The Project Gutenberg eBook ofA Finnish GrammarThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: A Finnish GrammarAuthor: Charles EliotRelease date: June 23, 2019 [eBook #59795]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A FINNISH GRAMMAR ***
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: A Finnish GrammarAuthor: Charles EliotRelease date: June 23, 2019 [eBook #59795]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Title: A Finnish Grammar
Author: Charles Eliot
Author: Charles Eliot
Release date: June 23, 2019 [eBook #59795]
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram and the Online DistributedProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A FINNISH GRAMMAR ***
London
HENRY FROWDE
The arms of the University of Oxford
Oxford University Press WarehouseAmen Corner, E.C.
AFINNISH GRAMMAR
BYC. N. E. ELIOT, M.A.FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD
OxfordAT THE CLARENDON PRESS1890
[All rights reserved]
OxfordPRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESSBY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
My object in writing this book has been to give an account of Finnish sufficient to enable any one to understand the grammatical structure of the written language, and also to place before the student of philology an account of the chief phenomena it presents. In this latter respect I am conscious that my treatment is very inadequate on account of my inability to make myself acquainted with the many dialects spoken by the peasantry in various parts, the importance of which for the scientific history of the language cannot be overrated. I trust, however, that I may meet with indulgence, as the present work is, to the best of my belief, the only grammar of Finnish in English, and the only syntax (except brief sketches) in any language more generally accessible than Swedish.
The Finnish language is still in so unsettled and fluid a condition, as regards both forms and style, that it is often hard to say what is correct and what not. A foreigner naturally cannot venture to decide what ought or ought not to be, and I have merely endeavoured to give an account of the forms and constructions found in existence. The examples are taken chiefly from the Kalevala and Bible (which are generally cited by references), from the Suomen KansanSananlaskuja of Ahlqwist, from various modern works, and some from the dictionaries of Lönnrot and Geitlin. The remainder have all been approved by natives, and will, hence, I trust, be found idiomatic.
I must acknowledge my obligations to the grammars of Genetz and Hämäläinen, to the Finska Språkets Satslära of Jahnsson, and especially to the excellent Suomen Kielen Lauseoppi of Setälä.
But more than to all of these I am indebted to the constant assistance and collaboration of my friend Mr. Putro of the Finnish School in St. Petersburg, to whose thorough knowledge of the language this work owes whatever accuracy it may possess. I have also to thank Mr. J. Marshall for several philological suggestions.
C. N. E. ELIOT.
March 20, 1890.
HÄNEN KUNINKAALLISEN MAJESTETINSALÄHETTILÄÄLLE PIETARISSAHÄNEN YLHÄISYYDELLENSÄ SIR R. MORIERILLEKUNNIOITUKSELLAOMISTAATEKIJÄ
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 thatdis 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 atwhich 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 bylorr) or byvorj.Galso is only found in the combinationng, which hasexactly the same sound as in English. The letterhis 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 Englishh, but beforetandk, it isχ. The other consonants offer no remarkable peculiarities;vappears 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.Tandkin 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 Swedishk,t,p(when not initial) are always represented bykk,tt,pp. It is highly probable that Finnish (like Esthonian) once had the soundsb,d,g. In Agricola are found such forms asnäghefornäe,virdhatforvirrat. 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 perhapshorχ. 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 differentvalues of the voweli, it appears that there really is a distinction between its value in words likeotti, oroli, where the vowels are hard, and in words likenäkiwhere they are soft. The hard sound comes very near the Russianыand the Turkishi̱in 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 asmarg-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, particularlyaandä, for, though it is veryprobable 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 suffixs—norh—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 thisais often changed intooin words whereais the dominant vowel (pp.9,10for the details),patojaforpataja,annoinforannain; butotin,sotiaforota-in,sota-ia. So also in the Eastern dialectkaloaforkalaa. On the same principleaandächange toein comparatives and passives, and thus we havevanhempanaandtapetaaninstead of such monotonous forms asvanhampanaandtapataan. Also twoi’s meeting generally becomeei.
