Hungarian Historical Phonology mén

mén 'stallion; Hengst'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

mín

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

Pre-Hungarian *menV- ?

(Disputed:)

UEW: PUg *mänɜ ‘some animal; irgendein Tier‘

Status of the Ugric etymology

Improbable (phonological and semantic problems)

Loan etymology

Hu ← Ir

Cognates suggested in earlier research

Khanty: (Ni) manəŋ 'Herde von Rentieren Pferden, Kühen' < Proto-Khanty ?

Commentary

The Ugric etymology is considered uncertain by MSzFE, Futáky (1975: 70-71) TESz, UEW and WOT (: 1320). UEW mentions problems with semantics and also notes the irregular relation of Hungarian and Khanty vocalism. The Khanty vocalism is indeed problematic, as Ni a points probably to earlier (Pre-Khanty) *ä, whereas Hungarian é/í cannot reflect Proto-Ugric *ä. In the light of these problems, the Ugric etymology should probably be rejected. Futáky assumes that the Khanty word is a loan from (North) Tungusic *mānï ~ *manï 'Schwam, Herd' (> Evenki man, Nanai māndo 'flock of birds').

Iranian etymology for the Hungarian word (loan from a predecessor of Ossetic moj, mojnæ 'husband') has been suggested by Munkácsi (1904), but it has been doubted by Sköld (1925: 30) and later dictionaries (TESz, MszFE, UEW). However, Helimski (2002) mentions the etymology as a possibility, noting that the semantic problem (no meaning 'stallion' in Ossetic) makes the etymology uncertain.

In addition to the semantic issue, there are also phonological problems. A form close to Ossetic moj, mojnæ could hardly produce Hungarian mén. It has been previosuly assumed that the Ossetic word reflects Iranian *manu- 'human, man', and a more archaic form like *manu- could technically be borrowed as *menV > mén in Hungarian. However, Cheung (2002) notes that Ossetic moj, mojnæ is not from Proto-Iranian *manu- ’human, man’ but rather from Proto-Iranian *dmanya- ’pertaining to the house’. This is semantically very far from the Hungarian word; a semantic shift 'man' > 'male' > 'horse' might make some sense, but a shift from 'pertaining to the house' > 'master of the house' to 'male horse' would be quite complicated.

As both the Ugric and Iranian etymologies are problematic, the origin of the Hungarian word remains unclear.

Conclusion

The Ugric and Iranian etymologies should both be rejected.

References

EWUng

Futáky 1975: 70-71: not Proto-Ugric, Kh ← Tungusic

Helimski 2002

Sköld

MSzFE: 433, s.v. mén: ? Proto-Ugric

UEW: ? Proto-Ugric Uralonet

WOT: 1320