This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Estonia B‑class High‑importance Uralic languages is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class. Languages C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hungary Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Russia: Language & literature / Demographics & ethnography B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

/archive1, 13:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC). If you wish to continue an archived conversation, feel free to copy it back here. Dbenbenn

The classification of the Finnish "languages" is not correct, because it is rather political than linguistical. Meänkieli and Kven Finnish are North Finnish dialects that are spoken in Sweden and Norway, whereas Ingrian Finnish is a southeastern dialect spoken in Ingria (Ingermanland).

• Finnish
  • Finnish proper
  • Meänkieli (Tornedalen Finnish)
  • Kven Finnish (in Norway)
  • Ingrian Finnish

I would better say

• Finnish (including Meänkieli, Kven Finnish, and Ingrian Finnish)

--Hippophaë 14:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the cells in the cognates table have shifted:

• láb means leg in Hungarian
• gyalog means on foot (as in 'go on foot') in Hungarian

I don't know where the 'laamp(a) (Selkup)' cell should be shifted, though. Could someone please correct this? Nyenyec 06:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This anonymous edit added a new Võro column, and forgot to shift the cells in the second "leg" row. Fixed. Dbenbenn 08:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone got happy with the cells again. I got rid of the random Selkup language box someone stuck under the Hungarian column and put "láb" and "gyalog" into the same box as both are Hungarian and pertain to the "leg" row. Deleted the extra empty "leg" row. JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why palatalization was removed from the list of common features? --Hippophaë 22:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it was my belief that palatalisation was not a common feature of these languages! Mk270 00:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to "The Uralic Languages" (edited by Daniel Abandolo), palatalization is a feature of every language discussed in the book. They include Erzya, Meadow Mari, Hill Mari, Komi, Udmurt, Khanty, Mansi, Hungarian, Nenets, Selkup, Nganasan, Kamassian, Livonian, Estonian, Finnish (eastern dialects), Votic, Veps, and Northern Sami. There was no information on some minor languages in the book, but it can be easily seen that palatalization is common in every branch of the Uralic language family. --Hippophaë 06:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I shall check that out. I'm only familiar with Finnish and Hungarian, and wasn't aware of palatalisation (as I understand it) in either of them. Mk270 10:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say, I was wrong. I've checked out the book and it turns out that the only Uralic languages I know about are the only ones lacking the feature I was asserting was not common to the group. A bit of an embarrassment :) Sorry. Mk270 17:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) Pending a final decision on this manner, Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages or on these subjects.

Passed 6-0 at 19:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor mav 19:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was a long discussion regarding cases in Hungarian on this talk page (see archive). I think I got closer to the root of the problem (misunderstanding). Please see: Talk:Hungarian language#Cases in Hungarian. I also tried to include a paragraph on this in Hungarian_language#Nouns. I'd like to ask linguists to review and correct it. Thanks. nyenyec ☎ 17:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A case is an inflectional form of a noun, adjective, pronoun, numeral, infinitive, participle, and adverb. This definition does not take a stance on the way, how the case is formed. There are many methods, e.g. using suffixes or prefixes, changing the stem, and inflecting the article. --Hippophaë 22:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone replaced "pii" with "hammas" as the Finnish cognate for "tooth". This is obviously not cognate to the rest, but does "pii" have some special semantics we should know about? - Mustafaa 02:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Pii" has various meanings in Finnish and the other Baltic-Finnic langauges, and it is used both in the anatomy and agriculture. It may be a tooth of many tools, e.g. comb, rake, harrow, and saw. It also means the vertebrae of a spine (selkäpii). "Pii" lost its meaning as a "tooth" with which one can bite, after the word "hammas" was borrowed from the Indo-European languages (Latvian zobs, Lithuanian žam̃bas, žam̃bis, Church Slavonic zǫbŭ). --Hippophaë 17:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've written an article about Proto-Uralic, but as I am not a linguist, it'd be nice to have an expert to check the facts, as I noticed that the texts were from different years and disagreed on many points. --Vuo 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It [the palatalization in the Uralic languages] is different from Russian "palatalization" or "iotation", which means prefixing [ɪ]."

