# Hungarian and Finnish: similarities



## Kraus

Hi all! 

Hungarian and Finnish belog to Ugro-Finnic languages. Ok, but could someone please tell me what their similarities were (or still are)?

As far as I know, there is just a number (négy/neljä), but I'm sure there's something more...

Köszönöm szépen!/Kiitos paljon!


----------



## trance0

Both languages are agglutinative, they have certain grammatical features in common(like lack of "?almost all?" prepositions which is compensated for by numerous grammatical cases and a similar way of "word building" etc.). More info  should come from the linguists of this forum.


----------



## dinji

Here is a partial answer:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/Hki/f-h-ety.html


----------



## Kraus

Thank you very much Dinji!  I've found this too: http://www.sziszki.hu/web/finn_070725/Main%20Page/Finland/Culture/language.html


----------



## Danilo82

Remember that p in Finnish corresponds to f in Hungarian, and k to h.

At least, numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5 are related:

yksi 
kaksi
kolme
neljä
viisi


----------



## sound shift

Words in both Hungarian and Finnish show vowel harmony, apparently.


----------



## Danilo82

Finnish: yksi kaksi kolme neljä viisi kuusi
Hungarian: egy kettö három négy öt hat

In proto-Finno-Ugric:
*ykte *kakte *kolme *neljä *vitte *kutte

From that I think that Finnish /l/ corresponds to Hungarian /r/ (kolme, három).
Finnish /s/ in some contexts seems to correspond to Hungarian /t/.
Finnis /k/ is Hungarian /h/ in kolme, három, but I wonder why this is not the case in kaksi, kattö ¿differents contexts? ¿maybe two different occlusives in PFU?


----------



## dinji

Danilo82 said:


> Finnish: yksi kaksi kolme neljä viisi kuusi
> Hungarian: egy kettö három négy öt hat
> 
> In proto-Finno-Ugric:
> *ykte *kakte *kolme *neljä *vitte *kutte


Or may be 
_*ükti,_ _*kektä,_ _*kolmi,_ _ńeljä,_.....
The reconstruction of Proto-Finno Ugric is not a completely settled matter. The vowel and consonant quantities of _*wi(i)t(t)i_ and _*ku(u)t(t)i_ cannot be determined.

It is customary nowadays to reconstruct /-i/ instead of /-e/ for the word final close vowel. 
The first consonant of _ńeljä_ is palatalized as Spanish /ñ/, French/Italian /gn/, Catalan /ny/, Portuguese /nh/.



Danilo82 said:


> From that I think that Finnish /l/ corresponds to Hungarian /r/ (kolme, három).
> Finnish /s/ in some contexts seems to correspond to Hungarian /t/.
> Finnish /k/ is Hungarian /h/ in kolme, három, but I wonder why this is not the case in kaksi, kattö ¿differents contexts? ¿maybe two different occlusives in PFU?


- Proto-Finnic /ti/ became Baltic Finnic /si/, conditioned on the close palatal vowel. Hence it corresponds to hungarian /t/ and word final /z/
- The development of Proto-Finno-Ugrian /k-/ to Hungarian /h-/ was also conditioned upon the following vowel being a back vowel. The numeral _kattö_ '2' goes back to earlier _*käktä_ (<*_kektä_??), with a front vowel, which inhibited the sound change.


----------



## Danilo82

Thanks!
These are my first steps to proto-Finno-Ugrian after proto-Indo-european, I see that the reconstructions seem to be less certain.


----------



## dinji

Danilo82 said:


> Thanks!
> These are my first steps to proto-Finno-Ugrian after proto-Indo-european, I see that the reconstructions seem to be less certain.


Yes, more than occasionally there are irregular sound correspondencies involved like in the numeral for '2'. Often they are explained by borrowings among the languages (although for the numerals there might be better explanations). The number of irreproachable etymologies is therefore also controversial. For Proto-Uralic even numbers below 200 are quoted.

There is a descent page on Proto-Uralic in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic. Proto-Finno-Ugrian is merely a dialect of Proto-Uralic. There is hardly much time-depth to distinguish the two. There are a few phonological changes though. The status of PFU as a node to be studied is however weak. It is much like you would be studying Proto-Helleno-Aryan in Indo-European studies: Yes it is probably a valid node (from which at least Hittite is not descended) but it is much more fun to study the real thing (In our case Proto-Uralic). The main reason to study PFU is the grater number of reconstructable lexical items.

