The present occurrence or non-occurrence of 46 structural features is analyzed in language groups ranging from Finnic to Eskimo-Aleut. Normalized measures of commonalities and distances between two languages are developed and used for graphical representations. The conventional Uralic and Altaic groupings emerge. So does a Paleo-Siberian concatenation (Yukaghir/Eskimo-Aleut/Chukotka-Kamchatkan/Yeniseian), more diffuse than even Uralic-Altaic jointly, but with some similarities to Samoyedic and Mordvin in the Uralic group. Within Uralic, four clusters emerge: Samoyedic, Mordvin/Saamic/ Finnic, Mari/Permic/Ob-Ugric, and most distant from the rest, Hungarian. Surprisingly, far from supplying a bridge to Altaic, Hungarian also appears as the Uralic language the most remote from Turkic and other Altaic. Turkic and Tungusic present almost as many commonalities with Uralic languages (except Hungarian) as with each other. Common origins cannot account for all these crisscrossing patterns; a continuum of contacts, selective migrations and participation in lingua franca areas must come into play. Extension of the existing set of structural features is urged, to include the distinguishing features of Basque, Indo-European, Semitic-Hamitic and Dravidian, as well as further Altaic and Paleo-Siberian features.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2003, Mechanisms of Change in Areal Diffusion. New Morphology and Language Contact. - Journal of Linguistics 39, 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001937
Biber, D. 1986, Spoken and Written Textual Dimensions in English. - Language 62, 384-414.
https://doi.org/10.2307/414678
Dixon, R. M. W. 1999, The Rise and Fall of Languages, Cambridge.
Embleton, S. M. 1986, Statistics in Historical Linguistics, Bochum.
Fortescue, M. 1998, Language Relations across Bering Strait. Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence, London-New York.
Georg, S., Vovin, A. 2003, From Mass Comparison to Mess Comparison. Greenberg’s Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives. - Diachronica 20, 331-362.
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20.2.06geo
Greenberg, J. 2000, Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives. The Eurasiatic Language Family I. Grammar, Stanford.
Haspelmath, M. 1998, How Young is Standard Average European? - Language Sciences 20, 271-287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00004-7
Klesment, P., Künnap, A., Soosaar, S.-E., Taagepera, R. 2003, Common Phonetic and Grammatical Features of Uralic Languages and Other Languages in Northern Eurasia. - Journal of Indo-European Studies 31, 363-390.
Künnap, A. 2000, Contact-Induced Perspectives in Uralic Linguistics, [München-Newcastle] (LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 39).
Marcantonio, A. 2002, The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and Statistics, Oxford-Boston (Publications of the Philological Society 39).
McMahon, A., McMahon, R. 2003, Finding Families. Quantitative Methods in Language Classification. - Transactions of the Philological Society 101, 7-55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00108
Nichols, J. 1992, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago-London.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
Östman, J.-O., Raukko, J. 1995, The ’Pragmareal’ Challenge to Language Tree Models. - The Fenno-Baltic Cultural Area, Helsinki, 31-69.
Pusztay, J. 1994, A Linguistic Model of Determining the Original Home of the Uralic Nations. - Финно-угроведение 1 [Йошкар-Ола], 23-40.
Pusztay, J. 1995, Diskussionsbeiträge zur Grundsprachenforschung (Beispiel: das Protouralische), Wiesbaden (Veröffentlichungen des Societas Uralo-Altaica 43).
Renfrew, C. 2000, At the Edge of Knowability. Towards a Prehistory of Languages. - Cambridge Archeological Journal 101, 7-34.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774300000019
Ringe, D. 1999, How Hard Is It to Match CVC-Roots? - Transactions of the Philological Society 97, 213-244.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00049
Ringe, D., Warnow, T., Taylor, A. 2002, Indo-European and Computational Cladistics. - Transactions of the Philological Society 100, 59-129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00091
Seefloth, U. 2000, Die Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im Uralo-Sibirischen. - Zentralasiatische Studien 30, 163-191.
Taagepera, R. 1994, The Linguistic Distances between Uralic Languages. - LU XXX, 161-167.
Taagepera, R. 2000, Uralic as a lingua franca with Roots. - FU 23, 381-395.
Thomason, S. G., Kaufman, T. 1988, Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Berkeley.
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793
Viitso, T.-R. 2000, Finnic Affinity. - CIFU IX. Pars I, 153-178.
Wiik, K. 2002, Eurooppalaisten juuret, Jyväskylä.
