The Uralic Languages 9781317230977, 1317230973

Citation preview

THE URALIC LANGUAGES The Uralic Languages, second edition, is a reference book which brings together detailed discussions of the historical development and specialized linguistic structures and features of the languages in the Uralic family. The Uralic languages are spoken today in a vast geographical area stretching from Dalarna County in Sweden to Dudinka, Taimyr, Russia. There are currently approximately 50 languages in the group, the largest among them being the state languages Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian; other Uralic languages covered in the book are South Saami, Skolt Saami, Võro, Moksha Mordvin, Mari, Udmurt, Zyrian Komi, Mansi, Khanty, Nganasan, Forest and Tundra Enets, Nenets, and Selkup. The book also contains a chapter on Finnic languages, the reconstruction of Uralic, the history of Uralic studies, connections of Uralic to other language families, and language names, demographics, and degrees of endangerment. This second and thoroughly revised edition updates and augments the authoritative accounts of the first edition and reflects recent and ongoing developments in linguistics and the languages themselves, as well as our further enhanced understanding of the relations and patterns of influence between them. Each chapter combines modern linguistic analysis and documentary linguistics; a relatively uniform structure allows for easy typological comparison between the individual languages. Written by an international team of experts, The Uralic Languages will be invaluable to students and researchers within linguistics, folklore, and Siberian studies. Daniel Abondolo was Reader in Hungarian at University College London, UK. Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi is Associate Professor of Finnish and Minority Languages at University College London, UK, and Senior Lecturer in Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages at Uppsala University, Sweden.

ROUTLEDGE LANGUAGE FAMILY SERIES Each volume in this series contains an in-depth account of the members of some of the world’s most important language families. Written by experts in each language, these accessible accounts provide detailed linguistic analysis and description. The contents are carefully structured to cover the natural system of classification: phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, semantics, dialectology, and sociolinguistics. Every volume contains extensive bibliographies for each language, a detailed index and tables, and maps and examples from the languages to demonstrate the linguistic features being described. The consistent format allows comparative study, not only between the languages in each volume, but also across all the volumes in the series. The Romance Languages Edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent The Slavonic Languages Edited by Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett The Germanic Languages Edited by Ekkehard Konig and Johan van der Auwera The Uralic Languages Edited by Daniel Abondolo The Turkic Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Éva Csató and Lars Johanson The Indo-Aryan Languages Edited by George Cardona and Dhanesh K. Jain The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar Edited by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann The Tai-Kadai Languages Edited by Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson and Yongxian Luo The Iranian Languages Edited by Gernot Windfuhr The Khoesan Languages Edited by Rainer Vossen The Munda Languages Edited by Gregory D.S. Anderson The Celtic Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller

The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Graham Thurgood and Randy J. Lapolla The Indo-European Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Mate Kapović The Mayan Languages Edited by Judith L. Aissen, Nora C. England, and Roberto Zavala Maldonado The Languages of Japan and Korea Edited by Nicolas Tranter The Mongolic Languages Edited by Juha Janhunan The Oceanic Languages Edited by John Lynch, Malcolm Ross and Terry Crowley Language Isolates Edited by Lyle Campbell The Bantu Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse, and Gérard Philippson The Semitic Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El The Dravidian Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Sandford B. Steever The Uralic Languages, 2nd Edition Edited by Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi

Other titles in the series can be found at www.routledge.com/Routledge-LanguageFamily-Series/book-series/SE0091

THE URALIC LANGUAGES Second Edition

Edited by Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi

Designed cover image: Routledge Second edition published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2006 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Abondolo, Daniel Mario, editor. | Valijärvi, Riitta-Liisa, editor. Title: The Uralic languages / edited by Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi. Description: Second edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge language family | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022041162 (print) | LCCN 2022041163 (ebook) |  ISBN 9781138650848 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032436562 (paperback) | ISBN 9781315625096 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Uralic languages. | Finno-Ugric languages. Classification: LCC PH14 .U67 2023 (print) | LCC PH14 (ebook) | DDC 494/.5—dc21 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022041162 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022041163 ISBN: 978-1-138-65084-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-43656-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-62509-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096 Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS List of contributors

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

List of abbreviations

x

 1 Introduction to the Uralic languages, with special reference to Finnish and Hungarian Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi

1

 2 On the demography, endangerment, and revitalization of the Uralic languages Tapani Salminen

81

3 Reconstruction of Proto-Uralic Mikhail Zhivlov

117

 4 Connections between Uralic and other language families Stefan Georg

176

 5 Notes on the history of Uralic linguistics Péter Simoncsics

210

 6 South Saami Torbjörn Söder

235

 7 Skolt Saami Timothy Feist

302

 8 North and Standard Estonian Reili Argus and Helle Metslang

347

9 Võro South Estonian Helen Plado, Liina Lindström, and Sulev Iva

386

10 The Finnic languages Riho Grünthal

433

11 Moksha Mordvin Jack Rueter

481

12 Mari Jeremy Bradley and Jorma Luutonen

527

13 Udmurt Pirkko Suihkonen

576

14 Zyrian Komi Rogier Blokland

614

15 Mansi Susanna Virtanen and Csilla Horváth

665

16 Khanty Márta Csepregi

703

17 Nganasan Beáta Wagner-Nagy

753

18 Forest and Tundra Enets Olesya Khanina and Andrey Shluinsky

793

19 Nenets Nikolett Mus

853

vi CONTENTS

20 Selkup Gerson Klumpp and Josefina Budzisch

897

21 Relative clauses in Uralic Ksenia Shagal

939

22 Definiteness in Uralic Merlijn de Smit and Gwen Eva Janda

979

Index

1007

CONTRIBUTORS Daniel Abondolo was Reader in Hungarian at University College London, UK. Reili Argus is Professor of Estonian Language at Tallinn University, Estonia. Rogier Blokland is Professor of Finno-Ugric languages at Uppsala University, Sweden. Jeremy Bradley is Postdoc Researcher of Finno-Ugric Linguistics at the University of Vienna, Austria. Josefina Budzisch is Research Fellow at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Márta Csepregi is Associate Professor of Finno-Ugrian Studies (retired) at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, and research fellow at Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Hungary. Merlijn de Smit is Adjunct Professor of Finnish at Stockholm University, Sweden. Timothy Feist is former Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. Stefan Georg is Adjunct Professor (außerplanmäßiger Professor) of Altaic Linguistics and Cultural Studies at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Bonn, Germany. Riho Grünthal is Professor of Finnic Languages at University of Helsinki, Finland. Csilla Horváth is Senior Researcher at University of Helsinki, Finland. Sulev Iva is Lecturer of South Estonian Language and Culture at University of Tartu, Estonia, and Researcher of Võro language at Võro Institute, Estonia. Gwen Eva Janda is Assistant Professor at the Institut für Finnougristik/Uralistik at LMU Munich, Germany Olesya Khanina is Principal Investigator of the project Language Diversification and Spread in the North at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Gerson Klumpp is Professor of Finno-Ugric languages at the University of Tartu, Estonia. Liina Lindström is Professor of Modern Estonian at the University of Tartu, Estonia. Jorma Luutonen is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages at University of Turku, Finland. Helle Metslang is Professor Emerita at the University of Tartu, Estonia.

viii CONTRIBUTORS

Nikolett Mus is Research Fellow at the Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Hungary. Helen Plado is Lecturer of Estonian at the University of Tartu and Research Fellow at Võro Institute, Estonia. Jack Rueter is Principal Investigator in Digital Humanities at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Tapani Salminen is University Lecturer at the Department of Languages of the University of Helsinki, Finland. Ksenia Shagal is Professor of Uralic Studies at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. Andrey Shluinsky is former Deputy Director of the Institute of Linguistics RAS, Moscow, Russia, and current Research Fellow at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Péter Simoncsics is Associate Professor (retired) at Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania. Torbjörn Söder is Associate Professor of Finno-Ugric Languages at Uppsala University, Sweden. Pirkko Suihkonen is Visiting Scholar in General Linguistics, University of Helsinki, Finland. Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi is Associate Professor of Finnish and Minority Languages at University College London, UK, and Senior Lecturer in Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages at Uppsala University, Sweden. Susanna Virtanen is Docent and Senior Researcher of Finno-Ugrian Linguistics at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Beáta Wagner-Nagy is Professor of Finno-Ugric Studies at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Mikhail Zhivlov is Senior Research Fellow at Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia, and at HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Daniel: I thank my colleagues for showing me the ropes in linguistics, for challenging me, often, with stimulating ideas, and for bearing with my questionings and stubbornness. And I thank my students, who made sure I was aware, in language, literature, and linguistics courses over the years, that there is more than one kind of audience. But I chiefly thank my co-editor, Riitta, for making this book possible: it has evolved into something far more complex than I had first imagined, and I would never have been able to handle so much disparate material and to liaise with so many new colleagues (remotely!) had it not been for Riitta’s energy and calm. Riitta: I would like to thank my co-editor, Daniel, for the wonderful discussions and lunches over the years, and for sharing his vast Uralic knowledge with me. I would also like to thank Lily Kahn for her wise counsel and friendship, as always. I am grateful to Andrea Hartill and Iola Ashby at Routledge for their help and understanding. A special thanks goes to Rogier Blokland for his advice, interest in the project, and book recommendations, and to Eszter Tarsoly for our editing and writing sessions, and peer support. Suuret kiitokset to all our contributors for their hard work, patience, and cooperation.

ABBREVIATIONS GLOSSES Note: Abbreviations are often combined, reflecting combined exponents of grammatical categories. So for example, 1sg, ‘first person singular’ appears not only in Hungarian mën-te-m go-pst-1sg ‘I was going’ but also in the free pronoun én 1sg ‘I nom’ (such pronouns are also sometimes glossed as 1sg.pro or as ‘I’) and in its accusative eng-ëm 1sg-1sg ‘me acc,’ in which both the root and the suffix are 1sg. For the general principles, we have followed in glossing and segmentation in the context of our views on Uralic morphology, see Sections 1.3.1–1.3.1.4. ∅ 1 2 3 a abe abl acc acl acn act add ade adh adj adjz adp adt adv adve all an anaph anim ant aor ap app

zero first person second person third person subject of transitive verb; agent (also in agent participle); aspect (in tensemood-aspect) abessive ablative accusative adverbial (supporting) clause action active additive clitic adessive adhortative adjective-forming suffix, adjective adjectivizer adposition additive (short illative, North Estonian) adverb-forming suffix, adverb, adverbial adverbial case allative action noun, action nominal anaphoric pronoun animate anterior aorist agent participle active past participle

ABBREVIATIONS xi

apr aprp art assoc attr aug aux ben cap car caus cc clt cmp cmpl cng cngII cnj co cocl coll com comp cond conj cons cont contr cop cr cs cvb cx d dadj dat datl deb def del der des dest det detr dim dist distr

approximative active present participle article associative attributive augmentative auxiliary benefactive captative caritive causative; causative case (Moksha) copula complement clitic comparative complementizer connegative connegative II (Moksha) conjunction coaffix complement clause collective comitative comparative case conditional conjunctive consecutive continuative contrastive tense-mood series copula connective-reciprocal noun copula subject converb case suffix possessee deverbal adjective dative dative-lative debitive definite delative derivative suffix desiderative destinative determiner detransitivizer diminutive suffix distal distributive

xii ABBREVIATIONS

div dp du dur dya e egr ela emp enc ep equ ess evi ex exc f fact foc freq fut gen gfs ger hab hort hypot idf ill imm imp inch incp ind indf ine inf infda infer infma infvat ins insf insist inst int inter interj

diverse discourse particle dual durative dyadic evidentiality; extension (obligatory argument) egressive elative emphatic enclitic epenthetic (linking) vowel equative essive evidential existential exclamative focal clause (South Saami); centrifugal index set (Hungarian) factitive focus, focal frequentative future genitive general finite stem gerund habitual hortative hypothetical indefinite (see ips impersonal) illative immediate imperative inchoative inceptive indicative indefinite (pronoun) inessive infinitive da-infinitive (North Estonian) inferential ma-infinitve (North Estonian) vat-infinitive (North Estonian) instructive (also instrumental), instructive adverb instructive-final insistive instrumental, instrumental-sociative intensive interrogative interjection

ABBREVIATIONS xiii

io ipfv ips irr iter itr juss lat lex lim lla loc m mc mdl mod mom mult n narr nec neg nmlz nom npst nsg num o obj obl oblig oc of opt ord p part pass pej perl pfv pl plc pn po pol pos

indirect object imperfective (aspect) impersonal (see idf indefinite) irrealis iterative intransitive jussive lative lexical verb limitative lative-locative-ablative locative middle indexation series (Enets); mood main clause middle modal momentaneous multiplicative nominal narrative necessitive, necessive negative nominalizer nominative non-past non-singular (dual or plural) numeral direct object of verb, object objective oblique obligatory objective conjugation object focus (Yukaghir) optative ordinal patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb; centripetal index set (Hungarian) partitive passive pejorative perlative perfective aspect plural place holder proper name postposition polarity particle positive

xiv ABBREVIATIONS

poss pot ppc ppp pptcp prec pred pref prf pri pro prob prog proh prol pros prox prp prpl prs prt prt1 prt2 pst pst1 pst2 ptcl ptcp purp px r q quot rc rec ref refl rel rep res restr s sc sem sep sf sg sim

possessive, possession, possessor potential perfect (active and passive) participle passive past participle past participle precative predestinative aspectual prefix (see vp) perfect tense prior (time) pronoun probabilitive progressive prohibitive prolative prosecutive proximal present (active) participle predicative pluralizer present tense preterite first preterite tense second preterite tense past tense first past tense (Mari) second past tense (Mari) particle participle purposive possessive suffix possessor question particle quotative relative clause reciprocal referative construction reflexive relativizer reportative resultative restrictive subject of intransitive verb; subject indexation series (Enets) subjective conjugation semelfactive separative subject focus (Yukaghir) singular simultaneous

ABBREVIATIONS xv

sodu sopl sosg sta stress sub subj subl sup supe supet supl supp t temp term top tr tra tran uniq val vblz vcc vcs vn voc vp vcar Vda Vma Vtav Vmatu

dual object in subject–object indexation series (Enets) plural object in subject–object indexation series (Enets) singular object in subject–object indexation series (Enets) stative stressed form (of a pronoun) subitive subjunctive sublative supine superessive superessive-terminative superlative suppositive tense temporalis case, temporal converb terminative case, terminative converb topical transitive, transitivizer translative transitive (case) universal quantifier multifunctional valency derivation, valency verbalizer verbless clause complement verbless clause subject verbal noun vocative verbal particle verbal caritive verb in the da-infinitive form (North Estonian) verb in the ma-infinitive form (North Estonian) verb in the form of the present passive participle (North Estonian) deverbal caritive adjective with the suffix -matu (North Estonian)

SYMBOLS Symbol

Explanation

Example

-

precedes inflectional suffixes

Hungarian háza-t house-acc = accusative singular of ház ‘house’; Moksha šarakəd-ś begin.to.spin-prt1.3sg third-person singular first-preterite form of verb šarakəd- ‘to begin to spin’

|

precedes derivational suffixes

Hungarian |s as in háza|s house|adj ‘married,’ Surgut Khanty |čəɣ augmentative, (15.5.1.2); Udmurt mitigating |ales (13.6)

xvi ABBREVIATIONS

=

precedes enclitics; coarticulation of words

Hungarian ház=is ‘house, as well’ (orthographically: ház is); South Estonian ma = i = tiaq 1sg neg know.cng ‘I don’t know’ (9.4)

+

separates the elements of a compound; separates a verbal particle from the verb

North Estonian seene+`supp mushroom+soup ‘mushroom soup’; Mari ʃym+mokʃ heart+liver ‘innards’

&

separates reduplicated elements

Hungarian lim&lom ‘junk,’ Moksha akšə&akšə white&white ‘extremely white,’ Udmurt gord&gord red&red ‘very red’

^

precedes theme (see introductory chapter, 1.5.1.1)

Finnish ^loppe in lopp|u(-) ‘end N/V,’ lope|tta- ‘to end tr,’ Hungarian ^for in for|og- ‘to turn itr,’ for|d|ul- ‘to turn once itr’

>

in glosses: separates subject from object

3sg>3sg third-person singular subject, thirdperson singular object; 1sg>du first-person singular subject, dual object

surrounds a grapheme; also separates the parts of a discontinuous morpheme

the letter ‘ess’; the IPA character ‘esh’; mə>-lɑns ä̆wət-təɣ verb ä̆wət- followed by zero pasttense suffixˌ followed by suffix təɣ, which cumulatively expresses 3sg subject acting on singular object (Surgut Khanty); (iv) Finnish [ˈkoi.ra] (1.2.1)

{}

enclose feet (Skolt Saami); enclose morphophonemes

{västt}{led} (7.6.1); Tundra Nenets nasalizable {h} (19.3)

$

syllable boundary (in Nganasan, 17.3)

sə$ə ‘heart’ (17.3.1)

[]

enclose phonetic transcription

Finnish [pɑp̄p̆i : pɑp̆in] (1.2.4)

//

enclose phonemic transcription

/-rś-/, /-ŕś-/ (Moksha) (11.3.2)

'

palatalization of the preceding consonant

South Estonian pal'l'o ‘much’ (9.4)

(.)

short pause

South Estonian ja (.) tap'-i-va and kill-pst3pl ‘and they killed’

(. . .)

long pause

South Estonian jahh (. . .) toda andass küll yes that.part give.ips.prs ptcl ‘yes, they are giving it’ (9.14)

ABBREVIATIONS xvii

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS aff. arch. ais avd avs coll. der. dial. Elfd. Est. FE Fi., Fin. Hu., Hung Ing. Kar. lit. Liv. Lud. M nEst Nfin Nor. PFi PKh PKomi PMari PMd PMs POU PPerm PSaa PSam PU PUdm Q1 Q2 Q3 Ru. S SaaS. SEst., sEst Swe. TE TN Vot. Vps. W x

affective archaic aorist-imperative stem voiced alternating voiceless alternating colloquial derivational dialectal Elfdalian Estonian Forest Enets Finnish Hungarian Ingrian Karelian literally Livonian Ludic mood North Estonian nonfinite Norwegian Proto-Finnic Proto-Khanty Proto-Komi Proto-Mari Proto-Mordvin Proto-Mansi Proto-Ob-Ugric Proto-Permic Proto-Saami Proto-Samoyed Proto-Uralic Proto-Udmurt first quantity degree second quantity degree third quantity degree Russian strong grade South Saami South Estonian Swedish Tundra Enets Tundra Nenets Votic Veps weak grade cover symbol for glottal management in Finnish

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO FINNISH AND HUNGARIAN Daniel Abondolo and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi

1.1  THIS VOLUME 1.1.1 Purpose and outline This chapter aims to introduce the rest of the book: it rapidly surveys the names of the Uralic languages and their speakers’ numbers and gives broad characterizations of the nine branches of the family; it then goes on to sketch in outline some of the phonological and lexicogrammatical features we think most interesting, problematic, suggestive, and instructive. We also introduce some of the theoretical conventions that we have found most useful in characterizing these languages, casting our terminology into a quasi-Dixonian framework (for which see Dixon 2010a, 2010b, 2012). In presenting our account of what we take to be characteristic or salient Uralic features, we have not striven to be homogeneous, and we have focussed far more on some topics than on others, leaving some topics virtually unexplored despite their importance and points of fascination (e.g. pronouns and other deictics, subordination and coordination). We have also tried to keep bibliographic references to a minimum. In Chapter 2, Tapani Salminen outlines the linguistic units of which the family is currently constituted, with remarks about designations, degrees of endangerment, sociolinguistics, and revitalization measures. The focus then turns to the past: in Chapter 3, Mikhail Zhivlov presents an up-to-date, step-by-step outline of the prehistory of Uralic consonants and vowels, with remarks on reconstructable morphology, while in Chapter 4 Stefan Georg scrutinizes various attempts at establishing prehistoric connections between the Uralic family and its likely (and unlikely) long-range relatives. Chapter 5 presents a highly personal perspective on the history of the field by Péter Simoncsics, who frames it in terms of the wider European political and intellectual background (cf. Stipa 1990 and, for a concise review of the use of the comparative method in Uralic linguistics from an Indo-Europeanist perspective, Winkler 2017). There then follows the bulk of the book. This consists of 15 chapters, each of which sketches the core phonological and morphosyntactic features of a language or language group. Size limitations have meant that we have not been able to include a separate chapter for every language of the Saamic branch; instead, we offer chapters on the westernmost DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-1

2 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

and southernmost Saamic language, South Saami (Chapter 6, by Torbjörn Söder), spoken in central Norway and Sweden, and on Skolt Saami (Chapter 7, by Timothy Feist), representing the eastern group of the Saamic branch. (Detailed information on Saamic and all its varieties is now accessible in Chapters 6 through 13, pages 103‒239, in Bakró-Nagy et al. 2022 well as in Sammallahti 1998). The highly divergent yet close cognates represented by North (Standard) Estonian and South Estonian (Võro) are presented in Chapters 8 (Reili Argus and Helle Metslang) and 9 (Helen Plado, Liina Lindström, and Sulev Iva), respectively. Riho Grünthal offers an overview of the Finnic branch in Chapter 10, and Jack Rueter details the elaborate phonology and superabundant morphology and syntax of Moksha (Mordvin) in Chapter 11. Mari is the subject of Chapter 12, by Jeremy Bradley and Jorma Luutonen, who focus on the eastern (‘Meadow’) language, but also with reference to the western (‘Hill’) standard. In Chapters 13 and 14, Pirkko Suihkonen and Rogier Blokland present the main varieties of the Permic branch: Udmurt and Zyrian Komi. Susanna Virtanen and Csilla Horváth look at North Mansi in Chapter 15, while Márta Csepregi describes an eastern Khanty variety in Chapter 16. The last four chapters to be devoted to language descriptions focus on Samoyedic: from north to south, these are Nganasan (Chapter 17, by Beáta Wagner-Nagy), the closely related Tundra and Forest Enets languages (Chapter 18, by Olesya Khanina and Andrey Shluinsky), Tundra Nenets (with some reference to its closest relative, Forest Nenets, in Chapter 19, by Nikolett Mus), and finally, Selkup, whose southern variety (Ket’) receives treatment in Chapter 20 (by Gerson Klumpp and Josefina Budzisch). The last two chapters of our volume are devoted to two more wide-ranging linguistic topics, namely, relative clauses (Chapter 21, by Ksenia Shagal) and definiteness (Chapter 22, by Merlijn de Smit and Gwen Eva Janda). The volume is rounded off with an index, in which both individual and nested items may be found. In comparison with the first edition—Abondolo (1998); hereafter, TUL1—this second edition is an entirely new book. We do not feel that the first edition is largely superseded, however. Much of the expertise offered by its contributors remains uniquely informative today, and it is hoped that readers will consult the two volumes profitably in tandem. Our suggestion here is that readers will benefit by consulting, for example, Pekka Sammallahti’s Saamic chapter in TUL1 (43‒95) together with Chapters 6 and 7 in this volume on South and Skolt Saami; Gábor Zaicz’s chapter in TUL1 (184‒218) with Chapter 11 in this volume on Moksha; and similar parallels, extensions, and replacements, including the chapters in TUL1 on the branches Finnic, Permic, Ob-Ugric, and Samoyedic. Readers will, of course, also wish to consult the much larger Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages (Bakró-Nagy et al. 2022; hereafter, BLS), not only for its far more extensive coverage, but also for its specialist chapters on broader phonological and grammatical topics. Many chapters in Sinor (1988) and Hajdú (1981) and, indeed, Collinder (1957), also remain uniquely useful. 1.1.2 Geography, demography, and endangerment In terms of numbers of speakers, Uralic languages vary considerably, ranging from Hungarian, with over 12 million speakers, to Forest and Tundra Enets, which, taken together, number no more than 50 speakers, all of whom ‘are over 50 years old and bilingual in Russian, or trilingual in Russian and Tundra Nenets’ (see Chapters 2.40 and 18.1). Several other Uralic languages have speaker numbers which are vanishingly small—for example,

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 3

Livonian, strictly speaking now extinct in the sense that the last first-language speaker has died, is now spoken only by a few dozen second-language speakers (2.12). Yazva Komi (‘East Permic,’ cf. Genetz 1897), whose phonology and lexicon diverge strongly from the rest of Komi (and Permyak), is also highly at risk, with perhaps ∼200 speakers (Salminen 2007). Providing accurate figures for numbers of speakers is challenging because of different degrees of fluency and the ways in which surveys are conducted (see Chapter 2). It should also be borne in mind that a phrase such as ‘speaker of language L’ in most Uralic contexts almost invariably means ‘speaker of language L and at least one other language’; in the Uralic zone, bi- and multilingualism are and were the norm practically everywhere, the only real exception being Hungary since the Second World War (see Laakso 2014). The Uralic family at present counts no more than about 40 to 50 languages, nearly all of which are spoken by fewer than a few thousand people. In terms of speaker numbers, it is therefore a fairly typical family for Eurasia, with a median no higher than 600; Hammarström (2016) calculated a median of 735 for Eurasia as a whole. In terms of number of daughter languages, however, Uralic is a slightly-larger-than-average family: while there are a few families with daughter languages numbering in the hundreds (like AtlanticCongo, with some 1,400; Indo-European, with over 580; Sino-Tibetan, with over 500; and Austronesian, with over 1,200 daughter languages), the overwhelming majority of language families in the world have far fewer. Of the over 400 language families listed at glottolog.org (glottolog.org/glottolog/family), only 22 have more than 50 daughters, and more than half have only 2 or are isolates (languages which are the sole surviving member of their family). Where Uralic excels on a global scale is in terms of geographical expansion. The overland distances over which Uralic idioms have spread are among the greatest worldwide: South Saamic (Dalarna County in Sweden) is spoken some 2,000 miles west of Nganasan (Dudinka, Taimyr). For overland spread, this is of a magnitude comparable with Algonquian or even Algic. Determining the difference between a dialect and a language is based on the criteria of mutual intelligibility, standardization, prestige, the number or combination of unique features (linguistic distance), or the speakers’ own perception (e.g. Chambers and Trudgill 1998). This can lead to a tendency to regard languages that should be separate as one, which can have consequences on division of resources, status, and the speakers’ self-worth. Such cases are Karelian; Livvi and Lude, which have been called ‘Karelian’ (Chapter 2); and Meänkieli and Kven. The latter two are still mostly treated as dialects of Finnish in many contexts although they have diverged from Standard Finnish considerably (e.g. Paunonen 2018) challenging mutual intelligibility. They have official minority language status in Sweden (Meänkieli) and Norway (Kven), they have been codified and have written traditions (e.g. Söderholm 2017; Pohjanen 2022), and the speakers view them as languages and not dialects. But besides number of languages and numbers of speakers, in order to get a sense of the family in a global context, one more kind of quantity needs to be considered, namely, the size of the reliably reconstructable corpus. Janhunen gauged the age of the Uralic family to be relatively high, basing his calculation on a consideration of the twin facts that while the geographical extent of Uralic is enormous, the size of its reliably reconstructed comparative corpus is small (2009, 59). In this connection, note the inverse, from Hammarström (2016, 23): ‘if languages share too little vocabulary we would not accept they are related while if languages share a lot of vocabulary, we do not think the relation is old.’

4 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

Unfortunately, many languages in this vast and old language family are endangered. Reasons leading to the endangerment of Uralic languages are the same as for languages elsewhere in the world (see, for example, Crystal 2014, 89‒119). In addition to environmental factors, disease, and armed conflict that led to the loss of speakers in the colonial past, languages are endangered due to assimilation to the dominant culture and population, whether it be Russian, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Latvian, Romanian, Hungarian, or Estonian. Speakers of Uralic languages switch to the majority language for better job opportunities. They may move to an urban centre, which leads to marriage with a speaker of the majority language, and the child ends up speaking mostly the majority language. The state often does not provide the minority language enough support in education and administration, and children may even be punished for speaking the language in the school system (see, for example, Aro 2018 for Meänkieli) or sent to boarding schools away from their parents (see Grenoble and Whaley 2005, 70‒78, for a general description of the situation in Siberia). The majority language may seem more appealing, and the speakers themselves may hold the minority language in low regard and so not bother to use it or to ensure it is passed on to the next generation. Salminen (Chapter 2) provides an overview of the degrees of endangerment ranging from safe (e.g. Hungarian) to extinct (e.g. Akkala Saami). The degrees in between are ‘definitely endangered’ (e.g. North Saami, Udmurt), ‘severely endangered’ (e.g. South Saami, Livvi), and ‘critically endangered’ (e.g. Tundra and Forest Enets, Pite Saami) (for an overview of endangerment classification systems and a global perspective, see Bradley and Bradley 2019, 14‒37). The key to maintaining or reviving a language is the successful implementation of reclamation and revitalization measures: these can vary from mother tongue tuition in schools and immersive methods like language nests to making the language more appealing to the younger generation through hip-hop and rap (e.g. Ridanpää and Pasanen 2009) and raising the language’s status by establishing a written standard and producing textbooks and other resources. Giving the language official status through the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe 1992), supportive state legislation, or discussing language and identity through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission process (e.g. SOU 2022) are equally important. One should set realistic goals when reviving or reclaiming a language, of which Livonian is a prime example. It had nearly become extinct and now has several second-language speakers who may not be fluent but know about the language and use it symbolically and to identify as Livonians, if not for practical purposes (see Ernštreits 2016). 1.1.3 Branches of the Uralic language family: typological overview and prehistory We reckon with nine branches of Uralic: Saamic, Finnic, Mordvin(ian), Maric, Permic, Hungarian, Mansic, Khantic, and Samoyed(ic). The prehistory of each of these branches has been strongly affected by the different kinds of environments into which the languages expanded: the zone across which Uralic spread was extremely large, but the terrain was not particularly mountainous, and an initial dispersal ca 4,000‒4,500 years ago, starting east of the Urals and ‘initially out of contact with Indo-European,’ seems the most likely (see Grünthal et al. 2022 for a recent and detailed account of when, where, and how this may have taken place; also Nichols 2021). The spread occurred partly as a result of the migration of Uralic speakers, but mainly through language shift, by the earlier inhabitants, to Uralic idioms: the origins of much vocabulary, particularly in Saamic

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 5

and in north Samoyedic, but also to a degree in Permic (Csúcs 2010, 281), will remain obscure because it stems from bilingualism with pre-Uralic languages spoken in the areas into which Uralic moved. Dating the beginning of the Uralic dispersal to ca four and a half thousand years ago is not the same as saying that the protolanguage (Proto-Uralic, PU) is four and a half thousand years old. Before the population explosion of the kind envisaged by Grünthal et al. (2022), speakers of a common yet non-homogeneous Uralic language can only have lived in small hunter-gatherer groups typical of Neolithic technology, separate yet in some partial or sporadic communication with one another east of the Urals, for at least one or two millennia. The contrast between a relatively long-lasting, stable, uneventful stretch of time and a dramatic cultural, demographic, and climatological event should not surprise us, since each is part of a cycle in which the one (equilibrium) is the complement to the other (punctuation); the two have been fused in an ‘adaptive cycle’ model (Hudson 2019, with literature). We may group the reconstructable nine branches of earliest Uralic into three types, on the basis of the manner of their expansion once the initial breakups had occurred (Table 1.1). One kind of expansion, typical of four of the branches (Saamic, Finnic, Permic, Samoyedic), characterizes languages which expanded northwards, probably into less-populous areas. A second kind of group seems to have involved relatively little movement of speakers or language: the Mordvin and Maric branches seem to have remained more or less in the locations they first adopted (Blažek 2013). Finally, a third kind of grouping, namely, that of the Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty branches (Ugric, see following passages), constitutes a special set of problems and questions. We look first at three groups showing language spread northward. At the far eastern end of the family, Samoyedic expanded northward from south-western Siberia (beginning at the latest ca two or three centuries bce, Blažek 2016); at the opposite end, Saamic and Finnic also expanded northward. And toward the centre of the family, Permic also expanded northward, probably relatively late (Janhunen 2020) and from a relatively southerly area, to judge from the high number of Iranian loans copied directly into pre-Permic, for which see now Holopainen (2019). In all three cases, greater internal linguistic diversity among the residual subgroups to the south reflects the older area of settlement, while the languages spoken in the less-populous north show less internal

TABLE 1.1  SCHEMATIC MAP OF THE NINE ATTESTED URALIC BRANCHES. 1 73o Latitude

63o 53o

2

3

**

4

Saa Fi

Mari Md

5 Perm

6 Hung*

7

8

Ms

Kh

9 Nganasan Enets | Nenets Selkup (Kam) (Mat)

* Hungarian speakers to centre on (47º N, 20º E by C10) ** †Merja, †Murom, etc.; see text. Extinct sub-branches in brackets; for difficulties with Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty (numbers 6, 7, and 8), see text.

6 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

differentiation. Specifically, southern Finnic is far more internally diverse than northern (Viitso 1998); in the Permic branch, Komi dialects (with the exception of Yazva) differ among themselves less than do Udmurt dialects, and southern Udmurt dialects show far greater variation than more northerly ones (Csúcs 1990, 12–19). Finally, a perusal of Janhunen (1977) will show that the more southerly attested Samoyedic languages, from Mator through to Selkup, show a greater range of phonological and lexical diversity than the more northerly Nenets, Enets, and Nganasan languages (a glimpse at paradigmatic diversity in this branch is offered by Wagner-Nagy and Szeverényi 2022). The origins of the vocabulary of more southerly Samoyedic languages are relatively easily traced through the reconstructable histories of their linguistic neighbours, but as previously mentioned, the more northerly Samoyedic languages (especially Nganasan) have a great deal of unetymologizable material, due no doubt to borrowing from autochthonous languages which were otherwise absorbed without trace. 1.1.3.1 Saamic and Finnic At the extreme western end of the family, what are clearly two branches today—Saamic and Finnic—may be seen as crystallized, relatively recent nodes emerging from an earlier Fenno-Saamic dialect continuum, with speakers of what came to be Saamic and Finnic varieties expanding slowly northwards no earlier than 3000 years bp, and with FinnoKarelian varieties coming to inhabit the greater part of their present-day areas as recently as the seventh to sixteenth centuries. It now seems clear that Proto-Saamic evolved in the early Iron Age (ca 0‒500 ce) in what is now southern Finland and areas to its east, under Germanic, pre-Finnic, and Baltic influence from the south, as well as under the influence of unknown substrate languages from the north, as was the case with Nganasan (Aikio 2006b, 45). Thanks to the regularity of sound change, we know that Saamic words with certain vowel patterns could not have been in the language before the ‘great Saami vowel shift,’ since that rotation eliminated them (lengthening of low vowels, shortening of long high vowels, diphthongization of mid vowels; see Chapter 3, Table 3.6). Aikio (2004) has scoured the Saamic lexicon for such words and lists several dozens of them, grouping them according to the new, that is, borrowed, vowel profiles which they imply; vocabulary pertinent to northern topography, flora/fauna, and reindeer predominates, for example, giezzi ‘short river between two lakes,’ skier’ri ‘dwarf-birch,’ jiegis ‘bearded seal,’ and giehppi ‘hollow under a reindeer’s lower jaw’ from Proto-Saamic *ie_ē, or ráš’ša ‘high and barren mountain,’ gálva ‘dead birch,’ njálla ‘arctic fox,’ and dábba ‘uppermost marrow-bone in reindeer’s foreleg’ from Proto-Saamic *ā–e̮. To give an impression of phonological and grammatical variety within the Saamic branch, nine cognates are presented in Table 1.2, and Table 1.3 shows the distribution of various uses of the dual number. Finnic (see Chapter 10) is a branch with 11 members: one, Livonian, could be regarded as extinct but is being revived, and two (Votic and Ingrian) are critically endangered; two are newly emerging varieties (Meänkieli in Sweden, and Kven in Norway; see Section 1.1.2). Two state languages belong to this branch, Finnish and (north) Estonian, which both now enjoy official status in their respective countries. South Estonian (Võro and associated varieties; see Chapter 9), which lacks official status, is genealogically further removed from north Estonian than north Estonian is from Finnish (Viitso 1985, 1998, 101; Kallio 2014). Veps has three quite distinct traditional

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 7 TABLE 1.2  LEXICAL MATERIAL IN SAAMIC ‘tree’ 692

‘liver’ 688

‘eye’ 110

‘water’ 115

‘stone’ 380

‘fire’ 1266

‘bow’ 290

‘arrow’ 789

‘needle’ 36

South

muore

muöksie

tjälmie

tjaadsie

giergie

dålle

juokse

njuole

aajmie

Ume

muarra

müeksee

tjal'bmee

tjaahtsee

geäd'gee

tålla

juak'sa

njuolla

àibmee

Pite

muorra

—

tjal'pmie

tjaahtsie

kied'kie

tålla

juok'sa

njuolla

aaj'pmie

Lule

muorra

—

tjal'mē

tjāhtjē

kier'kē

tålla

juoksa

njuolla

ai'mē

North

muorra

—

čalbmi

čáhci

ɡeađɡi

dolla

—

njuolla

áibmi

Inari

muora

—

čalme

čääci

keđɡi

tulla

juoksa

njuola

äjmi

Skolt

muõrr

—

čâ'lmm

čääʹcc

keäʹđɡɡ

toll

johss

njuõll

—

Kildin

mūrr

—

ča̬'l̄m

čāʹʒʒ

kieʹd̄ɡ

tōll

jūʹx̄s

ńūll

—

Source: Adapted from Lehtiranta (1989). Listed here are nine sample nominal roots, with their Lehtiranta numbers; the North Saami is converted to modern orthography. Note that the Saamic words for ‘tree’ and ‘stone’ lack good etymologies outside the Saamic branch; ‘water’ looks affective (*ćäčä) and is probably cognate with Surgut Khanty sȧ ̆ č (VachVasjugan sēč), ‘flood in late summer.’

TABLE 1.3 DEPLOYMENT OF THE NUMBER CATEGORY DUAL IN SAAMIC S

Um

Pi

Lu

N

In

Sk

Kil/Ter/Akk

Pronouns

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

–

Finite verbs

+

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

Person suffixes

–

+

+

+

+

–

–

–

Source: Adapted from Kejonen 2017, 23‒24. Key to Saamic language abbreviations: S(outh), Um(e), Pi(te), Lu(le), N(orth), In(ari) = Aanar, Sk(olt), Kil(din), Ter, Akk(ala).

dialects spoken in three different administrative units, but with a total of some two to three thousand speakers at best (chapter 2.21; Grünthal 2022). Votic is now nearly extinct, but documentation (mainly from the twentieth century) shows it to have had a highly distinctive amalgam of phonological and morphological features, including gradation before secondarily long syllables (e.g. lahsi/lahzõõ nom.sg/gen.sg of ‘child,’ Table 10.7) and a comitative suffix otherwise known only from Finnish, Karelian, and Mordvin (Laanest 1975, 172‒173). One can gain insight into the finely tuned phonological discrepancies among five Finnic idioms from Viitso (1978), where 32 distinct vowel isoglosses are identified for Finnish, East Livonian, (north) Estonian, and Votic. 1.1.3.2 Mordvin and Mari The two language branches Mordvin (number 3 in Table 1.1) and Maric (number 4 in Table 1.1) are of a different kind. These languages seem not to have expanded northward, and they are not particularly close to one another either genealogically or typologically. First, the two Mordvin languages: Erzya and Moksha. These are closely related to one another, and both show considerable dialectal variation; there has also been a great deal

8 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

of dialect mixture. What makes both Mordvin languages stand out from other western ones is their highly elaborated morphology in both verb and noun inflection. The Erzya or Moksha verb indexes object person and number to a degree unparalleled in the rest of the family, and nouns are inflected not only for number, case, and person but also for ‘definiteness’ (Chapters 11 and 22). Most of this morphology looks new: the definite declensions of Moksha and Erzya have clearly developed separately. In published materials, Mordvin dialect diversity manifests itself most clearly in phonology and morphology. As an example of phonological variation, we may consider Erzya dialects with *i > ä, as in Shugurovskij Erzya l’äm ‘name’ (Tsygankin 1961, 298), and Moksha dialects with *ä > e, as in Srednevadskij Moksha l’em ‘broth’ (Devaev 1963, 265). It is thought that the i in Srednevadskij Moksha ‘name’ is the result of secondary raising after *i > *e; if this is so, we presumably have: PU *nimi PU *lämi

> l’ĕm > Erzya dialect l’äm > l’em > Moksha dialect l’im > Moksha standard l’äm > *lǟmi > l’ēmə > Erzya l’em

That is, in ‘type II’ dialects (to use Jackson’s term, 2020, 22), Moksha dialect *l’em ‘name’ rose, pushed by rising *l’ämi ‘soup.’ For variety in Mordvin morphology, we might cite the singular possessive suffixation of jalga ‘friend’ in Erzya and Moksha (Table 1.5). In these forms, Erzya continues the inherited singular-person suffixes *-mi *-ti *-(n)sA. Moksha, in contrast, has innovated forms using demonstratives: we have anaphoric *śə in locuphoric (= speech-act-participant) persons, but distal *t (cf. to|na ‘that’) in nonlocuphoric (third) person, specifically: 1sg *-m-śə > -źə and 2sg *-t-śə > -ćə with the suffix order person + demonstrative, but 3sg *-t-sə > -c, with the reverse order. Oblique case forms show further complexities (see Bartens 1999, 100‒105; see also Chapter 11.4 in this volume and Keresztes 2013, which provides more specifics on Moksha possessive and definite forms). TABLE 1.4  SELECTED VOWEL CORRESPONDENCES IN ERZYA AND MOKSHA DIALECTS PU

M std.

M SV.

E std.

E Shug.

‘name’

*nimi

l’em

l’im

l’em

l’äm

‘broth (M), fat (E)’

*lämi

l’äm

l’em

l’em

l’em

M = Moksha, E = Erzya, PU = Proto-Uralic, M std. = standard Moksha, M SV. = Srednevadskij dialect of Moksha, E std. = standard Erzya, E Shug. = Shugurovkskij dialect of Erzya.

TABLE 1.5  SUFFIXATION OF JALGA ‘FRIEND’ IN ERZYA AND MOKSHA 1sg

2sg

3sg

Erzya

jalga-m

jalga-t

jalga-zo

Moksha

jalga-źə

jalga-ćə

jalga-c

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 9

Mordvin objective conjugation forms show quite a bit of variation both between and within Erzya and Moksha; Keresztes (1999) provides a succinct overview. There was a Saamic–Fennic dialect continuum, but we can also assume common innovations or drift between Finnic and Mordvin. The history of both the phonology and the morphology of the Mordvin languages is closer to branches in the west than in the east (see Grünthal 2007 and 2019 for the morphosyntax; see Chapter 3 for the background to the phonology). Outside of the nominative of the absolute declension, a number opposition has developed in Mordvin only in the subparadigms encoding definiteness, and (partially and depending on dialect) in subparadigms encoding person. For example, Erzya opposes possessive kudo-m house-1sg ‘my house’: kudo-n house-pl.1sg ‘my houses,’ definite kudo-sʲ house-def.nom ‘the house’: kudo-tʲnʲe house-def.pl.nom ‘the houses,’ but absolute kudo-so house-ine is indifferently ‘in a house/in houses.’ 1.1.3.3 Maric Maric was long thought to belong to the same sub-branch of the Uralic genealogical tree as Mordvin, but there is more to separate than to unite these two groupings on nearly all levels of linguistic analysis, and the search for a reconstructable node has proven sterile. While Mordvin patterns with the branches to the west, Maric is flooded with influences from the east and south: the break in typological and lexical continuity between the two groups is obviously to be associated with the linguistic asteroid belt occasioned by the loss of the idioms known as Merja, Murom, and Meščera (Rahkonen 2009) and may be attributed to early language loss, shift, or both. It must also be connected with joint pressures from Volga Bulgarian (and, later, Chuvash) as well as from various forms of Tatar and, of course, Russian. What Maric does belong to is the now commonly recognized Volga–Kama linguistic area (on which see Bereczki 1983; Helimski 2003, 159‒160; Bradley 2016). This is a convergence area of which (besides Mari) Chuvash and Tatar are also central members and to which Udmurt, Komi-Permyak, and Bashkir are more peripheral. That Maric in the not-too-distant past exhibited considerable phonological variation is evident in the painstaking reconstruction of the vocalism undertaken by Aikio (2014). Differences in vowel harmony rules and in stress assignment and mobility not only between west (Hill) and east (Meadow) Mari but also within these language groupings point to a complexity that was already substantially eroded by the end of the Second World War. It is noteworthy, for example, that earlier spirants (velar [ɣ], interdental [δ], bilabial [β]) have now been largely replaced with Cyrillic-inspired spelling pronunciations (Chapter 12.3). For the student of syntax, Mari offers the richest supply of Uralic data illustrating the behaviour of converbs. In this language (as amply documented in Bradley 2016), converbs may function not only as free adverbials (malen kajəʃ sleep.cvb go.pst1.3sg ‘s/he spent the night and left’) and as the subordinated predicates of complement clauses (CoCl, malen kerteʃ sleep.cvb can.prs.3sg ‘s/he can sleep’) but also as constituents of verb pairings that calibrate various kinds of aspect, with or without indexing of path and other variables such as autobenefactiveness. Note the delimitatives (here and throughout the volume we write verb stems with final hyphen) malen ertarə- sleep.cvb carry.on ‘to sleep through,’ malen nal- sleep.cvb take ‘to have a nap,’ as well as pairings such as malen koltə- sleep.cvb let.go ‘to fall asleep,’ malen tem- sleep.cvb fill.up ‘to get enough

10 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

sleep,’ malen koδ- sleep.cvb stay ‘to not wake up,’ malen koδə- sleep.cvb leave ‘to oversleep and so miss.’ The distinction between adverbial, support-clause function, and these more lexicalized pairings is not always easy to draw; in a verb sequence such as malen kəńel- sleep.cvb rise, we might be tempted to see the converb as simply a temporally subordinated predicate, but the construction is extremely frequent in narratives, where it describes a typical act of getting up in the morning, after a night’s sleep. Despite the pioneering of Räsänen (1920) and (1922), the lexicon of Maric has still not been given the scrutiny it deserves, partly because it is only recently that the necessary preliminary work of discerning and sorting the various kinds of Iranian and Turkic has begun (Culver 2020, 61). Saarinen (2020, 339) reports that the Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch (= Moisio and Saarinen 2008) gives no origin for 1,575 (ca one third) of its entries. Although a sizeable minority of this vocabulary could be of affective/descriptive origin, there are probably also several layers of loans as well as inherited items. As an example of the latter, cf. Aikio (2014, 83‒84), where Proto-Uralic *mp > Maric -w- is accounted for, linking east Mari lewe ‘warm’ with, for example, Finnish lämmin/lämpimä- ‘warm,’ Nganasan d’eŋhia ‘clothes,’ and Tundra Nenets yemp|əs- ‘dress itr/tr.’ Collating of the Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch with Beke (1997) will be a welcome next step. 1.1.3.4 Permic Here again we have a south-to-north spread, like Fenno-Saamic in the west and Samoyedic in the east. And again, there is greater diversity in the southern varieties, with contacts that are more diverse (and doubtless clearer to us because the contact languages are better known than those of the north). Most of the Udmurt, Permyak, and Komi varieties are typologically quite similar and share cognate word stems and suffixes numbering well over 1,500 (Saarikivi 2022, 31, following Csúcs 2005). This typological self-similarity includes (1) nearly identical vowel and consonant inventories (albeit with divergent stress patterns and with complex and multiple sets of correspondences; see 3.5.5 for details); (2) identical or similar phonological processes in identical or parallel domains (Geisler 2005); and (3) broadly similar syntax (but see Bartens 2000, 228‒264 and 329‒348, for several smaller divergences). Permic seems to lie at the centre of a raggedy kind of Sprachbund that is larger than the Volga-Kama one mentioned earlier in connection with Mari. This larger and much looser—and older—contact area includes not only Maric and Permic but also (to lesser degrees) Mordvin and Ugric (and for intimations of a similarly large areal grouping to the east, see Katz 1975). Shared features which suggest shared innovations, whether due to a shared node or to parallel drift, include an increase in the monosyllabicity of roots (but without much of the preservation of second-syllable features, as in Estonian or eastern Saamic), and there has been a notable amount of lexical and syntactic borrowing (see Helimski 2003; Austerlitz 1985 explores various issues connected with the difficulty of reconstructing Permic in precise detail and reckons with back-eddying migration and dialect borrowing). The main difficulty with Permic is not its validity as a node; it is clear that the languages are closely related. Rather, the difficulty is that in order to account for the vowels of Udmurt/Komi cognates, recourse must be made to both large vowel protosystems and highly complex series of sound changes, the conditions for many of which remain unclear. Nevertheless, progress is being made, and in particular, questions about the

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 11

relative chronology of various changes to the shapes of Permic stems will need to be examined anew now that the field is less committed to tying Permic firmly to a ‘Finno-Permic’ node (see 3.1 in this volume). For example, although it is a commonplace to think of Permic nouns as having lost their second-syllable vowel, the truth is much more complicated than that. Csúcs (2003) is probably correct in most details in ascribing the additional j of a large set of Komi noun roots to a hiatustilger (= a glide to preserve sequences of vowels): in inflected forms of nouns which had lost their second-syllable vowel in the nominative, old CVCV-C sequences were reinterpreted as CVC-VC, but in stems which had not yet undergone this apocope, the vowel-initial shape of these suffixes triggered an epenthetic glide, CVCV-VC > CVCVj-VC. Thus were born, by a process of exaptation, two sets of vocabulary, one which had undergone full apocope early (and thus lack the j-alternation) such as ‘mouse,’ with Komi nom šɨr, ill šɨr-ɘ, and the other, whose second-syllable vowel survived long enough for a hiatustilger to be required in what was felt to be a sequence of stem-final and suffix-initial vowels, as in ‘nest,’ with nom poz (< *pozə), ill pozj-ɘ < *pozəjə < *pozə-ə(k). Another way to say this is to say that the second-syllable vowel of *pesä ‘nest’ was not truly ‘lost’ until it was elided when sandwiched: *CVCCV > CVCCV. All this was complicated by the fact that some Udmurt cognates seem to have added a derivational suffix; cf. words like *lumi(-) ‘(to) snow,’ *wanča ‘root,’ *tulka ‘feather’ (3.7). In the PPerm lexicon, new vocabulary arose, much of it borrowed from Iranian or Volga Bolgar languages; semantically, this layer is relevant to animal husbandry, agriculture, textiles, house-building, and rudimentary metallurgy, all involving technologies well beyond those known in PU times, for example, PPerm words for ‘horse,’ ‘foal,’ ‘mane,’ ‘reins’; ‘seed,’ ‘awn,’ ‘rye,’ ‘barley’; ‘wool,’ ‘spinning wheel,’ ‘shuttle’; ‘wall,’ ‘wedge’; and ‘iron,’ ‘tin/lead,’ ‘coals,’ ‘whetstone’; but new societal terms also make their first appearance at this time, for example, new words for ‘widow,’ ‘stepmother,’ ‘brother,’ and ‘character’ (Csúcs 2005, 315–317). A fairly clear break may be discerned between Udmurt, with hundreds of Volga Bolgar (and later Chuvash) loans, and Komi, whose speakers had already begun to move northwards in the last millennium, with only a few dozen (Csúcs 2005, 311‒312). The Chuvash loanwords found only in Permyak and Udmurt (but not Komi) belong to a later layer adopted after the tenth century. Inherited vocabulary is not evenly distributed: Csúcs (2005, 309) found 225 words of pre-Permic origin in Komi that lack Udmurt analogues, but in Udmurt, only 91 such words have no pendants in Komi; it would be edifying to sift these two sets of vocabulary qualitatively, in terms of meaning, form, and cognate distribution outside Permic. As for Permic lexis without etymology, it is quite large: Csúcs (2005, 313) estimated roughly 500 Permic words to be of unknown origin. 1.1.3.5 Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty: Ugric We come now to the most difficult branch (or, as we shall see, branches). The languages involved—Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty—have traditionally been viewed as forming a node Ugric, with two lower nodes, Hungarian and Ob-Ugric. However, more recently, the higher node has been questioned, each of these three language groups being assigned to its own branch. (For innovations more or less clearly shared by a putative Ugric branch, see 3.1 and 3.5.6 in this volume, and Honti 1998, 353‒355). No Uralic language resembles Hungarian particularly closely. The causes for this are history, geography, and demography, that is, time, space, and people; cf. Häkkinen’s false

12 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

divergence (2012). As its speakers migrated westwards, Hungarian not only underwent a long period separate from other forms of Uralic; it was also in long and intimate contact with a large and idiosyncratic selection of Iranian, Turkic, Slavonic, and other languages otherwise not in contact with the Uralic language area. In the Hungarian lexicon, many new words, both borrowed and internally innovated, have replaced older Uralic stock; for example, the original words for ‘neck,’ ‘moth,’ ‘rope,’ ‘fish scales,’ ‘to row,’ ‘to chew,’ and ‘to spit,’ all well represented in daughter languages elsewhere in Uralic (including Mansi and Khanty), have left no trace in Hungarian. Grammatically, Hungarian has taken on a Standard Average European (SAE) profile in many ways (Haspelmath 2001), and its phonology is in many ways Danubian (Balázs 1983). The Turkic components of the Hungarian lexicon are both substantial and also highly various (but their number has also been exaggerated: contrast Róna-Tas and Berta 2011 with Honti 2017). On the other hand, no Uralic language resembles Hungarian more closely than Mansi. This fact is mildly surprising, because as previously mentioned, Mansi is usually assigned, with Khanty, to the Ob-Ugric branch, and the Ob-Ugric branch, in turn, is traditionally described as consisting simply of Mansi and Khanty. But some of the similarities between Mansi and Khanty—such as their parallel use of separately innovated transitive verbs of possession (Surgut Khanty tăj- 16.10, Sosva Mansi oːńś- 15.16)—look more like the results of convergence than shared inheritance. What is more, some of the features cited by Honti (1998, 352‒353) as shared innovations, and thus as putatively indicative of a common Ob-Ugric node, are even more likely to have been induced by contact. Examples are the parallel use but different morphological makeup of objective conjugation forms and the recruitment of heterogenous but phonologically similar suffixes to flag the agent in passive constructions (Mansi lative, Khanty locative, the former from a postposition, the latter from the Proto-Uralic locative *-nA). If what we take to be an Ob-Ugric node is the result of convergence, this convergence must have begun rather early, although it may well have continued even after the beginning of the Khanty dispersion eastward along the Ob’ and its tributaries (and it is obvious that north Mansi and north Khanty varieties have undergone considerable, relatively recent convergence, cf. the history of the vocalisms outlined in Honti 1984, 19‒23 and in Abondolo 1996, 7‒16). On the other hand, it has long been recognized that Mansi presents with a number of features which seem to align it more closely with Hungarian than with Khanty. The evidence is not compelling, only suggestive: (i) There is *r rather than *l in the word for ‘three’ (Hungarian három, Sosva Mansi xūrəm, as opposed to Finnish kolme and Surgut Khanty kōɬəm), but this could be a sporadic change, or to do with the following nasal, or reflect dissimilation from the subsequent numeral *neljä ‘four.’ (ii) There are parallels in the makeup of the Hungarian and Mansi 1sg and 2sg pronouns: in the 1sg nominative, we have Hungarian én and Proto-Mansi *äm, both with loss of initial *m (compare Finnish minä and Surgut Khanty mǟ). This loss was perhaps through fausse coupe of syntagms, in which a verb form indexed for 1sg subject (*-m) preceded the free pronoun, and this *-m m- sequence underwent degemination. The accusative forms in both Mansi and Hungarian are built with a coreferential person suffix: Hungarian engë-m 1sg-1sg and tégë-d 2sg-2sg, exactly like Sosva Mansi ān-um and năŋ-ən. This accusative formation is again in contrast to that of Khanty, where the accusative is built with -t to an n-extended stem in all but

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 13

the north-westernmost varieties, for example, Surgut mǟn-t, Nizyam mān-t. These Khanty forms are reminiscent of more westerly Uralic forms like Finnish acc minu-t and north Estonian gen.acc m(in)u, Eryza/Moksha gen.acc moń. There is a further piece of evidence in favour of a shared Hungarian-Mansi innovation if the gë component of Hungarian engëm and tégëd is indeed a relic of a Proto-Uralic noun *ket ‘image, face’ (Helimski 1982, 96; Honti 1993a, 125‒126; Aikio 2006a, 17‒19); cf. parallel accusatives in the now-extinct Tavda (South) Mansi TJ (= Janytškova Tavda) ɛm|kə·-m, nüŋ|kü·-n). This root is attested as such in western languages (e.g. Finnish kesi, stem kete-, now current in the compound orvas+kesi ‘epidermis’; standard Erzya and Moksha ked’ ‘hide’) and in Samoyedic (Janhunen 1977, 70 *kit1), but again, not in Khanty. (iii) A suffix (or stem?) *moni is used in the names of various decades in Mansi, Hungarian, and Komi (see under numerals at 1.3.2.1) (iv) There is a shared self-designation: magyar/megyer for the Hungarians, māɲš́ i for the Mansi, from an Iranian loan or loans with *ä; magyar is either a back-vocalic, suffixed pendant or a compound; on its final r as a plural suffix see Janhunen 2017; see also Holopainen 2019 and Róna-Tas 2017. These and other points of similarity led Janhunen (2020) to propose a node Mansic, by which he meant a language ancestral not only to the Mansi varieties but also to Hungarian: ‘The internal differentiation [of Mansi and Khanty] would seem to presuppose an early mediaeval time, while the separation of Hungarian from [Proto-]Mansi must have taken place much earlier, that is, in the Bronze Age or early Iron Age’ (Janhunen 2020, 362). This is an idea which has not caught on, but we shall pursue it briefly here. The scenario might run as follows: assuming that there was a Ugric node, (i) this first split into (Janhunen’s) Mansic vs. Khanty. Varieties of this Mansic, whose speakers had equiculture, borrowed separately the antecedents of ‘whip’ from an Iranian language or languages (Holopainen 2021; Mansic must have been of short duration, like Italo-Celtic, cf. Cowgill 1970, 114). (ii) Mansic then split into Proto-Mansi and Proto-Hungarian, and speakers of Proto-Hungarian migrated away to the south and west, forming military (and bilingual) alliances and even coalitions with (mostly) Turkic-speaking groups. Finally, (iii) Proto-Mansi then converged ‘back’ toward Khanty, to a greater degree in western varieties of that language (cf. Schmidt 1987). In connection with this scenario, one should recall that any truly full account of the prehistoric background of the Ugric languages will have to be able to explain or at least throw more light on the (earlier) status of the Khanty (traditionally) exogamic phratries, named in Sherkaly Khanty mɔ̄ś (stem mɔ̄ńś-) and pŏr (both words were apparently borrowed into Mansi, cf. Sosva Mansi mɔ̄(ń)ś and pŏr). Steinitz (1980) characterizes Khanty and Mansi traditional society, taken as a whole, to be ethnographically one, a unity which is transcended, however, by an overarching division into these two real and symbolic groupings. And so there are problems with having a Ugric node. On the one hand, if Khanty is a member of a Ugric node, it must have separated long before Janhunen’s Mansic split into pre-Hungarian and pre-Mansi, and this separation must a fortiori be (much) older than the subsequent convergence of pre-Mansi with pre-Khanty. Thus Saarikivi’s (2022, 57) adjudication: ‘If there is such a thing as Proto-Ugric, it is, without doubt, even older than Proto-Samoyedic.’ On the other hand, highly varied loan relationships between Mansi and Khanty point to intense and protracted cultural contact before the eventual

14 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

differentiation, in the modern era, into least four distinct Mansi varieties and even more varieties of Khanty. Whether or not they form a single node, Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty are usually said to have undergone the most restructuring of their declensional paradigms, albeit in opposite directions. Hungarian has increased its paradigm size the most; often, its case inventory is reckoned to be over 20. The Ob-Ugric languages, on the other hand, have diminished their stock of case suffixes, with the smallest systems in the northern varieties of both Mansi and Khanty. In all three language groups, however, there are possible traces of Proto-Uralic genitive *-n and accusative *-m. For example, a nominative singular form like Hungarian szëm-ëm eye-1sg ‘my eye’ could easily descend from an earlier accusative (such as *ćilmä-m-mə eye-acc-1sg), and the parallel form szëm-ëd eye-2sg ‘your eye’ is even more likely to have had such a background, namely, *ćilmä-m-tə eye-acc-2sg, with perfectly regular *mt > d, as in *kurmV|mtV > harma|d three|der ‘one third,’ cf. 3.5.6; the most obvious parallel in a European context is the widespread generalization of accusative forms in the Romance languages. Parallel forms in the Ob-Ugric languages such as house-1sg/2sg in Sygva Mansi kŏl-əm/-ən (Kálmán 1976, 31) and Surgut Khanty kūt-ə̂m/-ə̂n could equally well conceal an earlier accusative *-m- to the left of their person suffixes. For conjugation in Ugric, see 1.4.3. 1.1.3.6 Samoyedic Samoyedic is not only the easternmost branch of the Uralic language family but is, in all likelihood, also the branch that split away first from the protolanguage. But its subsequent breakup and differentiation need not have been so very long ago; typologically and lexically, the various Samoyedic languages are diverse, but no more so than those of, say, the Romance or Germanic groups in Indo-European. Regardless of the date we assign to Proto-Uralic, that is, whether we place it at four or six millennia BP, it seems safe to assume separation of Proto-Samoyedic ca 2500 BP and the beginning of a spread of Samoyedic forms of speech northwards, with concomitant differentiation, ca 1500 BP. The phonotactics of Proto-Samoyedic consonants differed in several noteworthy ways from those of the branches to the west; the branch is also markedly richer in both moods and modalities and evidential categories (see Wagner-Nagy and Szeverényi 2022, 661– 662 and 667–668). We close this section by reprising the nine Saamic cognates (introduced earlier at Table 1.2), aligning them with possible counterparts in the two other northward-tending branches, Permic and Samoyedic. In the table (Table 1.6), only the reconstructed protoforms for each branch are adduced: Proto-Saamic (PSaa), Proto-Samoyedic (PSam), and Proto-Permic (PPerm). Forms and glosses are adapted from Lehtiranta (1989), Janhunen (1977), and Mikhail Zhivlov’s PPerm (Chapter 3 of this volume, which should be consulted in examining this table). Five of the nine sets of vocabulary in Table 1.6 (‘liver,’ ‘eye,’ ‘fire,’ ‘arrow,’ and ‘needle’) are unproblematic cognates, with few, if any, unsettled details. As noted in connection with Table 1.2, Saamic has replaced the Uralic word for ‘tree,’ and the Saamic word for ‘water’ has a probable cognate only in Khanty, but the more widespread term (*weti) occurs in all the other branches. Words for ‘stone’ seem to have been unstable, and the Permic reflex given here (*+ki) is attested only as the second member of a compound

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 15 TABLE 1.6  PROTO-SAAMIC, PROTO-SAMOYEDIC, AND PROTO-PERMIC PARALLEL VOCABULARY

PSaa PSam PPerm

‘tree’

‘liver’

‘eye’

‘water’

‘stone’

‘fire’

‘bow’

‘arrow’

‘needle’

*mōrə̂ *pä/a *pu

*mōksē *mɨtə̂ *mus(k)

*će̬ lmē *sə̂jmä *śin(m)

*ćāćē *wit *wå

*kɛ̄δkē *pə̂/åj *+ki

*tole̬ *tuj *ti̬ l

*jōkse̬ *ɨntə̂ —

*ńōle̬ *ńe/e̬j *ńe̬l

*ājmē *(n)ejmä *ejm

(iz+ki, in which iz(-) is the more common Permic word for ‘stone,’ and as a verb means ‘grind’). Finally, we note that Permic has lost the old Uralic term for ‘bow’ (and also for ‘bowstring’), along with some other hunting terminology, perhaps most noticeably the hypernym for ‘fish.’ 1.2  PHONOLOGY: TRANSCRIPTION AND PARTI PRIS The purpose of this section is to give a quick introduction to the methods of transcription used in this volume. On the whole, the symbols are standard IPA, sometimes with slight modifications; they have been selected in terms of a crude surface phonology, guided by (mainly) articulatory phonetics, as outlined in Catford (1977) and (2001), and in Gick et al. (2013). For the vowels, ‘reversed e’ is used to write a close (or ‘upper’) mid central unrounded vowel, IPA [ɘ], as in Komi kɘv ‘rope.’ A high central unrounded vowel is written with ‘barred i,’ as in Komi kɨv ‘tongue, language,’ but a high back unrounded vowel is written with i-diaeresis and normally not with ; this latter symbol is usually eschewed in this volume because it can be misleading, as it has often been used to write various rounded central mid or high vowels. Similarly, ‘ram’s horns’ have not been used to write unrounded back mid vowels, as in many fonts the glyph used for this symbol is easily confused with gamma (= voiced velar fricative IPA ); we use instead the symbol , in parallel with our spelling of the unrounded central (or back) high vowel. (We should note here that no Uralic language distinguishes central vs. back unrounded vowels at the same phonological tongue height.) The reduced vowel of Tundra Nenets may be written with , , , superscript , , or not at all. For example yempəsə-dəq get.dressed-imp.2sg ‘get dressed!’ may also be written yemposødoq, spelling out the full vs. reduced, stress-conditioned renderings of this vowel (as at Salminen 1997, 105) or in any of a variety of transliterations of Cyrillic . Depending on the chapter concerned, length in vowels is transcribed either with the IPA length mark after, or with macron over, the symbol; thus, Tundra Nenets long (or ‘stretched’) ú may be transcribed with or , and Hungarian szabadság ‘freedom’ would be transcribed as [sɒbɒt͡ːʃaːɡ]. In this introductory chapter, we depart from tradition in writing out explicitly the quantities of both Mansi and Khanty vowels, so for example, we write both the Surgut Khanty and Sosva Mansi words for ‘nail, claw’ with micron (kö̆ṇč, kŏs) and both words for ‘fish’ with macron (Surgut Khanty kūɬ, Sosva Mansi xūl). Mansi/Khanty correspondences may then be compared with greater convenience, for example, Sosva Mansi/Surgut Khanty ‘wave’ with ŭ ː ū (xŭmp/kūmp) but ‘raven’ with ŭ : ɔ̄ (xŭlax/kɔ̄ɬəŋk).

16 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

Length in consonants may follow IPA practice, as in [sɒbɒt͡ːʃaːɡ] earlier, or where greater detail is required, the consonant symbol is written geminate and the relevant quantities are singled out individually, for example, for North Estonian, both macron and micron may be used, as in `kappi ‘cupboard (ill)’ [kɑp̄p̆ i] vs. kappi [kap̆p̆ i] ‘cupboard (gen)’ and the short singleton of kabi [kap̆i] ‘hoof,’ cf. 8.3.3. All authors have striven to distinguish, where possible, palatal from palatalized speech sounds, but differences in the articulatory parameters used to describe and denote these sounds vary somewhat from practitioner to practitioner. In general, we write for a voiced palatal lateral approximant, and for a voiced palatal nasal, and we write for voiceless and voiced palatal stops with no (or minimal) friction release. We follow IPA convention in using superscript to write palatalized consonants, for example, , but note that the oral stoppage in such instances, usually apical, can range from dental through the prepalatal zone. Apostrophe is also widely used to write palatalization over letters with ascenders, for example, in Moksha (Table 11.3). But when we discuss palatals and palatalization in connection with the median (non-lateral) fricatives and their corresponding affricates, we are in a different world. Here the active and passive articulators are not in contact, and as a result, pinpointing their locations and postures is not so straightforward. For Uralic languages, the most salient distinction among these sounds is one that in our opinion is least ambiguously conveyed by the auditory-based terms hissing vs. hushing. Among the latter, the sounds written with IPA vs. are here both interpreted as voiceless laminal hushing fricatives, the chief difference between them being taken to be one of secondary articulation: , as in Polish sierp ‘sickle’ [ɕerp] and Mandarin Chinese 心 xīn ‘heart’ [ɕin˥], is palatalized while is not. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996, 164) refer to these Polish and Chinese sounds as ‘laminal palatalized post-alveolar (alveolo-palatal) ɕ.’ Numerous factors complicate the description of hushing sounds, including the nature of the obstacle (upper vs. lower teeth) and whether or not a sublingual cavity is involved; even sibilants can be ‘tongue-tip-up’ or ‘tongue-tip-down’ (Johnson 2003, 127). We agree, therefore, with Catford (2001, 158‒159) that a reasonable substitute for would be . Neither nor is therefore strictly and simply ‘palatal’: the strictly and simply palatal fricative, when voiceless, is written as IPA [ç], and we can map these three median laminal fricatives along a front-to-back continuum, from ‘palato-alveolar (‘domed’)’ through ‘palatalized alveolo-palatal’ to palatal (cf. Pullum and Ladusaw 1996, 33). A palatal cannot be palatalized, but the s(h)ibilants can, and alongside palatalized hushing (= ), there are also varieties of apical, hissing palatalized , as in Russian синь [sʲinʲ] ‘blue,’ Tundra Nenets syíqwo ([sjiʔĭ w] сиʺив) ‘seven,’ or Northern Estonian põsk [pësjk] ‘cheek.’ On hissing vs. hushing in a Komi-Permyak context see Kochetov and Lobanova (2007). In all cases, both the editors and their contributors have sometimes resorted to mixed transcription practices, either because it serves to clarify a point or, more commonly, because we have wished to preserve the transcription used by the source. Thus, the mid central unrounded Komi vowel which is usually written in the book as will occasionally be cited with (Unicode 00F6) in keeping with the source, which uses this letter to transliterate the Cyrillic (Unicode 04E7). Similarly, the ultrashort pronunciation of the Tundra Nenets short or reduced vowel may be written with , , or nothing, in keeping with the source or tradition on which the chapter (or example) draws; a further example is the Tundra Nenets word for ‘old (inanimate),’ which can be written ńewxī

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 17

(Hajdú 1966, 107) or nʹew°xi° (Nikolaeva 2014, 170), or, as here, just nyewəxiə, assuming that the user is familiar with the morphophonemics. Problems of devising comparable transcriptions are addressed in Kümmel (2007), which offers an overview of consonant inventories and sound changes attested in a range of Semitic, Indo-European, and 32 Uralic languages. 1.2.1 Vowels and stress In both Finnish and Hungarian, primary word stress is on the first syllable. In Finnish, secondary stress is said to occur on following odd-numbered non-final syllables, as in ˈnau.tis.ˌkel.laan ‘let’s enjoy,’ ˈsuo.ma.ˌlai.nen ‘Finnish, Finn,’ ˈkoi.ra.ˌnul.koi.ˌlut.ta. ˌja.lle ‘to a/the dog-walker,’ but if the odd-numbered syllable ends in a short vowel, the stress moves to a following heavy syllable, as in ˈta.paa.mi.ˌses.ta meeting-ela (VISK 2004, §13). A similar distribution of secondary stresses is usually posited for Hungarian, as in the accusative and elative of ‘Africa’ (ˈAfrikát, ˈAfriˌkából), but with secondary stress on the fourth syllable in ˈagyoncsiˌgázott ‘over-worked’ and ˈjó.a.ka.ˌró.ja well. wisher-3sg. Particular construction types such as majd elˈfelejtëttem ‘I almost forgot!’ and compounds complicate the picture in both languages (see Nádasdy and Kálmán 1994; Nádasdy 2004; Varga 2002; Simonyi 1903, 36). Across the family, most languages have mainly word-initial primary stress, with trochaic patterning in longer words, that is, secondary stresses on non-final odd-numbered syllables. This description is valid generally for Saamic and Finnic (where syllable weight can complicate the picture, as illustrated previously) as well as Mansi and some varieties of Khanty (but see Filchenko 2007). Toward the centre of the family, Mordvin and Mari varieties vary considerably with regard to stress patterns. Eastern Mari is often described as stressing the last full vowel, for example, masˈka ‘bear,’ but ˈpurə ‘good,’ ˈkudə|mʃo ‘sixth’; note, however, that final reduced vowels are often secondarily pronounced as full (ˈpuro). If the word contains no full vowel, stress retracts to the first syllable: ˈpələʃ |dəme ear|car ‘earless (= deaf)’) (12.3). Complications arise in connection with loanwords (and not only recent Russian ones, for example, teŋˈɡe ‘ruble’ is a Tatar loanword) and because certain (mostly derivational) suffixes attract the stress (e.g. negative gerund in -de). Alhoniemi (1985, 18) described free variant stress in certain inflected forms, such as kiˈδ-emlan ~ kiδ-em-ˈlan, both hand-1sg-all ‘to my hand.’ Hill Mari is generally stressed on the penult (e.g. ˈmöska ‘bear,’ ˈpurə̂ ‘good’), although certain suffixes attract the stress (e.g. comparative 'yʃtə̈ ‘cold’ > yʃtə̈'ræk ‘colder’), while others never count as ultima, that is, do not play a role in the syllable count: ˈəʃkal-βlæ ‘cows’ (Krasnova et al. 2017, 67), puˈʃæŋɡə-βlæ-m tree-pl-acc (79), ˈkuδə|mʃə ‘sixth’ (200), kuɣuˈza-βlæ-ʃtə-læn uncle-pl3pl-dat ‘to their uncles’ (88). The stress can retract from a reduced to a full vowel: ˈkiδəʃtə hand-ine (49), but ʎæˈzəræ ‘watery’ (59). Udmurt word stress is primarily final, with systematic morphological exceptions, for example, imperatives ˈkoʃkɨ ‘go!’ negatives ug ˈkoʃkɨɕkɨ ‘I’m not going,’ affective reduplicatives ˈč́ ilčil ɕɘd ‘blackest black’ (13.3; Geisler 2005, 154); in Komi, word stress is primarily on the first syllable (14.3.3.2), while Komi-Permyak dialects exhibit complexly varied patterns of stress assignment connected with derivational vs. inflectional suffixation (Batalova 1982, 39‒49). Yazva Komi stands out for its historically determined stress assignment. Under most suffixation, stress (which we write here with acute accent) remains on the high vowels /i ʉ u/ if they originate in high mids, for example, jím-ʌn needle-inst, sús-ʌn sleeve-inst, vʉ́r|a forest|adj (compare Komi standard jem-ɘn, sosk-ɘn, vɘr|sa, all with first-syllable

18 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

stress), but roots containing /i ʉ u/ that continue earlier high vowels lose the stress to a following suffixal vowel, for example, ńim-ʌ́n name-inst, śur-jʌ́z horn-pl, tʉj-ʌ́n road-inst (compare Komi standard ɲim-ɘn, ɕur-jas, tuj-ɘn, again all with first-syllable stress). The ordinal-forming suffix attracts the stress despite its ʌ vowel, for example, kvim|ʌ́t ‘third,’ as do a number of verb-deriving suffixes, such as semelfactive |ʌ́lt-, for example, várt-nʌ strike-inf ‘to strike’ but vart|ʌ́lt-nʌ strike.sem-inf ‘to strike once’ (Lytkin 1961, 60, 70). On the status of Yazva Komi in the twenty-first century, see Tsypanov (2009, 207‒224). inventories 1.2.2 Vowel Finnish has eight vowel phonemes (Table 1.7). Vowel length is distinctive, for example, takka ‘fireplace’ : taakka ‘burden,’ yielding an [8+8] inventory; Suomi et al. (2008, 20) provide an eight-member set of minimal-pair short vowels in inflected forms. The quality of short and long vowels is nearly identical, with the exception of the mid vowels, which are more open when long. All long vowels are frequent in the first syllable apart from the mid vowels, which appear mostly in loanwords, for example, sooda ‘soda,’ teema ‘theme,’ Töölö (place name); earlier long mid vowels have diphtongized, for example, suola/liemi/syötti ‘salt/broth/bait,’ cf. northern Estonian sool/leem/sööt. Before clusters of (short) resonant plus long obstruent, however, only short vowels occur, for example, pirtti ‘cabin, cottage,’ kontti ‘birchbark knapsack.’ In later syllables, the long vowels appear mainly in inflected, derived, or borrowed words, for example, sata-a rain-3sg ‘it’s raining’ (contrast sata ‘hundred’), talo-on house-ill ‘into a house’; tarpee|llinen need|adj ‘necessary’ (nom.sg tarvex); poliisi ‘police,’ mysteeri ‘mystery.’ Hungarian has a vowel inventory which is superficially almost identical to this, with a [7+7] system exploiting three tongue heights, frontness/backness, and lip-rounding in the front vowels (Table 1.8). The main orthographic difference is that the long vowels are TABLE 1.7  FINNISH VOWEL PHONEMES PRECEDED BY GRAPHEMES SHORT AND LONG VERSIONS ARE SEPARATED BY COMMAS. Front

Back

Unrounded

Rounded

Close

i /i/, ii /iː/

y /y/, yy /yː/

Mid

e /e/, ee /ɛː/

ö /ø/, öö /œː/

Open

ä /æ/, ää /æː/

Unrounded

Rounded u /u/, uu /uː/ o /o/, oo /ɔː/

a /ɑ/, aa /ɑː/

TABLE 1.8  HUNGARIAN VOWEL PHONEMES PRECEDED BY GRAPHEMES SHORT AND LONG VERSIONS ARE SEPARATED BY COMMAS. Front Unrounded

Rounded

Close

i /i/, í /iː/

ü /y/, ű /yː/

Mid

(ë /ɛ/) é /eː/

ö /œ/, ő /øː/

Open

e /æ/

Central

Back

(Unrounded)

Rounded u /u/, ú /uː/ o /ɔ/, ó, /oː/

á /a̘ː/

a /ɒ/

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 19

written with an acute diacritic (or doubled diacritic, as in for long /øː/); the main phonological difference is that the long vowels written and differ dramatically from their short counterparts and that Hungarian long mid vowels are pronounced slightly higher than their short counterparts, that is, the reverse of their Finnish analogues. Worthy of note is a 15th Hungarian vowel /ɛ/, that is, not /æ/, written with in dialectological and musicological texts; it is fairly widespread but not recognized as standard, but its distribution in the lexicon is fairly uniform, and it is included here because of its usefulness to description and reconstruction. There are also marginal phone(me)s in a few deictics (e.g. arra [ˈɒː(r)rɒ] ‘in that general area/direction,’ balra [ˈbɒː(r)rɒ] alongside [ˈbɒrrɒ] ‘to the left’), and for a great many speakers, short vowels undergo lengthening in specific phonotactic and morphotactic positions (e.g. asztal-t [ˈɒstɒːlt] table-acc, contrast asztal-ok table-pl [ˈɒstɒlɔk]). It is not clear in what way these phenomena are connected with the well-known length alternation affecting the high vowels, as in ír [ˈiːr] ‘s/he writes’ : irat [ˈirɒt] ‘document.’ The Hungarian standard language does not recognize two e vowels, but morphophonemically, they are quite distinct (and they are written in Table 1.7 as /ɛ/ and /æ/). Standard Hungarian 1e corresponding to (dialectal) /æ/ has back-prosodic vowel harmony alternant /ɒ/ (contrast front-prosodic szűr-nek filter-3pl ‘they filter’ with back-prosodic szúr-nak stab-3pl ‘they stab’), and it alternates paradigmatically with /é/ (verebe-t sparrow-acc. sg vs. veréb sparrow.nom.sg). Standard 2e (corresponding to dialectal /ɛ/) has as vowel harmony alternants /ö/ and /o/ (as in the plural and allative suffixes when attached to ‘heretic,’ president,’ and ‘orator,’ viz. eretnek-ëk-hëz, elnök-ök-höz, szónok-ok-hoz, a triad which we may cover with the symbol , thus: -3k-h3z -pl-all), and it alternates with its long counterpart /é/ only in a restricted set of morphemes (more on vowel harmony below). This state of affairs mirrors the behaviour of stress-repelling and stress-retaining high vowels in Yazva Komi, mentioned previously, and has a consonantal counterpart in the ‘two’ glottal stops of Tundra Nenets (19.3). The Finnish vowels differ even more notably from those of standard Hungarian in that they combine to form 18 diphthongs. (In many Hungarian dialects, however, diphthongs commonly replace long mid vowels, for example, the /é/ of szép ‘beautiful’ is either closing [ˈei] or opening [ˈie], Fazekas et al. 2002, 9.) The Finnish closing diphthongs are ei öi äi oi ai, ey öy äy, and eu ou au. Diphthongs with high vowels transitioning from rounded to unrounded (or the reverse) are yi ui and iy iu. (The non-low front vowels /i e y ö/ do not readily combine unless agreeing in [+/–] roundedness, Karlsson 1982, 84.) The opening diphthongs are ie yö uo (a recent development, originating in long mids and occasioning the aforementioned relative rareness of these, cf. Finnish vieras ‘guest’ vs. Ingrian vēras ‘strange,’ Estonian võõras ‘stranger’). Other combinations of vowels are regarded as belonging to different syllables, for example, the combination ea in vai.ke.a ‘difficult’ and io in ra.di.o ‘radio.’ Perhaps the most characteristic difference between the Finnish vowel system and those of other Finnic languages is that Finnish has lost what must have been an older back unrounded vowel (and which survives, for example, in Estonian õ; see 9.2.1; 10.2.1). Finnic /ö/ is always secondary and is prominent in affective-descriptive and foreign vocabulary (Austerlitz 1994), but Hungarian /ö/ is older, stemming usually from PU *ü or *wi; the long equivalents of these vowels have quite different origins (3.5.1 and 3.5.6.1). Seen in Uralic perspective, the Finnish and Hungarian vowel inventories, with [8+8] and [7/8+7] vowels respectively, are slightly on the generous side. Many more languages

20 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

in the family have fewer vowel distinctions, for example, Erzya with five (i e a o u); Moksha, Udmurt, and most varieties of Komi with seven (Yazva Komi substitutes rounded central /ʉ ɵ/ for standard /ɨ ɘ/) (12.3.1, 14.3, 15.3.1); or Skolt Saami with nine (7.2). Some languages with well-developed quantitative oppositions (in the first syllable, at least) are not much larger than this, for example, Northern Mansi, with ten vowels, five short (ĭ ĕ ă ŏ ŭ), and five long (ī ē ā ō ū), and much of Northern Khanty, with nine or ten vowels, for example, reduced (ĭ ŭ ə ŏ ă) and full (ī ū ē ɔ̄ ā) in the Ust’-Sobskij subdialect (Nikolaeva 1995, 23). Other languages achieve their moderately substantial inventories by exploiting the short/long or full/reduced opposition less extensively, for example, Tundra Nenets with short or plain (i e a o u), plus three longer, ‘stretched’ peripheral vowels (í ú ǽ), and a reduced vowel now usually written or according to its prosodic prominence (20.3). In parallel fashion, Mari languages have eight and nine full vowels (i ü u e ö o a plus schwa in Meadow Mari; Hill Mari adds a front full /ä/ and a front schwa /ə̈/) (13.3), and there is, or was, considerable variety in traditional dialects (see Aikio 2014, 125‒157). 1.2.3 Vowel systems: vowel harmony and other alternations Both Finnish and Hungarian vowels are distributed in accordance with broadly similar systems of vowel harmony, whereby back and front vowels do not normally occur in the same non-compound word. The phonetically front vowels /i/ and /e/ are phonotactically neutral in both languages in the sense that they can combine with both groups within a word, for example, Finnish sika ‘pig’ and silmä ‘eye,’ Hungarian zafír ‘sapphire’ and zëfír ‘zephyr.’ Straightforward examples are Finnish talo-ssa house-ine ‘in a house,’ päivässä day-ine ‘in a day’; ruotsa|lainen Sweden|adj ‘Swedish,’ venä|läinen Russia|adj‘Russian’; talo=kaan house=enc ‘neither the house,’ metsä=kään forest=enc ‘neither the forest,’ and Hungarian datives singular of ‘summer’ and ‘winter,’ nyár-nak summer-dat and tél-nek winter-dat, kár|os damage|adj ‘harmful,’ szél|ës edge|adj ‘sharp’; Hungarian enclitics is and së(m) do not harmonize: the orthography has erdő së, ház së ‘neither forest nor house.’ The two languages differ, however, in the inflectional and derivational morphology of roots containing these (non-distinctively) front vowels. When inflected, Finnish roots like hiiri ‘mouse’ and etsi- ‘to seek,’ which contain no vowels other than /i/e/, function as front-vocalic words, for example, hiire-stä mouse-abl ‘about a mouse,’ mene-vät go-3pl ‘they go.’ In derivation, however, roots having only these vowels can take back-vowel variants of derivative suffixes, for example, noun men|o go|N ‘course, ride,’ and from verb kiittä- ‘to thank,’ we have derived noun kiit|os ‘thanking, thanks,’ from itke- ‘to cry’ we have noun itk|u ‘crying,’ kerj|ät- ‘to beg,’ but noun kerj|uu ‘begging.’ Doublets do occur, usually with semantic differentiation, for example, niitt|o ‘reaping,’ niitt|y ‘meadow’ both from niittä- ‘to mow, to reap.’ Hungarian inflection has a few dozen root shapes which, abstracted from their paradigms, have ambivalent prosody (on Hungarian vowel harmony in general, see the recent Rebrus and Törkenczy 2021). As an example, we may take the nominals 1ír ‘Irish’ and 2ír ‘balm,’ which take front vs. back suffixes, for example, ír-ből Irish-ela ‘out of Irish’ but ír-ból balm-ela ‘out of balm.’ Such superficially subminimal pairs as front-vocalic színes ‘in colour’ vs. back-vocalic inas ‘sinewy’ are a different matter: they are not a problem in an approach which reckons with morpheme structure, since in the latter form the root ends in a low vowel to which certain suffixes are sensitive (compare the accusatives

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 21

szín-t vs. ina-t). This rather simplified picture is made more complicated by loanwords, including some old ones (like Hungarian templom house of worship,’ with [æ]), and the partitives singular of Finnish veri ‘blood’ and meri ‘sea,’ which show back vocalism in the partitive (ver-ta, mer-ta) but take front-vowel endings otherwise (e.g. inessive forms vere-ssä, mere-ssä). Both Finnish and Hungarian are typically Uralic in that they have larger sets of vowel oppositions in the first syllable than in subsequent ones. Many of the restrictions in vowel inventories in non-first syllables are due to vowel harmony, but not all: in Hungarian, for example, the short midvowels (ë ö o) do not occur word-final in nominals or verbs. Across the family, various kinds of vowel harmony, both root-or-stem-internal and suffixal, are quite widespread, although vowel harmony is vestigial or absent in many of the languages because of either reduced vowel inventories in non-first syllable, as in northern Estonian (8.3.1) or northern varieties of Khanty (e.g. Nikolaeva 1995, 35), or else major changes to the vowel system (as in Saamic: see Table 3.6 ‘Saami vowel shift’), or both (Permic: see 3.4.5, and Klumpp 2022, 476‒477). Tundra Nenets preserves traces of vowel harmony in optional doublets of certain inflected forms, such as syí-wən(y)a hole-pros ‘through the hole’ (Salminen 1997, 66; see also Wagner-Nagy and Szeverényi 2022, 662). To paint the picture with broad typological strokes, we can say that at one extreme there is the relatively straightforward type of vowel harmony seen in Finnish, in which inflectional suffixes containing vowels with distinctive frontness/backness conform to the root or stem to which they are attached (or welded; cf. Haspelmath 2021), as in the -a/ä (which we may abbreviate with majuscule of the back-vocalic pendant: -A) of the Finnish inessive suffix in -ssA seen in talo-ssa, päivä-ssä cited earlier; other pairs are the non-low u/y (U) and o/ö (O) occurring in derivational suffixes such as |mUs (|mUksE) in sopi|mus, elä|mys ‘agreement,’ ‘experience’ (from verbs sopi- ‘to agree,’ elä- ‘to live’), |O in jak|o, läht|ö ‘distribution,’ ‘departure’ (from verbs jaka- ‘to distribute,’ lähte- ‘to depart’), and |iO in nouns ol|io, el|iö ‘being’/‘organism’ (cf. ole- ‘to be’). Hungarian has a richer set of such harmonic vowel pairs, with u/ü a/e (and their long equivalents ú/ű á/é, as well as ó/ő) all occurring in both inflection and derivation, as illustrated by forms of the verbs vár- ‘to (a)wait’ and kér- ‘to request’ (Table 1.9). The Hungarian two-way alternation o/ö seems to function only in derivation, and then sporadically. Elsewhere in Uralic, the system closest to this Finnish and Hungarian type is perhaps that reported for the easternmost varietes of Khanty, where we seem to have similarly regular alternating vowel pairs; we have, for example, Vakh Khanty back/front (u a ə/ö̆ ə̈ ä ə̈) vocalism in the vowels of the verb forms qūŋt-∅-aɣən climb-pst-3sg ‘s/he climbed’ vs. nö̆rə̈ɣt-∅-ägə̈n run-pst-3sg ‘s/he ran’ (Tereshkin 1961, 114, also 17‒19; see more recently Vorobeva and Novitskaya 2020). Surgut varieties of Khanty attested at the end of the nineteenth century still showed some evidence of vowel harmony, but it is now no longer productive: păɣ-am son-1sg ‘my son,’ kö̆t-äm hand-1sg ‘my hand’ (Paasonen and Donner 1926; note emerging complexity in present-day Surgut Khanty, with allomorphy of a different distribution 16.4.1). Hill Mari is also largely similar, with back/front low a/ä and front and back schwas ə̈/ə (12.6). Yazva Komi and some peripheral dialects of Udmurt (e.g. Kukmor in Csúcs 2005, 33) are described as having similar qualitative inventories but without the systemic feature of vowel harmony. Hungarian and Eastern Mari vowel harmony is also slightly more complex in that the opposition [+/− rounded] is also involved. The rules of selection have opposite priority in the two languages: on the one hand, we have in Hungarian front [+/− rounded] ö/ë

22 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI TABLE 1.9  HUNGARIAN HARMONIC VOWEL PAIRS 1pl.p.ps = FIRST PERSON PLURAL SUBJECT, CENTRIPETAL; 3pl.f.pt = THIRD PERSON PLURAL SUBJECT, CENTRIFUGAL (FOR THE MEANINGS OF ‘CENTRIFUGAL’ AND ‘CENTRIPETAL,’ SEE SECTION 1.3.3). suffix(es)

root

translation

vár-

kér-

1pl.p.ps

-Unk

vár-unk

kér-ünk

‘we (a)wait/request’

3pl.p.ps

-nAk

vár-nak

kér-nek

‘they (a)wait/request’

3pl.f.pt

-t-Ák

vár-ták

kér-t-ék

‘they (a)waited/requested him/her/it’

1pl.f.cd

-n-Ók

vár-nó-k

kér-n-ők

‘we would request him/her/it’

act.ptcp

|Ó

vár|ó

kér|ő

‘(the one) (a)waiting/requesting’

versus back, non-distinctively rounded o in the nominative and accusative forms of ‘ox/ twin/bush,’ namely, ökör/ikër/bokor vs. ikr-ët/ökr-öt/bokr-ot, while we have rounded [+/− front] ö/o versus front, non-distinctively unrounded e in the Eastern Mari active participle suffix -ʃö/o/e (Table 13.5) seen in pört|šö / pušt|šo / nal|še ‘buyer/killer/taker’ from the verbs pört- ‘to buy,’ puʃt- ‘to kill,’ nal- ‘to take.’ Roots that are homophonous on the surface but have different harmonic prosodies, like Hungarian 1,2ír ‘Irish’/‘balm’ (mentioned earlier), occur also in Nganasan, cf. 1,2hon‘to possess/to plait’ (17.3.2). But vowel harmony has been extensively distorted in this language so as to become, to a large degree, unpredictable: at least one wave of palatalization and various vowel mergers and rotations (*ɨ/ü > i,*e > ɨ, *ä > e, and later, *u > ü as well as *ö/o > u, *å > o) have partially replaced the old front/back harmony with a new, crypto-labial one. We can see this, for example, in allomorphs of the 3sg suffix on nouns: PU front unrounded *pesä has become back-vocalic but retains its illabiality, its 3sg being back unrounded -δɨ (hɨtɨ-δɨ, from PU *pesä-(n)sä; contrast Tundra Nenets pyidya-da). Conversely, PU back unrounded *joŋsi ‘bow’ has come to have surface front vowels in its stem but has labial prosody, its 3sg suffix being back rounded -δu (d’intə-δu, from PU *(j)oŋsi-(n)sa: contrast Tundra Nenets ŋinə-da, and note the [iː] of Hungarian íj ‘bow,’ which retains its back-vowel prosody in inflected forms like acc.sg íja-t). A further wrinkle may be found in what Rédei (1987, 48) termed syllabic synharmony and Viitso (1987, 305) called group harmony. Here we see prosodies which are shorter than the phonological word yet which exhibit features reminiscent of vowel (and consonant) harmony. Examples are Erzya pleophony, which, in a manner reminiscent of the synchronic alternations of east Mari’s reduced vowel ə (12.3), replaced harmonically neutral schwa with [+/–] back, [+/–] rounded full vowels, specifically: front/back alternants are occasioned by [+/–] palatal(ized) consonant(ism)s, as in Erzya inessives -so/-se (kal-so/kalʲ-se fish-ine/willow-ine, contrast Moksha kal-sə/kalj-sə, where the difference is at most subphonemic, or in the reverse scenario, [+/–] palatalized consonants are occasioned by front/back vocalisms (the ‘vestigial’ vowel harmony mentioned above), as in Tundra Nenets allomorphs of locative -xən(y)a, for example, po-xəna/nyo-xənya yearloc/door-loc from Proto-Samoyedic back-vocalic *po vs. front-vocalic *nö (3.4.3). Finally, yet another kind of alternation has occasionally been subsumed under vowel harmony, one which might be better termed a kind of vowel copy (sometimes called ‘transglottal harmony’), such as that of the Finnish illatives tie-hen/yö-hön/suo-hon

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 23

road-ill/night-ill/bog-ill, with exact copy of the vowel preceding the /h/ segment. Later in the word, this /h/ is generally lost, yielding long vowels in non-first syllables, as in the example talo-on house-ill cited previously, from earlier *talo-hon; compare other illatives such as kesä-än kesä-ill (< *kesä-hän) and omena-an apple-ill (< *omena-han). This kind of vowel copy seems always to involve short or reduced, often epenthetic, vowels; these also often occur either side of glottal stop, as in Tundra Nenets waqwə [waʔaw] ‘bed’ and tyuqəyə [t’ʉʔʉj] ‘upper’; in some Tundra Nenets dialects, this phenomenon is a regular concomitant of alternative aorists of obstruent-final stems, as seen in the extrashort copied vowels i and e of myiʔ i-wə give-aor-1sg>s ‘I gave it,’ maneʔe-wə beholdaor.1sg>s ‘I beheld it’ (Hajdú 1966, 59; Salminen has -ə- for -ŋa- here: 1997, 100). One can also compare, in Lule Saami, the extra-short vowels in so-called grade III clusters (Ylikoski 2022, 135), where extra-short [e a o] break up the clusters of the nom.sg forms of dárbbo ‘need,’ girjje ‘book,’ and gålmmå ‘three,’ yielding [tarapuo] [kirejie] [kolomo]. A similar sort of behaviour is found either side of /x/ in Tundra Nenets (19.3; see also Janhunen 1986, 38 and Salminen 1997, 33). On vowel harmony in Finnish, Hungarian, and elsewhere, Anderson (1979) is particularly rich in detail and original in analysis. 1.2.4 Consonant inventories and systems: gradation and other alternations Finnish has no firmly established opposition of voice in its core vocabulary and is unique in the family in having a consonant paradigm with no opposition of palatalization or palatals (Table 1.10). Note that the velar nasal /ŋ/ appears not only before /k/, for example, vanki [vɑŋ̄k̆i] ‘prisoner,’ but also intervocalically as a long geminate, as in the plural of this word, where the final closed syllable conditions gradation, viz. vangi-t [vaŋ̄ŋ̆it] prisoner-pl ‘(the) prisoners.’ In addition to the consonants in Table 1.9, /b/, /g/, /f/, and or /ʃ/ occur in much foreign-origin lexis (e.g. baari ‘bar,’ gorilla ‘gorilla,’ fani ‘fan,’ shakki ‘chess’) and colloquial (or slang) vocabulary (e.g. futis ‘football,’ bailat- ‘to dance,’ diggat- ‘to like’). The voiced marginal sounds may be pronounced as [p] and [k], for example, [pɑ:ri] instead of [bɑ:ri]. The voiced stops /b/ and /g/ may also be used in foreign words due to hypercorrection or by accident (e.g. logopedia ‘logopedy’ may be pronounced [logobedia]) or affective purposes (e.g. English piece becomes biisi [bi:si] ‘song’ in Finnish slang) (VISK 2004, §6). The sound /d/ appears in many loanwords, for TABLE 1.10  FINNISH CONSONANT PHONEMES PRECEDED BY GRAPHEMES THE GLOTTAL STOP IS NOT REPRESENTED IN THE ORTHOGRAPHY. Labial

Dental/Alveolar

Nasal

m /m/

n /n/

n(g) /ŋ/

Plosive

p /p/

t /t/ d /d/

k /k/

Fricative

v /ʋ/

s /s/

Glide

Palatal

l /l/

Trill

r /r/

Glottal

/Ɂ/ h /h/

j /j/

Lateral

Velar

24 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

example, dinosaurus ‘dinosaur,’ budjetti ‘budget,’ as well as affective vocabulary, such as dödö ‘underarm deodorant’; in domestic vocabulary, it represents the standardized form of the weak grade of /t/, for example, katu ‘street’ : kadulla ‘on the street.’ The Finnish stops /p/, /t/, and /k/ are subject to various qualitative and quantitative alternations known as consonant gradation, triggered by both phonological and grammatical contexts. Fortis (‘strong’) grades generally occur before open syllables (including long vowels), as in Englanti ‘England,’ Englanti-in England-ill ‘(in)to England,’ englanti|lainen England|der ‘English(man),’ englanti-a English-part. Lenis (‘weak’) grades generally occur before closed (short) syllables, as in Englanni-ssa England-ine ‘in England,’ Englanni-n England-gen ‘England’s.’ Parallel forms with the alternation ntt : nt are vintti ‘attic,’ vintti-in attic-ill, vintti|mäinen attic|der ‘attic-like,’ vinti-llä atticade, vinti-n attic-gen. A simplified schematic representation of the consonant gradation system can be found in Table 1.11. There is a fair number of systematic exceptions to consonant gradation in Finnish, including foreign vocabulary and slang (e.g. rööki : rööki-n cigarette-gen ‘cigarette (coll.)’) and many given names (Roope : Roope-n ‘Robert’; note äidi-n ‘a mother’s’ but Äiti-n ‘Mum’s’). Analogy appears to be at work in weak grades, such as anno-i-n give-pst1sg ‘I gave’ (cf. anna-n give-prs.1sg ‘’I give’), but more complex paradigmatic pressures may be divined in forms such as the parallel part.pl forms with weak grade, kaupunge-i-ta ̆ ̄ ̆ ejɑ/ city-pl-part ‘cities.’ Pos̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ versus strong grade, kaupunke-j-a /kɑūpuŋk /kɑūpuŋŋeitɑ/, sessive suffixes, that is, person suffixes on nouns, regularly fail to trigger gradation despite their syllable-closing phonotactics, for example, kieli+oppi-mmex language+learning-1pl ‘our grammar’; compare verb opi-mmex learn-nonpst.1pl ‘we learn’ with homophonous stem. There is some dialectal variation in the realization of glottal stop and related phenomena (including gradation), but gradation is general before the suffix of the singular

TABLE 1.11  GENERAL PATTERNS OF CONSONANT GRADATION IN FINNISH (SIMPLIFIED) Strong

Weak

Examples (nominative and genitive singular -n)

/kk/

/k/

rakas : rakka-n ‘dear’

taakka : taaka-n ‘burden’

/pp/

/p/

opas : oppaa-n ‘guide’

soppa : sopa-n ‘soup’

/tt/

/t/

ratas : rattaa-n ‘wheel’

aitta : aita-n ‘granary’ tapa : tava-n ‘way’

/p/

/ʋ/

havas : hapaa-n ‘fishnet mesh’

/t/

/d/, in dialects /r, l, ð, ø/

keidas : keitaa-n ‘oasis’

seita : seida-n (Saami sacred place)

/k/

/‘∅,’ j, ʋ/

kiuas [kiūŭas] : kiukaa-n ‘heap of stones in sauna’

sika : sia-n ‘pig’ luku : luvu-n ‘figure, chapter’ reki : reḛ-n ‘sled’ vaaka : vaaa̰-n ‘scales’

/mp/

/mm/

kammas : kampaa-n ‘comb’

rampa : ramma-n ‘cripple’

/nt/

/nn/

kinnas : kintaa-n ‘mitten’

rinta : rinna-n ‘breast’

/ŋk/

/ŋŋ/

kangas : kankaa-n ‘heath’

lanka : langa-n ‘thread’

/lt/

/ll/

allas : altaa-n ‘basin’

valta : valla-n ‘power’

/rt/

/rr/

harras : hartaa-n ‘pious’

parta : parra-n ‘beard’

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 25

imperative and the connegative, for example, ota-[k] kahvi-a! take-imp coffee-part ‘have some coffee!’ with geminated /kk/ and gradated /t/, compare strong grade /tt/ (and concomitant non-geminate k) in hän otta-a kahvi-n s/he take-3sg coffee-gen/acc ‘s/he’ll have a coffee.’ We use x-superscript in this chapter as a cover symbol for the effects of glottal management occurring in such contexts; for details, see Ogden (2001). A closer look at some of the phonetic detail reveals a clear complementary distribution of what are called, in a mild misnomer, ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ gradation. ‘Quantitative’ gradation never entails changes in consonant quality; rather, it involves the alternation of long stops (which are intervocalically [p̄p̆ t̄t̆ k̄k̆]—but between a liquid, nasal, or high vowel and any following vowel [p̄ t̄ k̄]—with their short analogues [p̆ t̆ k̆]). Thus, in the contrasting singular nominative and genitive forms pappi : papi-n [pɑp̄p̆i : pɑp̆in] clergyman : clergyman-gen and opas : oppaa-n [op̆ɑs : op̄p̆ɑːn] guide(book) : guide(book)-gen, the quantitatively alternating consonantisms are unchangingly bilabial stops, and the length of the stoppage is determined by phonological and morphological features of the following syllable. ‘Qualitative’ gradation, conversely, never involves changes in distinctive quantity. Rather, it involves alternations among differing consonants—including zero. So for example, we have short /p/ alternating with short /v/ ([p̆] : [v̆]) in tapa : tava-n manner : manner-gen and in varvas : varpaa-n toe : toe-gen in environments parallel to those cited earlier. Short /k/ retains its brevity in all of its various qualitative alternants (other than zero). Compare the forms in Table 1.12. The very brief glide filling the intervocalic gap in sian [sijɑn], genitive of sika ‘pig,’ is shorter than that of sijan ‘place gen’ [sijɑn]. For more on quantity in Finnish and on its interaction with gradation, see Fromm (1982, 39‒59) and Karlsson (1982, 52‒163). TABLE 1.12  GRADATION OF A SHORT /K/ ‘pause’

‘magic’

‘tip, top’

‘fishing rod’

‘foot’

‘pig’

k̆ : ŭ

k̆ : ĭ

k̆ : ĭ

k̆ : ŋ̆

nom.sg

taūk̆o

̆ taī ka

kär̄ k̆i

oŋ̄k̆i

gen.sg

taūŭo-n

taī ĭ a-n

kär̄ ĭ e-n

oŋ̄ŋ̆e-n

k̆ : ∅ jal̄k̆a

k̆ : ∅ sik̆a

jal̆∅a-n

TABLE 1.13  HUNGARIAN CONSONANTS

Nasal Stop Fric. Affric. Glide

Labial

Dental/ Alveolar

Palalatal

Velar

m

n

ɲ

–vd

p

t

c

k

+vd

b

d

ɟ

ɡ

–vd

f

s

ʃ

+vd

v

z

ʒ

–vd

͡ts

͡tʃ

+vd

d͡z

d͡ʒ j

Glottal

h

si∅a-n

26 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

Consequently, one may reckon with a core inventory of 13 consonant phonemes for Finnish. In sharp contrast, Hungarian, which has voiced obstruents and both dental/palatal and hissing/hushing pairs, distinguishes 23 consonants (Table 1.13), nearly all of which enjoy wide distribution in the word and in texts. Minimal and especially subminimal pairs abound, for example, faggat [fɒɡːɡɒt] interrogate.prs.3sg.p : fagott [fɒɡotː] ‘bassoon.’ Comments on Table 1.13: The ‘labials’ /f v/ are labiodentals. Note especially the rich coronal zone: Here the nasals (n : ɲ) and the stops (t : c, d : ɟ) are clearly apicodental vs. laminopalatal, the latter often with delayed release. But sibilants and their affricates are a special category, as their description cannot rely solely on location in terms of the active and passive articulators (1.2 previously). For Uralic languages, we would prefer to adopt the widely accepted view that as the tongue retracts from [s] toward [ʃ], the acoustic impression moves from hissing toward hushing (sifflant vs. chuintant); and there are kinds of [s] which are further retracted yet without being terribly hushing, since retraction is not the only distinctive feature of a hushing quality (others include position of the tongue tip, the locus of primary articulatory channel, presence and degree of lip-rounding, presence or absence of sulcalization). The Hungarian voiceless and voiced palatal stops /c ɟ/ and affricates / ͡ts ͡tʃ d͡z d͡ʒ/ may be arrayed as in Table 1.14 so as to summarize their relative frequencies and peculiarities of distribution (Austerlitz 1950, 37). For a detailed exploration of the phonology of Hungarian, see now Siptár and Törkenczy (2000). As many of the Finnish forms cited earlier illustrate, consonant quantity is often distinctive; this is true particularly of Finnic and Saamic, where consonant gradation operates (see later at 1.2.4). In Hungarian, length is distinctive between vowels (most often at morpheme boundaries) and even prepausally (sok ‘many’ : sokk ‘shock’) and at various other morpheme boundaries, even consonant-adjacent. An example of the latter is orthographic szánt representing both [saːnt] sleigh.acc and [sanːt] plough.pres.3sg (Tálos 2007, 866). Such quantitative distinctions are a wellknown mainstay of Saamic (e.g. Skolt, 7.2) and Finnic, for example, longer vs. shorter [k] in North Estonian nom.sg : gen.sg of ‘branch,’ ok̄sa : ok̆sa (cf. Erelt 2003, 27). The voice correlation in Hungarian is pervasive and participates in gradient rather than neutralizing assimilatory processes (Jansen and Toft 2002, 40). It operates for the most part from right to left, as in vak+bél blind+gut [ˈvɒɡbeːl] ‘appendix,’ üveg+fúvó [ˈyvækˌfuːvoː] ‘glass-blower.’ In the imperative öltözz fël ‘get dressed!’ the orthography spells out (with ) the underlying final long voiced sibilant of the verb form; in speech, this is both degeminated and devoiced ([ˈœltœsˈfɛl]), contrast fëlöltözik [ˈfɛlœltœzik] ‘s/he gets dressed’ and subjunctive and jussive fëlöltözzék [ˈfɛlœltœzzeːk] ‘(so) that s/he might get dressed,’ öltözzék fël [ˈœltœzzeːkˈfɛl] ‘let him/her get dressed.’ Various kinds of voice assimilation are attested in all Uralic languages (that have voice), with the richest sets of assimilatory rules operating in those languages with the TABLE 1.14  CORONAL STOPS VS. AFFRICATES IN HUNGARIAN Normal Frequent

ɟ

Infrequent

c

Abnormal ͡tʃ

͡ ts d͡ʒ

d͡z

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 27

largest inventory of distinctively voiced consonants and assimilation-sensitive contexts. For example, Udmurt standard peresj ‘old’ when suffixed with the comparative index |gem yields a voiced cluster with [zj|ɡ] (Csúcs 1990, 31), and Letka Komi voiced dental /d/ plus voiceless hushing /ʃ/ in the superlative construction med ʃaɲ ‘most beautiful’ yields a geminate voiceless hushing affricate: [ˈmɛtt͡ʃaɲ] (Fokos-Fuchs 1959, volume 2, 982). Both left-to-right and right-to-left voice assimilation has been recorded for most languages that exploit voice, for example, compounding Erzya ved’ ‘water’ with kev ‘stone’ gives ved’+[g]ev ‘millstone’ but suffixing nom.pl -t to paŋgo ‘mushroom’ gives paŋk-t (Keresztes 1990, 34‒35; cf. Moksha jotambačk ‘while going’ < jotam ‘going’ + pačk ‘through’ 11.3.2). Among Uralic languages that have developed a full-fledged correlation of voice, the most prominent are, by and large, those which voiced and/or fricativized (or even elided) intervocalic singleton stops and simplified geminate stops. These are most obviously Hungarian and Permic (4.5, 4.6.1); distinctively voiced obstruents play a decidedly smaller role in Mordvin or Mari. Helimski (1995) noticed that this kind of ‘lenition’ or ‘weakening’ of intervocalic obstruents is in near complementary distribution, across the family, with consonant gradation, and he concluded that at least two kinds of gradation, rhythmic and syllabic, probably date from the protolanguage. A tantalizing additional variable, namely the role of the nasals, remains relatively unexplored, cf. the lexically determined neutralization of oral and nasal stops in northern Selkup as in šūrɨp̃ ‘wild animal’ (where = /p/ or /m/, thus šūrɨp ∼ šūrɨm) (see Helimski 1998, 554‒555; Kuznecova et al. 1980, 141‒144; and compare Nganasan nunation 17.3.2). Various kinds of consonant gradation—involving extensive, indeed pervasive, and systematic quantitative and qualitative alternations of consonants and consonant clusters— are present not only in Finnish but also in most of Finnic and Saamic as well as in Nganasan (see, for example, Iva 2010; also 7.3 and 10.3.2). One form of gradation, having to do with syllable (or mora) counts, may be illustrated by Finnish forms, such as the partitives singular of even-syllable vs. odd-syllable stems, with weak-grade -a after bisyllabic pato ‘dam’ (part.sg pato-a) vs. consonant variant or strong-grade -ta after monosyllabic suo ‘bog’ (suo-ta) and optionally after trisyllabic oikea ‘correct’ (oikea-(t)a). Parallel sets of gradation are readily found in Nganasan, for example, the infinitive suffix with weak-grade -d’i after bisyllabic s’etə- ‘to load (a vehicle) pfv’ (s’etə-d’i) vs. strong-grade -sɨ after trisyllabic s’etə|tə- load|ipfv ‘to load (a vehicle) ipfv’ (s’etə|tə-sɨ). We think it clearest to follow Helimski (1995) in calling this kind of gradation rhythmic ɡradation and to reserve the term syllabic gradation for alternations associated with the structure (rather than the position) of the syllable, as in Finnish strong-grade t of pato ‘dam’ vs. weak-grade d in the onset of the closed syllable of pado-t dam-pl ‘dams,’ or in Nganasan strong-grade h (< PU *p) of ŋuhu ‘mitten’ vs. weak-grade b of ŋubu-ʔ mitten-pl ‘mittens.’ When phonetic material originally closing the syllable has been ‘lost,’ such gradation often lives on as a grammatical index, as in Votic weak z vs. strong s in lahzõõ gen. sg : lahsi nom.sg ‘child’ cited previously (see Table 10.7), or Skolt Saami kååʹpp : kååʹv ‘hole, pit’ (Tables 7.19 and 7.20). Even South Saami, usually classified as lacking gradation, in fact lacks only syllabic gradation; rhythmic gradation lives on in the form of the diagnostic differences between the various declensions or conjugations, that is, the use of mono- and trisyllabic vs. biand quadrisyllabic variants of morphemes in descriptions of inflectional classes, for example, the comparative suffix -be on bisyllabic stems (gamtebe ‘broader’) but -bpoe on trisyllabic stems (buajtahkåbpoe ‘fatter’) (see Tables 6.15a and 6.15b).

28 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

If not conclusive, it is highly suggestive that gradation has flourished in precisely those Uralic languages which have best preserved stem (or word rhythm) bisyllabicity and which concomitantly have resisted developing an independent correlation of voice in their consonantisms (Helimski 1995, Table 1.3). 1.3  MORPHOLOGY 1.3.1 Agglutination and its opposites: kinds of fusion present in Uralic languages Preliminary note: since nominative case, singular number, absolute (i.e. non-possessed) declension, indicative/declarative mood, and present (or non-past) tense are usually or always encoded with zero in Uralic languages, we have not always spelled these categories out in our segmented glosses. For example, Finnish annan ‘I give’ can be segmented simply as anna-n with the matching gloss give-1sg, leaving unstated the fact that this form is indicative, declarative, and non-past; similarly, Hungarian erdőben ‘in a forest’ can be segmented simply as erdő-ben and glossed forest-ine, leaving unstated the fact that this form is singular (or non-plural) and absolute. Most Uralic languages are traditionally called agglutinative, and this typological label is a comfortable fit in the sense that it seems to comport well with the broader macro-‘Altaic’ morphological type that stretches across northern Eurasia, for these languages—from Turkic through Mongolic, Tungusic and Koreanic, and Japonic in the Far East—have traditionally been classified as agglutinating as well (see Austerlitz 1970; Janhunen 2009; Nikolaeva 2020, 109; for attempts at connecting ‘Altaic’ with Uralic genealogically, see chapters 4 and 5 of this volume). As a classificatory term, agglutinative is an unfortunate simplification. It conflates several distinct kinds of deviation from its various opposites, which we may collect conveniently under the term fusional. In an ideal agglutinative language, (i) grammatical categories would be expressed by unique, (ii) dedicated morphemes separated by clear morpheme boundaries and (iii) with no variation in form not attributable to phonology. Uralic languages often fail to meet these ideals, as we will see next. It would be more accurate to speak of most of Uralic morphology, both derivational and inflectional, as concatenative (i.e. linear), and specifically suffixal, but with substantial amounts, in many languages, of various kinds of fusional features (Plank 1999; Plungian 2001; Arkadiev 2020). Fusional features, in turn, are usefully subdivided into four different kinds, namely, (i) cumulation (and its close relative, fuzzy morpheme boundaries), (ii) suffixal suppletion (and its close relative, non-transparent allomorphy), (iii) discontinuous morphemes (and other disruptions to linear simplicity), and (iv) various patterns of syncretism in declension and conjugation. We look now very briefly at each of these in turn. 1.3.1.1 Cumulation Worldwide, cumulation seems most typical of person and number, and in their bound forms, Uralic languages all do usually express these two categories jointly, for example, plural and first person are fused in Finnish suffix -mmex and Hungarian -Unk (where U = u/ü), as in ystävä-mmex and barát-unk, both friend-1pl ‘our friend.’ (A rare exception may be found in Udmurt negative constructions, cf. u-d mɨnɨ neg-2sg go.cng vs. u-d mɨn-e(le) neg-2pl go-pl.cng in Table 13.12.)

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 29

Cumulation of number and case, however, is also cross-linguistically common; for example, relatively fusional Latin expresses the two notions of plurality and dative cumulatively for many nouns, viz. with a single suffix -īs, in puer-īs boy-dat.pl ‘to boys.’ In contrast, Finnish and Hungarian express the two notions with suffixes added separately, in linear fashion: -pl-dat, as in Finnish poj-i-llex, Hungarian fiú-k-nak, and Tungusic Evenki bejet-ker-du ‘to boys’ (Nedjalkov 1997, 84). Uralic languages can show cumulation here, however, as arguably in the Finnish nominative plural poja-t ‘the boys,’ in which the suffix -t indicates both plurality and case (and definiteness). The Tundra Nenets accusative plural, whose reconstruction looks like an uninflected adjectival base rather than a case form, furnishes an egregious combination of case/number cumulation with highly complex formation (Salminen 1997, passim; cf. Janhunen 1986, 140). Cumulative exponence also occurs in many Uralic inflectional verb forms. Suffixes expressing features of both subject and object are often difficult or unwieldy to segment, for example, Hungarian 1sg.f2 -lAk as in szeret-∅-lek love-npst-1sg.f2 ‘I love you’ is sometimes interpreted as segmentable into -lA-k, that is, -2sg.o-1sg.a, but in the context of the Hungarian verb inflectional paradigm, this is at the expense of setting up a unique set of argument indexes in a unique order. Similarly, analyzing Moksha -samak of kel’g-samak love-2sg>1sg ‘you love me’ as -sa-m-ak (with suffix sequence -npast1sg.o-2sg.a) requires that we set up a non-past suffix -sa- which occurs only in transitive forms with non-second-person objects (Table 11.7a). Even Mari, whose conjugation has no object indexing, exhibits fusion in forms like toʎət͡ɕ ‘they came,’ in which subject person and number (3pl) and tense (pst1) are both welded to the root tol- ‘to come’ (the non-past 3pl is tolət); one is free, of course, to set up a rule by which an abstract pasttense -J- palatalizes a verb-stem-final l or n (see Table 12.19). Cumulation is often mimicked by less-than-clear-cut morpheme boundaries in inflectional and derivational sequences, a state of affairs that is pretty much the norm in many Uralic languages, particularly in verb inflection. For an example, one can look to the traditional analysis of Mari verb inflection into two putatively distinct ‘conjugations’ which have virtually identical person suffixes, differing primarily in their method of forming their first past tense. Most of the remaining differences between the two sets of forms reside in the nature of the vowel occurring between stem, tense/modality suffix, and person suffix and might easily be accounted for with morphophonemic rules (e.g. tol-at come-2sg vs. ile-t live-2sg, rather like their Latin translations venī-s vs. vīv-is; consider the forms set out at 12.10.1 and Table 12.18). Another example may be found in the positing of general and special finite stems for Tundra Nenets (19.3–4; Salminen 1997, 100ff; Nikolaeva 2014, 26‒27; Janhunen 2020, 378‒379). We return to the notion of conjugation next at 1.4.3. 1.3.1.2 Suppletion For suppletion, we follow Mel’čuk (1994) in calling suppletive any two forms that show a semantic relation of maximal regularity while simultaneously showing minimal formal regularity: the exponents of a given morphological (sub)category differ, but this difference cannot be ascribed to the phonology (Plank 1999, 282‒283). This more general definition of suppletion widens the field to include not only the kinds of relation seen in pairs of roots such as English good vs. bett|er or Latin fer-imus carry.prs-1pl ‘we carry’ vs. tul-imus carry.prf-1pl ‘we carried,’ but also the relation between affix pairs such as Latin perfect suffix -u- vs. -s- in plac-u-ī be.pleasing-prf-1sg ‘I pleased’ vs. dik-s-ī

30 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

say-prf-1sg ‘I said.’ Finnish nominal plural -t, used in nominatives like nuore-t young-pl and some genitives such as nuor-t-en young-pl-gen, is suppletive to -i-, used in other genitives plural and in other plural oblique case forms such as gen.pl nuor-i-en, all.pl nuor-i-lla. The difference between indicative present East Mari forms such as toleʃ ‘s/he comes’ and ila ‘s/he lives’ may similarly be seen as a suppletive one, since there is no tool in Mari phonology to account for the difference between the putative third-person suffixes -eʃ and -a of these forms (12.10.1 and Table 12.18). Suffix suppletion is widespread across the Uralic family, occurring in the major paradigms of most inflectable words, but its close cousin, non-transparent allomorphy, is also attested. The Nganasan aspect-pair s’etə-d’i : s’etə|tə-sɨ cited earlier to illustrate rhythmic gradation may also be used as an example of suffix suppletion: the imperfective stem s’etə|tə- takes the imperfective aorist suffix -NTU/A1-, viz. s’etə|tə-tɨ-∅ load|ipfv-aor-3sg ‘s/he was loading,’ while its perfective counterpart s’etə- takes the perfective aorist suffix -ʔə-, viz. s’eti-ʔə-∅ load-aor-3sg. We may further illustrate some of the complications arising from both suffix suppletion and non-transparent allomorphy with forms from the inflectional paradigm of the Tundra Nenets word for ‘tent.’ This is mʲaʔ (or m’aʔ, also written ) in its absolute (non-person-marked), nominative singular form, and this is the form normally used for citation purposes. The dative of this root is formed with suffix -təʔ, yielding mya-təʔ tent-dat, but in the corresponding third-person form (‘to his/her tent’), the dative suffix is -kə-, viz. mya-kə-nta. The allomorphy seen in the third-person dative forms mya-kə-nta tent-dat-3sg and ya-xə-nta place-dat-3sg can be accounted for by means of morphophonemics, as can the nasal initial of the absolute dative of this stem (ya-nəʔ), if we allow for an alternation t~n in certain morphemes (cf. Salminen 1997, 68). The stop-initial variant -kə- might be explained as postconsonantal, the consonant in question surfacing as glottal stop in final position (mʲaʔ/myaq) and identifiable as a dental obstruent in forms like the nominative plural, formed with the single-consonant suffix -ʔ and therefore requiring epenthesis (Salminen 1997, 61), viz. myadə-ʔ tent-pl. (A Latin analogue would be epenthetic i in vīvis ‘you live,’ cited earlier at 1.3.1.1.) 1.3.1.3 Discontinuous suffixation Discontinuous suffixation occurs rarely in Uralic languages; its analysis is not always uncontroversial. For example, in the possessed plural forms of Hungarian consonant-final nouns, the expression of person seems to involve discontinuity, for example, barát-i friend-pl ‘my friends’ (cf. Melcsuk 1968; Rebrus 2000, 773‒777; Spencer 2012). In Mari, the 1sg index -em- seems to break up the simultaneous converb -ʃəla, as in koʃtə-em walk-1sg ‘as I was walking’ (12.15.9). In the noun inflection of Nganasan, a pluralizer -i- seems to interrupt certain local cases, as in the sg/pl locatives of ‘knife’ (kümaa), namely, kümaa-tənu/kümaai (Table 17.5), and in Tundra Nenets, the sg/pl forms of tú [tuː] ‘fire’ seem to have their locative suffix similarly interrupted by pluralizer -ʔ-: tuː-xuna/tuː-ʔ (Table 19.5). In Tundra Nenets verb inflection, tense may be encoded at two points in the suffix chain. One set of tense suffixes is made up of the (suppletive) future morphemes -ŋkoand -t~nə-, their selection being determined by the stem (19.4; Salminen 1997, 54‒55). These morphemes are of aspectual and derivational origin, and thus it is not surprising that their position is immediately next to the stem, where mood/modality, aspectual, and

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 31

evidential morphemes are usually positioned in Uralic languages and elsewhere; examples are me-t°-ə-d°m hold-fut-gfs-1sg ‘I will hold’ and xet°-ŋku-d°m tell-fut.gfs-1sg ‘I will tell.’ But there is also a preterite tense suffix (with relatively more remote past reference than the neutral aorist), and its position is at the end of the chain, after any subject and object indexes, as in yarkə-°-wə-sy° catch-gfs-1sg>s-prt ‘I caught it (the reindeer).’ The two tense suffixes may co-occur in the same chain, building a future-in-the-past form, as in the inferential xada-ŋko-wiə-∅-sy° kill-fut-infer-3sg-prt ‘apparently he was about to kill’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 93). 1.3.1.4 Syncretism One way to think about syncretism is as part of an implicational hierarchy in which ‘the choices available in one grammatical system vary, depending on the choice made in another system’ (Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998, 61). For example, person inflection can force syncretism of case in Komi, where illative -ɘ and inessive -ɨn syncretize as -a- in forms such as ki-a-s hand-ine/ill-3sg ‘in(to) his/her hand.’ The absolute declension of both Mordvin languages shows full syncretism of number in all oblique cases (i.e. case implicates number), thus Erzya nom.sg kudo : nom.pl kudo-t but kudo-so house-ine ‘in a house/in houses.’ A more extensive syncretism is seen in Finnish käte-ni ‘my hand(s),’ which expresses not only the nominative and genitive-accusative singular (instead of *käte-n-ni) but also the nominative-accusative plural (instead of *käte-t-ni). In Hungarian, 1sg and 2sg suffixation can bring about (in certain registers) syncretism of nominative with accusative, as in keresem a kulcsom ‘I’m looking for my key(s),’ with kulcs-om key-1sg, contrast the explicitly accusative kulcs-oma-t key-1sg-acc. Syncretism of argument indexing suffixes on the Tundra Nenets verb leads to a set of forms from which it is impossible to factor out simpler parameters. For example, 1pl subjects are indexed by -waq for ‘subjective’ forms (i.e. those noncommittal with regard to object number) as well as for forms that index singular objects, and -naq indexes

TABLE 1.15  ARGUMENT INDEXING SUFFIXES OF THE TUNDRA NENETS VERB (INDICATIVE MOOD) subject person

O neutral

O sg

O du/pl

‘refl’

1sg

-d°m

-w°

-n°

-wəq

s

2sg

-n°

-r°

-d°

-n°

u

1du

-nyih

-myih

b

2du

-dyih

-ryih

j

3du

-x°h

e

3sg

-∅

-da

-q

c

3pl

-q

-doh

-d°q

t

2pl

-daq

1pl

-nyih -dyih

-raq -waq

-x°h

-daq -naq

Source: Adapted from Salminen (1997, 103). Underscore signals syncretism with a non-adjacent suffix (‘reflexive’).

32 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

non-singular objects but also ‘reflexives’ (a subclass of intransitive); but 3sg subjects are indexed by suffixes cross-cutting these two forms so that -da indexes objects of any number, while -∅ is ‘subjective’ and -q is ‘reflexive.’ Table 1.15 sets out the argument indexing suffixes. It will have become clear from the examples cited thus far that Uralic inflection does not involve particularly high degrees of synthesis (Comrie 1989, 42‒49). Finnish and Hungarian verbs conform to a two-suffix inflectional template consisting of one tenseor-mood suffix followed by one argument-indexing suffix so that word forms involving more than three morphemes necessarily contain derivational suffixes as well, such as Hungarian mëg&mëg+ráz|kód-ott-∅ vp.pfv&vp.pfv+shake|itr-pst-3sg.p ‘s/he//it shook from time to time,’ with argument-reducing suffix |kÓd- (cf. root ráz- ‘to shake tr’), and aspectual reduplication of the verb particle (in this case mëg) (cf. Kiefer 2016, 3323–3324). Similar are Finnish verb forms with Aktionsart suffixes semelfactive (|ht-) and frequentative (|el-), as in käännä|ht|el-i-n turn|sem|freq-pst-1sg ‘I kept tossing and turning’ (cf. Austerlitz 1968, 1344, 1982). The main deviation from this norm is to be found in Samoyedic languages, where tense, mood/modality, and other categories are usually best analyzed as belonging to inflection, but even here overlong strings are not usual, since most categories are in complementary distribution. We may cite Nganasan čentɨ|rɨ|gə|bsɨðə-ŋ be.ready|caus|iter|nec-2sg ‘you should prepare tr,’ with suffixes for valence change (causative |rɨ), Aktionsart (iterative |ɡə), and modality (necessitative |bsɨδə) preceding the lone subject index (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 257). The point of these last sections (1.3.1–1.3.1.4) has been to illustrate ways in which Uralic languages have many morphological features that defy the agglutinative model, but this does not imply that an agglutinating model is inappropriate in an attempt at analysis of Uralic language forms (Lounsbury 1953). Difficulties in segmentation are circumvented if we set up such an agglutinating analogue and then segment that. For example, the connections between the Tundra Nenets nom.sg, dat.sg, and third-person dative forms of the noun for ‘tent’ cited earlier (mʲaʔ, mʲa-təʔ, mʲa-kə-nta) are rendered more explicit if we spell them out somewhat abstractly as ‘latent’ (or ‘deep’) sequences, such as MYAT, MYAT-T̃ƎH, MYAT-XƎ-NTA (in which T̃ denotes a morphophonemic oral/ nasal alternation, cf. Salminen 1997, 68). What is then required is to posit and evaluate rules that might connect the two layers in the (morpho)phonology (see Fought 2000, 186). On agglutination as a process giving rise to new affixes, see Haspelmath (1995); Ackermann and Malouf (2017) investigate an overlapping set of questions in several Uralic languages, approaching from a different angle. categories 1.3.2 Grammatical 1.3.2.1 Noun morphology Here we look briefly at some of the variety of noun morphology: the encoding of number, person, case, and predestination; various kinds of definiteness are discussed in detail in Chapter 22; Yurayong (2020) presents a far-ranging picture of definiteness through the lens of postposed demonstratives in Finnic, North Russian, and elsewhere. Before looking at the inflection of nouns, we must first eliminate a potentially confusing factor, namely, the verb vs. nominal distinction. Perhaps all Uralic languages have at least one root which can take both declensional (most usually case) and conjugational (most usually tense) suffixes, that is, a root which can inflect both as a noun and as a

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 33

verb. Not very numerous, such roots typically fall into the meteorological category and usually inflect for third-person singular only: Hungarian fagy(-) ‘(there is) a frost’ and Finnish tuule(-) ‘wind (blows)’ are textbook examples, but other semantic areas are also represented, for example, the Hungarian hunting term les(-) ‘to lie in wait for (game)/ hide (verb), cover (noun).’ Hajdú (1970) listed some two dozen Tundra Nenets roots of this kind, not all of them quite so semantically restricted; crucially, he distinguished them clearly and correctly from the open class of nominals used as copula complements, which take verb ‘subjective’ inflections, as in nyudyako-dəm-cy° young-1sg-pst ‘I was young’ (Tereščenko 1965, 224). Uralic nouns lack inflectional classes, on the whole, both in the syntactic sense that there are no genders (that is, no agreement classes such as we find in Indo-European or Semitic) and, at the morphological end of the scale, there is very little of what we might call nominal inflection classes (in the sense that nouns in any given Uralic language may be said to inflect according to the same, language-specific pattern). The great variety seen in the inflection of these languages stems from morphophonemic alternations which vary from the relatively simple (e.g. Komi, Khanty, Hungarian) to the relatively complex (e.g. Saami, Estonian, Enets) mainly in line with the degree to which consonant gradation, vowel harmony, and other sandhi rules operate in the language. Some of the putative inflectional complexity in some of these languages is a by-product of the analysis. An example is Tauli (1973, 41‒58), which lists 67 ways in which the genitive singular may be seen as being formed in Standard Estonian. This kind of complexity can be greatly reduced if one employs a word-and-paradigm approach with rules of referral (e.g. Blevins 2008; cf. Salminen 1997 for Tunda Nenets) or if, conversely, one uses a traditional item-and-process method with deep segments, prosodies, and scrupulous attention to segmenting and distribution. Most Uralic languages have two to four grammatical cases flagged by distinct suffixes (with nom.sg always zero). They also have a range of spatial/local and adverbial cases; these usually distinguish between stasis and motion on the one hand and between motion toward, away from, or by way of a reference point on the other. All case flagging is carried out primarily by means of suffixes (rather than prefixes), but these are always supplemented by a range of adpositions (normally postpositions, but with a small number of prepositions in some languages). Uralic adpositions form a special class of nominals, with defective and/or deviant case paradigms. They have no independent existence, occurring always with a host noun or pronoun (whether independent or in suffix form), and are therefore probably better seen as a kind of relational noun (for adpositions and relational nouns through a cross-linguistic lens, see Hagège 2010, with many Uralic examples). Some examples of Uralic adpositions are Surgut Khanty pūt ɬəɣpij-i pot interior-abl ‘from inside a pot’ (16.17), Finnish kirja-n pää-llä book-gen head-ade, Komi ɲebɘg vɨl-ɨn book top-ine (14.9.2) both ‘on top of a book,’ Hungarian a fal melle-tt art wall next.to-loc ‘next to the wall,’ melle-tte-m next.to-loc-1sg ‘next to me.’ The occurrence vs. omissibility of pronominals in adpositional constructions is a particularly complex area (16.9.1); for Khanty, see now Schön (2017, 102‒103). In the lexicon, adpositions can occur as singletons (e.g. Hungarian óta ‘since,’ as in halál-a óta death-3sg since ‘(ever) since his/her death’; this postposition also cannot host person suffixes) but more commonly occur in pairs, triads, or quartets differentiated by motion/stasis and directionality or path, mimicking thereby the array of suffixes proper (above). For at least some of them, this differentiation is achieved by case endings which are of restricted distribution: they are either relics of older paradigms (like Hungarian

34 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

locative -tt, occurring in postpositions like ala-tt ‘located (stationary) below’ and föl-ött ‘located (stationary) above’) or are used in functions different from their more recent (and now ordinary) ones, such as Finnish -nA, an essive in the present-day language but originally a locative, and still functioning as a locative when used with postpositions and in fossilized expressions, for example, Finnish talo-n taka-na house-gen behind-ess/loc ‘in the space behind the house,’ koto-na home-ess/loc ‘at home’ below (on essives and related matters in Uralic languages, see de Groot 2017). Since the differences between suffixes, relational nouns, and compounds are gradient, it is not surprising that in many Uralic languages, there are also borderline cases of flagging on NPs, cf. Table 12.8 for Mari. Reference for all the oldest reconstructable relational nouns is spatial (‘above,’ ‘below,’ ‘behind,’ ‘in front of’ being among the oldest; see Jalava and Grünthal 2020). Non-spatial meanings are either metaphoric extensions of these or expressed by newer forms, like Hungarian után ‘after’ (etymologically ut-á-n way-3sg-loc ‘in its path/wake’). There does not appear to be a correlation between the number of case suffixes and the number of adpositions in a given Uralic language; for example, Schön (2017, 178) reckons that Surgut Khanty, with nine cases, has nearly as many postpositions, 66, as does Kazym Khanty, with 68 postpositions, but only three cases (18.17). Postpositions whose meanings call for two hosts coordinate them with a double dual construction in Surgut (Jugan) Khanty kɛr-ɣən pəsɐn-ɣən kʉt-i stove-du table-du between-abl (Schön 2017, 210‒211; see also 15.4.1 for Mansi); contrast the more SAE constructions of Hungarian or Finnish, using conjunction és or ja ‘and,’ as in Hungarian a kályha és az asztal köz-ül art stove and art table between-abl, or Finnish uuni-n ja pöydä-n väli-ltä stove-gen and table-gen between-abl ‘from (the space) between the stove and the table.’ Note also that ‘between you and the world’ can be translated into Finnish with coordinated genitives (sinu-n ja maailma-n väli-ssä 1sg-gen and world-gen between-ine ‘between you and the world’), but in Hungarian with person indexing on the relational noun (közte-d és a világ köz-ött between-2sg and art world between-loc). Case suffixes combine with plural and, in a few languages, dual suffixes to form inflectional chains of varying transparency. Again, form and function often deviate from a simple agglutinative model. For example, Finnish has plural -i- between stem and case suffixes except in the nominative/accusative, where the single plural nominative suffix -t signals case, number, and definiteness simultaneously (talo-i-ssa house-pl-ine ‘in (the) houses’ but talo-t house-pl ‘the houses’). In Hungarian, plural suffix -k(A)- is used unless there is a person suffix (which may be zero, for 3sg) to its right, in which case it is -i-, for example, háza-k-on house-pl-supe ‘on houses’ but háza-i-m-on house-pl-1sg-supe ‘on my houses,’ háza-i-∅-n house-pl-3sg-supe ‘on his/her houses.’ See further on suffixal suppletion later at 1.3.1.2. Person suffixes on nouns are less widespread, on the whole, at the western end of the family, and are usually reported as occurring mainly with kinship terms for most Saamic and Finnic languages. Case suffixes can also combine with person suffixes, and the order of suffixes varies from language to language and even within languages; Mari (Luutonen 1997) and Permic (Bartens 2000, 109‒118) offer particularly complex examples. (For the role of case flagging in syntax, see later at 3.2.) In all but the westernmost languages, indexing of person is also invariably used with adpositions, for example, Hungarian mögötte-m, Finnish taka-na-ni both behind-loc-1sg ‘behind me,’ Nganasan bəntu-nu-nə above-loc-1sg ‘over me’ (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 279), Komi me pɨt͡ʃk-ɨn 1sg inside-ine ‘in me’ (14.19).

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 35

As mentioned earlier (1.1.2.3), an explicitly definite declension has evolved in the Mordvin languages: this paradigm is in complementary distribution with both plain (‘absolute’) and possessive paradigms. Note Erzya inessive absolute vaĺma-so window-ine ‘in (a) window(s),’ and inessive 1sg vaĺma-so-n window-ine-1sg ‘in my window(s),’ both of which are indifferent regarding the number of the base, and compare inessive definite singular vaĺma-so-ńt́ window-ine-def.sg ‘in the window’ vs. plural vaĺma-t́ńe-se window-def.pl-ine ‘in the windows’ (and note, in passing, the reverse order of case and definiteness suffixes in these two forms.) Although relatively recent, the makeup and deployment of the definite declensions of Erzya and Moksha differ considerably. Closely intertwined with definiteness is the similarly scalar variable of animacy. Kangasmaa-Minn (1998, with literature) highlighted this in connection with Mari. Baker (1985, 148, citing Gulyayev 1960, 153‒154) gives the example ńe̬b-i-∅ lavka-i̬ ś/tedsa-li̬ ś ružjo buy-pst-1sg shop-ela/acquaintance-abl gun ‘I bought a gun in a shop/from an acquaintance’ with elative -i̬ ś on inanimate lavka ‘shop,’ but ablative -li̬ ś on animate te̬dsa ‘acquaintance.’ Lotz (1939, 76, 81) used the feature [+/− human] to distinguish different kinds of causality flagged by the Hungarian elative (‘moralisch’: irigység-ből jealousy-ela ‘out of jealousy’) vs. the ablative (‘materiell’: bor-tól wine-abl ‘on account of wine’). Animacy will also crop up elsewhere as a contributing factor, as in the Hungarian human-indexing adverbial of constructions such as sok-an van-nak many-adv exist-3pl.p ‘there are many people’ or the Finnish indefinite (human) subject of silta-∅ tuhot-tiin bridge-nom destroy-idf.pst ‘the bridge was destroyed.’ To give some small idea of the typological range of nominal inflection that is involved, we glance here at representative noun paradigms in South Saami and Komi Permyak. Compare the cells of the singular and plural paradigms of a South Saami noun, gåetie ‘dwelling’ in Table 1.16 (adapted from 6.9a). Of all the case forms in this paradigm, only those of the elative consist of a readily segmentable sequence of a number suffix (-i- encoding pl vs. zero, that is, its absence, encoding sg) plus case suffix (-ste). In every other pair of sg vs. pl case forms, the differences involve completely different case suffixes (e.g. accusative -m in the singular, but -de in the plural; inessive -sne in the singular, but -ne in the plural), different morphemic structure (comitative sg vs. pl), or both (illative sg vs. pl).

TABLE 1.16  SOUTH SAAMI GÅETIE ‘DWELLING’ sg

pl

nom

gåetie

gåetie-h

acc

gåetie-m

gået-i-de/gööt-i-de

gen

gåetie-n

gåetiej/gööti

ill

gåata-n

gået-i-de/gööt-i-de

ine

gåete-sne

gået-i-ne/gööt-i-ne

ela

gåete-ste

gåetij-ste/göötij-ste

com

gået-ine/gööt-ine

gåetiej.gujmie/gööti.gujmie

ess

gået-i-ne/gööt-i-ne

Source: Adapted from Table 6.9a.

36 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI TABLE 1.16  ABSOLUTE SINGULAR PARADIGM OF KI ‘HAND’ IN KOMI PERMYAK Case

Form sg

nom

ki

gen

ki-vən

abl

ki-viś

all

ki-və

acc

ki, mort-ɘs

inst

ki-ən

com

ki-kət

car

ki-təg

cfv

ki-śa (‘preclusive’)

loc

ki-ɨn

ela

ki-iś

ill

ki-ə

apr

ki-vań

egr

ki-śań

pros

ki-ət́

term supe

ki-əʒ́ ki-(v)vɨn

subl

ki-(v)və

datl

ki-(v)viś

supet perl

ki-(v)vəʒ́ ki-(v)vət́

Source: Forms adapted from Austerlitz (1964) and Baker (1985, 66).

With this we may contrast a paradigm from a language whose noun morphology is typologically at the other extreme, that of (Komi-)Permyak. Table 1.16 sets out the absolute singular forms of ‘hand’ in Komi Permyak (forms adapted from Austerlitz 1964). This paradigm has nearly three times as many cases as the Saamic one, but with the exception of an optional -ɘs accusative used with animates (like mort-ɘs man-acc), every case form is built in a straightforward manner, without umlaut, vowel shortenening, or inflectional subtypes determined by syllable count as in South Saami (6.4.1) Furthermore, whereas South Saami has an almost completely independent set of plural forms, in Permyak there is a clearly segmentable plural suffix -jez, whose initial j copies any stem-final consonant to its left, thus ɨb-bez field-pl ‘fields,’ zon-nez son-pl ‘sons,’ and all plural case forms are built to this with simple concatenation, for example, zon-nez-və son-pl-all ‘to (the) sons.’ For more on Permyak varieties, see Baker (1985, 55‒58).

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 37

The Permyak (and, in fact, all the Permic) noun paradigm becomes only slightly more complex when person (‘possessive’) suffixes are involved. There is, for example, syncretism of inessive and illative in possessed forms: kerku-ɨn/-ɘ house-ine/-ill but kerku-a-s house-ine/ill-3sg ‘in(to) his/her house,’ and the suffix order is dependent of case: we have case+person in some cases (as in ine/ill kerku-a-s and kerku-ɘdd͡ʒi-s house-supet3sg ‘to as far as the top of his/her house’), but person+case in others, as in zon-ɨs-və son3sg-all ‘to his/her son.’ Nouns typically have no more than three slots occupied by inflectional suffixes, and such configurations are textually probably relatively rare. Examples are Udmurt lud-jos-m-es fieldpl-1pl-acc ‘our fields (acc)’ and its morpheme-for-morpheme Hungarian translation meze-inke-t. The first inflectional slot, closest to the nominal stem, is almost invariably reserved for a suffix indicating number, and all Uralic languages exploit zero at this point in the paradigm to encode singular, or, perhaps more accurately, general (undifferentiated) number. Languages of the Finnic branch show a fairly clear paradigm structure, with -t encoding plural in the nominative and accusative, and -i- in other cases, although there are instances of overlap and deviation from this pattern. Close to identical patterns crop up in Samoyedic, and the obvious inference is that something dating from the protolanguage has survived at the geographic extremes. At the western and eastern extremes of the family, Uralic languages use a genitive case form to flag the dependent, usually ‘possessive,’ modifier of the head of an NP. The form of this genitive may still contain a clear descendent of the original PU *-n, as in Finnish naise-n nimi woman-gen name ‘the woman’s name,’ Selkup -n (or -t ~ -n, 20.5.1.2). The Enets languages no longer distinguish genitive as a core case on nouns (18.3.1.3), but its viability is manifest in Nganasan (17.4.1) and Tundra and Forest Nenets (19.4; see also Burkova 2022, 682‒683). The Ugric languages lack a genitive and instead use a ‘pertensive’ suffix on the possessum, to use Dixon’s term (Dixon 2010b, 268), to index the person of the possessor. Person and number of the possessor and number of the possessum are thus encoded by this suffix (or suffix chain) jointly. In syntagms, Khanty and Mansi use the pertensive alone, for example, Eastern Mansi kom løl-ø man soul-3sg ‘the man’s soul’ (Kulonen 2007, 37); in Surgut Khanty, NP-internal possessive syntax is sensitive to clause structure (16.10). Hungarian uses the same construction as that of Mansi and Khanty (a lány haj-a art girl hair-3sg ‘the girl’s hair’), but the possessor may also be co-flagged by the dative; compare the roughly synonymous a lány-nak a haj-a art girl-dat art hair-3sg. This latter construction allows for the possessive NP to be inverted, discontinuous, or both, permitting a range of topic/focus and other discourse functions, for example, a haj-a a lány-nak ‘the girl’s hair’; a lány-nak befonják a haj-á-t ‘they plait the girl’s hair,’ még a nev-é-t se tudta a lány-nak yet art name-3sg-acc neg know-pst-3sg.f art girl-dat ‘s/he didn’t even know the girl’s name.’ Third-person (and often second-person) suffixes are also used to indicate ‘definiteness’ (see chapter 22). The management of definiteness underlies the contrastive emphasis of a Tundra Nenets sentence pair (1a) and (1b) cited by Salminen (1993, 262; segmentation and glossing adapted, English translation maintained): (1a) Nenets (Salminen 1993, 262) pi-da ŋətye-ə-da 3sg-3sg await-prs-3sg>s ‘He is waiting for him.’

38 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

(1b) syit-ta ŋətye-ə-∅ 3sg-3sg await-prs-3sg ‘He is waiting for him.’ Here, the contrastive focus on the subject in (1a) is conveyed partly by the overt third-person free pronoun pi, which only occurs with a coreferential person suffix (here -da), and partly by means of the subject- and object-indexing suffix on the verb, 3sg>s -da; indexing the number of the object correlates with the topicality (knownness) of the object. Conversely, in (1b) it is the object which is contrastively emphasized, and this is achieved partly by the overt oblique third-person free pronoun syit (in suppletion with nominative pi), which only occurs with coreferential person suffix (here -ta) and partly by means of the object-neutral index for third-person subject, suffix -∅. (The Tundra Nenets pronoun syit may be reconstructed as originating in PU *ket ‘image, face,’ mentioned previously at 1.1.2.6. in connection with Hungarian and Mansi pronouns.) A (pre)destinative category on nouns (also called benefactive, cf. Siegl 2013, 378) is attested as a kind of noun inflection with goal-oriented (or future-oriented) meanings. This category is reflected as the translative case of western languages Finnish and Mordvin (and even the Mari lative: Ylikoski 2017) and as the ‘predestinative’ of northern Samoyedic languages, although its productivity and functioning here is not uncontroversial (cf. Salminen 2014, 292), where a clear distinction is drawn between Tundra Nenets versus Enets and Nganasan use of this suffix. A Tundra Nenets sentence and its Finnish translation (2) may serve to illustrate not only form-and-function parallels between the Tundra Nenets predestinative and the Finnish translative but also OVX vs. VOX constituent order, deployments of genitive and accusative, and measure-NP structures (on which see Schäfer 2018): (2) TN xən°

xalya-m

ŋeryo-h

me-d°-naq

sled

fish-acc

autumn-gen food-dest-obl.1pl store-aor-1pl(>sg)

store-pst-1pl

sled|ful-acc fish-part

autumn-gen

sínta-°-waq

OXV

food-trans-1pl

syksy-n ravinno-kse-mmex VOX varastoi-∅-mme ree|llise-n kala-a ‘We stored a sledful of fish to be used as food for us for the autumn’ (source: Tereščenko 1965, 573, ‘целую нарту с рыбой мы отложили про запас на осень,’ cited by Salminen 2014, 291). Fi

x

Morphologically, numerals do not form a distinct subclass in Uralic languages, so they may be mentioned briefly here. We can gain some small perspective on the variety of formations shown by numerals by looking at the decades. We begin with the Udmurt, Komi, Hungarian, and Mansi forms. In Hungarian, the decades 40–90 are all low-vowel stems formed with a derivational suffix |vAn(A) meaning ‘10,’ for example, accusative öt|vene-t five|der-acc ‘fifty (acc),’ hat|vana-t six|der-acc ‘sixty (acc).’ The ancestor of this morpheme extended furthest in Hungarian (40‒90) and least in Udmurt, where it appears—perhaps—in ‘30’ (see Table 1.17). Honti (1993b, 159) reckoned with a FU root *mVnV ‘ten’ (= *moni, 3.7), which was demoted to a derivational suffix in Permic, Mansi, and Hungarian. The element mɨs in the words for ‘8’ and ‘9’ in Permic looks suspiciously similar. The Iranian loan meaning ‘10,’

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 39 TABLE 1.17  NAMES FOR DECADES IN UDMURT, KOMI, HUNGARIAN, AND MANSI Udmurt

Komi

Hungarian

Sosva Mansi

10

das

das

tíz/tize-

lŏw

20

kɨzʲ

kɨzʲ

húsz/husza-

xŭs

30

kwamɨn

komɨn

harm|inc

wāt

40

ɲɨʎ+don

ɲeʎa|mɨn

nëgy|ven(e-)

năli|man

50

vic+ton

vetɨ|mɨn

öt|ven(e-)

ăt|pan

60

kwac+ton

kvajtɨ|mɨn

hat|van(a-)

xōt|pan

70

siʑim+don

ɕiʑim+das

het|ven(e-)

sāt+lŏw

80

camɨs+ton

kɘkjamɨs+das

nyolc|van(a-)

nʲol+sāt

90 100

ukmɨs+ton

ɘkmɨs+das

kilenc|ven(e-)

ōntəl+sāt

ɕu

ɕo

száz(a-)

sāt

borrowed separately into Permic and Hungarian, forms the Komi decades 70–90, while in Udmurt 40–90 are formed with t/don, most probably identical with Komi/Udmurt don/ dun ‘price, worth’ and connected with squirrel-skin currency (Tepljashina 1976, 158; Majtinskaja 1979, 175–176) To the west of Permic, as well, languages form their decades with their word for ‘10.’ In Mari, the word for ‘10,’ lu (< *luka, cf. 3.4, 3.7, and cf. Mansi root lŏw) came to function as a derivational suffix and thus now participates in vowel harmony, for example, East Mari ko|lo ‘twenty’ and nəl|le ‘forty’ (West Mari kok|lə, nəl|lə ̈ ̈ ). The Mordvin languages build decades most often with their word for ‘10,’ kemenʲ, added to base cardinals, sometimes with what looks like a genitive joining the two parts, for example, Erzya nʲilʲe-nʲ+gemenʲ four-gen+ten ‘forty,’ but usually simply compounded, as in Moksha nʲilʲ+gemenʲ ‘forty,’ or vedʲ+gemenʲ ‘fifty’ in both languages (cf. 11.3.2). Finnic is quite uniform in its formation of the decades, using case forms of ‘10,’ kymmen(e-) or its cognates, after the cardinal, as in any quantitative noun phrase, for example, South Estonian (Võro) katś+kümmend : katõkümne gen ‘twenty’ (Table 9.13). Saamic patterns here with Mari in uniformly using its descendant of the *luka word, namely, *lokē (e.g. South Saami lükkie, Skolt Saami lååi(j)). In Samoyedic, most numerals were replaced with words from an unknown substrate language, for example, ‘five’ may be reconstructed as PSam *səmpə plus derivative suffixes (Janhunen 1977, 133), and ‘six’ as PSam *məktə(j)t (Janhunen 1977, 85); the Nganasan reflexes are səŋhəlʲaŋkə and mətyʔ (mətyδə-ʔ six-gen), and North Selkup has sompɨla, muktɨt. Yazva Komi has replaced most of its numerals with Russian lexis. The origin of the Mansi word for ‘30’ is unknown. 1.3.2.2 Adjectives From a morphological perspective, nouns and adjectives show only slight differentiation in most Uralic languages. Hungarian is thus exceptional inasmuch as most front-vocalic adjectives epenthesize e and not ö (or ë) in plurals such as in vörös-ek red-pl (vörös-ök is a noun: ‘Reds’), and gyors ‘rapid’ seems to differentiate in parallel fashion, for example, adverbial vs. noun superessive gyors|an quick|der ‘quickly’ : gyors-on quick-supe ‘on an

40 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

express (train).’ (Speakers who distinguish two short non-high unrounded vowels, e vs. ë, will make a parallel distinction in front-prosodic contexts.) There is a tradition in Finnish grammar-writing (e.g. Karlsson 2018, 68, cf. 78) according to which polysyllabic adjective stems favour t-less partitives plural, for example, etano-i-ta snail-pl-part, but ihan-i-a lovely-pl-part, but variants abound, and the reverse distribution occurs even within the standard language, for example, etano-j-a and the archaic/affective ihano-i-ta. In (Komi-) Permyak, adjectives in apposition are reported to take an accusative suffix -ɘ, as in Saʃa vaj-i-s kɲiɡa vɨʎ-ɘ pn bring-pst-3sg book new-acc ‘Sasha brought (me) a book, a new one’ (Csúcs 2005, 208); for Permic adjective plural forms, see on copula clauses (1.4.4). In some of the more eastern languages, a goodly proportion of the word forms which from a European perspective are semantically adjective-like in fact show verb morphology. Jalava (2013, 55) reports that three out of four Dixonian core semantic adjective types (dimension, age, value), three are encoded chiefly by nominals in Tundra Nenets, for example, pyircya ‘tall,’ nyewəxiə ‘old (inanimate),’ nyeneyə ‘genuine.’ But stative verbs are frequent as well, both lexically and textually, in these and in other semantic areas, such as colour, for example, tərka- ‘to be narrow,’ nyaya- ‘to be red.’ Saamic languages have special attributive forms of adjectives, that is, forms used within the noun phrase rather than as copula complements; their formation shows considerable irregularity (see 6.6, 7.4.4, and Rießler 2016, 41‒42). 1.3.2.3 Verb morphology Verb morphology across the family is far too complex a topic for anything less than a monograph. We focus here on a few morphological details in a few paradigms in the hope of evoking some idea of the dimensions and proportions of the questions involved; see later at 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 for the interplay of verb morphology with syntax and the organization of discourse. All Uralic languages distinguish at least one past and one non-past morphological tense; Permic and Samoyedic also have future-tense forms. Imperative mood is universal, but Samoyedic languages can also encode interrogatives as part of their inflectional paradigm. A range of modalities (usually also called ‘moods’) form parts of the inflectional paradigms of verbs in all branches; by far, the largest systems are attested in northern Samoyedic. Verb forms that obligatorily include person suffixes have traditionally been called finite, although the term causes difficulties because its limits are difficult to discern. The deployment of person in Uralic languages is of the ‘Latin’ type (Cysouw 2009, 107), but the languages at the geographical extremes (Saamic and Samoyedic) have preserved encoding of dual subjects. In several languages, third-person singular subject forms are clearly analyzable with a zero suffix, as in Hungarian néz-ett-∅ behold-pst-3sg.p ‘s/he saw,’ Tavda Mansi ji-s-∅ come-pst-3sg ‘s/he came’; in languages with zero suffixation to indicate tense, the result may be a chain of zeroes, for example, non-past -∅- in Hungarian néz-∅-∅ behold-npst3sg.p ‘s/he beholds’ and past-tense -∅- in Surgut Khanty mən-∅-∅ go-pst-3sg ‘s/he went.’ However, the person-indexing members of verb paradigms are not always clearly segmentable. For example, it is probable that what is segmented today as a third-person suffix -ɘ in Komi (14.8.1.1) is the result of the coalescence of a non-past suffix, presumably *-k-, with the stem-final vowel. Put another way, muna : munan : munɘ 1sg : 2sg : 3sg could point to ‘loss’ of final 1sg *-m alongside persistence of 2sg *-n and 3sg -∅, with *VkV > a (ɘ at word-end) and *Vi > i (Table 1.18).

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 41 TABLE 1.18  RECONSTRUCTION OF SUBPARADIGM OF KOMI SINGULAR VERB FORMS non-past

past

1sg

*munV-kV-m

> mun-a

*munV-i-m

> mun-i

2sg

*munV-kV-n

> mun-a-n

*munV-i-n

> mun-i-n

*munV-kV-∅

> mun-ɘ

*munV-i-∅

> mun-i

3sg

In Udmurt, the picture became more complex, because (i) a derivational suffix |(V)lgave rise to sets of (slightly) different forms, and thus a separate ‘conjugation,’ and (ii) a derivational suffix |isʲk- came to function as an inflectional one in locutor persons, indexing present tense (for a synchronic account, see the generative model of Csúcs 1987). In many languages, person suffixation is intimately and intricately involved in the transitivity of the clause; see later at 3.3. 1.3.2.4 Nonfinite verb forms Of nonfinite verb forms, we have space enough here only to say that they are used in a great variety of ways, building nonfinite relative clauses (for which see Chapter 21) as well as complement and supporting clauses. They are inflected like nouns, but with a reduced set of case suffixes; only certain nonfinites can take person suffixes, and only under certain circumstances. A simple example is cited by Nikolaeva (2007, 2), wherein a North Khanty participle -(ə)m takes a 1sg suffix in a supporting clause ‘after I built the house’ but not in a relative clause (‘the house I built’), where the subject indexing goes on the head noun instead. It is not often remarked upon, but casual/colloquial Finnish abounds in such nonfinite constructions, for example, millase-s miljöö-s sä oikeen tahto-si-t kuv-i-i su-st ote| tta|va(n) what.kind-ine milieu-ine 2sg actually desire-cond-2sg picture-pl-part 2sg-ela take|pass|ref ‘in what sort of milieu would you like pictures to be taken of you?’ and mu-n ava|a|m-i-ssa 1sg-gen open|vblz|ptcp.a-pl-ine ‘in the ones that I opened.’ 1.4 SYNTAX 1.4.1 Clause-level syntax: alignment, negation, questions, commands Here and throughout this book, we adopt Dixon’s abbreviations s, a, and o as convenient shorthand to label core constituents in a clause (itr subject, tr subject, object), and letter e (‘extension’) for any necessary additional argument. Writing these in subscript, we will then have English Boba opened [the door]o, [The door]s opened, and Wea sent Magdae [a parcel]o. Taken together, the first two of these clauses demonstrate that the verb open in English is an ambitransitive of the type s=o, since the argument door has s function when the clause is intransitive, but o function when the clause is transitive (see 1.4.3 later for ambitransitivity in Uralic). All Uralic languages show nom-acc alignment; easternmost Khanty has a construction which has been called ergative but which in fact flags intransitive and transitive subjects identically, with the locative case (16.17). Languages with differential argument

42 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

flagging use different case suffixes on both objects and subjects across a range of circumstances; differential flagging of objects has dominated the literature, with different inflection of subjects being discussed in other contexts such as topic shift and other matters to do with definiteness (see Chapter 22). Finnish, for example, flags direct object nouns with nom, gen (= acc), or part depending on variables including polarity, aspect, and presence/absence of a ‘canonical’ transitive subject, while pronouns have dedicated accusative forms (see Kiparsky 2001). Case flagging of Finnish intransitive subjects (but not copula subjects) depends on quantitative and referential (in)definiteness, and quantitativeness can include part/whole distinction, for example, part subject venet-tä näky-i jo nieme-n takaa boat-part be.visible-pst.3sg already promontory-gen from.behind ‘(part of the) boat was visible from behind the promontory’ (Siro 1957). One of the functions of such determiner-like elements as Komi 3sg/2sg -ɨs/-ɨd and Erzya definite declension forms is to help disambiguate core syntax, especially where discourse or animacy hierarchies are otherwise insufficient, as in VOA constituent order of Erzya sa-siz’e at’a-n’-t’ bojar-os’ overtake-npast.3sg>3sg old.manacc-def boyar-nom.sg.def ‘the boyar catches up with the old man’ (Keresztes 1990, 81). For standard negation, Hungarian lies toward the simpler end of the range of Uralic construction types: it uses uninflecting particles placed before the finite main verb, nëm/ sëm for indicative (including conditionals), and në/së for imperative and optatives (3a–3e). (3a) (3b) (3c) (3d) (3e)

Nem mën-te-m be. Nem men-né-k be. Në mën-jë-n be! Në mën-j-∅ be! Në mën-ne-∅ be!

neg go-pst-1sg .pvp neg go-cond-1sg .pvp neg go-imp-3sg.p vp neg go-imp-2sg.p vp neg go-cond-3sg.p vp

‘I didn’t go in.’ ‘I wouldn’t go in.’ ‘May s/he not go in!’ ‘Don’t (you sg) go in!’ ‘If only s/he wouldn’t go in!’

Finnish uses a negative auxiliary: it takes person suffixes, but all other morphology goes on the lexical verb (4a-e). (4a) (4b) (4c) (4d) (4e)

E-n men-nyt sisään. E-n men-isi sisään. Äl-köön men-kö sisään! Älä mene-x sisään! E-i-pä se men-isi sisään!

neg-1sg go-act.ptcp.pst in neg-1sg go-cond.cng in neg-imp.3sg go-imp.3sg in neg go-cng in neg-3sg=enc it go-cond. cng in

‘I didn’t go in.’ ‘I wouldn’t go in.’ ‘May s/he not go in!’ ‘Don’t (you sg) go in!’ ‘If only it didn't go in!’

Compare a Finnish version of ‘I wouldn’t have been able to prevent it’ (5a) with the Hungarian (5b): (5a) E-n neg-1sg (5b) Nem neg

ol-isi be-cond.cng

voi-nut be.able-act.pst.ptcp

akadályoz-hat-ta-m prevent-pot-pst-1sg .f

volna cond

estä-äx prevent-inf

si-tä. 3sg-part

mëg. vp

For negation across the family, we now have the surveys of Miestamo et al. (2015) and Simoncsics (2018). Here we limit ourselves to saying only that the negative verb construction is thought to be the original Uralic one: negation is expressed by a verbal auxiliary,

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 43

while the lexical verb takes a deranked form, that is, one which is relatively impoverished with regard to the indexing of person or the expression of tame (= various intersections of tense-aspect-mood-modality-evidentiality). This kind of construction is best preserved in Nganasan. The opposite extreme to Nganasan is that in which no categories are expressed on an ‘auxiliary,’ that is, negation is expressed by means of an uninflecting ‘particle’; this is what has happened in Mansi. In Mansi, full clausal negation is expressed in the affirmative with uninflecting particle at, all inflection remaining on the verb (6). (6)

Sosva Mansi (Kálmán 1976, 138) at ta pat|ta-s-te neg ptcl fall|tr-pst-3sg>s ‘He didn’t kill it (i.e. make it [squirrel] fall [out of tree]).’

Contrast Nganasan in example (7), in which both tense/aspect (imperfective aorist -ntɨ-) and subject/object indexinɡ (2sg>s -rə) are attached to the negative verb, the lexical verb ‘shoot’ (stem d’itu-) taking only the suffix of the connegative (-ʔ). (7)

Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2002, 175) n’i-ntɨ-rə d’iδu-ʔ neg-aor-2sg>s shoot-cng ‘You didn’t shoot it.’

In parallel fashion, the Nganasan negative imperative (prohibitive) uses the same suffixes and strategies as the affirmative imperative: it suffixes mood and argument indexes on the negative verb and puts the lexical verb in the connegative. In example (7), the suffix -ntə fuses the categories of mood (imperative) with those of subject and object person (2sg subject, singular object): (8)

Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2002, 388) n’i-ntə ŋanabtu-ʔ, n’i-ntə neg-imp.2sg>s forget-cng neg-imp.2sg>s ‘Don’t forget it, don’t lose it!’

d’ükə-ʔ lose-cng

Contrast this with Sygva (also north) Mansi example (9), where the negative imperative is expressed by uninflecting particle ul, placed between the verb and its (spatial/aspectual) particle xot, and inflectional morphology is suffixed to the lexical verbs (-əl- singular object, -n second-person subject). (9)

Sygva Mansi (Kálmán 1976, 70) xot ul pēs|t-əl-n xot ul ptcl proh loose|tr-sg.o-2 ptc proh ‘Don’t let him run away, don’t let him free!’

tār|t-əl-n free|tr-sg.o-2

For the formation of questions, there is no Uralic-wide strategy, but apart from Saamic and Finnic, constituent order is not usually different from that of a declarative clause. Polar questions in Hungarian and Finnish are expressed by intonation (the main Hungarian strategy, cf. Kenesei et al. 1998, 431‒436) or enclitics accompanied with a change

44 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

in word order, where the finite verb is moved to the beginning of the clause (the main Finnish strategy, as in tule-t=ko sinä? come-2sg=q 2sg ‘are you coming?’). Hungarian also has an enclitic =ë, which is stylistically neutral for subordinate polar questions (9a), whereas Finnish enclitic =kO is used on both main-clause and subordinate-clause polar questions (9b, 9c). Main-clause polar questions without =kO are current in colloquial Finnish now, as well, for example, tuu-t sä? come-2sg 2sg ‘are you coming?’ The verb-initial word order and a falling intonation curve that starts higher up than in statements show that it is a question. Hungarian main-clause polar questions are most often expressed by means of intonation (9d), but the particle strategy also occurs as a higher-style alternative (9e). (9a) Nem neg

tudom, hogy segít=e. know-npst-1sg.f cmpl help.prs.3sg.p=q

autta-a=ko se. (9b) E-n tiedä-x neg-1sg know-cng help-prs.3sg=q anaph ‘I don’t know whether it helps.’ (9c) Autta-a=ko se? help-prs.3sg=q anaph ‘Does it help?’ (9d) Segít? [rising to falling intonation on last syllable] help.prs.3sg (9e) Segít-e? [falling intonation, as in declarative clause] In northern Samoyedic, suffixes encoding interrogative mood form a part of the verb paradigm, and interrogative mood is expressed cumulatively with tense; Nganasan, for example, has a full complement of past, aorist, and future interrogative tense-and-mood suffixes (or suffix-chains), for example, 2sg past tuj-hu-ŋ, come-inter.pst-2sg ‘did you come?’ aorist tuj-ŋu-ŋ come-inter.aor-2sg ‘did you just come?’ and future tuj-süδəə-ŋ comeinter.fut-2sg ‘will you come?’ To form a negative question, both the tense-and-mood suffix (aorist interrogative -ŋU-) and the 2sg index are attached to the negative auxiliary in n’i-ŋɨ-ŋ s’arɨmɨtə-ʔ tolar-sa neg-inter-2sg be.ashamed-cng steal-inf ‘aren’t you ashamed to steal?’ (Wagner-Nagy 2002, 204; Tereščenko 1979, 210ff; see also Miestamo 2011). As for commands, it is possible to reconstruct a Proto-Uralic suffix for the 2sg imperative (at least in forms which do not index features of the object), namely, *-k. Its history in all the languages is not clear in all details. Finnish tule tänne (tule-x tännex, roughly [ˈtulɛtˈtænnɛʔ] ‘come here!’ (Ogden 2001) is straightforward enough, and various glides, fricatives, and assimilations and adaffrications are seen as its decendants in Hungarian, for example, várj [vaːrj] ‘wait!’ varrj [vɒrːʝ] ‘sew!’ nézz [neːzː] ‘look!’ szíts [siːtːʃ] ‘stoke!’ This suffix is assumed to have been homophonous with that of the connegative, a member of the verb paradigm occurring in negative constructions which use a negative verb. The two forms, 2sg imperative and connegative, are homophonous today in much of Finnic (11.4.3), Moksha (12.9.2), and Enets (Table 18.25). However in Mari (13.10.1) and Komi (14.8) they are equated with the (more abstract) verb stem. On imperatives and commands in general, see now Aikhenvald (2010).

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 45

1.4.2 NP syntax: Case flagging, internal concord; syntax of case It is important to try to distinguish argument flagging (which indicates the syntactic function of an NP in the clause) from argument indexing (which encodes arguments on the verb); it is just as important, in describing Uralic languages, to try to distinguish between systems with differential flagging (like Finnish or Komi, for which latter see Klumpp 2012) and differential indexing (like Khanty). Some languages, like Erzya and Moksha, have both (see Grünthal 2008). Here we focus on the flagging of NPs. For all Uralic languages, by far the most usual pattern has the head at the end of the NP, where case flags, whether suffixes or postpositions (or both in tandem), are attached, for example, Finnish pullo-ssa, Hungarian üvegben both bottle-ine ‘in a/the bottle,’ Finnish ove-n pää-llä door-gen head-ade, Hungarian az ajtó fölött art door above.loc ‘over/above the door,’ a város-on kívül art city-supe outside ‘outside the city’ (the reverse order also occurs: kívül a városon). As adumbrated in 1.3.2.1 earlier, case systems vary from the minuscule (northern Khanty, with three) to the superabundant (varieties of southern Permyak, with well over 20). The great size of the Permyak paradigm is patently due to recent incorporation of postpositional constructions into the case system (see Baker 1985, 184; also, with a broader purview, Ylikoski 2016). Hungarian has had a similarly large and relatively recent augmentation to its case system, going even further in having evolved bound proforms for most of its cases, for example, róla-m del-1sg ‘about me’ (cf. the delative case forms Budá-ról Buda-del ‘about Buda,’ Pest-ről Pest-del ‘about Pest’) and nekë-m dat-1sg ‘to me’ (cf. the dative case forms Péter-nek Peter-dat ‘to Peter,’ Pál-nak Paul-dat ‘to Paul’). Note also rajta-m kívül supl-1sg outside, kívüle-m outside-1sg both ‘outside of me.’ All Uralic languages use adpositions. South Saami has over 100 of them (6.18). Spatial relations encoded with case in one language will require a postpositional construction in another: Hungarian and Permyak use case in föld-ön earth-supe, mu-vv-a-s earth-supeine-3sg, while Tundra Nenets uses a postpositional construction ya-h nyi-nya earth-gen on-loc ‘on the ground’; on the other hand, Tundra Nenets has prolative case syexare-wəna road-prol ‘along the road,’ while Hungarian has az út mentén art road along ‘along the road,’ and the equivalent Finnish is tie-tä pitkin road-part along. (The Hungarian postposition mentén ‘along’ is morphologically mën|t-é-n go|nmlz-3sg-supe, and Finnish pitkin is an instructive of pitkä ‘long,’ viz. pitk-i-n long-pl-ins). As mentioned earlier, Uralic adpositions are historically (and often synchronically as well) nouns denoting spatio-temporal relations, such as ‘(space) underneath’ or ‘(time) after.’ They often themselves carry case suffixes, usually of an older stratum, and now longer productive, like the stative -tt and separative -Ul of Hungarian a ház mög-ött/ mög-ül art house behind-sta/behind-sep ‘at/from (the space) behind the house.’ Finnish ‘behind the house’ is roughly talon takana house-gen behind-ess/loc, but this is only a first approximation. In this construction, the host noun talo ‘house’ is in the genitive, and this is the usual form of postpositional constructions in Uralic languages having a genitive. Hungarian, which lacks a genitive, has (a) ház mög-ött (art) house behind-loc as an equivalent, with postposition mögött following the nominative form of the stem of the host noun. Mansi, Khanty, and the Permic languages, with no genitive or with only a recently coined one, similarly favour their nominative. Unexpectedly, Mari nouns tend not to use their genitive for this, using the nominative instead (although pronouns use the genitive). In Table 1.19 we provide parallel forms built with a postpositional stem meaning ‘under.’

Finnish

Erzya

East Mari

Komi

Sosva Mansi

Surgut Khanty

Hu

Ng*

TN

Taz Selkup

loc

al-la

alo

jə̂mal-nə

ul-ɨn

jŏli+pāl-t

yɬ|pi-nə

ala-tt

ŋil ə-nu

ŋil -na

ɨl-qɨt/n

lat

al-lex

alo-v

jə̂ma-k

ul-ɘ

jŏli+pāl-n

yɬ|pi-ja

al-á

ŋiljə

ŋilə-ŋ

ɨl-tɨ

abl

al-ta

al-do

jə̂ma-č́ ən

ul-ɨɕ

jŏli+pāl-nə

yɬ|pi-ji

al-ól

ŋil ə-δə

ŋilə-d

ɨl-qɨnɨ

pros, prol

al-ix, al-itsex

al-ga

ŋiljə-mənu

ŋilə-mna

ɨl-mɨt/n

term

uv-ti ul-ɘd͡ʑ

egr

uv-ɕaɲ

j

j

Source: Adapted from Jalava and Grünthal 2020). Hu = Hungarian, Ng = Nganasan (from Wagner-Nagy 2019, 153), TN = Tundra Nenets.

ə

ə

46 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

TABLE 1.19 URALIC POSTPOSITIONS BUILT WITH A POSTPOSITIONAL STEM MEANING ‘UNDER’

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 47

In addition to postpositions, a smaller number of prepositions have arisen in Finnic languages. We should distinguish forms which function as prepositions as the norm, for example, Finnish ennen ‘before,’ as in ennen sota-a before war-part ‘before the war,’ from those occurring as prepositions only in poetic use (Finnish alle laineh-i-tten beneath.all wave-pl-gen.pl ‘to beneath the waves,’ prosaically: aalto-j-en alle wave-pl-gen.pl beneath.all). Ennen seems to occur postpositionally only after the relativizer, for example, jo-ta ennen rel-part before ‘before which,’ and with holidays, joulu-a ennen Christmas-part before ‘before Christmas’ (also ennen joulu-a). Modifiers of the head of an NP normally precede, for example, ‘in these four cities’ may be translated as Finnish nä-i-ssä neljä-ssä kaupungi-ssa prox-pl-ine four-ine townine and Hungarian eb-ben a négy város-ban prox-ine art four city-ine, with the inessive suffix (here Finnish -ssä, Hungarian -ban) attached to the NP-final head in Hungarian. The oblique case triggers case agreement of modifiers in the Finnish example, with the inessive -ssA attaching not only to the head but also to the demonstrative and numeral; contrast nominative neljä kaupunki-a four town-part ‘four towns,’ in which the numeral is the head. Numerals take zero accusative, as in hän valloitt-i neljä kaupunki-a 3sg conquer-pst.3sg four city-part ‘s/he conquered four cities.’ In Hungarian, the presence of a quantifier forces non-plural number throughout the NP, but demonstratives agree with the head in case, here inessive -ben (of eb-ben) agreeing with -ban (of város-ban). A postposition like Finnish jälkeen ‘after’ puts the entire phrase into the genitive, for example, nä-i-den neljä-n kaupungi-n jälkeen prox-pl-pl.gen four-gen town-gen after ‘after these four towns.’ Hungarian repeats the postposition: ez után a négy város után (prox after art four city after) ‘after these four towns’ or, in a higher register, e négy város után, with demonstrative e and no article. Postmodifiers of an appositional or afterthought nature, with distinct intonational contours and case agreement, are also fairly common, for example, Hungarian bor-t kér-ek, vörös-et wine-acc ask-prs.1sg.p red-acc ‘some wine, please, red’; Finnish se osti uude-n auto-n, Volvo-n 3sg buy.pst.3sg new-gen/acc car-gen/acc pn-gen/acc ‘s/he bought a new car, a Volvo’; eastern Mari kič́ al-źa kuγə pušeŋɡ-əm körγan-əm look.for-imp.2pl big tree-acc hollow-acc ‘look for a big tree, a hollow one’ (Beke 1938, 433). For the material flagging of case, see the individual chapters. Here we have room only to say that for full nouns, nominative case is almost always flagged with zero. The two chief exceptions are the lexically and textually frequent Finnic stems in |se and |ise with irregular nominative forms, for example, Finnish nom.sg hevone-n ‘horse,’ gen.sg hevose-n, and several of the cardinals, for example, seitsemän ‘7,’ gen.sg seitsemä-n (Fromm 1982, 72–73), and in the south-eastern end of the family, there are Selkup nouns which have final consonants (p~m, t~n, k~ŋ, Kuznecova et al. 1980, 141–144), which appear only in the nominative, for example, nom.sg parä-k ‘crowbar,’ parä-i-m-tï t crowbar-pl-acc-3pl ‘their crowbars acc’ (Erdélyi 1970, 177). Across the family, nominative singular forms are therefore regularly the shortest forms in the paradigm unless epenthetic vowels are invoked by otherwise-intolerable clusters (as occasionally in Estonian, Permic, Hungarian, and Ob-Ugric). We should also make space for a few remarks on the prehistory of the Uralic genitive. The protolanguage is usually reconstructed as having had a genitive in *-n (3.6.1 and 1.1.2.5 earlier), and this form survives in one form or another in all but the central branches, insofar as it surfaces as n and/or triggers syllabic gradation (in susceptible material to its left), as in the nominate/genitive forms of ‘river,’ Finnish joki/joe-n, Standard Estonian jõgi/jõe. We have the genitives singular of ‘road’ and ‘land’ in Finnish tie-n, maa-n; in Hill Mari kornə-n, mə̈ländə̈-n; and in Mordvin, where its palatalized pendant

48 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

-nj has become general, in Erzya ki-nj, mastor-onj. This genitive is also attested throughout Samoyedic, where its successor surfaces as a nasal in compounds like Nganasan kou-n+d’er ‘midday’ (= Mator хаинджеръ, collected in the early nineteenth century, Helimski 1997, 137) and in close syntagms like Tundra Nenets yandyerə ‘inhabitant,’ that is, ya-h tyerə land-gen contents, orthographically я’ тер. Aikio (2022, 22) neatly uses gen as diagnostic for Proto-Uralic adjectives as opposed to true nouns: ‘In contrast with adjectives, true nouns prototypically took the genitive case (with the suffix *-n in the singular) when appearing as adnominal (possessor) modifiers.’ The primary use of the genitive in main clauses is NP-internal, to flag a ‘possessor.’ But those Uralic languages which do have a genitive will use it not only to mark the possessor in a binominal possessive NP (Finnish linnu-n silmä, Tundra Nenets tyirtya-h syæwə, both bird-gen eye ‘the/a bird’s eye’) but also to flag the subject in many nonfinite subordinate clauses, as in the Finnish rc [linnu-n syö-mä] ruoka bird-gen eat-ptcp.a food ‘food eaten by a bird,’ and the Nganasan rc [d’esɨ-nə d’ebtu.d’üəd’əə] sjitəbɨ fathergen.1sg tell.pst.ptcp tale ‘a tale that my father told’ (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 339), even East Mari šoĺə-žə-n younger.brother-3sg-gen in erβeˑź-lak-əšt [šoĺə-žə-n kńiɣa lut|maškə-žə] mijat child-pl-3pl younger.brother-3sg-gen book read|vn-ill-3sg go.npst.3pl ‘the children go to where their younger brother is reading’ (Beke 1938, 107). Subject person of such subordinate clauses is most commonly indexed on the nonfinite verb form, as in Finnish [etsi-mä-ni] kirja seek-ptcp.a-1sg book ‘the book I’m looking for,’ Forest Nenets [manid’ēj-nā-j] mjaʔ behold-ptcp-1du tent ‘the tent we two are looking at’ (Sammallahti 1974, 92), both behold-ptcp-1pl ‘the tent we (two) are looking at.’ However, under certain circumstances, the subject can be indexed on the head noun, as in Tundra Nenets tī xada-qma yalʹa-waq reindeer.acc.pl kill-ptcp.pfv day-1pl ‘the day we killed the reindeer’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 322). Independent pronouns are also usual, particularly if the subordinate clause’s subject is different from that of the main clause, as in Finnish hän näk-i [häne-n lähte-vän] 3sg see-pst.3sg s/he-gen leave-ref ‘he saw her leave,’ contrast hän kuul-i [sano-va-nsa] 3sg hear-pst.3sg say-ref-3sg ‘s/he heard her/himself say.’ An accusative singular in *-m, at least for definite-object nouns, can also be reconstructed for the protolanguage, with clear reflexes in Mansi as well as in the peripheral languages (Saamic through Maric and Samoyedic, cf. 3.6.1.) NP internal agreement in case and number is the norm in Finnic languages, but it is rare elsewhere in the family, being largely restricted to demonstratives and numerals (Saamic, where different case suffixes are used in, for example, nom and gen singular in Lule Saami, viz. nom.sg -t (instead of zero) and gen.sg -n (instead of gradation triggering suffix): da-t idja-∅ dist-nom night-nom ‘that night,’ da-n ijá-∅ dist-gen nightgen (Ylikoski 2022, 144). Nganasan also deviates inasmuch as there is some core case agreement between adjectives and their heads (e.g. case and number in accusative plural ɲɑɑɡəə-j koruðə-j good-pl.acc house-pl.acc ‘good houses (acc),’ but only number in ɲɑɑɡəi-Ɂ koruðu-tinu big-gen.pl house-loc.pl ‘in big houses,’ Wagner-Nagy 2022, 771). argument indexing, and the notion of ‘conjugation’ 1.4.3 Transitivity, A Uralic verb’s valency is usually morphologically explicit; this is because rich derivational machinery produces an abundance of formally differentiated transitive and intransitive verbs in every Uralic language (for morphological details, see 1.5.1.1). Ambitransitive verbs are quite rare in both Finnish and Hungarian. So-called ‘agent-preserving’ ambitransitives (s=a, 1.4.1 earlier) seem to occur in Hungarian; we

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 49

have, for example, szánt plough.prs.3sg.p ‘s/he ploughs,’ with no object (either overt or indexed), but szánt-ja (a földe-t) plough.prs-3sg.f (art field-acc) ‘s/he ploughs it (the field),’ and similarly, intransitive hajt(-∅-∅) drive(-npst-3sg.p) ‘s/he drives,’ but transitive hajt-ja az ökr-öt drive-prs.3sg.f ‘s/he drives the ox.’ Parallel forms and constructions can be cited from Finnish, for example, hän aja-a 3sg drive-3sg ‘s/he drives (in general)’ with no object, vs. hän aja-a auto-a 3sg drive-3sg car-part ‘s/he drives a/the car’ (an activity; contrast hän aja-a auto-n talli-in 3sg drive-3sg car-gen/acc garage-ill ‘s/he drives the car into the garage,’ an accomplishment). Traditionally, s=a verbs of this kind are interpreted as permitting ‘object omission’; however, this is an operation which is far from clear. And Hungarian and Finnish are not alone in this behaviour: in Uralic languages that lack object indexing, direct objects are often not stated at all, not even as free pronouns, for example, Finnish ved-i-n nuo piene-t taime-n alu-t ylös ja heit-i-n ∅o komposti-in pull-pst-1sg those little-pl seedling-gen beginning-pl.acc up and throwpst-1sg compost-ill ‘I pulled up those little starter seedlings and threw (them) on the compost,’ East Mari šəl-žə-m ru-en ta ola-š užal-aš nəŋkaj-en meat-3sg-acc cut.up-cvb and town-ill ∅o bring-past.3sg ‘he cut up the meat and brought it to town’ (Alhoniemi and Saarinen 1983, 62). See also 1.4.6 next. In contrast, s=o (‘patient-preserving’) ambitransitives clearly exist in Finnish and Hungarian, albeit rarely, for example, Hungarian számít itr ‘s counts (= is important)’/tr ‘a counts o,’ fest- itr ‘s seems’/tr ‘a paints o,’ használ- itr ‘s is of use’/tr ‘a uses o,’ tart- itr ‘s stays in a place/tr ‘a keeps o in a place’; and Finnish laske- itr ‘s descends’/tr ‘a lowers o.’ And the s=o relation is widespread in northern Samoyedic languages, where the presence vs. absence of object indexing together with the availability of reflexive (or Split-S) person suffixes makes such pairs possible: see Table 1.20, which attempts to capture a few Tundra Nenets verbs with the s=o ambitransitive pattern in their larger relation to the lexicon. The five kinds of valence-and-aspect profile for Tundra Nenets verbs illustrated in Table 1.20 present a highly simplified picture. Tatevosov has shown that variables of Tundra Nenets conjugation involve finely tuned calibrations of actants (distinguishing, for example, 12 kinds of underived intransitive verbs on the basis of their action matrix, 2016), and that stem-final vowel alternations (such as alternating and non-alternating stem-final ə) correlate with aspect and valence (2022). Other examples of verbs with the s=o pattern are Erzya kekš- ‘to hide,’ eastern Mari šel- ‘to split’ and Taz Selkup tott- ‘to stand.’ In addition to derivational morphology, the most widespread valency-decreasing mechanism is found in various kinds of passive constructions, all of which usually entail changes in both index sets and syntactic frame. Zhornik (2018) is a recent survey, with both synchronic and diachronic detail. Table 1.21 sets out examples illustrating valence-changing morphology in selected Uralic languages. In the set of verbs sampled in Table 1.21, Komi and Hungarian have equipollent pairs, each derived from a neutral theme, while North Saami, Finnish, Erzya, Hill Mari, and eastern Mansi derive the itr from the tr root. But this pattern is for verbs that describe opening. Verbs that describe closing can have different profiles: for ‘to close,’ Finnish has sulke- tr / sulke|utu- itr (like Finnish ‘open’), but Hungarian has csuk- tr / csuk|ód-(ik) itr (with derived intransitive). In fact, each language has its own profile, and samplings 10 or 20 times greater than this one reveal that it is more than a matter of simple ‘causativity’; see Bradley et al. (2022) for an enlightening look at valence change and valence orientation in Mordvin, Mari, Udmurt, and Permyak (as well as Chuvash and Tatar).

50 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI TABLE 1.20 SAMPLE TUNDRA NENETS VALENCE PATTERNS VERBS WITH THE S=O AMBITRANSITIVE PATTERN ARE NUMBERED ‘5’ IN THE LEFTMOST COLUMN. 1

ŋamt|yo- ‘to sit, be in a seated state’

4

ŋamtə- ‘to sit down’

3

ŋamtə|ta- ‘to seat’

2

ŋamtə|ta|mpə- ‘to seat|fact|dur’

5

tələ- ‘to close tr/itr’

itr ipfv r pfv tr pfv tr ipfv tr/r pfv

1

tələj- ‘to be in a closed state’

itr ipfv

1

wabt|yo- ‘to be in a turned state’

itr ipfv

5

wabta- ‘to turn itr/tr’

2

wabta|bə- ‘turn tr ipfv’

1

wabta|ŋkə- ‘to turn itr ipfv’ (iter)

tr/r pfv tr ipfv

1

yempə|dyo- ‘to be in a dressed state’

5

yempə|s- ‘to dress|V (tr/itr)’

itr ipfv itr ipfv tr/r pfv

Source: Adapted from analysis in Salminen (1998); note that the ə-stem ‘alteration’ verb is written here with final əj-. Note: r = reflexive.

TABLE 1.21  TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE ‘OPEN’ IN SELECTED URALIC LANGUAGES N Saami

Finnish

Erzya

Hill Mari

Komi

Hungarian

East Mansi

tr

rahpa-

ava-

panž-

pač́ -

voɕ|t-

nyi|t-

punsə-

itr

rahpa|si-

ava|utu-

panž|ot-

pač́ |əlt-

voɕ|ɕ-

nyí|l(-ik)

punsi|taɣtə-

The term conjugation is traditionally applied to inflection classes of verbs which grammarians group together into classes on the basis of shared morphosyntactic properties and their exponents. For Uralic languages, the term has had a chequered career: it has been applied to a wide range of criteria, from differences in stem-suffix sandhi through the indexing of valency. A taste of the degree of differences in approaches to verb inflection can be descried in Fred Karlsson’s comment (2004, 1339): Elias Lönnrot’s opinion was that there is just one conjugation in Finnish. On the other hand, the maximalistic interpretation presented in Nykysuomen sanakirja is that there are 45 verbal inflectional types. An intermediate interpretation in the framework of concrete surface-oriented morphology is that there are 5 basic ways of inflecting verbs. The inflection of Uralic verbs varies in two fundamentally different ways across the family. In some languages, variation consists of no more than differences that are the result of morphonological rules as they apply to subparadigms or even single paradigmatic slots, such as Hungarian prs.2sg.p -3l (= -ë/ö/ol, 1.2.3 earlier) after stem-final s(h)ibilants (as in főz-öl cook-2sg.p ‘you cook’) but -Asz elsewhere in the present subparadigm (as in tanít-asz teach-2sg ‘you teach’). A similar kind of rule will account for the allomorphy of

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 51

the 3sg suffix across the Finnish paradigm, namely, -∅ after stem-final i, as in the past and conditional forms of ‘sit’ istu-i-∅, istu-isi-∅, but vowel lengthening elsewhere, as in the 3sg present and potential forms of this verb: istu-∅-u, istu-ne-e. Allomorphy of person suffixes that is restricted to subparadigms or even single forms is often not so easily predicted, cf. -∅ vs. -təɣ in Surgut Khanty (16.4.2), or -ɘ vs. -as in Udora Komi (Abondolo 2017), and South Estonian 3sg forms like elä-s vs. and-∅ (9.3.2.1; Iva 2010, 83; Laanest 1975, 230‒231). But several Uralic languages have an abundance of person suffixes which cannot be ascribed to this kind of allomorphy (or suffix suppletion), and this has led many investigators to posit different conjugations in many languages across the family. These conjugations are of two basic kinds: First, there is the Mari/Udmurt kind of ‘conjugation.’ Here the inflection of all verbs is traditionally divided into two broad classes, but the differences in the forms of the person suffixes of these classes are generally slight (for the historical background, cf. 3.4 and Bereczki 2002). For Udmurt, compare the paradigms of mɨnɨ- ‘to go’ and malpa(l)- ‘to think’ (13.12). In Mari, the differences are a little more pervasive, embracing not only some person suffixes but also the selection of past-tense suffix, but overall, the two ‘conjugations’ are quite similar, and most (or all) of the differences can be ascribed to morphophonemics (12.10.1). There is little or no correlation with the syntax, save insofar as valence frames may or may not have been encoded on verbs by way of stem-final vocalism (e.g. second conjugation koδə- ‘to leave (tr)’ vs. first conjugation koδ- ‘to remain,’ or second conjugation šinč́ ə- ‘to be in a seated position’ vs. šińč-́ ‘to sit down,’ from low- and high-vowel stems, 3.5.4). The other use of the term conjugations is based on differences in index sets (Haspelmath 2013, 215). What we have here are (partly or wholly) different sets of suffixes which differ either (1) according to whether they do or do not index, on transitive verbs, features not only of the subject but also of a direct object; or (2) for intransitive verbs, according to differences in the roles or status of the subject (indexing of subject person/number is obligatory for all affirmative/declarative inflected verb forms in Uralic; no Uralic language indexes features of indirect objects or more peripheral arguments). We may classify such systems into several subtypes. One is represented by Veps, Karelian, Ingrian, and eastern dialects of Finnish, where there is a full set of suffixes termed reflexive because they are used to index subjects and objects that are coreferential (Grünthal 2015, 143‒149). The northern Samoyedic languages also have intransitive verbs which take, somewhat unpredictably, distinct index sets; this form of inflection is also traditionally termed reflexive (but see later passages for a complication). Another kind of system distinguishes forms that index features of a direct object vs. forms that do not. This kind is represented most clearly by the Ob-Ugric languages, where ‘objective conjugation’ forms of inflected verbs index their object, while ‘subjective conjugation’ forms do not (and intransitive verbs therefore occur in these latter forms only). In Ob-Ugric languages, it is object number that is indexed, albeit with different material: for Surgut Khanty, see 16.4.2; for Mansi, see 15.4.2. It is striking that the now-extinct Tavda (south) Mansi deployed its object-indexing suffixes differently from the rest of Mansi: singular objects were indexed with -l- in non-past and with -t- in past-tense forms, but in western, eastern, and northern Mansi, it is subject person that determines the distribution of these suppletive suffixes, locuphoric subjects selecting -l-, while non-locuphoric subjects select -t- to index their object (Liimola 1965; Honti 1975). Hungarian also has index sets, but their meanings differ primarily not in terms of transitivity but rather in ways more akin to an inverse system, with different index sets selected on the basis of the referential status of the arguments (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2011, 73‒76)

52 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

and the nature of the relationship of the two arguments in the scenario (cf. Haspelmath’s notion of downstream: 2020, 130). If we think of first, second, and third persons as occupying concentric cirles with ego at the centre, we may characterize forms such as szeret-lek ‘I love you,’ szeret-ëm ‘I love him/her/it/you (formal)’ as centrifugal as opposed to centripetal (‘upstream’) forms, such as szeret-sz ‘you love me/us’ or simply ‘you love,’ szeret-∅ ‘s/he loves you/me/us,’ or simply, ‘s/he loves.’ Centripetal conjugation is used by all intransitive verbs, and on transitive verbs, it indexes an object of a lesser person than the subject (1 < 2 < 3) or no object at all (thus, ‘you see me’ takes the same suffix as ‘you can see’). Centrifugal conjugation of a first-person subject must differentiate between second and third person, since these occupy concentric rings (and thus have separate indexes, -lAk for 1.sg.f2 and -3m for 1.sg.f). See Verseghy 1818; Abondolo 1988, 88‒94; Sherwood 2004; Kubínyi 2007. Unlike Mansi and Khanty, Hungarian must indicate non-singular object number by unstressed enclitic pronouns, for example, utál-∅-om ő-ke-t hate-prs-1sg.f 3sg-pl-acc ‘I hate them’ vs. utál-∅-om hate-npst-1sg.f ‘I hate him/her/it/you (formal).’ Third-person objects (including subordinate clauses) are indexed on the verb in a variety of syntactic and pragmatic contexts (for an early and clear account, see de Groot 1989, 12‒30). There are some signs of incipient Split-S indexing in Hungarian’s ‘-ik verbs,’ as well: most of these are intransitives that select non-past 3sg.p -ik instead of canonic -∅, but a few s=o ambitransitives (such as tör- ‘to break’ s=o) use both suffixes, -∅ in transitive clauses and -ik in intransitive ones. The distinction is consistent only for this paradigm slot, other slots making it at most optionally. For example, the difference between intransitive ‘I drink’ being isz-∅-ok or isz-∅-om as a matter of register or style (see also Sherwood 1994 and 2013). Varieties of Selkup resemble Hungarian most closely here, with the Taz Selkup verb distinctively indexing its objects at most only in 123sg and 3du; cf. 20.10. Both Mordvin languages present with yet another kind of divide in their inflectional system, with suffixes that index their subjects only (‘subjective’) and a different set of suffixes that index not only the number but also the person of the object. We have met with these briefly (in the preceding text) in connection with cumulation and the difficulties of segmentation; here we take a small sample of this kind of inflection with a few Erzya non-past forms of ‘see,’ for example, 1sg van-a-n, 1sg>2sg van-dan, 1sg>3sg van-sa, 2sg>1sg van-samak, 3sg>1sg van-samam, 3sg>2sg van-tanzat. There is considerable syncretism if either the subject or the object person is plural (see Table 1.22, from Austerlitz 1968, 1351), and there is a fair amount of variation not only between but also within Moksha and Erzya (see 11.9.1 and Keresztes 1999).

TABLE 1.22  LOCUPHORIC OBJECT INDEXING IN ERZYA o(bject person) 1sg plural

2sg singular

-samak A: 2sg

-tan A: 1sg

-samam

-tanzat

plural

A: 3sg -samiź Aː 2,3 sg/pl

-tadʹiź A: 1,3 sg/pl

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 53

The richest system of index sets is found in the North Samoyedic languages, which distinguish, in addition to subjective vs. objective forms (encoding object number, as in Ob-Ugric), also two kinds of (intransitive) subject indexing, that is, they have developed the kind of incipient suffixation seen in Hungarian ‘-ik verbs’ more fully, resulting into a fairly distinct paradigm (see Table 1.14). Table 1.23 presents sample active and reflexive third-person forms in three languages for comparison; the Samoyedic forms are trimorphemic because stem and person suffix are separated by an aspect/tense morpheme. Table 1.24 presents a synoptic view of various kinds of index set systems across the family. TABLE 1.23  SAMPLE ACTIVE VS. REFLEXIVE ARGUMENT INDEX SETS FOR THE VERB ‘TO WASH’ IN THREE URALIC LANGUAGES: VEPS, TUNDRA NENETS, AND NGANASAN ‘to wash’ 3sg subject

veps

tundra nenets

nganasan

Active

peze-∅-b

xələta-ə-∅

n’oba-ʔa-∅

Reflexive

xələte-yə-q

peze-∅-se

n’oba-ʔi-ðə

Source: Veps data are from Zaiceva (2010); Nganasan data are from Wagner-Nagy (2019, 304).

TABLE 1.24  SYNOPTIC VIEW OF INDEX SET SYSTEMS IN URALIC LANGUAGES r = SECONDARY INDEX SET FOR INTRANSITIVES, INCLUDING ‘REFLEXIVES’ (~ ENETS ‘MIDDLE,’ 18.4.2.2); s/a = BASIC (OR SOLE) INDEX SET; so, do, po = INDEXING OF SINGULAR, DUAL, PLURAL OBJECT. THE POSITIVE SCORES FOR HUNGARIAN AND SELKUP ARE IN PARENTHESES BECAUSE OF THEIR RUDIMENTARY (INCIPIENT, VESTIGIAL) QUALITIES. r Saami

do

po

+ +

+

nEst

+

sEst

++

Mordvin

+

Mari

i/ii

Udmurt

i/ii

Komi, Permyak

+

Udora Komi

++

Hungarian

so

+

Finnish Veps

s/a

(+)

P/N

+

+

Mansi

+

+

+

+

Khanty

+

+

+

+

Nganasan

+

+

+

+

+

Enets

+

+

+

+

+

Tundra Nenets

+

+

+

+

+

+

(+)

Selkup

54 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

As has just been mentioned, South Estonian and Udora Komi show superabundant morphology in their 3sg forms; this is signaled with in Table 1.23, while the co-called first and second ‘conjugations’ of Μari and Udmurt are indicated with . The Mordvin languages can distinguish both person and number of objects, symbolized here with . Languages which use distinct index sets often have differential argument flagging at their disposal as well. Compare the grammar in the two clauses of a short stretch of narrative in example (10): (10) Tavda (South) Mansi (TŠ) (Kannisto and Liimola 1956, 174–175) l’aŋ kürt porc’axʃɛm kanta-s-t | jikβä jü+tī -s-til porc’axʃɛm-mɛ way along pea find-pst-3pl | woman vp+eat-pst-3sg>s pea-acc ‘on the way, they found a pea; the woman ate the pea’ In this Tavda (South Mansi, now extinct) example, ‘a pea’ has become ‘the pea,’ and the knownness of this direct object is encoded partly by differential argument indexing on the verb (3sg>s indexing on jü+tī-s-til vp+eat-pst-3sg>s), consistent with a topical object, but also partly by differential object flagging (acc -mɛ on porc’axʃɛm-mɛ pea-acc). But transitivity, being a multi-layered clause-level phenomenon, can embrace every variable of the verb and its argument and adjuncts. Every Uralic language that has evolved a true passive most often brings it into play when the clause has the potential for high transitivity, for it then has also the aspectual factors of telicity (and direction, aim, as in the verb particles of Hungarian, North Estonian) and perfectivity (completion, achievement). Argument indexing on the verb and differential object flagging on the noun can each play a part in the encoding of such variables. In a folklore text in Pelymka (West Mansi) collected and edited by Matti Liimola in 1902 and 1906, we find a pair of paired parallel sentences involving a magical knife. In the first sentence pair, the ‘old man’—who has carried an elk onto the scene—tells the knife to cut the elk up, and the knife complies: (11a) Pelymka (west) Mansi (Kannisto and Liimola 1956, 128) je͡ɛpt jextlaxt-∅-n knife.voc cut.up-imp-2sg ‘knife, cut (it) up!’ (11b) je͡ɛpt jextlaxt-s-∅ knife.nom cut.up-pst-3sg ‘the knife cut (it) up’ He then tells the knife to put the now-butchered elk in the pot to be cooked, and again the knife follows his instruction: (11c) je͡ɛpt no͡ål+piēt-∅-n knife.voc vp+put.in.pot-imp-2sg ‘knife, put (it) in the pot!’ (11d) je͡ɛpt no͡ål+piēt-s-tə knife.nom vp+put.in.pot-pst-3sg>s ‘the knife put it in the pot’

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 55

In (11d), directionality and telicity are reflected in the verb particle no͡ål, expressive (at the micro level, in the house) of motion toward the fire or into the cooking pot, and these spatial/aspectual features comport with the greater transitivity of this clause compared with that of its parallel in (11b); the verb is accordingly indexed for its direct object. The imperative clauses, as elsewhere in Uralic, score lower on the transitivity scale (for Pelymka and other West Mansi, see Eichinger 2017, and see Honti 1988 for the larger Ob-Ugric context). We may close this section on the interrelatedness of aspect/tense vs. mood and derivation vs. inflection with examples from the extremes of the family. Finnish conditional -isi- as in men-isi-n go-cond-1sg ‘I would go’ developed from a suffix *-ŋći- (Korhonen 1981, 254), is equivalent to the Saamic ‘potential’ (mana-ža-n go-pot-1sg ‘I might go’); but there was already a derivational suffix *|ŋći- that formed momentaneous-diminutive verbs like Finnish vetä|ise- ‘to give a tug’ (from root vetä- ‘pull, draw’), and conditional forms of such derived stems thus have the suffix twice, once in derivational and once in inflectional function: vetä|is-isi-n pull|mom-cond-1sg ‘I would give (it) a tug.’ At the other end of the family, Nganasan innovated an imperfective aorist suffix -NTU/A1- (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 224) from a durative-continuative derivational suffix, synchronically |NTƎ- (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 532); as with the Finnic suffix pair, these two Nganasan suffixes continue to function alongside one another, for example, ŋəðə|tə-tu see|ipfv-aor.3sg ‘s/he can see’ (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 194). The imperfectivizer |NTƎ also builds future-tense forms (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 237); it survives in Saamic, Moksha, and Hungarian as a verb-deriving suffix forming imperfectives and frequentatives and, in Tavda Mansi, was used to encode durative presents (Honti 1975, 52). One final note on aspect and valence in the Uralic context perhaps bears stating explicitly. It often seems helpful to try to distinguish lexical aspect, an inherent and immutable property of a root (as in Nganasan), from derived aspect, which alters a root’s aspect by means of the addition of a derivational suffix. This latter, broader kind of aspect includes the various kinds of action types (Aktionsarten), such as durative-continuous or frequentative-iterativemultiobjective versus momentaneous-punctual or semelfactive, and all these run a short way parallel with derived valency, which also arises when derivational suffixes are added. But valency seems to be more complex than this in Uralic languages, and in some languages, passive formations seem rather derivational while in others they are clearly part of the inflectional paradigm. clauses and comparative constructions 1.4.4 Copula In Uralic languages, copula clauses (often filed under nominal predication or verbless clauses (Dixon 2010b, 159‒188) present far too many different kinds of variable to be discussed under one hierarchized heading. In any given Uralic language, the copula paradigm will generally consist of at least two forms, of which one may be zero, for example, Hungarian first-person categorizational költőcc vagy-ok poet be-1sg ‘I am a poet,’ but költőcc poet ∅ ‘s/he is a poet.’ Hungarian uses zero for non-locuphoric persons in the nonpast indicative, and the irregular and suppletive verb val-/lëv- ‘be’ elsewhere, as in költőcc vol-ta-m poet be-pst-1sg ‘I was a poet’ and hogy költőcc lë-gye-k cmpl poet be(come)sbjv-1sg ‘that I might be a poet.’ The copula complement takes number the same as the copula subject: éhës-ekcc vagy-unk hungry-pl be-1pl ‘we are hungry’ and éhës-ekcc hungry-pl ∅ ‘they are hungry.’ Finnish, which uses verb ole- ‘to be’ in all kinds of copula clause, patterns with most of Finnic and Saamic in this regard. The Permic languages

56 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

stand out for having a dedicated pluralizer for adjectives used as copula complements (Udmurt -es j 13.5, Komi -ɘɕ 14.5). One variable which crops up repeatedly across the family is the use of distinct copula verbs and/or constructions at different points along the copula continuum, as seen in Table 1.25 (Dixon 2010b, 159‒188; Payne 1997, 111ff.) . For example, Hungarian breaks at type 3, with copula clauses expressing equation through categorization using val-/lëv- or ∅, as just mentioned, but clauses of types 4‒7 using val- (and its negative counterart nincs) throughout, for example, két választás-unk van two choice-1pl ex.3sg ‘we have two choices,’ nincs cipő-m neg.ex shoe-1sg ‘I don’t have any shoes.’ Negation can introduce another variable, because as this latter Hungarian example illustrates, many Uralic languages use different verbs or constructions depending on polarity. For example, copula is zero in Udmurt už uno (work much) and in Hungarian sok a munka (much art work), both ‘there’s a lot of work,’ but both languages have a special negative copula for such an existential clause, viz. už uno əvəl (work much neg), nincs sok munka (neg much work), both ‘there isn’t a lot of work.’ Finnish, in contrast, uses verb ole- ‘to be’ in both affirmative and negative versions of this clause, and the copula subject ‘work’ is in the partitive, in the affirmative clause because it is quantitatively indefinite (työ-tä on paljon work-part cop.3sg much) and in the negative clause because its indefiniteness has to do with referentiality: työ-tä e-i ole-x paljon work neg3sg be-cng much (Siro 1957). The case selected by the copula complement can vary across the family; many languages use an essive or translative case (or both) to encode temporary or contingent states, and this can have effects parallel to those of copular clauses; compare Hynönen’s minimal-pair ole-t muuttu-nut poliitikko-na/poliitiko-ksi aux-2sg change-act.pst.ptcp politician-ess/tra ‘You have changed as/into a politician’ (in DeGroot 2017, 51) and note the different valence frames of the semantically very similar verbs pitä- ‘to think, regard,’ and luule- ‘to think, assume (to be)’ as in pid-i-n hän-tä kiva-na think-pst-1sg 3sg-part nice-ess and luul-i-n hän-tä kiva-ksi think-pst-1sg 3sg-part nice-tra ‘I thought s/he was nice.’ For detailed yet, on the whole, clear accounts, see the chapters in de Groot (2017). A further complication can arise in languages that use person suffixes to encode both possession and nominal predication. In Tundra Nenets, the possessor is flagged with a person suffix on the cc (e.g. nya-wə friend-1sg ‘my friend’), while the copula subject is stated overtly by the nominative free pronoun pidərə 2sg, for example, pidər ə mənyə nyawə ∅ 2sg 1sg friend-1sg ‘you are my friend’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 256; for an Enets parallel, see 18.9.7.1.). In more eastern languages we find copula clauses in relative clause function which have their own construction (cf. Nikolaeva’s proprietive relative, 2014, 336), as in Nganasan kou anikaʔa baŋ ear big dog ‘dog with big ears.’ In this construction, the adjective anikaʔa ‘big’ is not a postmodifer but, rather, is copula complement to the copula subject

TABLE 1.25 THE COPULA CONTINUUM equation identification

categorization property location existence possession (proper inclusion) (attribution)

1

3

2

4

5

6

7

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 57

kou ‘ear,’ that is, ‘[(its) ear(s) are big] dog.’ This construction is similar to one which is common in languages to the east of Uralic, such as Yukaghir (Maslova 2003, 12). 1.4.4.1 Comparative constructions We take a quick look at comparative constructions here, since Uralic languages usually build these out of copula clauses. We may expand slightly on Dixon’s formula (Dixon 2012, chapter 26) for monoclausal comparative clauses by distinguishing the seven ingredients: (1) comparee, (2) copula, (3) measure/degree, (4) parameter, (5) index, (6) mark (Stassen’s ‘comparative particle,’ 2013), and (7) standard, as in the English example: Paul 2is 3eight 3centimeters 4tall5er 6than 7Eve (is)

1

The Finnish strategy for such constructions is the same as the English insofar as the comparee is copula subject and the parameter is copula complement, as in 1Paulics 2on 4vanhe|5mpicc6kuin 7Eeva Paul cop tall|cmp ‘Paul is taller than Eve,’ and one Hungarian option differs from this only in that its copula is zero in the non-past indicative third person, viz. 1Pál 2∅ 4öreg|5ebb, 6mint 7Éva Paul cop old|cmp than Eve. Many Uralic languages have parallel, ‘equivalent’ constructions with the mark of the standard encoded by a case suffix, for example, partitive in Finnish: Pauli on 7 Eeva-6a vanhe|mpi as well as in Veps (Grünthal 2015, 178) and Votic (Ariste 1968, 21); North Estonian uses the elative case parallel to the proclitic kui (like the Finnish kuin earlier), Erelt 2007, 117. Komi likewise uses its elative here, as in Marina 7Nina6 ɨɕ tom.d͡ʒɨk Marina Nina-ela young.cmp ‘Marina is younger than Nina,’ 14.5.1, and Hungarian has an option with the adessive (here -nál), as in 1Pál 2∅ 4öreg.5ebb 7Évá6 nál. Stassen’s term locational (2013) applies synchronically to all save the Finnic examples given here; most Uralic standards are flagged with ‘from’-locationals, like the Estonian and Komi elative, while Hungarian uses a suffix which is synchronically an ‘at-locational’ (adessive -nál). Further variation arises when we consider languages which do not use an index on the parameter, as in Mansi; the standard must then be expressed. The following example is from North Mansi, where the standard is flagged with the ablative (-nəl) (15.6, example (17)) 1 Marina 1eːɕ-um 7aːnum-6nəl 3[saːt taːl-e] 4manʲ Marina younger.sister-1sg 1sg-abl seven year.det small ‘My younger sister Marina is seven years younger than me,’ compare also 2 ͡ ∅ 7[ńemi-6gətə-tə] 1sg Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 200) 1[mənə ńemi-mə] 4ńeəniаŋku mother-1sg kind cop 2sg mother-ela-2sg ‘My mother is nicer than your mother.’ 1.4.5 Complex sentences Complex sentence types occur in the world’s languages in interlocking patterns of the kind captured by Croft’s (2001, 297) diagram, in which various kinds of supporting clauses, CoCl, and relative clauses flow into one another. It is an attempt at visualizing the ways in which the components of various kinds of complex sentence are formally and functionally interrelated by situating them in a model of conceptual space. Serial verb constructions and paratactic constructions, for example, seem to lie somewhere between coordination and complementation. Looking at CoCl in Hungarian, we may illustrate the simplest frame, characteristic of verbs occurring only with intransitive subjects, with sentences like lëhet [hogy

58 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

már el+mën-t]s, be-pot.3sg.p cmpl already vp+go-pst.3sg.p ‘It’s possible that s/he’s left already,’ in which the CoCl is in s (intransitive subject) function. Only slightly more complex are sentences in which the matrix verb requires an extension, such as eszëmbe ‘to my mind,’ in eszëmbe së jutott [hogy hazudjak]s to.my.mind neg come.pst.3sg.p cmpl lie.subj.1sg.p ‘It didn’t even occur to me to lie.’ The valence frames of hundreds of Hungarian verbs of speaking, thinking, and related activities may be subclassified in terms of the syntactic functions which their CoCl can fill. Using Dixon’s s, a, o (introduced earlier at 1.4.1), we arrive at four basic kinds (plus that of cs, copula subject), and provision for an (optional or obligatory) extension to the core (e) then gives four additional kinds, for a total of nine kinds of complement clause valence frame, presented here schematically with the CoCl function underscored: S SE

OA OAE

OA OAE

OA OAE

CS

In a sentence with frame oa, the complement clause functions as object in the matrix clause, for example, nem akar-ja, [hogy hoz-za-k valami-to]o neg want-npst.3sg.f cmpl bring-subj-1sg.p something-acc ‘s/he doesn’t want me to bring something,’ that is, with [hogy hoz-za-k valami-t] cmpl bring-sbjv-1sg ‘that I bring something’ functioning as the object of the matrix verb akar-ja want-npst.3sg.f ‘she/wants it/her/him.’ In contrast, in a sentence with frame oa, the complement clause functions as transitive subject in the matrix clause, as in Mari-to mëg+lep-t-e, [hogy János idejében érkëz-ëtt-∅]a Mari-acc surprised-pst-3sg.f cmpl János on.time arrive-pst-3sg.p ‘That János arrived on time surprised Mari.’ And both frames can occur simultaneously in the same sentence: we have both OA and OA, the former embedded within the latter, in egy film élményét elrontja az, [hogy előre tudom, [hogy mi történik]o]a art filmr experienced-acc ruin.npst.3sg.f az cmpl in.advance know.npst.1sg.f cmpl whats happen.npst.3sg.p ‘That I know in advance what happens ruins the experience of a film.’ (We will return to this function of az later.) The majority of Hungarian CoCl are built with hogy, but this complementizer may be omitted, especially if the clause is in object function, and other factors, including mood, constituent order, and distance between the clause and its matrix verb, are all factors (É. Kiss et al. 1998, 141‒142). One kind of causal subordination is encoded with a complement clause with complementizer amiért, as in dühös voltam rá, [amiért hazudott nekëm]CoCl:e angry be.pst.1sg.p subl-3sg amiért lie-pst.3sg.p dat-1sg ‘I was angry with him/her for lying to me,’ while another kind of causality uses a supporting clause with complementizer mert ‘because’: dühös voltam rá (azért), [mert hazudott nekëm] ‘I was angry with him/her because she lied to me.’ A Finnish sentence with a structure of a simplicity parallel to Hungarian lëhet [hogy már elmënt]s cited earlier is täytyy 3sg.gen be.necessary.npst .3sg leave.inf ‘s/he has to leave.’ Here the (discontinuous) constituent . . . ‘for him/her to leave’ is a complement clause in s function (with its subject in the genitive), the main verb being täyty-y be.necessary-3sg. The Finnish intransitive verb pysty- ‘to be able to,’ with a valence frame which includes illatives, is one of several dozen verbs of ability, possibility, and necessity in the language (Flint 1980; an example of this verb with an NP complement is hän pysty-y työ-höne 3sg be.up.to-npst.3sg work-ill ‘s/he’s able to do the

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 59

job’). And pysty- can also take a same-subject CoCl built with the illative of the mA-infinitive (also called third infinitive; Sands 2011, 56), as in hän e-i pysty-nyt [puhu-ma-an]e 3sg neg-3sg be.able-act.ptcp.pst speak|v-ill ‘S/he was not able to speak.’ Hungarian can express a similar sort of meaning with an infinitival complement to the caritive adjective képtelen, as in képtelen vol-t mëgszólal-ni incapable be-pst.3sg speak.up-inf ‘S/he was unable to speak’. In Finnish, the complex [be able to]+[speak] just mentioned can be nested in a matrix clause with the verb pelkät- ‘to fear,’ which takes object complements, viz. hän pelkäs-i [ett-ei pysty-isi [puhu-maan]e]o s/ he fear-pst.3sg cmpl-neg.3sg be.able-cond.3sg speak-inf-ill ‘s/hei feared that s/hei would not be able to speak.’ Now, one possible Hungarian translation of this Finnish sentence is at-tól tart-ott [képtelen lësz [mëgszólalni]e]e—a sentence devoid of transitivity. This is because the Hungarian matrix verb tart- in the meaning ‘to fear’ has the valence frame se, with oblique complements specifically in the ablative case (example with NP complement: tart az ap-já-tól fear.prs.3sg.p art father-3sg-abl ‘s/he is afraid of her father’). This case frame appears on the distal deictic az as at-tól that-abl and functions in the main clause as a dummy, serving to flag the complement clause as a focalized e argument of the matrix verb: thus, ‘s/he was afraid that s/he wouldn’t be able to speak’ is that-abl fear-pst.3sg [incapable be.fut.3sg [speak. up-inf]e]e. The use of Hungarian distal deictics (like nominative az and ablative attól in earlier examples) as placeholders for dependent clauses (cf. ‘expletive pronominal’ in Kenesei et al. 1998, 28) is not restricted to CoCl. They are used with both supporting and relative clauses as well, forming what are most commonly called correlative clause constructions. Finnish builds its most frequent temporal clause construction for subsequent time in finite supporting clauses with the neutral/anaphoric pronoun se, which in the genitive combines with postposition jälkeen ‘after,’ as in mi-tä tapahtu-u se-n jälkeen [kun ole-n rekisteröi|ty-nyt]sc what-part happen-3sg anaph-gen after when aux-1sg register|refl-act.ptcp.pst ‘what happens after I’ve registered?’ where se-n jälkeen is a grammaticalized NP (from the illative of jälki ‘trace,’ like Hungarian ut-á-n, earlier). Restrictive relative clauses can be built on the same principle, again with correlative se, which we find in the essive case in si-nä yö-nä [jo-na me tyhjensi-mme kahde-sta-an viski+pullo-n]rc anaph-ess night-ess rel-ess 1pl empty-pst-1pl two-ela-3sg/pl whisky+bottle-gen/acc ‘the night on which we two emptied a whisky bottle.’ (Compare also the use of kona or kodama in Shoksha Erzya, and kudo or mogaj in Meadow Mari, 21.2.4). In Hungarian, the most common function of the distal deictics, in all three scenarios, is to stand in for the clause in question by occupying topic or focus position. In examples (12a, 12b, 12c), the distal deictics underscored in the first (here: main) clause cataphorically flag, by virtue of their position before the finite verb, that the ensuing clause is the focus of the sentence: (12a) is a restricted relative clause, in (12b) it is the content (rather than the fact) of my belief that is at issue, and in (12c) it is only or especially when s/he is angry that I am fond of him/her. (12a)

[Az-t az embër-t]np:o that-acc art person-acc ‘I love the person who leaves.’

szeretëm, love.npst1sg.f

[aki rel

elmëgy]rc go.away.npst.3sg.p

60 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

(12b)

(12c)

hiszëm, [(hogy) Az-to that-acc believe.npst1sg.f (cmpl) ‘I think (that) s/he doesn’t love (me).’

nem neg

Ak+kor szeretëm, [ha mérgescc]sc that+time love.npst.1sg.f if angry ‘I love him/her when s/he is angry.’

szeret]o love.npst.3sg.p

∅ cop.npst.3sg.p

For a detailed and concise account of relative clauses in Uralic, see Chapter 21. Hungarian has an extremely wide range of supporting clauses, nearly all of which use a marker distinguishing the kind of subordination involved (Dixon 2010a, 133). Among its temporal markers is mi+után what+after ‘after,’ as in mëgkérdëztem, miután mëgérkëzëtt ask.pst.1sg.f after arrive.3sg.p or miután mëgérkëzëtt, mëgkérdëztem ‘I asked him/her after s/he arrived’ or ‘after s/he arrived, I asked him/her,’ and contrast the CoCl-construction mëgkérdëztem, mikor érkëzëtt mëg ‘I asked him/her when s/he had arrived’ with question word mikor ‘when’ in focus position, displacing the verb particle mëg. Finnish has both finite and nonfinite constructions for this set of affairs, for example, alongside (sen jälkeen) kun hän tul-i, kysy-i-n (that-gen after) when 3sg come-pst.3sg ask-pst-1sg ‘after s/he came I asked about,’ there is also the equivalent, nonfinite häne-n tul-tu-a-an kysy-i-n 3sg-gen come-pass.ptcp.pst-part-3sg ask-pst-1sg. Hungarian also has a nonfinite verb form in -vA whose functions include samesubject subordination, as in haza+tér-ve mindjárt el+alud-t vp+arrive-pst.3sg immediately vp+sleep-pst.3sg.p ‘s/he fell asleep right after getting home,’ parallel to a finite construction with mihelyt ‘as soon as,’ for example, elaludt, mihelyt hazatért; here Finnish also can use either a finite or nonfinite construction, for example, hän nukahti ‘s/he fell asleep’ with either finite heti kun hän ol-i palan-nut koti-in right.away when aux-pst.3sg return-act.ptcp.pst home-ill or nonfinite heti koti-in palat-tu-a-an right.away home-ill return-pass.ptcp.pst-part-3sg. Unlike Hungarian, however, Finnish can use this construction in different-subject third-person subordination by inserting genitive subject pronoun häne-n, as in heti häne-n koti-in palat-tu-a-an Liisa kysy-i ‘right after s/he (someone else) got back Liisa asked’ vs. heti koti-in palat-tu-a-an Liisa kysy-i ‘right after s/he (Liisa) got back Liisa asked.’ Since the early 1980s, other, new kinds of subordinating constructions have been reported for Hungarian, including the questioning of arguments in a complement clause, as in ki-t gondol-sz [hogy lát-t-a Ödön-t] who-acc think-prs.2sg cmpl see-pst-3sg.f ‘who do you think [saw Edmund]?’ or the embedding of a relative clause into a complement clause, as in a lány [aki-vel szeret-né-d [hogy beszél-je-k]] art girl rel-inst likecond-2sg.f cmpl speak-subj-1sg.p ‘the girl [with whom [you would like me to speak]]’ (see Marácz 1989, 229ff.). Apparently, much older are relative clauses of the kind discussed most recently by Nádasdy (2006), in which a finite relative clause precedes the fuller statement of the common argument and thus occupies the regular position for an adnominal modifier in Hungarian. An example offered by Nádasdy is [tavaly aki-vel járta-m] csaj, at-tól hall-otta-m last.year rel-inst go-pst-1sg.p girl dist-abl hear-pst-1sg.f ‘I heard it from a girl I was going with last year’; a resumptive distal like at-tól seems to be an obligatory component of the construction. This kind of construction has apparently been popular (but under the radar of professional linguistic accounts) for about a century:

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 61

Galambos (1907) wrote about it in some detail, although his interest was primarily in terms of ‘attraction’ and its inverse; see also 21.2.5. Elsewhere in Uralic, there is considerable variation in the formation of supporting and relative clauses: consult the index for relevant sections. It often goes unremarked, but asyndetic CoCl are frequent in all Uralic languages. Here is an example from Mari: uʒ-aʃ iʃi-m uʒ kol-aʃ koʎəm mo-m liʃtə-ʃ see-inf neg. pst-1sg see.cng hear-inf hear.pst.1sg what-acc do-pst.3sg ‘I didn’t see (anything, but) I heard what she was doing’ (Beke 1938, 99). And here is an example from Nganasan: natəmunu-ŋu-ŋ śüobtiajʔ huj-tʹi-mɨ dʹebtu-j think-inter-2sg really want-prs-1pl gooseacc.pl ‘Do you think we really want geese?’ (Katzschmann 2008, 116). tracking and the organization of discourse 1.4.6 Reference Uralic languages, like natural human languages everywhere, present and distinguish participants in a situation or narrative by means of referential items which grammarians call noun phrases (including demonstratives and pronouns). In any given stretch of discourse, those items which function as subjects are invariably indexed as subjects on the finite verb, and in languages from the eastern end of the family as well as in Mordvin, those functioning as direct objects may also be indexed as objects. In most Uralic languages (but not Finnish, as we will see), free pronouns are employed only exceptionally, for what is loosely termed emphasis, with subtypes including various kinds of topicality as well as of focus and/or contrast. While the notion of ‘pro-drop’ is still widely used to account for the morphosyntax of many Uralic languages, it seems to us a roundabout and unnecessary device, and so we have not relied upon it in this book. To take an example at random, we do not seek to give an account of a form like Nganasan n’obtə-mɨmba-ta-ʔ, washhab-aor.refl-3sg.r ‘s/he usually washes herself’ in terms of ‘binding’ its third-person reflexive suffix -ʔ to an unrealized ‘pro’ somewhere in the clause (cf. Wagner-Nagy 2019, 462‒463). This is because we agree with Haspelmath (2013, 222) that in the Latin sentence Marcus venit ‘Marcus comes,’ there is no need to presuppose that the subject argument is expressed only once; cf. also Dixon’s (2010a, 40) example from Tiwi. Finnish is unusual in that in addition to obligatory subject indexing, for third-person main clause subjects, it uses a clitic pronoun chosen from a three-way pronominal syntactic paradigm hän : se : ∅. Zero is selected in two scenarios: First, zero is obligatorily selected for generic reference, that is, when any indeterminate human (or people in general) might be the subject, as in ∅a se-no näke-e it-acc see-3sg ‘one can see it’; note that in this configuration, a conominal is precluded, and contrast se-no näke-e Titusa ‘it’s Titus who sees it,’ in which the subject reference is not generic but rather specifically to someone named Titus and not someone else (ei-kä Matti neg.3sg=ptcl pn ‘and not Matti’) (see also VISK, §1347 and references). Second, zero is optionally selected in a sequence subject to pivot, a kind of grammaticalized topic (Dixon 2010a, 172, and 2012, 199), which in Finnish amounts to same-subject main clause sequences, whether asyndetic or introduced by conjunctions such as ja ‘and,’ sillä ‘since,’ kuin ‘as if,’ ennen kuin ‘before,’ and even mutta ‘but,’ for example, Häna avasi [aidan portin]o ja ∅s tuli minua vastaan ‘s/he opened a gate in the fence and came to meet me’ (see VISK, §1362, §1431, and references). Apart from these two sets of circumstances, either hän or se must be used, the former formal, the latter casual or colloquial (and the full forms of locuphoric pronouns minä and sinä have casual/colloquial pendants in these contexts as well: mä and sä), for example, häne-lläe ol-i [suure-t silmä+lasi-t]s ja häna muistutt-i [eräs-tä tuttava-a-ni]o

62 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

s/he-ade be-pst.3sg large-pl eye+glass-pl and s/he resemble-pst.3sg certain-part acquittance-part-1sg ‘s/he had big glasses and reminded me of an acquaintance’ (different subjects: silmälasit ‘glasses’ in the first clause, hän ‘s/he’ in the second). Proper names (and generic designators like nainen ‘the woman’ or poika ‘the boy’) are frequently used to avoid a glut of hän/se subject pronouns, perhaps especially in translations from languages in which reference tracking is assisted by gendered pronouns, for example, Nainen saa ostoksensa, maksaa, antaa viisi kruunua, josta saa takaisin, ja poistuu ‘She (the woman) picks up her purchases, pays, gives five crowns, from which she gets change, and departs,’ translating Hun får sine Ting, betaler, leverer en Femkrone, som hun får tilbage på, og går. (Hamsun, Sult; Finnish translation by Viki Kärkkäinen 1919). Generic human subjects are encoded by zero pronoun plus third-person indexing (∅a se-no näke-e, cited earlier). The generic construction is distinct from indefinite subject indexing, which in non-compound tenses is formed with its own dedicated suffixes, precludes a conominal, and implies a non-singular human (and indeterminate) subject. Transitive verbs in the indefinite take zero-flagged (i.e. nominative) objects, for example, kouluo remontoi-daan school.nom renovate-idf ‘the school will be renovated; they will renovate the school.’ The two constructions co-exist and often overlap, but they do contrast, for example, Sauli-sta huomas-i vs. Sauli-sta huomat-tiin jo lapse-na, että häne-llä on lahjo-j-a pn-ela notice-pst.3sg / pn-ela notice-pst.idf already child-ess cmpl he-ade be.3sg gift-pl-part ‘One could tell / People could tell that Sauli was gifted as a child’ (VISK, §1363). In Hungarian, in the absence of explicit NPs, a change of non-locuphoric subjects (or topics) in subsequent clauses is signalled with free pronouns, either personal (ő) or distal demonstrative (az) (Kenesei et al. 1998, 121‒123; Orosz 1969). For example: intëtt-∅ az őr-nek, mire az kezd-t-e lë+vën-ni a kabát-já-t give.a.sign-pst-3sg.p art assistant-dat whereupon az begin-pst-3sg.f off+take-inf coat-3sg-acc ‘Hei jerked his head at the guard, whereupon hej started to take off his coat.’ Finnish uses the proximal pronoun tämä in somewhat-similar circumstances: kun hän astu-i avustaja-n toimisto-on tämä istu-i paraikaa aamu+kahvi-lla when s/he step-pst.3sg assistant-gen office-ill prox sit-pst.3sg just morning+coffee-ade ‘when s/hei stepped into the assistant’s office s/hej was just having (his/her) morning coffee.’ On switch reference and Finnish tämä, see Kaiser (2003). In contrast with this use of the proximal tämä of Finnish, Hungarian uses its distal demonstrative pronoun for switch reference (az or am=az, with prefixed a/em=). Elsewhere in Uralic, textual coherence and continuity are established and maintained by changes in alignment (‘passive promotion’ and ‘dative shifts’) as well as differential argument indexing and flagging. (On the interrelated functions of alignment and differentiated object marking, see Haspelmath 2020.) Real-world facts and knowledge of these facts are usually more than enough to clarify who is doing what to whom in most (con)texts. For example, we may summarize the following short text sequence (in a variety of eastern Mari, from a folkloristic collection edited by Beke (1957, 102) schematically by saying that (13a) a man skins a hare, (then) (13b) cooks it (in a pot, for his dinner); (13c) the hare finishes cooking; (13d) the man (then) eats (the hare): (13a) Mari, Beke (1957, 102) möran-ə̂mo ɲikot-eʃ, ∅a ∅o poδ-eʃ [kock|aʃ] ʃolt-a marea woδeʃ man at.evening hare-acc skin-3sg a o pot-ill [eat|inf] cook-3sg ‘One evening the man skins a hare, cooks it in a pot to eat (i.e. for dinner).’

INTRODUCTION TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES 63

(13b) ∅s kü-n ʃu-eʃ s cook-cvb arrive-3sg ‘It’s ready (i.e. it finishes cooking).’ (13c) ∅s kock-eʃ s eat-3sg ‘He eats.’ pŭre-n]sc woz-eʃ (13d) ∅s [mal|aʃ s sleep|inf enter-cvb lie.down-3sg ‘Going in to lie down, he sleeps.’ The two prominent participants in this short narrative are the man and the hare; each is named by an explicit NP only once, in the first sentence, where the man has nominative and the hare accusative flagging. Thereafter, neither participant figures as a conominal. Argument indexing in Mari is of subjects only, but both the intransitivity of the verb (kü- ‘to cook’) and the animacy hierarchy and predator/prey relationships of the world make it clear enough that the subject of the second sentence is the hare and, conversely, that the subject in the following main clauses (and their dependent clauses) is the man. (Note also, in passing, the two central nonfinite uses of the affirmative instructive converb -n, in an aspectual pairing (with ʃu- ‘to arrive,’ expressing completion) and as a free adverbial, see 12.10.6.) In the Ob-Ugric languages, there is a widely used passive construction which (canonically) lends prominence to an argument by recasting it as a subject (Kulonen 1989). But in Khanty (especially in eastern varieties, but sporadically in the west as well), emphasis or focus can also be placed on an object by differential subject marking: the subject then goes into the locative. We see a rare example of differential subject indexing (followed by a passive in the following clause) in a Kazym Khanty passage taken from a folklore text collected by Wolfgang Steinitz in 1935 (Steinitz 1989, vol. 3, 488). A mother and father come out of their house and run to their son to kiss him; at this point in the narrative, all three characters are known, and each has the 3sg suffix (-ɬ) indicative of topical, known information (14a‒b). (14a) Kazym Khanty (Steinitz 1989, vol. 3, 488) aśe-ɬ mŭj aŋke-ɬ kĭ m ɛtmə-s-ŋən xɔt-n ewəɬt father-3sg and mother-3sg out come-pst-3du house-3du from ‘His father and his mother came out of their house.’ (14b) pŏx-əɬ xŏśa šǫšəm-s-aŋən mɔsɬtijəl-ti son-3sg toward run-pst-3du kiss-inf ‘They ran toward the (3sg) son to kiss (him).’ The son then kicks the father. The subject noun pŏx ‘son’ now goes into the locative; the father (aśe-ɬ) is the direct object, and Khanty has no accusative flag for nouns, but the suffix -ɬe on the verb indexes both subject and object (14c): (14c) pŏx-əɬ-n aśe-ɬ šǫŋxsə-s-ɬe son-3sg-loc father-3sg kick-pst-3sg>s ‘The (“his”) son kicked his father.’

64 DANIEL ABONDOLO AND RIITTA-LIISA VALIJÄRVI

As a result of this kick, the father is borne aloft; reference to the son is now over, and the father, now indexed with the 3sg passive suffix (-a), maintains his topicality in example (14d): (14d) ɛtər-ŋən păɬəŋ-ŋən wŭša atmijəɬ-s-a blue-du cloudy-du toward lift-pst-3sg.pass ‘He (= the father) was carried up toward the sky (“blue and cloud,” a double dual).’ The father then falls (intransitively) back to earth; still in s function, he is now indexed with ‘subjective’ conjugation zero (14e). (14e) ĭ ɬ pĭ tə-s-∅ down fall-pst-3sg ‘He fell (back) down.’ See Skribnik (2001) and Kulonen (1989) for details. 1.5  LEXICON aspects of the lexicon: derivation and compounding 1.5.1 Systematic 1.5.1.1 Derivation For a recent treatment of derivation in Uralic, see Kiefer and Laakso (2014), and for a view of so-called ‘prefixation’ in an Uralic derivation, see Kiefer and Honti (2003). Here we look at a few Finnish and Hungarian examples, then look briefly at Selkup. We close this section with themes. In Table 1.27, Nominals derived from nominals (N PPerm *ńö/okćim, POU *ńe̮ kćamV) and perhaps geminate *ćć (PU *Vćći ‘shadow soul; self’ > PFi *icce-, PPerm *ać-). At the same time, no *kś or *śś can be reconstructed. Apart from these cases, traditional *ć was present only in words with irregular vowel correspondences and/or poor distribution in daughter branches. Therefore, Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti (1988) reconstructed only one alveolo-palatal sibilant phoneme for Proto-Uralic. Based on the ‘majority wins’ principle, they interpreted this phoneme as a sibilant fricative *ś. However, there are reasons to reconstruct an affricate *ć instead. First, the phoneme in question behaves phonotactically like *č and unlike *s and *š: it forms clusters with a preceding homorganic nasal (clusters *ns and *nš were very rare in Proto-Uralic, while the cluster *nč was rather frequent) and geminates (geminate *ss and *šš were definitely absent from Proto-Uralic). Second, the supposed unconditioned shift *ś > *ć in Proto-Saami looks typologically rather strange. Unconditioned developments of the type ‘affricate > fricative’ are much more common than the reverse. If we reconstruct *ć instead of *ś, we must explain why this affricate was so much more prone to spirantization than *č. The possible answer is that the spirantization of *č was blocked by the existence of the fricative *š. In Ugric languages, where *š merged with *s, *č underwent spirantization in Hungarian, Proto-Mansi, and some Khanty dialects. The reconstruction of non-sibilant fricatives (*δ, *δʹ, *x) is uncontroversial, but their precise phonetic interpretation remains disputed. In the modern Uralistic literature (starting with Janhunen 1981), *δ and *δʹ are frequently rendered as *d and *dʹ, respectively, presumably in order to simplify the transcription. I do not follow this practice, because it seems improbable that PU *δ differed from PU *t only in voicing. PU *δ and *δʹ yield stops only in Finnic and Mordvin, and in Finnic, their reflexes pattern with resonants in respect to vowel lengthening (‘Lehtinen’s law,’ see following text). The traditional view of *δ as an interdental voiced fricative explains its reflexes quite well: shifts such as δ > t, δ > r, δ > l are cross-linguistically common. The interpretation of *δʹ on the other hand remains an open question: in Mari, Mordvin, Saami, and Finnic, this phoneme merges with *δ (e.g. PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PFi *kat|o-, PSaa *kuoδē, PMd *kad-, PMari *koδə-), while in the remaining languages, it yields an alveolo-palatal lateral, voiced palatal stop, or palatal glide (e.g. PU *kaδʹa- > PPerm *kölʹ-, Hung hagy-, PMs *kōlʹ-, PKh *kī̮ j- ~ *ki̮ j-, PSam *kåjä-). In view of this uncertainty, I retain the traditional notation of this proto-phoneme as *δʹ. A possible alternative would be to reconstruct PU *lʹ in place of *δʹ, accounting for the asymmetrical distribution of *δ and *δʹ: the former, but not the latter, is banned word-initially. A Proto-Uralic phoneme *x was reconstructed by Janhunen (1981) for two distinct phenomena: (1) an apparent correspondence of Finnic long vowels to Samoyed vowel sequences, consisting of a full vowel and a schwa, that were thought to reflect Proto-Uralic sequences of a vowel + *x before a consonant, as in PU *käli ‘tongue’ (reconstructed by Janhunen as *käxli) > PFi *kēle-, PSam *käə, and (2) a correspondence of Proto-Saami intervocalic *k to zero in Finnic and Samoyed, traditionally thought to reflect PU voiced velar fricative *γ, as in PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > PFi *mȫ-, PSaa *mieke̮-, PSam *mi-. Subsequent studies (Aikio 2012) showed that the first correspondence is apparent rather than real: Finnic vowel length results from a regular lengthening

120 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

in certain positions and does not correspond to anything in Samoyed. Thus, *x remains only for cases where *γ was previously reconstructed. While Janhunen used the symbol *x in the sense of ‘unknown consonant,’ I retain it as a symbol for velar fricative. It is not clear whether this fricative was voiced or voiceless, but the Saami reflex perhaps speaks in favour of a voiceless *x. As for vowels, the main uncertainty is connected with PU *e̮ . Starting with Janhunen (1981), this vowel is usually reconstructed as a high back unrounded *i̮ . However, its reflexes in daughter languages do not pattern with the other high vowels (Pystynen 2014b). For example, PU *i, *u, and *ü, but not Janhunen’s *i̮ , yield reduced vowels in Proto-Mari and Proto-Ob-Ugric: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PMari *šĭń|ća, POU *śəmV, PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > PMari *sŭlə-, POU *sŭlV-, PU *süli ‘fathom’> PMari *sü̆lə, POU *sü̆lV, but PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ (Janhunen’s *mi̮ kså) > PMari *moks, POU *me̮ ksə̑. A connected problem is that of the origin of the vowel combination *i-a. Typological parallels (e.g. from Mongolic and Hungarian) suggest that ‘harmonically back’ i can go back to an earlier *i̮ . If *i-a does indeed go back to *i̮ -a, then Janhunen’s *i̮ must be reinterpreted as *e̮. Proto-Uralic had no phonemic stress: the main stress automatically fell on the first syllable, while secondary stress fell on non-first odd syllables, except the final syllable. This accentual system is connected with the complex phenomenon of consonant gradation (see Section 3.4). 3.3  PHONOTACTICS Proto-Uralic words and morphemes had a fairly strict phonotactic structure. Word-initial consonant clusters were not allowed. The following consonants were banned word-initially: *δ, *x, *ŋ, *r. While all Finno-Ugric branches allow word-initial *r, words starting with this phoneme are most probably post-Proto-Uralic innovations. They lack Samoyed cognates; within Finno-Ugric, their distribution is mostly limited to geographically adjacent languages. In addition, they frequently exhibit irregular vocalic correspondences. One of the best examples is the word for ‘smoke hole’: PFi *räppänä ~ *reppänä ‘smoke hole,’ PSaa *reappēn(ē), PPerm *räp- > PKomi *rɛ̮p|ɛ̮d, PUdm *ǯopi̮ . Here, Permic reflexes point to first-syllable *ä, Saami, to *e, while Finnic has both variants. The Finnic variant with *ä does not undergo the change *ä-ä > *a-e̮, which suggests that the word had not yet entered Finnic at the time of this change. Most probably, such words are areal loans, some from unidentified sources, some from Indo-Iranian languages. Word-internally, clusters of more than two consonants were not allowed, except for clusters of the type *jCC and *wCC. Clusters of the type ‘obstruent + resonant or glide’ were not allowed morpheme-internally (*δʹ and *x do not pattern as obstruents with respect to this rule). The intervocalic geminates *pp, *tt, and *kk are sometimes treated as phonemes, but in fact, clusters consisting of two different stops, such as *kt, *pt, or *tk, are more frequent than geminates in reconstructed Proto-Uralic vocabulary. Therefore, it seems reasonable to treat geminated stops as a special type of clusters. The best attested geminate is *pp, cf. such Proto-Uralic reconstructions as *e̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ or *säppä ‘gall.’ This fact is apparently connected with the absence of clusters *tp and *kp in Proto-Uralic. PU *x apparently occurred only in *i-stems: no roots of the shape *(C)Vxa/ä can be reliably reconstructed.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 121

Word-final consonant clusters were not allowed, except for clusters of the type *jC in dual pronominal ending *-jn and in verbal forms where preterite tense marker *-j- was followed by subjective conjugation endings *-m 1sg, *-n 2sg, and *-t 3pl. No vowel clusters or long vowels were possible. All roots (with the exception of pronouns and the negative verb *e-) had at least two syllables in their basic form. Suffixes apparently could not begin with a vowel. The rule of vowel harmony required that within a word, back and front vowels could not co-occur. The vowel *i was neutral with respect to vowel harmony, allowing such vowel sequences as *i-a or *o-i. Affixes with an open vowel had two variants, depending on vowel harmony: for example, loc.sg *-na or *-nä. We can write such affixes morphophonologically with majuscule *A, viz. *-nA. The inventory of vowels in non-first syllables is a subset of the inventory of first-syllable vowels. Traditionally, only two vowels are postulated for non-first syllables: a closed vowel, reconstructed variously as *i, *i̮ /i, *e, or *ə by various scholars, and an open vowel *a/ä. I reconstruct the closed vowel as *i; *ə is a possible alternative, but it cannot explain the palatalization of the coronal consonants in Mordvin verbal *i-stems, as in PU *muli- ‘to pass’ > PMd *molʹ-, and the j-increment in Komi nouns going back to PU *i-stems, as in PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PKomi *ki̮ l : *ki̮ lj-. The choice between non-first-syllable *a and *ä was regulated by vowel harmony, except after first-syllable *i, where both *a and *ä were possible. This basic system of non-first-syllable vowels becomes much more complex in daughter languages, when sequences of vowel plus glide like *aj/äj, *aw/äw, *ij, and *iw become new (‘secondary’) non-first-syllable vowels. Although this process accounts for many facts of the daughter languages, there still remain some cases that may point to a richer system of non-first-syllable vowels in Proto-Uralic. There are at least three such cases: 1)

2)

3)

For the common protolanguage of Finnic, Saami, and Mordvin (‘West Uralic’), we can reconstruct a non-first-syllable *o that apparently does not go back to an original sequence of a non-labial vowel + glide. This phoneme may reflect a Proto-Uralic non-first-syllable labial vowel (Aikio 2015b, 37‒39). For example, the reconstruction *wajo- ‘to sink’ accounts for labial vowels in the second syllable of PFi *vajo|ta- and PSaa *vuojō-, as well as for second-syllable *a in PMd *vaja- (instead of expected *vaj-). Ugric languages reflect Proto-Uralic *a-stems (i.e. stems with second-syllable *a) in two different ways without any obvious complementary distribution. Cf., for example, PU *ćara- ‘to dry’ > Hung szára|d-, POU *śora- > PMs *sōr-, PKh *sār- vs. PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > Hung hagy-, POU *kolʹə̑- > PMs *kōlʹ-, PKh *kī̮ j- ~ *ki̮ j- (more examples are given later in Section 3.5.6, ‘Ugric developments’). This bifurcation cannot be explained by PU sequences with glides. Proto-Samoyed also has a double reflex of PU second-syllable *a: it yields either *å or *ə̑. This phenomenon has nothing to do with PU vowel-glide combinations, which have different reflexes in Samoyed. Cf. such cases as PU *sarka ‘fork, branch’ > PSam *tårkå, PU *e̮ kta- ‘to hang’ > PSam *i̮ tå-, PU *muna ‘egg’ > PSam *mə̑nå vs. PU *taka- ‘behind’ > PSam *takə̑-, PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ > PSam *mi̮ tə̑, PU *kuma‘upside down; to overturn’ > PSam *kə̑mə̑-.

It is possible that Samoyed and Ugric reflect the Proto-Uralic opposition of two second-syllable vowels, say, *a and *e̮ , that are traditionally lumped as *a. Note that there

122 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

are no cases that require reconstructing more than one vowel in place of Proto-Uralic non-first-syllable *i or *ä. In the present chapter, I will retain the traditional reconstruction of non-first-syllable vowels, but it must be stressed that there are problems in this domain that cannot be solved unless we adopt a more complex reconstruction. 3.4  MORPHOPHONOLOGY Many Uralic languages, especially Saami, Finnic, and Samoyedic ones, have extremely complex morphophonologies. Much of this morphophonological complexity results from relatively late developments, however. For example, the phenomenon of consonant gradation is attested in languages such as Nganasan, Finnic (except Veps and Livonian), and Saami (except South Saami). In Nganasan and Finnic, consonants are weakened (1) at the beginning of an originally closed syllable (‘syllabic gradation’) and (2) after even (i.e. unstressed) vowels (‘rhythmic gradation’). In Saami, the distribution of strong and weak grades is the same, but the alternation is better viewed as strengthening of consonants in the strong grade rather than weakening in the weak grade. The two types of gradation can be illustrated by examples from Nganasan. Syllabic gradation (nom.sg : nom.pl): kuhu : kubuʔ ‘skin, hide,’ kəntə : kəndəʔ ‘sledge,’ kaδar : katarəʔ ‘light.’ Rhythmic gradation (words with 3sg possessive ending -TU): ni̮ -ti̮ ‘his wife’ : bi̮ ni̮ -δi̮ ‘his rope’ : headʹə-ti̮ ‘his thumb’ : kəri̮ gəlʹi-δi̮ ‘his march (ca. 10 km)’ (Helimski 1995). Although consonant gradation was phonologized only after the breakup of Proto-Finnic, Proto-Saami, and Proto-Samoyed, as an allophonic phenomenon, it may well date back to Proto-Uralic (Helimski 1995). An important morphophonological phenomenon reconstructable for Proto-Uralic is the syncope of word-internal vowel *i at morpheme boundaries. Before some suffixes of the shape CV, Proto-Uralic roots and stems ending in *i had allomorphs without final *i— so-called ‘consonantal stems.’ For example, PU *weti ‘water’ had an ablative case form *wet-tä instead of **weti-tä, and PU *eδi ̮ ‘year’ had a locative case form *e̮δ-na instead of **e̮ δi-na. It is important to note that no daughter language preserves syncope as an automatic rule. In most branches of Uralic, the alternation was in fact either destroyed by general loss of second-syllable vowels (e.g. in Permic, Khanty, and Mansi) or largely wiped out by analogy (e.g. in Saami). Still, the syncope rule is attested in derivatives going back to Proto-Uralic, for example, PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ from PU *kani- ‘to go’ (the underived form is preserved only in Samoyed). Some examples from daughter languages suggest that when the syncope resulted in the emergence of complex consonant clusters, these clusters were simplified: cf. Finnish lapsi ‘child’ with part.sg las-ta, or Finnish kattaa ‘to cover’ (< Proto-Finnic *kat|ta-tak), derived from kansi (stem kante-) ‘lid, cover.’ Proto-Uralic underlying trisyllabic *i-stems probably had consonantal allomorphs also word-finally: for example, PU stem *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ had a nominative singular form *jikin. Note that we cannot postulate an automatic apocope of final *i in trisyllabic words, since possessive forms like *kala-mi ‘my fish’ did not lose their final *i. A further morphophonological phenomenon is word-class shift by a change of stemfinal *i to *a/ä and vice versa (Aikio 2002, 54). This derivational process is preserved only in Saami, but its Proto-Uralic date can be confirmed by the following examples: PU *luki- ‘to count’ : PU *luka ‘a count; ten’ PU *aŋa- ‘to open’ : PU *aŋi ‘opening; mouth’ PU *ipsä- ‘to smell’ : PU *ipsi ‘odour’

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 123

PU *künčä- ‘to scratch’ : PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ PU *purka- ‘to be a snowstorm’ : PU *purki ‘snowstorm; snowdrift’ Second-syllable vowels in these words cannot be interpreted as suffixes, because the PU root is minimally disyllabic. It is not even clear which form should be taken as basic (hence the name ‘correlative derivatives’). What we are dealing with here is rather a kind of ablaut—a morphologically conditioned alternation of vowels. An analysis of the reconstructed possessive endings reveals the Proto-Uralic (morpho-)phonological change *nm > *n. The Proto-Uralic ending for the first singular possessor / genitive singular possessum *-ni, preserved in Saami and Samoyed, goes back to a combination of gen.sg *-n and 1sg *-mi (Salminen 1996). 3.5  SOUND CHANGES FROM PROTO-URALIC TO DAUGHTER PROTOLANGUAGES The following overviews of historical phonology from Proto-Uralic to the surviving daughter protolanguages do not aim at completeness or detailed coverage of the literature. Several open questions remain untouched, for example, the results of vowel contractions in words with ‘weak’ intervocalic consonants *w, *j, *x, *ŋ. Moreover, there are many Proto-Uralic words whose exact reconstruction remains unclear, among them all the numerals. For the sake of clarity, I avoid using such words when illustrating sound laws. Finally, because of space limitations, I do not list trivial phonological retentions, such as ‘PU word-initial *p- is retained as *p- in Proto-Saami.’ Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finnic 3.5.1 From I use the traditional Proto-Finnic reconstruction, summarized by Laanest (1982), with additions by Kallio (2007, 2014). Consonants PU *č yields PFi *t, but if the word contained two instances of *č, the first was dissimilated to *s (this dissimilation rule is shared by Saami; see following text): PU *čoδʹi ‘truth, true’ > PFi *tote̮-, PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PFi *setä, PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PFi *künte-. PU cluster *čk yields PFi *ck: PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk’ > PFi *pucke̮-. PU *ć yields PFi *s: PU *ćali- ‘intestine’> PFi *sōle̮-, PU *e̮ ći- ‘to settle down’> PFi *ase-. PU *š yields PFi *h: PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > PFi *hīre-, PU *iša ‘skin, surface’ > PFi *iho. PU cluster *kš is simplified to PFi *h: PU *wokši ‘thin’ > PFi *oh|ut. PU *δ and *δʹ yield PFi *t: PU *kuδa- ‘to weave’ > PFi *kut|o-, PU *δʹe̮mi ‘birdcherry’ > PFi *tōme̮ -, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PFi *ūte̮-. PU intervocalic *x is lost: PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > PFi *sā-, PU *wixi- ‘to take, carry, transport’ > PFi *vē- ~ *vī-. PU preconsonantal *x is vocalized to *u/ü: PU *ńuxi- ‘to pursue’ > PFi *nou|ta- ‘fetch,’ PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PFi *kūse̮ -, PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PFi *täüte-. PU cluster *mt is assimilated to PFi *nt: PU *kamti ‘lid’ > PFi *kante̮-. PU *ń yields PFi *n word-initially, merging with PU *n: PU *ńe̮ li ‘arrow’ > PFi *nōle̮-. In intervocalic position, PU *ń yields *jn > *in: PU *nińi ‘bast’ > PFi *nīne-. PU cluster *ńć yields either *s or *js > *is: PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PFi *kuse̮ -, PU *sańća- ‘to stand’ > PFi *saisa-.

124 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU intervocalic *ŋ yields *v or zero, depending on neighbouring vowels: (1) PU *tüŋi ‘butt of a tree’ > PFi *tüve-, PU *aŋa- ‘to open, take off’ > PFi *ava|ta-, (2) PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PFi *jǟ, PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > PFi *hīre-. PU cluster *ŋk is preserved as PFi *nk [ŋk]: PU *woŋki ‘hole, den’ > PFi *onk|alo. PU *w yields *v word-initially and after consonants, is vocalized to *u/ü before consonants, and is lost between vowels (PU *Vwi > PFi *ū/ȫ, PU *Vwa > PFi *ō/ȫ): 1) PU *wäki ‘power’ > PFi *väke-, PU *kajwa- ‘to dig’ > PFi *kaiva-, PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PFi *talve̮-, 2) PU *käwδi ‘rope’ > PFi *keüte-, PU *kuwli- ‘to hear’ > PFi *kūle̮-, 3) PU *pawi ‘tree’ > PFi *pū, PU *le̮wi ‘bone’ > PFi *lū, PU *sewi- ‘to eat’ > PFi *sȫ-, PU *uwa ‘current, to flow’ > PFi *vō, PU *üwä ‘belt’ > PFi *vȫ. PU word-initial *wo- > PFi *o-, PU word-initial *wu- > PFi *ū-: PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PFi *ole̮ -, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PFi *ūte̮-. Word-initially, *w (> *v) is automatically inserted before PFi *ō and *ȫ: PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ > PFi *vōte̮ -, PU *üwä ‘belt’ > PFi *vȫ. PU intervocalic *j is lost before *i: PU *koji ‘dawn’ > PFi *koi, PU *uji- ‘to swim’ > PFi *ui-. PU word-initial *je- and *ji- > PFi *i- (Pystynen 2015): PU *jekä ‘year’ > PFi *ikä-, PU *jilma ‘air’ > PFi *ilma. Finally, pre-PFi *t of whatever origin (from PU *t, *č, *δ and *δʹ) yields PFi *c before PFi *i: PU *käwδi ‘rope’ > *keüti, *keüte- > PFi *keüci, *keüte-. The resulting Proto-Finnic consonant system is shown in Table 3.3. All consonants except *h, *r, *j, and perhaps *v, could occur geminated. Vowels The following ordered changes shaped the Proto-Finnic vowel system: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

*e̮ > *o /(C1)_k,x(C2)i, where C1 ≠ labial and C2 ≠ ć (Zhivlov 2014, 115‒117). *e̮ > *a elsewhere. *ä-ä > *a-i, except after PU (alveolo-)palatal consonants or before syllable-final *j (Zhivlov 2014, 114–115; Aikio 2015b, 39–47). ‘Lehtinen’s law’: *a and *ä are lengthened to *ā and *ǟ respectively in *i-stems before PU intervocalic *δ, *δʹ, *m, *n, *l, *r, *j (Lehtinen 1967; Aikio 2012). *ā > *ō. *ǟ > *ē (except word-initially and before *j). *ij > *ī, *uw > *ū before consonants. Long vowels are shortened before *i (after the loss of intervocalic *j before *i, mentioned earlier). TABLE 3.3  PROTO-FINNIC CONSONANTS p

t

k

c s m

h

n l r

v

j

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 125 TABLE 3.4  PROTO-FINNIC VOWELS i

ü

e

ö

ä

e̮ a

u

ī

ǖ

o

ē

ȫ

ǟ

ū ē̮

ō

ā

In addition to these changes, vowel contractions have taken place after the loss of intervocalic *x, *ŋ, and *w, producing long vowels. A minor umlaut rule changed *e to *ü before second-syllable *ü (Aikio 2021, 170–172). The resulting Proto-Finnic system of first-syllable vowels is shown in Table 3.4. In the second syllable, PU *i changed to PFi *e̮ /e except word-finally. In some cases, PU *a/ä yields PFi *e̮ /e in the second syllable of trisyllabic stems: PU *wiša|ra ‘green’ > PFi *viherä, PU *aćka|li- ‘a step’ > PFi *aske̮ le̮-. As a result of this change, some PFi suffixes begin with an invariable *e̮ /e, which seemingly replaces the final vowel of the root: adjective suffix *-e̮ ta/-etä, noun suffixes *-e̮ k/-ek and *-e̮ h/-eh, verbal translative (‘to become (more) X’) suffix *-e̮ne̮-/-ene-, etc. Unlike Proto-Finnic non-first-syllable *e̮/e from PU *i, the vowel at the beginning of these suffixes is never syncopated. Combinations of non-first-syllable vowels with *w developed as follows: *aw, *äw > *o (there was no *ö in non-first syllables in Proto-Finnic), *iw > *u/ü. As a result of the developments sketched in the preceding text, Proto-Uralic vowel combinations have the following reflexes in Proto-Finnic: PU *a-a: PU *kala ‘fish’ > PFi *kala, PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ > PFi *kanta-. PU *a-i: PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ > PFi *sōle̮-, PU *kamti ‘lid’ > PFi *kante̮-, PU *pawi ‘tree’ > PFi *pū, PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > PFi *sā-, PU *waji ‘fat’ > *vōji > PFi *voi. PU *e̮-a: PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ > PFi *maksa, PU *će̮ lka ‘pole, rod’ > PFi *salk|o. PU *e̮-i: PU *je̮ki ‘river’ > PFi *joke̮, PU *je̮xi- ‘to drink’ > *joxi- > PFi *jō-, PU *le̮nti ‘lowland’ > PFi *lante̮-, PU *me̮ xi ‘earth’ > *maxi > PFi *mā, PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > *sani > PFi *sōne̮ -. PU *o-a: PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PFi *kopa. PU *o-i: PU *koji ‘dawn’ > PFi *koi, PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PFi *moske̮ -, PU *toxi- ‘to bring’ > PFi *tō-. PU *u-a: PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > PFi *sula-, PU *uwa ‘current, to flow’ > PFi *vō. PU *u-i: PU *kuwli- ‘to hear’ > PFi *kūle̮-, PU *lumi ‘(to) snow’ > PFi *lume̮ -, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PFi *ūte̮ -. PU *ä-ä: PU *äjmä ‘needle’ > PFi *äimä, PU *käjä ‘moth’ > *kaji > *kōji > PFi *koi, PU *päjwä ‘heat; sun’ > PFi *päivä, PU *pälä ‘side, half’ > *pali- > PFi *pōle̮-, PU *säppä ‘gall’ > PFi *sappe̮ -, PU *särä ‘fiber, vein’ > *sari > PFi *sōre̮ -, PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PFi *talve̮-. PU *ä-i: PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PFi *jǟ, PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PFi *kēle-, PU *kärki ‘woodpecker’ > PFi *kärke-, PU *käti ‘hand’ > PFi *käte-, PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > PFi *lēme-. PU *e-ä: PU *elä- ‘to live’ > PFi *elä-, PU *jekä ‘year’ > PFi *ikä-, PU *lelä ‘hard side of wood’ > PFi *lül|ü, PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PFi *pesä. PU *e-i: PU *meni- ‘to go’ > PFi *mene-, PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > PFi *mȫ-, PU *sewi- ‘to eat’ > PFi *sȫ-, PU *weti ‘water’ > PFi *vete-. PU *i-a: PU *jilma ‘air’ > PFi *ilma. PU *i-ä: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PFi *silmä.

126 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *i-i: PU *kixi- ‘be in heat’ > PFi *kī|ma ‘heat (of animals),’ PU *nimi ‘name’ > PFi *nime-, PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > PFi *hīre-, PU *wixi- ‘to take, carry, transport’ > PFi *vē- ~ *vī-. PU *ü-ä: PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PFi *tümä, PU *üwä ‘belt’ > PFi *vȫ. PU *ü-i: PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PFi *künte-. 3.5.2 From Proto-Uralic to Proto-Saami I use the traditional Proto-Saami reconstruction, summarized by Korhonen (1981) and Sammallahti (1998). Consonants Saami is definitely the most conservative Uralic branch in respect of consonants and syllabic structure. Unlike all the other branches, there were no instances of intervocalic consonant loss in Saami. The quality of PU consonants is also preserved faithfully in most cases. PU *č yields PSaa *c, but if the word contains two instances of *č, the first is dissimilated to *ć (this dissimilation rule is shared with Finnic): PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PSaa *ke̮ nce̮, PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PSaa *ćeacē. PU *ć yields PSaa *ś before a consonant; otherwise, it remains as PSaa *ć: PU *koćka‘dry’ > PSaa *kośkē. PU *š yields PSaa *s, merging with PU *s: PU *iša ‘skin, surface’ > PSaa *e̮ sē. PU *δʹ yields PSaa *δ, merging with PU *δ: PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PSaa *δuome̮ , PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PSaa *kuoδē-. In intervocalic position, PU *x yields PSaa *k, merging with PU *k: PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > PSaa *mieke̮-, PU *suxi- ‘to row’ > PSaa *suke̮-. Known clusters with *x develop in the following way: PU *xt > *vt, *xδ > *vδ, *xs > *s: PU *sux|ta- ‘convey in a boat’ (a causative from *suxi-) > PSaa *suvtē-, PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PSaa *tievδe̮ - (reconstruction *tievte̮- is also possible), PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PSaa *kuose̮ . Prior to these changes, vowels were lengthened before PU *x (see following). PU cluster *ŋt yields PSaa *vt: PU *oŋti ‘nest hole’ > PSaa *vuovte̮ . PU *w yields *v: PU *wäki ‘power’ > PSaa *vieke̮, PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PSaa *tālvē. Word-initially, *v is automatically inserted before PSaa *uo and dropped before PSaa *oa: PU *e̮ la ‘under, below’ > PSaa *vuolē, PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > PSaa *oalkē. Word-initially, *j is automatically inserted before PSaa *ie and dropped before PU *i: PU *äni ‘sound, voice’ > PSaa *jiene̮, PU *jilma ‘air’ > PSaa *e̮lmē. The Proto-Saami consonant system after these changes is shown in Table 3.5. TABLE 3.5  PROTO-SAAMI CONSONANTS p

t

k

c

ć

s

ś

δ m

n

ń

l r v

j

ŋ

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 127

Vowels A number of changes in the vocalism were shared by Proto-Saami and Proto-Mordvin: (1) *e̮ > *u /_k,x(C)i, where C ≠ ć (Zhivlov 2014, 115–117); (2) *V > *V̄ /_x (the resulting long vowels were exempt from changes #3 and #5); (3) *a-i > *o-a, except *aj(C)i (Aikio 2015b, 29‒39); (4) *e̮ > *a; (5) *e-i > *i-i. The last change is perhaps not actually common with Mordvin, as it affects Germanic loanwords in Proto-Saami (Ante Aikio, p.c.). The following developments were specific to Pre-Proto-Saami: (1) tautosyllabic *ij > *ī, tautosyllabic *uw > *ū (the same change happened in Finnic and Mordvin, but there are reasons to think that it was a separate parallel innovation); (2) *ü > *i, (3) *ä-ä > *e-ä / p,m,w_; (4) *a-a > *o-o, if the intervening cluster is *jw or *lw; (5) occasionally *a-a > *ä-ä (conditions are unclear); (6) *je- > *ji-. After all the changes listed, the ‘great Saami vowel shift’ occurred (see Table 3.6). In non-first syllables, *a and *ä merged into *ē (unless the following syllable contained *i, in which case the result of the merger was *ā); *i yielded *e̮; *o (mainly from PU *a/äw, *iw) yielded *ō (unless the following syllable contained *i, in which case it yielded *u). These developments destroyed vowel harmony. The resulting Proto-Saami system of first-syllable vowels and diphthongs is shown in Tables 3.7 and 3.8. The following vowels occurred in non-first syllables: *e̮, *ē, *ā, *ō, *u (I do not list here so-called contracted vowels, on which see Sammallahti 1998, 45‒46). As a result of the developments sketched earlier, Proto-Uralic vowel combinations have the following reflexes in Proto-Saami. PU *a-a: PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PSaa *kuoδē-, PU *kajwa- ‘to dig’ > *kojwo- > PSaa *koajvō-, PU *wanča- ‘to move cautiously’ > *wänčä- > PSaa *vāncē- ‘to walk.’ PU *a-i: PU *aδi- ‘to sleep’ > *oδa- > PSaa *oaδē-, PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ > *ćola- > PSaa *ćoalē, PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > *sāxi- > PSaa *sāke̮-, PU *waji ‘grease’ > PSaa *vuoje̮. TABLE 3.6  SAAMI VOWEL SHIFT Pre-Proto-Saami

*i

*ī

*u

*ū

*e

*ē

*o(-a)

*o(-i)

*ä(-ä)

*ä(-i)

*a

*ā

Proto-Saami

*e̮

*i

*o

*u

*ea

*ie

*oa

*uo

*ā

*ie

*uo

*ā

TABLE 3.7  PROTO-SAAMI FIRSTSYLLABLE VOWELS i

u e̮

o

ā

TABLE 3.8 PROT O-SAAMI DIPHTHONGS ie

uo

ea

oa

128 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *e̮ -a: PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ > PSaa *muoksē. PU *e̮ -i: PU *je̮ki ‘river’ > *juki > PSaa *joke̮ , PU *je̮xi- ‘to drink’ > *juxi- > *jūxi- > PSaa *juke̮-, PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > *sani > PSaa *suone̮. PU *o-a: PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > PSaa *ćoaδkē. PU *o-i: PU *koji ‘male, man’ > PSaa *kuoje̮ . PU *u-a: PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > PSaa *monē. PU *u-i: PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PSaa *końće̮, PU *kuw|li- ‘to hear’ > *kūli- > PSaa *kule̮-. PU *ä-ä: PU *äjmä ‘needle’ > PSaa *ājmē, PU *päjwä ‘heat, sun’ > *pejwä > PSaa *peajvē, PU *pälä ‘side, half’ > *pelä > PSaa *pealē. PU *ä-i: PU *käti ‘hand’ > PSaa *kiete̮. PU *e-ä: PU *elä- ‘to live’ > PSaa *ealē-, PU *jekä ‘year’ > *jikä > PSaa *je̮kē. PU *e-i: PU *keri ‘bark’ > *kiri > PSaa *ke̮re̮ , PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > *mēxi- > PSaa *mieke̮-. PU *i-a: PU *iša ‘skin, surface’ > PSaa *e̮ sē. PU *i-ä: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PSaa *će̮ lmē. PU *i-i: PU *nimi ‘name’ > PSaa *ne̮ me̮ . PU *ü-ä: PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PSaa *δe̮ mē. PU *ü-i: PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > *kinči > PSaa *ke̮nce̮, PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > *niδi > PSaa *ne̮δe̮. Proto-Uralic to Proto-Mordvin 3.5.3 From I use the traditional Proto-Mordvin reconstruction, summarized by Bereczki (1988) and Bartens (1999). Consonants PMd dental consonants *t, *d, *n, *l, *r (but not *s or *z!) are automatically palatalized to *tʹ, *dʹ, *nʹ, *lʹ, *ŕ in front-vocalic words and before PU second-syllable *i in verbs, except in the case of PU *a-i > pre-PMd *o-a: (1) PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > PMd *ńedʹ; (2) PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PMd *ulʹ-, PU *muli- ‘to pass’ > PMd *molʹ-, PU *kali- ‘to die’ > pre-PMd *kola- > PMd *kulə-. In original intervocalic position, PU stops *p, *t, *k are lenited to PMd *v, *d/dʹ, *v/j: PU *kopa ‘crust’ > PMd *kuvə, PU *weti ‘water’ > PMd *vedʹ, PU *luki ‘to count’ > PMd *lov-, PU *wäki ‘power’ > PMd *vij. After *l, *r, and nasals, PU stops *p, *t, *k are voiced to PMd *b, *d/dʹ, *g: PU *lämpi ‘warm’ > PMd *lʹämbə, PU *kanta- ‘to carry’ > PMd *kand-, PU *ulki ‘pole’ > PMd *olgə. *k also yields *v before *t: PU *e̮ kta- ‘hang’ > PMd *avt-. PU geminated stops *pp, *tt, *kk become simple voiceless stops *p, *t/tʹ, *k: PU *säppä ‘gall’ > PMd *säpə, PU *kuwa|kka ‘long’ > PMd *kuvaka. In fact, these stops are phonetically half-long in Mordvin languages and behave morphophonologically like clusters. PU *č is voiced to *ž [ǯ] after nasals: PU *panča- ‘to open’ > PMd *panž-. PU *ć is spirantized to *ś and is further voiced to *ź between vowels: PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ > PMd *śulə, *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PMd *muśk-, PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > PMd *kaź-. PU *s is voiced to *z between vowels: PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PMd *pizə.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 129

PU *š merges with PU *č word-initially and is voiced to *ž between vowels: PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ > PMd *čeŋəŕ, PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PMd *ožə. PU intervocalic *δ and *δʹ merge with PU *t: PU *kuδa- ‘to weave’ > PMd *koda-, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PMd *od. Word-initially and before a consonant, PU *δʹ yields *l: PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PMd *lajmə ~ *lʹom, PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > PMd *śulgə. PU *x yields zero before consonants and *j before vowels: PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > PMd *sa- : *sajə-, PU *toxi- ‘to bring’ > PMd *tu- : *tujə-. PU *m is assimilated to *n before a dental stop: PU *kamti ‘lid’ > PMd *kundə. There are some unclear cases where PU *m develops to PMd *ŋ or *v: PU *lumi ‘snow’ > PMd *loŋ, PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ > PMd *śedʹəŋ, PU *će̮ mi ‘fish scales’ > PMd *śav/ŋ ‘awn.’ Cf. the expected retention of *m in PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > PMd *lʹäm. PU *ń merges with PU *n word-initially but is preserved as *ń word-medially, including back-vocalic words: PU *ńe̮ li ‘arrow’ > PMd *nal, PU *kuńa- ‘to close the eyes’ > PMd *końa-. PU cluster *ŋt yields PMd *vt: PU *aŋta- ‘to open, untie’ > PMd *avt-. PU *w yields PMd *v: PU *waji ‘fat’ > PMd *vaj, PU *weti ‘water’ > PMd *vedʹ, PU *le̮ wi ‘bone’ > PMd *lov|aža. It is lost (1) word-initially before labialized vowels and (2) after consonants: (1) PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PMd *ulʹ-, 2) PU *kajwa- ‘to dig’ > PMd *kaja-, PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PMd *tʹälə (in this word, palatalization of *l after a front vowel was inhibited before *w). PU *j is lost (1) word-initially before front vowels and (2) before coronal consonants (Aikio 2014b, 3): (1) PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PMd *äŋ, PU *jekä ‘year’ > PMd *ijə, (2) PU *kajša ‘sickness’ > PMd *kaž ‘bad; misfortune.’ The resulting Proto-Mordvin consonant system is shown in Table 3.9. The voiced stops b and g are found only after resonants, where they contrast with voiceless stops. Vowels A number of changes in the vocalism were shared by Proto-Saami and Proto-Mordvin: (1) *e̮ > *u /_k,x(C)i, where C ≠ ć (Zhivlov 2014, 115‒117); (2) *V > *V̄ /_x (the resulting long vowels were exempt from changes #3 and #5); (3) *a-i > *o-a, except *aj(C)i

TABLE 3.9 PROT O-MORDVIN CONSONANTS p

t

b

d

m

v

tʹ

k

dʹ

g

č

ć

s

š

ś

z

ž

ź

n

ń

l

lʹ

r

ŕ j

ŋ

130 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

(Aikio 2015b, 29‒39); (4) *e̮ > *a; (5) *e-i > *i-i (but see previous text on the possibility that this change happened separately in Saami). The following developments were specific to Pre-Proto-Mordvin: (1) tautosyllabic *uw > *ū, possibly also tautosyllabic *ij > *ī (the same change happened in Finnic and Saami, but there are reasons to think that it was a separate parallel innovation); (2) *ü > *i, but word-initially *ü > *wi- (thus, this change differs from a similar change in Proto-Saami); (3) *i > *u in back-vocalic stems, that is, before second-syllable *a; (4) *o > *u / _ŋ (only before second-syllable *i?); (5) *u > *o /_k(C)a, rka, wa (including *u that resulted from rule #3); (6) *ä > *e after alveolo-palatal consonants (Ante Aikio, p.c.). After these changes, the vowel system was restructured as shown in Table 3.10. The phonetic details of the flip-flop development *e > *i, *o > *u, *i > *e, *u > *o are not clear, but it has a parallel in the later history of Erzya, where Proto-Mordvin *ä > e, while *e > ä (in literary Erzya, both vowels merge as e). We can tentatively explain both Proto-Mordvin and Erzya ‘flip-flop’ shifts if we suppose that Proto-Mordvin *e and *o were actually reduced vowels *ə and *ə̑. The reflexes of PU non-first-syllable vowels in Proto-Mordvin are insufficiently studied, but the main reflexes may be summarized as follows. In verb stems, PU non-first-syllable *i and *a are lost (but *a is retained after first-syllable *u), whereas *ä is usually retained as PMd *ä. In nominal stems, PU *ä yields *ə; PU *i and, sometimes, *a are lost word-finally after single PU consonants and clusters ending in sibilants; after other clusters and PU geminates, PU *i and *a yield *ə (but, again, *a is retained after first-syllable *u). The resulting Proto-Mordvin system of first-syllable vowels is shown in Table 3.11. In non-first syllables, only three vowels were possible: *ə, *a, and *ä. As a result of the developments sketched recently, Proto-Uralic vowel combinations have the following reflexes in Proto-Mordvin: PU *a-a: PU *kala ‘fish’ > PMd *kalə, PU *kanta- ‘to carry’ > PMd *kand-. PU *a-i: PU *aδi- ‘to sleep’ > *oδa- > PMd *udə-, PU *ćali ‘intestine’ > *ćola > PMd *śulə, PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’> *sāxi- > PMd *sa- / *sajə-, PU *waji ‘grease’> PMd *vaj. PU *e̮ -a: PU *e̮kta- ‘to hang’ > *akta- > PMd *avt-, PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > *maksa > PMd *maksə. PU *e̮ -i: PU *je̮ ki ‘river’ > *juki > PMd *jov ‘Moksha river,’ PU *ńe̮ li ‘arrow’ > *ńali > PMd *nal, PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > *sani > PMd *san.

TABLE 3.10  MORDVIN VOWEL SHIFT Pre-Proto-Mordvin

*i

*ī

*u

*ū

*e

*ē

*o

*ō

*ä

*ǟ

*a

*ā

Proto-Mordvin

*e

*i

*o

*u

*i

*i

*u

*u

*ä

*i

*a

*a

TABLE 3.11  PROTO-MORDVIN VOWELS i

u

e

o

ä

a

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 131

PU *o-a: PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PMd *kuvə, PU *ora ‘squirrel’ > PMd *ur. PU *o-i: PU *joŋsi ‘bow’ > *juŋsi > PMd *joŋs, PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > PMd *susk-, PU *toxi- ‘to bring’ > *tōxi- > PMd *tu- : *tujə-, PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PMd *ulʹ-. PU *u-a: PU *jupta- ‘to tell, narrate’ > PMd *jovta-, PU *kuwa|kka ‘long’ > *kowakka > PMd *kuvaka, PU *luka ‘number; ten’ > *loka > PMd *luv, PU *purka- ‘to be a snowstorm’ > *porka- > PMd *purga- ‘to splash,’ PU *puwa- ‘to blow’ > *powa- > PMd *puva-, PU *tulka ‘feather’ > PMd *tolga. PU *u-i: PU *kusi ‘cough’ > PMd *koz, PU *luki ‘to count’ > PMd *lov-, PU *kuw|li‘to hear’ > *kūli- > PMd *kulʹ-. PU *ä-ä: PU *pälä ‘side, half’ > PMd *pälʹə, PU *säppä ‘gall’ > PMd *säpə. PU *ä-i: PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PMd *kälʹ, PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > PMd *lʹäm, PU *ńäli- ‘to swallow’ > *ńeli- > PMd *ńilʹ-. PU *e-ä: PU *ćepä ‘collar’ > PMd *śivə, PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PMd *čičə. PU *e-i: PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ > *pili- > PMd *pelʹ-, PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > *mēxi- > PMd *mi- : *mijə-, PU *weti ‘water’ > *witi > PMd *vedʹ. PU *i-a: PU *ńila ‘phloem; bast’ > *ńula > PMd *nola, PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > *uša > PMd *ožə, post-PU *tika ‘pig’ (> PFi *cika) > *tuka > *toka > PMd *tuvə. PU *i-ä: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PMd *śelʹmə. PU *i-i: PU *kiwi ‘stone’ > PMd *kev, PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ > PMd *čeŋəŕ, PU *wixi‘to take, carry, transport’ > *wīxi- > PMd *vi- : *vijə-. PU *ü-ä: PU *külmä ‘cold’ > *kilmä > PMd *kelʹmə. PU *ü-i: PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > *niδi > PMd *ńedʹ, PU *üli ‘place up or above’ > *wili > PMd *velʹ-. Proto-Uralic to Proto-Mari 3.5.4 From I use the traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Mari consonantism, summarized by Bereczki (1988). For the Proto-Mari vocalism, I rely on Aikio (2014a). Consonants In original intervocalic position, PU *p yields PMari *w or is lost, PU *t yields PMari *-δ- :*-t, and PU *k is lost: PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PMari *kŭwə, PU *ćepä ‘collar’ > PMari *šü, PU *käti ‘hand’ > PMari *kit, *kiδ-, PU *wäki ‘power’ > PMari *wi, PU *jekä ‘year’ > PMari *i. PU geminate *pp yields PMari *w ~ *p (the reflexation of *tt and *kk is uncertain): PU *e̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ > PMari *owə, post-PU *šappa ‘sour’ (> PFi *happa|me̮-, PMd *čapa|mə) > PMari *šåpə. PU *ć yields PMari *š word-initially and in clusters, but *ž between vowels: PU *ćali ‘intestine’ > PMari *šolə, PU *aćka|l ‘a step’ > PMari *åškəl, PU *sükići- ‘autumn’ > PMari *šĭžə. PU homorganic clusters of nasal and obstruent, except *ŋk, frequently lose their nasal element. This process can be at least partially explained by analogical generalization of consonant stems, where, for example, *-nč- was simplified to *-č- before a following consonant (Ante Aikio, p.c.): (1) PU *jänti ‘bowstring’ > PMari *jĭδ|aŋ, PU *lämpi ‘warm’ > PMari *liwə, PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PMari *kŭž, PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PMari *kü̆č; (2) PU *kanta- ‘to carry’ > PMari *kåndə-, PU *künčä- ‘to scratch’ > PMari *kü̆nčə- ‘to dig.’

132 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *s and *š are voiced to *z and *ž between vowels: PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PMari *pĭz|akš, PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PMari *ŭž|ar. PU *δʹ is reflected as PMari *l word-initially: PU *δʹe̮mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PMari *lom-, PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PMari *lü̆mə. Word-internally, PU *δ and *δʹ are either reflected as PMari *δ or lost under unknown conditions: (1) PU *le̮ δi- ‘to be afraid’ > PMari *lüδ-, PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PMari *koδə-; (2) PU *kuδa- ‘to weave’ > PMari *koə-, PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > PMari *soe, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PMari *u. After pre-Proto-Mari *i or *j, instead of expected *-δ- : *-t of any origin, we have PMari *ć: PU *täxδi ‘full’ > *täjδi > PMari *tić, PU 2sg ending *-ti > PMari *-t in the present tense, but PMari *-ć in the preterite tense, that is, after the PU preterite suffix *-j-. PU *x is lost: PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > PMari *šo, PU *me̮ xi ‘earth’ > PMari *mü. PU *ń, in most cases, yields PMari *n: PU *ńe̮li ‘arrow’ > PMari *nülə, PU *ńäli- ‘to swallow’ > PMari *nel-. After PU *e or *i, PU *n and *ń are lost: PU *meni- ‘to go’ > PMari *miə-, PU *nińi ‘bast’ > PMari *ni. There are cases where word-initial PU *ń yields PMari *j before front vowels, but the precise conditions of this shift are hard to formulate: PU *ńičkä- ‘to tear, pull’ > PMari *jĭčk-. PU *ŋ is usually preserved in Mari but may also disappear under unclear conditions: (1) PU *joŋsi ‘bow’ > PMari *jåŋež, PU *tüŋi ‘butt of a tree’ > PMari *tü̆ŋ, (2) PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PMari *i, PU *piŋi ‘tooth’ > PMari *pü. PU *w is lost word-initially (1) before PMari *u and *ü, (2) before PMari *ŭ deriving from *i-a (Ante Aikio, p.c.): (1) PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PMari *u, PU *waji ‘fat’ > PMari *ü, (2) PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PMari *ŭž|ar. Word-internally, PU *w is invariably lost: PU *kiwi ‘stone’ > PMari *kü, PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PMari *telə. PU *j is lost word-initially before PMari *i: PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PMari *i, PU *jekä ‘year’ > PMari *i. Word-internally, *j is lost before PU *i but retained before PU *a/ä: PU *kuji‘to lie’ > PMari *kiə-, PU *waji ‘fat’ > PMari *ü, PU *käjä ‘moth’ > PMari *kijə. The resulting Proto-Mari consonant system is shown in Table 3.12. Stops p, t, k have voiced allophones b, d, g after homorganic nasals. Word-finally, δ becomes t. Reflexes of *s, *z merge with *š, *ž in almost all dialects. Vowels The history of Mari vocalism is still very imperfectly understood. We have several splits with unknown conditions. TABLE 3.12  PROTO-MARI CONSONANTS p

t

k č

ć

s

š

ś

z

ž

δ m

γ

n

ń

l

lʹ

r w

j

ŋ

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 133

PU *a is reflected as PMari *å or *o. These two vowels are different phonemes in Proto-Mari, but they apparently result from a relatively recent split of a single pre-Proto-Mari phoneme (Aikio 2014a, 140). The conditions of this split are so far unknown: compare on the one hand PU *aćka|l ‘a step’ > PMari *åškəl, PU *pata ‘pot’ > PMari *påt; and on the other, PU *kala ‘fish’ > PMari *kol, PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ > PMari *šolə. PU *e̮ is reflected either as PMari *ü or as PMari *å/o. The conditions of the split remain unknown: (1) PU *ela ̮ ‘under, below’ > PMari *ül-, PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > PMari *sün, PU *le̮ δi- ‘to be afraid’ > PMari *lüδ-, (2) PU *ńe̮ kćim ‘gills’ > PMari *nåšmə ‘palate,’ PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PMari *lom-, PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > PMari *moks. PU *o in *a-stems generally yields PMari *u: PU *ora ‘squirrel’ > PMari *ur. PU *o in *i-stems yields PMari *å/o: PU *ponči ‘tail’ > PMari *påč, PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PMari *koz. Next to labial consonants, the regular reflex of PU *o is PMari *ŭ (Aikio 2014a, 157): PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PMari *kŭwə, PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PMari *mŭšk-. PU *u is reflected as PMari *ŭ, except in those positions where *ŭ is synchronically impossible (in Proto-Mari stems of the shape CV and before vowels, the opposition of reduced and full vowels is neutralized in favour of full vowels): PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PMari *lŭps, PU *tuli ‘fire’ > PMari *tŭl, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > PMari *u, PU *puwa- ‘to blow’ > PMari *puə-. Before *j, PU *u yields PMari *i: PU *kuji- ‘to lie’ > PMari *kiə-, PU *uji- ‘to swim’ > PMari *i-. PU *ä in *ä-stems is reflected as PMari *e: PU *särä ‘fiber, vein’ > PMari *ser, *tälwä ‘winter’ > PMari *telə. PU *ä in *i-stems is reflected as PMari *i (Aikio 2014a, 137), unless followed by PU *kt, *l, or *m, in which case it is reflected as PMari *e: PU *käti ‘hand’ > PMari *kit, PU *näri ‘nose, snout’ > PMari *nir, PU *läkti- ‘to go out, away’ > PMari *lekt-, PU *ńäli- ‘to swallow’ > PMari *nel-, PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > PMari *lem. After word-initial PMari *j, PU *ä yields PMari *ĭ (Aikio 2014a, 154): PU *jänti ‘bowstring’ > PMari *jĭδ|aŋ. PU *e is reflected as PMari *ĭ or *ü̆. The conditions of the split are unknown: PU *elä- ‘to live’ > PMari *ĭlə-, PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PMari *pĭz|akš, PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PMari *čü̆čə, PU *keri ‘bark’ > PMari *kü̆r. PU *i is reflected as PMari *ĭ: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PMari *šĭńća, PU *ńičkä- ‘to tear, pull’ > PMari *jĭčk-. Before second-syllable *a, PU *i yields PMari *ŭ: PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PMari *ŭž|ar. PU *ü is reflected as PMari *ü̆ or *ĭ under unknown conditions: PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PMari *lü̆mə, PU *tüŋi ‘butt of a tree’ > PMari *tü̆ŋ, PU *külmä ‘cold; to freeze’ > PMari *kĭlmə. PU *a, *ä, and *i in non-first syllables are reflected as PMari *ə or zero in noun stems (the distribution is unclear). Verbal *i-stems yield Mari verbs of the first conjugation (*CVC- in my reconstruction). Verbal *a/ä-stems yield Mari verbs of the second conjugation (*CVCə- in my reconstruction). The resulting system of Proto-Mari vowels is shown in Table 3.13. Vowels *a and *ä are found mostly in loanwords. TABLE 3.13  PROTO-MARI VOWELS i

ü

u

e ä

o a

å

ĭ

ü̆

ŭ

134 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

3.5.5 From Proto-Uralic to Proto-Permic I use my own Proto-Permic reconstruction, briefly summarized in the following passages. It supersedes my earlier attempts at Proto-Permic reconstruction (Zhivlov 2010, 2014). For Proto-Komi and Proto-Udmurt reconstructions, see Zhivlov (2010, 167‒168, 2014, 122). Consonants PU word-initial stops *p, *t, *k are generally retained but occasionally yield PPerm voiced stops *b, *d, *g. The conditions of this development are so far unknown: PU *ponči ‘tail’ > PPerm *bu̯i̮ ž, PU *tüŋi ‘butt of a tree’ > PPerm *di̮ ŋ, PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PPerm *gi̮ ž. In intervocalic position, after a first-syllable vowel, PU *p, *t, *k disappear in PPerm: PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PPerm *ku, PU *weti ‘water’ > PPerm *vå, PU *je̮ki ‘river’ > PPerm *ju, PU *luki|nta (derived from PU *luki- ‘to count’) > PPerm *li̮ d ‘number.’ PU *k is lost in clusters *lk and *rk (the fate of PU *p and *t in this position is hard to ascertain because of the paucity of reliable examples): PU *tulka ‘feather’ > PPerm *ti̮ l, PU *kärki ‘woodpecker’ > PPerm *ki̮ r. Intervocalic *p and *t (there are no good examples for *k) were preserved after second-syllable vowels: PU *elä|pä (active participle of the verb *elä- ‘to live’) > PPerm *oläp > PUdm *ulep ‘living, live, alive,’ PU adjective suffix *-ta/-tä > PPerm *-i̮ t, as in PU *karki|ta ‘bitter’ > PFi *karke̮ta, PPerm *kuri̮ t. PU word-initial *ć yields *ś: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PPerm *śinm-. In intervocalic position after a first-syllable vowel, sibilants and affricates become voiced (*-č- > *-ž-, *-ć- > *-ź- ~ -ʒ́-, *-s- > *-z-, *-š- > *-ž-): PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PPerm *čož, PU *e̮ ći- ‘to settle down’ > PPerm *üź-, PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > PPerm *köʒ́|i̮ m/n ‘gift,’ PU *kusi ‘(to) cough’ > PPerm *ki̮ z-, PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PPerm *vež. This voicing does not seem to occur after second-syllable vowels: PU possessive 3sg ending *-sA is reflected as PPerm *-ä/i̮ s. Geminate stops are simplified into single voiceless stops. The same probably happens to geminate affricates, although examples are scarce and not very reliable (*pp > *p, *tt > *t, *kk > *k, *ćć > *ć, *čč > *č): PU *säppä ‘gall’ > PPerm *säp. After first-syllable vowels, clusters of nasal and stop or affricate yield voiced stops or affricates (*-mp- > *-b-, *-nt- > *-d-, *-mt- > *-d-, *-ŋk- > *-g-, *-nč- > *-ǯ- ~ *-ž-, *-ńć- > *-ʒ́-): PU *kumpi ‘hillock, tussock’ > PPerm *gi̮ b|äd ‘tussock; quagmire; peat,’ PU *künti ‘mist, smoke’ > PPerm *ki̮ d, PU *jäŋkä ‘bog’ > PPerm *jäg|i̮ r ‘boggy forest,’ PU *panča- ‘to open’ > PPerm *puǯ-, PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PPerm *gi̮ ž, PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PPerm *küʒ́. However, after second-syllable vowels, at least some clusters of this type yield voiceless stops. The clearest example is the Proto-Permic suffix of ordinal numerals *-ät(V) < PU *-mti: PPerm *vijt|ät(V) ‘fifth’ > PKomi *vit|ɛ̮t, PUdm *vitʹ|eti. This suggests the following relative chronology: (1) *-p-, *-t-, *-k- > Ø after first-syllable vowels, (2) denasalization of clusters *-mp- > *-p-, *-nt- > *-t- etc., in all positions, (3) voicing of new *-p-, *-t-, *-k- after first-syllable vowels (Rédei 1988, 354–357). This pattern of consonant lenition after first-syllable vowels, but not after second-syllable vowels, looks like the reverse of ‘rhythmic gradation’ seen in Finnic, Saami, and Nganasan. One may hypothesize that at the time of this change, pre-Proto-Permic had fixed stress on the second syllable.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 135

Cluster *ps is simplified to *s: PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PPerm *li̮ s, PU *ipsi ‘odour’ > PPerm *is. Clusters *ks and *kš metathesize and merge with *sk and *šk. These are then simplified to *s and *š word-finally. As a result, verbs generally preserve *sk and *šk, while nouns retain *k only in oblique forms before vowels: PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > PPerm *su̯i̮ sk-, PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > PPerm *mus : musk-. PU *δ yields zero in original intervocalic position but merges with PU *l in clusters: PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ > PPerm *u̯ö, PU *kuδa- ‘to weave’ > PPerm *ki̮ -, PU *käwδi ‘rope’ > PPerm *käl, PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PPerm *däl, PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > PPerm *unm-. PU *δʹ yields PPerm *lʹ: PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PPerm *lʹe̮m, PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PPerm *kölʹ-. After word-initial PU *ć, the reflex of *δʹ is dissimilated to PPerm *l: PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > PPerm *śul, PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ > PPerm *śVläm. PU *x is lost: PU *je̮xi- ‘to drink’ > PPerm *ju-, PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PPerm *ku̯i̮ z, PU *me̮ xi ‘earth’ > PPerm *mu. PU velar nasal *ŋ can be retained as such, turn into *ń in the context of front vowels, or completely disappear. The precise conditions for these developments are hard to state because of the scarcity of examples: PU *tüŋi ‘butt (base) of a tree’ > PPerm *di̮ ŋ, PU *piŋi ‘tooth’ > PPerm *piń, PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > PPerm *ji̮ , PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ > PPerm *ši̮ r. PU cluster *lm yields *nm: PU *jilma ‘air’ > PPerm *jenm-, PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PPerm *śinm-, cf. also PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > PPerm *unm-. PU *w yields *v word-initially and disappears word-internally: PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PPerm *vi̮ l-, PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > PPerm *ti̮ . PU *j disappears in certain vowel contexts (see later in the section on vowels). The resulting Proto-Permic consonantal system is shown in Table 3.14. Proto-Permic consonants are preserved in Proto-Komi and Proto-Udmurt practically without changes, except that (1) *ŋ yields Proto-Komi *n, *m, or *ń, depending on vocalic context, and (2) word-initial *r- yields *ǯ- or *ʒ́- in Proto-Udmurt: *ʒ́- before a following alveolo-palatal sibilant or affricate and *ǯ- otherwise. Vowels PU *a generally yields PPerm *u: PU *panča- ‘to open’ > PPerm *puǯ- > PKomi *puǯ-, PUdm *puž-; PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ > PPerm *śul > PKomi *śulj-, PUdm *śul; PU *kali- ‘to TABLE 3.14 PROT O-PERMIC CONSONANTS p

t

tʹ

k

b

d

dʹ

g

m

č

ć

ǯ

ʒ́

s

š

ś

z

ž

ź

n

ń

l

lʹ

r v

j

ŋ

136 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

die’ > PPerm *kul- > PKomi *kul-, PUdm *kul-; PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ > PPerm *su- > PKomi *su-, PUdm *su̇-t-. Before (alveolo-)palatal consonants, PU *a > PPerm *u̯ö-, -ö- (Reshetnikov and Zhivlov 2011, 106‒107): PU *aćka|l ‘a step’ > PPerm *u̯öśkäl > PKomi *u̯ośkɛ̮l; PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > PPerm *köʒ́|i̮ m/n ‘gift’ > PKomi *koʒ́in, PUdm *kuʒ́i̮m; PU *kajwa- ‘to dig’ > PPerm *köj- > PKomi *koj-, PUdm *kuj-. PU *aj before PU *i or a consonant yields PPerm *i̮ (Aikio 2013, 167): PU *kaji ‘grass, stalk, awn’ > PPerm *ki̮ > PKomi *ki̮ , PUdm *ki̮ ; PU *kajša ‘sickness’ > PPerm *ki̮ ž > PKomi *ki̮ ž, PUdm *ki̮ ž. Several cases exhibit special developments of PU word-initial *wa-: PU *wanča- ‘to move cautiously’> PPerm *vüǯ- ‘to cross (a river)’> PKomi *vuǯ-, PUdm *vi̮ ǯ-; PU *wanča ‘root’ > PPerm *vüǯ > PKomi *vužj-, PUdm *vi̮ ǯ|i̮ ; PU *waja ‘to sink’ > PPerm *vu̯ i̮ j- > PKomi *ve̮j-, PUdm *vi̮ j-; PU *wari ‘hill, forest’ > PPerm *vu̯ i̮ r > PKomi *ve̮ r, PUdm *vi̮ r. PU *e̮ in *a-stems yields PPerm *u: PU *se̮ ksa ‘Siberian pine’ > PPerm *sus > PKomi *sus, PUdm *su̇s|i̮ -; PU *e̮la ‘under, below’ > PPerm *ul > PKomi *ul, PUdm *ul; PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ > PPerm *mus > PKomi *mus, PUdm *mus; PU *će̮ lka ‘pole, rod’ > PPerm *śul > PKomi *śul, PUdm *śul. PU *e̮ in *i-stems is retained as PPerm *e̮: PU *če̮či ‘duck’ > PPerm *če̮ž > PKomi *če̮ž, PUdm *če̮ ž; PU *δʹe̮mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PPerm *lʹe̮m > PKomi *lʹe̮mj-, PUdm *lʹe̮ m; PU *ńe̮li ‘arrow’ > PPerm *ńe̮l > PKomi *ńe̮ lj-, PUdm *ńe̮l; PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > PPerm *se̮n > PKomi *se̮ n, PUdm *se̮n. Because of scarcity of data, the fate of PU *e̮ before (alveolo-)palatal consonants is not clear, cf. the following example: PU *e̮ći- ‘to settle down’ > PPerm *üź- > PKomi *uź-, PUdm *i̮ ź- ‘to sleep.’ Before syllable-final *k, PU *e̮ > PPerm *ö: PU *e̮ kta- ‘hang’ > PPerm *ökt- > PKomi *okt-; PU *ńe̮kćim ‘gills’ > PPerm *ńö/okćim > PKomi *ńo/ɔkćim; PU *te̮ kti ‘loon’ > PPerm *tö/okt- > PKomi *to/ɔkt|i̮ . Where a PU intervocalic velar was lost, PU *e̮ > PPerm *u: PU *je̮ ki ‘river’ > PPerm *ju > PKomi *ju, PUdm *ju; PU *je̮xi- ‘to drink’ > PPerm *ju- > PKomi *ju-, PUdm *ju-; PU *me̮xi ‘earth’ > PPerm *mu > PKomi *mu, PUdm *mu. Where a PU intervocalic dental was lost, PU *e̮ > PPerm *u̯ö-, -ö-: PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ > PPerm *u̯ö > PKomi *u̯o, PUdm *u̯a; post-PU *će̮ ta ‘hundred’ (borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatam) > PPerm *śö > PKomi *śo, PUdm *śu. PU *o in *a-stems yields PPerm *u: PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PPerm *ku > PKomi *ku, PUdm *ku; PU *ora ‘squirrel’ > PPerm *ur > PKomi *ur; PU *tolwa ‘wedge’ > PPerm *tul > PKomi *tulj-, PUdm *tul. Because of scarcity of data, the fate of PU *o in *a-stems before (alveolo-)palatal consonants is not clear, cf. the following examples: PU *koja ‘fat’ > PPerm *ku̯öj- > PUdm *ku̯aj- ‘to grow fat’; PU *oδʹa ‘raw; meat’ > PPerm *ülʹ > PKomi *ulʹ, PUdm *i̮ lʹ. PU *o in *i-stems apparently yields PPerm *u̯i̮ after PU obstruents and PPerm *i̮ after PU resonants, but the data are too few to draw definitive conclusions: (1) PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PPerm *ku̯i̮ z > PKomi *ku̯e̮ zj-, PUdm *ki̮ z; PU *ponči ‘tail’ > PPerm *bu̯i̮ ž > PKomi *be̮ž, PUdm *bi̮ ž; PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > PPerm *su̯i̮ sk- > PKomi *se̮ sk-, PUdm *si̮ sk-; (2) PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PPerm *mi̮ śk- > PKomi *mi̮ śk-, PUdm *mi̮ śk-; PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PPerm *vi̮ l- > PKomi *vi̮ l-, PUdm *vi̮ l-. PU *oj before PU *i or a consonant yields PPerm *i̮ (Aikio 2013, 167): PU *koji ‘dawn’ > PPerm *ki̮ |a > PKomi *ki̮ a; PU *koj|ra ‘male animal’ > PPerm *ki̮ r > PKomi *ki̮ r; PU *šoji ‘prick’ > PPerm *ši̮ > PKomi *ši̮ , PUdm *ši̮ .

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 137

PU *u yields PPerm *i̮ : PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PPerm *li̮ s > PKomi *li̮ s; PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > PPerm *si̮ l- > PKomi *si̮ l-, PUdm *si̮ l-; PU *kusi ‘(to) cough’ > PPerm *ki̮ z- > PKomi *ki̮ z-, PUdm *ki̮ z-; PU *lumi ‘(to) snow’ > PPerm *li̮ m > PKomi *li̮ mj-, PUdm *li̮ m|i̮ . Between *k and an (alveolo-)palatal consonant, PU *u yields PPerm *ü: PU *kuji‘to lie’ > PPerm *küj|l- > PKomi *kujl-, PUdm *ki̮ lʹlʹ-; PU *kuńa- ‘to close the eyes’ > PPerm *küń- > PKomi *kuń-, PUdm *ki̮ ń-; PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PPerm *küʒ́ > PKomi *kuʒ́, PUdm *ki̮ ʒ́. PU *ä in *ä-stems is retained as PPerm *ä: PU *säppä ‘gall’ > PPerm *säp > PKomi *sɛ̮p, PUdm *sep; PU *särä ‘fiber, vein’ > PPerm *sär > PKomi *sɛ̮r, PUdm *ser; PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > PPerm *täl > PKomi *tɛ̮l, PUdm *tol. PU *ä in *i-stems yields PPerm *i̮ before PU single intervocalic consonants and clusters *lk, *rk, but remains as PPerm *ä before PU clusters *wδ, *xδ, and *sk: (1) PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PPerm *ki̮ l > PKomi *ki̮ lj-, PUdm *ki̮ l; PU *kärki ‘woodpecker’ > PPerm *ki̮ r > PKomi *ki̮ r, PUdm *ki̮ r; PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > PPerm *li̮ m > PUdm *li̮ m; PU *wäki ‘power’ > PPerm *vi̮ |j > PKomi *vi̮ j, PUdm *vi; (2) PU *käwδi ‘rope’ > PPerm *käl > PKomi *kɛ̮lj-, PUdm *kal; PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PPerm *däl > PKomi *dɛ̮l, PUdm *dol. Apparently, the change *ä > *i̮ happened in open syllables after the simplification of clusters *lk, *rk. In one case where a PU intervocalic dental was lost, PU *ä > PPerm *i: PU *käti ‘hand’ > PPerm *ki > PKomi *ki, PUdm *ki. PU *e in *ä-stems yields PPerm *o: PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PPerm *čož > PKomi *čɔž, PUdm *čuž; PU *elä- ‘to live’ > PPerm *ol- > PKomi *ɔl-, PUdm *ul-; PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PPerm *poz > PKomi *pɔz, PUdm *puz. PU *e in *i-stems yields PPerm *ö: PU *keri ‘bark’ > PPerm *kör > PKomi *korj-, PUdm *ku̇r; PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ > PPerm *pöl- > PKomi *pol-, PUdm *pu̇l-. In cases where a PU intervocalic dental was lost, PU *e > PPerm *å: PU *weti ‘water’ > PPerm *vå > PKomi *va, PUdm *vu; post-PU *meti ‘honey’ (borrowed from pre-Indo-Iranian *medhu-) > PPerm *må > PKomi *ma, PUdm *mu; post-PU *wetišV ‘old’ (borrowed from an Indo-European form similar to Lithuanian vẽtušas ‘old’) > PPerm *våž > PKomi *važ, PUdm *vuž. PU *i in *ä-stems and *a-stems yields PPerm *e: PU *ńičkä- ‘to tear, pull’ > PPerm *ńečk- > PKomi *ńe/ɛčk-; PU *jilma ‘air’ > PPerm *jenm- > PKomi *jɛnm-, PUdm *inm-; PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ > PPerm *vež > PKomi *vež, PUdm *vož (but cf. PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PPerm *śinm- > PKomi *śinm-, PUdm *śinm-). PU *i in *i-stems yields PPerm *i, which shifts to *i̮ after *č and *š (Aikio 2021, 163‒164): PU *ipsi ‘odour’ > PPerm *is > PKomi *is; PU *nimi ‘name’ > PPerm *ńim > PKomi *ńim, PUdm *ńim; PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ > PPerm *ši̮ r > PKomi *ši̮ r, PUdm *ši̮ r. PU *ü yields PPerm *i̮ : PU *külmä ‘cold; to freeze’ > PPerm *ki̮ nm- > PKomi *ki̮ n, PUdm *ki̮ nm-; PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > PPerm *gi̮ ž > PKomi *gi̮ žj-, PUdm *gi̮ ž|i̮ . Proto-Permic had a fossilized morphophonological alternation of vowels *i̮ and *ä (Napolskikh 1995, 171). Note the following pairs: PPerm *gi̮ n ‘felt’ > PKomi *gi̮ n, PUdm *gi̮ n : PPerm *gän ‘body hair; down’ > PKomi *gɛ̮n, PUdm *gon (borrowed from Iranian *gauna-/*guna- ‘body hair’); PPerm *gi̮ r- ‘to plow’ > PUdm *gi̮ r- : PPerm *gär ‘wooden plow’ > PKomi *gɛ̮rj-, PUdm *ger|i̮ ; PPerm *gi̮ rd ‘blood’ > PKomi *gi̮ rd : PPerm *gärd ‘red’ > PKomi *gɛ̮rd, PUdm *gord; PPerm *pi̮ d- ‘to close’ > PUdm *pi̮ t|s|a- : PPerm *päd- ‘to close’ > PKomi *pɛ̮d-, PUdm *pod-; PPerm *ši̮ r- ‘to cut’ > PKomi *ši̮ r-, PUdm *ši̮ r- : PPerm *šär- ‘to cut bread’ > PKomi *šɛ̮r|al-, PUdm *šor-; PPerm *ti̮ d- > PKomi

138 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

*ti̮ d|al- ‘to be seen’ : PPerm *täd- ‘to know’ > PKomi *tɛ̮d-, PUdm *tod- (< PU *tumti‘to know’); PPerm *vi̮ l- ‘to be’ > PKomi *vi̮ l-, PUdm *vi̮ l- : PPerm *väl-i ‘he/she/it was’ > PKomi *vɛ̮l-i, PUdm *val (< PU *woli- ‘to be’). Where there is an external etymology, it points to PPerm *i̮ being the primary vowel. Judging by the forms of the verb ‘to be,’ the position before PU *-Vj in the second syllable was one of the environments causing the Permic umlaut *i̮ > *ä. Proto-Uralic disyllabic roots of the shape CVCV yield monosyllabic CVC roots in Proto-Permic. This is due partly to the phonetic loss of second-syllable vowels (word-finally and, perhaps in some contexts, word-internally), but partly also to reanalysis of these vowels as belonging to suffixes rather than roots. In Udmurt nouns, singular possessive endings and unpredictable forms of the instrumental case suffix begin with either e (< PPerm *ä) or i̮ (< PPerm *i̮ ). A recent study (Ponaryadov 2018) shows that this distinction partially continues a Proto-Uralic opposition of second-syllable *a/ä (> PPerm *ä) vs. *i (> PPerm *i̮ ). In Komi, there is a morphophonological class of nouns in which -j- is inserted before vowel-initial suffixes. These nouns usually reflect PU *i-stems, but not all PU *i-stem nouns belong to this class. The origin of this -j-increment is still unclear. The matter is complicated by the fact that -j- is not the only consonantal increment in Komi: there are also noun stems with increments -t-, -k-, and -m-. Increments -t- and -kare in complementary distribution with -j-: -t- is found only after p, while -k- occurs after voiceless fricatives and affricates—the two positions where -j- is absent. Despite this complementary distribution, the increment -k- has a distinct origin: it continues PU *k in clusters like *sk. The increment -m- goes back to PU *m in clusters, as in PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PKomi *śin : *śinm-. According to Lytkin (1968), the Udora dialect of Komi has two classes of verbs, one of which takes in the present-future tense, the 3sg ending -e̮, while the other takes the ending -as. The verbs with the ending -e̮ usually go back to PU *i-stems, while the verbs with the ending -as go back to PU *a/ä-stems: Udora Komi ki̮ l-e̮ < PU *kuwli- ‘to hear,’ Udora Komi ki̮ nm-as < PU *külmä- ‘to freeze.’ The resulting Proto-Permic vowel system is shown in Table 3.15. In addition, there were a number of diphthongs formed of a bilabial glide *u̯ + vowel: *u̯i̮ , *u̯ö, *u̯e̮ , *u̯o, and perhaps others. This system is reflected in the daughter languages as shown in Table 3.16.

TABLE 3.15  PROTO-PERMIC VOWELS i

ü

i̮

u

e

ö

e̮

o

a

å

ä

TABLE 3.16  PERMIC VOWEL CORRESPONDENCES Proto-Permic

*i *ü *i̮

*u̯i̮

Proto-Komi

*i *u *i̮

*u̯e̮ 1 *u

Proto-Udmurt

*i *i̮

*i̮

*i̮

*u

*e

*ö

*u̯ö

*e/ɛ2

*o

*u̯o3 *e̮ *u̯e̮ *ɔ *ɔ

*e̮ *u̯e̮ *o *u̯o *ä

*u4 *e/o5 *u̇/u6 *u̯a7 *e̮ *e̮

*u *a

*a *å

*ɛ̮

*a *a

*e/o/a8

*a *u

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 139

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

*u̯e̮ word-initially and after *k-, *e̮ otherwise. *e before voiced obstruents (but not adjacent to b or m) and before a lost *j or *lʹ; *ɛ otherwise (Zhivlov 2010). *u̯o- word-initially, but *o after *k-. *u̇ in stems of the type CVCi̮ . *e before palatal (= alveolo-palatal and palatal) consonants and m; *o before n, ŋ, l, non-palatal sibilants, and affricates; *e or *o before non-palatal stops and r (Zhivlov 2010). *u̇ in stems of the type CVC and CVCi̮ ; *u in stems of the type CV and CVCVC. PPerm *u̯öj- > PUdm *uj-. *e before palatal consonants and s; *o before non-palatal sibilants and affricates (except s) and before l after a dental stop; *a before l (except after a dental stop), *e or *o before non-palatal nasals, non-palatal stops, and r (Zhivlov 2010).

3.5.6 Ugric developments Some sound changes are common to Hungarian and Proto-Ob-Ugric. These developments can be viewed as having occurred in the Proto-Ugric language. I do not attempt a full-scale Proto-Ugric reconstruction but simply list here common Ugric sound changes. PU *š > Proto-Ugric *s, merging with PU *s: PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > Proto-Ugric *siŋkiri > Hung egér, POU *səŋkVrV > PMs *täŋkər, PKh *ʟäŋkər. PU *δ > Proto-Ugric *l, merging with PU *l: PU *aδi- ‘to sleep’ > Proto-Ugric *ali- > Hung al-, POU *alV- > PMs *āl-, PKh *i̮ l|ā-. Intervocalic *δʹ in PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ is lost. This is a unique development, but it is worth noting as a common Ugric innovation: PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ > Proto-Ugric *ćemi > Hung szív (acc szíve-t), POU *śimə > PMs *šim, PKh *sim. PU *n > Proto-Ugric *ṇ (1) in the PU cluster *nč: PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > Proto-Ugric *küṇči > Hung köröm, POU *kü̆ṇčV > PMs *kʷänš, PKh *küṇč, (2) when *n is separated by a vowel from a velar stop (except the case with word-initial *n and a single intervocalic *k): PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > Proto-Ugric *jikiṇV > Hung íny, POU *eγäṇä > PMs *ēγnə, PKh *ǟγəṇ, and (3) when intervocalic *n follows word-initial *m: PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > Proto-Ugric *muṇa > Hung mony, POU *mə̑ṇV > PMs *man, PKh *maṇ (but there is also a common Ugric exception: PU *meni- ‘to go’ > Hung mën-, POU *minə- > PMs *min-, PKh *min-). See Zhivlov (2016) for more details and examples. The shift n > ṇ in the vicinity of a velar stop finds a close parallel in the Austronesian language Iaai, where *n yields a retroflex nasal if there is a *q in the adjacent syllable (Lynch 2015, 65). PU intervocalic *ŋ > Proto-Ugric *ŋk: PU *piŋi ‘tooth’ > Proto-Ugric *piŋki > Hung fog, POU *pəŋkV > PMs *päŋkə, PKh *päŋk. Before consonants, *ŋ remained unchanged. Since PU *i-stems had allomorphs ending in a consonant, they must have had an alternation *ŋk (before a vowel) : *ŋ (before a consonant). This alternation was eventually levelled in Ugric languages, resulting in the reappearance of intervocalic *ŋ (Zhivlov 2015). One more common Ugric phenomenon is the presence of two reflexes of PU second-syllable *a (see later in the section on Hungarian). However, it is not impossible that we have here to deal with an archaism rather than an innovation, cf. a similar situation in Proto-Samoyed.

140 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

3.5.6.1 From Proto-Uralic to Hungarian Consonants

PU *p yields f word-initially: PU *pawi ‘tree’ > Hung fa, PU *pälä ‘side, half’ > Hung fél. PU *k becomes h before PU back vowels but remains as k before PU front vowels: PU *kala ‘fish’ > Hung hal, PU *koj|ra ‘male animal’ > Hung here, PU *käti ‘hand’ > Hung kéz, PU *kiwi ‘stone’ > Hung kő. In original intervocalic position, PU single stops are lenited: PU *p, *t, and *k yield v, z, and v (or zero) respectively: Proto-Ugric *tepV- ‘to go astray’ (cf. POU *tipə- > PMs *tip-, PKh *tip-) > Hung tév|ed-, PU *pata ‘pot’ > Hung faz|ék, PU *käti ‘hand’ > Hung kéz, PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > Hung íny, PU *jekä ‘year’ > Hung év. PU geminates *pp, *tt, *kk are simplified to p, t, k: PU *e̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ > Hung ip|a, PU *lükkä- ‘to push’ > Hung lök-. PU cluster *lk yields Hung ll: PU *tulka ‘feather’ > Hung toll, PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > Hung váll. The reflexes of PU *č are not entirely clear. Traditionally, it is thought that PU *č yields Hung s, for example, PU *ńičkä- ‘to tear, pull’ > Hung nyes-, POU *kəčV ‘knife’ (> PMs *käš|ǟj, PKh *käč|əγ) ~ Hung kés. However, other than in the cluster *čk, this reflex is suspiciously rare in words of PU origin. PU *ć yields Hung sz: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > Hung szëm, PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > Hung hasz|on ‘profit.’ PU cluster *ćk yields Hung s: PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > Hung mos-. Clusters of nasal and stop or affricate are subject to denasalization and voicing: *mp > b, *nt > d, *mt > d, *ŋk > g, *nč > r (Aikio 2018, 79–83), *ńć > gy: PU *kompa ‘wave’ > Hung hab, PU *künti ‘mist, smoke’ > Hung köd, PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > Proto-Ugric *jäŋki > Hung jég, PU *ponči ‘tail’ > Hung far|ok, PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > Hung húgy. PU cluster *ŋt yields Hung ld (Aikio 2018, 85–88): PU *aŋta- ‘to open, untie’> Hung old-. PU cluster *jŋ yields Hung gy (Aikio 2018, 83–85): PU *wajŋi ‘breath’ > Hung vágy ‘desire, wish.’ Proto-Ugric *s (from PU *s and *š) is lost: PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > Hung ín, PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > Hung ol|vad-, PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > Proto-Ugric *siŋiri > Hung egér, PU 3sg possessive ending *-sa/-sä > Hung -(j)a/-(j)e, PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > Hung máj, PU *joŋsi ‘bow’ > Hung íj (acc íja-t). In the last three cases, j is presumably a hiatus-filler. In one word, PU *s yields sz, due either to post-Proto-Ugric palatalization *s > *ś or to dissimilative influence of initial f that prevented the expected shift *s > *θ > zero: PU *pesä ‘nest’ > Hung fész|ëk. PU *δʹ yields Hung gy, occasionally j: PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > Hung hagy-, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > Hung új. PU *x is lost: PU *je̮ xi- ‘to drink’ > Hung i-. PU word-internal *m yields v in intervocalic position but is retained in clusters: (1) PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ > Proto-Ugric *ćemi > Hung szív, PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ > Hung lé, acc leve-t, PU *nimi ‘name’ > Hung név, (2) PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > Hung álom (acc álmo-t), PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > Hung szëm, PU *koj|mV ‘male’ > Hung hím. Proto-Ugric *ṇ (< PU *n, see preceding text) yields ny, merging with PU *ń: PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > Proto-Ugric *muṇa > Hung mony, PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > Proto-Ugric *jikiṇV > Hung íny. Proto-Ugric intervocalic *ŋ (generalized from preconsonantal position, see earlier text) yields v ~ j: PU *tüŋi ‘butt of a tree’ > Hung tő, acc töve-t. PU *w yields Hungarian v: PU *weti ‘water’ > Hung víz, PU *kiwi ‘stone’ > Hung kő, acc köve-t.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 141

Vowels

There are many uncertainties concerning the Hungarian reflexes of PU vowels, and in the following I list only the most frequent and regular ones. One thing relevant to any discussion of the history of Hungarian vowels is the alternation of short and long vowels in noun stems. In a number of nouns, a long vowel in the nominative singular alternates with a short vowel elsewhere: nom.sg nyár, acc.sg nyara-t ‘summer,’ nom.sg kéz, acc.sg keze-t ‘hand,’ nom.sg egér, acc.sg egere-t ‘mouse,’ nom. sg víz, acc.sg vize-t ‘water,’ nom.sg nyúl, acc.sg nyula-t ‘hare.’ These nouns underlyingly end in a short low vowel, regularly deleted word-finally. This deletion caused the compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. However, there are also stems with underlying final short low vowel that do not undergo lengthening (hal, acc hala-t ‘fish’), and stems with a stable long vowel (ház, acc háza-t ‘house’). Stems with a stable long á sometimes have related forms with a short a: cf. ház (acc háza-t) ‘house’ and haza ‘homeward,’ három (acc hárma-t) ‘three’ and harma|d|ik ‘third.’ A possible explanation is that the alternation a / á was, in many cases, levelled out in favour of a long vowel. On the other hand, the absence of lengthening in nouns like hal (acc hala-t) ‘fish’ has two possible explanations. Either these nouns originally had a non-low second-syllable vowel in pre-Hungarian, as in hab (acc habo-t) ‘foam,’ but replaced it by a low vowel through some analogical development, or the quality of the first-syllable vowel itself in words like hal, acc hala-t ‘fish’ was different from that in words like nyár, acc nyara-t ‘summer.’ It must be noted that the vowels o and ö never undergo lengthening. Long vowels ó and ő always go back to tautosyllabic combinations of a short vowel and a glide that derives from PU *-w-, *-k- or *-ŋ-: PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > Hung tó (acc tava-t); PU *sükići‘autumn’ > Hung ősz; PU *tüŋi ‘butt (base) of a tree’ > Hung tő (acc töve-t). PU first-syllable *a, *e̮, and *o in *a-stems have double reflexes in Hungarian: these vowels are continued either by Hungarian long á (possibly resulting from a levelling of the alternation a / á, see earlier text) or by a short a. The choice between á and a is connected with a similar bifurcation in Ob-Ugric, where PU *a-stems can yield either POU *a-stems or POU *ə̑-stems (the opposition reconstructed on the basis of Khanty umlaut and Old Mansi final vowels, see following text in the section on Proto-Ob-Ugric). Hungarian has á in the cognates of POU *a-stems and a in words corresponding to POU *ə̑-stems (Zhivlov 2014, 117‒121). To illustrate this point, in the following I adduce Ob-Ugric forms alongside Hungarian ones. PU *a-a > Hung á, POU *a-stem: PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > Hung álom, POU *olma > PMs *ōlmə, PKh *āləm; PU *ćara- ‘to dry’ > Hung szárad-, POU *śora- > PMs *sōr-, PKh *sār-; PU *kala- ‘to fish with a net’ > Hung hál|ó, POU *kola|pV > PMs *kōləp, PKh *kāləp; Proto-Ugric *sara ‘flood’ > Hung ár, POU *sora > PMs *tōrə, PKh *ʟār. PU *a-a > Hung a, POU *ə̑-stem: PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > Hung hagy-, POU *kolʹə̑- > PMs *kōlʹ-, PKh *kī̮ j- ~ *ki̮ j-; PU *kala ‘fish’ > Hung hal, POU *kolə̑ > PMs *kōl, PKh *kūl; PU *pala ‘bit’ > Hung falat, POU *polə̑ > PMs *pōl, PKh *pūḷ; PU *pata ‘pot’ > Hung faz|ék (acc faz|ëka-t), POU *potə̑ > PMs *pōt, PKh *pūt. PU *a-i > Hung a: PU *aδi- ‘to sleep’ > Hung al-, PU *kali- ‘to die’ > Hung hal-, PU *waji ‘fat’ > Hung vaj. PU *e̮-a > Hung á, POU *a-stem: PU *će̮lka ‘pole, rod’ > Hung szál-fa, POU *śe̮ kla > PMs *sē̮γl|ā, PKh *sāγəl, post-PU *će̮ ta ‘hundred’ (borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatam) > Hung száz, POU *śe̮ ta > PMs *šē̮tə, PKh *sāt. PU *e̮ -a > Hung a, POU *ə̑-stem: PU *e̮la ‘under, below’ > Hung al-, POU *e̮ lə > PMs *jal-, PKh *ī̮ l.