A rather exhaustive list of Western Finno-Permian items with both modern PFU and PU reconstructions and the "classical" ones (from Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1988) is found here.


----------



## 89ten

Hungarians may have been an Oghur tribe with loose connections to Finnic tribes. Resemblance could come from a contractory sprachbund. I am not sure if lexical similarities are abundant enough to keep happy the name of Finno-Ugrian, which what seems to me to be rather a loose connection with some basic cognates.  The fact that both are agglutinative proves that they have central Asian origin; it doesn’t prove much else or I could be wrong, this is another chance.


----------



## Alxmrphi

sound shift said:


> Words in both Hungarian and Finnish show vowel harmony, apparently.



What's vowel harmony?


----------



## Kraus

Here it is something about it: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony


----------



## sound shift

Alex_Murphy said:


> What's vowel harmony?



Alex,

I am familiar with Turkish vowel harmony, but not, unfortunately, with Hungarian or Finnish. In most Turkish words of Turkic origin, the vowels are either all front vowels or all back vowels. If a suffix is added, it must contain the correct type of vowel. The fact that Finnish, Hungarian and Turkish all display some sort of vowel harmony led a number of linguists to postulate a common origin, but support for this theory seems to be declining.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi sound shift, I'm going to give the wiki page a little read then re-read what you wrote and I'll see if it makes more sense 

Thanks.


----------



## Danilo82

89ten said:


> Hungarians may have been an Oghur tribe with loose connections to Finnic tribes. Resemblance could come from a contractory sprachbund. I am not sure if lexical similarities are abundant enough to keep happy the name of Finno-Ugrian, which what seems to me to be rather a loose connection with some basic cognates. The fact that both are agglutinative proves that they have central Asian origin; it doesn’t prove much else or I could be wrong, this is another chance.


 

What you argue is that there''s not a Finno-Ugric subranch or Uralic or that Hungarian is not Uralic?
I think you mean the first right?


----------



## Evros

I can tell you that Turkish and Hungarian has very similar vowel harmony rules with that front and back vowel rules.

In Istanbul , tr: Istanbul*da* ,hu: Istanbul*ban*
In Izmir ,  tr: Izmir*de* , hu: Izmir*ben*


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Evros said:


> I can tell you that Turkish and Hungarian has very similar vowel harmony rules with that front and back vowel rules.
> In Istanbul , tr: Istanbul*da* ,hu: Istanbul*ban*
> In Izmir ,  tr: Izmir*de* , hu: Izmir*ben*


Maybe a naive question (and probably the begining of a new thread), but in how far can vowel harmony in different languages... differ. I mean, in my naive view and ignorance, vowel harmony is vowel harmony after all, no?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Evros

Dear Frank06;

Please check out on English Wikipedia,the term "Vowel harmony"
You will find differences and similarities of vowel harmonizing of languages


----------



## dinji

Evros said:


> I can tell you that Turkish and Hungarian has very similar vowel harmony rules with that front and back vowel rules.


 
This seems to be ancient areal phenomenon. These sort of typological features may jump between genetically unrelated languages. 

By no means can vowel harmony alone be used to obscure the evidence of genetic relation provided by the comparative method strictly applied. And Turkish and Uralic (including Hungarian) are certainly not genetically related in that sense of the word.


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,

Turkish is a lovely, beautiful, and interesting language which also have vowel harmony.
But it's neither Hungarian, nor Finnish, which happen to be the topic of this thread. Please, let's stick to the topic.

Groetjes,

Frank,
Moderator EHL
*


----------



## Afro-Cherokee

I have been highly exposed to both languages. I have many Finnish friends and planned to visit, so started learning. Then I ended up using it at work because there were not enough people on the Finnish support line. The next event was unexpectedly having a Hungarian boyfriend who barely speaks English and kind of speaks German. In fact his English is laced with German words, for intance he is always saing "I sag" or "I sagt'" instead of "I say" or "I said" so it became necessary to learn Hungarian which I am now doing in additon to the Finnish. They are different enough not to confuse anyone learning both at the same time, and in some cases similar enough to offer great assistance. 

