RESHET:A comparison of few forms reflecting Lapp. *c'uttā 'ankle etc.' (see LAPET 41) with Hun. csont 'bone', not persuasive phonetically (Lapp. *-tt- ~ Hun. -nt) and rejected by me (Hun. csont probably to *c'olme 'knot' - see URAET 68, UGRET 60).
LIT:Bár.SzófSz; EtSz; TESz
NUMBER:82
MEANING:loins, groin
GERMMEAN:Leistengegend, ?Weiche, ?Kreuz
SAA:ši̊jms (T) 'Weiche' ?
RESHET:š- in Lapp.: the same situation as in URAET 55? The Uralic form with *-mV may be reflected also in Sam.: cf. Forest Nenets x̣ụjjem.
RESHET:Mar. and Ug. reflect a variant with a velar vowel (*-u-?) as opposed to *c'ilkV- (also Perm.? - cf. Komi ʒ'ul- discussed in PRMET 42). At first sight, Hun. csill- seems to reflect *c'ilkV-, but note the velar vocalism in the suffixes (csill-og, csill-ám).
RESHET:Mansi to 75 (UGRET 66). The Mar.-Hun. parallel in question presupposes a reconstruction *čuŋkV. In UEW, a Mansi word represented by LK s'aχǝl 'Insel (auf dem Wiese, auf dem Sumpf)', MTY. c'akǝ̇l 'Haufen' etc. is also listed in this entry, but it rather goes back to PU *c'ukkV 'Hügel, Spitze' (this etymology is also taken into account in UEW) - see URAET 75 (> UGRET 66). Despite Rédei, Mord. Mks. c'onga 'island' as well as Mar. Bir. c'aŋɣa, Urz. c'oŋɣa 'Hügelspitze', Mnt. cǝ̇ŋɣa 'Kniescheibe' and some other similar Mar. forms going back to Proto-Mari *c'oŋga and *c'uŋga hardly can be qualified as historical cognates of Hun. ság - they rather should be considered old Iranian loanwords (cf. Osset. c'ong 'point, top, peak'), see Bereczki 91.
RESHET:In UEW, this material is compared with Selk. šün-či- 'to cease; to be used up', šyn-jemdša- 'to diminish, to lessen (tr.)' and Kms. šö(-)j-dǝ- 'to diminish, to lessen (tr.), to cut down; to limit, to restrict; to finish (tr.)', but š- in Selk. and Kms. goes back to *k- (a result of assibilation before *-ü-), which makes me exclude the Sam. words from the comparison (cf. the situation in URAET 56 and 60, where, however, I preliminarily refrained from rejecting the comparison with Sam. because of absence of Selk. material).
RESHET:Selk. čičik(a) mentioned in Janh.SW in connection with *sins(äkkV)(-) is a reflex of another PU word - see URAET 110.
LIT:FUV; Paas.Beitr. 188
NUMBER:89
MEANING:finger (knuckle), knuckle, joint
GERMMEAN:Finger(knöchel), ? Knöchel, ? Gelenk
LIT:КЭСКЯ; Bár.SzófSz; MSzFgrE; EtSz; TESz
NUMBER:90
MEANING:fingertip; to pinch
GERMMEAN:Prise, Fingerspitze; kneifen
RESHET:For Mari, cf. Chuv. čǝbǝt- 'to pinch', čǝpt-ǝm, čǝpk-ǝm 'a pinch, thimbleful', which is "phonetically strange" (ALTET 298, TURCET 444). An irregular change in its shape (-b- instead of expected -m-) may be due just to Mari influence. Note that the Mari word hardly can be borrowed from Chuv.; Mari *-w- as a counterpart of reflexes of Uralc *-pp- is not a reason for doubting Uralic origin of the word (cf., for instance, URAET 21, 92).
LIT:Budenz MUSz.369; VglWb. 751; Bár.SzófSz; MSzFgrE; EtSz; TESz
NUMBER:91
MEANING:drop; to drip
GERMMEAN:Tropfen; tropfen
SAA:cahpa- (T) 'träufeln'
LIT:Budenz MUSz. 365; Donn. VglWb. 535; Bár.SzófSz; MSzFgrE; EtSz; TESz
NUMBER:92
MEANING:a k. of bird
GERMMEAN:irgendein Vogel
RESHET:Khanty Kz. t'ɔwt'ɔw in t'ɔwt'ɔw-χăjep 'ein Ufervogel, Wasserläufer' is a Komi loan.