142 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *e̮-i > Hung i/í: PU *e̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ > Hung ip|a, PU *ńe̮li ‘arrow’ > Hung nyíl (acc nyila-t), PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > Hung ín (acc ina-t). PU *o-a > Hung á, POU *a-stem: PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > Hung váll, post-PU *kota ‘house’ (borrowed from Indo-Iranian *kata ‘house’) > Hung ház (acc háza-t), POU *ke̮/ ota > PKh *kāt. PU *o-a > Hung a, POU *ə̑-stem: PU *kompa ‘wave’ > Hung hab, POU *kumpə̑ > PMs *kump, PKh *kūmp. PU *o-i > Hung a ~ o: PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > Hung mos-, PU *ponči ‘tail’ > Hung far|ok, PU *woli- ‘to be’ > Hung val-. PU preconsonantal *oj > Hung i/í or e: PU *koj|ra ‘male’ > Hung here, PU *koj|mV ‘male’ > Hung hím (note that while the resulting vowels are front, Hung h- points to an original back vowel). PU *u-a > Hung o: PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > Hung mony, PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > Hung olvad-, PU *tulka ‘feather’ > Hung toll. PU *u-i > Hung u/ú: PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > Hung húgy, PU *muli- ‘to pass’ > Hung múl-, PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ > Hung új. PU *ä > Hung e/é: PU *särä ‘fiber, vein’ > Hung ér (acc ere-t), PU *tälwä ‘winter’ > Hung tél (acc tele-t), PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ > Hung jég (acc jege-t), PU *käti ‘hand’ > Hung kéz (acc keze-t). PU *e-ä > Hung é (non-alternating long vowel): PU *elä- ‘to live’ > Hung él-, PU *jekä ‘year’ > Hung év, PU *pesä ‘nest’ > Hung fész|ëk (acc fész|kë-t). PU *e-i > Hung i/í, ë or é: PU *weti ‘water’ > Hung víz (acc vize-t), PU *ćVδʹäm ‘heart’ > Proto-Ugric *ćemi > Hung szív (acc szíve-t), PU *meni- ‘to go’ > Hung mën-, PU *sewi- ‘to eat’ > Hung ë(v)-, PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ > Hung fél-. PU *i-ä > Hung ë: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > Hung szëm. PU *i-i > Hung e/é: PU *nimi ‘name’ > Hung név (acc neve-t), PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ > Hung egér (acc egere-t). PU word-initial *wi > Hung ö: PU *wiδi- ‘to kill’ > Hung öl-. PU *ü > Hung ö: PU *lükkä- ‘to push’ > Hung lök-, PU *süli ‘fathom’ > Hung öl. 3.5.6.2 From Proto-Uralic to Proto-Ob-Ugric Mansi and Khanty share many features due to a prolonged period of contact. Nevertheless, beneath the contact-induced features, there is a layer of truly common innovations that makes the reconstruction of Proto-Ob-Ugric necessary. I use my own Proto-Ob-Ugric reconstruction, briefly summarized next. It supersedes my earlier attempt at Proto-ObUgric reconstruction (Zhivlov 2006). For Proto-Mansi, I rely on Honti’s (1982) revision of the classical reconstruction by Steinitz (1955), with the following changes: (1) following Aikio (2020), I reconstruct *ä with labialization of neighbouring velar consonants instead of Honti’s *ü, and *a with labialization of neighbouring velar consonants instead of Honti’s *ɔ; (2) following Pystynen (2014b), long non-low vowels are reconstructed as mid *ē, *ē,̮ *ō instead of high *ī, *ī,̮ *ū. Reflexes of *ē and *ē̮ are mid or low, while the shift *ō > ū happens in those dialects where Proto-Mansi *ā yields ō. For Proto-Khanty, I use my own reconstruction (Zhivlov 2006), based on the ideas of Tálos (1984) and Helimski (2001). Consonants

PU *k is weakened to *γ between vowels: PU *wäki ‘power’ > POU *wäγV > PMs *wǟγ, PKh *wäγ, PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > POU *eγäṇä > PMs *ēγnə, PKh *ǟγəṇ.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 143

PU cluster *sk undergoes metathesis to *ks: PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > POU *sə̑ksV- > PMs *taγt-, PKh *ʟaγəl-. PU clusters *lk and *rk undergo metathesis to *kl and *kr: PU *će̮lka ‘pole, rod’ > POU *śe̮kla > PMs *sē̮γl|ā, PKh *sāγəl, PU *tulka ‘feather’ > POU *tŭklV > PMs *tawəl, PKh *tuγəl, PU *će̮rki ‘gray; white’ > POU *śe̮ krV > PMs *sē̮γr|āŋ, PU *ćärki- ‘to chop’ > POU *śäkrV- > PMs *šǟγrǝ-, PKh *säɣǝr-. PU geminates yield single stops so that reflexes of *pp and *tt merge with *p and *t, respectively, but POU *k < PU *kk remains distinct from POU *γ < PU *k: PU *e̮ppi ‘father-in-law’ > POU *upa > PMs *up, PKh *ɔ̄p, PU *lükkä- ‘to push’ > POU *lü̆kV- > PMs *läkʷ-, PKh *ḷük|ēmə-. PU *č is retained in Proto-Ob-Ugric but subsequently spirantized to *š in Proto-Mansi: PU *če̮či ‘duck’ > POU *če̮ ča > PMs *šē̮š, PKh *čāč, PU *čoδʹi ‘truth, true’ > POU *čalʹV > PMs *šālʹ, PKh *či̮ j|ī̮ . PU word-initial *ć yields POU *ś (> PMs *s/š, PKh *s). Although scholars such as Björn Collinder (1960, 56‒57) projected the difference between Mansi *s and *š all the way back to Proto-Uralic, they could not support this with data from any other Uralic branch. Later studies (e.g. Sammallahti 1988, 511) regarded the difference in question as a Mansi innovation, without being able to account for the distribution of *s and *š. The solution to the problem was found by Juho Pystynen (2013a), who noted in a blog post that complementary distribution can be established if we disregard some Indo-Iranian loanwords routinely viewed as borrowed into Proto-Finno-Ugric or even Proto-Uralic. These are the following: post-PU *ćasara ‘thousand’ (from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ʒ́ʰasra) > PMs *šātər, post-PU *će̮ta ‘hundred’ (from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatam) > PMs *šē̮tə, post-PU *ćarwi ‘horn’ (from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćr̥w-) > PMs *šār|əp ‘male elk.’ If we exclude these cases, the rules of development of POU word-initial *ś in Mansi words inherited from Proto-Uralic can be formulated as follows: it yields PMs *š before front vowels (except POU *ü̆) and PMs *s otherwise. Consider the following examples: (1) PU *ćärki- ‘to chop’ > POU *śäkrV- > PMs *šǟγrǝ-, PU *ćepä ‘neck; collar’ > POU *śipə > PMs *šip, PU *ćVδʹäm > Proto-Ugric *ćemi ‘heart’ > POU *śimə > PMs *šim, PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > POU *śəmV > PMs *šäm (the following exception is due to a regressive assimilation: PU *ćäk(i)ći ‘osprey’ > POU *śükśV > PMs *siγs), (2) PU *ćara- ‘to dry’ > POU *śora- > PMs *sōr-, PU *će̮lka ‘pole, rod’ > POU *śe̮ kla > PMs *sē̮γl|ā, PU *će̮ mi ‘fish scales’ > POU *śe̮ ma > PMs *sē̮mə, PU *će̮ rki ‘gray; white’ > POU *śe̮krV > PMs *sē̮γr|āŋ, PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > POU *śe̮ lʹa > PMs *sē̮lʹ, PU *ćülki- ‘to spit’ > POU *śü̆lʹγV- > PMs *sälʹγ-. The aberrant behaviour of Indo-Iranian loanwords means that they were borrowed separately into Proto-Mansi. Since the words for ‘hundred’ and ‘horn’ are among the most widespread, and therefore, presumably, most ancient, Indo-Iranisms in Finno-Ugric languages, we can suppose that there were no Indo-Iranian loanwords in the last common ancestor of Finno-Ugric languages. Word-medially, PU *ć yields POU *ś (> PMs *s, PKh *s), except in the PU clusters *kć and *ńć, where *ć is retained: PU *sükići- ‘autumn’ > POU *sü̆kśV > PMs *täkʷs, PKh *süwəs, PU *ńe̮kćim ‘gills’ > POU *ńe̮ kćamV > PMs *ńē̮kćām, PKh *ńākćəm, PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > POU *kuńćV- > PMs *kuńć-, PKh *kus-. PU cluster *ćk yields POU *śk > PMs *š: PU *aćka- ‘to step’ > POU *ośkV- > PMs *ōš-. PU *s and *š merge into POU *s (> PMs *t, PKh *ʟ-, -l-). Usually, the correspondence PMs *t ~ PKh *ʟ-, -l- is interpreted as either POU *θ or POU *ʟ (a voiceless lateral fricative), while the correspondence PMs *s, *š ~ PKh *s is reconstructed as POU *s. In other words, the ‘sibilant shift’ *s > *θ (> *t, *ʟ), *ś > *s is thought to have occurred before the disintegration of Proto-Ob-Ugric. Most often, it is ascribed to Proto-Ugric,

144 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

but J. Häkkinen (2007) proposed to date this sound change back to Proto-East-Uralic, a hypothetical ancestor of Ugric and Samoyed. The change itself is one of the main pieces of evidence in favour of East Uralic. However, a number of facts make the scenario of a common Ob-Ugric (and, a fortiori, East Uralic) development quite implausible. First, there is the evidence of loanwords. The numeral ‘seven’ was borrowed into Ob-Ugric languages from an archaic Indo-Iranian source that preserved Proto-IndoIranian *s. The Proto-Indo-Iranian form is reconstructed as *sapta. The Proto-Mansi word for ‘seven’ is *sǟtə < *sǟptə. It is clear that the Mansi word was borrowed after the sibilant shift. In contrast, the Proto-Khanty word for ‘seven’ is *ʟǟpət, and it must therefore have been borrowed before the shift, in order for *s to be reflected as PKh *ʟ. This already suggests that (1) the shift did not occur until the breakup of Proto-Ob-Ugric and (2) the shift occurred in Mansi earlier than in Khanty (assuming that the borrowing happened more or less at the same time). These conclusions can be confirmed by Alanic loanwords. Alanic was an East Iranian language whose closest modern relative is Ossetic. Unfortunately, we do not have relevant Alanic loanwords that are attested simultaneously in both branches of Ob-Ugric, but we can nevertheless compare such loanwords as Proto-Mansi *ēsərmǟ ‘shame’ (cf. Ossetic æfsarm ‘id.’) and Proto-Khanty *ʟi̮ γər ‘chain mail’ (cf. Ossetic æsqær ‘id.’). These loans confirm that the sibilant shift happened in Mansi earlier than in Khanty. One more loanword of this type is Hungarian szekér ‘wagon,’ Proto-Khanty *ʟīkər ‘sledge.’ The ultimate source of this Wanderwort is apparently Old Indic śákaṭa-m ‘carriage, cart,’ but the immediate source, whatever it was, apparently already had a depalatalized *s. This word shows that the sibilant shift in Khanty must be dated later than the analogous process in Hungarian. Second, the internal evidence also speaks in favour of a post-POU sibilant shift. Proto-Uralic cluster *-ńć- can be reflected in Khanty either as *-ńć- (PU *sańća- ‘to stand’ > PKh *ʟāńć-) or as *-s- (PU *kuńći- ‘to urinate’ > PKh *kus-, PU *kVńći ‘star’ > PKh *kɔ̄s). Mansi has *-ńć- in all cases: PMs *tōńć- ‘to stand,’ PMs *kuńć- ‘to urinate,’ PMs *kōńća ‘star.’ If the shift *ś > *s had already occurred before the breakup of Proto-ObUgric, we must postulate a second, completely unmotivated depalatalization in Khanty to account for such cases as ‘star’ and ‘to urinate.’ However, if the depalatalization of *ś happened independently in Mansi and Khanty, all we need is to postulate a development *-ńć- > *-ńś- in pre-Proto-Khanty with subsequent loss of a nasal. The resulting *-ś- was subject to the general Khanty depalatalization *ś > *s. Juho Pystynen (p.c.) draws attention to the fact that PKh *ʟāńć- goes back to PU *a-stem *sańća- ‘to stand,’ whereas PKh *kus- and *kɔ̄s go back to PU *i-stems *kuńći- ‘to urinate’ and *kVńći ‘star.’ Since PU *i-stems had consonantal allomorphs, one can suggest that POU cluster *-ńć- was simplified to *-ś- before consonants in pre-Proto-Khanty. Finally, Ante Aikio (p.c.) points out that POU *s was preserved in Proto-Khanty as *s before *t. For example, POU *sVsV- ‘to get wet’ yields PMs *ti̮ t|ā- and PKh *ʟi̮ l|ā-. However, the causative of PKh *ʟi̮ l|ā- is *ʟi̮ s|tə- ‘to soak.’ Another example adduced by Aikio is PKh *wi̮ s|tī̮ ‘green, yellow’ < PU *wiša ‘id.’ The following words illustrate the development of PU *s and *š: PU *se̮ni ‘sinew, vein’ > POU *se̮ na > PMs *tē̮nə, PKh *ʟān, PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > POU *kə̑γsV > PMs *kaγta, PKh *kal, PU *šiŋiri- ‘mouse’ > POU *səŋkVrV > PMs *täŋkər, PKh *ʟäŋkər. PU *δ merged with *l already in Proto-Ugric: PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > POU *nü̆lV > PMs *näl, PKh *nül, PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > POU *olma > PMs *ōlmə, PKh *āləm. PU *δʹ yields POU *lʹ (> PMs *lʹ, PKh *j): PU *δʹe̮mi ‘bird-cherry’ > POU *lʹe̮ma > PMs *lʹē̮mə, PKh *jɔ̄m, PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > POU *kolʹə̑- > PMs *kōlʹ-, PKh *kī̮ j- ~

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 145

*ki̮ j-. The correspondence PMs *lʹ ~ PKh *lʹ, usually reconstructed as POU *lʹ, is found almost exclusively in etymologies without external Uralic parallels, with weak dialect distribution within OU and/or with irregular vowel correspondences. PU intervocalic *x is reflected as POU *γ, *w, *j or zero, depending on vocalic context: PU *kixi- ‘be in heat’ > POU *kəjV- > PMs *käj-, PKh *käj-, PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > POU *mi(γ)- > PMs *mi(γ)- : *mäj-, PKh *mi(j)-, PU *me̮ xi ‘earth’ > POU *me̮γV > PMs *mē̮, PKh *miγ, PU *suxi- ‘to row’ > POU *sŭwV- > PMs *taw-, PKh *ʟuw- ~ *ʟāw-. In preconsonantal position, PU *x yields POU *γ, which eventually disappears in Khanty but is preserved in Mansi: PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > POU *kə̑γsV > PMs *kaγta, PKh *kal, PU *täxδi ‘full’ > POU *täγlV > PMs *tǟγl, PKh *täl, PU *wexri ‘blood’ > POU *wiγrə > PMs *wiγr, PKh *wir. Cf. also POU *we̮ γna ‘shoulder’ > PMs *wē̮γnə, PKh *wān. Proto-Ugric *ṇ (see above) is retained as POU *ṇ (> PMs *n, PKh *ṇ): PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > POU *mə̑ṇV > PMs *man, PKh *maṇ, PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > POU *eγäṇä > PMs *ēγnə, PKh *ǟγəṇ. PU intervocalic *ŋ yielded *ŋk in Proto-Ugric (PU *piŋi ‘tooth’ > POU *pəŋkV > PMs *päŋkə, PKh *päŋk) but was retained before consonants, whence it has spread by paradigm levelling back into intervocalic position. Proto-Ugric *ŋ is retained in POU: PU *suŋi ‘summer’ > POU *suŋV > PMs *tuj, PKh *ʟuŋ. PU *w is retained in POU, word-initially as well as word-internally: PU *wari ‘hill, forest’ > POU *warV > PMs *wār, PKh *war, PU *kiwi ‘stone’ > POU *kəwV > PMs *käw, PKh *käw, PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > POU *tuwV > PMs *tuw, PKh *tuw). The view that PU intervocalic *w merges with PU *k in Proto-Ugric and POU (Sammallahti 1988, 510; Häkkinen 2007, 84) is erroneous: the merger is limited to East Khanty (this was known already to Collinder [1960, 77, 115]). While POU *γ yields w in specific vocalic contexts in Ob-Ugric languages, PU *w is never reflected as a velar in Mansi and West Khanty. PU *j is deleted before *r and *m: PU *koj|ra ‘male’ > POU *ke̮ra > PMs *kē̮r, PKh *kār, Proto-Ugric *koj|ma ‘male, man’ > POU *kumV > PMs *kum ‘man’ (both words are derived from PU *koji ‘male’). As a result of the changes that have just been described, we get the Proto-Ob-Ugric consonantal system shown in Table 3.17. This system is reflected in the daughter languages, as shown in Table 3.18. Consonant clusters are reflected as shown in Table 3.19. For the change POU *jt > PKh *ć see Aikio (2014b, 1‒2). To the examples listed there, one could add PU *uji- ‘to swim’ > POU *ujV- > PMs *uj-, pre-PKh *ɔ̄j|t- > PKh *ɔ̄ć-. TABLE 3.17  PROTO-OB-UGRIC CONSONANTS p

t

k č

ć

ṇ

ń

s m

n l

ś ŋ

lʹ

r w

j

γ

146 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV TABLE 3.18  OB-UGRIC CONSONANT CORRESPONDENCES POU

p

t

k

č

ć

s

ś

γ

m

n

ṇ

ń

ŋ

l

lʹ

r

w

j

PMs

p

t

k/kʷ

š

ć

t

s/š

γ/w/j

m

n

n

ń

j/w/ŋ

l

lʹ

r

w

j

PKh

p

t

k

č

ć

ʟ-/-l-

s

γ/w

m

n

ṇ

ń

ŋ

l/ḷ

j

r

w

j

TABLE 3.19  OB-UGRIC CONSONANT CLUSTER CORRESPONDENCES POU

pt

ps

kt

ks

kś

kl

kr

st

śk

γs

γl

γr

γn

ṇč

ńć

ŋt

jt

PMs

t

t

kt

γt

ks/γs

γl

γr

?

š

γt

γl

γr

γn

nš

ńć

ŋt/ńt

jt

PKh

pt

pl

γt

γl

γs

γl

γr

st

?

l

l

r

n

ṇč

ńć/s

ŋt

ć

Vowels

PU *a in *a-stems yields POU *o: PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ > POU *olma > PMs *ōlmə, PKh *āləm; PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ > POU *konta- > PMs *kōnt-, PKh *kānt|əm-; PU *aŋa- ‘to open, take off’ > POU *oŋkə̑- > PMs *ē̮ŋkʷ-, PKh *ī̮ ŋk-; PU *pata ‘pot’ > POU *potə̑ > PMs *pōt, PKh *pūt. PU *wa- in *a-stems yields POU *u-: PU *waja- ‘to sink’ > POU *ujV- > PMs *uj-; PU *wanča- ‘to move cautiously’ > POU *uṇčə̑- ‘to cross (a river)’ > PMs *unš-, PKh *ūṇč-. PU *a in *i-stems yields POU *a in PU open syllables and POU *ə̑ in PU closed syllables: PU *kali- ‘to die’ > POU *kalV- > PMs *kāl|ā-, pre-PKh *kal|Ā- > PKh *ki̮ l|ā-; PU *waji ‘fat’ > POU *wajV > PMs *wāj, PKh *waj; PU *lańći- ‘soft, mild’ > POU *lə̑ńćV ‘lukewarm’ > PMs *lańćǝŋ, PKh *ḷańćV. PU *e̮ is retained as POU *e̮ : PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > POU *me̮ksə̑ > PMs *mē̮γət, PKh *mūγəl; PU *će̮lka ‘pole, rod’ > POU *śe̮ kla > PMs *sē̮γl|ā, PKh *sāγəl; PU *ńe̮ li ‘arrow’ > POU *ńe̮ la > PMs *ńē̮lə, PKh *ńāl; PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ > POU *se̮ na > PMs *tē̮nə, PKh *ʟān. Before PU *pp, PU *e̮ yields POU *u (Aikio 2015a, 6): PU *e̮ppi ‘father-in-law’ > POU *upa > PMs *up, PKh *ɔ̄p. PU *o in *a-stems yields POU *o word-initially and POU *e̮ otherwise: (1) PU *ona ‘short’ > POU *onV > PMs *ōn; (2) PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ > POU *śe̮ lʹa > PMs *sē̮lʹ, PKh *sāj; PU *koj|ra ‘male’ > POU *ke̮ ra > PMs *kē̮r, PKh *kār; PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > POU *we̮ klV > PMs *wē̮γl|əp ‘shoulder strap.’ Before labials, PU *o in *a-stems yields POU *u: PU *kompa ‘wave’ > POU *kumpə̑ > PMs *kump, PKh *kūmp. The following word shows that this change happened after *jm > *m: Proto-Ugric *koj|ma ‘male, man’ (derived from PU *koji ‘id.’) > POU *kumV > PMs *kum ‘man.’ PU *o in *i-stems yields POU *a: PU *ponči ‘tail’ > POU *paṇčV > PMs *pānš, PKh *pač; PU *woŋki ‘hole, den’ > POU *waŋkV > PMs *wāŋk|ā, PKh *waŋk. Before syllable-final *k or *γ, PU *o in *i-stems yields POU *ə̑ (Aikio 2014b, 11): PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > POU *kə̑γsV > PMs *kaγta, PKh *kal; PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > POU *sə̑ksV- > PMs *taγt-, PKh *ʟaγəl-. Before *j, PU *o in *i-stems yields POU *u (Aikio 2015a, 3‒4): PU *koji ‘male, man’ > POU *kuja > PMs *kuj, PKh *kɔ̄(j); PU *koji ‘dawn’ > POU *kujV > PMs *kuj.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 147

PU *u in *a-stems yields POU *ŭ: PU *kuńa- ‘to close the eyes’ > POU *kŭńV- > PMs *kʷań-, PKh *kuń-; PU *sula- ‘to melt’ > POU *sŭlV- > PMs *tal|ā-, PKh *ʟul|ā-. Next to *p and *m, this vowel is delabialized to POU *ə̑: PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > POU *mə̑ṇV > PMs *man, PKh *maṇ, PU *kuma- ‘upside down; to overturn’ > POU *kə̑mV- > PMs *kam-, PKh *kam-. PU *uwa yields POU *uwV: PU *kuwa ‘long’ > POU *kuwV > PKh *kuw; PU *puwa- ‘to blow’ > POU *puwV- > PMs *puw-, PKh *puw-. PU *u in *i-stems yields POU *u: PU *kuji- ‘to lie’> POU *kuja- > PMs *kuj-, PKh *kɔ̄j-; PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > POU *tuwV > PMs *tuw, PKh *tuw. Before PU *k and *x, PU *u in *i-stems yields POU *ŭ: PU *ńukić ‘sable’ > POU *ńŭkśV > PMs *ńakʷs, PKh *ńuγəs; PU *suxi- ‘to row’ > POU *sŭwV- > PMs *taw-, PKh *ʟuw- ~ *ʟāw-. The following word shows that this change preceded the metathesis *lk > *kl: PU *kulki- > POU *kukla- > PKh *kɔ̄γəl- ‘to run.’ PU tautosyllabic *uw yields POU *ŭw: PU *kuw|nti- ‘to hear, to listen’ > POU *kŭwntV- > PMs *kʷānt|əl-, PKh *kō/ūnt|əγl-; PU *šuwli ‘lip’ > POU *sŭwlV > PKh *ʟōl ‘mouth.’ PU *ä yields POU *ä: PU *jäŋkä ‘bog’ > POU *jäŋkV > PMs *jǟŋk, PKh *jäŋk; PU *käti ‘hand’ > POU *kätV > PMs *kǟtə, PKh *kät. PU *ä before *k in *i-stems yields POU *ü (Aikio 2015a, 2‒3): PU *ćäk(i)ći ‘osprey’ > POU *śükśV > PMs *siγs, PKh *sǖγəs; PU *mäki ‘hill, hummock’ > POU *müγV > PKh *mǖγ. This change is blocked after *w: PU *wäki ‘power’ > POU *wäγV > PMs *wǟγ, PKh *wäγ. PU vowel combination *e-ä yields POU *i-ä or *i-ə. The distribution between these two reflexes is unknown: (1) PU *elä- ‘to live’ > POU *jilä- > PMs *jäl-, PKh *jil- ‘to go’; PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > POU *čičä > PMs *šäš; (2) PU *pesä ‘nest’ > POU *pisə > PMs *pitʹī, PKh *pil. PU vowel combination *e-i yields POU *i-ə: PU *meni- ‘to go’ > POU *minə- > PMs *min-, PKh *min-; PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ > POU *pilə- > PMs *pil-, PKh *pil-. PU *i in *a-stems yields POU *ə̑: PU *ńila ‘phloem; bast’ > POU *ńə̑lV- ‘to peel off’ > PMs *ńal-, PKh *ńi̮ l-. PU *i in *ä-stems and *i-stems yields POU *ĭ: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > POU *śəmV > PMs *šäm, PKh *säm; PU *nimi ‘name’ > POU *nəmV > PMs *nämə, PKh *näm. PU word-initial *ji- and *je- yield POU *e (the idea was suggested by Juho Pystynen [2013b] in a blog post): PU *jikini- ‘chin; gums’ > POU *eγäṇä > PMs *ēγnə, PKh *ǟγəṇ; PU *jilma ‘air’ > POU *elmä > PMs *ēləm, pre-PKh *ǟlm|U > PKh *ēləm; PU *jeri- ‘to curse’ > POU *erV- > PMs *ēr-. PU *ü yields POU *ü̆: PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ > POU *kü̆ṇčV > PMs *kʷänš, PKh *küṇč; PU *süli ‘fathom’ > POU *sü̆lV > PMs *täl, PKh *ʟül. As a result of these changes, Proto-Ob-Ugric had the vowel system shown in Table 3.20.

TABLE 3.20  PROTO-OB-UGRIC VOWELS i

ü

ü̆

u

e

e̮

ä

a

o

ə

ŭ ə̑

148 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

Both Proto-Mansi and Proto-Khanty have restructured the POU system so that instead of full vs. reduced, they have a phonological contrast of long vs. short vowels. The reflexes of Proto-Ob-Ugric vowels in Proto-Khanty are quite complex. As in many other Uralic languages, in Khanty first-syllable vowels were changed under the influence of second-syllable vowels (metaphony or umlaut), which themselves were largely lost. There were apparently two rounds of this influence. In the first round, reflexes of POU full mid vowels and POU *u were lowered under the influence of a low vowel (*a/ä) in the second syllable. Since this vowel belonged to the root, the change did not result in ablaut alternations in the first syllable. In the second round, low vowels, including those resulting from the first round of umlaut, became mid or high under the influence of secondary non-first-syllable vowels which arose mainly from combinations like *-Vj, *-Vw, or *-Vk. These vowels belonged to suffixes, so the influence of different suffix vowels on the first-syllable vowel created ablaut alternations in the root. Proto-Khanty ablaut was preserved in Eastern Khanty and left significant traces in Western Khanty. There were three ablaut grades in Proto-Khanty: low grade, mid grade, and high grade (see Table 3.21). Low grade is basic, whereas mid grade and high grade are triggered by inflectional or derivational suffixes. In nouns (except kinship terms), mid grade is found in singular possessive forms: PKh *kāt ‘house’ : *kōt-əm house-1sg ‘my house.’ In kinship terms, singular possessive forms have the high grade: PKh *kāləγ ‘grandchild’ : *kī̮ lγ-əm grandchild-1sg ‘my grandchild.’ In verbs, the perfect stem has the mid grade, while the imperative stem has the high grade: PKh *lāləm- ‘to steal’ : *lōlm-əm steal-prf.1sg ‘I stole’ : *lī̮ lm-ā stealimp.2sg ‘steal!’ Mid and high grades were triggered by the pre-Proto-Khanty second-syllable vowels reconstructed by Helimski (2001) as -Ā (remains as PKh *ā/ǟ, triggers high grade), -Ī (remains as PKh *ī̮ /ī, triggers high grade), -I (lost in PKh, triggers high grade), and -U (lost in PKh, triggers mid grade). The origin of these vowels has not been investigated in detail, but presumably all of them are secondary. For example, *-I apparently goes back to *-Vj (Zhivlov 2019). In order to compare Khanty vowels with vowels of related languages, we must use morphophonologically basic forms. In Table 3.22, I ignore the results of ablaut and give Khanty reflexes in their underlying form. Even with this simplification, some Mansi vowels have dual correspondences in Khanty that are not conditioned by neighbouring consonants. In order to account for these splits, I reconstruct ProtoOb-Ugric primary second-syllable vowels: *a/ä and *ə̑/ə. These vowels were lost in Khanty and in modern Mansi varieties. After this loss, an automatic schwa vowel was inserted in both Khanty and Mansi to eliminate phonotactically illegal clusters. In Old Mansi word lists from the eighteenth century, some nouns have a non-automatic final vowel, absent from all later sources. This vowel has left traces in the development of vowel length and some TABLE 3.21  PROTO-KHANTY ABLAUT low grade

a

ä

i̮

u

i

ü

ā

ɔ̄

ǟ

ɔ̈̄

ī̮

ū

ī

ǖ

mid grade

o

e

i̮

u

i

ü

ō

ō

ē

ȫ

ī̮

ū

ī

ǖ

high grade

i̮

i

i̮

u

i

ü

ī̮

ū

ī

ǖ

ī̮

ū

ī

ǖ

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 149

consonant clusters in modern Mansi varieties (Pystynen 2020). I reconstruct it as PMs *ə < POU *a/ä. Mansi nouns with final *ə correspond to Khanty nouns having low vowels in the first syllable, while nouns attested in Old Mansi without a final vowel correspond to Khanty nouns with high vowels in the first syllable (Honti 1982, 93‒95). The former correspondence reflects POU second-syllable *a/ä; the latter reflects POU second-syllable *ə̑/ə. Note that in some cases, Khanty reflexes of POU vowels before POU secondsyllable *ə̑/ə are indistinguishable from the high grade of ablaut. These vowels reflect Proto-Uralic second-syllable vowels in the following way. Proto-Uralic *e-i yields Proto-Ob-Ugric *i-ə, while Proto-Uralic *e-ä yields Proto-Ob-Ugric *i-ä or *i-ə. PU *ä, *i, and *ü yield POU vowels whose development in Khanty does not depend on the second syllable. In back-vocalic stems, PU second-syllable *i always yields POU *a, but PU second-syllable *a can yield either *a or *ə̑. The reason for this double representation is unknown, but regular correspondences with Hungarian show that the phenomenon goes back at least to Proto-Ugric (see previous text). The reflexes of Proto-Ob-Ugric vowels in Proto-Mansi and Proto-Khanty are given in Table 3.22. The following correspondences are not found in inherited Uralic words: PMs *ā ~ PKh *ā and PMs *ǟ ~ PKh *ǟ. These correspondences result from mutual borrowings between Mansi and Khanty after the breakup of Proto-Ob-Ugric.

TABLE 3.22  OB-UGRIC VOWEL CORRESPONDENCES Proto-Ob-Ugric

*i

*ü

*u

*e

*e̮

*o

*ä

*a

*ə

*ə̑

*ü̆

*ŭ

*ŭw

Proto-Mansi

*ä/i1

*i

*u

*ē

*ē̮

*ō2

*ǟ

*ā

*ä

*a

*ä3

*a3

*ā3

Proto-Khanty

*i

*ǖ

*ɔ̄/ū

*ä

*a

*ä

*a

*ü

*u

*ō

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4

5

*ǟ/ī

6

*ā/ī̮

7

*ā/ī̮

8

POU *i-ä > PMs *ä; POU *i-ə > PMs *i. POU *o is delabialized before velar consonants in Mansi; labialization shifts to the following consonant: POU *ok > PMs *ē̮kʷ, POU *oŋk > PMs *ē̮ŋkʷ, POU *oγ > PMs *ē̮w. Neighbouring velar consonants are labialized: *k > *kʷ, *γ > *w. PKh *ǟ in some cases under unclear conditions. POU *u-a > PKh *ɔ̄; POU *u-ə̑ > PKh *ū; before *ŋ, *w, or after *p POU *u > PKh *u irrespective of the second-syllable vowel. POU *e-ä > PKh *ǟ; POU *e-ə > PKh *ī. POU *e̮ -a > PKh *ā; POU *e̮-ə̑ > PKh *ū after labial consonants and PKh *ī̮ elsewhere. POU *o-a > PKh *ɔ̄ before velar consonants and PKh *ā elsewhere; POU *o-ə̑ > PKh *ū word-initially or after labial consonants and PKh *ī̮ elsewhere.

3.5.7 From Proto-Uralic to Proto-Samoyed I use J. Janhunen’s (1975–1976, 1977) Proto-Samoyed reconstruction (see useful summaries in [Mikola 1988, 2004]) with important additions by E. Helimski (1978, 1993, 2005); see also Salminen (2012).

150 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

Consonants

PU *k is lost before and after obstruents: PU *me̮ksa ‘liver’ > PSam *mi̮ tə̑, PU *aćka|l ‘a step’ > PSam *asə̑l-, PU *koska ‘an elder female relative’ > PSam *kåtå, PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PSam *måsə̑-, PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk’ > PSam *pucə̑, PU *soski- ‘to chew’ > PSam *tåt|u-, PU *kätki- ‘to wrap up’ > PSam *kätə-. PU word-internal *k is lost before *i, unless preceded by *ŋ: PU *koki- ‘to check’ > PSam *ko- ‘to find, see,’ PU *purki ‘snowstorm’ > PSam *pur|ə̑t, PU *ulki ‘pole’ > PSam *uj. PU cluster *-lk- can also yield zero: PU *ćülki- ‘to spit’ > PSam *siə|sə-, PU *kulki- ‘to move’ > PSam *kuə̑- ‘to float downstream,’ PU *tulka ‘feather’ > PSam *tuå. Otherwise, word-internal *k is preserved: PU *ekä ‘elder male relative’ > PSam *jekä, PU *juka ‘small river’ > PSam *jə̑kå, PU *taka ‘behind’ > PSam *takə̑, PU *sarka ‘fork, branch’ > PSam *tårkå, PU *woŋki ‘hole, den’ > PSam *wåŋkə̑. PU *t after a second-syllable (i.e. unstressed) vowel yields *r, probably through an intermediate-stage *δ. Results of this change are seen in Proto-Samoyed possessive/ objective endings 2sg *-rə < PU *-ti, 2du *-riń < PU *-tijn, 2pl *-råt < PU *-tak. When combined with preceding case endings, second-person possessive endings retain their *t: PSam acc.2sg *-mtə < PU *-mti, etc. Another example of this change is the PSam causative suffix *-rå- < PU *-ta-. However, PU ablative ending *-ta yields PSam *-tə. The unattested reflex **-rə is expected after disyllabic noun stems, but except for spatial nouns, such stems take a coaffix *-kə- before local cases. This means that *-t- follows third-syllable vowel, as in PSam abl.sg *kopå-kə̑-tə̑ ‘from skin’ (Juho Pystynen, p.c.). PU geminates were simplified: PU compound *e̮na+e̮ ppi ‘parent-in-law’ (‘mother-inlaw’ + ‘father-in-law’) > PSam *i̮ nə̑pə̑, PU *kuwa|kka ‘long’ > PSam *kuə̑ kå-nå ‘long ago.’ PU *č is preserved as PSam *c (a retroflex affricate): PU *čečä ‘uncle’ > PSam *cecä, PU *ponči ‘tail’ > PSam *påncə̑, PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk’ > PSam *pucə̑. PU *ć yields PSam *s (possibly still an alveolo-palatal affricate in Proto-Samoyed): PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PSam *səjmä, PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > PSam *kåso ‘gift,’ PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PSam *måsə̑-, PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PSam *kunsə̑. PU *s and *š yield PSam *t: PU *süli ‘fathom’ > PSam *tij, PU *kusi ‘(to) cough’ > PSam *kot, PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PSam *jə̑ptå, PU *se̮ksa ‘Siberian pine’ > PSam *ti̮ tå|jŋ, PU *še̮ ra- ‘to dry (intr.)’ > PSam *ti̮ rå-. PU *δ yields PSam *r: PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ > PSam *e̮r|ö ‘autumn,’ PU *le̮ δi- ‘to be afraid’ > PSam *le̮ r(ə̑)-, PU *piδ|kä ‘high, long’ > PSam *pirkä, PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > PSam *nir. PU *δʹ yields PSam *j: PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PSam *jimä, PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PSam *kåjä-. PU *x is lost: PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > PSam *mi-, PU *toxi- ‘to bring’ > PSam *tå-, PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ > PSam *kå(ə̑)t, PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PSam *tärə. PU word-initial *l yields PSam *j, except before PU *e̮ (Aikio 2014c, 86): 1) PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PSam *jə̑ptå, PU *lumi ‘(to) snow’ > PSam *jom-, PU *lämpi ‘warm’ > PSam *jämpə ‘clothes,’ 2) PU *leδi‘to be afraid’ > PSam *ler(ə)-, ̮ ̮ ̑ PU *le̮ nti ‘lowland’ > PSam *li̮ ntə̑ , PU *le̮ wi ‘bone’ > PSam *le̮. PU preconsonantal *l yields PSam *j: PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PSam *səjmä, PU *tolwa ‘wedge’ > PSam *tajwå, PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > PSam *wajk. PU intervocalic *l in *i-stems yields PSam *j, but is lost after PSam low vowels *å and *ä: 1) PU *ńi̮ li ‘arrow’ > PSam *ńe̮ j, PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ > PSam *pej-, PU *tuli ‘fire’ > PSam *tuj, 2) PU *kali- ‘to die’ > PSam *kåə̑ -, PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PSam *käə, ̑ PU intervocalic *l in *a/ä-stems is preserved: PU *elä- ‘to PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PSam *åə-. live’ > PSam *elä-, PU *ela ̮ ̑ , PU *kala ‘fish’ > PSam *kålä, PU ̮ ‘under, below’ > PSam *ilə *pala- ‘to swallow, to devour’ > PSam *pålä-, PU *pälä ‘side, half’ > PSam *pälä.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 151

PU word-initial *w is occasionally lost (apparently as a result of sandhi development with subsequent generalization): PU *wexi- ‘to take, grab’ > PSam *i-, PU *woli- ‘to be’ > PSam *åə̑-. PU intervocalic *w is invariably lost after a first-syllable vowel: PU *le̮ wi ‘bone’ > PSam *le̮, PU *pawi ‘tree’ > PSam *pa, PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > PSam *to, PU *üwä ‘belt’ > PSam *niə ~ *jiə, PU *kuwa|kka ‘long’ > PSam *kuə̑kå-nå ‘long ago,’ PU *puwa‘to blow’ > PSam *puə̑-, PU *uwa ‘current, to flow’ > PSam *wuə̑. PU word-initial *j is occasionally lost (apparently as a result of sandhi development with subsequent generalization): PU *joŋsi ‘bow’ > PSam *(j)i̮ ntə̑, PU *je̮ xi- ‘to drink’ > PSam *e̮ |r-, *e̮ |kə̑l-. PU intervocalic *j is lost before PU *i: PU *kaji ‘grass, stalk, awn’ > PSam *kåə̑, PU *uji- ‘to swim’ > PSam *uə̑-. PU *j is also lost before *r: PU *koj|ra ‘male animal’ > PSam *korå (no other examples of this change are known, but there are no counterexamples either). The resulting Proto-Samoyed consonant system is shown in Table 3.23. PS *c was a retroflex affricate. PS *s apparently was an alveolo-palatal affricate. Vowels

PU *a yields PSam *a in PU *i-stems and those PU *a-stems that are reflected as PSam *ə̑-stems: PU *pawi ‘tree’ > PSam *pa, PU *wajŋi ‘breath’ > PSam *wajŋ-, PU *aćka|l ‘a step’ > PSam *asə̑l-, PU *aŋa- ‘to open, take off’ > PSam *aŋə̑-, PU *pata ‘pot’ > PSam *patə̑- ‘to put in a pot,’ PU *taka- ‘behind’ > PSam *takə̑-. PU sequences *ali and *aji yield PSam *åə̑: PU *kali- ‘to die’ > PSam *kåə̑-, PU *kaji ‘grass, stalk, awn’ > PSam *kåə̑. Otherwise, PU *a yields PSam *å: PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ > PSam *kåntå-, PU *sarka ‘fork, branch’ > PSam *tårkå, PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ > PSam *kås|o ‘gift,’ PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ > PSam *kåjä-, PU *kala ‘fish’ > PSam *kålä, PU *pala- ‘to swallow, to devour’ > PSam *pålä-. PU *e̮ yields PSam *i̮ in PU *a-stems: PU *e̮ kta- ‘hang’ > PSam *i̮ tå-, PU *e̮ la ‘under, below’ > PSam *i̮ lə̑, PU *se̮ ksa ‘Siberian pine’ > PSam *ti̮ tå|jŋ, PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ > PSam *mi̮ tə̑. PU *e̮ is retained as PSam *e̮ in PU *i-stems: PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ > PSam *je̮m, PU *e̮ći- ‘to settle down’ > PSam *e̮ s|o-, PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ > PSam *e̮ r|ö ‘autumn,’ PU *e̮ pti ‘hair’ > PSam *e̮ ptə̑, PU *le̮ wi ‘bone’ > PSam *le̮ , PU *ńe̮li ‘arrow’ > PSam *ńe̮ j. Additionally, PU *e̮ yields PSam *i̮ between *l and a nasal: PU *le̮nti ‘lowland’ > PSam *li̮ ntə̑, PU *le̮ mpi ‘swamp, lake’ > PSam *li̮ mpə̑. PU *o yields PSam *å but is retained as PSam *o after *k in a PU open syllable: (1) PU *kompa ‘wave’ > PSam *kåmpå, PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ > PSam *måsə̑-, PU *oδʹa

TABLE 3.23  PROTO-SAMOYED CONSONANTS p

t

k c

m

n

s ń

l r w

j

ŋ

152 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

‘raw; meat’ > PSam *åjå, PU *ponči ‘tail’ > PSam *påncə̑; (2) PU *koki- ‘to check’ > PSam *ko- ‘to find, see,’ PU *kopa ‘skin, crust, bark’ > PSam *kopå, PU *koj|ra ‘male animal’ > PSam *korå (apparently, *jr was simplified to *r early enough for this word to pattern with *koki- and *kopa). PU *o yields PSam *a before PU syllable-final *l: PU *tolwa ‘wedge’ > PSam *tajwå, PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ > PSam *wajk. PU *u in *a-stems yields PSam *ə̑, but PU *uwa is reflected as PSam *uə̑: (1) PU *kuma- ‘to overturn’ > PSam *kə̑mə̑- ‘to fall,’ PU *lupsa ‘dew’ > PSam *jə̑ptå, PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ > PSam *mə̑nå; (2) PU *kuwa|kka ‘long’ > PSam *kuə̑kå-nå ‘long ago,’ PU *puwa- ‘to blow’ > PSam *puə̑-, PU *uwa ‘current, to flow’ > PSam *wuə̑. PU *u in *i-stems yields PSam *o in PU open syllables (except before PU *l, where *u is retained) and PSam *u in PU closed syllables: (1) PU *kusi ‘(to) cough’ > PSam *kot, PU *lumi ‘(to) snow’ > PSam *jom-, PU *tuwi ‘lake’ > PSam *to; (2) PU *tuli ‘fire’ > PSam *tuj, PU *tuli- ‘to come’ > PSam *tuj- ~ *toj-, 3) PU *kuńći ‘urine’ > PSam *kunsə̑, PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk’ > PSam *pucə̑, PU *purki ‘snowstorm’ > PSam *pur|ə̑t. Between *k and *j, PU *u yields PSam *i̮ : PU *kuji- ‘to lie’ > PSam *ki̮ j|tV-, PU *kuwi ‘moon’ > PSam *ki̮ j (the origin of *j in this word is unclear). PU *ä is retained as PSam *ä: PU *jänti ‘bowstring’ > PSam *jänti, PU *käli ‘tongue’ > PSam *käə, PU *päjwä ‘heat; sun’ > PSam *päjwä. PU *äw before a consonant yields PSam *ü: PU *käwδi ‘rope’ > PSam *kürə (cf. PU *täxδi ‘full’ > PSam *tärə). PU *e is retained as PSam *e: PU *elä- ‘to live’ > PSam *elä-, PU *pesä ‘nest’ > PSam *petä, PU *meni- ‘to go’ > PSam *men-, PU *weti ‘water’ > PSam *wet. PU *exi yields PSam *i: PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ > PSam *mi-, PU *wexi- ‘to take, grab’ > PSam *i-. PU *i in *ä-stems yields PSam *ə (the idea was suggested by Juho Pystynen [2014a] in a blog post) PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ > PSam *səjmä, PU *itä- ‘to be/become visible’ > PSam *ət|ü-, PU *ipsä ‘to smell’ > PSam *əptä-. PU *i in *i-stems yields PSam *i: PU *nimi ‘name’ > PSam *nim, PU *piδi- ‘high, long’ > PSam *pirə. PSam *i in *pirkä < PU *piδ|kä ‘high, long’ is analogically restored under the influence of PSam *pirə. Similarly, PSam *ə in *əptə < PU *ipsi ‘odour’ is due to the influence of related PSam *əptä- < PU *ipsä- ‘to smell.’ PU *ü is preserved next to *k (as proposed by Juho Pystynen [2017] in a blog post). Otherwise, it yields PSam *i: (1) PU *künti ‘mist, smoke’ > PSam *küntə, (2) PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ > PSam *jimä, PU *nüδi ‘handle’ > PSam *nir, PU *süli ‘fathom’ > PSam *tij. PU second-syllable *i is lost after single consonants but yields PSam *ə̑/ə after PU consonant clusters. PU second-syllable *ä is retained as PSam *ä. PU second-syllable *a can yield either PSam *å or PSam *ə̑. No complementary distribution between these two reflexes was found. Perhaps we must reconstruct two different PU vowels here (Zhivlov 2014, 117‒121). After PU *l and *δʹ, PU second-syllable *a yields PSam *ä, although there are also cases with PSam *å in this position. The resulting system of Proto-Samoyed vocalism is shown in Table 3.24. TABLE 3.24  PROTO-SAMOYED VOWELS i

ü

i̮

u

e

ö

e̮

o

a

å

ä

ə

ə̑

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 153

3.6  MORPHOLOGY The reconstruction of fragments of Proto-Uralic inflectional morphology in the present section is based on the following assumption: affixes showing regular phonetic correspondences and identity of function must be reconstructed for the last common protolanguage, unless there is compelling evidence of their secondary nature. Thus, such comparisons as that of North Finnic pronominal accusative -t with Khanty pronominal accusative -t are better taken at face value as retentions from Proto-Uralic rather than as independent innovations. In the following sections, we will look at the following sets of affixes: nominal case/ number endings, pronominal case/number endings, verbal mood and tense markers, and two sets of person/number endings used in both verbs and nouns: objective/possessive and subjective/predicative. Considerations of space do not permit us to treat derivational morphology in this chapter. 3.6.1 Nominal case/number endings Proto-Uralic possessed three grammatical numbers: singular, dual, and plural. Six cases can be reconstructed: three grammatical cases—nominative, accusative, and genitive— and three locative cases—lative, locative, and ablative. Despite the ‘agglutinative’ look of such daughter languages as Mari and Permic, where case and number are always expressed separately, in Proto-Uralic, case and number endings could not co-occur, that is, they occupied one and the same slot in the nominal paradigm. Proto-Uralic nominal case/number endings are shown in Table 3.25 (cf. Janhunen [1982, 30]). The lative ending *-ŋ is based mainly on the comparison of the Samoyed lative *-ŋ with the Mordvin lative *-ŋ. Other possible lative endings have been proposed, such as *-k, *-j, and *-s, but their functions are far from clear (see criticism of these reconstructions by Ylikoski [2016]). The question certainly needs further study. Locative meanings like ‘above,’ ‘below,’ or ‘behind’ were expressed with the help of spatial nouns, used in a construction consisting of noun in the genitive + spatial noun in one of the locative cases. The spatial nouns tended to become postpositions or case coaffixes in the daughter languages. One more nominal inflectional suffix that can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic is *-ksi, among whose descendants are the Finnic translative case marker *-ksi and the

TABLE 3.25 PROT O-URALIC NOMINAL CASE/NUMBER ENDINGS sg nom

-Ø

acc

-m

gen

-n

lat

-ŋ

loc

-nA

abl

-tA

du

pl -t

-ki

-j

154 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

Samoyed predestinative marker *-tə̑. The original function of this suffix is not quite clear, but ‘it seems to have carried a vague meaning of purpose or future’ (Ylikoski 2017, 407‒408). The dual ending of nouns can be reconstructed as *-ki. It is reflected directly in the Mansi dual ending *-γ. The dual endings of Khanty (*-γən) and Samoyed (*-kəń) are formed by adding the Proto-Uralic pronominal dual marker *-jn (Khanty *-n, Samoyed *-ń), preserved otherwise mainly as a part of personal endings. One more plural marker, PU *n, can be reconstructed for possessive paradigms, where it denoted plurality of possessum (see following, under possessive endings). case/number endings 3.6.2 Pronominal Proto-Uralic pronominal case/number endings are shown in Table 3.26. Pronominal accusative *-t is preserved in North Finnic and Khanty. The pronominal endings *-jn ‘dual’ and *-k ‘plural,’ different from the nominal ones, are attested not only in pronouns but also in personal endings. Personal endings testify to their existence even in languages where these affixes are no longer used with pronouns. For example, the North-Western dialect of Erzya has possessive endings -m ‘my’ and -mok ‘our’ (singular possessum), where -k marks the plural number of possessor; but Erzya pronouns preserve no trace of the plural marker *-k. The mysterious Hungarian nominal affixes -t (accusative) and -k (plural) are in origin nothing other than pronominal endings, generalized to the paradigm of nouns. Similar processes, whereby pronominal inflection influences that of nouns, are well known in the history of Indo-European languages. For example, in many Indo-European languages, including Greek, Latin, Balto-Slavic, and Celtic, the original nominative plural ending of the thematic nouns *-ōs was replaced by the pronominal nominative plural ending *-oi. mood and tense markers 3.6.3 Verbal Proto-Uralic apparently had only one slot in the verb for mood and tense markers. There were three moods: unmarked indicative; a conjunctive, marked by *-ni-; and imperative, marked by *-k in the second singular form and by *-kA- in the remaining forms. The preterite tense was marked by *-j- or *-ć- (= *-ś- in the traditional reconstruction). The original distribution of the two markers is not clear; E. Helimski (1995) has suggested that *-j- is originally a weak grade of *-ś- in rhythmic gradation, phonologized already in Proto-Uralic. This hypothesis explains why ‘[i]n several Finno-Ugric languages and

TABLE 3.26  PROTO-URALIC PRONOMINAL CASE/NUMBER ENDINGS sg nom

-Ø

acc

-t

gen

-n

du

pl

-jn

-j ?

-k

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 155

dialects, that preserve both *-ś- and *-j-, the first marker occurs in the preterite of the negative verb’ (ibid.), the negative verb *e- being the only monosyllabic verb in Proto-Uralic. The present-tense marker *-k- is more uncertain, since it is directly preserved only in Mansi. Other branches (e.g. Finnic), however, have indirect traces of this marker. The most clear Finnic examples are the Estonian impersonal forms: present impersonal loeta-k-se ‘one reads’ vs. past impersonal loe-t-i ‘one read.’ While the present marker -k- was eliminated by analogy in the cognate Finnish forms, its former presence is testified by the weak grade of the impersonal suffix: present impersonal lue-ta-an, past impersonal lue-tti-in. Another trace of the present-tense marker *-k- is hidden in the first- and second-person plural verbal endings. While literary Finnish has 1pl -mme (< *-k-mek) and 2pl -tte (*-k-tek) both in the present and in the past tense, there are Finnish and Karelian dialects where endings with geminates are found only in the present tense. The form without overt tense markers is widely used as a present tense in daughter languages, but in Khanty, this form functions as a preterite. One more verbal inflectional form is the connegative—a form used with an auxiliary negative verb. This form, marked by *-k, is formally identical with, but not necessarily related to, the 2sg imperative in *-k. 3.6.4 Person/number endings Proto-Uralic had two sets of person/number endings. The first set was used in nominal possessive forms and in the so-called objective conjugation of verbs. The second set was used in the subjective conjugation of verbs, and possibly in predicative nominal forms. These noun forms exist only in Samoyed and Mordvin, but there are no conclusive arguments in favour of a parallel innovation here. These two sets must be considered together, since they influenced each other in the history of daughter languages. The traditional reconstruction starts from the presumption that both sets of endings go back to grammaticalized personal pronouns, with the additional proviso that subjective endings were grammaticalized first and consequently suffered more significant reduction of their phonetic substance than the possessive/objective endings: under this approach, one must reconstruct 1sg possessive *-mi vs. subjective *-m and 2sg possessive *-ti vs. subjective *-t (Salminen 1996). The opposite view, going back to Helimski (1982, 70‒88), holds that the two sets (at least in the singular) are not related to each other. While the objective set, together with the dual and plural endings of the subjective set, can indeed be derived from the grammaticalized personal pronouns, the singular subjective endings can be reconstructed as substantially different from the free personal pronouns (see following text). However, in the daughter languages, the subjective endings were frequently replaced by or contaminated with the possessive/objective endings. endings 3.6.5 Possessive/objective This series of endings is shown in Table 3.27. These endings are related to the Proto-Uralic personal pronouns *min(ä) ‘I,’ *tin(ä) ‘thou,’ *sän ‘he/she,’ and their dual and plural counterparts. As a result of this, they preserve pronominal dual and plural markers. The combined possessive paradigm of nouns, where markers of the case and number of the possessum precede possessive endings, is shown in Table 3.28 (note the morphophonological processes *nm > *n and *mm > *m).

156 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV TABLE 3.27  PROTO-URALIC POSSESSIVE/OBJECTIVE ENDINGS sg

du

pl

1

*-mi

*-mijn

*-mAk

2

*-ti

*-tijn

*-tAk

3

*-sA

*-sAjn

*-sAk

TABLE 3.28  PROTO-URALIC NOMINAL POSSESSIVE PARADIGM

nom.sg

acc.sg

oblique sg

pl

sg

du

pl

1

*-mi

*-mijn

*-mAk

2

*-ti

*-tijn

*-tAk

3

*-sA

*-sAjn

*-sAk

1

*-mi

*-mijn

*-mAk

2

*-mti

*-mtijn

*-mtAk

3

*-msA

*-msAjn

*-msAk

1

*-ni

*-nijn

*-nAk

2

*-nti

*-ntijn

*-ntAk

3

*-nsA

*-nsAjn

*-nsAk

1

*-ni

*-nijn

*-nAk

2

*-nti

*-ntijn

*-ntAk

3

*-nsA

*-nsAjn

*-nsAk

As an additional complication, kinship terms added *-j- before 1sg and 2sg possessive endings. Traces of this *j are found in Mari (palatalization of the PMari 2sg ending *-ć in kinship terms), Khanty (a special ablaut grade for the possessive forms in kinship terms), and other branches of Uralic (Zhivlov 2019). endings 3.6.6 Subjective/predicative This series of endings is shown in Table 3.29. The dual and plural endings of the first and second person are identical to the corresponding endings of the objective/possessive series. Endings of the third person are the same as the endings of nouns in the nominative case. The core problem in the reconstruction concerns the singular endings of the first and second person. Janhunen (1982) reconstructs *-m and *-n ~ *-t, respectively. Let us first look at the ending of the second person. Samoyed data allow reconstructing both *-n and *-nti here. The variant *-nti can be explained as resulting from the addition of the objective 2sg ending *-ti to the original subjective 2sg *-n. Cf. an analogous process in the history of Indo-European verbal inflexion, where, for example, Sanskrit thematic 1sg ending -āmi results from an addition of the athematic 1sg ending -mi to the original 1sg

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 157 TABLE 3.29  PROTO-URALIC SUBJECTIVE ENDINGS sg

du

pl *-mAk

1

*-m, *-Ø

*-mijn

2

*-n

*-tijn

*-tAk

3

*-Ø

*-ki

*-t

thematic ending *-ā. The Ob-Ugric languages generalized 2sg *-n for both subjective and objective conjugations. Hungarian has subjective conjugation 2sg endings -sz and -l, which are usually seen as going back to durative or frequentative suffixes through the intermediate stage of present-tense markers. The Hungarian possessive/objective 2sg ending -d goes back to *-nti or *-mti. The remaining branches merged the two series of verb endings so that ousting of original *-n by *-t(i) is to be expected. Permic, however, has both *-t (< PU *-t(i) or *-nti) and *-n as 2sg endings: the former was generalized in Udmurt, the latter in Komi. Thus, there is no compelling reason for reconstructing *-t as the original subjective 2sg ending. Let us turn now to first singular endings. Janhunen reconstructs here only *-m. Indeed, reflexes of this ending are found both in Samoyed and in Ob-Ugric. ‘Finno-Permic’ branches merged subjective and objective series (Mordvin preserves the subjective/objective opposition, but the endings themselves are heavily restructured), so they are of less relevance here. However, Hungarian has the subjective 1sg ending -k, which was compared by Helimski (1982, 70‒88) to the Selkup ending -k with the same function. On this ground, Helimski (1982, 82) suggested reconstructing a Proto-Uralic subjective 1sg ending *-k. It turns out, however, that Helimski misinterpreted the Selkup data. Southern Selkup, which preserves the contrast between word-final oral and nasal stops, has -ŋ as the subjective 1sg ending. Whatever the origin of this ending may be, it cannot go back to PU *-k. The most probable hypothesis of the origin of the Hungarian subjective 1sg ending -k traces it back to the Uralic present-tense marker *-k-, which was reinterpreted as a personal ending. This is confirmed by the fact that in the past tense of Hungarian subjective conjugation, -m is used as a 1sg ending instead of -k. A similar explanation was offered for the Selkup ending -ŋ, which can be compared to the Proto-Samoyed aorist marker *-ŋå-. A remarkable parallel is found in Permic, where the negative verb has its own series of personal endings. Cf. the following Udmurt negative verb forms: present-tense 1sg u-g, 2sg u-d, 3sg u-g, 1pl u-m, 2pl u-d, 3pl u-g, past-tense 1sg e̮-j, 2sg e̮-d, 3sg e̮-z, 1pl e̮-m, 2pl e̮-d, 3pl e̮-z. The 1sg and 3sg/pl ending -g is traditionally explained as a reinterpreted present-tense marker going back to Proto-Uralic *-k-. In a parallel fashion, 1sg -j in the past tense goes back to the Proto-Uralic past-tense marker *-j-. However, these forms are extremely difficult to account for if we reconstruct *-m as the only 1sg ending in the subjective paradigm. There must be a motivation for a repeated replacement of a personal ending by a tense affix. The obvious prerequisite of such a replacement is the situation when the two slots for tense and person/number are filled by one affix that can be differently interpreted by speakers as a tense suffix or a person/number ending. Thus, I suppose that in the subjective conjugation alongside *-m, there also existed a zero 1sg ending. The highly marked pattern of using zero for the first-person singular was eventually eliminated in all daughter languages, where the zero ending was replaced either by *-m or by various tense markers.

158 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

The original distribution of zero vs. *-m remains unclear, but there is reason to think that *-m was a secondary addition to the subjective paradigm. In fact, other singular subjective endings were totally different from the respective possessive/objective endings. While the latter ultimately go back to personal pronouns, grammaticalized already in Proto-Uralic, the former are probably much older and cannot be derived from free pronouns. Ob-Ugric has 2sg pronouns beginning with n- (PMs *näŋ, PKh *nüŋ), but this is most likely an innovation, connected with the generalization of *-n as 2sg ending in this subgroup. Influence of personal endings on independent pronouns is known in the Indo-European family: Armenian and Balto-Slavic 1pl pronouns have initial *m- instead of *w- due to contamination with verbal endings in *-m. Another example is Ladino mos ‘we,’ reshaped from earlier nos under the influence of the 1pl ending -mos. 3.7  ETYMOLOGICAL MATERIAL In what follows I list etymologies discussed in the text of this chapter, arranged by the Proto-Uralic vowel combinations. PU *a-a PU *aćka- ‘to step,’ *aćka|l ‘a step’ || PFi *as|tu-, *aske̮l | PMd *aśkəlʹ|a- | PMari *åškəl | PPerm *u̯öśkäl > PKomi *u̯ośkɛ̮l | POU *ośkV-,*ośkVl > PMs *ōš-, *ōšəl | PSam *asə̑l- (UEW, 19; Sammallahti 1988, 542; Aikio 2002, 40‒41). PU *aδ|ma ‘sleep, dream’ || PMari *omə | PPerm *unm- > PKomi *unm- ~ *onm-, PUdm *unm- | Hung álom | POU *olma > PMs *ōlmə, PKh *āləm (UEW, 335; Sammallahti 1988, 542). Derived from PU *aδi- ‘to sleep.’ PU *aŋa- ‘to open, take off’ || PFi *ava|ta- | POU *oŋkə̑- > PMs *ē̮ŋkʷ-, PKh *ī̮ ŋk- | PSam *aŋə̑- (UEW, 11; Sammallahti 1988, 542; Aikio 2002, 50). PU *aŋ|ta- ‘to open, untie’ || PMd *avt- | Hung old- | POU *oŋta- > PKh *āŋət- (Aikio 2018, 86‒87). Derived from PU *aŋa- with the unexpected syncope of *a. PU *ćara- ‘to dry’ || PPerm *śur- > PKomi *śur-, PUdm *śur- | Hung szár|ad- | POU *śora- > PMs *sōr-, PKh *sār- (UEW, 466; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *kaća- ‘to give (as a gift)’ || PMd *kaź- | PPerm *köʒ́|i̮ m/n ‘gift’ > PKomi *koʒ́|in, PUdm *kuʒ́|i̮ m | Hung hasz|on ‘profit’ | PSam *kås|o ‘gift’ (UEW, 111; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *kaδʹa- ‘to leave’ || PFi *kat|o-, *kat|o|ta- | PSaa *kuoδē- | PMd *kad- | PMari *koδə- | PPerm *kölʹ- > PKomi *kolʹ-, PUdm *ki̮ lʹ- | Hung hagy- | POU *kolʹə̑- > PMs *kōlʹ-, PKh *kī̮ j- ~ *ki̮ j- | PSam *kåjä- (UEW, 115–116; Sammallahti 1988, 537‒538). PU *kajša (der. *kajša|w) ‘sickness’ || PFi *kaiho ‘sorrow; damage’ | PMd *kaž ‘bad; misfortune’ | PPerm *ki̮ ž > PKomi *ki̮ ž ‘stillborn child,’ PUdm *ki̮ ž ‘sickness’ | POU *kŭjtV- > PMs *kʷajt- ‘to be sick’ | PSam *kåjtə (der. *kåjt|o) ‘sickness’ (Aikio 2014b, 3‒5). The irregular vowel development in Mansi may be caused by the second-syllable labialized vowel preserved in Finnic and Samoyed reflexes. PU *kajwa- ‘to dig’ || PFi *kaiva- | PSaa *koajvō- | PMd *kaja- | PMari *koə- | PPerm *köj- > PKomi *koj-, PUdm *kuj- | PSam *kajwå ‘spade’ (UEW, 116‒117, 170‒171; Sammallahti 1988, 552; Aikio 2002, 41‒42).

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 159

PU *kala ‘fish’ || PFi *kala | PSaa *kuolē | PMd *kalə | PMari *kol | Hung hal | POU *kolə̑ > PMs *kōl, PKh *kūl | PSam *kålä (UEW, 119; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *kala- ‘to fish with a net’ || PFi *kal|ime̮- | PPerm *kul|äm > PKomi *kul|ɛ̮m | Hung hál|ó | POU *kola|pV > PMs *kōl|əp, PKh *kāl|əp (UEW, 121; Sammallahti 1988, 545). All reflexes are nomina instrumenti with the meaning ‘(a kind of) net,’ derived from an unattested verb related to PU *kala ‘fish.’ PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ || PFi *kanta- | PSaa *kuontē- | PMd *kand- | PMari *kåndə- | POU *konta- > PMs *kōnt-, PKh *kānt|əm- | PSam *kåntå- (UEW, 124; Sammallahti 1988, 538). A causative of PU *kani- ‘to go away,’ whose reflex is preserved only in Samoyed. PU *pala- ‘to swallow, to devour’ || PFi *pala- ‘to burn’ | PSaa *puolē- ‘to burn’ | PMd *pal- ‘to burn’ | Hung fal- | POU *polə̑- > PMs *pōl-, PKh *pūḷ|ī̮ - | PSam *pålä- (Janhunen 1981, 222; UEW, 350; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *pala ‘bit’ || PFi *pala | PSaa *puolē | PMd *pal(ə) | Hung fal|at | POU *polə̑ > PMs *pōl, PKh *pūḷ (UEW, 350; Sammallahti 1988, 540). Related to PU *pala- ‘to swallow, to devour.’ PU *panča- ‘to open’ || PSaa *puonc|ō ‘naked’ | PMd *panž- | PMari *påč- | PPerm *puǯ> PKomi *puǯ-, PUdm *puž- | POU *poṇčə̑- > PMs *pōnš-, PKh *pūṇč- (UEW, 352; Sammallahti 1988, 548; Abondolo 1996, 101). PU *pata ‘pot’ || PFi *pata | PMari *påt | Hung faz|ék (acc faz|ëka-t) | POU *potə̑ > PMs *pōt, PKh *pūt | PSam *patə̑- ‘to put in a pot’ (UEW, 358; Sammallahti 1988, 548; Aikio 2002, 50). PU *sańća- ‘to stand’ || PFi *saisa- | PSaa *ćuońć|ō- | PMd *śtʹa- ‘to stand up’ | POU *sońćV- > PMs *tōńć-, PKh *ʟāńć- ~ *ʟī̮ ńć- ‘to set up’ (UEW, 431‒432; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *sarka ‘fork, branch’ || PFi *sarka | PSaa *suorkē | PSam *tårkå (Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *taka- ‘behind’ (spatial noun) || PFi *taka- | PSaa *tuokē- | PSam *takə̑- (UEW, 506‒507). PU *waja- ‘to sink’ || PFi *vaj|o|ta- | PSaa *vuoj|ō- | PMd *vaj|a- | PPerm *vu̯i̮ j- > PKomi *ve̮j-, PUdm *vi̮ j- | POU *ujV- > PMs *uj- (UEW, 552; Sammallahti 1988, 551). An alternative reconstruction *wajo- is also possible (Aikio 2015b, 38). PU *wanča ‘root’ || PMari *wåž | PPerm *vüǯ > PKomi *vužj-, PUdm *vi̮ ǯ|i̮ | PSam *wånc|o (UEW, 548‒549; Sammallahti 1988, 541). Mari form has an irregular *ž. PU *wanča- ‘to move cautiously’ || PSaa *vāncē- ‘to walk’ | PMari *wånčə- ‘to cross (a river)’ | PPerm *vüǯ- ‘to cross (a river)’ > PKomi *vuǯ-, PUdm *vi̮ ǯ- | POU *uṇčə̑‘to cross (a river)’ > PMs *unš-, PKh *ūṇč- | PSam *wåncV- ‘to sneak’ (UEW, 557; Sammallahti 1988, 551; Aikio 2002, 36‒38). PU *a-i PU *aδi- ‘to sleep’ || PSaa *oaδē- | PMd *udə- | Hung al- | POU *alV- > PMs *āl-, prePKh *al|Ā- > PKh *i̮ l|ā- (UEW, 334; Sammallahti 1988, 542). PU *ćali- ‘intestine’ || PFi *sōle̮ - | PSaa *ćoalē | PMd *śulə | PMari *šolə | PPerm *śul > PKomi *śulj-, PUdm *śul | POU *śalV > PKh *sal (UEW, 483–484; Sammallahti 1988, 549).

160 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *kaji ‘grass, stalk, awn’ || PSaa *kuoje̮ | PPerm *ki̮ > PKomi *ki̮ , PUdm *ki̮ | Hung haj ‘hair’ | POU *kajV > PMs *kāj ‘hair’ | PSam *kåə̑ (Aikio 2013, 166‒167). PU *kali- ‘to die’ || PFi *kōle̮- | PSaa *koal|ō- ‘to freeze, feel cold’ | PMd *kulə- | PMari *kolə- | PPerm *kul- > PKomi *kul-, PUdm *kul- | Hung hal- | POU *kalV- > PMs *kāl|ā-, pre-PKh *kal|Ā- > PKh *ki̮ l|ā- | PSam *kåə̑- (UEW, 173; Sammallahti 1988, 538; Aikio 2015b, 52). PU *kamti ‘lid’ || PFi *kante̮- | PSaa *koamtē | PMd *kundə | PMari *komdə|s | PPerm *kud > PKomi *kud, PUdm *kud|i̮ ‘birch-bark container’ (UEW, 671; Sammallahti 1988, 552). PU *kani- ‘to go away’ || PSam *kån- (Sammallahti 1988, 538). This verb is preserved only in Samoyed, but its causative PU *kan|ta- ‘to carry’ is securely reconstructed for Proto-Uralic. PSam *å instead of expected *a can be explained by the influence of PSam causative *kåntå-, where *å is regular. PU *lańći- ‘soft, mild’ || PSaa *loańćē ‘abated wind’ | Hung lágy ‘soft, gentle’ | POU *lə̑ńćV ‘lukewarm’ > PMs *lańć|ǝŋ, PKh *ḷańćV (UEW, 250–251; Sammallahti 1988, 545; Aikio 2015b, 52). PU *pawi ‘tree’ || PFi *pū | PMari *pu | PPerm *pu > PKomi *pu, PUdm *pu | Hung fa (acc fá-t) | POU *pa > PMs *-pā | PSam *pa (UEW, 410; Sammallahti 1988, 539). PU *saxi- ‘to arrive, to get’ || PFi *sā- | PSaa *sāke̮ - | PMd *sa- ~ *sajə- | PMari *šo | PPerm *su- > PKomi *su-, PUdm *su̇|t- (UEW, 429; Sammallahti 1988, 553). PU *waji ‘fat’ || PFi *voi | PSaa *vuoje̮ | PMd *vaj | PMari *ü | PPerm *vVj > PKomi *vi̮ j, PUdm *ve̮ j | Hung vaj | POU *wajV > PMs *wāj, PKh *waj (UEW, 578; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *wajŋi ‘breath’ || PSaa *vuojŋe̮ | Hung vágy ‘desire, wish’ | PSam *wajŋ- (UEW, 552‒553; Sammallahti 1988, 541; Aikio 2018, 84‒85). PU *wari ‘hill, forest’ || PFi *vōre̮ - | PPerm *vu̯i̮ r > PKomi *ve̮r, PUdm *vi̮ r | POU *warV > PMs *wār, PKh *war (UEW, 571; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *e̮-a PU *će̮lka ‘pole, rod’ || PFi *salk|o | PSaa *ćuolk|ōj | PMd *śalgə | PPerm *śul > PKomi *śul, PUdm *śul | Hung szál-fa | POU *śe̮ kla > PMs *sē̮γl|ā, PKh *sāγəl (UEW, 460‒461; Sammallahti 1988, 549; Reshetnikov and Zhivlov 2011, 106). PU *e̮ kta- ‘to hang’ || PFi *akta- | PSaa *vuokt|e̮ nje̮ ‘beam (for drying nets on)’ | PMd *avt- | PPerm *ökt- > PKomi *okt- | POU *e̮ktə̑- > PKh *ī̮ γət- | PSam *i̮ tå- (UEW, 5; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *e̮ la- ‘under, below’ (spatial noun) || PFi *ala- | PSaa *vuolē- | PMd *al- | PMari *ül- | PPerm *ul- > PKomi *ul-, PUdm *ul- | Hung al- | POU *e̮lə̑- > PMs *jal-, PKh *ī̮ l- | PSam *i̮ lə̑- (UEW, 6; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *me̮ ksa ‘liver’ || PFi *maksa | PSaa *muoksē | PMd *maksə | PMari *moks | PPerm *mus > PKomi *mus, PUdm *mus | Hung máj | POU *me̮ksə̑ > PMs *mē̮γət, PKh *mūγəl | PSam *mi̮ tə̑ (UEW, 264; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *se̮ ksa ‘Siberian pine’ || PPerm *sus > PKomi *sus, PUdm *su̇s|i̮ - | POU *se̮ ksə̑ > PMs *tē̮γət, PKh *ʟī̮ γəl | PSam *ti̮ tå|jŋ (UEW, 445‒446; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *še̮ ra- ‘to dry (intr.)’ || PPerm *šur- > PKomi *šur- | PSam *ti̮ rå- (UEW, 502‒503).

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 161

PU *e̮-i PU *će̮ mi ‘fish scales’ || PFi *sōm|u | PSaa *ćuome̮ | PMd *śav/ŋ ‘awn’ | PMari *šüm | PPerm *śe̮ m > PKomi *śe̮ m, PUdm *śe̮ m | POU *śe̮ ma > PMs *sē̮mə, PKh *sām (UEW, 476; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *će̮ rki ‘gray; white’ || PSaa *ćuork|e̮ tē ‘gray’ | POU *śe̮ krV > PMs *sē̮γr|āŋ ‘white’ | PSam *se̮r(ǝ̑) ‘white; ice’ (Aikio 2020, 126). PU *če̮či ‘duck’ || PPerm *če̮ ž > PKomi *če̮ž, PUdm *če̮ž | POU *če̮ča > PMs *šē̮š, PKh *čāč (UEW, 58). PU *δʹe̮ mi ‘bird-cherry’ || PFi *tōme̮ - | PSaa *δuome̮ | PMd *lajmə ~ *lʹom | PMari *lom| PPerm *lʹe̮ m > PKomi *lʹe̮mj-, PUdm *lʹe̮m | POU *lʹe̮ ma > PMs *lʹē̮mə, PKh *jɔ̄m | PSam *je̮m (UEW, 65; Sammallahti 1988, 536‒537). PU *e̮ ći- ‘to settle down’ (der. *e̮ ći|w-) || PFi *ase̮ - ‘to set up,’ *as|u- ‘to dwell’ | PPerm *üź- > PKomi *uź-, PUdm *i̮ ź- ‘to sleep’ | PSam *e̮ s|o- ‘to camp’ (UEW, 18‒19; Aikio 2012, 241). PU *e̮ δi ‘year’ || PFi *vōte̮- | PPerm *u̯ö > PKomi *u̯o, PUdm *u̯a | POU *e̮ la > PKh *āl | PSam *e̮ r|ö ‘autumn’ (UEW, 335; Sammallahti 1988, 552; Aikio 2012, 233‒234). Hungarian tavaly ‘last year’ can hardly belong here because of a instead of í and ly instead of l. PU *e̮ ppi ‘father-in-law’ || PFi *appe̮ - | PSaa *vuoppe̮ | PMari *owə | Hung ipa | POU *upa > PMs *up, PKh *ɔ̄p (UEW, 14; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *e̮pti ‘hair’ || PSaa *vuopte̮ | PMari *üp | POU *e̮ pta > PMs *ē̮tə, PKh *āpət ~ *ɔ̄pət | PSam *e̮ptə̑ (UEW, 14‒15; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *je̮ki ‘river’ || PFi *joke̮ | PSaa *joke̮ | PMd *jov ‘Moksha river’ | PPerm *ju > PKomi *ju, PUdm *ju | Hung -jó in river names | POU *je̮γa > PMs *jē̮, PKh *jāγ (UEW, 99‒100; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Similar, but not related to, PU *juka ‘small river.’ PU *je̮ xi- ‘to drink’ || PFi *jō- | PSaa *juke̮ - | PMari *jü- | PPerm *ju- > PKomi *ju-, PUdm *ju- | Hung i(v)- | PSam *e̮|r-, *e̮ |kə̑l- (UEW, 85; Sammallahti 1988, 543; Aikio 2002, 38‒40). PU *le̮δi- ‘to be afraid’ || PMari *lüδ- | PSam *le̮ r(ə̑)- (Aikio 2014c, 85‒86). PU *le̮mpi ‘small lake’ || PFi *lampe̮- | PSaa *luompe̮|l | PSam *li̮ mpə̑ ‘bog, swamp’ (UEW, 235; Aikio 2014c, 86). PU *le̮nti ‘lowland’ || PFi *lante̮- | PMari *land|aka | PPerm *lud > PKomi *lud, PUdm *lud | PSam *li̮ ntə̑ (UEW, 235‒236; Sammallahti 1988, 552; Aikio 2014c, 86). PU *le̮ wi ‘bone’ || PFi *lū | PMd *lov|aža | PMari *lu | PPerm *li̮ > PKomi *li̮ , PUdm *li̮ | POU *luwV > PMs *luw, PKh *luw | PSam *le̮ (UEW, 254‒255; Sammallahti 1988, 538). In all branches save Samoyed, this word is reflected as though it was *luwi. The change *e̮wi > *uwi can be viewed as regular, but no other examples are known. PU *me̮xi ‘earth’ || PFi *mā | PMari *mü | PPerm *mu > PKomi *mu, PUdm *mu | POU *me̮γV > PMs *mē̮, PKh *miγ (UEW, 263; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *ńe̮kćim ‘gills’ || PSaa *ńuokće̮m ‘tongue’ | PMari *nåšmə ‘palate’ | PPerm *ńö/ okćim > PKomi *ńo/ɔkćim | POU *ńe̮ kćamV > PMs *ńē̮kćām, PKh *ńākćəm (UEW, 311‒312; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *ńe̮ li ‘arrow’ || PFi *nōle̮ - | PSaa *ńuole̮ | PMd *nal | PMari *nülə | PPerm *ńe̮ l > PKomi *ńe̮ lj-, PUdm *ńe̮l | Hung nyíl (acc nyila-t) | POU *ńe̮la > PMs *ńē̮lə, PKh *ńāl | PSam *ńe̮j (UEW, 317; Sammallahti 1988, 539).

162 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *se̮ ni ‘sinew, vein’ || PFi *sōne̮ - | PSaa *suone̮ | PMd *san | PMari *sün | PPerm *se̮ n > PKomi *se̮ n, PUdm *se̮ n | Hung ín (acc ina-t) | POU *se̮ na > PMs *tē̮nə, PKh *ʟān | PSam *ce̮n (UEW, 441; Sammallahti 1988, 548). PU *te̮kti ‘loon’ || PSaa *tokt|e̮ k | PMari *toktə | PPerm *tö/okt- > PKomi *to/ɔkt|i̮ | POU *te̮kta > PMs *tē̮kt, PKh *tāγt|əŋ (UEW, 530; Sammallahti 1988, 550). PU *o-a PU *ćoδʹka ‘common goldeneye’ || PFi *sotka | PSaa *ćoaδkē | PMd *śulgə | PMari *soe | PPerm *śul > PKomi *śul, PUdm *śul|i̮ | POU *śe̮lʹa > PMs *sē̮lʹ, PKh *sāj (UEW, 582; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *koja ‘fat’ || PMd *kuja | PMari *kåja | PPerm *ku̯öj- > PUdm *ku̯aj- ‘to grow fat’ | Hung háj (UEW, 195‒196; Sammallahti 1988, 544). PU *koj|ra ‘male’ || PFi *koira | PPerm *ki̮ r > PKomi *ki̮ r | Hung here (acc heré-t) | POU *ke̮ra > PMs *kē̮r, PKh *kār | PSam *korå (UEW, 168‒169). Derived from PU *koji ‘male, man.’ PU *kompa ‘wave’ || PMd *ku/ombə|ld- ‘rise in waves’ | PMari *kowə | Hung hab | POU *kumpə̑ > PMs *kump, PKh *kūmp | PSam *kåmpå (UEW, 203; Sammallahti 1988, 537; Aikio 2014c, 83). PU *kopa ‘skin, crust’ || PFi *kopa ‘pine bark’ | PMd *kuvə | PMari *kŭwə | PPerm *ku > PKomi *ku, PUdm *ku | PSam *kopå (UEW, 180; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *koska ‘an older female relative’ || PSaa *koaskē | PSam *kåtå (UEW, 189; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *ńoma (der. *ńoma|la) ‘hare’ || PSaa *ńoamēlē | PMd *numəl(ə) | PPerm *ńimVl > PKomi *ńimVl | Hung nyúl (acc nyula-t) | PSam *ńåmå (UEW, 322; Sammallahti 1988, 539). Derivation from PU *ńuxi- ‘to pursue’ (Janhunen 1981, 242) is unlikely because of vocalism. PU *oδʹa ‘raw; meat’ || PPerm *ülʹ > PKomi *ulʹ, PUdm *i̮ lʹ | PSam *åjå (Aikio 2006, 11‒12). PU *ona ‘short’ || PSaa *oanē | POU *onV > PMs *ōn (UEW, 339). PU *ora ‘squirrel’ || PFi *ora|va | PSaa *oarē|vē | PMd *ur | PMari *ur | PPerm *ur > PKomi *ur | PSam *år|op (UEW, 343; Sammallahti 1988, 552). PU *tolwa ‘wedge’ || PMd *tulə | PPerm *tul > PKomi *tulj-, PUdm *tul | PSam *tajwå (UEW, 797‒798; Sammallahti 1988, 554; Aikio 2002, 54). PU *wolka ‘shoulder’ || PFi *olka | PSaa *oalkē | Hung váll | POU *we̮ klV > PMs *wē̮γl|əp ‘shoulder strap’ | PSam *wajk (UEW, 581; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *o-i PU *čoδʹi ‘truth, true’ || PFi *tote̮- | POU *čalʹV > PMs *šālʹ, pre-PKh *čaj|Ī > PKh *či̮ j|ī̮ (Aikio 2015a, 3‒5). PU *joŋsi ‘bow’ || PFi *jouse̮- | PSaa *juokse̮ | PMd *joŋs | PMari *jåŋež | Hung íj (acc íja-t) | POU *jə̑ksV > PMs *jaγt, PKh *jaγəl | PSam *(j)i̮ ntə̑ (UEW, 101‒102; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Samoyed *(j)i̮ - may be a regular reflex of PU *jo-. PU *koji ‘male, man’ || PSaa *kuoje̮ | POU *kuja > PMs *kuj, PKh *kɔ̄(j) (UEW, 166‒167; Sammallahti 1988, 543). PU *koji ‘dawn’ || PFi *koi | PPerm *ki̮ |a > PKomi *ki̮ a | POU *kujV > PMs *kuj (UEW, 167; Sammallahti 1988, 543).

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 163

PU *koki- ‘to check (e.g. traps)’ || PFi *koke̮- | PSaa *kuoke̮ - | PSam *ko- ‘to find, see’ (UEW, 171). PU *koxsi ‘spruce’ || PFi *kūse̮ - | PSaa *kuose̮ | PMd *kuz | PMari *koz | PPerm *ku̯i̮ z > PKomi *ku̯e̮zj-, PUdm *ki̮ z | POU *kə̑γsV > PMs *kaγta, PKh *kal | PSam *kå(ə̑)t (UEW, 222‒223; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *moćki- ‘to wash’ || PFi *moske̮ - | PMd *muśk- | PMari *mŭšk- | PPerm *mi̮ śk- > PKomi *mi̮ śk-, PUdm *mi̮ śk- | Hung mos- | PSam *måsə̑- (UEW, 289; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *moni ‘many’ || PFi *mone̮- | PPerm *mi̮ n- > PKomi *mi̮ n-, PUdm *mi̮ n- (UEW, 279‒280). PU *ponči ‘tail’ || PFi *ponte̮ - ‘handle’ | PMari *påč | PPerm *bu̯i̮ ž > PKomi *be̮ž, PUdm *bi̮ ž | Hung far ‘buttocks,’ far|ok ‘tail’ | POU *paṇčV > PMs *pānš ‘bird’s tail,’ PKh *pač ‘back side, nape’ | PSam *påncə̑ ‘hem, lower edge’ (UEW: 353; Sammallahti 1988, 547; Aikio 2006, 23‒24; Helimski 2007, 97‒98; Aikio 2018, 81‒82). PU *soski- ‘to chew’ || PSaa *suoske̮ - | PMd *susk- | PPerm *su̯i̮ sk- > PKomi *se̮ sk-, PUdm *si̮ sk- | POU *sə̑ksV- > PMs *taγt-, PKh *ʟaγəl- | PSam *tåt|u- (UEW, 448‒449; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *šoji ‘prick’ || PFi *hoi ~ *hui | PSaa *suoje̮ | PPerm *ši̮ > PKomi *ši̮ , PUdm *ši̮ (UEW, 787‒788). PU *toxi- ‘to bring’ || PFi *tō- | PSaa *tuoke̮ - ‘to sell’ | PMd *tu- : *tujə- | POU *to(w)- > PKh *tō- : *tuw- | PSam *tå- (UEW, 529‒530; Sammallahti 1988, 550). PU *wokši ‘thin’ || PFi *oh|ut | POU *wə̑ksV > PMs *waγt|ā, PKh *waγəl (Reshetnikov 2011, 110; Aikio 2014b, 10‒11). PU *woli- ‘to be’ || PFi *ole̮ - | PMd *ulʹ- | PMari *ŭl- | PPerm *vi̮ l- > PKomi *vi̮ l-, PUdm *vi̮ l- | Hung val- | POU *walV- > PMs *āl-, pre-PKh *wal|Ā- > PKh *wi̮ l|ā- | PSam *åə̑- (UEW: 580–581; Sammallahti 1988, 551; Helimski 1999, 2007, 142). PU *woŋki ‘hole, den’ || PFi *onk|alo | PSaa *vuoŋk|ō | POU *waŋkV > PMs *wāŋk|ā, PKh *waŋk | PSam *wåŋkə̑ (UEW, 583; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *u-a PU *juka ‘small river’ || PFi *juka | POU *jŭγV|ṇ > PKh *juγāṇ ~ *jaγəṇ | PSam *jə̑kå (UEW, 99‒100; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Similar, but not related to, PU *je̮ki ‘river.’ PU *jupta- ‘to tell, narrate’ || PFi *jutta- | PMd *jovta- | PSam *jə̑ptå- (UEW, 104; Helimski 1999). PU *kuδa- ‘to weave’ || PFi *kut|o- | PSaa *koδē- | PMd *koda- | PMari *koə- | PPerm *ki̮ - > PKomi *ki̮ -, PUdm *ki̮ - ~ *ku- (UEW, 675; Sammallahti 1988, 552). PU *kuma- ‘upside down; to overturn’ || PFi *kum|o- | PSaa *kom|ō- | PMd *koma- | PMari *kŭmə|k | PPerm *ki̮ m- > PKomi *ki̮ m-, PUdm *ki̮ m- | POU *kə̑mV- > PMs *kam-, PKh *kam- | PSam *kə̑mə̑- ‘to fall’ (UEW, 201‒202; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *kuńa- ‘to close the eyes’ || PMd *koń(a)- | PPerm *küń- > PKomi *kuń-, PUdm *ki̮ ń- | Hung huny- | POU *kŭńV- > PMs *kʷań-, PKh *kuń- | PSam *kə̑ńə̑- (UEW, 208‒209; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *kuwa (der. *kuwa|kka) ‘long’ || PSaa *kukkē | PMd *kuvaka | POU *kuwV > PKh *kuw | PSam *kuə̑kå-nå ‘long ago’ (UEW, 132; Aikio 2012, 244).

164 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *luka ‘number; ten’ || PSaa *lokē | PMd *luv | PMari *lu | POU *lŭγV > PMs *law (UEW, 253; Sammallahti 1988, 545). Related to PU *luki- ‘to count.’ PU *lupsa ‘dew’ || PSaa *le̮ psē | PMari *lŭps | PPerm *li̮ s > PKomi *li̮ s | PSam *jə̑ptå (UEW, 261‒262; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *muna ‘egg; testicle’ || PFi *muna | PSaa *monē | PMd *mona | PMari *mŭnə | Hung mony | POU *mə̑ṇV > PMs *man, PKh *maṇ | PSam *mə̑nå (UEW, 285‒286; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *purka- ‘to be a snowstorm’ || PFi *purka- ‘to drift (snow)’ | PSaa *porkē- ‘to smoke’ | PMd *purga- ‘to splash’ | PMari *pŭrγə- ‘to be a snowstorm,’ *pŭrγə|ž ‘snowdrift’ | PPerm *pi̮ r- > PKomi *pi̮ r|ź- ‘to drift (snow),’ *pi̮ r|a ‘snowdrift’ (UEW, 406‒407; Sammallahti 1988, 547; Aikio 2002, 25‒27). Related to PU *purki ‘snowstorm; snowdrift.’ PU *puwa- ‘to blow’ || PMd *puva- | PMari *puə- | Hung fúj- | POU *puwV- > PMs *puw-, PKh *puw- | PSam *puə̑- (UEW, 411; Sammallahti 1988, 547). PU *sula- ‘to melt’ || PFi *sula- | PMd *sola- | PMari *sŭlə- | PPerm *si̮ l- > PKomi *si̮ l-, PUdm *si̮ l- | Hung ol|v|ad- | POU *sŭlV- > PMs *tal|ā-, PKh *ʟul|ā- (UEW, 450‒451; Sammallahti 1988, 548). PU *tulka ‘feather’ || PFi *sulka | PSaa *tolkē | PMd *tolga | PPerm *ti̮ l > PKomi *ti̮ l, PUdm *ti̮ l|i̮ | Hung toll | POU *tŭklV > PMs *tawəl, PKh *tuγəl | PSam *tuå (UEW, 535‒536; Sammallahti 1988, 540). Word-initial *s in Finnic is irregular. PU *uwa ‘current, to flow’ || PFi *vō | PSaa *uvē, *e̮ vē- | POU *ə̑wV > PMs *aw, prePKh *aw|U > PKh *ow | PSam *wuə̑ (UEW, 544‒545; Sammallahti 1988, 542; Aikio 2012, 244). Ob-Ugric vowel reflexes are irregular. PU *u-i PU *kuji- ‘to lie’ || PMari *kiə- | PPerm *küj|l- > PKomi *kuj|l-, PUdm *ki̮ lʹ|lʹ- | POU *kuja- > PMs *kuj-, PKh *kɔ̄j- | PSam *ki̮ j|tV- (UEW, 197; Helimski 1997, 280‒281). PU *kulki- ‘to move’ || PFi *kulke̮- ‘to go, move, travel’ | PSaa *kolke̮ - ‘to flow’ | PMd *kolʹg- ‘to drip, leak’ | PPerm *ki̮ l- > PKomi *ki̮ l|al- ‘to float downstream’ | Hung hal|ad-, dial. hall|ad- ‘to go on, proceed’ | POU *kukla- > PKh *kɔ̄γəl- ‘to run’ | PSam *kuə̑- ‘to float downstream’ (UEW, 198; Sammallahti 1988, 544). PU *kumpi ‘hillock, tussock’ || PFi *kump|u | PSaa *kompe̮ | PMd *kombə ~ *kumbə | PPerm *gi̮ b|äd ‘tussock; quagmire; peat’ > PKomi *gi̮ b|ɛ̮d, PUdm *gi̮ b|ed (UEW, 203). PU *kuńći ‘urine’ || PFi *kuse̮- | PSaa *końće̮ | PMari *kŭž | PPerm *küʒ́ > PKomi *kuʒ́, PUdm *ki̮ ʒ́ | Hung húgy | POU *kuńćV- > PMs *kuńć-, PKh *kus- | PSam *kunsə̑ (UEW, 210; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Khanty vocalism is irregular. PU *kusi ‘(to) cough’ || PSaa *kose̮ | PMd *koz | PPerm *ki̮ z- > PKomi *ki̮ z-, PUdm *ki̮ z- | POU *kusa > PKh *kɔ̄l | PSam *kot (UEW, 223; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *kuwi ‘moon’ || PFi *kū | PMd *koŋ | Hung hó (acc havá-t) | POU *kuwV > PKh *kuw | PSam *ki̮ j (UEW, 211‒212; Sammallahti 1988, 537). The reconstruction of inlaut consonant is highly uncertain. PU *kuw|li- ‘to hear’ || PFi *kūle̮- | PSaa *kule̮ - | PMd *kulʹ- | PMari *kol- | PPerm *ki̮ l- > PKomi *ki̮ l-, PUdm *ki̮ l- | POU *kŭwla- > PMs *kʷāl-, PKh *kɔ̄l- (UEW, 197‒198; Sammallahti 1988, 544). Khanty *ɔ̄ instead of expected *ō results from proportional

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 165

analogy: X ‘to hear’ : *kōl-əm ‘I heard’ = *kɔ̄γəl-tā ‘to run’ : *kōγl-əm ‘I ran,’ therefore X = *kɔ̄l-tā. PU *kuw|nti- (der. *kuw|nti|li-) ‘to hear, to listen’ || PFi *kūnte̮ |le̮ - | Hung hall- (Old Hungarian hadl-) | POU *kŭwntV- > PMs *kʷānt|əl-, PKh *kō/ūnt|əγl- (UEW, 207‒208; Sammallahti 1988, 544; Helimski 1990, 63‒64). This verb is usually viewed as unrelated to PU *kuwli- ‘to hear,’ and the long vowel in the Finnish kuuntele- ‘to listen’ is explained as a result of contamination with kuule- ‘to hear.’ However, Proto-Ob-Ugric *kŭwla- and *kŭwntV- show that both verbs had the same vocalic nucleus. They can be analyzed as parallel derivatives from an unattested root *kuwi- with the frequentative suffix *-li- and continuative or frequentative suffix *-nti-. Helimski suggested that the two verbs are derived from the Proto-Uralic noun for ‘ear,’ preserved in Proto-Samoyed *kåw ‘ear.’ However, the suffixes *-li- and *-nti- are deverbal rather than denominal, and PSam *kåw cannot go back to a Proto-Uralic word of the shape *kVwi, as PU *w is regularly deleted in this position. PU *luki- ‘to count’ || PFi *luke̮- | PSaa *loke̮ - | PMd *lov- | PMari *lŭ|δ- | PPerm *li̮ |d ‘number’ > PKomi *li̮ d, PUdm *li̮ d | POU *luγV|nt- > PMs *lawənt-, PKh *luŋət(UEW, 253; Sammallahti 1988, 545). Related to PU *luka ‘number; ten.’ PU *lumi ‘(to) snow’ || PFi *lume̮- | PSaa *lome̮ | PMd *loŋ | PMari *lŭm | PPerm *li̮ m > PKomi *li̮ mj-, PUdm *li̮ m|i̮ | PSam *jom- (UEW, 253‒254; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *muli- ‘to pass’ || PSaa *mole̮- | PMd *molʹ- | Hung múl- | POU *mulV- > PMs *mul(UEW, 285; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *ńukić ‘sable’ || PFi *nukise̮ - ‘marten’ | PPerm *ńiź > PKomi *ńiź, PUdm *niź | Hung nyusz|t ‘marten’ | POU *ńŭkśV > PMs *ńakʷs, PKh *ńuγəs (UEW, 326‒327; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *ńuxi- ‘to pursue’ || PFi *nou|ta- ‘fetch’ | POU *ńu|kla- > pre-PMs *ńuγəl- > PMs *ńi̮ wəl-, PKh *ńɔ̄γəl- | PSam *ńo- (UEW, 323; Sammallahti 1988, 539). PU *pučki ‘hollow stalk’ || PFi *pucke̮ - | PSaa *pocke̮ | PMd *počkə | PMari *pŭč | PPerm *pi̮ čk- > PKomi *pi̮ čk-, PUdm *pučk- | PSam *pucə̑ (UEW, 397‒398; Sammallahti 1988, 539). PU *purki ‘snowstorm; snowdrift’ || PFi *purk|u | PSaa *porke̮ | POU *pŭ/urkV- > PMs *park|ī̮ ‘snowstorm,’ PKh *purk|āj ‘smoke; snowstorm’ | PSam *pur|ə̑t ‘haze’ (UEW, 406‒407; Sammallahti 1988, 547; Aikio 2002, 25‒27). Related to PU *purka- ‘to be a snowstorm.’ Cluster *rk in Ob-Ugric is not a regular reflex of PU *rk; we are perhaps dealing here with a suffixed form. Mansi reflects *u-a, while Khanty reflects *u-i. PU *suŋi ‘summer’ || PFi *suve̮ - | PSaa *se̮ ŋe̮ - ‘free from ice’ | POU *suŋV > PMs *tuj, PKh *ʟuŋ | PSam *təŋ(ə) (UEW, 451; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *suxi- ‘to row’ || PSaa *suke̮ - | PMari *šuə- | PPerm *si̮ |n- > PKomi *si̮ n- | POU *sŭwV- > PMs *taw-, PKh *ʟuw- ~ *ʟāw- | PSam *tu- (UEW, 449‒450; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *šuwli ‘lip’ || PFi *hūle̮ - | POU *sŭwlV > PKh *ʟōl ‘mouth’ (UEW, 903). PU *tuli ‘fire’ || PFi *tule̮- | PSaa *tole̮ | PMd *tol | PMari *tŭl | PPerm *ti̮ l > PKomi *ti̮ l, PUdm *ti̮ l | PSam *tuj (UEW, 535; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *tuli- ‘to come’ || PFi *tule̮- | PSaa *tole̮- | PSam *tuj- ~ *toj- (UEW, 535; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *tuwi ‘lake’ || PPerm *ti̮ > PKomi *ti̮ , PUdm *ti̮ | Hung tó (acc tava-t) | POU *tuwV > PMs *tuw, PKh *tuw | PSam *to (UEW, 533; Sammallahti 1988, 540).

166 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *uji- ‘to swim’ || PFi *ui- | PSaa *vuoje̮- | PMd *uj- | PMari *i- | PPerm *uj- > PKomi *uj-, PUdm *uj- | Hung ú|sz- | POU *ujV- > PMs *uj-, pre-PKh *ɔ̄j|t- > PKh *ɔ̄ć- | PSam *uə̑- (UEW, 542; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *ulki ‘pole’ || PSaa *olke̮ | PMd *olgə | PPerm *i̮ l > PKomi *i̮ l | POU *oklə̑ > PMs *ē̮wl|ā, PKh *ūγəl | PSam *uj (UEW, 543; Sammallahti 1988, 536). The vocalism of the Ob-Ugric form is irregular. PU *wuδʹi ‘new’ || PFi *ūte̮- | PSaa *oδe̮ | PMd *od | PMari *u | PPerm *vi̮ lʹ > PKomi *vi̮ lʹ, PUdm *vi̮ lʹ | Hung új | PSam *ojV > Taz Selkup oći̮ |ŋ ‘again, anew’ (Helimski 1976, 123‒124; UEW, 587; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *ä-ä PU *äjmä ‘needle’ || PFi *äimä | PSaa *ājmē | PMari *imə | PPerm *ejm > PKomi *jem | PSam *äjmä (UEW, 22; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *jäŋkä ‘bog’ || PSaa *jeaŋkē | PPerm *jäg|i̮ r ‘boggy forest’ > PKomi *jɛ̮gi̮ r | POU *jäŋkV > PMs *jǟŋk, PKh *jäŋk (UEW, 93; Sammallahti 1988, 543). PU *käjä ‘moth’ || PFi *koi | PMd *ki | PMari *kijə | PPerm *käj > PKomi *kɛ̮j, PUdm *kej | POU *kəjV > PMs *käj, PKh *käj (UEW, 167; Aikio 2015b, 63). PU *päjwä ‘heat; sun’ || PFi *päivä | PSaa *peajvē | PSam *päjwä (Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *pälä ‘side, half’ || PFi *pōle̮ - | PSaa *pealē | PMd *pälʹə ‘half’ | PMari *pelə ‘half’ | PPerm *päl > PKomi *pɛ̮l, PUdm *pal | Hung fél (acc fele-t) | POU *pälV > PMs *pǟl, PKh *päḷ|ək | PSam *pälä (UEW, 362‒363; Sammallahti 1988, 540; Aikio 2012, 238). PU *säppä ‘gall’ || PFi *sappe̮ - | PSaa *sāppē | PMd *säpə | PPerm *säp > PKomi *sɛ̮p, PUdm *sep | Hung epe (acc epé-t) | POU *säpV > PMs *tǟp (UEW, 435‒436; Sammallahti 1988, 548). PU *särä ‘fiber, vein’ || PFi *sōre̮- | PMari *ser | PPerm *sär > PKomi *sɛ̮r, PUdm *ser | Hung ér (acc ere-t) | POU *särV > PMs *tǟr ‘root,’ PKh *ʟär ‘thin root; stripe’ (UEW, 437; Sammallahti 1988, 548; Nikulin 2016, 1). PU *tälwä ‘winter’ || PFi *talve̮- | PSaa *tālvē | PMd *tʹälə | PMari *telə | PPerm *täl > PKomi *tɛ̮l, PUdm *tol | Hung tél (acc tele-t) | POU *tälV > PMs *tǟl, pre-PKh *täl|Iγ > PKh *til|əγ (UEW, 516; Sammallahti 1988, 550). PU *ä-i PU *ćäk(i)ći ‘osprey’ || PFi *sǟkse- | PSaa *ćiekće̮ | POU *śükśV > PMs *siγs, PKh *sǖγəs (UEW, 469‒470; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *ćärki- ‘to chop’ || PFi *särke- | PSaa *ćierke̮ |m ‘block of wood’ | POU *śäkrV- > PMs *šǟγrǝ-, PKh *säɣǝr- (Aikio 2020, 118). PU *jänti ‘bowstring’ || PFi *jänt|ek | PMari *jĭδ|aŋ | Hung ide|g | POU *jäntV > PMs *jǟnt|əŋ, PKh *jünt|əγ | PSam *jänt|i (UEW, 92; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ || PFi *jǟ | PSaa *jieŋe̮ | PMd *äŋ | PMari *i | PPerm *ji̮ > PKomi *ji̮ , PUdm *je̮ | Hung jég (acc jege-t) | POU *jäŋkV > PMs *jǟŋkə, PKh *jäŋk (UEW, 93; Sammallahti 1988, 543). PU *käli ‘tongue’ || PFi *kēle- | PSaa *kiele̮ | PMd *kälʹ | PPerm *ki̮ l > PKomi *ki̮ lj-, PUdm *ki̮ l | POU *kälV > PKh *käl ‘word; language’ | PSam *käə (UEW, 144‒145; Sammallahti 1988, 538).

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 167

PU *kärki ‘woodpecker’ || PFi *kärke- | PMd *käŕgə | PMari *kirγə | PPerm *ki̮ r > PKomi *ki̮ r, PUdm *ki̮ r (UEW, 652). PU *käti ‘hand’ || PFi *käte- | PSaa *kiete̮ | PMd *kädʹ | PMari *kit | PPerm *ki > PKomi *ki, PUdm *ki | Hung kéz (acc keze-t) | POU *kätV > PMs *kǟtə, PKh *kät (UEW, 140; Sammallahti 1988, 545). PU *kätki- ‘to wrap up’ || PFi *kätke- | PSaa *kietke̮- | PSam *kätə- (Aikio 2002, 20). PU *käwδi ‘rope’ || PFi *keüte- | PSaa *kievδe̮ | PPerm *käl > PKomi *kɛ̮lj-, PUdm *kal | POU *käwlV > PMs *kʷǟl|əγ, PKh *käl|əγ | PSam *kürə (UEW, 135; Sammallahti 1988, 545; Aikio 2006, 19‒20). PU *läkti- ‘to go out, away’ || PFi *läkte- | PSaa *liekte̮- | PMari *lekt- | POU *lüktV- > PKh *lǖγət- (UEW, 239‒240; Sammallahti 1988, 552). PU *lämi ‘juice, soup’ || PFi *lēme- | PSaa *lieme̮ | PMd *lʹäm | PMari *lem | PPerm *li̮ m > PUdm *li̮ m | Hung lé (acc leve-t) | POU *lämV > PMs *lǟm | PSam *jämV|jə (UEW: 245; Sammallahti 1988, 545; Aikio 2012, 231). PU *lämpi ‘warm’ || PFi *lämp|imä- | PMd *lʹämbə | PMari *liwə | PSam *jämpə ‘clothes’ (UEW, 685; Aikio 2002, 13; Aikio 2014c, 83‒84). PU *mäki ‘hill, hummock’ || PFi *mäke- | POU *müγV > PKh *mǖγ (UEW, 266). PU *mälki ‘breast’ || ? PFi *mälve- | PSaa *mielke̮ | PMd *mälʹ|kä | PMari *mel | PPerm *mi̮ l > PUdm *mi̮ l | Hung mell | POU *mäklV > PMs *mǟγəl, PKh *mäγəl (UEW, 267; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *näri ‘nose, snout’ || PSaa *niere̮ ‘cheek’ | PMd *ńäŕ | PMari *nir | PPerm *ni̮ r > PKomi *ni̮ r, PUdm *ni̮ r (UEW, 303‒304; Sammallahti 1988, 553). PU *ńäli- ‘to swallow’ || PFi *nēle- | PSaa *ńiele̮- | PMd *ńilʹ- | PMari *nel- | PPerm *ńi̮ l- > PKomi *ńi̮ l-, PUdm *ńi̮ l- | Hung nyel- | POU *ńälV- > PMs *ńǟl-, PKh *ńäl(UEW, 315; Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *täxδi ‘full’ || PFi *täüte- | PSaa *tievδe̮- | PMari *tić | PPerm *däl > PKomi *dɛ̮l, PUdm *dol | Hung tele | POU *täγlV > PMs *tǟγl, PKh *täl | PSam *tärə (UEW: 518; Sammallahti 1988, 550‒551; Aikio 2002, 31‒34). PU *wäki ‘power’ || PFi *väke- | PSaa *vieke̮ | PMd *vij | PMari *wi | PPerm *vi̮ |j > PKomi *vi̮ j, PUdm *vi | POU *wäγV > PMs *wǟγ, PKh *wäγ (UEW, 563; Sammallahti 1988, 551). PU *e-ä PU *ćepä ‘neck; collar’ || PFi *sepä | PSaa *ćeapē | PMd *śivə | PMari *šü | PPerm *śi> PKomi *śi-, PUdm *śi- | POU *śipə > PMs *šip, PKh *sǟp|əl (UEW, 473‒474; Sammallahti 1988, 548). PU *čečä ‘uncle’ || PFi *setä | PSaa *ćeacē | PMd *čičə | PMari *čü̆čə | PPerm *čož > PKomi *čɔž, PUdm *čuž | POU *čičä > PMs *šäš | PSam *cecä (UEW, 34‒35; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *ekä ‘elder male relative’ || PSaa *eakē | POU *jiγä > PMs *jäγ, PKh *jiγ | PSam *jekä (Aikio 2015a, 6‒7). PU *elä- ‘to live’ || PFi *elä- | PSaa *ealē- | PMari *ĭlə- | PPerm *ol- > PKomi *ɔl-, PUdm *ul- | Hung él- | POU *jilä- > PMs *jäl-, PKh *jil- ‘to go’ | PSam *elä- (UEW, 73; Sammallahti 1988, 536; Aikio 2015a, 8). PU *jekä ‘year; age’ || PFi *ikä- | PSaa *je̮ kē | PMd *ijə | PMari *i | Hung év (UEW, 98; Sammallahti 1988, 541).

168 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *lelä ‘hard side of wood’ || PFi *lül|ü | PPerm *lol > PKomi *lɔl | POU *lilV > PKh *lil (UEW, 244‒245). PU *pesä ‘nest’ || PFi *pesä | PSaa *peasē | PMd *pizə | PMari *pĭz|akš | PPerm *poz > PKomi *pɔz, PUdm *puz ‘egg’ | Hung fész|ëk (acc fész|kë-t) | POU *pisə > PMs *pitʹ|ī, PKh *pil | PSam *petä (UEW, 375; Sammallahti 1988, 539). PU *e-i PU *jeri- ‘to curse’ || PPerm *jör- > PKomi *jor-, PUdm *ju̇r|i̮ śk- | POU *erV- > PMs *ēr- (UEW, 97‒98). PU *keri ‘bark’ || PFi *kere- | PSaa *ke̮re̮ | PMd *keŕ ~ *käŕ | PMari *kü̆r | PPerm *kör > PKomi *kor (*korj-), PUdm *ku̇r | Hung kérë|g (acc kér|g-et) | POU *kerä > PMs *kēr, PKh *kǟr (UEW, 148‒149; Sammallahti 1988, 543). Ob-Ugric vocalism is irregular. PU *lexi- ‘to throw, shoot’ || PFi *lȫ- ‘to hit’ | PMari *lüə- | PPerm *li̮ j- > PKomi *li̮ j- | Hung lő- : löv- | POU *li(γ)- > PMs *li(γ)- : *läj- (UEW, 247; Sammallahti 1988, 545). PU *meni- ‘to go’ || PFi *mene- | PSaa *me̮ ne̮- | PMari *miə- | PPerm *mün- > PKomi *mun-, PUdm *mi̮ n- | Hung mën- | POU *minə- > PMs *min-, PKh *min- | PSam *men- (UEW. 272; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *mexi- ‘to give, sell’ || PFi *mȫ- | PSaa *mieke̮- | PMd *mi- : *mijə- | POU *mi(γ)- > PMs *mi(γ)- : *mäj-, PKh *mi(j)- | PSam *mi- (UEW, 275; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *peli- ‘to be afraid’ || PFi *pel|kä|tä- | PSaa *pe̮le̮- | PMd *pelʹ- | PPerm *pöl- > PKomi *pol-, PUdm *pu̇l- | Hung fél- | POU *pilə- > PMs *pil-, PKh *pil- | PSam *pej(UEW, 370; Sammallahti 1988, 539). PU *sewi- ‘to eat’ || PFi *sȫ- | PMd *sev- | Hung ë(v)- | POU *se(γ)- > PMs *tē(γ)-, *tǟj-, PKh *ʟē(w)- (UEW, 440; Sammallahti 1988, 548). PU *weti ‘water’ || PFi *vete- | PMd *vedʹ | PMari *wü̆t | PPerm *vå > PKomi *va, PUdm *vu | Hung víz (acc vize-t) | POU *witə > PMs *wit | PSam *wet (UEW, 570; Sammallahti 1988, 541). PU *wexi- ‘to take, grab’ || PSaa *vieke̮- | Hung vë(v)- | POU *wi(γ)- > PMs *wi(γ)- : *wäj-, PKh *wi(j)- | PSam *i- (Aikio 2013, 170‒171). PU *wexri ‘blood’ || PFi *vere- | PSaa *ve̮re̮ | PMd *veŕ | PMari *wü̆r | PPerm *vir > PKomi *vir, PUdm *vir | Hung vér (acc vér-t) | POU *wiγrə > PMs *wiγr, PKh *wir (UEW, 576; Sammallahti 1988, 551). Cluster *-xr- is reconstructed on the evidence of Mansi, but *x probably also left a trace in the aberrant vocalism of the Permic reflex: PPerm *vir instead of expected **vör. PU *i-a PU *jilma ‘air; weather’ || PFi *ilma | PSaa *e̮lmē | PPerm *jenm- > PKomi *jɛnm-, PUdm *inm- | POU *elmä > PMs *ēləm, pre-PKh *ǟlm|U > PKh *ēləm (UEW, 81‒82; Sammallahti 1988, 541). PU *ńila ‘phloem; bast’ || PFi *nila | PSaa *ńe̮lē ‘the condition in which the bark is loose on the wood; something slippery,’ *ńe̮le̮- ‘to peel off’ | PMd *nola | POU *ńə̑lV- ‘to peel off’ > PMs *ńal-, PKh *ńi̮ l- (Sammallahti 1988, 546). PU *wiša ‘green, yellow’ || PFi *viha|nta | PMd *ožə | PMari *ŭž|ar | PPerm *vež > PKomi *vež, PUdm *vož || POU *wə̑sV- > PKh *wi̮ s|tī̮ (UEW, 823‒824; Sammallahti 1988, 554; Ante Aikio, p.c.).

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 169

PU *i-ä PU *ćilmä ‘eye’ || PFi *silmä | PSaa *će̮ lmē | PMd *śelʹmə | PMari *šĭń|ća | PPerm *śinm> PKomi *śinm-, PUdm *śinm- | Hung szëm | POU *śəmV > PMs *šäm, PKh *säm | PSam *səjmä (UEW, 479; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *ipsä- ‘to smell’ || PSaa *e̮psē- | PSam *əptä- (UEW, 83‒84; Sammallahti 1988, 536). Related to PU *ipsi ‘odour.’ PU *itä- ‘to be/become visible’ || PFi *itä- | POU *ətV- > PKh *ät- | PSam *ət|ü- (UEW, 85‒86; Helimski 1999). PU *ńičkä- ‘to tear, pull’ || PSaa *ńe̮ ckē- | PMari *jĭčk- | PPerm *ńečk- > PKomi *ńe/ɛčk| Hung nyes- (UEW, 314; Sammallahti 1988, 546; Aikio 2014c, 82‒83). PU *piδ|kä ‘high, long’ || PFi *pitkä | PSam *pirkä (UEW, 377‒378; Sammallahti 1988, 539). Related to PU *piδi- ‘high, long.’ PU *i-i PU *imi- ‘to suck’ || PFi *ime- | ? Hung em- | POU *əmV- > PKh *äm- | PSam *əm|mä ‘female breast’ (UEW, 82‒83; Sammallahti 1988, 536; Aikio 2002, 24). PU *ipsi ‘odour’ || PSaa *e̮ pse̮ | PMari *üps | PPerm *is > PKomi *is | POU *əpsV > PMs *ät, PKh *äpəl | PSam *əptə (UEW, 83‒84; Sammallahti 1988, 536). Related to PU *ipsä- ‘to smell.’ PU *jikin ‘chin; gums’ || PFi *ikene- | Hung íny | POU *eγäṇä > PMs *ēγnə, PKh *ǟγəṇ (UEW, 80‒81; Sammallahti 1988, 541). PU *kiwi ‘stone’ || PFi *kive- | PMd *kev | PMari *kü | PPerm *ki > PKomi *ki, PUdm *ke̮ | Hung kő (acc köve-t) | POU *kəwV > PMs *käw, PKh *käw (UEW, 163‒164; Sammallahti 1988, 543). PU *kixi- ‘be in heat’ || PFi *kī|ma ‘heat (of animals)’ | PSaa *kike̮- | PPerm *köj- > PKomi *koj- | Hung kéj ‘pleasure’ | POU *kəjV- > PMs *käj-, PKh *käj- (UEW, 143; Sammallahti 1988, 543). PU *nimi ‘name’ || PFi *nime- | PSaa *ne̮ me̮ | PMd *lʹem | PMari *lü̆m | PPerm *ńim > PKomi *ńim, PUdm *ńim | Hung név (acc neve-t) | POU *nəmV > PMs *nämə, PKh *näm | PSam *nim (UEW, 305; Sammallahti 1988, 538). The change *n > *ń in Permic may be regular before *i, but the only other example, PU *nińi ‘bast,’ may actually have PU initial *ń. PU *nińi ‘bast’ || PFi *nīne- | PMari *ni | PPerm *ńiń > PKomi *ńin, PUdm *ńiń (UEW, 707; Sammallahti 1988, 553). PU *piδi- ‘high, long’ || PFi *pite- | Hung fël ‘up’ | POU *pəlV > PMs *päl|Vt ‘length,’ pre-PKh *päl|I > PKh *pil ‘high’ | PSam *pirə ‘height’ (UEW, 377‒378; Sammallahti 1988, 539). Related to PU *piδ|kä ‘high, long.’ PU *piŋi ‘tooth’ || PFi *pī | PMd *peŋ | PMari *pü | PPerm *piń > PKomi *piń, PUdm *piń | Hung fog | POU *pəŋkV > PMs *päŋkə, PKh *päŋk (UEW, 382; Sammallahti 1988, 547). PU *šiŋir ‘mouse’ || PFi *hīre- | PMd *čeŋəŕ | PPerm *ši̮ r > PKomi *ši̮ r, PUdm *ši̮ r | Hung egér (acc egere-t) | POU *səŋkVrV > PMs *täŋkər, PKh *ʟäŋkər (UEW, 500‒501; Sammallahti 1988, 550). PU *wiδi- ‘to kill’ || PSaa *ve̮ δ|ō- ‘to beat’ | PPerm *vi(j)- > PKomi *vi(j)-, PUdm *vi(j)i̮ - | Hung öl- | POU *wəlV- > PMs *äl-, PKh *wäl- (UEW, 566‒567; Sammallahti 1988, 551).

170 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

PU *wixi- ‘to take, carry, transport’ || PFi *vē- ~ *vī- | PSaa *vike̮ - | PMd *vi- : *vijə- | Hung vi(v)- | PSam *ü- ‘pull, drag’ (UEW, 573; Sammallahti 1988, 551; Aikio 2013, 170‒171). PU *ü-ä PU *δʹümä ‘glue’ || PFi *tümä | PSaa *δe̮ mē | PMari *lü̆ mə | PPerm *lʹem > PKomi *lʹɛm, PUdm *lʹem | PSam *jimä (UEW, 66; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Permic *e points to *i-ä. PU *külmä ‘cold; to freeze’ || PFi *külmä | PSaa *ke̮ lmē- | PMd *kelʹmə | PMari *kĭlmə | PPerm *ki̮ nm- > PKomi *ki̮ n, PUdm *ki̮ nm- (UEW, 663; Sammallahti 1988, 552). PU *künčä- ‘to scratch’ || PFi *küntä- ‘to plow’ | PMari *kü̆ nčə- ‘to dig’ | POU *kü̆ṇčV- > PMs *kʷänš-, PKh *küṇč- (UEW, 663‒664). Related to PU *künči ‘claw, nail.’ PU *küsä ‘thick’ || PSaa *ke̮ sē | PMari *kü̆zγə | PPerm *ki̮ z > PKomi *ki̮ z, PUdm *ki̮ z | POU *kü̆sV > PKh *kül (UEW, 161; Sammallahti 1988, 544). PU *lükkä- ‘to push’ || PFi *lükkä|tä- | Hung lök- | POU *lü̆kV- > PMs *läkʷ-, PKh *ḷük|ēmə- (UEW, 248‒249; Sammallahti 1988, 545). PU *üwä ‘belt’ || PFi *vȫ | PSaa *e̮ vē | Hung öv | PSam *niə ~*jiə (UEW, 575; Sammallahti 1988, 536). PU *ü-i PU *ćülki- ‘to spit’ || PFi *sülke- | PSaa *ćolke̮- | PMd *śelʹg- | PMari *šü̆wə- | PPerm *śäl|al- > PKomi *śɛ̮l|al-, PUdm *śal|a- | POU *śü̆lʹγV- > PMs *sälʹγ-, PKh *süjəγ- | PSam *siə|sə- (UEW, 479‒480; Sammallahti 1988, 549; Aikio 2020, 147‒149). PU *künči ‘claw, nail’ || PFi *künte- | PSaa *ke̮ nce̮ | PMd *kenžə | PMari *kü̆č | PPerm *gi̮ ž > PKomi *gi̮ žj-, PUdm *gi̮ ž|i̮ | Hung kör|öm | POU *kü̆ṇčV > PMs *kʷänš, PKh *küṇč (UEW, 157; Sammallahti 1988, 544; Aikio 2018, 80‒81). Related to PU *künčä- ‘to scratch.’ PU *künti ‘mist, smoke’ || PPerm *ki̮ d > PUdm *ki̮ d | Hung köd | PSam *küntə (UEW, 158; Sammallahti 1988, 537). PU *nüδi ‘handle’ || PFi *nüte- | PSaa *ne̮ δe̮ | PMd *ńedʹ | Hung nyél (acc nyele-t) | POU *nü̆lV > PMs *näl, PKh *nül | PSam *nir (UEW, 304; Sammallahti 1988, 538). PU *sükići- ‘autumn’ || PFi *süksü ~ *süküs | PSaa *će̮kće̮ | PMd *śokś | PMari *šĭžə | PPerm *siź|i̮ l > PUdm *siźi̮ l | Hung ősz | POU *sü̆kśV > PMs *täkʷs, PKh *süwəs (UEW, 443; Sammallahti 1988, 549). PU *süli ‘fathom’ || PFi *süle- | PSaa *se̮ le̮ | PMd *selʹ | PMari *sü̆lə | PPerm *si̮ l > PKomi *si̮ lj-, PUdm *si̮ l | Hung öl | POU *sü̆lV > PMs *täl, PKh *ʟül | PSam *tij (UEW, 444; Sammallahti 1988, 540). PU *tüŋi ‘butt (base) of a tree’ || PFi *tüve- | PMari *tü̆ŋ | PPerm *di̮ ŋ > PKomi *di̮ n, PUdm *di̮ ŋ | Hung tő (acc töve-t) (UEW, 523‒524; Sammallahti 1988, 550). PU *üli- ‘place up or above’ (spatial noun) || PFi *ül- | PSaa *e̮l- | PMd *velʹ- | PMari *wü̆l- | PPerm *vi̮ l > PKomi *vi̮ l, PUdm *vi̮ l | PSam *i- (UEW, 573‒574; Sammallahti 1988, 536). Uncertain cases PU *ćVδʹä (der. *ćVδʹä|m) ‘heart’ || PFi *sütäme- | PSaa *će̮δēm | PMd *śedʹəŋ | PMari *šüm ~ *šü̆m | PPerm *śVläm > PKomi *śɛ̮lɛ̮m, PUdm *śulem | Hung szív (acc szíve-t) | POU *šimə > PMs *šim, PKh *sim | PSam *säjə (UEW, 477; Sammallahti 1988, 549). Finnic, Saami, and Mordvin forms can be derived from *ćüδʹäm, while Ugric forms go back to *ćemi.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 171

PU *kVńći ‘star’ || PPerm *ku̯i̮ ʒ́- > PKomi *ku̯e̮ ʒ́|i̮ l, PUdm *ki̮ ź|i̮ lʹi | Hung (arch.) húgy | POU *kVńćə > PMs *kōńćə, PKh *kɔ̄s | PSam *ki̮ nsə|(ŋ)kVj (UEW, 210‒211; Sammallahti 1988, 537). Hungarian and Khanty forms go back to *kuńći. REFERENCES Abondolo, Daniel. 1996. Vowel Rotation in Uralic—Obugrocentric Evidence. London: School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Aikio, Ante. 2002. “New and Old Samoyed Etymologies.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 57: 9‒57. Aikio, Ante. 2006. “New and Old Samoyed Etymologies (Part 2).” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 59: 9‒34. Aikio, Ante. 2015b. “The Finnic ‘Secondary E-stems’ and Proto-Uralic Vocalism.” Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95: 25‒66. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2012. “On Finnic Long Vowels, Samoyed Vowel Sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x.” In Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter Polyphonicum Multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi, and Erika Sandman, 227‒250. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2013. “Studies in Uralic Etymology I: Saami Etymologies.” Linguistica Uralica XLIX (3): 161‒174. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2014a. “On the Reconstruction of Proto-Mari Vocalism.” Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 11: 125–157. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2014b. “Studies in Uralic Etymology II: Finnic Etymologies.” Linguistica Uralica L (1): 1‒19. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2014c. “Studies in Uralic Etymology III: Mari Etymologies.” Linguistica Uralica L (2): 81‒93. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2015a. “Studies in Uralic Etymology IV: Ob-Ugric Etymologies.” Linguistica Uralica LI (1): 1‒20. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2018. “Notes on the Development of Some Consonant Clusters in Hungarian.” In Περὶ ὀρθότητος ἐτύμων. Uusiutuva Uralilainen Etymologia, edited by Sampsa Holopainen and Janne Saarikivi, 77‒90. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2020. “Uralic etymological dictionary (draft version of entries A–Ć).” www.academia.edu/41659514/URALIC_ETYMOLOGICAL_ DICTIONARY_draft_version_of_entries_A_Ć_ Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte). 2021. “Studies in Uralic Etymology V: Permic Etymologies.” Linguistica Uralica LVII (3): 161‒179. Bartens, Raija. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bereczki, Gábor. 1988. “Geschichte der wolgafinnischen Sprachen.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 314‒350. Leiden: Brill. Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Häkkinen, Jaakko. 2007. “Kantauralin murteutuminen vokaalivastaavuuksien valossa.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki.

172 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

Helimski, Eugene (Е. А. Хелимский). 1976. “О соответствиях уральских a- и e-основ в тазовском диалекте селькупского языка.” Советское финно-угроведение XII (2): 113‒132. Helimski, Eugene (Е.А. Хелимский). 1978. “Реконструкция прасеверносамодийских (ПСС) лабиализованных гласных непервых слогов.” In Конференция «Проблемы реконструкции» (Тезисы докладов), 123‒126. Москва: Институт языкознания АН СССР. Helimski, Eugene (Евгений Арнольдович Хелимский). 1982. Древнейшие венгерскосамодийские языковые параллели. Москва: Наука. Helimski, Eugene (Евгений Хелимский). 1990. “Ugrica: Этимологии с историкофонетическим подтекстом.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 91: 63‒68. Helimski, Eugene. 1993. “Прасамодийские *ə̑ и *ə̈: прауральские источники и нганасанские рефлексы.” In Hajdú Péter 70 éves, edited by Marianne Sz. BakróNagy Marianne and Enikő Szíj, 125‒133. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudomány Intézet. Helimski, Eugene. 1995. “Proto-Uralic Gradation: Continuation and Traces.” In Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales, edited by Heikki Leskinen, 17‒51. Jyväskylä: Moderatores. Helimski, Eugene. 1997. Die Matorische Sprache: Wörterbuch—Grundzüge der Grammatik—Sprachgeschichte. Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies, University of Szeged. Helimski, Eugene. 1999. Basic vocabulary in PU and PFU—Remarks on etymology and reconstruction. A handout delivered at the Budapest Uralic Workshop 2: Etymology, September 1999, organized by the Nyelvtudományi Intézet, Budapest. Helimski, Eugene. 2001. “Ablaut als Umlaut im Ostjakischen: Prinzipien und Grundzüge der lautgeschichtlichen Betrachtung.” In Fremd und eigen. Untersuchungen zu Grammatik und Wortschatz des Uralischen und Indogermanischen in memoriam Hartmut Katz, edited by Heiner Eichner, Peter A Mumm, and Oswald Panagl, 55‒76. Wien: Edition Praesens. Helimski, Eugene. 2005. “The 13th Proto-Samoyedic Vowel.” In Mikola-konferencia 2004, edited by Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 27‒39. Szeged: SzTE Department of Finnougristics. Helimski, Eugene. 2007. “Marginalia ad UEW. Notizen zu Károly Rédeis Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch.” www.slm.uni-hamburg.de/ifuu/download/marginaliaad-uew.pdf. Honti, László. 1982. Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der ersten Silbe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Janhunen, Juha. 1975–1976. “Adalékok az északi-szamojéd hangtörténethez: vokalizmus. Az első szótagi magánhangzók.” Acta Universtiatis Szegediensis de Attila Iózsef nominatae: sectio ethnographica et linguistica (Néprajz és nyelvtudomány) XIX–XX: 165–188. Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz: gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Janhunen, Juha. 1981. “Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne / Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 77: 219‒274. Janhunen, Juha. 1982. “On the Structure of Proto-Uralic.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44: 23‒42.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 173

Kallio, Petri. 2007. “Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa.” In Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit: Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, edited by Jussi Ylikoski and Ante Aikio, 229‒249. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kallio, Petri. 2014. “The Diversification of Proto-Finnic.” In Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland, edited by Joonas Ahola and Frog, 155‒168. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Laanest, Arvo. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Translated by Hans-Hermann Bartens. Hamburg: H. Buske. Lehtinen, Meri. 1967. “On the Origin of Balto-Finnic Long Vowels.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 39: 147‒152. Lynch, John. 2015. “The Phonological History of Iaai.” Language & Linguistics in Melanesia 33 (1): 53‒77. Lytkin, Vasiliy (В. И. Лыткин). 1968. “К вопросу о конечных гласных финноугорского праязыка.” Советское финно-угроведение IV (4): 233‒238. Mikola, Tibor. 1988. “Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 219‒263. Leiden: Brill. Mikola, Tibor. 2004. Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen. Edited by Beáta Boglárka Wagner-Nagy. Szeged: SzTE Finnisch-Ugrisches Institut. Napolskikh, Vladimir (В. В. Напольских). 1995. “Прауральский ‘пуп’.” Linguistica Uralica XXXI (3): 170‒172. Nikulin, Andrey. 2016. “Six Uralic etymologies.” www.academia.edu/28497819/Six_ Uralic_Etymologies_2013_reviewed_2016. Ponaryadov, Vadim (В. В. Понарядов). 2018. “О двойных огласовках удмуртских суффиксов.” Ural-Altaic Studies / Урало-алтайские исследования 28: 69‒77. Pystynen, Juho. 2013a. “The case of Mansi *ś > *š, part 1.” https://protouralic.wordpress. com/2013/09/06/the-case-of-mansi-s-→-s-part-1/. Pystynen, Juho. 2013b. “Yay initials.” https://proto-uralic.tumblr.com/post/39584480966/ yay-initials. Pystynen, Juho. 2014a. “Close vowel reduction in Samoyedic.” https://protouralic. wordpress.com/2014/09/22/close-vowel-reduction-in-samoyedic/. Pystynen, Juho. 2014b. “Two Lemmata: PU *ë, PMs *ee *ëë *oo.” https://protouralic. wordpress.com/2014/05/31/two-lemmata-pu-e-pms-ee-ee-oo/. Pystynen, Juho. 2015. “Semivowel losses and assimilations, in Finnic and beyond.” Paper presented at the XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies, Oulu, August 17–21. www.academia.edu/15172786/Semivowel_losses_/and_assimilations_ in_Finnic_and_beyond. Pystynen, Juho. 2017. “*ü > *i, *ü in Samoyedic.” https://protouralic.wordpress. com/2017/10/07/u-i-u-in-samoyedic/. Pystynen, Juho. 2020. “Notes on Proto-Mansi Word-Final Vocalism.” In Ёмас сымыӈ нэ̄кве во̄ртур э̄тпост самын патум: Scripta miscellanea in honorem Ulla-Maija Forsberg, edited by Sampsa Holopainen, Juha Kuokkala, Janne Saarikivi, and Susanna Virtanen, 249‒261. Tampere: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Rédei, Károly. 1988. “Geschichte der permischen Sprachen.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 351‒394. Leiden: Brill.

174 MIKHAIL ZHIVLOV

Reshetnikov, Kirill (К. Ю. Решетников). 2011. “Новые этимологии для прибалтийско-финских слов.” Ural-Altaic Studies / Урало-алтайские исследования 5: 109‒112. Reshetnikov, Kirill, and Mikhail Zhivlov. 2011. “Studies in Uralic Vocalism II: Reflexes of Proto-Uralic *a in Samoyed, Mansi and Permic.” Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 5: 96–109. Salminen, Tapani. 1996. “Comments on László Honti’s paper ‘Zur Morphotaktik und Morphosyntax der uralischen/finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache’.” In Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, edited by Heikki Leskinen, Sándor Maticsák, and Tõnu Seilenthal, 25–27. Jyväskylä: Moderatores. Salminen, Tapani. 2012. “Traces of Proto-Samoyed Vowel Contrasts in Nenets.” In Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi, and Erika Sandman, 339–358. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages with Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 478‒554. Leiden: Brill. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami Languages: An Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1955. Geschichte des wogulischen Vokalismus. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Tálos, Endre. 1984. “Vogul + osztják/2.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 86: 89‒100. UEW = Rédei, Károly. 1988‒1991. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. “The Origins of the Western Uralic S-cases Revisited: Historiographical, Functional-Typological and Samoyedic Perspectives.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 63: 6‒78. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2017. “On the Tracks of the Proto-Uralic Suffix *-ksi—a New But Old Perspective on the Origin of the Mari Lative.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne / Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 96: 369‒419. Zhivlov, Mikhail (Михаил Александрович Живлов). 2006. “Реконструкция праобско-угорского вокализма” PhD diss., Russian State University for the Humanities. Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2010. “Studies in Uralic Vocalism I: A More Economical Solution for the Reconstruction of the Proto-Permic Vowel System.” Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 4: 167–176. Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2014. “Studies in Uralic Vocalism III.” Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 12: 113–148. Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2015. “Reflexes of Proto-Uralic Velar Nasal in Ugric: An Attempt at a Neo-grammarian Explanation.” In Congressus Duodecimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015: Book of Abstracts, edited by Harri Mantila et al., 482‒483. Oulu: University of Oulu. Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2016. “The Origin of Khanty Retroflex Nasal.” Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 14: 293–302.

RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-URALIC 175

Zhivlov, Mikhail (М. А. Живлов). 2019. “Уральские истоки хантыйского аблаута (I).” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology / Томский журнал лингвистических и антропологических исследований 3 (25): 22‒31.

CHAPTER 4

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES Stefan Georg

4.1  INTRODUCTION 4.1.1 Typological, areal, and genealogical linguistics When we begin to ask questions about the connections between a given language or group of languages with other languages and language groups, we enter the realm of comparative linguistics, which can be viewed as the application of three basic methods, namely, typological, areal, and genealogical linguistics. On the one hand, these methods must always complement each other in order to achieve a reasonably full picture of the ‘connections’ being investigated, but on the other hand, they can and must be sharply differentiated in terms of what they look at, how they do this, and what kind of conclusions they allow us to draw. The study of language typology is mainly concerned with structural characteristics of languages as they are, that is, disregarding diachronic processes. Typology investigates such characteristics on every level and in every subsystem of the fabric of the signs, techniques, and processes, which constitute a language; questions asked by typologists include, to name but a minuscule fraction of possible points of interest for this vast and vibrant discipline, how the phonological system of a language is structured (with or without symmetries, with or without tonal contrasts, what is the ratio of vowels vs. consonants, how syllables are shaped, how phonemes are distributed, etc.). Morphological systems of the world’s languages differ widely, from languages with almost no morphological inventories or processes at all (‘isolating’ languages, like Vietnamese) to languages with sometimes very long morpheme chains and very complex systems of forms (loosely referred to as ‘polysynthetic’ languages, like Eskimo, Ket, Munda languages, or Athabaskan); parts-of-speech systems show different organizations, which sometimes challenge seemingly unproblematic notions of such things as ‘nouns’ or ‘verbs’ in the first place, and the wealth of content categories, which are differentiated by (again widely differing) morphological techniques, is still in the process of being catalogized, with every newly described language on every continent still offering new insights into the possibilities (and the restrictions) of linguistic structures. Needless to say, this extends to all levels of syntax as well, and prominent questions asked circle around areas as the order of meaningful elements in sentences and clauses, the possibilities of the concatenation of multiple predicates in a single sentential structure (‘complex sentences’), the role and the techniques of DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-4

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 177

information fore- and backgrounding in units larger than the sentence, and many more. All these typological questions are first asked on the synchronic pane, but many of them are increasingly recognized as having diachronic dimensions as well, and there is also such a thing as ‘historical typology.’ Besides being (predominantly) synchronic in its orientation, linguistic typology is furthermore distinguished by focusing mainly on the immaterial, that is, purely structural, characteristics of languages. Typology asks, for example, whether a language possesses a case system for its nouns, which subcategories this system consists of, and whether its distinctions are coded by, say, prefixes, suffixes, lexically, or by any other conceivable means. This type of analysis is conducted without paying much attention to the actual physical shape of the coding elements involved. Genealogical (or genetic) linguistics, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with the material side of linguistic signs and the question whether these can, with sufficient exactitude, be matched to each other to justify the hypothesis of a genetic relationship between the investigated languages and, thus, to describe its divergence from an earlier unity. This is achieved by means of outlining the diachronic, ideally to a large degree regular, processes which produced the observable state(s) of affairs in the attested and contemporary, now separate, languages and dialects from hypothetical earlier unities (known as ‘protolanguages’). Areal linguistics, in its turn, studies the convergence of genetically related or unrelated languages in the course of time, with equal attention to the material and the immaterial traits of the investigated languages. It goes without saying that such a coarse scheme can only illustrate the very basic relations of each of these disciplines toward these parameters, and that they have numerous theoretical and practical intersections and will rarely, if ever, operate in isolation from each other. It is, however, only genetic linguistics, which can produce something resembling a real classification of languages, which would, ideally, give each and every language a definite place in a classificatory grid or scheme of some sort, which, by design, excludes ambiguous (or duplicate) placements. This would mean that a given language may be Balto-Finnic or Samoyedic, but not both at the same time. Typology does not offer this classificatory possibility. The general relationship of these three methods of comparative linguistics along the parameters of studying the differences and commonalities of languages synchronically (here: the static dimension) or diachronically (dynamic), whether, in the dynamic realm, divergence or convergence along the time axis is the subdiscipline’s main concern, and whether it observes and explains (predominantly) material (morphemes, words, and their concrete shapes) or immaterial traits (architectures of subsystems, inventories of categories, etc.) can be plotted in a necessarily simplified scheme, as in Table 4.1. Note that, since genealogical linguistics cannot and does not close its eyes to typological observations and questions and typology increasingly, and commendably, recognizes the historical dimensions of its realm, (+) in Table 4.1 (‘The branches of historical linguistics’) illustrates the sometimes-fuzzy edges between these areas. Uralic language family 4.1.2 The The Uralic language family, with its traditional and established membership of the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic languages (but not necessarily as a family which bifurcates into exactly these two branches), can be regarded as an established and justified language

178 STEFAN GEORG TABLE 4.1  THE BRANCHES OF HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS dynamic divergence

static convergence

material

immaterial

genealogical linguistics

+

–

–

+

(+)

language typology

–

–

(+)

–

+

areal linguistics

–

+

–

+

+

family of the genealogical type. This implies that it is a set of languages which display systematically describable, non-trivial, and non-random material commonalities which lend themselves to an explanation as being due to common descent from an original (proto)language. In other words, we can exclude other explanations, such as areal convergence of originally unrelated languages or mere chance (see Chapter 3 in this volume). As such, Uralic occupies a firm place among other demonstrably established linguistic families, such as, in Eurasia, Indo-European, Turkic, Kartvelian, Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, or Austronesian, or, elsewhere, Algic, Eskimo-Aleut, Uto-Aztecan, Mande, Bantu, or Pama-Nyungan, to name but a few (and avoiding any commitment on controversial or potentially controversial cases, such as Altaic, Nilo-Saharan, NigerCongo, Penutian, Sino-Tibetan, and others). The validity of Uralic as an established family of related languages which could be said to have ‘sprung from some common source’ is, today, in no way in doubt among specialists on these languages and on the methodology of historical and comparative linguistics. Occasional claims to the contrary, which have appeared in recent years (e.g. Marcantonio 2002; Marácz 2004), belong to the fringe of academic publishing, where non-linguistic ideologies try to win acceptance in lay circles—often with a decidedly political agenda. They are also easily shown to be lacking in a factual basis, in scholarly rigour, or as is too often the case, in basic knowledge of the linguistic data and the methodological tenets of the discipline (cf. Georg 2004; Laakso 2004; Campbell and Poser 2008). Also, while the internal makeup of Uralic in terms of its cladistics has seen a great deal of discussion in recent decades, the membership of the family as such is in no way in doubt. In other words, none of the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages described in this volume is under any serious suspicion of not belonging to this family and thereby possibly to a different language family, nor is there any hypothesis worth considering that the family itself should be augmented by further member languages, living or dead. The question of whether this family stands alone among the languages of Eurasia without any external relatives or whether Uralic can be shown to have such relatives or even to be a member of a still-greater (super- or macro-) family of languages is, however, still the subject of scholarly debates, which are at times pursued with some vigour. There are, for example, certain linguistic seven-day wonders, such as (1) Uralic and Penutian, the latter a linguistic grouping in North America, itself highly controversial, if not generally rejected (cf. Sadovszky 1977; on this Knüppel 2012; on ‘Penutian’ Campbell 1997, 309–320); or (2) Hungarian as a/the sole relative of Sumerian, a ‘hypothesis’ that rivals numerous other such claims, which continue to be published by linguistic amateurs and ardent believers in the very special relationship of the language of their choice as a sister or daughter of this earliest written language of mankind (cf. Smith 1981; Zakár 1971;

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 179

generally Clauson 1973); or (3) Uralic and Dravidian, the major non-Indo-European language family of the Indian subcontinent, which is itself well established and thoroughly investigated, with historical records dating back to the third century CE (cf. Schrader 1925, 1935–37; Tyler 1968). None of these theories and other similar outlandish hypotheses will be discussed here, mostly because they do not merit a second look if any standard of methodological rigour is respected. But as we will see in the following sections, there are also some hypotheses of this kind which do attract (and merit) the attention of serious linguistic scholarship. However, it is safe to say that none of them enjoys the status of established knowledge today, and that informed scholars who do not accept any of these as valid probably outnumber those who do. The genetic hypotheses which do deserve a discussion here are: (1) Ural-Altaic, that is, the putative relationship between Uralic and the (itself highly controversial) ‘Altaic’ group of languages and families; (2) Indo-Uralic, that is, Uralic as a sister language family to the well-established Indo-European; (3) Uralic and Yukaghir; (4) various versions of a Uralo-Siberian or Uralo-Eskimo macrophylum (including Yukaghir, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, sometimes also Nivkh/Gilyak, and often Eskimo-Aleut); and (5) various macrophyletic endeavours which have enjoyed some attention from the scholarly community since (mostly) the late 1990s, like Nostratic (in different versions) or Eurasiatic. In the following sections, all the aforementioned hypotheses will be discussed in some detail. I am leaving aside all claims that all languages of mankind are, ultimately, later forms of a single ‘Proto-Sapiens’ megalofamily, which, of course, leaves no room for non-relationship between any random pair or group of languages of the planet. recognition: ‘lumping’ and ‘splitting’ 4.1.3 Phylum Any discussion of genetic hypotheses, of their scholarly merits and their future potential, hinges on the criteria by which claims of genealogical relationship can be (or usually are) judged. The choice of these criteria, or the particular stance an observer takes on the problem of what may be called phylum recognition, plots linguists toward one or the other extreme on a continuous scale. At one extreme of the scale we have ‘lumpers,’ that is, those who accept or advocate large, and globally few, ‘macrofamilies,’ and at the other end we find ‘splitters,’ who usually regard the bases on which the ‘lumpers’ argue for their larger comparisons as merely superficial and historically insignificant similarities. The latter, then, tend to classify the world’s languages (or the languages they work with) into a larger number of smaller families, which includes the acknowledgement that some individual languages or small families cannot be ‘classified’ into any larger language family whatsoever and will thus have to be—possibly permanently—regarded as ‘language isolates.’ Both terms were originally polemical in nature, and not many serious linguists will accept being pigeonholed as prototypical ‘lumpers’ or ‘splitters.’ Yet it can hardly be denied that there is a school of thought which assumes that the classification of (ideally all) languages of the world is a necessary (and, though difficult, in principle achievable) task of linguistic research, one which can only be successful when criteria for relatedness are, on the one hand, not formulated very strictly, while, on the other hand, evidence of relatedness is advocated mechanically and unimaginatively. But at the other end of the spectrum, scholars typically maintain that the establishment of a valid language family by the use of rigorous (and, if violated, excluding) methodological principles is a valuable achievement not only for the linguistic sciences but also for other anthropologically oriented fields of interest. The very fact that Uralic, Indo-European, and other language

180 STEFAN GEORG

families can be justified against all reasonable objections is of considerable value for any understanding of the (pre-)history of these groups of speakers through many millennia. This value forbids any relaxation of methodological principles in the search for language relationships as yet undetected, lest its results become quite arbitrary and unable to serve as the foundation for further ‘hard’ science. 4.1.4 Principles of the historical-comparative method Thus, scholars are, and probably will remain, divided about what kinds of observations they are willing to accept as the foundation for a valid claim of relationship. But what is generally acknowledged by most informed historical linguists today is that linguistic relationship does not necessarily manifest itself in the form of similarities. It is, of course, true that many uncontroversial and close-knit language families (often subgroups of larger phyla) are obvious upon inspection and need no elaborate justification. Examples of such clear and obvious groups are Slav(on)ic, Germanic, Romance, Balto-Finnic, Turkic (leaving aside the rather-aberrant Chuvash), Semitic, Polynesian, most of Bantu, and Algonkin (apart from Cheyenne and Arapaho)—their similarities pervade all linguistic subsystems, lexicon, and grammar alike and often even entail varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. This is, however, not true for larger (and ‘deeper’) families, like Indo-European (or, say, Tokharian or Armenian as individual members of this family), Uralic (or even Finno-Ugric), Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian, or Algic, groupings whose justification requires methods that go far beyond the observation of surface similarities. One of the indispensable criteria for arguing for relatedness, now universally accepted in the discipline, is that of regularity of correspondences. Put briefly, this principle states that related languages must show recurrent, regular correspondences between their phonological inventories and systems, which manifest themselves in the fact that cognate lexemes and morphemes display predictable shapes, because they constitute later, changed forms of original proto-lexemes and morphemes, and that regular sound changes produce their observable differences. Thus, to take a simple example, Modern German Bruder ‘brother’ is cognate with, say, Latin frāter and Sanskrit bhrātar- ‘id.,’ because the initial consonants (b-, f-, bh-) in these words correspond to each other in a regular and predictable way. The words can be described as continuations of a hypothetical Proto-Indo-European *bhreh2ter- along the lines of a sound law which stipulates that a Proto-Indo-European initial *bh- is represented by German b-, Latin f-, and Sanskrit bh-, respectively, and the demonstrable fact that the other phonemes in this lexical set obey similarly regular sound laws. Such sound laws are viewed as, in principle, exceptionless and allow, if properly observed, the reconstruction of protoforms, as the one in this example. This is true to the degree that every obvious deviation from this idealized state of affairs needs an explicit explanation on the basis of any of a number of competing principles and processes which operate in every language, such as analogy, borrowing, dialect mixing, taboo, and sound symbolism, to name but some of them. It is safe to say that all language families that are uncontroversially accepted today, including Uralic, fulfil this criterion of regular phonemic correspondences, often to a remarkable degree— although this is said notwithstanding the fact that, for probably all these families, details continue to be debated, often quite heatedly. One should regard reconstructed forms for any protolanguage as snapshots, at best, of the current state of debate and, at worst, as representing the position of a particular scholar or school of thought, and never as completely described and undeniable, ‘real’ linguistic entities.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 181

This principle of regularity clearly surpasses superficial similarity as a criterion for relatedness, since comparative linguistics has been able to describe instances of clear and regular sound laws which have altered the surface representation of lexemes and morphemes quite drastically, often so far as to destroy anything which might strike the untrained eye as a ‘similarity’ at all. Take only the famous example of English wheel and Sanskrit cakra- ‘id.,’ which, while certainly not ‘similar’ in any respect, can be described as absolutely regular reflexes of a Proto-Indo-European *ku̯eku̯lo- (cf. Greek κύκλος), or that of Finnish sää ‘weather,’ Hungarian ég ‘air’ < Finno-Ugric *säŋe, or Hungarian egér ‘mouse’ and Finnish hiiri ‘id.’ < Finno-Ugric *šiŋiri, and numerous examples of this kind in all established language families. On the other hand, this principle also allows the judgement that highly similar forms are often not cognate, because the established sound laws stipulate different outcomes. The classic example is that of German haben and Latin habeō, which, despite their almost complete identity on the surface and their perfect semantic match, are demonstrably not cognate, or that of Latin deus ‘god’ vs. Greek ϑεός, for which the same is true. A further criterion for relationship which is sometimes (but not universally) required is that the system of correspondences be complete, that is, that every item in the phonemic system of language A must have at least one regular reflex in language B (or C, D, etc.) of the postulated grouping. Such a system can also include zero, as in the s/š- = Ø- and -Ø- = -g- correspondences in the Finnish/Hungarian cognates mentioned earlier. 4.1.5 Etymologies All this regularity must, of course, manifest itself in the linguistic material of the languages involved, that is, in their lexemes and morphemes, and any system of correspondences can, in the end, only be as good (i.e. indicative of a true relationship) as the etymologies on which it is based. Many proposals of language relationship, successful and unsuccessful, therefore begin with, and a good number of them often largely consist of nothing more than enumerations of lexical material, which is viewed as indicative of such a relationship. The proper judgement of the validity of etymologies is a subdiscipline in its own right. Any etymological proposal that may look convincing on the surface—even for observers with linguistic training and a good knowledge of at least one of the languages or families involved—may be riddled by any number of shortcomings, which may be revealed only by closer scrutiny. Since it is precisely this problem that sometimes makes the assessment of proposed linguistic relationships a daunting task, some of the more frequently encountered shortcomings of lexical comparisons may be mentioned here. Good etymological proposals must invariably be based on the oldest available forms the current state of the linguistic investigation of a given input language or language family has at its disposal. When the constituents of a new proposal are themselves language families (and, in most cases, they are), this immediately leads to the problem of whether reconstructed forms of, say, Indo-European should go into the comparison unaltered, or whether it should be admitted that the further-reaching comparison may itself lead to adjustments on this level. Most theorists of comparative linguistics view this kind of alteration as problematic, if not outright inadmissible, and the fact that reconstructs are ‘moving targets’ that tend to undergo—sometimes-considerable—modifications in the course of the scholarly debate should not be underestimated. Two examples: (1) Any reconstruction of a putative ‘Proto-Altaic,’ and consequently, any larger proposal using Altaic as one

182 STEFAN GEORG

of its constituent families, has to wrestle with the highly complex question of how many liquids and rhotics are to be reconstructed for Proto-Turkic. (2) Indo-European linguists were, for a long time—though today are no longer—divided between those who reconstructed (usually three) ‘laryngeals’ for the protolanguage and those who viewed this as wrong, with far-raching repercussions on a great number of Indo-European etymologies; a similar discussion on ‘laryngeal’-like proto-phonemes is going on in Uralic linguistics as well (cf. Janhunen 1981a, and for the argument that no such phoneme needs to be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic, see Aikio 2012). Good etymologies are, at least most of the time, able to explain every phoneme occurring in the constituent words and forms on the basis of regular developments (or acceptable explanations along the lines of established principles of historical linguistics, as for example, competing sound laws, analogy, or borrowing) without leaving chunks of phonetic material stranded and unexplained. This kind of problem may be clearly seen in what are called ‘root etymologies’: the literature on the Altaic debate shows that this hypothesis is particularly prone to this vice, which has the consequence that the presumed protolanguage is riddled with ‘obsolete suffixes,’ for which no explanation—with regard to origin, distribution, or function—can be given. Needless to say, mundane errors must be avoided, since each one usually renders any etymological proposal utterly worthless. By this I refer to (1) misquoted words and forms, taken from secondary sources without critical scrutiny; (2) erroneous semantics (also often due to mechanical copying from bilingual dictionaries or without proper cognizance of known or knowable semantic change); (3) undetected borrowings from other languages (such as Persian loans in Turkic, Tibetan loans in Mongolian, or Chinese loans in Korean as input for Altaic comparisons); (4) incorrect segmentations of complex words due to an imperfect understanding of the relevant morphological processes; and (5) ‘ghost’ words from sometimes fragmentarily attested older or inadequately studied modern languages (good illustrations of these and other typical flaws of etymological proposals may be found in Campbell and Poser 2008). vocabulary 4.1.6 Basic It is often required that at least a sizeable number of the lexical comparisons aimed at making a point in favour of a relationship be taken from the realm of ‘basic vocabulary,’ such as names for largely culture-independent objects, body parts, features of sky and earth, and ‘basic’ verbs. While there is of course nothing wrong with this, comparative linguists are nowadays familiar with the fact that no part of the lexicon of any given language, however ‘basic’ it might seem to be, is immune to loss, borrowing, and replacement so that shortcuts to phylum recognition (as, for example, looking only at rather-short world lists) are not valid. What is more, any demonstration of true regularity in the realm of sound correspondences (without gaps in the system) will need a considerably higher number of comparisons than any ‘basic vocabulary’ list can offer. Only those lexical comparisons that survive this sifting process can then serve as input for the question as to whether the necessary regularity can be justified for the phonological correspondences between the languages compared. Yet the potential problems do not end here: even a good deal of phonological regularity cannot rule out that the commonalities between the languages compared may still be due to uni- or multi-directional borrowing between them—in one or several phases, possibly already between the assumed protolanguages—since areal convergence may also produce certain degrees of

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 183

phonological homogeneity that may resemble true regularity, if only superficially. Altaic is again a case in point, since many critics maintain that the valid lexical comparisons (mostly those between Turkic and Mongolic) are in fact better understood as early borrowings than as common heritage. While criteria for differentiating between true cognacy and very early borrowing may be found, these are usually quite subtle and, consequently, fiercely debated, and it can, by no means, be ruled out that some cases of proposed language relationships may never allow a neat decision between true (divergent) cognacy and early areal consolidation. 4.1.7 Comparative morphology Comparative morphology is usually regarded as a secure guide to the establishing of language relationship—most, if not all, uncontroversial families and phyla are firmly based on a common, and, to a large extent, also reconstructable, morphological system. Indeed, for model language families like Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, and Afro-Asiatic, it was the observation of common paradigmatic morphology that preceded the establishment of a common lexicon and the detection of regular correspondences in phonology. In fact, even language families which are based largely on putatively shared morphological systems with, as yet, little success in establishing a common proto-lexicon and proto-phonology are not unheard of (an example could be the ‘Uralo-Eskimo’ grouping, discussed later). Compared morphological elements typically carry more argumentative weight when they are found in multidimensional paradigms (rather than, for example, in the form of more isolated derivational affixes), though this presupposes that the languages to be compared possess such paradigmatic morphology in the first place. The languages and families most often compared with Uralic, that is, Altaic languages, Yukaghir, Indo-European, and Eskimo-Aleut, do have intricate morphological systems of this kind, as does Uralic itself, so such comparisons are relevant for all these proposals. While morphological comparanda and reconstructable paradigms are, as many will concede, of the utmost importance for the successful demonstration of linguistic relationship, they are, like lexical items, by no means immune to borrowing. There is thus always a risk of error when the comparison rests on derivational elements, nominal pluralizers, and other more-isolated, less-paradigm-bound elements of morphological systems (for a sobering overview for all who still doubt that bound morphology may be susceptible to borrowing at all, cf. Gardani et al. 2015). Another possible pitfall is connected with the fact that grammatical morphemes are, in most languages, generally shorter than lexemes: very often they consist of only one or two phonemes. Futhermore, they typically use only a subset of the phonemical entities the language possesses as a whole. These factors increase the number of resemblant, but nevertheless spurious, morphological comparisons between languages. For example, all grammatical morphemes reconstructed for Proto-Uralic by Janhunen (1981b) show only 9 different consonants (p, k, t, m, n, j, s, and rarely, ś) out of an overall system of 16 consonants reconstructed to account for lexical correspondences. Even personal pronouns are not immune to borrowing between unrelated languages. Although personal pronouns are usually treated as lexemes, they might equally well—by virtue of their paradigmaticity along the dimensions of person and number—be regarded as morphological elements. This can be illustrated from the Uralic realm by (Samoyedic) Enets, which copied its second- and third-person pronouns from Yeniseic Ket (Siegl 2008), as shown in Table 4.2.

184 STEFAN GEORG TABLE 4.2  BORROWED PRONOUNS IN NORTH SIBERIA Ket

Enets

vs. Nenets

2sg.pro

ū

ū

pǝdar (pi.dø-ro)

3sg.pro

bū

bu

pǝda (pi-da)

TABLE 4.3  A SET OF SIMILAR BUT NON-COGNATE GENITIVE SUFFIXES IN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES Language

nom

gen

Where?

dat > gen)

-ou (= /u/)

thematic stems

< Old Phr. -o-wo < ?

‘giver’ ‘wolf’ Albanian

plak ‘old man’

Old Slavic

synŭ ‘son’

Armenian

žam ‘time’

OHG

geba ‘gift’

Phrygian

-os nom.sg

Thus, morphological comparisons require the same degree of critical scrutiny as lexical comparisons do, and it is especially important that the requirements of phonological exactitude, particularly the obeyance of otherwise-established phonological correspondences, are observed here with no less vigour than in the realm of the wider lexicon. Without such methodological rigour, superficially phonologically and functionally resemblant grammatical morphemes may erroneously be viewed as cognate, as the following example from uncontroversial Indo-European illustrates (for details, cf. Georg 2017). A number of Indo-European languages show, synchronically, a genitive singular morpheme with the uniform shape /u/, yet the known history of these languages shows unequivocally that none of these u-genitives is in any way cognate with any of the others (Table 4.3). Here, as elsewhere, proper historical research needs to differentiate between superficial phainomena and real comparanda before such elements may enter the roster of defendable witnesses to linguistic relationship. The preceding enumeration of some of the principles and potential dangers for genealogical comparisons is anything but exhaustive; for a copious illustration of these and

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 185

similar cautions and concerns, cf. Campbell and Poser (2008). All such principles and risks need to be taken into account in any evaluation of attempts to include the Uralic family into any wider grouping, such as the ones which will be briefly discussed in the remainder of this chapter, that is, Ural-Altaic, Indo-Uralic, Uralo-Yukaghir, and Uralo-Siberian/Uralo-Eskimo. All these proposals are based on non-trivial observations of the kind illustrated previously, but they all have also been criticized on the basis of these very principles and methodological requirements. None of them can be regarded as universally accepted today. 4.2  HYPOTHESES OF GENEALOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES and Altaic 4.2.1 Uralic The discovery of the relatedness of (some of the) Finno-Ugric languages belongs to the eighteenth century and thus antedates even that of Indo-European as a family (for details on the history and pre-history of Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages, see Stipa 1990). However, Uralic linguistics as a discipline seeking to elucidate the mutual relationships of those languages we regard as Uralic today—and only these—did not become consolidated until the late nineteenth century, when it managed to gradually free itself from what today is mostly seen as over-inclusion. This delay is due to the fact that, for the better part of the nineteenth century and some time beyond, the comparative study of Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages was a firm part of the investigation of all major (then known) languages of Northern Eurasia. These languages show a great deal of typological uniformity, and this shared typology contrasts sharply with that of the Indo-European and Semitic languages, with which European philologists were, at that time, best acquainted, in the West and South of the continent, and with that of Chinese in the East. The fact was that these Eurasian languages all seemed to have features like ‘agglutinative’ morphology, SOV constituent order, and vowel harmony, to name just a few of the (as we know today, globally widespread) linguistic traits which were at that time viewed as especially salient and distinctive. These typologically similar Eurasian languages were soon regarded as ‘related’ on the same footing as members of other, and better-known, language families. It was no less a figure than Mathias Alexander Castrén who, besides founding the scientific study of living Samoyedic, Siberian Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and also Yeniseic languages, almost single-handedly, also coined the term ‘Altaic’ for them in or around 1844 (Castrén 1856). Other terms for Northern Eurasian languages with some currency in the nineteenth century were Turanian/Touranien, Tatar(isch), or Finnisch-Tatarisch (cf. Adam 1870; Schott 1847). Castrén’s Altaic comprised our Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic, as well as all Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages, as evidenced by his dissertation (Castrén 1850), which was devoted to the systematic comparison of the personal pronouns and, insofar as the languages involved have them, their personal verb endings. It took almost a century to free the study of Inner and Northern Asian languages from this over-inclusive terminology. The term ‘Altaic’ was used synonymously with what later came to be called ‘Ural-Altaic’ well into the twentieth century. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the famous Slavist and Indo-Europeanist August Schleicher reserved, in a small booklet published in 1850, the designation of Uralic for that language family alone and used Altaic exclusively for Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. Schleicher is

186 STEFAN GEORG

widely recognized as the first scholar to take William Jones’s ‘sprung from some common source’ (Jones 1788) seriously and to start actually reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. But it was still a long way until the relationship of these languages was scrutinized with the (then only emergent) methodological apparatus of the Neogrammarians. Uralic linguistics was definitely quicker to move along this path—not a mean feat, if we remember that Uralicists worked, and still work, mostly with recent linguistic data without any truly old documents to speak of. Just like Altaic linguistics, ‘Uralic’ began with the, so to speak, primordial soup of an indiscriminate ‘Ural-Altaic.’ It is by no means an easy task to try to find out who was the first scholar to declare Uralic and Altaic as unrelated (Schleicher 1850 did not really go into the details), or at least that they are too distantly related to allow a comprehensive and meaningful reconstruction of a common protolanguage. The reason for this is, in a nutshell, that ‘Ural-Altaic’ simply slipped out of fashion pari passu with the development of Uralic comparative linguistics into a true science. This is because Uralic specialists were highly successful in formulating strict sound laws for Finno-Ugric (and later for Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic), reconstructed Proto-Uralic with fair precision, and, as far as possible, subclassified the family (not without the usual controversies) in accordance with the proper methodology of comparative linguistics, which we still acknowledge today. While many active practitioners of Uralic linguistics of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries did pay at least lip service to the ‘greater’ family, which included our Altaic, they simply did not find Mongolic or Turkic, let alone Tungusic, data useful enough for the elucidation of the observable facts of, say, Finnish or Hungarian. Ural-Altaic, thus, simply faded away—without disappearing entirely from general-interest encyclopediae to this very day, however. It simply ceased to attract Uralic specialists: the relations of these languages among themselves were too unclear, and the indications that they might be demonstrably related to one another were too vague. Munkácsi (1884) is one of the last major works to use the designation of Altaic (altaji) for the larger grouping, and at least since Gombócz (1905), this term is rarely, if ever, used to designate a hypothetical language family which would count Uralic languages among its members. For the work of the pioneers of modern Altaistic research (i.e. those who try to subject the linguistic data to Neogrammarian priciples), like Ramstedt (1952‒66) and Poppe (1960), Uralic data no longer play any important role, and those who continue to defend the wider concept in the twentieth century use the composite term Ural-Altaic henceforth, which is, incidentally, found as early as Boller (1856a, 1856b, 1857a, 1857b). While Uralic comparative linguistics emerged from these beginnings as a clearly delineated discipline with a clear identity, Altaic linguistics, as it is understood today (the comparison of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, now more often than not also with the inclusion of Korean and/or Japanese), may be described as still in search of such an identity. The debate still continues as to whether the undeniable commonalities found between them are to be explained as due to divergence from a protolanguage or due to convergence of three, four, or five originally unrelated languages, despite the fact that it is often declared to be settled, and in spite of the publication of sizeable self-styled ‘etymological dictionaries’ and similar works (cf. Starostin et al. 2003; Vovin 2005; Dybo and Starostin 2008; Georg 2011, for a glimpse of the current state of the Altaic controversy, with ample discussions of linguistic data). Apart from having found a firm place in macrocomparitivist endeavors like Nostratic and Eurasiatic (discussed below), the comparison of (only) Uralic and Altaic with the

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 187

aim of vindicating their genetic relationship has by now become a minority position at best. The once quite influential and often-cited works of Winkler, which straddle the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries (e.g. 1884, 1885, 1911‒12, 1913‒23), are still occasionally cited as contributions to the ‘Ural-Altaic question,’ but they do not present any coherent linguistic comparisons whatsoever, are written in a rather inaccessible style, and serve mainly to propagate what appears today as a somewhat unpalatable ideology about the ‘inner spirit’ of these languages; Winkler’s work does not merit the trouble of being re-read today. Among twentieth-century works which perpetuate the Ural-Altaic paradigm, mention must be made of those of Sauvageot (e.g. 1929). The writings of Kiekbaev (1972, 1996, mostly on comparative morphology), who gave Ural-Altaic studies a new home in Bashkiria, have found little circulation outside of Russia. The Turcologist and Tungusologist Menges espoused a variety of Ural-Altaic, and later also of (non-mainstream) ‘Nostratic,’ but he showed little interest in concepts of regularity or any systematic presentation of his thoughts (e.g. 1960; his contributions, however, never fail to display a remarkable erudition and, at times, encyclopaedic knowledge). Ever since its beginnings, the (Ural)-Altaic hypothesis was based mainly on the remarkable uniformity most of these languages show in the realm of their typological makeup. The words of Wilhelm Schott, pioneer of Ural-Altaic studies in the nineteenth century, are somewhat programmatic in this respect: Eine so innige Geistes-Verwandtschaft ist gewöhnlich mit leiblicher Verwandtschaft gepaart, d.h. alle durch ein so enges Band der Analogie verknüpfte Sprachen pflegen mehr oder weniger divergirende Aeste eines gemeinsamen Stammes zu seyn. (Schott 1836, 4) ‘Such an intimate mental relationship is usually accompanied by physical relationship as well; this means that languages tied together by such close analogies are usually also diverging branches of a single tree.’ Most of these languages are, indeed, characterized by a remarkable degree of typological uniformity. Apart from vowel harmony, a feature widespread in most of Uralic and Altaic (though not present in each and every single language) but notably absent from the majority of the language families known in the nineteenth century, they seem to show a common ‘operating system,’ which manifests itself more or less clearly in languages which form a continuous chain from the Baltic Sea to Manchuria and even Japan. The most salient and persistent typological traits of this kind, which received repeated mention in this respect, include the lack of number and case agreement between (always preposed) adjectives and modified substantives, the use of the singular (or unmarked number) after numerals, the indication of personal possession by suffixes, the use of verbal nouns in finite function, clause subordination by means of case-inflected verbal nouns, and the coordination and subordination of predicates by means of converbs (‘gerunds’). These features were seen as so typical of Ural-Altaic languages, and as so un-typical of others, that the conclusion of a genealogical origin of all of Ural-Altaic was felt to be inevitable. The culmination of this school of thought is the 1962 monograph by Fokos-Fuchs (1962), which summarizes these traits (and others) with unprecedented exhaustiveness and defends Ural-Altaic on this basis with some emphasis but without finding many followers in the years to come.

188 STEFAN GEORG

Doerfer, the leading opponent of the Altaic hypothesis in the twentieth century, was able to show quite early on (1966) that, contrary to what the proponents of Altaic and Ural-Altaic were prepared to expect, such typological uniformity can very well be due to areal convergence of originally unrelated languages, and he illustrated this by showing that some varieties of Iranian Tadjik display the whole roster of typological traits which once were viewed as ‘family-defining’ for Ural-Altaic (and some striking material elements of Altaic morphology as well), obviously due to strong areal pressure from the neighbouring Turkic language Uzbek. In fact, observations like these (which are by no means limited to Central and North Asia) were instrumental in helping comparative linguistics overcome the long-held, but factually baseless, conviction that typological similarity is indicative of genealogical relationship. Demonstrating the latter can, according to the universal consensus of modern comparative linguistics, only be based on material commonalities with systematic correspondences on the phonological level, whereas typological features belong, by their very nature, to the immaterial realm of language. Modern typological research has taught us that ‘immutable’ traits of languages simply do not exist, that typological features of any language are subject to diachronic change and that they therefore arise and/or disappear over the course of time. Furthermore, it has been shown that a salient degree of typological similarity or uniformity is, more often than not, indicative of areal convergence of the languages in question rather than of common descent. If we add to this the fact that the typically Ural-Altaic ‘operating system’ described by Fokos-Fuchs may, by and large, be understood as a manifestation of the ‘rigid’ subtype of SOV languages described by Joseph Greenberg (1963, ‘type 23: SOV/AN/GN/Po’), then resemblances between the typological profiles of Uralic and Altaic languages become much less impressive today than they used to be for scholars in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For lexical comparanda of Uralic and Altaic, cf. the works of Sauvageot (1929) and Collinder (1965)—the latter gives 69 Ural-Altaic comparisons, which, given the paucity of good and uncontroversial lexical etymologies on the pan-Uralic level, may be regarded as a not altogether unimpressive number. Nevertheless, the value of any such list rests on the acceptability of the lexical correspondences it presupposes in terms of compatibility with known facts from the history of the languages involved, correct family-internal reconstruction, semantic accuracy and plausibility, and numerous other factors and parameters against which every good etymology in demonstrably related languages will always have to measure up. One of the major problems with Collinder’s comparisons is the fact that he shows little care for the problems surrounding Altaic in the first place and uses Turkic, Mongolic, or Tungusic data as direct comparisons for his Uralic reconstructs, without attempting to paint a coherent picture of Altaic as a superordinate entity. As an example, one might cite (Collinder 1965, 142–143) Finno-Ugric *čok3 (UEW 62 *ču/okk3 ‘dense, thick’), with Hungarian sok ‘much’ as one of its reflexes. Collinder’s comparison of this with Turkish çok ‘much’ may look immediately convincing for the untrained eye were it not for the fact that: a) b) c) d)

the Turkic word shows a very restricted occurrence in the Turkic language family (mostly only Oghuz, and very sporadically in Kipčak languages), it is only attested from the Middle Turkic period onwards, parallels in other Altaic languages seem to be lacking altogether, and its initial consonant č- is highly unusual in old and native Turkic words.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 189

All these observations led Berta (1999) to propose a different, and exclusively intraTurkic, etymology of the Turkish word as < *taš-ok by syncope (from a verb *taš- ‘to surpass’). Berta’s argumentation occupies 13 printed pages of learned Turcological reasoning, whereas Collinder’s comparison is simply presented on one line (and it is, furthermore, the only example for the correspondence U *č- : Altaic *č- in his system of phonological correspondences). This is, of course, only one example, and it goes without saying that Collinder cannot be blamed for not being able to foresee the better explanation Berta would come up with 30 years later, but it does show how difficult the business of intra-family comparison is and will remain: seemingly ‘perfect’ matches are often revealed as entirely spurious once they undergo the necessary and informed scrutiny, according to rules of the linguistic disciplines responsible for them. The history of the Altaic debate alone is riddled with demonstrations of this kind, and any attempt to make this hypothetical grouping or any of its constituents genetically coordinate with any other—say, Uralic—has to reckon with such developments in this difficult field. So far, no such list of comparanda has won the acceptance of Uralic and/or Altaic specialists at large. Collinder does give a tentative list of phonological correspondences between Uralic and Altaic, but this listing loses a great deal of its potential cogency when we consider that Poppe’s ‘Proto-Altaic’ (from Poppe 1960), which Collinder uses as one of the pillars of the comparison, has been heavily criticized ever since and that even scholars who do maintain the existence of an Altaic family of languages today use quite different systems of correspondences. And, of course, a sizeable number of specialists have abandoned the very notion of Altaic in the first place. In this respect, it is hard to deny that no attempt to demonstrate the genealogical relationship between Uralic and (any version of) Altaic, or between the former and any subset of the latter’s constituent languages and families, has ever been made with any degree of success among linguists who demand that such demonstrations be based on systematic correspondences between the elements of the phonological systems of the languages compared, as evidenced by good and, in themselves, unobjectionable lexical comparisons. There is, however, also no reason to deny that, as it is the case among Altaic languages, some of the lexical comparisons between (parts of) Altaic and Uralic described in the literature ever since Wilhelm Schott are truly shared commonalities, and that the universal rejection of Ural-Altaic as a language family does not mean that these do not deserve further study with the goal of elucidating their history—if not as cognates within a divergence-based family, then as shared material among areally convergent languages. However, the collection of Ural-Altaic comparanda presented by Collinder (e.g. 1965, 1977) should always be read in the light of Róna-Tas’s (1983) constructive, but critical, remarks. These leave little doubt that, though early contacts between Uralic and (parts of) Altaic should not be doubted, the prospects of a resurrection of Ural-Altaic as a genealogical paradigm are dim at best. Uralic and Altaic languages do show, at least superficially, resemblant morphological elements as well, and these do have to play a central role in any attempt at explaining the mutual relationship(s) of these languages. Thus, Sinor (1988) mentions a number of affixes with a comparable form–function relationship in Uralic and (some) Altaic languages, from the realms of noun cases (accusative, genitive, local cases, possessive suffixes; all with quite striking commonalities between Uralic, Turkic, and Tungusic), but also personal pronouns, plural suffixes, and lexical derivation. Nevertheless, Sinor, who repeatedly took up Ural–Altaic comparisons in his work (e.g. 1943, 1952, 1959, 1960,

190 STEFAN GEORG

1973, 1976), was far from declaring Ural-Altaic to be an uncontrovertible fact; instead, he rather used these comparanda to highlight the highly complex nature of the problem. Juha Janhunen (2014) scrutinizes a similar set of parallels in Ural-Altaic nominal morphology: ten nominal affixes found in some form or another on both sides of the Uralic/ Altaic divide, including a plural suffix *-T, a plural suffix *s, a genitive in *-n, a locative in *-nV. After some discussion beyond their surface similarities, he dismisses all of them as spurious, that is, as accidental resemblances at best, and some of them even as outright illusionary, since, on proper internal analysis, even the resemblances themselves cease to exist, as he shows in the case of the comparison of the Uralic and Mongolic ‘locative suffix’ *-n(-)A. A fundamental conclusion of Janhunen’s assessment of the ‘Ural-Altaic phenomenon’ is that every attempt to describe Altaic without trying to construct a divergent language family, that is, any attempt which tries to make sense of the undeniable typological and also material commonalities between these languages in terms of areal consolidation will not be possible without regarding Uralic as a fully justified member of this same convergence area. In other words, the study of all these languages (Janhunen 2014, 331) ‘should . . . return to the roots of Ural-Altaic studies and consider the contribution that Uralic can make to the understanding of the historically important and linguistically challenging Ural-Altaic phenomenon.’ This is remarkably close to Sinor’s (1988, 738) assessment that the ‘terms Uralic and Altaic—and particularly the second of these—are fairly arbitrary and . . . whenever the occasion presents itself, linguistic facts pertaining to one of these groups should be examined also in relation to data taken from the other,’ a conclusion which is also implicit in the works of Stachowski (2001, 2015), who continues the tradition of not ignoring the Ural-Altaic phenomenon but without advocating a simplistic genetic explanation for these (cf. also Németh 1928‒30). Athough general-interest encyclopaediae still seem to be a stronghold of the notion of a Ural-Altaic family when it comes to pigeonholing languages like Finnish, Kirghiz, or Korean, such a language family is rarely seriously defended today. The only exception to this is the mass lumping of languages, which is carried out under the ‘Nostratic’ or ‘Eurasiatic’ aegis. According to this line of thinking, Uralic and Altaic are not any more closely related to each other than either is to, say, Kartvelian or Dravidian: neither Alan Bomhard nor Vladislav Illič-Svityč and his school operates with a Ural-Altaic node in their stemma. Possible future attempts to resurrect Ural-Altaic in genealogical terms will not be meaningful unless they address the numerous and serious objections which have been and continue to be raised against (any version of) Altaic. On the other hand, it should also not be overlooked that the deconstruction of Altaic, as advocated by ‘anti-Altaicists’ like Gerhard Doerfer, András Róna-Tas, Alexander Vovin, Juha Janhunen, or the writer of these lines, might, if found conclusive, open up new avenues for comparing uncontroversial Uralic with, perhaps, one of the nominally Altaic families (e.g. Turkic or Tungusic) without the impediments of a—reconceived, but shaky, hypothesis of their mutual relationship—and thus not be merely viewed as destructive in nature. 4.2.2 Uralic and Indo-European A genealogical relationship between Uralic and Indo-European has been suspected since quite early in the history of Uralic studies. For an influential treatment of this hypothesis, see Anderson (1879) and its critique in Paasonen (1907). It continues to be discussed in

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 191

specialist circles even today. A comprehensive overview of the history of Indo-Uralic studies up to its time is to be found in Joki (1973). Though the existence of truly shared, and very likely quite old, commonalities between both language families is nowhere in doubt, the Indo-Uralic hypothesis (i.e. the claim that the Indo-European and Uralic families each descend from an even more ancient ancestor language) is, just like Ural-Altaic, not generally accepted among specialists today. Collinder (1965, 133) presented 50 lexical comparanda, based on his reconstruction of Proto-Uralic, and concluded from these that he did not ‘think to have proven that the Uralic family of languages is related to Indo-European, (but that he) wanted to show that the opposite view is less probable.’ Joki (1971, 353) declared that he was inclined to follow Collinder in principle but that his own views differed from Collinder’s in a considerable number of details. Since then, the debate on early connections between Uralic and Indo-European has divided two schools of thought, with advocates of the genealogical interpretation of the families’ commonalities being clearly in the minority, especially among Indo-European specialists. A notable exception is Kortlandt (e.g. 2001), who accepts the relationship and even reconstructs eight verbal lexemes (Kortlandt 1989, 1992) for the putative parent language; cf. Table 4.4 (Kortlandt’s reconstructions, 1992, 103). Such a short list can, of course, not make a sufficient case for the relationship, nor can it be broken by an informed refutation, but it should suffice to give a taste of the quality and quantity of data on which the Indo-Uralic assumption is based. A thorough scrutiny of these eight verbs alone would have to start with the justification of the input of the comparison first (i.e. the shape—and the semantics—of the Indo-European and the Uralic protoforms in the first place). It goes without saying that any statement of regularity of phonological correspondences would inevitably have to be based on a considerably larger set of data. Recently, the Anatolianist Kloekhorst (2008) endorsed Indo-Uralic, claiming that some features (possessive suffixes and the second-person singular pronoun) of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, which are absent in the rest of the family and thus usually regarded as Anatolian innovations, should rather be reinterpreted as archaisms, since they seem to find good parallels in Uralic. Indo-Uralic comparisons do also involve morphological material. Well known are the patterns of personal pronouns with the initials m/b in first- and t/s in second-person

TABLE 4.4  SOME INDO-URALIC COMPARISONS ‘Indo-Uralic’ *miye-

‘to give’

Indo-European

Uralic

*mei-

*miγe-

*muske-

‘to wash’

*mesg-

*mu/ośke-

*tagu-

‘to bring, give’

*deh3-

*toγe-

*gaki-

‘to chase, hunt’

*h1eĝ-

*aja-

?*kkan-

‘to spill, throw’

*kh2en-

*kan3-

*deka-

‘to do’

*dheh1-

*teke-

*weda-

‘to lead, pull’

*u̯edh-

*wetä-

*wige-

‘to take, carry’

*u̯eĝh-

*wiγe-

192 STEFAN GEORG

pronouns, an accusative suffix in *-m, and some personal endings of verbs (for a complete list, see Kortlandt 2001). For words of caution, see again Janhunen (2009), and also the observations on ‘Ural-Altaic’ morphology given earlier in this chapter. Most other observers admit only areal connections between Uralic and Indo-European, but these are widely acknowledged. For example, all the ‘Indo-Uralic verbs’ mentioned previously are also recognized inter alia by Rédei (1988), who, however, views them as borrowings from ‘pre’-Aryan or early Aryan into Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric, respectively. Some of the better-known comparanda between both families may be given here from the same source, with Rédei’s reconstructions for Uralic and Finno-Ugric. For the putative donor words, only attested forms are given in Table 4.5, in order to avoid any commitment to ultimate cognacy or borrowing or, if we are dealing with borrowing, to the precise chronological layer to which these might be attributed. Whether some loanwords from (Proto-/early) Indo-European or a very early stage of Aryan may indeed be archaic enough to show segmental (velar) reflexes of Indo-European laryngeals, as claimed by Koivulehto (1991), is still open to discussion. Against the background of the reservedness of traditional Indo-European linguistics against the usage of data from non-Indo-European languages for the elucidation of Indo-European facts, it is striking that the usually very cautious Mayrhofer (2004, 38, with literature) expressed his openness to this idea and accepted some of these (loan) etymologies in his etymological dictionary of Old Indo-Aryan (1992‒2001), for example, IE *gu̯neh2- > U *näxi ‘woman’ (I, 504), IE *dheh1- > *U teke- ‘to do’ (I, 786), IE *mesg- ‘to submerge’ > U *mośke- ‘to wash’ (II, 291). There is an immense literature about early linguistic contacts not only between Uralic/ Finno-Ugric but also between single Uralic languages and subgroups like Ob-Ugric (be this a taxonomic node in Finno-Ugric or not) and Volgaic languages and various stages of Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan. Immense, too, is the number of controversial cases among the roster of potential lexical comparisons, whether this pertains to the validity of the comparisons in the first place or to the particular chronological layer to which they should be attributed. An ambitious study in this area is the posthumously published monograph by Katz (2003), which lists a very large number of such possible borrowings, but it must be used with caution, and the number of comparanda will very probably have to be greatly reduced (see Aikio and Kallio 2005). A useful overview of early contacts between Uralic

TABLE 4.5  POSSIBLE INDO-ARYAN LOANS IN URALIC AND/OR FINNO-UGRIC Uralic/FU

Compared with, for example:

U *nime

‘name’

Sanskrit nāman-

U *se̮ ne

‘sinew’

Sanskrit snāvan-

U *wete

‘water’

Hittite watar

FU *arw/γa

‘price, value’

Sanskrit argha-

FU *mekše

‘bee’

Sanskrit makṣā-

FU *mete

‘honey’

Sanskrit madhu-

FU *śasra

‘1000’

Sanskrit sahasram

FU *śata

‘100’

Sanskrit śatam

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 193

and Indo-European is Kallio (2002), cf. also Kallio’s critical, but not negativist, attitude towards Indo-Uralic (2015). and Yukaghir 4.2.3 Uralic The critically endangered Yukaghir language is spoken today by no more than 150 people in the extreme north-east of Siberia. Its two variants, Tundra and Kolyma Yukaghir, are mostly described as Yukaghir ‘dialects,’ though an emerging consensus prefers to speak of two Yukaghiric (or Odulic) languages. Their basic unity is not in doubt, as evidenced by their common nominal and verbal morphology, cf. some nominal case suffixes of both variants in Table 4.6. In terms of their lexicon, however, both dialects/languages show considerable differences, cf. Table 4.7 with a list of semantically fairly basic words in Kolyma and Tundra Yukaghir (Georg 2018, 150). The origins of the hypothesis that Uralic and Yukaghir may belong together in the genealogical sense goes back to at least Paasonen (1907, 21), who criticized the IndoUralic hypothesis and enumerated some lexical and morphological resemblances between Uralic and Yukaghir, such as some personal pronouns, a few case suffixes, and some items from basic vocabulary. He added the conclusion that everyone willing to accept the Indo-Uralic hypothesis would have to accept a relationship of Uralic and Yukaghir as well. Because Paasonen felt that no serious scholar would go so far as to entertain the idea of a relationship between Uralic and such an exotic language as Yukaghir was felt to be (and thus to step on the shaky ground of what would later become known as ‘omnicomparativism,’ cf. Doerfer 1973), he also felt that the Indo-Uralic hypothesis should be given up. This argumentation did not put an end to the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, but it may have been instrumental in spawning the Uralo-Yukaghir one, which found its main early advocate in Collinder (e.g. 1940, 1965). Collinder took Paasonen’s attempt at a reductio ad absurdum as a challenge to justify Uralo-Yukaghir, and collected some morphological comparanda and some 30 lexical comparisons (Collinder 1965 enumerates 61 Uralo-Yukaghir ‘etymologies’) between both groups, culminating in the emphatic claim that the genealogical relationship between both should be regarded as proven.

TABLE 4.6  YUKAGHIR CASE SUFFIXES Kolyma

Tundra

Proto-Yukaghir (Nyikolajeva 2000, 98‒100)

Nominative

(-Ø)

(-Ø)

(-Ø)

Genitive

-d/-n

-n/-d

*-nt

Dative

-ŋin

-ŋin’

*-ŋin’

Instrumental

-le

-lek

*-lǝ

Locative

-ge

-γa

*-ŋ-kǝ

Prolative

-gen

-γan

*-ŋ-kǝ-n

Ablative

-get

-γat

*-ŋ-kǝ-t

Source: after Krejnovič 1958, 36.

194 STEFAN GEORG TABLE 4.7  LEXICAL DIFFERENCES WITHIN YUKAGHIR Meaning

Kolyma

Tundra

‘one’

irkēj

mōrqōñ

‘two’

ataqlōj

kijōñ

‘five’

iñhañbōj

imd’ald’añ

‘many’

niŋel

pojōl

‘all’

t’umu

jawnə

‘day’

pod’erqə

t’ajləŋ

‘sun’

jelōd’ə

jerpəjəŋ

‘water’

ōd’ī

lawjəŋ

‘night’

emil

t’iŋit’əl

‘foot’

nojl

t’ohul

‘name’

ñū

kirijəŋ

‘to sit’

modo-

sahañe-

‘to kill’

kuledə-

puñī-

‘to die’

amdə-

jabə-

‘to know’

leidī-

kurilī-

‘to drink’

ožə-

law-

Though this statement found its way into some general works on the classification of human languages, it has never been without its critics. Thus, Krejnovič (1958, 228‒237), in his time the best connoisseur of Yukaghir, enumerates a fairly sizeable number of morphological and lexical comparisons between Yukaghir and (not Uralic at large, but only) Samoyedic, and he maintains that these are best explained as areal in nature, sharply disputing Collinder’s genealogical hypothesis. Angere (1956) devotes another whole monograph to the ‘Uralo-Yukaghir question,’ and his conclusions are more moderate. Admitting that Collinder’s data bespeak some kind of historical connection between Uralic and Yukaghir, he remains undecided as to its precise nature; what he does add, however, is that any acceptance of Uralo-Yukaghir as a genealogically defined family will have to entail the acceptance of (much) larger groupings as well: Das Jukagirische ist mit dem Uralischen nur unter der Bedingung verwandt, dass mit dem Uralischen gleichzeitig auch das Altaische, Indoeuropäische und Tschuktschische verwandt ist. (Angere 1956, 227) ‘Yukaghir can only regarded as being related to Uralic, if Altaic, Indo-European, and Chukchi are likewise regarded as relatives of Uralic.’ Although Angere himself professed that he viewed such a large phylum—which is closely reminiscent of the nucleus of even more inclusive groupings such as ‘Nostratic’ or ‘Eurasiatic’—as the likely explanation for the all commonalities he saw between these

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 195

languages, it may as well be read as a rather negative assessment of Uralo-Yukaghir itself (in fact, Angere calls this assumption ‘premature’). Another outspoken proponent of Uralo-Yukaghir is Nikolaeva, cf. especially her (still unpublished) Moscow dissertation from 1988; Harms (1977) is a treatment in favour of the relationship on the basis of morphological data, and Rédei (1999) and Häkkinen (2012) view all parallels between Uralic and Yukaghir as the results of borrowings from the former into the latter. While scholars like Collinder and Angere had to work largely with the textual data found in works by early fieldworkers like Jochel’son (e.g. 1900) and to extract the needed grammatical and lexicographical information from these on their own (cf. Angere 1957), the advent of Nikolaeva’s historical dictionary (2006) and of grammars like Maslova (2003a, 2003b) and fuller dictionaries like Kurilov (2001) has opened up new possibilities for independent and controlled work with Yukaghir data. Using these sources and basing his study of the question on the state-of-the-art in Uralic reconstruction and a greatly expanded picture of the Yukaghir data, Aikio (2014), in his most recent attempt at an evaluation of the evidence for Uralo-Yukaghir (which also evaluates and criticizes Rédei’s and Häkkinen’s areally-oriented studies), comes to quite negative conclusions, which he summarizes as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4)

there are only about two dozen lexical items that could reasonably be suspected as cognates; many of the lexical similarities, including also ones in basic vocabulary, can also be explained as Samoyed loanwords in Yukaghir; no regular sound correspondences between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Yukaghir can, apparently, be demonstrated; the proposed correlations in morphology can easily be explained as products of chance. (Aikio 2014, 41)

It is especially instructive that, while Collinder (1940, 106) still spoke of the virtual ‘identity’ of the Yukaghir and Samoyedic systems of nominal cases, Aikio’s critical perusal of these left only two potential comparanda unscathed: the Proto-Yukaghir genitive suffix in *nt : Proto-Samoyedic *-n, and possibly a velar co-affix in some local case forms in both Yukaghir and Samoyedic (cf. Aikio 2014, 24‒25, and the paradigm in Table 4.6). Thus, on balance, Yukaghir may show evidence of some areal contacts with Northern Samoyedic languages. It may even, due in part to its typological makeup and certain isolated affixes, find a place as another instance of the ‘Ural-Altaic phenomenon,’ but the concept of a ‘Uralo-Yukaghir’ language family seems to be too weakly founded to inspire much confidence today. and indigenous languages of Siberia: ‘Uralo-Siberian’ 4.2.4 Uralic and ‘Uralo-Eskimo’ Although most of the ‘Palaeo-Asiatic’ languages of Eastern Siberia and Eskimo-Aleut in North America are typologically not particularly similar to Uralic and Altaic languages (Janhunen 2014), genealogical relations between some of these and Uralic have sometimes been postulated. Here, we have to leave aside the vast but largely unsystematic and certainly unsifted corpus of lexical comparanda amassed in various works by Bouda (e.g. 1955, 1961, 1968, 1977), which may or may not contain valuable observations.

196 STEFAN GEORG

Bouda is mostly remembered as a macrocomparativist who tended to lump together data and languages with little respect for the fine-grained methodology and the generally cautious approach modern comparative linguistics demands. It should be borne in mind, though, that his knowledge of the languages he worked with—the arcane and, in his day, almost-inaccessible Itel’men, Ket, Nivkh, and Yukaghir—was truly impressive; it is all the more impressive when one considers that his observations were often made on the basis of a few school primers and other scattered data. His data are nearly always based on first-hand acquaintance with textual material, and for the most part factually impeccable, so his works could well repay the trouble of being re-read today even by outspoken skeptics and opponents of freewheeling language comparisons. Since he never managed or even attempted a systematic and coherent presentation of his views regarding the genealogical and/or areal relations of the languages he compared, with Uralic often among them, his data are difficult to use, and their comparative value remains difficult to assess. Some attempts to connect the Uralic family with the Eskimo-Aleut languages (and, sometimes, also the Chukchi-Kamchatkan family) should be mentioned here as well, since they found advocates in Uhlenbeck (e.g. 1905), Sauvageot (1924; severely criticized by the Eskimologist Thalbitzer in 1928), and, hesitatingly, Bergsland (1959), who also thoroughly summarized the work of his predecessors in the field. Bergsland offered few lexical comparisons but drew attention to morphological comparanda from the realms of plural suffixes, case markers, and, especially, possessive suffixes. A recent attempt in this direction, based exclusively on a comparison of Samoyedic and Eskimo-Aleut verbal paradigms, is the work of Seefloth (2000), which will be presented in brief outline here. The details of the relatively complex chain of argumentation leading to the reconstructed paradigms given next cannot be repeated here (for these, cf. Georg and Seefloth 2019), but it must be mentioned that, though departing from some observations which may well be regarded as facts in need of explanation, it makes some use of sometimes-aprioristic assumptions which are hoped to be plausible in themselves and apt to explain certain observations regarding the data. This Uralo-Eskimo hypothesis (which according to Seefloth 2000 can be and has been expanded by the inclusion of Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages) has so far not been buttressed by any lexical comparisons (‘etymologies’), and very probably it might never be. Two things remain to be seen. On the one hand, it is not yet clear whether the morphological comparisons given are striking enough, and the chain of argumentation leading to them to be justified enough, to make a case in favour of the suspicion of relationship. On the other hand, it also remains to be seen whether such comparisons and argumentations are in themselves sufficient to defend such a possible relationship without any lexical material—and, consequently, without any sound laws. Only the core of the argument can be presented here. We have the reconstructed ProtoSamoyedic paradigm of predicative (copula-complement) and possessive (personal) suffixes as given by Janhunen (1997, 471, ‘pre-proto-Nenets’), assuming that this represents the Proto-Uralic situation; and we have the Alaska Yupik paradigm according to Miyaoka (1996, 337), again assuming that this represents the situation in Proto-Eskimo-Aleut. Assuming all this, the argumentation is then subject to a series of steps of internal reconstruction, some of which are fairly obvious and easy to defend, while others certainly require a benevolent willingness to accept yet further assumptions. If all these assumptions are accepted, the following two partial reconstructed paradigms for Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut, and the resulting deeper reconstruction for ‘Uralo-Eskimo,’ emerge. The affixes that are thought to be cognate are underlined in Table 4.8.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 197 TABLE 4.8  URALO-ESKIMO PERSON MARKERS ‘Uralo-Eskimo’

Samoyedic

Eskimo-Aleut

sg

pl

sg

1sg

-m

-t-m

-mǝ

-t-mǝ

-m-(ka)

-t-m-(ka)

2sg

-t

-t-t

-tǝ

-t-tǝ

-t

-tǝ-t -i-sa

pl

sg

pl

3sg

-sa

-i-sa

-sa

-i-sa

-sa

1pl

-mǝ-t

-n/t-mǝ-t

-ma-t

-t/n-ma-t -mǝ-t

(=sg)

2pl

-tǝ-t

-t-mǝ-t

-ta-t

-t-ta-t

-tǝ-t

(=sg)

3pl

-sa-t

-i-sa-t

-i-to-n

-to-n

-sa-t

-i-sa-t

The fact that this hypothesis is based on polydimensional paradigmatic morphology will certainly have to be counted as one of its strengths. However, the complexity of the step-by-step argumentation used to arrive at these proto-paradigms, which, again, cannot be reproduced here, will certainly invite objections by specialists from both of the disciplines involved. Fortescue (1998) paints a motley picture of the languages of Northern Eurasia and, as the title of his monograph implies, beyond the Bering Strait well into North America. His volume consists of a plethora of typological, morphological, and even lexical comparisons, and he says that these justify what he calls a ‘language mesh.’ This term seems to refer to a somewhat loose collection of languages: ‘although it has not been proven that (they) constitute a deep genetic stock,’ they at least display a ‘particular typological profile.’ As for whether genealogical relationship might be ultimately responsible for the picture obtained, Fortescue advocates an interpretation which involves: Sprachbunds of unrelated languages, through interlocking chains of languages where the ends are unrelated but where there is considerable overlap and actual language mixing in the core region, to situations where all the ingredient languages are ultimately derived from a single ancestral proto-language but the time depth is simply too great to prove it. (Fortescue 1998, 230) Fortescue’s observations are encyclopaedic, and often innovative and inspiring, but the picture arrived at is mostly one of disiecta membra. 4.2.5 Macrocomparativist groupings As already mentioned previously, Uralic was and is routinely incorporated in all variants of Nostratic or similar macrocomparativist hypotheses. These attempt to argue in favour of the acceptance of a large Eurasian ‘super-family,’ which usually consists of Indo-European, Uralic, Kartvelian/South Caucasian, Dravidian, and Altaic (with or without Korean and/or Japanese). Sometimes, Nostraticists do not postulate an Altaic sub-node, and they sometimes include even more languages. The Nostratic hypothesis is mainly defended by Illič-Svityč and his followers (the ‘Moscow school’ of comparative linguistics, cf. Illič-Svityč 1971‒86). A

198 STEFAN GEORG

somewhat independent position is occupied by Dolgopolsky (e.g. 1998), and a third approach, with, by and large, the same input languages, but with different etymologies and correspondences, is presented by Bomhard in a series of books, for example, Bomhard (2008). There has been some scholarly discussion about the validity of the Nostratic hypothesis, since its defendants do claim that it is based on the observation of regular sound laws. However, they are reconstructing from reconstructions: they use reconstructed protolanguages as their input forms. Glimpses of this debate may be found in Salmons and Joseph (eds. 1998), or Renfrew and Nettle (eds. 1999). Joseph Greenberg’s Eurasiatic construct is laid out in Greenberg (2000‒2002)—like the ‘Nostratic’ hypothesis, it treats Uralic as part of the hypothetical superstock, and also like it, it did not win any acceptance among specialists (cf. Georg and Vovin 2004, 2005). 4.3  SOME NOTES ON TYPOLOGICAL COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES While salient typological commonalities between Uralic and other Eurasian languages gave rise to the suspicion of a larger Altaic (= Ural-Altaic) language family ever since the times of Wilhelm Schott (cf. 4.2.1 above), there are also, sometimes profound, differences between these languages and Uralic, which any future theory of a wider relationship of the languages of Eurasia will have to recognize and, if possible, to reconcile. Typological uniformity can no longer be the basis of any genealogical hypothesis today, since it has been learned that well-established and materially sound language families may and often do show often-considerable structural differences in highly divergent branches. One well-known example is the typologically highly disparate Austro-Asiatic family, with very complicated verb structures in its Munda branch vs. morphologically much poorer Mon-Khmer (and typologically almost ‘Chinese-like’ Vietnamese). A similar picture is presented by the vast Tibeto-Burman family (with intricate polypersonal verbs in the Kiranti branch of Eastern Nepal and nothing of this kind in, say, the Tamangic languages of Western Nepal or the South-East Asian groups of this family). As a third example, we may take Indo-European, with more ‘agglutinative’ (and ‘analytic’) representatives like Tocharian, Modern Armenian, or Modern Indo-Aryan languages vs. more ‘flexive’ (and ‘synthetic’) representatives like Classical Armenian or Sanskrit. The fact that there is no such thing as an immutable and perennial set of typological traits (e.g. ergativity, tones, verb final/initial verb order, noun incorporation, vowel harmony, introflexion, to name only a few which struck early observers to the degree of enumerating some of these as hallmarks of the quintessential ‘other’) and that all these may come and go in the course of time in any language or family is certainly one of the more important insights that historical linguistics has to offer for general anthropological scholarship. This also means, of course, that no typological difference, however profound it may seem at first glance, can be regarded as an absolute barrier for any progress in the field of language classification, but on the other hand, such differences between related languages—and languages thought to be related—are and should be a prime object of study and need to be explained by any mature theory of relationship. Although Altaic languages were the first languages to attract the attention of observers as possible relatives of Uralic, they by no means present a typologically completely uniform picture themselves. Even vowel harmony, the feature which was viewed as the

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 199

hallmark of Ural-Altaic typology throughout most of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, is not a homogeneous feature. The front/back (or palatal/velar) type of vowel harmony found in well-known languages like Finnish or Hungarian has a relatively straightforward counterpart in the system of most Turkic languages, but in the Mongolic realm, this opposition is only typical for Oirat/West Mongolic (a.k.a. Kalmyk in the south-east of European Russia). Even in Turkic, vowel harmony is not a universal feature, for it has been disturbed by areal pressure, for example, in Karaim in its Lithuanian/ Slavic milieu, or in urban Uzbek with strong pressure from Tajik/Persian. Disturbances or the outright lack of vowel harmony are, of course, also found in Uralic languages, for example, in Estonian, Permic, and Selkup. Turning again to Mongolic, some languages, and probably also the protolanguage, show harmonic correlations which are rather based on the feature pharyngealized (= traditional ‘velar/back’) vs. non-pharyngealized (= traditional ‘palatal/front’) (cf. Svantesson et al. 2005, 7f.), and Tungusic vowel harmony systems are mostly described in terms of a contrast between high and low vowels. For both Mongolic and Tungusic, earlier descriptions, based on Uighur-script Written Mongolian and Written Manchu, respectively, extrapolated the familiar front/back alternations to the descriptions of the spoken languages as well, but recent in-depth investigations showed this to be rather erroneous. Yukaghir is also described as possessing a palatal/ velar type of vowel harmony, but details differ markedly from areally adjacent languages (cf. Maslova 2003b, 35‒38). As for vowel quantities, Turkic and Tungusic, like Uralic, show quantitative distinctions in vowels at some time depth, but older Mongolic languages and the protolanguage markedly do not. For Proto-Turkic, a three-way system of vowel quantities (short vs. long vs. overlong, or reduced vs. short vs. long) is sometimes discussed on the basis of the archaic Khalaj language (Doerfer 1971), but opinions remain divided about this (cf. Manaster Ramer 1995). Distinctive voice among stops is not reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (i.e. only *p, *t, *k, no *b, *d, *g). This is not the case with Altaic languages, where voiced consonants belong to all three systems of Proto-Turkic, Proto-Mongolic, and Proto-Tungusic. That said, details differ again, and it is possible that for Proto-Mongolic the original distinction may not have been one of voice, but rather one of aspiration or a ‘strong/weak’ contrast (i.e. *d = *[t], and *t = *[th], cf. Svantesson et al. 2005, 119f.). Proto-Turkic is particularly noteworthy for its rather-restricted system of anlaut consonants: *d, *g, *m, *n, *l, *r, *ŋ, *z, *š all have to be reconstructed for the protolanguage, but none of these occurs initially in native Turkic lexemes. However, the Moscow school of Turcology, in the framework of its commitment to the Altaic and the wider Nostratic hypotheses, does reconstruct a series of initial voiced consonants for Turkic (cf. Tenišev and Dybo 2006). While the absence of initial liquids l- and r- is fairly typical for Northern Eurasian languages (though Tungusic shows a stable initial *l-, as does Uralic), the extension of this restriction to the nasals m- and n- as well sets Turkic apart from practically all other language families of Eurasia, with the salient exception of Yeniseic, which is characterized by this very constraint. The coincidence is doubtless a symptom of very early areal contact between the protolanguages (on Ket and Yeniseian languages and their typological characteristics, cf. Georg 2018, 140‒146). Geminate consonants, though sometimes observable across morpheme boundaries, do not play any role in the reconstructed systems of the Altaic languages, and these languages also lack any phenomena resembling the systematic consonant gradation found in many Uralic languages (whatever the ultimate age of these processes in the family may be).

200 STEFAN GEORG TABLE 4.9  CASE SUFFIXES IN TURKIC, MONGOLIC, AND TUNGUSIC TURKIC letters are cover symbols for alternating phonemes, voice assimilation for consonants, harmonizing for vowels, while < ̊> is the fourfold harmonizing high vowel of Turkic.

Genitive

Turkic

Mongolic

Tungusic

-̊ŋ

-yin/-U(n)

-ŋī

Dative

-GA

-dU(r)

-dU(A)

Locative

-DA

“=”

-(dU)lĀ

Accusative

-G, -n(I)

-(y)i

-bA

Ablative

-DA(n)

-A-cA

-dU-ki

Instrumental

-̊n

-xAr

-ǧi

Nominal morphology is, in Uralic, in all Altaic languages, and also in Palaeosiberian groups such as Yukaghir, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan, as well as in the otherwise typologically ‘un-Eurasian’ Yeniseian languages, characterized by a system of nominal cases, invariably expressed as suffixes. Table 4.9 shows some simplified reconstructions of case suffixes for Proto-Turkic (cf. Doerfer 1975‒76, 43), Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2003, 14), and Proto-Tungusic (cf. Benzing 1956, 79). Systems of grammatical number in Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are confined to the opposition of singular and plural, without any systematic marking of dual number, which is, however, characteristic for many Uralic languages. The expression of personal possession by way of person-differentiating suffixes on nouns is widespread in Uralic, but on the Altaic side, it is deeply rooted only in Turkic and Tungusic. Older varieties of Mongolian and Proto-Mongolic do not show such a system, and in those languages which do (Buryat, Kalmyk, and Dagur), the systems are explicable as secondary accretions of personal pronouns after the head noun. This situation is mirrored in the domain of verbal morphology, where a similar distribution pattern characterizes these languages regarding the inflectional encoding of subject person. The argument indexing within the verbal morpheme chain is typical for Mordva, Ugric, and Samoyedic languages and may have been an incipient phenomenon already in Proto-Uralic, but it has no counterpart anywhere in Altaic. It is, however, found in Palaeoasiatic languages like Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Ket/Yeniseian. A striking commonality between Uralic and Tungusic is the widespread use of a negative verb in both families, which is fully conjugated for person, whereas the negated content verb is juxtaposed in the form of a verbal noun, as shown in example (1): (1)

Ewenki (Menges 1968, 89) ə-si-m sā-rə ‘I don’t know’ neg-stem-1sg know-vn

The material similarity between the Tungusic and the Uralic negative verb (*ə-/*e-) is also quite striking. Yukaghir, too, belongs to the typically ‘Eurasian’ belt and shares most of the typological characteristics of this macro-area, but its typological hallmark is its uniquely elaborated

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 201

system for expressing focus (of subjects, objects, and verbs), which has no parallel in Uralic, or elsewhere on the Eurasian continent. The Kolyma-Yukaghir example (2) from Nikolaeva and Chelimskij (1997, 160; also in Georg 2018, 150) illustrates this point. The focused constituents are highlighted by underlining. The verb forms are unmarked for tense, that is, in ‘nonfuture,’ which can have present- and past-tense readings. sf = subject focus, of = object focus, forms unmarked for focus are in ‘verb focus.’ pred = ‘predicative’ case, which marks a focused subject or object of a clause (absent from Table 4.6 earlier because not common to both Yukaghir languages), inst = instrumental, which can mark objects, if the agent is third person (there is, however, also an accusative case; for the intricacies of Yukaghir case marking, cf. Maslova 2003b, 88‒115): (2)

a) mət modo-jə I sit-1 sg b) mət-ək modo-l I-pred sit-1sg.sf c) mēmēt’en šoromə-lə kudedə-m bear person-inst kill-3sg d) mēmēt’en šoromə-lək kudedə-mlə bear person-pred kill-3sg.of e) mēmēt’e-lək šoromə-lə kudedə-l bear-pred person-inst kill-3sg.sf

‘I am sitting’ ‘I am sitting’ ‘the bear killed the person’ ‘the bear killed the person’ ‘the bear killed the person’

Outside of the ‘Ural-Altaic belt,’ the Indo-European languages, and especially reconstructed Proto Indo-European, show considerably fewer typological similarities with Uralic (or Altaic) languages. The differences are starkly evident from an inspection of the system of Indo-European segmental phonemes; cf. Table 4.10 of reconstructed IndoEuropean consonants (after Adams in Mallory and Adams 1997, 459). The most prominent feature of this system is the tripartite subdivision of (a) the ‘tectal’ area of articulation into palatal, plain velar, and labiovelar stops and (b) the similarly tripartite set of phonation types, with plain voiced, voiced aspirated, and voiceless stops. Attempts to reduce the three tectal series to two or only one have been unsuccessful, and the reinterpretation of the plain voiced series of Indo-European stops as phonetically glottalized stops (cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984) was the focus of intensive discussions in the last decades of the twentieth century but can generally be regarded as widely

TABLE 4.10  THE CONSONANTS OF PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN labial

dental

palatal

velar

labio-velar

voiceless stop

p

t

k̕

k

k

voiced stop

(b)

d

g̕

g

gu̯

v. asp. stop

bh

dh

g̕h

gh

gu̯h

nasal

m

n

continuant

u̯

r

i̯

lateral

alveolar

l

s

laryngeal

u̯

H1 /H2 /H3

202 STEFAN GEORG

rejected today. The system of (usually) three reconstructed ‘laryngeals’, which are rarely represented as surface consonants and mostly reconstructable on the basis of their influence on neighbouring segmental phonemes, is, though once highly controversial, today generally accepted by most specialists. Continuant consonants like *m, *n, *r, *l, *u, ̯ *i̯ may also occur in syllabic form, the latter two then surfacing as the vowels u and i. The vowel system is further characterized by a system of ablaut (or vowel gradation), by which the mid-vowel *e alternates, under morphological conditioning, with rounded *o, the lengthened counterparts of these vowels (*ē, *ō), and zero, in roots and many affixes as well. On the other hand, no Indo-European language shows any phenomena reminiscent of vowel harmony or consonant gradation. The best comprehensive surveys of the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonology and all its problems are still Mayrhofer (1986) and Mayrhofer (2004). Indo-European shows a fairly typical ‘Eurasian’ system of nominal cases and, like Uralic, a dual number in nominal and verbal morphology, but its more salient typological characteristics set it sharply apart from languages with a Ural-Altaic look and feel. These include the leftward reduplication of initial syllables in certain verbal categories, the (albeit rare) use of infixes, no system of possessive suffixes, a tripartite system of lexicalized nominal gender (with a typological outlier parallel in Yeniseian), only subject agreement on finite verbs, and widespread polyfunctionality of affixes. An example of a polyfunctional affix is the ending -ōs in Latin librōs book.acc.pl ‘books’, which encodes accusative case, masculine grammatical gender/class, and plural number simultaneously, or -ō in amō love.1sg ‘I ‘I love’, which embodies cumulatively the functions of first-person singular subject, singular number, indicative mood, and active voice. Some Indo-European languages are, of course, more ‘typical’ than others, and some are more divergent from the idealized picture. Among the latter, it may be Tokharian which owes at least part of its less than typically Indo-European appearance to old and intensive contacts with some non-Indo-European language or languages. This language may have been some early form or (unidentifiable) subgroup of Uralic or a language or family typologically rather close to it. Among the Tokharian peculiarities which may give rise to such a conjecture, pride of place goes to the system of stop consonants, which shows, just like that for reconstructed Proto-Uralic, and contrary to all other Indo-European branches, only voiceless stops and no aspirated ones. Even more striking is the Tokharian system of sibilants, which shows three distinctive phonemes: (= [s]), (= [ɕ]), and (= [ʃ]). The exact articulation of these phonemes is, of course, only tentatively determinable. A similar sibilant triplet is generally reconstructed for Proto-Finno-Ugric as well, but not usually for Proto-Uralic (cf. Abondolo 1998, 12; for the parallism between Tokharian and Finno-Ugric, cf. Ivanov 1988). Table 4.11 sets forth the consonant inventory of Tokharian. Tokharian verbal (and most of its nominal) morphology is typically Indo-European, with largely fusional and polyfunctional affixes, but a subgroup of its noun case suffixes, usually referred to as the ‘secondary cases,’ shows more easily segmentable behaviour, requiring the ‘obliquus’ (= accusative) case morpheme immediately before them and being themselves monofunctional, that is, they encode only the case relation, not the number. Another peculiarity of Tokharian which may invite comparison with Uralic is the technique of suffixing reduced personal pronouns to finite verb forms to index (inter alia) objects, giving rise to a kind of incipient ditransitive or ‘objective’ conjugation (cf. Carling 2005). Note that the Tokharian phenomenon differs significantly from the object-indexing paradigms of Uralic languages.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 203 TABLE 4.11  THE CONSONANTS OF TOKHARIAN

stop/affricate

labial

apico-dental

apico-alveolar

palatal

velar

p

t

ts

c

k

ṣ

s

ś

continuant nasal

n

ñ

lateral

l

ly

trill

r

approximant

m

w

y

Source: After Adams 1988, 10; both dialects ~ variants ~ languages, East- (A) and West- (B), Tokharian have identical systems.

These and other ‘untypical’ features of Tokharian have been puzzling specialists ever since the discovery of this language at the beginning of the twentieth century, and fairness dictates that we add that Uralic (or Finno-Ugric) is only one of the possible contact languages which may have been responsible for its reshaping. 4.4  CONCLUSIONS Uralic languages have never existed in isolation from other languages of the continent. The often complicated history of the subgoups and individual languages of the Uralic family offers an abundance of examples of interactions between their speakers and those of adjacent languages—Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Romance, Bolghar-Turkic, Common Turkic, Tungusic, Yeniseian, to name but a few—in various geographical regions and in different historical stages of development. Throughout this variegated history of interactions with their neighbours, Uralic languages were sometimes donors and sometimes recipients of linguistic features, and sometimes both. To date, none of the proposals of a genealogical relationship between Uralic, as defined in this volume, and any other language or language family has won the level of scholarly acceptance required by a handbook of this kind; however, this does not mean that none of these proposals deserve further study. If the ultimate outcome of these studies should eventually be more fruitful on the areal plane than in the realm of genealogical linguistics (and the reducing of the world’s linguistic phyla to an ever-smaller number), the effort spent will certainly not have been wasted. REFERENCES Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. “Introduction.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 1‒42. London: Routledge. Adam, Lucien. 1870. “Linguistique touranienne. Du thème de la première personne.” Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée 4: 29‒40. Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ante). 2012. “On Finnic Long Vowels, Samoyed Vowel Sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x.” In Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum

204 STEFAN GEORG

multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi, and Erika Sandman, 227‒250. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Aikio, Ante (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ante). 2014. “The Uralo-Yukaghir Lexical Correspondences: Genetic Inheritance, Language Contact or Chance Resemblance?” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 62: 7‒76. Aikio, Ante, and Petri Kallio. 2005. “Review of Katz (2003).” Die Sprache 45 (1‒2): 212‒222. Anderson, Nikolai. 1879. Studien zur Vergleichung der indogermanischen und finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Dorpat: H. Laakmann. Angere, Julius. 1956. Die uralo-jukagirische Frage. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der sprachlichen Urverwandtschaft. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Angere, Julius. 1957. Jukagirisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, zusammengestellt aufgrund der Texte von V. Jochelson. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wissell. Benzing, Johannes. 1956. Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Bergsland, Knut. 1959. “The Eskimo-Uralic Hypothesis.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 61 (2): 1‒29. Berta, Árpád. 1999. “Zur Etymologie des tü. čok ‘viel, sehr’.” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 4: 7‒26. Boller, Anton. 1856a. “Die Wurzelsuffixe in den ural-altaischen Sprachen.” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften: 91‒181. Boller, Anton. 1856b. “Die Übereinstimmung der Tempus- und Moduscharaktere in den ural-altaischen Sprachen.” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften: 223‒283. Boller, Anton. 1857a. “Die Pronominalsuffixe des ural-altaischen Verbums.” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften: 393‒482. Boller, Anton. 1857b. “Nachweis, daß das Japanische zum ural-altaischen Stamme gehört.” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften: 3‒59. Bomhard, Alan. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic. Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary, 2 vol. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Bouda, Karl. 1955. “Tschuktschisch und Finno-Ugrisch.” Lingua 4 (3): 286‒317. Bouda, Karl. 1961. “Tschuktschisch und Uralisch.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 111: 335‒360. Bouda, Karl. 1968. “Giljakisch und Uralisch.” Orbis 17 (2): 459‒466. Bouda, Karl. 1977. “Giljakisch, Tschuktschisch und Uralisch.” Orbis 25 (2): 240‒248. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification. History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carling, Gerd. 2005. “The Coding of Ditransitivity in Tocharian.” Lund University, Department of Linguistics, Working Papers 51: 31‒46. Castrén, Matthias A. 1850. De affixis personalibus linguarum altaicarum. Helsingfors: Litteris Frenckellianis. Castrén, Matthias A. 1856. Reiseberichte und Briefe aus den Jahren 1845–1849. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Clauson, Gerard. 1973. “On the Idea of Sumerian-Uralic-Altaic Affinities.” Current Anthropology 14 (4): 493‒495.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 205

Collinder, Björn. 1940. Jukagirisch und Uralisch. Uppsala/Leipzig: A.B. Lundequist/ Otto Harrassowitz. Collinder, Björn. 1965. Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Collinder, Björn. 1977. “Pro hypothesi uralo-altaica.” In Altaica. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Held in Helsinki 7–11 June 1976, edited by Juha Janhunen, 67‒73. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1966. “Zur Verwandtschaft der altaischen Sprachen.” Indogermanische Forschungen 71: 81‒123. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1971. Khalaj Materials. The Hague: Mouton. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1973. Lautgesetz und Zufall. Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus. Innsbruck: Institut für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1975‒76. “Proto-Turkic: Reconstruction Problems.” Türk Dili Araştirmalari Yilliği. Belleten: 1‒59. Dolgopolsky, Aaron. 1998. The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Dybo, Anna, and George Starostin. 2008. “In Defense of the Comparative Method, or the End of the Vovin Controversy.” Aspekty komparativistiki 3: 119‒258. Fokos-Fuchs, Daniel R. 1962. Rolle der Syntax in der Frage nach Sprachverwandtschaft mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Problem der ural-altaischen Sprachverwandtschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait. Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London: Cassell. Gamkrelidze, Tamas V., and Vjačeslav V. Ivanov. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul'tury. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. Gardani, Francesco, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amaridze, eds. 2015. Borrowed Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Georg, Stefan. 2004. “Review of Marcantonio 2002.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 26/27: 147‒160. Georg, Stefan. 2005. “Review of Greenberg 2002.” Diachronica 22 (1): 214‒220. Georg, Stefan. 2011. “The poverty of Ataicism.” www.academia.edu/1638942/The_ Poverty_of_Altaicism. Georg, Stefan. 2017. “The Role of Paradigmatic Morphology in Historical, Areal and Typological Linguistics. Thoughts and Observations in the Margin of Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (Robbeets and Bisang, eds.).” Journal of Language Contact 10 (2): 353‒381. Georg, Stefan. 2018. “Other Isolated Languages of Asia.” In Language Isolates, edited by Lyle Campbell, 139–161. London/New York: Routledge. Georg, Stefan, and Uwe Seefloth. 2019. “Uralo-Eskimo?” In Lingvistika i drugie važnye vešči. Pamjati Aleksandra Pavloviča Volodina (1935–2017), edited by E. V. Golovko et al., 436–451. Sankt-Peterburg: RAN. Georg, Stefan, and Alexander Vovin. 2004 “From Mass Comparison to Mess Comparison: Greenberg’s ‘Eurasiatic’ Theory.” Diachronica 20 (2): 331‒362. Gombocz, Zoltán. 1905. “Az altaji nyelvek hangtörténehez.” Nyelvtudomány Közlemények 35: 241‒282. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements.” In Universals of Language, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 73‒113. London: MIT Press.

206 STEFAN GEORG

Greenberg, Joseph. 2000–2002. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. The Eurasiatic Language Family, 2 vol. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Häkkinen, Jaakko. 2012. “Early Contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir.” In Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi, and Erika Sandman, 91‒102. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Harms, Robert T. 1977. “The Uralo-Yukaghir Focus System and Problems in Remote Genetic Relationship.” In Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics. Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, edited by Jerome Bunnag, Paul J. Hopper, and Harriet G. Penensick, 301‒316. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1971‒86. Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskich jazykov (semitochamitskij, kartvel'skij, indoevropejskij, ural'skij, dravidijskij, altajskij), 3 vol. Moskva: Nauka. Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1988. “Tocharian and Ugrian.” In Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica. Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXXIII, edited by Ursula Pieper and Gerhard Stickel, 411‒441. Berlin: Mouton. Janhunen, Juha. 1981a. “Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 77: 219‒274. Janhunen, Juha. 1981b. “On the Structure of Proto-Uralic.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44: 23‒42. Janhunen, Juha. 1997. “Samoyedic.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 457‒479. London: Routledge. Janhunen, Juha. 2003. “Proto-Mongolic.” In The Mongolic Languages, edited by Juha Janhunen, 1‒29. London: Routledge. Janhunen, Juha. 2009. “Proto-Uralic—What, Where, and When?” In The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugric Society, edited by Jussi Ylikoski, 57‒78. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Janhunen, Juha. 2014. “Ural-Altaic: The Polygenetic Origins of Nominal Morphology in the Transeurasian Zone.” In Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond, edited by Martine Robbeets and Walther Bisang, 311‒335. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jochel’son, Vladimir I. 1900. Materialy po izučeniju jukagirskago jazyka i fol'klora, sobrannye v'' kolymskom'' okrugě. Sankt-Peterburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk. Joki, Aulis. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen. Die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Jones, William. 1788. “The Third Anniversary Discourse.” Asiatick Researches 1: 515‒531. Kallio, Petri. 2002. “Prehistoric Contacts between Indo-European and Uralic.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, edited by Karlene Jones-Bley et al., 29‒44. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Kallio, Petri. 2015. “Nugae Indo-Uralicae.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 43 (3‒4): 368‒375. Katz, Hartmut. 2003. Studien zu den älteren Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen (aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer, Gerson Klumpp). Heidelberg: C. Winter. Kiekbaev, Džalil G. 1972. Vvedenie v uralo-altajskoe jazykoznanie. Ufa: Baškirskie knižnoe izdatel'stvo. Kiekbaev, Džalil G. 1996. Osnovy istoričeskoj grammatiki uralo-altajskich jazykov. Ufa: Kitap.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 207

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. “Some Indo-Uralic Aspects of Hittite.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 36: 88‒95. Knüppel, Michael. 2012. “Ugrisch und Penuti.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 61: 92‒109. Koivulehto, Jorma. 1991. Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Innsbruck: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1989. “Eight Indo-Uralic Verbs?” Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50: 79‒85. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1992. “Vosem’ indo-ural’skich glagolov?” Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1992 (1): 101‒104. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2001. “The Indo-Uralic verb.” In Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans. Linguistic and Literary Contacts, Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen, November 22–24, 2001, edited by Cornelius Hasselblatt, 217‒227. Maastricht: Shaker. Krejnovič, Eruchim A. 1958. Jukagirskij jazyk. Moskva/Leningrad: Nauka. Kurilov, Gavril. N. 2001. Jukagirsko-russkij slovar'. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laakso, Johanna. 2004. “Sprachwissenschaftliche Spiegelfechterei.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 58: 296‒307. Mallory, James P., and Douglas Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London/Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1995. “Khalaj (and Turkic) Vowel Lengths Revisited.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 85: 187‒197. Marácz, Sámdor. 2004. “De oorsprong van de Hongaarse taal.” In Het Babylonische Europa. Opstellen over Veeltaligheid, edited by Annemarie van Heerikhuizen et al., 81‒97. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Marcantonio, Angela. 2002. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths, and Statistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Maslova, Elena. 2003a. Tundra Yukaghir. München: Lincom-Europa. Maslova, Elena. 2003b. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. “Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen.” In Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I, 2. Halbband: Lautlehre, edited by Manfred Mayrhofer. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992‒2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vol. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2004. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel. Innsbruck: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1960. Morphologische Probleme I. Zum Genitiv und Accusativ. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1968. “Die tungusischen Sprachen.” In Tungusologie, edited by Bertold Spuler, 21‒256. Leiden/Köln: Brill. Miyaoka, Osahito. 1996. “Sketch of Central Alaskan Yupik, an Eskimoan Language.” In Languages. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 17, edited by Ives Goddard, 325‒363. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Munkácsi, Bernát. 1884. “Az altaji nyelvek számképzése.” In Budenz-Album. Budenz József XXV éves nyelvészeti működése emékére kiadják tanítványai, 234‒314. Budapest: Akadémiai Könyvkereskedés. Németh, Gyula. 1928‒30. “Az uráli és török nyelvek ősi kapcsolata.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 47: 62‒84.

208 STEFAN GEORG

Nikolaeva, Irina. 1988. “Problema uralo-jukagirskich genetičeskich svjazej.” Diss. phil. Moskva. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nikolaeva, Irina, and Evgenij A. Chelimskij. 1997. “Jukagirskij jazyk.” In Jazyki Mira. Paleoaziatskie jazyki, edited by Viktorija Jarceva, 155‒168. Moskva: Nauka. Nyikolajeva (Nikolaeva), Irina. 2000. Chrestomathia Jucagirica. Budapest: ELTE. Paasonen, Heikki. 1907. “Zur Frage von der Urverwandtschaft der finnisch-ugrischen und indoeuropäischen Sprachen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 7: 13‒31. Poppe, Nikolaus. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. I. Vergleichende Lautlehre. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ramstedt, Gustaf John. 1952‒66. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft I. Lautlehre, II. Formenlehre, III. Register. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Rédei, Károly. 1988. “Die ältesten indogermanischen Lehnwörter in den uralischen Sprachen.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 638‒664. Leiden: Brill. Rédei, Károly. 1999. “Zu den uralisch-jukagirischen Sprachkontakten.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 55: 1‒58. Renfrew, Colin, and David Nettle, eds. 1999. Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Róna-Tas, András. 1983. “De hypothesi uralo-altaica.” In Symposium Saeculare Societatis Fenno-Ugricae, edited by Juha Janhunen, 235‒251. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Sadovszky, Otto J. 1977. “Report on the State of the Uralic-Penutian Research.” In Eurasia nostratica, Festschrift für Heinrich Menges, edited by Gyula Décsy and Christo Dimov-Bogoev, 191‒204. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Salmons, Joseph, and Brian Joseph, eds. 1998. Nostratic. Sifting the Evidence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1924. “Eskimo et ouralien.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, Nouvelle série 16: 279‒316. Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1929. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des langues ouralo-altaïques. Paris: Honoré Champion. Schleicher, August. 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht. Bonn: König. Schott, Wilhelm. 1836. Versuch über die tatarischen Sprachen. Berlin: Veit & Co. Schott, Wilhelm. 1847. Über das Altaische oder Finnisch-tatarische Sprachengeschlecht. Berlin: Abhandlungen der Königlich-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Schrader, F. Otto. 1925. “Dravidisch und Uralisch.” Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 3: 81‒112. Schrader, F. Otto. 1935‒37. “On the ‘Uralian’ Element in the Dravida and the Munda Languages.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 8: 751‒762. Seefloth, Uwe. 2000. “Die Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im Uralo-Sibirischen.” Zentralasiatische Studien 30: 163‒191. Siegl, Florian. 2008. “A Note on Personal Pronouns in Enets and Northern Samoyedic.” Linguistica Uralica 44 (2): 119‒130. Sinor, Denis. 1943. “D’un morphème particulièrement répandu dans les langues ouralo-altaiques.” T’oung Pao 37: 135‒152.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN URALIC AND OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES 209

Sinor, Denis. 1952. “On Some Ural-Altaic Plural Suffixes.” Asia Major 2: 203‒230. Sinor, Denis. 1959. “A Ural-Altaic Ordinal Suffix.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 31: 417‒425. Sinor, Denis. 1960. “Un suffixe de lieu ouralo-altaique.” Acta Orientalia Hungarica 12: 169‒178. Sinor, Denis. 1973. “‘Urine’ ~ ‘star’ ~ ‘nail’.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 72: 392‒397. Sinor, Denis. 1976. “The *-t ~ *-d Local Suffix in Uralic and Altaic.” In Hungaro-Turcica, edited by Gyula Káldy-Nagy, 119‒127. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Sinor, Denis. 1988. “The Problem of the Ural-Altaic Relationship.” The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor, 706‒741. Leiden/Köln: Brill. Smith, J. 1981. “Neue Uralo-Sumerica.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 53: 144. Stachowski, Marek. 2001. “Uralistik und Turkologie—geschieden und doch verliebt.” In Vade mecum! A huszonötödik óra. A Berzsenyi Dániel Főiskola Uralisztikai Tanszékének (1991–2001) jubileumi konferenciája (2001. április 26–27.), edited by János Pusztay, 209‒225. Szombathely: Berzsenyi Dániel Tanárképző Főiskola. Stachowski, Marek. 2015. “Turkic Pronouns Against a Uralic Background.” Iran and the Caucasus 19: 79‒86. Starostin, Sergej, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, 3 vol. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Stipa, Günter Johannes. 1990. Finnisch-ugrische Sprachforschung von der Renaissance bis zum Neopositivismus. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Karlsson, and Vivan Franzen. 2005. The Phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tenišev, Edchjam R., and Anna V. Dybo, eds. 2006. Sravnitel'no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskich jazykov. Pratjurkskij jazyk-osnova. Kartina mira pratjurkskogo etnosa po dannym jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Thalbitzer, William. 1928. “Is There Any Connection between the Eskimo Language and the Uralian?” In Atti del XXII congresso internazionale degli Americanisti, vol. II, 551‒567. Roma: Riccardo Garroni. Tyler, Stephen A. 1968. “Dravidian and Uralian: The Lexical Evidence.” Language 44: 798‒812. Uhlenbeck, Christianus C. 1905. “Uralische Anklänge in den Eskimosprachen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 59: 757‒765. Vovin, Alexander. 2005. “The End of the Altaic Controversy.” Central Asiatic Journal 49 (1): 71‒132. Winkler, Heinrich. 1884. Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen. Berlin: Dümmler. Winkler, Heinrich. 1885. Das Uralaltaische und seine Gruppen. Berlin: Dümmler. Winkler, Heinrich. 1911‒12. “Die Zugehörigkeit der finnischen Sprachen zum uralaltaischen Stamm.” Keleti Szemlé 12: 1‒38. Winkler, Heinrich. 1913‒1918. “Tungusisch und Finnisch-Ugrisch I.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30 (9): 28‒39. Winkler, Heinrich. 1923. “Tungusisch und Finnisch-Ugrisch II.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 39 (1): 1‒34. Zakár, András. 1971 “Sumerian-Ural-Altaic Affinities.” Current Anthropology 12: 215‒225.

CHAPTER 5

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS Péter Simoncsics

5.1  INTRODUCTION It is the aim of this chapter to outline the main turning points in the discipline of Uralic linguistics by reviewing the achievements of the leading names in the field as well as the cultural and social structures behind them. History—that is, historical cognition—and chronology are not the same. [While] the path of history originates in the past and progresses through the present toward the future, the direction of historical cognition is the opposite. It begins in the present and progresses in a backward direction and can only reach back to a point which has an uninterrupted connection to the present. (Lotz 1936, 4) For this reason, at certain points I shall cut the chronological string and insert previous events and/or discoveries which reveal the hidden causes of development. The term linguistics (from Latin lingua ‘tongue’) as study of language is somewhat later than the term with a similiar meaning, philology (from Greek philia ‘fondness,’ and Greek logos ‘word’). In one of the first treatises on language, Platōn’s Cratylos (fourth century bce), the subject of the discussion is whether the sounds of human speech imitate nature (onomatopoiea), that is, are motivated by nature (physis), or they are conventional, produced arbitrarily by some kind of social agreement or divine gift (thesis). While Plato’s idea was present in linguistic thinking throughout the ages, the work of another early linguist of the same age, the Indian master Pāṇini, Aṣṭādyāyi, an aphoristic grammar of Classical Sanskrit, was hiding in the belly of history for millennia, until the German sanskritologue Franz Bopp discovered it for the West in 1816. The aim of Pāṇini’s grammar was to present and to preserve a ‘lingua sacra.’ In the case of both works, the subject was a linguistic universe as represented by a single language, Greek and Sanskrit, respectively. In the age of Plato and Pāṇini, the basic linguistic dichotomy lay between the civilized/sacred and the barbaric/profane. The term Uralic, and its older and newer alternatives, refers not to one language but to a multitude of languages which are related to one another. Between the idea of one language representing the whole universe and the concept of a multitude of languages representing a larger yet partial unit of languages (language families), there lie millennia in time and several thousand miles in space. The idea that mankind is linguistically various surfaced as a result of travels and discoveries around the world. Discoveries were DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-5

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 211

accompanied by wide-scale collecting and recording of the lore and treasures (among them languages) of newly discovered and conquered lands. This is why the idea of language affinity and cognate languages is connected to spatial terms and geographical names denoting the hypothetical or putative original habitats of the ancestor languages in question. 5.2  FORMAL BEGINNING OF URALIC STUDIES The first university department created for the study of Uralic languages was established in Budapest in 1872. The name of the department was, strangely enough, Altaji Nyelvészet Tanszék (‘Department of Altaic Linguistics’), and its first chairman was József Budenz (1836‒1892). As for the term Altaic, suffice it to say that the original habitat of the peoples and languages now called Uralic (or Finno-Ugric) was thought at that time to be situated farther east of the Urals, in the Altai Mountains of Siberia; such was the view of Mattias Castrén (1813‒1852), the great Finnish fieldworker on Siberian languages (see Chapter 4 in this volume). The common name for these cognate languages was later modified to Ugro-Finnic, then to Finno-Ugric, and finally to Uralic, a term meant to include languages of both the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic branches, as first proposed by the Hungarian scholar Ignác Halász (1855‒1901). Together with the name, the location of the Urheimat was modified as well: the earliest reconstructable location for these peoples and languages was now taken to be the Urals. The term Altaic later came to be applied to a grouping of a much higher order, a so-called phylum, comprising not only Uralic but also languages of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Manchu-Tungus families. Both names (Altaic and Uralic) are of geographical origin, just like the names Indo-European or Indo-Iranian, which designate other great language families and one of its subgroupings, or, farther afield, Sino-Tibetan, the name of a more-distant language family of the Eurasian continent. After a critical survey of earlier hypotheses on the Urheimat of the Uralic peoples by Mattias Castrén and Ferdinand J. Wiedemann (1805‒1887) of Estonia, the hypotheses of Erkki Itkonen (1913‒1992) speak of a vast area spreading from the Urals to the Baltic (see Itkonen 1960). The hypothesis of the archaeologist Gyula László (1910‒1998) of Hungary differs from Itkonen’s and Joki’s (1959) not so much in geography but rather in methodology. It was László (1961) who first applied pollenanalysis, the prehistory of vegetation and climate, in determining the habitat of ancient Uralic populations. Péter Hajdú (1969) observed that names of all kinds of tree of the taiga (Picea ‘spruce,’ Abies ‘fir,’ Pinus sibirica ‘cembra pine,’ Larix ‘larch’) are attested in the cognate languages, but only the name of a deciduous tree of Central European forests, Ulmus ‘elm,’ has localizing power (see also Campbell 1997). After careful observation based on data of pollenanalyis, Hajdú concluded that the Uralic Urheimat should be sought where the westernmost taiga met the easternmost deciduous forest, as seen by the intrusion of elm into the Siberian taiga, and approaching from the opposite direction, where the Siberian taiga intruded into the European deciduous forest west of the Urals. The area can be identified as the northern part of the Urals, between the riverhead of the Pechora west of the Urals and the Lower Ob’ east of the Urals. Pollenanalysis shows that these events took place in the fourth millennium bc, and this is the earliest period when a common Uralic idiom might have been spoken by the members of this language community. Yet partly out of tradition, partly out of uncertainty regarding internal cladistics (e.g. Salminen 1989), the term Finno-Ugric is still in use in the profession as an alternative to Uralic.

212 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

5.3  CENTRE VS. PERIPHERY The Reformation preferred vernacular languages to supranational languages of faith and learning (chiefly Greek or Latin): the key idea was that the divine message should be brought directly to the people. Thanks to the translation of holy texts, first of all the Bible, languages in large numbers emerged to a level of noticeability in Europe, among them Hungarian (first half of the fifteenth century), Finnish (1548), Estonian (1686), and in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, stimulated by the missionary zeal of the Russian Orthodox Church, also Zyrian (Komi). In each of their ecolinguistic zones, these four idioms represent a periphery: Hungarian is peripheral in relation to German, Finnish is peripheral in relation to Swedish, Estonian is peripheral in relation to Swedish and German, and Komi is peripheral in relation to Russian (Old Church Slavic), just as in parallel fashion German, Swedish, Finnish, and Estonian were earlier peripheral in relation to Mediaeval Latin, and Russian was peripheral in relation to koiné Greek. In a deeper perspective of linguistic prehistory, and in keeping with the hypothesis of Gyula Décsy (1925‒2008), the two most clearly European protolanguages, Indo-European and Uralic, can be understood as the earliest reconstructable instances of centre and periphery (Décsy 2000). 5.4  EMPIRES OF NORTHERN EUROPE: SWEDEN AND DENMARK, RUSSIA 5.4.1 Sweden and Denmark Inspired in part by the Reformation, both of these sizeable empires turned toward the minority peoples and languages under the rule of their dominant populations, Swedes and Danes. Two academic centres should be mentioned here: the University of Uppsala in Sweden (founded in 1477) and the University of Copenhagen in Denmark (founded in 1479). The Enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found its way also into the royal courts of these Protestant countries as well. It was King Christian VII of Denmark (ruled 1766‒1808) who, in 1769, invited the famous mathematician and astronomer Maximilian Hell SJ, director of the Royal Observatory in Vienna, to make observations of the transit of Venus in order to measure the distance between the Earth and the sun from the most convenient site in the Northern Hemisphere—which happened to be found in King Christian VII’s empire, an island in the Arctic Ocean north of Norway, Vardø. The developer, manager, and adviser for expedition was probably the personal physician of the mentally unstable king, Johann Friedrich Struensee, a highly learned and enlightened individual. The likewise learned Maximilian Hell, a native of North Hungary, was aware of the fact that natives of Vardø were Lapps (currently known as Saami), whose possible linguistic relationship to the neighbouring Finns, Karelians, and Estonians—and further to Hungarians—was a much-discussed topic in scholarly circles in the North. Hell accordingly selected another colleague of his order, János Sajnovics SJ, to participate in the expedition and to examine these reports and comments; besides being a mathematician and astronomer himself, Sajnovics was also a native speaker of Hungarian. The results of this undertaking were a lecture held by Sajnovics in the Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab (‘Royal Danish Society of Sciences and Letters’) and two editions of his Demonstratio: Idioma Ungarorum and Lapponum idem esse (‘Proof that the language of the Hungarians and of the Lapps is the same’), one at Copenhagen, another in Nagyszombat (then in the Kingdom of Hungary, now Trnava in Slovakia), all three

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 213

in the year 1770 (see, for example, Sajnovics and Sebeok 1967). The work of Sajnovics was based on data from the works of the Norwegian missionary Knud Leem, En lappisk grammatica (‘A Lappish grammar’) (Leem 1748), Lexicon lapponicum (‘Lappish dictionary’) (Leem 1768‒1781), Beskrivelse over Finnmarkens lapper (‘Description of Finnmark Lapps’) (Leem et al. 1767), and also other works of lesser importance of the age (e.g. Henrik Ganander, Olaf Rudbeck Jr., Johann Eberhard Fischer, Johann Scheffer). The key heuristic element of Sajnovics’s Demonstratio seems to lie in the application of Hungarian orthography to Saami. Hungarian orthography, as it happens, was better able to reflect the rich range of fricatives and affricates of Saami than were the orthographies of Latin or Danish. Looking back from today, it may seem naive and even clumsy, but this attempt was a revolutionary step on the path toward systematic comparison. After all, proper phonological identification and an adequate transcription are indispensable for linguistic description and thus for comparison. The central concept of Sajnovics’s work is proper identification, namely, what is the same and what is different. It is perhaps not by chance that it was two astronomers (their scholarly horizon being the solar system, and thus much wider than average) that were brave enough to compare and connect two languages as geographically distant as Saami and Hungarian. St. Petersburg 5.4.2 Russia: The opening up of vast territories east of the Urals by adventurers and conquerors of the emerging new Russian Empire in the sixteenth century gave rise to the recording and listing of the mineral resources, flora, and fauna, as well as the native peoples and their products, including their languages and cultures. The main impetus for this effort was given by the establishment of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg by the enlightened monarch Peter I (1672‒1725) and by Catherine II (1729‒1796, ruling after 1762) of Russia. The idea of establishing an academy in St. Petersburg came from one of the greatest scholars of his time, the mathematician and polymath Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646‒1716), who, at the request of Peter I, gave advice on how to improve the level of education and science in Russia. Both Leibniz and Peter I died before the academy would actually begin its work in 1724/1725. One of the first persons who followed the advice of Leibniz and participated in the realization of the grand project of assessing the material and spiritual treasures of as-yet-undiscovered eastern part of the Russian Empire was D. G. Messerschmidt (1685‒1735), a physician by profession. Peter I met the young doctor on one of his foreign journeys to Danzig and found him fit for this great task. On his journey to Siberia, Messerschmidt met a former captain of the Swedish army, Ph. J. Tabbert, better known as von Strahlenberg, in Tobolsk. Strahlenberg had been taken prisoner after the battle of Poltava in 1709, where the Russian army defeated the army of King Charles XII of Sweden. As a prisoner of war, he was exiled to Tobolsk, where he taught in a local school established and led by German missionaries. Messerschmidt and Strahlenberg became friends and travelled through Siberia, gathering enormous amounts of botanical, zoological, and geological material, together with ethnographical and linguistic data. After his return home in 1722, Strahlenberg published his Vergleichstafel der Sprachen der Völker des Borealen Ostens (‘Table of Comparison of North-Eastern Peoples’) together with his new Karte Russlands (‘Map of Russia’) in 1730 (Strahlenberg 1730). Strahlenberg’s work, while relying heavily on the results of Messerschmidt’s professional scholarship without mentioning

214 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

his name, was nonetheless the first to suggest the relationship between Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages as well as the first work to frame hypotheses concerning the historical relations of cognate languages in terms of spatial terms of geography. In a sense, it was a pioneering piece of areal linguistics. Leibniz himself played a key role as an early harbinger of the as-yet-unborn discipline of Uralic linguistics, for which earliest period of data collection came under the rule of Catherine II, when the guiding spirit of the academy was another famous mathematician, the Swiss Leonhard Euler (1707‒1783). It was Euler who, as a member of the academy’s department of geography and cartography, invited distinguished scholars to the academy, among them the German botanist and zoologist Peter Simon Pallas (1741‒1811), whose works on his expeditions to Russia’s Asiatic parts contain precious descriptions of the customs and languages of natives of these provinces, among them also Finno-Ugric peoples, with special regards to his Merkwürdigkeiten der Morduanen, Kasaken, Kalmücken, Kirgisen, Baschkiren etc. (‘The characteristics of Mordvinians, Kazakhs, Kirgizes, Bashkirs etc.’) (Pallas 1773‒1777). 5.5  CONTINENTAL EUROPE, GERMANY: UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN, SAJNOVICS, AND GYARMATHI Universitas Georgia Augusta was founded in 1734 by Elector George Augustus of Hanover, after 1714 King George II of Great Britain and Ireland. This university became known as a model of enlightment scholarship and a pioneer of academic freedom. By the end of the century, thanks to the widely travelled history professor August Ludwig Schlözer (1735‒1809) ‘Oriental studies’ became the main attraction at Göttingen all around Europe. Schlözer was well acquainted with Scandinavia and was an eminent expert on Russian history, including the history of her Oriental conquests in Asia—a subject of special interest to Hungarian alumni and guests of the university, among them the physician Sámuel Gyarmathi (1751‒1830), the author of Affinitas lingvae hungaricae cum lingvis fennicae grammatice demonstrata (‘Grammatical proof of the affinity of the Hungarian language with languages of Fennic Origin) (Gyarmathi 1799). Gyarmathi treated extensively all languages now known to be genetically related to Hungarian: Finnish, Estonian, Lapp/Saami, Zyrian/Komi, Votyak /Udmurt, Mordvinian/Erza and Mokša, Cheremis/Mari, Ostyak/Khanty, Vogul/Mansi,1 and the Samoyedic languages as well. Gyarmathi’s work gives a correct listing of the languages cognate with Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic as now recognized, with the sole exception of Chuvash, which is a Turkic language. Gyarmathi assigned more probatory power to pronominals and infectional and derivational suffixes than he did to root etyma; in other words, grammar (morphosyntax) was taken to be a more cogent proof of genetic connection than lexicon (word roots), as indicated in his title grammatice demonstrata ‘grammatically demonstrated.’ Affinitas is an early and successful attempt at the systematic comparison of languages based on factors beyond the mere comparison of items of vocabulary, that is, examining morphology, syntax, and semantic subsets in the lexicon. Gyarmathi, like D. G. Messerschmidt of Danzig (1685‒1735) and Martin Vogel of Hamburg (1634‒1675) in the centuries before, was a physician. (Vogel’s notes on the possible affinity of Finnish and Hungarian were discovered by E. N. Setälä in 1892 in Florence.) In that era, being a physician was tantamount to being a learned person, a doctor (from Latin doctus) as they are commonly called to the present day. Studying medicine was felt to be a preparatory training proper to any empirical and systematic learning, the

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 215

prerequisite for new findings in all fields. While Sajnovics’s world view seems to have been shaped by the predictive nature of his science (astronomy), that of Gyarmathi was probably shaped by the diagnostic practice of his profession, medicine, which is oriented primarily to the individual. Taken together, these two approaches constitute the empirical foundation of linguistics. In support of this assumption, we may cite Schlözer’s own account, in which he mentioned two scholars who influenced his methodology of classification of Finno-Ugric languages: they were G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716) and Karl Linné (1707–1778)—mathematics and botany, theoretical approach and empiricism (Stipa 1990, 197). From the point of view of Fenno-Ugric studies, it should be mentioned that the predecessor of Columbia University in the City of New York, namely, King’s College, was also founded by King George II of Great Britain and Ireland in 1754: two pivotal figures of twentieth-century Hungarian and Finno-Ugric linguistics, János Lotz (1913‒1973) and his student and successor at the Department of Linguistics, Robert Austerlitz (1923‒1994), were both professors at Columbia. As centres of Oriental studies, and thereby predecessors of present-day Uralic studies, all these universities and academies of Northern and Continental Europe enjoyed strong bonds connecting their founders, their sponsors, and their students and researchers. An academic spirit, supported by a well-organized and enlightened state administration, explains why and how Uralic comparative linguistics became an index of the cultural level of development of peripheral states like Hungary, Finland, and Estonia (Lotz 1951). These three states were, if not in fact, at least spiritually European, their more distant periphery notwithstanding, that is, the Altaic language states, including also Turkey proper and the states of the late Soviet Union, which lacked a similarly rigorous control of systematic comparativism over the state administration due to the lack of centres of enlightenment (academies and universities). In this context, it is worth mentioning that it is not by accident that comparative linguistics was born in a culture characterized by sound-writing. The equity of letter=sound is also a prototype both for a naturalistic-phonetic representation with diacritical marks (with linguists like Setälä, Karjalainen, Lehtisalo) and a functional-morphonological representation of a more abstract nature (with linguists like Steinitz, Austerlitz, Helimski, Janhunen, Salminen). Sajnovics treated not only putative cognates (word-level relatedness) but also grammatical equivalences, namely, categories such as noun vs. verb, adjective and adverb, as well as inflectional and derivational suffixes. His horizon of comparison included basic vocabulary, such as names of body parts, numerals, and kinship terms, which can be especially suitable for making longer-range prehistorical hypotheses. In his homeland, reaction to Sajnovics’s Demonstratio was mostly negative, since the idea of being related—even if only through language—to what was imagined as a primitive, and thus objectionable, Saamic (‘Lapp’) population came as an insult to the Hungarian nobility, who were the self-designated guardian not only of Hungarians’ glorified history but also of their then-emerging national identity. On the other hand, a good example of a positive reaction to the Demonstratio came from Henrik Gabriel Porthan of Turku in the next year (Tidningar utgifne af et Sällskap i Åbo 1771); this is more than a review: it is a concise summary of the original, with supplementary material. Wolfgang von Kempelen’s (1734‒1804) Mechanismus der menschlichen Sprache nebst Beschreibung seiner sprechender Maschine (‘The mechanism of human speech

216 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

together with a description of his speaking machine’) represents a kind of turning point in the study of speech (1791). As a son of the age of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, Kempelen was fascinated by machines to a degree of trickery, so much so that he constructed a ‘fake’ chess computer with a puppet Turk ‘programmed’ by a well-hidden human operator inside. As a native of the then capital of Hungary, Pozsony-Pressburg-Bratislava (since 1919), and a subject of the multilingual Habsburg Empire, he was a polyglot by birth (speaking German, Hungarian, Slovakian, Italian, and Latin) and fluent also in French and English. His familiarity with languages, combined with his engineering mind, resulted in the construction of a sprechende[r] Maschine, ‘speaking machine,’ which reveals in retrospect his good understanding of the physiology of human vocal organs. In contrast with his chess-playing Turk, this invention of his was a real machine insofar as it was an extension of the human speech organ; it tried to imitate the production of human sounds, anticipating also the speech synthesizer of our days. Kempelen’s phonetics was not mere physiology; it was supported by an astonishingly precocious conception of language, something closer to what we would call semiotics today. Moreover, in harmony with his adventurous spirit, Kempelen opened up a widened horizon of languages by publishing a sample of ‘exotic’ languages, demonstrated by numerals from 1 to 10 based on the Danish royal emissary in in the Danish colony of Tranquebar in India, Benjamin Schulz’s (1769) book Orientalisch- und Occidentalisches A-B-C-Buch (‘Oriental and Occidental primer’). It is characteristic of the inventor and engineer Kempelen that he appoached languages through numerals, while the ‘humanist’ Gyarmathi’s approach was through the names of God (in his Affinitas, Gyarmathi gave a list of names of God in 200 languages). The 12 languages listed by Kempelen are Hungarian, Turkish, Lamui, Larui, Formosan, Fekui, Guinean, Hottentott, Siberian-Ostyak, Kalmyk, Tanguti, and Avar. We may note that Hungarian, among other languages of the Orient, was ‘exotic’ at that time, and that there are languages which today can hardly be properly identified by the names given (Lamui, Lauri, Tanguti, and Fejui), but especially intriguing is the name Siberian-Ostyak. Besides Ostyak proper, Uralic linguists differentiate two further uses of the name Ostyak: there is Yenisey-Ostyak, that is, Ket, and Ostyak-Samoyed, that is, Selkup. What language can Siberian-Ostyak be if both ‘Ostyak’ languages are Siberian? The sample list of numerals reveals it is Selkup. The source of this information was most probably Philipp Johann von Strahlenberg’s (1730) Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia. Thus, Kempelen’s publication can be considered as the first report on a language cognate with Hungarian in Austria-Hungary, while the publication of the Demonstratio, on the Saami, in 1770 in Nagyszombat, is only the second. Kempelen wrote his work in German, indicating thereby that he did not consider his work to be ‘scientific.’ Had he thought so, he would have written it in Latin, as his contemporaries and compatriots Sajnovics and Gyarmathi had done. Kempelen intended his audience to be a wide one, including more than humanists, learned churchmen, and other local professionals: he was addressing men of practical common sense, engineers and inventors, that is, components of the future bourgeoisie. Sajnovics’s special interest in orthography and Kempelen’s expertise in practical phonetics represent two complementary aspects of comparative linguistics: comparison is not possible without proper identification of entities (in this case, letters and sounds, respectively).

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 217

5.6  RIVALS: MATTHIAS ALEXANDER CASTRÉN (1813‒1852) AND ANTAL REGULY (1819‒1858) If grammarians are born, not made, then no more precise description of Castrén can be offered: he was born to be a professional linguist, predestined by both his family and his cultural background. The only prerequisite for his profession that nature denied him was health: like many of his compatriots, Castrén had tuberculosis, and he channelled his illness into a feverish eagerness for work. His father was a parish priest in Lapland (Tervola), and Castrén was fluent in Swedish and Finnish, familiar with Saami, and learned German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew in school. In his youth, he had an early taste of fieldwork in Lapland and Karelia when he made preparations for the Swedish translation of the Kalevala.2 In his dissertation, he compared the declensions of Finnish, Saami, and the Baltic-Finnic languages. He made three major expeditions, the first one in the company of Elias Lönnrot, the compiler of the Kalevala, to the Norwegian and Russian parts of Lapland and the Karelian shores in 1841. This first expedition prepared him well for his second expedition, to Siberia, with the help and support of his compatriot and fellow linguist and ethnographer A. J. Sjögren (1794‒1855), a member of the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg. (It was Sjögren who blocked support for Castrén’s Hungarian rival, Antal Reguly.) While Castrén’s main aim was to study Samoyedic (mainly Nganasan and Nenets), he also found time to write a grammar of Zyrian. Poor health forced him return to Finland earlier than he had planned, but after less than a year, he set off on his second Siberian expedition in 1845. He collected an enormous amount of linguistic material from Cheremis and Ostyak, but mainly from Samoyedic (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan, and Selkup), and at the end of his journey, also from Kamas. He collected and published materials also from Ket, a still-enigmatic Paleo-Siberian language, and from various Altaic languages. One of the last works published during his lifetime was De affixis personalibus linguarum Altaicarum (‘On the personal affixes of Altaic languages’) (Castrén 1850). In the same year, he was assigned to the newly established chair of Finnish language at the University of Helsinki. The next year, he was elected chancellor of the university; he died soon after, at the age of 38. Most of Castrén’s works, among them also the second part of his travel notes, Nordiska resor och forskningar av M.A. Castrén I-II (‘Northern travels and researches by M. A. Castrén I-II’) (Castrén 1852‒1870), but first and foremost his Samoyedic grammar, Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen (Castrén and Schiefner 1854), were published posthumously. While it was Castrén’s main ambition to establish a larger linguistic and ethnic community called ‘Altaic’ (later termed ‘Ural-Altaic’), these terms later proved to be a mirage which misled linguists and ethnographers when they were looking for a common Urheimat for these peoples and languages. (For difficulties with these terms and the concepts behind them, see Chapter 4, ‘Connections beyond Uralic.’) In the sense of our present-day understanding, Castrén was the professor not of one language only (Finnish) but rather of an entire language family. From at least the end of the twelfth century (Gerald of Wales’s Descriptio Kambriae, 1194), a major language of the language family, together with its cognates, was conceived of as one entity, and this reading illuminates the title of Sajnovics’s 1770 book, claiming to prove ‘the idiom of the Saami and the Hungarians to be one and the same’ (Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse). In the academic circles of Finland, Finnish and its cognates were treated as one. This relation is somewhat similar to that of French and Graeco-Roman culture: until the 1970s, Latin and Greek studies were organic parts of the curriculum of would-be teachers of French

218 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

in France; in other words, Latin and Greek were considered to be integral parts of French linguistic tradition and culture (Csécsy 2005, 96). Castrén’s discerning ear was a precondition of his comparative studies. In a sense, it was a fulfilment of Sajnovics’s understandable but clumsy attempt to base an orthography for Saami based on that of Hungarian. But if Castrén was a born linguist and ethnographer, Antal Reguly was just the opposite: he was trained to be a lawyer, someone whose business was to deal with people’s everyday practical problems and disputes, and their litigations over the possession of estates (hence his land-surveying and cartographic expertise). Reguly’s ability to ‘pick up’ parts of a language did not exceed that of the average person in the multilingual Hungary of his day, where the official language was Latin (until 1836), where the urban population spoke mostly German, and where only the rural population, that is, the peasants and landed gentry (Reguly belonged to the latter), spoke Hungarian (as well as Croatian, Serbian, Romanian, Slovakian, Slovenian, and/or Ruthenian, depending on the regions where these languages were spoken). He started his ‘linguistic career’ as a keen traveller. As a Hungarian patriot, Reguly became enthusiastic about the progress of Finnish language and culture in the Grand Duchy of Finland and began to study Finnish and Votic. It was first in Sweden, and then again in Finland, that he got the idea to visit the settlements of the Khanty and Mansi, the closest linguistic relatives of Hungarians in Siberia. It took him some time to find a way to a high-ranking patron in the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg in search of support for his expedition to the Urals, but eventually, Karl Ernst von Baer (1792‒1876)—an Estonian anatomist, zoologist, and geographer— directed him to his colleague, A. Sjögren, Castrén’s mentor. The circle was thus closed: Sjögren denied Reguly (financial) support, since he had already given his support to Castrén instead. In spite of these obstacles and the lack of sufficient financial support and professional guidance from the Imperial Academy, von Baer stood up for him, the Hungarian Academy promised some financial help, and Reguly set out for the Urals and beyond. Unlike Castrén, Reguly now had to learn the fundamentals of general and Finno-Ugric linguistics and prehistory, together with the acquisition of auxiliary languages like Finnish, Swedish, and Russian as an adult, and added to this was his poor health even before he started his journey. In spite of these hindrances and obstacles, Reguly achieved a great deal by collecting a large amount of linguistic and ethnographic material, not only among Khanty and Mansi, but also among Volgaic peoples, collecting mainly Mordvin material. He overcame these difficulties with the help of two natural gifts: his talent for languages (contemporaries report on his perfect Finnish pronunciation after only a few months’ study) and his perseverance, equalled only by that of his rival, Castrén. His working method differed from Castrén’s in that he preferred simple transcription to translation and notes: he left translation for the future, whereas Castrén brought his material to completion (transcription, translation, and notes) on the spot, resulting in a manuscript that was ready for the printer. Reguly’s preference was understandable: this way, he could collect more material. Unfortunately, translation (sometimes to the point of decipherment) of his collected materials remained for posterity, a challenge that occupied his followers through several generations. After his return to Hungary, Reguly passed his knowledge and experience on to an open-minded ‘dilettante,’ Pál Hunfaly (1810‒1891), who became his assistant in the preparing and editing of his material for publication. An ethnic German, Hunfalvy was born in Northern Hungary (now Slovakia), in the region called (German) Zips, (Slovak)

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 219

Spiš, and (Hungarian) Szepesség. Like his mentor, Hunfalvy was trained to be a lawyer and was an alumnus, then professor, and rector of the Késmárk, (Slovakian) Kežmarok, (German) Käsemarkt, ‘academy of law,’ in his native region. In the nineteenth century (in fact, from the seventeenth century on), academies of law were the institutes of higher education and worked as ‘surrogate’ universities. Their curricula were not restricted to law alone but included a wider range of studies, including classical philology, philosophy, social, cultural, and art history, and geodesy. As a tutor of sons of an aristocratic family, Hunfalvy spent time in Saxony (Dresden) and Pest, the quasi-capital of Hungary, and so was exposed to higher levels of civilization than those of his native land. Due to his wide horizon and intellectual abilities, he was able to assess the importance of Reguly’s enterprise and achievement; this may be seen in his humble assistance to Reguly’s last tragic effort to bring his collection into a manageable form. But when Hunfalvy realized that his linguistic training was inadequate to finish Reguly’s work, he invited Joseph Budenz (1836‒1892) to Hungary. Budenz was a fresh doctor of Indo-German linguistics from Göttingen, one of the centres of Oriental and Indo-German linguistics in Europe. So it was Budenz who initiated Finno-Ugristics as a branch of comparative linguistics at the international level, and he did this in Hungarian, in recognition of his having been elected member of the Hungarian Academy and accepted by the academic community in Hungary. 5.7  FINNO-UGRIC LINGUISTICS AS PART OF A MODERN SOCIETY In Finland, it was Otto Donner (1835‒1909), professor of Sanskrit and comparative Indo-European as well as Finno-Ugric languages at the University of Helsinki, who made Finno-Ugric linguistics a cornerstone of Finland’s independent statehood. Otto Donner was not so much a fieldworker as he was a follower of the strict application of the comparative method that had been so successful in Indo-European studies. As an influential figure in the Finnish Diet, he was highly placed, but he was also far-sighted; in his role as something of a minister of religion, education, and culture (1905‒1907), he felt obliged to shape the larger frames of the profession. He was a founder of the Finno-Ugrian Society (Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Société Finno-Ougrienne) in 1883. His main scholarly work is a masterpiece of its kind: his Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen 1–3 (‘Comparative dictionary of Finno-Ugric languages’) (Donner 1874‒1888) could have been the first comprehensive comparative dictionary in Finno-Ugric linguistics had it not been preceded by one year by the comparative dictionary Magyar-ugor összehasonlító szótár (‘Hungarian-Ugric comparative dictionary’) of József Budenz (1873‒1881). Because Budenz’s work was written in Hungarian, it was less accessible to the international community of linguists than Donner’s dictionary, which was written in German. August Ahlquist (1826‒1889) followed the twofold tradition of Lönnrot and Castrén. While his main aim was to raise the Finnish language to a higher level so that it might fulfil the requirements of a civilized European nation, he also travelled extensively and did fieldwork among speakers of related languages in Russia (Mordva, Vogul, Ostyak) and later also did research in Hungarian on the spot. The uniqueness of his linguistics lay in the double nature of his approach: while he was a Finnish linguist, he was at the same time also a Finno-Ugric linguist, and these parallel lines of research complemented each other. What is more, both everyday, secular language and the language of folklore were equally the object of his research.

220 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Donner’s student Eemil Nestor Setälä (1864‒1935) began his career as a linguist early. He was only 16 years old when he published his first major work, Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Oppikirjan koe (‘Syntax of the Finnish language. An experimental manual’) (Setälä 1880). The idea for Setälä’s early enterprise had come from his Finnish teacher in the lyceum at Hämeenlinna, Arvid Genetz (1848‒1915). In the beginning, their relationship was love between teacher and pupil. The teacher and his spoiled pupil later became rivals in 1893 in the race for the professorship of Finno-Ugristics at the University of Helsinki. The race resulted in a draw, though Genetz was the apparent winner inasmuch as he was made chairman of the Finno-Ugric Department. Setälä got the Department of Finnish as compensation and as an acknowledgement of his talent. It was more than just a good start to an academic career for Setälä, who was then not yet 30 years old. His ambition in linguistics and elsewhere proved to be a larger-than-life passion throughout his life. Karlsson (2000, 6) paraphrased Setälä’s admirers with a batch of adjectives: [E]nergetic, ambitious and successful. In writings about his oeuvre and his nature one can find descriptions of him as a child prodigy, an unsatisfiable eagerness to learn, phenomenal energy, unusual zeal for work, an unbelievable small need of sleep, gigantic strength, innate mental efficiency, phenomenal memory, exceptional talent, phenomenal spiritual strength, brilliant rhetoric skills, tremendous amount of knowledge, unwavering Finnish stamina and unparalleled personality.3 A prudent observer might well have been suspicious of someone so described: he might not have been just an extraordinary personage, but rather someone capable of attracting, even bewitching, psycho- and sociopathic personalities like himself. In the spirit of Romanticism, and at the level of epic poetry, he might even have been considered a cult figure, a hero like, say, Väinämöinen or Lemminkäinen of the Kalevala. In this context, the story of how Setälä ‘borrowed’ the basic idea and some parts of Adolf Waldemar Jansson’s doctoral thesis Finska Språkets Satslära (‘Syntax of Finnish’) (Jansson 1871)—in short, Setälä’s plagiarism—could be seen as no more than an embarrassing yet acceptable episode in the life of the champion of Finnish linguistics, one who was predestined, what is more, to bring about independence for Finland. Throughout his life, Setälä had several cases of questionable publication priority or possible plagiarism, often quarrelling with teachers, for example, Arvid Genetz, or with students, for example, Heikki Ojansuu (1873‒1923). Yet Setälä was keenly aware of his possible enemies’ or friends’ place in the social hierarchy: he never quarrelled with professionals of higher ranks. Instead, he married the daughter of his professor Julius Krohn (1835‒1888), and in the same year as his divorce from Helmi Krohn in 1913, he married Kristiane Thomsen, the daughter of the world-famous Orientalist Wilhelm Thomsen (1842‒1927), professor of comparative linguistics and Oriental studies at Copenhagen University. Setälä’s scholarship is represented by his study on the history of the morphology of tense and mood in Finno-Ugric (Setälä 1887) and by his studies of gradation in Uralic (Setälä 1896, 1912). Although Setälä’s gradation theory was criticized already in his lifetime, it has remained a point of departure of critics and adherents alike to the present day. Perhaps the most lasting achievement of Setälä’s scholarship is his transcription for Finno-Ugric languages (Setälä 1901). Setälä’s career as cultural manager, politician, and diplomat is perhaps more important than his scholarship. Together with his brother-in-law, the folklorist Kaarle Krohn

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 221

(1863‒1933), he was the founder of Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen in 1901, probably the most important forum of Uralistics for the greater part of that century. He was also the founder of the research institute Suomen suku (‘Cognates of Finnish language’) in 1917. As a senator and—for a short but historic period—as chairman of the Senate, Setälä was practically the highest authority of the country; he was a chief actor among statesmen who brought about independence and sovereignty for Finland by wording the Declaration of Independence at the end of 1917. He served as minister of education in 1925 and foreign minister in 1925‒1926. He was a travelling ambassador of Finland in Denmark and Hungary from 1927 until 1930. Setälä’s high ministerial and diplomatic post in Finland and on the European scene and his friendship with Zoltán Gombocz (1877‒1935) were important factors in another arena as wellː they strengthened the position of Finno-Ugric comparative linguistics in academic circles in Hungary, especially in the Eötvös College, the centre of activity of Gombocz and his school. Setälä’s authoritarian figure, with both positive and negative sides, has long been an archetype of professorship in Finland, something which prompts us to think about the true nature of scholarship and science, where truth is the only mover which cannot be decided by majority votes. One has to stand by one’s truth even against millions and take the risk of failure even if millions support one’s falsity—this is why (temporal) priority appears to be so desirable in scholarship and science. In Hungary, the central figure of the time was József Budenz (1836‒1892), who came to Hungary from Göttingen as a Benfey disciple with a fresh doctor’s degree in Indo-Germanic studies in 1858 at the invitation of Pál Hunfalvy. Hunfalvy asked him, the well-trained Indo-Germanist, to decipher and to interpret Reguly’s rich material. On his arrival, Budenz was inclined to accept and support the Hungarian–Turkic relationship, but his work with Reguly’s Mari and Mordvin material convinced him that the relationship of Hungarian and Finnic was the one to explore. He soon became entangled in a debate on this topic with Ármin Vámbéry (1832‒1913), a staunch adherent of the Hungarian–Turkic relationship. In addition, Budenz and Vámbéry were representatives of two diametrically opposite types of scholar: the former was a typical ‘bookworm’ or ‘paper linguist,’ a boring fellow in the eyes of the public, while the latter was a traveller— an adventurer, even—with an amazing talent for mimicry, and not only in languages: in short, a charismatic figure. Vámbéry’s familiarity with Turkic and Oriental languages in general was widely admired in Hungary, and his stand for Turkic was therefore widely supported by the lay public: the mirage of once-great empires of ‘Turkic’ origin (beginning with the Huns, continuing through Mongols and Seldzhuks to the Ottomans) blinded the eyes of the public when they looked back to the past, so they could not see the connections with the humble Finnish (Saami and other) peoples who lacked a glorious past, one which was based on what seemed dry linguistic data. Out of this debate came the ‘Ugric-Turkic war’ between Budenz and Vámbéry. In the end, it was surprisingly Budenz who won. It was a surprise not only because Budenz was a foreigner and, in addition, a German (later and since then, even up to the present, a ground of accusation against him and his discipline, Finno-Ugristics) but also because it took place against the sympathy or inclination of the wide public, one is tempted to say, almost against the entire nation. However, circles of the learned were intellectually important enough to show and preserve authority in question of scholarship where no majority votes can decide.

222 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Meanwhile, the friendly rivalry between Finnish and Hungarian scholars went on, as may be seen in the development of the comparative dictionaries of Budenz (1873‒1881) and Donner (1874‒1888) mentioned earlier. Although Budenz’s dictionary began publication one year earlier, on the international scene, it has a disadvantage to Donner’s: according to the rules of the Hungarian Academy, the sponsor of Budenz’s dictionary, it had to be written in Hungarian, while Donner’s dictionary was written in German, the language of international scholarship at that time. This ruling of the Hungarian Academy remained a lasting burden for the work of Budenz and his disciples: Budenz could not use his mother tongue in his written works, and most of his publications were written in Hungarian, which restricted his accessibility to the world of scholarship. Nevertheless, the Budenz–Donner rivalry was a boon for comparative Finno-Ugric studies. As a first trial of spatial mapping of linguistic affiliations of Finno-Ugric languages leading to the Stammbaum theory, it is worth mentioning Budenz’s classification of FU *k-, which has been preserved independent of the quality of the following vowel everywhere except Hungarian, where it has become h- before velar vowels, otherwise preserved (Hungarian hal ‘fish’ vs. kéz ‘hand’ as against Finnish kala and käsi), or his attempt at differentiating between the representations of FU *n- (non-palatalized n) vs. palatalized *ń-, an isogloss which antedates Brugmann’s classification of Indo-European languages into satem and centum groups in the word for ‘hundred.’ Budenz classified Finnish, Baltic Finnic, Mordvin, and Mari as ‘n-languages’ (e.g. Finnish nuoli ‘arrow’), while Saami, Komi, Udmurt, Mansi, Khanty, and Hungarian are ń-languages (e.g. Hungarian nyíl). Strangely enough, Budenz called the former group ‘southern,’ and the latter ‘northern,’ though Donner criticized his classificatory attempt for other reasons. Yet Budenz’s attempt seems to be in accordance with the main lines of comparative studies in Uralistics. Two more important achievements should be mentioned in connection with Budenz. One is the establishment of the kruzsok ‘small circle’ (from Russian кружок), a table society with the aim of helping students learn Russian. Since all languages cognate with Hungarian, including Estonian and Finnish, were spoken in the Russian Empire, it was an understandable requirement for a student of Finno-Ugric languages to learn Russian as a working language. The students soon learned Russian by themselves, yet the table society did not get dissolved but changed to an informal friendly circle where professors and students met weekly and changed information and views and gossiped freely about everything. This small-scale civil society institution symbolized the social nature of scholarship while also emphasizing the importance of oral communication in scholarly studies. The kruzsok survived perhaps more than a hundred years, two world wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions until the death of its last grandee, Dezső Pais (1886‒1973); it was an agora of scholarship where students were treated almost as equals, where ideas were born and exchanged, where oral expression was encouraged and appreciated—something similar to the peripatetic scenes of learning in ancient Greece. Between the two world wars, after the death of their mentor Zoltán Gombocz (1877‒1935), liberal-minded young linguists founded their own separate circle, Destruktív Nyelvészek Köre (‘the circle of destructive linguists’), as an ironic reaction to the mainstream ‘conservative-nationalistic’ attitude of prevailing academic circles. The phonologist and phonetician Gyula Laziczius (1896‒1957), a protégé of Gombocz and ahead of his time, also belonged to this circle. The amiable Budenz was a good teacher and an effective mentor. His most prominent students, Bernát Munkácsi (1860‒1937) and Zsigmond Simonyi (1853‒1919), continued his pioneering work in Finno-Ugristics. It was Budenz who prepared Munkácsi’s and

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 223

Pápay’s expedition to north-east Europe and Siberia by arranging for financial support from the Hungarian Academy. The aim of their expedition was to complement and to bring Reguly’s fieldwork collections into final form. Bernát Munkácsi’s keen ear made him an excellent fieldworker; he also had an exceptionally wide linguistic horizon coupled with a lively imagination. His last work, Wogulisches Wörterbuch (‘Mansi dictionary’) (Munkácsi and Kalman 1986), was published posthumously by professor Béla Kálmán (1913‒1997) at Debrecen University (see also Munkácsi 1890‒1896, 1892‒1896, 1901). Budenz’s other famous student was Zsigmond Simonyi, whose interest was more theoretical and concentrated mainly on Hungarian. He was the first in Hungary to introduce and apply the Neogrammarian method in his Die ungarische Sprache: Geschichte und Characteristik (‘Hungarian language: History and characteristics’) (Simonyi 1907). József Pápay (1873–1931) was Simonyi’s student and was, like Munkácsi, an adherent of the Reguly–Budenz tradition: he collected mainly Khanty material in situ and tried to decipher Reguly’s Khanty manuscripts. In 1895, Minister of Education Baron Loránd Eötvös (1848‒1919) founded an institution for teachers’ higher education on the model of the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. The college was named the Eötvös József Collegium (henceworth Eötvös College) after his father, Baron József Eötvös (1813‒1871), a writer, essayist, liberal politician, and the minister of education at the time of the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence in 1848‒1849. The aim in founding the Eötvös College was to raise the cultural level of the education of secondary school teachers. Accordingly, it had two departments, one for human and the other for natural sciences. (This was why students of law and medicine were excluded.) Only men were allowed to apply; they might enter the college on the condition that they achieved a first-class certificate on graduating. In view of the elite nature of this institution, it is all the more striking that young men of well-to-do families (upper-class bourgeoisie and aristocracy) were not allowed to apply, and members of the college enjoyed relatively generous financial support from the Eötvös Foundation. From its establishment, its liberal spirit made the Eötvös College a centre of FinnoUgric studies, providing useful mental training even for students otherwise uninterested in linguistics, such as the author, essayist, and literary critic Géza Laczkó (1884‒1953), who described it in his autobiographical novel Királyhágó (King’s Pass, Budapest 1938). Zoltán Gombocz (1877‒1935) belonged to the first generation of alumni of the Eötvös College, where he worked from 1901 until 1914 as a teacher of French and French linguistics, and again from 1920 until 1927, when he was appointed director of his alma mater, serving until his untimely death in 1935. Gombocz was a professor of Finno-Ugristics and Altaistics at Kolozsvár University (now Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Kolozsvár, Romania) from 1914 to 1920, and then at Budapest University, 1920‒1935. His oeuvre explores several fields, from experimental phonetics through historical linguistics and semantics. He was a paragon of the broad-minded liberal scholar and was popular among a wide range of students and colleagues—not only linguists and humanists (see, for example, Gombocz 1912, 1925‒1929; Gombocz and Melich 1914‒1944). The French Uralist Aurélien Sauvageot (1897‒1988) was a teacher at the college, from 1923 to 1933, whose tenure almost overlapped with Gombocz’s directorship. Sauvageot’s memoirs, Souvenirs de ma vie hongroise (Aix-en-Provence, 1987), are a precious document of the life and activity of the college, as well as of life in general in the Hungary of the 1920s and 1930s. Gombocz’s disciple was János (John) Lotz (1913‒1973), professor of Hungarian and general linguistics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1935‒1946), and later in the United

224 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

States, at Columbia University in the City of New York (1947‒1967). Lotz and his principal student and successor at Columbia, Robert Austerlitz (1923‒1994), were the main representatives of the spirit of the Eötvös College in the New World after the Second World War. Another alumnus of the Eötvös College was Dezső Szabó (1879‒1945), the eccentric yet, in a sense, popular author, pamphleteer, and essayist who began his career as a promising Finno-Ugrist. Szabó was an exceptionally talented student of Hungarian and Finno-Ugric studies and of French language and literature. During his years at the Eötvös College (1899‒1903), he prepared himself resolutely to become a linguist of Finno-Ugric languages. According to fellow students at his university years, Szabó showed no signs of leaning toward literature, let alone to writing fiction. After publishing a promising study on Vogul derivation (Szabó 1904), he abruptly changed course: he threw all his copious notes into the Danube (in another version, he set his notes on fire) and turned his back on linguistics for good. Even so, according to his critic, the art historian and essayist Lajos Fülep (1885‒1970), who was himself later a teacher at the Eötvös College, Dezső Szabó’s belletristic oeuvre consists of scholarly studies and essays disguised as fiction rather than novels and short stories in a strict sense (Fülep 1919). In Estonia, the Society of Estonian Literati (Eesti Kirjameeste Selts) was established in 1871 by—among others—F. R. Kreutzwald (1803‒1882), the compiler of the Estonian epos, Kalevipoeg (1862), but it was dissolved because of internal quarrels and also because of Russification in 1893. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia (The Estonian Academy of Sciences) was not established until 1938, later than the Emakeele Selts (Mother-Tongue Society), which was founded in 1920 in Tartu; its secretary from 1939 until 1944 was Alo Raun (1905‒2004). He was the first Estonian fellow of the Eötvös College in Budapest in the early 1930s and was also the first alumnus of Tartu University to win the degree of PhD in Finno-Ugric linguistics in 1942 (see Raun 1949). In 1938/1939, he was invited by Paavo Ravila (1902‒1974) to take up the post of lecturer in Estonian at Turku University, while earlier (1935‒1944), he was also assigned to the post of lecturer in Hungarian at Tartu University. After the Second World War, he was professor and, in 1948/1949, also the last rector of Baltic University in Hamburg, which was established by and for refugee students and professors from the Baltic states occupied by the then Soviet Union. After the shutdown of Baltic University, Raun emigrated to the USA, where he completed his career as professor emeritus of the Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Beside Irén N. Sebestyén (1890‒1978), the other Samoyedist in Hungary of the period before the Second World War was József Györke (1906‒1946), a lecturer in Hungarian and chairman of the Hungarian Institute of Tartu University from 1930 until 1936. His pioneering work Die Wortbildingslehre des Uralischen (primäre Bildungssuffixe) (‘Derivation in Uralic [Primary Suffixes]’) was published in 1934 (Györke 1934). The Hungarian version Tő, képző, rag. Szó- és jelrésztan (1943) was his habilitation thesis at Budapest University. In his short life, he proved to be an independent-minded researcher and a talented educator, capable of attracting an audience wider than his, by definition, dry and impersonal subject would suggest. He was the master and mentor of Péter Hajdú (1923‒2002) at Budapest University in 1940‒1945. It belongs to the history of Uralic linguistics in Estonia that in a dramatic prologue of the Second World War, it was Paul Ariste (1905‒1990), professor of Estonian and Finno-Ugric linguistics at Tartu University, who gave Wolfgang Steinitz (1905‒1967) shelter and succour when he was expelled from Leningrad on the ground that he was

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 225

a German Jew. Steinitz, as a German (and Communist) émigré, had lived since 1934 in the Soviet Union after the Nazi takeover in Germany. Although he was a member of the KPD in Germany, after his emigration he did not join the Soviet Communist Party, remaining as he was a ‘simple’ émigré of principle. In his own account, he and his family were lucky to be expelled from the Soviet Union simply as foreigners in 1938. A year later, their fate would have been much worse: according to the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact (23 August 1939), the Soviet Union promised to deliver German political émigrés and Jews staying in the Soviet Union to Germany. Paul Ariste’s support in Tartu was thus literally life-saving for Steinitz and his family. Tartu was a safe haven for them until a voyage could be arranged to Sweden, where János Lotz (1913‒1973), associate professor at Stockholm University and the director of the Royal Hungarian Institute, and Steinitz’s former fellow member of Eötvös College, came to his help and arranged an assistant professorship for him at Stockholm University. Another protégé of Lotz at this time was Roman Jakobson (1896‒1982), then an émigré from Brno University in occupied Czechoslovakia. It is characteristic of Steinitz’s enthusiasm for his profession and also for his sharp sense of humour that he chose a sarcastic maxim allegedly from Voltaire as motto for his epoch-making opus, Geschichte des finnisch-ugrischen Vokalismus (‘History of the Finno-Ugric vowels’) (Steinitz 1944), prepared during the years of purges of the 1930s in the Soviet Union and finalized and typeset before his dramatic escape from Estonia to Sweden, namely: ‘etymology is a science where vowels count for nothing and consonants for very little.’ 5.8  AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR The beginning of the First World War put a stop to fieldwork by Finnish and Hungarian linguists which had been started by Reguly and Castrén and supported by their academic institutions. In the interwar period, linguists had to content themselves with processing—arranging, translating, editing, and publishing—materials that had been collected before the war. In Finland, one should mention in particular Heikki Paasonen (1865‒1919) for Mordvin, whose materials were published by his student Paavo Ravila (1902‒1974); Kustaa F. Karjalainen (1871‒1919) for Khanty, whose Ostjakisches Wörterbuch (‘Khanty dictionary’) was published by Y. H. Toivonen in 1948 (Karjalainen and Toivonen 1948); Artturi Kannisto (1874‒1943) for Mansi, whose vast folklore materials Wogulische Volksdichtung (‘Mansi folk poetry’) (e.g. Liimola and Kannisto 1951) were published by his student Matti Liimola (1901‒1974); Kai Donner (1888‒1935, Otto Donner’s son) for Kamassian (South-Samoyedic), whose Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzüge der Grammatik (‘Kamassian dictionary with text samples and a sketch grammar’) was based on material he collected from the Sayan Mountains before the war and published by Aulis J. Joki (1913‒1989) (Donner and Joki 1944); and Toivo V. Lehtisalo (1887‒1962) for Yurak (Tundra and Forest Nenets), which he did not publish until 1956, with the title Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch (‘Yurak dictionary’) (Lehtisalo 1956). Perhaps the last fieldwork of this generation was carried out by David Fokos-Fuchs (1884‒1977) and Ödön Beke (1883‒1964) in camps holding Russian prisoners of war of Komi and Mari origin in Hungary during the First World War. Fokos-Fuchs published Zürjén szövegek (‘Zyrian Texts’) (1916), Volksdichtung der Komi (Syrjänen) (‘Folk poetry of the Komi [Zyrians]’) (1951), and a dictionary, Syrjänisches Wörterbuch (‘Zyrian dictionary’) (1959). Ödön Beke’s publications from this kind of fieldwork are

226 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Tscheremissische Texte zur Religion und Volkskunde (‘Cheremis texts on religion and folklore’) (1931), Tscheremissische Märchen, Sagen and Erzählungen (‘Cheremis fairy tales, myths and stories’) (1938), and Tscheremissische Märchen aus dem Kreise Jaransk (‘Cheremis fairy tales from the Jaransk region’) (1939). There is a multi-volume dictionary of Mari based on Beke’s fieldwork (Beke et al. 1997‒2001). Most of these publications are characterized by phonetic naturalism: meticulous descriptions of minute details of pronunciation. This contrasts sharply with the linguistic descriptions by the former generation, such as those of Bernát Munkácsi, which were more pragmatic; one might perhaps call them ‘instinctively’ functional, that is, phonological. It is, however, ironic that by the time these major works were published, around the middle of the twentieth century, the technique of sound recording by means of tape recorders and other devices had developed so far that phonetic naturalism had become totally outdated. Probably not independent from this technical development, the functional approach of structuralism called phonology had, by then, become a dominant trend in linguistics. Uralic linguistics as a subject of university curricula survived World War II in both Hungary and Finland, and even in Soviet Estonia (despite the scholars and the educators of the field who either were forced to emigrate, as, for example, Alo Raun to WestGermany, later to the USA, or were sentenced to long prison terms and sent to the Gulag, as, for example, Paul Ariste). The Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe made every expedition to the territory of the Soviet Union impossible, in the first period—even travelling between Finland and Hungary, or between these two countries and the Soviet Union— for almost a decade. The Iron Curtain divided Europe, and this division also influenced the world of scholarship and science: the Soviet glacier covered Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the relative openness of Finland to the West made it an accessible and desirable destination for Western students at the beginning of the 1950s. One of them was Robert Austerlitz (1923‒1994), who was born in Romania, raised in Transylvania, emigrated as a young man to the USA before the war, joined the US army in the war, fought against the Nazi German army, and was taken prisoner of war by the Germans. He was liberated by the US army in Bavaria. Like many of his contemporaries, his military service and his time as a prisoner of war meant that he would begin his university studies late. He was the student of many émigré teachers from Europe at Columbia University, among them André Martinet (1908‒1999), from France, but primarily János Lotz, former alumnus of Eötvös College, Budapest, and favourite disciple of its director, Zoltán Gombocz (see Section 5.7). On Lotz’s advice, and with his recommendation supported by grants of various American foundations, Austerlitz left for Helsinki in 1951 to study Finno-Ugric linguistics and Finnish language. His amiable nature and open mind made him a friend of Finnish scholarly circles, and he became friends for life with many colleagues in Finland. He became an effective mediator between twentieth-century modernism (structuralism, linguistic schools of Prague and Vienna, and through János Lotz, also the liberal spirit of Eötvös College, Budapest) and solid Finnish scholarship based on nineteenth-century positivism. With access to Uralic languages as spoken in the Soviet Union shut off, Austerlitz chose an alternative: to study native languages of northern Eurasia. He went to Japan, where he engaged in a life-long occupation with Gilyak (Nivkh), a Paleo-Siberian language spoken on the island of Sakhalin and along the Lower Amur on the continent. His papers on Gilyak, among them his entry into the world of linguistics, ‘Gilyak Nursery Words’ (Austerlitz 1956) and his doctoral thesis, Ob-Ugric Metrics. The metrical structure of Ostyak and Vogul folk-poetry (Austerlitz

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 227

1958), made him at once a highly appreciated figure among linguists and folklorists of the community of Uralic studies. Due to the more permissive attitude of the Hungarian authorities, Finnish, Swedish, West European, and American colleagues could make frequent visits to Hungary from the 1960s, so the earlier contacts between Finno-Ugric countries (Finland and Hungary, and even Soviet-Estonia) could be revived. Austerlitz, even in this regard, was a pioneer—not only on the basis of his Finnish contacts, but also because of his affinity and familiarity with Hungarian as well as German language and culture (he grew up in Brassó-Braşov in Transylvania, Romania, once the second most important city of the Universitas Saxonica, the autonomous region of Germans in the semi-independent Principality of Transylvania in the Middle Ages); moreover, he was a disciple of János Lotz and became his successor at the Department of Linguistics of his alma mater, Columbia University in New York City. His fieldwork in Japan with Gilyak and his papers on Finnish morphophonemes made his linguistics a unique blend of down-to-earth reality and elevated functionalism that reminds one of the approach of the early pioneers of Siberian expeditions, Reguly and Castrén. He was also a born educator, with students in a variety of fields beyond linguistics. Informally, he was also teacher of many wherever he happened to turn up around the world, among them M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest in France, Juha Janhunen in Finland, and myself, from Hungary. A contemporary of Robert Austerlitz was Péter Hajdú (1923‒2002), alumnus of the Eötvös College between 1941 and 1945, a disciple of the Samoyedologist József Györke (1906‒1946) and the general linguist, phonetician, and phonologist Gyula Laziczius (1896‒1957), the protégé and friend of Zoltán Gombocz, probably the most progressive linguist of his time in Hungary. In 1958, Péter Hajdú was appointed professor of Finno-Ugristics at the University of Szeged, Hungary, where he suceeded Gedeon Mészöly (1880‒1960), one of the most imaginative linguists in the Hungary of his time, who, besides being an expert on Old Hungarian, was versatile in Ob-Ugric languages and folklore (Mészöly 1951, 1956). Mészöly was also an excellent translator of Homer, Racine, and Pushkin and an author in his own right. Hajdú’s important contribution to Finno-Ugric (Uralic) studies was his general survey of cognate languages and peoples, Finnugor népek és nyelvek (‘Finno-Ugric peoples and languages’) (Hajdú 1962), which was translated into Polish in 1971, and Russian in 1985, and superseded Miklós Zsirai’s (1937) Finnugor rokonságunk (‘Our Finno-Ugric linguistic relatives’). Even more important and epoch-making was Hajdú’s (1966) manual of comparative Uralic linguistics Bevezetés az uráli nyelvészetbe—A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai (‘Introduction to Uralic linguistics—Finno-Ugric foundations of the Hungarian language’), which was translated (in revised form) into Italian in 1992 by Danilo Gheno. Hajdú’s manual was the first overall survey of Finno-Ugristics in 70 years that was deliberately designed to serve university students, replacing József Szinnyei’s (1896) Finnugor nyelvhasonlítás (‘Finno-Ugric comparative linguistics’). In addition to its focus on comparison, Hajdú’s manual also presented fundamentals of phonology, morphonology, morphology, methods of reconstruction, and paleo- and applied linguistics. In certain aspects (for instance in phonology, paleolinguistics), this manual was the first in its kind in Hungary: it treated comparative Uralic studies in the light of modern structuralism. In sum, Péter Hajdú’s oeuvre is an overall survey of the whole field of Uralistics in respect of educating new generations for the profession, not only in his homeland, but also elsewhere in the world. It should be mentioned here that Björn Collinder’s (1965) An Introduction to the Uralic Languages could have been as instrumental in education at university level as

228 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Péter Hajdú’s manual a year later, but in the Anglo-Saxon milieu, its reach was largely restricted to the narrower circle of international experts in Uralic studies. 5.9  FINNO-UGRIC STUDIES IN GERMANY We have already met the emblematic figure of Ludwig August Schlözer at Göttingen, a centre of Oriental studies in Germany from the eighteenth century. Another important centre of Finno-Ugric studies in Germany was Berlin, where Ernst Lewy (1881‒1966), a native of Breslau (now Wrocław in Poland), became the first university professor of Finno-Ugristics in 1915. Lewy was a Jew; he emigrated after Hitler came to power in 1935 and ended his career in Dublin, Ireland. Lewy was also the teacher and mentor of Wolfgang Steinitz (1905‒1967), a fellow townsman from Breslau, who, having returned from emigration from Sweden, finished his career after World War II at Berlin University (East Germany)—a late compensation for his mentor’s expulsion. It was also at Berlin, after the First World War, that Robert Gragger (1887‒1926) founded the Ungarische Jahrbücher (Berlin, 1921), which was the predecessor of Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, an important periodical of the profession between the two world wars and up to this day. Gragger was the discoverer of a precious linguistic relict of Hungarian from the end of thirteenth century, namely, the Ómagyar Mária-siralom (‘Old Hungarian Marian lament’). After the Second World War, other Finno-Ugric departments were established in the German Universities of Munich and Hamburg. Emigrant Hungarian scholars played an important role in the establishment of most of these departments. 5.10  INTERNATIONAL FINNO-UGRIC/URALIC STUDIES At the international level, every five years in rotation, the International Congresses of Finno-Ugrists were organized in countries with the largest Uralic-speaking populations, beginning with 1960 in Budapest. Subsequent congresses met with increasing numbers of particpants and specialisms in Helsinki, Tallinn, then other centres in Estonia, Syktyvkar (1985, in the Komi Republic), and Joshkar-Ola (2005, in the Mari Republic); the thirteenth congress met (with a pandemic delay of two years) in Vienna in 2022. Thanks to the official support of the various states and, in an even higher degree, to the informal and personal connections in the profession during the greater part of the second half of the last century, these congresses became ‘portals’ cut through the Iron Curtain not only for Uralistics but also in the wider context of related scholarly fields, such as literature, history, and archaeology. After the collapse of Oriental despotism in 1989‒1991, however, dilettantism became re-energized. While Uralistics has remained part of the national curriculum and, as such, also part of national identity in countries with Uralic-speaking majorities (Hungary, Finland, and Estonia), even after the sudden and unexpected liberation from the Soviet domination, the freshly acquired ‘freedom’ brought also unwelcome fruits, such as the nihilistic proposals by Marcantonio (2002) in her The Uralic language family. Facts, myths and statistics, a book which offers no positive alternatives for a Uralic linguistic relationship whatsoever, or the ‘alternative’ studies of linguistic history based on dilettante ‘comparisons’ with Sumerian, Turkic, or even non-existent Hunnic material (see Chapter 4 for a counterargument, also Honti 2010). ‘Alternative’ linguistic history has also become a part of a general departure from the ideal of a modern liberal democracy into the direction of a quasi-mediaeval, ‘feudalistic’ state, especially in Hungary. For the

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 229

speakers and students of minor languages spoken in the Soviet Union and then in the Russian Federation, the Finno-Ugric/Uralic relationship had meant a door to the ‘free world’ (of scholarship). 5.11  FINNO-UGRIC/URALIC STUDIES IN THE RUSSIAN/SOVIET EMPIRE In the beginning, these studies were part of the process of listing languages as possessions of the enlightened absolute monarchy, as those of Johann Strahlenberg’s (1730) Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa un Asia and Johann Eberhard Fischer’s (1768) Sibirische Geschichte von der entedekkung Sibiriens bis auf die eroberumng dieses lands durch die russische waffen 1–2 show. Later, students of Finno-Ugric languages in Russia, like the ethnographer Serafim Patkanov (1856‒1888) and the Slavist A. A. Šahmatov (1864‒1920), followed this line of research; the former studied Khanty, the latter Mordvin material. In the Soviet era, I mention only a few representatives of Finno-Ugric studies, first of all the founding father of Soviet Finno-Ugristics, D. V. Bubrih (1890‒1949), the Samoyedologist G. N. Patkanov (1896‒1942), and the Zyrian V. I. Lytkin (1895–1981), an alumnus of the Eötvös College, Budapest, in the 1920s, who was a rare bird among eastern Finno-Ugrians in the West at that time. Besides Moscow and Leningrad (since 1991, again St. Petersburg), centres of Finno-Ugric studies in the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic, Saransk in the Mordvin Republic, and Iževsk in the Udmurt Republic in the western side of the Ural Mountains, as well as Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansijsk, and Tomsk, all with the rank of university by now. Most of the teachers, scholars, and students come from the native peoples of the regions in question. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the arrival of freedom brought about favourable changes also in Uralistics. Estonia remained a centre of Uralic studies (first of all, Tartu, later also Tallinn); even under Soviet rule; the main figures were the legendary professor Paul Ariste (1905‒1990) in Finnic, Paula Palmeos (1911‒1990) in Finnish and Hungarian, Paul Kokla (1929‒2020) in Hungarian and Mari, Ago Künnap (1941‒) in Samoyed, and Tõnu Seilenthal (born 1947) in Khanty studies. After regaining independence, Estonian scholars, though, lost their direct access to sources of cognate peoples living in the Soviet Union but regained their original (pre-war) status among the Western nations of the Uralic family (Finns and Hungarians). 5.12  FIELDWORK REVIVED AND THE FURTHER INTERNATIONALIZATION OF URALISTICS The post-Soviet era is best characterized by the career and fate of two emblematic scholars. They are Éva Schmidt (1948‒2002), originally of Hungary, and Eugene Helimski (1950‒2007), originally of Russia. Éva Schmidt graduated from ELTE, Budapest, in English and Finno-Ugristics and went on to spend several semesters as a scholarship holder in Leningrad, where she got her PhD (kandidat nauk in Russian) with the thesis The traditional world view of Northern Ob-Ugrians as based on bear-cult materials (1989). After the demise of the Soviet Union, and against all odds, in 1991 she managed to establish, though a foreign citizen, The Northern Ostyak Folklore Archive in Beloyarskiy

230 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

on the Lower Kazym river, in Siberia. With outside help (including support from the Hungarian Academy), she had trained native Khanty colleagues deliberately chosen from the tribe with the lowest prestige as documentators and archivists for the research centre. They recorded, collected, and systematically documented large amounts of folkloristic material which otherwise would have been doomed to disappear without trace. Her studies of folkloristic material (poetry) are based on works of Wolfgang Steinitz and Robert Austerlitz and represent a major step forward in describing the true nature of Siberian versification (see Schmidt 1982). Éva Schmidt’s enterprise to save this hidden treasure of mankind for the future was a heroic deed in the spirit of Romanticism, the very same atmosphere in which the beginnings of comparative Uralic studies were to be found in the early nineteenth century. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when travelling to the formerly closed territories of the Soviet empire was made free, many students of Finno-Ugristics/Uralistics from the West set out to continue her pioneering fieldwork. One of them in Hungary is professor Márta Csepregi (born 1950), the former chairperson of the Department of Finnougristics at ELTE, Budapest, also custodian of Éva Schmidt’s Ostyak archive, now also as a duplicate at the archive of MTA Néprajzi Intézet (‘Institute of Ethnography of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’). Eugene Helimski graduated from Moscow University and excelled, first of all, as a student of Samoyedic languages. In his early years as a researcher, he was an adherent of the Nostratic theory of Ilyich-Svitich, which made him keep his vision wide on the linguistic horizon. He was the translator of Péter Hajdú’s (1962) handbook Finnugor népek és nyelvek into Russian in 1987. He made several trips to the arctic and subarctic regions, where Samoyed languages are spoken, and he recorded linguistic and folkloristic materials among the Selkup, the Nenets, and the Nganasan. He also contributed precious material for the study of Uralic versification (e.g. Helimski 1989). His fieldwork in the Taimyr Peninsula made him an internationally known and highly esteemed expert on twentieth-century shamanism (Helimsky and Kosterkina 1992). Helimski also had direct connections to more traditional centres of Uralic studies: he received his highest academic degree from Tartu University in 1988, was visiting professor at ELTE, Budapest, in 1994‒1995, and from 1998 until his untimely death in 2007, he was the chairman of the Finno-Ugric Department of Hamburg University. His career, like that of Éva Schmidt, was a bridge over which Eastern and Western scholarship could meet travelling in both directions, where Western Romanticism and Eastern Imperial Rationale (= Enlightenment) mingled to create a fruitful mixture. 5.13  CONCLUDING REMARKS Due to space limitations, it is not possible to describe all the post-war scholars and their achievements in this chapter. Yet the most important scholars with international fame cannot be left unmentioned: besides Tapani Salminen of University of Helsinki (1962–) who is an expert of Nenets and language endangerment, and Péter Hajdú (1923–2002), an all-around Uralist with specific interest of Samoyedic languages, the first guest professor of Finno-Ugric languages in Vienna between 1969 and 1971, we must mention also Károly Rédei (1928–2012), a specialist in Permian languages, professor of Finnougristics in Vienna between 1974 and 1990; László Honti (born 1943), a specialist in Ob-Ugric linguistics, professor of Finnougristics in Groningen, The Netherlands between 1998 and 1997, then in Udine, Italy

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 231

between 1997 and 2008; Gábor Bereczki (1928–2012), a specialist in Volgaic languages of Finno-Ugric family (Mari and Mordva), but versatile also outside the Finno-Ugric branch as Tatar and Baškir of Turkic family, professor in Finnougristics in Udine, Italy in between 1986 and 1997. The history of Finno-Ugric/Uralic Studies by no means ends here. It is a vibrant field where documentation and description of the language family continues to thrive with the addition of digital tools and engagement with linguistic typology and international linguistics, as the chapters in this volume demonstrate. The study of language endangerment and the focus on revitalization are new important developments in the field. NOTES 1 The old name for a language precedes the current name. 2 The role of the Kalevala (Lönnrot 1849) in the process of national identification of Finns is of utmost importance in the first half of the nineteenth century. 3 [Setälä] oli voimakas, kunnianhimoinen ja menestyksekäs. Hänen elämäntyötään ja luonettaan kuvaavista kirjoitusta löytyy sellaisia luonnehdintoja kuin ihmelapsi, ehtymätön lukuhalu, ilmiömäinen energisyys, tavaton työkyky, käsittämätön vähäunisuus, jättiläismäinen tarmo, synnynäinen oivalluskyky, ilmiömäinen muisti, poikkeuksellinen lahjakkuus, ilmiömäiset hengenlahjat, loistavat puhujanlahjat, suunnaton tietomäärä, suomalaisen hellittämätön sisu ja ainutlaatuinen personallisuus (Karlsson 2000, 6). REFERENCES Austerlitz, Robert. 1956. “Gilyak Nursery Words.” Word 12 (2): 260‒279. Austerlitz, Robert. 1958. Ob-Ugric Metrics: The Metrical Structure of Ostyak and Vogul Folk-poetry. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia. Beke, Ödön. 1931. Tscheremissische Texte zur Religion und Volkskunde. Oslo: Etnografiske museum. Beke, Ödön. 1938. Tscheremissische Märchen, Sagen and Erzählungen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Beke, Ödön. 1939. Tscheremissische Märchen aus dem Kreise Jaransk. Dorpat: Gelehrte Esthnische Gesellschaft. Beke, Ödön et al. 1997‒2001. Mari nyelvjárási szótár. Szombathely: Savaria University Press. Budenz, József. 1873‒1881. Magyar-ugor összehasonlitó szótár. Budapest. (Reprint 1966, with an English title: A Comparative Dictionary of the Finno-Ugric Elements in Hungarian Vocabulary. UUA 78. Bloomington, IN). Campbell, Lyle. 1997. “The Linguistic History of Finno-Ugric.” In Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday: Volume I: Language History, edited by Raymond Hickeyand Stanislav Puppel, 829‒861. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Castrén, M. A. 1850. De affixis personalibus linguarum altaicarum: dissertatio. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Castrén, M. A. 1852‒1870. Nordiska resor och forskningar, 1‒6. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratur-Sällskapets Tryckeri.

232 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Castrén, M. A. and Anton von Schiefner 1854. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St Petersburg – NRFdt 7. (Reprint with a Foreword by P. Hajdú 1966. – UUA 53. Bloomington, IN). Collinder, Björn. 1965. An Introduction to the Uralic Languages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Csécsy, Magda. 2005. A Dunától a Szajnáig. Negyven év Franciaországban. Budapest: Helikon. Décsy, Gyula. 2000. The Linguistic Identity of Europe, Part I. Bloomington: Eurolingua. Donner, Kai, and Aulis Joki. 1944. Kai Donners Kamassiches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproblem und Hauptzügen der Grammatik. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Donner, Otto. 1874‒1888. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen = Vertaileva sanakirja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten alalla, 1–3. Helsinki: Frenckell. Fischer, Johann Eberhard. 1768. Sibirische Geschichte von der Entdekkung Sibiriens bis auf die Eroberung dieses Lands durch die Russische Waffen, etc. St Petersburg: Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences. Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid. 1916. Zürjén szövegek. Budapest: MTA. Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid. 1951. Volksdichtung der Komi (Syrjänen). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid. 1959. Syrjänisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Fülep, Lajos. 1919. Szabó Dezső regénye ‘Elsodort falu.’ Budapest: Táltos kiadása. Gombocz, Zoltán. 1912. Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lehnwörter in der ungarischen Sprache. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Gombocz, Zoltán. 1925‒1929. A magyar történeti nyelvtan vázlata, 3‒5. Budapest: Danubia. Gombocz, Zoltán, and János Melich. 1914‒1944. Magyar etimológiai szótár, 1‒2. Budapest: Kiadja a magyar tudományos akadémia. Gyarmathi, Sámuel. 1799. Affinitas linguae hungaricae cum linguis fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata nec non vocabularia eialectorum tataricarum et slavicarum cum Hungarica comparata. Gottingae: Dieterich. [English translation by V. E. Hanzeli 1983: “Grammatical Proof of the Affinity of the Hungarian Language with Languages of Fennic Origin.” In Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 1. Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics 1800-1925, vol. 15. Amsterdam – Philadelphia.] Györke, József. 1934. Die Wortbildungslehre des uralischen (Primäre Bildungssuffixe). Tartu: Krüger. Hajdú, Peter. 1962. Finnugor népek és nyelvek. Budapest: Gondolat. Hajdú, Peter. 1966. Bevezetés az uráli nyelvészetbe—A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Hajdú, Peter. 1969. “Finnougrische Urheimatforschung.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 41: 252‒264. Helimski, Eugen. 1989. “Глубинно-фонологичесский изоииллабизм ненецкого стиха.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82: 223–268. Helimsky, Evgeny, and Nadezhda T. Kosterkina. 1992. “Small Séances with a Great Nganasan Shaman.” Diogenes 40 (158): 39‒55. Honti, László, ed. 2010. A nyelvrokonságról. Az török, sumer és egyéb áfium ellen való orvosság. Budapest: Tinta Könykiadó. Itkonen, Erkki. 1960. “Die Vorgeschichte der Finnen aus der Perspektive eines Linguisten.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 32: 2‒24.

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF URALIC LINGUISTICS 233

Jansson, A. W. 1871. Finska språkets satslära: för läroverkens behof. Helsingfors: Utgifvarens förlag. Joki, Aulis. 1959. “Paleolingvistiikkamme ongelmia.” In Verba Docent. Juhlakirja Lauri Hakulisen 60-vuotispäiväksi, edited by Pertti Virtaranta, Terho Itkonen, and Paavo Pulkkinen, 48‒55. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Karjalainen, K. F., and Y. H. Toivonen. 1948. K. F. Karjalainens Ostjakisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Karlsson, Fred. 2000. E. N. Setälä vaarallisilla vesillä: tieteellisen vallankäytön, käyttäytymisen ja perinteen analyysi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kempelen, Wolfgang von. 1791. Mechanismus der menschlichen Sprache : nebst der Beschreibung seiner sprechenden Maschine. Wien: bei J.V. Degen. László, Gyula. 1961. Őstörténetünk legkorábbi szakaszai: a finnugor őstörténet régészeti emlékei a Szovjetföldön. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Leem, Knud. 1748. En Lappisk Grammatica efter den Dialect, som bruges af Field-Lapperne udi Porsanger-Fiorden, samt et Register over de udi samme Grammatica anførte Observationers Indhold; Hvorhos er føyet et Blad af den berømmelige Historie-Skriveres Hr. Baron Ludvig Holbergs Kirke-Historie oversat i det Lappiske Tungemaal med en Analysi over et hvert Ord. Kiøbenhavn: paa Missionens Bekostning. Leem, Knud. 1768‒1781. Lexicon lapponicum bipartitum, Lapponico—Danico—Latinum & Danico—Latino—Lapponicum, cum Indice latino. Trondheim: Nidrosiæ. Leem, Knud, J. E. Gunner, and E. J. Jessen. 1767. Knud Leems Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, deres Tungemaal, Levemaade og forrige Afgudsdyrkelse, oplyst ved mange Kaabberstykker = Canuti Leemii De Lapponibus Finmarchiae, eorumqve lingva, vita et religione pristina commentatio, multis tabulis aeneis illustrata / med J.E. Gunneri Anmærkninger. Og E.J. Jessen-S Afhandling om de norske Finners og Lappers hedenske Religion. Kiøbenhavn: trykt udi det Kongl. Wäysenhuses Bogtrykkerie af G. G. Salikath. Lehtisalo, Toivo. 1956. Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Liimola, Matti, and Artturi Kannisto. 1951‒1963. Wogulische Volksdichtung. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Lönnrot, Elias. 1849. Kalevala. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Lotz, János. 1936. A történelmi világkép. Az ember az időben. Εργαςτεριον Pécs. Lotz, János. 1953. “Review of W. K. Matthews’s Book Languages of the U.S.S.R. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1951.” The American Slavic and East European Review XII: 279‒284. Marcantonio, Angela. 2002. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Mésöly, Gedeon. 1951. “Az ugor kori vadászélet magyar szókincsbeli emlékei.” Ethnographia LXII: 277‒290. Mésöly, Gedeon. 1956. Ómagyar szövegek nyelvtörténeti magyarázatokkal. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Munkácsi, Bernát. 1890‒1896. A votják nyelv szótára. Lexicon linguae votiacorum. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Munkácsi, Bernát. 1892‒1896. Vogul Népköltési Gyűjtemény, I–IV. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Munkácsi, Bernát. 1901. Árja és kaukázusi elemek a finn-magyar nyelvekben. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.

234 PÉTER SIMONCSICS

Munkácsi, Bernát, and Béla Kalman. 1986. Wogulisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó Pallas, Peter Simon. 1773‒1777. Merkwürdigkeiten der Morduanen, Kasaken, Kalmücken, Kirgisen, Baschkiren, &c. . . . Ein Auszug aus Pallas Reisen. Frankfurt/Leipzig. Raun, Alo. 1949. “Zum Komparativ Und Superlativ in Den Finnisch-Ugrischen Sprachen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 30: 376–389. Sajnovics, Janos, and Thomas A. Sebeok. 1967. Demonstratio idioma ungarorum et lapponum idem esse. Bloomington: Indiana University. Salminen, Tapani. 1989. “Classification of the Uralic Languages.” In IFUSCO 1988: Proceedings of the Fifth International Finno-Ugrist Students’ Conference, Helsinki, 22–26 May, 1988, edited by Riho Grünthal, Sirpa Penttinen, and Tapani Salminen, 15‒24. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Schmidt, Éva. 1982. “Vzaimosvyazi st’ichosloheniya i napeva u severnych obskich ugrov.” In Finno-ugorskiy muzikal’niy folklor: problemy sinkretizma, 68‒70. Tallinn: Советское финноугроведение. Schulz, Benjamin. 1769. Orientalisch und occidentalisches A, B, C = Buch welches hundert Alphabete nebst ihrer Ausprache so bey denen meisten Europaisch-, Asiatisch-, Africanisch-, und Americanischen Völkern und Nationen gebrauchlich sind nebst einigen Tabulis Polygottis verschiedener Sprachen und Zahlen vor Augen leget. Naumburg: Christian Friedrich Gessner. Setälä, E. N. 1880. Suomen kielen lause-oppi: oppikirjan koe. Helsinki: Holm. Setälä, E. N. 1887. Zur Geschichte der Tempus- und Modusstammbildung in den finnich-ugrischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Setälä, E. N. 1896. “Über Quantitätswechsel im finnisch-ugrischen: Vorläufige Mitteilung.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 14 (3): 1‒54. Setälä, E. N. 1901. “Über transkription der finnisch-ugrischen sprachen. Historik und vorschläge.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 1: 15‒52. Setälä, E. N. 1912. “Über Art und Umfang des Stufenwechsels im Finnisch-ugrischen and Samojedischen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 12: 1‒128. Simonyi, Zsigmond. 1907. Die Ungarische Sprache: Geschichte und Charakteristik. Strassburg: Trübner. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1944. Geschichte des finnisch-ugrischen Vokalismus. Stockholm: Ungarisches Institut. Stipa, Günter Johannes. 1990. Finnisch-ugrische Sprachforschung. Von der Rennaissance bis zum Positivismus. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Strahlenberg, Philip Johan Tabbert von. 1730. Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia, in so weit solches Das ganze Russische Reich mit Siberien und der grossen Tatarey in sich begreiffet : in einer historisch-geographischen Beschreibung der alten und neuern Zeiten, und vielen andern unbekannten Nachrichten vorgestellet : nebst einer noch niemahls ans Licht gegebenen Tabula Polyglotta von zwey und dreyssigerley Arten tatarischer Völcker Sprachen und einem kalmuckischen vocabulario : sonderlich aber einer grossen richtigen Land-Charte von den benannten Ländern und andern verschiedenen Kupfferstichen, so die asiatisch-scythische antiqvität betreffen. Stockholm: in Verlegung des Autoris. Szabó, Dezső. 1904. Vogul szóképzés. Különlenyomat a Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, vol. 34, Kötetéből. Budapest: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Szinnyei, József. 1896. Finnugor kézikönyvek. 3, Magyar nyelvhasonlítás (jegyzetek.): hallgatói számára. Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor kiadása. Zsirai, Miklós. 1937. Finnugor rokonságunk. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

CHAPTER 6

SOUTH SAAMI Torbjörn Söder

6.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW South Saami is spoken at the far south-west end of the Saami linguistic continuum; its traditional speech area is the most western of the Uralic languages. The language is severely endangered under the pressure of the surrounding majority languages, Norwegian and Swedish. The neutral constituent orders are AOV and SV, with frequent variations due to pragmatic reasons; modifiers occur before their head. The nominal inflectional system distinguishes two numbers—singular and plural—and eight cases, of which the nominative, the accusative, and the genitive are used for syntactic relations. There is no grammatical gender. The spatial system, including local cases, adpositions, and adverbs, distinguishes four basic meanings: goal, location, source, and path. The phonology is characterized by the alternation of bi- and trisyllabic stress groups, which may cause vowel alternations in the second syllable, and umlaut, which induces vowel alternations in the first syllable. The verbal system has two moods: the indicative and the imperative; two morphological tenses: the present and the past tense; and two compound tenses: the perfect and the pluperfect. Differential object marking appears in the plural, where the accusative plural marks definite objects, and the nominative plural indefinite objects. 6.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION The area where South Saami is traditionally spoken is depicted as having its northern boundaries around Vaapste (Nor. Vefsn) and Aarborte (Nor. Hattfjelldal) in Nordland County in Norway and south of Dearna (Swe. Tärnaby) in the municipality of Storuman in Västerbotten County in Sweden. In the south, the surroundings of Eajra (Swe. Idre) in the municipality of Älvdalen in Dalarna County in Sweden form the southern boundary. Figure 6.1 contains a map of the area. From north to south, the area is approximately 450 km long, and the width is some 250 km. The Scandinavian Mountains stretch through the area in a roughly north–south direction. In the west, the area reaches the Norwegian Sea, and in the east, the forest areas of Central Västerbotten and Jämtland County in Mid Scandinavia. Most of the area is located within the subarctic region and is dominated by taiga. Areas with an altitude of 900 m and above have tundra climate. The boundaries of the area, however, do not form a real linguistic border for South Saami: both historically and currently, members of the South Saami people are found outside the area. There are, for instance, historical records of Saami living along the shores of the Baltic Sea and as far south as the southern parts Dalarna County and Gävleborg County in Sweden. These Saami, however, have become ethnically and linguistically assimilated and eventually absorbed by the Swedish majority population. The policy DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-6

236 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

FIGURE 6.1 THE SOUTH SAAMI SPEECH AREA, WITH EXAMPLES OF SOUTH SAAMI PLACE NAMES. THE GRID INDICATES SPEECH AREA, AS USUALLY PRESENTED IN SAAMI DIALECT SURVEYS (CF. RYDVING 2013). THE CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN THE SOUTH SAAMI PLACE NAMES ON THE MAP AND THEIR NORWEGIAN AND SWEDISH COUNTERPART IS AS FOLLOWS: AARBORTE ~ HATTFJELLDAL, BÏENJEDAELIE ~ FUNÄSDALEN, DEARNA ~ TÄRNABY, SÅAKA ~ UNDERSÅKER, EAJRA ~ IDRE, HÏERNESAANDE ~ HÄRNÖSAND, KRAAPOHKE ~ DOROTEA, LIEVENGE ~ LEVANGER, ORRESTAARE ~ ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK, OSLOVE ~ OSLO, PLASSJE ~ RØROS, RAARVIHKE ~ RØYRVIK, SJELTIE ~ ÅSELE, SJÄDTAVAELLIE ~ SUNDSVALL, SNÅASE ~ SNÅSA, STAARE ~ ÖSTERSUND, STIENTJIE ~ STEINKJER, STRAEJMIE ~ STRÖMSUND, STUEHKIE ~ STOCKHOLM, TJARVETJE ~ GÄVLE, TJEEDTEGE ~ GÄDDEDE, TRÅANTE ~ TRONDHEIM, UPMEJE ~ UMEÅ, VUALTJERE ~ VILHELMINA, ÅARJELMÏERE ~ SÖDERHAMN.

of the Norwegian and Swedish governments towards the Saami, especially during the nineteenth and until the late twentieth century, led to a differentiation of Saami rights, connecting them closely to reindeer herding and thus neglecting Saami who based their livelihood mainly on other activities (Lundmark 2008).

