In this book I have endeavoured to give a simple and clear
account of the Finnish language, chiefly of that form of it
which is now recognised as the ordinary vehicle of literary
composition, and have thought it better to set aside as far
as possible scientific disquisitions. I now proceed to briefly
discuss from a purely theoretical point of view some of the
phenomena presented by this curious tongue, in doing which
I must express my special obligations to the various works
of Professors Donner and Setälä, and also to the account of
Die Sprachen der Uralischen Völker in the second volume of
Dr. Friedrich Müller’s Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft.
The phonetic system of Finnish is characterized by a great
paucity of consonants and a correspondingly great development
of vowels. The alphabet has but thirteen of the former: d, g,
h, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v. Of these it must be observed that
d is in modern times only a literary invention, though as it
exists in Esthonian and other cognate languages there is no
reason to object to its use. It always represents a t which has
been weakened by phonetic laws, but in the mouths of the
peasantry the sound is either entirely omitted, or else replaced
by a cerebral letter (represented in writing by l or r) or by
v or j. G also is only found in the combination ng, which has
exactly the same sound as in English. The letter h is apparently
never original in the middle of words. It appears to
me to have really two sounds—as an initial or between vowels,
it is simply the English h, but before t and k, it is χ. The
other consonants offer no remarkable peculiarities; v appears
to be pronounced as in English (labio-dental), and not to be a
labio-labial (modern Greek β).
The simple consonants are pronounced much more lightly than
in English. T and k in the middle of a word when pronounced
naturally by a native, who is not trying to speak distinctly to a
foreigner, often seem almost inaudible, and it is noticeable that
in foreign words, with which the language is overrun, German
and Swedish k, t, p (when not initial) are always represented
by kk, tt, pp. It is highly probable that Finnish (like
Esthonian) once had the sounds b, d, g. In Agricola are found
such forms as näghe for näe, virdhat for virrat. On the other
hand, everything points to the fact that the original tongue
from which the Finno-Ugric languages were developed had
only ten or eleven consonants: k, t, p, s, j, r, l, n, m, v, and
perhaps h or χ. For the many curious sounds found in Lapp,
Syrjenian, Ostiak, etc., all look as if they were degenerations
from a simpler original.
Finnish has eight simple vowels: a, ä, e, i, o, ö, u, y (ü).
All of these can be either short, or long, and in the latter case
the letter is written double. These doubled letters appear to be
genuine long vowels, and to contain no diphthongal element.
There are no triphthongs, but sixteen diphthongs, though on the
whole Finnish has more simple vowels than other languages of
the same group, particularly Lappish.
Though no difference is made in writing between the different
values of the vowel i, it appears that there really is a distinction
between its value in words like otti, or oli, where the vowels
are hard, and in words like näki where they are soft. The
hard sound comes very near the Russian ы and the Turkish i̱
in such a word as اچملوايدكز achmali̱yi̱di̱ni̱z.
The vocalization of words is governed by three laws. The
first is well known under the name of vowel harmony. The
essence of this is that the hard (a, o, u) and soft (ä, ö, y) vowels
cannot coexist in the same word. Not only the Finno-Ugric
languages, but also Samoyede, Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu,
have this law at least in the rudimentary form that a root does
not contain both hard and soft vowels; but there is much
variety as to the degree in which the vowels of the suffixes are
assimilated to those of the root to which they are added. The
most highly developed form of the law is found in the Turkish
dialects (particularly in Yakut), where the vowels of the root
and suffix must not only not be discordant, but are as much as
possible assimilated to one another. Thus پدريكز is pronounced
pederiniz, your father, but دوستكز dostunuz, your friend. The
same principle appears to prevail in Samoyede, from which are
cited such forms as marg-an, tob-on, üg-ün, tšel-en. The
other extreme, where the harmony prevails only between the
vowels of the root but not between those of the root and the
suffixes, is found in nearly all the Finno-Ugric languages except
Finnish and Hungarian. In some languages (e.g. Mordvinian)
the harmony is not rigorously observed even in the root. It is
doubtful if such languages really represent a more primitive phonetic
system than Finnish. They may have become affected owing
to Russian influence by an inability to accurately distinguish the
hard and soft vowels, particularly a and ä, for, though it is very
probable that originally the vowel of the suffix was not necessarily
the same as that of the root, one would expect those
languages which retain the primitive system to distinguish the
suffix more clearly than the others from the root, which does
not seem to be the case. Finnish in this respect holds a midway
position. The vowels of the suffixes are not assimilated, as
in Turkish, but they are always of the same quality as those of
the root. The suffix s—n or h—n, however, found in the
illative and passive, seems to show an approach to the Turkish
system, as its vowel is always the same as that which precedes
it: kotihin, työhön, töihin, kylähän, talohon, saa(d)ahan,
saatihin, saatanehen, saataisihin.
The second vocalic law of Finnish is the exact opposite of
the vowel harmony—viz. vowel differentiation. The occurrence
of incongruous vowels in one word is discordant, but the
excessive repetition of the same vowel is disagreeably monotonous.
To avoid this a is often changed into o in words
where a is the dominant vowel (pp. 9, 10 for the details),
patoja for pataja, annoin for annain; but otin, sotia for
ota-in, sota-ia. So also in the Eastern dialect kaloa for
kalaa. On the same principle a and ä change to e in comparatives
and passives, and thus we have vanhempana and
tapetaan instead of such monotonous forms as vanhampana
and tapataan. Also two i’s meeting generally become ei.
The third rule relates to the disappearance of final or medial
e, and the consequent shortening of words. The chief accent
of Finnish, as now pronounced, is on the first syllable of a word,
and it is therefore very natural that final vowels should be
omitted. In the dialect spoken about S. Petersburg this phenomenon
is very frequent and such forms as miss for missä,
yks, kaks for yksi and kaksi are common in the mouths of
the peasantry. This may, however, be due to the influence of
Esthonian and Russian. In correct Finnish final e is omitted
only in the nominative singular of polysyllabic stems, the consonantal
groups which remain being simplified if the laws
of euphony require it: so sisare, tantere, kysymykse become
sisar, tanner, and kysymys. In the middle of words the final
e of a stem disappears before nominal suffixes beginning with t
(and sometimes n) and before verbal suffixes beginning with k
or n, and this rule applies to dissyllables also. Now one would
suppose on a priori grounds that the invariable accent on the
first syllable is not original, but has replaced some older and
less simple system, just as the variable accentuation of Russian
is older than the stereotyped system of Polish. Even in modern
Finnish I doubt if the rule that every word is accented on
the first syllable is really true. An educated Finn will always
maintain that in a word like revitään the main accent is on
the first syllable, but to my ear it appears to be distinctly on
the last (-tään), indeed, it is hard to see how this long syllable
could be pronounced without an accent. What is undoubtedly
true is that no syllables are slurred over as in Russian and
English. There is, as far as I know, no historical proof that
some of the suffixes were accented in Finnish; but it is highly
probable on general grounds and explains many phenomena
presented by both vowel and consonantal changes. For instance,
the termination of the first infinitive, ta (representing an original
tak or takse), when added to the stem tule, produces tulla,
which is quite natural if the original form was tuletá, as the
light vowel would drop out before the accented syllable; similarly
syöksenén becomes syösnen for syöksnen. Sometimes a whole
syllable is omitted, e.g. alenetá becomes aleta. For some reason
the e is generally not omitted if it is preceded by k, p, v, or m.
This is not an absolute rule, as one finds forms like tointa
(st. toime), nähdä, tehdä (st. nähe, teke), but it is hard to see
why if tule-tá becomes tulla, luketá should not become luhda.
The length of the first vowel has nothing to do with the matter,
as nouse makes nousta. A and ä occasionally disappear in
much the same way. Thus vieras stands for vierasa, löynnyt,
tiennyt are formed from löytä, tietä; and superlatives regularly
lose final a; suurin, for suurimpa.
The rules for the changes of consonants fall into three main
groups. Firstly only n, r, s, or t are admitted as finals and only
a few simple combinations occur in the middle of words. When
the loss of a vowel produces groups which are euphonically
disagreeable, they are simplified; veitstä, kolmant, suurimp,
säkenöitstä become veistä, kolmas, suurin, säkenöitä.
The second group of changes concerns the letters t, k, s, h.
The group ti has always a tendency to become si in syllables
which never had the accent. The letter h, which is suspected
of never being original when a medial, represents t, k, and s.
S between two vowels immediately before a termination always
becomes h. Vierasa makes in the nominative vieras, a being
lost owing to the accent being on the first syllable. But the
genitive vierasan becomes vierahan, and in the ordinary
language this is contracted to vieraan. So too t becomes h
under similar circumstances, perhaps having passed through s.
The nominatives kevät, terve, and vene appear to represent
stems kevätä, tervete, and venete (for the partitives are kevättä,
tervettä, venettä) and form the genitives kevähän,
venehen, tervehen. The same change appears in the declension
of past participles ending in -nyt or -nut. Again, kt
before a termination which was presumably once accented
becomes ht—a combination of which the language is very fond.
Thus the roots, haakte, ykte, kakte produce such forms as
haahden, yhtä, kahtena, in all of which the first syllable was
probably not accented. But in the nominative the first syllable
was accented and the words became first haakti, ykti, kakti
(rule 15), and then haaksi, yksi, kaksi (rule 37).
The third rule is the most important and singular. It
requires the softening in some way of the three hard consonants
k, t, p, when they occur at the beginning of a short open
syllable which becomes closed. It is stated in detail on pp.
13, 14, 15. These conventional rules are of great practical
utility, for they are of almost universal application and can
be used with perfect certainty in building up the most complicated
forms. On the other hand, if one tries to explain them,
they remain unique and mysterious, if considered only in reference
to the closed syllable. Now there is one exception to
their action: the addition of the pronominal suffixes produces
no change in the consonants of a noun. But there are a good
many cases where consonants are softened without the syllable
being closed. Some of these cases (e.g. infinitives and negative
verbs) are justly treated as closed syllables because a final
consonant has been lost. But (1) we find forms like auringoita,
palkinnoita from aurinko, palkinto; (2) many forms seem to
waver between p and v, e.g. pi or vi in the 3rd sing. of verbs;
pa or va in the participle.
In Esthonian, where an almost identical rule is found, it is
obvious that in the present state of the language at any rate
the theory of the closed syllable does not apply at all.
It has been already seen that, though there is no actual proof
that terminations in Finnish received the accent, the supposition
that they once did so is not only agreeable to analogy, but
explains many phenomena in the phonetics of the language.
On this principle the rule about the closed syllable might be
restated in the form that when a syllable received the accent,
owing to the addition of a suffix[1], the consonant at the beginning
of that syllable was weakened. Thus aúrinko remains with nk,
aurinkón becomes auringon, but aurinkoná remains. The
pronominal suffixes produce no change, because they are merely
enclitic pronouns and have no accent. Auringoita can be
easily explained by the tendency to accent a syllable
containing a formative element and a diphthong. The advantage
of this explanation of the weakening as due to change of
accent is that, if true, it enables us to compare the phenomena
presented by Finnish with laws accepted as prevailing in other
languages, particularly with what is known in Teutonic philology
as Werner’s law affecting non-initial soft spirants. By this law
when χ, þ, f, s close the syllable bearing the chief accent they
remain; in all other cases they pass into the corresponding
sonants ȝ, ð, ƀ, z. Thus an original wórþe produces warþ, but
an original (we)wurþmé produces wurðúm.
All Finnish accidence is concerned with the addition of suffixes
to roots, subject to the above rules for the change of vowels and
consonants. In the present state of the language these roots are
mostly dissyllabic, though there are also plenty of monosyllables.
There is reason to believe, however, that these dissyllabic roots
are mostly the result of the combination of a monosyllable with
very primitive suffixes, and it is probable that the original roots
were of the form consonant + the vowel a + consonant. The
root was differentiated in various ways by changing a to o, u, i, e,
etc., by raising it to a diphthong or long vowel, or by altering
the consonants within certain limits. Examples of this development
of roots are contained in Donner’s Vergleichendes Wörterbuch
der Finno-Ugrischen Sprachen.
Finnish, like all the cognate languages, has no distinctions of
gender. It possesses two numbers, the singular and plural, all
traces of the dual which exists in Ostiak and Vogul having been
lost. Three elements are used to form the plural—t, i, and loi.
Of these t is found only in the nominative and genitive plural,
in which latter case it appears variously as tt, d, or, like the t
of the partitive and infinitive, is omitted. This suffix appears
also in Esthonian (as d), Mordvinian, and Ostiak (tl). Vogul,
Syrjenian, and Cheremissian have quite different suffixes, while
Lappish and Hungarian employ the letter k, apparently identical
with the g which characterises the dual in Ostiak and Vogul.
It has been suggested that as k cannot be a final in Finnish, it
has been changed to t; but Mordvinian, which has no objection
to final k, also has t as a plural sign. The vowel i is used in
all the cases except the nominative and genitive to mark the
plural, being inserted immediately before the case termination.
It is similarly used in Esthonian and Lappish, and there are
traces of it in Hungarian. It has been explained as representing
k weakened to j. In the Kalevala and many dialects (e.g.
that of Savo) a suffix loi is found before the plural termination,
chiefly in the partitive, essive, and translative: mahti-loi-ta,
pilvi-löi-ksi, tähti-löi-nä. It is never found in the nominative,
nor, for euphonic reasons, in the cases which otherwise contain
l. The i is evidently the ordinary plural sign, and as pata + i + na
becomes patoina, it is probable that this loi represents
la + i. Ostiak has a suffix tl in the plural (but this appears
to represent simple t), Cheremissian adds vlja or vila, and
in Samoyede la appears to be used indifferently with t as a
plural sign. The syllable la is used in Finnish to denote a
place: e.g. setälä, uncle’s house, from setä, and lo is a diminutive
termination. Possibly these forms should be treated as
diminutives, but the analogy with Samoyede is curious. It is
noticeable that according to our ideas the plural is not used
very strictly; thus the numerals take a singular noun, the
partitive when signifying many people likewise takes a singular
verb; the verb on is used with the nominative plural, and in
poems, proverbs, etc., a plural noun has as often as not a
singular verb. On the other hand, the plural is often used
where there seems to be no real idea of plurality. For instance,
we find expressions like olla kylmillä, to be in the cold; omin
luvin, of one’s own accord. The instructive, prolative, and
comitative are generally used in the plural, even when one
definite person is described, and there is no distinction between
the singular and plural suffixes for the third person. Now, in
some languages which appear to present the least developed
type of the agglutinative principle, as for instance Manchu, the
plural is not regularly distinguished from the singular, and
though Finnish has advanced enormously beyond this stage, it
appears to have developed a less acute sense of number than the
Aryan languages. It is therefore very possible that some of
the plural suffixes were in their origin not strictly plural.
The t might thus be identical with that of the determinate
accusative of pronouns (minut, etc.) and with the t or te, which
characterises the definite declension in Mordvinian. Possibly
the k of the other languages of the group may be connected
with the suffixes -kko, -kkaha, which have an idea of quantity.
Nearly all the cases had originally a local meaning. On
pp. 131-133 will be found some account of their relation to one
another, and the development of their significations. As is
there shown, there are three groups of cases which more or less
correspond, the so-called interior and exterior groups, and
another composed of the partitive, the essive, and the translative.
These latter have simple suffixes, ta, na, and ksi. In
the other groups another element is added to the suffix, in the
interior cases s (supposed to represent sisä), and in the exterior
l (supposed to represent luo). The terminations of the inessive
(ssa), the elative (sta), the adessive (lla), and the ablative
(lta) clearly stand for s + na, s + ta, l + na, l + ta. The combination
n + ta is also used sporadically (p. 23) to form a case
analogous to the elative and ablative. The relation of the three
cases indicative of motion to is, however, less obvious. The
termination of the translative is ksi (or kse), that of the illative
sen or h-n (with the vowel of the previous syllable between
the two consonants), and that of the allative -lle, sometimes
pronounced llen. Now, Finnish contains clear traces of a dative
in -ne or -nek (pp. 24 and 128). The illative shows a suffix
-sen, but dialects give forms which represent he-sen or se-sen
(which are supported by the analogy of other languages), which
may be explained as the characteristic of the internal cases plus
a case termination. The allative -lle(n) may therefore be
explained as l + hen, though it can equally well represent l + ne.
The termination sen, which is weakened to h-n, or merely n
preceded by a long vowel, is perhaps for ksen, for the termination
of the translative has a great tendency to be weakened and
even disappear (alas, ulos, taa, ty’ö, 1st infinitives, etc.). We
thus get three groups exactly corresponding: (1) na, ta, kse;
(2) s + na, s + ta, s + ksen; (3) l + na, l + ta, l + kse.
The prolative, ending in -tse, is not often used and is perhaps
identical with the termination -ten, found in some adverbs
(täten, miten, siten, etc.). The caritive has regularly the
termination -tta, but in adverbs this sinks to -ti (ääneti,
huoleti). Dialectically are found tak, tah, and ta, and a comparison
of the cognate languages leaves no doubt that taka or
taχa was the original form. It is quite clear that this ending
is closely connected with the caritive adjectival suffix -ttoma,
which has much the same form in all the cognate languages,
except Ostiak, where it is wanting. In Mordvinian we have
vtomo or ftïma, and in Lappish täbme or tebme. Otherwise
the suffix seems to represent an original tama. Perhaps the
f or v of Mordvinian may represent some element (e.g. k) added
to the stem before the suffix, which has produced in Finnish tt.
The termination of the abessive has been explained as the word
taka, back. But if this is so, what becomes of the caritive
adjective, which shows no trace of this syllable ka? The conclusion
that the element denoting absence or negation is ta—perhaps
with some other consonant before it—seems inevitable.
Ta is used to denote motion from (the original meaning of the
partitive), and the connection between this idea and absence is
not impossible.
There remain several cases characterised by the letter n, with
or without a vowel. We have (1) a genitive, with the termination
n in the singular, and taking t as well in the plural; (2)
an accusative, found only in the singular and identical in form
with the genitive; (3) an instructive identical in the singular
with the genitive, but without the element t in the plural; (4)
a comitative, formed with the syllable ne. This last may be
explained as a local case, related to the syllable na of the essive
or locative as the ta of the 1st infinitive is to the te of the
second. The instructive termination is probably in reality the
same as that of the genitive. It does not seem unnatural that
a case denoting relation should be used adverbially to denote
the manner in which an action is performed. The case is used
chiefly in the plural, in which it does not take the element t,
doubtless to distinguish it from the genitive. The genitive
seems either to have or to have had the termination n in all the
Finno-Ugric languages. It is noticeable that it is strictly a case
representing relation, and does not denote origin. Its regular
place is before the word which depends on it. It is probably
akin to the dative ending in -ne. The accusative ending in n
plays only a very small part in Finnish, as it is never used
except to denote the total object in the singular of a finite verb.
The partial object (p. 126) is always in the partitive, whether
singular or plural; the total object plural is in the nominative,
and the total object singular of an imperative or impersonal
(so-called passive) verb is also in the nominative. Usage with
regard to the object of an infinitive is fluctuating, but the
primitive rule seems to be that it was in the partitive or
nominative. It would seem that when the agent is not defined
(imperative, passive, infinitive) the simple nominative was
regarded as sufficient, as there could be no confusion between
the subject and object. But when the subject is expressed by
a word or termination, it was felt necessary to emphasise the
object by some termination. T in the plural was apparently
enough, but in the singular we find n, which might be identified
with the suffix of the genitive, but for the fact that Ostiak, Cheremissian,
and Vogul have m or me, and Lappish m, b, p, or
w pointing to an original m.
There is also a termination t occurring in the accusatives of
the personal pronouns in Finnish, and found also in Hungarian,
Mordvinian, and Syrjenian, which marks the determinate
accusative. This is perhaps identical with the t of the plural.
The nominative, as such, has no termination. In the plural it
has the simple plural sign t; in the singular it is identical with
the root, unless altered (as is often the case) by purely phonetic
laws.
The Finnish adjective is not distinguished from the noun, but
it presents this peculiarity that contrary to the usage of the
cognate languages it agrees with its substantive in number and
case. This is probably due to Aryan influences, and has on the
whole been a misfortune, for as soon as it is possible to construct
sentences in which the connection of adjectives and
substantives, far removed from one another in place, can be
indicated by similar terminations, it is inevitable that authors
should construct complicated phrases of the German or
Greek type, which so much disfigure contemporary Finnish
literature.
Finnish possesses a comparative and superlative, both having
the termination mpa, the comparative being distinguished by
the addition of the letter i before this suffix. This i might
possibly be identified with that which marks the oblique cases
of the plural, on the supposition that it is a determinative
element which gradually acquired a plural signification in
nouns. The comparative ending is also found in the pronouns
jompi, kumpi, and molempi. Though the present numerals
of the Finno-Ugric languages are based on a decimal system, it
is clear that the original base was seven. For in all the
languages the numbers from one to seven are obviously identical,
whereas the words for eight, nine, ten are different. Finnish,
with the Baltic dialects, and Mordvinian, represents ten by
kymmenen, kümme, or kemen; Lappish, Cheremissian, and
Vogulian give lokke (or loγe), lu, lau, which signify simply
number (Finn. luku). Ostiak has jon, which recalls the Turkish
on and Yakut uon, but which has also been explained as
ljon (= luku). Cheremissian has das, which looks as if it had
been borrowed from the Russian десять, though this explanation
can hardly be extended to the Magyar tiz. The numbers
eight and nine clearly contain in most of the languages the
numbers two and one, so that they must mean ten minus two,
and ten minus one, but the element denoting ten is not clear:
Finnish, kahdehsan, yhdeksän; Lappish, kaktse, aktse
(kuekte, two; akte, one); Syrjenian kökja-mi̱s, ök-mi̱s (ki̱k,
two; ötik, one); Mordvinian, kafksa, vehksa (kafta, two;
ifkä, one); Cheremissian, kändeχsje, indeχsje (kok, two; ik-tä,
one). The Magyar, Ostiak, and Vogul for eight (nyole, njigedlaχ,
njålå-lu) seems related, but not the words for nine.
The word for a hundred is the same in all the languages.
The personal pronouns are declined almost exactly like nouns.
Minä, sinä, hän appear to represent original forms mi-nä,
ti-nä, sä-nä (? for tä-nä). The oblique cases in the singular of
the 1st and 2nd person are formed either from the stems minu
and sinu (which have been adopted by the literary language),
or mu, su. The plural stems are me, te, he, apparently
strengthened forms of mi, ti, hi, which take i in the oblique
cases, but which (like the demonstrative pronouns) do not take
t in the nominative.
The genitive of the personal pronoun is supplied by the
pronominal affixes, which are added to nouns. They are for
the singular ni, si, nsa; for the plural mme, nne, nsa.
The 1st person singular ni is difficult to explain, for the
pronominal root is mi. Probably final m was changed to n (cf.
the verbs), and the i was a later addition. So too the 2nd person
singular varies between si and s. It is clear that in the 3rd
singular and all the persons of the plural an element, perhaps
the n of the genitive, is added to the noun, so that nsa, mme,
nne stand for n-sa, n-me, n-te. It is noticeable, however, that
in Ostiak and Vogul the 2nd person is distinguished by the
element n, and not t, in all three numbers: sing. nen, nän;
plur. nen, nan; dual nin. These suffixes are added to the
declined noun, after the case termination, whereas in Hungarian
the case terminations are added after the pronominal affix.
In Cheremissian either combination seems possible. It is a
remarkable fact that when the pronominal affixes cause a
syllable to be closed, the initial consonant of that syllable is
not weakened as in other cases. Tapa + mme and tapa + nsa
do not become tavamme, tavansa, but tapamme, tapansa.
The explanation of this is very easy if the principles suggested
above are correct. The pronominal affixes are enclitics, and
hence tápa-nsa does not change its accent, while tapa-lla
becomes tavá-lla. But what is much more curious is that
while the simple genitive singular and nominative plural
are tavan and tavat, the same cases with suffixes appear as
tapamme or tapansa. If these forms are not due to analogy
they must be explained on a principle which seems to prevail in
Finnish, that it is unnecessary to add more than one suffix defining
the relations of words, unless there is a question of local
position. Thus in the plural the sign of number is considered
a sufficient mark both of the nominative and accusative.
The other pronouns call for little comment, but it is noticeable
that the relative pronouns and adverbs are fully developed,
so that, although many phrases which we should render by
temporal and relative clauses are expressed by infinitives and
participles (as in Turkish), they can also be expressed by
sentences like those of Aryan languages. All the Finno-Ugric
languages show an attempt to differentiate the verb from the
noun, which is least successful in the Eastern languages, and
most fully realized in Finnish. Yet here one can at once discard
a mass of forms—the so-called infinitives and participles—which
are simple substantives. Their use is explained on pp.
