Hungarian Historical Phonology hág

hág 'treten, steigen, schreiten; (Tier) decken, beschälen'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

Proto-Uralic *ke̮ŋka-

Aikio 2015: 65: PU *ki̮ŋki/a-

UEW: PUg (?PFU) *kaŋɜ- (kaŋkɜ-) ‘climb rise; klettern, steigen‘

Status of the Ugric etymology

Regular, but cognates from Finnic and Saami point to a PU etymology

Loan etymology

None suggested

Cognates suggested in earlier research

UEW:

Khanty: East (V) kaŋət- 'klettern; bergauf gehen, stromaufwärts fahren', South (DN) χoŋχ- 'klettern; bergauf gehen, stromaufwärts fahren', North (O) χoŋ- 'klettern; bergauf gehen, stromaufwärts fahren'

Mansi: South (TJ) kɛ̮̄ŋk-, East (KO) kē̮ŋk-, West (P) kaŋk-, North (So) χāŋχ- 'klettern, aufklettern'

? Komi: (S) kaj- 'aufsteigen, aufgehen, hinaufklettern, klettern, sich erheben'

Aikio 2015: 65:

Finnish: kankea ‘stiff, rigid’, kangerta- ‘crawl, move with difficulty’

Saami: North guokkardit ‘crawl’, South goegkerdidh ‘crawl; climb’,

Commentary

The Ugric etymology found in the UEW is unproblematic as such (the words in Khanty, Mansi and Hungarian are regular cognates), but cognates suggested by Aikio (2015: 65) show that the word rather goes back to Proto-Uralic. Finnish kankea, kangertaa and South Saami goegkerdidh and guokkardit can be connected here regularly, if we assume they are derivatives from the PU stem *ke̮ŋka-. Semantically the connection is plausible: although the Finnic and Saami words mostly point to 'crawling', the meaning 'climb' is retained in South Saami goegkerdidh. As both the semantic and phonological side is plausible, we have to assume a Proto-Uralic lexeme.

UEW connected Komi kaj- here as an uncertain cognate of the Ugric words. Even though the Komi word is semantically rather close, phonologically it is impossible to connect the Komi word to the Ugric words (and also to the Finnic and Saami words mentioned by Aikio 2015), as neither the word-internal consonant nor the vocalism match, and it is clear that Komi kaj- is of some other origin. The phonological problems were remarked by the UEW already.

Regarding the reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic word, Aikio (2015) reconstructs *ki̮ŋki/a- (= *ke̮ŋkə/a- in the notation used here), assuming that the reconstruction of the stem-vowel is uncertain. The Hungarian cognate hág quite clearly points to an *-a-stem, as *e̮ > á would not take place in an *-ə-stem.

Conclusion

It is probable that the Saami and Finnic cognates suggested by Aikio (2015) are indeed cognates of the Ugric words, and the word is not limited to Ugric but inherited from Proto-Uralic.

References

Aikio 2015: 65: PU

UEW s.v. kaŋɜ- (kaŋkɜ-): PUg (? PFU) Uralonet