The numbers 1 - 5 are related, though 5 is not obvious, you have to compare to other Finno-Ugric languages to see the connection between öt and viisi...
egy - yksi
két or kettő ü kaksi
három - kolme (with a slight shva sound between the l and m)
négy - nelja
öt - viisi (c.f. Mańši "at", and Northern Sámi "vihtta")

Body parts are among the most obvious word.
For instance hand is Kéz in Hungarian and käsi in (the vowel sounds coincide with Middle English long ae and short ae now both usually spelled a in English as in hate and at).
Blood is vér in Hungarian and veri in Finnish. Eye is szem (pron. sem) and silmä in Finnish.

Because of vowel and consonant shift or complete ommission some are not as obvious. Just remember that common variation in the Finno-Ugric family and within most lanuage familes are...
M N 
Z S F SH C CH (CS in Hun.) T TS (often in Fin.)
M H K/Q G KH F P VB
D T
J GY (Hun.)
And with vowels and ommissions, there seems to be neither rhyme nor reason. Except as I used to tease my ex, Italian is just lazy Latin.
Thus, Hungarian and Finnish are in a sense Lazy Proto Finno-Ugric. 

For a full swadesh list, see the following
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Finno-Ugric_languages

There are more similar in vocabulary than one might think, especially with 



Kraus said:


> Hi all!
> 
> Hungarian and Finnish belog to Ugro-Finnic languages. Ok, but could someone please tell me what their similarities were (or still are)?
> 
> As far as I know, there is just a number (négy/neljä), but I'm sure there's something more...
> 
> Köszönöm szépen!/Kiitos paljon!


----------



## sakvaka

Yes, they are very similar. Compare these sentences:

_Hal úszkál elevenen víz alatt._
_Kala uiskentelee elävänä veden alla._

(The fish swims alive under the water)

I already knew that we and Hungarians share wovel harmony and many word stems, but how about these things, do they exist in Hungarian, too?

a) consonant gradation? 
b) case system? 
c) postpositions are more common than prepositions?
d) _not_ is a verb instead of being a particle?
e) diphtongs (au, uo, ui, eu, ey, äy, yö...) and wovels are used a lot?
f) total and partial objects, predicatives and subjects - no articles?
g) avoids direct borrowings from other languages?
h) synthetical structure: stems and suffixes - long words (_kiittämättömyydelläänsäkään_)? 
i) same stem, many derivatives: _kirja_ (book)_ -> kirjasto_ (library), _kirjata, kirjasin_ (font), _kirjaamo, kirjailija_ (author)...? 
j) free word order 
k) _It rains._ - No subject, neither in passive sentences: _The man was bitten_ - Miestä purtiin.
l) no "there is" -sentences: _Huoneessa on sänky. _lit. "In the room is a bed"

 = at least this exists


----------



## PeterGriffin

sakvaka said:


> Yes, they are very similar. Compare these sentences:
> 
> _Hal úszkál elevenen víz alatt._
> _Kala uiskentelee elävänä veden alla._
> 
> (The fish swims alive under the water)



Despite the similarity implied by this example. Hungarian and Finnish aren't as similar to each other as one can deduce just by "cherry-picking" or comparing the languages using a rather artificial or contrived example. Proto-Finno-Ugric (the nearest shared ancestor of Finnish and Hungarian) is estimated to have split (thus contributing to divergence between sucessive antecedants of Finnish and Hungarian) around 2000 BC. The modern languages are thus quite divergent from each other. If anything the degree of the sentence's mutual intelligibility among Finns and Hungarian and even its grammatical integrity in Finnish are questionable.

There's a discussion at sci.lang about this particular sentence. I would post the link but because of my status I am unable to do so. As keywords in Google, type in "Article on Finno-Ugric in the Economist" and you should see the link to Google Groups sci.lang.



sakvaka said:


> I already knew that we and Hungarians share wovel harmony and many word stems, but how about these things, do they exist in Hungarian, too?
> 
> a) consonant gradation?


 

Hungarian does not have consonant gradation.



sakvaka said:


> b) case system?



