This hypothesis is supported by the fact that their most probable ancestor, the
Permic postposition din-/din-/dyn- 'near', which, in turn, arose from the noun din 'basis, proximity, neighbourhood' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2008: 84), has not been attested in Beserman.
1988, Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages with Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric and
Permic.--The Uralic languages.
The initial b- in Komi and Udm bicki- is not regular, but there are several other, well-known examples of sporadic voicing of initial stops in Permic: e.g., Komi bez, Udm biz' tail' (< PU *ponci 'tail '; UEW 353), Komi dor, Udm dur 'edge (< PU *tera'edge, blade '; cf.
The meaning burst, then, gave rise to its transitive equivalent pierce in Permic.
The semantic abstraction (hollow) stalk, stem (of a plant) > inside, core has apparently begun already in Proto-Uralic, as the meaning inside is also attested in Komi pic (pick-) and Udm puc (puck-) ~ pus (pusk-), which can be included in this cognate set; local case forms of these Permic nouns also function as adverbs and postpositions in the senses in, into .
This comparison needs to be abandoned for phonological reasons, however, as the Permic forms show that the verb must have originally had the consonant *-d-; intervocalic *-l- is preserved as such in Permic, whereas *-d- > [empty set] is a regular development.
The regular reflexes of PU *e in Permic and Ugric are entirely different from those attested in this cognate set; the vowels in this cognate set clearly point to an original *i instead (Sammallahti 1988:504, 530-533).
This etymology must, however, be rejected due to the irregular sound correspondences: the vowels of PSaa *kuoje could not regularly reflect the reconstructed proto-form *koja, and the Permic and Ugric forms cannot be regularly derived from such a form either (Sammallahti 1988:504, 530-531).
The fact that effects on focus marking recur cross-linguistically allows us to identify focus-related asymmetry as one of the cross-linguistically relevant subtypes of asymmetric interrogatives, and we find representatives of this type in Finnic, Saamic, and
Permic languages.
However, the traces of the 3P verbal marker *-sV exist also in those Volgaic and Permic languages that lack a separate definite conjugation--in Mari, Komi and Udmurt (see also Kortvely 2005 : 30-31).
Considering the latter, at the diachronic level the Udmurt language with its z-suffixal future forms is consistent with Mordvin and Komi ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1976 : 173-174) (in Permic languages the 3P verbal inflection occurs in other verbal forms also: in Komi only in the preterite tense but in Udmurt almost overwhelmingly).
In Volgaic, Permic, Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic both the 3P and 2P possessive suffixes are used in the non-personal definitive function.
(This is the case in Vogul, in the
Permic languages, in Mordvin and in the Samoyedic languages.) The converse is not true, however: the fact that in a given language unmarked object is not found next to an indicative verb form does not imply that unmarked object is also not used next to an infinitive.
Permic (with examples Zyryan Komi e-g 'I was not', o-g 'I am not', Udmurt u-g id.); Paleosiberian languages--Chukotka-Kamchatkan -k, e.g., Chukchi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I shall go' (see Skorik 1968 : 262), Eskimo-Aleutic -[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]a, -[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] < *ka (-k-i, in which case -i occurs as a plural suffix), e.g., Aleut [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I go' (see [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1968 : 397; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1997 : 113).
The first and last significant landmarks in the academic career of Ferdinand Johann Wiedemann were grammars of the
Permic and Volgaic languages.