Hungarian Historical Phonology gyermek

gyermëk 'child'

gyerëk 'child'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

(Disputed:)

Honti 2017: Pre-Hu *ńäγrȣ̈-mȣ̈-kȣ̈ < PUg *ńäγrȣ̈-mȣ̈

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Honti 2017: 34-37:

Khanty: DN Ko Ni Kaz ńewər 'foal';

Trj ńeγ˳rem, J ńewrem, DN O ńȧwrem, Kr ńȧwrim, Ni Šerk ńawrem 'child'

Mansi: KL ńāwər, LM LO ńāwər, TM njaur 'foal'

Loan etymology

WOT: Hu ? ← West Old Turkic *ǰärmäk, cf. Chuvash śarmăk 'young man'

Commentary

The relationship of gyermëk and gyerëk is unclear, but both WOT and Rédei (1998/1999) assume that gyermëk is the original form.

WOT (385-387) discusses the possible Turkic origin of the Hungarian word (already discussed by Gombocz 1912: 191): the idea that Hungarian gyermëk is a loan from a Turkic form that yielded Chuvash śarmăk is possible, but since the Chuvash word has no convincing etymology, the Turkic etymology of the Hungarian word remains uncertain. WOT (386) remarks, however, that the Mongolic word jermegey has been borrowed from the same Turkic origin that is reflected by the Chuvash word.

Rédei (1998/1999: 129-139) revives and old idea by Budenz and assumes that the Hungarian word is of Proto-Ugric origin, and this is supported also by Honti (2017: 34-37). Rédei assumes gyermëk is related to Khanty Kaz ńewər, Mansi KL ńāwər, LM LO ńāwər, TM njaur 'foal': this connection supposes an irregular change *ny > gy in Hungarian. As there are no parallels to such change in word-initial position, the etymology remains speculative and cannot be accepted. The Hungarian cluster rm also does not correspond regularly to *wr in Ob-Ugric. Honti assumes a Proto-Ugric cluster *γr (with *γ lost in Hungarian without a trace), and supposes that m in Hungarian is a derivative suffix. Honti notes that the loss short e in Hungarian is problematic, however (one would expect a long vowel in Hungarian after the loss of *γ).

Honti (2017: 37) notes that even though the word is of Proto-Ugric origin, the Turkic word can have influenced its phonology. However, there are so many irregularities that it is better to reject the Ugric etymology altogether. Also Honti (2017: 36-37) is aware of the problems, noting that his Proto-Ugric reconstruction *ńäγrV-mV- should rather yield a long vowel in Hungarian.

Of the suggested etymologies, the Turkic loan etymology is clearly better, as it includes no phonological problems (Hu gy from Turkic *ǰ has many parallels). Róna-Tas (2017: 48-49) mentions that the Turkic etymology includes less morphological problems than the Ugric etymology, and he also notes that no parallels to Proto-Ugric *ń- > Hungarian gy- are known. Nevertheless, he considers the origin of Hungarian gyermëk debated.

Conclusion

The Ugric etymology is completely irregular and cannot be supported; the Turkic loan etymology is probable.

References

Honti 2017: 34-37: PUg

Róna-Tas 2017: 48-49: ? ← Turkic

WOT: 385-387, 1150: ? ← Turkic