Ugric languages → Hungarian "szem", Mansi сам , Khanty сем ). A peculiar exception is the numeral '3', in which Hungarian ("három") and Mansi (хурэм ) point to an original cluster *rm, whereas the rest of the Uralic family suggests original *lm (Khanty холәм, Finnish "kolme", Estonian "kolm", Inari Sami "kulma", Erzya колмо, etc.) This has frequently been listed as an argument for considering Hungarian more closely related to Mansi than Khanty. The reverse has also been suggested—Hungarian and Mansi retaining the original form of the numeral, whereas Khanty and all the Finno-Permic languages would have innovated /l/ for some reason. Hungarian
Indo-Uralic languages (2008b). He argues that, when features differ between the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) and the other Indo-European languages, comparisons with Uralic can help to establish which group has the more archaic forms (2008b: 88) and that, conversely, the success of such comparisons helps to establish the Indo-Uralic thesis (2008b: 94). For example, in Anatolian the nominative singular of the second person pronoun comes from *"ti(H)", whereas in the non-Anatolian languages it comes from *"tu(H)"; in Proto-Uralic it was *"ti", which agrees with evidence from internal reconstruction that Anatolian has the more archaic form (2008b: 93). The most extensive attempt to