Uralic *küńä 'elbow'?

There are several problems with the standard reconstruction of Uralic *küńä 'elbow', & several apparently bewildering variants exist. I think these can only make sense if related to Lithuanian alkū́nė ‘elbow’ < PIE *H3olkuH1ny-aH2-. The similarity of many Uralic & Baltic (or even earlier PIE) words is so close that loans have been proposed even for what would be apparently native PU words (if only Uralic were known to linguists, not IE, for some reason) like PIE *pewk^aH2- 'pine', PU *pewkä 'pine cone'; PIE *wodor-, PU *wete 'water'; PIE *gWolH1mo- > Gmc. *kwalma-z > OE cwealm ‘death/slaughter’, PU *kalma > F. kalma ‘death’; (more in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r5y1r1/protouralic_jäwxrä_lake_lithuanian_jáura/ ) : "Proto-Uralic *jäwrä 'lake' looks enough like Lithuanian jáura 'marshland', Latvian jūra 'sea', Armenian ǰur 'water', etc., that a loan from IE to PU has been proposed. I question why they would borrow this & PU *wete < PIE *wodor- 'water', etc. Also, the timing is odd since it might have been *jäwxrä."

Many cognates of *küńä add *-rä or *-lä after the root (if like IE, these would be diminutive suffixes like *-lo-). Some, like Mansi *küŋɣəl & Saami *kërńē-lē, also seem to have "extra" C's appear from nowhere; affixes are one thing, but could infixes really appear in 'elbow' & nowhere else? This makes no sense, so they were there all along, simply "hidden" in others by later sound changes, but their effexts (like *VxC > VVC in Finnic) are observable, & when *xn > *nx the disputed sound *x appears as *nx > ŋɣ, assimilated to *ṇŋ, etc. Thus, standard *küńä would have to be modified in each case to *küńxä & *kürńä or *külńä (if *l-l > r-l), together requiring *klüńxä (or similar).

The -r- here is not seen in others, which only makes sense if met. < *klëńēlē & *kl- > *k- in others. I think suffix *-lä is older; since alkū́nė had -l-, adding *-lä would allow *l-l > *l-r before *kl- > *k- (no *CC- in PU is likely *CC- > C- later in branches). I say :

*H3olkuH1ny-aH2-

*ëlkux'njaa

*ëkluxn'jaa (met. of palatalization C'Cj > CC'j )

*kluxn'jaa

*kluxn'ja

*klüxn'jä (*j caused fronting)

*klüxn'ä

*klüxn'ä-lä

*klüxn'älä > *klüxnärä > F. kyynärä 'elbow, forearm, cubit'

*klüxn'älä > *kxüln'älä > *kxürn'älä > Saami *kërńēlē ‘elbow’

*klüxn'älä > *klüxn'ärä > Mordvin *keńəŕə > keńəŕ ‘forearm’

*klüxn'älä > Ugric *klüṇxäl'ä > Mansi *küŋɣəl [n'-l > n-l' to allow k-n > k-ṇ]

*klünxäl'ä > *klüṇxäjä [l' > j by l-l' dsm.] > Khanty kö̆ṇŋäj or *küṇŋǟj ? > Vakh kö̆ňŋi ‘elbow’

*klüṇxäjä > *klüṇäjäx > Hn. könyök ‘elbow’ [k-x > k-k asm. ?]

It would be ridiculous if 2 words for 'elbow' could share all the same sounds & be unrelated. Here, the fact that the older IE form can explain the alternations in Uralic supports their relation. There is no way that Uralic *küńä would so often add C's within the root from nowhere; they were there from the start. More data, with a similar but unlikely conclusion, from Hovers :

>

157. PU *küńä(rä) ‘elbow’ ~ PIE *Heh₃l-n ‘elbow’

U: PSaami *ke̮rńēlē > North Saami gardnjil ‘elbow’; Finnic küünärä ‘forearm’, küünär-pää ‘elbow’; Mordvin keńəŕ ‘forearm’; Mari kĭńer ‘forearm, ell’, PPermic *gi̮r > Komi gi̮rʒ́a, Udmurt gi̮r-pum ‘elbow’; Hungarian könyök ‘elbow’; PMansi *küŋɣəl > Lower Konda Mansi kʷänɣelˊ ‘elbow’; PKhanty *küňŋǟj > Vakh Khanty kö̆ňŋi ‘elbow’ [MV p.154, HPUL p.545, UEW p.158-159 #311]

IE: Greek ōlénē ‘elbow, lower arm’; Latin ulna ‘forearm’; PGermanic *alinō > Old High German elina ‘forearm,ell’; Lithuanian alkū́nė ‘elbow’; PSlavic *ȍlkŭtĭ > Old Church Slavonic lakŭtĭ ‘elbow’ [EIEC p.176, IEW p.307-309, EWAi1 p., EDG p.1678-1679, EDL p.638, EDPG p.22, EDB p.51-52, EDS p.368]

The phonetically more straightforward comparison to PIE *genu ‘knee’ is rejected because it does not explainmedial PU *ń and it would be an exception to the rule that Permic initial voicing never happens to voiced PIEstops. The change of PU *ń to *n in Ugric is likely caused by suffixation.

>