Hungarian Historical Phonology enyv

enyv 'glue'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

enyű (see UEW)

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

(Disputed:)

Abondolo 1996: 92: *(ä)δ̕imä

UEW: PUg *äδ̕ɜ-mɜ (äδ̕mɜ) '(animal) glue; Leim'

Status of the Ugric etymology

[coming]

Loan etymology

None suggested

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Khanty: East (V) ejəm, South (DN) ȧjəm, North (Kaz) ajəm 'Leim'

Mansi: South (TJ) iľə·m, East (KU) iľəm, (P) iľəm, North (So) ēľəm 'Leim'

Commentary

Both the vocalism and the word-internal consonantism require of the Ugric words further research. Hu *e points to older *ä but this does not fit the vocalism of the Ob-Ugric words: Abondolo (1996: 92) notes that part of the Ob-Ugric forms point to a low front vowel (*ä), and part to a high front vowel (*i). A notable problem is Hungarian *ny, that cannot be derived regularly from the *δ̕ reconstructed in sources like UEW.

An additional problem is presented by the relation of these words to the synonymous Proto-Uralic item *δ̕ümä. This is an old idea, discussed already by Setälä (1896: 435). UEW notes that the two word-families are not related, SSA (s.v. tymä) mentions the possiblity, and Abondolo (1996: 92) supports the connection, assuming a prothesis to the left of *δ̕ that was rare in word-initial position. Even though this is an interesting idea, the discrepancy between the vocalism of the Hungarian and Ob-Ugric words makes it unlikely that we are dealing with a real Ugric innovation at all, and the idea of a Proto-Ugric metathezis in an inherited Uralic word is likewise problematic.

Conclusion

Due to phonological irregularities the Proto-Ugric etymology cannot be accepted.

References

Abondolo 1996: 92: PUg metathezis < PU

EWUng

SSA s.v. tymä: Kh, Ms, Hu < ? PU

UEW: Proto-Ugric Uralonet