Hungarian Historical Phonology üsző

üsző 'Färse, Sterke, Kalbe, Kuhkalb; Schmaltier, Hinde, Hindin'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

isző (see UEW)

Uralic/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

? Proto-Hungarian *üsäγä

(Disputed:)

UEW: PUg *iśɜ (eśɜ) 'Mutter, weibliches Tier; mother, female animal'

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Khanty: East (V) ĕs 'Mutter', North (O) ȧ̆s 'Mutter, Weibchen (Tier)'

Loan etymology

Hu ← Ir *wasaka- (> Saka basaka), derivative of *wasa- 'calf' (> Ossetic wæs) > PIIr *watsa- (Helimski 2002)

Commentary

The Ugric etymology is not unproblematic. The vowel-relation between Hungarian ü and Khanty ĕ, ȧ̆ is not regular. Also the semantic connection is rather vague, with the meaning in many Khanty dialects being simply 'mother' (DEWOS 186–187). The Ugric etymology of the UEW is supported by WOT and it is not mentioned at all by DEWOS (186–187).

If the words are related, the Hungarian word is a derivative (Hu -ő cannot be explained otherwise).

A loan from some reflex of Iranian *wasa-ka- has been suggested (Sköld 1925; Joki 1973). This has been refuted by Korenchy, but Helimski (2002) supports the etymology, noting that the Ugric etymology of the UEW is problematic (no detailed commentary of the Ugric etymology is given by Helimski). WOT lists the etymology among the unacceptable Iranian etymologies but does not comment it in detail.

The loan etymology is promising but it requires some additional arguments. Hungarian ü from Iranian *wa- lacks exact parallels. However, Helimski argues that after a labial consonant the ü vowel would be expected, as füst (from Iranian *pazda-) shows a similar development. The vowel-substitution seems thus possible, but the loss of w needs additional explanation. It is quite difficult to assess this question, as there are very few examples of *wü- in Proto-Uralic vocabulary, and no certain examples of the development of such sequence in Hungarian: UEW reconstructs the Uralic word for 'belt' as *wiŋä or *wüŋä (> Hu öv), but Aikio (2012: 230) argues that the correct reconstruction is *üwä, so this is not a plausible example. *w is lost before *u (PU *wud'ǝ > Hu új 'new') and also before *i: the sequence *wi gives Hungarian ö regularly (PU *wilä- 'to kill' > Hu öl, Sammallahti 1988: 551; Aikio 2013: 165-166). In the light of these developments, assuming that ü in üsző reflects *wü- is not an implausible idea, but parallel examples would be needed to claim that this is a regular development.

The long -ő could be explained from the Iranian suffix -ka that has become vocalized.

Conclusion

[coming]

References

DEWOS 186–187: no mention of the Ugric etymology

Helimski 2002: Hu ← Ir

Joki 1973

Korenchy 1972: 83-84: Hu not ← Ir

Sköld 1925: Hu ← Ir

UEW: PUg *iśɜ (eśɜ) Uralonet

WOT: 1052, 1067, 1095, 1339: PUg; Hu not ← Ir