Hungarian Historical Phonology kés

kés 'knife; Messer'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

(Obsolete:)

UEW: PFU *kečɜ 'knife; Messer'

Sammallahti 1988: 565: PFU *käci > PUg *käč-

Status of the Ugric etymology

Irregular

Loan etymology

None suggested

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Khanty: East (V) köčəγ, South (DN) kečə, North (O) kesi 'Messer'

Mansi: East (KU) kɑ̄si , North (So) kasaj 'Messer'

Mari: KB kəzə, U küzö 'Messer' < ? Proto-Mari *kü̆ćə (Aikio 2014: 128)

Commentary

Although the Uralic/Finno-Ugric etymology has been included in many major sources of Uralic etymology (even Sammallahti's 1988 word list), the etymology involves so much irregularity that is should be rejected. Even though the words in Hungarian, Khanty, Mansi and Mari are somehow connected, they cannot be derived from any reconstructed proto-form regularly. Hungarian shows é but Old Hungarian evidence points to an original open vowel that would fit Proto-Uralic *ä, whereas the Ob-Ugric vocalism rather points to *i. The Mari word shows irregular *ć that cannot be derived from Proto-Uralic *č (this irregularity has been noted by UEW and also by Bereczki 1988: 334, but they have still accepted the etymology). There are also irregularities in the vowel correspondences between the Mari dialects (Aikio 2014: 128). Abondolo (1996: 58) argues that based on Mari, Proto-Uralic *ü should be reconstructed, but this idea should be rejected as it would not help to solve the problems connected with the reconstruction of the alleged Proto-Uralic word.

It is possible that these words are borrowings from some unknown source ('knife' is a cultural word that gets easily borrowed). Harmatta (1997: 76) has assumed that the Uralic words are independetly borrowed from "East Iranian *keči 'knife'", a hypothetical reflex of Proto-Iranian *krti- 'knife', based on Wakhi kəz. This is a problematic explanation, as no other convnicing Iranian loans are known showing this kind of "East Iranian" development, so the etymology cannot be accepted. The Uralic words are probably loans from some unknown source.

Conclusion

No Proto-Uralic or Proto-Ugric word can be reconstructed. It is probable that the alleged cognates are independent loans from some unknown source.

References

Abondolo 1996: 58: PFU

Aikio 2014

Bereczki 1988

EWUng

Harmatta 1997

MSzFE

UEW: Proto-Finno-Ugric Uralonet