A preliminary proposal. This closely follows what we have at w:en:<span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-<span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span> language, though that page having been heavily edited by me, this is largely...
we're probably safe off with it (esp. since we're also using *ï ~ *ë for <span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-<span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span>). There is also a standard phonetic transcription, used in many works...
inherited <span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span> words, where only attested in a narrow area, should be marked as dialectal; they after all must have been present in <span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-Finnic proper...
guess I have some <span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-Finnic <span class="searchmatch">entries</span> to clean. Over at pages like *lehmä, *nakris I've so far been including links to Livonian <span class="searchmatch">entries</span> such as "nī'em"...
have [ts dz] (since this is the stage that Nuristani and some loanwords in <span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span> have). If there's editor consensus in favor of the circumflex notation though...
according to which reconstruction variant they point to (compare e.g. <span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-<span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span> *kolme), but that's surely less pressing. --Tropylium (talk) 11:19, 8...
with <span class="searchmatch">Uralic</span> Phonetic Alphabet transcription). I guess its lemmas could be considered some kind of abstract "<span class="searchmatch">proto</span>-Karelian" forms? — a kind of <span class="searchmatch">Proto</span>-Finnic...