Uralic languages is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: in hungarian 'fire' is 'tűz' (or 'tu"z' if the special character is unreadable). Why is it left empty (-) in the table? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Because it's not cognate with the other forms for 'fire'. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So you say it is a branch dravidian import word?
Hand (from wrist down) is 'kéz' (ke'z) in hungarian and 'arm' (the whole limb) is 'kar'. Both could be listed in the table, since both seem to fit?
I can't get why 'fathom' has a line in the table? The Urals isn't exactly a place to dive and most of the finno-ugrians only ever saw much water in a well. A less maritime concept could possibly replace it for a more useful table? Anyhow it's hungarian cell currently looks weird. The 'öl' (o:l) is an old unit of measurement app. 1.9 meters long, but it also means 'kills'. Yet 'ölel' (o:lel) means embraces. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to learn the meaning of the technical linguistic term cognate. It's not just "similar", but related by regular sound correspondences and descended from a common term in the proto-language. "Kéz" is cognate, "kar" is not. And the terms for "fathom" are all cognate, no matter what you think about the appropriateness of the meaning. Dravidian has nothing whatsoever to do with this table, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The Uralic languages are not related to the Dravidian languages. --Taivo (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The intended sense of fathom here is not a unit of depth in particular, but the unit formed by the opened and stretched-out arms. Do we have a better term we could gloss this with?
Hungarian öl 'kill' is, of course, unrelated entirely to the 'fathom' group. (It's instead related to Mansi äl-, Khanty wel- with the same meaning.)--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually the "fathom" set is based on Björn Collinder, An Introduction to the Uralic Languages (1965, University of California Press) with the glosses "bosom, outstretched arms, fathom" and includes Hungarian öl, which is not the verb 'kill', but the noun 'lap' or the noun 'six feet, cord (of wood)' (either one fits within the gloss and they are undoubtedly polysemous at a very deep time depth, although they usually have separate entries in Hungarian dictionaries). --Taivo (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if I was unclear: of the three basic meanings of öl in Hungarian, the first two are related and belong in the cognate set under discussion, but 'kill' does not. (My Hungarian-Finnish dictionary in fact only lists two entries anyway and consideres 'fathom', 'lap' polysemous.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)