What does this mean? I notice no difference in the palatalization between Russian and the Baltic-Finnic languages for example. --Hippophaë 15:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iotation is prefixing [I]. --Vuo 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the difference in pronunciation of palatalized consonants in those languages? --Hippophaë 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian, 'sh' and 'tsh' are called "palatal" or even "palatalized"(!). This is seen as a diachronic process. In Uralic languages, palatalization (liudentuminen) means only the standard synchronic phonetic palatalization. Affrication or postalveolar frication is seen as a completely different phonemic feature. This is like /æ/ is sometimes called "short A" and /script-a/ is called a "long A" in English, while these are different phonemes in Finnish. Applying the term "short A" on Finnish 'Ä' is just like applying the ambiguous meaning of "palatalization" on Uralic languages. --Vuo 20:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the sound you describe as script-a is usually called 'broad a' amongst those who consider it a species of A-sound (Americans, I believe, consider it a species of O-sound). The 'long A' in English is the vowel of name, day, and is usually a diphthong, something like /ei/ (ranging from [e(ː)] in parts of Scotland, Canada to [æi] in Australia). Short A is considered a different phoneme from both broad and long A, but for phonological and orthographical reasons, it is handy to have such words. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to pronounce "Uralic;" can someone put an IPA transcription of the word in the summary? GoodSirJava 22:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a good idea. I added it for ya. --Glengordon01 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Finnish etymology dictionary (Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, WSOY 2004, Kaisa Häkkinen) has slightly different original forms for most of the selected cognates. Mostly marked as Proto-Finno-Ugric, however. I'll put this up for comments before I change anything:

1) Longer and more specific roots

• *śüδä-mɜ instead of *śüδɜm
• *süle instead of sülɜ
• *sōne instead of *suonɜ
• *mene- instead of *min-
• *käte instead of *kätɜ
• *piŋe instead of *piŋ
• *tule instead of *tulɜ

/ɜ/ marks "vowel of uncertain quality" in the UPA; so do I have newer information here or does the situation go fuzzy between PFU and PU? Also, original /uo/ in "vein" surely is wrong? /o:/ > /uo/ was a change that spread thru northern Finno-Samic during the first millenia AD.

2) Different harmony

• *śilmä instead of *śilma
• *iśä instead of *iśa

I suspect these are just typos in the article - the cognates presented are clearly front-harmonic. --Tropylium 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the reconstructions were pretty messed up, so I made a quick fix. Now they're in line with the system in Pekka Sammallahti 1988, Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages, which is the most up-to-date source. Häkkinen's dictionary merely mechanically copies its reconstructions from Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, which is outdated anyway. Moreover, the selection of example words in the table could certainly be improved. E.g. the words for 'heart' and 'father' show major phonological irregularities and are hence not good examples of sound correspondences. Maybe I'll try to improve the table in this respect in the future. --AAikio 09:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suspect that native Hungarian speakers are going to look at the cognate table and continue to add tűz without looking first at the history to see that it keeps getting removed. Perhaps some sort of note in the table itself would be in order? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the vowel system of PFU and PU has several competing reconstructions, that might explain _some_ of the differences between Tropylium's list and the "original" one. Szabi (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uralic languages#Selected cognates lists for Erzya Mordvin `to live':

il'e-

I don't know whether such stem really exists in Erzya (haven't checked a dictionary), but the common one is actually:

eŕa-, äŕa- (orthography: эрямс)

which is also listed in the etymology there.

