One must always make a clear distinction between things that one has demonstrated with evidence, and things that one has not. Sometimes the latter might be a valuable pointer to further research, however it must be clearly labelled as speculation, because to do otherwise would be misleading to future researchers. If one is to establish a language family within the framework of the conventional Comparative Method, one must begin with a reconstruction of relevant areas of morphology, and the reconstruction of at least the top node, the proto-language. Neither of these elements has to this day been properly implemented in Uralic studies.
Abondolo, D. 1998, Introduction. - The Uralic Languages, London (Routledge Language Family Descriptions), 1-42.
Castrén, M. A. 1858, Hvar låg det finska folkets vagga? - M. A. Castréns smärre afhandlingar och akademiska dissertationer. Nordiska resor och forskningar 5, Helsingfors, 126-142.
Fox, A. 1995, Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to the Theory and Method, Oxford.
Hajdú, P. 1987, Die uralischen Sprachen. - P. Hajdú, P. Domokos, Die Uralischen Sprachen und Literaturen, Hamburg, 21-450.
Häkkinen, K. 1983, Suomen kielen vanhimmasta sanastosta ja sen tutkimisesta. Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten etymologisen tutkimuksen perusteita ja metodiikkaa, Turku (Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 17).
Helimski, E. 1984, Problems of Phonological Reconstruction in Modern Uralic linguistics. - LU XX, 241—257.
Janhunen, J. 1981, Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. - JSFOu 77, 219-274.
Janhunen, J. 1998, Samoyedic. - The Uralic Languages, London (Routledge Language Family Descriptions), 457-479.
Janhunen, J. 2001, On the Paradigms of Comparative Uralic Studies. - FUF 56, 29-41.
Itämerensuomi - eurooppalainen maa, Jyväskylä 1997 (Studia Historica Fenno-Ugrica II).
Julku, K. 2002, Maanjäristys. - Kanava 7, 489-492.
Kallio, P., de Smit, M. 2002, Missä ovat richterit? - Kanava 9, 634-636.
Korhonen, M. 1996, Typological and Historical Studies in Language. A Memorial Volume Published on the 60th Anniversary of his Birth, Helsinki (MSFOu 223).
Künnap, A. 1997, On the Origin of the Uralic Languages. - Western and Eastern Contact Areas of the Uralic Languages, Tartu (FU 21), 65-68.
Künnap, A. 1998. Breakthrough in Present-Day Uralistics, Tartu.
Künnap, A. 2002, Õigeusklike õudusunenägu. - KK, 523-525.
Ligeti, L. 1986, A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban, Budapest.
Marcantonio, A. 2000a, The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and Statistics, Oxford-Boston (Publications of the Philological Society 359).
Marcantonio, A. 2002b, Comment on the Paper: ”On the Paradigms of Comparative Uralic Studies” by Juha Janhunen (FUF 2001, Vol. 56 : 29-41). - FUF 57, 466-470.
Meillet, A. 1967, The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics, Paris.
Nichols, J. 1992, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
Paasonen, H. 1912/1913-1916/1917. Beiträge zur finnischugrisch-samojedischen Lautgeschichte. - Keleti Szemle 13-17, 1-224.
Pusztay, J. 1997, Ajatus uralilaisten kansojen ketjumaisesta alkukodista. - Itämerensuomi - eurooppalainen maa, Jyväskylä 1997 (Studia Historica Fenno-Ugrica II), 9-19.
Sammallahti, P. 1988, Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages (with Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic). - The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, Leiden (Handbook of Uralic Studies I).
Wiik, K. 2002, Eurooppalaisten juuret, Jyväskylä.