The third rule relates to the disappearance of final or mediale, 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 asmissformissä,yks,kaksforyksiandkaksiare common in the mouths of the peasantry. This may, however, be due to the influence of Esthonian and Russian. In correct Finnish finaleis omitted only in the nominative singular of polysyllabic stems, the consonantal groups which remain being simplified if the laws of euphony require it: sosisare,tantere,kysymyksebecomesisar,tanner, andkysymys. In the middle of words the finaleof a stem disappears before nominal suffixes beginning witht(and sometimesn) and before verbal suffixes beginning withkorn, and this rule applies to dissyllables also. Now one would suppose ona priorigrounds 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 likerevitäänthe 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 originaltakortakse), when added to the stemtule, producestulla, which is quite natural if the original form wastuletá, as the light vowel would drop out before the accented syllable; similarlysyöksenénbecomessyösnenforsyöksnen. Sometimes a wholesyllable is omitted, e.g.alenetábecomesaleta. For some reason theeis generally not omitted if it is preceded byk,p,v, orm. This is not an absolute rule, as one finds forms liketointa(st.toime),nähdä,tehdä(st.nähe,teke), but it is hard to see why iftule-tábecomestulla,luketáshould not becomeluhda. The length of the first vowel has nothing to do with the matter, asnousemakesnousta.Aandäoccasionally disappear in much the same way. Thusvierasstands forvierasa,löynnyt,tiennytare formed fromlöytä,tietä; and superlatives regularly lose finala;suurin, forsuurimpa.
The rules for the changes of consonants fall into three main groups. Firstly onlyn,r,s, ortare 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,säkenöitstäbecomeveistä,kolmas,suurin,säkenöitä.
The second group of changes concerns the letterst,k,s,h. The grouptihas always a tendency to becomesiin syllables which never had the accent. The letterh, which is suspected of never being original when a medial, representst,k, ands.Sbetween two vowels immediately before a termination always becomesh.Vierasamakes in the nominativevieras,abeing lost owing to the accent being on the first syllable. But the genitivevierasanbecomesvierahan, and in the ordinary language this is contracted tovieraan. So tootbecomeshunder similar circumstances, perhaps having passed throughs. The nominativeskevät,terve, andveneappear to represent stemskevätä,tervete, andvenete(for the partitives arekevättä,tervettä,venettä) and form the genitiveskevähän,venehen,tervehen. The same change appears in the declensionof past participles ending in-nytor-nut. Again,ktbefore a termination which was presumably once accented becomesht—a combination of which the language is very fond. Thus the roots,haakte,ykte,kakteproduce such forms ashaahden,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 firsthaakti,ykti,kakti(rule15), and thenhaaksi,yksi,kaksi(rule37).
The third rule is the most important and singular. It requires the softening in some way of the three hard consonantsk,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 likeauringoita,palkinnoitafromaurinko,palkinto; (2) many forms seem to waver betweenpandv, e.g.piorviin the 3rd sing. of verbs;paorvain 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. Thusaúrinkoremains withnk,aurinkónbecomesauringon, butaurinkonáremains. The pronominal suffixes produce no change, because they are merely enclitic pronouns and have no accent.Auringoitacan 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 whenχ,þ,f,sclose the syllable bearing the chief accent they remain; in all other cases they pass into the corresponding sonantsȝ,ð,ƀ,z. Thus an originalwórþeproduceswarþ, but an original(we)wurþméproduceswurðúm.