If you're referring to quantity of cases, Finnish and Hungarian are similar in that they are notable for having more cases than Latin (Finnish has either 14 or 15 depending on how you count them. Hungarian has between 18 and 25 cases depending on how you count them)



sakvaka said:


> c) postpositions are more common than prepositions?



Hungarian uses only postpositions, whereas Finnish does use a few prepositions in addition to the more numerous postpositions.



sakvaka said:


> d) _not_ is a verb instead of being a particle?


 

Hungarian does not have a negative verb. It uses the particles "nem" or "ne" (the latter before imperatives) to negate a verb, and these particles do not take the personal ending. The verb still takes the personal ending regardless of whether the sentence is affirmative or negative unlike in Finnish.

"you read" = "(Sinä) lue*t*" (Finnish) = "(Te) olvas*ol*" (Hungarian)
"you don't read" = "(Sinä) e*t* lue" (Finnish) = "(Te) nem olvas*ol*" (Hungarian)



sakvaka said:


> e) diphtongs (au, uo, ui, eu, ey, äy, yö...) and wovels are used a lot?


 

Hungarian does not have diphthongs. Clusters that appear to be diphthongs are not pronounced as such. 

E.g. Nézz reám! = "Look at me!" (_reám_ is an archaic or literary form of _rám_ meaning literally "onto me". _Reám_ is pronounced something like "ray-ahm" i.e. both vowels are pronounced separately with _-e-_ not gliding into _-á-_ as would be the case with diphthongs.)



sakvaka said:


> f) total and partial objects, predicatives and subjects - no articles?


 

Hungarian doesn't use the Balto-Finnic concept of total and partial objects (However it does make a distinction between indefinite or definite objects which in turn leads to verbs possessing two sets of conjugations. This feature of distinct conjugations depending on an object's "definiteness" is comparable to those in other Uralic languages such as Mordvin and Tundra Nenets)

What's more is that Hungarian does use a case suffix that corresponds best with the accusative in Indo-European languages, and this suffix is used regardless of whether the direct object is negated or not. An adjective or noun in the "accusative" can be expressed by the nominative, genitive or partitive depending on the "completeness" in Finnish.

E.g.

Luen sanakirja*n* (Finnish - genitive ending) = "I read a dictionary." / "I read the dictionary." 

Szótár*t* olvasok (Hungarian - *-(V)t* is the accusative marker) = "I read a dictionary."
Olvasom a szótár*t* (Hungarian - *-(V)t* is the accusative marker) = "I read the dictionary."

En lue sanakirja*a* (Finnish - partitive ending) = "I don't read a dictionary" / "I don't read the dictionary"

Nem olvasok szótár*t* (Hungarian) = "I don't read a dictionary." (N.B. This is rather artificial. A more idiomatic or common expression would be _Nem olvasok szótárokat_ = "I don't read dictionaries.")
Nem olvasom a szótár*t* (Hungarian) = "I don't read the dictionary."

As you can also see, Hungarian can use articles (e.g. _a szótár_ "the dictionary" vs. _szótár_ = "(a) dictionary") whereas Finnish does not. 

Finally, Hungarian doesn't even have a partitive case as in Finnish.

"The beer is cold"
Olut on kylmää.
A sör hideg.

"A glass of beer"
Lasi olut*ta*
Egy pohár sör.



sakvaka said:


> g) avoids direct borrowings from other languages?



This is difficult to trace because it depends on the perception and the degree of awareness among native speakers. There is a tendency in modern Finnish and Hungarian to use neologisms (e.g. computer = _tietokone_ (Finnish); _számítógép_ (Hungarian)) but this is contradicted by the willy-nilly influence of neighbouring languages, and also because Finnish and Hungarian have been borrowing words for many centuries. Some Finns may be surprised by the number of loanwords in Finnish, but because these were often incorporated a couple of thousand years ago, many now differ greatly in form or sound from their modern antecedents in the source languages. Thus some Finns today feel that these are "true" Finnish words rather than loanwords. Similarly some seemingly "true" Hungarian words actually entered the Hungarian lexicon as borrowings but over time have diverged from their sources.