184-202. The infinitives are formed with two suffixes, ta and
ma. The first appears in the 1st infinitive as ta, da, or a, and
in the 2nd infinitive, in a weakened form, as te, de, or e. The
second suffix ma appears in the 3rd infinitive in its proper
form, and as a diminutive in the fourth and fifth infinitives, of
which the latter is used only in one case. The present participle,
active and passive, is formed by adding va, a common adjectival
termination, to the simple or to the passive stem. The past
participle active is formed by adding -nehe (nom. nut or nyt)
to the stem (cf. such nominal stems as venehe, boat; puhehe,
conversation), while the past participle passive is a simple noun
with the suffix u or y, and identical with such forms as luku,
itku, maksu (p. 45), except that it has the t which characterises
the passive.
Setting aside these forms we have the finite verb, which
shows two distinct formations, indicating two separate modes of
thought. The 1st and 2nd persons singular and plural take
suffixes obviously identical in origin with the pronominal
affixes, while the 3rd person, singular and plural, is a simple
predicate. The affixes for the verb are 1st sing n, 2nd sing. t,
1st plur. mme, 2nd plur. tte. In as far as these are not
absolutely the same as the suffixes added to nouns, they show
an attempt to differentiate the verb, but n is clearly the same
as -ni; t is a more original form of the 2nd singular, which
was once ṭi, and mme is the same in nouns and verbs. The
2nd person plur. in nouns nne has been already explained as
n-te; in the verb mme and tte perhaps represent k + me,
k + te. Thus it is only in the 1st person plural that the
nominal and verbal suffixes absolutely coincide. Toivomme
means either we hope or our hope.
The formation of the 3rd persons is quite different. The
plural termination is vat. In modern Finnish the singular, as a
rule, takes no termination, but merely lengthens the final vowel,
if not already long or a diphthong. But (as stated on pp. 62
and 63) the termination pi, which is found in monosyllabic
verbs, and in the weakened form vi in others, is frequent in
dialects, and used sometimes in the literary language. This
suffix appears in all the Baltic dialects in the forms b, p for the
singular, and vat, ba, va for the plural. In Lappish it does
not occur in the 3rd person sing. or plur., but in the 1st person
plural (p, be, or p), in the 2nd dual (bätte, ppe, bet, vette)
and plural (bättet, ppet, bet, vetteð), and in the 3rd dual
(ba, van, v). It also occurs sporadically in Cheremissian
as the sign of the 3rd person. Now it is quite plain that the
Finnish -va-t is the plural form of pi or vi. An analogy for
final a sinking to i can be found in the nominative and comparatives
(suurempi for suurempa), and it is therefore likely
that the 3rd person singular and plural ended in pa and vat
(p. 15). No doubt this pa or va is identical with the suffix of
the present participle. In the plural indeed the two forms are
absolutely identical even in the modern language: tuovat,
antavat, tulevat are either the 3rd person plural present or
nominative plural of the participle present. The 3rd person is
thus simply a predicate, the verb substantive being, as often,
omitted. Pa or va would thus be in its origin a suffix of the
present: pi or vi does not appear in any of the other moods or
tenses, but vat is the universal termination of the plural.
Perhaps it was not original in any tense but the present, as
Setälä quotes from old writers and dialects such forms as sanoit
(sanoivat), näghitt (näkivät), olisit (olisivat), etc. But it
must be remembered that the termination va has not a marked
temporal signification, as it is used to form simple adjectives
like lihava, fat; terävä, sharp. If then we regard saavat as a
simple adjective from the root saa, denoting taking, there is no
reason why saivat, saanevat, etc. should not be adjectives from
sai, saane, which express modifications of that root. But this
is a question of chronology, and it is more probable that when
those stems were formed vat was accepted as a suffix of the 3rd
plural. In Esthonian the va is sometimes added to the active
past participle (tulnuva), and similar forms are quoted from
Agricola. In modern Finnish the 3rd person singular generally
ends simply in a long vowel, perhaps the remains of a diphthong
ending in u, which occurs in some dialects.
Besides the personal terminations already discussed, we find
in reflexive verbs (in some of which however the reflexive meaning
is not very clear) me as the suffix of the 1st singular
(annoime, luome, siirrime[2]), te for the 2nd person (weäite,
seisotaite, tungeite), ksen, kse, ihe for the 3rd person. These
latter forms are carefully discussed by Setälä (Suom. Ug. Seuran
Aikakauskirja, No. II, 1887, p. 33 ff.), and he seems to prove
satisfactorily that they represent k + sen, of which the first
element is a present suffix, found also in the imperative and
negative, and the second the pronoun of the 3rd person, found
also in the optative, passive, and other forms. The terminations
me and te might be explained as the original forms, seeing that
the roots of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are probably mi
and ti, but they are more likely to be due to false analogy, the
real meaning of he (= sen) in the 3rd person having been
forgotten.
We have thus for terminations indicative of person the
following:—
|
Sing. |
Plur. |
| 1. |
n (me) |
m + me |
| 2. |
t (te) |
t + te |
| 3. |
(a) |
pi, vi, long vowel |
vat or simple t. |
|
(b) |
sen, hen, se, he. |
|
We have now to consider what are the other formative
elements used in the Finnish verb, in doing which it is best to
take first the finite affirmative conjugation, leaving aside the
negative and passive forms. We may also leave aside the
compound tenses which have doubtless arisen under foreign
influences (cf. the Magyar forms).
We have seen that in nouns the possessive affixes n-sa, m-me,
n-ne pointed to the fact that another element besides the strictly
pronominal affix was added to the stem. The mme and tte of
the plural verb are also best explained as k + me, k + te.
This k occurs in many other verbal forms, and is of rather
uncertain meaning, but apparently originally used in the present
tense. It occurs in most of the cognate languages, particularly
Lappish. The moods and tenses of the Finnish verb are very
simple. The indicative has but two simple tenses (as in most of
the cognate languages), a durative, which answers to both our
present and future, and an aorist. There are three other
moods, the potential or concessive, which represents an action
as possible but not actual, the conditional, and the imperative,
with which the optative may be taken to form one tense.
The present indicative adds the personal endings direct to
the stem; the other forms add some element between the stem
and terminations, which are the same as in the present (n, t,
mme, tte, vat), except that the 3rd singular never takes pi
or vi.
The past tense (generally called imperfect) is formed by
adding the vowel i to the stem, which generally causes euphonic
changes. Saa, to receive; sain, I received; anta, to give;
annoin, I gave; tule, to come; tulin, I came. This suffix is
used in Lappish in the forms je, ie, i, and traces of it occur in
Magyar, Mordvinian, Cheremissian, Syrjenian, and Vogul.
Ostiak is peculiar in using the simple stem for the past, and
adding de to mark the present. The suffix i or je is perhaps
the same as ja used to form nouns expressing the agent
(e.g. kalastaja, a fisherman). Another termination used
extensively in all the Baltic dialects is -si. This is quite
regular in verbs whose root ends in ta, for lupat(a)i becomes
naturally lupasi, and pyyt(ä)i pyysi (v. p. 16 for detailed
rules). But in Esthonian and the South Western dialect of
Finnish this termination is added to a great many words which
have no t in the stem. E.g. Esthonian: stem palu, pres. palun,
pret. palusin; stem pühki, pres. pühin, pret. pühkizin.
These forms are perhaps the result of analogy, which was
particularly easy on account of the contracted verbs. A comparison
of the present lupaan (from which t has been lost) and
the imperfect lupasin naturally suggests that si is the
characteristic suffix of the latter. On the other hand, Mordvinian,
Cheremissian, Vogul, and some forms of Ostiak (as well
as the Samoyede languages) all have s or š as a sign of the
preterite, so that si may possibly contain another tense element
distinct from i.
The concessive is characterised by the syllable ne, or sometimes
no in dialects. A conjunctive formed with this element
occurs in most of Baltic dialects, Cheremissian, Vogul, and
Ostiak.
The conditional has in Finnish a double suffix i + si. The
i is doubtless identical with that of the imperfect. The syllable
si is no doubt for ksi, for the Esthonian conditional is regularly
formed with this suffix. Palu, wiska, pühki, sȫ form paluksin,
wiskaksin, pühiksin, sȫksin. Esthonian generally has this
suffix without i, but the other Baltic dialects employ the Finnish
form. Lappish also has a subjunctive showing the syllable kči,
čči, or či, but the form is unknown in the Eastern languages.
It is noticeable that both ne and se are found in dialects doubled
(myysisin from myy, to sell; tullenen, for tulnenen, from
tulla, to come), and also combined in the form neisi, which
occurs several times in the Kalevala (e.g. xxiii. 219, 220.
Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi Mies nuori nuristuneisi).
The imperative consists of a 2nd person singular, which in
literary Finnish is merely the root in a closed form (anna, ota
from anta, otta), but which in dialects is found ending in k
(annak, otak, etc.), and of a 1st and 2nd plural ending in
kaamme, kaatte (or kaa) in the literary language, though
kama, kamme, katte are also found. A 3rd person singular in
kaan also occurs, but rarely. The optative consists of a 2nd
person singular ending in os, of a 3rd person singular in koon,
and a 3rd person plural in koot. These forms have been
generally explained as weakenings of suffixes kasa (kaha) and
koso (koho), and as representing kasamme, kasatte, koso,
koson, and kosot. It appears to me that the evidence brought
forward by Setälä (p. 111 ff.) disproves this theory. He points
out (1) that the forms kaha, koho never occur in those dialects
which otherwise preserve h between vowels, e.g. in the illative
and passive; (2) that the Eastern dialects change the kaa or
kää of the imperative into koa, keä, which change never occurs
when an h has been lost. Besides no particular explanation
has ever been offered of the suffixes kasa, koso. The proper
suffixes then of the imperative and optative are ka, ko, which
are obviously related (cf. ne, dialect no, in the concessive).
These suffixes appear in Esthonian as gā (dial) and gu, and a
suffix ka, k, or traces of it, occurs not only in the Baltic
languages, but in all the other members of the group. It seems
to be identical with the k which appears in the negative conjugation
and elsewhere, and which is the least definite in
signification of suffixes merely indicating the verbal character of
the root. Thus the 2nd person singular of the imperative is an
elementary verbal form without a personal termination. The
forms kaamme, kaatte have evidently added to this suffix the
personal termination. The long vowel appears to be an invention
of the modern literary dialect. In poetry and dialects we
find the forms kämme, käme, and käte.
The termination os of the optative is doubtless for ko + s
where s represents the 2nd person singular. In Kalevala
xxxiii. 257-8 we find a form in kosi, Kun on kuollet kuolkosipa,
kaotkosi kun kaonnet, cf. Kanteletar (p. 14, 2nd ed.,
1884) Tehkös liito lintuseni. The 3rd person singular ending
in koon is undoubtedly for kohon, where the second element
represents the 3rd personal pronoun hän or sen. The assimilation
of the vowel to the o of ko resembles the phenomena
presented by the illative. The plural koot is similarly for
kohot, where the second element represents het or set, that is
the 3rd personal pronoun with the plural suffix. The terminations
kaan and kaat, which occur dialectically, show similar
formations with the ka of the imperative.
Besides the forms of the finite active verb discussed above,
Finnish also possesses what is called a passive, but is no doubt
really an impersonal verb, used in all the tenses but the imperative.
From the root tuo come the present tuodahan,
imperf. tuotahin, concessive tuotanehen, conditional tuotaisihin.
But the root ending in a short vowel like repi makes
revitähän, revittihin, revittänehen, revittäisihin. In all
these forms the last element is obviously a termination h-n,
which is vocalized analogously to the illative. This is probably
the 3rd personal pronoun hän or sen. Besides this termination
there is added to the root the element tta after a short vowel,
and ta after a long one. This suffix is probably identical
with the causal and transitive terminations ta, tta (p. 110).
Thus the passive forms are really causal verbs used impersonally
in the 3rd person singular.
It is noticeable that while the imperfects and other tenses are
tuotihin, sanotihim, etc., the present has tuodahan, sanotahan,
etc. This points to the syllable tta or ta having being closed
originally by some element which has disappeared. Now the
passive present in Esthonian is formed regularly with the
syllable kse which is doubtless the present suffix k and the
pronoun se. Thus the roots palu, wiska, and pühki form the
passives palutakse, wizatakse, pühitakse corresponding very
closely to an original Finnish sano + ta + k + sen which becomes
sanota’hen and then sanotaan. Personal, neuter, or passive
verbs are formed by the addition of the vowels u or y, with or
without the addition of t, nt, or p (p. 111). Such verbs,
however, are not counted as part of the regular conjugation,
as they cannot be formed from all verbal stems.
On the same footing as these reflexive verbs stand the various
derivative forms described p. 110 ff. Some of them—e.g. the
causal suffixes—have so distinct a meaning and are used so
frequently that they might almost be given among the regular
forms of the verb; others are only added to comparatively
few verbs and vary in their signification. Some of them are
the same suffixes which occur in the regular conjugation; ksi,
a frequentative or diminutive, is no doubt identical with the si
of the conditional: ne, and perhaps the n of nta, is the suffix
of the concessive; ele, or le, used in Finnish only to form
frequentatives and diminutives, appears in Lappish as a sign of
the subjunctive mood (Set. p. 158). It is thus clear that the verbal
forms consist of a root (that is to say, a form which may be
considered as a root for Finnish, without prejudice to the question
how far it is absolutely primitive), to which are added certain
formative affixes and a termination indicating person. Some
of these formative affixes have been accepted as definitely indicating
mood or tense, others have not been so accepted and have
a vaguer signification. Thus anta + i + si + n is described as
the 1st person singular of the conditional of anta, to give, isi
being indicative of the mood, but käärämöittelee, which
represents käärä + mä + i + tta + ele, is not regarded as having
any modal or temporal suffix.
In Finnish, as in most of the cognate languages except
Hungarian and Ostiak (where however there are traces of
another system) there is no simple negative particle, and negation
can only be expressed by means of the negative verb, en, et, ei,
emme, ette, eivät, which is prefixed to the closed form of the
root. There is no doubt that this form has lost a final k, and
is therefore identical with the second person singular of the
imperative, and is the simplest verbal form. In the past, the
past participle is used with the negative verb, and in the other
moods the tense stem. The imperative and optative add ko
to the stem and the negative particle is formed from the root
äl or el which is obviously closely akin to such forms as
ellen (p. 69) and perhaps is the negative root combined with
the suffix le.
Although the common opinion about Finnish is that it is
hopelessly unlike any European language, it must be admitted
by all who have studied it that it represents a very close
approximation to the Aryan type, due no doubt to the strong
and consistent foreign influence to which it has been subjected.
As is well known, the vocabulary is overrun with German or
Scandinavian words, often the equivalents of the simplest ideas,
which have been borrowed, not lately, but before the earliest
period of which we have any record. In the structure of the
language itself this approximation is not less striking. It
manifests itself in two ways—negatively and positively. As
for the first, Finnish has abandoned many constructions
which are found in the other languages of the group, but
which are unknown to Aryan grammar. Thus we find no
traces of the object being incorporated with the verb, or of the
verb taking possessive as well as predicative suffixes. On the
other hand, the positive resemblances are very numerous. It
cannot be denied that the declensions, whatever be their origin,
are in their present form very similar to those of Latin and
Greek. The case suffix forms a whole with the noun; it influences
the vowels and consonants of the latter; the pronominal
suffixes must be added after it, and not between it and the stem.
The only difference between Finnish and Greek or Latin declension
is that the former is much more regular and transparent
in its character, though, even here, some cases, as the
partitive singular and genitive plural, show considerable
diversity. The adjective is fully declined, agrees with its
substantive, and takes degrees of comparison. The verb is
clearly distinguished from the noun, and the scanty supply of
primitive tenses has been supplemented by a number of forms
combined with the auxiliary verb after the analogy of German
or Swedish. There are a great many infinitival and participial
constructions, which recall the Turkish; but, on the other
hand, the relative pronouns and particles are fully developed.
On the whole, it may be fairly said that Finnish really presents
no great differences from Aryan languages except in its euphonic
laws, the use of the pronominal suffixes, the infinitives and
participles, and some syntactical peculiarities. Compared with
such a language as Ostiak (or even Magyar) it shows the
clearest traces of foreign influence, and of non-Aryan material
recast in a western and Aryan mould.
On the other hand, it must be remembered that agglutinative
languages represent a stage through which Aryan languages
have doubtless past. The real difference between the forms
presented by Finnish, and those of Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit, is
that while the former has but a limited number of suffixes, and
uses them regularly in the same sense, the latter had a superfluously
rich store, and used sometimes one, sometimes another
to express the same idea. Hence it is that we find different case
endings for nouns, adjectives, and pronouns; and several ways of
inflecting verbs and nouns.
The tendency to advance from the primitive forms and
constructions of the Ugro-Altaic languages to a mode of expression
more in harmony with western thought reaches its
height in the modern literary Finnish. It is no reproach to
this language to say that it is artificial. Nearly all modern
languages have the same origin. Out of a mass of dialects
one is selected by circumstances as representative, and becomes
a language while the others remain dialects. A number of such
dialects are spoken in Finland, and no doubt if any of them had
received an independent literary development, it might have
produced a language almost as different from written Finnish as is
Esthonian. Neither can one be surprised at the number of
newly invented words in Finnish. All the languages of modern
Europe have borrowed the vocabulary of mediaeval Latin,
either by taking the words as they found them, or by translating
the component parts of them into equivalents supplied
from their own grammar. English has generally adopted the
former, German the latter method. Finnish has followed
boldly in the same track, and endeavoured to find native equivalents
for the chief modern ideas. It is perhaps presumptuous
for a foreigner to judge whether the result is successful. One
is inclined to think that the change has been a little too
sudden. Finnish is an admirable vehicle for such poetry as
the Kalevala or for simple narrative. It had not advanced at all
beyond this state when it was used to represent the most complicated
forms of European thought, and, as it still keeps its homely
native character, the combination sometimes appears rather odd.
Besides, as there is no authority to determine exactly what are the
accepted phrases for the literary dialect, or the proper equivalents
of foreign words, a good deal of confusion reigns, and
even natives have occasionally some difficulty in understanding
modern authors. It is a great pity that writers do not adopt a
simpler style. As it is, they have chosen German models, and
the combination of exceedingly involved phrases with manifold
inflectional forms distinguished only by slight differences produces
sentences which rival in difficulty ancient Greek, a
language which was generally obscure except in the hand
of a master. Yet though Finnish deserves its undesirable
reputation of being the most difficult language spoken in
Europe, except perhaps Basque, it seems to be an undoubted
fact that the area over which it is spoken is being enlarged at
the expense of Russian and Swedish.
The group of languages to which Finnish belongs is at
present spoken by tribes scattered over the more northern parts
of European Russia and immediately to the east of the Ural.
In Siberia we have Ostiak, spoken by tribes about the river
Obi (for the Ostiak of the Yenisei appears to be a different
language), and Vogul, spoken by scattered tribes on either side
of the Ural. With these languages is connected Magyar, though
owing to foreign influences and its great literary development,
comparable only to that of Finnish, it presents many peculiarities.
Though both the grammar and vocabulary of these languages
leave no doubt of their relation to the rest of the group, they
differ from them in many points of detail. The case terminations
present few resemblances; Vogul and Ostiak have a dual,
and they all more or less employ constructions rejected by most
of the other languages, such as the incorporation of the object
in the verb, the distinction between predicative and possessive
suffixes in the verb, etc. Also it is remarkable that they have
not developed fully the peculiar negative constructions of
Finnish and the more western languages.
East of the Voguls dwell a race called Syryenians or Zyrjenians
(Russian Зыряне), whose head quarters are at the town of
Ishma, on the Pechora; south of these again are the Votiaks,
mostly in the government of Viatka. On the north bank of the
Volga, to the west of Kazan, live the Cheremissians, speaking
two dialects, some scattered settlements of whom are found
further east, while to the south of these again, mostly about the
rivers Oka and Sura, are numerous scattered settlements of
Mordvinians, who have likewise two dialects. None of these
are literary languages. Besides them we have Lappish, in
three dialects spoken in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden,
and Russia, and the various Baltic idioms, with Suomi or
Finnish.
The relation of these languages to one another have been
ably described in Dr. Donner’s work, ‘Die gegenseitige Verwandschaft
der Finnish-Ugrischen Sprachen.’ He divides the
whole group into two divisions, the first called Ugric, and comprising
only Ostiak, Vogul, and Magyar; the second called
Finnish, including all the other languages. This second or
Finnish division is divided into two groups, the Permian and
Volga-Baltic, the former including only the Syrjenians, Permians,
and Votiaks, the latter again in two sub-divisions, the Volga
group or Mordvinian and Cheremissian, and the West Finnish
group including Lappish, Esthonian, and Finnish.
This classification may be represented thus in a table:—
| Finno-Ugrian Languages |
A. Ugrian. |
1. Ostiak. |
| 2. Vogul. |
| 3. Magyar. |
| B. Finnish. |
i. Permian |
Syrjenians, Permians, Votiaks. |
| ii. Volga Baltic |
a. Volga group |
Cheremissian, Mordvinian. |
| b. West Finnish |
1. Lappish. |
| 2. Esthonian, Livish, Votish, Vepsish. |
| 3. Finnish. |
All these languages have a certain common vocabulary, and
a common grammatical substratum, though many of them
possess constructions unknown to the others. The pronouns,
numerals, and in a less obvious degree the pronominal affixes of
nouns and verbs are also identical. The Ugrian languages
however, seem to have parted company with the rest before a
system of declension had been fixed. Their nominal suffixes
seem to be mostly later formations, though we find t, tl, or k for
the plural, and traces of l as a local element. Corresponding
phenomena appear in the conjugation of verbs, as noticed
above.
The remaining languages—or Finnish group—have not
developed any striking differences from the Ugric division, but
they show greater resemblance to one another in details. They
all have local cases characterised by the letter s (unknown
in the Ugric group), others characterised by l, an abessive
ending in ta or tak, and negative adjectives characterised by
the syllable tem, or tom. They mostly agree in having a
peculiar form for the negative conjugation. The present of the
positive conjugation has p (or v) regularly or sporadically in
certain persons, and the remaining verbal forms, though far
from agreeing absolutely, show a sufficient resemblance to
warrant us in regarding them as the results of a common
development.
From the accounts given of Syrjenian and Votiak it would
seem that they were the first to cease to participate in this
common development. They appear to be characterised by few
striking peculiarities, but to show a less degree of conformity
to a common standard than the remaining languages. The
phonetic system of Syrjenian seems to be much the same as that
of Cheremissian or Mordvinian, except that it has a great
fondness for the sound of i̱. The pronouns of both numbers,
and the pronominal affixes of the singular, show much more
resemblance to the Finnish than to the Ugrian, but the pronominal
affixes of the plural (ni̱m, ni̱d, ni̱s) are curious, and
obviously represent the singular affixes in combination with a
syllable ni̱, which may perhaps be akin to the Finnish plural
demonstrative ne. In the verb, the 1st person singular has no
personal termination. In the plural we find m, ni̱d, ni̱s, as in
nouns. Generally Syrjenian seems to be more thoroughly
agglutinative, as opposed to inflected, than the Finnish language.
In this it may be compared with Cheremissian, where the plural
is formed by the syllable vlja (or vi̱lä) added between the stem
and case termination, just like jas in Syrjenian. The Permian
languages have some close analogies in detail with the Ugrian
group. Thus twenty is ki̱s in Syrjenian, kōs or χūs in Ostiak,
husz in Magyar; the reflexive pronoun is as or ats in Syrjenian
and Votiak, at in Ostiak.
Of the remaining languages Mordvinian is in many ways the
most remarkable. Though generally admitted to be nearly akin
to Cheremissian, it has many constructions peculiar to itself.
Thus it has a fully developed object conjugation and two forms
of declension, the definite and indefinite. It has a great fondness
for the letter f. On the other hand, such phenomena as
the suffix n-za for the 3rd person, the word kemen, ten, the
regular formation of the imperfect with i, infinitives in ma, and
participles in f (Finn. va) show a near approach to Finnish.
Cheremissian has also developed some new singular negative
forms, by which the verbal root is negatived (in the preterite)
by a suffix te + l, after which the personal suffixes are added.
The connection of the West Finnish languages is much more
striking than that of those which have already been discussed.
The resemblance of Lappish to Finnish and Esthonian is a little
disguised owing to the elaborate phonetic system of this language,
which has an extraordinary fondness for diphthongs, and also a
very extensive provision of consonants, including some (e.g. γ,
θ, δ) which do not occur in any of the cognate languages.
The nominal declension is very similar to that of Finnish.
Compare the singular forms tšalme, tšalmen, tšalmesn,
tšalmest, tšalmetaka with silmä, silmänä, silmässä, silmästä,
silmättä. In the singular the genitive and partitive have lost
their termination (cf. the Esthonian forms, nom. silm, gen. and
part. silma). The analogy in the plural is still closer; the
nominative ends in h or k, but the other cases are characterised
by the insertion of i, tšalmeh or tšalmek, tšalmiti, tšalmi,
tšalmin, tšalmisne, tšalmist, tšalmitaγa corresponding to
silmät, silmiä, sílmien, silminä, silmissä, silmistä, silmittä.
There are also forms in l, le, lt, or ld. The partitive case
appears to be peculiar to the West Finnish languages. The
pronouns of Lappish point the other way, and are all but
identical with those of Mordvinian, mon, ton or don, son, mi,
ti or di, si; Mordvinian mon, son, ton, min, sin, tin. The
singular affixes are m, d, s (Mordv. n, t, nza), but those of the
plural take the characteristic k (mek, dek, sek). There are
also dual forms. The verb is peculiar in using different affixes
for the present and preterite. Otherwise it is much the same
as the Finnish forms. We have b or p as a sign of the present,
je or i for the preterite, ket, kus, etc. in the imperative;
comparatives formed with fč-, kč-, č- (ksi), or le. The negative
conjugation also shows close analogies. Lappish has thus a
great resemblance to Finnish, but is much nearer than the
remaining western languages to Cheremissian and Mordvinian,
thus connecting these latter with Finnish and the Esthonian
languages.
There is no need to insist on the close connection of Livish,
Votish, Vepsish, and Esthonian with Finnish. The grammatical
structure and vocabulary of these languages is so alike that the
fact is obvious not only to a philologist, but to the most casual
learner. Esthonian is now far the most important of these
languages, and has a certain amount of literary culture. It has
two chief dialects, that of Revel and that of Dorpat[3].
In a few cases Esthonian shows older forms than Finnish,
but on the whole it is less primitive. Besides the Finnish
consonants it possesses b, g, z, and ṅ. The accent is on the
first syllable, and has led to weakening or loss of final syllables.
The vowel harmony is known only in the Dorpat dialect, and
there not perfectly. Consonants are weakened in much the
same way as in Finnish, pp, tt, kk are reduced to single consonants;
p, t, k, s become b, d, g, z; b becomes w or disappears,
and d, g, z disappear. These changes, however, do
not in the present state of the language take place only when
syllables are closed, although the original form generally ended
with a consonant. Thus tīb, urk, rind, toit, rid form the
genitives tīwa, urga, rinna, toidu, riu; and the verbs pühkima,
uskuma, prūkima, hoidma form pühin, uzun, prūgin, hoian.
The noun has only eleven cases, the six local (exterior and
interior) the genitive, partitive, abessive, and translative, all
almost identical in form with Finnish, except that the genitive
has lost the n of the termination, and the other cases the final
vowel. The plural takes d in the nominative and i in the
other cases. The pronouns resemble Finnish, but the 3rd
person singular and plural is the demonstrative tema or nema
in Esthonian, Livonian, and Votish, but Vepsish has hän, hö.
Esthonian has almost lost the pronominal affixes, which are
used only in adverbial forms, and replaced in most cases by the
genitive of the personal pronoun.
The affirmative verb closely resembles Finnish, except that the
concessive formed with ne has, except in the Dorpat dialect,
been almost entirely lost. The 3rd person singular present
ends regularly in b, and the 3rd plural in wad. The preterite
is sometimes formed with simple i, but generally with si, and
the conditional with ksi. The imperative 2nd singular has no
termination, but as in Finnish the root is weakened. The
other persons are characterised by gu or ge. The passive is
formed by affixing ta + k + se in the present, and ta + i (ti) in
the preterite. The negative verb for the imperative is ärä,
ärgu, ärge, but in the other forms Esthonian does not affix
personal endings to the negative, but uses ei with all persons.
Similarly Livish has äb or ab for all persons except the second,
where ad is sometimes used. Votish and Vepsish follow
Finnish. It will thus be seen that Esthonian, closely allied as
it is to Finnish, has lost many peculiarities which it once no
doubt possessed, but occasionally (e.g. the passive present in
takse and the conditional in kse) preserves forms which in
Finnish have been weakened or disguised.
It is easier to discuss the relations of the Finno-Ugric
languages to one another than to decide what are their affinities
with other groups. They are generally considered to be
connected with the Samoyede, Turkish, Mandchu, and Mongolian
languages, that is to say, the ancestor of each of these groups
was related to the ancestor of the Finno-Ugrian languages.
When, however, identity of vocabulary cannot be proved, it is
dangerous to make comparisons on the ground of general
grammatical resemblances, because the grammar of agglutinative
languages offers few striking peculiarities, and represents a stage
of development through which may other languages, certainly
the Aryan, have passed. The only general description which
can be given of the Finno-Ugric group is that they are languages
without gender, whose grammatical structure consists entirely in
appending suffixes. To these characteristics is generally added
another, the vowel harmony, but this exists very partially in
the Finnish group. Now without denying the possible relationship
of Turkish, Mongol, and Mandchu to Finnish, it must be
admitted that they have only a very general resemblance, and
very many and precise differences. Mandchu and Mongol, with
their uninflected verbs, would have been put into quite another
class were they not undoubtedly akin to languages with a more
developed system. And why should Japanese be excluded?
It presents no phenomena incongruous with the grammar of the
languages above cited, and the want of vowel harmony cannot
be alleged as a difficulty.
If, however, we turn to the Samoyede languages the case is
very different. They are usually mentioned as if they stood no
nearer to the Finno-Ugric group than Turkish or Mandchu,
and yet the resemblances in detail are numerous and striking.
They possess the vowel harmony, and apparently a law for
the weakening of consonants analogous to that of Finnish and
Esthonian, e.g. kinta, kindan; mat, maden; sok, sogon. The
noun is strikingly like Finnish. We find a genitive in n, an
accusative in m or p (cf. Lappish), a dative in ni or n, a locative
in nan (cf. Finnish na), and an instrumental in se. There are
three numbers, the dual is characterised by g or hā (cf. gen. in
Ostiak, ag in Vogul), and the plural is formed with la or t (d).
The pronouns show a good deal of variety, and it is evident that
some forms (e.g. pudar, thou; puda, he) are not real pronouns
but substantives used as pronouns. Still we find a general
consensus for man as the 1st person singular, and some form of
the same word for the plural; tan for the second singular, and
te, ten, or ši for the plural (cf. Lappish, Cheremissian, Syrjenian,
and Mordvinian). The 3rd person exists in several forms, tep,
sete, di, etc., which may perhaps be compared with the Ostiak
ten, Cheremissian tidä, and Syrjenian si̱a. The pronominal
affixes are also extraordinarily numerous and varied, but they
seem to include m for the 1st singular, t or d for the 2nd, jea
(cf. Magyar ja) for the 3rd; mu or met for the 1st plural, and
ta or tet for the 2nd. The interrogative pronouns are kutö,
hübea, hoke, etc., who, and ma, mi, what. The verb and noun
are not sharply distinguished. The verb takes two sets of pronominal
suffixes, the predicative, with which an intransitive
verb is always conjugated, and the possessive, which are used with
both transitive and intransitive verbs. The preterite is formed
by adding s, which occurs as a preterite suffix in Cheremissian,
Mordvinian, Vogul, and Ostiak. The conjunctive is formed
with nji, ne, na (cf. the Finnish ne). The imperative is
formed with the syllable kar, gar, har (cf. Finnish ka).
There is also an optative with the suffix rava, so perhaps kar
is ka-ra.
Besides this similarity of grammatical forms there is a large
common vocabulary. The following examples are taken at
haphazard out of Castren’s lexicon:—River, jaha, joha (Finn.
joki); hill, pirda (Finn. vuori); dark, paebi, paevuda
(pimeä); to blow, pu’u (puhua); half, pealea, fealla (puoli);
good, sava, sova (hyvä); fire, tu (tuli); fish, kole, hale (kala);
tree, po, pe, pea (puu); bear, korg, kuerg (karhu); earth,
mon (maa); narrow, small, tîjea (tyhjä, empty); to place,
puenan (panna); live, jileadm (eleä); come, tû’am, töak
(tulla)[4].
On the other hand, the Samoyede languages differ in many
ways from the Ugro-Altaic group. The numbers are entirely
different. The Ostiak Samoyede ōker, one, shows a faint
resemblance to yhte, and sidea, or sede, two, has been compared
with kahte, but such analogies are doubtful. Only the number
seven, sin, sjelde, sjaibua shows a resemblance with the
Finno-Ugric forms. But it is clear that the Samoyede numbers
represent very primitive attempts at numeration (e.g.