LIT:КЭСКЯ; Steinitz WogVok. 282; ИВПЯ 97
NUMBER:93
MEANING:a k. of bird of prey
GERMMEAN:eine Art Raubvogel (Adler, Geier, Falke, Habicht)
RESHET:A rather complicated case. Lapp. doesn't correspond to Komi and Hun. with regard to vocalism, while the consonant structure of the Komi forms is difficult to deduce from a protoform indicated by Hun. and Lapp. Besides, Komi actually shows two different roots, which are to be distinuished from each other, but at present cannot be with certainty separated etymologically (z'uz ~ z'us' 'a kind of falkon' vs. s'uz' 'eagle owl (Strix bubo)').
RESHET:In UEW, two different Sam. roots are confounded: North Samoyed *tэnsǝ 'kin' (< Sam. *tэnsǝ ~ *cэnsǝ) > Nen. тэ̇нз, EKh. tìd'o, EBa. tìso, Nga. tansa and Selk. čaadš etc. 'id.' < Sam. *c/ä/cV. Only the latter can be compared with the FU words since they unambiguously point to a form without a medial *-n- and with a medial *-č- > Sam. *-c- (not *-s'- or *-c'- > Sam. *-s-!). Therefore, no PU variant with *-n- is to be supposed.
GERMMEAN:gerade, aufrecht, Verstärkungswort zum Ausdruck irgendeiner Entlegenheit in Zeit und Raum
EST:ammak 'bis'
LIT:Donn. VglWb. 838
NUMBER:97
MEANING:skin layer
GERMMEAN:Hautschicht
SAA:cuoʒ'ʒå -ʒʒ- (N) 'membrane; fleshy fibres on the inner side of the skin', tsuoddsa (L) 'Häutchen (im allg.); Häutchen, Membran (eines animalischen Bindegewebes)', tsŭŏD̀tsA (Ko. Not.), t́š́i̮mdts(A) (T.), tsùn̄dts(A) 'dünnes Häutchen (das man von der Fleischseite einer Haut abschabt)' ( > Finn. dial. sontu 'Häutchen')
SAMM2:*conci
LIT:FUV; DEWO 285; Coll.CompGr. 146, 397
NUMBER:98
MEANING:to walk, step, go
GERMMEAN:schreiten, gehen
RESHET:Kms. and partly Selk. (to other etymological groups within Sam.); Nen., En., Ngan., Mtr. and partly Mord. > rec. 1800. In the corresponding entry of UEW, we evidently deal with four (!) different roots erroneously united. The Mord. root represented by Erz. šanš-ne, Mks. šanč-k 'im vollen Galopp', Mks. šanž-a 'langer Schritt, Sprung' etc. is likely to be a cognate of Sam. *tǝntV- (~ *c-, *-c-) 'laufen, traben (von Tieren)' (Janh.SW 147) > Kms. thon- 'galoppieren' (not mentioned in UEW), Mtr. танд-, NSam. *tǝnt-> Nen. тӑн-ета-, En. todd-eʔe-, Nga. tant-ā (accepting this comparison, we must reconstruct the Proto-Sam. form as *cǝncV-, supposing *č/a/nčV for PU), while Kms. t(h)ōn 'gehen, wandern' goes back to Sam. *tantǝ- (~ *c-, *-c-) 'treten' (Janh.SW 151) and the Selk. word attested as STa. tanda-, SKe. candsa-, SNm. čăndša- 'hinausgehen' - to Sam. *cǝnca- 'steigen' (Janh.SW 31); it should be stressed that all the three roots are to be distinguished from each other (so, in fact, we deal with material from three - not two! - etymological groups presented in Janh. SW). As for the Mord., OU and Selk. words listed in this record, they are (contrary to Rédei) apparently not related to the roots diskussed above, but it seems that they are really related to each other, going back to a protoform like *č/a/čV. Note that in this case (as well as in URAET 96) we have no variants of the type *CVCV/*CVNCV to deal with, since it appears more adequate to separate such forms as belonging to different etymological groups. See also URAET 1800, SAMDET 37 and MRDET 30.
