2019 and 2020 books are in the
Odds and Ends
A Big F You
10 12, 6:56am
Fine, I cite figures 1 and 2 ;-)
As to wikipedia:
As to possible loanwords, the wiki explanations are somewhat lacking.
While the IE 'sata(m)' means "a hundred", in baltic-finnic 'sata / sada' also means "a hundred".
But the related forms also mean:
sadama / sataa = to rain
sadu = (the) rain
sato = (crop) harvest
saak = harvest, but also a captured prey animal
saada / saama = to gain, to get
A funny side-remark, that 'gain' =~ finnic 'kiinni / kinni', meaning "capture / get hold of / stuck".
And 'get' =~ finnic 'käteen / kätte', meaning "into your hands, into your grasp".
With the 'koningaz -> kuningas', it is likely a loan to finnic, but the stem 'ko(o)n(d)-' is more likely common to eurasiatic or indo-uralic, since finnic languages have a lot of words stemming from it.
Thus it is not at all clear that the stems were exclusively IE.
And thus the wiki claims are partially lacking when claiming that:
[Such words as those for 'hundred', 'pig', and 'king' have something in common: they represent "cultural vocabulary" as opposed to "basic vocabulary."[original research?] They are likely to have been acquired along with a more complex number system and the domestic pig from the more advanced Indo-Europeans to the south.]
Of the 'more common vocabulary' mentioned in the wiki ('me', 'hand', 'water', and 'be') all have some corresponding similar words in finnic.
The wiki comparison of number systems neglects to entertain the possibility that the PIE borrowed the number system from the south, while uralic retained theirs. The uralic words for 1-10 suggest an uralic sprachbund.
So, even while both IE and uralic are part of a larger eurasiatic group, the fact that the crucial development of both was side-by-side both in space and time ties them closer together than the rest of the eurasiatic macrogroup. The alternative would be to admit that IE and uralic did not develop side-by-side in space and time, which would make the origin of IE non-european.