SOUTH SAAMI 237

Today, many South Saami live outside the South Saami area, both in other parts of the wider Saami area and and elsewhere in Scandinavian population centres. Estimates mention 500 speakers of South Saami (e.g. UNESCO). All adult speakers are bilingual in Swedish or Norwegian. The impact of Scandinavian languages on South Saami is strong, and in combination with colonization and assimilation strategies of the Swedish and Norwegian governments, the current situation seems to be language shift. Although South Saami has a standard orthography, illiteracy in South Saami is quite common, especially among elderly speakers. There is, however, awareness of the problem, and both Norwegian and Swedish legislations support the use of South Saami in contact with authorities and in elderly care and childcare, especially in municipalities which constitute a Saami administrative area. Even though reindeer husbandry is the emblematic Saami genre de vie, most Saami derive their income from other activities. These include hunting and fishing, artistic Saami handicraft (duedtie/vætnoe in South Saami, duodji in North Saami) and tourism, and other, traditionally non-Saami activities. South Saami is usually divided into a northern and a southern dialect. The northern dialect includes Saami traditionally spoken in Vapsten in Tärna; Vilhelmina, Frostviken, in Sweden; and Vefsn, Grane, Hattfjelldal, Bindal, Namdal, in Norway. The southern dialect includes Saami traditionally spoken in Hotagen, Offerdal, Kall, Skalstugan, Undersåker, Härjedalen, in Sweden, and in Meråker, the area between Snåsa and Verdal in Norway (cf. Rydving 2013, 73). However a division into three dialects, a northern, a central, and a southern dialect, has also been suggested (Hasselbrink 1981, 21–22). In the tripartite division, the Saami spoken in Hotagen, Offerdal, Kall, Skalstugan, Meråker, and Snåsa are included in the central dialect. Both divisions are based on the opposition between northern and southern features. In the tripartite division, the central dialect may be considered a transitional dialect since it shares features with both the northern and the southern dialect. The opposition between northern and southern features includes, for example, the correspondence between the northern second-syllable diphthong oe and the southern a, for example, bearkoe ~ bearka ‘meat,’ and the northern infinitive marker -dh and the southern -jh: båetedh1 ~ båetijh ‘come.’ An original word-final m is pronounced as b in the north but is retained in the south and in the southern part of the northern dialect. The southern dialect shows instances of delabialization in stressed syllables, for example, geekte pro göökte ‘two.’ The central dialect aligns with the southern dialect with regard to the opposition oe ~ a and final m, but with the northern dialect with regard to the infinitive marker -dh and delabialization. In the north, the third-person pronouns are satne (sg), såtnoeh (du), and sijjieh (pl), but further south the pronouns dïhte, dah (guaktah), and dah are used (cf. Section 6.9.1). The language presented in this chapter is based on Standard South Saami literary language as it is encoded in South Saami grammars (Magga and Mattsson Magga 2012; Bergsland 1994), and the examples2 have been retrieved from written sources (e.g. Bergsland et al. 1985; Jacobsen 1993; Bull 2000; Mattsson Magga 2016; Fjellheim 2015; Jåma 2015) and from Internet resources (SIKOR; OAHPA). 6.3 PHONOLOGY AND THE WORD This section sets out the phonological system in relation to the standard literary language. The standard literary language, which received official status in 1978, does not comprise all dialectal variation of the intended speech area. Nor does it thoroughly encode all

238 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

the phonological features that appear in phonological studies on specific South Saami dialects (e.g. Lagercrantz 1923; Hasselbrink 1944; Bergsland 1946; Lorentz 1973; cf. Bergsland and Mattsson Magga 1993, 5). The South Saami alphabet consists of 25 graphemes: . In accordance with Swedish orthography, the grapheme commonly replaces , and in accordance with Norwegian orthography, the grapheme commonly replaces . 6.3.1 Consonants Table 6.1 sets out the consonant system and its relation to the South Saami orthography. The grapheme combinations represent consonant phonemes in their own right. In native South Saami words, voice is not a distinctive feature of stops. Therefore, one can consider three phonemes, /p, t, k/, orthographically represented by , which are pronounced differently depending on the position in the word. The presence of voice in stops is quite transparent in the orthography, where

represent unvoiced stops and voiced stops. The exception to this is , which in word-initial prevocalic position represent stops that are best described as sounds realized as unvoiced lenis stops [b̥, d̥, ɡ̊] (Lorentz 1973, 18), for example, baenie [b̥a̝ːnie] ‘tooth,’ dålle [d̥ɔlːə] ‘fire,’ gåetie [ɡ̊oætie] ‘house.’3 In medial position before sonorants, however, represent voiced stops, for example, ebrie [e̞brie] ‘rain,’ gåglodh [kɔglut] ‘to throw up (of dogs),’ giebnie [kjiebnie] ‘cauldron.’ When the stop is followed by a homorganic nasal, however, the stop is voiceless, for example, lopme [lupmə] ‘snow,’ joknge [jukŋə] ‘lingonberry’ (cf. Lagercrantz 1923, 139; Hasselbrink 1965, 7–8; Bergsland 1994, 20; Magga and Mattssom Magga 2012, 17). In word-initial prevocalic position,

represent postaspirated stops and occur in Norwegian and Swedish loanwords, for example, kaarre [khɑːrːə] ‘man’< Nor. kar ‘id.’ Swe. karl ‘id..’ They also represent postaspirated stops as the initial part of a cluster, in word-initial position, for example, klovse [khluwsə] ‘albino reindeer,’ pluevie [pʰlʉəvie] ‘mire,’ trimhkedh [tʰrimhkət] ‘to blink, close one’s eyes,’ and in medial position, for example, baektie [pa̝ːkhtie] ‘cliff, steep mountain,’ boetkenidh [puothkənit] ‘to wear off’ (southern South Saami), lapte [lɑphtə] ‘attic.’ In intervocalic position,

represent TABLE 6.1  THE CONSONANT SYSTEM IN SOUTH SAAMI Labial

Labiodental Alveolar PalatoPalatal Velar alveolar

Nasal

/m/

/n/

Stop

/p/

/t/ /t͡s/

/t͡ʃ/

/s/

/ʃ/

Affricate Fricative

/f/

Approximant

/ʋ/

/ɲ/ /ŋ/ /k/ /h/ /j/

Trill

/r/

Lateral Approximant

/l/

Glottal

SOUTH SAAMI 239

unvoiced non-aspirated sounds, for example, guapa [kʉɑpɑ] ‘sock,’ gåetie [koæːtie] ‘house,’ baakoe [pɑːkuə] ‘word.’ In southern South Saami, the affricate /t͡s/ has merged with /t͡ʃ/, which, for instance, implies that the standard form tsååbpe ‘frog’ may be realized as [t͡ʃoːpːə] instead of [t͡soːpːə] ‘frog’ (Bergsland and Hasselbrink 1957, 13; Bergsland and Magga 1993, 9; cf. Bergsland 1946, 22, 47–48; Hasselbrink 1981, 53). Sometimes /k/ is palatalized before front and central vowels, especially before the diphthongs ie, ïe, ea, yö, for example, gyösedh [kjyøsət] ‘to be dragged,’ and to some extent, also in front of i and ee (cf. Section 6.3.2). In some speakers’ speech, /l/ is velarized, especially when following /ɨ/ or /ɨə/, for example, sïlle [sɨlʷːə] ‘fathom’ or in back vowel surrounding. In word-initial position represents a voiceless glottal fricative, but elsewhere it may have different values. In position after stressed vowels, it represents a voiceless fricative whose place of articulation is influenced by the surrounding sounds. For instance, the combination represents a voiceless palatal fricative, as in dïhte [tɨçtə] ‘s/he, it,’ and , as in nahkasjidh [nɑxkɑʃit] ‘manage, bring off,’ a voiceless velar fricative. In labial surrounding, it commonly represents a voiceless bilabial fricative, for example, luhpie [lʉɸpiɛ] ‘permission’ and tjohpe [t͡ʃuɸpə] ‘hat, cap.’ Preaspirated stops and affricates are frequent and form a series, which corresponds to other stops and affricates, see Table 6.2. Instances of in intervocalic position are scarce, but examples show that the quality depends on the surrounding vocalism, for example, in bahha [pɑxːɑ] ‘devil,’ it is realized as a velar, and in rihhehke [riçːəxkə] ‘winter road’ as a palatal fricative (cf. Hasselbrink 1981, 71). All consonants in Table 6.1 can occur geminate. Geminate stops and affricates, which are voiceless, are orthographically represented by ; see Table 6.2. Gemination of the nasals and and the palato-alveolar is written by doubling the first part of the grapheme combination: . Simple doubling marks other geminates, for example, nomme ‘name,’ manne ‘I,’ orre ‘new.’ Geminates spelled may occur in loanwords, for example, blogge ‘blog,’ and the recommendation is that in Swedish and Norwegian loanwords are transcribed as (SAMER. SE). This should also include of Swedish loanwords, since it corresponds to in Norwegian. Most consonant clusters include two consonants (cf. Section 6.3.3) but may also include an intermediate , which signals voicelessness and is realized either as a devoicing of the initial consonant of the cluster or as a voiceless fricative, for example, saelhtie [sa̝ːll̥ tie] ~ [sa̝ːlhtie] ‘salt’ (cf. Hasselbrink 1981, 63–65). Minimal pairs such as gierkie ‘stone’ ~ gierhkie ‘wolverine’ and dervie ‘tar’ ~ derhvie ‘peat’ underline the TABLE 6.2  SHORT, LONG, AND PREASPIRATED STOPS AND AFFRICATES Short

Example

Long

Example

Preaspirated

Example

k

baakoe ‘word’

gk

bïegke ‘wind’

hk

jaahkoe ‘faith, belief’

p

riepie ‘fox’

bp

mubpie ‘other, second

hp

duahpa ‘tassel’

t

råate ‘lynx’

dt

gaedtie ‘beach’

ht

lihtie ‘bowl’

tj

gietjie ‘end, point’

dtj

aadtjen ‘recently’

htj

buhtjedh ‘milk (verb)’

ts

muetsie ‘moth’

dts

gadtse ‘claw, nail’

hts

lïhtse ‘joint’

240 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

phonematic representation of . If the voiced initial and the final consonant of a cluster do not have similar articulatory positions, an anaptyctic vowel may appear after the first component of the cluster, for example, barka [pɑrəkɑ] ‘s/he works.’ In initial and in most intervocalic positions and in the clusters /jv lv rv sv/, /v/ is realized as a voiced fricative, [v] or as a labiodental approximant [ʋ]. At the end of a syllable, it is pronounced with less turbulence, either as a labiodental approximant [ʋ] or labial-velar approximant [w]. In the latter case, the approximant and the preceding vowel form a sound which may be perceived as a closing diphthong, for example, jaevrie [ja̝ːʊrie] ‘lake,’ or if the preceding vowel is /ʉ u/, a long vowel, buvrie [pʉːrie] ‘shed,’ govlem [kuːləm] ‘I hear.’ An anaptyctic vowel between the approximant and the following consonant is also quite common, for example, jaevrie [ja̝ːwᵊrie], govlem [kuwᵊləm]. The geminate represents [ʋː] or [wː], for example, hævvie [hæʋːie] ‘of course’ ~ lovvedh [luwːət] ‘get wet’ (cf. Hasselbrink 1981, 58). In word-initial, intervocalic, and consonant-cluster-final positions, the grapheme represents a voiced palatal approximant, [j]. At the end of a syllable, it may be phonetically combined with a preceding vowel to form the second element of a closing diphthong, for example, aejkie [aːɪkiɛ] ‘occasion,’ and in the combinations as long vowel sounds, for example, vijre [viːrə] ‘game, animal,’ nyjsenæjja [nyːsənæjːaˑ] ‘woman,’ bïjle [pɨːlə], ‘car.’ The appearance of an anaptyctic vowel between the approximant and the following consonant is also quite common, for example, vijre [vijərə], bïjle [pɨjələ]. The short monophthongs written , the diphthongs , and to some extent, and (cf. Section 6.3.2.1) may have a palatalizing effect on the preceding consonant, which is most salient when the preceding vowel is a velar stop, gylje [kjyljə] ‘s/he shouts.’ Henceforth, palatalization will only be marked in connection with the velar stop. In southern South Saami, /s/ and /n/ have in some words developed into [ʃ] and [ɲ], as the result of palatalization, for example, seasa [ʃeæsɑ] instead of [seæsɑ] ‘aunt,’ baenie [pa̝ːɲie] instead of [pa̝ːnie] ‘tooth’ (Bergsland 1994, 20–21). 6.3.2 Vowels The possible phonetic quality of the vowels in South Saami relates to its position in the syllable structure. The vowels of the first syllable are, by far, the most variegated (see Table 6.3–6.6), whereas the possible vowels of subsequent syllables are fewer (see Section 6.3.2.3). The multitude of possible first-syllable vowels owes to the South Saami umlaut system (see Section 6.3.2.4). The phonetic quantity of monophthongs and diphthongs of the first syllable in biand trisyllabic words depends on the structure of the syllable in which they appear. The general rule is that monophthongs and diphthongs of the first syllable are realized shorter in closed syllables than in open syllables. Short vowels (see Table 6.4) do not usually TABLE 6.3  SOUTH SAAMI MONOPHTHONGS OF THE FIRST SYLLABLE Front

Central

Close

iy

ɨ ʉ

Mid

e(ː) øː æ(ː)

Open

aː

Back u o(ː) ɑ(ː)

SOUTH SAAMI 241 TABLE 6.4 SOUTH SAAMI SHORT VOWELS OF THE FIRST SYLLABLE Graphemes

Phonemes

Examples

i

/i/

jirreden [jirːədən] ‘tomorrow’

y

/y/

byjje [pyjːə] ‘hard wood of pine’

ï

/ɨ/

vïssjedh [vɨʃːət] ‘cope’

u

/ʉ/

utnedh [ʉtnət] ‘to have, use, find’

o

/u/

bolle [pulːə] ‘body’

æ

/æ/

gærja [kjærjɑ] ‘book’

a

/ɑ/

vadta [vɑtːɑ] give.prs.3sg ‘gives’

e

/e/

dellie [te̞ lːie] ‘then’

å

/o/

jårredh [jorːət] ‘roll’

TABLE 6.5  SOUTH SAAMI LONG VOWELS OF THE FIRST SYLLABLE Graphemes

Phonemes

Examples

ee

/eː/

geesi [kjeːsi] pull.pst.3sg ‘s/he pulled’

öö

/øː/

bööti [pøːti] come.pst.3sg ‘s/he came’

åå

/oː/

gååre [koːrə] sew.prs.3sg ‘sews’

ae

/aː/

vaerie [va̝ːrie] ‘mountain’

aa

/ɑː/

aahka [ɑːhkɑ] ‘grandmother’

TABLE 6.6  SOUTH SAAMI DIPHTHONGS OF THE FIRST SYLLABLE Graphemes

Phonemes

Examples

ie

/ie/

giesedh [kjiesət] ‘to pull’; biejjie [piejːie] ‘sun; day’

ïe

/ɨǝ/

gïele [kjiələ] ‘language’; bïegke [piəkːə] ‘wind’

ea

/eæ/

deava [teævɑ] ‘slope, hillside’; reagka [reækːɑ] ‘ring’

ue

/ʉə/

guelie [kʉəlie] ‘fish’; vuelkedh [vʉəlkət] ‘to leave’

oe

/uo/

goese [kuosə] ‘spruce’; voesse [vuosːə] ‘sack’

ua

/ʉɑ/

yö

/yø/

guapa [kʉɑpɑ] ‘sock’; buartan [pʉɑrtɑn] ‘table’ ill.sg tjyöre [t͡ʃyørə] ‘to cry’ prs.3sg; byöpmede [pyøpmədə] ‘to eat’ prs.3sg

åe

/oæ/

gåetie [koætie] ‘house’; åelkie [oælkie] ‘shoulder’

åa

/ɔɑ/

båatam [pɔɑtɑm] ‘come’ prs.1sg; åabpa [ɔɑpːɑ] ‘sister’

appear in open first syllables and show no variation in this respect. Long monophthongs and diphthongs (see Tables 6.5 and 6.6), however, which may appear in both closed and open syllables, display a regular distribution of long and short allophones because of this rule. To include the quantity of short vowels, shortened and unshortened long vowels,

242 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

and diphthongs, a threefold distinction of quantity is made in several surveys (Bergsland 1946, 13; Hasselbrink 1965, 18–19). This phonetic distinction could be exemplified, somewhat schematically, by the differences in quantity of the first nucleus in gærja [kærəjɑˑ] ‘book’ (short), reagka [reæˑkːɑ] ‘ring’ (shortened long), and deava [teæːvɑ] ‘slope, hillside’ (unshortened long). In the following, no distinction between short and long diphthongs will be made, and for monophthongs, only a twofold distinction between short and long will be made. 6.3.2.1 Monophthongs The monophthongs of the first syllable (Table 6.3) are represented by the single graphemes and the double graphemes . The former represent short vowels (see Table 6.4), and the latter long vowels (Table 6.5). In a few native words, a short /ø/ may also appear before /ʋ/, as in övtebe ‘earlier.’ The sound seems to have appeared through a process of labaliazation effected by the subsequent /ʋ/, cf. evtebe ‘id.’ It should be noted that represent /u ʉ o/, emulating the representation of these phonemes in Norwegian and Swedish. The grapheme represents a close unrounded central vowel, as opposed to the more fronted vowel /i/. Some grammarians (Magga and Mattsson Magga 2012, 23, 26; Bergsland and Hasselbrink 1957, 9) distinguish another i-sound, also written as in the standard language (sometimes marked as [î]), which is pronounced “narrower” and “pointier” (Magga and Mattsson Magga 2012, 14) than /i/. This sound corresponds to in series 2, row VI, of Tables 6.7a and 6.7b. Not all speakers make a clear distinction when pronouncing and , and there are speakers whose pronunciation of is [y] (Bergsland 1994, 18). The grapheme refers to a low illabial back vowel [ɑ]. There are also reports of a slightly rounded [ɒ], which refers to series 2, row IV, of Tables 6.7a and 6.7b. Allegedly, there are speakers who can discern different pronunciations in the minimal pair sarvese [sɒrəvəsə], illative of sarve ‘elk,’ and sarvese [sɑrəvəsə], illative of sarva ‘reindeer bull.’ Phonological studies of the vowel system (Lorentz 1973, 67, appendix 1) show that the distinction /ɑ/ vs. /ɒ/ is more commonly attested in the north than in the south. However, in Lorentz 1973, the most recent TABLE 6.7A  THE UMLAUT SYSTEM IN SOUTH SAAMI BASED ON STANDARD ORTHOGRAPHY Umlaut series 1 /i/

2 /ɑ/

3 /u//o/

4 /ie/

5 /ɑː/

6 /oɑ/

7 /oe/

Vowel of the second syllable in bisyllabic stress groups

I











1 or 1

II













III











IV









or

4 or 4

V









5

5

VI









or

4

6

Vowel of the second syllable of trisyllabic stress groups

3 or 3 4

6

6 or 6

SOUTH SAAMI 243 TABLE 6.7B  THE UMLAUT SYSTEM IN SOUTH SAAMI WITH EXAMPLES Umlaut series 1 I

2

bissieh vedtieh ‘they wash’ ‘they give’

3

4

5



luhkieh giesie vaedtsedh ‘they read’ ‘summer’ ‘to walk’

II

gæljoeh barkoe ålkone ‘you shout’ ‘work’ (noun) ‘outside’

tjearoeh baakoe ‘they cry’ ‘word’

6

7

1 båetieh guelie or ‘they come’ ‘fish’ (noun) 1

dåaroe ‘war’

våajnoe ‘view’



III bæssa ‘s/he washes’

vadta ‘s/he gives’

låhka geasan ‘s/he reads’ ‘to the summer’

vaadtsajidh båatam ‘walk away’ ‘I come’

3 gualetje or ‘small fish’ 3

IV bïssem ‘I wash’

gaske ‘interstice’

lohkem bïegke ‘I read’ ‘wind’ dålle ‘fire’

gaavnedh ‘find’

voehpe ‘father in law’

V

gylje obre ‘s/he shouts’ ‘it rains’ VI illi ‘s/he finished’

råate ‘lynx’



olme tjyöre gååvnesidh dååre våålese ‘it snows’ s/he cries’ ‘exist’ ‘s/he fights’ ‘down’

giske urhtsedh ‘in betweeen’ ‘tear off’

geesi geelle ‘s/he pulls’ ‘husband’

bööti gööledh ‘s/he came’ ‘fish’

4 4 or or 4 4 5 5

6 6 or or 6 6

of these studies, no distinction between the two vowels is made, even though the study is based on material from Vefsen, in the northern part of the South Saami speech area. No distinction is made in the orthography, and in this chapter, the potential variation ɑ ~ ɒ is considered allophonic. The grapheme refers to /aː/, which may be realized less open, as [a̝ː], whereas represent a long vowel sound, which corresponds to but often realized a little more closed. The vowel written corresponds in quality to but is commonly realized more closed than the short vowel, for example, geesi [kjeːsi] pull.pst.3sg ‘s/he pulled.’ Bergsland (1994, 18; cf. Hasselbrink 1965, 19–21) reports a more open realization in words where the vowel does not have any palatalizing effect on the initial stop, for example, geelle [kæːlːə] ‘husband.’ This sound refers to in series 5, row VI, of Tables 6.7a and 6.7b. 6.3.2.2 Diphthongs The combinations represent opening diphthongs. Their realization is quite variegated, but Table 6.6 gives an idea of their pronunciation.

244 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

6.3.2.3 Monophthongs and diphthongs after the first syllable In the second syllable of bisyllabic stress groups, only the monophthongs represented by and the diphthongs appear. The grapheme represents phonemically a long vowel (Bergsland 1994, 25; Bergsland and Hasselbrink 1957, 8), which usually is realized shortened, as [ɑˑ] or [ɑ]. In the second syllable of trisyllabic stress groups, we have only the vowels represented by (cf. Section 6.3.3), since and are shortened when appearing in trisyllabic stress groups. When, for instance, the inessive singular suffix -sne is added to the noun gåetie ‘house,’ which constitutes a bisyllabic stress group, it becomes trisyllabic, and the ie in the second syllable changes to an e, thus yielding the form ˈgåetesne house.ine ‘in the house.’ The verb form våajole sink.suddenly.prs.3sg ‘s/he sinks suddenly’ constitutes a trisyllabic stress group, and thus, the vowel of the second syllable is a monophthong. The form of the second-person plural present, however, consists of two bisyllabic stress groups, ˈvåajoeˌlidie sink.suddenly.prs.2pl ‘you sink suddenly,’ with a diphthong in the second syllable. When the monophthong appears in the second syllable of trisyllabic stress group it is transformed to , for example, aahka ‘grandmother’ ~ aahkese grandmother.ill ‘to grandmother.’ In positions after the first syllable, is realized as a reduced vowel, in this chapter always phonetically referred to as [ə], which may vary slightly in quality. For instance, an /e/ yielded from /ie/ is usually more fronted than an /e/ yielded from /a/. Before , this vowel is commonly very short or omitted, for example, fïerhten [fiərr̥tn] ‘every,’ soptseste [suptsːtə] speak.prs.3sg ‘s/he speaks.’ Between and , it is even omitted in the orthography, for example, gierehtsh sledge.pl ‘sledges’ (cf. gierehtse ‘sledge’). The monophthong in the second syllable indicates, however, that the word gierehtsh is still trisyllabic from a phonotactic point of view. A true bisyllabic stress group in this word has the diphthong /ie/ in the second syllable: ˈgieriehˌtsisnie sledge.ine ‘in the sledge,’ cf. Section 6.4.1.2, Table 6.10b. 6.3.2.4 Umlaut A phenomenon which really characterizes the phonological system of South Saami is the so-called umlaut. This metaphonic process appears in both the inflectional and derivational systems (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5.1) and can be described as an allophonic variation, which implies that the quality of the vowel in the first syllable depends on the quality of the vowel in the second syllable. From this perspective, one can posit eight underlying phonemes, /i ɑ u o ie ɑː oɑ oe/, from which first-syllable vowels are yielded. These phonemes correspond to the umlaut series of six vowels in the numbered columns of Tables 6.7a and 6.7b. Since the series corresponding to /u/ and /o/, with only one exception (/u/ vs. /ɔ/ ), are the same, they both appear in column 3. Altogether, the umlaut system includes nine short, five long vowels, and nine diphthongs of the first syllable. The second-syllable vowels, which decide the outcome of the umlaut, appear in the two columns to the right in Tables 6.7a and 6.7b, in Section 6.3.2.1. The superscripts 1 and 3–6 do not belong to the orthography but relate to the rows in tables. They are of relevance since they indicate separate vowels, which most commonly induce umlaut differently. The rightmost column displays second-syllable vowels of trisyllabic stress groups. The vowels e1 and i1 are shortened forms of ie, o shortened form of oe and, e3 and i3 shortened forms of a. The shortened vowels induce umlaut the same way as the corresponding full vowels. The vowels e4–e6, i4, and i6 correspond historically to different vowels and

SOUTH SAAMI 245

therefore induce different umlauts. The Roman numerals help in identifying the cells in the tables, and they also correspond to the verb groups of bi- and quadrisyllabic verbs (see Section 6.4.2.1). The following three examples may serve as an illustration of how the umlaut systems functions: (1) When the word gåetie ‘house,’ which is in the nominative, is inflected for the illative gåatan ‘into the house,’ the diphthong of the first syllable changes into åa because of the a in the second syllable (see series 6, row I and III, in Table 6.7a). (2) The first-person singular present tense of the verb darjodh ‘to do, make’ is darjoem ‘I do, I make.’ However, when the verb is inflected for the third-person singular, of which the form is dorje5 ‘s/he does, s/he makes,’ the vowel of the first syllable changes into an o because of the e5 of the second syllable (see series 2, row II and V, in Table 6.7a). (3) The change of ie to e in gåetie ‘house’ and gåetesne house.ine ‘in the house’ does not cause vowel in the first syllable, since e1 in this case has the same impetus as ie as far as the umlaut is concerned (see series 6, row I, in Table 6.7a). For other versions of the South Saami umlaut system, see Bergsland 1946, 82, 1994, 32; Hasselbrink 1965, 25–29, 1981, 75–83; Lorentz 1973, 67, 129–132; Magga and Mattsson Magga 2012, 22–27. Table 6.7b presents examples for every first-syllable vowel which may appear according to the umlaut system. It also shows examples of several lexically related words which, due to metaphony, display different first-syllable vowels. The verb forms bissieh ~ bæssa ~ bïssem (< bïssedh ‘to wash’; series 1: I, III, IV), gæljoeh ~ gylje (< gæljodh ‘to shout,’ series 1: II, V), vedtieh ~ vadta (< vedtedh ‘give,’ series 2: I, III), luhkieh ~ låhka ~ lohkem (series 3, I, III, IV), and båetieh ~ båatam ~ bööti (< båetedh ‘to come,’ series 6: I, III, VI) show how the umlaut influences the verbal inflection (cf. Section 6.4.2.1), whereas vaedtsedh ~ vaadtsajidh (series 5: I, III) and gaavnedh ~ gååvnesidh (series 5: IV, V) illustrates processes of umlaut in the process of deverbal verb derivation (cf. Section 6.5.1). The words gaske ~ giske (series 2: IV, VI) display the metaphonic relation between a noun and an adposition, and dåaroe ~ dååre (< dåarodh ‘to fight,’ series 6: II, V) that of a noun and a verb. The forms guelie ~ gualatje ~ gööledh (series 7: I, III, VI) show how two derivations of the same root (guelie ‘fish’) cause different metaphonic results. Even though most South Saami words fit into the umlaut system, there are forms which do not follow its pattern, for example, bårrieh eat.prs.3pl ‘they eat’ (< bårredh ‘to eat’) and jååktan ‘yesterday.’ There are also inflectional categories which are not subjected to umlaut at all. One such category is verb group V (see Table 6.11e in Section 6.4.2.1), to which the verb lyjhkedh ‘like’ belongs. The present-tense third-person singular form lyjhkoe ‘s/he likes’ has an unaltered first-syllable vowel, and not , as the umlaut table would suggest, cf. series 1, row II and V. The auxiliary verb edtjedh ‘shall, intend’ (see Section 6.14) is irregular and lacks an umlaut altogether. 6.3.3 Phonotactics Apart from a quite limited inventory of monosyllabic words consisting of mostly pronouns, adverbs, and some verb forms, whose structures are (C)VC(C), most words are made up of bi- or trisyllabic stress groups (ˈmaana ‘child,’ ˈaerede ‘morning’). Some words consist of combinations of stress groups, the most common being the combinations 2 + 2 (ˈnyjseˌnæjja woman.nom) and 2 + 3 (ˈnyjseˌnæjjese woman.ill), but the combinations 2 + 1 (ˈdåerieˌdieh follow.prs.3pl) and 3 + 2 (ˈdåeredeˌminie follow.ger) also occur regularly. The word ˈkaamˌraate ‘friend,’ which displays the unusual combination 1 + 2, reflects an adaptation to the Norwegian and Swedish stress pattern of the word, cf. Nor. kameˈrat, Swe. kamˈrat ‘id.’

246 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

Since South Saami phonotactics allow consonant clusters in word-initial, word-internal, and in some cases, even word-final positions, for example, buajtehks ‘fat,’ the possible structures of the phonological word are quite varied. Word-initial consonant clusters are quite rare, but not exceptional. In words with bisyllabic stress groups, the most common patterns are (C)VCV(C) åara sleep.prs.3sg, gåetien house.gen, båata come.prs.3sg, aatem thing. acc and (C)VCCV(C) akte one, datnem you.acc, gaektsie two, joptsen soup.gen. Words with trisyllabic stress groups show initial patterns similar to those of words consisting of bisyllabic stress groups. Consonantisms following the nucleus of the second syllable may be a single consonant or a consonant cluster, for example, (C)VCVCV(C) aereden morning.gen, (C)VCVCCV(C) saemeste speak.Saami.prs3sg, (C)VCCVCV(C) almetje person, bietskede cut.prs3sg, (C)VCCVCCV(C) tjïelkeste explain.prs.3sg. If initial consonant clusters are included, the number of possible syllable structures is considerably larger. Initial consonant clusters may consist of three consonants, of which the first is s, the second a stop, and the third a liquid, most commonly r, for example, skråavva ‘anti-suckle device.’ Initial clusters consisting of two consonants show more variation and consist mostly of either a stop + liquid (e.g. klaahka ‘ski pole,’ prïhtjege ‘coffee’) or s + l, v, nasal, or stop (e.g. sleebpedh ‘to pour out,’ svaale ‘arctic fox,’ snurke ‘pig,’ spoeje ‘bladder’). Between the first and the second syllables, generally, only biconsonantal clusters are allowed, but there are exceptions, for example, hearskoes ‘tasty.’ Most biconsonant clusters appearing in word-initial position may also appear in medial position. It should be noted that loanwords may disrupt the phonotactic rules of South Saami (cf. kamraate above), but according to the standard orthography, the last stress group of such words should have the phonotactics of a South Saami simplex word, for example, ˈnoˌtaate ‘note’ (< Nor./Swe. notat ‘id.’) ˈorganisaˌsjovne ‘organization’ (< Nor. organisasjon, Swe. organisation ‘id.’), cf. daate ‘this one’ and sjovne ‘maid’ (SAMER.SE). 6.4 INFLECTION OF NOUN AND VERB 6.4.1 Noun declension Nouns are inflected for eight cases in the singular and in the plural, except in the essive case, where no distinction for number is made. There are eight main inflection types, including four types of bi- and quadrisyllabic nouns, and four of trisyllabic nouns. There is morphological syncretism between the comitative singular, the essive, and the inessive plural on the one hand and between accusative plural and illative plural on the other. Table 6.8 presents the South Saami case suffixes in orthographic representation. Forms to the left of the slash refer to bi- and quadrisyllabic nouns, those to the right to trisyllabic nouns. The initial found in some suffixes represents the merger of the final vowel of the stem and the of the case suffix. 6.4.1.1 Bi- and quadrisyllabic nouns The four main declension types of bi- and quadrisyllabic nouns end in -ie, -oe, -a or -e, of which the first three are subject to vowel shortening (see Section 6.3.2.3). Bisyllabic nouns ending in -ie (see Table 6.9a) have a divergent illative singular suffix, -(a)n, which induces umlaut. Plural forms other than the nominative in this group may also have umlaut. The use of such forms are, however, on the decline. The other declension types have -se as the illative singular marker. Nouns ending in

SOUTH SAAMI 247 TABLE 6.8  THE SOUTH SAAMI CASE SUFFIXES Singular

Plural

Nominative

ø

-h

Accusative

-m

-ide, -jde/-idie

Genitive

-n

-i,-j/-i

Illative

-se, -(a)n/-asse

-ide, -jde/-idie

Inessive

-sne/-snie

-ine, -jne/-inie

Elative

-ste/-stie

-jste/-ijstie

Comitative

-ine, -jne/-inie

-jgujmie, -igujmie/-igujmie

Essive

-ine, -jne/-inie

TABLE 6.9A  SAAS. GÅETIE ‘HOUSE, HUT; HOME’ (SYNCRETIZED FORMS SHADED) Singular

Plural

Nominative

gåetie

gåetieh

Accusative

gåetiem

gåetide/göötide

Genitive

gåetien

gåetiej/gööti

Illative

gåatan

gåetide/göötide

Inessive

gåetesne

gåetine/göötine

Elative

gåeteste

gåetijste/göötijste

Comitative

gåetine/göötine

Essive

gåetiejgujmie/göötigujmie gåetine/göötine

TABLE 6.9B  SAAS. BEALLOE ‘BELL’ Singular

Plural

Nominative

bealloe

bealloeh

Accusative

bealloem

beallojde

Genitive

bealloen

bealloej

Illative

beallose (byöllese)

beallojde

Inessive

beallosne

beallojne

Elative

bealloste

beallojste

Comitative

beallojne

Essive

bealloejgujmie beallojne

-oe may, in some rare cases, have umlaut in the illative singular (see Table 6.9b). The umlaut of gåetie ‘house’ in Table 6.9a and that of bealloe ‘bell’ in Table 6.9b refer to columns 6 and 4 (see Table 6.7a). The other declension types (see Table 6.9c–d) do not have umlaut.

248 TORBJÖRN SÖDER TABLE 6.9C  SAAS. AAJJA ‘GRANDFATHER; OLD MAN’; NYJSENÆJJA ‘WOMAN’ Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Nominative

aajja

aajjah

nyjsenæjja

nyjsenæjjah

Accusative

aajjam

aajjide

nyjsenæjjam

nyjsenæjjide

Genitive

aajjan

aajjaj

nyjsenæjjan

nyjsenæjjaj

Illative

aajjese

aajjide

nyjsenæjjese

nyjsenæjjide

Inessive

aajjesne

aajjine

nyjsenæjjesne

nyjsenæjjine

Elative

aajjeste

aajjijste

nyjsenæjjeste

nyjsenæjjijste

Comitative

aajjine

aajjajgujmie

nyjsenæjjine

nyjsenæjjajgujmie

Essive

aajjine

nyjsenæjjine

TABLE 6.9D  SAAS. VÏNHTSE ‘BOAT’; GAARANASSE, GAARENES ‘RAVEN’ Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Nominative

vïnhtse

vïnhtsh

gaaranasse, gaarenes

gaaranassh

Accusative

vïnhtsem

vïnhtside

gaaranassem

gaaranasside

Genitive

vïnhtsen

vïnhtsi

gaaranassen

gaaranassi

Illative

vïnhtsese

vïnhtside

gaaranassese

gaaranasside

Inessive

vïnhtsesne

vïnhtsine

gaaranassesne

gaaranassine

Elative

vïnhtseste

vïnhtsijste

gaaranasseste

gaaranassijste

Comitative

vïnhtsine

vïnhtsigujmie

gaaranassine

gaaranassigujmie

Essive

vïnhtsine

gaarenassine

6.4.1.2 Trisyllabic nouns The differences between the declension types of trisyllabic nouns are related to the vowel of the second syllable and its susceptibility to change due to its position in the stress group. Alternation between bisyllabic and trisyllabic stress groups in the paradigms yields the alternation types ie~e, ie~i, ie~u, oe~o, a~e, and a~o, which correspond to the alternation between the vowels in the two rightmost columns in Table 6.7a. The alternation types ie~u (Table 6.10b) and a~o (Table 6.10d) are the result of labialization: the original shortened vowel, under the influence of the following v, has changed to u and o. Nouns of the type gaamege ‘shoe,’ gaaltije ‘source,’ and laatjove ‘parent-in-law’ (Table 6.10a) are not subject to vowel change. The word laatjove, a southern variant of the bisyllabic laatjoe ‘id.,’ represents a quite unusual type of noun, which, as opposed to vuanove ‘mother-in-law, woman’s stepmother’ in Table 6.10d, does not show vowel alteration in the second syllable. The case suffixes -asse (ill.sg), -isnie (ine.sg), -istie (ela.sg), -inie (com.sg, ine.pl, ess), -idie (acc.pl, ill.pl), -ijstie (ela.pl) display longer allomorphs than the corresponding suffixes in bi- and quadrisyllabic words.

SOUTH SAAMI 249 TABLE 6.10A  SAAS. GAAMEGE ‘SHOE’; GAALTIJE ‘SOURCE’; LAATJOVE ‘PARENT IN LAW’ Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Nominative gaamege

gaamegh

gaaltije

gaaltijh

laatjove

laatjovh

Accusative

gaamegem

gaamegidie

gaaltijem

gaaltijidie

laatjovem

laatjovidie

Genitive

gaamegen

gaamegi

gaaltijen

gaaltiji

laatjoven

laatjovi

Illative

gaamegasse

gaamegidie

gaaltijasse

gaaltijidie

laatjovasse

laatjovidie

Inessive

gaamegisnie gaameginie

gaaltijisnie gaaltijinie

laatjovisnie laatjovinie

Elative

gaamegistie

gaamegijstie

gaaltijistie

laatjovistie

Comitative

gaameginie

gaamegigujmie gaaltijinie

Essive

gaameginie

gaaltijijstie

gaaltijigujmie laatjovinie

gaaltijinie

laatjovijstie laatjovigujmie

laatjovinie

TABLE 6.10B  SAAS. GIEREHTSE ‘SLEDGE’ EI~E; TJAELIJE ‘WRITER’ IE~I; ÅERUVE ‘SQUIRREL’ IE~U Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Nominative

gierehtse

gierehtsh

tjaelije

tjaelijh

åeruve

åeruvh

Accusative

gierehtsem

gieriehtsidie

tjaelijem

tjaeliejidie

åeruvem

åerievidie

Genitive

gierehtsen

gierehtsi

tjaelijen

tjaeliji

åeruven

åeruvi

Illative

gieriehtsasse

gieriehtsidie

tjaeliejasse

tjaeliejidie

åerievasse

åerievidie

Inessive

gieriehtsisnie gieriehtsinie

tjaeliejisnie

tjaeliejinie

åerievisnie

åerievinie

Elative

gieriehtsistie

gieriehtsijstie

tjaelijejistie tjaeliejijstie

åerievistie

åerievijstie

Comitative

gieriehtsinie

gierehtsigujmie tjaeliejinie

åerievinie

åeruvigujmie

Essive

gieriehtsinie

tjaelijigujmie

tjaeliejinie

åerievinie

TABLE 6.10C  SAAS. SEAROME ‘CHEEK’ OE~O Singular

Plural

Nominative

searome

searomh

Accusative

searomem

searoemidie

Genitive

searomen

searoemi

Illative

searoemasse

searoemidie

Inessive

searoemisnie

searoeminie

Elative

searoemistie

searoemijstie

Comitative

searoeminie

searomigujmie

Essive

searoeminie

250 TORBJÖRN SÖDER TABLE 6.10D  SAAS. DAKTERE ‘(MARRIED) DAUGHTER’ E~A; VUANOVE ‘MOTHER-IN-LAW, STEPMOTHER OF A WOMAN’ O~A Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Nominative

daktere

dakterh

vuanove

vuanovh

Accusative

dakterem

dakteridie

vuanovem

vuanavidie

Genitive

dakteren

dakteri

vuanoven

vuanovi

Illative

daktarasse

daktaridie

vuanavasse

vuanavidie

Inessive

daktarisnie

daktarinie

vuanavisnie

vuanavinie

Elative

daktaristie

daktarijstie

vuanavistie

vuanavijstie

Comitative

daktarinie

dakterigujmie

vuanavinie

vuanovigujmie

Essive

daktarinie

vuanavinie

6.4.2 Verb inflection The bulk of the verb inventory can be divided in bi- and quadrisyllabic verbs on the one hand and trisyllabic verbs on the other. Textually frequent exceptions are most forms of the suppletive auxiliary and copula verb lea-/årrodh ‘to be’ (Section 6.4.2.2) and the negative verb i- (Section 6.15), both of which are based on a monosyllabic stem. Verbs are inflected for singular, dual, and plural subject person in the present and past tense indicative. The imperative is, for most verbs, restricted to second person, and the forms are the same as the second-person forms in the present tense indicative, except for the verbs in group I (see following) and the negative verb. Compound tenses are the perfect and the pluperfect (see Section 6.14). The nonfinite forms are the infinitive, the connegative (see Section 6.15), the past participle, and the gerund (see Section 6.14). South Saami, unlike, for example, Finnish, does not have separate active and passive past participles. The distinction between active and passive voice may instead be manifested by the choice of an active or passive verb, for example, bïejeme pptcp < bïejedh ‘to put’ ~ bïejesovveme pptcp < bïejesovvedh ‘to be put’ (cf. Section 6.5.1). The terms bi-, tri-, and quadrisyllabic relate to the stem of the verb, for example, båetie- (bisyllabic) < båetedh ‘to come’; jeahtasovve- (quadrisyllabic) < jeahtasovvedh ‘to be said’ (see Tables 6.11a–f). In the case of trisyllabic verbs, the term trisyllabic relates to the vowel stem (see Tables 6.13a–f). The component in the infinitive counts as syllabic, and therefore, the infinitive of bisyllabic verbs behaves phonotactically as a trisyllabic stress group, and quadrisyllabic as words ending in a trisyllabic stress group (see Section 6.3.2.3). In the case of verb groups I, II, and III (see Tables 6.11a–c), this implies that the second vowel of the verb stem is shortened in the infinitive. The infinitive of trisyllabic verbs, on the other hand, forms two bisyllabic stress groups and thus retains the original vowel of the second syllable in the infinitive, for example, saemiestidh ‘to speak Saami.’ However, the second-syllable vowel is shortened in trisyllabic stress groups of the verb, for example, saemestem ‘I speak Saami.’ The tables in Section 6.4.2 display the first-, second-, and third-person forms of the singular (sg), the dual (du), and the plural (pl). The present tense (prs) forms are found in

SOUTH SAAMI 251 TABLE 6.11A  SAAS. BÅETEDH ‘TO COME’ (inf), BÅETIE- (VERB GROUP I) sg

du

pl

1st person

båatam

båetien

båetebe/båetiejibie

p

2nd person

båatah

båeteden/båetiejidien

båetede/båetiejidie

r

3rd person

båata

båetiejægan

båetieh

s

1st person

böötim/båetiejim

böötimen/båetiejimen

böötimh/båetiejimh

p

2nd person

böötih/båetiejih

böötiden/båetiejiden

böötidh/båetiejidh

s

3rd person

bööti/båetieji

böötigan/båetiejigan

böötin/båetiejin

t

cng: båetieh, pptcp: båateme, ger: båetieminie.

TABLE 6.11B  SAAS. DARJODH ‘TO MAKE’ (inf), DARJOE- (VERB GROUP II)

1st person

sg

du

pl

darjoem

darjoen

darjobe/darjoejibie

p

2nd person

darjoeh

darjoden/darjoejidien

darjode/darjoejidie

r

3rd person

dorje

darjoejægan

darjoeh

s

1st person

darjoejim

darjoejimen

darjoejimh

p

2nd person

darjoejih

darjoejiden

darjoejidh

s

3rd person

darjoeji/darjoej

darjoejigan

darjoejin

t

cng: darjoeh, pptcp: dorjeme, ger: darjoeminie.

TABLE 6.11C  SAAS. GUARKEDH ‘TO UNDERSTAND’ (inf), GUARKA- (VERB GROUP III)

1st person

sg

du

pl

guarkam

guarkan/guarkoen

guarkebe/guarkajibie

p

2nd person

guarkah

guarkeden/guarkajidien

guarkede/guarkajidie

r

3rd person

guarkoe

guarkajægan

guarkah/guarkoeh

s

1st person

guarkajim

guarkajimen

guarkajimh

p

2nd person

guarkajih

guarkajiden

guarkajidh

s

3rd person

guarkaji/guarkaj

guarkajigan

guarkajin

t

cng: guarkah, pptcp: guarkeme, ger: guarkaminie.

the upper part, and the past tense (pst) forms in the lower part of the table. The infinitive (inf) and the verb stem, or verb stems, are written above the table, and the connegative (cng; see Section 6.15), the past participle (pptcp; see Section 6.14), and the gerund (ger; see Section 6.14) below the table.

252 TORBJÖRN SÖDER TABLE 6.11D  SAAS. GOVLEDH ‘TO HEAR’ (inf), GOVLE- (VERB GROUP IV) sg

du

pl

1st person

govlem

guvlien

govlebe/govlijibie

p

2nd person

govlh

govleden/govlijidien

govlede/govlijidie

r

3rd person

gåvla

govlijægan

guvlieh

s

1st person

govlim

govlimen

govlimh

p

2nd person

govlih

govliden

govlidh

s

3rd person

govli

govligan

govlin

t

cng: govlh, pptcp: govleme, ger: govleminie

TABLE 6.11E  SAAS. LYJHKEDH ‘TO LIKE’ (inf), LYJHKE- (VERB GROUP V) sg

du

pl

1st person

lyjhkem

lyjhkoen

lyjhkebe/lyjhkijibie

p

2nd person

lyjhkh

lyjhkeden/lyjhkijidien

lyjhkede/lyjhkijidie

r

3rd person

lyjhkoe

lyjhkijægan

lyjhkoeh

s

1st person

lyjhkim

lyjhkimen

lyjhkimh

p

2nd person

lyjhkih

Lyjhkiden

lyjhkidh

s

3rd person

lyjhki

Lyjhkigan

lyjhkin

t

cng: lyjhkh, pptcp: lyjhkeme, ger: lyjhkeminie.

TABLE 6.11F  SAAS. GURKEDH ‘TO POUR’ (inf), GURKE- (VERB GROUP VI) sg

du

pl

1st person

gurkem

gurkien

gurkebe/gurkijibie

p

2nd person

gurkh

gurkeden/gurkijidien

gurkede/gurkijidie

r

3rd person

gurkie

gurkijægan

gurkieh

s

1st person

gurkim

gurkimen

gurkimh

p

2nd person

gurkih

gurkiden

gurkidh

s

3rd person

gurki

gurkigan

gurkin

t

cng: gurkh, pptcp: gurkeme, ger: gurkeminie.

6.4.2.1 Bi- and quadrisyllabic verbs There are six conjugation types of bi- and quadrisyllabic stems. The stems end in -ie, -oe, -a, or -e4–6 and are usually referred to as verb group I–VI (see Table 6.11a–f ), as they correspond to the vowels in the second column from the right in Table 6.7a. Umlaut appears in verbs based on stems ending in -ie, -oe, and -e4, that is, verb groups I, II, and IV.

SOUTH SAAMI 253

In the indicative, some forms have an alternative form based on two bisyllabic stress groups instead of one trisyllabic, thus yielding suffixes found in trisyllabic verbs (-dien, -bie, -die; cf. Section 6.4.2.2). Textually frequent verbs of this group have two alternative forms in the past tense, one form with umlaut and one form without. With the exception of verb group I (stem ending in -ie), where the imperative of the second-person singular is formed by addition of -h to the verbal stem (e.g. Båetieh! ‘Come!’), the second-person singular, dual, and plural imperative forms are the same as the short present indicative forms. 6.4.2.2 Mono- and trisyllabic verbs The verb lea-/årrodh, henceforth referred to as lea-, which functions as copula (see Section 8) and auxiliary in periphrastic tenses (Section 6.14), has finite forms built to stem lea- and nonfinite forms based on the bisyllabic stem årroe- (see Table 6.12). The latter stem also forms the basis of the regular bisyllabic verb årrodh ‘to stay, dwell,’ which belongs to verb group II (cf. Table 6.11b). Most of the trisyllabic verbs can be categorized with reference to the occurrence of vowel change in the second syllable caused by the alteration between bisyllabic and trisyllabic stress groups (see Section 6.3.2.3). Trisyllabic verbs may be analyzed as having two stems: a bisyllabic stem ending in a consonant and a trisyllabic stem ending in a vowel, for example, soptsest-/soptseste- < soptsestidh ‘to speak, talk’(Bergsland 1994, 39; cf. Magga and Mattsson Magga 2012, 35–37). In the present tense, both bisyllabic and trisyllabic stems appear. In the past tense, however, all forms are based on the bisyllabic stem. Trisyllabic verbs such as soptsestidh ‘speak, talk’ (Table 6.13a) do not have vowel shortening in the second syllable, whereas verbs of the caregories represented by dåeriedidh ‘to follow, accompany,’ daaroestidh ‘to speak Norwegian/Swedish,’ and vuartasjidh ‘to watch, look at’ do (Tables 6.13b–d), displaying regular vowel shortening patterns (c.f. Table 6.7a). Inchoative verbs (see Section 6.5.1), such as jåhtajidh ‘to move away, leave’ and bïllijidh ‘to become afraid’ (Tables 6.13e and f), which historically are related to the so-called contracted stems in North Saami (e.g. saaN johttát ‘to move away,’ ballát ‘to become afraid’), show similar inflectional patterns, displaying the alterations a~i and i~e respectively.

TABLE 6.12  SAAS. ÅRRODH ‘BE’ (inf), LEA-/ÅRROE-

1st person

sg

du

pl

leam

lean

libie

p

2nd person

leah

lidien

lidie

r

3rd person

lea

lægan

leah

s

1st person

lim

limen

limh

p

2nd person

lih

liden

lidh

s

3rd person

lij

ligan

lin

t

cng: leah, pptcp: orreme.

254 TORBJÖRN SÖDER TABLE 6.13A  S AAS. SOPTSESTIDH ‘TO SPEAK, TALK’ (inf), SOPTSEST-/SOPTSESTEsg

du

pl

1st person

soptsestem

soptsestien

soptsestibie

p

2nd person

soptsesth

soptsestidien

soptsestidie

r

3rd person

soptseste

soptsestægan

soptsestieh

s

1st person

soptsestim

soptsestimen

soptsestimh

p

2nd person

soptsestih

soptsestiden

soptsestidh

s

3rd person

soptsesti

soptsestigan

soptsestin

t

cng: soptsesth, pptcp: soptsestamme, ger: soptsesteminie.

TABLE 6.13B  S AAS. DÅERIEDIDH ‘TO FOLLOW, ACCOMPANY’ (inf), DÅERIED-/ DÅEREDEsg

du

pl

1st person

dåeredem

dåeriedien

dåeriedibie

p

2nd person

dåeredh

dåeriedidien

dåeriedidie

r

3rd person

dåerede

dåeriedægan

dåeriedieh

s

1st person

dåeriedim

dåeriedimen

dåeriedimh

p

2nd person

dåeriedih

dåeriediden

dåeriedidh

s

3rd person

dåeriedi/dåeredi

dåeriedigan

dåeriedin

t

cng: dåeredh, pptcp: dåeriedamme, ger: dåeredeminie.

TABLE 6.13C  S AAS. DAAROESTIDH ‘TO SPEAK NORWEGIAN/SWEDISH’ (inf), DAAROEST-/DAAROSTEsg

du

pl

1st person

daarostem

daaroestien

daaroestibie

p

2nd person

daarosth

daaroestidien

daaroestidie

r

3rd person

daaroste

daaroestægan

daaroestieh

s

1st person

daaroestim

daaeroestimen

daaroestimh

p

2nd person

daaroestih

daaroestiden

daaroestidh

s

3rd person

daaaroesti

daaroestigan

daaroestin

t

cng: daarosth, pptcp: daaroestamme, ger: daarosteminie.

SOUTH SAAMI 255 TABLE 6.13D  SAAS. VUARTASJIDH ‘TO WATCH, LOOK AT’ (inf), VUARTASJ-/VUARTESJEsg

du

pl

1st person

vuartesjem

vuartasjien

vuartasjibie

p

2nd person

vuartesjh

vuartasjidien

vuartasjidie

r

3rd person

vuartesje

vuartasjægan

vaurtasjieh

s

1st person

vuartasjim

vuartasjimen

vuartasjimh

p

2nd person

vuartasjih

vuartasjiden

vuartasjidh

s

3rd person

vuartasji

vuortasjigan

vuartasjin

t

cng: vuartesjh, pptcp: vuartasjamme, ger: vuartesjeminie.

TABLE 6.13E SAAS. JÅHTAJIDH ‘TO MOVE AWAY, LEAVE’ (inf), JÅHTAJ-/JÅHTIJE-

sg

du

pl

1st person

jåhtijem

jåhtajien

jåhtajibie

p

2nd person

jåhtijh

jåhtajidien

jåhtajidie

r

3rd person

jåhtije

jåhtajægan

jåhtajieh

s

1st person

jåhtajim

jåhtajimen

jåhtajimh

p

2nd person

jåhtajih

jåhtajiden

jåhtajidh

s

3rd person

jåhtaji

jåhtajigan

jåhtajin

t

cng: jåhtijh, pptcp: jåhtajamme, ger: jåhtijeminie.

TABLE 6.13F  S AAS. BÏLLIJIDH ‘TO BECOME AFRAID’ (inf), BÏLLIJ-/BÏLLEJE-

1st person

sg

du

pl

bïllejem

bïllijien

bïllijibie

p

2nd person

bïllejh

bïllijidien

bïllijidie

r

3rd person

bïlleje

bïllijægan

bïllijieh

s

1st person

bïllijim

bïllijimen

bïllijimh

p

2nd person

bïllijih

bïllijiden

bïllijidh

s

3rd person

bïlliji

bïllijigan

bïllijin

t

cng: bïllejh, pptcp: bïllijamme, ger: bïllejeminie.

256 TORBJÖRN SÖDER

6.5 WORD-FORMATION 6.5.1 Derivation The derivational system of South Saami is rich and, together with compounding, constitutes (see Section 6.5.2) an important part of word-formation. Most derived lexemes are nouns, verbs, or adjectives and are built almost exclusively by means of suffixation. The derivational suffixes sometimes have two allomorphs, one which is added to stems of bi- and quadrisyllabic words and the other to stems of trisyllabic words, for example, the actor noun suffix |(i)je : |æjja (vaedtsi|je ‘walker, pedestrian’ < vaedtsedh ‘to walk,’ lohkeht|æjja ‘teacher’ < lohkehtidh ‘to teach’). In other cases, there is only one invariable suffix, which is used only with one kind of stem, most commonly that of a bisyllabic word, for example, |stahke, which denotes an area or a place relating to the stem (okse|stahke ‘the place on the inside of the door in a hut’ < okse ‘door’). In yet other cases, trisyllabic stems may be shortened so that the same suffix may be used with both stem types, yielding a derivative of the same number of syllable for both stem types, for example, |sovvedh (see following text). Derivation may imply a change in the internal structure of the word to which the suffix is added, for example, tjalmi|jes ‘sharp-sighted’ < tjelmie ‘eye.’ The productivity, semantic transparency, and degree of lexicalization of derivational suffixes all vary considerably. One of the most common and productive denominal noun suffixes is the diminutive suffix |tje : |adtje as in ladte|tje ‘small bird’ (< ledtie ‘bird’), dålle|tje ‘small fire’ (< dålle ‘fire’), gaameg|adtje ‘small shoe’(< gaamege ‘shoe’), and gieriehts|adtje ‘small sledge’ (< gieriehtse ‘sledge’). Derivatives which include the suffix |se : |asse denote a material which may be used to produce the item denoted by the original word, for example, treavke|se ‘ski material’ (< treavka ‘ski’) and voedteg|asse ‘shoelace material’ (< voedtege ‘shoelace’). The suffix |sassa : |assa is specifically used to form words which denote persons who will become relatives through marriage, as mænnja|sassa ‘future daughter-in-law’ (< mænnja ‘daughter-in-law’), vïjve|sassa ‘future son-in-law’ (< vïjve ‘son-in-law’), or vuanov|assa ‘future mother-in-law’ (< vuanove ‘mother-in-law’). Deadjectival nouns are few in number, but nouns formed by the suffix |voete, which is added to both bisyllabic and trisyllabic stems, are quite common, for example, gieries|voete ‘love’ (< gieries ‘dear, beloved’) and væjsehke|voete ‘wisdom’ (< væjsehke ‘wise’). Besides the actor noun suffix |(i)je : |æjja (see previous), the action noun suffix |me : |immie is the most common and productive among suffixes which form deverbal nouns. The derivatives are usually semantically transparent and can be applied to almost any verb, for example, darjo|me ‘work, things to do’ (< darjodh ‘to do’) and reakad|immie ‘birth’ (< reakadidh ‘to be born’). For some verbs, the action nouns are homophonous with the past participle; for example, the form banke|me (< bankedh ‘to swell, puff up’) can be interpreted as the past participle of the verb or as an action noun meaning ‘growth, tumour.’ The past participle of the verb darjodh ‘to do,’ however, induces a vowel change in the second syllable, yielding dorjeme, which is different from the action noun (cf. previous text). Nouns which include the suffix |ldahke may also denote the action or the place or the result of the action, for example, tjuatsaldahke ‘snowy weather’ (< tjuetsedh ‘to snow’). Deverbal nouns formed by the suffix |ge are semantically quite variegated. Among other things, they denote the result obtained by an action, for example, plaante|ge ‘mixture’ (< pleentedh ‘to mix’), or an object used in an action, for example, dovte|ge ‘support, stanchion’ (< duvtedh ‘to support’).

SOUTH SAAMI 257

Caritive adjectives derived from noun stems may include the suffixes |hts (baene|hts ‘toothless, blunt’ < baenie ‘tooth’), |apth (eejhteg|apth ‘orphan’ < eejhtege ‘parent’). Caritivity may also be expressed by the addition to adjectives of the prefix ov-, for example, ov|luvrege ‘disobedient’ (cf. luvrege ‘obedient’). The adjective ov|luhpehts ‘without permission’ (< luhpie ‘permission’) is worth mentioning since it includes both the prefix ov- and the caritive suffix -hts. The prefix ov- is found in other word classes as well, for example, ov|læhkoe ‘accident,’ ov|murriedidh ‘feel uncomfortable.’ One should note that the prefixed word retains the same phonotactical structure as the original word. Most words which include ov- have counterparts beginning with the prefix o- in Swedish and u- in Norwegian, which convey similar caritive meaning, for example, Swe. olydig ‘disobedient’ (cf. lydig ‘obedient’), Nor. uhell ‘accident’ (cf. hell ‘happiness, luck’). There are several adjectives which convey that they, in some way, carry the mark of the noun of which they are derivative. Adjectives in this group include the suffixes |jes (maali|jes ‘bloody’ < maelie ‘animal blood’), |hks (såålhte|hks ‘salty’ < saeltie), |s (lopme|s ‘snowy’ < lopme ‘snow’), |ske (saadteske ‘sandy’ < saedtie ‘sand’). Deverbal adjectives commonly denote an eagerness or capacity to perform the action described by the corresponding verb, for example, |htje (maehtehtje ‘clever’ < maehtedh ‘to know, be able to’), |ihks (garmerdihks ‘boastful’ < garmerdidh ‘to boast, brag’), |les (gaatskeles ‘snappy [of dog])’ < gaetskedh ‘bite’), |s (sæjloes ‘tired, weary’ < sæjlodh ‘get tired, get weary’). Deverbal verbs can be categorized according to their capacity to change the argument structure of the original verb. Derivational suffixes which do not change the argument structure of the original verb but merely add a new semantic component to the verb include suffixes which form inchoative, subitive, momentary, durative, and frequentative verbs. Inchoative verbs are formed with |gåetedh, which can be added to most bisyllabic verb stems, for example, voeje|gåetedh ‘to start to swim’ (< voejedh ‘to swim’) and reejre|gåetedh ‘to start to thunder’ (< reejredh ‘to thunder’). Other inchoative verbs are formed by the suffixes |jahtjedh : |ahtjedh and |jidh, of which the latter is used only with stems of bisyllabic verbs, for example, guarka|jahtjedh ‘to begin to understand’ (< guarkedh ‘to understand’), siknjied|ahtjedh ‘to begin to itch’ (< siknjiedidh ‘to itch’), and gåhtsa|jidh ‘to wake up’ (< guhtsedh ‘to be awake’). Subitive and momentary verbs can be formed from stems of bisyllabic verbs with the suffix |lidh, for example, bissie|lidh ‘to fry quickly/in haste’ (< bissedh ‘to fry’ and davvoe|lidh ‘to repair at once’ (< davvodh ‘to repair’). The suffix |stidh adds similar meaning to the verb, for example, tjïektje|stidh ‘to kick a little; kick once’ (< tjïektjedh ‘to kick’), and with some verbs, it also adds a connotation of politeness to the original verb, for example, birre|stidh ‘to ask politely’ (< birredh ‘to ask’). Durative and frequentative verbs are formed by the suffixes |didh and |alledh. The former is added to stems of bisyllabic, and the latter to stems of trisyllabic verbs, for example, goedte|didh ‘to keep carrying (constantly or one thing after the other)’ (< goedtedh ‘to carry’) and haalaht|alledh ‘to fly around’ (< haeliehtidh ‘to fly’). Derivational suffixes which change the argument structure of the verb include suffixes which form causative and passive verbs. The suffix |htidh forms causative verbs of bisyllabic verbs, for example, jielie|htidh ‘to let live’ ( ilusa-m ‘more beautiful,’ rahu`lik ‘peaceful’ > rahuliku-m ‘more peaceful’): (2)

`Roos (comparee) on ilusa-m (parameter) kui (mark) võilill (standard). rose is beautiful-cmp cnj dandelion ‘A rose is more beautiful than a dandelion.’

The superlative can be formed regularly using analytic means, combining the particle kõige ‘the most’ with the comparative form (kõige ilusa-m ‘most beautiful’): (3)

`Liilia (comparee) on kõige (inde) ilusa-m (parameter). lily is most beautiful-cmp ‘A lily is the most beautiful.’

358 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

In addition to this productive syntactic construction, there is also a suffix -im (in the nominative, -ima in other case forms), which can be used to form the superlative (ilusa-im ‘the most beautiful’): (4)

`Liilia (comparee) on ilusa-im (parameter) lily is beautiful-sup ‘A lily is the most beautiful flower.’

`lill (standard). flower

The morphological short superlative was introduced by language reformers (Aavik 1915: 32–33); it is relatively new and artificial and is not used with all adjectives; for several adjectives, only the syntactic superlative is used. There are also a few adjectives with suppletive or slightly irregular forms, for example, `hea ‘good’ : parem ‘better’ : parim ‘best,’ lühike ‘short’ : lühem ‘shorter’ : lühim ‘shortest.’ 8.4.3 Verb inflection 8.4.3.1 General characteristics of verb inflection Estonian verb inflection is less fusional than that of the noun (Viht and Habicht 2019). The only affix-less forms are the connegative, for example, ei ela neg live.cng ‘(I/we/ you/he/she/they) do/does not live’ (stem ela-), and the second-person singular imperative, ela live.imp ‘live!’ The present and past perfect, as well as the past tense of moods other than the indicative, are formed syntactically, with the auxiliary verb ole- ‘to be,’ for example, on ela-nud be.3sg/pl live-pst.ptcp ‘has/have lived,’ ol-i ela-nud be-pst.3sg live-pst.ptcp ‘had lived,’ ole-ks ela-nud be-cond live-pst.ptcp ‘would have lived’ (person not indexed), as are negative forms, with the negation particle ei, for example, ei ela neg live.cng ‘do/doesn’t live,’ ei ela-nud neg live-pst.ptcp ‘didn’t live.’ In the imperative and jussive, the negative auxiliary verb ära is used, for example, ära ela neg.imp.2sg live.imp ‘don’t live!’ är-ge ela-ge neg.imp-2pl live-imp.2pl ‘don’t (you.pl) live!’ är-gu ela-gu neg-juss live-juss ‘may (I/we/you/he/she/they) not live.’ Verb forms can be divided into finite and nonfinite forms. Finite forms have five categories: tense, mood, voice, person, and polarity. The nonfinite forms are participles, infinitives, and a gerund. Stem changes in verb forms are similar to those found in nominals. With regard to gradation, the da-infinitive and the present indicative forms are always in contrasting grades (e.g. luge-da/`loen ‘to read/I read,’ haka-ta/`hakka-n ‘to begin/I begin,’ õmmel-da/` õmble-n ‘to sew/I sew’), while the ma-infinitive is always in the strong grade (e.g. `hakka-ma ‘to begin,’ luge-ma ‘to read,’ õmble-ma ‘to sew’); see 8.3.4 earlier. The ma-infinitive (more precisely, the illative of the ma-infinitive; see 8.4.3.4) is the traditional citation form of the verb in dictionaries: it contains the most information about the form of the stem, whereas in other forms, some phonemes could be lost or altered. However, due to the complexity of stem changes in Estonian, there are no set rules for building other word forms on the basis of the ma-infinitive. Words with similar stems can belong to different inflection types, for example, vaiki-ma : vaiki-n ‘to be silent : I am silent’ and laiki-ma : laigi-n ‘to like : I like.’ As with nominals, verbs are divided into inflectional groups on the basis of how their stems and affixes combine. Typically, four conjugation types are distinguished, of which two have no gradation (these include verbs such as joo- ‘to drink’ and ela- ‘to live’),

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 359

one has weakening gradation (e.g. `õppima ‘to study,’ lugema ‘to read’), and one has strengthening gradation (e.g. `hakkama ‘to begin,’ `õmblema ‘to sew’); see 8.3.4 previously. Dictionaries employ more detailed classification schemes, for example, the normative dictionary ÕS 2013 distinguishes 12 conjugation types (and 26 declension types),3 while some dictonaries, for example, the SKS Estonian-Finnish dictionary (Kokla et al. 1971), distinguish 90 declensional and 25 conjugational types. 8.4.3.2 Person In forms indexed for subject person, the six forms are clearly distinguished in the imperative and in the affirmative forms of the indicative (Table 8.8), while in other moods, as well as in negative forms, the person distinction has been lost or is fading. The verb olema ‘be’ in the present tense has an exceptional third-person form on for both singular and plural, for example, ta on ‘he/she is,’ nad on ‘they are.’ In the past indicative and the present conditional, the third-person singular and plural forms have no personal ending, while the third-person plural is marked by the plural suffix -d. Compare the following forms: ma ela-si-n ‘I lived,’ ta ela-s ‘s/he lived,’ nad ela-si-d ‘they lived’; ma ela-ksi-n ‘I would live,’ ta ela-ks ‘s/he would live,’ nad ela-ksi-d ‘they would live’ (see Table 8.8). In the affirmative forms of the conditional, the personal endings are fading from use; forms such as (ma) ela-ksi-n live-cond-1sg ~ ela-ks live-cond ‘I would live,’ (nad) ela-ksi-d live- cond-3pl ~ ela-ks live-cond ‘they would live’ are used in parallel to one another and with or without free pronouns (see Section 8.6, Pajusalu and Pajusalu 2004). There are also forms not indexed for subject person; the subject is then of indefinite reference: cf. indefinite -t- in ela-t-i live-idf-pst ‘(somebody) lived,’ -takse- in õpi-takse learn-idf.prs ‘(somebody) is learning.’ 8.4.3.3 Tense and mood The tense forms of verbs in the indicative are the present (e.g. ela-b live-3sg ʻs/he lives’), past (e.g. ela-s live-pst.3sg ʻs/he lived’), present perfect (on ela-nud be.3sg live-pst.ptcp ʻs/he has lived’), and past perfect (ol-i ela-nud be-pst.3sg live-pst.ptcp ʻs/he had lived’). The imperative has only present-tense forms, while the conditional, quotative, and jussive have present-tense forms as well as past-tense forms built with the auxiliary ole-ma ʻbe’ (ole-ks ela-nud be-cond live-pst.ptcp ʻwould have lived,’ ole-vat ela-nud be-quot livepst.ptcp ʻ(apparently/is said to have) lived,’ ol-gu ela-nud be-juss live-pst.ptcp ʻshould have lived’). In addition, the conditional and the quotative have artificially created synthetic past-tense forms (e.g. ela-nu-ks live-pst-cond ʻwould live,’ ela-nu-vat live-pstquot ‘is reported to have lived’). TABLE 8.8  PERSONAL ENDINGS OF VERBS (PRESENT TENSE, SAMPLE VERB ELA‘TO LIVE’) IN ESTONIAN

Subject person

Singular

Plural

1

ela-n

ela-me

2

ela-d

ela-te

3

ela-b

ela-vad

360 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

The primary suffix of the past indicative (traditionally called the imperfect) is -s(i), but for six e-stem verbs, it is -i- (e.g. tule-ma come-infma : tul-i come-pst.3sg) (see Table 8.9). Past indicative forms of verbs with gradation are in the strong grade (e.g. haka-ta begininfda : hakka-s begin-pst.3sg). There is no morphological future tense, but reference to future time can be made by using constructions with the auxiliaries `saama ‘to get, become, can’ or `hakkama ‘to begin.’ The saama-future was introduced into written Estonian in the seventeenth century on the example of the German future built with werden ‘become.’ It does not have sufficient basis for grammaticalization in Estonian, and its use has been discouraged by language management as a foreign influence. The saama-future is a future marker with a general meaning, lacking connotations, but due to its foreignness and the discouragement of its use, it occurs infrequently, mainly in combination with the verb olema ʻbe’ (5). In contrast, the hakkama-future developed naturally; the development of verbs meaning ‘begin’ into future auxiliaries is common in Finno-Ugric languages. The hakkama-future is used to describe an event that begins and continues in the future (6). The ingressive and future meaning of hakkamaconstructions may not always be clearly distinguishable. (Metslang 1996, 1997.) (5)

Nende elu saa-b ole-ma they.gen life get-3sg be-infma ‘Their life will be somewhat wretched’

näruvõitu (etTenTen) wretched.dim

(6)

Igas peremajas hakka-b ela-ma every.ine family.building.ine will-3sg live-infma 10 hoolealust (etTenTen) 10 ward.part ‘Ten wards will be living in each family building’

Estonian has five moods: the indicative, imperative (Table 8.10), conditional, quotative, and jussive. TABLE 8.9  PAST TENSE FORMS OF THE VERB ELA- ʻLIVE’ IN ESTONIAN

Subject person

Singular

Plural

1

ela-si-n

ela-si-me

2

ela-si-d

ela-si-te

3

ela-s

ela-si-d

TABLE 8.10  IMPERATIVE FORMS (VERBS ELA- ‘TO LIVE,’ ÕPPI- ‘TO LEARN,’ HAKKA‘TO BEGIN’) IN STANDARD ESTONIAN Singular

Plural

1st person

–

ela-ge-m / ela-me; õppi-gem / õpime, haka-kem / hakka-me

2nd person

ela, õpi, hakka

ela-ge, õppi-ge, haka-ke

3rd person

ela-gu, õppi-gu, haka-ku

ela-gu, õppi-gu, haka-ku

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 361

The conditional is built with -ks(i), for example, ela-ksi-n live-cond-1sg ʻI would live,’ õpi-ks learn-cond ʻs/he would learn.’ The quotative and, to some extent, the jussive express evidentiality (hearsay). The quotative suffix in all persons is -vat (ela-vat livequot ʻ(I/you/she/he/we/they am/are/is) said to live’). (7)

Sageli kuule-me väide-t, et `usk ole-vat often hear-1pl claim-part that religion be-quot isiklik asi. (etTenTen) personal thing ‘We often hear the claim that religion is a personal thing.’

The jussive expresses desire, indirect (referred) commands, or concession. The jussive suffix is -gu/-ku in all persons, coinciding in form with the third-person imperative. (8)

Ema `ütle-s, et tul-gu Jüri mother.nom say-pst that come-juss Jüri.nom `mei-le. (Erelt et al. 2020, 248) us-all ‘Mother said that Jüri should come visit us tomorrow.’

(9)

Ah mina teh-ku `päev läbi Oh I.nom do-juss day over (Erelt et al. 2020, 248) ‘Oh, may I work all day in a sweat!’

`homme tomorrow

palehigi-s `töö-d! sweat-ill work-part

8.4.3.4 Nonfinite verb forms Estonian nonfinite verb forms include four participles, three infinitives, and a gerund (Table 8.11). The present participles are declinable; the past participles are not (e.g. `õppi-v inimene learn-prs.ptcp human ‘a person who learns’ has allative `õppi-va-le inimese-le learn- prs.ptcp-all human-all, but õpi-tud `reegel learn-idf.pst.ptcp rule ‘a rule that has been learned’ remains unchanged in plural õpi-tud `reegli-t learn-idf.pst.ptcp rulepart ‘rules that have been learned.’ The ma-infinitive (also called the supine) has five case forms, of which the translative is a product of language reform. The stem of nonfinite forms can be either in the strong or the weak grade, depending on the inflection type, for example, the da-infinitive õppi-da (S) learn-infda, haka-ta (W) begin-infda, personal past participle õppi-nud (S) learn-pst.ptcp, haka-nud (W) begin-pst.ptcp, gerund õppi-des (S) learn-ger, haka-tes (W) begin-ger. The forms of the ma-infinitive, the vat-infinitive, and the personal present participle are always in the strong grade. There are allomorphs for suffixes that have the phoneme t/d in some of their variants: õpi-tud learn-idf.pst.ptcp, õmmel-dud sew-idf.pst.ptcp; õppi-des learnger, hüpa-tes begin-ger, tuu-es bring-ger; õppi-da learn-infda, haka-ta begin-infda, tull-a come-infda. Nonfinite forms are used in periphrastic predicates, for example, the perfect on õppinud ‘has/have learned’ and pluperfect oli õppinud ‘had learned,’ but also modal constructions, such as võib õppida ‘may learn,’ saab õppida ‘can learn,’ peab õppima ‘must learn,’ näib õppivat ‘seems to learn,’ the ingressive/future construction hakkab õppima ‘begins to learn/will learn’ (6), the future construction saab olema ‘will be’ (5), the progressive

362 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG TABLE 8.11  NONFINITE VERB FORMS IN STANDARD ESTONIAN (EXAMPLE VERB `ÕPPIMA ‘LEARN,’ WEAKENING GRADATION) Participle Personal Impersonal

Present

`õppi-v ‘learning’ (adjectival)

Past

`õppi-nud ‘learned’(adjectival)

Present

õpi-ta-v ‘learnable (adjectival)’

Past

õpi-tud ‘learned’(adjectival)

da-infinitive

õppi-da ‘to learn’

ma-infinitive

Illative

`õppi-ma ‘to learn’ (directional)

Inessive

`õppi-ma-s ‘(is) learning’

Elative

`õppi-ma-st ‘from learning’

Translative

`õppi-ma-ks ‘to learn’(purpose)

Abessive

`õppi-ma-ta ‘without learning’

vat-infinitive

õppi-vat ‘learning’ (complement of perception and cognition verbs)

Gerund

õppi-des ‘while learning’

construction on toimumas ‘is happening,’ and the passive construction on kirjutamata ‘is not written’ (see Erelt 2017). The functions of the da-infinitive and the illative form of the ma-infinitive are somewhat similar in modern Estonian. The da-infinitive originates from a Proto-Finnic infinitive whose suffix was *-tAk, where *-k was originally a lative suffix. The ma-infinitive originates from an action noun with a suffix *-mA- (Viitso 2007, 212–213). For most modal verbs, the lexical verb is in the da-infinitive, but for pidama ʻmust,’ it is in ma-infinitive (see 8.10.1). The da-infinitive occurs mostly with verbs expressing internal forces: tahtma ʻto want,’ käskima ʻto order,’ soovima ʻto wish,’ oskama ʻcan,’ lootma ʻto hope’; the ma-infinitive occurs with verbs expressing external forces, such as hakkama ʻto begin,’ jääma ʻto remain,’ asuma ʻto set about,’ minema ʻto go,’ tulema ʻto come,’ kutsuma ʻto call, invite,’ viima ʻto take,’ kohustama ʻto obligate,’ õppima ʻto learn,’ õpetama ʻto teach.’ (See Section 8.8; Metslang et al. 2003, 105–106.) (10) Pille oska-b Pille can-3sg ʻPille can knit.’

kudu-da. knit-infda

(11) Pille õpi-b kudu-ma. Pille learn-3sg knit-infma ʻPille is learning to knit.’ (12) Pille vii-s koera jaluta-ma. Pille take-pst.3sg dog.gen walk-infma ʻPille took the dog out for a walk.’

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 363

8.5 WORD-FORMATION Derivation and compounding have an important position in Estonian: in written texts, about 5% of word tokens are ad hoc formations (e.g. banaani+kuju|line ‘banana-shaped’), although 80% of these formations are potential words derived or composed using either a simple or complex base (Kerge 2016). 8.5.1 Derivation Derivation includes (1) the conversion of lexical units from one part of speech into another, for example, the verb jooks- ‘to run’ becomes a noun in `jooks|mine run|ndev ‘(the act of) running,’ and (2) from one subcategory of nominals or verbs into another subcategory of nominals or verbs, for example, verb hüppa- ‘to jump’ > hüp|le- ‘to jiggle.’ Derivational affixes in Estonian are mostly suffixes. Among the very few prefixes (or prefixoids), two (eba- ‘dis-/un-’ and mitte- ‘non-,’ e.g. eba+`mai.ne un+earthǀadj ʻunearthly’) have the features of lexical morphemes. Converting lexical units from one lexical class into another may occur also without the addition of any suffixes. The derivational relationship between nouns and verbs with an identical stem can be either ‘from noun to verb’ or ‘from verb to noun,’ for example, `kamm ‘comb (genitive singular kammi)’ > kammi-ma comb-infma or jahti- ‘to hunt’ > `jaht ‘hunting (genitive singular jahi)’ (Kasik 2012, 800). Derivation of nouns is productive and substantial, but if we consider both form and meaning, only some kinds of noun derivation can be described as regular. That is, the meanings of most derivational suffixes are often somewhat vague, and some suffixes have overlapping meaning, for example, the suffix |ik has the general meaning of an item (`sõrm ‘finger’ > sõrm|ik ‘glove’) but also the meaning of a set (`kuusk ‘fir’ > kuus|ik ‘fir forest’). Several suffixes (e.g. |(V)k) carry no meaning other than the inflectional category of a noun. Kasik (2013, 98–147) discusses 11 kinds of denominal and deadjectival noun derivation, 14 kinds of deverbal noun derivation, and 6 types based on both nouns or adjectives and verbs. Denominal nouns include forms such as `mõrv|ar ‘murderer’ (from `mõrv ‘murder’) and laul|`ja.nna ‘female singer’ (from `laul|ja ‘singer’). Suffixes can form: 1) 2) 3)

4)

Collective nouns, for example, |stik: mägi ‘mountain’ (gen.sg `mäe) > `mäe|`stik ʻmountain chain’; |kond: `mees ‘man’ > `mees|`kond ʻteam,’ |stu: nimi ‘name’ > nimi|stu ʻlist,’ |ik: `kohv ‘coffee’ > kohv|ik ʻcafe’ Nouns expressing fields of social activity, for example, |ndus: `kaup ‘goods,’ gen.sg kauba > kauba|ndus ʻtrading,’ |lus: `vend ʻbrother’ > `vend|lus ʻfraternity’ Nouns denoting persons, for example, |lane: Eesti ‘Estonia’ > `eest|lane ‘Estonian,’ |line: `töö ʻwork’ > `töö|line ʻworker,’ |ur: kala ʻfish’ > kal|ur ‘fisherman,’ |ik: `kehv ʻpoor’ > kehv|ik ʻpoor person’; unproductive suffix |nik: polit`sei ʻpolice’ > polit`sei|nik ‘policeman’; |nna and |tar: laulja ʻsinger’ > laulja|nna, laulja|tar ʻfemale singer,’ indicating the gender of the person Instrumental nouns, for example, |ur: `lõika-ma cut-infma > `lõik|ur ʻcutter,’ |el: `kee|t-ma > boil-infma > `kee|t|el ʻboiler’

Adjectives and adjectival present participles are regularly nominalized with the suffix |us; for example, täie.`lik ‘absolute’ > täie.`likk|us ‘absoluteness’ (Kerge 2016). The

364 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

suffix |us (as well as variants |lus, |mus, |tus) is used to form abstract nouns from adjectives, for example, `kange ‘strong’ > `kang|us ‘strength,’ pime ʻdark’ (gen.sg pimeda) > pimed|us ʻdarkness.’ Deverbal nouns denote state (|mus, for example, sõltu-ma ‘depend-infma’ > `sõltu|mus ‘dependency’); process (|us, for example, kanna|ta-ma ‘suffer-infma’ > kanna|t|us ‘patience’) or action (hardly distinguished from acts or results, for example, luule|ta-ma ʻwrite poems-infma’ > luule|t|us ‘poem’); agent or actor (| ja, for example, söö-ma ʻeat-infma’ > `söö|  ja; |nu, for example, söö|nu ʻperson who has eaten’); instrument (|ur, for example, pida-ma ʻkeep-infma’ > pid|ur ‘brake’; |  ja, for example, ava-ma ʻopen-infma’ > ava|  ja ‘opener,’ -el, for example, kee|t-ma ʻboil-infma’ > `kee|t|el ‘boiler’); object or result, hardly distinguished from each other (|k, for example, müü-ma ʻsell-infma’ > `müü|k ʻsale’; -e, attaching to the weak-grade stem of verbs with grade alternation, for example, hüppa-ma ʻjump-infma’ hüp|e ʻjump’); or the place of an action (|la, for example, võimle-ma ʻexercise-infma’ > `võim|la ʻgymnasium’). Nominalization of verbs with the suffix |mine is regular and completely productive, attaching to the ma-infinitive stem (in the strong grade where relevant), for example, maga-ma ‘sleep-infma’ > maga|mine ‘sleeping,’ `õmble-ma ‘sew-infma’ > `õmble|mine ‘sewing.’ Compared with nominal derivation, the system of verbal derivation is more transparent. Six main semantic types of derivatives have been distinguished (Kasik 2015): (1) denominal ‘factitives’ and deverbal ‘causatives,’ attaching to the verb stem in the weak grade (in verbs with grade alternation), for example, |ta- ~ |da-, |sta-; rikas ‘rich’ > rikas|ta-ma ‘enrich-infma,’ näge-ma ‘see-infma’ > näi|ta-ma ‘to show-infma’; (2) reflexives, for example, |u-, |bi-, |bu-; joo-ma ‘drink-infma’ > joo|bu-ma ‘get drunk-infma’; (3) translatives, |ne-, |u-, |stu-; `kuum ‘hot’ : kuume-m hot-cmp > kuume|ne-ma ‘heat up itr-infma’; (4) essentiatives (denoting some kind of state), for example, |ta ~ |da, |tse, |ne, |le; iha ʻdesire’ > iha|le-ma ‘admire-infma’; (5) instrumentives, for example, |ta ~ |da, -sta, -tse; vasar ʻhammer’ > vasar|da-ma ‘use a hammer-infma’; (6) imitatives, for example, |u, |ise, |ata; `sulps ‘plop’ > sulps|ata-ma ‘to plop-infma.’ All types contain several subtypes with several suffix variants, and some suffixes can be used in several meanings (e.g. |ta ~ |da for causatives, for example, `ärka-ma ‘wake itr-infma’ > ära|ta-ma ‘wake tr-infma,’ and for instrumentives, for example, `suusk ‘ski.nom : suusa ski.gen > suusa|ta-ma ‘ski-infma’). Adjectival suffixes are attached mainly to the nominative or genitive stem of nouns, for example, lumi ‘snow’ > lumi|ne ‘snowy,’ `muld ‘soil’ (mulla soil.gen.sg) > mulla|ne ‘earthy,’ but can also be attached to stems from other lexical categories, such as adjectives (arg ‘shy’ > arg|lik ‘timid’), verbs (sobi-ma ‘suit-infma’ > sobi|`lik ‘appropriate’), adverbs, particles, and postpositions (e.g. `ees ‘in front of’ > `ees|mine ‘anterior’). Out of some 15 relevant suffixes (Kasik 2013, 149), only |lik and |  jas are used exclusively to derive adjectives. Six main adjective groups may be distinguished on a semantic basis: (1) relational adjectives (|ne, |mine, for example, suvi ‘summer’ > suvi|ne ‘summery’); (2) state adjectives (|ne, |lik, for example, `leid-ma ‘find’ > `leid|lik ‘inventive’); (3) possessive adjectives (|ne, |line, |kas, for example, mõte ‘idea’ > `mõtte/kas ‘meaningful’); (4) caritive adjectives (|tu, for example, `töö ‘work’ > `töö|tu ‘unemployed’); (5) comparative adjectives (|lik, |  jas, for example, uss ‘snake’ > `us|  jas ‘like a snake’; and (6) moderating adjectives (|kas, | jas, for example, hapu ‘sour’ > hapu|kas ‘a little sour,’ ` must ‘black’ > `must|  jas ‘blackish’).

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 365

Suffixes used for the derivation of adverbs are relatively few, and most of them are not productive. The main and most productive adverbial suffix in Estonian is |lt, which is used to form manner adverbs (kiire ‘fast’ > `kiire|lt ‘quickly’). The suffix |sti is often synonymous with the suffix |lt. Other suffixes can have meanings that are distributive (|ti, for example, homm|ik ʻmorning’ > homm|iku|ti ‘mornings’; |kesi, for example, `kaks two.nom : kahe two.gen ‘two’ > kahe|kesi two-der ʻtwo of you, both’); relational (|kuti, for example, `koht ‘place,’ koha gen.sg > koha|kuti ‘aligned to each other’; |li, for example, `pikk ‘long,’ pika gen.sg > pika|li ‘lying down’; |stikku, for example, vastas ‘opposite’ > vasta|s`tikku ‘mutually’); or situational (|vel, |vil, for example, liiku-ma ‘move-infma’ > `liik|vel ‘on the move,’ ’põnev ‘exciting’ > põne|vil ‘excited’). In most cases, the base for derived adverbs is an adjective (uni|ne ‘sleepy’ > uni|se|lt ‘sleepily’). 8.5.2 Compounding Compounding is probably the most productive strategy for word-formation. A compound in Estonian may be defined as a phonetic-orthographic word usually characterized by a specific intonation contour with its peak on the first component, while the last component has its own stress-pattern needed for inflection (Kerge 2016). Among special noun terms, compounds are clearly preferred to lexicalized phrases (Saari 1987). Compounding in Estonian includes the formation of compound verbs, nominals, and adverbs, but it is very productive only in nouns and adjectives (Vare 2012, XLI). Compounds in Estonian can consist of more than one lexical unit, for example, `raud + tee + + + üle + sõidu + + `koht iron+road++++across+travel++place ‘railway crossing point,’ but words consisting of more than three lexical components are quite rare. Most compound nouns are subordinate and endocentric, for example, seene+`supp mushroom.gen+soup ‘mushroom soup,’ and the head is almost always on the right side, that is, in final position. There are only a few examples of compounds where the semantic head is on the left, that is, at the beginning of a compound (e.g. arsti+onu doctor+uncle ‘male doctor’). The modifier in a noun compound can be (1) a substantive, for example, riisi+puder rice+porridge ʻrice porridge’ (this is the most common and productive pattern); (2) a verb, for example, suru+õhk push+air ʻcompressed air,’ istu-ma+jää-mine sit-infma+remain ‘remaining sitting’ (a productive pattern); (3) an adjective, for example, `noor+`töö|line young+worker ʻyoung worker’; (4) a particle, adverb, or adposition, for example, `all+kiri under+script ʻsignature’ (patterns 3 and 4 are less productive than the previous two); (5) a numeral, for example, kahe+kõne two.gen+speech ‘dialogue’; or (6) a pronoun, for example, enese+kaitse self.gen+defense ‘self defense’ (patterns 5 and 6 are non-productive). Estonian has both word(form)-based and phrase-based compounds. Word (form)-based compounds can concatenate (1) a root/word without inflectional suffixes: for example, (a) prototypical gen-root modifier, for example, seene+`supp mushroom.gen+soup = ‘mushroom soup,’ the most productive and frequent pattern, and (b) unmotivated nom-root modifier (impossible in a phrase, unless appositional), for example, paber+raha paper.nom+money ‘paper money’; (2) an inflected form: all noun case forms can occur as a modifier, usually as a result of the combination of compounding and derivation, for example, kala-l+`käi|k fish-ade+go|der ‘(going) fishing,’ küla-s+`käi|k village-ine+go|der ‘visit’; (3) bound stems from different lexical classes, for example, `all+`keel under+language ‘sublanguage,’ sini+tihane

366 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

(sini|ne+tihane) blue+tit ‘blue tit’; (4) a stem with derivational suffixes: for example, kauba|ndus+`tööta|  ja trade|der + worker|der ‘salesperson’; (5) a shortened consonant base: for example, lama|mis+`tool (lama|mise+tool) recline|der+chair|reclining chair,’ or root, for example, kiir+tee (kiire+tee) quick+road ‘highway’: the last phoneme(s) of the root or stem (usually -e, but in the case of adjective modifiers, also other phonemes, for example, võõras keel > `võõr+`keel ‘foreign language’) disappears; the latter pattern is not very productive. A phrase-based compound can consist of a phrase as a modifier, for example, kahe+inimese+`voodi (kaks inimest+`voodi) two.gen+person.gen+bed ‘bed for two people.’ This pattern is not very productive. Compound verbs are orthographical compounds, that is, they are written as a typographic word in every position in a sentence. The head of a compound verb can be a simple verb or a derivative. Modifiers of compound verbs can be bound root morphemes (üle+ ‘over-,’ ala+ ‘under-,’ for example, ala+`hinda-ma ‘to undestimate’), adverb stems (järel+ ‘after-,’ for example, järel+valmi-ma ʻto mature-infma’), or adjectives, for example, sügav+`külm deep+cold ‘freezer’ > sügav+`külm.u-ma deep+cold|der ‘to deep-freeze-infma.’ The modifier of a compound adjective can be an adjective (musta+`silm|ne black.gen+eye|der ‘black-eyed’), noun (`suhkru+vaba ‘sugar-free’), pronoun (minu+`ea|line I.gen+age|der ʻof my age’), or numeral (viie+`aasta|ne five.gen+year|der ‘five-year-old’). All compound adverbs are lexicalized in Estonian. Most compound adverbs are created from phrases with different structure. In most cases, the structure of a compound adverb is nominal + noun (otse+`tee-d directly+way-part ‘shortcut’) or adverb + noun (üles+mäge up+mountain. part ‘uphill’). 8.6 DEIXIS AND PRONOUNS Personal deixis is expressed by means of personal pronouns, as well as in argument indexing on verbs (see 8.4.3.2). Estonian personal pronouns have short and long variants: mina~ma ‘I,’ sina~sa ‘you (sg),’ tema~ta ‘s/he,’ meie~me ‘we,’ teie~te ‘you (pl),’ nemad~nad ‘they.’ The pronouns mainly have two parallel variants in nominative, genitive, and locative cases; in the other cases, there is only one form. Short variants are used more frequently and usually occur in unstressed positions (13); long variants are used mainly to bring out contrast or for some other kind of emphasis (Pajusalu 2017, 569–570). (13) Ma võta-n sinu I take-1sg you.gen ‘I am taking your book.’

raamatu. book.gen

When the verb form is indexed for subject person (i.e. in the affirmative of the indicative, and partly also of the conditional), the free personal pronoun can be absent from the clause (14). The pronoun can also be absent from the clause when the subject person is evident from the context (15) or the speaker intentionally wants to leave it general or unclear (16). See also 8.4.3.2. There are no specific grammatical rules for using or omitting the pronoun or for the choice of the long or short form; the choice is guided by pragmatic circumstances (see, for instance, Pajusalu and Pajusalu 2004; Pajusalu 2015).

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 367

(14) Võta-n su raamatu. take-1sg you.gen book.gen ‘I am taking your book.’ (15) Ei `leid-nud se-da raamatu-t. neg find-pst.ptcp this-part book-part ‘(I/you/he/she/we/they) didn’t find this book.’ (16) `Või-ks `akna `kinni `panna. can-cond window.gen closed put.infda ‘(I/you/he/she/we/they) could close the window.’ Spatial deixis is expressed by demonstrative adverbs: the series `siia—`siin—`siit ʻto here’—ʻhere’—ʻfrom here’ expresses proximity to the speaker; the series `sinna— `seal—`sealt ʻto there’—ʻthere’—ʻfrom there’ expresses distance from the speaker. There are numerous compound adverbs based on these forms, for example, `siia+`poole ʻthis way,’ `siin+`pool ʻon this side,’ siit+poolt ʻfrom this side’; sinna+poole ʻto that side,’ seal+pool ʻon that side,’ `sealt+`poolt ʻfrom that side.’ The primary demonstrative pronoun is see (17, 18), which typically does not indicate spatial deixis. Proximity or distance of referents can be shown by combining this pronoun with deictic adverbs: `see `siin ‘this here,’ `see `seal ‘that there.’ There is also another demonstrative pronoun, too, which expresses a more distant referent than that expressed by see. Temporal deixis is expressed by adverbs such as `nüüd ‘now,’ `praegu ‘now,’ täna ‘today,’ eile ‘yesterday,’ `homme ‘tomorrow,’ üle+eile ‘the day before yesterday,’ üle+`homme ‘the day after tomorrow.’ In addition to personal and demonstrative pronouns, the following groups of pronouns have been identified: reflexive pronouns ise, enese ~ `enda ‘self,’ oma ‘own,’ (17, 18), reciprocal pronouns `üksteise, teineteise ‘each other’ (19), relative-interrogative pronouns `kes ‘who,’ `mis ‘what,’ milline, missugune ‘which’ (20) (see Sections 8.8 and 8.1), and indefinite pronouns `keegi ‘somebody, anybody,’ `miski ‘something, anything,’ mõlemad ‘both,’ mõni ‘some,’ iga`üks ‘everybody’ (17, 21, 22). (17) Kui ma ennas-t ise ei kaitse, cnj I self-part self neg defend.cng se-da `keegi . this-part anybody ‘If I do not defend myself nobody will do it.’

ei neg

`tee do.cng

(18) Kui ta tahab `olla `enda `eest vastutav,` cnj s/he want.3sg be.infda self.gen for responsible pea-b ta `tõesta-ma `enda-le ja `maailma-le, must-3sg s/he prove-infma self-all and world-all et ta se-da `on. (F) cnj s/he this-part be.3sg ‘If (s)he wants to be responsible for his/herself, (s)he must prove to him/herself and the world that (s)he is that.’ (19) Mehe-d `vaata-si-d `üksteise-le `otsa. (F) man-pl look-pst-3pl each.other-all vp ‘The men looked at each other.’

368 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

(20) `Kes `on `nee-d inimese-d, `kes `hakka-vad süs`teemi who be.3pl this-pl people- pl who begin-3pl system.part `ellu `viima ja moni`toori-ma? (S) life.ill bring.infma and monitor-infma ‘Who are these people who will be implementing and monitoring the system?’ (21) `Keegi laula-b kõrval`toas. someone sing-3sg next.room.ine ‘Someone is singing in the next room.’ (22) Mi`nistre-id on kabineti-s mõlema-st `soo-st minister-part.pl be.3sg cabinet-ine both-ela sex-ela `võrdselt. (etTenTen) equally ‘There are an equal number of ministers of both sexes in the cabinet.’ 8.7 BASIC CLAUSE TYPES AND NP FLAGGING In intransitive (23–27) and transitive (28, 29) main clauses subject person is cross-indexed on the verb, and the neutral constituent order is SVX. The subject NP is in the nominative case and normally precedes the verb if it is of definite reference. In copula constructions, the verb is olema ‘be,’ and the copula complement can denote identity/ proper inclusion (25) and property (26) as well as location (27): (23) `Peeter ela-b Viljandi-s. Peeter live-3sg Viljandi-ine ‘Peeter lives in Viljandi.’ (24) `Konn `muutu-s printsi-ks. frog turn-pst.3sg prince-tra ‘The frog turned into a prince.’ (25) `Peeter ol-i õpetaja. Peeter be-pst.3sg teacher.nom ‘Peter was a teacher.’ (26) `Peeter on Peeter be.3sg ‘Peter is young.’

`noor. young.nom

(27) Lapse-d ol-i-d `teatri-s. child-pl be-pst-3pl theater-ine ’The children were in the theatre.’ (28) Mari armasta-b kollase-i-d Mari like-3sg yellow-pl-part ‘Mari likes yellow flowers.’

`lilli. flower.part.pl

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 369

(29) Mari kirjuta-s Mari.nom write-pst.3sg ‘Mari wrote a poem.’

luuletuse. poem.gen

In another important kind of clause, the subject typically has a referent (relatively) new to the discourse and the constituent order is XVS. Clauses of this kind include (a) existential clauses beginning with a place or time adverbial (30); (b) possessive clauses (31); (c) experiencer clauses, in which the experiencer argument is in the adessive, allative (32), or partitive (33), while the subject denotes the stimulus; and (d) resultative clauses, in which the source is in the elative and the result is the subject (34). Possessive clauses are copula constructions with the possessum encoded as copula subject and the possessor as copula complement in the adessive. Also, existential clauses are often copula constructions (with the same arguments as locative clauses, but with the reverse constituent order). (30) `Taeva-s ol-i-d suure-d `valge-d sky-ine be-pst-3pl big-nom.pl white-nom.pl `pilve-d. cloud-pl.nom ‘There were big white clouds in the sky.’ (31) Lapse-l on `uus child-ade be.3sg new ‘The child has a new doll.’ (32) Mari-le `meeldi-vad Mari-all be.pleasing-3pl ‘Mari likes yellow flowers.’

`nukk. doll.nom kollase-d yellow-nom.pl

(33) `Peetri-t üllata-si-d las-te Peeter-part surprise-pst-3pl child-gen.pl ‘The children’s jokes surprised Peter.’

lille-d. flower-nom.pl nalja-d. joke-nom.pl

(34) Konna-st `sa-i `prints. frog-ela become- pst prince.nom ‘The frog turned into a prince.’ Both subject and object NPs can have different case flagging. Traditionally, a distinction has been made between total and partial variants. The subject is typically in the nominative (total), but in existential and possessive clauses, it can also be in the partitive (partial), or if the clause is negative (35, cf. 31), or if the speaker wants to express the quantitative indefiniteness of the referent (36, cf. 30). (35) Lapse-l ei ole `nukku. child-ade neg be.cng doll.part ‘The child doesn’t have a doll.’ (36) Taeva-s ol-i `valge-i-d pilvi. sky-ine be-pst.3sg white-pl-part cloud.part.pl ‘There were white clouds in the sky.’

370 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

The object is typically in the partitive; in affirmative clauses, partial (partitive) and total (genitive or nominative) object forms can be used to express imperfective (37) and perfective aspect (38) respectively. (37) Mari kirjuta-s luuletus-t. Mari.nom write-pst.3sg poem-part ‘Mari was writing a poem.’ (38) Mari kirjuta-s Mari write-pst.3sg ‘Mari wrote a poem.’

luuletuse. poem.gen

As the SVX and XSV patterns show, the V2 rule is characteristic of the Estonian sentence: the finite verb is usually placed second in the independent sentence and the main clause. 8.8 CLAUSE LINKING Finite clauses are typically joined by conjunctions. The main coordinating conjunctions are the copulative ja (39), the adversative aga (40) and kuid (41), the disjunctive või, and the exclusive adversative (‘either . . . or’) kas . . . või (42). These same conjunctions are used to unite words and phrases as well: kuu ja päike ‘the moon and the sun’; väike, aga tubli ‘small, but capable’; must kohv või roheline tee ‘black coffee or green tea’; see (78) and (79). (39) Päike paista-b ja linnu-d laula-vad. sun shine-3sg and bird-pl sing-3pl ‘The sun is shining and the birds are singing.’ (40) Päike paista-b, aga `vihma sun shine-3sg but rain.part ‘The sun is shining, but it’s raining.’

saja-b. fall-3sg

(41) Päike paista-b, `kuid `ilm on `külm. sun shine-3sg but weather.nom be.3sg cold.nom ‘The sun is shining, but the weather is cold.’ (42) `Siin on kas käi-nud `varga-d `või here be.3pl either go-pst.ptcp burglar-pl or ma ole-n ise ukse `lahti `jät-nud. I be-1sg self door.gen open leave-pst.ptcp ‘Either there were burglars here or I left the door open’ The most widely used conjunction introducing a complement clause is et ‘that’; other conjunctions, with more limited use, include kui ‘as, if, when’ and nagu ‘as.’ Complement clauses can take on object or subject function in the main clause: (43) Ta `teadi-s, [et sõbra-l ol-i s/he know-pst.3sg cnj friend-ade be-pst.3sg (Erelt 2017, 670) ‘S/he knew that his/her friend was right.’

`õigus]o . right

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 371

(44) Tal-le `näi-s, [nagu p-ole-ks ema s/he-all seem-pst.3sg cnj neg-be-cond mother. nom ol-nud-ki]s. be-pst.ptcp-enc ‘It seemed to him/her that mother’d never been away.’

ära away

In the main clause, the complement clause can be represented by a correlative, most often see ‘this, that, it’: (45) `See on `hea, kui `kord `jälle maja-s this be.3sg good cnj order again house-ine (Erelt 2017, 670) ‘It’s good if order has been restored.’

on. be.3sg

Subordinate interrogative clauses functioning as complements are similar in form to independent interrogative clauses. All types of interrogative clauses (see 8.9.1) are represented: polar questions (46), content questions (47, 48) and alternative questions (49). (46) Mari küsi-s, kas `Peeter `oota-b jõuluvana. Mari ask-pst.3sg q Peeter wait-3sg Santa.Claus.part ‘Mari asked whether Peeter was waiting for Santa Claus.’ (47) `Peeter ei `tea, kuhu Peeter neg know.cng where.to ‘Peter doesn’t know where to go.’

`minna. go.infda

(48) Mari imesta-s, `miks `Peeter kodu-s Mari wonder-pst.3sg why Peeter home-ine ‘Mari wondered why Peeter wasn’t at home.’

ei neg

ole. be.cng

(49) Ma ei `saa aru, kas see `loom I neg get mind.part q this animal on `hunt või `koer. be.3sg wolf or dog ‘I don’t understand whether this animal is a wolf or a dog.’ Relative clauses follow the word or phrase that they modify. The words used to introduce relative clauses are interrogative-relative pronouns and proadverbs (`kes ‘who,’ `mis ‘what,’ missugune ‘what kind,’ `kus ‘where,’ millal ‘when,’ etc.), their form indicating their syntactic function in the relative clause. The same interrogative-relative words are used in relative clauses, complement clauses, and interrogative sentences. Relative clauses can also be represented in the main clause by a correlative, such as see ‘this, that, it,’ selline ‘this/that kind’ (51), etc.: (50) `Vastu tul-i `meess , [kesa `kandi-s against come-pst.3sg man who carry-pst.3sg ‘A man came who was carrying a large cross.’

`suurt large.part

`ristio]. cross.part

372 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

(51) Prügi`kott tule-ks `viia selle tänava garbage.bag shall-cond.3sg take.infda that.gen street.gen mars`ruuta läbi-b]. (N) `äärde, [mi-dao to.the.edge.of what-part route come.through-3sg ‘The garbage bag should be taken to the edge of the street that the route passes through.’ (52) Riigilipu `muuseum, [kuhu panna-kse üles state.flag.gen museum where.to put.idf-prs up püsieksponaadi-do], ehita-ta-kse Otepää permanent.exhibition-PL build-idf-prs Otepää.gen kirikumõisa `hoone-sse. pastorate.gen building-ill ‘The museum of the state flag, where the permanent exhibitions will be put up, will be built in the building of the Otepää pastorate.’ Conjunctions used to introduce supporting clauses include kui ‘if, when, as’ (time, condition, comparison), nagu ‘like, as’ (comparison), sest ‘because’ (cause), and kuigi ‘although’ (concession): (53) Kui tule-b esimene kevadine `vihm, when come-3sg first spring.adj rain `hakka-b `maa haljenda-ma. start-3sg land turn.green-infma ‘When the first spring rain comes, the land starts to turn green.’ (54) Kõik läk-si-d ruta-tes, nagu ole-ksi-d nad all go-pst-3pl rush-ger cnj be-cond-3pl they `kart-nud kuhugi hilja-ks `jää-da. (F) be.afraid-pst.ptcp somewhere.to late-tra stay-infda ‘Everyone left in a rush, as if they were afraid of being late for something.’ (55) Laps `nuttis, sest ta-l valuta-s child cry.pst because s/he-ade hurt-pst.3sg (Erelt 2017, 716) ‘The child was crying because her tooth hurt.’ (56) Kuigi päike paista-b, on `ilm although sun shine-3sg be.3sg weather ‘Although the sun is shining, the weather is cold.’

hammas. tooth

`ikkagi anyway

külm. cold

In example (53), and also in (17) and (18) earlier, the constituent order rule influences the order of the V2 focal clause: the first position is occupied by the support clause, the second position by the finite verb, and the subject maa ʻland’ follows the verb.

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 373

Relative, complement, and supporting clauses can also be built with nonfinite verb forms. Participal constructions (57) and ma-infinitive abessive constructions (58) function as relative clauses, da-infinitive constructions as (copula) subject (59) and object (60), and vat-infinitive constructions (61) as objects function as complements; ma- infinitive (62–66), gerundial (67), and participal (68) constructions function as support clauses: (57) [Metsa tagant `tõuse-v]rc `pilv ennusta-s `suur-t forest.gen behind rise-prs.ptcp cloud.nom predict-pst.3sg great-part sadu. rain.part ‘The cloud rising from behind the forest predicted a great downpour.’ `teose-d (58) [Seni eesti `keel-de `tõlki-ma-ta]rc heretofore Estonian language-ill translate-infma-abe work-pl on kirjastus `plaani `võt-nud. be.3sg publisher plan.ill take-pst.ptcp ‘The publisher has included into its plans works that heretofore have not been translated into Estonian.’ võimatu. (N) (59) [Sama`aegselt kahe-l `võistluse-l `viibi-da]S on Simultaneously two-ade competition-ade stay-infda be.3sg impossible ‘It is impossible [to attend two competitions simultaneously].’ (60) Õpetaja pida-s oma kohustuse-ks [õpilasi Teacher consider-pst.3sg own duty-tra student.part.pl `eksami-ks `ette valmista-da]O. exam-tra vp prepare-infda ‘The teacher considered it his/her duty [to prepare the students for the exam].’ (61) Ta näg-i võõras-t `mees-t [korteri-st s/he see-pst.3sg strange-part man-part apartment-ela ‘S/he saw a strange man [exit(ing) the apartment].’ (62) Läks-i-n kohviku-sse [`värske-i-d go-pst-1sg café-ill fresh-pl-part ‘I went to a café [to buy fresh pastries].’

`ost-ma]sc . buy-infma

`sai-u pastry-part.pl

(63) Käi-si-n kohviku-s [`värske-i-d `sai-u go-pst-1sg café-ine fresh-pl-part pastry-pl.part ‘I went to a café [to buy fresh pastries].’

`ost-ma-s]sc buy-infma-ine

(64) Tul-i-n kohviku-st [`värske-i-d `sai-u came-pst-1sg café-ela fresh-pl-part pastry-part.pl ‘I came from the café [from buying fresh pastries].’ (65) Ta s/he

libista-s slide-pst.3sg

`pöidla-ga thumb-com

üle across

tera, blade.gen

`välju-vat]O. exit-infvat

`ost-ma-st]sc . buy-infma-ela

374 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

[`veendu-ma-ks selle vaheduse-s]sc. (F) ascertain-infma-tra this.gen sharpness-ine ‘He/she slid a thumb across the blade [to ascertain its sharpness].’ (66) Kli`ent `andi-s `allkirja, [`tutvu-ma-ta client give-pst.3sg sign.gen familiarize.self-infma-abe ‘The client signed [without reading the contract]’

lepingu-ga]sc. contract-com

(67) [Õhu-s allapoole `lange-des]sc `muutu-vad sädeme-d air-ine downward fall-ger change-3pl spark-pl `halli-de-ks tuhahelves-te-ks. grey-pl-tra flake.of.ash-pl-tra ‘[When falling downward in the air] the sparks turn into grey flakes of ash.’ (68) [`Töö `teh-tud], läks-i-me koju. work do-idf.pst.ptcp go-pst-1pl home ‘[Work done]sc, we went home.’ 8.9 PRAGMATIC CLAUSE TYPES 8.9.1 Questions Polar questions are formed primarily by particles. The main interrogative particle is sentence-initial kas (69); in negative sentences, ega is used as well (70). In addition to these two, the sentence-final particle või ~ vä (71) is becoming widespread, deriving from the conjunction või ‘or’ː (69) Kas Eesti-s teki-b `koos`toimiv q Estonia-ine emerge-3sg cooperative ‘Will a cooperative society emerge in Estonia?’ (70) Ega ta selle ilma-ga trenni-s q.neg s/he this whether-com training-ine ‘S/he didn’t exercise in that weather, did she?’

ühis`kond? (S) society käi-nud? (etTenTen) go-pst.ptcp

(71) Sa pole varem kuuli`auku näi-nud you.sg neg.be before bullet.hole.part see-pst.ptcp ‘You’ve never seen a bullet hole before, have you?’

või?   (etTenten) q

Polar questions can also be formed with tags such as eks ole, eks, on ju, as well as by inversionː (72) Moodne abielu on ju varalahususe fashionable marriage be.3sg ptcl separate.property.gen põhi`mõtte-l, eks ole? (etTenten) principle-ade q ‘A fashionable marriage is based on the principle of separate property, isn’t it?’

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 375

(73) `Saa-d sa selle-st lähemalt `rääki-da? can-2sg you.sg this-ela closer speak.infda ‘Can you speak about that in more depth?’ Content questions are formed by means of an interrogative-relative pronoun or adverb (kes ‘who,’ mis ‘what,’ missugune ‘what kind of,’ kus ‘where,’ millal ‘when,’ kuidas ‘how,’ miks ‘why’) or an interrogative phrase (kui palju ‘how much,’ kui kaua ‘how long,’ kui vana ‘how old,’ mis kell ‘what time’) located clause-initially. (74) `Kes tul-i? who come-pst.3sg ‘Who came?’ (75) `Kus sa ela-d? where you.sg live-2sg ‘Where do you live?’ (76) `Miks `Peeter kodu-s why Peeter home-ine ‘Why is Peeter not at home?’

ei ole? neg be.cng

(77) Kui `palju see raamat `maks-is? How much this book cost-pst.3sg ‘How much did that book cost?’ Alternative questions are formed by the same means as polar questions, with the conjunction või ‘or’: (78) Kas see `loom on `hunt q this animal be.3sg wolf ‘Is this animal a wolf or a dog?’

või `koer? or dog

(79) On see `loom `hunt või `koer? be.3sg this animal wolf or dog ‘Is this animal a wolf or a dog?’ 8.9.2 Commands and requests Directives are expressed primarily via the imperative mood (80). Other means of expressing directives are the da-infinitive (81) and the particle las ‘let’ (82). (80) Aseta see raamat riiuli-sse! put.imp.2sg this book shelf-ill ‘Put this book on the shelf!’ (81) Raamat kohe riiuli-sse aseta-da! book immediately shelf-ill put-infda ‘Put the book on the shelf immediately!’

376 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

(82) Las `Peeter aseta-b selle let Peeter.nom put-3sg this.gen ‘Let Peeter put this book on the shelf.’

raamatu riiuli-sse. book.gen shelf-ill

Requests can be softened by the use of the particle palun ‘please’ (grammaticalized from the verb form palu-n ask-1sg ‘I ask’) (83), formulating the request as a question, and/or using the conditional mood or modal verbs (84). (83) Palun aseta see raamat please put.imp.2sg this book ‘Please put this book on the shelf.’

riiuli-sse. shelf-ill

(84) Kas sa `saa-ksi-d selle q you.sg can-cond-2sg this.gen ‘Could you put this book on the shelf?’

raamatu riiuli-sse aseta-da? book.gen shelf-ill put-infda

8.10 TAM CATEGORIES 8.10.1 Modality Modality is expressed mainly by lexical means in Estonian: with modal verbs and other predicates, or with special modal words as parts of a predicate; epistemic modality is also expressed by modal adverbs (Erelt 2017, 142–153). Epistemic modality can be described as a continuum or scale of means with different epistemic value (see Table 8.13).

TABLE 8.12  MAIN MEANS OF EXPRESSING NON-EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN STANDARD ESTONIAN Type of modality

Sub-fields of modality and examples

Speakers’ internal / dynamic modality

Possibility: 1. olema ‘be’ + `võimeline/`võimetu ‘capable/uncapable’ + Vma:   Ta on `võimeline trepi-st `alla mine-ma. s/he be.3sg capable stairs-ela down go-infma ‘S/he is capable of going down the stairs.’ 2. Modal verbs `saama/`võima can’ + Vda   Ta `saa-b ise trepi-st `alla `min-na. s/he can-3sg herself stairs-ela down go-infda ‘S/he can (is able to) go down the stairs herself.’   Ta `või-b ise trepi-st `alla s/he can-3sg herself stairs-ela down ‘S/he can go down the stairs herself.’

`min-na. go-infda

Necessity/inevitability: 1. olema ‘be’ + vaja/tarvis ‘necessary’+ Vda   Mu-l on vaja trepi-st `alla `min-na. I-ade be.3sg necessary stairs-ela down go-infda ’I have to go down the stairs.’

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 377 Type of modality

Sub-fields of modality and examples   pidama vajalikuks ‘consider necessary’ + Vda   Ta pida-s vajaliku-ks trepi-st `alla `min-na. she keep-pst.3sg necessary-tra stairs-ela down go-infda ‘She thought it was necessary to go down the stairs.’ 2. Modal verb pidama ‘need, must’+Vma   Ma `pea-n trepi-st `alla mine-ma. I need-1sg stairs-ela down go-infma ‘I need/have to go down the stairs.’

Speakers’ external modality

Non-deontic modality

Possibility: 1. andma ‘give’ 3sg + Vda   Se-da anna-b teh-a ilusa-ma-ks.   this-part give-3sg make-infda beautiful-cmp-tra ‘This can be made more beautiful.’ 2. olema ‘be’ + Vtav/Vmatu   See on paranda-tav.   this.nom be.3sg fix-prs.ptcp ‘It’s fixable / It can be fixed.’ 3. Modal verbs saama/võima ‘can’ + Vda   `Värv on `kuiva-nud. Me või-me   paint.nom be.3sg dry-pst.ptcp we.nom can-1pl   täna trepi-st `alla `min-na. today stairs-ela down go-infda   ‘The paint is dry. We can go down the stairs today.’ Necessity/inevitability: kuluma/tasuma/maksma/tarvitsema/pruukima ‘need’ 3sg + Vda Su-l/sa ei tarvitse trepi-st `alla `min-na. you.sg-ade/you.sg.nom neg need.cng stairs-ela down go-infda ‘You do not need to go down the stairs.’

Deontic modality

Possibility: 1. modal verbs saama/võima/tohtima ‘may, be allowed’ + Vda   Me tohi-me trepi-st `alla min-na.   we.nom may-1pl stairs-ela down go-infda   ‘We are allowed to go down the stairs.’ 2. verbs sobima/kõlbama/passima ‘fit, suit’ 3.sg + Vda:   Su-l sobi-b `küll trep-ist `alla min-na.   you.sg-ade suit-3sg indeed stairs-ela down go-infda   ‘It’s OK if you go down the stairs (= it’s not unpolite).’ Necessity/inevitability: 1. modal verb pidama ‘must’ + Vma:   Sa `pea-d trepi-st `alla mine-ma.   you.sg.nom must-2sg stairs-ela down go-infma   ‘You have to go down the stairs.’ 2. modal verb tulema ‘need, must’ 3sg + Vda:   Ta-l tule-b trepi-st `alla `min-na.   s/he-ade must-3sg stairs-ela down go-infda ‘S/he has to go down the stairs.’

378 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG TABLE 8.13  MAIN MEANS OF EXPRESSING EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN STANDARD ESTONIAN Semantic field

Lexical means

Uncertainty Certainty

Predicate: Ma `kahtle-n/`arva-n , kas ta on `haige. I.nom wonder-1sg/think-1sg, q s/he be.3sg sick ‘I wonder/think if s/he is sick.’ Predicative: On eba tõenäoline, et ta be.3sg unlikely, that s/he ‘(It) is unlikely that s/he is sick.’

on `haige. be.3sg sick

Sentence adverbial: Võib-olla on ta `haige. maybe be.3sg s/he sick ‘Maybe s/he is sick.’ Modal verbs `saama/`võima + Vda: See `või-b `juhtu-da. this.nom can-3sg happen-infda ‘It can happen.' Conditional: Vihm `pea-ks `õhtu-l järele `jää-ma. rain.nom shall-cond.3sg evening-ade behind stay-infma ‘The rain should stop in the evening.’ Predicative: On `kindel, et ta on `haige. be.3sg sure that s/he be.3sg sick ‘(It) is sure that she is sick.’ Sentence adverbial: `Kindlasti on ta `haige. surely be.3sg s/he sick ‘Surely she is sick.’ Predicate: Ma ole-n kindel, et ta on haige. I.nom be-1sg sure that s/he be.3sg sick ‘I am sure that s/he is sick.’

8.10.2 Evidentiality Estonian evidentiality is always indirect (= the source of the information is not the speaker): there are no direct evidentials (= the source of the information is the speaker) in the system. The use of indirect evidentials in marking the source of information is optional and dependent on various pragmatic conditions. Evidentiality has developed into a grammatical category in Estonian and can be expressed morphologically by the quotative mood (developed from the present participle). This morpheme encodes the source of

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 379

the speaker’s knowledge (hearsay) but also aspects of incompleteness of evidence and the degree of strength of evidence. In the examples that follow, the unmarked sentence (85a) does not specify the source of information, whereas the morphologically marked (85b) specifies a source different from the speaker as the source of the information (the quotative only has one form for all persons). (85a) Jüri tule-b. Jüri come-3sg ‘Jüri will come.’ (85b) Jüri tule-vat. Jüri come-quot ‘Allegedly/reportedly, Jüri will come.’ There are other grammatical and lexical means for expressing evidentiality in Estonian as well (Erelt 2017, 155–159; Kehayov 2004, 829): a da-infinitive form in the function of the predicate (86), the combination of the modal verb pidama ‘must’ and the ma-infinitive (87), and the pluperfect or the past participle alone (88) (cf. Erelt 2017, 155–158). (86) Jüri `oll-a kodu-s. Jüri be-infda home-ine ‘Jüri is supposedly at home.’ (87) Jüri pid-i kodu-s Jüri must-pst.3sg home-ine ‘Jüri is supposedly at home.’

ole-ma. be-infma

(88) Jüri (ol-i) `usku-nud seda. Jüri be-pst.3sg believe-pst.ptcp it.part ‘Jüri supposedly believed this.’ 8.10.3 Negation Clausal negation is expressed by the negative particle ei ‘not/no,’ which precedes the connegative present (89) or past form (90), the latter homophonous with the active past participle. The particle ei is historically developed from the third-person singular negative auxiliary form. (89) Homme ma `töö-d tomorrow I work-part ‘I will not work tomorrow.’

ei neg

`tee. do.cng

(90) Eile ma ei tei-nud `töö-d. yesterday I neg do-pst.ptcp work-part ‘I didn’t work yesterday.’ The verb olema ‘be’ has two synonymous negative forms: ei ole and pole (Maja ei ole `suur = Maja pole `suur. ‘The house is not big’). The difference in use between ei ole

380 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

and pole is determined above all by information structure and pragmatics. The pole form is more frequently used when the form of the verb olema is not emphasized in the sentence—is either an auxiliary or in an unstressed position—and when the sentence is conversationally in the background (Hennoste 2008; Tamm 2015). The present connegative has a unique stem form homophonous with that of the imperative (ei tule ‘doesn’t come,’ tule! ‘come!’). The connegative lacks an overt suffix, but conditional (91), quotative (92), and indefinite (93) have connegative forms that distinguish mood, evidentiality, and person: (91) Ma ei `tee-ks `töö-d. I neg do-cond work-part ‘I would not work.’ (92) Ma ei tege-vat `laupäeva-l `töö-d. I neg do-quot Saturday-ade work-part ‘I am (reportedly) not working on Saturday.’ (93) `Laupäeva-l ei `teh-ta `töö-d. Saturday-ade neg work-idf work-part ‘One doesn’t work on Saturday.’ Negation in the imperative and jussive (that is, in prohibitions) is expressed by the partially inflecting negative auxiliary ära. Table 8.14 contains the imperative paradigm of õppi- ‘to learn.’ The jussive coincides with the third-person imperative and has the same form in singular and plural: är-gu õppi-gu ‘(one) should not learn.’ Constituent negation is expressed with the particle `mitte (which developed historically from an indefinite pronoun). The particle `mitte is used with nonfinite verb forms (94), with indefinite pronouns (95), in constructions with an opposition (‛not A but B’) where the particle is placed immediately before the negated constituent (96), and in coordinating constructions, to replace the negative verb form (in the case of ellipsis) (97) (Erelt 2017, 190–191; Tamm 2015).

TABLE 8.14  IMPERATIVE PARADIGM OF THE VERB ÕPPI- ‘TO LEARN’ (CF. ERELT ET AL. 2020, 258) IN STANDARD ESTONIAN Person

Affirmative

Negative

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

1.

–

õppi-ge-m ‘let’s learn’

–

är-ge-m õppi-ge-m, är-me õpi-me, är-me õpi ‘let’s not learn’

2.

õpi ‘learn!’

õppi-ge ‘learn!’

ära õpi ‘don’t learn!’

är-ge õppi-ge ‘don’t learn!’

3.

õppi-gu ‘let him/ her learn’

õppi-gu ‘let them learn’

–

–

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 381

(94) Ma palu-n `mitte trügi-da! I ask-1sg neg push-infda ‘I ask (you) not to push!’ (95) `Mitte `keegi ei mõista `min-d. neg someone neg understand.cng me-part ‘Nobody understands me.’ (96) See ei ole `mitte kummitus , vaid it neg be neg ghost but ‘It isn’t a ghost, just a statue.’

`lihtsalt `üks kuju. just one statue

(97) Tema taha-b `kinno `min-na, mina `mitte. s/he want-3sg cinema.ill go-infda I neg ‘He wants to go to the cinema, I don’t.’ 8.11 LEXICON According to Rätsep (Erelt et al. 2007, 592–594), approximately 50% of Estonian simplex stems are borrowed, while approximately 60% of native stems and stems of unknown origin are onomatopoeic and descriptive words (roughly 1,090 stems). Different sources of loanwords (after the Proto-Finnic stage) are set out in Table 8.15 following Rätsep (1983, TABLE 8.15 LOANWORD STRATA IN STANDARD ESTONIAN Loanword group

Source and time

Number

Examples

Latvian loanwords

Latvian (since the eighth century)

31–42

kanep ‘hemp,’ `kauss ‘bowl,’ `kõuts ‘tomcat,’ pastel ‘peasant sandal,’ `viisk ‘bark shoe’

Low German Middle Low German (since 771–850 loanwords the beginning of the thirteenth century)

amet ‘occupation,’ `arst ‘doctor,’ `kokk ‘cook,’ `kool ‘school,’ `kook ‘kitchen’

Swedish loanwords

Estonian Swedish (since the end 105–148 of the thirteenth century) and Standard Swedish (sixteenth and eighteenth centuries)

`kratt ‘sparktail,’ kroonu ‘government, state,’ `riik ‘state,’ ` räim ‘Baltic herring,’ `tasku ‘pocket’

Russian loanwords

Russian (since the fifteenth century)

315–362

kapsas ‘cabbage,’ kopikas ‘kopeck,’ majakas ‘lighthouse,’ präänik ‘gingerbread,’ rubla ‘rouble’

German loanwords

High German (since the midsixteenth century)

486–520

aabits ‘ABC book,’ `kamm ‘comb,’ `kleit ‘dress,’ `sink ‘ham’

Finnish loanwords

Finnish (since the end of the nineteenth century)

87–96

aare ‘treasure,’ `julm ‘cruel,’ kuva ‘display,’ suhe ‘relation,’ uljas ‘brave’

English loanwords

English (from the beginning of the nineteenth century to the present day)

ca 750 as of `hitt ‘hit,’ `veeb ‘web,’ `meil ‘e-mail,’ 1971, but the mänedžer ‘manager,’ `killer ‘killer’ number is on the rise

382 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

adapted from Erelt et al. 2007, 596−597, Erelt et al. 2020, 531−532), Jõgi (1971) and Leemets (2003, 571). Invented, that is, absolutely new, stems do not form a large part of the Estonian vocabulary, but the role of two linguists from the beginning of the twentieth century cannot be overestimated. Johannes Aavik (1880‒1973) enriched Estonian vocabulary with Finnish borrowings, derivatives, and dialect words, and of the 200 stems that Aavik invented, about 40 are still used today, for example, `naasma ‘to return,’ `roim ‘murder,’ `laip ‘corpse,’ ese ‘object,’ siiras ‘candid’ (see Kull 2000, 226‒254). Johann Voldemar Veski (1873‒1968) used archaisms and obscure words, as well as dialect words, as a basis for new words, for example, `sõltuma ‘to depend,’ `loendama ‘to count,’ hoius ‘deposit,’ hagema ‘to sue.’ 8.12 Text Adapted from an essay by Kirsti Kirsberg (http://opleht.ee/2018/03/opetaja-raimondlepiste-maalin-ja-joonestan-ikka-edasi/ (7 March 2018). Maa+ilm arene-b kiire|sti, õpe|ta|ja-l on väga hea earth+world develop-3sg quickly teacher-ade be.3sg very good võima|lus opportunity

aja-ga kaasas time-com together

käi-a. go-infda

‛The world is developing quickly, and teachers have a great opportunity to keep up with the changes.’ Näiteks for.example

on be.3sg

kunsti+tundi-de-s art.class-pl-ine mina ei I neg

palju-de-s many-pl-ine

kasu|ta-ta-kse use-idf-prs

osa-nud can-pst.ptcp

kooli-de-s school-pl-ine

3D-printeri-d, 3D-printer-pl

graafika+lauda-sid, graphics.tablet-part. pl

lapse+põlve-s childhood-ine

mille-st what-ela

un-d=ki dream-part=enc

näh-a. see-infda

‛For example, many schools have 3D printers, and in art classes, they use graphics tablets that I couldn’t have even dreamed about in my childhood.’ Lisaks hoi-ta-kse also keep-idf-prs uut new.part

on be.3sg

õpe|ta|ja-i-d kursi-s teacher-pl-part course-ine

inimese human.gen

selle-ga, this-com

mi-da what-part

kui liigi kohta tea-da. cnj species.gen about know-infda

‛Also, teachers are kept up to speed on new discoveries regarding the human species.’ Õpe|ta|ja+ameti-s lihvi-d teacher+job-ine polish-2sg

ka also

juhi+oma|dusi. leadership+skill.part.pl

’As a teacher, you also develop leadership skills.’ Kuigi õppi|mine on õpe|ta|ja ja õpi|las-te although learning be.3sg teacher.gen and student-gen.pl

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 383

koos+töö, collaboration

on õpe|ta|ja be.3sg teacher

klassi+ruumi-s class+room-ine

siiski juht still chief

ja liider. and leader

‛Although learning is a collaboration between the teacher and the students, the teacher is the leader in the classroom.’ Kuidas How

pan-na inimese-d üht|se mees|konna-na töö-le? make-infda human-pl unified team-ess work-all

‛How do you make people work as an unified team?’ Kuidas How

ennas-t self-part

kehte|sta-da? set.up-infda

‛How do you make your presence felt?’ Noor-te inimes-te-ga koos young-pl human-pl-com together sin-d tund-ma you-part feel-infma

ka also

tööta|mine pane-b working make-3sg

ennas-t noore-ma-na. self-part young-cmp-ess

‘Working with young people makes you yourself feel younger as well.’ NOTES 1 This research has been partly supported by the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies) and Estonian Research Council grant (PRG341). 2 The citation form of the verb is the ma-infinitive with the suffix -ma; see 8.4.3.4 3 http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs/muuttyybid.html (30.04.2018). REFERENCES Aavik, Johannes. 1915. Katsed ja näited. Koguke keeleproovidena tõlgitud novelle ühes pikema grammatilise sissejuhatusega. Jurjev: Reform. Asu, Eva Liina, Pärtel Lippus, Karl Pajusalu, and Pire Teras. 2016. Eesti keele hääldus. (Eesti keele varamu II). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Eek, Arvo, and Einar Meister. 2003. “Domain of the Estonian Quantity Degrees: Evidence from Words Containing Diphthongs.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona 3–9 August 2003, edited by J. M. Solé, D. Recasens, and J. Romero, 2039–2042. Barcelona: UAB. Erelt, Mati, ed. 2007. Estonian Language (Linguistica Uralica, Supplementary Series 1), 2nd ed. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Erelt, Mati. 2017. “Öeldis.” In Eesti keele süntaks. (Eesti keele varamu III), edited by Mati Erelt and Helle Metslang, 53–239. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, and Kristiina Ross. 2007. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Kolmas, täiendatud trükk. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, and Kristiina Ross. 2020. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Uuendatud väljaanne. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael, and Silvi Vare. 1995. Eesti keele grammatika I. Morfoloogia. Sõnamoodustus. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.

384 REILI ARGUS AND HELLE METSLANG

Hasselblatt, Cornelius. 2000. “Eesti keele ainsuse sisseütlev on lühike.”Keel ja Kirjandus 11: 796–803. Hennoste, Tiit. 2008. “Ei ole ja pole kasutus suulises spontaanses eesti keeles.” Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 54: 72–93. Hennoste, Tiit, and Karl Pajusalu. 2013. Eesti keele allkeeled. Õpik gümnaasiumile. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Jõgi, Aino. 1971. “Inglise päritolu sõnad eesti keeles.” Diss. kand. fil. MS, Tartu. Kasik, Reet. 2012. “Nulltuletus ja konversioon eesti keeles.” Keel ja Kirjandus 11: 793–806. Kasik, Reet. 2013. Komplekssete sõnade struktuur (Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele osakonna preprindid 3). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele osakond. Kasik, Reet. 2015. Sõnamoodustus. (Eesti keele varamu I). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Kehayov, Petar. 2004. “Eesti keele evidentsiaalsussüsteem mõne teise keele taustal. Morfosüntaks ja distributsioon.” Keel ja Kirjandus 11: 812–829. Kerge, Krista. 2016. “Word-Formation in the Individual European Languages: Estonian.” In Word Formation. An International Handbook of Languages in Europe (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences), edited by P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, 3228−3259. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Kokla, Paul, Helga Laanpere, Mart Mäger, and Arno Pikamäe. 1971. Virolais-suomalainen sanakirja. Eesti-soome sõnaraamat. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kull, Rein. 2000. Kirjakeel, oskuskeel ja üldkeel. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Leemets, Tiina. 2003. “Inglise laenud sajandivahetuse eesti keeles.” Keel ja Kirjandus 8: 571–584. Lehiste, Ilse. 1960. “Segmental and Syllabic Quantity in Estonian.” In American Studies in Uralic Linguistics. Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 1, 21–82. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Liiv, Georg. 1961. “Eesti keele kolme vältusastme kestus ja meloodiatüübid.” Keel ja Kirjandus 7: 412–424; 8: 480–490. Lippus, Pärtel. 2011. The Acoustic Features and Perception of the Estonian Quantity System. (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 29). Tartu: University of Tartu Press. Metslang, Helle. 1996. “The Developments of the Futures in the Finno-Ugric Languages.” In Estonian: Typological Studies I, edited by M. Erelt, 123–144 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4). Tartu: University of Tartu Press. Metslang, Helle. 1997. “Eesti keele ja teiste soome-ugri keelte futuurumi arenguid.” Keel ja Kirjandus 4: 226–231. Metslang, Helle, Ingrid Krall, Renate Pajusalu, Kristi Saarso, Elle Sõrmus, and Silvi Vare. 2003. Keelehärm. Eesti keele probleemseid piirkondi. Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus. Metslang, Helle, and Liina Lindström. 2017. “Essive in Estonian.” In Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State, edited by Casper de Groot, 58‒90. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. ÕS 2018 = Tiiu Erelt, Tiina Leemets, Sirje Mäearu, Maire Raadik, Peeter Päll, and Ülle Viks. 2018. Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Pajusalu, Karl, Tiit Hennoste, Ellen Niit, Peeter Päll, and Jüri Viikberg. 2009. Eesti murded ja kohanimed. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Pajusalu, Renate. 2015. “Hidden Subjects in Conversation: Estonian Personless Verb Forms as Referential Devices.” In Subjects in Constructions—Canonical and NonCanonical (Constructional approaches to language 16), edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo, 43−72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

NORTH AND STANDARD ESTONIAN 385

Pajusalu, Renate. 2017. “Viiteseosed.” In Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu III), edited by Mati Erelt and Helle Metslang, 566–589. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Pajusalu, Renate, and Karl Pajusalu. 2004. “The Conditional in Everyday Estonian: Its Form and Functions.” Linguistica Uralica 4: 257−269. PHC 2021 = Statistics Estonia: Statistical database. RL214492: Population by command of language, sex, age group, and place of residence (settlement region), 31 December 2021. https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/rahvaloendus__rel2021__rahvastiku-demograafilised-ja-etno-kultuurilised-naitajad__voorkeeleoskus-murded/RL214492 Accessed 28 December 2022. Praakli, Kristiina. 2017. “Muutused eesti kogukondades ja eesti keele oskus.” https:// inimareng.ee/ranne-identiteedi-ja-keelemuutused/muutused-/eesti-kogukondades-jaeesti-keele-oskus/. Accessed 1 July 2019. Prillop, Külli. 2013. “Feet, Syllables, Moras and the Estonian Quantity System.” Linguistica Uralica XLIX (5): 1–29. Prillop, Külli. Karl Pajusalu, Eva Saar, Sven_Erik Soosaar, and Tiit-Rein Viitso 2020. Eesti keele ajalugu. (Eesti keele varamu VI). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Rätsep, Huno. 1981. “Some Tendencies in the Development of Estonian.” Soviet FinnoUgric Studies 17 (7): 202–211. Rätsep, Huno. 1983. Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid. Tallinn: Valgus. Rätsep, Huno. 1989. “Eesti keele tekkimise lugu.” Akadeemia 1 (29): 1503–1524. Remes, Hannu. 2009. Muodot kontrastissa. Suomen ja viron vertailevaa taivutustypologiaa. Acta Universitas Ouluensis B Humaniora 90. Oulu: Oulun yliopisto. Saagpakk, Paul. 2000. Estonian-English Dictionary, 3rd ed. Tallinn: Koolibri. Saari, Henn. 1987. “Opisanie slovoobrazovatel’nyh èlementov pri složnoj sisteme fonetičeskih čeredovanij (èstonskij jazyk).” PhD diss., Institute of the Estonian Language. Tamm, Anne. 2015. “Negation in Estonian.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 399–432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vare, Silvi. 2012. Eesti keele sõnapered. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Viht, Annika, and Külli Habicht. 2019. Eesti keele sõnamuutmine (Eesti keele varamu IV). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2007. “Structure of Estonian Language. Phonology, Morphology and Word Formation.” In Estonian Language (Linguistica Uralica, Supplementary Series 1), edited by Mati Erelt, 9–129. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. SOURCES OF EXAMPLES etTenTen—corpus of Estonian webpages. www.keeleveeb.ee/. Accessed 2 July 2019. F—corpus of Estonian fiction texts. www.keeleveeb.ee/. Accessed 3 July 2019. N—newspaper texts. www.keeleveeb.ee/. Accessed 3 July 2019. S—corpus of Estonian scientific texts. www.keeleveeb.ee/. Accessed 2 July 2019.

CHAPTER 9

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 1 Helen Plado, Liina Lindström, and Sulev Iva

9.1 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION South Estonian can be divided into four main varieties: Tartu, Mulgi, Võro, and Seto (figure 9.1). The Mulgi and Tartu varieties have been influenced more by North Estonian than have Võro and Seto, which have preserved more archaic South Estonian features. In most classifications of Estonian dialects, Seto and Võro are treated as the same dialect (Pajusalu et al. 2009). The main differences are cultural—Võro speakers have traditionally been Lutheran, while Seto speakers are Russian Orthodox. Linguistically, they exhibit differences in their lexicons and pronounciation, while their grammatical systems are highly similar (see Pajusalu 2022). South Estonian diverged from Proto-Finnic before the other Finnic languages (Sammallahti 1977; Viitso 1985; Kallio 2012; see also Pajusalu 2022), giving it many distinctive linguistic features. Although it is quite different from North Estonian (and contemporary Standard Estonian) in many respects, it has been traditionally treated as a dialect group of Estonian. In this chapter, we focus on the Võro variety of South Estonian. We therefore provide comparisons to Seto in our analysis of linguistic features only when there are remarkable differences between these two South Estonian varieties. We take into account both information based on standardized Võro as well as older recordings of Võro dialect speech which were made mostly in the 1960s and 1970s and are archived in the Corpus of Estonian Dialects (CED). Võro is central to South Estonian, both linguistically and geographically. It also has the most speakers—more than 74,000 according to the 2011 Population and Housing Census.2 In the 2021 Census,3 the total number of speakers of Võro varieties was approximately 97,300, including 25,000 speakers of Seto. In addition to Võro and Seto, approximately 13,900 people speak Mulgi, and 17,300 people speak Tartu. It should be noted that these figures reflect speakers’ own judgements about their language skills rather than actual fluency. Other sources propose that the number of active Võro speakers is significantly smaller, most likely even fewer than 50,000.4 Võro is spoken mostly in south-eastern Estonia, where it is the prevailing language variety. This area corresponds almost exactly with the old Võromaa or Võro County area as it existed between 1783 and 1920. In modern times, the Võro language area in Estonia extends to four counties—Võru, Põlva, Valga, and Tartu—while to the south it crosses the Estonian border to extend into the Latvian county of Alūksne. Some of the most deviant Võro varieties were spoken in Leivu and Ludza, now-vanished South Estonian enclaves in Eastern Latvia; South Estonian was still spoken to some extent in these areas in the 1970s and 1980s (Mets et al. 2014, 14). Seto is spoken in southeastern Estonia as well as in Pskov County of the Russian Federation on the Russian DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-9

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 387

FIGURE 9.1 SOUTH ESTONIAN VARIETIES. Source: Iva and Pajusalu 2004.

side of the Estonia-Russia border. The number of Seto speakers in Pskov County has decreased significantly due to their migration to the Estonian areas after the Redeclaration of Independence of Estonia in 1991. The Seto community in Pskov County currently consists of about 200–300 people (Juhkason et al. 2012). The Võro language area is ethnically rather homogeneous when compared to the rest of Estonia—only about 4% of the population is of non-Estonian ethnicity (Koreinik 2015). According to the 2011 census, competence in the Võro language in its historical language areas is rather high among people who are 15 years old or older—it is about 50% in Põlva County and more than 68% in Võru County (Koreinik 2015). Due to extensive emigration, speakers of Võro can be found outside the original language area as well, mostly in the capital, Tallinn, and the second largest town, Tartu; these have more than 9,400 Võro speakers each. Võro speakers have also immigrated to Finland, Russia, Sweden, the United States, Australia, and other countries with Estonian diaspora populations. Võro speakers call themselves võrokõsõq, that is, võro.kõsõ-q võro.dim-pl roughly ‘the Võro people.’ Although speakers of Võro identify as Estonians rather than forming their own distinct ethnic minority, they do constitute a linguistic minority. This is because Võro differs radically from Standard Estonian on all linguistic levels. Võro also has its own written language and literary traditions. Despite the differences, the language

388 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

legislation of Estonia recognizes neither Võro nor any other South Estonian variety as an official language, rather regarding them all as regional variants of Estonian. Nearly all South Estonian dialects have their own written form (print media, dictionaries, educational materials), except for the nearly extinct Tartu dialect. Võro remains the only South Estonian variety with a specifically designed and codified written standard, as well as its own ISO language code (vro). The standard is used in Uma Leht, ‘Own Paper,’ the newspaper in Võro, which appears in print and online every other week, as well as in radio news aired by Estonian Public Broadcasting (five minutes weekly). In addition, in the last 15 years, there have been some TV episodes and series in Võro. These TV programmes were mostly about the traditional lifestyle in Võromaa and about the Võro language and its speakers (Koreinik 2013, 22). Since the 1990s, some schools in the Võro language area have offered Võro as an elective subject. Whether Võro is taught depends mainly on the decision of the headmaster of the school. During the school year 2019–2020, Võro was taught in 13 schools (out of 34 schools in the area).5 Variation within Võro can be seen on both geographical and sociolinguistic levels. Geographically, the language is divided into Western and Eastern Võro. Western Võro has more in common with the Tartu and Mulgi, while Eastern Võro is more similar to Seto. One of the more significant features of this dialectal variation is the suffix of the inessive case, which is -n in Western Võro and -h in Eastern Võro. In addition, non-initial syllables in Eastern Võro often include an /o/ vowel, while in Western Võro and Standard Estonian, it is /u/. These regional differences are slowly diminishing, and Võro is becoming linguistically more uniform. This convergence is due to the increasing predominance of Estonian as well as to the standardized written form of the language, which has been developed as a compromise between the Eastern and Western varieties since the 1990s. Generally representing the central part of the Võro language area, the written language is somewhat closer to the Eastern area while exhibiting some Western features (e.g. it uses -n instead of -h as the inessive suffix). In addition, one can distinguish (a) a relatively ‘pure’ Võro, originating from traditional South Estonian as spoken mostly by the older generation, (b) a more Estonian-influenced modern Võro as spoken and written by most speakers of the language, and (c) a mixed Võro-Estonian language used mainly by younger speakers. 9.2 PHONOLOGY AND THE WORD The phonology of Võro differs significantly from Estonian (as well as from other Finnic languages). For instance, vowel harmony has been lost in Estonian but is still present in Võro. The Võro consonant inventory differs from Estonian in including affricates and a glottal stop as well as a more productive use of palatalization. In colloquial Võro, coarticulation is rather frequent. For example, as a result of coarticulation, the negation particle is cliticized (cf. Chapter 9.13). 9.2.1 Vowels Võro has nine vowel phonemes (see Table 9.1). They are pronounced very similarly to their equivalents in Estonian and Finnish. In addition, there is high central unrounded vowel written y ([ɨ]), which is indicated by a separate grapheme in several orthographies.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 389 TABLE 9.1  VÕRO VOWELS IN STRESSED SYLLABLES IN VÕRO STANDARD ORTHOGRAPHY AND IPA Front

Back

Unrounded

Rounded

Unrounded

Close

i /i/

ü /y/

(õ/y) [ɨ]

Rounded u /u/

Close-mid

e /e/

ö /ø/

õ /ɤ/

o /o/

Open

ä /æ/

a /ɑ/

Phonetically similar to Russian ы, this vowel is not a separate phoneme but an allophone of /ɤ/ or /i/. The modern standard orthography does not distinguish it. The /ɤ/ in noninitial syllables is pronounced in a reduced form similar to schwa. Although [ɨ] and the /ɤ/ of non-initial syllables are phonetically central vowels, in Võro phonology, they are grouped together with back vowels as they pattern in opposition to the front vowels in the operation of vowel harmony. In syllables with primary stress, vowel length is phonemic (short or long). Secondarily stressed syllables normally contain short vowels, but long [ii] can also sometimes occur there, for example, ˈküläˌliis-i-le ‘guest-pl-all,’ ˈineˌmiis-i ‘human-pl.part.’ Long vowels can be realized as half-long or overlong. If the close-mid vowels /e ø ɤ o/ are realized as overlong, they are pronounced (and written) as their respective high vowels, /i y ɨ u/, for example, miil ‘mind’ : meele ‘mind.gen,’ puul ‘side’ : poolõ ‘side.gen,’ süük ‘food’ : söögi ‘food.gen,’ rõõm [rɨɨm] ‘joy’ : rõõmu [rɤɤmu]‘joy.gen.’ There are no overlong vowels in unstressed syllables, although short vowels can be realized as half-long under certain conditions (see 9.2.5, ‘Quantity and prosody’). 9.2.2 Diphthongs Diphthongs in Võro can occur in syllables with both primary and secondary stress. All vowels can occur as the first component of a diphthong, and all vowels except /ɤ/ and [ɨ] can occur as the second component. Among diphthongs ending in a high vowel, only those ending in i occur in all possible combinations: ei, äi, üi, öi, õi (both [ɨi] and [ɤi]), ai, ui, oi. Those with a final u include au, ou, õu, iu, and those with final ü, äü, öü, eü. Among the diphthongs with a mid vowel as the second component, the e-final diphthongs are ae, oe, äe, öe; o-final are ao, äo, io, eo; and the only diphthong with a final ö is äö. Diphthongs ending in a low vowel include those with a final a: ua, ya, ia; and final ä: iä and üä. See Table 9.2 (note that in the table, Võro orthography is used). It should be noted that eü occurs only in the same words as öü, being realized as its regional variant in the south-western areas, for example, in löüdmä, leüdmä ‘find.’ The same applies to io and eo (e.g. liotama, leotama ‘soak’). The diphthong äö is highly restricted, occurring in only one lexical root (häö- ‘be destroyed,’ häötä- ‘destroy’). 9.2.3 Vowel harmony Võro vowel harmony contrasts front and back vowels. If the initial syllable of a lexeme contains a back vowel /ɑ u o ɤ/, the following syllables can generally only contain back vowels (e.g. jaloldaq ‘footless’) or the vowel /i/ (e.g. uninõ ‘sleepy’). If, on the other

390 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA TABLE 9.2  VÕRO DIPHTHONGS AS COMPARED TO THOSE OF ESTONIAN. VÕRO DIPHTHONGS NOT OCCURRING IN ESTONIAN ARE WRITTEN IN BOLD, AND THE DIPHTHONGS OF ESTONIAN NOT OCCURRING IN VÕRO ARE MARKED WITH A STRIKETHROUGH a- ä- o- ö- e-- õ- u- ü- y- i -i ai äi oi öi ei õi ui üi yi -u/ü  au äü ou öü eü õu  iu -e/õ ae äe oe öe õe -o/ö ao äö eo õo  io -a/ä oa öa ea õa ua üä  ya iä ia

hand, the lexeme has a front vowel /æ y e i/ in the initial syllable, then the following syllables can contain only front vowels (e.g. käsildäq ‘handless’) or the vowel /o/ (e.g. nägo ‘face’). In initial syllables, only /i/ is neutral, in that it can be followed by a front vowel or a back vowel, for example, piimä ‘milk.gen,’ viina ‘vodka.gen.’ Võro vowel harmony also applies systematically to suffixes: latsõ-lõ ‘child-all’ vs. esä-le ‘father- all.’ With the resulting suffix allomorphy in mind, A in a suffix stands for either a or ä, U for u or ü, and E for õ or e. An exception in the vowel harmony system is the vowel /ø/: it is restricted to the first syllable, as in nägo ‘face,’ cited earlier. Võro vowel harmony is generally systematic, with only a few exceptions. For example, the comitative suffix occurs only as -gaq; there is no corresponding front vowel suffix *-gäq. Similarly, the illative suffix occurs only as -he (there is no corresponding *-hõ), for example, taiva-he ‘sky-ill.’ In addition, the sequence he never changes its vowel in unstressed syllables and also has the form he in words with a back vowel in the initial syllable, for example, vaher (‘maple’). In Seto, however, -hõ is also in use as an illative suffix in words with back vowels in the initial syllable (taiva-hõ sky-ill ‘to the sky’). 9.2.4 Consonants Võro has 26 consonant phonemes. They include 13 unpalatalized consonants: m (/m/), n (/n/), p (/p/), t (/t/), k (/k/), q (/ʔ/), h (/h/), v (/v/), f (/f/), s (/s/), ts (/t͡s/), l (l), r (r), j (j), most of which have a palatalized counterpart: ḿ (/mʲ/), ń (/nʲ/), ṕ (/pʲ/), t´ (/tʲ/), k´ (/kʲ/), v́ (/vʲ/), f´ (/fʲ/), ś (/sʲ/), h´ (/hʲ/), tś (/t͡sʲ/), l´(/lʲ/), ŕ (/rʲ/). The only consonants without a palatalized counterpart are j /j/, which is inherently palatal, and the glottal stop q (/ʔ/). The fricative f /f/ and its palatalized counterpart occur only in recent loanwords (given in parenthesis in Table 9.3). The stops /p, pʲ, t, tʲ, k, kʲ/ and the affricates /t͡s, ͡tsʲ/ are unvoiced and unaspirated. Unvoiced stops and affricates with short phonemic length can become partially voiced between vowels and voiced consonants [p̬ p̬ʲ t̬ t̬ ʲ k̬ k̬ʲ ͡ts̬ ͡ts̬ ʲ]. Similarly, the sibilants /s/ and /sʲ/ tend to become partially voiced [s̬ s̬ ʲ] between vowels and when preceded by voiced consonants (e.g. in esä ‘father,’ aśa thing.gen, võlsi lie.1sg). In Võro, glottal consonants are much more predominant than in the neighbouring languages (there are more glottal consonants, and these are used more frequently). The glottal fricatives /h/ and /hʲ/ as well as the stop /ʔ/ are both lexically and textually frequent. While /h/ can occur initially, medially, and finally (e.g. haha-h grey-ine), /hʲ/ is

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 391 TABLE 9.3  VÕRO CONSONANT PHONEMES (IN VÕRO ORTHOGRAPHY) Bilabial

Labiodental Alveolar Palatal

Unpal. Pal. Unpal. Pal. Unpal.

Palatalized

Nasal

m

ḿ

n

ń

Stop

p

ṕ

t

t´

s

ś

ts

tś

Fricative

(f) v

Affricate

(f´) v́

Lateral

l

l´

Trill

r

ŕ

Approximant

Velar

Glottal

Unpal. Pal. Unpal. Pal. k

k´

q h

h´

j

rare word-finally (e.g. haah´ ‘goose’). The glottal stop /ʔ/ occurs only word-finally, often as a suffix (e.g. maa-q land-pl ‘lands,’ anna-q give-imp ‘give!’), or at the end of a suffix (e.g. latsõ-ldaq child-abe ‘without child’), but also at the end of some roots (e.g. lainõq ‘wave’). Often, especially in fast speech, the glottal stop can assimilate with the following consonant (producing a geminate) or, when followed by a vowel, can be dropped completely. Hence, tulõ-q siiäq come-imp here ‘come here’ can be pronounced as [tulõs siiäq], and anna-q ubina-q give-imp apple-pl ‘give apples’ as [anna ubinaq]. Consonants in Võro can be long or short. They are always short word-initially, but word-finally, they can be either. In medial position, between a stressed and an unstressed syllable, they can acquire any of three phonemic lengths depending on the quantity degree of the disyllabic foot. See Section 9.2.5 for more details. 9.2.5 Quantity and prosody In a manner similar to Standard Estonian, Võro has both initial syllable stress as well as a three-way quantity distinction expressed jointly through different durations of the vowel and coda consonants of the stressed syllable and of the vowel of the unstressed syllable. In the first quantity degree (Q1), the vowel of the stressed syllable is short, while the vowel of the following unstressed syllable is half-long (approximately 1.5 times longer than the stressed vowel). With the second quantity degree (Q2), the vowel of the stressed syllable is half-long—approximately 1.5 times longer than the following unstressed vowel. In the third quantity degree (Q3), the vowel or the geminate of the stressed syllable is overlong, while the following unstressed vowel is short and pronounced weakly so that the stressed vowel is at least twice as long. In Estonian, Q3 is characterized by an abrupt falling tone (Lippus et al. 2013). The quantity system in Võro generally follows the same patterns. See examples in Table 9.4. As mentioned previously, distinctions between Q2 and Q3 are accompanied by additional changes in the quality of long vowels: long close-mid vowels /eː øː ɤː oː/ are pronounced and written in Q3 as their respective high vowels, for example, keele ‘language.gen’ (Q2) : kiilde ‘language.ill’ (Q3), (ma) proomi ‘I try’ (Q2): pruuḿ-ma try-sup (Q3) (cf. Teras 2003). Monosyllabic words with long vowels behave similarly to Q3 in this respect: kiil ‘mind,’ süük ‘food’ (see also 9.2.1).

392 Helen Plado, liina lindström, and sulev iva TABLE 9.4 EXAMPLES OF THE VÕRO THREE-WAY QUANTITY DISTINCTION (IN ORTHOGRAPHY AND IPA)6 Q1

Q2

Q3

pada [pɑtɑ] ‘kettle’

pata [pɑttɑ] ‘kettle.part’

patta [pɑtːtɑ] ‘kettle.ill’

kivi [kivi] ‘stone’

kivvi [kivvi] ‘stone.part’

kivvi [kivːvi] ‘stone.ill’

lina [linɑ] ‘linen’

liina [liːnɑ] ‘town.gen’

liina [liːːnɑ] ‘town.ill/part’

TABLE 9.5 COMPARISON OF GRADATION IN FINNISH, ESTONIAN, AND VÕRO: INFINITIVE AND 1sg PRESENT FOR VERBS, NOMINATIVE, AND GENITIVE FOR NOUNS inf

1sg

nom

gen

Finnish

jakaa

jaan

kupo

kuvon

estonian

jagada

jagan

kubu

kubu

võro

jakaq

jaa

kubo

kuu

ʻto share’

ʻbunch’

9.2.6 Morphophonological alternations like estonian, võro has phoneme gradation, but on a wider and a more systematic scale. as in Finnish, võro gradation occurs in environments where standard estonian does not have it (see table 9.5). in võro, the paradigm of a single lexeme can involve all three quantity degrees, for example, Q1 vaǵa [vɑgʲɑ] ʻpeg,’ Q2 vak´a [vɑkʲkʲɑ] peg.part, Q3 vak´k´a [vɑkʲ:kʲɑ] peg.ill (iva 2007, 59–61, 2010, 163–164). note that this same lexeme also shows qualitative gradation, as in Q1 vaja [vɑjɑ] ʻpeg.gen.’ as in Finnish (but not in estonian), gradation between geminates and single consonants can also occur in non-initial syllables, for example, teretä-mä ʻgreet-sup’: teredä ʻgreet.1sg.’ Võro is also unlike Estonian in that non-initial syllables can also undergo Q3 and Q2 gradation, for example, Q3 haŕotuisi [hɑrʲottuiːsi] exercise:part.pl : Q2 haŕotuisilõ [hɑrʲottuisilɤ] exercise:all:pl (iva 2010, 165). 9.3 INFLECTION OF NOUNS AND VERBS võro has both agglutinative and fusional inflection. Compared to standard estonian, fusional inflection is more widespread in võro, and pure agglutination is rather unusual and used only in a small number of words, for example, hiiro-dõ-ga gray.horse-pl-com ‘with gray horses.’ Most often, fusional inflection is caused by either the plural marker -ior the past marker -i- fused with a stem, for example, pini ‘dog’ + -i pl + ga com > pinne-ga (in which e comprises both the stem-final vowel and the plural suffix), or võt-ma ‘to take,’ with võta ‘I take,’ but võtt ‘(s)he takes’ and, with -i- pst, võti ‘I took’ but võtt´ ‘(s)he took’ (the past-tense -i- is fused to the root and surfaces only through palatalization). Fusion can also affect larger parts of the stem, for example, inemine ‘human’ : inemise

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 393

human.gen, but inemiisi human.pl.gen/human.pl.part (here, in addition to the difference of the stem-final vowel, there are also changes in the stem consonantism); cf. also essü-mä ‘to get lost,’ with short geminate in essü (Q2) ‘I get lost,’ but long geminate in essü (Q3) ‘I got lost.’ In addition to suffix and stem fusion, different suffixes can also fuse together, as in the case of jõvvõtu-isi weak-pl.part. In this word form, there is a clear stem, but it is impossible to divide the suffix into plural and partitive suffixes. 9.3.1 Nominal inflection 9.3.1.1 Case Võro has 13 productive nominal cases. The nominative and genitive cases lack suffixes: they are expressed by means of alternations in the segments and prosodies of the root or stem (some nouns show syncretism, however, for example, pää sg.nom and sg.gen ʻhead’). In addition, the partitive and the so-called ‘short’ variant of the illative lack overt suffixes; we have, for example, [tɑrrɤ] in Q2 room.sg.part and [tɑr:rɤ] in Q3 room.sg.ill; however, the orthography does not indicate the differences between these forms, writing for both. In most noun types (cf. Iva 2007, 74–78 for noun types), other case suffixes are added to the genitive form of the stem (e.g. hammas in Table 9.6). Unlike Estonian and Finnish, Võro lacks a dedicated essive ending; the essive has merged with the inessive, that is, there is systematic essive–inessive case syncretism (Metslang and Lindström 2017); see (1): (1)

Tä oll´ pääliina-n ministri-n. he/she be.pst.3sg capital-ine minister-ess ‘S/he was a minister in the capital (i.e. worked as a minister).’

TABLE 9.6  EXAMPLES OF VÕRO CASE INFLECTION (IN THE SINGULAR) Nominative

pää ‘head’

jalg ‘leg’

külä ‘village’

hammas ‘tooth’

oppaja ‘teacher’

inemine ‘human (being)’

Genitive

pää

jala

külä

hamba

oppaja

inemise

Partitive

pää-d

jalga (Q3)

küllä (Q2)

hammas-t

oppaja-t

inemis-t

Illative

pää-hä

jalga (Q3)

küllä (Q3)

hamba-he

oppaja-he

inemis-te

Inessive

pää-n

jala-n

külä-n

hamba-n

oppaja-n

inemise-n

Elative

pää-st

jala-st

külä-st

hamba-st

oppaja-st

inemise-st

Allative

pää-le

jala-lõ

külä-le

hamba-lõ

oppaja-lõ

inemise-le

Adessive

pää-l

jala-l

külä-l

hamba-l

oppaja-l

inemise-l

Ablative

pää-lt

jala-lt

külä-lt

hamba-lt

oppaja-lt

inemise-lt

Translative

pää-s

jala-s

külä-s

hamba-s

oppaja-s

inemise-s

Terminative

pää-niq

jala-niq

külä-niq

hamba-niq

oppaja-niq

inemise-niq

Abessive

pää-ldäq

jala-ldaq

külä-ldäq

hambad-ldaq

oppaja-ldaq

inemise-ldäq

Comitative

pää-gaq

jala-gaq

külä-gaq

hamba-gaq

oppaja-gaq

inemise-gaq

394 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

In addition, Võro has preserved lexicalized remnants of historical cases, such as the instructive and the prolative. The former is syncretic with the plural (weak-grade) form of the genitive, for example, üts-i one-ins/pl.gen (weak grade) ‘alone, one by one,’ kotuss-idõ place-ins/pl.gen ‘in places.’The suffix of the prolative is -ldE, which can follow either a stem in the singular (e.g. meri-lde sea-prol ‘by sea,’ telefoni-ldõ phone-prol ‘by phone’) or in the plural (e.g. vesi-lde water-prol ‘by water’). Some lexemes use both instructive and prolative forms without difference in meaning, for example, kotuss-idõ ~ kotussi-ldõ ‘in some places.’ The comitative suffix -gaq is invariant and so does not undergo vowel harmony. Similarly, the illative suffix -he has no variant with a back vowel, although, depending on the lexeme type, it can be realized as suffixes, such as -he, -htE, -tE, or -dE, for example, suu-htõ ‘mouthill,’ tervüs-te ‘health-ill,’ saar-dõ ‘island-ill,’ or harmonize with the root vowel (in monosyllables that end in a vowel), for example, pää-hä head-ill, puu-hu tree-ill (in most cases, a parallel form -htE can also be used with such words, for example, puu-htõ). The choice of the illative marker varies by dialect but also according to the structure of the word. The suffix -he is the most frequent variant; the variants -dE and -tE are used mostly with consonant-final stems, but in Western dialects of Võro, they are also used with vowel-final stems. The suffix of the inessive shows the most formal variation in the Võro language area. In Eastern Võro and Seto, it is -h: kerikoh ‘in the church’ (Plv), while in Western Võro, it is -n: kerikun (Har). In a few places, it occurs as -hn: kerikuhn ‘in the church,’ vannuhn raamatihn ‘in old books’ (Rõu). In Modern Võro, these variants are being replaced by the standard -n under the influence of the written standard language. In western Võro (especially in Karula parish), the external local cases (allative, adessive, ablative) are often used instead of internal local cases (illative, inessive, elative); see (2): (2)

mõni inemine oll´ some person be.pst.3sg ‘Some people were at home’

kotu-l home-ade

The meanings indicated by case endings can often also be expressed using adpositions, for example, puuti shop.ill ~ poodi manoq shop.gen to ‘to the shop.’ Although both are possible, in some more or less fixed expressions, adpositions are preferred. In Võro, there are both post- and prepositions, but postpositions are much more common. According to Ruutma (2019, 377), in corpus data, only 9.2% of all adpostions are prepositions in Võro. 9.3.1.2 Number The Võro number categories are singular and plural. Plurality on nominative nouns is marked by the suffix -q [ʔ], for example, maa-q ‘land-pl.nom.’ In the genitive, partitive, and other cases, plural is encoded by -i(-), although it can also be encoded by -e/-õ or -o, depending on the root vowel (and, in some instances, the vowel of the initial syllable). In many paradigms, the genitive and partitive plural syncretize, for example, tarr-i roomgen/part.pl, kiil-i language-gen/part.pl. See Table 9.7. In addition, some paradigms include the plural suffix -te/-tõ (-de/-dõ), for example, neio-dõ-gaq maiden-pl-com, rebäs-te-le fox-pl-all, and suffix chains such as as -i-de/i-dõ and -i-(d)si, for example, oppaj.i-dõ teacher-pl-gen, ehitü-isi-ldäq ‘building-pl-abe (for an overview of noun inflection types with plural forms, see Iva 2007, 74–78). In the older dialect of Eastern Võro, the plural marker -ä/-a can be used instead of -e/-õ, for example, tall-a ‘farms-pl.gen/pl.part,’ tükk-ä ‘pieces- pl.gen/pl.part’ (instead of tall-õ, tükk-e). A summary of plural morphemes in Võro is presented in Table 9.8.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 395 TABLE 9.7  PLURAL IN GENITIVE AND PARTITIVE, DEPENDING ON THE ROOT VOWEL AND THE VOWEL OF THE INITIAL SYLLABLE Root vowel

pl.gen and pl.part vowel

if

Examples sg.gen : pl.gen/pl.part

e, õ, ä

i

tarõ ‘room’ : tarri, hiire ‘mouse’ : hiiri, lepä ‘alder’ : leppi

i, o, u, ü

e, õ

pini ‘dog’ : pinne, talo ‘farm’ : tallõ, nisu ‘wheat’: nissõ, niidü ‘grassland’ : niite

a

o

a, õ in the initial syllable

jala ‘foot’ : jalgo, mõla ‘oar’ : mõllo

õ

o, u in the initial syllable

ossa ‘tree branch’: ossõ, muna ‘egg’ : munnõ

TABLE 9.8  SUMMARY OF VÕRO PLURAL MORPHEMES Plural marker

Examples

Notes

-q [ʔ]

pini-q ‘dogs,’ mõtsa-q ‘forests’

only in nominative case

vowel (-i , but also -e, -õ, -o )

cf. Table 9.6

most frequent

-te/-tõ (-de/-dõ)

krae-dõ-lõ ‘collar-pl-all,’ kotus-tõ-n ‘place-pl-ine’

traditionally only in some noun types; used more in modern Võro

-ä/-a

talla-h ‘farm.pl-ine’

in Eastern Võro and Seto

-isi

eestläisi-ga ‘Estonian.pl-com’

with nouns ending in -s/-nE : -sE

-idsi

iloliidsi-le ‘cheerful.pl-all’

with adjectives ending in -nE : -dsE

i-dõ

kaej.i-dõ-lõ ‘whatcher.pl-pl-all’

double flagging

In Western Võro as well as in the western part of the Eastern Võro dialect, plural -u has developed from earlier -o: kann-o > kann-u ‘chicken-pl.gen/pl.part,’ vaklo > vaklu ‘worm-pl.gen/pl.part.’ 9.3.1.3 Comparison of adjectives The comparative degree of adjectives is formed synthetically with the suffix -mb, as shown in example (3); in the genitive and in other cases, this suffix is -mba, for example, väiku-mba-q small-cmp-pl.nom ‘smaller.’ The suffix varies in some parishes (e.g. in Vastseliina, Räpina), as well as in colloquial language, where it can have the form -p ~ -b or -mp ~ p, for example, väiku-mp ~ väiku-p ‘smaller.’ (3)

no myni ol'l' suurõ-mb myni vähä-mb well some be.pst.3sg big-cmp some small-cmp ‘Well, some of those were bigger, but some smaller’

kahh (CED, Har)7 also

In comparative constructions, the standard of comparison follows the adjective expressing the parameter and is inflected with the partitive case suffix, as in (4). However, as in Northern Estonian dialects, the elative is also sometimes used to flag the standard

396 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

of comparison, as in (5). There are also patterns in which the comparative conjunction serves to mark the standard, for example, ku ~ kui ‘than,’ as in example (6). (4)

ja kõik oll-i-q noorõ-ba minno (Keem and Käsi 2002, 44, Vas) and all be-pst-3pl young-cmp.pl I.part ‘and everybody was younger than me’

(5)

tuu oll' mu-st nii kolm `aastakka that be.pst.3sg I-ela about three year.part ‘s/he was about three years older than me’

(6)

tä oll' [--] magusa-mb s/he be.pst.3sg sweet-cmp ‘it was sweeter than this beer’

ku than

taa this

vanõ-mb old-cmp

(CED, Vas)

õluq (CED, Krl) beer

The main equative construction is similar: the conjunction ku ~ kui ‘as/than’ is used to mark the standard (7). However, there is also a construction in which the standard precedes the parameter, which is in a form which historically is the instructive form of the diminutive (8) (Karl Pajusalu, p.c.). (7)

mu tütär om niisama vana ku I.gen daughter be.3sg equally old than ‘my daughter is as old as your son’

su poig you.gen son

(8)

mu tütär om su I.gen daughter be.3sg you.gen ‘my daughter is as old as your son’

vannu old.dim.ins

puja son.gen

There is no synthetic superlative form in Võro; the construction is formed analytically with the adverb kõgõ ~ kõigõ, that is, morphologically the genitive of ‘all,’ and an adjective in the comparative form, as in (9). (9)

tuu oll´ tuu kõgõ halvõ-mb päiv (KVVE, 52, Rõu) that be.pst.3sg that all.gen bad-cmp day ’that was the worst day’

9.3.2 Verb inflection 9.3.2.1 Person The verb takes no suffix for first-person singular; the suffix for second-person singular is -t. The inflections for first- and second-person plural can be syncretic with their singular equivalents, or they can be -miq in first- and -tiq in second-person plural (see Table 9.8). As Võro is also a pro-drop language, sometimes the explicitly plural suffixes are used to avoid ambiguity. The inflection for the third person depends on conjugation class. Võro verbs can be divided into two major classes, first and second conjugations, which differ by their third-person suffix (see, for example, Posti 1961). Whereas the first conjugation

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 397

(sometimes called the active conjugation) does not have an explicit ending for the third person in the singular (e.g. süü ‘eat.3sg,’ tulõ ‘come.3sg’) and has -vAq in plural (sööväq ‘eat-3pl,’ tulõ-vaq ‘come-3pl’), the second conjugation (sometimes called the medial conjugation) includes only intransitive verbs and uses different third-person suffixes in the present tense: -s in the singular (e.g. elä-s live-3sg ‘he/she lives’ kasu-s grow-3sg ‘he/ she is growing’) and -sEq in plural (elä-seq live-3pl, ‘they live’ kasu-sõq grow-3pl ‘they are growing’); see also Table 9.9. Historically, -s derives from the reflexive suffix *-ksen, which has lost its reflexive meaning and nowadays is a part of the inflectional system (and not the derivational system; see Koivisto 1989). Sometimes an aura of reflexive meaning can be described, as in the verb pair küdsä bake.3sg ‘s/he bakes (transitive)’ and küdsä-s ripen-3sg ‘s/he/it ripens (intransitive).’ In most cases, inflected verb forms occur preceded by the coreferential free subject pronoun (ma, sa, tä; mi, ti, nä). However, such verb forms can also occur without pronouns—they are very often omitted in all persons in Seto (Loosaar 2016) and in Võro areas (Lindström et al. 2009). According to previous studies, the omission of the singular first-person pronoun depends mostly on referential distance: the more recent the last mentioning of the referent, the more likely the first-person pronoun is omitted (Loosaar 2016; Lindström et al. 2009). If first- and second-person plural forms occur without the suffixes -miq and -tiq, they are nearly always compensated by including a preverbal personal pronoun to avoid ambiguity (see Table 9.9). 9.3.2.2 Tense and mood In addition to the present tense (with zero suffix), Võro also has a past tense which is encoded by replacing the stem-final vowel of the present tense with the past-tense suffix. The main past-tense suffix is -i(-), for example, ma anna ‘I give’ (prs) : ma anni ‘I gave’ (pst) (see Table 9.10; note that several other suffixes can be used depending on the verb type and the dialect). The suffix -i(-) (e.g. võt-i take.pst.1sg ‘I took,’ kään-i screw-pst.1sg ‘I screwed,’ kõnõl-i speak-pst.1sg ‘I spoke’) can co-occur with gemination (e.g. pann-i put-pst.1sg ‘I put,’ tull-i come-pst.1sg ‘I came’), and it can be realized as palatalization of the final consonants in third-person forms (võtt' take.pst.3sg ‘s/he took,’ pand' put. pst.3sg ‘s/he put,’ tull' come-pst.3sg ‘s/he came.). This means that palatalization can be the only difference between Võro present- and past-tense forms, for example, timä and ‘s/he gives’ (prs)—timä and' ‘s/he gave’ (pst). If the stem-final vowel of the verb is i, the past tense is encoded with -E, for example, paki pack.prs.1sg ‘I pack’ : pak-õ pack-pst.1sg ‘I packed.’ TABLE 9.9  VÕRO VERB CONJUGATION IN THE PRESENT TENSE (EXAMPLE VERBS: VALA-MA ‘POUR,’ ELÄ-MÄ ‘LIVE’)8 I conjugation

II conjugation

1SG

(ma) vala

(ma) elä

2SG

(sa) vala-t

(sa) elä-t

3SG

(tä) vala

(tä) elä-s

1PL

(mi) vala ~ vala-miq

(mi) elä ~ elä-miq

2PL

(ti) vala-t ~ vala-tiq

(ti) elä-t ~ elä-tiq

3PL

(nä) vala-vaq

(nä) elä-seq

398 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA TABLE 9.10  VÕRO PAST TENSE FORMS (EXAMPLE VERBS: VALA-MA ‘POUR,’ ELÄ-MÄ ‘LIVE’; THERE IS GEMINATION IN THE PARADIGM OF ELÄ-MÄ) I conjugation

II conjugation

1SG

(ma) val-i

(ma) ell-i

2SG

(sa) val-i-t

(sa) ell-i-t

3SG

(tä) val-i

(tä) ell-i

1PL

(mi) val-i ~ val-i-miq

(mi) ell-i ~ ell-i-miq

2PL

(ti) val-i-t ~ val-i-tiq

(ti) ell-i-t ~ ell-i-tiq

3PL

(nä) val-i-(va)q

(nä) ell-i-(vä)q

The suffix -sE can be substituted for the past-tense morphemes -i(-) and -E(-) in several paradigms, for example, pst.1sg/pst.3sg võt-sõ take.pst.1sg ‘I took,’ pak-sõ pack-pst.1sg ‘I packed,’ and-sõ give-pst.1sg ‘I gave,’ käänd-se screw-pst.1sg ‘I screwed.’ Finally, some verbs take the suffix -si(-) as a suffix of the past tense (maga-si sleep-pst.1sg ‘I slept’). The morphemes -sE and -si are spreading in Modern Võro. Past-tense forms of reflexive verbs with u/ü or o as the root vowel have zero instead of -i(-), for example, *sündü-i > sündü be.born.pst.1sg ‘I was born,’ ma nälgü 1sg starve.pst.1sg ‘I starved.’ In such cases, there is no difference between the present- and past-tense forms, and the time reference is inferred from the context (Keem and Käsi 2002, 49). However, in Modern Võro, there is a tendency to replace such past-tense zeroes with the overt morpheme -si(-), for example, ma nälgüsi ‘I starved, I was starving.’ The suffix -si was originally used with only a small group of verbs (e.g. ma sõimssi ‘I cried, berated’), but its use has become more widespread, most likely due to Estonian influence (-si- is a past-tense marker in Standard Estonian as well) (Iva 2007, 88). In Võro, the present perfect and pluperfect verb forms are analytical, formed with the auxiliary verb olõ-ma ‘be.’ The auxiliary is in its present-tense form for present perfect and in its past-tense form for pluperfect, and the main verb is conjugated with the active past participle (see Table 9.11). The auxiliary is inflected for person (and mood), while the participle does not vary. In the third-person plural, the participle may also bear an additional agreement marker -vA (Keem and Käsi 2002, 50) (10). (10) ja siss (.) omma niimuudu na päse-nü-vä and then be.3pl so they save-app-3pl noi-dõ (.) surma-st (CED, Krl) those-gen death-ela ‘and so they were rescued from death (lit. so they have got away from their death)’ Alongside the zero-inflected indicative, Võro also has overt morphemes for conditional, quotative, and imperative moods. Depending on the approach, a jussive mood can be distinguished from the imperative. In the conditional mood, the verb takes the suffix -(s)siq for all persons: (ma, sa, tä, mi, ti, nä) elä-siq ‘[pronoun] would live.’ The suffix can occur in shortened form as -s (see, for example, examples 53, 76, and 77). Unlike the North Estonian past participle, the Võro past participle has taken on a conditional force and is used for both present and

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 399 TABLE 9.11  VÕRO PERFECT AND PLUPERFECT FORMS (EXAMPLE VERB ELÄ-MÄ ‘LIVE’) Perfect

Pluperfect

1SG

(ma) olõ elä-nüq

(ma) oll-i elä-nüq

2SG

(sa) olõ-t elä-nüq

(sa) oll-i-t elä-nüq

3SG

(tä) om elä-nüq

(tä) oll´ elä-nüq

1PL

(mi) olõ ~ olõ-miq elä-nüq

(mi) oll-i ~ oll-i-miq elä-nüq

2PL

(ti) olõ-t ~ olõ-tiq elä-nüq

(ti) oll-i-t ~ oll-i-tiq elä-nüq

3PL

(nä) ommaq elä-nüq

(nä) oll-i-(va)q elä-nüq

past conditional (Pajusalu and Muižniece 1997, 99; Plado 2017); see (11) for past- and (12) for present-tense use: (11) Jummal, tuu külh mullõ külge tul-nuq, God that surely I.all to come-app ku tuu-d naa-nu put-ma. if that-part start-app touch-sup ‘Oh my God, it would have definitely bitten me if I had touched it’ (Plado 2017) (12) Ku noi-st maŕu-st kõigi-st kala-q kasu-nu, if those-el roe.pl-el all-el fish-pl grow-app siss saa-nuq nei-d jo must miljon. then become-app they-part black million ‘If all this roe would become fish, then there would be a zillion of them’ (Plado 2017) The imperative mood is encoded with the glottal stop -q in the second-person singular and with -gEq/-kEq in the second-person plural: vala-q pour-imp.2sg ‘pour!’ vala-gõq pour-imp.2pl. The suffix of the first- and third-person imperative, as well as the jussive (13), is -guq/-kuq, for example, vala-guq pour-imp.1/3pl ‘I/(s)he should pour,’ elä-guq live-imp.1/3pl ‘I/(s)he should live.’ See also concessive clauses in Section 9.11. (13) Tä ütel´, et tul-kuq ma hummõn (s)he tell.pst.3sg that come-juss I tomorrow ‘(S)he told me that I should come back tomorrow.’

tagasi. back

Võro has a dedicated suffix for the quotative mood which expresses reported evidentiality (14) (see also Section 9.12.4); it is -v and -vAt for all persons. Historically, it has developed from present participles in the nominative (-v) or partitive case (-vAt) (Kask 1984, 254‒255). In a few paradigms, it can occur as -bEv, for example, ollõ-v ~ olõ-vat ‘be-quot,’ elä-bev ~ elä-vät ‘live-quot.’ (14) CED, (Krl) ni üt'l'-i-vä so say-pst-3pl

jahh yes

et that

400 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

poig ei ollõ-v nii tark ol-nuq ku tuu esä son neg be-quot no smart be-app than that father ‘So they said that the son was not as smart as his father.’ In the past tense, the auxiliary verb bearing a quotative marker is often left out, and the quotative meaning is delivered only by the active past participle (cf. 55). 9.3.2.3 Nonfinite verb forms Võro nonfinite verb forms include the present and past participles (both active and passive), the t-infinitive, the converb, and the m-infinitive (also known as the supine). The supine is also the citation form. In addition to Table 9.12, the use of nonfinite verb forms will be described in the coming sections. TABLE 9.12  VÕRO NONFINITE VERB FORMS Participle

Tense/case

Form

Example sentences

Active

Present

ollõ-v, ellä-v

tuu-h maja-h ellä-v miis that-in house-in live-aprp man ‘a man who lives in that house’

Past

ol-nuq, elä-nüq

tuu-h maja-h elä-nüq miis that-in house-in live-app man ‘a man who lived in that house’

Present

ol-tav, ele-täv

kõnõl-dav lugu talk-pprp story ‘a story that is told’

Past

ol-t, ele-t

kõnõl-d lugu talk-ppp story ‘a story that was told’

Passive

T-infinitive

ollaq, elläq

ma või esi minnäq I can.1sg myself go.inf ‘I can go’

Converb

ollõn, ellen

tä tulõ ikkõn (s)he come.3sg cry.cvb ‘(s)he comes crying’

M-infinitive

Illative

olõ-ma, elä-mä

ma naksi `ik-ma I start.pst.1sg cry-sup ‘I started to cry’

Inessive

olõ-ma-n, elä-mä-n

mi käve sääl mustk-i-t otś-ma-n we go.pst.1pl there blueberry-pl-part search-sup-in ‘we were there looking for blueberries’

Elative

olõ-ma-st, elä-mä-st

tä tull´ söö-mä-st (s)he come.pst.3sg eat-sup-el ‘(s)he came from eating’

Abessive

olõ-ma-ldaq, elä-mä-ldäq

taa jä-i mu-l mas-ma-ldaq this leave-pst.3sg I-ade pay-sup-abe ‘I didn’t pay for this’

Note: Sample verbs to illustrate the verb forms are olõma ‘to be,’ elämä ‘to live.’ Other verbs in the relevant verb forms appear in the example sentences.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 401

The formation of most nonfinite verb forms is predictable on the basis of the infinitives. The active past participle has the same stem as either the m- or the t-infinitive, depending on the verb type, for example, kae-ma : kaia-q ‘to watch’> kae-nuq, but tsuklõ-ma : tsukõl-daq ‘to swim’ > tsukõl-nuq. However, in most of the verbs, the active past participle has the same stem with the m-infinitive. Converbs can be formed based on the t-infinitive stem (kaiõn, tsukõldõn). Passive participles cannot be formed on the basis of infinitives, but they have the same stem in both the passive present and the passive past participle. All the nonfinite verb forms follow the rules of vowel harmony. 9.4 DERIVATION OF VERBS AND NOUNS Võro has retained a richly productive verb derivational system; it uses modificational derivational suffixes (such as the momentaneous and frequentative) much more frequently than Standard Estonian. Momentaneous suffixes are deverbal suffixes that form verbs describing an action that takes place only once or has a very short duration. Such suffixes are |htA-, |hUt-, -|sA-, for example, kaldama ‘to pour’ > kalla|htama ‘to pour for a moment,’ kraaṕma ‘to scratch’ > kraaba|hutma ‘to abrade for a moment’ (Juhkason 2011, 49). The suffixes |htA- and |hUtare very similar in meaning, but they are subject to dialectal variation: |hUt- is mostly used in the eastern part of Võro and Seto language areas (Juhkason 2011, 53). Frequentative suffixes build verbs describing repeated or continuous actions (occurring for an extended period). The main frequentative suffix in Võro is -El(l)E-, as in heigotama ‘to show off, boast, do stunts’ > heigotõ(l)lõma ‘to show off, boast, do stunts repeatedly,’ kergähtämä ‘to flinch’ > kergähtelemä ‘to flinch repeatedly,’ ehitämä ‘to adorn, deck’ > ehite(l)lemä ‘to adorn repeatedly’ (Juhkason 2011, 56). Causative suffixes increase the valence of the verb, that is, the verb describes actions caused by an additional actor, for example, intransitive essümä ‘to be lost’ vs. transitive essütämä ‘to misdirect, mislead,’ as in (15). As in other Finnic languages, the main causative suffixes in Võro are |tA- and |stA-. (15) a. ma olõ kaq paar `kõrda elu-n äräq `essü-nü (CED, Har) I be.1sg too couple time.part life-ine away get.lost-app ‘I have also got lost a couple of times in my life’ b. ja nuuq essü-t-i inemiis'i = ja (CED, Har) and those lose-caus-pst.3pl human.pl.part and ‘and those (=devils) mislead people and’ Although causative verbs are formed mostly from intransitive verbs, they can also occasionally be formed from transitive verbs, for example, nägemä ‘to see’ > näü|tämä ‘to show.’ Diminutive suffixes are widely used in Võro. The most common diminutive suffix in Võro is |kEnE, which is attached to nouns and adjectives, for example, (16–17). (16) tä-ll = um uma säńgü-kene (CED; Plv) s/he-ade be.3sg own bed-dim ‘S/he has her/his own small bed.’

402 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(17) ja ma = i = tiaq kuiq = pal'l'o ma (.) vana-kõnõ ol'l'-i (CED, Vas) and I neg know.cng how much I old-dim be-pst.1sg ‘And I don’t know, how old I was then.’ On adjectives, the diminutive suffix |kEnE can express the fact that there is a low degree of some property, as in (18), where it is used synonymously to the standard adjectival suffix -lik, as seen in (19). (18) ja no-i-l omm sä- (.) lehe-q = säändse and these-pl-ade be.3sg leave-pl such.pl suurõ-kõsõ nuu (CED, Vas) big-dim.pl these ‘And these have such rather big leaves’ (19) tä om sääne vähä-lik mehe-kene a/he be.3sg such small-dim man-dim ‘He is such a smallish man’ The same diminutive suffix can sometimes be used to derive the names of nationalities or geographical origins. In these constructions, the stem is a toponym, as in Võro + kEnE > võrokõnõ ‘a person indigenous to Võro area.’ The suffix |lAnE has the same function: Eesti + lAnE > eest|läne ‘a person indigenous to Estonia.’ The suffix -linE can also be used in this function, for example, Pihkva + line > pihkva|line ‘a person living in Pskov.’ The latter can also be used with other stems, for example, korter ‘apartment’ + -linE > korteri|line ‘tenant.’ Deverbal nouns are often derived with the following suffixes: |minE (ist|mine ‘sitting,’ istma ‘to sit’), |ng (päävä mine|ng ‘sunset’ < päiv ‘sun,’ minemä ‘to go’). The other lexically frequent nominal suffixes are |ts (kolgi|ts ‘flax brake’ < kolk´ma ‘to brake’), |Us (kaŕus ‘herdsman’ < kari ‘herd’), |m (süü|m ‘food’ < süümä ‘to eat’). An important difference between Standard Estonian and Võro relates to the collective suffix: while the collective suffix |kond is quite productive in Standard Estonian, its counterpart |kund in Võro is infrequent. It occurs mostly in old fixed terms, as in pere|kund ‘family.’ However, the collective suffixes |stik (pedä|stik ‘pine forest’ < petäi ‘pine’) and |stU (lepi|stü ‘alder forest’ < lepp ‘alder’) are used. Both lexically and textually, the most frequent adverbial suffixes are |hE~|lE~|dE (õigõ|hõ ~ õigõ|dõ ~ õigõ|lõ ‘correctly’ < õigõ ‘correct’), |stE (hä|ste ‘well’ < hää ‘good’), |st (vana|st ‘in the past’ < vana ‘old’; vahtsõ|st ‘re- < vahtsõnõ ‘new’), -lde (meri|lde ‘by see’). The latter originated from an old prolative case. 9.5 NUMERALS Cardinal numerals can be turned into ordinals by adding -s (genitive stem: -ndA) to their genitive form; thus, the nom.sg/gen.sg forms of ‘four’ are neli/nelä, and of ‘fourth’ are neläs/neländä. Other cases are formed by adding regular case suffixes to the genitive form. The first three ordinal numerals constitute an exception; see Table 9.13. The date in contemporary Võro is formed from the ordinal and month in the partitive case (20). (20) Täämbä om katõskümnes today be.3sg twentieth ‘Today it is the 22nd of July’

tõõnõ second

hainakuu-d. July-part

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 403 TABLE 9.13  VÕRO NUMERALS Cardinals nom

Ordinals gen

part

nom

gen

1 ütś

üte

ütte

edimäne

edimädse

2 katś

katõ

kattõ

tõõnõ

tõõsõ

3 kolm

kolmõ (Q2)

kolmõ (Q3)

kolmas

kolmanda

4 neli

nelä

neljä ~ nellä (Q3)

neläs

neländä

5 viiś

viie

viit

viies

viiendä

6 kuuś

kuvvõ

kuut

kuvvõs

kuvvõnda

7 säidse

säitsme

säidsend

säitsmes

säitsmendä

8 katõs(s)a

katsa

katsat

katsas

katsanda

9 ütes(s)ä

ütsä

ütsät

ütsäs

ütsändä

kümne

kümmend

kümnes

kümnendä

üttetõist(kümmend)

üte(s)tõistkümnes ütetõistkümnendä

10 kümme

11 ütśtõist(kümme) ütetõist(kümne)

12 katśtõist(kümme) katõtõist(kümne) kattõtõist(kümmend) katõ(s)tõistkümnes katõtõistkümnendä 20 katśkümmend

katõkümne

21 katśkümmend ütś katõkümne üte 100 sada

saa

121 sada saa katśkümmend ütś katõkümne üte 1000 tuhat

tuhandõ

kattõkümmend

katõ(s)kümnes

katõkümnendä

kattõkümmend ütte

katõ(s)kümne(s) edimäne

katõkümne edimädse

sata

saas

saanda

sata kattõkümmend ütte

saa(s) katõ(s)kümne(s) edimäne

saa katõkümne edimädse

tuhandõt

tuhandõs

tuhandõnda

Nouns occuring with numerals larger than ‘one’ are commonly in the singular form, for example, kolmõ-st päävä-st three-ela day-ela ‘out of three days,’ kolmõ päävä seeh three.gen day.gen in ‘within three days.’ If the numeral is in the nominative, the noun is in the partitive, for example, kolm päivä three day.part.sg ‘three days.’ If such phrases are the subject of the clause, the main verb can be either in singular or plural (21): (21) kolm miis-t three man-part ‘three men went’

läts ~ go.pst.3sg

lätsi-q go.pst-3pl

9.6 PRONOUNS, DEMONSTRATIVES In this section we present the personal, interrogative, reflexive, and demonstrative pronouns, as well as other demonstratives and their paradigms. Reciprocal and indefinite pronouns are also introduced briefly. There are no dedicated negative pronouns in Võro. Personal pronouns in Võro and their declension are presented in Tables 9.14 (singular) and 9.15 (plural). Personal pronouns have short and long variants. The long variant is most commonly used for emphasis.

404 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA TABLE 9.14  DECLENSION OF SINGULAR PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN VÕRO

Nominative

1sg

2sg

3sg

maq ~ mina

saq ~ sina

tä ~ timä

Genitive

muq ~ mino

suq ~ sino

tä ~ timä

Partitive

minno

sinno

tedä ~ timmä

Illative

muhtõ ~ minohtõ

suhtõ ~ sinohtõ

tähte ~ timähte

Inessive

mun ~ minon

sun ~ sinon

tän ~ timän

Elative

must ~ minost

sust ~ sinost

täst ~ timäst

Allative

mullõ ~ minolõ

sullõ ~ sinolõ

tälle ~ tääle ~ timäle

Adessive

mul ~ minol

sul ~ sinol

täl ~ timäl

Ablative

mult ~ minolt

sult ~ sinolt

tält ~ timält

Translative

mus ~ minos

sus ~ sinos

täs ~ timäs

Terminative

minoniq

sinoniq

timäniq

Abessive

muldaq ~ minoldaq

suldaq ~ sinoldaq

täldäq ~ timäldäq

Comitative

muqkaq ~ minogaq

suqkaq ~ sinogaq

täägaq ~ timäga

TABLE 9.15 DECLENSION OF PLURAL PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN VÕRO 1pl

2pl

3pl

Nominative

mi ~ miiq

ti ~ tiiq

nä ~ nimäq

Genitive

mi ~ miiq

ti ~ tiiq

näide

Partitive

meid

teid

näid

Illative

meihte

teihte

näihte

Inessive

mein

tein

näin

Elative

meist

teist

näist

Allative

meile

teile

näile

Adessive

meil

teil

näil

Ablative

meilt

teilt

näilt

Translative

meis

teis

näis

Terminative

(not attested)

(not attested)

näideniq

Abessive

meildäq

teildäq

näildäq

Comitative

miiqkaq

tiiqkaq

näidegaq

Interrogative pronouns include kiä ‘who’ and miä ‘what’ (declension in Table 9.16). The interrogative pronouns kes ‘who’ and mis ‘what,’ which concide with Standard Estonian interrogative pronouns, are also present in Võro. In modern Võro, the latter are more frequent than kiä and miä (cf. also Keem 1997, 43). Interrogative pronouns also function as relativizers (22), cf. Section 9.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 405 TABLE 9.16 DECLENSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS KIÄ ‘WHO’ AND MIÄ ‘WHAT’ Nominative

kiä ~ kes

miä ~ mis

Genitive

kink ~ kelle

mink ~ mille

Partitive

kedä

midä

Illative

kinkahe

minkahe ~ miihe

Inessive

kinkan ~ kellen

minkan ~ miin ~ millen

Elative

kinkast ~ kellest

minkast ~ miist ~ millest

Allative

kinkalõ ~ kelle

minkalõ ~ miile ~ millele

Adessive

kinkal ~ kel

minkal ~ miil ~ millel

Ablative

kinkalt ~ kelt

minkalt ~ milt ~ millelt

Translative

kinkas ~ kelles

minkas ~ miis ~ milles

Terminative

kinkaniq ~ kelleniq

minkaniq ~ meeniq ~ milleniq

Abessive

kinkaldaq ~ keldäq

minkaldaq ~ miildäq ~ milleldaq

Comitative

kinkaq ~ kellegaq

minkaq ~ millegaq

(22) aga sii kihlkunna herr Mittendoŕhv but this parish.gen landlord Mittendorf kelle-ga nüüd Hurt suurõ-q sõbra-q ol'l'-i-va (CED, Plv) who-com now Hurt big-pl friend-pl be-pst-3pl ‘but the landlord of the parish—Mittendorf—who Hurt is good friends with’ Additionally, the interrogative pronoun kumb ‘which of the two’ can also occur in a position typical for kiä and miä (Wiedemann 2002, 79). The interrogative pronouns kiä and miä are also used as indefinite pronouns. Although in this function the emphatic clitic -gi/-ki is mostly added to the pronoun (23), there are also examples without the clitic (24). (23) olõ-i tan kedägi be-neg.3sg here someone.part ‘there is nobody here’ (24) a vanast tiiä-s kiä peede-st midä but formerly know.cng-neg.pst someone beetroot.pl-ela something.part ‘but formerly, no-one knew anything about beetroots’ The two main reflexive pronouns in Võro are uma ‘own’ and esiq ~ esś ‘-self’; uma is mostly used as an attribute to a noun (25), and esiq as the complement of a verb (26). Unlike its counterpart in Standard Estonian, the pronoun uma agrees with the headword (25). Declension forms of the pronoun esiq ~ esś are presented in Table 9.17. (25) ma nak-si uma-lõ pupi-lõ I start-pst.1sg own-all doll-all ‘I started to sew a coat for my doll’

pal'to-t umblõ-ma coat-part sew-sup

406 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA TABLE 9.17  DECLENSION OF THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS ESIQ ~ ESŚ ‘-SELF’ Nominative

esiq ~ esś

Genitive

hindä ~ hinne

Partitive

hinnäst

Illative

hindähe

Inessive

hindän

Elative

hindäst

Allative

hindäle ~ hinele

Adessive

hindäl ~ hinel

Ablative

hindält ~ hinelt

Translative

hindäs

Terminative

hindäni

Abessive

hindäldäq

Comitative

hindägaq

(26) sedämuudu tapa-t jo `hindä so kill-2sg ptcl yourself.gen ‘You’ll kill yourself like that’

ärq (CED, Plv) ptcl

The reciprocal pronouns in Võro are ütstõ(õ)sõ and ütsüte, which refer to two or more participants, and tõ(õ)nõtõ(õ)sõ, which refers to only two participants. These are the genitive case stems because all these pronouns lack a nominative case form. Võro has three demonstrative pronouns: seo ‘this,’ taa ‘that,’ and tuu ‘that,’ occasionally occurring as too (declension in Table 9.18). Although Pajusalu (1998) claims that the system of Võro demonstrative pronouns is person-oriented (seo referring to an object close to the speaker, taa to an object close to the hearer, and tuu to an object far from both), the latest research (e.g. Reile et al. 2020) suggests otherwise. The experiment conducted by Reile et al. supports Keem and Käsi’s (2002, 44) claim that the system is distance-oriented: seo refers to the closest object to the speaker, tuu to the furthest object, and taa to referents in the middle position. The demonstrative pronouns taa and tuu not only refer to inanimate entities but can also refer to humans, as in (27). Tuu is the most common pronoun for anaphoric reference in spoken discourse. (27) too ol'l' [--] rahvusõ-st nigu lätläne that be.pst.3sg nationality-ela like Latvian vai Lätimaa-l elä-nu (CED, Har) or Latvia-ade live-app ‘S/he was Latvian by nationality or had lived in Latvia’ In parallel to the Võro three-level demonstrative pronoun system, there are three levels of demonstrative adverbs, each of which has three directional forms (Table 9.19). Siin

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 407 TABLE 9.18  DECLENSION OF DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN VÕRO

Nominative

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

seo ‘this’

neo ‘these’

taa ‘that’

naaq ‘those’

tuu ‘that’

nuuq ‘those’

Genitive

seo

neide

taa

naidõ

tuu

noidõ

Partitive

seod

neid

taad

naid

tuud

noid

Illative

seoho

neihte

taaha

naihtõ

tuuhu

noihtõ

Inessive

seon

nein

taan

nain

tuun

noin

Elative

seost

neist

taast

naist

tuust

noist

Allative

seolõ

neile

taalõ

nailõ

toolõ

noilõ

Adessive

seol

heil

taal

nail

tuul

noil

Ablative

seolt

neilt

taalt

nailt

tuult

noilt

Translative

seos

neis

taas

nais

tuus

nois

Terminative

seoniq

neideniq

taaniq

naidõniq

tooniq

noidõniq

Abessive

seoldaq

neildaq

taaldaq

naildaq

tooldaq

noildaq

Comitative

seoga

neidega

taagaq

naidõgaq

tuuga

noidõgaq

TABLE 9.19  DEMONSTRATIVE ADVERBS IN VÕRO Lative

siiäq ‘here’

ta(a)ha ‘there’

sinnäq ‘there’

Locative

siin

tan

sääl

Separative

siist

tast

säält

‘here’ refers to the closest referent, sääl ‘there’ to the furthest referent, and tan ‘there’ to a referent in an intermediate position. 9.7 THE STRUCTURE OF THE NOUN PHRASE As in Standard Estonian, Võro NPs can have both pre- and post-nominal modifiers. Pre-nominal attributes are more common. Determiners and adjectives precede nouns, while determiners also precede adjectives, as in (28). (28) sii akadeemiline pere (CED, Plv) this academic family ‘this academic family’ In addition to adjectives, words from other classes, such as ordinal numerals (29) and participial forms (30), can precede the head noun in an NP: (29) kolmadõ-l päävä-l (CED, Har) third-ade day-ade ‘on the third day’

408 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(30) kee-vä vii boil-aprp.gen water.gen ‘into the boiling water’

sisse (CED, Har) into

Pre-nominal adjectives agree with the head noun in case and number, as in (29– 31). Agreement in Võro is more widespread than in Standard Estonian. In Võro, past participles functioning as attributes agree with the head noun, as shown in (32), while in Estonian only the active and passive present participle agrees with its head. Another difference from Standard Estonian is that agreement with the terminative case varies, as an attribute sometimes agrees with the head, as shown in (33). As in Standard Estonian, there is always agreement in number, but there is no case agreement in the abessive (vanõ-mba vele-ldä old-cmp.gen brother-abe ‘without older brother’) and the comitative (korgidõ puiõ-ga high.pl.gen tree.pl-com ‘with high trees’). (31) suuri-le inemisi-le (CED, Plv) big.pl-all human.pl-all ‘to adults’ (32) siis is olõ-ki ostõ-tu-i-si nüüpe (CED, Rõu) then neg.pst be.cng-clt buy- ppp-pl-part button.pl.part ‘then there were not any bought buttons’ (33) poole-ni elo-ijä-niq (CED, Plv) half-term life-span-term ‘until half of the life’ In addition to inflected nouns, as in (34), adpositional phrases and nonfinite verbs can become attributes, as in examples (35) and (36). For example, in (36) the purpose to which the noun referent is put is expressed by means of a relative clause built with the infinitive. It is notable that Võro differs from Standard Estonian in that the main verb is marked with plural when it follows an NP containing a comitative attribute expressing accompaniment, as in (34). (34) imä esä-ga lätsi-q (CED, Vas) mother father-com go.pst-3pl ‘Mother went with father’ (35) pink pesmise jaoss (CED, Rõu) bench threshing.gen for ‘A bench for threshing’ (36) tuu ol' siss sita heitäq vigõl (CED, Rõu) that be.pst.3sg then dung.gen throw.inf fork ‘So that was the fork for throwing dung’ Genitive attributes do not agree with the head; genitive attributes are the only device for expressing possession within the NP, as in (37–38).

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 409

(37) sina ei tohi mu you neg may.cng I.gen ‘You must not take my child’

las-t child-part

`võtta (CED, Plv) take.inf

(38) esä `kaska mant `lõik'-śi `karvu (CED, Vas) father.gen coat.gen by cut-pst.1sg hair.pl.part ‘I cut some fur from father’s coat’ Example (38) also illustrates the fact that, in the case of inalienable possession (kinship terms, body parts, etc.), the possessor can easily be omitted, as likely happened to ‘my’ in the NP ‘father.’ In clause-level possession, the possessor NP is flagged with the adessive, as in (39): (39) Mu-l ol' üt's `korteriline õõ üt's `tüt'rek (CED, Plv) I-ade be.pst.3sg one tenant uh one girl ‘I had a tenant, a girl’ In addition to possession, genitive attributes can also express other relations, for example, the noun belonging to some type or group, as in (40). (40) kaara põld (CED, Rõu) oat.gen field ‘an oat field’ 9.8 CO-ORDINATION There are two co-ordinating conjunctions in Võro, ja (41) and ni (~ niq) (42), both of which are used for coordinating clauses, as in (42), and NPs, as in (41). The marker ja is used in the entire Võro area, while ni is more common in Eastern Võro and Seto. (41) korsśe siini pick.pst.1sg mushroom.pl.part ‘I picked mushrooms and berries’

ja and

marju (CED, Har) berry.pl.part

(42) tul'l' esä niq esä-gä lät'si Mintka-he mińe-mä come.pst.3sg father and father-com go.pst.1sg Mintka-ill go-sup (CED, Vas) ’father came and I started to go to Mintka with him’ Võro has only one adversative conjunction, a (~ aq ~ aga), which is used to convey contrastive, concessive, and substitutive meanings, as shown in (43–45): (43) noq tetäs õlu-t, aq sis oll´ now make.ips.prs beer-part but then be.pst.3sg ‘The beer is made now, but root beer was made then’

taaŕ (CED, Rõu) root.beer

(44) vahi-ss sääl aga mu manu iss tulõ-q (CED, Har) look-3sg there but I.gen close neg.pst come-cng ‘[The cat] was looking around over there, but didn’t come to me’

410 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(45) mu-l ei olõ-q poig, aq tütär I-ade neg be-cng son but daughter ‘I do not have a son, but I do have a daughter’ The only disjunctive conjunction is vai. It is used both in statements (46) and questions. (46) sõit-sõ-va jälle Otebää-le vai Päidlä drive-pst-3pl again Otepää-all or Päidla.gen ‘[they] drove to Otepää or to Päidla manor again’

mõisa-he (CED, Plv) manor-ill

9.9 RELATIVE CLAUSES Like other Finnic languages, Võro has two basic kinds of relative clause: nonfinite participial clauses and finite relative clauses that use a question word as a relativizer. In participial relative clauses, the participle precedes and agrees with the head noun in number and case, as in (47–48); cf. also Section 7. (47) laś-i-mi nuu kee-vä-st vii-st let-pst-1pl those boil-aprp-ela water-ela ‘We put them through boiling water’

läbi (CED, Plv) through

(48) ega siis is olõ-ki nor then neg.pst be.cng-clt poodi-st ostõ-tu-i-si nüüpe shop-ela buy-ppp-pl-part button.pl.part ‘So there were no store-bought buttons’ Relative clauses using question words as relativizers are more frequent than participial relative clauses. The relativizer makes a distinction between animate and inanimate referents: for animates, the relativizer is either kiä or kes ‘who,’ as in (49), but for inanimates, it is miä or mis ‘what,’ as in (50). (49) et sa= le-te-gi tu `süüdläne kess that you be-2sg-clt that offender who ‘. . . that you are the one who pushed (it) down’

`maaha ai (CED; Plv) down drive.pst.3sg

(50) sääl tuu tõse tii= veeren there that.gen other.gen road.gen by miss `Piitre jõe puul't lätt (CED; Har) what Piitre.gen river.gen by go.3sg ‘There, by the other road, which goes by the Piitre river’ Relative clauses are not synthetically marked for restrictive and non-restrictive functions. However, additional demonstrative pronouns such as tuu ‘that,’ sjoo ‘this’ can be used in the main clause of restrictive relative clauses, for example, (49–50). In addition to canonical relative clauses, co-relative clauses are also used in Võro. Although the semantics are similar to canonical relative clauses, such clauses are coordinated rather than embedded (Dixon 2010, 356–358); see example (59).

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 411

9.10 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES Võro predicates which take complements do not differ significantly from the typologically canonic complement-taking predicates as presented by Noonan (1985, 2007). Such predicates include utterance predicates (e.g. kõnõlõma ‘talk’), propositional attitude predicates (e.g. uskma ‘believe’), predicates of fearing (e.g. pelgämä ‘to be afraid’), and desiderative predicates (tahtma ‘want’). In Võro, a complement clause has either a finite or a nonfinite verb, as in (51–52). (51) kõnõl-d-i, [et ku kasu-ma lätt, talk-ips-pst that when grow-sup go.3sg sis sõta ei tulõ inämb]CoCl:O (CED; Räp) then war.part neg come.cng anymore ‘it was said that if it starts to grow, there will no longer be any war’ (52) kurat taht [minnu hirmuta]CoCl:O (CED; Har) devil want.3sg I.part frighten.inf ‘the Devil wants to frighten me’ Although some predicates can occur in clauses with finite verbs marked with complementizers as well as in nonfinite clauses without complementizers (examples 51 and 52, respectively), most predicates tend to be used with only one of these options. For example, tahtma ‘want’ takes nonfinite complement clauses much more frequently than finite ones (52). The most frequent complementizer in finite complements (in Võro as well as in Standard Estonian) is the subordinator et ‘that,’ as in (51). In addition, the main temporal/ conditional clause marker ku ‘when, if’ and question words (including the polar question word kas) are used as complementizers, as in (53–54). (53) nigu nälläne olõ-t, ku ooda-t, like hungry be-2sg when/if wait-2sg [ku mõni olõ-s tul-luq] CoCl:O (CED; Krl) when/if somebody be-cond come-app ‘You are waiting as if you were hungry, for somebody to come’ (54) ma=i tea ka [kuiss te-dä ütel-d-i]CoCl:O (CED; Krl) I neg know.cng also how it-part say-ips-pst ‘I also don’t know what it was called’ When the complement clause functions as the object in the sentence, the complementizer et ‘that’ is often omitted, as in (55). This is commonly a feature of spoken Võro, but it can occur in the written register as well. (55) esä seletä-s sis ol-nu-va kadajadsõ-q talla-q (CED; Plv) father tell-3sg then be-quot.pst-3pl juniper.like-pl sole-pl ‘father said that back then soles were made of juniper’ The predicate verb in a complement clause can be either in the indicative—examples (51) and (54)—or the conditional mood, as in (53). In the latter case, it conveys an imaginary

412 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

or desired state of affairs which is hypothetical at the moment of speaking. Compared to Standard Estonian, the use of the conditional mood in complement clauses is less frequent in Võro. Additionally, in rare cases, the main verb of the complement clause can also be in the infinitive, as in (56). Usually, some other construction would occur in that function instead. (56) õiq tiijä kuiss muudu te-dä neg know.cng how way s/he-part ‘I don’t know how to start it’

alusta-da (CED; Krl) start-inf

Complement clauses with a nonfinite main verb and without a complementizer are used as well. Most often the verb is in the infinitive, as in (52) and (57), but it can also occur as an active participle, as in (58). (57) nää mõist-sõ väega hüäste pettä-q (Vas) they know-pst.3pl very well cheat-inf ‘They knew how to cheat very well’ (58) no nuuq küll ül-t-i ollõ-v (.) ptcl they ptcl say-ips-pst be-aprp lambiid vii-nü (CED, Krl) sheep.pl.part bring-app ‘well it has indeed been said that these sheep have been taken’ Infinitive complement clauses can stand with a larger variety of complement-taking predicates than participial complements can. Participial complement clauses commonly occur with utterance, propositional attitude, and perception verbs (Kehayov et al. forthcoming), as in (58), (59), and (60) respectively, whereas infinitive complement clauses occur with propositional attitude (61), desiderative (52), manipulative (62), knowledge (63), achievement verbs (64), and verbs of fearing (65). (59) Määndse-q omma-vaq vadõre-q, which-pl be-3pl godparent-pl sääne arva-t-e ka lats saa-vat. (KVVE, Räp) such think-ips-pst also child become-app ‘It was thought that a child would become the same as the godparents’ (60) tuu-d ma kuul'-i that-part I hear-pst.1sg ‘I heard that it was said.’

kynõl-dav (CED, Har) talk-pprp

(61) [--] ku arva-tas ju paras lõpõta-ma naa-taq [--] (KVVE, Räp) when think-ips ptcl appropriate finish-sup start-inf ‘when one thinks that it is time to start finishing’ (62) Tuu [--] pallõl-nu näi-l [/näi-d] sisse that ask-app they-ad[/part] inside ‘He (probably) asked them to go inside’

minnäq. (KVVE, Urv) go.inf

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 413

(63) tuu es mõista pügä-dä that neg.pst know.cng shear-inf ‘this person doesn’t know how to shear.’

es (CED, Har) neg.pst

(64) ku sa kodu lähä-t, ärä sa unõtu when you home.ill go-2sg neg.imp you forget.imp võtta-q [--] muna-q säält pohma alt üless (CED, Har) take-inf egg-pl there.abl bush.gen under up ‘When you go home, don’t forget to take these eggs from under the bush’ (65) Võrokõsõ ei pelgä esihindä üle nall’a tetä (UL) Võro.people.pl neg fear.cng oneself.gen over joke.part make.inf ‘The Võro people are not afraid to joke about themselves’ Võro appears to exhibit constructions with formulaic use, as presented by Diessel (2004). The main clause of the complement clause is propositionally empty in these cases, and the complement clause is neither semantically nor syntactically connected to the main clause. The complement-taking predicate arvama ‘think’ has come to express evidentiality and is only loosely connected to the sentence, as in (66). (66) A arva-da om tuu-d but think-inf be.sg3 that-part ‘but probably this is also needed’

ka also

vajja. (UL) needed

9.11 ADVERBIAL CLAUSES As with complement and relative clauses, adverbial clauses either have a subordinator and (commonly) a predicate verb in finite form or they occur without a subordinator but with a verb in nonfinite form. The following section describes the most common adverbial clauses without providing a list of all adverbial clauses in Võro. The section is organized by adverbial clause types, including both finite and nonfinite clauses. Temporal clauses. The most common temporal conjunction in Võro is ku (~ kui) ‘when,’ as in (67). (67) munnõ värvi-t-i [--] kui egg.pl.part colour-ips-pst when ‘Eggs were coloured at Easter’

lihavõttõ Easter.pl

ol'l'-i (CED, Har) be-pst.3pl

While ku only marks the existence of a temporal relationship between the clauses, proadverbs or adverbial phrases used in the main clause as well as tense forms establish the type of temporal relationship. For example, in (68), in order to emphasize that two states of affairs are simultaneous, as conveyed by the main and the subordinated clause, the adverb nik(k)a is used in addition to the conjunction ku; nika is a blend of nii ‘so’ + kavva ‘long.’ (68) nika kui sa mõisa-n el'l'-i as.long.as when you manor-ine live-pst.2sg nika sa ped'-i [--] päivi tege-mä (CED, Har) as.long.as you must-pst.2sg day.pl.part do-sup ‘As long as one lived in a manor, s/he had to do work-days’

414 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

More specific temporal conjunctions include kuni ‘as long as’ (69), kuna ‘when, while’ (70), and nigu ‘directly after’ (71). The conjunction kuna differs significantly from its counterpart in Standard Estonian, where it has grammaticalized into a conjunction marking causal relationships; in Võro, this grammaticalization has not taken place (cf. Plado 2014). (69) jaq ood'-i-va sõss kuni [--] Tennüśs and wait-pst-3pl then until Tennüss ‘and they waited then until Tennüss came’

tul'le (CED; Plv) come.pst.3pl

(70) ma ole= ks taa ao seen ol-nuq I be.1sg ptcl this.gen time.gen in be-app kuna jo ńeo-q põlluriista-q tul'l'-i-va (CED, Plv) when already these-pl field.tool-pl come-pst-3pl ‘I lived at the time when the field tools were already coming into use’ (71) nigu valgõ-ss siss nak-si mine-mä as.soon.as white-tra then start-pst.3sg go-sup nii [--] lät'śi siss tüü-hve (CED; Har) so go.pst.1sg then work-ill ‘As soon as it started to get light, I went to work’ Another important difference between Standard Estonian and Võro is that the latter uses converbal constructions to express temporal relationships between two states of affairs very rarely; an example is (72): (72) tagasi tullõn võe-t'-i pruut' sinnä [--] peigmehe mano (CED, Krl) back come.cvb take-ips-pst bride there fiancé.gen to ‘Having come back (when/after she had come back), the bride was taken to her fiancé’ Causal clauses. The main conjunction occurring in causal clauses is the general subordinator et ‘that,’ which only indicates subordination, leaving the causal relation to be encoded by the additional marker selle, as in (73). (73) õdagu om nigu ikävävõitu tsipakõnõ evening.gen be.3sg as boring little.bit selle et olõ-õi kelle-ga juttu aijaq (CED; Vas) because that be.cng-neg who-com story.part talk.inf ‘In the evening I’m little bit bored because there is nobody to talk with’ Conditional clauses. The Võro conditional marker ku(i) (51, 74) was derived from a temporal conjunction marker. Hence, there is no overt distinction between temporal and conditional conjunctions. (74) kui ta sinno kuts if/when s/he you.part invite.3sg ‘If s/he invites you, come home’

sõss tulek = then come.imp

kodo (CED; Plv) home.ill

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 415

In the case of unreal conditionals, the verb of the conditional clause is in the present tense in hypotheticals, as in (75), and in the past tense in counterfactuals, as in (76). (75) Mu-l olõ-si viil parõmb miil, ku tulõ-va I-ad be-cond even good.comp mind if/when come-aprp.gen pühäbä viil rohkõ-p inemiisi keriku-he tulõ-si (KVVE, Rõu) sunday.gen even many-comp people.pl.part church-ill come-cond ’I would be even happier if next Sunday even more people came to church’ (76) Olõ-s ta ütsindä län-nüq, be-cond s/he alone go-app olõ-s raha kätte saa-nuq. (EM, Räp) be-cond money.gen hand.ill get-app ’If he had gone alone, he would have got the money’ As can be seen in (76), it is possible to mark counterfactual clauses9 by having the auxiliary verb in clause-initial position. It is likely that this function was the path along which the auxiliary verb olõ-s ‘be-cond’ grammaticalized into a marker of hypothetical conditional mood, as in (77). (77) olõ-s su-l siivo-q olõ-ssiq, sa lenda-siq (CED, Plv) be-cond you-ad wing-pl be-cond you fly-cond ‘If you had wings, you would fly’ There is no special conjunction for negative conditional clauses in Võro. Concessive clauses. Concession is probably the most semantically complicated adverbial relationship (König 1985, 263; Kortmann 1997, 167), and markers of concessive clauses develop rather late in a language (Kortmann 1997, 154–157). This is the case in Võro as well, which lacks a subordinating concessive conjunction. However, there are other devices to mark a concessive relationship between states of affairs: for example, concession is conveyed by the construction ol-ku/kõ [x] [y] (taht) be-juss [x] [y] (want.3sg) in (78) and by the general subordinator et ‘that’ + particle küll in (79), where it requires additional concessive particles in the main clause. (78) sä piä-t ost-ma [--] you must-2sg buy-sup hindä-l ol-ku su-l mõtsa kui pal'l'o (CED, Räp) yourself-ade be-juss you-ade forest.part how much ‘Although you can have much wood in your forest, you still have to buy it’ (79) Et küll kehväst süü-d-e, sõske oll´ that ptcl badly eat-ips-pst ptcl be.pst.3sg rendi masmise-ga õks väega suur hädä. (KVVE, Räp) rent.gen payment-com ptcl very big problem ‘Although [they] ate poorly, there were still big problems with paying the rent’ In contemporary language, which is strongly influenced by Estonian, kuiki ‘although’ (< Est kuigi) is also used to mark concessive clauses, as in (80).

416 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(80) Eesti keele-n pruugi-tas näütüse-s sõnna Estonia.gen language-in use-ips example-tra word.part “dialoog”, kuiki om olõ-ma-n ka eestikeeline sõna. (UL) dialog although be.3sg be-sup-ine also Estonian word ‘For example, in Estonian the word “dialog” is used, although an Estonian word exists’ Purpose clauses. Purpose clauses are introduced by the general subordinator et ‘that,’ as in (81). Sometimes the purpose relationship between states of affairs is emphasized by additional means, like tuuperäst in (82). (81) Alumanõ puul oll´ kinniq, et külm sisse tulõ-õi. (KVVE, Rõu) down side be.pst.3sg closed that cold inside come.cng-neg ‘The bottom was closed in order for the cold to not come inside’ (82) Risti-q tette-väq tuuperäst, et Vanahalb cross-pl do.ips-3pl because.of.that that devil leeväkohetus-t ja leibä ei saa-sseq putto-q. (KVVE, Räp) bread.dough-part and bread.part neg get-cnd touch-inf ‘The crosses were made so that the Devil could not touch the bread dough or bread.’ (83) Vanaesä heidä-nü [--] pikäli, et veidikene [--] puha-ta (KVVE, Urv) Grandfather throw-app down that little.bit rest-inf ‘Granddad lay down in order to rest a little bit.’ Although the main verb of a purpose clause is usually a finite verb—either in indicative mood, as in (81), or in conditional mood, as in (82)—in rare cases it can also be in the infinitive, as in (83). A large variety of nonfinite constructions express purpose. The purpose of movement or other states of affairs can be expressed by the verb in the supine, as in (84), or in the infinitive, as in (85). (84) tull-i koduq süü-mä (CED, Urv) come.pst.1sg home.ill eat-sup ‘I came home to eat’ (85) taa-t küll pelgä-t, ku taha saadõ-tass this-part ptcl afraid-2sg when there.ill send-ips vineläsi-le pessä ja tappa (CED, Vas) Russian.pl-all beat.inf and kill.inf ‘But you are afraid of being sent there for Russians to beat and kill’ The purpose or use of an item or a thing is conveyed by a clause with the main verb in the infinitive, as in (86).10 (86) kerko-h kävvüq rõiva-q church-in go.inf clothes-pl ‘clothes for going to church’

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 417

Manner clauses. Manner clauses are also marked with the subordinator et ‘that,’ conjoined with the additional marker nii ~ niimuudu ‘so,’ as in (87). The latter can also be conjoined with the equative conjunction nigu, as in (88). (87) havvutamise-ga keede-t'-i nii et [--] stewing-com boil-ips-pst so that aur ka sääl iks siseh ol'  (CED, Plv) steam also there ptcl inside be.pst.3sg ‘During stewing it was boiled so that the steam stayed inside’ (88) küdsi nii nigu kuukõ bake.pst.1sg so how cake.pl.part ‘I baked the way cakes are baked’

no küdse-täss (CED, Vas) ptcl bake-ips

In Võro, manner is also conveyed by converbal constructions, as in (89). The manner converb constructions are rather short, mostly consisting of only one word (Plado 2015, 201). (89) tuu pand-nu siss joos-teh sinnäq [--] appi (CED, Vas) that put-app then run-cbv there help.ill ’S/he was off then running to help there’ 9.12 TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY, EVIDENTIALITY 9.12.1 Tense and aspect Võro has four morphological tenses: present, simple past, perfect, and pluperfect. Present tense is unmarked. The present tense can also describe the future, especially when it is used in combination with dedicated lexical devices, as in (90). (90) ma = i tiijä-k = kess tä-lle ol' ütel-nü = I neg know-cng who s/he-all be.pst.3sg say-app t Leena pand hummeń `kaara = ja (CED; Plv) that Leena put.3sg tomorrow oat.part and ‘I don’t know who had told him/her that Leena would sow oats tomorrow’ The verb saama ‘get, receive’ is often used for describing the future as well, especially in change-of-state constructions; see example (91). It is especially widely used in Seto, where it replaces the copula ‘be’ in contexts expressing future tense, but it is found frequently in Võro as well. (91) nooh tei-l saa nüüt suvi `väega hää (CED; Plv) well you-ade become.3sg now summer very good ‘well, you will have a very good summer now’ Simple past refers to events that happened in the past. It does not have any aspectual connotations; aspectuality is expressed via differential object marking and verb particles, such as ärä ~ ärq ‘away; up,’ vällä ‘out,’ maaha ‘down,’ etc. (See Section 9.12.2.)

418 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(92) algkooli-n käve siinsama-n elementary.school-ine go.pst.1sg here-ine ‘I went to elementary school here, in Kuutsi’

Kuutsi-n (CED; Har) Kuutsi-ine

The simple past has considerable allomorphy, and there is a great deal of variation in pasttense marking. The most common past-tense marker is -i, cf. Section 9.3.2.2. As noted in Section 9.3.2.2, perfect and pluperfect are formed with the auxiliary verb olõ-ma ‘to be’ and the main verb in the past participle form. Perfect and pluperfect occur in texts rather frequently. However, they are much less frequent in Seto than in other varieties of South Estonian (Lindström et al. 2015, 2019). The Võro perfect tense has most of the main functions seen as characteristic of typical systems of perfect tense (cf. Comrie 1976; Lindstedt 2000). These include the perfect of result (93) and the experiential perfect (94), as well as the quotative (evidential, inferential) pluperfect perfect (95). The perfect of recent past is not characteristic of Võro. (93) noorõ-mba omma `liina län-nü (CED; Har) young-cmp.pl be.3pl town.ill go-app ‘younger [people] have gone to town’ (94) ma olõ kaq paar `kõrda elu-n äräq `essü-nü (CED; Har) I be.1sg too couple time.part life-ine away be.lost-app ‘I have also got lost a couple of times in my life’ (95) sõss [--] ol'l'-i-q latse län-nü = ks (.) rihe`ahjo then be-pst-3pl child.pl go-app ptcl barn.oven.ill sinnäq (.) `lämmä-he (.) jahh (. . .) a mat = tuu-d [--] eij = ole there warm-ill yes but I that-part neg be.cng nän-nüq et et latses = sinnä `lät'śi see-app that that child.pl there go.pst.3pl a kõnel-d-i nii (CED; Plv) but talk-ips-pst so ‘(I have heard that) children went into the barn oven to get warm; yes, but I haven’t seen children go there myself, it was just said so.’ 9.12.2 Aspect Võro makes a distinction between perfective and imperfective aspect by means of verb particles and differential object marking. Historically, differential object marking was the primary device, while verb particles were less predominant. There is therefore a great deal of variation regarding which verb particles co-occur with which type of verb, as well as the additional meaning they convey. The most frequent verb particle is ärä (~ ärq, arq) ‘away, off,’ as in (96), followed by vällä ‘out’ and maaha ‘down.’ Seto uses ärä much more often than the other varieties (Uiboaed 2010). Most verb particles have additional (mostly local) meanings, that is, they are usually not fully grammaticalized as aspectual markers. (96) mõtsa-n marja-n käve `üt'śkõrd `essü ärä forest-ine berry-ine go.pst.1sg once get.lost.pst.1sg away (CED, Har) ‘Once, when I went to the forest for berries, I got lost’

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 419

The primary device for expressing perfective aspect is differential object marking. A systematic distinction is made between total objects (with genitive or nominative case flagging) and partial objects (partitive case flagging). Total objects indicate that the event is completed (or supposed to be completed in the future) with the object being totally affected (97), much as in the other Finnic languages. If these requirements are not met, the object occurs in the partitive case, as in (98). The object of a negated clause is always in partitive. (97) ja (.) taṕ-i-va inemise ärä = ja (.) and kill-pst-3pl man.gen away and võt'-i-va varandusõ = ja lät'śi-vä (CED, Plv) take-pst-3pl treasure.gen and go.pst-3pl ‘and [they] killed a man and took the fortune and left’ (98) sääl üt's vanamiiś tuu `taṕpe sõss vaśeka-t (CED, Plv) there one old.man that kill.pst.3sg then calf-part ‘there was one old man, he was killing a calf’ The nominative is used for total objects in constructions that normally do not take explicit subjects, such as imperative or impersonal constructions (99). The nominative is also used for plural total objects. (99) liim (.) `ant-i jäll broth.nom give.ips-pst again ‘the broth was given to pigs’

tseo-le = ja (CED; Har) pig.pl-all and

In addition, the translative case on participles can function as an additional perfective index in some constructions (100): (100) sai rehe-q ärp = `pes-tü-ś (CED, Rõu) get.pst.3sg crop-pl away beat-ppp-tra ‘when the crops were threshed’ 9.12.3 Modality In Võro, modality is mainly expressed with modal adverbs and modal verbs. All the modal verbs are polyfunctional and therefore may express different types of modality. For necessity and obligation, the modal verbs pidämä ‘must’ and vaja olema ‘need’ are commonly used. Pidämä ‘must’ tends to occur in the second-person form (piät ~ piat) in the present tense (101). This form is retained also in other persons, even when the subject is in first-person singular (102). (101) pia-t nii puhass olõ-ma must-2sg so clean be-sup ‘everything has to be clean’

kyik' (CED, Krl) all

(102) maq piä-t hummõń poodi I must-2sg tomorrow shop.gen ‘I have to go to the shop tomorrow’

mano by

mine-mä (p.k) go-sup

420 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

Vaja olema ‘need’ as a modal predicate expresses a participant-internal or participant-external need or obligation, as in (103). The copula olema ‘be’ can easily be omitted from the construction, especially in Seto (see Lindström and Uiboaed 2017). (103) perenainõ nakaś et üttel' et kaŕussõ-lõ farmwife start.pst.3sg that say.pst.3sg that shepherd-all vaja süvvä anda (CED; Vas) need eat.inf give.inf ‘the housewife said that (somebody) has to give the herder something to eat’ The modal verbs võima ‘can, may’ and saama ‘can, get, receive’ are highly polyfunctional, encoding several types of modality, for example, või-i ütel-däq can/may-neg say-inf ‘I am not allowed to say; I am not able to say.’ The construction olema ‘be’ + infinitive can also be used to indicate necessity or obligation, as in (104): (104) tüü-d ol' work-part be.pst.3sg ‘One had to work’

tetä (CED; Plv) make.inf

9.12.4 Mood Võro has indicative as an unmarked mood and overt morphemes for conditional, imperative, jussive, and quotative moods, as shown in Section 9.3.2.2. In addition, some remnants of potential mood and additional evidential strategies can be found. Potential is a historical grammatical mood for expressing possibility which has been lost in most modern Finnic languages. However, in Võro, one can still see its remnants, as in (105) (Keem and Käsi 2002, 51). These constructions can sometimes even be heard in modern Võro vernacular (Mariko Faster, p.c.). (105) ei tiijäk= kas tuu ol-nõ-s määne võõras vai (Urv) neg know.cng whether that be-pot-3sg kind.of stranger or ‘I don’t know whether he/she was possibly a sort of stranger’ Evidentiality. Võro, like Estonian, has a special mood marker for referred evidentiality, as in (106). The Võro quotative mood originates from the present participle, either from its nominative or partitive form. The same suffix is used for all persons, that is, there are no person-specific suffixes. (106) `Rakvere jao = päl (.) sääl ollõ-v ka sääńt´śi-t Rakvere part.gen on there be-quot too such.pl-part peremeh´i = et (CED, Plv) master.pl.part that ‘[it has been said that] in Rakvere area, there are also masters like that’ In narrative texts, a bare past passive participle is often used as an evidential strategy, marking the narrative as second-hand information (the bare participle is not used in

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 421

personal narratives), as in example (107 and 89). The indicative pluperfect can also be used in this function; see (95) earlier. (107) ja tul-nuq sõss hainaruga (.) läve-st sisse and come-app then haystack threshold-ela in ja ast-no sinnäq sängü ette and step-app there bed.gen ahead ja ütel-nü et (. . .) kule Jaań et (.) (CED; Plv) and say-app that listen.imp.2sg Jaan that ‘And (it has been said that) the haystack came in the doorway and stepped to in front of the bed and said “listen, Jaan /. . ./”’ 9.13 NEGATION Standard negation is encoded with a negation word and a connegative form of the verb. The negation word is historically derived from the Proto-Uralic negative verb *e- (Janhunen 1982), which, unlike in most languages of the Finnic branch, has lost most of its verbal features both in South and North Estonian. In Võro, however, it has retained the distinction between present and past tense, other verbal categories such as person and number having been lost. The negation word is ei in the present and es in the past (Table 9.20). However, both the present and past negation words may exhibit some variation due to coarticulation (ei ~ Vi ~ i; es ~ Vs ~ s). The connegative form is a bare stem (unmarked for person) with an additional suffix consisting of a glottal stop. In spoken language, the glottal stop is often unpronounced.11 The position of the negation word varies. In most parts of the colloquial Võro language area, the negation word is preverbal (as in the earlier examples). To some extent in Eastern Võro, and especially in Seto, the common position for the negation word is after the verb (Pilvik et al. 2021). The postverbal negation word has become a feature of standardized Võro, and it is used in most publications in Võro. As the postverbal negation word is generally reduced to an inflection for coarticulation reasons, it is often marked with -i (present tense) or -s (past tense) in written Võro, for example, nä taha-i ‘they don’t want,’ nä taha-s ‘they didn’t want.’ The negation marker is sometimes doubled so that the negation word precedes or follows the main verb and is later repeated at the end of the clause or at the end of the scope of negation, as in (108) (Lindström 1997; Lindström et al. 2021; Pilvik et al. 2021).

TABLE 9.20  AFFIRMATIVE VS. NEGATIVE FORMS OF THE VERB KÕNÕLÕ-MA SPEAK-sup IN VÕRO Affirmative

Negative

Present tense

maq kõnõlõ ‘I speak’ saq kõnõlõt ‘you speak’

maq ei kõnõlõq ‘I don’t speak’ saq ei kõnõlõq ‘you don’t speak’

Past tense

maq kõnõli ‘I spoke’ saq kõnõlit ‘you spoke’

maq es kõnõlõq ‘I didn’t speak’ saq es kõnõlõq ‘you didn’t speak’

422 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

(108) a nüüt om niividsi et kae lehmä ka but now be.3sg so that look.imp.2sg cow.part too i saa ma inäp nüds-dä äi. (Lindström 1997, 152) neg can.cng I anymore milk-inf neg ‘But now it is so that, look, I cannot even milk a cow anymore’ In imperative structures, the system is more complicated. The negative imperative (prohibitive) mood is formed either with the postverbal negation word (e)i, as in (109), or the preverbal negation word ära ~ är(q) ~ ar(q) ~ ala. In both cases, the main verb is conjugated for third-person imperative (optative), as in (109–110). (109) min-gu = uiq (Keem and Käsi 2002, 51) go-imp neg ‘don’t go’ (110) üttel' et ärä min-gu = et (CED, Plv) say.pst.3sg that neg.imp go-imp that ‘it was said that [someone] mustn’t go.’ The postverbal negation -i(q) is more characteristic of Eastern Võro and especially Seto (Lindström et al. 2021). In colloquial use, these two strategies are often combined. As mentioned earlier, tense is encoded on the negation word while person and number are not. Some of the other conjugation categories, such as mood and voice, are encoded on the main verb. For instance, impersonal passive voice is seen in loe-tas read-ips.prs ‘(something) is read’—ei/es loe-taq neg.prs/neg.pst read-ips.cng ‘(something) is/was not read’ and conditional mood in maq annassi ‘I would give’—ei/es annas ‘(I) would not give.’ Negation can also be expressed by other linguistic means, for example, with abessive case, which infrequently combines with the preposition ilma ‘without.’ As seen in Section 9.3.2.3, the supine can also be in the abessive, being used as a negative participle or converb (111). (111) maq lää egä õdagu söö-mä-ta I go.1sg every evening.gen eat-sup-abe ‘every evening, I go to sleep without eating’

maga-ma (CED, Plv) sleep-sup

9.14 VOICE CONSTRUCTIONS South Estonian makes a systematic distinction between personal (unmarked) and impersonal voice, also known as impersonal passive voice; the former indexes for a specific person, while the latter for an indefinite person. The impersonal is formed morphologically in the present and simple past and periphrastically in the perfect and pluperfect, where the auxiliary ole- ‘be’ is used (see Table 9.21). Like other Finnic languages, the Võro impersonal demotes the agent argument but does not promote a patient argument; as a result, impersonal structures can be formed with both transitive and intransitive verbs. However, as typically only animate participants, mostly humans, can be demoted as subjects, the use of intransitive voice is semantically somewhat restricted.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 423 TABLE 9.21  MARKERS OF IMPERSONAL VOICE IN VÕRO Tense

Formation

Examples

Present

-tas/täs/das/däs -ta/tä/da/dä

jahh (. . .) toda andass küll (CED, Har) yes that.part give.ips.prs ptcl ‘Yes, this is given,’ ‘Yes, they are giving it’

Simple past

-ti/-di

ja raha `an't'i ka = ks natukõsõ (CED, Har) and money.part give.ips.pst too ptcl a.bit.gen ‘and [they, somebody] also gave [somebody] some money’

Perfect

ole- ‘be.prs.3sg’ + ppp

hää = et (.) et oi nii tubliste omm tśialihha `pan-tu = ja (CED, Plv) good that that so much be.3sg pork.part put-ppp and ‘it’s good that so much pork has been put there’

Pluperfect

ole- ‘be.pst.3sg’ + ppp

et nä-i-d ol'l' = jo ot'śi-t = ja (CED, Vas) that these-pl-part be.pst.3sg already search-ppp and ‘that [somebody] had already searched for these’

From the impersonal perfect and the pluperfect forms the periphrastic passive construction can be distinguished. It is formed using the same morphosyntactic means as impersonal compound tenses; olema ‘be’ is used with the past passive participle, as in example (112). However, the passive clearly promotes patient arguments to the subject position, and if the agent is present, it is demoted and marked by a genitive or postpositional phrase. As the patient argument is promoted, the selection of verbs is even more restricted: only transitive verbs can be passivized in Võro. (112) Ja tu kuldket't' (.) tuu ol'l' Al'eksandre (.) and that golden.chain.nom that be.pst.3sg Alexander.gen kińgi-t (CED, Plv) gift-ppp ‘And that golden chain, that was given as a gift by Alexander’ In Võro, the promotion of the patient to subject position is evident not only from its agreement with the auxiliary verb olema ‘be’ (as in Standard Estonian) but also from the agreement between the passive past participle and the subject (113). (113) śaksa-q ol'l'-i toff-pl.nom be-pst.3pl ‘The toffs were educated’

iks ptcl

kool'ite-du-q (CED, Vas) educate- ppp-pl

Impersonal perfect and pluperfect do not promote the patient argument; that is, the construction either takes a partitive object (114) or it is formed with intransitive verbs (115). (114) noi-d ol' those.pl-part be.pst.3sg ‘they were called hangmen’

kutsu-t = call-ppp

et that

timmuka-q (CED, Rõu) hangman-pl

(115) kui pal'l'o k'üll ilma-h ärä omm ele-tö (CED, Räp) how much ptcl world-in away be.3sg live-ppp ‘For how long have [people/somebody] been living in the world already.’

424 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

In South Estonian, simple impersonal tenses have given rise to the so-called personal passive constructions which were widespread until the first half of the twentieth century. The personal passive forms have been described by Wiedemann (2002 [1863], 93) and Keem (1997, 53) in Võro and by Niilus (1936) in the Leivu linguistic enclave in Latvia. According to these studies, the personal passive had a wide distribution in the past, and it was possible to conjugate it for any person in the present and simple past (116–117). (116) Jummal´ tiid, konas ma God know.3sg when I.nom ‘God knows when I’ll be buried’

matõ-ta (Keem 1997, 53) bury-ips/pas.1sg

(117) viimäte pan-da-t sa eventually put-ips/pas-2sg you. nom ‘Eventually you will be put in prison’

`vangi (Keem 1997, 53) prison.ill

However, eventually, only the third-person forms remained, retaining the distinction between third-person singular and plural. According to CED, those plural forms can still be found in a small area in the Northern Seto and North-Eastern Võro language areas; see (118). (118) nuu võe-t'-i-va ärä = et (CED, Plv) those.nom take-ips/pas-pst-3pl off that ‘Those (=working days) were taken off’ Võro uses the auxiliary saama ‘get; become’ to encode the personal passive voice. Constructions with saama use the passive past participle in the translative case. The participle in the translative case is characteristic of South Estonian in this context, but it is also found in Eastern Finnish and in some subdialects of North-Eastern Estonian and is regarded as an old feature of Eastern Proto-Finnic (Alvre 1993, 409). In other parts of Estonia, a construction with the same function is formed with the passive past participle without case endings. The main function of the Estonian translative case is to mark the result of a change, making it widely used in various change-of-state constructions. In the personal passive construction with saama, the case may indicate that a final result is achieved or achievable. The example in (119) is clearly a passive construction, as the verb shows agreement with the subject, while in (120) the impersonal construction with saama is formed from the intransitive verb olema ‘be.’ (119) tolle sil'mäkarvas = saa-va-q s/he.gen eyelash.pl.nom get-prs-3pl ‘Her/his eyelashes got pulled out.’

äräk = kaku-tu-śs (CED, Plv) away pull-ppp-tra

(120) ja niimuudu sai sõss sääl and so get.pst.3sg then there ‘And this way we used to be there’

`ol-tu-ss (CED, Plv) be- ppp-tra

Possessive perfect constructions can be interpreted as a sub-type of passive constructions. Unlike the passive, they typically express the agent argument in a topical position, but the agent is demoted by case marking. Specifically, the agent is flagged with the

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 425

adessive in Võro (as well as in Estonian); see (121). The patient argument is typically in the nominative case, that is, it is promoted to subject. Unlike in the passive, possessive perfect structures can also be formed with intransitive verbs. (121) aga tõõsõ-l Saarõ `rahva-l ol'l'-i but other-ade Saarõ people-ade be-pst.3pl maja-q `eh't'i-dü (CED, Räp) house-pl.nom decorate-ppp ‘But other Saare people had decorated the houses’

kyigi-l all-ade

äräq = away

9.15 BASIC CLAUSE TYPES AND ARGUMENT INDEXING Basic transitive clauses take a nominative subject (argument A) and a direct object either in the partitive (partial object), genitive (total object), or nominative (total object) case, as in (122–123). The case of the object depends on the inner aspect of the event and the affectedness of the object (see Section 9.12.2). (122) Imä se-i leibä. (partial object) mother.nom eat-pst.3sg bread.part ‘Mother ate some bread/Mother was eating the bread’ (123) Imä se-i leevä mother.nom eat-pst.3sg bread.gen ‘Mother ate (all of) the bread’

ärq. (total object) away

Basic intransitive clauses take a nominative subject (argument S), as in (124). (124) Imä lätś poodi mother.nom go.pst.3sg shop.gen ‘Mother went to the shop’

mano. to

In basic transitive and intransitive clauses, the predicate agrees with the subject. However, the agreement depends on polarity, mood, etc., for example: there is no agreement in negation (cf. Section 9.13) or conditional and quotative mood (cf. Section 9.3.2.2). The subject tends to occur in clause-initial position and typically conveys given information, that is, imä in example (124) is a prototypical subject. Subjects that are syntactically heavier or convey pragmatically new information may occur later in the clause. As in other Finnic languages, Võro has a number of clause types (or constructions) that distinguish nominative vs. partitive case in flagging the subject. These clause types include existential clauses, possessive clauses, and some of the experiencer clauses. Existential clauses assert or deny the existence or occurrence of an entity (expressed as a grammatical subject) at a certain time or place. The nominative/partitive alternation in the subject depends mainly on polarity: the partitive is obligatory in negative clauses, as in (125); however, quantitative definiteness (boundedness) of the subject is also involved in the selection. While the use of the partitive is related mainly to indefinite quantity (126), the nominative is used when the subject is quantitatively definite (bounded) or when the (un)boundedness is unimportant. In affirmative existentials, singular count nouns most typically occur as nominative subjects (127).

426 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

Compared to North Estonian, the use of partitive subjects in Võro seems to be slightly more frequent (see Lindström 2017 for more details). (125) ess= ole raud`äkle ess midägiq (CED, Plv) neg.pst be.cng iron_harrow.part neg.pst something.part ‘[there, when] was no iron harrow or anything else.’ (126) sääl ol' sääntsi-t jõvvetu-iśi poige kahh there be.pst.3sg such.pl-part weak-pl.part chick.pl.part too (CED; Plv) ‘There were such weak chicks as well.’ (127) ja siin omm siss and here be.3sg then ‘and here is a granary’

ait (CED, Vas) granary.nom

The use of the partitive to flag the subject is relatively independent of information structure, that is, the givenness or newness of the subject’s referent (qualitative indefiniteness). Therefore, qualitatively definite (given) as well as quantitatively definite referents may sometimes occur as partitive subjects in negative existentials, as in (128). (128) ko immä tarõ-hh when mother.part room-ine ’when mother wasn’t in the room’

olõ be.cng

õss (NSe) neg.pst

Possessive clauses are based on the same schema as existential clauses, except that in clause-initial position, an NP in the adessive case refers to the possessor. The possessee is expressed as the grammatical subject, which can be either in the nominative (129) or partitive case (130). The subject case alternation is similar in possessive and existential clauses. In (130), however, two NPs have adessive case. The first one (meil ‘we’) can be analyzed as a semantically affected participant which has a possessive relationship to the animals, making it an external possessor. The “real” possessor in the clause is eläjil ‘animals.’ (129) ja siss mei-l = ol'l' üt's kaŕjalat's and then we-ade be.pst.3sg one herder.child.nom ‘and we had a herder-child, too’

ka (CED, Har) too

(130) mei-l umm kõgesuguda-id'si hät'i we-ade be.3sg every.kind.of-pl.part illness.pl.part ‘our animals have every kind of illness/trouble’

eläj-i-l (Plv) animal-pl-ade

Experiencer clauses follow several patterns, depending on how the experiencer and stimulus arguments are expressed. In the experiencer-oblique construction, the experiencer is flagged with adessive (131) or allative suffix (132). (131) mei-l kõigi-l ol'l' we-ade all-ade be.3sg ‘we all felt sorrow’

halõ (CED, Har) sorrow

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 427

(132) mu-llõ tä = i `miildü sukugi (CED, WSe) I-all s/he.nom neg appeal.cng at.all ‘I do not like him/her at all,’ lit. ‘he/she does not appeal to me’ In the experiencer-object construction, the experiencer is marked as a typical object and the stimulus as the grammatical subject of the clause (133). (133) ta minnu hirmut' siss s/he I.part frighten.pst.3sg then ‘S/he frightened me like that’

sedäsi (CED; Har) so

The stimulus can be marked with the partitive case as well, as in (134) and (135). (134) ma midägi timä kiil-t `arvu = ss saaq (ESe) I nothing.part s/he.gen language-part wit.part neg.pst get.cng ‘I didn’t understand his/her language’ (135) latsõ-kõnõ sa= lt `hiitü-nü tuu-d `śiugu (CED; Har) child-dim you be.2sg startle-app that-part snake.part ‘dear child, you are startled by that snake’ Partitive stimulus is characteristic in older Võro and especially in Eastern Võro and Seto. It is used with a wide range of experiential predicates. In present-day Võro, under strong influence from Standard Estonian, the partitive case is sometimes replaced with the elative case. 9.16 TEXT “Vaenõlats kuu pääl” is a magic tale that is told by the grandmother of Sulev Iva (Vastseliina parish) in 1970s. It is about an orphan who had to work so hard that the Moon decided to take her on the Moon. www.folklore.ee/tagused/nr2/muina.htm Vaenõlatś kuu pääl ‘Orphan on the Moon’ (extract) Ütskõrd ell-i vaenõlatś. once live-pst.3sg orphan ‘Once there was an orphan.’ Tä-l oll' väega s/he-ade be.pst.3sg very ‘She had a very hard life.’

rassõ hard

Tä-l oll-i-q imä ja s/he-ade be-pst-3pl mother and ‘Her mother and father had died’

elo. life esä father

ja tää ell-i võõras+imä and s/he live-pst.3sg step+mother.gen ‘and she lived with her stepmother.’

ärq away man. at

kool-nuq die-app

428 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

Võõras+imä oll' väega halv ja step+mother be.pst.3sg very bad and ‘Her stepmother was very bad and wicked.’

hõel. wicked

Tää pand' vaes-t+las-t kygõ rassõ-mba-t tüü-d tege-mä, s/he put.pst.3sg orphan-part most hard-cmp-part work-part do-sup ‘She made the orphan (vaest+last = poor-part + child-part) do the hardest work’ a süvväq and' kygõ halvõ-mba-t but eat.inf give.pst.3sg most bad-cmp-part ‘but gave [the orphan] the worst food to eat’ ja tuu-d kah väega and that-part too very ‘and also very little of it.’

süüki food.part

veidüq. little

Ku vaenõ+latś jovva es inämb when orphan be.able.cng neg.pst anymore ‘When the orphan was not able to work anymore’ sys sa-i tä võõras.imä then get-pst.3sg s/he step.mother.gen ‘then she got beaten by her stepmother.’

käest from

tüü-d work-part

tetäq, do.inf

pessä. beat.inf

Ütskõrd keväjä, ku uibu-q häits-i, once spring.gen when appletree-pl flourish-pst.3pl ‘Once in the springtime when apple trees were flourishing,’ istõ vaenõlatś uibu alaq maa-ha sit.pst.3sg orphan apple.tree.gen under ground-ill ‘the orphan sat down under an apple tree on the ground’ ja nakaś and start.pst.3sg ‘and started to cry.’

ik-ma. cry-sup

Vaesõ+latsõ silm-i-st joos-i-q suurõ-q orphan.gen eye-pl-ela run-pst-3pl big-pl ‘Big teardrops fell from the orphan’s eyes,’

pisara-q, tear-pl

a uibu-st sattõ valgõ häiermä-q. but appletree-ela fall.pst.3pl white.pl blossom-pl ‘but white blossoms were falling from the apple tree.’ Vaenõ+latś ka-i uibu+häierm-i-t Orphan look-pst.3sg appletree+blossom-pl-part ‘The orphan looked at the apple blossoms and sang.’

ni and

laul': sing.pst.3sg

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 429

Abbreviations CED—Corpus of Estonian Dialects, murre.ut.ee/mkweb; http://dx.doi.org/10.23673/re-365 EM—Hella Keem and Inge Käsi 2002. Eesti murded VI. Võru murde tekstid. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut. KVVE—“Kuiss vanal Võromaal eleti” (Life in old Võromaa), book UL—Uma Leht, http://umaleht.ee/ Har—Hargla parish Vas—Vastseliina parish Plv—Põlva parish Räp—Räpina parish Krl—Karula parish Rõu—Rõuge parish NSe—North Seto WSe—Western Seto ESe—Eastern Seto NOTES 1 This research has been supported by the Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies (European Union, European Regional Development Fund). 2 http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=PCE07&lang=1 (16.05.2019) 3 https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/rahvaloendus__rel2021__rahvastiku-demograafilisedja-etno-kultuurilised-naitajad__voorkeeleoskus-murded/RL21446 4 http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/index.php?hl=en&page=atlasmap (16.05.2019) 5 https://wi.ee/tegemise/koolioppus/ (28.02.2020) 6 Here and in the following, the pronounciation in square brackets follows IPA transcription. 7 Examples coming from the Corpus of Estonian Dialects (CED) follow the transcription which is used in that corpus: ` at the beginning of the word stands for Q3, ’ for palatalization of the preceding consonant, (.) for short pauses, (. . .) for long pauses, = for coarticulations of words. 8 In Estonian linguistic tradition, the citation form is supine. We follow the tradition also in this chapter. 9 As we did not find any marking of real or hypothetical clauses with the verb in an initial position, we do not address the issue of whether these kinds of sentences are possible in Võro. 10 Such purpose clauses could also be analyzed as attributive modifiers. 11 Because of that, we do not analyze this as a marker of connegative form. REFERENCES Alvre, Paul. 1993. “Mõningaist passiivi erijoontest.” Keel ja Kirjandus 7: 404–409. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 2. Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

430 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

Iva, Sulev. 2007. “Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem.” PhD diss., University of Tartu. Iva, Sulev. 2010. “Grade Alternation in Võro South Estonian.” Linguistica Uralica 46 (3): 161−174. Iva, Sulev, and Karl Pajusalu. 2004. “The Võro Language: Historical Development and Present Situation.” In Language Policy and Sociolinguistics I: “Regional Languages in the New Europe” International Scientific Conference; Rēzeknes Augstskola, Latvija; 20–23 May 2004, edited by Ilga Šuplinska, 58−63. Rezekne: Rezekne Augstskolas Izdevnieceba. Janhunen, Juha. 1982. “On the Structure of Proto-Uralic.” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44: 23–42. Juhkason, Grethe. 2011. “Võru momentaanid ja frekventatiivid.” Unpublished MA diss., University of Tartu. Juhkason, Grethe, Andreas Kalkun, Liina Lindström, and Helen Plado. 2012. “Petserimaa setodest ja nende keelest 2010.–2011. a välitööde põhjal.” In Õdagumeresoomõ piiriq. Läänemeresoome piirid. Finnic borders, edited by Sulev Iva, 11−29. Võro: Võro Institute. Kallio, Petri. 2012. “The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic.” In A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, edited by Riho Grünthal and Petri Kallio, 225–238. Helsinki: SKS. Kask, Arnold. 1984. Eesti murded ja kirjakeel. Tallinn: Valgus. Keem, Hella. 1997. Võru keel. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Emakeele Selts. Keem, Hella, and Inge Käsi 2002. Eesti murded VI. Võru murde tekstid. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut. Kehayov, Petar, Liina Lindström, and Miina Norvik. forthcoming. “Finnic Participles and Participial Constructions in Typological, Intra-genetic and Areal Perspective.” In Major and Minor Languages in the Eastern Circum-Baltic Region, edited by Peter Arkadiev and Björn Wiemer. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Koivisto, Vesa. 1989 “Itämerensuomen refleksiivitaivutuksen ja mediaalitaivutuksen suhteesta.” Virittäjä 93 (1): 102–110. König, Ekkehard. 1985. “Where do Concessives Come From? On the Development of Concessive Connectives.” In Historical Semantics. Historical Word-Formation, edited by Jacek Fisiak, 263–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koreinik, Kadri. 2013. The Võro Language in Estonia: ELDIA Case-Specific Report. Mainz/Wien/Helsinki/Tartu/Mariehamn/Oulu/Maribar: ELDIA. Koreinik, Kadri. 2015. Võru keel: ELDIA uuringu lühikokkuvõte. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators. Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. “The Perfect-Aspectual, Temporal and Evidential.” Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 6: 365–384. Lindström, Liina. 1997. “Eitus Võru murde suulises kõnes.” In Läänemeresoome lõunapiir, edited by Karl Pajusalu and Jüvä Sullõv, 143–154. Võro: Võro Instituut. Lindström, Liina. 2017. “Partitive Subjects in Estonian Dialects.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 8 (2): 191‒231. Lindström, Liina, Mervi Kalmus, Anneliis Klaus, Liis Bakhoff, and Karl Pajusalu. 2009. “Ainsuse 1. isikule viitamine eesti murretes.” Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 54: 159‒185. Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, and Helen Plado. 2021. “Variation in negation in Seto.” Studies in Language 45 (3): 557–597.

VÕRO SOUTH ESTONIAN 431

Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, Mirjam Ruutma, and Kristel Uiboaed. 2015. “Mineviku liitaegade kasutusest eesti murretes keelekontaktide valguses.” Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 29: 39–70. Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, Mirjam Ruutma, and Kristel Uiboaed. 2019. “On the Use of Perfect and Pluperfect in Estonian Dialects: Frequency and Language Contacts.” In Plurilingual Finnic. Change of Finnic Languages in a Multilinguistic Environment, edited by Sofia Björklöf and Santra Jantunen, 155‒193. Helsinki: FinnoUgrian Society. Lindström, Liina, and Kristel Uiboaed. 2017. “Syntactic Variation in ‘Need’-Constructions in Estonian Dialects.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40 (3): 313–349. Lippus, Pärtel, Eva Liina Asu, Pire Teras, and Tuuli Tuisk. 2013. “Quantity-Related Variation of Duration, Pitch and Vowel Quality in Spontaneous Estonian.” Journal of Phonetics 41 (1): 17−28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.09.005. Loosaar, Mari-Ann. 2016. Ainsuse 1. isiku pronoomeni väljakätt Ida-Seto tekstides. Unpublished BA diss., University of Tartu. http://dspace.ut.ee/handle/10062/53111. Mets, Mari, Anu Haak, Triin Iva, Grethe Juhkason, Mervi Kalmus, Miina Norvik, Karl Pajusalu, Pire Teras, Tuuli Tuisk, and Lembit Vaba. 2014. Eesti murded IX. Lõunaeesti keelesaarte tekstid. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut, Tartu Ülikool. Metslang, Helle, and Liina Lindström. 2017. “The Essive in Estonian.” In Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State, edited by Casper de Groot, 57−90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Niilus, Valter. 1936. “Leivu passiivist.” Eesti Keel 4: 109–112. Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions, edited by Timothy Shopen, 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noonan, Michael. 2007. “Complementation.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions, 2nd ed., edited by Timothy Shopen, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pajusalu, Karl. 2022. “Seto South Estonian.” In Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, edited by Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, and Elena Skribnik, 367–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pajusalu, Karl, Tiit Hennoste, Ellen Niit, Peeter Päll, and Jüri Viikberg. 2009. Eesti murded ja kohanimed, 2nd ed. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Pajusalu, Karl, and Liena Muižniece. 1997. “Mineviku partitsiibi grammatikaliseerumisest lõunaeesti murretes.” In Õdagumeresoomõ lõunapiir´. Läänemeresoome lõunapiir, edited by Karl Pajusalu and Sulev Iva, 96–101. Võro: Võro Instituut. Pajusalu, Renate. 1998. “Eesti pronoomenid II. Võru sjoo, taa, tuu ja timä.” Keel ja Kirjandus 3: 159–172. Pilvik, Maarja-Liisa, Helen Plado, and Liina Lindström. 2021. “Murded, varieerumine ja korpusandmed. Eitussõna paiknemine võru ja seto eituslausetes.” Keel ja Kirjandus 8–9: 771−796. Plado, Helen. 2014. “Development of the Estonian Conjunction kuna ‘While, Because’ During the 20th Century.” In Contexts of Subordination, edited by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski, and Helena Sorva, 269–286. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Plado, Helen. 2015. “des- ja mata-konverbi kasutusest eesti murretes.” Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 60: 195–218.

432 HELEN PLADO, LIINA LINDSTRÖM, AND SULEV IVA

Plado, Helen. 2017. “Variation of the Conditional Marker of Võro: the (contact-induced) change of the system.” Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zürich, September 2017. Posti, Lauri. 1961. “Itämerensuomalaisen verbitaivutuksen kysymyksiä.” Virittäjä 65 (4): 351–366. Reile, Maria, Helen Plado, Harmen B. Gudde, and Kenny R. Coventry. 2020. “Demonstratives as Spatial Deictics or Something More? Evidence from Common Estonian and Võro.” Folia Linguistica 54 (1): 167–195. Ruutma, Mirjam. 2019. “Do Contact Languages Influence the Distribution of Prepositions in Estonian Dialects?” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42 (3): 365−384. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1977. “Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä.” Virittäjä 81: 119–136. Teras, Pire. 2003. “Lõunaeesti vokaalisüsteem: Võru pikkade vokaalide kvaliteedi muutumine.” PhD diss., University of Tartu. Uiboaed, Kristel. 2010. “Ühendverbid eesti murretes.” Keel ja Kirjandus 1: 17−36. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1985. “Läänemeresoome murdeliigenduse põhijooned.” Keel ja Kirjandus 7: 399–404. Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann. (1864) 2002. Versuch ueber den werroehstnischen Dialekt. Uurimus Võru murdest. Tartu: University of Tartu.

CHAPTER 10

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES Riho Grünthal

10.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on Finnic languages as a Uralic branch sharing transparent similarities originating in their common background. The focus is twofold. While there are Finnic features that are characteristic of the Uralic languages as a language family, the more specific and detailed parallels can be drawn in a more limited area restricted to the Finnic languages. As in most other Uralic languages, suffixal morphology plays an important role in the flagging of grammatical relations. Special emphasis will be placed on non-standard varieties of Karelian, Ludic, Veps, Ingrian, Votic, South Estonian, and Livonian in order to illustrate not only the most characteristic comparative and contrastive features but also language change from a typological perspective. In languages lacking a long written tradition and other integrative forces, the dynamic nature of language is often more salient than in modern standard languages, such as Finnish and Estonian. From a comparative perspective, the most transparent similarities between the Finnic languages are found in their basic vocabulary and inflectional morphology. The most salient Uralic characteristics are found in the same categories, such as verb and case inflection. Compared to other branches of the Uralic family, the Finnic languages (together with Saamic) are geographically more western and, historically, have been more heavily influenced by Indo-European languages than the other branches. Both lexicon and grammar include borrowings and features that make a clear distinction between Finnic, Saamic, and more eastern Uralic languages, including Hungarian. Nevertheless, many inherited Uralic features are still productive and highly frequent in the Finnic languages as well, regardless of the extent to which they have undergone secondary changes and have been influenced by language contacts. The Finnic branch has two modern state languages with relatively long literary traditions beginning in the sixteenth century, namely, Estonian and Finnish, and a large number of other languages which have only a short literary history or which lack a literary standard completely. These include Karelian, Lude, Veps, Ingrian, Votic, South Estonian (alternatively labeled as Võru), Livonian, and their dialects. The estimated number of current speakers of individual languages as the main varieties is presented in Table 10.1. Dialects of the main varieties are listed in Table 10.2. Without modern language policies and rights, the sociological status of minority languages accelerated language shift considerably in the twentieth century, leading to a massive erosion of speech communities and disruptions in the networks of local variants. Secondarily, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, two younger varieties arising from northern Finnish dialects gained the status of official minority languages: Meänkieli in Sweden, and Kven in Norway. DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-10

434 RIHO GRÜNTHAL TABLE 10.1  THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SPEAKERS OF FINNIC LANGUAGES FROM NORTH TO SOUTH Finnish

5 million

Karelian

20 000

Ludic

200

Veps

3000

Ingrian

70

Votic

5

Estonian

1 million

South Estonian (Võro)

50 000

Livonian

extinct

TABLE 10.2  MAIN DIALECTS (= D.) OF DOCUMENTED FINNIC LANGUAGES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Northern Finnic Finnish South-Western d. Häme d. South Ostrobothnian d. Middle and North Ostrobothnican d. Northern d. Savo d. South-Eastern d. Karelian Northern d. Southern d. Tver Karelian (and other ling. enclaves) Livvi Karelian Ludic Northern and Central d. Southern d. Veps Northern d. Central d. Southern d. Ingrian Ala-Laukaa d. Soikkola d. Hevaha d. Oredezh d.

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 435 Southern Finnic Votic Western d. Eastern d. Kukkusi d. Estonian Insular d. Western d. Central d. North-Eastern d. Eastern d. South Estonian Mulgi d. Tartu d. Võru d. (incl. Leivu and Lutsi enclaves) Setu d. (incl. Kraasna enclave) Livonian Courland d. Salaca d.

The geographical core area of the Finnic languages is located at the north-eastern corner of the Baltic Sea Area, whence they have spread mainly towards the north and north-east. Compared to the relatively late spread area in the north, in present-day Finland and Karelia, the Finnic languages have a somewhat-longer history on the territory of present-day Estonia, northern Latvia, and areas adjacent to St. Petersburg that used to be Finnic-speaking before the town was founded at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Traditional taxonomical models of the Finnic languages have repeatedly divided them into southern and northern Finnic languages or, alternatively, south-western and north-eastern (Itkonen 1983; Kallio 2015a; Koponen 1991; Laakso 2001, 204–205; Laanest 1982, 26–29; Lehtinen 2007, 154–167; Ojansuu 1922, 139–145; Setälä 1917, 504–505; Viitso 1978, 1985). In many areas, the distribution of geographically adjacent Finnic dialects reflects predominantly a chain of closely related varieties sharing vocabulary and grammar to such an extent that it has enabled mutual communication in practical situations instead of being unambiguously distinct languages. In certain areas—such as southern Estonia, Ingria, and western Karelia—this has led to secondary integration between closely related languages. Most classificatory models seek to explain the gradual diverging and dispersal of individual Finnic languages, whereas the mechanisms and details of secondary integration are so far less well known. Population growth, economic strengthening, and cultural diffusion have moderated language spread in Finnic-speaking areas over time. The maximum geographical distribution was reached by the early twentieth century, when many old speech communities still continued to exist and more recent settlements and colonization had established their position. Although geographically a much larger part of the Finnic-speaking territory was located on the northern and eastern side of the Gulf of Finland (see Figure 10.1), it is

436 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

FIGURE 10.1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAIN VARIETIES OF THE FINNIC LANGUAGES.

assumed that, historically, the Finnic languages have mainly spread from south to north and, secondarily, from west to east. Most models discussing the emergence, diffusion, and splitting of the Finnic languages suggest that Proto-Finnic was spoken in the early Iron Age in the north-eastern Baltic Sea area, correlating to the periodization of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Germanic, from which ample lexical material was borrowed into Proto-Finnic (Itkonen 1983, 205–221; Junttila 2015a, 2015b; Kallio 2003, 2012, 2015a; Koivulehto 1999, 2016; Lang 2016, 2018; LÄGLOS; Thomsen 1890). Later, during the early Middle Ages, the contacts between Proto-Scandinavian and northern Finnic, for instance, were areally more clearly limited because borrowed vocabulary is attested solely in northern Finnic languages (Schalin 2018), a fact which suggests an ante quem periodization for the dispersal of the earliest Finnic varieties. 10.2 VOCABULARY AND LANGUAGE CONTACTS The early Uralic background of the Finnic languages is reflected in inherited basic vocabulary, characteristic of populations that only subsequently adopted agriculture and closer cultural networks with neighbouring peoples. The core vocabulary is connected with

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 437

nature (such as Finnish joki ‘river,’ kala ‘fish,’ kivi ‘stone,’ maa ‘earth,’ muna ‘egg’); basic physical actions (e.g. elä- ‘to live,’ juo- ‘to drink,’ kuule- ‘to hear,’ mene- ‘to go,’ tule- ‘to come’); body-part terms (jalka ‘leg,’ käsi ‘hand,’ pää ‘head/end,’ silmä ‘eye’); kinship terms and other early societal terms (emä ‘mother,’ nainen ‘woman,’ poika ‘boy/ son’); as well as numerals from ‘1’ to ‘7’ (and, with Mordvinic, to ‘10’); and the adpositional stems ala- ‘under,’ ete- ‘before,’ taka- ‘behind,’ and ylä- ‘above.’ (For more details, see Aikio 2015, 51–66; EES; Häkkinen 1984; Joki 1988; SSA; UEW). Despite the limited number of inherited Uralic word stems, the frequency of early lexical strata is increased by derivations, such as Finnish men-nä go-inf ‘to go’→ menettä-ä go-caus-inf ‘to lose’ and elä-ä live-inf ‘to live’ → elä-mä live-nmlz ‘life,’ and secondary semantic innovations. These characteristics are preserved in the attested Finnic languages, with the exception of Livonian, in which derivational morphology has lost much of its productivity in comparison with other Finnic languages. Shared Finnic vocabulary is clearly distinct and more abundant than sets of cognate vocabulary with a wider distribution in Uralic, and the borrowing of names for new concepts from neighbouring languages at various stages has increased the amount of shared Finnic-specific vocabulary. Geographically, borrowings from prehistorical Baltic, such as (Finnish) halla ‘frost,’ heinä ‘hay,’ and tytär ‘daughter,’ and Germanic languages, such as kallio ‘rock,’ kana ‘hen,’ pelto ‘field,’ etc., have a considerably narrower distribution, which is an important argument for locating such language contacts in the vicinity of the Baltic Sea area. The number of Baltic and especially early Germanic borrowings is clearly higher than that of the inherited Uralic stems in Finnic. This shows the importance of language contacts for the early development of the Finnic languages in the process leading to a gradually acquired status as a separate branch of Uralic. The Baltic and Germanic strata include numerous cultural loans, a witness to technical developments and the increasing importance of agriculture. They result from contacts with languages that had not yet split areally into individual languages (Hofstra 1985; Junttila 2015a; Kallio 2008, 2012, 2015b; Koivulehto 1999; LÄGLOS; Suhonen 1988; Thomsen 1890). Language contacts have influenced the development of individual languages as well, with varying intensity. While Finnish western dialects are located at the contact zone with Swedish, they have not been fundamentally affected by this. On the other hand, Saamic influence in toponymics is historically more important: it constitutes a significant substratum in later Finnish-speaking areas. Illustrative examples are lakenames Kukasjärvi, Kukkasjärvi, Iso-Kukkamo, Vähä-Kukkamo, etc. located in Finland, reflecting the (Proto-)Saamic adjective *kukkē(-s) ‘long,’ and likewise topographic terms Kotkonniemi, Kotkuunniemi reflecting (Proto-)Saamic *kuotkōj ‘isthmus; promontory’ (Aikio 2007, 2009, 2012a). Contemporary Karelian, Ludic, and Veps have been heavily influenced by Russian, especially during the continuous spread of bilingualism and language shift in the twentieth century (Sarhimaa 1992, 1995, 1999). But the Slavonic influence on Finnic in more general terms began during the Middle Ages, as the Slavonic spread overlapped with the Finnic-speaking territories in many areas (Kallio 2006; Mullonen 2002; Must 2000; Saarikivi 2009, 109–124). The degree to which Slavonic and, later, Russian have influenced Finnic also varies. Slavonic influence on Votic, for instance, is not as strong as in Veps. Compared to Votic, Ingrian has far fewer Russian loanwords. Contrary to this, the multilingual situation in Ingria involved mutual contacts between local Finnic languages as well, most notably Ingrian and Finnish influence on Votic and Finnish influence on Ingrian. However, during

438 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

the past few generations, functional borrowing and the transfer of Russian syntactic patterns have become highly characteristic features at the contact zone as language shift has rapidly proceeded (cf. Kehayov 2017). Estonian dialects and the literary language have preserved a great deal of borrowed vocabulary, both the North and South Estonian literary languages having been first created by German-speaking priests. This enhanced the influx of German loanwords, which had already begun in the thirteenth century. New words were adopted into Estonian, for example, haamer ‘hammer,’ hunt ‘wolf,’ loss ‘castle,’ peegel ‘mirror,’ ruum ‘space,’ etc., and syntactic influence took place parallel with it, cf. the use of Estonian läbi ‘through’ in constructions such as raamat läbi luge-ma book through read-inf ‘read (the whole) book’ and German das Buch durchlesen the book through.read ‘read the (whole) book.’ The contacts had already begun in an oral form during the mediaeval Hanseatic League in early urban centres, such as Tallinn, Tartu, Pärnu, and Viljandi (Hinderling 1981; Liin 1964). Areal contacts and the institutions of Russian political and religious power, such as the Orthodox Church, have contributed to the adoption of Slavonic and Russian loanwords in Estonian, most intensively in the eastern dialects of (North) Estonian and South Estonian (Must 2000). Many Russian borrowings are found in the Estonian literary language as well (Blokland 2009). Compared to Estonian, there are far fewer Russian borrowings in Finnish (Kalima 1952; Plöger 1973). The southern area of Estonian and South Estonian dialects has been influenced by Latvian, although words of Latvian origin (Vaba 1997), similarly to Swedish borrowings in West Estonia, are typically more limited geographically. Latvian has much more intensively influenced Livonian (Grünthal 2015; Suhonen 1973; Winkler 2011), both lexically and grammatically, as the last generations of Livonian speakers before the final language shift used to be bilingual. There have also been numerous secondary contacts and integration zones between Finnic variants (cf. Ariste 1970; Grünthal 2020). Despite the transparent relatedness, the Finnic language area is far from uniform: it includes a great deal of typological diversity and secondary, contact-induced phenomena. Thus, following Aikhenvald’s (2001, 1–3) parameters, we may say that language universals, genetic retention, borrowing, diffusion, and convergence are all symptomatic of the formation of the Finnic spread zone. While the Finnic languages unambiguously constitute a sub-branch within the Uralic language family, the dynamics leading to the rise of documented Finnic variants is multifaceted. 10.3 A TYPOLOGICAL OUTLINE 10.3.1 Phonology The Finnic languages display a wide range of diverse phonological systems. There are significant differences between the consonant inventories of individual languages, especially in the number and character of the stops and sibilants. As a rule of thumb, languages under heavy foreign interference, such as Livonian and Veps, have larger consonant inventories than other Finnic languages. Compared to the scanty number of consonants in the Standard Finnish consonant paradigm, consisting of 12 core (p, t, d, k, m, n, s, h, l, r, v, j) and 5 marginal and less frequent, secondary consonants (b, f, g, ŋ, š [ʃ  ]) with clear lexical and phonological constraints, there are considerably more consonants in Karelian, Veps, and Livonian. The main difference is that these languages (with the exception of the northernmost Karelian dialects) display both voiceless and voiced plosives and sibilants as well as voiceless affricates. What is more, phonological palatalization of consonants extends considerably the number of distinguishable phonemes in Veps (Table 10.3) and Livonian (Table 10.4).

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 439 TABLE 10.3  CONSONANT PARADIGM IN VEPS (LITERARY STANDARD)

Stops (voiced)

Labial

Dental

Palato- alveolar

p b

t d

t’ d’

Affricates

Velar

Glottal

k g

c č

Fricatives (voiced)

f

sš z ž

s’ z’

Nasals

m

n

n’

lr

l’ r’

Liquids Approximants

Palatal

v

h

j

TABLE 10.4  CONSONANT PARADIGM IN LIVONIAN (STANDARDIZED LATVIANBASED ORTHOGRAPHY)

Stops (voiced)

Labial

Dental

Palato- alveolar

p b

t d

ț ḑ

Fricatives (voiced) Nasals

Velar

Glottal

k g

sš z ž m

Liquids Approximants

Palatal

v

n

ņ

lr

ļŗ j

In addition to these consonants, Standard Veps orthography occasionally or very rarely indexes palatalized p,’ b,’ k,’ g,’ m’ ja c’ as distinguishable phonemes at least in certain words. This, however, correlates with the very widespread tendency to palatalize consonants before front vowels and, as a rule, can be considered as a phonetic feature. The lack of glottals is the most significant sign of erosion in the Livonian consonant paradigm. The increase of the phoneme inventory mainly consists of (i) the appearance of voiced stops and fricatives, (ii) secondary sibilants and affricates, and (iii) palatalizing of dental consonants. There are several language-specific rules concerning the privileges of occurrence of consonant clusters and the combinability of different consonants. The most striking feature that affects syllable and word structure is morphologically determined quantitative and qualitative alternation (discussed in Section 3.2 later), which is lacking in both Livonian and Veps but is characteristic of the morphology of the other Finnic languages. In Livonian, there is a more specific kind of morphologically conditioned stem alternation. The differences between vowel paradigms are smaller in terms of the basic which inventory, which consists of Standard Finnish and Estonian ä, a, e, ö (lacking from Livonian), õ (lacking from northern Finnic), o, i, ü (lacking from Livonian), and u. Prosody and syllable structure typically influence the length and quality of vowels, which means

440 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

that there are significant differences in the way vowels operate as syllable-bearing phonemes and in inflected words. The degree to which quantity opposition between short and long vowels is implemented varies in individual languages. Historically, the emergence of long vowels in Finnic is considered a secondary innovation not shared with other Uralic languages (Aikio 2012b, 2015). Originally, all Finnic languages distinguished short and long vowels, for instance Fin., Kar., Ing., Vot., Est., sEst. tuli, Liv. tu’ļ ‘fire’ vs. Fin., Kar., Ing., Vot. tuuli, Est. tuul, sEst. tuul´, Liv. tūļ ‘wind.’ This opposition is most regularly preserved in Ingrian, Votic, and Standard Estonian, while the diphthongization of close-mid and, in certain variants, open vowels is rather widespread in Finnish, Karelian, Lude, North Estonian dialects, and Livonian, cf. the inflection of the verb Finnish juo-, Estonian juu- : joo‘to drink’ in Tables 10.6 and 10.7 that follow. In contrast, original first-syllable long vowels have shortened in Veps, as a rule, for example, tullei ‘wind’ and jo-da ‘to drink.’ In Livonian, the secondary lengthening of first-syllable vowels, for example, rānda ‘coast, shore,’ or second-syllable vowels, if the original first syllable is short, as in kalā ‘fish,’ derives from a more fundamental change in the quantity system and the rise of language-specific metaphony, due to which vowel length depends on syllable structure and the strengthening of first-syllable pitch accent (Lehiste et al. 2008; Pajusalu 2012; Viitso 2007). The emergence of long vowels in non-initial syllables is a language-specific feature and derives from secondary phonological changes. These include (1) the merger of vowels of two different syllables after the loss of an intervocalic consonant, such as Finnish hyppää-n jump-1sg, reconstructed as *hüppäδä-n; (2) the monophthongization of a stem vowel and a morphological marker that is characteristic of Southern Veps, as in put-nuuž happen-pst.cond, cf. Central Veps put-nu-iž happen-pst-cond, for which see examples (32) and (47); and (3) the shift of pitch accent in Livonian. With regard to the relationship between the phonological system of the Finnic languages and earlier stages, it is assumed that the phoneme paradigm of Proto-Finnic underwent a throughout restructuring (Aikio 2012b, 2015; Laanest 1982, 96–120; Lehtinen 2007, 94–154; Posti 1953; Viitso 2008, 135–144). The outcome of this far-reaching set of phonological changes was that the number of consonants decreased, while there arose new vowels and especially vowel combinations, including a widespread quantity correlation, new diphthongs, and new combinations of vowels in stressed and non-initial syllables. 10.3.2 Morphology The strong Uralic preference for suffixal morphology is seen in Finnic in both inflection and derivation of noun and verb. Both systems display old inherited Uralic suffixes as well as secondary ones, with a more limited distribution. Inflectional morphology is used as the basic means for distinguishing between grammatical relations and flagging grammatical core functions, while derivation is a productive way of enriching the nominal and verbal lexicon. When both derivational and inflectional affixes are used, derivational morphemes always precede inflectional ones, as in Finnish kala|st|el-i-n fish|vblz|freq-pst-1sg ‘I used to fish.’ Regardless of considerable phonological differences and the erosion of suffixes and other word-final elements, the similarity between inflectional categories across the Finnic languages is quite striking. Morphologically, the word is the basic element that inflects for certain categories characteristic of nouns or

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 441

verbs. However, the word itself may vary considerably because the loss of suffixes has triggered an increase in the number of flexive forms in the southern Finnic languages Votic, Estonian, South Estonian, and Livonian. The northern Finnic languages display a more transparently agglutinative morphology. The varying morphological status of a word is seen in the morphophonological alternations and stem allomorphy that the individual languages display. In southern Finnic, stem alternations have grammatical significance, and distinctions between the grammatical cases nominative : genitive : partitive in particular (but also sometimes illative as well) are often based on flexive morphology. Contrary to this, in northern Finnic languages, stem alternations correlate mostly with syllable structure. This distinction is clearly seen in the inflection of kala ‘fish,’ an inherited Uralic word in Livonian and Veps (Table 10.5). Note that there are many other adverbial cases in Veps which are not shown here (cf. Table 10.6). Historically, it is assumed that phonetic quantity alternations of plosives gave rise to the emergence of consonant gradation, for example, Finnish hapan sour.nom : happama-n sour-gen and otta-a take-inf : ota-n take-1sg. In both examples, the closed syllable triggers the short plosive, that is, the ‘weak’ grade, contrasting with the long (‘strong’) one. Given the dissimilarity between the consonant gradation systems of Finnic and Saamic, it was at one time suggested that the Finnic weakening of voiceless plosives in closed syllables originated under Germanic influence (Posti 1953; Lehtinen 2007, 144–154). However, the arguments supporting this hypothesis have since been abandoned (Koivulehto and Vennemann 1996; Kallio 2007; Viitso 2008, 120–127). In general, the quantity and quality alternations of phonemes diverge a great deal from language to language, for example, Finnish käsi : käde-n (dialectal käre-n or käe-n) handgen, Estonian käsi : käe hand.gen (for quantity alternations, see Table 10.6). Estonian, South Estonian, and Livonian display a system in which nearly all consonants and vowels are involved in at least phonetic but very frequently phonemically and grammatically distinctive alternations.

TABLE 10.5  AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGLUTINATIVE (VEPS) AND FLEXIVE (LIVONIAN) MORPHOLOGY IN FINNIC Veps Singular

Livonian Plural

Singular

Plural

nom

kala

kala-d

kalā

kalā-d

gen

kala-n

kalo-ide-n

kalā

kalā-d

prt

kala-d

kalo-i-d

ka’llõ

ka’ļ-ḑi

dat

—

—

kalā-n

kalā-dõ-n

TRA

kala-ks

kalo-i-kš

kalā-ks

kalā-dõ-ks

ill

kala-ha

kalo-i-he

ka’llõ

ka’ļ-ži

ine

kala-s

kalo-i-š

kalā-s

ka’ļ-ši

ela

kala-späi

kalo-i-špäi

kalā-st

ka’ļ-šti

Note: Instead of translative, more recent descriptions of Livonian grammar label the suffix -ks as instrumental. Livonian is the sole Finnic language to have a dative case.

442 RIHO GRÜNTHAL TABLE 10.6  CONSONANT GRADATION AND THE ALTERNATION OF WORD-INTERNAL PLOSIVES IN FINNIC, EVIDENCED BY KK:K AND NT:NN IN THE WORDS RANTA ‘SHORE, COAST’ (FINNISH) AUKKO ‘HOLE’AND ‘Hole’

‘Shore, coast’

Finnish

Votic

Estonian

Finnish

Estonian

Veps

nom

aukko

aukko

auk

ranta

rand

rand

gen

auko-n

aukoo

augu

ranna-n

ranna

randa-n

prt

aukko-a

aukko-a

auku

ranta-a

randa

randa-d

ill

aukko-on

aukkoo(sõõ)

auku

ranta-an

randa

randa-ha

10.3.2.1 Mixed morphological strategies Compared to most other Uralic languages, the consonant gradation that most Finnic and Saamic languages display is atypical, as most Uralic languages do not have a similar system at all. On the other hand, only South Saami, Veps, and Livonian lack this specific, areally widespread type of morphophonological alternation, consisting of the alternation of long and short consonants and related quantitative and qualitative, morphologically conditioned stem alternations. The way in which consonant gradation operates within different Finnic languages shows a great deal of variation, and Estonian, South Estonian, and Livonian show a much wider use of grammatically distinctive flexive forms than other Finnic languages. There is also a scholarly difference in the application of the concept of consonant gradation in Estonian and Finnish linguistics, as the Estonian tradition has extended the use of the term to all phonetic quantitative alternation, whereas the Finnish tradition tends to treat it in terms of segments limited to voiceless plosives. The shared kind of Finnic consonant gradation is illustrated in Table 10.6. Historically, the long geminate stops kk, pp, tt were all involved in a weakening to a short geminate or a single plosive (cf. aukko in Table 10.6), whereas short stops in Finnic languages other than Ludic, Veps, and Livonian alternate qualitatively in an intervocalic position and most consonant clusters (cf. ranta in Table 10.6). Historically, this system reflects the different nature of the coda portion of the geminate, that is, in the syllableclosing portion of the first of the two syllables *Vp̄pV and *Vp̆pV. Synchronically, the Finnish type of consonant gradation is based on morphological categories, since it correlates with the length of the following unstressed (typically second) syllable and affects either the quantity or the quality of stops following the stressed (typically first) syllable. In Estonian, South Estonian, and Livonian, the erosion or loss of many suffixal elements has caused much secondary overlapping of distinct morphological categories. Veps, with no consonant gradation whatsoever, displays morphophonemic alternations between vowel and consonant stems and inherited Finnic stem alternations in certain word types, for example, Veps käzi ‘hand’ : käde-n hand-gen : kä-t hand-part : käde-he hand-ill. Livonian does not have the alternation of word-internal stops but manifests ample morphologically ruled vowel and quantity changes (cf. Tables 10.5 and 10.6). As may be seen from Table 10.6, the erosion of suffixal morphology affects mostly the grammatical cases and the illative, while adverbial cases (cf. tables 10.5 and 10.6) display more clearly suffixal forms in all Finnic languages. Because of this development, the distinction between grammatical cases and the illative is based on flexive morphology. The

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 443

loss of suffixal morphology has caused secondary mergers between the nominative, genitive, partitive, and illative forms, depending on the inflectional type. In Livonian, syncretism of nominative and genitive is frequent (cf. the inflection of kalā ‘fish’ in Table 10.5), in the plural it is pervasive, and even the partitive and illative often overlap with one another. In Estonian and South Estonian, syncretism patterns between and across various cases vary according to inflectional type. Votic may occasionally show syncretism between genitive, partitive, and even illative but normally distinguishes between them by means of stem alternations or by implementing secondary partitive and illative suffixes (Grünthal 2001, 2007, 2010). Votic dialects also show some variation, as the last speakers of the westernmost dialect have considerably shorter forms than other variants. Compared to noun inflection, verbal morphology is much less affected by the loss of suffixes. Even Livonian displays transparent suffixal person and tense forms, with the exception of the first-person singular, which overlaps with third singular as in ma lugū-b I read-3sg/1sg : ta lugū-b s/he read-3sg/1sg, the distinction being maintained by means of the free subject pronoun (1sg ma vs. 3sg ta). The verbal morphology of South Estonian diverges most from the regular use of suffixal forms, as personal endings have been lost to a large extent, as illustrated in example (1). (1)

South Estonian (Kask 1980, 137) miis mõttel , et mis ma tii man think.pst.3sg that what I do.1sg ‘The man thought, “what shall I do.”’

Morphologically conditioned stem alternations involve vowels as well in many Estonian items such as tuba room.nom : toa room.gen, and in South Estonian kuul' school.nom : kooli school:gen and süü-mä eat-inf : söö-me eat-pl, as well as Livonian ke’ž hand.nom : kä’d hand.gen, läpš child.nom : laps child.gen. 10.3.2.2 Noun inflection Nouns inflect for number and case, but the use of person suffixes to index the possessor is less widespread than in other branches of Uralic. In Livonian, South Estonian, and Estonian, the person suffixes have fallen out of use entirely; they are unproductive and have strong lexical constraints in Veps as well. Those Finnic languages that have person suffixes in their nominal paradigms often use double person marking and exhibit pronouns parallel with possessive suffixes (2), though not exclusively (see also (61)). (2)

Finnish (South-Eastern) (SMS) Mie oli iha siu ie-ssä-is , mut e-t sie I was just you.2sg.gen front-ine-2sg but neg.2sg you.2sg äly-nt. grasp-ptcp.pst ‘I was just in front of you, but you didn’t get (it)!’

The singular is unmarked, whereas the plural has two allomorphs descending from *-t and *-i-. Some Finnic languages, namely, the eastern and south-eastern Finnish dialects, Karelian, and Ingrian, have a secondary plural marker -loi occurring in cases other than the nominative (3); these occur only in certain declension types, depending on the quality

444 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

of the stem vowel (e.g. Ingrian karhu-loi bear-pl.part and suzi-loi wolf-pl.part, but idikko-j-a animal-pl-part). There are only fragmentary and fully petrified traces of the dual, which presumably occurred in Proto-Uralic, as it is attested in Saamic, Ob-Ugric, and Samoyedic. (3)

Ingrian (LL 153) meije-n mets-i-z nüd ono kaige laajazi idikko-j-a, we-gen forest-pl-ine now is all.gen sort.of.pl.part animal-pl-part karhu-loi ono, suzi-loi bear-pl.part is wolf-pl.part ‘In our forests there are all kind of animals, there are bears and wolves.’

The number of cases varies between 8 (Livonian) and 17–18 (Veps) (see Table 10.7). The Livonian case system shrank as suffixes were lost and functionally replaced by analytic constructions, whereas Veps in particular has many new, secondary case suffixes.

TABLE 10.7  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF CASE SYSTEM AND THE INFLECTION OF THE PROTO-FINNIC WORD *LAPSI ‘CHILD’ IN FINNISH, ESTONIAN, VEPS, VOTIC (KATTILA), LIVONIAN, AND KARELIAN Finnish

Karelian

Veps

Votic

Estonian

Livonian

nom

lapsi

lapsi

laps'

lahsi

laps

läpš

gen

lapse-n

lapsen

lapse-n

lahzõõ

lapse

laps

prt

las-ta

las-tu

last

lassa

last

laps-tā

dat

–

–

–

–

–

lapsõ-n

ins

(lapsi-n)*

(lapsi-n)*

–

–

–

lapsõ-ks

ill

lapse-en

lapse-h

lapse-he

lahsõõ(sõõ)

lapse

lapsõ

ine

lapse-ssa

lapse-s

lapse-s

lahzõ-za

lapse-s

lapsõ-s

ela

lapse-sta

lapse-s(päi)

lapse-späi

lahzõ-ss

lapse-st

lapsõ-st

all

lapse-lle

lapse-le

lapse-le

lahzõ-llõ

lapse-le

–

ade

lapse-lla

lapse-l

lapse-l

lahzõ-ll

lapse-l

–

abl

lapse-lta

lapse-l(päi)

lapse-lpäi

lahzõ-lt(a)

lapse-lt

–

appr

–

lapse-nno

–

–

–

egr

–

lapse-nnopäi

–

–

–

tra

lapse-ksi

lapse-kse

lapse-ks

lahzõ-ssi

lapse-ks

(= ins)

ess

lapse-na

lapse-nnu

lapse-n

lahzõ-na

lapse-na

–

pro

–

lapse-či

las-tme

–

–

–

term

–

lapse-hessai

lahzõ-ssaa

lapse-ni

–

com

(lapsi-ne(en))*

lapse-nke

lapse-nke

lahzõõ-kaa

lapse-ga

(= ins)

abe

lapse-tta

lapse-ttah

lapse-ta

lahzõ-tta

lapse-ta

–

*Note: The example is paradigmatically deficient; the instrumental (ins; alternatively instructive) case in Finnish and Karelian has only plural forms.

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 445

However, the basic set of three grammatical cases, two subsets of local cases, and two cases of stative relational clauses are diagnostic characteristics of Finnic. The grammatical cases include the nominative, genitive, and partitive, which all flag nominal core constituents and are used as the cases of both subjects and objects. Both of the local case sets originally consisted of tripartite sets of so-called interior and exterior local cases encoding two basic types of spatial relations. The interior local cases are historically bimorphemic; they were built with the suffix element *-s, indicating the type of space, and an additional suffix fine-tuning the morphosyntactic property, that is, whether the case at issue is a lative, locative, or ablative. These interior local cases are labeled as the illative, inessive, and elative (ill/ine/ela) in all Finnic languages. In parallel fashion, the exterior local cases are also historically bimorphemic (although synchronically, they are monomorphemic), sharing the suffix element *-l. Furthermore, they typically occur in possessive, instrumental, and temporal constructions in addition to spatial ones. This particular set of cases is no longer productive in Livonian; its remnants are attested only in adverbialized nouns, such as sēņil ‘(picking) mushrooms,’ lāmbil ‘shepherding,’ voŗžõl ‘at roost,’ all with a very limited lexical affiliation. Very rarely, l-flagged adverbs may display a tripartite case set characteristic of local cases, as in le’žgõ-lõ ‘(to) close,’ le’žgõ-l ‘(at) close,’ le’žgõ-ld ‘(from) close’ (Blokland and Inaba 2018). Finally, two cases, the essive and translative, belong to the shared morphological basis of the Finnic languages and are used to flag predicative adverbials and secondary predicates. Table 10.7 illustrates the Finnic case system as reflected by six languages representing different geographical parts of the Finnic-speaking area. Apart from case, number is another morphologically encoded basic category of nouns. The plural nominative is *-t in all Finnic languages, for example: Finnish lapse-t, Veps lapse-d, Votic lahzõ-d, Estonian lapse-d and Livonian laps-t, all: child-pl ‘children.’ Historically, other cases encode plural with *-i, a suffix which, however, is not uniformly attested in individual Finnic languages, cf. the plural genitive of Finnish lapsien ~ lasten, Veps lapsiden, Votic lahsii ~ lahsijee ~ lahsiijõ, Estonian laste, Livonian lapst, child.pl. gen ‘of children,’ and the partitive of Finnish laps-i-a, Veps laps-i-d, Votic lahs-ii(ta) ~ lahs-i(j)-a child-pl-part, Estonian lapsi, Livonian läpš child.pl.part ‘(about) children.’ In Livonian, the plural suffix diverges in adverbial cases, for instance, laps-t-kõks child-pl-ins ‘with the children’ with plural -t-, which more commonly occurs only in the nominative, whereas the plural elative läpš-ī-st child-pl-ela ‘from the children’ has the expected plural *-i-. In Veps, the plural -i- appears more regularly in adverbial cases, for instance, laps-i-he child-pl-ill ‘(in)to children,’ laps-i-š child-pl-ine ‘in children,’ lapsi-le child-pl-all ‘for children,’ laps-i-l child-pl-ade ‘at children,’ laps-i-dme child-plprol ‘along children,’ laps-i-denke child-pl-com ‘with children.’ Besides productive case suffixes, there are also less productive and less widespread ones, such as the instructive (instrumental) (4), the prolative (cf. Table 10.7 earlier), and the equative (5). South Estonian displays the old locative suffix -n (6) that has undergone a semantic development into something corresponding to essive in most other Finnic languages. (4)

Karelian (LL 77) sit kuiva-tah iče-le vuvve-kse, suala-tah kal-ua then dry-3pl self-all year-tra salt-3pl fish-part suur-in pučči-loi-n kaks-in big-ins barrell-pl-ins two-ins ‘Then they dry (it) for themselves for one year, they salt fish in two big barrells’

446 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(5)

Ludic (LL 89) Sviižuoi-n aiga d'o ol-i ilm se vilu-hko Sv.-gen time already be-pst.3sg weather dem cold-equ ‘By the time of the Elevation of the Holy Cross [in September] the weather was already quite cold.’

(6)

South Estonian (LL 214) miä arva, et enä-mb olli tä-l I think.1sg that much-cmp be.pst.3sg s/he-ade pögzi-n ku kõttu-n trouser-ine than stomach-ine ‘I think that he had more in (his) trousers than (in his) stomach.’

One of the most striking points of distinction in the nominal inflection in contemporary Finnic languages is seen in possessive declension; see example (2). While the use of person suffixes is a characteristic feature of contemporary standard Finnish, for instance, lapse-ni child-1sg ‘my child(ren),’ lapse-si child-2sg ‘your child(ren),’ lapse-nsa child3sg/3pl ‘her/his/their child(ren),’ lapse-mme child-1pl ‘our child(ren),’ lapse-nne child-1pl ‘your.pl child(ren),’ this category has been completely lost in Estonian, South Estonian, and Livonian and is quite unproductive in Veps. Colloquial Finnish has, in recent decades, begun to follow the same path, as pronouns are now often used to express possession not only for emphasis but also instead of the person suffixes, for example, mu-n mutsi I-gen mother ‘my mother’ vs. Standard Finnish minu-n äiti-ni I-gen mother-1sg id. (Paunonen 1995). 10.3.2.3 Verb inflection Verb paradigms in the Finnic languages are based on shared inherited person, tense, and mood suffixes and a negation system based on auxiliary verbs (cf. Miestamo et al. 2015). The first- and second-person forms regularly have suffixes showing high mutual affinity, while the third-person plural is more easily affected by paradigmatic changes caused by more labile functions and less-concrete reference to its subject. Finite verb forms in Finnic distinguish singular and plural (subject) forms, a simple present tense and a simple past tense as well as two compound past tenses. Like the present tense, the indicative mood has zero suffix, while the imperative and conditional have dedicated overt suffixes. The chief difference between the verb paradigms of individual Finnic languages lies in the presence/absence of a separate reflexive conjugation. Reflexive conjugation forms occur in Karelian (7), Ludic (8), Veps, Ingrian, Votic, and South Estonian, while standard Finnish, Estonian, and Livonian lack them completely (Koivisto 1995). (7)

Karelian (LL 73) iče ku pühkäld-ii-heze-häi ga enäm e-n-go oneself when sweep-pst-refl-3sg and no.more neg-1sg-q näh-nüt kondia-du see-ptcp.pst bear-part ‘Once it swept itself away I did not see the bear any more.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 447

(8)

Ludic (LL 94) ni iče e-n ištu-ze . kuuž kuu-d dielo neg oneself neg-1sg sit-refl.cng six month-part thing se veda-zu-i it pull-refl-pst.3sg ‘I will not sit myself, either. The thing was carried on for six months.’

Tense. The basic paradigm of the Finnic present and simple past tense (imperfect) conjugation is presented in Tables 10.8 and 10.9. The present-tense forms have both present and future time reference. In copula clauses, an auxiliary may express future in Karelian lie(nöy) ‘will be,’ Veps lineb ~ lib, plural liba ‘id.,’ and Livonian līb ‘id.’ In addition to the simple past tense, the Finnic languages have two compound past tenses, perfect and pluperfect, corresponding to compound past-tense forms in Germanic. The two compound past-tense categories are based on a copula indexing person and tense and a past-tense active participle, as in Standard Finnish and Estonian (Table 10.9).

TABLE 10.8  AFFIRMATIVE PRESENT-TENSE CONJUGATION OF THE INHERITED VERB ‘TO DRINK’ IN FINNIC Finnish

Karelian

Veps

Votic

Estonian

Livonian

inf

juo-da

juu-va

jo-da

juvva

juu-a

jūo-dõ

1sg

juo-n

juo-n

jo-n

joo-n

joo-n

jūo-b

2sg

juo-t

juo-t

jo-d

joo-d

joo-d

jūo-d

3sg

juo

juou

jo-b

joo-b

joo-b

jūo-b

1pl

juo-mme

juo-mmo

jo-m(ei)

joo-mma

joo-me

jūo-m(õ)

2pl

juo-tte

juo-tto

jo-t(ei)

joo-tta

joo-te

jūo-tõ

3pl

juo-vat

juvva-h

jo-ba (jodas)

joo-vad

joo-vad

jūo-bõd

TABLE 10.9  AFFIRMATIVE PAST-TENSE CONJUGATION IN FINNIC Finnish

Karelian

Veps

Votic

Estonian

Livonian

1sg

jo-i-n

jo-i-n

jo-i-n

jõ-i-n

jõ-i-n

juo-i

2sg

jo-i-t

jo-i-t

jo-i-d

jõ-i-d

jõ-i-d

juo-i-d

3sg

jo-i

jo-i

jo-i

jõ-i

jõ-i

juo-i

1pl

jo-i-mme

jo-i-mmo

jo-i-m

jõ-i-mma

jõ-i-me

juo-i-m(õ)

2pl

jo-i-tte

jo-i-tto

jo-i-t

jõ-i-tta

jõ-i-te

juo-i-tõ

3pl

jo-i-vat

juo-di-h

jo-i-ba

jõ-i-vad

jõ-i-d

juo-i-tõ

448 RIHO GRÜNTHAL TABLE 10.10  AFFIRMATIVE COMPOUND PAST TENSES IN FINNIC, AS ATTESTED IN FINNISH AND ESTONIAN Perfect ‘(someone) has come’

Pluperfect ‘(someone) had come’

Finnish

Estonian

Finnish

Estonian

1sg

ole-n tul-lut

ole-n tul-nud

ol-i-n tul-lut

ol-i-n tul-nud

2sg

ole-t tul-lut

ole-d tul-nud

ol-i-t tul-lut

ol-i-d tul-nud

3sg

on tul-lut

on tul-nud

oli tul-lut

oli tul-nud

1pl

ole-mme tul-leet

ole-me tul-nud

ol-i-mme tul-leet

ol-i-me tul-nud

2pl

ole-tte tul-leet

ole-te tul-nud

ol-i-tte tul-leet

ol-i-te tul-nud

3pl

o-vat tul-leet

on tul-nud

oli-vat tul-leet

oli-d tul-nud

In the northern Finnic languages (9–11), Votic (12), and Livonian (13–14), the participle agrees in number with the subject, while in Estonian and South Estonian, the participle does not have number agreement. In compound past-tense forms, the agreeing participle displays properties both of verb (as the constituent manifesting the action and bearing its own valence frame) and of adjective (as a unit coreferential with the subject, manifesting characteristics of a copula clause). (9)

Karelian (LL 74) ogorod-ua viä ole-n joga kez-iä garden-part still be-1sg every summer-part ‘I have still ploughed my garden every summer.’

(10) Karelian (LL 12) šiin ol-i moa-nnun there.loc be-pst.3sg lie-ptcp.pst šittu-n shit-ptcp.pst ‘It had lain there and it had shat there.’

ta and

kündä-nüt plough-ptcp.pst

šii-h there-ill

ol-i be-pst.3sg

(11) Ludic (LL 90) šid maksuo-i hä-lle denga-d mi ol-i sanu-ttu then pay-pst.3sg s/he-all money-pl what be-pst.3sg say-pass.ptcp.pst ‘Then he paid him the money that had been agreed.’ (12) Votic (MSFOu 53: 22) õõ-t-ko siä minuu be-2sg-q you.2sg my ‘Have you eaten my goat?’

voho-ni goat-1sg

(13) Livonian (LL 237) ja salāj ka vȯ-ļ jarā and thief too be-pst.3sg away ‘And the thief got frightened, too.’

süö-nnü ? eat-ptcp.pst

ädāgõ-n frighten-ptcp.pst

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 449

(14) Livonian (CT 5: 62) pūol pittõ āt sūolõ-n-d half barrell.part be.3pl salt-ptcp.pst-pl ‘They have salted a half barrel of mackerels.’

makrill-iḑi mackerel-pl.part

Due to the ambiguous nature of participles, Central and Southern Veps dialects (15–16) in fact have only simple past tense, because the copula is frequently omitted in assumed compound past-tense forms following the model of copula clauses. In literary Veps, however, a compound past-tense system similar to that of other Finnic languages is used. (15) Veps (Southern) (MSFOu 86: 76) jauga-d hapa-nud-ed , embō foot-pl rotten-ptcp.pst-pl cannot.1sg ‘My feet have become weak, I can’t.’ (16) Veps (Central) (MSFOu 86: 77) kaik nitu-d aidei-du-d all field-pl fence-pass.ptcp.pst-pl ‘All fields have been fenced off.’ The structure of compound past-tense forms is thus Janus-like, as the inflection of the copula correlates with the indexing of subject person, while the past participle may agree in number with the subject but also displays properties of nominal attributes in pre-nominal position. Mood. The indicative mood has zero encoding, as in other Uralic languages. The imperative shows more variation, however, since all Finnic languages, with the exception of the Hevaha dialect of Ingrian (17) and eastern Votic (18), have lost the second-person singular imperative suffix *-k (19) or have a glottal stop which triggers consonant gradation. (17) Ingrian (Hevaha) (Laanest 1966, 24) i sit se vestä-g enzin and then it carve-imp.2sg first ‘And then carve it first curved like this.’

näin so

(18) Votic (Eastern) (LL 181) peze-g, peze-g de i wash-imp.2sg wash-imp.2sg and and ‘Keep washing and it will become clean!’

puhaz lee-b clean be.fut-3sg

väär-itten curved-adv

(19) Veps (Southern) (MSFOu 86: 475) mäne kucu pert-he go.imp.2sg invite.imp.2sg house-ill ‘Go and invite (him) to the house!’ In plural and third-person forms, as well as in the negative imperative and plural connegative forms, *-kA- and its variants occur more regularly (20–24). This occurs also in connegative forms of analytic third-person imperatives and prohibitives (25).

450 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(20) Karelian (LL 13) pan-ka heinä-t pois ruvo-lla ta put-imp.2pl hay-pl away pile.ade and ‘Put the hay on a pile and carry it in the barn!

kanta-kka lato-h carry-imp.2pl barn-ill

(21) Veps (Northern) (LL 130) läh-ka-m ligo-ta-ga-m d'ärv-he leave-imp-1pl dip-caus-imp-1pl lake-ill ‘Let’s go and dip the flax in the lake.’

pöuvaz flax

(22) Votic (LL 181) anta-gaa mi-ttä-id give-imp.2pl what-part-enc ‘Give anything to me!’

mi-llõ I-all

(23) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 133) ütel-ge tiiq inne say-imp.2pl you before ‘You tell first!’ (24) Livonian (LL 230) las ta võtā-g sie rō un ānda-g let s/he take-imp it money and give-imp ‘Let her/him take the money and give (it) her/him.’

tämmõ-n s/he-dat

(25) Livonian (LL 236) siz al-gõ võl-kõ īt-tõ kabāl sõida-mõst īd then neg.imp-3sg be-imp one-part piece drive-inf neg ‘Then one must not drive at all.’ (LL 236) In Veps, we have secondary analytic imperative forms built with an auxiliary—the third-person imperative of the verb olda ‘be’—and the main verb is likewise inflected for the appropriate person (26). (26) Veps (LL 118) o-k-ha vou kazva-b be-imp-3sg still grow-3sg ‘Let it still grow!’ The conditional suffixes are of twofold origin. In general, northern Finnic languages and Votic have a conditional suffix corresponding to Finnish -isi- (27–29), whereas Livonian, South Estonian, and Estonian have -ks- (30). The mood suffix always precedes person suffixes. (27) Karelian (LL 74) minä sano-n hos kuali-iži-n I say-1sg enc die-cond-1sg ‘I say, even if I would/should die.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 451

(28) Ludic (MSFOu 69, 37) ku mieu-du-iži-n , ota-iži-n mina händäi mučoi-kš if mind-refl.pass-cond-1sg take-cond-1sg I s/he.acc wife-tra ‘If I were to like her, I would take her as my wife.’ (29) Votic (MSFOu 63, 56) võtõ-tta-is tämä, pan-ta-is laivaa-sõ i take-pass-cond s/he put-pass-cond ship-ill and vällää lähete-ttä-is tämä minu maa-lt out.ill send-pass-cond s/he my country-abl ‘We would take him, put him on the ship and send him away from my country!’ (30) Livonian (LL 238) seļļi nemē jog vȯl-ks such like river be-cond.3sg ‘As it would be like a river.’ Veps (31–32) and, based on the Veps model used in language planning (Loorits 1923), Estonian are the only languages which have a morphological past-tense conditional applying the same past-tense participle suffix that occurs in compound past-tense forms. The Veps pasttense conditional is fully based on the agglutination of suffixes. Other Finnic languages use a compound past-tense conditional, like Finnish ol-isi otta-nut be-cond.3sg take-ptcp.pst and Estonian ole-ks võt-nud be-cond.3sg take-ptcp.pst both ‘s/he would have taken,’ the latter construction thus having the alternative võt-nu-ks take-ptcp.pst-cond.3sg ‘id.’ (31) Veps (Northern) (MSFOu 86: 472) ot-nu-iž ka mina män-nu-iži-n häne-n taga take-ptcp.pst-cond.3sg foc I go-ptcp.pst-cond-1sg s/he-gen behind ‘If he had taken (me), I would have become his wife.’ (32) Veps (Southern) (MSFOu 86: 472) ii pilkita-nuuž lämoo, ka e-d neg.3sg shimmer-ptcp.pst.cond fire foc neg-2sg put-nuuž kod’-he happen-ptcp.pst.cond home-ill ‘If the fire had not glimmered, you would not have found (the way) home.’ The geographical distribution of morphological moods expressing epistemic modality is much more diverse. In grammatical descriptions, they have been labeled in different ways. In northern Finnic languages, the so-called potential mood -ne- is only marginally used (33–34) and is most commonly exploited in the auxiliary stem lee- (lie-) ‘be’ (35). (33) Karelian (LL 66) minu-n tütär-dü e-t päästä-nne minä pää-n I-gen daughter-part neg-2sg let-pot.cng I head-gen/acc poikki sinu-l leikkaa-n sanoo through you-ade cut-2sg say.3sg ‘If you won’t let my daughter (go), I will cut off your head, he says.’

452 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(34) Ingrian (LL 146) ku e-d anta-ne , ken ni, muu-i-ssa ei siu-l when neg-2sg give-pot who indf other-pl-ine neg you-ade toizee-l vuu-tta üh-t lehmää-gi second-ade year-part one-part cow.part-foc ‘If you won’t give (that one), who ever, you won’t have one cow either the next year.’ (35) Karelian (LL 75) minä piäne-nnü tüttöže-nnü, nu kaksitoštu I small-ess girl-ess well twelve liä-nnö-ü ol-lud be-pot-3sg be-ptcp.pst ‘As a small girl I, well maybe I was twelve years old.’

vuat-tu year-part

Quite exceptionally, in Ludic the potential mood affix may be attached to a copula (36), which more generally is functionally complementary with the stem lee- (lie-) and its derivatives in Finnic. (36) Ludic (LL 100) jesli ol-no-b kuuzažik, ka häin . . . da hüvä keväz sano-m . . . if be-pot-3sg spruce.forest then he and good spring say-1pl ‘If it happens to be a spruce forest, then it . . . and we say that it is a good spring . . .’ In southern Finnic languages, participial forms, both present and past, are used to indicate evidentiality (37–39), used in narrative functions in ways similar to that of the potential in northern Finnic. (37) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 131) tul-nuq üles, län-nüq tõis-te öütsilis-te mano, come-ptcp.pst up go-ptcp.pst other-gen.pl night.guest-gen.pl to küzü-nüq et . . . ask-ptcp.pst that ‘(It is told that) s/he had come up, gone to other night guests, asked that . . .’ (38) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 119) sis inimese ja poesi nakka-nu-va pel’gä-mä, then people.pl and boy.pl begin-ptcp.pst-3pl be.afraid-inf län-nü-vä essitusi go-ptcp.pst-3pl lost ‘(It is told that) then people and boys had become afraid, they had gone lost.’ (39) Livonian (LL 231) sīe võttõ-n eņțš flint tubā-st sälgõ, it take-ptcp.pst own gun room-ela back.ill lǟ’-nd taļ jūrõ go-ptcp.pst stable.gen near.ill ‘He is reported to have taken his own gun from his room and to have gone to the stable.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 453

Nonfinite verb forms. In addition to inflectional morphology, verbs display nonfinite and participial forms. Infinitives are frequent in verb pairs and modal verb phrases, cf. Finnish lähde-t juokse-ma-an leave-2sg run-inf-ill, Estonian lähe-d jooks-ma leave-2sg run-inf both ‘you set off running,’ and Finnish halua-n kirjoitta-a want1sg write-inf, Estonian taha-n kirjuta-da want-1sg write-inf both ‘I want to write.’ Certain nonfinite forms may take local case endings, as Finnish juokse-ma-sta runinf-ela, Estonian jooks-ma-st run-inf-ela, Veps joks-ma-späi run-inf-ela ‘(from) running,’ and Finnish juos-te-ssa run-inf-ine, Estonian joos-te-s run-inf-ine, Veps joks-te-s run-inf-ine ‘(by) running.’ Nonfinite verbs typically occur in verb phrases (40–41) and can take only a very limited number of case suffixes, such as local case suffixes (42) in functionally limited contexts. Participles are frequently used, but as a functionally ambiguous category, they can be used in both verb and noun phrases (see the section on tense). (40) Ludic (LL 90) Ontip, vuoi-d-gi mugoma-d čabato-d ombel-ta Ontip can-2sg-foc such-pl boot-pl sew-inf ‘Ontip, so you can sew that kind of boots.’ (41) Livonian (LL 226) kurē-n um võ-nd kõzā, ku ni um rō-dõ ānda-mõzt devil-DAT is be-ptcp.pst anger when now is money-part give-inf ‘The devil has been angry, because now it has had to give money.’ (42) Karelian (LL 66) ruvet-tih surma-a ečči-mä-h begin-pst.3pl death-part search-inf-ill ‘They began to look for death.’ Derivation and aspect. Especially Karelian, Ludic, and Veps display ample derivational verb affixes. Basic derivational categories, such as bounded (momentanous) (43), continuous (frequentative) (44–45), and valence-changing suffixes such as detransitivizing (often called ‘reflexive-passive’) (46) and causative verbs are widespread in Finnic (21, 47–48), whereas in the eastern Finnic languages, certain derivation types may have an aspectual meaning (49). Derivational suffixes may also combine with one another (50–51). (43) Ingrian (LL 150) kukkoi ku mörä-ht-i sauna-n lava-n al cock when boom-mom-pst.3sg sauna-gen bench-gen under.ade laula-maa, ne poja-t kaik hävis-ii-d sing-inf.ill dem boy-pl all disappear-pst-3pl ‘When the cock burst into song under the sauna bench, all the boys disappeared.’ (44) Ludic (LL 106) vot häin i aje-lo-b hebo-l so 3sg and ride-freq-3sg horse-ade ‘So, s/he is riding the horse.’