Jurak. hâsava-ju, Samoyede big number, for nine, lutsa-ju,
Russian big number for ten), and that in many cases Turkish
numbers have been borrowed (cf. tjet, tet, four, with Yakut
tüört and kamass, khera 40, iliχ 50, althon 60, with Turkish
kirk, elli, altmish). Samoyede is also more like the Turkish
than the Finno-Ugric language in its power of adding predicative
and temporal suffixes to nouns (which implies a want of
distinction between the verb and noun). Thus lūtsa means a
Russian; lūtsam, I am a Russian; lūtsamsʻ, I was a Russian.
The above sketch of Samoyede has no pretence to be
exhaustive, and may be charged with inaccuracy, inasmuch as
words and forms are cited indifferently from all the dialects.
For a proper investigation of the question it is no doubt
necessary to thoroughly study the relations of the Samoyede
languages to one another, to establish the original forms, and in
particular to determine the influence of foreign languages,
whether Turkish or Finno-Ugric, on the Samoyede vocabulary.
But unless there is something strangely misleading in the
superficial character of these dialects, it appears to me that they
undoubtedly stand far nearer to Finno-Ugric than do Turkish
or Mongolian, and should indeed be classed as outlying members
of the Finno-Ugric group. The want of similarity in the
numbers is certainly very strange, but the other resemblances
in vocabulary seem to me to be conclusive, unless all the words
in question are borrowed.
The Finnish Alphabet consists of 21 letters, viz.: a, d, e, g,
h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v (or w), y, ä, ö.
German characters are sometimes used, in which case w always
represents the v sound. In the Roman character v and w are
used indifferently to express the sound of the English v.
The pronunciation of the consonants offers little difficulty.
Most of them have the same sounds as in English.
D. In true Finnish words this letter is never found at the
beginning or end, and in the middle always represents a
softened t (vide changes of consonants p. 13). Even in this
position it is hardly ever heard in the language as spoken by
peasants, but replaced in the West Finnish dialect by a sound
between r and l, and in the Eastern dialect entirely omitted.
Educated people, however, pronounce it as in English. Thus the
educated pronunciation of the genitive case of sota is sodan;
but in dialects the forms soran, solan, or soan are found.
The letter d is always omitted in the Kalevala, which is written
in the Karelian dialect.
G, except in a few foreign words, is only found in the combination
ng, representing an original nk, pronounced as in
English. In the neighbourhood of St. Petersburg this letter is
never used, k taking its place.
H is a stronger aspirate than in English, and is almost the
Russian x or German ch. It is heard very distinctly at the end
of syllables, e.g. in tehdä.
J is the English y in yes or yard.
The remaining letters of the Roman Alphabet b, c, f, q, x, z,
and the Swedish å (pronounced o) are sometimes met with in
foreign words, but an uneducated Finn will always pronounce
b and f as p and v, and is also incapable of producing such
sounds as the English ch and sh, which when occurring in
Russian names are generally represented in a Finnish mouth by
simple s.
There is also a slight aspiration found at the end of some
words, as veneʻ, a boat, syödäʻ, to eat. It is not usually written,
and hardly heard except in some dialects, though it has a
grammatical importance, and in some educational works is
marked, as above, by an inverted comma.
It will be seen that there is a great paucity of consonants in
the Finnish language; the alphabet contains but 13, and of
these g and d are never found at the beginning of native words.
Further no word can begin with two consonants, and foreign
words, commencing with such combinations, always lose one or
more letters, for instance the Swedish words strand (shore),
and spel (game), appear as ranta, peli.
On the other hand there is an extraordinary wealth of vowel
sounds, and it is of capital importance to learn the exact pronunciation
of them all.
The simple sounds are eight in number.
A is the Italian a (English a in rather or father), but pronounced
quicker. It is always short.
E is the English e in met.
I is the English i in bit.
O is the English o in hot.
U is the English u in bull.
Y is the German ü in über.
Ä, which must be carefully distinguished from A, is the short
English a heard in hat, or trap, and must not be pronounced as
the English a in late. Thus hän, he, is pronounced exactly
like hand without the final d. At the end of words (e.g. työtä)
ä is more difficult for an Englishman to pronounce, as the sound
is not found in English as a final.
Ö is like the French eu.
It is very important to observe that the simple vowels are all
short sounds. The corresponding long sounds are written by
doubling the vowel.
Aa is a long Italian a, like the a in rather, whereas the sound
of simple a is shorter than that which we (generally) give to the
vowel in this word.
Ee is like the English a in pale, late.
Ii is the English ee in keen, three.
Oo is the English o in hope.
Uu is the English oo in boot.
Yy is the German ü, pronounced long.
Ää is the a in had, but long. It is a rather difficult sound,
but can be obtained by lingering over the vowel of had or man,
taking care not to change its quality.
Öö is the sound of the simple ö lengthened.
Besides these simple and double vowels there are also 16
diphthongs, in which both vowels should be sounded but so
rapidly and continuously as to form one syllable. They may be
divided into two classes.
(1) Those in which the stress is on the second vowel. uo,
yö, ie, e.g. tuo, this, tie, a way, yö, night.
(2) Those in which the stress is on the first vowel. Of these
there are—
(a) Four ending in u. au, ou, iu, eu. Kauppa, sale, koulu,
school, hiukka, a grain, leuka, chin.
(b) Two ending in y: äy, öy. Väylä, river bed, höyhen,
feather.
(c) Seven ending in i: ai, oi, ui, ei, äi, öi, yi. E.g. nai, he
married, koi, a moth, pui, he threshed, vei, he led, päivä, day,
löi, he struck, myi, he sold.
These diphthongs, with the exception of those ending in i, are
found only in the first syllable of words, otherwise the two
vowels form two syllables: e.g. tapa-us, not tapa͡us, kope-us,
not kope͡us, but talko͡issa, pape͡illa.
The pronunciation of these diphthongs offers no difficulties
when that of the simple vowels has been mastered. It must
be remembered that they are real diphthongs where both vowels
sounds are heard, but pronounced rapidly, so that au, though
very near the ow in the English how, is not quite like it. The
pronunciation of äy and öy requires attention, but is, like that
of all the diphthongs, merely the result of pronouncing the
simple vowels rapidly.
The chief accent in Finnish is always on the first syllable of
every word. Tálo, mínä, párempi, kívettä.
There is a secondary accent, generally on the third, fifth, ...
syllables, but occasionally on the fourth, sixth, ... e.g. op-pi-mát-to-múu-des-sán-sa
(in his ability to learn).
But ó-pet-ta-mát-to-múu-des-sán-sa (in his ignorance).
But in no case is the second or last syllable accented, so that
such sounds as howéver, deláy, are impossible.
The pronunciation of Finnish is generally described as easy,
but this is by no means the case. It is true that the language
contains no sound which is really difficult for an Englishman,
but on the other hand extreme care is necessary to pronounce
even the simplest words correctly. For instance, in the word
menemme (we come), three things are to be observed. The
accent is on the first syllable, the n is single and not double,
and the m is doubled. An Englishman, who has not learned
how to pronounce, will in all probability say not menemme,
but menneme. This is because he finds it natural to double
the n after the accented syllable and hard to double the m,
without accenting the second syllable. It must be observed,
that:—
(1) The simple consonants are pronounced very lightly; tuli,
fire, nearly rhymes to the English fully, but the l is lighter.
(2) The double consonants must be pronounced distinctly
twice, as in Italian. Kuk-ka, flower, kyl-lä, enough, pap-pi,
priest.
(3) The simple vowels are very short, the long vowels are to
be dwelt on, but the length of a vowel has nothing to do with
the accent. Púhuu must not be pronounced as if it were
Puhúu, or puúhu.
The observance of these rules is necessary, not only to insure
a correct pronunciation, but to prevent absolute confusion, for
the paucity of consonants in Finnish results in the existence of
a mass of words, which though very distinct to a native, are
liable to be confounded by a stranger, and the natural tendency
of an Englishman or Russian to slur over unaccented syllables
results in complete unintelligibility. For instance, tuli is a
fire, or, he came, tulli, a tax, tulla, to come (infinitive), tule,
come (imperative and root), tulee, he comes: tullee, the concessive
of the same verb, tuuli, a wind, tuulla, to blow. Kylä is
a village, but kyllä, enough. Pitää, to hold, pyytää, to ask,
peittää, to cover, peite, a covering, pöytä, a table.