E.g.
- hammas "tooth" (Finnish) - borrowed from Baltic *žambas (< PIE *ģombho-) (Cf. Lithuanian _žambas_, Latvian _zuobs_, and English _comb_)
- kuningas "king" (Finnish) - borrowed from Early Germanic   *kuningaz (cf. English _king_)
- köyhä "poor" (Finnish) - borrowed from Early Germanic *skeuχwa- (cf. English _shy_)
- maanantai "Monday" (Finnish) - borrowed from Germanic
- sata = "hundred" (Finnish) - borrowed by Proto-Finno-Ugric (i.e. an ancestor of Finnish) from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćata- or Proto-Indo-Aryan *śatá- (ultimately traced to PIE *ḱmtóm)

E.g.
- csinálni = "to do" (Hungarian) - the root is borrowed from a Slavonic language (cf. Czech _čin_ = "act, deed, doing")
- iker "twin" (Hungarian) - borrowed from a Turkic language (cf. Chuvash _ yəGər_; Turkish _ikiz_)
- péntek "Friday" (Hungarian) - borrowed from a Slavonic language (cf. Polish _piątek_)
- tyúk "hen" (Hungarian) - borrowed from a Turkic language (cf. Chuvash _čъxъ_; Turkish _tavuk_)
- vödör = "bucket" (Hungarian) - borrowed from a Slavonic language (cf. Serbo-Croatian _vedro_)



sakvaka said:


> h) synthetical structure: stems and suffixes - long words (_kiittämättömyydelläänsäkään_)?



This is better described as agglutination rather than "synthetical structure", but it is common in Finnish and Hungarian.



sakvaka said:


> i) same stem, many derivatives: _kirja_ (book)_ -> kirjasto_ (library), _kirjata, kirjasin_ (font), _kirjaamo, kirjailija_ (author)...?



This is a variation of the preceding point about agglutination. Derivation  links many words to some root.

könyv = "book"; könyvborító = "dust jacket"; könyvtár = "library"; könyvvelés = "accounting, bookkeeping", etc.



sakvaka said:


> j) free word order



This isn't really correct. Word order is not so much free as it is flexible compared to analytical languages such as English or Mandarin. Even in Finnish, a difference in word order gives a different nuance in meaning, if not make the sentence unintelligible.

E.g.
Pöydällä on kirja = "There is *a* book on the table", "On the table (there) is *a* book".
Kirja on pöydällä = "*The* book is on the table."

Hungarian word order is guided by a principle that the emphasized element of the sentence should precede the verb.

E.g.
Látok egy könyvet. = "I see a book." (rather neutral)
Egy könyvet látok. = "I see a book (and only a book, nothing more)" (emphasis is on "a book")



sakvaka said:


> k) _It rains._ - No subject, neither in passive sentences: _The man was bitten_ - Miestä purtiin.



Hungarian sentences that require a dummy "it" in English are expressed either as a verb without the subject or with a somewhat longer construction.

Esik a hó = "it's snowing" (literally "falls the snow")
Működik = "it's functioning, it's running, it's working" (literally "functions, runs, works")

The Hungarian passive is not used as much as it is in say English. It is more often expressed nowadays with intransitive or even transitive constructions.

1967-ben születtem = "I was born in 1967." (from _születni_ which is derived from _szülni_ = "to bear, give birth to")

Kiraboltak = "I was robbed, you / we were robbed" (literally "they robbed [me/you/us]")

Ellopták az autómat. = "My car was stolen." (literally "they stole my car")



sakvaka said:


> l) no "there is" -sentences: _Huoneessa on sänky. _lit. "In the room is a bed"


 
This seems to be shared with Hungarian.

There's a bed in the room. = "A szobában van ágy." (This Hungarian sentence corresponds closely to the Finnish example).


----------



## koniecswiata

Vowel Harmony can differ in the details between languages.  The harmony may take place for different features (frontness, hight, length, etc...).  It would seem to be an aerial feature (to some degree) as vowel harmony even exists in Polish--though the vowel harmony is not a kind of gramaticalized featured like it is in Turkish.