454 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(45) Veps (LL 120) nore-d priha-d da niičče-d kerade-le-soi beseda-le young-pl boy-pl and girl-pl gather-freq-refl.3pl party-all ‘Young boys and girls gather for a party.’ (46) Karelian miähe-le men-ne-d, ga kello-t kuul-u-tah man-all go-pot-2sg and bell-pl hear-refl.pass-3pl ‘When you get married, the bells are heard.’ (LL 71) (47) Veps (Southern) (LL 112) a mamš voika-b: jä-t-ii-n lapsuz-ii-d but mother cry-3sg stay-caus-pst-1sg child-pl-part ‘But the mother is crying: I left the children!’ (48) Livonian (LL 237) ma sinnõ-n nä’g-țõ-b I you-dat see-caus-3sg/1sg ‘I’ll show you!’ (49) Ludic (LL 93) hä-lle tul-i oma sestrii da paikaiže-l 3sg-all come-pst.3sg own sister and towel-ade pühki-škaž wipe-inch.pst.3sg ‘His sister came to him and began to wipe the blood away.’

ver-d blood-part

(50) Ingrian (LL 138) si-nä pään e-t käü-nd nos-te-lo-mmaa it-ess day.ess neg-2sg walk-ptcp.pst rise-caus-freq-inf.ill ‘That day you didn’t start lifting them.’

hei-dä they-part

(51) Karelian (LL 71) sežo kävväh kuunde-le-ma-h ku-späi also begin.3pl hear.tra-freq-inf-ill where-ela ‘Also people start listening, from where . . .’ In Livonian, verbs may occasionally take Latvian verbal prefixes, such as aiz+, ie+, pa+, pie+, uz+, etc., an adverbial characteristic that operates mainly as a lexically ruled feature in Livonian (52). (52) Livonian (MSFOu 250, 15) ni slikți lī-b sīe pierāst, ku pie+juo-t-iz now bad become-3sg it because when at+drink-caus-3sg(1sg) krīevõ zōldat-iḑi Russian soldier-pl.part ‘Now we’ll have difficulties, because I gave the Russian soldiers to drink.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 455

10.3.2.4 Adjectives Adjectives are either basic word stems, such as Karelian hyvä ‘good,’ musta ‘black,’ Veps hüvä, must, Votic üvä, mussa, Livonian jõvā, mustā, or else they are (historically) derived, for example, Karelian valkie ‘white,’ Veps vauged, Votic valkõa, Livonian vālda ‘id.,’ or display a productive derivational affix as Karelian keltaine, Veps pakuine Votic kõltõin ‘yellow’. The adjective type *valketa represents an inherited Uralic derivational type, most clearly seen in Mari wolgydo ‘light, bright,’ but also Veps vauged ‘white, bright, light.’ The old trisyllabic structure and open second syllable, cf. Votic valkõa white.nom : valkõa-d white-pl, Estonian `valge white.nom : `valge white.gen : `valge-d white-pl, explain why the stem does not gradate. Secondly, in Standard Estonian, the weight of the first syllable also affects the inflectional type of former *-eta adjectives, cf. kole ugly.nom: koleda ugly.gen. Adjectives inflect for case and number like nouns, but comparison is, as a rule, the property of adjectives solely. They also lack the paradigm of personal suffixes (if the given Finnic language has them). The index of comparison of scalar adjectival properties is based on the suffix |mpA, manifested in different ways in contemporary Finnic languages, including -mpi- ~ -mbi- ~ -mb- ~ -m- ~ -b- ~ -p- etc. (53–55). (53) Karelian (LL 85) d'eröünä-n kodi-loi-kse suure-mb , a kupsa-n piäne-mb village-gen house-pl-tra big-cmp but merchant-gen small-cmp ‘It is bigger than a village house but smaller than a merchant’s house.’ (54) Votic (MSFOu 63, 42) se õl-i kõikkinaa umnõi-b it be-pst.3sg altogether clever-cmp ‘He was overall more clever than me.’

ku miä than I

(55) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 111) ei ole mia kauge-pe-l saa-nu kui neg be.cng I far-cmp-all get-ptcp.pst than ‘I have not been further away than Nuia town.’

nuija linna Nuia town.ill

A synthetic superlative form occurs in northern Finnic languages and, instigated by conscious language planning, also in Estonian: suur ‘big’ : suure-m big-cmp ‘bigger than’: suur-im big-supl ‘the biggest one.’ However, analytical constructions are widely used to indicate the highest degree of scalarity, as in (56–57), where the comparative form of the adjective is combined with the genitive of ‘all.’ (56) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 135) tä-l ol’l’i-q kige pare-mba söögi-q ja joogi-q s/he-ade be.pst-pl all.gen good-cmp food-pl and drink-pl ‘He had the best foods and drinks.’ (57) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 135) Artturi uma ol’ kige Arthur.gen own was all.gen ‘Arthur’s own was the best.’

pare-mb good-cmp

456 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

The comparative suffix has other functional properties as well: it occurs as a defining deictic element in personal pronoun stems as Finnish kumpi ‘which of two?’ as Ingrian kumbo (58), and in adverbs such as Finnish kauka-na far-ess ‘far away’ : kaue-mpa-na far-cmp-ess ‘further away.’ (58) Ingrian (LL 148) tüdöi-n sugu tali poja-n sugu, kumbo ott-i girl-gen family or boy-gen family which take-pst.3sg nais-ta tali kumbo miihe-lle män-i woman-part or who.cmp man-all go-pst.3sg ‘Either the girl’s or boys family, (depending on) which one was taking a wife or husband.’ 10.3.2.5 Pronouns and demonstratives All pronominal categories distinguish the core morphological features of ordinary nouns: case and number. But pronoun paradigms are not fully identical and may be deficient or, unlike all other nominals, may have a distinct accusative case, as seen, for example, in the Finnish personal pronouns minu-t : sinu-t : häne-t : meidä-t : teidä-t : heidä-t, though most Finnic languages do not have this system. It is common that the personal pronouns display a partitive-based form of the object instead, as in Livonian mīn-da I-part ‘me,’ sīn-da you-part ‘you (obj.),’ tǟn-da s/he-part ‘him/her,’ or Estonian min-d I-part ‘me,’ sin-d you-part ‘you (obj.),’ te-da s/he-part ‘him/her.’ First- and second-person pronouns belong to the most transparent inherited Uralic vocabulary, the singular pronouns descending from bisyllabic words corresponding to Finnish minä ‘I’ and sinä ‘you (sg),’ often shortening to monosyllabic pronouns, such as Livonian ma ‘I’ and sa ‘you (sg).’ Corresponding plural forms Finnish me ‘we’ and te ‘you (pl),’ Karelian myö and työ, Veps mö and tö, Estonian meie and teie show language-specific variation, while Livonian mēg and tēg as well as South Estonian miiq and tiiq exhibit the descendants of a word-final stop, possibly an old Uralic dual marker. Compared to the first- and second-person forms, the third-person personal pronouns have been more strongly influenced by the restructuring of the pronominal system. Both third-person singular and plural may originate from earlier demonstrative pronouns, such as Votic tämä ‘s/he,’ nämäd ‘they,’ Estonian tema ~ ta, nemad ~ nad, South Estonian timä, nimäq, and Livonian ta, ne. Historically, these used to have bisyllabic stems (as many Finnic varieties still do), but shortened variants are frequent in synchronic data as singular person pronouns. As far as their inflection is concerned, personal pronouns usually take the same adverbial cases as nouns, while the inflection of grammatical cases varies from language to language or even dialect to dialect. The functional shift from demonstrative to personal pronouns has caused secondary changes and, in some languages, created a path for further innovations. It is assumed that the Finnic demonstrative pronoun system formerly consisted of a three-degree opposition of proximal, medial, and distal pronouns with both distinct singular and plural forms, as for example, Finnish and Karelian tämä ‘this’/ tuo ‘that’/ se ‘it,’ plural nämä ‘these’/ nuo ‘those’ / ne ‘they,’ or South Estonian seo / taa / tuu, plural neoq / naaq / nuuq. In Votic, Estonian, and Livonian, the shift of the proximal demonstrative pronoun to a personal pronoun has decreased the referential contrasts between demonstratives, as their number is more limited, cf. Estonian see ‘this; that; it’ and Livonian se id. In Votic,

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 457

se(e) ‘this, it’ is still used in older published data; however, a secondary demonstrative kase ‘this,’ kane ‘these’ was introduced as a proximal demonstrative (59–60). In Veps, the personal pronoun system has not undergone any major changes. Nevertheless, the demonstrative pronoun se ‘it,’ plural ne ~ ned ~ nene, has become semantically more generic and is widely used as a focus particle, most typically in post-nominal but also in other positions. Secondary nece ‘this’ has taken over the functions of a primary demonstrative pronoun (61). (59) Votic (LL 177) kase kõik tšääne-tt-i it all turn-pass-pst ‘It was all turned (around).’ (60) Votic (Eastern) (LL 181) pan-i-mmag sõva-d kane puhtaa-d tämmää pää-lee put-pst-1pl cloth-pl they clean-pl s/he.gen head-all ‘We put clean clothes on her/him.’ (61) Veps (LL 122) nece ak sanu-b häne-le this woman say-3sg 3sg-all ‘This woman says to her/him.’ Interrogative pronoun stems belong to the layer of best-preserved inherited Uralic vocabulary (Aikio 2022). These are ke- ‘who,’ referring to humans; ku- ‘where; how,’ typically coreferential with local entities but also ‘who’; and mi- ‘what,’ referring to non-human entities. While the stem of interrogative pronouns is often the primary source of indefinite pronouns as well, the derivation of interrogatives and their adaptation to inflectional morphology are typically language-specific. Thus, both the nominative and other cases of interrogative pronouns show considerable variation, cf. Finnish (literary) kuka ‘who’ displaying a suppletive but inflectionally complete case paradigm: kene-n : ke-tä : kene-ssä : kene-llä etc., mikä ‘what’ : minkä what.gen : mi-tä what-part : mi-ssä what-ine. Karelian: ken who.nom : kene-n who-gen : ke-tä who-part : ke-he who-ill : ke-s(sä) who-ine : ke-stä who-ela; ku-h where-ill : ku-ssa where-ine : ku-sta where-ela; mi what.nom : mi-n what-gen : mi-tä what-part : mi-h(i) what-ill : mi-s(sä) what-ine : mi-stä what-ela. Karelian ku-nna where-ess ‘where’ formally displays the essive affix but is historically a lexicalized locative (62). Veps: ken who.nom : kene-n who-gen : ke-da who-part : ke-he who-ill : ke-s who-ine : ke-späi who-ela : ke-lle who-all : ke-l who-ade etc.; ku-hu where-ill ~ kuna where.ill : ku-s where-ine : ku-späi where-ela; mi what.nom : mi-n what-gen : mi-da what-part : mi-tte what-equ : mi-čče-d what-equ-pl. Votic: tšen who.nom : tšenee who.gen : tše-tä who-part; ku-hõ where-ill : ku-za where-ine : ku-ss(a) where-ela; migä what.nom : mi-tä what–part. Livonian: kis who : kīen who.gen/who.dat ~ kīnga who./who.dat : kie-dā whopart : kīen-kõks ~ kīnga-ks who-ins : kīenõ who.ill : kīen-stõ who-ela; ku-s where-ine (63); mis what.nom/what.gen : mi-dā what-part : missõ-n what-dat : missõ where.ill : missõ-st where-ela.

458 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(62) Karelian (LL 80) kunna poiga-ni mene-t ? sano-u where son-1sg go-2sg say-3sg ‘Where do you go, my son, he says.’ (63) Livonian (LL 229) ku-s siz sinā lǟ’-d? where-ine then you go-SG2 ‘So, where do you go?’ Of other pronouns, personal pronouns corresponding to Finnish and Estonian oma ‘own’ and reflexive pronouns correlating with Fi. itse and Est. ise are quite uniformly represented in all Finnic languages. The most divergent group of pronouns are the indefinite pronouns. A significant number of them are based on derived interrogative pronouns (64), demonstrative pronouns, and lexical negation patterns (65–66). In addition, there are some other pronominal stems occurring as indefinites (67–72). (64) Karelian (LL 74) üksinäh nügöi-gi kävü-n mittuma-s alone now-foc visit-1sg such-ine ‘Even now I go alone to that kind of forest.’

mečikö-s forest-ine

(65) Karelian (LL 78) häi ni ke-d ei laske-nud s/he neg who-part neg.3sg allow-ptcp.pst ‘He didn’t take anyone for the night.’

üä-kse night-tra

(66) Karelian (LL 76) eulo ni dorog-ua ni kunnapäi be.neg neg road-part neg where.to ‘There isn’t even a road anywhere.’ (67) Ingrian (LL 144) ei-gä nii-dä saa-du-gi neg-enc they-part get-pass.ptcp.pst-foc ku-hu-kkaa where-ill-neg.enc ‘And you could not bury them anywhere.’

havva-da bury-inf

(68) Karelian (LL 77) moiž-ii puutu-i such-part.pl be.caught-pst.3sg ‘Such (fishes) were caught.’ (LL 77) (69) Veps (MSFOu 86: 362) öpäroi mugoine linduine, ö-i-dmu bat such bird night-pl-prol ‘A bat is such a bird, it flies at night.’

lend-le-b fly-freq-3sg

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 459

(70) Ingrian (LL 154) hän on mokkoonikke liha ku pačti s/he is such meat as almost ‘It is a meat that is almost like cow.’ (71) Votic (LL 175) vot ühs õl-i mokoma so one be-pst.3sg such ‘So, there was such a man.’

lehmä cow

meez man

(72) Votic (LL 172) mõnikõ-d last-ii vago-d estää some-pl let-pst.3sg furrow-pl first ‘Some (potatoes) were first laid in the furrows.’ In the contact zone with Russian, most notably Ludic, Veps, and Votic, the pattern of Russian indefinite pronouns consisting of a native interrogative plus a borrowed indefinite is used in compound constructions (73). In older varieties of these languages, derivatives of the modal auxiliary lee- ~ lie- ‘be’ (which often had future reference) were used with interrogatives as indefinites (74). (73) Ludic (LL 105) mitte+nibud' liha-d libo mi-da+nibud' what.kind.of-indf meat-part or what-part-indf mäno-b süö-m-hä go-3sg eat-inf-ill ‘He goes to eat some kind of meat or anything.’ (74) Ludic (LS 121) ken+lienou tul-i who-be.fut.3sg come-pst.3sg ‘Someone entered the house.’

häin s/he

perttii house.ill

10.3.2.6 Numerals All Finnic languages have a decimal-based counting system and lack a specific lexical item for ‘twenty,’ as attested in more eastern Uralic languages, for example, Erzya koms’ and Udmurt kyz’ ‘twenty.’ Lexically, the numerals of individual Finnic languages are transparent cognates. The ordinal numerals for ‘one’ and ‘two’ have a distinct lexical stem, with suppletive forms, for example, Fi. ensimmäinen, Vps. ezmäine, Est. esimene, SEst. edimäne ‘first’; Fi. toinen, Vps. toine, Est. teine, SEst. t(õ)õnõ ~ tynõ ‘second.’ Other ordinal numerals have suffixal forms descending from Proto-Finnic *-nte, the nasal often lacking from the nominative form but overt in the inflection of a given word, as in Table 10.10. The ordinal numerals display a secondary stem vowel a, whereas the affix -nte- and its variants is systematically preserved in the inflection (75).

460 RIHO GRÜNTHAL TABLE 10.10  CARDINAL NUMERALS IN FINNIC Finnish

Veps

Votic

Estonian

South Estonian

Livonian

1

yksi

üks’

ühs

üks

ütś

ikš

2

kaksi

kaks’

kahs

kaks

katś

kakš

3

kolme

koume

kõlmõd

kolm

kolm

kuolm

4

neljä

nel’l’

nellä

neli

ne(l)li

nēļa

5

viisi

viž

viisi

viis

viiś

vīž

6

kuusi

kuz’

kuusi

kuus

kuuś

kūž

7

seitsemän

seičeme

seitsee

seitse

säidse

seis

8

kahdeksan

kahesa

kahõsaa

kaheksa

katõ(s)sa

kōdõks

9

yhdeksän

ühesa

ühesää

üheksa

üte(s)sä

īdõks

10

kymmenen

kümne

tšümmee

kümme

kümme

kim

11

yksitoista

üks’toštkümne ühstõššõmõtta üksteist

20

kaksikymmentä kaks’kümne

100 sata

sada

ütśtõist(kümmend) ikštuoistõn

kahtšümmettä kakskümmend katśkümmend

kakškimdõ

sata

sadā

sada

sada

TABLE 10.12  THE INFLECTION IN THE NOMINATIVE AND GENITIVE OF ORDINAL NUMERALS ‘THREE’ AND ‘FOUR’ IN FINNIC Finnish

Veps

Votic

Estonian

South Estonian

Livonian

‘three’

kolma-s kouma-nz’ kõlma-iz kolma-s kolma-s three- kuolmõ-z three-ord.nom three-ord.nom three-ord.nom three-ord.nom ord.nom three-ord.nom

‘third’

kolma-nne-n kouma-nde-n kõlma-ttõmaa three-ord-gen three-ord-gen three-ord.gen

kolma-nda kolma-nda kuolmõ-nd three-ord.gen three-ord.gen three-ord.gen

‘four’

neljä-s nel’l’a-nz’ nellä-iz four-ord.nom four-ord.nom four-ord.nom

nelja-s ne(l)lä-s neļļõ-z fourfour-ord.nom four-ord.nom ord.nom

‘fourth’ neljä-nne-n nel’l’a-nd-en three-ord-gen four-ord-gen

nellä-ttomaa four-ord.gen

nelja-nda four-ord.gen

ne(l)lä-ndä four-ord.gen

neļļõ-nd fourord.gen

(75) Livonian (LL 326) tieda-d seļļiz-t luggõ-mõz-t: ikš kuolmõ-nd , kakš kuolmõ-nd know-2sg such-part read-nmlz-part one three-ord.part two three-ord.part ‘Do you know this kind of counting: one of the third, two of the third.’ 10.4 SYNTAX 10.4.1 Constituent order With the exception of South Saami, the inherited SOV constituent order of Proto-Uralic has been replaced with SVO in Finnic and Saamic languages. However, many features characteristic of SOV languages, such as the order of elements in the adjective phrase,

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 461

genitive phrase, and adpositional phrase, have been preserved in Finnic despite the change in the basic order at clause level. In general, topicality and combinations of different clause types, and the order of head and determinant, may cause constituent order variation in the main clause. Given that nominal constituents tend to be flagged for case, changes in word order do not blur grammatical relations but rather serve to fulfil topicality and discourse functions. Independent pronoun subjects are often not overtly stated. Thus, the verb inflects for person, which makes a pronominal subject optional. In a simple main clause, adverbials typically occur in a post-verbal position (76–77). In eastern Finnic languages, a focused predicate may occur in sentence-final position (78), and even the order of the head and determiner of a noun phrase may alternate and the determiner occur in an NP-final position, as in (79). (76) Karelian (LL 65) müö, pühälasku kui tul-i müö lask-i-mmo mäe-s we shrovetide when come-pst.3sg we go.downhill-pst-1pl hill-ine ‘When Shrovetide came, we drove down the hill.’ (77) Livonian (LL 238) ne kakš nūoŗ-dõ um āilõ-nõ-d they two young-part is run-ptcp.pst-pl ‘These two young people have run away.’ (78) Karelian (LL 74) kačo, harmai häi look.imp.2sg grey s/he ‘Look, it is grey!’

jarā away

on is

(79) Ludic (LL 96) miä ženiho-n tämä-n tunde-n I man-acc this-acc know-1sg ‘I know this man and I will marry him.’

i mäne-n and go-1sg

mehe-le man-all

10.4.2 Transitivity and the flagging of direct objects One of the most salient features in the syntax of Finnic languages is differential object marking, which involves a choice between three cases to flag direct objects: genitive (the primary object case, which has largely merged with the historical accusative), partitive, and nominative. The choice of case depends on both clause and verb semantics, as well as on semantic properties of the nominal object: voice, mood and modality, negation, aspect, and topicality are all vitally involved in differential object marking in Finnic. In transitive clauses, the object, as a rule, occurs in post-verbal position; if it occurs in preverbal positions or precedes the subject, it is always topical. These characteristics outline the information structure in Finnic and will be illustrated with just a few examples. In basic declarative clauses, the default case of the object is the genitive(-accusative), regardless of whether the given language uses affixal or flexive morphology for flagging it (80–81). In the latter part of example (81), the occurrence of a partitive object čaju-d jo-m-ha tea-part drink-inf-ill has to do with the continuous aspect associated with the

462 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

nonfinite verb. In the Votic example (82), the weak grade of the word denoting ‘bread’ distinguishes the genitive(-accusative) from the nominative and partitive. (80) Karelian (LL 65) no ei mi-dä-i siid ole kui ott-i well neg anything-part-enc then be.cng than take-pst.3sg pitkä-n viča-n long-acc twig-acc ‘Well, there was not anything more than he took a long twig.’ (81) Veps (LL 111) a toiže-d velje-d čaju-n jo-bad but other-pl brother-pl tea-acc drink-3pl i Van'a-n durako-n kucuu-ba čaju-d jo-m-ha and Ivan-acc stupid-acc invite.pst-3pl tea-part drink-inf-ill ‘The other brothers are drinking tea and they invited Stupid Ivan to drink tea.’ (82) Votic (MSFOu 63, 46) tämä võtt-i leivä-ä s/he take-pst.3sg bread-acc ‘S/he took the bread.’ Despite a similar basic system of object marking and underlying syntactic rules, the transitive clause is affected by language change and the erosion of object-marking cases. In Livonian, the widespread merger of the genitive and nominative has increased the use of nominative objects even in the singular (83), when other Finnic languages would prefer a genitive(-accusative) object, while a plural object is always in the nominative or partitive in other Finnic languages as well. (83) Livonian (LL 230) peŗīnāi um võttõ-n, andõ-n se rō’ tämmõ-n hostess is take-ptcp.pst give-ptcp.pst it.nom money.nom s/he-dat ‘The hostess has taken and given the money to him.’ The opposite development is seen in Veps, in which the genitive(-accusative) object is gaining ground and coming to be used in constructions such as the verb phrase corresponding to the Finnish so-called passive (impersonal), which would normally trigger a nominative object (84). In individual cases, verbal semantics may allow even more variation in object marking between Finnic languages, examples (85–87) displaying cognate verb forms with different object marking. (84) Veps (LL 126) oige-tas kaike-n oikta-ks, ku-hussei hvati-b, straight-pass all-acc straight-tra where-term suffice-3sg kive-n sido-tas ag’-ha i tač-tas stone-acc bind-pass end-ill and throw-pass ‘You make everything straight, as far as it is enough, a stone is bound in the end and you throw it.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 463

(85) Veps (MSFOu 100, 108) ezmä-ks značit nor’ mez’ kozičo-b neičukaiže-n bat’a-nke. first-tra thus young man propose-3sg girl-acc father-com ‘So, at first the young man proposes to the girl with his father.’ (86) Estonian (Kont 1963, 56) Paul tee-b hästi, et rikka preili Paul do-3sg well that rich-acc miss-acc ‘Paul does well in that he proposes to the rich lady.’

kosi-b. woo-3sg

(87) Finnish Pauli kosii rikas-ta neiti-ä . Paul woo.3sg rich-part miss-part ‘Paul proposes to the rich lady.’ The use of the partitive to flag direct objects is widespread in all Finnic languages (88– 90). Its use is based on shared semantic criteria, such as objects which can be divided, including nouns like ‘water,’ and quantifiable units, such as Finnish pu-i-ta tree-pl-part ‘trees’ and koir-i-a dog-pl-part ‘dogs’ etc. Negation always triggers a partitive object, as does non-perfectivity of the verb. (88) Votic (MSFOu 63, 42) miä üvää e-n saa-nnu mi-tää , ku I good.part neg-1sg get-ptcp.pst what-part.enc as üh-t guor’aa va nä-i-n one-part sorrow.part just see-pst-1sg ‘I didn’t get anything good, it was all mere misery.’ (89) Livonian (MSFOu 106, 199) jemānd tuļ vaņklõ-m lady come.pst.3sg watch-inf ‘The lady came to see the new tree.’ (90) Livonian (LL 238) ma äb ānda I neg.3sg/1sg give.cng ‘I will not give bread.’

sie-dā it-part

ū-tõ new-part

pū-dõ tree-part

leibõ bread.part

A nominative object is always used instead of the genitive-accusative, if the verb occurs in the imperative (91–92) other than third person, is an infinitive, or the object is in the plural (93). A partitive object is possible in these contexts as well. (91) Veps (LL 130) lämbi-ta-ga-m külbet’ warm-caus-imp-1pl sauna ‘Let’s heat the sauna!’

464 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(92) Votic (MSFOu 63, 60) võta kase tütär take.imp.2sg this daughter ‘Take this daughter!’ (93) Ingrian (LL 151) i vot rantta sid pan-tti rüzää-d and so shore.ill then put-pass fyke-pl ‘So the fykes were set along the shore.’

10.4.3 Negation Most Finnic languages have only one negator, descending from a Uralic negative verb *e- in both present (94–96) and past tenses; for prohibitions, see following. Livonian and South Estonian are the only Finnic languages that have different negation particles for present and past tense: Livonian present tense äb neg.3sg ‘no(t),’ past tense iz pst.neg.3sg ‘did not,’ South Estonian present tense ei(q) neg ‘no(t),’ past tense es pst.neg ‘did not’ (97–99). The main (lexical) verb of the negated verbal predicate is always in a nonfinite form, either the connegative or a participle. The connegative is typically homophonous with the 2sg imperative. The eastern dialect of Votic (103), now extinct, and the Hevaha dialect of Ingrian, where word-final *-k is preserved in many inflectional forms, show a singular connegative in -g. The connegative form follows the negator in Finnic languages other than South Estonian (see Chapter 10), cf. Veps e-n jo neg-1sg drink ‘I don’t drink,’ Votic e-n joo neg-1sg drink ‘I don’t drink,’ Livonian äb jūõ neg-3sg/1sg drink ‘I don’t / s/he doesn’t drink.’ (94) Karelian (LL 74) e-n ni varua kondia-du da ni ke-dä e-n neg-1sg neg be.afraid.cng bear-part and neg who-part neg-1sg ‘I am not afraid of a bear nor anybody.’ (95) Ludic (LL 94) ši-da kuut-ta kuu-d ei it-part six-part month-part neg ‘S/he could not stand that six months.’

vuoi-nu can-ptcp.pst

kesta-da tolerate-inf

(96) Ingrian (Hevaha) (LL 152) vaht-i, vaht-i ku ei pääze-g ene-mppi mi-stä guard-pst.3sg guard-pst.3sg when neg get-cng more-cmp what-ela ‘It kept watching until it didn’t get anywhere any more.’ (97) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 123) raudtii-d üldse es ole viil railway-part at.all neg.pst be.cng yet ‘There was not any railway at all, yet.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 465

(98) Estonian (Eastern) (Kask 1980, 130) esimese võedo ta kurat võtt' ärä, aga first.gen/acc win.gen/acc s/he devil take.pst.3sg away but tõis ta enäm es sua — second.part s/he no.more neg.pst get.cng esi-n anna tä-lle tõis võitto enäm neg.pst-1sg give.cng s/he-all second.part win.part more ‘S/he damned won the first one but s/he did not get a second one—I did not give her/him a second win any more.’ (99) Livonian (LL 229) ne vȯļ-tõ kiļ kuts-tõ-d, they be.pst-3pl enc invite-ptcp.pass.pst-pl ‘They were invited indeed, they didn’t come.’

ne iz tuļ-tõ they neg.pst come.pst-3pl

In Ludic, Veps, and Votic, the negative auxiliary merges with the copula in copula clauses (100–101) and in Ludic and Veps with the modal auxiliary *voi- ‘can’ both in present and past tense (102): (100) Veps (LL 125) jesli iile vihma-d if neg.be rain-part ‘if there is no rain’ (101) Votic (Eastern) (LL 180) ebõõ tšennee-kaa paeatta-ag neg who-com talk-inf ‘There is nobody to talk with.’ (102) Ludic (LL 94) siga hän eivuoi-ška-nnu i kuol’ türmä-i there he neg.can-inch-ptcp.pst and die.pst.3sg prison-ill ‘There he could not begin [to survive] and died in prison.’ The prohibitive most typically is built with an auxiliary plus the lexical verb in the connegative, for example, Finnish älä mene, Estonian ära mine neg.imp.2sg go.cng ‘Don’t go!’ In third-person and plural negative imperative forms, both the auxiliary and the connegative verb include the imperative co-affix -k(A)- ~ -g(A)-, cf. Veps au-ga-t män-goi neg-imp-2pl go-cng.pl and Livonian (104). (103) Votic (Eastern) (LL 180) elä-g vortši-g enä-pi-g, õõ-g vaigõ-g neg.imp-2sg growl-cng much-cmp-adv be-imp.2sg silent-adv enä-pi-g, elä-g mättä-ü-g ku-hõg e-b much-cmp-adv neg.imp-2sg mix-refl.pass-cng where-ill neg-3sg piä-ge must-enc ‘Do not complain any more, stay more silent, do not get mixed where one should not.’

466 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(104) Livonian (LL 227) al-gõ nän-tõ-n mittõ kunād pūttõ-g leibõ neg.imp-3sg they-pl-dat neg never lack-imp bread.part ‘Let they never be lacking bread!’ As a rule, the negative auxiliary always precedes the verb in Finnic. However, in South Estonian, the negative phrase often displays the opposite order both in present and past tense (105–106) and occurs in the end of the clause (Lindström et al. 2021; Pajusalu 2022). Other Finnic languages do not have this option, as constituent order under negation tends to be much stricter than in the affirmative. (105) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 133) mei-l ole eiq we-ade be.cng neg ‘We do not have.’ (106) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 133) mii valla-n ole we.gen municipality-ine be.cng ‘In our municipality there was not.’

es neg.pst

10.4.4 Copula clauses In copula clauses, a copula is regularly used in almost all Finnic languages and their variants. A copula is used when the complement is coreferential with the subject (107–109) and in locational clauses. Veps dialects (110) have re-established the original Uralic zero-copula locational clause under the influence of Russian, although the literary language regularly manifests a copula as other Finnic languages do. (107) Karelian (LL 35) miä e-n duumai-nu, što I neg-1sg think-ptcp.pst that[cnj] ‘I did not think that it is a wolf.’ (108) Votic (MSFOu 63, 80) vaata-b, etti nuorikkõ on se watch-3sg that bride is it ‘He is watching that it is the bride.’ (109) Livonian (LL 226) se kurē um jo ka it devil is enc also ‘Well, the devil is cunning.’

kovāl cunning

(110) Veps (Northern) (MSFOu 100, 4) Män-i sinna, kondi peza-s. go-pst.3sg there bear nest-loc ‘It went there, the bear is in the nest.’

on is

hukka wolf

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 467

10.4.5 Adpositional phrase As in other Uralic languages, most of the adpositions in Finnic are postpositions. They typically fulfil functions similar to those performed by the case suffixes, most notably flagging different types of spatial relations (111–118), but also more abstract ones (119). Postpositions, historically originating from nouns or adverbs, often share certain inflectional properties, such as case and person, with nouns. However, postpositions never take number suffixes or (synchronically segmentable) grammatical cases, and they display only a limited range of case distinctions, such as in Finnish sisä-lle-ni in-all-1sg ~ sisää-ni in.ill-1sg ‘into me,’ sisä-llä-ni in-ade-1sg ~ sisä-ssä-ni in-ine-1sg ‘inside me,’ sisä-ltä-ni in-abl-1sg ~ sisä-stä-ni in-ela-1sg ‘from inside me.’ The complement of a postposition is in the genitive in the vast majority of cases (Grünthal 2003, 34–39, 59–75, 2019, 13–17), although the partitive also occurs (117, 118). In Livonian, the frequent syncretism of the nominative and genitive and the systematic overlapping in the plural (cf. Table 10.4) change considerably the inherited morphosyntactic pattern of the postpositional phrase as well. (111) Karelian (LL 23) niin peäs-i-n vain jeä-n peä-llä so get-pst-1sg only ice-gen head-ade/all ‘So, I just got on the ice alone.’ (112) Ludic (LL 93) ken män-i pordah-i-n who go-pst.3sg stairs-pl-gen ‘Who went (to) under the stairs?’

yksinä-ni alone-1sg

alle under.all

(113) Veps (LL 123) ištu-t-i niičukeine hebo-n pä-n stola-n sit-caus-pst.3sg girl horse-gen head-gen table-gen taga behind ‘The girl seated the horse’s head at the table.’ (114) Votic (LL 173) karu isu-b i karuu tüve-n on tütökkõin bear sit-3sg and bear.gen root-ess is girl ‘The bear is sitting and a girl is beside the bear.’ (115) Livonian (LL 227) ne iz tōțțõ lǟ’-dõ siz sīņ päp they neg.pst want.3pl go-inf then there priest.gen ‘They didn’t want to go to the priest.’ (116) Livonian (LL 228) tikkiž um kȭrda-s sie lōda jū-s everything is order-ine it table.nom/gen at-ine ‘Everything is all right at the table.’

jūr at

468 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(117) Karelian (LL 80) lapsi siä men-öu men-öu mer-dü müäte child there go.3sg go.3sg sea-part along ‘A child is driving there along the sea.’ (118) Votic (MSFOu 63, 54) men-i tämä tie-tä müö go-3sg s/he road-part along ‘S/he went along the road.’ (119) Karelian (LL 66) ero-ttih d'o hüö surma-n separate-3pl already they death-gen ‘They had already separated for death.’

kere with

Like Saamic, but unlike all other Uralic languages, the Finnic languages display a twofold adpositional system, as prepositions occur throughout the entire area. Compared to postpositions, prepositional phrases are typically of vaguer function and are morphologically more petrified, often lacking productive inflectional suffixes (120–121). Prepositions displaying a local case suffix are an exception to this distribution (122–124). The complement of prepositions is most commonly in the partitive, but genitives are possible (124). (120) Ludic (LL 90) kai čabato-d ombel' muga piäliči kolme-s all boot-pl sew.pst.3sg over three-ine ‘He sewed all boots like that in three weeks.’ (121) Livonian (MSFOu 106, 86) nei u’m lǟ’-nd se mēldar pits so is go-ptcp.pst it miller along ‘So, the miller has gone along his own way.’ (122) Ludic (LL 89) d'älge-le besoda-d läht' after-all party-part leave.pst.3sg ‘After the party s/he left home.’

nedali-s week-ine

sie-dā ēņțš-ta it-part own-part

riekkõ way.part

kodi-i home-ill

(123) Votic (MSFOu 63, 40) minuu isä kool-i ee-zä I.gen father die-pst.3sg in.front-ine ‘My father died before my birth.’

minuu süntümä-ä I.gen birth-part

(124) South Estonian (Kask 1980, 123) kui nüid perä-n surma pia-b mine-ma when now back-loc death.gen must-3sg go-inf taiva-de, ei tiija, kas lövvä-b-ki se-dä heaven-ill neg know.cng whether find-3sg-enc it-part ‘If one after death must go to heaven, one does not know, whether s/he will find it.’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 469

Adpositions typically can be used as adverbs as well, and Livonian occasionally displays a less-frequent combination of double adpositions, which actually belong to separate phrases: in (125), the first le’b ‘through’ operates as a preposition and the second le’b functions as an adverb. (125) Livonian (MSFOu 106, 111) lēḑ lekš täm’mõ-n le’b bullet go.pst.3sg s/he-dat through ‘The bullet went through his leg.’

jālga le’b foot through

10.4.6 Agreement There are two main types of phrasal agreement. Number agreement occurs both in verb constructions and in the noun phrase. In addition, Finnic is the only Uralic branch displaying widespread NP-internal case agreement between determiners—such as adjectives and pronouns in prenominal position—and their heads. The verb and the subject (together with its determinants) agree mostly in person and number (126). In copula clauses, a complement that is coreferential with the subject agrees in number as well (127). (126) Karelian (LL 75) pitkä-t nengoma-t šorpa-t ol-dih ne-t long-pl such-pl stalk-pl be-pst.3pl they-pl ‘They were this kind of long stalks.’ (127) South Estonian (LL 221) nuu-q ol'l'-i-vaq musta-q villatse-q They-pl be-pst-3pl black-pl woolen-pl ‘They were black (and) woollen.’ Within the noun phrase, the most salient feature in Finnic is widespread case agreement between the attributives and the head, normally in this order, affecting all grammatical cases (128–130) and most adverbial cases (131), with the exception of secondary cases originating from suffixed postpositions and certain language-specific deviations, such as the abessive and essive in Estonian. Number agreement occurs within the noun phrase as well (130). (128) Ludic (LL 93) ozuta-mme müö tänäpä hüvä-n show-1pl we today good-acc ‘We shall show a good party today.’

pruaznika-n party-acc

(129) Livonian (LL 229) un sīe-n ka sai an-tõd sie-dā leibõ and it-dat too get-pst.3sg give-pass.ptcp it-part bread.part ‘And he was given that bread, too.’ (130) Veps (LL 119) pašto-i čom-i-d kolobeiž-i-d fry-pst.3sg beautiful-pl-part pancake-pl-part ‘She used to fry beautiful pancakes.’

470 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(131) Karelian (LL 71) kuuzi vuat-tu ühte-s külä-s six year-part one-ine village-ine ‘We were in one village for six years.’

oli-mmo be-pst-1pl

10.4.7 Co-ordinated constructions Finite clause combination is typically effected by means of coordinating conjunctions. Very frequently, these are borrowed from neighbouring languages, for example, Karelian, Veps, and Votic da ‘and’ (132–133) from Russian, and Livonian un ‘and’ from Latvian (134), or Germanic, as in Estonian and Finnish ja. (132) Karelian (LL 74) da tuata-l ol-i da muama-l äjjü las-tu and father-ade be-pst.3sg and mother-ade many child-part ‘Both father and mother had many children likewise.’

sežo same

(133) Votic (MSFOu 63, 52) tämä nõis-i vällää da men-i nurkkaa-sõ s/he get.up-pst.3sg out.ill and go-pst.3sg corner-ill ‘He stood up and went to the corner.’ (134) Livonian (LL 227) siz juo-i-d’ kōzgiņi seis īe-dõ un seis then drink-pst-3pl wedding.pl.part seven night-part and seven päuvõ day.part ‘Then they drank for the wedding for seven nights and seven days.’ In the contact zone between Finnic and Russian, the Russian disjunctive conjunction a ‘but’ is frequently used in the local Finnic languages as well (135–136). (135) Ingrian (LL 139) naize-d ost-ii-d pulga-d a meehe-d jo-i-vad viina-a woman-pl buy-pst-3pl bun-pl but man-pl drink-pst-3pl vodka-part ‘The women bought buns but/and the men drank vodka.’ (136) Veps (MSFOu 70, 158) ii ou-nu siga-ine, a ol-i neg be-ptcp.pst pig-dim but be-pst.3sg ‘It wasn’t a pig but/rather it was a sheep!’

lambha-ine sheep-dim

10.4.8 Subordination Subordinate clauses are most commonly attached to the main clause by conjunctions, less frequently by nonfinite constructions. All three major kinds of subordinate clause—relative, complement, and supporting—are surveyed rapidly here. Subordination patterns in Finnic are not uniform, although most subordinating conjunctions are based on a pronominal stem. A finite relative clause follows its antecedent and is introduced by a relativizer homophonous with the interrogative pronoun (137–138;

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 471

see, Section 10.3.2.5). However, even borrowed conjunctions may be used in languages under contact influence. (137) Ingrian (LL 141) kaik saksa pan-i laula-maa, mi-dä ol-i all German put-pst.3sg sing-inf.ill what-part be-pst.3sg seitsekümmend voot-ta ele-ttü 70 year-part live-ptcp.pass.pst ‘The Germans burnt everything that we had been living for for seventy years.’ (138) Veps (Northern) (LL 133) e-n teda, ken sad-hu minu-n kävelo-b neg-1sg know.cng who garden-ill I-gen visit-3sg i sö-b d’abluka-d and eat-3sg apple-pl ‘I don’t know who keeps visiting my garden and eating the apples.’ In (138), the constituent order of the Veps genitive phrase sad-hu minu-n garden-ill I-gen ‘to my garden’ deviates from the inherited Uralic and Finnic pattern, in which the dependent precedes the head. This deviation is due to Russian influence. The most frequent subordinating conjunctions in Finnish, Estonian, and South Estonian, että/et, (139), is not as frequent in the other Finnic languages, which use other pronominal conjunctions, such as Ludic pro-adjective mitte ‘what kind of,’ instead in complement clauses (140–144). (139) South Estonian (LL 214) puu om jämme niivõrd, et karu ei küini manu tree is thick so.much that bear neg reach.cng near ‘The tree is so thick that the bear cannot reach near.’ (140) Ludic (LL 89) e-n vuoi mina sanu-da, mitte se koht ol-i neg-1sg can.cng I say-inf what.like it place be-pst.3sg ‘I cannot say what the place was like.’ (141) Karelian (LL 77) e-n tiä, kui sinä tua-s hiäru-s el-ii-t neg-1sg know.cng how you that-ine village-ine live-pst-2sg ‘I don’t know how you lived in that village.’ (142) Votic (LL 176) nüd pajata-n, kui med'd'ee vad'd'akkuoo maa-lla now talk-1sg how we.gen Votic.gen country-ade teh-tii õzra maa-ta do-pass.pst oat land-part ‘Now I’ll tell how oat land was made in our Votic country.’ (143) Veps (Northern) (LL 134) ei teda ni ken, miise hän akk om neg.3sg know.cng neg who, that s/he woman is ‘Nobody knows that she is a woman.’

472 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

(144) Livonian (LL 228) või-b vȱl-da, ku sie lōda um vȯ-nd ne’i pitkā can-3sg be-inf that it table is be-ptcp.pst so long ‘It is possible that the table was so long.’ In Veps, the predicate may occur in sentence-final position (143); this is not characteristic of other Finnic varieties. A typical example of a borrowed and highly frequent subordinating conjunction is Russian chto (что) ‘what; that,’ which is represented in several ways (145–147). (145) Ludic (LL 92) mina Vas’a-le sanu-i-n, što ei tei-le I Vasiliy-all say-pst-2sg that neg you-all pida-nu-ž pruaznika-le tul-da must-ptcp.pst-cond party-all come-inf ‘I told Vasiliy that you shouln’t have come to the party.’ (146) Ingrian (LL 146) a ol-i mogomp-i-a, sto piru kä-i kiusaa-ma-z but be-pst.3sg such-pl-part that devil visit-pst.3sg tease-inf-ine ‘But there were such (cases), that the devil used to come and tease.’ (147) Votic (LL 177) vanarahvaz ain juol-tii, što siz parapõz lähe-b old.people always talk-pass.pst that then better go-3sg vil’l’ä vällää grain out.ill ‘Old people used to say that then the grain will grow better.’ Subordinated questions do not deviate from basic questions. Both interrogative pronouns (148–150) and polar question particles (151) or words to which they are attached (152) occur at the beginning of the subordinated interrogative clause. (148) Karelian (LL 65) toatto tul-i kodi-h da küzü-u, kuz-bo se tüttö on? father come-pst.3sg home-ill and ask-3sgwhere-enc it girl is ‘The father came home and asked where the girl is’ (149) South Estonian (LL 218) ei tiijäq, kua me-i-d vane-mb om, kas neg know.cng which we-pl-part old-cmp is q ole-d sina vai mina be-2sg you or I ‘One doesn’t know which of us is older, whether you are or I am.’ (150) Livonian (MSFOu 106: 76) siz se tüdār um kizzõ-n, kīnga-n ne then dem daughter is ask-ptcp.pst who-dat dem piškiz-t sērki-d nei’ jõn’n āt small-pl shirt-pl so much be.3pl ‘Then the daughter asked whose those so many small shirts are’

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 473

(151) Livonian (MSFOu 106, 239) un ni neitsõ-d kü’zzõ-bõd, või ta and now girl-pl ask-3pl q s/he täm kä’ddõ? her/him hand.ill ‘And now the girls ask whether he will catch her’

ka too

sō-b get-3sg

(152) Veps (LL 118) mams se küzu-b, äi-k pordhaš-t woman it ask-3sg much-q stair-part ‘The woman asks how many stairs’ 10.4.9 Quantifier phrase A shared Finnic feature is that when used in the singular, as they most usually are, numerals quantifying the amount of a given countable entity trigger the partitive case. Hence, in this type of quantifier phrase a noun is always in the partitive (153–155). The same is true of phrases containing other quantifiers (156–157). However, it is the numeral that is the head of NPs in non-oblique function: if the NP is in an oblique case, the numeral functions as an attribute and accordingly agrees with its head. Quantifier pronouns corresponding to Finnish kaikki ‘all’ preceding a plural noun, moni ‘many, some’ and joka ‘every’ do not follow this rule but operate as demonstrative pronouns in pre-nominal position. Syntactically, quantifiers in oblique case function agree in case and number with the noun. (Cf. Estonian mitu ‘many,’ Karelian äijü ‘many.’) (153) Karelian (LL 76) nuata-le si-lle pid-i kaksitoštu pulling.net-all it-all must-pst twelve ‘Twelve people were needed to pull the net.’

hengi-ä soul-part

(154) South Estonian (LL 215) kolm nakla villu three pound.part wool.pl.part ‘Three pounds of wool.’ (155) Livonian (LL 228) um vȯ-nd mingist nēļakim-dõ rištīng-tõ is be-ptcp.pst some forty-part people-part ‘There have been some forty people.’ (156) Karelian (LL 76) a nügöi mi äjjü mečč-iä but now what much forest-part ‘But nowadays a lot of forest is cut.’

rua-tah work-3pl

(157) South Estonian (LL 213) sää-ld läits edezi, õha-s there-abl go.pst.3sg further glow-pst.3sg

pää-le upon-all

474 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

sää-l mitu päivä there-ade many day.part ‘From there it went further glowing there for several days.’ More rarely, and mainly in the eastern Finnic languages, if the quantity is concretely defined, the quantifier may occur in the genitive(-accusative) (158). Here too, however, the head of the quantifier phrase is in the partitive. (158) Ludic (LL 92) hän vie ot' puole-n s/he still take.pst.3sg half-gen/acc ‘He still took half a bottle of drink.’

butylka-d bottle-part

vina-d spirits-part

The topicalization of sentence-final constituents and alternating order of a quantifier and noun, characteristic of Russian, is occasionally reflected in the reversed order of elements in Veps quantifier phrases (159): (159) Veps (LL 119) derevna-s ele-tas ninga: homence-l nuuz-tas času-d viž village-ine live-pass so morning-ade awake hour-part five ‘In the village you live like this: in the morning you get up at about five o’clock.’ 10.4.10 Questions The formation of questions is based on two main strategies. If the topic is a nominal constituent, interrogative pronouns are used (160–163), cf. Section 10.2.2.5. Pronouns denoting ‘what’ assign more generic questions (164). In questions addressing the action, mainly manifested in predicates, polar question particles are used; these can be either free clause-initial words or bound post-verbal affixes. (160) Karelian (LL 84) a kuz-bo sin elä-t? but where-enc you live-2sg ‘But where do you live?’ (161) Karelian (LL 85) kunna minu-l men-nä? where.ill I-ade go-inf ‘Where can I go?’ (162) Veps (LL 124) ken rohti minu-n pert’-he who dare.pst.3sg I-gen house-ill ‘Who has dared to come into my house?’ (163) Estonian (Eastern) (LL 205) ko-za te nõnna where-ine you.pl so ‘Where were you so long?’

kava long

tuu-da? come-inf

õl-i-tta? be-pst-2pl

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 475

(164) Livonian (MSFOu 106: 294) mis sa ni te-i-d? what you.2sg now do-pst-2sg ‘What did you do now?’ Like interrogative pronouns, polar question particles and inflected words to which the question particle is attached occur in sentence-initial position (165–172). This assigns the typical Finnic focus-initial structure. (165) Karelian (LL 73) e-n-go näh-nüt neg-1sg-q see-ptcp.pst ‘Didn’t I see the bear?’

kondia-du? bear-part

(166) Veps (LL 119) jo-go voik-i-d already-q cry-pst-2sg ‘Did you cry already?’ (167) Veps (LL 132) kuule-d-ik siga-ine mi-da? hear-2sg-q pig-dim what-part ‘Pig, do you hear anything?’ (168) Ingrian (LL 158) oo-t-ko siä näh-nüt, ke-tä be-2sg-q you see-ptcp.pst who-part tää-l käü-nüt? here visit-ptcp.pst ‘Have you seen who has visited us here?’ (169) Votic (MSFOu 58, 22) õõ-t-ko siä minuu be-2sg-q you.2sg my ‘Have you eaten my goat?’

voho-ni goat-1pl

mei-l we-ade

süö-nnü? eat-ptcp.pst

(170) South Estonian (Keem 1997, 63) kas raha ka viil taht? q money.part too still want.2sg ‘Do you want money, too?’ (171) Livonian (Viitso and Ernštreits 2012, 106) Kas sa lǟ’-d? q you go-2sg ‘Do you go?’ (172) Livonian (MSFOu 106, 254) või sinā ä-d uo muļ’ķi? q you.2sg neg-2sg be.cng stupid ‘Aren’t you stupid?’

on is

476 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

Less frequently, polar question particles can be attached to an interrogative pronoun; this is especially characteristic of Veps (173). In this case, the affix actually operates as a focus particle. (173) Veps (Southern) (LL 113) a mi-da-k sä mor’z’aa but what-part-q you bride ‘But why don’t you spin, bride?’

e-d kezerda? neg-2sg weave.cng

Especially in quoted speech, the question need not be overtly encoded, but the context determines the nature of a basic declarative clause (174–175). (174) Veps (Southern) (LL 115) tul’ besoo-de-n prihakuluune i basi-b: paimenda-d ? come.pst.3sg devil-pl-gen poor.little.boy and say-3sg herd-2sg ‘The poor little boy of the devils came and asks: are you herding?’ (166) Votic miä tšüzü-n, on nagloi ? (MSFOu 58, 4) I ask-1sg is nail.pl.part ‘I ask, (are there) nails?’ Sources Ariste, Paul. 1968. A Grammar of the Votic Language. Indiana University Publications: Uralic ad Altaic Series 68. Bloomington: Indiana University. CT 5 = Suhonen, Sepp. 1975. Liivin kielen näytteitä. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. EVS = Faster, Mariko, Laivi Org, Urmas Kalla, Sulev Iva, and Triin Iva, eds. 2014, Eestivõru sõnaraamat. Võru: Võro instituut. Kask, Arnold. 1980. Valimik eesti murdenäiteid. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool. Keem, Hella. 1997. Võru keel. Tallinn: Emakeele Selts. Kont, Karl. 1963. Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused 9. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Laanest, Arvo, 1966. Isuri murdetekste. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. LL = Virtaranta, Pertti. 1967. Lähisukukielten lukemisto. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. LS = Kujola, Juho, ed. 1944. Lyydiläismurteiden sanakirja. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 1944. MSFOu 63 = Kettunen, Lauri, and Lauri Posti, eds. 1932. Näytteitä vatjan kielestä. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 63. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. MSFOu 69 = Ojansuu, Heikki, Juho Kujola, Jalo Kalima, and Lauri Kettunen. 1934. Lyydiläisiä kielennäytteitä. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 69. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. MSFOu 70 = Kettunen, Lauri, and Paavo Siro. 1935. Näytteitä vepsän murteista. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 69. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. MSFOu 86 = Kettunen, Lauri. 1943. Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 86. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 477

MSFOu 100 = Setälä, E. N., and J. H. Kala. 1953. Näytteitä äänis- ja keskivepsän murteista. SUST 100. Published and translated by E. A. Tunkelo and Reino Peltola Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society MSFOu 106 = Setälä, E. N. 1953. Näytteitä liivin kielestä. Translated and published by Väinö Kyrölä. Suomentanut ja julkaissut Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. MSFOu 250 = Mägiste, Julius. 2006. Muistoja Liivinrannasta. Liivin kieltä Ruotsista. Translated and published by Anneli Honkko. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. SMS = Suomen murteiden sanakirja. http://kaino.kotus.fi/sms/ Accessed 22-04-2019. VES = Sulev Iva, ed. 2002. Võru-eesti sõnaraamat. Võru instituudi toimetised 12. Võru: Võro instituut. Viitso, Tiit-Rein, and Valts Ernštreits. 2012. Līvõkīel-ēstikīel-lețkīel sõnārōntõz. Liivieesti-läti sõnaraamat. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. VKS = Adler, Elna, Merle Leppik, and Silja Grünberg, eds. 1990‒2011. Vadja keele sõnaraamat 1–7. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut. REFERENCES Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001. “Introduction.” In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikio, Ante. 2007. “The Study of Saami Substrate Toponyms in Finland.” In Borrowing of Place Names in the Uralian Languages, edited by Ritva Liisa Pitkänen and Janne Saarikivi, 159–197. Debrecen: Onomastica Uralica 4. Aikio, Ante. 2009. “The Saami loanwords in Finnish and Karelian.” PhD diss., University of Oulu. Aikio, Ante. 2012a. “An Essay on Saami Ethnolinguistic Prehistory.” In A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, edited by Riho Grünthal and Petri Kallio, 63–117. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Aikio, Ante. 2012b. “On Finnic Long Vowels, Samoyed Vowel Sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x.” In Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi, and Erika Sandman, 227–250. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Aikio, Ante. 2015. “The Finnic ‘Secondary E-stems’ and Proto-Uralic Vocalism.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95: 25–66. Aikio, Ante. 2022. “Proto-Uralic.” In The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, edited by Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, and Elena Skribnik, 3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ariste, Paul. 1970. “Über die inneren Kontakte zwischen den ostseefinnischen Sprachen.” In Congressus tertius internationalis fenno-ugristarum Tallinnae habitus 17.–23. VIII 1970, Pars I, Acta linguistica, 196–199. Tallinn. Blokland, Rogier. 2009. The Russian Loanwords in Literary Estonian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Blokland, Rogier, and Nobufumi Inaba. 2018. “The l-cases in Courland Livonian.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 9–2: 147–164. EES = Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat, edited by Iris Metsmägi, Meeli Sedrik, and SvenErik Soosaar. 2012. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

478 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

Grünthal, Riho. 2001. “Homonymy and Systemacy in Estonian Noun Inflection.” In Keele kannul. Pühendusteos Mati Erelti 60. sünnipäevaks 12. märtsil 2001, edited by Reet Kasik, 42–61. Tartu: University of Tartu. Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Grünthal, Riho. 2007. “Morphological Change and the Influence of Language Contacts in Estonian.” In Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, baltisch, ostseefinnisch, edited by Hans Fix, 403–432. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Grünthal, Riho. 2010. “Sijasynkretismi morfologian koetinkivenä.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 2: 91–113. Grünthal, Riho. 2015. “Livonian at the Crossroads of Language Contacts.” In The Baltic Languages and White Nights, edited by Santeri Junttila, 12–67. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Grünthal, Riho. 2019. “Canonical and Non-canonical Patterns in the Adpositional Phrase of Western Uralic: Constraints of Borrowing.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 97: 11–36. Grünthal, Riho. 2020. “The Spread and Contacts of Medieval Finnic in the North-Eastern Baltic Sea Area: Implications for the Rate of language Change.” Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsl-2019-0029. Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1984. Suomen kielen vanhimmasta sanastosta ja sen tutkimisesta. Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten etymologisen tutkimuksen periaatteita ja metodiikkaa. Turku: University of Turku. Hinderling, Robert. 1981. Die deutsch-estnischen Lehnwortbeziehungen im Rahmen einer europäischen Lehnwortgeographie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hofstra, Tette. 1985. Ostseefinnisch und Germanisch. Frühe Lehnbeziehungen im nördlichen Ostseeraum im Lichte der Forschung seit 1961. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. Itkonen, Terho. 1983. “Välikatsaus suomen kielen juuriin.” Virittäjä 87: 190–229, 349–386. Joki, Aulis J. 1988. “Zur Geschichte der uralischen Sprachgemeinschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Ostseefinnischen.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor, 575–595. Leiden: Brill. Junttila, Santeri. 2015a. “Tiedon kumuloituminen ja trendit lainasanatutkimuksessa. Kantasuomen balttilaislainojen tutkimushistoria 1869–2009.” PhD diss., Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Junttila, Santeri. 2015b. “Proto-Finnic Loanwords in the Baltic Languages? An Old Hypothesis Revisited.” In The Baltic Languages and White Nights, edited by Santeri Junttila, 12–37. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Kalima, Jalo. 1952. Slaavilaisperäinen sanastomme. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Kallio, Petri. 2003. “Languages in the Prehistoric Baltic Sea Region.” In Languages in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann, 49–83. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kallio, Petri. 2006. “On the Earliest Slavic Loanwords in Finnic.” In The Slavicization of the Russian North. Mechanisms and Chronology, edited by Juhani Nuorluoto, 154– 166. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Kallio, Petri. 2007. “Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa.” In Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit: Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, edited by Jussi Ylikoski and Ante Aikio, 229–249. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Kallio, Petri. 2008. “On the “Early Baltic” Loanwords in Common Finnic.” In Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1. Balto-Slavic and

THE FINNIC LANGUAGES 479

Indo-European Linguistics, edited by Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, Jeroen Wiedenhof, Rick Derksen, and Sjoerd Siebinga, 265–277. Amsterdam: Brill. Kallio, Petri. 2012. “The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic.” In A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, edited by Riho Grünthal and Petri Kallio, 225–238. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Kallio, Petri. 2015a. “The Diversification of Proto-Finnic.” In Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland, edited by Joonas Ahola, Mr Frog, and Clive Tolley, 155–168. Helsinki: Finnish Literary Society. Kallio, Petri. 2015b. “The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe.” In The Linguistic Roots of Europe, edited by Robert Mailhammer, Theo Vennemann, and Birgit Anette Olsen, 77–102. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen. Kehayov, Petar. 2017. The Fate of Mood and Modality in Language Death. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koivisto, Vesa. 1995. Itämerensuomen refleksiiviverbit. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Koivulehto, Jorma. 1999. Verba mutuata. Quae vestigia antiquissimi cum Germanis aliisque Indo-Europaeis Contactus in Linguis Fennicis reliquerint. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Koivulehto, Jorma. 2016. Verba vagantur. Jorma Koivulehto in memoriam, edited by Sampsa Holopainen, Petri Kallio, and Janne Saarikivi. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Koivulehto, Jorma, and Theo Vennemann. 1996. “Der finnische Stufenwechsel und das Vernersche Gesetz.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 118: 163–182. Koponen, Eino. 1991. “Itämerensuomen marjannimistön kehityksen päälinjoja ja kantasuomen historiallista dialektologiaa.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 83: 123–161. Laakso, Johanna. 2001. “The Finnic Languages.” In The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact 1: Past and Present, edited by Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 179–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laanest, Arvo. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. LÄGLOS = Kylstra, A. D., Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, and Osmo Nikkilä. 1991– 2012. Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen, 1–3. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lang, Valter. 2016. “Early Finnic-Baltic Contacts as Evidenced by Archaeological and Linguistic Data.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 7: 11–38. Lang, Valter. 2018. Läänemeresoome tulemised. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Lehiste, Ilse, Pire Teras, Valts Ernštreits, Pärtel Lippus, Karl Pajusalu, Tuuli Tuisk, and Tiit-Rein Viitso. 2008. Livonian Prosody. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Lehtinen, Tapani. 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Liin, Helgi. 1964. “Alamsaksa laensõnad eesti vanimas kirjakeeles.” Töid eesti filoloogia alalt 1: 32–74. Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik, and Helen Plado. 2021. “Variation in Negation in Seto.” Studies in Language 45 (3). 554–597. Loorits, Oskar. 1923. “Tingiva ja kaudse kõneviisi minevik.” Eesti Keel 1: 170–173. Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm, and Beata Wagner-Nagy, eds. 2015. Negation in Uralic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mullonen, Irma. 2002 = И. И. Муллонен: Топонимия Присвирья: проблемы этноязыкового контактирования. Петрозаводск: Издателъство ПетрГУ. Must, Mari. 2000. Vene laensõnad eesti murretes. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Ojansuu, Heikki. 1922. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten pronominioppia. Turku: University of Turku.

480 RIHO GRÜNTHAL

Pajusalu, Karl. 2012. “Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages.” In A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, edited by Riho Grünthal and Petri Kallio, 201–224. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Pajusalu, Karl. 2022. “Seto South Estonian”. In The Oxford Guide to the Uralic languages, edited by Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso and Elena Skribnik, 367– 379. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paunonen, Heikki. 1995. “Puhesuomen muuttuva omistusmuotojärjestelmä.” Virittäjä 99: 501–531. Plöger, Angela. 1973. Die russischen Lehnwörter der finnischen Schriftsprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Posti, Lauri. 1953. “From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic: Studies on the Development of the Consonant System.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 31: 1–91. Saarikivi, Janne. 2009. “Itämerensuomalais-slaavilaisten kontaktien tutkimuksen nykytilasta.” In The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society, edited by Jussi Ylikoski, 109–160. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Sarhimaa, Anneli. 1992. “Karelian Sprachbund? Theoretical Basis of the Study of Russian/Baltic-Finnic Contacts.” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 50: 209–219. Sarhimaa, Anneli. 1995. “Karjalan kansat ja kielet kontakteissa: asutushistoriallista taustaa ja lingvistisiä seurauksia.” Virittäjä 99: 191–223. Sarhimaa, Anneli. 1999. Syntactic Transfer, Contact-Induced Change and the Evolution of Mixed Codes. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Schalin, Johan. 2018. “Preliterary Scandinavian sound change viewed from the east: Umlaut remodeled and language contact revisited.” PhD diss, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/238886. Accessed 17 October 2018. Setälä, E. N. 1917. “Suomensukuisten kansojen esihistoria.” In Maailmanhistoria 2, 476–516. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja-osakeyhtiö. SSA = Itkonen, Erkki, and Ulla-Maija Kulonen, eds. 1992–2000. Suomen sanojen alkuperä 1–3. Etymologinen sanakirja. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Suhonen, Seppo. 1973. Die jungen lettischen Lehnwörter im Livischen. Helsinki: FinnoUgrian Society. Suhonen, Seppo. 1988. “Geschichte der ostseefinnischen Sprachen.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor, 288–313. Leiden: Brill. Thomsen, Vilhelm. 1890. Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog. En sproghistorisk Undersögelse. København. UEW = Rédei, Károly. 1986. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I–II. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Vaba, Lembit. 1997. Uurimusi läti-eesti keelesuhetest. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1978. “The History of Finnic õ in the First Syllable.” Sovetskoe finnougrovedenie 14: 86–136. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1985. “Kriterien zur Klassifizierung der Dialekte der ostseefinnischen Sprachen.” In Dialectologia Uralica: Materialien des ersten Internationalen Symposions zur Dialektologie dr uralischen Sprachen 4.–7. September 1984 in Hamburg, edited by Wolfgang Veenker, 89–96. Wiesbaden: Societas Uralo-Altaica. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2007. “Livonian Gradation: Types and Genesis.” Linguistica Uralica 43: 45–62. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2008. Liivi keel ja läänemeresoome keelemaastikud. Tartu: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Winkler, Eberhard. 2011. “Laensõnakihtidest liivi keeles.” In Liivlased: Ajalugu, keel ja kultuur, edited by Renate Blumberga, Tapio Mkeläinen, and Karl Pajusalu, 231–237. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. 

CHAPTER 11

MOKSHA MORDVIN Jack Rueter

11.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW The Moksha and Erzya languages have rich morphology with varied strategies for analytic and synthetic constructions. While nominal morphology is highly agglutinative in Moksha, the core cases of the Erzya possessive declension are fusional and defective. Verbal morphology, including dependent and independent copula and the regular formation of inchoative, causative, and frequentative forms, is fairly concatenative, but the definite object conjugation is slightly more fusional. Moksha attests to a range of allomorphy permeating its word stems and suffixes (mainly consonant devoicing and word-final versus word-internal vowel alternations). Segmentation is not always straightforward, and exponence can be cumulative. Suffixal indexing of the possessor on nominals results in case syncretisms in Erzya but not in Moksha. In the phonology, both vowel and consonant palatal harmony are ubiquitous, but vowel harmony can often be derived from the palatalness of adjacent consonantisms. The locus of nominal declension is on the NP head (concatenative suffixation, with set orders) and features the four categories of number, case, possession, and definiteness. Number may also be encoded on some adnominal determiners. Numerals are used for counting entities (individuals, pairs, verbal iterations), relative position in space (individual, set, iteration), and collective size (distributive, universal quantifier, associative delimiter); numerals can be further adjusted through approximation and diminutive strategies. Moksha and Erzya have both a subject and an object conjugation. The object conjugation is used with definite (usually complete) objects, whereas clauses with other object types, transitive and intransitive alike, use the subject conjugation. Adverbs and postpositions can be regarded as phenomena which may be treated as one group in ways similar to transitive and intransitive verbs: postpositions require explicit complement reference, and some adverbs actually have implicit complements. Regular derivation in Moksha and Erzya occurs both denominally and deverbally. Denominal derivation is characterized by regular diminutive morphology that stretches the limits of nominal word classes (there is attestation, for example, in adjectives, nouns, numerals, postpositions, adverbs, and converbs). Deverbal derivation is characterized not only by an abundance of nonfinite forms but also regularly derived verbs encoding the categories, such as frequentative, causative, inchoative, and change of state (also addressed as passive). Mordvin studies typically also mention a ‘secondary’ declension, adjectives without head nouns, and conversion (adjectives and numerals); these can all be explained as instances of ellipsis. The structure of the NP can include premodifiers, which in addition to adjectives consist of a variety of case-marked NPs (nouns, pronouns, numerals, adverbs); some of these case-marked NPs can become the locus of declension when the DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-11

482 JACK RUETER

NP head is contextually dropped: see also Evsevʹev 1928/29, 100–103; Ananʹina 2000, 72–73. Comparison is conveyed by analytical means; it occurs most frequently with adjectives, adverbs, and verb phases. What has typically been called nominal conjugation in Erzya and Moksha is dealt with here as bound and free copula strategies. Secondary predication features an indication of stative and dynamic usage in addition to quantification and nominatives absolute. Both Moksha and Erzya have loanwords from historic and contemporary Iranian, Turkic, Baltic, and Slavonic language forms. The focus in this chapter is on Moksha. 11.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, VARIATION Moksha is one of the two modern literary Mordvin languages (the other being Erzya) spoken in what today is known as the Volga Region, and especially the Republic of Mordovia and Penza Oblast. The first mention of these people, identified specifically as a Moksha population, is attested in thirteenth-century documentation of the ethnonym and land moxel located between the rivers Don and Volga (see Rubruquis 1706, 34); Moxel is construed as moksh(a) ‘Moksha’ + aľa ‘man’ (see Bondarko and Polâkov 1993, 7; Feoktistov 2000, 4). The Moksha and Erzya do not appear to have traditionally used a name for themselves as a group. The exonym and rather-pejorative term Mordvin is used in the majority Russian language and by Russian authorities when making reference to representatives of the Moksha [mokšə], Erzya [eŕźa], Shoksha [šokš], Teryukhan [ťeŕuxan], and Qaratay [mukšə] ethnic groups. Due to this ambiguity in the languages of documentation, there is little consistency in statistics and census questionnaires. While Moksha, Erzya, and even Shoksha boast native speakers, the Teryukhan (sometimes identified with Erzya populations) have adopted Russian as their first language, and the Qaratay (also sometimes identified as Erzya because of its specifically Erzya vocabulary elements) have adopted Tatar as their first language. According to Feoktistov (2000, 4) Moksha is spoken in the Republic of Mordovia (Atyerevski, Elʹnikovski, Zubovo-Polyana, Insarski, Kadoshkinski, Kovylkinski, Krasno-Slabodski, Ruzaevski, Staro-Shaigovski, Temnikovski, and Torbeevski Raions) and surrounding regions (Nizhny Novgorod, Penza, Saratov, Ulʹyanovsk, Chelyabinsk, Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, etc.). In the only specific All-Russian census questionnaires of the 1926 census, the Moksha comprised one-third of the total Mordvin population of 1,267,000 (Moksha, Erzya, Shoksha, Teryukhan and Qaratay) (see Ermuškin 2004; Rueter 2013; Figure 11.1). The Moksha population is more concentrated than that of the Erzya, and in the 1959 census results for the then Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Mordovia, Mokshas made up slightly more than half of the Mordvin population (175,000) as opposed to the Erzya (165,000) and non-specific Mordvins (approx. 18,400) (cf. Feoktistov ibid.). The latest All-Russian censuses show a major collapse in the Mordvin population to 843,350 in 2002, then 744,237 in the census of 2010 (All-Russian census 2010), with only 333,112 living in the Republic of Mordovia. Native speaker figures are dubious; for example, Eberhard et al. (2019) report a Moksha speaker count of only 2,030 based on the 2010 census, whereas the Moksha-language newspaper Mokshen’ pravda ‘Moksha’s truth’ had a circulation of 4,500 (2004) and 3,500 (2015). According to the vice minister of education of Mordovia (Duguškin 2018), there were 20,892 schoolchildren (implicitly native speakers) in the Republic of Mordovia who studied Moksha during the 2017 school year.

MOKSHA MORDVIN 483

FIGURE 11.1 A MAP OF THE AREAS WHERE MOKSHA (MDF, LIGHTER GREY) AND ERZYA (MYV, DARK GREY) ARE SPOKEN IN RUSSIA.

The first grammar of Moksha was written in 1838 by Pavel Ornatov, which is just one year before Herr Conon von der Gabelentz finished his grammar of Erzya (1838‒1839). Ornatov motivated his treatise of Moksha as necessary material for instruction in the Moksha major dialect of Mordvin at the Tambovski Seminary, where instruction had begun in 1834 with no study materials at all. (In Russian, there are at least four classificatory levels of language form: language > major dialect [Russian: ‘наречие’] > dialect > subdialect; Russian, for example, is divided into two major dialects, hence an analogical interpretation for the Mordvin languages.) Ornatov notes that the difference between the Moksha and Erzya major dialects is such that a speaker of one ‘understands without difficulty’ a speaker of the other. Subsequently, Ornatov also states that the Mordvin Catechism published in 1806 was written in the Erzya major dialect and was of no use to him due to grammatical errors and his lack of knowledge in Erzya (cf. Ornatov 1838, VIII, X). Thus, from Ornatov’s estimation of Moksha and Erzya mutual intelligibility among native speakers and his inability to apply Erzya when teaching Moksha speakers, one might assume a proximity similar to what is found in modern colloquial American English versus Shakespearian English, specifically: distinct pronunciation and variation in vocabulary and morphology. The notion of grammatical errors, however, might have actually been in reference to dichotomies in morphology and syntax (see Rueter 2016). After nearly a century of sporadic literary use of distinct Moksha and Erzya language forms, the two languages suddenly became popularized in the new Soviet State. In the

484 JACK RUETER

1920s and 1930s, Erzya and Moksha were developed as media of enlightenment, education, and the dissemination of a new culture. There was contemplation of establishing a common written language in the twenties as well, but this idea was put aside and work went ahead with two separate language norms. Towards the end of the Soviet Era, work was begun on a new translation of the Bible. Once again, there was contemplation of developing at least a shared terminology for Bible translation, but by the beginning of the 1990s, this, too, was abandoned. The languages seem so close at times and yet so distinct. What is it that distinguishes the two language forms? This question might be best answered by inspecting phonological, morphological, and lexical cohesion, as addressed in Rueter 2016, 113–119; see also Partanen et al. 2019; Polâkov and Rueter 2004. For information about internal variation in Moksha, see Rueter et al. (2020), Partanen et al. (2019). Feoktistov (1990), Feoktistov and Saarinen 2005, 47–48), Bondarko and Polâkov 1993, 23–24), and Grišunina (2015). 11.3 PHONOLOGY, ORTHOGRAPHY, AND THE WORD The transcription used here for Moksha (and sporadically for Erzya) is largely phonemic. Note, however, that uppercase letters are used to indicate archiphonemes, such that, for example, uppercase indicates an /a/ before which any vowel will be elided, for example, mora- ‘to sing’: mora-An => mor-an sing-1sg ‘I sing,’ aŕśə- ‘to think’: aŕśə-At => aŕś0-At think-2sg ‘you think.’ Writing the plural suffix as indicates that the preceding segment will be devoiced and the uppercase T may be palatalized, for example, kud ‘house’: kud-XT => kut-t house-pl, san ‘vein’: san-XT => sat-t vein-pl, kal ‘fish’: kal-XT => kal̥ -t fish-pl, kal’-XT => kal̥ ’t’ willow-pl ‘willows.’ Note that dental stops are regularly lengthened. An uppercase schwah indicates the presence of a mid central vowel if no stem vowel is present, for example, kud ‘house’: kud-Əc => kud-əc house-3sg ‘his/her house, aľa ‘father’: aľa-Əc => aľa-c father-3sg ‘his/her father.’ The deletions and 0 are only used in this introductory paragraph. 11.3.1 Moksha vowels Table 11.1 presents the Moksha vowel inventory. The unrounded high/mid central vowel ï and the reduced vowel ə are spelled out in all positions (deviating from the literary standard orthographies, word-final ə will be rendered where otherwise the literary norm renders it in or ). Finally, the unrounded central vowel e͔ will not be used, as it occurs only as an allomorph of /e/ after non-palatalized coronals.

TABLE 11.1  MOKSHA VOWELS Front

Central

High

I

(ï)

Mid

E

ə

Low

Ä

Back [-round]

[+round] u o

a

MOKSHA MORDVIN 485

Moksha has a central vowel ə with, synchronically speaking, front and back allophones triggered by palatalization in the adjacent alveolars and sibilants. In writing, the back and front allophones are represented in non-first syllable position as and , respectively. In word-initial syllables, literary practice is reminiscent of the Czech system for syllabic consonants, that is, no vowel letter is written. For non-natives, this strategy is problematic, as a systematic presentation for this vowel is lacking, for example, kəľä ‘supposedly’ and kľej ‘glue’ are both written with initial . At times, authors may also employ the letter to indicate the central vowel ə, which makes it difficult for software to identify the tongue height of central vowels automatically in texts. The Russian high central vowel ы is typically retained in loanwords, but the Cyrillic letter ы is sometimes used to indicate what might otherwise be indicated by zero or the mid central vowel in Moksha, that is, or for kətna- ‘to cackle.’ This vowel cannot be seen as a distinct phoneme in Moksha. The distinction between сы and си is only in the palatalization of the /s/ vs. /ś/. The use of ы in the stems of literary Moksha words is reportedly a means of enunciating the schwa vowel, where it would otherwise be ignored in the orthography. The Moksha central vowel is directly related to etymologically high and mid vowels. When comparing Moksha and Erzya vocabulary, it soon becomes evident that the first-syllable central vowel in Moksha is also cognate with mid and high vowels in Erzya; see Table 11.2. The vowel change V-a > ə-a in bisyllabic stems is accompanied by a stress shift from the first to the second low vowel a, or it is a result of the presence of that second low vowel, as is seen in *o-a below in relation to the Russian provažať, with primary stress on the final syllable and secondary stress on the penultimate. In word-onset position, the orthography makes no distinction between the low and mid front vowels ä and e, both being written with , for example, äše ‘well [noun],’ ežď- ‘heat [verb].’ In non-word-initial position, these vowels are written with vs. , for example, käď ‘hand; arm [noun]’; keď ‘hide [noun].’ There is also an alternation in Moksha of /ä/ and /a/ in cases such as the demonstrative pronoun śä ‘this, that,’ whose vowel is not fronted when followed by distinctively non-palatal suffixes, such as the indefinite nominative plural -t in śa-t ‘those’ and the causative suffix -Əŋksə in śa-ŋksə ‘therefore’ (see Herrala and Feoktistov 1998; cf. Zaicz 1998, 187). In Mordvinic studies, linking vowels are represented in three different ways, depending on the school of the analyst: (i) The Finnish school tends to assign linking vowels to the stem, for example, kal ‘fish’ kalə-c fish-3sg. Complete rules for stem-final vowel loss, however, are not provided. (ii) The most recent descriptions of Moksha in Saransk TABLE 11.2  MOKSHA AND ERZYA MID CENTRAL VOWEL WITH STRESS ON SUBSEQUENT FIRST LOW VOWEL Moksha

Erzya

*u-a

əŕvä·

‘wife’

uŕva

‘daughter-in-law’

*i-a

kərda·

‘X times’

kirda

‘X times’

*e-a

vəŕga·z

‘wolf’

veŕgiz

‘wolf’

*o-a

pərva·ža-

‘see off’

provaža-

‘see off’

486 JACK RUETER

separate linking vowels from both the stem and subsequent suffix: kal ‘fish’ kal-ə-c fishvowel-3sg. (iii) In concurrence with Moravcsik (2003), this author applies linking vowel morphology to the suffix kal ‘fish’ kal-əc fish-3sg. 11.3.2 Moksha consonants Table 11.3 presents the Moksha consonant inventory. The labial and velar consonants phonetically represented as ḿ, ṕ, b́ , f,́ ḱ, ǵ are rendered here as m, p, b, f, k, g because the palatalized reading is clear from the context: they occur only before front vowels or following palatalized coronals. Coronals, in contrast, are rendered with palatal marking even where palatalization might be predictable from context. This concurs with orthographic practice and is founded on the presence of minimal pairs for palatalized and non-palatalized coronals (ś, s, ź, z, ť, t, ď, d, ń, n, ľ, l, ŕ, r), for example, maŕ ‘apple’ vs. mar ‘pile,’ kaľ ‘willow’ vs. kal ‘fish.’ Voiced consonants are given as such even when voicing is contextually conditioned in compound words, for example, jotambačk ‘while going’ < jotam ‘going’ + pačk ‘through.’ Words beginning in b, d, z, ž, and g are typically loanwords, although there may be native vocabulary in Moksha dialects with word-initial voicing. According to Paasonen (1918), the hypothetical protolanguage word-initial *s- is represented in Mordvinic by /s/. But Moksha shows a strong tendency towards the palatalization of word-initial /s/ before any front vowel, for example, Erzya seľge vs. Moksha śäľge, both ‘fibre’; Erzya seľ vs. Moksha śeľ, both ‘fathom’; and Erzya sïń vs. Moksha śiń, both ‘they.’ The only near-minimal pair attested in the Moksha dialects for distinguishing *s- vs. *ś- is Erzya and Moksha sïj ‘pus’ vs. Erzya śij ‘louse,’ Moksha śi ‘louse.’ TABLE 11.3 MOKSHA CONSONANTS Labial Labiodental

Nasals Stops

Alveolar

Postalveolar

[-pal]

[+pal]

[-pal]

Palatal

Velar

[+pal]

m

n

ń

[+voice] b

d

ď

g

[-voice]

t

ť

k

p

Affricates [+voice] [-voice]

č́

c

ć

Fricatives [+voice]

v

z

ź

ž

[-voice]

f

s

ś

š

[+voice]

l

ľ

[-voice]

l̥

ľ̥

Lateral Glides

[+voice]

j

[-voice] Trills

χ

ȷ̊

[+voice]

r

ŕ

[-voice]

r̥

ŕ̥

MOKSHA MORDVIN 487

The clusters /-rś-/ and /-ŕś-/ form minimal pairs word-internally: for example, aŕśe- ‘to think’ vs. arśe- ‘to move around,’ cf. ara- ‘to move; become,’ and maŕśe- ‘to keep on hearing’ (cf. < maŕa- ‘to hear’) vs. marśe- ‘to load [several things]’ (cf. mara- ‘to load’). Voicing is a progressive contextual feature of Moksha morphology, attested in the written language for compound nouns and numerals, for example, jar̥cambäľ ‘food’ < jar̥cam ‘eating’ + päľ ‘half, part’; ńiľəńgeməń ‘forty’ < ńiľə-ń ‘four-gen’ + keməń ‘ten.’ Devoicing is a paradigmatic feature of Moksha declension and conjugation, for example, kal ‘fish’; kal̥ -t ‘fish-pl.’ Devoicing pairs comprise m:p, b:p, v:f, n:t, ń:ť, d:t, ď:ť, z:s, ź:ś, ž:š, r:r̥, ŕ:ŕ̥, l:l̥ , ľ:ľ̥, j:ȷ̊ g:k. The ring below or above a symbol indicates a voiceless counterpart to the voiced correlates, whereby, for example, and represent voiceless fricatives (ipa and ); a more extensive inventory of voiceless consonants might be attested in North Sami, but there they are not paradigmatic. 11.3.3 Stress and prosody Stress in Moksha usually falls on the first syllable, but in polysyllabic words, where the word-initial syllables have only high or mid central vowels followed by the low vowel a, the a takes the stress, for example, kəda· ‘when.’ A paradigmatic alternation is also observed in deverbal nouns formed with -Əma vs. -Əma·, for example, put-əmə put-inf.loc ‘put’ and put-əma· put-vn ‘putting, must put’ˑ; see also Table 11.2. Intonation plays a significant role in questions. For example, in the question ku·du moľat iľi kafev? home.lat go.2sg or café.lat ‘Are you going home or to a café?’ a rising intonation in the word ku·du home.lat contrasts the destination constituents kud-u homelat and kafe-v café-lat. Likewise, rising intonation in the second syllable of the first verb moľa·t go.2sg of kudu moľa·t iľi af moľat? home.lat go.2sg or neg go.2sg ‘are you going home or not?’ focalizes the entire predicate. When no contrastive focus is present, as in kozə mo·ľat wh.ill go.2sg ‘where are you going?’ there is rising intonation on the first syllable of the verb; in moľat kudu· go.2sg home.lat ‘are you going home?’ there is rising intonation on the final syllable of the declined noun (p.c. N. Kabaeva). An extensive discussion of Moksha morphophonology can be found in Bondarko and Polâkov (1993) and subsequent treatises (e.g. Estill 2004; Djordjević and Léonard 2006, 87–112). Most recently, prosody has been dealt with extensively in Aasmäe et al. (2013). 11.4 NOUNS AND NOMINAL DECLENSION In the noun phrase, the head noun is the locus of declension, that is, it is where morphological marking for the four Mordvin nominal categories of number, case, person, and definiteness occurs. The locus of declension is symmetric, that is, if the head noun is omitted under contextual co-reference, the juxtaposition modifier becomes the new locus of declension. Hence, modifier nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, and participles can contextually undergo conversion, for example, taštə kud-sə old house-ine ‘in an old house’ vs. taštə-sə old-ine ‘in an old one.’ The ability to function as the head of the NP can also be attributed to adverbs, postpositions, and other adnominal modifiers (cf. Ananʹina 2000, 82–83; see also inessive, elative, comparative, and abessive cases, which follow), for example, pakśa-sə kud-ś field-ine house-def ‘the house in the field’ vs. pakśa-sə-ś field-ine-def ‘the one in the field’ (cf. Kišnâkin 1961, №6:82).

488 JACK RUETER

In the indefinite (elsewhere basic) declension, the singular is zero (Ø), and the plural is -t. There are three basic stem types: (i) consonant-final, (ii) vowel-final (with vowel retention), (iii) vowel-final (with vowel elision) (cf. Rueter on Erzya 2010, 69–73). Stem-final Mordvinic consonants are devoiced, and this can be observed in the Moksha words ending in stem-final u and i, whose stems have an underlying -uv and -ij, respectively (e.g. kelu ‘birch,’ keluf-t birch-pl). Stem-final vowels of the vowel-retention type may be subject to alternation of the type illustrated by śä > śa-t ‘those,’ mentioned earlier. They are also subject to an orthographic convention affecting the writing of word-final mid vowels [а : о, е : о], for example, pulə ‘tail’ written , but pulə-t tail-pl, written . After vowel-final stems with elision (type iii earlier), the stem-final vowel is lost and the final consonant is devoiced. Examples: kal ‘fish’ kal̥ -t fish-pl; kud ‘house’ kut-t house-pl; (ii) ava ‘woman’ ava-t woman-pl, veľə ‘village’ veľə-t village-pl; and (iii) piľgə ‘leg, foot’ piľk-t leg-pl. The mixed stem type (iii) ends in a vowel in the indefinite nominative singular but declines with a consonant stem in the indefinite nominative plural. Whereas the language of Erzya literature allows for two parallel stem forms (vowel stem and consonant stem in three cells of the paradigm, a fact to which the most recent normative rules seem oblivious), that is, paŋgo-t ~ paŋk-t mushroom-pl, paŋgo-so ~ paŋk-so mushroom-ine, paŋgo-sto ~ paŋk-sto mushroom-ela and paŋgo-s ~ paŋk-s mushroom-ill, the situation in Moksha is slightly different. In Moksha, the consonant stem is explicitly used with these four forms (paŋgə ‘mushroom,’ paŋk-t mushroom-pl, paŋk-sə mushroom-ine, paŋk-stə mushroom-ela, paŋk-s mushroom-ill) as well as other forms, such as the definite nominative singular paŋg-ś mushroom-def, ablative paŋk-tə mushroom-abl, and abessive paŋk-ftəmə mushroom-abe, to name a few. The members of the mixed stem type (iii) can be predicted with relatively high accuracy. The majority set can be described as two-syllable words ending in the structure vccə = v + c + [alveolar| velar] plosive + mid central vowel: v [f  |s|š|r̥] tə (šuftə ‘tree’), v [ f  ] ťə; v [r|l|n] də, v [ŕ|ľ |ń] ďə: vastə ‘place,’ taštə ‘old,’ mäšťə ‘chest [anatomy],’ jur̥tə ‘homestead,’ vardə ‘devil,’ valdə ‘light,’ kandə ‘stump,’ miŕďə ‘husband,’ äľďə ‘mare,’ keńďə ‘felt’; v [t|ť |č|s|ś|š|r̥|ŕ̥|l̥ ] kə; v [v|ď |r|ŕ|l|ľ |j|ŋ] gə: lotkə ‘pit,’ leťkə ‘moist,’ počkə ‘tube,’ kečkə ‘spur [on a rooster],’ keskə ‘lumbar,’ kiśkə ‘skin,’ raškə ‘fork [in tree, road],’ śar̥kə ‘nit,’ šiŕ̥kə ‘bow, arch,’ šal̥ kə ‘nose,’ käďgə ‘dish,’ pargə ‘basket,’ śäŕgə ‘roach [fish],’ kalgə ‘hurds,’ piľgə ‘foot; leg,’ paŋgə ‘mushroom,’ piŋgə ‘time,’ čivgə ‘viburnum,’ pajgə ‘bell.’ An additional list of two-syllable words can be identified in the patterns = v [p|č|ć|k] ə: źepə ‘pocket,’ kečə ‘dipper,’ vaćə ‘manure,’ pekə ‘stomache,’ but also lofcə ‘milk,’ kar̥čə ‘firewood,’ ravžə ‘black,’ keńᵈžə ‘nail, talon, hoof,’ and the tri-syllable words ťaftəmə ‘like this,’ kodamə ‘what kind’ and końďamə ‘of the like.’ The Moksha set diverges from the Erzya set in the absence of a v + c + labial stop + mid central vowel subset (śeľme ‘eye,’ kojme ‘shovel,’ potmo ‘inside,’ ľembe ‘warm’), whereas Moksha always retains the stem-final vowel in these words. Definiteness morphology can be used to convey metalinguistic nuances, as in the definite inflection of indefinite pronouns such as quotative kivək-ś somebody-def ‘that “someone” you have been talking about,’ and meźəbəďi-ť something-def.gen ‘this “something” you have been talking about,’ examples (1a) and (1b). (1a) (Lobanov 1992, 14) . . . i  vdrug  —tsop!—ľämbäď-i  al-u   kivək-ś. . . . and suddenly—pop—  warm.up- 3sg below-lat somebody-def ‘. . . and suddenly—pop!— that somebody down below is warming up.’

MOKSHA MORDVIN 489

(1b) (Pʹânzin 1997, 100) ingəľ-ə-nzə šarakəd-ś meźə-bəďi af az-əm-ška oću, ťä in.front.of-loc-3sg begin.to.spin-prt1.3sg something neg say-dv-comp big this meźə-bəďi-ť aš-əľ ušətks-əc, af pe-c. something-def.gen be.absent-neg.prt2.3sg beginning-3sg neg end-3sg ‘In front of him something began to spin of unspeakable size. This “something” had no beginning, and no end.’ The concept of case is not defined in Mordvin grammars, but there have been discussions with regard to which morphological features are cases and which ones are caselike derivational suffixes (see Rueter 2010, 74–75). Nominal cases in Moksha can be divided into three groups. There are three core cases (nominative, genitive, dative), which occur in the definite declension and take special person suffix marking. Many grammars also include the ablative among the core cases, but its importance in Moksha quantification could also place it among the attributive cases (comparative, abessive, translative, and causative). Then there are the local cases, inessive, elative, illative, lative, prolative, and temporalis (Bartens 1999, 88–100; Ananʹina 2000, 64‒69). The semantics of cases and stems may restrict their compatibility with different stems (see Table 11.4). The term oblique has been used in this chapter to refer to cases other than the nominative. Table 11.4 sets out sample oblique case forms of the basic declension. Note that number is distinguished only in the nominative (forms given in the top row); all other cases of the basic declension can be used to reference both singular and plural.

TABLE 11.4  OBLIQUE CASES OF THE INDEFINITE (BASIC) DECLENSION IN MOKSHA pakśä pakśa-t ‘field’

tumə tumə-t ‘oak’

kargə kark-t ‘crane’

śäźgan śäźga-t ‘magpie’

viŕ viŕ̥-t ‘forest’

davəl davəl̥-t ‘storm’

gen

pakśa-ń

tumə-ń

kargə-ń

śäźgan-əń

viŕ-əń

davəl-əń

dat

pakśa-ńďi

tumə-ńďi

kargə-ńďi

śäźgan-əńďi

viŕ-əńďi

davəl-əńďi

abl

pakśa-də

tumə-də

kark-tə

śäźgan-də

viŕ-də

davəl-də

ine

pakśa-sə

tumə-sə

karg-sə

śäźgan-cə

viŕ-sə

davəl-sə

ela

pakśa-stə

tumə-stə

karg-stə

śäźgan-ctə

viŕ-stə

davəl-stə

lat

pakśa-v

ill

pakśa-s

tumə-s

prol

pakśa-va

tumə-va

viŕ-i karg-s

śäźgan-c

viŕ-s

davəl-s

viŕ-ge

davəl-ga

temp

davəl-ńə

compc

pakśa-ška

tumə-ška

kargə-ška

śäźgan-čka

viŕ-ška

abe

pakśa-ftəmə

tumə-ftəmə

kark-ftəmə

śäźgan-ftəmə

viŕ-ftəmə

davəl-ftəmə

tra

pakśa-ks

tumə-ks

kargə-ks

śäźgan-ks

viŕ-ks

davəl-ks

caus

pakśa-ŋksə

tumə-ŋksə

kargə-ŋksə

śäźgan-əŋksə

viŕ-əŋksə

davəl-əŋksə

490 JACK RUETER

The empty cells in Table 11.4 indicate incompatibility in case and stem semantics or perhaps only insufficient size of the research corpora: while only the nouns ‘field’ and ‘forest’ take the lative case (which may be due to their spatial semantics), only the noun ‘storm’ takes the temporalis (which, in turn, is due to its temporal semantics ‘in, during’). The possessive declension in Moksha has two sets of person suffixes that differ in core and non-core cases. In the non-core cases, the person suffixes are 1sg -Ən, 2sg -Ət, 3sg -Ənzə, 1pl -Əŋk ~ Ənək, 2pl -Ənt, 3pl -Əst. In the core cases, Moksha person marking is shown as a symmetric system in Tables 11.5a–11.5c, which is readily contrasted with the analogous but defective paradigm of Erzya (see Rueter 2016, 118). TABLE 11.5A  CORE-CASE POSSESSIVE DECLENSION OF KUD ‘HOUSE, HOME’ IN MOKSHA Case Number of 1sg possessum

2sg

3sg

nom gen dat

sg

kud-əźə

kud-ćə

kud-əc

pl

kud-ńə

kut-tńə

kud-ənzə

sg

kud-əźə-ń

kud-ćə-ń

kud-ənc

pl

kud-ńə-ń

kut-tńə-ń

kud-ənzən

sg

kud-əź-ťi

kud-ć-ťi

kud-əctï

pl

kud-ńə-nďi kut-tńə-ńďi kud-ənzə-ndï

1pl

2pl

3pl

kud-əńkə

kud-əńťə

kud-snə

kud-əńkən

kud-əńťə-ń

kud-snə-n

kud-əńkə-ńďi kud-əńťə-ńďi kud-snə-ndï

TABLE 11.5B  CORE-CASE POSSESSIVE DECLENSION OF ŚAVA ‘GOAT’ IN MOKSHA Case Number 1sg nom gen dat

2sg

3sg

sg

śava-źə

śava-ćə

śava-c

pl

śava-ńə

śava-tńə

śava-nzə

sg

śava-źə-ń

śava-ćə-ń

śava-nc

pl

śava-ńə-ń

śava-tńə-ń

śava-nzə-n

sg

śava-ź-ťi

śava-ć-ťi

śava-c-tï

pl

śava-ńə-nďi śava-tńə-ńďi śava-nzə-ndï

1pl

2pl

3pl

śava-ńkə

śava-ńťə

śava-snə

śava-ńkən

śava-ńťə-ń

śava-snə-n

śava-ńkə-ńďi śava-ńťə-ńďi śava-snə-ndï

TABLE 11.5C  CORE-CASE POSSESSIVE DECLENSION PIĽGƏ ‘FOOT; LEG’ IN MOKSHA Case Number 1sg

2sg

3sg

nom gen dat

sg

piľg-źə

piľg-ćə

piľgə-c

pl

piľg-ńə

piľk-ńə

piľgə-nzə

sg

piľg-źə-ń

piľg-ćə-ń

piľgə-nc

pl

piľg-ńə-ń

piľk-ńə-ń

piľgə-nzə-n

sg

piľg-ź-ťi

piľg-ć-ťi

piľgə-c-tï

pl

piľg-ńə-nďi piľk-ńə-ńďi piľgə-nzə-ndï

1pl

2pl

3pl

piľgə-ńkə

piľgə-ńťə

piľg-snə

piľgə-ńkən

piľgə-ńťə-ń

piľg-snə-n

piľgə-ńkə-ńďi piľgə-ńťə-ńďi piľg-snə-ndï

MOKSHA MORDVIN 491

The non-core cases take oblique possessive suffixes (see Table 11.6). These possessive suffixes, with the exception of the first- and second-person plurals, are very close to those of Erzya. What is interesting is that these possessive suffixes are the ones used for flagging person in other peripheral words, such as associative numerals and infinitives (see Sections 11.7 and 11.9, verbs and numerals, respectively). The category of number in Moksha is associated with the plural suffixes -XT and -XT-ńə of the indefinite and definite declensions, respectively, as well as the forms of person suffixes used to refer to plural possessions, namely, -ńə pl.1sg, -XTńə pl.2sg, -nzə pl.3sg, -ńkə 1pl, -ńťə 2pl, -snə 3pl. Note that when the possessor is plural, there is no distinction for number of the possessum in the literary language. In the Moksha possessive declension, number is marked only on core-case possessions for singular possessors. For a sample, see Tables 11.5a–11.5c. In Erzya, the corecase declension is defective, with the only consistent distinction for number of possessa in the third-person singular nominative, while the genitive is homophonous in both numbers with what would be the nominative plural (see Rueter 2010, 164–171). In the definite declension, the suffix of the nominative singular is -ć after stem-final n and ń, and -ś elsewhere; the definite plural is -tńə such that the -t is retained after stem-final vowels and alveolar stops but elsewhere is represented by the devoicing of the stem consonant (see Alâlmkin 2000, 43). Examples: kal ‘fish’ kal̥ -ńə fish-pl.def ‘the fish pl,’ kud ‘house’ kut-t-ńə house-pl-def ‘the houses’; ava ‘woman’ ava-t-ńə woman-pl-def ‘the women’; piľgə ‘leg, foot’ piľk-ńə leg/foot-pl. def ‘the legs/feet.’ The definite declension in Moksha occurs in three core cases: def.nom.sg -ś, def.gen. sg -ť, def.dat.sg -ťi, and the corresponding plural forms pl.def.nom -Xtńə, pl.def-gen -Xtńə-ń, pl.def-dat -Xtńə-nďi. Examples: ćora ‘young man’ young.man-def ćora-ś ‘the young man,’ with definite genitive ćora-ť and definite dative ćora-ťi, nominative plural definite ćora-t-ńə, and plural definite genitive and dative ćora-t-ńə-ń, ćora-t-ńə-nďi. See also Table 11.7. Note that 2sg person suffixes are homophonous with definite plural forms in the core cases, for example, kodamət kutťńə can be either kodamə-t kut-ť-ńə what.like-pl house-pl-def.pl ‘what are the houses like?’ or kodamə-t kut-ťńə what.likepl house-pl.2sg ‘what are your houses like?’

TABLE 11.6  OBLIQUE CASES WITH POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES FOR VEĽƏ ‘VILLAGE’ IN MOKSHA 1sg

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

abl

veľə-də-n

veľə-də-t

veľə-də-nzə

veľə-də-ŋk

veľə-də-nt

veľə-də-st

ine

veľə-sə-n

veľə-sə-t

veľə-sə-nzə

veľə-sə-ŋk

veľə-sə-nt

veľə-sə-st

ela

veľə-stə-n

veľə-stə-t

veľə-stə-nzə

veľə-stə-ŋk

veľə-stə-nt

veľə-stə-st

ill

veľə-z-ən

veľə-z-ət

veľə-z-ənzə

veľə-z-əŋk

veľə-z-ənt

veľə-z-əst

prol

veľə-va-n

veľə-va-t

veľə-va-nzə

veľə-va-ŋk

veľə-va-nt

veľə-va-st

compc

veľə-ška-n

veľə-ška-t

veľə-ška-nzə

veľə-ška-ŋk

veľə-ška-nt

veľə-ška-st

abe

veľə-ftəmə-n

veľə-ftəmə-t

veľə-ftəmə-nzə

veľə-ftəmə-ŋk

veľə-ftəmə-nt

veľə-ftəmə-st

caus

veľə-ŋksə-n

veľə-ŋksə-t

veľə-ŋksə-nzə

veľə-ŋksə-ŋk

veľə-ŋksə-nt

davəl-əŋksə-st

492 JACK RUETER TABLE 11.7 PARTIAL CORE-CASE PARADIGM OF KUD ‘HOUSE; HOME’ IN MOKSHA Number

Case

Definite

1sg

2sg

3sg

sg

nom

kud-ś

kud-əźe

kud-ćə

kud-əc

gen

kud-ť

kud-əźə-ń

kud-ćə-ń

kud-ənc

dat

kud-ťi

kud-əźə-ńďi ~ kud-əź-ťi

kud-ćə-ńďi

kud-ənctï

nom

kut-tńə

kud-ńə

kut-tńə

kud-ənzə

gen

kut-tńə-ń

kud-ńə-ń

kut-tńə-ń

kud-ənzə-n

dat

kut-tńə-ńďi

kud-ńə-ńďi

kut-tńə-ńďi

kud-ənzə-ndï

pl

11.5 USE OF THE CASES Each case may have numerous functions, and therefore, only an outline of typical usage can be given here. Postpositions, often with case marking of their own, complement the use of cases, and examples of postpositions will be provided here when relevant. The nominative flags the subject/agent, although the indefinite forms are less frequent in this use when the discourse function theme is involved. The indefinite nominative can also flag a direct object and serves as complement to postpositions, as well as functioning as vocative, and in the formation of certain complex NPs, serving as adnominal modifiers (3), and as a copula complement. The definite nominative signals topicality; see (2a‒b). (2a) (Levčaev 1972, 164) vov kodamə son lomań-ć, toń azər-ćə, Kiŕəj wow what.kind 3sg person-def 2sg.gen master-2sg, Kirej ‘wow what a person your master is, Kirej Mikhalych’

Mixalïč Mikhalych.

(2b) (Levčaev 1960, №5, 42) nu, maruśa, kodam=at ton lomań-ć well, Marusia, what.kind=cop.2sg 2sg person-def ‘well, Marusia, [just look at] what kind of person you are.’ By comparing (2a-b), we can see that the copula complement can be the interrogative pro-form kodama ‘what kind of?’ whereas the definite nominative singular lomańć ‘person’ does not function as the copula subject. (3)

(Makulov 1997, 11) soń-ďə-də-nzə baška uľ-śť ərdazu šama, śäźəńť-f ščam 3sg-abl-abl-3sg besides be-prt1.3pl dirty face, tear-prf.ptcp clothes ćorańa-t boy-pl ‘In addition to him, there were other dirty-faced boys with torn clothes . . .’

The nominative-case np modifier typically has a meronym as its head, that is, ərdazu šama dirty face ‘dirty-faced’ and śäźəńť-f ščam tear-prf.ptcp clothes ‘with torn clothes, torn-clothed’ in (3).

MOKSHA MORDVIN 493

The genitive case is used to flag possessors, direct objects, postposition complements, source/origin derivation, and distributive derivations. If the possessor is definite, the noun phrase head takes a possessive suffix in the core cases, for example, nominative tonaftï-ť teacher-def.gen kud-əc house-3sg ‘the teacher’s house.’ If the possessum is in a non-core case, declension follows the indefinite paradigm. There can also be nested possession, for example, tonaftï-ť teacher-def.gen kud-ənc house-gen.3sg ťus-əc color-3sg ‘the colour of the teacher’s house,’ where possessive suffixes mark both possessa in the core cases. Direct objects, definite, possessor-flagged, as well as all objects in apposition (even indefinite objects), are flagged with the genitive; see (4). The genitive complement used with postpositions follows a nominative/genitive alternation of the direct object (see Section 11.4), for example, ťäďä-ćə-ń mother-2sg-gen mar̥tə with ‘with your mother,’ azərava-ť lady.of.the.house-def.gen mar̥tə with ‘with the lady of the house.’ The source/ origin use of the indefinite genitive found in šuftə-ń wood-gen kud house ‘wooden house, that is, house of wood’ is also found in de-adverbal adjectives, such as kud mala-stə home near-ela ‘from near home’ > mala-stə-ń, as in mala-stə-ń jalga-c near-ela-gen friend3sg ‘his/her close friend.’ For distributive derivations, such as pakš-əń&pakš ‘piece-bypiece [perfective],’ surkskä-ń&surkskä-ń ‘ring for ring [continuative],’ see Rueter 2013, 105–106. (4)

(Levčaev 1972, 201) Garoj-ś kunda-źə, kepəď-əźə, koda Garoi-def grab-prt1.3sg>3sg, pick.up-prt1.3sg>3sg, like ‘Garoi grabbed her and picked her up like a child’

šaba-ń. child-gen

The dative (also known as allative) case is used to flag indirect objects, goals, and recipients, as well as terminative temporals with the meaning ‘until,’ and resultative complements, as in the following example from the text at the end of the chapter: ćorańä-ńďi šač-əľəť . . . boy-dat be.born-conj.2sg . . . ‘if you had only been born a boy . . .’ The dative can also flag agents of passive constructions. Moksha makes extensive use of the ablative (partitive) case, more so than Erzya. It is possible to express the equivalent of a definite ablative by using the postposition ezdə out. of.abl. The case is used to denote measured entities at phrase and clause level, for example, paŋk-tə päškśe mushroom-abl full ‘full of mushrooms,’ see (5a); partial objects, see (5b); the standard of comparison and the point of contact (inherent part-of-whole) on the object (concrete, abstract), see (5c, 33c); and in combination with the illative, to indicate the limit of a path: kud-ta kud-s house-abl house-ill ‘from house to house,’ which can be contrasted with the analogous elative construction kud-sta kud-s house-ela houseill ‘out of one house and into another’ (see Alhoniemi 1985, 5; Bartens 1999, 98). The ablative can also indicate separation, as in lotka-m-s kiźəfńe-m-də stop-inf-ill ask-infabl ‘to stop asking’ (see also infinitives in Section 9), and the amount given in exchange (measure, price, number); see (5d). (5a) (Tâpaev 1998, 281) veľə-sə aľa-də kərža=ľ, a ava-də da śťiŕ-də village-ine man-abl few=cop.prt2.3sg, but woman-abl and girl-abl lamə=ľ plenty=cop.prt2.3sg ‘In the village there were few men, but there were a lot of women and big girls.’

494 JACK RUETER

(5b) (Tâpaev 1998, 264) . . . məźarə śembəc nara-śť učä-ń pona-də, məźarə how.much total shear-prt1.3pl sheep-gen wool-abl, how.many kočka-śť saraz al-də. pick-prt1.3pl chicken egg-abl ‘[he remembered] . . . how much wool they had shorn total, how many chicken eggs they had gathered.’ (5c) (Levčaev 1972, 63) kunda-źe käď-ta, śav-əźə grab-prt1.3sg>3sg hand-abl take-prt1.3sg>3sg ‘He grabbed her by the hand (and) took her.’ (5d) (Moiseev 1997, 54) kafksəgeməń ťožäń-də rama-ń aťäkškä i avakškä. eighty thousand-abl buy-prt1.1sg little.rooster and little.hen ‘for eighty thousand [rubles] I bought a rooster and a hen.’ The inessive case expresses two relations: location in space, time, or state (6a) and instrument or material used (6b). In the basic (indefinite) declension, the inessive is flagged with a simple case suffix: kud-sə house-ine ‘in the/a house, at home.’ In the definite declension, however, the inessive is flagged with case and adposition together, for example, kud-ť e-sə house-def.gen.sg in-ine ‘in the/this/that house’: (6a) (Kišnâkov 1995, 215) peftəmə kiźəfks šar-ś agrənom-ť pŕa-sə, endless question spin-prt1.3sg agronom-def.gen head-ine ‘a big question was spinning in the agronomist’s head,’ (6b) (Atânin 1961, №2, 66) soń avtomašina-sə usk-əźə kud-u paša. 3sg.gen car-ine haul-prt1.3sg>3sg home-lat Pasha ‘Pasha drove her home in a car / She was driven home in a car by Pasha’ The elative case encodes source/origin, resulting to state and adverbial time. Definite declension forms are built using the postposition ez-də out-abl ‘out of.’ In addition to expressing source/origin, as in ivan saś veľə-stə Ivan arrive.prt1.3sg village-ela ‘Ivan came from the village,’ the elative can also indicate the beginning point of a path, for example, veľə-stə veľə-s village-ela village-ill ‘from village to village,’ or source material, for example, pona-stə wool-ela ‘from wool, out of wool.’ A temporal adverbial can be derived from nouns, päďeńća-stə Friday-ela ‘on Friday,’ and from verbs, jar̥ca-m-stə eat-vn-ela ‘while eating.’ Object or subject complements in the elative indicate resulting state with no reference to a previous state, for example, jakśťəŕ-stə ar̥t-f al̥ -t red-ela color-prf.ptcp egg-pl ‘eggs painted red.’ The illative case (-s ~ -z-; definite forms built with the postposition e-s in-ill) has the following basic functions: direction, whether concrete toška-ms piľə-s whisper-inf ear-ill ‘whisper in [one’s] ear,’ or of an event kuč-əms ťev-s send-inf job-ill ‘send on an errand,’ or with an acquisitional implication ‘after, for’ tu-ms kal-s leave-inf fish-ill

MOKSHA MORDVIN 495

‘go to (catch) fish,’ or at the most abstract level, as part of the verb’s valence frame, śeďi-s tokaj jofks heart-ill touch.prs.ptcp fairytale ‘a heart-touching tale.’ The illative also encodes a state of full contact with body parts, as in put-əźə pŕä-z-ənzə kartuz-ənc put-prt1.3sg>3sg head-ill-3sg hat-gen.3sg ‘he put his hat on (closer translation: into his head’); collocated with the ablative, it indicates the terminal end of a path, as in pe-da pe-s end-abl end-ill ‘from beginning to end’; similarly, with the elative: veľə-stə veľə-s ‘village to village’; a distributive notion (spatial) (7a) and (temporal) (7b), as well as kafkśť ši-z-ənzə 2-mult day-ill-3sg ‘twice a day.’ (7a) (Levčaev 1972, 240) malastəń śiśəm-kafksa veľə-s fkä-śaka voražjä-ś near.by seven-eight village-ill one-same seer-def ‘one and the same wizard for the nearby seven to eight villages’ (7b) (Makulov 1997, 95) sər̥k-at ši-s, a jar̥cambäľ śäf-ť ńeďäľa-s set.off-2sg day-ill, but food take-imp.2sg week-ill ‘you’re setting off for the day, but take food for a week.’ The lative case (-v ~ -u ~ -i) is associated only with the indefinite declension in Moksha, whereas Erzya also shows a plural definite usage (see Rueter 2010, 88–90). The lative is used to indicate target direction (with places), for example, veľ-i sa-ś village-lat come-prt1.3sg ‘she/he/it came to the village,’ and (with events) promks-u sa-ś meeting-lat come-prt1.3sg ‘she/he/it came to the meeting.’ The prolative case -gə ~ -va ~ -ga ~ -ka1 (definite declension forms are built with the postposition ez-ga in-prol) indicates multiple reference points in space and time. In practice, this means that the prolative can be used to address: motion over/across/via, for example, jakaśť viŕ-gə walk.prt1.3pl forest-prol ‘they walked through the forest,’ location in (8a), or end point (8b) in several points (cf. Keresztes 2011, 65), and approximate point or extremity of contact, for example, pəlmanža-va knee-prol ‘up to the knees.’ A prolative-case np can also be used as a pre-modifier; see (8c). (8a) (Makulov 1997, 129) ki-ś ťä-sa rovnaj, ťifť-əń bokə-va šuft-t-ńə road-def here-ine even, one-gen side-prol tree-pl-def naŕaža-f=t ľeš-sa,. . . decorate-prf.ptcp=cop.3pl frost-ine,. . . ‘the road is even here, on (‘along’) one side the trees are decorated in frost . . .’ (8b) (Makulov 1997, 312) —eŕäv-i kud-ga aťeist-t-ńə-ń kuč-śə-ms . . . must-3sg home-prol atheist-pl-def-gen send-distr-inf ‘[we] have to send the atheists home [everyone to their own home]’ (8c) (Kosov 1962, №1, 4) karta laŋga vajgäľbe-t-ńe veńem-śť map surface.prol kilometre-pl-def stretch-prt1.3pl ‘The kilometres on the map stretched.’

496 JACK RUETER

The Erzya temporalis -Ne (see Rueter 2010, 74‒75, 93) is paralleled in Moksha by -ńä, for example, fkä keľmə ťalə-ńä one cold winter-temp ‘[during] one cold winter’; use of this suffix is limited to nouns denoting temporal duration and fills a temporal adverbial slot (cf. Feoktistov and Saarinen 2005, 47–48). The comparative case suffix -ška (definite forms built with postposition e-ška in-comp) is used to indicate an approximate value with expressions of time, other measure, or number, for example, minuta-ška minute-comp ‘about a minute,’ kilo-ška kilo-comp ‘about a kilogram’; note also similarity (in size), for example, ťiń topəľ-ška-nt 2pl.gen poplarcomp-2pl ‘(about) the size of your poplar.’ An np in this case can be a pre-modifier, for example, alaša-ška vəŕgaz horse-cmp wolf ‘a wolf the size of a horse’), or a copula complement, as in example (9). (9)

(Kirdâškin 1953, 201) tunda-ťi uľ-iȷ̊ť tuvə-ška-t spring-def.dat be-3pl pig-comp-pl ‘by spring they will be as big as (full-grown) pigs’

The abessive (also called caritive, privative) case does not have a postpositional equivalent for definite nouns, but flagging for possessor is attested at least for kin terms, for example, 3sg ćora-ftəmə-nzə son-abe-3sg ‘without his/her son.’ The abessive denotes the absence of person, thing, or idea. It is attested as a clausal adjunct, see (10a); as copula complement with verbs such as aščə- ‘to be still,’ iľad- ~ ľad- ‘to stay, to remain,’ eŕa- ‘to live,’ see (10b), see also Section 11.9; and attributively within the NP (10c). (10a) (Kišnâkov 1995, 389) kačam tol-ftəmə af uľəńďi smoke fire-abe neg exist.3sg Lit. ‘smoke without fire does not exist’ (10b) (Kišnâkov 1995, 235) kizə-ń ve-ś uľ-ś šobda, ťäšť-ftəma. summer-gen night-def be-prt1.3sg dark star-abe ‘The summer night was dark [and] without stars.’ (10c) (Larionov 1962, 80) poč-ftəmə pača-t af pićə-v-ixť flour-abe pancake-pl neg fry-pass-3pl ‘Without flour pancakes cannot be fried.’ The translative (also called predicative) case -ks has only indefinite forms and is not described as taking person suffixes (see Lomakina 2000, 58–60), but the Moksha corpora do provide evidence for nonfinite verbal forms in the translative with person suffixation indexing subject or object according to the valency of the verb: it indexes the object of a transitive verb (see example 11), unless the transitive verb already has a genitive-form argument, in which case the possessive suffix indicates the subject. The translative has at least the following functions: resemblance (subject), for example, kəfčäď-ś jondəl-ks flash-prt1.3sg lightning-tra ‘it flashed like lightning’; change of state (object), for example, no śiń jalga-ks ťij-əmaź but 3pl friend-tra make-prt1.3pl>1pl ‘but they introduced

MOKSHA MORDVIN 497

us’; and capacity, for example, rabəta-ń kombańər-ks work-prt1.1sg combine.driver-tra ‘I worked as a combine driver.’ (11) (Beban 1995, 110) . . . aš-əź mu, meźə az-əms karda-m-ks-ənzə. neg-prt1.3sg find.cng, what say-inf prevent-inf-tra-3sg ‘. . . he hadn’t found what to say to prevent her’ The causative case (definite declension forms built with postposition i-ŋksə) is used with person suffixes, especially with deverbal nouns; see (12c) (cf. Lomakina 2000, 58–61). It also has meanings of acquisition (12a) and (12b) purpose (12b), and ‘because of’ (12c). (12a) (Rodʹkina 1984, №2, 7) tuś eši keľmə veď-ənksə go.prt1.3sg well.lat cold water-caus ‘he went to the well for (= fetch) cold water’ (12b) (Devin 1991, 161) praźďńik-əŋksə nolda-f=əľ boćkäńä vodka celebration-caus make-prf.ptcp=cop.prt2.3sg little.barrel vodka ‘a little barrel of vodka had been made for the celebration’ (12c) (Kirdâškin 1953, 200) spaśiba ťejť ćebäŕsta mäľaftəma-ŋksə-nk. thank 2sg.dat.short beautifully remembering-caus-1pl ‘thank you for remembering us in a beautiful way.’ 11.6 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Adjectives have the same morphological potential as the nouns they modify. As adnominal modifiers, however, they do not undergo any form of inflection, for example, ćebäŕ śťiŕ-ť ľeməc beautiful girl-def.gen name-3sg ‘the beautiful girl’s name,’ oću kud-sə big house-ine ‘in (a) big house(s)’ (see Alâmkin 2000, 33–34, cf. Ornatov 1838; Ahlquist 1861; Bartens 1999, 180). As a copula complement, the adjective may be declined (nominative singular vs. plural of the indefinite declension, but this may also be regarded in some instances as the non-past dependent copula), for example, kut-t-ńə oćuf-t housepl-def big=cop.3pl ‘the houses are big,’ kut-tńə oćuf-t-əl̥ -t house-pl-def big-pl=cop. prt2-3pl ‘the houses were big.’ The Saransk school (e.g. Alâmkin 2000) identifies genitive attributes as classifying adjectives (šuftə ‘tree; wood’ > šuftə-ń wood-gen ‘wooden, of wood’). This group differs from other adjectives in that it does not decline for number (akšə-t white-pl but not *šuftə-ń-ť of.wood-gen-pl). Similar forms can be found for adverbs as well; śiďə-stə frequent-ela ‘frequently’ becomes śiďə-stə-ń frequent-ela-gen ‘frequent.’ Like the genitive-form personal pronouns, these, too, can take lengthened forms in -ńńə with the same function (see examples 26a–e). Only determiners (e.g. ńä vs. ńa-t, see (13a) with number and (13b) without) exhibit the occasional encoding of the category of number (cf. Polâkov 2000, 107–108; see also Ananʹina 2000, 82–83, and Kelina 2000, 91).

498 JACK RUETER

(13a) (Makulov 1997, 314) kie soda-sï, meźə-ń ńa-t tabľetka-t. who know-sg3>sg3, what-gen these-pl tablet-pl ‘Who knows what those tablets are made of.’ (13b) (Makulov 1997, 230) kie soda-sïńe, kodap-t ńä lomať-ť-ńə. who know-sg3>pl3, what.kind-pl these person-pl-def ‘Who knows what kind of people they were’ While both forms ńä and ńa-t ‘those’ are attested as adnominal modifiers for at least the writers Makulov (1997) and Kišnâkov (1995), only the form ńa-t is attested in the corpora as a free pronoun. A similar dichotomy has been attested for Erzya (see Rueter 2013, 108). In assessing the comparative construction in Moksha, it will be noted that the standard is encoded with a variety of flagging strategies, and the parameter is not always an adjective but may be a verb (16), an adverb, or even a noun (17). The standard can be flagged with the ablative case (e.g. aľa-də oću father-abl big ‘bigger than father,’ toń-ďə-də-t oću 2sg-abl-abl-2sg big ‘bigger than you’) or with the postposition koŕas ‘in relation to,’ for example, aľa-nc kora-s śeŕij-əľ father-gen.3sg in.relation.to-ill tall=cop.prt2.3sg ‘he was tall compared to his father.’ In the absence of an explicit standard of comparison, an analytic construction with the adverb/particle śa-də that-abl ‘more’ is used, for example, śa-də oću that-abl big ‘bigger,’ śa-də ćebäŕ that-abl beautiful ‘more beautiful.’ Standards with case or adpositional flagging often appear together with the adverb śa-də ‘more’; see (14a). (14a) aľä-ń koŕa-s śadə oću father-gen in.relation.to -ill more big ‘bigger than father’ (14b) aľa-də oću father-abl big ‘bigger than father’ (14c) aľa-də śa-də oću father-abl that-abl big ‘bigger than father’ Definite standards of comparison do not seem to use the postposition ezdə ‘from.’ Instead, they appear only to use the postposition koŕas ‘in relation to’ construction; see (15). (15) azər-ť koŕas master-def.gen in.relation.to ‘bigger than the master.’

oću big

As in Komi-Zyrian, both Mordvin languages can also use finite verbs as parameters of comparison. While Komi-Zyrian uses synthetic means, suffixing the comparative -džïk, for example, təd-ə-džïk know-3sg-cmp ‘s/he knows better,’ Moksha uses an analytic structure; see (16). This kind of structure can be found with other verbs

MOKSHA MORDVIN 499

as well, for example, śadə ‘more’ + ečkəməms ‘get thick’ becomes ‘get thicker,’ śadə ‘more’ + šačəms ‘grow’ becomes ‘grow bigger/more,’ śadə ‘more’ + maladəms ‘come closer’ becomes ‘come even closer,’ śadə ‘more’ + keľgəms ‘like’ becomes ‘like even more,’ etc. (16) (Pinâsov 1996, 308) vov ťä inži-ť tolga-nzə-n koŕa-s mońńə-t-ńə see this guest-def.gen feather-pl.3sg-gen in.relation.to-ill mine-pl-def śadə mazəlgədï-xť more become.more.beautiful-3pl ‘you see, in comparison to this guest’s feathers mine are getting more beautiful.’ On a similar note, nouns are found as copula complements in the copula construction, which lends to their being accepted as parameters of comparison; see (17). (17) ťäńi śa-də-ŋgə lomań-at now that-abl-add person=cop.2sg ‘Now you are even more of a human being.’ Moksha can also flag the degree of difference in a comparative construction: in (18), we observe the difference in weight to be flagged with the ablative, that is, ‘one hundred grams’ quantifies the comparison. (18) śadə gramma-də śa-də oću hundred gram-abl that-abl big ‘one hundred grams bigger’ The comparative construction is the main strategy for expressing superlatives. The standard of comparison is the word sembə ‘all,’ for example, both sembə-ń koŕas oću all-gen in.relation.to big and sembə-də oću all-abl big are constructions that express the notion ‘the biggest, biggest of all.’A third specifically Moksha strategy for expressing the superlative involves the adverb iń ‘most,’ as in iń oću ‘the biggest,’ but this word might be interpreted differently as well, for example, iń kučka-sə very middle-ine ‘in the very middle.’ In addition to nouns and pronouns, the standard may also be an adjective, where the construction consists of a quasi-reduplication: staka-də-ŋgə staka heavy-abl-add heavy ‘extremely heavy (lit. heavier even than heavy).’ This construction is often classified as a superlative, which is on a par with the śembə-də staka all-abl heavy ‘heaviest of them all (lit. heavier than all)’ construction. Beyond the use of the ablative and koŕas ‘in relation to’ strategies, Evsevʹev (1928/29, 58) also mentions the specification of a domain (with a genitive), as it, too, may provide a basis for the superlative; see (19). (19) veľə-ń mazï śťiŕ village-gen beautiful girl ‘the most beautiful girl in the village’ Some adjectives have variants expressing ‘softened’ meaning or similarity. ‘Softened’ stands here for endearment and delimitation, and it is expressed by the diminutive

500 JACK RUETER

in -ńä or -kä (in near complementary distribution). The suffix can also be used with nouns ćora ‘man, son’ > ćora=ńä man=dim ‘boy, son,’ numerals kafksə=ńä eight=dim ‘eight,’ adverbs šisə=ńä alive=dim ‘alive,’ alu-pandə=ńa-t down-lat hill=dim-pl ~ alu-pant-t down-lat hill-pl ‘down hill,’ adpositions mala=ńa-sə-n next=dim-ine-1sg ‘[right] next to me,’ and the converb kəšťəź-moraźńə ‘dancing and singing.’ There are varied suffixes for expressing similarity -ža, -za, -na, -ra, as well as the similarity construction involving special forms in -čt, -št, -l̥ t, and the third-person singular of the verb ‘to go’ moľi (see Kelina 2000, 89–91; for discussion of ideophones, see also Bartens [1999], 158). 11.7 NUMERALS In Moksha and Erzya, three types of cardinal numerals exist for counting individuals (fkä, kaftə, kolmə, ńiľə ‘one, two, three, four’), pairs, or sets (finst, kafənct, kolmənct ‘one pair/groups,’ ‘two pair/groups,’ ‘three pair/groups,’ see example 31), and verbal iterations (veśť, kafksť, kolməkśť, śadəkśť ‘once, twice, thrice, a hundred times’). Ordinal numerals can also have this same three-way split, that is, individual (vaśəńćə, ombəćə, kolməćə ‘first, second, third’), sets (finct, ombənct, kolmənct ‘some,’ ‘others,’ ‘a third group’), and iteration that is basically an ablative form of the ordinal (vaśəńćədə, ombəćədə, kolməćədə ‘for the first time, for the second time, for the third time’). There are also collective associative numerals, that is, ones expressing the size of the collective (kafənct, ńiľənct, śiźgeməń śiśəmənct ‘two pair/sets,’ ‘four pair/sets,’ ‘seventy-seven pair/sets’), and a universal quantifier (only in Moksha: kaf-ćkə käď-sa two-uniq hand-ine ‘with both hands,’ kolmə-ćkə geroj-xńə three-uniq hero-pl.det ‘all three heroes’). An associative delimiter uses person marking, for example, śkamə-ŋk ~ śkamə-nək alone-1pl ‘we alone,’ kafə-ńə-t two-assoc-2sg, kafə-ńə-nt two-assoc-2pl ‘the two of you,’ kolmə-ńə-nzə threeassoc-3sg, kolmə-ńə-st three-assoc-3pl ‘the three of them.’ The notion expressed in kolmə-ńə-nzə three-assoc-3sg (lit. ‘the three of him/her’) makes access to the one individual salient in the discourse along with two others associated with this individual, that is, ‘s/he and two others.’ This is an instance of obligatory possessive marking (cf. Rueter 2013, 103‒105). Approximate numerals can be formed analytically by using two end points of a range, or synthetically by means of the comparative case -ška, for example, keməń ‘ten’ > keməńška ‘about ten.’ Distributive numerals are usually formed through reduplication of an indefinite genitive, for example, kolmə-ń&kolmə-ń three-gen&three-gen ‘three each’; see (20) for an example of iterative distribution. Fractions are entirely analytic, composed of an individuating ordinal plus the word for ‘part,’ which is essentially a direct equivalent to the English construction, for example, keməńćə päľə ‘tenth part’ (cf. Imiarekova 2000, 94–101). The Moksha cardinal numerals are originally derived from 14 lexical items, that is, 1–10, 20, 100, 1,000, and a million, just as in Erzya (cf. Rueter 2013, 103). The numerals 11–19 and 21–29 are formed with a special combinatory -GO (-Uvə, -gä, -Ijə) formative (fki-jə, kaftu-və, kolmu-və, ńiľi-jə, veťi-jə, kotu-və, śiśəm-gə, kafksu-və, vejxksï-jə), preceded by a monosyllabic stem kem+ ‘10’ or komś ‘20’ with phonetic assimilation processes (not all writers adhere to this canon komś veťi-jə-ška ~ komś veťəška ‘about 25’). The tens 30–90 can, in theory, be attributed to a distributive construction involving the numerators 3–9 (cf. Rueter 2013, 103). Unlike Erzya, however, there is a tendency for combinatory numeral forms to accompany the tens markers in Moksha; see (20).

MOKSHA MORDVIN 501

(20) (MV IV, 759) ińä v́eď-əń kučka·-sa, šäj nal-sa śəźǵeḿəń+śiśəm-ǵä jalga-ťńä great water-gen middle-ine, rush thicket-ine seventy+seven-go friend-pl.2sg ‘[They are] in the middle of a great water, in a thicket of rushes, your seventy-seven friends.’ Cardinal pairs and sets require their own collective type of numerals. ‘Two pairs of boots’ is kafə-nc kämə-t two-coll boot-pl ‘two pair(s) of boots,’ veťe-nc čast-t five-coll watch-pl ‘five watches’; see (21). The Moksha word for ‘watch,’ čast-t watch-pl, has two t-s phonetically present. The second here indicates a long /t/ segment, indicating a long period of silence after /s/ and before /t/ release. The first t might be associated with the Russian source word čas=ï hour=pl ‘clock, watch,’ which is then followed by a second t plural marker. Collective numerals are not well attested in the Moksha corpora. Note that the suffix -ćkə is used for set numerals and is glossed here as coll (see example 22). (21) (Kuznecov 1979, 323) užə-sə śťa-də ašče-śť ava-ń kafə‐nc corner-ine stand-cnv be.situated-prt1.3pl woman-gen two-coll käməńä-t, a vaks-sə-st aľä-ń ťužä boťinka-t. little.boot-pl, and next.to-ine-3pl man-gen brown boot-pl ‘In the corner stood two pairs of women’s boots, and next to them brown men’s boots.’ Cardinal iterations are a way of counting verbal iterations such as ve-śť one-iter ‘once,’ kaf-kśť two-iter ‘twice,’ kolmə-kśť three-iter ‘three times,’ śadə-kśť hundred-iter ‘a hundred times.’ This is expressed with -śť in combination with ‘one’ and with -ksť with numbers two and up. The morphology extends to quantifiers and question words and can have approximative and distributive permutations for a reduplicated iterative conveying distributive meaning, as in (22). (22) (Kirdâškin 1953, 98) . . . avďuŕä-ś orta laŋg-sə kafćkəń pala-źəń Avdûria-def gate surface-ine both.coll.gen kiss-prt1.3sg>3pl kolmə-kśť&kolmə-kśť . . . three-iter&three-iter ‘Lady Avdûr kissed the two [brothers] three times each at the gate.’ Ordinals and relative position in space can be divided into individual and set numerals. The first two ordinals for individuals in Moksha show suppletive forms: vaśəń ~ vaśəńćə ‘first’ and ombəćə ‘second’; other numerals are regularly derived from the cardinals, for example, kolmə-ćə three-ord ‘third.’ There is a corresponding question word məźarə-ćə how.many-ord ‘the how manieth.’ Set ordinals are limited to one specific instance ombənct ‘a second set; the others,’ which is aligned with finct ‘one set; the first set’ and kolmənct ‘three pairs; the third set’; see (23): (23) (Pinâsov 1998, 177) kuč-əź finc-ńə-ń, bəta veď-s vaja-ś-ť, send-prt1.3pl>3 one.set.coll-pl.def-gen, as.though water-ill sink-prt1.3-pl

502 JACK RUETER

i-ś-ť mərda ombənc-ńə-vək, kolmənc-ńə-vək . . . neg-prt1.3-pl return.cng other.ord.coll-pl.def-add three.ord.coll-pl.def-add ‘They sent one group, as if they drowned, a second group didn’t return, nor did a third . . .’ Relative position in space for an iteration is conveyed by the ablative form of the individual ordinal, that is, kolmə-ćə ‘third’ but kolmə-ćə-də three-ord-abl ‘for the third time.’ This has a correlating question word məźarə-ćə-də how.many-ord-abl ‘literally: for the how manieth time.’ There are two universal quantifier expressions for collectives in -ksńə and -ćkə, and an associative/comitative collective in -ńe- + oblique person suffix. The neutral universal quantifier kolmə-ksńə three-coll.uniq.pl.def ‘the three,’ with -ksńə, seems to be part of a distribution representative of the central dialect, with -ćkə in the other dialects. Writers with Central Dialect backgrounds, such as Devin, Kudashkin, Makulov, and Pianzin, use the -ksńə in their works; see (24). (24a) (Makulov 1997, 48) Klas-sə uľ-śť kolmə śťiŕńä-t I kolmə-ksńə-ń class-ine be-prt1.3pl three girl-pl and three-coll.uniq-gen fka-t famiľija-sna i ľem-sna. one-pl surname-3pl and name-3pl ‘There were three girls in the class, and all three had the same surnames and given names.’ (24b) (Kišnâkov 1995, 217) kolmi-ćkə veľə-ť-ńə fkä kolxoz-s purəm-śť three-coll village-pl-def one collective.farm-ill gather-prt1.3pl ‘All three villages came together as on collective farm’ Examples in the Moksha corpora attest to nearly regular formation beginning with kaftə ‘two’ for -ćkə, for example, kafćkə (‘all two, both’), but it is regular from kolmə ‘three’ onward: kolməćkə (‘all three’), ńiľəćkə (‘all four’), veťəćkə (‘all five’), kotəćkə (‘all six’), śiśəmićkə (‘all seven’), keməńćkə (‘all ten’). 11.8 PRONOUNS Moksha has the following (free) pronoun types: personal, intensifier (/reflexive), possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, negative, relative, definite, indefinite, reflexive-possessive, countable-personal, and reciprocal. Personal pronouns distinguish between nominative and genitive only in the singular: nominative are mon 1sg, ton 2sg, son 3sg; genitive are moń 1sg, toń 2sg, soń 3sg; miń 1pl, ťiń 2pl, śiń 3pl are the nominative/genitive plural forms. In contrast, Erzya genitive forms exhibit double exponence in all but one of the persons: moń 1sg, toń ~ tońť 2sg, sonze 3sg, mińek 1pl, tïnk 2pl, sïnst 3pl. The personal pronouns in Mordvinic should be considered from a multiexponential head- and dependent-marking perspective, that is, dealt with in parallel to predicate and possessor marking as well as other morphological phenomena. Here, nominative and genitive person markers exist as both bound and free morphology. In the dative, for example, there are short ťej-ńə dat-1sg ‘to me’ and long moń-ďej-ńə 1sg-dat-1sg ‘to me’ forms.

MOKSHA MORDVIN 503

The dative presents double exponence in a single morphological word and contrasts that with single exponence. For example, the long dative mońďejńə 1sg.dat and its long siblings occur only 283 times in the data, whereas the short form ťejńə 1sg.dat and its short siblings occur over 9,000 times. One feature of the long or double-exponence forms is that they can serve as the host of the additive clitic --vək ~ --Əngə, whereas the short, single exponence forms have not been found to host clitics. The dichotomy seen in the dative pronouns is paralleled in other oblique cases. The intensifier/reflexive pronouns can be derived from the personal pronouns by simply adding ć to the end in the nominative. These are the long forms, for example, mon > mońć 1sg.refl, ton > tońć 2sg.refl, son > sońć 3sg.refl, min > mińć 1pl.refl, ťiń > ťińć 2pl.refl, śiń > śińć 3pl.refl. Although prescriptive grammars may limit inflection to nominative and genitive, other cases are also used: sońć 3sg.refl, sońć-əń 3sg.reflgen, sońć-tə-nzə 3sg-abl-3sg (cf. Polâkov 2000, 105). Short forms are available for all but the nominative and genitive; they each begin with the element eś- ‘self,’ followed by a case marker and then a possessive suffix to indicate person, for example, eś-ťej-nzə 3sg. refl-dat-3sg ‘to him himself.’ The nominative double exponence (long form) is represented by two-word phrases: mon mońć 1sg 1sg.refl ‘as for me; I myself’; ton tońćəń 2sg.gen 2sg.refl.gen ‘your own’ (cf. Polâkov 2000, 111–112). Reflexive reference can be made to at least the previous subject and object topic of the previous context. Sometimes, this reference may be used with intervening sentences; see (25a–b). Here (25a) illustrates reference within the sentence, whereas (25b) makes reference with two intervening predications. (25a) (Kišnâkov 1995, 381) šofer-ś keńər-ś lotkaft-əms mašina-ť driver-def have.time-prt1.3sg stop-inf car-def.gen ‘The driver had time to stop the car himself.’

soń-ć. 3sg-refl

(25b) (Kudaškin 1990, 44) veľə-sə soda-saź śä-ń-gə: fima-ń məźardəvək af mašń-i village-ine know-3>3pl that-gen-add Fima-gen ever neg be.depleted-3sg «eś pańfka-c», śas sa-šənd-əľ̥ť päl-əst pŕä-ń peť-əmə, own flower-3sg therefore come-hab-prt2.3pl half-3pl head-gen fix-inf.loc bəta ťafta i eŕäv-ś. A mekəľďəń as.if like.this also be.needed-prt1.3sg but later ping-ť soń-ć-kə mu-šəndə-ľ tuftal̥ -t . . . time-def.gen 3sg-refl-add find-hab-prt2.3sg excuse-pl . . . ‘In the village they also knew Fima’s «own flower» never ran out, for this reason they would come around to clear their heads as if this was how things should be. But later he [Fima] too would find excuses . . .’ Possessive pronouns in Moksha can be derived from both the personal pronoun genitive and the long reflexive genitive forms: moń 1sg.gen ‘my, mine (copula complement)’ > mońńə 1sg.poss.nom.sg ‘mine’ and mońćəń 1sg.refl.gen ‘my own, mine (copula complement)’ > mońćəńńə 1sg.refl.poss.nom.sg ‘my own, mine,’ respectively (cf. Polâkov 2000, 105–107; Hamari 2007, 58, 2016). The possessive pronouns are distinct from the genitive form of the person pronouns in function: the genitive form of the personal pronouns is used for adnominal attribution, marking of the object and adpositional complement, while the possessive pronoun in the nominative singular and plural base forms is

504 JACK RUETER

reserved for copula complement and postverbal position subject. The possessive pronouns are inflected in all cases, with the exception of the indefinite genitive and dative, that is, mońńə 1sg.poss.nom.sg ‘mine’ is distinguished from mońńət 1sg.poss.nom.pl ‘mine,’ mońńəś 1sg.poss.def.nom.sg ‘mine,’ and mońńəť 1sg.poss.def.gen.sg ‘mine,’ see (26a–e). (26a) (Mišanina 1993, 60) mońńə mašina-ś, maŕa-śť . . . 1sg.poss car-def, hear-prt1.3pl ‘The car is mine, you hear . . .’ (26b) (Mišanina 1993, 57) ki-ńńə-t ńä vii käť-ť-ńə . . . who-poss-pl these powerful hand-pl-def.pl ‘Whose powerful hands are these . . .; Lit.: Whose are these powerful hands . . .’ (26c) (Pinâsov 1998, 7) a mońńə-ś kosə? but 1sg.poss-def where-ine ‘But where is mine?’ (26d) (Pinâsov 1961, 70) a mon mońćə-ńńə-ť and 1sg 1sg.refl-poss-def.gen ‘and I will send my own in a letter.’

śorma-sə letter-ine

kuč-sa. send-1sg>3sg

(26e) (Moiseev 1997, 111) fkä-ť esə afkuksəń piťńə-ť-ńə, ombəćə-sə «mońćə-ńńə-t-ńə». one-def.gen in.ine real price-pl-def.pl other-ine 1sg.refl-poss-pl-def.pl ‘in one—the real prices, in the other—mine.’ Not all forms of a hypothetical paradigm have been found in the corpora, for example, indefinite genitive and dative, but the forms in (26d) and (26e) paradigms provide a reliable pattern for the reflexive/intensifier possessive pronouns and other instances of the long -ńńə associative derivational suffix. One noteworthy distinction to be attested in the use of definite versus indefinite nominative forms is that the indefinite forms are used as copula complements (see 26a–b), while the definite nominative forms are used in the role of subject or topic (see 26c, 26e) (cf. GMYa 1980: 267–268; Hamari 2007, 58–59; Xolodilova 2016, 249). The demonstrative pro-forms in Moksha cover noun, adjective/determiner, and adverb functions. Plural forms have nasal-initial forms in ťä ‘this, it’ vs. ńä ‘these, they,’ and in reference to ‘a second’ or ‘other’ in tona ‘other’ vs. nona ‘others.’ There is also a separate distal determiner/pronoun with a regular -t plural: śä ‘that,’ śat ‘those.’ In addition to adjectival functions (stamə ‘like this, like that,’ ťaftamə ‘this kind of’), special pro-forms are used for measurement: təńarə ‘this much,’ śəńarə ‘that much.’ The interrogative and relative pro-forms can be enumerated in five shared stems. There are two pronouns, kijə ‘who’ and meźə ‘what’; three pro-determiner, kona ‘which (of known items),’ məźarə ‘how much, how many,’ and məźarəćə ‘the how manieth’; and a

MOKSHA MORDVIN 505

pro-adjective, kodamə ‘what kind of.’ The pronoun kijə ‘who’ has a defective paradigm with kiń who.gen, kińďi who.dat, kida who.abl, kista who.ela, kiks who.tra, kiftəmə who.abe, kinksə who.caus (cf. Polâkov 2000, 108–109). The pronoun meźə ‘what’ presents a complete paradigm, whereas the complete paradigms associated with the pro-determiner kona ‘which’ and pro-adjective kodamə ‘what kind of’ are mainly due to ellipsis. Examples (27a–b) illustrate the use of the pro-adjective kona ‘which’ as both an interrogative and a relative pronoun. (27a) (Larionov 1962, 97) kona brigadir-əńke ťäfta mäŕg-ś which brigadier-1pl.sg/pl like.that say-prt1.3sg ‘Which one of our brigadiers said that?’ (27b) (Lobanov 1992, 77) viŕ-əń fkä vanï-ś mu-ś možžəveľńik, kona-ń śeŕ-əc forest-gen one guard-def find-prt1.3sg juniper which-gen height-3sg malat-kšń-i keveťijə metra-ťi near-freq-3sg 15 meter-dat ‘one of the forest guards found a juniper that was nearly 15 metres tall (lit. whose height nears 15 meters’ The interrogative/relative pronoun stems in Moksha are used for deriving negative pronouns, for example, meźə what ‘what’ + -vək/-Gə meźəvək anything ‘nothing, anything.’ Additional indefinite pronoun derivations occur more with the prefixes koj-, kaťi-, the suffix -bəďi, or reduplication, for example, koj=ko-sə particle=wh-ine ‘somewhere,’ ko-sə&ko-sə wh-ine&wh-ine ‘somewhere’ (cf. Polâkov 2000, 109, 111). Note the case, number, and definiteness marking between the stem and derivational clitic in meź-ś-ke anything-def-add (28), (cf. examples 1a–1b). (28) (Kišnâkov 1995, 395) estə meź-ś-kə af javft-samaź then anything-def-add neg separate-3sg>1pl ‘then nothing will separate us from one another’

fkä&fka-də one&another-abl

The enclitics =vək, =Gə are not treated as particles when used in the derivation of indefinite pronouns (see Erina 1997, 25–26, 37–52). Indefinite pronouns may consist of orthographic phrases, that is, in addition to single-word constructions involving case suffixes, we must consider synthetic case as well. The construction ki-ń martə-vək whogen with-add ‘with somebody’ (29a) appears to be indefinite, whereas ki-ń-ge martə who-gen-add with ‘with anybody’ is attested with clauses of negative polarity (29b). This dichotomy is far from clear; in fact, existential clauses in aš and uľi require no clitic at all, cf. ki-ń martə ‘with whom’ (29c). Additional triplets are attested in kiń-ge langs vs. kiń langs-ka vs. ki-ń langs ‘at anybody’; ki-ń-ge ezdə vs. ki-ń ezdə-ngə ~ ezdə-vək vs. ki-ń ezdə ‘about anybody; from anybody.’ (29a) (Mišanina 1993, 179) . . . ki-ń mar̥tə-vək kuš veśť pala-ť . . .? who-gen with-add even once kiss-prt1.2sg ‘. . . have you kissed anybody even once . . .?’

506 JACK RUETER

(29b) (Kudaškin 1990, 34) . . . ki-ń-ge mar̥tə iź sər̥kśə . . . who-gen-add with neg.prt1.3sg leave. cng ‘. . . he didn’t go off with anyone . . .’ (29c) (Kudaškin 1990, 71) . . . a kor̥tams aš ki-ń mar̥tə. but speak.inf neg who-gen with ‘. . . but there isn’t anyone to talk with.’ Delimiting personal pronouns śkamə-n alone-1sg ‘I alone,’ śkamə-t alone-2sg ‘you alone,’ śkamə-nzə alone-3sg ‘he/she/it alone,’ śkamə-nk alone-1pl ‘we alone,’ śkamə-nt alone-2pl ‘you alone,’ and śkamə-st alone-3pl ‘they alone’ are analogically close to collective associative numerals. The possessive suffix is obligatory and may be preceded by diminutive marking or followed by either an additive clitic or dependent copula morphology. The possessive suffixes belong to the non-core-case series (see Table 11.5.4). 11.9 VERBAL MORPHOLOGY Verbs and their inflection comprise an extensive portion of Mordvinic morphology. Moksha and Erzya conjugation morphology can index person and number of both the subject and object in verbs (see also Copula clauses in Section 11.12). As in many other Uralic languages, negative auxiliary verbs are also conjugated, and the main (lexical) verb is in a connegative form. In Moksha, the subject-object (often called object or definite) conjugation is used with definite objects (and also with complement clauses in object function). Erzya and Moksha have somewhat-different deployments of the two kinds of argument indexing. The focus here is on Moksha. 11.9.1 Finite verb morphology Moksha verbs are conjugated in five to seven moods, depending on the analysis: the indicative, subjunctive, desiderative, imperative, optative, conditional, and conditional-subjunctive (see Kelin 2000, 135‒137). The citation form of verbs in both Erzya and Moksha is the infinitive in -ms. What Erzya distinguishes as its subjunctive and its indicative second preterit are homophonous in Moksha (see Rueter 2022). Furthermore, the conditional shows signs of being derivational in origin, for example, Keresztes (2011, 79) posits first preterite, and it is also used with the infinitive: kočka-ńďäŕa-ms choose-cond-inf ‘if (were) to be chosen.’ Three simple tenses are distinguished in the indicative mood of Mordvin grammars. One simple non-past tense is used for the present and future. There is, however, a first past (see 30a) distinct from a second past (habitual, continuous); Moksha tends to apply frequentative derivation in combination with the first past to convey the same habitual and continuous past (see 30b-c): (30a) (Dušin 1978, 10) vəŕgaz-ś peľ-ś lomań-ť ezdə wolf-def be.afraid-prt1.3sg person-def from.abl ‘the wolf was afraid of the person’

MOKSHA MORDVIN 507

(30b) (Tâpaev 1977, 17) jomla-ks piŋg-stə vatrakš-ta peľ-əľ little-tra time-ela frog-abl be.afraid-prt2.3sg ‘as a little boy, he used to be afraid of frogs’ (30c) (Kuznecov 1981, 58) son falu peľ-əńď-ś i peľ-i ružja-də 3sg always be.afraid-dur-prt1.3sg and be.afraid- 3sg weapon-abl ‘he was always afraid of and [now] fears weapons’ Unlike the subject–object conjugations of most other Uralic languages, the Mordvin languages have a system with certain specifications for both person and number. Of the hypothetical 42 argument combinations (6 × 7), only 34 are used; subjects and objects cannot have the same referents. The 34 combinations of mere subject marking plus subject and object marking have different syncreticisms in each of the Mordvin languages. (For a more extensive discussion, see Keresztes, ibid.; Trosterud 2006, 246–303; Rueter 2016). See also Table 11.7a (cf. Alâmkin 2000, 138–140). The subject–object conjugation in Moksha provides more possibilities for morphological expression than does Hungarian. While Hungarian szeret-lek love-1sg>2sg and Moksha keľk-ťä love-1sg>2sg both mean ‘I love you,’ Moksha also has a dedicated form keľg-samań love-2sg>1sg ‘you love me.’ In fact, Moksha distinguishes where Erzya does not: keľg-samaśť love-2sg>1pl ‘you(sg) love us,’ keľg-samaź love-3pl>1sg/1pl ‘they love me/us.’ In the first preterit, Moksha displays a little more ambiguity or polysemy than Erzya; the first- and second-person singular subjects do not distinguish object number for third persons (see Table 11.7b). Here, the uppercase vowel Ə is an archivowel that is dropped after a stem-final vowel. The morphological syncretism is the same as in the first preterit (see Table 11.7c). The imperative and optative forms are rare in texts. The imperative is used only with second-person subjects and has regular object indexing; see Table 11.8a (cf. Alâmkin 2000, 132, 143). The imperative form may take a softening clitic in =a/=ä that renders a request or precative interpretation, for example, sa-k arrive-imp.2sg ‘come!’ sa-k=a

TABLE 11.7A MOKSHA NON-PAST INDICATIVE VERBAL CONJUGATION Object indexing (person and number) None 1sg Subject

indexing

1sg

-An

2sg -Xťä

2sg

-At

-samak

3sg

-Ø

-samań

1pl

-XTamə

2pl

-XTadə

-samaśť

3pl

-XT

-samaź

3sg

1pl

-sa

-Xťäďäź

-sak

-samaśť

-XTanza

-sï

-samaź

-Xťäďäź

-saśk

-Xťäďäź

2pl

-saśť

-samaśť

-saź

-samaź

3pl -sajńə -sajť

-Xťäďäź

-sïńə

-Xťäďäź

-saśk -saśť

-Xťäďäź

-saź

508 JACK RUETER TABLE 11.7B  MOKSHA FIRST PRETERITE INDICATIVE VERBAL CONJUGATION Subject

Conjugations Subject

Object (person and number)

0

1sg

1sg

-Əń

2sg

-Əť

-Əmajť

3sg

-ś

-Əmań

1pl

-Əme

2pl

-Əďe

-Əmaśť

3pl

-śť

-Əmaź

2sg

3sg

-ixťəń

-ińə

1pl

-iť

-Əmaśť

-Əńźə

-Əźə

-Əmaź

-Əďäź

-Əśk

-Əďäź

-Əśť

-Əmaśť

-Əź

-Əmaź

2pl

3pl

-Əďäź

-ińə -iť

-Əďäź

-Əźəń

-Əďäź

-Əśk -Əśť -Əź

-Əďäź

TABLE 11.7C  MOKSHA SECOND PRETERITE INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE VERBAL CONJUGATION Subject

Conjugations Subject

Object (person and number)

0

1sg

1sg

-Əľəń

2sg

-Əľəť

-Əľəmajť

3sg

-Əľ

-Əľəmań

1pl

-Əľəme

2pl

-Əľəďe

-Əľəmaśť

3pl

-Əľ̥ť

-Əľəmaź

1pl

2sg

3sg

-Əľixťəń

-Əľińə -ƏľIť

-Əľəmaśť

-Əľəńźə

-Əľəźə

-Əľəmaź

-Əľəďäź

-Əľəśk

-Əľəďäź

-Əľəśť

-Əľəmaśť

-Əľəź

-Əľəmaź

2pl

3pl

-ƏľƏďäź

-Əľińə -Əľiť

-Əľəďäź

-Əľəźəń

-Əľəďäź

-Əľəśk -Əľəśť

-Əľəďäź

-Əľəź

TABLE 11.8A MOKSHA IMPERATIVE PARADIGM Subject

Conjugations Subject

Object (person and number)

0

1sg

2sg

-XT

2pl

-Ədə

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

-Əmak

-k

-Əmaśť

-Iť

-Əmaśť

-Əśť

-Əmaśť

-Əśť

come-imp.2sg-prec.2sg ‘won’t you come.’ Note that -XT is realized as -k after a vowel. The rule has two archiphones: the X indicates devoicing that occurs in the stem-final consonant of a verb with a consonant stem, and the T provides for palatal or non-palatal realization according to consonant harmony. If the verb has a consonant stem, the combination is realized in -t: mad-əms: mat-t ‘to lie down’; śim-əms: śip-ť ‘to drink’; sa-ms: sa-k ‘to come/arrive’

MOKSHA MORDVIN 509 TABLE 11.8B MOKSHA DEFECTIVE OPTATIVE PARADIGM Subject

1sg

Conjugations Subject

Object (person and number)

0

1sg

2sg NA

-Əzan

2sg

-Əzat

NA

3sg

-Əzə

-ƏzƏmań

-Ənza ~ -Ənzat

3pl

-Əst

NA

NA

The optative has not been documented for extensive subject–object conjugation; in fact, 1pl and 2pl are not found in the literary grammars (see Table 11.8b). There are only a few instances of the opt.2sg subject or 2sg object, for example, vrač-ťi—ľaďəzat ťevftəmə doctor-def.dat remain-opt.2sg jobless ‘to the doctor—may you be without work,’ and škaj-ś van-ənzat God-def guard-opt.3sg>2sg ‘may God watch over you’ (cf. Keresztes 2011, 78‒79). The prohibitive auxiliary ťak ‘don’t’ provides probably the most extensive optative paradigm for a single verb, viz., ťazan opt.1sg, ťaza opt.2sg, ťazə opt.3sg, ťast opt.3pl (not to be confused with ťä-śť do.not-imp.2pl>3 ‘don’t [with third person object]’), but even this verb lacks first- and second-person plural forms. The optative function in Moksha can be expressed by suffixes seen in Table 11.8b (cf. Alâmkin 2000, 135, 144). More common, however, is the analytical construction with the auxiliary optative particle katk let.imp.2sg ‘let’ and an indicative non-past form: katk moľ-i let.imp.2sg go.3sg ‘let him/her go’ (see also 31a–b). Although the majority of instances are attested for third-person singular and plural, the katk let.imp.2sg ‘let’ particle is also attested, for instances, with first-person plural and singular (31a–b). (31a) (Kišnâkov 1995, 382) . . . katk ńi ańćək miń soda-saśk ťä kaľakəndama-ť. let.opt already only 1pl know-1pl>3 this chat-def ‘Let it just be us who know this conversation.’ (31b) (Levčaev 1972, 249) katk mon uľ-an raxama vast-ś. let.opt 1sg be-1sg laughing place-def ‘Let me be the laughing stalk.’ The desiderative mood suffix is -Əľəksəľ- in Moksha, and -Ikseľ- ~ -Ikskeľ- in Erzya. It does not necessarily express wish or desire to do something; rather, it indicates that the verbal predication is not fulfilled despite the existence of a potential. In Moksha, this mood occurs in verbs with human agents (transitive and intransitive), for example, kepəď-əľəks-əľ lift-des-prt2.3sg ‘he/she/it was going to lift [something],’ moľ-əľəks-əľ go-des-prt2.3sg ‘he/she/it was going to go.’ Whereas Erzya even has non-volitional usage, for example, pr-ïks-eľ fall-des-prt2.3sg ‘he/she/it was about to fall,’ kul-ïks-eľ-iń

510 JACK RUETER

die-des-prt2-1sg ‘I just about died,’ this usage has not been found in the Moksha corpora (cf. Keresztes 2011, 79–80). 11.9.2 Nonfinite verb morphology Moksha verbs have multiple nonfinite forms. These include connegatives, participles, deverbal nouns, converbs, and infinitives. There are two types of connegative, one that always takes a vowel-final form (e.g. śim- ‘to drink’ > iź śim-ə neg.prt1.3sg drink-cng ‘he/she did not drink,’ jar̥ca- ‘to eat’ > iź-əń jar̥ca neg.prt1-1sg eat-cng ‘I did not eat’) (see also example 29b), and the other that takes a consonant stem (e.g. apak śip-ť neg drink-cngII ‘having not (been) drunk,’ apak jar̥ca-k neg eat-cngII ‘having not eaten’). The first connegative form is also used in combination with the prohibitive construction ťa-t śim-ə neg-imp.2sg drink-cng ‘don’t drink,’ whereas the second connegative is homophonous with the second-person singular imperative (see -XT in Table 11.8a). Neither connegative is used in the present; negation is expressed with a symmetric negative particle af and a regular finite verbal form. Moksha has the following participial forms: (i) the present/active participle in -I (kor̥ta- ‘to speak’ > kor̥ta-j speak-prs.ptcp ‘speaking,’ jota- ‘to go by’ > jota-j piŋgə pass.by-prs.ptcp time ‘past[grammar]’); (ii) the past/perfective participle in -f (e.g. jota-f eŕaf-əc pass.by-prf.ptcp live-3sg ‘his/her past life,’ ćebäŕ-stə ťi-f tabľica-t nice-ela make-prf.ptcp table-pl ‘nicely made tables’), which can be used in both active and passive voice; as well as the less-frequent (iii) genitive participle -Əń, which often appears in the adverbial compound forms (e.g. kunda-ń käť-ť catch-gen.ptcp hand-pl ‘holding hands’). In addition, we can find (iv) a translative type in -ks that expresses potential (e.g. ńäjəv- ‘to be seen’ > ńäjəv-i-ks be.seen-prs.ptcp-tra ‘prominent’), and (v) the comparative type in -ška that expresses size (škola-v mol-i-ška school-lat go-prs.ptcp-cmp ‘big enough to go to school [of a child]’). The Moksha deverbal noun in -ma has a homophonous obligatory participle function in copula complement position. As an obligatory participle, it can take a dative marked agent, for example, ivan-əńďi sa-ma-ľ, Ivan-dat arrive-oblig-prt2.3sg ‘Ivan had to come.’ If there is a direct object/patient, however, the patient is represented in copula conjugation marking on the verb with the noun patient itself marked as a subject in Moksha, for example, ťejnzə śav-əma ańďŕej jalga-nc pasport-əc 3sg.dat.short take-oblig.3sg Andrei friend-gen.3sg passport-3sg ‘he has to take his friend Andrei’s passport.’ Personal pronoun patients in both languages are in the genitive, for example, no soń azksəndï jota-m-da iŋgəľə az-əma but tale-dat procede-vn-abl before tell-oblig.3sg ‘but it must be told before proceding into the tale,’ and in Erzya noun, patients can appear in both the nominative and the genitive. This is typical of nouns in non-final position in compound constructions, for example, keľg-əma jalga love-vn friend ‘beloved friend,’ keľg-əma pŕedmet love-vn subject ‘favorite subject.’ The active/present participle in -I also serves as an agent noun, for example, jar̥ca-j eat-prs.ptcp ‘one who eats,’ pokəď-i work-prs.ptcp ‘one who works, worker.’ Ivanova (2000, 177–181) lists converb of manner in -Əź (mora-ź ‘[in the manner of] singing’), simultaneous converb -Əmstə (mora-mstə sing-cnv.ela ‘while singing’), and the converb -Əmək (śav-əmək take-cnv ‘taking’), which appears to indicate more of a single point in time, that is, ušədəmək ‘having a beginning,’ aďəlamək ‘finishing with.’ There are two negative converbs, af mora-ź neg sing-cnv ‘not singing’ and apak mora-k neg sing-cngII ‘without singing.’ Additionally, there is a prolative form of the negative

MOKSHA MORDVIN 511

converb -Əmga (e.g. af ńäj-əm-ga not see-vn-prol ‘without being seen’), and a converb of state in -fstə in the elative (e.g. ašťə-ms käš-f-stə be.in.one.place-inf be.hiding-prf. ptcp-ela ‘to be in hiding’). The elative-form converb can take person indexing that generally represents the primary argument of the verb, that is, in intransitive verbs, person flagging correlates to s (e.g. kud-u sa-m-stə-t home-lat come-cnv-ela-2sg ‘when you[sg] came home’), and in transitive verbs, it correlates to o (e.g. mes aš-əľ-əť kočka-m-stə-n sobranija-sə why neg-prt2-2sg choose-cnv-ela-1sg meeting-ine ‘why weren’t you at the meeting when I was chosen’). The construction might actually be considered more of a noun as it can take a determiner, for example, vaśəń vazïja-m-stə-nzə kemgafksïvə litra poťä-j first calve-cnv-ela-3sg twelve liter milk-3sg ‘[now] when she has calved the first time, she is milking 12 liters.’ There are three inflected infinitives: the first (illative, translative) infinitive -Əms, the second (locative, nominative) infinitive -Əmə, and the third (ablative) infinitive -Əmdə. The first infinitive or citation form combines with necessitive auxiliaries, and a homophonous form is used in temporal converb constructions indicating the termination point of an event or activity (cf. Utchkina 1975; Bartens 1979) (see examples 42–43). The ablative infinitive has a homophonous deverbal noun in the standard of comparison function with the adverbs/adpositions meľə ‘after,’ iŋgəľə ‘before,’ baška ‘besides,’ for example, ľiś-əm-də-nzə meľə go.out-vn-abl-3sg later ‘after he/she went out, lit. after his/her going out’ (see also examples 17–18). There are some verbs that specifically require an ablative infinitive argument: mäŕg- ‘to allow, to suggest,’ eńäľgəd- ‘to plead,’ lotka- ‘yo stop[iv],’ atkaza- ‘to refuse.’ The verb jora- ‘to want, to try’ can take both an ablative vn argument and an illative infinitive argument (cf. Uchkina 1975; Bartens 1979; see text sample). The distinction in the usage of ablative and illative here is that the ablative indicates a progressive focused activity, as in example (32): (32) (Mišanina 1972, 38) ťäńi jor-an ťij-əm-da oću saməľot, ańćək koda-ŋga af ľiś-əńď-i. now try-1sg make-inf-abl big airplane only any.way-add not work.out-dur. ‘Now I’m trying to make a big airplane but it just isn’t working out.’ 11.10 ADVERBS AND POSTPOSITIONS Many adverbs and postpositions are morphologically closely related to nouns in structure when it comes to meronymic concepts of location. While adverbs have functions and morphology that are closer to numerals and quantifiers, postpositions always have explicit complements. The complement is either an indefinite nominative singular or genitive-form noun. The adverbs meľə ‘later, after,’ iŋgəľə ‘earlier, before,’ baška ‘besides’ are collocated with ablative standards of comparison, but sometimes these are considered postpositions; see (14–18). Adverbs in Moksha express manner, state, degree, quantity, and spatio-temporal location. Manner and state adverbs are usually identified by the -stə elative type ending, for example, višk-stə quick-ela ‘quickly,’ ćebäŕ-stə beautiful-ela ‘beautifully.’ Degree can be demonstrated with the adverb päk ‘very,’ for example, päk viškə-ľ very quick=cop.prt1.3sg ‘he/she/it was very quick.’ Quantity is best illustrated with numerals, indefinite quantifiers and what evokes them, for example, śadə-kśť hundred-iter ‘a hundred times’; ńiľə-ćə-də four-ord-abl ‘for the fourth time’; kolm-u three-lat ‘into three parts’; koto-va six-prol ‘in six spans.’

512 JACK RUETER

Interrogative (and relative) adverbs are flagged by the same case morphology as those implemented in nouns and postposition answers: ko-sə wh-ine ‘where,’ and kud-sə home-ine ‘at home’; ko-v wh-lat ‘where[to],’ and veľ-i village-lat ‘to the village’; ku-va wh-prol ‘what way,’ and viŕ-ť ez-ga forest-def.gen through-prol ‘through the forest.’ It is also spatio-temporal space where adverb/postposition and even noun readings merge, for example, ftal-ə in.back-loc ‘in the back,’ kud-ť ftal-ə house-def.gen in.back-loc ‘behind the house,’ ftal-ə-nzə in.back-loc-3sg ‘behind him/her/it.’ A more emphatic reading of ‘behind him/her/it’ could be rendered with the addition of a preceding genitive personal pronoun soń udal-ə-nzə 3sg.gen in.back-loc-3sg. The difference between spatio-temporal adverbs and postpostions (mainly meronymic and orientational) is that adverbs have implicit complements (are intransitive, as it were), and postpositions have explicit complements, that is, nouns, possessive suffixes, or both. Postpositions can also be used to express cause and purpose. This is observed in the postpostion vs. case strategy in veď-ť iŋksə water-def.gen after ‘after the water’ vs. veďiŋksə water-caus ‘after water.’ 11.11 DERIVATION AND COMPOUNDS Regular derivation in Moksha and Erzya occurs both denominally and deverbally. Although derivation is generally concatenational in nature, reduplication is also a means of derivation (e.g. valəm&valəm ‘little by little,’ akšə&akšə white&white ‘extremely white,’ veľə&veľə laŋga village&village over ‘going village by village’). The most prominent types of denominal derivation show diminutive and genitive morphology, whereas deverbal derivation involves concepts of duration, iteration, frequentative, inchoative, resultative, and causative (cf. Evsevʹev 1928/29, §136; Kolâdënkov 1963, 430; Aninʹina 2000, 155). Regular diminutive morphology is associated with nearly all nominal word classes. In adjectives, it indicates approximation, for example, akšə ‘white’ > akšə-ńä white-dim ‘whitish.’ With nouns, the diminutive might indicate something smaller or lesser kal ‘fish’ > kal-ńä fish-dim ‘little fish,’ čaj ‘tea’ > čaj-ńä tea-dim ‘a little tea.’ Note also numerals: kizə-kaftə-ńä year-two-dim ‘year or two’; lang-sə foot.finger upper.surface adpositions: piľgəsur-ine ‘on [one’s] toes’ > piľgəsur langə-ńa-sə foot.finger upper.surface-dim-ine ‘on the very tips of [one’s] toes’; adverbs: ftal-u back-lat ‘toward the back’ > ftal-u-ńə back-lat-dim ‘a little toward the back’; converbs: putəź ‘placing’ putəź-ńä placing-dim ‘carefully/slowly/little-by-little placing, etc. Genitive attribute-type adjectives are derived from nouns (šuftə ‘wood’ > šuftə-ń wood-gen ‘of wood, wooden’), adjectives (od ‘young’ > od-əń young-gen ‘of youngsters,’ that is, od-əń aŕśəma-t young-gen thought-pl ‘thoughts of young people’), adverbs (śid’əstə ‘frequently’ > śiďəstə-ń frequently-gen ‘frequent’), and even verbs (kunda- ‘to catch’ > kunda-ń catch-gen ‘caught’). With the exception of this genitive verb form, all other genitive attributes can take a so-called long form (read. pronoun) in -ńńə (e.g. šuftəńńə wood- gen.long ‘a wooden one’), which is used and declined in the same way as the possessive personal pronouns in examples (26a–e). There are five frequentative/durative suffixes in Moksha: -kšńə-, -Əšənda-, -śə-, -ńə-, -Ənda- (cf. Evsevʹev 1928/29, 191, 198, 217–218; Kolâdënkov 1963, 430; Ananʹina 2000, 155–156). The two Mordvin languages diverge considerably here. For example, the semantics involved in (33a) exhibit the Moksha word form śormat-kšńə-źə write-freqprt1.3sg>3sg (indicating repeated, irresultative activity as it describes a young girl’s

MOKSHA MORDVIN 513

drawing of the same letter repeated times.) The same information in Erzya requires the verb form śormad-ïľiźe ‘write-prt2.3sg>3sg’ without any derivation. This continuative meaning is attested for -śə- and -ńə- as well; see (33b-c). (33a) (Mišanina 2002, 35) natańa šra-ť Natania table-def.gen

vaks-sə ťi-ś urək-ənzə-n, next.to-ine do-prt1.3sg homework-pl.3sg-gen

fkä ki-ńa-s śormat-kšńə- źə fkä i śaka bukva-ńä-ť. one line-dim-ill write-freq-prt1.3sg>3sg one and same letter-dim-def.gen ‘Natania [was] at the table doing here homework, she was writing one and the same letter [over and over] on one line.’ (33b) (Kišnâkov 1995, 229) -śəməźars śťopa kaj-śə- źə paľta-nc, meki suva-ś . . . while Stiopa take.off-dur-prt1.3sg>3sg coat-gen.3sg, back enter-prt1.3sg . . . ‘. . . while Stiopa was taking of his coat, she came back in . . .’ (33c) (Kuznecov 1975, 61) -ńətona šarf-ńə- źə menu-ť, other turn-dur-prt1.3sg>3sg menu-def.gen, aš-əźə soda, meźə zakaza-ms. not-prt1.3sg>3sg know.cng, what order-inf ‘The other [Lera] was turning the menu around, she didn’t know what to order.’ Moksha uses these formatives in various ways. Consecutive derivations of semi-multiple exponence, for example, -ńə- + -kšńə-, can be contrasted in the word pairs kor̥tams ‘to talk,’ kor̥takšńəms ‘to talk [distributive],’ kor̥ńəms ‘to discuss [reciprocal],’ kor̥ńəkšńəms ‘to discuss [reciprocal][distributive].’ The -kšńə formative can be preceded and followed by other derivations. There appears to be no semantic distinction between the formulations aďəla ‘end [transitive]’ + [-Əv- + -kšńə- ~ -kšńə- + -Əv-] >> aďəľavkšńə-I ~ aďəľakšńəv-I ‘to come to a close, end [intransitive; automatic, habitual].’ The concatenation -Əv- + -kšńə- is attested in Alëshkin (1989, 80), whereas -kšńə- + -Əv- is attested more frequently in Kudaškin (1990), Kuznecov (1979), Levčaev (1972), Sajgin (1980), Devin (1991). Multiexponce, such as that attested in Erzya sa- ‘to arrive,’ sa-kšno- arrive-freq ‘to come and go away [one or more times],’ sa-kšno-kšno- arrive-freq-freq ‘happen to have visited [one or more times],’ is not attested in the Moksha corpora, but similar concatenations do occur, for example, mu- ‘to find,’ mu-šə-nd- find-freq-freq ~ mu-šə-n-kšńə- find-freq-freq-freq ‘to [happen to] find.’ The causative in Moksha is indicated both with suffixes and analytically with separate verbs. The suffix -ft- correlates to the Erzya -vt-, -st-, and -t- in this function (cf. Evsevʹev 1928/29, 378–384, 188, 190). The causative can be used to indicate (i) volitional causation, for example, ťijəms ‘to make’ > ťijəfťəms ‘to have [something] made,’ or (ii) responsibility (non-volitional), for example, salams ‘to steal’ > salaftəms ‘to have [something] stolen [also non-intentially].’ Volitional causation is also expressed analytically with košardəms ‘to command,’ or rarely, karmaftəms ‘initiate, begin.’ In Moksha predications about the weather, it should be noted, causative-form verbs, such as sola-ftï

514 JACK RUETER

melt-caus.3sg ‘it’s melting,’ can form their own complete clauses without retrievable or formal subject (cf. Salo 2015, 204, 228). The causative suffix -ft- can occur with derivational morphology both preceding and following. Although the frequentative -ńə- is by far the most frequent parallel suffix, the continuative notion is attested as -kšńə- in šarftə-kšńə-ś turn.vtr-cont-prt1.3sg ‘he [Maksimka] was turning’ (Mišanina 1993, 89). The inchoative in Moksha -Əźev- is used to indicate the sudden, unexpected beginning or iteration of an activity, for example, aŕśə- ‘to think,’ mašńə- ‘to get fed up,’ śućə- ‘to swear.’ Concatenation illustrated in the stem aŕśə-źəv-kšńə-ń think-inch-freq-prt1.1sg ‘I began to [habitually] think [about]’ indicates the possibility of frequentative/habitual marking after the inchoative formative. An interesting use of reduplication is presented by juxtapositioned entities used to form collective nouns, such as aľa-t&ťäďa-t father-pl&mother-pl ‘parents,’ aľa-t&ćora-t father-pl&son-pl. Although both constituents are suffixed with the plural, the resulting collection of two sets, that is, the sets of ‘fathers/mothers’ and ‘fathers/sons,’ can, in fact, have but single members. Juxtapositioning is used with verbs as well, to express simultaneous or consecutive events and actions. As such, they may have to be considered as both a phrasal and clausal feature. In (34a) we see two different infinitives followed by an additive clitic, whereas in (34b), the instance of reduplication actually attests to double predicate marking. (34a) (Kudaškin 1990, 16) no ťä ping-s fima śudə-mə&sotə-mə-vək tonad-ś. but this time-ill Fima curse-inf.loc&swear-inf.loc-add learn-prt1.3sg ‘But by this time Fima had learned how to curse and swear.’ (33b) (Moiseev 1997, 76) vəď son af ko-sə=ľ&ko-sə=ľ, of.course 3sg neg just.anywhere-ine=cop.prt2.3sg&ine=cop.prt2.3sg, a eś pominka-sə-nzə=ľ. but own memorial-ine-3sg=cop.prt2.3sg ‘but he wasn’t just anywhere, he was at his own memorial services.’ 11.12 SIMPLE CLAUSES Simple clauses are intransitive, transitive, and copula constructions. Finite verbs either index features of their subject or they have portmanteau indexing that indicates features of both subject and object. Both Moksha and Erzya can have intransitive, transitive, and non-verbal clauses consisting of a verb only. Although sv, av, vo, and ao constituent orders are prevalent in Moksha, it should be noted that aov is the most common order when both the subject and object are instantiated by personal pronouns. Only a second-person singular subject brings out a strong avo ordering, such that a first-person singular object is most likely to follow the finite verb; a third-person singular object has a 50% chance of preceding following the finite verb. A simple intransitive clause may have a subject followed by the predicate, for example, mon moľ-an 1sg go-1sg ‘I am going.’ If an indefinite object is added, it will usually follow the verb, and the subject indexing on the verb will remain the same as what is found on an intransitive predicate or copula complement (see copula constructions in

MOKSHA MORDVIN 515

the following), for example, mon śav-an maŕ 1sg take-1sg apple ‘I’ll take an apple.’ If the object is definite in Moksha, the object person will also be indexed on the verb, and any overt NP object will also be flagged with genitive morphology, for example, mon śav-sa maŕ-ť 1sg take-1sg>3sg apple-def.gen ‘I’ll take the/that apple.’ When two free personal pronouns are used to indicate subject and object, they both tend to precede the finite verb, as noted previously, for example, mon toń keľk-ťe 1sg 2sg.gen love-1sg>2sg ‘I love you.’ Moksha makes much use of partitive quantification in both subjects and objects; cf. the use of the ablative in (35): (35a) (Kudaškin 1990, 70) komnata-də-st kaftə, a eŕä-śť ńiľə-ńə-st. room-abl-3pl two but live-prt1.3pl four-coll.assoc-3pl ‘They had two rooms, but the four of them were living [there].’ (35b) (Kuznecov 1975, 36) ťäči śorma-də sa-ś lamə today letter-abl arrive-prt1.3sg many ‘Today there were a lot of letters that came’ (35c) (Mišanina 1974, 6) vat-t=aka, škabavas-käj, məźarə kal-də look-imp.2sg=clt lord-voc how.many fish-abl ‘Lordy me, look how much fish you caught!’

kunda-ť! catch-prt1.2sg

The copula construction in the Mordvin languages usually appears with cs and cc in juxtaposition; both orders occur. Hamari (2007, 74‒75) examines the predication types— equation, attribution, location, possession (belonging), existence, possession (have)— and then assesses each for presence of bound or free person for bound copula morphology (a.k.a. nominal conjugation) (see Table 11.9, cf. Tables 11.7a and 11.7c). At this point, she finds copula clauses in which one argument is first or second person expressed solely by an overt pronoun, and the other exhibits no copula on the cc, for example, mon eŕźa-ń ava 1sg[stressed] Erzya-gen woman ‘I am an Erzyan woman,’ vs. mon eŕźa-ń av-an 1sg Erzya-gen woman=cop.1sg[stressed] ‘I’m an Erzyan woman’ (cf. GMYa 1962 II, 178–179; Hamari ibid.). This construction can be analyzed in terms of topic (subject) vs. comment (complement). The word ‘woman’ is the subject/topic, and the shifter, while 1sg, is the complement/comment. When the shifter, 1sg, becomes subject/topic, however, the complement/comment, ava-n, is inflected with subject indexing. The previous example is from the 1962 grammar, and indication of stress is based on personal comments made by the individual Erzya writers quoted (Bezzubova, Martynov, Krivosheev, Kutorkin, Erkai), who reported they do not use copula conjugation when stressed first- and second-person pronouns are present. This, in fact, is the same strategy used when introducing oneself in the Mordvin languages. It is common practice to state the first-person singular pronoun mon ‘I,’ followed by one’s name, for example, oľga ‘Olga,’ thus, mon—oľga 1sg[stressed] Olga ‘I am Olga.’ This could be related to the fact that only the second element, the name, is constant, that is, personal pronouns are, by definition, shifters. If after the introduction, however, the new acquaintance continuously uses the wrong name, for example, ńina, an adjustment is required. Here the

516 JACK RUETER TABLE 11.9  BOUND COPULA MORPHOLOGY IN MOKSHA Subject

Subject 1sg

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

Non-past

-An

-At

Ø

-XTamə

-XTadə

-XT

Preterit 2

-Əľəń

-Əľəť

-Əľ

-Əľəme

-Əľəďə

-Əľ̥ť

speaker, perhaps even pointing to herself, says mon oľga-n 1sg Olga=cop.1sg[stressed] ‘I’m Olga.’ The question to pose, then, is whether the stressed argument is the copula complement (see also Rueter 2013, 109–110). Since non-past third-person singular copula clauses in Moksha have no verbal morphology, they might be seen as copula subject and copula complement in juxtaposition, for example, (i) equation ťä ťäďä-źə this mother-1sg ‘this is my mother,’ (ii) property śťiŕ-ś ćebäŕ girl-def beautiful ‘the girl is beautiful,’ (iii) quantification śiń ez-də-st kaftə 3pl.gen of-abl-3pl two ‘there are two of them,’ (iv) location azər-ś kud-sə master-def home-ine ‘the master is at home,’ (v) possession kniga-ś sońńə book-def 3sg.poss ‘The book is his/hers,’ (vi) benefaction ťä jarmak-ś ťejť this money-def 2sg.dat.short ‘This money is for you,’ and (vii) existence: viŕ-sə kud-ńä forest-ine house-dim ‘there is a little house in the forest.’ In equation, the cs is recognizable by its definite nominative flagging, whereas the cc appears in the plain nominative (e.g. sońńə 3sg.poss above) and, for impermanent states, in the translative, for example, uľ-ś pedagog-əks, straiťəľ-əks . . . be-prt1.3sg pedagog-tra builder-tra ‘he/she had been a pedagog, a builder . . .’ The order of these arguments, as seen previously, is not fixed. Hence, both (35a) and (35b) have acceptable syntax, but they have slightly different implications. While (36a) can be seen as providing neutral information about the cs ‘Saransk,’ (36b) would seem to emphasize the word ‘capital.’ (36a) (Alâmkin 2008, 90) saranskäj-ś—mordovija-ť stoľica-c Saransk-def—Mordovia-def.gen capital-3sg ‘Saransk is the capital of Mordovia.’ (36b) (Alâmkin 2008, 90) mordovija-ť stoľica-c—saranskäj-ś Mordovia-def.gen capital-3sg—Saransk-def ‘Saransk is the capital of Mordovia.’ In copula clause expressing a property of their subject, both cs and cc arguments remain in the nominative, with apparently no use of translative flagging. Word order variation is allowed in the property relation as well; see (37) (cf. Alâmkin 2008, 90). While (37a) can only be interpreted as a copula construction (neutral), (37b), without a context, can be given both an np and a copula construction reading. (37a) (Alâmkin 2008, 90) ťalə-ś keľmə winter-def cold ‘the winter is cold’

MOKSHA MORDVIN 517

(37b) (Alâmkin 2008, 90) keľmə ťalə-ś cold winter-def ‘the cold winter’ or ‘it is one cold winter’ The word order variation in (37) may also contribute to the hypothesis of congruent number marking in adjectives (cf. Bartens 1999, 108). The interpretation of (38a) is justified in contexts (38b‒c); only the interpretation of (38c) as two separate predications makes it understandable (this includes a pause). (38a) par̥=t śťiŕ̥-ńə good=cop.3pl girl-pl.def ‘those are good girls’ (38b) parə śťiŕ̥-ńə jaka-śť veľ-i good girl-pl.def visit-prt1.3pl village-lat ‘The good girls visited the village’ (38c) par̥=t śťiŕ̥-ńə. jaka-śť veľ-i good=cop.3pl girl-pl.def visit-prt1.3pl village-lat ‘Those are good girls. They visited the village’ Number in the Moksha copula preterite is shown twice. The adjective koźä ‘rich’ in (39) takes plural marking on the np head and also in the copula morphology. Copula quantification can be seen in (35a) earlier. (39) kafksəńgeməń-ćə kizə-t-ńə sembə-də koźa-t=əľ-ť . . . eighty-ord year-pl-def all-abl rich-pl=cop.prt2-3pl ‘the eighties were the richest of all . . .’ In the second-person singular, equation mark the person, for example, ton ťäďä-ź-at 2sg mother-1sg-2sg ‘you are my mother.’ Likewise, property is shown as ton ćebäŕ-at 2sg beautiful=cop.2sg ‘you are beautiful,’ or even ton śťiŕ-ś ćebäŕ-at 2sg girl-def beautiful=cop.2sg ‘you are one beautiful girl.’ In the latter rendition, the word form śťiŕ-ś girl-def serves more as a topic marker. In fact, these three words have two further possible orders, viz. śťiŕ-ś ton ćebäŕ=at girl-def 2sg beautiful=cop.2sg, and ton ćebäŕ-at śťiŕ-ś 2sg beautiful=cop.2sg girl-def, both of whose meanings require further discourse research. Possession places cc in the genitive, but here, as well, ordering is not an issue. Although the ordering cs cc may seem neutral, for example, tä ́ kud-ś moń this house-def 1sg.gen ‘this house is mine,’ ťäńi toń očeŕəd-ś now 2sg.gen turn-def ‘now it’s your turn.’ The genitive-form second-person singular tells us whose turn it is, whereas ‘turn’ is a specific description (restrictive). A neutral np with a possessive suffix toń očeŕəd-ćə 2sg.gen turn-2sg ‘your turn (as opposed to your address)’ would be feasible when distinguishing possession. The non-existential interpretation is supported by the lack of the verb ‘to be’ and the fact that both arguments are either specific referents or specific descriptions. The possession copula construction is also used for telling who you are. In a village setting, older speakers may ask who you are by using a possession relation ton ki-ń 2sg

518 JACK RUETER

who-gen ‘lit. whose are you?’ and the answer makes a reference to your parents, grandparents, or home (in the villages, people are not always known by their official Russian names). The locative copula relation can be used to indicate source (39a) and location (39b). (40a) śorma-ś vańa-ń ez-də=ľ letter-def Vania-gen from-abl=cop.prt2.3sg ‘The letter was from Vania’ (40b) (Xolodilova 2016, 241) kino-sə-ngə=ľ-əń cinema-ine-add=cop.prt2-1sg ‘I was at the movies, too’ Example (40b) also illustrates that the additive clitic may occur before copula morphology, which is contrary to what this author posits for Erzya (Rueter 2010, 129–133, see also Xolodilova 2016, 241–249). The benefactive relation places cc in the long dative case, for example, ťä śorma-ś tońďejť this letter-def 2sg.dat.long ‘this letter is for you.’ The short dative case appears to be used with transitive and intransitive verbs. Existential clauses and those expressing possession are similar in that use of the verb uľ- ‘to exist’ is also used in expression of the present tense—in other copula constructions, the free verb in the non-past usually expresses future. There is no separate verb ‘to have’ in the Mordvin languages; instead, the possessum is flagged with a possessive suffix and accompanied by the existential uľ- ‘to be’ or the predicate of absence aš ‘non-existent,’ for example, katə-c uľ-i cat-3sg be-3sg ‘he/she has a cat,’ katə-c aš cat3sg non-existent-3sg ‘he/she has no cat.’ 11.13 COMPLEX SENTENCES In Moksha coordination, the first conjunct may have a subject and verb, which are not necessarily repeated in subsequent conjuncts, although person is obligatory in finite verb conjugation if the verb is present. In (41a), the subject ‘Volodia’ is given only once, but adverbial phrases are sufficient in parallel constructions to carry the message, and the verb (sa-ś) is repeated for subsequent changes in predications. Initially, there are three adverbials where the second and third indicate temporal range and provide a clarification purpose (illative flagged measure of time). The second verb introduces a dynamic end point (translative flagged temporal capacity). In both verbal phrases, a ‘not X but rather Y’ construction is used to separate the specifics, but no conjunction is used to separate the two verb phrases. Example (41b) illustrates that coordination of copula usage is also possible without a conjunction. (41a) (Pronin 1958, №5, 25) . . . voloďä-ś sa-ś kud-u af ińśťitutskäj kańikula-s, a śembə Volodia-def come-prt1.3sg home-lat not institute holiday-ill, but all piŋg-s, sa-ś af stuďent-əks, a ińžəńeŕ-əks&straiťəľ-əks time-ill, come-prt1.3sg not student-tra, but engineer-tra&builder-tra ‘Volodia came home, not for the institute holidays, but for good, not as a student, but as an engineer&builder.’

MOKSHA MORDVIN 519

(41b) fkä-ť e-sə-ľ čemədan-əc, ombəćə-sə paľta-c one-def.gen in-ine=cop.prt2.3sg suitcase-3sg other-ine coat-3sg ‘in the one [hand] he had his suitcase, in the other his coat’ Complex clauses in Moksha may have clausal subjects and objects of different kinds. In (42), the ‘to know who I am’ serves as copula subject to the ‘everybody’s wish was’ clause. The encapsulated ‘who I am’ copula clause is the object of the infinitive ‘to know.’ Note that tense marking in the main clause is not the same as in the subjunction. (42) (Pinâsov 1961, №1, 80) kažnaj-ť mäľ-əc=əľ sodams kij-an mon. everyone-def.gen wish-3sg=cop.prt2.3sg know who=cop.1sg 1sg ‘everyone wanted to know who I am (to know who I am was everyone’s wish)’ Pauli Saukkonen (1964, 88–115) hypothesized a correlation between the main clause s/o and subordinate clause s/a with a nominative/locative infinitive -Om-O; see (43a‒b). In a similar vein, he hypothesized a correlation between a main clause s/o and subordinate clause o with an illative/translative infinitive -Oms; see (43c). The problem faced in such a hypothesis, on the one hand, is that the illative/translative -Oms can also be interpreted as a (i) necessitive structure or (ii) a temporal adverbial, and on the other hand, that there are sentences where the a and o of the main clause are also the a and o of the subordinate clause. Furthermore, Erzya and Moksha do not form a language continuum, so work is still needed in charting correlations between the two languages; for more insight on the issue, see also Bartens (1979) and Rueter (2011, 41–55). (43a) (Levčaev 1958, №4, 33) . . . pəctaj mar-ńək veľə-ś sa-ś ľezd-əm-ə ťej-nzə almost heap-com village-def come-prt1.3sg help-inf-loc dat-3sg ‘almost the entire village came to help him’ (43b) (Karasev 1956, №3, 66) me-s af oza-ft-sak soń wh-ill not sit.down-caus-2sg>3sg 3sg.gen ‘Why don’t you have him sit down and eat?’ (43c) (Ežov 1977, №4, 5) pŕä-źə-ń śiv-əms mon head-1sg-gen eat-inf 1sg ‘I won’t let myself get eaten’

af neg

jar̥ca-m-ə? eat-inf-loc

maks-sa give-1sg>3sg

When the object of the verbs ńäjəms ‘see’ and maŕams ‘hear’ correlates with the a/s of the subordinate clause, the ablative infinitive subordinate in -m-də can be used; see (44). Here the ablative infinitive in the word sala-m-də steal-inf-abl might function as a point of contact with the object toń 2sg.gen, as explained in example (5c). (44) (Pʹânzin, F. 1999, №4, 139) śa-ŋksə toń ńäj-əďäź sala-m-də that-caus 2sg.gen see-prt1-3pl>2 steal-inf-abl ‘because you were seen stealing.’

520 JACK RUETER

Adverbial subordination may be made by utilizing the elative converb in -mstə, which may also take person suffixes. The example kud-u moľ-əm-stə-nt home-lat go-vn-ela2pl ‘when you were going home’ can also be expressed with the finite conjunction-initial construction məźardə kud-u moľ-əďə when home-lat go-prt1.2pl with the same meaning. Such person flagging in Moksha correlates directly with s/o. The -də position/state converb is attested with a handful of inchoative verbs, for example, oza- ‘sit down’ > oza-də ‘in the sitting position,’ śťams ‘to stand up’ > śťa-də ‘in the standing position,’ vačəms ‘to become hungry’ > vač-ədə ‘hungry.’ Much more productive, however, is the converb in -fstə, for example, šťa-f-stə dress.oneself-prf.ptcp-ela ‘dressed[state].’ Although relative clauses with cataphoric reference occasionally occur (e.g. kijə karšə-z-əŋk kepəď-sï käď+ənc—śä juma-j who against-ill-1pl raise-3sg>3sg handgen.3sg that parish- 3sg ‘whoever raises a hand against us shall parish’), other relative clauses (with other relative words) typically follow what they modify (cf. Bartens 1999, 117); see also (45a). The relative clause in (45a) begins with a relative pronoun, which is notably flagged with a third-person singular suffix. The relative determiner kona ‘which’ may use person marking in the singular but definite marking in the plural (when it is not a simple indefinite). Alternatively, the same adnominal phrase can be expressed with a present participle: eŕäf-ś veš-i ťev-də af käš-i lomań life-def require-3sg work-abl not hide-prs.ptcp person: contrast (45a). The example in (45b) can be reworded with a relative clause: moda-ś keľg-sï stamə lomańť, kona-c moda-ť keľg-sï land-def love-3sg>3sg such person-def.gen that-3sg land-def.gen love-3sg>3sg. (45a) eŕäf-ś stamə lomań veš-i, kona-c ťev-da af käš-i. life-def such person look.for-3sg wh- 3sg work-abl neg hide-3sg ‘life looks for a person who doesn’t hide from work.’ (45b) moda-ś keľg-sï keľgij-ənc. land-def love-3sg>3sg lover-gen.3sg ‘the land loves the one who loves it’ (lit. ‘the land loves its lover’) The prs.ptcp constructions with person suffixes are typically used in negative sentences equivalent to ‘have,’ such as keľgij-əc aš lover-3sg non-existent ‘he has no one who loves him.’ Additional insight in Moksha syntax can be found online in the Moksha tree banks in the Universal Dependencies project (Zeman et al. 2019). 11.14 NEGATION In Moksha, there are many words for expressing negation, depending on the context: aš ‘non-existent,’ ašəź ‘didn’t,’ iź ‘didn’t,’ af ‘not,’ afəľ ‘not conj,’ ťat ‘don’t imprt,’ apak ‘un-,’ afi ‘and not,’ ťatï ‘and don’t.’ The stem aš- is attested for existential and possessive predication, but it also serves as host to the first preterite negation stem in iź, whose vowel has neutralized to a middle vowel in ašəź ‘didn’t’; see also Hamari 2007. The first preterite negative auxiliary verbs iź and ašəź take connegative forms of the main verb (see examples 1b, 11, 29b–c, 32c). Moksha writers can be divided into at least three different categories on the basis of which stem they use. This isogloss might serve in dialect distinctions in future work.

MOKSHA MORDVIN 521

The negative particle af is used in symmetric negation with the indicative non-past, indicative preterite 2, conditional, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, participles, infinitives, converbs (cf. Miestamo 2003). The negative auxiliary afəľ is used for expressing the subjunctive with the head verb in the connegative form; while afi can be regarded as a derivation from af + i, it is used in symmetric negation with the head verb in the indicative, subjunctive, desiderative, and with adjectives, adverbs, nouns, participles, infinitives, converbs. 11.15 TEXT This is an excerpt from an early two-page childhood story by the renowned Moksha author and playwright Valentina Mišanina (1972, №2, 38–39); note two different nonfinite forms used with the verb jorams ‘to want to, to try to’ for different nuances. mon śeďi-ška-də van-ənd-an veľə-ńk-əń veľks-ka ľij-əńď-i 1sg heart-cmp-abl look-dur-1sg village-1pl-gen over-tra fly-dur-prs.ptcp saməľot-t-ńə-ń meľgä i śeľməť-kšń-an. airplane-pl-def-gen after.tra and be.envious-dur-1sg ‘I like to watch the airplanes flying over our village, and I get envious.’ ľotčik-ńə, uľ-əma, käď-sə tok-śə-saź kovəl-ńä-t-ńə-ń. i pilot-pl.def be-oblig hand-ine touch-dur-3pl>3 cloud-dim-pl-def-gen and ‘The pilots, it would seem, touch the little clouds with their hands, and’ uj-əńď-ixť śeńəm meńəľ-ť potmə-sə, koda oću moŕa-va. float-dur-3pl blue sky-def.gen inside-ine like big sea-tra ‘they glide through the blue heavens as if in a great sea.’ kas-əńďäŕ-an, uľ-an ľotčik-əks, a kas-an päk savər, ńiŋgä grow-cond-1sg be-1sg pilot-tra but grow-1sg very slowly still škola-v-ka af jak-an school-lat-add not go-1sg ‘When I grow up, I’m going to be a pilot, but I’m growing so slowly, I don’t even go to school yet.’ eŕ ši-ńä śťä-šənd-an tabuŕetka-ť laŋg-s i käď-ńə-ń every day-temp stand.up-dur-1sg stool-def.gen on-ill and arm-pl.1sg-gen veńəp-ńə-sajńə potalak-ťi, a potalak-ś ńiŋgä väŕ-ə, väŕ-ə. stretch-dur-1sg>3pl ceiling-def.dat but ceiling-def still high.up-loc high.up-loc ‘Every day, I stand up on the stool and stretch my hands toward the ceiling, but the ceiling is still high as can be.’ savər kas-an. aľä-ź-ťi-gä az-ənd-ïńə aŕśə-ma-ńə-ń, slowly grow-1sg father-1sg-dat-add tell-dur-pt.1.1sg>3 thought-pl.1sg-genw ‘I’m growing slowly. I even told to my father my thoughts,’ a son pejəď-əźəv-ś i but 3sg laugh-inch-prt1.3sg and ‘but he burst into laughter and says:’

kor̥ta-j: say-3sg

522 JACK RUETER

—ćorańä-ńďi šač-əľ-əť, śada ki-ćə udala-ľ, boy.dim-dat be.born-prt2-2sg more way-2sg be.successful-conj.3sg ľotčik-əks-ka, paďi, uľ-əľ-əť. pilot-tra-add perhaps be-conj-2sg ‘If you had been born a boy, your life would have gone better, you might have become a pilot, too.’ —a mon aš-əń abənda, mäŕg-əń: but 1sg neg-prt2.1sg be.disturbed.cng say-prt1.1sg ‘But I didn’t let it disturb me, I said:’ —ťeŕəškova panč-ś ťej-əń Tereshkova open-prt1.3sg 1sg.dat.short-1sg ‘Tereshkova opened the way for me.’

ki. way

tosə kiźəfť-ińə aľä-źə-ń, məźar-də kas-an. there.ine ask-prt1.1sg>3 father-1sg-gen when-abl grow.up-1sg ‘There I asked my father when would I grow up.’ son korta-j: keməń-ška kizə-ńä jota-j, kas-at, kozə-ŋga af tuj-at. ̥ 3sg say-3sg ten-cmp year-dim pass-3sg grow.up-2sg whither-add not go-2sg ‘He says: Ten years or so will pass, you’ll grow, you can’t avoid it.’ śäľďə mäľ-əźə-ń peť-əm-s son rama-ś saməľot-kä. after.that feeling-1sg-gen mend-inf-ill 3sg buy-prt1.3sg airplane-dim ‘Then to make me feel better he bought [me] a little airplane.’ a meźə kəda rama-ś, ańćək nal̥ kśə-m-s, a mon jor-an ľij-əńď-əm-s. but what if buy-prt1.3sg, only play-inf-ill but 1sg want-1sg fly-dur-inf-ill ‘And what if he bought [one], only for play, but I want to fly around.’ rama-ľ xuš ťäďä-źə-ń muśk-əma očkə-nc e-ška. buy-conj.3sg at.least mother-1sg-gen launder-vn trough-gen.3sg size-cmp ‘He should have bought one at least the size of my mother’s laundry trough.’ moń-ć eŕ ši-ńä maśťarl-an saməľot-t, i ľij-f-ńə-sajńə ńaka-ńə-ń. 1sg-refl every day-temp control-1sg airplane-pl and fly-caus-dur-1sg>3pl doll-pl.1sg-gen

‘Every day I work at controlling airplanes, and I fly my dolls.’

śas-ï śiń śembə i ľotčik-t, i kosmənavt-t. for.that.reason-clt 3pl all and pilot-pl and cosmonaut-pl ‘That’s why they are all both pilots and cosmonauts.’ NOTE 1 With -gə on consonant-final and front-vowel-final monosyllables, -va after other vowels, -gə after other voiced consonants, and -ka after other voiceless consonants. REFERENCES Aasmäe, Niina, Pärtel Lippus, Karl Pajusalu, Nele Salveste, Tiit-Rein Viitso, and Tatjana Zirnask. 2013. Moksha Prosody. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

MOKSHA MORDVIN 523

Ahlquist, August. 1861. Versuch einer mokscha-mordwinischen Grammatik nebst Texten und Wörterverzeichniss. St. Petersburg: Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Alâmkin, N. S. 2000. “Glagolsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 113, 125–143. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Alâmkin, N. S. 2008. “Prostoj valrisʹmosa valxnenʹ fkâ-fkânʹ melʹga molemasna.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, sintaksis, edited by N. S. Alâmkincʹ, V. P. Grišuninasʹ, G. S. Ivanovasʹ, N. A. Kabaevasʹ, M. Z. Kulakovasʹ, O. E. Levinasʹ, O. G. Polâkovsʹ, V. F. Rogožinasʹ, and P. E. Sedovasʹ, 89–102. Saransk: Izdatelʹstvo mordovskogo universiteta. All-Russian Census. 2010. “Национальный состав России.” www.statdata.ru/nacionalnyj-sostav-rossii. Accessed 10 August 2017. Ananʹina, K. S. 2000. “Suŝestvitelʹnajsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 47–56, 64–69, 72–83. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Bartens, Raija. 1979. Mordvan, tšeremissin ja votjakin konjugaation infiniittisten muotojen syntaksi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. Bondarko, L. V., and O. E. Polâkov, eds. 1993. Sovremennye mordovskie jazyki, Fonetika. Saransk: Izdatelʹstvo mordovskogo universiteta. Djordjević, Ksenija, and Jean-LéoLéonard. 2006. Parlons mordve (erzya et mokša): Une langue finno-ougrienne de Russie. Paris: L’Harmattan. Duguškin, I. K. 2018. “Ministry of education.” Republic of Mordovia, Letter no. 7369 dated September 12, 2018. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 22nd ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue. com. Erina, Olʹga. 1997. “Časticy v mordovskix jazykax.” PhD diss., University of Tartu. Ermuškin, Grigorij I. 2004. Srednetëšskij dialekt èrzân-mordovskogo jazyka. Moskva: Societas Uralo-Altaica. Estill, Dennis. 2004. Diachronic Change in Erzya Word Stress. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Evsevʹev, M. E. 1928/29. Osnovy mordovskoj grammatiki: èrzânʹ grammatika s priloženiem obrazcov mokšanskix sklonenij i sprâženij. Moskva: Centr. izd-vo narodov SSSR. Feoktistov, A. P. 1990. “Dialekty mordovskix âzykov H. Paasonena.” In Mordovskij slovarʹ, edited by Hans-Herman Bartens, Grigorij Ermushkin, Martti Kahla, and Aleksandr Feoktistov, LX–LXXXVI. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Feoktistov, A. P. 2000. “Ušetkssʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 4–8. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Feoktistov, Aleksandr, and Sirkka Saarinen. 2005. Mokšamordvan murteet. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. GMYa. 1962 II. = Grammatika mordovskix (mokšanskogo i erzânskogo) âzyka II: Sintaksis, edited by M. N. Kolâdënkov and R. A. Zavodova. Saransk: Mordovskoe Knižnoe Izdatelʹstvo. GMYa. 1980. = Grammatika mordovskix âzykov, edited by D. V. Cygankin. Saransk: Mordovskoe Knižnoe Izdatelʹstvo. Grišunina, V. P. 2015. Dialektnaâ leksika mokšanskogo âzyka, leksikografičeskii I lingvografičeskii aspekty issledovaniâ. Saransk: Izdatelʹstvo mordovskogo universiteta.

524 JACK RUETER

Hamari, Arja. 2007. The Negation of Stative Relation Clauses in the Mordvin Languages. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Hamari, Arja. 2016. “The Genitive in the Secondary Declension in the Mordvin Languages.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 40: 1–33. Herrala, Eeva and Aleksandr Feoktistov. 1998. “Mokšalais-suomalainen sanakirja.” Turku: Turun yliopisto. Imârekova, V. M. 2000. “Čislitelʹnajsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 94‒101. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Ivanova, G. S. 2000. “Deepričastiâsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 178–181. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Kelin, M. A. 2000. “Glagolsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 113–125, 143–170. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Kelina, A. N. 2000. “Prilagatelʹnajsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 83–94. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Keresztes, László. 2011. Bevezetés a mordvin nyelvészetbe. Debrecen: Debreceni egyetemi kiadó. Kholodilova, Maria. 2016. “Moksha Non-verbal Predication.” In Mordvin Language in the Field, edited by Ksenia Shagal and Heini Arjava, 229–259. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Kolâdënkov, M. N. 1963. “Kommentarii.” In Osnovy mordovskoj grammatiki // Izbr. tr. T.4. Saransk: Mordov. kn. izd-vo. Lomakina, T. I. 2000. “Suŝestvitelʹnajsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 37–47, 57–64, 70–72, 75–83. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Miestamo, Matti. 2003. “Clausal negation.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. Moravcsik, Edit. 2003. “Inflectional Morphology in the Hungarian Noun Phrase: A Typological Assessment.” In Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, edited by Frans Plank, 113–252. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. MV IV = Paasonen, Heikki, and Paavo Ravila. 1947. Mordwinische Volksdichtung. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Ornatov, Pavel. 1838. Mordovskaâ grammatika. Moskva: Vʺ Sinodalʹnoj Tip. Paasonen, H. 1918. Die Finnisch-Ugrischen s-Laute. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Partanen, Niko, Jack Rueter, and Olga Erina. 2019. “Maps of mordvin varieties (Version v0.5). Zenodo.” (doi= 10.5281/zenodo.3385173). https://rueter.github.io/MordvinVarieties/index.html#paasonen’s_mordvin_materials. Polâkov, O. E., and J. Rueter. 2004. Mokšenʹ i erzânʹ kâlʹxnenʹ fkaks- i af fkaksšisna. Sinʹ valluvkssna. Erzânʹ dy mokšonʹ kelʹtnenʹ vejkeks-dy avolʹ vejkeksčist. Synst valluvost. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Polâkov, O. G. 2000. “Mestoimeniâsʹ.” In Mokšenʹ kâlʹ, Morfologiâ, edited by N. S. Alâmkin, 101–113. Saransk: Krasnyj Oktâbrʹ. Rubruquis, Willem de. 1707. Aanmerklyke reys, gedaan door Willem de Rubruquis, voor ambassadeur van den Koning Lodewyk de IXe afgesonden na d’Oostersche gedeelten der weereld, insonderheyd na Tartaryen en China, in ‘t jaar onses Heeren 1253. Vervattende veelerley sonderlinge saken, en voorgekomene gevallen. Te Leyden: Bp Pieter vander AA, Boekverkoper. Rueter, Jack. 2010. Adnominal Person in the Morphological System of Erzya. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Rueter, Jack. 2011. “The Status of the Non-finite -OmstO Morpheme in Erzya.” Linguistica Uralica XLVII (1): 41–55.

MOKSHA MORDVIN 525

Rueter, Jack. 2013. “On Quantification in the Erzya Language.” In Typology of Quantification: On Quantifiers and Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga-Kama Region, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Valery Solovyev, 99‒118. Munich: Lincom. Rueter, Jack. 2016. “Towards a Systematic Characterization of Dialect Variation in the Erzya-Speaking World: Isoglosses and Their Reflexes Attested in and Around the Dubyonki Raion.” In Mordvin Languages in the Field, edited by Ksenia Shagal and Heini Arjava, 109–148. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Rueter, Jack. 2022. “Shallow-Transfer Problems in Erzya-Moksha Conjunctive-Preterite2 Syncretism.” Journal of Brief Ideas. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7232614. Rueter, J., N. Partanen, M. Hämäläinen, O. Erina, I. Râbov, E. Klementʹeva, N. Kabaeva, and M. Levina, 2020. “Comparative mordvin database.” https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.3627624. Salo, Merja. 2015. “Passive and reflexive categories in languages of the volga region: an areal typological study.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. Saukkonen, Pauli. 1964. “Die Verwendung des nominativischen und illativischen Infinitivs. im Mordwinischen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XXXV: 88–115. Trosterud, Trond. 2006. Homonymy in the Uralic Two-Argument Agreement Paradigms. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Uchkina, V. I. 1975. “Infinitiv v mordovskix âzykax.” In Voprosy Mordovskogo Âzykoznaniâ. Saransk: Mordovskoe Knižnoe Izdatelʹstvo. von der Gabelentz, Herr Conon. 1839. “Versuch einer Mordwinischen Grammatik.” Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes II: 2–3, 235–284, 383–419. Zaicz, Gábor. 1998. “Mordva.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abonbdolo, 184–218. London: Routledge. Zeman, Daniel, Joakim Nivre, and Mitchell Abrams et al., eds. 2019, Universal dependencies 2.5, LINDAT/CLARIN Digital Library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. http:// hdl.handle.net/11234/1-3105. OTHER MOKSHA LITERATURE Atânin, Fëdr. 1961. “Mzârda kenerixtʹ marʹxne.” Mokša №2, pp. 52–67. Saransk: Mokša. Dušin, Aleksandr. 1978. “Keli konâ.” Âksterʼ tâštenâ № 6, pp. 10–12. Saransk: Mokša. Ežov, Anatolij. 1977. “Virenʹ ëfks.” Âksterʹ tâštenâ №4, pp. 4–6. Saransk: Mokša. Karasev, Aleksej. 1956. “Mariâ.” Mokša №3, p. 66. Saransk: Mokša. Kishnâkin, Ivan. 1961. “Šâjkiča.” Mokša №6, p. 82. Saransk: Mokša. Kosov, Aleksej. 1962. “Seri menʹelʹsʹ.” Mokša №1, p. 4. Saransk: Mokša. Kuznecov, Jurij. 1981. “Krxka lov.” Mokša №1, pp. 57–66. Saransk: Mokša. Levčaev, Pëtr. 1958. “Lezks.” Mokša №4, p. 33. Saransk: Mokša. Levčaev, Pëtr. 1960. “Marlûsʹ panži.” Mokša №5, p. 42. Saransk: Mokša. Pʹânzin, Fëdor. 1999. “Sintʹf pejxtʹ.” Mokša №4, p. 139. Saransk: Mokša. Pinâsov, Jakov. 1961. “Vasence âlgane.” Mokša №1, p. 80. Saransk: Mokša. Pronin, Sergej. 1958. “Tâfta uševovsʹ biografiâsʹ.” Mokša №5, p. 25. Saransk: Mokša. Rodʹkina, Polina. 1984. “Kšitʹ pitnec.” Âkstere Tâštenâ №2, p. 7. Saransk: Mokša. Tâpaev, Anatolij. 1977. “Susett.” Mokša № 4, pp. 10–30. Saransk: Mokša.

526 JACK RUETER

THE MOKSHA CORPUS* Alëshkin, Andrej. 1989. Arʹsemat. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Beban, Maksim. 1995. Tundanʹ narmottʹ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Devin, Ilʹâ. 1991. Nardiše. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Kirdâškin, T. 1953. Keli Mokša. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Kišnâkov, Ilʹâ. 1995. Issasʹ šudi Volgav. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Kudaškin, Ivan. 1990. Šudinâsʹ Lâjnâsʹ Sâtâvnâ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Kuznecov, Jurij. 1975. Sembosʹ ušetkšni kista: Povestʹ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Kuznecov, Jurij. 1979. Sëksenʹ pizëlxt: Rasskast. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Larionov, Sergej. 1962. Lâmbonʹ kâdʹsa. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Levčaev, Pëtr. 1972. Kârʹmaz. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Lobanov, Viktor. 1992. Kalonʹ kundijenʹ azkst. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Makulov, Leonid. 1997. Mokšenʹ stirʹ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Mišanina, Valentina. 1972. Lijendenʹ očkonâsa. Mokša 1972, №2 38–39. Saransk: Mokša. Mišanina, Valentina. 1974. Sijanʹ Rakakudnâ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Mišanina, Valentina. 1993. Ozks tumotʹ taradonza. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Mišanina, Valentina. 2002. Valʹmaftoma kud. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Moiseev, Mixail. 1997. Odu af nâjsamastʹ. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Pinâsov, Âkov. 1961. Ëmlaks pinge. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Pinâsov, Âkov. 1996. “Èrek ver.” In Prâurmat. 291–310. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Pinâsov, Grigorij. 1998. Ešterʹ tucât. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Pʹânzin, Fëdor. 1997. Sâzʹf arʹsemat. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Sajgin, Mixail. 1980. Lâpe kožf. Saransk: Mordovskâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. Tâpaev, Anatolij. 1998. “Af kulxcondy mirde.” Monʹ kelʹgoma knigane. Saransk: Mordov skâj knižnaj izdatelʹstvasʹ. * The Moksha Corpus and other Moksha literature are being made accessible for reference and research through ERME Erzya and Moksha Extended Corpora. Rueter, Jack & Olga Yerina. The reference should also include the name of the author and the title of the book referred to. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:lb-201407306

CHAPTER 12

MARI 1 Jeremy Bradley and Jorma Luutonen

12.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Mari adheres to prototypical ‘agglutinative typology’ to a greater extent than other Uralic languages. Allomorphy is, as a rule, transparent and predictable. The realization of affixes (almost exclusively suffixes) is, in some cases, determined by vowel harmony and voice assimilation but is otherwise largely predictable. Literary Meadow Mari (see Section 12.2) has only two irregular verbs: the negation verb (see Section 12.10) and the verb ‘to be.’ There are no noun classes; inflected forms of a noun can be derived unambiguously from the nominative singular. The case system consists of nine cases and is complemented by numerous postpositions that are either in the process of morphologization or have already been subject to it (see 12.5). There are no dual forms; only singular and plural forms of nouns and verbs are distinguished. Plurality is often not overtly marked: when plural semantics can be inferred from context, grammatically singular forms are frequently used. Mari makes extensive use of person suffixes on nouns and nonfinite verb forms. The order of case, number, and person suffixes on nouns is variable to a certain extent: it depends on the grammatical case, and with many suffix combinations, different arrangements are permissible (see Luutonen 1997). Mari exhibits many traits typical of so-called head-final languages. The basic constituent order in transitive clauses in which no element is especially emphasized is subject–object–verb (SOV); nominal objects precede their finite verb, as do nonfinite verbal constructions (e.g. converbial constructions) that correspond to subordinate clauses in more widely known languages of Europe. Adjectives, and participial constructions functioning as attributes, generally precede the noun they modify. Mari strongly eschews bi- or multifinite structures in which multiple finite verbs co-occur in combination with conjunctions. Instead, nonfinite verb forms play an important role in the syntax, with two infinitives, four participles, and five converbs widely used in the construction of complex sentences: in Mari, it is more natural to say Having picked up my bag, I left than I picked up my bag and left. 12.2 DEMOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY Mari—Cheremis in older sources—is spoken primarily in European Russia on the shores of the Volga, with a sizeable diaspora found in the Urals, and especially in the Republic of Bashkortostan. It is a pluricentric language with two distinct literary norms, Meadow (or Eastern) Mari and Hill (or Western) Mari. Both literary standards have official status and are taught in schools. Meadow Mari is by far the dominant variety. In the 2010 All-Russia population census, 365,127 people claimed to be Mari speakers and 23,062 people explicitly identified themselves as speakers of Hill Mari (Federal’naya sluzhba DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-12

528 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

FIGURE 12.1 MARI DIALECTS IN EUROPEAN RUSSIA.

gosudarstvennoy statistiki 2011). An even larger number of individuals, 547,605, identified themselves as ethnic Mari; 290,863 of these live within the titular Mari Republic, Mari El (where they constitute 41.8% of the population). As is usual for Uralic speaker communities of Russia, rural communities are the bulwark of language maintenance, while the cities (including the capital of Mari El, Yoshkar-Ola) are overwhelmingly Russophone. Both language forms are considered endangered (Moseley 2010). The differences between the two literary norms are perceptible, but not overwhelming (see Krasnova et al. 2017 for a comprehensive overview of these; the discussion is generally restricted to Meadow Mari, though significant structural differences in Hill Mari are mentioned).

MARI 529

Dialectological surveys (cf. Alhoniemi 1993, 254; Luutonen 1997, 186; Ivanov 1981, 98; Bradley 2016, 10) conventionally distinguish between four Mari dialect groups: Meadow (primarily spoken in eastern Mari El), Eastern2 (primarily spoken in the Ural Mountains), Hill (primarily spoken on the right bank of the Volga in western Mari El), and North-Western (primarily spoken in Kirov Oblast), each of which, in turn, can be divided into many subdialects (e.g. Bereczki 1994, 17–29). Eastern Mari and North-Western Mari have no literary forms and no official status; speakers of these varieties use the Meadow or Hill Mari literary norms if they write in Mari at all. Three Turkic languages are in contact with Mari at the present time: Tatar, Bashkir, and Chuvash. Tatar and Bashkir are closely related Volga Kipchak languages (Berta 1998, 283), while Chuvash is genealogically distant from all other Turkic languages and the only contemporary representative of the Bolgar Turkic subgroup (Kornfilt 2009, 519; Schönig 1997, 121). For a long time, Bolgar Turkic was the dominant contact language of Mari, and it was historically the first Turkic language that can unambiguously be placed in the Volga-Kama area. Archaeological evidence shows that the Bolgars, migrating from the south, reached the southern borders of contemporary Tatarstan (specifically, Bolshiye Tarkhany, on the right bank of the Volga) around the end of the eighth century and reached the Kama at the end of the ninth century (RónaTas 1988, 761). While evidence from toponyms implies that the Mari historically lived farther to the west (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998, 219), one can safely assume that the Mari were already present in the general region at this time. The Jordanes Chronicle places the Mari in the region as early as the year 551, assuming that the Sremnisc (cf. Cheremis) mentioned there are indeed the Mari. It continues to be a matter of debate when intensive cultural and linguistic contacts between Bolgars and Uralic language speakers began. The debate dates back to the 1920s, with competing schools claiming that Bolgar influence on Mari began in the ninth (Räsänen 1923, 94; Isanbayev 1989, 28; Bereczki 1994, 16) or the thirteenth (Wichmann 1924, 53; Róna-Tas 1988, 769–771) century. It is equally uncertain when Kipchak Turkic supplanted Bolgar (through the Tatarization of the Bolgars) as the dominant contact language, with estimates ranging from the thirteenth century (Isanbayev 1989, 28) to the early fifteenth century (Bereczki 1994, 16). The debates regarding exact historical dates all relate to the absolute time frame. The relative time frame is unambiguous: there is no doubt that the Bolgar influence preceded the Kipchak influence, and that it was more pervasive. This is especially reflected in the geographic distribution of contact phenomena, where Chuvash loan elements are deeply rooted in the common Mari lexicon, whereas Tatar loan elements have a strong position only in more eastern varieties of Mari (Saarinen 1997a, 195; Saarinen 1997b, 393; Hesselbäck 2005, 140). Like all other Uralic languages of Russia, Mari has been subject to substantial Russian-language influence since the twentieth century. While educational and economic reforms during the Soviet era raised the standard of living, they did so at the cost of lowering the prestige and utility of the Mari language (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998, 220). Mari remains in wide use in cultural spheres, however, including digital ones: it is widely used in social media (cf. Arkhangelskiy 2019). A unique factor strengthening the position of the Mari language is that it is the working language of the animist Mari Traditional Religion, the predominance of which has led to the Mari being described as ‘Europe’s Last Pagans’ (Kuwajima 2016; Kerezsi 2004, 376).

530 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

12.3 PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOPHONOLOGY Literary Meadow Mari has the consonant and vowel phonemes shown in Tables 12.1 and 12.2—consonants in parentheses traditionally occur only in Russian loanwords. Note that Mari does not have diphthongs and generally does not have length distinctions—though these occur sporadically when geminates are formed at morpheme boundaries, for example, jolɑn ‘. . . -legged’ (jol ‘leg; foot’ + adjective derivational suffix -ɑn) ~ jollɑn ‘to the leg’ (jol ‘leg; foot’ + dative suffix -lɑn). Reduced vowels. The vowel ə is reduced: it is somewhat centralized and shorter in duration than other vowels. In word-final position, ə is pronounced as a reduced variant of e, o, or ø, depending on vowel harmony; the orthography does not distinguish the quantitative distinction. To what extent this vowel is reduced depends on the dialect and the individual speaker. Voiced fricatives. Historically, Mari had three voiced fricative phonemes: /β/, /ɣ/, and /ð/. These had two realizations each, depending on their environment: they were generally realized as fricatives [β], [ɣ], and [ð], but after homorganic nasals /m/, /ŋ/, and /n/, they would be realized as voiced stops [b], [g], and [d], as shown in Table 12.3. The historical pronunciation of these sounds is encountered only rarely today: bilabial [β] has, for modern speakers, been replaced by labiodental [v]; /b/ is perceived as an independent phoneme; and the sounds [ɣ] and [ð] are today realized as [g] and [d] in all TABLE 12.1  MEADOW MARI CONSONANT INVENTORY Bilabial Stop Fricative Sibilant

Voiceless

p

Voiced

b

Labiodental

Palatal

Velar k

d

g

(f) β

(x)

(v)

Voiceless Voiced

Affricate Nasal

Postalveolar

t

Voiceless Voiced

Alveolar

m

s

ʃ

z (t͡s)

ʒ ͡tɕ

n

ɲ

Lateral

l

ʎ

Trill

r

Approximant

ŋ

j

TABLE 12.2  MEADOW MARI VOWEL INVENTORY Front

Central

Unrounded

Rounded

Close

i

y

Mid

e

ø

Open

Unrounded

Back Rounded

Unrounded Rounded u

ə

o ɑ

MARI 531 TABLE 12.3  HISTORIC ALLOPHONY OF /β/, /ɣ/, /ð/ IN MARI Sound

Example

Nasal + . . .

Example

/β/

βer ‘place’

/m/ + /β/ > [mb]

ʃymbel ‘darling’

/ɣ/

kuɣu ‘big’

/ŋ/ + /ɣ/ > [ŋg]

teŋge ‘ruble’

/ð/

tiðe ‘this’

/n/ + /ð/ > [nd]

mlɑnde ‘land’

positions (cf. Ivanov [2000] for an account of contemporary phonetics, and Alhoniemi [1985, 33–34] for an account of historical pronunciation). In Hill Mari literary standard, the following phonemes can be found in addition to all phonemes found in Meadow Mari (though it has a postalveolar affricate /t͡ʃ/ in place of Meadow Mari’s palatal affricate /t͡ɕ/) (cf. Krasnova et al. 2017): /c/: /t͡s/: /х/: /æ/: /ə̈/:

voiceless palatal stop voiceless alveolar affricate (also outside Russian loanwords) voiceless velar fricative (also outside Russian loanwords) open front unrounded vowel mid central unrounded vowel (contasts with /ə/)

Voice assimilation. A number of Mari suffixes have initial d ~ t, or g ~ k, depending on whether they follow vowels (or voiced consonants) or voiceless consonants. For example, the negative converb in -de ~ -te: tol- ‘to come’ > tolde ‘without coming,’ but lut- ‘to read’> lutte ‘without reading.’ Such assimilation can also occur across conventionally assumed word boundaries, see Section 12.4 below. This alternation will be indicated with an uppercase D and G in this chapter. A voice-based alternation between ʃ ~ ʒ and s ~ z can be encountered as well, for example, in the imperative (see following). Vowel harmony. Literary Meadow Mari does not have vowel harmony within the root, though certain phonotactic restrictions apply as to which vowels can occur in nonfirst syllables outside of compounds, and unstressed reduced word-final vowels found in many words agree with the preceding full vowel according to rules generally applying to suffix vowels. The prominent form of vowel harmony in Meadow Mari is suffixal: a number of suffixes have different (unstressed and reduced) suffix vowels e, o, or ø, depending on the base word to which they are attached. The last full vowel determines the nature of the suffix vowel. If it is an unrounded vowel—i, e, ɑ—the suffix vowel will be е. If the final vowel of a stem is rounded, a further distinction occurs between front vowels and back vowels: after the front rounded vowels y and ø, the suffix vowel is ø, and after the back rounded vowels u and о, the suffix vowel is о. If a word does not contain any full vowels—that is, if the stressed vowel is ə—the suffix vowel е is used. All three of these vowels are reduced and can be considered allophonic variants of ə. A summation (excluding alternative orthographic realizations of vowel sounds) is shown in Table 12.4. To illustrate, the distribution of variants of the suffix of the active participle -ʃe ~ -ʃo ~ -ʃø is shown in Table 12.5.

532 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN TABLE 12.4  MEADOW MARI VOWEL HARMONY (GROUPS) Front

Back

Unrounded

i, e, ɑ, (ə) > e

Rounded

y, ø > ø

u, о > о

TABLE 12.5  MEADOW MARI VOWEL HARMONY Last full vowel in stem Features

Unrounded

Rounded, front

Rounded, back

Vowel

Verbal stem

Active participle

i

site- ‘to suffice’

sitəʃe ‘sufficient’

e

ket͡ɕe- ‘to hang’

ket͡ɕəʃe ‘hanging’

ɑ

pɑle- ‘to know’

pɑləʃe ‘knowing’

ə

pəte- ‘to end’

pətəʃe ‘ending’

y

tylø- ‘to pay’

tyləʃø ‘paying’

ø

tøt͡ɕø- ‘to try’

tøt͡ɕəʃø ‘trying’

u

βut͡ɕo- ‘to wait’

βut͡ɕəʃo ‘waiting’

o

͡tɕoŋo- ‘to build’

͡tɕoŋəʃo ‘building’

In this chapter, the vowel-harmonic alternation e ~ o ~ ø will be indicated by an uppercase E: for example, -ʃe ~ -ʃo ~ -ʃø will be written -ʃE. Hill Mari has more consistent palato-velar vowel harmony than Meadow Mari, even stem-internally. Hill Mari palatal vowels are: æ, ø, y, e, i, ə̈; Hill Mari velar vowels are: ɑ, o, u, ə. Despite their palatal nature, the vowels e and i can occur after velar vowels. Velar vowels cannot, however, occur after e or i. Table 12.6 aims to illustrate this ‘palatal attraction’: if e and i are defined as a third group and placed between the palatal and velar groups on a graph, only movement in one direction of the graph or within a level of the graph is permitted. Thus, the vowel harmonic realization of vowels in Hill Mari is dependent on the previous syllable, not on the general quality of the vowels in a word. Thus, the word kuʒikæ ‘oblong’ conforms to Hill Mari vowel harmony, in spite of the fact that it contains both an unambiguously velar and an unambiguously palatal vowel in the first and third syllable, respectively. A hypothetical form *kæʒiku, on the other hand, would not be valid. Word stress. Stress in Meadow Mari is not bound to a certain syllable but, as a general rule, falls on the last full vowel of the word, where full vowels are all vowels, save ə (including its realization as reduced -e, -o, or -ø in word-final position): kyˈty ‘herd,’ but ˈtumo ‘oak’; ˈtunəktəʃo teach ‘teacher,’ but tunəktəˈʃ-em teacher-1sg ‘my teacher.’ If a word contains only reduced vowels, the stress falls on the first syllable, for example, ˈpətəʃe ‘ending.’ In Hill Mari, stress usually falls on the penultimate syllable: ˈə̈ʃtæʃ ‘to do.’ If the penultimate syllable contains a reduced vowel and is preceded by a full vowel, the stress can jump to this earlier syllable: keˈlesə̈ mæʃ

MARI 533 TABLE 12.6  HILL MARI VOWEL HARMONY: ‘PALATAL ATTRACTION’ 1st Syllable

2nd Syllable

3rd Syllable

ɑ, o, u, ə

ɑ, o, u, ə

ɑ, o, u, ə

e, i æ, ø, y, ə̈

e, i æ, ø, y, ə̈

e, i æ, ø, y, ə̈

...

‘statement’ (cf. Alhoniemi 1985, 15–40). In both language varieties, deviations from these stress rules can be observed. Individual suffixes either take or do not take word stress, in violation of the usual stress patterns, for example, the clitic --ak (cf. §12) in Meadow Mari ('pisən ‘quickly’ > 'pisənak rather than *pisəˈnak, Ivanov 2000, 129), or the comparative marker -rak ~ -ræk in Hill Mari ('yʃtə̈ ‘cold’ > yʃtə̈'ræk ‘colder’ rather than *'yʃtə̈ræk, Krasnova et al. 2017, 49). In the case of some suffixes, alternation is possible, for example, the dative suffix -lɑn: jol'tɑʃ ‘friend’ > joltɑʃˈlɑn ~ jolˈtɑʃlɑn ‘to the friend.’ The parameters governing this alternation remain poorly understood (cf. Riese et al. 2019, 33). 12.4 PARTS OF SPEECH3 The following parts of speech are frequently distinguished in accounts of Mari morphology: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, quantifiers, postpositions, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, particles, interjections, and descriptive words (cf. Luutonen et al. 2007). Some notes on this classification are in order: •

•

• • •

Nouns, pronouns, and quantifiers are subject to nominal inflection. Adjectives are inflected only when they are nominalized or occur in apposition (see following); they decline neither in attributive position in the NP nor when they occur as copula complements. Postpositions can take person suffixes, as can some adverbials derived from postpositional constructions—for example, ystembɑlne ‘on the table’ (< ystel ‘table’ + ymbɑlne ‘on top of’) > ystembɑlnem ‘on my table.’ Many accounts speak of numerals rather than quantifiers. However, a number of non-numeral quantifiers (e.g. məɲɑr(e) ‘how much/many’) can be used in much the same way as numerals are: for example, they both take the ordinal-forming suffix -mʃE: məɲɑrə.mʃe ‘which (the how many-eth, das wievielte).’ The dividing line between postpositions and adverbs is often unclear, as one and the same word (e.g. ʃeŋgelne ‘behind; at the back’) can be used after a noun as a postpostion (e.g. pørt ʃeŋgelne ‘behind the house’) or independently as an adverb. It is debatable whether descriptive words (discussed in the following under word-formation) are a valid class, as no distinct syntactic status can be attributed to them. There are quite a few words in Mari that are traditionally classified as members of closed part of speech categories (e.g. postposition гыч /gət͡ɕ/ ~ /kət͡ɕ/ ‘from,’ particle гына /gəna/ ~ /kəna/ ‘only,’ conjunction да /da/ ~ /ta/ ‘and’) that orthographically start with д or г, even though Mari phonotactics do not allow /d/ or /g/ in word-initial position—the initial sound is only realized as /d/ after vowels and voiced consonants. One could classify these words as cliticized units with an obligatory host

534 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

word, as they cannot occur sentence-initially and are subject to voice assimilation across the orthographic word boundary after their host. In the following sections, after a general overview of nominal inflection (pertaining to nouns, and with restrictions pertaining to pronouns, numerals, and adjectives), some comments will be provided on specific parts of speech. 12.5 NOMINAL INFLECTION 12.5.1 Case Contemporary Meadow Mari is said to have nine cases; contemporary Hill Mari, ten (the nine of Meadow Mari, plus the caritative, which is also found in other dialects, however). The cases can be split roughly into three categories: grammatical, local, and other (non-spatial adverbials), as shown in Table 12.7. Animate nouns only very rarely, and under very specific circumstances, occur in the local cases. Genitive flagging of inanimate nouns is infrequent in foklore texts, but common in the literary language (Kangasmaa-Minn 1966, 31; Bradley 2016, 32). In possessive constructions, the genitive case is used to encode an animate owner, whereas an inanimate noun in the corresponding syntactic position is generally in the nominative. In modern language, increasingly you find inanimate genitive possessors too, under Russian influence. In nonfinite verbal constructions, there is a tendency for an animate agent to be encoded by the genitive, whereas an inanimate agent is in the nominative. Other case-like endings not included here are: the vocative in -j (ɑt͡ɕɑ ‘father’ > ɑt͡ɕɑj ‘Dad’—this suffix can be attached to only a few kinship terms; note that the resulting form can be subjected to nominal inflection, for example, ɑt͡ɕɑjlɑn ‘to Dad’), the instructive in -n (jol ‘foot’ > jolən ‘on foot’—the relationship of this suffix with the genitive is controversial; see Bradley 2016, 75–77), and a number of endings used only in combination with certain spatial postpositions and adverbs that are no longer productive in contemporary Mari but which correspond roughly to local case suffixes (and in one instance

TABLE 12.7  MARI CASE SYSTEM Type

Grammatical

Local

Other

Name

Suffix

Example

Nominative

(zero)

pørt ‘house’

Accusative

-m

pørtəm ‘the house (obj.)’

Genitive

-n

pørtən ‘of the house’

Dative

-lɑn

pørtlɑn ‘to the house’

Inessive

-ʃtE

pørtəʃtø ‘in the house’

Illative

-ʃ(kE)

pørtəʃ(kø) ‘into the house’

Lative

-eʃ

pørteʃ ‘in(to) the house’

Comparative

-lɑ

pørtlɑ ‘like the house’

Comitative

-Ge

pørtke ‘with the whole house’

Caritative

-De

pørtte ‘without the house’

MARI 535 TABLE 12.8  PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE LOCAL CASES IN MEADOW MARI Unproductive ending -k(E)

-ɑn

Corresponds to case suffix . . .

Directionality

-ʃ(kE)

motion towards

-eʃ

-n(E)

-ʃtE

no motion

-t͡ɕ(ən), -m

[. . .] kət͡ɕ ~ gət͡ɕ

motion away from

a postposition, as Mari has no separative/elative/ablative case). These suffixes are set out in Table 12.8. For example, ʃeŋgel ‘back, back part’ > ʃeŋgek(e) ‘to behind; to the back, ʃeŋgelne ‘behind; at the back,’ ʃeŋgelɑn ‘(to) behind; to/at the back,’ ʃeŋget͡ɕ(ən) ‘from behind; from the back’; ont͡ɕəl ‘front, front part’ > ont͡ɕək(o) ‘to in front of; forward,’ ont͡ɕəlno ‘in front of; in the front,’ ont͡ɕəlɑn ‘(to) in front of; to/in the front,’ ont͡ɕət͡ɕ(ən) ‘from in front of; from the front.’ It can be argued that the grammaticalization of a number of postpositions is well underway (or even complete), and that it is mostly due to tradition and the orthography that they are not considered case suffixes. Their behaviour is, in many ways, similar to that of case suffixes; they undoubtedly complement the case system in their function: • • •

•

It is not usual for additional words (such as adverbs) to appear between these postpositions’ host words and the postpositions. Their pronunciation depends on the host word due to voice assimilation, for example, kət͡ɕ ~ gət͡ɕ ‘from’: pørt kət͡ɕ ‘from the house,’ but olɑ gət͡ɕ ‘from the city.’ As with the case suffixes, highly idiosyncratic forms appear when some postpositions are used with personal pronouns: məj den-em 1sg.nom with-1sg ‘with me,’ but tudə-n dene 3sg -gen with ‘with him/her’ (cf. the dative forms of the personal pronouns: mə-lɑn-em 1sg-dat-1sg ‘to me,’ but tud-lɑn 3sg-dat ‘to him/her.’ Some postpositions have well-defined grammatical functions and are required by the valence frames of certain verbs.

Regardless of the theoretical interpretation, it can help to consider case suffixes and postpositions as complementary. This is especially visible in the directional system typical of many Uralic languages, and also found in adverbs/postpositions using the unproductive endings detailed earlier: as Mari does not have a productive case with separative seman͡ ~ gət͡ ɕ ‘out of’ fills this paradigmatic gap. Furthermore, case tics, the postposition kətɕ suffixes and postpositions are both used in argument flagging: compare the flagging of an ͡ ‘from’ by the verb in (1a) argument with the dative suffix -lɑn and the postposition detɕ and (1b). (1a) me tunəktəʃə-lɑn polʃə-ne-nɑ we teacher-dat help-des-1pl ‘We want to help the teacher.’

͡ (b) ɑnuʃ [. . .] kombo detɕ lyd-eʃ. Anush goose from fear-3sg ‘Anush is afraid of the goose.’

12.5.2 Number Number can have two values in Mari: singular and plural. There are no dual forms. Mari tends to avoid using grammatically plural forms when semantic plurality is implied for

536 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN TABLE 12.9  SEMANTIC AND GRAMMATICAL PLURALITY IN MEADOW MARI 1)

serəʃ tol-ən

letter come-pst2.3sg ‘a letter came’

2)

serəʃ-βlɑk tol-ən-ət

letter-pl come-pst2-3pl ‘letters came’

3)

kok serəʃ tol-ən

two letter come-pst2.3sg ‘two letters came’ (Plurality indicated by numeral ‘two’)

4)

serəʃ tol.ed-en

letter come.freq-pst2.3sg ‘letters came’ (Plurality indicated by frequentative suffix on verb.)

5)

pot͡ɕtɑlʲon—tide serəʃ-əm kondə-ʃo jeŋ

letter.carrier this letter-acc carry-act.ptcp person ‘a letter carrier is someone that delivers letters’

other reasons. The noun serəʃ ‘letter’ is grammatically and syntactically singular in sentence (1) in Table 12.9, while in sentence (2) it is grammatically and syntactically plural. In sentences (3) to (5), the word serəʃ occurs in a grammatically singular form, but plural/ generic semantics are understood from context. In literary Meadow Mari, a number of plural suffixes can be attached to nominal stems: -βlɑk, -ʃɑmət͡ɕ, -lɑ, and -mət. These suffixes are not fully interchangeable: The suffixes -βlɑk and -ʃɑmət͡ɕ are additive, homogenous plural suffixes: pørt ‘house’ > pørt-βlɑk ~ pørt-ʃɑmət͡ɕ ‘houses.’ They are functionally equivalent to one another; their distribution is dialectal. Both suffixes are used in literary Meadow Mari. The suffix -lɑ is also used to form additive, homogenous plural forms but is typically attached only to inanimate nouns with a local meaning when these nouns are used in a local case (inessive, illative, lative) or stand before a postposition, for example, pɑsu ‘field’ > pɑsu-lɑ-ʃte field-pl-ine ‘in the fields,’ pɑsu-lɑ-ʃ(ke) field-pl-ill ‘(in)to the fields,’ pɑsu-lɑ gət͡ɕ field-pl from ‘from the fields.’ More rarely, it can be employed in the subject position (nominative case) and object position (accusative case). The suffix -mət contrasts strongly with the other plural suffixes in that it is not used to denote an additive, homogeneous plural, but rather an associative, heterogeneous plural: a noun that takes this suffix is a focal referent, and all members of the denoted set are associates, for example, Serge (proper noun) > Serge-mət ‘Serge and other people associated with him (family, friends).’ The focal referent can be a proper (given or family) name or a kinship term (e.g. ɑβɑ ‘mother’ > ɑβɑ-mət ‘mother and her acquaintances’). 12.5.3 Person suffixes Possession is expressed primarily by person suffixes on the noun: the noun is considered the possession, and the person suffix expresses the number and person of the possessor. There are separate person suffixes for the three persons and the two numbers (singular and plural), in all a total of six; see Table 12.10. The suffixes of the first and second person are generally -em, -et, but are -m, -t after ɑ, as in olɑ ‘town’ > olɑ-m ‘my town.’ The suffix of the third-person singular (cf. Riese et al. 2019, 51) is: (1) -əʒ(E) after -ʃ (e.g. jeʃ ‘family’ > jeʃ-əʒe ~ jeʃ-əʒ ‘his/her family,’ though the form jeʃ-ʃe is also encountered); (2) -ʃE after all other obstruent consonants (e.g. βoʒ ‘root’ > βoʒ-ʃo ‘his/her root’); (3) -ʒE after sonorant consonants (lym ‘name’ > lym-ʒø ‘his/her name’); and (4) -ʒ(E) after vowels (e.g. sɑtu ‘goods’ > sɑtu-ʒo ~ sɑtu-ʒ ‘his/her goods’).

MARI 537 TABLE 12.10  MEADOW MARI PERSON SUFFIXES Suffix

Example: lym ‘name’

1Sg

-(e)m

lym-em ‘my name’

2Sg

-(e)t

lym-et ‘your name’

3Sg

-ʃE ~ -(ə)ʒ(E)

lym-ʒø ‘his/her name’

1Pl

-nɑ

lym-nɑ ‘our name’

2Pl

-Dɑ

lym-dɑ ‘your name’

3Pl

-ʃt

lym-əʃt ‘their name’

The basic functions of the person suffixes are: • • • •

To indicate the possessor of a noun’s referent, for example, ydər ‘daughter’ > ydər-em ‘my daughter.’ To indicate possession at clause level: in Mari, an existential clause is used (see §15), with the possessed noun taking a person suffix: ydər-em ulo ‘I have a daughter,’ ydər-em uke ‘I don’t have a daughter.’ Used with postpositions, for example, ʃeŋgelne ‘behind’ > ʃeŋgeln-em ‘behind me.’ To index the (generally animate) agent of certain nonfinite verb forms, for example, əʃtəmeke ‘after doing’ > əʃtəmek-em ‘after I did.’

Secondary functions include: •

•

First- and third-person singular suffixes form vocatives of some nouns, for example, ydər ‘daughter’ > ydər-em ‘my (dear) daughter!’ unəkɑ ‘grandchild’ > unəkɑ-m ‘my (dear) grandchild!’ ɑβɑ ‘mother’ > ɑβɑ-ʒe ‘dear (used by husband; closer translation: his/her mother),’ ɑt͡ɕɑ ‘father’ > ɑt͡ɕɑ-ʒe ‘darling (used by wife; ‘his/her father’).’ The third-person singular can serve as a determiner clitic, indicating that an entity has already been mentioned, or that something is part of a larger group that was previously introduced. Example: Iktə-ʒe nɑl-ɑlt-eʃ, βesə-ʒe kod-eʃ. one-3sg take-detr-3sg, other-3sg stay-3sg ‘(The) one will be taken and the other left.’ When used in this function, the suffix can follow other person suffixes and can be attached to non-nominal forms: kid-əʃt-em-ʒe hand-ine-1sg3sg ‘in my hand.’  There is no systematic difference in the usage of person suffixes to indicate alienable and inalienable possession: pørt ‘house’ > pørt-em ‘my house,’ jol ‘leg’ > jol-em ‘my leg.’ There are, however, irregular forms of the 1sg and 2sg suffixes, -m (cf. regular -em) and -͡tɕ (cf. regular -et), respectively. These forms are mostly used only in combination with a very few kinship terms: βeŋe ‘son-inlaw’ (βeŋə-m, βeŋə-t͡ɕ), ʃeʃke ‘daughter-in-law’ (ʃeʃkə-m, ʃeʃkə-t͡ɕ), ʃoʎo ‘younger brother’ (ʃoʎə-m, ʃoʎə-t͡ɕ), erge ‘son’ (ergə-m, ergə-t͡ɕ), nudo ‘sister-in-law’ (nudə-m, nudə-t͡ɕ). In all these examples, however, the regular forms (βeŋ-em, βeŋ-et, ʃeʃk-em, etc.) can be used as well.

538 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

12.6 PRONOUNS The personal pronouns have only nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative forms; see Table 12.11. Mari uses the Russian system (ты/вы, tu/vous) of formality and politeness distinctions: 2pl forms are used when addressing one person formally. The personal pronouns as subjects are optional and can be omitted, depending on emphasis. They are not usually omitted in object position. Demonstrative pronouns can be distinguished by a number of parameters in Mari: • • •

Singular or plural Proximal or distal Used as modifier or used independently

An overview of which forms are used when can be found in Table 12.12. In addition to these commonly used pronouns, there are the alternative pronouns sede ‘this’ and sɑde ‘that.’ Their use is comparatively rare in the contemporary language, with the exception of the lexicalized dative form sɑdlɑn, which functions as a conjunction ‘therefore, thus, consequently, so,’ and a number of derived forms and compounds, such as sɑndene ‘therefore, thus, consequently, so.’ When sɑde ‘that’ is used, it is most frequently as an anaphor, referring back to something previously mentioned, as in example (2).

TABLE 12.11  MEADOW MARI PERSONAL PRONOUNS Nominative

Accusative

Genitive

Dative

1sg

məj

məjəm

məjən

məlɑnem ~ məlɑm

2sg

təj

təjəm

təjən

təlɑnet ~ təlɑt

3sg

tudo

tudəm

tudən

tudlɑn

1pl

me

memnɑm

memnɑn

məlɑnnɑ

2pl

te

tendɑm

tendɑn

təlɑndɑ

3pl

nuno

nunəm

nunəlɑn

nunən

TABLE 12.12  MEADOW MARI DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS Interrogative Modifier Independent

kudo ‘which’ kudo ‘which (one)’ mo ‘what’ kø ‘who’

Singular

Plural

Proximal

Distal

tide ‘this’ tə ‘this’

tudo ‘that’ tu ‘that’

tide ‘this (one)’

tudo ‘that (one)’

Proximal

Distal

nine ‘these’

nuno ‘those’

MARI 539

(2)

ʃɑrn-et remember-2sg

urem-əm, kuʃto street-acc where

me il-en-na? we live-pst2-1pl

sade urem-əʃte kok pørt gəna kod-ən that street-ine two house only stay-pst2.3sg ‘do you remember the street we lived in? there are only two houses left on that street’ Those pronominal forms that can occur independently are subject to nominal inflection. Note also that certain adverbs and adjectives are derived from the pronominal stems tə- and tu-, which inherit the proximal/distal distinction from their stems: təʃte ‘here’ ~ tuʃto ‘there,’ təge ‘like this’ ~ tuge ‘like that,’ etc. The reflexive pronoun can be inflected for person and case. The full paradigm is shown in Table 12.13. Non-case-marked (nominative) forms of the reflexive pronoun have an emphatic meaning ‘oneself’ (‘myself,’ ‘yourself,’ etc.); the base form ʃke is also used as an adjective ‘own’ (‘my own,’ ‘your own,’ etc.) in all persons. It is used as a reflexive pronoun ‘oneself’ (‘myself,’ ‘yourself,’ etc.) in all cases (in the nominative and genitive in combination with postpositions), as in example (3): (3)

βyd ʃkɑ-lɑn-ʒe kornə-m water refl-dat-3sg way-acc ‘water finds a way for itself’

mu-eʃ. find-3sg

The reciprocal pronoun ikte+βese ‘one another, each other’ can take case suffixes and plural person suffixes, which are attached to the second element βese. Nominative forms occur with postpositions. (4)

͡tɕodərɑ-ʃte ydər-βlɑk ikte+βesə-ʃt-əm jomdɑr-en-ət. forest-ine girl-pl one-other-3pl-acc lose-pst2-3pl ‘the girls lost each other in the forest’

(5)

ɑkɑ-m dene ikte+βese βokten il-enɑ. elder.sister-1sg with one-other beside live-1pl ‘my big sister and I live next door to one another’

TABLE 12.13  MEADOW MARI REFLEXIVE PRONOUN -

1Sg

2Sg

3Sg

1Pl

2Pl

3Pl

Nom

ʃke

ʃke

ʃke

ʃke ~ ʃkeʒ

ʃke

ʃke

ʃke ~ ʃkeʃt

Acc

ʃkem

ʃkeməm

ʃkendəm (~ ʃkendət͡ɕən)

ʃkenʒəm

ʃkenɑm

ʃkendɑm

ʃkenəʃtəm

Gen

-

ʃkemən

ʃkendən (~ ʃkendət͡ɕən)

ʃkenʒən

ʃkenɑn

ʃkendɑn

ʃkenəʃtən

Dat

ʃkɑn ~ ʃkɑlɑn

ʃkɑlɑnem ~ ʃkɑnem

ʃkɑlɑnet ~ ʃkɑnet

ʃkɑlɑnʒe ~ ʃkɑnʒe

ʃkɑlɑnnɑ ~ ʃkɑnnɑ

ʃkɑlɑndɑ ~ ʃkɑndɑ

ʃkɑlɑnəʃt ~ ʃkɑnəʃt

540 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN TABLE 12.14  MEADOW MARI INDEFINITE PRONOUNS kø ‘who’

mo ‘what’

kuʃto ‘where’

ɲi - ‘no-‘ ket͡ɕ- ‘-ever’

ɲigø ‘nobody’ ket͡ɕ-kø ‘whoever’

ɲimo ‘nothing’ ket͡ɕ-mo ‘whatever’

ɲiguʃto ‘nowhere’ ket͡ɕ-kuʃto ‘wherever’

kerek- ‘-ever’

kerek-kø ‘whoever’

kerek-mo ‘whatever’

kerek-kuʃto ‘wherever’

ɑlɑ- ‘some-’

ɑlɑ-kø ‘someone’

ɑlɑ-mo ‘something’

ɑlɑ-kuʃto ‘somewhere’

iktɑʒ- ‘any-’

iktɑʒ-kø ‘anyone’

iktɑʒ-mo ‘anything’

iktɑʒ-kuʃto ‘anywhere’

-gənɑt ‘some-’

kø-gənɑt ‘someone’

mo-gənɑt ‘something’

kuʃto-gənɑt ‘somewhere’

The interrogative pronouns are kø ‘who,’ mo ‘what,’ mogɑj ‘what kind of,’ məɲɑr(e) ~ kunɑr(e) ‘how much/many,’ mot͡ɕol(o) ‘(oh) how much/many,’ kudo ‘which, which one.’ Numerous interrogative adverbs are derived from these pronominal stems: kuʃto ‘where (inessive),’ kuʃ(ko) ‘(to) where (illative),’ kuʃɑn ‘where (lative),’ kuʃet͡ɕ(ən) ‘from where,’ kuʃken ‘for how long; how far,’ kunɑm ‘when,’ kunɑmlɑn ‘till when,’ kunɑmsek ‘since when,’ kunɑmse ‘of what time,’ kuso ‘from where, of what place,’ kuze ‘how,’ molɑn ‘why,’ məɲɑrən ~ kunɑrən ‘in a group of how many,’ məɲɑrəmʃe ‘which one, which number,’ məɲɑr(ə)lɑn ‘at what time; for what price; by what amount.’ Negative and indefinite pronouns and adverbs are formed by a number of prefixes and suffixes attached to the interrogative pronouns and adverbs. Table 12.14 illustrates this on the basis of three question words, though the same affixes can be attached to all other question words as well. The process by which k changes to g in the negative forms is explained in Section 12.13. Notes on the individual affixes: • • • • •

ɲi- (direct negation): Multiple negation occurs in Mari; verbal forms are negated as well in the relevant clauses. ket͡ɕ- ~ kerek- (free choice): These forms are used to imply the speaker’s indifference. ɑlɑ- (specific unknown): These forms are generally used in reference to concepts that are assumed to be definite but that are not known to the speaker. iktɑʒ- (irrealis non-specific): These forms are generally used in reference to concepts that are truly indefinite that might or might not exist. -gənɑt: In contrast to other indefinite forms, these forms imply some sort of inevitability.

Negative and indefinite pronouns formed by other means include: iktɑt ‘nobody, not one’ (< ikte ‘one’ + enclitic particle = ɑt ‘and; also,’ used with negated verbal forms), kɑʒne ‘each, every,’ juʒo ‘some,’ etc. 12.7 NUMERALS All Mari cardinal numerals—with the exception of those divisible by ten—have long and short forms. The short form is used as an attribute, that is, within the NP before a noun as a quantifier, and is not declined. The long form is used when a numeral is not followed

MARI 541 TABLE 12.15  MEADOW MARI NUMERALS Cardinal (short) ‘how much, how many’?

(long)

Ordinal

Collective

məɲɑr

məɲɑre

məɲɑrəmʃe

məɲɑrəmʃe

1

ik

ikte

ikəmʃe

—

2

kok

kokət

kokəmʃo

koktən

3

kum

kumət

kumʃo

kumətən

4

nəl βit͡ɕ

nələt

nələmʃe

nələtən

5

βizət

βizəmʃe

βizətən

6

kut

kudət

kudəmʃo

kudətən

7

ʃəm

ʃəmət

ʃəmʃe

ʃəmətən

8

kɑndɑʃ

kɑndɑʃe

kɑndɑʃəmʃe

kɑndɑʃən

9

indeʃ

indeʃe

indeʃəmʃe

indeʃən

luəmʃo

luən

10

lu

by a noun, either through ellipsis or apposition, and can take case endings (6). Nouns following cardinal numbers are in the singular. (6a) nəl kilo-m nal-am four kilo-acc buy-1sg ‘I’ll buy four kilos’

(b)

nələt-əm nal-am four-acc buy-1sg ‘I’ll buy four’

Ordinals are formed using a suffix -mʃE (after -m, -ʃe), attached to the short form of the cardinal. The ordinals can also be used as fractions, as in kɑndɑʃ βizəmʃe ‘eight fifths.’ The instructive ending -n can be attached to long cardinals and other quantifiers (e.g. ʃuko ‘much/many’ > ʃukən ‘in large numbers’) to form collective numerals (zu dritt, roughly ‘as a threesome’). There are special forms used in reference to groups consisting of two to five people. The base forms (kogəɲ- ‘2,’ kuməɲ- ‘3,’ nələɲ- ‘4,’ βizəɲ- ‘5’) are obligatorily coupled with a plural person suffix and are used only with postpositions or in the genitive, dative, and accusative. These numerals express the commonality of two, three, four, or five people regarded as forming a group; see example (7). (7)

kuməɲ-dɑ nergen tɑt͡ɕə.se gazet-əʃte βoz-en-ət. three.coll-2pl about today.adj newspaper-ine write-pst2-3pl ‘they wrote about the three of you in today’s newspaper’

12.8 ADJECTIVES Adjectives do not agree with their nouns, either when they occur as attributes or as copula complements. They are subject to nominal inflection only when they are nominalized by means of conversion (as in the case of ellipsis) and serve as the head of the NP, or when they occur in apposition. In example (8), (a) is the neutral word order, while (b) shows apposition.

542 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

͡tɕoŋ-em. (8a) məj izi pørt-əm I small house-acc build-1sg ‘I’m building a small house’

(b)

͡tɕoŋ-em. məj pørt-əm, izi-m, I house-acc small-acc build-1sg ‘I’m building a house, a small one’

A small group of adjectives, many denoting colours, have both a short and a long form: joʃkɑr ~ joʃkɑr.ge ‘red,’ oʃ ~ oʃ.o ‘white,’ ʃem ~ ʃem.e ‘black,’ koʃɑr ~ koʃɑr.ge ‘sharp, pointed.’ The short form is used when the adjective is used attributively and proceeds the noun it modifies. The long form is used in all other scenarios, including as a copula complement, in appositional constructions, or when nominalized. As a result, the short form is morphologically inert, while the long form can be inflected. The index of comparative constructions is formed with suffix -rɑk, for example, sɑj ‘good’ > sɑj-rɑk ‘better.’ This suffix often indicates a lesser intensity of the quality in question (e.g. izi-rɑk kɑp.ɑn ‘rather short; of small stature’ ← izi ‘small,’ kɑp.ɑn ‘having a body’). The standard of comparison can be indicated with the postposition det͡ɕ ‘from.’ When the standard of comparison is stated, the index -rɑk is optional (9). (9)

͡ lum kɑgɑz detɕ oʃə-rɑk ~ snow paper from white-cmp ‘snow is whiter than paper’

oʃo. white

The dative can be used to indicate the degree to which the comparee exceeds the standard, for example, kum sɑntimetr-lɑn kuʒu-rɑk three centimetre-dat long-cmp ‘longer by three centimetres.’ The superlative is formed by placing the particle en before the positive degree: sɑj ‘good’ > en sɑj ‘the best.’ One can also form superlative constructions of a sort by using the comparative with ɲigø ‘nobody’ or ɲimo ‘nothing’ as the standard of compar͡ sɑj ~ sɑjrɑk ‘better than anyone (lit. nobody).’ In a further construction with ison: ɲigø detɕ emphatic undertones, the postposition det͡ɕ ‘from’ can be placed between two occurrences of the same adjective in the positive degree, for example, motor ‘beautiful’ > motor det͡ɕ motor ‘the most beautiful.’ This construction is encountered especially in poetic language.

12.9 POSTPOSITIONS Adpositions in Mari are exclusively postpositions. As was discussed earlier, postpositions complement the case system in Mari. They can express spatial values, temporal values, reasons, aims, quantifications, comparisons, and other values. Most postpositions occur with the nominative of nouns, but with genitive forms of certain pronouns: ʃkol ont͡ɕəlno school.nom in.front.of ‘in front of the school,’ but memnɑn ont͡ɕəlno 1pl.gen in.front.of ‘in front of us.’ Genitive flagging of nouns in combination with person-suffix-marking of a postposition (see following) is rare but is encountered sporadically: kytyt͡ɕə-n ont͡ɕəlnə-ʒo shepherd-gen in.front.of-3sg ‘in front of the shepherd’ (Arkhangelskiy 2019). Some postpositions occur with a case other than the nominative/genitive on either a head noun or a pronoun, for example, the dative with kørɑ ‘because of’ as in ʃkol-lɑn kørɑ school-dat because.of ‘because of school,’ mə>-lɑn ʃeŋgelne ‘behind . . .,’ ʃeŋget͡ɕ(ən) ‘from behind . . .,’ etc. Many postpostions can be used without a head, as free-standing adverbials (10). ͡ (10) ontɕəlno jɑl koj-eʃ. in.front village be.visible-3sg ‘the village lies ahead (of us)’ 12.10 VERBAL INFLECTION As regards the general parameters of the Mari verbal system, see 12.1. 12.10.1 Conjugation classes and the verbal stem Mari verbs are inflected according to their conjugation class: every Mari verb belongs to either the first or the second conjugation. Verbal stems of first-conjugation verbs end in consonants or the vowels u and y (e.g. nɑl- ‘to take,’ ʃu- ‘to arrive,’ jy- ‘to drink’), while verbal stems of the second conjugation end in an unstressed -e, -o, or -ø (e.g. ile‘to live,’ kolo- ‘to die,’ ydø- ‘to sow’). For phonotactic reasons, four distinct consonant clusters that occur stem-finally in the first conjugation are simplified when they occur in syllable-final position—word-finally or when followed by a suffix beginning in a consonant. In parallel fashion, stem-final /z/ is realized as /z/ between vowels, but as /t͡ɕ/ in syllable-final position, as shown in in Table 12.16. For example, we have stem lekt- ‘to go,’ with inflected forms lekt-ɑm ‘I go,’ but lek! ‘go!’ lek-ne-m ‘I want to go.’

TABLE 12.16  MEADOW MARI STEM ALTERNATIONS Simplification/Alternation rule

Example Verbal stem

Altered stem

-kt-

> -k-

lekt- ‘to go’

lek-

-ʃk-

> -ʃ-

muʃk- ‘to wash’

muʃ-

-t͡ɕk-

>-t͡ɕ-

kot͡ɕk- ‘to eat’

kot͡ɕ-

-ɲt͡ɕ-

> -t͡ɕ-

ʃiɲt͡ɕ- ‘to sit down’

ʃit͡ɕ-

-z-

> -t͡ɕ-

βoz- ‘to lie down’

βot͡ɕ-

544 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

The imperative second-person singular and connegative form have zero endings and thus generally correspond to the verbal stem. For first-conjugation verbs, the stem alternations shown in Table 12.16 apply. In the case of some second-conjugation verbs, the stem-final vowel is omitted in the imperative/connegative forms (see Riese et al. 2019, 200): obligatorily if the stem ends in -uo, for example, puo- ‘to give’ > pu! ‘give!’ or optionally for a number of frequently used verbal stems ending in -je, -jo, or -jø, for example, kɑje- ‘to go’ > kɑj! ~ kɑje! ‘go!’ (this simplification is not productive and does not occur in the case of less frequently used verbs, for example, jətəraje- ‘to clean’ > jətəraje! ‘clean!’). In all tenses of the indicative, distinct endings are attached to stems of the first and second conjugation; endings and sample paradigms are provided in the following for both conjugation classes. In moods other than the indicative and in the case of most nonfinite verbal forms, the same endings are used in both conjugation classes. It should be noted that the infinitive ending -ɑʃ deletes the final unstressed vowels of second-conjugation verbs. This, in many cases, can neutralize the difference between a first-conjugation and second-conjugation verbal stem: kol- ‘to hear’ and kolo- ‘to die’ both have the infinitive kol-ɑʃ. As the infinitive is used as the citation form in most Mari dictionaries (some older and foreign dictionaries instead use the unambiguous first-person singular), the conjugation class has to be explicitly indicated in them, as it would not otherwise be discernible. There are no overt semantic factors determining the conjugation class of a verb, but the distribution of verbs into the two conjugation classes is not entirely random. In both Meadow Mari and Hill Mari, there are roughly twice as many verbs of the second conjugation as there are verbs of the first conjugation (cf. Luutonen et al. 2007); as a rule, borrowed verbs are of the second conjugation. With very few exceptions, specific verbal derivational suffixes (see 12.13) form verbs of either one conjugation class or the other. Furthermore, there are numerous cases where verbs form pairs, with stems inflecting in one or the other of the conjugation classes: 1st conjugation



2nd conjugation

͡ ʃiɲtɕɑʃ (< ʃiɲt͡ ɕ-) ‘to sit down’ kodɑʃ (< kot4-) ‘to remain’ temɑʃ (< tem-) ‘to fill up (itr)’

↔ ↔ ↔

͡ ʃiɲtɕɑʃ (< ʃiɲt͡ ɕe-) ‘to be in a seated position’ kodɑʃ (< kodo-) ‘to leave (something)’ temɑʃ (< teme-) ‘to fill something up’

In the first pair, the first-conjugation verb describes a change in body position, while the second-conjugation verb describes a state. In the second and third pair, both verbs involve change, but the first-conjugation verb is intransitive, while the second-conjugation verb is its transitive counterpart. The association of the first conjugation with intransitivity and the second conjugation with transitivity, seen in the second and third example, can be observed in derivational morphology (see following) as well, with numerous intransitive derivational suffixes (e.g. |em-, |ɑŋ-, |alt-) forming first-conjugation verbs and numerous transitive derivational suffixes (e.g. |tə ~ |də, |ktə-) forming second-conjugation verbs. This distinction does not hold true of the Mari lexicon in general, however: many first-conjugation verbs are transitive (e.g. puʃt- ‘to kill’), and many second-conjugation verbs are intransitive (e.g. ile- ‘to live’). There are also ambitransitive verbs belonging to one conjugation class (e.g. first-conjugation kyrl- ‘to tear,’ ʃel- ‘to split,’ loŋ- ‘to rock,’ eηde- ‘to burn’).

MARI 545 TABLE 12.17  MEADOW MARI NEGATIVE VERB Indicative present

Indicative simple past I

Imperative

Desiderative

o-m

ʃ-əm

-

ə-ne-m

2sg

o-t

ʃ-ət͡ɕ

it

ə-ne-t

3sg

og-eʃ ~ ok

əʃ

əˈnʒe

ə-ne-ʒ

1pl

ogə-nɑ ~ o-nɑ

əʃ-nɑ

-

ə-ne-nɑ

2pl

ogə-dɑ ~ o-dɑ

əʃ-dɑ

idɑ

ə-ne-dɑ

3pl

ogə-t

əʃ-t

ənəʃt

ə-ne-ʃt

1sg

12.10.2 Negation Verbal negation is expressed by a construction built with a negative verb whose paradigm is defective: it lacks nonfinite forms completely and only has its own distinct forms in the indicative present, indicative simple past I, imperative, and desiderative. (For secondary forms occurring in the simple past II and the compound past tenses, see following text.) The complement of the negative verb is the connegative form, which is homophonous with the verb stem (with any necessary phonotactic simplifications, see previous text at 12.3). The connegative form is the same in all persons in Meadow Mari; in Hill Mari, however, third-person plural forms take the ending -ep (Krasnova et al. 2017, 116). The forms of the negative verb are shown in Table 12.17. The negative verb and the connegative form are tied to one another more tightly in Mari than they are in Finnish, for example. It is unusual for other elements (such as adverbs, pronouns) to occupy the space between them, and it is unusual for their order to change: the connegative form, by default, follows the negative verb. Only a small set of particles can be found between the two, for example, gəna (after voiceless consonants kəna) ‘only’: idɑ gənɑ mɑn neg.imp.2pl only say.cng ‘don’t you say’ (cf. Bradley 2016, 27–28). The connegative form is generally obligatory; it can be omitted only in the indicative present. Under such ellipsis, there are distinct forms of the negative verb in the first- and second-person singular: og-əm neg-1sg ‘I don’t’ (cf. o-m tol neg-1sg come.cng ‘I don’t come’), og-ət neg-2sg ‘you don’t’ (cf. o-t tol neg-2sg come.cng ‘you don’t come’). Multiple negation is the norm in Mari: negative forms of pronouns (see 12.6) are used in combination with negated verbal forms: ɲi-gø ok pɑle neg-who neg.3sg know.cng ‘nobody knows.’ 12.10.3 Tense (in the indicative) Mari has three morphological tenses—the present (i.e. non-past, serving as both present and future), simple past 1, and simple past 2—plus four compound tenses (compound imperfect I and II, compound perfect I and II). Present. This tense serves as a non-past: it describes present (including habitual or continuous) and future actions and states. Mari has no morphological future tense. However, the verb tyŋɑl- ‘to begin’ can be used as a future auxiliary in combination with atelic (imperfective, esp. frequentative) verbs, as shown in (11).

546 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN TABLE 12.18  MEADOW MARI INDICATIVE PRESENT 1st conjugation

2nd conjugation

Ending

Example: tol ‘to come’

Ending

Example: ile ‘to live’

1sg

-ɑm

tolɑm

-еm

il-еm

2sg

-ɑt

tolɑt

-еt

il-еt

3sg

-eʃ

toleʃ

-ɑ

il-ɑ

1pl

-ənɑ

tolənɑ

-еnɑ

il-еnɑ

2pl

-ədɑ

tolədɑ

-еdɑ

il-еdɑ

3pl

-ət

tolət

-ɑt

il-ɑt

Note: For negative forms, see Table 12.17.

(11) ʃot͡ɕmo gət͡ɕ er jedɑ kurʒ-tɑl-ɑʃ tyŋɑl-ənɑ. Monday from morning every run-freq-inf begin-prs.1pl ‘we will run every morning starting Monday’ Furthermore, the verb lij- ‘to be(come),’ when in morphologically present-tense forms, has future reference (see following text). Simple past tense 1. The past-tense morpheme descends from Proto-Uralic *-i- in the first conjugation, and from *-ś- (> -ʃ-) in the second conjugation (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998, 229). In the first conjugation, the reflex of *-i- is -ə-, triggering palatalization of any stem-final l or n in all forms in which it occurs (> -ɲ-, -ʎ-); in 1pl and 2pl *-i-, however, it is lost and the person ending is attached directly to the stem, as shown in Table 12.19. The simple past tense I is used to locate a situation or event in the past. In particular, it is used to report actions and happenings that the speaker has seen or experienced first-hand or that are well known to the speaker. This tense is also used if the situations or events are still considered to be relevant to the moment of speech, or if they have just occurred. It tends to be used more in relation to completed actions. Simple past tense 2. This form is secondary: historically, it goes back to a construction built with a converb in -n (-ən in the first conjugation and -en in the second; see following text), followed by forms of the verb ul- ‘to be’ (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998, 229). The forms of ‘to be’ have been subject to reduction and have been morphologized as person endings in this tense (see Table 12.20). The periphrastic forms can still be found in some dialects, especially in the plural (Alhoniemi 1985, 111–112). The original, periphrastic construction survives in the negated forms of this tense, which are formed in Meadow Mari by placing the negative forms of ul- (see following) after the converb; no morphologization occurs here in Meadow Mari. Only certain particles can occur between the converb and the following negative form of ‘to be.’ In Hill Mari, a different strategy was used: the positive forms of ‘to be,’ in Hill Mari əl-, followed by the negative converb in -De, and were subject to morphologization. The original structure is still discernible in the way that the resulting endings do not follow the rules of vowel harmony, with /ɑ/ or /ə/ following /e/, violating the rules illustrated earlier in 12.3. The negative forms of tol- ‘to come’ in both language varieties are set out in Table 12.21. Much like the simple past tense I, this tense is used to locate a situation or event in the past. But in contrast to the simple past tense I, simple past II is used particularly to

MARI 547 TABLE 12.19  MEADOW MARI INDICATIVE SIMPLE PAST I 1st conjugation

2nd conjugation

Ending

Example: tol ‘to come’

Ending

Example: ile ‘to live’

1Sg

-əm

toʎəm

-ʃ-əm

ilə-ʃ-əm

2Sg

-ət͡ɕ

toʎət͡ɕ

-ʃ-ət͡ɕ

ilə-ʃ-ət͡ɕ

3Sg

-E

toʎo

-ʃ

ilə-ʃ

1Pl

-nɑ

tol-nɑ

-ʃ-nɑ

iləʃ-nɑ

2Pl

-Dɑ

tol-dɑ

-ʃ-tɑ

iləʃ-tɑ

3Pl

-ət͡ɕ

toʎət͡ɕ

-ʃ-t

ilə-ʃ-t

TABLE 12.20  MEADOW MARI INDICATIVE SIMPLE PAST II (POSITIVE) 1st conjugation

2nd conjugation

Ending

Example: tol - ‘to come’

Ending

Example: ile - ‘to live’

1Sg

-ən-ɑm (< -ən ul-ɑm)

tol-ən-ɑm (< tol-ən ul-ɑm)

-en-ɑm (< -en ul-ɑm)

il-en-ɑm (< il-en ul-ɑm)

2Sg

-ən-ɑt (< -ən ul-ɑt)

tol-ən-ɑt (< tol-ən ul-ɑt)

-en-ɑt (< -en ul-ɑt)

il-en-ɑt (< il-en ul-ɑt)

3Sg

-ən

tol-ən

-en

il-en

1Pl

-ən-nɑ (< -ən ul-ənɑ)

tol-ən-nɑ (< tol-ən ul-ənɑ)

-en-nɑ (< -en ul-ənɑ)

il-en-nɑ (< il-en ul-ənɑ)

2Pl

-ən-dɑ (< -ən ul-ədɑ)

tol-ən-dɑ (< tol-ən ul-ədɑ)

-en-dɑ (< -en ul-ədɑ)

il-endɑ (< il-en ul-ədɑ)

3Pl

-ən-ət (< -ən ul-ət)

tol-ən-ət (< tol-ən ul-ət)

-en-ət (< -en ul-ət)

il-enət (< il-en ul-ət)

TABLE 12.21  MEADOW AND HILL MARI INDICATIVE SIMPLE PAST II (NEGATIVE) Meadow Mari

Hill Mari

Negation of ul‘to be’

Example: ‘I didn’t come,’ etc

Ending

Example: ‘I didn’t come,’ etc

1Sg

o-m-əl

tol-ən o-m-əl

-De-l-ɑm (< -De əl-ɑt)

tol-de-l-ɑm

2Sg

o-t-əl

tol-ən o-t-əl

-De-l-ɑt (< -De əl-ɑt)

tol-de-l-ɑt

3Sg

og-əl

tol-ən og-əl

-De

tol-de

1Pl

og-ənɑ-l ~ o-nɑ-l

tol-ən og-ənɑ-l ~ o-nɑ-l

-De-l-nɑ (< -De əl-ənɑ)

tol-de-l-nɑ

2Pl

og-ədɑ-l ~ o-dɑ-l

tol-ən og-ədɑ-l ~ o-dɑ-l

-De-l-dɑ (< -De əl-ədɑ)

tol-de-l-dɑ

3Pl

og-ət-əl

tol-ən og-ət-əl

-De-l-ət (< -De əl-ət)

tol-de-l-ət

548 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

report actions and happenings that the speaker has not seen or experienced first-hand. The tense is also used to refer to events and situations considered to be more remote and less relevant to the speech event and tends to be used more with imperfectives/atelic situations. It is also used in experiential contexts—when it is a question of whether someone has ever carried out an action or not (‘Have you ever . . .?’ ‘I have never . . .’): Ozɑŋ-əʃte ɲi-gunɑm lij-ən o-m-əl Kazan-ine neg-when be(come)-cvb neg-1sg-be ‘I have never been to Kazan.’ This tense is now especially widespread, as it has been adopted as the language of reporting (newspapers, newscasts, blogs, etc.). The contrasting aspectual values of the two simple past tenses come to the forefront when two past-tense forms co-occur in a sentence. When multiple simple past tense I forms (associated with perfectivity) are used in a sentence, the actions they denote are understood to be serialized, occurring one after another. When multiple simple past tense II forms (associated with imperfectivity) are used in a sentence, the actions they denote are understood to be simultaneous. When the two tenses are used together in a sentence, the simple past tense II form is understood as the imperfective background action to the completed foreground action in the simple past tense I. Compound past tenses. In addition to the two morphologically formed past tenses, Mari has four compound affirmative past tenses: compound imperfect I and II and compound perfect I and II. These are formed by a (positive or negative) morphological tense form—present for the imperfects, simple past II for the perfects—followed by a third-person past-tense form of ‘to be’ (see following text): əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I) for forms I, ulmɑʃ ‘was’ (in simple past II). The forms are summarized in Table 12.22. To serve as an example, the singular second-person forms of tol- ‘to come,’ positive and negative, are shown in Tables 12.23 and 12.24. TABLE 12.22  MEADOW MARI COMPOUND PAST TENSES (NAMES) . . . əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I)

. . . ulmɑʃ ‘was’ (in simple past II)

Present + . . .

Compound imperfect I

Compound imperfect II

Simple past II + . . .

Compound perfect I

Compound perfect II

TABLE 12.23  MEADOW MARI COMPOUND PAST TENSES (POSITIVE EXAMPLES) . . . əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I)

. . . ulmɑʃ ‘was’ (in simple past II)

Present (tolɑt ) + . . .

tolɑt əʎe ‘you used to come’

tolɑt ulmɑʃ ‘it turns out you used to come’

Simple past II (tolənɑt) + . . .

tolənɑt əʎe ‘you were coming’

tolənɑt ulmɑʃ ‘it turns out you were coming’

TABLE 12.24  MEADOW MARI COMPOUND PAST TENSES (NEGATIVE EXAMPLES) . . . əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I)

. . . ulmɑʃ ‘was’ (in simple past II)

Present (ot tol ) + . . .

ot tol əʎe ‘you used not to come’

ot tol ulmɑʃ ‘it turns out you used not to come’

Simple past II (tolən otəl ) + . . .

tolən otəl əʎe ‘you were not coming’

tolən otəl ulmɑʃ ‘it turns out you were not coming’

MARI 549

The distinction between form I and form II is one of evidentiality: form I is used to report actions and happenings that the speaker has seen, heard, experienced firsthand or that are well known to the speaker, while form II is used when knowledge is derived from indirect experience or reasoning from perception (‘it seems, it turns out, it appears’), and especially when a circumstance is surprising, that is, forms II frequently have a mirative value: kutər-ɑ əʎe speak-3sg be.pst1.3sg ‘s/he used to speak’ (compound imperfect I), kutər-ɑ ulmɑʃ speak-3sg be.pst2.3sg ‘it turns out s/he used to speak’ (compound imperfect II). The compound imperfects are used to express continuous, repeated, habitual, non-delimited actions or states in the past (cf. ‘used to’-forms in English), or background actions that are simultaneous to foreground actions. The compound perfects are used to describe an action in the past that preceded another action or was interrupted by it: oʒno ʃuko lud-ən-ɑm əʎe before a.lot read-pst2-1sg be.pst1.3sg ‘I used to read a lot (but I don’t any more)’ (compound perfect I). In many situations, native speakers of Mari assert that the compound past tenses are interchangeable with simple past II forms. Further investigation into the exact parameters determining the use of these variants is needed.

12.10.4 Imperative and optative The imperative has distinct forms in the singular and plural second and third person. The imperative has no forms for first person, though first-person forms can be used as optative forms, especially in combination with the particles ɑjdɑ and ɑjstɑ (see Table 12.25). The endings of the imperative are the same in both conjugation classes and are shown in Table 12.25. For negative forms, see Table 12.17. In the second person, one or more persons are directly addressed. Second-person imperative forms can be mitigated with the clitics --jɑ ~ --jɑn, for example, tol ‘come!’ > tol--jɑ ~ tol--jɑn ‘come, please.’ Third-person forms serve as optatives: they express indirect orders, etc., directed at one or more persons not addressed by the speaker, for example, tol-əʃt ‘they should come; let them come.’ They are also used in purpose clauses ‘in order for’ (see 12.15.) Three imperative particles, ɑjdɑ, ɑjstɑ, and tek, find wide use (Riese et al. 2019, 333–334); see examples (68) and (69) in 12.15. Under Russian influence, past tense I forms of verbs of motion—especially kɑje- ‘to go’—are used in reference to actions that should take place immediately after the moment of speech or as an imperative of joint action: kɑjə-ʃ-nɑ go-pst1-1pl ‘let’s go (lit. we went).’ TABLE 12.25  MEADOW MARI IMPERATIVE Suffix

Example: tol - ‘to come’

Example: ile - ‘to live’

2Sg

-Ø

tol

ile

3Sg

-ʒE ~ -ʃE

tol-ʒo

ilə-ʒe

2Pl

-zɑ ~ -sɑ

tol-zɑ

ilə-zɑ

3Pl

-ʃt

tol-əʃt

ilə-ʃt

550 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

12.10.5 Desiderative Instead of using a verb of wanting or desiring with a complement clause, Mari expresses this morphologically with a suffix -ne- followed by the usual subject suffixes (Table 12.26; for negative forms, see Table 12.17). Past-tense forms of the desiderative are formed by placing the elements əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I) or ulmɑʃ ‘was’ (in simple past II) after the present-tense forms. As in the case of compound past tenses in the indicative, the forms with əʎe are used in reference to direct observations, while those with ulmɑʃ are used in reference to inferences, indirect knowledge, and surprising information: tolnem əʎe come-des-1sg be.pst1.3sg ‘I wanted to come,’ tolneʃt ulmɑʃ come-des-3pl be.pst2.3sg ‘it turns out they wanted to come.’ A further construction used to express a desire uses the passive participle in -mE plus an optional person suffix, in combination with inflected forms of the verb ʃu- ‘to arrive.’ Wishes expressed in this way are often of an emotional, inner, involuntary nature, in contrast to the more concrete, controlled intentions expressed by the desiderative (cf. Timár 2018). Usage situations of these two constructs do, however, overlap, as in (12a) and (12b). (12a) kot͡ɕ-ne-m eat-des-1sg ‘I want to eat’

(b) kot͡ɕ-m-em ʃu-eʃ eat-ptcp.pass-1sg arrive-3sg ‘I’m hungry. / I want to eat’

12.10.6 Nonfinite verbal forms Mari has two infinitives, four participles, and five converbs. With the exception of the affirmative instructive converb, the nonfinite verbal forms have the same endings in the first and second conjugation. We give first a brief overview, then discuss the individual forms. Infinitives. The infinitive in -ɑʃ is frequently used as the subordinate word of other verbs, though it can also function as a subject (see Section 12.15, example 78) and form relative clauses of sorts (41). Often, the infinitive denotes finality, in which case it (in Meadow Mari) can also be coupled with the dative ending: əʃt-ɑʃ-lɑn do-inf-dat ‘in order to do.’ Functioning as sentence subjects, infinitive forms can co-occur with a number of auxiliaries, especially those pertaining to tense and necessity (see examples 61, 76). The infinitive can also take person suffixes to indicate the subject of the infinitive (see examples 39a, 50). The necessitive infinitive in -mɑn is used to indicate that something TABLE 12.26  MEADOW MARI DESIDERATIVE Ending

Example: tol - ‘to come’

Example: ile - ‘to live’

1Sg

-ne-m

tol-ne-m

ilə-ne-m

2Sg

-ne-t

tol-ne-t

ilə-ne-t

3Sg

-ne-ʒe

tol-ne-ʒe

ilə-ne-ʒe

1Pl

-ne-nɑ

tol-ne-nɑ

ilə-ne-nɑ

2Pl

-ne-dɑ

tol-ne-dɑ

ilə-ne-dɑ

3Pl

-ne-ʃt

tol-ne-ʃt

ilə-ne-ʃt

MARI 551 TABLE 12.27  MEADOW MARI NONFINITE VERBAL FORMS

Infinitives

Participles

Converbs

Suffix

Example (C. I): kot͡ɕk - ‘to eat’

Example (C. II): əʃte - ‘to do’

Infinitive

-ɑʃ

kot͡ɕk-ɑʃ ‘to eat’

əʃt-ɑʃ ‘to do’

Necessitive infinitive

-mɑn

kot͡ɕ-mɑn ‘(one) must eat’

əʃtə-mɑn ‘(one) must do’

Active

-ʃE

kot͡ɕ-ʃo ‘eating’

əʃtə-ʃe ‘doing’

Passive

-mE

kot͡ɕ-mo ‘eaten’

əʃtə-me ‘done’

Futurenecessitive

-ʃɑʃ

kot͡ɕ-ʃɑʃ ‘to eat/be eaten’

əʃtə-ʃɑʃ ‘to do/be done’

Negative

-DəmE

kot͡ɕ-təmo ‘not eating/eaten’

əʃtə-dəme ‘not doing/done’

Affirmative instructive

-(ən) / -en

kot͡ɕk-ən ‘eating’

əʃt-en ‘doing’

Negative

-De

kot͡ɕ-te ‘not eating’

əʃtə-de ‘not doing’

Prior action

-mek(e)

kot͡ɕ-mek(e) ‘after eating’

əʃtə-mek(e) ‘after doing’

Future action

-meʃ(ke)

kot͡ɕ-meʃ(ke) ‘before eating’

əʃtə-meʃ(ke) ‘before doing’

Simultaneous action

-ʃəlɑ

kot͡ɕ-ʃəlɑ ‘while eating’

əʃtə-ʃəlɑ ‘while doing’

should be done. The person that should do that something can either be omitted and left to context or can occur as an overt NP in the dative: mə-lɑ-m kɑjə-mɑn 1sg-dat-1sg go-inf. nec ‘I must go.’ This infinitive does not take person suffixes. Participles. The following parameters can be distinguished when categorizing Mari participles: •

Voice (active/passive): Generally speaking, the active participle is used in an active meaning, while the passive participle is used in a passive meaning: lut-ʃo jot͡ɕɑ readptcp.act child ‘a reading child,’ lut-mo knigɑ read-ptcp.pass book ‘a read book.’ The passive participle can, however, relativize a wider range of constituents than just direct objects, including indirect objects (təj-ən tunem-mɑʃ-te polʃə-mo rβez-et 2sg-gen study-nmlz-ine help-ptcp.pass boy-2sg ‘the boy whom you helped studying’) (Brykina and Aralova 2012, 481) and other oblique elements (ilə-me βer live-ptcp.pass place ‘place of residence’); see Shagal (2019) for a discussion of the contextual orientation of Mari participles. The passive participle is neutral with regard to voice when used as a verbal noun—see following. The future-necessitive and negative participles are neutral with regard to voice, though the future-necessitive participle always carries active semantics when used as a copula complement.

552 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

•

• •

Tense (future/present/past): In its basic function, the participle in -ʃɑʃ communicates future-necessitive semantics (i.e. something that will or should happen or that will or should be done: tol-ʃɑʃ unɑ come-ptcp.fut guest ‘guest who will/should/must come,’ lut-ʃɑʃ tekst read-ptcp.fut text ‘text that should be read’), while the other participles generally communicate non-future circumstances. However, if context is given (for example, through a temporal adverb), it is possible to use all participles in all time frames. Polarity (positive/negative): The negative participle functions as the negation of all the other, affirmative participles (e.g. jørɑtə-dəme eŋ love-ptcp.neg person ‘unloving person; unloved person’). Usage as a verbal noun: All participles except for the active participle are used as verbal nouns referring to the action as a whole. In this function, they can serve as subjects, objects, or as the head of postpositions. When the passive participle is used as a verbal noun, it is neutral as regards polarity (cf. Bradley 2015), as in example (13), and also (41) and (48) in Section 12.15.

(13) ik rβeze βɑʃlij-mə-nɑ nergen pot͡ɕelɑmut-əm βoz-en. one boy meet-ptcp.pass-1pl about poem-acc write-pst2.3sg ‘a boy wrote a poem about our meeting’ Converbs. The affirmative instructive converb -n (-ən in the first conjugation, though the ending can, in some cases, be omitted, with the bare stem serving as this converb; -en in the second conjugation) is by far the most widely used converb in Mari. It forms free adverbials used in a wide range of contexts, indicating the manner in which an action is carried out (ydər kurʒ-ən tol-eʃ girl run-cvb come-3sg ‘the girl comes running’), the cause of an activity (kɑjək kəlm-en kol-en bird freeze-cvb die-pst2.3sg ‘the bird froze to death’), or an activity carried out simultaneously by the subject of the main verb (kot͡ɕk-ən ʃint͡ɕ-ena sit-cvb eat-1pl ‘we’re sitting and eating’). In its basic function, the converb can serve as a free adverbial or head a subordinate clause (14); the dividing line between these two categories is fuzzy. Its positioning in the sentence is rather flexible in this function (cf. Bradley 2016, 73–74). (14) lekt-eʃ urem-əʃ pørt kət͡ɕ kot͡ɕɑj, tojɑ-m kut͡ɕ-en go-3sg street-ill house from old.man stick-acc hold-cvb ‘an old man comes out into the street from the house, holding a stick’ This converb is also used in combination with many auxiliary verbs, especially those pertaining to ability, aspect, and benefactivity (see following). In such constructions, the positioning of the converb is considerably less flexible: it generally immediately precedes the auxiliary. This converb does not take person suffixes and generally is used only when its subject is the same as that of the superordinate verb. Exceptions include situations where the two agents have a part–whole relationship: tendɑm ont͡ɕ-en , ͡tɕon-em kuan-a. 2pl.acc see-cvb soul-1sg rejoice-3sg ‘It gladdens my heart seeing you.’ The negative converb in -De is used as an adverbial complement denoting something (manner, instrument, state, and condition) that does not occur: βyd-əʃ purə-de, ij-ɑʃ o-t tunem water-ill enter-cvb.neg swim-inf neg-2sg learn.cng ‘without

MARI 553

stepping into the water, you won’t learn to swim.’ It, too, does not take person suffixes and generally requires its subject and the subject of its superordinate verb to be coreferential. The converbs of prior, subsequent, and simultaneous action are used for temporal structuring: they describe an action as happening prior to, after, or simultaneously with that described by the superordinate (often finite) verb. They always express relative, rather than absolute, temporal values: the correct temporal reading of these converbs is dependent on the tense of the verb they modify. Their usage is illustrated in examples (43), (44), and (45). These converbs all take person suffixes (as in example 45); their subject, which can (but does not have to) differ from the subject of the superordinate (often finite) verb, can be encoded by a preceding pronoun or noun. 12.10.7 Auxiliary verbs Mari makes extensive use of a number of auxiliary verbs. We list here the most important auxiliaries, categorized by their semantic values, with the nature and position of their complement indicated. Converb here always refers to the affirmative instructive converb in -n: • •

Negation verb (see previous text) + connegative form Temporal auxiliaries: • •

•

Modal auxiliaries: • • • •

•

Converb + kert- ‘to be able to (general)’ Converb + moʃto- ‘to be able to (learned ability)’ Infinitive + lij- (always 3sg) ‘to be(come)’ > ‘to be allowed’ Infinitive + kyl- (always 3sg) ‘to be necessary’ > ‘to have to’

Benefactive auxiliaries: • •

•

Infinitive + tyŋɑl- ‘to begin’ > future tense (see previous text) Converb + ul- ‘to be’ > simple past tense II (morphologized in literary language; see previous text)

Converb + pu- ‘to give’ > benefactive Converb + nɑl- ‘to take’ > autobenefactive (less commonly used)

Aspectual auxiliaries (see following text)

The wide usage of aspectual auxiliaries in Mari is of particular interest. The affirmative instructive converb can form verbal pairings with roughly 45 auxiliaries (Bradley 2016, 276—278) that are partially or fully bleached of their core semantics. For example, in example (15), the verb ʃənde- ‘to put, to place’ has completely lost its original semantics and serves to form a resultative: (15) jørɑt-en ʃənd-en-ɑm love-cvb put-pst2-1sg ‘I fell in love.’

554 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

A wide range of aspectual values can be communicated through auxiliaries of this type, including: • • • • • •

Ingressive: kɑje- ‘to go,’ for example, with lyt- ‘to fear’ > lydən kɑje- ‘to take fright’ Resultative: ʃənde- ‘to put,’ for example, with jörɑte- ‘to love’ > jørɑten ʃənde- ‘to fall in love’ Exhaustive: pəte- ‘to end,’ for example, with kolo- ‘to die’ > kolen pəte- ‘to die out’ Delimitative: nɑl- ‘to take,’ for example, with mɑle- ‘to sleep’ > mɑlen nɑl- ‘to take a nap’ Durative: ʃogo- ‘to stand,’ for example, with βut͡ɕo- ‘to wait’ > βut͡ɕen ʃogo- ‘to lie in wait’ Gradual: tol- ‘to come,’ for example, with βijɑŋ- ‘to develop’ > βijɑŋən tol- ‘to develop gradually’

For a more detailed treatment of this mechanism, which was borrowed into Mari from neighbouring Turkic languages, see Bradley (2016). 12.10.7 Verb ‘to be’ The complete paradigm of the Mari copula is composed of forms from two verbs: ul- ‘to be’ (< Proto-Uralic *wole—Bereczki et al. 2013, 294) and lij- ‘to be(come)’ (< Proto-Uralic *le—ibid., 115). While these, in some respects, are independent verbs with separate paradigms in Mari, the paradigm of ul- is defective: it is, for example, not used in the imperative or in the simple past II (though it is in Hill Mari, cf. Krasnova et al. 2017, 178), with the exception of the irregular third-person singular form ulmɑʃ . When gaps occur in the paradigm of ul-, forms of lij- are used instead. In cases where forms of both verbs exist (e.g. present, simple past I), forms of ul- are read as more static, and forms of lij- as more transformative, or referring to the future. 12.11 ADVERBS A rough distinction can be made between non-derived (e.g. βɑʃke ‘quickly,’ oʒno ‘before’) and derived adverbs in Mari. Suffixes frequently used to form adverbs in Mari include: -n (instructive), -ɲek ‘when (still),’ -sek ‘since,’ -lɑ ‘in (a language),’

for example: for example: for example: for example:

sɑj ‘good’ sβeʒɑ ‘fresh’ tunɑm ‘then’ ruʃ ‘Russian’

> sɑj-ən ‘well’ > sβeʒɑ-ɲek ‘when (still) fresh’ > tunɑm-sek ‘since then’ > ruʃ-lɑ ‘in Russian’

As discussed in 12.9, many postpositions can also function as adverbs. Comparison of adverbs follows the same general principle as comparison of adjectives; see Section 12.8. 12.12 PARTICLES The category of particles is broad and poorly defined. It conventionally includes clitics that are phonetically and orthographically connected to a wide array of host words and

MARI 555

words that are not inflected but, in at least one function, do not clearly belong to any of the other parts of speech. The most important clitics in Mari are: =ɑt ‘and; also,’ for example, me ‘we’ > me=ɑt ‘we, too’ =ɑk (intensifying), for example, təʃte ‘here’ > təʃt=ɑk ‘right here’ =lɑ (weakens spatial reference), for example, tuʃko ‘(to) there’ > tuʃkə=lɑ ‘in that direction’ =s (various emotional nuances), for example, pɑlem ‘I know’ > pɑlem=əs ‘oh, I know’ =ɑ ~ =jɑn (weakens imperative), for example, tol! ‘come! > tol=jɑ ~ tol=jɑn ‘oh, come’ Many particles that are orthographically separate words are subject to syntactic restrictions. For example, βele ‘only, just’ must immediately follow its host word and can thus never be found in sentence-initial position. Some particles of this sort, although written as independent words, are closely bound to their hosts: for example, the particle gənɑ ~ kənɑ ‘only, just,’ orthographically always /gəna/, is subject to voice assimilation: təj gənɑ ‘only you,’ təlɑt kə̑nɑ ‘only for you.’ Other particles, such as mutlɑn ‘for example,’ rather than modifying one host word, occur as if sentences of their own and are generally found separated from the rest of the clause by a comma in writing. 12.13 WORD-FORMATION 12.13.1 Compounds Mari makes extensive usage of subordinating compounds in which the first element of the compound qualifies the second element: jol ‘foot, leg’ + jet͡ɕe ‘ski’ > jol+jet͡ɕe ‘ice skate,’ izi ‘small’+ pɑrɲɑ ‘finger; toe’ > izi+βɑrɲɑ ‘little finger, pinky; little toe’ (note the sound changes p > β, k > g, t > d when the first element of a compound ends in a vowel or voiced consonant). Another important category of compounds in Mari are coordinating compounds, in which two elements—nouns, adjectives, numerals, inflected verb forms—of equal semantic weight are juxtaposed: ɑt͡ɕɑ ‘father’ + ɑβɑ ‘mother’ > ɑt͡ɕɑ+ɑβɑ ‘parents,’ oʃɑlge ‘whitish’ + kyren ‘brown’ > oʃɑlge+kyren ‘whitish-brown,’ ik ‘one’ + kok ‘two’ > ik+kok ‘one or two,’ murenət ‘they sang’ + kuʃtenət ‘they danced’ > murenət+kuʃtenət ‘they sang and danced.’ This strategy is sometimes used to create class nouns by juxtapositioning two elements within a class in order to refer to the class as a whole: ʃør ‘milk’ + torək ‘curds’ > ʃør+torək ‘dairy products,’ ʃym ‘heart’ + mokʃ ‘liver’ → ʃym+mokʃ ‘innards.’ 12.13.2 Conversion (zero derivation) Adjective-to-noun and noun-to-adjective conversion can be considered especially productive in Mari, though it is a matter of debate if these terms are appropriate, given the weak separation between nouns and adjectives as classes in Mari. This pertains also to participles, which, although prototypically adjectival, are freely used as nominals. By means of conversion, the active participle is also frequently used to form agent nouns, for example: tunəkto- ‘to teach’ > tunəktə|ʃo ‘teaching > teacher.’ Noun-to-verb and adjective-to-verb conversions are somewhat less common but do occur: muʃkəndo ‘fist’ > muʃkəndo- ‘to hit with a fist,’ lum ‘snow’ > lum- ‘to snow,’ jyr ‘rain’ > jyr- ‘to rain,’ ʃopo ‘sour’ > ʃopo- ‘to turn sour.’

556 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

A special form of conversion is the renominalization of genitive forms, especially of pronouns: Genitive forms can be used as nominals meaning ‘my one, mine,’ etc. and can then be further declined as nouns. Other suffixes, including case suffixes, can follow the genitive suffiх, for example: memnɑn ‘our’ > memnɑn-βlɑk 1pl. gen-pl ‘our ones, those of ours,’ memnɑn-βlɑk-lɑn 1pl.gen-pl-dat ‘to our ones, to those of ours.’ 12.13.3 Reduplication The simple repetition (full reduplication) of the same word is typically a sign of heightened ͡ ‘again’ > ugətɕ&ugətɕ ͡ ͡ ‘again and again,’ βutɕen ͡ intensity or expressivity: ugətɕ ‘waiting’ > ͡ ͡ ɕen ‘waiting and waiting.’ βutɕen&βut Another common technique is partial reduplication, in which the word is repeated with some alterations. Frequently, a sequence is repeated with one of its vowels changed: ʃyk ‘junk, rubbish’ > ʃyk&ʃɑk ‘junk, rubbish,’ kɑdər ‘crooked’ > kɑdər&kudər ‘crooked.’ In still another form of reduplication, the meaning of an adjective beginning with the structure CVC(V) can be intensified through the prefixation of the CVC element with the second C replaced by p: ʃem(e) ‘black’ > ʃep&ʃem(e) ‘jet-black,’ tɑzɑ ‘healthy > tɑp&tɑzɑ ‘quite healthy.’ 12.13.4 Descriptive words Mari has an extensive body of expressive words which are used to describe what a speaker hears, sees, or feels. These words are indeclinable: no suffixes can be attached to them. Most commonly, they are used as adverbial modifiers, as in (16), though they can also be found in other syntactic functions, for example, as adnominal attributes. (16) ͡tɕon-em-lɑn jut͡ɕik ͡tɕut͡ɕ-o. soul-1sg-dat [expr] seem-pst1.3sg ‘I felt uneasy’ Some examples of descriptive words conveying aural, visual, and emotive impressions: tr-r-r ‘(chattering or clicking sound),’ kərlyk&kərlyk ‘(rough cough, barking cough),’ βər&βər ‘(light object rotating while falling),’ jəlt&jolt ‘(flashing, shining),’ jut͡ɕik ‘(uneasiness, fear, surprise),’ βət͡ɕe&βət͡ɕe ‘amicably, sincerely, politely, gently.’ 12.13.5 Derivation The following overview in Table 12.28, sorted alphabetically by parts of speech involved, covers only the most commonly used Mari derivational suffixes. For a more extensive overview, see (Alhoniemi 1985, 150–165, 1993, 141–153; Riese et al. 2019, 377–397). The causative derivational suffix -ktE- is attached to transitive and intransitive verbs alike. In constructions built with such verbs, the causee is in the dative case: məj jot͡ɕɑ-lɑn ͡tɕɑj-əm jy|kt-em 1sg child-dat tea-acc drink.caus-1sg ‘I have the child drink tea.’ For valency-decreasing (detransitivizing) -ɑlt- (~ -əlt-), see examples (73) and (74).

MARI 557 TABLE 12.28  MEADOW MARI DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES Suffix

Part of speech

-ɑlge

Meaning/function

Examples

adj > adj

approximative adjectives

kɑnde ‘blue’ kyren ‘brown’

> kɑnd|ɑlge ‘bluish’ > kyren|ɑlge ‘brownish’

-t

adj > n

quality nouns

kelge ‘deep’

> kelge|t ‘depth’

-lE-

div > v

various verbs

ɑk ‘price’ jɑmde ‘ready’

> ɑk|le- ‘to evaluate’ > jɑmdə|le- ‘to prepare’

-ɑn

n > adj

possessive adjectives piɑl ‘happiness’

> piɑl|ɑn ‘happy’

-DəmE

n > adj

privative adjectives

> βuj|dəmo ‘headless’

-lE

n > adj

possessive adjectives lym ‘name’

> lym|lø ‘famous’

-ɑʃ

n > adj, n>n

purposive adjectives purposive nouns

ij ‘year’ jol ‘leg’

> ij|ɑʃ ‘. . . years old’ > jol|ɑʃ ‘trousers’

-sE

n > adj, adv > adj

relational adjectives

βer ‘place’ ͡ ‘today’ tɑtɕe

> βer|əse ‘local’ ͡ > tɑtɕə|se ‘today’s’

-er

n>n

collective nouns

jɑkte ‘pine tree’

> jɑkt|er ‘pine forest’

-j

n>n

vocative nouns

ɑβɑ ‘mother’

> ɑβɑ|j ‘mom’

-t͡ɕE

n>n

agent nouns

kyty ‘herd’

͡ ‘shepherd’ > kyty|tɕø

-lək

n > n, n > adj

quality nouns purposive adjectives

ʃəde ‘anger’ kumət ‘three’

> ʃədə|lək ‘anger’ > kumət|lək ‘for three’

-zE

n > n, v>n

agent nouns

pɑʃɑ ‘work’ urgo- ‘to sew’

> pɑʃɑ|ze ‘worker’ > urgə|zo ‘tailor’

-ɑŋ-

n>v

translative verbs

βij- ‘power’

> βij|ɑŋ- ‘to develop’

-em-

n>v

translative verbs

sɑj ‘good’

> sɑj|em- ‘to get better’

-eʃt-

n>v

translative verbs

ʃuldo ‘cheap’

> ʃuld|eʃt- ‘to become cheap’

-gE-

n>v

translative verbs

susər ‘wound’

> susər|go- ‘to be wounded’ > ͡tɕer|lɑne- ‘to fall ill’

βuj ‘head’

-lɑne-

n>v

translative verbs

͡tɕer ‘illness’

-Də.mɑʃ

v>n

negative nominalization

nɑl- ‘to take’ jørɑte- ‘to love’

> nɑl|dəmɑʃ ‘not taking’ > jørɑtə|dəmɑʃ ‘lack of love’

-mɑʃ

v>n

nominalization

jørɑte- ‘to love’

> jørɑtə|mɑʃ ‘love’

-ʃ

v>n

resultative nouns

mot- ‘to play’

> mod|əʃ ‘game, toy’

-təʃ

v>n

resultative nouns

tyŋɑl- ‘to begin’

> tyŋɑl|təʃ ‘beginning’

-ɑl-

v>v

momentary verbs

ʃogo- ‘to stand’

> ʃog|ɑl- ‘to stand up’

-ɑlt(-əlt-)

v>v

passive, reflexive intransitive, impersonal verbs

mɑn- ‘to say’ muʃk- ‘to wash’ ͡ ‘to open (tr.)’ potɕ-

> mɑn|ɑlt- ‘to be said’ > muʃk|əlt- ‘to wash os.’ ͡ > potɕəlt‘to open (intr.)’

-ɑlte-

v>v

momentary verbs

ʃono- ‘to think’

> ʃon|ɑlte- ‘to consider’

-dE- ~ -tE-

v>v n>v

causative verbs factitive verbs

pur- ‘to go in’ lym ‘name’

> pur|to- ‘to bring in’ > lym|dø- ‘to name’ (Continued )

558 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN TABLE 12.28  (CONTINUED) Part of speech

Meaning/function

Examples

-dɑre- ~ -tɑre-

v>v

causative verbs

jom- ‘to become lost’ uməlo- ‘to understand’

> jom|dɑre- ‘to lose’ > uməl|tɑre- ‘to explain’

-ede-

v>v

frequentative verbs

puo- ‘to give’

> pu|ede- ‘to distribute’

-eʃt-

v>v

frequentative verbs

ruo- ‘to cut’

> ru|eʃt- ‘to chop’

-kɑle-

v>v

frequentative verbs

sere- ‘to write’

> ser|kɑle- ‘to write (often)’

-ktE-

v>v

causative

͡ ontɕo‘to see’

͡ > ontɕə|kto‘to show’

-l-

v>v

frequentative verbs

ʃənde- ‘to put’

> ʃəndə|l- ‘to set’

Suffix

12.14 LEXICON The extensive influence of Turkic languages permeating the Mari language is particularly evident in vocabulary. The 4,666 word stems found in the Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch (Moisio and Saarinen 2008) are classified as follows by their origin (Saarinen 2010, 339) in Table 12.29. The categories here include words of a more distant ultimate origin, that is, many words loaned from Tatar are ultimately of Arabic or Persian origin (e.g. pɑjrem ‘holiday,’ from Arabic via Tatar), while many words borrowed from Russian are ultimately of Western European origin (e.g. minut ‘minute’). While Russian stems are the single largest group of loan elements in Mari (though stems of Turkic origin outnumber Russian stems as a whole), it should be noted that due to the early, intense contacts between Bolgar Turkic and Mari, Chuvash loanwords are pervasive also in core vocabulary, for example, kɑjək ‘bird’ (Chuvash kɑjək), uməlo- ‘to understand’ (Chuvash ənlɑn-), jørɑte- ‘to love’ (Chuvash jurɑt-). These loanwords predate the separation of Mari into its modern dialects and can be found in all varieties of Mari (Saarinen 1997a, 195). The parallel influence of Turkic on Mari and Hungarian has led to some lexical parallels between these languages due to the borrowing of the same stems, for example, Mari sərɑ ‘beer’ ~ Hungarian sör ‘id.’ (Chuvash sərɑ). Tatar loanwords, on the other hand, are common only in eastern varieties of Mari (ibid.). Russian loanwords have a stronger position in Hill Mari than in Meadow Mari; often, Hill Mari uses Russian loanwords where Turkic loanwords (including many that are ultimately of Arabic and Persian origin) are used in Meadow Mari, for example, Hill Mari tecæ ‘child’ (cf. Russian dʲitʲɑ ‘id.’) ~ Meadow Mari jot͡ɕɑ ‘id.’ (cf. Chuvash ɑt͡ɕɑ ‘id.’), Hill Mari ølit͡sæ ‘street’ (cf. Russian ulʲit͡sɑ ‘id.’) ~ Meadow Mari urem ‘id.’ (cf. Tatar and Chuvash urɑm ‘id.’) (cf. Krasnova et al. 2017, 47). While Turkic loanwords in Mari have been the subject of intense research for a long time (cf. Räsänen 1920, 1923), recent etymological research has tended to focus on lesser-described loanword layers, such as Permic loanwords (cf. Aikio 2014) and Iranian loanwords (Holopainen 2019).

MARI 559 TABLE 12.29  ORIGIN OF MARI VOCABULARY #

%

Indigenous (Uralic)

556

11,9

Chuvash

488

10,4

Tatar

735

15,7

Russian

975

20,8

Descriptive

196

4,2

Unknown

1575

33,7

Other

141

3,3

12.15 SYNTAX5 12.15.1 Order of constituents The basic constituent order subject–object–verb can be seen in examples (3), (4), and (13). With ditransitive verbs, the indirect object noun (E) precedes the direct object (17). (17) sergeA iβuk-lɑnE srɑβot͡ɕ-əmO pu-ɑ Serge Ivuk-dat key-acc give-3sg ‘Serge gives the key to Ivuk’ Other complements that are required by valence, such as the adverbial in (18), are usually positioned before the verb. (18) serəʃ ystembɑlne kij-ɑ letter on.the.table lie-3sg ‘the letter is lying on the table’ Optional adverbials of place and time are relatively free concerning the position they take, and they often stand at the beginning of the clause; see (10). The given constituent order rules, however, are not very strict. Variation occurs for pragmatic reasons. The position immediately before the verb is often occupied by a word conveying new information or being emphasized. For constituent order in special clause types, see following (Riese et al. 2017; Bereczki 1990, 74). 12.15.2 Number agreement While there is generally number agreement between a subject NP and a finite verb (see also Table 12.9), on occasion singular NPs can occur with third-person plural verbal forms when the NP refers to groups (e.g. kɑlək ‘people,’ kyty ‘herd,’ jeʃ ‘family’) or paired body parts or items (e.g. ʃint͡ɕa ‘eye(s)’): ʃint͡ɕa-ʒe ələʒ-ət͡ɕ eye-3sg light.up-pst1.3pl ‘his/her eyes lit up’ (though 3sg verbal forms would be more customary here as well). Nouns are in the singular after numerals in the NP; if the noun is the subject, the finite

560 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

verb is also in the singular. However, examples of plural verb forms in this construction are also found in folklore texts. Adjectival and nominal copula complements are in the singular after a plural copula subject; see (32). (Bereczki 1990, 74–75). 12.15.3 Noun phrase (NP) Modifiers normally precede their headword in the NP, for example, peʃ lym.lø jeŋ ‘(a) very famous person,’ where the noun jeŋ is modified by the adjective lym.lø ‘famous,’ which in turn is modified by the adverb peʃ ‘very.’ If there are several modifiers of the head, their order is as follows: participle/demonstrative–quantifier–adjective–noun, for example, tide kok izi jot͡ɕa this two small child ‘these two small children’; see also (19). kok u (19) [tut-lɑn puə-mo]RC 3sg-dat give-ptcp.pass two new ‘two new works given to him/her’

pɑʃɑ work

As regards agreement between the adjective and the noun, see 12.8 and especially example (8). The postposition den ‘with’ often coordinates nouns in an NP, as in (20). ont͡ɕ-ɑt (20) [pire den mɑskɑ]NP:A βɑʃ wolf with bear one.another look-3pl ‘the wolf and the bear look at one another’ Noun phrases can serve as core arguments as well as peripheral arguments in the clause. Postpositional constructions are often functionally similar to case forms of nouns; see Sections 12.1, 12.5, and 12.9, especially examples (1b), (7), (9), (11), (13). 12.15.4 Verbal part of the clause (V) A clause usually has a verbal predicate, but this can be expressed as zero in copula clauses, existential clauses, and habitive clauses. Example (21) shows a verbless copula construction where the relation of the verbless clause subject (cs) and the verbless clause complement (cc) is locational; see also (22), (28), and (36). (21) ydərcs pørt-əʃtøcc girl house-ine ‘the girl is in the house’ Combinations of two verbs (auxiliary constructions) in which the first component is an -n converb form and the last component is a finite conjugation form are typical of Mari (see Section 12.10). 12.15.5 Possession within the NP, and the habitive clause When possession is expressed within the NP, the genitive-marked possessor word (noun or pronoun) precedes the possessed noun, which takes the appropriate person

MARI 561

suffix, for example, serge-n ydər-ʒø Serge-gen daughter-3sg ‘Serge’s daughter.’ Here the genitive is used to encode an animate possessor, but an inanimate noun in this syntactic position appears in the nominative, and there is no overt suffix on the noun denoting the possessed, for example, kurək jol hill foot ‘foot of the hill’ (cf. also Kangasmaa-Minn 1966, 31). Both the possessor and possessed words can have modifiers: mɑrij kɑlək-ən lym.lø jeŋ-ʒe Mari people-gen famous person-3sg ‘a famous person of the Mari people.’ When two nouns are in a possessive relationship in which both could equally be seen as the possessor (reciprocal possessive relationship), the person suffix can be attached to both: ɑt͡ɕɑ-ʒ den ergə-ʒe father-3sg with son-3sg ‘father and son.’ There can be chains of more than one genitive, for example, metrij-ən ɑt͡ɕɑ-ʒə-n ʃyʒɑr-ʒe Metriy-gen father-3sg-gen little.sister-3sg ‘Metriy’s father’s little sister.’ Mari has no transitive verb of possession; instead, habitive clauses are used. These consist of three elements: the possessor, the possessed, and a form of ‘to be’: ul-, lij-, with irregular 3sg forms ulo ‘(there) is,’ uke ‘(there) is not’ in the present tense, and forms of lij‘to be(come)’ in the present tense serving as future forms. The possessor NP is in the genitive, followed by an NP denoting the possessed noun marked with a person suffix (which is, on occasion, omitted). The verb forms here are identical to those in existential clauses. The irregular form ulo, used in the present tense, is, in practice, frequently omitted, especially in combination with numerals and other quantifiers, as illustrated in example (22). (22) serge-nR [kok jot͡ɕɑ-ʒe]D (ulo) Serge-gen two child-3sg (is) ‘Serge has two children’ lij (23) jot͡ɕɑ-βlɑk-ənR pij(-əʃt)D ok child-pl-gen dog(-3pl) neg.3sg be.cng ‘the children will not have a dog’ A person suffix on the possessed word is often sufficient to encode the possessor (24). ulo (24) ydər-əʃtD daughter-3pl is ‘they have a daughter’ 12.15.6 Relative clause constructions Clauses modifying an NP can be formed in three ways: by using participial constructions, by means of the correlative construction, and with the help of the relative pronoun and a finite clause. Participial constructions are often used to modify the head of an NP. All Mari participles are used in this way (Bartens 1979, 166–167). The passive participle can be seen in example (19); the active participle is illustrated in example (25). rβeze peʃ kuɑn-en (25) [pølek-əm nɑl-ʃe]RC present-acc get-ptcp.act young.man very rejoice-pst2.3sg ‘the young man getting a present was quite happy’

562 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

The correlative construction seems to be the original type of finite-verb relative clause in Mari. It consists of an initial relative clause anticipating a pronominal headword (e.g. tudo ‘s/he’) in the main clause. Interrogative words, for example, kø ‘who’ and mo ‘what,’ are used as relative pronouns, as in (26). (26) [kø-n oksɑ-ʒe ʃuko]RC tud-əm “pojɑn” mɑn-ət who-gen money-3sg a.lot 3sg-acc rich say-3pl ‘s/he who has a lot of money is called “rich”’ A syntactic means seen as influenced by Russian syntax is the formation of relative clauses by means of the pronoun kudo ‘which (one); that, what, who,’ as shown in (27). (27) ɑjdemə-m, [kudə-n oksɑ-ʒe ʃuko,]RC “pojɑn” mɑn-ət human-acc which-gen money-3sg a.lot rich say-3pl ‘a person who has a lot of money is called “rich”’ 12.15.7 Copula clauses Forms of the verbs ul- ‘to be’ and lij- ‘to be(come)’ are used in the function of the copula; lij- is used when speaking about the future (using present-tense forms) or the past. The verb is usually zero in the present-tense third-person singular (28). ʃoŋgocc (28) kuβɑcs old.woman old ‘the woman is old’ If negated, and in other persons and tenses, the copula is obligatory; see (29) and (30). (29) tudocs ͡tɕerlecc og-əlcop 3sg sick neg.3sg-be ‘s/he is not sick’ (30) məjcs ʐurnalistcc lij-ɑmcop 1sg journalist be(come)-prs1sg ‘I will be/become a journalist’ The copula subject (CS) is in the nominative. The copula complement (CC) is in the nominative in the identity and attribution relation—see examples (28), (29), (30)—but in a local case (usually inessive) in the locational relation, see examples (21) and (31). (31) məjcs joʃkɑr+olɑ-ʃtecc ul-ɑmcop 1sg Yoshkar+Ola-ine be-1sg ‘I am in Yoshkar-Ola’

MARI 563

The copula complement is in the singular after a plural copula subject (32). (32) nunocs ʐurnalistcc ul-ətcop they journalist be-3pl ‘they are journalists’ 12.15.7 Existential clauses Existential clauses resemble copula clauses but have special forms of the ul- ‘to be’ verb: ulo ‘(there) is’ (33a), and negated uke ‘there is not’ (33b). The future forms of the existential verb are the same as in copula clauses (33c). (33a) jumos ulo god is ‘there is a god’

(b) jumos uke god isn’t ‘there is no god’

(c) sɑrs lij-eʃ war be(come)-prs.3sg ‘there will be a war’

In future and past negative existential clauses, lij- is generally subject to verbal negation (see Section 12.10, Table 12.17); see example (34a). It is, however, also possible to use uke in combination with affirmative forms to stress the complete absence of something, or to stress that something will cease to exist (34b). (34a) sars ok lij war neg.3sg be(come).cng ‘there will not be a war’

(b) jal-nas uke lij-eʃ village-1pl isn’t be(come)-prs.3sg ‘our village is ceasing to exist’

Locational existential clauses denoting the existence or absence of something in a specific location contain an NP expressing the location; this NP typically begins the clause, as in example (35). ulo (35) ͡tɕodərɑ-ʃte poŋgos forest-ine mushroom is ‘there are mushrooms in the forest’ Especially in combination with numerals and other quantifiers, the form ulo is frequently omitted, as in example (36). teatrs? (36) joʃkɑr+olɑ-ʃte məɲɑrq Yoshkar+Ola-ine how.many theatre ‘How many theatres are there in Yoshkar-Ola?’ 12.15.8 Complement clauses and related constructions Complement clauses can be formed with the conjunction mɑnən ‘that’ (a result of grammaticalization of the instructive converb form of man- ‘to say,’ lit. ‘saying’) in combination with mental verbs like ‘hear,’ ‘believe,’ ‘know,’ ‘think’ (37). Alternatively, the complementizer pujto ‘that; as if’ (< Russian budto) can be used for epistemically marked complement clauses, that is, when the speaker wishes to communicate an uncertainty pertaining to a statement (38).

564 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

(37) [vɑlʲɑ erlɑ tol-eʃ mɑnən]o kol-ən-ɑm Valya tomorrow come-3sg that hear-pst2-1sg ‘I heard that Valya is coming tomorrow’ (38) məj kol-ən-ɑm [pujto erla pogənəmɑʃ 1sg hear-pst2-1sg that tomorrow meeting ‘I heard that there will be a meeting tomorrow’

lij-eʃ]o be(come)-prs.3sg

A common way of forming complement clauses in subject function is through nonfinite verb constructions. When using the infinitive in -ɑʃ, the subject of the complement clause can be indexed by a person suffix attached to the infinitive (-na in 39a) or by a full nominal in the dative (in E function, 39b); it is also possible to have both kinds of indexing in the same clause. (39) (a) [ʃuko much

tunem-ɑʃ-nɑ]s kyl-eʃ learn-inf-1pl be.necessary-3sg

(b) mə-lɑn-nɑE [ʃuko tunem-ɑʃ(-nɑ)]s kyl-eʃ we-dat-1pl much learn-inf(-1pl) be.necessary-3sg ‘we have to learn a lot’ (40) is an example of a negative participial construction in subject function: mo dene kəld|ɑlt-ən? (40) [universitet-əm tunem pətɑrə-dəmə-dɑ]s university-acc learn.cvb finish-ptcp.neg-2pl what with tie|detr-pst2.3sg ‘with what is the fact that you did not finish university connected?’ Participial constructions can also function as objects in Mari clauses; in example (41), a passive participial construction is embedded in a relative clause functioning as (intransitive) subject: ͡ βutɕ-ɑʃ] (41) [[βurgem koʃkə-mə-m]o rc clothes dry-ptcp.pass-acc wait-inf ‘there’s no time to let the clothes dry’

ʒɑp time

uke isn’t

12.15.9 Support (‘adverbial’) clauses and constructions Mari has a rich variety of support clauses (SC): they include both finite verb clauses with a subordinating element (conjunction, enclitic) and nonfinite verb constructions based on converbs and participles. The position of the conjunction in the clause varies, as does the order of the main clause (MC) and the support clause. In an indigenous construction, the enclitic =ɑt ‘and; also’ (see Section 12.12) is attached to the end of the support clause (SC); the main clause denotes something that happened immediately afterwards (42). ͡tɕəlɑ (42) [[pɑʃɑ gət͡ɕ tol-ɑm=ɑt,]sc əʃt-em work from come-1sg=enc everything do-1sg ‘as soon as I get back from work, I’ll do it all.’

MARI 565

The temporal relation of the action of the support clause to that of the main clause can be expressed by three different converbs (Table 12.27). The converb in -mek(e) is used to express an action occurring prior to the action expressed by the main conjugated verb (43). (43) [iziʃ kɑnɑltə-meke]SC me ugət͡ɕ pɑʃɑ-m tyŋɑl-ənɑ a.bit rest-cvb.pri we again work-acc start-1pl ‘after resting a little we’ll start working again’ The converb in -meʃ(ke) denotes an action occurring subsequently to the action expressed by the main verb of the main clause (44). ͡ koβɑ-ʒ dene jɑl-əʃte il-en (44) [ʃkol-əʃ kɑjə-meʃke]SC βɑtɕi school-ill go-cvb.sub Vachi g’mother-3sg with village-ine live-pst2.3sg ‘before starting school Vachi lived with his grandmother in the countryside’ Simultaneous action can be expressed with the help of the converb in -ʃəlɑ (45): ʃuko oŋɑj (45) [olɑ mut͡ ɕko koʃtə-em]sc city along go-1sg many interesting fotosyret-əm βozə-ʃ-əm photograph-acc write- pst1-1sg ‘while walking around town, I took many interesting photographs’ Note the person infix -em- indexing the subject; the reduced ə of -ʃəla- is deleted before the e of the person suffix -em. Historically, the converb suffix -ʃəlɑ is a combination of the active participle suffix -ʃE and the enclitic =lɑ (see Section 12.12); attaching the person suffix to the participle allows the enclitic to retain its typical word-final position. Conditional clauses are formed with the enclitic conjunctions gən ‘if’ (after voiceless consonants kən), and (in spoken language) dək ‘if,’ which are positioned at the end of the clause. The conditional clause always precedes the main clause. In counterfactual conditional constructions, the word əʎe ‘was’ (in simple past I) follows the conditional clause (though it precedes gən), thus forming forms of the compound imperfect I (see §10, Table 12.22), as illustrated in example (46): (46) [tidə-m pɑl-em əʎe gən]SC this-acc know-1sg be.pst1.3sg if ‘if I had known that, I would have come’

tol-ɑm əʎe come-1sg be.pst.3sg

Concessive clauses can be formed with the conjunction gənɑt ‘though, although, even though’ (gən ‘if’ + enclitic =ɑt ‘and; also,’ see 12.12; after voiceless consonants kənat), which is placed at the end of the support clause, as in example (47): kert-eʃ (47) [ydər-nɑ izi gənɑt]SC lud-ən daughter-1pl small although read-cvb be.able-3sg ‘although our daughter is young, she can read’

566 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

Final (purposive) clauses can be formed with a verb in the imperative third person, followed by conjunction mɑnən ‘that,’ as in example (48): ͡tɕɑrnə-ʒe jy-əm (48) [βuj korʃtə-mə-m mɑnən]SC em-əm head hurt-ptcp.pass-acc stop-imp.3sg that medicine-acc drink-pst1.1sg ‘I took medicine to stop my head from hurting’ This construction is similar to that formed with the infinitive with mɑnən; see (49): (49) [konkurs-əʃto seŋ-ɑʃ mɑnən]SC tudo ͡tɕot jɑmdəl|ɑlt-ən competition-ine win-inf that 3sg very prepare|detr-pst2.3sg ‘s/he prepared a lot in order to win in the tournament’ An infinitive with a person suffix can also form a final clause, as in (50): pu-et mo? (50) [ʃɑrn-en il-ɑʃ-em]SC fotografij-et-əm remember-cvb live-inf-1sg photograph-2sg-acc give-2sg Q ‘will you give me a photograph of you for me to remember?’ 12.15.10 Compound sentences Mari has few indigenous conjunctions. In foklore texts from the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century, which represent spoken language with little or no influence from Russian, coordination of simple finite clauses is often accomplished asyndetically by simply juxtaposing the clauses without any explicit marker of the semantic relation between them. Depending on semantic, pragmatic, and textual factors, the relation of the latter sentence to the preceding one can be, for instance, adversative or explanative (Bereczki 1990, 76). The coordinative conjunction dɑ (ta after voiceless consonants) ‘and’ is based on two different borrowings, and as a consequence, its form and syntactic position varies (Saarinen 1991, 59). In folklore texts, it can mostly be regarded as a loanword from Chuvash (tɑ ‘and’) and occurs at the end of the first clause; see (51): (51) [mɑrdeʒ ʃəplanə-ʃ tɑ,]Cl1 [jyr ͡tɕoʒgɑʃ tyŋɑʎe]Cl2 wind fall.silent-pst1.3sg cnj rain pour-inf start.pst1.3sg ‘the wind calmed down and the rain began to bucket down’ The other origin for this conjunction is the Russian dɑ ‘and’; based on this origin, it is placed at the beginning of the latter clause. See (52): əʃt-em]Cl2 (52) [məj tol-ɑm]Cl1 [dɑ urok-əm 1sg come-1sg cnj homework-acc do-1sg ‘I will come and do homework’ In contemporary Mari, especially in the spoken language, Russian conjunctions i ‘and’ and ɑ ‘and, but’ are also frequently used, as in (53). (53) [məj kɑj-em,]Cl1 [ɑ təj tol-ɑt]Cl2 1sg go-1sg cnj 2sg come-2sg ‘I am going, and/but you are coming’

MARI 567

Other coordinative conjunctions include the following: negative ɲi . . . ɲi ‘neither . . . nor’; disjunctive jɑ . . . jɑ ‘either . . . or,’ and ɑlɑ . . . ɑlɑ ‘either . . . or,’ ‘perhaps . . . perhaps’; adversative tuge gənɑt ‘in spite of this, nevertheless’; (consequence or circumstance) sɑdlɑn, sɑdlɑn kørɑ, sɑndene ‘therefore, thus, consequently, so,’ see (54). (54) erlɑ [jɑ porɑn tɑrvɑn-ɑ,]Cl1 [jɑ jyr tol-eʃ]Cl2 tomorrow cnj snowstorm move-3sg cnj rain come-3sg ’tomorrow, either a snow storm will begin, or rain will come’ 12.15.11 Questions There is no special constituent order in questions: the question word generally occurs in the position taken by its counterpart in a declarative clause. See (55): (55a) tudo kuʃto il-ɑ? 3sg where live-3sg ‘where does s/he live?’

cf.

(b)

tudo joʃkɑr+olɑ-ʃte il-ɑ 3sg Yoshkar+Ola-ine live-3sg ‘s/he lives in Yoshkar-Ola’

Fronting of the question word, however, sometimes occurs, as in (56). (56) kuʃto serəʃ kij-ɑ? where letter lie-3sg ‘where is the letter?’ Content questions can be formed using the interrogative pronouns kø ‘who’ and mo ‘what,’ which are declined for case, for example, kø-m who-acc ‘whom,’ kø-n who-gen ‘whose.’ These pronouns can also take person suffixes, as in (57) and (58). (57) mo-et korʃt-ɑ? what-2sg hurt-3sg ‘where does it hurt (your what hurts)?’ (58) kø-dɑ-m βut͡ɕ-edɑ? who-2pl-acc wait-2pl ‘which one of you are you waiting for?’ Other interrogative words include case and derivational forms of pronominal stems: mo-lɑn what-dat ‘to what; why’ (59); mo|gɑj what|like ‘what kind of’; məɲɑr(e) ‘how many/much’ (60); kuze ‘how?’; kunɑm ‘when?’; kuʃ(ko) ‘where (to)?’ (61); kuʃto ‘where?’; kuʃɑn ‘where? where to?’; kuʃet͡ɕ(ən) ‘from where?’ (59) mo-lɑn o-t tol? what-dat neg-2sg come.cng ‘why aren’t you coming?’ (60) tudo məɲɑr ijɑʃ ? 3sg how.many years.old ‘how old is s/he?’

568 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

(61) jelu-lɑn kɑstene kuʃ kɑj-ɑʃ Yelu-dat in.the.evening to.where go-inf ‘where must Yelu go in the evening?’

kyl-eʃ ? be.necessary-3sg

The element mo is used both as an interrogative pronoun ‘what’ and as an interrogative particle (Q) to signal that a sentence is a polar question, as shown in (62) and (63). (62) kino-ʃ kɑj-et mo? cinema-ill go-2sg q ‘are you going to the movie theatre?’ (63) təj-ən pørt-et ulo 2sg-gen house-2sg is ‘do you have a house?’

mo? q

The use of the particle mo in polar questions is not compulsory. When mo is omitted, the intonation rises on the stressed vowel of the word in focus, for example, tudo tunəktəʃo mo? 3sg teacher q ~ tudo tunəktəʃo? ~ 3sg teacher ‘Is s/he a teacher?’ Indefinite pronouns (see Section 12.6) can be used in forming questions, as in (64): (64) pørt kørgəʃkø iktɑʒ-kø pur-en? house into anyone go.in-pst2.3sg ‘has someone entered the house?’ A short positive answer to a polar question can be tuge, dɑ (< Russian), or aɲe ‘yes’; the corresponding negative answer is uke ‘no.’ Echo answers where one merely repeats the verb used in question, negated if needed, are also fairly common (cf. Riese et al. 2017, 129). The conjunction ɑʎe ‘or’ is used to form alternative questions, as in (65): (65) tudo jɑl-əʃte ɑʎe olɑ-ʃte ʃot͡ɕ-ən? 3sg village-ine or city-ine be.born-pst2.3sg ‘was s/he born in the countryside or in the city?’ 12.15.12 Imperative clauses Commands, requests, and orders are realized mainly by using the imperative form of the verb, as in (66) and (67). (66) ənde ʃkol-əʃ kɑj! now school-ill go.imp.2sg ‘go to school now!’ (67) məj-əm idɑ βut͡ɕo! 1sg-acc neg.imp.2pl wait.cng ‘don’t wait for me!’

MARI 569

There are no forms of the imperative for the first-person singular or plural; in colloquial speech, the imperative particles ɑjdɑ and ɑjstɑ are used as a hortative particle; see (68) and (69). (68) ɑjdɑ pɑʃɑ-m hort work-acc ‘let me work’

əʃt-em do-1sg

(69) ɑjstɑ kaj-enɑ hort go-1pl ‘let’s go’ (Riese et al. 2019, 333–334). 12.15.13 Exclamative expressions Wonder or excitement can be expressed in various ways; intonation is a vital element. Exclamative expressions can begin with mogɑj ‘what, what kind of’ (70), mot͡ɕólo ‘how much,’ or kuze ‘how’ (71). (70) mogɑj səlne ydərɑmɑʃ! what.sort.of beautiful woman ‘what a beautiful woman!’ ͡ (71) kontsert-əʃte tudo mɑrij murə-m mur|ɑlt-enˌ dɑ concert-ine 3sg Mari song-acc sing|detr-pst2.3sg and ‘in the concert s/he sang Mari songs, and how!’

kuze! how

Quantitative question words can also be used in exclamatives, as in (72): (72) məɲɑr tuʃto kɑlək lij-ən! how.many there people be(come)-pst2.3sg ‘how many people were there!’ Another way to form exclamations is to add the third-person singular person suffix to the element in focus: kɑlək-ʃe! people-3sg ‘how many people!’ An emphatic particle that is widely used in exclamatives is dək, for example, mɑʃinɑ dək mɑʃinɑ! car ptcl car ‘what a car!’ 12.15.14 Impersonal constructions Impersonal constructions can be formed in at least five ways. Valency-changing derivational forms (see Table 12.28 in Section 12.13 for an overview of derivational morphology, including valency-changing suffixes) of verbs can be used without reference to specific persons, as in (73)—compare also with the competing structure illustrated in the following in (79). (73) oʒno ʃuko lud|ɑlt-ən once a.lot read|detr-pst2.3sg ‘people used to read a lot’

570 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

Impersonal expressions connected with natural phenomena can have an extensional argument (E) flagged with the postposition dene ‘with’ (after voiceless consonants tene), as shown in (74): dene]E muʃk|əlt-eʃ (74) mlɑndeS [jyr land rain with wash|detr-3sg ‘the land is being washed by the rain’ In modern language, one can also find animate agents backgrounded like this, clearly under Russian influence. Example (75), from the article on Antonio Vivaldi in the Mari Wikipedia,6 illustrates this. gənɑ [akušerka dene]E əʃt|ɑlt-ən (75) tən-eʃ purtə-mɑʃS pisə-n belief-lat enter-nmlz quick-adv only midwife with do|detr-3sg ‘the baptism was quickly done by a midwife’ Forms of the reflexive pronoun (see Table 12.13 in Section 12.6) which lack encoding of person (the dative ʃkɑlɑn and the accusative ʃkem) can be used impersonally, as in (76): kyl-eʃ (76) [ʃkɑ-lɑn yʃɑn-ɑʃ]s refl-dat believe-inf be.necessary-3sg ‘one must believe in oneself (to believe in oneself is necessary)’ The infinitive in -ɑʃ may function as subject, as in (77). (77) pɑjrem-əʃte kuze kuʃt-ɑʃ og-əl! party-ine how dance-inf neg.3sg-be ‘how can one not dance at a party!’ The passive participle in -mE occurs in similar constructions; see (78): (78) mɑrij el gazet-eʃ iβuk-ən ɑt͡ɕɑ-ʒ nergen Mari land newspaper-lat Ivuk-gen father-3sg about ‘Ivuk’s father was written about in the newspaper “Mari El”’

βozə-mo write-ptcp.pass

Finally, as in Russian, third-person plural subject indexing on the verb can, in many contexts, be understood as having no reference to specific persons, as in (79): (79) gazet-əm uʒɑl-ɑt newspaper-acc sell-3pl ‘newspapers are being sold (lit. they are selling newspapers)’ 12.16 SAMPLE TEXT The following text is a transcription from a report, including a short interview, that aired on Mari-language television news on 13 May 2013 and pertains to the Eastern Mari ‘Rope Dance’ (Riese et al. 2017, 319–320).7

MARI 571

erβel+mɑrij-βlɑk-ən brend-əʃt-əm, Eastern+Mari-pl-gen brand-3pl-acc,

«kɑndərɑ» rope

kuʃtə-mɑʃ-əm, dance-nmlz-acc,

βɑʃke ulo tyɲɑ pɑl-en nɑl-eʃ soon whole world know-cvb take-3pl ‘Soon the whole world will get to know the brand of the Eastern Maris, the “Kandyra” [rope] dance.’ baʃkortostan respublik-ən tyβərɑ dɑ səməktəʃ pɑʃɑ+jeŋ-ʒe-βlɑk, Bashkortostan republic-gen culture and art work+person-3sg-pl, təgɑk «ʃij kɑndərɑ» festivalʲ-konkurs-ən organizator-ʒo den also ‘silver rope’ festival-contest-gen organizer-3sg and ʐuri-n jeŋ-ʒe-βlɑk jury-gen person-3sg-pl

͡ gətɕ from

ʃogə-ʃo ekspert komisːij ertə-ʃe consist-ptcp.act expert commission pass-ptcp.act

keŋeʒ-əm ik kilometr kuʒət-əʃ ʃujnə-ʃo «kɑndərɑ» kuʃtə-mɑʃ-əm summer- acc one kilometre length-ill extend-ptcp.act ‘rope’ dance-nmlz-acc «rosːij|əse Russia|adj

rekord record

knigɑ-ʃke» pur.t-ɑʃ book-ill enter.tr-inf

jod-ən ask-cvb

βoz-en write-pst2.3sg

‘An expert commission consisting of culture and art workers of the Republic of Bashkortostan as well as the organizers and jury of the festival/competitions “Shiy Kandyra” [silver rope] last summer submitted in writing a suggestion to include the one-kilometre long “Kandyra” dance into the “Russian Book of Records”.’ «kɑndərɑ» ɑkret god|so kuʃtə-mɑʃ «rope» ancient time|adj dance-nmlz The ‘“Kandyra” is an ancient dance.’ tudo it

kɑlək-ən kuɑtle βij-ʒə-m, βɑʃ kelʃ-en people-gen strong strength-3sg-acc, mutually agree-cvb

ilə-mə-ʒə-m, pyrtys-lɑn dɑ il.əʃ-lɑn live-ptcp.pass-3sg-acc, nature-dat and life-dat moʃtə-mə-ʒə-m be.able-ptcp.pass-3sg-acc

kuɑn-en rejoice-cvb

͡ ontɕəkt-ɑ show-3sg

‘It expresses the strong power of the people, that they live together in harmony, and that they can take joy in nature and life.’ tide this

͡ kuʃtə-mɑʃ lɑtɕ dance-nmlz just

erβel East

kundem-əʃte ilə-ʃe mɑrij-βlɑk-ən gənɑ region-ine live-ptcp.act Mari-pl-gen only

ɑrɑl|ɑlt kod-ən keep|detr.cvb stay-pst2.3sg ‘This dance has only been preserved among Maris living in the eastern territory.’ tudə-n βij+kuɑt-ʃə-m ʃiʒ-ɑʃ-lɑn it-gen power+strength-3sg-acc feel-inf-dat

572 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

͡ ͡ erβel+mɑrij-βlɑk dene pərʎɑ jɑmle sem potɕeʃ tɑβ|ɑlt-en ontɕə-mɑn Eastern+Mari-pl with together lovely melody after stomp|detr-cvb see-inf.necc. ‘In order to feel its power, one must dance it together with Eastern Maris following a nice melody.’ NOTES 1 Much of this chapter is based on a number of materials under development as the article was written: an updated version of Alho Alhoniemi’s 1985 grammar of Mari (Alhoniemi 1985) and various resources found on Jeremy Bradley’s website www. mari-language.com. We would like to thank all colleagues involved in the creation of these resources, but not directly in the creating of this chapter, many of whom consulted and assisted us in the creation of this chapter as well: Alho Alhoniemi, Sirkka Saarinen, Arto Moisio, Silja-Maija Spets, Tomi Koivunen, Timothy Riese, Monika Schlötschel, Tatiana Yefremova, Alexandra Simonenko, Emma Yakimova, Galina Krylova, Elina Guseva, Nadezhda Krasnova, Julia Kuprina, Johannes Hirvonen, Stefanie Lammer, Mikke Mayer, Luan Hammer. Unsourced statements and language data in this chapter are based on consultations with the aforementioned Mari native speakers. We are also indebted to the late Eeva Kangasmaa-Minn, who wrote the chapter on Mari in the previous edition of this book (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998). This chapter primarily concerns itself with Meadow Mari; Hill Mari forms are discussed only where they differ radically from their Meadow Mari counterparts. For a comparison of the two literary standards of Mari, see Krasnova et al. (2017). 2 Not to be confused with the Eastern Mari literary norm, which is based on the Meadow Mari dialect. To counter the terminological confusion created by the different manners in which ‘Eastern Mari’ is used, Mari scholars also refer to literary Meadow Mari as ‘Meadow-Eastern Mari.’ 3 The overview of morphology in this chapter is highly simplified; it does not explain all parameters governing morphophonetic alternation in the realization of forms. A more exhaustive overview can be found in Alhoniemi (1985) or Riese et al. (2019); nominal, postpositional, and verbal paradigms can be generated at paradigm.mari-language. com. 4 The stem-final consonant is voiceless in syllable-final position (as in o-m kot neg-1sg stay.cng ‘I won’t stay,’ kot-ne-m stay-des-1sg ‘I want to stay’) but voiced between vowels. Historically, it was /t/; orthographically, it is always rendered as , which generally represents the sound /d/. 5 The examples in the syntax section originate from the following sources: Alhoniemi (1985, 1993), Bartens (1979), Bereczki (1990), Kangasmaa-Minn (1998), Riese et al. (2017), and Riese et al. (2019). 6 mhr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Антонио_Вивальди, аccessed 21 May 2020. 7 As of 3 May 2020, a video of this report can be found at www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4h0LCx5QcI. An audio recording can be found at omj.mari-language.com in the audio materials for Chapter 24. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aikio, Ante. 2014. “On the Reconstruction of Proto-Mari Vocalism.” Journal of Language Relationship 11: 125–157.

MARI 573

Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. Marin kielioppi. Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten X. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Arkhangelskiy, Timofey. 2019. “Meadow Mari social media corpus.” http://meadow-mari. web-corpora.net. Accessed 26 April 2020. Bartens, Raija. 1979. Mordvan, tšeremissin ja votjakin konjugaation infiniittisten muotojen syntaksi. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 170. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. Bereczki, Gábor. 1990. Chrestomathia Ceremissica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Bereczki, Gábor. 1994. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte, vol. 2. Studia Uralo-Altaica 34–35. Szeged: University of Szeged. Bereczki, Gábor, Eberhard Winkler, and Klára Agyagási. 2013. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Tscheremissischen (Mari)—Der einheimische Wortschatz. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 86. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Berta, Árpád. 1998. “Tatar and Bashkir.” In The Turkic Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató, 283–300. Routledge Language Family Descriptions. New York: Routledge. Bradley, Jeremy. 2015. “A Corpus-Based Analysis of Syntactic Structures—Postpositional Constructions in Mari.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 111: 257–278. www. nytud.hu/nyk/nyk111.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2018. Bradley, Jeremy. 2016. “Mari converb constructions: Productivity and regional variance.” PhD diss., University of Vienna. http://othes.univie.ac.at/43606/. Accessed 22 April 2021. Brykina and Aralova = Брыкина, М. М. and Н. В. Аралова. 2012. “Системы причастий в марийском и пермских языках.” In Финно-угорские языки: фрагменты грамматического описания, edited by А. И. Кузнецова, 476‒520. Moscow: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси. Federal’naya sluzhba gosudarstvennoy statistiki =Федеральная служба государственной статистики. 2011. Окончательные итоги Всероссийской переписи населения 2010 года. Moscow: Федеральная служба государственной статистики. www. perepis-2010.ru/results_of_the_census/. Accessed 29 January 2018. Hesselbäck, André. 2005. Tatar & Chuvash Code-copies in Mari. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 35. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Holopainen, Sampsa. 2019. “Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic: Critical overview of sound substitutions and distribution criterion.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. urn. fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5729-4. Accessed 30 April 2020. Isanbayev, N. I. = Исанбаев, Н. И. 1989. Марийско-тюркские языковые контакты [volume 1]. Yoshkar-Ola: Марийское книжное издательство/МарНИИ. Ivanov, I. G. = Иванов, И. Г. 1981. Марий диалектологий. Yoshkar-Ola: Марий государственный университет. Ivanov, I. G. = Иванов, И. Г. 2000. Кызытсе марий йылме—Фонетика. Yoshkar-Ola: Марий книга савыктыш. Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1966. The Syntactical Distribution of the Cheremis Genitive [volume 1]. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 139. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. “Mari.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 219–248. Routledge Language Family Descriptions. New York: Routledge.

574 JEREMY BRADLEY AND JORMA LUUTONEN

Kerezsi, Ágnes. 2004. “The Mari.” In The Finno-Ugric World, edited by György Nanovfszky, 373–376. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2009. “Turkish and the Turkic Languages.” In The World’s Major Languages, 2nd ed., edited by Bernard Comrie, 519–544. New York: Routledge. Kovedyayeva, Ye. I. = Коведяева, Е. И. 1976. “Марийский язык.” In Основы финноугорского языкознания—Марийский, пермские и угорские языки, edited by В. И. Лыткин et al., 3–96. Moscow: Издательство «Наука». Krasnova, Nadezhda, Timothy Riese, Tatiana Yefremova, and Jeremy Bradley. 2017. Reading Hill Mari Through Meadow Mari [Release 1.0]. Vienna: University of Vienna. http://rhm.mari-language.com. Kuwajima, Ikuru. 2016. “Europe's oldest pagans: the deep forest life of Mari people— in pictures.” The Guardian, 21 December. www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ gallery/2016/dec/21/europes-oldest-pagans-mari-people-ikuru-kuwajima. Accessed 26 April 2020. Luutonen, Jorma. 1997. The Variation of Morpheme Order in Mari Declension. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 226. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Luutonen, Jorma, Sirkka Saarinen, Arto Moisio, et al. 2007. Electronic Word Lists: Mari, Mordvin and Udmurt. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXXI. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. www.sgr.fi/fi/items/show/404. Accessed 18 May 2020. Moisio, Arto, and Sirkka Saarinen. 2008. Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXXII. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Moseley, Christopher, ed. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas. Accessed 29 January 2018. Räsänen, Martti. 1920. Die tschuwassischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne XVI. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Räsänen, Martti. 1923. Die tatarischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne L. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Riese, Timothy, Jeremy Bradley, Monika Schötschel, and Tatiana Yefremova. 2019. Mari (марий йылме)—An essential grammar for international learners [Release 0.1— draft]. Vienna: University of Vienna. http://grammar.mari-language.com. Riese, Timothy, Jeremy Bradley, Emma Yakimova, and Galina Krylova. 2017. Оҥай марий йылме: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Mari Language [Release 3.2]. Vienna: University of Vienna. http://omj.mari-language.com. Róna-Tas, András. 1988. “Turkic Influence on the Uralic Languages.” In The Uralic Languages: Description, History, and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 742–780. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Saarinen, Sirkka. 1991. Marilaisen arvoituksen kielioppi. Mémoires de la Société FinnoOugrienne 210. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Saarinen, Sirkka. 1997a. “Borrowed Vocabulary in Mari and Udmurt Dialects.” In Finnischugrische Sprachen in Kontakt, edited by Sirkka-Liisa Hahmo, Tette Hofstra, László Honti, Paul van Linde, and Osmo Nikkilä, 191–196. Maastricht: Shaker. Saarinen, Sirkka. 1997b. “Language Contacts in the Volga Region—Loan Suffixes and Calques in Mari and Udmurt.” In Language in Time and Space—Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, edited by Heinrich Ramisch and Kenneth Wynne, 388–396. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Saarinen, Sirkka. 2010. “Marin sanaston alkuperästä.” In Sanoista kirjakieliin—Juhlakirja Kaisa Häkkiselle, edited by Sirkka Saarinen, Kirsti Siitonen, and Tanja Vaittinen,

MARI 575

335–341. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 259. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Schönig, Claus. 1997. “A New Attempt to Classify the Turkic Languages.” Turkic Languages 1 (1): 117–133. www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN666048797. Accessed 29 January 2018. Shagal, Ksenia. 2019. Participles: A Typological Study. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Timár, Bogáta. 2018. “The Expression of Volition in Meadow Mari.” Linguistica Uralica 56 (4): 259–269. Wichmann, Yrjö. 1924. “Etymologisches aus den permischen Sprachen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XIV: 29–63. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2017. “On the Tracks of the Proto-Uralic Suffix *-ksi—a New But Old Perspective on the Origin of the Mari Lative.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 96: 369–419.

CHAPTER 13

UDMURT Pirkko Suihkonen

13.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Udmurt is a concatenating language with fairly low fusion and a great number of derivational and inflectional suffixes. Suffixation and compounding are the principal methods in word-formation, although reduplication also exists. Prefixation is found as a morphological method in forming polarity items of lexical quantifiers (no-kin negwho ‘nobody’). By low fusion I mean that suffixation is relatively automatic: only a few stems show formal variation, and only a few suffixes have several variants (cf. Csúcs 1988, 134). There is a rich system of case suffixes, and suffixation is the principal method also in encoding mood, tense, and personal categories, although in some cases the inflectional elements have variants. Postpositions supplement case flagging. Periphrastic forms are common in forming tense categories. Possession is encoded with possessive (person) suffixes and with genitive forms of personal pronouns. The principal method in forming negation is the use of a negative verb inflected for person and partly also for tense. Negative nominal verb forms parallel verbal negation, particularly in subordinate clauses. The main constituent order is SOV/SV. However, as Udmurt is rich in case marking, constituent order is also used to organize pragmatic information (Suihkonen 1990). In addition to simple juxtaposition, clausal coordination uses coordinating conjunctions and nonfinite verb forms. Coordination at the NP level can be expressed with the instrumental suffix. Subordination is expressed by subordinating conjunctions and nonfinite verb forms. Russian, Tatar, and Bashkir, as well as older contacts with Chuvash, have asserted a strong influence on Udmurt (cf. Csúcs 1990; Tarakanov 1993; Kinder and Hilgemann 2000, 272–273). The Udmurt lexicon also bears witness to early contacts with Indo-Aryan languages. Udmurt is written with a version of Cyrillic (see Section 19). 13.2 DEMOGRAPHY AND AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF UDMURTS In 2002, the number of Udmurt speakers in the Russian Federation was 636,906 (Suihkonen 2015, 190). Two-thirds of Udmurt speakers live in the Udmurt Republic. Considerable numbers live in the Baškortostan and Tatarstan Republics, and in the Kirov, Perm, and Sverdlovsk Regions. A great number of Udmurt also live in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area, and in the Volgograd Region (Suihkonen 1991, 204–208, 2015, Appendix II, 133–198). In the twentieth century, the number of Udmurts in both the ethnic group and native speakers of Udmurt was increasing, and in the census of 1989, the numbers of ethnic Udmurt was 746,793, and the number of native speakers was 520,101 DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-13

UDMURT 577

(69.5% of the ethnic group). At the end of the twentieth century, roughly three-quarters of the Udmurt were native speakers. The number of native speakers is remarkably high in particular in the Baškortostan, Mari El, and Tatarstan Republics, in the Rostov Region, and in Kazakhstan. Since the end of the twentieth century, the number of Udmurt, as well as of native speakers of Udmurt, has been decreasing. The influence of Russian is strong, in particular in the Udmurt Republic and in areas where the proportion of Udmurt is low. A strong Russian-language influence characterizes administrative and technical language, but it is seen at all levels, even in Udmurt belles lettres. According to a popular view of this state of affairs, there are two Udmurt languages: the Udmurt spoken in Udmurt villages, which is putatively ‘good’ Udmurt, and the Udmurt spoken in towns where the Russian influence has been strong. In both villages and towns, Udmurt is spoken particularly by older people. Knowledge of Russian is necessary for everyday life, and in addition, a knowledge of Tatar, Bashkir, or Mari is necessary for those Udmurt who live in the Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Mari El Republics. In addition to Russian, Turkic languages (especially Tatar and Bashkir) have had a strong influence on Udmurt, one which can be seen in the great number of loanwords (Csúcs 1990; Tarakanov 1993; cf. also Toulouze 2016). The Udmurt Republic (area 41,100 km2) is located in the East European Plain in and between the water course areas of the great rivers Volga and Kama (Figure 13.1).

FIGURE 13.1 THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS IN THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN SIDE OF RUSSIA (SUIHKONEN 2015, 15, 164–189; THE FRAME MAP, PIRKKO NUMMINEN).

578 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

Udmurt has a great number of areal dialects, and dialect influence is reflected in the standard language, on which this chapter is based. In the older literature, the Udmurt dialects are best known according to the name of the place where they are spoken, for example, Glazov, Malmyž, Elabuga, etc. (Wichmann et al. 1987; Korhonen 1987, IX–XI; Csúcs 1990, 61–66, 83). Within a larger framework, the Udmurt dialects are divided into Northern, Central, Southern, Peripheral Southern, and Beserman dialects. The Udmurt dialects spoken in the Baškortostan, Tatarstan, and Mari El Republics belong to the Peripheral Southern dialects, and Beserman is spoken in the north-eastern corner of the Udmurt Republic and in the Kirov Region close to it. Dialectal variation characterizes all levels of language, from segmental inventories to shapes and sizes of paradigms, and in the distribution of kinds of pronouns and Russian influence in predicate structures (Wichmann et al. 1987; Korhonen 1987, IX–XI; Voroncov 1999, 15–16; Kelʹmakov and Saarinen 1994). 13.3 PHONOLOGY AND WORD STRUCTURE There are seven vowels (Table 13.1) and some 29 consonants in Udmurt (Table 13.2). A few consonants occur only in loanwords (given in parentheses in the table). The dental consonants other than /r/ occur both plain and palatalized. Most word-initial consonant combinations in Udmurt consisting of two or three consonants are found in Russian loanwords, bjurokrat ‘bureaucrat,’ broʃura ‘booklet, brochure,’ front ‘front,’ knʲiga ‘book,’ skal ‘cow,’ speʦʲialʲist ‘specialist,’ vraʦʲ ‘doctor,’ and stranʲit͡sa ‘page’.’ The exceptional combination tr- in word-initial position of the Udmurt word tros is a consequence of Udmurt-internal changes: tɨr, tɨros, and tros ‘full’ (tros also ‘much’) (Wichmann et al. 1987, s.v. tɨros) (Grammatika 1962, 20–29; Voroncov 1999; Suihkonen and Kondrateva 2013a, 204–205; Kelʹmakov 2000, 11–12; Korhonen 1987, XVIII; see also Csúcs 1998, 279–280; Karakulova and Karakulov 2000, 16–19). Table 13.3 contains examples of Udmurt syllable structures. Some syllable structures are found both in word-initial and word-internal syllables. Any vowel can occur in any syllable. The following vowel combinations occur as diphthongs: -au-: tau ‘thank you,’ -ua-: kuara ‘leaf,’ -ui-: kuinj ‘three,’ and -uo- across a morpheme boundary: sʲin+vuos-ɨz eye+water-3pl ‘their tears.’ However, in the combinations -ui- and -uo-, the vowels -i- and -o- also occur in inflectional material, and at least in some cases, the vowel combinations can be interpreted as vowel sequences, and a syllable boundary between the combinations of -ui- and -uo- is possible: ʃu-o-dy say-fut-2pl ‘you (pl) will say.’ The morphophonemics of suffixation is fairly straightforward, with only a very few lexically restricted exceptions. For example, in some nouns, certain paragogic consonants (m, k, t) occur before certain vowel-initial suffixes: śin ‘eye’: sʲinm-e eye-1sg ‘my eye,’ nʲules ‘forest’: nʲulesk-ɨn forest-ine ‘in a forest.’ There are also regular phonological operations which give rise to allomorphs, for example, voicing assimilation in ukmɨs|ton ‘90’ vs. nʲɨlʲ|don ‘40.’ Quite frequent is the phenomenon in which suffixes beginning with /e/, when combined with stems ending in vowels, are preceded by prothetic glide: intɨ ‘place’: intɨj-ez place-3sg ‘his/her place’; kuno ‘guest,’ kuno|ja-ni be.a.guest-inf ‘to be a guest’ (Grammatika 1962, 36; Vaxrušev 1983, ed., s.v. куно and кунояны; cf. Table 13.6); some other alternations also exist. Assimilation dealing with the opposition between voiced and unvoiced dentals in combination with stems and suffixes is an active process: val-d-e horse-2sg-acc ‘your horse’ and lud-jos-tɨ field-pl-2pl ‘your (pl) fields’ (cf. also Csúcs 1998, 281).

UDMURT 579 TABLE 13.1  UDMURT VOWELS IPA characters Front -R

Cyrillic characters

Central

+R

-R

+R

Back -R

Front

+R

-R

Central

+R

-R

+R

Back -R

+R

Close/high

i

ɨ

u

ü, и

ы

у,ю

Half-close

e

ɘ

o

э, е

ӧ

o, ё

Open/low

a

a, я

TABLE 13.2  UDMURT CONSONANTS IPA characters Bl Plosive

Ld

p

Al

Cyrillic characters Pal Alpa Pa

t t

b

Bl

k

п

g

n

м

н нь

ʃ

(h)

(Ф) с

z z

Affricate

Lateral

(х)

(щ) в

Z

з

Ж

зь

j

(tsː)

Approximant

ш

сь

j

(tʃː) v

г

р

s s

к

дь

r (f)

Ve

д

nj Fricative

Pal Alpa Pa

т

б

d

Trill

Al ть

d

m

Ld

j

j

Nasal

Ve

(ц) ͡tʃ

͡tɕ

ӵ

ч

d͡ʒ

d͡ʑ

ӟ

ӝ й

j l

л

lj

ль

Note: R = round, Bl = bilabial, Ld = labiodental, Al = alveolar, Pal = post-alveolar, AlPa = alveolo-palatal, Pa = palatal, Ve = velar.

With a few systematic exceptions, the principal stress at the level of the word falls on the final syllable, as in example (1): (1)

nɨlkɨʃnoˈ-os turnaˈm-ɨsʲ berˈt-o woman-nom.pl mowing-ela return-prs.3pl ‘The women are returning from mowing.’ (Grammatika 1962, 47–51)

580 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN TABLE 13.3  EXAMPLES FROM THE SYLLABIC STRUCTURES OF WORDS In the 1st syllable

In the middle of the words

In the end of words

V

a-lʲi ‘now’

stro-i-tʲelʲ-noj ‘building,’ a (Russ.)

͡ ʤetsʲ-se-a ‘good-3sg/det-q’

CV

sʲe-zʲɨ ‘oat,’ ka-rɨ-nɨ ‘to do’

a-ra-nɨ ‘to reap’

ʤu-zʲɨ-nɨ ‘to drink in short draughts, sip noisily, slurp’

VC

ul ‘lower part; bough’

CVC

mon ‘I,’ ʤuʃ-tɨ-nɨ ‘to moan; to puff’

VC1C2

urt-tɕɨ-nɨ ‘to pour out,’ abd-ra-nɨ ‘to wander’

C1C2V

ʃko-la ‘school’ (Russ.)

graʒ-dan-pro-jekt ‘the name of the designing institute’ (Russ.)

CV1V2

tau ‘thank,’ kua-sʲɨ-nɨ ‘to bend, fold; to turn’

ńe-doim-ka (Russ.) ‘arrears’

pəsʲ-vua ‘scald’ (imp)

CVC1C2

sert-tɨ-nɨ ‘to unravel, unbind,’ kurt-kɨ-nɨ ‘to šake (off)’

jy-bɨrt-ja-nɨ ‘to bow (down), stoop (down); to bow (repeatedly); to ask, request, beg, pray’

tʲe-ra-pevt ‘specialist in internal medicine; therapist’ (Russ.)

CV1V2C

kuinʲ-na-zɨ ‘by three of them’

kwuara ‘voice’

C1C2VC(C)

klass-jos-ɨn ‘in classes’ (Russ.)

CVC1C2C3

vords-kilʲ-lʲam ‘were born’

kua-ra-os ‘voices’ ʃul-dɨr-jasʲ-kɨ-nɨ ‘to have a good time; to enjoy oneself’

gurt-len ‘village-gen,’ u-moj ‘good’ pas-portʲ-ist

mi-nʲistr ‘minister’ (Russ.)

Source: UTC 1994. Note: The symbol ‘-’ denotes the borders between syllables.1

However, the principal stress is placed on the first syllable of the word in: (a) imperatives: ˈkoʃkɨ! ‘leave!’ en ˈʃumpote or ˈen ʃumpote ‘do not rejoice’; (b) connegative forms of verbs: uz ˈu͡tɕke ‘they will not look’; and (c) adjectives and adverbs which are formed by reduplication: ˈgord&gord ‘very red.’ In compound pronouns, the position of the stress varies. In pronouns formed with vanʲ ‘all’ as the first component, both parts bear stress: ˈvanʲˈmy ‘we all.’ Both elements bear the stress also when the first component is kotʲ ‘some’ and the second is kud ‘which,’ so ‘that/it (also ‘s/he’), ma ‘what,’ no, nʲe, nʲeno ‘no’ or og ‘one’: ˈkotʲˈku ‘sometimes.’ If the second element is polysyllabic, the main stress falls on the final syllable: no-kɨˈʧe ‘no kind of.’ When words are formed with the suffixes -bɨt ‘entire’ (with some exceptions) or -ak, the principal stress is placed on both the first syllable and on the suffix: ˈlumˈbɨt ‘the whole day,’ ˈʃonerˈak ‘directly.’ The stress also falls on the suffix that forms ordinal numerals: vitʲˈetijez ‘the fifth.’

UDMURT 581

13.4 LEXICON2 Derivation and compounding are the principal methods in Udmurt word-formation. Nouns may consist of unmodified stems, non-productive, archaic suffixes, active derivational suffixes, and stems which are the results of compounding. Examples of archaic, non-productive denominal suffixes: |ak: ken|ak ‘aunt’ (ken ‘daughter-inlaw’), |al: bam|al ‘slope, descent’ (bam ‘cheek’), |ɨg: ul|ɨg ‘lowland' (ul ‘lower part’), |la: kua|la ‘shrine, summer kitchen’ (kua ‘shrine, summer kitchen’), and |ɨš: vam|ɨš ‘step.’ In present-day Udmurt, there are a great number of productive denominal derivational suffixes covering a range of semantic areas. Examples: |aš in nɨl|aš ‘little girl’ (nɨl ‘girl’), |(j)ok in pi|jok ‘little boy’ (pi ‘boy’), |(j)uk in Maš|uk ‘dear Maša,’ |kaj in anɨ|kaj ‘dear Mamma,’ |os in nɨr|os ‘muzzle’ (nɨr ‘nose’), |č́ i in ivor|č́ i ‘messenger, herald’ (ivor ‘news’) (Grammatika 1962, 111–126; Alatyrev 1983, 572). Words such as geroj|lɨk ‘heroism’ from geroj ‘hero’ and argan|č́ i ‘accordionist’ from argan ‘accordion’ show that these two suffixes, of Turkic origin, can be combined with Russian loanword stems (geroj ‘hero,’ argan ‘accordeon’). Among deverbal derivational suffixes, the suffixes |(e)m and |(i)sʲ are used to form nonfinite verb forms, but they are also used to form nouns which are the names of activities or actors, for example, |(e)m in turna|m ‘mowing’ (turna- ‘mow’), and in vetl|em ‘going, walking, moving’ (vetlɨ- ‘to go, walk; to move’); |(i)sʲ in kivalti|sʲ ‘leader, director’ (kivaltɨ- ‘lead’), and in uža|sʲ ‘worker’ (uža- ‘to work’). The suffix |(o)n makes names of processes, for example, verasʲk|on ‘discussion, conversation’ (verasʲkɨ-) ‘to discuss’ and kisʲka|n ‘watering’ (kisʲka- ‘to water’). In addition to derivation, in particular, copulative (dvandva) compounding is important in word-formation. This kind of compound has a wide semantic range, for example, anaj+ataj ‘parents’ (anaj ‘mother’ + ataj ‘father’), pios+murt ‘man, male’ (pi-os ‘boy-pl’ + murt ‘human being’), suj+pɨd ‘limbs’ (suj ‘arm’ + pɨd ‘foot’), šud+bur ‘happiness’ (šud ‘happiness’ + bur ‘right; good’), jəl+vəj ‘milk products’ (jəl ‘milk’ + vəj ‘butter, oil’), vajo+bɨš ‘swallow (bird)’ (vaj|o ‘many-branched’ + bɨš ‘tail’), and gord+sʲin ‘roach (fish)’ (gord ‘red’ + sʲin ‘eye’). The following are examples of noun compounds built with deverbal nominals: ju.an+ver.an ‘question; discussion’ (ju.an ‘question’ + ver.an ‘speech, telling; information’), pɨr.an+pot.an ‘visit’ (pɨr.an ‘entering’ + pot.an ‘leaving, going out’) (Grammatika 1962, 111–126; Alatyrev 1983, 572). Adjectives occur both as non-derived roots and as forms derived with (productive or non-productive) suffixes. Compounding is also productive. The following are examples of adjectives formed with derivational suffixes: |ala, |lo in mim|ala ‘last; of last year’; |(j)ales in sʲəd|ales ‘darkish, greyish’; |(j)esʲ in vəj|esʲ ‘fat, fatty’; |ɨt in ǯar|ɨt ‘light; withered, faded, pale,’ əž|ɨt ‘small; inconsiderable’; |(j)o in kizʲil'i|jo ‘starry,’ kuar|o ‘leafy’; |mɨt in lɨz|mɨt ‘bluish’; |oj, |ej, |ij (copied from Russian) in adjectives of Russian origin such as talantliv|oj ‘talented,’ srednʲ|ej ‘middle’; |pɨr in lʲəlʲ|pɨr ‘light rose like,’ and the caritive suffix |tem, as in əvəl|tem ‘villain, rascal’ (poor, indigent)’ (Grammatika 1962, 141–145; Alatyrev 1983, 573). Udmurt has a rich verbal derivational system allowing distinctions among various kinds of activities and aspectual relationships, as well as valency change; see Table 13.4. The lexical semantics of the verb stem itself may have an influence on the meanings of derivational suffixes, such as -ɨ- and -a-, which form the basis of conjugational types of verbs (Grammatika 1962, 219–248; Suihkonen 2012, 334–337).

582 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN TABLE 13.4  SAMPLE VERB-FORMING DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES IN UDMURT Suffix

Aspect, valence Example

|ɨ-

-dur, +tr

ɨb|ɨ- ‘to shoot’

|a-

+dur, +tr

dasʲ|a- ‘to prepare,’ išk|a- ‘to pull out (up)’; ‘to pluck’

|j|a-

+dur, +tr

saj|j|a- ‘to overshade, shield’; ‘to shade’

|sʲk-/ |sk-

+dur, +refl -dur, -tr

vizjma-sjk-ɨ- ‘to become clever,’ basɨl|sk|ɨ- ‘to become quiet, calm’

|t-

-dur, +caus

gudɨr|t|ɨ- ‘to hunder, boom (once)’; ‘clap’ (gudɨrɨ ‘thunder’)

|ekt-ɨ-

-dur, -caus

gord|ekt|ɨ- ‘to blush; to become reddish/brown’; ‘to roast brown’ (gord ‘red’)

|m-

-dur, +fact

pinal|m|ɨ- ‘become younger’ (pinal ‘child, young’)

|lt-ɨ-

-dur, +mom

kuas|alt|ɨ- ‘to bend, fold; to turn; to bend, make crooked’; ‘to bow,’ išk|a|lt|ɨ- ‘to pull out (up)’; ‘to pluck’

|št-ɨ-

-dur, +mom

korm|ɨšt|ɨ- ‘to scratch,’ nʲul|ɨšt|ɨ-, ‘to lick’; ‘to lick one’s lips’

|ǯ-ɨ-

-dur, +mom

dem|ǯ|ɨ- ‘catch hold of’; ‘to touch’; ‘to drive, run into’

+|-dur, +res

penʲ|ǯ|ɨ- ‘to burn into ash’ (penʲ ‘ash’), gord|ǯ|ɨ-

|l-ɨ-

+dur, +freq

leś|tɨ|l|ɨ- ‘to do’; ‘to prepare,’ ɨb|ɨ|l|ɨ- ‘to shoot’

|lʲlʲ-a-

+dur, +freq

iška|lʲlʲa- ‘to dig out, pull out (up)’

|s-ɨ-

+dur, -tr

nʲik|s|ɨ- ‘to whine, squeal’; ‘to snivel,’

|č́ -ɨ-/ |č́ -a-

+dur, -tr

bak|č́ |ɨ- ‘to falter’; ‘to stammer, stutter’; ‘to be struck dumb’ (bak ‘deaf and dumb’), kut /č|á ‘to put on footware’; ‘to cheat, deceive (descr.)’

|et-ɨ-

+dur, -tr

kuaš|et|ɨ- ‘to make a noise, a hubbub, a racket’

There are also a great number of compound verbs; these consist of verb sequences which characterize different aspects of states and processes, as in šudɨ-nɨ+sʲerekja-nɨ ‘to be glad, to be delighted’ from šudɨ- ‘to play’ and sʲerekja- ‘to laugh at,’ complex verbs formed with the verb karɨ- ‘to do’ and with particles, such as onomatopoetic words, čaš karɨ- ‘to make a noise, be noisy’ from čaš ‘(onom.) noise,’ or with nouns which denote the limits of activities defined with the verbs: dur basʲt- ‘defend, take the side of’ from dur ‘edge, brim, side’ and basʲtɨ- ‘take,’ sʲin jɨltɨ- ‘notice’ from sʲin ‘eye’ and jɨltɨ- ‘augment,’ and tod-e vajɨ- ‘reminisce, recall’ from tod-e (sg.ill of tod ‘memory’) and vajɨ- ‘bring, fetch’ (Grammatika 1962, 249–253). In compound verbs, pair verbs, or serial verb constructions, both members take the same inflectional suffix: todɨ-sa+vala-sa (know-cnv +understand-cnv) and sʲiɨ-sa+juɨ-sa (eat-cnv+drink-cnv); and when nominalized, they act as the nominal member in a complex verb construction formed with the verb karɨ‘do,’ as in kɨl|em+adǯ|em karɨ- ‘pay attention to,’ from kɨlɨ- ‘hear’ and adǯɨ- ‘see’; the verb karɨ- is used in addition to combinations such as ma karɨnɨ ‘what to do,’ and for example, in various combinations with adjectives (Vaxrušev 1983, ed., s.v. карыры), in particular with combinations in which the other member is a Russian loan: nastupatj karɨ-nɨ attack.inf do-inf ‘to attack’ (UTC 1994). In addition to the rich case system, Udmurt also has a number of postpositions which are used side by side with case flagging, and also possessive suffixes are accepted. Postpositions can be uninflected words or forms, for example, lasʲanʲ ‘in (from) the direction of; with respect to,’ ponna ‘because of,’ pərat ‘after,’ and sʲarɨsʲ ‘of, from.’ Nouns which

UDMURT 583

typically are used as postpositions express relative position, for example, azʲ ‘front,’ ber ‘back,’ bord ‘wall,’ dur ‘edge,’ intɨ ‘place,’ puš ‘inner part,’ šor ‘middle, centre,’ ul ‘lower part,’ and vɨl ‘upper part.’ Postpositions typically express location (šor-ɨn middle-loc ‘in the middle of’) or movement from, to, or across a space, for example, šor-ɨsʲ middle-ela ‘from the middle of’; similarly, šor-e ‘(in)to the middle of,’ kuzʲa ‘along.’ Postpositions are also used to denote temporal relationships (dɨrja ‘during, in’), reasons (ponna ‘because of’), size (pasʲta ‘as broad as’), manner (sʲamen ‘according to, as’), lack (baška ‘without’), or replacement (intɨe ‘instead of’) (Grammatik 1962, 294–303; Suihkonen and Zagulyayeva 1995a). The complement of most postpositions stands in the nominative, for example, plot’ina vylti dam.nom over ‘over the dam,’ but some postpositions take genitives and egressives. Suffixation also has an important role in deriving adverbs: |ak: basɨl|ak ‘quietly, still; slowly, peacefully’ (basɨl ‘quiet, calm, peaceful’), |bɨt: lum|bɨt ‘all day long’ (lun ‘day’), and |skɨn: ar|skɨn ‘in a year’ (ar ‘year’). Some adverbs denoting temporal relationships are formed with reduplication: odig&og ‘sometimes, seldom,’ dɨrɨn&dɨrɨn ‘at times, occasionally.’ Pronominal particles commonly denote locations and movements: kyti &oti ‘somewhere, in (at) some places’ (kɨtɨn ‘where,’ otɨn ‘there,’ otɨsʲ ‘from there’) and also express deictic relationships: tanʲi ‘here you are, here,’ tinʲi ‘there you are, there.’ Many adverbs are used to stress or scale information: č́ apak ‘just,’ gine ‘only,’ odig . . . gine ‘only one, the only,’ and isʲke ‘so, well then.’ Various aspects of modality are also expressed with particles: olo ‘perhaps, probably,’ dɨr ‘probably, hopefully,’ lesʲa ‘probably,’ mošet ‘maybe,’ adske ‘seems,’ šat ‘possible,’ and pəj ‘supposedly.’ The evidential pe ‘it is told, so they say’ also belongs to this group. Udmurt has several interjections expressing various emotional relationships, such as ek-ek-ke (astonishment) (Grammatika 1962, 296–314). 13.5 NOMINAL MORPHOLOGY Noun phrases (NPs) are structural units which are found in various clausal functions (see also 13.11.1.1). In basic NPs, the lexical head is a noun or a single pronoun or numeral. Heads may take personal and determinative suffixes, the latter deriving historically from third-person or second-person singular suffixes. Adjectives functioning as NP heads can take plural, comparative, and determinative suffixes (Grammatika 1970, 40–107, 164– 170; Suihkonen 2005; Suihkonen 2013a; Suihkonen and Kondrateva 2013b; see also examples (99–101), (106); examples from NP structures in Section 13.11.1). Nominal inflection is exclusively suffixal and distinguishes number, case, personal, and determinative-definiteness categories. The basic order is S(tem)–der(ivativonal suffixes)–infl(ectional suffixes). In nominal inflection, the determinative suffix produces a new basic form which can then take further derivational and inflectional suffixes (see a–f in the following); the plural suffix can also perform this function (example 2). a) b) c) d) e)

badǯɨm-jos-ɨz-ges big-pl-det-cmp ‘those which are bigger’ muket-jos-ɨz-ly another-pl-det-dat ‘to those other ones’ žadj-em-en-ɨz-a become.tired-prf-insm-3pl-q ‘because they have become tired’ ver-am-ez-ja say-prf-3sg-adv ‘according to what he/she said’ (UTC 1994) kolxoznik-jos-ɨd-leń-jos-ɨz (ɨʒ-jos-ɨz) (Grammatika 1970, 50) kolhoz.member-pl-2sg-gen-pl-det (sheep-pl-det) ‘those (sheep) which belong to your kolhoz members’

584 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

f )

mehanik-jos-mɨ-lɨ-os-ɨz (Grammatika 1970, 49) mechanics-pl-1pl-dat-pl-det ‘those which belong to our mechanics’

There are two number categories in nominal inflection: singular and plural. Singular has zero suffix; the plural suffixes for nouns are -os (after vowels) and -jos (after consonants). When functioning as copula complements, adjectives take a special plural suffix -esʲ. Case suffixes often have different forms in the absolute and personal subparadigms. The absolute paradigms of nouns lud ‘field’ (consonant stem) and intɨ ‘place’ (vowel-stem) are presented in Table 13.5, whereas Table 13.6 contains selected forms from the paradigms of the personal inflection of these nouns. The accusative, illative, prolative, and instrumental case suffixes are added to vowel stems with the prothetic glide /j/, for example, intɨj-ez ‘place-acc.’3 In the personal paradigm, the inessive and illative case endings are fused (see example (3)). In the absolute inflection of plural forms, case marking follows the plural suffix. When the plural suffix is followed by personal or determinative suffixes (example (2) and (13); Suihkonen 2005), the case suffix may be attached to the new stem form. Case is often dictated by the valence frame of the verb, for example, ablative with məzmɨ- ‘to miss’ (example (47)) (Grammatika 1962, 85–87, 92–111; Alvre and Zaguljajeva 1985, 8; Suihkonen 2013, 141). In the possessive paradigm in accusative, genitive, ablative, dative, approximative, caritive, and adverbial forms, the case suffix precedes the possessive suffix, whereas in

TABLE 13.5  UDMURT CASE SUFFIXATION Case

Absolute paradigm, consonant stem: lud ‘field’

Absolute paradigm, vowel-stem: intɨ ‘place’

sg

pl

sg

pl

nom

lud

lud-jos

intɨ

intɨ-os

acc

lud-ez

lud-jos-tɨ(/-ɨz)

intɨj-ez

intɨ-os-tɨ(/-ɨz)

abl

lud-lesʲ

lud-jos-lesʲ

intɨ-lesʲ

intɨ-os-lesʲ

gen

lud-len

lud-jos-len

intɨ-len

intɨ-os-len

dat

lud-lɨ

lud-jos-lɨ

intɨ-lɨ

intɨ-os-lɨ

ine

lud-ɨn

lud-jos-ɨn

intɨ-ɨn

intɨ-os-ɨn

ela

lud-ɨsʲ

lud-jos-ɨsʲ

intɨ-ɨsʲ

intɨ-os-ɨsʲ

ill

lud-e

lud-jos-ɨ

intɨj-e

intɨ-os-ɨ

egr

lud-ɨsʲen

lud-jos-ɨsʲen

intɨ-ɨsʲen

intɨ-os-ɨsʲen

prol

lud-eti

lud-jos-ti

intɨj-eti

intɨ-os-ti

apr

lud-lanʲ

lud-jos-lanʲ

intɨ-lanʲ

intɨ-os-lanʲ

term

lud-ozʲ

lud-jos-ozʲ

intɨ-ozʲ

intɨ-os-ozʲ

ins

lud-en

lud-jos-ɨn

intɨj-en

intɨ-os-en

car

lud-tek

lud-jos-tek

intɨ-tek

intɨ-os-tek

adve

lud -ja

lud-jos-ja

intɨ-ja

intɨ-os-ja

UDMURT 585 TABLE 13.6  EXAMPLES FROM THE PERSONAL INFLECTION OF UDMURT NOUNS Case

Singular person, singular noun, for example, lud-e ‘my meadow’

Plural person, plural noun, for example, lud-jos-mɨ ‘our meadows’

1sg

2 sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

nom

lud-e

lud-ed

intɨj-ez

lud-jos-mɨ

lud-jos-tɨ

intɨ-os-zɨ

acc

lud-m-e

lud-d-e

intɨ-z-e

lud-jos-m-es

lud-jos-t-es

intɨ-os-z-es

abl

lud-e-lesʲ

lud-ed-lesʲ

intɨj-ez-lesʲ

lud-jos-mɨ-lesʲ

lud-jos-tɨ-lesʲ

intɨ-os-zɨ-lesʲ

gen

lud-e-len

lud-ed-len

intɨj-ez-len

lud-jos-mɨ-len

lud-jos-tɨ-len

intɨ-os-zɨ-len

dat

lud-e-lɨ

lud-e-d-lɨ

intɨj-ez-lɨ

lud-jos-mɨ-lɨ

lud-jos-tɨ-lɨ

intɨ-os-zɨ-lɨ

ela

lud-ɨsʲt-ɨm

lud-ɨsʲt-ɨd

intɨ-ɨsʲt-ɨz

lud-jos-ɨsʲtɨ-mɨ

lud-jos-ɨsʲtɨ-tɨ

intɨ-os-ɨsʲtɨ-zɨ

ine.ill

lud-a-m

lud-a-d

intɨ-a-z

lud-jos-a-mɨ

lud-jos-a-tɨ

intɨ-os-a-zɨ

egr

lud-ɨsʲen-ɨm

lud-ɨsʲen-ɨd

intɨ-ɨsʲen-ɨz

lud-jos-ɨsʲenɨ-mɨ

lud-jos-ɨsʲenɨ-tɨ

intɨ-os-ɨsʲenɨ-zɨ

prol

lud-eti-m

lud-eti-d

intɨj-eti-z

lud-jos-eti-mɨ

lud-jos-eti-tɨ

intɨ-os-eti-zɨ

apr

lud-e-lanʲ

lud-ed-lanʲ

intɨj-ez-lanʲ

lud-jos-mɨ-lanʲ

lud-jos-tɨ-lanʲ

intɨ-os-zɨ-lanʲ

term

lud-ozʲa-m

lud-ozʲa-d

intɨ-ozʲa-z

lud-jos-ozʲa-mɨ

lud-jos-ozʲa-tɨ

intɨ-os-ozʲa-zɨ

inst

lud-en-ɨm

lud-en-ɨd

intɨj-en-ɨz

lud-jos-enɨ-mɨ

lud-jos-enɨ-tɨ

intɨ-os-enɨ-zɨ

car

lud-e-tek

lud-ed-tek

intɨj-ez-tek

lud-jos-mɨ-tek

lud-jos-tɨ-tek

intɨ-os-zɨ-tek

adv

lud-e-ja

lud-e-ja

intɨj-ez-ja

lud-jos-mɨ-ja

lud-jos-tɨ-ja

intɨ-os-zy-ja

elative, inessive-illative, egressive, prolative, terminative, and instrumental case forms, the possessive suffix follows the case suffix (Table 13.6; Grammatika 1962, 88–89). Nominative (absolutive), genitive, and accusative are grammatical cases used to flag basic grammatical relations, such as arguments and possessors. Ablative and dative form a semantic pair denoting sources and targets. Inessive, elative, and illative form the basic set of relators denoting locations and directions of movements away from a location to another location. The cases egressive, prolative (prosecutive), approximative, and terminative denote different aspects of translocation: starting point of motion, end- or target point of motion: locomotion as far as a point, through/via an area (prolative), motion along a surface (approximative), tools or instruments, and close relationships, including coordination in NPs (instrumental), and states of lacking (caritive). Postpositions, which are usually combined with words in the nominative, are also important in expressing morphosyntactic relationships. Postpositions can take person suffixes and show defective case flagging (e.g. pala ‘to the direction of’ in example 2). In example (3), the postpositions ber-a-zi and dor-a-zî͎ contain locative flagging (-a- inessive-illative) and the 3sg person suffix (Grammatika 1962, 318–322; Csús 1998, 293). (2)

Sʲisʲɨm-ez vorgoron-jos milʲ-a-m gurt-ɨśtɨ-mɨ val. seven-det man-pl we-gen-1pl village-ela-1pl be.prt.3sg Tilʲ-a-d gurt-ɨsʲtɨ-dɨ-os-ɨz you-gen-2plvillage-ela-2pl-pl-det

586 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

Možga

pal-a

košk-i-zɨ.

Možga

direction-to

leave-prt-3pl

‘Those seven men were from our village. Those who were from your village went to Možga direction.’ (Grammatik 1970, 50; Suihkonen 2013, 130) (3)

vəsʲa-sa bɨtt-em ber-a-zi bert-o dor-a-zî͎ sacrifice-ger finish-ptcp.past after-ine.ill-3pl return.prs.3pl home-ill-3pl ‘After they had finished sacrificing, they returned to their home.’ (cf. Wichmann 1954, 41)

Possession is expressed with person suffixes which distinguish three persons in singular and plural (Table 13.7). The person suffixes have different sets on singular and plural stems (Grammatika 1962, 82). In a possessive phrase, any pronoun precedes the noun taking the person suffix, as in example (4). The person suffix agrees with the possessor expressed with personal pronouns for person and number. In possessive copula clauses, possession is expressed with the genitive case on the possessor, as in example (5). (4)

ešD-edR tɨn-a-dR You-gen-2sg friend-2sg ‘your friend’

(5) knʲigaD-ezR piosmurtR-len. book-det man-gen ‘The book belongs to the man.’

Simplifying, we may say that in main clauses the nominative serves as grammatical subject, while accusative is the case of the grammatical object, and local cases denote various relations of elements in the periphery. However, objects can also stand in the nominative. On the basis of information collected from the object marking in running TABLE 13.7  UDMURT PERSON SUFFIXES Person

Possessive suffixes added to stems in the singular form sg

1st Person

(a) -e: eš-e ‘my friend’; -ɨ: jɨr-ɨ ‘my head’

2nd Person (a) -ed: eš-ed ‘your friend; -ɨd: jɨr-ɨd ‘your head’

pl (b) -m: kudo-m ‘my house’

-mɨ: eš-mɨ ‘our friend’

(b) -d: kudo-d ‘your house’

-dɨ: škola-dɨ ‘your school’; -tɨ : eš-tɨ ‘your friend’;

3rd Person

(a) -ez: eš-ez ‘his/her friend’; (b) -z: -ɨz: jɨr-ɨz ‘his/her head’ kudo-z ‘his/her house’

Person

Possessive suffixes added to stems in the plural form sg

1st Person

-ɨ: nunal-jos-ɨ ‘my days’

-zɨ: škola-zɨ ‘their school’; -sɨ: eš-sɨ ‘their friend’;

pl -mɨ: vrač́ -jos-mɨ ‘our doctors’

2nd Person -ɨd: eš-jos-ɨd ‘your friends’

-tɨ: val-jos-tɨ ‘your horses’

3rd Person

-sɨ: agaj-jos-sɨ ‘their elder brothers/uncles’

-ɨz: kut-jos-ɨz ‘my bast shoes’

UDMURT 587

text, the object tends to be in the nominative when it is indefinite, inanimate, non-human, and not mentioned in previous discourse (Suihkonen 1990, 289). When the lexical head of an NP is marked with determinative and person suffixes, several other case endings are accepted on NPs which are main syntactic arguments (cf. Grammatika 1970, 40–76). Local cases are found in particular on adverbials. 13.6 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Adjectives are a distinct word class in Udmurt, although the lines between nouns and adjectives, and adjectives and adverbs, are not always clear-cut. Adjectives have a special plural suffix -esʲ which is used on the plural forms of adjectives functioning as copula complements but which may also be found on adjectives modifying nouns within the NP. Comparison is formed with the comparative suffixes -ges and -gem: č́ eber-ges ‘more beautiful,’ pič́ i-ges ‘smaller; younger,’ kuzʲ-gem ‘longer.’ These suffixes can also be combined with nouns, verbs, and adverbs. In principle, the two comparative suffixes are free variants, although the distribution of the suffix -gem is narrower than that of the suffix -ges. For example, in the Udmurt text corpus (UTC 1994), most of the comparative forms were built with -ges. The comparative marker is not always obligatory (6). In the literary language, the standard of comparison is encoded with the ablative case. The postposition pəl-ɨsʲ, which is formed with the elative case ending pəl-ela (from pəl ‘surroundings’) ‘from (a group),’ has the same function. The superlative form of adjectives is expressed with the Russian loanword samoj ‘the most’; the adjective is then in the basic (nominative) form (7). Decreasing of the amount of, or a weak degree of qualities denoted by adjectives, is expressed with the derivational suffixes |ales and |mɨt: sʲəd|ales ‘darkish, greyish,’ lɨz|mɨt ‘bluish.’ A method of denoting increasing amounts of qualities denoted with adjectives is reduplication: gord&gord ‘very red’ (cf. Grammatika 1962, 127–146). (6)

Ta gorod Sarapul gorod-lesj badǯɨm(-ges). this town Sarapul town-abl big(-cmp) ‘This town is bigger than Sarapul (the town of Sarapul).’ (Grammatika 1962, 137–138)

(7)

Ta nɨl samoj č́ eber. this girl most beautiful ‘This girl is the most beautiful.’

When comparative suffixes are used with verbs, they denote a greater degree, for example, mon visʲ-isʲko-ges I be-ill-prs.1sg-cmp ‘I am more ill’ (Grammatika 1970, 145). When adjectives are combined with the determinative, they can also be heads of NPs and so are found in all syntactic functions, as in examples (10) and (11) (Grammatika 1970, 61–62; Suihkonen 2005). Syntactically, adjectives are typically found as modifiers, as in examples (47) and (49), and nominal predicates, as in examples (6) and (7). 13.7 NUMERALS Udmurt numerals are organized according to a decimal system. The numeral kɨk ‘2’ has its background in Proto-Uralic, and odig ‘1,’ kuinʲ ‘3,’ nʲɨlʲ ‘4,’ vitʲ ‘5,’ kuatʲ ‘6,’ and kɨzʲ

588 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

‘20’ can be traced back to common Finno-Ugric forms; sʲizʲɨm ‘7’ has its roots in Finno-Permic. ‘Eight’ (tʲamɨs) and ‘nine’ (ukmɨs) are also from the Proto-Permic period, as well as das ‘10,’ which is an Old Iranian loan. The words for ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’ (sʲu, sʲurs) are also Indo-Iranian in origin. Other than kɨzʲ ‘20,’ sʲu ‘100,’ sʲurs ‘1,000,’ and milʲlʲion ‘million,’ the numerals denoting numbers more than ten are all compounds. The suffix |eti forms ordinal numerals: odig|eti ‘first,’ kɨk|eti ‘second,’ das +odig|eti ‘eleventh,’ etc. (Table 13.8; Joki 1973, s.v. das, sata and śurs; Sinor 1988, 710; Honti 1993, 165–156 and 1999, 245; Helimski 2001, 190–193). Within the NP, following attributive numerals are usually in the singular, although plural suffixes also occur (Grammatika 1962, 150). In example (8), numerals specify the size of a group with the help of the egressive case, which marks the smallest amount, and the terminative, which marks the biggest amount of the elements in a group (Suihkonen and Kondrateva 2013b). Numerals can be used to specify numbers and varieties within groups (9). Numeral odig ‘one’ is also used in forming reciprocal pronouns (see Section 8) and stems in forming adverbials formed in combination with the derivational suffix |na- and the person suffixes, as in (mon) og|na-m ‘I alone,’ and (mɨ) kɨk|na-mɨ ‘we two together’ (Grammatika 1962, 159–161). (8)

vitʲ-ɨsʲenʲ five-egr

dasʲ-ozʲ ten-term

studʲent-jos student-pl

knʲiga-os book-pl

lɨdǯ-i-zɨ, read-prt-3pl

tʲamɨs-ez gorod-ɨsʲ vitrina-os-tɨ uč́ kɨl-i-zɨ eight-det town-ela shop-window-pl-acc look-prt-3pl ‘Between five and ten students read books, eight looked at shop windows in the town.’ (9)

kotʲkudiz studʲent odig juan-lɨ ke every student one question-dat ever.ptcl no mɨd-lanʲ valekton sʲot-i-z even.ptcl incorrect-apr answer give-prt-3sg ‘Every student answered at least one question incorrectly.’ (Suihkonen and Kondrateva 2013b)

TABLE 13.8  SELECTED UDMURT CARDINAL NUMERALS (CF. GRAMATIKA 1962, 148–166) 1

odig

5

vitʲ

9

ukmɨs

13

das kuinʲ

17

das sʲizʲɨm

2

kɨk

6

kuatʲ

10

das

14

das nʲɨlʲ

18

dastʲamɨs

3

kuinʲ

7

sʲizʲɨm

11

das odig

15

das vitʲ

19

das ukmɨs

4

nʲɨlʲ

8

tʲamɨs

12

das kɨk

16

das kuatʲ

20

kɨzʲ

13.8 PRONOUNS Personal pronouns distinguish three persons (1–2–3) and two numbers (sg : pl). The first- and second-person plural forms have competing variants in the accusative, dative, and instrumental (Table 13.9).

UDMURT 589 TABLE 13.9  INFLECTION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. Case

1sg

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

nom

mon

ton

so

mi

ti

so-os

acc

mon-e

ton-e

so-e

milʲ-em-ɨz (mɨlʲ-em-dɨ)

tilʲ-ed-ɨz (tilʲ-ed-dɨ)

so-os-ɨz (so-os-tɨ)

gen

mɨn-a-m

tɨn-a-d

so-len

milʲ-a-m

tilʲ-a-d

so-os-len

ela

mɨn-esʲt-ɨm

tɨn-esʲt-ɨd

so-lesʲ

milʲ-esʲt-ɨm

tilʲ-esʲt-ɨd

so-os-lesʲ

dat

mɨn-ɨ-m

tɨn-ɨ-d

so-lɨ

milʲ-em-lɨ (milʲ-em)

tilʲ-ed-lɨ (tilʲ-ed)

so-os-lɨ

car

mon-tek

ton-tek

so-tek

mi-tek

ti-tek

so-os-tek

adve

mon-ja

ton-ja

so-ja

mi-ja

ti-ja

so-os-ja

ins

mon-en (mon-en-ɨm)

ton-en (ton-en-ɨd)

so-in

milʲ-em-ɨn (milʲ-enɨ-mɨ)

tilʲ-ed-ɨn (tilʲ-enɨ-dɨ)

so-os-ɨn

apr

mɨn-lanʲ

ton-lanʲ

so-lanʲ

mi-lanʲ

ti-lanʲ

so-os-lanʲ

Source: Grammatika 1962, 168–169

Reflexive pronouns similarly distinguish person and number. The stem ač́ - takes person suffixes in the singular forms of the nominative, caritive, instrumental, and approximative, for example, (ton) ač́ -id ‘you yourself nom,’ ač́ -im-lanʲ self-1sg-apr ‘toward myself.’ A second stem, as-, is used in the genitive, dative, and instrumental forms, in which the case suffix precedes the person suffix, for example, as-lɨ-z self-dat-3sg ‘to him/herself,’ and also in the accusative, for example, as-m-e self-1sg-acc ‘myself acc,’ as-la-mR punʲɨj-eD self-gen-1sg dog-1sg ‘my own dog’; note also the possessive structure without person suffix on the possessor: asR už-eD own work-1sg ‘my own work’ (Grammatika 1962, 182–184). A third stem variant, asʲ-, combines with the plural person suffixes to form all plural reflexive forms, with somewhat-deviant variants of person and number components, for example, asʲ-me-os self-1pl-pl ‘ourselves nom,’ asʲ-te(-os)-tek self-2pl(-pl)-car ‘without yourselves.’ Reciprocal pronouns are formed with a shortened reduplicative form of the numeral odig ‘one’ combined with person suffixes. The orders of possessive suffixes and case endings follow the rules seen in the possessive inflection of nouns: pl: odig&og-zɨ-lɨ one.one-3pl-dat ‘to each other’ (Grammatika 1962, 170– 172; Vaxrušev 1983). Interrogative pronouns inflect for number and case. Plural person suffixes can be added to the pronoun kud in order to specify inclusive group membership, for example, kud-dɨ who-2pl ‘which of you.’ The regular plural suffixes are used with absolute forms, for example, kin-jos ‘who (pl).’ The plural suffix can be added to the discontinuous pronoun kud-iz ‘which one (of a group)’ to refer to a larger group: kud ‘what, who,’ kud-jos-ɨz (who-pl-det) ‘which one,’ kud-mɨ ‘which one of us’ and, from ma, mar: ‘what,’ ma-iz ‘what (of a group).’ Interrogative pronouns are involved in various semantic groups: kɨče ‘what kind of,’ kənʲa ‘how much,’ ma-lɨ ‘why,’ kɨt-ɨn ‘where,’ kud-dɨr ‘when,’ kɨčɨ-ozʲ ‘how far, how long,’ and kɨzʲɨ ‘how.’ Interrogative pronouns are also used as relative pronouns; on the functions of determinative suffixes, cf. example (2), and expanding the meaning of the participial forms, cf. example (48) (Grammatika 1962, 178–182; Alatyrev 1983, 576–577; Suihkonen 2005, 405–406).

590 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN TABLE 13.10  EXAMPLES OF CASE SUFFIXATION OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS TA, SO, TAIZ, AND SOIZ IN UDMURT sg

pl

nom

ta

so

ta-iz

so-iz

ta-os

so-os

ta-os-ɨz

so-os-ɨz

acc

taj-e

soj-e

ta-z-e

so-z-e

ta-os-ɨz (-tɨ)

so-os-ɨz (-tɨ)

ta-os-s-e

so-os-se

abl

ta-lesʲ

so-lesʲ

ta-iz-lesʲ

so-iz-lesʲ

ta-os-lesʲ

so-os-lesʲ

ta-os-ɨz-lesʲ

so-os-ɨz-lesʲ

gen

ta-len

so-len

ta-iz-len

so-iz-len

ta-os-len

so-os-len

ta-os-ɨz-len

so-os-ɨz-len

dat

ta-lɨ

so-lɨ

ta-iz-lɨ

so-iz-lɨ

ta-os-lɨ

so-os-lɨ

ta-os-ɨz-lɨ

so-os-lɨ

Source: Grammatika 1962, 175–178.

TABLE 13.11  EXAMPLES OF CASE MARKING OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVAL TAʧE ‘THAT KIND OF,’ WITH THE DETERMINATIVE SUFFIXES, IN WITH COMBINATION NOUN LʲENTA ‘BAND’ IN UDMURT sg

pl

nom

tačej-ez lʲenta

tače-os-ɨz lʲenta-os

acc

tačej-z-e lʲentaj-ez

tače-os-s-e lʲenta-os-ɨz (-tɨ)

abl

tačej-ez-leś lʲenta-lesʲ

tače-os-ɨz-lesʲ lʲenta-os-lesʲ

gen

tačej-ez-len lʲenta-len

tače-os-ɨz-len lʲenta-os-len

dat

tačej-ez-lɨ lʲenta-lɨ

tače-os-ɨz-lɨ lʲenta-os-lɨ

Source: Grammatika 1962, 179–180.

Demonstrative pronouns are organized to differentiate between referents that are close to and far from the speaker: ta ‘this (near, visible)’ and so ‘that/it (far, visible or non-visible).’ When these pronouns are combined with the determinative suffix -iz, their meaning is more specific, for example, ta-iz ‘precisely this,’ so-iz ‘precisely that.’ Demonstrative adjectives and adverbs are formed from the same demonstrative pronominal stems with added case suffixes, such as the inessive -ɨn in tatɨn ‘here,’ otɨn ‘there.’ There are also several demonstrative particles: ozʲɨ ‘so, yes,’ tazʲi ‘so, in this way,’ ozʲi no tazʲi, etc. (Table 13.10; Grammatika 1962, 175–178; Alatyrev 1983, 577–578; Suihkonen 2005, 405–406). Demonstrative adjectives are tače ‘this kind of,’ and sɨče ‘that kind of.’ These demonstratives form pairs with the help of determinative suffixes which single out referents from a closed or unspecific set. The pronouns taiz and soiz have the full paradigm of case marking. Pronominal adjectives can be formed from the two pronominal stems: tače ‘this kind (of),’ tačej-ez ‘just this kind (of)’ (Table 13.11). Indefinite pronouns are a heterogeneous group consisting of a great variety of lexical quantifiers. They are differentiated to distinguish distributivity, countability, knownness, humanness, elements in different sizes of groups, and specificity and definiteness. A number of pronouns denoting individuals which are human or non-human are formed from interrogatives with the clitic particle ke (ke ‘when; if’; ‘-ever’ (whoever, etc.): kin ke (kin-ke), with the compound-forming olo ‘by any chance, possibly, maybe; or’ (Csúcs 1990, olo; Таrakanov 1993, s.v. olo) olo+kin, olo+kud ‘someone, somebody,’

UDMURT 591

ma-ke, ma.r-ke and olo+ma, olo+ma.r ‘some, something’; the numeral odig is also used to code indefiniteness. When they are combined with person or determinative suffixes, they are specific and selective (cf. above): kud+ogez, kud-iz-og-ez, kudiz-ke ‘someone (from a group),’ kud-iz&muket-ɨz ‘some others (in a group),’ and many others. The term muket ‘another’ denotes exclusion from the group under discussion, while the terms with determiner suffixes denote inclusion in a group. The totalizer pronouns, denoting anyone or anything, are formed with the compound-forming kotʲ, coped from Russian хоть, as in kotʲ+kin, kotʲ+kud ‘whoever, every,’ kotʲ+ma, kotʲ+ma.r ‘whatever.’ Adjectival forms also exist, for example, kɨče-ke ‘some kind of,’ olo+kɨče ‘some kind of, a sort of,’ kotʲ+kɨče ‘any kind of.’ The universal quantifier vanʲ ‘all’ can refer to both countable and non-countable entities. The scalar quantifiers tros ‘much,’ tros-ges (-ges = cmp) ‘more,’ and əžɨt, əžɨtak ‘a little,’ əžɨt-ges can also denote countable and non-countable quantities. Negative quantifiers are formed from the positive ones with the negative prefix compound-forming elements no, nʲe, and nʲe+no, as in no+kin ‘no one’ (-hum), no+kud-iz ‘nobody (of a group),’ no+mɨr, no+mɨre, no-mɨr-no ‘none, nothing,’ nʲe+no+mɨr ‘none, nothing,’ etc. Special attention must be paid to those with multiple elements, such as kin ke. These are inflected with case suffixes located between the elements or after both of them, for example, abl kin-lesʲ ke / kin-ke-lesʲ ‘from someone,’ abl.pl kin-jos-lesʲ+ke / kin-ke-jos-lesʲ ‘from someone pl’ (Grammatika 1962, 181–182, 184–187; Suihkonen 2005, 405–406, 2013). 13.9 DEIXIS AND ANAPHORA The demonstrative pronouns form the backbone of the deictic system expressed with pronouns, but the definite/demonstrative suffixes -ez, -ɨz also play a central role in Udmurt deixis: they have a determinative function, and they are deictic in their very nature (Alatyrev 1970; Grammatika 1970; Suihkonen 2005). These suffixes substantivize adjectives and even adverbs and categorize them referentially, as in examples (10) and (11). As can be seen in examples (12–13), this substantivization applies also to adverbs and even more complex constructions. (10) Kolhoz-ɨn collective-farm-ine

kotʲkɨče all-kind

už-ez— job-acc

kapč́ i-z-e no, easy-det-acc and

sʲekɨt-s-e no— nɨlkɨšno-os bɨdesjal-o. hard-det-acc and— woman-pl do-prs.3pl ‘The women do all kind of jobs—those which are easy and those which are hard— on the collective farm.’ (Gorbušin 1984, 14; Suihkonen 1990, 123) (11) Mon basʲti-śko vɨl-z-e. I take-prs.1sg new-det-acc ‘I’m taking the new (one).’ (12) [Azpal-an-ez]S eššo umoj lu-o-z. in-front-ine-det still good become-fut-3sg ‘It [life] will be better in the future.’ (Grammatika 1970, 45)

592 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

(13) Kɨt-ɨn ben tɨn-a-d where-ine what-about you-ine-2sg kolhoznʲik-jos-ɨd-len-jos-ɨz (ɨš-jos-ɨz)? people-in-collective-farm-pl-2pl-gen-pl-det (sheep-pl-det) ‘Where are the ones (= sheep) which belong to the people on your collective farm?’ (Grammatika 1970, 50; Suihkonen 2005) The definite/demonstrative suffixes -ez, -ɨz are also used as anaphoric determiners: in (14), the subject, a coordinative construction, is introduced, and in (15) and (16), the subjects, which are coordinated items in example (14), are specified with the determinative suffixes (Grammatika 1970, 44–75; Suihkonen 2005, 407–408; cf. also Wichmann 1954, 36). (14) valʲlʲan odig pijos+murt-ɨn nɨl murt old-days one man-inst girl human-being ‘In the old days, a man and a woman become friends.’ (15) pijos+murt-ɨz man-det

č́ unʲɨ foal

sʲot-ono give-ptcp.nec

urom friend

lui-lʲlʲam. become-perf-3pl

lu-em, have.to-prf.3sg

nɨl+murt-ɨz derem sʲot-ono lu-em. maid-det shirt give-ptcp.nec have.to-prf.3sg ‘The man had to give a foal, and the woman had to give a shirt.’ (16) pijosmurt-ɨz č́ unʲɨ-z-e sʲotɨ-sa vutt-em, man-det foal-3sg-acc give-cnv.pre-tens deliver/complete-prf.3sg, nɨlmurt-ɨz derem-z-e sʲotɨ-tek kul-em. maid-det shirt-3sg-acc give-cnv.car die-prf.3sg ‘The man succeeded in delivering the foal, but the girl died without giving the shirt.’ In example (17), the pronoun kud ‘who, that’ in the inessive-illative form is combined with the suffix -z, which specifies the scope of the relative pronoun (the period of time under discussion is approximated in the previous context). In example (18), the set to which reference is made is recovered through context. The group ‘those who stay in your house’ has not been mentioned before, but the size of this group can be approximated on the basis of the context. In these kinds of cases, the suffix which is used to define the group under discussion is deictic. The suffix ranges over strings of functional elements which, when combined, correspond to relative clauses. (17) Vanʲ all dor-ɨn with-ine

ta that

ar-jos-ɨ, year-pl-1sg

kud-jos-a-z that-pl-ine.ill-deic

mon I

(gurt-ɨn) house-ine

ə-j not-1prt.1sg

val, be

tuž very

zol məzm-i sʲemjaj-e-lesʲ. much miss-1prt.1sg family-1sg-abl ‘All these years (in those years) when I was not at home I missed my family very much.’

UDMURT 593

(18)

Tɨn-a-d sʲemja-ja-d nɨlʲ uža-sʲ-ed. you-gen-2sg family-ine.ill-2sg four work-ptcp.prs-2sg Uža-nɨ lɨkt-em kɨk murt. work-inf come-ptcp.perf two people Mar kar-o kork-a-d-jos-ɨz what do-prs.3pl house-ine-2sg-pl-deic ‘In your family, there are four of you who work. Two people have come to work. What is it that those (who stay) in your house do?’ (Alatyrev 1970, 50)

The definite/demonstrative suffix in example (20) refers to participants introduced in the previous text. (20) [Petɨri-len anaj-ezi]S soj-ei jarat-e. Peter-gen mother-3sg him-acc love-prs.3sg ‘Peter’s mother loves him.’ (SSS 1995) (21) Kotʲkudizi so-lesʲi anaj-zi-e jarat-e. everybody s/he-abl mother-3sg-acc love-prs.3sg ‘Everybody loves his/her (own) mother.’ (SSS, fn. 20) (22) So-lesʲ anaj-z-e kotʲkudiz he/she-abl mother-3sg-acc everybody ‘Everybody loves their mother.’ (SSS 1995)

jarat-e. love-prs.3sg

(23) soi1 murt əč́ e that man that-kind palʲm-em. adǯɨ-mte-zɨi2-lɨ seen-perfI.neg+3pl-dat be.amazed-perfI.3sg ‘That man was amazed at that kind of lack of foresight on their part.’ (cf. Wichmann 1954, 37) In the whole system of marking deictic and anaphoric relationships, it should also be noted that some verbs, such as mɨnɨ- ‘to go, set out, get off,’ also: ‘to walk, travel,’ and lɨktɨ- ‘to come, arrive,’ (cf. for example, Anderson and Keenan 1985, 296), are deictic by their very nature, because they convey information on directionality. 13.10 VERBS In inflected forms, the order of the suffixes is either R(oot) +T(ense)+P(erson) or R(oot)+M(ood/odality)+P(erson). The grammatical moods are indicative, conditional, and imperative/optative (Fuchs 1954, 156). In addition, the indirect evidential (cf. for example, Palmer 2001, 22, 56) has to be considered a mood in Udmurt. The suffix -mjasjkhas a mood-like status; it expresses pretending or the unbelievability of described activities. Indicative is coded with zero, the conditional is formed with the suffix -sal, and the imperative has specific forms for the second-person singular and plural. The imperative

594 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

in the third person is formed with the optative preposed particle med. Evidentiality, which represents an indirect type and denotes various aspects of events not seen but rather only heard of by the speaker, is expressed within the tense paradigm. In addition, the particle pe ‘they say, it is said, according to hearsay’ in example (25) is a means of introducing evidentiality. In older grammars, terms such as historical and narrative have been used to denote evidential mood (Fuchs 1954, 155–156; Grammatika 1962, 208–211; Emeljanov 1927, 155–157; see also for example, Siegel 2004). (25) Ul-o, pe, škola-ɨn no dʲetsad-ɨn. live-prs.3pl it-is-told school-ine and kindergarten-ine ‘They (people in the village) said that they (German soldiers) live in the school and kindergarten.’ (Gorbušin 1984, 14; Suihkonen 1990, 126) 13.10.1 Tense, aspect, and modality Finite verb forms are inflected for tense/modality and subject person, in that order (V-T/ M-P). Three persons, singular and plural, are distinguished. The opposition between continuing and completed activities is expressed chiefly by inflection for tense. A rich system of derivational suffixes encodes various features of the action or event, such as frequentativity or momentariness. The tense categories are also involved in the encoding of evidentiality. The three basic tense categories are present, future, and past (preterit I). The negative forms of these basic tenses are formed with a set of negative verb constructions involving a negative auxiliary which is inflected with subject person suffixes differing somewhat from those used with other verbs. Negative verb forms are also found in periphrastic past-tense forms which are continuative and frequentative pasts with evidential variants and in pluperfect I. In addition to these basic categories, there is a simple perfect (called preterit II in some grammars) and a number of periphrastic tense forms which here are organized on the basis of (a) information on the morphology of the main verb, (b) the form of the auxiliary used in the periphrastic tense forms, and (c) completion vs. non-completion of action. The auxiliaries used in periphrastic tense forms are invariant vanʲ ‘there is, there are, exist’ and its suppletive past-tense forms val (prt) and vɨlem ‘have been.’ The negative forms of periphrastic perfects and pluperfects are formed with the negative auxiliary əvəl or the negative past participle -mte. In periphrastic tense forms, the main verb is in the present, future, or preterit I form, or it takes the participial suffix. The periphrastic past-tense forms are differentiated with respect to continuative and frequentative activities and their relationship with respect to evidentiality. The narrative tense form called perfect I describes completed activities that have taken place in the past and is formed with the past participle forms, and another tense form formed from past participle forms is built with possessive suffixes and the auxiliary vanʲ. In constructions using this tense category, the agent, if any, is in the genitive. The first pluperfect, which may be combined with the agent in the genitive form, denotes processes taking place in the past and is formed from the preterit I tense forms combined with val. In the pluperfect forms (which denote the results of processes), the main verb, which is in a past participle form, takes personal endings. The opposition between non-evidential and evidential categories in periphrastic tense forms is expressed by the opposition of the auxiliaries val and vɨlem. Basic temporal paradigms are presented in Table 13.12, and participle and converb forms are presented in Table 13.13 (Emeljanov 1927, 155–160;

UDMURT 595 TABLE 13.12  EXAMPLES OF UDMURT INFLECTIONAL PARADIGMS OF THE PRESENT, FUTURE, AND PRETERIT I TENSE FORMS: MƗNƗ- ‘TO GO, SET OUT,’ MALPA- ‘TO THINK, MEDITATE’ Present pos

Future neg

Preterite I

pos

neg

pos

neg

1sg

mɨn-isʲko

u-g mɨni-sʲkɨ

mɨn-o

u-g mɨnɨ

mɨn-i

əj mɨnɨ

2sg

mɨn-isʲko-d

u-d mɨni-sʲkɨ

mɨn-o-d

u-d mɨnɨ

mɨn-i-d

əd mɨnɨ

3sg

mɨn-e

u-g mɨn(ɨ)

mɨn-o-z

u-z mɨnɨ

mɨn-i-z

əz mɨnɨ

1pl

mɨn-isʲko-m(ɨ)

u-m mɨni-sʲke

mɨn-o-m(ɨ)

u-m mɨn-e(le)

mɨn-i-mɨ

əm mɨn-e(le)

2pl

mɨn-isʲko-dɨ

u-d mɨni-sʲke

mɨn-o-dɨ

u-d mɨn-e(le)

mɨn-i-dɨ

əd mɨn-e(le)

3pl

mɨn-o

u-g mɨn-o

mɨn-o-zɨ

u-z mɨn-e(le)

mɨn-i-zɨ

əz mɨn-e(le)

pos

neg

pos

neg

pos

neg

1sg

malpa-sʲko

u-g malpa-sʲkɨ

malpa-lo

u-g malpa

malpa-j

əj malpa

2sg

malpa-sʲko-d

u-d malpa-sʲkɨ

malpa-lo-d

u-d malpa

malpa-d

əd malpa

3sg

malpa

u-g malpa

malpa-lo-z

u-z malpa

malpa-z

əz malpa

1pl

malpa-sʲko-m(ɨ)

u-m malpa-sʲke

malpa-lo-m(ɨ)

u-m malpa-le

malpa-mɨ

əm malpa-le

2pl

malpa-sʲko-dɨ

u-d malpa-sʲke

malpa-lo-dɨ

u-d malpa-le

malpa-dɨ

əd malpa-le

3pl

malpa-lo

u-g malpa-lo

malpa-lo-zɨ

u-z malpa-le

malpa-zɨ

əz malpa-le

TABLE 13.13  UDMURT PARTICIPLES AND CONVERBS AND THEIR MAIN FUNCTIONS Participles -(i)-sʲ

Present, uncompleted action, active

-mon

Modal, possible, active or passive; present or future

-(i)sʲ-tem

Present, uncompleted action, active, negative

-(o/a)no

Modal, necessive, active or passive; uncompleted action

-(e/a)m

Perfect, completed action; active and passive

-(o/a)n-tem

Modal, necessive, active or passive, negative; uncompleted action

-(e/a)-mɨn

Perfect, completed action; active and passive

-(e/a)m-te

Perfect, completed action, negative; active and passive

Converbs: -tozʲ

Temporal limiter, specifier of starting or terminative points; ‘instead of’

-sa

Coordinative; modifier of verbs and sentences; aspectual converb

-ku

Co-temporal; modifier of verbs and sentences;

-tek

Negative; modifier of verbs and sentences; aspectual converb

-(e/a)m-en

Perfect; instrumental (case); modifier of verbs and sentences

-(e/a)m-ja

Perfect, adverbial (case); modifier of verbs and sentences

596 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

Fuchs 1954, 150–166; Fokos-Fuchs 1954; Serebrennikov 1960; Grammatik 1962, 196– 208, 255–293; Zaguljaeva 1984; Kelʹmakov and Hännikäinen 2008, 199, 235, 268–270; Suihkonen 1990, 173–187; cf. also Bartens 1979, 174–241, 2000, 208–210; the names of some tense categories are different from those given in other publications). In the simple conditional, the suffix -sal is added to the verb stem, and in the complex conditional, the conditional suffix is added to the auxiliary luɨ- ‘to be; to take place; to become; to happen’ (Table 13.14; Fuchs 1954, 155; Grammatika 1962, 211–213). The imperative second-person singular and plural have dedicated forms. In prohibitives, the second-person negative verb form e-n precedes the connegative form of the verb (Table 13.15). Third-person singular and plural imperative forms are built with the optative particle med, and the negative forms are formed with the optative particles meda-m, meda-d, meda-z ‘let me not . . ., may you/she not . . .’ marked with personal endings (Grammatika 1962, 208–211; see also Emeljanov 1927, 155–160).

TABLE 13.14  SAMPLE FORMS FROM THE UDMURT SIMPLE AND PERIPHRASTIC CONDITIONAL PARADIGMS Conditional

Conditional, periphrastic

pos

neg

Genitive pronoun

1sg

mon mɨnɨ-sal

mon ə-j mɨnɨ-sal

2sg

ton mɨnɨ-sal(-ɨd)

3sg

pos

neg

mɨnam

mɨn-em-e luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-e əj luɨ-sal

ton ə-d mɨnɨ-sal, ton ə-j mɨnɨ-sal(-ɨd)

tɨnad

mɨn-em-ed luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-ed əd luɨ-sal

so mɨnɨ-sal(-ɨz)

so ə-z mɨnɨ-sal, so ə-j mɨnɨ-sal(-ɨz)

solen

mɨn-em-ez luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-ez əz luɨ-sal

1pl

mi mɨnɨ-sal-mɨ

mi ə-j mɨnɨ-sal-mɨ, mi ə-m mɨnɨ-sal(-mɨ)

milʲam

mɨn-em-mɨ luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-mɨ əm luɨ-sal

2pl

ti mɨnɨ-sal-dɨ

ti ə-d mɨnɨ-sal-dɨ, ti ə-j mɨnɨ-sal(-dɨ)

tilʲad

milʲam mɨn-emdɨ luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-dɨ əd luɨ-sal

3pl

soos mɨnɨ-sal-zɨ

soos ə-z mɨnɨ-sal-zɨ, ti ə-j mɨnɨ-sal(-zɨ)

sooslen

mɨn-em-zɨ luɨ-sal

mɨn-em-zɨ əz luɨ-sal

TABLE 13.15  IMPERATIVE/OPTATIVE PARADIGM OF THE UDMURT VERB MƗNƗ‘TO GO’ Imperative 2sg

mɨnɨ

e-n mɨne

3sg

med mɨno-z

med-a-z mɨnɨ

2pl

mɨne-(le)

e-n mɨne (-le)

3pl

med mɨn-o-zɨ

med-a-z mɨne (-le)

UDMURT 597

Furthermore, the particles ojdo, ojdole (Csúcs 1990, s.v. ojdo) davaj (Russ.) and vajele, vaj ‘why (let’s)’ form optative-like expressions: ojdole kɨrǯal-o-me or kɨrǯal-o-m(ɨ) (let singfut-1pl) ‘let us sing (you and I, together)’ (cf. Vaxrušev 1983, ed., s.v. давай and ойдо). Udmurt also has modal verbs, for example, bɨgatɨ- ‘to want, to be able to,’ turttɨ- ‘to want, strive for, intend, try’; ‘to attempt,’ čɨdɨ- ‘to want, to be able to,’ potɨ- ‘to wish, want,’ also ‘to go out, get off; to leave’ and also ‘(descr.) to seem,’ ‘maybe,’ and modal particles, such as lesja ‘probably, obviously,’ and olo ‘by any chance, possibly, maybe.’ Necessive clauses function as subjects of kule- ‘to be necessary, to need, must.’ Modal verbs marked with personal endings take infinitives as their arguments (example (27); Suihkonen 1990, 250). (26) [Mynym mɨnɨ-nɨ]s kule. 1sg.dat go-inf be.necessary.prs.3sg ‘I have to go.’ (27) Mon kapkaj-eti potɨ-nɨ bɨgat-i. I gate-prol go.out-inf be-able-prt1.1sg ‘I was able to go out through the gate.’ (UTC 1994) The neutral position of the verb in the infinitive form is the same as arguments in general, that is, before the finite verb, as in (27). The following examples (28‒31) illustrate the combination of tense, mood, and infinitives in verb phrases. (28) INF—V(AUX)-TENSE-PERSON-NUMBER Ataj-e [u-z lɨktɨ], [visʲɨ-nɨ usʲ-i-z]. father-1sg [not.fut-3sg come.cng.sg] [be-inf fall-prt1-3sg] ‘Father will not come, he was taken sick.’ (Gorbušin 1984, 15; Suihkonen 1990, 167) (29) NEG-PERSON.NUMBER + R-MOOD-PERSON-NUMBER so-os [ə-z pukɨ-sal-zɨ]. they-pl [not.pretI-3pl sit-cond-3pl] ‘They would not sit.’ (30) TENSE-PERSON-NUMBER + AUX-TENSE-NUMBER ton [basʲt-i-d val] you [[take-prt-2sg have.pretI.sg]plu-perf I] ‘you had taken’ (31) MOOD-NUMBER + AUX-TENSE-NUMBER Mon ta knʲigaj-ez [lɨdǯɨ-sal I this book.sg-acc [[read-cond

val], have-prt1.sg]cond-past]

soj-e mɨn-ɨm [sʲoty-sal-dɨ] ke. it-acc I-dat [give-cond-2pl] if ‘I would have read this book, if you had given it to me.’ (Grammatika 1970, 121)

598 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

13.10.2 Diathesis, reflexive and passive In the diathetic system of Udmurt, the active is unmarked. Reflexivity is expressed with the suffixes |sʲk- or |sk-, as in dɨšetɨ- ‘teach’ : dɨšet|skɨ- ‘study, learn,’ disʲal- ‘clothe, dress’ : disʲa|sʲkɨ- ‘get dressed,’ veral- ‘say, tell’ : vera|sʲkɨ- ‘speak, talk.’ Reciprocal verbs like pum|isʲkɨ- become.numb/hard.refl.pass- ‘to meet (each other)’ require two or more subjects. Reciprocity is also expressed with reciprocal pronouns (Grammatika 1962, 224–227; Ušakov 1986). The suffix |sʲk- ~ |sk- is also used as a means of reducing a verb’s valency, as shown in examples (32) and (33) (Grammatika 1962, 227–228; Suihkonen 1990, 172). Any agent, as ‘intellect’ in example (32), is flagged with the instrumental case. (32) Sovetskoj sovet

adʲami-len people-gen

kɨška-sʲtem be.afraid-ptcp.neg

vizʲm-ɨn-ɨz intellect-inst-3sg

ki-os-ɨn-ɨz hand-pl-inst-3sg

no and

nomɨr-lesʲ nothing-abl

lesʲti.sʲk-o build-refl-prs.3pl

vɨlʲ new

gorod-jos, town-pl

domna-os, šaxta-os, elektrostanci-os . . . house-pl mine-pl electricity.plant-pl ‘New towns, houses, mines, electricity plants: they are built with the Soviet peoples’ intellect and fearless hands (work).’ (33) Meža-os gɨr.isʲk-o. field-pl plough-refl.pass-prs.3pl ‘Fields are ploughed.’ In a transitive clause, the NP functioning as object is in the accusative or nominative form, and any adjunct is flagged with an oblique case (34). This arrangement also characterizes ditransitive clauses. When the syntactic roles of the object and the adjunct are changed, the former object is marked with the instrumental case (35). (34) Ivan mešok-jos-ɨ kartofka pon-i-z. Ivan sack-pl-ill potato put-prt1-3sg ‘Ivan put potatoes into the sack.’ (SSS, fn. 20) (35) Ivan mešok-jos-tɨ kartofkaj-en tɨrmɨt-i-z. Ivan sack-pl-acc potato-inst fill-prt1-3sg ‘Ivan filled the sacks with potatoes.’ (SSS, fn. 20) Some of the participles, too, have passive meaning (cf. Table 13.13). The participle -mɨn, when combined with resultative verbs, has passive meaning, as shown in examples (36) and (37). In this structure as well, the agent, if any (example 36), is flagged with the instrumental. The participle in -mte (38) is the negative counterpart to the participle in -mɨn. (36) Ta šukke-mɨn. pi nɨl-en this boy girl-inst hit-ptcp.pass ‘The boy was hit by the girl.’ (SSS 1995)

UDMURT 599

(37) Ivan-lɨ --so sar-ɨsʲ vera-mɨn Ivan.sg.dat --it from-ela tell-ptcp.pass ‘Ivan - - - had been told of it.’ (Grammatika 1970, 206)

val. have.pretI.3sg

(38) sʲures tupatɨ-mte road repair-perfI.neg.1sg ‘The road is not repaired.’ (Grammatika 1962, 268) 13.10.3 Clausal negation Clausal negation is expressed primarily with a dedicated negative verb inflected for mood, tense, person, and number (cf. 39 and Tables 13.12 and 13.14). In nominal clauses, the property specifying the subject (40) and existence or location (41–42), negation is expressed by means of the negative existential particle əvəl. The negative nonfinite forms can syntactically be in the predicate position (43) or they can be in embedded structures (44). (39) Faina ə-z jaratɨ ta Faina not.pretI-3sg love.cng that ‘Faina did not love that dandy.’ (UTC 1994) (40) Nokin sʲulmasʲk-isʲ no no.one be.worried-ptcp.prs too ‘No one is worried.’ (UTC 1994)

kilʲtɨrjasʲk-isʲ act.foppishly-ptcp.prs

əvəl not

(41) Kɨdʲok-ɨn əvəl nʲi far-ine not, any.more ‘It is not far any more.’ (Gorbušin 1984, 16; Suihkonen 1990, 207) əvəl na (42) noš Begloj tat-ɨn but Begloj there-ine not any.more ‘But Begloj is not there any more.’ (UTC 1994) (43) Kɨrǯan dun-ɨn basʲtɨ-mte no, song price-inst buy-ptcp.neg and ‘And song is not bought with money (i.e. cannot be evaluated with money).’ (UTC 1994) (44) Mar ton, Ivani agaj?— val-zi-e ma-lɨ vajem-zi-es what you Ivan uncle horse-3sg-acc why-dat bring.ptcp.perf-3sg-acc vala-tek jua Gerej. understand-cnv.neg ask.prs.3sg Gerej ‘What’s up, Uncle Ivani ?,’ asks Gerej, not understanding why he (Ivan) brought his horse.’ (UTC 1994)

600 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

In optative forms, negation is expressed with a particle (Table 13.15). The neutral position of the negative verb is before the lexical verb (45). The negative phrase may be broken up by particles, for example, nji ‘already’ (UTC 1994), ke ‘when/if’ (UTC 1994), and pe ‘it is told’ (UTC 1994). Negative quantifiers, such as nokin ‘no one, none’ (46) or nomɨr ‘nothing,’ occur with other negative elements denoting negative polarity (Suihkonen 2013, 139–140). (45) Nomɨr-e vala-sʲtem kalɨk tat-ɨn! nothing-acc understand-ptcp.past.neg people there-ine ‘The people there, they are uncomprehending!’ (UTC 1994) (46) mon dor-ɨn nokin u-g ulɨ I home-ine no one not-prs.3sg live.cng ‘No one lives in my home.’ (UTC 1994) 13.11 CONJUNCTIONS Nonfinite verb forms play an important role in forming complex syntactic structures (see Section 13.12). However, Udmurt also has quite a few coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. The following are examples of copulative conjunctions: no ‘and; too, also,’ no . . . no ‘both . . . and,’ nʲe . . . nʲe ‘neither . . . nor,’ jake . . . jake ‘either . . . or,’ and olo . . . olo ‘either . . . or.’ The conjunctions noš ‘but’ and nošik ‘but’ are examples of adversative conjunctions. The conjunctions soin ‘therefore’ and soin ik ‘that is why’ are explanative. Subordinating conjunctions can be simple or complex, for example, temporal ku, kuke ‘when’ (conditional ke ‘if’), causal no . . . soin ‘and therefore,’ malɨ ke šuono ‘because,’ concessive ke no ‘but, if (though),’ kotʲ ‘though,’ explicative/final šuɨsa ‘that, so that,’ and comparative kadʲ ‘like, as if.’ Basic interrogative particles attach to the word which the question concerns: =a, =o. Particles šat ‘question (is it possible)’ and nʲeuzʲto ‘really,’ meda ‘what about; whether’ have indirect interrogative function (Grammatika 1962, 327–332; Šutov 1999). 13.12 ADDITIONAL SYNTACTIC TOPICS 13.12.1 Noun phrases (NPs) In noun phrases, the head can be a noun, pronoun, numeral, or word form which has a substantivized character or which has a possessive or determinative suffix. In the neutral order of NP elements, demonstratives, lexical possessives, quantifiers, and adjectival modifiers precede the head (47‒49). The relative order of quantifiers and possessives with genitive case suffixes is used to express differences in scope. A prenominal adjective may agree in the plural form with the noun it modifies (Grammatika 1970; Suihkonen 1990, App. IV, Tables 13.15 and 13.16; 2005, 416, 2015, 132–133; Wichmann 1901, 88). (47) kɨk badǯɨm two big ‘two big towns’

gorod town

(46) so vitʲ korka-os that five house-pl ‘those five houses’

UDMURT 601

(49) odig tuš danjasʲk-isʲ piosmurt one very proud-ptcp.prs man ‘an extremely proud man’ (SSS, fn. 20) The participial relative clause construction also precedes its head noun (50), while RCs formed with relative pronouns follow the noun they modify (51). (50) əžɨt mɨne-m no nɨl ɨš-em gurt-e vu-em little go-perf.3sg and girl disappear-perfI.3sg village-ill come-perfI.sg ‘(He) came to the village from which the girl had disappeared.’ (cf. Wichmann 1901, 88) (51) piosmurt, kudiz tat-ɨn ul-e, tros uža. man who there live-prs.3sg much work.prs.3sg ‘The man who lives there works a lot.’ (SSS, fn. 20) 13.12.2 Structure of clauses and sentences The grammatical structure of the independent clause consists of a predicate, which in its simplest form is a finite verb indexed for the person and number of the subject and, in most cases, also for tense and aspect/modality. Complex sentences consisting of two or more clauses are combined with conjunctions or by simple juxtaposition. For information about verb phrases, clausal negation, and diathesis, reflexive, and passive, see Section 13.10. For conjunctions, see 13.11. Clause types reflect a combination of the type of the predicate and the number and type of nominal arguments. Subject person is distinguished in the inflectional paradigm (cf. Table 13.12). In intransitive clauses, the neutral constituent order is SV; valency adverbials then precede the predicate. The order of constituents may vary for textual reasons, as in examples (52) and (53) (Suihkonen 1990, 150–161). (52) S + adverbial + V Odig piosmurt komnataj-e pɨr-i-z. one man room-ill come-prt1-3sg ‘A/one man came into the room.’ (SSS, fn. 20) (53) adverbial + V + S Komnataj-e pɨr-i-z odig piosmurt. ‘It was a man who came into the room.’ In possessive constructions, the possessor is expressed with the genitive (54); the genitive flags the owner in possessive (habeo) clauses as well (55‒56). (54) Ta dədʲɨ Ivan Petɨr-len. this sledge Ivan Petyr-gen ‘This sledge is Ivan Petyr’s.’ (Grammatika 1970, 144)

602 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

(55)

Noš Ulʲlʲa kenak-len asl-a-z šugjasʲkon-ez but Ulʲlʲa aunt-gen own-gen-3sg trouble-3sg ‘But aunt Ulʲlʲa had her own trouble.’ (UTC 1994)

vɨl-em. be/have-perfI.3sg

(56) odig murt-len vyl-em kwiń pij-ez one man-gen had three boy-3sg ‘A man had three boys’ (Bartens 2000, 121) Identifying clauses are copula clauses connecting a copula subject with a copula complement (57). The same structure is used in copula clauses with an adjective as the copula complement (59‒60). There is no overt copula in existential locative clauses (58). (57) Mɨnam (58) Stakan-ɨn nʲim-ɨ Ivan. vu. 1sg.gen name-1sg Ivan glas-ine water ‘My name is Ivan.’ (SSS, fn. 20.) ‘There is water in the glass.’ (CSC 2015) (59) Ivan šuldɨr Ivan glad ‘Ivan is glad.’

(60)

Ivan šuldɨr val. Ivan glad be.pretI.3sg ‘Ivan was glad.’ (SSS, fn. 20)

We can contrast various kinds of identifying copula clause. In the present tense in (57) and (61), there is no overt copula. In the past tense in (62), the copula val ‘was’ is used. The addition of the instrumental on the copula complement indicates that Ivan is acting as a president and no overt copula is used (63). In the past tense, a verb is needed (64). (61) Ivan prezʲidʲent. Ivan. president ‘Ivan is president.’

(62)

Ivan val prezʲidʲent. Ivan be.pretI.sg president ’Ivan was president.’ (SSS, fn. 20)

(63) Ivan (64) Ivan prezʲidʲent-ɨn prezʲidʲent-ɨn. uža-z. Ivan president-inst Ivan president-inst work-prt1-3sg ‘Ivan is (functions as) president.’ ‘Ivan acted as president.’ (SSS, fn. 20) Meteorological copula clauses and states are typically modified with various adverbs, usually temporal, which specify the situation; there is no dummy subject (65‒66) (Grammatika 1970, 199). (65) Tolon lumbɨt lɨmɨ-ja-z. yesterday all.day.long snow-prt1-3sg ‘Yesterday, it was snowing all day long.’

(66) ǯjard-e inʲi. dawn-pres.3sg already ‘it is dawning already.’

The verbs vuɨ- ‘to come’ (67), luɨ- ‘to be, take place, become; to happen’ (68) and kɨldɨ- ‘to form, be formed, appear, come into, arise; happen’ (69) can be used in copula clauses (Suihkonen et al. 1995, s.v. kyldyny (kɨldɨnɨ)). Changes in properties of predicates

UDMURT 603

can also be expressed with verbal derivation: an Udmurt example of such a derivational suffix is |m- (70); (pretII = continuative past tense). (67)

(68) Vu-i-z tol. come-prt1-3sg winter ‘It became winter.’

Meža sʲuleg lu-i-z. edge.of.ditch narrow become-prt1-3sg ‘The edge of the ditch became narrow.’ (cf. Wichmann 1901, 143)

(69) Vɨlʲ juan kyld-i-z. new question appear-prt-3sg ‘There appeared a new problem.’ (SSS, fn. 20)

(70) Sʲulem-ɨ heart-1sg

ik pinal.mɨ-nɨ too young.V-inf

[turtt-e val]. [want-prs.3sg be.pretI.3sg]pretII ‘My heart wanted to become younger.’ (UTC 1994)

The neutral constituent order of transitive clauses is aov (71‒72), but avo or xvo is also common (73‒74). In neutral order, valency adverbials precede the direct object, as in example (75). The order of constituents may vary for pragmatic reasons, and textual factors may lead to verb-initial (76) and object-initial (77) clauses (Suihkonen 1990, 149–161). (71)

aov Kuzmo pustem kuara-os omir-ez sezjalt-i-zi strong explosion sound-pl air-acc cut-prt1-3pl ‘The strong sounds of explosion cut the air.’ Gorbušin 1984, 14; Suihkonen 1990, 223)

(72) Mon vu ju-isʲko. I water drink-prs.1sg ‘I drink water.’ (73) avo So u-g todɨ žadʲon-ez. s/he neg-prs.3sg feel-cng tiredness-acc ‘He/she does not feel tiredness.’ (Alatyrev 1970, 61) (74) xvo uj-ɨn ǯič́ ɨ wat-em kureg-z-e night-ine fox hid-prf.3sg hen-3sg-acc ‘the fox had hidden its hen at night’ (Wichmann 1954, 17; Suihkonen 1990, 104) (75) vao Pəja-d ton mon-e! deceive-prt1.2sg you me-acc ‘You deceived me!’ (cf. Wichmann 1901, 132)

604 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

(76) VOA sʲud-em, sʲekta-m so-os-tɨ vumurt. feed-perfI.3sg, water-perfI.3sg they-pl-acc water.fairy ‘The water fairy fed and watered them.’ (cf. Wichmann 1954, 8) (77) OAV So-os-tɨ kurekton sogɨl-i-z s/he/it-pl-acc sorrow bury-prt1-sg3 ‘Sorrow won them,’ (UTC 1994) 13.12.3 Complement clauses Complement clauses occur as the objects of verbs such as šuɨ- ‘say,’ kosɨ- ‘order,’ korɨ‘ask,’ todɨ- ‘know,’ and with the subjects of modal verbs, such as kul-e ‘it is necessary,’ and in constructions involving potɨ- ‘to want, to wish,’ turttɨ- ‘to want, to intend to,’ and leźɨ- ‘to allow, to let’ (cf. 13.10.1). Complement clauses are often expressed with verbal nominal forms. In example (78), the complement clause contains the necessive participle -ono, while in example (79), the complement clause contains the suffix -(e)m, which is a past participle. Nonfinite verb forms as complements create syntactic embeddings and raisings. (78) čukazʲe čukna pus basʲtɨ-nɨ mɨn-ono. tomorrow morning marking buy/take-inf go-ptcp.nec ‘Tomorrow morning it is necessary to go to take the marking.’ (UTC 1994) (79) So-in ik mi memij-en-ɨd pop-lesʲ vera-m-z-e s/he/it-ine just we mother-inst-2sg priest-abl say-ptcp.past-3sg-acc kɨl-em ik u-m karisʲke. hear-perfI.3sg just not.prs-1sg do-cng ‘That is just why we with your mother do not pretend to have heard the words of the priest. (UTC 1994) Although verbal nominal forms are most common in forming clause-type complements in Udmurt, Udmurt also has a few conjunctions: for example, the conjunction šuɨsa ‘that’ (gerund of šuɨ- ‘to say’) introduces complement clauses and is placed at the end of the complement clause (80) (on conjunctions in Udmurt, see Grammatika 1962, 323–331). (80) uj pejmɨt nʲi šuɨsa, e-n kɨškale night dark already that not-imp.2sg become.shocked.cng ‘do not be shocked that the night is dark already’ (Vaxrušev 1983, ed., s.v. шуысa ‘that’) 13.12.4 Clause and sentence modifiers The placement of clause and sentence modifiers varies. They can appear at the beginning (89) or at the end of sentences or between the constituents (90). The same applies to the

UDMURT 605

placement of adverbials. Temporal adverbials (ta arjan ‘this year,’ tolon ‘yesterday’) are usually sentence-initial (89), whereas the neutral position of valency adverbials is before predicate or object NP (90). (89) zdrug soku kinke lɨkt-i-z so dor-ɨ suddenly then someone come-prt1-3sg he to-ill ‘then somebody came suddenly to him’ cf. Wichmann 1901, 137) (90) Mon tɨn-ɨ-d ske uksʲo sʲot-o! I you-dat-2sg in.that.case money give-prs.1sg ‘In that case I'll give you money!’ (cf. Wichmann 1901, 52) Manner adverbials, such as ǯ́ ot-ǯ́ ot ‘quickly,’ usually occur before the predicate phrase (92). Epistemic adverbials, such as olo ‘possibly, maybe, perhaps,’ are found at the beginning of clauses (93). Neutral position of evaluative and illocutionary adverbials (e.g. zem ‘really’) are before the verb phrase. (92) Varuš gine azʲpal-a-zɨ ǯ́ ot-ǯ́ ot vamɨšja-nɨ vɨr-e, Varuš just forward-ill-3pl quickly stride-inf attempt-prs.3sg ‘Varuš just tries to stride quickly forward,’ (Gorbušin 1984, 16; Suihkonen 1990, 213) (93) Mɨn, nɨl-ɨ, olo ot-ɨsʲ go.imp.2sg girl-1sg perhaps there-ela Noš mi asʲmem-ɨz but we ourselves-acc

šudbur šedt-o-d. luck find-fut-2sg

kɨzʲɨ no ozʲɨ how and so

sʲudɨ-nɨ bɨ-gat-o-m, šu-i-z so-lɨ ataj-ez. feed-inf be.able-fut-1pl say-prt-3sg he/she-dat father-3sg ‘Go, my girl, perharps you will find happiness there. But we will be able to feed ourselves with great difficulty,—her father said to her.’ (Grammatika 1962, 183) 13.13 PRAGMATICS In commands (94–96), the neutral order of constituents in positive imperative sentences is VX (X = any of the nonverbal elements of the clause). In negative imperative sentences, the negative verb is normally placed before the main verb (97‒98). (94) Puksʲ(-ɨ)! sit-imp.2sg ‘Sit down!’

(95) Puksʲ-e(le)! sit-imp.2pl ‘Sit down!’

(96) Košk-ɨ tat-ɨsʲ! (97) E-n turnale tat-ɨn. leave-imp.2sg here-ela not-imp.neg.2pl cut.hay here-ine ‘Leave from here!’ ‘Do not cut grass here!’ (Grammatika 1970, 31)

606 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

(98) Ber-e e-n kɨlʲ vazʲisʲk-i-z Varuš. behind-ill not-imp.2sg stay cry-prt1-3sg Varuš ‘Do not stay behind—cried Varuš.’ (Gorbušin 1984; Suihkonen 1990, 154) In interrogative sentences, the word which is the focus of the question is marked with the particles -a or -o (99‒102). Questions can also be expressed with sentence intonation: the word questioned takes a higher pitch. The word order of interrogative clauses can be neutral or inverse. In verbal questions, the questioned element is the finite verb combined with a question particle, but any constituent can be questioned. This means that there is no need for any special word order in questions. (99)

todmal-o-d-a? samoɨ pokč́ i-z-e most small-det-acc recognize-fut-2sg-q ‘Will you recognize the smallest?’ (cf. Wichmann 1901, 122)

(100)

samoɨ-a pokč́ i-z-e todmal-o-d? most-q small-det-acc recognize-fut-2sg ‘Will you recognize the very smallest?’

(101)

samoɨ pokč́ i-z-e-a todmal-o-d? most small-det-acc-q recognize-fut-2sg ‘Will you recognize THE very SMALLEST?’

(102)

Kin-o ton-e dɨšet-i-z kombajn-ez remontʲirovatʲ karɨ-nɨ? who-q you-acc teach-prt-3sg farm.machinery-acc repairing do-inf ‘Who taught you how to repair farm machinery?’ (SSS, fn. 20.)

In indirect questions, the interrogative particle is attached to the word which is the topic of the question. The position of the interrogative pronoun may vary, and an interrogative particle can also be used in interrogative sentences which include a question word, as in example (102). The neutral position of the question word is at the beginning (103‒104), but other positions also occur, depending on focus (105–108). (103) Kin kɨtʨ-ɨ vetl-i-z? who where-ill go-prt1-3sg? ‘Who went where?’ (SSS, fn. 20) (105) Ton vera-d ma? you say-prt.2sg what ‘You said what?’ (SSS, fn. 20) (107)

(104) Kin maj-e basʲt-i-z? who what-acc buy-prt1-3sg ‘Who bought what?’ (SSS, fn. 20) (106) Ivan lykt-i-z ku? Ivan go-prt1-3sg when ‘Ivan came when?’ (SSS, fn. 20)

(108) Ač́ i-d kɨč-ɨ vetl-i-d? yourself-2sg where-ill go-prt-2sg ‘Where did you yourself go?’ (Grammatika 1970, 51)

Tat-ɨn mar ǯeč́ -ez? here-ine what good-det ‘What is good here?’ (Grammatika 1970, 109)

UDMURT 607

13.14 TEXT The text example is from the fairy tale Amalo ǯič́ ɨ ‘Witty fox’ [Udmurt kalɨk skazkaos ‘Fairytales of Udmurt people’ (UTC, Bagaj and Perevoščikov 1940)]. Odig murt-len nokin-ez vɨlɨ-mte. one man-gen no.one-det exist-perfI.neg ‘It is told that a man didn’t have anyone (lived alone).’ ulon košk-em so as-l-ɨz Utč́ a-nɨ seek-inf leave-perfI.3sg he self-dat-3sg dwelling/living ‘(It is told that) he went to seek for himself a place to live.’

intɨ. place

injasjk-em. Badǯɨm njulesk-ɨ big forest-ill settle.down-perfI.3sg ‘(It is told that) he settled down in a big forest.’ lijal-jos vɨl-em ot-ɨn. Zök-esj thick-pl stump-pl exist-perfI.3sg that-ine ‘(It is told that) there were thick stumps there (in the forest).’ Ogna-z porɨ-nɨ kužɨm-ez u-g alone-3sg root.out-inf strength-3sg not-prs.3sg ‘He has not strength to root it out alone, it is told.’

tɨrmɨ, pe. be.enough it.is.told

Eš utč́ a-nɨ košk-em. friend seek-inf leave-perfI.3sg ‘(It is told that) he went to seek a friend.’ ta malpasjkɨ-sa. Mɨn-e, pe, inji go-prs.3sg it.is.told already this think-cnv ‘He goes, it is told, he already thinking of this.’ Pumit-a-z against-ine/ill-3sg

gondɨr lɨkt-e.– bear come-prs.3sg

Gondɨr urom, vaj bear friend why (let’s)

valč́ e ul-o-m, šu-em ta murt. asj-me-os self-1pl-pl together live-fut-1pl say-perfI.3sg this man ‘A bear comes up to him. Friend bear! Let us live together, said this man (it is told).’ Gondɨr so šor-ɨ oskɨ-tek bear that direction-ill believe-cnv.car ‘The bear looked unbelieving at him (it is told).’

uč́ k-em. look-perfI.3sg

ozjɨ no . . . Kɨzʲɨ ben asj-me-os valč́ e ul-o-m? Ozjɨ-ez, that.way-det that.way but how but self-1pl-pl together live-fut-1pl ‘Just in that way, that way, but . . . But how shall we live together?’

608 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

Lijal porɨl-o-m. stump root.out-fut-1pl ‘We shall root out stump(s).’ Tolalte-lɨ tɨn-ɨ-d no šunɨt korka lesjt-o-m. winter-dat you-dat-2sg also warm house make-fut-1pl ‘We’ll make for you also a warm house for the winter.’ no dasj-ano So ponna tɨn-ɨ-d tros-ges silj that because.of you-dat-2sg much-cmp meat too prepare/arrange-ptcp. lu-o-z

na,

valekt-e,

pe,

vorgoron.—

be-fut-3sg

still

explain-prs.3sg

it.is.told

man

‘It is told that the man explained that for that reason also still more meat has to be arranged for you.’ Jara-m,

isjke.

Ul-o

nji,

pe,

ta-os

valč́ e.

be.suitable-perfI.3sg

thus

live-prs.3pl

already

it.is.told

this-pl

together

‘Thus it is suitable (for me). It is told that those already live together.’ Nunal-lɨ

bɨde

lijal

por-o,

sajk-o.

day-dat

but/still

stub

root.out- prs.3pl

grub.up-prs.3pl

‘They root out stumps every day, and grub (them) up.’ Žadj-em

ber-a-zɨ

č́ eskɨt

sjisjk-o.

become.tired- perfI.3sg

after-ine/ill-3pl

tasty

eat-prs.3pl

‘After they have become tired, they eat well (tasty (meat)).’ Sobere

gondɨr

ɨž-jos-ɨz,

skal-jos-ɨz

utč́ a-nɨ

vetl-e.

after.that

bear

sheep-pl-det

cow-pl-det

seek-inf

go-prs.3sg

‘After that the bear goes to seek sheep and cows.’ Vorgoron

ač́ -iz

sjiljo

null-e.

man

self-3sg

brushwood

carry-prs.3sg

‘The man himself carries brushwood.’ Tazʲɨ

ogpol skal utč́ a-sa

this.way once

vetlonj-a-z

gondɨr kion-en

cow seek-cnv going-ine.3sg bear

pumisjk-em.

wolf-inst meet-perfI.3sg

‘Once, when going and seeking a cow in this way, the bear met a wolf.’

UDMURT 609

Vosjtet

kion,

gon-jos-ɨz

peštɨrsk-emɨn.

thin/lean

wolf

hair-pl-3pl

fluff.up-ptcp.pass

‘The wolf is lean, and its fur has fluffed up.’ Kion

urom,

vaj

asj-me-os

wolf

friend why (let’s) self-3pl-pl together

valč́ e

uža-lo-m. work-fut-3pl

‘Wolf friend, let us work together.’ Ton mɨn-ɨ-m

ɨž

kutɨlɨ-nɨ

jurtt-o-d,

—šu-em

gondɨr urom.

you I-dat-1sg sheep catch-inf help-fut-2sg say-perfI.3sg bear

friend

‘You will help me to catch sheep, said the bear friend.’ —Ač́ -id

noš

kin-en

uža-sjko-d?

—jua-m

kion.

self-2sg

still/but

who-inst

work-prs-2sg

ask-perfI.3sg

wolf

‘You yourself, with whom do you work, the wolf asked.’ —Adʲami

urom-en

lijal

porɨl-isjko-m,

šɨd

no

sil'

no

man

friend-inst

stump

root.out-fut-1pl

soup

and

meat

and

valč́ e

pözjtɨl-isjko-m.

together

boil-prs-1pl

‘We will root out stumps with the man friend, (and) together we will boil soup and meat.’ NOTES 1 The examples from the Udmurt grammars are transliterated in modified IPA. The original transliteration of the examples from the literature in the Udmurt text corpus was adjusted to the 7-bit ASCII-code (American Standard Code for Information Interchange; http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/uhlcs/), and only a minimal amount of oppositions of characters were left in transliteration of affricates. The textbook edited by Suihkonen and Zagulyayeva (1995b) contains a collection of examples from the Udmurt text corpus written with the Cyrillic characters and in the transliterated form. In this chapter, also, the examples from that text corpus are adjusted to the IPA system. In the examples from other sources, the original sources are retained. 2 The affricates written in Section 3 with the IPA characters are replaced in the remainder of this chapter with the characters , and the single consonants written with the IPA characters in Section 3 are replaced with the characters . 3 The approximant could also be interpreted as part of the ending, for example, intɨ-jez ‘place-acc’ (Bartens 2000, 79–80).

610 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alatyrev, V. I. 1970. = Алатырев, В.И. Выделитльно-указательная категория в удмутском языке. Ижевск: Удмуртский научно-исследовательский институт истории, экономики, литераттуры и языка при Совет Минитров Удмуртской АССР. Alatyrev, V. I. 1983. = Алатырев, В.И. “Краткий грамматический очрек удмуртского языка.” In Удмурт-ӟуч словарь, edited by В. М. Вахрушев, 563–591. Москва: Русский язык. Alvre, Paul, and Bibinur Zaguljajeva, eds. 1985. Udmurdi ja eesti keele kõrvutavaid tekste ning väljendeid (koos harjutusülesannetega). Õppemetoodiline vahend soome-ugri filoogia üliõpilastele. Tartu: Tartu riiklik ülikool, Soome-ugri keelte kateeder. Anderson, Stephen R., and Edward L. Keenan. 1985. “Deixis.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description III. Grammatical Categories and Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bagaj, Ark, and M. A. Perevoščikov, eds. 1940. = Багай, Ark. and M. A. Перевощиков Udmurt kalɨk skazkaos. Iževsk: Udmurtgośizdat. Bartens, Raija. 1979. Mordvan, tšeremissin ja votjakin konjugaation infiniittisten muotojen syntaksi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. CSC 2015 = “Quantifiers and Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga–Kama Region (UHLCS).” In On the Typology of Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga–Kama Region, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Valery Solovyev, 227–230. München: Lincom Europa. www.kielipankki.fi/language-bank/. Csúcs, Sándor. 1988. “Die wotjakische Sprache.” In The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 131–146. Leiden: Brill. Csúcs, Sándor. 1990. Die tatarischen Lehnwörter des Wotjakischen. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó. Csúcs, Sándor. 1998. “Udmurt.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 276–304. London: Routledge. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol 2. Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emeljanov, A. I. 1927. = Емельянов, А. И. Грамматика вотяцкого языка. Ленинград: Издание ленинградского восточного института имени А.С. Енукизе. Fokos-Fuchs, D. R. 1954. Die Verbal-adverbien der permischen Sprachen. Budapest: Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Fuchs, D. R. 1954. “Grammatikalischer Abriss.” In Wotjakische Chrestomathie mit Glossar, edited by Yrjö Wichmann, 135–166. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Gorbušin, M. 1984. = Горбуши, М. “Чидан.” Молот 6: 13–21. Grammatika 1962 = Перевощиков, П. Н. (Chief editor), В. М. Вахрушев, В. И. Алатырев, А. А. Поздеева, and И. В. Тараканов (Board of editors). 1962. Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Фонетика и морфология. Ижевск: Удмуртское книжное издательство. Grammatika 1970 = Алатырев, В. И. (Chief editor), В. М. Вахрушев, В.Н. Захаров, and Л. И. Калинина (Board of editors). 1970. Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Синтаксис простого редложения. Ижевск: Удмуртский

UDMURT 611

научно-исследовательский йнститут истории, экономики, литерауры и языка при Совет Минитров Удмуртской АССР, Удмуртия. Grammatika 1974 = Вахрушев, В. М., В. Н. Захаров, and Л. И. Калинина, eds. 1974. Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Синтаксис сложного nредложения. Ижевск: Удмуртия. Helimski, Eugene. 2001. “Early Indo-Uralic Linguistic Relationships: Real Kinship and Imagined Contacts.” In Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, edited by Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petri Koskikallio, 187–205. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Honti, László. 1993. Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó. Honti, László. 1999. “The Numeral System of the Uralic Languages.” In Numeral Types and Changes Worldwide, edited by Jadranka Gvozdanović, 243–252. Berlin: Mouton de Grueter. Joki, Aulis J. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen. Die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Karakulova, M. K., and B. I. Karakulov. 2000. Сопоставительня грамматика русского и удмуртского яазыков. Глазов: Министерство обрaзования российской федерации, глазовский государственный педагогический институт им. В. Г. Короленко. Kelʹmakov, Valentin. 2000. Удмуртский язык: в типологическом и контактологи ческом аспекте. Преприпт. Ижевск: Удмуртский Государственный Университет. Kelʹmakov, Valentin, and Sara Hännikäinen. 2008. Udmurtin kielioppia ja harjoituksia. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kelʹmakov, Valentin, and Sirkka Saarinen. 1994. Udmurtin murteet. Turku: University of Turku. Kinder, Hermann, and Werner Hilgemann. 2000. dtv-Atlas Weltgeschichte. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Korhonen, Mikko. 1977. Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten taivutusoppia, Luentomonisteet. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finno-Ugric linguistics. Korhonen, Mikko. 1987. “Vorwort.” In Wotjakischer Wortschatz, edited by Yrjö Wichmann, T. E. Uotila, and Mikko Korhonen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Korhonen, Mikko. (1969) 1996. “Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Technik im Lappischen.” In Typological and Historical Studies of Language by Mikko Korhonen. A memorial volume published on the 60th Anniversary of his birth, edited by Tapani Salminen, 195–206. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Korhonen, Mikko. (1981) 1996. “Typological Drift in the Finno-Ugrian Languages with Special Reference to the Case System.” In Typological and Historical Studies of Language by Mikko Korhonen, A memorial volume published on the 60th Anniversary of his birth, edited by Tapani Salminen, 195–206. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Serebrennikov, B. A. 1960. Категории времени и вида в финно-угорских языках пермскоий и волжкой групп. Москва: Издательство Акдемии Наук СССР. Siegel, Florian. 2004. “The 2nd past in the Permic languages. Form, function and comparative analysis from a typological perspective.” MA diss., University of Tartu. http:// dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/1265/Siegl.pdf;sequence=5. Accessed 15 May 2021.

612 PIRKKO SUIHKONEN

Sinor, Denis. 1988. “The Problem of the Ural-Altaic Relationship.” In The Uralic Languages, Description, History and Foreign Influences, edited by Denis Sinor, 706–741. Leiden: Brill. SSS = Suihkonen, Pirkko, and Alexandr Šutov. 1995. Answers to the Language Typological Questionnaire on Constituent Order Organized by Anna Siewierska within the Framework of the Project of Typology of Languages in Europe (EUROTYP). In Anna Siewierska, ed. 1997. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, edited by Anna Siewierska. Berlin: Mouton de Gryeter. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 1990. Korpustutkimus kielitypologiassa sovellettuna udmurttiin. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 1991. “Udmurtit eli votjakit.” In Uralilaiset kansat, Tietoa suomen sukukielistä ja niiden puhujista, edited by Johanna Laakso, 202–235. Porvoo: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 1997. “Venäläiset lainat udmurtin kaunokirjallisissa teksteissä innovaatiotutkimuksen valossa.” In V.I. Lytkinin satavuotismuisto, edited by Johanna Laakso, 103–126. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 2005. “On the Categories and Functions Developed from the Possessive and Deictic Suffixes in Udmurt.” In Lihkkun lehkos! Beiträge zur Finnougristik aus Anlaß des sechzigsten Geburtstages von Hans-Hermann Bartens, edited by Cornelius Hasselblatt, Eino Koponen, and Anna Widmer, 401–431. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 2012. “On Aspect, Aspectual Domain and Quantification in Finnish and Udmurt.” In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Crosslinguistic Typology, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie, and Valery Solovyev, 325– 354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 2013. “On Quantification in Udmurt.” In On the Typology of Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga–Kama Region, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Valery Solovyev, 120–143. München: Lincom Europa. Suihkonen, Pirkko. 2015. Areal Distribution and Typological Diversity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Vol. I: Areal Distribution of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Muenchen: Lincom GmbH. Suihkonen, Pirkko, and Natalja Kondrateva. 2013a. “The Udmurt Vowels and The Udmurt Consonants.” In. On the Typology of Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga–Kama Region, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Valery Solovyev, 204–205. München: Lincom Europa. Suihkonen, Pirkko, and Natalja Kondrateva. 2013b. “Lexical Quantifiers in Udmurt.” In On the Typology of Quantification in Finnish and Languages Spoken in the Central Volga–Kama Region, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Valery Solovyev, 227–230. München: Lincom Europa. Suihkonen, Pirkko, and Bibinur Zagulyayeva, eds. 1995a. “A Basic Grammar of Udmurt.” In Udmurt–English–Finnish Dictionary with a Basic Grammar of Udmurt, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen, Bibinur Zagulyayeva, and Galina Tronina. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Suihkonen, Pirkko, and Bibinur Zagulyayeva, eds. 1995b. Udmurt Texts. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Suihkonen, Pirkko, Bibinur Zagulyayeva, and Galina Tronina, eds. 1995. Udmurt–English– Finnish Dictionary with a Basic Grammar of Udmurt. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.

UDMURT 613

Šutov, A. F. 1999. Гипотаксис в удмуртском языке. Ижевск: Издательский дом Удмуртский университет. Tarakanov, I. V. 1993. Удмуртско-тюркские языковые взаимосвязи. Теория и словарь. Ижевск: Издательство Удмуртского Государственного Университетa. Toulouze, Eva. 2016. “La durabilité de l'oudmourte en république d'Oudmourtie et dans la diaspora oudmourte: une réflexion comparative.” Anthropologica 59 (1): 60‒73. Tsypanov, Jolgin (Jevgeni). 2009. “Permiläisten kielten nykytila.” Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 258: 207–224. www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_tsypanov_fi.pdf. Ušakov, G. A. 1986. “К вопросу о залоговых значениях глаголов.” In Вопросы фонетики и грамматики удмуртского языка, edited by В. М. Вахрушев and В. К. Кельмаков, 112–116. Устинов: Научно-исследователский институт при Совете Министов удмуртской АССР. UTC 1994 = Udmurt Text Corpus. Electronic Text Corpus Consisting of Examples from Udmurt Literature. Helsinki 1994. Compiled and edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Bibinur Zaguljaeva. UHLCS www.csc.fi/english/research/software/mrc-uhlcs. Vaxrušev, V. M., ed. 1983. Удмурт-ӟуч словарь. Москва: Русский яазык. Voroncov, P. I. 1999. Вокализм Удмурских диалектов (в эхпериментальном освещении). Ижевск: Удмуртский Госудаственый Университет. Wichmann, Yrjö, ed. 1901. Wotjakische Sprachproben II: Sprichwörter, Rätsel, Märchen, Sagen und Erzählungen. Helsinki: Suomalais Ugrilainen Seura. Wichmann, Yrjö, ed. 1954. Wotjakische Chrestomathie mit Glossar. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Wichmann, Yrjö, T. E. Uotila, and Mikko Korhonen. 1987. Wotjakischer Wortschatz. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Zaguljaeva, B. Š. 1984. “Сложние формы давнопрошедшево времени в некоторых удмуртских длектах.” In Вопросы грамматки удмуртского языка. Сборнк статей, editor by В. М. Вахрушев, 45–59. Ижевск: Устинов: Научно-исследователский институт при Совете Министов удмуртской АССР.

CHAPTER 14

ZYRIAN KOMI Rogier Blokland

14.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW The phonology of Komi is characterized by the presence of two central non-low vowels and a relatively large consonant inventory, with an abundance of post-alveolar and palatal fricatives and affricates; the most common syllable structure is CV and CVC. Komi is a highly agglutinative language with straightforward segmentation, with only little cumulative exponence, and has nominative-accusative morphosyntactic alignment. Nouns inflect for 17 cases, two number values, and optionally for possession. Komi has differential object marking: an object can be in the (zero-marked) nominative or the accusative. Derivation is nearly always suffixal; prefixes occur only in negative pronouns and adverbs. The basic tenses for verbs are the present, preterite, and perfect; a morphological future exists only in the third person. There are also three compound tenses. The basic moods are the indicative and the imperative. Evidentiality is expressed through semantic extension of a number of (past) tenses or through an evidential particle. The unmarked constituent order is SOV; however, SVO is also common. Komi is characterized by the absence of features known from many Uralic languages, such as contrastive vowel length, vowel harmony, initial consonant clusters, consonant gradation, the near absence of paradigmatic stem alternations or allomorphic variation, and indexing of object arguments. 14.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION 14.2.1 Linguistic genealogy and glottonym Komi, which comprises one branch of the Permic node in Uralic, is a macrolanguage with two main varieties, Zyrian Komi (Zyrian Komi: коми кыв; IPA: /komi kɨv/; ISO 639-3: kpv; Glottolog: komi1267) and Permyak Komi (Permyak Komi: (перем) коми кыв; IPA: /(perem) komi kɨv/; ISO 639-3: koi; Glottolog: komi1269); the two are very closely related. In addition, a third variety of Komi, called Yazva Komi (Yazva Komi: ёдч коми көл; IPA: /jot͡ʃ komi kʌl/), which is often considered a dialect of Permyak Komi, is sometimes accorded language status due to its prolonged non-contiguity with other varieties of Permyak Komi and its deviant vowel system and prosody. There are two written standards, one for Zyrian Komi and one for Permyak Komi; since the 2000s, there have been very occasional publications in Yazva Komi in its own orthography. The only close relative of the Komi varieties is Udmurt, which forms the other branch of the Permic node. ‘Komi’ is used as an ethnonym and, with кыв /kɨv/ ‘language,’ as a glottonym by speakers of all varieties of Komi without further specification, but in the literature, it is also often used for Zyrian Komi only, where ‘Permyak’ is then used to pertain specifically DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-14

ZYRIAN KOMI 615

to Permyak Komi; the linguistic information in the present chapter refers to Zyrian Komi only. Examples are taken from the electronic corpus of Komi (komicorpora.ru; as ‘author; KKJa’), linguistic literature, and from personal knowledge; some have been slightly adapted. 14.2.2 Demography and geography According to the 2010 Russian census, there were 228,235 ethnic Zyrian Komi, of which 156,099 were speakers of Zyrian Komi; most Komi live in the Komi Republic (capital: Syktyvkar; total area: 415,900 km2) in the north-east of European Russia, where they make up 22% of the population (see Figure 14.1). The Komi Republic is heavily forested, and the majority of Komi live in villages and towns along the rivers criss-crossing the republic, most of which eventually flow into the Arctic Ocean; urban areas tend to have low populations of Komi speakers. In addition, approximately 20,000 Komi live outside of the Komi Republic, mostly in neighbouring or nearby regions, such as the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Murmansk Oblast, and the Khanty-Mansijsk Autonomous Okrug. Especially outside the Komi Republic, in areas with Komi populations, there are also a number of ethnic Nenets who speak Zyrian Komi as their first language.

FIGURE 14.1 MAP OF THE MAIN KOMI-SPEAKING AREA. Source: Timo Rantanen; based on the maps in Lytkin 1962; Lytkin et al. 1976; Fedjunëva 1998.

616 ROGIER BLOKLAND

Permyak Komi is spoken mainly in the Komi-Permyak Okrug in the north-west of Perm Krai south of the Komi Republic, where they make up about 60% of the population; according to the 2010 census, there were 94,456 Permyak Komi, of whom 63,106 spoke the language. Yazva Komi is spoken in a number of villages in the north-east of Perm Krai by fewer than 2,000 people; exact figures are unavailable because they are subsumed under ‘Permyak’ in the census or self-identify as Russians. In the Komi Republic, Komi is the official titular minority language, and in schools there is teaching in Komi in the lower grades; in the higher grades, Komi is usually taught as a foreign language. There are no Komi-language kindergartens or schools in the capital, Syktyvkar. Publication in Komi is modest: there are a number of (non-daily) newspapers and magazines in Komi, including a weekly newspaper and a monthly children’s magazine, but none of these have print runs higher than 2,000; in 2015, a total of 31 books in Komi were published, with a combined print run of under 18,000. There is daily Komi-language programming on the radio and on television, but there are no purely Komi-language radio or television channels. Some of these newspapers and TV and radio programmes are also available online. Additionally available online is linguistic material, such as dictionaries and language courses, linguistic descriptions and corpora, but also a Komi-language Wikipedia (kv.wikipedia.org), and collections of, for example, books, blogs, cartoons. A detailed listing is available here: http://wiki.fu-lab.ru/index.php/Коми_кывъя_сайтъяс_интернетын. 14.2.3 Language vitality Komi is most commonly spoken in villages, and in urban centres, the Komi language tends to play only a minor role, though there is at least one preschool in Syktyvkar with a Komi language nest programme. There is no up-to-date information on intergenerational language transmission, but the language tends to be transmitted to younger generations mainly in rural areas, and much less so in urban centres. The number of speakers as a percentage of the total number of people who consider themselves ethnically Komi has decreased from 74% in 2002 to 68% in 2010. Based on a number of factors such as these (including but not limited to interrupted intergenerational language transmission, low numbers of urban speakers, and availability of materials for language education and literacy), in the 2010 UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, Komi is listed as ‘definitely endangered’ (Moseley 2010). 14.2.4 Variation Komi is generally considered to have ten dialects (here listed clockwise, starting in the south-west of the Komi Republic): Luza-Letka, Middle Sysola, Syktyvkar, Upper Vychegda, Udora, Vym, Izhma, Pechora, Lower Vychegda, and Upper Sysola. This classification is based partly on their historical expansion and present location along rivers, and partly on a number of mainly phonetic features, such as the morphonological alternation between /l/ and /v/, resulting in the following quadripartite division (dialects per group, including Permyak and Yazva, follow in parentheses): 1)

The L-type: /l/ remains unchanged in all positions: *vɘl ‘horse’ > vɘl horse.nom ~ vɘl-ɘn horse-inst ‘with a horse’ ~ vɘl-tɘg horse-abe ‘without a horse’ (Luza-Letka, Upper Sysola, Middle Sysola, Pechora, northern Permyak, Upper Kama Permyak, Yazva Komi);

ZYRIAN KOMI 617

2) 3) 4)

The V/L-type: /l/ is replaced by /v/ in preconsonantal and word-final position: *vɘl > vɘv horse.nom ~ vɘl-ɘn horse-inst ~ vɘv-tɘg horse-abe (Upper Vychegda, standard Zyrian Komi, Lower Vychegda, Udora, standard Permyak); The Ø/L-type: /l/ remains in word-medial position, but in word- or syllable-final position, it is deleted and the preceding vowel is lengthened: *vɘl > vɘː horse.nom ~ vɘl-ɘn horse-inst ~ vɘː-tɘg horse-abe (Vym, Izhma); All instances of /l/ are replaced by /v/ or /w/: *vɘl > vɘv horse.nom ~ vɘv-ɘn horse-inst ~ vɘv-tɘg horse-abe (southern Permyak Komi).

Dialect differences are not very pronounced, and there are no barriers to mutual intelligibility. Speakers of Zyrian Komi and Permyak Komi can also easily understand each other, though due to its divergent phonology, Yazva Komi causes slightly more difficulty, especially to speakers of Zyrian Komi. However, due to the history of the expansion of the Zyrian Komi northwards and later dialect mixing, one cannot easily classify the Komi dialects into larger subgroups based on non-phonetic features. Most of the Komi outside of the Komi Republic are speakers of the northernmost (Izhma) dialect of Komi; especially in Siberia, one also finds speakers of the Pechora dialect. 14.2.5 Contact with other languages The northward migration in the ninth century of the ancestors of the Komi has generally been explained by the pressure emanating from the newly created Volga Bulgarian state. In the area around the Northern Dvina, they came into contact with eastern outliers of Finnic, as evinced by a number of Finnic loans in Komi; the (westernmost) Udora dialect has the most of these, but some have spread all the way to Permyak and Yazva. These contacts probably ended in the fifteenth century. Komi has been in contact with Russian since the eleventh century, when Novgorodians first made their way northwards towards the river basin of the Dvina; from the fourteenth century onwards, the Komi lands were gradually brought under the control of Muscovy. Russian influence on Komi has accordingly been strong, on all levels of the language. This is most obvious in the lexicon (see Section 14.20), but Russian influence is plainly evident elsewhere too, even in the morphology: a number of suffixes of Russian origin are productive in Komi (e.g. the nominal suffix |nja: gid|ɲa ‘stable’ < Komi gid ‘small cowshed’; the nominal suffix |uk: jəj|uk ‘silly person’ < jəj ‘foolish’; the verbal suffix |nut’: jug|ɲɨt- ‘to flash’ < Komi jugɨd ‘light’; the negative prefix ne-: ɲe-una neg-much ‘a little’). The morphosyntax of Komi has also been strongly influenced by Russian; typical is the use of cases, postpositions, and subordinated clauses following Russian constructions, the borrowing of conjunctions, and the creation of an analytic future, but also the reduction of typically Komi features, such the analytic past tenses and converbs (for more details, see Leinonen 2002b). In the north, Komi has been in contact with Nenets and, especially the Izhma dialect, spoken in the north of the Komi Republic and by the Komi diaspora in neighbouring regions, has many Nenets loanwords, most of which relate to reindeer husbandry. A small number of Nenets loanwords have diffused to other dialects and the standard language. In the eastern Komi area, there has been contact between Komi and Ob-Ugric speakers, formerly on the western side of the Urals between the Komi and Mansi, and up until the present time on the eastern side between the Komi diaspora in Siberia and the Khanty and Mansi. Linguistic contact is reflected mostly in the lexicon of the Ob-Ugric languages and, to a lesser extent, in that of Komi. For examples, see Section 14.20.

618 ROGIER BLOKLAND

14.3 PHONOLOGY AND THE WORD 14.3.1 Phonemes Standard Komi has 33 phonemes: 7 vowels and 26 consonants; in addition, three non-native consonant phonemes are regularly used in loanwords. The vowel phoneme inventory can be found in Table 14.1, the consonant phoneme inventory in Table 14.2. 14.3.1.1 Vowels Komi has seven vowels. Phonologically, there are three vowel heights, though phonetically four, as /e/ is phonetically [ɛ]; /a/ is phonetically [ä], that is, an open central unrounded vowel. The relative frequency of the vowels, based on a raw count of all occurrences in the National Komi Corpus, is as follows: /a, ɘ, ɨ, o, i, e, u/. All vowels may occur in the first syllable; in non-initial syllables, back vowels and /e/ tend not to occur in non-borrowed, non-derived vocabulary.

TABLE 14.1  VOWEL SYSTEM OF KOMI Front Rounded

Central Unrounded

Rounded

Back Unrounded

Rounded

Close

i

ɨ

u

Close-mid

e

ɘ

o

Open

Unrounded

a

TABLE 14.2  CONSONANT SYSTEM OF KOMI (WITHIN A CELL, SEGMENTS TO THE RIGHT ARE VOICED, TO THE LEFT ARE VOICELESS; SEGMENTS IN PARENTHESES OCCUR IN LOANWORDS ONLY) Active articulator

Labio-

Passive articulator

Labial

Stop

pb

ApicoDental

Nasal

(f) v m

sz n

Trill

Dorso-

Palatal

Velar

cɟ ͡tɕ d͡ʑ

kg

͡tʃ d͡ʒ ʃʒ

ɕʑ

(x)

Postalveolar

ɲ r

Approximant Lateral approximant

Alveolar

td (t͡s)

Affricate Fricative

Dental

Lamino-

j l

ʎ

ZYRIAN KOMI 619

14.3.1.2 Consonants Komi has 26 core (inherited) consonants; 3 consonants (/t͡s/, /f/, /x/) occur in loanwords (mostly from Russian: for example, ͡tsement ‘cement’ < Ru. ͡tsement ‘id,’ fevraʎ ‘February’ < Ru. fevralʲ ‘id.,’ ximija ‘chemistry’ < Ru. ximija ‘id.’; though in peripheral Komi dialects, especially those spoken outside of the Komi Republic, also from Nenets, Khanty, or Mansi: for example, Izhma xora ‘uncastrated reindeer bull’ < Tundra Nenets xora ‘male (reindeer)’; (Siberian) Izhma xort ‘stretch of river’ < Kazym Khanty xǒrt ‘straight, narrow stretch of water in a swamp or of a river.’ The relative frequency of the first ten consonants, based on a raw count of all occurrences in the National Komi Corpus, is as follows: /s, n, k, m, t, v, r, d, l, j/. 14.3.2 Orthography Komi is well known in the literature for having had its own alphabet, usually known as Old Permic, which was used from the fourteenth to seventeenth century; for details, see Lytkin (1952). From the eighteenth century onwards, the Cyrillic alphabet has been used, with two intervals in the 1920s and 1930s, when the Molodcov variant of the Cyrillic alphabet was used. The Latin alphabet was used from 1930 to 1935. Komi Cyrillic uses two graphemes not used in Russian: for /ɘ/, and for /i/, after a distinctively non-palatal apical, for example, сись /ɕiɕ/ ‘candle’ ~ сiсь /siɕ/ ‘rotten.’ The Cyrillic alphabet used to write Komi has two additional letters: for the closemid central unrounded vowel (IPA: /ɘ/, UPA: e̮), and (IPA: /i/, UPA: i), which is used after distinctively non-palatal apicals. The grapheme , therefore, does not occur in uppercase. Digraphs consisting of two consonant graphemes or a consonant grapheme plus the non-vocalized operational grapheme , as shown in Table 14.3, represent a number of post-alveolars and palatals (except /j/). However, if a palatal consonant such as /ɟ, d͡ʑ, ʑ, ʎ, ɲ, c/ is followed by a vowel other than/ɨ/ or /ɘ/, its palatalness is indicated by TABLE 14.3 THE KOMI CYRILLIC ALPHABET WITH IPA AND UPA TRANSLITERATION Komi alphabet

IPA

UPA

Comments

АаАа

/ɑ/

a

phonetically [ä], an open central unrounded vowel

БбБб

/b/

b

Monographs

ВвВв

/v/

v

ГгГг

/ɡ/

g

written here as duble-storey

ДдДд

/d, ɟ/

d, ď

/d/ when followed by ; /ɟ/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph

ЕеЕе

/je, e/

je, e

phonetically [ɛ], /e/ after consonants except /t, d, s, z, n, l/

ЁёЁё

/jo, o/

jo, o

/o/ after the palatal consonants /c, ɟ, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ, ʎ/

ЖжЖж

/ʒ/

ž

ЗзЗз

/z, ʑ/

z, ź

/z/ when followed by ; /ʑ/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph

ИиИи

/i/

i

after /c, ɟ, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ, ʎ/ indicates their palatalness; does not indicate consonant quality elsewhere (Continued )

620 ROGIER BLOKLAND TABLE 14.3 (CONTINUED) Komi alphabet

IPA

UPA

Comments

іі

/i/

i

only used after dental and alveolar consonants (except /r/) to indicate their non-palatalness

ЙйЙй

/j/

j

КкКк

/k/

k

ЛлЛл

/l, ʎ/

l, ľ

МмМм

/m/

m

НнНн

/n, ɲ/

n, ń

ОоОо

/o/

o

ӦӧӦӧ

/ɘ/

e̮ p

/l/ when followed by ; /ʎ/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph /n/ when followed by ; /ɲ/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph

ПпПп

/p/

РрРр

/r/

r

СсСс

/s, ɕ/

s, ś

/s/ when followed by ; /ɕ/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph

ТтТт

/t, c/

t, ť

/t/ when followed by ; /c/ when followed by or when written with as the digraph

УуУу

/u/

u

ФфФф

/f/

f

only in loanwords

ХхХх

/x/

χ

only in loanwords

ЦцЦц

/c/ /t͡ɕ/

c

only in loanwords

ć

ЧчЧч ШшШш

/ʃ/

š

ЩщЩщ

/ɕ, ɕː/

šč

only in loanwords; phonetically also [/t͡ʃ/], [/ʃ/], [/ʃt/] and [/ʃtʃ/] occur

ЪъЪъ

-

-

non-vocalized operational grapheme; used as a boundary marker

ЫыЫы

/ɨ/

i̮

phonetically slightly retracted: [ɨ̱ ]

ЬьЬь

-

′

non-vocalized operational grapheme; indicates the palatalness of /c, ɟ, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ, ʎ/ when not indicated by following

ЭэЭэ

/e/

ɛ

phonetically [ɛ]

ЮюЮю

/ju, u/

ju, u

/u/ after /c, ɟ, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ, ʎ/

ЯяЯя

/jɑ, ɑ/

ja, a

/ɑ/ after /c, ɟ, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ, ʎ/

ď

Дз дз Дз дз

/ɟ/ /d͡ʒ/ ͡ /dʑ/

Зь зь Зь зь

/ʑ/

ź

Digraphs Дь дь Дь дь Дж дж Дж дж

ǯ ʒ

Ль ль Ль ль

/ʎ/

ľ

Нь нь Нь нь

/ɲ/

ń

Сь сь Сь сь

/ɕ/

ś

Ть ть Ть ть

/c/ /t͡ʃ/

ť

Тш тш Тш тш

č

ZYRIAN KOMI 621

the use of the following vowel letters written to its right: , that is, the vowel grapheme indicates the quality of the preceding consonant. Non-palatal consonants are followed by these vowel letters: ; compare for example, сям /ɕam/ ‘character’ with сам /sam/ ‘bait’; сись /ɕiɕ/ ‘candle’ ~ сiсь /siɕ/ ‘rotten.’ If there is no vowel grapheme that can indicate the palatalness of preceding consonants, as in the case of /ɨ/ and /ɘ/, the operational grapheme is employed: compare, for example, ныв / nɨv/ ‘girl’ ~ ньыв /ɲɨv/ ‘fir’; нӧбас /nɘbɑs/ ‘burden’ ~ ньӧбас /ɲɘbɑs/ ‘purchase.’ After, non-palatal consonants is not used: мича /mićɑ/ ‘pretty’ instead of *мiча. Due to a generalizing influence from the orthography of Russian, the operational grapheme is often used in Komi where there is no need for it: for example, / kɑrjɑs/ town.pl ‘towns.’ Most Russian-language linguistic literature on Komi uses the Komi Cyrillic alphabet (or occasionally an adaptation thereof). More recent literature in western languages has tended to use the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet; henceforth, all examples will be in the International Phonetic Alphabet only, but atypically in italic for ease of reading. 14.3.3 Segmental and prosodic features 14.3.3.1 Segmental features Phonotactics

In native Komi words, consonant clusters tend to occur only word-internally and word-finally; word-initial consonant clusters occur only in the native word kvajt ‘six,’ in onomatopoeic words (e.g. triɲgɨ- ‘to ring’), and in animal calls (e.g. [pr̥] ‘stop! (to a horse)’) and newer Russian borrowings (e.g. stɘkan ‘glass’ < Ru. stokan ‘id.’); in older loanwords, the last consonant of any cluster is the one that is retained: dɘvɑ ‘widow’ < Ru. vdova ‘id.’ Russian loans such as ssɨlka ‘exile’ (< Ru. ssɨlka ‘id.’) and ssuda ‘loan’ (< Ru. ssuda ‘id.’) with initial geminates are usually pronounced without an initial geminate. The most typical syllable types are as follows: V (i ‘and’ < Ru., -ɘ q), VC (ɨʒ ‘sheep,’ ob ‘aunt’), CV (va ‘water,’ pu ‘tree; wood’), CVC (kar ‘city,’ vɘv ‘horse’), VCC (erd ‘glade, clearing,’ ord ‘kin’), and CVCC (mort ‘person,’ vojt ‘drop’). Processes involving vowels

A number of nominal stems show stem-internal vowel syncopation conditioned by syllable structure, especially in derivation; this occurs only occasionally in nominal inflection. Vowel syncopation occurs only in the second, unstressed syllable, between consonants of which one is high in sonority, that is, /r, l, ʎ, n, ɲ/. Vowel syncopation also occurs with a number of vowel-initial (usually denominal verbal) derivational suffixes; it does not occur with consonant-initial suffixes. Syncopation is non-automatic, that is, it is a lexical property of the stem, whether it has an unstable vowel. All vowels may be elided; the most commonly elided ones are /ɘ/, /i/, /a/, and /ɨ/, which together make up about 95% of all instances (see Geisler 2005, 47). For example, lɘdɘs ‘surrogate’ > lɘts|al- ‘to replace,’ gɘtɨr ‘woman; wife’ > gɘtr|aɕ- ‘to get married’ (but gɘtɨr|a ‘married’). For historical reasons, doublets can also be found, with and without elision: compare dorɨʃ ‘edge; blade’ > dorɨʃ|aɕ- ‘to argue’ ~ dorʃ|aɕ- ‘to well up; to fight; to look around’; kɘzɘd ‘icehouse; ice and snow in an icehouse’ > kɘzɘd|av- ‘to cool (off)’ ~ kɘzd|av- ‘to become damp; to freeze’; the meaning of the syncopated form tends to deviate more than that of non-syncopated form.

622 ROGIER BLOKLAND

Processes involving consonants

In standard Komi, stem-final morphophonemic /l/ is replaced by /v/ in preconsonantal and word-final position: thus, vɘv ‘horse’ (nom) and vɘv-tɘg horse-abe ‘without a horse,’ but vɘl-ɘn horse-inst ‘with a horse’ (see 14.2.3). A number of mostly nominal stems have two allomorphs: in these stems, one of the four consonants /j/, /k/, /t/, or /m/ surfaces to the left of a vowel-initial suffix. The most common is /j/, with 164 such nominal stems in standard Komi, followed by /k/ (35), /t/ (12), and /m/ (6). Compare, for example, kɨv ‘language,’ kɨvj-ɨs language.3sg; ʑep ‘pocket,’ ʑep-tɘg pocket-abe, but ʑept-ɨn pocket-ine (< Ru. dial. zep ‘pocket’); mɘs ‘cow,’ mɘs-lɨ cow-dat but mɘsk-ɨn cow-ine; ɕin ‘eye,’ ɕin-lɨ eye-dat, but ɕinm-ɨn eye-ine. These epenthetic consonants are usually etymological, but not always (cf. ʑep- ~ ʑept- ‘pocket’). With a number of words, both /m/ and /j/ may occur, /m/ more commonly: for example, pon ‘dog’> ponm-ɘj ~ ponj-ɘj dog-1sg ‘my dog’; there is also considerable variation across dialects. In about 40 nominal stems in /-ɟ/, /-ʎ/ or /-d͡ʑ/, this auslaut consonant is geminated when followed by a person or case suffix with an initial vowel: for example, doɟ ‘sledge,’ doɟnɨm sledge-1pl ‘our sledge,’ doɟ-kɘd sledge-com ‘with a sledge,’ but doɟː-ɘj sledge-1sg ‘my sledge,’ doɟː-ɨn sledge-ine ‘in a sledge’; voʎ ‘reindeer hide,’ voʎ-nɨm reindeer.hide1pl ‘our reindeer.hide,’ voʎ-lɘn reindeer.hide-gen ‘of a reindeer hide,’ voʎː-ɘj reindeer. hide-1sg ‘my reindeer hide,’ voʎː-ɨɕ reindeer.hide-ela ‘out of a reindeer hide.’ Prosodic features

Though it is often said to be free, there is a very strong tendency for lexical stress to occur on the first syllable: [ˈpɘrɨɕ] ‘old.’ Older Russian loans will also have stress on the first syllable (e.g. [ˈboʎnit͡ɕɑ] ‘hospital’; contrast Ru. [bɐlʲˈnʲit͡sɘ]). There are no word-level distinctions based on suprasegmental phenomena. Declarative clauses usually carry broadly level intonation, with lower pitch at the end of the clause, whilst in interrogative clauses, the pitch is higher on a content question word if present, or with rising pitch at the end of the clause. 14.4 NOUN INFLECTION All inflection is concatenative; in the noun, it is also largely separative (but see possessive accusatives, which follow). As mentioned previously, there is some vowel-zero alternation, that is, syncopation. There are two declensions: absolute and possessive. In possessive declension, there is syncretism of the inessive and illative in all persons: for example, kar-a-m city-ine/ill-1sg ‘in/to my city.’ 14.4.1 Nouns: absolute declension Nouns inflect for 25 cases and two number categories: singular and plural (see Table 14.4). Nominative and singular are encoded as zero, for example, explicitly: kar-Ø-Ø town-sgnom ‘town,’ kar-jas-Ø town-pl-nom ‘towns.’ There are always two slots in the absolute declension: case (zero in the nominative) and plural (zero in the singular). Animate nouns do not occur in the prosecutive (describing movement along a long or narrow path or into a space) or transitive (describing movement along a path or surface or through a space), where instead postpositional constructions are used; this also nearly always applies to the inessive, elative, and illative.

ZYRIAN KOMI 623 TABLE 14.4  KOMI NOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM: CASE AND NUMBER Singular

Plural

Nominative

kɑr ‘town’

aɲ ‘woman’

kɑr-jɑs ‘towns’

aɲ-jas ‘women’

Accusative

kɑr-ɘs

aɲ-ɘs

kɑr-jɑs-ɘs

aɲ-jɑs-ɘs

Genitive

kɑr-lɘn

aɲ-lɘn

kɑr-jɑs-lɘn

aɲ-jɑs-lɘn

Dative

kɑr-lɨ

aɲ-lɨ

kɑr-jɑs-lɨ

aɲ-jɑs-lɨ

Ablative

kɑr-lɨɕ

aɲ-lɨɕ

kɑr-jɑs-lɨɕ

aɲ-jɑs-lɨɕ

Instrumental

kɑr-ɘn

aɲ-ɘn

kar-jɑs-ɘn

aɲ-jɑs-ɘn

Comitative

kɑr-kɘd

aɲ-kɘd

kɑr-jɑs-kɘd

aɲ-jɑs-kɘd

Abessive

kɑr-tɘg

aɲ-tɘg

kɑr-jɑs-tɘg

aɲ-jɑs-tɘg

Consecutive

kɑr-lɑ

aɲ-lɑ

kɑr-jɑs-lɑ

aɲ-jɑs-lɑ

Comparative

kɑr-ɕɑ

aɲ-ɕɑ

kɑr-jɑs-ɕɑ

aɲ-jas-ɕɑ

Inessive

kɑr-ɨn

(aɲ-ɨn)

kɑr-jɑs-ɨn

(aɲ-jɑs-ɨn)

Elative

kɑr-ɨɕ

(aɲ-ɨɕ)

kɑr-jɑs-ɨɕ

(aɲ-jɑs-ɨɕ)

Illative

kɑr-ɘ

(aɲ-ɘ)

kɑr-jɑs-ɘ

(aɲ-jɑs-ɘ)

Approximative

kɑr-lɑɲ

aɲ-lɑɲ

kɑr-jɑs-lɑɲ

aɲ-jɑs-lɑɲ

Egressive

kɑr-ɕɑɲ

aɲ-ɕɑɲ

kɑr-jɑs-ɕɑɲ

aɲ-jas-ɕɑɲ

Prosecutive

kɑr-ɘd

(aɲ-ɘd)

kɑr-jɑs-ɘd

(aɲ-jas-ɘd)

Transitive

kɑr-ti

kɑr-jɑs-ti

Terminative

kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ

(aɲ-ti) aɲ-ɘd͡ʑ

kɑr-jɑs-ɘd͡ʑ

(aɲ-jas-ti) aɲ-jɑs-ɘd͡ʑ

Approximative-inessive

kar-laɲ-ɨn

aɲ-laɲ-ɨn

kar-jas-laɲ-ɨn

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɨn

Approximative-elative

kar-laɲ-ɨɕ

aɲ-laɲ-ɨɕ

kar-jas-laɲ-ɨɕ

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɨɕ

Approximative-illative

kar-laɲ-ɘ

aɲ-laɲ-ɘ

kar-jas-laɲ-ɘ

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɘ

Approximative-egressive

kar-laɲ-ɕɑɲ

aɲ-laɲ-ɕɑɲ

kar-jas-laɲ-ɕɑɲ

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɕɑɲ

Approximative-prosecutive

kar-laɲ-ɘd

aɲ-laɲ-ɘd

kar-jas-laɲ-ɘd

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɘd

Approximative-transitive

kar-laɲ-ti

aɲ-laɲ-ti

kar-jas-laɲ-ti

Approximative-terminative

kar-laɲ-ɘd͡ʑ

aɲ-laɲ-ɘd͡ʑ

kar-jas-laɲ-ɘd͡ʑ

aɲ-jas-laɲ-ti aɲ-jas-laɲ-ɘd͡ʑ

Note: Forms in brackets occur only rarely.

In addition to its additive function, the plural may also be used associatively, for example, Vasjajas kajisnɨ Sɨktɨvkarɘ Vasjapl goprt3pl Syktyvkar-ill ‘Vasja and his friends/ colleagues/associates/family members went to Syktyvkar.’ The pluralizer -jas is also occasionally used as an ‘exaggerative’ plural: for example, Moskva-jas-a-d mi una-ɨɕ ɲin vɘvl-i-m Moscowpl-ine-2sg we many-ela already be-prt-1pl ‘we’ve already been many times in Moscow and places like that’ (Igushev; KKJa). The last seven cases, based on the approximative, are common in dialects but are only mentioned in the newest grammars; their exact status as cases is still debated (see Baker 1985, 225‒240). They can also occur with pronouns (1) but are not mentioned in the section on pronouns for reasons of economy.

624 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(1)

sɨ-laɲ-ɕaɲ vizuvt-ɘ ɕɘd ʃor-ɨs that-apr-egr flow-prs.3sg black stream-3sg ‘It’s from that direction that the black stream flows.’ (Toporov; KKJa)

The comparative (or preclusive) in -ɕɑ, (e.g. kaɲ-ɕa ɨd͡ʒɨd-dʒɨk cat-comp big-cmp ‘bigger than a cat’; more commonly with the elative: kaɲ-ɨɕ ɨd͡ʒɨd-dʒɨk cat-ela big-cmp ‘bigger than a cat’), common in southern dialects (and in Permyak), is also not listed in all grammars. For case and NP flagging, see Section 14.19. 14.4.2 Nouns: possessive declension Case paradigms of nouns inflected for person are usually given in grammars, but Russian influence has caused a decline in their use; instead, we often find a noun phrase with the possessor encoded as a personal pronoun in the genitive, for example, menɑm ɲebɘg I.gen book ‘my book’ instead of ɲebɘg-ɘj book-1sg ‘id.’ However, there is not a total decline in the use of these suffixes, as the second- and third-person singular person suffixes are also used to express definiteness, specificness, and topicalization and, as such, can (optionally) be added to any nominal part of speech. In the accusative, cumulative morphemes express both case and possession.

TABLE 14.5  KOMI NOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM: ONE POSSESSION One possession

Singular

Plural

1

2

3

1

2

3

Nominative

kɑr-ɘj ‘my city’

kɑr-ɨd ‘your city’

kɑr-ɨs ‘her/his city’

kɑr-nɨm ‘our city’

kɑr-nɨd ‘your (pl.) city’

kɑr-nɨs ‘their city’

Genitive

kɑr-ɘj-lɘn

kɑr-ɨd-lɘn

kɑr-ɨs-lɘn

kɑr-nɨm-lɘn

kɑr-nɨd-lɘn

kɑr-nɨs-lɘn

Accusative

kɑr-ɘs

kɑr-tɘ

kɑr-sɘ

kɑr-nɨm-ɘs

kɑr-nɨd-tɘ

kɑr-nɨ-sɘ

Dative

kɑr-ɘj-lɨ

kɑr-ɨd-lɨ

kɑr-ɨs-lɨ

kɑr-nɨm-lɨ

kɑr-nɨd-lɨ

kɑr-nɨs-lɨ

Ablative

kɑr-ɘj-lɨɕ

kɑr-ɨd-lɨɕ

kɑr-ɨs-lɨɕ

kɑr-nɨm-lɨɕ

kɑr-nɨd-lɨɕ

kɑr-nɨs-lɨɕ

Instrumental

kɑr-nɑ-m

kɑr-nɑ-d

kɑr-nɑ-s

kɑr-nɑ-nɨm

kɑr-nɑ-nɨd

kɑr-nɑ-nɨs

Comitative

kɑr-ɘj-kɘd

kɑr-ɨd-kɘd

kɑr-ɨs-kɘd

kɑr-nɨm-kɘd

kɑr-nɨd-kɘd

kɑr-nɨs-kɘd

Abessive

kɑr-ɘj-tɘg

kɑr-tɘg-ɨd

kɑr-tɘg-ɨs

kɑr-tɘg-nɨm

kɑr-tɘg-nɨd

kɑr-tɘg-nɨs

Consecutive

kɑr-ɘj-lɑ

kɑr-ɨd-lɑ

kɑr-ɨs-lɑ

kɑr-nɨm-lɑ

kɑr-nɨd-lɑ

kɑr-nɨs-lɑ

kɑr-ɑ-m

kɑr-ɑ-d

kɑr-ɑ-s

kɑr-ɑ-nɨm

kɑr-ɑ-nɨd

kɑr-ɑ-nɨs

Inessive Illative Elative

kɑr-ɕɨ-m

kɑr-ɕɨ-d

kɑr-ɕɨ-s

kɑr-ɕɨ-nɨm

kɑr-ɕɨ-nɨd

kɑr-ɕɨ-nɨs

Approximative

kɑr-ɘj-lɑɲ

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɨd

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɨs

kɑr-lɑɲ-nɨm

kɑr-nɨd-lɑɲ

kɑr-nɨs-lɑɲ/ kɑr-lɑɲ-nɨs

Egressive

kɑr-ɘj-ɕɑɲ

kɑr-ɕɑɲ-ɨd

kɑr-ɕɑɲ-ɨs

kɑr-ɕɑɲ-nɨm

kɑr-ɕɑɲ-nɨd

kɑr-ɕɑɲ-nɨs

Prosecutive

kɑr-ɘd-ɨm

kɑr-ɘd-ɨd

kɑr-ɘd-ɨs

kɑr-ɘd-nɨm

kɑr-ɘd-nɨd

kɑr-ɘd-nɨs

ZYRIAN KOMI 625 One possession

Singular

Plural

1

2

3

1

2

3

Transitive

kɑr-ti-ɨm

Terminative

-

kɑr-ti-ɨd kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ-ɨd

kɑr-ti-ɨs kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ-ɨs

kɑr-ti-nɨm kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ-nɨm

kɑr-ti-nɨd kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ-nɨd

kɑr-ti-nɨs kɑr-ɘd͡ʑ-nɨs

kar-lɑɲa-m

kar-lɑɲ-a-d

kar-lɑɲ-a-s

kar-lɑɲ-anɨm

kar-lɑɲ-anɨd

kar-lɑɲ-anɨs

Approximativeelative

kar-lɑɲɕɨ-m

kar-lɑɲɕɨ-d

kar-lɑɲ-ɕɨ-s

kar-lɑɲ-ɕɨnɨm

kar-lɑɲ-ɕɨnɨd

kar-lɑɲ-ɕɨnɨs

Approximativeegressive

kɑr-ɘj-lɑɲɕɑɲ

kɑr-lɑɲɕɑɲ-ɨd

kɑr-lɑɲɕɑɲ-ɨs

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɕɑɲnɨm

kɑr-lɑɲɕɑɲ-nɨd

kɑr-lɑɲɕɑɲ-ɨs

Approximativeprosecutive

kɑr-lɑɲɘd-ɨm

kɑr-lɑɲɘd-ɨd

kɑr-lɑɲɘd-ɨs

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɘdnɨm

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɘdnɨd

kɑr-lɑɲ-ɘdnɨs

Approximativetransitive

kɑr-lɑɲti-ɨm

kɑr-lɑɲti-ɨd

kɑr-lɑɲ-ti-ɨs

kɑr-lɑɲ-tinɨd

Approximativeterminative

kɑr-lɑɲɘd͡ʑ-ɨm

kɑr-lɑɲɘd͡ʑ-ɨd

kɑr-lɑɲɘd͡ʑ-ɨs

kɑr-lɑɲ-tinɨm kɑr-lɑɲ-ɘd͡ʑnɨm

kɑr-lɑɲ-tinɨs kɑr-lɑɲ-ɘd͡ʑnɨs

Approximativeinessive ApproximativeIllative

kɑr-lɑɲɘd͡ʑ-nɨd

Suffix order in the inessive, elative, illative, instrumental, prosecutive, transitive, and terminative is case suffix + person suffix; in the accusative, genitive, ablative, dative, consecutive, and comitative, it is the reverse: person suffix + case suffix. As mentioned earlier, in the accusative, the singular forms are cumulative; there is also syncretism between the first-person singular possessive accusative -ɘs and the absolute (non-possessive) accusative -ɘs. The forms for the inessive and illative have syncretized. In the abessive, egressive, and approximative, the suffix order depends on person: in the abessive and the egressive, the order is person suffix + case suffix (px+cx) in the first-person singular (pon-ɘj-tɘg dog-1sg-abe ‘without my dog’), and the reverse, cx+px, in all other persons (e.g. pon-tɘg-ɨd dog-abe-2sg ‘without your dog’); in the approximative, the order is px+cx in the first-person singular and second- and third-person plural (kerka-ɘj-laɲ house-1sg-apr ‘towards my house,’ kerka-nɨd-laɲ house-2pl-apr ‘towards your house’), and cx+px in all other persons (e.g. kerka-laɲ-ɨd house-apr-2sg ‘towards your house’), except the third-person plural, where both orders may occur (kerka-laɲ-nɨs house-apr-3pl ~ kerka-nɨs-laɲ house-3pl-apr ‘towards their house’). Not all speakers or dialects have the same order for all cases and persons, and not all persons occur in the prosecutive, transitive, and terminative. For historical reasons, the first-person singular suffix is not the same across the cases: ɘj is most common, but m is used in the instrumental, inessive, illative, elative, prosecutive, and transitive, that is, in those forms where the person suffix follows the case suffix. The only case to have cumulative markers, expressing both case and possession, is the accusative, where in the singular ɘs is used for the first-person singular, tɘ for the second,

626 ROGIER BLOKLAND

and -sɘ for the third. The same suffixes are used in the plural after the plural person suffixes (in the third-person plural, the -s of the person suffix is elided). Plural possession is expressed with the pluralizer -jas, which is located between the noun and case/person suffixes: kɑr-ɘj city-1sg ‘my city,’ kɑr-jas-ɘj city-pl.1sg ‘my cities’; kɑr-ɘj-lɘn city-1sg-gen ‘of my city,’ kar-jas-ɘj-lɘn city-pl-1sg-gen ‘of my cities.’ If a person suffix is used with kinship terms, the order of the pluralizer and person suffix may signal a semantic difference, where the order ‘person suffix + pluralizer’ is usually associative, vok-jas-ɨd brother-pl-2sg ‘your brothers’ ~ vok-ɨd-jas brother-2sg-pl ‘your brother and his friends/colleagues/associates/family members,’ though in a possessive construction with a personal name as the possessor, both orders are usually interpreted associatively (2): (2)

͡ Pedɘr vok-ɨd-jas ~ vok-jas-ɨd sesɕa kɨdʑi Pedör brother-2sg-pl brother-pl-2sg further how ‘How is the family of your brother Pedör doing?’

olɘnɨ&vɨlɘnɨ live.prs.3pl&be.prs.3pl

14.4.3 Number Number can be expressed in Komi through lexical modifiers (numerals) and through the grammatical system of number, consisting of two values, singular and plural. The singular is often used when number is unspecified, as in d͡ʑorid͡ʑ boɕt-i flower.sg buy-prt.1sg ‘I bought flowers.’ Nouns modified by numerals are in the singular: vit mort five man ‘five men,’ vit mort-lɨ five man-dat ‘to five men.’ When the order of the numeral and noun is reversed, the meaning is approximative: mort vit man five ‘about five men’; in this case the numeral is the head (e.g. mort vit-lɨ man five-dat ‘to about five men’). In addition to pluralizer -jas, introduced earlier, Komi nouns have two other suffixes with pluralizing meaning: -jan, which is used with a very small number of (animate) words (e.g. pi ‘boy’ > pi-jan boy-pl ‘boys,’ though pi-jas may also occur)—this pluralizer can also occasionally be used associatively (e.g. bac-ɘ-jan father-1sg-pl ‘our father; my father and other members of his family’)—and -ɘɕ, which signals plural meaning on adverbs and zero-copula constructions, as in (3–4): (3)

najɘ vɘr-ɨn-ɘɕ 3.pl forest-ine-prpl ‘They are in the forest.’ (cf. sijɘ vɘr-ɨn s/he forest-ine ‘She is in the forest.’)

(4)

a ɨdʒɨd-jas-ɨd kɘn-ɘɕ? but big-pl-2sg where-prpl ‘And where are the bigger ones?’

A number of words formerly used in the singular, such as ki ‘hand,’ kok ‘leg,’ peʎ ‘ear,’ are now usually used in the plural (due to Russian influence). There are no pluralia tantum; when Russian (near) pluralia tantum are borrowed, they take the Komi pluralizer -jas: tapot͡ɕki-jas slipper-pl ‘slippers’ < Ru. tapot͡ɕki ‘id..’ An exception is ͡tɕeʎaɟ ‘children,’ borrowed from inflected forms of Ru. ͡tɕelʲadʲ ‘domestic servants,’ though (dialectally/colloquially) forms such as ͡tɕeʎaɟ-jas children-pl ‘children’ and ͡tɕeʎaɟ&pijan children&sons ‘children’ also occur.

ZYRIAN KOMI 627

14.5 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Adjectives also form an open class and do not agree with their noun phrase heads: ɨd͡ʒɨd kɑr big city ‘big city,’ but ɨd͡ʒɨd kɑr-jɑs big city-pl ‘big cities.’ The two main adjective-forming derivational suffixes are |a and |ɘɕ, where |a is the more common, and |ɘɕ often has a moderative meaning: cf. va.a joʎ ‘watery stream’ vs. va.ɘɕ nɨr ‘runny nose.’ When adjectives are used as copula complements, the pluralizing suffix is again -ɘɕ (formally identical to the adjectival derivational suffix |ɘɕ): kɑr-jɑs ɨd͡ʒɨd-ɘɕ city-pl bigprpl ‘cities are big.’ Adjectives with the derivational suffix |ɘɕ (e.g. ɲur|ɘɕ ‘marshy’) used predicatively usually haplologize, not taking this adjective pluralizer or any other, for example, tajɘ vid͡ʑ-jas ɲur.ɘɕ this meadow-pl marshy ‘these meadows are marshy.’ 14.5.1 Comparison Positive forms take no suffix. The index of comparison is the clitic -d͡ʒɨk. The standard of comparison is in the elative (5). (5)

Marina Nina-ɨɕ tom=d͡ʒɨk Marina Nina-ela young=cmp ‘Marina is younger than Nina.’

The clitic -d͡ʒɨk may also be added to finite and nonfinite verb forms, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, and postpositional constructions (6). (6)

gɘrd platcɘ-ɨd sɨ-lɨ mun-ɘ=d͡ʒɨk red dress-2sg s/he-dat go-prs.3sg=cmp ‘The red dress suits her better.’

The superlative is formed with the particle med ‘most’ (7), which may additionally take the adjective suffix |ɕa, in which case it is used analytically: med-bur supl-good ‘best’ ~ med.ɕa bur supl.adj good ‘best’; lone med is also sometimes written separately: med bur supl good ‘best.’ (7)

med mit͡ɕ.a lun most beautiful day ‘a most beautiful day’

14.6 PRONOUNS Like nouns, Komi pronouns inflect for person, number, and case but form a closed subclass of the open class of nominals and show a number of deviations from noun case morphology, such as inherent plural reference, though there is a systematic correspondence between the first- and second-singular and plural personal pronoun forms. Komi has no grammatical gender in any person. The following pronouns occur: personal, demonstrative, reflexive, reciprocal, indefinite, relative, and interrogative. 14.6.1 Personal pronouns The inflectional paradigms of Komi personal pronouns are set out in Table 14.6.

628 ROGIER BLOKLAND TABLE 14.6  PERSONAL PRONOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM IN KOMI Singular

Plural

1

2

3

1

2

3

Nominative

me ‘I’

te ‘you’

sijɘ ‘s/he’

mi ‘we’

ti ‘you (pl)’

najɘ ‘they’

Genitive

men-ɑm

ten-ɑd

sɨ-lɘn

mi-jɑn

ti-jɑn

nɑ-lɘn

Accusative

men-ɘ

ten-ɘ

sɨjɘ-s

mi-jɑn-ɘs

ti-jɑn-ɘs

nɑjɘ-s

Dative

men-ɨ-m

ten-ɨ-d

sɨ-lɨ

mi-jɑn-lɨ

ti-jɑn-lɨ

nɑ-lɨ

Ablative

men-ɕɨ-m

ten-ɕɨ-d

sɨ-lɨɕ

mi-jɑn-lɨɕ

ti-jɑn-lɨɕ

nɑ-lɨɕ

Instrumental

me-ɘn

te-ɘn

sɨ-ɘn

mi-jɑn-ɘn

ti-jɑn-ɘn

nɑ-ɘn

Comitative

me-kɘd

te-kɘd

sɨ-kɘd

mi-jɑn-kɘd

ti-jɑn-kɘd

nɑ-kɘd

Abessive

me-tɘg

te-tɘg

sɨ-tɘg

mi-jɑn-tɘg

ti-jɑn-tɘg

nɑ-tɘg

Consecutive

me-lɑ

te-lɑ

sɨ-lɑ

mi-jɑn-lɑ

ti-jɑn-lɑ

nɑ-lɑ

Inessive

me-ɨn

te-ɨn

sɨ-ɨn

mi-jɑn-ɨn

ti-jɑ-nɨn

nɑ-ɨn

Illative

(me-ɘ)

(te-ɘ)

(sɨ-ɘ)

mi-jɑn-ɘ

ti-jɑn-ɘ

(nɑ-ɘ)

Elative

me-ɨɕ

te-ɨɕ

sɨ-ɨɕ

mi-jɑn-ɨɕ

ti-jɑn-ɨɕ

nɑ-ɨɕ

Approximative

me-lɑɲ

te-lɑɲ

sɨ-lɑɲ

mi-jɑn-lɑɲ

ti-jɑn-lɑɲ

nɑ-lɑɲ

Egressive

me-ɕɑɲ

te-ɕɑɲ

sɨ-ɕɑɲ

mi-jɑn-ɕɑɲ

ti-jɑn-ɕɑɲ

nɑ-ɕɑɲ

Prosecutive

(me-ɘd)

(te-ɘd)

(sɨ-ɘd)

(mi-jɑn-ɘd)

(ti-jɑn-ɘd)

(nɑ-ɘd)

Transitive

(me-ti) (me-ɘd͡ʑ)

(te-ti) te-ɘd͡ʑ

(sɨ-ti) sɨ-ɘd͡ʑ

(mi-jɑn-ti) mi-jɑn-ɘd͡ʑ

(ti-jɑn-ti) ti-jɑn-ɘd͡ʑ

(nɑ-ti) nɑ-ɘd͡ʑ

Terminative

Note: Forms in brackets are seldom used.

The singular personal pronouns have two stems: a shorter one ending in a vowel, and a longer one in presuffixal /n/ which is used in the genitive, accusative, dative, and ablative. The third-person pronouns were originally demonstrative pronouns. In the personal pronouns, plurality is expressed internally by stem alternations. In the first- and second-person plural, all forms from the accusative onwards are based on the plural genitive forms. Personal pronouns in the prosecutive, transitive, and terminative, and the singular personal pronouns in the illative, are seldom used and are often replaced with postpositional constructions, for example, alongside me-ɘ-Iill ‘into me’ we find me pɨt͡ʃk-ɘ I inner-ill ‘into me.’ 14.6.2 Demonstrative pronouns Komi makes a two-way distinction between proximal and distal demonstrative pronouns: tajɘ ‘this’—sijɘ ‘that.’ These have two stems each: taj- ~ ta-, and sij- ~ sɨ- (see Table 14.7). The long form is the base for the nominative and accusative; the short form is used in all other cases and in postpostional constructions (e.g. ta bɘr-ɨn this behind-ine ‘after that’). They may also occur with the emphatic proclitic e-: e-tajɘ emp-this ‘this one,’ e-sijɘ empthat ‘that one,’ e-sɨ paɕta ju emp-that breadth river ‘a river that wide.’

ZYRIAN KOMI 629 TABLE 14.7  KOMI DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS

Nominative

‘This’

‘That’

‘These’

‘Those’

tajɘ/ ta

sijɘ ‘s/he’

tajɘ-jas

sijɘ-jas

Genitive

ta-lɘn

sɨ-lɘn

tajɘ-jas-lɘn

-

Accusative

tajɘ-s

sɨjɘ-s

tajɘ-jas-ɘs

sijɘ-jas-ɘs

Dative

ta-lɨ

sɨ-lɨ

tajɘ-jas-lɨ

(sijɘ-jas-lɨ)

Ablative

ta-lɨɕ

sɨ-lɨɕ

tajɘ-jas-lɨɕ

(sijɘ-jas-lɨɕ)

Instrumental

ta-ɘn

sɨ-ɘn

tajɘ-jas-ɘn

(sijɘ-jas-ɘn)

Comitative

ta-kɘd

sɨ-kɘd

tajɘ-jas-kɘd

-

Abessive

ta-tɘg

sɨ-tɘg

tajɘ-jas-tɘg

-

Consecutive

ta-lɑ

sɨ-lɑ

tajɘ-jas-la

-

Inessive

ta-ɨn

sɨ-ɨn

tajɘ-jas-ɨn

-

Illative

ta-ɘ

sɨ-ɘ

(tajɘ-jas-ɘ)

-

Elative

ta-ɨɕ

sɨ-ɨɕ

tajɘ-jas-ɨɕ

(sijɘ-jas-ɨɕ)

Approximative

ta-lɑɲ

sɨ-lɑɲ

(tajɘ-jas-lɑɲ)

-

Egressive

ta-ɕɑɲ

sɨ-ɕɑɲ

tajɘ-jas-ɕɑɲ

-

Prosecutive

ta-ɘd

sɨ-ɘd

(tajɘ-jas-ɘd)

-

Transitive

ta-ti ta-ɘd͡ʑ

(tajɘ-jas-ti) (tajɘ-jas-ɘd͡ʑ)

-

Terminative

(sɨ-ti) sɨ-ɘd͡ʑ

-

Within the NP, demonstrative pronouns do not agree with their head noun. When used as the head of their NP, the short form of demonstratives is often used in the singular, and they take the same case suffixes as nouns (e.g. atcɘ ta-lɨ thanks this-dat ‘thanks for this’), but no person suffixes; in the plural, the longer form tends to be used (e.g. tajɘ-jas-lɘn as-la-nɨs kerka em this-pl-gen self-gen-3pl house be.prs ‘these (kinds of people) have their own house’). The distal demonstrative pronoun sijɘ is identical to the third-person singular personal pronoun but takes the regular pluralizer -jas when used in the plural: sijɘ ‘that’ > sijɘ-jas ‘those’ (cf. the personal pronouns sijɘ ‘s/he’ ~ najɘ ‘they’). The plural of sijɘ occurs only rarely and does not occur in all cases: instead, postpositional constructions tend be used. 14.6.3 Reflexive pronouns The reflexive pronoun is based on the stem ɑt͡ɕ- (before vowel-initial suffixes) ~ ɑs(before consonant-initial suffixes and in the non-first-person singular inessive and illative forms) (8) and also functions (in all cases) as an intensifier (9). (8)

kad mun-nɨ as-la-d gɘtɨr time go-inf self-gen-2sg wife ‘It’s time to go to your (own) wife.’

dor-ɘ side-ill

630 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(9)

͡ ͡ me atɕ-ɨm tajɘ verm-a vɘtɕ-nɨ I self-1sg this can-prs.1sg do-inf ‘I myself can do this.’

The inessive and illative are identical (except in the first person), as are the plural ablative and elative forms, as Table 14.8 shows. 14.6.4 Reciprocal pronouns There are a number of reciprocal pronoun constructions. They tend to not be used in the nominative: ɘt.a&mɘd one.adj&other, mɘd.a&mɘd other.adj&other, jort.a&jort friend.adj&friend, and mort.a&mort man.adj&man ‘each other.’ Reciprocal pronouns can also take person suffixes; both case and person suffixes can only be expressed on the second element. Table 14.9 shows only the paradigm for ɘta&mɘd. The nominative occurs only in postpositional constructions; in the second- and third-person accusative

TABLE 14.8  KOMI REFLEXIVE/INTENSIFIER PRONOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM Singular

Plural

1

2

3

1

2

3

Nominative

ɑt͡ɕ-ɨm ‘I myself’

ɑt͡ɕ-ɨd ‘you yourself’

ɑt͡ɕ-ɨs ‘her/ himself’

aɕ-nɨ-m ‘we ourselves’

aɕ-nɨ-d ‘you (pl.) yourselves’

aɕ-nɨ-s ‘they themselves’

Genitive

as-lɑ-m ɑt͡ɕ-ɨm-ɘs

as-lɑ-d

as-la-s

as-lɑ-nɨ-m

as-lɑ-nɨ-d

as-lɑ-nɨ-s

aɕ-tɘ

aɕ-sɘ

as-nɨ-m-ɘs

as-nɨ-tɘ

as-nɨ-sɘ

as-lɨ-m ɑt͡ɕ-ɨm-ɘn

as-lɨ-d

as-lɨ-s

as-lɨ-nɨ-m

asl-lɨ-nɨ-d

as-lɨ-nɨ-s

Instrumental

as-na-d

as-na-s

as-na-nɨ-m

as-na-nɨ-d

as-na-nɨ-s

Comitative

as-kɘd

as-kɘd-ɨd

as-kɘd-ɨs

as-kɘd-nɨ-m

as-kɘd-nɨ-d

as-kɘd-nɨ-s

Accusative Dative

Abessive

as-tɘg

as-tɘg-ɨd

as-tɘg-ɨs

as-tɘg-nɨ-m

as-tɘg-nɨ-d

as-tɘg-nɨ-s

Consecutive

(as-lɑ) (ɑt͡ ɕ-ɨm-ɨn)

(as-ɨd-lɑ)

(as-ɨs-lɑ)

(as-nɨ-m-lɑ)

(as-nɨ-d-lɑ)

(as-nɨ-s-lɑ)

(as-a-d)

(as-a-s)

(as-a-nɨ-m)

(as-a-nɨ-d)

(as-a-nɨ-s)

(ɑt͡ɕ-id-ɨɕ/ ɑɕ-ɨd)

(ɑt͡ɕ-is-ɨɕ/ ɑɕ-ɨs)

as-ɕɨ-nɨ-m

as-ɕɨ-nɨ-d

as-ɕɨ-nɨ-s

as-ɕɨ-d

as-ɕɨ-s

Inessive Elative

(ɑt͡ɕ-ɨm-ɘ) (ɑt͡ɕ-ɨm-ɨɕ)

Ablative

as-ɕɨ-m

Illative

Approximative

as-lɑɲ

as-lɑɲ-ɨd

as-lɑɲ-ɨs

as-lɑɲ-nɨ-m

as-lɑɲ-nɨ-d

as-lɑɲ-nɨ-s

Egressive

as-ɕɑɲ

as-ɕɑɲ-ɨd

as-ɕɑɲ-ɨs

as-ɕɑɲ-nɨ-m

as-ɕɑɲ-nɨ-d

as-ɕɑɲ-nɨ-s

Prosecutive

-

-

-

-

-

-

Transitive

(as-ti) (as-ɘd͡ʑ)

(as-ti-ɨd) (as-ɘd͡ʑ-ɨd)

(as-ti-ɨs) (as-ɘd͡ʑ-ɨs)

(as-ti-nɨ-m) (as-ɘd͡ʑ-nɨ-m)

(as-ti-nɨ-d) ͡ (as-ɘdʑ-nɨ-d)

(as-ti-nɨ-s) (as-ɘd͡ʑ-nɨ-s)

Terminative

Note: Forms in brackets are seldom used.

ZYRIAN KOMI 631 TABLE 14.9  KOMI RECIPROCAL PRONOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM Absolute

Personal 1

2

3

Nominative

ɘta-mɘd

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs

Genitive

ɘta-mɘd-lɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-lɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-lɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-lɘn

Accusative

ɘta-mɘd-ɘs

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-ɘs

ɘta-mɘd-nɨ-tɘ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨ-sɘ

Dative

ɘta-mɘd-lɨ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-lɨ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-lɨ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-lɨ

Instrumental

ɘta-mɘd-ɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-ɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-ɘn

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-ɘn

Comitative

ɘta-mɘd-kɘd

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-kɘd

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-kɘd

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-kɘd

Abessive

ɘta-mɘd-tɘg

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-tɘg

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-tɘg

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-tɘg

Consecutive

-

-

-

-

Inessive

-

-

-

-

Illative

ɘta-mɘd-ɘ

-

-

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-ɘ

Elative

ɘta-mɘd-ɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-ɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-ɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-ɨɕ

Ablative

ɘta-mɘd-lɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-lɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-lɨɕ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-lɨɕ

Approximative

ɘta-mɘd-lɑɲ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-lɑɲ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨd-lɑɲ

ɘta-mɘd-nɨs-lɑɲ

Egressive

ɘta-mɘd-ɕɑɲ

-

-

-

Prosecutive

-

-

-

-

Transitive

-

-

-

-

Terminative

-

-

-

-

forms, the final -d and -s of the person suffix have been elided. Not all cells in the paradigm are attested, and reciprocal pronouns have no inessive, prosecutive, transitive, or terminative forms. Use of the third-person singular suffix in its non-possessive, determinative function is common in reciprocal pronouns, where its position is also before the case suffix (10‒11): (10) dɨr najɘ e-z ɕorɲit-nɨ long.time they neg.aux.prt-3sg/pl talk-cng.pl ɘta-mɘd-ɨs-kɘd one-other-3sg-com ‘For a long time they did not talk to each other.’ (11) mijan kotɨr ɲe-ɨd͡ʒɨd, no mi raɟejt-am we.gen family neg-large but we love-prs.1pl ɘta-mɘd-nɨm-ɘs i mijan-lɨ ɘtlaɨn zev bur one-other-1pl-acc and we-dat together very good ‘Our family is not big, but we love each other and together we’re very happy.’ (Udovik; KKJa)

632 ROGIER BLOKLAND

14.6.5 Indefinite pronouns There are two main (affirmative) animate indefinite pronouns: kod+kɘ ~ kod|ɕurɘ ‘someone, somebody,’ both based on kod ‘who’; the particle -kɘ may be separated from its headword (cf. kod+kɘ vɨl-ɘ somebody top-ill ~ kod vɨl-ɘ kɘ ‘for someone’), but kod|ɕurɘ is an inseparable lexical unit (cf. kod|ɕurɘ-lɨ ‘to somebody’ vs. kod-lɨ+kɘ ‘id.’). The inflectional paradigms of the Komi indefinite pronouns can be found in Table 14.10. 14.4.6 Interrogative and relative pronouns There is no morphological difference between interrogative and relative pronouns, although kod(i) ‘who,’mɨj ‘what’ (12), and kučɘm ‘what kind’ also occur in the plural with the pluralizer -jas (13). The paradigms of interrogative/relative pronouns can be found in Table 14.11. (12) mɨj ʃu-i-n? what say-prt-2sg ‘What did you say?’ (13) tajɘ-jas kod-jas-lɨ mojvi-i-s vojujt-nɨ these-pl who-pl-dat befall-prt-3sg wage.war-inf ‘those to whom it fell to wage war’ TABLE 14.10  KOMI INDEFINITE PRONOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM Singular

Plural

‘Somebody’

‘Something’

‘Somebody’

‘Something’

Nominative

kod-kɘ

mɨj-kɘ

kod-jas-kɘ

mɨj-jas-kɘ

Genitive

kod-lɘn-kɘ

mɨj-lɘn-kɘ

kod-jas-lɘn-kɘ

mɨj-jas-lɘn-kɘ

Accusative

kod-ɘs-kɘ

mɨj-ɘs-kɘ

kod-jas-ɘs-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɘs-kɘ

Dative

kod-lɨ-kɘ

mɨj-lɨ-kɘ

kod-jas-lɨ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-lɨ-kɘ

Ablative

kod-lɨɕ-kɘ

mɨj-lɨɕ-kɘ

kod-jas-lɨɕ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-lɨɕ-kɘ

Instrumental

kod-ɘn-kɘ

mɨj-ɘn-kɘ

kod-jas-ɘn-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɘn-kɘ

Comitative

kod-kɘd-kɘ

mɨj-kɘd-kɘ

kod-jas-kɘd-kɘ

mɨj-jas-kɘd-kɘ

Abessive

kod-tɘg-kɘ

mɨj-tɘg-kɘ

kod-jas-tɘg-kɘ

mɨj-jas-tɘg-kɘ

Consecutive

kod-lɑ-kɘ

mɨj-lɑ-kɘ

kod-jas-la-kɘ

mɨj-jas-la-kɘ

Inessive

kod-ɨn-kɘ

mɨj-ɨn-kɘ

kod-jas-ɨn-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɨn-kɘ

Illative

kod-ɘ-kɘ

mɨj-ɘ-kɘ

kod-jas-ɘ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɘ-kɘ

Elative

kod-ɨɕ-kɘ

mɨj-ɨɕ-kɘ

kod-jas-ɨɕ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɨɕ-kɘ

Approximative

kod-lɑɲ-kɘ

mɨj-lɑɲ-kɘ

kod-jas-lɑɲ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-lɑɲ-kɘ

Egressive

kod-ɕɑɲ-kɘ

mɨj-ɕɑɲ-kɘ

kod-jas-ɕɑɲ-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɕɑɲ-kɘ

Prosecutive

kod-ɘd-kɘ

mɨj-ɘd-kɘ

kod-jas-ɘd-kɘ

mɨj-jas-ɘd-kɘ

Transitive

(kod-ti-kɘ) kod-ɘd͡ʑ-kɘ

(mɨj-ti-kɘ) mɨj-ɘd͡ʑ-kɘ

(kod-jas-ti-kɘ) kod-jas-ɘd͡ʑ-kɘ

(mɨj-jas-ti-kɘ) mɨj-jas-ɘd͡ʑ-kɘ

Terminative

Note: Forms in brackets are seldom used.

ZYRIAN KOMI 633 TABLE 14.11  KOMI INTERROGATIVE AND RELATIVE PRONOUN INFLECTION PARADIGM ‘Who’

‘What’

‘What kind’

‘How many’

Nominative

kod(i)

mɨj

kučɘm

kɨmɨn

Genitive

kod-lɘn

mɨj-lɘn

kučɘm-lɘn

kɨmɨn-lɘn

Accusative

kod-ɘs

mɨj-ɘs

kučɘm-ɘs

kɨmɨn-ɘs

Dative

kod-lɨ

mɨj-lɨ

kučɘm-lɨ

kɨmɨn-lɨ

Ablative

kod-lɨɕ

mɨj-lɨɕ

kučɘm-lɨɕ

kɨmɨn-lɨɕ

Instrumental

kod-ɘn

mɨj-ɘn

kučɘm-ɘn

kɨmɨn-ɘn

Comitative

kod-kɘd

mɨj-kɘd

kučɘm-kɘd

kɨmɨn-kɘd

Abessive

kod-tɘg

mɨj-tɘg

kučɘm-tɘg

kɨmɨn-tɘg

Consecutive

kod-lɑ

mɨj-lɑ

kučɘm-la

kɨmɨn-la

Inessive

kod-ɨn

mɨj-ɨn

kučɘm-ɨn

kɨmɨn-ɨn

Illative

kod-ɘ

mɨj-ɘ

kučɘm-ɘ

kɨmɨn-ɘ

Elative

kod-ɨɕ

mɨj-ɨɕ

kučɘm-ɨɕ

kɨmɨn-ɨɕ

Approximative

kod-lɑɲ

mɨj-lɑɲ

kučɘm-lɑɲ

kɨmɨn-lɑɲ

Egressive

kod-ɕɑɲ

mɨj-ɕɑɲ

kučɘm-ɕɑɲ

kɨmɨn-ɕɑɲ

Prosecutive

kod-ɘd

mɨj-ɘd

kučɘm-ɘd

kɨmɨn-ɘd

Transitive

kod-ti

mɨj-ti

Terminative

kod-ɘd͡ʑ

mɨj-ɘd͡ʑ

kučɘm-ti kučɘm-ɘd͡ʑ

kɨmɨn-ti kɨmɨn-ɘd͡ʑ

The interrogative pronoun kodi ‘who’ may also take person suffixes: kod-nɨm who-1pl ‘which of us two?’ kod-nɨd who-2pl ‘which of you two?’ kod-nɨs who-3pl ‘which one (of the two of them)?’ (e.g. kod-nɨs prav-ɘɕ? who-3pl right-prpl ‘which one (of the two) is right?’ Here, the plurality implied by kod-nɨs requires plural congruence on prav); kɨmɨn ‘how many’ also occurs as an ordinal with the ordinal suffix .ɘd: kɨmɨn|ɘd lit. ‘the how many-eth’ (cf. German der wievielte). The following also occur with the negation prefix ɲe-: for example, ɲe-kod neg-who ‘nobody’ (which may also be followed by a person suffix), ɲe-kučɘm neg-what ‘no kind of,’ ɲe-kɨmɨn neg-how.much ‘some, a few.’ 14.7 NUMERALS Komi numerals form a decimal system consisting of the basic numerals from ‘one’ to ‘ten,’ plus ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand.’ All other numerals are compounds based on these terms; numbers between 11 and 19 are formed with 10 as the base, between 21 and 29 with 20 as the base, and so on, on the pattern base+number. The decades from 30 to 60 are based, somewhat idiosyncratically, on the basic numerals from 3 to 6 with the decade suffix -mɨn (14); from 70 to 90, they are based on the basic numerals 7 to 9, with the numeral das ‘10’ functioning as the decade morpheme (15).

634 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(14) mort-ɨs komɨn kɘkjamɨs vo ʃoperal-ɘma man-3sg thirty eight year chauffeur-ppc ‘The man has worked 38 years as a chauffeur.’ (Khatanzejskij; KKJa) (15) regɨd komi respubʎika-lɨ ɘkmɨs+das vit vo tɨrɘm pasjɨ-nɨ soon Komi Republic-dat ninety five year filling celebrate-inf pond-am start-prs.1pl ‘Soon we will start to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the Komi Republic.’ (Gorčakov; KKJa) 14.7.1 Cardinal numerals Komi cardinal numbers are listed in Table 14.12. Note that ɕiʑim|das [ˈɕiʑimˌdas] means ‘70’ whilst ɕiʑim das [ˈɕiʑim ˈdas] means ‘seven tens.’ Numerals may also take the second- and third-person singular person suffixes to indicate definiteness: vit-ɘd five-2sg (~ vit-ɘs five-3sg) ‘the fifth (one)’ > vit-ɘd-lɨ five-2sg-dat ‘to the fifth (one).’ The verb in a construction with a numeral phrase functioning as subject can be in the singular or in the plural, though there is a tendency for the verb to be in the singular with higher numbers (16‒17): TABLE 14.12  THE CARDINAL NUMBERS FROM 1 TO 100,000 IN KOMI 1

ɘci ~ ɘcik

11

das ɘci ~ das ɘcik

2

kɨk

12

das kɨk

3

kuim

13

das kuim

4

ɲoʎ

14

das ɲoʎ

5

vit

15

das vit

6

kvajt

16

das kvajt

7

ɕiʑim

17

das ɕiʑim

8

kɘkjamɨs

18

das kɘkjamɨs

9

ɘkmɨs

19

das ɘkmɨs

10

das

20

kɨʑ

22

kɨʑ kɨk

100

ɕo

33

ko.mɨn kuim

101

ɕo ɘci

44

ɲeʎa.mɨn ɲoʎ

200

kɨk+ɕo

55

vetɨ.mɨn vit

1,000

ɕurs ~ tɨɕat͡ʃa

66

kvajtɨ.mɨn kvajt

1,001

77

ɕiʑim+das ɕiʑim

ɕurs ɘci ~ tɨɕat͡ʃa ɘci kɨk ɕurs ~ kɨk tɨɕat͡ʃa

88

kɘkjamɨs+das kɘkjamɨs

10,000

99

ɘkmɨs+das ɘkmɨs

100,000

2,000

das ɕurs ~ das tɨɕat͡ʃa ͡ ɕo ɕurs ~ ɕo tɨɕatʃa

ZYRIAN KOMI 635 TABLE 14.13  THE ORDINAL NUMBERS FROM 1 TO 100,000 IN KOMI pervɘj ~ medvodd͡ʑa

11th

das ɘcik|ɘd

2nd

mɘd

12th

das kɨk|ɘd

3rd

kuim.ɘd

13th

das kuim|ɘd

4th

ɲoʎ.ɘd

14th

das ɲoʎ|ɘd

5th

vit.ɘd

15th

das vit|ɘd

6th

kvajt.ɘd

16th

das kvajt|ɘd

7th

ɕiʑim.ɘd

17th

das ɕiʑim|ɘd

8th

kɘkjamɨs.ɘd

18th

das kɘkjamɨs|ɘd

9th

ɘkmɨs.ɘd

19th

das ɘkmɨs|ɘd

10th

das.ɘd

20th

kɨʑ|ɘd

22nd

kɨʑ kɨk|ɘd

100th

ɕo|ɘd

33rd

ko.mɨn kuim|ɘd

101st

ɕo ɘcik|ɘd

44th

ɲeʎa|mɨn ɲoʎ|ɘd

200th

kɨk+ɕo|ɘd

55th

vetɨ|mɨn vit|ɘd

1,000th

66th

kvajtɨ|mɨn kvajt|ɘd

1,001st

77th

ɕiʑim|das ɕiʑim|ɘd

2,000th

88th

kɘkjamɨs|das kɘkjamɨs|ɘd

99th

ɘkmɨs|das ɘkmɨs|ɘd

1st

10,000th 100,000th

ɕurs|ɘd ~ tɨɕat͡ʃa|ɘd ɕurs ɘcik|ɘd ~ tɨɕat͡ʃa ɘcik|ɘd kɨk ɕurs|ɘd ~ kɨk tɨɕat͡ʃa|ɘd das ɕurs|ɘd ~ das tɨɕat͡ʃa|ɘd ɕo ɕurs|ɘd ~ ɕo tɨɕat͡ʃa|ɘd

(16) vit mort mun-i-sny five man go-prt-3pl ‘five men went’ (17) ɕurs mort mun-i-s thousand man go-prt-3sg ‘a thousand men went’ 14.7.2 Ordinal numerals The ordinal numerals are all based on the cardinals, with the exception of the first two, which are suppletive; the Russian borrowing pervɘj ‘first’ (< Ru. pervoj) is more common than the inherited Komi ordinal. The ordinal numbers are listed in Table 14.13. 14.8 VERB INFLECTION Verbs inflect for person (first, second, and third), subject number (singular and plural), tense (present, future, past), and mood (realis: indicative; irrealis: imperative), but not for voice. There is only one verb conjugation. Negative forms are expressed by (1a) either a negative auxiliary which inflects for person and tense (in the future, present, preterite) (1b) or a negative particle (in the perfect and pluperfect) plus (2) a connegative, which is

636 ROGIER BLOKLAND

identical to the stem of the verb (cf. mun-nɨ go-inf ‘to go,’ mun go.cng.sg). For ease of reference, the periphrastic forms, which signal aspect and/or unwitnessed evidentiality, are listed here too. Use of the verbs will be illustrated in Section 16. If two forms are given separated by a tilde in the following tables, the first one is the more common. 14.8.1 Indicative 14.8.1.1 The present tense The present tense has no tense marker. Table 14.14 contains the affirmative and negative present tense forms of the verb mun- ‘to go.’ The present tense can also be used with future reference: aski me muna tomorrow I go.prs.1sg ‘tomorrow I’ll go.’ In the negative present tense, person is expressed in the negative auxiliary (o- in the present tense), where the first- and second-person plural are often also used with the additional suffix -ɘ; in the third-person plural, the suffix -nɨ is homophonous with the third-person suffix of the affirmative present tense. 14.8.1.2 The future tenses Komi has two future tenses: a morphological future tense (Table 14.15) and an analytical future tense consisting of an auxiliary and the lexical verb (Table 14.16). The first (morphological) future tense differs from the present tense only with respect to the third-person forms (in bold in Table 14.15) in the affirmative (17); the negative forms are all identical to those of the negative present tense (18). (17) zonka-ɨs ɲaɲ-sɘ boy-3sg bread-3sg.acc ‘The boy will buy bread.’

ɲɘb-as buy-fut.3sg

(18) me o-g mun Sɨktɨvkar-ɘ I neg.prs/fut-1sg go.cng.sg Syktyvkar-ill a. ‘I am not (presently) going (on my way) to Syktyvkar.’ b. ‘I will not go to Syktyvkar.’ The second, analytical, future tense is formed with the present tense of a number of ingressive auxiliary verbs (kut- ‘to take, grasp; start,’ pondɨ- ‘to start’ and mɘd- ‘to start’) and the infinitive of the lexical verb (Table 14.16). The second future often has an inchoative meaning. The lexical verb may also occur before the auxiliary verb (e.g. bɘrd-nɨ kut-i-s cry-inf start-prt-3sg ~ kut-i-s bɘrd-nɨ start-prt-3sg cry-inf ‘to start to cry’), but the order ‘auxiliary-lexical verb’ is more common. 14.8.1.3 The past tenses There is no agreement in the grammatical descriptions of Komi on the number of past tenses. There are two simple past tenses, the preterite and the perfect, where the preterite is a pure tense and the perfect is usually fused with resultativity, evidentiality, or subjective attitude of the speaker.

ZYRIAN KOMI 637 TABLE 14.14 THE PRESENT TENSE OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

1sg

mun-a ‘I go’

o-g mun ‘I do not go’

2sg

mun-an

o-n mun

3sg

mun-ɘ

o-z mun

1pl

mun-am

o-g(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

2pl

mun-an-nɨd

o-n(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

3pl

mun-ɘ-nɨ

o-z mun-nɨ

TABLE 14.15  THE FUTURE TENSE OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

1sg

mun-a ‘I will go’

o-g mun ‘I will not go’

2sg

mun-an

o-n mun

3sg

mun-as

o-z mun

1pl

mun-am

o-g(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

2pl

mun-an-nɨd

o-n(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

3pl

mun-as-nɨ

o-z mun-nɨ

TABLE 14.16  THE SECOND FUTURE TENSE OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI WITH THE INGRESSIVE AUXILIARY KUTNƗ Affirmative

Negative

1sg

kuta mun-nɨ ‘I am going to go’

o-g kut mun-nɨ ‘I am not going to go’

2sg

kuta-n mun-nɨ

o-n kut mun-nɨ

3sg

kut-ɘ mun-nɨ

o-z kut mun-nɨ

1pl

kuta-m mun-nɨ

o-g(-ɘ) kut-ɘj mun-nɨ

2pl

kuta-n-nɨd mun-nɨ

o-n(-ɘ) kut-ɘj mun-nɨ

3pl

kuta-s-nɨ mun-nɨ

o-z kut-nɨ mun-nɨ

The preterite

The preterite morpheme is -i-, but in the third-person singular, the additional marker -s may also occur (this s also occurs in the third person in the first future tense); in colloquial Komi, the form without the -s is more common. The preterite forms of a sample verb are listed in Table 14.17. The perfect

The perfect is based on the past participle in -ɘm, as Table 14.18 shows. There is no copula.

638 ROGIER BLOKLAND

In the non-second-person forms, the a is originally an adjective suffix, and so the firstand third-person plural take -ɘɕ, the plural agreement marker for adjectives (see Section 14.6). In the second-person singular and plural, the suffixes -ɨd and -nɨd are person suffixes; in the third-person plural, either the adjective suffix -a plus the plural predicative agreement marker -ɘɕ is used for the third-person plural person suffix. As the perfect tends to be used as an evidential past (19), the first-person singular and plural are rare in the written language and occur mostly in dialects and folkloric texts; they often seem to have a mirative meaning (20). The negative perfect consists of the negative particle abu and the perfect participle. (19) najɘ mun-ɘma-ɘɕ they go-ppc-pl ‘They apparently had gone.’ (20) me uʑ-ɘma I sleep-ppc ‘I seem to have slept.’

TABLE 14.17  THE PRETERITE OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

mun-i ‘I went’

e-g mun ‘I did not go’

2sg

mun-i-n

e-n mun

3sg

mun-i-s (lit.) ~ mun-i (coll.)

e-z mun

1sg

1pl

mun-i-m

e-g(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

2pl

mun-i-n-nɨd

e-n(-ɘ) mun-ɘj

3pl

mun-i-s-nɨ

e-z mun-nɨ

TABLE 14.18  THE PERFECT OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

1sg

mun-ɘma ‘I have gone; I seem to have gone’

abu mun-ɘma ‘I have not gone; I seem not to have gone’

2sg

mun-ɘm-ɨd

abu mun-ɘm-ɨd

3sg

mun-ɘm(a)

abu mun-ɘma

1pl

mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

abu mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

2pl

mun-ɘm-nɨd

abu mun-ɘm-nɨd

3pl

mun-ɘma-ɘɕ ~ mun-ɘm-nɨ

abu mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

ZYRIAN KOMI 639

The pluperfect

The pluperfect is based on the predicative particle vɘli ‘was’ (originally vɘl-i be-prt of the verb vɘv- ‘be’) and the perfect participle in -ɘma in the first and third persons and person suffixes in the second person. In the negative pluperfect, the negative particle abu is used, though in the first-person singular, the negative preterite of vɘl- (i.e. e-g vɘv neg.aux.prt1sg go.cng.sg ‘I was not’) may be used instead (see Table 14.19). In addition, up to five additional (often less-used) past tenses occur, as combinations of one of the two predicative particles vɘli ‘was’ and vɘl-ɘm ‘was-evi’ (originally vɘl-ɘm be-prf of the verb vɘv- ‘to be’) with the present, the perfect, or the first future of a lexical verb. For examples, see Section 14.16. 14.8.2 The imperative The imperative proper consists of the second-person singular of the verb stem, and in the second-person plural, the suffix -ɘj is added to the stem; these forms are thus identical to the connegative forms. The third person, which in some grammars of Komi is called the optative or jussive, is formed analytically (but also treated here) with the particle med, where in the third-person singular the particle precedes the present (used for optatives) or first future (used for commands) of the third-person singular, and in the third-person plural it precedes the present of the third-person plural (see Table 14.20).

TABLE 14.19  THE PLUPERFECT OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

1sg

vɘl-i mun-ɘma ‘I had gone’

vɘl-i abu mun-ɘma ~ e-g vɘv mun-ɘma ‘I had not gone’

2sg

vɘl-i(-n) mun-ɘm-ɨd

vɘl-i(-n) abu mun-ɘmɨd

3sg

vɘl-i mun-ɘma

vɘl-i abu mun-ɘm(a)

1pl

vɘl-i(-m) mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

vɘl-i(-m) abu mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

2pl

vɘl-i(-d) mun-ɘm-nɨd

vɘl-i(-d) abu mun-ɘm-nɨd

3pl

vɘl-i(-nɨ) mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

vɘl-i(-nɨ) abu mun-ɘma-ɘɕ

TABLE 14.20 THE IMPERATIVE OF MUN- ‘TO GO’ IN KOMI Affirmative

Negative

1sg

-

-

2sg

mun ‘go!’

e-n mun ‘don’t go!’

3sg

med mun-ɘ ~ med mun-as

med o-z mun

1pl

mun-am-ɘj

og-ɘ mun-ɘj

2pl

mun-ɘ(j)

e-n-ɘ mun-ɘj

3pl

med mun-ɘ-nɨ

med o-z mun-nɨ

640 ROGIER BLOKLAND

The negative forms are formed analytically with the prohibitive auxiliary e- and the verb stem in the second- and third-person singular and with the additional suffix -ɘ in the auxiliary and -ɘj in the lexical verb in the second- and third-person plural; the third-person plural lexical verb has the additional suffix -nɨ. The negative third persons are identical to the negative present tense, but with the preposed particle med. The indicative first-person plural may also function as an imperative: mun-am-ɘj! go-1pl.prs-imp.2pl ‘Let’s go!’ The second-person plural may also be used as a polite form (21). (21) viɕtal-ɘj, pɘʒalujsta, kɘni komi ɲebɘg lavka? tell-imp.2pl please where Komi book shop ‘Could you tell me, please, where the Komi bookshop is?’ The third-person plural can also be used to refer to indefinite persons (22, 116). (22) te kɘsj-an juav-nɨ, mɨjla vaʒɘn vɘralɨɕ-jas-ɘs you want-prs.2sg ask-inf why before hunter-pl-acc e-z bɘrjɨv-nɨ deputat-ɘ neg.aux.prt-3 elect-cng.pl delegate-ill ‘You want to ask why hunters used not to be elected as delegates?’ 14.8.3 Nonfinites Komi has one infinitive in -nɨ (e.g. mun-nɨ go-inf ‘to go,’ velɘdt͡ɕɨ-nɨ study-inf ‘to study’), four participles, and five converbs. Nearly all verb stems end in either a consonant or in -ɨ; there are a few monosyllabic verbs that do not (e.g. lo- ‘to be,’ ɕi- ‘to wish,’ nu- ‘to carry,’ ʃu- ‘to say,’ vi- ‘to kill,’ vo- ‘to come’; cf. also burɕi- ‘to bless’ [< bur ‘good + ɕi‘wish’] and mojvi- ‘to be lucky’ [< moj ‘beaver’ + vi- ‘to kill’]). The four participles are (i) present active participle in -ɨɕ (velɘdt͡ɕɨ- ‘to study’ > velɘdt͡ɕ-ɨɕ ‘one who studies’ > ‘pupil; student’); (ii) present passive in -an (velɘdt͡ɕ-an ‘educational, academic’); (iii) perfect active (and passive) in -ɘm (velɘdt͡ɕ-ɘm ‘studied’); and (iv) negative perfect active (and passive) in -tɘm (velɘdt͡ɕ-tɘm ‘not learnèd’ > ‘illiterate, unlettered’). The Komi converbs may be illustrated as follows. The simultaneous temporal converb ends in -ig (23); personal suffixes, case suffixes, the pluralizer -jas, or postpositions (such as moz ‘like, as’) can all be affixed to -ig: ͡tɕaj ju-ig (23) varovitɨʃt-nɨ na-kɘd da chat-inf they-com tea drink-sim.cvb and ͡ ajbartɕaɕ-ig-moz cut.and.eat.frozen.meat.or.fish-sim.cvb-as ‘to chat with them whilst cutting and eating frozen meat or fish’ (Lyjurov; KKJa) The simultaneous or anterior temporal converb has the suffix -ɘmɘn (24); anteriority is indicated by the postposition ͡tʃɘt͡ʃ ‘at once’: (24) no, well

kɨla, listen.imp.2sg

talun today

menɨm I.dat

veʑit-as, luck.befalls-fut.3sg

pɨzan table

ZYRIAN KOMI 641

͡tʃɘt͡ʃ sajɘ pukɕ-ɘmɘn gorɘd-i-s vaɕ behind sit-temp.cvb at.once shout-prt-3sg Vas’ ‘“Well, listen, today will be my lucky day,” shouted Vas after sitting down at the table.’ (Prjanechnikov; KKJa) The terminative converb has the suffix -tɘd͡ʑ (25): (25) no, vok-ɘ, ad͡ʑːɨɕlɨ-tɘd͡ʑ-nɨm well son-dim see-term.cvb-1pl ‘Well, son, until we meet again!’ (Beznosikov; KKJa)

na! already

There is another terminative converb in -mɘn (26), but it is less common than -tɘd͡ʑ: tɘdt͡ ɕɨ-mɘn (26) ɲaɲ pɘʒalɨɕ-lɘn ud͡ ʒ-ɨs kokɲamm-i-s bread baker-gen work-3sg become.noticeable-term.cvb become.easier-prt-3sg ‘the work of a bread baker has become noticeably easier’ (Ustinova; KKJa) The caritive converb is -tɘg (27, see also 114): (27) dɨr pukal-i-s ɲem dumajt-tɘg long sit-prt-3sg nothing think-car.cvb ‘she sat for a long time without thinking anything’ 14.9 OTHER WORD CLASSES 14.9.1 Adverbs Adverbs form an open word class; they may modify adjectives, other adverbs, verbs, or whole clauses. Temporal adverbs include aski ‘tomorrow,’ ɘni ‘now,’ kor, kodɨr ‘when,’ kor=kɘ ‘once,’ ɲe=kor ‘never,’ sek, seki ‘then,’ ta+lun ‘today,’ tɘ+rɨt ‘yesterday.’ These often occur with case forms, for example, ɘni ‘now’: ɘni-ɘd͡ʒ ‘till now,’ ɘni-ɕaɲ ‘since then.’ Locational adverbs are mostly derived from pronouns or nouns and usually occur in series in the inessive, elative, lative, transitive, terminative, and egressive case in slightly aberrant form, for example, tani, tatɘn (inessive) ‘here’ ~ tatɨɕ (elative) ‘from here’ ~ tat͡ɕɘ (lative) ‘hither’ ~ tat, tati (transitive) ‘(along) this way’ ~ tat͡ɕɘd͡ʑ (terminative) ‘up to here’ ~ taɕaɲ, tatɨɕaɲ (egressive) ‘from this direction; sen, seni, setɘn (inessive) ‘there’ ~ setɨɕ (elative) ‘from there’ ~ set͡ɕɘ (lative) ‘thither’ ~ set, seti (transitive) ‘(along) that way’ ~ set͡ɕɘd͡ʑ (terminative) ‘up to there’ ~ seɕaɲ, setɨɕaɲ (egressive) ‘from that direction’; kɘni, kɨtɘn (inessive) ‘where?’ ~ kɨtɨɕ (elative) ‘from where?’ ~ kɨtː͡ɕɘ (lative) ‘whither?’ ~ kɨt, kɨti (transitive) ‘(along) what way?’ ~ kɨtː͡ɕɘd͡ʑ (terminative) ‘up to where?’ ~ kɨɕaɲ, kɨtɨɕaɲ (egressive) ‘from (out of) where?’ Similarly for example, kɘn--kɘ, kɨtɘn--kɘ ‘somewhere,’ ɲe--kɘn ‘nowhere.’ Location adverbs may take the pluralizer -jas: tan-jas-ɨn here-pl-ine ‘here (in these places)’; they may also take the predicative nominal pluralizer -ɘɕ in verbless present-tense

642 ROGIER BLOKLAND

constructions: sijɘ vɘr-ɨn s/he forest-ine ‘she is in the forest’ > najɘ vɘr-ɨn-ɘɕ they forestine-prpl ‘they are in the forest.’ Morphologically, heterogeneous adverbs include those pertaining to frequency, degree, or quantity (e.g. ͡tʃɘkɨd|a ‘often,’ tɨrvɨjɘ ‘completely,’ zev ‘very’) and those expressing value, speed, difficulty, etc. They often have the derivational suffix |a if derived from adjectives: bur.a ‘better,’ kokɲi|a ‘easily,’ mitɕa|a ‘beautifully’ ɲɘʒmɨd|a ‘slowly,’ terɨb|a ‘quickly.’ Manner adverbs can also have a comparative degree: kokɲi|a=d͡ʒɨk|a easy.advcmp.adv ‘slightly more easily.’ The derivational suffix |a can also apply cyclically, turning nouns into adjectives, and then adjectives into adverbs: for example, gor ‘sound > gor|a ‘loud’ > gor|a|a ‘loudly’; gaʒ ‘joy’ > gaʒ|a ‘happy’ > gaʒ|a|a ‘happily.’ Epistemic adverbs are also a morphologically heterogeneous group, including for example, poʑana ‘possibly,’ tɨdalɘ ‘evidently.’ ͡ The comparative clitic =dʒɨk may also be added to the negative particle abu (see Section 14.17, ‘Negation’): abu=d͡ ʒɨk gɘgɘrvo-a neg-cmp understand-prs.1sg ‘I understand less well.’ Komi is rich in ideophones (28) that are often reduplicated, with minor changes in the vowel (29). Komi ideophones are usually subsumed under adverbs, but they may modify other word classes in addition to verbs: tup&tap.ker-nɨ peʎpom-ɘ ideo.do-inf shoulder-ill ‘to clap on the shoulder.’ (28) burɟin e-z uɟit pomav-nɨ kɨv-sɘ, Burdin neg.aux.prt-3sg manage.cng.sg start-inf word-3sg.acc ort͡ɕːa veʒɘs-ɨn mɨjkɘ grɨm kɨl-ɘ uɕ-i next room-ine something ideo hear-prs.3sg fall-prt.3sg ‘Burdin hadn’t even started to say something when in the next room (something) fell with a crash.’ (Lytkin; KKJa) (29) zur&zar pɨr-i, no zdorovajtː͡ɕ-i zev veʒavid͡ʑana ideo enter.prt.3sg but greet-pst.3sg very respectfully ‘He entered noisily, but greeted very respectfully.’ (Beznosikov; KKJa) For more information about ideophones, see Klumpp (2014b). 14.9.2 Postpositions Postpositions are nominal words indicating spatial relations and their temporal and other abstract metaphors. They do not have a form with a zero suffix, that is, they do not function as subjects or objects. Local postpositions typically form triads (with lative, locative, and separative meaningˌ and with relevant case affixation). The noun head is usually in the nominative (30‒31), though it can occasionally (e.g. panɨd ‘against’) be in other cases (32). (30) ɨdʒɨd ɲebɘg vɨl-ɨn large.nom book.nom top-ine ‘on top of the large book’ (31) nɨv-pi ponda tɘʒdɨs-nɨ girl-boy because worry-inf ‘worry about the children’

ZYRIAN KOMI 643

͡ (32) mɨjla te menɨm panɨd ɲinɘm votɕa-sɘ o-n ʃu? why you I.dat against nothing against-3sg.acc neg.prs-2sg say.cng.sg ‘Why won’t you answer me?’ (Popov & Lekanov; KKJa) Compare, for example, vɨl- ‘above’: vɨlɨn (inessive) ‘on (the surface),’ vɨlɨɕ (elative) ‘from the surface,’ vɨlɘ (illative) ‘to the surface’; ul- ‘below’: ulɨn (inessive) ‘below, on the bottom,’ ulɨɕ (elative) ‘from the bottom,’ vɨlɘ (illative) ‘to the bottom.’ Other typical postpositions that form such series include bɘr- ‘behind, after,’ din- ‘next to/at,’ jɨl- ‘on,’ ʃɘr- ‘in the middle,’ voʒ- ‘in front of.’ Others, which do not form case series, include dɨr.ja ‘during,’ gɘgɘr ‘about,’ pɨr ‘through,’ ponda ‘because.’ Postpositions can also take person suffixes: pɨzan vɨl-ɨn table on-ine ‘on a/the table ~ pɨzan vɨl-ɘ table on-ill ‘onto a/the table > pɨzan vɨl-a-s table on-ine/ill-3sg ‘on/onto this table.’ 14.9.3 Conjunctions Conjunctions in Komi form a closed class of words commonly used in clausal co- and subordination. A number of conjunctions have been borrowed from Russian. The most common coordinating conjunctions are: a ‘but; and,’ aʎi ‘or,’ da ‘and,’ i ‘and, also,’ ʎibɘ ‘or’ (33), ɲiɕɘ ‘otherwise; also not,’ ɲi no ‘however,’ sɘmɨn ‘only, but.’ (33) pɨzan vɨlɨn ʎibɘ ʃkap-ɨn ɲebɘg-ɨs table on or (book)case-ine book-3sg ‘The book is on the table or in the bookcase.’ The most common correlative conjunctions are: da . . . da ‘both . . . and,’ i . . . i ‘both . . . and,’ ʎibɘ . . . ʎibɘ ‘either . . . or,’ ɲe sɘmɨn . . . no i ‘not only . . . but also’ (34), ɲi . . . ɲi ‘neither . . . nor.’ (34) sijɘ ɲe sɘmɨn kɨj-ɘ treska, no s/he not only catch-prs.3sg cod, but da pɘrt-ɘ sijɘ-s gɘtɘvɘj and convert-prs.3sg it-acc ready ‘She doesn’t only catch cod, but also processes (product).’

͡tʃɘtʃ ͡ also

i pererabatɨvajt-ɘ and process-prs.3sg

it and makes it (into a) ready

The most common subordinating conjunctions are: bɨtcɘ ‘as (if)’ (35), da ‘when, because’ (cf. the coordinating conjunction da ‘and’), kɘ ‘if,’ kɘc ‘although,’ med ‘in order that,’ mɨj ‘that; because,’ mɨjɘn ‘as soon as.’ (35) ɕɨlankɨv vɘl-i zev nor, bɨtcɘ ͡tɕukt-ɘma ɕɘlɘm berd-ɨɕ song be-prt.3sg very plaintive as if cut-ppc heart side-ela ‘The song was very plaintive, as if torn from the heart.’ (Fedorov; KKJa) 14.10 DERIVATION Komi is rich in derivational morphology. The derivational means of lexicon extension are limited to suffixation (and, marginally, prefixation). There is no non-concatenative derivation.

644 ROGIER BLOKLAND

14.10.1 Nominal derivation Nouns can be derived from other nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Common nominal derivational suffixes include the following: ͡ |a derives nouns from adjectives: kuʑ ‘long’> kuʑ|a ‘length,’ mit͡ ɕ ‘beauty’ > mitɕ|a ‘beautiful’; |an derives nouns from verbs: ɕoj- ‘to eat’ > ɕoj|an ‘food,’ ju- ‘to drink’ > ju|an ‘drink’; |sa derives adjectives referring to place names or locations: Sɨktɨvkar ‘Syktyvkar’ > sɨktɨvkar|sa ‘pertaining to Syktyvkar’; kar ‘city’ > kar|sa ‘pertaining to the city, urban’; |ɕa derives temporal adjectives: lun ‘day’ > lun|ɕa ‘daily,’ tɘv ‘winter’ > tɘv|ɕa ‘wintry’; |ɘ derives hypocorisms from (proper) nouns, but also from exclamations: kok ‘leg’ > kok|ɘ ‘little leg,’ Vaɕiʎij ‘Vasilij’ > Vaɕ|ɘ ‘Vasya,’ tpru (horse command) > tpru|ɘ ‘little horse’; |in derives nouns from adjectives: olan ‘inhabited’ > olan|in ‘home, abode,’ poʒɘma ‘pine tree’ > poʒɘma|in ‘pine forest; |ɘm perfect participle; derives action or state nouns from verbs: vors- ‘to play’ > vors|ɘm ‘game,’ giʒ- ‘to write’ > giʒ|ɘm ‘(the act of) writing; letter’; |ɨɕ action nominalizer suffix, identical to the present participle, derives nouns from verbs: gɨʒ- ‘to write’ > gɨʒ|ɨɕ ‘writer, author’; velɘd- ‘to teach’ > velɘd|ɨɕ ‘teacher.’ Some derivational suffixes are affixoids and can also be used as substantives: |lun (originally ‘day’) derives nouns from adjectives with a property referred to by the base: bur ‘good’ > bur|lun ‘goodness’ (this contrasts suprasegmentally and ortographically with the greeting bur lun [ˈbur ˈlun] ‘good day’), ozɨr ‘rich’ > ozɨr|lun ‘riches, fortune’; |pi (originally ‘son’) derives nouns for the young of animals: kaj ‘bird’ > kaj|pi ‘chick,’ krolik ‘rabbit’ > krolik|pi ‘bunny’; |tor (originally ‘piece, bit’) derives nouns from adjectives with a property referred to by the base: vɨʎ ‘new’ > vɨʎ|tor ‘novelty, something new,’ ͡tɕɘskɨd ‘sweet’ > ͡tɕɘskɨd|tor ‘something sweet’; tor also functions as a diminutive suffix: jaj ‘meat’ > jaj|tor ‘(small) piece of meat,’ ɲaɲ ‘bread’ > ɲaɲ|tor ‘piece of bread.’ The grammaticalization of |tor as a derivational suffix is not yet fully realized: ɲaɲ|tor [ˈɲaɲtor] ‘piece of bread’ may also be written as ɲaɲ tor [ˈɲaɲ ˈtor], and ɲaɲ.tor may also mean ‘some bread.’ 14.10.2 Verbal derivation Verbs can be derived from other verbs, nouns, and adjectives (see 14.6.3). Common verb derivational suffixes include the following: |al- derives verbs from adjectives, nouns, and verbs: mit͡ɕa ‘beautiful’ > mit͡ɕa|al- ‘to be beautiful (about the weather),’ kɘm ‘shoe’ > kɘm|al- ‘to put on shoes’; |ɕ(ɨ)- derives intransitive, reflexive, or reciprocal verbs from transitives: sot- ‘to burn’ (tr) > sotːɕɨ- ‘to burn’ (itr), mɨɕkɨ- ‘to wash’ > mɨɕː- (i.e. mɨɕ|ɕ-) ‘to wash oneself,’ okal- ‘to kiss’ > okaɕ- ‘to kiss each other’; |ɘd- derives causative and factitive verbs: gɨʒ- ‘to write’ > gɨʒ|ɘd- ‘to have (someone) write,’ gɘrd ‘red’ > gɘrd|ɘd- ‘to redden (tr)’; |(l)ɨvl-; derives frequentative verbs: ɕet- ‘to give’ > ɕet|lɨvlɨ- ‘to give (freq),’ mun- ‘to go’ > mun|lɨvlɨ- ‘to walk around’; |ʑɨ-; derives intransitive verbs from nouns or adjectives: va ‘water’ > va|ʑɨ- ‘to become wet,’ turun ‘grass’ > turun|ʑɨ- ‘to become overgrown with grass’

ZYRIAN KOMI 645

14.11 COPULA CLAUSES There are several types of copula clauses in Komi. The prototypical strategy for predicate nominals is a zero-copula construction in the present indicative (36a-d), apart from existential constructions (36e) and possessive clauses (36f), where the uninflected copula em (present tense of the verb vɘv- ‘to be’) is used. This inflects only for number (plural: emɘɕ), but not for person. (36) a) Proper inclusion b) Equation c) Property d) Location e) Existence f) Possession

sijɘ guɕaɕɨɕ sijɘ menam bac sijɘ dɨʃ sijɘ kuxɲa-ɨn sijɘ em mijan em sijɘ

s/he thief s/he I.gen father s/he lazy s/he kitchen-ine s/he be be.cop we.gen be.cop s/he

‘he’s a thief’ ‘he’s my father’ ‘he’s lazy’ ‘he’s in the kitchen’ ‘he exists’ ‘we have you’

See Section 14.17.2 for negative forms. The complement of a copula clause can be a noun phrase (37), adjective (38), possessive phrase (39), numeral (40), or participle (41): (37) tajɘ mort-ɨs vɘralɨɕ this man-3sg hunter ‘This man is a hunter.’ (38) kerka-ɨs ɨd͡ʒɨd house-3sg big ‘The house is big.’ (39) kɲiga-ɨs menam book-3sg I.gen ‘The book is mine.’ (40) tajɘ vit.ɘd she five.ord ‘She is (the) fifth (one).’ (41) ɲaɲ-ɨs pɘʒal-ɘm bread-3sg bake-ppc ‘The bread is baked.’ The copula complement agrees in number with the copula subject: the pluralizer -jas is used on noun copula complements (42), whilst in other word classes, the pluralizer -ɘɕ is used (43): (42) mi student-jas we student-pl ‘We are students.’

646 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(43) kerka-jas-ɨs ɨd͡ʒɨd-ɘɕ house-pl-3sg big-prpl ‘The houses are big.’ In non-present tenses, personal forms of the verb vɘv- ‘to be’ or lo- ‘to become’ must be used (44–45): (44) tajɘ vɘl-i ɕɘkɨd mog this be-prt.3sg difficult business ‘This was a difficult matter.’ (45) tajɘ lo-ɘ ɕo this be-fut.3sg hundred ‘That will be 110 roubles.’

da and

das ʃajt ten rouble

A copula complement in an identity copula clause referring especially to a temporary relation in the non-present may be in the instrumental (46): (46) me seki vɘl-i student-ɘn I then be-prt.1sg student-inst ‘I was a student at the time.’ Occasionally, in such instrumental constructions, the copula may be omitted (47): (47) kɨʑ vo ɲin sovxoz-ɨn ɟirektor-nas twenty year already state.farm-ine director-inst.3sg grigorij afanaɕjevit͡ɕ mixajlov Grigorij Afanasevich Mikhailov ‘For 20 years now Grigorij Afanasevich Mikhailov has been the director of the state farm.’ (Amosov; KKJa) In negative copular constructions, the negative particle abu is used in the present tense (48–51): (48) tajɘ mort-ɨs abu vɘr.al.ɨɕ this man-3sg neg hunter ‘This man is not a hunter.’ (49) sijɘ abu sen s/he neg there ‘She is not there.’ (50) najɘ abu sen-ɘɕ they neg there-prpl ‘They are not there.’

ZYRIAN KOMI 647

(51) mi abu student-jas we neg student-pl ‘We are not students.’ In non-present tenses, the appropriate negative forms of the verb vɘl- ‘to be’ or lo- ‘to become’ are used (52–53): (52) tajɘ mort-ɨs e-z this man-3sg neg.aux.prt-3sg/pl ‘This man was not a hunter.’ (53) tajɘ mort-ɨs o-z this man-3sg neg.prs-3sg/pl ‘This man will not be a hunter.’

vɘv be.cng.sg

lo become.cng.sg

vɘralɨɕ hunter vɘralɨɕ hunter

For further details, see Hamari (2015). 14.12 POSSESSION WITHIN THE NP AND IN THE CLAUSE 14.12.1 Possession in the NP Ownership, whole-part relationships, and kinship relationships can all be expressed in the same manner by case suffixes (genitive or ablative) on the possessor and person suffixes on the possessed (i.e. double encoding, as illustrated in examples 54‒56), but constructions with simple juxtaposition and suffixes on either the possessor (i.e. dependent-marking) or the possessed (i.e. head-marking) are also common. The order is usually ‘possessor–possessed,’ but the reverse is also possible (62): (54) Vaɕa-lɘn maʃina-ɨs Vasja-gen car-3sg ‘Vasya’s car’ (55) menam vok-ɘj I.gen brother-1sg ‘my brother’ (56) na-lɘn kerka-nɨs they-gen house-3pl ‘their house’

~

kerka-ɨs house-3sg

Note that in example (56), the third-person plural person suffix is used as a ‘proper’ person suffix, whilst the third-person singular person suffix functions as a definiteness marker (despite the fact that definiteness is already implied by the personal pronoun); the third-person singular is in fact more common. Encodinɡ on the possessor only is illustrated in example (57a), whereas encoding on the possessee only with the same meaning can be found in example (57b). Examples (58a) and (58b) further illustrate encoding on the possessor only.

648 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(57a) menam vok I.gen brother ‘my brother’ (57b) vok-ɘj brother-1sg ‘my brother’ (58a) maʃina-lɘn ruʎ car-gen steering.wheel ‘the car’s steering wheel’ (58b) mukɘd vojtɨr-lɘn tradicija-jas other people-gen tradition-pl ‘about other people’s traditions’

jɨl-ɨɕ up-ela

Simple juxtaposition is less common with ownership but can occur; the possessor may have a person suffix (59) or not (60). (59) vok-ɘj kerka brother-1sg house ‘my brother’s house’ (60) vok kerka brother house ‘(the) brother’s house’ Plurality of either the possessor (except for personal pronouns) or the possessed is indicated with with the pluralizer -jas (61‒62). (61) velɘdt͡ɕɨɕ-jas-lɘn ɲebɘg-jas student-pl-gen book-pl ‘(the) students’ books’ ͡ ͡ (62) ʒurnal-lɘn 90 vo-ɕa jubiʎej ɨdʒɨd-ɨɕ&ɨdʒɨd newspaper-gen 90 year-comp anniversary big-ela&big prazdɲik: giʒɨɕ-jas-lɘn, ʎiceratura tujalɨɕ-jas-lɘn, writer-pl-gen literature researcher-pl-gen journalist-pl-gen ‘The newspaper’s big 90th anniversary party for writers, literary scholars, journalists and teachers.’ (Dorofeeva; KKJa)

party ʒurnaʎist-jas-lɘn, velɘdɨɕ-jas-lɘn teacher-pl-gen

If a person suffix is used, it comes after the pluralizer (63); case suffixes follow the person suffix (64). (63) vok-jas-ɘj brother-pl-1sg ‘my brothers’

ZYRIAN KOMI 649

(64) vok-jas-ɘj-lɘn maʃina brother-pl-1sg-gen car ‘my brothers’ car’ Simple juxtaposition is especially common in whole–part relationships, though here, too, there are, in fact, four possibilities (65). (65)

͡ i. kerka ɘdʑɘs ii. kerka ɘd͡ʑɘs-ɨs iii. kerka-lɘn ɘd͡ʑɘs iv. kerka-lɘn ɘd͡ʑɘs-ɨs

‘the door of the house’

house door house door-3sg house-gen door house-gen door-3sg

A better translation of ii and iv would be ‘the door of this house.’ If the possessed functions as an object, the possessor must be in the ablative instead of the genitive (66). ͡tɕurgɘd-ɘm (66) ɕerjoʒa ad͡ʑː-i-s mam-ɨs-lɨɕ ki-sɘ Serjozha see-prt-3sg mother-3sg-abl stretch-ppc hand-3sg.acc ‘Serjozha saw his mother’s outstretched hand.’ (Kuratova; KKJa) 14.12.2 Possession at clause level Komi does not have a transitive verb of possession analogous to English have or Latin habēre, and possession is usually expressed with a copula construction, where the possessor is in the genitive and the possessed is in the nominative, as in example (67). (67) menam em I.gen be.cop ‘I have a brother.’

vok brother

If the possessed is in the plural, then the copula takes the pluralizer -ɘɕ (68). (68) menam em-ɘɕ I.gen be.cop-prpl ‘I have brothers.’

vok-jas brother-pl

In the present tense, the copula may be left out (e.g. menam vok may mean both ‘my brother’ and ‘I have a brother’). In past tenses, the copula is the appropriate tense of the verb vɘl- ‘to be’ (69‒70). (69) menam vɘl-i postojannɘj I.gen be-prt.3sg permanent ‘I had a permanent job.’ (70) menam vɘl-ɘma postojannɘj I.gen be-ppc permanent ‘I have had a permanent job.’

ud͡ʒ job ud͡ʒ job

650 ROGIER BLOKLAND

The copula em has a negative pendant, abu ‘not’ (71), which also can take the pluralizer -ɘɕ (72). (71) menam I.gen ‘I don’t have a brother.’

abu neg

vok brother

(72) menam I.gen ‘I don’t have friends.’

abu-ɘɕ neg-prpl

jort-jas friend-pl

The verb kut- ‘to catch; to hold; to support; to start’ may also sometimes have the meaning ‘to possess’ (e.g. ovmɘs kut- farm own ‘to own a farm,’ ɨdʓɨd tɘdt͡ɕanlun kut- big importance own ‘to have great importance’). Komi has also borrowed the Russian verb imeet’ ‘to own’ as imeit- ‘to own, to possess’ (e.g. imeit- pravo possess right ‘to have the right’), but it is not very common. 14.13 RELATIVE CLAUSES Finite relative clauses in Komi are differentiated from main clauses only by the clause-initial relative pronoun mɨj (homophonous with the interrogative pronoun mɨj ‘what?’) for non-humans and kodi ‘who’ for humans; they can distinguish all grammatical categories which apply to the main clause. The relative pronoun inflects for case according to its function in the relative clause, and for number according to the number of the noun phrase in the main clause (73‒74). (73) vot tajɘ ɕɘkɨdtor-jas-sɘ ɕerpasal-ɘmɘn ʒaʎpɨrɨɕ sijɘ so this difficulty-pl-3sg.acc describe-temp.cvb solicitously s/he ͡tɕeʎaɟ ͡tɕuʒ.t-i-s&bɨd.t-i-s]rc vid͡ʑɘd-i-s vil-ɘ, [kod-jas-ɘs watch-prt-3sg children on-ill who-pl-acc bear-prt-3sg&bring.up-prt-3sg ‘Whilst describing these difficulties she looked solicitously at her children, whom she had borne and brought up.’ (Komsomolsköj; KKJa) (74) no jugɨd voj-jas-ɨn poʑ-ɘ ad͡ʑ:ɨv-nɨ set͡ʃɘmtor-jas, but light night-pl-ine be.possible-prs.3sg see-inf such-pl [mɨj-jas-kɘd o-n panɨdaɕlɨ ɲe-kut͡ʃtɘm strana-ɨn]rc which-pl-com neg.prs-2sg meet.cng.sg neg-kind country-ine ‘But in the white nights one can see (such) things which you do not encounter in any other country.’ (Palkin; KKja) A parallel nonfinite strategy is also possible where the finite verb of the relative clause is replaced by a present or perfect participle, which is in a position shared with adjectival modifiers; cf. (75a) and (75b). komɨn ar.ɘs (75a) menam vok-lɨ, [kodi Sɨktɨvkar-ɨn ol-ɘ]rc, I.gen brother-dat who Syktyvkar-ine live-prs.3sg thirty year.adj ‘My brother, who lives in Syktyvkar, is thirty.’ (75b) menam Sɨktɨvkar-ɨn ol-ɨɕ vok-lɨ I.gen Syktyvkar-ine live-prp brother-dat ‘My brother, who lives in Syktyvkar, is thirty.’

komɨn thirty

ar.ɘs year.adj

ZYRIAN KOMI 651

In the (non-canonical) correlative construction, two clauses can be coordinated, here with the content question word kən ‘where’ and the corresponding adverb sen ‘there,’ as in example (76). kɘnMs [ʃuvg-ɘ pom-tɘm vɘr]S (76) [me ͡tɕuʒ-i sen]F I born-prt.1sg there where roar-prs.3sg end-car forest ‘I was born (there) where the endless forest roars.’ (Vaneev; KKja) 14.14 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES In the most common complementation strategy, there is a clause-initial fact complementizer (mɨj ‘what,’ homophonous with the relative and interrogative pronouns mɨj; 77‒79) or an activity complementizer (kɨd͡ʑi ‘how’; 80), which follow a complement taking verb (CTV); this strategy is similar to and probably borrowed from the use in Russian of čto ‘that’ and kak ‘how.’ The CTVs are usually verbs of perception, cognition, and utterance, such as ad͡ʓːɨ- ‘to see,’ tɘd- ‘to know,’ ͡tɕajt- ‘to believe,’ juav- ‘to ask’: ͡tɕajt-nɨ, (77) poʑ-ɘ [mɨj geroj-lɘn tuj-ɨs lunvɨv-ɕaɲ vojvɨl-ɘ]CoCl:O be.possible-prs.3sg believe-inf what hero-gen road-3sg south-egr north-ill ‘It’s possible to believe that the hero’s road is from south to north.’ (Rochev; KKJa) (78) tɘd-a, [mɨj kol-ɘ know-prs.1sg what must-prs.3sg ‘I know what must be done here.’

tan here

vɘt͡ɕ-nɨ]CoCl:O do-inf

(79) me o-g ɲin pomɲit, [mɨj-kɘd me sɘglaʃajtː͡ɕ-i]CoCl:O I neg-prt.1sg already remember.cng.sg that-com I agree-prt.1sg ‘I no longer remember what I had agreed to.’ ͡ ͡ ͡tɕuʒɘm (80) no ɘtɕːɨd adʑːɨl-i ʒɘ, [kɨd͡ ʑi ɕinva-ɨs iskovt-i-s but once see-prt.1sg emp how tear-3sg roll-prt-3sg face ‘But I once saw how tears rolled down her face.’ (Belykh; KKJa)

kuʑa-ɨs]CoCl:O along-3sg

A complementizer conjunction is not always obligatory, as example (81) shows. ͡tɕajt-an-nɨd, (81) ti [me pɨr tat͡ʃɘm-ɘn you.pl think-prs.2-pl I now such-inst ‘Do you think that I now will be like that?’

lo-a?]CoCl:O become-prs.1sg

Other complementizers include, for example, bɨtcɘ(kɘ) ‘as if’ (82), mɨjla ‘why’ (83), med ‘let’ (84), and the polar question clitic =ɘ (85). (82) sɨ-lɨ kaʒitː͡ɕ-ɘ [bɨtcɘ.kɘ sijɘ-s ɕeral-ɘ-nɨ ʎibɘ s/he-dat seem-prs.3sg as.if s/he-acc laugh-prs-3pl or sɨ jɨl-ɨɕ ʃɘpkɘdt͡ɕ-ɘ-nɨ]CoCl:S s/he up-ela whisper-prs-3pl ‘It seemed to her as if they were laughing or whispering about her.’ (Shakhov; KKJa)

652 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(83) te kɘsj-an juav-nɨ , [mɨjla vaʒɘn vɘralɨɕ-jas-ɘs you want-prs2sg ask-inf why before hunter-pl-acc e-z bɘrjɨv-nɨ deputat-ɘ]CoCl:O neg.aux.prt-3 elect-cng.pl delegate-ill ‘You want to ask why formerly hunters were not elected as delegates?’ (Jukhnin; KKja; repeated from (22)) (84) me kɘsja te vɨl-ɘ gɘtraɕ-nɨ, me kɘsja, [med I want.prs.1sg you on-ill marry-inf I want.prs.1sg opt armija-ɘ mun-tɘd͡ʑ lo-i-n menam gɘtɨr-ɘn]CoCl:O army-ill go-cvb be-prt-2sg I.dat wife-inst ‘I want to marry you, I want you to be my wife by the time I have go to the army.’ (Selivanova; KKJa) (85) o-g tɘd [kol-ɘ=ɘ menɨm neg.aux.prs-1sg know.cng.sg must-prs.3sg=q I.dat ‘I don’t know whether I need to react.’

reagirujt-nɨ s] CoCl:O react-inf

Participles (86) and infinitives may function as nonfinite complements: ͡tɕeʎaɟ-kɘd, (86) sijɘ ud͡ʒal-ɘ ad͡ʑ:-ɘ [na-lɨɕ s/he work-prs.3sg children-com see-prs.3sg they-abl una tɘdɘmlun verscamm-ɘm-sɘ]CoCl:O, ɕet-ɘ grow.up-ppc-3sg.acc give-prs.3sg much knowledge ‘She works with children, sees them growing up, imparts much knowledge.’ (Turysheva; KKJa) 14.15 SUPPORTING CLAUSES Supporting clauses fill supporting, circumstantial/adverbial functions in a complex sentence. In Komi, only the supporting clause (SC) takes a marker (Ms), while the focal clause (FC) is unmarked. According to their semantic roles, the most common supporting clauses usually express time (kor ‘when’; 87), manner (kɨd͡ʑi ‘as, like’; 88), or reason (sɨ vɘsna mɨj ‘because’; 89). (87) ɟert,  ti ʃu-annɨd, [mɨj [mort-ɨs med.ɕa mit͡ɕa,]FC korMs surely, you say-prs.2pl that man-3sg supl.adj beautiful when korMs [sijɘ  radl-ɘ olɘm-ɨs-lɨ . . .]SC]CoCl:O [sijɘ ʃud.a,]SC s/he happiness.adj when s/he rejoice-prs.3sg life-3sg-dat ‘Of course, you say, that man is at his best when he is happy, when he rejoices in life . . .’ (Ostapova; KKja) (88) [me tijan-kɘd kut-a ɕorɲit-nɨ]F kɨd͡ʑiMs [tatː͡ɕɘspoɕolkovɘ I you.pl-com start-prs.1sg talk-inf as local.village.adj ɟetsad.sa juralɨɕ!]S kindergarten.adj head ‘I’m starting to talk with you as with the head of a local kindergarten!’ (Tarabukin; KKJa)

ZYRIAN KOMI 653

͡ (89) [kol-ɘ vɘl-i pɨr ʒɘ mɨjkɘ vɘtɕ-nɨ] F, something do-inf must-prs.3sg be-prt.3sg always emp ͡ zduk-ɘn pɨr jon-dʒɨk-a [sɨ vɘsna mɨj]Ms [buʃkol-ɨs bɨd because wind-ela every moment-inst now strong-cmp-adv jɘjm-is]S go.mad-prt.3sg ‘The whole time it was necessary to do something, because the wind was getting crazier all the time.’ (Kharitonchik; KKja) 14.16 TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY (TAM) Komi has three simple tenses: a present, a future (which is morphologically identical to the present except in the third-person singular and plural), and a past. A number of other ‘tenses’ exist with varying degrees of prevalence; these are formed, in the main, periphrastically, and in them, tense may be fused with resultativity, non-witnessed evidentiality, or subjective attitude of the speaker (see Cypanov 2005). They are combinations of one of the two predicative particles vɘli ‘was’ (i.e. witnessed) and vɘlɘm ‘was.evi’ (non-witnessed) with the present (A, B), the perfect (C, D), or the first future (E, F) of a lexical verb (see Table 14.21).

TABLE 14.21  THE INTERPLAY OF TENSE, ASPECT, AND EVIDENTIALITY IN KOMI Komi

Translation

Present

sijɘ s/he

mun-ɘ go-prs.3sg

‘she goes; she is going’

Preterite

sijɘ s/he

mun-i-s go-prt-3sg

‘she went’

Perfect (non-witnessed)

sijɘ s/he

mun-ɘma go-ppc

‘she seems to have gone’

Past continuous (A)

sijɘ s/he

vɘl-i be-prt.3sg

mun-ɘ go-prs.3sg

‘she was going’

Past continuous (non-witnessed) (B)

sijɘ s/he

vɘlɘm was.evi

mun-ɘ go-prs.3sg

‘she was apparently going’

Pluperfect (C)

sijɘ s/he

vɘl-i be-prt.3sg

mun-ɘma go-ppc

‘she had gone’

Pluperfect (nonwitnessed) (D)

sijɘ s/he

vɘlɘm was.evi

mun-ɘma go-ppc

‘she had apparently gone’

Habitual past (E)

sijɘ s/he

vɘl-i be-prt.3sg

mun-as go-fut.3sg

‘she used to go’

Habitual past (non-witnessed) (F)

sijɘ s/he

vɘlɘm was.evi

mun-as go-fut.3sg

‘apparently, she used to go’

Future I

sijɘ s/he

mun-as go-fut.3sg

‘she will go’

Future II

sijɘ s/he

mun-nɨ go-inf

‘she is going to go’

kut-ɘ take-prs.3sg

654 ROGIER BLOKLAND

In Komi, non-witnessed evidentiality can be expressed both grammatically—by the perfect and by periphrastic tenses consisting of a combination of simple tenses and the predicative particle vɘlɘm ‘apparently was’ (90)—but also lexically by the particle pɘ ‘apparently; it is said’; this last can occur with all tenses (including the future) (91‒93) and both moods. (90) sijɘ vɘlɘm mun-ɘma s/he was.evi go-ppc ‘She had apparently gone.’ (91) abu pɘ gort-ɨn neg evi home-ine ‘She is apparently not home.’ (92) ͡tʃɘt͡ʃja-ɘɕ pɘ vɘl-i-m peer-prpl evi be-prt-1pl ‘We were apparently of the same age.’ (Jushkov; KKJa) ͡ (93) i stav tajɘ udʒ-ɨs pɘ mun-as «reorgaɲizatsija» pas and all this work-3sg evi go-fut.3sg reorganisation sign ul-ɨn under-ine ‘And all this work will apparently be under the guise of reorganisation.’ (Makarova; KKJa) The perfect can also occur in the first person, as example (94) shows, repeated from (20): (94) me uʑ-ɘma I sleep-ppc ‘I seem to have slept.’ Komi, however, cannot be said to have a grammaticalized evidential system, because the function of the perfect is not exclusively a means for indicating evidentiality; neither is the indication of evidentiality obligatory (see Leinonen 2002a for more detail). Komi does not have a conditional mood; counterfactuality is expressed with the irrealis particle eɕkɘ, as in example (95). (95) bɨdtor ʒɘ te eɕkɘ tɘd-an! everything emp you irr know-prs.2sg ‘You would know everything!’ (Mikushev; KKJa) In complex counterfactual sentences with a conditional supporting clause, the focal clause contains the irrealis particle eɕkɘ, and the conditional supporting clause, the conditional particle kɘ ‘if’ (96).

ZYRIAN KOMI 655

(96) [ɕet-i-s-nɨ kɘ Ms pɨʒ da kulɘm] SC, [kɨj-i-m eɕkɘ boat and net catch-prt-1pl irr give-prt-3-pl if ͡tɕeri ]FC una much fish ‘if they had given (us) a boat and net, we would have caught many fish’ (Jushkova-Borisova; KKJa) Modal categories are usually encoded by modal auxiliaries; these include kol- ‘to be necessary’ (97), poʑ- ‘to be possible; to be allowed’ (98) (with these two verbs, the subject of the embedded clause is in the dative), and vermɨ- ‘can; to be able’ (99). vɘt͡ɕ-nɨs ? (97) mɨjo menɨmE kol-ɘ what I.dat must-prs.3sg do-inf ‘What do I need to do?’ poʑ-ɘ s (98) sɨ-lɨ e s/he-dat can-prs.3sg go-inf ‘She can (is allowed to) go.’ (99) mort verm-ɘ vɘt͡ɕ-nɨ zbɨʎɨɕ ͡tɕuɟesa-jas man be.able-prs.3sg do-inf really wonder-pl ‘Man can really do wonders.’ (Lyjurov; KKJa) 14.17 NEGATION 14.17.1 Clausal negation Clausal negation in Komi generally involves a construction with a negative auxiliary, onto which person and tense is transferred from the lexical verb (though the affixes are not identical) and with a connegative form of the lexical verb. In the present and non-periphrastic future, the negative auxiliary is o-, for example, mun-a go-npast.1sg ‘I go’ > o-g mun neg.aux.prs-1sg go-cng.sg ‘I don’t go.’ Unlike the affirmative, where in the third person a distinction is made only between the present- and future-tense forms, in the negative future these are identical to those of the present, so that o-z mun neg.aux.prs/ fut.3sg go-cng.sg can be translated both as ‘She goes’ and ‘She will go.’ In the preterite, the negative auxiliary is e-, for example, mun-i go-prt.1sg ‘I went’ > e-g mun neg.aux. prt-1sg go-cng.sg ‘I did not go.’ In the perfect, however, revealing the original nominal origin of the preterite forms, the marker of negation is the negative existential abu ‘there is not’: mun-ɘma go-ppc ‘she is gone; she seems to have gone’ > abu mun-ɘma neg go-ppc ‘she (apparently) did not go.’ Komi also has a prohibitive e-, homophonous with the preterite: cf. mun go.imp.2sg ‘go!’ > e-n mun proh-2sg go.cng.sg ‘don’t go!’; e-nɘ mun-ɘj! proh-2pl go-cng.pl ‘don’t (you lot) go!’ 14.17.2 Non-verbal negation In non-verbal negation, both the negative marker abu and the negative auxiliary are used. In copula constructions, abu is used in proper inclusion (100), equation (101), property (102), location (103), existence (104), and possession (105).

656 ROGIER BLOKLAND

(100) sijɘ abu guɕaɕɨɕ s/he neg.cop thief ‘s/he’s not a thief’ (101) sijɘ abu menam bac s/he neg.cop I.gen father ‘s/he’s not my father’ (102) sijɘ abu dɨʃ s/he neg.cop lazy ‘s/he’s not lazy’ (103) sijɘ abu kuxɲa-ɨn s/he neg.cop kitchen-ine ‘s/he’s not in the kitchen’ (104) sijɘ abu s/he neg.cop ‘s/he doesn’t exist’ With regard to possession, note the order of constituents of the negative and affirmative possessive constructions (105‒106): (105) Vaɕa-lɘn maʃina abu Vasja-gen car neg.cop ‘Vasja does not have a car’ (106) Vaɕa-lɘn em Vasja-gen cop ‘Vasja has a car’

maʃina car

There is no change as regards the copula with plural subjects, though the predicate agrees in number with the subject; cf. (107‒108). (107) sijɘ talun abu sluʒba vɨl-ɨn s/he today neg.cop service on-ine ‘she is not at work today’ (108) najɘ talun abu sluʒba vɨl-ɨn-ɘɕ they today neg.cop service on-ine-prpl ‘they are not at work today’ In existential predication, abu is also used in negative forms, but affirmative forms require the copula em ‘there is’ (109‒110) (note the constituent order): (109) tani em ʃkola here cop school ‘there is a school here’

ZYRIAN KOMI 657

(110) tani ʃkola abu here school neg.cop ‘there is no school here’ In forms other than the present indicative, the verb vɘv- ‘to be’ is used (111‒112). (111) Vaɕa-lɘn vɘl-i Vasja-gen be-prt.3sg ‘Vasja had a car’

maʃina car

(112) Vaɕa-lɘn e-z Vasja-gen neg.aux.prt-3sg ‘Vasja did not have a car’

vɘv be.cng.sg

maʃina car

The negative suffix -tɘm, which also functions as a caritive case suffix (pasport-tɘm passport-car ‘passportless, without a passport’), is used for the negation of participles (113); the abessive -tɘg is used for converbs (114, see also 27). (113) mɨɕkɨ-tɘm dozmuk wash-car crockery ‘unwashed crockery’ (114) ud͡ʒav-tɘg ov-nɨ o-z work-abe be-inf neg.aux.prs-3sg ‘one can’t not be working’

poʑ can.cng.sg

Komi has multiple marking of negation, as example (115) illustrates: (115) me ɲekor ɲinɘm e-g vɘt͡ɕ I never nothing neg.aux.prt-3sg do.cng.sg ‘I never did anything’ For more information about negation in Komi, see Hamari (2015). 14.18 QUESTIONS AND BASIC CLAUSE TYPES 14.18.1 Content questions Content question words include the pronoun kod ~ kodi ‘who’ and kut͡ʃɘm ‘what kind,’ the pronoun mɨj ‘what,’ the adverbs kɨd͡ʑ ‘how’ (116), mɨjla ‘why,’ and mɨjta ‘how much,’ the temporal expression kor ~ kodɨr ‘when,’ the locative expression kɘn ~ kɘni ‘where,’ and the lexical number kɨmɨn ‘how many’ (117). Many of these, due to Russian influence, also function as relative clause markers. (116) kɨd͡ʑ tenɘ ʃu-ɘnɨ? how you.acc say-prs.3pl ‘What is your name?’ ͡tɕɘʒ (117) kɨmɨn vo me ud͡ʒal-i vɘr-ɨn? how.many year during I work-prt.1sg forest-ine ‘During the course of how many years did I work in the forest?’ (Pystin; KKJa)

658 ROGIER BLOKLAND

Sentential stress in clauses with (initial) content questions may be on the content question but need not be (see Estill 2006, 77). 14.18.2 Polar questions Polar questions are expressed by intonation or by polar question particles. The clitic =ɘ is most common and is used in neutral sentences (118); the particle ɘmɘj is used for more emphasis (119) or with negative questions, where an affirmative answer is expected (120). (118) talun=ɘ? today=q ‘Today?’ (119) te ɘmɘj vɘl-i-n? you really be-prt-2sg ‘were you really?’ (120) o-n ɘmɘj gɘgɘrvo? neg.aux.prs-2sg q understand.cng.sg ‘Do you not understand? I understand.’

gɘgɘrvo-a understand-prs.1sg

Sentential stress may also be used to indicate polar questions (121‒124). (121) te gaʑet-sɘ lɨɟː-an you newspaper-3sg.acc read-prs.2sg ‘You read the newspaper?’ ((light) sentential stress on te; level intonation) (122) te gaʑet-sɘ lɨɟː-an you newspaper-3sg.acc read-prs.2sg ‘You read the newspaper?’ (sentential stress on te; falling intonation) (123) te gaʑet-sɘ lɨɟː-an you newspaper-3sg.acc read-prs.2sg ‘You read the newspaper?’ (sentential stress on gaʑet-sɘ; rising-falling intonation) (124) te gaʑet-sɘ lɨɟː-an you newspaper-3sg.acc read-prs.2sg ‘You read the newspaper?’ (sentential stress on lɨɟː-an; rising intonation) (Sel’kov 1967, 24) 14.18.3 Basic clause types 14.18.3.1 Basic intransitive clauses The subject of an intransitive declarative clause is in the nominative (125), though pronominal subjects can be dropped. (125) (me) kotral-a (I) run-prs.1sg ‘I am running’

ZYRIAN KOMI 659

14.18.3.2 Basic transitive clauses The subject of a transitive declarative clause is also in the nominative. However, Komi has differential object marking: the object can be in either the nominative (126) or the accusative case (127‒130): (126) a 1971 vo-ɨn tat͡ʃɘm ʒɘ turɲiro nuɘd-i-s-nɨ but 1971 year-ine such emp tournament.nom hold-prt-3-pl arxangeʎsk-ɨn, i seni estafeta-ɨn me boɕt-i Arkhangelsk-ine and there relay.race-ine I take-prt.1sg zarɲi medaʎo gold medal.nom ‘And in 1971 they held that kind of tournament in Arkhangelsk, and there in the relay race I won a gold medal’ (Karakchiev; KKJa) kod-kɘd eɕkɘ (127) me e-g na adː͡ʑɨvlɨv mort-ɘso, I neg.prt-1sg yet meet.cng.sg person-acc who-com maybe e-g lɘɕavlɘj neg.prt-1sg get.along.with.cng.sg ‘I have never met anybody I could not get along with’ (Izjurov; KKJa) For the accusative, there is a choice between an absolute (non-possessive) accusative marker (127), which is preferred for human objects, and a possessive accusative marker (128‒130), which is preferred for non-human objects and which is obligatory for objects with a person suffix (130). (128) so, me boɕt-i gaʑet-lɨɕ aski|ɕa nomer-sɘo well I buy-prt.1sg newspaper-abl tomorrow|adj issue-3sg.acc ‘Well, I bought tomorrow’s paper.’ (Napalkov; KKJa) (129) vaɲa ʃucovt-ɘmɘn kor-is pon-sɘo, no sijɘ Vanja whistle-temp.cvb call-prt.3sg dog-acc.3sg but it e-z lok neg.prt-1sg come.cng.sg ‘Vanya whistled at the dog, but it did not come’ (Misharin; KKJa) (130) Kuʃmanov-kɘd bɨd lun kaʑtɨl-am Komi mu-nɨm-ɘso, Kushmanov-com every day remember-prs.1pl Komi land-1pl-acc parma-nɨm-ɘso, olɘm.vɨlɘm-nɨm-ɘso forest-1pl-acc life-1pl-acc ‘With Kushmanov every day we will remember our Komi land, our forests, our life’ (Ermolin; KKJa) The choice between the nominative and accusative for object case is not based on definiteness; rather, it has been shown that identifiability features trigger accusative case marking, although if the degree of givenness, that is, the background assumed by the speaker to be known to the listener, is high enough, the nominative can nevertheless be used instead of the accusative. For more details, see Klumpp (2014a).

660 ROGIER BLOKLAND

14.18.3.3 Existential clauses The copula em ‘there is’ is used in present-tense existential clauses (131‒132). (131) tani em bumaga here be.cop paper ‘There is paper here’ (132) sijɘ talun em? s/he today be.cop ‘Is she here today?’ In other tenses, the appropriate form of vɘv- ‘to be’ is used (133). (133) tani vɘl-i bumaga here be-prt.3sg paper ‘There was paper here’ For negative forms, see Section 14.17.2; for copula clauses, see Section 14.16. 14.19 CASE AND NP FLAGGING A noun phrase can be flagged by 18 (or 25) cases (see 14.4.1); there is, as yet, no agreement as to the exact status of the cases based on the approximative or of the comparative; many grammars list only 17 cases, disregarding the comparative. The main clause core arguments are flagged by the nominative, accusative, and dative; occasionally by the genitive (see Section 14.18.3). The nominative (134‒135) flags subjects of intransitive and transitive clauses and the nominative (135) and accusative (136) objects of transitive clauses; if a pronoun functions as an object, it is always in the accusative (137). (134) me ol-a tani 1.sg be-prs.1sg here ‘I am here.’ (135) me lɨɟː-a 1.sg read-prs.1sg ‘I read newspapers.’

gaʑeta-jas newspaper-nom.pl

(136) komɨn vit vo ɲin me lɨɟː-a komi thirty five year already1.sg read-prs.1sg Komi ʒurnal-jas-tɘ magazine-pl-acc.2sg ‘For thirty five years I’ve been reading the Komi-language magazines.’ (Balin; KKJa) (137) mamuk, me tenɘ mum, I you.acc ‘Mum, I love you!’

raɟejt-a! love-prs.1sg

ZYRIAN KOMI 661

The genitive is commonly used in both attributive and predicative possession (138‒139) (see also Section 14.12), for peripheral arguments (140) and in clauses with perfect tense forms (141). (138) menam I.gen ‘my car’

mašina car

(139) menam em I.gen be.prs ‘I have a car.’

mašina car

(140) miʃka-lɘn e-z ɕojɕɨ i talun Mishka-gen neg.aux.prt-3 eat.detr.cng.sg even today ‘Today Mishka didn’t feel like eating either.’ (Jukhnin; KKJa) (141) menam murtsa abu kuvɕ-ɘma I.gen nearly neg die-ppc ‘I nearly died.’ (Tarabukina & Samarina; KKJa) In possessive constructions, if the possessed functions as an object, the possessor is in the ablative instead of the genitive (142, repeated from 66). ͡tɕurgɘd-ɘm ki-sɘ (142) ɕerjoʒa ad͡ʑː-i-s mam-ɨs-lɨɕ Serjozha see-prt-3sg mother-3sg-abl stretch-ppc hand-3sg.acc ‘Serjozha saw his mother’s outstretched hand.’ (Kuratova; KKJa) The dative is used for indirect objects (143) and for experiencer arguments in various predicate constructions of modal (e.g. obligation) or cognition/perception/sensation verbs (144‒145). (143) tom ɕɘlɘm-lɨɕ stav ʒar-sɘ me ɕet-i tenɨd young heart-abl all heat-3sg.acc I give-prt.1sg you.dat ‘I gave you all the passion of my young heart.’(Toropov; KKJa) (144) menɨm kol-ɘ vod-nɨ sɨ-kɘd I-dat must-prs.3sg lie.down-inf you-com ‘I have to lie down next to you.’ (Toropov; KKja)

ort͡ɕːɘn alongside

(145) sɨ-lɨ jand͡ʑim vɘl-i kor-nɨ vaʒ gɘtɨr-ɨs-lɨɕ prɘɕːa s/he-dat shame be-prt.3sg ask-inf old wife-3sg-abl forgiveness ‘He was ashamed to ask his old wife for forgiveness’ (Mikhailov; KKJa) Komi has a unidimensional spatial case system, including a triad with locative, lative, and separative meaning (kerka-ɨn house-ine ‘in the house,’ kerka-ɘ house-ill ‘into the house,’ kerka-ɨɕ house-ela ‘out of the house’). This system is enlarged with the approximative (kerka-lɑɲ house-apr ‘towards the house’), the egressive (kerka-ɕɑɲ houseegr ‘away from the house’), and the terminative (kerka-ɘd͡ʑ house-term ‘till/up to the

662 ROGIER BLOKLAND

house’). In addition, there are two cases that indicate passage via or through the prosecutive (vɘr-ɘd forest-pros ‘via the forest,’ roʑ-ɘd hole-pros ‘through a hole’) and the transitive (vɘr-ti forest-tran ‘via the forest,’ roʑ-ti hole-tran ‘through a hole’); these two cases can often be used interchangeably. The prosecutive also denotes ‘by’ (e.g. boɕt-is menɘ ki-ɘd take.pst.3sg I.acc hand-pros ‘took me by the hand’), for which the transitive cannot be used. The instrumental is usually used with inanimates (poezd-ɘn train-inst ‘by train’), though it does occur in nonfinite relative clauses, such as me-ɘn lɨɟː-ɘm kɨvbur I-inst read-ppc poem ‘a poem read by me.’ The comitative has a sociative meaning (te-kɘd you-com ‘with you’); it is also used with the adverb ort͡ɕːɘn ‘next to’ (e.g. te-kɘd ort͡ɕːɘn you-com next ‘next to you’). The abessive expresses absence (e.g. te-tɘg you-abe ‘without you’) and has the opposite meaning of the comitative and instrumental. The consecutive expresses aim or purpose (e.g. pɨr-i lavka-ɘ ɲaɲ-la go-pst.1sg shop-ill bread-cons ‘I went to the shop to get bread’). The comparative -ɕa (e.g. kaɲ-ɕa ɨd͡ʒɨd-dʒɨk cat-comp big-cmp ‘bigger than a cat’) is used only for the standard in comparative constructions, though the elative is here more common (see 14.4.1). In the complex spatial cases based on the approximative, the coaffix -laɲ- expresses a more general vicinity (e.g. kar-laɲ-ɨɕ city-apr-ela ‘from the (general) direction of the city,’ pɘrɨɕ-laɲ-ɘd͡ʑ old-apr-term ‘towards old age’; cf. kerka-laɲ house-apr ‘towards the house’ ~ kerka-laɲ-ɘ house-apr-ill ‘in the direction of the house’). Negation has no effect on case (cf. ɲebɘg ɲɘb-i book buy-prt.1sg ‘I bought a book’ ~ ɲebɘg e-g ɲɘb book neg.prt.1sg buy.cng.sg ‘I did not buy a book’). Animacy, however, manifests itself in the choice between nominative and accusative flagging for objects: proper names, kinship terms, and human direct objects are practically never flagged with zero (e.g. me ad͡ʑː-i ɲebɘg I see-prt.1sg book.nom ‘I saw a book’ ~ me ad͡ʑː-i mort-ɘs I see-prt.1sg man-acc ‘I saw a man,’ cf. ɲɘb-i kɘr buy-prt.1sg reindeer.nom ‘I bought a reindeer’). Animate nouns also hardly ever occur in the prosecutive or transitive, where instead postpositional constructions are used; this also nearly always applies to the inessive, elative, and illative (e.g. me pɨt͡ʃk-ɨn I inside-ine ‘in me’), though they are used in non-local, metaphorical extensions of those constructions (e.g. me-ɨɕ it͡ɕɘt I-ela small ‘smaller/younger than me’; te pola-n me-ɨɕ you be.afraid-prs.2sg I-ela ‘you are afraid of me’). Elsewhere, animacy is a factor in the interrogative pronouns (kod(i) ‘who’ ~ mɨj ‘what’) and in the use of the pluralizer -jan, which is used with a small number of animates (see 14.4.3). 14.20 LEXICON Komi shares a great deal of vocabulary with Udmurt (commonly assumed to be about 75%); Csúcs (2005, 310) reconstructs 1,554 roots for Proto-Permic, including both those of Uralic origin and elements borrowed before the breakup of Proto-Permic. These latter include Indo-European (e.g. ma ‘honey’; cf. Indo-European *medhu ‘id.’), Indo-Iranian (e.g. mort ‘person; man’; cf. Proto-Indo-Iranian *mrtás ‘dead; mortal’), Iranian (e.g. kɘrt ‘iron’; ̥ cf. Proto-Iranian *karti- ‘knife’), and Volga Bulgar (e.g. ͡tɕarla ‘sickle’; cf. Chuvash ɕurla ‘id.’) loanwords. Since the split from Pre-Udmurt, Komi has been in contact mainly with (northern) Russian; on the periphery of the Komi-speaking area and in the Komi diaspora in northern European Russia and western Siberia, the main contact languages have been eastern Finnic (e.g. dial. agas ‘harrow,’ cf. Veps äges ~ ägeh ‘id.’) and Tundra Nenets, from which especially the terminology of reindeer husbandry has been borrowed (e.g. kɘr ‘reindeer,’ cf.

ZYRIAN KOMI 663

͡ ‘strips of frozen reindeer meat or fish,’ cf. Tundra Nenets χora ‘male (reindeer)’; ajbartɕ Tundra Nenets ngayabarcyo ‘eating raw meat or fish’). Borrowings from the Ob-Ugric languages, Khanty and Mansi are mostly restricted to local Komi varieties (mostly Izhma and Pechora) spoken in western Siberia (e.g. Izhma ɲarxul ‘raw fish,’ cf. Western Khanty nʲaːr ͡ ‘type of arrow,’ cf. Northern Mansi paːnʲsʲi ‘arrow’). xul ‘id.’; Izhma paɲdʑi The influence of Russian is easily discernible in the lexicon, where the percentage of Russian loanwords in texts as counted in various sources is generally just under 25% (see Leinonen 2002b, 235). Among textually frequent loans are ͡tɕeʎaɟ ‘children’ (cf. Ru. ͡tɕelʲadʲ ‘domestic servants’), stav ‘every’ (cf. obs. Ru. stav ‘construction, system; component, constituent’), viɕt ‘story’ (cf. North Ru. visʲtʲ ‘message’), jablɘk ‘apple’ (cf. Ru. jabloko ‘id.’). As early as 1911, Kalima was able to list many hundreds of Russian loans in his monograph; in the written Komi of today, however, especially of a more formal nature, the number of Russian loanwords will be lower, as many Russian loans introduced for ideological reasons have been officially replaced by both existing Komi words and neologisms. 14.21 TEXT The following text, from the collection Перымса Стефансянь миян нэмӧдз ‘From Stephen of Perm to our times’ by Valerij Martynov (Syktyvkar 1997, 15), is given in IPA with glosses and translation. komi ʎiceratura-ɨn Komi literature-ine kad.ɕa xriscianskɘj time.adj Christian ‘In Komi literature great Stephen of Perm.’

zev vɨlɘ donjal-ɘ-nɨ perɨm|sa scefan very highly value-prs-3pl Perm|adj Stephen kuʎtura. culture importance is attached to the Christian culture of the time of

sijɘ-s paɕkɘd-i-s-nɨ komi-jas pɘvstɨn scefan bɘrɨn it-acc spread-prt-3-pl Komi-pl among Stephen after perɨm|sa mukɘd jepiskop-jas. Perm|adj other bishop-pl ‘It was spread among the Komi after Stephen(’s time) by the other bishops of Perm.’ torjɘn una vɘt͡ɕ-i-s-nɨ picirim, iona da filofej, especially much do-prt-3-pl Pitirim, Jonah and Philotheus kod-jas-ɘs ʃu-ɘma vit͡ɕko ͡tɕina giʒɨɕ-jas-ɘn. who-pl-acc say-ppc church official scribe-pl-inst ‘Especially much was done by Pitirim, Jonah and Philotheus, as they were called by the official scribes of the church.’ i. a. kuratov veɕkɨd-a ʃu-is komi mu-lɘn istorija-ɨn I.A. Kuratov truthful-adv say-prt.3sg Komi land-gen history-ine perɨm|sa jepiskop-jas-lɨɕ kad-sɘ zev kolana nem-ɘn. Perm|adj bishop-pl-abl time-3sg.acc very essential century-inst ‘I.A. Kuratov rightfully called the time of the bishops of Perm a vitally important century in the history of Komi.’ zbɨʎɨɕ, truly

perɨm|sa Perm|adj

jepiskop-jas bishop-pl

vɘl-i-nɨ be-prt-3pl

xriscianskɘj Christian

prosveciceʎ-jas-ɘn, educator-pl-inst

664 ROGIER BLOKLAND

kod-jas pɨrt-i-s-nɨ komi jɘz pɘvstɘ giʒan kuʎtura, who-pl introduce-prt-3-pl Komi people among written culture jit-i-s-nɨ komi kuʎtura-sɘ mukɘd ɕorɲi|a vojtɨr-lɘn unite-prt-3-pl Komi culture-3sg.acc other speech|adj people-gen kuʎtura-kɘd. culture-com ‘Indeed, the bishops of Perm were Christian educators, who introduced written culture among the Komi people, (and who) brought together Komi culture with the culture of people speaking other languages.’ BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, Robin. 1985. The Development of the Komi Case System. A Dialectological Investigation. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura (= SUST 189). Csúcs, Sándor. 2005. Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Cypanov, Evgenij A. 2005. Grammatičeskie kategorii glagola v komi âzyke. Syktyvkar: Komi naučnyj centr UrO Rossijskoj AN. Estill, Denis. 2006. “Some Observations on Zyrian Word Stress.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 91: 71‒80. Fedûnеva, Galina V., ed. 1998. Komi âzyk. Ènciklopediâ. Moskva: DIK. Geisler, Michael. 2005. Vokal-Null-Alternation, Synkope und Akzent in den permischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (= Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, Band 68). Hamari, Arja. 2015. “Negation in Komi.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 239‒264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kalima, Jalo. 1911. Die russischen Lehnwörter im Syrjänischen. Helsingfors: Société Finno-Ougrienne (= SUST XXIX). Klumpp, Gerson. 2014a. “Identifiability, Givenness and Zero-Marked Referential Objects in Komi.” Linguistics 52 (2): 414‒444. Klumpp, Gerson. 2014b. “Ideophonische Prädikation im Komi.” In Juuret marin murteissa, latvus yltää Uraliin. Juhlakirja Sirkka Saarisen 60-vuotiaspäiväksi 21.12.2014, edited by Nobufumi Inaba, Jorma Luutonen, Arja Hamari, and Elina Ahola, 151‒162. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura (= SUST 270). Leinonen, Marja. 2002a. “Evidentiality in Komi.” In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 419‒440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Leinonen, Marja. 2002b. “Influence of Russian on the Syntax of Komi.” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 57: 195‒358. Lytkin, Vasilij I. 1952. Drevnepermskij âzyk. Moskva: Izdatel′stvo akademii nauk SSSR. Lytkin, Vasilij I., ed. 1962. Komi-permjackij âzyk: Učebnik dlâ vysših učebnyh zavedenij. Kudymkar: Komi-permjackoe knižnoe izdatel′stvo. Lytkin, Vasilij I., et al., eds. 1976. Osnovy finno-ugorskogo âzykoznaniâ: Marijskij, permskie i ugorskie jazyki. Moskva: Nauka. Martynov, Valerij I. 1997. Perymsa Stefansân′ mijan nemödz. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnöj izdatel′stvo. Moseley, Christopher, ed. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas. Sel′kov, Nikolaj N., ed. 1967. Sovremennyj komi âzyk: Učebnik dlâ vysših učebnyh zavedenij. Čast′ vtoraja. Sintaksis. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel′stvo.

CHAPTER 15

MANSI Susanna Virtanen and Csilla Horváth

15.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Mansi is a language low in fusion, exponence, and flexion. The language uses noun inflection (distinguishing six or seven cases, depending on dialect), two paradigms of verbal conjugations (one unspecified for direct object, the other distinguishing singular, dual, and plural objects), two tenses (present and past), and two voices (active and passive, the latter used as more than simply the inverse category of the active). Words usually consist of a stem followed by one or two derivational and one or two inflectional suffixes. Mansi is a transitive-accusative language. Both transitive and intransitive subjects stand in the nominative, as do the subjects of passive clauses. The wide use of passive voice (see, for example, Kulonen 1989; Virtanen 2015) gives Mansi some ergative-like properties. In the surviving dialects, only personal pronouns have a distinct accusative form; otherwise, objects are in the nominative. Like its close congeners Khanty and Hungarian, Mansi lacks genitive case. Variation in constituent order and valence frames is connected to information structure: in other words, the information structural roles are connected to syntactic and morphological properties (Virtanen 2015, 2021). 15.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION According to the 2010 census data of the Russian Federation, there are 12,269 Mansi in Russia, the majority of whom reside in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug–Yugra. The remaining roughly 1,000 people live mostly in the neighbouring administrative districts of the Russian Federation: 637 people in other parts of the Tyumen region, 251 people in the Sverdlovsk area, and 8 people in the Komi Republic (Census RF 2010 4/19); 1,773 Mansis stated that they had Mansi as their mother tongue (Census RF 2010 4/22). A total of 938 people stated that they spoke Mansi (Census RF 2010 4/5), and only 834 of them were of Mansi ethnicity (Census RF 2010 4/20). The Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug has a population of one and a half million, the majority of whom are Russian (68.1%). The indigenous population of the Okrug forms 2.2% of the total population, while the Mansi represent only 0.72% (Census HMAO 2010 4). According to the Ukrainian census data from 2001, 43 Mansi live in Ukraine, of whom 5 named Mansi as their mother tongue (Census Ukraine 2001. The status of the Mansi language is ‘severely endangered’1 according UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (Moseley 2010), and ‘threatened’ (level 6b) according to Ethnologue (Eberhard et al. 2019). Together, Mansi and Khanty make up the Ob-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family (named after the river Ob, since the speakers of these languages live along it and DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-15

666 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

its tributaries). The Ob-Ugric languages, together with their closest relative, Hungarian, form the Ugric branch of the language family. Four Mansi dialect groups were documented and established after systematic research on Mansi began in the nineteenth century: Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Mansi, each of which had several (sub-)dialects. In most cases, the dialects were named after the rivers along which speakers lived: the Northern group includes the Sosva, Sygva, Upper-Lozva, and Ob varieties; the Eastern group consisted of the Konda and Yukonda subdialects; the Western varieties were spoken along the Pelymka and Vagilsk rivers and along the middle and lower reaches of Lozva, as well as west of the Ural Mountains. Varieties of the Southern dialect were spoken along the river Tavda. The Southern varieties became extinct in the first half of the twentieth century, the Western varieties in the second half of the twentieth century (probably in the 1960s or 1970s). The Eastern dialects have already been considered extinct, but in recent times, a few native speakers of Eastern Mansi have been found.2 Henceforth, in this chapter, unless otherwise indicated, where the Mansi language is mentioned, we focus on the Northern Mansi dialect, since it is the variety still actively used. Standard Mansi is based on the Northern dialect, especially the Sosva variety (see Figure 15.1).

FIGURE 15.1 SPEAKING AREAS OF MANSI AND KHANTY DIALECT GROUPS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. THOSE SPEAKING THE MANSI LANGUAGE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY GENERALLY COME FROM THE AREA MARKED AS THE SPEAKING AREA OF NORTHERN MANSI ON THE MAP.

MANSI 667

The community of Mansi speakers is traditionally divided into three major age groups (cf. Skribnik and Koshkaryova 2006). The level of speakers’ proficiency in Mansi is typically related to their age: the older the speakers are, the more likely they are to have native competence in Mansi. This general tendency is often counterbalanced by the speaker’s place of birth and residence: younger speakers born and raised in smaller Mansi settlements also often have good command of Mansi language. The children born outside the Mansi-speaking settlements reside in multiethnic, multicultural towns and cities and live in families with Russian as the language of communication. Since the parents, often belonging to different ethnic groups, tend to use Russian between themselves, the children cannot acquire Mansi while listening to their parents’ conversations. Those language learners who have not had the opportunity to acquire the language in the family setting will find it difficult to find an educational program fitting their needs. The state schools with sections targeted for particular minorities teach the language only a few hours a week and are in the process of switching from older textbooks designed for native Mansi speakers to new ones aimed at learners without any previous competence. A small number of alternative institutions were founded in larger, urbanized settlements with a large Mansi population to complement Mansi children’s knowledge of their heritage culture, and language, which they could not completely acquire within their family, but they do not serve as stable domains for language use either (cf. Horváth 2015, 2020). Mansi is used in both spoken and written form. It is spoken most often in private life with relatives and childhood friends. Alongside a handful of short academic papers, the written language is used primarily in the monthly newspaper Лӯима сэ̄рипо̄с Lūima Sēripōs ‘Northern Dawn’ and in sporadically published volumes of folklore and poetry. A Mansi alphabet was created in 1931, originally based on the Latin alphabet, then on the Cyrillic alphabet in 1937. Since 1937, the Mansi writing system has undergone only minor changes. Currently, two slightly different variants are in use, one used in academic and pedagogical publications (dictionaries, traditional schoolbooks), the other in other media and in schoolbooks designed for heritage language learners. In the sections to follow, linguistic data are given in IPA transcription, while language samples (gleaned from newspapers or the Mansi translation of the Gospel of Mark) are converted to IPA from their original Cyrillic. The metadata of our data are marked beside the examples in the following formats: Lūimā Sēripos (LS) [abbreviation Volume/Year], for example, LS 8/2001; Munkácsi, Bernát 1892–1896 (VNGy) [abbreviation Volume: page(s)], for example, VNGy III: 26; Gospel of Mark (Mark) [Book Chapter: Verse], for example, Mark 5:21. 15.3 PHONOLOGY The Northern Mansi dialect group has the following vowels: /u a o e i/. The vowel /ɨ/ occurs before /ɣ/ as an automatic variant allophone of /i/. In addition, there is a reduced vowel (schwa) /ə/; see following. The vowels come in two lengths, short and long: /aː eː iː oː uː/. The long vowels are twice as long as the short ones. According to Riese (2001, 13), the long back vowels /u/, /o/, and /a/ are phonetically somewhat lower than their short counterparts. Different scholars reckon with different vowel systems, distinguishing three (high, mid, low) or two (high and low) categories according to tongue height. Present-day Mansi dialects have no systematic vowel harmony; there is documentary evidence of vowel harmony from southern dialects. In the first syllable of Mansi words, all the short and long vowels except e may occur (e.g. tin ‘price,’ pɨɣ ‘boy, son,’ kant ‘anger,’ xul ‘fish,’ kol ‘house’), while in non-first

668 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

syllables, usually /a/, /e/, and /i/ occur (e.g. neːpak ‘book,’ tamlʲe ‘such,’ jilʲpi ‘new’). The reduced vowel ə does not occur in the first syllable, and it appears only in unstressed syllables (e.g. nʲeːwər ‘foal’). The reduced vowel [ŭ]occurs as an allophone of schwa before bilabial consonants (e.g. toːrum ‘sky, god’). Table 15.1 contains the Mansi consonant inventory organized according to manner of articulation. Table 15.2 shows how these consonants are represented in the Cyrillic Mansi orthography. Note the correlation of palatalization in /n/ : /nj/ /t/ : tj/ /s : sj/ and /l : lj/, for example, nor ‘log’ : njor ‘sloping’ : njoːr ‘mountain’; nol ‘fragile ice’ : njol ‘nose’; saːr ‘tobacco’ : sjaːr ‘scrapings.’ There is no correlation of voiced and unvoiced consonants. There are no word-initial clusters in native vocabulary. As a result of the large number of Russian loanwords in Mansi and the fact that most Mansi speakers are bilingual in Mansi and Russian, the consonants /b d g dʲ ͡tʃ f v ʃ/ z and ʒ are also used, as in gubernator ‘governor,’ ʃkola ‘school.’ The nucleus of the Mansi syllable is a single vowel. Syllables can be open or closed. Monosyllabic root morphemes can be of the shapes (C)V(:), (C)V(ː)C, or (C)V(ː)CC, for example: (C)V(ː) (C)V(ː)C (C)V(ː)CC

a ‘and; so,’ ti ‘this,’ neː ‘woman’ at ‘five,’ puːt ‘town,’ kol ‘dwelling,’ paːl ‘side’ aːmp ‘dog,’ keːnt ‘hat’

Because of Mansi’s rich set of derivational and inflectional suffixes, words may vary in length from words consisting of one single vowel (e.g. a ‘so’) to words of several syllables (e.g. kitɨɣl-awē-s-ət ask-pass-pst-3pl ‘they were asked’). The primary stress in Mansi TABLE 15.1  MANSI CONSONANTS Nasals

m

n

nʲ

ŋ

Stops

p

t

tʲ

k

s

sʲ

Sibilants Glides and fricatives

w

j

Laterals

l

Tremulants

r

x, ɣ

lʲ

TABLE 15.2  MANSI CONSONANTS IN THE CYRILLIC ORTHOGRAPHY Nasals

м

н

нь

ӈ

Stops

п

т

ть

к

Sibilants Glides and fricatives

с в

щ/сь й

Laterals

л

Tremulants

р

ль

х, г

MANSI 669

is always on the first syllable, and the secondary stress (if there is one) on subsequent non-final odd syllables. This distribution applies to all grammatical forms. 15.4 INFLECTION OF NOUN AND VERB 15.4.1 Inflection of the noun Nouns in Mansi can be inflected for number, person (possession), and case. The suffix order is number–person–case. Mansi has no grammatical gender and uses no definite or indefinite articles, definiteness being expressed by other means; see Section 15.4.2. There are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. Singular has no overt suffix, the dual suffix is -ɣ, and the plural suffix is -t. Singular is used to denote single objects or objects that usually appear in pairs, such as double body parts, like sam ‘(the pair of) eye(s).’ Besides denoting two objects, the dual is also used to express connections between two objects or persons that belong together, like parents (e.g. eːkwa-ɣ&oːjka-ɣ ‘wife and husband, couple’). Northern Mansi has six cases. The cases are nominative, lative, locative, ablative, instrumental, and translative. Nominative case is unmarked; the suffix for lative is -n, for locative -t, for ablative -nəl, for translative -ɨɣ, and for instrumental -əl. The translative case is generally not used in the dual and plural. Locative, lative, ablative, instrumental, and translative appear in all four dialect groups of Mansi. Case endings are added to the stem either with a connecting vowel or directly, without stem alternations. While stems usually remain unaltered, stems ending in əV and əC sometimes lose the vowel when a suffix is added, for example, ērɨɣ ‘song’ > ērɣ-əl ‘with a song; by singing,’ pāwəl ‘village’ > pawl-ɨɣ ‘as a village.’ Noun inflection also comprises a full set of person suffixes, which are used not only for expressing possessive relations but also to express definiteness or accessibility. Person suffixes are discussed in detail in Section 15.10. The singular endings of noun cases in Northern Mansi and their form in connection with different noun stems are presented in Table 15.3. The suffixes denoting number and case may vary slightly depending on the segments at the end of the noun. They remain unaltered in the case of nouns ending in a vowel other than i, for example, nē-ɣ ‘two women,’ xoːtpa-t ‘people.’ Depending on the final consonant or the suffix itself, an epenthetic vowel is inserted (usually ə, more rarely ɨ and u), for example, nʲawram-ət child-pl ‘children.’ Nouns ending in i receive an epenthetic -ji- before the translative suffix, as in aːɣi-jɨɣ girl-tra‘as a girl.’ Noun cases have both concrete local or directional functions (see Section 15.17) and abstract/grammatical functions as well. TABLE 15.3  NOUN CASE SUFFIXES IN NORTHERN MANSI AND SOME EXAMPLES Suffix

aːɣi ‘girl’

oːjka ‘old man’

kol ‘house’

lʲoŋx ‘road’

Locative

-t

aːɣi-t

oːjka-t

kol-t

lʲoŋx-ət

Lative

-n

aːɣi-n

oːjka-n

kol-n

lʲoŋx-ən

Ablative

-nəl

aːɣi-nəl

oːjka-nəl

kol-nəl

lʲoŋx-nəl

Translative

-ɣ, -ɨɣ, -jɨɣ

aːɣi-jɨɣ

oːjka-ɣ

kol-ɨɣ

lʲoŋx-ɨɣ

Instrumental

-(ɘ)l

aːɣi-l

oːjka-l

kol-əl

lʲoŋx-əl

670 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

Both case suffixes and postpositions have their own specific areas within the noun inflection system. They both express locations: on a very general level, we can say that case suffixes are used for expressing general relations or directions (1, 2), whilst postpositions are for more concrete areal positions (5). The form and functions of the case endings are treated in detail in Section 15.17, but a few examples will be given here. In example (1), we see both the lative case expressing direction ‘to(ward),’ preceded by a person suffix, and the ablative case expressing direction ‘from.’ (1)

͡ Jugra mā-w-n Frantsija-nəl kit mānʲlat nē-ɣ Yugra land-1pl-lat France-abl two young woman-du joxtal-as-ɨɣ come-pst-du ‘Two young women from France arrived to our land of Yugra.’ (LS 10/2017)

In example (2), the ablative case is in the directional function ‘from,’ and there is also a person suffix preceding the case ending. (2)

maːn okrug-uw-nəl maːxum oːs tuw 1pl district-1pl-abl people too there ‘People from our district travel there as well.’

tax then

jal-eːɣ-ət travel-prs-3pl (LS 8/2017)

More specific spatial relations, such as ‘in front of,’ ‘behind,’ ‘before,’ and ‘after,’ are expressed with postpositions. A noun preceding a postposition is always in the nominative case, like the nouns before postpositions juji+paːl ‘after’ (3), pal ‘in the direction of, side of’ (4), and eːli+paːl ‘in front of’ (5). Note that the three postpositions inflect for case (3‒5). (3)

ta juji+paːl-t ti sovet-ət kuːsʲaj-ɨɣ oːl-ne that after-loc pro municipality-loc leader-tra live-prs.ptcp xum S. K. laːtəŋ laːw-əs man S. K. speech say-pst.3sg ‘After that the leader of the local municipality, S.K., gave a speech.’ (LS 4/2017)

(4)

taːn maːn pal-t-uw eːləl 3pl 1pl side-loc-1pl from.far ‘They come to us from far away.’

(5)

joxtal-eːɣət come-prs.3pl

Iːsus eːli+paːl-n saːns-aɣ-eːn jol+pat-əs Jesus front.of -lat knee-du-lat down+fall-pst.3sg ‘[The woman] kneeled down in front of Jesus.’

(LS 21/2016)

(Mark. 7:24)

There are postpositions with directional meaning, such as taːra ‘through,’ tarməl ‘on (the surface),’ muwlaxi ‘around,’ uːltta ‘across,’ and postpositions with non-locative, non-directional meanings, for example, jot ‘with,’ maːɣəs ‘because of,’ mus ‘till, until.’ These meanings cannot be expressed with case suffixes, and postpositions are used instead. More abstract relations are also expressed with postpositions, for example, urəl ‘about’ (6).

MANSI 671

(6)

okrug kuːsʲaj waːr-um ruːpata-te urəl taːn potərta-s-ət district leader do-pst.pctp work-3sg about 3pl talk-pst-3pl ‘They talked about the work done by the leader of the district.’ (LS 4/2017)

15.4.2 Inflection of the verb Verbs have the inflectional categories of subject person, subject and object number, tense (present and past), mood (indicative, imperative, conditional), and voice (active, passive). The encoding of the features of certain direct objects gives rise to paradigm sets traditionally termed subjective and objective: subjective conjugation verb forms index subject person and number, while objective conjugation forms index both subject person/number and features of a direct object. The use of the subjective versus objective forms (as well as of the passive) is mainly motivated by pragmatics (see Section 15.18). Modality and tense are discussed in Section 15.14. The inflectional paradigms of two non-derived verbs—one representing intransitive verbs, the other representing transitive ones—in the subjective conjugation of present and past tense are presented in Table 15.4. The usual Northern Mansi citation form is the third-person singular; in this chapter, the verb stem is used. Objective conjugation forms of the verb waːri ‘make’ are presented in Table 15.5. Examples (7–9) include verbs with objective conjugation forms. In (7), a nominal object constituent is present as well. (7)

waːťixal saːwsər mirxal festival-ət Maːn akw+jot 1pl together often different.kinds international festival-pl ͡ konferentsija-t tit sʲoːpitaːl-eːw, naːn ti ruːpata conference-pl there organize-prs.1pl 2pl this job muːsxalɨɣ waːr-i-lən accurately do-prs-2pl>sg ‘We often organize different kinds of international festivals (and) conferences together, you do this work accurately.’ (LS 9/2013)

TABLE 15.4  SUBJECTIVE CONJUGATION ENDINGS IN NORTHERN MANSI joхt- ‘to come’

laːw- ‘to say’

Present

Past

Present

Past

1sg

joхt-eːɣ-um

joхt-s-um

1sg

laːw-eːɣ-um

laːw-s-um

2sg

joхt-eːɣ-ən

joхt-s-ən

2sg

laːw-eːɣ-ən

laːw-s-ən

3sg

joхt-i(-Ø)

joхt-əs(-Ø)

3sg

laːw-i(-Ø)

laːw-əs(-Ø)

1du

joхt-i-men

joхt-s-umen

1du

laːw-i-men

laːw-s-umen

2du

joхt-eːɣ-ən

joхt-s-ən

2du

laːw-eːɣ-ən

laːw-s-ən

3du

joхt-eːɣ

joхt-s-ɨɣ

3du

laːw-eːɣ

laːw-s-ɨɣ

1pl

joхt-e:w

joхt-s-uw

1pl

laːw-e:w

laːw-s-uw

2pl

joхt-eːɣ-ən

joхt-s-ən

2pl

laːw-eːɣ-ən

laːw-s-ən

3pl

joхt-e:ɣ-ət

joхt-s-ət

3pl

laːw-əːɣ-ət

laːw-s-ət

672 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH TABLE 15.5  OBJECTIVE CONJUGATION ENDINGS IN PRESENT TENSE IN NORTHERN MANSI

1sg

sg object

du object

pl object

waːr-i-lum

waːr-i-jaɣ-um

waːr-i-jan-um

2sg

waːr-i-lən

waːr-i-jaɣ-ən

waːr-i-jan

3sg

waːr-i-te

waːr-i-jaɣ-e

waːr-i-jan-e

1du

waːr-i-lumen

waːr-i-jaɣ-men

waːr-i-jan-amən

2du

waːr-i-lən

waːr-i-jaɣ-ən

waːr-i-jan

3du

waːr-i-ten

waːr-i-jaɣ-en

waːr-i-jan-en

1pl

waːr-i-luw

waːr-i-jaɣ-uw

waːr-i-jan-uw

2pl

waːr-i-lən

waːr-i-jaɣ-ən

waːr-i-jan

3pl

waːr-i-janəl

waːr-i-jaɣ-anəl

waːr-i-janəl

In (8), the objective conjugation that forms the direct object is not overtly expressed with a nominal constituent but rather is obligatorily indexed on the verb: xaːs-eːɣ-um, neːnan-n uːmpi-l  (8) At ťe oːnjsʲ-eːɣ-ən, am neg if have-prs-2pl 1sg know-prs-1sg 2du-lat ladle-inst matər-əl waːr-i-jaɣ-um something-inst make-prs-du.o-1sg ‘If you don’t have [ladles], I know [how to make them], I’ll make you ladles.’ (LS 17/2013) kolsori ruːpata  (9) ʃkola-t saːw teːla, juw joxt-eːɣ-um, school-loc many things to.home come-prs-1sg domestic.adj work waːr-i-jan-um make-prs-pl.o-1sg ‘[I have] many things [to do] at the school, I come home, I do the housework.’ (LS 16/2013) Examples (10–11) contain intransitive verbs, which are therefore inflected with subjective suffixes. (10) am oːpa-m V. U. 1903 taːl-t Loːpmus 1sg grandfather-1sg V. U. 1903 year-loc Lopmus paːwəl-t sam-ən pat-əs village-loc eye-lat fall-pst.3sg ‘My grandfather V. U. was born in 1903 in the village of Lopmus.’

(LS12/2017)

(11) oːpa-m saka jomas xoːtpa-ɣ grandfather-1sg very good somebody-tra ‘My grandfather was a very good man.’

(LS 12/2017)

oːl-əs be-pst.3sg

Six verbs have an irregular pattern of conjugation, with ablauting vowel in imperative forms and with vowel- and consonant-final stem variants: juw-/ji-/jij- ‘to come,’ lɨɣ-/

MANSI 673

li-/laj- ‘to throw,’ mɨɣ-/mi-/maj- ‘to give,’ teːɣ-/teː-/taːj- ‘to eat,’ wɨɣ-/wi-/woj- ‘to take,’ and waːɣ-/waː-/ waːj- ‘to see, to know.’ All stem variants are used in personal inflection, for example, am teːɣ-um eat-1sg ‘I eat’; naŋ teːɣ-ən eat-2sg ‘you eat,’ taːj-en eat-imp.2sg ‘eat!’; am miɣ-um give-1sg ‘I give, maj-ən, give-imp.2sg ‘give!’ The suffix of the passive voice is -we-. It occurs after the stem in present tense, but before the past-tense -s-. In examples (12) and (13), we have a third-person subject of a passive clause: in (12), a plural suffix, and in (13), a singular one. The verb is inflected accordingly. (12) ʃkola-n min-ne pora-nəl хunj joxt-i, internat-n school-lat go-prs.ptcp time-3pl when come-prs.3sg boarding.school-lat tot-awe-t bring-prs.pass-3pl ‘When it is time (for them) to go to school, they are taken to the boarding school.’ (10/2013) (13) aːtja-m Nʲ. Je. S. armija-n father-1sg N. Je. S. army-lat toːwl-əs tot-we-s, am at taːl-um bring-pass-pst.3sg 1sg five year-1sg reach-pst.3sg ‘My father N. Je. S. was taken to the army, I was five.’ (LS 14/2013) The finite forms of the passive conjugation are presented in Table 15.6. Note that there is variation in the length of the vowel e in the passive suffix. The use of the passive voice is discussed in detail in Section 15.18. Nonfinite verb forms include the infinitive ending in -ŋkwe, the participles in -m (past) and -n(e) (present), and the gerund in -im(a). The infinitive suffix is attached to verb stems with a vowel -u- or -a-; the selection is usually made in accordance with syllable count,

TABLE 15.6  THE NORTHERN MANSI VERB TOT- ‘TO BRING’ CONJUGATED WITH PERSONAL ENDINGS OF THE PASSIVE CONJUGATION IN PRESENT AND PAST TENSES Present tense

Past tense

1sg

tot-awe-m

tot-we-s-ɘm

2sg

tot-awe-n

tot-we-s-ən

3sg

tot-awe

tot-we-s

1du

tot-awe-men

tot-we-s-amen

2du

tot-awe-n

tot-w-es-ən

3du

tot-awe-ɣ

tot-we-s-ɨɣ

1pl

tot-awe-w

tot-we-s-uw

2pl

tot-awe-n

tot-we-s-ən

3pl

tot-awe-t

tot-we-s-ət

674 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

such that -u- occurs usually in even-numbered syllables (e.g. wār-uŋkwe make/do-inf ‘to make, to do,’ taɣintapt-uŋkwe fill-inf ‘to fill’), whilst -a- occurs generally in odd-numbered syllables (e.g. lowinʲt-aŋkwe read-inf ‘to read’). Infinitives are used with auxiliaries or other verbs that take an infinitive as their complement. Typical verbs accompanied by an infinitive are pat- ‘to start’ (106), eːr- ‘to have to,’ roːw- ‘to be allowed to, weːrm‘to be able to’ (72‒73), woːw- ‘to invite to’ laːw- ‘to tell (someone to do something).’ 15.5 Derivation of noun and verb Mansi has a system of derivative suffixes. Examples of denominal derivational suffixes are listed in Table 15.7, while some deverbal suffixes can be found in Table 15.8. Verbs can be formed from verbs or from nominals (Rombandeeva 1973, 148‒176; Kálmán 1976, 55‒56; Keresztes 1998, 408‒409). The most common denominal suffixes are listed in Table 15.9, while the most productive deverbal suffixes are listed in Table 15.10.

TABLE 15.7  NOUN-TO-NOUN DERIVATIVE SUFFIXES IN NORTHERN MANSI Derivative suffix

Function

Example

|kwe (|ke before person suffixes)

diminutive

aːɣi ‘girl’ > aːɣi|kwe ‘little girl’

|it

units of measurement from adjectives

xosa ‘long’ > xos.it ‘length,’ jan|iɣ ‘big’ > jan|it ‘size’

|ŋ

adjectives from nouns

uːs ‘town’ > uːs|əŋ ‘urban,’ aːɣm ‘illness’ > aːɣm|əŋ ‘ill’

|p(a)

forms attributive phrases

nʲila saː m|pa nuj four corner|adj felt cloth ‘rectangular felt cloth,’ xuːrum lāɣl|up three leg|adj ‘three legged’

TABLE 15.8  VERB-TO-NOUN DERIVATIVE SUFFIXES IN NORTHERN MANSI Derivative suffix

Function

Example

|p

nouns with various semantic content

juːnt- ‘to sew’ > juːnt|up ‘needle’

|mil |t

nʲoːt- ‘to help’ > nʲoːt|mil ‘help’ nom|s- ‘to think’ > nom|t ‘thought’

TABLE 15.9  NOUN-TO-VERB DERIVATIVE SUFFIXES IN NORTHERN MANSI |t-

potər ‘speech’ > potər|t- ‘to speak’’

|l-

tolmasʲ ‘interpreter’ > tolmasʲ|l- ‘to interpret, to translate’

|m-

janɨɣ ‘large’ > janɨɣ|m- ‘to grow’

| j-

uːlum ‘dream’ > uːlma|j- ‘to dream’

|laxt-

ruma ‘friend’ > ruma|laxt- ‘to fraternize’

MANSI 675 TABLE 15.10  VERB-TO-VERB DERIVATIVE SUFFIXES IN NORTHERN MANSI |t

causative

xanʲsʲ- ‘to know’ > xanʲisʲ|t- ‘to teach’

|lt-

causative

tit- ‘to steep’ > tit|əlt- ‘to leach’

|l-

frequentative

uj- ‘to swim’ > uj|əl- ‘to swim about’

|s-

frequentative

jal- ‘to walk’ > jal|as- ‘to go about’

|nt-

frequentative

roːŋx- ‘to shout’ > roːŋx|ent- ‘to shout’

|laːl-

frequentative

waːr- ‘to make’ > waːrɨɣ|laːl- ‘to do, to make (repeatedly, continuously)

|m-

momentaneous

mur- ‘to dip’ > mur|m- ‘to sink’

|p-

momentaneous

sʲalt- ‘to enter’ > sʲalt|ap- ‘to pop in’

|mt-

momentaneous

lʲuːlʲ- ‘to stand’ > lʲuːlʲ|umt- ‘to stop’

|lt-

inchoative

jeːkw- ‘to dance’ > jeːkw|əlt- ‘to start to dance’

|xat-

reflexive

tuːjt- ‘to hide’ > tuːjt|xat- ‘to hide oneself’ at- ‘to collect tr’ > at|xat- ‘to assemble itr’

|ltaxt-

reflexive

roːŋx- ‘to shout’ > roːŋx|əltaxt- ‘to shout suddenly’ pusmal- ‘to heal,’ > pusmal|taxt- ‘to heal, to get well, to recover’

15.6 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Mansi adjectives can be words that appear only as adjectives (e.g. jomas ‘good,’ seːməl ‘black’), adjectives derived from other parts of speech (usually nouns) (e.g. taːrwit ‘weight’ + denominal suffix |ŋ > taːrwit|əŋ ‘heavy,’ tin ‘price’ + privative suffix |tal > tin|taːl ‘cheap’), and nouns used as adjectives (these may be analyzed as a kind of compoundː keːr+puːt ‘iron pot,’ jiw+nʲaːli wood+spoon ‘wooden spoon’). Attributive adjectives and determiners (notably ti ‘this,’ ta ‘that’) are not inflected for case or number, for example, maːnjnjawram-ət small child-pl ‘small children,’ ta paːwəl-n this village-lat ‘to this village,’ also (14). Adjectives used as copula complements agree with their subject in number in the present tense with zero copula (15). (14) sʲaːń laːtəŋ xanisʲt-an maːɣəs maːnj njawram-ət maːɣəs mother language study-ptcp for small child-pl for Xoːtalakwe nam|pa ʒurnal taːrat-eːɣ-ət Khotalakwe name|adj magazine provide-prs-3pl ‘They provide a magazine called Khotalakve the little children for studying their mother tongue.’ (LS 9/2015) (15) tot oːs saka puːməsʲ there ptcl very interesting ‘It was very interesting there.’

oːl-əs be-pst.3sg

(LS 10/2018)

Comparison can be expressed with the comparative suffix |nuw, for example, jomas ‘good’—jomas|nuw ‘better,’ tarwitəŋ ‘heavy’—tarwitəŋ|nuw ‘heavier,’ tintaːl ‘cheap’—tintaːl|nuw ‘cheaper,’ saw ‘much’—saw|nuw ‘more.’ When a comparative adjective is formed with the suffix |nuw; it alternates with the form |nuwe (Riese 2001, 29), as in example (16).

