On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:30:58 +0000, Rob <magwich78@...> wrote:

>--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:43:31 +0000, Rob <magwich78@...> wrote:
>> >Miguel, it has been said that Proto-Uralic (if it even really
>> >existed) did not have much in the way of plural inflections. I'd
>> >wager that the disparate plural inflections of the Uralic
>> >arose at various times after separation.
>> That is so not true...
>Please prove that it isn't.

See part 9, which I was writing when I wrote that.

I deny that the Uralic languages have disparate plural inflections. There
is clear system, which is not so hard to discern:

The nominal plural is -t, oblique -j (Acc./Gen.pl, oblique base).

The verbal plural has /t/t/n in Samoyed, /k/k/t in Finnish, /k/k/n in
Ugric, all variations of 1/2pl. vs. 3pl. Probably /k/k/t was originally
intransitive ~ stative and /t/t/n was transitive ~ possessive.

The plural possessum (object) was -t- with 1/2 possessor (subject), -j-
with 3 possessor (/t/t/j). Because with 1 possessor -t-m- > -n-, -n- was
analogically extended to the forms with 2/3 possessor, except in Samoyed,
where 3poss. -j- was extended to all forms (but 1poss has -j-n.. instead of

Permic has lost plural *-t altogether, Hungarian has replaced it with -k
(presumably first in the stative: /k/k/t => /k/k/k). That sort of thing
happens in all families...

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal