FENNO-UGRICA SUECANA Nova series

Transkriptio

1 FENNO-UGRICA SUECANA Nova series Journal of Fenno-Ugric Research in Scandinavia 15 Institutionen för slaviska och baltiska språk, finska, nederländska och tyska Stockholm 2016

2

3 FENNO-UGRICA SUECANA Nova series Journal of Fenno-Ugric Research in Scandinavia 15 Editor-in-chief: Jarmo Lainio Issue editors: Peter S. Piispanen & Merlijn de Smit Editorial board: Jarmo Lainio, Stockholm Peter S. Piispanen, Stockholm Merlijn de Smit, Stockholm/Turku Stockholm 2016

4 2016 The authors Institutionen för slaviska och baltiska språk, finska, nederländska och tyska ISSN ISBN

5 FENNO-UGRICA SUECANA Nova series 15 ARTICLES Peter Piispanen: Statistical Dating of Finno-Mordvinic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws, p Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski: The origin of the Finnic l-cases, p Håkan Rydving: Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Södra Tärna i det samiska språklandskapet, p Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi: Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden kirjallisen tuotoksen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheanalyysia, p REVIEW No reviews in this issue. REPORTS Lasse Vuorsola: Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten, p REVIEW ARTICLE No review articles in this issue. FUS 15, 2016, ISSN , ISBN (online)

6

7 Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series This is the second issue of the revitalized Fenno-Ugrica Suecana series (now additionally termed Nova Series ), which continues to focus on issues concerning Fenno-Ugristics and Fennistics, in a wide sense. We invite researchers, teachers and other scientifically interested persons to send us contributions for publication. The planned annual deadlines are October 15th in the fall and February 15th in the spring. This second new issue will contain some articles and reports based on contributions delivered to the board during 2016 or earlier. The scientific fields that we try to cover remain the ones from the earlier publications, which are the following: the Finno-Ugric languages, Fennistics, Meänkieli studies, Sámi studies and other related languages situated in Sweden and Scandinavia, but also other scientific fields that in various ways are connected to the mentioned languages and their cultures, including their literatures. We will soon establish a permanent web address through which correspondence may be sent directly to the board until then use the addresses provided in the Instructions for Authors section of this paper. The publication will be electronic, but designed so that the full issues will be possible to print on demand in the future. The different types of contributions we are looking forward to receiving are these: -scientific articles, -review articles, -reports, -reviews, and -discussion papers The languages of publication are Swedish (Norwegian and Danish may be accepted), Finnish, Meänkieli, English, German, and possibly other Finno-Ugric languages which the editorial board may have competence in. In all cases, an English abstract should be attached to the articles. It is the responsibility of the authors to finalize the proof-reading and language-check the contributions for publication. We target scientific articles with a length of about 20 pages (about words), including references.

8 In the coming issues, we would like to also specifically invite Ph.D. students to send us for publication a research plan/description of their Ph.D. work or project (approximately words) to be published as Reports. This presentation would facilitate the interested readers to have a grasp of what is going on at the moment in Scandinavia within the targeted fields of study. There is a scientific board of about ten scholars (see separate presentation). There will be a process of peer reviewing of scientific articles and review articles, whereas the editorial board will by itself read and comment on the other contributions. Of the earlier printed volumes there is a possibility to order (at the cost of posting/shipping) the following issues: nrs 3, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12. Jarmo Lainio Merlijn de Smit Peter S. Piispanen Stockholm Stockholm/Turku Stockholm

9 Preface by the volume editors We are pleased to present the second issue in the Nova Series of the journal Fenno-Ugrica Suecana. The original journal appeared from 1978 to 1994, and presented a broad range of research ranging from the minority Finno-Ugric languages of the Scandinavian countries to Mari and Hungarian, as well as literary and cultural studies. With the Nova Series, we intend to continue that tradition and present a broad selection of research specifically involving, but by no means limited to, Finno-Ugric studies in the Scandinavian countries. This second issue contains four peer-reviewed research articles as well one briefer report. The first paper, Statistical Dating of Finno-Mordvinic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws, applies an innovative combination of lexicostatistical methodology and traditional historical-comparative phonology to the dating of West Uralic proto-languages. With recent interest in the deployment of quantitative and evolutionary methodology in dating proto-languages, evidenced by for example the work of the BEDLAN group in Finland, Piispanen's work deserves close attention. The second paper, The origin of the Finnic l-cases, by Ante Aikio and Jussi Ylikoski, presents an elaborate new look at a problem that has confounded Uralic historical morphology - the origins of the Finnic outer local case system with its absence of comparanda in closely related language groups such as Mordvin and Saami, whereas local l-cases do occur in Permic and Mari. The authors reject the traditional explanation for the origin of these cases in a derivational local suffix *-la but instead seek their origin in postpositions such as yllä 'above' and alla 'below'. Aikio and Ylikoski's paper is an extended and reworked version of a paper that has earlier appeared in Sámi, and the editors of this volume are proud to enable it to reach a wider audience. The third paper is Håkan Rydving's Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Södra Tärna i det samiska språklandskapet, which treats a variety of Sámi that has, after the appearance of Wolfgang Schlachter's 1958 Wörterbuch des Waldlappen-dialekts von Malå, often been considered extinct but which is currently the focus of a new investigation by Lars-Gunnar Larsson. Using material from the Atlas Linguarum Europae, Rydving brings lexical evidence to support Larsson's conclusion that the dialect of Southern Tärna is Ume Sámi, rather than South Sámi. The fourth paper, Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi's Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden kirjallisen tuotoksen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheanalyysia, analyzes written work produced by heritage speakers of Finnish in Sweden after a university course of Finnish. The paper presents valuable empirical material about a heterogenous and not overly researched variety of Finnish, which, as the author stresses, may have practical utility in education of Finnish as a second language. The research report, finally, is Lasse Vuorsola's analysis of the international as well as Finnish discourse on climate change. We hope that this second issue of the Nova Series of Fenno-Ugrica Suecana will herald the continuation of a long series, and we warmly welcome contributions to further issues (see the Instructions to Authors at the end of the journal). On behalf of the Editorial Committee, The volume editors, Merlijn de Smit and Peter S. Piispanen

10

11 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES Peter Piispanen: Statistical Dating of Finno-Mordvinic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws, p Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski: The origin of the Finnic l-cases, p Håkan Rydving: Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Södra Tärna i det samiska språklandskapet, p Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi: Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden kirjallisen tuotoksen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheanalyysia, p

12

13 Peter S. Piispanen Stockholm University Statistical Dating of Finno-Mordvinic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws Peter Sauli Piispanen ABSTRACT Through comparison of Swadesh-200 word list cognates and the employment of lexicostatistics, accompanied by detailed cognate sound changes, the branching of some Uralic languages have been statistically determined. Assuming linear branching from a line originating in Proto-Uralic and leading to modern Finnish, Moksha (Mordvinic) originated from 3423 BP, Northern Saami (Finno-Saamic) from 3038 BP and Estonian (Balto-Finnic) from 1058 BP. The resulting cognacy rates with Finnish (35.6 %, 40.0 % and 72.7 % respectively) and acquired dates are well in accordance with previous estimates as acquired by other methods. Keywords: Dating, Estonian, Moksha, Northern Saami, sound change, Swadesh, Comparative Linguistics Running short title: Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws 1. Introduction 1.1. The linguistic analysis of lexical items is often employed to find and trace the development of genetically related languages. That two languages actually have cognates, i.e. words originating from the same etymon in their common proto-language, can be statistically proven by finding the same cognates in multiple languages. While a majority of scholars have criticized lexical mass comparison methods (cf. Campbell, L. 1986:488, 2001:45 & 2004:348), others, like for example Bengtson and Ruhlen (1994) have presented some very interesting and thoughtprovoking statistical arguments in favor of multi-language cognates actually being genetically affiliated cognates and not only separate inventions or borrowings. 1 Traditional lexical comparisons of this kind are done only through classification, i.e. multilateral lexical comparison. On a deeper second level, only some sound laws have been proposed for some cognates. Clearly, the addition of sound laws to the studies would deepen them and connect them to the linguistic mainstream. Thus, in this report great care has been taken to find acceptable sound laws for cognates No one has ever directly attempted the dating of the Uralic languages through lexicostatistics while also taking into account sound laws to the best of my knowledge. This study therefore aims to fill in some dating gaps by proposing statistical results from comparative linguistics and also from a mainstream linguistic standpoint by employing sound laws. This study also serves as a test of the lexicostatistical method per se as employed on the Uralic languages. 2 Interestingly, Sammallahti studied the relationships of the Saamic languages to each other by employing the Swadesh word list (Sammallahti, P. 1998), while Janhunen addressed the problems of analyzing languages and time depth, including for the 1 For example, one particularly important argument is that, statistically speaking, basic words, of similar phonologic form and often identical semantics, can so often be identified with such a high number of common lexical roots between some of the prospective genetically related languages that they simply cannot be mere look-alikes or accidents; instead they must represent either a valid distant genetic language relationship or, at the very least, have extensively borrowed lexicon from the same sources. 2 Merlijn De Smit, Jenny Larsson and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable input on the manuscript during preparation. This paper is a much updated and detailed version of old work performed during the author s Master s thesis in Finnish. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15 (2016) 1-58 Piispanen, P.S., 2016

14 Peter S. Piispanen Uralic languages, elsewhere (Janhunen, J. 2008: ) The lexicostatistical method was first described by Morris Swadesh (cf. Swadesh, M. 1950, 1952 & 1955), and later significantly improved, among others, by Starostin, S. (2000). The lexicostatistical method remains controversial and discredited in some circles (see for example: Dixon, R & Renfrew, C. et al. 2000). However, improvements (cf. Starostin, S. 2000) and quite promising results (for example: Indo-European: Gray, R.D. & Atkinson, Q.D. 2003, Hamito-Semitic: Fleming, H.C. 1973, Semitic & Afro-Asiatic: Militarev, A., Austronesian: Sirk, Y. and also within Chinese languages and Native American languages) which are well in accordance with the results from both archeology and genetics may have increased the viability and accuracy of the method to a level where it is now ready as a proper tool for dating. 3 This should be particularly true if the method were also accompanied by the study of sound laws of the compared languages. 4 As a matter of fact, a lot of the criticism towards lexicostatistical 3 In all fairness it has to be mentioned that while the method appears to work with average languages, certain languages are uniquely conservative and cannot at this point be dated using traditional lexicostatistics. There are known issues when comparing the time-depth of Indo-European languages (IE) acquired through lexico-statistical methods to the results from mainstream comparative IE studies; some accept the Kurgan hypothesis while others instead accept the Anatolian hypothesis, and the debate is still ongoing. A noteworthy but far from uncontroversial example of ultra-conservatism is Kusunda, a language in Nepal, which appears to have a rather clear genetic language relationship, to Indo-Pacific languages (cf. Whitehouse, P., Usher, T., Ruhlen, M. and Wang, W.S-Y. 2004) that would go back perhaps years (!)(cf. Bowler, J.M., Johnston, H., Olley, J.M., Prescott, J.R., Roberts, R.G., Shawcross, W. & Spooner, N.A. 2003) according to lexicostatistical methods all lexical traces should have completely vanished at this point, and yet the relationship seems to remain strangely and unexpectedly clear. I postulate that other exceptions, of too rapid change, may be expected from languages that have experienced extremely frequent language contacts, social upheaval, (artificial) scholastic reforms and spread to groups of speakers of completely different original languages, and which may include English, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Norwegian Bokmål. 4 This second stage, that is the changes by sound laws, consists of the traditional comparative historical method (and could here also be called Modified Etymostatistics or, perhaps, Phono-Glottochronology). methods is rooted in its usage as a replacement for normal comparative work, and, in particular, its application to possible language families where no comparative work has yet been done (for example Pama- Nyungan, as studied by Dixon). Deployment of the methods used herein into Uralic and Indo- European studies can be argued to be control experiments. The question should be: do we get sensible results and what does this imply for the validity of lexicostatistical results in general? 1.4. More recently, different statistical tools and methods have been employed and presented for dating the separation of languages. A very recent example pertaining to the Uralic languages includes Syrjänen, K. et al & Honkola, T., et al (using Bayesian phylogenetic analysis). An example from the dating of Indo-European languages is found in Bouckaert, et al. 2012, while the Uralic and Indo-European languages were statistically compared to each other in terms of the Swadesh word list in Kassian, A., et al (also using Bayesian phylogenetic analysis). In particular, borrowings and how they are handled in the analysis often cause huge discrepancies in the results. Such results, while often lauded by news media, often have problems of their own, one of which is the arrival at very much older datings for various proto-language stages than what is usually accepted by mainstream linguistics. In the dating of Indo-European languages, for example, different methods and results are often presented, agreeing either with the Anatolian homeland hypothesis or the Kurgan hypothesis, while for example the work of Syrjänen s team arrived at higher time depths for various proto-languages than what is currently accepted by most Uralists. With such techniques, systematic sound laws are rarely employed for the determination of true cognates, thus differentiating them from 2

15 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws borrowings, the difference obviously being very important for the outcome of the results. To this author, the determination of actual cognates seemingly often boils down to too much guesswork in the absence of clearly defined sound correspondences, with the resulting lack of proof leading to unacceptably high margins of error in many studies. While sound laws are indeed an after-construction derived from lexical comparisons 5 such laws should regularly be employed in finding and comparing additional cognates. I note that a specific problem with this kind of analysis is the presence of synonyms, one of which may be vernacular; e.g. Fin. missä and kussa (see Appendix). In order to solve this and eliminate internal diversity as much as possible, I have explicitly based the comparison on literary, standard Finnish Hence, the study performed in this paper takes great care, as far as is reasonable for this large a data set, in formulating all cognates in terms only of what is provable both by regular and irregular, but often observable, sound changes. The modern starting point in the dating is set to the year 2010 when most of the lexical data was collected. Any lexical, orthographical or semantic errors are mine since I am unfortunately only a fluent speaker of Finnish and not of Estonian, North Saami or Moksha Mordvin. Indeed, some lexical items are very difficult to analyze regarding cognacy according to the given lexicostatistical rules and principles. Some new possible cognate suggestions between the Uralic languages will also be given in the appendix and some possibly hitherto non-discussed sound correspondences are given in the tabulated sound changes of Moksha. 5 That is to say they are in the heuristic phase of the work: we find similar words and construct sound changes, but these sound changes are then used predictably to find cognates not at all similar, e.g. Finnish hiiri mouse and Hungarian egér mouse In this study, Finnish was chosen as the token language to which to compare the others. The compared languages were chosen specifically to have separated in a tree-like model at different time depths Estonian, Northern Saami and Moksha and these were thus limited to before the Finno-Volgaic period. 6 Sound law analyses complemented the lexical comparison of the Swadesh-200 list for these languages in order to find the exact semantically unchanged cognates between them. This places the results within a more broadly accepted linguistic methodology (as has often been suggested for lexicostatistics but has actually not been carried out in detail as far as this author can ascertain). Naturally, the sound changes are more numerous the higher the time depth. The obtained root glottochronologic results were then, if possible, compared to the dating results obtained through paleontology, archaeology and genetics. 1.7 It must be noted that with this methodology and these results I do not claim that all languages change at a constant rate; rather, logically, there are periods of faster change and of slower change, which eventually do result in an average speed of change, and which is what the proposed retention factor of lexical change should represent. I imagine that the socio-linguistic conditions for language change are very different for hunter-gatherers and farmers/city dwellers. R.M.W. Dixon s punctuated equilibrium hypothesis referring to his large body of work, particularly 1997, 6 I generally regard Proto-Finno-Volgaic merely as a lexical layer. This limited time depth was chosen to avoid any potential problems with the proposed alternative bush (cf. Häkkinen, K. 1984), linear comb and rake models (cf. Salminen, T. 2002) of the Uralic language family group. It also eliminates any possible problems that might arise from a case where there never has been a Proto-Uralic language, but merely a large Lingua Franca (cf. Wiik, K. 2002). On the other hand, others have instead divided Proto-Uralic into Western and Eastern Uralic (cf. Itkonen, E. 1966; Häkkinen, J. 2009), an agreeable take. 3

16 Peter S. Piispanen 2002 may support this hypothesis as it suggests that stationary hunter-gatherer groups will experience very slow grammatical convergence often with lexical retention (e.g. Australia, New Guinea) whereas expansive farmer/pastoralist groups will show a typical language tree with substratum effects from displaced languages. 7 The patterns and speed of language may no doubt change depending on social structure as well as geographic surroundings (for example, compare the Eurasian plainlands vs. the New Guinean jungle and mountains; these factors has been discussed by Nichols, J. 1992, passim). These factors probably mean different rates of language change for the language groups studied here with the exception of the nomadic Saami population; the languages studied in this work should mostly relate to settled populations. As such, the majority of results by the methodology used here may represent an approximate statistical dating result of when the studied proto-language was spoken somewhere. 2. Traditional dating of the Uralic language tree 2.1. Throughout the years a number of datings and places of origin of the Uralic languages employing several different methods have been presented. A select few of these are presented in the table below (summarized from: Anttila, R. 1989:301, Kallio, P. 2006, Janhunen, J & Honkola, T. et al. 2013:1248 here adding further materials to the table presented by Kallio). Ref. PU PFU PFP PFV EPF LPF Kettunen & Vaula 4000 BCE 2500 BCE 1000 BCE 1000 BCE 1938 Toivonen However, it must be noted that this hypothesis has been heavily criticized from various angles since its conception in 1997, see, for example: Crowley, T. 1999: ; Watkins, C. 2001:44-63; Janda, R. & Joseph, B. 2003: 3-180; Koch, H. 2004: 17-60; Campbell, L. & Poser, W.J. 2008: BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE Décsy BCE 2500 BCE 1500 BCE 400 BCE 1 CE 1000 CE Hajdú CE 1975 BCE BCE BCE BCE Korhonen CE 1981 BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE Anttila BCE 5000 BCE 3000 BCE 1500 BCE 1250 BCE Taageperä BCE 2100 BCE 1500 BCE 1400 BCE 1000 BCE Kallio CE BCE BCE Janhunen CE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE Honkola et al BCE 3900 BCE 3700 BCE? 3200 BCE 1200 BCE? 800 BCE? Abbreviations: PU (Proto-Uralic), PFU (Proto-Finno-Ugric), PFP (Proto-Finno-Permic), PFV (Proto-Finno-Volgaic), EPF (Earlier Proto-Finnic or Proto-Finno-Saamic), LPF (Later Proto-Finnic), BCE (Before Common Era), CE (Common Era) The table well shows the contrasts between various estimates and methods. 11 Clearly, the dating of the various proto-languages is difficult for several reasons. The perhaps currently accepted dating of the Proto-Uralic language places it at around BCE A modified version of Janhunen s (2009) previously published Uralic time depth table is presented below. It gives the representative languages with the number of speakers 8 The datings of Kallio are mainly based on archeological/paleolinguistic findings. 9 Janhunen notes that the south-to-north dimension of the Uralic language belt has a chronological depth of less than two millennia, but the geographic length of the east-to-west chain and the Mesolithic cultural level reflected by Proto-Uralic suggest a very early dating for the language family as a whole. The first split must have taken place before any contact with the Indo-Europeans due to the lack of loanwords in the earliest branches. Proto-Uralic itself is likely at a level earlier than the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European (namely Indo-Hittite). It is noted that Janhunen s dating estimates appear to be based under the assumption that a fully formed protolanguage forms every five hundred years. 10 The datings of Honkola et al. are based on the principles of Bayesian phylogenetics. It also very tentatively estimates the breakup of Hungarian and the Ob-Ugric languages from Proto- Uralic to 3300 BCE, while the Ob-Ugric languages separated in 1900 BCE. The study notes that Mari separated from Proto- Finno-Volgaic in 3200 BCE, while Erzya broke up in 2900 BCE. The great difference between these dating estimates and those of mainstream linguists is noteworthy and seemingly suggest a scenario something akin to the suggested breakup of Proto- Uralic first into West and East Uralic as has been suggested in recent years (Häkkinen, J. 2009). 11 Furthermore, one could divide up the estimates into different schools of thoughts, for example: M. Korhonen (traditional), K. Wiik (long time-depth), J. Janhunen (somewhat long time-depth), J. Häkkinen (shallow time-depth), and so on. 4

17 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws (mostly as given at the World Ethnologue website) and previously estimated time of separation from the Proto-language. The languages compared in this study have been underlined in bold for clarity, and represent the time depths in the rightmost columns of the table above. 0. Finnish + Para-Finnish Modern time 2010 CE Finnish (~5.7 millions) (+ Meänkieli and Kven) 1. Finnic (LPF) 1 CE 1000 CE Estonian (1.05 million) Võro ( spk.) Ingrian (360 spk.) Karelian Proper ( spk.) Ludic (3 000 spk.) Olonetsian ( spk.) Livonian (2 spk.) Veps (5 750 spk.) Votic (15 spk.) 2. Finno-Saamic (EPF) 1250 BCE 1 CE Western Saamic: Southern Saami (600 spk.) Ume Saami (20 spk.) Pite Saami (20 spk.) Lule Saami (2 000 spk.) Northern Saami ( spk.) Eastern Saamic: Kainu Saami (extinct) Kemi Saami (extinct in the 19th century) Inari Saami (300 spk.) Akkala Saami (extinct in the 21st century) Kildin Saami (500 spk.) Skolt Saami (400 spk.) Ter Saami (2-10 spk.) 3. Finno-Mordvinic Erzya ( spk.) Moksha ( spk.) 4. Finno-Volgaic PFV 1500 BCE 400 BCE Hill Mari ( spk.) Meadow Mari ( spk.) Merja (extinct in the 17th century) Muroma (extinct in the 16th century) Meshcherian (extinct in the 16th century) 5. Finno-Permic PFP 3000 BCE 1000 BCE Komi-Zyrian ( spk.) Komi-Permyak ( spk.) Udmurt ( spk.) 6. Finno-Ugric PFUg 5000 BCE 2100 BCE Hungarian (12.5 millions) 6b. Ob-Ugric Khanty ( spk.) Mansi (2 750 spk.) 6c. Northern Samoyed Forest Enets (20 spk.) Tundra Enets (10 spk.) Nenets ( spk.) Nganasan (500 spk.) Yurats (extinct) 6d. Southern Samoyed Kamassian (extinct in the 20th century) Mator (extinct in the 19th century) Selkup (1 640 spk.) 7. Uralic PU 7000 BCE 3500 BCE 8. Pre-Uralic Pre-PU Tundra Yukaghir (150 spk.) Para-Uralic Kolyma Yukaghir (50 spk.) Para-Uralic Additionally, prospective Para-Uralic entities have been found in the Yukaghiric languages (cf. Collinder, B & 1957, Fortescue, M (also additionally arguing for Eskaleut and Chukchi-Kamchatkan as Para-Uralic entities), Rédei, K. 1999, Wurm. S.A. 2001:27, Piispanen, P.S. 2013, 2015 & 2016) and perhaps also in the Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages (cf. Blažek, V. 2006). 3. The lexicostatistical method 3.1. The basis of the method used in this paper is according to the postulates of Starostin s etymological statistics (Starostin, S. 2000) given below verbatim: 1. In every language there are some roots that are original, i.e. not borrowed during the period of separate existence of this language. According to preliminary estimates, there are not much more than two or three hundred roots of this type in any modern language These roots have different frequencies of occurrence, in other words they have different probabilities of being found in a chosen text The frequency of occurrence (as just defined) of a given root in some language at a fixed period of time, t, is stable, and does not depend (or hardly depends) on the type of text. 4. All roots can age their frequency of occurrence gradually approaches zero, after which the root is considered to have disappeared from the language. At the same time, however, the rate of loss of different roots is not identical: roots, like words, may be divided into stable and less stable The loss of roots from a language proceeds at a steady rate that is, from some set of roots, characterized by a fixed frequency, over a given period, Δt, a fixed number of roots will be lost. 12 Here it must be assumed that Starostin referred to very old protolanguages such as Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European or perhaps languages from even higher time depths. 13 i.e. there are differences between, for example, the rate of borrowing for cultural, technical, social and basic lexical items. 14 The Swadesh-200 word list is considered to be a list of more stable word items. 5

18 Peter S. Piispanen Also, according to Starostin, the shorter Swadesh-100 word list will have a cognacy rate of 90 % or more for dialects, % for closely related languages (such as Slavic, Romance, Germanic and Turkic), % for Indo-European, % for Uralic and 5-9 % for macro-families such as Nostratic. The rate of word loss from the Swadesh list has been calculated to 14 of 100 items per 1000 years (giving a retention constant of 0.86). The formula to calculate the point of divergence for two genetically related languages is thus: Δt = log c / 2 log r ; where Δt = point of language divergence before present (in years), c =current rate of cognacy between two languages (0-1.00) and r is the so-called glottochronological constant of In this study the larger Swadesh-200 word list has been employed for increased granularity and accuracy It must be noted that while the Swadesh- 200 list is perhaps not completely culturally or faunistically neutral it does seem to work well to describe Uralic cultural vocabulary. 16 As a non-speaker of Estonian, North Saami and Moksha it has been difficult to determine the most neutral lexical item appropriate for the comparisons; however, in order to not miss cognates between any of the languages, synonymic items, if they are deemed semantically identical, have been included in the analysis. Likewise, dialectal items are sometimes presented. In other cases dictionaries have been able to provide original cognates, but which are now clearly 15 Clearly the word choices consist of excellent eternal words that well fulfill the postulates of lexicostatistics. Should the list ever be extended, good candidates to add could be to go (Fin. mennä), home dwelling/nest/hole (Fin. pesä), a lot (Fin. paljon), to swallow (Fin. niellä) and ear (Fin. korva). 16 For example, since there are no snakes in New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, Antarctica and Ireland a word for snake (found in the Swadesh-200) would not be a good basic word to include in the studies of languages in those areas, in contrast to all Uralic lands where snakes are plentiful. semantically different from each other, and hence considered different words in the study. 3.3 Further clarifications of the method of cognate selection are required. Acceptable cognates in the study are the words that clearly share a common origin in an earlier proto-language, are traceable through sound changes and retain the same semantic meaning still today in the two languages, i.e. semantically unchanged cognates as reasonably proven by sound laws. As such, a word can have been subject even to unexplainable or non-categorized phonemic changes, since not all sound changes in the studied languages are yet known (categories 9, 34 and 36 in the respective tables for Estonian, North Saami and Moksha sound changes), but still be considered a cognate. In contrast, words that are clearly borrowed only into that particular and narrow branch of languages, invented into that language or a recent proto-language or semantically changed words from what appears to have been the original meaning in the older protolanguage (categories 10, 35 and 38 in the respective tables for Estonian, North Saami and Moksha sound changes) are disqualified as cognates in the study since they have been subject to the mechanisms of change. Finally, lexical items that are cognates with the common Finnish form are marked in blue color. Assuming uniformitarianism, items with a group of words in the entry of both Finnish and the compared language are particularly revealing in their comparison; if at least half of such word groups are judged cognates that word entry gets checked as a cognate set, indicating close genetic relationship. Relevant proto-items for the comparisons are given (usually as UEW refs.). Relevant, proposed sound changes for each language pertain only to the upmost lexical item if several are presented. 6

19 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws 3.4. In addition to the references given in the appendix of each respective language comparison, the following basic etymological dictionaries have also been employed for further tracing the Finnish language: Collinder, B. 1955, Häkkinen, K 2011, SSA , SKES and UEW Estonian Finnish 4.1. Estonian is known to be one of the closest relatives of Finnish. Finnish has at least words, and if all adverbials and archaic words are included the total is words (cf. Turunen, A. in Sinor, D. 1988:79). The majority of the modern language (80 %) was derived from the Earlier Proto-Finnic language with the remaining being borrowings and inventions. 17 Estonian too has the same amount of original words, borrowings and inventions. Most borrowings in Finnish are from Swedish, while in Estonian they are mostly from High and Low German (between the 13 th century to the 1940s), but also from Finnish (since the 1870s), Old and Modern Russian and Latvian. 18 Still, the majority of the languages words originate from Proto-Uralic, and the number of similar lexical items and the cognacy rate can be expected to be relatively high. The distribution and diachronic properties of the word borrowings suggest a geographic movement of the ancestral forms of Finnic (and Estonian and Saami) across the forest belt between the Urals and the Baltic Sea (cf. Janhunen, J. 2009). Estonian and Finnish likely separated sometime after Later Proto-Finnic, whose homeland may have included southern Finland, Estonia and Karelia 19 (cf. Kallio, P. 2009), and which occurred, according to the various estimates in the previous table, around 1 A.D A.D While the languages may be similar from a syntactic standpoint, they differ somewhat from a phonologic standpoint. The known sound changes from Later Proto-Finnic into modern Estonian 20 are summarized below: Sound Change 1 Exchanging second or last syllable voiceless plosives into voiced plosives Example: Fi. jalka Est. jalg foot 2 The loss of vowel harmony Example: Fi. suolet Est. söakus guts 3 Assimilations (usually progressive) of the types: Example: -tk- -> -kk- ; -lt- -> -ll- ; -ns- -> -s(s)- 4 Only verb roots are compared, completely ignoring the infinitive endings Example: Fi. -tv(k) Est. -mv 5 Other sound changes, such as elimination through gradation Example: Fi. sidon Est. seon I bind 6 The loss of certain diphthongs 21 Example: Fi. punainen Est. punane red 7 Elimination of end consonant 8 Elimination of end vowel 9 Unexplainable sound changes and non-categorized sound changes. Example: iśä -> isa father 10 Borrowed, invented or semantically changed word Notes: The sound laws are summarized from Turunen, A. in Sinor, D. 1988: By comparing Finnish and Estonian cognates on the Swadesh-200 list (Appendix A) 22 while taking into account the sound laws, the cognacy rate has been determined. Proposed sound changes are given in the last column for each word. 17 Although there are only about undivided stems in the Balto-Finnic languages (cf. Turunen, A. in Sinor. D. 1988:81) the rest being changes acquired through local changing circumstances of life. Of course Finnish is not a discrete Proto- Finnic branch, but rather a merger of at least three or so branches, with SW Finnish dialects closer to Estonian/Livonian and East Finnish dialects closer to Karelian (Sammallahti, P. 1977). 18 Lexical borrowings: Low German words, High German words, Balto-German 60 words, Swedish words, Russian words, Latvian words and Finnish 100 words (cf. Sinor, D. 1988). All in all Finnic has about 200 loanwords of apparently Baltic origin (cf. Kallio, P. 2008). 19 As is rather strongly suggested by the various strata of loanwords in the different languages: Finnish, Estonian and Northern Saami. A list of loanwords from various eras appearing in Finnish (and closely related languages) can be found in Itkonen, E. (1966). 20 i.e. after the assibilation took place, ex: *tulka > sulka (feather), *käti > käsi (hand). 21 It should be noted that while Estonian has 25 diphthongs and Finnish only 16, these are much more commonly used in Finnish. 22 Lexicon in Estonian-Finnish cognate appendix is collected from Greenberg, J.H. (2002) common Estonian dictionaries. 7

20 Peter S. Piispanen The cognacy rate, i.e. words derived from the same original word, is 149 words out of 205, i.e The so-called glottochronologic formula gives: Log / 2 log 0.86 = = 1058 BP This places the split between Estonian and Finnish at around 952 A.D. As such, the result is reasonable and fits rather well with previous dating results (i.e. LPF: 1 AD 1000 AD). 23 The cognacy rate between Estonian and Finnish is higher than expected perhaps suggesting a few hard-to-determine borrowings already before the 18 th century. 5. Northern Saami Finnish 5.1. The Saami languages are spoken in a very large area ranging down from south of Idre in Dalarna (Dalecarlia in English) in central Sweden to the tip of the Kola Peninsula in Russia along the coast in an area km wide. The representative among the Saamic languages was chosen to be Northern Saami which has the most speakers. 24 While three different hypotheses have been presented on the origin of the Saamic languages 25 the currently believed theory is that Proto-Saamic developed from Earlier Proto-Finnic (cf. Korhonen, M. 1981:23). 26 As such, Saamic apparently branched off much earlier than Estonian (as Pre-Proto-Saamic), which probably happened during the period of It is perhaps noteworthy that this places the split at perhaps approximately the same time, BP, as the tentative split between Catalonian and Spanish (strict cognacy rate 0.72; Harris, M. 1997). 24 More specifically, Northern Saami belongs to the Western Saamic languages and is one of ten current Saami languages. 25 Namely these: (a) Proto-Saamic developed when Samoyed people exchanged their original language with Proto-Finnic at some stage (language exchange hypothesis), (b) The speakers of Proto-Saami had originally spoken an unknown language, but started to heavily borrow from Finnish lexicon and morphology (contact borrowing hypothesis) and (c) Proto-Saamic developed from Earlier Proto-Finnic, which is the main, current theory for which evidence can be readily found. 26 Namely: Earlier Proto-Finnic -> Middle Proto-Finnic + Proto- Saamic. Proto-Saamic then produced Western Saamic and Eastern Saamic. BCE 700 CE (see Table above). More precisely, Proto-Saamic is believed to have disintegrated into a very diverse dialect by the middle of the first millennium A.D. while less than perhaps a millennium earlier (Pre-)Proto- Saamic had been a dialect of Proto-Finno- Saamic (cf. Kallio, P. 2009:38). Interestingly, Proto-Finno-Saamic seems to have taken Pre- and Paleo-Germanic loanwords that spread from about 1700 BCE and onwards (cf. Kallio, P. 2009). Importantly, Aikio s research includes a language exchange hypothesis showing substratum vocabulary apparently, based on phonology, as being contemporaneous with Scandinavian loanwords, which must have consequences for the dating of the break-up of (Pre-)Proto- Saamic (Aikio, A. 2004, 2006, 2007). Further, some Proto-Indo-European, 27 Proto- Indo-Iranian or Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords 28 are found in the Saamic languages (cf. Kallio, P. 2009), but which are missing from Finnish, and thus suggest old origins, branching and northwards coastal language contacts for Pre- Proto-Saamic speakers, 29 likely in southern Finland during the Iron Age. While researchers such as Aikio and Junttila clearly contend that all Baltic items in the Saamic stem from indirect borrowings through Finnic, the viewpoint is probably correctly countered, for example, by the research of L-G. Larsson (2001: ). Common Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords that exist in Finnish (cf. Sammallahti, P. 1990), but only partly in Saamic are dated to ca BCE (cf. Kallio, P. 2008), suggesting Finno- 27 Example: Proto-Indo-European *ḱṷōn > Proto-Balto-Slavic *ś(u/v)ōn dog -> Early Proto-Saamic *śa/ōvonji > Proto-Saamic *śuovunjë > Northern Saami šūvon well-trained dog. 28 Of the about 40 Baltic loanwords from this era, 30 also have cognates in Finnic. Finnic, however, has at least five times more Baltic borrowings than Saamic. 29 Which is also implied by recent genetic studies of Saami populations in comparison to other European and Asian subsets (for example in: Tambets, K. et al. (2004)). 8

21 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws Saamic linguistic uniformity, but areal divergence at that time. Other interesting borrowing and language contact phenomena in Northern Saami are also indicated (Piispanen, P.S. 2012). While the modern words originate from the same roots, numerous language innovations and sound changes render cognate recognition and understanding difficult. Still, the languages no doubt have a relatively close genetic relationship. Additionally, semantic changes sometimes make understanding more difficult. 30 The Saamic languages have around 550 words completely lack etymology (cf. Sammallahti, P., 1998:125) 31 as such, these words have no cognates in the other Uralic languages or in any other, known language. 32 It can be assumed that the ancestral speakers of Saami have been into language contact with some other, now likely extinct language (cf. Aikio, A. 2006). At this time depth intelligibility between Finnish and Saamic can no longer be expected, and the cognacy rate will be relatively low The known sound changes from Earlier Proto-Finnic into various stages of Saamic are summarized below: Earlier Western Earlier Northern 30 An example would be Fin. pakkanen frost, cold <> N. Saami báhkas warm (< Proto-Saamic *pakka- hot, cold ). 31 Examples: atnit (to use), bivvat (keep warm), coagis (low, shallow), čáhppat (black), čiekčat (to kick), heavdni (spider), jalŋŋis (stump), jorrát (to purr), láhppit (to loose, to spend), nagir (to sleep), njivli (mucus), ohca (lap), oakti (downpour), ravgat (to fall), sarrit (blackberry), šiehttat (to agree) and uhcci (small). A few of these words are present in the Swadesh-200 word list. 32 Proto-Saamic speakers may have assimilated several layers of earlier languages in Europe from the early hunter-gatherers they encountered (cf. Aikio, A. 2006). However, it has also been theorized that when speakers of Uralic languages arrived in the eastern Baltic Sea region (Textile Ware, ca BCE) they may have met people already there and in Finland who spoke versions of the Pre-Uralic languages they had brought with them during the Stone-Age waves from the Volga-Oka region (Sperring Ware, ca BCE and/or Combed Ware Style 2, ca BCE). These factors, of course, would make the identification of non-uralic substrate items in Finnic more difficult to identify (cf. Kallio, P. 2009). Proto- Finnic Saamic Proto- Finnic Saami 1 *-š(t,k,n)- -*jh(t,k,n)- 16 *ä á, i(e), ea 17 *a-,*-a- á, uo Earlier Proto- 18 *o uo, o, oa Proto- Finnic Saamic 2 *-k(l,ń,j)- *-v(l,ń,j)- 19 *ō uo 3 *-kj- *-kš'- 20 *e a, ie, ea 4 *-mp- *-mb- 21 *ē ie 5 *-nt- *-nd- 22 *u o 6 *-ŋk- *-ŋg- 23 *ū u 7 *ś- / -ś- *ć- / -č- 24 *ü a 8 *-š- *-s- 25 *i a 9 *-x- *-k- 26 *ī i 10 *-č- *-c- 27 *-VKV- -VKKV- 11 *-t(n,v)- *-r(n,v) 28 *p-,t-,k- *b-,d-,g- 12 *-tj- *-rš- 29 *u(o)-a o-i 13 *-p(δ,l,r)- *-b(δ,l,r)- 14 *-kη *-gη- 15 *-č'm- *-зˇ'm- 30 Assimilations (usually regressive) of the type: Example: -nt- -> -nd- -> -dd- 31 Only verb roots are compared, completely ignoring the endings Example: Fi. -tv(k) Saam. -Vt 32 Other sound changes, such as insertions Example: -au- -> -av- & -ok- -> -ohk- 33 Elimination of end consonant 34 Unexplainable, non-categorized sound changes 35 Borrowed, invented or semantically changed word Notes: V = vowel. The Western Saamic languages are Southern, Ume, Pite, Lule and Northern Saami. The sound laws are summarized from Sammallahti, P & Korhonen, M Comparing Finnish and Northern Saami cognates on the Swadesh-200 list (Appendix B), 33 while taking into account both known word etymology (mainly Sammallahti, P. 1998) and, importantly, the Àlgu tietokanta and the sound laws (as outlined above and presented in Appendix B), yields a cognacy rate of 82 words from 205 available words, i.e or 40.0 %. 34 The proposed sound changes are 33 Lexicon in Northern Saami-Finnish cognate appendix is collected from: Sammallahti, P. (1990), Sammallahti, P. (1998), Korhonen, M. (1981), Greenberg, J.H. (2002), and various dictionaries and from the Álgu tietokanta: Further, Professors Erling Wande and Mikael Svonni are gratefully acknowledged for help with Northern Saami glossary. 34 It has been suggested that there are a number of Finnic loanwords in Northern Saami, i.e. not inherited words, some of which are found on the Swadesh-200 list (cf. Aikio, A and Sammallahti, P. 1990). The proposed loans are items 74, 146, 161, 186 & 204. This presents a possible conundrum where a language may have borrowed words from another branch of a 9

22 Peter S. Piispanen given in the last column for each word. The socalled glottochronologic formula gives: Log / 2 log 0.86 = = 3038 BP This places the split between Northern Saami and Finnish at around 1028 BCE The result fits rather well with earlier estimates (i.e. EPF: 1250 BC 1 AD). 35 This split concretely represents Pre-Proto-Saamic, which much later became Proto-Saamic, the ancestor of all Saamic languages. 6. Moksha Finnish 6.1. Moksha (and Erzya) are Mordvinic languages that originated from Proto-Finno- Mordvinic, perhaps as early as 1500 BCE. A third of the current Mordvinic speakers live in the Republic of Mordovia, a federal subject of Russia. The languages have fairly certainly been spoken in the area already since at least 1 CE, and the ancestors of the Gorodets culture of 500 CE are believed to have been speakers of the Mordvinic languages. There are currently Mokshan and Erzyan speakers, most living in the old RSFSR area. 36 The two languages are assumed to genetically related language, or perhaps even adjusted its own form of the word with the form of the related language. Borrowing itself is usually one of the mechanisms of language change that would make its inclusion as a cognate in lexicostatistics non-valid. However, there may be no way of knowing what the original Saamic word would have been before borrowing, or if Saami-speakers have merely corrected their speech to more closely resemble that of Finns with whom they were in close contact. If the proposed items are indeed true loanwords into North Saami at a stage later than Proto- Saamic and their inclusion as cognates were to be non-allowed, the cognacy rate would instead change to 77 words out of 205 (37.56 %), yielding a dating of 3246 BP. 35 It is interesting to note that the Saamic languages between them have cognacy rates of % on the Swadesh-100 word list (cf. Sammallahti, P. 1988:37). For this reason the Finnish- Northern Saami cognate comparison is quite representative as a whole for the Saamic languages. The loanwords refer to various proto-linguistic stages, eg. Indo-Iranian loanwords may go back to PFU times, etc. Further, curiously, the UEW reports several North Saami words that seem to have cognates only in the Samoyed languages, but nowhere else, for example North Saami čävddë (skin, bark) & Nenets śāpt (bark), North Saami čâllât (rub the antlers against something to get the skin off) & Nenets śelā- (id.) and North Saami čoaw'je (stomach, belly) & Kamassian šшjǝ (id.). 36 The speakers of Moksha live in Western Mordva, and its literary language is based on the dialects of Krasnoslobodskin have separated around 1000 CE and are no longer mutually intelligible. Mordvinic vocabulary consists of around 30 % each of inherited, invented and loanwords, while 10 % has no known etymology. Inherited vocabulary, of course, is inherited from Proto- Finno-Ugric. Among the invented vocabulary onomatopoetic words can naturally be found; all languages have them, but sometimes, such as in Estonian, onomatopoetic words are created consciously, like was done by Aavik who removed awkward compounds in favor of new Finnish borrowings and artificial new sounds to revitalize standard Estonian (Aavik, J. 1919). Loanwords in the language 37 can be dated to Finno-Volgaic, 38 Finno-Permic, 39 Finno-Ugric and even Uralic times. 40 In general, most loanwords are derived from Germanic, Baltic, 41 Indo-Iranian, 42 Turkic, 43 Tatar 44 and Russian words. Further, Mordvinic has been heavily influenced by Russian and it can be concluded that earlier speakers have been in intense language contact with speakers of Uralic and other languages (cf. and Temnikov. Erzyan speakers live in Northern and Eastern Mordva, and its literary language, written with the Cyrillic alphabet, is based on the dialect of Kozlovska. Previously there were also speakers of the extinct Muroman and Meshcherian. 37 Examples: meš (bee) & mije- (to sell), both possibly Indo- European items. 38 Example: ĺišmä (horse, from *lešmä, cf. Finnish lehmä (cow)). 39 Example: kunda (cover, lid). 40 For exhaustive lists of loanwords arrived in various eras and protolanguages, see Itkonen, E. (1966) and Häkkinen, J. (2009), and for the layers and sources of loanwords in Uralic, see Comrie, B. (2008:482) and Dahl, Ö. et al (2001). 41 Example: karda, kardo (sheep; Lithuanian gardas). 42 There are 18 such, known words. Mokshan examples: pavas (God, luck), vaŕgas (wolf), śada (a hundred) and śura (horn), as given in Bartens, R. (1999). A curiosity is that there are only 6 such items in Erzya, but 30 in Hungarian. Additionally, there is also at least one apparently pre-ossetic loanword, namely lomań (person, Modern Ossetian lymæn/limæn)(found in the dialects, i.e. Mordvinisches Wörterbuch by H. Paasonen, , presented in Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXIII). A useful source for Moksha Mordvin has been Herrala, E. & Feoktistov, A There are perhaps around 190 such loanwords in Mordvinic from either Bolgar-Turkic or Tatar, as given in Paasonen, H. (1897). 44 Example: baška (except, Tatar baška, id.). Many more examples can be found in Hasselblatt, C. et al. (2011). 10

23 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws Abondolo, D. 1998: ). For these reasons, and due to the high time depth involved, a low cognacy rate between Finnish and Moksha can be expected The known sound changes from Proto- Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric to the Moksha language are summarized below: PU or PFU Moksha PU or PFU Moksha 1 *-i- -e- 16 *-kk- -k- 2 *-ü- -e- 17 *t- d- 3 *-ä- -e- 18 *-t- -d- 4 *-u- -o- 19 *-tt- -t- 5 *(-)e-ä (-)i-e 20 *-p- -v- 6 *-ī- -i- 21 *-kp- -kb- 7 *-ē- -e- 22 *-pp- -p- 8 *-ō- -a- 23 * ń- n- 9 *-ū- -u- 24 *-ŋ- -v- or ø- 10 *-a -ä 25 *č- š- 11 *-ä -ə 26 *sä-, se-, śv-, śv-, si- śe- 12 *-e -ä or -ə 27 *-es- -iz- 13 *ü- v- 28 *-ś- sometimes -ź- 14 *-VkV- sometimes -VvV- 29 *w-,-w, -wsometimes v-, v-, -v- 15 *-eke- -ijä 30 *- δ- -d-, -t- 31 Elimination of the first or last syllable Examples: *šukšna > šna & *śüdämi > śeďi 32 Synkope, i.e. elimination of end vowel 33 Only verb roots are compared, completely ignoring the endings Example: Fi. -tv(k) Moks. -Vms 34 Other changes, such as the voicing of consonant clusters Example: *tulka > tolga 35 Palatalizations, such as t- into t -. Examples: *tä- > t ä & *näke- > ńäjǝms 36 Uncategorized sound changes such as insertion, suffixation or irregular vowel changes. Words for which most - but not all - sound changes are known are also placed into this category. 37 Further sound correspondences between Finnish and Moksha (see the text and footnote 41 for details) 38 Borrowed, invented or semantically changed word 39 Observed common change counter to the established sound laws (i.e rule 4): *-o- > -u- Notes: V = vowel. The sound laws are summarized from the works of Gábor Bereczki in Sinor, D., 1988: For example, *t- means that the sound change pertains to the first syllable of the word, and *-ä pertains to the last syllable. It is further noted that, in certain cases, words - particularly often verbs - seem to have changed contrary to the established sound laws. 45 In addition to the sound changes presented in the table, several other not completely regular consonant cluster sound correspondences between Finnish and Moksha cognates could be observed 46 (such cognates are marked with 37 among the suggested sound changes) Comparing the Swadesh-200 word list for the two languages, 47 while taking into account the outlined sound laws, gives 73 cognates out of 205 words, i.e. a cognacy rate of or 35.6 %. The so-called glottochronologic formula gives: Log / 2 log 0.86 = = 3423 BP This would place the Finno-Mordvinic split at a rather high time depth of around 1413 BCE and chronologically shortly after the Finno- Volgaic split (a lexical layer estimated by most at around 1500 BCE). It is an interesting note that the cognates in Moksha Mordvin are more often found among the nouns than among the verbs. Indeed, the sound changes of verbs appear to have been complicated. Moksha Mordvin (MM) words are often very long, which may perhaps be due to more recent grammaticalizations (keeping the cognates; example: PFU *jäŋe ice (UEW 93) > Fin. jäätyä to freeze, MM äjǝnda(kšńǝ)ms to freeze ), 48 radical semantic changes or 45 For example: *o- ->u- (noted as rule 39) is observed numerous times. Likewise, the sound k behaves oddly and occasionally changes into unexpected sounds (i.e. other than j, v or g) or completely disappears. Also, the change *ś- -> s-, and other palatalizations, seem to be rather common (noted as rule 35), as is *-e(-) -> -a(-) and perhaps not fully unexpected. While uncategorized sound changes (marked as rule 36) cannot be fully explained, such words can still be cognates. 46 Such sound correspondences would tentatively include (Finnish <-> Moksha) and word item number given in brackets: (-)t- <-> (-)t - (9, 149), s- <-> ś/sť- (68, 86, 125), (-)l(c)- <-> (- )lj(c)- (74, 96, 160, 180, 181), k <-> kj (78, 83), -si <-> -dj (83, 150, 183) and (-)h- <-> (-)sh- (35, 157). Further, I note that Moskhan -ə- appears in prosodically predictable positions. 47 Lexicon in Moksha-Finnish cognate appendix is collected from Abondolo, D. (1998), Greenberg, J.H. (2002) and Moksha and Erzya glossaries found on the Internet. 48 As can be inferred from Bartens, R. (1999: ). 11

24 Peter S. Piispanen borrowings from both Uralic and non-uralic sources (exchanging the cognates; example: PU *ićä father, big (UEW 78) > Fin. isä father, but MM oćä brother of father instead MM al ä father is used). Clearly, the time depth here is great enough that the similarities between the languages are quickly disappearing, rendering the recognition of true cognates a daunting task. All of these factors lead to a higher margin of error in the analysis and dating of Moksha in this study. Likewise, the known, proposed sound changes are not complete and in some cases not even exhaustive. 7. Khanty Mansi - Hungarian 7.1. Here it is also of interest to discuss the question of Khanty (Ostyak in older literature), Mansi (Vogul in older literature) and Hungarian in greater detail. These Ugric languages originate from the Proto-Ugric (PUg) branch of Proto-Finno-Ugric, and later from Proto-Ob-Ugric (POUg). The cognacy rates on the Swadesh-100 word list between these languages have been reported as a mere 45 % for Khanty and Mansi, 34 % for Mansi and Hungarian and only 28 % for Hungarian and Khanty (cf. Sammallahti, P. in Sinor, D. 1988:499). This suggests that Hungarian split off from Proto-Ugric 49 (and what would become Proto-Ob-Ugric) 4220 BP, i.e. in 2210 BCE a figure that actually fits quite well with later dating estimates of the somewhat earlier Proto-Finno-Ugric of 2000 BCE-3000 BCE Much later the Proto-Ob-Ugric entity broke up into Khantic and Mansic 2647 BP, i.e. in 637 BCE. 50 However, these tentative dates for PUg 49 And later turning into Proto-Finno-Permic, although Hungarian may have prior to this developed from a branch tentatively called Proto-Finno-Hungarian (cf. Sammallahti, P. in Sinor, D. 1988:491) - as suggested by etymological difficulties when comparing Hungarian to Proto-Ob-Ugric and Proto-Finno- Permic - which somewhat complicates the picture. 50 It has been noted by Sammallahti that, while some have dated the disintegration of the Ob-Ugric unity to about the year 500 A.D., the relatively small number of common etymologies do suggest a considerably earlier disintegration (cf. and POUg, respectively, would need to be verified by word comparisons on the larger Swadesh-200 word list while employing sound law changes, as well as complemented by a new dating of Proto-Finno-Ugric itself by the methods outlined in this paper. 8. Results and Conclusions Protolanguage Compared Languages Finnish- Estonian Finnish- Northern Saami Cognacy rate Point of divergence 72.7 % 1058 BP LPF ~ 952 CE 40.0 % 3038 BP 51 EPF ~ 1028 BCE 52 Finnish % 3423 BP PFM~ Moksha PFV ~ 1413 BCE Khanty-Mansi 45 % 2647 BP POUg ~ 637 BCE Hungarian- Khanty 28 % 4220 BP PUg ~ 2210 BCE 8.1. The here obtained results are in rather good accordance with previously established datings done by linguists, suggesting that earlier linguists were on the right track from the start. All obtained points of divergence are, of course, only approximate years, leaving room for a certain margin of error. 53 More noteworthy, the very brief time lapse between the apparent break-up of Finnic- Saamic-Moksha unity and Finnic-Saamic unity may actually cast doubt about the existence of a discrete Proto-Finno-Saamic language. Such a scenario would instead support the idea presented by Itkonen (Itkonen, T. 1997) that there was no such proto-language. At the Sammallahti, P. in Sinor. D. 1988:502). The result above does agree with this hypothesis. 51 Alternatively, due to a possible loanword conundrum (see notes in the Northern Saami section), the cognacy rate may be only 37.6 %, which would yield a somewhat earlier dating of 3246 BP, and EPF ~1236 BCE. 52 This would surprisingly suggest the existence of a Finnic dialect continuum starting with Early Proto-Finnic to change over two thousand years through a tentative Middle Proto- Finnic into Late Proto-Finnic, from which sprung a multitude of languages closely related to modern Finnish. 53 Since most of the used lexical data was collected in 2010, this is the year used with BP to calculate the year of respective proto-language breakup. 12