676 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

(16) 2015 tal-t maːwit uːrɣal-an maːɣəs kitax sʲos 2005 year-loc nature protect-ptcp for two time sawnuwe oln xolt-we-s more money spend-pass-pst.3sg ‘In 2015 twice as much money was spent on environmental protection.’ (LS 11/2016) Comparison may also be expressed without an index on the parameter; the comparee is then in the ablative case, marked with -nəl (17). xuːrum tal anum-nəl janɨɣ oːl-əs (17) jaɣpɨɣ-um brother-1sg three year me-abl big ‘My brother was three years older than me.’ (LS 2014/19)

be-pst.3sg

Superlative can be formed with the particle sjar ‘most,’ placed before the adjective expressing the parameter, as in (18). It can also be formed by means of reduplication. (18) oːjka-m koltaːɣl-anəl-t sʲaːnʲ-aɣ-e+aːsʲ-aɣ-e husband-1sg family-3pl-loc mother-du-3sg&father-du-3sg manʲ pɨɣ-ɨɣ oːl-əs pal-t sjar side-loc most small boy-tra be-pst.3sg ‘In my husband’s families he was the youngest boy on both parents’ side.’ (LS 11/2015) When reduplication is used to form the superlative, the adjective is reduplicated fully, with the first instance taking the ablative, for example, janɨɣ-nəl janɨɣ big big-abl ‘the biggest.’ 15.7 NUMBER AND NUMERALS Mansi cardinal numbers from 1 to 22 and full decades are presented in Table 15.11. The non-primary numerals are usually formed with the particle nupəl ‘towards,’ for example, ‘32’ is naliman nupəl kit (two towards forty), 25 waːt nupəl at (five towards thirty). A noun accompanied by a cardinal numeral appears in the nominative singular (19). (19) okrug duma dʲeputat-ɨɣ anʲ 35 xoːtpa ruːpit-i district government delegate-tra now 35 human work-prs.3sg ‘Currently there are 35 people working as delegates of the District Government.’ (LS 18/2015) A noun after cardinal ‘2’ may appear in the singular or in the dual, as examples (20) and (21) show: (20) janɨɣ aːɣi-m Nastʲa-m kit nʲawram oːnʲsʲ-i big daughter-1sg Nastya-1sg two child have-prs.3sg ‘My elder daughter, my Nastya has two children.’ (LS 12/2013)

MANSI 677 TABLE 15.11  CARDINAL NUMBERS IN NORTHERN MANSI 1

akwa, akw

2

kitɨɣ, kit

3

xuːrum

4

nʲila

5

at

6

xoːt

7

saːt

8

nʲololow

9

oːntolow

10

low

11

akw+xujp+low

12

kit+xujp+low

13

xuːrum+xujp+low

14

nʲila+xujp+low

15

at+xujp+low

16

xoːt+xujp+low

17

saːt+xujp+low

18

nʲololow+xujp+low

19

oːntolow+xujp+low

20

xus

21

waːt nupəl akwa

22

waːt nupəl kitɨɣ

30

waːt

40

naliman

50

atpan

60

xoːtpan

70

saːtlow

80

nʲolsāt

90

oːntɘlsaːt

100

(janɨɣ) saːt

(21) moːt kit neːpak-ɨɣ am atit klass-ət xanisʲtaxt-an other two book-du 1sg fifth class-loc study-prs.ptcp nʲaːwram-ət maːɣəs sʲoːpit-as-aɣ-um child-pl for prepare-pst-du.o-1sg ‘The two other books I prepared for 5th grade schoolchildren.’ (LS 18/ 2015) The cardinal numerals ‘one’ and ‘two’ have two variants: akw and akwa, kit and kitɨɣ. The shorter forms akw and kit are used whenever the numeral appears attributively, whilst the

678 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

longer forms akwa and kitɨɣ are used when the numeral appears alone. In (22) and (23), the longer form of the numeral kitɨɣ ‘two’ appears alone as a subject of the clause (22) or as a copula complement (23): kitɨɣ anʲ oːl-eːɣ (22) xuːrum nʲawram oːnʲsʲɨ-ɣl-as-ɨɣ, three child have-der-pst-du two now live-prs.3du akwa-teːn oːs aːťim one-3du also neg ‘They had three children, two of them are still living, whilst one of them is not anymore.’ (LS 6/2015) (23) meːn anʲ kitɨɣ aːpsʲi-m jot 1du now two little.brother-1sg with ‘There are two of us now, together with my younger brother.’ (LS 20/2016) In (24), the shorter form on akw ‘one’ appears as an attribute. (24) tuwǝl tuw oːs akw neː woːw|inʲtaːl-we-s Then to.there also one woman call|der-pass-pst N. R. M. N. R. M. ‘Later on, also one woman, N. R. M., was invited there.’ (LS 12/2013) Ordinal numerals are produced from cardinal numbers by adding the suffix |it, for example, kit|it ‘two-ord,’ xuːrm|it ‘three-ord,’ nʲil|it ‘four-ord.’The only exceptions are oːwəl ‘first’ and an alternative parallel form to kit|it ‘second,’ namely, moːt, which has the meaning of ‘another, the other.’ In example (25), we can see the ordinal number ‘second’ in a date expression. (25) janɨɣ-poːlʲ eːtpos kit-it xːotal-eː-t Jugorsk uːs-t big-frost month two-ord day-1sg-loc Yugorsk town-loc uːrineːkwa xoːtal janitl-awe-s crow day organize-pass-pst ‘On the second of April, the “Crow Day” was organized in Yugorsk.’ (LS 8/2017) In (26), the ordinal number ‘twenty-eighth’ appears as a part of a temporal construction expressing how long the action has been going on: it is the twenty-eighth year that she has been working at the hospital: puːlʲni͡tsa-t waːt nupǝl ontolow-it (26) maːxum pusmalt-um people heal-pst.ptcp hospital-loc thirty towards eight-ord ru:pit-i work-prs.3sg ‘She has been working at the hospital for 28 years.’ (LS 12/201)

taːl year

15.8 COPULA OːL- AND COPULA CLAUSES The verb oːl- ‘to be’ is used both in the meaning of ‘to live’ or ‘to be.’ It is inflected in all persons and numbers as any other verb, as shown in Table 15.12.

MANSI 679 TABLE 15.12  PRESENT- AND PAST-TENSE FORMS OF THE VERB OːL- IN NORTHERN MANSI

1sg

Present tense

Past tense

oːl-eːɣ-um

oːl-s-um

2sg

oːl-eːɣ-ɘn

oːl-s-ɘn

3sg

oːl-i

oːl-ɘs

1du

oːl-i-men

oːl-s-umen

2du

oːl-eːɣ-ɘn

oːl-s-ɘn

3du

oːl-eːɣ

oːl-s-ɨɣ

1pl

oːl-ew

oːl-s-uːw

2pl

oːl-eːɣ-ɘn

oːl-s-ɘn

3pl

oːl-eːɣ-ɘt

oːl-s-ɘt

Unlike in the first and second persons, a typical identity (A1) or attribution (A2) type of copula clause has no overt copula in the present-tense third person in Northern Mansi (27, 28). (27) neː xuriŋ. woman beautiful ‘The woman is beautiful.’ (28) Taw aman xoːŋxa? 3sg ptcl who ‘What kind of man he [is]?’ (Mark 4: 41) Sometimes, even a first-person A1-type construction appears without an overt copula (29). (29) maːn soːlj akw ruːtɘŋ maːxum 1pl real one related people ‘We are really related people.’ [We are really people from one tribe.] (LS 1/2018) For more information on the identity-type (A1) copula, see translative in Section 15.17. However, the copula is used without exception in the present tense in an A5 construction that contains an expression of location (30). (30) ti muzej paːwɘl kotʲilʲ-t woːr sʲaxəl-t pro museum village middle-loc forest hill-loc oːl-i uːntt-um situate-pst.ptcp be-prs.3sg ‘This museum is located in the middle of the village, on a forest hill.’ (LS 10/2017) The copula is also used to express how or where someone lives, as in (31–32).

680 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

(31) Nʲaxsʲamwoľ paːwəl-t oːl-eːɣ-um Nyahshamvol village-loc live-prs-1sg ‘I am living in Nyakhshamvoly village.’ (LS 12/2013) (32) teːn koltaːɣəl maːxm-an-eːn Kogalɨm uːs poːx-at3 3du household people-pl-3du Kogalym town side-loc saːli uːr-im woːr-t oːl-eːɣ-ət reindeer herd-ger forest-loc be-prs-3pl ‘Their relatives live (by) herding reindeer in a forest in the direction of Kogalym.’ (LS 5/2017) The copula oːli is also used in existential clauses in the meaning of ‘there exist(s) . . .,’ as in (33). (33) uːs-uw-t tup 67 maːnʲsʲi os xanti xoːtpa town-1pl-loc only 67 Mansi and Khanty person ‘There are only 67 Mansi and Khanty in our town.’ (LS 8/2014)

oːl-i be-prs.3sg

In existential clauses, the copula can also be inflected for person and number, as in (34) and (35). (34) maːn saka saːw-ɨɣ oːl-eːw 1pl very lot-tra be-prs.1pl ‘We are many.’ (Mark 5:9) (35) maːn kol-uw-t saːt nʲaːwram nʲila aːɣi xuːrum pɨɣ boy 1pl house-1pl-loc seven child four girl three oːl-s-uːw be-pst-1pl ‘There were seven of us children living in our house: four girls and three boys.’ (LS 12/2013) In the past tense, the copula oːli is used also in A1 and A2 types, where the present tense has no overt copula. In other words, an expression without copula is devoted to the present tense, whilst the past tense must be expressed with the preterite copula: P. T. B. toːnt jomas saːli uːr-ne (36) āsʲ-um father-1sg P. T. B. then good reindeer herd-prs.ptcp xoːtpa-ɣ oːl-əs person-tra be-pst.3sg ‘My father P. T. B. was a great reindeer herder by that time.’

(LS 10/2017)

(37) aːtʲa-te Jaːsunt-nəl oma-te os Xoːriŋ+paːwəl-nəl father-3sg Yasunt-abl mother-3sg and Khoring+village-abl oːl-s-ɨɣ be-pst-3du ‘Her father was from Yasunt and her mother from the village of Khoring. (LS 5/2017)

MANSI 681

15.9 PRONOUNS, DEMONSTRATIVES, AND DEIXIS Deictic expressions comprise personal and demonstrative pronouns, argument indexes on verbs (i.e. person suffixes; see Sections 15.4, 15.18), and a number of temporal and local adverbs as well. If the subject or the direct object of the sentence is topical enough to be identified by argument indexing alone, no nominal argument is used. In example (38), the verb is inflected in the second-person plural and the subject is not otherwise expressed any other way. (38) matər aːɣm some illness pusmalt-aŋkwe heal-inf ‘If you have any

oːnʲsʲ-e:ɣ-ən ke taːpa tot laːw-aw-eːn os have-prs-2pl if ptcl there say-pass-2pl and keːt-aw-eːn send-pass-2pl illnesses, you will be told about them and sent to treatments.’ (LS 5/2017)

Independent (personal) pronouns are also used to express the person and number of an identifiable person. The Mansi personal pronouns have three numbers and persons: singular, dual, and plural, in first, second, and third persons. Personal pronouns can be inflected in five noun cases, including nominative. The nominative, accusative, ablative, lative, and comitative forms of personal pronouns in the Sosva dialect are presented in Table 15.13: TABLE 15.13  NORTHERN MANSI PERSONAL PRONOUNS INFLECTED FOR CASE Nominative

Accusative

Lative

Ablative

Comitative

1sg

am

aːnum

aːnumn

aːnumnəl

aːnumtəl

2sg

naŋ

naŋən

naŋənn

naŋənnəl

naŋəntəl

3sg

taw

tawe

tawen

tawenəl

tawetəl

1du

meːn

meːnmen

meːnmenn

meːnmennəl

meːnmentəl

2du

neːn

neːnan

neːnann

neːnannəl

neːnantəl

3du

teːn

teːnten

teːntenn

teːntennəl

teːntentəl

1pl

maːn

maːnaw

maːnawn

maːnawnəl

maːnawtəl

2pl

naːn

naːnan

naːnann

naːnannəl

naːnantəl

3pl

taːn

taːnanəl

taːnanəln

taːnanəlnəl

taːnanəltəl

Note that personal pronouns are inflected in the accusative (39), even in those dialects of Mansi where the accusative is no longer productive as a noun case. (39) maːn taw-e saka 1pl 3sg-acc very ‘We liked her a lot.’

eːrupt-as-luw love-pst-1pl>sg

(LS 18/2015)

In addition to case inflection, personal suffixes can also be added to postpositions, for example, palt-uw to-1pl ‘to our place,’ jot-um with-1sg ‘with me.’ When postpositions

682 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

take a person suffix, they always occur with the personal pronouns. Examples (40) and (41) contain a postposition accompanied with a personal pronoun and possessive suffix. (40) taːn maːn palt-uw eːləl joxt|al-eːɣ-ət 3pl 1pl to-1pl far.away come|der-prs-3pl ‘They have come to us from far away.’ (41) maːnʲ aːɣi-m am-ki jot-um small girl-1sg 1sg-stress with-1sg ‘My younger daughter is living with me.’

(LS 21/20)

oːl-i live-prs.3sg

(12/2013)

Demonstratives are produced from the stems ti ‘this’ and ta ‘that.’ Table 15.14 sets out the forms of attributive demonstratives used as attributives and as NP heads: TABLE 15.14  ATTRIBUTIVE AND NOMINAL DEMONSTRATIVES IN NORTHERN MANSI Unstressed: attributive use

Stressed: nominal use

‘this’

ti

tij/tiji

‘that’

ta, ton

taji

‘the same [this]’

awk-ti

-

‘the same [that]’

akw-ta

-

‘in this way’

tamlʲe

-

‘like this’

ti-xurip

-

‘like that’

ta-xurip

-

‘similar to this; this much’

ti-keːm

-

‘similar to that; that much’

ta-keːm

-

When used attributively, demonstratives, like adjectives, are not inflected. The same forms are used both with singular, dual, and plural referents, without number suffixes or any other suffixes (42‒44). (42) ta maː-t peːs pora-t maːnʲsʲi-jan-uw that land-loc old time-loc mansi-pl-1pl ‘In ancient times, our Mansis were living in that land.’

oːl-sət live-pst.3sg (LS 10/2017)

(43) ti nomt-ɘt jot noːx+kwaːl-s-um this thought-pl with up+step-pst-1sg ‘With these thoughts I got back to my feet again.’

(LS 2/2016)

(44) akwta uːs-nəl xum swonitaːl-əs same town-abl man telephone-pst.3sg ‘A man from the same town called [the radio program].’

(LS 11/201)

MANSI 683

In the nominal use, demonstrative pronouns are inflected for number and case like any other noun functioning as NP head. In example (45), the first demonstrative ti ‘this’ is unstressed and followed by a postposition; the second one tiji ‘this’ is a stressed form in the nominative and in nominal use: (45) kuːsʲaj neː ti urǝl tox laːw-ǝs tiji leader woman this about so say-pst.3sg pro.stress jomas waːrmalʲ xunʲ soːlʲ tox waːr-uŋw at eːri kos good thing when really so do-inf neg must even.though ‘To this the Governor said that even though it is very good activity, one does not have to do it.’ (LS 3/2014) The local adverbials tit ‘here’ and tot ‘there’ are produced from the demonstrative stems with the locative ending -t. Furthermore, the same demonstrative stems are used in expressions of time: ti eːtpos-t this month-loc ‘in this month,’ ta xotal-t that day-loc ‘that day.’ The adverb tajimaːɣsəl ‘that’s because’ is derived from the stem taji- ‘that.’ (46) tajimaːɣsəl ti laːtŋ-anəl xot+joruwlaxt-as because pro language-3pl pref+forget-pst.3sg ‘For that reason their language has been forgotten.’

(LS 3/2014)

15.10 POSSESSION IN THE NOUN PHRASE AND IN THE CLAUSE The Mansi noun has a complex paradigm of person suffixes. They encode the person (first, second, third) and number (singular, dual, plural) of the possessor and the number (singular, dual, plural) of the possessum. Northern Mansi person suffixes are presented in Table 15.15. The endings for singular possessed have only two allomorphs, a consonant-initial one for vowel-final stems, and a vowel-initial one for consonant-final stems, whilst the endings for the dual and the plural possessed have a ja-initial allomorph for i-final stems.

TABLE 15.15  NORTHERN MANSI POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES SEGMENTED AS STEM– NUMBER–PERSON sg possession

du possession

pl possession

1sg

-m, -um

-aɣ-um, -(ja)ɣ-um

-an-um, (ja)n-um

2sg

-n, -ɘn

-aɣ-ɘn, (ja)ɣ-ɘn

-an(-ɘn), -(ja)n

3sg

-te, -e

-aɣɘ, -(ja)ɣ-e

-an-e, (ja)n-e

1du

-men

-aɣa-men, -jaɣ-men, -ɣa-men

-ana-men, jan-men, na-men

2du

-jin, -n, -en

-aɣ-en, -(ja)ɣ-en

-an(en), -(ja)nen

3du

-en, -ten

-aɣ-en, -(ja)ɣ-en

-an-en, -(ja)n-en

1pl

-w, -uw

-aɣ-uw, -jaɣ-uw

-an-uw, -(ja)n-uw

2pl

-n, -an

-aɣ-ɘn, -(jaɣ)-ɘn

-an(ɘn), -(ja)nɘn

3pl

-nɘl, -anɘl

-aɣ-anɘl, -(ja)ɣ-anɘl

-anɘl, -(ja)nɘl

4

684 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

The person suffixes are added to possessed nouns (47‒50), postpositions (40‒41), and participial forms of verbs (51). In addition to ownership, they are used to express agenthood when attached to verbal nouns and local relations when attached to postpositions. A noun or deverbal noun marked with a possessive suffix can be accompanied by a noun in the nominative noun or a pronoun that expresses the owner, but the possessive suffix is sufficient on its own. Example (47) is a very typical example of a possessed noun. (47) am naːm-um Anna 1sg name-1sg Anna. ‘My name is Anna.’ When inflecting a possessed form, case suffixes follow person suffixes, as in (48) and (49). (48) okrug-uw-t district-1pl-loc ‘in our district’ (49) ti waːrmalʲ kastəl maːn okrug-uw-nəl low хanti this thing for 1pl district-1pl-abl ten Khanty low maːnsʲi xoːtpa tuw min-eːɣ-ət os and ten mansi person there go-prs-3pl ‘From our district ten Khanty and ten Mansi went there for (= to attend) this thing.’ (LS 10/2016) The vowel in the third-person singular suffix is lengthened when preceding a consonant, as in (50). (50) ti eːtpos 13 xoːtal-eː-t this month 13 day-3sg-loc ‘on the 13th of this month’

(LS 10/2016)

In (51), we have a person suffix attached to a past participle, expressing the equivalent of a supporting clause: juji+paːlt To:pəl u:s-t (51) ʃkola a:stl-am-um school finish-ptcp-1sg after Tobolsk town-loc la:pka-t tinalaхt-ən хo:tpa-ɣ хanisʲtaхt-as-um (LS 8/2018) store -loc sell-prs.ptcp human-tra study-pst-1sg ‘After finishing school, I apprenticed as a salesperson in Tobolsk.’ A possessive phrase consists either of a possessor noun, expressed by a full noun in the nominative, and a possessed noun in the 3sg person, or a possessed noun with the person suffix alone (e.g. xum aːmp-e man dog-3sg ‘the man’s dog,’ maː-te land-3sg ‘his/her land’). It is very typical, especially for first- and second-person possessors, that the possessor is expressed by the person suffix alone (52).

MANSI 685

(52) tuwəl 1992 taːl kolхoz-uw lap+pant-we-s then 1992 year kolkhoz-1pl pref+lock-pass-pst ‘Then our kolkhoz was closed (in) 1992.’

(LS 3/2017)

15.11 RELATIVE CLAUSES Relative clauses are formed with participles. The participle always precedes the common argument in the main clause. Both the present participle -n(e) (53) and the past participle -m (54‒55) are used in this function; (53) illustrates a relativized local adjunct, and (54) illustrates the relativization of an object (both with transitive subject in the nominative and person indexing on the common argument), while in (55) we have an RC with relativized intransitive subject, the common argument eːlumxoːlas ‘people’ functioning as the subject of the passive suns-awe ‘is examined’: (53) leːkkar xoːtpa-t oːwl-eː-t xoːntaŋ maːnsʲi-t doctor person-pl first-3sg-loc Konda.river.adj Mansi-pl oːl-ne Kondʲinskij rajon-ət min-as-ət live-prs.ptcp Konda raion-loc go-pst-3pl ‘The doctors went first to the Konda raion, in which Konda Mansis live.’ (LS 2/2016) potr-e (54) ti Juri Vella rusʲ laːtŋ-əl xans-um pro Yuri Vella Russian language-inst write-pst.ptcp short.story-3sg ‘It is a short story written by Yuri Vella in Russian.’ (LS 5/2017) eːlumxoːlas leːkkar-ət-ən (55) maːn palt-uw joxt-um 1pl to-1pl come-pst.ptcp human doktor-pl-lat janit-eː-t suns-awe size-3sg-loc look-pass.3sg ‘The person’s measure, who had come to us, is examined by doctors’ (LS 5/2017) See also (63) in the following, in which the transitive subject is indexed on the head noun (sussilt-aŋkw tot-ne kartʲina-nəl jot shown-inf bring-ptcp picture-3pl with ‘with their picture that was brought to be shown.’ 15.12 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES Mansi has only a few conjunctions used in finite subordinate clauses (see Section 15.14.). Complement clauses do not always contain a complementizing conjunction, however: they are often simply predicate sentences following each other asyndetically. The fact type of complement clause (see Dixon 2009, 389) is produced in this way by placing the clause after the verb which it complements, as in examples (56) and (57). (56) anʲ tot ruːpit-an kuːsʲaj-ət laːw-s-ət ti now there work-prs.ptcp leader-pl say-pass-pst-3pl this wos nʲot-eːɣət maːxum-n people-lat interj help-prs.3pl ‘Now the leaders working there said that they should help these people.’ (LS 11/2017)

686 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

(57) taw laːw-ǝs anʲ jis maː-nanǝl-t tup at 3sg say-pst.3sg now old land-3pl-loc only five saːli xulʲt-ǝs reindeer remain-pst.3sg ‘He said that there are only five reindeers left in their old lands nowadays.’ (LS 5/2016) The activity type (Dixon 2009) of complement clause contains a gerund Northern Mansi (58): (58) poː lʲ -am tow toːlmat-ma sujt-i freeze-pst.ptcp branch break-ger sound-prs.3sg ‘Snapping of the frozen branches [of trees] can be heard.’

(VNGy III: 97)

The potential type of complement clause (Dixon 2009) is produced with the infinitive ending -ŋkwe, as in (59); in this case, the predicate of the main clause is at the end of the sentence. (59) tuwəl uːs muwlaxi jalasan lʲoːŋx sʲirəl then town around pedestrian way by.way.of waːr-uŋkwe noms-is-luw make-inf think-pst-1pl>sg ‘Then we thought that we would make it [the competition route] around the town like the pedestrian routes.’ (LS 18/2015) 15.13 SUPPORTING (ADVERBIAL) CLAUSES Mansi supporting clauses contain nonfinite verb forms, often with possessive suffixes or with postpositions. Equivalents of temporal simultaneous supporting clauses are formed with the word pora ‘time’ in the locative case; preceded by a relative clause, this expresses the function ‘during,’ as in (60): (60) dʲiktant xas-ne pora-t potər nʲila sʲos dictation write-prs.ptcp time-loc speech four time lowinʲt-aŋkwe roːw-i read-inf be.allowed-prs.3sg ‘The text can be read four times while writing the dictation.’ (LS 5/2017) Temporal consecutive supporting clauses are formed with a past-tense participle ending -m: okrug janitləl jal-asim district around travel-pst.ptcp ‘having travelled around the district.’A participle form may also be accompanied by the expression pora xunʲ ‘when it is/was time,’ as in (61). The construction can also be interpreted as relative clause modifying the noun pora ‘time.’ (61) ʃkola-n min-ne pora xunʲ joxt-i maːn pussən school-lat go-prs.ptcp time when come-3pl 1pl all internat-n ta tot-aw-eːw boarding.school-lat thus5 bring-pass-1pl ‘When it was time to go to school, we were all thus taken to the boarding school.’6 (LS 1/2017)

MANSI 687

The subject can be indexed on a participle; in example (62), the participle is also accompanied by a postposition expressing the function ‘before’: (62) maːsʲtər-anəl aːrtal-aŋkw min-n-eːnəl eːli+paːlt master-3pl try-inf go-prs.ptcp-3pl before sussilt-aŋkw tot-ne kartʲina-nəl jot takwsi show-inf bring-prs.ptcp picture-3pl with autumn kanʲikul xoːtal-anǝl-t kaːsǝŋ xoːtal ruːpit-as-ǝt holiday day-3pl-loc every day work-pst-3pl ‘Before they went to compete with their master, they worked every day during their autumn holiday with their painting that was brought to be shown.ˈ (LS 23/2013) Mansi has a few conjunctions used in co-ordinate and subordinate clauses: os ‘and,’ man ‘or,’ ke ‘if,’ xunj ‘when,’ akwtup ‘as if’ and kos ‘although’ (see, for example, Riese 2001; Keresztes 1998). The Mansi forms os and man compete with counterparts of Russian origin: i ‘and’ and a ‘but.’ As in (63), conjunction ke ‘if’ is placed at the end of the subordinate clause. This is generally the position for subordinate conjunctions. (63) maːn-ki janɨɣ maːxum os nʲaːwram-ət pusmalt-an 1pl-stress big folk and child-pl heal-prs.ptcp leːkkar-ɨɣ akwa-l+akwa-l ke oːnʲsʲ-eːw tiji oːs doctor-tra one-inst+one-inst if have-prs.1pl pro too lʲuːlʲ bad ‘We are a big community, and if we have just one children’s doctor here or there, it is also a bad thing.’ (LS 12/2017) 15.14 TENSE, ASPECT, AND MODALITY Mansi verb conjugation distinguishes one present-tense and one past-tense category; both tenses can be used both in the active and the passive. Continuous and perfective aspect are differentiated by verbal particles and by the different verb conjugation types (see examples 64‒66). As demonstrated in examples (7‒11) in Section 15.4, present tense is used for present and future actions. It is also used for repeated, general, or ongoing actions (64). (64) M. V. S. Surgut uːs-t saːw taːl oːl-i. M. V. S. Surgut town-loc many year be-prs.3sg ‘M. V. S. has been living in Surgut many years.’ (LS 5/2017) Past-tense forms are produced with the suffix -s-, which is placed immediately before person-indexing suffixes. As shown in examples (65‒66), past tense is used for any past action: the same verb forms can express both occasional one-off or long-term action. eːtpos-t am ruːpata sʲirəl (65) juwle xulʲt-um back leave-pst.ptcp month-loc 1sg work by.way.of uːs-n jal-s-um town-lat go-pst-1sg ‘Last month, I made a business trip to Yugorks.’ (LS 10/2017)

Jugorsk Yugorsk

688 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

(66) anʲ ʃarlotta os Milena neː-ɣ oːwleːt Surgut-ət now Charlotte and Milena woman-du at.first Surgut-loc oːl-s-ɨɣ live-pst-3du ‘At first ladies Charlotte and Milena were in Surgut.’ (LS 10/2017) Several grammaticalized verbal particles—originally postpositions or spatial or directional local adverbs—are used to express perfective aspect. In Mansi, continuous aspect is the unmarked category, whilst perfective aspect is expressed by adding such particles to the verb group. Examples of such adverbials, such as juw ‘(to) home, into,’ nox ‘up,’ juwlʲe ‘back,’ and jol ‘down,’ have grammaticalized functions expressing the perfective aspect (see, for example, Virtanen 2013). In example (67), the grammaticalized form of the adverbial juwlʲe ‘back’ indicates perfective aspect of the verb laːwi ‘to say.’ (67) tuwəl juwlʲe+laːw-s-ət, kol-uw jomas, eːlalʲ wos later pref+say-pst-3pl house-1pl good onward interj oːl-eːw, ul wos pil-eːw be-prs.1pl neg interj be.afraid-prs.1pl ‘Later they declared, that our house is fine, we should continue to live there and shouldn’t be afraid.’ (LS 23/2013) Typically, the verb taːj- ‘to eat’ takes the particle juw ‘homeward, into’ to become perfective juw||taːj- ‘to eat up’ (68). Other verbs using juw to express perfectivity express direction as well, for example, min- ‘to go,’ joxt- ‘to come,’ and also communication verbs, like kitiɣlaxt- ‘to ask’ and laːw- ‘say.’ (68) mataxkem sam-kwe lʲoŋx pox-an raɣat-as-ǝt ta some seed-dim road side-lat fall.down-pst-3pl dp kolas+sam-ǝt uːj.riś-ǝt-ǝn juw+taːja.p-aweː-s-ǝt grain+seed-pl animal.dim-pl-lat pref+eat-pass-3pl ‘Some of the seed fell beside the road and were eaten up by little birds.’ (Mark 4:4) In example (69), the verb pat- ‘to start’ is made perfective aspect with the particle noːx, the concrete meaning of which is ‘up.’ xoːtpa-t nam-anəl laːw-weː-s-ət (69) anʲ tot noːx+pat-um now there pref+start-pst.ptcp human-pl name-3pl say-pass-pst-3pl os muːjlupsa-l maj-weː-s-ət and gift-inst give-pass-pst-3pl ‘Then the winners’ names were announced, and they were presented with gifts.’ (LS 13/2015) There are three verb moods in Mansi: indicative, conditional (a kind of irrealis), and imperative. All three moods can be used in both active and passive. The conditional is formed with -nuw-, followed by argument-indexing suffixes (see examples 70‒71); it is inflected for all numbers and persons, in objective and subjective conjugations.

MANSI 689

(70) maːn at ke ruːpit-as-uw, juji+oːwəl xuːl-an-uw xosat 1pl neg if work-pst-1pl after fish-pl-1pl long.time juw+taːjapa-nuw-et pref+eat-cond-3pl ‘If we had not been working, it would have taken a long time for our fish to be eaten up.’ (LS 17/2013) (71) oːl-ne maː-w-t xontlan+nak at ke oːwəltaxt-as live-prs.ptcp land-1pl-loc war neg cond end-pst eːlalʲ tot ol-nuw-uw further here live-cond-1pl ‘If in our home the war won’t end, we would continue to live here.’ (LS 20/2014) (72) maː taːrməl tamlʲe xoːtpa aːťim, anʲ earth above like.that human neg now masnut tamlʲe wojkan-ɨɣ waːr-uŋkwe wos weːrmi-nuw clothes like.that white-tra make-inf mod.ptcl be.able-cond ‘No one on earth could make clothes as white as they were.’ (Mark 9: 3) The imperative suffix is in the singular -en, -ən, in the dual -en, -eːn, and in the plural -en, an, and it is used in the second person only. A verb in the imperative is usually placed in clause-final position, as in example (73): min-en pustaːɣəl oːl-en (73) toːrum jot God with go.imp healthy be-imp ‘Go in peace and be healthy!’ (Mark 5:34) To express imperative in first and third person, the modal particle wos is used together with the indicative form (74): (74) nʲawram-akwe-t tuji sis jomsʲakw wos uːsʲlaxt-eːɣ-ət os child-dim-pl summer during well mod.ptcl rest-prs-3pl and soːtiŋ-ɨɣ wos janɨɣm-eːɣ-ət. toːrum jot, oːtər jot God with prince with happy-tra mod.ptcl grow-prs-3pl ‘Let the little children rest well during the summer and let them grow up happily with God and the guardian spirit.’ (LS 11/2013)7 15.15 NEGATION Clausal negation in Mansi is expressed with the particles at, ul, and aːtʲim; this type of negation has been termed symmetric (Miestamo 2005, 318; Wagner-Nagy 2008). The negative element in standard clausal negation is at. The negative particle is placed before the finite verb that is conjugated for number, person, tense, and mood. (75) rusʲ laːtŋ-əl potərt-aŋkwe at xaːs-s-ət, Russian language-inst speak-inf neg know-pst-3pl anglijskij laːtəŋ mosʲ waː-s-ət. English language little know-pst-3pl ‘They didn’t speak Russian, they spoke little English.’ (LS 11/2014)

690 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

In special cases, the negation marker can be separated from the verb. Example (76) illustrates the fact that the negative particle at comes between a verbal particle like xot ‘away’ and its verb, here roːxt- ‘to be frightened’ (Wagner-Nagy 2011, 81). The particles ti ‘this, so, then’ and ta ‘that, so, then,’ and the conditional particle -ke ‘if’ (see example 64 in Section 15.13), usually follow the negative particle (77). (76) taw xot at roːxt-əs 3sg pref+ neg get.scared-pst.3sg ‘He didn’t get scared.’ (LS 11/2014) (77) am anʲ tixoːtal mus laːpka-t xuːl at ta jowtɨɣl-as-um 1sg now today until shop-loc fish neg ptcl buy-pst-1sg ‘Until this very day I haven’t bought fish in shop. ~ I’ve never bought fish in shop.’ (LS 24/2014) The negative element in sentences expressing prohibition is the particle ul in every person and number. The prohibitive (= negative imperative) constructions are formed in Northern Mansi the same way affirmative imperatives are, with the addition of the particle ul (78). (78) min-en, ul pil-en go-imp.2sg neg fear-imp.2sg ‘Go, don’t be afraid.’ (LS 17/2016) Existential clauses are negated with the negative copula aːtʲim (79). The negative copula has a defective paradigm: it takes number/person indexes and even case suffixes, such as the translative suffix in (80), but no tense markers. (79) moːt maː-t tamľe jomas maːxum aťim other land-loc this.kind good people neg ‘There are no such good people in other countries.’ (LS 2016/19) xosat aːtim-ɨɣ jeːmt-əs (80) andrej kaŋk-um Andrey older.brother-1sg for.a.long.time neg-tra become-pst.3sg ‘My elder brother Andrey died (became non-existant) a long time ago.’ (LS 18/2016) Adjectival and nominal copula complements are negated with the element aːtʲi (81): (81) maʃina-l jalas-an maːxum maɣsəl lʲoːŋx-e aːtʲi xosa car-ins travel-prs.ptcp people for road-det neg long ‘The highway is not long.’ (LS 18/2015) 15.16 QUESTIONS AND BASIC CLAUSE TYPES The basic constituent order in a neutral clause is SOV. The main/finite verb is in clause-final position in both active and passive voice. Locatives and time adverbials are

MANSI 691

usually placed in clause-initial position, whilst indirect objects in the instrumental are placed close to the predicate verb. Verbal prefixes appear immediately preceding the verb, except in situations where there is a negation particle or an adverb between them. Content questions contain question words, such as manər ‘what,’ хoːŋхa, хoːtʲut ‘who,’ хoːt ‘where,’ manrɨɣ ‘why.’ The question word is placed immediately before the main verb, as in example (82): (82) maːn toх manrɨɣ waːr-eːɣət 3pl so why do-3pl ‘Why are they acting so?’ (Mark 2:24) In a clause with zero copula, the question word is in clause-final position, as in (83): (83) naŋ nam-ən manər 2sg name-2sg what ‘What is your name?’ (Mark 5:9) Polar questions are expressed with intonation. There is no question particle or suffix for polar questions, and they have the same basic SOV constituent order as neutral statement clauses, as in (84): (84) nʲawram-an-ən maːnsʲi laːtəŋ potərt-eːɣ-ət child-pl-2sg Mansi language speak-prs-3pl ‘Do your children speak Mansi?’ (LS 18/2015) Clause-level possessive constructions. The verb oːńś- ‘to have’ is conjugated in all persons/numbers and used in the same manner as transitive verbs of possession familiar from many SAE languages. (85)

ti

taj am anʲ ruma oːnjsʲ-eːɣ-um pro interj 1sg small friend have-prs-1sg ‘I have afriend now.’ (LS 23/2013).

The verb oːńśi is used not only for ‘owning’ or ‘having’ something but also for ‘getting,’ or ‘achieving,’ something, as in (86): (86) eːkwa-teːn-təl хuːrum nʲawram oːnʲsʲ-s-ɨɣ wife-3du-inst three child have-pst-3du ‘He got three children with his wife/The two of them had three children.’ (LS 12/2017) Existential clauses are formed with the verb ōl- ‘to be’ inflected for third person (87), and negative existential clauses use the predicate negator aːti, aːtim (88): (87) Saranpaːwəl-t saːw maːxum oːl-i Saranpaul-loc many people live-prs.3sg ‘There are a lot of people in Saranpaul.’ (LS 5/2017)

692 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

(88) anʲ paːwl-uw-t sʲaːnʲ laːtǝŋ waː-ne xoːtpa torǝŋ aːtʲim now village-1pl.loc mother language know-prs.ptcp human correct neg ‘Nowadays in our village there is not anyone who can speak our language correctly.’ (LS 3/2017) 15.17 CASE AND NP FLAGGING As mentioned in Section 15.4, Northern Mansi NPs can be flagged for six cases. There is only one set of local cases: locative, lative, and ablative, used in both internal and external local functions. In addition to these concrete locational meanings, the local cases have more abstract meanings, which will be discussed later in connection with each case in this section. In example (89), we see all three in their concrete local or directional functions. In the same sentence, there is presented the direction from (-nəl abl) the ethnographic museum to (lat -n) the village, and also the location in (-t loc) St. Petersburg, where the museum is situated: (89) ta paːwəl-n Sankt+Peterburg uːs-t oːl-ne Rossijskij that village-lat St+Petersburg city-loc be-prs.ptcp Russian etnografit͡ ʃeskij muzej-nəl saka peːs xuri-t totɨɣl-aweː-s-ət ethnographic museum-abl very old picture-pl bring-pass-pst-3pl ‘Very old pictures were brought to that village from the Ethnographic Museum situated in St. Petersburg.’ (LS 17/2013) In the following examples, a few other functions of the local cases are presented, followed by a brief mention of functions of the remaining cases set out in Table 15.1 (see Section 15.4). The locative suffix -t is used to express inner or outer location, as well as in time expressions. It is typically used in geographical locations (90)ː (90) Marina Surgut uːs-t oːl-i Marina Surgut town-lat live-prs.3sg ‘Marina lives in Surgut.’ (LS 18/2016) In the same way, the locative suffix appears in expressions of clearly restricted inner locations, that is, locations with exact borders or inner areas (91, 93). It is also used in expressions of time (92, 93). (91) ti kol-t taw at|ax|tem taːl ruːpit-i this house-loc 3sg five|about|der year work-3sg ‘He has worked in this house for five years.’ (LS 18/2016) The same suffix appears also in expressions of exact time: (92) luːpta eːtpos at|it xoːtal-eː-t leaf month five|ord day-3sg-loc ‘On the 5th of June . . .’ (LS 12/2013)

MANSI 693

(93) am oːpa-m V. U. 1903 taːl-t Loːpmus paːwəl-t sam-ən pat-əs 1sg father-1sg V. U. 1903 year-loc Lopmus village-loc eye-lat start-pst.3sg ‘My father V. U. was born in the village of Lopmus in the year 1903.’ (LS 12/2017) The lative -n expresses concrete or abstract direction ‘to’ or ‘into’ (as in 93 above), but it is also used for the dative-like function, as in giving or telling something for/to someone (94). (94) taw ti vɨstavka urəl muːj māxum-n potərt-as 3sg this exhibition about guest people-lat talk-pst.3sg ‘She talked to the guests about this exhibition.’ The lative can also express more abstract direction, as in starting a class at school: (95) Xaːlʲuːs rajon Xulʲumsuːnt paːwəl ʃkola-n ti taːl Berjozovo raion Hulyumsunt village school-lat this year saːw maːnʲsʲi nʲawram oːwəl klass-n min-as many Mansi child first class-lat go-pst.3sg ‘This year many Mansi children went to the school of Hulyusunt village, Berjozovo Raion, to the first class.’ (LS 17/2013) Furthermore, the agent of a passive clause is in the lative case, as examples (113–115) in Section 15.18 show. The ablative -nəl encodes direction ‘from, out of’ when attached to people, places, and times. In example (96), we see an ablative-inflected directional adverbial in concrete function ‘from’: (96) Kondʲinskij rajon ʃugur paːwəl-nəl kit neː-ɣ lʲāxxal maːn-aw-n keːt-s-ə̄ɣ Konda raion Shugur village-abl two woman-du news 1pl-1pl-lat send-pst-3du ‘Two women sent us news from the Shugur village of the Kondinsky Raion.’ (LS 18/2016) When the ablative appears in expressions of time, it expresses the starting point of the time period, that is, the meaning ‘since, starting from,’ as in (97) and (98): (97) taw 1909 taːl pora-t jaːŋk naːt|ne eːtpos-nəl 3sg 1909 year time-loc ice carry-prs.ptcp month-abl reːtəŋ juswoj eːtpos mus maːnʲsʲi os lazy eagle month until Mansi and tɨɣ joxt|al-as xanti maːxum pal-t Khanty people side-loc to.here come- pst-1sg ‘He came (to stay) to the Mansi and Khanty people from May 1909 till (next) February.’ (LS 17/2013)

694 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

In (98), the ablative ending appears as part of a grammaticalized postposition: (98) Jugorsk uːs-t uːrineːkwa xoːtal 2006 taːl paːs-nəl mūjl-awe Yugorsk town-loc crow day 2006 year edge-abl visit-pass.3sg ‘Crow Day at Yugorsk has been celebrated since the year 2006.’ (LS 8/2017) The translative covers the functions of change of state and the state of being (99): 1965 taːl-t neːpak-ɨɣ waːr-weː-s-ət (99) ti stjixa-ne dem poem-3sg.pl 1965 year-loc book-tra make-pass-pst-3pl “These poems [of his] were made into a book in 1965.’ (LS 12/2017) The translative is also often used with copula oːl- to express temporary state or status, as in (100) and (101). See also example (11) in Section 15.4. (100) taw MGU juridʲit͡ ʃeskij.fakultʲet kafedra-teː-t professor-ɨɣ oːl-i 3sg MGU faculty.of.law department-3sg-loc professor-tra be-3sg ‘She works as a professor at the Faculty of Law of the Moscow State University.’ (LS 12/2013) (101) saːwəŋ+paːl-e nʲaːwram-an-uw maːnsʲi-jɨɣ xans-im large+part-3sg child-pl-1pl Mansi-tra write-ger ‘Most of our pupils are registered as Mansis.’ (LS 3/2013)

oːl-ət be-3pl

The translative is also used to create adverbs from nouns and adjectives (102): (102) kol+taːɣl-anəl sʲoləŋ-ɨɣ oːl-əs, saːw saːli os uːjxul oːsʲ-s-ət household-3pl rich-tra be-pst.3sg many reindeer and animal have-pst-3pl ‘Their family was rich, they had many reindeer and animals.’ (LS 8/2013) The instrumental has several functions, most commonly means (‘by using’) and accompaniment (‘together with’). It is the form of an indirect object in a ditransitive active or passive clause (103). (103) 2013 taːl-t xoːtxujplow xoːtpa 51 saːli-l jowt-weː-s-ət 2013 year-loc sixteen human 51 reindeer-inst buy-pass-pst-pl ‘In 2013, sixteen people bought 51 reindeers.’ (LS 15/2015) In (104), also the verb puːmsʲalaxt- ‘to admire, to be amazed’ takes the instrumental: (104) tamľe kol ruːpita-ŋkwe ke pat-i aːɣi-risʲ-ət+pɨɣ-risʲ-ət like.that house work-inf if start-prs.3sg girl-dim-pl+boy-dim-pl sport-əl puːmsʲalaxt-uŋkwe tax pat-eːɣ-ət sport-inst be.interested-inf so start-prs-3pl ‘If a centre like this is opened, children will be interested in sports.’ (LS 15/2015) See Virtanen (2015) for a detailed discussion on the use of the instrumental to flag a theme under focus, while the recipient is the direct object of the verb.

MANSI 695

15.18 INDEXING OF DIRECT OBJECTS AND TRANSITIVITY The subjective conjugation is used when there is no direct object (intransitive action, or transitive action without a specified object) or when the direct object is non-topical. The objective conjugation is used when the verb is accompanied by a topical direct object (see Virtanen 2015). The difference is illustrated in examples (105) and (106). There is first talk about writing poems in general (105), and the direct object of the sentence is in focal position: the subjective conjugation is therefore used. In (106), on the other hand, there is talk about the details of writing one’s thesis: here the focus (‘about Khanty’) is in focus, while the direct object is topical; the objective conjugation is therefore used: (105) maː-te urəl stʲix-ət хans-i land-3sg about poem-pl write-prs.3sg ‘She writes poems about her own land.’ (LS 8/2015) (106) diplom+nēpak-e xanti lātəŋ urəl xansi-s-te diploma+book-3sg Khanty language about write-pst-3sg>sg ‘She wrote her MA thesis about Khanty language.’ (LS 12/2019) Mansi is thus a language with differential object marking (see, for example, Bossong 1985): it indexes on the verb a feature of a topical direct object, but not of a focalized one. (This feature is number, although the sg/du/pl trichotomy is no longer strictly observed, cf. example 107, which follows.) The objective conjugation is the primary technique for indexing a topical direct object (see Virtanen 2014). In the northern dialects of Mansi, a nominal (non-pronominal) object argument is in the nominative for both focal and topical direct objects. In other words, the object indexing is achieved not by case inflection but purely by verb inflection. The objective conjugation appears in several kinds of syntactic monotransitive and ditransitive structures. In the next two examples, the syntactic role of direct object is occupied by the semantic patient of the sentence: (107) maːn-aw kol-eː-n woːw-əs-te 1pl-1pl house-3sg-lat invite-pst-3sg>sg ‘[He] invited us to his home.’ (LS 12/2017) (108) taw eːləl Iːsus kaːsal-as-tə os Iːsus pal-t xaːjt-əs 3sg from.far Jesus see-pst-3sg>sg and Jesus side-loc run-pst.3sg ‘He saw Jesus from a distance and ran to him.’ (Mark 5:6) However, as a consequence of the so-called dative shift (see, for example, Dryer 1986) in a ditransitive clause, the syntactic direct object can also represent the semantic recipient. In that case, the semantic patient is in the instrumental -əl. This structure is used whenever the semantic patient is the focal element of the sentence: the more topical recipient occupies the core role. Again, object indexing is achieved only by verb inflection (109): (109) ti kasəl «Pupikat» nam-əl takwi namt-əs-te. pro competition Pupikat name-inst himself give.name-pst-3sg>sg ‘He himself has given this competition the name Pupikat.’ (LS 9/2019)

696 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

When using the objective conjugation due to the topicality of the direct object, it is usual that the only reference to the direct object is with object indexing on the verb (101, see also Section 15.4): (110) tuwəl eːkwa-te kasaj-əl kuratapt-əs-te then wife-3sg knife-inst shave-pst-3sg>sg ‘After that his wife shaved [him] with a knife.’(LS 23/2013) The passive voice has two main functions: (1) to promote some other argument than the semantic agent to the syntactic role of subject or (2) to express transitive8 action without an identified agent. In the first kind of construction, the passive voice is used as the inverse category of active (see, for example, Kulonen 1989; Virtanen 2015). Whenever a passive clause includes a semantic agent, it is always a focal argument, whilst the most topical argument—taking the syntactic role of subject—is either the patient or the recipient. In other words, the variation between active and passive is based on pragmatics: the most topical argument of the sentence always occupies the syntactic role of subject. If it is the semantic agent, the active voice is used; otherwise, the passive voice is used. When the verb is in the passive, any agent may be optionally expressed with the lative case. In example (111), the semantic patient of the clause is promoted to subject, and the verb is conjugated accordingly. The semantic agent is marked with a lative ending. (111) tuwəl akwta kolnak-t kuːsʲaj jot atxat|ɨɣl-am after same room-loc leader with gather|der-pst.ptcp taw oːs kitɨɣl-awе-s maːxum-n people-lat 3sg also ask-pass-pst.3sg ‘Afterwards, the governor was also asked questions by the people gathered in the same room with her.’ (LS 11/2017) In examples (112) and (113, within a relative clause), the subject represents the semantic recipient of the clause, and the noun in the instrumental represents the semantic patient (theme) of the clause. The semantic agent is also present in the lative. We mark the semantic agent here with subscript A, object with P, and recipient with R: (112) ti xoːtpa-tR okrug kuːsʲaj-nA blagodarnostʲ neːpak-əlP maj-w-eːs-ət pro human-pl district boss-lat gratitude letter-inst give-pass-pst-3pl ‘These people were given letters of thanks by the governor of the district.’ (LS 12/2017) (113) aːsʲ-eː-nA manar-əlP xantisʲt-aw-es taji puss waːr-əs father-3sg-lat what-inst teach-pass-pst.3sg that all do-pst.3sg ‘Whatever he was taught by his father, he did (it) all.’ (12/2017) However, the passive voice is also used to express impersonal action, without including an agent: in situations like this, the subject of a passive clause can also be focal. This is due to a lack of choice: there is no other argument that could occupy the syntactic role of subject, because the only topical element is, for example, an expression of location or direction. In examples (114–116), a monotransitive event is expressed

MANSI 697

with the passive: in each of them, there is an expression of location, and the subject is focal: (114) Sot͡ʃ i uːs-t olimpiada janɨɣ kasəl waːr|ɨɣl-aw-es Sochi city-loc Olympics big competition make|der-pass-pst.3sg ‘The Olympics were organized in Sochi.’ (LS 9/2017) (115) Moskva uːs-t janɨɣ sussəltap sʲoːpit-awe Moscow city-loc big exhibition organize-pass.3sg ‘A big exhibition is being organized in Moscow.’ (LS 6/2015) (116) tot maːnsʲi xanti os joːrn nʲawram-ət xanʲisʲt-awe-t there Mansi Khanty and Nenets child-pl teach-pass-3pl ‘Mansi, Khanty and Nenets children are taught there.’ (LS 20/2014) Example (117) includes a ditransitive event with a plural subject and a passive verb. This time, the subject is topical: some children are being given books, and they are indexed as the subject of the passive verb. The semantic patient (‘book’), as a focalized argument, is in the instrumental: (117) taːn pussən jilʲpi neːpak-əl mi-we-t 3pl all new book-inst give-pass-3pl ‘All of them [children] will be given a new book.’ (LS 25/2012) 15.19 LEXICON The number of stems in Mansi originating from Uralic, Finno-Ugric, and Ob-Ugric protolanguages can be estimated at slightly over 1,000 items. The UEW (Rédei et al. 1986– 1988) lists approximately 600 Uralic and Finno-Ugric stems as having Mansi cognates as well (e.g. min- ‘go,’ xum ‘man,’ neː ‘woman,’ kaːt ‘hand’), while Riese (2001, 73) counts almost 500 Mansi words of Ugric or Ob-Ugric origin (e.g. pum ‘grass,’ nʲol ‘nose,’ juːnt‘to sew’). Mansi has borrowed lexical items from the languages with which it has been in contact, most notably Iranian, Khanty, Nenets, Komi, Tatar, and Russian. The contact with Iranian languages took place as early as the Ugrian and Ob-Ugrian era; their influence is attested by loanwords surviving in Mansi (e.g. asʲerma ‘shame’ oːtər ‘master, lord, hero,’ meːŋkw ‘forest spirit,’ paːŋx ‘inebriety,’ saːt ‘seven,’ waːr- ‘to make’). The handful of Iranian loanwords borrowed directly into Mansi (e.g. keːr ‘iron,’ puːŋ ‘wealth; rich,’ sirej ‘sword,’ tuːjt- ‘to hide, to conceal’) came in the first millennium ad (cf. Korenchy 1972). Mansi has been in contact with various forms of Khanty, especially the neighbouring varieties. It is rather difficult to tell apart the Mansi and Khanty words which are related, that is, of Ob-Ugric origin, from the loanwords borrowed from one language to another, as well as to determine the direction of borrowing. The UEW lists a few dozen Khanty loanwords in Mansi, for example, xoxra ‘woodpecker,’ uːnt ‘forest,’ pit ‘black,’ xoːs ‘star’ According to Steinitz’s work (1959) on the Samoyedic loanwords in the Ob-Ugric languages, there are approximately 30 Nenets loanwords in Mansi, all of them used in the Northern Mansi dialects, for example, ittərma ‘cloth doll representing a dead relative,’

698 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

jotlap ‘dull iron utensil used for processing leather,’ xoːpt ‘castrated reindeer,’ xatər ‘grey (used for reindeers),’ tutsʲaŋ ‘women’s bag for sewing tools’ Rédei (1970, 78‒79) identified over 300 Komi loanwords in Mansi, 288 of them in the Northern Mansi dialect group, and 135 of them in the Northern Mansi dialect group only. The Komi loanwords found only in Northern Mansi belong to the most recent layer, but the high proportion of these words indicates that the Northern varieties of Mansi have been in longer and more intensive contact with Komi than the others. Examples of Komi loanwords: oːjka ‘old man,’ jurt ‘friend,’ kulʲ ‘devil,’ kunʲər ‘poor,’ neːpak ‘script, paper, book,’ pojk- ‘to beg, to pray.’ While Gombocz (1898) listed only 62 Turkic loanwords in Mansi, Kannisto’s (1925) more detailed work mentions 508 Tatar loanwords, 48 of them to be found in the Northern dialects, and only 9 to be found in Northern Mansi only. According to Kannisto, these borrowings may have arrived in Northern Mansi by Khanty mediation, since the Northern Mansi have not been in direct contact with the Tatar. Examples for Tatar loanwords in Northern Mansi: aːməsʲ ‘riddle,’ aki ‘grandfather,’ kaːsərl- ‘to play cards,’ kaːtʲi ‘cat,’ soːwt ‘birchbark backpack,’ suri ‘ring.’ Russian–Mansi contacts intensified from the beginning of the seventeenth century, thus ushering in an era of extensive borrowings from Russian to Mansi. Kálmán’s 1961 survey of Russian loanwords found in texts collected in the nineteenth century identifies almost 600 Russian loanwords, 246 of which can be found in the Northern Mansi dialects. (The number of Russian loanwords was considerably smaller in the more remote Northern dialect group than in the other varieties.) The Russian loanwords of this period covered a wide semantic range, for example, rupit- ‘to work,’ isʲvesʲ ‘candle,’ kolup ‘pigeon,’ kaːrwilt- ‘to guard, to watch,’ mir ‘people,’ pora ‘time.’ Russian loanwords— like loanwords borrowed from other languages—entering Mansi by the early decades of the twentieth century were fully adapted to Mansi phonology. As a result of widespread bilingualism among Mansi speakers as well as other sociolinguistic and language-policy factors, the number of Russian borrowings began to grow significantly during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Russian loanwords in more recent sources reflect elements of modern life, drawn from fields such as politics (dʲeputat ‘deputy,’ zakon ‘law’), economy (ribokombinat ‘fish processing factory,’ gaz ‘gas’), education (klass ‘class,’ ʃkola ‘school,’ gramota ‘certificate’), health services (e.g. bolʲnʲica ‘hospital’). In some cases, Russian terms are borrowed and used even if there is a Mansi equivalent, such as bolʲnʲica alongside Mansi pusmaltan kol ‘healing house,’ ʃkola alongside xanʲisʲtan kol ‘teaching house’ (cf. for example, Bíró and Sipőcz 2009). Some of the Russian loanwords are used in the original Russian forms as well as in forms phonologically adapted to Mansi (e.g. bolʲnʲica ‘hospital’ occurs also as puːlʲnʲica, zakon ‘law’ as sakkon). New Mansi words are formed primarily by derivation and compounding. Examples of compound words: sam+ker eye+iron ‘eyeglasses,’ and, less transparently, jaŋ+uj ‘moose’ (from janɨɣ ‘big’ + uj ‘animal.’ The taboo language concerning the bear feast (cf. Bakró-Nagy 1979) and the veneration of sacred animals in general still forms a characteristic part of the Mansi lexicon, although it does not play a prominent role in everyday language use. Some of the Mansi words replacing Russian borrowings have been created recently, while others were already in use during the creation of Mansi literacy in the 1930s, as opposed to the policy encouraging the use of Russian borrowings instead of creating neologisms since the 1940s. The two most popular ways of creating neologisms in Mansi have been extending the meaning of already-existing words (e.g. xuri ‘photo’ from ‘shape, shadow, picture’) and creating descriptive multiword expressions (e.g. lʲaːxxal tot|ne xoːtpa news bring|ptcp person ‘journalist’).

MANSI 699

15.20 TEXT This Mansi sample is extracted from a report of the celebration of Crow Day in the city of Sovetsky. The author of the report was Lyudmila Tetkina; it appeared in Luima Seripos in 2013 (8/2013). ti jalpəŋ xoːtal waːrɨɣl-am xoːtpa-t tox this holy day make-pst.ptcp person-pl so laːw-s-ət, Sovetskij uːs-t oːl-ne mir uːrineːkwa say-pst-3pl Sovetskij town-loc live-prs.ptcp people crow xoːtal janitl-aŋkwe saka eːrupt-eːɣ-ət. day celebrate-inf very love-prs-3pl ‘The people who have organized this feast said that the people of Sovetskij town love to celebrate the Crow Day very much.’ ti taːl kon saka aśirmaŋ os woːt-əŋ xoːtal this year outside very cold and wind-adj day joxt|al-as. oːl-əs, mosʲsʲa maːxum tuw be-pst.3sg few people thither come|der-pst.3sg ‘This year it was a very cold and windy day, very few people came there.’ jalpəŋ xoːtal oːlum porat am rajon-nəl joxtala-m mansʲit holy day be-pst.ptcp time-loc 1sg raion come-pst.ptcp Mansi-pl os kitɨɣlaxt-uŋkwe, ti jot potram-aŋkwe tax-s-um with talk-inf want-pst-1sg and pose.question-inf dem jalpəŋ xoːtal taːn-anəl-n muːsti-s man aːtʲi. holy day 3pl-3pl-lat please-pst.3sg or neg ‘At the time of the holiday, I wanted to speak with Mansi people from the raion and to ask them whether they liked this feast or not.’ tup akw neː O. ͡tʃ. (D.) Tajoʐnij paːwəl-nəl ам ёт-ум потырт-ас. only one lady O. Ch. (D.) Tayozhiy village-abl am jot-um potərt-as. 1sg with-1sg speak-pst.3sg ‘Only one woman, O. Ch. (D.) from Tayozhniy village, talked to me.’ moːtan-ət pussən molʲax sisi other-pl all quickly back ‘All the others ran away quickly.’

tax-as-ət. run-pst-3pl

okrug janitləl jalas-im am District all.around travel-pst.ptcp 1sg

akwaɣ saw maːxum together many people

jot xoːntxatɨɣl-eːɣ-um tamlʲe waːrmalʲ wossɨɣ neːmxoːt at wasʲinʲt-as-um. with meet-prs-1sg this.kind thing ever nowhere no see-pst-1sg ‘Having travelled around the district I have met many people, but I have never ever witnessed anything like this.’ manrɨɣ potərt-aŋkwe at kaːsasʲ-as-ət, at torɣamt-as-lum. why speak-inf neg want-pst-3pl neg understand-pst-1sg>sg ‘I didn’t understand, why they didn’t want to answer.’

700 SuSanna Virtanen and CSilla HorVátH

NOTES 1 the Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger classifies the degree of endangerment according to major dialect groups: northern Mansi is regarded as severly engangered, eastern Mansi as critically endangered, Western and Southern Mansi as extinct. 2 norbert Szilágyi (personal communication, 2018) reported meeting at least two speakers of eastern Mansi: Maksim Semenovich Shivtorov in Shugur, and Gavril andreevich Vakhrushev in Polovinka. 3 note that there is a great deal of variation in the case suffixes depending on subdialect or idiolect (riese 2001, 25), e.g. po:x-at, po:x-ət, po:x-tə. this applies to the forms of the present participle as well: it can be -n, -ən, or -an. 4 the 3sg suffix is lengthened before lative, locative, and ablative suffixes. 5 the pronoun ta ‘that’ can also have the meaning ‘thus, so.’ 6 the example is from an interview where an adult tells about her childhood. the whole story is in past tense, except this one sentence: this is why it is translated in past tense. 7 Toːrum jot, oːtər jot is a widely used greeting, often translated in the traditional way, meaning Mansi gods and guardian spirits by toːrum ‘god’ and oːtər ‘prince,’ as well as converting the concepts to more Christian-like God and guardian angel. 8 in this context, transitivity is understood as a semantic—not syntactic—phenomenon. See, for example, definition by Kittilä (2002). REFERENCES Bakró-nagy, Marianne. 1979. Die Sprache des Bärenkultes im Obugrischen. Budapest: akadémiai Kiadó. Bíró, Bernadett, and Katalin Sipőcz. 2009. “Language Shift Among the Mansi.” In Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages, edited by James n. Stanford and denis r. Preston, 312‒346. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. empirische universalienforschung. tübingen: Gunter narr Verlag. Census rF. 2010. 4/5 Владение языками населением Российской Федерации. www.gks. ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/documents/Vol4/pub-04-05.xlsx. accessed 29 december 2019. Census rF. 2010. 4/19 Размещение населения коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации. www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/documents/Vol4/pub-04-19.xlsx. accessed 29 december 2019. Census rF. 2010. 4/20, Владение языками населением коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации. www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/ documents/Vol4/pub-04-20.xlsx. accessed 29 december 2019. Census rF. 2010. 4/22, Население коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации по родному языку. www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/ documents/Vol4/pub-04-22.xlsx. accessed 29 december 2019. Census ukraine. 2001. Розподiл намелення за нацiональнiстю та рiдною мовою. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/nationality_population/nationality_popul1/ select_5/?botton=cens_db&box=5.1W&k_t=00&p=0&rz=1_1&rz_b=2_1%20%20 %20%20&n_page=1. dixon, r. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistic Theory, Volume 2: Grammatical Topics. oxford: oxford university Press.

MANSI 701

Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. “Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative.” Language 62: 808‒845. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 22nd ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue. com/language/mns. Accessed 9 April 2018. Gombocz, Zoltán. 1898. “A vogul nyelv idegen elemei.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 28: 148‒184. Horváth, Csilla. 2015. “Beading and Language Class: Introducing the Lylyng Soyum Children Education Centre’s Attempt to Revitalise Ob-Ugric Languages and Cultures.” Zeszyty Łużyckie 48: 115‒127. Horváth, Csilla. 2016. “A manysi örökségnyelv oktatási kísérletei és eredményei.” In A többnyelvűség dimenziói: terek, kontextusok, kutatási távlatok, edited by Csilla Bartha, 295‒306. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Horváth, Csilla. 2020. “The Vitality and Revitalisation Attempts of the Mansi Language in Khanty-Mansiysk.” PhD thesis. Online version: http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/ eprint/10757/1/Horvath_Csilla_disszertacio.pdf Kálmán, Béla. 1961. Die russischen Lehnwörter im Wogulischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kálmán, Béla. 1976. Chrestomathia Vogulica. Budapest: Tankönykiadó. Kannisto, Artturi. 1925. “Die tatarischen Lehnwörter im Wogulischen.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 17: 1–264. Keresztes, László. 1998. “Mansi.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, Daniel, 387–427. London: Routledge. Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Turku: University of Turku. Korenchy, Éva. 1972. Iranische Lehnwörter in den obugrischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 1989. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. LS = Лӯима сэ̄рипо̄с—Luima Seripos. Mansi newspaper published monthly in Khanty-Mansijsk. https://khanty-yasang.ru/luima-seripos/archive. Mark = Марк Хум Хансум Ёмас Ля̄ххал—Mansi translation of the Gospel of Mark. 2000 Helsinki: Raamatunkäännösinstituutti. Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Moseley, Christopher, ed. 2010. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas. Rédei, Károly. 1970. Die syrjänischen Lehnwörter im Wogulischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Riese, Timothy. 2001. Vogul. München: Lincom Europa. Rombandeeva, E. I. 1973. Мансийский (вогульский) язык. Moscow: Nauka. Skribnik, Elena, and Natalya Koshkaryova. 2006. “Khanty and Mansi: The Contemporary Linguistic Situation.” In Shamanism and Northern Ecology, edited by Juha Pentikäinen, 207–218. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1959. “Zu den samojedischen Lehnwörten in Ob-Ugrischen.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 31: 426–453. UEW = Rédei, Károly, Marianne Sz. Bakró-Nagy, Attila Dobó, and Éva Fancsaly. 1986–1988. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Band I–III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Virtanen, Susanna. 2013. “Grammaticalized Preverbs of Aspect and Their Contribution to Expressing Transitivity in Eastern Mansi.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 109: 109–122.

702 SUSANNA VIRTANEN AND CSILLA HORVÁTH

Virtanen, Susanna. 2014. “Pragmatic Direct Object Marking in Eastern Mansi.” Linguistics 52 (2): 391–413. Virtanen, Susanna. 2015. “Transitivity in Eastern Mansi.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. Virtanen, Susanna. 2021. “A Template Approach to Pragmatic Constituent Order Variation in Modern Northern Mansi.” Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 66: 188–234. VNGy = Munkácsi, Bernát. 1892–1896. Vogul Népköltési Gyűjtemény I–IV. Budapest: MTA. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.

CHAPTER 16

KHANTY 1 Márta Csepregi

16.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW From a morphological-typological perspective, Khanty (old name: Ostyak) is like many other Uralic languages in that it is in the main concatenative, with low flexivity. However, much of its verb morphology shows cumulative exponence, and both noun and verb paradigms have some nonlinear features. The two main word class categories are nominal and verbal. In declension of nouns, the grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, genitive) have no overt morpheme; we may therefore think of them as encoded with zero, as opposed to non-core arguments, which have overt case suffixes. The number of morphological cases varies from dialect to dialect, from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 11. The canonic case for subject function in main clauses is the so-called nominative, but this zero-flagged case is the default for all non-peripheral arguments in finite active clauses. In the Eastern dialects, subjects may appear in the locative case for information-structural reasons (Filchenko 2006; Sosa 2017). Noun direct objects have zero suffix; only the personal pronouns have a dedicated accusative. In NP-internal possessive constructions, both nominal and pronominal possessors have zero flagging; flagging on the head noun encodes person-and-number of the possessor as well as number of the possessum; on the possessum, it is obligatory with pronominal possessors, but in noun+noun syntagms, person flagging on the possessum is determined by higher syntax. Many (in case-poor dialects most) non-core arguments are flagged by means of postpositional constructions. Both Ob-Ugric languages (Mansi and Khanty) distinguish subjective, objective, and passive conjugations: the choice of conjugation depends on the information structure relations between agent and patient. In the objective conjugation, cumulative person suffixes indicate not only the person and number of the subject but also the number of the object. Similarly, pan-Ob-Ugric is the three-way number distinction (sg-du-pl) in both verb and nominal paradigms. Verbs distinguish two non-compound tenses, present and past; cross-dialectally, the number of distinct past tenses varies from one to four. All Khanty dialects distinguish indicative and imperative moods, with non-compound forms occurring only in the second person. In Northern dialects, the category of evidentiality is expressible by means of complete paradigms; other modal distinctions may be expressed by means of particles. Apart from emphasis or disambiguation, subjects, objects, and possessors are not expressed by independent pronouns. The main exception to this generalization is found in the relation between verbs and their first-person or second-person objects, where overt expression via pronouns varies from dialect to dialect. The copula is also zero in certain of its functions. Negation is expressed by means of a particle which has a special form for predicative functions and for the prohibitive. DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-16

704 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

The neutral constituent order in Khanty is SV or AOV, with adjuncts normally also coming before the verb. In general, one can discern a modifier–modified order in all constructions in that we normally have attributive modifiers preceding heads, possessors preceding possessums, and objects and other arguments preceding the verb. The order of major clause constituents can vary, however, in accordance with information structure. Conjunctions and compound sentences containing multiple finite verbs have been rare in Khanty texts until most recent times: support, complement, and relative clauses have been expressed traditionally by means of nonfinite constructions. 16.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION The dialects of Khanty were spoken by people living in North-West Siberia in a vast area along the Ob’ River and its tributaries. Even today, speakers of Khanty live in widely dispersed settlements in a vast territory, and for this reason—although in some cases a dialect continuum has arisen between adjacent speaker communities—non-adjacent dialects are not mutually comprehensible. The discrepancies in phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon are remarkable enough to warrant speaking of distinct languages. We gain a clearer picture of the situation if we think of Khanty not as a monolithic language but rather as a cluster or loose chain of more or less distinct dialects. At the time of the 2010 Russian Census,2 30,943 persons declared themselves to be of Khanty nationality; of these, fewer than a third (9,584) called themselves Khanty speakers. Groups of such people can live as much as a thousand kilometres from one another. The Khanty dialects are classified and named after cardinal points, but the names of individual dialects specify the river or town along or near which those dialects are principally spoken (see Figure 16.1). The central point of the Khanty linguistic area, where the three main dialect groups converge, is the confluence of the Ob’ and the Irtysh Rivers. This location is of easy approach by water, and so with the conquest of Siberia, Russians founded here the town of Samorov, renamed in 1930 Khanty-Mansijsk, and since then the administrative and cultural centre of the Ob-Ugrians. To the South, along the Irtysh and its tributaries (Konda, Demyanka), southern dialects of Khanty were spoken. Speakers of Irtysh Khanty seem to have stopped using this language by the mid-twentieth century, having adopted Russian or Tatar instead. Today, one will hear Khanty spoken along the Demyanka, but it is a Jugan (that is, Surgut) variety used by Khanty who migrated here. Northern Khanty dialects are spoken from the confluence of the Ob’ and Irtysh northwards as far as the Ob’ delta. Two of the more southerly of these dialects (Sherkal, Nizyam) are no longer spoken, but farther north, there remain three viable dialect microclusters: Kazym, Beryozov, and Obdorsk. These are spoken respectively along the Kazym River; along the Synya River and around the towns of Shuryshkar, Muzhi, and Tegi; and along the Sob and Polui Rivers and the Gulf of Ob’. Along the middle Ob’ and its tributaries, we may distinguish three dialect groups: the Salym, Surgut, and Vakh-Vasyugan. Few speakers of the Salym variety remain today; rather, the Salym now has an influx of Jugan speakers. Speakers of Surgut varieties live along the tributaries Lyamin, Pim, Tromagan, Agan and the lesser and greater Jugan. Farthest to the east, the Vakh-Vasyugan dialects are spoken along those rivers and in the area of Aleksandrovo. In Ostyakology, it is traditional to classify the Northern and Southern dialects into a larger ‘Western’ grouping, since on the whole these varieties have more features in

KHANTY 705

FIGURE 16.1 MAP OF THE KHANTY DIALECT AREA.

common with each other than with dialects to the East. The most striking phonological characteristic of this divide is the preservation of Proto-Khanty *k as a stop before back vowels; to the West, *k spirantized to x. We may illustrate with forms of the Khanty self-designation, which is VVj Surg qăntəɣ, Sal qăntə, Irt Sher χăntə, Kaz Shur Obd χănti.

706 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

The Sherkal and Nizyam dialects formed a transitional type between southern and northern varieties; phonologically, they resembled southern dialects, while morphologically they were more like northern ones. The now nearly extinct Salym dialect occupies a similar position, being phonologically rather southern while, morphologically, it is rather eastern in cast. Another diagnostic series of sound changes radiated from Southern dialects: Proto-Khanty *l and *ɬ became *t in the South, a change which began to spread to both northern and eastern varieties. The change did not reach the peripheral dialects, however: *l remains l in Vakh and Obdorsk dialects and merged as the voiceless lateral fricative in Surgut and Kazym (the palatal lateral *l’ shows a perfectly parallel development). In recent times, Surgut voiceless lateral fricative ɬ is being replaced in more and more locales with the stop t. The motivation may well be psychosocial: in areas with overwhelming Russian-speaking majorities, the lateral fricative sounds foreign to Russian ears. Since both ɬ and t are phonemes with heavy functional loads—both lexically and grammatically—their merger leads to a great deal of new homonymy, causing communicative disruption. Table 16.1 illustrates a few salient interdialectal isoglosses, while Table 16.2 gives examples of phonological and lexical differences. TABLE 16.1  SALIENT INTERDIALECTAL ISOGLOSSES IN KHANTY V

Vj

Surg

Sal

Irt

+

Vowel harmony

Sher

Kaz

q

*ć

χ

ť l-

ś

j-

*l-

l-

-s- past tense

+

ɬɬ-

t

ɬ-

t

ɬ

–

10‒11

ll+

+

-Ø- past tense Number of case suffixes

Obd

–

*k before back vowel *ɬ-

Shur

–

9‒10

6‒9

5‒6

3

Source: based on Honti 1984, 13–14, 1988, 174–175, 1999; Abondolo 1998, 359.

TABLE 16.2  PHONOLOGICAL AND LEXICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KHANTY DIALECTS V shaman fox younger brother shoulder

Vj

joltə qu

rain

jol

wŏqi

qaqy

măńi

(ləŋkər) (jəŋkər) (ɬä̌ŋkər) wan wan wɔn əļļə lyɣəl

jyɣəl

lăwəť

Sal

Irt

Sher

Kaz

Shur

Obd

ťərtəŋ qo ťərtəŋ qu ťərtəŋ χoj śărt-χu śărt-χǫ śărt-χu śărtti χo

woqy

big Pinus sibirica

Surg

wăɣsar

wŏχsar

ŏχsar

mŏńə

măńə

apəśə

won

təŋkər

tăŋkər ɬăŋkər lăŋkər

ənəɬ

ənət

un

unə

ɬyɣəɬ

teɣət

taχət

tiɣət

jŏm

?

jert

jert

apśi

wǫn

un

nɔχər juχ jɛrt

jert

lä̌ŋkər wul naχər juχ jert

KHANTY 707

Scholarly work on Khanty language stretches back over one and a half centuries. The first grammar to be published, based on Irtysh and Surgut data, was Castrén 1849. By the end of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth century, fieldwork extended to cover the entire Khanty linguistic area; these collections are important sources to this day (Patkanow and Fuchs 1911; Paasonen and Vértes 1965; Karjalainen and Vértes 1964). Descriptions and grammars of individual (sub)dialects are those of Sherkal, Synja (Steinitz 1950a), Vakh (Terëškin 1961; Gulya 1966, Shuryshkar (Rédei 1965), Surgut (Csepregi 1998, 2017), Kazym (Nëmysova 1988; Kaksin 2007, Obdorsk (Nikolaeva 1995, 1999a), and Vakh-Vasyugan (Filchenko 2010). Honti (1984) is a one-volume synchronic and diachronic conspectus of all dialects. Rich databases have been and continue to be built (Havas et al. 2015; Skribnik 2014–2017). Efforts to bring about literacy in Khanty began in the 1930s. First Roman scripts were adapted, then by the end of the thirties, various Cyrillic scripts were tried. By the end of the 1950s, four northern (Obd, Shur, Kaz, and Sher) and two eastern orthographies (V, Surg) were developed, and textbooks using these were published. Initially, the Sherkal dialect was preferred, and Soviet propaganda was disseminated though this form of written language: it was in this form that the newspaper Lenin pant khuvat ‘On the Path of Lenin’ (founded 1957) was written. From the 1970s, writers and other intellectuals who used Kazym and Shuryshkar dialects became active, and belles-lettres and folklore collections began to appear in these forms of Khanty. The newspaper, too, underwent a language shift: from 1976, it was published in the Kazym dialect. In 1991, its name was changed as well to Khanty Jasang ‘Khanty Language.’ The periodical Lukh avt ‘Deityspirit cape’ began to appear in Salekhard in 2001; publications in Surgut dialects have appeared only since the 1990s. The idea of a unified pan-Khanty language surfaces from time to time, but this is not possible, given the enormous interdialectal differences. The Ethnologue database (Lewis et al. 2015) classifies Khanty as endangered, that is, it is used in (some) oral communication, but the number of speakers is decreasing. This paints a somewhat-crude picture of a situation which, viewed from closer in, is far more varied, since where speakers live is a vital factor in a language’s survival. Whereas in towns a more or less complete language shift can take place within one generation, it is in taiga settlements—where traditional Khanty culture is centred—that parents pass their language and folkways on to their children. Nevertheless, the overall picture is one of the close-to-universal penetration by Russian. In theory, native-language lessons could be delivered in schools in the so-called ethnic villages, but in the absence of qualified teachers and due to a lack of interest on the part of parents and young people, in practice this seldom occurs (Skribnik and Koškareva 1996; Csepregi and Onina 2011). In the remainder of this chapter, I introduce the main features of the Surgut dialect(s), based on some 20 years of fieldwork and in consultation with many native speakers. Important structural differences shown by other dialects will, however, be mentioned throughout. 16.3 PHONOLOGY AND THE WORD Preliminary note concerning transcription: reducing Surgut Khanty to writing over the past century and a half has involved a wide range of phonetic, phonematic (or quasiphonematic), Roman, and Cyrillic systems. Sources deviate from one another, often inconsistently. This presentation is phonematic but has been simplified somewhat for typographic reasons.

708 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

16.3.1 Vowels As is typical of all Ob-Ugric languages, the vowel system of the Surgut first syllable is much richer than that of subsequent syllables. In Surgut Khanty, the first syllable distinguishes 12 + 1 vowels, while non-first syllables distinguish only 4 (Table 16.3). The vocalism of the first syllable is enriched by a thirteenth vowel, the hyper-reduced ə (schwa); it cannot be placed in any cell of the table because of the number and variety of its allophones with regard to all phonological parameters. In non-first syllables, in addition to ə, there occur the vowels /i e a/, which in this position are non-distinctively short and front. In certain morphemes (e.g. infinitive suffix, inflected personal pronoun forms), these vowels take on a subphonemic pronunciation of somewhat-greater duration; another anomaly is presented by the passive suffix -oj-, which introduces a rounded vowel in non-initial syllables. For comparative purposes, Table 16.4 presents the vowel system of a northern dialect. Shuryshkar orthography does not reckon with a reduced schwa phoneme in the first syllable; in non-first syllable, the vowels are /ə ǐ e a/. 16.3.2 Consonants Table 16.5 presents the Surgut consonant system. Velar and postvelar k and q are allophones, the former occurring in front, the latter in back environments, for example, kȧr ‘bark,’ ker ‘stove,’ kü̆r ‘leg, foot’ vs. qɔr ‘male, esp. reindeer,’ qor ‘passageway,’ qŏr ‘treeless bog,’ sȧŋki ‘sky’ (< *ǟ), săŋqi ‘sand’ (< *ï̌ ); the postvelar variant is often realized as a fricative (e.g. [χ]ɔr ‘male, esp. reindeer’). TABLE 16.3  VOWEL SYSTEM OF THE SURGUT KHANTY FIRST SYLLABLE Long

Short

Front unr

Back rd

Front rd

y

u

ü̆ ö̆

High

i

Mid

e

o

Low

ȧ

ɔ

unr

Back

unr

rd

unr

rd

ŏ

ä̆

ă

TABLE 16.4  SHURYSHKAR KHANTY FIRST-SYLLABLE VOWEL SYSTEM Long

Short

Front unr

Back unr

High Mid Low

Front rd

unr

u

ǐ

ŭ

ĕ

ŏ

e a

Back

ɔ

rd

unr

ă

rd

KHANTY 709 TABLE 16.5  THE SURGUT CONSONANT SYSTEM Bilabial

Alveolar

Palatal

Nasals

m

n

ń

ŋ

Stops

p

t

ť

[k

Affricates

č

Non-lateral fricatives

s

Lateral fricatives

ɬ

Lateral approximant

Velar

Postvelar

q] ɣ

ɬ’

l

Glides

w

j

Trill

r

TABLE 16.6  THE SHURYSHKAR CONSONANT SYSTEM Bilabial

Alveolar

Palatal

Nasals

m

n

ń

Stops

p

t

Affricates Fricatives Laterals Glides Trill

Cacuminal

Postvelar ŋ

k ć

č

s

ś

š

l, ʟ

ľ

ļ

w

Velar

χ

j r, ʀ

The difference between velar and postvelar k is seen as traceable from Ugric times, as in some of the Ugric languages (Hungarian, northern and southern Khanty, northern Mansi) this led to spirantization before velar vowels, whereas the rest of the languages (eastern Khanty, eastern Mansi) preserved the postvelar stop. In Surgut Khanty, Russian loanwords with /k/ are adopted as velar, thus taking on palatal prosodies, for example, keškȧ ‘cat’ (< or koška); the orthographic tradition, originating with the practice of N.I. Terëškin, consistently differentiates velar from postvelar variants. A distinctive feature of Surgut Khanty consonantism is the presence of labialized velars (kw ŋw and most frequently ɣw) in environments where neighbouring Vakh dialects have plain velars preceded by rounded vowels, for example, V V jöŋ ‘ten’ = Surg jeŋw, V öɣi ‘girl’ = Surg ä̌ɣwi, V lök ‘road’ = Surg lekw, V joɣən ‘river’ = Surg jăɣwən. The labialization may occur in anticipation of the consonant, resulting in diphthongs (jeŭŋ, ä̌ŭwi, leŭk). In some (idio)lects, these should be treated as separate phonemes, and in some (idio)lects, /ɣw/ and /w/ are the same phoneme. However, in this chapter I shall not write ŋw or kw as distinct and write [ɣw] with .3 For purposes of comparison, Table 16.6 sets out the Shuryshkar consonant system.

710 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

There are also subphonemic cacuminal pronunciations of /t/ and /n/. The voiceless apical lateral and trill, written here with and , are the morphophonemic result of word-final /t/ > zero after voiced /l/ and /r/. 16.3.3 Phonotactics In word-initial position, there is no ŋ or ɣ, and there are no consonant clusters. Word-final position permits clusters of two, provided they are homotopic nasal or liquid plus stop (mp ŋk ŋq nt ńť nč ɬt ɬ’ť rt). Word-internally, other combinations are possible, for example, pä̌stȧ ‘quickly,’ kȧrkȧm ‘hard-working,’ tȧtnȧm ‘in vain.’ Geminates arise at morpheme boundaries (both in declension and compounding), as in pyt-tȧ ‘be angry-inf,’ pŏn-nə ‘in a/the weir’; *w-w and *ɣ-ɣ give rise to -kk- (-[qq]-), as in kä̌k-kə ‘turned into a stone’ from kä̌w-ɣə stone-tra, wăq-qə ‘turned into iron’ from wăɣ-ɣə iron-tra; kä̌q+qɔt ‘house made of stone’ from kä̌ɣ ‘stone’ and qɔt ‘house.’Assimilation arises at morpheme boundaries when the stem-final consonant is palatal, as in jińť-ťa ‘to drink,’ or when it is an affricate, as in kənč-ča ‘to search.’ Presumably, via analogy, stem-final w ɣ k [q] surface as geminates to the left of the derivational (adjective-forming) suffix =əŋ, for example, wö̆kk|əŋ ‘strong’ (wö̆w ‘strength’), sikk|əŋ ‘beautiful’ (siw ‘beauty’), wăqq|əŋ ‘decorated with iron’ (wăɣ ‘iron, money’); see Section 16.6. Clusters of three arising in the course of inflection often lose their middle member in casual/fluent speech, for example, ȧmp-ɣən dog-dual [ȧmɣən] ‘two dogs.’ Foreign vocabulary with word-initial clusters is adopted with a range of techniques, including prothesis, epenthesis, metathesis, and aphaeresis, for example, əškolȧ ‘school’ (Russian škola), kəńikȧ ‘book’ (kniga), kərək ‘sin’ (grex), turpȧ ‘chimney’ (truba), pȧsipȧ ‘thanks’ (spasibo). In principle, any vowel may begin a word; the lack of a Surgut word beginning with /ö̆/ is presumably a result of chance. Word stems may end in only the vowels ȧ i ə, with three exceptionsː distal deictic ťu ‘that (one)’ and the nouns ne ‘woman’ and qo ‘man.’ Certain person-indexing verb suffixes end in /e/ and /o/. Vowel sequences do not occur within the word; any such sequences that would arise in the course of inflection trigger insertion of a glide, j on i-final stems, ɣ on ȧ-, and ə-final stems, for example, imijȧ ‘to a woman’ (< *imi-ȧ woman-lat), keškȧɣət ‘cats’ (< *keškȧ-ət cat-pl), keškȧɣəm ‘my cat’ (< * keškȧ-əm cat-1sg), keškȧɣi ‘from a/the cat’ (< *keškȧ-i cat-abl), qŏrəɣȧt ‘with a blanket’ (< *qŏrə-ȧt blanket-inst). Second-syllable schwa in stems such as ȧrəɣ ‘song’ and muɣəɬ ‘liver’ undergoes syncope before vowel-initial suffixes, for example, ȧrɣ-ət song-pl ‘songs,’ muɣɬ-əm liver-1sg ‘my liver.’ The overwhelming majority of Surgut Khanty nominal and verb stems are mono- or bisyllabic. The following structures are attested: CV V CVC VC CVCC VCC CVCV VCV CVCVC

ne ‘woman,’ pȧ ‘the other,’ ťi ‘this (one),’ pə (emphatic particle) ȧ ‘well; then,’ o (interjection) jəm ‘good,’ qos ‘star,’ rȧk ‘flour’ ȧj ‘little,’ ŏt ‘thing’ mɔńť ‘tale,’ wŏnt ‘forest,’ čȧ nč ‘knee,’ poɬ’ť ‘rendered fat,’ sɔrt ‘pike (fish)’ ȧmp ‘dog,’ ŏrt ‘hero’ pupi ‘bear,’ qŏrə ‘blanket’ imi ‘woman, wife, aunt,’ ä̌nə ‘thick’ pəsȧn ‘table,’ suwəm ‘thread, string’

KHANTY 711

VCVC CVCCV VCCV CVCCVC VCCVC CVCVCC

ɔɬəm ‘sleep,’ ɔntəp ‘cradle,’ ä̌tər ‘clear’ sȧŋki ‘sky,’ sɔrńi ‘gold,’ keškȧ ‘cat’ ȧŋki ‘mother,’ owti ‘surface’ jä̌rnȧs ‘shirt, dress,’ wăntər ‘otter’ ŏnčəɣ ‘Pinus sylvestris’ mä̌ləŋk ‘warm’

Derivation and inflection of course produce much longer words: CVCVCCVCCVC CVCCVCVCCVCV

niməɬɣənnȧt ‘with a pair of skis’ ɬejɬəɣəɬtȧɣə ‘to be looking around’

16.3.4 Paradigmatic ablaut in eastern Khanty dialects Vowel alternations characterize derivational processes in all Khanty dialects, for example, Shur ŏl- ‘to lie, sleep’ ~ ul|əm ‘sleep,’ kǐm ‘(moving) outward’ ~ kam|ən ‘(located) outside,’ jɔnt- ‘sew’ ~ jǐnt|əp ‘needle’, kăt ‘two’ ~ kǐm.ət ‘second.’ But in the easternmost dialects (V, Vj, Surg), there is paradigmatic ablaut in verb inflection and in the person inflection of nouns as well: non-high full vowels alternate with high ones, for example, wɔč ~ wuč-əm ‘town’ ~ ‘my town,’ oɣ ~ uɣ-əm ‘head’ ~ ‘my head,’ ȧmp ~ imp-əm ‘dog’ ~ ‘my dog’, lek ~ lik-əm ‘road’ ~ ‘my road’; ɔmət- ~ umt-əm ~ ymt-e ‘seat’ ~ ‘I seated’ ~ ‘seat him/her!’, ɬot- ~ ɬut-ø ~ ɬut-ȧ ‘to buy’ ~ ‘s/he bought’ ~ buy it!’, ɬȧpət- ~ ɬipt-əm ~ ɬipt-e ‘to feed’ ~ ‘I fed him/her/it’ ~ ‘feed him/her/it!’, jek- ~ jik-ət ~ jik-ittəɣ ‘to dance’ ~ ‘they danced’ ~ ‘dance (pl)!’. The alternations ä̌ ~ ə and ă ~ ŏ also occur in a few verbs, for example, wä̌r- ~ wər-ȧ ‘do’ ~ ‘do!’, păn- ~ pŏn-ȧ ‘to place, put’, ~ ‘put!’, wăɬ- ~ wŏɬ ‘is’ ~ ‘was (3sg).’ Words with a stem-final i constitute a regular exception to this alternation, for example, ʌȧŋki ~ ʌȧŋkem ‘squirrel’ ~ ‘my squirrel,’ ɔri- ~ ɔrijəm ‘to tear’ ~ ‘torn’ (see also Honti 1977). 16.3.5 Consonant alternations in Shuryshkar Khanty In western dialects, certain consonant sequences undergo regular alternations. In Shuryshkar Khanty, for example, homotopic nasal+stop sequences occur only intervocalically; when syllable-final or word-final, they lose their nasal element, for example, amp-em ‘my dog’ but ap ‘dog,’ unt-a ‘into the forest’ but ut ‘forest,’ jǐŋk-a ‘into (the) water’ but jǐk ‘water,’ χănš-es ‘s/he wrote,’ but χăš-tǐ ‘to write, writing,’ jăŋχ-əs ‘s/he went’ but jăχ-tǐ ‘to go, going.’ In syllable-final and word-final position, sequences of a voiced trill or a voiced liquid plus /t/ lose this /t/, and the /r/ or /l/ becomes a voiceless trill or liquid, for example, kurt-a ‘into the village’ but kur ‘village.’ 16.3.6 Morphophonemics Apart from the ablaut phenomena mentioned above, stem alternations in Surgut dialects are few. Only two noun stems show inflectional variants: ne ~ niŋ- ‘woman’ and qo ~ quj- ‘man.’Among verb stems, there are seven which feature final glides alternating with zero: jə-/jəɣ- ‘to become,’ jü̆-/jü̆w- ‘to come,’ ɬi-/ɬiw- ‘to eat,’ mə-/məj- ‘to give,’ tu-/tuw‘to bring,’ wə-/wəj- ‘to take (hold of),’ wu-/wuj- ‘to know, see.’ The vowel-final alternants occur with the suffixes of the present tense -ɬ-, the infinitive -tȧ(ɣə), and the imperfective

712 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

participle -tə, as well as with the negative participle -ɬəɣ. The glide-final alternants occur with the person-indexing suffixes in the past tense (-ø-) and in the imperative, as well as with the perfective participle -(ə)m and the converb -min. Suffix order in declension is stem+number suffix+case suffix, for example, ryt-ət-nə boat-pl-loc ‘in boats’; person suffixes take up middle position in the suffix chain, for example, ryt-ɣəɬ-ȧm-nȧt boat-du-1sg-com ‘with my two boats.’ In the conjugation of verbs, suffix order is stem+tense suffix(+object number)+subject number/person, for example, jek-ɬ-əw dance-prs-1pl ‘we dance,’ wu-ɬ-ɬ-ȧɬ see-prs-pl.o-3pl.a ‘they see them.’ Nonfinite verb forms show the suffix order stem+derivational suffix+subject person/number+case suffix, for example, mən-m-iw-nə go-ptcp.pst-1pl-loc ‘when we went.’ Imperative and passive forms are not segmentable at the surface; they show fusion of their mood/voice morpheme with the person suffix. Similarly, suffixes encoding agreement with the subject and a singular object are not segmentable, for example, kuɬ-ø-e hear-pst-3sg>sg ‘you heard it.’ 16.4 INFLECTION OF NOUN AND VERB 16.4.1 Noun inflection Nouns take number (sg, du, pl), person (px), and case (cx) suffixes; there is some slight allomorphy of number suffixes, depending on whether a person suffix is part of the inflectional chain. The dual and plural markers have two allomorphs, -ɣəɬ and -(ə)ɬ being used before possessive suffixes (Table 16.7). TABLE 16.7  NUMBER SUFFIXES IN SURGUT KHANTY sg no px with px

dual

-Ø-

plur

-ɣən

-ət

-ɣəɬ

-(ə)ɬ

TABLE 16.8  CASE AND NUMBER INFLECTION OF RYT ‘BOAT’ IN SURGUT KHANTY sg

du

pl

nom

ryt

ryt-ɣən

ryt-ət

lat

ryt-ȧ

ryt-ɣən-ȧ

ryt-ət-ȧ

loc

ryt-nə

ryt-ɣən-nə

ryt-ət-nə

abl

ryt-i

ryt-ɣən-i

ryt-ət-i

apr

ryt-nȧm

ryt-ɣən-nȧm

ryt-ət-nȧm

tra

ryt-ɣə

ryt-ɣən-ɣə

ryt-ət-ɣə

insf

ryt-ȧt

ryt-ɣən-ȧt

ryt-ət-ȧt

com

ryt-nȧt

ryt-ɣən-nȧt

ryt-ət-nȧt

abe

ryt-ɬəɣ

ryt-ɣən-ɬəɣ

ryt-ət-ɬəɣ

KHANTY 713

Number and person of possessor are expressed cumulatively. Surgut Khanty nouns distinguish nine cases; for their syntactic functions, see Section 16.17. Surgut Khanty is at the case-rich end of the Khanty dialect scale; only Vakh and Vasyugan Khanty distinguish more cases. In the north, on the other hand, only three cases are distinguished: besides the zero-marked nominative, Kazym and Shuryshkar have lative -ȧ and locative -ən, and in Obdorsk Khanty, there is only locative/lative -na and translative -ji. Alongside a lative and a locative, the now-extinct southern dialects had an instructive in -at as well. The suffix indicating the person/number of the possessor follows the suffix indicating the number of the possessum (Table 16.9). With the possessum in the singular, paradigmatic ablaut is triggered, albeit not categorically, cf. Section 16.3. We may illustrate this data in Table 16.10. Stems in final i show full vowels /e/ and /i/ in their singular person suffixes, for example, opi ‘older sister’ has opem, ope, opiɬ; contrast ryt ‘boat’ and ȧmp ‘dog’ earlier with ryt-əm and imp-əm.

TABLE 16.9  PERSON-MARKED DECLENSION OF SURGURT KHANTY RYT ‘BOAT’ Number of possessum sg Person and

number of possessor

du

pl

1sg

ryt-əm

ryt-ɣəɬ-ȧm

ryt-ɬ-ȧm

2sg

ryt-ən

ryt-ɣəɬ-ȧ

ryt-ɬ-ȧ

3sg

ryt-əɬ

ryt-ɣəɬ

ryt-ɬ-ȧɬ

1du

ryt-imən

ryt-ɣəɬ-əmən

ryt-ɬ-əmən

2du

ryt-in

ryt-ɣəɬ-ən

ryt-ɬ-ən

3du

ryt-in

ryt-ɣəɬ-ən

ryt-ɬ-ən

1pl

ryt-əw

ryt-ɣəɬ-əw

ryt-ɬ-əw

2pl

ryt-in

ryt-ɣəɬ-ən

ryt-ɬ-ən

3pl

ryt-iɬ

ryt-ɣəɬ

ryt-ɬ-ȧɬ

TABLE 16.10  PARADIGMATIC ABLAUT IN NOUN STEMS IN SURGUT KHANTY: 1sg POSSESSOR Number of possessum sg

dual

plur

ȧmp ‘dog’

imp-əm

ȧmp-ɣəɬ-ȧm

ȧmp-ɬ-ȧm

wȧsəɣ ‘duck’

wisɣ-əm

wȧsək-kəɬ-ȧm

wȧsəɣ-ɬ-ȧm

ker ‘stove’

kir-əm

ker-ɣəɬ-ȧm

ker-ɬ-ȧm

moq ‘whelp’

muq-əm

moq-qəɬ-ȧm

moq-ɬ-ȧm

wɔč ‘town’

wuč-əm

wɔč-ɣəɬ-ȧm

wɔč-ɬ-ȧm

714 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

Allomorphy among singular possessor and possessum suffixes (such as 1sg -əm -em -ȧm) is more complex than this, however. Besides subdialectal variation, stylistic/pragmatic factors also appear to be in play, for example, kä̌w-ȧm ‘my stone,’ but kä̌w-əm or kä̌w-em ‘my precious stone, gem’; məɣ-əw ‘our land, that is, the place where we live,’ but məɣ-ew ‘our land, our homeland.’ More investigation is needed. 16.4.2 Verb inflection Surgut Khanty verbs inflect for the categories voice (active vs. passive), mood (indicative vs. imperative), tense (present vs. past), subject person/number, and object number. Table ̌ ‘to make’ of the subjective para16.11 sets out active indicative forms of the verb wäř ‘to digm, in which there is no indexing of object number. Other forms of the verb wärmake’ in Surgut Khanty can be found in Tables 16.12, 16.13, 16.14, and 16.15. TABLE 16.11  ACTIVE, SUBJECTIVE CONJUGATION OF THE ̌ ‘TO MAKE’ IN SURGUT KHANTY VERB WÄRPresent

Past

1sg

wä̌r-ɬ-əm

wä̌r-ø-əm

2sg

wä̌r-ɬ-ən

wä̌r-ø-ən

3sg

wä̌r-əɬ-ø

wä̌r-ø-ø

1du

wä̌r-ɬ-əmən

wä̌r-ø-mən

2du

wä̌r-ɬ-əttən

wä̌r-ø-tən

3du

wä̌r-ɬ-əɣən

wä̌r-ø-ɣən

1pl

wä̌r-ɬ-əw

wä̌r-ø-əw

2pl

wä̌r-ɬ-ətəɣ

wä̌r-ø-təɣ

3pl

wä̌r-ɬ-ət

wä̌r-ø-ət

TABLE 16.12  ACTIVE, OBJECTIVE CONJUGATION, PRESENT TENSE OF THE VERB ̌ ‘TO MAKE’ IN SURGUT KHANTY WÄRObject number Singular Subject

number and

person

Dual

Plural

1sg

wä̌r-ɬ-em

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ȧm

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ȧm

2sg

wä̌r-ɬ-e

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ȧ

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ȧ

3sg

wä̌r-ɬ-ətəɣ

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-0

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-0

1du

wä̌r-ɬ-ətemən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ȧmən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-əmən

2du

wä̌r-ɬ-əttən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ən

3du

wä̌r-ɬ-əttən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ən

1pl

wä̌r-ɬ-ətəw

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-əw

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-əw

2pl

wä̌r-ɬ-əttən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ən

3pl

wä̌r-ɬ-iɬ

wä̌r-ɬə-ɣəɬ-ȧɬ

wä̌r-ɬə-ɬ-ȧɬ

KHANTY 715 TABLE 16.13  ACTIVE, OBJECTIVE CONJUGATION, PAST TENSE (-Ø-) OF THE VERB ̌ ‘TO MAKE’ IN SURGUT KHANTY WÄRObject number Singular subject

number and

person

Dual

Plural

1sg

wä̌r-Ø-em

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ȧm

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-ȧm

2sg

wä̌r-Ø-e

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ȧ

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-ȧ

3sg

wä̌r-Ø-təɣ

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-Ø

wä̌r-Ø-əɬ-0

1du

wä̌r-Ø-təmən

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ȧmən

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-əmən

2du

wä̌r-Ø-əttən

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-ən

3du

wä̌r-Ø-əttən

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-ən

1pl

wä̌r-Ø-təw

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-əw

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-əw

2pl

wä̌r-Ø-əttən

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ən

wä̌r-Ø-iɬ-ən

3pl

wä̌r-Ø-iɬ

wä̌r-Ø-ɣəɬ-ȧɬ

wä̌r-Ø-ɬ-ȧɬ

TABLE 16.14  ACTIVE IMPERATIVE, SUBJECTIVE, AND OBJECTIVE CONJUGATIONS ̌ ‘TO MAKE’ IN SURGUT KHANTY OF THE VERB WÄRSubjective conjugation

Objective conjugation Object number Singular

Dual

Plural

Subject

2sg

wər-ȧ

wər-e

wər-ɣəɬ-ȧ

wər-əɬ-ȧ

number and

2du

wər-ittən

wər-iɬən

wər-ɣəɬ-ən

wər-əɬ-ən

person

2pl

wər-itəɣ

wər-iɬən

wər-ɣəɬ-ən

wər-əɬ-ən

̌ ‘TO MAKE’ IN SURGUT TABLE 16.15  PASSIVE CONJUGATION OF THE VERB WÄRKHANTY PRS

Subject

person and

number

PST

1sg

wä̌r-ɬ-ojəm

wä̌r-Ø-ojəm

2sg

wä̌r-ɬ-o

wä̌r-Ø-o

3sg

wä̌r-ɬ-i

wä̌r-Ø-i

1du

wä̌r-ɬ-ojmən

wä̌r-Ø-ojmən

2du

wä̌r-ɬ-ottən

wä̌r-Ø-ojtən

3du

wä̌r-ɬ-iɣən

wä̌r-Ø-iɣən

1pl

wä̌r-ɬ-ojəw

wä̌r-Ø-ojəw

2pl

wä̌r-ɬ-otəɣ

wä̌r-Ø-otəɣ

3pl

wä̌r-ɬ-ȧt

wä̌r-Ø-ȧt

716 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

As mentioned earlier in Section 16.3, in the past tense, non-high long vowels are replaced with their high counterparts, for example, jɔnt- ‘to sew’ has 3sg.pst junt-ø-ø ‘s/he sewed,’ and jek- ‘to dance’ has 3sg.pst jik-ø-ø ‘s/he danced’; again, this phenomenon is not categorical. However, a degree of flexivity is introduced into the Surgut Khanty verb paradigm by the fact that in the past tense, the 3sg subject suffix is zero with certain verbs but -(ə)ɣ with others. The zero option is selected by consonant-final stems, such as mən- ‘to go, went,’ jŏwət- ‘to come, came,’ nŏq kiɬ- ‘to get up, got up,’ as well as by some underived stems in final clusters, such as wiŋk- ‘to crawl, crawled,’ jińť- ‘to drink, drank.’ Zero is also selected by alternating stems (məj- ‘to give, gave,’ tuw- ‘to bring, brought’) and derived verbs with final ɬ, such as ńăwm|əɬ- ‘to speak, spoke,’ nŏmə|qsə|ɣəɬ- ‘to think, thought.’ On the other hand, -(ə)ɣ is the 3sg subject index for verbs ending in vowels, many of which are derived, for example, pyri-ɣ ‘asked,’ jȧs|tə-ɣ ‘talked’ (cf. jȧs|əŋ ‘talk, news’). This suffix is also selected by certain underived verbs with final clusters, for example, punč-əɣ ‘opened,’ muńť-əɣ ‘told a tale’ (contrast wiŋk and jińť above, with zero suffix); -(ə)ɣ also occurs with many verbs derived with other suffixes or suffix complexes, such as ȧrɣ|əm-əɣ ‘began to sing’ (cf. ȧrəɣ ‘song’), mən|ip-əɣ ‘went away suddenly’ (contrast mən ‘went’), pyt|əmt-əɣ ‘became angry’ (cf. pyt- ‘to be angry’). In the majority of verbs, the stem vowel is unchanging, for example, qănč- ‘to write,’ qănč-ȧ ‘write!’ qănč-e ‘write it!’ For ablaut phenomena in the imperative, see Section 16.3. There are imperative forms only for second person. Third-person imperative constructions may be built with the particle ɬü̆wə, for example, ɬü̆wə wä̌r-ɬ-ət ptcl do-prs-3pl ‘let them/may they do.’ As is clear from Table 16.15, not all passive forms contain a clearly segmentable -oj- morpheme. In northern Khanty dialects, the objective conjugation has lost forms indexing dual number of the direct object; the same suffixes now encode objects of both dual and plural number (Table 16.16).

TABLE 16.16  SHURYSHKAR KHANTY PRESENT-TENSE (-L(Ə)-) OBJECTIVE CONJUGATION: WER- ‘TO DO’ (ONYINA 2009, 37–38) SG object Subject person and number

DU/PL object

1sg

wer-l-em

wer-lə-l-am

2sg

wer-l-en

wer-lə-l-an

3sg

wer-l-əli

wer-lə-l-i

1du

wer-l-emən

wer-lə-l-mən

2du

wer-l-əln

wer-lə-l-ən

3du

wer-l-əln

wer-lə-l-ən

1pl

wer-l-ew

wer-lə-l-əw

2pl

wer-l-əln

wer-lə-l-ən

3pl

wer-l-lel

wer-lə-l-al

KHANTY 717 TABLE 16.17  VERBAL NOUN-FORMING SUFFIXES IN KHANTY DIALECTS V

Vj

Surg

Sal

Irt

Sher

Kaz

Shur

Obd

inf

ta/tä

ta/tä nta/ntä

tȧ tȧɣə

ta təɣə

ta

ta

tǐ

tǐ tǐja

ta tiji

ptcp.prs

tə/tӛ

tə/tӛ ntə/ntӛ

tə

tə

tə

tə

tǐ

tǐ

ti

ptcp.pst

(ə/ӛ)m mə/mӛ

(ə/ӛ)m mə/mӛ

(ə)m

(ə)m

(ə)m

(ə)m

(ə)m

(ə)m

(ə)m

ptcp.neg

ləɣ/lӛɣ

ləɣ/lӛɣ

ɬəɣ

cvb

myn/min

myn/min

min

man

man

man

man

ptcp. cond

ŋa/ŋä

ŋa/ŋä

ŋȧ

ta men/man

men aŋ/aɣ

16.4.3 Nonfinite verb forms Surgut Khanty distinguishes five nonfinite verb forms: infinitive -tȧ(ɣə), imperfective -t-, and perfective -m- participles, converb -min, and negative participle -ɬəɣ. Of a conditional verbal noun in -ŋ-, only historical traces remain. Most Khanty dialects use an infinitive in -tȧ (with front/back allomorphs in V Vj; early twentieth-century Surgut Khanty also had such variants). In two northern dialects (Kaz, Shur), the infinitive suffix has fallen together with that of the imperfective participle, as -tǐ. In the remaining dialects, the imperfective participle remains distinct by virtue of its reduced vowel (-tə). In the longer variant of the Surgut infinitive suffix (-tȧɣə) we see the suffix of the translative case; there seems to be no difference in function between the shorter and longer forms. In two northern dialects (Shur, Obd), there occurs an infinitive form with a lative extension. 16.5 NOUN AND VERB DERIVATION 16.5.1 Derivation of nominals Certain stems in the Surgut Khanty lexicon do double duty, functioning as both nouns and verbs. Examples include ȧrəɣ(-) ‘song; to sing,’ mɔńť(-) ‘tale; to tell tales,’ wä̌r(-) ‘thing; to do,’ wɔt(-) ‘wind; (wind blows),’ jek(-) ‘dance; to dance,’ pyt(-) ‘anger; to be angry,’ sä̌w(-) ‘plait; to plait,’ and a few others. In other cases, the nominal and verbal stems differ only in the quality of their vowel, in accordance with the ablaut pervasive in the language, for example, ɬȧɬ- ‘to breathe,’ ɬiɬ ‘breath, soul,’ and ablaut also serves to distinguish derivates within a word class, for example, tin ‘price’ vs. tȧn ‘bride price,’ ɬoj ‘finger’ vs. ɬuj ‘thimble,’ ɔɬəm ‘sleep’ vs. uɬəm ‘dream.’ 16.5.1.1 Nouns derived from verbs Most Surgut Khanty nouns are monomorphemic; in certain nouns, a verb stem and a suffix are discernible, but they do not reflect productive morphology, for example, wuńť|əp

718 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

‘vessel for collecting berries’ (wɔńť- ‘to collect berries’), mä̌t|pəs ‘fatigue’ (mä̌t- ‘to grow tired’), năm|əs ‘thought, memory’ (nŏm- ‘to remember’). Instead of deverbal derivation, Khanty tends to use compound constructions involving verbal nouns. The second members of these constructions tend to be nouns whose original semantic content has been bleached, in keeping with their nominalizing role. The construction type is of old attestation in Khanty, but if anything, its importance has grown with time. Following Dixon’s (2010, 150) classification, we may distinguish: Nominal (relative clause) constructions denoting activities, states, results, properties. These are quite frequent; examples are wɔjək kənč-čə wä̌r ‘hunting (= game seeking matter),’ weɬi tăj-tə wä̌r ‘reindeer husbandry (= reindeer have-ptcp.prs matter),’ pom sä̌wər-tə tɔɣi ‘meadow (= grass cutting place),’ lekər|ɬə-tə wä̌r ‘healing (= doctor.der-ptcp.prs thing),’ mən-tə wä̌r ‘travel (= going matter),’ tŏŋəmtə-tə tɔɣi ‘understanding (= understanding place),’ əj năm|əs-ȧ ɬăŋ-tə wä̆r ‘agreement (= a matter of stepping into one understanding),’ ȧj-ɣə wŏɬ-əm tɔɣi ‘childhood (= place one was little).’ Actor nouns: mɔjəɬ-tə jɔɣ ‘guests (= visiting people)’ ŏnəɬ|tə|ɣəɬ-tə ńewrəm ‘student (= studying child),’ quɬ kənč-čə qo ‘fisherman (= fish seeking man).’ Object nouns: ɬi-t+ŏt ‘food (= eating thing),’ wăk kit-əm nipək ‘money order (= money sent paper),’ qɔt wä̌r-tə ŏt-ət ‘building materials (= house making things),’ ɬŏmət-tə ŏt ‘clothing (= donning thing).’ Instrument nouns: jăŋqɬi-tə ŏt ‘vehicle (= going thing),’ rȧpotȧ wä̌r-tə ŏt ‘tool (= work doing thing),’ pom sä̌wər-tə wăɣ ‘scythe (= grass cutting iron),’ wä̌nč mɔŋət-tə sŏɣ ‘towel (= face wiping textile),’ qănč-čə juɣ ‘pencil (= writing wood),’ ŏnəɬ|tə|ɣəɬ-tə wăɣ ‘stipend (= studying money),’ jăŋq-tə nipek ‘travel pass (= going paper).’ Names of the locus of an activity: qɔńť-ťə qɔt ‘hospital (= ailing house),’ kəńikȧ tăj-tə qɔt ‘library (= book having house),’ ɬi-tə&jeńť-ťə qɔt ‘restaurant (= eating&drinking house),’ ȧwtobus-ət ɔmɬəɣ-tə tɔɣi ‘bus stop (bus stopping place),’ kinȧ ɬejəɬ-tə qɔt ‘cinema (= film watching house).’ 16.5.1.2 Nouns formed from nouns These are relatively few. Productive are diminutive/affective |li (opə|li ‘little sister,’ rytə|li ‘little boat’); |čəɣ augmentative (qɔt|čəɣ ‘enormous house’); and |liŋki augmentative, but with pejorative and/or commiserating overtones (iki|liŋki ‘poor felllow,’ sɔrt|liŋki ‘really big pike’). Non-productive and restricted to kinship terms are |ɬəŋ ‘non-consanguineal kin, step-,’ for example, păɣ|ɬəŋ ‘stepson,’ jəɣ|ɬəŋ ‘stepfather,’ and |sȧ, which forms collective kin designations. Terms formed with this suffix are always in the dual or plural, for example, əj jəɣ|sȧ-t ‘brothers and sisters (=kin of one father),’ opi|sȧ-ɣən ‘two sisters.’ For adjective-forming suffixes, see Section 16.6 and Sauer (1967). 16.5.2 Verb derivation The derivational morphology of the Khanty verb is extensive and complex (Ganschow 1965). On the basis of the eastern dialect dictionary compiled by N. I. Terëškin (1981), N. B. Koškarëva (2014) counted a total of 109 suffixes and suffix combinations in Surgut dialects. A given suffix can be associated with a variety of functions, but it is possible to distinguish a few basic semantic areas. Thus suffix |t- forms transitive verbs (tin|tə- ‘to pay’ : tin ‘price’), while |ɬ- and |sɬ- form frequentatives (muləm.ɬə- ‘to give off smoke’ : muləm ‘smoke,’ jŏr-ȧsɬə- ‘to

KHANTY 719

swagger’ : jŏr ‘pride’); suffix |m- forms inchoatives (sü̆ɣsə.m- ‘to begin to be autumn’ : sü̆ɣəs ‘autumn’), suffix |p- forms momentaneous verbs (mən|ip- ‘to disappear’: mən- ‘to go’), and |ks- forms reflexives/reciprocals (jəmə|ksə- ‘to make peace with one another’ : jəm ‘good’). Valence change is a frequent concomitant of verb-to-verb derivation. Intransitive verbs can be made transitive, for example, kiɬ- ‘to get up’ : kiɬ|tə- ‘to cause to get up,’ pəɬ- ‘to fear’ : pəɬ|tȧptə- ‘to frighten.’ From simple transitives, causatives are formed, for example, ɬŏmət- ‘to put on (e.g. clothing)’ : ɬŏmtə|ptə- ‘to dress (someone),’ ɬɔɬəm- ‘to steal’ : ɬɔɬm|əɬtə- ‘to make someone steal,’ jü̆r- ‘to tie’ : jü̆r|əɬtə- ‘to make someone tie.’ There are also valence-reducing suffixes, for example, wu- ‘to see’ : wu|jiɬ- ‘to be visible,’ punč- ‘to open (tr)’ : punč|iɬ- ‘to open (itr),’ mɔŋət- ‘to wipe’ : mɔŋtə|qsə- ‘to wipe oneself,’ tăwər- ‘to close (tr)’ : tăwrə|qsə- ‘to close (itr),’ ɔrt- ‘to distribute’ : ɔrtə|qsə- ‘to share in,’ ɬŏmət- ‘to put on (e.g. clothing)’ : ɬŏmtə|qsə- ‘to get dressed.’ Verb derivation affects aspect and Aktionsart as well (see Section 16.14); a tiny selection will have to serve here as an illustration of the kinds of semantic relation that obtainː wä̌rwä̌r|əmtwä̌r|əntwä̌r|əɬtəwä̌r|ənt|əɣəɬwä̌r|ətə|ɣəɬwä̌r-ɣiwä̌r|əɣtəwä̌r|əɣtə-ɣəɬwä̌r|əɣɬəwä̌r|əɣɬ.iɬwä̌r|əksəwä̌r|əɣsə-ɣəɬ-

‘to do, make’ ‘to do/make quickly’ ‘to prepare, make completely’ ‘to cause (noun) to make’ ‘to be active’ ‘to prepare (itr)’ ‘to attempt’ ‘to wake up (tr)’ ‘to keep waking up (tr)’ ‘to wake up (itr)’ ‘to be in the process of waking up’ ‘to get dressed (pfv)’ ‘to get dressed (ipfv)’

Rarely, verbs can be derived from adverbs, or even from phrases, for example, jăq|int- ‘to be suddenly inside’ (< jăqə ‘moving inward’), jəm+uɬ|əqsə- ‘to say farewell’ (< jəm uɬəm ‘goodbye (= ‘good dream’). There also exist systematic but non-productive groupings of verbs derived from stems (i.e. themes) which never occur alone, for example, ɔm|, ym| in ɔm|əs- ‘to be sitting,’ ym|əɬ- ‘to sit down,’ ɔm|ɬəɣ- ‘to manage to get somewhere,’ ɔm|ət- ‘to place,’ ɔm|t|iɬ- ‘to disassemble.’ Verbs copied from Russian use the naturalizing suffix |ɬə-, added either to the Russian infinitive or directly to the stem, for example, lečit|ɬə- ‘cure’ (< lečiť), zvonit|ɬə- ‘telephone’ (< zvoniť), risovȧj|ɬə- ‘to draw, sketch’ (< stem risovaj-). 16.6 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Adjectives can function as modifiers within the NP or as heads of those NPs or as copula complements. Certain nouns, for example, names of materials, can function as NP-internal modifiers, for example, kä̌w lek ‘road made of stone (= stone road),’ juɣ ăwəɬ ‘sledge made of wood (= wood sledge),’ sɔrńi wăɣ ‘gold coin (= gold money).’

720 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

On the other hand, adjectives do not normally take person suffixes, and the only case suffix with which they regularly appear is that of the translative, when they function as copula complements; they then agree in number with their copula subjects. Other case suffixes occur with adjectives only when these are heads of their NP, for example, (1): (1)

mətə|pi qɔt-nə wăɬ-ɬ-ən? ənəɬ.pi-nə. which house-loc be-prs-2sg bigger-loc ‘In which house do you live?—In the larger (one).’

Furnished with appropriate suffixes and particles, adjectives can function as parameters of comparison, for example, ənəɬ ‘big,’ ənəɬ|čək ‘a little bigger,’ ənəɬ mȧtȧ ‘biggest/very big.’ Adverbs can form comparatives and superlatives in similar fashion: sɔrɣȧ ‘quickly,’ sɔrɣȧ|čək ‘a little more quickly,’ sɔrɣȧ mȧtȧ ‘most quickly, very quickly.’ Khanty has a relatively rich stock of adjectives, both monomorphemic and derived. Following Dixon (2010, 73), we may classify adjectives semantically as follows: Dimensionː ənəɬ ‘big,’ ȧj ‘small,’ qŏw ‘long,’ wȧn ‘short,’ məɬ ‘deep,’ ŏwər ‘tall, high’ Ageː jəɬəp ‘new,’ ɔɬqȧs ‘old (of things),’ ȧjɬȧt ‘young,’ pyrəs ‘old (of people)’ Valueː jəm ‘good,’ ȧtəm ‘bad,’ sikk.əŋ ‘beautiful,’ siw.ɬəɣ ‘ugly’ Colourː newi ‘white,’ pəɣtə ‘black,’ wərtə ‘red,’ wȧstə ‘green’ Physical propertyː sä̌rə ‘hard,’ ńȧmək ‘soft,’ pä̌stə ‘sharp, swift,’ jeɣɬi ‘cold,’ mä̌ləŋk ‘warm,’ kewrəm ‘hot,’ ńȧrəɣ ‘raw’ Human propensityː năms|əŋ ‘intelligent,’ jŏr|əŋ ‘proud,’ yrȧp ‘evil,’ lŏwəm ‘calm,’ kȧrkȧm|əŋ ‘hard-working,’ ăj|ȧŋ ‘fortunate’ Speedː pä̌stə ‘fast,’ ńȧť|əŋ ‘slow’ Difficultyː kö̆nəɣ ‘easy,’ ɬȧɣərt ‘difficult,’ ălə ‘simple’ The most productive adjective-forming suffix is =əŋ. This suffix triggers gemination and assimilation in the final consonants of stems in /w ɣ k q/, yielding /kk/, /qq/; see Section 16.3 previously. Stems in final /i/ undergo minor adjustments, as illustrated by sɔrńe|ŋ ‘made of gold’ (from sɔrńi ‘gold’), ńăwe|ŋ ‘fleshy’ (from ńăwi ‘flesh, meat’). The suffix =əŋ ‘provided with’ has a counterpart, the caritive suffix =łəɣ ‘deprived of, lacking,’ for example, wökk|əŋ ‘strong,’ wöw|ləɣ ‘weak’ (< wöw ‘strength’), süj|əŋ ‘noisy,’ süj|ləɣ ‘silent’ (< süj ‘sound, noise’), səm|əŋ ‘brave,’ səm|łəɣ ‘cowardly’ (< səm ‘heart’). See also Section 16.15. 16.7 NUMBER AND NUMERALS In Surgut Khanty, the three-way number distinction sg-du-pl is maintained throughout noun, pronoun, and verb inflection. There are full case paradigms for all three numbers, and the three-way number distinction holds for possessors and possessed (on nouns) and for subjects and objects (on verbs). Numerals are either monomorphemic or compound; among the simplex numerals, ‘one’ and ‘two’ stand out as having both attributive and non-attributive forms, for example, attributive əj ‘one,’ kȧt ‘two,’ vs. əj-əɬ one-poss.3sg ‘the one,’ kȧt-ɣən twodu as in min kȧt-ɣən ‘the two of us.’ The remaining simplex numerals are listed in Table 16.18.

KHANTY 721 TABLE 16.18  SURGUT KHANTY BASE NUMERALS 3

qoɬəm

8

ńyɬəɣ

4

ńəɬə

10

jeŋ

5

wä̌t

20

qos

6

qut

100

sɔt

7

ɬȧpət

1,000

ťŏras

Note that irjeŋ ‘nine’ is derived from ‘ten.’ Round decades and hundreds are formed by compounding: thus, for example, ‘30’ is qoɬəm+jeŋ, ‘40’ ńəɬ+jeŋ, but the elements are not entirely predictable, for example, ńyɬ+sɔt is ‘eighty’ (and thus distinct from ńyɬəɣ+sɔt ‘800’). Teens and twenties are formed with the help of postposition ü̆rəkkə ‘in addition, besides,’ for example, ‘11’ is jeŋ ü̆rəkkə əj ten outside one, ‘12’ is jeŋ ü̆rəkkə kȧt-ɣən ten outside two-du, and ‘25’ is qos ü̆rəkkə wä̌t twenty outside five. Other numerals above ‘thirty-one’ are formed by simple juxtaposition, for example, ‘31’ is qoɬəm jeŋ əj, ‘42’ is ńəɬə jeŋ kȧtɣən, ‘255’ is kȧt sɔtɣən wä̌t jeŋ wä̌t, ‘30,943’ is qoɬəm jeŋ ťŏrȧs irjeŋ sɔt ńəɬə jeŋ qoɬəm. Ordinals are formed with |mət; there are certain superabundant forms. Examples: ɔɬəŋ|mət, əj|mət both ‘first’; kimət|mət, kim|mət, kit|mət, all ‘second’; quɬ|mət, qoɬəmət|mət, qŏɬəm|mət, all ‘third’; qos|mət, qosəm|mət, both ‘twentieth.’ Further examples: qos ü̆rəkkə wä̌t|mət ‘25th,’ qut jeŋ|mət ‘60th,’ kȧt ťŏrȧs-ɣən jeŋ ü̆rəkkə ɬȧpət|mət two thousand-du ten outside seven.ord ‘2,017th.’ Approximate quantities can be expressed with the help of the postpositive particle kim: wä̌t kim ‘about five, five or so,’ sɔt kim ‘about one hundred.’ Indefinite quantifiers include ȧr ‘many,’ čyməɬ ‘few.’ Noun pä̌lək ‘half’ is used to form simple fractions: əj pȧnə pä̌lək ‘one and a half.’ Multiplicatives are formed with particles pȧ and pyč, for example, əj pȧ, kit pȧ ‘once, twice,’ qoɬəm pyč ‘three times.’ Syntactically, numerals within NPs function as uninflected premodifiers: numerals do not take case suffixes when used attributively, for example, mišȧ qoɬəm ȧmp-nȧt wɔjəɣ kənč-čȧɣə mən Miša three dog-com wild seek-inf go.pst.3sg ‘Misha went hunting with three dogs.’ Only kȧt ‘two’ triggers agreement in its head: kȧt imi-ɣən two woman-du ‘two women’; with numerals higher than ‘two,’ the NP head remains in the singular: qoɬəm ȧmp ‘three dogs,’ sɔt ɔɬ ‘one hundred years.’ Used as adverbials, numerals most often take the suffix of the transitive, for example, kit-ɣə ‘(split/divided) into two,’ qoɬəm-ɣə ‘into three’; ȧŋkia ńȧńo qoɬəm-ɣə ä̌wət-təɣ mother bread three-tra cut.pst-3sg>sg ‘the mother cut the bread into three (pieces).’ Other adverbial numeral constructions include distributives formed with |əɬtȧ, for example, əj|əɬtȧ ‘one at a time,’ kit|əɬtȧ ‘two at a time’; keńikȧ-ɣət wä̌t|əɬtȧ əj kȧropkȧ-ɣȧ pǎnɬ-əɬ-əw book-pl five|distr one box-lat put-prs-sO-1plA ‘we are putting the books into a box five at a time.’ Note also the use of the translative on ordinals to express repetition, as in ki|mət-ɣə ‘for the second time,’ qos|mət-ɣə ‘for the twentieth time.’ Just like adjectives, numerals take case suffixes when they are the heads of their noun phrase: mü̆w ȧr|it ȧmp-nȧt mišȧ wŏnt-nȧm mən? qoɬəm-nȧt what many dog-com miša forest-apr go.pst.3sg three-com ‘With how many dogs did Misha go to the forest? With three.’

722 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

16.8 COPULA AND COPULA CLAUSES The Surgut verb wăɬ-/wŏɬ- (corresponding to V,Vj wăl-, Sher. ut-, Kaz. wǫɬ-, Sy. ul-, Obd. ol) functions as both copula and as an intransitive verb meaning ‘to live; to be in a place.’ The copula appears in the functions identity, ascription, existence, and location (cf. Dixon 2010, 101). It takes the same person-indexing suffixes as other intransitive verbs and has full present and past-tense as well as imperative paradigms. In Surgut Khanty, copula tense is distinguished by metaphony (wăɬ- present, wŏɬ- past). The easternmost dialects have, in addition, a special present-tense copula (V, Vj wăs-, Surg wŏs-) with a defective paradigm; third-person forms are lacking (see Table 16.19). In identity and ascription function, the Surgut copula occurs in three constructions: (i) in present-tense axis-of-discourse, the wŏs- copula is used: nǚŋCS ȧjcc wŏs-ən ‘you (sg) are little’; (ii) third person is indexed by zero copula, with number distinguished on the copula complement, as in ɬǚwCS ȧjCC ø ‘s/he is little,’ ɬinCS ȧj-ɣənCC ø ‘they two are little,’ ɬəɣCS quɬ kənč-čə quj-ətCC ø 3pl.pro fish seek-ptcp.prs man-pl ‘they are fishermen’; (iii) elsewhere (i.e. in the past tense and the imperative), copula wăɬ-/wŏɬ- is used, for example, nǚŋCS wö̆kk.əŋCC wŏɬ-ən 2sg.pro strong cop.pst-2sg ‘you (sg) were strong,’ tŏm ɬȧt-nə məŋCS ȧj-ətCC wŏɬ-əw that time-loc 1pl.pro little-pl cop.pst-1pl ‘at that time we were little.’ Example of the imperative: səm|əŋ-kəCC wăɬ-ȧ brave-tra cop-imp.2sg ‘be brave!’ In present-tense adverbial (= locational and existential) function, the copula is optional for axis-of-discourse persons, for example, mȧCS jăqənCC ø/wŏs-əm both ‘I am at home’; in third person the copula remains zero, as in ɬǚwCS kemənCC ø ‘s/he is outside.’ There is indexing of number on adverbial complements just like on those of identity and ascription, for example, ɬinCS kemən-ɣənCC ø 3du.pro outside-du ‘they two are outside.’ Number indexing on adverbials can occur even in axis-of-discourse clauses, as in məŋCS qɔt-nəCC ~ qɔt-nȧ-tCC 1pl.pro house-loc / house-loc-pl ‘we are in the house’ (Karjalainen and Vértes 1964, 266); this construction occurs only in Surgut varieties. The translative case is used together with quasi-copula jə- ‘become’; contrast (2) and (3). (2)

ŏnəɬtə-tə qoCC ø ȧťe-mCS father-1sg teach-ptcp.prs man cop ‘my father is a teacher’

(3)

ŏnəɬtə-tə qo-ɣəCC ȧťe-mCS father-1sg teach-ptcp.prs man-tra ‘my father became a teacher.’

jə-ɣ become-3sg.pst

Copula wăɬ-/wŏɬ-, when used together with the translative, expresses impermanent states, as in (4).

TABLE 16.19  SPECIAL PRESENT-TENSE COPULA (SURGUT KHANTY) sg

du

pl

1

wŏs-əm

wŏs-mən

wŏs-əw

2

wŏs-ən

wŏs-tən

wŏs-təɣ

KHANTY 723

(4)

ȧťe-m ŏnəɬtə-tə qo-ɣə father-1sg teach-ptcp.prs man-tra ‘my father works/worked as a teacher’

wăɬ-ɬ / wŏɬ cop-prs.3sg /cop.pst.3sg

Several quasi-synonyms descriptive of posture (ɔməs- ‘to sit,’ ɬ’ɔɬ’- ‘to stand,’ ăɬ- ‘to lie’) also function as copulas, and the difference between existence and location is then expressed by constituent order (topic-focus). Contrast locational (5) with existential (6). (5)

qɔt wŏnt ŏnt-nə ɔməs-ɬ house forest interior-loc sit-prs.3sg ‘The house is in the forest’

(6)

wŏnt ŏnt-nə qɔt ɔməs-ɬ forest interior-loc house sit-prs.3sg ‘There is a house in the forest.’

Nonfinite forms of the copula are also used in relative clauses (cf. Section 16.11), and modal constructions expressive of wishes and capabilities are also built with copulas (cf. Section 16.12). 16.9 PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES 16.9.1 Personal pronouns Surgut Khanty has nine personal pronouns, covering the three numbers and persons (Table 16.20). Unlike nouns, personal pronouns have dedicated accusative and dative forms. Other than the locative, the rest of the cases (lat, apr, tra, insf, com and abe) are built by attaching the regular noun case suffixes to the dative stem; the case suffixes are optionally followed by a coreferential person suffix (Table 16.21). The declension of personal pronouns shows some minor differences from dialect to dialect.

TABLE 16.20  CORE-CASE SUFFIX FLAGGING OF KHANTY PERSONAL PRONOUNS nom

acc

dat

1sg

mȧ

mȧnt

mȧntem

2sg

nü̆ŋ

nü̆ŋȧt

nü̆ŋȧti

3sg

ɬü̆w

ɬü̆wȧt

ɬü̆wȧti

1du

min

minȧt

minȧti

2du

nin

ninȧt

ninȧti

3du

ɬin

ɬinȧt

ɬinȧti

1pl

məŋ

məŋȧt

məŋȧti

2pl

nəŋ

nəŋȧt

nəŋȧti

3pl

ɬəɣ

ɬəɣȧt

ɬəɣȧti

724 MÁRTA CSEPREGI TABLE 16.21  CASE INFLECTION OF SURGUT KHANTY SINGULAR PERSONAL PRONOUNS 1sg

2sg

3sg

nom

mȧ

nü̆ŋ

ɬü̆w

acc

mȧnt

nü̆ŋȧt

ɬü̆wȧt

dat

mȧntem, mȧnem

nü̆ŋȧti

ɬü̆wȧti

lat

mȧntemȧ

nü̆ŋȧtenȧ

ɬü̆wȧtiɬȧ

loc

mȧnə

nü̆ŋnə

ɬü̆wnə

abl

mȧntemi, mȧnemi

nü̆ŋȧteni

ɬü̆wȧtiɬi

apr

mȧntemnȧm

nü̆ŋȧtennȧm

ɬü̆wȧtinnȧm, ɬü̆wȧtiɬnȧm

tra

mȧntemɣə

nü̆ŋȧtiɣə, nü̆ŋȧtenɣə

ɬü̆wȧtiɣə, ɬü̆kkə

insf

mȧntemȧt

nü̆ŋȧtinȧt, nü̆ŋȧtiɣȧt

ɬü̆wȧtiɣȧt

com

mȧntemnȧt

nü̆ŋȧtenȧt

ɬü̆wȧtinȧt

mȧntemɬəɣ

nü̆ŋȧtiɬəɣ

ɬü̆wȧtiɬəɣ

abe

Dual and plural declension of pronouns works along parallel principles (Honti 1988, 182–183). Postpositions occurring with pronouns obligatorily take coreferential person suffixes, for example, mȧ jotȧ-m 1sg.pro with-1sg ‘with me,’ nü̆ŋ kičȧ-ɣe 2sg.pro for-2sg ‘for you,’ ɬü̆w niŋkti-ɬ 3sg.pro from-3sg ‘from him/her,’ nəŋ kü̆t-in-nə 2pl.pro between-2plloc ‘among you,’ məŋ ü̆rəkk-əw 1pl.pro outside-1pl ‘besides us.’ In such postpositional constructions, the unbound pronouns are omissible, with the exception of those built with niŋkti- ‘from,’ so for example kičȧ-ɣe for-2sg ‘for you.’ When in subject function, personal pronouns are used for emphasis only; for example, pronoun min 1du.pro in (7) places the focus on the subject person/number ‘we two, the two of us’; the neutral version of this clause has indexing only on the verb, viz. qŏɬtȧɣiɬ wɔč-nȧm mən-ɬ-əmən. (7)

qŏɬtȧɣiɬ min wɔč-nȧm mən-ɬ-əmən tomorrow 1du.pro town-apr go-prs-1du ‘Tomorrow we two are going into town.’

In parallel fashion, when functioning as possessor in the NP, the personal pronoun is used only for emphasis; the person and number of the possessor is invariably marked on the noun denoting the possessum, cf. (8) and (9). (8)

weɬi-ɬ-ȧɬ reindeer-pl-3sg ‘his/her reindeer (pl)’

(9)

ɬü̆w weɬi-ɬ-ȧɬ 3sg.pro reindeer-pl-3sg ‘his/her reindeer (plur)’

KHANTY 725

Surgut Khanty has no dedicated reflexive pronoun; instead, the appropriate forms of the relevant personal pronoun are used (10, 11). (10) mȧ mȧnt 1sg.pro.nom 1sg.pro.acc ‘I see myself in the mirror.’

serkȧlȧ-nə mirror-loc

wu-ɬ-əm see-prs-1sg

(11) ńewrem liŋkənt|əp ɬü̆wȧtiɬ-nȧm tiɬ-təɣ child blanket 3sg-apr pull-pst.3sg>sg ‘The child pulled the blanket onto himself’ To express greater emphasis of identity, the pronouns can be reduplicated, as in (12). (12) iki ɬü̆w&ɬü̆wə qɔt wä̌r man 3sg&3sg house make.pst.3sg ‘The man built the house himself.’ The full paradigm of the emphatic personal pronouns can be found in Table 16.22. 16.9.2 Demonstrative pronouns The primary distinction made by Khanty demonstrative pronouns is one of relative distance from the speaker, with front-vowel forms used for closer, back-vowel for more distant referents. Within this division, forms may distinguish whether the referent is visible or concrete or known (Table 16.23). All demonstratives have attributive forms as well as full forms used as heads of the noun phrase. Attributive demonstratives show no agreement with their head; NP-final forms inflect exactly as nouns, as in (13).

TABLE 16.22  EMPHATIC PERSONAL PRONOUNS (SURGUT KHANTY) sg

du

pl

1

mȧ mȧnə

min minə

məŋ məŋə

2

nü̆ŋ nü̆ŋə

nin ninə

nəŋ nəŋə

3

ɬü̆w ɬü̆wə

ɬin ɬinə

ɬəɣ ɬəɣə

TABLE 16.23  SURGUT KHANTY DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS Concrete/visible Close

Abstract/not visible

Far

Close

Far

Attributive

tem

tŏm

ťi

ťu

As head

temi

tomi

ťit

ťut

726 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

(13) tem qɔt jəɬəp, tŏm qɔt ɔɬqȧs. mȧ tŏm qɔt-nə / tŏmi-nə wăɬ-ɬ-əm det house new det house old 1sg.pro det house-loc det-loc live-prs-1sg ‘This house is new, that house is old. I live in that house / in that one.’ In anaphoric function, demonstratives may take the place of either personal pronouns or full noun phrases: (14) mȧ imi-nȧm / ɬü̆wȧti-nȧm / temi-nȧm / tŏmi-nȧm jȧstə-ɬ-əm 1sg woman-apr 3sg.pro-apr / det-apr / det-apr speak-prs-1sg ‘I am speaking to (the) woman / her / this (one) /that (one)/.’ Parallel to demonstrative pronouns of the noun class, there is a full array of demonstratives of adjectival (qualitative, quantitative) and adverbial word classesˌ for example, ťimint ‘this kind of,’ ťumint ‘that kind of,’ ťikim ‘this much/many,’ ťukim ‘that much/many,’ ťenə ‘in this way,’ təɣə ‘hither,’ tŏɣə ‘thither,’ ťeɬiɬtȧ ‘hence,’ ťŏɬiɬtȧ ‘thence.’ The locative demonstrative has alongside adverbial forms (tət ‘here,’ tŏt ‘there’) also forms used in verbless copula clauses: tətti ‘it’s here,’ tŏtti ‘it’s there.’ In the past tense, these adverbial forms co-occur with the copula in the past; compare (15) and (16). (15) iki qɔt-ȧ jăqə ɬăŋ, imi tŏt ɔməs-ɬ man house-loc in step.pst.3sg woman there sit-prs.3sg ‘The man entered the house, the woman is sitting there.’ (16) iki qɔt-ȧ jăqə ɬăŋ, temi imi tŏtti man house-loc in step.pst.3sg ptcl woman there ‘The man entered the house, and lo! there is the woman.’ in the past: imi tŏtti wŏɬ woman there be.pst.3sg ‘. . . there was the woman.’ The numeral əj ‘one’ in compounds with demonstrative pronouns expresses referential identity, for example, əj tem, əj ťi ‘this (very) same (one),’ əj tŏm, əj ťu ‘that (very) same (one),’ əj ťumint ‘of that same kind,’ əj ťenə ‘in (that) same way.’ 16.9.3 Interrogative pronouns We may distinguish four subcategories of interrogative pronoun, depending on which word class is being replaced. Noun: qŏjȧɣi ‘who?’ mǚwəɬi ‘what?’ mətȧ ‘which?’; adjective: mǚw sir, mǚk qorȧsəp both ‘what kind of?’; numeral: mǚkkim, mǚw ȧr|it both ‘how many?’; adverbial: qŏɬnə ‘how?’ qotti ‘where?’ qŏɬnȧm ‘whither?’ qŏl sɔɣit ‘whence?’ quntə ‘when?’ mǚwȧt ‘why?’ Interrogative pronouns replacing nouns take case suffixes, just like nouns, for example: (17) qŏjȧɣi-nȧt jŏwt-ən? who-com come-pst.2sg ‘With whom did you come?’

KHANTY 727

Correlative constructions may be built with interrogative pronouns at the beginning of the subordinate clause and a corresponding demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of the main clause, for example (see also Sections 16.11 and 16.13): ̆ ̇ t, (18) mǚw ȧ r|it quɬ wäɬ-a ťu ȧ r|it jăqə tuw-ȧ t what many fish kill-pst-3pl.pass that many homeward bring.pst-3pl.pass ‘As many fish as were caught, that many were brought home.’ Indefinite and negative pronouns are built from the interrogatives with the help of particles. For example, to the question qŏjȧ ɣi jŏwət ‘Who came?’ these answers may be given: (19) əj qŏjȧɣi jȧ / qŏjȧɣi ăntȧ / əj mətȧ qo jŏwət all: ‘someone came’ The particle pə forms negative pronouns: əj mətȧ qo pə əntə jŏwət ‘no one came’; see also Section 16.15. 16.10 POSSESSION IN THE NP AND IN THE CLAUSE NP-internal possessive constructions have the fixed order of elements possessor+possessed, indicated here with superscript r and d. If the possessor is expressed by a noun, simple juxtaposition is used (with one exception, shown in the following) (20‒21). (20) păɣR milD boy cap ‘the boy’s cap’ (21) ȧmpR pəɬ-ɣənD dog ear-du ‘the dog’s (two) ears’4 However, the makeup of NP-internal possessive constructions is sensitive to clause-level syntax: in possessive constructions functioning as copula subjects, the possessor is also indexed on the possessed in a pertensive construction, as in (22‒23): ťəttiCC / jəɬəpCC (22) [iki ryt-əɬ]CS [man boat-3sg] here / new ‘the man’s boat is here / new’ (23) [lekər nä̆m-əɬ]CS qŏɬnəcc? doctor name-3sg how ‘what is the doctor’s name?’ Otherwise, the possessive construction is simple juxtaposition. Thus, ‘the man’s boat’ is simply iki ryt when it is copula complement: temiCS [iki ryt]CC ‘this is the man’s boat’; or when it functions as subject, object, or adverbial in non-copula clauses, as in (24–26): mən-əɬ (24) [iki ryt]s sɔrɣȧ man boat quickly go-prs.3sg ‘the man’s boat glides swiftly’

728 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

(25) mȧ [iki ryt]o əntə wuj-əm 1sg.pro man boat neg see-pst.1sg ‘I didn’t see the man’s boat’ (26) [iki ryt-nȧt] mən-ɬ-əw man boat-com go-prs-1pl ‘we’re going with the man’s boat’ In possessive NPs with only the possession expressed as a noun, the person/number of the possessor is a suffix, as in mil-əm cap-1sg ‘my cap,’ ńewrem-ɬ-ȧ child-pl-2pl ‘your (2pl) children.’ To emphasize the possessor, the appropriate independent pronoun is added: mȧ mil-əm ‘my cap,’ nəŋ ńewrem-ɬ-ȧ ‘your (2pl) children.’ Clause-level possession is expressed with transitive verb tăj- ‘to have,’ with the possessed as direct object, for example: (27) mȧ qɔt tăj-ɬ-əm 1sg house have-prs-1sg ‘I have a house’ (28) imi kȧt ńewrem-ɣən woman two child-du ‘the woman had two children’

tŏj have.pst.3sg

The possessor can appear in a copula complement only together with the possessed, resulting in a full noun restatement of the latter, for example: (29) [tem ɬȧjəm]CS [jəɣ-əm det axe father-1sg ‘this axe is my father’s (axe)’

ɬȧjəm]CC ø axe cop

16.11 RELATIVE CLAUSES The traditional Khanty relative clause is built with participles: imperfective -tə, perfective -(ə)m, or negative -ɬəɣ (Csepregi 2014b). The full valence frame of the verb is retained. Three examples will have to suffice here (30–33). tu-tə]rc pojezds qŏɬɣȧ əntə jŏwət (30) [məŋȧ t Surgut wɔč-ȧ 1pl.acc Surgut town-lat take-ptcp.prs train still neg arrive.pst.3sg ‘The train that is taking us to Surgut hasn’t arrived yet.’ pojezds itpə mən (31) [məŋȧt Surgut wɔč-ȧ tuw-əm]rc 1pl.acc Surgut town-lat bring-ptcp.pst train further go.pst.3sg ‘The train that brought us to Surgut went on (further).’ ̆ ̇ m qoɬəɣtə-ɬəɣ]rc ńewrəm-əm pətȧ n ̇ (32) [köɬ-na mantem ȧ təm-ɣə pit word-apr listen-ptcp.neg child-1sg because.of 1sg.dat bad-tra become-pst.3sg ‘I feel bad because of my disobedient (= to word not listening) child.’

KHANTY 729

The interpretation of subject vs. object function within Khanty participial RCs relies largely on the semantics of the core arguments (animacy, [+/-] human), and in either scenario, the common argument internal to the RC is expressed as zero. Thus, if the head noun is most easily understood as the subject of the RC, we have [juɣo tu-tə Øa] pojezd ‘the train that’s taking/bring the wood,’ but if the head noun is most easily understood as the object of the RC, we have [ȧťe-ma wä̌r-əm Øo] wä̌ɬ|tip ‘the trap (which) my father made = the trap made by my father.’ If the subject of the participle is expressed by a noun (as with ȧťe-ma above), there is no person indexing on the participle. This is true of other Khanty dialects as well, for example, Kaz [aśe-ma wer-əm] karti ‘the trap (which) my father made.’ However, if the subject is expressed by a pronoun, in the eastern dialects we have cross-indexing of the subject, as in Surgut (33–34). (33) (mȧ) wä̆r-m-ȧm wä̆ɬ.tip 1sg.nom make-ptcp.pst-1sg trap ‘the trap (which) I made’ (34) (nü̆ŋ) mȧntem just-əm-ȧ ručkȧ 2sg.nom 1sg.dat give-ptcp.pst-2sg pen ‘the pen (which) you gave (to) me’ In northern dialects, participles in attributive function cannot take person suffixes; subject person is specified on the head noun (Skribnik and Kovgan 1986). If the subject of the participle is a pronoun, it cannot be omitted; see examples in Kaz (35‒36). (35) Kaz.ma wer-əm 1sg.nom make-ptcp.pst ‘the trap (which) I made’

kartǐ-jem trap-1sg

(36) Kaz.năŋ mănem mɔjɬə-tǐ ručka-jen 2sg.nom 1sg.dat give-ptcp.pst pen-2sg ‘the pen (which) you gave (to) me’ Passive constructions can also be relativized; the participle then takes no suffix, and the subject is put in the locative (37–38). (37) [ȧťe-m-nə wä̌r-əm] father-1sg-loc make-ptcp.pst ‘a/the trap made by my father’ (38) [nü̆ŋ-nə just-əm] 2sg-loc give-ptcp.pst ‘a/the pen given by you’

wä̌ɬ.tip trap

ručkȧ pen

Clause-level syntax determines any case flagging on the head noun, for example, (39). ̇ ̇ tuw-m-ȧ ]rc kö̌čɣ-em-ɬəɣ mantem rupak-kə jəɣ (39) [qŏɬti Whither bring-ptcp.pst-2sg knife-1sg-abe 1sg.dat difficult-tra become.pst.3sg ‘It was difficult for me (to be) without the knife you took.’

730 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

In more recent times, partly as a result of influence from Russian, finite-form relative clauses have begun to appear; they occur to the right of the noun they modify, and the relativizer is an interrogative pronoun, as in (40). tu-ɬ], qŏɬɣȧ əntə jŏwət (40) pojezds , [mətȧ pia məŋȧ to Surgut wɔč-ȧ train which 1pl.acc Surgut town-lat take-prs.3sg still negarrive.pst.3sg ‘The train which is taking us to Surgut still hasn’t arrived.’ 16.12 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES We treat here not only complement clauses sensu stricto but also various kinds of nominalizing and/or relative clause constructions that may be seen as kinds of complementizing strategies (constructions 3–10 in Table 16.24). The predicate of a Khanty complement clause can be a nominal verb form (infinitive -tȧɣə, participles -tə and -əm, often with person suffixes and modal particles), or it can be a finite verb form. Table 16.24 summarizes the possibilities. These 11 constructions may be illustrated as follows: 1. -tȧ(ɣə) infinitive: commands, declarations; cocl:o, different subjects Typical main verbs are pȧrt- ‘to order,’ lŏwməɬtəɣəɬ- ‘to beseech,’ ńăwmiɬ- ‘to tell,’ jȧstə- ‘to talk,’ for example: pɔri-jȧt wä̆r-tȧ]O pirt-ɬ-ȧɬ (41) qɔnA [jɔɣ-ɬ-ȧɬo Tsar people-pl-3sg feast-insf make-inf order.pst-pl.o-3sg.a ‘The Tsar ordered his people be entertained with a feast.’

TABLE 16.24  FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF KHANTY COMPLEMENT CLAUSES

1.

Verb form

Function in the matrix clause

Semantics

-tȧ(ɣə)

o

commands, expressions of emotion, declarations, knowledge, beginnning, ending

2.

-tȧ (ɣə)

s/a

necessity, possibility, assessment

3.

-tə kȧč/kim + copula

s

wishes, abilities

4.

-tə kȧč/kim + tăj- ‘to have’

o

wishes, abilities

5.

-tə qŏl + wu- ‘to know’

o

knowledge

6.

-tə /-əm-px + ‘to seem,’ ‘to be audible’

s

perception, observation

7.

-tə /-əm-px + ‘to see,’ ‘to hear’

o

perception, observation

8.

-tə /-əm-px + tərəm- ‘to finish’

o

completion of action

9.

-tə /-əm-px + əntem existential neg

s

negation of action

10.

-tə -.əm-px + time.span-tra + jə-

s

duration of action or state

11.

finite verb clause

o

saying

KHANTY 731

With main verb ɬăŋq- ‘to want,’ the subjects are the same: [Ø mȧnto imi-ɣə wə-tȧ]O ɬăŋq-ȧɬ (42) [ťu qo]A det man 1sg.acc wife-tra take-inf want-prs.3sg ‘That man wants to marry me (= take me to wife)’ Subjects are also the same with main verbs with emotional meaning, such as ɬăŋq- ‘to love,’ pəɬ- ‘to fear,’ kȧsȧɬ- ‘to suspect’): qătəɣɬə-tȧɣə]O jəmȧt ɬăŋq-ɬ-əm / pəɬ-ɬ-əm (43) [øs rä̌p-i hill-abl slide-inf very.much love-prs-1sg / fear-prs-1sg ‘I love/fear sledding downhill very much.’ Similarly, verbs with meanings of thinking, knowledge, declaration, decision, etc. build same-subject cocl:o constructions, for example, nŏməqsə- ‘to think,’ nŏmɬəɣtə- ‘to remember,’ ȧrjȧɬ- ‘to decide,’ jȧstə-‘to say’, for example: (44) pȧnə [Øs quɬməɬ-tȧɣə]O nŏməqsə-ɬ and spend.night-inf think-prs.3sg ‘And he thought that he would spend the night.’ And with verbs describing the beginning or ending of an action, such as jə-, pit-, rȧŋip-, čǚksəm-, wä̌r-, all ‘to begin,’ and tərəm- ‘to finish’: (45) ä̌wiA [øs jɔntəqsə-tȧ]O čǚksəm-əɣ / rȧŋip-əɣ / jəɣ / pit girl sew-inf start-pst.3sg ‘The girl started to sew.’ 2. -tȧ(ɣə) infinitive; cocl:s, different subjects. This complement clause construction occurs with matrix verbs expressing necessity and possibility, like mɔs- ‘is necessary,’ must- ‘is possible/allowed.’ mɔs-əɬ / must-əɬ (46) mȧntem [Øa pismȧo kit-tȧ]S 1sg.dat letter send-inf be.necessary-prs.3sg be.allowed-prs.3sg ‘I have / I’m allowed to send a letter.’ (47) [tem ɬɔr-nə pä̌wəɬ-tȧɣə]s əntə mustə-ɬ det lake-loc swim-inf neg be.allowed-prs.3sg ‘Swimming in this lake is not permitted.’ The complement clause is in copula subject function also with copula complements of evaluative meaning, such as jəm ‘good,’ ȧtəm bad,’ rupȧq ‘difficult,’ ťursəməŋ ‘interesting’: (48) mȧntemE [øs ɬü̆wȧti-nȧt jăntəɣ-tȧɣə]S 1sg.dat 3sg-com play-inf ‘It’s fun for me to play with him/her.’

ťursəm|əŋ pleasant|adj

732 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

3–5. These constructions are formally relative clauses, but their functions align with cocls, so they are treated here. Will, wishes, capabilities, knowledge can all be expressed by means of a construction consisting of the embedded verb as a participle modifying the abstract nouns kȧč ‘will, desire,’ kim ‘ability,’ and qŏl ‘knowledge.’ The first two nouns are construed in the main clause either as subject of the copula or as the relative-clause object of the verb tăj- ‘to have,’ with near-synonymic effct, for example: (49) [(mȧ) jɔntəqsə-tə kič-əm]S wăɬ-ɬ 1sg.nom sew-ptcp.prs wish-1sg cop-prs.3sg ‘I want to sew (“my sewing desire exists”)’ or [jɔntəqsə-tə kȧč]O tăj-ɬ-əm (50) (mȧA) 1sg.nom sew-ptcp.prs desire have-prs.1sg ’I want to sew (“I have sewing desire”)’ The noun qŏl ‘knowledge’ in this meaning occurs only as head noun of an rc, with the main verb wu- ‘to know, see’: qŏl]O (51) mȧa [ɬŏŋət-tə 1sg read/count-ptcp.prs knowledge ‘I know how to read/count.’

wu-ɬ-əm know-prs-1sg

6–10. With a restricted set of verbs, participles inflected for person behave like action nominals; they function as subjects or objects in the main clause, as follows: 6. With seť- ‘be audible/perceivable,’ the cocl is in s function, for example, (52–53). seť-əɬ (52) [jǚ-t-ȧɬ]S come-ptcp.prs-3sg be.audible-prs.3sg ‘His/her/its coming is audible = one can hear him coming.’ seť-əɬ (53) [ɬi-tȧ jəɣ-m-ȧm]S eat-inf want/become-ptcp.pst-1sg be.perceivable-prs.3sg ‘I’m feeling hungry (= my wanting to eat is perceivable).’ 7. With wu- ‘to know, see,’ the cocl is in object function: əntə wu-ɬ-e (54) [tem săsəɣ ɬəɣpi-jȧ (nǚŋ) ɬăŋ-t-ȧ]O This trap interior-lat 2sg enter-ptcp.prs-2sg neg see-prs-2sg>sg ‘You don’t see you’ve stepped into the trap.’ 8. With tərəm- ‘to finish,’ the cocl is in object function: (55) ɬin wä̌t ȧrəɣ qănč-m-in tərəm-ɣən 3du five song write-ptcp.pst-3du finish-pst.3du ‘The two of them finished transcribing five songs.’

KHANTY 733

9. With the negative existential əntem ‘there is no(t),’ the nominalized clause is in copula subject function: qŏw-ən əntem (56) [jŏwət-t-ȧɬ]cs arrive-ptcp.prs-3sg long-loc neg.cop ‘S/he’ll get here soon = his/her arrival isn’t far.’ 10. Support clauses expressing time passed leading up to a present state are built with participle plus person indexing in subject function, with the predicate consisting of a time measure word in the translative with the verb jə- ‘to become’: (57) [mȧ qǒn-nȧt wăɬ-t-ȧm]S 1sg.nom belly-com cop-ptcp.prs-1sg ‘I’m six months pregnant.’

qut six

tysəɬ-ɣə jəɣ month-tra become.pst.3sg

11. Complement clauses with finite verbs. Finite complement clauses follow the matrix clause, and these may be introduced with question words functioning as conjunctions, such as mǚw ‘what’ or qǒɬnə ‘how,’ or simply juxtaposed after the main clause. The presence of a finite subordinate clause triggers the objective conjugation with certain matrix verbs (wu- ‘to know,’ tŏŋəmtə- ‘to understand,’ qoɬ- ‘to hear,’ pȧmiɬ- ‘to show’): (58) kö̆t-nȧt pȧmiɬ-təɣ, [mǚw ɬŏwȧt-ɣə jəɣ]O hand-com show.pst.3sg>sg what size-tra become.pst.3sg ‘S/he showed with his/her hand how big he had become.’ Matrix verbs of thinking and speaking, however, are put in the subjective conjugation: [mȧcs jəm juɣ wä̌r-tə mȧstərcc (59) jɔɣa jȧstə-ɬ-ət, people say-prs-3pl 1sg.nom good wood make.ptcp.prs craftsman wăɬ-ɬ-əm]O cop-prs-1sg ‘People say I’m skilled at working with wood.’ 16.13 SUPPORTING (ADVERBIAL) CLAUSES Supporting clauses (scs) serve to describe the circumstances in which the events or states of the main clause do or do not occur or hold true; the most common kinds of circumstance are those of time, goal, manner, and state (Table 16.25). In traditional Surgut Khanty discourse, SCs are made up of nonfinite verb forms, but recently, finite support clauses have also become more frequent due to contact with Russian. In support clauses, infinitives and converbs take no further suffixes, but all three participles occur with subject-cross-indexing person suffixes as well as with case suffixes and postpositions. SCs expressing conditions add a conditional particle to the participle. In addition to the morpheme strings listed previously, there is a large array of participial constructions that participate in sc formation by using postpositions. For example, simultaneity and manner can be expressed by ɬȧt-nə, mä̌rə, or nŏpət-nə, all ‘at the time (of’), sɔɣət ‘in the manner (of)’; relative time and duration by pyr-nə ‘after,’ iɬ|pi-nə ‘before,’ iwəɬ ‘while’; cause, goal, and state by pətȧn ‘because of,’ kičȧ ‘for; (temporal)

734 MÁRTA CSEPREGI TABLE 16.25  SUPPORT-CLAUSE FUNCTIONS OF NONFINITE VERBS IN SURGUT KHANTY Morpheme string

Adverbial semantics

-tə-(px)-loc

Example

Translation

mən-t-ȧm-nə

when I go

mən-m-ȧm-nə

when I went

-min

mən-min

while going

-tə-(px)-lat

ɬăŋ-t-ȧm-ȧ

after I enter

ɬăŋ-m-ȧm-ȧ

after I entered

mən-t-ȧm-i

while I go

mən-m-ȧm-i

while I was going

mən-ɬəɣ-ȧm-nə

before I went

mən-t-ȧm kȧ

if/when I go

-əm-(px)-loc

-əm-(px)-lat -tə-(px)-abl -əm-(px)-abl -ɬəɣ-(px)-loc tə-(px) ptcl -əm-(px) ptcl -tȧɣə -tə-(px)-insf

simultaneity

posteriority duration anteriority conditional purpose purpose/cause

mən-m-ȧm kȧ

if/when I went

mɔjəɬ-tȧ jŏwət

came to visit

mən-t-ȧm-ȧt

because I go/so that I might go

mən-m-ȧm-ȧt

because I went/so that I might go

-min

manner

jis-min mən

went weeping

-ɬəɣ

state

wu-ɬəɣ ăɬȧɬ

lay unconscious

-əm-(px)-insf

by,’ kim-nə ‘in the state of.’ Examplesː tˈu iminə pȧrt.m-ȧɬ sɔɣət ‘as the woman ordered,’ ɔmsilə|t-ȧm iwəɬ ‘while I’m sitting.’ The lative case is used this way as well: jǎqə ɬǎŋ|mȧɬ-ȧ in enter.ptcp.pst-3sg-lat ‘after s/he went in, upon his/her entering.’ 16.14 TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY (TAM)—NON-SPATIAL SETTING 16.14.1 Tense The opposition past : non-past is characteristic of all Khanty dialects. Non-past has reference to the future as well. The present-tense morpheme in all dialects continues Proto-Khanty *-l-, while the past tense is encoded by zero or -s-. VVj dialects are notable for having four distinct past tenses (Gulya 1966, 106–108; Filchenko 2010, 240); see Table 16.26. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the -s- past was still used in Surgut dialects, but today these forms are obsolete. Today’s Khanty school grammars have adopted, on Russian models, a compound future built with the infinitive of the lexical verb combined with inflected forms of a verb ‘to begin’ (jə- or pit-), for example, Surg. ɬŏŋət-tȧ jə-ɬ-əm / pit-ɬ-əm ‘I will read.’ In narrative, switches from one tense to the other are frequent, for example, mən, mən, qɔt-ȧ jŏwət. jăqə ɬăŋ, temi əj imi tŏt ɔməs-ɬ ‘(s/he) went, (s/he) went, (s/he) came to a house. (S/he) entered, behold a woman there sits.’ The aspect of participles encodes relative tense in subordinate clauses: the imperfective participle expresses simultaneity, while the perfective participle expresses anteriority; see Section 16.11. In supporting clauses, tense relations are expressed by the various inflectional suffixes and postpositions (see Section 16.13).

KHANTY 735 TABLE 16.26  KHANTY TENSE MORPHEMES Protohanti

VVj

Surg

Sal

Irt

Ni

Sher

Kaz

Shur

Obd

Present

*l

l

ɬ

t

t

t

t

ɬ

l

l

Perfect

Ø

Ø

Ø

Ø

Ø

Ø

–

–

–

–

Imperfect

*s

s

(s)

(s)

–

–

s

s

s

s

Historic perfect

–

ɣal

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Historic imperfect

–

ɣas

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Source: based on Honti 1984, 51.

16.14.2 Mood and modality Khanty dialects distinguish imperative from indicative mood, but non-periphrastic imperative forms exist only for second person; in the other persons, commands are expressed by indicative plus particle (see Section 16.4). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Surgut dialects still had a full imperative paradigm, with both active and passive forms (Karjalainen and Vértes 1964, 273, 278). Other modalities are expressed with a range of particles. In Surgut Khanty, conditions are expressed by a finite-verb clause ending in quntə ‘if/when’: mən-ɬ-əm quntə go-prs1sg if ‘if I go.’ Roughly synonymous is a construction consisting of the imperfective participle plus particle kȧ, as in mən-t-ȧm kȧ go-pctp.prs-1sg ptcl. Use of the conditional verbal noun (mən-ŋ-ȧm ‘if I go’) was already in retreat by the early twentieth century (Karjalainen and Vértes 1964, 269). A few other particles may be mentioned here. Particle ŏɬəŋ ‘if (only)’ expresses not only fond wishes but also less-real hypotheses (‘if I were to go’). Particle ăntȧ ‘perhaps’ expresses potentiality and/or uncertainty; ńiči, ɬǚw ăntȧ, ɬǚw tŏɣə, əťə pə all indicate degrees or kinds of certainty (‘certainly,’ ‘maybe,’ etc.). An important difference between eastern and northern dialects is that the latter have full paradigms expressive of evidentiality. In Kaz, Shur, and Obd dialects, participles with person suffixes have become grammaticalized as non-eyewitnessed finite verb forms: the ptcp.prs -t- suffix has become a present-tense morpheme, and the ptcp.pst -m- suffix has become a morpheme of the past tense (Nikolaeva 1999b). In eastern dialects, participles occur in predicate function only in sung texts, never in conversation, and non-eyewitnessed predication is expressed by lexical means, with one exception: inferentiality may be expressed with a construction consisting of a person-inflected participle plus the noun tɔɣi ‘place,’ as in ťu imi kiɬ-m-ȧɬ tɔɣi det woman get. up-ptcp.pst-3sg place ‘the woman got up (evidently)’ (Csepregi 2014a). Other kinds of modality—necessity, possibility, wishes, capability, knowledge—are discussed in Section 16.12. 16.14.3 Aktionsart and aspect Aktionsart and, to a degree, aspect are encoded by verb-forming derivational suffixes; the following Aktionsart categories are marked with derivational suffixes: momentaneous, resultative, inchoative, probative/intentional, mitigative, durative, frequentative (Gugán 2013).

736 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

Verbal particles also play a role in the expression of aspect and Aktionsart. In the main, these are originally of deictic/directional meaning but can often convey perfectivity and resultativity, for example, nŏq ‘up’ in nŏq kənč- ‘to seek out, look up,’ iɬə ‘away’ in iɬə ɬŏɬ- ‘to melt away,’ yɬə ‘down’ in yɬə wä̌ɬ- ‘to kill (pfv),’ pərɣi ‘back’ in pərɣi mə- ‘to give back,’ ńuɬ ‘together’ in ńuɬ wu- ‘to get to know.’ Verbal particles tŏwə and ťyq are general intensifiers: ťyq mä̌t- ‘to become very tired,’ ťyq mən- ‘to die (= go completely),’ tŏwə kö̌rəɣ- ‘to faint (= fall thither),’ ťyq /tŏwə jŏrəɣɬə- ‘to forget completely,’ tŏwə ä̌səɬ- ‘to abandon forever.’ 16.15 NEGATION Negation in Khanty is expressed through particles. In a neutral negative clause, the negative particle əntə stands before the verb (Wagner-Nagy 2011). Contrast the affirmative clause (60) with its negative pendant (61). (60) qŏɬtɔɣiɬ wɔč-nȧm mən-ɬ-əw tomorrow town-apr go-prs-1pl ‘Tomorrow we’re going to town.’ (61) qŏɬtɔɣiɬ wɔč-nȧm əntə mən-ɬ-əw tomorrow town-apr neg go-prs-1pl ‘Tomorrow we’re not going to town.’ Negation of other clause constituents (NPs, adverbials) is also by means of əntə, as in (62). (62) qŏɬtɔɣiɬ əntə wɔč-nȧm mən-ɬ-əw, puɣəɬ-nȧm tomorrow neg town-ppr go-prs-1pl village-apr ‘Tomorrow we’re going not to town, but to the village.’ Participles in subordinate clauses are also negated with əntə: (63) nǚŋ əntə pəɬ-t-ȧn-nə, əjqȧ ȧt 2sg.nom neg fear-ptcp.prs-2sg-loc together night ‘If you’re not afraid, we’ll spend the night together.’

qoɬ-ɬ-əmən spend.night-prs-1du

A negative reply in Surgut Khanty is made with əntȧ, for example: (64) qŏɬtɔɣiɬ wɔč-nȧm mən-ɬ-ən? əntȧ. tomorrow town-apr go-prs-2sg neg ‘Are you going to town tomorrow?—No.’ The negator in locational and existential copula clauses is əntem; it agrees in number with the subject, (65‒66). (65) iki jăqən əntem man inside neg ‘the man isn’t in(side)’

KHANTY 737

(66) imi-ɣən iki-ɣən jăqən əntem-ɣən woman-du man-du inside neg-du ‘the woman and the man aren’t inside’ It is optionally also used to negate the copula in the past tense (67a–67b). (67a) –nǚŋ jä̆rmȧk lɔpkȧ-nə wə-je 2sg.nom silk shop-loc buy.pst-2sg>sg ‘Did you buy the silk in the shop?’ (67b) –əntȧ, lɔpkȧ-nə jä̆rmȧk ŏɬpintȧɣ neg shop-loc silk fabric ‘No, there was no silk in the shop.’

əntem neg

wŏɬ cop.pst.3sg

Negative imperatives (prohibitives) are formed by combining the imperative forms with invariable particle ȧɬ: ȧɬ jis-ȧ! ‘don’t you 2sg cry!’; ȧɬ jis-ittən! ‘don’t you 2du cry!’; ȧɬ jis-ittəɣ! ‘don’t you 2pl cry.’ Negative pronouns are built by sandwiching the interrogative pronouns between əj ‘one’ and enclitic =pə, for example, əj mətȧ qo pə ‘nobody, no one,’ əj mətɬi pə ‘nothing,’ əj quntə pə ‘never’ əj qŏɬȧttinȧm pə ‘nowhere,’ etc. With only very rare exceptions, the clause also includes the negative particle, as in: (68) əj mətɬi pə mȧntem əntə mɔs-əɬ one pro ptcl 1sg.pro.dat neg be.necessary-prs.3sg ‘nothing is necessary to me (= I don’t need anything)’ Some negative pronouns can be built with the abessive -ɬəɣ: (69) mǚw ȧrit-ɬəɣ mȧnt pyɣərt-ən what many-abe 1sg.pro help-pst.2sg ‘at no time did you help me’ The negative particle strengthens the degree of negation: (70) mǚw ȧrit-ɬəɣ mȧnt əntə what many-abe 1sg.pro neg ‘at no time did you help me at all’

pyɣərt-ən help-pst.2sg

The abessive suffix has three interrelated but distinct functions in Surgut Khanty: (a) it forms privative adjectives with meanings opposite to those built with |əŋ (see Section 16.6); (b) it flags NPs as absent from the state or activity of the main verb, as in (71) (cf. Section 16.17); (c) suffixed to verbs, it forms negative participles, as in (72) (see Sections 16.11 and 16.13). (71) mȧ uɬəm-ɬəɣ ŏɬ-əm 1sg dream-abe sleep-pst.1sg ‘I slept dreamless = without dreaming’

738 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

(72) ȧŋki-ɬ-nə mɔńť-ȧt mɔńť-ɬəɣ ńewrem əntə mother-3sg-loc story-insfin tell-ptcp.neg child neg wŏjəmtə-ɬ-i put.to.sleep-prs-pass.3sg ‘Unless his/her mother tells a story, the child won’t fall asleep.’ 16.16 QUESTIONS AND BASIC CLAUSE TYPES 16.16.1 Questions Polar question clauses have the same constituent order as declarative ones. There is no dedicated question word, intonation alone being used. While declarative clauses have an overall descent in pitch, there is a rise on the first, stressed syllable of the last word (which is usually the predicate), and the pitch then falls off on the remainder. Thus, in (73) the pitch ̌ rises on the first syllable and then falls on the second syllable, the first syllalbe of mätən. (73) nǚŋ mä̌t-ən 2sg grow.tired-pst.2sg ‘Are you tired?’ If the verb form is only a monosyllable, the clause ends on the higher pitch, as in this example, with jəɣ, as in (74). (74) sup ɬi-tə soup eat-ptcp.prs ‘Is the soup ready?’

kim-ȧ quality-lat

jəɣ become.pst.3sg

Interrogative complement clauses, in keeping with the fact that they are not questions but rather statements about questions, have descending declarative intonation. The choice implied by the polar question is expressed with negative particle əntə (75‒76). (75) (mȧ) pyri-jəm, (nǚŋ) əntə pə mä̌t-ən 1sg ask-pst.1sg 2sg neg ptcl grow.tired-pst.2sg ‘I asked whether you were tired.’ (76) (mȧ) pyri-jəm, (nǚŋ) mä̌t-ən 1sg ask-pst.1sg 2sg grow.tired-pst.2sg ‘I asked whether you were tired or not.’

wəs əntə or neg

Content questions also have a descending intonation; the question word occupies the same position it would have in the corresponding declarative. Omitting a pronominal subject is possible in all clause types, and it is especially common in questions (77‒78). (77) mǚwəɬi wä̌r-ɬ-ən what do-prs-2sg ‘What are you doing?’

KHANTY 739

(78) mǚw tåɣi-nə ropitɬə-ɬ-ən what place-loc work-prs-2sg ‘Where do you work?’ Similarly, questioned modifiers precede the nouns they modify: (79) (nǚŋ) qŏjaɣi păɣ 2sg who son ‘Whose son are you?’

wŏs-ən cop-2sg

As is to be expected, the question word stands at the end of copula clauses: (80) ȧť-e nä̌m-əɬ qŏɬnə father-2sg name-3sg how ‘What is your fatherˈs name?’

ø? cop

Embedded content questions show regular main-clause constituent order, as in: (81) ɬǚw pyri-jəɣ, nǚŋ mǚwəɬi 3sg ask-pst.3sg 2sg what ‘S/he asked what you’re doing.’

wä̌r-ɬ-ən do-prs-2sg

16.16.2 Basic clause types The primary distinction is between copula clauses and verb-based clauses; for the former, see Section 16.8. In verb-based clauses, the primary organizing principles are the valence of the main verb and the choice of conjugation (subjective, objective, passive); this latter is determined by information structure and flow. The simplest scenario entails verbs which require no overt NP subject; these are usually meteorological in content, for example: (82) jŏm-əɬ rain-prs.3sg ‘it’s raining’ (83) sǚɣs|int-əɣ autumn|inch-pst.3sg ‘autumn has begun’ As always, overt subject noun or pronoun NPs occur with other intransitive verbs only as needed by context or to provide emphasis; compare examples (84‒86). jis-əɬ (84) ńewremS child cry-prs.3sg ‘the child is crying’

740 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

(85) ɬǚws jis-əɬ 3sg cry-prs.3sg ‘s/he’s crying’ (focus, contrast) (86) jis-əɬ cry-prs.3sg ‘s/he’s crying’ Such intransitive clauses may optionally take various adverbial adjuncts, for example: (87) ńewrem sǚj.əŋ-kə jis-əɬ child loud-tra cry-prs.3sg ‘the child is crying loudly’ Simple transitives take subject/agent and object/patient arguments, for example, ikiA sårtO wä̌ɬ man pike kill.pst.3sg ‘the man caught (killed) a pike,’ mȧA kəńikȧO ɬŏŋət-ɬ-əm 1sg book read-prs-1sg ‘I’m reading a book.’ Khanty patterns with Mansi, Nganasan, and Southern Sámi, in using a transitive verb to predicate possession, for example, nǚŋA ȧ mpO tăj-ɬ-ən 2sg dog have-prs-2sg ‘Do you have a dog?.’ Ditransitive verbs have three arguments, a subject/agent (= donor), a direct object/ theme (= gift), and an indirect object recipient. Ditransitive constructions feature two types of case flagging patterns: either the theme is flagged with nominative/accusative and the recipient with dative/lative (88) or the recipient is flagged with nominative/accusative and the theme with instructive-final (89), see also F. Gulyás 2018. (88) ikia mȧnteme /imi-jȧe quɬo məj man 1sg.dat/woman-lat fish give.pst.3sg ‘The man gave me/the woman fish.’ (89) iki mȧnt / imi quɬ-ȧt məj man 1sg.acc / woman fish-insf give.pst.3sg ‘The man gave me /the woman a fish.’ Both constructions can be passivized, but it is the latter type that undergoes passivization more frequently (90). (90) imi iki-nə quɬ-ȧt məj-i woman man-loc fish-insf give-pst.pass.3sg ‘The woman was presented with a fish by the man.’ In transitive clauses, the choice of conjugation co-varies with the relative discourse properties of the object: with newly introduced direct objects, the verb tends to go into the subjective conjugation, and with old, known objects, it stands in the objective conjugation. Contrast the subjective (-ø) and objective (-təɣ) third-person subject indexes in example (91). (91) iki sårt wä̌ɬ-ø-ø, (ťu) sårt imi nik man pike kill-pst-3sg det pike woman into.water ‘The man caught a pike, the woman boiled (that) pike.’

mŏɬ-təɣ. boil.pst-3sg>sg

KHANTY 741

It is usual for objects known from earlier discourse not to be expressed by overt NPs; indexing of their number on the verb is obligatory (92). (92) iki sårt wä̌ɬ-ø-ø,imi nik man pike kill.pst.3sg woman ‘The man caught a pike, the woman boiled it.’

mŏɬ-təɣ into.water boil.pst-3sg>sg

Use of the subjective and objective conjugations in eastern and northern varieties diverges strongly. Objective conjugation forms occur much more frequently in northern variety texts (Nikolaeva 1999a, 1999c, 2001; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). When the beneficiary (recipient) is treated as the syntactic (primary) direct object, the objective conjugation is obligatory (93). (93) Shur. anťe-l ńawrem-al ńań-ǝn mother-3sg child-3sg bread-loc ‘The mother gives the child bread.’

mă-l-li give-prs-3sg>sg

In Surgut Khanty, the verb in this clause can take subjective morphology, for example, 3sg -ø in this example (94). (94) ȧŋki ńewrem-əɬ ńȧń-ȧt mə-ɬ-ø mother child-3sg bread-insf give-prs-3sg ‘The mother gives bread to her child.’ Furthermore, in northern varieties, the presence of personal pronouns in object function triggers the objective conjugation, that is, there is double encoding of the object; in eastern dialects, on the other hand, the category of object person is involved: while axis-of-discourse (= locutor) objects co-occur with subjective conjugation verb forms, third-person object pronouns differ according to number: the singular pronominal object (ɬü̆wȧt) co-occurs with subjective verb forms, while dual and plural pronoun objects (ɬinȧt, ɬəɣȧt) co-occur with definite, that is, object-number-indexing, conjugation forms (95). (95) måɬqătɬ sȧšȧ kȧt ȧmpmoq-qən tuw. (mȧ) yesterday Sasha two puppy-du bring.pst.3sg 1sg ɬipet-ɣəɬ-ȧm feed.pst-du-1sg ‘Yesterday Sasha brought two puppies. I fed the two of them.’

(ɬinȧt) 3du.acc

If, as is usual, the 3sg object pronoun is not present, the objective conjugation is again obligatory: (96) måɬqătɬ sȧšȧ ȧmpmoq tuw. (mȧ) yesterday Sasha puppy bring.pst.3sg 1sg ‘Yesterday Sasha brought a puppy. I fed it.’

ɬipt-em. feed-pst.1sg>sg

In one use of the passive, the performer of the action is a generic one or is unknown, and it is the result of the action that is important. In such circumstances, there is only a subject in the clause, for example, (97‒99).

742 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

(97)

(mȧ) uńiversiťet-ȧ wəj-ojəm 1sg university-lat take-pst.pass.1sg ‘I was accepted at university.’

 (98) jäŋk-ət nåpət-ɬ-ȧt ice-pl make.flow-prs-pass.3pl ‘Ice floes are carried along (with/by the current).’  (99) məŋ školȧ-ɣəw-nə ȧnglijskij 1pl school-1pl-loc English ‘In our school English language is taught.’

jȧsəŋ language

ŏnəɬtə-ɬ-i teach-prs-pass.3sg

But the passive is also used to highlight (focalize) the performer of the action. When so focalized, it is put in the locative case and the subject is the topic, as in example (100). (100) mȧ ťeťe-m-nə nŏq ä̌nəmt-ojəm 1sg paternal.grandmother-1sg-loc up raise-pst.pass.1sg ‘(As for me,) I was raised by my father’s mother.’ T mȧs fťeťe-m-nəe nŏq ä̌nəmt-ojəm In Surgut Khanty, a further and fairly characteristic use of the passive construction seems to overlap with its active equivalent; that is, the performer of the action may appear as the locative argument of the passive verb or as the nominative argument of the active verb, and in both cases, it functions as the topic of the sentence. In this case, the function of the passive verb and the locative flagging is allegedly the differentiation of an otherwise (if nominal) zero-suffixed subject and object: (101) ȧj ä̌wəli-nə kuruškȧ iɬə kö̌s-i little girl-loc mug away break-pst.pass.3sg ‘The mug was broken by the little girl.’ In the Kazym and Obdorsk dialects, the personal pronouns have no locative forms and do not appear in passive clauses as the performers of an action. Surgut dialects, on the other hand, use the pronouns freely in such constructions, for example: ̆ ̇ ̇ t, (102) ɬapət wŏnt qår såɣɬ-ət, mȧ-nə jäwt-a tŏwə yɬə seven forest r’deer.bull run-pst.3pl 1sg-loc shoot-pst.pass.3pl away down kö̆rɣ-ət fall.down-pst.3pl ‘Seven wild reindeer bulls were running (by), I shot them, they fell down dead.’ This use of the passive feeds into the s/a/cs pivot: the reindeer can remain the topic throughout because they are syntactic subjects. Finally, in two circumstances, an intransitive clause may be put in the passive (for more details on passive, see Kulonen 1989). One is with generic subjects, as in (103). (103) qŏɬnə Surgut wåč-ȧ mən-ɬ-i how Surgut town-lat go-prs-pass.3sg ‘How does one get to Surgut?’

KHANTY 743

The other occurs in clauses with verbs of motion and animate actors, in a construction reminiscent of ditransitive clauses. Corresponding to the active clause (104), one can build a passive ‘equivalent’ in which the recipient (goal) of the motion is the subject, while the moving actors are in the locative (105). (104) məŋȧti-nȧm măč 1pl-apr guest ‘Guests came to us.’

jåɣ people

jŏwt-ət arrive-pst.3pl

(105) (məŋ) măč jåɣ-nə jŏwt-oj-əw 1pl guest people-loc arrive-pst.pass-1pl ‘Guests came to us (= we were arrived at by guests).’ As the previous examples show, the major constituent order for neutral clauses is S/ AOV. Still, this pattern is not without exception, for example, adverbials can wind up after the verb. If the object is a direct quotation, the order V A is normal in the quoting clause. Clauses with special information structure can also employ non-SOV patterns; in these cases, intonation can also help the interpretation of the sentence, for example, (106a-c). (106a) pəsȧn owti-nə kȧt kuruškȧ-ɣən, mətəpi wə-ɬ-ən table surface-loc two mug-du which take-prs-2sg ‘There are two mugs on the table. Which one are you taking?’ (106b) mȧ wə-ɬ-əm "temi, nǚŋ "tŏmi 1sg take-prs-1sg det 2sg det (106c) temi wə-ɬ-əm "mȧ, tŏmi "nüŋ det take-prs-1sg 1sg det 2sg Both (106b) and (106c) may be translated as ‘I’ll take this one, you take that one.’ Various particles serve to place certain parts of a clause in relief, for example, mǚwə functioning as a focusing particle in example (107). (107) ȧŋk-e mǚwə sup wä̌r? əntȧ, ope-m. mother-2sg ptcl soup make.pst.3sg neg older.sister-1sg ‘Was it your mother who made the soupʔ No, my older sister.’

16.17 CASE AND NP FLAGGING Surgut Khanty nouns can have zero suffix in any of the core argument functions S, A, or O and do not flag possessors. Thus, ‘Ivan’s father caught a big pike’ can be expressed with just bare nouns plus a verb which itself bears only zero suffixes: wä̌ɬ (108) [iwȧnR ȧťi]A [ənəɬ sɔrt]O Ivan father big pike kill.pst.3sg ‘Ivan’s father caught a big pike.’

744 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

In passive constructions, however, O becomes S and A becomes an extension to the core, taking the locative case suffix, as in example (109). [ənəɬ sɔrt]s wä̌ɬ-i (109) [iwȧn ȧťi-nə]e Ivan father-loc big pike kill-pst.pass.3sg ‘Ivan’s father caught a big pike (= a big pike was caught by I.’s father).’ There is a further construction which has—misleadingly—been termed ‘ergative,’ but unlike prototypical ergative constructions, the Khanty Locative can encode intransitive subjects as well. Besides, the most recent investigations (Filchenko 2006; Sosa 2017) speak not of ergativity but rather of constructions in which the subject is flagged with loc. These constructions are met with far more frequency in the easternmost dialects; in Surgut dialects, they are quite rare. Sosa, having investigated Surgut data, found that loc-flagged subjects have a discourse/pragmatic role: subjects occur in loc case if there has been switch reference, specifically: if an older topic reappears in the narration (110). (110)

mȧ-nə nü̆rəɣt-əm tŏm jä̌ŋk pä̌lək-ȧ 1sg-loc run-pst.1sg det lake half/side-lat ‘As for me, I ran to the other side of the lake.’

The accusative and dative are flagged on personal pronouns only (see Section 16.9). Nouns in recipient or beneficiary roles usually appear in the lative, as in sentence (88), or the beneficiary may instead be the primary object, and the gift a peripheral argument (see example 89). In passive clauses, the giver is in the locative, as in sentence (90). The nominal case suffixes encode peripheral arguments (place, time, means, companion, aim, state, change-of-state). In Surgut Khanty, local case is mildly tripartite, with loc -nə encoding ‘place where,’ abl -i encoding ‘whence,’ and ‘place to which’ being expressed by two suffixes in competition, lat -ȧ and apr -nȧm; the latter, however, refers to directionality only (qɔt-nə ‘in the house,’ qɔt-i ‘out of the house,’ qɔt-ȧ ‘into the house,’ qɔt-nȧm toward the house’). Finer spatial distinctions are made with postpositions, for example, put ɬəɣpi-nə / ɬəɣpi-jȧ / ɬəɣpij-i pot interior-loc / interior-lat / interior-abl ‘inside / into / from inside a pot’ (ɬəɣpi ‘interior’) vs. pəsȧn owti-nə / owti-jȧ / owti-ji table surface-loc / surface-lat / surface-abl ‘on a table / onto a table / from off a table’ (owti ‘surface’). The ablative is used not only to denote real or metaphorical motion away from X but also in a prolative sense, for example, lek-i ‘on/along the road,’ owpi-ji ‘through the door(way).’ All the spatial cases have temporal uses as well. The functions of cases insf and com partially overlap: while both are used to encode means, the comitative is both more productive and more concrete: kü̆r-ȧt ‘on foot,’ ɬȧjəm-nȧt ‘with an axe,’ ȧwtobus-nȧt ‘by bus.’ Most notably, the comitative expresses accompaniment, as in jeje-m-nȧt jŏwt-əm ‘I came with my older brother.’ The insf is also used to express purpose: jəŋk-ȧt mən ‘s/he went for (= to get) water’; for its use in ditransitive constructions, see the following. The suffix of the abessive -ɬəɣ flags adverbial roles of NPs in the clause, as in tǚwətɬəɣ ťenə jü̆w-əw fire-abe thus come-pst.1pl ‘we came without any fire.’ Besides, when attached to nouns, it functions as a derivational suffix (sä̌m.ɬəɣ iki ‘blind (“eyeless”) man’), cf. Section 16.15.

KHANTY 745

Certain verbs require particular cases as extensions to the intransitive core, for example, ɬăŋq- ‘want,’ ɬȧɣɬəks- ‘wait (for), mä̆nč- ‘desire,’ wɔɣint- ‘request’ take NPs in insf -ȧt, but pəɬ- ‘fear,’ qăńťəqint- ‘take fright’ take NPs in abl -i. Northern varieties, with far fewer cases, arrange their syntax differently. In Shuryshkar Khanty, for example, both the giver and the gift of ditransitive constructions go into the locative in the passive (111). (111)

ańťe-l-n ńawrem-əl ńań-ən mother-3sg-loc child-3sg bread-loc ‘The child is given bread by its mother.’

mă-l-a give-prs-pass.3sg

In a concrete parallel to this syntactic state of affairs, Northern Khanty dialects also lack a tripartite system of spatial suffixes: in the Kazym and Shuryshkar dialects, there is a loc and a lat, but no abl suffix (this being expressed by a postposition). In the Obdorsk dialects, there is no dedicated abl suffix, and the one suffix -na encodes both lative and locative meanings (see Section 16.4). The system of case suffixes is supplemented by an extensive set of postpositions. However, the size of the suffixal and postpositional systems are not interdependentː Zs. Schön (2017, 178) found nearly as many postpositions in Surgut Khanty (66, with nine case suffixes) as in Kazym Khanty (68, with only three case suffixes).5 There is much synonymy among the postpositions, requiring further investigation. In Surgut Khanty, for example, there are five postpositions meaning ‘next to’; the stationary forms are surənə, qɔnəŋnə, uɬnəŋnə, quťəŋnə, pŏŋəɬnə. 16.18 LEXICON AND PRAGMATICS The most influential dialectological dictionaries are Paasonen and Donner (1926), Karjalainen and Toivonen (1948), and Steinitz (1967–1993). The core Khanty lexicon is of Uralic, Finno-Ugric, or Ugric vintage; the Uralonet database (www.uralonet.nytud.hu/) includes 873 Khanty items among its entries. On the other hand, there is a significant Ob-Ugrian innovative layer, with something between 200 and 400 members, depending on the analysis (Sipos 2002–2003). The numerous contacts with speakers of other languages has resulted most visibly in vocabulary copied from Komi (Toivonen 1956), Turkic (Toivonen 1944), and to a lesser degree, Tungusic (Futaky 1975), Iranian (Korenchy 1972), and Samoyedic (Sauer 1990). Russian influence begins to dominate from the seventeenth century. Earlier Russian loans were adapted to Khanty phonology, but nowadays, with the near ubiquity of bilingualism, Russian loanwords preserve much of their original phonological features (including the placement of the Russian accent), and most Khanty speech is characterized by frequent code-switching. Throughout, there has been continuous language reform of various degrees of consciousness. The Khanty intelligentsia strive to find semantically and morphologically justifiable Khanty equivalents to express new concepts. The most common kind of word-formation, constructions built with nonfinite verb forms, was mentioned in Section 16.5; but only practice through time will determine whether these neologisms become lexicalized in some way or whether such complex constructions as jis ǒt əkət-tə qɔt ‘ancient thing collect-ing house (= museum)’ are replaced by simply copying the Russian word muzey.

746 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

Characteristic of native vocabulary are terms denoting and descriptive of the terrain, flora, and fauna of north-western Siberia. Many such terms are members of paronymic pairs, used in parallel lines in folklore texts, such as Surg. wŏnt ‘forest’ and its paronymic pair-word wŏr ‘(dark) forest,’ but also such hyponyms as jɔɣəm ‘dry subsoil pine forest in which reindeer lichen grows,’ uɬəq ‘mixed wood growing on the banks of a small river,’ ńɔrəm ‘marsh with sparse pine growth,’ and others. The vocabulary of hunting and fishing is also particularly rich (see PD, KT, DEWOS and Terëškin 1981). The Khanty system of kinship terms depicts consanguinity, affinity, and further societal relations with intricate precision. In both Ob-Ugrian languages (as well as in Selkup), there exist adverbial semantically opposed pairs which, though not formed from etymologically connected roots, nevertheless show near-perfect identities of meaning, for example, Surgut nik denotes movement (1) from the shore toward the water, (2) from the inside of the house toward the entrance door, and (3) up toward over the hearth/fire; conversely, utə denotes movement (1) from the water onto the shore, (2) from the entrance door into the interior of the house, and (3) down from the hearth/fire. The connections among these seemingly disparate senses may be explained in older genre de vie: caves dug into steep/high riverbanks, with the fireplace built into a recess near the entrance (Csepregi 2009). Other languages spoken to the East (Tungusic, Palaeosiberian) also have complex systems expressing movement from and to (natural) water and (man-made) fire (Pevnev and Urmančieva 2008/2009); these deictic systems probably reflect ancient Siberian Sprachbund phenomena. Taboo was also of great importance in traditional Khanty culture. At key times—at the birth of a child, after a death, while making preparations for hunting—words and ways of speaking had to be selected with care so as not to attract the attention of supernatural powers or the animal world. In Khanty, the most elaborated form of taboo language centred on the bear cult: during the ceremonies held after the killing of the bear, it was strictly forbidden to use profane (i.e. everyday) expressions. To avoid these, taboo substitutes were created by a wide range of linguistic means, including derivation, circumlocation, metaphor, loanwords, and wilful formal distortion (Sz. Bakró-Nagy 1979). More recent investigations have proved these practices to be still alive today (Csepregi and Kajukova 2011). But at the same time, it was found that ceremonial bear language, being a secret language, is known to only a small number of individuals, and that with the neglect of the cult, this form of the language is gradually coming to be forgotten. Paradoxically, there are now some words which, while once taboo, now have not only everyday currency but also pejorative nuance: for example, the epithet once specific to the bear (jimpəs, roughly ‘sacred’) is now used disparagingly to refer to a corpulent person of clumsy movement, and the verb which at the bear festival was ̆ nowadays is used for ‘to gobble,’ and the secret verb for ‘to sing’ used to mean ‘eat’ (ťökər-) (toŋəɬtə-) is used today to describe singing that is loud, unmusical, and drunken. 16.19 TEXT The following text is based on Aypin (2003, 69–70). wərtə moqə|li săr-min qɔt  măɣəɬti qowət|ɬiɬ-əɣ, ȧŋki-ɬ wuɣ red whelp|dim cry-cvb house around run|freq-pst.3sg mother -3sg call.pst.3sg ‘The red reindeer calf ran crying around the house, it was calling its mother.’

KHANTY 747

ȧťe-m-nə yɬə kȧtəɬ-ɬ-i  pȧnə kö̆t-nȧt qăjəm-nȧm father-1sg-loc down seize-prs-pass.3sg and hand-com grazing-apr ȧɬt-ɬ-i, take-prs-pass.3sg tŏm qɔt|əŋ jɔɣ weɬi-t kuťəŋ-nȧm that house|adj people r’deer-pl near-apr ‘My father grabs it and takes it to graze with the neighbours’ reindeer.’ top iɬə ä̆səɬ-ɬ-i, pȧnə pə only away allow-prs-pass.3sg and ptcl ‘As soon as it’s let go it starts running home.’

jăqə-nȧm homeward-apr

sȧɣəɬ-ɬ gallop-prs.3sg

ȧŋk&ȧŋke-m, sä̆m-əɬ moq-ȧ qɔj-tə-ɣȧ, mother&mother-1sg eye-3sg whelp-lat fall-ptcp.prs-lat ńăwmə-ɬ: ‘kərək ŏt os jăqə-nȧm jǚ-ɬ!’ say-prs.3sg sin thing again homeward-apr come-prs.3sg ‘My grandmother, when she sees the whelp, says: “Poor thing! It’s come back again!”’ ‘pȧ qŏɬ-nȧm mən-əɬ?’ jə-ɬ other where-apr go-prs.3sg start-prs.3sg ‘“Where else could it go?” says my mother.’

ȧŋke-m mother-1sg

‘pȧ mən-tə tɔɣi əntem’ jȧstə-ɬ ȧŋk&ȧŋke-m other go-ptcp.prs place neg say-prs.3sg mother&mother-1sg ‘“There’s nowhere else to go,” says my grandmother.’ ‘wərtə moq ȧŋki-ɬ qăɬ-tə tɔɣi qyj-tə wä̆r əntə tăjȧ-ɬ’ Red whelp mother-3 sg die-ptcp.prs place leave-ptcp.prs deed neg have-prs.3sg ‘The red reindeer calf does not usually leave the place where its mother died.’ ‘kǚč mǚw məɣ-ȧ tuw-e, ä̆səɬ-tə pyrnə pə as what land-lat bring-pst.2sg>sg let.go-ptcp.prs after ptcl ȧŋki-ɬ qŏlȧtti tuw-əm tɔɣi-ɬ-ȧ kirəɣɬə-ɬ’ mother-3sg somewhere bring-ptcp.pst place-3sg-lat turn-prs.3sg ‘If you take it to some other place, as soon as you let go of it, it’ll go to where its mother died.’ ‘səm-əɬ tä̆ŋər-ɬ-i, mǚwəɬi-jȧt ɬȧpət-ɬ-i?’ ńăwəm ȧŋke-m heart-3sg squeeze-prs-pass.3sg what-insf feed-prs-pass.3sg say.pst.3sg mother-1sg ‘It’s hungry, what shall we feed it?’ says my mother. ä̆səm&jəŋk jȧ mǚw tɔɣi-ji wə-ɬ-i, sȧɬəm-ȧt ɬȧpət-tȧ breast&water ptcl what place-abl take-prs-pass.3sg fish.mush-insf feed-inf wä̆r-i do-pst.pass.3sg ‘Where could we have got milk? We began to feed it fishmeal.’

748 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

mətȧ mä̆rə wăɬ-əm pyrnə something time be-ptcp.pst after ŏnəɬ grow.accustomed.pst.3sg ‘After a while it grew used to this food.’

ťi ptcl

ɬi-tə eat-ptcp.prs

ŏt-ȧ thing-lat

qăjəm-i jŏwət-t-ȧɬ ɬȧt-nə, pȧnə pə owpi-jȧ qyrəmtə-ɬ, grazing-abl arrive-ptcp.prs-3sg time-loc and ptcl door-lat jump-prs.3sg ɬi-tə ŏt ɬȧɣəɬ-ɬ eat-ptcp.prs thing await-prs.3sg ‘When it comes back from pasturage, it rushes to the door, it’s waiting for the food.’ čămə kǚrəm-nə əntə ɬȧpət-ɬ-i quntə, straight step-loc neg feed-prs-pass.3sg when owpi ɬŏŋq-nȧt sä̆ŋk-tȧɣə jə-ɬ door hoof-com hit-inf start-prs.3sg ‘If it isn’t fed right away, it starts kicking the door with its hoof.’ sä̆m.ti, pytə-ɬ: pä̆stȧ mətɬi-jȧt məj-itəɣ, ɬi-tȧ jəɣ-əm visible be.angry-prs.3sg quickly something-insf give-imp.2pl eat-inf want-pst.1sg ‘It’s clear that it’s angry: give me something (to eat) quickly, I want to eat.’ owpi kelək-kə wăɬ-tə-nə, pȧnə uɣ-əɬ qɔt-ȧ ä̌tə-ɬ door open-tra be-ptcp.prs-loc and head-3sg house-lat appear-prs.3sg ‘If the door is open, its head pops into the house.’ ȧŋk&ȧŋkem ťumint ńăwmə-ɬ: ‘ȧɬ ä̆sɬ-ittən qɔt-ȧ mother&mother-1sg such say-prs.3sg proh allow-imp.2du>sg house-lat ‘My grandmother says: “Don’t let it into the house!”’ ȧɬ’ proh ‘Don’t!’ ‘ťut mǚw-ȧt?’ det mi-insf ‘Why?’ I ask.

mȧ-nə 1sg.pro-loc

pyri-ɬ-i ask-prs-pass.3sg

‘ńičə, ɬǚw ɬejəɬ-tȧ ɬăŋqȧ-ɬ, qŏɬnə qăntəɣ jɔɣ wăɬ-ɬ-ət’ ptcl 3sg.pro see-inf want-prs.3sg how Khanty people live-prs-3pl ‘Maybe it wants to see how Khanty people live.’ ‘weɬi qăntək qo wăɬ-tə qɔt-ȧ ä̆səɬ-tȧ r’deer Khanty man live-ptcp.prs house-lat allow-inf əntə mustə-ɬ‘, əj kö̆ɬ-əɬ-nə ɔməs-ɬ ȧŋk&ȧŋke-m neg be.permitted-prs.3sg one word-3sg-loc sit-prs.3sg mother&mother-1sg ‘To let reindeer in a house inhabited by a Khanty man is not permitted,’ says my grandmother, she sticks to what she says.

KHANTY 749

‘ɬǚwȧti ȧtəm-ɣə 3sg.pro.dat bad-tra ‘It will be bad for him,

pit fall.pst.3sg

ȧtəm-ɣə.’ bad-tra ‘bad.’ əntə mustə-ɬ quntə, neg be.permitted-prs.3sg if ‘If it’s not allowed, it’s not allowed.’ mȧ-nə owpi kȧč-ɬəɣ 1sg.pro-loc door good.grace-abe ‘Peevishly, I shut the door.’

əntə neg tăwər-ɬ-i. shut-prs-pass.3sg

NOTES 1 The author would like to acknowledge the grant of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary Nro. 129921, and the help of the editors of the present volume, and Katalin Gugán. 2 http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm. 3 There are two reasons for this: in the Pim and Jugan subdialects, the change γw > w has fully run its course, and in native Surgut vocabulary, there is no word-internal /w/. In the Tromagan and Agan subdialects, /w/ occurs in front-vowel environments, for example, newi ‘white,’ kä̌wrəm ‘hot,’ while the velar fricative occurs only in back-vowel environments, for example, jŏγwət ‘s/he arrived,’ sŏγw ‘animal hide.’ The current orthography is undecided. According to Honti (1999, 70), there was a *γw in proto-Khanty, surviving only in Surgut and Salim dialects; it is conceivable that Surgut labialization of velars has its origin there. 4 Further illustrative examples will be found in the text at the end of this chapter; the number to the right indexes the sentence number there (Section 19). 5 These numbers refer to the number of postpositional stems, that is, yɬpi-nə yɬpi-ji yɬpijȧ count as one. REFERENCES Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. “Khanty.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 358–386. London: Routledge. Aypin, E. 2003. Ма мəҳэв ӄөӆəнтəӆэм. Sankt-Peterburg: Prosveščenie. Bakró-Nagy, Marianne. 1979. Die Sprache des Bärenkultes im Ob-ugrischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Castrén, Matthias Alexander. 1849. “Versuch einer ostjakischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss.” Nordische Reisen und Forschungen 6. St. Petersburg. Csepregi, Márta. 1998. Szurguti osztják chrestomathia. Szeged: JATE. Csepregi, Márta. 2009. “Egy obi-ugor igekötőpár—kognitív szempontból.” In Tanár és tanítvány: Írások Györke József és Hajdú Péter tiszteletére, edited by Éva Fancsaly, 146–156. Pécs: Dialóg Campus.

750 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

Csepregi, Márta. 2014a. “Evidentiality in Dialects of Khanty.” Linguistica Uralica 50 (3): 199–211. Csepregi, Márta. 2014b. “Multi-functional Participles in Surgut-Khanty.” Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 270: 57–72. Csepregi, Márta. 2017. Сургутский диалект хантыйского языка. Khanty-Mansijsk: OUIPIiR. Csepregi, Márta, and Ljudmila Kajukova. 2011. “Szellemekkel teli nagy lábaskamra. Adalékok a keleti hanti medveműnyelvhez.” Folia Uralica Debreceniensia 18: 43–59. Csepregi, Márta, and Sofia Onina. 2011. “Observations of Khanty Identity: The Synya and Surgut Khanty.” In Ethnic and Linguistic Context of Identity: Finno-Ugric Minorities, edited by Riho Grünthal and Magdolna Kovács, 341–358. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. F. Gulyás, Nikolett. 2018. “Ditranzitív szerkezetek a keleti hantiban: a mǝ- ’ad’ ige.” Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 30: 71–95. Filchenko, Andrey. 2006. “The Eastern Khanty Locative-agent Constructions: A Functional Discourse-pragmatic Perspective.” In Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena, edited by Benjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 47–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Filchenko, Andrey. 2010. Aspect of the Grammar of Eastern Khanty. Tomsk: Tomsk State University. Futaky, István. 1975. Tungusische Lehnwörter des Ostjakischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ganschow, G. 1965. Die Verbalbildung im Ostjakischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gugán, Katalin. 2013. “Aspektus és akcióminőség a hantiban.” PhD diss., University of Szeged. http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1958/2/tezisek_gugan_katalin_angol.pdf. Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak Chrestomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University. Havas, Ferenc, Márta Csepregi, Nikolett F. Gulyás, and Szilvia Németh. 2015. Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék. www.utdb.elte.hu. Honti, László. 1977. “Beobachtungen über die Laut- und Formenlehre gegenwärtiger surguter Mundarten des Ostjakischen.” Acta Linguistica Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 271–286. Honti, László. 1984. Chrestomathia Ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Honti, László. 1988. “Die ostjakische Sprache.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Denis Sinor, 172–196. Leiden: EJ. Brill. Honti, László. 1998. “Obugrian.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 327–357. London: Routledge. Honti, László. 1999. Az obi-ugor konszonantizmus története. Szeged: JATE. Kaksin, Andrey Danilovič. 2007. Казымский диалект хантыйского языка. Khanty-Mansijsk: Poligrafist. Karjalainen, Kustaa Fredrik, and Yrjö Henrik Toivonen. 1948. Ostjakisches Wörterbuch I‒II. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Karjalainen, Kustaa Fredrik, and Edith Vértes. 1964. Grammatikalische Aufzeichnungen aus ostjakischen Mundarten. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen seura. Korenchy, Éva. 1972. Iranische Lehnwörter in den obugrischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Koškarëva, N. B. 2014. “Глагольное словообразование в сургутском диалекте хантыйского языка.” Вестник угроведения 16 (1): 23–45. Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 1989. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura.

KHANTY 751

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 8th ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com. Nëmysova, E. A., ed. 1988. Хантыйский язык. Leningrad: Prosveščenie. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1995. Обдорский диалект хантыйского языка. Hamburg: Buske. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999a. Ostyak. München: LINCOM Europa. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999b. “The Semantics of Northern Khanty Evidentials.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 88: 131–159. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999c. “Object Agreement, Grammatical Relations, and Information Structure.” Studies in Language 23 (2): 331–376. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. “Secondary Topic as a Relation in Information Structure.” Linguistics 39 (1): 1–49. Onyina, Szofia. 2009. Szinjai hanti társalgási szótár: nyelvtani vázlattal és szójegyzékkel. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tansz. Paasonen, Heikki, and Kai Donner. 1926. Ostjakisches Wörterbuch nach den Dialekten an der Konda und am Jugan. Helsingfors: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Paasonen, Heikki, and Edith Vértes. 1965. “Ostjakische grammatikalische Aufzeichnungen nach den Dialekten an der Konda und am Jugan.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 66 (2): 3–96. Patkanow, S., and Dávid Rafael Fuchs. 1911. Laut- und Formenlehre der süd-ostjakischen Dialekte. Budapest: Franklin Verein. Pevnev, A. N., and A. Yu. Urmančieva. 2008/2009. “Неординарная изополисемия в некоторых языках северной Азии.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32 (33): 519–556. Rédei, Károly. 1965. Northern Ostyak Chrestomathy. Bloomington: Indiana University. Sauer, Gert. 1967. Die Nominalbildung im Ostjakischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Sauer, Gert. 1990. “Ostjakisch-selkupische lexikalische Beziehungen.” In Congressus Septimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 1B, edited by László Keresztes and Sándor Maticsák, 133–138. Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem. Schön, Zsófia. 2017. “Pospositionale Konstruktionen in chantischen Dialekten.” PhD diss., LMU Munich. Sipos, Mária. 2002–2003. “Az obi-ugor alapnyelv lexikális innovációi I–II.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 99: 7–57; Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100: 245–263. Skribnik, E. 2014–2017. “Ob-Ugric database.” www.oudb.gwi.uni-muenchen.de. Skribnik, E., and E. Kovgan. 1986. “Притяжательные аффиксы в определительных конструкциях.” In Языки народов севера Сибири, edited by М. И. Черемисина, 39–50. Novosibirsk: SOAN. Skribnik, E., and N. Koškarëva. 1996. “Khanty and Mansi: The Contemporary Linguistic Situation.” In Shamanism and Northern Ecology, edited by Juha Pentikäinen, 207– 217. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sosa, Sachiko. 2017. Functions of Morphosyntactic Alternations and Information Flow in Surgut Khanty Discourse. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1950a. Ostjakische Grammatik und Chrestomathie mit Wörterverzeichnis, 2nd ed. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1950b. Geschichte des ostjakischen Vokalismus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1967–1993. Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wörterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache, 1–15. Lieferungen, Berlin: Akademie Verlag (DEWOS). Terëškin, N. I. 1961. Очерки диалектов хантыйского языка. Ваховский диалект. Moskva: Nauka.

752 MÁRTA CSEPREGI

Terëškin, N. I. 1981. Словарь восточнохантыйских диалектов. Leningrad: Nauka. Toivonen, Yrjö Henrik. 1944. “Türkische Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 52: 1–20. Toivonen, Yrjö Henrik. 1956. “Über die syrjänischen Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen.” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 32: 1–169. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

CHAPTER 17

NGANASAN Beáta Wagner-Nagy

17.1 GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, DEMOGRAPHY, AND DIALECTS Nganasan [ˈŋana(Ɂ)san] is spoken on the Taimyr Peninsula in Northern Siberia.1 It is the easternmost Uralic language, the northernmost language of Eurasia, and second only to Inuit, the northernmost language in the world. Traditionally, the Nganasan were reindeer hunters and fishermen. Unlike the Nenets, they kept only small domestic reindeer herds. Their vast nomadic territory lay in the central part of the Taimyr Peninsula, between the forest-tundra boundary to the south and the Byrranga Mountains to the north (see Figure 17.1). Their presence in this area is attested at least since the eighteenth century; one can reasonably assume that earlier, the predecessors of the Nganasan lived farther east as well (see Dolgikh 1952). This remote, relatively inaccessible territory with harsh climate and only few natural resources was of no interest to colonizers, and for a long time, the Nganasan were left in peace; it is of particular cultural importance that they were never formally Christianized. The Nganasan preserved their traditional way of life and culture until the second half of the twentieth century, and their language was consequently extremely well preserved. The situation began to change in the 1960s, when Nganasan were forced by Soviet Policy to settle in multilingual villages, where they lived together with Dolgans and immigrant Russian-speaking populations. Education was introduced in the 1930s; at school, Russian is used as the language of instruction. Nowadays, children no longer acquire Nganasan as their first language (see Krivonogov 2001). By the end of the 1970s, the Nganasan had lost their last domesticated reindeer; as a result, their traditional nomadic lifestyle became impossible. Today, the last fully fluent speakers are in their sixties and seventies. There are now only a few dozen of them, and all of them also know and use Russian. Among younger individuals, knowledge of Nganasan varies more or less in proportion to age, but the first language of ethnic Nganasan is always Russian. Children under 16 years of age do not speak Nganasan at all. Most Nganasan now live in the villages of Ust’-Avam, Volochanka, and Novaya, though some live in other villages and cities on the Taimyr Peninsula as well. Nganasan has two dialects, Avam and Vadey; they are quite similar and are mutually fully intelligible. Dialectal differences are typically lexical and phonetic, for example, ‘to work’ is ŋojbəu-ďa in Avam but torəu-ďa in Vadey, while ‘day’ is ďalɨ in Avam but jalɨ in Vadey. The Vadey dialect was spoken in eastern Taimyr, where the population is now predominantly Dolgan, and many Nganasan switched to Dolgan before Dolgan began to give way to Russian. The last speakers of the Vadey dialect live in the village of Novaya; this dialect is much less researched, and there are only a few recordings in it. The study of Nganasan has always been centred on the Avam dialect, which is now spoken DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-17

754 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

FIGURE 17.1 A CLOSE-UP MAP OF THE TAIMYR PENINSULA WITH THE LOCATION OF NGANASAN-SPEAKING SETTLEMENTS. Source: Rantanen et al. 2022.

in Ust’-Avam and Volochanka. This dialect can itself be divided into two subdialects (Pyasina and Taimyr), but the differences are quite minor. The description in this chapter is based on the Avam dialect without differentiating the subdialects. In earlier times, the languages which neighboured Nganasan were Enets, Dolgan, and Evenki, but their influence on Nganasan was most significant in the remote past: evidence of recent contact phenomena are very few, if any. As the transition to Russian was rather abrupt, there has been no considerable Russian influence on Nganasan. The first written record of Nganasan is a translation of the Lord’s prayer made at the end of the seventeenth century and published by Nicolas Witsen in 1692 (see Gusev 2010). In the eighteenth century, some word lists were collected by Gerhard Friedrich Müller during the second Kamchatka Expedition (1733–1743). The first grammatical description of Nganasan was compiled by Matthias Alexander Castrén (1854). More intensive study of Nganasan began in the 1960s. Researchers from the Dul’zon school in Tomsk recorded many texts (see Skazki narodov Sibirskogo Severa 1976, 1980, 1981, and later publications). In 1979, Natalia Tereshchenko published the first extensive grammar of Nganasan. Eugene Helimski did fieldwork in Nganasan from as early as 1986 and, among other things, described the complex system of its morphophonology (Helimski 1994, 1998) and collected substantial lexical data that are still unpublished. Since the 1990s, Nganasan has been extensively documented: a large number of texts have been recorded and transcribed among other scholars by Maria Brykina and Valentin Gusev; part of these data are being processed now within the scope of the DFG project WA3153/2-1 (Brykina et al. 2016, 2018), and a new grammar has been published (Wagner-Nagy 2019). In this chapter, examples are taken mainly from the Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (NSLC, see Brykina et al. 2018). Examples are coded as follows: acronym of speaker_ year_title of text.number of the sentence, for example, ChND_080722_TwoFriends_ flk. Examples coded [XYZ, year] are elicited data.

NGANASAN 755

17.2 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Nganasan is a highly flexional, basically SOV language. One of its defining characteristics is its complex morphophonology, which includes several independent alternation processes with little or no synchronic phonological motivation (17.3.2). Nouns (17.4) inflect for number (sg, du, pl) and case (with three grammatical and four locational cases) and can take a full paradigm of possessive suffixes (for three persons and three numbers) as well as suffixes for a category specific to Northern Samoyedic, the predestinative. All verb stems may be classified into two aspectual classes—telic and atelic (17.7). Verbs are obligatorily indexed for subject person-and-number and, in some instances, for object number. Verbs may also be modified by a large number of mood, modal, and Aktionsart suffixes with many forms (e.g. attenuative, temporal, resultative) which are unique to Nganasan (as compared with Nenets and Enets). There is also a small class of relator nouns and demonstratives, mostly with locational semantics, that take special (archaic) suffixes for lative, locative, and elative cases (17.8). In contrast to the rich suffix system employed in verb formation, adjectives are not always clearly distinguished from nouns, although there are a few specific suffixes used to form adjectives (17.11). It must, however, be borne in mind that many concepts that are expressed in European languages by means of adjectives are in Nganasan expressed by verbs, as heku-sɨ ‘to be warm, to be hot,’ čəsʲi-sʲi ‘to be cold.’ Syntactically, there are almost no complex finite-form sentences; all subordinated clauses are built with embedded nonfinite forms (17.8.7). 17.3 PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSES 17.3.1 Phoneme inventory The Nganasan consonant system consists of 19 phonemes. The consonant [d] occurs only as a consequence of the sequence /nt/ at the onset of closed syllables, as in munundum ‘I say.’ It can therefore be considered an allophone of /t/. The consonants [ɡ] and [ð] occur only in the onsets of closed or historically closed syllables. However, due to historical processes, including the loss of some final consonants, /ð/ and /ɡ/ have acquired the status of phonemes: kotu ‘aunt’ vs. koðu ‘blizzard’ (< Old Nganasan koduŋ , Castrén 1855, 49), laku sword.nom vs. lagu sword.gen/acc. Non-distinctive gemination of stops can occur in intervocalic position, as təti [tətːi] ‘this.’ Table 17.1 sets out the inventory of Nganasan consonant phonemes. TABLE 17.1  CONSONANT PHONEMES IN NGANASAN Bilabial

Dental

Alveolar

Palatal

Stops

b

t

č 

Nasals

m

n

ń

Trill Fricatives

ď

Velar

Glottal

kɡ

ʔ

ŋ

r ð

s

Approximant Lateral approximants

Palatalized

sʲ j

l

lʲ

h

756 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

In formulating morphophonological rules, it is convenient to use the notion of the ‘quasi/zero-consonant’ (Helimskij 1994, Helimski 1998; Várnai 2002, 2010 among others). This is an empty segment which behaves like a consonant (for instance, it closes the preceding syllable) and is written here as superscript C. It is never audible in a base form, but it can emerge in certain inflected forms; compare the forms ŋanaʔsaN ‘person’ and ŋanaʔsanəC ‘person.acc’. Some suffixes are comprised of this quasi-consonant alone, for example, the gen.sg and acc.sg; at the surface, these case forms are distinguished from the nominative only by the alternations of any susceptible preceding consonant, for example, bahi ‘wild reindeer’ vs. babi (i.e. bahi-c) wild.reindeer.acc/gen. From a diachronic point of view, the empty segment has historical antecedents. According to its historical or phonological origin, a quasi-consonant can be written synchronically with N S , , and very occasionally, K. In most cases, these abstract segments correspond to hypothetical Proto-Nganasan and Proto-Samoyedic (sometimes Proto-Uralic) consonants, for example, Old Nganasan soruaŋ (Castrén 1855, 66) > soruaN ‘rain.’ In some words, quasi-consonants can be hypothesized even root-internally. Syllabic gradation does not apply to these stems, although the onset of the stem-final syllable is a consonant susceptible to gradation and in closed syllables should therefore be in weak grade, for example, čeCtə ‘four’ and čeCtə acc (not *čeðə). The rules of gradation are explained in greater detail in the next section. The vowel system of Nganasan is relatively simple: it consists of just eight simple vowel ͡ and /ua/, ͡ ͡ segments and two diphthongs, /ia/ with an allophone of the latter, [üa], occurring after palatal consonants. The vowel phonemes are presented in Table 17.2. Most Nganasan stems are bi- or trisyllabic, beginning with a consonant and ending in a vowel, for example, ńemɨ ‘mother,’ ŋondalkə ‘clever.’ In a word-final simple coda, only /j/, /m/, /ŋ/, /r/, and /ʔ/ are present. Monosyllabic words such as nɨ ‘woman’ are rare; suffixes are usually monosyllabic or bisyllabic. There is not a great number of syllable types: neither onset nor coda consonant is obligatory, and onsetless syllables can occur in all positions. Furthermore, neither closed nor open syllables are restricted to wordfinal position. The maximum possible syllable structure is CV͡VC, as in hu͡aj-mu ‘boot [footwear]’; the most preferred syllables are CV and CVC, as in bahi ‘wild reindeer,’ bigaj ‘river.’ The syllabification of vowel sequences is straightforward. If we demarcate a syllable boundary with , we may distinguish diphthongs, which form a complex nucleus (e.g. hi͡aŋ ‘palm of the hand’) from sequences of two distinct vowels, which constitute separate nuclei (sə$ə ‘heart,’ kə$i ‘side,’ hu͡a$a ‘tree’). After stems ending in such sequences, the rules of rhythmic gradation (see Section 17.3.2) dictate that the first consonant of the suffix appears in weak grade, just as after stem-final even-numbered syllables. Compare the two infinitive forms of čenɨ-dji ‘to know (how)’ and či$i-dji ‘to enter.’ TABLE 17.2  THE VOWEL PHONEMES OF NGANASAN Front

Central

Back Unrounded

Unrounded

Rounded

Unrounded

Close

i

ü

ɨ

u

Mid

e

ə

Open

͡ia

o u͡a

ɑ

Rounded

NGANASAN 757

Nganasan primary stress normally falls on the penultimate syllable: ˈka-ðar ‘light,’ ko-'ru-ðəʔ ‘houses.’ In trisyllabic words, it can be retracted to the first syllable: ˈsa-tə-rə or sa-ˈtə-rə ‘arctic fox.’ In word forms in which the vowel sequences are pronounced as single vowels, the stress placement rule may appear to be violated: kü$ˈma$a ‘knife’ vs. kü$ma$ˈa-mə ‘my knife,’ phonetically [küˈmaː] and [küˈmaːmə]. (See also Helimski 1998.) 17.3.2 Morphophonological processes The most important morphophonological processes in Nganasan are consonant gradation, vowel harmony (or suffix alternation), and several processes of assimilation. (See also Helimskij 1994, Helimski 1998 and Várnai 2002.) Consonant gradation involves alternations of certain word-internal consonants and consonant clusters. It involves two processes: rhythmic gradation (RG) and syllabic gradation (SG), which are ordered: the operation of rhythmic gradation always precedes that of syllabic gradation. Whenever RG has already affected a consonant, SG cannot affect it: no consonant(ism) undergoes gradation twice. Both types of gradation affect voiceless obstruents (t k s sʲ h) and homorganic nasal + voiceless obstruent clusters (nt ŋk ns ńsʲ ŋh). Rhythmic gradation depends on the rhythmic structure of words. A consonant in the onset position of a syllable that immediately follows an odd-numbered stem syllable (i.e. occurs in the onset of an even-numbered syllable) is in the strong grade; conversely, a consonant in the onset of a syllable that immediately follows an even-numbered syllable (i.e. is in the onset of an odd-numbered one) is in the weak grade. Note the alternation t : ð initial in the 3sg suffix in nɨ-tɨ woman-3sg ‘his woman’ but kolɨ-ðɨ fish-3sg ‘his fish.’ There are also a few rules which supplement rhythmic gradation, either blocking it where it would be expected or inducing it where it would not. If a suffix immediately follows a stem-final overt or quasi-consonant (C), any suffix-initial susceptible consonant is always in the strong grade, as in kaðar ‘light’: kaðar-tu light-3sg ‘his/her light’ and ŋəðuC ‘appearance’: ŋəðuC-tɨ appearance-3sg ‘his/her appearance.’ Furthermore, irrespective of the number of preceding syllables, a suffix-initial consonant is always weak if it immediately follows a sequence of two vowels: kümaa-ðu knife-3sg ‘his/her knife,’ latəə-ðu bone-3sg ‘his/her bone’ and bəntiə-ðu street-3sg ‘his/her street.’ Syllabic gradation, in contrast, is dependent upon whether a syllable is closed or open. If a non-word-initial syllable is open, or a closed non-word-initial syllable becomes open because of suffixation, the consonant is strong, and conversely, if a non-word-initial syllable is closed or becomes closed by suffixation, the consonant is weak. Compare the nominative and genitive singular forms of ‘hand’ ŋuta-∅ / ŋuða-c. Syllabic gradation appears not only in suffixed forms of a word but within stems as well, as in kaðar ‘light,’ in which the /ð/ in the onset of the closed second syllable appears in the weak grade; contrast the strong-grade /t/ of katarə-ʔ ‘light-pl,’ with epenthetic ə to the left of the syllable-closing plural suffix -ʔ. The quasi-consonant /C/ operates here like any other consonant: basa TABLE 17.3  CONSONANT GRADATION IN NGANASAN

RG/SG: strong grade RG: weak grade SG: weak grade

H

T

K

S

Sʲ

NH

NT

NK

NS

h

t

k

s

s

ŋh

nt

ŋk

ns

b

ð

g

ď

ď

h

t

k

s

NSʲ ńs sʲ

C

C

C

C

C

mb

nd

ŋg

ńď

ńď

758 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

‘iron’: baďa-C iron-gen/acc (Old Nganasan baja, Castrén 1855, 68). The following table shows the weak and strong grade of consonants trigerred by consonant gradation. Stems as well as suffixal consonants can also be affected by nunation, a process that restores the deleted nasal in NC sequences if the onset of the preceding syllable is a nasal, cf. ləŋɨ-ntɨ ‘it burns’ vs. basu-tu ‘(s)he hunts.’ Nunation is triggered after rhythmic gradationː contrast kərbu-tu-m ‘I want’ with munu-ndu-m ‘I say.’ Stem sočürə3 kərbu2 munu2

Suffix -NTU -NTU -NTU

Suffix -m -m -m

RG --kərbu-ctu-m munu-ctu-m

SyG Nunation Form > --sočürə-ndu-m ‘I sew’ ----kərbu-tu-m ‘I want’ --> munu-ntu-m ‘I say’

For a more detailed description of gradation, see Helimski (Helimskij 1994, Helimski 1998) or Várnai (2002). Nganasan vowels display sets of alternations which, in previous grammars and descriptions (Castrén 1854; Helimskij 1994; Helimski 1998; Várnai 2002), were presented as a kind of vowel harmony. From a synchronic point of view, Nganasan vowel harmony is not motivated at the surface, although the historical background of the vowel alternation is more or less clear (cf. Várnai and Wagner-Nagy 2003). At present, the harmonic value of a stem is no longer fully predictable; it is not determined, for instance, by any combination of surface indicators. Observe, for example, the superficially homophonous roots 1hon- ‘to possess’ and 2hon- ‘to plait’ with contrasting inflected forms honsɨə-ðɨ possess-pst-3sg>sg ‘s/he had it’ and hon-suə-ðu plait-pst-3sg>sg ‘s/he plaited it.’ In Nganasan, the most important factor in vowel harmony is historical backness: the inherent, inherited harmonic value of the stem determines which allomorphs of a suffix are affixed. Suffix vowels alternate according to this (often covert) harmonic value of the stem; they can have anywhere from one to four harmonic allomorphs. For this reason, in descriptions underlying vowels are used, written in majuscule, for example, U (u/ɨ/i/ü), A1 (a, ɨ, i), A2 (a, ͡ia), Ü (ü, i); and the often-covert overall prosody of a stem is classified as labial (U-class stems) or non-labial (Ɨ-class stems). There is also a more recent, short-range kind of harmony involving the palatalization of coronals in front-vowel environments. If a high front vowel (i or ü) appears in the final syllable of the stem, it optionally influences the harmonic /ɨ/ or /u/ vowel of the following suffix, palatalizing it as in hoðür-tü ‘his letter’ (< hoðür ‘letter’ + tu 3sg). Russian loanwords have typically [+back] value, as vojna-ntənu ‘in the war,’ klasə-tənu ‘in a/the class,’ because the stressed vowel in most loans from Russian is usually back. If this is not the case, the word has a [-back] value, as ńeďəlʲi-mənɨ week-prol ‘during the week.’ Table 17.4 shows the form of the infinitive suffix -SA1 (-sa, -sɨ, -sʲi, -sʲa, -ďa, -ďi) after stems with different harmonic values. The form of the suffix depends on the various morphophonological rules outlined above. Root-internal nasals tend to occur only before a homorganic consonant: mantə ‘as, like,’ kundu͡a.sa ‘sleep,’ bənsə ‘all,’ kuńďi ‘towards the inside,’ ďeńsʲi ‘price,’ ŋüŋkə ‘nose,’ kaŋgüʔə ‘goose,’ koŋhu ‘wave.’ With the sole exception of /m/, nasals always assimilate in place of articulation to an immediately following consonant. At a morpheme boundary, /m/ combines freely with dental, alveolar, palatal, and velar consonants. In morpheme-internal position, underlying /N/ undergoes place assimilation. For example, in the reportative mood suffix -HA2NHU-, the nasal becomes labial and appears as [m] before the bilabial /b/, which appears in the weak grade in the onset of a closed syllable, but it becomes velar [ŋ] before the /h/, which appears in the strong grade in the onset of

NGANASAN 759 TABLE 17.4  FORMS OF THE INFINITIVE SUFFIX IN NGANASAN Stems value

Position

With palatalization

Without palatalization

[+back]

after even syllable

hojkü|ďa ‘to run’

munu|ďa ‘to speak’

after odd syllable

hiŋaɁi|sʲa ‘to cushion’

hoðətə|sa ‘to write’

after consonant stem

mənəgəj|sʲa ‘to fall’ malʲüC|sʲa ‘to put up a tent’

buəgəl|sa ‘to speak’ kundu͡ac|sa ‘to sleep’

after even syllable

kiti|ďi ‘to attach’

konɨ|ďi ‘to go away’

after odd syllable

nəkəri|s i ‘to become still’

heðɨtɨ|sɨ ‘to go’

after consonant stem

hojmin|sʲi ‘to be dark’ ńiiC|sʲi ‘to mean’

ďürɨmɨn|sɨ ‘to talk, tell a tale’ nənjdjiC|sɨ ‘to stand’

[-back]

j

an open syllable: compare ŋomtü-hu͡ambu-Ɂ sit-rep-3pl ‘they sat/are sitting, so it is said’ with kolɨðɨ-bi͡aŋhɨ fish-rep.3sg ‘s/he fished/fishes, so it is said.’ Several different types of palatalization exist in Nganasan. First of all, two adjacent consonants must be identical with respect to palatality. This distribution relates primarily to dental or dento-alveolar (t, d, s, n, l) consonants which are realized as a palatals or palatalized consonants (č, ď, sʲ, ń, lʲ) after palatals: heńdʲir ‘drum,’ kunsɨ ‘inside’ vs. kuńďi-c ‘towards the inside,’ ďeńsʲi ‘price’; ŋülʲčü ‘sole’; ďilʲsʲiti|sʲi ‘to listen.’ There is also left-to-right palatalization in that stems ending in a j palatalize any dental or lateral consonant initial in a following suffix, as in küj ‘spoon,’ küj-ču spoon3sg ‘his/her spoon.’ If a consonant emerges during gradation as a palatal consonant, a back high stem vowel (ɨ, u) following this consonant changes into the corresponding front (palatal) vowel, as in the genitives plural of ďesɨ/tosu ‘father’/‘one-year old reindeer’: ďeďi-Ɂ/tod’ü-ʔ. Frequently, the consonant j not only palatalizes the following consonant but also coalesces with it, for example, čimür|ku-sʲüə entertain-dur-pst.3sg ‘s/he was entertaining’ and not *čimür|kuj-sʲüə. Some forms, such as the 3sg form of the verb ij- ‘to be’ have lexicalized and occur strictly in the form without /-j/—example, i-ču (and not ijču) be-aor.3sg (ij-NTU-∅)—while others exhibit speaker-based variation in the presence or absence of -j: točəbtu|guj-ču ~ točəbtu|gu-ču call|dur-aor.3sg ‘s/he calls.’ Regressive, that is, right-to-left, palatalization of consonants, on the other hand, takes effect mostly before palatal vowels. The consonants /s/ and /l/ are palatalized (i.e. appear as /sʲ/ and /lʲ/) when followed by a palatal vowel: ďomtu|lʲi-Ɂə scold|inch-aor.3sg ‘s/he scolded.’ At morpheme boundaries in morphologically complex words, a consonant may be deleted before another consonant or consonant sequence. If a sequence of two identical consonants is created during suffixation, they are, without exception, degeminated; however, the consonant deleted during degemination keeps its position in the syllable as a quasi-consonant, thereby closing the syllable and triggering gradation: bi͡aðim ‘shin bone’ + mə 1sg: bi͡aðiC-mə shin.bone-1sg ‘my shin bone.’ Suffixes that begin with a nasal, stop, or liquid delete any stem-final /ʔ/, as in maʔ ‘tent,’ but maC-tu tent-3sg ‘his/her tent.’ A stem-final /ŋ/ disappears before suffixes that begin with liquids or nasals, but before suffixes beginning with a stop, it alternates with /n/: baŋ ‘dog’ vs. baC-mə dog-1sg ‘my dog,’ ban-tu dog-3sg ‘his/her dog,’ baC-lə dog-2sg ‘your dog.’ If during suffixation three

760 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

consonants come to be adjacent, the middle one is always eliminated, as in kam ‘blood’ + NTənU locative: kam-tənu ‘in blood.’ After consonants, suffix-initial /r/ is replaced with /l/: compare kətu-rə nail-2sg ‘your nail’ with baC-lə dog-2sg ‘your dog’ cited above. Stem-final /r/ is always retained, as in malʲir+Rə → malʲir-lə nomad.camp-2sg ‘your nomad camp.’ If a verb stem ends in an /r/, for example, in a frequentative suffix, the consonant sequence /nt/ at the beginning of the aorist suffix (see Section 17.7.2) is deleted, and only its vowel remains, as in ďoðür‘walk’ : ďotür-ü-m walk-aor-1sg ‘I am walking’ from underlying ďotür-NTU-m. Some consonant-initial suffixes, for example, those of the accusative, genitive, and nominative plural, attach to consonant-final stems with an epenthetic vowel in order to avoid the emergence of a consonant cluster. Certain suffixes are attached to all consonant-final stems with an epenthetic vowel ə, irrespective of the harmonic class of the stem: the epenthetic vowel for singular accusative and genitive as well as for plural nominative is /ə/ (hoðür > hotürə-ʔ pl ‘letters’). In the genitive plural, in contrast, the epenthetic vowel is U: depending on the harmonic class of the stem, this linking vowel will be u or ü after a labial (‘U-class’) stem, and i or ɨ after an (‘Ɨ-class’) stem, for example, ban-u-ʔ dog-gen.pl, cf. nom.sg baŋ, ləbkur ‘precipice’ > ləbkur-ɨ-ʔ gen.pl, and hoðür ‘ornament’ > hotür-ü-ʔ gen.pl, təmtəlʲir ‘bend, fold’ > təmtəlʲir-i-ʔ gen.pl. 17.4 NOMINAL INFLECTION AND NOMINAL CATEGORIES Nganasan nouns and adjectives can be distinguished from one another by differences in both morphological and syntactic features. The inflectional paradigm of adjectives and closely related participles is defective in that they take only the three grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, and genitive). As for syntactic characteristics, adjectives can function as modifiers of a noun head or as copula complements, but they never function as head of an NP. Most adjectives are derived from verbs or nouns; see 17.11. 17.4.1 Case, number, and other nominal categories Nouns take suffixes encoding number, case, person, and (pre)destinative (see Section 17.4.3). Case suffixes precede person suffixes throughout. Singular, dual, and plural number are distinguished. The plural can also carry an associative meaning: ďindi-čü bow-pl.3sg ‘his bows; his bow and arrows.’ The nouns ńemɨ ‘mother’ and ďesɨ ‘father’ in either the dual or the plural can mean ‘parents’: mɨŋ ďesɨ-gəi-ńiʔ 3pl.pro father-du-1pl ‘our parents’ or ďeďi-čə father-pl.2sg ‘your parents.’ Kinship terms can also take the so-called dyadic (also called connective-reciprocal) suffix -sə/-ďə: ďesɨ-ďə-gəj father-dya-du ‘father and his child’; nagür ńinɨ-ďə three elder. brother-dya ‘three brothers (of one another).’ The singular is zero; the dual is formed with -kəj/-gəj in the nominative, and -ki-, -gi- in accusative and genitive cases. The oblique dual forms are built with the help of postposition na, which takes the usual case suffixes and appears after the noun in the genitive dual, for example, kümaa-gi na-gətə knife-gen.du pp-ela ‘from two knives.’ The plural suffix is -ʔ in the nominative; local cases show traces of a consonantal -j. The postposition na also expresses the concept of comitative; in this function, it has undergone a grammaticalization process and may facultatively be subject to vowel harmony (see Section 17.3.1): sɨlɨ-ni͡a ‘with whom?’ However, it still behaves like a postposition, following a person suffix rather than preceding it: ńemɨ-nə-na ‘with my mother.’ For this

NGANASAN 761 TABLE 17.5  NGANASAN CASE MORPHOLOGY: SINGULAR AND PLURAL SUFFIXES Stem

Singular

‘Knife’ ‘Water’

Plural

‘Knife’ ‘Water’

nom

-ø

kümaa bɨʔ

-ʔ

kümaa-ʔ bɨð-ə-ʔ

acc

-C:-ø

kümaa bɨð-ə

-j

kümaa-j bɨð-ə-j

gen

-C:-ø

kümaa bɨð-ə

-ʔ

kümai-ʔ bɨð-ɨ-ʔ

lative

-NTəc: -tə, -ntə, -ndə, -čə

kümaa-tə bɨ-tə

-NTiɁ: -ntiɁ, -ndiɁ, -tiʔ

kümaa-tiʔ bɨ-tiʔ

locative

-NTənU: -tənu, -ntənu, -ndənu, -tənɨ, -ntənɨ, -ndənɨ, -čənu, -čənɨ

kümaa-tənu bɨ-tənɨ

-NTicnÜ: -tini, -tinü, -ndini, -ndinü, -ntini, -ntinü, -činü, -čini

kümaa-tinü bɨ-tini

elative

-Kəctə: -kətə, -gətə

kümaa-gətə bɨ-gətə

-Kictə: -kitə, -gitə KictiɁ: -kitiɁ, -gitiɁ

kümaa-gitə bɨ-gitə

prolative

-mənU: -mənu, -mənɨ

kümaa-mənu bɨ-mənɨ

-ʔmənU: -ʔmənɨ

kümaa-ʔmənu bɨð-ɨ-ʔmənɨ

comitative

-nA2: -na, ni͡a

kümaa-na –

-ʔnA2: -ʔna, -ʔni͡a

-ʔmənu,

kümaa-ʔna –

reason, it cannot be considered as a full member of the case system. The elative plural has two forms, -Kictə and -Kictiʔ, of which the latter appears only before the person suffixes: mаC-kitі-nə ‘from my tent,’ but məu-gitə ‘from the lands.’ Table 17.5 sets out the case suffixes in singular and plural. 17.4.2 Possession The possessive (= person) suffixes are mostly complex suffixes; they refer to the person and number of the possessor and also to the number of the possessed entity. Possessive suffixes have three sub-paradigms, with allomorphy depending on whether they are attached to the stem in the (1) nominative, (2) accusative, or (3) genitive and oblique cases. In dual forms, the oblique possessive suffixes follow the dual suffix. In nom/acc. pl, the nouns take the -j plural suffix and the possessive suffixes from the oblique series. The plural suffix is fused with the possessive suffix; for example, -ńə expresses plurality of possession and 1sg possessor simultaneously: maðu-ńə ‘my tents.’ Tables 17.6 and 17.7 set out the possessive forms of bɨnɨ ‘rope.’ 17.4.3 Destinativity Like the other Northern Samoyedic languages, Nganasan has the category of destinativity, with suffix tə/-ðə (plural -ti/-ði); it is attached only to nouns. The destinative is always used either with person suffixes or with a noun in the genitive and expresses the meaning that the object in question is destined for the person indicated as possessor: contrast

762 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

Table 17.6 One possessed entity nom.

acc.

gen. and other cases

1sg

-mə

bɨnɨmə

-mə

bɨnɨmə

-nə

bɨnɨnə

2sg

-Rə

bɨnɨrə

-mtə

bɨnɨmtə

-tə,

bɨnɨtə

3sg

-TU

bɨnɨðɨ

-mtU

bɨnɨmtɨ

-tu, -tɨ

bɨnɨtɨ

1du

-mi

bɨnɨmi

-mi

bɨnɨmi

-ni

bɨnɨni

2du

-Ri

bɨnɨri

-mti

bɨnɨmti

-nti, -ti

bɨnɨnti

3du

-Ti

bɨnɨði

-mti

bɨnɨmti

-nti, -ti

bɨnɨnti

1pl

-mUʔ

bɨnɨmɨʔ

-mUʔ

bɨnɨmɨʔ

-nuʔ, -nɨʔ

bɨnɨnɨʔ

2pl

-RUʔ

bɨnɨrɨʔ

-mtUʔ

bɨnɨmtɨʔ

-tuʔ, -tɨʔ

bɨnɨtɨʔ

3pl

-TUŋ

bɨnɨtɨŋ

-mtUŋ

bɨnɨmtɨŋ

-tuŋ, -tɨŋ

bɨnɨtɨŋ

TABLE 17.7  DUAL AND MORE POSSESSED ENTITY nom/acc/gen dual

plural

1sg

-ńə

bɨnɨ-gəj-ńə

bɨnɨ-ńə

2sg

-čə

bɨnɨ-gəj-čə

bɨnɨ-čə

3sg

-ču, -či,

bɨnɨ-gəj-či

bɨnɨ-či

1du

-ńi

bɨnɨ-gəj-ńi

bɨnɨ-ńi

2du

-či

bɨnɨ-gəj-či

bɨnɨ-či

3du

-NTI

bɨnɨ-gəj-či

bɨnɨ-ti

1pl

-ńüʔ, -ńiʔ

bɨnɨ-gəj-ńiʔ

bɨnɨ-ńiʔ

2pl

-čuʔ, -čiʔ

bɨnɨ-gəj-čiʔ

bɨnɨ-čiʔ

3pl

-čuŋ,-čiŋ

bɨnɨ-gəj-čiŋ

bɨnɨ-čiŋ

C

ďintə-mə təða-ʔ a bow-1sg bring-aor.3sg ‘s/he brought my bow (which was already mine)’ with ďintə-ðə-mə təða-ʔa bow-dest-1sg bring-aor.3sg ‘s/he brought a bow for me.’ A noun inflected with the destinative can take only the nominative, the accusative, the genitive, or very rarely, the lative case (and then only as subject of a passive verb). Oblique case suffixes are never attached to a noun with the destinative suffix. A noun with the destinative suffix most often takes the object position (1), but similarly to Enets and Nenets, it can appear in the subject position as well (2). (1)

taa-ði-ńə tətu-ŋu-ruʔ domestic.reindeer-dest.pl-pl.1sg bring-imp-2pl ‘And give (me) the reindeer.’ [MVL_080225_Djajku_flkd.124]

(2)

tuj-ŋu ŋəmsu-ði-čü kuniɁi͡a əmə bɨC-kətə how this.gen water-ela come-inter.3sg meat-dest.pl-pl.3sg ‘How is it possible, that food appears out of the water?’ [MVL_080225_Djajku_ flkd.023]

NGANASAN 763

17.5 NUMERALS, NUMERAL ADVERBS, AND QUANTIFIERS Cardinal and ordinal numerals function like adjectives and so agree in number (and partially in case) with their head, for example, ŋuʔəiðə ma-tənu one.gen tent-loc ‘in one tent,’ səmbə|mtɨə maC-tə seven|ord.gen tent-lat ‘into the seventh tent.’Adverbial numerals (meaning ‘N times’) are derived from cardinal numerals with the adverbial suffix |ʔ, while ordinal numerals bear the suffix |mtU(ə). The cardinal and ordinal numerals as well as numeral adverbs are set out in Table 17.8. Expressions like ‘one and a half, two and a half’ are complex constructions formed as follows: cardinal numeral (in nominative) + (noun) + helɨə ‘half,’ for example, sʲajbə helɨə ‘seven and a half,’ sʲiti čiimi helɨə ‘two and a half fathoms.’ Bilingual speakers often use the Russian lexemes for tisʲači ‘thousand’ and sto ‘hundred.’ Nganasan has several quantifiers. Their referent can be either human or non-human. They are: bǝnsǝ ‘all, the whole,’ bǝńďikaa ‘every, all,’ ŋuŋkəgəə ~ ŋukəgəə ‘a lot of, many, ͡ ‘few, little,’ tanǝlʲikü ‘few, small in number.’ much,’ kanəraa ~ kanəraaʔkü ‘some,’ tanua These forms appear generally in the singular form, but bǝnsǝ ‘all, the whole,’ bǝńďikaa ‘every, all,’ and ŋukǝgǝǝ ‘many’ can take number and case suffixes (3): (3)

təəsʲiðə maa|gəlʲčə-gətə manunu-ntə ŋukəgəə-j mað-ə-j totally what|emp-ela earlier-obl.2sg many-acc.pl tent-ep-acc.pl sʲimiə|ďəə|galʲi|m|ti-sʲüə-ŋ coal|n.pst|car|tra|tr-pst-2sg ‘You have left so many tents without coal (i.e. you killed so many people).’ [ChND_080729_SevenNjote_flks.078]

The meaning ‘(the) two, three etc. of something’ is expressed by a numeral and the infinitive of the copula: četə isʲa ‘four of something.’ TABLE 17.8 NGANASAN NUMERALS Cardinal numerals

Ordinal numerals

Numeral adverbs

Nominative

Accusative/Genitive

1

ŋuʔəiʔ / ŋuʔəj

ŋuʔəiðə

ńerəðɨtɨə/ńerəbtəə/ ŋuɁəimtɨə

ŋuʔəðuʔ

2

sʲiti

sʲiði

sʲiðimtiə

sʲiðiʔ

3

nagür

nakürə

nagəmtuə

nakürüʔ

4

četə

četə

četəmtɨə

četiʔ

5

səŋhə+lʲaŋkə

səŋhəlʲaŋgə

səmbəmtɨə

səŋhəlʲaŋgiʔ

6

mətüʔ

mətüðə

mətəmtɨə

mətüðüɁ

7

sʲajbə

sʲajbə

sʲajbəmtɨə

sʲajbiʔ

8

sʲitiðətə ŋami͡ajčümə

sʲitiðətə ŋami͡ajčümə

sʲitiðətəmtɨə ŋami͡ajčüməmtɨə

sʲitiðətiʔ ŋami͡ajčümiʔ

10

biiʔ

biiðə

biimtiə

biiðiɁ

20

sʲiti biiʔ

sʲiði biiðə

sʲiti biimtiə

sʲiti biiðiʔ

ďir

ďirə

ďirəmtɨə

ďiriʔ

9

100

764 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

17.6 PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES Nganasan has personal, interrogative, and demonstrative pronouns, as well as intensifiers. 17.6.1 Personal pronouns and intensifiers The personal pronouns refer only to human beings; reference to animals, plants, and objects is made using demonstratives. Demonstratives, however, can refer to humans as well. Nominative, accusative, and genitive case of the personal pronouns now syncretize, for example, mənə 1sg.pro.n/a/g. In the oblique cases, the inflected postposition na ‘to, near’ is used; it is suffixed for case (using a special, older set of forms) and takes a possessive suffix from the oblique series. This postposition is optionally accompanied by an independent personal pronoun, for example, locative (mənə) na-nu-nə (1sg.pro) pp-loc.adv -1sg ‘near to me.’ Intensifiers are formed from the pronominal stem ŋonə- ‘-self’ with the help of oblique forms of possessive suffixes which indicate both person and number. This pronoun need not have a reflexive meaning; it is also used to express additional emphasis or emotional context. Personal pronouns can be combined with several (clitic-like) emphatic suffixes, which are added to bound pronominal stems: mɨŋ- for first-person forms, tɨŋ- for second-person forms, and sɨʔ- for third-person forms. The clitic-like suffixes are followed by a possessive suffix, which shows person and number. Table 17.9 shows the form of personal pronouns and intensifier. The meaning of the forms with emphatic suffixes is rather vague and is very difficult to translate. Sentences (4a–b) show the usage of these forms. (4)

a. tɨŋ|gümü-ntə maaďa ńikə-rə təi-ŋu, maaďa tənə ŋəʔ 2pro|emp-obl.2sg why power-2sg exist-inter.3sg why 2sg.pro shaman maa|bta-ŋ what|indef-2sg ‘Why do you have such power, who are you, a shaman or something?’ [KNT_940903_KehyLuu_flkd.205]

TABLE 17.9  PRONOMINAL FORMS IN NGANASAN nom=acc =gen

Lative

Elative

Prolative

Limitative forms

Intensifier

1sg

mənə

na-nə

na-gətə-nə

na-mənu-nə

mɨ-lʲia-nə

ŋonə-nə

2sg

tənə

na-ntə

na-gətə-tə

na-mənu-ntə

tɨ-lʲia-tə

ŋonə-ntə

3sg

sɨtɨ

na-ntu

na-gətə-tu

na-mənu-ntu

sɨ-lʲia-tɨ

ŋonə-ntu

1du

mi

na-ni

na-gətə-ni

na-mənu-ni

mɨ-lʲia-ni

ŋonə-ni

2du

ti

na-ndi

na-gətə-ndi

na-mənu-ndi

tɨ-lʲia-ti

ŋonə-nti

3du

sɨti

na-ndi

na-gətə-ndi

na-mənu-ndi

sɨ-lʲia-ti

ŋonə-nti

1pl

mɨŋ

na-nuʔ

na-gətə-nuʔ

na-mənu-nuʔ

mɨ-lʲia-nɨʔ

ŋonə-nuʔ

2pl

tɨŋ

na-nduʔ

na-gətə-nduɁ

na-mənu-nduɁ

tɨ-lʲia-tiʔ

ŋonə-ntuʔ

3pl

sɨtɨŋ

na-nduŋ

na-gətə-nduŋ

na-mənu-nduŋ

sɨ-lʲia-tɨŋ

ŋonə-ntuŋ

NGANASAN 765

͡ b. mɨń|sʲiə-nɨʔ tahariaa əmə tundɨ-ʔ i|hü-nüʔ 1pro|emp-obl.1pl now there fox-pl.gen be|cond-obl.1pl tola|r|mumba-tu-muʔ hüə-tə steal|freq|hab-aor-1pl year-lat ‘Well, where there are foxes, we always2 steal.’ [KNT_960809_WildAnimals_ flkd.043] Personal pronouns may be used to emphasize the possessor, as in (5): (5)

maaďa tuj-ŋu-ŋ, təti-rə mənə nɨ-mə why come-inter-2sg that-2sg 1sg.pro woman-1sg ‘And what are you coming for here, this is my wife.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.355]

17.6.2 Demonstratives Demonstratives can be divided into two sets on a semantic basis. One group of demonstratives expresses direct pointing to something (proximal deixis), while the other group expresses a distant deictic meaning. The choice of demonstratives is ‘speaker-oriented,’ thus, the deictic centre is based on the speaker. There are two kinds of deictic demonstratives, those indicating ‘near the speaker, here’ (əm-) and those indicating ‘at a distance, there’ (tə- and ta-). The accusative and genitive forms of the proximal deixis and anaphoric demonstratives are irregular. The demonstrative forms are as follows: Proximal deixis ‘This here’

Distant deixis ‘That over there’

Anaphoric ‘This/that, it’

Nominative

əmtɨ

takəə

təti

Accusative/genitive

əmə

takəə

təndə

17.6.3 Interrogatives Interrogative pronouns include the following items: sɨlɨ ‘who?’ sɨlɨŋuna ‘who for?’ maa ‘what?’ maaŋuna ‘what for?’ kurəďi ‘what kind of?’ kuďübtu ‘which?’ kanə ‘how many?’ kuə ‘what (attr.)?’ maaðə and maaďa ‘why?’ and others. If the speaker wants to pose a question concerning a possessor (‘whose?’), the interrogative silɨ or sɨlɨŋuna is used, followed by that which is possessed, for example, sɨlɨ ńuə ‘whose child?’ The interrogative word maa ‘what’ or maaŋuna ‘what for’ is used for non-human animates (animals) and non-human inanimates (things). Under specific circumstances, the interrogative word maa ‘what’ can also be used to refer to a human. This occurs when the person asking the question wants to find out that person’s clan affiliation; clan names can be animal names or names of objects, maa ńuə-ŋ what child-2sg ‘what sort of child are you?’ If the maa ‘what’ interrogative is used together with the infinitive form of the copula, it expresses purpose, roughly ‘why?’ ‘what for?’ (6).

766 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

(6)

ńi-ntɨ kərbu-ʔ ŋuəlɨ ńi-ʔ kərbu-ʔ maa i|sʲa neg.aux-aor.3sg want-cng of.course.not.3sg neg.aux-cng want-cng what be|inf kərbu-tə-ŋu: ńuə-ntə-nə čüü-ðüŋ tənə want-fut-inter.3sg child-lat-obl.1sg arrive-imp.2sg.refl 2sg.pro bəjka|ʔa i|sʲa old.man|aug be|inf ‘She doesn’t want [to marry], why would she: You old man, marry my daughter.’ [MVL_090807_BlackEyreBrows_flkd.035]

17.6.4 Indefinites and negatives Indefinites are created from derived interrogative pronouns with the clitic-like suffixes |Küə (-küə/-güə), |čə. Non-specific forms (formed with |küə) refer to entities that are unknown to the speaker (e.g. sɨlɨ|güə ‘anyone’); specific forms, however, refer to an entity that is either known or unknown to the speaker. The forms with |čǝ (sɨlɨ|čə who|emp) and |čǝ|küǝ (sɨlɨ|čə|küə who|emp|emp) are free-choice indefinites. Locative indefinite pronouns are formed using the adverbial case markers: kuni-ðə ‘where from,’ kuni|čə-nu ‘anywhere.’ There are also special negative polarity items in Nganasan, which are derived from the interrogatives, similar to indefinites. These elements always require a verb licensor in order to function as negative indefinites. The interrogative pronominal stem is followed by the |Kəlʲičə emphatic morpheme which does not, in itself, convey a negative meaning: maa|gəlʲičə ‘whatever,’ sɨlɨ|gəlʲičə ‘whoever,’ kuni|gəlʲičiʔ ‘anywhere’ etc. (7a–b). (7)

a. maa|gəlʲčə ŋuəďəə ďaŋku what|emp footprints not.exist.3sg ‘There are no footprints (there).’ [ChND_061025_Haljmira_flks.009] b. sɨlɨ|gəlʲči-ʔ ďa ńi|mɨŋhi͡a-ʔ mun-ə-ʔ maðajčü-ni ńiimənɨ who.emp-gen.pl all neg.aux|hab-imp.2sg say-ep-cng guest-gen.1du about ‘Don’t tell anybody about our guest.’ [ChND_061025_Haljmira_flks.181]

17.7 VERBAL CATEGORIES Verbs function as the main or dependent predicate of a clause. Finite forms inflect for tense and/or mood, conjugation type (see following), and subject person/number. There are several nonfinite forms: participles, supine, and verbal nouns. The indicative mood is encoded by zero; in other moods, tense and mood markers usually show cumulative exponence, for example, past interrogative -hɨ- in maa ŋucsɨc-hɨ-ŋ what make-inter.pst2sg ‘what did you build?.’ There are only very few auxiliary verbs in Nganasan; textually, the most frequent is the negative auxiliary ńi|sɨ (see Section 17.10.5). Other auxiliaries do not impart a negative meaning, but some of them appear with the connegative form of the lexical verb (for the connegative, see Section 17.7.3). For example, the auxiliary verb kasa|ďa ‘almost, nearly’ in the construction kasa-ʔa-m ŋǝnǝbta-ʔ almost-aor-1sg forget-cng ‘I almost forgot.’ The auxiliary ləðiʔ|sʲi ‘in vain, be unable’ is imperfective and occurs only with imperfective verbs: ləði-sʲiə-mɨʔ bɨ-tə-mɨʔ huurə-ʔ be.unable-pst-1pl water-dest1pl look.for-cng ‘We looked for water unsuccessfully.’ The auxiliary əkɨ-/əku- ‘maybe,

NGANASAN 767

to be possible’ behaves in a fashion similar to the imperfective verbs, but its paradigm is defective in that it does not have an infinitive form. Unlike other auxiliaries in Nganasan, it occurs after the main verb, which is in the connegative. In terms of suffix alternation, this auxiliary is also peculiar in that it harmonizes: it appears either in the ǝku- or in the ǝkɨ- form, depending on the prosody of the lexical verb: təibə-ʔ əku-tu exist-cng maybe-aor.3sg ‘it probably/maybe exists’ but čenɨ-ʔ əkɨ-tɨ-ŋ know-cng maybe-aor-2sg ‘you probably/maybe know.’ The auxiliary ŋuǝlɨ- (which also lacks an infinitive) expresses something like ‘of course, how can you think I/you/he will not; how could I/you/he not’: ŋuəlɨ-mi kоnɨ-ʔ of.course-1du go.away-cng ‘of course we (two) are going away.’ (See also Gusev 2015.) The verb konɨ|ďi ‘go away’ can appear as a lexical verb, but in essive-translative constructions, it functions as an auxiliary and imparts the meaning ‘to become X, to change to X.’ It is then obligatorily preceded by the nominal component of the construction and the infinitive form of the copula i.sʲa. In (8a), the verb konɨ- functions as a lexical verb (‘to go away’), while in sentence (8b), it occurs as an auxiliary. For more concerning the essive in Nganasan, see Szeverényi and Wagner-Nagy (2017). (8)

a. ma-küə-tiʔ iďaa ďa, ma-tiʔ kona-ʔa-m tent-emp-lat.pl father.gen all tent-lat.pl go.away-aor-1sg iďaa-nə ma-tiʔ father-gen.1sg tent-lat.pl ‘I went into the tent, into my father’s tent.’ [JMD_080219_MyLife_nar.115] b. mǝnǝ ǝðǝǝʔ tańďaʔa i.sʲa kona-ʔa-m interj worker be.inf go.away-aor-1sg Is ‘I was turned into a servant.’ [ChND_080729_SevenNjote_flks.296]

TABLE 17.10  ARGUMENT INDEXING: VERB PERSONAL ENDINGS IN NGANASAN KOTU|ĎA ‘TO KILL’ Conjugation Type Subjective

subject

person

Two objects

More than two objects

koðaʔa-m

koðaʔa-mə

koðaʔa-kəi-ńə

koðaʔa-ńə

koðaʔa-nə

2sg

koðaʔa-ŋ

koðaʔa-rə

koðaʔa-kəi-čə

koðaʔa-čə

koðaʔa-ŋ

3sg.

koðaʔa

koðaʔa-tu

koðaʔa-kəi-čü

koðaʔa-čü

koðaʔa-ʔ, koðaʔa-ðə

koðaʔa-kəi-ńi

koðaʔa-ńi

koðaʔa-ni

koðaʔa-kəi-či

koðaʔa-či

koðaʔa-ndi

1du 3du

number

One object 1sg

2du and

Reflexivemedial

Objective

koðaʔa-mi koðaʔa-ri koðaʔa-gəj

koðaʔa-ði

1pl

koðaʔa-muʔ

2pl

koðaʔa-ruʔ

3pl

koðaʔa-ʔ

koðaʔa-ðuŋ

koðaʔa-ńi koðaʔa-či

koðaʔa-ńüɁ koðaʔa-čüʔ

koðaʔa-ndüʔ

koðaʔa-čüŋ

koðaʔa-ndəɁ

768 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

17.7.1 Conjugation types Argument indexing varies according to three so-called conjugations: subjective, objective, and reflexive-medial. Each conjugation comprises its own set of inflectional endings, or index sets. The subjective set of suffixes index subject person-and-number only. Use of the objective conjugation indexes the topicality of the object; its suffixes index not only subject person/ number but also indicate the number of the object. Consequently, there are three objective sub-paradigms, referring to (1) one object, (2) two objects, and (3) more than two objects. The reflexive-medial conjugation is associated with reflexivity or certain kinds of intransitivity; its suffixes occur most often in passive constructions (see 17.10.2), but there are also deponent-like verbs that are typically used with this set of endings (in the Taimyr subdialect, this type is more common than in Avam). All these person suffixes attach to the verb stem after any tense/mood suffixes. Transitive verbs can be conjugated for all three of the previously mentioned types; intransitive verbs can take only subjective or reflexive-medial endings. Example (10) illustrates the use of the conjugations, (10a) subjective, (10b) objective, and (10c) reflexive/medial: (10) a. maačəküə nəŋhu͡ə ŋəndi͡aiʔ tuj-sʲüðə ďa-tə-ni what bad probably come-fut.3sg all-dest-obl.1du ‘Maybe something bad is on its way to us.’ (KNT_940903_KehyLuu_flkd.097) b. hotüra|ʔa-mə mənə kontu-guə-mə. letter|aug-acc.1sg 1sg.pro take.away-imp.fut-1sg>sg ‘I will take the notes.’ (KES-ChND_080725_Dialog2_conv.149) ͡ c. təniɁia i-ku-ðəm ďembi-küü-nə so be-imp-imp.1sg dress-imp.fut-2sg.refl ‘Let me do it this way, then let me get dressed.’ (ChND_080729_Berizenaa_ flks.071) 17.7.2 Tense, aspect, and modality In addition to the aorist (or neutral) ‘tense’, which refers to the present or the immediate past, Nganasan has five other morphological tenses: past, pluperfect, general future, immediate future, and future-in-the-past. The aspectual distinction between imperfective and perfective verbs is encoded in the aorist tense by two specific suffixes; they precede the person-indexing suffixes. Perfective (telic) verbs take the aorist suffix -ʔə-, while imperfective (atelic) verbs take -NTU- (~ -NTA1-). The majority of underived verbs are perfective; in derived verbs, aspect is determined by the rightmost derivational suffix. Perfective verbs in the aorist refer to the immediate past: tuu-ʔə-m come-aor-1sg ‘I came.’ Imperfective verbs in the aorist have a present meaning: ńilɨ-tɨ-m live-aor-1sg ‘I live.’ It must be stressed that the aorist morpheme functions not as an indicator of tense but rather as a co-affix between the stem and the verbal ending. The suffix for the immediate future (-Ɂkǝ) is identical with a derivational suffix indicating resultativity. The glottal stop of the future suffix -ʔsutə is often not pronounced. Table 17.11 sets out the tense suffixes. Imperfective verbs in the past tense express progressive meaning; perfective verbs in the past tense indicate the remote past. The pluperfect describes an event that occurred before another past event, but the latter may not be expressed within the same clause. There are three tenses for reference to the futureː verb forms in the general future refer to

NGANASAN 769 TABLE 17.11  TENSE SUFFIXES IN NGANASAN Tense Aorist

Past

Future

Perfective Imperfective General Pluperfect General Immed. Future-inpast future future the-past Conj. type Subjective/ -ʔa/-ʔə objective (1 or 2 obj. Objective -ʔi/-ʔi͡a more obj. Reflexive -ʔi/-ʔi͡a

-NTU

-SUə

-SUəďəə

-ʔsUTə

-ʔkə

-ʔsUTəďəə

-NTA1

-SʲÜÜ

-SUəďəi

-ʔsʲÜTÜ

-ʔkə

-ʔSʲÜTÜďəi

-NTA1

-SʲÜÜ

-SUəďəi

-ʔsʲÜTÜ

-ʔkə

-ʔSʲÜTÜďəi

the remote future (11a). If the reference is to the immediate future, then the general future tense cannot be used; in this case, the resultative suffix |ʔkƏ (|ʔkə, |ʔki) ought to be used (11b). The future-in-the-past is used if the actor in the past assumed something would happen in the future (11c). This last form is no longer in use. The following sentences illustrate these future forms: (11) a. tuj-sʲüðə-mi maðaj.sʲa come-fut-2du visit.inf ‘We are going to visit (you).’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.181] b. sʲitəbɨ ďebtu|ʔki-ʔə-m, ďürɨm|͡iaku ńim-ti Kəhɨ Luu tale.acc tell.res-aor-1sg tale.dim.gen name-3sg partridge parka ‘I'm going to tell (you) a story, the name of the story is Kehy Luu.’ [KNT_940903_ KehyLuu.002] c. ŋuǝ|lʲi͡ai. ʔ tǝnǝ ŋosǝðu|bü-nǝ, tǝnǝ mi-ʔsʲiðəďǝǝ-m one.lim.adv 2sg.pro.acc hold|cond-obl.1sg 2sg.pro.acc give-fut.pst-1sg ‘If I held you, I would give you away.’ [KTD_SeuMelangana.199] Nganasan boasts a rich mood system, with 12 sets of suffixed forms, expressing epistemic or deontic modality. The indicative mood is encoded by zero. The imperative has a full paradigm with forms for all persons, numbers, and conjugation types, but the personal endings are somewhat different from those used in the indicative; there is also a future (that is remote) imperative. The following table displays the personal endings for the second-person forms in the aorist. For other forms, consult Table 17.13. The optative and admonitive are used to express wishes and admonitions. Both moods are used only in the aorist: tuj-hu͡aa come-opt.3sg ‘let him/her come,’ tuj-kəə-ŋ come-adm-2sg ‘you shall come.’ The interrogative is used in interrogative clauses, and it has forms in the aorist (tujŋu-ŋ ‘did you come?’), aorist iterative (tuj-kəə-ŋ ‘did you come?’), past (tuj-hu ‘had he come?’), and future (tuj-čəŋu-ŋ ‘will you come?’). If the clause lacks an overt verb, the rise-fall intonation alone expresses interrogativity.

770 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY TABLE 17.12  PERSONAL ENDINGS FOR SECOND-PERSON IMPERATIVE IN NGANASAN Subjective

Objective For one object

Objective For two object

Objective For more objects

Reflexive-medial

2sg

-ʔ

-tə, -ðə

-kəj-ńə, -gəj-ńə

-ńə

-ðiŋ

2du

-ŋɨ-ri, -ŋu-ri

-ŋɨ-ri, -ŋu-ri

ŋu-kəj-či, -ŋɨ-kəj-či, -ŋu-gəj-či, -ŋɨ-gəj-či

-ŋa-či, -ŋɨ-či

-ŋa-ndi, -ŋa-nti -ŋɨ-ndi, -ŋɨ-nti -ŋi-ndi, -ŋi-nti

2pl

-ŋɨ-rɨʔ, -ŋu-ruʔ,

-ŋɨ-rɨʔ, -ŋu-ruʔ

-ŋu-kəj-čüʔ, -ŋɨ-kəj-čiɁ, -ŋu-gəj-čüʔ, -ŋɨ-gəj-čiɁ

-ŋa-čüʔ, -ŋɨ-čiʔ

-ŋa-nduʔ, -ŋa-ntuʔ -ŋɨ-ndɨʔ, -ŋɨ-ntɨʔ -ŋi-ndiʔ, -ŋi-ntiʔ

The inferential denotes events that have not been directly witnessed by the speaker; its statements are formed solely through conjecture based upon trace evidence: küðü͡a-hu͡aðu-ʔ ‘it seems they got up’; the same form is also used as an admirative, to express unexpected events or simply new knowledge. The reportative, traditionally called (re)narrative, is used for events known through hearsay. The reportative distinguishes aorist, past, future, and also has an interrogative reportative form. The imperfective suffix (|NTǝ) is used to form its future tense (ďembi-tə-bi͡ahɨ-nɨɁ dress-fut-rep-1pl.refl ‘we will dress,’ təu-tə-hi͡a-nɨʔ fly-fut-rep. inter-1pl.refl ‘do we depart?’), and an analytical construction is used to express the past tense: the main verb occurs in the past form, and the grammaticalized reportative form of the copula verb (i-bahu) appears in the clause. The irrealis is used if the speaker is talking about events that could potentially have transpired under different circumstances; also, it may be used to make mild requests or express conditionality (see sentence (13c) that follow). The necessitative (traditionally called debitive) expresses that the action must be performed (čentɨ-rɨ-gə-bsɨðə-ŋ be.ready-caus-iter-nec-2sg ‘you should prepare’). This mood is rarely used; a similar meaning can be expressed through a converb construction. The abessive refers to anticipated events that have yet to occur, ďebtu-mətumaʔi-čü tell-abes-3sg>pl ‘s/he hasn’t told.’ The dubitative mood is applied by the speaker if s/he intends to express uncertainty or doubt, mǝnǝ tolɨmə-lɨ-ŋ 1sg.acc hurt-dub-2sg ‘you may hurt me.’ The speculative mood is an epistemic mood expressing the speaker’s assumption that the event might have taken place in a past while having a present-time result. This mood is a new development in Nganasan; it consists of a present participle suffix (|NTUǝ,) followed by the similative suffix |RǝKU and the personal endings: munu-ntuə-rəku-∅ say-pres.ptcp-sim.sor.3sg ‘it seems that s/he said’ Table 17.13 summarizes the Nganasan mood morphemes. In addition to the moods listed, there is also a nominalized construction with auditive meaning: it expresses a kind of evidentiality referring to events that the speaker has not seen but rather has heard or perceived through other senses, including internal sensations.

NGANASAN 771 TABLE 17.13  MOOD SUFFIXES IN NGANASAN Mood name

Mood morpheme

Imperative 2nd person

Aorist

Past

Future

different set of Vx

---------

-KUə

1st person

-KU

---------

---------

3rd person

-ŋəə; -ŋəi

---------

---------

-CKəə

---------

---------

Optative

-HA1a

---------

---------

Interrogative Interrog.-iterative

-ŋU, -ŋA1

-HU

-NTə-ŋU

Admonitive

-Kǝǝ

Inferential

-HA2TU

---------

---------

Reportative Interrog.-report.

-HA2NHU

--------V-pst + ibahu

-NTə-HA2NHU V-fut + ibahu

-HA2

---------

---------

Irrealis

-HA1aTəə

---------

---------

Dubitative

-lɨ/-lu

---------

---------

Necessitative

-BsUTə

-BsUTə + be-pst-vx

-ʔsUTəTəə

Speculative

ptcp.prs-RǝKU-Vx

ptcp.prs-RǝKU-Vx +be-pst-vx

---------

Abessive

-məTUmA1ʔa

-məTUmA1ʔa + be-pst-vx

---------

The auditive suffix |mUnUj can be attached only to a noun and is always used finitely, although formally it is a nonfinite form inasmuch as it takes nominal person suffixes and thus does not distinguish conjugation types (12). There is also a less-frequent form without personal markers (|mUnǝʔ), but this is no longer used. (12) a. tahari͡aa ŋonəə ba-mi logi͡a|mɨnɨ-či. now one.more dog-1du bark|aud-3sg ‘And now our dog is barking.’ [TKF_041210_NenetsManAndGiant_flkd.16] b. maa|güə sʲiŋgar|munu-ču, tuďar|munu-ču bənti-ni. what|emp crackle|aud-3sg knock|aud-3sg outside-loc.adv ‘Something can be heard crackling, knocking on the street.’ [TKF_99_TwoShamans_flkd.181] 17.7.3 Nonfinite forms There are several nonfinite forms: infinitive, participles, temporal-conditional, supine, and connegative forms. The infinitive form with the suffix |SA (with eight allomorphs; see Table 17.4) is used both as an infinitive (including purpose clauses with verbs of motion) and in adverbial function in tandem with another verb form (for simultaneous events with imperfective verbs, for anterior events with perfective verbs, for example, ŋəmur|sa sʲatə|ďi eat|inf finish|inf ‘having finished eating’).

772 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

The temporal-conditional form has two alternative suffixes, |hüʔ and |hüʔnü; the latter refers mainly to a more remote future, but the difference is not entirely clear. The agent of the construction is encoded by a possessive suffix from the oblique series (13a) or by an NP in the genitive (13b). In counterfactual contexts, the conditional may be used in combination with the past-tense form of the verb ij- ‘to be’ (13c). (13) a. munu|bü-tü: ńi-ndɨ-m kərbu-ʔ, ńi-sɨðə-rə say|cond-obl.3sg neg.aux-aor-1sg want-cng neg.aux-fut-2sg>sg mənə|ðu-ʔ force|vblz-cng ‘If he says: “I don’t want”, you can’t force him [to do so]. [JDH_00_Fosterling_ flkd.069]’ b. təgətə ŋonəə ŋətəðə|ʔkə|gə-tɨ kou ŋətɨm|hiʔ then another.one shamanize.res.iter-aor.3sg sun.gen appear|cond ‘After that he shamanized again, when the sun appeared (i.e. when the polar night had ended).’ [ChND_041213_Reminiscence_nar.102]. c. sʲiði kobtu͡a-nə i-sʲüə i|hüʔ, bəńďə-ti two.gen girl-gen.1sg be-pst.3sg be|cond all-gen.2du čüüna-ntə-ti tətu-baaðəə-m. different-lat-obl.2du bring-ir-1sg ‘If I had two daughters, I would give [one] to each of you.’ [ChND_080722_TwoFriends_flk.189] Participles appear either in attributive or in predicative positions. In attributive position, they behave like adjectives (14a), while as predicates they take the copula suffixes (14b). (14) a. manaküʔ ŋanuə ďekə|məə kuhu just.now real cut|ptcp.pass skin ‘A freshly skinned pelt.’ [KNT_960809_WildAnimals_flkd.199] b. kəntə-ðu bənsə malʲkü|tü-tü, hotə|məə sledge-3sg all motley|vblz-aor.3sg decorate|ptcp.pass.cop.3sg ‘The sledge is ornamented, decorated.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.235] The following participle forms are attested: present, past, necessitative, abessive, passive, and iterative. Some participle forms have past-tense forms as well, which are constructed with the help of the nominal anterior suffix |ďǝǝ. The most frequently used participle is the present participle. It appears in relative clauses if the action or property denoted by the participle and the action described by the main verb are simultaneous. The past participle (perfective participle) is used if the action denoted by the participle has been completed before the action expressed by the main verb of the clause. The necessitative participle refers to an action which will come to pass in the future. The abessive participle refers to actions that have not yet taken place. It has a past-tense form, but this form is seldom used. The iterative participle has the meaning ‘usually do anything, do anything gladly.’ Table 17.14 presents the participial endings.

NGANASAN 773 TABLE 17.14  PARTICIPLES IN NGANASAN Aorist

Past (anterior)

Example

Present participle -NTUǝ

---

basu|tuə ‘hunting, hunter, one who hunts’

Past participle

-SUə|ďəə

---

barətə|suə|ďəə ‘one who had waited’

Necessitative

-ʔSUTə

-ʔSUTə|ďəə

hoðətə|ʔsutə ‘one who is going to learn’ tuj|sʲüðə|ďəə ‘one who should have come’

Abessive

-məTUmA1ʔa -məTUmA1ʔa|ďəə

Passive

-mǝǝ

-məə|ďəə

Iterative

-KUTə

---

büü|mətumaʔa ‘one who has not gone away’ kotu|mətumaʔa|ďəə ‘one who had not been killed’ biri͡ amtɨ|məə ‘[the one who was] injured’ kotu-məə-ďəə ‘[the one who was] killed long ago’ ͡ huaŋku|gutə ‘one who drinks with pleasure’

Examples (15a) and (15b) illustrate the use of the participles: (15) a. iniʔi͡a ləŋu|ďiəďəə koruð-ə ńerənɨ ŋətəðə-sɨə old_woman burn|ptcp.pst.gen house-ep.gen in_front_of shamanize-pst.3sg i-bahu mənüʔ|tə|sa be-rep.3sg shamanize.without.special.clothing.ipfv.inf ‘It was said that the old woman shamanized without special clothing in front of the burning house.’ [ChND_061023_School_nar.045] b. mənə təńiʔi͡a kabimüə i|sʲa təńiʔi͡a koi|ri|sʲüəďəə-m 1 sg.pro so kindling be|inf so leave|pass|ptcp.pst-cop.1sg ‘(Because) I am a kindling, I was left here. [KES_080721_Lemming_flkd.043] The supine is used to form purpose clauses. There are two affirmative forms and one form for negation. Both |nA2Kə (example 16a) and |ʔsA2 suffixes appear in affirmative sentences: the difference between the meanings of these two supine forms is unclear. The negative form is a complex suffix comprised of the action noun suffix |mUN- plus the suffix of the elative (-KǝcTǝ), for example, ńijku-muŋgətə sweat|neg.sup ‘in order not to sweat.’ This occurs only rarely in texts. One possible reason for this could be that the negative supine can be expressed by supine forms of the negative auxiliary, as sentence (16b) illustrates: (16) a. urubaakə-mə ńakələ|ni͡agə-nə bəbə-nə ńi nənsu-ʔi-nə shirt-acc.1sg take|sup-obl.1sg place-gen.1sg onto get.up-aor.refl-1sg.refl ‘I got on the bed to take the clothes.’ [ChND_061023_School_nar.014] b. təndə turku bərə ńi|nagə-ndɨŋ təbtə that.gen lake.gen shore neg.aux|sup-obl.3pl also koðu-tə kəmə|ru-ʔ snowstorm-lat take|pass-cng ‘The shore of that lake, in order not to be taken by a blizzard.’ [MACh_940808_DogLake_flkd.023] Connegative forms of a verb (built with -ʔ) appear together with negative auxiliaries (16b) and with the auxiliaries əkɨ- /ǝku-, kasa-, and ŋuǝlɨ-. The connegative form of the copula (isʲa) is suppletive: ŋuə-ʔ.

774 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

17.8 ADVERBS AND POSTPOSITIONS Adverbs are used either as modifiers of verbs or as clausal adjuncts. From a semantic perspective, adverbs can be classified into four groups, namely, those of degree, space, time, and manner. Spatial adverbs can take shorter, more archaic forms of inflectional suffixes: locative -nU (-nu, -nɨ, -ni), elative -Tə (-tə, -ðə), prolative -mənU (-mǝnu, -mǝnɨ); the lative may take the form of a quasi-consonant. Examples: bənti-ni ‘outside,’ kunsɨ-nɨ ‘in inside’ kunsɨ-ðə ‘from inside,’ kunsɨ-mənɨ ‘along inside,’ kuńďi-C ‘into inside.’ Adverbs of time are, in some instances, monomorphemic, but most often they are derived or inflected forms. The meanings ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ can be expressed with the same word, talu, the precise reference being indexed by the time reference of the conjugated verb: talu ďinďiC-sʲiə-mɨʔ yesterday hear-pst-1pl>s ‘we heard it yesterday’ (with past tense -sʲiə-) and talu lʲünkürü-sʲüði-nə tomorrow hide-pst-1sg.refl ‘I will be hiding’ (with future tense -sʲüði-). (For a more detailed analysis of deictic day names see Szeverényi 2012.) The concept of ‘tomorrow morning’ is expressed through the lexicalized adverb küði͡a|hüʔ (from verb küði͡aC- ‘to get up’ and the conditional suffix|hüʔ). The plural genitive ending can serve as base for the formation of adverbs of manner and time, for example, ńaagəi-ʔ ‘well.’ The singular prolative suffix forms adverbs of manner, nəŋhə-mənu ‘badly,’ while the plural prolative forms adverbs of time, sʲüra-ʔmənu ‘every winter, in wintertime.’ Lative encodes time adverbs, hüə-tə ‘always, all the time.’ As in other Uralic languages, Nganasan adpositions are all postpositional, including the recent Russian loan komə ‘besides.’ They are independent words, taking no part in suffix alternations and capable of bearing their own stress. Some postpositions reflect features of both postpositions and of case suffixes, for example, the comitative na (see Section 17.4.1 earlier), and in some instances, the allative postposition ďa appears as a grammaticalized case suffix, as in təŋə-ďa ‘in summer,’ sʲürü-ďa ‘in winter.’ The majority of the spatial postpositions take the older, shorter case suffixes of Proto-Samoyedic origin, and they have lative, locative, elative, and prolative forms as well, for example, bəndi-c ‘to the outside of,’ bənti-ni ‘outside of,’ bənti-ðə ‘from the outside of,’ bənti-məni ‘along the outside of.’ Temporal postpositions are normally not inflected for case, but there are postpositions with case suffixation as well. These postpositions normally have a base noun with the meaning ‘time, period,’ such as bəi ‘period’ (bəi-tə ‘to (this) time,’ bəi-tənu ~ bəi-tənɨ ‘in (this) time’); hirə ‘period, time’ and čühə ‘time’ (čübə-c, čühə-nɨ). The postposition čübǝ-c has lost its temporal meaning and currently is used as a spatial postposition ‘to.’ Formally, it is the postpositional lative (-c) form of the word čühə ‘time.’ Examples (17a) and (17b) illustrate how these postpositions are used: kondu-ʔ (17) a. təndə tari čübəc mənə that.gen river.gen to 1sg.pro lead-imp.2sg ‘Lead me to that river.’ [KVB_97_Djuhode_nar.044] ͡ b. təə čühə-nɨ təndə ŋamiaj|ďüm|ə ďalɨ (i-sʲüðə)3 that.gen time-loc.adv that.gen other|sel|adjz day be-fut.3sg i-sʲüə oldati-ʔ prazdńikə be-pst.3sg soldier-gen.pl feast ‘At that time, the next day was the day of the Soviet Army [literally the feast of the soldiers].’ [ChND_061023_School_nar.002]

NGANASAN 775

Comitative meaning can be expressed not only with the aforementioned grammaticalized case suffix -na but also with a postpositional construction as well. The postposition nanu contains the na- postpositional stem and the old locative suffix (-nU): ńemi-nə nanu mother-gen.1sg with ‘with my mother.’ (See also sentence (23a) in the following.) Personal pronouns do not form constructions by means of postpositions; instead, the postposition itself takes the appropriate oblique person suffix: nanu-ntuŋ ‘with them,’ nanu-ni ‘with the two of us.’ There are also some stative verbs derived (with suffix |TU) from postpositional stems, for example, from ńərə ‘in front’: ńerə|ðɨ-ndɨ-m before.v-aor-1sg ‘I am ahead/first.’ 17.9 NOUN PHRASE STRUCTURE Noun phrases are overwhelmingly head-final. Postpositions follow their head, which is in the genitive, as in examples (17a–b) earlier or in bintisji-ti nanu wolverine-gen.3sg with ‘(together) with the wolverine.’ Possessive constructions express ownership, part–whole, and kinship relations. There is no structural difference between alienable and inalienable possessive constructions. In the possessive phrase, the person of the possessor is encoded by a person suffix attached to the possession, for example, ńemɨ-mǝ mother-1sg ‘my mother’; if two nouns are involved, the possessor noun takes the genitive suffix, as in ńuǝ-ntǝr ďütüd child-gen.2sg hand ‘your child’s hand.’ Chained genitives are possible, for example, ńemɨ-ntɨr ńemɨr ŋaďar ńüəd mother-gen.3sg mother-gen younger.sibling-gen child ‘her mother’s mother’s younger sister’s child.’ Independent pronouns are used to redundantly encode the possessor only under emphasis, for example, mɨŋ njinɨ-mɨʔ 1pl.pro older.brother-1pl ‘our older brother,’ mənə ba-mə 1sg.pro dog-1sg ‘my dog.’ If the possessor is a noun and the possessed noun is a kinship term, this latter never takes a possessive suffix, for example, ŋɨ͡anturbaʔa ďesɨ young.man.gen father ‘the young man’s father,’ ńemɨ-nǝ ďesɨ mothergen.1sg father ‘my mother’s father.’ Within the noun phrase, the normal word order is head-final, cf. the simple adjective modifiers of anikaʔa maʔ big tent ‘a big tent,’ ǝrǝkǝrǝ kobtu͡a beautiful girl ‘a beautiful girl,’ as well as the participle-based relative clause tuj-sʲüəďəə nɨ come-pst.ptcp woman ‘the woman who had just arrived.’ If the head noun is the name of a body part (such as horə ‘face,’ kou ‘ear’), a relativized copula clause may be used: horə najbəgəə Ø iniɁi͡a face long copula old woman ‘an old woman with a long face’ (i.e. ‘face-is-long old woman’), kou anikaʔa Ø baŋ ear big copula dog ‘a dog with big ears.’ In this construction, the copula is always zero. The head and the attribute agree only in the core grammatical cases nominative, accusative, and genitive. In all other cases, the modifier is in the genitive while the head takes the case suffix appropriate to the syntax of the clause, for example, aniʔka-ʔ maðə-ʔ bigpl tent-pl ‘big tents,’ təndə ďiɡə kunsɨ-ðə this.gen hill.gen inside-abl ‘from inside this hill,’ ńaagəi-ʔ koruðu-ʔ good-gen.pl house-gen.pl ‘of good houses,’ but ńaagə-iʔ ma-tiʔ good-gen.pl tent-lat.pl ‘into good tents.’ Numerals and quantifiers also precede their head within the noun phrase. The head noun remains singular after numerals as well as other quantifiers, for example, sʲiti səmu two cap ‘two caps,’ nagür kənda.ʔku three sledge.dim ‘three small sledges,’ sjiði koruttənu two.gen house-loc ‘in two houses,’ bənsə kuhu all skin ‘the whole skin,’ bəńďə-ʔ hu͡aa-ʔ all-pl tree-pl ‘all the trees.’ With the numeral for ‘two,’ the dual may also appear:

776 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

sʲiti səmu-gǝj two cap-du ‘two caps.’ In (18), quantifier bənsə (nom.pl bəńďə-ʔ) ‘all’ follows the noun it modifies: (18) ǝiʔ, kobtu͡a|rbaʔa-ʔ bǝńďǝ-ʔ hotuǝ-j tunsɨ-tɨ-Ɂ, tǝ exc girl|aug-pl all-pl cheek-acc.pl put-aor-3pl well ‘Aw, the girls all presented their cheeks (to be kissed).’ [KTD_SeuMelanga_flks.973] An NP can have more than one modifier, but non-numeral quantifiers appear with other modifiers only very rarely; in such constructions, they always precede the adjectival element and never occur before a numeral, determiner, or possessor. The possessor can, however, occur with a determiner: the position of the possessor then depends on whether the determiner modifies the possessee; if it does, it assumes the internal position, thus appearing after the possessor expressed by an NP or pronoun: mǝnǝ tətі iniðɨə-mə 1sg. pro this brother.in.law-1sg ‘this brother-in-law of mine.’ 17.10 CLAUSE-LEVEL SYNTAX 17.10.1 Constituent order and discourse structure The constituent order of the clause reflects discourse structure. The statistically most common neutral order in a transitive declarative clause is AOV, as in (19). ŋǝmǝbtu|gu-ču (19) Kǝhurüʔa ńuǝ-m-tɨo Kehurü child-acc-3sg feed|dur-aor.3sg ‘Kehurü is feeding her child.’ [KSM, 2006] Free pronouns occur as subjects and objects only under emphasis; these arguments are always obligatorily indexed on the verb, as the relevant member of the appropriate index set (20a and 20b). A minimal clause typically contains just one finite verb (20c). (20) a. četu͡a muan-u-ʔi-nə very be.tired.out-ep-aor.refl-1sg.refl ‘I’m very tired.’ [PED_041206_MyFather_nar.043] b. tə, ŋomtə|bta-ʔa-ðu kaďa-tu well sit|caus-aor-3sg>sg near_to-obl.3sg ‘Well, he seated him next to himself.’ [ChND_061025_Haljmira_flks.177] c. ńuə-ðɨ ŋəmur|sa sʲaðɨ-ʔə, tə ďembiʔ|tə|ʔki-ʔi-ðə child-3sgposs eat|inf finish-aor.3sg well dress|ipfv|res-aor.refl-3sg.refl ‘When the son finished eating he started to get dressed’ [ChND_061025_Haljmira_flks.076] Objects can be moved to the clause-initial position if focalized; the subject can then occur after the verb (21a). The verb can assume clause-initial position as well, especially in imperative sentences (21b), or in the verum focus context (21c): (21) a. tańďə ho-ndɨ-m, mənə family.acc have-aor-1sg 1sg.pro ‘I have a family.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.347]

NGANASAN 777

b. huu-ŋɨ-rɨʔ takǝǝ bɨŋɨ-mǝ call-imp-2pl that son.in.law-1sg ‘Call that son-in-law of mine!’ [ChND__061025_Haljmira.197] c. tə ŋuəlɨ-m ŋuča-küə-m so of.course-1sg let.go-imp.fut-1sg ‘So, of course, let me let go.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.084) In clauses with an overt pronominal object, it obligatorily occupies the preverbal position (22a). If both the pronominal subject and object are stated as free pronouns, the order is AOV. In this latter configuration, it is the subject that is contrasted, and it can take emphatic suffixes as well (22b). (22) a. tənə ŋəðə|tə-ndu-m 2sg.pro.acc find|ipfv-aor-1sg ‘I’m going to find you.’ [KTD_SeuMelangana_flks.1352] b. mɨm|biə-nə tənə hičibtɨ|ndə|ʔki-Ɂə-m 1pro|emp-obl.1sg 2sg.pro.acc teach|ipfv|res-aor-1sg ‘I’ll teach you.’ [PKK_71_OneTent_flkd.056] Question words and temporal adverbials also tend to occur at the beginning of the clause (23a), but they sometimes assume a more internal position. Locational adverbs can also take clause-initial position (23b). (23) a. maaďa hüə-tiʔ ŋambu|raa-m-tə hora-ŋu-ŋ why year-lat.pl dream|lim-acc-obl.2sg manipulate-inter-2sg ‘Why are you sleeping all the time?’ [ChND_061025_Haljmira_flks.057] b. təniðə pisʲmoo-ðə-muʔ tuu-ʔə, ńemɨ-nə nanu i-čü-mi from.there letter-dst-1pl come-aor.3sg mother-gen.1sg with be-aor-1du ‘A letter has come for us from there; I was living with my mother.’ (closer translation: A for-us letter came . . .) [PED_041206_MyFather_nar.008] Some of the person suffixes—most commonly second and third person—have a referentiality function. The third-person suffix is used as anaphoric element, signalling a referent mentioned in the previous sentence or clause, or a referent which can be easily inferred from the discourse (24a). The second-person suffix is a common strategy to signal topic continuity (24b). (24) a. sʲelujki͡a-tɨ kuńďi čerə-j bəńďikaa naked.horn.deer-gen.3sg inside.gen contents-acc.pl all.of.them.acc ŋanuə|mənɨ sʲiə|ď-i-ʔə real|adv hole|vblz-ep-aor.3sg ‘It (a mouse) gnawed through all the entrails of the reindeer.’ [TKF_990816_Lemming_flkd.063] b. tahari͡abə sʲelujki͡a-rə tahari͡aa tə|lʲi͡ai-ʔ ńi-ŋɨ-ðə now naked.horn.deer-2sg now that|lim-adv neg.aux-inter-3sg.refl tə|lʲi͡ai-ʔ heŋi|miď-i-ʔə, tə|lʲi͡ai-ʔ tə. that|lim-adv fall.down|mom-ep-aor.3sg that|lim-adv well ‘And the reindeer now just fell down, well.’ [TKF_990816_Lemming_flkd.064]

778 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

17.10.2 Clause types Declarative clauses are textually the most frequent. They appear in narratives, dialogues, and folklore texts as well. The subject of the clause is in the nominative, while the object is in the accusative. In passive constructions, the agent (if it is overt) takes the lative case (25). The subject of a passive sentence is mostly, but not obligatory, topic, that is, it takes clause-initial position: (25) tə, taa-ńə təɁ kontu|ra-ʔi-təʔ well domestic_reindeer-pl.1sg you.know take.away|pass-aor.refl-3pl.refl kou-tə sun-lat ‘Well, my reindeer were taken away by the sun, you know.’ [KVB_97_Djuhode_nar.026] Causative-passive constructions exist in Nganasan as well. This kind of construction can contain the non-productive causative |RU as well as the productive |BTU suffix. Generally, in this kind of clause, neither the patient nor the agent need be expressed by overt NPs, as in (26a). The causer, if present, is in the lative (26b). The two causative suffixes together form the factitive suffix |RUbtU, which can be attached only to transitive verbs. In this kind of construction, the causer is indexed on the verb, while the causee is in the lative (27). (26) a. bəə|ru|ru-ďüü-nə get_across|caus|pass-pst.refl-1sg.refl ‘I was taken across (the river).’ [ChNS_080302_Bear_nar.064] b. təndə-tə ləŋɨ|btɨ|rɨ-ďii-ðə i-bahu škola-muʔ. that-lat burn|caus|pass-pst.refl-3sg.refl be-rep.3sg school-1pl ‘It is said that our school was burned by him.’ [ChND_061023_School_nar.055] (27) sʲüar-tə-tu taa-m-tu kotu|ru|bta-ʔa friend-lat-obl.3sg domestic_reindeer-acc-3sg kill|caus|caus-aor.3sg ‘S/he had her reindeer killed by his/her friend.’ [KNT, 1994] In both polar and non-polar questions, the verb takes one of the interrogative mood suffixes (Table 17.13), and the constituent order is the same as in a declarative clause. Zero copula interrogative clauses have a higher-pitch intonation pattern, the tone peak being higher than that of an affirmative sentence. The peak is located at the end of the clause. In an affirmative answer, the particle ǝəʔ ‘yes’ appears with simple affirmative sentences, while in negative answers, the negative existential particle ďaŋku appears followed by the negative auxiliary, for example, ďaŋku, ńi|gə-tɨ-mɨʔ not neg.aux|iter-aor-1pl ‘No, we didn’t.’ Еchо-questions are not typical in Nganasan texts. Structurally, they resemble polar questions. As in Enets and Nenets, questions can be used for strong asseveration as well: they are then in the form of rhetorical questions, simple assertions, or assertions deduced from the context. In these clause types, the interrogative form of the negative auxiliary appears before the main verb,4 as in example (28) (28) kəku|rbɨɁɨ͡ai|m-i-ʔə ŋutə-mə ńi-ŋɨ-m ďük-ə-ʔ fog|aug|tra-ep-aor.3sg way-acc.1sg neg.aux-inter-1sg lose-ep-cng ‘It became foggy and didn’t I just go and (= I certainly did) lose my way.’ [JDH_00_Njaakju_flkd.005]

NGANASAN 779

In an imperative clause, the verb takes imperative suffixes; with a 2sg subject, a direct object is in the nominative. Constituent order is the same as in a declarative clause, but the verb can also assume clause-initial position (21b earlier). The subject of the sentence is most often not expressed by an overt NP. The negative imperative is expressed with the imperative form of the standard negative auxiliary. 17.10.3 Possessive, locative, and existential clauses Existential and locative clauses are generally fairly similar. Existential sentences may be formed either with or without an existential copula verb. Copula-less sentences are far less frequent; it appears in tales as one of the introductory sentences. There are two existential verbs in Nganasan: təi|sʲa ‘to exist, to be present’ and the copula təni+j|sʲa ‘to exist, to be there.’ The copula təni|+j|sʲa is a composite: it contains the adverb təni ‘there’ and the copula i|sʲa. It is used to express existence in a place; thus, this kind of clause normally has a locative (coda), while the other is used to express abstract existence or a statement that something exists generally (compare sentences 29b–c). In locative sentences, the copula i.sʲa appears. In a locative sentence, the pivot (theme) takes the sentence initial position, while in the existential sentence, this position is taken by the coda (locative), if it appears at all. Sentence (29a) is a locative sentence, while sentences (28b–c) feature an existential construction. (29) a. tə, mənə tənini i-sʲüə-m . . . well 1sg.pro there be-pst-1sg ‘I used to be there . . .’ [ChND_061023_School_nar.047] b. tahari͡abə təndə sʲiti bəŋgüʔtüə təi-ču now there two burrow be.available-aor.3sg ‘Now, there are two burrows.’ [TKF_031118_War_nar.50] c. tahari͡aa təti, ďerevńa Svotńa təni+j-hu͡aŋhu now that village Shodnya there+be-rep.3sg ‘They say there is a village Shodnya.’ [KES_031115_Paris_nar.057] There is more than one way to express predicate possession in Nganasan, and there are no semantic restrictions regarding the possessor or the possessed. In one construction, the transitive verb hon|sɨ ‘to have’ (see 30a) is used; in the other, we have an existential construction with the verb təi|sʲa ‘to exist’ (30b). In the latter construction, the subject of the clause is the possessed NP. This usually takes a person suffix indexing the person/ number of the possessor. If the possessor is expressed as a free pronoun, it appears in the nominative case, and the possessed entity takes the appropriate possessive suffix (30c). In transitive constructions, the possessor is the subject and the possessed NP is the direct object of the clause and therefore stands in the accusative. hon-tɨ. (30) a. tahari͡abə təbtə kobtu͡a-jD now also girl-pl.acc have-aor.3sg ‘Now, he has daughters as well.’ [JSM_080217_FourBrothers_flkd.079] b. tǝmuŋku bǝjkaʔaR ińiʔi͡a-tɨD tǝi-ču mouse old.man wife-3sg be.available-aor.3sg ‘The mouse-old-man has a wife.’ [PKK_71_BirdMan1_flkd.007] təi-ču sɨrajkuə c. tənəR 2sg.pro be.available-aor.3sg white ‘You have got a white bag.’ [KTT, 2008]

huəða-lʲəD. bag-2sg

780 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

17.10.4 Copula clauses Nearly all parts of speech can function as predicates. In the present tense, copula clauses contain a zero copula and the copula complement carries person suffixes identical to those of the subjective conjugation. However, in the past and future tense, a copula is obligatory. Compare the following examples: nəŋhə ‘bad’ > nəmbə-ŋ bad-2sg ‘you are bad’; basutuə ‘hunter’ > basutuə i-sʲüə-m hunter be-pst-1sg ‘I was a hunter’; ńaagəə ‘good’ > ńaagəə-ŋ i-sʲüə-ŋ good-cop.2sg be-fut-2sg ‘you will be good.’ Two main types of copula clauses may be distinguished: adjectival (31a-b) and nominal (31c). Though only seldom attested, demonstratives (31d), question words, local adverb, and particles can also function as copula complements. (31) a. mənə təʔ məŋkəə-m maa-mə kuniɁi͡a mej-čə-ŋɨ-m. 1sg.pro surely poor-1sg what-acc.1sg how do-fut-inter.1sg ‘And I am poor, what can I do?’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.473] b. ńilɨ|bsʲa-rə ńaagəə i-sʲüə live|n-2sg good be-pst.3sg ‘Your life was good.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.006] c. maa-güə sʲamkujsʲi mað-a|ŋku what-emp unpretentious tent-ep|dim ‘It's a modest small tent.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.391] d. mənə təndə-m tɨmini͡a tahari͡aiʔ mənə kəmü|ðü|kə-ʔ 1sg.pro that-1sg now now 1sg.pro catch|vblz|iter-imp.2sg ‘I am that (girl), now catch me!’ [ChND_99_Shaman2_flkd.020] 17.10.5 Negation Standard negation is expressed by the auxiliary verb ńi|sɨ, which takes all the usual inflectional suffixes and some derivational suffixes (e.g. iterative, habituative, imperfective, attenuative, etc.), although most of the derivational suffixes remain on the main verb. The latter always appears in an invariable connegative form, formed with suffix -ʔ, and it takes the position after the auxiliary. However, other constituents may occur between the negative auxiliary and the main verb (32c). The negative auxiliary has a connegative form, which is used with other auxiliaries, such as əkɨ- ‘maybe.’ The negative auxiliary is realized solely in the imperfective form; thus, under negation, the formal distinction between imperfective and perfective aspect is lost. The following sentences demonstrate the negative auxiliary with aorist (32a), future tense (32b), and mood (32c) markers. (32) a. . . . mənə tənə təʔ ńi-ndɨ-m 1sg.pro 2sg.pro.acc you.know neg.aux-aor-1sg ‘You know, I do not see you.’ [ChND, 2008]

ŋəðü-ʔ . . . see-cng

b. ŋonə-ntə ńi-sɨðə-ŋ hou|r-ə-ʔ oneself-obl.2sg neg.aux-fut-2sg chop|freq-ep-cng ‘You will not chop firewood by yourself.’ [JSM_090809_Life-nar.015] c. ńi-bi͡ahɨ-m maa-gəlʲičə təðu-ʔ neg.aux-rep-1sg what-emp.acc bring-cng ‘I hadn’t brought anything.’ [JSM_090809_Life_nar.478]

NGANASAN 781

There are certain elements which are inherently negative as well, such as the verb ďeru|sa ‘to not know’ (33a) or the negative particle sɨlʲiaðə ‘I do not know’ (33b). The affirmative counterpart of the verb ‘to not know’ is čenɨ|ďi ‘to know’ (33c). Both verbs can be negated. The negated form of the verb ďeru|sa has the meaning ‘know’ (33d), but this form is rarely used. The negated form of the verb ‘know’ also appears in emphatic interrogative clauses (33e). (33) a. tahari͡aa ďeru-tu-m mənə, munu-ntu now not.know-aor-1sg 1sg.pro say-aor.3sg ‘I don't know.—she says.’ [KNT_940903_KehyLuu.159] ͡ b. sɨtɨ munu-ntu: sɨlʲiɁiað-əu 3sg.pro say-aor.3sg I_do_not_know-exc ‘He says: I don't know!’ [KNT_940903_KehyLuu.096] c. mənə čenɨ-ntɨ-ńə 1sg.pro know-aor-1sg>pl ‘Yes, I know them.’ [KVB_97_Djuhode_nar.165] d. ńi-ŋɨ-ŋ ďeruďə-ʔ əmə sʲitəbɨ neg.aux-inter-2sg not_know-cng this.acc tale.acc ‘You know this tale, don’t you?’ [Tereshchenko 1979: 262] e. tə, ńükü tə əntɨ sərəə-m-tə ńi-ŋɨ-ŋ čenɨ-Ɂ well child well sort.of road-acc-obl.2sg neg.aux-inter-2sg know-cng ‘Son, don’t you know how to go home from here?’ [MVL_080226_TwoHorses_flks.437] The negative auxiliary has some nonfinite forms, namely, supine forms and verbal nouns, but it has no participial forms, except for the present participle, which in some constructions can be used predicatively. Habituality may be expressed by means of the augmentative form of the present participle, as in example (34): (34) ŋanaʔsan-u-ʔ ŋəmsu ńi|ntɨ|ʔɨ͡a-mi ŋəmsaď-ə-ʔ person-ep-gen.pl food.acc neg.aux|ptcp.prs|aug-1du eat-ep-cng ‘We usually do not eat strange foods.’ [PED_080731_Competition_nar.176] There are other negative elements and negative constructions as well. The negative existential particle ďaŋku and the negative existential verb ďaŋguj|sʲa are used for existential, locative, and possessive negation. The particle ńintuu is used to negate constituents as well as copula complements. Negation in the past or future tense is obligatorily expressed using the negative auxiliary. (For a more detailed description on negation, see Gusev 2015 or Wagner-Nagy 2011, 2019). (35) a. takǝǝ ŋanasa-ʔ turku bǝrǝ-nu ďaŋku-ʔ that person-pl sea.gen shore-loc.adv be.not-3pl ‘Those people are not on the shore of the sea.’ [ChND, 2008] b. basa-mǝ ďaŋku maa|čǝ-tǝ-mǝ ńakǝlǝ|bi-nǝ iron-1sg be.not.3sg what|emp-dest-1sg take|cond-obl.1sg ‘I have no money to buy something.’ [TKF_080808_IronHand_flks.408]

782 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

c. tahari͡aa ńintuu təti-rə ŋanaʔsa|ləgu, tə now not that-2sg person|sim well ‘Not really similar to a human.’ [KNT_960809_WildAnimals_flkd.182] d. tǝti-rǝ ńi-sɨǝ ǝmlǝďi ŋuǝ-ʔ this-2sg neg.aux-pst.3sg such be-cng ‘He wasn’t like this.’ [TKF_061105_MasterOfIdols_flk.056] 17.10.6 Comparative constructions In an equative construction, the standard is either followed by comparative postposition mantə, or else, it takes the similative suffix (|RəKU). In a comparative clause (36b), the standard NP takes the elative case. In both sentence types, the adjective (quality) appears in the position of the predicate and is thus mostly clause-final; it is inflected as a copula complement. There are derived moderative adjectives which express the speaker’s subjective relationship with the referent: it can express intensity or even comparison. The derivational suffixes belonging to this group have a similar meaning, but they differ from each other in subtle ways. Compare the examples česəgəə ‘cold’ > česəgə-ďir ‘quite a bit colder,’ česəgə-jki͡a ‘substantially cold’; təŋkə-gəə ‘strong’: təŋgu-ďə ‘a bit stronger,’ hekəgəə ‘warm’: hekə-ʔlʲikü ‘a bit warmer.’ Of these forms, only the adjectives with the suffix -ʔlʲikü appear in true comparative sentences as predicates (36c). Superlative constructions are rare; they can be expressed by repetition of the adjective. In this case, the first adjective is in the elative plural form, while the second is inflected predicatively, for example, česəgəə-gitə česəgəə-ŋ cold-ela.pl cold-cop.2sg ‘you are the coldest.’ If the referent of the standard NP is compared to all entities in the set to which it belongs, the adjective is preceded by the quantifier bənsə ‘all,’ which takes the plural elative suffix. (36) a. tənə ńemɨ-rə kuʔ ərəkərə, mənə 2sg.pro mother-2sg very beautiful.3sg 1sg.pro ‘Your mother is as beautiful as mine.’ [KSM, 2006]

ńemɨ-nə mantə mother-gen.1sg like

b. sɨtɨ ma|küə-gətə-tu təti-rə əlɨgaɁku 3sg tent|emp-ela-obl.3sgposs this-2sg small ‘This one was smaller than his tent.’ [KNT_940903_KehyLuu_flkd.069] c. mənə taa-ńə taa-gitə-tə merə|ʔlʲikü-ʔ. 1sg.pro reindeer-pl.1sg reindeer-ela.pl-obl.2sg fast|mod-pl ‘My reindeer are a bit faster than your reindeer.’ [ChND, 2008] 17.10.7 CLAUSE COMBINING5 True complex sentences are quite rare in Nganasan. Clauses are generally joined asyndetically (37a), although the Russian loan conjunction i ‘and’ is used at the clausal level by some speakers. Sentence (37a) illustrates a sentence without any connective elements, while (37b) reflects the usage of the borrowed conjunction. Disjunction is also usually expressed by simple juxtaposition of finite clauses, but occasionally, the Russian connector ilʲi can be found. (37) a. mənə ŋurəkuə-ďiə-m, ma-tini i-sʲüə-m, 1sg.pro be.idle-pst-1sg tent-loc.pl be-pst-1sg

NGANASAN 783

ńi-sɨə-m taa|čü|gu-ʔ neg.aux-pst-1sg reindeer|vblz|dur-cng ‘I didn’t go anywhere, I stayed at home, (and) I didn’t shepherd reindeers.’ [ChNS_080302_Wife_nar.005] b. bəðu͡a-suə-m i hüə-tiʔ tam-nɨ i|gə-tu-muʔ grow(tr)-pst-1sg and year-lat.pl there.far-loc.adv be|iter-aor-1pl ‘I grew up and we were always there.’ [KECh_080214_Childhood_nar.003] Almost all dependent clauses are nonfinite constructions built with particles or verbal nouns. In complement clause constructions, there is no element in the matrix clause referring to the complement clause, and no conjunction is used. The dependent clause is nonfinite (38a). However, due to Russian influence, a complementizer što can appear in the complement clause (38b); such clauses are always finite. (38) a. tə ďebtu-gu-ðəm, [manuə hüńsʲərəə Hotərɨə ŋəð-ə|ʔə well tell-imp-imp.1sg early ancient Hotarye shaman-ep|aug.gen hoðɨ|ʔmɨə|ďəə]O dive|an|nmlz.pst.acc ‘Well, I’ll tell [(the story of) how Hotarye the Shaman drowned long ago].’ [KSM-ChND_061105_Hotarye_flkd.002] ďeru|kə-tu-muʔ, [što təi-ču-ʔ lʲüəʔsa-ʔ b. mɨŋ Rudaže mɨŋ 1pl even 1pl.pro not.know|iter-aor-1pl that ex-aor-3pl Russian-pl lʲüəʔsa-ʔ təi-ču-ʔ sɨlɨ|rɨa-ʔ]o Russian-pl ex-aor-3pl who|lim-pl ‘[We did not know] that there are Russians and others.’ [KECh_080214_Childhood_nar.005] Temporal clauses can express anteriority and simultaneity. All constructions are built with nominalized forms: simultaneity by the action noun |NTU inflected for lative (-NTǝ) case (39a) or by the action noun |HUɁə. To express anteriority, the action noun |ɁmUə, inflected for elative case (KǝCtǝ), may be used (39b). The subject of the nonfinite adverbial clause is expressed either by a nominal phrase in the genitive (39a) or a possessive suffix following the case suffix (39b). (39) a. [təmuŋku büü|tü-ndə bəńďə-ʔ] ŋəmə|ki-ʔə-ʔ mouse.gen go|an-lat all-pl eat|res-aor-3pl ‘When/While the mouse is going out, they all started to eat.’ [TAM_68_Reindeer_flkd.024] b. [ďeŋguj-mə čiə|ʔmɨə-gətə-nə] ŋonəi|ʔ bii-ʔi͡ai-nə trap-acc.1sg set.a.net|an-ela-obl.1sg one.more|adv go.away-aor.refl-1sg.refl [čütü-tə-mə huur|sɨ] bait-dest-acc.1sg look.for|inf ‘After setting my trap I went to search for bait again.’[KBD_71_PolarFox_nar.005] There are two basic types of conditional sentences. In the first type, both the main clause and the sub-clause express conditionality (40a). In the second type, only the sub-clause

784 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

is conditional, and the main clause does not express conditionality (40b). The core of the simple conditional clause is the conditional form |hüʔ or |hüʔnü (for future tense), which can be followed by a person suffix cross-referencing the subject of the structure, but the subject can also be stated by a full NP in the genitive. Nominalized verbal forms or the irrealis verbal mood (40c) are also used to express conditionality. (40) a. [čii-ďiə i|hü-tü], kotu-baaðəə-mə, təbtə|raa come.in-pst.3sg be-cond-obl.3sg kill-irr-1sg>sg also|lim ͡ ͡ ŋəŋ-huaaðəə-mə ŋəndiʔiaiʔ. eat.up-irr-1sg>sg probably ‘If he had come in, I would have killed him and eaten him.’ [MVL_080303_SevenGirls_flkd.066] b. [tənə ńi|bini-ntə kuniʔi͡a maa-gəlʲičə mɨə-ʔ], mənə 2sg.pro neg.aux|cond.fut-obl.2sg how what-emp do-cng 1sg.pro kou-ʔsuðə-m leave-fut-1sg ‘If you don’t do anything, I’ll stay.’ [KNT_960809_WildAnimals_flkd.184] c. [mənə munu-baaðəə-m ďaðə-tə], mənə hɨləðɨ-sɨə-m 1sg.pro say-irr-1sg all-obl.2Sg 1sg.pro be.afraid-pst-1sg ‘I could have told you about that, but I was afraid.’ [TNK, 2008] Purpose clauses usually have one of the supine forms (|nA2Kə or |ʔsA2), but with verbs of motion, the infinitive is used: see huur-sɨ in (39b) earlier. The structure of the sentence is formally not complex. Usually, the subject of a purposive clause is the same as the subject of the matrix clause, but occasionally, structures surface with different subjects as well. The subject of a supine clause is cross-referenced by a person suffix from the oblique series: ďoðaʔku|nі͡agə-tu kiss|sup-obl.3sg ‘in order for him/her to kiss, so that s/ he kisses,’ ńuə-ntə ńi|ni͡agə kuə-ʔ child-gen.2sg neg.aux|sup die-cng ‘so that your child doesn’t die, in order to prevent your child’s dying.’ Clauses giving a reason or cause are very rare. In most cases, the main and the subordinate clause are linked without any conjunction, but the term suəbəsɨ ‘because’ and the grammaticalized phrase təniʔi͡aisʲa from təniʔi͡a ‘so’+ isʲa be-inf with the meaning ‘for this reason’ can be used (41). The conjunction appears in the subordinated clause as subordinator, while təniʔi͡aisʲa stays in the main clause, referring to the subordination. (41) kəði͡a, əmtɨ ńuə-gümü təniɁi͡a+i|sʲa ďorə-batu, [čiðiði|m-hi͡atɨ] oh this child-emp so+be|inf cry-infer.3sg furuncle|tra-infer.3sg ‘Oh, this baby is crying, because he has got a furuncle.’ [PKK_71_Ibula.045] Nganasan usually builds relative clauses with prenominal nonfinite verb forms (RelN structure) (42a); however, it is also possible to place the head in front of the relative clause (42b). The relations are encoded by participial constructions in which the participle is the attributive complement of a NP. The participle retains the argument structure of the stem verb, and these complements precede the participle itself. All participles can appear in relative clauses, but the most common participle is the present active participle.

NGANASAN 785

(42) a. təti maðaj|čü-ti [sɨti tətu|ďüəďəə]rc numajkaa that visit|ptcp.prs-3du 3dupro.acc bring|ptcp.pst young.man ͡ mað-u-tu ďa bii-ʔiai-ðə tent-ep-gen.pl.3sg all go.away-aor.refl-3sg.refl ‘Their guest, the young man who brought them here, went home.’ [ChND_080729_SevenNjote_flks.257] koi|ďiəďəə-ðɨ təniðə ŋońďi-ʔə b. ou, tahari͡ aa ŋaďa-tu oh now younger.sibling-3sg leave|ptcp.pst-3sg from.here go.out-aor.3sg ‘The sister, who left here, went out’ [ChND-080729_Mosquitos_flkd.166] 17.11 DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY The most frequently attested type of word-formation process is derivation by means of suffixation. Prefixes and circumfixes are not used in Nganasan, although emphatic pronoun forms (17.6.1) can resemble infixation. Other word-formation methods, such as compounding (ďalɨ+ďər ‘midday, noon’ < ďalɨ ‘day’ + ďer ‘middle,’ lʲüəʔsa+ďir ‘butter’ < lʲüəʔsa ‘Russian’ + ďir ‘fat’) and word creation by loan translation (basa ďamakaʔa ‘helicopter’ < basa ‘metal’ + ďama|ka|ʔa6 ‘animal|dim|aug,’ təiriə ŋənduj ‘airplane’ < təi|riə fly| ptcp.prs + ŋənduj ‘boat’), sporadically occur but ought not be regarded as typical. Conversion is also not typical for Nganasan, but it can occur with noun–verb pairs, for example, ŋəðuc ‘appearance’ ː ŋəðuc-sɨ ‘to appear.’ In some cases, nouns with the present participle (|NTUə) are lexicalized, such as taa|ču|guj|čuə reindeer| cap| dur| ptcp.prs ‘herdsman,’ kolɨ|ðɨ|tɨə fish|cap|ptcp.prs ‘fisherman.’ Broadening and narrowing of meaning sometimes occurs as well, for example, biðɨʔ ‘arrow’ > ‘rifle cartridge’ and basa ‘iron’ > ‘money’ > ‘ruble.’ Some of the nominal derivational suffixes are characteristic of nouns only, while a portion of these can also affect adjectives. There are six action-noun suffixes in Nganasan: all six operate on verbs. There are also locative nouns; these are like action nouns and can be derived with different suffixes, some of which are homophonous with the suffixes used to form action nouns. Table 17.15 is arranged so as to display the distribution of these suffixes. The inventory of evaluative suffixes is quite extensive. There are four different augmentative suffixes: |ʔə(ə), |ʔa, |ʔuə and |RbA1ʔə, all signalling a larger version of the referent of the base, as in korɨ ‘box’ > kora|ʔa ‘big box,’ hu͡alə ‘stone’> hu͡alʲü|rbaʔa ‘huge stone,’ or expressing affective meanings, as in iri ‘grandfather’ > iriʔə ‘grandpa.’ The suffix |ʔüa is attached only to persons’ names, for example, D’indü|ʔüa < ďindü͡a ‘horse.’ Diminutive suffixes denote a smaller version of the base or can be used to express an affective meaning as well, for example, asʲa ‘Dolgan’ > aďa|ku ‘little Dolgan,’ kolɨ ‘fish’ > kol|aɁku ‘little fish.’ The complex suffix |mA2ʔku appears on personal names, for example, ďiŋi ‘knot’ > D’iŋi|mi͡aʔku ‘Dingimyaku (‘little knot’).’ Most adjectives are derived from verbs and nouns; there are only very few underived adjectives, such as nəŋhə ‘wrong,’ bahi͡a ‘wrong, wicked,’ lʲisʲü ‘lazy.’ The derivation of nouns and adjectives is rather different. The most frequently used but unproductive adjective-forming suffix is |Kəə, for example, təŋkə|gəə ‘strong,’ kuntə|gəə ‘long,’ etc. Adjectives with the suffixes |kuə, |jkuə, |ŋkuə, |ʔkuə describe attributes, for example, ďaba|kuə ‘red,’ sɨra|jkuə ‘white,’ ďerbaj|kuə ‘fat.’ The derivational suffix |ə is quite productive and also occurs frequently. The referent of the stem can be a large variety of elements: names of time periods, place names, animal names, and materials. Derived adjective express

786 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY TABLE 17.15  ACTION AND LOCATIVE NOUNS IN NGANASAN Suffix

Action noun

Locative noun

|ʔmUə

ďiə- ‘give birth’: ďiə|ʔmɨə ‘birth’

mətu- ‘cut’: mətu|ʔmuə ‘place where something is cut’

|ʔmUəďə

bəjna|r- ‘be at war with’: bəjnа|rа|Ɂmuəďə ‘war’

ńilɨ- ‘live’: ńilɨ|ʔmɨəďə ‘place where someone used to live’

|bsA2N

büü- ‘go away’: büü|bsʲa ‘walking’

basu- ‘hunt’: basu|bsa ‘present place of hunting’

|HÜʔə

kuə- ‘die’: kuə|buʔə ‘death’ bəðu͡a- ‘grow’: bəðu͡a|mu ‘growing’

----------------

|mUN

----------------

|NTU

bəuS- ‘cross’: bəu|tu ‘passing (across a river)’

----------------

-RəmU

---------

basu- ‘hunt’: basu|rəmu ‘usual hunting place’

|SəmU

---------

ńenə- ‘sink down’: ńenə|ďəmɨ ‘place of sinking’

properties; for example, from ďoaku ‘sediment,’ we have ďoaku|ə ‘muddy, turbid,’ and from hu͡alə ‘stone,’ we have hu͡alə|ə ‘stony.’ Verbal derivational morphology is quite rich and includes aspectual and valence-changing derivation as well as suffixes which change the word class. One of the most frequently used and most productive derivational suffixes is the imperfective suffix |NTə, for example, hu͡an|sa ‘to put down perf’: hu͡a|ntə|sa ‘to put down ipfv.’ Other imperfectivizing suffixes convey iterative (|Kə), durative (|Kuj), habituative (|mUNHA2C), or frequentative (|r) meaning, for example, ďoðür|kə|sa ‘to regularly go on foot,’ tandar|ku|sʲa ‘to hunt at length,’ ďoður|mumba|sa ‘to walk habitually,’ laŋü|r|sʲa ‘to keep shouting.’ There are perfectivizing suffixes as well; these normally express inchoative-resultative meaning, as in the inchoative |lƏ, for example, huj|sʲi ‘to call’: huu|lǝ|sʲi ‘to begin to call’ and the resultative |ʔkƏ, for example, ďarə|ðɨ|sɨ ‘to be ill’ : ďarə|ðɨ|ʔkə|ďi ‘to fall ill.’ There are two transitive-causative suffixes: the suffix |rU is rare and unproductive (e.g. ŋəńə|ru|sa ‘to surprise’), while the suffix |BTU is very frequent, for example, ŋəm|sa ‘eat’ > ŋəmə|btu|sa ‘feed,’ mənəgəj|čü|ďa ‘to drop.’ Composed of these two suffixes is the complex suffix |RUbtU, which expresses causativity, for example, hotə|ďa ‘to write down’ > hotə|rubtu|ďa ‘to make (somebody) write,’ ŋəm|sa ‘to eat’ > ŋəm|lubtu|sa ‘to have (somebody) fed.’ For passivization, Nganasan uses the passive suffix |RU, for example, kǝmǝ|ru-ta-ðǝ take|pass-aor.refl-3sg.refl ‘he will be taken.’ (For passive constructions, see Section 17.10.2 earlier.) Among the more frequent denominal verb types are translative (change of-state) verbs derived with the suffix |m, for example, bəhi͡a ‘wrong’ > bəhi͡a|m|sʲa ‘to go wrong,’ kolɨ ‘fish’ > kola|m|sʲa ‘to become a fish.’ Note also the captative |TUc, as in kolɨ|ðɨ-sɨ ‘to fish,’ satərə|ðu|sa ‘to hunt arctic fox,’ təŋə|ðu|sa ‘to spend the summer,’ and the habitive verb forming |ʔtə, as in taa|ʔtə|sa ‘to have reindeer.’ (See also Wagner-Nagy 2019.)

NGANASAN 787

17.12 LEXICON The Nganasan lexicon contains a fair portion of words of Proto-Samoyedic origin, but there are also many loans from various Uralic and non-Uralic languages. A considerable number of Nganasan words are borrowings from Russian, for example, labku ‘shop’ (< lаvkа ‘shop’), kluba ‘club’ (< klub ‘club’), kinəu ‘cinema’ (< kino ‘cinema’), uručkə ‘pen’ (< ručka ‘pen’). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Nganasan and Evenki populations lived together in close proximity. As a result, several loanwords of Evenki origin surface in Nganasan, for example, ńirü ‘friend’ (cf. Evenki ńiravi ‘friend’), alɨŋaa ‘bow’ (cf. alaŋaa ‘bow’), (e.g. Futaky 1983, 1990; Gusev 2020). In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Enets arrived on the Taimyr Peninsula and settled relatively close to the Nganasan. There was considerable intermarriage between the two groups, and bidirectional borrowings became frequent; this field has yet to be adequately studied. There are also some Russian loans in Nganasan which were borrowed via Enets, for example, Russ. hleb ‘bread’ > Enets kirba > Ngan. kiriba. Nganasan kinship vocabulary combines Uralic with more recent, innovative vocabulary. The basic categories for classification are as follows: closely related vs. distantly related, paternal vs. maternal, male vs. female, elderly vs. young. Basic male relatives are ďesɨ ‘father,’ iri ‘grandfather,’ tɨtɨďa ‘mother’s younger brother (but also ‘son of mother’s older brother’),’ and ńinɨ ‘father’s younger brother (but also ‘elder brother’).’ The terms for female relatives are ńemɨ ‘mother,’ kotu ‘mother’s or father’s older sister,’ abaʔa ‘aunt (father’s younger sister),’ ‘daughter of father’s older brother,’ ŋahu ‘elder sister,’ ‘father’s younger sister,’ imiďi ‘grandmother,’ ‘mother’s younger sister.’ Younger siblings are not distinguished according to sex: ŋaďa ‘younger sibling.’ There are only a few demonyms in the lexicon. This is because of the small number of peoples with whom Nganasans had close contact. The following can be cited: asʲa ‘Dolgan,’ ͡ ~ ďürakə ‘Nenets,’ horə sočə|məə ‘Evenki bai ‘Forest Enets,’ ďakütə(-asʲa) ‘Yakut,’ ďüriakə (‘face is sewn’),’ lʲüəʔsa ‘Russian,’ səmaʔtu ‘Tundra Enets (‘having a cap,’ cf. səmu ‘cap’).’ Due to the limited number of living organisms in the Nganasan habitat, the number of expressions for animals and plants is quite small. The number of expressions for the reindeer, however, is relatively large, owing to its economic importance; a small sample includes auku ‘tame reindeer,’ ďirhi͡a ‘young reindeer (up to the age of one year),’ kobtaʔa ‘castrated male reindeer,’ kuru ‘reindeer bull,’ tosu ‘newborn reindeer,’ ŋаðаʔsʲi ‘reindeer harnessed into a sledge.’ The year is divided into six periods: sʲirü ~ sʲürü ‘winter,’ noru ‘spring,’ kaŋha ‘late spring: end of May, beginning of June,’ təŋə ‘summer,’ sunta‘early autumn: August, early September,’ ŋitü(ə) ~ ŋütü(ǝ) ‘late autumn: October–November.’ For the Nganasan, the changing of months is not connected to astronomical phenomena. The beginnings and ends of months do not fall on a certain day in the calendar but refer rather to a period, since the months have been named after recurring natural phenomena. Table 17.16 shows the month names collected by Sándor Szeverényi and myself in 2008 (Wagner-Nagy 2019, 482–483). 17.13 TEXT The text was recorded in 2006 from Turdagina, Ladun Ngadeevna, by Michail Daniel. The text is part of the Nganasan spoken language Corpus (see Brykina et al. 2018).

788 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY TABLE 17.16  MONTHS OF THE YEAR IN NGANASAN (COLLECTED IN 2008) Period

Name

Stem, meaning

Description

Around January

ďalaʔ bi͡arə|bsʲa kičəðəə

ďalaʔ ‘day [gen.pl]’ bi͡arəbsʲa ‘opening’

month of opening of the day

2nd half of February–1st half of March

lɨŋhɨ ‘eagle’ lɨmbɨʔ kičəðəə ͡ kičəðəə ? sʲeŋibtiðiʔia

month of eagles

month of trees covered with hoar frost

2nd half of February–1st half of March

sʲiəsusʲanə kičəðəə

?

2nd half of March–1st half of April

heńibtiďi kičəðəə ͡ kičəðəə torulʲia

?

Around April

ńerəbtəiʔ toďüʔ kičəðəə

tosu ‘new-born reindeer’ month of newborn reindeer

noru|ə kičəðəə

noruə ‘spring

month of spring

kamba|ďə kičəðəə

kamba ‘late spring’

month of late spring

kəku kičəðəə

kəku ‘fog’

foggy month

Around May

͡ ‘reindeer calf’ torulʲia

month of the reindeer calf

2 half of May

toďüʔ kičəðəə

tosu ‘new-born reindeer’ month of newborn reindeer

Around June

büü|bsʲa kičəðəə

büübsʲa ‘emergence’

the emergence of water

2nd part of June–1st part of July

bɨðu|ďə kičəðəə bɨðɨʔ bi͡arə|bsʲa kičəðəə

bɨʔ ‘water’ bi͡arəbsʲa ‘opening’

wet month

ďebtu|ďə kičəðəə

ďebtu ‘wild goose’

month of the geese

ńenəŋkə kičəðəə

ńenəŋkə ‘mosquito’

month of mosquitoes

ńüńarəŋku kičəðəə

ńüńarəŋku ‘warm’

warm month

2nd part of July–1st part of ďebta|bsa kičəðəə August

ďebtu ‘wild goose’

birds cannot fly yet; they only walk

2nd part of August–1st part konüʔ ńemɨ kičəðəə of September

konə ‘young animal’ ńemɨ ‘mother’

month of young animal’s mother

Around September

kəu kičəðəə

kəu ‘moose’

month of moose

Around October

bɨðɨ kəndi|bsʲa kičəðəə

bɨɁ ‘water,’ kəndibsʲa ‘frost’

water freezes

2nd part of October–1st part of November

ŋitüə kičəðəə

ŋitüə ‘late autumn’

autumn month

2nd part of October–1st part of November

taa kičəðəə

taa ‘domesticated reindeer’

month of domestic reindeer

2nd part of November–1st part of December

babi kičəðəə

bahi ‘wild reindeer’

month of wild reindeer

2nd part of November–1st part of December

məlkü|m|sʲa kičəðəə

məlkə ‘reindeer without antlers’

when the reindeer shed their antlers

2nd part of December–1st part of January

hojmaru kičəðəə

hojminsʲi ‘be dark’

the darkest month

2nd part of December–1st part of January

kəu kičəðəə

kəu ‘elk’

migration of elks

nd

Around July

month of the opening of waters

NGANASAN 789

ńemɨ-nə sʲüar təi-sʲüə-ʔ i-bahu nagür nɨ mother-gen.1sg friend be.available-pst-3pl be-rep.3sg three woman ‘It is said that my mother had three friends.’ ŋuə-čüŋ i-sʲüə i-bahu helɨə-ðɨ one-3pl be-pst.3sg be-rep.3sg relative-3sg ‘One of them was her relative, it is said.’ ńemɨ-ntɨ ńemɨ . . . ŋaďa ńuə i-sʲüə i-bahu mother-gen.3sg mother.gen younger.sibling.gen child be-pst.3sg be-rep.3sg ‘She was said to be the daughter of her mother’s mother’s / grandmother’s younger sister.’ təndɨ-čə tahari͡aa bəńďə-ʔ nagü-nü-ndüŋ četə-nɨ-ndɨŋ tańďaʔa-ʔ that-pl.2sg now all-pl three-loc.adv-3pl four-loc.adv-3pl pregnant-pl i-sʲüə-ʔ i-bahu-ʔ be-pst-3pl be-rep-3pl ‘All the three . . . four of them were pregnant, it is said.’ ͡ četə-nɨ-ndɨŋ tańďaʔa-ʔ i.sʲa tahariaa təndə-ʔ bəńďikaa-ʔ. . . ńa-čüŋ four-loc.adv-obl.3pl pregnant-pl be.inf now that-pl all-pl fellow-pl.3pl əndɨ . . . sʲüar-u-čü bəńďə-ʔ ńuə|čə|Ɂki-Ɂə-Ɂ i-bahu-Ɂ. sort_of friend-ep-pl.3sg all-pl child|vblz|res-aor-3pl be-rep-3pl ‘Four of them were pregnant, and all of them, their, her friends began to give birth.’ i-bahu, mi|lʲia-nə tahari͡aa ŋonə|raa-nu kouc-suə-m 1sg.pro|lim-obl.1sg now oneself|lim-loc.adv remain-pst-1sg be-rep.3sg ńemɨ-ðɨ, ńemɨ-mə ((. . .)) ńi-sɨə ńuə|čə-ʔ, kurəgüiʔ əmə mother-3sg mother-1sg neg.aux-pst.3sg child|vblz-cng even this.gen čübə, aktʼabrʲ čübə ďa. until October time.gen all ‘Only I was left alone (i.e. I was not yet born), it is said; his mother, my mother did not give birth to her baby (= me) until October.’ təə čühə-nɨ tahari͡aa ńuə|čə|ʔkə-ďiə that.gen time-loc.adv now child|vblz|res-pst.3sg aktʲabirʲ kičəðəə sʲüďü|ʔkə|büɁə. October month.gen finish|res|nmlz ‘She gave birth to her baby at the end of October.’

i-bahu, be-rep.3sg

əmə this.gen

tə, təti iniʔi͡a munu-baŋhu, ńemɨ-nə ńuə|čə|sɨ əndɨ well that old.woman say-rep.3sg mother-gen.1sg child|vblz|inf sort.of helɨsɨ|tɨə munu-baŋhu: maaďa tənə təgətətə, D’üďimi͡ aku i|sʲa tənə, help|ptcp.prs say-rep.3sg why 2sg.pro then Dyudimiaku be|inf 2sg.pro maaďa ləðuj-ŋu-ŋ? why be.slow-aor.inter-2sg ‘The old woman who helped my mother (midwife) reportedly said: “Why are you so slow, Djudimyaku?”’

790 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

maaďa təgətətə təniʔi͡a+j|hüʔ tahari͡aa nɨ ńuə-ðə-m-tə why then so+be|cond now woman child-dest-acc-obl.2sg ŋətu|m|hi-ti təti Ləðunɨ i-kuə ńim-ti be.visable|tra|cond-obl.3sg that Ladune be-fut.imp.3sg name-3sg ‘Why are you so, if a girl will be born, her name should be Ladune.’7 təniʔ͡ia+j|sʲa təti tahari͡aa Ləðunɨ mənə ńim-tə-mə so+be|inf that now Ladune 1sgpro name-dest-1sg ńim|ti|ri-sʲii-ðə i-bahu name|tr|pass-pst.refl-3sg.refl be-rep.3sg ‘Therefore, my name is Ladune, it is said.’ sʲüar-u-ńə bəńďə-ʔ ńerə|nɨ-nə ŋətu|m-sɨə-ʔ i-bahu-ʔ friend-ep-pl.1sg all-pl before|loc.adv-obl.1sg be.visible|tra-pst-3pl be-rep-3pl təndə-ʔ əndɨ-ʔ sʲüar-u-tu ńuə|ďəə-ʔ, ńuə-ʔ that-pl sort.of-pl friend-ep-gen.pl.3sg child|nmlz.pst-pl child-pl ‘All my friends were born earlier than me, it is said, the children of her friends, the children.’ helɨ-čiŋ nɨ-ʔ, helɨ-čiŋ kuəďumu-ʔ some-pl.3pl woman-pl some-pl.3pl man-pl ‘Some of them are females, some of them are males.’ tə, bəlta well all ‘That’s all.’ NOTES 1 I am grateful to Valentin Gusev for precious suggestions and for interesting discussion over the years. I would like to thank the editors of this volume, who had commented on the previous versions of this chapter. 2 The lative form of the noun hüə ‘year’ means ‘usually, always.’ 3 The form of the verb is not correct; the speaker corrected it. 4 In Nenets and Enets, in this kind of construction, the negative auxiliary takes clause-final position. 5 In the Nganasan, sentences commas represent pauses between the clauses. 6 ďamaku means ‘bird’ (lit. small animal). 7 The name Ləðunɨ is derived from the verb ləðuj- ‘be slow.’ REFERENCES Brykina, Maria, Valentin Gusev, Sándor Szeverényi, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2016. “Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (NSLC). Archived in Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora.” Version 0.1. Publication date 2016-12-23. http://hdl.handle. net/11022/0000-0001-B36C-C.

NGANASAN 791

Brykina, Maria, Valentin Gusev, Sándor Szeverényi, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2018. “Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (NSLC). Archived in Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora.” Version 0.2. Publication date 2018-06-12. http://hdl.handle.net/ 11022/0000-0007-C6F2-8. Castrén, M. A. 1855. Wörterverzeichnisse aus den samojedischen Sprachen. Published by Anton Schiefner. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Castrén, Matthias Alexander. 1854. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. Published by Anton Schiefner. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dolgikh, Boris. 1952. “Произхождение нганасанов.” Сибирский этнографический сборник 1: 5–27. Futaky, István. 1983. “Zur Frage der nganasanisch-tungusischen Sprachkontakte.” In Urálisztikai tanulmányok Hajdú Péter 60. születésnapja tiszteletére, edited by Gábor Bereczki and Péter Domokos, 155–162. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék. Futaky, István. 1990. “Etymologische Beiträge zum Nganasanischen.” In Gedenkschrift für Irén N. Sebestyén, edited by János Pusztay (Specimina Sibirica 3), 51–55. Szombathely: Savariae. Gusev, Valentin. 2010. “Нганасанский перевод ‘Отче наш’ XVII века.” FinnischUgrische Mitteilungen 32–33: 141–156. Gusev, Valentin. 2015. “Negation in Nganasan.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 103–132. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gusev, Valentin 2020. “Новые эвенкийско-самодийские этимологии. ” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 2 (26): 9–17. Helimski, Eugen. 1998. “Nganasan.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 480–515. London: Routledge. Helimskij, Evgenij. 1994. “Очерк морфологии и словоизменительной морфологии нганасанского языка.” In Таймырский этнолингвистический сборник, edited by Evgenij Helimskij, 190–221. Moscow: RGGU. Krivogonov, V. P. 2001. Народы Таймыра: Современные этнические процессы. Krasnojarks: RIO KGPU. Rantanen T., Tolvanen, H., Roose, M., Ylikoski, J., Vesakoski, O. 2022. Best practices for spatial language data harmonization, sharing and map creation—A case study of Uralic. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269648 Szeverényi, Sándor. 2012. “The Systems of the Deictic Day Names in the Samoyed Languages.” In Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, edited by Tiina Hyytiäinen, Tiina, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi and Erika Sandman, 465–479, Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Szeverényi, Sándor, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2017. “Essive in Nganasan.” In Essive in Uralic Languages, edited by Casper de Groot, 465–481. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tereshchenko, N. M. 1979. Нганасанский язык. Leningrad: Nauka. Várnai, Zsuzsa. 2002. “Fonológia.” In Chrestomathia Nganasanica, edited by Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 33–69. Szeged: SzTE Finnougor Tanszák. Várnai, Zsuzsa. 2010. “Quasi-Consonantal Stems in Nganasan – A Possible Analysis.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32/33: 607–619. Várnai, Zsuzsa, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2003. “Magánhangzó harmónia a nganaszanban. A nganaszan harmóniajelenségek történeti előzményei, avagy a PS

792 BEÁTA WAGNER-NAGY

magánhangzó-harmónia a nganaszan tükrében.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100: 321–337. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages (MSFOu 262). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2019. Descriptive grammar of Nganasan. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

CHAPTER 18

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Olesya Khanina and Andrey Shluinsky

18.1 INTRODUCTION Enets is a highly endangered Northern Samoyedic language spoken in the Taymyr Peninsula, Russia. Until the 1960s in academic literature, and until the 1980s in census data, Enets was represented as a Yenisey dialect of Nenets. There are two varieties of Enets: Forest Enets (FE; also called Baj, Pe-Baj, Karasino Yenisey Samoyed) and Tundra Enets (TE; also called Somatu, Maddu, Chantajka Yenisey Samoyed). The two varieties are mutually intelligible but have a number of clear distinctions in lexicon, phonology, and morphology. Members of the two language communities see themselves as belonging to two separate ethnic groups. Currently, FE and TE are more and more frequently regarded as two different languages, although traditionally they have been analyzed as two dialects of the same language. FE has approximately ten speakers in the village of Potapovo, approximately ten speakers in the town of Dudinka, and some isolated speakers in other settlements of Taymyr; see Figure 18.1 and Khanina et al. (2018) for more details on traditional Enets lands. TE has approximately five speakers in the village of Vorontsovo, less than ten speakers living as nomads together with speakers of Tundra Nenets in the Tukhard tundra, and some isolated speakers in other settlements of Taymyr. There used to be some Tundra Enets in the Avam tundra (villages of Ust-Avam and Volochanka), but the last active speakers passed away by the end of the last century. Nowadays, neither of the two dialects is used on an everyday basis. All Enets speakers today are over 50 years old (most are over 60 years old) and bilingual in Russian or trilingual in Russian and Tundra Nenets. Enets has neither a conventional writing system nor a literary language, although some latest attempts to establish a FE orthography took place in 2019. In community-oriented publications, Cyrillic script is used with spontaneous adaptation using Russian and Nenets orthographic decisions. Most such publications, as well as a regular Enets page in a local newspaper and Enets as a school subject are in FE; former Enets radio transmissions were also in FE, with occasional inserts of TE recordings. As of 2022, FE is being taught in a ‘language nest’ in the Potapovo kindergarten and as an optional lesson in the Potapovo school to children with Enets ethnic background and Russian as their first language. There has long been a FE school dictionary (Sorokina and Bolina 2001), but the first FE school primer (Bolina 2019) was published only recently. This sketch is based mainly on a corpus of texts compiled by the authors. It consists of 32 hours of glossed texts (25 for FE, 7 for TE), containing approximately 40,000

DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-18

794 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

clauses or around 200,000 tokens of word forms. The corpus includes modern recordings from 2005 to 2010, as well as legacy recordings from the 1960s to the early 2000s. Unglossed transcribed FE texts recorded in 2005‒2016 and elicited data on phonology and morphology were also used.1 Existing data on Enets, such as published text collections (Labanauskas 2002; Sorokina and Bolina 2005), dictionaries (Helimski Ms.; Sorokina and Bolina 2009), grammar sketches and grammars (Castrén 1854; Tereščenko 1966; Sorokina 2010; Siegl 2013), and works on phonology (Gluxij 1976; Susekov 1977) were also taken into account. All sentence examples in this sketch are taken from the corpus, if

FIGURE 18.1 MAP OF ENETS SPEAKERS IN THE 2010S. Source: Khanina et al. 2018.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 795

no source is cited. We aim to present information on both Enets dialects, but as we have significantly less data on TE as compared to FE, for some issues there is not enough TE data, and so we have had to make generalizations based on FE only; all such issues are noted in this sketch. Since studies in Uralic linguistics are often diachronically oriented, we must stress here that the present description is purely synchronic. We provide no information on language history, even for those phenomena which are well described in this respect. 18.2 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY 18.2.1 Phoneme inventory FE and TE have almost-identical systems of phonemes and their allophones (Tables 18.1 and 18.2), with the following exceptions. The vowel phoneme /ɛ/ is present in FE only. Some consonantal allophones ([dʒ] and [tʃ] for /dʲ/, [s] for /z/, and [x] for /k/) are present in FE only. FE /ɛ/ corresponds to TE /e/, and FE /e/ corresponds to TE diphthongs /ie/, /iɔ/ (Helimski 2007). 18.2.2 Syllable structure Nearly all underived lexical morphemes are mono- or bisyllabic. Historically, closed syllables were impossible in Enets phonology unless the coda was /ʔ/. At the phonological TABLE 18.1  FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS VOWEL PHONEMES, WITH ALLOPHONES Front Close

Central

FE, TE i [i, ɨ]

Back FE, TE u [u]

Close-mid

FE, TE e [e, ɛ, i, ɨ, ə]

FE, TE o [o, u, ɔ, ə]

Mid-open

FE ɛ [ɛ, æ, a]

FE, TE ɔ [ɔ]

Open

FE, TE a [a]

TABLE 18.2  FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS CONSONANT PHONEMES, WITH ALLOPHONES Bilabial

Dental/ alveolar Palatalized coronals

Plosive

b [b, bʲ, p] p [p, pʲ]

d [d, t] t [t]

Nasal

Velar

Glottal

dʲ [dʲ, ɟ, dʒ, tʲ, tʃ] tʃ [tʃ, tʲ]

k [k, kʲ, x] g [g, gʲ, k]

Ɂ [Ɂ, Ø, V̰]

m [m, mʲ]

n [n]

nʲ [nʲ]

ŋ [ŋ, ŋʲ] x [x, xʲ, χ, ɣ]

Trill

r [r, rʲ]

Fricative

z [ð, ðʲ, z, zʲ, s] s [s, sʲ, θ, θʲ]

ʃ [ʃ, ʃʲ, ç]

l [l]

lʲ [lʲ]

Approximant Lateral approximant

Palatal

j [j]

796 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

level, this is also true for modern TE; modern FE, however, exhibits word-final closed syllables in some suffixal morphemes (see Table 18.8 for an example of a consistent difference between the two Enets dialects in the presence/absence of the final vowel for a set of affixes). The pronunciation of the historic final vowel in this context is very rare in natural FE speech, though possible, for example, TE mɔta-ro ~ mɔta-r, FE mɔta-r >>2 mɔta-ro cut(pfv)-2sg>sg ‘you have cut it off’.3 In TE, consonant clusters occur only in loans, and in FE they are rather rare. Note that we refer here to the fullest pronunciations of words: in practice, some vowels are often omitted (see Section 18.2.4), which leads to numerous closed syllables and consonant clusters, particularly in FE. We adhere to phonological spelling in this description, and for this reason, the vowel reductions are not shown in the examples. 18.2.3 Word prosody Enets has double, or long, vowels: for example, FE, TE abaa ‘elder sister, aunt’; FE, TE tʃii ‘tooth’, FE koo, TE kuu ‘ear’; FE aga-an, TE aga-ane big-prol ‘heavily, loudly’; see Helimski (1984) for the evidence that they are better analyzed as a sequence of two identical vowel phonemes. The first syllable in a word is often more prominent than other syllables: length, intensity, and pitch can contribute to this prominence. The second syllable can also be prominent; further syllables are rarely prominent, though there are some exceptions associated with some suffixes. It is also not uncommon for some of the stress-related parameters to mark out the first syllable and for the others to affect the second syllable. At the same time, different pronunciations of the same words, and even word forms, may be characterized by a change in length, intensity, or pitch in the first or the second syllable. While a study of Enets stress is yet to be undertaken, it is now clear that there is no easily identifiable fixed stress, and that the first syllable is more prominent than other syllables more often than not. It is noteworthy that in target words within a carrier phrase, there are usually fewer prosodic distinctions between the first and the second syllables than in isolated pronunciations: length is the most frequent parameter to differentiate the two syllables in a carrier phrase. 18.2.4 Phonetic and phonemic variation Enets exhibits a high degree of phonetic variation, characterized by numerous allophones (see Tables 18.1–18.2), some of which are free, and by the possibility of zero realization available for the following segments: • • • •

Glottal stop, realized fully, or as creaky voice, or as zero, for example, FE, TE baʔa [baʔa], [ba̰ʔa̰], [baʔa̰], [ba̰ʔa], [ba̰a̰], [baa̰], [ba̰a], [baa] ‘bedding’. Word-final vowels (most often, back vowels, less often, front vowels, and rarely /a/), for example, FE, TE kɔdo [kɔdo], [kɔd], [kɔt] ‘sledge’; FE, TE tʃike [tʃikʲe], [tʃik] ‘this’. The second vowel in the sequence of two identical vowels, for example, FE ʃee [ʃʲee], [ʃʲe:], [ʃʲe] ‘who’, TE miiʔ [mʲi], [mʲi:], [mʲiiʔ] ‘what’. Omission of even-syllable vowels in polysyllabic words, for example, FE sɛkoruʃ [sɛkoruʃ], [sɛkruʃ] bite(pfv)-cvb ‘bite’.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 797

•

A vowel before a word-final /ʔ/ in affixes (in TE, zero and non-zero realizations are equally frequent; in FE, the non-zero realizations are very rare, though possible), for example: TE dʲazo-da-zoʔ [dʲazodazʔ], [dʲazodazɔʔ] walk(ipfv)-fut-1sg ‘I will walk’, TE nɔɔr-e-boʔ [nɔɔrʲebʔ], [nɔɔrʲebɔʔ] get up(pfv)-m-1sg.m ‘I got up’; FE bee-zoʔ ~ bee-zʔ [bʲeezʔ] >> [beezoʔ], [beezuʔ] be.on.duty(ipfv)-1sg ‘I am on duty’, FE sɔʔɔ-e-biʔ [sɔʔɔjbʲ], [sɔʔɔjbʲʔ] >> [sɔʔɔjbʲiʔ] jump.up(pfv)-m-1sg.m ‘I jumped up’.

The number of possible free allophones is higher for non-first syllables: [i] and [ɨ] for /e/ are attested only in non-first syllables, and devoiced allophones of voiced consonantal phonemes are attested mostly word-finally, but also before a voiceless consonant in a consonant cluster resulting from the phonetic vowel omission. Palatalized allophones of consonant phonemes appear only before front vowels, though they are not always used in this context: the frequency of the use of palatalized allophones depends both on the quality of the front vowel and the quality of the consonant. For example, FE, TE /p/ and /b/, FE /k/, and /r/ are represented before front vowels by their palatalized allophones almost always, FE, TE /s/, and /z/ quite rarely, and FE, TE /m/, and FE /g/ are represented by their palatalized allophones roughly as often as they are not. Before /i/, palatalized allophones are attested more often than they are before /e/ or FE /ɛ/. There are also cases of phonemic variation, for example: •

• • •

In the first syllables, /e/ ~ /i/ is observed in FE and TE (for a handful of lexemes, for example, FE tetʃi ~ titʃi be.cold(ipfv).3sg ‘it is cold’; FE ne-ʃ ~ ni-ʃ stand(ipfv)-cvb ‘to be standing’; FE, TE nexuʔ ~ nixuʔ ‘three’, TE nene ~ nine ‘with’; TE edo ~ ido ‘horn’). /ɔ/ ~ /a/ in FE only (for two dozen lexemes, for example, badu ~ bɔdu ‘tundra’, malʲe ~ mɔlʲe ‘already’, dʲaza ~ dʲɔza go(ipfv).3sg ‘he goes’, ɔbu ~ abu ‘what’). /s/ ~ /z/ in FE only (for about two dozen lexemes, for example, ɔsa ~ ɔza ‘meat’, sɔse ~ sɔze ‘belly’, mɔsaʔa ~ mɔzaʔa ‘work’). /ɔ/ ~ /e/ in FE only (for a dozen lexemes, for example, tɔlʲe ~ telʲe ‘here it is’, pɔd ~ ped ‘always’.

As a result of variation in several segments in a word, many words display an array of possible pronunciations, with some words having up to few dozen possible pronunciations. This diversity partly explains why most sources on Enets do not follow any consistent phonemic orthography. 18.3 NOMINALS AND NOMINAL INFLECTION 18.3.1 Nouns 18.3.1.1 Inflectional classes and stems The system of inflectional classes is the same for both nouns and verbs: there is a ‘default’ inflectional class with few stem alternations (the majority of nouns/verbs) and two ‘alternating’ classes—a ‘voiceless alternating class’ and a ‘voiced alternating class’—with

798 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

substantial stem alternations (a small subset of nouns/verbs).4 Each inflectional class is characterized by allomorphs of alternating suffixes: the allomorphs differ only in their initial consonants, for example, FE te-za reindeer-nom.sg.3sg ‘his reindeer’ (default), FE mɛ-ta house-nom.sg.3sg ‘his house’ (voiceless alternating), FE si-da salt-nom.sg.3sg ‘his salt’ (voiced alternating); FE kaza-z kill(pfv)-2sg>sg.imp ‘kill it!’ (default), FE bazi-t tell(pfv)-2sg>sg.imp ‘tell it!’ (voiceless alternating), FE pɔnʲi-d use(ipfv)-2sg>sg.imp ‘use it!’ (voiced alternating). If a suffix begins with a vowel or a consonant other than those listed in Table 18.3 for the ‘default’ inflectional class, it does not have allomorphs conditioned by inflectional class. For pairs of palatalized vs. non-palatalized consonants in the same cell of Table 18.3, the choice is governed by the following vowel: dʲ, tʃ, lʲ occur before front vowels e and i, and d, t, l otherwise (e.g. -za / -da / -ta for nom.sg.3sg, but -ziʔ / -dʲiʔ / -tʃiʔ for nom.sg.3du).5 Nouns of the default class have two stems: basic and plural possessive. The plural possessive stem is used in possessed forms of plural nouns (in FE, also optionally in plural possessed predestinative forms), and the basic stem is used in all other forms. The formation of the plural possessive stem is partly predictable from the last vowel of the stem, but ultimately, it is lexically conditioned, for example, FE, TE poga ‘fishing net’ ~ pogu-naʔ fishing.net-pl.1pl ‘our fishing nets’, FE ɔdu ‘boat’ ~ ɔdi-z boat-nom.pl.2sg ‘your boats’, FE tɔ ‘wing’ ~ tɔi-za wing-nom.pl.3sg ‘his wings’. Nouns of the alternating classes have three stems: basic, nominative, and reduced. The basic stem is the longest, and from it all the other forms can be predicted unambiguously, if the class of the word is known; in the present description, the nominative and the basic stem are used together as the citation forms for nouns, for example, FE mɛʔ / mɛzu, TE meʔ / mezo ‘house’. FE /(C)u/ and TE /(C)o/ at the end of the basic stem alternates with /ʔ/ in the nominative stem, and with zero in the reduced stem. Consonant alterations in affixes mentioned in Table 18.3 arise only when an affix is attached to a reduced stem. The nominative stem is used for: • •

Non-possessed nominative singular 3sg aorist of a non-possessed copula complement form6

The basic stem is used for: • • • • •

Non-possessed oblique singular Nominative and oblique plural (possessed and non-possessed) Prolative plural (possessed and non-possessed) 3pl aorist and past of a non-possessed copula complement form Some derivations

TABLE 18.3  CONSONANT ALTERNATIONS IN AFFIXES, DEPENDING ON INFLECTIONAL CLASSES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Inflectional class

Initial consonant of suffix allomorphs

‘Default’

z

d

dʲ

x

g

b

b

r

s

ʃ

tʃ

‘Voiceless alternating’

t, tʃ

t

tʃ

k

k

m

p

l, lʲ

tʃ

tʃ

tʃ

‘Voiced alternating’

d, dʲ

d

dʲ

g

g

m

b

l, lʲ

dʲ

dʲ

dʲ

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 799

The reduced stem is used for all other nominal forms. Table 18.4 lists all possible subtypes of alternating classes with examples, and Table 18.5 provides some illustrative forms built from these TE sample nouns. 18.3.1.2 Number Enets distinguishes three numbers. In core cases of non-possessed forms, number is encoded by: • • •

Zero in the singular FE -xiʔ / -kiʔ / -giʔ,7 TE nom -xɔʔ / -kɔʔ / -gɔʔ (and -xaʔ possible with /a/-final stems), obl xiʔ / -kiʔ / -giʔ in the dual -ʔ in the plural

TABLE 18.4  SUBTYPES OF ALTERNATING INFLECTIONAL CLASSES WITH STEMS AND EXAMPLES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Subtype of alternating inflectional class

Inflectional stem Basic

Nominative

Reduced

Voiceless (= avs)

FE /zu/-final, TE /zo/-final

FE mɛzu, TE mezo ‘house’

FE mɛʔ, TE meʔ

FE mɛ, TE me

FE /su/-final, TE /so/-final

FE bɔsu ‘part’, TE tubeso ‘cloth’

FE bɔʔ, TE tubeʔ

FE bɔ, TE tube

FE /ru/-final, TE /ro/-final

FE siru, TE siro ‘salt’

FE, TE siʔ

FE, TE si

FE /nu/-final, TE /no/-final

FE tinu, TE teno ‘tendon’

FE tiʔ, TE teʔ

FE ti, TE te

FE /zu/-final

FE mutʃizu ‘custom’

FE mutʃiʔ

FE mutʃi

FE /u/-final, TE /ɔ/-final

FE entʃeu, TE enetʃeɔ ‘person’

FE entʃeʔ, TE enetʃeʔ

FE entʃe, TE enetʃe

FE /lu/-final

FE nɔxilu ‘dirt’

FE nɔxiʔ

FE nɔxi

Voiced (= avd)

TABLE 18.5  SAMPLE FORMS OF TUNDRA ENETS ALTERNATING CLASS NOUNS Stem

Nominative

Basic

Reduced

Form

Nominative singular

Nominative plural

Locative singular

A voiceless alternating class noun

meʔ house ‘a/the house’

mezo-ʔ house-pl ‘(the) houses’

me-kone house-loc.sg ‘in a/the house’

A voiced alternating class noun

enetʃeʔ person ‘a/the person’

enetʃeɔ-ʔ person-pl ‘(the) people’

enetʃe-gone house-loc.sg ‘with the person’

800 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.6  NUMBER FORMS OF FOREST ENETS NOUN BUUSE ‘OLD MAN’ Singular

Dual

Plural

buuse old.man

buuse-xiʔ old.man-du

buuse-ʔ old.man-pl

TABLE 18.7  NUMBER FORMS OF TUNDRA ENETS NOUN MEʔ / MEZO ‘HOUSE’ Singular

Nominative dual

Oblique dual

Plural

meʔ house

me-kɔʔ house-nom.du

me-kiʔ house-obl.du

mezo-ʔ house-pl

Tables 18.6 and 18.7 illustrate number inflection in FE and TE. In the core cases of possessed forms, singular and plural are expressed cumulatively with possessive values, and in the dual the marker FE, TE -xuu- / -kuu- / -guu- is inserted before a possessive suffix otherwise used for plural forms (see 18.3.1.5). In local cases, singular and plural are expressed cumulatively with case, and dual is expressed by an analytical construction (see 18.3.1.4). 18.3.1.3 Core cases Traditionally, three core cases are distinguished (nominative, genitive, and accusative), but there are only two morphologically distinct case forms, nominative and oblique. In singular non-possessed forms, alternating nouns distinguish core cases by the form of the stem. An optional suffix -ʔ for the oblique can be used in TE and only very rarely in FE with nouns of all inflectional classes: TE bine rope.nom.sg ‘rope’, bine rope.obl.sg ‘of rope’ / bine-ʔ rope-obl.sg ‘of rope’, TE meʔ house.nom.sg ‘house’, TE mezo house.obl.sg ‘of a house’ / mezo-ʔ house-obl.sg ‘of house’. When this suffix is not used, default nouns do not distinguish core cases in the singular. In dual non-possessed forms, core cases are not distinguished in FE and are distinguished in TE by the form of the dual affix (see 18.3.1.2). In plural non-possessed forms, core cases are not distinguished at all. Most possessed forms distinguish core cases by the form of the possessive suffix (see 18.3.1.5). The functions of the two core cases in Enets are the following. Subjects are always in the nominative, and plain single-word possessors without their own arguments are always in the oblique, while direct objects can appear in the nominative or the oblique: the choice remains unclear for non-possessed forms (where they are rarely distinguished at all) and depends on the number of the noun and on the person of the possessor for possessed forms. Singular direct objects take nominative suffixes with a first-person possessor, and oblique suffixes with second- and third-person possessors, as in example (1). Plural and dual direct objects take nominative affixes with the second- or third-person possessor (2) and do not distinguish core cases with a first-person possessor. In possessive predestinative forms (see 18.3.1.6), oblique forms unexpected from the person–number values are possible: in FE in other-benefactive contexts (3), and in TE with specific direct objects

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 801

(4). In second-person singular imperative clauses, direct objects are usually encoded by the nominative, even when it is not expected from the number and person factor (5); this tendency is weaker with possessive predestinative forms (6). There are very few instances of direct objects with a case marker that would not be predicted by these rules. (1) FE FE

a. kunʲi poga-jʔ bɛɛrta-da-u how fishing.net-nom.sg.1sg throw(pfv)-fut-1sg>sg ‘How will I leave my net?’ b. poga-d tɛtutuɔ-r fishing.net-obl.sg.2sg measure(pfv)-2sg>sg ‘You have measured your net.’

(2) FE

koba-saj tʃukutʃi pɛdi-zuʔ tʃukutʃi mu-dkod-e-zuʔ skin-com all kamus-nom.pl.3pl all take(pfv)-hypot-sopl-3pl>nsg ‘They will take away all the kamuses with the skins.’8

(3) FE

kɔru-zo-nʲiʔ knife-pred.sg-obl.sg.1sg ‘Give me a knife!’

(4) TE

tɔzo tʃiko-xozo kasa-zo-nʲiʔ mua-zoʔ so this-abl.sg man-pred.sg-obl.sg.1sg take(pfv)-1sg ‘Then I got married (lit. took a husband for myself).’

(5) FE

tʃike nezi|ku-r ʃee|xuru-d i-z mis this calf|dim-nom.sg.2sg who|insist-dat.sg neg-2sg.imp give(pfv).cng ‘Don’t give this calf to anyone!’

(6) FE

sɔjza kɔru-zo-d tɔza-ʔ good knife-pred.sg-obl.sg.2sg bring(pfv)-2sg.imp ‘Bring a good knife (for yourself)!’

ta-ʔ give(pfv)-2sg.imp

18.3.1.4 Local cases There are four local cases in Enets: dative, locative, ablative, and prolative. The suffixes of the local cases are listed in Table 18.8. The dative is used for allative (27), (35) (see also Table 18.15); recipient (5), (7), (67‒68); beneficiary (75); and for agent in a passive construction (72). The locative is used for essive (41), (81), (86) (see also Tables 18.5, 18.9, 18.10, 18.15); instrumental (24); and comitative (71) (see also Table 18.5). The ablative is used for elative (119) (see also Table 18.15) and has some other meanings (31) (see also Table 18.22), including encoding the standard of comparison (20), (52). These three cases also occur in the valence frames of some intransitive verbs (see Section 18.9.2). The prolative is used less often; it expresses the locomotive spatial meaning ‘along’ (see Tables 18.10 and 18.15) as well as the means or amount in return for which something is (ex)changed (11), measure of comparison, and some other functions; the prolative singular suffix is also used to form adverbs from adjectives (see 18.5.1.3). The local case suffixes express case and singular vs. plural number cumulatively.

802 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.8  AFFIXES OF LOCAL CASES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS9 Singular

Plural

Non-possessed

Possessed

Non-possessed

Possessed

dat

FE -d / -t / -d TE -do / -to / -do

FE, TE -xo (-xa) / -ko / -go

FE -xiz / -kiz / -giz TE -xizo / -kizo / -gizo

FE, TE -xi / -ki / -gi

loc

FE -xon (-xan) / -kon / -gon TE -xone (-xane) / -kone / -gone

FE, TE -xone (-xane) / -kone / -gone

FE -xin / -kin / -gin TE -xine / -kine / -gine

FE, TE -xine / -kine / -gine

abl

FE -xoz (-xaz) / -koz / -goz TE -xozo (-xazo) / -kozo / -gozo

FE -xozu (-xazu) / -kozu / -gozu TE -xozo (-xazo) / -kozo / -gozo

FE -xit / -kit / -git, -xiz / -kiz / -giz TE -xito / -kito / -gito, -xizo / -kizo / -gizo

FE -xiti / -kiti / -giti, -xizi / -kizi / -gizi TE -xiti / -kiti / -giti, -xizo / -kizo / -gizo, -xizi / -kizi / -gizi

prol

FE -ɔn (-an) / -mɔn / -mɔn TE -ɔne (-ane) / -mɔne / -mɔne

FE, TE -ɔne (-ane) / -mɔne / -mɔne

FE -in TE -ine

FE, TE -ine

TABLE 18.9  CUMULATIVE EXPRESSION OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL NUMBER IN FOREST ENETS Locative singular

Locative plural

mɛ-kon house-loc.sg ‘in the house’

mɛ-kin house-loc.pl ‘in the houses’

TABLE 18.10  FOREST ENETS NOUNS WITH CASE SUFFIXES ILLUSTRATING THE EFFECT OF VOWEL HARMONY Prolative singular

Locative singular

u-final stem

pu-ɔn stone-prol.sg ‘along the stone’

pu-xon stone-loc.sg ‘on the stone’

e-final stem

ke-ɔn side-prol.sg ‘along the side’

ke-xon side-loc.sg ‘in the side’

a-final stem

dʲa-an land-prol.sg ‘along the land’

dʲa-xan land-loc.sg ‘in the land’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 803

Case suffixes beginning with /ɔ/ or /xo/ are subject to vowel harmony with /a/-final stems and change their /o/ or /ɔ/ to /a/; see Table 18.10. In FE, the /ɔ/-final monosyllabic stems pɔ ‘year’ and ŋɔ ‘leg’ exhibit optional vowel harmony (a recent sound change has turned these words from a-final into ɔ-final stems, cf. TE poa ‘year’, ŋa ‘leg’). Apart from the dative and the TE plural ablative, the form of local case suffixes is the same in possessed and non-possessed forms; in modern FE, non-possessed forms also lack the final vowel of the case suffix. Nouns in the dual have no synthetic forms of local cases; instead, analytical constructions built with postpositions are used: FE, TE neʔ for dative, FE nen, TE nene for locative, FE nez, TE nezo for ablative, FE neɔn, TE neɔne for prolative. (7)

a. kasa-xi-tuʔ mana man-dat.pl-obl.pl.3pl say(pfv).3sg ‘He said to their mates.’ b. kasa-xu-da neʔ mana man-du-obl.pl.3sg dat.du say(pfv).3sg ‘He said to his (two) mates.’

18.3.1.5 Possessed forms Enets possessive suffixes cumulatively express person and number (singular, dual, plural) of the possessor and number (singular, non-singular) and core case of the possessed (Table 18.11). Dual nouns have -xuu- between the stem and a possessive suffix. Possessed local cases are formed by adding oblique possessive suffixes after a local case suffix (see Table 18.12); this is why core cases and local cases are better analyzed as two separate nominal categories.

TABLE 18.11  POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Singular head noun

Non-singular head noun

NOM

OBL

NOM

OBL

1SG

FE, TE -jʔ, -biʔ / -miʔ / -miʔ

FE, TE -nʲiʔ

2SG

FE -r / -l / -l TE -ro / -lo / -lo

FE -d / -t / -d TE -do / -to / -do

FE -z TE -zo

3SG

FE, TE -za / -ta / -da

FE, TE -da / -ta / -da

FE, TE -za

1DU

FE, TE -jʔ, -biʔ / -miʔ / -miʔ

FE, TE -nʲiʔ

2DU

FE, TE -riʔ / -lʲiʔ / -lʲiʔ

FE, TE -dʲiʔ / -tʃiʔ / -dʲiʔ

FE, TE -ziʔ

FE, TE -tʃiʔ, -dʲiʔ

3DU

FE, TE -ziʔ / -tʃiʔ / -dʲiʔ

FE, TE -dʲiʔ / -tʃiʔ / -dʲiʔ

FE, TE -ziʔ

FE, TE -tʃiʔ, -dʲiʔ

1PL

FE -aʔ (-eʔ, -ɔʔ), -baʔ / -maʔ / -maʔ TE -aʔ (-eʔ), -baʔ / -maʔ / -maʔ

FE, TE -naʔ

2PL

FE, TE -raʔ / -laʔ / -laʔ

FE, TE -daʔ / -taʔ / -daʔ

FE, TE -zaʔ

FE, TE -taʔ, -daʔ

3PL

FE, TE -zuʔ / -tuʔ / -duʔ

FE, TE -duʔ / -tuʔ / -duʔ

FE, TE -zuʔ

FE, TE -tuʔ, -duʔ

FE, TE -nʲiʔ FE -t TE -to, -do FE, TE -ta, -da

FE, TE -nʲiʔ

FE, TE -naʔ

804 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.12  FORMS OF FOREST ENETS NOUN MƐʔ / MƐZU ‘HOUSE’ ILLUSTRATING EXPRESSION OF 2SG POSSESSOR TOGETHER WITH NUMBER AND CASE (CORE OR LOCAL) Nominative

Oblique

Locative

Singular

mɛ-l house-nom.sg.2sg ‘your house’

mɛ-t house-obl.sg.2sg ‘of your house’

mɛ-kone-d house-loc.sg-obl.sg.2sg ‘in your house’

Plural

mɛzu-z house-nom.pl.2sg ‘your houses (pl)’

mɛzu-t house-obl.pl.2sg ‘of your houses’

mɛ-kiti-t house-loc.pl-obl.pl.2sg ‘in your houses’

Dual

mɛ-kuu-z house-du-nom.pl.2sg ‘your houses (du)’

mɛ-kuu-t house-du-obl.pl.2sg ‘of your houses (du)’

mɛ-kuu-t nen house-du-obl.pl.2sg loc.du ‘in your houses (du)’

18.3.1.6 Predestinative forms Predestinative forms are built with a dedicated predestinative suffix and form part of a benefactive construction comprising the predestinative suffix (encoding the presence of a beneficiary in a given clause), followed by a possessive suffix (which identifies the person and number of the beneficiary itself), (8)-(9). More rarely, instead of a possessive suffix, a separate possessive NP can be used (10). (8) FE

ʃuzebitʃu|ku-zo-daʔ tale|dim-pred.sg-obl.sg.2pl ‘I will tell you a tale.’

(9) FE

padarka-zo-za gift-pred.sg-nom.sg.3sg ‘Is there a gift for him?’

bazi-ta-zʔ tell(pfv)-fut-1sg

tɔnee ? exist(ipfv).3sg

(10) nʲe-nʲiʔ nɛ-z pe|lu-da-zʔ FE child-obl.sg.1sg woman-pred look.for(ipfv)|inch-fut-1sg ‘I will look for a wife for my son.’ Non-possessive predestinative forms, as in (10), are built with the predestinative suffix FE -z / -t / -d / TE -zo / -to / -do; number and case are not distinguished in these forms. Possessive predestinative forms are built with the predestinative suffix FE, TE -zo- / -to- / -do- in the singular and FE, TE -zi- / -ti- / -di- in the plural, followed by a possessive suffix, cf. FE mɛ-to-jʔ house-pred.sg-nom.sg.1sg ‘a house for me’, mɛ-ti-nʲiʔ housepred.pl-pl.1sg ‘houses for me’; see also (11). Dual forms are built with the singular variant of the predestinative suffix and the dual number suffix -xuu-; however, data for dual forms are scarce and rather controversial. (11) tʃike bɛse-ɔn-da prɔdukti-zi-za mu-da FE this money-prol.sg-obl.sg.3sg groceries-pred.pl-nom.pl.3sg take(pfv)-fut.3sg ‘He will buy groceries for himself with this money.’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 805

Due to the cumulative nature of the possessive suffixes, possessive predestinative forms distinguish core cases. Nominative predestinative forms are used as subjects, both nominative and oblique predestinative forms are used as direct objects (see 18.3.1.3 and 18.9.4), and oblique predestinative forms are also used for translative adjuncts, expressing a function of the referent of a core argument of the verb (e.g. ‘X works as Y’ or ‘to use Z as Y’, where X is a subject, Z is a direct object, and Y is a translative adjunct). (12) lapka-zo-duʔ pɔnʲiŋa-zutʃ FE shop-pred.sg-obl.sg.3pl use(ipfv)-3pl>sg.pst ‘They used it as a shop.’ 18.3.1.7 Translative form The translative is used to denote a function of an object. Diachronically, it is a recent grammaticalization of the general converb of the copula (see 18.4.2.6, 18.4.3): unlike the rest of nominal inflection, it is built not from a stem (see 18.3.1.1) but directly from the corresponding nominative case form (see 18.3.1.3). In FE, the translative can be formed from the nominative singular and plural with the suffix -Vʃ (taking the last vowel of the stem, or rarely, -iʃ), cf. FE ɔsa-aʃ meat.nom.sg-tra ‘as meat’, entʃeuʔ-uʃ person.nom.pl-tra ‘as people’. In TE, the translative does not distinguish singular and plural and is always built from the nominative singular with -ʔa ~ -ʔaj (in free variation), rarely -ʔe ~ -ʔej with e-final stems, cf. TE niɔ-ʔa, niɔ-ʔaj child.nom.sg-tra ‘as a child, as children’. Alternating class nouns in the nominative always have glottal stop as their final phoneme, so a simplification of two glottal stops at the morpheme boundary is observed: TE enetʃeʔ person.nom.sg ‘person, human’ + -ʔa ~ -ʔaj tra > enetʃeʔa, enetʃeʔaj person.nom.sg.tra‘as a person/human, as people’. The translative does not take possessive suffixes and is not attested with personal pronouns. 18.3.1.8 Caritive form The caritive is used to denote the absence of an item and is built with the marker FE -ʃuz / -tʃuz / -dʲuz, TE -ʃuziʔ / -tʃuziʔ / -dʲuziʔ, for example, FE mɛ-tʃuz, TE me-tʃuziʔ house-car ‘without a house’. The caritive does not take possessive suffixes, does not have number forms, and is not attested with personal pronouns.10 18.3.1.9 Copula complement forms Copula complement forms are used when a nominal functions as copula complement of a clause, whether with overt or zero copula, as in (13) (see 18.9.7). (13) iblʲɛjgu-ɔn tazebe-zʔ FE small-prol.sg shaman-1sg ‘I am a bit of a shaman.’ Copula complement forms are built with subject cross-reference indexes of the basic and past-tense modal series (see 18.4.2.2). With nouns of the alternating inflectional classes, the third-person singular and plural forms of the aorist are the same as the nominative forms, so the nominative (for 3sg) and the basic (for 3pl) stems are used; all other forms

806 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

are built from the reduced stem (see 18.3.1.1). Since all Enets suffixes have specific allomorphs to be used with reduced stems if the first consonant of the affix presupposes it (Table 18.3), the cross-reference indexes have allomorphs used exclusively in nominal inflection. In contemporary Enets speech, the system of alternations is partially eroded in copula complement forms: some traditionally built forms with alternations are in free variation with those in which a basic allomorph is added to the reduced stem (both the traditional and the modern forms are listed in Table 18.13, separated by commas). When possessed forms are used as copula complements in the affirmative past, the predicate has ‘past’ possessive affixes resulting from a contraction of nominative possessive markers (see Table 18.11) with a past-tense suffix FE -ʃ, TE -ʃi (for more information on possessed forms used as copula complements, see 18.9.7). (14) modʲi-ru-naʔ FE 1sg-restr-pl.1pl

semʲja-batʃ family-nom.sg.1pl.pst

‘Only our family was (there).’ 18.3.1.10 Defective locative nouns There is a small group of nouns with locative meaning which have singular local cases only and which use archaic case markers: dative FE, TE -ʔ; locative FE -n, TE -no; TABLE 18.13  CROSS-REFERENCE INDEXES USED IN СOPULA COMPLEMENT FORMS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Person, number

Aorist

Past

1SG

FE -zʔ / not attested / -d, zʔ TE -zoʔ / n.a. / -doʔ, zoʔ

FE -zotʃ / n.a. / -dotʃ, -zotʃ TE -zodʲi / n.a. / -dodʲi, -zodʲi

2SG

FE -d / n.a. / -d TE -do / n.a. / -do

FE -duʃ / n.a. / -duʃ TE -doʃi / n.a. / -doʃi

3SG

FE, TE -Ø

FE -ʃ / -tʃ / -dʲ TE -ʃi / -tʃi, -ʃi / -dʲi, -ʃi

1DU

FE -jʔ, -biʔ / n.a. / -miʔ, -jʔ, -biʔ TE -jiʔ, -biʔ / n.a. / -miʔ, -jiʔ

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ / n.a. / -mitʃ, -bitʃ TE -jidʲi, -bidʲi / n.a. /-midʲi, -jidʲi

2DU

FE -riʔ / n.a. / -lʲiʔ, -riʔ TE -riʔ / n.a. / -lʲiʔ

FE -ritʃ / n.a. / -lʲitʃ, -ritʃ TE -ridʲi / n.a. / -lʲidʲi

3DU

FE -xiʔ / -kiʔ / -giʔ TE -xoʔ (-xaʔ) / -koʔ, -xoʔ (-xaʔ) / -goʔ, -xoʔ (-xaʔ)

FE -xitʃ / -kitʃ / -gitʃ TE -xodʲi (-xadʲi) / -kodʲi, -xodʲi (-xadʲi) / -godʲi, -xodʲi (-xadʲi)

1PL

FE -aʔ (-ɔʔ, -eʔ), -baʔ / n.a. / -maʔ, -baʔ TE -aʔ, -baʔ / n.a. / -maʔ, -baʔ

FE -atʃ (-ɔtʃ, -etʃ), -batʃ / n.a. / -matʃ, -batʃ TE -adʲi, -badʲi / n.a. / -madʲi, -badʲi

2PL

FE, TE -raʔ / n.a. / -laʔ, -raʔ

FE -ratʃ / n.a. / -latʃ, -ratʃ TE -radʲi / n.a. / -ladʲi, -radʲi

3PL

FE, TE -ʔ

FE -tʃ TE -dʲi

11

Note: The unattested forms are not semantically likely or possible.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 807 TABLE 18.14  ‘PAST’ POSSESSIVE MARKERS USED WITH NOUNS USED AS COPULA COMPLEMENTS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Singular head noun

Dual or plural head noun

1sg

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ / -mitʃ / -mitʃ TE -jidʲi, -bidʲi / -midʲi / -midʲi

FE -nʲitʃ TE -nʲidʲi

2sg

FE -ruʃ / -luʃ / -luʃ TE -roʃi / -loʃi / -loʃi

FE -zuʃ TE -zoʃi

3sg

FE -zaʃ / -taʃ / -daʃ TE -zaʃi / -taʃi / -daʃi

FE -zaʃ TE -zaʃi

1du

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ / -mitʃ / -mitʃ TE -jidʲi, -bidʲi / -midʲi / -midʲi

FE -nʲitʃ TE -nʲidʲi

2du

FE -ritʃ / -lʲitʃ / -lʲitʃ TE -ridʲi/ -lʲidʲi / -lʲidʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

3du

FE -zitʃ / -tʃitʃ / -dʲitʃ TE -zidʲi / -tʃidʲi / -dʲidʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

1pl

FE -atʃ (-etʃ, -ɔtʃ), -batʃ / -matʃ / -matʃ TE -atʃ (-etʃ), -batʃi / -matʃi / -matʃi

FE -natʃ TE -natʃi

2pl

FE -ratʃ / -latʃ / -latʃ TE -ratʃi / -latʃi / -latʃi

FE -zatʃ TE -zatʃi

3pl

FE -zutʃ / -tutʃ / -dutʃ TE -zudʲi / -tudʲi / -dudʲi

FE -zutʃ TE -zudʲi

TABLE 18.15  CASE FORMS OF FOREST ENETS DEFECTIVE LOCATIVE NOUN BADU ‘TUNDRA’ Dative

Locative

Ablative

Prolative

badu-ʔ

badu-n

badu-z

badu-ɔn

tundra-dat

tundra-loc

tundra-abl

tundra-prol

‘to the tundra’

‘in the tundra’

‘from the tundra’

‘along the tundra’

ablative FE -z, TE -zo; prolative FE -ɔn, TE -ɔne. These nouns do not take any other inflection beyond these singular local cases. Examples include FE badu ‘tundra’, FE, TE tɔʃe ‘lower part’, FE inuku ‘near’, TE teʔi ‘upper part’. The same morphemes are used with most postpositions (see 18.8) and demonstrative pronouns (see 18.3.2.4). 18.3.2 Pronouns Personal pronouns have idiosyncratic morphology, while the other pronouns have standard nominal inflection. 18.3.2.1 Personal pronouns Personal pronouns use three suppletive stems: one for nominative, another for the other core cases, and a third one for local cases; the latter are historically possessed forms of

808 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

postpositions. In all case forms (except for the nominative singular), personal pronouns have the morphological structure: stem plus possessive suffixes. In contrast to nouns, personal pronouns distinguish three core cases: nominative, genitive, and accusative. The genitive is of rare occurrence; it is attested only with certain postpositions (15). This is true for FE, and the data for TE genitive pronoun forms are quite scarce (also for some other TE pronominal forms, which are rare in texts). (15) ʃinʲiʔ tɔlaxa FE 1sg.gen like ‘like me’ All oblique case forms of personal pronouns may optionally be preceded by the corresponding nominative form, see Table 18.16. To express possession, normally only possessive suffixes on nouns are used (16a), though an accompanying personal pronoun in the nominative is also possible (16b). (16) a. mense-jʔ FE old.woman-nom.sg.1sg ‘my wife’

b. modʲi mense-jʔ 1sg old.woman-nom.sg.1sg ‘my wife’

18.3.2.2 Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns The reflexive pronoun is a grammaticalized noun meaning ‘body’; it is attested in two variants: conservative FE puxuzu, TE puzozo, and reduced FE puzu, TE puzo. The reciprocal pronoun is a grammaticalized noun ‘mate, relative’ FE kasa, TE kaa. In both cases, non-grammaticalized usage of these words is also possible. Both pronouns take possessive suffixes and have regular case forms. (17) puxuzu-da nʲi-uʔ FE oneself-obl.sg.3sg neg-3sg.contr ‘She has harmed herself, after all.’ (18) kai-naʔ bonʲi-baʔ TE mate-pl.1pl neg.emp-1pl(>sg) ‘We will not see each other.’

bajro-ʔ harm(pfv)-cng

seixo-doʔ look.at(pfv)-fut.cng

TABLE 18.16  OPTIONAL USE OF FOREST ENETS NOMINATIVE OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS ACCOMPANYING OTHER CASE FORMS Plain form

With accompanying nominative

Accusative ‘you’

ʃit you(sg).acc

uuʔ you(sg)

ʃit you(sg).acc

Locative ‘at you’

nɔned you(sg).loc

uuʔ you(sg)

nɔned you(sg).loc

FE modʲi TE mɔdʲi

FE ʃinʲiʔ TE n.a.

FE ʃijʔ, ʃiʔ TE ʃiiʔ

FE nɔnʲiʔ, nenʲiʔ TE nɔɔnʲiʔ

FE nɔnenʲiʔ, nenenʲiʔ TE nɔɔnenʲiʔ, nenenʲiʔ

FE nɔzonʲiʔ, nezonʲiʔ TE nɔzonʲiʔ, nezonʲiʔ

FE nɔɔnenʲiʔ, neɔnenʲiʔ TE neɔnenʲiʔ

NOM

GEN

ACC

DAT

LOC

ABL

PROL

1SG

FE nɔɔned, neɔned TE neɔnedo

FE nɔzod, nezod TE nɔzodo, nezodo

FE nɔɔneda, neɔneda TE neɔneda

FE nɔzoda, nezoda TE nɔzoda, nezoda

FE nɔneda, neneda TE nɔɔneda, neneda

TE nɔɔda

TE nɔɔdo

FE nɔned, nened TE nɔɔnedo, nenedo

FE nɔda, neda

FE, TE ʃita

FE ʃita TE n.a.

FE buʔ TE nʲitoda

3SG

FE nɔd, ned

FE ʃit TE ʃito

FE ʃit TE n.a.

FE uuʔ TE tɔdʲi

2SG

FE nɔɔnenʲiʔ, neɔnenʲiʔ TE neɔnenʲiʔ

FE nɔzonʲiʔ, nezonʲiʔ TE nɔzonʲiʔ, nezonʲiʔ

FE nɔnenʲiʔ, nenenʲiʔ TE nɔɔnenʲiʔ, nenenʲiʔ

FE nɔnʲiʔ, nenʲiʔ TE nɔɔnʲiʔ

FE ʃizinʲiʔ TE ʃizenʲiʔ

FE ʃizinʲiʔ TE n.a.

FE modʲinʲiʔ TE mɔdʲinʲiʔ

1DU

FE nɔɔnedʲiʔ, neɔnedʲiʔ TE neɔnedʲiʔ

FE nɔzodʲiʔ, nezodʲiʔ TE nɔzodʲiʔ, nezodʲiʔ

FE nɔnedʲiʔ, nenedʲiʔ TE nɔɔnedʲiʔ, nenedʲiʔ

FE nɔdʲiʔ, nedʲiʔ TE nɔɔdʲiʔ

FE ʃiziziʔ TE ʃizeziʔ

FE ʃiztʃiʔ, ʃitʃiʔ TE n.a.

FE uudʲiʔ TE tɔdʲidʲiʔ

2DU

TABLE 18.17  PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS

FE nɔɔnedʲiʔ, neɔnedʲiʔ TE neɔnedʲiʔ

FE nɔzodʲiʔ, nezodʲiʔ TE nɔzodʲiʔ, nezodʲiʔ

FE nɔnedʲiʔ, nenedʲiʔ TE nɔɔnedʲiʔ, nenedʲiʔ

FE nɔdʲiʔ, nedʲiʔ TE nɔɔdʲiʔ

FE ʃiziziʔ TE ʃizeziʔ

FE ʃiztʃiʔ, ʃitʃiʔ TE n.a.

FE budʲiʔ TE nʲitodʲiʔ

3DU

FE nɔɔnenaʔ, neɔnenaʔ TE neɔnenaʔ

FE nɔzonaʔ, nezonaʔ TE nɔzonaʔ, nezonaʔ

FE nɔnenaʔ, nenenaʔ TE nɔɔnenaʔ, nenenaʔ

TE nɔɔnaʔ

FE nɔnaʔ, nenaʔ

FE ʃizinaʔ TE ʃizenaʔ

FE ʃizinaʔ TE n.a.

FE modʲinaʔ TE mɔdʲinaʔ

1PL

FE nɔɔnedaʔ, neɔnedaʔ TE neɔnedaʔ

FE nɔzodaʔ, nezodaʔ TE nɔzodaʔ, nezodaʔ

FE nɔnedaʔ, nenedaʔ TE nɔɔnedaʔ, nenedaʔ

FE nɔdaʔ, nedaʔ TE nɔɔdaʔ

FE ʃizizaʔ TE ʃizezaʔ

FE ʃiztaʔ, ʃitaʔ TE n.a.

FE uudaʔ TE tɔdʲidaʔ

2PL

FE nɔɔneduʔ, neɔneduʔ TE neɔneduʔ

FE nɔzoduʔ, nezoduʔ TE nɔzoduʔ, nezoduʔ

FE nɔneduʔ, neneduʔ TE nɔɔneduʔ, neneduʔ

FE nɔduʔ, neduʔ TE nɔɔduʔ

FE ʃizizuʔ TE ʃizezuʔ

FE ʃiztuʔ, ʃituʔ TE n.a.

FE buduʔ TE nʲitoduʔ

3PL

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 809

810 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

18.3.2.3 Interrogative, indefinite, and negative pronouns Interrogative pronouns are presented in Table 18.18. Interrogative pronouns serve as a base for: • • •

Indefinite pronouns, formed with topical FE -xoa, -xoɔ / -koa, -koɔ / -goa, -goɔ, TE -xoa / -koa / -goa (see 18.6.1), cf. FE ɔbu|xoɔ, TE mii|goa what|top ‘something’. Negative pronouns, formed with insistive FE -xuru / -kuru / -guru, TE -xoreɔ / -koreɔ / -goreɔ (see 18.6.1), cf. FE ɔbu|xuru, TE mii|goreɔ what|insist ‘nothing’ (5), (30), (135), (136). Universal pronouns, formed with restrictive FE -ru / -lu / -lu, TE -reɔ / -lʲeɔ / -lʲeɔ (see 18.6.1), cf. FE ɔbu|ru, TE mii|lʲeɔ what|restr ‘anything, no matter what’, FE sɛn|ru, TE seno|reɔ how.many|restr ‘several, some quantity, not many’ (122).

18.3.2.4 Demonstrative pronouns Enets has demonstrative pronouns: • •

With the syntactic distribution of nominals, that is, they can be used in adnominal position or as independent NPs (see 18.9.9), listed in Table 18.19. With the syntactic distribution of adverbs, listed in Table 18.20 and in Table 18.19, as case forms of nominal demonstrative pronouns.

18.3.2.5 Quantifiers The following are adjectival quantifiers: FE, TE dʲɔgode ‘other’, FE kusaa ‘every’, FE kutuj, TE kutoɔ ~ kutoj ‘some’ (38), (123), FE nɛku, TE eŋa ‘one of, the second, the other’ TABLE 18.18  INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS FE form

TE form

Meaning

Examples

ʃee

ʃiɔ

‘who’

ɔbu

miiʔ / miiro

‘what’

kurse

kuroj, kureɔ

‘which’

kuki

kuke

‘which’

kudʲi, kudʲu

-

‘which’

kuʔ and its case forms: kukon ‘where (locative)’, kukoz ‘where from’, kumɔn ‘along where’

kuʔ and its case forms: kukone ‘where (locative)’, kukozo ‘where from’, kumɔne ‘along where’

‘where (directive)’

kunʲi

kunadʲu

‘how’

kuna and its case forms: kunini ‘where (locative)’, kuniz ‘where from’

kuna ~ kune ~ kuno and its case forms: kunene ~ kunone ‘where (locative)’, kunazo ~ kunezo ~ kunozo ‘where from’, kunoɔne ‘where’

‘when, where (directive)’

(91), (132)

sɛn

seno

‘how many’

(107)

kɔuk, kɔku

-

‘how much’

(92), (94)

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 811 TABLE 18.19  NOMINAL DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS FE form

TE form

Meaning

Examples

ɛke; its archaic case forms are used as adverbials: locative ɛkon ‘there (locative)’, ablative ɛkoz ‘from there’

eke; its case forms are used as adverbials: locative ekone ~ ekoxone ‘there (locative)’, ablative ekozo ~ ekoxozo ‘from there’

‘this’

(41), (43), (117), (117), (134)

tʃike; its archaic case forms are used as adverbials: locative tʃikon ‘there (locative)’, ablative tʃikoz

‘this’ tʃike; its case forms are used as adverbials: locative tʃikone ~ tʃikoxone ‘there (locative)’, ablative tʃikozo ~ tʃikoxozo ‘from there’

ɛlse

eloj

‘such’

tɔrse

tɔroj

‘such’

edʲuu

edʲuu

‘that, opposite’,

tʃidʲi ~ tʃidʲu

-

‘that’

tɛxɛ

texoɔ

‘that, there (locative)’ (108)

(44), (47), (54), (58), (66), (79), (91), (103), (130), (132)

(51), (57)

TABLE 18.20  ADVERBIAL DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS FE form

TE form

Meaning

Examples

ɛuʔ and its prolative amɔn ‘by here’

eɔʔ and its prolative eɔmɔne ~ emɔne ‘by here’

‘here (directive)’

(60)

tɔniʔ and its case forms: locative tɔnine ‘there (locative)’, ablative tɔniz ‘from there’

-

‘there (directive)’

tɔʔ

tɔʔ and its case forms: dative tɔɔdo ‘there (directive)’, prolative tɔɔmɔne ‘by there, along there’

‘there (directive), that, well’

-

iinoo and its case forms: locative iinone ‘there (locative)’, ablative iinozo ‘from there’)

‘there (directive)’

pɔna ~ pena

-

‘then’

tɔri

-

‘so’

-

teinoʔ and its case forms: dative teinodo ‘there (directive)’, locative teinone ‘there (locative)’, ablative teinozo ‘from there’

‘so’

(21)

(66), (77)

812 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

(108), FE segimid, TE segemede ‘every’ (58), FE tʃuku, tʃukutʃi, TE tʃuko, tʃukotʃi ‘all’ (2), (43), (67), (83), FE, TE oka ‘many’ (49), (112). 18.3.3 Adjectives Adjectives have no inflection when used as attributes: (19) sɔjza kɔru-zo-d tɔza-ʔ FE good knife-pred.sg-obl.sg.2sg bring(pfv)-2sg.imp ‘Bring a good knife (for yourself)!’ It is unclear whether adjectives can occasionally agree in number with their head noun, as the plural marker -ʔ is often phonetically realized as zero, but they never agree in case or person. Adjectives have no special morphology when used in parameter function in comparative constructions: (20) modʲi anʲi nɔzoda aga-zʔ FE I and s/he.abl big-1sg ‘And (as for) me, I am older than s/he (is).’ When used predicatively, adjectives take either a copula complement suffix (see 18.3.1.9) or a translative suffix: (21) sɔjza-d tɔʔ ɛ-bi-d FE good-2sg.s well be(ipfv)-prf-2sg ‘You are really good!’ (22) tʃaj-biʔ sɔjza-aʃ FE tea-nom.sg.1sg good-tra ‘My tea will become fine.’

kanu-ta leave(pfv)-fut.3sg

Adjectives can be substantivized; they then take nominal inflection: (23) ibilʲɛjgu-r kaju|ŋa FE small-nom.sg.2sg stay.behind(pfv)|mult.3sg ‘The little one stays behind.’ 18.3.4 Adverbs Adverbs have no inflection, apart from a small set of inflecting adverbs that can take possessive suffixes (see 18.9.5). 18.3.5 Numerals Forest and Tundra Enets numerals are featured in Tables 18.21, 18.22, and 18.23. The numeral FE ŋoʔ, TE ŋuʔ ‘one’ is regularly used with the restrictive (see 18.6.1), cf. FE ŋo|lʲu, TE ŋu|lʲeɔ one-restr ‘only one’. For ‘one thousand’, Sorokina (2010, 258)

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 813 TABLE 18.21  SIMPLE NUMERALS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Note: avs = voiceless alternating, avd = voiced alternating. 1

FE ŋobu ~ ŋoʔ (avs)12 TE ŋuʔ (avs)

 2

FE ʃize TE ʃize

20

FE ʃizeuʔ (avs) TE ʃizeuʔ (avs)

 3

FE nexuʔ (avd) ~ nexu TE nexoʔ (avd)

30

FE nexebiʔ (avs) TE nexibiʔ (avs)

 4

FE tɛtu TE teto

40

FE tɛtujʔ (avs) TE tetouʔ (avs)

 5

FE sɔburegu TE sɔborego

50

FE sɔburegujʔ (avs) TE sɔboreguuʔ (avs) ~ sɔboregijʔ (avs)

 6

FE mɔtuʔ (avs) ~ mɔtu TE mɔtuʔ (avs)

60

FE mɔtujʔ (avs) TE mɔtuuʔ (avs) ~ mɔtujʔ (avs)

 7

FE sɛʔo TE seʔɔ

70

FE sɛʔujʔ (avs) TE seʔɔuʔ (avs)

 8

FE ʃizetu TE ʃizeɔto

80

FE ʃizetujʔ (avs) TE ʃizeɔtouʔ (avs)

 9

FE nesaa, nezaa TE eesaa

90

FE nesauʔ (avs) ~ nezauʔ (avs) TE eesauʔ (avs)

10

FE biuʔ (avs) ~ biʔ (avs) TE biuʔ (avs) ~ biʔ (avs)

100 1000

FE dʲuʔ (avd) TE dʲuʔ (avd) FE tistʃe ~ tistʃeʔ TE tiʃe ~ tiʃetʃ

TABLE 18.22  MODELS OF NUMERALS FROM 11–19 EXEMPLIFIED WITH ‘12’ IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS FE (i) + (ii) + (iii)

FE (i) + (ii)

biu-koz ten-abl.sg ‘twelve’

biu-koz ten-abl.sg ‘twelve’

ʃize bɔzade two surplus

ʃize two

FE (i) + (iii)

TE

ʃize bɔzade two surplus ‘twelve’

biuʔ ten ‘twelve’

ʃize two

TABLE 18.23  MODELS FOR 20+ NUMERALS EXEMPLIFIED WITH ‘125’ IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS FE

TE

dʲuʔ ʃizeuʔ sɔburegu hundred twenty five ‘one hundred twenty five’

dʲuʔ ʃizeuʔ sɔborego hundred twenty five ‘one hundred twenty five’

814 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

gives a complex numeral biuʔ dʲuʔ (lit. ‘ten hundred’), but today only the simple numeral FE tistʃe ~ tistʃeʔ, TE tiʃe ~ tiʃetʃ (borrowed from Russian) is used. In FE, complex numerals from 11 to 19 are built on one of the models: (i) + (ii) + (iii), or (i) + (ii), or (ii) + (iii): (i) ablative of biuʔ ~ biʔ ‘ten’ (ii) numerals from 1 to 9 (iii) adjective bɔzade ‘surplus’. In 11‒19 for TE, and in other complex numerals for both dialects, lesser units follow bigger units, see Table 18.22. Within the noun phrase, numerals are uninflected; for example, (24) shows that a numeral takes no case suffix when its head noun is flagged for case: (24) ʃiʔ kosaj-ʃ toɔ-ʃ sɔburegu kateʔɛ-xon FE 1sg.acc go.for(pfv)-cvb come(pfv)-3sg.pst five castrated.bull-loc.sg ‘She came to take me on five reindeer bulls.’ Nouns may be used with numerals in both singular and dual/plural, for example, FE nexuʔ nʲe-jʔ three child-nom.sg.1sg ‘my three children’, nexuʔ nʲi-nʲiʔ three child-pl.1sg ‘my three children’ (see 18.7.2). When used independently, numerals take the inflection of nouns, though data on such uses are sparse. (25) ʃize-xuu-z te pɔnʲi|da-xitʃ FE two-du-nom.pl.2sg reindeer do(ipfv)|ptcp.sim-3du.pst ‘The two of them were reindeer-herders.’ (26) ŋo-tuʔ sumuɔ-e-zʔ FE one-obl.sg.3pl fall.down(pfv)-m-3sg.m ‘One of them fell down.’ Numerals are regularly in the translative when functioning as adverbials: (27) mɛ-ko-duʔ kanʲe-ʔ FE house-dat.sg-obl.sg.3pl leave(pfv)-3pl ‘They left for home, three of them.’

nexuʔ-uʃ three-tra

18.4 VERBS AND VERBAL INFLECTION 18.4.1 Aspect The Enets aspect system is ‘Slavic-style’: each verb is lexically perfective or imperfective, and there is no morphological distinction between underived perfective and imperfective verbs. (28) kize mi-ʔ puŋ-e-za FE dish in-dat put(pfv)-sopl-3sg>nsg ‘He put them into a dish.’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 815

(29) buʔ anʲi nʲi-za sɛŋ-e-za FE s/he and child-nom.pl.3sg feel.sorry.for(ipfv)-sopl-3sg>nsg ‘It also feels sorry for its children.’ Aorist, probabilitive, and suppositional forms of imperfective verbs refer to the present; when formed from perfective verbs, they refer to the past. Perfect forms can have both present and past reference with imperfective verbs and always have past reference with perfective verbs. Aspectual derivational suffixes can build perfective and imperfective verbs (see 18.5.2). 18.4.2 Inflection 18.4.2.1 Inflectional classes and stems Like nouns, verbs have three inflectional classes, triggering the same alternations in affixes attached to a reduced stem (see 18.3.1.1). Alternating verbs distinguish six stems in FE and five stems in TE. The voiced alternating class has three subclasses, depending on the final phoneme of the stem; two of these subclasses also include, in addition to regular verbs, verbs with irregular stem formation. Default class verbs distinguish only a basic stem and an aorist-imperative stem (hereafter: ais) and can be divided into two major subclasses: those with a single stem vs. those with a separate aorist-imperative stem. The latter subclass forms the aorist-imperative stem either by adding an extra vowel to the stem or by changing the final vowel of the stem to /a/: the exact processes depend on the nature of the stem-final vowel and on the number of syllables of the stem and differ in FE and TE. The basic stem is used as citation form for verbs in the present description. FE and TE verb stem formation is summarized in Table 18.24, and sample stems of the verb FE mis-, TE miso- ‘to give(pfv)’ and FE pun-, TE puno- ‘to put(pfv)’ can be found in Table 18.25. Some default verbs have a lexical feature of taking /z/-initial allomorphs of affixes that are normally /d/-initial. 18.4.2.2 Argument indexing Enets has cross-reference indexing for subject, distinguishing three persons and three numbers (singular, dual, plural); the number of a third-person object can also be indicated. Cross-reference indexing series of two kinds are distinguished: • •

Four tense-modal series (basic, past, contrastive, 2sg-imperative/jussive; past and contrastive are diachronically derived from basic). Four indexation series (subject, subject–object for singular object (>SG), subject– object for non-singular object (>NSG), middle (M).

In total, this gives 16 paradigms of cross-reference suffixes. The choice of one of the four indexation series is governed by a number of factors: • • •

subject vs. subject–object for singular or non-singular object depends on discourse properties of the object (see 18.9.3) (available for transitive verbs only). subject–object for singular object vs. subject–object for non-singular object depends on the number of the direct object (available for transitive verbs only). subject vs. middle is a lexical feature (available for intransitive verbs only).

Stem

Basic

Default verbs

Alternating verbs

With a single stem

With an extra vowel in ais

With a change of vowel in ais

Voiceless

‘to cut (pfv)’

‘to ache (ipfv)’

‘to go (ipfv)’

‘to give (pfv)’

FE, TE

FE, TE

FE, TE

FE

mɔta

dʲe

dʲazo

mis

Extended (FE only)

Voiced r-final

Irregular

Regular

Irregular

‘to use (ipfv)’

‘to put (pfv)’

‘to say (pfv)’

‘to appear (pfv)’

‘to eat up (pfv)’

TE

FE

TE

FE

TE

FE

TE

FE

TE

FE

TE

miso

pɔnʲir

pɔnero

pun

puno

man

mano

ɔziu

ɔziɔ

ɔ

ɔ

pɔnʲiru miʔ

Habitual

miʔ

punu pɔnenʲ

pɔnʲim

pɔnem

Nominalization (FE only)

manu punʲ

pum

pum

puŋ, pum

Reduced Aoristimperative

u/o-final

Regular

misu

Subjunctive (TE only)

n-final

dʲee

dʲaza

manʲ mam

mam

ɔzinʲ ɔzim

ɔzim

ɔnʲ ɔm

ɔm

man

mi

mi

pɔnʲi

pɔne

pu

pu

ma

ma

ɔzi

ɔzi

ɔ

ɔ

miʔɛ

miʔa

pɔnʲiŋa

pɔneŋa

puŋa

puŋa

mana

mana

ɔzima

ɔzima

ɔma

ɔma

816 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

ТABLE 18.24  VERB STEM FORMATION IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 817 TABLE 18.25  STEMS AND FORMS BUILT FROM THEM IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Stem TE

Stem FE

TAM forms and derivations

Examples of an avs verb FE mis- , TE miso- ‘to give(pfv)’ and an avd verb FE pun- , TE puno- ‘to put(pfv)’

Basic

Basic

Connegative

FE mis-Ø, TE miso-ʔ FE pun-ʔ, TE puno-ʔ

Imperative 2sg.s

FE mis-Ø, TE miso-ʔ FE pun-ʔ, TE puno-ʔ

Anterior nominalization

FE mis|a-xaz ~ mis|ɔ-xaz, TE miso|ʔɔi-xozo ~ miso|ʔe-xozo FE pun|a-xaz ~ pun|ɔ-xaz, TE puno|ʔɔi-xozo ~ puno|ʔe-xozo

Probabilitive

FE misu-ta-zuʔ (1sg.contr), TE miso-ta-zoʔ (1sg) FE punu-ta-zuʔ (1sg.contr), TE puno-ta-zoʔ (1sg)

Imperative 2sg>pl

FE misu-nʔ, TE miso-noʔ FE punu-nʔ, TE puno-noʔ

Multiplicative derivation

FE misu|r-, TE miso|roFE punu|r-, TE puno|ro-

Nominalization

Simultaneous nominalization

FE miʔ|a, miʔ|ɛ, TE miʔ|a FE pum|a ~ puŋ|a, TE pum|a

Habitual

Habitual

FE miʔ-obi-zʔ, TE miʔ-ɔbi-zoʔ (1sg) FE pum-obi-zʔ, TE pum-obi-zoʔ (1sg)

Auditive

FE, TE miʔ-unu-za (nom.sg.3sg) FE, TE pum-unu-za (nom.sg.3sg)

Supine

FE miʔ-odʲ, TE miʔ-ɔdʲi FE pum-odʲ, TE pum-odʲi

Anterior negative participle

FE miʔ|ozaj, TE miʔ|ɔzaj FE, TE pum|ozaj

FE prospective suppositional

FE miʔ-odaraxa-zʔ (1sg) FE pum-odaraxa-zʔ (1sg)

Posterior participle

FE miʔ|oda, TE mi|tʃedo FE pum|oda, TE pu|dʲedo

Habitual (only with voiced alternating verbs) ~ Extended

Anterior participle

FE misu|j, TE mi|tʃij FE pum|i ~ punu|j, TE pu|dʲij

Reduced

Imperative 2sg>sg, 2sg>du, and 2sg.m

FE mi-t, TE mi-to (2sg>sg) FE pu-d, TE pu-do (2sg>sg)

Hortative

FE mi-ku-zʔ, TE mi-ku-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-gu-zʔ, TE pu-gu-zoʔ (1sg)

Extended

Habitual

Reduced

(Continued)

818 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.25 (CONTINUED) Stem TE

Stem FE

TAM forms and derivations

Examples of an avs verb FE mis- , TE miso- ‘to give(pfv)’ and an avd verb FE pun- , TE puno- ‘to put(pfv)’

Perfect

FE mi-pi-zʔ, TE mi-pi-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-bi-zʔ, TE pu-bi-zoʔ (1sg)

Interrogative

FE mi-tʃa-zʔ, TE mi-pa-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-dʲa-zʔ, TE pu-ba-zoʔ (1sg)

Debitive

FE mi-tʃu-zʔ, TE mi-tʃu-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-dʲu-zʔ, TE pu-dʲu-zoʔ (1sg)

Suppositional

FE mi-taraxa-zʔ, TE mi-taraxa-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-daraxa-zʔ, TE pu-daraxa-zoʔ (1sg)

Future

FE mi-ta-zʔ, TE mi-ta-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-da-zʔ, TE pu-da-zoʔ (1sg)

FE hypothetical

FE mi-tkoda-zʔ (1sg) FE pu-dkoda-zʔ (1sg)

Soft imperative

FE mi-kuri-d, TE mi-koa-do (2sg) FE pu-guri-d, TE pu-goa-do (2sg)

General converb

FE mi-tʃ, TE mi-tʃe FE pu-dʲ, TE pu-dʲe

Conditional converb

FE, TE mi-puʔ FE, TE pu-buʔ

Simultaneous converb

FE mi-puʔuj, TE mi-puʔɔʔ FE pu-buʔuj, TE pu-buʔɔʔ

Simultaneous participle

FE mi|ta, TE mi|te ~ mi|ta FE pu|da, TE pu|de ~ pu|da

Anterior passive participle

FE, TE mi|tuuj FE, TE pu|duuj

Other verb-to-verb derivations, for example, passive

FE, TE mi|laFE, TE pu|la-

Subjunctive

Subjunctive

FE mi-nʲi-zʔ, TE miʔ-i-zoʔ (1sg) FE pu-nʲi-zʔ, TE punʲ-i-zoʔ (1sg)

Aorist-imperative

Aorist

FE miʔɛ-zʔ, TE miʔa-zoʔ (1sg) FE puŋa-zʔ, TE puŋa-zoʔ (1sg)

Jussive

FE miʔɛ-da, TE miʔa-ada (3sg) FE puŋa-da, TE puŋa-ada (3sg)

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 819

Indexation series are differentiated not only by cross-reference suffixes but also by indexation series markers, which come immediately before the cross-reference affixes: • • •

Zero for subject and subject–object for singular object -xuu- / -kuu- / -guu- for subject–object for dual object -e- for subject–object for dual object and middle (the preceding stem-final vowel may be lost)

The forms of subject–object for dual object and for plural object thus have the same cross-reference suffixes but are differentiated by an indexation series marker.13 Tables 18.26‒18.31 contain details of the Enets argument indexing system. For cross-reference indexing of the auditive, nominal possessive affixes are used. 18.4.2.3 Imperative forms Imperative forms are morphologically heterogeneous and include the following subparadigms: • • • •

Hortative (1st person) forms built from a reduced stem with FE, TE -xu- / -ku- / -gu(-xogu- / -kogu- / -gogu-) and basic tense-modal series (Table 18.32). 2sg imperative forms built from various stems (Table 18.33) with 2sg-imperative/ jussive tense-modal series. 2du and 2pl aorist forms (there are no morphologically independent imperative forms for these person–number combinations). Jussive (third person) forms built from aorist-imperative stem with 2sg-imperative/ jussive tense-modal series (Table 18.34).

TABLE 18.26  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF SUBJECT INDEXING BY TWO INDEXATION SERIES Transitive verb: subject indexation series

Intransitive verb: subject indexation series

Intransitive verb: middle indexation series

pɔnʲiŋa-d use(ipfv)-2sg ‘you (sg) use’

dʲoriŋa-d speak(ipfv)-2sg ‘you (sg) speak’

sɔŋ-e-dʲ come.back(pfv)-m-2sg.m ‘you (sg) came back’

TABLE 18.27  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF INDEXING OF THE NUMBER OF OBJECT, WITH 2sg SUBJECT Singular object

Dual object

Plural object

pɔnʲiŋa-r use(ipfv)-2sg>sg ‘you (sg) use it’

pɔnʲiŋa-xuu-z use(ipfv)-sodu-2sg>nsg ‘you (sg) use them (du)’

pɔnʲiŋ-e-z use(ipfv)-sopl-2sg>nsg ‘you (sg) use them (pl)’

820 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.28  BASIC SERIES OF CROSS-REFERENCE SUFFIXES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Person, number

Indexation series Subject

Subject–object

Middle

Singular object

Plural or dual object

1SG

FE -zʔ, -zoʔ TE -zoʔ

FE -a (-e), -u, -b TE -a, -ɔ, -bo

FE -n TE -no

FE -jʔ, -biʔ TE -boʔ, -ɔʔ, -jʔ

2SG

FE -d TE -do

FE -r TE -ro

FE -z TE -zo

FE -dʲ TE -do

3SG

FE -Ø TE -Ø

FE -za TE -za

FE -za TE -za

FE -zʔ, -zoʔ TE -zoʔ, -ʔ

1DU

FE -jʔ, -biʔ TE -jʔ, -biʔ

FE -jʔ, -biʔ TE -jʔ, -biʔ

FE -nʲiʔ TE -nʲiʔ

FE -nʲiʔ TE -nʲiʔ

2DU

FE -riʔ TE -riʔ

FE -riʔ TE -riʔ

FE -ziʔ TE -ziʔ

FE -ziʔ TE -ziʔ

3DU

FE -xiʔ TE -xaʔ, -xɔʔ, -xiʔ

FE -ziʔ TE -ziʔ

FE -ziʔ TE -ziʔ

FE -xiʔ TE -xɔʔ

1PL

FE -aʔ (-ɔʔ, -eʔ), -baʔ TE -aʔ, -baʔ

FE -aʔ (-ɔʔ, -eʔ), -baʔ TE -aʔ, -baʔ

FE -naʔ TE -naʔ

FE -naʔ TE -naʔ

2PL

FE -raʔ TE -raʔ

FE -raʔ TE -raʔ

FE -zaʔ TE -zaʔ

FE -zaʔ TE -zaʔ

3PL

FE -ʔ TE -ʔ

FE -zuʔ TE -zuʔ

FE -zuʔ TE -zuʔ

FE -zʔ, -zoʔ TE -zoʔ

TABLE 18.29  PAST SERIES OF CROSS-REFERENCE SUFFIXES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Person, number

Indexation series Subject

Subject–object

Middle

Singular object

Plural or dual object

1SG

FE -zotʃ TE -zodʲi

FE -aʃ, -uʃ, -buʃ TE -aʃi, -ɔʃi, -boʃi

FE -nuʃ TE -noʃi

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ TE -bodʲi, -ɔdʲi

2SG

FE -duʃ TE -doʃi

FE -ruʃ TE -roʃi

FE -zuʃ TE -zoʃi

FE -dʲiʃ TE -doʃi

3SG

FE -ʃ TE -ʃi

FE -zaʃ TE -zaʃi

FE -zaʃ TE -zaʃi

FE -zotʃ TE -zodʲi

1DU

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ TE -jidʲi, -bidʲi

FE -jtʃ, -bitʃ TE -jidʲi, -bidʲi

FE -nʲitʃ TE -nʲidʲi

FE -nʲitʃ TE -nʲidʲi

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 821 Person, number

Indexation series Subject

Subject–object

Middle

Singular object

Plural or dual object

2DU

FE -ritʃ TE -ridʲi

FE -ritʃ TE -ridʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

3DU

FE -xitʃ TE -xadʲi, -xɔdʲi, -xidʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

FE -zitʃ TE -zidʲi

FE -xitʃ TE -xɔdʲi

1PL

FE -atʃ (-ɔtʃ, -etʃ), -batʃ TE -atʃi, -batʃi

FE -atʃ (-ɔtʃ, -etʃ), -batʃ TE -atʃi, -batʃi

FE -natʃ TE -natʃi

FE -natʃ TE -natʃi

2PL

FE -ratʃ TE -ratʃi

FE -ratʃ TE -ratʃi

FE -zatʃ TE -zatʃi

FE -zatʃ TE -zatʃi

3PL

FE -tʃ TE -tʃi

FE -zutʃ TE -zudʲi

FE -zutʃ TE -zudʲi

FE -zotʃ TE -zodʲi

TABLE 18.30  CONTRASTIVE SERIES OF CROSS-REFERENCE SUFFIXES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Person, number

Indexation series Subject

Subject–object

Middle

Singular object

Plural or dual object

1SG

FE -zuʔ TE -zouʔ

FE -buʔ TE -bouʔ

FE -nuʔ TE -nouʔ

FE -bimʔ TE -bouʔ

2SG

FE -duʔ TE -douʔ

FE -ruʔ TE -rouʔ

FE -zuʔ TE -zouʔ

FE -dʲuʔ TE -douʔ

3SG

FE -uʔ TE -uʔ

FE -zauʔ TE -zauʔ

FE -zauʔ TE -zauʔ

FE -zuʔ TE -zouʔ

1DU

FE -bimʔ TE -bimʔ

FE -bimʔ TE -bimʔ

FE -nʲimʔ TE -nʲimʔ

FE -nʲimʔ TE -nʲimʔ

2DU

FE -rimʔ TE -rimʔ

FE -rimʔ TE -rimʔ

FE -zimʔ TE -zimʔ

FE -zimʔ TE -zimʔ

3DU

FE -ximʔ TE -xɔmʔ (-xamʔ), -ximʔ

FE -zimʔ TE -zimʔ

FE -zimʔ TE -zimʔ

FE -ximʔ TE -xɔmʔ (-xamʔ), -ximʔ

1PL

FE -bamʔ TE -bauʔ, -bamʔ

FE -bamʔ TE -bauʔ, -bamʔ

FE -namʔ TE -nauʔ, -namʔ

FE -namʔ TE -nauʔ, -namʔ

2PL

FE -ramʔ TE -rauʔ, -ramʔ

FE -ramʔ TE -rauʔ, -ramʔ

FE -zamʔ TE -zauʔ, -zamʔ

FE -zamʔ TE -zauʔ, -zamʔ

3PL

FE -mʔ TE -mʔ

FE -zumʔ TE -zuuʔ, -zumʔ

FE -zumʔ TE -zuuʔ, -zumʔ

FE -zuʔ TE -zouʔ

822 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.31 2SG-IMPERATIVE/JUSSIVE SERIES OF CROSS-REFERENCE SUFFIXES IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Person, number

Indexation series Subject

Subject–object

Middle

Singular object

Plural or dual object

2SG

FE -ʔ, -Ø TE -ʔ

FE -z / -t / -d TE -zo / -to / -do

FE -nʔ TE -noʔ

FE -zʔ TE -ziʔ

3SG

FE -j, -bi TE -aba (-eba)

FE -da TE -ada (-eda)

FE -da TE -eda

FE -d TE -edo

3DU

FE -giʔ TE -agoʔ, -agiʔ (-egoʔ)

FE -dʲiʔ TE -adʲiʔ (-edʲiʔ), -adiʔ (-ediʔ)

FE -dʲiʔ TE -edʲiʔ, -ediʔ

FE -giʔ TE -egoʔ, -egiʔ

3PL

FE -jʔ, -biʔ TE -abaʔ (-ebaʔ)

FE -duʔ TE -aduʔ (-eduʔ)

FE -duʔ TE -eduʔ

FE -d TE -edoʔ

TABLE 18.32  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF HORTATIVE FORMS Transitive verb; subject indexation series

Intransitive verb; middle indexation series

pɔnʲi-gu-zʔ, pɔnʲi-gogu-zʔ use(ipfv)-hort-1sg ‘let me use!’

sɔ-gogu-jʔ, sɔ-gu-jʔ come.back-hort-1sg.m ‘let me come back!’

TABLE 18.33  STEMS USED FOR 2sg IMPERATIVE FORMS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS Indexation series

Stem

Examples of 2SG imperative forms for an avd verb FE pɔnʲir- , TE pɔnero- ‘use(ipfv)’ and an avd verb FE sɔr- , TE sɔro- ‘come back(pfv)’

subject

basic

FE pɔnʲir-ʔ, TE pɔnero-ʔ ‘use!’

subject-object for singular object reduced

FE pɔnʲi-d, TE pɔne-do ‘use it!’

subject-object for dual object

FE pɔnʲi-guu-nʔ, TE pɔne-guu-noʔ ‘use them (du)!’

reduced

subject-object for plural object FE extended, TE basic FE pɔnʲiru-nʔ, TE pɔnero-noʔ ‘use them (pl)!’ M

FE extended or reduced,14 TE basic

FE sɔru-zʔ, sɔ-zʔ, TE sɔro-ziʔ ‘come back!’

TABLE 18.34  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF JUSSIVE FORMS Transitive verb; subject indexation series

Intransitive verb; middle indexation series

pɔnʲiŋa-j use(ipfv)-3sg.imp ‘let him use!’

sɔŋ-e-d come.back-m-3sg.m.imp ‘let him come back!’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 823

18.4.2.4 Other TAM forms All other TAM forms are built by combining a TAM marker with a particular tense-modal series of cross-reference indexes. Table 18.35 sets out the possible combinations; see also Table 18.25 for sample forms. The aorist has no overt morpheme;16 it is the basic form that refers to the present with imperfective verbs and to the past with perfective verbs; aorist forms with past tensemodal series always refer to the past: FE, TE mɔta cut(pfv).3sg ‘he has cut’; FE mɔta-ʃ, TE mɔta-ʃi cut(pfv)-3sg.pst ‘he had cut’. The perfect (FE, TE -bi- / -pi- / -bi-) is used in the perfect proper (72), (73), (98), (100); inferential (61), (71), (116); and mirative (21) contexts: FE, TE mɔta-bi cut(pfv)-prf.3sg ‘he has cut’; it may follow future and suppositional markers: FE, TE mɔta-da-bi cut(pfv)fut-prf.3sg ‘he would have cut’; FE mɔta-daraxa-bi cut(pfv)-supp-prf.3sg ‘it seems that he has cut’. The future (FE, TE -da- (-za-) / -ta- / -da-) is the main form with future reference (1), (8), (10), (18), (22), (35), etc.: FE, TE mɔta-da cut(pfv)-fut.3sg.s ‘he will cut’. Reference to the future is also expressed by the debitive (FE, TE -tʃu- / -tʃu- / -dʲu-) (83), and, in FE, by the hypothetical (-dkoda- (-zkoda-) / -tkoda- / -dkoda-) (2): FE, TE mɔta-tʃu cut(pfv)-deb.3sg ‘he will / should cut’; FE mɔta-dkoda cut(pfv)-hypot.3sg ‘he will cut’. The subjunctive (FE -nʲi- / -nʲi- / -nʲi-, TE -i-) expresses a hypothetical event with the basic tense-modal series and an irrealis event with the past TM-series; it is widely used in FE (111), (119), (127), (134) and rarely in TE: FE mɔta-nʲi, TE mɔta-i

TABLE 18.35  TAM FORMS AND TENSE-MODAL SERIES USED WITH THEM IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS15 TAM form

Cross-reference affixes Tense-modal series Basic

Past

Aorist

FE, TE

FE, TE

Perfect

FE, TE

FE, TE

Future

FE, TE

FE, TE

Debitive

FE, TE

FE hypothetical

FE

Subjunctive

FE, TE

Probabilitive

TE

Interrogative

FE, TE

Habitual

FE, TE

FE, TE

Suppositional

FE, TE

FE, TE

FE prospective suppositional

FE

FE

Auditive Soft imperative

Contrastive

Possessive nominative

FE, TE FE FE, TE

FE, TE FE, TE

824 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

cut(pfv)-subj.3sg ‘he would cut, let him cut’; FE mɔta-nʲi-ʃ, TE mɔta-i-ʃi cut(pfv)-subj3sg.pst ‘in order that he cut’. The probabilitive (FE, TE -ta-) expresses a probable event (106): FE mɔta-ta-uʔ cut (pfv)-prob-3sg.s.contr ‘probably, he has cut’, TE mɔta-ta cut(pfv)-prob.3sg.s ‘probably, he has cut’. The interrogative (FE -sa- / -tʃa- / -dʲa-, TE -ba- / -pa- / -ba-) is used in interrogative clauses with past reference (97): FE mɔta-sa, TE mɔta-ba cut(pfv)-q.3sg ‘did he cut?’. It also expresses a probable event in the past when combined with the contrastive tense-modal series in FE (108) and with probabilitive and basic tensemodal series in TE: FE mɔta-sa-uʔ cut(pfv)-q-3sg.contr ‘probably, he had cut’, TE mɔta-to-ba cut(pfv)-prob-q.3sg ‘probably, he had cut’ (probabilitive takes the form to- before the interrogative). The habitual (FE -obi-, TE -ɔbi- (-obi-)) expresses a regular event (123), (131), (133): FE mɔta-obi, TE mɔta-ɔbi cut(pfv)-hab.3sg ‘he usually cuts’. The suppositional (FE, TE -daraxa- (-zaraxa-) / -taraxa- / -daraxa-) (63) and, in FE, the prospective suppositional (-odaraxa-) express a supposed event (with the meaning ‘it seems’): FE, TE mɔta-daraxa cut(pfv)-supp.3sg ‘it seems that he has cut’; FE mɔtaodaraxa cut(pfv)-supp.prosp.3sg ‘it seems that he will cut’. The auditive (FE, TE -unu-) expresses an event whose existence was audially inferred by the speaker or reported orally to the speaker: FE, TE mɔta-unu-za cut(pfv)-aud-nom. sg.3sg ‘he is heard to have cut’. The soft imperative (FE -guri- / -kuri- / -guri-, TE -goa- / -koa- / -goa-) expresses a mild command: FE mɔta-guri-d, TE mɔta-goa-do cut(pfv)-imp.sft-2sg ‘please, do cut’. There are also several analytical TAM forms, of which the most frequent are irrealis (V-ptcp.ant + FE ɛ, TE a ‘be(ipfv)’ in the form of a conditional converb with possessive affixes) (107), (121), and analytical debitive, in TE only: V-tʃuzo- / -tʃuzo- / -dʲuzo-, V-tʃuzi- / -tʃuzi- / -dʲuzi- + a ‘be(ipfv)’ in probabilitive: FE mɔta-j ɛ-bu-ta, TE mɔta-si a-bu-ta cut(pfv)-ptcp.ant be(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.3sg ‘if he had cut’, TE mɔta-tʃuzo a-ta cut(pfv)-deb2 be(ipfv)-prob.3sg ‘maybe he will cut’. 18.4.2.5 Negation For clausal negation, Enets uses a negative verb together with a lexical verb in the nonfinite connegative form: FE, TE -ʔ; in FE, voiceless alternating verbs take a zero allomorph. (30) mii|goreɔ nʲie-ʔ kamazera-ʔ TE what|insist neg-3pl understand(ipfv)-cng ‘They do not understand anything.’ Most TAM suffixes are attached to the negative verb, but future, habitual, and, in FE, hypothetical suffixes are attached to the lexical verb, before the connegative suffix, with some further phonetic reduction in FE (Table 18.36). The main negative verb is a verb of the default inflectional class with two suppletive stems: FE nʲe-, TE nʲie- (in FE, in 3sg and 3pl nʲi-) and FE, TE i-; FE nʲe-, TE nʲiefunctions as the aorist-imperative stem, FE, TE i- as the basic stem. In 2sg imperative forms, the negative verb does not distinguish between subject, subject–object, and middle cross-reference series, taking the same form FE i-z, ТE i-zo for all of them.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 825 TABLE 18.36  TAM SUFFIXES ATTACHED TO THE LEXICAL VERB IN NEGATIVE FORMS IN FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS TAM form

Affix in affirmative forms

Affix + connegative

Future

FE, TE -da (-za) / -ta / -da

FE, TE -doʔ (-zoʔ) / -toʔ / -doʔ (in FE often -d (-zʔ) / -t / -d)

Habitual

FE -obi, TE -ɔbi (-obi)

FE -obiʔ, TE -ɔbiʔ (-obiʔ)

FE hypothetical

FE -dkoda (-zkoda) / -tkoda / -dkoda

FE -dkod (-zkod) / -tkod / -dkod

In contrast to lexical verbs (cf. Table 18.35), the aorist of the negative verb is compatible with the contrastive tense-modal series. The construction as a whole has the meaning of an emphatic positive statement, indicated with ‘after all’ in the translations of examples (31)‒(33). (31) poga-xazo-da anʲi dʲiri-ʔ FE fishing.net-abl.sg-obl.sg.3sg and live(ipfv)-cng ‘We live by grace of the fishing net, after all.’

nʲe-bamʔ neg-1pl.s.contr

In FE, the interrogative has an idiosyncratic suffix -si- when attached to the negative verb. In both dialects of Enets, contrastive interrogative forms of the negative verb can be used for an emphatic positive statement with past reference (32). (32) dʲɔxa i-si-mʔ mɔta-ʔ FE river neg-q-3pl.contr cut(pfv)-cng ‘They had crossed the river, after all.’ The main negative verb always precedes the lexical verb, as in (30), unless the negative verb uses the contrastive cross-reference series: then the reverse word order is usually attested, as in (31), though it is not obligatory (32‒33). (33) bemi-nʲiʔ nʲi-mʔ FE chief-pl.1sg neg-3pl.contr ‘I have bosses, after all.’

tɔnee-ʔ exist(ipfv)-cng

Only an adverb, an accusative personal pronoun, or a nonfinite complement verb may stand between negative and lexical verbs, though this happens very rarely (34): (34) nʲie-zodʲi aga-ane dʲebe-ʔ TE neg-1sg.pst big-prol.sg be.drunk(ipfv)-cng ‘I did not get seriously drunk.’ In TE, negative clauses are widely used in positive contexts with an extra modal shade; this is possible but rare in FE. (35) tʃi TE here

lapka-do shop-dat.sg

nʲie-biʔ neg-1du

kane-doʔ leave(pfv)-fut.cng

826 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

bese|ku-zi-nʲiʔ pe-goa-jʔ money|dim-pred.pl-pl.1du ask(pfv)-imp.soft-1du(>sg) ‘Since we will be going to the shop, let’s ask for the money.’ Three more verbs are used with the connegative of lexical verbs and have a meaning related to negation: FE bunʲi-, Т bonʲi- ‘after all not’ (emphatic negative statement); FE kitʃe-, Т kɔtʃe- ‘almost’; FE iŋe-, TE iiŋe- ‘of course’; all of them are morphologically defective, having all person–number forms, but only a limited number of TAM forms. 18.4.2.6 Nonfinite forms All Enets nonfinite verb forms can be classified into converbs, participles, and nominalizations. Without any further morphological modifications, converbs can be used as heads of adverbial clauses, participles can be used as heads of relative clauses, and nominalizations as heads of complement clauses. Apart from these prototypical functions, under certain conditions, converbs can be used for complementation, and participles and nominalizations may be found in adverbial clauses (see Section 18.10). In contrast to the suffixes of converbs, the suffixes used to build participles and nominalizations are derivational from a morphological point of view, since they precede nominal derivation suffixes (e.g. diminutives or transcategorial ‘emphatic’ suffixes). Apart from the connegative (see 18.4.2.5), there are also the following non-inflecting converbs: general converb or infinitive (FE -ʃ / -tʃ / -dʲ, TE -e / -tʃe / -dʲe (24), (40), (101)‒ (102), (123), (125)‒(127), (134)), supine (FE -odʲ, TE -ɔdʲe (-odʲe) (124)), and anterior converb (FE -xajaʃ / -kajaʃ / -gajaʃ, TE -xajae / -kajae / -gajae); see examples for these and all other nonfinite forms in Table 18.25. Other converbs have both inflecting and non-inflecting variants. The conditional converb has the non-inflecting form FE, TE -buʔ / -puʔ / -buʔ ~ -b / -p / -b, and the inflecting form FE, TE -bu- / -pu- / -bu- (attaching suffixes as if to a noun of the voiceless alternating class) (106)‒(107), (120)‒(122), FE, TE -bune- / -pune- / -bune- (attaching suffixes as if to a noun of the default class): the inflecting form takes oblique possessive suffixes to cross-reference the subject. In TE, the simultaneous converb has the non-inflecting form -buʔɔʔ / -puʔɔʔ / -buʔɔʔ and the inflecting form -buʔɔ-, -buʔe- / -puʔɔ-, -puʔe- / -buʔɔ-, -buʔe- (voiceless alternating) (68), (117)‒(118); in FE, both the non-inflecting and the inflecting form are -buʔuj / -puʔuj / -buʔuj (default). In TE, it takes oblique possessive markers; in FE, the first person takes oblique possessive markers and the second and third persons take nominative markers. In FE, there is also a negative jussive converb that can be built from the negative verb only: it consists of -do- followed by oblique possessive markers (129). The participles are simultaneous (FE, TE -da (-za) / -ta / -da, TE -de (-ze) / -te / -de ~ -da (-za) / -ta / -da (25)), anterior (FE -j), voiced alternating class verbs can have two parallel forms, from extended stem with -j, as all other verbs, and from habitual stem with -i, TE -sij, -si / -tʃij, -tʃi / -dʲij, -dʲi (107), (109)‒(111), (121)), negative anterior participle (FE -ozaj, TE -ɔzaj (-ozaj)), and posterior participle (FE -oda, TE -tʃedo / -tʃedo / -dʲedo (112)). In FE only, there is a passive anterior participle (-duuj (-zuuj) / -tuuj / -duuj). The dative of the simultaneous participle is conventionalized in the converbial function of simultaneity (115) (see 10.3). Simultaneous nominalization is effected by the morpheme FE, TE -a (in FE, also -e after /e/ and /i/, -o after back vowels, -ɛ after /eʔ/ and /iʔ/, -ɔ after /uʔ/ and /ɔʔ/) (103)-(105),

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 827

(116), (119), (128), (130). Anterior nominalization has the marker FE -ʔa (also -ʔe after /e/ and /i/, -ʔo after back vowels), -a, -ɔ, TE -ʔɔi, -ʔe. It is attested almost exclusively in its ablative case form conventionalized in the converbial function of anteriority (113)‒(114), (133) (see 10.3). 18.4.3 Copula In TE, the copula has the lone stem a-, used in all forms. In FE, there are two suppletive stems, ɛ- and ŋa-; ŋa- is used for aorist, imperative, jussive, and connegative, and ɛ- is used elsewhere; see examples (83), (85), (86), (112). 18.4.4 Modal-interrogative verb FE has a modal-interrogative verb ɔbujta- ‘what for’, attested only in the aorist with subject-object cross-reference indexing. It is used in interrogative sentences with a modal meaning of meaningfulness of possession: (36) ɔbujta-u entʃeu kɔru ? FE what.for-1sg>sg person.obl knife ‘What do I need someone’s knife for?’ 18.5 DERIVATION 18.5.1 Nominal derivation 18.5.1.1 Nouns The following suffixes are productive and derive nouns from nouns: diminutive FE, TE |ku: FE dʲɔxa, TE dʲaxa ‘river’ > FE dʲɔxa|ku, TE dʲaxa|ku ‘little river’; pejorative-augmentative FE |je, TE |dʲa: FE buuse, TE baxoʔɔ ‘old man’ > FE buuse|je, TE baxoʔɔ|dʲa ‘bad / big old man’; emotive diminutive FE, TE |kuji: FE buuse|kuji, TE baxoʔɔ|kuji ‘poor (late) old man’. There are also other diminutive affixes, for example, FE, TE |gu: FE mɛʔ / mɛzu, TE meʔ / mezo ‘house’ > FE mɛzi|gu, TE mezi|gu ‘little house’, FE, TE |kutʃa: FE nʲe ‘child’ > nʲe|kutʃa ‘little child’, TE me|kutʃa ‘little house’; FE |tʃa, TE |tʃu: FE dʲuku ‘piece’ > dʲuku|tʃa ‘little piece’, TE niɔ ‘child’ > niɔ|tʃu ‘little child’. Nouns derived from verbs are agent nouns built with FE |xaz/ |kaz / |gaz, TE |xazo / |kazo / |gazo: FE tarir- ‘to steal(ipfv)’ > tari|gaz ‘thief’, TE adu- ‘to sit(ipfv)’ > adu|xazo ‘one who is sitting’; place nouns built with FE, TE |raa / |laa / |laa: FE pogur- ‘to fish with a net (ipfv)’ > pogu|laa ‘place of fishing’, TE kadʲa- ‘to hunt(ipfv)’ > kadʲa|raa ‘place for hunting’; and non-productive action nouns built with FE |tʃu, TE |tʃe: FE dʲiri‘to live(ipfv)’ > dʲiri|tʃu ‘life’, TE dʲebe- ‘to be drunk(ipfv)’ > dʲebe|tʃe ‘drunkenness’. 18.5.1.2 Adjectives Adjectives are derived from adjectives by augmentative FE |lee, TE |leʔɔ: FE dʲabu ‘long’ > dʲabu|lee ‘very long’, TE pidʲe ‘high’ > pidʲe|leʔɔ ‘very high’; by limitative FE, TE |juʔ: FE, TE aga ‘big’ > aga|juʔ ‘the big one’; in FE, by attenuative |jta: FE aga ‘big’ > aga|jta ‘rather big’; by diminutive FE, TE -ku, used for adding positive emotional attitude: FE, TE aga ‘big’ > aga|ku ‘big (softly)’.

828 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

Adjectives from nouns are derived with the adjective-forming FE, TE |j: FE naza ‘moss’ > naza| j ‘mossy’, TE nara ‘spring’ > nare|j ‘spring (adj)’; by comitative FE |saj / |tʃaj / |dʲaj, TE |sae / |tʃae / |dʲae: FE nɔxiʔ / nɔxilu ‘dirt’ > nɔxi|dʲaj ‘dirty’, TE niɔ ‘child’ > niɔ|sae ‘with a child, with children’; by comparative FE, TE |raxa / |laxa / |laxa: FE entʃeʔ / entʃeu, TE enetʃeʔ / enetʃeɔ ‘person’ > FE entʃe|laxa, TE enetʃe|laxa ‘like a human’; by comparative FE |zurau / |turau / |durau, TE |zoriɔ / |toriɔ / |doriɔ: FE bɛse ‘iron’ > bɛse|zurau ‘like iron’, TE tea ‘reindeer’ > tea|zoriɔ ‘like reindeer’; by locative adjectivizer FE |xee / |kee / |gee, TE |xi / |ki / |gi: FE pe ‘outdoors’ > pe|xee ‘outdoor’, TE meʔ / mezo ‘house’ > TE me|ki ‘for home use’; FE |ne, TE |noɔ: umu ‘North’ > FE umu|ne, TE umu|noɔ ‘Northern’. In FE, attenuative |rka may derive adjectives from nouns, adjectives, and verbs: FE buuse ‘old man’ > buuse|rka ‘elderly’, FE dʲuze ‘small’ > dʲuze|rka ‘rather small’, FE seʔi‘be hard(ipfv)’ > seʔi|rka ‘rather hard’. Adjectives from numerals (= ordinal numerals) are derived with FE, TE |de: FE nexuʔ, TE nexoʔ ‘three’ > FE nexu|de, TE nexo|de ‘third’. 18.5.1.3 Adverbs Adverbs are derived from adjectives by the prolative case suffix FE -ɔn (-an), TE -ɔne (-ane): FE sɔjza ‘good’ > sɔjza|an ‘well’, TE ɔptʃiko ‘bad’ > ɔptʃiko|ɔne ‘badly’. In FE, adverbs are derived from nouns and adverbs with |nojuʔ: FE pɛuʃuma ‘evening’ > pɛuʃuma|nojuʔ ‘in the evening’, FE badu ‘near’ > FE badu|nojuʔ ‘near’; note also the related adverbial diminutive |nokun and the (presumably) lexically restricted adverbial restrictive |nori: FE pɛuʃuma ‘evening’ > pɛuʃuma|nokun ‘more or less in the evening’, FE sira ‘snow’ > sira|nori ‘only in winter’. In TE, a postposition nɔɔʔ ‘on (directive)’ is used in this function, with a related diminutive form: TE sira ‘snow, winter’ > sira nɔɔʔ ‘in winter’, sira nɔɔ|ku ‘more or less in winter’. 18.5.2 Verbal derivation Verbs are derived from verbs by two types of derivations: aspectual and valency-changing. Aspectual derivations are imperfectivizing vs. perfectivizing, depending on the aspect of the resulting verbs; typically, imperfectivizing derivations are used with perfective verbs, and vice versa, although there are exceptions. Productive imperfectivizing derivations are: • • •

Durative (FE, TE |go- / |ko- /|go-): FE ʃeda-, TE ʃeeda- ‘to make(pfv)’ > FE ʃeda|go-, TE ʃeeda|go- ‘to make(ipfv)’ Multiplicative (FE |r-, TE |ro-, producing a voiced alternating verb): FE adu- ‘to sit down (pfv)’ > adu|r- ‘to sit down repeatedly (ipfv)’, TE kane- ‘to leave(pfv)’ > kane|ro- ‘to leave repeatedly(ipfv)’ In FE, discontinuative (|ga- / |ka- /|ga): FE bɛɛ- ‘to throw(pfv)’ > bɛɛ|ga- ‘to throw from time to time(ipfv)’.

Productive perfectivizing derivations are: •

Inchoative (FE |ru- / |lu- / |lu-, TE |ro- / |lo- / |lo-, always takes middle indexation series with intransitive verbs): FE kɔma- ‘to want(ipfv)’ > kɔma|ru- ‘to want(pfv)’, TE nɔɔ‘to stand(ipfv) > nɔɔ|ro- ‘to stand up(pfv)’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 829

•

Inceptive (starting-point of a state: FE |u-, TE |ɔ-, producing a voiced alternating verb): FE, TE ɔzi- ‘to be seen(ipfv)’ > FE ɔzi|u-, TE ɔzi|ɔ- ‘to appear(pfv)’.

Some non-productive affixes of aspectual derivation are also attested. The attenuative is an Aktionsart derivation that may produce both perfective and imperfective verbs (FE |jtu-, TE|itu-: FE kɔlta- ‘to wash(pfv)’ > kɔlta|jtu- ‘to wash a bit(ipfv)’, TE sumu- ‘to fall down(pfv)’ > sumu|itu- ‘to fall down a bit(ipfv)’. The most productive valency-changing derivation is the passive (FE, TE|ra- / |la- / |la-; always takes middle indexation series): FE, TE kada- ‘to take away(pfv)’ > FE, TE kada|ra‘to be taken away(pfv)’. Causative morphemes, with marginal applicative uses, are: • • • •

FE |da-, TE |do-, |de-: FE tʃu- ‘to enter(pfv) (intr)’ > FE tʃu|da- ‘to enter(pfv) (tr)’, TE sɔu- ‘to be good(ipfv)’ > sɔu|do- ‘to make good(pfv)’, TE ɔziɔ- ‘to appear(pfv)’ > ɔzi|de- ‘to show(pfv)’ FE, TE |ra- / |la- / |la-: FE tɔɔ-, TE taa- ‘to reach(pfv)’ > FE tɔɔ|ra-, TE taa|ra- ‘to bring(pfv)’, FE piʃir- ‘to laugh(ipfv)’ > piʃi|la- ‘to laugh at someone(ipfv)’ FE, TE |za-: FE lumu- ‘to be frightened(pfv)’ > lumu|za- ‘to frighten(pfv)’, TE pɔra‘to get burned down(pfv) (intr)’ > pɔra|za- ‘to burn down(pfv) (tr)’ FE, TE |ta-: FE kasu-, TE kaso- ‘to dry out(pfv) (intr)’ > FE kasu|ta-, TE kaso|ta- ‘to dry out(pfv) (tr)’.

Most aspectual and valency-changing markers can also derive verbs from nouns, for example: • • •

Multiplicative: FE poga, TE pɔga ‘fishing net’ > FE pogu|r-, TE pɔgu|ro- ‘to fish with a net(ipfv)’ Inceptive: FE dʲeri, TE dʲere ‘day’ > FE dʲeri|u-, TE dʲere|ɔ- ‘to get to be daylight(pfv)’ Causatives: FE ɔsa, TE udʲa ‘meat’ > FE ɔsa|da-, TE udʲa|da- ‘to cut meat(pfv)’; FE ɔzi ‘berry’ > ɔzi|za- ‘to collect berries(ipfv)’, TE mezo ‘house’ > mezo|za- ‘to visit(pfv)’; FE siru, TE siro ‘salt’ > FE siru|ta-, TE siro|ta- ‘to salt(pfv)’.

The inceptive also derives verbs from adjectives: FE, TE dʲuba ‘warm’ > FE dʲubi|u-, TE dʲube|ɔ- ‘to become warm(pfv)’. A productive denominal caritive FE |ʃe- / |tʃe- / |dʲe-, TE |se- / |tʃe- / |dʲe- is used to derive verbs with the meaning of absence: FE sej, TE sei ‘eye’ > FE sej|ʃe-, TE sei|se- ‘to be blind (ipfv)’; the present participle form of such verbs is the most frequent in texts, cf. FE sej|ʃe|za, TE sei|se|za ‘blind (eye|vcar|ptcp.sim)’. There is also a marginal verbalizer FE |zi-: FE sɔbi ‘path’ > sɔbi|zi- ‘to use a path (ipfv)’. 18.6 TRANSCATEGORIAL AFFIXES AND CLITICS Enets has several affixes and clitics that can be attached to any part of speech apart from particles. 18.6.1 ‘Emphatic’ affixes Enets has three transcategorial suffixes expressing emphasis: most often, they are used with nouns, but they are also attested with numerals, pronouns, adverbs, verbs,

830 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

postpositions, and adjectives. They occur after derivational, but before inflectional suffixes. Morphologically, ‘emphatic’ suffixes do not differ from derivational ones, and stems built with them have full inflectional paradigms; their initial consonants depend on the inflectional class of nouns and verbs in a way normal for other nominal or verbal suffixes. For non-compositional uses of ‘emphatic’ affixes with interrogative pronouns, see 18.3.2.3. The restrictive (FE |ru / |lu / |lu, TE |reɔ / |lʲeɔ / |lʲeɔ) is used in contexts of ‘only’ (14), (37), (38): (37) kasa nʲe|ru-biʔ FE man child|restr-nom.sg.1sg ‘Only my son helps me.’

ʃiʔ I.acc

peritʃuɔ help(ipfv).3sg

(38) kutoɔ enetʃeɔ-naʔ tʃiŋadʲi ʃarka|reɔ nɔɔ|reɔ sɔɔŋa-ʔ TE some person-nom.pl.1pl now vodka|restr at|restr look(ipfv)-3pl ‘Some of our people now look only at vodka.’ The insistive (FE |xuru / |kuru / |guru, TE |xoreɔ / |koreɔ / |goreɔ) is used in contexts of ‘even’ (39), (40): (39) ŋu|koreɔ baza nʲie baza-ʔ TE one|insist language neg.3sg tell(ipfv)-cng ‘He does not say even a single word.’ (40) dʲori-guru-ʃ daʒe dʲɔxara-ʔ nʲi-mʔ FE talk(ipfv)|insist-cvb even not.know(ipfv)-cng neg-3pl.contr ‘They even cannot speak (their own language) (how can they study in their own language?)’ The topical (FE |xoa, |xoɔ / |koa, |koɔ / |goa, |goɔ, TE |xoa / |koa / |goa) singles out a topical element of the clause (41). (41) pɛ-ʔ tɔnee-ʔ . . . ɛke dʲa|xoɔ-xon FE wood-pl exist(ipfv)-3pl this land|top-loc.sg ‘As for this land, there is wood (in there).’ (‘На этой земле-то лес есть.’) With personal pronouns, ‘emphatic’ affixes are placed between the stem and the possessive marker, cf. FE bu-duʔ ‘they (he-obl.sg.3pl)’, bu|xoɔ-duʔ ‘as for them (he|top-obl.sg.3pl)’ (14). 18.6.2 Exclamative clitics The following exclamative clitics have been found: • • •

Vocative, with variable vowel, for example, FE dʲisi ‘grandfather’ > dʲisi=ɛ ‘grandfather!’, TE kaza ‘granny’ > kaza=a ‘granny!’ Exclamative 1 (FE, TE -ɔu), Exclamative 2 (FE, TE -ej).

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 831

Exclamatives 1 and 2 are chosen depending on the last vowel of the word to which they are attached: -ej is usually used with front vowels, and -ɔu with the other vowels. These clitics are attached at the end of an intonation phrase. In FE, the last vowel of the host and, if present, a glottal stop are dropped before the clitics; in TE, the last vowel is dropped, but the glottal stop is kept, though it follows the clitics in this case, for example: • • •

FE nʲe|kutʃa-ʔ child|dim-pl ‘little children’ + -ɔu > nʲekutʃɔu (42), FE tɔza-raʔ bring(pfv)-2pl(>sg) ‘Bring it!’ + -ɔu > tɔzarɔu (42), TE kane-bi-ʔ leave(pfv)-prf-3pl ‘they have left’ + -ej > kanebeeʔ.

(42) nʲe|kutʃɔu, bi-to-nʲiʔ tɔza-rɔu ! FE child|dim.pl.exc1 water-pred.sg-obl.sg.1sg bring(pfv)-2pl(>sg).exc1 ‘Little children! Give me some water!’ 18.7 NOUN PHRASE 18.7.1 Modifiers and word order in a noun phrase A noun phrase (NP) consists of a head noun and modifiers, which normally precede it. Example (i) shows the linear order of possible NP constituents. (i) determiner—Rel—possessor NP—numeral—AdjP—apposed NP—head noun A personal or a demonstrative pronoun can be a head of an NP as well, but such NPs include no modifiers. For relative clauses that fill the second slot, see 18.10.2. 18.7.1.1 Determiners The determiner slot can be occupied by quantifiers and some demonstrative pronouns, such as FE ɛke, TE eke ‘this’, FE, TE tʃike ‘this’. Examples where more than one determiner is present are rare, but possible (43). (43) tʃukutʃi ɛke rɔsa FE all this Russian ‘all these Russian people’

entʃeu-ʔ person-pl

18.7.1.2 Possessors The possessor slot follows the first slot of determiners and has its own full NP structure. This slot can be filled by an NP with only one head noun (44), in nominative or oblique (see 18.7.2), with a head noun that has its own modifiers (45), or by a personal pronoun in the nominative (46). (44) [[tʃike] [[ese-nʲiʔ] [ese]]] TE this father-obl.sg.1sg father ‘this grandfather of mine (= my father’s father)’

832 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

(45) [[[ɛɛ-nʲiʔ] [ɛɛ]] [kixu]] FE mother-obl.sg.1sg mother idol ‘the idol of my mother’s mother (= my maternal grandmother’s idol)’ (46) uuʔ ɛɛ-r FE you(sg.nom) mother-nom.sg.2sg ‘your mother’ 18.7.1.3 Numerals The numeral slot can be filled by numerals (47‒48) or by quantitative pronouns, such as FE sɛn, TE seno ‘how many’, FE, TE oka ‘many’ (49). (47) tʃike nexuʔ menʲeʔɔ-dʲa TE this three old.woman-pej ‘these three old women’ (48) kaʃi-nʲiʔ ʃize bɔlko-ziʔ FE mate-pl.1sg two sledge.house-nom.sg.3du ‘the two sledge houses of my mates’ (49) oka aga koli-ʔ FE many big peat.bog-pl ‘many big peat bogs’ 18.7.1.4 Adjective phrases The slot of adjective phrases is filled by a phrase headed by an adjective (50) or by demonstrative pronouns not mentioned in 18.7.1.1, such as FE ɛlse, TE eloj ‘such’, FE tɔrse, TE tɔroj ‘such’ (51). Usually, this phrase consists only of a head adjective, but it also can have its own internal structure (52). More than one adjective phrase is possible in the same NP (53). (50) [[ɛɛ-nʲiʔ] [aga] FE mother-obl.sg.1sg big ‘my mother’s elder brother’

[kasa-za]] mate-nom.sg.3sg

(51) ʃize ɛlse aga banka FE two such big jar ‘two big jars like those’ (52) [[[modʲi nɔzonʲiʔ] [aga]] FE I I.abl big ‘people older than me’ (53) meju silʲeʔejgu pɛʔɛ-ʔ FE new white shoe-pl ‘new white shoes’

[entʃeu-ʔ]] person-pl

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 833

18.7.1.5 Apposed noun phrases Apposed NPs immediately precede the head noun. Most often, they consist only of a head noun that makes a lexicalized expression with the head noun (54)‒(55). However, apposed NPs with their own constituent structure are also possible (56). (54) tʃike ʃize aga kasa nʲe-xuu-nʲiʔ FE this two big man child-du-pl.1sg ‘these two elder sons of mine’ (55) [[aga] [bɛse] FE big iron ‘a big iron trap’

[dʲɔgo]] trap

(56) [[[aga] [sej]] poga] FE big eye fishing.net ‘a fishing net with a large (open) mesh’ 18.7.1.6 Non-standard word order There are instances of NPs that have a non-standard word order, with modifiers following the head noun rather than preceding it. Such word orders may reflect a non-standard information structure, though this requires further research. (57) aga tɛbo ɛlse FE big nail such ‘such a big nail’ 18.7.2 Marking of syntactic relations within the NP There is no agreement in case or number between a head noun and a modifier in an NP. When a modifier is abnormally postposed (see 18.7.1.6), a plural suffix may be attached to it instead of to the head noun: (58) segimid ɔburu tʃike-ʔ FE every thing this-pl ‘these various things’ With the numeral FE, TE ʃize ‘two’ singular, dual, and occasionally, plural of the noun are attested. With quantifier FE sɛn, TE seno ‘how much’, and numerals other than FE ŋoʔ, TE ŋuʔ ‘one’ and FE, TE ʃize ‘two’, the singular is usual, although marginal examples with plural are also attested (see Table 18.37, also Section 18.3.5). With FE oka ‘many’, the plural is usual, though the singular is also possible. TE oka ‘many’ is usually used as a copula complement; the data for its modifier uses are insufficient (Table 18.38). If the possessor slot in a possessive NP is filled by a full NP, the head noun normally has no possessive suffix (59); if this full NP distinguishes nominative and oblique forms, the absence of the possessive suffix strongly correlates with a possessor in the oblique.

834 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY TABLE 18.37  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF NUMBER FORMS WITH NUMERALS Singular form of the noun With ʃize nɛ numeral ‘2’ two woman ‘two women’

Plural form of the noun Dual form of the noun ʃize nɛ-ʔ two woman-pl ‘two women’

ʃize nɛ-xiʔ two woman-du ‘two women’

With nexuʔ nɛ nʲe-za nexuʔ nʲi-nʲiʔ numeral ‘3’ three woman child-nom.sg.3sg three child-pl.1sg ‘her three daughters’ ‘my three children’

TABLE 18.38  FOREST ENETS EXAMPLES OF NUMBER FORMS WITH OKA ‘MANY’ Plural form of the noun (standard)

Singular form of the noun (rare)

oka bɔgulʲi-z many bear-nom.pl.2sg17 ‘many bears’

oka entʃe-l many person-nom.sg.2sg ‘a lot of people’

Examples with a possessive suffix on the possessee are also regular (60), and the presence of the possessive affix is correlated with a possessor in the nominative for nouns distinguishing the core-case forms. However, as Ovsjannikova (2020) shows, possessees with possessive suffixes do not syntactically constitute one NP with their nominative non-pronominal possessors, and so in (60) the possessor is a syntactic constituent independent from the possessee. (59) kasa nʲe-nʲiʔ FE man child-obl.sg.1sg ‘my son’s wife’

mense old.woman

(60) ŋoʔ entʃeʔ nʲe-za FE one person child-nom.sg.3sg ‘One man’s child came here.’

ɔzi|ma be.visible(ipfv)|inc.3sg

ɛuʔ here

If the possessor slot is filled by a personal pronoun, the head noun obligatorily takes the possessive suffix (46). 18.8 POSTPOSITIONS AND POSTPOSITIONAL PHRASE Enets postpositions usually express local meanings—see (61), (64)—though some temporal, comitative, causal, and other uses are also attested; see (62) and (63). Postpositions are used with the oblique case of nominals (see 18.3.1.3, 18.3.1.5); personal pronouns are attested with postpositions only in FE and are in the genitive (see 18.3.2.1). (61) bɔlko-da sudʲe-ʔ pɔra-bi TE sledge.house-obl.sg.3sg inside-dat get.burned.down(pfv)-prf.3sg ‘He burned to death in his sledge house.’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 835

(62) ʃita nɔ-ʔ bee-biʔ FE s/he.gen with-dat keep.vigil(ipfv)-1du ‘We keep vigil with him.’ Postpositions can take possessive suffixes with anaphoric function, for example, poazo ‘after’ (63), though some postpositions are never attested with possessive suffixes, for example, FE nɔʔ ‘with’ (62) or FE dʲez ‘in the direction of’. (63) poazo-nʲiʔ ʃize kaasa niɔ tɔnea-zaraxa-ʃi TE after-obl.sg.1sg two man child exist(ipfv)-supp-3sg.pst ‘There were two boys after me, it seemed.’ Most postpositions are etymologically locative nouns with archaic local case markers (see 18.3.1.10). Some of these postpositions have a full paradigm of archaic local cases, for example, FE mee in.nom ‘inside’ (64), FE mi-ʔ in-dat ‘into’, FE mi-n in-loc ‘in’, mi-z in-abl ‘out of’, me-ɔn in-prol ‘along’, TE iro-ʔ under-dat ‘under (direction)’, TE iro-ne under-loc ‘under (location)’, TE iro-zo under-abl‘from under’, TE iro-ɔne under-prol ‘along under’. The other postpositions containing locative nouns have only a reduced paradigm or even just one ‘frozen’ case form, as FE keboon ‘along’. (64) bɔlko-nʲiʔ mee FE sledge.house-obl.sg.1du in ‘It is cold in our sledge house.’

tetʃi be.cold(ipfv).3sg

There is a smaller group of postpositions that result from more recent grammaticalization and that use standard local case markers (see 18.3.1.4), for example, FE pɔ-d betweendat.sg ‘to between’, pɔ-gon between-loc.sg ‘in between’, pɔ-goz between-abl.sg ‘from between’, and pɔ-mɔn between-prol.sg ‘along between’. There are also some postpositions without any local case markers, for example, FE ʃeru, TE ʃiero ‘while’, FE nok ‘towards’, etc. 18.9 CLAUSAL SYNTAX 18.9.1 Constituent order The basic constituent order in Enets is SOV: (65) ne-ro sɔeza page-za TE woman-nom.sg.2sg good clothes-nom.sg.3sg ‘The woman put on her good dress.’ (66) tʃike-ro TE this-nom.sg.2sg ‘Do it this way!’

teinoʔ so

seroa tie.up(pfv).3sg

mu-zo do(pfv)-2sg>sg.imp

The position immediately before the verb is focal. Indirect objects can be placed either immediately before the verb, after direct objects (67), or before direct objects (68); the exact order depends on the information structure of the clause.

836 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

(67) tʃukutʃi buniki-xiz miʔ-e-nʲitʃ FE all dog-dat.pl give(pfv)-sopl-1du>nsg.pst ‘We gave them all to dogs.’ (68) ɔlʲga-do bese miʔa-zodʲi nʲiuʔ pensʲi-jʔ TE Olga-dat.sg money give(pfv)-1sg.pst indeed pension-nom.sg.1sg nɔʔɔ-buʔe-nʲiʔ catch(pfv)-cvb.sim-obl.sg.1sg ‘I gave money to Olga, when I received my pension.’ Most often, sentence adverbials of time and place are located at the beginning of a sentence, before or immediately after the subject, while manner and degree adverbials are located before the verb, and after the direct object, if there is any (66). Left and right dislocations driven by the information structure are possible for any NP or adverbial. (69) kasa eddʲuku-jʔ, modʲi kere-nʲiʔ dʲebi-ta-u FE man child-nom.sg.1sg I self-obl.sg.1sg dress(pfv)-fut-1sg>sg ‘I would dress up my son myself.’ (= ‘My son, I would dress him myself.’) (70) ɔu, uudʲeɔ-ʔ nexa, ne|dʲa-ro TE oh table-obl take(pfv).3sg woman|pej-nom.sg.2sg ‘Oh, the woman took out a table.’ (= ‘Oh, she took out a table, the woman.’) Nonfinite clauses are strictly verb-final; for the linear position of a nonfinite clause in relation to the main clause, see Section 18.10. The particle FE anʲi, TE anʲeʔ ‘also, and, again’ has unique properties related to linear order: it can be placed either after the constituent it modifies or coordinates or after the first word of the constituent, if the latter contains more than one word (71). (71) bɛko-da nina-bi, ɔza-da FE [neck-obl.sg.3sg chew(pfv)-prf.3sg] [meat-obl.sg.3sg kada-bi-za nɔneda take.away(pfv)-prf-3sg>sg s/he.loc] ‘It (= the bear) chewed its neck and took the meat with it.’

anʲi and

18.9.2 Expression of arguments In active clauses, the case of agents is nominative; the case of patients can be either nominative or oblique (65), (68), (70), (71); most often, the distribution is governed by morphological factors (see 18.3.1.3). Direct objects in second-person imperative clauses are usually in the nominative (66), though rare cases of direct objects in the oblique have also been attested. Recipients/beneficiaries are expressed by the dative or by the oblique/possessive morpheme within a predestinative construction (see 18.3.1.6, 18.9.4). Passive clauses can optionally have overt agents in the dative (72). (72) bɔlki-zaʔ bɔgolʲa-d nizu|la-bi-zʔ FE sledge.house-nom.pl.2pl bear-dat.sg tear(pfv)|pass-prf-3pl.m ‘Your sledge houses have been torn by a bear.’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 837

Most two-place verbs are transitive, with no case alternations. Other possible ways to express the second argument of two-place verbs are the following: • • • •

Dative: for example, FE, TE kɔma- ‘to want(ipfv)’, FE ɛdeu- ‘to become glad about(pfv)’, TE dʲaxala- ‘to hope for(ipfv)’ Locative: for example, FE ɔtis-, TE ɔpteso- ‘to smell(ipfv)’, FE tarur-, TE taruro‘to fight(ipfv)’ Ablative: for example, FE pajaru- ~ pajeru-, TE peirto- ‘to be shy of(ipfv)’, FE lumu- ‘to get frightened of(pfv)’ Translative: for example, FE kanʲe-, TE kane-/kanʲe- ‘to become(pfv)’ (also means ‘to leave(pfv)’); TE tara- ‘to work as(ipfv)’ (also means ‘to be necessary(ipfv)’); FE kaji-, TE kae- ‘to stay as(pfv)’ (also means ‘to stay somewhere(pfv)’)

A few verbs exhibit valency alternations, with minimal or no discernible semantic difference, for example: loc ~ dat: FE, TE tara- ‘to be necessary(ipfv)’; nom-obl ~ loc: FE tadutu- ‘to step onto(ipfv)’; nom-obl ~ dat: FE tɛbo- ‘to hit(pfv)’; dat ~ FE dʲez, TE nɔɔʔ ‘at’: FE seŋir-, TE sɔɔro- ‘to look at(ipfv)’ (73); loc ~ FE nɔʔ ‘with’: FE kauzur- ‘to quarrel(ipfv).’ (73) a. nɔda seŋiŋa anʲi FE s/he.dat look(ipfv).3sg and ‘He looks at him.’ b. tʃike kamero dʲez seŋi-da FE this deceased to look(ipfv)-fut.3sg ‘He will look at this dead person.’ 18.9.3 Argument indexing on the verb Subjects are always cross-referenced on their finite verbs; third-person direct objects can be cross-referenced by the subject-object paradigm(s) (see 18.4.2.2). First- and second-person objects are never cross-referenced on the verb. When there is no overt object NP, object cross-reference is almost obligatory. (74) ɛse-jʔ tʃi periʔ baziʔ-obi-zaʃ FE father-nom.sg.1sg here always tell(ipfv)-hab-3sg>sg.pst ‘My father used to tell (us) about him.’ Instances with formal indicators of clausal topic or focus strongly suggest that only topical objects can be cross-referenced on the verb: there are no cases of cross-referencing of focal objects, and topical objects are cross-referenced in most cases. This correlation is also supported by observed constituent order: when an object is not cross-referenced on the verb, it usually immediately precedes the verb, that is, is in focal position (see 18.9.1). There is no direct connection between differential object marking by case (see 18.9.2) and differential object marking by verbal cross-reference: all combinations of values are possible.

838 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

18.9.4 Ditransitive clauses Ditransitive clauses are of two types: (i) with the standard ditransitive construction or (ii) with the predestinative construction. Both may be used to convey ditransitive-like and benefactive semantics. (i) has the theme argument in the nominative or oblique and the recipient/beneficiary argument in the dative (75). (75) buuse-d kere-ta batʲinki-za FE old.man-dat.sg self-obl.sg.3sg boot-nom.pl.3sg ‘He put his own boots on the old man’s feet.’

sɛruta-bi tie(pfv)-prf.3sg

(ii) has • •

the predestinative affix (see 18.3.1.6), with a possessive affix following it (76); occasionally, a separate possessive NP may be used instead to express the recipient/beneficiary (77).

(76) sapɔgi-zi-da FE rubber.boots-pred.pl-obl.pl.3sg ‘I bought rubber boots for her.’

tidiʔɛ-zotʃ buy(pfv)-1sg.pst

(77) niɔ-duʔ ne-z kada-da-ʔ TE child-obl.sg.3pl woman-pred.sg take.away(pfv)-fut-3pl ‘So they will take a wife for their son.’

teinoʔ so

In (ii), in contrast to (i), the recipient/beneficiary NP is an adnominal dependent of the theme bearing the predestinative affix, and not of the semantically ditransitive verb itself. Only (ii) can be used if the theme is definite; with indefinite themes, (i) is used, except for the rare cases of topical, emphatic, or extraposed recipients/beneficiaries, when (ii) is attested. 18.9.5 Agreeing adverbs Some adverbs (see 18.3.4) are always used with oblique possessive suffixes that are coreferential with the subject of the clause (even when used in passive or nonfinite clauses): • • • • • • •

FE barimagu-, TE bariɔxo- ‘barely, hardly’ FE, TE keraxa- ‘on one’s own, independently’ FE ɔzaxu-, TE ɔzeɔxo- ‘that is why’ FE tɔmini-, TE tɔmino- ‘just, and so’ FE, TE tɔnane- ‘once’ FE ʃemini- ‘self’ FE minxu- ‘right away’

(78) barimagu-nʲiʔ dʲipra-jʔ FE barely-obl.sg.1du untie(pfv)-1du.s(>sg) ‘We hardly untangled it in the boat.’

ɔdu boat

mi-n into-loc

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 839

18.9.6 Intensifier The intensifier FE, TE kere- with oblique possessive affixes (in the form attached to voiceless alternating nouns (see 18.3.1.5)) is used in two syntactic contexts: •

As an agreeing adverb (see 18.9.5) meaning ‘independently’ (with person-number value agreeing with the subject), placed immediately before the verb or, rarely, immediately after it.

(79) kere-ta kaʔu-t-e-zʔ dʲa nʲi-ʔ tʃike-r FE self-obl.sg.3sg fall.down(pfv)-fut-m-3sg.m earth on-dat this-nom.sg.2sg ‘It will fall down on the ground by itself.’ •

As a modifier of an NP meaning ‘own’, with a noun with possessive suffix (person–number value on the intensifier in agreement with the possessor of the noun) (80) or, very rarely, meaning ‘himself/herself/itself, independent’, with a noun without possessive suffix (3sg person–number value on the intensifier), placed immediately before the head noun (81).

(80) tʃi, tʃiŋadʲi kere-ta sɔ-da mu-da-zoʔ TE thus now self-obl.sg.3sg song-obl.sg.3sg do(pfv)-fut-1sg ‘Now I will sing his own song.’ (81) kere-ta jakolʲo-xone nʲie-baʔ ire-ʔ, TE self-obl.sg.3sg Jakovlevsk-loc.sg neg-1pl live(ipfv)-cng mu-xone ire-baʔ plc-loc.sg live(ipfv)-1pl ‘We did not live in Jakovlevsk itself, but we lived there (= we lived near Jakovlevsk).’ In its modifier function, kere- can also be used as an intensifier of the reflexive pronoun. (82) kere-tuʔ puzi-zuʔ FE self-obl.sg.3pl oneself-nom.pl.3pl ‘They spoil themselves.’

bɔɔ|da|goɔ-ʔ bad.inc|caus|dur-3pl

18.9.7 Non-verbal clauses The morphosyntax of adjectival and nominal clauses (including equative clauses) is different from that of locative and existential clauses. The former make use of predicative forms of nominals in some TAM contexts, and of a combination of predicative forms of nominals and a copula in other TAM contexts. The latter are always formed with copulas and do not use predicative forms of nominals. 18.9.7.1 Adjectival and nominal clauses In the affirmative aorist and past, zero copula, with copula complement forms of nominals (see 18.3.1.9), is used in clauses of this type (84); in other TAM and polarity contexts, copula

840 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

complements are accompanied by the appropriate TAM form of the copula FE ɛ-/ŋa-, TE a- ‘be(ipfv)’ (see 18.4.3), and so the subject is cross-referenced twice: on the predicate noun and on the copula (83): (83) tʃuku bemu-ɔʔ ɛ-tʃu-ɔʔ FE all chief-1pl be(ipfv)-deb-1pl ‘All of us will be chiefs.’ If a copula complement is a noun with a possessive suffix, a different coding strategy is adopted. In the affirmative aorist and past, the predicate shows no cross-reference with the subject, featuring only a plain (see Table 18.11) (84) or ‘past’ possessive suffix (see Table 18.14). In all other TAM and polarity contexts, a copula is used with the possessed noun (85). (84) modʲi, man-ʔ nʲi-uʔ, sɔjza entʃe-zʔ, FE I say(pfv)-cng neg-3sg.contr good person-1sg modʲi pɔrne nʲe-za I witch child-nom.sg.3sg ‘I am, he said, a good man, I am a witch’s child.’ (Sorokina and Bolina 2005, 54–55) (85) ɔrtee nʲe-jʔ FE first child-nom.sg.1sg ‘It is not my first child.

nʲi neg.3sg

ŋa-ʔ be(ipfv)-cng

18.9.7.2 Locative and existential clauses Locative and existential non-verbal clauses are always formed with copulas: FE ɛ-/ŋa-, TE a- ‘to be(ipfv)’ (86) (see 18.4.3), or the verbs FE tɔnee-, TE tɔnea- ‘to exist(ipfv)’ (87), FE dʲagu-, TE dʲigu- ‘to be absent(ipfv)’; in the latter case, the sentence cannot be characterized as non-verbal, but it is discussed here because cross-linguistically the same meaning is commonly expressed by non-verbal clauses. (86) tʃike dʲa-xan ŋa-zotʃ FE this place-loc.sg be(ipfv)-1sg.pst ‘I have been to that place.’ (87) dʲiksɔn kɔdʲu|ku-ne ʃajtanka TE Dikson near|dim-loc Shajtanka ‘Near Dikson, there is Shajtanka.’

tɔnea exist(ipfv).3sg

Existential clauses with FE tɔneea-, TE tɔnea- ‘exist (ipfv)’ and FE dʲagu-, TE dʲigu- ‘be absent(ipfv)’ are also used to express predicative possession (88), with a possessor in the nominative (oblique has been attested in a couple of cases in natural texts but is rejected in elicitation); see Ovsjannikova (2020) for more details. (88) ɔnɛj nɛ-r kasa FE Enets woman-nom.sg.2sg man ‘The Enets woman has a brother.’

kasa-za man-nom.sg.3sg

tɔnee exist(ipfv).3sg

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 841

18.9.8 Interrogative clauses Interrogative clauses and answers to them do not differ in their syntax from declarative clauses. Polar questions are expressed by rising intonation and, in clauses with past reference, optionally by the interrogative suffix on the verb (96‒97) (see 18.4.2.4). FE ɛɛʔ, TE eeʔ ‘yes’ and FE dʲagu, TE dʲigoa be.absent(ipfv).3sg.s ‘no’ can be used as short answers to polar questions. (89) sekutuŋa ? — sekutuŋa TE bite(ipfv).3sg.s bite(ipfv).3sg ‘(About a dog:) Does it bite?—Yes, it does.’ (90) uuʔ mɔru|t-e-z ? FE you(sg) break(pfv)|caus-sopl-2sg>nsg ‘Did you break them?—No.’

— dʲagu [dʲak] be.absent.3sg

Wh-phrases are usually placed immediately before the verb, which is the focal position in declarative clauses (see 18.9.1), or else, they remain in situ (91). In sentence-focus questions, they are placed clause-initially (92). Postposition stranding with wh-words placed clause-initially is not attested. Like polar questions, wh-interrogative clauses with past reference may feature an optional interrogative suffix on the verb. (91) ɛke ti-nʲiʔ nadu-zuʔ ɔbu-d FE this reindeer-pl.1du edge-nom.pl.3pl what-dat.sg mɔru|ta|r-e-zʔ tɔxazʔ? break(pfv)|caus|pass-m-3pl.m and.now ‘How (= by what) have the antlers of these reindeer of ours been broken?’ (92) miiʔa me-ko-da baxoʔɔ|dʲa-jʔ TE what.tra house-dat.sg-obl.sg.3sg old.man|pej-nom.sg.1sg nʲie to-ʔ? neg.3sg come(pfv)-cng ‘Why does not my husband come home?’ All verb’s arguments (including passive agents and arguments of nonfinite verb forms), adverbials, adnominal modifiers, and postpositional phrases can be questioned. (93) ʃiɔ ne-ne kanʲe-do? TE who with-loc leave(pfv)-2sg ‘Whom have you gone with?’ (94) ɔbu-zi-nʲiʔ dʲɔzito-d-e-n? FE what-pred.pl-pl.1sg shoot(ipfv)-fut-sopl-1sg>nsg ‘What will I shoot them for?’ Alternative questions are usually formed by repetition of the clause (95) or, rarely, with FE, TE ilʲi ‘or’ borrowed from Russian. (95) tʃiŋadʲi to-za, TE now come(pfv)-fut.3sg ‘Will he come now or not?’

nʲie neg.3sg

to-zoʔ? come(pfv)-fut.cng

842 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

In tag questions, FE ɔbu, TE miiro / miiʔ ‘what’ is used: it is placed either at the very beginning (96), or at the end of the clause (97), or before the word in focus. (96) FE

man-ʔ nʲi-uʔ, ɔbu, dʲɔxara-sa-r ? say(pfv)-cng neg-3sg.contr what not.know(ipfv)-q-2sg>sg ‘She said: you did not know it, did you?’

(97) TE

mɔdʲi niɔ-jʔ a-ba, I child-nom.sg.1sg be(ipfv)-q.3sg ‘This is my child, is not it?’

miiʔ? what

18.9.9 Reference tracking Subject and object cross-reference in the verb is the main reference-tracking device. Overt full NPs are usual only for introducing new referents or for reactivation of referents introduced in a previous part of the discourse; personal pronouns of first and second person are used relatively rarely. In case of reactivation of referents, full NPs can carry 2sg possessive suffixes; 3sg affixes are also used for reference tracking, though less often. (98) TE

tʃike lʲekare-ro this doctor-nom.sg.2sg ‘This doctor left.’

kanʲe leave(pfv).3sg

Demonstrative pronouns (see 18.3.2.4), usually with 2sg suffix (99), but not necessarily (100), can be used for the same purpose when the referent is more activated in comparison to the use of full NPs; the combination of a demonstrative pronoun with a full NP is also possible, and both can carry the 2sg suffix. Personal pronouns of third person are used for reference tracking much more rarely. (99) TE

tʃike-ro dʲaru-da this-nom.sg.2sg cry(ipfv)-fut.3sg ‘This one would cry.’

(100) tʃike laxo-bi FE this boil.up(pfv)-prf.3sg ‘This one boiled up.’ 18.10 CLAUSE-COMBINING The main clause-combining strategy in Enets involves nonfinite forms: converbs, nominalizations, and participles (see 18.4.2.6); a sentence-like strategy is also attested. For the expression of arguments in nonfinite subordinate clauses, see 18.10.4. 18.10.1 Complement clauses Complement clauses are usually placed immediately before their matrix predicate (101‒106), though other orders also occur (107‒108).

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 843

The general converb (18.4.2.6) is the main tool to form subordinate clauses filling the subject position of the main clause and also that of object, in the case of same-subject constructions (101)‒(102). It is used with: • • • • •

Modal verbs, such as FE, TE tara- ‘to be necessary (ipfv)’, FE piris-, TE pireso‘can(ipfv)’, FE lɔzis-, TE leʔi- ‘cannot(ipfv)’, FE tɛni-, TE tene- ‘to be able(ipfv)’, FE dʲɔxara-/ dʲaxara-, TE dʲaxara- ‘to not be able(ipfv)’, FE tɔxo- ‘to get used(pfv)’. Phasal verbs, such as FE pɛ-, TE pe- ‘to start(pfv)’, FE ŋaarta- ‘to stop(pfv)’, FE dʲɔsi- / dʲɔzi-, TE dʲudʲe- ‘to finish(pfv)’. Commentative verbs and predicative adjectives, such as FE bɔa ‘bad’, TE ɔptʃi- ‘to be bad(ipfv)’, FE sɔjza ‘good’, TE sɔu- ‘to be good(ipfv)’, FE kebi-, TE keebu- ‘to be sinful(ipfv)’, FE tɔna ‘too early to’, FE meʃi , TE meeʃi ‘enough’. Emotional verbs, such as FE piis-, TE piiso- ‘to be afraid (ipfv)’, FE, TE kɔmita- ‘to love(ipfv)’. Other verbs, for example, FE, TE dʲurota- ‘to forget(pfv)’, FE pɛrzi-, TE pereze- ‘to help(pfv)’.

(101) tezaʔ ko-ʃ lɔziʔ-e-naʔ FE now find(pfv)-cvb cannot(ipfv)-sopl-1pl>nsg ‘Now we cannot find them.’ (102) tidara|go-e ɔptʃi TE sell(pfv)|dur-cvb be.bad(ipfv).3sg ‘It is bad to sell (such things).’ Simultaneous nominalization is an alternative to the general converb in its complement function; there are no apparent differences in semantic or syntactic contexts of the nominalization and of the general converb; in FE, such examples (103) are rarer than in TE (104). (103) tʃike-r ŋɔi-za marɔzim|a-da FE this-nom.sg.2sg leg-nom.pl.3sg freeze(pfv)|nmlz.sim-obl.sg.3sg piiʔa be.afraid(ipfv).3sg ‘His is afraid of freezing his legs.’ (104) sezoku tidara|a tara TE polar.fox sell(pfv)|nmlz.sim be.necessary(ipfv).3sg ‘It is necessary to sell polar foxes.’ With the verb FE, TE kɔma- ‘to want(ipfv)’ same-subject complementation is expressed with a simultaneous nominalization in the dative: (105) oom|a-d kɔma-aʔ FE eat(ipfv)|nmlz.sim -dat.sg want(ipfv)-1pl.s(>sg) ‘We want to eat (it).’ = ‘We are hungry.’ Different-subject complementation with matrix predicates FE bɔa ‘bad’, TE ɔptʃi- ‘to be bad(ipfv)’, FE sɔjza ‘good’, TE sɔu- ‘to be good(ipfv)’, FE dʲɔxara-, TE dʲaxara- ‘to not

844 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

know(ipfv)’, FE, TE dʲurota- ‘to forget(pfv)’, FE, TE kamaza- ‘to understand(ipfv)’, FE ɔti-, TE ɔte- ‘to wait(ipfv)’ is expressed by the conditional converb (see 18.4.2.6) (106) and the irrealis analytical form (see 18.4.2.4) (107).18 (106) kanʲe-bu-nʲiʔ sɔjza ɛ-ta-uʔ FE leave(pfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.1sg good be(ipfv)-prob-3sg.contr ‘It would be good for me to leave, probably.’ (107) dʲaxara-zoʔ seno TE not.know(ipfv)-1sg how.many a-bu-ta be(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.3sg ‘I don’t know how old I was.’

pɔa-jʔ year-nom.sg.1sg

a|si be|ptcp.ant

Juxtaposition is used with mental verbs and verbs of speech (108). (108) nɛku|ju-r ma-dʲa-uʔ, tɛxɛ to-xon dʲiri FE this|lim-nom.sg.2sg say(pfv)-q-3sg.contr this lake-loc.sg live(ipfv).3sg ‘That one, probably, said that he lives at this lake.’ 18.10.2 Relative clauses Relative clauses are always placed immediately before their head noun in the NP. Relative clauses are formed with participles (see 18.4.2.5). Subject (109) and object (110), (112) relativization are commonly attested; relativization of other positions are possible (111), but very rare. (109) i|si mɔdʲera|si enetʃeɔ-ʔ nʲie-ʔ TE neg|ptcp.ant work(ipfv)|ptcp.ant person-pl neg-3pl mito-doʔ give.away (ipfv)-fut.cng ‘They will not give (it) to people who did not work.’ (110) TE

ɔne-ɔne sazu|dʲi page-ʔ true-prol.sg sew(pfv)|ptcp.ant clothes-pl ‘Really sewn clothes were very beautiful.’

ŋulʲi very

sɔeza|ku-tʃi good|dim-3pl.pst

Some participles used in relative clauses can take possessive markers for cross-referencing the subject. Possessive markers can appear on the participle only (111), or both, on the head noun and the participle (112). (111) FE

tezaʔ tɔɔ|j-nʲiʔ sɛxɛri me-ɔn now reach(pfv)|ptcp.ant-obl.sg.1du road in-prol kanʲe-nʲi-eʔ leave(pfv)-subj-1pl ‘Now let’s go along the road we came by.’

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 845

(112) FE

kada|oda-jʔ ɔburu-jʔ take.away(pfv)|ptcp.post-nom.sg.1sg thing-nom.sg.1sg nʲi ŋa-ʔ neg.3sg exist(ipfv)-cng ‘The things I will take with me are not numerous.’

oka many

18.10.3 Adverbial clauses Adverbial clauses are usually placed before the main clause (113)‒(117), (119)‒(123), (126), (130), (132) or, if within the main clause, before the main clause predicate (124)‒(125). Some adverbial clauses are, however, usually postposed, for example, different-subject purpose (127)‒(129) or finite (131) clauses, but occasionally other types as well (118), (133). Anteriority is encoded by the anterior nominalization in the ablative, with subject cross-reference expressed by obligatory possessive suffixes in the case of same-subject uses (113) and optional possessive suffixes in the case of different-subject uses (114). (113) FE

tʃajr|a-xazo-nʲiʔ drink.tea(ipfv)|nmlz.ant-abl.sg-obl.sg.1du ‘Having drunk tea, we fell asleep.’

(114) FE

nabe tɔdi-za ɔzi|u|ɔ-xaz tɔri tʃi new clothing-nom.sg.3sg be.visible(ipfv)|inc|nmlz.ant-abl.sg so here dʲedʲu-r mana swan-nom.sg.2sg say(pfv).3sg ‘When he had got a new dress (= his new dress appeared), the swan said so . . .’

kodar-e-nʲiʔ fall.asleep(pfv)-m-1du.m

Simultaneity can be expressed by the dative of the simultaneous participle (115) and by the postposition FE ʃeru, TE ʃiero ‘while’ with simultaneous nominalization in the Oblique case (116), both with subject cross-reference expressed by possessive suffixes. (115) FE

ti-nʲiʔ banu|za-xa-duʔ reindeer-pl.1sg lie(ipfv)|ptcp.sim-dat.sg-obl.sg.3pl ‘Let me go (now), while my reindeer are lying.’

kanʲe-xogu-zʔ leave(pfv)-hort-1sg

(116) FE

ezuzu|m|a-da leave.riding(pfv)|mult|nmlz.sim-obl.sg.3sg dʲɔ-pi lose(pfv)-prf.3sg.s ‘While riding, he lost his little jar.’

banka|ku-da jar|dim-obl.sg.3sg

ʃeru while

The simultaneous converb is used only if the main clause has past reference; it can express simultaneity (117) and, rarely, anteriority (118): (117) TE

eko-xone pazodo-buʔɔ-nʲiʔ, eko-xone this-loc.sg study(ipfv)-cvb.sim-obl.sg.1sg this-loc.sg ‘When I studied here, he lived here.’

ire-ʃi live(ipfv)-3sg.pst

846 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

(118) TE

ɔlʲga-do bese miʔa-zodʲi nʲiuʔ Olga-dat.sg money give(pfv)-1sg.s.pst indeed nɔʔɔ-buʔɔ-nʲiʔ catch(pfv)-cvb.sim-obl.sg.1sg ‘I gave money to Olga, when I got my pension.’

pensi-jʔ pension-nom.sg.1sg

Posteriority is expressed by the postposition FE ɔron, ɔrtʃuʔ, TE ɔrotʃune ‘before’ with a nominalization. (119) FE

ɛko-z kanʲe|e-d this-abl leave(pfv)|nmlz.sim-obl.sg.2sg mɔrgi-zi-naʔ ŋɔda-nʲi-d cloudberry-pred.pl-pl.1pl collect(pfv)-subj-2sg ‘Before leaving from here, you should collect cloudberries.’

ɔrtʃu-ʔ before-dat

Conditional clauses are built with the conditional converb: simple forms are used for real conditions (120), and an analytic construction (conditional converb of the auxiliary with anterior participle) is used for irrealis conditions (121). (120) ɔptʃiko-ɔne ire-bu-to TE bad-prol.sg live(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.2sg kada-xu-zoʔ take.away(pfv)-hort-1sg.s ‘If you live badly, I will take you with me.’

ʃito you(sg).acc

(121) dʲebe|sij a-bu-nʲiʔ TE be.drunk(ipfv)|ptcp.ant be(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.1sg dʲu-ta-boʃ lose(pfv)-fut-1sg>sg.pst ‘If I had been drunk, I would have lost her.’

nɔɔnʲiʔ I.dat

tʃiŋadʲi now

In concessive clauses, the conditional converb can be followed by the particle ŋo in FE and the particle uzoʔ ~ uzeʔ in TE (122). (122) kunʲi|ru dʲiritʃu seʔi-bu-ta FE how|restr life be.hard(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.3sg mɔzaʔa|ku-d biiʔɛ-d work|dim-obl.sg.2sg remember(ipfv)-2sg ‘However hard the life is, you think of your work.’

ŋo even

Same-subject manner clauses are expressed by the general converb (123). (123) dʲebe-ʃ to-obi-ʔ FE be.drunk(ipfv)-cvb come(pfv)-hab-3pl ‘Sometimes they come being drunk.’

kutuj-xin some-loc.pl

Same-subject purpose can be expressed by the supine or the general converb with verbs of motion, but only by the general converb with other verbs.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 847

(124) ese-jʔ pɔgum-odʲe TE father-nom.sg.1sg fish.with.a.net(ipfv)-sup ‘My father went fishing.’ (125) mɔdʲi mu, pɔgu-dʲe TE I plc fish.with.a.net(ipfv)-cvb ‘I will go fishing.’

kanʲe leave(pfv).3sg

kane-da-zoʔ leave(pfv)-fut-1sg

(126) nɛnago pize|go-ʃ ixutuŋa-d FE mosquito frighten(pfv)|dur-cvb smoke(ipfv)-2sg ‘You smoke in order to frighten mosquitos.’ Different-subject purpose clauses are sentence-like in FE, with their verb in the subjunctive (127); in TE, the postposition nɔɔʔ ‘on’ with the simultaneous nominalization is used (128). In FE, negative different-subject purpose clauses can also be marked by the negative jussive converb (129). (127) piri|go-ʃ kudaxaa tara-ʔ nʲi-uʔ FE cook(pfv)|dur-cvb for.a.long.time be.necessary(ipfv)-cng neg-3sg.contr nʲugulʲa-iʃ kanʲe-nʲi-ʃ mild-tra leave(pfv)-subj-3sg.pst ‘It is necessary to boil it for a long time, so that it becomes mild.’ (128) bese|ku-zo-jʔ teza-ʃi TE money|dim-pred.sg-nom.sg.1sg bring(pfv)-3sg.pst sɔlaza|a-nʲiʔ nɔɔ-ʔ pay.for(pfv)|nmlz.sim-obl.sg.1sg on-dat ‘He gave me money so that I could pay off my debts.’

ɔtei-nʲiʔ debt-pl.1sg

(129) baka-xan dʲiri|ga-zʔ tɔn kamozo-jʔ FE Priluki-loc.sg live(ipfv)|disc-1sg now house-nom.sg.1sg i-do-nʲiʔ tʃunʲi|r-ʔ neg-juss.neg-obl.sg.1sg light(pfv)|mult-cng ‘I usually live in Priluki in order not to heat my house here.’ Other adverbial clauses may be constructed with postpositions with nominalizations, such as a substitutive adverbial clause (130). (130) tʃike-d ɔm|a-d FE this-obl.sg.2sg eat(pfv)|nmlz.sim-obl.sg.2sg kirba-zo-d mu-ʔ bread-pred.sg-obl.sg.2sg take(pfv)-2sg.imp ‘Instead of drinking it (i.e. alcohol), buy bread!’

dʲeko-ɔn instead.of-prol anʲi and

Locative and, occasionally, temporal adverbial clauses can also be formed by a finite strategy with interrogative pronouns used as conjunctions; the main clause can also feature a correlative.

848 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

(131) maj|ku ɛ-obi, kuna FE disaster|dim be(ipfv)-hab.3sg when ‘It is torture when your dog is bad.’

bunike-r dog-nom.sg.2sg

(132) neneduʔ kunone sɔua, tʃiko-xone TE they.loc where be.good(ipfv).3sg this-loc.sg ‘Wherever they feel good, there they will live.’

bɔa bad

ire-da-ʔ live(ipfv)-fut-3pl

18.10.4 Argument expression in nonfinite subordinate clauses The expression of arguments is the same in complement, relative, and adverbial clauses. Apart from subjects, argument expression in all nonfinite clauses is the same as in finite clauses. Subjects of nonfinite clauses can be expressed by: a) b) c)

A possessive suffix on the nonfinite verbal form (though not on general converbs, supines, and anterior converbs, which never take possessive suffixes) (103), (106), (111)‒(113), (116)‒(121), (128)‒(130) An overt NP in the nominative (114) or oblique (133) case (though not in the case of supines and anterior converbs, which are never used in different-subject constructions) Both (107), (115), (122)

(133) nʲitoda eesaa pɔa-zaʃ ese-da dʲigum|a-xazo TE s/he nine year-nom.sg.3sg.pst father-obl.sg.3sg disappear(pfv)|nmlz.sim-abl ‘He was nine years old when his father died.’ If the overt subject of a nonfinite clause is realized by a pronoun, possessive marking on the nonfinite verb is obligatory. If the overt subject is a noun in the nominative, the possessive suffix on the verb is often present (107); if the overt subject is a noun in the oblique, a possessive suffix on the verb is rarely attested (133).19 18.10.5 Russian borrowings and clause-combining Conjunctions borrowed from Russian are often used in Enets clause-combining. Russian borrowings may be either combined with Enets nonfinite or sentence-like clause-combining strategies (cf. (134) with a Russian conjunction ʃtɔb ‘so that’, and (135) with a Russian complementizer ʃtɔ ‘that’), or used with a sentence-like strategy in contexts where this strategy would not normally be used without the Russian conjunction (cf. (136) with a Russian conjunction paka ‘until’). (134) ɛke ɛzee kobaj-da kaʔara-ʃ tara FE this up rind-obl.sg.3sg take.off(pfv)-cvb necessary(ipfv).3sg ɛke-r nʲuglʲɛjgu-uʃ kanʲe-nʲi-ʃ this-nom.sg.2sg soft-tra leave(pfv)-subj-3sg.pst ‘One should take off this upper rind for it to become soft.’

ʃtɔb in.order.to

(135) entʃeu-ʔ mam-bi-ʔ anʲi, ʃtɔ xutʃi kunʲi|xuru pizi-za FE person-pl say(pfv)-hab-3pl and that cuckoo how|insist nest-nom.sg.3sg

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 849

dʲagu be.absent(ipfv).3sg ‘So people say that the cuckoo never has a nest.’ (136) ʃiɔ|xoreɔ nʲie to-zoʔ, TE who|insist neg.3sg come(pfv)-fut.cng nʲie-do kane-doʔ neg-2sg leave(pfv)-fut.cng ‘No one will come, until you go yourself.’

paka until

kere-to self-obl.sg.2sg

18.11 A TEXT IN FOREST ENETS Recorded in August 2008 in Potapovo from Leonid Dmitrievich Bolin†. ɛke pu-ʔ modʲi kamaza|go-e-n this stone-pl I prepare(pfv)|dur-sopl-1sg>nsg ‘I prepare these stones for the autumn.’ saloba ice

iron under

pogu-dʲ fishing.net.mult-cvb

ɔtuz|nojuʔ autumn|adv

to-bune-nʲiʔ come(pfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.1sg

poga-nʲiʔ koo jakare-iʃ pɔnʲi-d-e-n fishing.net-obl.sg.1sg ear anchor-tra use(ipfv)-fut-sopl-1sg>nsg ‘If I come to fish under the ice, I will use them as an anchor at the ear of the net.’ sira ɛ-obi snow be(ipfv)-hab.3sg ‘There happens to be snow.’ sira iron ɛke-ʔ mɛro nʲi-z snow under this-pl quickly neg-2sg>nsg ‘You would not find them quickly under the snow.’ ɛke ɛnazduɔ-zo-d this mark-pred.sg-obl.sg.2sg ‘I will put this mark then.’ pɛ|kutʃa-zo-jʔ wood|dim-pred.sg-nom.sg.1sg ‘I will put a stick here.’

mɔkata-da-zʔ place(pfv)-fut-1sg ɛuʔ here

ko-d find(pfv)-fut.cng pɔna then

mɔkata-da-zʔ place(pfv)-fut-1sg

18.12 A TEXT IN TUNDRA ENETS Recorded in July 2008 in Vorontsovo from Irina Paykovna Koshkaryova†. kudaxaaʔ enetʃeɔ-ʔ mam-obi-ʔ for.a.long.time person-pl say(pfv)-hab-3pl ‘In the old days people used to say’

850 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

tʃi, thus

beno pregnant

a|ze-ʔ be(ipfv)|ptcp.sim-pl

ne-ʔ woman-pl

bine.xoreɔ tado-bu-tuʔ ɔptʃi rope.insist step.onto(ipfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.3pl be.bad(ipfv).3sg ‘So, pregnant women shall not step even onto a rope.’ dʲabe-zuʔ dʲigu-za luck-nom.sg.3pl be.absent(ipfv)-fut.3sg ‘They (=the fishermen) will have no luck.’ nagoza|de be.red(ipfv)|ptcp.sim

kare.xoa fish.top

tʃike, this

bexana, sturgeon

bexana|xoa ɔptʃi ŋulʲi, mana-ʔ, ɔptʃi sturgeon|top be.bad(ipfv).3sg very say(pfv)-3pl be.bad(ipfv).3sg ‘This red fish, the sturgeon, as for the sturgeon, it’s very bad—they said—it is bad.’ mezo-ʔ dʲuda-ane tɔroj kaatʃeʔ ɔzi-da, kaatʃeʔ house-obl.sg middle-prol.sg such illness be.visible(ipfv).inc-fut.3sg illness ‘There will appear an illness among housemates, an illness.’ i|de-ʔ beno neg|ptcp.sim-pl pregnant

a|ze|xoa-ʔ, be(ipfv)|ptcp.sim|top-pl

mɔta-bu-ta mii-da ɔptʃi ? cut(pfv)-cvb.cond-obl.sg.3sg what-nom.sg.3sg be.bad(ipfv).3sg ‘As for those who are not pregnant, what’s bad, if she crosses?’ mam-obi-ʔ, mɔtu|ŋa-ada say(pfv)-hab-3pl cut(pfv)|mult-3sg>sg.imp ‘They used to say, let her cross.’ NOTES  1 The corpus of Enets texts was prepared within the project ‘Documentation of Enets: digitization and analysis of legacy materials and fieldwork with the last speakers’, supported by the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (ELDP) in 2008–2011 at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA) and by MPI-EVA in 2011–2013. Fieldwork conducted in 2005–2017 by the authors Maria Ovsjannikova, Natalia Stoynova, and Sergey Trubetskoy was a part of the project supported by ELDP in 2008–2010, was supported by MPI-EVA in 2005, by the Russian Foundation for Humanities in 2015–2016, and by the Russian Science Foundation in 2017.  2 By the ‘>>’ sign, a significant difference in frequency is meant.  3 These historic vowels in FE suffixes are not reflected in phonemic orthography in this description due to their extreme rarity.

FOREST AND TUNDRA ENETS 851

4 In previous descriptions of Enets, the default class was called ‘vowel-final stems’, the voiceless alternating class ‘obstruent-final stems’, and the voiced alternating class ‘sonorant-final stems’ (see e.g. Tereščenko 1966; Sorokina 2010).  5 An alternative approach to the system of Enets alternations is a historically based morphophonological one, where rules are naturally independent of parts of speech and there arises no need of postulating several inflectional classes (see e.g. Urmančieva 2013).  6 See 18.3.1.9 for an explanation of why verbal categories figure in this section devoted to nominals.  7 Here, and in the rest of this description, citing an affix which has allomorphs conditioned by an inflectional class of the stem, we always give all three variants, separated by the symbol ‘/’, for lexemes of the default class, of the voiceless alternating class, and of the voiced alternating class.  8 Kamus is a part of a reindeer skin from reindeer legs that is used for making traditional shoes.  9 In Tables 18.8, 18.11, 18.13–18.14, 18.28–18.31, and 18.36, allomorphs that are conditioned by phonology of the stem and not by an inflectional class are indicated in brackets after the main allomorph they are related to. Free allomorphs or allomorphs with unclear or idiosyncratic distribution are separated by comma. 10 The caritive form is used only at the level of the clause; this is in contrast with its semantic counterpart, the comitative form, which derives adjectives (see 18.5.1.2). 11 No copula complement forms of first or second persons have been attested for nouns of the voiceless alternating class, since it does not contain any animate nouns. 12 Contrary to our descriptive decision to provide both basic and nominative stems for all nominals of alternating noun classes, only the nominative stem is given here for numerals belonging to an alternating inflectional class. This is due to the rarity of contexts in which a basic stem of numerals is used, leading to insufficient data for some numerals. 13 In the present description, basic tense-modal series and subject indexation series are not indicated in glossing, while all the other series are explicitly indicated. To designate subject–object indexation series, the symbol ‘>’ is used (e.g. 3pl>sg is subject– object series for 3pl subject and singular object). In case of homonymous forms in subject and subject–object series (see Table 18.28–18.30 for examples), brackets are used, for example, 1pl(>sg) stands for ‘1pl of subject indexation series or 1pl>sg of subject-object indexation series.’ 14 The possibility of building this form from the reduced stem in FE is a very recent innovation that breaks the standard alternation system in such a way that the reduced stem of alternating verbs is used with an affix allomorph for default verbs. 15 Used with all verbs except for the main negative verb; see 4.2.5. 16 In earlier descriptions of Enets, the formation of the aorist-imperative stem has been analyzed as a formation of the aorist (see e.g. Urmančieva 2013). 17 For the use of a possessive suffix here, see 9.9. 18 Enets does not use complement constructions for contexts similar to English different-subject infinitives or gerunds (e.g. I convinced her to stop smoking or I kept him from leaving); their analogues are expressed periphrastically. 19 As was mentioned in 18.7.2 in relation to possessive marking in plain possessive NPs, these statements about the difference between nominative and oblique marking of possessors and nonfinite subjects are relevant only for those nouns that can distinguish the two cases morphologically; thus, (107) is a valid example for these statements, but (115) and (122) are not.

852 OLESYA KHANINA AND ANDREY SHLUINSKY

REFERENCES Bolina, Dar’ja S. 2019. Ènčuu” bukvar’ (Èneckij bukvar’), 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Almaz-Graf. Castrén, M. Alexander. 1854. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gluxij, Jaroslav A. 1976. Konsonantizm èneckogo jazyka (dialekt baj) po èkperimental’nym dannym. PhD diss. Novosibirsk: Institut istorii, filologii i filosofii. Helimski, Eugen A. 1984. “Phonological and Morphonological Properties of Quantity in Samoyed.” In Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung Uralischer Sprachen, edited by Péter Hajdú and László Honti, 13‒17. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Helimski, Eugen A. 2007.“Fonetika i morfonologija èneckogo jazyka v uslovijax jazykovogo sdviga.” In Jazykovye izmenenija v uslovijax jazykovogo sdviga, edited by Nikolaj B. Vaxtin, 213–224. St. Petersburg: Nestor. Helimski, Eugen A. Ms. “Materialy k slovarju èneckogo jazyka.” www.slm.uni-hamburg. de/ifuu/download/helimski-enzisch.zip. Khanina, Olesya, Yuri Koryakov, and Andrey Shluinsky. 2018. “Enets in Space and Time: A Case Study in Linguistic Geography.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 42: 109–135. Labanauskas, Kazimir I. 2002. Rodnoe slovo: Èneckie pesni, skazki, istoričeskie predanija, tradicionnye rasskazy, mify. St. Petersburg: Prosveščenie. Ovsjannikova, Maria. 2020. “Oblique and Nominative Nominal Possessors in Forest Enets.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 11–2: 57–98. Siegl, Florian. 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Sorokina, Irina P. 2010. Èneckij jazyk. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Sorokina, Irina P., and Dar’ja S. Bolina. 2001. Slovar’ ènecko-russkij i russko-èneckij. St. Petersburg: Prosveščenie. Sorokina, Irina P., and Dar’ja S. Bolina. 2005. Èneckie teksty. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Sorokina, Irina P., and Dar’ja S. Bolina. 2009. Èneckij slovar.’ St. Petersburg: Nauka. Susekov, Vasilij A. 1977. Vokalizm èneckogo jazyka (èksperimental’no-fonetičeskoe issledovanie na materiale dialekta baj). PhD diss. Novosibirsk: Institut istorii, filologii i filosofii. Tereščenko, Natal’ja M. 1966. “Èneckij jazyk.” In Jazyki narodov SSSR: Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki, edited by Vasilij E. Lytkin and Klara E. Majtinskaja, 438–457. Moscow: Nauka. Urmančieva, Anna Ju. 2013. “Obrazovanie form aorista v samodijskix jazykax.” Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy ILI RAN IX (2): 734–767.

Chapter 19

NENETS Nikolett Mus

19.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Until the turn of the twentieth century, tundra and Forest Nenets were described in the literature as the two main dialects (or dialectal groups) of the Nenets language. these two languages are, however, not mutually intelligible and show significant differences with regard to their phonological and lexical properties as well as their grammatical structures. It therefore makes sense to consider them as separate languages; see the grammars of tundra Nenets by tereshchenko (1956), hajdú (1968), Salminen (1998), and Nikolaeva (2014) and the Forest Nenets grammatical descriptions of Verbov (1973), Sammallahti (1974), popova (1978), and Koshkareva (2005). the decision to treat tundra and Forest Nenets as one language has had some important consequences. the most serious one is that the tundra Nenets variant has been seen as representative of Nenets, and the grammatical descriptions and grammars thus provide information almost exclusively about this variant, while the other so-called dialect, Forest Nenets, has remained relatively poorly described and documented. Whereas Forest Nenets language is today a seriously endangered language with about 2,000 speakers (Volzhanina 2007), the estimated number of tundra Nenets native speakers is about 20,0000 (Dudeck 2013).1 although the present chapter concentrates predominantly on tundra Nenets, it seeks to give an overview of the differences between the two languages. Unless otherwise indicated, the tundra Nenets data are from a native speaker, Khadry Okotetto, collected by the author between 2017 and 2019.2 Both tundra and Forest Nenets are, by and large, agglutinative-concatenating languages. Within words, suffixes are attached one after the other, and the boundaries between morphemes are (relatively) clear-cut. Nevertheless, there are numerous alternations in both stems and affixes, some of which are more typical of fusional languages (see most concisely hajdú 1968 and Sammallahti 1974). a typical example of a fusional process in tundra Nenets is the way the accusative plural of certain nouns is formed. the accusative plural of bisyllabic nouns ending with a palatal consonant followed by /e/ is, for instance, indicated by changing the final vowel /e/ to /i/ without adding any suffixes to the stem, for example, xalʲa ‘fish’ and xali ‘fish (acc.pl),’ but as this example illustrates, the process is often accompanied by the depalatalization of the preceding consonant. there are three main types of word stem in tundra Nenets: consonant-final, vowelfinal, and what is usually called irregular (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 23–25). In Forest Nenets, stem-types ending in vowels or consonants and glottal stops are distinguished (cf. Sammallahti 1974, 40). In tundra Nenets, the form of the suffixes depends on the type of stem to which they are attached. For example, there are case suffixes that begin with either /x/ or /k/; if the final phoneme of the stem is a vowel, the suffix appears in a form beginning with the fricative /x/, but if the final phoneme is a consonant (including glottal stop), the DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-19

854 NIKOLETT MUS

suffix variant beginning with /k/ is attached. A clear example of this distribution is the locative case suffix, which in the singular has two forms: -xVna and -kăna-. The word for ‘lake,’ which is vowel-final, takes the /x/ form, viz. to-xona lake-loc ‘in a/the lake,’ while the word mʲaʔ ‘tent’ takes the /k/-initial variant mʲakăna tent.loc ‘in a/the tent.’ In such suffixed forms, the glottal stop is usually deleted. Furthermore, in the subset of affixes beginning with /x/, there is a further vowel alternation. The first vowel of the suffix assimilates to the last vowel of the stem, as in the example to-xona just cited; compare tu-xuna fire-loc ‘in the fire,’ ŋæːsi-xina tent.camp-loc ‘in the tent camp.’ The major open word classes distinguished in Nenets are nouns, adjectives (and numerals), adverbs, and verbs. The other part-of-speech categories, such as pronouns and postpositions, are all closed classes. Nouns in Nenets inflect for number, case, and possession. The singular forms of the core cases, that is, nominative, accusative, and genitive, do not syncretize in absolute (= non-possessed) declension. The forms used in possessive forms, however, show a nominative-accusative and an accusative-genitive syncretism. For example, the first-person nominative possessive suffix is identical to the first-person accusative form, for example, nʲuː-mʲi child-nom/acc-1sg is both nominative and accusative of ‘my child.’ In parallel fashion, the second-person accusative form of the possessive suffix is homonymous with the second-person genitive possessive suffix, for example, mʲa-ta tent-gen/acc-2sg is both accusative and genitive of ‘your tent.’ Spatial relations are expressed by case suffixes and postpositions. Nouns combined with postpositions are usually in the genitive. Nouns functioning as copula complements in copula and/or verbless clauses take the suffixes of subject person and number as well as the suffix of the past tense. In the Tundra Nenets noun phrase, adjectives may agree with their head noun in number, case, and possession, but this is largely optional and specific to some dialects. In Forest Nenets, agreement takes place only in number (cf. Sammallahti 1974, 58). Similarly to nouns, adjectives may function as copula complements in (verbless) copula clauses, and suffixes of subject person and number as well as the past-tense marker are attached to the adjective. Most adverbs in Nenets do not display any inflection, but as Salminen (1998, 540) notes, adverbs with a local function do take local case suffixes. There is a set of locative case markers different from those attached to nouns that can appear on such adverbs, for example, tănʲa-ʔ there-dat, tănʲa-na there-loc, tănʲa-d thereabl, tănʲa-mna there-prol. Nenets finite verb forms are obligatorily indexed for subject person and number, and transitive verbs, under certain conditions, are also indexed for object number; verbs also take tense and mood suffixes. Syncretism can be found in the verb paradigm, most usually in certain forms of the subjective and reflexive conjugations. For example, in Tundra Nenets, the same form is used for both subjective and reflexive verbs in the second-person singular: mănt͡săra-n work-2sg.subj ‘you work’ tʲorʲeja-n cry.out-2sg.refl ‘you cry.’ Indexing of properties of the object is limited to third-person topical objects, where three numbers of object (sg du pl) are distinguished. Postpositions can be inflected for person and local case, for example, mʲu-nʲa-nda inside-loc-obl.3sg ‘in it.’ In possessive phrases, any possessor noun is in the genitive, and the possessive suffix appears (optionally) on the possessed item, for example, wæːsako-ʔ ŋăno(-da) old.mangen boat(-3sg) ‘the old man’s boat’; if only the possessum is present, the possessive suffix is obligatory (and a coreferential pronoun may be added for emphasis), for example, (pida) ŋăno-da 3sg boat-3sg ‘his/her boat.’

NENETS 855

In both Nenets languages, modifiers precede their heads in noun phrases, for example, TN ŋarka ŋăno big boat ‘big boat.’Auxiliaries usually follow the lexical verb and occupy clause-final position, for example, tʲuku-mʔ sʲerta pʲir-ŋa-w that-acc do.cvb.mod can-co1sg>sg ‘I can do that.’ The only exception is the negative auxiliary in standard clausal negation (and in certain subtypes of non-standard negation); this precedes the lexical verb, thereby changing the expected VAux order, for example, mănʲ nʲiː-w tʲenʲe-ʔ 1sg neg-1sg>sg remember-cng ‘I don’t remember.’ Tundra Nenets has a basic AOV constituent order on the clause level, that is, the nominative subject is followed by the (usually) accusative-marked object, and the verb occupies clause-final position, for example, Sergei Maʃa-mʔ menʲe(-da). Sergei Masha-acc love(.3sg>sg) ‘Sergei loves Masha.’ The order of clausal constituents appears to interact with their discourse-pragmatic function, but there seem to be no dedicated positions for discourse-functional elements. Therefore, other orders occur in Nenets clauses, for example, OAV: Maʃa-mʔ pida menʲe(-da) Masha-acc 3sg love(.3sg>sg) ‘(s)he loves Masha,’ or even a non-verb-final order, for example, sʲejа-xăna xoj-xăna soja-we-dmʔ Nʲejto xæːw-xăna place.near.the.entrance. of.the.tent-loc tundra-loc be.born-infer-1sg Neyto side-loc ‘I was born in a tent in the tundra, near Neyto.’ Finally, coordination is expressed either by a simple juxtaposed strategy, for example, mănʲ sʲit Wera-m măneʔ-ŋa-dm 1sg 2sg.acc Wera-acc see-co-1sg ‘I saw you and Wera,’ or by conjunctions, such as nʲabʲi ‘and, the other,’ for example, Maʃa nʲabʲi Wera to-ŋa-xăʔ Masha and Wera come-co-3du ‘Masha and Wera came,’ or tădʲekaxat ‘then,’ for example, Maʃa Wera tădʲekaxat Petʲa to-ʔ Masha Wera then Petya come-3pl ‘Masha, Wera and Petya came’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 415). Subordination is expressed mostly with various nonfinite verbal structures; these usually precede the main verb, and the constituent order of dependent clauses does not seem to differ substantially from that of independent clauses (Nikolaeva 2014, 301). There are no conjunctions, although complementizers have been introduced in recent years on the model of Russian, cf. Nikolaeva (2014, 283‒285). 19.2 DEMOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND VARIATION Both Tundra and Forest Nenets belong to the Samoyedic branch of the Uralic language family. Traditionally, this branch has been divided into two sub-branches, Northern and Southern. This classification, however, has been challenged in recent years as being more likely an area-based division rather than a genealogical one (Helimski 1982; Janhunen 1998; Helimski 2005). Janhunen (1998), for instance, assumes two geographically extreme Samoyedic languages, Nganasan and Mator, as early offshoots from the Samoyedic tree and places the remaining languages in a layered continuum between these two end points. In this model, the languages are supposed to have secondary contacts with their neighbouring languages in the continuum. In contrast, Helimski (2005) hypothesizes that so-called primary units (Selkup, Kamas, Mator, Nenets-Enets and Nganasan) were separated first from the Proto-Samoyedic language and then had further contacts with each other during the period of migration. These secondary contacts lead to the development of the present languages and classification. In all subdivisions of Samoyedic languages, the closest relatives of Nenets are Tundra and Forest Enets and Nganasan. Nenets is one of the many endangered indigenous languages spoken in the Russian Federation. Its EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) level is 6b (threatened), which means that it is used in oral communication in everyday interactions within all generations but there is a continuous decline in the number of speakers

856 NIKOLETT MUS

(cf. Trevilla 2009; Eberhard et al. 2019). This statement holds for Tundra Nenets spoken in Siberia. In contrast, both European Tundra Nenets and Forest Nenets are in a worse situation overall. As Ackerman and Salminen (2006) and Salminen (2007) report, there is a gap in language transmission from the middle-aged (or older) generation to the younger one, with the result that nearly half of the children speak Russian instead of Nenets in these communities. According to the latest population Census of the Russian Federation (2010), there are 21,926 Nenets speakers, which is approximately 50% of the total number of the 43,777 people who identified themselves as Nenets. Note, however, that the census does not differentiate between the Tundra and Forest Nenets languages. Based on Toulouze (2003), Koshkareva (2005), and Volzhanina (2007), the number of Forest Nenets speakers was approximately 1,000–2,000 in the early 2000s. We may therefore conclude that the estimated total number of people who speak Tundra Nenets as their mother tongue is less than 20,000. Even though Tundra Nenets is endangered, it still has the largest number of speakers of all Samoyedic languages. Dudeck (2013) draws attention to the increasing number of people who regard themselves as Nenets: in 1979, there were 27,294 persons who claimed to be Nenets, and this number increased to 44,640 in 2010. According to Dudeck (2013, 131), this tendency might be explained with the ‘affirmative action measures taken by the state’: countrywide organizations and associations were established to defend and legally represent native peoples. What is more, state-granted territories for use by indigenous people for their traditional way of life (fishing, hunting, reindeer herding) were practically free of charge for members of minority peoples of the north (cf. Hodges-Aeberhard and Raskin 1997, 90, 94). In addition, one should bear in mind that it is not unusual in the Siberian region for people to name their heritage language as their mother tongue, even though they no longer speak it (Pakendorf 2010, 716). The two Nenets languages have traditionally been spoken in North-Eastern Europe and in North-Western Siberia. Tundra Nenets speakers live in three major administrative districts of the Russian Federation: the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the YamaloNenets Autonomous Okrug, and the Taymyr Autonomous Okrug. Additionally, a few more groups of speakers can be found scattered in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, in the Komi Republic, and in the Murmansk region. In contrast, Forest Nenets speakers can be found only in parts of the territory of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. The Forest Nenets areas are situated to the north of the middle Ob, bounded by the Lyamin River to the West and by the Taz and the Pur Rivers to the East. More specifically, Forest Nenets occupy the area of the lake Num-To and the upper reaches of the Agan and Pur Rivers (cf. Toulouze 2003). Figure 19.1 shows the regions of the Russian Federation in which Tundra and Forest Nenets are spoken. Tundra and Forest Nenets can each be subdivided into dialects. Tundra Nenets consists of three main dialect groups, named Western, Central, and Eastern. Within these three, one can distinguish further subdialects: the Kolguyev, Kanin, Timan, and Malaya Zemľa subdialects belong to the Western group; the Boľshaya Zemľa dialect forms the Central group on its own; and the Eastern group consists of the Ob/Ural, Yamal, Taz, Nadym, and Taymyr subdialects (cf. Hajdú 1968; Tereshchenko 1993; Salminen 1998). The geographical position of Tundra Nenets dialects correlates with the administrative units where the language is spoken. Consequently, the Western dialect is mainly spoken in the Nenets District, while speakers of the Central dialect can typically be found in the Yamal Nenets District. Finally, the Eastern dialect of Tundra Nenets is mostly spoken in the Taymyr Municipal District.

NENETS 857

FIGURE 19.1 MAP OF THE AREA WHERE NENETS IS SPOKEN. Source: Zoltán Gulyás, https://tundranenetsdata.nytud.hu/tools.html#maps.

Structural differences among Tundra and Forest Nenets languages have been studied primarily at the level of phonology and phonetics (see, for example, Ackerman and Salminen 2006). Similarly, comparative studies of Tundra Nenets dialect(al group)s have focused on differences between phonology, morphology, and lexicon (e.g. Hajdú 1968, 21–22; Salminen 1998, 516). One of the most conspicuous phonological differences among the dialects of Tundra Nenets is the lack of the velar nasal /ŋ/ in word-initial position in some of the Western dialects, that is, in Kolguyev, Kanin, and Timan subdialects, for example, Western dialect, Kanin Subdialect mănʲ ăt͡ʃki-n oka 1sg child-pl.1sg many ‘My children are many = I have many children’ [AL, 2002]; contrast Central Dialect, Bol'shaya Zemlya Subdialect mănʲ ŋăt͡sʲeki-n ŋoka-ʔ 1sg child-pl.1sg man-3pl ‘My children are many = I have many children’ [VT, 2002]. Given that Tundra Nenets does not allow vowel-initial syllables, the absence of the initial velar nasal leads to non-typical syllable structure, that is, vowel-initial syllables, not documented so far. Concerning dialectal variation in Tundra Nenets, Salminen (1998, 516) notes that they are most remarkable between the Western and the Central–Eastern groups. For this reason, he assumes European vs. Siberian features in varieties of Tundra Nenets. A typical European Nenets feature is the lack of the initial velar nasal illustrated previously. The three major dialects of Forest Nenets correspond to the areas where the language is spoken as detailed earlier: Agan, Pur, and Num-To dialects. Phonological differences

858 NIKOLETT MUS

between the three dialects are described in Koshkareva (2005). An illustration of the kinds of difference involved is the distribution of the palatal consonants /dʲ/, /tʲ/, and /j/ in word-initial position. A word-initial /dʲ/ is used in the Agan dialect (dʲa ‘earth’), /tʲ/ in the Pur dialect (tʲa ‘earth’), and /j/ in the Num-To dialect forms ( ja ‘earth’) (cf. Koshkareva 2005, 22). The official state language of the Russian Federation is Russian, which is predominant in the domains of everyday life and education for both Tundra and Forest Nenets people. In addition to Russian, other minority languages are spoken alongside Nenets: there are Khanty, Mansi, and Selkup speakers in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, while Nganasan and Tundra and Forest Enets speakers, as well as Dolgan (Turkic), Ket (Yeniseic), and Evenki (Northern Tungusic) speakers live in the Taymyr Peninsula, in the Taymyr Autonomous Okrug (Figure 19.2). Additionally, a relatively large number of Komi speakers live in the European part of the Tundra Nenets territories, in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Thanks to this rich ethnic and linguistic diversity in the traditional habitat of Nenets, one can hardly find a Nenets speaker who is not bi- or multilingual (for a more detailed description of the current sociolinguistic situation in Siberia, see, for example, Pakendorf 2010; Kasten and de Graaf 2013; Vakhtin 2015). For instance, Touluze (2003) notes that the Agan dialect of Forest Nenets has had intense contact with Surgut Khanty and Russian. In this trilingual situation, Khanty enjoys higher prestige than Forest Nenets, but both are under heavy dominance and influence from Russian.

FIGURE 19.2 MAP OF THE NENETS-SPEAKING AREA OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. Source: LLOW Languages of the World.3

NENETS 859

The traditional Nenets genre de vie was based on nomadic reindeer herding and hunting throughout the tundra and the taiga. This traditional way of life has changed in many ways in the past decades as more and more people settle down in villages and cities. Consequently, reindeer herding has declined in Nenets communities (for a detailed description of the interaction between the ‘modernized’ nomadic reindeer-herding culture and its environment, see Stammler 2005). The tendency to settle down and abandon traditional tundra life has had a negative effect on language transmission to the youngest generation (Dudeck 2013; Laptander 2013; Liarskaya 2013). Inter-ethnic marriages may also accelerate the language and cultural loss/shift (cf. Vagramenko 2017). In recent years, there are efforts aimed at slowing negative tendencies by modernizing the educational system (see, for example, Laptander 2013 on Tundra School). To my knowledge, however, there are no systematic efforts at Nenets revitalization. There are records of Samoyedic languages from as early as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, documented by Philip Johann Strahlenberg and Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt, among others (see Chapter 5 in this volume); Nenets literacy does not have a long history, however. The idea of creating a unified standard literary language and writing system for Nenets is no earlier than the late 1920s and early 1930s (cf. Touluze 1999, 53). The unified orthography was, as in the case of almost all indigenous languages of Western Siberia, based on the Cyrillic alphabet. The written standard was based on a prestige variant spoken in the tundra, namely, the Yamal subdialect of Tundra Nenets. Because of these externally motivated efforts, the most widely used written variant of Tundra Nenets today is still the one used in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District. Newspapers and online resources are usually redacted in this variant. There is an online Tundra Nenets newspaper titled няръяна вындер (nʲarʲana wiːndʲer [Red Tundra]).4 In addition, a test version of Tundra Nenets Wikipedia is also available.5 Nenets videos and recordings are provided and archived by the Yamal Region broadcast.6 Nevertheless, neither a unified literary language nor a unified writing system has been created for contemporary Tundra Nenets, and texts therefore vary somewhat in their orthography, depending on dialectal variants or authors/editors. There is no unified written standard for Forest Nenets either, although a newspaper, titled Tilhivsama ‘Our life,’ was founded by Leonid (Lyahu) Aivaseda Vella in the 1990s. It was taken over by Yuri Vella (the most famous Forest Nenets author and activist) after Leonid’s death and published eight additional issues. Schoolbooks were also written in the 1990s in Forest Nenets, but they are no longer used. Yuri Vella initiated an unsuccessful preservation and revitalization project of Forest Nenets in the 1990s, which included the publication of these materials. The orthographies of both Nenets languages are based on the Cyrillic alphabet with additional letters /ŋ/ and with both and for /ʔ/ for Tundra Nenets, and with /ŋ/, /ʔ/ and /l̥ / for Forest Nenets. The Cyrillic alphabet is not entirely apt for a rendering of the phonemic systems of these languages. For instance, the length of vowels is usually not marked in written texts at all. Moreover, the same letter may be used to write two different phonemes, for example, is used for both Nenets /e/ and /æ/. Linguistic transcriptions based on the Latin script used in grammatical descriptions are not unified either (see Hajdú 1968; Salminen 1993, 1998; Staroverov 2006; Kavitskaya and Staroverov 2008); these reflect differences mainly in the interpretation of the Tundra Nenets vowel system.

860 NIKOLETT MUS

19.3 PHONOLOGY AND THE WORD Tundra Nenets has ten vowels contrasting in closeness and roundness, and there is an additional open front diphthong written here as non-distinctively long /æː/ (see Salminen 1997, 36, and also 1993, 1998; Nikolaeva 2014). According to Nikolaeva (2014, 17) Tundra Nenets has four distinctive lengths: long, short, over-short, and reduced (Table 19.1). This system was borrowed from Salminen (1993, 1998), albeit with some minor modifications. Salminen introduces a system consisting of plain /i/ /e/ /a/ /u/ /o/, ‘stretched’ /iː/, /uː/, and /æː/, plus reduced /ø/ and schwa /°/ vowels. Both approaches agree that high vowels contrast for length: /i/ vs. /iː/ and /u/ vs. /uː/. This distinction, however, is significant only in the Eastern dialects and is neutralized in the Western ones. Mid vowels occur only short. Finally, there are three distinctive lengths for low vowels, as follows: /a/ is a short vowel, the over-short low vowel /ə/ is pronounced as a very short /a/, and the reduced vowel /°/ is either pronounced as the over-short low vowel /ə/ or is deleted. The pronunciation (or not) of this reduced vowel correlates to the stress pattern of the language (Salminen 1998, 519). Note that length is a distinctive feature showing up in the first syllable only. Staroverov (2006) points out that a clear phonological difference in length exists only between the low /a/ and the short low vowel /ă/ (see Table 19.2). This latter is regarded as a reduced vowel, written /ø / in Salminen’s system, and as over-short /ə/ in Nikolaeva’s grammar. Nevertheless, Staroverov does not find sufficient evidence in favour of the existence of the schwa as a distinct phoneme: he regards it as a reduced vowel and not a deleted one. Consequently, Staroverov (2006) assumes a three-way contrast in length, that is, over-short, short, and long (see Table 19.2). Note that, usually, the length of vowels is not indicated in writing. The differences between the transcriptional traditions of Tundra Nenets is represented here by way of the example xănʲaʔ ‘where to,’ rendered avriously as хăня' (Tereshchenko 1965, 744), xańāʔ (Hajdú 1968, 94), xønyah (Salminen 1998), and xənʹah (Nikolaeva 2014). In the present

TABLE 19.1  THE TUNDRA NENETS VOWEL INVENTORY Long High

iː

Short uː

Mid Low

æː

i

u

e

o

a

Over-short

Reduced

ə

°

Source: based on Nikolaeva 2014.

TABLE 19.2  THE TUNDRA NENETS VOWEL-INVENTORY Long High

iː

Short uː

Mid Low

æ

Source: based on Staroverov 2006.

Over-short

i

u

e

o

a

ă

NENETS 861

transcription of the examples, Nikolaeva’s (2014) system will be followed with a minor modification: the short low vowel /ə/ will be marked by the corresponding IPA character /ă/. Furthermore, I will not indicate the underlying reduced/deleted vowel /°/ in the examples. As Hajdú (1968, 24) notes, each vowel (with the exception of the diphthong /æː/) has two allophones, a front and a back one, whose realizations are determined by the palatalization of the preceding consonant, that is, a palatalized consonant is followed by the fronted allophone. This process will not be indicated in the examples. The diphthong /æː/ occurs only in the first syllable and can only be preceded by nonpalatalized consonants, for example, ŋæː- ‘to be,’ xæːwă ‘side,’ pæː ‘stone, mountain,’ tæːwă ‘tail,’ sæːwă ‘eye.’ Tundra Nenets does not allow vowels in word-initial position, but as mentioned previously, there is some dialectal variation. There is no vowel harmony in Tundra Nenets, but the vowel of the suffixes beginning with the velar fricative assimilates to the final vowel of the stem, for example, to-xona lake-loc ‘in the lake,’ tu-xuna fire-loc ‘in the fire.’ In Forest Nenets, there are six long /iː eː äː aː oː uː/ and four short /i ä a u/ vowels (cf. Ackerman and Salminen 2006, 577). Additionally, Sammallahti (1974, 13–14) assumes two open diphthongs /ae/ and /aɛ/, but Salminen (2007, 351–352) points out that these represent variants of /ä/ and /äː/, and we treat them here as allophones. The consonant inventory of Tundra Nenets is shown in Table 19.3. Nikolaeva (2014, 19–20) postulates a voicing contrast of stops in Tundra Nenets. In contrast, Hajdú (1968, 23) assumes that the consonants are most likely distinguished by their tenseness, that is, there are tense and lax consonants. Salminen (1998, 522) calls the two types strong and weak consonants. Phonetically, the dental consonants have palatal counterparts, while the bilabial ones are palatalized. Descriptions of Tundra Nenets usually differentiate two glottal stops, represented as non-nasalizable {q} and nasalizable {h} morphophonemes (see, for example, Salminen 1997, Nikolaeva 2014, 19–20). On the one hand, it is not reasonable to assume the existence of two glottal stop phonemes, since they are pronounced in the same way and do not differ in any acoustic properties (cf. Hajdú 1968, 23, Staroverov 2006, 2). On the other hand, there are two entities, appearing in different contexts and behaving differently in consonant sandhi. For example, in the

TABLE 19.3  THE TUNDRA NENETS CONSONANT INVENTORY Bilabial

Stop

Tense/Strong Lax/Weak

Nasal

Plain

Palatalized

p

pʲ

Palatal

Velar

Glottal

t

tʲ

k

ʔ

b

bʲ

d

dʲ

m

mʲ

n

nʲ

͡ts

͡tsʲ

Affricate

s

Fricative Approximant

Dental

w

sʲ j

Lateral approximant

l

lʲ

Trill

r

rʲ

Source: based on Nikolaeva 2014.

ŋ x

862 NIKOLETT MUS

syntagm xuːʔ ‘sheep’ + xoba ‘skin,’ the nasalizable glottal stop alternates with a nasal consonant: xuːŋ_koba ‘sheepskin’ morphophonemically xu-h xoba sheep-gen hide, but the non-nasalizable one is simply deleted, and the following fricative becomes a stop, for example, tiːnaʔ reindeer.acc.1pl ‘our reindeer acc’ + xadambʲiːwaʔ kill.1pl ‘we killed them’ becomes tiːna_kadambʲiwaʔ (morphonemically tí-naq xadampji-waʔ reindeer.acc. pl-1pl kill.aorist-1pl) ‘we killed our reindeer.’ Hajdú (1968, 23) argued that there are historical reasons for the two underlying representations, and therefore they should not be regarded as two phonemes synchronically. Note that although the two morphophonemically distinct glottal stops are supposedly indicated differently in writing ( and for {h} and {q}, respectively), this orthographic strategy is not carried out systematically. Voiced (or weak, or lax) consonants, and the velar and glottal stop(s), as well as the affricates and trills, are restricted to non-initial position in the word. Furthermore, consonant clusters cannot occur in word-initial position. The velar nasal and the fricatives are not allowed in word-final position. As illustrated earlier, consonant sandhi at word boundaries can alter both the final consonant of the first word and the initial consonant of the following word, for example, toxoʔ ‘cloth’ + -xăna loc > toxokăna ‘in the cloth’; mʲa-tʔ tent-dat ‘into the tent’ + tʲuː go.3sg ‘go into’ > mʲa-tăn_tʲuː ‘s/he went into the tent.’ Other inflected forms reveal these stems to be an s-stem (cf. toxos-mʔ cloth acc) and a t-stem (cf. madă-ʔ tent-pl, with epenthentic ă); see Ackermann and Salminen 2006, and Salminen 1997. The consonant inventory of Forest Nenets is clearly different from that of Tundra Nenets (see Table 19.4): TABLE 19.4  THE FOREST NENETS CONSONANT INVENTORY Bilabial

Dental

Palatal

Velar

Palatalized

Glottal

ʔ

Plain

Palatalized

Plain

Stop

p

pʲ

t

tʲ

k

kʲ

Nasal

m

mʲ

n

nʲ

ŋ

ŋʲ

Fricative

s

sʲ

x

xʲ

Lateral fricative

ɬ

ɬʲ w

wʲ

Approximant

j

Lateral approximant

l

Trill

r

lʲ

Source: based on Salminen 2007.

There is no contrast along the voicing dimension in Forest Nenets. What is more, palatalization is more extensive: in Forest Nenets, the velar consonants have palatalized pairs as well (Ackermann and Salminen 2006, 577). As Ackermann and Salminen (2006, 577) note, the lateral fricative in Forest Nenets—lacking in Tundra Nenets—is a result of Eastern Khanty influence. The maximal syllable structure in Tundra Nenets is CV(C) (Salminen 1997, 35; Nikolaeva 2014, 27).7 Thus, syllables are (almost) always consonant-initial, medial clusters of three are prohibited, and consonant clusters cannot occupy initial and final positions, for example, CV nʲe ‘woman,’ CVC xăr ‘knife.’

NENETS 863

Inflectable words in Tundra Nenets have a primary and a secondary stem, the so-called general finite stem. Verbs also may have a reflexive stem that is used for plural objects as well. The secondary and the reflexive stems are derived from the primary stem. The nominal secondary stem appears in the accusative plural and is used as a base for further inflection. The verbal secondary and reflexive stems are used in inflection (Nikolaeva 2014, 25). 19.4 INFLECTION OF NOUN AND VERB Nouns in Tundra Nenets are inflected for three numbers—singular, dual, and plural—and seven cases: nominative, genitive, accusative, dative, locative, ablative, and prolative (also called prosecutive). The cases are expressed mostly with suffixes, but postpositions are also recruited to complement the system. Both singular number and nominative case are expressed by zero. The dual paradigm is defective in the sense that the nominative, genitive, and accusative dual forms are built with the same ending (-xVʔ/-kăʔ), so for example, the absolute form ŋăno-xoʔ boat-du is the nominative, genitive, and accusative of ‘two boats.’ In addition, the so-called local cases in the dual are expressed not by suffixes but rather by means of the postposition nʲa- ‘at,’ which takes the shorter, archaic forms of the relevant case suffixes (-ʔ -na -d -mna), while the noun takes the dual number suffix (see Table 19.5). In the TABLE 19.5  THE INFLECTIONAL PARADIGMS OF TU(ː) ‘FIRE’ AND ŊUMʔ ‘GRASS’ IN TUNDRA NENETS

pl

du

sg

nom

tu(ː) ‘fire’

ŋumʔ ‘grass’

tuː

ŋumʔ

gen

tuː-ʔ

ŋuw-ʔ

acc

tuː-mʔ

ŋuw-mʔ

dat

tuː-nʔ

ŋum-dʔ

loc

tuː-xuna

ŋum-kăna

abl

tuː-xud

ŋum-kăd

prol

tuː-wna

ŋum-na

nom

tuː-xuʔ

ŋum-k(ă)ʔ

gen

tuː-xuʔ

ŋum-k(ă)ʔ

acc

tuː-xuʔ

ŋum-k(ă)ʔ

dat

tuː-xuʔ nʲa-ʔ

ŋum-kʔ nʲa-ʔ

loc

tuː-xuʔ nʲa-na

ŋum-kʔ nʲa-na

abl

tuː-xuʔ nʲa-d

ŋum-kʔ nʲa-d ŋum-kʔ nʲa-mna

prol

tuː-xuʔ nʲa-mna

nom

tuː-ʔ

ŋuwʔ

gen

tuː-ʔ

ŋuwoʔ

acc

tuː

ŋuwo

dat

tuː-xuʔ

ŋumkʔ

loc

tuː-xuʔna

ŋumkăʔna

abl

tuː-xut

ŋumkăt

prol

tuː-ʔumna

ŋuwoʔmăna

864 NIKOLETT MUS

plural, the accusative is formed typically by fusional processes, for example, ŋuda ‘hand’: ŋudʲi(ː) ‘hands (pl.acc)’ (for more information about the process see, for example, Hajdú 1968, 38–41; Salminen 1998, 537–539). The genitive plural may be described as consisting of a stem homophonous with the plural accusative to which a glottal stop q has been added. Table 19.5 represents the inflectional paradigms of tu ‘fire’ and ŋumʔ ‘grass.’ Further locational relations are expressed with the help of postpositions as well. The postpositions, with their shorter local case suffixes, follow the noun, which usually appears in the genitive, for example, tol-ʔ ŋil-ʔ table-gen under-dat ‘(to) under a/the table,’ tol-ʔ ŋil-na table-gen under-loc ‘(located) under a/the table,’ tol-ʔ ŋilă-d tablegen under-abl ‘from under a/the table,’ tol-ʔ ŋilă-mna table-gen under-prol ‘via the space under the table.’ Nouns can also combine with person suffixes, encoding the person and the number of the possessor, but also in some instances indicating definiteness (19.9). In the possessive paradigm, the suffixes used in the nominative differ from those used in the oblique cases (see Table 19.6). In the local paradigm, the possessive suffixes used in the genitive are attached to the noun preceded by the corresponding local case suffixes, for example, ŋăno-xona-nʲi boat-loc-1sg ‘in my boat.’ In the dative, possessed nouns use a -xVʔ-/kăʔ- suffix instead of the regular dative suffix (-nʔ/-tʔ). Table 19.6 illustrates the nominative-genitive-accusative possessive paradigms of the nouns ŋăno ‘boat’ and mʲaʔ ‘tent.’ A look at Table 19.6 will show that there is some syncretism in the possessive paradigm. On the one hand, a form like ŋăno-w boat-1sg(.acc) is both nominative and accusative. In the paradigms of consonant stems like mjaʔ ‘tent,’ it is the genitive and accusative that syncretize, and in the dual, there is syncretization of person as well: mjat jiʔ encodes both genitive and accusative of both second- and third-person possessors. If the possessed noun is in the dual, it takes the dual possessive suffix -xVju- / -kăju-, for example, ŋăno-xoju-nʲi boat-du-1sg ‘my two boats’ instead of the regular dual marker, (as in ŋăno-xoʔ boat- du ‘two boats’). Dual-possessed nouns show nominative/accusative syncretism in all persons, for example, ŋăno-xoju-da boat-du-(acc.)3sg is ‘his/her two boats nom/acc.’ Plural-possessed nouns also syncretize in this way, as they are based on

TABLE 19.6  THE POSSESSIVE PARADIGMS OF ŊĂNO ‘BOAT’ AND MʲAʔ ‘TENT’ IN TUNDRA NENETS (POSSESSED ITEM IN SINGULAR)

pl

du

sg

nom

gen

acc

1

ŋăno-w, ŋăno-mʲi

mʲa(ʔ)-mʲi

ŋăno-n, ŋăno-nʲi

mʲa(ʔ)-nʲi

= nom

2

ŋăno-r

mʲa(ʔ)-l

ŋăno-nd

mʲa-t

ŋăno-md

mʲa-t

3

ŋăno-da

mʲa-ta

ŋăno-nda

mʲa-ta

ŋăno-mda

mʲa-ta

1

ŋăno-mʲiʔ

mʲaʔ-mʲiʔ

ŋăno-nʲiʔ

mʲaʔ-nʲiʔ

ŋăno-mʲiʔ

mʲaʔ-mʲiʔ

2

ŋăno-rʲiʔ

mʲaʔ-lʲiʔ

ŋăno-ndʲiʔ

mʲa-tʲiʔ

ŋăno-mdʲiʔ

mʲa-tʲiʔ

3

ŋăno-dʲiʔ

mʲa-tʲiʔ

ŋăno-ndʲiʔ

mʲa-tʲiʔ

ŋăno-mdʲiʔ

mʲa-tʲiʔ

1

ŋăno-waʔ

mʲaʔ-maʔ

ŋăno-naʔ

mʲaʔ-naʔ

ŋăno-waʔ

mʲaʔ-maʔ

2

ŋăno-raʔ

mʲaʔ-laʔ

ŋăno-ndaʔ

mʲa-taʔ

ŋăno-mdaʔ

mʲa-taʔ

3

ŋăno-doʔ

mʲa-toʔ

ŋăno-ndoʔ

mʲa-toʔ

ŋăno-mdoʔ

mʲa-toʔ

NENETS 865 TABLE 19.7  PREDESTINATIVE FORMS OF ŊĂNO ‘BOAT’ IN TUNDRA NENETS nom

sg

1

acc ŋăno-dă-mʲi

gen ŋăno-dă-n

2

ŋăno-dă-r

ŋăno-dă-mt

ŋăno-dă-nt

3

ŋăno-dă-da

ŋăno-dă-mta

ŋăno-dă-nta

a stem homophonous with the accusative plural, for example, ŋănu-da boat.plural-3sg ‘his boats nom/acc’ (Salminen 1997, 124). Finally, nouns can take a suffix called predestinative (or benefactive), indicating that something/someone is intended for something/someone. The form of the predestinative suffix is -dă-/tă- (Forest Nenets -ta-/-tə-, Sammallahti 1974), typically followed by a possessive suffix, for example, ŋăno-dă-mʲi boat-pred-1sg ‘the/a boat for me.’ If the intended possessor is a lexical noun, a possessive suffix is not obligatory: for ja ‘flour’ we have ja-d flour-pred ‘future dough, that is, flour that will become dough,’ contrast ja-dă-ta flour-pred-3sg ‘flour for him(self).’ The predestinative forms are inflected for three cases, nominative, genitive, and accusative (see Table 19.7 for examples). Nikolaeva (2014, 72, 2015) argues that the predestinative suffix can either be interpreted as a future-tense morpheme or as a kind of irrealis modality, that is, as a TAM category. In her analysis, the predestinative is an operator that has scope over the possessive relation. Nenets finite verbs inflect for tense and mood and always index the person and number of the subject. Transitive verbs may also take suffixes that index the number of the object; object indexing is, however, restricted to third-person topical objects, for example, Vanja sʲiʔmʲi / sʲit lada(*da). John 1sg.acc / 2sg.acc hit.3sg(*>1sg/2sg) ‘John hit me/you.’ (cf. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011, 131–137). The example pair (1a) and (1b) demonstrate that it is the topicality of the third-person object that triggers object indexing on the verb. (1)

a. xiːbʲa kniga-mʔ tola-bʲi(-da)? who book-acc read-cont(.3sg>sg) ‘Who is reading a/the book?’ b. xasawa kniga-mʔ tola-bʲi(-da). man book-acc read-cont(.3sg>sg) ‘The man is reading a/the book.’

In the examples in (1), the object (kniga-mʔ ‘book (acc)’) can have both definite/specific and indefinite/non-specific interpretations in the given discourse, and the verb may therefore be indexed for its singular number. In contrast, in the examples in (2), the object functioning as the answer of a question can only be interpreted as new information, that is, information focus, and the verb therefore cannot be indexed for its number: (2)

a. Sergej xiːbʲa-mʔ menʲe(*da)? Sergei who-acc love.3sg ‘Who does Sergei love?’

866 NIKOLETT MUS

b. Sergej Maʃa-mʔ menʲe (*da). Sergei Masha-acc love (.*3sg>sg) ‘Sergei loves Masha.’ So-called null pronominal objects are always indexed on the predicate verb. There is a further group of verbs, namely, reflexive verbs, that have an index set which differs from those mentioned so far at three points in the paradigm (first and third singular, plus third plural subjects). Contrast the encoding of the 3sg subject by means of -ʔ (3sg reflexive subject), -da (3sg subject, sg object), and -∅ (3sg subject, no object indexing) in this sequence of verb forms: p jinʔ tărpi-ʔ . . . n ji-m-d je s  jară-da . . . texeta xă ja-∅ to.outside exit.aor-3sg.refl . . . belt-acc-3sg tie.aor-3sg>sg . . . reindeer-dat.pl.3sg go.aor3sg ‘he went out, tied on his belt, went to his reindeer’ (Hajdú 1968, 79). Nikolaeva (2014) lists five tenses for Tundra Nenets: present, past, future, habitual, and future-in-the-past. Of these categories, only the present and the past suffixes can be classified as inflectional. The present tense is often called ‘aorist,’ and it has no overt marker. It indicates present or immediate past tense, depending on the intrinsic aspect of the given verb: perfective verbs express actions or events in the immediate past (to-dmʔ ‘I arrived’), while imperfective verbs are associated with present time (nuː-dmʔ ‘I stand’; cf. Hajdú 1968, 61–62; Nikolaeva 2014, 80–81). Salminen (1997) calls it the general finite stem (gfs). One should also note that many verbs take -ŋa- in the aorist, like many durative verbs in Forest Nenets. The suffix -sʲă following the subject–object indexes on the verb is used to indicate the past with progressive and remote past reference, for example, nuː-dăm-sʲ ‘I was standing.’ The further three tenses described by Nikolaeva (2014) are expressed by derivational morphemes. Suffixes -ŋko- and -dă-/tă- (traditionally called continuative markers in earlier grammars) indicate the future tense (jilʲe-ŋku-ʔ live-fut-3pl ‘they will live’ : tu-t-ʔ come-fut-3pl ‘they will come’). These two suffixes are in complementary distribution: stems end in consonants, irregular verbs and verbs ending in o take the -dă-/-tă- form, while other vowel-final stems take -ŋko-. There are three main types of word stems in Tundra Nenets: consonant-final, vowel-final, and what is usually called irregular (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 23–25). The former two types fall into further subcategories (for more details, see Hajdú 1968, 37, 58; Nikolaeva 2014, 23–24). Irregular stems are constituted by a group of vowel-final monomorphemic stems that either alternate with polymorphemic forms (such as, for example, xæ- ‘to go, to depart’: xăja go.3sg : xanʲă-ʔ go-cng), or there is a stem-final vowel change when suffixed (e.g. ŋa- ‘to be’: ŋæ be.3sg; to- ‘to come’: tu-ʔ come-cng; ta- ‘to give’: tă-tă give-fut.3sg). Nikolaeva (2014, 24–25) lists a group of irregular verb stems. Nikolaeva (2014, 83‒84) analyzes the habitual suffix -sʲeti-/-͡tsʲeti- as a third member of the tense paradigm, as it is in complementary distribution with the other tense markers, for example, jilʲe-sʲeti-ʔ live-hab-3pl ‘they usually live/they used to live’; it may also be seen as a kind of mood (Salminen 1997, 53–54). For the same reason, the simultaneous use of the future- and the past-tense suffixes (-ŋko-/-dă-/-tă- before person indexes, and -sʲă after them), which is taken as a conjunctive modal marker in Burkova et al. (2010) and Hajdú (1968, 64), is defined by Nikolaeva (2014, 84–85) as a future-in-the-past, for example, me-ŋku-wă-sʲ take-fut-1sg>sg-pst ‘I would have taken it.’ The analysis of the Tundra Nenets mood system is also not completely without controversy. While Hajdú (1968, 62–65) distinguishes 10 modal categories, Salminen (1998) and Nikolaeva (2014) differentiate 16 moods in the language. In addition to the

NENETS 867

differences in their number, grammarians often assign different functions to certain suffixes. We will follow here Nikolaeva’s (2014) classification (see Table 19.8). The imperative mood encodes orders given to addressees. There is a distinct set of imperative suffixes encoding the person and the number of the subject, as well as the number of the object (see Table 19.9). There is also a reflexive set of imperative suffixes: te- ‘flow’ te-dʔ flow-imp.2sg.refl : tej-dʲiʔ flow-imp.2du.refl : tej-daʔ flow-imp.2pl.refl (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 86). As indicated in Table 19.8, there is a suffixal first-person hortative (previously known as the adhortative) and third-person jussive (also called the optative). Certain moods in Tundra Nenets have evidential functions as well. The following kinds of evidentiality are distinguished: the inferential (in origin, a perfective participle

TABLE 19.8  THE TUNDRA NENETS MOOD SYSTEM, WITH SELECTED INFLECTED FORMS Mood

Suffix to- ‘to come’

root/stem Indicative

-

Imperative

see Table 19.9

Hortative

-xă-

to-n (2sg) to-xă-dmʔ (1sg)

Jussive

-ja-

to-ja (3sg)

Subjunctive

-ji-

to-ji-n (2sg)

Apprehensive

-răwa-pt͡s(ʲ)u-

to-răwa-n to-bt͡sʲu-n

Necessitative Potential

-pt͡s(ʲ)aʔxiă-

to-bt͡sake-n

Inferential

-miă-

to-we-n

Reportative

-răxamiă-

to-rxawi-n

Interrogative

-s(ʲ)a-

to-sʲa-n

Dubitative Probabilitive

-wanŋkăbʲa-

to-wanŋkăbʲa-n

Present

-n(ʲ)aʔxiă- / -t(ʲ)aʔxiă-

to-nake-n

Past

-meʔxiă-

to-weke-n

Future

fut + prs.prob

tu-t-nake-n

Present imperfective

-n(ʲ)arăxă- /-t(ʲ)arăxă-

to-darăxa-n

Present perfective

-meărăxă-

to-werăxa-n

Past imperfective

prs.ipfv.apr+pst

to-darăxa-n-cʲ

Past perfective

prs.pfv.apr+pst

to-werăxa-n-cʲ

Future

-măntarăxă-

tu-wăntarăxă-n

Future-in-the-past

fut.apr + pst

tu-wăntarăxă-n-cʲ

Reputative

-măna-

to-wna-n

Debitive

-wănta-

to-wănta-n

Approximative

868 NIKOLETT MUS TABLE 19.9  THE IMPERATIVE PARADIGM OF THE VERB TOLA- ‘TO READ’ subj

sg.obj

du.obj

pl.obj

2sg

tola-ʔ

tola-d

tola-xăju-nʔ

tola-nʔ

2du

tola-dʲiʔ

tola-rʲiʔ

tola-xăju-dʲiʔ

tola-j-dʲiʔ

2pl

tola-daʔ

tola- raʔ

tola-xăju-daʔ

tola-j-dʲiʔ

TABLE 19.10  NONFINITE FORMS IN TUNDRA NENETS Suffix

jilʲe- ‘to live’

imperfective

-n(ʲ)a- / -t(ʲ)a-

jilʲe-na

perfective

-miă- / -me-

jilʲe-wi

future

-mănta-

jilʲe-wănta

negative

-mădawej(ă)-

jilʲe-wădawej

Action nominals

imperfective

-m(ʲ)a-

jilʲe-wa

perfective

-(o)ʔm(ʲ)a-

jilʲe-ʔma

Converbs

modal

-sʲă-

jilʲe-săʲ

purposive

-măncʲă-

jilʲe-wăncʲ

evasive

-moʔxătă-

jilʲe-woŋkăd

present

-păʔ-

jilʲe-b-ta

emphatic

-băʔnan-

jilʲe-bʔnan-ta

future

fut+prs.cond

jilʲe- ŋku-b-ta

Participles

Conditional

Auditive

-m(an)oʔ-

jilʲe-wanon-ta

Connegative

imp.2sg.subj

jilʲe-ʔ

used as a finite predicate, taking appropriate copula complement suffixes), reportative, dubitative, probabilitive, approximative, reputative, and debitive. The debitive is characterized by Nikolaeva (2014, 105) as a newly developed mood which has deontic modal meanings. Formally, the suffix is based on the future participle; it is combined with suffixes indexing the subject (and also the object). The so-called interrogative mood has a past-tense reference, and so it cannot be used in the present tense, for example, pidăr xănʲa-d to-sʲa-n? 2sg where-abl come-inter-2sg ‘Where did you come from?’ Finally, nonfinite verb forms are also formed by suffixes. These include the participles (imperfective, perfective, future, and negative), the action nominals, converbs (modal, purposive, and evasive), conditionals, an auditive, and a connegative in Tundra Nenets (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 106–115). Action nominals and conditionals can be combined with person suffixes. The auditive takes suffixes encoding the number and person of its subject (see Table 19.10). Participles are mainly used to form relative clauses. Action nominal forms of verbs typically build complement clauses, adverbial clauses, and (certain subtypes of) relative clause. Similarly, converbs are used in adverbial subordination, in complementation, and

NENETS 869

in (subtypes of) relative clauses. The basic function of the auditive is to express a kind of non-visual evidentiality, usually auditory but also including taste and touch. Auditive forms index only subjects, that is, they do not differentiate object number and have no reflexive suffixation. The connegative is the form in which lexical verbs appear when they are negated by the negative auxiliary (19.15). Forest Nenets nouns have an inflectional pattern parallel to that of Tundra Nenets. Verb inflection, by contrast, is quite different from that of Tundra Nenets. In Forest Nenets, for example, only six moods are differentiated, namely, indicative, imperative, adhortative, desiderative, narrative, and habitative, and there are three infinitives and two participles (Sammallahti 1974, 81–93). 19.5 DERIVATION OF NOUN AND VERB Nenets derivational suffixes precede inflectional suffixes. The inventory of derivational suffixes is rather large; there are derivational suffixes that are attached exclusively to verbs or nouns, and others that may be combined with both (or even with other categories, such as pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and postpositions). The latter are called multi-based affixes by Nikolaeva (2014, 123–140). Table 19.11 aims at summarizing the textually most frequent suffixes but is not exhaustive and does not include verb derivational suffixes which change valency or aspect. There is a more detailed summary in Salminen (1998, 541–543). The functions here follow those given in Nikolaeva (2014, 123–140). 19.6 ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON Adjectives in Nenets can fulfil attributive and predicative functions, that is, they can occur within the noun phrase or as copula complements. Note that certain meanings associated with adjectives in many European languages are expressed by verbs in Tundra Nenets, for example, colour terms such as părʲidʲe- ‘to be black,’ physical properties sʲado- ‘to be

TABLE 19.11  THE MOST PRODUCTIVE DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES OF TUNDRA NENETS Function

Form

N Pro Det A Adv Po Nfin V

Limitative

-rʲi-/-lʲi- + +

+

Augmentative -ʔjaDiminutive Focus

+ -ko-/-t͡ sʲa- + +

+

+ +

+

Emphatic

-xărtă-͡tsʲej-

+ +

Polar

-jum-

+ +

Comparative -rka-

+ +

+

-xăja-

Pejorative

-je-

Affirmative

-xăwa/- + +

+

to-rʲi ‘only a lake’

+

to-ʔja ‘big lake’ ͡ ‘small lake’ to-tsʲa

+ +

to-xort ‘it is the lake, that’ to-t͡sʲej ‘it is the lake, that’

+

to-jum ‘the one lake (of the two)’

+ + +

+ +

+ +

Intensive

Example

+ (intens) săwa-rka ‘better’ mănt͡ săra-xăja-ʔ ‘Do some work please!’

+

to-je ‘lousy lake’ to-xowa ‘THE LAKE’

870 NIKOLETT MUS

beautiful,’ tojena- ‘to be strong, be heavy,’ nixisʲa- ‘to be weak’ and human propensities such as jabda- ‘to be happy,’ tusʲelta- ‘to be sad.’ These forms exhibit the same grammatical properties as verbs, that is, they are exclusively used as predicates and cannot be used attributively without a nominalizer or in a participle form in the noun phrase. The word for glossed as ‘cold,’ for instance, is a verb that takes verbal morphology and appears in the form of a participle when it modifies a noun, cf. (3–4). (3)

lăbe-kăna tʲecʲa-ŋku room-loc cold.3sg-fut ‘It will be cold in the room.’

(4)

tʲecʲa-da jalʲa tu-tă cold-ptcp.ipfv day come-fut.3sg ‘A cold day will come.’

Attributive adjectives always precede their head nouns and normally do not agree with them (cf. Nikolaeva 2003, 322). Although agreement within the noun phrase is not obligatory, it is optionally available, especially for certain dialects of Tundra Nenets. For example, agreement in number is typical (but not obligatory) in Western dialects (cf. Nikolaeva 2003, 322; see example 5). (5)

serako(-ʔ) te-ʔ white(-pl) reindeer-pl ‘white reindeer (pl)’ (Nikolaeva 2003, 324)

Indexing of a possessor on adjectives is typical of phrases in which the possession is inalienable (cf. Nikolaeva 2003, 322–324, 2005, 539–541). In example (6), the reindeer is an inalienably possessed item, and the adjective optionally shows agreement in person: (6)

serako(-r) te-r white(-2sg) reindeer-2sg ‘your white reindeer’ (Nikolaeva 2003, 324)

Finally, attributive adjectives may also take case suffixes. However, case suffixes can appear on attributes only in combination with other agreement suffixes. If the head noun, for instance, has suffixes for both number and case, the attributive adjective can also take both suffixes (cf. Nikolaeva 2003, 324–326; see 7). (7)

serako(-xot) te-xet white(-abl.pl) reindeer-abl.pl ‘from (the) white reindeer (pl)’ (Nikolaeva 2003, 325)

As Sammallahti (1974, 58) suggests, NP-internal agreement in Forest Nenets is possible only in number, not in case or person. Although a Tundra Nenets attributive adjective precedes its head noun, it typically follows demonstratives and numerals in phrases (8); in other words, the order is demonstrative-numeral-adjective-head noun. Ordinal numerals and quantificational adjectives

NENETS 871

such as tʲanʲo ‘few, little,’ sʲan ‘how much/many,’ xănʲa|ŋi ‘which, what’ are typically followed by the singular form of the noun. (8)

tʲuku tʲet mebʲe-ta this four be.strong-ptcp.ipfv ‘these four strong men’

xasawa man

There seems to be no strict order for certain semantic types of adjectives in the Tundra Nenets noun phrase; they may appear in any order: (9)

a. ŋarka părʲidʲe-nʲa big be.black-ptcp.pfv ‘big black chair’ b. părʲidʲe-nʲa be.black-ptcp.pfv ‘big black chair’

ŋarka big

͡ ŋamdʲortsʲă chair ͡ ŋamdʲortsʲă chair

However, certain semantic classes of adjective have a preferred order. For example, adjectives of dimension precede adjectives of value; the reversed order does not seem to be acceptable (10): (10) ŋarka jibʲe-ta / *jibʲe-ta ŋarka big be.clever-ptcp.ipfv / be.clever-ptcp.ipfv big ‘big clever dog’

wenʲako dog

Attributive adjectives can be modified by adverbs that precedes the adjective; see (11). (11) ŋulʲiʔ ŋarka mʲaʔ very big tent ‘very big tent’ (also functions as a superlative: ‘the biggest tent’) Adjectives can also function as copula complements in both Tundra and Forest Nenets. They then inflect with tense and person-and-number suffixes identical to those of the subjective conjugation of verbs (12): (12) mănʲ ŋarka-dăm-t͡sʲ 1sg big-1sg-pst ‘I was an adult.’ Any suffixes of verbal aspect, mood, etc. are attached to the free-standing copula verb ŋæː- (13): (13) mănʲ ŋarka-dmʔ ŋæː-ŋku-dmʔ 1sg big-1sg be-fut-1sg ʻI will be an/the adult.ʼ In the most common Tundra Nenets, comparative construction is in the form of a copula clause, the adjective expressing the parameter of comparison appearing either in its plain

872 NIKOLETT MUS

form or, optionally, with the comparative indexer -rka-. The standard of comparison appears in the ablative case, while the comparee noun is in the nominative. The order of elements in the comparative construction is strict: the comparee NP is followed by the case-inflected standard NP, and the parameter adjective occupies clause-final position, where, as copula complement, it takes the relevant tense and person-and-number suffixes (14): (14) tʲuku păni taki păne-xed săwa(-rka) this coat that coat-abl good(-cmp).3sg ‘This coat is better than that one.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 174) The use of a freestanding copula (most commonly ŋæː-) is obligatory in non-past tense in non-indicative moods. The degree by which the comparee exceeds the standard is expressed with the postposition pʲiruwna ‘compared to, equally’ (prolative singular of p jir ‘measure’), for example, example (15) (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 133, citing Tereshchenko 1973, 329): (15) nʲe+nʲa-ko-t͡sʲa-mʲi sʲidʲa po-ʔ woman+companion-dim-dim-1sg two year-gen pʲiruwna nʲa-d-nʲi nʲudʲa-rka compared at-abl.1sg small-cmp.3sg ‘My younger sibling is two years younger than me.’ Superlatives are formed not with suffixes but rather by means of phrases built with adverbs meaning ‘very’ modifying the adjective (see ‘the biggest tent,’ example (11) earlier). 19.7 NUMBER AND NUMERALS The numerals differ from adjectives in that they take number, case, or person suffixes only when used as the head of their NP. As Nikolaeva (2014, 157) points out, the numeral sʲidʲa ‘two’ is the only numeral that shares certain grammatical properties with adjectives. For example, it can take the dual marker and thereby agree with its head in number: (16) sʲidʲa(-xăʔ) te-xeʔ two(-du) reindeer-du ‘two reindeer’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 158) Furthermore, it can optionally show agreement with its head noun in person and case: (17) sʲidʲa(-mi) te-mi two(-1sg) reindeer-1sg ‘my two reindeer’ (Tereshchenko 1973, 54) Nouns quantified by numerals in Tundra Nenets are usually in the singular, but they can optionally take dual or plural suffixes (see 18–19). (18) sʲidʲa xasawa (-xăʔ) two man (-du) ‘two men (du)’

NENETS 873

(19) nʲaxărʔ wenʲako-(ʔ) three dog-(pl) ‘three dogs’ In larger NPs, numerals usually precede adjectives but follow the demonstrative, as in (20): (20) tʲuku nʲaxărʔ ŋarka this three big ‘these three big dogs’

wenʲako(-ʔ) dog(-pl)

Ordinal numerals are derived from cardinal numerals with the suffix |mdʲej, for example, nʲaxărʔ ‘three’: nʲaxăro|mdʲej ‘third.’ There is also a suffix (|mʲan) that derives indefinite numerals, for example, jurʔ ‘hundred’: jur|mʲan ‘approximately hundred’ (cf. Hajdú 1968, 49). 19.8 COPULA AND COPULA CLAUSES In the present and past indicative, identificational copula main clauses contain no separate copula word. Rather, the suffixes of the subjective conjugation appear on the nominal used in copula complement function. The copula subject is in the nominative, as in all main clauses (see 21): Pʲasʲaʔ teta-ʔ nʲecc-dăm-t͡sʲ. (21) mănʲcs 1sg.nom Pyasya master-gen woman-1sg-pst ‘I was Boss Pyasya’s wife.’ (Labanauskas 1995, 137) ŋarkacc-dăm-͡tsʲ. (22) mănʲcs 1sg.nom big-1sg-pst ‘I was an adult.’ An independent copula (ŋæː-) is used to host suffixes for other tenses and moods. Note that copula subject indexing appears on the copula complement nominal as well as on the copula verb itself (23): ŋarkacc-dmʔ ŋæː-ŋku-dmʔ (23) mănʲcs 1sg.nom big-1sg be-fut.gfs-1sg ‘I will be an adult.’ The copula verb occupies clause-final position, preceded by the copula complement; the copula subject is usually clause-initial. Unlike prototypical copula clauses with adjective or noun complements, clauses with locational adjuncts obligatorily contain the copula verb in every person, number, tense, and mood. Animate and inanimate subjects in this kind of clause use different copulas (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 263): inanimate subjects take the ŋæː- copula, which is formally the same as that used in the copula clause with adjective and noun complements (24): (24) kniga tănʲana ŋa book there be[3sg] ‘The book is there.’

874 NIKOLETT MUS

In contrast, the verb me- is used with animate subjects, as in (25): (25) Sergei / wenʲako / xasawa tănʲana Sergei / dog / man there ‘Sergei / the dog / the man is there.’

me be.3sg

The subject is indexed on the copula, and there is no need for an overt free pronoun. The locational element is an adverb or a postpositional phrase (26): (26) mănʲ xarǎd-ʔ 1sg house-gen ‘I am at home.’

mʲu-nʲa me-dmʔ. inside-loc be-1sg

Although the use of a copula is obligatory in the vast majority of locational copula clauses, there are some adverbs that may appear without a copula. A typical example of this is the use of the interrogative adverb ‘where’ in locational constructions (27): (27) jăxa xănʲa-na? river where-loc ‘Where is the river?’ (Okotetto 1998, 82) Such zero-copula locational clauses are attested with 3sg subjects in the present tense, and there is no subject indexing. In locational clauses, the string referring to a place usually follows any overt NP subject (see the examples in (24–27) previously). In existential clauses, the intransitive existential verb (tănʲa- ‘to exist’) is used (28): (28) lăbe-kăna tol tănʲa room-loc table exist.3sg ‘There is a table in the room.’ The existential verb appears in predicate possession as well (see Section 19.10). 19.9 PRONOUNS, DEMONSTRATIVES, DEIXIS, AND DEFINITENESS Both Nenets languages have personal, reflexive, reciprocal, interrogative, indefinite, and negative pronouns. In Tundra Nenets, the personal pronouns refer to humans and occasionally to animals, but they never have inanimate reference (Nikolaeva 2014, 47). Three persons and numbers are distinguished. Distinct forms of personal pronouns are differentiated in the grammatical cases nominative, genitive, and accusative. The forms of the genitive are textually quite rare, however: nominative forms are used instead, even in possessive phrases. The existence of a genitive in the pronoun paradigm is thus questionable. Personal pronouns are not inflected for local cases. Instead, the postposition nʲa- is used, combined with its special case suffixes and the oblique variants of the person suffixes in the locative subparadigm. These forms may optionally appear together with the nominative of the pronoun, for example, (mănʲ) nʲa-nă-nʲi (1sg) at-loc-obl.1sg ‘by/at me.’ Free personal pronouns functioning as subjects or objects are usually absent in the clause. If they are used, their appearance indicates emphasis, contrast, or focusing (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 386). Contrast:

NENETS 875

(29) lada-r. hit-2sg>sg ‘You hit him.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 386) with (30) sʲita lada-n. 3sg.acc hit-2sg ‘You hit HIM’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 387) Given that the pronominal object is emphasized/focused in (30), it is only the subject that is indexed on the verb. The reflexive pronouns have only human referents. They are inflected for both person and number and take the oblique forms of the possessive person suffixes. Free pronouns may precede them for emphasis, for example, mănʲ xărʔ-nʲi ‘I myself.’ As Nikolaeva (2014, 48) notes, these forms are used in the nominative and in the genitive and there is no case-marked form of reflexives. In other cases, the corresponding inflected forms of personal pronouns are combined with the reflexives, for example, xărʔ-nʲi sʲiʔ-miʲ self-obl.1sg 1sg.acc ‘me myself (acc).’ Nikolaeva (2014, 48–49) and Hajdú (1968, 53) introduce a further kind of reflexive, grammaticalized from the noun pix(i)dă ‘body’ and taking the absolute forms of possessive suffixes. It may be preceded by the other reflexive, for example, xărʔnʲi pix(i)dă-mʲi 1self-obl.1sg 2self-1sg ‘myself.’ As Nikolaeva (2014, 49) points out, this reflexive can refer only to physical features. The following minimal pair (31) and (32), taken from Nikolaeva’s (2014) grammar, illustrates the difference of the two reflexives: (31) (xărʔnʲi) pix(i)dămʲi xamt͡să-dmʔ 1sg.refl 1sg.refl love-1sg ‘I love myself (my body, my figure etc.).’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 49) (32) xărʔnʲi sʲiʔmiʲ xamt͡să-dmʔ 1sg.refl 1sg.acc love-1sg ‘I love myself.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 49) The dual or plural form of the noun nʲa ‘friend, sibling, companion’ is used to form reciprocal pronouns. Person and number suffixes are attached to this grammaticalized stem, for example, nʲa-mʲiʔ ‘each other of us (du)’ (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 49, 396–398). Reciprocals may also be combined with case suffixes. Interrogatives can have the syntactic function of nouns (xiːbʲa ‘who,’ ŋămke ‘what’), determiners (xănʲaŋi ‘which,’ xujumʔ ʻwhich from twoʼ), and adjectives (xurka ‘what kind,’ sʲaŋar ‘how big’), as well as quantifiers (sʲan, sʲaŋok ‘how much/many’), adverbs (xănʲana ‘where,’ sʲaxăʔ ‘when,’ xănt͡sʲerʔ ‘how’), and verbs (xăʔman- ‘say what’). The two pronouns xiːbʲa ‘who’ and ŋămke ‘what’ refer distinctively to humans and things. The non-human pronoun ŋămke has further meanings: it can be used in ‘what kind’ and ‘why’ meanings. The quantifiers do not contrast in terms of countability of the quantified noun. Within the set of spatial interrogative words, a bound interrogative stem xănʲa- is combined with the shorter local

876 NIKOLETT MUS

case markers: with locative (xănʲa-na ‘where’), dative (xănʲa-ʔ ‘where to’), ablative (xănʲa-d ‘where from’), and prolative (xănʲa-mna ‘where (path)’). The grammatical characteristics of the interrogative words do not differ from the corresponding non-interrogative categories. In the clause, they typically remain in situ, that is, in the position typical of their constituent types (see 33–34). (33) xiːbʲa sʲit jadta-ŋku-ʔ who 2sg.acc meet-fut.3sg ‘Who will meet you?’ [E.La., 2002] (34) ŋăt͡sʲeki-ʔ ŋămke-mʔ mănʲije-ʔ child-pl what-acc see-3pl ‘What do the children see?’ (Okotetto 1998, 98) Indefinite and negative pronouns are derived from the interrogatives. Indefinites are formed either with the limitative -rʲi-/-lʲi-, for example, xiːbʲarʲi ‘someone,’ or with the affirmative -xVwa- suffix, for example, xiːbʲaxăwa ‘someone’; cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 129, who lists this item as -xəwa/-xăwă. The difference is not quite clear between the uses of the two derived forms (35‒36): (35) xiːbʲa|rʲi to who|lim come.3sg ‘Someone has arrived.’ (36) xiːbʲa|xăwa maʃina-ʔ ŋilʔ jerʲemi. who|aff car-gen under.dat get.3sg ‘Someone got under the car.’ (Vanuyto 2012, 55) The interrogative pronouns xiːbʲa ‘who’ and ŋămke ‘what’ can also be used as indefinites without any additional morphology: (37) tʲăxărʲi să-ta xiːbʲa-n ŋæ-we-n. very be.strong-ptcp.ipfv someone-2sg be-infer-2sg ‘You were a very strong person (lit. someone).’ (Pushkareva and Khomich 2001, 250) The interrogatives combined with the so-called focus suffix -xVrt-/-kărt- (called the concessive in earlier grammars) form negative indefinites. They are used in negative clauses exclusively, as in (38): (38) mʲa-kana xiːbʲa|-xărt- jaŋku-wi tent-loc who|foc not.exist-infer.3sg ‘There was no one in the tent.’ (Pushkareva and Khomich 2001, 149) There is no article in the language; definiteness/specificity may be expressed by determiners and certain possessive suffixes. According to Nikolaeva (2014, 141), the following closed set of determiners can be found in Tundra Nenets:

NENETS 877

tʲuku

‘this’

tʲiki

‘that’

anaphoric

tʲexa

‘that’

distant, or behind something

taki

‘that’

deictic

tajkuj

‘that one over here’

visible

tărcʲa

‘such’

Semantically, Tundra Nenets demonstrative pronouns show a proximal-distal opposition. They can appear in a phrase or can replace a noun. In phrases, they precede the quantifiers and the attributive adjectives and may show agreement in noun in number, but this is optional, that is, tʲiki(ʔ) wenʲako-ʔ that-(pl) dog-pl ‘those dogs.’ Agreement in case and possession does not seem to be available for them. If they are used on their own as head noun, they can be inflected for number, case, and possession, for example, tʲiki-mʔ thatacc ‘that (one).’ Besides possession, certain person suffixes can be used to express definiteness. Note that strictly speaking, there is no possessive or even partitive relation in these constructions. The 2sg person suffix, for example, may serve to identify its referent as having been previously introduced to the discourse, and so it is used as a referential marker (see 38a–b; for a detailed description, see Nikolaeva 2003). (38) a. puxut͡sʲako jilʲe-wi old.woman live-infer.3sg ‘There lived an old woman.’ b. puxut͡sʲako-nt sʲidʲa săwa nʲuː-da old.woman-gen.2sg two good child-3sg ‘The old woman had two nice sons (and not ‘your old woman’).’ (Nikolaeva 2003, 8) Furthermore, the non-possessive use of the third-person singular pronoun is close to that of definite articles in many languages, that is, it refers to a noun that is inherently unique or previously introduced in the discourse, as in (39). As Nikolaeva (2014, 68) notes, although this use of the third-person possessive is quite common, it is not fully grammaticalized in this function. (39) tʲukona sira(-da) wăr-t͡sawej. here snow(-3sg) dirt-prop ‘The snow is dirty here.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 69) 19.10 POSSESSION IN THE NP AND IN THE CLAUSE In adnominal possessive constructions, the genitive case suffix and/or the person suffixes are used to encode the possessive relation. The possessor usually precedes the possessed. The marking strategy of the possessive phrase differs depending on whether the possessor is pronominal or lexical. In possessive phrases with pronominal possessor, only head marking through person suffixes is available. In the phrase, the presence of a pronominal

878 NIKOLETT MUS

possessor is optional. If there is an overt pronominal possessor, a determiner may either precede or follow it (cf. Nikolaeva 2003, 320, and 2014, 142; see example 40). (40) (pidăr) tʲuku (pidăr) te-r 2sg this 2sg reindeer-2sg ʻthis reindeer of yoursʼ (Nikolaeva 2003, 320) In contrast, a lexical possessor is always in the genitive, and the possessive suffixes are not obligatory but possible in the phrase. Nikolaeva (2014, 143) points out that the marking strategies represent two different structures. In possessive phrases where the possessive relation is only marked by the genitive case on the possessor, the possessor, that is, the so-called ‘regular possessor’ is internal, meaning, that it can only occur after a demonstrative pronoun. As Nikolaeva (2003, 320) notes, in this type of possessive phrase, agreement via possessive suffixes on the possessed item is not possible; see (41). (41) tʲuku Wata-ʔ ti / *te-da this Wata-gen reindeer / reindeer-3sg ʻthis reindeer of Wataʼ (Nikolaeva 2003, 320) On the other hand, in phrases in which the possessive relation is encoded on both the lexical possessor (by the genitive) and on the possessed item (by a person suffix), the possessor is peripheral/external, meaning, that it can only precede the determiner. The person suffix is obligatory in this kind of phrase (see 42): (42) Wata-ʔ tʲuku te-da / *ti Wata-gen this reindeer-3sg / reindeer ʻthis reindeer of Wata’sʼ (Nikolaeva 2003, 320) It seems that the alienability of a possessed item is not encoded grammatically in the language. At the level of the clause, possession in Tundra Nenets takes the form of an existential clause. It employs the intransitive verb tănʲa- ‘to exist,’ typically in clause-final position. This existential verb seems to be obligatory in the possessive clause. It takes suffixes for TAM, as well as subject indexing. The grammatical subject is the possessed NP, with obligatory person suffixes. Any pronominal possessor is in the nominative, while a lexical possessor is in the genitive: (43) pida / wæːsako-ʔ xalʲa-da tănʲa 3sg / old.man-gen fish-3sg exist.3sg ‘(S)he/The old man has some fish.’ In this kind of clause, the possessor usually precedes the possessed NP, but it may also follow it: (44) (mănʲ) wenʲako-mʲi (mănʲ) tănʲa. 1sg dog-1sg 1sg exist.3sg ‘I have a dog.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 250)

NENETS 879

Other clausal constituents, such as an adverbial adjunct, may appear between the possessor and the possessed NP: (45) wæːsako-ʔ mălʲe xalʲa-da tănʲa old.man-gen already fish-3sg exist.3sg ‘(S)he/The old man already has some fish.’ In negative clauses, the negative form of the existential verb jăŋko- ‘not exist’ is used: (46) wæːsako-ʔ xalʲa-da jăŋko old.man-gen fish-3sg not.exist.3sg ‘The old man does not have any fish.’ 19.11 RELATIVE CLAUSES Tundra Nenets uses nonfinite relativization strategies. Three different constructions encode relative clauses, depending on the syntactic function of the head noun, and all nonfinite RCs precede their head (Nikolaeva 2014, 315). To relativize subjects and direct objects, participles are used. All participle forms—imperfective, perfective, future, and negative—can appear in this function. The participle may agree with the relativized noun in number, case, possession, and/or predestinativity, but this is not obligatory. Note that the lexical subject of the embedded clause obligatorily takes the genitive case, while the pronominal one is in the nominative. The most typical construction is illustrated in (47): (47) nʲeboj po-ʔ jirʲi-ʔ mʲimba-wi xarăd-ʔ ŋaxăʔna ŋa-ʔ. last year-gen grandfather-gen build-ptcp.pfv house-pl far be-3pl ‘The houses (that/which) my grandfather built last year are far away.’ Non-core clausal constituents are relativized with the so-called non-participial strategy: instead of participles, action nominals and converbs occur in the relative clause, again in prenominal position (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 315–340). The subject of the relative clause is indexed via person suffixes on the head noun (48). In the case of lexical subject, the indexing with person suffixes on the head noun is optional (see ‘tent’ in 49). Further case markers can be attached to the relativized noun. (48) (mănʲaʔ) ti xada-ʔma jalʲa-waʔ 1pl reindeer.acc.pl kill-pfv.an day-1pl ‘the day when we killed the reindeer’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 322) (49) nʲeboj nʲe nʲuː-nʲi sojaʔ-ma mʲaʔ(-ta) last.year woman child-gen.1sg be.born-ipfv.an tent(-3sg) ‘the tent where my daughter was born last year’ Finally, sub-clausal constituents (such as possessors, or complements of postpositions) may also be relativized in Nenets. Nikolaeva (2014, 328) calls this the resumptive strategy. In this construction, the predicate verb of the embedded clause takes the form of a participle, action nominal, or converb. In the case of a relativized possessor, a resumptive suffix expressing agreement between the embedded possessed item and the possessor

880 NIKOLETT MUS

appears on the possessed noun. This suffix has the same form as the 3sg person suffix. The embedded possessed noun may optionally appear in the genitive case: (50) wenʲako-da(/-nta) xa-wi xasawa ŋăt͡sʲeki dog-3sg(/-gen.3sg) die-ptcp.pfv man child ‘the boy whose dog died’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 328) The available sources do not discuss and analyze embedded constructions in Forest Nenets in detail. Based on them, however, it can be concluded that Forest Nenets employs nonfinite strategies as well. The typical nonfinite verb form used in relative clauses is the participle, for example, mani-ʔma-j mʲaʔ see-pst.ptcp-1sg tent ‘the tent I saw,’ while so-called infinitives are used in complement and adverbial clauses, for example, manʲ toː-maː-xana-j pita kadʲa 1sg come-inf-loc-1sg 3sg go.3sg ‘when I came, he left’ (cf. Sammallahti 1974, 87–93). The precise makeup of these constructions, however, requires further investigation. 19.12 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES Tundra Nenets complement clause constructions generally involve nonfinite verb forms, such as action nominals, conditionals, and converbs (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 341–366). All such constructions precede the matrix verb and do not employ a complementizer. In constructions with action nominals, there is optional subject indexing, by person suffixes on the dependent verb (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 344); see (51–52): (51) xănʲad to-wa-mʲi jexera-dmʔ. where.from come-ipfv.an-acc.1sg not.know-1sg ‘I do not know where I am from.’ (Labanauskas 1995, 192) (52) nʲanʲ-m ŋăwor-ma-r nʲanan wæːwa bread-acc eat-ipfv.an-2sg 1sg.loc bad.3sg ‘I don’t like your eating bread (= Your eating bread is bad to me).’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 345) If the subject is a noun, it goes into the genitive and subject person, and number may optionally be encoded on the nonfinite verb (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 344), as in (53): ŋădʲi. (53) [nʲisʲa-naʔ to-wa(-da)]s father-gen.1pl come-ipfv.an(-3sg) is.seen.3sg ‘It can be seen that our father is coming.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 345) This kind of complement clause can also appear in functions other than that of subject (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 347). The following clause pair illustrates that while the complement clause functions as the object of the main clause, there is different indexing of the object on the main verb depending on topic-and-focus factors (see 54–55): (54) f[sæːdoră-wa-m]o ŋæːwadala-dmʔ sew-ipfv.an-acc stop-1sg ‘I stopped SEWING.’ (in reply to the question: ‘What did you stop doing?’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 347)

NENETS 881

(55) [sæːdoră-wa-m]o fŋæːwadala-w sew-ipfv.an-acc stop-1sg>sg ‘I stopped sewing.’ (in reply to the question: ‘Did you stop sewing?’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 347) Another main form of complement clause is built with conditionals typically used in impersonal constructions, or with predicative adjectives, like săwa ‘good,’ wæːwa ‘bad’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 341–342). The subject, whether pronominal or lexical, is in the nominative, while person suffixes are attached to the conditional form: (56) pidăr punʲaʔ xæː-ba-t tăra 2sg back go-cond-2sg is.needed.3sg ‘You need to go back.’ (Lar and Pushkareva 2001, 77) Finally, in constructions with converbs, there is no argument indexing in the form of suffixes. The subject may be a pronoun (which can be omitted) or a noun phrase in the nominative. Typically, intransitive verbs that take converbs are sixlă- ‘to get out of habit of,’ xaslara- ‘to get bored,’ jenă- ‘to hope,’ toxo- ‘to learn,’ jatnă- ‘to intend’ (see 57). (57) tʲuku kniga-m tola-ba jatnă this book-acc read-cvb.dur.mod intend.3sg ‘He intends to read this book’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 349) Transitive verbs can also take converbs, for example, pʲa- ‘to start,’ pʲirs- ‘can,’ etc. (for a more exhaustive list see Nikolaeva 2014, 349). Embedded clauses functioning as topical object are indexed on the verb of the main clause. However, if the complement clause functions as an informational focus, it is never indexed on the main verb. As Nikolaeva (2014, 350) explains, the clause in (58) can be a typical answer to the question ‘What can he do?’ pʲirʔ-ŋa. (58) f[to-sʲ]o come-cvb.mod can-co.3sg ‘He can COME.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 350) In contrast, (59) is an answer to the question ‘Can he come?’ pʲirʔ-ŋa-da (59) t[to-sʲ]o come-cvb.mod can-co-3sg>sg ‘He CAN come.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 350) 19.13 SUPPORTING (ADVERBIAL) CLAUSES Nonfinite verb forms—action nominals, converbs, and more marginally, participles—are used in support clauses (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 367–385). Like complement clauses, these embedded clause types precede the matrix verb. They do not contain a separate word functioning as an adverbial subordinator, but other techniques are available to mark their semantic relation to the matrix clause. For example, action nominals are combined with

882 NIKOLETT MUS

locational case markers in order to convey temporal clauses, such as the ablative in the consecutive temporal clause in (60): (60) ŋodʲ mʲa-kă-nʲi tæːw-ma-xăd-nʲiʔ tʲelʲefon mălʲe tʲorili-ʔ. barely tent-dat-1sg arrive-ipfv.an-abl-1du phone already ring-3sg.refl ‘Scarcely had we two arrived at my tent, when the phone rang.’ (Naryana Ngaerm 1998/04/06) The subject of the action nominal is indexed with possessive suffixes (60). Subject indexing is optional with lexical subjects. The lexical subject is in the genitive in the embedded clause (‘eye’ in example 61): (61) sʲidʲa sæːw-nʲiʔ siːla-ma-xăd wiːŋ-kăna jilʲe-dmʔ two eye-gen.du.1sg glance-ipfv.an-abl tundra-loc live-1sg ‘I’ve lived in the tundra ever since I can remember (closer translation: from my two eyes’ glancing).’ (Naryana Ngaerm 1999/07/09) Action nominals can combine with postpositions too; they are then in the genitive: (62) jilʲe-wa-nta jampănʔ ŋoka wæːwa-m palʲeă-sʲ. live-ipfv.an-gen.3sg during many bad-acc swallow.3sg-pst ‘During his life he suffered many bad things.’ (Nikolaeva 2014: 370) Converbs are used in conditional, purposive, substitutional, manner, and causal clauses. In these clauses, converbs optionally combine with person suffixes to index subjects (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 372–383). Lexical subjects are in the genitive and optionally with accompanying possessive suffixes. The following example is a conditional clause with a converb (see 63). (63) (pida) to-b-ta sʲit nʲada-ŋku. 3sg come-cvb.cond-3sg 2sg.acc help-fut.3sg ‘If he comes, he will help you.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 373) The modal converb exhibits a different pattern in that it cannot take person suffixes, and its subject is always co-referential with that of the main verb: (64) ŋăt͡sʲeki-ʔ tărt͡sʲa-mʔ măne-t͡sʲ xăʔman-t͡sʲa-ʔ. child-pl such-acc watch-cvb.mod say.what-inter-3pl ‘What did the children, seeing such a thing, say?’ (Nenyang 2007, 38) Furthermore, as Nikolaeva (2014, 382) notes, in purposive clauses, agreement via possessive suffixes leads to an ambiguous interpretation of the construction: it can either have a same-subject or a different-subject reading (65a): (65a) Wera-ʔ nʲeka-da ŋăno-m xanʲe-wănts j sʲerta. Wera-gen brother-3sg boat-acc hunt-purp do.3sg ‘Wera’s brother made a boat to hunt (with) / for Wera to hunt (with).’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 382)

NENETS 883

The construction, however, can be only interpreted as a same-subject one if the possessive construction is via genitive of the possessor only (so-called internal possession), as in 65b: (65b) Wera-ʔ nʲeka ŋăno-m xanʲe-wăntsj sʲerta Wera-gen brother boat-acc hunt-purp do.3sg ‘Wera’s brother made a boat to hunt (with)’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 383) Finally, the participial strategy is used in support clauses expressing temporal and causal relations/meanings (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 383–385). This strategy is, nevertheless, quite marginal (66): (66) tărʲem mʲin-ta-xănaʔ jăxa latma. so go-ipfv.ptcp-dat.1pl river spread.3sg ‘While we were thus travelling, the river became wider.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 383) 19.14 TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY Tense and mood in Tundra Nenets are expressed by inflectional suffixes attached to the appropriate stem, that is, the so-called general finite stem of verbs. There are two aspectual classes of verb, intrinsic to each root or stem: perfective and imperfective. In the tense paradigm, aorist forms of perfective verbs have recent-past reference, for example, to-dmʔ ‘I arrived (recently), I have come.’ Aorist forms of imperfective verbs, on the other hand, refer to progressive actions, for example, mʲi-ŋa-dmʔ go-aor-1sg ‘I am going.’ Similarly, the past-tense suffix used with imperfective verbs has progressive reference, for example, mʲi-ŋa-dăm-sʲ go-co-1sg-pst ‘I was going,’ while it refers to a more remote past when attached to perfective verbs, for example, to-dăm-sʲ arrive-1sgpst ‘I arrived.’ Finally, the habitual, usually labelled as a tense affix, also has aspectual meaning, for example, mʲin-sʲeti-dmʔ go-hab-1sg ‘I usually/sometimes go.’ There are also cases in which the mood affixes have additional tense function so that, in effect, they express certain combinations of modality and tense. A typical example of this is the interrogative mood suffix, which has a past-tense reference and thus cannot be used in non-past tenses, for example, to-sʲa-n come-inter-2sg ‘Did you come?’ There is also a ‘future-in-the-past’ tense, which expresses the apodosis of an irrealis construction, for example, ŋăm-tă-dăm-t͡sʲ eat-fut-1sg-pst ‘I was going to eat/would have eaten.’ The subjunctive mood suffix when used in the aorist also conveys a kind of future meaning, for example, temta-ji-dm buy-subj-1sg ‘I will buy.’ Finally, the inferential mood distinguishes five tenses (see Table 19.8). Verb aspect can be changed by means of derivation. For example, forms built with the durative(-continuative) suffix -(m)pa-/-ba- indicate continuous (e.g. xeta- ‘to say’ vs. xet|ba- ‘to tell’) and/or habitual (e.g. xo- ‘to find’ vs. xo|mba- ‘to find usually’) actions (cf. Hajdú 1968, 66; Nikolaeva 2014, 45‒46). There are also frequentative-iterative (deperfectivizing) suffixes, such as -(o/u/e/ă)r-: mănes- ‘to look’ vs. mănes|ăr- ‘to look many times,’ and perfectivizing suffixes, such as inchoative -l-, for example, jilʲe- ‘to live’ jilʲe|l- ‘to start living, come to life.’ Momentative or semelfactive suffixes are taken typically by transitive verbs, for example, -xăl- săbka- ‘to dig’ săbka|xăl- ‘to dig once.’ This list is far from exhaustive; for a more detailed description of verbal aspectual derivatives, see Hajdú (1968, 65–67), Salminen (1998, 542–543), and Nikolaeva (2014, 45–46).

884 NIKOLETT MUS

19.15 NEGATION Tundra Nenets uses a negative auxiliary nʲiː- to negate the lexical/main verb, which then appears in a nonfinite form traditionally termed connegative, built with suffix -ʔ. The negative auxiliary is indexed for person and number of the subject of the clause and may also be indexed for object number, as in example (67). Mood and inflectional tense markers are also added to the negative auxiliary (see 67). The negative auxiliary can also take reflexive verbal affixes, for example, nʲiː-dʔ waʔan-ʔ neg-3pl.refl lie-cng ‘they do not lie.’ (For a fuller description of verbal inflection, see Section 19.4.) (67) Sergej Maʃa-mʔ nʲiː(-da-)sʲ Sergei Masha-acc neg(-3sg> sg)-pst.3sg ‘Sergei did not love Masha.’

menʲe-ʔ love-cng

The negation verb does take some of its own suffixes; for example, the future-tense suffix remains on it, as in (68): (68) sʲiʔmʲi nʲiː xada-ŋku-ʔ. 1sg.acc neg.3sg kill-fut-cng ‘(S)he will not kill me.’ (Lar and Pushkareva 2001, 78) In negated clauses, the lexical verb normally occupies clause-final position, and the negative auxiliary immediately precedes it. Mainly in folklore texts, however, the reverse order occurs, with the negative auxiliary in final position. This construction turns the clause into an emphatic declarative, as in (69): (69) tʲedaʔ sʲimʲi xada-ʔ nʲiː-nă=wʔ now 1sg.acc kill-cng neg-2sg=clt.sg ‘You are killing me surely!’ (Labanauskas 2001, 134) Note also the dubitative clitic which may appear on the negative verb: its form is =wʔ with singular subjects, and -mʔ with dual and plural subjects, as in (69). Non-declaratives are also negated with the negative auxiliary nʲiː-, as in the question in (70): (70) xiːbʲa ŋudа-mdа nʲiː-sʲa jil-ʔ who hand-acc.3sg neg-int.3sg raise-cng ‘Who did not raise his/her hand?’ (Nenyang 2005, 146) In negative imperatives, however, the prohibitive auxiliary nʲo- is used. This verb is not combined with imperative endings in the second person (71), and suffixes of hortative (72), jussive (73), and the regular personal indexes appear on it. The negated lexical verb is in connegative form in the prohibitive constructions as well: (71) nʲo-n mănt͡sʲăra-ʔ neg.imp-2sg work-cng ‘Don't work!’ (Yangasova 2001, 81) (72) tănʲa nʲo-xă-nʲiʔ xanʲ-ʔ. there neg.imp-hort-2du go-cng ‘Do not go there!’ (Labanauskas 2001, 17)

NENETS 885

(73) puxut͡sʲa-mʲi nʲo-ji xa-ʔ. old.woman-1sg neg.imp-opt.3sg die-cng ‘May my mother not die.’ (Labanauskas 1995, 149) Copula clauses as well as locational clauses are also negated with the negative auxiliary nʲiː-. In these clauses, the negative auxiliary negates a copula, ŋa- or me~i-, as in 74–75: (74) tarsʲiʔ wæːwa-n nʲiː-n ŋa-ʔ very bad-2sg neg-2sg be-cng ‘You are not very bad.’ (Yangasova 2001, 50) As in affirmative clauses, the index of the copula subject appears both on the copula complement adjective and on the negative auxiliary. (75) labe-kăna xasawa nʲiː mi-ʔ room-loc man neg.3sg be-cng ‘The man is not in the room.’ In contrast, negative existential and habitive clauses are generally built with the negative existential verb jăŋko- ‘not exist’ (see 76–77): (76) labe-kăna tol jăŋku room-loc table not.exist.3sg ‘There is no table in the room.’ (77) nʲe-dʲi juŋku-wi-ʔ nʲuː-dʲi juŋku-wi-ʔ woman-3du not.exist-infer-3pl child-3du not.exist-infer-3pl ‘They du had no wife, they du had no child.’ (Labanauskas 1995, 28) Apart from the main negative auxiliary njiː-, there are further negative auxiliaries with more specialized meanings, such as wunʲiː- ‘really not’ and jăʔma- ‘to not be able able’; these also build constructions with the connegative form of the verb. There are also a fair number of Tundra Nenets lexical verbs which seem, from a European perspective, to be intrinsically negative, for example, jexara- ‘to not know,’ jarme- ‘to not know (about something),’ sexeda- ‘to not like/love,’ xæːb jil je- ‘to not reach, be insufficient.’ Negative indefinite pronouns are derived from interrogatives with the focus suffix -xVrt-, called the concessive in earlier grammars. There is negative concord in Tundra Nenets, so negative indefinites must co-occur with verbal negation in the same finite clause. Note that the negative indefinite pronouns can be used together with any type of verbal negation strategy (78–79): (78) xiːbʲa-xărt sʲita nʲiː mănes-ʔ. who-foc 3sg.acc neg.3sg see-cng ‘Nobody saw him/her.’ (Yangasova 2001, 164) (79) mʲa-kăna xiːbʲa-xărt juŋku-wi. tent-loc who-foc not.exist-infer.3sg ‘There was nobody in the tent.’ (Lar and Pushkareva 2001, 149)

886 NIKOLETT MUS

Derivativational suffixes can also convey negative meaning, for example, ‘without’ or ‘-less’: -sʲV-/-͡tsʲV- and -sʲVʔ-/-͡tsʲVʔ- (see 80): (80) mănʲ nʲe-sʲi-dmʔ. 1sg woman-car-1sg ‘I am without wife (wife-less).’ (Nenyang 2005, 53) 19.16 QUESTIONS AND BASIC CLAUSE TYPES Four basic clause types are usually distinguished in Tundra Nenets according to their use in discourse, that is, according to the speech acts with which they are associated. These are declarative, interrogative, imperative/directive, and exclamative clauses. The constituent order in declarative clauses is normally SOV, regardless of the topicality of the object: (81) xasawa tiː-mʔ xada-∅/-da man reindeer-acc kill-3sg/3sg>sg ‘A/the man killed a/the reindeer.’ (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011, 132) But SOV order is not absolute. Other constituent orders can also appear in declarative clauses; they are (usually) determined by the discourse/pragmatic roles of the constituents. For example, (topical) objects commonly appear before the subject in clauses (see Nikolaeva 2014, 215). In (82–83), indexing of object number signals its topicality. Since the object index on the verb is not obligatory, the object in an OSV clause is not necessarily topical. (82) Maʃa-mʔ Sergej menʲe-∅/-da Masha-acc Sergei love-3sg/3sg>sg ‘Sergei loves Masha.’ OR ‘As for Masha, Sergei loves her.’ (83) kniga-mʔ xasawa tola-bʲi-∅/-da book-acc man read-cont-3sg/3sg>sg ‘The man is reading a book.’ OR ‘As for the book, the man is reading it.’ In addition, subjects with focus status tend to occupy an immediately preverbal position, resulting in OSV order. (84) Maʃa-mʔ xiːbʲa menʲe-∅/-da Masha-acc who love-3sg/3sg>sg ‘Who loves Masha?’ OR ‘As for Masha, who loves her?’ Another non-canonical order attested in Tundra Nenets is one in which there is a constituent following the finite verb (cf. Asztalos et al. 2017, 35–40). The postverbal constituent is not a part of the clause, and it is interpreted as a clarifying afterthought. There is a prosodic gap between the clause and the postverbal element, there is also an intra-clausal

NENETS 887

element (typically a pronoun) coreferential with the postverbal constituent. It is to be noted that the verb never agrees with overt personal pronouns; see 85–86: (85) Sergej (sʲita) menʲe-∅/-da, Maʃa-mʔ Sergei 3sg.acc love3sg/3sg>sg Masha-acc ‘Sergei loves her, Masha.’ (86) xasawa (tʲuku-mʔ) tola-bʲi-∅/-da, man this-acc read-cont-3sg/3sg>sg ‘The man is reading it, the book.’

tʲuku kniga-mʔ this book-acc

In Tundra Nenets, three types of questions can be differentiated based on their syntactic structures. These are polar (or Yes-No), constituent (so-called ‘wh-’), and alternative questions. Polar questions are typically characterized by a specific intonation. According to Tereshchenko (1973, 91), this intonation is a rising one if the emphasized, that is, the questioned, element occupies clause-final position, while a falling intonation is observed in the case of a sentence-initial emphasized element. A somewhat-different intonational pattern is described by Nikolaeva (2014, 267); she characterizes polar questions as typically having a rising intonation. In addition to a non-declarative intonation, Tundra Nenets can encode its polar questions with an interrogative mood suffix attached to the predicate verb; the use of this suffix is restricted to the past tense (87). (87) Maʃa-mʔ Sergej menʲe-sʲa-∅/-da? Masha-acc Sergei love-inter-3sg/3sg>sg ‘Did Sergei love Masha?’ Polar questions are not encoded by any special strategy; constituent order follows the patterns usually observed in declaratives: (88) xasawa kniga-mʔ tola-bʲi(-∅/-da)? man book-acc read-cont-3sg/3sg>sg ‘Is the man reading a/the book?’ Constituent questions contain interrogative words; in Tundra Nenets, these are pronouns, determiners, adjectives, quantifiers, adverbs, and even a verb whose grammatical characteristics do not differ significantly from the corresponding non-interrogative parts-ofspeech categories (see Section 19.9). The interrogative words typically occur in situ in a normal SOV order, as in (89)ː (89) xasawa ŋămke-mʔ tola-bʲi? man what-acc read-cont.3sg ‘What is the man reading?’ The interrogative word may sometimes appear clause-initially rather than in its usual (pre-verbal) position. In this kind of clause, the interrogative phrase is typically complex and asks for information which is presumed to be salient to both the speaker and the addressee. It is therefore interpreted as asking about information which originates from a

888 NIKOLETT MUS

set of known, presupposed elements. In this scenario, the interrogative word is linked to the previous part of the discourse by occupying clause-initial position, as in (90)ː (90) xurka po-ʔ pʲelʲa-mʔ pidărаʔ xаrwo-btа-dаʔ? which year-gen half-acc 2pl want-tr-2pl ‘Which season do you like?’ (Okotetto 1998, 98) Secondly, ex situ position may be the result of the special discourse role of one of the non-interrogative elements in the clause. In this scenario, the position of the non-interrogative element does not correspond to its usual syntactic function: (91) Sʲomʲa, sʲit xiːbʲa xonra-sa? Syomya 2sg.acc who inform-inter.3sg ‘Syoma, who informed you?’ (Pushkareva and Khomich 2001, 152) Thirdly, there are clauses in which the influence of Russian can be detected (cf. чтоo выa делаете), that is, the change in constituent order is due to structural borrowing: (92) ŋămke-mʔ pidărаʔ pæːr-ŋа-dаʔ? what-acc 2pl do-co-2pl ʻWhat do you (pl) do?ʼ (Nenyang 2005, 93) Interrogative words never appear after the finite verb: (93) *xasawa tola-bʲi ŋămke-mʔ? man read-cont.3sg what-acc (‘What is the man reading?’) Alternative questions in Tundra Nenets are expressed by a double predicate construction, in which the negative auxiliary follows the finite verb and the second instance of the lexical verb is ellipted. Both predicates have the same argument indexing and TAME markers (see 94; cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 267). (94) Wera to-sa nʲiː-saʔ? Wera come-inter.3sg neg-inter.3sg ‘Did Wera come or not?’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 267) As Nikolaeva (2014, 268) notes, in (94) earlier, the whole utterance stands in disjunction. If the alternatives posed by the question are only constituents, the second alternative appears after the finite verb and is characterized by a rising intonation (cf. Nikolaeva 2014, 268; see 95): (95) noxo-m xada-sa-n, tʲonʲa-m? arctic.fox-acc kill-inter-2sg fox-acc ‘Did you kill an arctic fox or a red fox?’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 268) Finally, in Tundra Nenets, there is an interrogative verb xăʔman- ‘to say what,’ which functions as the predicate of the clause. This interrogative verb questions both the act and

NENETS 889

one of its arguments, viz. the direct object, by incorporating it. The paradigm of this verb is defective: it does not have objective (and reflexive) conjugation forms, and if referring to the past, it takes the suffix of the interrogative mood instead of the regular past-tense marker, as in (96). (96) pidăr xăʔman-sʲa-n? 2sg say.what-inter-2sg ‘What did you say?’ Imperatives/directives are encoded by mood suffixes attached to the predicate verb. The subject of second-person imperatives is not obligatory. Recent grammars consider the hortative and jussive to be subtypes of imperative clauses as well (cf. Salminen 1998; Nikolaeva 2014); see 97: (97) sʲita xada-ʔ! 3sg.acc kill-imp.2sg ‘Kill him/her/it!’ Exclamatives have rising intonation. These clauses often contain exclamative clitics, particles, or interjections (cf. Tereshchenko 1973, 95–100; Nikolaeva 2014, 270–272). However, the syntactic structure of exclamative clauses does not differ from that of declaratives and interrogatives, as example (98) shows: (98) nʲenaʔ săwa-wna tola-ŋku=nʲuʔ very good-prol read-fut=clt ‘He reads so well!’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 270) 19.17 CASE AND NP FLAGGING Case flagging of NPs is by means of suffixes and postpositions. In the vast majority of cases, subject nouns and pronouns are in the nominative, whose suffix is zero (as in 81 earlier, for example). There are, however, constructions in which the subject appears in a non-nominative form. This is typically the case in subordinate clauses, where the subject appears in the genitive case (see Sections 19.11–19.13). This flagging strategy is not available for all subordinate clauses, but it is typical of embedded clauses in which the verb is expressed by participles, action nominals, and conditionals. Additionally, and less frequently, logical subjects (not grammatical subjects) are flagged with the locative case (for greater detail, see Nikolaeva 2014, 194–213). Such locative flagging is typical of experiencers, for example, nʲanan jiːbʲi 1sg.loc hurt.3sg ‘I am in pain’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 200). Direct object nouns and most pronouns in Tundra Nenets are usually flagged with the accusative. In addition, the number (sg-du-pl) of topical objects is always indexed on the finite verb. There is variation from speaker to speaker, however, in this object indexing when the direct object is a third-person personal pronoun, for example, nʲiːsʲa-dai sʲitai lada(?-da) father-3sg 3sg.acc hit(-3sg>sg) ‘his father hit him.’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 203). Certain kinds of objects are never indexed on the verb, however. For example, the verb s not indexed for indefinite and negative pronominal objects, for example, mănʲ ŋămkexewa-m xo-dmʔ/(*-w) 1sg something-acc find-1sg/(*1sg>sg) ‘I found something.’

890 NIKOLETT MUS

(Nikolaeva 2014, 203), with wh-objects, for example, ŋămke-m taxabta(*-da) what-acc break(*-3sg>sg) ‘What did he break?’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 204), or with objects combined with the limitative suffix, for example, Wera-rʲi-m lada(*-da) Wera-lim-acc hit(*3sg>sg) ‘he hit only Wera’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 205). The object of the clause can be flagged by cases other than the accusative. Full noun NP objects of imperative clauses, for instance, appear in the nominative, but their number may be indexed on the verb (pidăr tiː xada-ʔ/-d 2sg reindeer.nom kill-imp.2sg/imp.2sg>sg ‘Kill the reindeer (sg/pl)!’; cf. Janhunen 2002, 71). Note, however, that personal pronominal objects in imperatives are always in the accusative. What is more, predestinative objects can appear in genitive forms. In this kind of construction, the finite verb is always indexed with the number of its object, for example, ŋăno-dă-nt sʲertă-wă-sʲ boat-pred-gen.2sg do-1sg>sg-pst ‘I made it as a boat for you, I made it to be your boat’ (Nikolaeva 2014, 210). Finally, any indirect object in the clause is in the dative: knjiga nʲe+ŋăt͡sʲeke-nʔ mănʲ mʲi-me-w book woman+child.dat 1sg give-pfv.ptcp-1sg ‘The book was given by me to the girl’ (see Nikolaeva 2014, 213). 19.18 LEXICON A significant number of newly adopted Russian loanwords can be found in Tundra Nenets. The language nowadays usually integrates them in largely unaltered form, regardless of their phonological characteristics. This process often leads to the violation of the phonotactic rules traditional for Nenets, such as word-initial consonant clusters: knjiga ‘book,’ ʃkola ‘school.’ These words have the same inflectional patterns as other nouns in the language, however, for example, kniga-xăna book-loc ‘in the book,’ ʃkola-nʔ school-dat ‘to school.’ Verbs are borrowed from Russian as well: intransitive verbs, for instance, take the imperfective/intransitivizing suffix |ŋko-, for example, sawedujă|ŋko- based on Russian заве́ дова- ‘to manage.’ Russian adjectives are most commonly adopted by replacing their endings with |oj, for example, rajon|noj ‘regional, territorial’ and fedʲeratʲiv|noj ‘federal.’ For a detailed list and description of Russian loanwords, see Salminen (1992). Nenets has some compound words, but word compounding is not very common in the language. In noun+noun compounding, the head is preceded by the dependent noun. The grammatical relation between the two nouns is usually not indicated morphologically. This process is typical of kinship terms, which are not specified for gender of referent, for example, ŋăt͡sʲeki ‘child (as opposed to adult)’ or nʲuː ‘child (of parent).’ These nouns can be combined with a hypernym noun referring to the corresponding sex in order to calibrate the basic noun, for example, nʲe+ŋăt͡sʲeki ‘girl’ or nʲe+nʲuː ‘daughter’ where nʲe is ‘woman.’ 19.19 TEXT The following Tundra Nenets text was elicited during a consultation with a Tundra Nenets informant (Khadry Okotetto) in April 2017 in Moscow. The elicitation techniques for recording the text were based on the methods specified in Wilkins (1993). It was necessary, however, to adjust the existing model to the conditions in the given interview situation; for a more detailed description of the elicitation and for the audio recording of the text (titled ‘Route description II’), visit the following homepage: www.nytud.hu/ depts/tlp/uralic/dbases_tundranenets.html.

NENETS 891

mărjad-ʔ mʲu-nʲa nu-dmʔ fence-gen behind-loc stand-1sg ‘I stand behind the fence.’ tʲik-xăna sʲidʲa ti tănʲa-ŋa-xăʔ there-loc two reindeer exist-co-3du ‘There are two reindeer there.’ sʲidʲa te-xeʔ

nʲa-d

mărjad-ʔ nʲi-mnʲa mărjad-ʔ tʲăxa-h

săne-j-wʔ

two reindeer-du at-abl fence-gen top-prol fence-gen beyond-lat jump-co.refl-1sg.refl

‘I jump over the fence away from the two reindeer.’

săna-ʔma-xăd-nʲiʔ tămna tʲăxa-ʔ nekal-ŋa-w jump-pfv.an-abl-obl.1sg even far-dat pull-co-1sg>sg ‘After I jump, I go on.’ nʲer-nʲih nʲa-na pʲirt͡sʲa xarăd-mʔ măneʔ-ŋa-dmʔ in.front.of-gen.1sg 1sg-loc tall house-acc see-co-1sg ‘I notice a tall tower in front of me.’ maxalej-da mʲat-rʲewʔ sablʲuj roof-3sg tent-equ pointy ‘Its roof is pointy like a tent.’ sʲidʲa sʲidʲera-n-da sʲi, two window-gen-3sg hole ‘It has two windows and a door.’

nʲo-n-da door-gen-3sg

sʲi hole

tănʲa exist.3sg

nʲo-nda sʲi tant͡sʲan-zăwej door-gen.3sg hole stairs-com ‘Its door has stairs (“its door is bestaired”). tănt͡sʲaʔ sʲerʔ tăne-j-wʔ stairs thing go.up-co.refl-1sg.refl ‘I go up the stairs.’ nʲo-ʔ sʲi-wnʲa mʲat_tʲu-dmʔ door-gen hole-prol tent-dat_enter-1sg ‘I enter through the door.’ măxa sablʲuj xarăd-h mʲu-mnʲa jirtʔ xăja-dmʔ roof pointy house-gen inside-prol straight go-1sg ‘I go through the tower with the sharp roof.’ nʲarʔ măda-w across pass.across-1sg>sg ‘I cross it.’

892 NIKOLETT MUS

nʲabʲi nʲo-ʔ sʲi-wnʲa other door-gen hole-prol ‘I walk out the other door.’

tarpi-wʔ walk.out-1sg.refl

xarad-mʔ xæːxedʲojta-w house-acc run.across-1sg>sg ‘I cross the house.’ ͡ nʲo-ʔ sʲi-mʔ næːw, tăntsʲaʔ door-gen hole-acc open-1sg>sg stairs ‘I open the door and go down the stairs.’

sʲerʔ thing

xaʔami-wʔ go.down-1sg.refl

jada nekal-ŋa-w, maxanʲakubta me-w on.foot pull-co-1sg>sg right.side take-1sg>sg ‘I walk and turn to the right.’ maxanʲakubta-ʔ mʲi-ma-nʲiʔ sʲerʔ jăxa-ʔ tarka-wna ŋădʲimʲa-dmʔ right.side-gen go-ipfv.an-gen.1sg thing river-gen fork-prol appear-1sg ‘While I am walking on the right side, I arrive (emerge) at the fork of the river.’ nʲabʲi jăxa-ʔ tarka-mʔ ŋоxоlʲo măda-w other river-gen fork-acc swim.cvb pass.across-1sg>sg I swim across one fork of the river. tarka-nda pija-ʔ nʲiʔ tane-j-wʔ fork-gen.3sg nose-gen at rise-co.refl-1sg.refl ‘I climb at the end of the fork of the river.’ tarka-nda pija-mʔ măda-ʔma-xăd-nʲiʔ ŋanʲiʔ ŋоxоlʲo nekal-ŋa-w, fork-gen.3sg end-acc pass.across-ipfv.an-abl-1sg again swim.cvb pull-co-1sg>sg jăxa-mʔ măda-w. river-acc pass.across-1sg>sg ‘After I walk across the headland I keep swimming, I cross the river.’ tadtʲekăxăd afterwards

ŋanʲiʔ again

jala-wa-ʔ nʲer-nʲiʔ walk-ipfv.an-gen in.front.of-gen.1sg

nʲana pʲa-mʔ măneʔ-ŋa-dmʔ. 1sg.dat tree-acc see-co-1sg ‘While I am walking I see a tree in front of me.’ pʲa-mʔ maxanʲaŋi xæːwu-wnă-nda jalʲa-ʔ pirdarʲiʔ sʲurtʲe-w. tree-acc from.right side-pros-3sg sun-gen against go.around-1sg>sg ‘I walk around the tree on the right against the sun.’ tămna tʲaxaʔ jalawʔ, jad-wa-nʲiʔ sʲerʔ pul-mʔ măneʔ-ŋa-dmʔ. even further walk-1sg.refl walk-ipfv.an-gen.1sg thing bridge-acc see-co-1sg ‘I keep walking, while I am walking, I see a bridge.’

NENETS 893

pul-ʔ sʲerʔ jăxa-mʔ nʲabʲiʔ nʲaʔ mada-w. bridge-gen thing river-acc other to pass.across-1sg>sg ‘I cross the river on the bridge to the other side.’ tadtʲekăxăd sʲatănʲakubta-ʔ me-xeja tămna tʲaxaʔ jala-wʔ. afterwards left.side-gen take-cvb even further walk-1sg.refl ‘Afterwards I keep walking turning to the left hand side.’ tadtʲekăxăd mar-jadʔ nʲo sʲi-wnʲa tarpi-wʔ. afterwards fence-gen.2sg door hole-prol go.out-1sg.refl ‘Then, I go out the gate of the fence.’ Metadata abbreviations AL E.La Ev.L VT

Anna Latysheva Ekaterina Laptander Evdokiya Lampay Valentina Taleeva

NOTES 1 For a more detailed description of the current situation of both Tundra and Forest Nenets: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/yrkseesee Eberhard et al. (2019). 2 Khadry Okotetto was born on the Yamal tundra in 1992. He speaks the Eastern dialect of Tundra Nenets. The consultations were financed by the research project ‘Theoretical and experimental approaches to dialectal variation and contact-induced change: a case study of Tundra Nenets (NKFIH129235).’ 3 Available online: http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls/mat?id=1008&type=m. 4 Available online: http://nvinder.ru/rubric/yalumd. 5 Available online: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wp/yrk/. 6 Available online: http://yamal-region.tv. 7 This refers to the surface syllable structure of the words. REFERENCES Ackerman, Farrell, and Tapani Salminen. 2006. “Nenets.” In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown, 577–579, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Asztalos, Erika, Katalin Gugán, and Nikolett Mus. 2017. “Uráli VX szórend: nyenyec, hanti és udmurt mondatszerkezeti változatok.” In Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 3, edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Attila Hegedűs, and Lilla Pintér Lilla, 30–62. Budapest: PPKE BTK. Burkova, Svetlana I., Natalia B. Koshkareva, B. Natalia, Roza Laptander, and N. M. Yangasova. 2010. Диалектологический словарь ненецкого языка. Ekaterinburg: Rossiyskaya Akademiya Nauk. Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dudeck, Stephan. 2013. “Challenging the State Educational System in Western Siberia: Taiga School by the Tiuitiakha River.” In Sustaining Indigenous Knowledge: Learning

894 NIKOLETT MUS

Tools and Community Initiatives for Preserving Endangered Languages and Local Cultural Heritage, edited by Erich Kasten and Tjeerd de Graaf, 129–157. Fürstenberg: Kulturstiftung Sibirien. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 22nd edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue. com. Hajdú, Péter. 1968. Chrestomathia Samoiedica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Helimski, Eugen. 1982. “Древнейшие венгерско-самодийские языковые параллели.” PhD diss., Моskva. Helimski, Eugen. 2005. “Geneologische und areale Verhältnisse der samojedischen Sprachen miteinander.” Handout from the lecture held at the University of Vienna. www.unihamburg.de/onTEAM/grafik/1264671657/TABLE__/SAM_Genealogische_ und_areale_Verhaeltnisse.pdf. Hodges-Aeberhard, Jane, and Carl Raskin, eds. 1997. Affirmative Action in the Employment of Ethnic Minorities and Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: ILO. Janhunen, Juha. 1998. “Samoyedic.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 457–479. London: Routledge. Janhunen, Juha. 2002. “The Nenets Imperative Sentence and Its Background.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 24/25 (2000/2001): 71–85. Kasten, Erich, and Tjeerd de Graaf, eds. 2013. Sustaining Indigenous Knowledge: Learning Tools and Community Initiatives for Preserving Endangered Languages and Local Cultural Heritage. Fürstenberg: Kulturstiftung Sibirien. Kavitskaya, Darya, and Peter Staroverov. 2008. “Opacity in Tundra Nenets.” In WCCFL 27: Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 274–282. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Koshkareva, Natalia B. 2005. Очерки по синтаксису лесного диалекта ненецкого языка. Novosibirsk: Institut Filologii SO RAN. Labanauskas, Kazys I. 1995. Ненецкий фольклор: Мифы, сказки, исторические предания. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo. Labanauskas, Kazys I. 2001. Ямидхы’ лаханаку’—Сказы седой старины: Ненецкая фольклорная хрестоматия. Moskva: Izdatelstvo Russkaya literatura. Laptander, Roza. 2013. “Model for the Tundra School in Yamal: A New Education System for Children from Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Nenets Families.” In Sustaining Indigenous Knowledge: Learning Tools and Community Initiatives for Preserving Endangered Languages and Local Cultural Heritage, edited by Erich Kasten and Tjeerd de Graaf, 181–194. Fürstenberg: Kulturstiftung Sibirien. Lar, Leonid A., and Elena T. Pushkareva. 2001. Мифы и предания ненцев Ямала. Tyumen: Izdatelstvo Instituta problem osvoeniya Severa SO RAN. Liarskaya, Elena. 2013. “Boarding School on Yamal: History of Development and Current Situation.” In Sustaining Indigenous Knowledge: Learning Tools and Community Initiatives for Preserving Endangered Languages and Local Cultural Heritage, edited by Erich Kasten and Tjeerd de Graaf, 159–180. Fürstenbergl: Kulturstiftung Sibirien. LLOW Languages of the World. http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls/mat?id=1008&type=m. Naryana Ngaerm. “Tundra Nenets Newspaper.” Ямало-Ненецкой Oкругхы Aдминистрация няби" Ямал-Ню" На" Я! Aссоциация Газетади. Naryana Vynder. “Tundra Nenets Newspaper.” http://nvinder.ru/rubric/yalumd. Nenyang, Mikhail A. 2005. Руссконенецкий разговорник. Sankt-Petersburg: Drofa.

NENETS 895

Nenyang, Mikhail A. 2007. На уроках ненецкого языка. Sankt-Petersburg: Prosveshchenie. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2003. “The Structure of the Tundra Nenets Noun Phrase.” In Ünnepi kötet Honti László tiszteletére, edited by Marianne Bakró-Nagy and Károly Rédei, 315–327. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2005. “Agreement and Linguistic Construal.” In Uralic Languages Today: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach, edited by Jocelyn Fernandez-Vest, 533–546. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2015. “On the Expression of TAM on Nouns: Evidence from Tundra Nenets.” Lingua 166: 99‒126. Okotetto, Elena N. 1998. Ненецкий язык в детском саду. Sankt-Petersburg: Prosveshchenie. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2010. “Contact and Siberian Languages.” In The Handbook of Language Contact, edited by Raymond Hickey, 714–737. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Popova, Ya. N. 1978. Фонетические особенности лесного наречия ненецкого языка. Moskva: Nauka. Pushkareva, Elena T., and Lyudmila Khomich. 2001. Фольклор ненцев. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Salminen, Tapani. 1992. “Russian Vocabulary in Tundra Nenets.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 84: 201–222. Salminen, Tapani. 1993. “On Identifying Basic Vowel Distinctions in Tundra Nenets.” Finnisch Ugrische Forschungen 51: 177–187. Salminen, Tapani. 1997. Tundra Nenets Inflection. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Salminen, Tapani. 1998. “Nenets.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 516–547. London: Routledge. Salminen, Tapani. 2007. “Notes on Forest Nenets Phonology.” In Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, edited by Jussi Ylikoski and Ante Aikio, 349–372. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1974. Material from Forest Nenets. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Stammler, Florian. 2005. Reindeer Nomads Meet the Market: Culture, Property and Globalisation at the End of the Land. Muenster: Litverlag. Staroverov, Peter 2006. “Vowel Deletion and Stress in Tundra Nenets.” In Proceedings of the First Central European Student Conference in Linguistics, edited by Beáta Gyuris. www.nytud.hu/cescl/proceedings.html. Tereshchenko, Natalia M. 1956. Материали и исследования по языку ненцев. Moskva: Izdatelstvo Аkademii Nauk. Tereshchenko, Natalia M. 1993. “Ненецкий язык.” In Jazyki mira: Ural’skie jazyki, edited by Yu. S. Yeliseev. Елисеев, and K. E. Majtinskaya, 326–343. Moskva: Nauka. Toulouze, Eva. 1999. “The Development of a Written Culture by the Indigenous Peoples of Western Siberia.” Arctic Studies 2: 53–85. Toulouze, Eva. 2003. “The Forest Nenets as a Double Language Minority.” Pro Ethnologia 15: 95–108. Trevilla, Lorena. 2009. “Ethnologue: Languages of the world.” SIL International. Porta lat www.ethnologue.com/language/yrk. Vagramenko, Tatiana. 2017. “‘Blood’ Kinship and Kinship in Christ’s Blood: Nomadic Evangelism in the Nenets Tundra.” Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics 11 (1): 151–169.

896 NIKOLETT MUS

Vakhtin, Nikolai. 2015. “Indigenous Minorities of Siberia and Russian Sociolinguistics of the 1920s: A Life Apart?” Acta Borealia 32 (2): 171–189. Vanuyto, Galina I. 2012. Руссконенецкий разговорник. Moskva: Ventana-Graf. Verbov, Grigoriy D. 1973. Диалект лесных ненцев. Novosibirsk: Samodijskij sbornik 18. Volzhanina, Elena A. 2007. “The Forest Nenets: Habitat and Population Size in the 20th Century, and the Present Demographic Situation.” Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 30 (2): 143–154. Wilkins, David. 1993. “Route Description Elicitation.” In Cognition and Space Kit, edited by Stephen C. Levinson, July 1993, 15–28. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/1993/route-description-elicitation/. Yangasova, N. M. 2001. Ненэцкие’сказки и эпические песни сюдбабц,’ ярабц.’ Тоmsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta.

CHAPTER 20

SELKUP Gerson Klumpp and Josefina Budzisch1

20.1 TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Selkup is an agglutinating language showing also inflectional traits as, for example, the heterogenous marking of the aorist tense (see below 20.6.2.2; Zyryanova 2001). Phoneme systems across Selkup dialects are quite rich, with eight or more vowels subject to phonological length, and usually more than 20 consonants. Morphonologically, Selkup is less complex than, for example, Nganasan; however, there are quite many alternations, assimilations, and Sandhi rules. The Ket’ dialect, in addition, shows gradation. Selkup was considered a lingua franca in the north-east of the Western Siberian Taiga, and its considerable regularity is ascribed to this status (Helimski 1998, 549, 2000, 31). Modifiers always precede heads, and there used to be only postpositions, no prepositions. Some adverbs have been grammaticalized into preverbs. Constituent order is dominantly SOV, with pragmatic word order changes, and due to Russian influence, a change towards SVO has been observed. Transition from nonfinite syntax, with its combining of clauses by means of converbs and participles, to finite syntax with conjunctions, is one more outcome of long-time Selkup-Russian bilingualism. 20.2 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTS, DEMOGRAPHY The Selkup homelands lie between the river systems of the Middle-Ob and the Lower Yenisei, including the rivers Ket’, Tym, Chaya, Parabel’, Vasyugan, Baikha, Turukhan, and Taz. These territories fall into three different administrative units: the YamaloNenets AO of the Tyumen Oblast (in particular, the Krasnoselkupskii and the Purovskii Rayon), the Turukhansk Rayon in the north of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, and the Tomsk Oblast. Indigenous neighbours are the Vasyugan Khanty in the Tomsk Oblast, the (Tungusic) Evenki and the (Yeniseian) Ket in the Krasnoyarsk Krai, and the Forest Nenets, the Tundra Nenets, and the Vakh Khanty in the Yamalo-Nenets Okrug (Prokof’eva 1966, 396; Koshkareva et al. 2017). The older designation of the Selkup, Ostyak-Samoyed, contains the designation for the aboriginal hunter-fisher population of the Western Siberian Taiga, a term of Turkic origin (Ostyak < ĭstäk) which occurs also in the ethnonyms Ostyak (i.e. Khanty) and Yenisei Ostyak (i.e. Ket) (Helimski 2000, 31). Also in the neighbouring languages, there are common designations for these three peoples with similar genre de vie, namely, Nenets xøbyi, Enets bago, Evenki zandri (Helimski 1991). The common designation was based on cultural closeness; linguistic convergence in terms of an Ostyak Sprachbund, however, has not been identified to the degree that it would form a clear picture (Helimski 2003, 160). Selkup dialect distinctions have been a matter of debate (Janurik 1978a; Katz 1979; Viitso 1999; Pozdeeva 2013a). If we follow Helimski’s (1998, 551–552) DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-20

898 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

classification of Selkup dialects, there are four main groups which correlate with variations in Selkup self-designations: (1) the ʃølʲqup in the north, that is, on the rivers Taz and Turukhan (Middle-Taz, Upper Taz, Baikha and Turukhan, Karasino, Yelogui); (2) the Central Selkup tʃuməl qup on the rivers Tym, Narym (see also Sainakova 2015), Vasyugan, Parabel’, and Vakh; (3) the Southern Selkup sysøqə(j) qum on the Middle Ob, Upper Ob, Chaya, and Chulym (with its own designation tʲujqum); and (4) the sys(s)y qum on the river Ket’ (Middle Ket’, Upper Ket’, or Nat-Pumpokol; Janurik [1978a] adds Lower Ket’, cf. Kuznecova 1987); see Table 20.1 for an overview, and Figure 20.1 for Selkup rivers and settlements. In some classifications built on self-designations, Chulym figures as a main dialect in its own right (Dul’son 1971; Kim 1986, 4–5; on Chulym, see also Tuchkova and Kuznetsova 2010). Five dialects are also distinguished by Alatalo (2018), namely, the North dialect (P), the Tym dialect (T), the dialects on the Middle Ob (in which /s/ has become /h/) (H), the Upper Ob dialect (O), and the Ket’ dialect (K). The Northern Selkup form ʃølʲqup has developed into an artificial collective designation for all Selkup groups and dialects; there was, in fact, no common Selkup equivalent in this function (see, for example, Dul’zon 1971, 35). Northern Selkup is a newcomer in the Taz-Turukhan area. The ancestors of its speakers migrated there from the Tomsk district during the seventeenth century, suppressing the local Forest Enets. The number of Selkups was reported as 3,564 in Russia by Mikhal’chenko and Solntsev in 2003, with the distribution as in Table 20.2. For 2010, Koshkareva et al. (2017, 10) report an overall number of 3,649 Selkups, of which 1,988 lived in the Yamalo-Nenets Okrug. For Selkup language command according to census data, see Table 20.3. According to Koshkareva et al. (2017, 11), 1,334 of all Selkups in the Russian Federation (i.e. 36.6%) (and 1,249 of the Selkups in the Yamalo-Nenets Okrug, that is, 62.8%) declared their ethnic language as native, whereas the numbers of those Selkups who had no command of it is 945 (i.e. 25.9%) in the Russian Federation (and 825, that is, 41.5%, in the Yamalo-Nenets Okrug). Thus, with approximately 600 speakers, Northern Selkup, sometimes called ‘Tundra Selkup,’ is the strongest dialect and the only dialect in which the native language is still transmitted to the next generation (Koshkareva et al. 2017, 8). However, even Northern Selkup is unstable as a school subject, and literary activities are practically nonexistent (see Koshkareva et al. 2017, 17–19 for details). An expedition by Kazakevich (2010) counted zero speakers for the Tym dialect, and only two speakers for the Ket’ dialect. Most of the Southern Selkup dialects are extinct; a few speakers of Central Selkup dialects are still encountered. There are ‘virtually no monolingual Selkups’ (Wagner-Nagy 2011, 11).

TABLE 20.1  SELKUP DIALECTS North (Taz-Turukhan)

Central

South

Ket’

Middle Taz Upper Taz Baikha-Turukhan Karasino Yelogui

Vakh Tym Narym Vasyugan Parabel’

Middle Ob Upper Ob Chaya Chulym

Middle Ket’ Upper Ket’ (Nat-Pumpokol)

Source: Helimski (1998, 549–550); Wagner-Nagy (2011, 10).

SELKUP 899

FIGURE 20.1 SELKUP RIVERS AND SETTLEMENTS. Source: Katz (1979, 233)

900 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH TABLE 20.2  NUMBER OF SELKUPS IN RUSSIA Region

Number

Tyumen Oblast Yamalo-Nenets AO  Region Krasnosel’kup  Pur Region Khanty-Mansi AO Krasnoyarsk Krai  Region Turukhansk Tomsk Krai other regions GUS and Baltic states

1632 1530  1153  241 26 367  303 1347 218 48

Source: Mikhal’chenko and Solntsev (2003).

TABLE 20.3  LANGUAGE COMMAND ACCORDING TO CENSUS DATA Year

1989

2002

2010

Population

3,612

4,249

3,527

Command of native l.

37.5%

approx. 38%

29%

Command of Russian

no data

99%

–

Source: Wagner-Nagy (2011, 11, 2017a, 480).

20.3 DOCUMENTATION AND DESCRIPTION After some nineteenth-century word lists, the first Selkup writings were due to the activities of N. Grigorovskij (1879), a school secretary in Novoilinskoe who aimed at literacy and religious education among Selkups of the Narym region. His publications were printed by the Orthodox Missionary Society in Kazan’ (see Helimski 1983a; Katz 1988). M. A. Castrén treated Selkup in the framework of his Samoyed Grammar (Schiefner 1854). The first Selkup grammar focusing on the Taz dialect was published by G. Prokof’ev in 1935. Lexical documentation of all Selkup dialects was undertaken by K. Donner in the years before the First World War, but he encountered no Chulym Selkups. His materials have been published by Alatalo (2004). In the 1970s, H. Katz edited a range of Selkup materials in phonological transcription (e.g. Katz 1979, 1986). At the same time, a research group from Moscow produced an excellent description of the Taz dialect in three volumes; this is the most complete treatment of the Northern Selkup language to date (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 1993; Kazakevich et al. 2002). A Northern Selkup dictionary was published by I. Erdély (1970). Central and Southern Selkup were, and still are, in the focus of the Tomsk school of research on indigenous Siberian languages, founded by A. Dul’son. Researchers such as A. Kuz’mina, Ė. Bekker, Sh. Kuper, and N. Kuznecova—among many others—made significant progress in the collection of data and the description of Selkup dialects in the Tomsk area. Particularly significant outcomes of these activities are a two-volume morphological description of Central and Southern Selkup (Bekker et al. 1995) and a Selkup dialectal dictionary (Bykonya et al.

SELKUP 901

2005). J. Alatalo contributed with data from Ket’, which he integrated into his unpublished cross-dialectal comparative study of Selkup morphology (Alatalo 2018); earlier, he published a Ket’–Selkup dictionary devoted to the Ket’ community of last speakers and rememberers (Alatalo 1998). An excellent bibliography on Selkup studies has been compiled by Tuchkova (2006). The Selkup Language Corpus (SLC) at the University of Hamburg (Budzisch et al. 2019) assembles texts collected by various researchers over a period of ca. 130 years. Most of them had been published earlier. The corpus contains 144 texts from 53 speakers, representing all main dialects; they consist mostly of folklore and narrative, but also some translations of Russian texts. All texts are consistently glossed and, for the most part, annotated. On the basis of this corpus, syntactic descriptions can be developed, a kind of description which is lacking, especially, for Central and Southern Selkup (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 354–406 and Tereshchenko 1973 refer to Northern Selkup only). The following description focuses on the Ket’ dialect, but it makes use of data from other dialects as well because there is no full study specifically on Ket’ available. The distinction between the Ket’ subdialects (see, for example, Janurik 1978a) is partly neglected. For concise descriptions of the (Middle) Taz dialect, see Helimski (1998) and Kuznecova et al. (1980), as well as Kazakevič (2022). The Selkup Language Corpus includes 37 texts from the Ketʼ dialect. Illustrating examples in this chapter come from this corpus (if not otherwise indicated). The transcription has been converted to conform with IPA conventions. Stems, where possible, are phonologized with the help of the glossaries, errors are corrected, and file references are abbreviated and include the sentence number (their original reference as in the corpus is indicated in the abbreviations at the end of the chapter). 20.4 PHONOLOGY 20.4.1 Vowels The vowel system of (Lower) Ket’ counts 9 vowels, all with distinctive vowel length, that is, altogether 18 vowel phonemes (see Table 20.4). Upper Ket’ has in addition long open /æː/. Labiality, although phonematic, is weakly articulated (Kuz’mina 1974, 193). In general, in Selkup there is no vowel harmony and no synharmony between vowels and consonants in terms of palatality (Kuz’mina 1974, 191). The vowel /e/ often appears as [ɛ]. In principle, quality and quantity distinctions are maintained independent of stress (Kuz’mina 1974, 192). Length may result from the loss of consonants, for example, Ket’ pɑː ~ Taz pɑŋɨ ‘knife’ (Kuz’mina 1974, 192). TABLE 20.4  VOWEL PHONEMES IN LOWER KET’ Front Illabial

Labial

High

i, iː

y, yː

Low

e, eː

ø, øː

Central

Back Illabial

Labial

ə, əː

ɨ, ɨː

u, uː

ɑ, ɑː

o, oː

Source: After Bykonya et al. (2005, 318).

902 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

20.4.2 Consonants According to Bykonya et al. (2005, 318), in Lower Ket there are 38 consonant phonemes. This high number is the result of (i) the distinction of velar and uvular (or postvelar) plosives [k, ɡ] vs. [q, ɢ], independent of vowel environment; (ii) the adoption of labialized consonants [cw, tw, kβw, qw, tʃw, sw]; and (iii) a quantity opposition due to gradation (see 20.4.4). The distinction in (i) is a characteristic of Selkup in general. The labialized consonants in (ii), following Kuper (1981, 106), are treated as consonant combinations here [tʋ, cʋ, tʃʋ etc.]. Consonant length as in (iii), in general, is not distinctive in Selkup (Kuz’mina 1974, 196) but geminates result from assimilation of different phonemes. Kuper (1981, 103, 108) reckons with long consonants, but he does not make clear statements about their phonemic status. In our opinion, consonant length in the Ket’ dialect is predictable by the rules of gradation (see following text), and there is no need to adopt long and short consonant phonemes. The aforementioned accounts, however, fall short in not including a palatal nasal and lateral, which must be accounted for since they are not palatalized consonants, that is, a palatal column [c, ɟ, ɲ, ʎ], not [tʲ, dʲ, nʲ, lʲ] (for palatalization, see following). If lenition of obstruents in weak position is assumed, we arrive at a system of 25 consonants, as in Table 20.5. Lenition refers here to sound like [dʒ] [ʃ] [ʒ] as phonetic variants of /tʃ/. Further remarks: Voicing in stops and affricates is distinctive, but velar and uvular fricatives [x, ɣ] and [χ, ʁ] are considered variants of the corresponding stops. Palatalization before front vowels is not distinctive and consequently omitted from the transcription (indicated for Russian loans only). The affricates are unvoiced [tʃ] and voiced [dʒ], whereas a palatal variant [cɕ] is a free variant of the palatal stop [c] (Kuper 1981, 104). The sibilants [ʃ] and [ʒ] are rare; there are only two words with initial [ʃ] in Alatalo’s (1998) glossary, for example, ʃitːy ‘two’; word-internally, for example, UK miʃɑn- ‘hold’ (Kuper 1981, 107). The actual phonetic status of the approximant [ʋ] is discussed by Kuper (1981, 106); notations vary between [w] (Castrén) and [u̯] (Donner); the fricative [v] occurs only in words of Russian origin (Kuper 1981, 106).

TABLE 20.5  CONSONANT PHONEMES IN KET’ SELKUP Palatal

Velar

Uvular

c ɟ

k ɡ

q g

n

ɲ

ŋ

Laterals

l

ʎ

Trills

r

Stops

Labial

Alveo-dental

p b

t d

Affricates

tʃ dʒ

Fricatives Nasals

Approximants

Alveo-palatal

s z m

ʃ ʒ

ʋ

Source: Adapted from Bykonya et al. (2005, 318); Kuper (1981).

j

SELKUP 903

Word-internally, all consonants occur; word-initially, only p, m, ʋ, t, c, n, ɲ, k, q, tʃ, s, l, r; and word-finally, p, m, ʋ, t, d, n, ŋ, k, q, s, l, r (Kuper 1981, 107). The only onset clusters are tʋ, cʋ, kʋ, qʋ, tʃʋ, and sʋ. 20.4.3 Word prosody Stress in Selkup is mobile. For Taz, Helimski (1998, 553–554) summarized that stress falls on the last long vowel in the word, and in words without long vowels, on the first syllable, except for certain derivational and inflectional suffixes which either attract word stress or receive additional stress. Also for Ket’, Kuper (1983a) states that vowel length attracts stress, but default stress in words without long vowels falls on the first syllable only in Upper Ket’, while in Lower Ket’ there is a tendency to move the stress towards the end of the word, for example, UK ˈqomdɛ ~ LK qobˈdɛ ‘money.’ Furthermore, in Ket’, certain morphemes attract stress, with facultative lengthening: the transitivizer and marker of semelfactivity |ol, the inchoative suffix |ɛ, the desiderative suffix |ɛndʒ, and also the alternating vowel o: (~ ɨ) in the prolative, locative, and dative case forms of ɨ-stem nouns, for example, ˈmɑcːɨ ‘forest’ ~ mɑˈcːoːɣɨn forest.loc ‘in the forest.’ In 3du verb forms, the vowel of the person suffix -ɑdi is long or short when stressed (qonˈdɑːdi ‘they slept’ ~ ɑʋurˈnɑdi ‘they ate’), but only half-long or short when unstressed (ˈpɑldusɑˑdi ‘they went’ ~ ˈtyːɑdi ‘they came’); see Kuper 1983a, 60. Stress is marked in the texts published by Kuz’mina (1967). 20.4.4 Morphonological alternations The Ket’ dialect shows consonant gradation, which is an alternation of strong and weak consonant grades, depending on the openness/closedness of the ensuing syllable2 (cf. Finnic, Saami and Nganasan chapters in this volume). This alternation is not merely lenition of intervocalic consonants, as was earlier believed by Hajdú (1962, 47). Kuper (1987, 68–69) presents examples, such as tʃekːɨ-ku ‘dry-inf’ ~ tʃekɨ|lcɨ-ku ‘dry|int.pfv-inf’, or kəʋːɨ-lɑ ‘blood-pl’ ~ kəʋɨ-n ‘blood-gen’, in which the weak grade of onset consonants (k vs. strong kː, ʋ vs. strong ʋː) clearly depends on the closedness of the following syllable and not on their position between vowels. Alternations due to intervocalic position do, of course, occur in Selkup, and Ket’ is no exception, as, for example, in the stem variation kəm ~ kəʋːɨ- ‘blood’. Gradation in Ket’ is quantitative, that is, it consists of the phonetic alternation of long and short variants of one and the same consonant (Kuper 1987, 73). Interestingly, for an accent-shifting ɨ-stem such as qopːɨ ‘skin,’ Kuper (1987, 69, 73) notes three grades of consonant quantity: the strong grade of the single consonant, as in the nominative (-pː-), its weak grade, as in the genitive qopɨ-n ‘skin-gen,’ and a gemination of the consonant in those forms where the stem vowel is stressed and changes its quality, as in qopˈpoː-qɨn ‘skin-loc’ (for this stem type in Taz, see Kuznecova et al. 1980, 168, 180). Not all consonants are affected evenly by gemination: [rː] is characteristic of Nat-Pumpokol (Upper Ket’) and corresponds to [r] elsewhere in Ket’ (Kuper 1981, 103). Exceptions from gradation resulting from syllable contraction have been explained by Alatalo (2001, 6–7), for example, ɑːde ‘reindeer’ instead of expected **ɑːtːe because the word was originally trisyllabic (ɑːcətæ). Kuznecova (1987, 13) reports verbs which show variants in their inflectional forms due to the application or non-application of gradation, for example, ɑˈdu-ŋ ~ ɑtːu-ˈɑn aor3sg of ɑtːu- ‘to be visible’.

904 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

One of the peculiarities of Selkup, the alternation of stops and homorganic nasals in word final position, is absent in Ket’ (Kuper 1984, 151, 157, cf. Katz 1976, 117), for example, Ket’ qum ‘person’ corresponds to Tym qup, but Taz qum ~ qup (Kuper 1986, 103). Further, the progressive assimilation of nasal and stop when another nasal and stop follow (called ‘queue reduction’ by Alatalo [2018]), which is found in all other dialects, is also absent in Ket’ (Kuper 1983b, 92). Denasalization (i.e. NC > Cː) is found in Lower Ket’, for example, MK, UK mirɨŋ-gu ‘sell.inf’ ~ LK mirɨgːu id. (Kuznecova 1987, 72). The most important vowel alternations are due to stem vowel alternations and stress movement in inflection. In nouns, this is the alternation ɨ ~ ˈoː (“shift stem”, Alatalo 2018); in verbal stems, it is ɨ ~ ˈɑ (Kuznecova 1987, 14–15). 20.5 MORPHOLOGY OF THE NOUN 20.5.1 Declension 20.5.1.1 Number Selkup distinguishes three numbers. The singular is unmarked. The dual suffix in absolute declension is -qɨ. In Middle Ob dialects, a new dual suffix -ʃtja-, based on the numeral ‘two,’ has developed, followed by a phonetic variant [ʁ] of the inherited dual marker, for example, Laskino øːɡe-ʃtjɑ-ʁ cap-du-du ‘two caps’ (Bekker et al. 1995, I, 50). As for plural marking, the northern dialects, Tym, and parts of Middle Ob continue the Proto-Samoyed plural suffix *-t (e.g. Taz -t), but in the southern dialects, this has been widely replaced by a formerly collective suffix, -lɑ. (The collective plural in the North is formed by a noun phrase built with an adjective-forming suffix |lʲ plus the factotum noun mɨ ‘thing,’ for example, qumɨ|lʲ mɨ person|adj thing ‘people, crowd’ vs. qumɨ-t person-pl ‘people, men, persons’ [Helimski 1998, 560]). Redundant forms are attested in the Middle Ob dialects, for example, ɲɑːb-lɑ-t duck-pl-pl ‘ducks’ (Kuz’mina and Kiseleva 1975, 205). In these dialects, plural marking also replaced the absolute dual (Alatalo 2018), which means that here, as in Kamas or in North Saami, the dual is a category which occurs exclusively in connection with the category of person (personal pronouns, person markers on the verb, possessor suffixes). However, the absolute dual is encountered in Ket’, as in the additive structure in (1a), or with use of the numeral ‘two,’ as NP head in (1b), and in formations with the connective-reciprocal suffix (see Hajdú 1975a) (1c). The dual marker is also part of the formation of pronouns (see 20.5.3). (1)

a. ezi+eʋim-qɨ ceːlɑ|n tʃopɨr-le qʋelɑ-lːe qöɟe-di father+mother-du day|loc.adv pick.berry-cvb fish-cvb go-(aor)3du ‘Father and mother, during the day time, go berry-picking and fishing’ (Itja 2) b. nɑ ʃiˈtɛ-q qʋɛsˈsɑ-di ˈtsɑːr-ənːi dem two-du go.away.pst-3du Tsar-dat/all ‘These two went to the Tsar’ (Snake 96) c. iːcɑ iməˈɲa|sə-ki ˈiːlɑ|ku-s-ti pn grandmother|cr-du live|hab-pst-3du ‘Itya and his grandmother were living.’ (IFMF 1)

Besides dual marking with the quantifier ‘two,’ Pozdeeva (2013b, 18, 2015 [specifically Ket’ 176–178]) has observed singular marking as well (2) (for argument indexing see

SELKUP 905

20.9.1). With numerals greater than two, the plural is used (3). The plural suffix is also used in the formation of some plural pronouns (see 20.5.3). (2)

ʃitːə mɑːɟe-n qum qʋɛn-bɑː-di tutːo|j-gu two taiga-gen person go.away-narr-3du crucian|cap-inf ‘Two hunters went to catch crucians.’ (Fire 11)

(3)

ˈsomble|sɑrɨm ˈqorːi-lɑ five|ten stallion-pl ‘fifty stallions’ (Snake 58)

20.5.1.2 Case The number of case forms in Selkup ranges between 12 and 18, depending on dialect and the grammarian’s decisions about adverbial forms, that is, whether they are inflectional or derivational. Wagner-Nagy (2017a, 482) offers an overview table, including 13 cases for Taz (North), 11 for Tym (Central), and 14 for Ket’; for Ket’, see Table 20.6. TABLE 20.6  NON-POSSESSIVE DECLENSION OF NOUNS IN KET’, EXAMPLE WORDS irːa ‘MAN’ AND and ‘BOAT’ sg

du

pl

nom: -Ø

irːɑ ɑnd

irːɑ-qɨ ɑndə-qɨ

irːɑ-lɑ ɑndə-lɑ

gen: -(ə)n

irːɑ-n ɑnd-ən

irːɑ-qɨ-n ɑndə-qɨ-n

irːɑ-lɑ-n ɑndə-lɑ-n

acc: -(ə)m

irːɑ-m ɑnd-əm

irːɑ-qɨ-m ɑndə-qɨ-m

irːɑ-lɑ-m ɑndə-lɑ-m

ill: -(n)tɨ

– ɑndo-ndə

– ɑndə-qɨ-ndə

– ɑndə-lɑ-ndə

dat/all: -nɨ(ŋ)

irːɑ-nɨ –

irːɑ-qɨ-nɨ –

irːɑ-lɑ-nɨ –

loc inan: -qɨn

– ɑndo-qən

– ɑndə-qɨ-qən

– ɑndə-lɑ-qən

loc anim: -nɑn

irːɑ-nɑn –

irːɑ-qɨ-nɑn –

irːɑ-lɑ-nɑn –

abl inan: -qɨnnɨ

– ɑndo-qənnə

– ɑndə-qɨ-qənnə

– ɑndə-lɑ-qənnə

abl anim: -nɑnnɨ

irːɑ-nɑnnɨ

irːɑ-qɨ-nɑnnɨ –

irːɑ-lɑ-nɑnnɨ –

prol: -mɨn, -βən

irːɑ-βɑn ɑndə-mən

irːɑ-qɨ-βɑn ɑndə-qɨ-mən

irːɑ-lɑ-βɑn ɑndə-lɑ-mən

inst.soc: -se, -ze

irːɑ-ze ɑndə-ze

irːɑ-qɨ-ze ɑndə-qɨ-ze

irːɑ-lɑ-ze ɑndə-lɑ-ze

car: -qɑlɨk

irːɑ-ɡɑlək ɑndə-ɡɑlɨk

irːɑ-qɨ-ɡɑlək ɑndə-qɨ-ɡɑlɨk

irːɑ-lɑ-ɡɑlək ɑndə-lɑ-ɡɑlɨk

ess.trsl: -(n)ɡo, -(ŋ)ɡo

irːɑ-nɡo ɑndə-ŋɡo

irːɑ-qɨ-ŋɡo ɑndə-qɨ-ŋɡo

irːɑ-lɑ-nɡo ɑndə-lɑ-ŋɡo

trsl

ɑndə-ʋle

–

–

Source: Bykonya et al. (2005, 326–327); Wagner-Nagy (2017a, 482).

906 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

In Ket’, the genitive is always -n, and the accusative -m, but in other dialects of Selkup, the markers in question are also -t and -p because of the nasal ~ stop alternation (cf. 20.4.4 previously, and for example, Bekker et al. 1995 I, 123–124, 136–137). In addition, replacement of -m by -n (different from the alternating -n ~ -t of the genitive) has been observed in Southern Selkup (Bekker et al. 1995 I, 153–157), a thus-far unexplained variation which is attested as early as the first Selkup texts (Helimski 1982, 33–34). For traces of the Proto-Samoyed accusative plural marker *-j in Selkup, see Katz (1979, 173, 176) and Bekker et al. (1995 I, 157–158). In the local cases, there is an animacy distinction (see Bekker et al. 1995 I, 187–196) with the illative as the case for the goal and the dative-allative for adressees and recipients, or the animate locative marking possessors. Animates, however, may also include trees or stones, as Baidak and Kim-Malony (2010, 52–53) have shown. According to Dul’zon (1970), the distinction of animate local case forms is due to Yeniseic influence. The (animate) ablative in Ket’ differs from other dialects that do not distinguish a separate ablative and from the ablative in Taz (-qənə) (Bekker et al. 1995 I, 181). The various case functions are illustrated in the following paragraphs. Nouns in the nominative (or base form) can be subjects, but also direct objects (see Section 20.9.2 on differential object marking). There are instances of nominative possessors in the Tym’ dialect (Bekker et al. I, 113–114), and also nominative heads of postpositions (ib.: 114–115, 125–126, see also Section 20.7). Furthermore, the nominative is used to address collocutors in Southern Selkup, whereas Northern Selkup has a dedicated vocative (Bekker et al. 1995 I, 116–117). The genitive marks nouns as attributes, most prominently possessors, both in cooperation with possessor suffixes (4a) and without (4b); it is also used on nouns with postpositions (4c). Both intransitive and transitive subjects of relative clauses are in the genitive (20.10). Note that the homophonic suffix -n of instructive-adverbials (see following) is not identical to the genitive suffix (Alatalo 2018). (4)

a. ɲoː-n ɑːŋgu-t hare-gen sleep-3sg ‘the hare’s sleep’ (Dog 10) b. orɑ-n+diri suːru-n tɑr-əm mi-ndʒɑ-m handful-gen+full wild.animal-gen hair-acc give-fut-1sg.oc ‘I will give you a handful of animal hair.’ (Worms 40) c. ice pʲetʃʲɑ-n moqːo|n ɑmdɑ pn stove-gen back|loc.adv sit(aor3sg) ‘Itya sits behind the stove.’ (Itja 26)

The accusative is the case of the direct object, as with ‘people’ and ‘fire’ in (5). But there are also direct objects with zero case flagging (see Section 20.9.2 on differential object marking). (5)

ˈqu-lɑ-m ˈmeŋɑ mi-ˈɡɑ-k tyː-m utːərɨ-ˈɡu person-pl-acc 1sg.dat.all give-imp-imp.2sg fire-acc stop-inf ‘Give me men in order to stop the fire’ (Fire 9)

The illative (in Castrén’s terminology, the dative) marks goals (6). The dative-allative (dat/all) is of postpositional origin (Alatalo 2018). It is a recipient and beneficiary case

SELKUP 907

with predominantly animate referents (7a–b), forming also an animate goal case (7c) (cf. the animacy distinction in the locative and in the ablative): (6)

me ʃində ty-ndə pen-dʒ-ot 1pl 2sg.acc fire-ill put-fut-1pl ‘We’ll put you into the fire’ (Carp 87)

(7)

a. ʋɛɟɛ-m-də tɛp kɨɡɨ-s mi-ɡu qʋɛri-lɑ-nːi meat-acc-3sg 3sg want-pst.3sg give-inf crow-pl-dat/all ‘he wanted to give the meat to the crows’ (Snake 94) b. ˈkulɟi ˈdʲelɑ-m ˈme-ɡu ˈtendɑni what.kind.of thing-acc do-inf 2sg.dat.all ‘What kind of thing (shall I) do for you?’ (Snake 58) c. ty-ɣɑ-det tebɑnːe come-aor-3pl.oc 3sg.dat.all ‘They came to him’ (Carp 83)

The inanimate locative case denotes location with inanimates (8a) and also occurs with dynamic motion verbs like qʋeɟi- ‘to leave behind’ (8b). The animate locative case is used to express clause-level possession as in (9), where no copula is used (see 20.9.1). (8)

a. mɑn ˈe-ɑ-ŋ ˈotpus-qɨn 1sg be-aor-1sg holiday-loc ‘I’m on holiday’ (Fire 18) b. ʃitə|mteldʒij inːɑ-m-dɨt qʋeɟi-sɑ-t ty-n top-qɑn two|ord brother-acc-3pl leave-pst-3pl fire-gen side-loc ‘They left the second brother at the fire’ (Carp 20)

(9)

tɛbə-ˈnɑn ˈtylse-t 3sg-loc.anim rifle-3sg ‘He has a rifle.’ (Snake 15)

The inanimate ablative is a separative case (10a) and also used to denote manufacture from a material (10b) or membership of a group (10c). The animate ablative also denotes separation (11a) and distance from a reference point (11b). It is also used in superlative constructions (see 20.5.2). (10) a. tɛp nɑk mɑːt-qɨnɛ qʋɛs-sɑ 3sg also house-abl go.away-pst(3sg) ‘He also went away from the house.’ (Snake 13) b. mɑn me-tʃɑ-ʋ ɲuːtʃo-ɣənə most-əm 1sg make-fut-1sg.oc grass-abl bridge-acc ‘I’ll make a bridge out of grass’ (Hazelgrouse 16) c. ˈokkɨr tiːˈbe+qum-ɣɛnːɛ one male+person-abl ‘one of the men’ (Hunt 93)

908 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

(11) a. iʋɑn tepə-nɑnːe qʋen-nɨ pn 3sg-abl.anim go.away-aor(3sg) ‘Ivan went away from him’ (Ivan 82) b. asːɨ kundoqɑ-ʁən putʃo-nɑnːɨ iːlɑ-s to-n qøː-ɣɑn qɑrːɑ not far-loc beaver-abl live-pst(3sg) lake-gen side-loc crane ‘Not far from the beaver a crane lived at a lakeside’ (Eyes 6) The prolative denotes movement through (12a), along (12b), or over something (12c), as well as the affected part of a whole (e.g. when taking hold of someone by a part of the body) (12d); also several recipients in a row (12e). The prolative also forms adverbs, for example, temporal yːdəmɨn ‘in the evening,’ or as a secondary predicate (essive adverbial) in (12f). (12) a. yn-mən puː-ɨt kɨ|ke-m water-pro cross-(aor)3sg.oc river|dim-acc ‘It passes the river through the water.’ (Hazelgrouse 25) b. ˈoqːɨr|ɨŋ tʃɑːʒə-mbɑ ˈʋɑtːo-on one|adv go-narr(3sg) road-pro ‘Once he walks along the road . . .’ (Snake 14) c. tɑn puː-ntʃa-ndə mosto-ʋən tɑj qɛː-ndə 2sg cross-fut-2sg bridge-pro dem steep.bank-ill ‘You will cross over the bridge to that bank’ (Hazelgrouse 17) d. ˈqʋɛrɣɑ ˈqɑdi ˈudɨ|n oˈrɑnn-ɨt oˈlo-un-də nɑ suru|j-ldi bear claw hand|insc hold.aor-3sg.oc head-pro-3sg this game|cap-an qum person.acc ‘The bear held with its claw this hunter by the head’ (Bear 10) e. pɑtʃːiˈjɑŋ+ne|j nɑr opːo-min qʋende-t witch+woman|adj three older.sister-pro carry.away-imp.2sg.oc ‘Bring it to my three witch sisters’ (Sisters 63) f. ʃində sɑi-ɡidi-mɨm suru|j-ldi quː-lɑ orɑldʒə|r-ndʒɑ-tːə 2sg.acc eye-car-pro game|cap-an person-pl catch|freq-fut-3pl golɑj yːdɑ|n bare hand|insc ‘You, as (= being) a blind one, hunters will catch bare-handed’ (Eyes 17) The instrumental-sociative denotes instruments proper (13a), or instruments of action (13b), comitatives (13c), equatives in comparison (13d), and falls under the valence frame of some intransitive verbs, such as ‘laugh about’ (13e). The comitative function is also used in coordination, forming complex NPs (Bekker et al. 1995 I, 108–109), cf. (1c) above. The caritive denotes the absence of something or someone (14).

SELKUP 909

(13) a. pikːo-m tiʋə-ndə-se mɑlɑː-ɣɨ-t aspen-acc tooth-3sg.obl-inst gnaw-aor-3sg.oc ‘He cuts (gnaws) an aspen with his teeth’ (Eyes 9) b. tep tolʲko olɑ-ndɨ-se kuke|pti|qʋu-t 3sg only head-3sg.obl-inst nod|caus|hab-(aor)3sg.oc ‘He just nods with his head’ (Eyes 8) c. kutə-se pɑʎɟu-ku ɑsːɨ kɨgɑ-s who-inst go-inf neg want-pst(3sg) ‘[He was proud,] he did not want to go with anybody’ (Eyes 7) d. tɛp ˈɛ-sɑ-n ˈokːə ˈpiːrə|n ˈpødɑr-se 3sg be-pst-3sg one stature|loc.adv pn-inst ‘He was of the same size as Fedor’ (Hunt 61) e. pizɑ-lːe oldɑ-s putʃo-se laugh-cvb start-pst(3sg) beaver-inst ‘He started to laugh about the beaver’ (Eyes 16) (14) bʲednɑj qu-lɑ ɑpsot-ɡɑlɑq pɑʎɟu-ɑ-t poor man-pl food-car go-aor-3pl ‘The poor people go without food’ (Ivan 61) The translative (‘essive-translative’ in Wagner-Nagy 2017a) consists of the genitive in -n (dialectically in variation with -t) plus the suffix -ɡo. It marks sought objects (15a), expresses essive adverbials (15b), and may correspond to Russian prepositive adverbials (15c). The translative is also part of the question word qai-ŋɡo what-trsl ‘why (what for).’ Under Russian influence, change of state is also expressed with the instructive (16a), cf. Russ. белым паром стала white.inst steam.inst become.pst.fem ‘she turned into white steam.’ The translative meaning was probably acquired departing from the essive meaning of the instructive as in (16b). (15) a. po-ŋɡo tʃɑːtʃɑ-s wood-trsl go-pst(3sg) ‘He went for firewood’ (Dog 40) b. mɑt kɨbʎɑ nɛɲɑ-p imɑ-tko i-sɑ-m 1sg young sister-acc wife-trsl take-pst-1sg.oc ‘I took the younger sister as a wife’ (Bekker et al. 1995 I, 279; Farkovo) c. ˈkundə mɑn ɑsːə ˌyndə|di-ˈsɑ-ʋ ˈtɑʋ ˈɛdɨ-lɑ-ŋɡo long 1sg not hear|ipfv-pst-1sg.oc this village-pl-trsl ‘For a long time I did not hear about these villages’ (Hunt 118) (16) a. teːʁət pɑr|n ɛ-sɨ white steam|insc become-pst(3sg) ‘She [the snowgirl] turned into white steam’ (Snowgirl 18) b. ˈkundə Vasilij Ivanovič lɑːɣɨ-sː prʲedsʲedɑtʲelʲ|ən kɑlɣoz-ən long pn work-pst(3sg) chairman|insc kolkhoz-gen ‘For a long time Vasilij Ivanovič worked as chairman of the Kolkhoz.’ (Hunt12)

910 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

The Southern and Central Selkup translative in -wl(ʲ)e, -ɣl(ʲ)e is originally the converb of a denominal translative verb in -m (or -ŋ), for example, sɨɣr-uʋle cow-trsl ~ sɨɣr|u-ʋle cow|v-cvb ‘[growing] into a cow, becoming a cow’ (Bekker 1978, 169–170; see also Wagner-Nagy 2017a). 20.5.1.3 Possessive declension Possessor suffixes appear in four series; see Table 20.7. The case suffix precedes the possessor suffix in older cases (i.e. genitive, accusative, illative, locative, ablative, prolative), and the reverse order holds for newer cases grammaticalized from postpositions (dative-allative, animate locative and ablative, instrumental) (cf. Fedotova 2017). Translative is not used with possessor suffixes. In Ket’, monosyllabic stems take Cə-variant (vocalized) suffixes, and polysyllabic words C-variant (consonantic) suffixes, for example, in tiˈʋo-t tooth-3sg the -t is ‘consonantic,’ and in pi-tːə night-3sg the -t:ə is ‘vocalized.’ In other Selkup dialects, on the other hand, deletion of schwa has happened only in the first and second singular mə and lə, with original schwa, but not in the third-person singular, where the schwa in tə descends from PS *ta (cf. Alatalo 2018). There is syncretism of the local case illative, locative, and ablative in possessive declension, for example, the third-person singular -qəndə has an illative reading in (17a), a locative reading in (17b), and an ablative reading in (17c): (17) a. mɑːt-qɑndi tyː-ɑ-di home-lla.3sg come-aor-3du ‘They came home’ (Sisters 99) b. mɑːt-qandə [. . .] ille qutšo-lːe qoːnd-ɑ-ŋ home-lla.3sg down go.to.bed-cvb sleep-aor-3sg ‘At home he went sleeping.’ (Worms 51) c. lozi-m mɑt-qɑndə ytɨ-sa-di devil-acc house-lla.3sg send-pst-3du ‘They sent the devil out of the house’ (Itja 45) TABLE 20.7  POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES IN CENTRAL AND UPPER KET’ Number Person 1st series (nom)

2nd series (gen)

3rd series (acc)

4th series (loc)

sg

du

pl

1

-m(ə), -β(ə)

-n(n(ə))

= nom

-γən-ən/ŋ

2

-l(ə)

-nd(ə)

-γən-d(ə), -γən-ənd

3

-t(ə), -d(ə)

-mdə, -bdə; -tə [with cons. stem]

1

-mi, -βi

-ni-, nə

= nom

-γəni

2

-li

-nde, -ndi (C)

-mdi

-γəndi

3

-ti, -di

1

-mɨt, -βɨt, -ut

-nt

= nom

-γən(ə)t

2

-l(ə)t

-nt

-mdət

-γəndət

3

-dət, dɨt, -dat

-γən-d(ə)

Note: cf. Kim (1986, 192–199); Bykonya et al. (2005, 327); Castrén and Lehtisalo (1960).

SELKUP 911

Possessive NPs may consist of a possessor in the genitive or animate locative (18a), and sometimes also in the nominative, and the possession with (18a) or without a possessor suffix. Kinship terms never occur without possessor suffix. Time expressions like ‘night’ and meteorological phenomena may take possessor suffixes, as in (18b–c). Note that the night in (18b) is (possibly) referential, whereas a denominal verb construction does not allow for a referential reading, for example, pi|p-sɨ night|drv-pst ‘it became night’ (Dog 7). In (18c), the grass and the rain are both referential, but only the rain has a possessor suffix (see Budzisch 2015, 2017b; Kim 1986, 113). (18) a. tɛbə-ˈnːɑn tiˈʋo-t ˈcyːmbɑ 3sg-loc.anim tooth-3sg long ‘Her teeth are long’ (Snake 51) b. pi-tːə eːzu|ndɨ, qondu-ɡu kutʃɑ-n-dɨ night-3sg become|ipfv(aor3sg) sleep-inf lie.down-aor-3du ‘It became night, they lie down to sleep’ (Dog 19) c. ɲydʒ ɑs tʃekɑ-mbɑ serːo-t tʃɑdʒ-ɑ-ŋ grass neg dry-narr(3sg) rain-3sg go-aor-3sg ‘The grass has not dried up (yet), the rain falls.’ (Ivan 9–10) 20.5.2 Adjectives and comparison Attributive adjectives do not inflect (19), but adjectives inflect like nouns when they head NPs. (19) inːe|zɑ-t qʋe-sɑ-t ʋɑrɣə ny[l]qu-ndə brother|cr-pl go-pst-3pl big fir-ill ‘The brothers went to a big fir tree’ (Carp 5) There is no dedicated index for comparative constructions, but there are several derivational suffixes denoting high or low intensity (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 8–12; see 20.5.4). In comparative and superlative constructions, the parameter—whether adjective (20a) or adverb (20b)—is in the base form, and the standard of comparison, or the aggregate from which the superlative excels, is in the ablative (20a) or, with pronouns and possessive nouns, in the locative-ablative (20b): (20) a. suːru orupsɛ e-ŋ suːru-lɑ-nɑnːə wild.animal [= bear] strong be-aor(3sg) wild.animal-pl-abl.an ‘The bear is the strongest of the animals’ (Dog 26) b. tɑn ko|ndʒu|r-nɑ-l meŋnɑnːɨ 2sg see|ipfv|freq-aor-2sg.oc 1sg.loc.anim ‘You see better than me.’ (Eyes 18)

soː|ŋ good|adv

20.5.3 Pronouns Demonstrative pronouns, which include the third-person pronoun, inflect like substantives, but first- and second-person pronouns decline differently; see Table 20.8. The dual

912 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

and the plural forms also figure in reciprocal formations, for example, me ɲa-ʋi 1pl rec1du ‘we two each other’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 98). Personal pronouns of the first and second person have an idiosyncratic declension: (i) the genitive forms are identical to the nominative forms; (ii) the accusative forms are built with the stem ʃi- (< Proto-Samoyed *kit ‘figure,’ Janhunen 1977, 70) inflected with a possessive suffix and (optionally) with possessive pronouns, for example, (ma)-ʃi-m ‘me’, (21); (iii) the dative-allative has the ending -kV (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 80‒81); and (iv) some adverbial cases are also formed, for example, the comitative massä ‘with me,’ tassä ‘with you.’ (21) mɑn ʃində ɑs ɑm-dʒɑ-m 1sg 2sg.acc neg eat-fut-1sg.oc ‘I won’t eat you’ (Itja 62) Intensifier pronouns are based on the stem on- (Table 20.9). They appear in different meanings, depending on morphological and syntactic conditions, and can be used reflexively and to emphasize the identity of the referent spoken about (22) (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 290–293; Bekker et al. 1995 II, 86–97). (22) On-də konːɛ qʋɑn-nɨ. self-3sg ashore go.away-aor(3sg) ‘He himself went ashore.’ (IFMF 68) Demonstrative pronouns include the token-demonstratives tɑʋ, tonɑ, and nɑ. Their main distinction is deictic: tɑʋ (23) and nɑ refer to referents in close proximity to the speaker, while tona expresses distance; nɑ has lost some of its deictic meaning and is TABLE 20.8  NOMINATIVE FORM OF KET’ PERSONAL PRONOUNS sg

du

pl

1

mɑn

meː

me

2

tɑn

teː

te

3

tep, tebə

tepqɨ

tepɨt

Source: Bykonya et al. (2005, 340).

TABLE 20.9  NOMINATIVE FORMS OF THE KET’ INTENSIFIER PRONOUN (REFLEXIVE PRONOUN) sg

du

pl

oniː

onut

ondɨ, oddɨ

ondɨt, odːɨt

1

oneŋ

2

onende, ondːe

3

ondə, odːi

Source: Bykonya et al. 2005, 342.

SELKUP 913

mostly used anaphorically, that is, to indicate an object or appearance already mentioned earlier or known from the context (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 101–109). Other groups are the type-demonstratives nilʲdʲi ‘such a, this kind of’ (24), nɑndɑr ‘this way,’ and the demonstrative adverbs toː/totʲːo ‘thereto,’ nennɯ ‘then’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 114–124). (23) peːkːe tɑʋ pilekɑ-ɣən ɑːmdɨ-le qalɨ-ŋ hazel.grouse this side-loc sit-cvb stay-aor(3sg) ‘The hazel grouse stays sitting on this side.’ (Mouse 28) (24) ɑ tɛp nildʒi soː kyndɛ ɛsːu-zɑ-n but 3sg such good horse become-pst-3sg ‘but it became such a good horse.’ (Snake 80) Indefinite pronouns are formed with the borrowed particles -dɑ, -nʲibutʲ, -koj, for example, UK kulʲdʲi-dɑ-kɑ qum ‘some kind of man,’ kundɑr-nʲibutʲ ‘somehow,’ nɑɡoneŋ ‘that much’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 124–129). (25) pone|n qɑi-dɑ luki|r-nɑ outward|loc.adv what-indef knock|freq-aor(3sg) ‘Outside someone is knocking.’ (Itja 6) Interrogative pronouns include kuttɯ ‘who,’ qɑj ‘what,’ kulʲdʲi ‘what kind of,’ kundɑr ‘how,’ kuː/kutʲːa ‘whereto,’ kun(nɯ) ‘when,’ kudɡoneŋ ‘how much’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 109–114; Kuz’mina 1974). For the usage of the interrogative pronouns, see Section 20.13. Interrogative pronouns are also the base of negative pronouns, which are formed in two ways: (i) the interrogative pronoun is prefixed with nʲi- (< Russ.): nʲiqaj ‘nothing,’ nʲikutɨ ‘nobody’; (ii) the interrogative pronoun is suffixed with -naj: qajnaj ‘nothing,’ kudɨnaj ‘nobody.’ While the first way is common for Northern Selkup, the latter one is primarily used in Central and Southern Selkup (Bekker et al. II, 129–133, 177–178; Wagner-Nagy 2015). For the usage of the negative pronouns, see Section 20.14. 20.5.4 Nominal derivation Collective nouns, specified for dual or plural, are formed from kinship terms by the connective-reciprocal suffix |sə, for example, imˈɲɛ|sə-ki grandmother|cr-du ‘[he] and his grandmother’, inˈneˑ|zə-t brother|cr-pl ‘brethren’ (Hajdú 1975a). Collective plurals for tree and bush names are formed with the suffix |Saŋ (going back to a noun sæːŋqə ‘forest,’ Alatalo 2018; Hajdú [1975b] sees in this suffix the origin of the originally collective plural suffix -Saŋ of Kamas), for example, mukːo|zaŋ-di bird.cherry|coll-ill ‘into the bird cherry brushwood’ (Hunt 86). Singulatives are formed by the semisuffixes (|)lɑkɑ ‘piece, morsel’ (~ Ket’ rɑkːɑ), (|)sɑjɯ ‘eye,’ for example, Ket’ koːrɑsːɑj ‘grain of sand’ (koːrɑ ‘sand’), or |qu ‘stalk.’ Diminutive formations are built with |jo, for example, iːtʼe|joː ‘Ityenka, little Itya’ (IFMF 54), and |ka, for example, ɛːdʼa|ka ‘little Itya’ (IFMF 83). Diminutives are also employed to render low intensity of adjectives, for example, ɲuːɲo|kːɑ ‘smallish’ from ɲuːɲo ‘small’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 8–12).

914 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

The main adjectivizer is |lʲ, for example, mɑːcɑ|lʲ to forest|adj lake ‘forest lake.’ Instructive adverbs are formed with -n (homophonous with the genitive, and productive in Ket’ and Ob dialects, but replaced by the instrumental elsewhere, Alatalo 2018; see Bekker et al. 1995 I, 131–133 for discussion) (26a, b); cf. 20.5.1.2. (26) a. pi-n condʒə|n night-gen middle|loc.adv ‘in the middle of the night’ (Dog 45) b. pɨæ-m kɑːtɑː|n pɑːtšɑ|l|bi-ndɑ-tɨt tree-acc claw|insc cut.down|inch|dur-narr-3pl.oc ‘[The witches] fell the trees with claws’ (IFMF 64) Deverbal nouns are the action noun UK |ptæ ~ LK, MK |tːæ, for example, soːɣandi-tːæ ask-an ‘question’ (Hunt 18), or the instrumental noun |(p)sɑn, for example, poruptʃə- ‘to light’ → poruptʃə|sːan ‘cigarette lighter’ (Alatalo 1998, 52). 20.6 MORPHOLOGY OF THE VERB 20.6.1 Aspect Selkup verbs fall into the aspectual classes perfective and imperfective. The Selkup system is not of recent origin, its formation is not due to Russian influence (Kuznecova 1995a, 37). For Ket’, Kuznecova (1987, 208–211) lists 103 underived base verbs with their inherent aspectual value. Of these verbs, 69 stems are perfective (e.g. iː- ‘to take,’ yt- ‘to drink up,’ kuː- ‘to die’), and only 27 are imperfective (e.g. uː- ‘to swim,’ niŋɡɨ- ‘to stand,’ paʎɟu- ‘to go’). In addition, there are seven biaspectual verbs (e.g. katu- ‘to go to sleep (pfv)’ and ‘to sleep (ipfv),’ or ɨtːɨ- ‘to hang up (tr, pf)’ and ‘to hang (itr, ipfv)’). The Selkup-Russian dialect dictionary by Bykonya et al. (2005) is one of the rare lexiсal sources in which the aspect of each verb entry is specified. The inherent aspectual value determines the reading of the aorist (or present tense, see 20.6.2.2), and it can be changed by derivation (see 20.6.3); the most frequent imperfectivizer is the suffix |ku, |kːu, for example, me- ‘to make (pfv)’ > me|kːu- ‘to make (ipfv)’ (Kuznecova 1987, 71). The process of perfectivizing is usually accompanied by a change in Aktionsart, for example, qyːdɨ- ‘to be ill (ipfv)’ > qyˈtː-ɛl- ‘to fall ill (pfv)’ (Kuznecova 1987, 74). In Ket’, there are also aspectual auxiliaries in use, for instance, the deperfectivizing durative construction in (27a), in which the imperfective auxiliary meaning ‘to go’ appears with the perfective main verb mys- ‘to roast, get done’ in the basic converb form -le (see Kuznecova 1987, 73 on tʃɑːdʒi- ‘to go’). In (27b), the construction consists of two imperfective verbs, and the result is an Aktionsart specification which reinforces the inherent aspectuality rather than changing it. The full range of aspectual auxiliaries in Ket’ is not yet researched (see Behnke 2020; Voevodina 1973), but it is less extensive than in Kamas (cf. Klumpp 2005). (27) a. tutːo-lɑ mys-le tʃɑdʒɨ-sɑ-t crucian-pl roast-cvb go-pst-3pl ‘The crucian carps were becoming done.’ (Carp 32) b. tɛp qɑi-m=da=kːa tutːo-lːe tɑːdə|rə-t 3sg what-acc=indef=emph chew-cvb carry|freq-(aor)3sg.oc ‘He is chewing (away at) something.’ (Burbot 137)

SELKUP 915

20.6.2 Conjugation In the course of inflection, verbs occur in three different stems: the infinitive stem, the aorist stem, and the aorist 3sg stem (Kuznecova 1987, 14–15, 27–28). The maximal morphological structure of a verb form is depicted in Figure 20.2 and illustrated in (28a, b). Exceptions from this structure are the conditional and the conjunctive particles, which occur at the very end of the word (see 20.6.2.3). The derivation slots may contain several suffixes, for example, the three suffixes of (28b). verb root

derivation 1: valency

derivation 2: Aktionsart

finite verb inflection: tense/mood-person-number nonfinite verb inflection: infinitive/participle(-person-number)/converb

Figure 20.2. Maximal morphological structure of the Selkup verb (after Kuznecova 1987, 29–30). (28) a. qʋen|da|ku-zɨ-t go|tr|hab-pst-3sg.oc ‘he carried it’ (Eyes 2) b. mɑndʒe|l|bi|kːu-le look|inch|dur|hab-cvb ‘she (constantly) looked around [while going through the forest]’ (Sisters 13) 20.6.2.1 Person and number (argument indexing) On the verb, the category of person distinguishes two sets of endings, traditionally described as belonging to ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ conjugations. The distinction was in its origin discourse-pragmatic: the objective conjugation occurred with topical object NPs. In Selkup, however, the use of the objective conjugation is now more or less fossilized, with the result that the subjective set of person endings occurs generalized with intransitive verbs, and the objective set with transitive verbs, independent of the pragmatic status of the object referent (Kuznecova 1987, 103 for Ket’). With some ambitransitive verb stems, the person suffix reveals whether the subject is transitive or intransitive (Dixon’s A versus S) (29a–c), (30a, b). (29) a. tɛp myzɑldʒi-t 3sg wash-(aor)3sg.oc ‘s/he washed the child’

yt:ʃe-m child-acc

b. tɛp myzɑldʒi-t ondɨsijɑ-mdɨ 3sg wash-(aor)3sg.oc self-acc3sg ‘s/he washed her-/himself’ c. tɛp myzɑldʒi-ŋ 3sg wash-aor(3sg) ‘s/he washed’ (Kuznecova 1987, 87)

916 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

(30) a. tɛβ-ɑm somdʒi-t 3sg-acc cure-(aor)3sg.oc ‘the sorcerer cured him/her’

sombɨri+qum sorcerer+person

b. tɛp somdʒi-ŋ sombɨri+quβɑ-nːɑn 3sg cure-aor(3sg) sorcerer+person-loc.anim ‘s/he got cured at the sorcerer’s’ (Kuznecova 1987, 88) In auxiliary constructions, person indexing occurs on the auxiliary, as with the phasal verb oldɨ- ‘begin’ in (31): (31) peke|kɑ oldɨ-t mostə-m me|ku-ɡu hazel.grouse|dim start-(aor)3sg.oc bridge-acc make|hab-inf ‘The hazel grouse started to make a bridge.’ (Hazelgrouse 19) In Ket’, dual subject indexes show no distinction of SC and OC at all, but in other Selkup dialects, the third-person dual has two different endings: SC -qə, OC -tiː. In Ket’, the OC ending has been generalized. This change, however, is fairly recent: sources from the beginning of the twentieth century still report two endings (cf. Alatalo 2018). Further syncretism is underway: while the literature (e.g. Kuznecova 1995a, 1995b) reports distinct endings for the third plural, texts no longer show this distinction. The person and number indexing suffixes of Ket’ are displayed in Table 20.10. The imperative has a distinct set of endings (see 20.6.2.3). 20.6.2.2 Tense and evidentiality There are five tense forms, the aorist (or present tense), the past tense, the future, the narrative, and the perfect. The aorist also called tempus absolutum, has a present-tense reading with imperfective verbs, but an immediate past reading with perfective verbs. This tense is encoded by heterogeneous means, depending on the stem type of the verb: generally with -n(V) (and phonetic variants), but with monosyllabic vowel stems taking *-ŋ(V) > -V (where -ŋ is preserved in 3sg of eː- ‘to be,’ eːŋ ‘is’), and with polysyllabic alternating-vowel stems taking -Ø (see ipːi- ‘to lie’ in Table 20.11;

TABLE 20.10  PERSONAL (ARGUMENT-INDEXING) SUFFIXES IN KET’ sg

du (-j/i)

pl (-t)

sc

oc

1

-ŋ

-m, -β

-o, -j

-o-t

2

-ndɨ, -dːɨ

-l

-l-i

-li-t

3

-ŋ -n -Ø

-t, -tɨ

-t-i

-t

Source: Kuznecova (1995a, 161–162).

sc

oc

-t-ɨt -t-tɨ

SELKUP 917

Table 20.11 Aorist 3sg according to verb stems Suffix

-ŋ

-ɑ

-C

Stem type

-ə

-u

Derived -i

Original -i

Consonant

Example

sitə‘to awaken’ sidə-ŋ

pɑltʃu‘to go around’ pɑltʃu-ŋ

siti‘to wake up’ sidi-ŋ

ipːi‘to lie’ ipːɑ

quən‘to go away’ quən-nə

Source: Alatalo (2001, 6).

Kuznecova 1987, 114–116); before vowel-initial suffixes, there appears a connecting consonant -j or -β, or -ɣ. Wagner-Nagy (2011, 65) calls the aorist an unmarked tense with different ‘linking elements.’ Besides the immediate past reference of the aorist, there is an unambiguous past tense with the suffix -s(V) (Kuznecova 1987, 116–117). It occurs in all Selkup dialects (dialectally also as -h) and denotes an action in the remote past. Examples (32a, b) illustrate past-tense reference with the aorist vs. the past tense from a narrative. The perfective verb tyː- ‘to come’ in the aorist occurs in (32a) in a context in which one of the events in the main story line is told, whereas in (32b) an event before the story is mentioned, and the verb now appears in the past tense: (32) a. tɛp ˈtyː-ʋɑ-n qɛ-n maˈco-ndə 3sg come-aor-3sg steep.bank-gen Taiga-ill ‘He came to the forest river [and asked: . . .]’ (Hunt 56) b. ˈtyː-sɑ-ŋ ˈtɑʋ ˈɛːto-ndə ˈmydɑ-n ˌmɑndəˈziː-leʋle come-pst-1sg this village-ill war-gen pass-ant.cvb ‘I came into this village after the war had passed.’ (Hunt 119) In addition, there is a narrative aorist based on a predicatively used participle in -ntV (see next in 20.6.2.4). The participle does not combine with tense-mood markers or with the infinitive (i.e. it does not make new verbs) and is therefore considered a tense suffix in its own right (Kuznecova 1991, 139). It has the same tense readings as the aorist (i.e. immediate past with perfective and present tense with imperfective verbs, op. cit., 140), but with evidential, specifically non-eyewitnessed, readings (Kuznecova 1987, 151–162, 1991) (33a). Evidentiality works most clearly where the suffix follows a resultative formation in -(m)pV- (33b): (33) a. tʃɑːtʃɑ-s, tʃɑːtʃɑ-s, qoʎɟi-t ɲyno mɑkkɑ ɑmdɨ-ndɨ. go-pst(3sg) go-pst(3sg) see-(aor)3sg.oc small house.dim stand-narr(3sg) ‘She went and went and sees: a little house is standing’ (Kuznecova 1991, 142) b. opːo-m cibi+qum-dɨ qʷɘlɨ tɑt|pɨ-ndɑ-t sister-1sg husband+person-3sg fish bring|res-narr-3sg.oc ‘My sister’s husband has (obviously) brought fish’ (Kuznecova 1991, 141)

918 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

The perfect in -(m)p-, -(m)b- is also called a narrative past (Gal’cova and Kuznecova 1993, 289; Wagner-Nagy 2011, 66). It has a clear perfect meaning with taxis function, as in (34), and further indirective and evidential meanings. (34) təp cɑrɑ-ŋ mɑn ɑm-bɑ-m 3sg say-aor(3sg) 1sg eat-perf-1sg.oc ‘He says: I’ve eaten [before].’ (Gal’cova and Kuznecova 1993, 292) Immediate future (prospective) reference has the form -(n)tʃə-, which is a derivational desiderative suffix in origin. According to Kuznecova (1987, 119), in Ket it is no longer a derivative, as it does not occur with the infinitive. (35) yndə|ti-mdə tymbɑne, tyː-ndʒɑ-ŋ, mezɑni tɑn opti ɑm-dʒɑ-ŋ hear|dur-imp3sg.oc wolf come-fut-3sg 1pl.acc 2sg with eat-fut-3sg ‘[Whom are you barking at,] the wolf must be hearing it, he will come and eat you and me.’ (Dog 11) 20.6.2.3 Mood In addition to the zero-marked indicative, there are four moods: the imperative, the adhortative-optative, the conditional, and the conjunctive. The imperative is restricted to the second and the third person. It is characterized by a specific set of personal suffixes in the singular (see Table 20.12) (originally also in the other numbers). Often, a reflex of the historical imperative suffix *-ŋə (> -ɑ, -nɑ, -ɡɑ) precedes the personal ending, for example, mi-ˈɡɑ-k give-imp-imp2sg give! The adhortative is the functional equivalent to the imperative in the first person. The marker is -l(V)-. This suffix participates in a full person paradigm in other dialects, where it is called optative (Kuznecova 1987, 100–102). (36) illustrates the imperative and the adhortative. (36) yŋɡɑldʒɨ|mb-ɑk, cumbɑne, oqːemɨʁan ilːɨ-l-o listen|dur-imp.2sg wolf together live-adh-1du ‘Listen, wolf, let’s live together!’ (Kuznecova 1987, 100) The conditional has the ending -me as in (37), where it occurs on the modal operator nado borrowed from Russian. According to Kuznecova (1987, 111–112), there is free variation between this synthetic formation and an analytic one in which the conditional consists of a verb in the aorist followed by the particle eːme (i.e. the conditional of the TABLE 20.12  IMPERATIVE CONJUGATION sg sc

du oc

sc

pl oc

sc

2

-ɑk

-tɨ

-ɑli

-ɑt, -ɑlɨt

3

-j, -i

-mti

-ɑti

-ɑtɨt, -ɑtti

Source: cf. Zyryanova (2001, 59).

oc

SELKUP 919

verb eː- ‘to be’), for example, tyː-ma-ndə come-cond-2sg ~ tyː-ndə eː-me come-(aor)2sg be-cond(3sg) ‘if you come.’ (37) qɑn qum nɑdo-me-ŋ how.much person be.necessary-cond-3sg ‘How many men would be necessary?’ (Fire 12) Parallel synthetic (38a) and analytic (38b) formation is also a characteristic of the conjunctive. It has the suffix -ne, or the analytic formation has the main verb in the past tense, and the particle is again formed from the copula verb. The analytic formation was gaining productivity, whereas the synthetic formation was found only with a restricted number of verbs (Kuznecova 1987, 112–113). The synthetic form, however, may be accompanied by the Russian irrealis particle by (38a). The conjunctive describes an unrealized hypothetical action in the past: (38) a. tɛp bɨ kuː-nɛ-n 3sg irr die-conj-3sg ‘He would have died.’ b. man maco-ddɨ kwessa-ŋ ɛː-ne 1sg forest-ill go.pst-1sg be-conj(3sg) ‘I would have gone to the forest.’ (Kuznecova 1987, 113) 20.6.2.4 Nonfinite verb forms Nonfinite verb forms are an infinitive, several participles, and two converbs. The ending of the infinitive is -ku/-ɡu. It functions as a complement of phasal verbs (39), modal verbs, as a purposive complement (see Section 20.12), and as subject clause complement (see Section 20.11). (39) tɛp oťťel-gu e-s, oťťel-gu old-ɑ-t, ɑkkol 3sg take.away-inf be-pst(3sg) take.away-inf start-aor-3sg.oc again sero|ńńi. rain|inch.aor(3sg) ‘He wanted to take it away, when he started to take it, it began to rain again.’ (MK; Kuznecova 1987, 170) The present participle in -Vntɨ is formed from imperfective verbs only (primary or derived), for example, MK ɑβi̮ r-i̮ ntɨ, UK ɑβi̮ r-i̮ ddɨ eat-ptcp.prs ‘eating’ (Kuznecova 1987, 144–145). The past participle is -(m)pVntɨ, or in a shorter form, -(m)pV, for example, MK matʃa-mbənti wəcci cut-pst.ptcp meat ‘cut meat,’ neː|ta-mbi qum woman|v-pst. ptcp person ‘married man’ (Kuznecova 1987, 148). The attributive participles end in -i, which results from the attributive adjective marker -j (see noun formation). In predicative use, the -i is absent (see 20.6.2.2). There is also a caritive participle in -kVtɨ, for example, qüːdi̮ -ɡi̮ dɨ qum be.ill-ptcp. car person ‘a person who is not ill’ (Kuznecova 1987, 149–150). Castrén reported two more participles which are not acknowledged by Kuznecova (1987) for the Ket’ dialect, but elsewhere. These are the destinative participle in -(p)sa as for example, kueltsá qum

920 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

kʋel-t-sɑ ɡum fish-denom.v-dest.ptcp person ‘fisherman’ and the debitive (or future) participle in -(p)sotːi, for example, tjaadesotte qum cādə-sotːi ɡum ‘ignite-deb.ptcp person ‘a person who ought to light’ (see, for example, Cheremisina and Martynova 1991, 46). The general converb in -le has an anterior reading with perfective verbs (40a) and a simultaneous reading with imperfective verbs (40b). It is used in phasal constructions (40c, d), along with the infinitive (see previous). The anterior converb -leʋle is grammaticalized from the combination of the general converb with a postposition puːle ‘after,’ which is a petrified converb form of the verb pū- ‘сross over’ (i.e. < *-lä pū-lä, cf. Kuznecova 1995a, 196); see (40e). Note that in (40e), the verb is imperfective, and in order to obtain the anterior reading, the use of the anterior converb is compulsory. As the examples show, the converb can be used in different- and same-subject function. (40) a. ɛsːɛ-m ty-lʲɛ ɛβːɛ-m itɑr-ɡu oldɨ-t father-1sg come-cvb mother-1sg cook-inf start-(aor)3sg.oc ‘When my father (had) arrived my mother started cooking’ (Kuznecova 1995a, 192) b. lozʲe lukɨr-le, lukɨr-le, ice ɑsːɨ nyː|ku-t devil knock-cvb knock-cvb Itya not open|hab-(aor)3sg.oc ‘While the devil was knocking and knocking, Itya didn’t open (the door)’ (Kuznecova 1995a, 193) c. muːdɨ-le old-ɑ-ŋ bark-cvb start-aor-1sg ‘I started barking’ (Kuznecova 1995a, 192) d. pɑː-lɑ-m-dɨt silə|mbi-le mitːɨ|r-za-dɨt knife-pl-acc-3pl sharpen|dur-cvb achieve|freq-pst-3pl.oc ‘They finished sharpening their knives’ (Carp 79) e. ɑβɨr-leʋle qondu-ɡu kutʃɑ-s-o eat-ant.cvb sleep-inf lie-pst-1du ‘Having eaten, we lay down to sleep’ (Kuznecova 1995a, 196) A specialized converb is the caritive converb, for example, quː-ˈɡunɟɑːlək ‘without dying’ (Alatalo 2018). 20.6.3 Verbal derivation The Selkup verb is quite rich in productive derivational morphology. Among denominal verbs we find translative verbs (‘to become X’) in |m (which are perfective), for example, meχaniguː|m- ‘to become a mechanic,’ or in |r, for example, ulɢo|r- ‘to freeze, to ice over’ (ulɢo ‘ice); captative verbs in |j, for example, suːruj- ‘to hunt’ (< suːrəm|əj-, suːrəm, gen suːru-n ‘wild animal, bird’); odorative verbs in |nʲə, for example, quələ|ńə- ‘to smell of fish’ (quələ ‘fish’) (Alatalo 2018), and others. Among deverbal verbs, the two most important groups centre on valency and Aktionsart. Valency-changing suffixes (Kuznecova 1987, 48–62) are the transitivizers |rə, for

SELKUP 921

example, nʲimə|rə- ‘to suckle, breast-feed’ (nʲim- ‘to suck’), |tə and |ptə, and |ltʃɘ, and the intransitivizer |ku, for example, nyː|ɡu- ‘to open’ (nyː- ‘to open tr’), or -ɨ, for example, ɑm- ‘to eat’ : ɑβː-ɨ- ‘to be eaten up, to be consumed,’ tɑqːɨl- ‘to collect, to gather tr’ : tɑqːɨl-ɨ- ‘to gather itr’ (Bolsunovskaya 1998, 16). Aktionsart derivation across Selkup dialects was studied by Bolsunovskaya (1998, 1996); for Ket’ imperfectivizers and perfectivizers, see Kuznecova (1987, 71–75). Here belong semelfactive verbs in |qɨl-, for example, qot-qɨl- ‘to cough (once)’ (qot- ‘to cough’), or -ˈɑl, -ˈol (these suffixes are always stressed), for example, ɲesːɨ-ˈɑl- ‘to roll (prf)’ (ɲesːɨ- ‘to roll [ipfv]’), lɑqː-ˈol- ‘to make a move’ (lɑqːɨ‘to move’); multiplicative (frequentative) and durative verbs in |(m)bɨ, for example, coqːol|bɨ- ‘to beat in (nails; multiobjective reading)’ (coqːol- ‘to beat in (nail)’), pən|bɨ- ‘to keep’ (pən- ‘to put’), poru|mbɨ- ‘to burn’ (porːu- ‘to blaze up’); habitual (and imperfective) verbs in |ku, frequently applied in imperfectivizing verbs; inchoative verbs in |l (41). (41) ˈqʋɛri-lɑ ʋasːe-lə-ʋɑ-tːə crow-pl fly-inch-aor-3pl ‘[Crows were sitting on the road.] The crows flew up’ (Snake 17) Stative verbs in -(m)p may function in a passive construction (Kuznecova 1987, 91; cf. Siegl 2013, 404), with the agent flagged by instrumental case and the verb in a derived form, cf. (42a, b). (42) a. ɛsːɛ-m orɑnnɨ-t qʋəlɑ-m father-1sg catch.aor-3sg.oc fish-acc ‘my father caught a/the fish’ b. qʷəlɨ orɑl-p-ɑ (ɛsːɛ-p-sɛ) fish catch-pass-aor(3sg) father-1sg-inst ‘the fish was caught (by my father)’ (Kuznecova 1987, 91) Another verb-formation device, suspended between syntax and derivation, and an areal trait shared between Selkup und Ob-Ugric (besides negation), is the use of preverbs (Bykonya and Bekker 1980; see Section 20.7). 20.7 ADPOSITIONS AND ADVERBIALS Adpositions in Selkup are almost exclusively postpositions. The approximately 140 postpositions (Glushkov et al. 2011, 60) can be classified into serial and non-serial postpositions (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 180). Serial here refers to the fact that the postposition in question occurs with a range of different local cases (lative, locative, ablative, prolative), as for example, in (43a–c). The head noun is usually in the genitive; some postpositions, however, occur with other case forms, for example, the prolative in Taz sōľ-myn tō throatpro at ‘up to the neck’ (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 315). For Taz, sporadic replacement of genitive by nominative has been observed (ib.). Many postpositions are relational nouns, often body part terms like kö ‘side/rib,’ qaːt ‘forehead’ (see Harder 2017 for more details). Examples of non-serial postpositions include cumbu ‘among,’ tenne ‘until,’ cɑt ‘because of,’ tʃit ‘about’ (see more in Bekker et al. 1995 II, 191–215).

922 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

(43) a. teb-ɑnːi polʲenɑ|kːɑ-n pɑːri-ndɨ ʋeɟi+kusːoːɡ-əm pen-nɑ-t 3sg-dat/all log|dim-gen top-ill meat+piece-acc put-aor-3sg.oc ‘He put a piece of meat for her on top of a log’ (Sisters 22) b. ɑsːə ˈtobɑ|n, ɑ ˈkyndɑ-n ˈpɑr-qɨn not foot-ins but horse-gen top-loc ‘not on foot, but on horseback’ (Snake 83) c. loɣɑ-n moɣo-ʋət kurɑnnə fox-gen back-pro run.aor(3sg) ‘He runs after the fox’ (Fox 2) Prepositions code-copied from Russian are attested as well, for example, to (< Russian до ‘until’), used as a preposition in combination with the illative case in (44): (44) nɛnːə ɑj qondɛ-mbɑ-ŋ to qaro-t-tə then again sleep-narr-1sg until morning-3sg-ill ‘Then I slept again until the morning’ (Eagle 11) Adverbs are built with |ŋ, for example, soː|ŋ ‘well’ (soː ‘good’). A substantial number of adverbs are used in preverbal position, for example, elʼe ‘down,’ inne ‘up,’ toj ‘away,’ and others. These preverbs are well known from the Ob-Ugric languages and from Hungarian, where they came to participate in aspect formation in ways somewhat reminiscent of Slavonic. Examples from Taz are ɨnnæ ‘up’ (45a), or toː ‘off, away’ (45b) (see Bykonya and Bekker 1980; Janurik 1978b; Kuznecova et al. 1980, 310–313 for more details). (45) a. tə̄typy ɨnnä šɨm mē-ŋa shaman up 1sg.acc make-aor(3sg) ‘the shaman reanimated me (lit. made me up)’ (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 312) b. ima-n-ty nɔ̄ny qomtä muntyk tō i-sy-ty woman-gen-3sg from money all away take-pst-3sg.oc ‘he took all of the money away from the woman’ (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 313) 20.8 NUMERALS The cardinal numerals are set out in Table 20.13 (for variants, see Bykonya et al. 2005, 343, and the data in Alatalo 2004 and Honti 1993). In the formation of the numerals ‘eight’ and ‘nine,’ Selkup differs from the other Samoyed languages in using a pattern ‘2/1 are missing from ten,’ thereby showing a structural parallel with Ket (Toporov 1964, 128). The operative morpheme here (-cɑːdə-) is a contracted form of the negative existential copula cɑːŋku ‘is missing, does not exist’ (cf. Alatalo 2004, 224). The teens are formed from the numeral køːt ‘10’ and the word gøj ‘in addition,’ for example, UK okːɨr kʋej køːt ‘11.’ Multiples of ten are formed with the opaque word sɑːrəm, which is etymologically related to the verbal stem PS *särǝ- ‘bind’ and originally meant ‘bunch, bundle’ (Janhunen 1977, 137–138; Honti 1993, 212; Bykonya 1996a). Additional higher numerals are køːt toːn ten hundred ‘1,000,’ køːdən køːt toːn ten-gen ten hundred ‘10,000,’ and køːt toːnən køːt toːn ten hundred-gen ten hundred ‘one million’ (Alatalo 1998, 149).

SELKUP 923 TABLE 20.13  CARDINAL NUMERALS IN KET’ SELKUP 1 okːə(r)

11 okːər ɡøj ɡøt

2 ʃitːə

12 ʃitːə ɡøj ɡøt

20 sisːɑːrəm

3 nɑːɡur

13 nɑːɡur ɡøj ɡøt

30 nɑːrsɑːrəm

4 teːtːə

14 teːtːə ɡøj ɡøt

40 teːsːɑːrəm

5 sombəle(ŋɡə)

15 sombəle ɡøj ɡøt

50 somblesɑːrəm

6 muktut

16 muktət ɡøj ɡøt

60 muksɑːrəm

7 seːlɟu

17 seːlɟu ɡøj ɡøt

70 seː(lɟu)sɑːrəm

8 ʃitːəcɑːdəɡøt

18 ʃitːəcasːisɑːrəm

80 ʃitsɑːrcaːldoːn

9 okːərcɑːdəɡøt

19 okːərcasːisɑːrəm

90 okːərsɑːrcaːldoːn

10 køːt

100 toːn

Ordinal numerals are regularly formed with the suffix |mteːldʒi, for example, nɑːrumteːldʒi ‘third,’ but ɑːnuːkːoj ‘first’ is syncretic, based on a stem with the meaning ‘front part’ (see Bykonya 1996b for cross-dialectal details). Collective numerals are formed with possessive suffixes, as in (46): (46) pɑjɑ tidɑm qɑlːi-ɑ-di i-n dopti ʃɨtːɛ-di woman now remain-aor-3du son-gen together two-3du ‘The woman and her son remained now, (as) the two of them’ (Snake 7) Numeral adverbs are, for example, naːrɨŋ ‘three times’ (Bear 7). For more numeral formations, see Bekker et al. (1995 II, 136–156). 20.9 BASIC CLAUSE TYPES The syntax of Selkup has not been thoroughly explored; see, however, Tereshchenko 1973; Kuznecova et al. 1980, 354–406. As stated previously, word order in Selkup is dominantly SOV, with pragmatic word order changes, and a change towards SVO has been observed due to Russian influence. The grammatical subject usually appears in clause-initial position, in the nominative; pronouns in subject role are regularly omitted in all tenses, arguments being indexed by person suffixes on the verb; see, for example, example (44). Selkup is a nominative-accusative language; grammatical relations are mostly morphologically marked (see DOM in the following for exceptions). Indexing on the verbal predicate usually shows agreement in number; there are, however, deviations, for example, dual subject NP with singular or plural predicate (47); (cf. Pozdeeva 2015): (47) ʃitːə inːe-sɨ-qə oɣɑdʒu|kʋ-ɑ-dɨ two brother-cr-du learn|hab-aor-3pl ‘Two brothers are studying’ (UK, Pozdeeva 2015, 176) Coordination of clauses is typically achieved by juxtaposition (i.e. without conjunctions) or else with conjunctions borrowed from Russian (e.g. и i ‘and,’ или ili ‘or’).

924 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Nonfinite constructions with converbs and participles can function as coordinating devices (mainly in Central and Southern dialects) (48). For subordination of clauses, see Sections 20.10–20.12. (48) lozi ice-n moqːo|n yti|mbi-le nɑ my-ndə cecːo|lɟi-ŋ devil pn-gen back|loc.adv let.go|dur-cvb this hole-ill fall|int.pfv-aor(3sg) ‘The devil runs after Itya and falls into the hole.’ (Itja 22) 20.9.1 Intransitive clauses The majority of intransitive verbs are indexed with suffixes of the SC. There are, however, incidences of indexing with suffixes of the OC, as in examples (7c) and (51b) (see also Budzisch 2021 and Section 20.6.2.1 for conjugation types). Copula (including existential) and possessive clauses (clause-level possession) involve the copula verbs e- ‘to be’ and ɛsɨ- ‘to become.’ The copula complement can be a noun, adjective, or adverb, and the copula may sometimes be omitted (49a). Also in existential sentences, the copula verb is e- ‘to be,’ as in Selkup there is no distinction between ‘to be’ and ‘to exist’ as in Northern Samoyed languages (Budzisch 2017a, 59). In all Selkup dialects, existential clauses are characterized by the position of the locational adjunct before the copula subject (49b), while in locative clauses, the copula subject precedes the location (49c). Use of the copula, however, is not obligatory, as (49c) shows. (49) a. tyː qoj fire rich ‘The fire is rich’ (Carp 89) b. kundɑkɑ=tɑ=kɑ ɛ-ɑ-t:ə, cɛrɑ-n, where=indef=emph be-aor-3pl say-aor(3sg) ‘Somewhere, he says, are crows’ (Snake 95)

qʋɛri-lɑ crow-pl

c. tebə-n pidə-t cuː-n puːtʃo-ɣən 3sg-gen nest-3sg earth-gen inside-loc ‘Its nest is below the ground.’ (Mouse 5) The possessor is in the animate locative in Central and Southern Selkup (in Northern Selkup, a genitive-plus-postposition locative construction is used, see Budzisch 2017a, 56–59). Zero copula is possible in predicative possessive sentences (Budzisch 2017a, 58) (50), in which case the possessor suffix is obligatory; otherwise, it is optional (Budzisch 2017a, 60), cf. (51a, b). (50) ma-nan faː tolʼǯʼe-m 1sg-loc.anim good ski-1sg ‘I have good skis.’ (Central Selkup, Narym; Budzisch 2017a, 58) (51) a. irːɑ-nːɑn dɑ pɑjɑ-nːɑn e-sːa-n man-loc.anim and woman-loc.anim be-pst-3sg ‘The man and woman had one son’(Snake 2)

okːɨr iː-də one son-3sg

SELKUP 925

b. tɑb-lɑ-nɑn ɛ-zɑː-dɨt ɛlʼmɑːd-lɑ: 3sg-pl-loc.anim be-pst-3pl.oc child-pl ‘They had children.’ (Southern Selkup, Middle Ob; Budzisch 2017a, 58) 20.9.2 Transitive clauses The direct object in a transitive clause in Selkup can be flagged with either accusative or nominative. According to Wegener (2018), who analyzed a small corpus of Central and Southern Selkup texts, the vast majority of direct objects are flagged with the accusative, regardless of the number of the object; nonetheless, some objects do occur in the nominative (52a). Pronominal direct objects are exclusively flagged with the accusative. Nominal direct objects with nominative flagging are often part of a complex construction, such as a direct object phrase or a coordinated direct object. Also, the imperative mood usually occurs with nominative noun objects (especially in Ket’, see Bekker et al. 1995 I, 115–116), but only with nominal direct objects: pronominal direct objects are, as always, in the accusative even when they are the object argument of an imperative. The majority of possessed direct objects is flagged with the accusative, but here, too, nominative objects can be found (52b). The proportions remain the same as for non-possessed objects. A direct correlation between the flagging of the direct object and the notion of definiteness as stated in, for example, Tereshchenko (1973, 181) and Kuznecova et al. (1980, 384) is not probable (see Budzisch 2021, 153). (52) a. to-ndə miːtː-ɑ-t, mɛ-ɣɑ-t ɛrːermu lake-ill reach-aor-3pl make-aor-3pl ice.hole ‘They arrived at the lake, made an ice hole’ (IFMF 36) b. yndu-ŋ tɛbə-n qɑːrɨ-t hear-(aor)1sg 3sg-gen cry-3sg ‘I heard his yelp’ (Hunt 105) Transitive verbs are indexed with suffixes of the OC or the SC; the degree to which the selection is automatized (i.e. lack of SC inflection on transitive verbs) and to how much is preserved of a discourse-pragmatic organization (with OC marking the topicality of the DO as in Ob-Ugric) has not been systematically researched; for the use of the conjugations, see also 20.6.2.1. 20.9.3 Ditransitive clauses Ditransitive clauses consist of an agent in the nominative (which may be represented by argument indexing alone (53a)), a theme in the nominative or accusative (see DOM), and a recipient flagged for illative or dative (Wagner-Nagy 2017b, 256; Behnke 2021, 102–110). In Northern Selkup, the theme can also be flagged with the instrumental; the recipient is then in the accusative (see Kuznecova et al. 1980; Wagner-Nagy and Szeverényi 2013). (53) a. irɑ-nːe mʲi-ɣɑ-t ʃitːə tuto old.man-dat give-aor-3sg.oc two crucian ‘He gives two crucian carp to the old man.’ (Carp 13)

926 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

b. mɑn tɛndɑni mi-ndʒa-m oqːi kynde-m 1sg 2sg.dat give-fut-1sg.oc one horse-acc ‘I will give you a horse’ (Snake 56) 20.10 RELATIVE CLAUSES Relative clauses are expressed mainly with participles functioning as attributes. The common argument is in subject (54a) or object (54b) function in the relative clause. (54) a. qɑiŋgo ɑsːə qʋɛn-nɑ-ndə ty-n poru-mbɨdi tʃʋɛtʃo-ndə why not go.away-aor-2sg fire-gen burn-ptcp.pst place-ill ‘Why don’t you go to the place where the fire was burning’ (Fire 17) b. qʋɛrɣɨ-n orɑl-bɛdi qum qɑːlɨ-ŋ iːlːɨ-le bear-gen hold-ptcp.prs person stay-aor(3sg) live-cvb ‘The man who had been seized by the bear stayed alive’ (Bear 14) Relative clauses introduced with a pronoun are not typical of Selkup; they are most likely a structural loan from Russian. In Selkup, the interrogative pronouns function as relative pronouns, without correlative demonstratives (‘those who’) (55): (55) mɑn ɑsːə soːrɑ-ʋ kutɨ-lɑ sitʲe-mbɑ-ttə sɑʋetskij ʋlɑzi-m 1sg not love-(aor)1sg.oc who-pl slander-narr-3pl.oc Soviet power-acc ‘I don’t like [those] who slandered the Soviet power’ (Hunt 66) In addition to the use of relative pronouns, a paratactic strategy is used. The relative clause follows the noun without further introduction: (56) nɛːnːɛ pidʒe-mbədi oːlɨ qum qɛn-nɨ-t qɑn=dɑ ɛːdʒɨ-m then cut.down-ptcp.pst.adj head man say-aor-3sg.oc how=indef word-acc mɑn ɑsːə toːlgu|k-sɑ-ʋ 1sg not understand|hab-pst-1sg.oc ‘Then the shaved-headed man said some words I didn’t understand.’ (Hunt 63) 20.11 COMPLEMENT CLAUSES Complement clauses in Selkup show the following patterns: (i) interrogative complement clauses with either bifinite (two finite verb forms) (57) or participial strategy (58), combined with an interrogative pronoun; (ii) paratactic complements (59); (iii) infinitive complements (always same-subject) (60); and (iv) subject clauses with infinitive (61). Complement clauses usually follow the matrix clause, but they can sometimes precede it (57): (57) qutʲɛ qu-lɑ qɑtːo-lu-mbɑ-tːə on-də nɑːsi where person-pl disappear-res-narr-3pl self-3sg emph.neg nɑːsːɛ tinːə-ʋo-t emph.neg know-aor-3sg.oc ‘Where the humans disappeared to, he does not know himself.’ (Snake 35)

SELKUP 927

(58) qɑi mɑt-qɑn e-ndɨ yŋɑ|ʎdʒi|mbi what house-loc be-ptcp.prs listen|int.pfv|dur(aor3sg) ‘he’s listening (to find out whether) somebody is home’ (Itja 54) (59) yndɨ|ti-t qɑj=dɑ tʃadʒɑ-ŋ hear|ipfv-(aor)3sg.oc what=indef go-aor.3sg ‘He hears (that) somebody is going around’ (Itja 51) (60) kənːɑ-lɑ ɑsːə tɨnʋɨ-sɑ-t uː|l|pi-ku dog-pl neg know-pst-3pl swim|inch|dur-inf ‘Dogs were not able to swim’ (Lgov 18) (61) ʃite-qəni ilːə-gu soː e-ndʒɑ-ŋ two-loc live-inf good be-fut-3sg ‘It will be good to live together’ (Dog 18)

20.12 ADVERBIAL CLAUSES In temporal clauses, anteriority is expressed by the anterior converb (62) or by the general converb (63) (usually with perfective verbs). Posteriority may be also expressed by converbs (64a) or by conjunctions borrowed from Russian: как ‘how’ (64b), пока ‘while’ (64c), or когда ‘when.’ (62) inːe-zɑ-t po-m tat-leʋle, tyː-m pe-sːɑ-dɑt brother-cr-pl wood-acc bring-ant.cvb fire-acc put-pst-3pl.oc ‘Having brought wood the brothers put a fire’ (Carp 92) (63) pɑː-lɑ-m-dɨt silɑ|mbi-lːe ne|j+qu-lɑ-m-dɑt knife-pl-acc-3pl.oc sharpen|dur-cvb woman|adj+person-pl-acc-3pl macːe-sɑ-dɑt cut.ipfv-pst-3pl.oc ‘After they had sharpened their knives, they killed their wives.’ (Carp 75) (64) a. tyː-le [. . .] cɛre-ndʒi-ŋ come-cvb say-fut-3sg ‘When he comes home, he will say: . . .’ (Sisters 39) b. qɑqə mɑn terbe-ndʒo-ŋ tyː-ndʒɑ-lɨt how 1sg think-fut-1sg come-fut-2pl ‘When I think (of you), you will come.’ (Snake 43) c. pɑkːɑ qɑːrɑ-m yt-tə pen-dʒi-zɨ-t merge|n-nɨ while fish.trap-acc water-ill put-ipfv-pst-3sg.oc wind|vblz-aor(3sg) i coːʋɑ|ldʒi-ŋ and snow|int.pfv-aor(3sg) ‘As she put the fish trap into the water it became windy and started to snow’ (Sisters 9)

928 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Final (purposive) clauses are built with the infinitive and always have the same subject as the matrix clause (65): (65) tidɑm tɛp nɑk mɑːt-qɨnɛ qʋɛsːə kuːn=ɛmɑ so now 3sg also house-abl go.away.pst(3sg) where=indef good ila-tːɛ|j+mu-m pe-gu live-an|adj+abst-acc search-inf ‘Now he also goes away from home in order to search somewhere for a good life’ (Snake 13) Conditional clauses are built with a borrowed conjunction (Ru. если [бы]) (66a) or by a paratactic strategy without conjunction (66b): (66) a. jesʼli=ʋ tɑt tɛpːɨ-lɑ-m qotːɛ mitɑ|r-endʒɑ-l if=irr 2sg 3sg-pl-acc on.one’s.back reach|freq-fut-2sg.oc kyndi+mɑːt-tɛ mɑn mi-ndʒa-m teŋgɑ okːə kynde-m horse+house-ill 1sg give-fut-1sg.oc 2sg.dat one horse-acc ‘If you will put them back in the stable, I will give one horse to you’ (Snake 62) b. tɑt tinːuʋɨ-mːa-l qɛt-tɨ 2sg know-cond-2sg.oc say-imp.2sg.oc ‘If you know, tell me’ (IFMF 5) Caritive clauses are built with the caritive converb (67), and essive clauses (Wagner-Nagy 2017a) are constructed via a denominal verb strategy with paired verbs: (67) qɑrʲi-mən ʋəsːə-leʋle qʋən-nɨ ɑʋɨr-kundʲɛlok morning-prol get.up-ant.cvb go.away-aor(3sg) eat-car.cvb ‘Having gotten up in the morning he left without eating’ (Sisters 24) (68) pødɑr lɑːɣɨ-s mexaniguː|m|bɨ|ku-s pn work-pst(3sg) mechanic|trl|dur|hab-pst(3sg) ‘Fedor worked as a mechanic’ (Hunt 22). 20.13 QUESTIONS Questions operate with interrogative pronouns, as in (69a). The interrogative qɑj(in) ‘what’ has been reported as functioning as a question particle (69b). However, questions are not necessarily marked morphologically, as (69c) shows. (69) a. qɑiŋo tɑn ʃim serːo|ptɨ-mbɑ-ndə? why 2sg 1sg.acc rain|caus-narr-2sg ‘Why did you pour rain on me?’ (Ivan 49) b. Turukhan (Bykonya et al. 2005, 65) tɑt qɑj sɑj-qɑlɨk e-ŋɑ-ndɨ? 2sg ip eye-car be-aor-2sg ‘Are you blind?’

SELKUP 929

c. tɑn ɑsːə ɛːʋɨ|ldʒi|mbɑ-l 2sg not forget|int.pfv|dur-(aor)2sg.oc ‘You didn’t forget Fedor?’ (Hunt 17)

pødɑr-əm? pn-acc

20.14 NEGATION With its lack of a negation verb, Selkup patterns not with the other Samoyed languages but rather with Ugric. There are two standard negation particles, ɑsːɨ ~ ɑs(ː) ‘not’ (Taz ɑʃːɑ ~ ɑʃ   ) and prohibitive ɨkːɨ (Taz ɨkɨ) (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 237), which are combined with the affirmative verb form (symmetric negation, cf. Wagner-Nagy 2011, see also Fil’chenko 2013). The first has been identified as a loan from Tungusic by Katz (1970, 10–12) (see Wagner-Nagy 2011, 65 for discussion). The negative particles precede the verb, as in (70a–c); the only constituents allowed to intervene are object pronouns (Wagner-Nagy 2011, 71; Ermakova 1998). The negation particle is also used with nonfinite forms and with adjectives and adverbs. In Ket’ Selkup, the negative particle may form a prosodic unit with a preceding pronoun and thus form a negative pronoun, for example, (70b, c). (70) a. tep tepɑ-m ɑs qondʒur-pɑ-t 3sg 3sg-acc neg see-narr-3sg.oc ‘he had not seen her yet’ (Ermakova 1998, 367) b. qɑj ɛ-sːɑ-n tɛp-se ɲɛrnɛ, kutːɨ=nɑ ɑsːɨ tinɛʋɨ-zɨ-t what be-pst-3sg 3sg-inst forward who=emph not know-pst-3sg.oc ‘What became of him then, nobody knew’ (Hunt 123) c. qɑʁi-n ɑsːɨ ɨkːɨ köɟi-k mɑcːo-dːɨ when-indef neg proh go-imp.2sg forest-ill ‘Never go into the forest!’ (Bekker et al. 1995 II, 131) While in Central and Southern Selkup symmetric negation is consistent for the entire tense-mood system, in the past tense of Northern Selkup, there is also a construction which relies on the negative existential with the negated verb in an action noun form (71) (see Kuznecova et al. 1980, 368; Wagner-Nagy 2011, 67–69, 109–111 for details and further grammaticalization). The negative existential in Ket’ Selkup is cɑːŋɡu as in (72). In addition, Selkup has the (semantically not empty) negation verb ‘cannot’ Taz tɑtʃɑl-, Central and Southern tʃeʒɑl- etc. (see Wagner-Nagy 2011, 113–115). (71) Taz (Kuznecova et al. 1980, 368) nilʲčɨk qumɨ-p mēqon tyr-æ-mɨt tʃæːŋkɑ such person-acc 1pl see-an-1pl neg.ex ‘We didn’t see such a man’ (72) ʋɛrqɛ ydə-m yt|ku-zɑ-ŋ sʋɑdbɑ-qɨn, ɑ ɑŋə-neŋ big water-acc drink|hab-pst-1sg wedding-loc but mouth-loc.an cɑŋu-mbɑ-n. neg.ex-narr-3sg ‘I drank big water [vodka] at the wedding, but in the mouth there was nothing.’ (Snake 100)

930 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

20.15 LEXICON The most important cross-dialectal lexical sources for Selkup were compiled by Alatalo (2004) and by Bykonya et al. (2005). A Ket’ glossary intended for the community of rememberers was provided by Alatalo (1998). Selkup has river-centred fire/water local adverbs typical of Western Siberia, for example, Ket’ konːe ‘up, from the river to the bank, from the settlement to the forest, up from the fire’ vs. qɑrːe ‘down, from the riverbank into the river, onto the hearth.’ The Ket’ designations of the months have been collected by Dul’zon (1953). Before the introduction of the Russian name system in the seventeenth century, the native Selkup personal-name tradition also involved apotropaic names, that is, names with an unattractive meaning which were believed to distract evil spirits from their owner. Attested examples are Loza ‘Devil,’ Torrja ‘Misery,’ Suska (< soskɑ) ‘Pig,’ or Čura ‘Nit’ (Malinovskaya 1989, 158; cf. also Bekker 1976). Selkup loanwords in Khanty were identified by Steinitz (1963), and Khanty loanwords in Selkup by Rédei (1972). However, the relations between Selkup and Eastern Khanty are still a matter of future research. Kuznecova et al. (1980, 21–22) observe parallels in lexicalization between Khanty and Selkup (Taz), often in the representation of abstract concepts, such as Selkup sɔru, Khanty lɯʋet ‘1. leaf, 2. tobacco,’ Selk. suːrɯp ‘1. animal, 2. bird,’ Khanty bɑjəɣ ‘1. animal, 2. insect,’ Selkup næqqɯl-, Khanty tæl- ‘1. pull, 2. smoke.’ Selkup-Yeniseic lexical relations were studied by Polyakov (1980), and Turkic loanwords in Selkup by Márk (1975) and by Filippova (1994). Some Selkup loans in Russian dialects were identified by Helimski (1983b). In the adaptation of loanwords, metathesis is observed, for example, bulgaхter ‘book keeper’ (< Ru. бухгалтер) (Hunt 81). 20.16 TEXT The following text is the beginning of a tale about Itya, a cultural hero of Selkup across all dialects. An orphan who lives with his grandmother (or aunt), Itya quickly acquires hunting skills. His antagonist is the giant Pünegusse. There are several episodes and motives which reoccur in Itya tales, and Donner (1913–1918) assumed that they are remnants of a former Selkup epic. About the protagonist, see Tuchkova (2004, 127–134) and the text collection by Tuchkova and Wagner-Nagy (2015). The text presented here was recorded by A. Kuz’mina in 1964 in Ust’-Ozernoe (Upper Ket’) from V. G. Sutarev; it was published by Tuchkova and Helimski (2010, 92–98), Tuchkova and Wagner-Nagy (2015, 215–220), and in the Hamburg Selkup text corpus (IFMF). Here it is presented slightly adapted in IPA transcription. iːcɑ iməɲɑ|sə-ki ˈiːlɑ|ku-s-ti pn grandmother|cr-du live|hab-pst-3du ‘Itya and his grandmother lived.’ iːcɑ ˈsuːruj|ɡu-s pn hunt|hab-pst(3sg) ‘Itya was hunting.’

SELKUP 931

ˌokːəˈr|ɨŋ ˈtüː-ɣa-ŋ suːruj-leʋle iməˈɲɑ-d-ni one|adv come-aor-3sg hunt-ant.cvb grandmother-3sg-dat ‘Once he came after hunting and said to his grandmother:’

cɑˈr-ɑ-n say-aor-3sg

nuˈʒelʲi qɑˈlːo mɑn oˈnnæn kuˈʋɑ|j ˈpændʒɑr-mɨ ˈcɑŋɡu really[Ru.] qp 1sg self.loc1sg person|adj ties/surrounding-1sg neg.ex ‘Do I really not have any human ties/surrounding?’ tɑn ˈtinːuʋɨ-mːɑ-l 2sg know-cond-2sg.oc ‘If you know it, tell it!’

qɛˈt-tɨ tell-imp.2sg.oc

qɑl iːˈce|joː iːˈce|jɑː mɑn qɑːl ɑsː qp pn|dim pn|dim 1sg qp neg ‘Dear Itya, dear Itya, I don’t know it.’

ˈtinːoʋ-ɑ-m. know-aor-1sg.oc

iːca iməˈɲɑ-m-t ˈtɨnd loːqəˈr|eʎɟü|ɡu-ʋa-t, pn grandmother-acc-3sg here put.down|int.pfv|hab-aor-3sg.oc miʃal|gu-ˈʋa-t: qɛtˈ-tɨ hold|hab-aor-3sg.oc tell-imp.2sg.oc ‘Itya put his grandmother down, held her: “Tell it!”’ iːˈce|joː, nu tinːoʋ-ɑ-m qɑl ˈtoːnɑ ˈtɑm inːe tɑj ɑrɡ-ul pn|dim well know-aor-1sg.oc qp that upstream up over other-2sg ˈdɑsu-ɣɑ-n o-o-o” be.cold-aor-3sg intj ‘Dear Itya, well I know that upstream up and over [are] others of yours; it’s cold, ooooh.”’ ˈokːɨr|ɨŋ suːruˈ-ʎeʋʎe qoˈtːɛ ˈtʃɑtʃɑ-ŋ ˈqoː-ʋ-ɑt one|adv hunt-ant.cvb back go-aor(3sg) find-aor-3sg.oc ‘Once he went back after hunting and found a forest lake.’ Abbreviations Dialects of Selkup K/O Mixed dialect Ket’/Ob’ MK Middle Ket’ dialect UK Upper Ket’ dialect SLC texts Bear: KMS_1963_Bear_nar (MK) Burbot: KMS_1968_Burbot_trans (MK) Carp: KKN_1971_FiveCarpBrothers_flk (UK) Dog: BNN_1971_DogSearchedMistress_flk (MK) Eagle: KMS_1967_EagleOwl_nar (MK)

mɑːcɑ|ʎ to forest|adj lake

932 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Eyes: BNN_1971_EyesEars_flk (MK) Fire: KMS_1967_Fire_nar (MK) Fox: TET_1979_TaleFoxDog_flk (MK) Hazelgrouse: KKA_NN_HazelgrouseMouse_flk (UK) Hunt: KMS_1967_Hunt_trans (MK) IFMF: SVG_1964_ItjeFatherMotherFish_flk (UK) Itja: KKN_1971_Itja_flk (UK) Ivan: KKN_1971_IvanAndGod_flk (MK) Lgov: MMP_1964_Lgov_trans (MK) Mouse: KMS_1966_MouseGray_flk.028 (MK) Sisters: KMS_1966_TwoSisters_flk (MK) Snake: AGS_1968_FairytaleSnake_flk (MK) Snowgirl: TET_1979_SnowGirl_flk (K/O) Worms: KNI_1964_ItjaCapeOfWorms_flk (UK) NOTES 1 This publication has been produced in the context of the joint research funding of the German Federal Government and Federal States in the Academies’ Programme, with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The Academies’ Programme is coordinated by the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. 2 Note that the length is not consequently notated in all the sources. REFERENCES Alatalo, J. 1998. Sǖssygūj ēdžipsan (Qētqyj qūlanni) [Selkup-Russian Dictionary of the Ket’ Dialect]. Maksimin Jar and Helsinki: Nacionalʹnyj Klub Maksimojaročka. Alatalo, J. 2001. “Phonological Irregularities in Selkup Morphology and Their Origin.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 23: 1–9. Alatalo, J. 2004. Sölkupisches Wörterbuch aus Aufzeichnungen von Kai Donner, U.T. Sirelius und Jarmo Alatalo, Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXX. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Alatalo, J. 2018. “Selkup morphology.” Unpublished manuscript. Bajdak, A., and A. Kim-Malony. 2010 “Этнолингвистика оппозиции живой-неживой в селькупском.” In Gedenkschrift für Eugen A. Helimski. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32/33, edited by V. A. Gusev and A. Widmer, 47–60. Hamburg: Buske. Behnke, A. 2020. “Converbal Constructions in Selkup.” ESUKA–JEFUL 11 (2): 137–165. Behnke, A. 2021. Syntaktische Strukturen im Selkupischen: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung der zentralen und südlichen Dialekte. Berlin: Logos. Bekker, Ė. G. 1976. “Личные имена у селькупов.” Языки и топонимия 2: 91–94. Bekker, Ė. G. 1978. Категория падежа в селькупском языке. Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo universiteta. Bekker, Ė. G., L. A. Alitkina, V. V. Bykonya, and I. A. Il’yashenko. 1995. Морфология селькупского языка, южные диалекты, Часть 1–2. Tomsk: Tomskii gosud. pedinstitut.

SELKUP 933

Bolsunovskaya, L. M. 1996. “Способы выражения начинательности в диалектах селькупского языка.” Linguistica Uralica 32 (4): 289–293. Bolsunovskaya, L. M. 1998. “Способы глагольного действия в диалектах селькупского языка.” Avtoreferat Kand. diss., Novosobirsk: Inst. Filologii SORAN. Budzisch, J. 2015. “Possession in Southern Selkup dialects.” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 10: 45–50. Budzisch, J. 2017a. “Locative, Existential and Possessive Sentences in Selkup Dialects.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 41: 45–61. Budzisch, J. 2017b. “On the Non-possessive Use of Possessive Suffixes in Central and Southern Selkup.” Урало-алтайские исследования 25: 58–66. Budzisch, J. 2021. Definitheit im Selkupischen. Szeged: University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies and Department of Finno-Ugrian Philology. Budzisch, J., A. Harder, and B. Wagner-Nagy. 2019. “Selkup Language Corpus (SLC).” Archived in Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. https://corpora.uni-hamburg.de/ hzsk/de/islandora/object/spoken-corpus:slc-1.0.0. Bykonya, V. V. 1996a. “Структура наименованый круглых десятков в диалектах селькупского языка.” Linguistica Uralica 32 (3): 201–215. Bykonya, V. V. 1996b. “Словообразовательные типы порядковых числительных в селькупских диалектах.” Linguistica Uralica 32 (2): 128–141. Bykonya, V. V., and Ė. G. Bekker. 1980. “Глагольные префиксы в селькупском языке.” Языки и топонимия 7: 86–99. Bykonya, V. V., N. G. Kuznecova, and N. P. Maksimova. 2005. Селькупско-русский диалектный словарь. Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo gos. universiteta. Castrén, M. A., and T. Lehtisalo. 1960. Samojedische Sprachmaterialien. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Cheremisina, M. I., and E. I. Martynova. 1991. Селькупский глагол: фoрмы и их синтактические функции. Novosibirsk: Novosibirskij gos. universitet. Donner, K. 1913–1918. “A Samoyedic Epic.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30/26: 1–13. Dulson [Dul’zon], A. P. 1953. “названия месяцев года у селькупов Кети как исторический источник.” 18. Научная конференция Томского Гос. Пединститута, Tomsk: 59–61. Dulson [Dul’zon], A. P. 1970. “Общность падежных аффиксов самодийских языков с енисейскими.” Вопросы финно-угроведения 5: 31–36. Dulson [Dul’zon], A. P. 1971. “Über die räumliche Gliederung des Sölkupischen in ihrem Verhältnis zu den alten Volksgruppen.” Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 7: 35–43. Erdélyi, I. 1970. Selkupisches Wörterverzeichnis (Tas Dialekt). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Ermakova, N. D. 1998. “Синтагматические возможности селькупских отрицательных частиц.” Linguistica Uralica 34: 367–371. Fedotova, N. L. 2017. “К вопросу о порядке следования суффиксов личнопритяжательного склонения в селькупском языке.” Ural-Altaic Studies 25: 68–78. Fil’chenko, A. Ju. 2013. “Отрицание в восточнохантыйских и южноселькупских диалектах.” Ural-Altaic Studies 8: 55–98. Filippova, T. M. 1994. “Лексические заимствования из тюркских языках в селькупских диалектах.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 85: 41‒70.

934 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Gal’cova, N. P., and N. G. Kuznecova. 1993. “Kатегория времении в южноселькупских диалектах.” Linguistica Uralica 29 (4): 284–302. Glushkov, S. V., A. V. Bajdak, and N. P. Maksimova. 2011. “Диалекты селькупского языка.” In Селькупы. Очерки традиционной культуры и селькупского языка, edited by N. A. Tuchkova, 49‒63. Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo politehn. universiteta. Grigorovskij, N. P. 1879. Aзбука сюссогой гулани. Kazan.’ (Facsimile edition by P. Hajdú, 1973). Hajdú, P. 1962. “Die Frage des Stufenwechsels in den samojedischen Sprachen.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 34: 41–54. Hajdú, P. 1975a. “The Connective-reciprocal Suffix in the Samoyed Languages.” In Samojedologische Schriften, edited by P. Hajdú, 71–114. Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata. Hajdú, P. 1975b. “Über die Herkunft des kamassischen Pluralsuffixes -saŋ.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 47: 85–88. Harder, A. 2017. “Grammaticalization of Spatial Expressions in Central and Southern Selkup.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 41: 153–174. Helimski, E. 1983a. The Language of the First Selkup Books. Szeged: Attila József University. Helimski, E. 1983b. “Ранние этапы этногенеза и этногенетической истории самодийцев в свете языковых данных.” In Проблемы этногенеза и этнической истории самодийских народов, 5–10. Omsk: ОмГУ. Helimski, E. 1991. “Самодийская лингвистическая реконструкция и праистория самодийцев.” In Сравительно-исторические изучение языков разных семей, edited by А. С. Мельничук, Л. А. Гиндин, and И. А. Калужская, 86–99. Moskva: Nauka. Helimski, E. 1998. “Selkup.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by D. Abondolo, 548–579. London: Routledge. Helimski, E. 2000. Компаратистика, Уралистика: Лекции и статьи. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Helimski, E. 2003. “Areal Groupings (Sprachbünde) within and Across the Borders of the Uralic Language Family: A Survey.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100: 156–167. Honti, L. 1993. Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Janhunen, J. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz—Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Janurik, T. 1978a. “A szölkup nyelvjárások osztályozásához.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 80: 77–104. Janurik, T. 1978b. “A szölkup névutók, igekötők és valódi határozószók morfológiai típusainak áttekintése.” Néprajz és Nyelvtudomány 22/23: 149–159. Katz, H. 1970. “Zwei Etymologien.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 72: 147–150. Katz, H. 1976. “Kompensatorischer Ersatz (mor)phonologischen Informationsverlustes im Selkupischen.” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 13: 19–26. Katz, H. 1979. Selkupische Quellen. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.

SELKUP 935

Katz, H. 1986. Selcupica III. Castréns Nordselkupische Lieder. Veröffentlichungen des Finnisch-Ugrischen Seminars an der Universität München, Serie C: Miscellanea, Bd. 18. Neuried: Hieronymus. Katz, H. 1988. Selcupica IV. Die Märchen in Grigorovskis Azbuka. Veröffentlichungen des Finnisch-Ugrischen Seminars an der Universität München, Serie C: Miscellanea, Bd. 20. Neuried: Hieronymus. Kazakevich, O. 2010. “Laboratory for computational lexicography: Linguistic expeditions 2010.” www.lcl.srcc.msu.ru/ENGLISH_VERSHION/grants_pages/expedition_ 2010.htm. Kazakevich, O. A., A. I. Kuznecova, and E. A. Helimski. 2002. “Очерки по селькупскому языку. Тазовский диалект. Том 3: Русско-селькупский словарь.” Разнопрофильные селькупские словари. Moscow: Izd. moskovskogo universiteta. Kazakevič, O. 2022. “Selkup.” In Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, edited by Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, and Elena Skribnik, 777–816. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kim, A. A. 1986. “Выражение категории притяжательности в диалектах селькупского языка.” PhD diss., Tomsk: Tomskij pedinstitut. Klumpp, G. 2005. “Aspect Markers Grammaticalized from Verbs in Kamass.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 52 (4): 397–409. Koshkareva, N. B., E. V. Kashkin, Ju B. Koryakov, O. A. Kazakevich, S. I. Burkova, N. A. Murav’ev, and E. M. Budyanskaya. 2017. Диалектологический атлас уральских языков, распространенных на территории Ямало-Ненецкого Автономного Округа. Калининград: Рост ДОАФК. Kuper, Sh. C. 1981. “О системе консонантизма кетского диалекта селькупского языка.” In Языки и топонимия, 102–108. Tomsk: Tomskij pedagogičeskij institut. Kuper, Sh. C. 1983a. “Место ударения и количество гласного в кетском диалекте селькупского языка.” In Проблемы этногенеза и этнической истории самодийских народов, 58–62. Omsk: OMGU. Kuper, Sh. C. 1983b. “Некоторые особенности консонантизма в сюсюкумских говорах селькупского языка.” In Вопросы енисейского и самодийского языкознания, 90–94. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. pedinstituta. Kuper, Sh. C. 1984. “Чередование ауслаутных носовых и гоморганных смычных в селькупском языке.” In Структура палеоазиатских и самодийских языков, edited by R. F. Denning and Ju. A. Morev, 150–158. Tomsk: Tomskii pedinstitut. Kuper, Sh. C. 1986. “Место кетского диалекта в системе селькупского языка.” In Фонетика языков Сибири и сопредельных регионов, edited by V. M. Nadeljaev, 103–106. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kuper, Sh. C. 1987. “Типы чередования ступеней в селькупском языке.” In Строй самодийских и енисейских языков, edited by Ju. A. Morev and R. F. Denning, 66–74. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. pedinstituta. Kuz’mina, A. I. 1967. “Диалектологические материалы по селькупскому языку.” In Исследования по языку и фольклору, Вып. 2, 267–329. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kuz’mina, A. I. 1974. Грамматика селькупского языка. Часть I: Селькупы и их язык. Учебное пособие. Novosibirsk.

936 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Kuz’mina, A. I., and Ė. G. Kiseleva. 1975. “Категория множественности и ее отражение в числе селькупского существительного.” Sovetskoe Finnougrovedenie 11: 201–205. Kuznecova, A. I., E. A. Helimski [Xelimskij], and E. V. Grushkina. 1980. Очерки по селькупскому языку: Тазовский диалект, vol. 1. Mosсow: Moscow University Press. Kuznecova, A. I., E. A. Helimski [Xelimskij], O. A. Kazakevich, and L. Yu. Ioffe. 1993. Очерки по селькупскому языку: Тазовский диалект, vol. 2. Mosсow: Moscow University Press. Kuznecova, N. G. 1987. “Глагольная подсистема кетского диалекта селькупского языка.” PhD diss., University of Tomsk. Kuznecova, N. G. 1991. “Предикативные причастные формы в кетском диалекте селькупского языка.” In Языки народов Сибири, Грамматические исследования, edited by E. I. Ubrjatova and M. I. Čeremisina, 138–145. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kuznecova, N. G. 1995a. Грамматические категории южноселькупского глагола. Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo univ. Kuznecova, N. G. 1995b. “Kатегории лица и числа южноселькупского глагола.” Linguistica Uralica 31 (1): 35–52. Malinovskaya, S. M. 1989. “Традиционный селькупский именник и его историческая модификация.” In Вопросы финно-угорской ономастики, edited by М. Г. Атаманов, 155–161. Ижевск: Академии наук СССР. Márk, I. 1975. “Über die türkischen Lehnwörter im Sölkupischen.” Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: sectio ethnographica et linguistica 19–20: 243–252. Mixal’čenko, V. Ju., and V. M. Solncev. 2003. Письменные языки мира: языки Российской Федерации. Социолингвистичеыкая Энциклопедия. Книга 2. Moсква: Academia. Poljakov, V. A. 1980. “Über die selkupischen Lehnwörter im Jugischen und Ketischen.” Sovetskoe Finno-Ugrovedenie 16: 216–222. Pozdeeva, G. P. 2013a. “Диалекты селькупского языка: верификация общепринятых классификаций и новый взгляд на диалектное членение.” Ural-Altaic Studies 8: 20–33. Pozdeeva, G. P. 2013b. “Особенности числого согласования в диалектах селькупского языка (сравительно-сопоставительный аспект).” PhD diss., Москва. Pozdeeva, G. P. 2015. “Особенности числого согласования в диалектах селькупского языка.” PhD diss., Tomsk. Prokof’ev, G. N. 1935. Селькупская (остяко-самоедская) грамматика. Leningrad: Izd. Inst. Narodov Severa CIK SSSR. Prokof’eva, E. D. 1966. “Селькупский язык.” In Языки народов СССР, vol. 3, Финноугорские и самодийские языки, edited by V. I. Lytkin and K. E. Majtinskaja, 392– 415. Moscow: Nauka. Rédei, K. 1972. “Osztják jövevényszavak a szelkupban.” Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 74: 186–193. Sajnakova, N. V. 2015. “О распространении этнонима šöšqum / šöšqup в среднеобском диалектно-локальном ареале.” Ural-Altaic Studies 16: 21–28.

SELKUP 937

Schiefner, A., ed. 1854. M. Alexander Castréns Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St. Petersburg (reprinted by Zentralantiquariat der DDR, Leipzig 1969). Siegl, F. 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Steinitz, W. 1963. “Etymologische Beiträge III: Selkupische Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 13: 213–223. Tereshchenko, N. M. 1973. Синтаксис самодийских языков: простое предложение. Ленинград: Наука. Toporov, V. N. 1964. O некоторых кетско-селькупских типологических параллелах. In Вопросы структуры языка, edited by V. V. Ivanov, 117–129. Moscow: Nauka. Tuchkova, N. A., ed. 2004. Селькупского мифология. Томск: Издательство Томского государственного университета. Tuchkova, N. A. 2006. Bibliographia Selkupica. Библиографический указатель по истории, культуре и языку селькупов. Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo gos. universiteta. Tuchkova, N. A., and B. Wagner-Nagy. 2015. “Семи богов мудростью обладающий итте . . .”. Teксты с героем Итя в селькупском фольклоре. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomsk. gos. ped. un-ta. Tučkova, N. A., and E. A. Helimski. 2010. О материалах A.И. Кузьминой по селькупскому языку. Hamburg: Inst. f. Finnougristik/Uralistik der Univ. Hamburg. Tučkova, N. A., and N. Kuznetsova. 2010. “Die Südselkupen und die südliche Grenze ihres Verbreitungsgebiets.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32/33: 595–605. Viitso, T.-R. 1999. “On Classifying the Selkup Dialects.” In Europa et Sibiria. Beiträge zu Sprache und Kultur der kleineren finnougrischen, samojedischen und paläosibirischen Völker. Gedenkband für Wolfgang Veenker, edited by C. Hasselblatt and P. JääsalmiKrüger, 441–452. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Voevodina, N. M. 1973. “Аналитические глагольные конструкции в селькупском языке (деепричастие плюс вспомогательный глаголь).” PhD diss., Tomsk. Wagner-Nagy, B. 2011. On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Wagner-Nagy, B. 2015. “Negation in Selkup.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited M. Miestamo, A. Tamm, and B. Wagner-Nagy, 133–158. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wagner-Nagy, B. 2017a. “The essive-translative in Selkup and Kamas.” In Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State, edited by C. de Groot, 479–495. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wagner-Nagy, B. 2017b. “Recipient Marking in the Samoyedic Languages.” In Form und Funktion—Festschrift für Angelika Redder zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by A. Krause, G. Lehmann, W. Thielmann, und C. Trautmann, 259–271. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Wagner-Nagy, B., and S. Szeverényi. 2013. “On the Argument Structure of the ‘Give’ Verbs in Nganasan and in Selkup.” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 1: 27–37.

938 GERSON KLUMPP AND JOSEFINA BUDZISCH

Wegener, H. 2018. “On Differential Object Marking in Southern and Central Selkup.” ESUKA/JEFUL 9 (1): 169–186. Zyryanova, E. V. 2001. “Качественно новые явления в структуре селькупского глагольного слова.” In Междисципларное изучение этносов Сибири, edited by V. V. Bykonya and N. V. Lukina, 57–62. Tomsk: Tomskii pedinstitut.

CHAPTER 21

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC Ksenia Shagal

21.1 INTRODUCTION1 A relative (clause) construction is defined here as a construction consisting of a nominal (head) and a subordinate clause interpreted as attributively modifying the nominal (relative clause) (Lehmann 1986, 664). An important prerequisite for the construction is that the two clauses involved in it, the relative clause and the main clause, share an argument. This argument is referred to as the common argument (Dixon 2009, 314), and the syntactic position of this argument in the relative clause is the position relativized (Keenan and Comrie 1977, 63‒66). For example, sentence (1a) from Meadow Mari illustrates relativization of a locative participant in the inessive case, and in (1b), it is the complement of postposition vokten that is relativized. Importantly, the common argument can be overtly expressed by a full noun phrase either in the main clause or in the relative clause; compare the use of the word pört ‘house’ in examples (1a) and (1b), respectively:2 (1)

Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 522, 532) a. Pört jǝr, [ku-što tudo il-eš], šuko peledǝš ul-o. house near which-ine he live-prs.3sg many flower be-prs.3sg ‘Near the house in which he lives there are a lot of flowers.’ b. [Kudo pört vokte-n mašina šog-a] peš motor. which house near-ine car stand-prs.3sg very beautiful ‘The house near which the car is standing is very beautiful.’

Relative clauses of the first type, for example, (1a), are, therefore, known as externally headed relative clauses, while (1b) is an example of an internally headed relative clause. Apart from being expressed by a noun phrase in one of the clauses, the common argument can have a pronominal representation in the other one. For example, the head noun poškudǝlan ‘neighbor (dat)’ in the internally headed relative clause in (2a) in the following is also referred to in the main clause by the anaphoric pronoun tudo ‘that.’ This is a prototypical example of a so-called correlative relative clause, as described in Dryer (2013), which also differs from many other relative clause types in that it is not embedded in a relativized noun phrase (Dixon 2009, 315; Lipták 2009, 7). Within externally headed relative clauses, the head can be represented by an inflected relative pronoun, such as kušto ‘which (ine)’ in (1a) and (2b). Structurally, these two examples differ in that (1a) features an embedded postnominal relative clause, which DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-21

940 KSENIA SHAGAL

immediately follows the head noun, while in (2b) there is no embedding, and the relative clause is adjoined to the main clause. (2)

Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 532, 529) a. [Kudo poškud-ǝlan uškal-ǝm pu-en-am] tudo peš kuan-ǝš ǝl’e. which neighbor-dat cow-acc give-prt-1sg that very be.glad-narr be.prt ‘The neighbor to whom I gave the cow was very glad.’ b. Mǝj č’üčk’ǝdǝn pört-ǝm šarnalt-em, [ku-što kan-aš I often house-acc remember-prs.1sg which-ine spend.vacation-inf jörat-en-am]. love-prt-1sg ‘I often remember the house in which I used to spend vacation.’

All the examples of relative clauses provided so far have finite verb forms as their predicates, that is, the forms that typically serve as predicates of independent clauses. However, in Uralic languages, relative clauses introduced by nonfinite verb forms are very widespread. Importantly, most of these forms are highly multifunctional, so traditional descriptive labels, such as ‘participle,’ ‘nominalization,’ or ‘converb,’ do not always reflect their overall distribution (see Section 21.3.1 for further discussion). An example is the participle/nominalization ilǝme ‘live (nmzl)’ in (3) from Meadow Mari: (3)

Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Brykina and Aralova 2012, 477) [Tud-ǝn il-ǝme] pört jǝr šuko peledǝš ul-o. that-gen live-nmzl house near many flower be-prs.3sg ‘Near the house in which he lives there are a lot of flowers.’

The sentence in (3) has the same meaning as the sentence in (1a), featuring a finite relative clause, but it has several important structural differences. In Mari and in Uralic languages in general, nonfinite relative clauses are usually prenominal (immediately preceding the modified noun), and they most commonly employ the gap strategy, that is, the common argument is not represented in any way in the dependent clause (Comrie and Kuteva 2013).3 The verb form in the relative clause in this example is obviously nominalized, since it has a limited potential of expressing temporal, aspectual, and modal distinctions (TAM), it does not allow for verbal subject agreement, and its subject is expressed as a possessor (genitive). On the other hand, in most Uralic languages, nonfinite verb forms preserve the valency of the original verb. For example, the -me form in (3) in the preceding text allows the expression of the subject of the relative clause, which in this case receives genitive flagging (tud-ǝn ‘that-gen’). The participle in -še relativizing the subject can take exactly the same dependents as a finite verb form would take, for example, a direct object in the accusative (korn-ǝm ‘road-acc’) or a manner adverbial (sajǝn ‘well’), as shown in (4). Argument expression in nonfinite relative clauses is discussed in more detail in Section 21.3.2. (4)

Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Brykina and Aralova 2012, 480) Me [korn-ǝm sajǝn pal-ǝše] šoför dene mutlan-ena. we road-acc well know-ptcp.act driver with talk-prs.1pl ‘We are talking to the driver who knows the road well.’

As these examples show, Mari nonfinite relative constructions feature full-fledged dependent clauses rather than highly reduced modifiers. Moreover, in some Uralic languages,

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 941

such as Nganasan, participial clauses are the only type of relative clauses available at all, or at least other strategies are fairly marginal; see Tereščenko (1979, 170‒171, 306‒307) and Gusev (2015, 115). For these two reasons, it is essential to consider nonfinite relative clauses when dealing with Uralic languages in general. There are three more parameters relevant for relative constructions that can be helpful for describing them in a given language family. First, relative clauses can be restrictive, if they delimit the reference of the common argument, or non-restrictive, if they provide a background information about a common argument that is already uniquely identified (Dixon 2009, 314). Compare the sentences My classmate who lives in Budapest is coming for the weekend (restrictive) and My mother, who lives in Budapest, is coming for the weekend (non-restrictive). No major structural difference between these two types of structures has been reported for any of the Uralic languages, so in this chapter I will further make no consistent distinction between them. However, I will touch upon certain minor distinctions in Section 21.2. The second parameter concerns the headedness of a relative clause. As opposed to headed relative clauses, where the common argument is expressed as a full noun phrase in at least one of the clauses, as in examples (1–4) in the preceding, headless (or free) relative clauses lack this type of nominal head. Instead, as illustrated next by the Meadow Mari example, in finite headless relative clauses such as (5a), the common argument can be expressed by the demonstrative pronoun tudǝm ‘that (acc)’ in the main clause, and the interrogative pronoun mom ‘what (acc)’ in the relative clause. In nonfinite headless relative clauses, the nonfinite form simply behaves as a participant nominalization and takes all the case and number morphemes that would otherwise attach to the modified noun; see the form ilǝševlaklan ‘those who live (dat)’ in (5b): (5)

Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 540; Brykina and Aralova 2012, 487–488) a. Mǝj tud-ǝm ǝšt-em, [mo-m I that-acc do-prs.1sg what-acc ‘I do what I always dreamt about.’

ere šon-en always dream-cvb

košt-ǝn-am]. go-prt-1sg

b. [Eŋer vokte-n il-ǝše-vlak-lan] magazin-ǝš tora-ške košt-aš river near-ine live-ptcp.act-pl-dat shop-lat far-ill walk-inf logal-eš. be.necessary-prs.3sg ‘Those who live close to the river have to walk a long way to the shop.’ Apart from the lack of a full noun phrase heading the relative construction, from a structural point of view, headless relative clauses like those in (5a) and (5b) can be regarded as subtypes of regular finite and nonfinite relative clauses, respectively. In addition, many descriptions of Uralic languages do not provide enough data on this type of construction. Accordingly, in this chapter I will not discuss headless relative clauses separately and will only give occasional examples when relevant. Finally, relativization strategies can differ in their relativizing capacity, that is, in the range of participants that they are able to relativize. The cross-linguistically relevant types of participants are commonly presented in the form of the Accessibility Hierarchy, an implicational scale introduced by Keenan and Comrie (1977). The general idea of this hierarchy is that noun phrases can be more or less accessible to relativization depending on the position in this hierarchical scale which their role in the relative clause takes. The most basic formulation of the Accessibility Hierarchy is the following4 scale of positions (the sign > stands for ‘more accessible for relativization than’):

942 KSENIA SHAGAL

(6)

Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique > Possessor

The main prediction is that if a language allows the relativization of a role in a certain position, then it must also allow the relativization of all the roles to the left of that position, up to the subject. Different relativization strategies can be used for roles in different positions, but each strategy has to apply to roles occupying a contiguous stretch of the hierarchy. The general tendency in Uralic languages is that the finite strategy has wider relativization capacity than the nonfinite strategy. More specific details will be discussed in following sections. In keeping with the number of major relativization strategies in Uralic languages, the rest of this chapter is divided into two parts. In Section 21.2, I will present finite relative clauses, beginning with their general properties (Section 21.2.1) and the pronouns that introduce them (Section 21.2.2); I will then focus separately on externally headed clauses (Section 21.2.3), internally headed clauses (Section 21.2.4), and relative constructions with inverse attraction (Section 21.2.5). Section 21.3 discusses the properties of nonfinite relative clauses, with special attention to the forms that can function as their predicates. I will introduce a notion of participle that is applicable to the Uralic family (Section 21.3.1) and present the most important deviations that participial relative clauses show in comparison to their finite counterparts. These deviations include argument encoding (Section 21.3.2), expression of TAM (Section 21.3.3) and polarity (Section 21.3.4), nominal agreement with the modified noun (Section 21.3.5), and properties related to relativizing capacity (Section 21.3.6). Section 21.4 provides a summary of the relativization strategies employed in Uralic languages. 21.2 FINITE RELATIVE CLAUSES 21.2.1 General properties and status of finite relative clauses With respect to their morphology and internal syntax, finite relative clauses in Uralic languages are virtually identical to independent clauses. This concerns, for instance, the encoding of subject and other arguments and the expression of negation; compare Finnish independent sentences in (7a) and (7c) and the corresponding relative clauses in (7b) and (7d): (7)

Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. Pekka sö-i Pekka eat-pst.3sg ‘Pekka ate a pasty.’

pasteija-n. pasty-gen

b. Pasteija, [jonka Pekka sö-i], pasty which.gen Pekka eat-pst.3sg ‘The pasty that Pekka ate was delicious.’ c. Pekka e-i syö-nyt Pekka neg-3sg eat-ptcp.pst.act ‘Pekka didn’t eat a pasty.’

oli be.pst.3sg

herkullinen. delicious

pasteija-a. pasty-part

d. Pasteija, [jo-ta Pekka ei syö-nyt], pasty which-part Pekka neg-3sg eat-ptcp.pst.act jääkaapi-ssa. fridge-ine ‘The pasty that Pekka didn’t eat is in the fridge.’

on be.prs.3sg

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 943

As can be seen from these examples as well as from the Meadow Mari examples (1) and (2) in the introduction, Uralic finite relative clauses generally do not differ from independent clauses with respect to the form of the predicate either. A minor exception is reported by Nikolaeva (2014, 284) for Tundra Nenets: in headless relative clauses with past-tense reference, the verb has to be in the interrogative mood, which otherwise occurs in past-tense questions; compare (8a) and (8b): (8)

Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 284, 95) a. [xǝnʹad° to-sa-n°], tǝnʹah from.where come-inter-2sg there ‘Go where you came from.’

xanʹ°q go.imp.2sg

b. pidǝr° ti-m xada-sa-r° you(sg) reindeer-acc kill-inter-2sg>sg ‘Did you kill the reindeer?’ Although finite relative clauses are, to some extent, present in almost all Uralic languages (the only exception might be Nganasan), their status is not the same in different languages. Importantly, many authors are of the view that the finite relativization strategy is not innate to the Uralic family but rather appeared as a result of language contact. Hopper and Traugott (2003, 125–126) mention that Estonian developed finite relative clauses with relative pronouns as a part of broader adjustments, including the switch from SOV to SVO word order, which were triggered by contact with Germanic and Slavic languages. The same development occurred in other branches as well; see, for instance, Bartens (2000, 168) for Permic (Komi has also given up the SOV word order), Kuznecova et al. (1980, 401–402) for Selkup, Filchenko (2007, 508) for Eastern Khanty, Németh (2015) for Mansi, and some others. Despite being an acquired rather than an original feature, in some languages, such as Estonian or Finnish, the finite strategy has managed to become the main relativization strategy in both spoken and written varieties. In many other languages, however, it should still be regarded as a recent innovation, which occurs only in the speech of younger generations; see Nikolaeva (2014, 283) for Tundra Nenets, or Nikolaeva (1999, 45) for Northern Khanty. In some cases, it is not even clear whether the strategy should be considered as a part of the language description. For example, Siegl (2013, 460–461) reports for Forest Enets that finite relative clauses occur only in elicitation, and this strategy is only used when the speaker has problems employing the more common participial strategy, namely, for positions in the lower part of the Accessibility Hierarchy, such as obliques and possessors. In general, as is commonly the case for relative clauses introduced by relative pronouns, finite relative clauses in Uralic allow the relativization of all the positions on Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) Accessibility Hierarchy; see examples from Estonian on subject relativization (9a), direct object relativization (9b), indirect object relativization (9c), oblique relativization (9d), and possessor relativization (9e): (9)

Estonian (Finnic, Estonia, Tiina Klooster, p.c.) a. Mees, [kes selle raamat-u kirjuta-s], man who this.gen book-gen write-pst.3sg naaber. neighbor ‘The man who wrote this book is our neighbor.’

on be.prs.3sg

meie our

944 KSENIA SHAGAL

b. Raamat, [mille see mees kirjuta-s], on book what.gen this man write-pst.3sg be.prs.3sg ‘The book that this man wrote is expensive.’

kallis. expensive

c. Tüdruk, [kelle-le ma selle raamat-u and-si-n], oli rõõmus. girl who-all I this.gen book-gen give-pst-1sg be.pst.3sg happy ‘The girl to whom I gave this book was happy.’ d. Riiul, [mille peal / mille-l see raamat shelf what.gen on / what-ade this book on kõrge. be.prs.3sg high ‘The shelf on which this book stands is high.’

seisa-b], stand-prs.3sg

e. Tüdruk, [kelle raamat-u ma varasta-si-n], oli girl who.gen book-gen I steal-pst-1sg be.pst.3sg ‘The girl whose book I stole was angry.’

vihane. angry

21.2.2 Relative pronouns All finite relative clauses in Uralic languages, regardless of their position with respect to the head noun, feature relative pronouns. In most of the languages, these pronouns are morphologically identical to question words. In fact, the majority of Uralic languages use relative pronouns that developed from the Proto-Uralic interrogatives *mɜ ‘what’ and *kɜ ‘who’ (Janhunen 1981, 269). In Table 21.1, I provide a list of relative pronouns attested in 18 Uralic languages. The table features only those relative pronouns that are able to relativize core arguments of the clause (the subject and the direct object). I will refer to these pronouns as basic relative pronouns. When certain peripheral participants are relativized, languages can also employ pronominal adverbs and other specialized relativizers, such as ‘where’ for locative relativization, or ‘whose’ for possessor relativization. In some of the languages, these items are transparently derived from basic interrogative/relative pronouns, for example, Finnish missä ‘where (ine)’ is the regular inessive form of mikä ‘what.’ In other languages, there are separate stems for these two classes, for example, Eastern Khanty muɣuj ‘what, which’ and qo ‘where’ are not morphologically related to each other. The specialized relativizers will appear in some of the examples in this chapter, but they are not included in the table. Although most members of the Uralic family show relative/interrogative pronoun syncretism, some languages do feature specialized relative pronouns that are distinct from other pronoun classes. For example, in Finnish, the most common relative pronoun is joka ‘which,’ which does not have an interrogative function (Karlsson 1999, 149). It can be used to refer to both animate and inanimate common arguments. Its alternative, mikä ‘what,’ which is an interrogative pronoun, is mostly used for inanimate entities, as in (10a). It is also employed when the reference is to an expression containing a superlative, as in (10b), and in a special type of construction where the relative clause refers to the main clause on the whole, as in (10c): (10) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, Karlsson 1999, 151) a. Tä-ssä ovat kirjee-t, [mitkä this-ine be.prs.3pl letter-pl what.acc.pl ‘Here are the letters that you sent to me.’

lähet-i-t send-pst-2sg

minu-lle]. I-all

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 945

b. Se on paras paikka that be.prs.3sg best place ‘It is the best place that I know.’

[minkä what.acc

tiedä-n]. know.prs-1sg

c. Tul-i sade, [mikä est-i come-pst.3sg rain what prevent-pst.3sg ‘It rained, which prevented our trip.’

matka-mme]. trip.acc-1pl

The Skolt Saami pronouns mii ‘what’ and ǩii ‘who,’ similarly to Finnish mikä ‘what,’ can be employed both for question formation and for relativization. However, the most common relative pronoun kååʹtt cannot itself be regarded as an interrogative (Feist 2015, 194–199, p.c.). Some of its case forms can function as question words, for instance, koʹst

TABLE 21.1  RELATIVE PRONOUNS IN URALIC LANGUAGES Language

Examples of relative (interrogative) pronouns

Source

North Saami

mii ‘which, that,’ gii ‘who, which, that,’ goabbá ‘who, which, that (out of two),’ guhte ‘who, which, that’

Valijärvi and Kahn (2017, 98–99)

Pite Saami

mij ‘what, which + who (in rel contexts only)’

Wilbur (2014, 125)

Skolt Saami

kååʹtt ‘which’ (rel only), mii ‘what,’ ǩii ‘who’

Feist (2015, 194–199)

Estonian

mis ‘what,’ kes ‘who,’ milline ‘which,’ missugune ‘which’

Erelt (2003, 124–125)

Finnish

joka ‘which’ (rel only), mikä ‘what’

Karlsson (1999, 149‒151)

Erzya

meźe ‘what,’ ki ‘who,’ kodamo ‘which,’ kona ‘who/which (of two or many)’

Bartens (1999, 115‒117)

Moksha

mez’ǝ ‘what,’ kijǝ ‘who,’ kona ‘which’

Privizentseva (2018, 711)

Hill Mari

kə̑də̑ ‘which,’ ma ‘what,’ kü ‘who’

personal fieldwork

Meadow Mari

kudo ‘which,’ mo ‘what,’ kö ‘who’

Alhoniemi (1993, 85)

Udmurt

ma(r) ‘what,’ kin ‘who,’ kud(iz) ‘which’

Winkler (2001, 37)

Komi(-Zyrian)

mɨj ‘what,’ kodï ‘who,’ kutšǝm ‘which’

Lytkin (1955, 200‒203), Sel’kov (1967, 205‒208)

Hungarian

ami ‘what,’ amely ‘which,’ aki ‘who’ (all rel only, derived from interrogatives using a+)

Kenesei et al. (1998, 40, 281–282)

Eastern Khanty

koji ‘who’ (Vakh dialect), muɣuj ‘what, which’

Filchenko (2007, 501, 504)

Northern Khanty

xoj ‘who’ (no examples for others)

Nikolaeva (1999, 45)

Mansi

mānǝr ‘what,’ χōŋχa, χotjut ‘who’

Csilla Horváth, p.c., Rombandeeva (1979, 136)

Forest Enets

še ‘who,’ obu ‘what’ (no examples for obu)

Siegl (2013, 195, 460‒461)

Tundra Nenets

xībʹa ‘who,’ xənʹaŋi° ‘which’

Nikolaeva (2014, 283–284)

Selkup

kuty ‘who’ (no examples for others)

Kuznecova et al. (1980, 401‒402), Kuznecova et al. (2002, 282)

946 KSENIA SHAGAL

‘where (from)’ in (11a) and koozz ‘where to’ in (11b), but its most typical use is still as a relativizer (11c): (11) Skolt Saami (Saamic, Finland, Feist 2015, 269, 270, 195) a. koʹst ton from.where (=rel.loc) you(sg) ‘Where did you (get) these from?’

täid prox.pl.acc

leäk be.prs.2sg

b. koozz vuõʹlǧǧiǩ to.where (=rel.ill) leave.pst.2sg ‘Where did you go?’ c. mon vääldam tuʹst tän pääʹrn I take.prs.1sg you(sg).loc prox.acc boy.acc šõddâm] be.born.ptcp.pst] ‘I’ll take from you this boy, who has been born.’

[kååʹtt [rel

lij be.prs.3sg

In Hungarian, relative pronouns do not fully coincide with interrogative pronouns but are rather derived from them in a regular way using compounds formed with a+, which is historically identical to one form of the demonstrative az (Kenesei et al. 1998, 40, 281–282). Some examples of such pairs are ki ‘who’ and a+ki ‘who (rel),’ mi ‘what’ and a+mi ‘what (rel),’ melyik ‘which one’ and a+mely (also a+melyik in colloquial language) ‘which (rel),’ hol ‘where’ and a+hol ‘where (rel)’; compare (12a) and (12b): (12) Hungarian (Ugric, Hungary, Kenesei et al. 1998, 281, 282) a. Hol van where be.3sg ‘Where is Attila?’

Attila? Attila

b. Az utca, [a-hol lak-unk], egy the street rel-where live-1pl a ‘The street where we live is near a park.’

park park

mellett near

van. be.3sg

In Udmurt, the interrogative pronoun kud ‘which,’ when used in a relative clause, is always accompanied by the third-person singular possessive suffix -(i)z, as shown in (13): (13) Beserman Udmurt (Permic, Russia, Beljaev 2012, 651) Zor [kud-iz zor-i-z kǝ̂k nunal] gǝ̂lt-i-z rain which-3 rain-prt-3 two day wash.out-prt-3 ‘The rain, which fell for two days, washed out the road.’

š’erǝ̂s’-ez. road-acc

If there are several relative pronouns in a language, the selection of a particular pronoun depends primarily on the participant relativized. The pronouns meaning ‘where,’ for example, naturally relativize location, as in (12b) from Hungarian. The choice between basic relative pronouns, if a language has more than one of them, is generally determined by animacy or humanness of the common argument. For example, in Hungarian, the pronoun aki ‘who’ is used only for humans (Kenesei et al. 1998, 282), while in Estonian the

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 947

closest equivalent pronoun, kes ‘who,’ can be used for animals as well (Erelt 2003, 124). In Pite Saami, the animacy distinction, which is present in interrogative pronouns, is neutralized in relative pronouns. While in questions ge ‘who’ is used for animate referents and mij ‘what’ for non-human referents, in the context of relativization, mij is employed for all kinds of common arguments (Wilbur 2014, 120‒121). Standard Hungarian also makes a distinction between non-human specific or countable referents, which are commonly relativized with amely ‘which,’ and non-specific or uncountable nouns, which prefer ami ‘what’ as their relativizer (Kenesei et al. 1998, 282). In all Uralic languages that have them, relative pronouns are able to inflect for case and number (although they do not always do this in particular constructions, as shown in Section 21.2.4 on correlative relative clauses). The number they take reflects the number of the common argument, and the case is normally assigned according to their role in the relative clause; see an example from Finnish in (14) (an important exception is discussed in Section 21.2.5). Minor deviations from this rule are possible in individual languages. For example, in Estonian, the relative pronouns mis ‘what’ and kes ‘who’ are usually in the singular even if the common argument is plural; see (15) and Erelt (2003, 124–125): (14) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) miehe-t, [jo-i-lle te my-i-tte man-pl which-pl-ill you(pl) sell-pst-2pl ‘the men to whom you (pl) sold the house’ (15) Estonian (Finnic, Estonia, Erelt 2003, 125) mehed, [kelle-le te maja man.pl who-ill you[pl] house.gen ‘the men to whom you (pl) sold the house’

talo-n] house-gen

müü-si-te] sell-pst-2pl

21.2.3 Externally headed finite relative clauses Postnominal relative clauses are by far the most common finite relativization strategy in the Uralic family; see examples (10‒15) in the previous section. For some languages, they are the only finite strategy available at all (e.g. Estonian), while for others they are the only type acceptable in the standard language; see Koljadenkov (1954, 283‒284) for Mordvin. For many minority languages of Russia, the prevalence of this strategy can probably be explained by its being the primary strategy in standard Russian. In all the Uralic languages, a relative pronoun itself is a sufficient tool to introduce a relative clause. However, it is also fairly common to use demonstrative pronouns in the main clause, such as, for instance, ta ‘that’ in Northern Mansi (16), or śi ‘that’ in Northern Khanty (17). Relative clauses of this kind are naturally restrictive. (16) Northern Mansi (Ugric, Russia, Németh 2015) am ta āmp wāγ-l-um [χotjut χorti] I that dog know-sg.o-prs.1sg who bark.prs.3sg ‘I know that dog which is barking.’ (17) Northern Khanty (Ugric, Russia, Nikolaeva 1999, 45) naŋ wa:n-se:n śi ńa:wre:m [xoj e:lti xo:p-e:n you(sg) see-pst-sg.2sg that child who to boat-2sg ‘Did you see that fellow to whom you gave your boat?’

ma-s-e:n]? give-pst-sg.2sg

948 KSENIA SHAGAL

Postnominal relative clauses are usually embedded within the main clause and occur immediately after the modified noun. However, in some cases, they can occur outside of it as well, which is clear from the fact that the head noun and the relative clause are separated by other clause constituents. In such cases, the relative clause almost always occurs after the main clause, that is, sentence-finally. Most commonly, such relative clauses are restrictive, and the main clause features a demonstrative pronoun modifying the head noun; see example (18) from Estonian and example (19) from the Shoksha dialect of Erzya Mordvin: (18) Estonian (Finnic, Estonia, Erelt 2003, 125) selle mehe auto, [kes meil this.gen man.gen car who we.ade ‘the car of the man who visited us’

küla-s village-ine

käi-s] visit.pst.3sg

(19) Shoksha Erzya (Mordvin, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 529) N’evesta-n’ ava-s’ il’i loman’ s’t’ama son s’ivid’-e, bride-gen mother-def or man.acc such (s)he find-prs.3sg [kona-s’ mašt-e t’et’ t’ev-t’ t’ii-me, mora-v-t-n’i-me] . . . which-def can-prs.3sg that work-def.gen do-nmzl sing-val-tr-distr-nmzl ‘The bride’s mother herself, or she will find a man who can do this work, (who can) praise . . .’ According to the available descriptions of Uralic languages, in postnominal relative clauses, relative pronouns always occur on the left periphery, that is, clause-initially, as in examples (10), (11c), and (12b). In other words, Uralic languages make use of the relative pronoun strategy as described in Comrie (1998), which is the main strategy in most of the major literary languages of Europe, such as German, Russian, or Italian. This strategy is commonly regarded as an areal typological feature of European languages, since it is very rare outside Europe, except as a recent result of the influence of European languages (Comrie 1998, 61). The use of the relative pronoun strategy in Uralic languages is a clear reflection of areal contact: an intense long-term contact of western Uralic languages with Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic varieties, and a more recent contact of eastern Uralic languages with Russian. 21.2.4 Internally headed finite relative clauses Internally headed relative clauses in Uralic languages are primarily represented by the correlative construction discussed in the introductory section and illustrated in (20a‒20c) in the following. The range of relative pronouns that can be used in correlative constructions is typically not very broad. Importantly, these are usually adjectival, best translated as ‘which,’ such as kona and kodama in Shoksha Erzya, and kudo and mogaj in Meadow Mari. Corresponding elements appearing in the main clause are generally possessive pronouns (20a), demonstrative pronouns (20b), and in the case of Shoksha Erzya, also pronominal markers on postpositions (20c). When the role of the common argument in the main clause is easily recoverable, the pronoun there can be absent altogether. This is especially common when the common argument is a subject of the main clause (20d) or a direct object (20e):

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 949

(20) Shoksha Erzya (Mordvin, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 531, 533, 538, 535, 536). a. [Kona pis’ma-t’ kise mon avard’-i-n’], mon son’d’e which letter-def.gen for I cry-prt-1sg I he.gen.3sg kaj-e. throw.away-prt ‘The letter because of which I cried I have now thrown away.’ b. [Kodama mory-t’ soda-tama], what.kind song-def.gen know-prs.1pl ‘We sing the song that we know.’

st’ama that.kind

i mora-tama. and sing-prs.1pl

c. [Kona loman’-s’ marhtu-t robot-e], naŋ-sa-nda s’ormad-st which man-def together-2sg work-prs.3sg on-ine-3sg write-prt.3pl gazete-se. newspaper-ine ‘(They) wrote in a newspaper about the man who works with you.’ d. [Kona alaše-t’e mon maks-y-n’ t’ikše] pek serynza. which horse-to I give-prt-1sg grass very old ‘The horse to which I gave some grass is very old.’ maks-n’i-s’t’ konfetka-t] mon n’i-kšn’-i-n’. e. [Kona ejhkakš-ny-n’e which child-pl.def-dat give-distr-prt.3pl candy-pl I see-iter-prt-1sg ‘I saw the children to whom (they) gave candies.’ The correlative construction is not the primary relativization strategy for any of the Uralic languages. Nevertheless, it is described for a considerable number of genealogical subgroups within the family, at least for Finnic (Ingrian Finnish, Kholodilova 2013), Mordvin (Shoksha Erzya, Aralova and Brykina 2012), Mari (Meadow Mari, Aralova and Brykina 2012), Permic (Beserman Udmurt, Beljaev 2012), and Ugric (Hungarian, Lipták 2008). Unfortunately, it is fairly difficult to estimate how many languages actually make use of headed correlative relative clauses, since some of the language descriptions seem simply to lack the relevant information.5 This is an especially likely scenario for the minority languages spoken in Russia, whose syntactic descriptions are largely based on that of standard Russian, where headed correlative constructions are extremely rare (Mitrenina 2010). Typically, a correlative relative clause occurs before the main clause, at the very beginning of the sentence. However, in Meadow Mari, certain elements belonging to the main clause, in rare cases, can precede the relative clause: (21) Meadow Mari (Mari, Russia, Aralova and Brykina 2012, 539; Čxaidze 1941, 113 as cited in Aralova and Brykina 2012, 540) a. Tudo, [kudo jal-ǝšte nuno il-a-t], peš torašt-ǝž-ak ogǝl. that which village-ine they live-prs-3pl very far-3sg-emp neg.prs.3sg ‘The village where they live is not very far.’ b. Šükšü vedra-ške, [mogaj poŋg-ǝm verešt-ǝn], tugaj-ǝm opt-en šǝnd-a. old bucket-ill which mushroom-acc find-prt that-acc put-cvb set-prs.3sg ‘Whatever mushrooms come about, (s)he puts into the old bucket.’

950 KSENIA SHAGAL

Unlike in postnominal relative clauses, the relative pronouns occurring in the correlative construction in Shoksha Erzya and Meadow Mari do not inflect for case and number; compare, for instance, (20a) and (20c‒20e). In Ingrian Finnish and Beserman Udmurt, on the other hand, the relative pronoun agrees with the common argument present in the relative clause, as shown in (22): (22) Ingrian Finnish (Finnic, Russia, Kholodilova 2013, 102) [minkä lampà-n miä eilen ost-i-n] (se) loikò koi-n what.gen sheep-gen I yesterday buy-pst-1sg that lie.prs.3sg home-gen luon near ‘The sheep I bought yesterday is lying in front of the house.’ Most commonly, the relative pronoun in a correlative construction appears at the very beginning of the relative clause, as illustrated by the previous examples. However, at least Beserman Udmurt allows for it to follow other clause components, including the head noun. The crucial restriction is that the relative pronoun and the head noun have to be adjacent, as shown in (23): (23) Beserman Udmurt (Permic, Russia, Beljaev 2012, 655) [Mon pin’al-lǝ̂ kud-iz-lǝ̂ vož-m-e pot-i] so pegǯ’-i-z. I child-dat which-3-dat green-1sg-acc come.out-prt that run.away-prt-3 ‘The boy at whom I got angry ran away.’ Another example of this constituent order is reported by Kuznecova et al. (1980, 401– 402) for Selkup, where relative pronouns in headless correlative constructions often occur in situ: (24) Selkup (Samoyedic, Russia, Kuznecova et al. 1980, 402) [Nätäk kut pońyrna], nȳ tulyńńa. girl where chop.wood.prs.3sg there come.pst.3sg ‘He came to the place where the girl was chopping wood.’ Like other finite relativization strategies, the correlative construction allows relativization of all the positions of the Accessibility Hierarchy. Semantically, Uralic correlative relative clauses can only be restrictive, that is, the relative clause obligatorily has to narrow the reference of the common argument. 21.2.5 Inverse attraction In addition to postnominal externally headed relative clauses and correlative relative clauses, some Uralic varieties feature a construction involving a syntactic effect known as inverse attraction. Under this effect, the common argument in the main clause acquires the syntactic flagging which corresponds to the relativized position, that is, it takes the case required by the subordinate clause (Kholodilova 2013, 96). For instance, in example (25) from Ingrian Finnish, the word lammas ‘sheep’ is flagged with the genitive/accusative case, which is the case it would normally receive in the sentence ‘I bought a sheep.’ As the word

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 951

‘sheep’ occupies the subject position in the main clause, it would otherwise be expected to receive nominative marking: (25) Ingrian Finnish (Finnic, Russia, Kholodilova 2013, 97) lampà-n minkä miä eilen ost-i-n loikò koi-n luon sheep-gen what.gen I yesterday buy-pst-1sg lie.prs.3sg home-gen near ‘The sheep I bought yesterday is lying in front of the house.’ Among Uralic languages, the possibility of inverse attraction has been reported for several non-standard varieties, namely, Ingrian Finnish (Kholodilova 2013), the Central dialect of Moksha Mordvin (Privizentseva 2016), and Beserman Udmurt (Beljaev 2012).6 As Kholodilova (2013) and Privizentseva (2016) show in great detail, constructions with inverse attraction share certain properties with regular postnominal relative clauses, while in other respects, they resemble correlative constructions. Moreover, the distribution of shared properties is largely language-specific. According to their analysis, it is, therefore, impossible to classify the constructions with inverse attraction as a subtype of any of the existing relativization strategies. 21.3 NONFINITE RELATIVE CLAUSES 21.3.1 Participles in Uralic languages In addition to finite relative clauses, all Uralic languages also have relative clauses introduced by nonfinite verb forms. Nonfinite relative clauses in Uralic languages have participles as their predicates. Participles are defined here as deranked verb forms that can be used for adnominal modification (Shagal 2019, 1). For instance, the Finnish -ma form traditionally referred to as an agentive participle is one of the standard instruments used by Finnish for direct object relativization (along with finite relative clauses and passive participles in -tu and -tava), as illustrated in (26a). Its deranked status is manifested in a number of ways. First, the agentive participant of the situation is expressed as a possessor and, in the example that follows, bears the genitive suffix (Maria-n). Second, the participle itself (laitta-ma-sta) does not contain any morphemes encoding tense, so the temporal interpretation of the participial relative clause can be fairly wide (although see Section 21.3.3 and examples in (41) for some further discussion). Finally, the participle obligatorily agrees in case and number with the modified noun (kalakuko-sta). Deranked participial relative clauses are opposed to finite relative clauses, illustrated in (26b), where the verbal predicate appears in the same form as in independent sentences (laitt-oi) and is able to take a nominative subject (Maria). (26) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. Pidä-n [Maria-n laitta-ma-sta] kalakuko-sta. like-npst.1sg Maria-gen prepare-ptcp.a-ela.sg fish.pie-ela.sg ‘I like the fish pie cooked by Maria.’ b. Pidä-n kalakuko-sta, [jonka Maria laitto-i]. like-npst.1sg fish.pie-ela which.gen Maria prepare-pst.3sg ‘I like the fish pie that Maria cooked.’

952 KSENIA SHAGAL

Although the typological definition of participle adopted here focuses on the adnominal function of nonfinite forms, as illustrated in (26a), it is important to bear in mind that Uralic nonfinites can be very versatile in their functions. In particular, Uralic verbal paradigms tend to make no distinction between participles (adnominal modifiers) and action nominalizations (verbal arguments); compare example (27a) from Komi-Zyrian, where the form vur-əm is the predicate of a nonfinite relative clause, to example (27b), where exactly the same form heads a complement clause in subject function: (27) Komi-Zyrian (Permic, Russia, Serdobolskaya and Paperno 2006, 1) a. [mama-lɨš’ vur-əm]rc dərəm me koš’al-i I tear-pst.1sg mother-gen2 sew-ptcp shirt ‘I’ve torn the shirt (that) mother sewed.’ b. [mama-lən dərəm vur-əm]cocl menɨm sew-nmzl I.dat mother-gen1 shirt ‘I like the way mother has sewn the shirt.’

kažitč’-ə like-prs.3sg

In some cases, the form that is segmentally and morphemically the same in both contexts can behave differently depending on the function. For example, in Hill Mari, the person suffix indexing the subject of the dependent clause (third-person singular suffix -žə̑ in the examples that follow) attaches to the modified noun in relative clauses (28a) and to the nominalization itself in complement clauses (28b): (28) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, personal fieldwork) a. [Maša(-n) cecaš ə̑rgə̑-mə̑]rc plat’jə̑-žə̑-m Masha-gen now sew-nmzl dress-3sg-acc ‘Did you see the dress that Masha is sewing now?’

už-ə̑n-at? see-prf-2sg

už-ə̑n-at? b. [Maša(-n) cecaš plat’jə̑-m ə̑rgə̑-mə̑-žə̑-m]cc Masha-gen now dress-acc sew-nmzl-3sg-acc see-prf-2sg ‘Did you see that Masha is sewing a dress now?’ The participle/action-nominalization polysemy illustrated earlier is a fairly widespread phenomenon cross-linguistically; see, for instance, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993: 42‒44), Serdobolskaya and Paperno (2006), and Shibatani (2009). It can also be regarded as an areal feature of the languages of Siberia, since it is present not only in Uralic languages but also in Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic, Yeniseian, and some other language groups throughout northern Eurasia (Nefedov 2012; Pakendorf 2012). In some cases, this pattern of polysemy can be seen as diachronic rather than synchronic. For example, the adjectival use of the Finnish form in -ma, which is now a full-fledged participle, is claimed to be secondary to its earlier use as a nominalization (Hakulinen 1979, 198 and further references there). Some of the Uralic languages possess nonfinite forms whose multifunctionality is even wider. For example, the Tundra Nenets forms labelled as modal converbs in Nikolaeva (2014) can function as predicates of relative clauses (29a), complement clauses (29b), and adverbial (supporting) clauses (29c):

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 953

(29) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 322, 354, 378) a. [yil’e-s’°]rc m’aq-m’i live-cvb.mod tent-1sg ‘the tent in which I live’ b. [ti-m xada-°]cocl s’iqt° reindeer-acc kill-cvb.mod you(sg).acc ‘I forced/ordered you to kill the reindeer.’

tab’edaə-d°m order-1sg

c. [ŋarka pæ-n°h t’ebə-°]acl xən° wabtarey°-q big stone-dat bump.into-cvb.mod sledge turn.over-refl.3sg ‘The sledge turned over after/because it bumped into a big stone.’ Some of the Uralic participles can function as predicates in independent clauses as well. For example, the Hill Mari form in -mə̑, whose dependent use is exemplified in (28) earlier, can also appear on its own (without any auxiliary) as a predicate of an independent sentence in resultative contexts where the agent cannot be specified. Two constructions, exemplified in (30a) and (30b), can convey the same meaning, but they differ in the status of copula. In (30a), where the patientive participant shows zero-marking, the third-person singular copula is optional, which is the way it typically behaves with other participles and non-verbal predicates in general. In the construction represented in (30b), where the patientive participant is in the accusative, the copula is not used even with first- or second-person patientive participants, as illustrated in (30c).7 Importantly, in both constructions the participle still behaves as a deranked form in that it does not take any verbal person/number or tense suffixes. (30) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, Aigul Zakirova, p.c.) a. sedə̈rä jažo-n čiältə̈-mə̈ (ə̑l-eš) floor good-adv paint-nmzl be-npst.3sg ‘The floor has been painted well.’ b. sedə̈rä-m jažo-n čiältə̈-mə̈ floor-acc good-adv paint-nmzl ‘The floor has been painted well.’ c. mə̈n’-ə̈m ran’ə̑-mə̑ I-acc wound-nmzl ‘I have been wounded.’ Despite this multifunctionality of most nonfinite forms in Uralic languages, I will use the typological label participle for all of them, to emphasize their comparability in the construction in question. The full list of participial forms in the languages discussed in this chapter is given in Table 21.3 (Section 21.3.6). In the following sections, I concentrate on various distinctions and properties relevant for Uralic participles and provide examples illustrating these properties.

954 KSENIA SHAGAL

21.3.2 Argument expression One of the important signs of deranking shown by participles in Uralic languages is the way they express the relative clause subject when non-subjects are relativized. A number of languages—including Finnish, Erzya, North Saami, and Tundra Nenets—encode participial subjects as if they were possessors, using either genitive case marking, like Maria-n in the Finnish sentence (26a), or possessive suffixes, like -m’i in the Tundra Nenets example (29a). The locus of the person suffix is different in different languages. In Finnish, for instance, it attaches to the participle itself, as in (31), while in Tundra Nenets it normally appears on the head noun and optionally also on the relative clause predicate, as in (32): (31) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) Pidä-n [laitta-ma-sta-si] kalakuko-sta. like-npst.1sg prepare-ptcp.a-ela-2sg fish.pie-ela ‘I like the fish pie that you cooked.’ (32) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 315) [wol˚tampə-we-mt˚] xoba-mt˚ dislike-ptcp.pfv-acc.2sg skin-acc.2sg ‘the skin (acc) that you disliked’ A typologically unusual feature of Uralic participles is that some of them require the subject of a relative clause to be expressed overtly. For example, when used in a relative clause, the Finnish ma-participle, which in this case can only be derived from transitive verbs, requires the agent to be mentioned explicitly in the relative clause (unlike passive participles in -tu and -tava). Otherwise, the sentence is ungrammatical, as shown in (33): (33) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) *Pidä-n [eilen laitta-ma-sta] kalakuko-sta. like-npst.1sg yesterday prepare-ptcp.a-ela fish.pie-ela ‘I like the fish pie cooked yesterday.’ Erzya is less strict in its requirements. In a relative clause built with the past passive participle in |vt, expressing the agentive participant is obligatory only if the participle has no other dependents. For example, in (34a), the agent bearing a genitive suffix (t’et’a-n’) cannot be omitted, since it is the only dependent of the participle. In (34b), on the other hand, the agentive participant does not need to be expressed, since the participial clause features the adjective kizen’ ‘estival,’ specifying the temporal location of the situation. Bartens (1999, 153) suggests that the nature of this restriction is purely morphological, since the form kizen’ in Erzya is originally also a noun kize ‘summer’ with a genitive case suffix: (34) Erzya (Mordvin, Russia, Bartens 1999, 153) a. [*(t’et’a-n’) rama-vt] lišme-s’ father-gen buy-ptcp.pst horse-def ‘the horse bought by the father’

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 955

b. [kizen’ rama-vt] skal estival buy-ptcp.pst cow ‘the cow bought in summer’ Another way of expressing the subject in a participial relative clause is to encode it as a non-core participant. For example, Hungarian employs postposition által, which is a strategy similar to that of many (Indo-)European languages; compare the Hungarian construction in (35) to its English translation: (35) Hungarian (Ugric, Hungary, Kenesei et al. 1998, 46) az [Anna által tegnap olvas-ott] könyv def Anna by yesterday read-ptcp.pst book ‘the book read by Anna yesterday’ Certain Uralic languages show a range of different ways of expressing the participial clause subject. In Meadow Mari, which has probably the most elaborate distribution, it can be expressed not only by a possessive suffix on the head noun or as a genitive participant, but also as a nominative or instrumental participant. The range of possibilities is different for personal pronouns, other pronouns, proper names, noun phrases denoting humans, noun phrases denoting other animate participants, and noun phrases denoting inanimate participants, as represented in Table 21.2 from Brykina and Aralova (2012, 488). A very similar situation is attested in Komi-Zyrian (Brykina and Aralova 2012, 503), with a slightly wider range of options available for each type of participant (for example, Komi-Zyrian allows instrumental encoding for all types of participants), and in the Beserman Udmurt relative clauses formed by |m participles (Brykina and Aralova 2012, 515). In Hill Mari, the overall tendency is basically the same as well: the higher the subject is on Silverstein’s (1976) animacy hierarchy, the more likely it is to be encoded as a possessor. However, according to my data, the subject of Hill Mari participial clauses is never expressed as a peripheral participant, so the nominative case is used for the least animate agents, such as, for instance, the wind or the sun.

TABLE 21.2  SUBJECT ENCODING IN PARTICIPIAL RELATIVE CLAUSES IN MEADOW MARI Personal pronoun

Other pronoun

Proper name

NP denoting a human

NP denoting an animate participant

NP denoting an inanimate participant

Possessive affix on the head noun

+

–

–

–

–

–

Genitive

+

+

+

+

+

+

Nominative

–

–

–

(+)

Instrumental (postposition)

–

–

–

–

8

+

+

–

+

956 KSENIA SHAGAL

Finally, in Northern Khanty, the agent in participial relative clauses is either encoded as a possessor (by the possessive suffix on the head noun), as in (36a), or takes locative marking, as in (36b). (36) Northern Khanty (Ugric, Russia, Nikolaeva 1999, 78, 76) a. [naŋ mo:sməlt-ə-m] o:xsa:r-e:n you(sg) wound-ep-ptcp.pst fox-2sg ‘The fox you wounded will not go far.’

jel an man-l far not go-npst.3sg

b. [loŋkər-na xir-ə-m] o:ŋxi xośa mouse-loc dig-ep-ptcp.pst hole at ‘In the hole dug by the mouse lives a snake.’

muwle:r u:-l snake be-npst.3sg

According to Nikolaeva (1999, 76), the locative encoding of the agent signals that the relative clause is passive. There is, however, no data concerning when this passive strategy is used for relativization in the language. The data on subject expression in Uralic participial relative clauses is summarized in Table 21.3 (Section 21.3.6). Non-standard ways of expressing other participants in nonfinite relative clauses are much less common, both typologically (Shagal 2019, 204‒213) and within the Uralic language family. Direct objects in nonfinite relative clauses are mostly encoded in the same way as in independent sentences; see Toldova and Serdobolskaya (2002) and Serdobolskaya and Toldova (2017) for an overview of the latter. The only notable exception are the Mari languages, in which the direct object of a finite independent clause always receives accusative marking, while nonfinite clauses show differential object marking (Shagal and Volkova 2018). In most contexts, speakers prefer the accusative encoding of the direct object in participial relative clauses as well; see example (4) for Meadow Mari. However, sometimes speakers use the form without an accusative suffix (which looks like the nominative form), especially when the object is perceived as an uncountable entity. Accusative flagging, which is obligatory in independent sentences, is, nevertheless, always acceptable in these clauses too; compare examples (37a‒37b) and (37c‒37d): (37) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, personal fieldwork)

kač-šə̑ ] a. [Lem/lem-ə̈m t’et’ä-vlä vele morožə̑ nə̑ jə̑-m polučaj-a-t. soup/soup-acc eat-ptcp.act child-pl only ice.cream-acc get-npst.3-pl ‘Only the kids who eat (the) soup will get ice-cream.’ b. T’et’ä-vlä lem-ə̈m/*lem child-pl soup-acc/soup ‘The kids will eat the soup.’

kačk-ə̑-t. eat-npst-3pl

c. [Ävä-m-ə̈n turi/turi-m žarə̑-m] skovorodkə̑-žə̑ mother-1sg-gen potatoes/potatoes-acс fry-nmzl frying.pan-3sg kogo-n toštə̑. big-adv old ‘The frying pan in which mother is frying potatoes is very old.’

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 957

d. Ävä-m turi-m/*turi žar-a. mother-1sg potatoes-acc/potatoes fry-npst.3 ‘Mother is frying potatoes.’ Other dependents, such as various kinds of adverbials, are expressed in the same way as in independent sentences headed by finite verb forms. 21.3.3 TAM properties of participles Cross-linguistically, there are two main types of participial markers according to their TAM properties: [–TAM] markers and [+TAM] markers (Shagal 2019, 158). The [–TAM] markers simply indicate the participial status of the form and do not themselves express any aspectual, temporal, or modal contrasts. The [+TAM] markers not only derive a participle from the verb stem but also convey some information about the TAM meaning of the resulting form. Both types are attested in Uralic languages. An example of a [–TAM] participial morpheme is the suffix -šə̑ in Hill Mari. Depending on the context, it can refer to situations in the past, for example, (38a), present, for example, (38b), or future, for example, (38c): (38) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, personal fieldwork) a. [Tengečə̈ zvoni-šə̈] vrač tagačə̑ tokə̑-m tol-eš. yesterday call-ptcp.act doctor today home-1sg come-npst.3sg ‘The doctor who called yesterday will come to my place today.’ b. Ti mešäk-ə̈m [tə̈ nə̑r-ə̑štə̑ rovotajə̑-šə̑] püerg-län this bag-acc that field-ine work-ptcp.act man-dat ‘Give this bag to the man who is working in that field.’

pu. give.imp

c. [Və̈d don tem-šə̈] vedə̈rä-m kel-eš water with fill.up-ptcp.act bucket-acc be.necessary-npst.3sg li-eš karangd-aš. be-npst.3sg move.away-inf ‘We will need to move away the bucket that will have filled up with water.’ The participial markers belonging to the [+TAM] type can generally express either absolute or relative tense, although very commonly it is difficult to draw a line between the two and to formulate the exact TAM meaning of a particular participial form. The Hill Mari suffix -šašlə̑k, for instance, is primarily used for future situations, but it sometimes also appears in debitive contexts both in relative clauses and independent sentences (in the latter case, usually accompanied by an auxiliary); see (39a) and (39b), respectively: (39) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, personal fieldwork) a. [Rešä-šäšlə̑k] zadač-em piš trudna. solve-ptcp.fut problem-1sg very hard ‘The problem that I must solve is very hard.’

958 KSENIA SHAGAL

b. Čas mašinä tol-šašlə̑k ə̑l-eš. now car come-ptcp.fut be-npst.3sg ‘The car must come now.’ The so-called perfective and imperfective participles in Tundra Nenets differ in that the former typically refers to situations preceding those described in the main clause, while the latter is used when the two are simultaneous; compare (40a) and (40b): (40) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 318) a. [Moskva-xəd° to-wi°] nəni-m xamc°ə-d°m Moscow-abl come-ptcp.pfv guy-acc love-1sg ‘I am in love with a guy who came from Moscow.’ b. [Moskva-xəna yil’e-n’a] nəni-m xamc°ə-d°m Moscow-loc live-ptcp.ipfv guy-acc love-1sg ‘I am in love with a guy who lives in Moscow.’ Some of the participles formed with suffixes that should properly be classified as [–TAM] do, however, have certain preferences regarding their temporal interpretation. In particular, temporal interpretation of a participial form can be conditional on some properties of the verb or the clause in general. For example, the Finnish participle in -ma behaves differently depending on the aspectual class of the verb from which it is derived. If there are no time adverbials in the relative clause, the situation is most likely to be interpreted as past with accomplishments such as ‘to read’ (41a), and as present with states such as ‘to own’ (41b): (41) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. Missä on [luke-ma-si] kirja? where be.npst.3sg read-ptcp.a-2sg book ‘Where is the book you have read?’ b. [Omista-ma-ni] asunto on sukuni ensimmäinen own-ptcp.a-1sg apartment be.npst.3sg family.gen.1sg first koti Helsingi-ssä. home Helsinki-ine ‘The apartment that I own is the first home of my family in Helsinki.’ Overall, the Uralic participles are able to express a fairly wide variety of TAM meanings, including at least past, present, and future tenses, perfective and imperfective aspect, and potential and debitive modality. In addition, in Tundra Nenets, if a certain meaning cannot be expressed using the regular participial forms on their own, the language may resort to periphrastic constructions, for example, the combination of a participle with a purposive converb (Shagal 2019, 169). 21.3.4 Participles and negation In some Uralic languages, participial relative clauses are symmetrically negated with regular negative particles, which are otherwise used to negate nouns and adjectives; note the example of an Erzya active participle in (42):

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 959

(42) Erzya (Mordvin, Russia, Hamari and Aasmäe 2015, 308) a. [lovn-ic’a] t’ejt’er’ read-ptcp.prs girl ‘a girl who reads’ b. [a / avol’ lovn-ic’a] t’ejt’er’ neg / neg read-ptcp.prs girl ‘a girl who does not read’ In Tundra Nenets nonfinite relative clauses, the negative verb takes the form of a participle, and the lexical verb takes the required nonfinite form, as shown in (43a) and (43b).9 In contrast, in finite negative clauses, the negative auxiliary normally carries a tense marker, while the lexical verb appears in a connegative form, as in (43c): (43) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 302, 303, 204) a. [tʹukoxəna n ʹi-wi° yilʹe-wi°] nʹenecʹ°h here neg-ptcp.pfv live-ptcp.pfv person ‘the man who didn’t live here’ b. [nʹi-wi° xǣ-qmʹa] neg-ptcp.pfv go-nmzl.pfv ‘the city where I didn’t go’

mər°q-mʹi city-1sg

c. xībʹaxərt°-m nʹī-sʹ lad°-q nobody-acc neg-pst.3sg hit-cng ‘He didn’t hit anybody.’ On the other hand, many Uralic languages have dedicated negative participial forms, such as -də̑mə̑ and -deme in Hill and Meadow Mari, respectively, or Tundra Nenets -mədawe(y(ə)); the latter provides an alternative way of negating the |miə participle. Some of the negative participles are not even derived from any of the affirmative participles, for example, North Saami -keahtes, or Northern Khanty -li. What is, however, most interesting is that all the negative participles, even those that can be traced back to a combination of a particular affirmative form and a negative morpheme, can show properties that are unique to the language. For example, the Finnish negative participle in -maton is clearly derived from the agentive participial suffix -ma and the nominal negative affix -ton; compare asunto ‘apartment’ and asunno-ton ‘the one without an apartment, apartment-less.’ Despite this, the participle is unusual not only for Finnish but also for European languages in general in that it can relativize a wide range of participants (see Section 21.3.5 on the relativizing capacity of Uralic participles). It can, therefore, be used not only as the negative of all the active and passive Finnish participles, as shown in (44a–44c), but can even form negative clauses relativizing peripheral participants of the clause, as in (44d), and temporal adverbials, as in (44e):10 (44) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. [koskaan kuole-maton] rakkaus never die-ptcp.neg love ‘love that never dies’

960 KSENIA SHAGAL

b. [loppututkinto-a suoritta-maton] hakija final.degree-part complete-ptcp.neg applicant ‘the applicant that did not complete the final degree’ c. [kenen-kään tietä-mätön] who.gen-pol know-ptcp.neg ‘the amount that nobody knows’

määrä amount

d. [lähes istu-maton] vuodesohva almost sit-ptcp.neg sofa ‘the sofa that almost was not sat on’ e. [täysin syö-mätön] päivä fully eat-ptcp.neg day ‘the day when (someone) did not eat at all’ A single negative participle is also normally neutralized with respect to TAM properties, since such forms often function as a negative counterpart to all or at least several affirmative forms in the language (see Shagal 2019, 178–183 for a typological overview of negative participles). For example, as mentioned earlier in Section 21.3.3, in Northern Khanty, the two affirmative participles differ in their tense characteristics, one referring to past and the other to non-past events. The negative participle -li, on the other hand, is neutral with respect to temporal and aspectual characteristics: (45) Northern Khanty (Ugric, Russia, Nikolaeva 1999, 34) a. [pe:jal-ti xo:s-li] ńa:wre:m il su:wil-ǝ-ti pit-ǝ-s swim-inf can-ptcp.neg child down drown-ep-inf start-ep-pst.3sg ‘A child who could not swim started drowning.’ b. [jo:nt-li] je:rnas śuŋ-na xu:j-ǝ-l sew-ptcp.neg dress corner-loc lie-ep-npst.3sg ‘A dress which someone did not finish sewing lies in the corner.’ The data on negation in Uralic participial relative clauses is provided in Table 21.3 (Section 21.3.6). 21.3.5 Nominal agreement with the modified noun One of the consequences of the nominalization of a nonfinite relative clause predicate is that it can agree with the head of the relative construction with respect to various nominal categories, which, in the case of Uralic languages, are case and number. This syntactic feature is what participles typically share with adjectives, the part of speech which is their functional equivalent. In most Uralic languages, such as, for example, all Samoyedic varieties, Khanty, and Mansi, neither adjectives nor participles agree with the noun within the NP (Nikolaeva

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 961

2014, 43, 107, mentions optional case and number agreement of adjectives and participles with the nouns they modify, but this is extremely rare). Finnish, on the other hand, features obligatory nominal agreement for both categories, as shown in (46): (46) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. Keitto-a voi tehdä kuiva|tu-i-sta sien-i-stä. soup-part can.3sg do.inf dry|ptcp.pst.pass-pl-ela mushroom-pl-ela ‘One can cook soup with dried mushrooms.’ b. Keitto-a voi tehdä tuore-i-sta sien-i-stä. soup-part can.3sg do.inf fresh-pl-ela mushroom-pl-ela ‘One can cook soup with fresh mushrooms.’ Agreement of a relativizing participle with its modified noun can also be conditional on certain factors. For example, in Beserman Udmurt, the regular position of a participle or a participial relative clause is before the modified noun, and when occupying this position, the participle shows agreement in neither case nor number, as shown in (47a) and (47b). When, on the other hand, the participial relative clause is used postnominally for certain communicative reasons, the agreement in case and number is obligatory, as in (47c): (47) Beserman Udmurt (Permic, Russia, Brykina and Aralova 2012, 509, 507, 515) a. Mon jarat-iš’ko [turna-m] turǝ̑n-lǝ̑š’ I love-prs mow-nmzl grass-gen2 ‘I love the smell of mowed grass.’

zǝ̑n-z-e. smell-3sg-acc

b. [Abi-len až’ pal-a-z puk-iš’] pinal’-l’os grandmother-gen1 in.front.of side-ine/ill-3 sit-ptcp.act child-pl kǝ̑lǯ’-iš’k-o skaska-ez, ju-o jǝ̑l. listen-detr-prs.3pl fairy.tale-acc drink-prs.3pl milk ‘Children that are sitting in front of their granny are listening to a fairy tale and drinking milk.’ c. Stud’ent-jos-lǝ̑, [lǝ̑kt-em-jos-lǝ̑ dor-a-z], student-pl-dat come-nmzl-pl-dat time-ine/ill-3 puk.t.ǝ̑l-i-z-ǝ̑ vit’. put.tr.iter-prt-3-pl five ‘The students that came on time were given “fives” (A grades).’ Similar rules have been reported to work in some other Uralic languages, such as Meadow Mari and Komi-Zyrian, although in these languages postnominal use of participial relative clauses seems even rarer (Brykina and Aralova 2012). The observed agreement pattern is in line with the typological tendency for participles to agree with the modified noun when occurring in an uncommon position (Shagal 2019, 193). It should be noted

962 KSENIA SHAGAL

that adjectives in languages showing this pattern hardly ever appear postnominally, so the phenomenon in question seems to be specific to participles. In Estonian, present participles in -v and -tav always agree with modified nouns in case and number, as in (48a), while past participles in -nud and -tud agree only if used postnominally, something that is not typical of them; compare (48b) and (48c). Unlike in Mari and the Permic languages, regular adjectives in Estonian do agree with modified nouns in case and number, as can be seen in suur-te-sse mees-te-sse ‘big-pl-ill manpl-ill’ (Erelt 2003, 113), so it is rather prenominal past participles that deviate from the general agreement pattern. (48) Estonian (Finnic, Estonia, Erelt 2003, 125) a. [maga-v-ad] sleep-ptcp.prs.act-nom.pl ‘sleeping children’

lapse-d child-nom.pl

b. [laua-le vedelema jäe-tud] raamatu-d table-all lying leave-ptcp.pst.pass.nom.sg book-nom.pl ‘the books that had been left lying about on the table’ c. raamatu-id, [laua-le vedelema jäe-tu-id] book-part.pl table-all lying leave-ptcp.pst.pass-part.pl ‘the books that had been left lying about on the table (part)’ The available data on nominal agreement in participial relative clauses is summarized in Table 21.3 (Section 21.3.6). 21.3.6 Relativizing capacity of participles Cross-linguistically, participles differ in their relativizing capacity, that is, in the range of participants that a given participial form can relativize. This range determines the orientation of the participle; see Haspelmath (1994, 153) on this notion. The two main types of participles with respect to orientation are inherently oriented participles and contextually oriented participles. An inherently oriented participle is able to relativize only one particular participant of a certain verb. For example, active participles in Finnish can only relativize subjects of both transitive and intransitive verbs, as shown in (49a) and (49b), respectively. Passive participles, on the other hand, specialize on direct object relativization; see (49c) and (49d). In rare cases, the orientation of passive participles can extend to certain non-core participants, as shown in (49e) and discussed in Shagal (2019, 71–72), but such extensions should rather be treated as exceptions. (49) Finnish (Finnic, Finland, personal knowledge) a. [kalakukko-a laitta-va] tyttö fish.pie-part prepare-ptcp.npst.act girl ‘the girl who is preparing a fish pie’

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 963

b. [hyvin nukku-nut] well sleep-ptcp.pst.act ‘the girl who slept well’

tyttö girl

c. [huomenna laite-ttava] kalakukko tomorrow prepare-ptcp.npst.pass fish.pie ‘the fish pie that should be prepared tomorrow’ d. [eilen laite-ttu] kalakukko yesterday prepare-ptcp.pst.pass fish.pie ‘the fish pie that was prepared yesterday’ e. [asu-ttu] saari live-ptcp.pst.pass island ‘an inhabited island’ A contextually oriented participle, on the other hand, can relativize a wide range of participants, depending on the sentence in which it appears. In the example that follows, one and the same Northern Khanty past participle in -m relativizes a transitive subject (50a), a direct object (50b), an indirect object (50c), a peripheral participant whose interpretation may vary depending on a wider context (50d), and a possessor (50e): (50) Northern Khanty (Ugric, Russia, Nikolaeva 1999, 76–77) a. [luw-e:l we:l-ə-m] 3sg-acc kill-ep-ptcp.pst ‘the man who killed him’

ne:ŋxi man

b. [luw jo:s-na u:ś-ə-m] 3sg road-loc meet-ep-ptcp.pst ‘the people he met on the road’

mir-ə-l people-ep-3sg

c. [naŋ a:n mij-ə-m] pox-e:n you(sg) cup give-ep-ptcp.pst boy-2sg ‘about the boy to whom you gave the cup’

e:wəlt about

d. [a:śe:-m potərt-ə-m] xatl father-1sg speak-ep-ptcp.pst day ‘the day about which my father was speaking’/ ‘the day when my father was speaking’ e. [ńa:wre:m-l-al wo:s-na man-ə-m] child-pl-3 city-loc go-ep-ptcp.pst ‘the old men whose children went to the city’

purəś old

ike:-ti man-pl

964 KSENIA SHAGAL

In general, the relativizing potential of Uralic contextually oriented participles tends to be fairly high. In particular, many of them are even able to relativize possessors, which are known to be among the most typologically difficult relativization targets (Keenan and Comrie 1977). Importantly, in this type of participial relativization, the role of the relativized participant is not simply assumed from the context, as in other cases, but is rather indicated in the relative clause by a resumptive element, for example, the possessive suffix on the possessee, as -al in example (50e) from Northern Khanty. With respect to participial orientation, Uralic languages fall into three major groups, which can be referred to as the Standard Average European (SAE) type (see Haspelmath 2001 on this notion), the North Asian type, and the Mixed type. The geographical distribution of the types reflects the contact history of the languages in that the westernmost languages belong to the SAE type, the easternmost languages belong to the North Asian type, and languages of the Mixed type are spoken roughly in the middle. Languages of the SAE type employ participles inherently oriented only toward certain core participants, that is, S (intransitive clause subject), A (transitive clause subject), or P (transitive clause object). These are the Saami languages, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Erzya, and Moksha. In Estonian, Finnish, North Saami, and Skolt Saami, the contrast in orientation is between active and passive participles, which relativize S/A and P participants, respectively. For instance, North Saami features two active participial forms, past and present (51a), and one passive form (51b): (51) North Saami (Saamic, Finland, Ylikoski 2009, 132) a. [reivve lohkk-i / lohka-n] áhčči letter.gen/acc read-ptcp.prs / read-ptcp.pst father ‘the father who is reading the letter / the father who read the letter’ b. [áhči lohka-n] reive father.gen/acc read-ptcp.pass.a letter ‘the letter read by the father’ In Erzya, Moksha, and Hungarian, there are inherently oriented participles which group the core participants in a way different from the active‒passive distinction. These are absolutive participles, which are able to relativize the P argument of a transitive verb and an S argument of an intransitive verb. An example is the Hungarian past participle in -ott; see (52a) and (52b). The absolutive participle in Hungarian is opposed to the active form, illustrated in (52c): (52) Hungarian (Ugric, Hungary, Kenesei et al. 1998, 45–47) a. az [Anna által tegnap olvas-ott] könyv def Anna by yesterday read-ptcp.pst book ‘the book read by Anna yesterday’

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 965

b. a [tegnap London-ba érkez-ett] def yesterday London-ill arrive-ptcp.pst ‘the girl that arrived to London yesterday’

lány girl

c. A [könyv-et a fiú-nak gyorsan olvas-ó] lány itt the book-acc the boy-dat fast read-ptcp.act girl here ‘The girl who reads the book to the boy quickly is here.’

van. is

Moksha also has only one absolutive participle, the resultative form in -f illustrated by an example of P relativization in (53). Erzya, on the other hand, has two. The use of participle in -vt for P relativization has already been shown in (34), while its use for S relativization is illustrated in (54): (53) Moksha (Mordvin, Russia, Kozlov 2018, 380) s’ɛ [kos’fta-f ] zolat-t’n’ə-n’ məl’ə this dry(tr)-ptcp.res malt-def.pl-gen later ‘I’ll grind these dried seeds later.’

jaža-sajn’ə grind-npst.3pl>1sg

(54) Erzya (Mordvin, Russia, Raptanov 1985, 161)11 [valske-n’ ojma-vt] van’ks ved-n’e-se morning-gen settle.out-ptcp.pst clean water-def.pl-ine ‘with clean water that is settled out in the morning’ The second absolutive participle in Erzya, which has no parallel form in Moksha, is the form in -z’, for example, ken’er’e-z’ umar’ ‘ripened apple’ (S relativization), or čapavto-z’ umar’ ‘soaked apple’ (P relativization) (Cygankin 1980, 351–353). In both Mordvin languages, the participial paradigm also includes an active participle used for A/S relativization, -i/-j in Moksha and -i(c’a) in Erzya. Apparently, the only participle attested in Pite (Arjeplog) Saami, the -m form, also has absolutive orientation, as can be seen from (55a) illustrating P relativization and (55b) presumably illustrating S relativization: (55) Arjeplog Saami (Saamic, Sweden, Lehtiranta 1992, 98) a. [ruop’sis maal’lihtum] red paint.ptcp.prf ‘a cottage painted in red’

stååhpuo cottage

b. te lijka nuorra [kieskas vaal’tum] dp be.pst.3du young recently marry.ptcp.prf ‘There was a young recently married couple.’

almatjah person.pl

However, Lehtiranta (1992) provides very little data on the use of m-participle, and Wilbur (2014) does not mention its adjectival use at all. It seems, therefore, that this type of construction is very rare in Pite Saami.

966 KSENIA SHAGAL

In the languages of the North Asian type, namely, Eastern and Northern Khanty, Mansi, Forest Enets, Tundra Nenets, Nganasan, and Selkup, almost all participial forms are contextually oriented. As shown, for instance, in Pakendorf (2012), such participial systems are overwhelmingly common throughout Siberia and may be regarded as one of the features of Siberia as a linguistic area; see also Shagal (2016). Northern Khanty shows the simplest paradigm of this kind, with a non-past participle in -ti and a past participle in -m. The forms are identical in their relativizing capacity. They are both able to relativize a great number of participants, including not only the core participants of the situation but also various adverbials and possessors; for examples, see (50) earlier. Tundra Nenets has a more elaborate system, with two distinct sets of forms used for relativization. The forms belonging to the first set (referred to as participles by Nikolaeva 2014, 107) can relativize all kinds of subjects and direct objects, while the second set (action nominals and the modal converb) can relativize a wide range of peripheral participants, such as indirect objects, obliques, and diverse adverbials. Examples of relative clauses formed with participles were provided earlier in (32) and (40), the first one being an instance of direct object relativization, and the second one illustrating subject relativization. The examples that follow illustrate the use of other nonfinites for the relativization of the indirect object (56a), the instrument (56b), the comitative adjunct (56c); for time and locative adverbials, see (56d) and (56e): (56) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic, Russia, Nikolaeva 2014, 321–325) a. [kniga-m m ’is-oqma (-m’i )] xasawa book-acc give-nmzl.pfv-1sg man ‘the boy to whom I gave the book’

ŋəc’ekem’i child.1sg

b. [ŋuda-m’i m əda-qma(-m’i)] xər°-m’i hand-acc.1sg cut-nmzl.pfv-1sg knife-1sg ‘the knife with which I cut my hand’ / yil’ e-s’ə-m’i ] c. [yil’e-s’° live-cvb.mod / live-cvb.mod-1sg ‘the person with whom I live’

n’enec’ə-m’i person-1sg

d. [toxodənə-° xǣ-s’°] yal’a-doh study-cvb.mod go-cvb.mod day-3pl ‘the day for them to go to study’ e. [m’ūd°-naq m’i-ma] soti° caravan-gen.1pl move-nmzl.ipfv hill ‘the hill over which our caravan is moving’ Finally, languages of the Mixed type, namely, Hill and Meadow Mari, Komi-Zyrian, and Beserman Udmurt, show a system that is intermediate between those described previously, that is, they feature both inherently and contextually oriented forms. Typologically, this type of participial system is fairly uncommon. Nevertheless,

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 967

outside the Uralic family, it is found in Turkish, where the -an participle relativizes all kinds of subjects, while the choice of the two non-subject participles is determined by whether the situation occurs in the future (-(y)acak) or not (-dik); see Pakendorf (2012). In Komi-Zyrian, there is an inherently oriented active participle in -ɨš’, which relativizes all kinds of subjects, as shown in (57a) and (57b), and two contextually oriented participles, which can relativize both subjects and non-subjects. The -ǝm participle is perfective and tends to express absolute and relative past events; see (57c) and (57d) for subject and locative relativization, respectively. The participle in -an is mostly used to refer to the relative present and to permanent properties; see (57e) for subject relativization and (57f) for instrumental relativization: (57) Komi-Zyrian (Permic, Russia, Brykina and Aralova 2012, 493, 493, 494, 494, 497, 497) a. me boš’t-a as-kəd-ɨm [tǝrɨt vo-iš’] Saša-ǝs I take-npst refl-com-1 yesterday come-ptcp.act Sasha-acc ‘I will take Sasha, who came yesterday, with me.’ b. kolǝ dugǝd-nɨ [Vaš’a-ǝs nǝjt-iš’] Pet’a-ǝs is.necessary stop-inf Vasya-acc beat-ptcp.act Petya-acc ‘We need to stop Petya, who is beating Vasya.’ c. [kerka-ǝ pɨr-ǝm] lǝǯ’ menǝ jon-a house-ill enter-nmzl gadfly I.acc strong-adv ‘The gadfly that flew into the house stung me mightily.’

kurtčʼč’-i-s bite-prt-3

d. [tǝrɨt sulal-ǝm] mesta-a-s kol’-i-s-nɨ kok tuj-jas yesterday stand-nmzl place-ine/ill-3 remain-prt-3-pl foot way-pl ‘On the place where he was standing yesterday remained some footprints.’ e. solʼ-sǝ šybit-nɨ [pu-an] salt-acc.3 throw-inf boil-dadj ‘to throw salt into boiling water’

va-ǝ water-ill

f. [kuhn’a ignal-an] kl’uč’-ɨs kitchen lock-dadj key-3 ‘the key with which the kitchen is locked’ A similar situation is observed in Beserman Udmurt, the only difference in orientation being that the form in -n corresponding to the Komi-Zyrian -an cannot relativize subjects. In the Mari languages, there is an active participle (Meadow Mari -še and Hill Mari -šə̑) and a multifunctional participle which allows the relativization of all positions on the Accessibility Hierarchy to the right of the direct object (Meadow Mari -me and Hill Mari -mə̑). Both forms have a relatively free temporal orientation. In sharp contrast, the third participle has full contextual orientation: it is restricted to future contexts (Meadow Mari -šaš and Hill Mari -šašlə̑k). The properties of participles functioning as relative clause predicates are summarized in Table 21.3 (some values are provided for several participles in the uppermost line).

Language

North Saami

Form

Orientation

TAM

Subject

-i/-(j)eaddji

A/S

prs

-n

A/S

pst

—

-n

P

pst

gen

-keahtes

A/S/P

free

none

Negation

ptcp -keahtes

Nominal agreement adj

ptcp

‒

‒

Source

Ylikoski (2009)

neg

Pite Saami

-m

S/P (?)

prf

no examples

?

‒

‒

Lehtiranta (1992)

Skolt Saami

-i

A/S

prs

—

ptcp -kani

‒

‒

Feist (2015)

-am

A/S

pst

Estonian

Finnish

-um

P

-m

P, OBL

free (pst)

no examples gen

-kani

only P examples

pst

no examples

neg

-v

A/S

prs

—

A/S

pst

nonfinite neg mitte

+

-nud -tav

P

prs

Erelt (2003), Tiina Klooster, p.c.

-tud

P

pst

+ prs, pst when postposed, ‒ pst

ptcp -maton

+

+

personal knowledge, Hakulinen et al. (2004)

-va

A/S

prs

-nut

A/S

pst

-tava

P

prs

gen — none

-tu

P

pst

-ma

P

free (pfv)

poss/gen

-maton

contextual (OBL)

free

poss/gen (rare)

neg

968 KSENIA SHAGAL

TABLE 21.3  PROPERTIES OF PARTICIPIAL FORMS IN URALIC LANGUAGES

Erzya

Moksha

Mari (Hill //Meadow)

Komi (-Zyrian)

Hungarian Eastern Khanty

A/S

prs

—

S/P

pfv

?

regular neg particles a and avol’

‒

‒

Bartens (1999), Hamari and Aasmäe (2015)

-vt

S/P

pst

gen

-i/-j

A/S

prs

—

regular neg particles a and af

‒

‒

Cygankin (1980, 347–354)

-f

S/P

res

ptcp-də̑mə̑ // -deme

‒

‒ (+ in postposed RCs in Meadow Mari)

personal fieldwork // Brykina and Aralova (2012, 478‒491)

‒

‒ (+ in postposed RCs)

Brykina and Aralova (2012, 491‒505)

‒

‒ (+ in postposed RCs)

Brykina and Aralova (2012, 505‒517)

-šə̑ // -še

A/S

nfut

—

-mə̑ // -me

contextual (P‒POSS)

nfut

-šašlə̑k // -šaš

contextual (POSS)

fut/deb

poss/gen/nom (also inst in Meadow Mari)

-də̑mə̑ // -deme

contextual (POSS)

free

neg

-ɨš’

A/S

prs

—

-ǝm

contextual (POSS)

pst

-an

contextual (OBL)

prs/hab

poss/gen/nom/ inst

ptcp -təm

-təm

contextual (OBL)

free

-š’

A/S

prs

—

neg neg.attr -tem

-m

contextual (OBL)

pst

poss/gen/nom (rarely inst)

marker -te

-n

contextual (OBL)

npst/deb

?

neg.attr -tem

-ó

A/S

prs

—

‒

S/P

pst

által

regular neg particle nem

‒

-ott

Kenesei et al. (1998)

poss/unmarked

N/A

‒

‒

Filchenko (2007)

-tə

contextual (OBL)

ipfv

-əm

contextual (OBL)

pfv (Continued )

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 969

(Beserman) Udmurt

-i(c’a) -z’

Language

Northern Khanty Northern Mansi Forest Enets

Tundra Nenets

Form

-ti

Orientation

contextual (POSS)

TAM

npst

Subject

Negation

poss/loc

ptcp -li

Nominal agreement

Source

adj

ptcp

‒

‒

Nikolaeva (1999)

-m

contextual (POSS)

pst

-li

S/P

free

?

neg

-n

contextual (OBL)

prs

poss

‒

‒

-m

contextual (OBL)

pst

poss

verb stem + car -tāl/ particle at

Rombandeeva (1973), Daria Zhornik, p.c.

?

‒

very rare

Siegl (2013)

rare

rare

Nikolaeva (2014)

-đa/-da/-ta

A/S/P

ipfv

none (?)

-iʔ

A/S/P

pfv

poss

-uda

A/S/P

fut

none (?)

-uđai

A/S/P

fut

-n(’)a/-t(’)a

A/S/P

prs

-miə/-me

A/S/P

pst

ptcp -mədawe(y(ə))

-mənta

A/S/P

fut/mod

neg-ptcp + ptcp

ptcp -uđai neg

poss

neg-ptcp + ptcp

-m(’)a, -s’ə/-ə

contextual (IO‒OBL)

prs

-(o)qm(’)a

contextual (IO‒OBL)

pst

neg.ptcp + nmzl

-mədawe(y(ə))

A/S/P

pst

neg

970 KSENIA SHAGAL

TABLE 21.3  (CONTINUED)

Nganasan

Selkup

-tuə

A/S/P

prs

-(suə)d’əə

A/S/P

pst

-ʔsutə

A/S/P

fut/deb

-məə

P

pst

none or lat (rare)

-mətumaʔa

A/S/P

pst

poss/gen

neg

-(n)tɨl’

contextual (OBL)

prs

gen

ptcp-kun’čitɨl’

-(m)pɨl’

pst

-(p)sɔɔtɨl’

deb

-pso

dest

-kun’čitɨl’

free

poss/gen

ptcp -mətumaʔa (pst), particle n’intuu (indep. sentences)

limited (nom, gen, acc case + number)

possible (in postnominal RCs)

Tereščenko (1979), Helimski (1998a), Leisiö (2006)

‒

‒

Helimski (1998b), Kuznecova et al. (2002)

neg

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 971

972 KSENIA SHAGAL

21.4 SUMMARY The Uralic language family features two main types of relative clauses, finite and nonfinite, and most of the languages have both of them. Finite relative clauses are attested in all languages of the family except for Nganasan, although for the more eastern languages (e.g. Permic and Samoyedic), they are clearly a recent structural borrowing from Russian, and their use is characteristic of the speech of younger generations. In the western Uralic languages (e.g. Finnic and Saamic), finite relative clauses are the main relativization strategy for all kinds of speakers and registers. The use of nonfinite relative clauses is reported for all Uralic languages, but their status varies considerably throughout the family. While in the eastern languages they can be fairly elaborate and are able to relativize a wide range of arguments, in the western languages, they are mostly used for subject and direct object relativization and are short and structurally simple. Finite relative clauses are mostly identical to independent sentences with respect to their morphology and internal syntax. They are introduced by relative pronouns, which are typically also used as interrogatives. Finite relative clauses can be externally or internally headed. Externally headed relative clauses usually directly follow the noun they modify, and the relative pronoun inflects for case and number to indicate the role of the common argument in the relative clause. Internally headed relative clauses in Uralic languages are commonly instances of a correlative construction. In this case, the relative clause appears sentence-initially and contains a relative pronoun (sometimes uninflected) and the common argument, while in the main clause the latter is usually represented by an anaphoric pronoun. Nonfinite relative clauses are externally headed and usually prenominal, and the relativized argument is usually not expressed within the relative clause. From a typological perspective, the predicates of nonfinite relative clauses can be referred to as participles, but in individual languages, it might make more sense to classify some of them as nominalizations or converbs. These forms typically differ from the predicates of independent sentences in terms of TAM and polarity expression and the encoding of arguments, primarily subjects. They also differ from each other with respect to their relativizing capacity. In western Uralic languages, predicates of nonfinite relative clauses are in the main inherently oriented towards particular core arguments (e.g. active and passive participles), while in many eastern Uralic languages, they can relativize virtually any participants of the situation, including locatives and possessors. NOTES  1 I would like to express my gratitude to Daniel Abondolo, Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi, Jack Rueter, Jussi Ylikoski, Christian Pischlöger, Dmitrii Zelenskii, and all the others who commented on earlier versions of this chapter and helped me with data collection and verification throughout my work. All shortcomings are, of course, my own.  2 The borders of dependent clauses are indicated by square brackets throughout the paper. When citing various printed sources, I generally keep the original transcription or orthography and glossing used by the authors (adapting the glosses to follow the

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 973

Leipzig Glossing Rules). When I refer to a participial marker in the text, in most cases I use only its most basic form, even if several morphophonological variants exist in the language. For example, I refer to Finnish agentive participles as ma-participles even though the suffix changes to -mä after front vowels, for example, syö-mä ‘eaten (by someone).’  The data used in this overview comes primarily from descriptive studies, but also from fieldwork with language consultants (my own on Hill Mari and Daria Zhornik’s on Northern Mansi) and personal knowledge (Finnish). Importantly, some of the sources describe standard language varieties (Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and North Saami), while for other languages, the fullest available descriptions deal with colloquial data collected in the field (Skolt Saami and several minority languages of Russia). Due to this discrepancy, in some aspects the data on different languages might not be directly comparable. However, a completely consistent study of Uralic relative clauses is hardly possible in the current state of the documentation and description of the family.  3 I make no distinction here between prototypical relative clauses, which are only employed to relativize arguments and adjuncts, and general noun-modifying clause constructions, or GNMCC, in which there is no common argument in a strict sense; see Matsumoto, Comrie, and Sells (2017). For example, some Uralic languages use the same type of nonfinite clauses to form both relative clauses and the ‘smell of’ or ‘fact S’ constructions; see Matsumura (1981, 1983) for Meadow Mari and example (i) from Hill Mari: (i) Hill Mari (Mari, Russia, personal fieldwork) Mə̈n’ [ävä-m-ə̈n cə̑lan-ə̑štə̑ turi žarə̑-mə̑] I mother-1sg-gen kitchen-ine potatoes fry-nmzl kol-a-m. hear-npst-1sg

juk-š-ə̑m sound-3sg-acc

‘I hear the sound of my mother frying potatoes in the kitchen.’  4 The original version of the hierarchy also includes the object of comparison as the rightmost position, for example, my father in the construction taller than my father. However, this position will not be considered in this chapter, mainly due to the lack of relevant data.  5 Instances of headless correlative constructions are attested in other languages as well; see, for instance, example (8a) from Tundra Nenets.  6 All these varieties are non-standard, and so far, no standard languages belonging to the Uralic family have been reported to have inverse attraction in headed relative clauses. However, the status of a certain variety and the nature of data (literary vs. colloquial) are clearly not the only factors at play, since there are also some non-standard varieties that lack inverse attraction, for example, Khanty and Komi-Zyrian (Kholodilova and Privizentseva 2015). In any case, this phenomenon is still largely understudied and requires further investigation.  7 For a detailed discussion of these two constructions in Hill Mari, see Zakirova and Muravyev 2021.  8 In Old Toryal dialect of Meadow Mari studied by Brykina and Aralova, this type of encoding is rarely attested, and the examples are deemed ungrammatical by some speakers. In other Mari varieties, however, it is not uncommon, as illustrated, for

974 KSENIA SHAGAL

instance, by a relevant example in Beke’s (1938) text collection pointed out by Daniel Abondolo: (ii) Uržum/Malmyž Mari (Mari, Russia, Beke 1938, 139) mas’tar nal-eš [plotn’ik lištə̑-mə̑] ižβata-m master take-npst.3sg carpenter make-nmzl tool-acc ‘The master takes the tool made by the carpenter . . .’  9 When a non-core participant is relativized in a nonfinite relative clause conveying the meaning of simultaneity, negation is expressed by a slightly more complicated construction (Nikolaeva 2014, 303). 10 It should be noted, though, that many Finnish negative participles in -maton mostly occur without any dependents and should be considered lexicalized units rather than full-fledged counterparts of affirmative participial forms, for example, uskomaton ‘incredible’ (Hakulinen et al. 2004, §526). 11 I am grateful to Jack Rueter for pointing out this example. REFERENCES Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari): mit Texten und Glossar. Hamburg: Buske. Aralova, N. B., and M. M. Brykina. 2012. “Finitnye otnositel’nye predloženija v marijskom i erzja-mordovskom jazykax.” In Finno-ugorskie jazyki: Fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody, edited by A. I. Kuznecova, 521‒542. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi. Bartens, Raija. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. Beke, Ödön. 1938. Tscheremissische Märchen, Sagen und Erzählungen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Beljaev, O. I. 2012. “Korreljativnaja konstrukcija i otnositel’nye predloženija s vnutrennej veršinoj v besermjanskom dialekte udmurtskogo jazyka.” In Finno-ugorskie jazyki: Fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody, edited by A. I. Kuznecova, 647‒679. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi. Brykina, M. M., and N. B. Aralova. 2012. “Sistemy pričastij v marijskom i permskix jazykax.” In Finno-ugorskie jazyki: Fragmenty grammatičeskogo opisanija. Formal’nyj i funkcional’nyj podxody, edited by A. I. Kuznecova, 476‒520. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi. Comrie, Bernard. 1998. “Rethinking the Typology of Relative Clauses.” Language Design 1: 59–86. Comrie, Bernard, and Tania Kuteva. 2013. “Relativization Strategies.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/ s8. Accessed 13 October 2017. Čxaidze, M. P. 1941. Sintaksis lugovo-vostočnogo marijskogo jazyka. Moscow: Učpedgiz.

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 975

Cygankin, D. V., ed. 1980. Grammatika mordovskix jazykov: Fonetika, grafika, orfografija, morfologija. Saransk: Mordovian State University. Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistic Theory, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. “Order of Relative Clause and Noun.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/90. Accessed 13 October 2017. Erelt, Mati, ed. 2003. Estonian Language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Feist, Timothy. 2015. A Grammar of Skolt Saami. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Filchenko, Andrey. 2007. “A grammar of Eastern Khanty.” PhD diss., Rice University, Houston. Gusev, Valentin. 2015. “Negation in Nganasan.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 103–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk. Accessed 12 July 2018. Hakulinen, Lauri. 1979. Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys, 4th ed. Helsinki: Otava. Hamari, Arja, and Niina Aasmäe. 2015. “Negation in Erzya.” In Negation in Uralic Languages, edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, 293–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. “Passive Participles Across Languages.” In Voice: Form and Function, edited by Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. “The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European.” In Language Typology and Language Universals, edited by Martin Haspelmath et al., 1492–1510. Berlin: De Gruyter. Helimski, Eugene. 1998a. “Nganasan.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 480‒515. London: Routledge. Helimski, Eugene. 1998b. “Selkup.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 548‒579. London: Routledge. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Janhunen, Juha. 1981. “Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta.” Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 77: 219‒274. Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago, and Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge. Kholodilova, Maria. 2013. “Inverse Attraction in Ingrian Finnish.” Linguistica Uralica XLIX (2): 96–116. Kholodilova, Maria, and Maria Privizentseva. 2015. “Inverse attraction in Finno-Ugric languages.” Paper presented at ‘Insufficient strength to defend its case’: Case attraction and related phenomena, Wrocław, September 18–19.

976 KSENIA SHAGAL

Koljadenkov, M. N. 1954. Grammatika mordovskix (erzjanskogo i mokšanskogo) jazykov. Chast’ 2: Sintaksis. Saransk: Mordovskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Kozlov, Alexey. 2018. “Morfologija glagola.” In Ėlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, edited by Svetlana Toldova and Maria Kholodilova, 342– 395. Moscow: Buki Vedi. Kuznecova, A. I., E. A. Helimski, and E. V. Gruškina. 1980. Očerki po sel’kupskomu jazyku, vol. 1. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Kuznecova, A. I., O. A. Kazakevič, E. V. Gruškina, and E. A. Helimski. 2002. Sel’kupskij jazyk. Saint Petersburg: Prosveščenie. Lehmann, Christian. 1986. “On the Typology of Relative Clauses.” Linguistics 24 (4): 663–680. Lehtiranta, Juhani. 1992. Arjeploginsaamen äänne- ja taivutusopin pääpiirteet. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Leisiö, Larisa. 2006. “Passive in Nganasan.” In Passivization and Typology: Form and Function, edited by Werner Abraham and Larisa Leisiö, 213–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lipták, A. K. 2008. “On the Correlative Nature of Hungarian Left Peripheral Relatives.” In Dislocated Elements in Discourse. Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, edited by Benjamine Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn, 398‒430. London: Routledge. Lipták, Anikó. 2009. “The Landscape of Correlatives: An Empirical and Analytical Survey.” In Correlatives Cross-Linguistically, edited byAnikó Lipták, 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lytkin, V. I., ed. 1955. Sovremennyj komi jazyk I. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie, and Peter Sells. 2017. “Noun-modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries.” In Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries, edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie, and Peter Sells, 3‒21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matsumura, Kazuto. 1981. “Mari (Cheremis) Relative Clauses.” In Working Papers in Linguistics ’81, 45‒55. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. http://www.kmatsum.info/papers/ mari/mar81.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2022. Matsumura, Kazuto. 1983. “Mari (Cheremis) Pseudo-Relatives.” In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, edited by Shirô Hattori, Kazuko Inoue, Tadao Shimomiya, and Yoshio Nagashima, 461–464. Tokyo: Proceedings Publishing Committee. Mitrenina, O. V. 2010. “Correlatives: Evidence from Russian.” In Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, edited by Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor, and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya, 135– 151. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Nefedov, Andrey. 2012. “Relativization in Ket.” In Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, edited by Volker Gast and Holger Diessel, 191–224. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Németh, Szilvia. 2015. “Subject-headed Relative Clauses. Northern Mansi.” In Typological Database of the Ugric Languages, edited by Ferenc Havas, Márta Csepregi,

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN URALIC 977

Nikolett F. Gulyás, and Szilvia Németh. Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék. utdb.elte. hu. Accessed 20 October 2017. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Munich: Lincom Europa. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2012. “Patterns of Relativization in North Asia: Towards a Refined Typology of Prenominal Participial Relative Clauses.” In Clause Linkage in CrossLinguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, edited by Volker Gast and Holger Diessel, 253‒283. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Privizentseva, Maria. 2016. “Padežnoe markirovanie v mokšanskix otnositel’nyx predloženijax.” Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XII (1): 653‒664. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. Privizentseva, Maria. 2018. “Finitnye otnositel’nye predloženija.” In Ėlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, edited by Svetlana Toldova and Maria Kholodilova, 707–731. Moscow: Buki Vedi. Raptanov, T. A. 1985. Čixan pando alo. Saransk: Mordovskoj knižnoj izdatel’stvas’. Rombandeeva, E. I. 1973. Mansijskij (vogul’skij) jazyk. Moscow: Nauka. Rombandeeva, E. I. 1979. Sintaksis mansijskogo (vogul’skogo) jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. Sel’kov, N. N., ed. 1967. Sovremennyj komi jazyk II. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Serdobolskaya, Natalia, and Denis Paperno. 2006. “The polysemy of relativizing and nominalizing markers (Manuscript).” www.academia.edu/8483668/The_polysemy_ of_relativizing_and_nominalizing_markers. Accessed 10 August 2019. Serdobolskaya, Natalia, and Svetalana Toldova. 2017. “Oformlenie prjamogo dopolnenija v finno-ugorskix jazykax: meždu predikaciej i diskursom.” Ural-Altaic Studies 4 (27). Shagal, Ksenia. 2016. “Relative Clauses in the Languages of Sakhalin as an Areal Feature.” Studia Orientalia 117: 153–170. Shagal, Ksenia. 2019. Participles: A Typological Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shagal, Ksenia, and Anna Volkova. 2018. “Participiális főnév módosítás a hegyi mariban.” Általános nyelvészeti tanulmányok 30: 207–232. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. “Elements of Complex Structures, Where Recursion Isn’t: The Case of Relativization.” In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution, edited by Talmy Givón and Masayoshi Shibatani, 163‒198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siegl, Florian. 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity.” In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, edited by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Tereščenko, Natalia M. 1979. Nganasanskij jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka. Toldova, Svetlana, and Natalia Serdobolskaya. 2002. “Nekotorye osobennosti oformlenija prjamogo dopolnenija v marijskom jazyke.” In Lingvističeskij bespredel. The Volume Dedicated to the 70th Anniversary of A. I. Kuznetsova, edited by Tatiana B. Agranat and Olga A. Kazakevič, 106‒125. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Valijärvi, Riitta-Liisa, and Lily Kahn. 2017. North Sámi: An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.

978 KSENIA SHAGAL

Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A Grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. Winkler, Eberhard. 2001. Udmurt. Munich: Lincom Europa. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2009. Non-finites in North Saami. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Zakirova, Aigul, and Nikita Muravyev. 2021. “Padežnoe kodirovanie paciensa v pričastnopassivnoj konstrukcii gornomarijskogo jazyka.” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 2 (32): 23‒38.

CHAPTER 22

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC Merlijn de Smit and Gwen Eva Janda

22.1 WHAT IS DEFINITENESS? The linguistic notion of definiteness is a well-known and well-described topic in linguistics. In formal terms, definiteness is associated with nouns and usually expressed with a determiner or affix in the noun phrase. Most descriptions of definiteness are inevitably associated with the definite article. In addition, proper names, demonstratives, pronouns, and possessives are generally regarded as inherently definite (cf. Von Heusinger 2011). However, formally oriented attempts to define the concept of definiteness based on, for example, article usage do not answer the question posed by Chesterman (1991, 1), ‘What does it mean to say that something is definite or indefinite?’ and how definiteness relates to pragmatic concepts such as identifiability, topicality, and so on. SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms (GLT) defines definiteness as the ‘grammaticalization of identifiability and nonidentifiability of referents on the part of a speaker or addressee,’ and a definiteness marker such as an article thus marks a referent as identifiable among a set or class of possible referents. The idea of identifiability goes back to Jespersen’s idea of familiarity. Here, familiarity— or in other terms, identifiability—refers to the degree of how easily a hearer can localize the specific referent meant by the speaker out of the class denoted by its lexical extension: familiarity is the ‘knowledge of what item of the class denoted by the word is meant in the case concerned’ (Jespersen quoted in Lyons 1999, 253). Later works following this path of argumentation added, for example, a discussion about presupposition and entailment (cf. Frege 1892; Strawson 1950) to this approach. Other studies based on the identifiability approach use terms like specifity (Lambrecht 1994), givenness (Becker and Ye 2016), or accessibility (Givón 1983) in this context. A referent’s identifiability or nonidentifiability on the part of a speaker or addressee links definiteness to topicality: for example, Grieve (1973) connects the notion of definiteness not only to pragmatics but also to information structure and the communicative value of a sentence. The topic is what the discourse is about, chosen according to the speaker’s intention to share information. The comment provides new information on that topic (cf. GLT). Portrayed on the concept of definiteness, the topic is introduced by the speaker. When referring to the topic the next time, the speaker can presuppose its givenness, that is, the topic is definite (cf. Grieve 1973). According to Lyons (1999, 277‒278), definiteness can be regarded as the grammaticalization of identifiability. This might explain why some languages, like most Uralic languages, lack a definite article but may nonetheless distinguish between definite and indefinite referents by various means. Instead, they express identifiability, which is probably a universal category but is not necessarily grammaticalized. In languages with grammaticalized identifiability, the representation of it is definiteness. DOI: 10.4324/9781315625096-22

980 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

Identifiability may then be achieved by text-internal devices, such as anaphora (the use of grammatical devices, such as articles or ellipsis, to identify a referent as co-referential with a previously mentioned one), association (whereby a referent is identifiable through its association with a larger, previously mentioned semantic domain: if the discourse is about a house, then the front door is identifiable even if not previously mentioned), and by text-external devices, such as deixis or uniqueness (the sun is thus immediately identifiable). These correspond to Hawkins’s (1978) four criteria for the use of the definite article in English. To sum up, the crucial point of identifiability, familiarity, presupposition, and the like is whether the speaker chooses the correct referential device so that the hearer is able to single out the speaker’s intended referent out of a group of possibilities (Von Heusinger 2011, 9).1 Success depends on the speaker’s estimation of the hearer’s knowledge, as well as the situation of the utterance itself, that is, the discourse: ‘identification could be (i) from what was said just before in the discourse, or (ii) inferred from the situation in which the discourse occurs’ (Dixon 2010, 160‒161). 22.2 MEANS OF INDICATING DEFINITENESS IN URALIC In the following sections, we analyze the means of indicating definiteness in Uralic languages. However, we will not treat in detail the deictic use of (inherently definite) demonstrative or personal pronouns. Suffice it to say that demonstrative pronouns have served as the basis of grammaticalization of articles in Hungarian as well as, incipiently, in Sámi and Finnic, and the definite suffixes of Mordva and Veps are likewise of demonstrative origin. 22.2.1 Definite articles Of the Uralic languages, only Hungarian shows a clearly grammaticalized article system, but a grammaticalization from demonstratives towards definite articles is at least incipient in some Uralic languages in close contact with article languages: Finnic and Sámi. In colloquial Finnish, the demonstrative pronoun se ‘that’ and the numeral yksi ‘one’ are in the process of grammaticalizing into definite and indefinite articles, respectively (Laury 1995, 1997; Juvonen 2000), though there is no consensus on the extent of that grammaticalization. In a diachronic study, Laury (1995, 247) found that in the most recent material, se ‘that; it’ (and plural ne ‘those; they’) is generally used as a marker of identifiability, as opposed to its earlier function as a discourse-prominence marking demonstrative, and that it therefore represents a definite article. Juvonen (2000, 194‒197) argues that this grammaticalization can be demonstrated on the level of individual speakers only—not on the level of specific varieties of spoken Finnish. In example (1) from colloquial Finnish, the ‘feather’ is anaphorically identifiable as it has been previously mentioned, while the ‘room’ is identifiable through association with the previously introduced semantic domain (curtains and the like); both are indicated with se. Note that se (and plural ne) function also as personal and demonstrative pronouns, and that the deictically identifiable ‘curtains’ remain unmarked for definiteness in the example that follows,2 as does the ‘pocket,’ which is definite by virtue of its possessive suffix -an: (1)

Colloquial Finnish (Laury 1997, 19) Se sano: vettee-päs S/he say.pst.3sg pull.imp-ptcl

kartiini-t curtain-pl

lasi-n glass-gen

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 981

ettee. Ne pan-i-vat kartiinit etteen. front.ill They put-pst-3pl curtain-pl front.ill Se sitte ott-i se-n hööhene-n lakkari-sta-an S/he then take-pst.3sg it-acc feather-acc pocket-ela-3sg niin se vala-s se-n huonee-n. so it light-pst.3sg it-acc room-acc ‘He said: pull the curtains in front of the window. They pulled the curtains. Then he took the feather from his pocket and it lit up the room.’ Now compare this with example (2) from literary Finnish, where the ‘woman’ (nainen) and the ‘boy’ (poika) are first introduced, but their subsequent mentions are not accompanied with se. Constituency order (XVS in the first clause, Ohi puski . . . nainen, SVO in the second clause, Poika teki äkkipysähdyksiä) is employed here to signal definiteness: (2)

Standard Finnish (VISK §1406) Ohi pusk-i raskaa-na ole-va nainen past push-pst.3sg pregnant-ess be-ptcp woman poja-n kanssa. Poika tek-i äkki+pysähdyks-i-ä boy-gen with boy made-pst.3sg sudden+stop-pl-part niin että äiti ol-i töyssähtä-ä kumo-on so that mother be-pst.3sg bounce-inf down-ill ‘Past pushed a pregnant woman with a boy. The boy made sudden stops so that the mother almost fell down.’

In Estonian, demonstrative see ‘it’ as well as üks ‘one’ are similarly in the process of grammaticalizing into definite and indefinite articles (Pajusalu 2009, 132‒135), and Agranat (2015) describes a similar process in Votic. In example (3), ‘pig’ (siga) is contextually identifiable in that it signifies a dark side that everyone has and is marked with see: (3)

Estonian (Pajusalu 2009, 132) Aeg-ajalt tule-b see siga enda sisemuse-st välja pääs-ta time-time come-3sg it pig self inside-ela out let-inf ‘One has to release the pig within oneself from time to time’

This grammaticalization must be seen against the background of language contact: Finnish has long been in contact with the article-language Swedish, and Estonian with the article-language German (Hint et al. 2017, 69). The Sámi languages, in contact with Scandinavian languages, show similar tendencies (e.g. Bergsland 1946, 106‒107 for South Sámi). In North Sámi, this concerns the demonstrative pronoun dat ‘that’ and the numeral okta ‘one’ (Aikio and Ylikoski 2010, 113), as shown in example (4). (4)

North Sámi (Aikio and Ylikoski 2010, 113) a.

Munno-s lea otna sáddagi-s okta We.du-loc be.3sg today broadcast-loc one ‘In today’s broadcast, we have a studio guest . . .’

studio+guossi studio+guest.nom

982 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

b. diet lei dat eanemus buolli gažaldat duon jagi that be.pst.3sg that most burn.prs.ptcp question that.gen summer.gen ‘That was the most burning question that summer.’ Hungarian sports a definite article a(z) of demonstrative origin, which does not inflect and is used for singular and plural, and an indefinite article egy ‘one’ of numeral origin, which is used only for countable nouns when they are indefinite (Viszket et al. 2018, 976‒978). The use of these articles is illustrated in example (5). (5)

Hungarian (Viszket et al. 2018, 981‒982) a. a fiú sétál az utcá-n the boy walk.3sg the street-supe ‘The boy is walking on the street’ b. a fiú-k sétál-nak az utcá-n the boy-pl walk-3pl the street-supe ‘The boys are walking on the street’ c. egy fiú sétál az utcá-n one boy walk.3sg the street-supe ‘There is a boy walking on the street’ or ‘A boy is walking on the street’

The use of the indefinite article egy appears to be more restricted than that of the definite articles (Viszket et al. 2018, 977‒978). For example, indefinite plural nouns are often not marked with articles, nor are (non-referential) indefinite nouns in preverbal modifier position, indefinite nouns in contrastive focus or topic position, or indefinite nouns that can be granted an existential interpretation (Viszket et al. 2018, 1006‒1010). Consider the following example of a bare noun in preverbal modifier position (6a) and in contrastive focus position (6b). (6)

Hungarian (Viszket et al. 2018, 1007) a. a postás-t kutyatámadás ér-t-e the postman-acc dog.attack reach-pst-3sg>obj ‘The postman suffered a dog attack.’ b. a postás-t kutya támad-t-a meg the postman-acc dog attack-pst-3sg>obj pref ‘It was a dog that attacked the postman.’

The highly grammaticalized nature of the definite article a/az is indicated by the fact that it can be combined with the demonstrative pronoun (7) and that generic noun phrases also take an article (8). (7)

Hungarian (Viszet et al. 2018, 1006) Ez-ek az autó-k szerepel-t-ek these-pl the car-pl partake-pst-3pl ‘These cars already took part in the race.’

már verseny-ek-en already race-pl-super

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 983

(8)

Hungarian (Viszet et al. 2018, 988) A zebra csíkos the zebra striped ‘Zebras are striped.’

Articleless nouns may occur in Hungarian as copular complements (9a), adverbials, or complements (9b) (Viszet et al. 2018, 1002). (9)

Hungarian (Viszet et al. 2018, 1002) a. Péter jó tanuló Peter good student ‘Peter is a good student.’ b. Péter levele-t ír Peter letter-acc write.3sg ‘Peter is writing a letter.’

Egedi (2013) argues that the definite article, as such, encoded pragmatic definiteness already in Old Hungarian, but that only at the close of the Old Hungarian period, and later did it expand its role to encoding semantic definiteness, that is, to combine with demonstratives, possessed nouns, and other contexts where definiteness is otherwise indicated. 22.2.2 Affixes 22.2.2.1 Person suffixes on the noun Most Uralic languages have a set of person suffixes used to indicate possession, but also more widely kinship relations, part–whole relations, relations of temporary control, etc. (Gerland 2014, 270; Janda 2015, 246‒247). A number of Uralic languages—Mari, the Permic languages, the Ob-Ugric languages, and Samoyedic—use person suffixes to indicate identifiability as well. The person suffix at issue here is mainly the third-person singular and, to a lesser extent, the second-person singular, in both scenarios with the ‘possessum’ being singular. As indicated earlier, the set of relations referred to in linguistics as possession covers a wide range that can be understood as a ‘broader concept of association or relationship between two nouns’ (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2012, 2). Prototypical meanings covered by this concept include part–whole relations, kinship relations, and ownership relations (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2012, 3‒5). A person suffix denoting a part–whole relation is illustrated in example (10). (10) North Mansi (Janda 2015, 246) towl-anel xoram-əη-əɣ jemt-əɣ-t wing-3pl beauty-adj-tra become-prs-3pl ‘Their wings become beautiful.’ However, a possessive reading is excluded in a considerable number of cases in Uralic languages, and such cases are frequently subsumed under the node of non-prototypical usage and likened to a definite article, as in example (11) from Nganasan, where the suffix marks an inherently definite celestial object.

984 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

(11) Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2018, 209) kou-đu ηəđu-tɨ, ηətu-m-hiatɨ sun-3sg be visible-aor.3sg be visible-tra-infer.3sg ‘The sun is visible, it becomes visible.’ According to Gerland (2014, 288‒289) and Janda (2015, 244‒245), this usage should not be seen as historically or functionally secondary, or as the product of a grammaticalization pathway, but represents a core use of person suffixes in these languages. It is rooted in the fact that possessives are inherently definite, as they exemplify identifiability through association: the referent with a possessive marker, the possessum, is identifiable through its relation with the possessor. In contrast with a definite article, which is just a formal marker which signals to the hearer the identifiability of a certain referent, a person suffix encodes a referent in person and number and thus establishes reference, either anaphorically, in the text, or deictically, to speech act participants. This property of the suffix is annulled if it is used as an index of definiteness. The phenomenon is, however, not equally common in all languages concerned: the use of person suffixes to mark definite or identifiable NPs appears to reach the greatest extent in Komi (Gerland 2014, 272), but it falls short of obligatoriness according to Leinonen (2006, 111‒112), though Simonenko (2014, 129) does argue it has become obligatory. Example (12) would indicate non-obligatoriness, as the definite ‘priest’ occurs once with a person marker, once without. (12) Komi (Klumpp 2009, 330) pop-yd ord-yn tulysja vyy-nad vaj-öma. A priest-2sg at-ine springtime on-inst.2sg bring-p.3sg but pop-lön i völi kod´ź ösh priest-gen and was castrated ox [The cow was pregnant.] ‘When it was nearly spring she calved at the priest’s. But the priest also had an ox.’ In Forest Enets, the second-person singular suffix is used to maintain topic prominence, as in example (13), where the topic ‘girl’ has been introduced a few sentences ago. (13) Forest Enets (Siegl 2013, 372) čiki nääčiku-r ań pađirɁ neđi-ku-đa tonä-bi this woman.youngster-2sg foc spotted reindeer.calf-dim-3sg exist-pfv.3sg ‘This girl had her own spotted little reindeer.’ The use of third-person singular suffixes in referential functions in Forest Enets is less common, and they appear to mark definite but less-frequent topics than second-person suffixes (Siegl 2013, 374). It should be noted that the use of person suffixes in Forest Enets seems to be restricted to subjects and to be blocked with objects (Siegl 2013, 373‒374), that is, it is restricted to typically topical arguments. In Tundra Nenets, third-person singular person suffixes optionally signal deictically or situationally identifiable referents, such as natural phenomena, unique celestial bodies, and so on, as in example (14).

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 985

(14) Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 68) sin´o(-da) pasokoyo t´ukuo yal´a-h this day-gen fog(-3sg) beautiful ‘The fog is beautiful today.’ In contrast, second-person person suffixes tend to be used to link anaphorically to mentioned topics, as in example (15). (15) Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 69) puxaća-ko yil´e-wio. puxaća-ko-nto old.woman-dim live-infer old.woman-dim-gen.2sg śid´a səwa ńu-da two good child-3sg ‘An old woman lived. This old woman had two nice sons.’ Nikolaeva (2014, 69) argues that in the previous example, the person suffix serves both to mark identifiability and ‘to make the utterance somehow emotionally closer to the addressee.’ This same division of labour between second- and third-person suffixes is encountered in Nganasan (Zayzon 2015, 260‒261), while in South Selkup, third-person suffixes are used both anaphorically and to mark inherently unique referents (Budzisch 2015, 47). Affective function of the second-person possessive suffix, as in Nenets, is encountered in Permic languages as well (Gerland 2014, 277), as in the Udmurt example (16): (16) Udmurt (Csúcs 1998, 285) vatišjk-i-z šundï-jed telj šjër-ï conceal.refl-pst-3sg sun-2sg forest behind-ill ‘The (dear) sun has hidden behind the forest.’ In Ob-Ugric, referential usage of person suffixes is linked to maintaining topic prominence: to introduce new and to reconnect to already-mentioned topics in Mansi (Janda 2015, 252‒254) and to link anaphorically to already-mentioned topics in Khanty (Simonenko 2014, 130). In the Mansi example (17), a new primary topic is introduced: (17) North Mansi (Janda 2015, 252) sujpil lupta paηxwit josa-η xum-ite lingonberry leaf of.width.of ski-adj man-3sg sjan-e nupəl potərt-i mother-3sg toward tell.prs-3sg ‘The man with skis small as lingonberry leaves tells his mother . . .’ In the Khanty example (18), both referents (Vasja and the tree) are given, and one of these is subject of the first sentence. In the subsequent sentence, the other referent takes the subject (and topic) position, marking what Janda refers to as a topic shift (Janda 2019, 143).

986 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

(18) Kazym Khanty (Simonenko 2014, 130) Vasja joh hoč´a laəm-yn sevyrm-əs. joh-əʎ iʎ rakn-əs Vasja tree at axe-loc bring.down-pst tree-3sg down fall-pst ‘Vasja hit the tree with an axe. The tree fell . . .’ Another text-structuring function of possessive suffixes encountered in Ob-Ugric is reference to a known group. In a subsequent sentence, only one member of the group is referred to and so takes a person suffix, as in North Mansi (19). (19) North Mansi (Janda 2019, 148) kit jo:rn o:l-əɣ janiɣ xumi-te neː-ŋ two Samoyeds live-prs.3sg big man-3sg woman-adj ‘There are two Samoyedes. The elder man is married.’ maːnʲ xumi-te neː-taːl young man-3sg woman-abe ‘The younger man is unmarried.’ Both mechanisms, known group and topic shift, express, to some extent, emphasis and may hint to a development of the possessive suffix towards a focus and/or deictic marker (Janda 2019, 144). Similar structures are described in the languages of the Volga Kama area by Nikolaeva (2003). In Khanty, there seems to be no equivalent to using person suffixes to mark situationally or deictically unique referents, as in Samoyed (Simonenko 2014, 130). However, in Permic, the third-person possessive suffix is used for such unique referents as well as for anaphoric linkage, as in Izhma Komi (20) (20) Izhma Komi (Simonenko 2014, 128‒129) a. me mun-i ul´iča kuz´a i ad´d´-il-i pon. I walk-prt.1sg street along and see-iter-prt.1sg dog. ponm-ys kuč-i-s uut-ny dog-3sg start-prt-3 bark-inf ‘I was walking down the street and saw a dog. The dog started barking.’ b. šond-ys dep-š´-i-s sun-3sg set-detr-prt-3sg ‘The sun has set.’ In Mari, both second- and third-person suffixes are used referentially and may even be combined with suffixes in a (strictly) possessive function: the suffix in referential function follows the suffix in possessive function, as in example (21). (21) East Mari (Alhoniemi 2010, 78) üδə̑r-em-že, ßeηə̑-m-že, moγaj ulə̑-t daughter-1sg-3sg son.in.law-1sg-3sg what like be-3pl ‘My daughter, my son in law, whatever they’re like!’ To sum up, as shown in Table 22.1, in Samoyedic, second-person suffixes are used anaphorically and third-person suffixes are used to single out uniquely identifiable

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 987 TABLE 22.1  THE NON-POSSESSIVE USE OF SECOND- AND THIRD-PERSON POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES IN NORTH SAMOYEDIC, SELKUP, OB-UGRIC, AND PERMIC Second-person suffix North Samoyedic

Third-person suffix

anaphoric linkage (Nenets: deictic or situational identifiability also affective function)

Selkup

both anaphoric linkage and deictic/situational identifiability

Ob-Ugric

anaphoric linkage

Permic

affective function

anaphoric linkage, deictic or situational identifiability

referents, while in the other languages, the third-person possessive suffix covers most of these functions—though second-person suffixes are used affectively in both Permic and Samoyed. Nikolaeva (2003) argues that person suffixes in Uralic may indicate identifiability, as a cognitive category, but fall short of being definiteness markers in terms of signifying the formalization and grammaticalization of identifiability; notably, person suffixes may be used to mark indefinite NPs as well and may be suffixed to non-nouns, such as pronouns, quantifiers, and even nonfinite verbs in Mari and Permic Komi, as in examples (22) and (23). (22) East Mari (Alhoniemi 2010, 78) a. jeη kokla_γə̑č´ alakuδə̑-žo kalasə̑-š person among_from someone-3sg speak-pst.3sg ‘One of the persons spoke.’ b. tə̑nar-žə̑-m mə̑j nal-am, tunar-žə̑-m this much-3sg-acc I take-1sg that much-3sg-acc ‘I take this much, you (take) that much.’

tə̑j you

(23) Komi (Bartens 2000, 122) me öd o-g kuž bördny-sö I you.see not-1sg can.cng cry-3sg ‘I can't even cry, you see.’ Janda (2015, 248‒250) points out that even in their more archetypically possessive usage, person suffixes tend to encode referentiality by being connected, deictically or anaphorically, to an NP (or speech act participant) to which they are related—through ownership, part–whole relationship, etc. In Ob-Ugric, person suffixes are thus restricted to topics (Janda 2015, 250), and from this, the use of person suffixes to indicate topicality follows. Like constituent order, person suffixes in Uralic languages are used to clarify information structure in a way that overlaps with but does not directly indicate definiteness. Thus, while definiteness markers and person suffixes use similar strategies for identifying referents, their properties must not be assumed to be identical. Instead, markers for definiteness and possession may even co-occur in Uralic, as shown by the Mari example

988 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

(21) earlier, but also by the co-occurrence of possessive suffix and definite article in Hungarian in example (24). (24) Hungarian (Janda 2019, 85) a zseb-é-ből the pocket-3sg-abl ‘from his pocket’ Almost every approach to the definiteness-marking function of person suffixes in Uralic comes to the same set of observations: there is a high textual frequency of the third-person singular suffix, but also of second-person singular in so-called non-prototypical usages. Within these usages, three key areas emerge: (i) anaphoric use (across sentence or clause boundaries, also referred to, for example, as coordination or re-introduction), (ii) deictic/ focus marking use, and (iii) grammatical agreement. The prototypical (possessive) usage of the person suffix, which could be referred to as anchoring, could be subsumed under the anaphoric usage. In that case, a distinction between possessive and definiteness-marking functions becomes unnecessary. To these functions, one may add the discourse-structuring function as exemplified by, for example, Ob-Ugric. Then, any of the anaphoric and deictic usages can be interpreted as discourse-structuring function of person suffixes due to their referentiality, regardless of a possessive interpretation. The person suffix, thus, does not signal definiteness but bears a text-pragmatic, information-structuring function. A grammaticalization of this usage into a distinct category of person suffix may have taken place to a certain extent, depending on the language in question. The double-marking (occurrence of two person suffixes on a noun) as well as the expansion onto other nominal stems in Mari suggests a higher tendency towards this development than the nonobligatory usage in text-structuring functions in Ob-Ugric. 22.2.2.2 Non-person suffixes on the noun In Veps, there is a tendency for the demonstrative pronoun se ‘it, this,’ plural ne ‘these, those’ to fuse with the preceding head as a signal of definiteness (Kettunen 1943, 165‒167) and focality (Grünthal 2015, 279‒281), as shown in example (25). (25) Veps (Kettunen 1943, 166) a. ol´-īž venes ka vo-is sabuta-da sorza-d-ne be-cond.3sg boat then could-cond.3sg catch-inf duck-pl-those ‘If we had a boat, we could catch those ducks.’ b. aka-л-se mužik-se pit´er´i-š woman-ade-that man-that Petersburg-ine ‘The wife of that man is in St. Petersburg.’ As these two examples show, the agglutinated pronouns follow case and number markers. This phenomenon is not known to the same extent in the other Finnic languages, but it strongly resembles the definite declensions of Erzya and Moksha Mordva. In both Erzya and Moksha, the nominative of the definite declension is formed by -ś, of the same demonstrative origin as the suffix in Veps, whereas the genitive suffix of the definite declension in Erzya is -ńt´, formed with the Uralic genitive suffix *-n and a demonstrative element *-tV. Other singular cases in Erzya are built on the definite

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 989

genitive suffix (Bartens 1999, 83‒84). The plural definite nominative suffix is -t´ńe in Erzya, -t´ńä in Moksha, with other plural cases following this suffix; its historical origins lie in the aforementioned demonstrative element *tV, and a plural demonstrative ńe (Bartens 1999, 86). Compare the following two examples, (26a) and (26b), from Erzya. (26) Erzya (Bartens 1999, 89, 99) a. vir´ udalo pakśa-so-ńt´ ćora-t van-ś-t´ alaša-t forest behind meadow-ine-def boy-pl watch.over-pst-pl horse-pl ‘In the field behind the forest boys were tending horses.’ b. ava-ś sa-ś ejkakš-ńek meź-ńek mother-def come-pst.3sg child-com what-com ‘The mother came with her children and what not.’ It should be noted that definite suffixes in Mordva may occasionally be used for specific indefinite heads, for example, to introduce a referent which will be tracked further on in the discourse, as in (27). (27) Moksha (Bartens 1999, 87) vant´-ś t´el´evizor-sa dokumental´naj fil´ma, ko-sa watch-pst.3sg television-ine documentary film which-ine er´afksu lomań-t´ś azə̑ndə̑-źä, koda . . . elderly man-def say-pst.3sg>3sg that ‘He watched a documentary film on television, in which a certain elderly man said, that . . .’ A phenomenon similar to that seen in Veps and Mordva has been attested in the easternmost Saami languages, for example, Kildin Saami nūrr olma-dedt young man-that ‘the young man,’ sūrrmas-tenn ring.acc-that.acc ‘the ring (acc)’ (Yurayong 2015, 73). The agglutination of demonstrative pronouns in East Saami has not received much attention in the literature (Yurayong 2015, 72), but it does seem to exemplify an areal feature that is represented in North Russian dialects, as well as Veps and Mordva (Stadnik-Holzer 2006) and, if definiteness-marking morphemes based on possessive suffixes are taken into account, other Uralic languages as well. 22.2.3 Constituent order Definiteness and constituent order may correlate with each other through the variable of focus, in that focalized constituents represent new information and therefore tend to be non-identifiable and thus indefinite, and what is more, focalized constituents tend to be either fronted or shift to the right of a sentence in many languages with free or partially free word order (Givón 2001, 277‒279). However, the relation between identifiability, definiteness, and topicality is not straightforward (e.g. Givón 2001, 277‒278) and, while the default interpretation of the focalized, postverbal subject would be indefinite in the Finnish example (28) (recall also the example with an indefinite postverbal subject in (2)). This can be overridden by overt definiteness markers, as in example (29).

990 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

(28) Finnish (Vilkuna 1998, 190) minu-a pur-i käärme me-part bite-pst.3sg snake ‘A snake bit me,’ ‘I was bitten by a snake.’ (29) Colloquial Finnish (Internet) minu-a pur-i se piru-n chihu mix ja sattu-i se-kin me-part bite-pst.3sg that devil-gen shih.tzu mix and hurt-pst.3sg that-too ‘It was that damned shih tzu mix that bit me and that hurt, too.’ Phenomena such as these thus fall short of a grammaticalization of definiteness in terms of constituent order; rather, what is being grammaticalized is focus, which may in turn reflect indefiniteness. However, in Finnic languages, one can argue that definiteness is grammaticalized in existential clauses, which are distinguished by their focalized, post-verbal, and indefinite subject (30a), contrasting with a locational clause with normal SVX order (30b). (30) Finnish a. kadu-lla on auto street-ade is car ‘There is a car in the street.’ b. auto on kadu-lla car is street-ade ‘The car is in the street.’ The tendency for subjects in existential clauses to be indefinite is cross-linguistic in scope and has been dubbed the ‘definiteness effect’ (Laury 2001). In the Uralic languages, existential clauses may be identifiable through a variety of devices other than from word order. For example, negated existential clauses in Finnish show subjects in the partitive case, which means that the definiteness contrast between locational and existential subjects is indicated by case in addition to constituent order (31). (31) Finnish a. kadu-lla ei ole auto-a street-ade neg be car-part ‘There is no car on the street.’ b. auto ei ole kadu-lla car neg be street-ade ‘The car is not on the street.’ Other languages, such as the North Samoyedic languages (Wagner-Nagy 2016, 223), Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 234), and Mari (Alhoniemi 2010, 112), employ a specific verb in existential sentences, which again means the definiteness contrast between a locational and existential subject is signalled by more than just constituent order. In Pite Saami, the existential verb is gävdnut, derived from gávdnat ‘to find’ (32).

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 991

(32) Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 234) váre-n gävdnu aj juomo mountain-ine exist.3pl also sorrel.pl ‘There is sorrel in the mountains, too.’ In Finnish, it appears that definite subjects may occasionally occur in existential clauses (Hakanen 1972, 53). In the example (33), the use of nominative (rather than partitive) plural as well as the modifier Virtasen forces a definite reading on the subject, but otherwise, the clause has typical features of an existential clause, such as clause-final subject and lack of number agreement between subject and verb. (33) Finnish (Vähämäki 1984, 291‒292) piha-lle ilmesty-i yhtäkkiä Virtase-n yard-all appear-pst.3sg suddenly Virtanen-gen ‘Suddenly Virtanen’s dogs appeared in the yard.’

koira-t dog-pl

Similarly, Metslang (2012, 154‒155) notes the occurrence of definite subjects in Estonian existential clauses and does not consider definiteness a defining feature of the existential subject (Metslang 2012, 158‒160). What the definite, focalized subject in (33) has in common with the more typically indefinite subjects of existential clauses is that it establishes a referent as important, for some reason (for example, in the following discourse, or to serve as contrast) (Matić 2003, 23‒24), but discourse-pragmatic factors, such as newness, focality, and the like, overlap with but do not imply definiteness. This somewhat weakens the case for constituent order as signalling definiteness in Finnic. Focus contrasts signalled by constituent order are found in various Uralic languages, such as Mari in example (34). (34) East Mari (Vilkuna 1998, 191) myjy-m kiške čünggaly-n me-acc snake bite-pst2.3sg ‘A snake bit me (I was bitten by a snake).’ However, focalized and right-shifted subjects are not necessarily indefinite. Thus, in Udmurt, postverbal subjects include indefinite existential subjects but may include definite subjects as well (Vilkuna 1998, 191‒192), as dyšetiś ‘teacher’ in example (35). (35) Udmurt (Vilkuna 1998, 192) revol´utsija śaryś, vyl´ ulon śaryś veraśkyle dyšetiś revolution about new life about talk.3sg teacher ‘The teacher talks about revolution and new life.’ Constituent order does not appear to play a role in signalling definiteness in Mansi (Kulonen 2007, 129‒130) or East Khanty (Filchenko 2010, 365‒391). The same is true in Forest Enets (Siegl 2013, 361‒370), in which simple clauses are fairly rigidly SOV. At least for Northern Mansi, however, this subject-initial order seems to be more a case of topic-initial order; what is more, there are strong hints of a fixed correlation between the pragmatic role of topic and the syntactic role of subject which results, for example, in the choice of passive or active voice (Janda et al. 2017, 120‒121). Definiteness may thus not

992 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

influence constituent order in Mansi directly but may be related to it by identifiability and topicality. In Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 213‒216), focalized information—including focalized, informationally new subjects—tends to immediately precede the verb, but this tendency is not strongly grammaticalized. Compare examples (36a) and (36b), where the relative order of indirect and direct object (and the use of different argument indexing) leads to a different interpretation of definiteness. (36) Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 213‒214) a. χasawa n´e-χonta ti-m m´iqηa-0 man woman-dat.3sg reindeer-acc gave-3sg ‘The man gave his wife a reindeer.’ b. χasawa ti-m n´e-χonta m´iqηa-da man reindeer-acc woman-dat.3sg gave-3sg>sg ‘The man gave the reindeer to his wife.’ As far as existential clauses in the Samoyed languages are concerned, the North Samoyed languages employ a specific existential verb which, together with constituent order, distinguishes between an existential indefinite-subject clause and a locational definite-subject clause (e.g. (30a) and (30b) in Finnish), but Selkup does not employ such a verb, and here constituent order can indeed be distinctive (Wagner-Nagy 2016, 223), as example (37) shows. (37) Selkup (Wagner-Nagy 2016, 225) a. mɔɔt-qɨn tɔɔntɨ po-t εε-ηɔɔ-tɨt house-loc broad wood-pl be-co-3pl ‘There are planks in the house.’ b. tɔɔntɨ po-t mɔɔt-qɨn broad wood-pl house-loc ‘The planks are in the house.’

εε-ηɔɔ-tɨt be-co-3pl

North Sámi is similar to Finnish and Selkup in that an existential sentence and, with it, a contrast in subject definiteness, can be signalled by word order alone (Aikio and Ylikoski 2010, 170): (38) North Sámi a. Áhkká lea goađi-s old woman.nom be.3sg hut-ine ‘The old woman is in the hut.’ b. Goađi-s lea áhkká hut-ine be.3sg old woman.nom ‘There is an old woman in the hut.’ The same goes for other Sámi languages, such as South Sámi (Magga and Magga 2012, 171, 180–181), but not all. As mentioned earlier (see example (32)), Pite Saami uses a specific verb, gävdnut, derived from gávdnat ‘to find,’ as an existential verb (Wilbur 2014, 234‒235).

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 993

Thus, provided that the ‘definiteness effect’ for existential clauses holds, constituent order may signal definiteness in Uralic languages, provided that (1) definiteness is not indicated otherwise, for example, with articles or suffixes (as in Mordva and Hungarian), and (2) existential sentences contrast with locational sentences by constituent order alone, not by specific existential verbs (as in Pite Sámi). In Uralic, this appears to hold for Finnic, some Sámi languages, and Selkup, though Finnic at least appears to allow for definite subjects in existential clauses. 22.2.4 Differential object marking Definiteness-based differential object marking is attested in South Sámi and Mordva as well as in the Permic, Ugric, and Samoyed languages—that is, in most of the Uralic languages, though the suffixes involved are quite different. In South Sámi, plural indefinite (specific and non-specific) objects are flagged with the nominative and plural definite objects with the accusative (Kroik 2016, 19, 22), as in example (39). (39) South Sámi (Kroik 2016, 19) a. Læsja aahk-ide damta Lisa grandmother-acc.pl know.3sg ‘Lisa knows the grandmothers (that were just mentioned).’ b. Læsja aahka-h damta Lisa grandmother-nom.pl know.3sg ‘Lisa knows grandmothers.’ This differential object marking pertains to plural objects only; singular objects in South Sámi are marked with accusative -m regardless of definiteness (Kroik 2016, 29). Definiteness-based differential object marking does not occur elsewhere in Sámi (Bergsland 1946, 133). The historical background of South Sámi differential object marking is unclear, as the plural accusative suffix -ide (which is a general plural object marker elsewhere in Sámi) is cognate with the partitive in Finnic, which is used to mark less individuated objects, such as mass nouns; in South Sámi, however, it flags more individuated objects. Kittilä and Ylikoski (2018, 456) state that differential marking in South Sámi is based on definiteness only (likewise Bergsland 1946, 133), but Magga and Magga (2012, 185‒186) state that it may also indicate incrementality, with the plural accusative indicating an incremental and the nominative plural indicating a non-incremental object regardless of definiteness, as in example (40). (40) South Sámi (Magga and Magga 2012, 186) a. dejtie måaro-jde veelt-i that.acc.pl bone-acc.pl take-pst.3sg ‘He took those bones one by one.’

akti one

b. vaeltie-h doh måaroe-h take-imp.2sg that.nom.pl bone-nom.pl ‘Take those bones and gnaw them!’

låadtoe-h gnaw-imp.2sg

akti one

994 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

In Finnic, differential object (and subject) flagging involves a contrast between nominative and accusative on the one hand and partitive on the other: the partitive is used for arguments of open quantity and also for incremental arguments (Huumo 2003). Even though the less-individuated nature of partitive-marked arguments means there is overlap with indefiniteness, differential flagging is not based on definiteness in Finnic. Consider the Finnish equivalents of examples (39a) and (39b) mentioned earlier, where the role of the historical nominative plural and partitive plural is reversed. (41) Finnish a. Liisa tunte-e isoäidi-t Liisa know-3sg grandmother-nom.pl ‘Liisa knows the grandmothers.’ b. Liisa tunte-e isoäite-jä Liisa know-3sg grandmother-part.pl ‘Liisa knows grandmothers.’ The default interpretation of the object in (41b) is indefinite, since open quantification signalled by the partitive case implies notional indefiniteness, and that of (41a), contrastingly, definite. However, in certain cases, such as those where the quantity of the object is contextually determined, indefinite plural objects can be marked with the nominative in Finnish (42). (42) Finnish (Itkonen 1980, 30) ost-i-n huonee-seen verho-t buy-pst-1sg room-ill curtain-nom.pl ‘I bought curtains for the room.’ The choice between partitive and nominative (or accusative)3 for objects in Finnic is dependent on a host of factors (such as verbal aspect, clausal negation, etc.), meaning, that, despite the definiteness contrast shown in (41a) and (41b), differential object marking in Finnic is not primarily associated with definiteness. Consider the following two examples for singular objects, with (43a) showing an accusative-marked indefinite and (43b) a partitive-marked definite object. (43) Finnish a. ost-i-n jo-n-ku-n verho-n buy-pst-1sg some-acc curtain-acc ‘I bought some curtain (or other).’ b. e-n osta-nut si-tä verho-a neg-1sg buy-ptcl that-part curtain-part ‘I didn’t buy that curtain.’ The South Sámi contrast between (40a) and (40b) earlier, however, is reminiscent of the partiality-based marking in Finnic and may be archaic: the Finnic partitive and Sámi plural accusative have developed from the Uralic ablative case, and in Mordva, this case is used as an object marker for mass nouns with verbs such as ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ (Bartens 1999, 94), which may represent a starting point for its grammaticalization in Finnic and Sámi.

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 995

However, as Kittilä and Ylikoski (2018, 456) remark, differential object marking in South Sámi needs more research and may have been subject to recent language change. It does seem, however, that the South Sámi plural accusative at some point during its prehistory underwent a functional reversal from encoding a less-individuated, partial, or incremental object to a more individuated, that is, more definite object. Bergsland (1992, 8) mentions that, despite massive lexical influence, there is little traceable Scandinavian influence on South Sámi grammar, though he mentions some possible examples (Bergsland 1992, 11); also, uniquely among the Sámi languages, South Sámi sports a transitive verb of possession which may have developed under Scandinavian influence (Inaba and Blokland 2019, 120). In this context, it is worth noting that in the Scandinavian languages, plural indefinite objects do not take any particular article (e.g. Swedish jag läser böcker ‘I read books’), but plural definite objects may take a postposed article (jag läste böckerna ‘I read the books’). Structurally, this contrast between absence and presence of a suffix is mirrored in South Sámi. In Mordva, indefinite objects in the singular are flagged with the nominative of the indefinite declension (44a), while definite objects take the genitive-accusative of the definite declension (Erzya -ńt,’ Moksha -t´), as in example (44b). (44) Erzya (Bartens 1999, 175) a. ram-i-ń lišme buy-pst-1sg horse.nom ‘I bought a horse.’ b. t´e lišme-ńt´ t´et´a-m ram-i-źe this horse-def.acc father-1sg buy-pst-3sg>3sg ‘My father bought this horse.’ Note that the definite object is indexed on the verb as well in the Mordva example (44b); definite objects do occur without this indexing, however, particularly in Erzya, as a sign of continuative aspect (Bartens 1999, 92). The genitive-accusative case of the definite declension is used for plural objects as well (Grünthal 2016, 292‒293). Nonfinite verbs, on the other hand, in Mordvin do not show differential object marking: objects are marked with the genitive of the indefinite declension (-ń) regardless of definiteness (Bartens 1999, 91). Differential object marking beyond the use of definite and indefinite suffixes does occur in Mordva: as mentioned, the ablative -do/-d´e marks mass noun objects of verbs such as ‘eat’ and ‘drink,’ but also more widely objects of verbs of emotion such as ‘fear’ (Bartens 1999, 94) and in Erzya, the inessive may flag objects of verbs of incompletive aspect. This appears to be restricted mainly to definite objects, but the object is not indexed on the verb (Bartens 1999, 96). The Permic accusative suffixes (Udmurt -(j)ez, Komi -ös) are used to flag definite and animate objects, whereas the nominative is used for indefinite objects, a contrast that appears in the plural as well as the singular (Bartens 2000, 332; Havas 2008, 4). The use of the bare accusative marker for definite objects has become intertwined, however, with the usage of person suffixes to mark definiteness. Example (45) from Komi illustrates this point. (45) Komi (Klumpp 2009, 325) a. men jen śet-is mös 1sg.dat God give-pst.3sg cow.nom ‘God gave me a cow and an ox.’

da and

öš ox.nom

996 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

b. vaj let´t´ś-am da öš-sö nat´śk-am, bring.imp2sg go.down-fut.1pl and ox-acc.3sg butcher-fut.1pl a mös-sö vid´ź-am but cow-acc.3sg keep-fut.1pl ‘Come on, let’s go down and butcher the ox, but let’s keep the cow.’ The accusative suffix -sö in the earlier example is a portmanteau (contrasting with non-possessed accusative -ös): in the Permic languages, person suffixes are used to a significant extent as indicators of definiteness (Klumpp 2009, 329‒330), and a noun taking a person suffix will be obligatorily put in its accusative form if it is a direct object (Klumpp 2009, 332; 2014, 418). In Komi, the nominative (i.e. zero-suffixed form) for indefinite objects thus competes with -ös, the non-possessive accusative, in accordance with a scale of object individuation: pronoun objects will always take the accusative suffix, indefinite inanimates will take zero, but categories in between, such as humans and animals, may take either form (Klumpp 2009, 331‒334, 2014, 419‒420). Note the following two examples, with (46a) an indefinite human object flagged with the accusative and (46b) with a definite human object in the nominative. (46) Komi (Klumpp 2009, 333, 336) a. kaga vaj-is da seśśa sar gozja-ys i saldat-ös child bring-pst.3sg and then tsar couple-3sg and soldier-acc yst-isny pi-ys din-ö send-pst.3pl son-3sg to-ill ‘She gave birth to a child, and then the tsar and tsarina sent a soldier to their son.’ b. sar gozja lyd´d´-isny i kaga śet-isny sy-ly tsar couple read-pst.3pl and child.nom give-pst.3pl (s)he-dat ‘The tsar and tsarina read (the letter) and gave her the child.’ Human direct objects with zero suffix appear to be very rare but are not obviously excluded (Klumpp 2009, 333). Differential object marking in Komi is complicated further by the dialectal presence of dative objects, which appear to be definite and, according to Klumpp (2009, 349), indicate secondary topics—topical objects in the presence of topical subjects (topicality presupposing definiteness)—and in this, the dative object contrasts with the possessive accusative, which marks focal objects (Klumpp 2014, 431‒432). Among the Ugric languages, differential object flagging is attested in Mansi, with the exception of North Mansi and some West Mansi dialects, where objects aside from (inherently definite) personal pronouns take zero suffix (Liimola 1963, 31; Virtanen 2014, 395). As in Permic, the use of the accusative in East Mansi has become intertwined with the use of person suffixes to indicate definiteness (Virtanen 2014, 400): the accusative is often not used with first- and second-person suffixes (Liimola 1963, 31). It is also intertwined with the indexing of definite objects on the verb: the objective conjugation in East Mansi is used with highly topical zero anaphora or with less topical accusative-suffixed objects (47a), and the subjective conjugation is used with focal or indefinite objects (47b) (Virtanen 2014, 403‒407). (47) East Mansi (Virtanen 2014, 405, 407) a. öänsyøxo-mø päätt-øs-tø bear-acc shoot-pst-3sg>sg ‘He shot the bear.’

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 997

b. kom jowt+nyõõl wø-s man bow+arrow.nom take-pst.3sg ‘The man took a bow and arrow.’ There is some confusion concerning the extent of definiteness-based differential object flagging in Samoyedic. Wratil (2018, 349), for instance, reconstructs a definite object suffix for early Samoyedic, whereas Havas (2008, 3‒4, 14) states that the opposite system, with definite objects unmarked and indefinite objects marked, is widespread in Samoyedic. As for the individual languages, Tundra Nenets does not show definiteness-based direct object flagging (Nikolaeva 2014, 102; Wratil 2018, 360‒362), nor does Forest Nenets (Havas 2008, 5) or Forest Enets, though a system that is the reverse of that of East Mansi, with indefinite objects marked and definite objects unmarked, has been reported in earlier grammars (Siegl 2013, 155). In Nganasan, definite objects are flagged with a combination of accusative *-m- and a person suffix (even in non-possessive contexts), while indefinite objects take zero suffix (Wratil 2018, 351‒352). However, this does not reflect an earlier system of differential object marking, but rather the deletion of word-final *-m, which may leave morphophonemic traces (Wratil 2018, 352; Wagner-Nagy 2018, 190), and in older texts or the speech of elderly speakers, indefinite objects may still take an accusative suffix, as in (48). (48) Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2018, 190) kuniɁia mənə ηəntu-m ηusɨ-ηɨ-m how I boat-acc make-inter-1sg ‘How am I to make a boat?’ It has been argued that definiteness-based differential object flagging exists in Selkup with indefinite objects marked and definite objects unmarked (Havas 2008, 6), but the exact opposite system has been argued for as well (Wegener 2018, 172). Wegener (2018, 181) herself finds, as far as Central and Southern Selkup are concerned, insufficient evidence for definiteness-based differential object flagging, though she entertains the notion that this might be due to a recent extension of the use of the accusative case suffix to include indefinite objects. Definiteness-based differential object flagging does seem to have occurred in Kamassian, with definite objects taking the suffix -bə; this may represent a dialectal variant of accusative -m or be based on the first-person suffix (Künnap 1971, 67). According to the consensus view (Korhonen 1996), definiteness-based differential object flagging can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic with accusative *-m having originally been used on definite objects only. While such a pattern is typologically plausible, evidence for it among present-day Uralic languages is not very strong. Of those languages where clear traces of accusative *-m are found, it flags definite and indefinite objects equally in Mari, Finnic, and Sámi. The restriction of the use of *-m to definite objects is attested only in Nganasan (where it is historically secondary), possibly in Kamassian, and certainly in East Mansi. Definiteness-based differential object flagging is prominent in Mordva and Permic as well, but while researchers have sought for traces of accusative *-m in these language groups, the evidence is highly ambiguous (De Smit 2014, 13‒14). Salminen (1995, 27) points out that the Turkic languages which have exerted strong influence on all but the westernmost Uralic languages prominently show definiteness-based differential object flagging, and thus the system as encountered in Mordva, Permic, and East Mansi may be the result of relatively recent developments. On the other hand,

998 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

it should be noted that definiteness indexing on the verb (treated in the next section) may, to some extent, be reconstructable for Proto-Uralic, and that this ‘head-marking’ system of definiteness may have been mirrored on the Uralic noun as well. 22.2.5 Definiteness indexing on the verb In a number of Uralic languages—Mordva, the Ugric languages, and Samoyedic—the definiteness of direct objects is differentiated by fully or partially distinct indexing on the verb. The resulting ‘objective conjugations’ occur in three varieties: (1) only the presence of a (definite) object is indexed, as in most forms of the Hungarian objective conjugation, as well as Selkup and Kamassian; (2) the presence and number of a (definite) object is indexed (North Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric); (3) the presence, person, and number of a (definite) object is indexed, as in Mordva. Thus, in Mordva, the objective conjugation has reached the greatest degree of elaboration in that both the person and the number of the object are indexed on the verb (though with a great degree of syncretism): Erzya kunda-sa-k catch-3sg-2sg ‘you (will) catch (it)’ with a third-person singular object suffix -sa-; kunda-si-t´ catch-3pl-2sg ‘you (will) catch (those)’ with a third-person plural object suffix -si-; kunda-ta-n catch-2sg-1sg ‘I (will) catch you (sg)’ with a second-person singular object suffix -ta-. The forms for third-person plural objects are distinct from those mentioned previously only in forms with a singular subject; the forms with plural subjects have merged (Bartens 1999, 126). A great deal of syncretism appears with other forms as well: thus, kunda-ta-diź may mean ‘we/they (will) catch you (sg)’ or ‘I/he/we/you catch you (pl).’ Object indexing on the verb is used together with definite object flagging on the noun in Mordva to indicate perfective aspect, as in example (43b) earlier (Bartens 1999, 175). With imperfective aspect, the subjective conjugation is used, particularly in Erzya. When used with no overt object NP or pronoun, the use of the objective conjugation may indicate an anaphoric definite object. Objective conjugations occur to various extents in the Samoyedic languages. In Tundra Nenets, the number but not the person of the object is indexed on the verb, with some degree of syncretism (Körtvély 2005, 62; Nikolaeva 2014, 79‒80). Pronominal direct objects are used in conjunction with the subjective conjugation (Körtvély 2005, 122). There is a lack of clarity about the role of definiteness, or alternatively, focus, in triggering the use of the objective conjugation in Nenets (Körtvély 2005, 142‒143). According to Nikolaeva (2014, 203‒210), focused objects in narrow focus construction will not trigger agreement (49a), but specific indefinite objects may, and topical objects—secondary topics—generally do trigger agreement, regardless of definiteness (49b). (49) Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 206, 208) a. ti-m pedara-xona xadaə-no reindeer-acc forest-loc kill-2sg ‘It was a reindeer you killed in the forest.’ b. ti-m pedara-xona xada-sa-ro reindeer-acc forest-loc kill-interr.past-2sg>sg ‘Did you kill a/the reindeer in the forest?’ In Forest Enets, the use of the objective conjugation is similarly tied to topicality: it is used to refer to (secondary) topics already established in the discourse, particularly

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 999

anaphoric ones (Siegl 2013, 254, 375), and the same goes for Nganasan (Wagner-Nagy 2018, 338‒340). Wratil (2018, 358‒359) stresses that the objective conjugation in Nganasan is used mainly with anaphoric objects. In Selkup, transitivity, rather than the definiteness of the object, appears to be the main factor determining the use of the objective conjugation (Körtvély 2005, 34). In Ob-Ugric, as in Samoyedic, number but not person of the object may be indexed on the verb. The objective conjugation in East Mansi occurs mainly with topical anaphoric objects (Virtanen 2014, 404) or with objects that are flagged with the accusative (which indicates topicality), while focal objects are marked with the nominative and not indexed on the verb (Virtanen 2014, 405‒407). In Northern Khanty, focalized objects are not indexed on the verb (50) (Nikolaeva 2001, 17‒19), but topical objects are (Nikolaeva 2001, 19‒24), as in (50), where the focus is on the location and the object mushrooms is a secondary topic. (50) North Khanty (Nikolaeva 2001, 17, 29) a. luw mane:m jir-əs anta naηe-n he I.acc tie.down-3sg no you-acc ‘He tied me down, not you.’ b. ma ta:ləx ta:ta a:kət-l-e:m 1sg mushroom here collect-prs-1sg>sg ‘I collect mushrooms here, not there.’

anta to:ta not there

Example (49a) shows that the objective conjugation in North Khanty may occur with indefinite secondary topics (Nikolaeva 2001, 16). Another piece of evidence suggesting that it is topicality, rather than definiteness, governing the use of the objective conjugation in Ob-Ugric comes from the so-called dative shift in Mansi (Bíró and Sipőcz 2017): with ditransitive constructions, the recipient may be promoted to direct object role while, at the same time, the theme is demoted to an adverbial position, flagged with the instrumental case, as illustrated in example (51). (51) North Mansi (Bíró and Sipőcz 2017, 45) nēnan am śopr+śonaχ-əl wār-i-jaγəm you.acc I silver+cup-inst make-prs-1sg>du ‘I will make the two of you a silver cup.’ The dative shift is triggered if the topic role of the referent in the patient role is lower than that of the referent in recipient or any other semantic role lower than patient. The objective conjugation becomes mandatory in this case: it is triggered because the referent higher in the topic hierarchy switches to direct object position. This is best seen in samples including first and second persons, since they are always higher than third persons in the pragmatic hierarchy. In Hungarian, only the presence of an object, not its number or person, is indexed on the verb, for example, lát-ok see-1sg ‘I see’lát-sz see-2sg ‘you see’; lát-om see-1sg>obj ‘I see it/him/her’lát-od see-2sg>obj ‘you see it/him/her.’ With personal pronoun objects, the subjective conjugation is used, with the exception of a special agreement suffix for second-person singular object and first-person singular subject, for example, lát-lak see-1sg>2sg ‘I see you’ (Coppock and Wechsler 2012, 703). Unlike Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric, the objective conjugation in Hungarian appears not to be tied

1000 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

to topicality: focalized objects may trigger the objective conjugation, as in (52a), while indefinite but topical objects may occur with the subjective conjugation (52b). (51) Hungarian (Coppock and Wechsler 2012, 719) a. János-t talál-t-uk meg János-acc find-pst-1pl>obj pref ‘We found John.’ b. Bicikli-t sok lány Bicycle-acc many girl.nom ‘Bicycles, many girls saw.’

lát-ott see-3sg.pst

Coppock and Wechsler (2012, 726‒733) argue that it is precisely formal definiteness that triggers object indexing on the verb in Hungarian, and that this may be the result of a grammaticalization pathway from a topicality-based system, as encountered in Northern Khanty (Coppock and Wechsler 2012, 733‒734). Thus, object definiteness is a trigger for the use of the objective conjugation only in Mordva and Hungarian, while in the other Uralic languages where object indexing on the verb occurs, this signals topicality instead. To be more precise, in Mordva, object indexing signals perfective aspect in the presence of a definite object, as in example (53a), whereas in example (53b), the subjective conjugation is used to signify incompletive aspect, regardless of the definiteness of the object. (53) Erzya (Bartens 1999, 175) a. t´e lišme-ńt´ t´et´a-m this horse-def.acc father-1sg ‘My father bought this horse.’

ram-i-źe buy-pst-3sg>3sg

b. kosojak jalga-nzo marto moń jalga-t´ńeń somewhere friend-3sg with my friend-def.gen/acc.pl kudo-sto panśe-ś house-ela chase out-pst.3sg ‘Somewhere he and his friends were chasing my friends out of their homes.’ The notion that objective conjugational paradigms in Uralic are used with a definite object (e.g. Tauli 1966, 168) thus requires considerable refinement. There is no correlation between the presence of differential object flagging and object indexing on the verb: notably, Tundra Nenets, Forest Enets, and Hungarian show object indexing on the verb but no definiteness-based accusative flagging; Permic, on the other hand, shows definiteness-based accusative flagging but no object indexing on the verb. It should be noted, however, that in Mordva and Hungarian (but not Ob-Ugric or Samoyedic), definiteness is (also) encoded by means of articles or article-like suffixes. The presence of articles may have stimulated the grammaticalization of the objective conjugation towards marking definiteness rather than topicality. Still, in most cases, definiteness-marking strategies are a combination of several strategies operating in the nominal as well as the verbal categories. In Ob-Ugric, for example, this is a combination of the use of zero anaphora and object indexing on the verb. In Mordva, on the contrary, the definite declension is combined with the definite conjugation, resulting in a kind of quasi-redundant marking. Indexing of the definite or topical object on the verb is attested only in Mordva, Ugric, and Samoyedic, but it may have left traces elsewhere in Uralic

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 1001

as well. In Permic, third-person preterite forms may show a suffix -s, particularly on transitive verbs (Bartens 2000, 182), and this may have originated from a rudimentary objective conjugation (Csúcs 2005, 260‒261, Körtvély 2005, 30). More tentatively, a contrast between two conjugational types in Mari may reflect an earlier objective conjugation (Körtvély 2005, 31). There is, nonetheless, no consensus on the origins of object indexing on the verb in Uralic. Whereas the view that, at least to some extent, it may be reconstructed to Uralic is commonly held, there is disagreement on whether the suffixes originally involved were based on nominal personal suffixes or incorporated pronominal elements (De Smit 2014, 9). The latter possibility, that an originally pronominal *-se was added to the stem of transitive verbs with third-person subjects in the presence of a (topical) object, fits very well with the widespread usage of object indexing on the verb with anaphorical topical objects in Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric. The other possibility, that object indexing originated in nominal person suffixes (*-mV, *-tV, *-sV), requires that we posit a syntactic reanalysis: the suffixes involved would originally refer to the agent of a verbal noun (e.g. ‘the reindeer is my killing’) and only later to the topical object of a verb (‘I killed the reindeer’). It does, however, fit with the usage of object indexing to signify perfective aspect in Mordvin, which is paralleled with definite objects in Nenets (54). (54) Tundra Nenets (Nikolaeva 2014, 207) a. n´īs´a-m´i ηəno-m s´ertaə-da ? father-1sg boat-acc do-3sg>sg ‘Has my father finished making the boat?’ b. n´īs´a-m´i ηəno-m s´ertao ? father-1sg boat-acc do ‘Did my father make a boat?’ If such usage is archaic, it would fit with the supposed origin of the objective conjugation from person suffixes attached to a verbal noun. 22.3 CONCLUSIONS A variety of grammatical devices associated with definiteness marking can be found in the Uralic languages. Articles are present in Hungarian, whereas Finnic and Sámi show signs of a grammaticalization of demonstrative pronouns to articles that are still in progress. Dedicated definiteness markers as suffixes are encountered in Mordva, Veps, and Kildin Sámi. Definiteness-based differential object flagging is encountered in South Sámi, Permic, and Mansi, while in Samoyedic, its presence and extent remain unclear. Definite objects are indexed on the verb in Mordva, Ugric, and Samoyedic, while variation in constituent order may signal definiteness in a number of Uralic languages, such as Finnish, Sámi, and Selkup. In several cases, however, grammatical devices associated with the encoding of definiteness do not represent a grammaticalization of identifiability but rather relate to factors such as information structure, referentiality, and reference tracking in discourse. This is particularly clear for the use of person suffixes in non-possessive contexts in Ob-Ugric, but also for the use of the objective conjugation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyed. It seems that, as with research on person suffixes or passives in Uralic, the concept of definiteness should not be analyzed in isolation but within the whole textual structure as a part of the reference-tracking mechanisms in Uralic. The

1002 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

deployment of grammatical devices such as person suffixes on the NP or object indexing on the verb may represent a basis for the grammaticalization of identifiability, but this grammaticalization seems to have run its course mainly in Mordva (in the case of definite suffixes and object indexing) and Hungarian (with article usage and object indexing). Differential object flagging appears to be clearly based on definiteness in South Sámi, but in Permic, Mansi, and Samoyedic, differential object flagging is intertwined with the information-structuring deployment of person suffixes. The interaction of differential object marking and definiteness in Samoyedic needs much more research. Grammatical devices associated with definiteness marking that may be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic are object indexing on the verb and, much more tentatively, due to the uncertain and variegated nature of contemporary Uralic evidence, differential object flagging on NPs. Language contact may have played a role in the development of other grammatical means. The postposed definiteness markers of Mordva, Veps, and Kildin Sámi are present in local non-Uralic languages, such as Scandinavian languages and dialectal Russian as well, and represent an areal feature (Stadnik-Holzer 2006). Languages that show a complete or incipient grammaticalization of articles—Hungarian, Finnic, and Sámi—have been in long-term contact with article-bearing languages, such as Scandinavian languages and German. Definiteness-based differential object flagging occurs prominently in Turkic, which has exerted influence on all Uralic languages, where this is found (with the exception of South Sámi). The South Sámi plural object, finally, has an anomalous historical background that requires further study. This goes for the role of language contact in the development of Uralic definiteness marking in general. This chapter identifies significant lacunae in current research, which persist despite significant recent inroads into the research of definiteness, in particular Uralic languages (e.g. Budzisch 2015 and Wegener 2018 on Selkup, Janda 2019 and Virtanen 2014 on Ugric, Klumpp 2014 on Komi). Specific areas that remain include the variation of non-suffixed (nominative) and case-suffixed objects and the interaction of this distribution with definiteness in a number of Samoyedic languages; the role of incrementality as well as definiteness in South Sámi object marking; and the definite suffixes of Kildin Sámi. Many of the languages involved are threatened, or even moribund, which means that possibilities for research are diminishing. NOTES 1 For a very detailed composition of papers about definiteness, see, for example, Von Heusinger (2011). 2 In terms of formal markers such as articles, possessive suffixes, etc. Arguably, however, the use of nominative plural *-t (as opposed to partitive plural), an alternation which primarily signifies quantitatively closed vs. open sets, can be taken to imply definiteness. 3 In Proto-Uralic, the genitive was *-n and the accusative was *-m. The forms have merged in Finnish. In object-position the -n has been called the accusative, although the term genitive object is used more and more. REFERENCES Agranat, Tatiana. 2015. “The Definite Article in Votic: The Process of Grammaticalization.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6 (1): 41–53.

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 1003

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, and Robert M. W. Dixon. 2012. Possession and Ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikio, Ante, and Jussi Ylikoski. 2010. The Structure of North Saami. Course Handout. University of Utah: Dept. of Linguistics. www.academia.edu/36836577/The_Structure_ of_North_Saami. Accessed 6 April 2019. Alhoniemi, Alho. 2010. Marin kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija. 2000. Permiläiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Becker, Laura, and Jingting Ye. 2016. “Discourse reference in languages with and without articles.” Conference on typology and grammar for young scholars, St Petersburg, 24 November 2016. https://laurabecker.gitlab.io/presentations/With_outArticles.pdf Acessed 08.08.2019. Bergsland, Knut. 1946. Røros-lappisk Grammatikk. Et forsøk på strukturell språkbeskrivelse. Oslo: Aschehoug. Bergsland, Knut. 1992. “Contacts between South Saami and Scandinavian.” In Language Contact. Theoretical and Empirical Studies, edited by Ernst H. Jahr, 5–15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bíró, Bernadett, and Katalin Sipőcz. 2017. “The Mansi Ditransitive Constructions.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric linguistics 6 (1): 41–55. Budzisch, Josefin. 2015. “Possessive Constructions in Southern Selkup Dialects.” Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 4 (10): 45–50. Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On Definiteness. A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coppock, Elizabeth, and Stephen Wechsler. 2012. “The Objective Conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without Phi-Features.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30 (3): 699–740. Csúcs, Sándor. 1998. “Udmurt.” In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo, 276–304. London: Routledge. Csúcs, Sándor. 2005. Die Rekonstruktion der Permischen Ursprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. De Smit, Merlijn. 2014. “Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 38: 1–34. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory Volume 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Egedi, Barbara. 2013. “Grammatical Encoding of Referentiality in the History of Hungarian.” In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface, edited by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri, and Piera Molinelli, 367–389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Filchenko, Andrey. 2010. Aspects of the Grammar of East Khanty. Tomsk: TSPUPress. www.academia.edu/3473573/Aspects_of_the_Grammar_of_Eastern_Khanty. Accessed 6 April 2019. Frege, Gottlob. 1892. “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Gerland, Doris. 2014. “Definitely Not Possessed? Possessive Suffixes with Definiteness Marking Function.” In Frames and Concept Types. Applications in Language and Philosophy, edited by Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen, 269–292. Cham/Heidelberg: Springer.

1004 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GLT = Loos, Eugene, ed. SIL glossary of linguistic terms. https://glossary.sil.org. Accessed 4 June 2019. Grieve, Robert. 1973. “Definiteness in Discourse.” Language and Speech 16 (4): 365–372. Grünthal, Riho. 2015. Vepsän kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Grünthal, Riho. 2016. “Transitivity in Erzya: Second Language Speakers in a Grammatical Focus.” In Mordvin Languages in the Field, edited by Ksenia Shagal and Heini Arjava, 291–318. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Hakanen, Aimo. 1972. “Normaalilause ja eksistentiaalilause.” Sananjalka 14 (1): 36–76. Havas, Ferenc. 2008. “Unmarked Object in the Uralic Languages: A Diachronic Typological Approach.” Linguistica Uralica 1: 1–33. Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm. Hint, Helen, Tiina Nahkola, and Renate Pajusalu. 2017. “With or Without Articles? A Comparison of Article-like Determiners in Estonian and Finnish.” Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 27: 65–106. Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. “Incremental Existence: The World According to the Finnish Existential Sentence.” Linguistics 41 (3): 461–493. Inaba, Nobufumi, and Rogier Blokland. 2019. “Predicative Possession in South Saami.” In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia, edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Mazzitelli, and Irina Nevskaya, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Itkonen, Terho. 1980. “Spesies suomessa ja germaanisissa kielissä.” Virittäjä 84: 27–38. Janda, Gwen E. 2015. “Northern Mansi Possessive Suffixes in Non-possessive Function.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6 (2): 243–258. Janda, Gwen E. 2019. Funktionen von Possessivsuffixen in den ugrischen Sprachen. Köln: MAP. Janda, Gwen E., Axel Wisiorek, and Stefanie Eckmann. 2017. “Reference Tracking Mechanisms and Automatic Annotation Based on Ob-Ugric Information Structure.” Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 96: 115–126. Juvonen, Päivi. 2000. Grammaticalizing the Definite Article: A Study of Definite Adnominal Determiners in a Genre of Spoken Finnish. Stockholm: Stockholm university. Kettunen, Lauri. 1943. Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kittilä, Seppo, and Jussi Ylikoski. 2018. “Some Like it Transitive: Remarks on Verbs of Liking and the Like in the Saami Languages.” In Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, edited by Ilja Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, 413–436. Berlin: Language Science Press. Klumpp, Gerson. 2009. “Variation in Komi Object Marking.” In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar, edited by Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer, and Guido Seiler, 325–359. Berlin: Mouton. Klumpp, Gerson. 2014. “Identifability, Givenness and Zero-Marked Referential Objects in Komi.” Linguistics 52 (2): 415–444. Korhonen, Mikko. 1996. “Remarks on the Structure and History of the Uralic Case System.” In Typological and Historical Studies in Language by Mikko Korhonen. A Memorial Volume Published on the 60th Anniversary of His Birth, edited by Mikko Korhonen and Tapani Salminen, 219–242. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

DEFINITENESS IN URALIC 1005

Körtvély, Erika. 2005. Verb Conjugation in Tundra Nenets. Szeged: SZTE Finnugor Tanszék. Kroik, David. 2016. Differential object marking in South Saami. Licentiate Thesis. Umeå University: Department of Language Studies. http://umu.divaportal.org/smash/get/ diva2:956910/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2019. Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 2007. Itämansin kielioppi ja tekstejä. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Künnap, Ago. 1971. System und ursprung der Kamassischen flexionssuffixe. I: Numeruszeichen und nominalflexion. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laury, Ritva. 1995. “On the Grammaticization of the Definite Article se in Spoken Finnish.” In Historical Linguistics 1993. Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, edited by Henning Andersen, 239–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in Interaction. The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laury, Ritva. 2001. “Definiteness.” In Handbook of pragmatics online. https://benjamins. com/online/hop/articles/def1. Accessed 6 April 2019. Leinonen, Marja. 2006. “Omistussuhteen ulokkeita: komin possessiivisuffiksin eipossessiivisista funktioista.” Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 91: 93–114. Liimola, Matti. 1963. Zur historischen Formlehre des Wogulischen. I: Flexion der Nomina. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magga, Ole Henrik, and Lajla Mattsson Magga. 2012. Sørsamisk Grammatikk. Karasjok: Davvi Girji. Matić, Dejan. 2003. Topics, Presuppositions and Theticity: An Empirical Study of Verb-Subject Clauses in Albanian, Greek and Serbo-Croat. Köln: Universität zu Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Metslang, Helena. 2012. “On the Case Marking of Existential Subjects in Estonian.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 25: 151–204. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. “Secondary Topic as a Relation in Information Structure.” Linguistics 39 (1): 1–49. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2003. “Possessive Affixes in the Pragmatic Structuring of the Utterance: Evidence from Uralic.” In International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Udmurt State University, Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic, Russia, May 22–25, 2001, edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Bernard Comrie. Collection of papers Izhevsk / Leipzig: Udmurt State University / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ling.unikonstanz.de/pages/home/nikolaeva/papers/izhevsk.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2019. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pajusalu, Renate. 2009. “Pronouns and Reference in Estonian.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 62: 122–139. Salminen, Tapani. 1995. “Comments on László Honti’s paper ‘Zur Morphotaktik und Morphosyntax der uralischen/finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache’.” CIFU 8 Pars VIII: 25–27. Siegl, Florian. 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, An Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

1006 MERLIJN DE SMIT AND GWEN EVA JANDA

Simonenko, Alexandra. 2014. “Microvariation in Finno-Ugric Possessive Markers.” In Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 43), edited by Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, and Amanda Rysling, 127–140. New York: The City University of New York. Stadnik-Holzer, Elena. 2006. “Zur Frage nach der Herkunft der sog. postponierten Partikel in den nordrussischen Dialekte.” In The Slavicization of the Russian North: Mechanisms and Chronology, edited by Juhani Nuorluoto, 347–354. Helsinki: Dept. of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures. Strawson, P. F. 1950. “On Referring.” Mind 59 (235): 320–344. Tauli, Valter. 1966. Structural Tendencies in Uralic Languages. The Hague: Mouton. Vähämäki, Börje. 1984. Existence and Identity: A Study of the Semantics and Syntax of Existential Sentences in Finnish. Turku: Åbo Akademi. Vilkuna, Marja. 1998. “Word Order in European Uralic.” In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, edited by Anna Siewierska, 173–234. Berlin: De Gruyter. Virtanen, Susanna. 2014. “Pragmatic Direct Object Marking in Eastern Mansi.” Linguistics 52 (2): 391–413. VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php?s=tiedot. Accessed 26 April 2019. Viszket, Anita, Judit Kleiber, and Veronika Szabó. 2018. “Articles and Demonstratives.” In Syntax of Hungarian. Nouns and Noun Phrases, vol. 2, edited by Gábor Alberti and Tibor Laczkó, 976–1044. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. “Definiteness.” In Oxford Bibliographies Online: Linguistic, edited by Mark Aronoff. New York: Oxford University. http://gerlin.phil-fak.unikoeln.de/kvh/pub/pubmanus/Heusinger-2011-Definiteness-OBO.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2017. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2016. “Existentials, Possessives and Definiteness in Samoyedic Languages.” In Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological and Diachronic Variation, edited by Susann Fischer, Tanja Kupisch, and Esther Rinke, 213–243. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2018. A Grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill. Wegener, Hannah. 2018. “On Differential Object Marking in Central and Southern Selkup.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 9 (1): 169–186. Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A Grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. Wratil, Melanie. 2018. “Structural Case and Objective Conjugation in Northern Samoyedic.” In The Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking, edited by Ilja Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, 345–380. Berlin: Language Science Press. Yurayong, Chingduang. 2015. Pääsanan jälkeinen demonstratiivi itäisissä keskivepsän murteissa, pohjoisvenäjän nykymurteissa ja Muinais-Novgorodin slaavissa substraattiteorian näkökulmasta. Pro gradu-tutkielma. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Zayzon, Réka. 2015. “Observations on Non-possessive Usages of Personal Markers (Possessive Suffixes) in Nganasan.” Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6 (2): 259–278.

INDEX Note: We have not sought to impose an unnecessarily constrictive template on our contributors’ chapters; treatment of morphosyntactic phenomena will therefore be found under sections on morphology, syntax, or both, depending on the tastes and orientation of the contributor, as guided by the language to be described. In fact on the whole in compiling this index we have assumed that the interested reader will have no difficulty finding information about most linguistic matters (such as consonant inventories, verb tenses, or the formation of numerals) by looking in their respective sections in the introduction and in each languagedescription chapter. Since a mechanical listing of superficially synonymous terms would be fruitless or even misleading, we have not aimed at exhaustiveness (nor have we made a fetish of consistency). Rather, we have striven to highlight linguistic features and categories that are relatively Uralic-specific, yet may not be readily located under obvious headings within the various chapters (examples might include ‘Mulgi’, ‘Soyot’, ‘consonant gradation’, ‘translative verb’, ‘topicality and object indexing’), or which contrast sharply within the family (‘vowel harmony’, ‘reduplication’, ‘syncretism’). abessive: mood in Nganasan 770, 771; participle in Nganasan 772, 773 abessive (case): Estonian 469; Khanty 737, 744; Komi 623, 624, 625, 628–633, 657, 662; Moksha Mordvin 487–489, 496; North and Standard Estonian 354, 355, 357, 362, 373; Skolt 309, 336; Võro South Estonian 393, 400, 404, 405–407, 408, 422 ablative: infinitive in Moksha Mordvin 511, 519 ablative (case) 20, 33–35, 57, 59–10; Enets 801, 803, 808, 811, 814, 827, 837, 845; Finnic 445; Hungarian 35, 59; Khanty 744; Komi 623, 624, 625, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 647, 649, 661; Mansi 57, 669, 670, 676, 681, 692, 693‒694, 700n2; Mari 35, 535; Moksha Mordvin 488, 489, 493, 495, 498, 499, 500, 502, 511; Mordvin 995; Nenets 863, 872, 876, 882; North and Standard Estonian 354, 355; Proto-Uralic 122, 150, 153, 994; Selkup 906, 907–908, 910, 921; Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic 200; Udmurt 584, 585, 587; Võro South Estonian 393, 394, 404, 405, 406, 407; Yukaghir 193 ablaut: diachrony 123, 148–149, 156; Khanty 711, 713, 716–717; Mansi 672; Proto-IndoEuropean 202; South Saami 235, 306–307, 317–321 accusative (case) xv, 15, 32, 34, 35, 36–38, 40–41, 47, 49, 52, 54–56, 58–59, 60–62, 65–67, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78–80; and definiteness 993–998, 999–1000, 1002n3; Enets 800, 808, 825; Finnic 456, 461–463, 474; Khanty 703, 713, 740, 744; Komi 614, 622, 623–624, 625, 628–633, 659–660; Mansi 665, 681; Mari 534, 536, 538, 541, 570; Nganasan 704–705, 760–762, 763, 775, 778–779; North and Standard Estonian 347; in RCs 940, 950, 953, 956; Selkup 906, 910,

912, 923, 925; Skolt Saami 309, 333, 335; South Saami 235, 246, 247–250, 262–264, 266–269; Tundra Nenets 853–855, 863–865, 889–890, 974; Udmurt 584–586, 588–589, 598 adessive (case) x, 51, 57, 63, 80, 354, 355, 369, 374, 383, 387–388, 390–392, 393, 394, 394–396, 398, 400, 404–407, 412, 418–420, 424–426, 427–428, 433–435, 462, 463–464, 469–473, 475, 484–485, 488–489, 492–493, 962, 1006, 1008 adhortative (mood): Nenets 867, 869; Selkup 918; see also hortative adjectives 39–40, 48, 56, 66–67, 960–962; before noun in (Ural-)Altaic 187; Enets 812, 827–830, 843, 851n10; Khanty 719–721, 737; Komi 627, 638, 641–642, 644; Mansi 674, 675, 682, 694; Mari 527, 533–534, 539, 541–542, 555, 557; Moksha 481–482, 487, 493, 497, 499, 512, 517, 521; negative 958; Nenets 854, 869–873, 875, 877, 881, 887, 890; Nganasan 755, 760, 763, 772, 782, 785; North and Standard Estonian 363–366, 395; Selkup 911, 913, 929; Skolt Saami 310–312, 315–316, 326–327, 338, 353, 357–358; South Saami 257, 259–262; Udmurt 580–584, 587, 590; Võro South Estonian 401–402, 407–408, 455, 469 adpositions see postpositions adverbial (case) x, 584, 589 adverbial clause see supporting (= adverbial) clauses adverbs 275, 521, 535, 812, 929; adjectivemodifying 871; agreeing 838; and adpositions 467, 469, 481–482, 487, 511, 533–534, 774; appearing with zero copula 874; as relativizers 284; comparison of 587, 627, 720; compound 366; derived 64, 316, 364–365, 554, 583, 801, 828, 908, 914, 922; emphatic 829–830; epistemic 642; grammaticalized as preverbs 897;

1008 INDEX interrogative 271, 292–293, 512, 540, 657, 875; landscape 746, 930; local/spatial 276–278, 294, 367, 406, 407, 445–446, 539, 590, 641, 688, 774, 854, 913; manner/modal 376, 419, 642, 774; numeral 763, 923; open vs. closed classes of 312, 641, 854; pluralized 626; prefixed 614; proadverbs 371, 413, 944; reduplicated 580; substantivization of 591; superlative built with 872; temporal 602, 641, 681; verbs formed from 719 affective vocabulary xvii, 7, 10, 17, 19, 23–24, 40, 66–67; and anaphoric linkage/2nd person 987; Khanty 718; Nganasan 785 ‘agglutinative’ 28, 32; diachrony 153; Finnic 451; Komi 614; and long-range comparison 185, 198; Mari 527; Moksha 481; North and Standard Estonian 347, 353, 356; Selkup 897; Tundra Nenets 853; Võro South Estonian 392 agreement, subject/object with verb see verb inflection Akkala Saami 90 Aktionsart 32, 55, 65; Enets 829; Khanty 719, 735–736; Nganasan 755; Selkup 914, 915, 920–921 allative (case): dative-allative in Selkup 906, 910, 912; Enets 801; Hungarian 19; Moksha Mordvin 493; North and Standard Estonian 354, 355, 361, 369; postposition in Nganasan 774; Võro South Estonian 393, 394, 404, 405, 406, 407, 426 alphabet: Estonian 350; Hungarian 52; Kildin Saami 90; Komi 619‒620, 621; Mansi 667; Nenets 50, 857; South Saami 238; see also orthography ambitransitive (verbs) 48‒49; English 42; Mari 545; Selkup 915 anaphoric(s) 8, 59; and definiteness 980, 984–986, 987, 998–999, 1001; Enets 835; Khanty 726, 765; Nganasan 777; in RC construction 939, 972; Selkup 913; Skolt Saami 310; South Saami 275, 293; Tundra Nenets 877; Udmurt 592–593; Võro South Estonian 406 animacy 35, 42, 63, 662, 729, 906–907, 947, 955 aorist: Enets 798, 805, 806, 815, 816, 818, 819, 823, 824, 825, 827, 839, 840, 851n16; Nganasan 30, 43, 44, 55, 760, 768, 769‒70, 771, 773, 780; Proto-Samoyed 157; Selkup 898, 914, 915–917, 918; Tundra Nenets 23, 31, 862, 866, 883 approximative (cases) see Chapters 13 and 14 approximative mood 867, 868 argument indexing see verb inflection articles and article functions (cf. Hungarian a ~ az, 47) xv; South Saami 278, 979–984, 988, 995, 1000, 1002; see also definite declension auditive mood see evidentiality autobenefactiveness 9, 553 auxiliary verbs xi, 11, 42–44; diachrony 155; Enets 846; Finnic 446–447, 450–451, 459, 465–466; Mari 545, 552–553, 560; Moksha 506; Nganasan 766–767; North and Standard Estonian 358–359, 378–380; and RCs 953, 957, 959; Selkup 914, 916; Skolt Saami 309,

328–330, 332–333, 335, 337, 339–340; South Saami 250, 253, 265, 287–289, 292; Udmurt 594, 596, 637; Võro South Estonian 398–399, 400, 415, 418, 422–424; see also negative verbs Baltic-Fennic see Finnic (Chapter 10) Bashkir (North Kipchak Turkic language) 9, 529, 576–577 benefactive xi, 38; Enets 800, 804, 838; Mari 553; Moksha 518; Tundra Nenets 865; see also predestinative bilingualism: and Enets 794; and Erzya 98; and Finnic 437; and Forest Enets 107; and Inari Saami 89; and Khanty 745; and Livonian 438; and Mansi 668, 698; and Nganasan 763; and Proto-Hungarian 13; and Selkup 897; and Skolt Saami 302; and South Saami 237; in Uralic 2‒3 5; and Võro 93 captative 66; Nganasan 786; Selkup 920; South Saami 259 caritive (case) see abessive case marking see flagging (of NPs for case) case systems 33–34, 36, 45; vs. conjugation 32; and definiteness 8; Enets 800–801, 802, 803; Finnic 443–444, 445; Hungarian 20; Khanty 703, 712–713; Komi 622, 661; Mari 527, 534, 535, 542; Moksha 489; Mordvin 14; Nganasan 760–761; North and Standard Estonian 353, 354, 355, 356, 357; Skolt Saami 309, 324–326; South Saami 246–248, 296; Tundra Nenets 863–865, 870, 872, 874–880, 882–883; Udmurt 583, 584–585; Võro South Estonian 393, 394, 395 causative (case) Moksha 485, 489, 512 centrifugal (and centripetal) conjugation: Hungarian 22, 52 Cheremis see Mari Chuvash (sole surviving Oghur Turkic language ) 9, 11, 49, 180, 214, 529, 558‒59 566, 576, 662 collective forms and meanings 11, 264, 271, 315, 362, 402, 481, 500–502, 514, 541, 557, 718, 904, 913, 923 comitative (case) 7, 35, 966; Enets 801, 828, 834, 851n10; Komi 623, 624, 625, 628–633, 662; Mansi 681, 744; Moksha 502, 534; Nganasan 760–761, 774–775; North and Standard Estonian 357; Selkup 908, 912; Skolt Saami 309, 336, 354–355; South Saami 246, 247–250, 260, 263, 264–270, 275–276, 279–280, 283, 296–297; Võro South Estonian 390, 393, 394, 404–407, 408 commands see imperative mood comparative (case): as mark in comparative construction 57; Enets 828; Finnish 57; Hungarian 57; Khanty 721; Komi (= preclusive) 624; Komi 642; Mansi 675; Mari 542; Moksha 496; Selkup 911; Tundra Nenets 869, 872; Udmurt 587 comparative index in comparative construction 57; Finnic 455–456; Mari 533; Moksha 494; North and Standard Estonian 357; Skolt Saami 327, 337; South Saami 260–261, 262, 282; Võro South Estonian 395–396

INDEX 1009 complement clauses 9, 57–58, 59–61; Enets 826, 842; Finnic 471; Khanty 730–731, 733, 738; Komi 651; Mansi 685–686; Mari 550, 563–564, 604; Moksha 506; Nganasan 783; North and Standard Estonian 370–371; in RCs 952; Selkup 926; Skolt Saami 341–342; South Saami 285–286; Tundra Nenets 868, 880–881; Udmurt 604; Võro South Estonian 411–413 complex sentence 57, 176, 470, 518, 527, 601, 782 compounding and compounds 17, 34, 48, 66–67; Erzya 27; Finnish 64; Hungarian 64; Khanty 710, 721; Mansi 698; Nganasan 785; North and Standard Estonian 365; Skolt Saami 316; South Saami 256, 259; Tundra Nenets 890; Udmurt 576, 581; Võro South Estonian 365 conjugation see verb inflection conjugation of nominals see copula and copula complements conjunctions: Enets 847–848; Finnic 470–471; Khanty 704, 733; Komi 617, 643; Mansi 685, 687; Mari 527, 531, 533, 565–567; Moksha 518; Nganasan 782–784; North and Standard Estonian 370, 372; Selkup 897, 923, 927; Skolt Saami 314, 342, 370, 372; South Saami 295; Tundra Nenets 855; Udmurt 576, 600–601, 604; Võro South Estonian 409, 414 conominal 61–63 consecutive (case): Komi 625, 662 consonant gradation (syllabic, rhythmic) 7, 23–25, 27–28, 30, 33, 47–48, 66; diachrony 122, 134, 154, 220; Finnic 441–442, 449; lacking in Altaic 199; Nganasan 756–759; North and Standard Estonian 347, 352–355, 358–360, 362, 392; Selkup 897, 902–903; Skolt Saami 307–308, 316, 318–319, 325; Võro South Estonian 392 contrastive tense index: Enets 815, 821 converbs: Komi 640–641, 657; Mari 9–10, 30, 63, 527, 531, 546, 550–551, 552–553, 560, 563–565; Moksha 500, 510–512, 520–521; Skolt Saami 321–322, 342; Udmurt 595; Uralic and Altaic 187; Võro South Estonian 400–401, 414, 417, 422 coordination: and definiteness 988; Komi 643; Mari 555–556; Moksha 518; North and Standard Estonian 370, 380; Selkup 308, 923; Skolt Saami 314; South Saami 295; Tundra Nenets 855; Udmurt 576, 585; Võro South Estonian 409; see also double dual copula and copula complements 33, 40, 55–57; Enets 798, 805–806, 807, 812, 833, 839–840, 851n11; Finnic 449, 465–466, 469; Khanty 719–720, 722, 727–728, 731; Komi 627, 637, 645–646, 649–650; Mansi 675, 678, 690; Mari 533, 541–542, 551, 560, 562–563; Moksha 492, 496–497, 499, 503–504, 510, 514–517; Nganasan 760, 780–782; North and Standard Estonian 368–369; Selkup 924; Skolt Saami 311, 337–338, 340; South Saami 260–261, 265, 282, 287, 296; Tundra Nenets 854, 868–869, 871–874, 885; Udmurt 584, 587, 602; Võro South Estonian 417, 420

counterfactuals 42, 55, 59, 287–288, 330, 359, 361, 380, 415, 422, 450, 451, 565, 597, 654–655, 686, 689, 769, 772, 784, 836, 846, 849, 866, 919 Csángó 83, 84, 85, 101, 111 Cyrillic 9, 15, 16, 90, 485, 576, 579, 609n1, 619, 621, 667, 668, 707, 794, 859 dative (case) 29–30, 32, 37, 45, 62; ‘Altaic’ languages 200; Enets 801, 803, 806–807, 811, 826, 838–838, 843, 845; flags object in Komi dialects 996; Khanty 723, 740, 744; Komi 623–624, 625, 628–633, 655, 660–661; Livonian 441; Mansi 693 (see lative); Mari 530, 533–534, 535, 538, 541, 542, 550–551, 556, 564, 570; Moksha 489, 491, 493, 502–504, 510, 518; Selkup 903, 906, 910, 912, 925; Tundra Nenets 863–864, 876, 890; Udmurt 584–585, 588–589 dative shift 695, 999 debitive xi, 32; Enets 818, 823, 824; in RCs 957–958; Nganasan 770, 771, 772, 773; see also necessitative: Selkup 920; Tundra Nenets 867, 868, 886 defective and deviant paradigms 33, 481, 490–491, 505, 509, 545, 554, 585, 690, 722, 760, 767, 806, 807, 826, 863, 889; see also irregularities definite declension (Erzya and Moksha) 8, 42, 489, 491, 492, 494–495, 497, 988, 995, 1000; see also articles deictics 1, 19, 59, 66; and definiteness 980, 984, 986, 987, 988; Finnic 456; Khanty 736, 746; Mansi 681; Nganasan 765, 774; North and Standard Estonian 367; Selkup 913; Skolt Saami 311; South Saami 275; Tundra Nenets 877; Udmurt 583, 591–593 demonstratives 8, 32, 47–48, 61, 62; and definiteness 979–980, 983; Enets 810, 811, 831, 832, 842; Finnic 456–458, 473; Khanty 723, 725–727; Komi 628–629; Mansi 681–683; Mari 538; Nganasan 755, 764–765, 780, 807; North and Standard Estonian 367; and RCs 941, 947–948; Selkup 912–913, 926; Skolt Saami 311, 327; South Saami 267, 275–276, 277–278; Tundra Nenets 870–874, 877–878; Udmurt 590, 591; Võro South Estonian 403, 406, 407, 410 denominal nominals see derivational morphology denominal verbs see derivational morphology derivational morphology 20–21, 55, 64–67; Enets 817, 826, 827–829; Finnic 440, 453–454, 457; Khanty 711, 717–719, 746; Komi 614, 621, 643–644; Mansi 674–675; Mari 555–556, 557–558; Moksha 481, 505–506, 512–514; Nganasan 785–786; North and Standard Estonian 363–365; Selkup 913–915, 920–921; Skolt Saami 314–316; South Saami 256–259; Tundra Nenets 869, 883; Udmurt 581, 582, 583, 603; Võro South Estonian 401–402 desiderative morphology: Mari 545, 550; Moksha 506, 509, 521; Selkup 903, 918

1010 INDEX deverbal nominals see derivational morphology deverbal verbs see derivational morphology dialects, dialectal variation 3, 7, 19, 24; Finnish 441; Khanty 706, 707, 714; Komi 626; Mari 536; Nenets 853; Nganasan 753; Ob-Ugric 703; Russian 1002; Selkup (see Chapter 20 passim); Skolt Saami 302; South Saami 237; Tundra Nenets 857, 859, 861; Udmurt 578; Võro South Estonian 388, 401 differential argument flagging 54; and definiteness 993–998, 1000–1002; Enets 837; Finnic 461; Komi 614, 659; Mansi 695; and RCs 956; Võro South Estonian 417–419 diminutives xi, 55; Enets 826–828; Khanty 718; Komi 644; Mansi 674; Moksha 481, 499, 506, 512; Nganasan 785; Selkup 913; Skolt Saami 314–315; South Saami 256; Tundra Nenets 869; Võro South Estonian 396, 401–402; see also affective vocabulary; pejoratives diphthongs, diphthongization and vowel sequences 6, 19, 66; diachrony 119, 121, 127, 138; Finnic 440; Khanty 709; Nganasan 756– 757; North and Standard Estonian 349–351, 356; Skolt Saami 305–306, 307, 345n6; South Saami 237, 239–245; Tundra Enets 795; Tundra Nenets 860–861; Udmurt 578; Võro South Estonian 389–390 discourse coherence see anaphoric(s) dual 6–7, 34, 64; diachrony 121, 154–156; Enets 799–800, 803, 804, 814, 833; Finnic 444; Khanty 712, 718, 741; lacking in Mari 527; Mansi 669–670, 676, 683, 689; Nganasan 760–761, 775; Selkup 904, 912; Skolt Saami 309; Skolt Saami 309; South Saami 250, 266; Tundra Nenets 863–864, 872, 875; see also dyadic dual, double (coordinating construction) 34, 64 dyadic 760 egressive (case): Komi 623, 624, 625, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 641, 661; Udmurt 583, 585, 588 elative (case) 17, 20–21, 35–36, 41, 57, 59, 62; Komi 624, 627, 662; Moksha 494–495, 511, 520; Nganasan 761, 773, 782; North and Standard Estonian 369; South Saami 258, 261, 264, 275, 279, 296–297; Võro South Estonian 395, 427; see also local cases ergative 41; Khanty 744; Mansi 665 ergativity see ergative Erzya 7–9, 13, 20, 22, 27, 31, 35, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48–49, 50, 52, 59, 67, 98–101, 459; and definiteness 100, 988–989, 995, 998; diachrony 130, 154; passim in Chapter 11; and RCs 945, 948, 949–950, 954, 958, 964–965, 969; see also Mordvin(ian) essive (case in Saami/Finnic and Samoyedic, cf. Hungarian -Ul, -nként) xii, 34, 56, 59; Enets 801; Finnic 445, 457, 469; Nganasan 767; North and Standard Estonian 354, 355, 357; Selkup 908–909, 928; Skolt Saami 309,

336–338; South Saami 246, 247–240, 260, 262–263, 266, 268–269, 297; Võro South Estonian 393 evidentiality 14, 31, 43, 54; Enets 823; Finnic 452; Khanty 703, 735; Komi 614, 636, 638, 653–654; Mari 549; Nganasan 758, 770, 771; North and Standard Estonian 347, 361, 378–380; Selkup 916–918; Tundra Nenets 867, 868–869, 883; Udmurt 593–594; Võro South Estonian 399, 413, 417–418, 420, 430 Finnish i, xvi, xvii, 250, 302, 304, 314–315, 325, 353, 359, 381, 382, 392, 393, 545, 942–945, 949–952, 954, 958–959, 961–962, 964, 968, 973, 974, 980–981, 989–992, 994, 1001, 1002n3, Chapters 1, 2, and 10 passim flagging (of NPs for case) 33–35, 37, 42, 45, 47, 54, 57, 62–63; and definiteness 956, 993–1002; Enets 814, 837; Finnic 423, 440, 445, 461, 467; Khanty 703, 723, 729, 740, 742–744; Komi 624, 660, 662; Mansi 692, 695; Mari 534–535, 542, 570; Moksha 493–494, 498–499, 511–512, 515–516, 518; North and Standard Estonian 368–369; in RC construction 940, 950; Selkup 906, 916–918, 921, 925; Skolt Saami 327, 333; South Saami 296; Tundra Nenets 889–890; Udmurt 576, 582, 585, 598; Võro South Estonian 395, 409, 419, 424–426 focus, focalization 37–38, 61; and definiteness 986, 988–992, 996, 998, 999–1000; Enets 835, 837, 841–842; Finnic 457, 461, 475–476; Hungarian 59–60; Khanty 63, 723–724, 740, 742–743, 776; Komi 652, 654; Mansi 694–697; Mari 536, 568–569; Moksha 487; North and Standard Estonian 372; Selkup 982; South Saami 286; Tundra Nenets 865, 869, 874–876, 880–881, 885–886; Udmurt 606; Veps 451; Yukaghir 201 Forest Nenets 19, 37, 48, 82, 84, 106–107, 112–113, 225; passim in Chapter 19; and definiteness 997 geminate consonants 16, 23, 25–27; Finnic 442; Khanty 710; Komi 621–622; in long-range comparison 199; Mari 530; Nganasan 759; Selkup 902; Skolt Saami 307–308, 317–319, 322, 324, 345n6; South Saami 239–240; Uralic diachrony 119–120, 124, 128, 130–131, 134, 140, 143, 150, 155; Võro South Estonian 391–393 gender 33; Indo-European and Yeniseian 202; North and Standard Estonian 363; Tundra Nenets 890 genitive (‘case’) 30, 33–34, 45, 47–48, 58–59, 67; and definiteness 995, 998, 1002n3; diachrony 153; Enets e.g. 808, 834; Finnic e.g. 455, 461–463, 467–468; Komi e.g. 624, 628, 649, 660–661; Mari e.g. 534, 541, 543, 556, 560–561; Moksha e.g. 491, 493, 497, 503, 510, 517; Nganasan e.g. 759–762, 772, 775, 783–784; North and Standard Estonian e.g. 352–353, 357; and RCs 950–951; Selkup e.g.

INDEX 1011 903, 906, 909, 911–912, 914, 921; Skolt Saami e.g. 327, 333–334, 337; South Saami e.g. 235, 259, 264, 266–267, 269, 275, 282, 293, 295– 297, 312, 326–327; Tundra Nenets e.g. 854, 864, 874–875, 877–880, 882, 889; Udmurt e.g. 583, 586, 589, 594, 601; Võro South Estonian e.g. 393–396, 402, 406 gerunds see converbs head noun 41, 48, 200, 316, 326–327, 357, 407–408, 410, 481, 487, 542, 601, 629, 685, 703, 729, 732, 775, 803, 807, 812, 814, 831, 833–834, 839, 844, 854, 870, 872, 877, 879, 921, 939–940, 944, 948, 950, 954, 955, 956 hortative, adhortative (mood) Enets 818, 819, 822; construction 331; Mari 569; meaning 290; particle 569; Selkup 918; Skolt Saami 331; South Saami 290; Tundra Nenets 867, 869, 889 Hungarian i, x, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii, 433, 507, 558, 665–666, 709, 922, 945, Chapters 1 and 2 passim; definiteness 980, 982–983, 988, 993, 998–1002; long-range comparisons 178, 186, 188; RCs 60, 946–947, 959, 964, 969, 973 illative (case) 18, 23–24, 37, 48–49, 58–60, 62, 941, 947, 949, 962, 965, 967, 981, 985, 994, 996; Finnic 442, 445, 448–451, 453–454, 457–459, 461–462, 465, 468, 470–472, 474; Komi 623, 628–629, 631–632, 636, 640, 642–643, 650–652, 661–662; Mari 55, 536, 552, 568, 571; Moksha 488, 493–495, 498–499, 501–502, 513–514, 518–522; North and Standard Estonian 353, 361, 372–373, 375–376; Selkup 907–908, 910, 913, 917, 919, 922, 924–929; South Saami 272, 274, 280, 294, 296, 299; Udmurt 585–587, 592, 598, 601, 605–607; Võro South Estonian 390, 394, 409–410, 414–415, 418; see also local cases imperative mood, commands and prohibitions 17, 25, 26, 40–44, 44, 55; diachrony 148, 154–155; Enets 801, 815, 816–818, 819, 822–823, 824, 827, 836, 851n16; Finnic 446, 449–450, 463– 465; Khanty 703, 712, 714, 715, 716, 722, 730, 735, 737; Komi 605, 614, 635, 639–640; Mansi 671–673, 688–689, 690; Mari 531, 544–545, 549, 554–555, 566, 568–569; Moksha 506–507, 508, 510; Nganasan 769, 770, 771, 776, 779; North and Standard Estonian 358–359, 360, 361, 375–376, 380; Selkup 916, 918, 925; Skolt Saami 308–309, 316, 318–320, 322, 330–331, 335; South Saami 250, 253, 290, 291; Tundra Nenets 867–868, 869, 884, 886, 889–890; Udmurt 580, 593–594, 596, 605; Võro South Estonian 398–400, 419–420, 422 Inari Saami (Anarâškielâ) 89 indefinite pronouns: Enets 810; Finnic 457–459; Khanty 727; Komi 632; Mari 540, 568; Moksha 488, 505; Nganasan 766; North and Standard Estonian 367–380; Selkup 913; South Saami 270, 273; Tundra Nenets 885; Udmurt 590; Võro South Estonian 403, 405

indexing of arguments see verb inflection inessive (case) 9, 17, 20, 22, 24, 28, 31, 33–35, 37, 41, 45, 47; Finnic 443–446, 452–453, 457–458, 461, 466–468, 470–472, 474–475; Komi e.g. 601–603, 622, 623, 626, 628, 629, 631, 641–643, 645–646, 650, 654, 656–657, 659; Mari 536–537, 539, 541, 548, 551, 560, 565–571, 662–663; Moksha 487–488, 493–495, 497, 499–505, 511–514, 516, 518–519, 521; North and Standard Estonian e.g. 365, 368–369, 370–371, 373–375, 379, 382–383; South Saami e.g. 247, 265, 272, 278, 284, 294, 296–297, 299; Udmurt e.g. 578, 586, 591–594, 599–600, 602–608; Võro South Estonian e.g. 390, 393, 395, 401, 413, 418, 426; see also local cases inferential mood xii, 31, 418, 770, 771, 823, 867, 883; see also evidentiality infinitives 27; Enets 851n18; Finnic e.g. 453; Khanty 711, 717, 733–734; Komi e.g. 652, 674; Mansi e.g. 673, 686; Mari e.g. 527, 544, 550, 551, 564, 566, 570; Moksha e.g. 491, 506, 510–511, 519, 521; Nganasan e.g. 758, 759, 763, 765, 767, 771, 784; nonfinite relative clauses 951ff; North and Standard Estonian e.g. 358, 361; Selkup e.g. 915, 917–920, 920, 928; Skolt Saami e.g. 308, 315, 317–319, 321–322, 341; South Saami e.g. 237, 250–251, 258, 300n1; Tundra Nenets e.g. 869, 880; Udmurt e.g. 597, 637; Võro South Estonian e.g. 401, 408, 412, 416 Ingrian xvii, 6, 19, 51, Chapters 2 and 10 passim; and RCs 949–951 insistive mood: Enets 83, 810 instructive (case) xii, 45, 63, 394, 396, 444, 445, 534, 541, 550, 551, 552, 553–554, 563, 713, 906, 909, 914 instructive-final (Khanty case) 740 instrumental (case) xii, 138; Finnnic 444, 445; Khanty (see instructive-final); Komi 623–624, 625, 628–633, 646, 662; Livonian 441; Mansi 669, 691, 694–697; Selkup 908; Skolt Saami 321–322; Udmurt 576, 584–585, 588, 589, 595, 602; Yukaghir 193, 200–201 interrogative mood/pronouns and questions 40, 43–44; Enets 841–842; Finnic 457, 459; Khanty 727, 738–739; Komi 657–658; Mansi 690–691; Mari 567–568; Moksha 487; Nganasan 765–766, 778; North and Standard Estonian 371, 374–375; in RCs 943, 945, 947, 961–962, 972; Selkup 928–929; Skolt Saami 339–340; South Saami 268, 292–293, 295; Tundra Nenets 868, 875–876, 883, 886–889; Udmurt 590, 606; Võro South Estonian 410, 474 interrogative pronouns see interrogative mood intransitive verbs see transitivity irregularities 40, 47, 55; diachrony 119–120, 145; Enets 815–816; Mansi 672; Mari 527, 537, 554, 561; Nganasan 765; North and Standard Estonian 358; Tundra Nenets 853, 866; see also defective and deviant paradigms

1012 INDEX jussive (mood) 26; Enets 815, 818, 819, 822, 826–827; Komi 639; North and Standard Estonian 347, 358–361, 380; Skolt Saami 331; Tundra Nenets 867, 884, 889; Võro South Estonian 398–399, 420 Kamas(sian) 84, 104, 108–109, 217, 225, 904, 913–914, 955, 997–998 Karagas 104, 109 Karelian 95–97, 100, 110, 112, Chapter 10 passim Kemi Saami 84, 87, 89, 109 Ket (Yeniseian language, ‘Yenisei Ostyak’) 183–184, 196, 199–200, 216–217, 858 Ket(’) (dialect) see Selkup Kildin Saami 7, 84, 86, 88, 90–91 kinship and kin terms 34; and definiteness 983; diachrony 148, 156; Finnic 437; Khanty 718, 746; Komi 626, 647, 662; Mari 534, 536–537; Moksha 496; Nganasan 760, 775, 787; Selkup 911, 913; South Saami 282–283, 300n9; Tundra Nenets 890; Võro South Estonian 409 Komi-Permyak see Permyak Krevin 94 Kven 3, 6, 85, 95, 112, 433 lative (case): diachrony 171; Khanty e.g. 728, 732, 744, 746, 748; Mansi e.g. 688, 690–696, 693, 710–711; Mari 588; Moksha e.g. 53–59, 505–506, 512–513; Nganasan e.g. 763, 766, 772–773, 777–778; Tundra Nenets 891; see also allative (case); dative (case) limitative: Enets 827; Nganasan 764; Tundra Nenets 869, 876, 890 Livonian xvii, 3–4, 6–7, 122, Chapters 2 and 10 passim loan words: Baltic and Germanic in Finnic 437; and the comparative method 182, 192; East Iranian in Mansi and Khanty 144; in Enets 796; Evenki in Nganasan 787; Finnic in Komi 617; Iranian 5, 13; in Khanty 745; in Maric 10; in Proto-Uralic 120; Russian in Enets 814, 841, 848; Russian in Finnic 470; Russian in Khanty 719; Russian in Komi 621–622, 626, 643, 663; Russian in Mansi 698; Russian in Mari 558; Russian in Nganasan 758, 787; Russian in Selkup 902, 918, 923, 927; Russian in Tundra Nenets 890; Selkup in Russian dialects 930; Turkic in Permic 11 local cases: diachrony 150; discontinuous 30; Enets 800–801, 802–803, 806–807, 835; Finnic 445; Mansi 692; Mari 534, 535; Moksha 489; Nganasan 760; North and Standard Estonian 353; Selkup 906, 910, 921; South Saami 235; Tundra Nenets 863, 874; Udmurt 586–587; Võro South Estonian 394 locationals (in comparative constructions and existential clauses) 57, 337, 466, 560, 562–563, 641, 692, 722–723, 736, 755, 777, 864, 873–874, 882, 885, 924, 990, 992–993 locative (case) 40, 51–52, 63, 66, 69, 73, 75, 80–81, 84, Chapters 15-20 passim Lude 3, 84, 91‒92, 97‒98; 433, 434, 437, 440, 452, 453, 459, 465, 471 Ludic see Lude

Mator 6, 48, 84, 104, 109, 855 Meänkieli 3, 4, 6, 85, 94–95, 112, 433; see also Tornedalian Merja 5, 9, 84 Merya see Merja Meshchera 84 mirativity 549, 638, 770, 823; see also evidentiality modality 29–30, 32, 43; Finnic 451, 461; Khanty 734–735; Komi 653; Mansi 687; Nganasan 768–769; North and Standard Estonian 376, 377–378; South Saami 287; Tundra Nenets 865, 883; Udmurt 583, 594, 601; Võro South Estonian 417, 419–420; see also mood mood, non-indicative 14, 28, 30, 32, 40, 43–45, 58, 943; diachrony 153–154; Khanty 703, 712, 714, 735; Komi 635, 654, 671, 688–689; Mari 544, 549; Moksha 506–509; Nenets 854, 865–869, 871, 873, 883–884, 887, 889; Nganasan 758, 766, 768–771, 778, 780, 784; North and Standard Estonian 347, 358–360, 375–376, 378–380; Selkup 915, 917–918, 925, 929; Skolt Saami 308–309, 328, 330–332; South Saami 235, 250; Udmurt 593–594, 597, 599; Võro South Estonian 397–399, 411–412, 415–416, 420, 422, 425, 446, 449–452, 462; see also modality Mordvin(ian) see Chapter 11 morpho(no)logy 19, 20–28, 32, 50, 215, 227; diachrony 122–123; Enets 798, 851n5; Khanty 710–711; Komi 616, 622; Mansi 669; Mari 530; Nganasan 757–760; Selkup 903–904; Skolt Saami 306; Tundra Nenets 862; Udmurt 578 Motor see Mator Mulgi 93 multilingualism: and Enets 105; in Habsburg Empire 216; in Hungary 218; in Ingria 437; and Nganasan 105, 754; and Nenets speakers 858; and speakers of Uralic languages 3 Murom 5, 9, 84 narrative (Selkup tense) 916–918 narrative mood xiii, 594, 770, 869; see also evidentiality necessitative see debitive negation and connegatives xi, 17, 25, 28, 41–44, 56; and definiteness 994; diachrony 155; Enets 817, 824–825, 826–827; Finnic 446, 449, 458, 461, 463–465, 466; Khanty 703, 730, 736–737; Komi 633, 635, 639, 642, 655, 657, 662; Mansi 689–691; Mari 527, 540, 544–545, 547, 552–553, 563; Moksha 506, 510, 520–521; Nganasan 766–767, 771, 773, 780–781; North and Standard Estonian 358, 379–380; in RCs 942, 958–959, 960, 968, 970, 974; Selkup 921, 929; Skolt Saami 308–309, 321–322, 328, 332–333; South Saami 250–251, 274, 288–290, 291; Tundra Nenets 855, 868–869, 884–885; Udmurt 576, 580, 596, 599–601; Võro South Estonian 388, 421–422, 425, 429n10 negative verbs xi, 42–44, 959; diachrony 89, 121, 154–155, 157; Enets 824–826, 851n15; Finnic 464–465; Mari 545; Moksha 509, 520–521;

INDEX 1013 Nganasan 766, 773, 778–779, 780–781, 790n4; North and Standard Estonian 379–380; South Saami 250, 274, 289–291; Tundra Nenets 869, 884–885, 888; Tungusic 200; Udmurt 594, 596, 599–600, 605, 635–66, 640, 655; Võro South Estonian 421; see also auxiliary verbs nominative (case) exceptional Finnish 47; see also zero non-finite verb forms see converbs; infinitives; for participles see Chapter 21 North Saami 4, 7, 49, 89, Chapter 2 passim number see dual; plural forms and suffixes numerals (and quantifiers) 38–39, 47–48, 123, 134, 187, 215–216, 310, 314, 327, 337, 473, 481, 488, 501, 511, 533, 541, 561, 563, 576, 590–591, 600, 634, 720–721, 763, 775–776, 810, 812, 814, 831–832, 875, 887, 987 objective conjugation see verb inflection Ob-Ugric xvii, 2, 11–12, 14, 47, 51, 53, 55, 63, 68, 192, 444, 617, 663, 665–666, 697, 921–922, 925; and definiteness 983, 985–988, 998–1001; diachrony 118, 120, 139–149, 157–158, 164–166, 168, Chapters 15 and 16 passim omission: of complementizer 58, 411; of connegative 545; of converb suffix 552; of copula 282, 296, 420, 449, 646, 924; of existential verb 561; of grapheme 244; of head noun 487; of possessor 409, 561; of pronoun 310, 397, 538, 543, 881, 923; of question particle 568; of subject of necessitive infinitive 550–551; of vowels 244, 796 optative: mood 42, 422, 507, 509, 509, 549, 593‒4 639, 769, 771, 867, 918; particle 594, 596, 597, 600 order of constituents 38, 42–43, 58, 285, 293, 333, 347, 368–369, 372, 460–461, 466, 471, 527, 559, 567, 576, 601, 603, 614, 656, 665, 690–691, 704, 727, 738–739, 743, 776, 778–779, 835, 837, 855, 886–888, 897; and definiteness 987, 989, 990–993, 1001; in longrange comparison 185; in RCs 950 orthography 20, 23, 26, 213, 216, 218, 238, 242, 243–244, 298, 302, 304–306, 311, 321, 345n6, 346, 388, 389, 391–392, 393, 439, 484–485, 530, 535, 614, 619, 621, 668, 707–708, 749n3, 793, 797, 850n3, 859, 972n2; see also alphabet Ostyak see Khanty Ostyak-Samoyed, Ostyak Samoyed see Selkup palatal consonants 16, 23; Khanty 709; Komi 619; Nganasan 759 palatalized consonants (and, in Skolt Saami, feet) 16, 22, 47; Enets 795, 797–798; Finnic 439; Moksha 484, 486; Nganasan 755, 759; North and Standard Estonian 349; Selkup 902; Skolt Saami 304, 306, 307, 308, 317–319, 320–321, 322, 323, 325; South Saami 239; Tundra Nenets 861, 862; Udmurt 578; Uralic diachrony 128, 144; Võro South Estonian 390, 391 participles in relative clauses 41, 373, 410, 561, 564, 601, 650, 662, 685, 718, 728, 732, 772, 775, 784, 826, 844, 868, 879–880, 926, 940–944, 946, 951–968, 971–974

particles (verb and negative particles preverbs) 32, 54–55, 60; Enets 921–922; Finnic 461; Khanty 736–738; Komi 635, 638–639, 642, 646; Mansi 689–690; Nganasan 777, 781; North and Standard Estonian 379; and RCs 958; Selkup 897, 921–922, 929; Skolt Saami 311; Tundra Nenets 886; Võro South Estonian 397, 417–418, 421, 422 partitive (case) 21, 27, 40, 56, 57; and defintieness 990–991, 993–994, 1002; Finnic 441, 443, 445, 456, 461–463, 467–468, 473–474; Moksha 493, 515; North and Standard Estonian 353–354, 355–356, 357, 369–370; Skolt Saami 309, 337; Tundra Nenets 877; Võro South Estonian 393, 394, 395, 399, 402–403, 404, 405, 406–407, 419–420, 423, 425–427; see also ablative passive constructions and morphology 12, 49, 63; Enets 801, 829; Khanty 708, 729, 741–742, 744–745; Mansi 673, 696–697; Moksha 493; Nganasan 778, 786; North and Standard Estonian 362; Selkup 921; Skolt Saami 309, 339; South Saami 250, 257–258, 297; Võro South Estonian 424 pejoratives xiii; Enets 827; Khanty 718, 746; Moksha 482; Nganasan 869; see also diminutives, affective vocabulary periphrastic: reflexive constructions 278; tense 253, 328–329, 361, 546, 576, 594, 596, 654, 851n18, 958; voice 422–423 Permyak 3, 9–11, 16–17, 35, 36, 37, 40, 45, 49, 53, 83, 85, 100, 112, Chapter 14 passim person suffixes 7–8, 12, 14, 24, 29–30, 33–34, 37–38, 40–42, 49, 51, 53, 56; Enets 834; Finnic 443, 446, 450, 455; Khanty 703, 712–713, 720, 723–724, 729–730, 733, 735; Komi 624–626, 629–631, 633–634, 636, 638–640, 643, 647–648, 659; in long-range comparison 196; Mansi 669–670, 674, 681–684; Mari 527, 533, 536–537, 539, 541–543, 550–553, 561, 564– 567, 569; Moksha 489–491, 496–497, 502, 520; Nganasan 761, 768, 771, 775, 777, 779–780, 784; North and Standard Estonian 347; Selkup 503, 515, 918, 923; Skolt Saami 326, 327, 333; South Saami 278, 282–284; Tundra Nenets 864, 868, 872, 874–875, 877–882; Udmurt 576, 585, 586, 587–589, 594; Uralic diachrony 155, 156; Võro South Estonian 396–397 pitch accent: Livonian 440 Pite (= Arjeplog) Saami 4, 7, 88, Chapter 2 passim plural forms and suffixes 13, 30, 34, 36, 39–40; Enets 798, 799–800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 807, 812, 814–815, 819, 820–822, 833, 834; Finnic 444, 456; Khanty 712, 714–715, 716, 718, 741; Livonian 445; in long-range comparison 183, 190, 196; Mansi 673; Mari 535–536; Moksha 484, 491, 502, 504, 509; Nganasan 757, 759–760, 761–762, 774, 782; North and Standard Estonian 356–357, 359; Selkup 904–905, 906, 912–913, 916, 923; Skolt Saami 324; South Saami 246, 264, 275, 278–279; Tundra Nenets 853, 863–866, 872, 875, 884; Udmurt 584, 587–588, 589; Uralic

1014 INDEX diachrony 153–156; Võro South Estonian 392, 394, 396–397, 424 possessive constructions 282, 296, 369, 518, 534, 561–562, 601, 626, 656, 661, 691, 703, 727, 775, 779, 840, 849, 877, 883, 907, 981 possessive suffixes see person suffixes postpositions 33–34, 45, 46, 47, 66, 948; diachrony 153; Enets 803, 807–808, 830, 843–845, 847; Finnic 467–469; Khanty 724, 733–734, 744–745; Komi 617, 640–643; Mansi 670, 681, 684, 686, 688; Mari 531, 533–535, 537, 539, 541–543, 552, 554; Moksha 481, 487, 492–493, 511–512; Nganasan 774–775; North and Standard Estonian 364; Selkup 897, 906, 910, 921; Skolt Saami 334; Tundra Nenets 854, 863–864, 869, 879, 882, 889; Udmurt 576, 582–583, 585; Võro South Estonian 394 potential mood: Ludic 452; Northern Finnic 451; Skolt Saami 330–332; Võro South Estonian 420 predestinative 32, 38; diachrony 154; Enets 798, 800–801, 804–805, 836, 838; Nganasan 755; Tundra Nenets 865, 879–890 prefixes 33, 64; Hungarian 62; Komi 614, 617, 633, 643; Latvian in Livonian 454; Mansi 691; Mari 540; Moksha 505; Nganasan 785; North and Standard Estonian 363; Seljup 913; South Saami 257; Udmurt 576, 591 prepositions 33, 47; Finnic 468–469; Skolt Saami 334; South Saami 297, 312; Võro South Estonian 394, 422; see also postpositions preverbs see particles privative see abessive ‘pro-drop’ 61, 396 prohibitions see imperative mood prolative = prosecutive (case) 45; adverbs 275; Enets 798, 801, 802, 803, 807, 811, 828; Finnic 445; Komi 622, 623–625, 628–632, 662; Moksha 487, 489, 495, 510; Nganasan 761, 764, 774; Selkup 903, 908, 910, 921; Tundra Nenets 863, 872, 876; Udmurt 584–585; Võro South Estonian 394; Yukaghir 193 prosecutive (case) see prolative Proto-Uralic 5, 8, 10, 12–14, 44, 48, 421, 444, 460, 546, 554, 587, 756, 944, 997–998, 1002n3, Chapter 3 passim; and long-range comparison 182–183, 186, 191–192, 195–196, 199–200, 202 quantity, distinctive, of consonants and or vowels xvii, 25, 26, 240–242, 306, 347, 351–351, 355, 356, 391–392, 425, 440–442, 474, 511, 901–903 questions see interrogative mood quotative mood xiv, 347, 353, 359–361, 379–380, 398–400, 420, 425; see also evidentiality quotative of indefinite pronouns 488 reciprocal constructions and pronouns: Enets 808; Khanty 719; Komi 627, 630, 631, 644; Mari 561; Moksha 502, 513, 539; Nganasan 760; North and Standard Estonian 367; Selkup 904, 912–913; Skolt Saami 315, 339; South Saami 280–281; Tundra Nenets 874–875; Udmurt 588–589, 598; Võro South Estonian 403, 406

reclamation 4 reduplication xvi, 32, 67; Indo-European 202; Khanty 718, 725, 747–748; Komi 626, 630, 642, 648, 650; Mansi 669, 676; Mari 556; Moksha 409–501, 505, 512, 514, 518; Udmurt 576, 580, 583, 587, 589, 591 reference tracking 61–62; and definiteness 1001; Enets 842 reflexive constructions, pronouns, valence, inflection 31–32, 49–51, 53, 61; Enets 808, 839; Finnic 446, 453, 458; Khanty 719, 725; Komi 627, 629–630, 644; Mansi 675; Mari 539, 557, 570; Moksha 502–504; Nganasan 764, 767, 768, 769, 770; North and Standard Estonian 364, 367; Selkup 912; Skolt Saami 310, 314, 339; South Saami 278–280; Tundra Nenets 854, 863, 866–867, 869, 874–875, 884, 889; Udmurt 589, 598, 601; Võro South Estonian 397–398, 405–406 relational suffixes South Saami 282–284 relative pronouns see Chapter 21 reportative mood xii, 758, 770, 771, 867, 868; see also evidentiality reported speech see evidentiality reputative mood 867, 868; see also evidentiality revitalization 4 Seto 93 Shoksha 59, 85, 98, 482, 948–950 Soyot 104, 109 Sprachbund 10, 197, 746, 897 stem alternations: Enets 779–778; Finnic 439, 441–443; Khanty 711; Komi 614, 628; Mansi 669; Mari 543–544; North and Standard Estonian 353; Skolt Saami 317, 321–322, 324–326 stem types and variants: Mansi 672–673; Moksha 488; South Saami 256; Udmurt 589 subjective conjugation see verb inflection superessive (Hungarian case) 34, 36, 39, 45, 282; see also local cases supine (nonfinite verb form): Enets 817, 826, 846; Nganasan 766, 771, 773, 781, 784; North and Standard Estonian 361; Võro South Estonian 400, 416, 422, 429n7 suppletion 28–30, 34, 38, 51, 55; Enets 807, 824; Finnic 457, 459; Komi 635; Moksha 501; Nganasan 773; North and Standard Estonian 354, 358; South Saami 250, 264; Udmurt 594 supporting (= adverbial) clauses 41, 57–60; Enets 826, 845, 847–848; Khanty 733–734; Komi 652, 654; Mansi 684, 686; Mari 564; Nganasan 783; North and Standard Estonian 372–373; Skolt Saami 342–343; South Saami 286; Tundra Nenets 868, 880–881; Võro South Estonian 413 syncretism 28, 31, 37, 52; Finnic 443, 467; Komi 622, 625; Moksha 481, 507; North and Standard Estonian 353; Selkup 910, 916; Skolt Saami 324; South Saami 246, 262, 279; Tundra Nenets 854, 864; Võro South Estonian 393

INDEX 1015 Taigi 104, 109 Tartu 93 Tatar (North Kipchak Turkic language) 9, 17, 49, 482, 529, 558, 559, 576–577, 697–698, 704 Tatar, Siberian 102 Tavgi see Nganasan tense xvi, 28–32, 43–44, 51, 53, 55, 62, 401; Enets e.g. 823; Finnic e.g. 447–448; Khanty e.g. 687, 714–716, 722, 734, 735; Komi e.g. 637, 653; Mansi e.g. 672–673; Mari e.g. 548; Nganasan e.g. 769; North and Standard Estonian e.g. 359, 360; Selkup e.g. 915, 916, 917; Skolt Saami e.g. 328; South Saami e.g. 235, 245, 250–251, 287, 290–291; Tundra Nenets e.g. 883; Udmurt e.g. 595, 597; Uralic diachrony 121, 132, 138, 153–155, 157; Võro South Estonian e.g. 397–398, 417; Yukaghir 201 Ter Saami 90 terminative (case cf. Hungarian -ig): Komi 623, 625, 628–632, 641, 661; North and Standard Estonian 354, 355, 357; Udmurt 585, 588, 595; Võro South Estonian 393, 404–407, 408 themes 64, 66–67 topic: discourse 37, 40, 42, 59; Enets 830. 837; Finnic 474; Khanty 703, 742–743, 744; Moksha 503–504, 515, 517; Nganasan 777–778; and pivot 61; Tundra Nenets 880, 979–1006; see also focus topicality (and object indexing) 38, 61, 64, 996, 998–1001; Finnic 461; Mansi 696; Moksha 492; Nganasan 768; Selkup 925; Tundra Nenets 837, 865, 886; see also conjugation Tornedalian see Chapter 2 passim transitivity: and definiteness 999; Enets 801; Finnic 448, 453, 461; Khanty 719, 728, 739; Mansi 665, 695, 700n7; Mari 535, 544, 559; Nganasan 768, 786; North and Standard Estonian 401; Selkup 908, 920; Skolt Saami 314, 338; intransitivity and valence 32, 41, 48–49, 50, 51, 54–56, 58–59, 63–64, 66; Udmurt 582 translative (case): Enets 805, 812, 814, 837; Finnic 441, 445; Khanty 713, 717, 720–722, 733; Mansi 669, 679, 690, 694; Moksha 489, 496, 510–511, 516, 518–519; Nganasan 767; North and Standard Estonian 347, 354–355, 361, 362; Selkup 909–910; Skolt Saami 315; Võro South Estonian 385, 404–407, 419, 424; see also predestinative translative verb (cf. Finnish -ne- ~ -t- of pite-ne-e, inf pide-tä ˈto become long(er)’); diachrony 125; Mari 557; Selkup 910 Ume Saami 88 valence see transitivity Veps 6, 51, 53, 57, 84, 86, 91‒92, 97‒98, 122, 633, 980, 988‒989, 1002, Chapter 10 passim verbal art 68; fieldwork collections 225–226, 230 verb inflection (conjugations) 27, 29, 51, 54, 998; diachrony 155–158; Enets 815–824; Hungarian

51–52; Khanty 703, 715, 741; Mansi 665, 668; Moksha 507–509; Nganasan 768; Selkup 915, 925; South Saami 250; Tundra Nenets 854; Võro South Estonian 396; see also topicality (and object indexing) vocative: Enets 830; Mari 534, 537, 557; Moksha Mordvin 492; North Selkup 906 Vogul see Mansi voice, distinctive: diachrony 199; Khanty stops 709; lacking in Forest Nenets 862; Mansi 667–668; marginal in North and Standard Estonian 349–350; South Saami stops 238 Volga Bolgar 11, 529, 558 Vote or Votic xvii, 6–7, 27, 57, Chapters 2 and 10 passim Votyak see Udmurt vowel(s), reduced 15–17, 21–22; diachrony 120, 130; Khanty 717; Mansi 667–668; Mari 530, 532; Moksha 484; South Saami 244; Tundra Nenets 860 vowel gradation see ablaut vowel harmony 9, 19–23, 33, 39, 202, 861; Altaic 187, 199; contingently in Moksha 481; diachrony 121, 127; immutable and non-homogeneous 198–199; lacking in Komi 614; in Mari 527, 530–533; marginal or lacking in Selkup 901; in present-day Mansi 667; present in Enets 802–803; present in Nganasan 757–758, 760; in Standard Estonian 349; in Võro South Estonian 388–390, 394, 401 vowel sequences see diphthongs word formation see derivational morphology Yazva Komi 3, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 39, 84, 85, 100‒101, 111, 112, 614, 616, 617 Yenisei Ostyak see Ket Yenisei Samoyed see Enets Yukaghir xiii, xiv, 57, 179, 183, 188, 193–196, 199–201 Yurak see Nenets Yurats 84 zero: and accusative of numerals 47; allomorph 824; anaphora 1000; argument expression 729; case flagging 47, 662, 703, 742, 743‒744, 906, 953, 996, 997; consonant 756; in consonant gradation 25; copula 55, 56, 57, 265, 287, 292, 466, 560, 562, 626, 645, 675, 691, 703, 722, 775, 778, 780, 805, 840, 874, 924; derivation 555‒556; encoding of grammatical categories 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 48, 157‒158, 397, 398, 446, 488, 534, 544, 584, 593, 614, 622, 703, 713, 716, 734, 760, 766, 769, 799, 819, 863, 889, 918, 996; in Enets reduced stem 799; realisation of sounds 796‒7, 812; and subjective conjugation 64; subject pronoun 61‒62 Zyrian see Komi Zyryene see Komi