So, I suspect there is an error in this cell. Could someone please check it and correct, if that's true.--Imz 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I removed the Mordvin form, as it doesn't exist. The verb meaning 'to live' in Mordvin is indeed (Erzya) eŕa-, (Moksha) äŕa-, but this can't be cognate because there is no change *l > r in Mordvin and the vowel does not match either. --AAikio 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and il'e- (according to that table) looks rather like a Mari stem, and ila-, which is listed as Mari, looks rather like a Selkup stem. (Heh, that's a pity that Selkup is missing in the table in the article.)--Imz 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line could use some revision:

"The name "Uralic" refers to the location of the family’s suggested Urheimat (homeland), which is often placed in the vicinity of the Ural mountains."

It's the "... suggested Urheimat (homeland) ..." that bothers me - I find it incredibly ambiguous and clumsy. "Urheimat" in that sentence seems at first glance to be talking about the origin of the word "Uralic", and otherwise could refer to a word common to Uralic languages. The parenthetical doesn't help much with this. I'm puzzled as to how to fix the sentence, though, so I'm leaving it as is for now. Dextrose 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urheimat is a widely-used term in linguistics and the addition of an English explanatory word ("homeland") between parentheses is already an excess of caution. Those not familiar with the term need only click on the link to find out all they need to know about its usage in the appropriate Wikipedia article. Despite the purely fortuitous coincidence of the initial Ur- in this word and in the Ural Mountains, there is absolutely no confusion here. Pasquale 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but you're wrong. I don't know how you can say "there is absolutely no confusion here" when I just told you it confused me. As basically an amateur in the field of linguistics, I was confused by it. Perhaps the article needs no deeper an explanation of the term Urheimat, but the syntax could, I'm sure, be better. Wikipedia is about clearly communicating ideas, not elitism. Dextrose 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no linguist, and it actually took Pasquale's comment to see what you're confused about (that both begin with "ur-"). I think you could rearrange it like The name "Uralic" refers to the Ural mountains, into whose vicinity the family’s suggested Urheimat (homeland) is often placed but that wouldn't make it any clearer. --Vuo 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the original complaint. I am not a linguist (Wikipedia is NOT strictly for linguists) but I do have a strong fascination with linguistics, particularly with linguistic origins. When I came across the "urheimat" reference (with its obvious Germanic origins), and even though I am familiar with the word and its origins, I had to do some cross-referencing to clarify that it wasn't an attempt to place the Uralic and the IE "urheimat" as identical. Excusing the confusion with paranthetical references is no excuse; the article should stand on its own in the context of its audience. Perhaps switching the reference with its paranthetic counterpart, from "Urheimat (homeland)" to "homeland (see:Urheimat)", would be more appropriate.

The sound laws in the selected cognates are very vague. "s" appears and disappears. "l" appears and disappears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Finnish "k" is variously said to be equivalent to Hungarian "k", "h" and no consonant. No explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The type of vowel, back or front, is mentioned in another article. This does not explain "k" vanishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC) See Finnish Maksa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The location of Uralic languages urheimat has not been identified with Ural mountains for decades. One of the reasons is that there has been a constant flow of loan words from Indo-European languages to Uralic languages as long as can be seen with any precise. This means Uralic languages were "always" spoken in the proximity of Indo-European languages. There are many hypotheses about urheimat of Indo-European languages, but urheimat of Uralic languages must be close that. There are also many other reasons to place the F-U urheimat clearly in the Europe, and not in the border of Europe and Asia. For first aid, see Finnish people and History of Finland. Tuohirulla puhu 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first map on the page is misleading. It shows different branches of Uralic languages, and Yukaghir languages, whose relation to Uralic languages is only a weak hypothesis. The map gives an impression that Yukaghir languages are a part of Uralic languages (or that the Uralic languages stretch so far), and you must read the article carefully to find out that this is not the case. There are also many other theories about which language families Uralic languages are related to, but they are not shown on that map either. Tuohirulla puhu 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "Uralic people", so I merged that article here. I wonder, however, is there is a Finnic or Samoyed ethnicity either. Are these also just linguistic constructs, or actual? kwami (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a note in the table that says not to add "tűz" to the table, because it is not a cognate. What is the evidence that it is not a cognate? The only information I can find is from Wiktionary[1], which claims that it is. Thanks. — Emiellaiendiay 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, such a hungarian word cannot be cognate for Proto-Uralic *tuli 'fire': both the vowel and the inner consonant are unacceptable so there is nothing common but initial t. Sammallahti's word list (1988: "Historical phonology of the Uralic languages" in The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor) does not mention any Ugric cognates. --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been theorising of my own that could the Altaic and Uralic languages be related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennet.mattfolk (talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and over a century's worth of others, yet without clear results. See Ural-Altaic languages. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic Tatar and Finnish is very close, i think its a clear results;

--195.174.105.53 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same similarity holds for e.g. Indo-European, which is why Eurasiatic or Nostratic are posited. There is no reason to believe an especially close relationship between Uralic and Altaic exists (which was proposed long ago and now widely rejected). And basing one purely on pronouns of modern-day languages, there is similarly 'good' evidence as this for a relationship between Basque and the Northeast Caucasian languages, take a look at this, page 8, then. --JorisvS (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ural and Altaic language families share much more thing then any other proposed language families. I think pan-aryan or ultra-christian people of europe has seperated these language families hundred years ago. They want to continue to wash people's mind with their fake evidences now. Ural-Altaic is one language family. --Finn Diesel (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want anyone to take you seriously if you say this? Can you come up with reliable sources to substatiate your claim that there is much more genetic evidence (instead of it (as a node) being discredited)? As a note, also consider that Altaic itself is currently disputed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we seen in the Bulgarian case (converting Turkic language into the another one), Europe wanted to convert both Hungarian and Finnish elites by replacing Swedish and Slavic words to their original languages too, but they didn't succeed, now Vatican and EU want to go with another way. This has nothing to do with science.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Please talk intelligibly, I have no clue what you're talking about. --JorisvS (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian language was a Turkic language in medival europe, in 13. century it was changed into slavic by replacing thousands slavic words in it. it was made by european ultra-christians and yes that was their victory. with the same way, European union (former name: commision of europe) wanted to make the same goal with hungarian and finnish languages, they were categorized as Altaic languages in the beginning of 20. century but now they are seperated and it has nothing to do with linguistics. and uralic language has nothing to do with indo-european language family.--94.54.240.54 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree, see: Bulgar language--Finn Diesel (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you are really confusing things. Bulgar was a (yes, Turkic!) language, but it wasn't changed into a Slavic language by lexical borrowing, but simply went extinct (displaced by other languages). Modern Bulgarian is NOT descended from Bulgar, the only similarity here is in the name. And no one is trying to IE-ify Hungarian or Finnish, least the EU. Why don't you back up your exotic claims, huh? --JorisvS (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This has nothing to do with science." Boy, you got that part right! This whole discussion has nothing to do at all with either science or improving the encyclopedia. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now stop adding that suggestive material and first explain why you think it should be here, I have thoroughly explained myself in the edit summaries already. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to push some personal POV. --JorisvS (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first you explain yourself, why do you remove it? because it has already been there...--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im a linguist, this is what people call "genetic relation" and the diagram couldnt be removed.--Finn Diesel (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of linguists around here. The section is a summary of several hypotheses for external relations of Uralic. UA is just one, and an obsolete one at that, yet you wish to promote that particular hypothesis on this page. That is non-WP:NPOV. The info you are adding already exists on the UA page, where interested readers can see it. — kwami (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the "typology" section:

"no verb for "have". Note that all Uralic languages have verbs with the meaning of "own" or "possess", but these words are not used in the same way as English "have". Instead, the concept of "have" is indicated with alternative syntactic structures. For example, Finnish uses existential clauses; the subject is the possession, the verb is "to be" (the copula), and the possessor is grammatically a location and in the adessive case: "Minulla on kala", literally "I_on is fish", or "I have a fish (some fish)". In addition, Finnish can also employ possessive suffixes, e.g. "Minulla on kalani", literally "I_on is fish_my", or "I do have my own fish". In Hungarian: "Van egy halam", literally "Is a fish_my", or "I have a fish"."

Is this appropiate to have here? There was no verb for "have" in Proto-Indo-European either (the "have" verbs in different branches of IE have no etymological connection -> no PIE reconstruction available). Instead, PIE used constructions with dative or genitive + third person of "be", cf. Latin mihi est or the first sentence of Schleicher's fable: *owis kwesyo wlna ne est (sheep whose wool no was = a sheep, which didn't have wool).

Also, there is nothing special in mihi est constructions, many other families, including Indo-European, have similar constructions. It seems that "have" is an European areal feature, which by coincidence have not entered e.g. Finnish and Hungarian. According to wals.info, Khanty and Mansi have "have" structure. --88.112.227.122 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is this:

"use of postpositions as opposed to prepositions (prepositions are uncommon)."

According to Proto-Indo-European particle, Proto-Indo-European is postpositional too. --88.112.227.122 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The typology section describes general characteristics of the language family. That PIE had similar features has little to no bearing on this article. It's like saying that PIE has the vowel 'e' or that English exhibits agglutination. They do, but it doesn't inform about Uralic languages! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to say that Uralic languages lack a "have" verb. It's enough to say that locative or dative constructions are used. Lack of "have" verb is not unique to Uralic (Proto-IE lacked it too), so it bloats the article unnecessarily. --88.112.193.101 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: I'll probably be eventually splitting most of this section off to a separate Classification of the Uralic languages article. Some of the uncertain stub-sized nodes like Finno-Volgaic languages could be merged there as well. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Uralian" is not a term that is in common use for this language family. Of the two references that were added to support it, one was in French not English, and listed not a single English language source that used "Uralian". The other was a single reference. "Uralian" is not in use on either side of the Atlantic except by a very rare scholar. Multiple sources can be cited for "Uralic" from native speakers of English as well as non-native speakers of English in English-language sources. Aside from one or two rare sources, "Uralian" is not in use. To characterize "Uralian" as British and "Uralic" as American shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the actual sources. --Taivo (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true "Uralic" is more common term. Originally "Uralian" was used by European sources as "Uralic" has it's roots in American English. However to claim that "Uralian languages" is not used at all is incorrect. Although it is an older form it's still used nowadays, published since 1990 there are about 452 results of "Uralian languages" on google books. So "one or two rare sources" simply isn't true.--Termer (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS.Additionally, the claim in the article that the term "Finno-Ugric" is older than "Uralic" isn't correct either. The fact is, the term such as "Finno-Ugric' was only introduced by the paper of Donner in 1879, referred to as Ugro-Finnic at the time. The term Uralic however goes way back and was used originally as a synonym for what became later known as Finno-Permic languages. For example Strahlenberg never used the word Finno-ugric like some sources claim. The word he used was "Ujgur".--Termer (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, I knew I got it right in the first place, just wasn't able to get the right sources for your review. So I need to revert back to my original edit, unless you'd like to question Sinor, Denis (1988). The Uralic languages : description, history, and foreign influences. BRILL. p. 10. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Denis Sinor: Concerning the basic terms of "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" I opted for these forms, used mainly in the United States versus "Uralian" or "Finno-Ugrian" preferred by the Brittish

--Termer (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The use of "Uralic" is far more common than just the United States. There is no such distinction in terminology between British and American English. Your previous parenthetical note is preferable with "Uralian" as an occassional option. Using the same parameters in Google Books as you used above, there were 7630 occurrences of "Uralic", so it's clear that "Uralic" is far more widely used than just the U.S. If this distinction were, indeed, a US/British distinction, then the numbers would be much more balanced between US usage and British usage. But since there are over 7000 uses of "Uralic" and fewer than 500 uses of "Uralian", that clearly shows that there is no such distinction. Or do you want me to go through each of those 7000 references and show you how many of those scholars are British? I assure you that the number of British authors in that 7000 is not trivial (David Crystal, for example). --Taivo (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]