Hungarian Historical Phonology nyű

nyű 'Made; Wurm, Laus'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

? Pre-Hu *ńiwV or *ńüwV

Disputed:

UEW: PUg (PU?) *ńiŋɜ (ńiwŋe) 'worm, maggot; Made, Wurm'

Status of the Ugric etymology

Improbable (phonologically irregular)

Loan etymology

None suggested

Cognates suggested in earlier research

UEW:

Khanty: East (V) niŋk, South (DN) ńiŋk, North (O) niŋk 'Wurm, Made'

Mansi: East (KU) ńiχ̥, North (So) ńiŋ˳k˳ 'Made'

Saami: North njivdnja 'nits, egg of lice'

Samoyed: Selkup (Taz) njénje 'Angelwurm, Köder', (Ty) ńēń 'мато, червь', njeiju 'Angelwurm, Köder', Kamass nejme 'червь'

Commentary

UEW lists Proto-Ugric *ńiŋɜ (ńiwŋe) among the certain/plausible Ugric items, but on the other hand considers the Hungarian word nyű an uncertain reflex (marked with question mark). The possible cognates in Saami and Samoyed are also marked as uncertain.

The reconstruction of a Proto-Ugric word is far from certain, as even the Ob-Ugric words do not correspond regularly each other, and neither does the Hungarian word fit here: the word-internal consonantism of Khanty, Mansi and Hungarian words cannot be derived regularly from a Proto-Ugric source. Hungarian nyű points to an earlier form with *w or γ, whereas Khanty points to *ŋ or *ŋk. UEW notes that the discrepancies can be explained as Proto-Ugric dialectal differences, but this is an inadequate explanation.

It is uncertain what vowel Hu ű reflects here, as the vowel-development has been influenced by the word-internal consonant. i in Khanty and Mansi does not point to Proto-Uralic/Proto-Ugric *i as reconstructed by UEW, but rather *e.

The situation with the suggested Saami and Samoyed cognates is similar. Bakró-Nagy (2013: 34, footnote 5) has noted that the reconstruction of a Proto-Uralic word is unlikely. Saami forms like North Saami njivdnja do not correspond regularly to any of the Ugric words mentioned here (both the vowel-correspondence and the word-internal consonantism prevents the connection of the Saami word here). The assumed Selkup cognates are also irregular (Proto-Uralic *ŋ or *γ would yield no ń in Selkup, and the vocalism of the Selkup words listed by UEW do not correspond regularly to Proto-Uralic *i or *ü; see Sammallahti 1988: 495 regarding Selkup vocalism).

Conclusion

Due to phonological irregularities, no Proto-Ugric or Proto-Uralic word can be reconstructed.

References

Bakró-Nagy 2013: 34, footnote 5: PUg, not PU

EWUng 1050, s.v. nyű2: PU

MSzFE 493, s.v. nyű (nyüvet): PUg, ? PU

UEW s.v. ńiŋɜ (ńiwŋe): Proto-Ugric or ? Proto-Uralic Uralonet