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 withvery primitive suffixes, and it is probable that the original roots were of the form consonant + the vowela+ consonant. The root was differentiated in various ways by changingatoo,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, andloi. Of thesetis found only in the nominative and genitive plural, in which latter case it appears variously astt,d, or, like thetof the partitive and infinitive, is omitted. This suffix appears also in Esthonian (asd), Mordvinian, and Ostiak (tl). Vogul, Syrjenian, and Cheremissian have quite different suffixes, while Lappish and Hungarian employ the letterk, apparently identical with thegwhich characterises the dual in Ostiak and Vogul. It has been suggested that askcannot be a final in Finnish, it has been changed tot; but Mordvinian, which has no objection to finalk, also hastas a plural sign. The voweliis 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 representingkweakened toj. In the Kalevala and many dialects (e.g. that of Savo) a suffixloiis 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 containl. Theiis evidently the ordinary plural sign, and aspata + i + nabecomespatoina, it is probable that thisloirepresentsla + i. Ostiak has a suffixtlin the plural (but this appears to represent simplet), Cheremissian addsvljaorvila, and in Samoyedelaappears to be used indifferently withtas a plural sign. The syllablelais used in Finnish to denote a place: e.g.setälä,uncle’s house, fromsetä, andlois 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 verbonis 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 likeolla 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. Thetmight thus be identical with that of the determinate accusative of pronouns (minut, etc.) and with thetorte, whichcharacterises the definite declension in Mordvinian. Possibly thekof 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.131-133will 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, andksi. In the other groups another element is added to the suffix, in the interior casess(supposed to representsisä), and in the exteriorl(supposed to representluo). The terminations of the inessive (ssa), the elative (sta), the adessive (lla), and the ablative (lta) clearly stand fors + na,s + ta,l + na,l + ta. The combinationn + tais 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 isksi(orkse), that of the illativesenorh-n(with the vowel of the previous syllable between the two consonants), and that of the allative-lle, sometimes pronouncedllen. Now, Finnish contains clear traces of a dative in-neor-nek(pp.24and128). The illative shows a suffix-sen, but dialects give forms which representhe-senorse-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 asl + hen, though it can equally well representl + ne. The terminationsen, which is weakened toh-n, or merelynpreceded by a long vowel, is perhaps forksen, for the terminationof 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 foundtak,tah, andta, and a comparison of the cognate languages leaves no doubt thattakaortaχawas 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 havevtomoorftïma, and in Lappishtäbmeortebme. Otherwise the suffix seems to represent an originaltama. Perhaps theforvof Mordvinian may represent some element (e.g.k) added to the stem before the suffix, which has produced in Finnishtt. The termination of the abessive has been explained as the wordtaka,back. But if this is so, what becomes of the caritive adjective, which shows no trace of this syllableka? The conclusion that the element denoting absence or negation ista—perhaps with some other consonant before it—seems inevitable.Tais 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 lettern, with or without a vowel. We have (1) a genitive, with the terminationnin the singular, and takingtas well in the plural; (2) an accusative, found only in the singular and identical in formwith the genitive; (3) an instructive identical in the singular with the genitive, but without the elementtin the plural; (4) a comitative, formed with the syllablene. This last may be explained as a local case, related to the syllablenaof the essive or locative as thetaof the 1st infinitive is to theteof 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 elementt, doubtless to distinguish it from the genitive. The genitive seems either to have or to have had the terminationnin 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 innplays 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.Tin the plural was apparentlyenough, but in the singular we findn, which might be identified with the suffix of the genitive, but for the fact that Ostiak, Cheremissian, and Vogul havemorme, and Lappishm,b,p, orwpointing to an originalm.
There is also a terminationtoccurring 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 thetof the plural. The nominative, as such, has no termination. In the plural it has the simple plural signt; 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 terminationmpa, the comparative being distinguished by the addition of the letteribefore this suffix. Thisimight 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 pronounsjompi,kumpi, andmolempi. 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 bykymmenen,kümme, orkemen; Lappish, Cheremissian, and Vogulian givelokke(orloγe),lu,lau, which signify simplynumber(Finn.luku). Ostiak hasjon, which recalls the Turkishonand Yakutuon, but which has also been explained asljon(=luku). Cheremissian hasdas, which looks as if it had been borrowed from the Russianдесять, though this explanation can hardly be extended to the Magyartiz. 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); Syrjeniankökja-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,hänappear to represent original formsmi-nä,ti-nä,sä-nä(? fortä-nä). The oblique cases in the singular of the 1st and 2nd person are formed either from the stemsminuandsinu(which have been adopted by the literary language), ormu,su. The plural stems areme,te,he, apparently strengthened forms ofmi,ti,hi, which takeiin the obliquecases, but which (like the demonstrative pronouns) do not taketin the nominative.
