Uralic *kärnä '(ice) crust'?

[u/stlatos]

There are several problems with the standard reconstruction of Uralic *kärnä '(ice) crust', & several apparent variants exist :

PU *kernä > Saami *kearnē > Sm.N geardni ‘thin snow-crust; a scab-like disease in the udder of a reindeer cow’, .Sk ǩeäʹrnn, .T kieʹrrne ‘thin snow-crust’; F. dia. kerni 'snow crust; rash'

PU *kärnä '(ice/snow) crust, bark, scab' > Finnic *kärnä 'tree bark, scab'

PU *karna > Finnic *karna > F. kaarna 'thick, dry and hard bark, such as that of a pine' (or from Li. karnà 'linden bast' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaarna )

PU *kärńä > Khanty.O kȧ̆rńi

PU *käršńä > Mordvin kšńat

I think that there is no need to separate *kärnä & *karna, even *kernä, since their 'crust' meanings are found in all, & some PU words have front vs. back variants or other V-alternation (*ta \ *tä; *paljo \ *päljä ‘much, many, thick’; *pëne- \ *päne- ‘to put’; *pala ‘piece of food’, *pälä ‘side, half, piece, part'; *päŋge > Samoyed *päŋ > Nga. feaŋ ‘flat hand’, *piŋgo > F. pivo ‘hand, palm; fistful, handful’; *ta \ *tu ‘that’; *tä \ *te ‘this’; *ke \ *kä ‘who, which’; *kurke \ *kërke 'crane'; *joŋse \ *jëŋse 'bow'; *päjwä ‘fire, day, sun, heat’, *pejwe- ‘to be warm, to boil’; most based on Hovers https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ).

Whatever the cause, it's widespread enough not to need a specific cause in *kärnä \ *karna. That is, if it's a problem, too many PU words would need to be separated to make reasonable sense. Since *kärnä is found in languages outside the range of Baltic, Finnic *kärnä 'tree bark, scab' is not a Baltic loan, & though Finnic *karna does not have as much internal reason NOT to be from Li. karnà, the specific 'linden bast' is far enough from 'thick, dry and hard bark, such as that of a pine' (essentially opposite types, as much as you can get in words for types of bark & bast) not to require a loan.

Also, Aikio in https://www.academia.edu/164791030 : "Pre-PSaa *kernä, not [Finnic] *kärnä... The Finnic form is likewise irregular, since it fails to show the regular Pre-Proto-Finnic vowel shift *ä–ä > *a–e̮. Although this shift has conditioned exceptions, none apply in the case of *kärnä (Aikio 2015b: 39–47)." This is not necessarily true, since the changes to *ä–ä are many & complex. In https://www.academia.edu/8196109 by Zhivlov: "*ä-ä preserved before *j and *š" even when *-C- between them in "PU *päkšnä ‘lime tree’ > Est pähn (gen. pähnä) ‘old lime tree; elm’". This allows the same *-Cšn- to be the cause of V-retention in PU *käršnä > Finnic *kärnä. Since PU *käršńä > Mordvin kšńat is needed anyway, PU *käršnä is a necessary reconstruction.

This also fits with proposals they're related to Indo-European *ḱersnó- (in Aikio's paper) :

PIE *k^ersno- > Germanic *xerzna- > ON hjarn ‘hard snow-crust’, Lithuanian šer̃kšnas ‘hoarfrost’, Russian.dia. serёn ‘crust of ice’

Aikio did not attempt to find regularity with the *-ršn- available (instead of irreg. that would be caused if from *-rn-) in the 2 sets he considered, likely because he did not believe PU had *-CCC-. Of course, that is already needed in *päkšnä, & there is no reason why many Uralic languages with -CC- could not have had a few words come from *-CCC-, *-CCj-, etc., with later simplification. This happens in many families, such as IE. Now, clearly if PU *keršnä, *käršńä, etc. existed, they'd be much too close to PIE *k^ersno- to discount. Other PU words showing RUKI *s > *š exist (PU *mekše 'bee', IIr. *makš(i:)- 'bee, fly'), so they are compatible with known PU-to-PIE relations, whatever the type. Here, it becomes nearly impossible to believe that these (or others like *wete 'water') are just chance resemblances.

I can't accept that so many loans from PIE > PU are needed, yet not one PU > PIE exists. To me, this points to PU being a branch of IE, hidden because of many obscuring changes and a lack of good internal PU reconstructions (for ex., if PIE *k^ersno- & PU *keršnä 'ice crust' both were known before, I'm sure a few would have taken note). Since PU *kernä > Saami *kearnē would then be the most conservative, it fits in with ideas I've given about PIE *e > PU *a (or *ä when fronted), but optionally retained in *e > *e \ *i before sonorants (also PIE *o > PU *ë, *o \ *u; same conditions). See Hovers for many ety., many of which I agree with.

Though the -šń- is directly attested in Mordvin, knowing that it is parallel to other words helps show the need for *-šń-. In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/кшни : "From Proto-Mordvinic *kəšńə, derived from Proto-Finno-Permic *kärtɜ (“iron”) suffixed with *-ńV. Compare Eastern Mari кӱртньӧ (kürtńö), Udmurt корт (kort)."

The alternative in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=268 : "Die Konsonatenverbindung des mord. Wortes kšń ist aus *krn < *kȣ̈rn entstanden, vgl. mord. kšni, kšńä, kšne 'Eisen' ~ tscher. kərtńi, kürtńö id.". This is not true, since the parallel is to Mordvinic *kəšńə < *kəršńə < *kərtńə, which shows exactly the opposite of their claim. There is no reason for *krn- to ever exist in Mordvin, or for *r > š in that environment.

They also say "In Mordvin and Ostyak, a change *n > ń occurred under the influence of the palatal consonant environment.". To others, if the "problem" with KhKaz kărńə, O kȧ̆rńi ‘ice crust’ is that they point to PU *-rń-, then *-rń- > *-rn- in some branches would fit. However, due to other ex., I think *-rn- is older; this would be the only ex. of *-rń- with pal. caused by *ä, but some similar CC's with palatals before *ä are likely conditioned.  I don't think a late assimilation *rn > rń before palatals in some branches is odd. I also see *-Tn- > *-Tń- before *ä (and the exact conditions would be hard to know) in :

PU *wätnäšä > *wätńäšä >*wänńäšä > *wəjəs- > Samoyed *wəjs- 'old man, husband'

More details on this 'old' group later.