----------



## Zsanna

Just a few notes on n° 24 and n°23. 

d) _not_ is not a verb in Hungarian, that's true, however the existance of *nincs* (= there is not) and *nincsenek* (there are not) may be worth considering...

e) _diphtongs_ are indeed not typical in Hungarian and the language "tries to avoid" accumulation of either vowels or consonants but when two vowels meet (by chance), like in the PG-mentioned "reám", you _do_ pronounce both vowels, I would think (even if modern usage prefers the form "rám" - but then it is written like this, too!)

f) I'd think the use of the _articles_ is rather the question of how a language developed, however, it may be useful to know whether neither languages had articles originally (Hungarian certainly didn't)

But what about the following aspects (true to Hungarian) in the case of Finnish?

a) no differentiation between genders
- only one personal pronoun in the 3rd person (Sing. and Pl.): 
he, she, it = *ő*; they = *ők*
- words are neither feminin, masculin nor neutral (e.g. a chair - like in English - is neither feminin nor masculin)

b) three verb tenses (past, present, future - although this latter is questionable whether it is or not a real verb tense)

c) easy spelling (reading and writing shouldn't be much of a problem after learning just the alphabet)

d) "double conjugation" (according to - grosso modo, to keep it short - the existence of a definite object or not in the sentence)

Although it is really linguists who would know what are the significant aspects worth considering that common and simple "mortals" may not follow always easily...


----------



## sakvaka

Zsanna said:


> .. whether neither languages had articles originally. Hungarian didn't.



Neither did Finnish, as far as I know.



> a) no differentiation between genders
> - only one personal pronoun in the 3rd person (Sing. and Pl.):
> he, she, it = *ő*; they = *ők*
> - words are neither feminin, masculin nor neutral (e.g. a chair - like in English - is neither feminin nor masculin)


Neither in Finnish, but we use separate demonstrative pronouns _se_ (it) and _ne_ (they) when talking about things (instead of people).



> b) three verb tenses (past, present, future - although this latter is questionable whether it is or not a real verb tense)


Our language has four - present, imperfect, perfect and pluperfect. There's no real future tense in Finnish.

EDIT: Finnish verbs also have four moods: indicative, conditional, imperative and potential. No subjunctive, as in Hungarian.



> c) easy spelling (reading and writing shouldn't be much of a problem after learning just the alphabet)


That's right. Finnish is pronounced almost as it's written: 

_Pukekaa kengät jalkaan, niin lähdetään. 
_['pukeˌkɑ: 'keŋŋæt 'jɑlkɑ: nˌni: n 'læhdeˌtæ: n]

EDIT: But remember that the Finnish writing system didn't really exist until Mikael Agricola started working for it in the 16th century.
  


> d) "double conjugation" (according to - grosso modo, to keep it short - the existence of a definite object or not in the sentence)


Ehm, no... (what is this?? )


----------



## Gavril

PeterGriffin said:


> - köyhä "poor" (Finnish) - borrowed from Early Germanic *skeuχwa- (cf. English _shy_)



I think there is some controversy around this etymology. For example, in LÄGLOS (Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen), the etymology is mentioned (1st volume, p.143) with a question mark, and described as "not entirely convincing semantically".


----------



## Zsanna

As far as I know, the comparison of vocabulary (and things connected to it: like etimology) could not be really concluding for proving the relation between our two languages. Apparently, everything is in the "structures".
Even though I have to say that when I hear Finnish from far (not catching actual words, only the "music" of the language) I always think it's Hungarian... (Not as if this had any linguistic value, just a curiosity.)

To Sakvaka's comments:
We also use another pronoun for people and things, so, in fact the above mentioned ő/ők only refer to living things (but the accent was on the lack of differentiating between genders).
The "double conjugation" (I'm not convinced it's really worth detailing too much, you would have recognized it by now if it existed in Finnish) means that e.g. in the present tense there are two parallel conjugations for transitive verbs and you choose between them according to whether there is or there is not a definite object in the sentence. (Still roughly speaking.)
E.g. in the present tense:
Látom az almát. = I can see the apple. (there is a definite object so the verb is conjugated accordingly.) 
(N.B. "can" does not appear in the Hungarian sentence, it is necessary only in the English translation.)

Látok egy almát. = I can see an apple.
(there is an indefinite object so the verb is conjugated accordingly)

Even if this does not exist in Finnish, it does not prove anything in itself.
There is no "dual" (i.e. singular, dual and plural) in Hungarian and it is still related "happily" to Vogul (if I remember well) which has.


----------



## Rajki

Please check out 'Etymology' on English Wikipedia. At the bottom you'll find 'Finnish Etymology'.


----------