The genitive of the personal pronoun is supplied by the pronominal affixes, which are added to nouns. They are for the singularni,si,nsa; for the pluralmme,nne,nsa. The 1st person singularniis difficult to explain, for the pronominal root ismi. Probably finalmwas changed ton(cf. the verbs), and theiwas a later addition. So too the 2nd person singular varies betweensiands. It is clear that in the 3rd singular and all the persons of the plural an element, perhaps thenof the genitive, is added to the noun, so thatnsa,mme,nnestand forn-sa,n-me,n-te. It is noticeable, however, that in Ostiak and Vogul the 2nd person is distinguished by the elementn, and nott, in all three numbers: sing.nen,nän; plur.nen,nan; dualnin. 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 + mmeandtapa + nsado not becometavamme,tavansa, buttapamme,tapansa. The explanation of this is very easy if the principles suggested above are correct. The pronominal affixes are enclitics, and hencetápa-nsadoes not change its accent, whiletapa-llabecomestavá-lla. But what is much more curious is that while the simple genitive singular and nominative plural aretavanandtavat, the same cases with suffixes appear astapammeortapansa. If these forms are not due to analogy they must be explained on a principle which seems to prevail inFinnish, 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,taandma. The first appears in the 1st infinitive asta,da, ora, and in the 2nd infinitive, in a weakened form, aste,de, ore. The second suffixmaappears 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 addingva, a common adjectival termination, to the simple or to the passive stem. The past participle active is formed by adding-nehe(nom.nutornyt) to the stem (cf. such nominal stems asvenehe,boat;puhehe,conversation), while the past participle passive is a simple noun with the suffixuory, and identical with such forms asluku,itku,maksu(p.45), except that it has thetwhich characterises the passive.
Setting aside these forms we have the finite verb, whichshows 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 singn, 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, butnis clearly the same as-ni;tis a more original form of the 2nd singular, which was onceṭi, andmmeis the same in nouns and verbs. The 2nd person plur. in nounsnnehas been already explained asn-te; in the verbmmeandtteperhaps representk + me,k + te. Thus it is only in the 1st person plural that the nominal and verbal suffixes absolutely coincide.Toivommemeans eitherwe hopeorour hope.
The formation of the 3rd persons is quite different. The plural termination isvat. 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.62and63) the terminationpi, which is found in monosyllabic verbs, and in the weakened formviin others, is frequent in dialects, and used sometimes in the literary language. This suffix appears in all the Baltic dialects in the formsb,pfor the singular, andvat,ba,vafor the plural. In Lappish it does not occur in the 3rd person sing. or plur., but in the 1st person plural (p,be, orp), 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-tis the plural form ofpiorvi. An analogy forfinalasinking toican be found in the nominative and comparatives (suurempiforsuurempa), and it is therefore likely that the 3rd person singular and plural ended inpaandvat(p.15). No doubt thispaorvais 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,tulevatare 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.Paorvawould thus be in its origin a suffix of the present:piorvidoes not appear in any of the other moods or tenses, butvatis 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 assanoit(sanoivat),näghitt(näkivät),olisit(olisivat), etc. But it must be remembered that the terminationvahas not a marked temporal signification, as it is used to form simple adjectives likelihava,fat;terävä,sharp. If then we regardsaavatas a simple adjective from the rootsaa, denotingtaking, there is no reason whysaivat,saanevat, etc. should not be adjectives fromsai,saane, which express modifications of that root. But this is a question of chronology, and it is more probable that when those stems were formedvatwas accepted as a suffix of the 3rd plural. In Esthonian thevais 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 inu, which occurs in some dialects.
Besides the personal terminations already discussed, we find in reflexive verbs (in some of which however the reflexive meaningis not very clear)meas the suffix of the 1st singular (annoime,luome,siirrime[2]),tefor the 2nd person (weäite,seisotaite,tungeite),ksen,kse,ihefor 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 representk + 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 terminationsmeandtemight be explained as the original forms, seeing that the roots of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are probablymiandti, but they are more likely to be due to false analogy, the real meaning ofhe(=sen) in the 3rd person having been forgotten.
We have thus for terminations indicative of person the following:—
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 affixesn-sa,m-me,n-nepointed to the fact that another element besides the strictlypronominal affix was added to the stem. Themmeandtteof the plural verb are also best explained ask + me,k + te. Thiskoccurs 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 takespiorvi.
The past tense (generally called imperfect) is formed by adding the vowelito 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 formsje,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 addingdeto mark the present. The suffixiorjeis perhaps the same asjaused 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 inta, forlupat(a)ibecomes naturallylupasi, andpyyt(ä)ipyysi(v.p.16for detailedrules). But in Esthonian and the South Western dialect of Finnish this termination is added to a great many words which have notin the stem. E.g. Esthonian: stempalu, pres.palun, pret.palusin; stempühki, 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 presentlupaan(from whichthas been lost) and the imperfectlupasinnaturally suggests thatsiis 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 havesoršas a sign of the preterite, so thatsimay possibly contain another tense element distinct fromi.
The concessive is characterised by the syllablene, or sometimesnoin dialects. A conjunctive formed with this element occurs in most of Baltic dialects, Cheremissian, Vogul, and Ostiak.
The conditional has in Finnish a double suffixi + si. Theiis doubtless identical with that of the imperfect. The syllablesiis no doubt forksi, for the Esthonian conditional is regularly formed with this suffix.Palu,wiska,pühki,sȫformpaluksin,wiskaksin,pühiksin,sȫksin. Esthonian generally has this suffix withouti, but the other Baltic dialects employ the Finnish form. Lappish also has a subjunctive showing the syllablekči,čči, orči, but the form is unknown in the Eastern languages. It is noticeable that bothneandseare found in dialects doubled (myysisinfrommyy,to sell;tullenen, fortulnenen, fromtulla,to come), and also combined in the formneisi, 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,otafromanta,otta), but which in dialects is found ending ink(annak,otak, etc.), and of a 1st and 2nd plural ending inkaamme,kaatte(orkaa) in the literary language, thoughkama,kamme,katteare also found. A 3rd person singular inkaanalso occurs, but rarely. The optative consists of a 2nd person singular ending inos, of a 3rd person singular inkoon, and a 3rd person plural inkoot. These forms have been generally explained as weakenings of suffixeskasa(kaha) andkoso(koho), and as representingkasamme,kasatte,koso,koson, andkosot. It appears to me that the evidence brought forward by Setälä (p. 111 ff.) disproves this theory. He points out (1) that the formskaha,kohonever occur in those dialects which otherwise preservehbetween vowels, e.g. in the illative and passive; (2) that the Eastern dialects change thekaaorkääof the imperative intokoa,keä, which change never occurs when anhhas been lost. Besides no particular explanation has ever been offered of the suffixeskasa,koso. The proper suffixes then of the imperative and optative areka,ko, which are obviously related (cf.ne, dialectno, in the concessive). These suffixes appear in Esthonian asgā(dial) andgu, and a suffixka,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 thekwhich 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 formskaamme,kaattehave evidently added to this suffix thepersonal termination. The long vowel appears to be an invention of the modern literary dialect. In poetry and dialects we find the formskämme,käme, andkäte.