25 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws same time, however, the relatively late breakup of Finnish and Estonian is in accordance with recent estimates (eg. Kallio) of a relatively late Proto-Finnic language. The results suggest that the lexicostatistical method may work with the Uralic languages back to at least 4000 BP. (North) Saami and Moksha Mordvin appear to have separated from the proto-language that led to Finnish at only a few centuries in between. 8.2 The accuracy of some lexicostatistical methods has been estimated to have an error margin of up to 10 percent (Gell-Mann, M., Peiros, I. and Starostin, G. 2009:16). I suggest that the proper inclusion of sound laws for cognate recognition reduces this margin of error as it eliminates human guesswork of look-alikes possibly at best cutting it down by half or even two thirds. Thus, the error margin in this work is estimated to be approximately 3-5 %, which can be set as the +/- value to any of the above acquired BPvalues. In conclusion, basing comparison on a steadfast phonetic ground probably instead makes the semantic classification the largest problem and source of error of the method. 8.3 Lexicostatistics is often used for languages on which virtually no historical-comparative work has been done. The herein used combination of traditional lexicostatistic methods with detailed traceable, sound change correspondences of cognates should be considered a new and quite innovative methodology, which seemingly allows for more sensible dating result to be obtained. This implicitly also partially confirms the reliability of lexicostatistical methods. 8.4 These results do encourage a future direction of research: the dating of higher and/or lower time depths by select, representative Uralic languages. References Aavik, Johannes 1919: Uute sõnade sõnastik. Sisaldab üle 2000 uue ja haruldasema sõna ühes tuletuslõppude tabeliga [Glossary of new words. Contains over 2000 new and lesser used words with tables of derivational suffixes]. Tartu: Istandik. Abondolo, Daniel 1998: The Uralic Languages, London & New York: Routledge. Aikio, Ante 2004: An essay on substrate studies and the origin of the Saami, Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag, Hyvärinen, I., Kallio, P. & Korhonen, J. (eds.), Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 63, p Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Aikio, Ante 2006: On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory, Journal de la société Finno-Ougrienne, 91, p Aikio, Ante 2007: Etymological nativization of loanwords: a case study of Saami and Finnish, in: Saami Linguistics, Toivonen, I. & Nelson, D. (eds.), John Benjamins, pp Anttila, Raimo 1989: Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2 nd edition, Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bartens, Raija 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys, Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Bengtson, John D. & Ruhlen, Merritt 1994: 14. Global Etymologies,in: On the Origin of Language Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, p Bereczki, Gábor 1988: Geschichte der wolgafinnischen Sprachen, In: The Uralic 13

26 Peter S. Piispanen Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, 1988, Sinor, D. (ed), Leiden, p Blažek, Václav 2006: Chukcho-Kamchatkan and Uralic: lexical evidence of their genetic relationship, Orientalia et Classica XI. Aspects of Comparativistics, 2, Moscow, p Bouckaert, Remco & Lemey, Philippe & Dunn Michael & Greenhill, Simon J., Alekseyenko, Alexander V. & Drummond, Alexei J. & Gray, Russell D. & Suchard, Marc A and, Atkinson, Quentin D. 2012: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family, Science, 337, p Bowler, James M. & Johnston, Harvey & Olley, Jon M. & Prescott, John R. & Roberts, Richard G. & Shawcross, Wilfred & Spooner, Nigel A. 2003: New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia, Nature, 421, p Campbell, Lyle 1986: Comment on Greenberg, Turner, and Zegura, Current Anthropology, 27, p Note: This follows directly after the reviewed article by Greenberg, J. et al. Campbell, Lyle 2001: Beyond the Comparative Method, In: Historical Linguistics th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Blake, B.J., Burridge, K. & Taylor, J. (eds), Melbourne, August 2001 Campbell, Lyle 2004: Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, 2 nd Edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Campbell, Lyle & Poser, William J. 2008: Language Classification, Cambridge, p Collinder, Björn 1940: Jukagirisch und Uralisch, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Comrie, Bernard 2009: The World s major languages, 2 nd Ed, London and New York: Routledge. Crowley, Terry 1999: Book reviews The Rise and Fall of Languages, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 19, p Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds)(2001) The Circum-Baltic Languages, volume 1: Past and Present, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Décsy, Gyula 1965: Einführung in die finnischugrische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward 1997: The Rise and Fall of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK. Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward 2002: Australian Languages: their nature and development (Cambridge Language Surveys), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK, xlii. Fleming, H.C. 1973: Sub-classification in Hamito-Semitic, In: Lexicostatistics in genetic linguistics: proceedings of the Yale conference, Yale University, April 3-4, 1971, Dyen, I. (ed), The Hague & Paris: Mouton & Co., p Fortescue, Michael D. 1998: Language Relations Across Bering Strait, London: Cassell & Co. Gell-Mann, M., Peiros, I. and Starostin, G. (2009) Distant Language Relationship: The Current Perspective, Journal of Language Relationship, 1, p Gray, Russell D. & Atkinson, Quentin D. 2003: Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature, 426, p Collinder, Björn 1957: Survey of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm. 14

27 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws Greenberg, Joseph H. 2002: Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives, volume 2. Lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University Press, California. Greenhill, S.J., Atkinson, Q.D., Meade, A. and Gray, R.D. 2010: The shape and tempo of language evolution, Proc. Biol. Sci., Aug. 22, 277(1693), p Hajdú, Peter 1975: Sukulaisuuden kielellistä taustaa, In: Suomalaisugrilaiset, Hajdú, P. (ed), Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, p Harris, M. & Vincent N. 1997: The Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. Hasselblatt, Cornelius & Houtzagers, Peter & Pareren, Remco van (eds) 2011: Language contact in times of globalization. Amsterdam & New York: Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics. Herrala, Eeva & Feoktistov, A. 1998: Mokšalais-Suomalainen Sanakirja, Turku. Honkola, T., Vesakoski, O., Korhonen, K., Lehtinen, J. Syrjänen, K. & Wahlberg, N. 2013: Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages, J. of Evol. Biol., 26, p Häkkinen, Kaisa 1984: Wäre es schon an der Zeit, den Stammbaum zu fallen? Theorien über die gegenseitigen Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der finnishugrischen Sprachen, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, neue folge 4, 1-4, Wiesbaden. Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa, Journal de la société Finno-Ougrienne, 92, p Itkonen, Erkki 1966: Suomen suvun esihistoria, Tietolipas, 20, p Itkonen, Terho 1997: Reflections on Pre-Uralic and the Sami-Finnic proto-language, Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 54, p Janda, Richard & Joseph, Brian 2003: Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Oxford, p Koch, Harold, 2004: Australian languages: Classification and the Comparative Method, Bowern, Claire & Koch, Harold (eds.), Amsterdam, p Janhunen, Juha 2009: Proto-Uralic what, where, and when? Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 258, p Janhunen, Juha 2008: Some Old World experience in linguistic dating, in: In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology, Bengtson, John D. (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, p Kallio, Petri 2006: Suomen Kantakielen Absoluuttista Kronologiaa, Virittäjä, 1, p Kallio, Petri 2008: On the Early Baltic Loanwords in Common Finnic, In: Evidence and Counter-Evidence: essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt, v1, SSGL 32, Amsterdam, p Kallio, Petri 2009: Stratigraphy of Indo- European Loanwords in Saami. In: Tiina Äikäs (ed.), Máttut - máddagat: The Roots of Saami Ethnicities, Societies and Spaces / Places. Oulu: Publications of the Giellagas Institute 12, p Kassian, A., Zhivlov, M. & Starostin, G. 2015: Proto-Indo-European-Uralic Comparison from the Probabilistic Point of View, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, 43:3-4, p

28 Peter S. Piispanen Kettunen, Lauri & Vaula, Martti 1938: Suomen kielioppi sekä tyyli- ja runo-opin alkeet oppikouluille ja seminaareille. Helsinki: WSOY. Korhonen, Mikko 1981: Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Helsinki. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 2001: Baltic influence in the Finnic languages, in: Circum-Baltic Languages, Volume I: Past and Present, Studies in Language Companion Series, Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing Company, Stockholm University. Nichols, Johanna 1992: Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Paasonen, Heikki : Mordwinisches Wörterbuch. Mordovskij slovar', Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXIII:1-6, Heikkilä, Kaino (ed.), Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Also found online at: Paasonen, Heikki 1897: Die türkische lehnwörter im mordwinischen, Journal de la société Finno-Ougrienne, 15, 2. Piispanen, P.S. 2012: Statistical Dating of Uralic Proto-Languages through Comparative Linguistics with added sound change law analyses, Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series, 14, p Piispanen, Peter 2013: The Uralic-Yukaghiric connection revisited: Sound correspondences of Geminate clusters, SUSA~JSFOu, 94, p Piispanen, Peter 2015: Evaluating the Uralic - Yukaghiric word-initial, proto-sibilant correspondence rules, SUSA~JSFOu, 95, p Piispanen, Peter 2016: A semivowel sound change rule in Yukaghir, Journal of Historical Linguistics, Accepted. Rédei, Károly 1999: Zu den uralischjukagirischen Sprachkontakten, Finnisch- Ugrische Forschungen, 55, p Renfrew, C. & McMahon, A & Trask, L. 2000: Time-Depth in Historical Linguistics, Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Salminen, Tapani 2002: Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies. In: Лингвистический беспредел: сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой. Москва: Издательство Московского университета, Sammallahti, Pekka 1977: Suomalaisten esihistorian kysymyksiä, Virittäjä, 81, p Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages, In: The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, 1988, Sinor, D. (ed), Leiden, p Sammallahti, Pekka 1990: The Sami Language: Past and Present, In: Arctic Languages, Collis, D. R. F. (ed), Paris: Unesco, p Sammallahti, Pekka 1998: The Saami languages An Introduction. Kárášjohka/Karasjok. Sinor, Denis 1988: The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, Leiden. Starostin, Sergei 2000: Comparative-Historical Linguistics and Lexicostatistics, Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, v1, Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, p

