Hungarian Historical Phonology hagymáz

hagymáz 'hitziges Fieber, wobei man immer phantasiert; Typhus'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

hagymáz 'Fallsucht'

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

Aikio 2002, 2015: PU *koďka 'spirit'

UEW:

PUg *kȣńćɜ ‘illness accompanied with fever; be feverish, be ill; eine Fieber verursachende Krankheit; Fieber haben, krank‘

PFU *kolja 'evil spirit, böser Geist'

Status of the Ugric etymology

Unclear

Loan etymology

None suggested

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Aikio 2002: 13-15:

Permic: Komi kuľ ‘evil spirit’, Udmurt ki̮ľ ‘severe fever, typhoid’

Mansi: West (P) kuľ ‘forest spirit’, North (So) χuľ ‘sickness spirit’ < PMs *kuľ

Samoyed: Nganasan koika ‘idol’ etc. < PSam *kåjkǝ̑

UEW:

Khanty: East (V) kańt́- 'krank sein', South (C) χońt́- 'Fieber haben' < ? PKh *kāńć-

Mansi: East (KU) χoš 'irgendeine Magenkrankheit der Kinder, грыжа'

or

Finnish: koljo 'Koloß, unförmige Gestalt, Ungetüm, (Renvall) riesenhaft' etc. (see UEW s.v. kolja Uralonet for rest of the cognates)

Commentary

The etymology of Hungarian hagymáz is complicated, and various solutions have been suggested. It is clear that the word is an old (opaque) compound: the etymology of the first part hagy- is discussed here (-máz has been connected with Uralic *mučV 'sickness' Uralonet; this etymology will be discussed separately).

UEW presents two alternative explanations; the both are mentioned also by EWUng. The idea that Hungarian hagy- continues a Proto-Finno-Ugric *kolja has been convincengly refuted by Aikio (2002: 13-15). Aikio reconstructs Proto-Uralic *koďka 'spirit' instead (with regular cognates in Mansi, Permic and Samoyed), noting that Hungarian gy can be derived from PU *ď regularly. However, Aikio (2002) notes that also the Ugric background of Hu hagy- is possible, although it involves problems with phonological correspondences.

The Ugric etymology listed in the UEW clearly involves problems: the East Mansi word χoš does not correspond regularly to either Khanty kańt́- (etc.) or Hungarian hagy-; both š and the vowel o are problematic. It is clear that the Ugric etymology as such cannot be accepted, but the relationship between Hungarian hagy- and the Khanty forms seems possible. The Khanty vowel-correspondences seems to point to Proto-Khanty *ā, and this could reflect PU *o or *a (in *-a-stems), corresponding regularly to Hungarian a. Hungarian gy could regularly reflect PU *ńć or *ŋć; Khanty *ńć- can reflect at least PU *ŋć- (Aikio 2015: 52, 55 lists two such cases), whereas the reflex of *ńć seems to be Khanty s, cf. East Khanty kŏs- 'harnen' < PU *kuńćǝ 'urine'). It seems that a Proto-Ugric *koŋća or *kaŋća would be a possible preform for the Hungarian and Khanty words.

Semantically both the Uralic etymology of Aikio and the connection with the Khanty word are plausible.

Conclusion

The Uralic etymology suggested by Aikio is plausible, but also the relationship between Hungarian hagy- and Khanty kańt́- remains possible; Mansi χoš is not a regular cognate of the Hungarian word.

References

Aikio 2002: 13-15: Hu < PU or ? < PUg

Aikio 2015: 60: Hu < ? PU

EWUng 510, s.v. hagymáz: PUg or PFU

UEW s.v. kȣńćɜ: PUg Uralonet; s.v. kolja: Hu < ? PFU Uralonet