The terminationosof the optative is doubtless forko + swheresrepresents the 2nd person singular. In Kalevala xxxiii. 257-8 we find a form inkosi,Kun on kuollet kuolkosipa, kaotkosi kun kaonnet, cf. Kanteletar (p. 14, 2nd ed., 1884)Tehkös liito lintuseni. The 3rd person singular ending inkoonis undoubtedly forkohon, where the second element represents the 3rd personal pronounhänorsen. The assimilation of the vowel to theoofkoresembles the phenomena presented by the illative. The pluralkootis similarly forkohot, where the second element representshetorset, that is the 3rd personal pronoun with the plural suffix. The terminationskaanandkaat, which occur dialectically, show similar formations with thekaof 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 roottuocome the presenttuodahan, imperf.tuotahin, concessivetuotanehen, conditionaltuotaisihin. But the root ending in a short vowel likerepimakesrevitähän,revittihin,revittänehen,revittäisihin. In all these forms the last element is obviously a terminationh-n, which is vocalized analogously to the illative. This is probably the 3rd personal pronounhänorsen. Besides this termination there is added to the root the elementttaafter a short vowel, andtaafter a long one. This suffix is probably identical with the causal and transitive terminationsta,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 aretuotihin,sanotihim, etc., the present hastuodahan,sanotahan, etc. This points to the syllablettaortahaving being closed originally by some element which has disappeared. Now the passive present in Esthonian is formed regularly with the syllableksewhich is doubtless the present suffixkand the pronounse. Thus the rootspalu,wiska, andpühkiform the passivespalutakse,wizatakse,pühitaksecorresponding very closely to an original Finnishsano + ta + k + senwhich becomessanota’henand thensanotaan. Personal, neuter, or passive verbs are formed by the addition of the vowelsuory, with or without the addition oft,nt, orp(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 thesiof the conditional:ne, and perhaps thenofnta, is the suffix of the concessive;ele, orle, 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. Someof these formative affixes have been accepted as definitely indicating mood or tense, others have not been so accepted and have a vaguer signification. Thusanta + i + si + nis described as the 1st person singular of the conditional ofanta,to give,isibeing indicative of the mood, butkäärämöittelee, which representskäärä + 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 finalk, 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 addkoto the stem and the negative particle is formed from the rootälorelwhich is obviously closely akin to such forms asellen(p.69) and perhaps is the negative root combined with the suffixle.
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 thelanguage 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 theclearest 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 followedboldly 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 sideof 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 (RussianЗыряне), 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 comprisingonly 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:—
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 findt,tl, orkfor the plural, and traces oflas 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. Theyall have local cases characterised by the letters(unknown in the Ugric group), others characterised byl, an abessive ending intaortak, and negative adjectives characterised by the syllabletem, ortom. They mostly agree in having a peculiar form for the negative conjugation. The present of the positive conjugation hasp(orv) 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 ofi̱. 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 syllableni̱, which may perhaps be akin to the Finnish plural demonstrativene. In the verb, the 1st person singular has no personal termination. In the plural we findm,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 syllablevlja(orvi̱lä) added between the stem and case termination, just likejasin Syrjenian. The Permianlanguages have some close analogies in detail with the Ugrian group. Thus twenty iski̱sin Syrjenian,kōsorχūsin Ostiak,huszin Magyar; the reflexive pronoun isasoratsin Syrjenian and Votiak,atin 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 letterf. On the other hand, such phenomena as the suffixn-zafor the 3rd person, the wordkemen,ten, the regular formation of the imperfect withi, infinitives inma, and participles inf(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 suffixte + 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 formstšalme,tšalmen,tšalmesn,tšalmest,tšalmetakawithsilmä,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 inhork, but the other cases are characterisedby the insertion ofi,tšalmehortšalmek,tšalmiti,tšalmi,tšalmin,tšalmisne,tšalmist,tšalmitaγacorresponding tosilmät,silmiä,sílmien,silminä,silmissä,silmistä,silmittä. There are also forms inl,le,lt, orld. 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,tonordon,son,mi,tiordi,si; Mordvinianmon,son,ton,min,sin,tin. The singular affixes arem,d,s(Mordv.n,t,nza), but those of the plural take the characteristick(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 haveborpas a sign of the present,jeorifor the preterite,ket,kus, etc. in the imperative; comparatives formed withfč-,kč-,č-(ksi), orle. 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.