (i.e. of around 1500 BP) in Yukaghiric. The Uralic–Yukaghiric correspondences could alternatively be considered cognates. 7. Summary and conclusions In this paper, a total of eleven new lexical borrowings (or cognates in the case of Uralic–Yukaghiric) have been presented. These results add to the older research of rather extensive borrowings of reindeer terminology in the greater north-eastern Siberia, where several languages, including Yakut (and Dolgan), Chukchi, Koryak, Ewen, Ewenki, Yup’ik, Yukaghir, Russian, etc. are extensively used and heavily involved. 8. Abbreviations Fin. = Finnish, Hung. = Hungarian, KY = Kolyma Yukaghir, KZ = Komi-Zyrian, MM = Moksha Mordvin, MY = Middle Proto-Yukaghir, N. Saami = Northern Saami, Kld. Saami = Kildin Saami, S. Saami = South Saami, I. Saami = Inari Saami, T. Saami = Ter Saami, L. Saami = Lule Saami, NT = Northern Tungusic, PIE = Proto-Indo-European, PS = Proto-Samoyed, PU = Proto-Uralic, PUg = Proto-Ugric, PY = Late Proto-Yukaghir, TU = Proto-Tungusic, TY = Tundra Yukaghir, Udm. = Udmurt 9. Abbreviations of the linguistic resources B = Materials of Billings 1787, KD = Kolyma Yukaghir from Jochelson’s manuscript dictionary, KJ = Kolyma Yukaghir materials of Jochelson in 1898 and 1900, KL = Materials of Klitschka 1781, KK = Kolyma Yukaghir materials of Krejnovič in 1982, M = materials by Maydell presented by Schiefner in 1871, MC = čhuvan materials of Matjuškin (Wrangel 1841), ME = Materials of Merk 1787, MK = Kolyma Yukaghir materials of Mueller and Lindenau in 1741, MO = Omok materials of Matjuškin (Wrangel 1841), RS = materials of Rajskij and Stubendorf presented by Schiefner in 1871, SD = Kolyma Yukaghir materials of Spiridonov in 2003, SU = materials by Suvorov presented by Schiefner in 1871, TD = Tundra Yukaghir materials of Jochelson’s (1926) manuscript dictionary, TK = Tundra Yukaghir materials of Krejnovič in 1958 and 1982, W = early materials of Witsen in 1692. All these older materials are described and referenced in Nikolaeva, I. 2006. 10. References Aikio, A. (2015) The Uralic-Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or chance resemblance?, Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 61, 7-76. Anderson, G.D.S. (1998) Historical aspects of Yakut (Saxa) phonology. Turkic Languages 2, 3–32. Bogoras, W. (2009) Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized Natives of Eastern Siberia, International Polar Institute Press, a reprint of the 1918 book. Boldyrev, B.V. (1994) Russko-Evenkijskij slovar’, Novosibirsk: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk. Clauson, G. (1972) An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Etymon = Online (English) Etymology Dictionary (www.etymonline.com). Gurvic, Il’ja (1982) Ètničeskaja istorija narodov Severa [The ethnic history of the North], Moscow: Nauka. Helimski. E. (2005) The 13th Proto-Samoyedic vowel, Mikola-konferencia 2004, Beáta Wagner-Nagy (ed.), Szeged, 27-39. Janhunen, J. (2012) Etymological and ethnohistorical aspects of the Yenisei, Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 17, 67-87. Judaxin, K.K. (1985) Kirgizko-russkij slovar’ kniga 1 A-K, Moscow: Sovetskaja entsiklopedija, basmasy. Judaxin, K.K. (1985) Kirgizko-russkij slovar’ kniga 2 L-Ja, Moscow: Sovetskaja entsiklopedija, basmasy. Krupnik, I. (1993) Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia, University Press of New England. Nedjalkov, I. (1997) Evenki, London: Routledge. Nikolaeva, I. (2006) A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir, Trends in Linguistics Documentation, Bisang, W., Hock, H.R. & Winter, W. (eds.), 25, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin & New York. Piispanen, P.S. (2013) Further lexical borrowings from (Pre-)Yakut into the Yukaghiric languages, Turkic Languages 17, 115-139. Piispanen, P.S. (2013:ii) The Uralic-Yukaghiric connection revisited: Sound correspondences of Geminate clusters, Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 94, 165-197. Piispanen, P.S. (2015) Evaluating the Uralic-Yukaghiric word-initial, proto-sibilant correspondence rules, Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95, 237-274. Piispanen, P.S. (2016) A prosody-controlled semi-vowel alternation in Yukaghir, Journal of Historical Linguistics, Accepted. Rédei, K. (1999) Zu den uralisch-jukagirischen Sprachkontakten, Finnisch-Ugrischen Forschungen 55, 1-58. Róna-Tas, A. (1998) The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic question. In: Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva Á. (eds.) The Turkic languages. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions.) London: Routledge, 67–80. Sleptsov, P.A. (1972) Jakutsko-russkij slovar’ (aka the JRS), Moscow: Izdatel’stvo <sovetskaja entsiklopedija’. SW = Janhunen, J. (1977) Samojedischer Wortschatz – gemeinsamojedische etymologien, Castrenianumin toimitteita 17, Helsinki. TMS 1 = Cincius, V. (1975) Срамительный словарь тунгусо-маньжюрскихязыков [Comparative dictionary of the Tungus-Manchu languages]. Vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka. TMS 2 = Cincius, V. (1977) Срамительный словарь тунгусо-маньжюрскихязыков [Comparative dictionary of the Tungus-Manchu languages]. Vol. 2. Leningrad: Nauka. UED = Uralic etymology database (found online at: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgibin/query.cgi?basename=\data\uralic\uralet&root=config&morpho=0) UEW = Rédei, K. (1988–1991) Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Vasilevitch, G.M. (1958) Evenkijsko-Russkij slovar’, Moskva: Gosudarstvennoje isdatel’stvo inostvannyx i natsional’nyx slovarej. 10. Yukaghir-related Etymological dictionaries and glossaries: The etymological reference works consulted in Nikolaeva, I. (2006), the source of Yukaghir used for this research, were, given with common short-hand: CED (Fortescue, M. et al., 1994), DEWOS (Steinitz, W. 1966–1993), EDAL (Starostin, S.A. et al., 2003), ESRD (Anikin , A.E. 2000), ESRZ (Anikin, A.E. ,2003), JRS (Slepcov, P.A. 1972), JU (Collinder, B. 1940 – notes Yukaghir parallels and arguments), HUV (Collinder, B. 1965), LR (Fortescue, M. 1998) and UJN (Collinder, B. 1957). Further, the following glossaries were consulted and collected therein: Angere, J. (1957, based on Kurilov, G.N. 1900), Kurilov, G.N. (2001), Veenker, W. (1989), Endo, F. (1997 & 2001), Nyikolajeva, I. (2000), Nikolaeva, I. and Shalugin, V. (2003) and Maslova, E. (2001 & 2003).