29 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws Swadesh, Morris 1950: Salish internal relationships, International Journal of American Linguistics, 16, p Swadesh, Morris 1952: Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts, Proceedings American Philosophical Society, 96, p Swadesh, Morris 1955: Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating, International Journal of American Linguistics, 21, p Syrjänen, Kaj, Honkola, Terhi, Korhonen, Kalle, Lehtinen, Jyri, Vesakoski, Outi & Wahlberg, Niklas 2013: Shedding more light on language classification using basic vocabularies and phylogenetic methods, Diachronica, 30:3, p Taageperä, Rein 1994: The linguistic distances between Uralic languages, Linguistica Uralica, 30, p Tambets, Kristiina & Rootsi, Siiri & Kivisild, Toomas & Help, Hela & Serk, Piia & Loogväli, Eva-Liis & Tolk, Helle-Viivi & Reidla, Maera & Metspalu, Ene & Pliss, Liana & Balanovsky, Oleg & Pshenichnov, Andrey & Balanovska, Elena & Gubina, Marina & Zhadanov, Sergey & Osipova, Ludmila & Damda, Larisa & Voevoda, Mikhail & Kutuev, Ildus & Bermisheva, Marina & Khusnutdinova, Elza & Gusar, Vladislava & Grechanina, Elena & Parik, Jüri & Pennarun, Erwan & Richard, Christelle & Chaventre, Andre & Moisan, Jean-Paul & Barać, Lovorka & Peričić, Marijana & Rudan, Pavao & Terzić, Rifat & Mikerezi, Ilia & Krumina, Astrida & Baumanis, Viesturs & Koziel, Slawomir & Richards, Olga & De Stefano, Gian Franco & Anagnou, Nicholas & Pappa, Kalliopi I. & Michalodimitrakis, Emmanuel & Ferák, Vladimir & Füredi, Sandor & Komel, Radovan & Beckman, Lars & Villems, Richard 2004: The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami the story of Genetic Outliers Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomes, Am.J.Hum.Genet., 74, p Toivonen, Yrjö Henrik 1953: Suomalisugrilaisesta alkukodista, Virittäjä, p Turunen, Aimo 1988: The Balto-Finnic languages, In: The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, 1988, Sinor, D. (ed), Leiden, p Watkins, Calvert 2001:Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.), Oxford, p Whitehouse, Paul, Usher, Timothy, Ruhlen, Merritt and William S-.Y. Wang 2004: Kusunda: An Indo-Pacific language in Nepal, PNAS, vol. 111, no.15, April 13. Wiik, Kalevi 2002: Suomalaisten juuret. Atena Kustannus Oy. World Ethymology website: Wurm, Stephen Adolphe 2001: Atlas of the World s Languages in Danger of Disappearing, Unesco Publishing. (Finnish and Saamic) etymological dictionaries: Àlgu tietokanta: u&kkieli=fi Collinder, Björn 1955: Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary. An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages. Uppsala. Häkkinen, Kaisa 2011: Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, Sanoma Pro. SSA: Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus / Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura

30 Peter S. Piispanen SKES: Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XII. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura UEW: Rédei, Károly : Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Abbreviations PU=Proto-Uralic, PS=Proto-Samoyed, PFU=Proto-Finno-Ugric, PUg = Proto-Ugric, POUg = Proto-Ob-Ugric, PFP=Proto-Finno- Permic, PFV=Proto-Finno-Volgaic, PFM = Proto-Finno-Mordvinic, EPF = Earlier Proto- Finnic (i.e. Proto-Finno-Saamic), MPF = Middle Proto-Finnic and LPF = Later Proto-Finnic, Fin. = Finnish, Kar. = Karelian, Est. = Estonian, N. Saami = North Saami, K. Saami = Kildin Saami, EM = Erzya Mordvin, MM = Moksha Mordvin, KZ = Komi-Zyrian, Udm. = Udmurt, Hung. = Hungarian, Rus. = Russian, Eng. = English, Latv. = Latvian, Lith. = Lithuanian, Swe. = Swedish, PIE = Proto-Indo-European. 18

31 Appendix ABC - Finnish, PFU, Estonian, North Saami and Moksha cognates Peter S. Piispanen Stockholm University No English Finnish PU/PFU/PFP/PFV Estonian Estonian Northern Northern Mokša Mokšan (UEW ref. unless (205 Proposed Saami Saami (205 words) Proposed otherwise noted) words) sound (205 Proposed Sound change words) sound Change change * 1 I minä PU *mv I (294) *mun ma mina 2 mun 1 unchanged mon 4 2 thou sinä PU *tv thou (539) sa 2 don 2 22, 28 ton 4 (sing.) *tun sina 3 he hän (he/she) PFU *sv he, she, it ( ) ta tema 3 10 son 34 śä son 35, 36 se (it) PU *će-~*ći- this, that, the (33-34) 4 we me PU *mv we ( ) me none mii moai (dual) 4 20? miń 36 5 you (plural) te PU *tv you (539) te teie none dii 20?, 28 t iń 35, 36 doai (dual) 5 1 From Proto-Saamic *mon I, cf. Mordvinic mon I. The Finnish first person pronoun originates from a similar, but not identical, word (see the entry of we ). 2 From Proto-Saamic *ton you, cf. Mordvinic ton you. The Finnish first person pronoun originates from a similar, but not identical word (see the entry of you (pl.)). 3 Cf. Fin. tämä this one, i.e. a demonstrative pronoun. 4 From Proto-Saamic *monōj, we, dualis, cf. Fin. minä I.

32 Peter S. Piispanen 6 they he (of people) ne (454) PU *ne this, that, it ( ) nad 1 sii 6 soai (dual) 7 20?, 33 siń 35 7 this tämä PU *tä-~*te~*ti this ( ) see 8 10 dát 16, 28 ťä 12?, 35 8 that tuo PU *to that ( ) too 6 duot, diet, dot 19, 28 tona śa 36 9 here tässä PU *tä~*te~*ti this ( ) siin 9 kohal dás dáppe 11 16, 28 ťasa 35, 36, there siellä PFU *sv he, she, it ( ) seal 2, 8 dohko diehko, doppe 28?, 35 tovǝla who ken kuka PU *ke-~*ki who ( ) PU *ku-~*ko- who, which, what ( ) kes none gii 20?, 28 kijä what mikä PU *me what, thing (296) mida 1, 2 mii none meze 1, 36 5 From Proto-Saamic *tonōj you, dualis, cf. Fin. sinä I. 6 From Proto-Saamic *sij they, and earlier from PFU *sv he, she, it, cf. Fin. he they. 7 From Proto-Saamic *sonōj they, dualis. 8 Cf. Fin. se it. 9 Cf. Fin. siinä there. 10 Cf. Fin. kohalla at the place. 11 From PU *tā-mbē-nē this + comp. suffix + essive suffix. Cf. Fin. tännempänä closer to here. 12 Cf. Fin. tuolla over there. Compare with EM tombale over there. 20

33 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 13 where missä PU *me what, thing (296) kus 10 gosa kosa when milloin PU *ku-~*ko- who, millal 6 goas mǝźarda 38 kun which, what ( ) kunas 15 how miten, PU *ku-~*ko- who, kuidas 1, 3 mot 22?, 34 koda 4, 30 kuinka which, what ( ) got 16 not ei PU *e- not (68-69) ei none ii 20? e-, a, af apak none 17 all kaikki PU *weńćv~*wećv whole, all ( ) kõik 8 buot 15 veśe, väśij 17?, 28, 35 śembä many monet PFU *mone much, a palju moadde 18, 28, 30 lama monta certain quantity (279- máŋga ) ol(l)u 19 some jotkut PFV *jo any, each, the (637) mõni muhtun 20 baljo af lamnja few muutama?pfu *mu other, this, mõni 10 veaháš 25 16, 35 kǝrža 31, Cf.?Fin. in where, inessive. 14 Cf. Fin. koska when, as, interrogative. 15 From Proto-Saamic *puohkḙn. 16 Cf. Fin. paljon a lot, PU *paljv thick, many (UEW ). 17 From Proto-Scandinavian *manga- many, cf. Norwegian mange many. 18 Cf. Fin. laama large amount, cf.?fin. lauma horde. 19 Cf. Fin. moni/monta many. 20 Cf. Fin. muutama a few. 21 Cf. Fin. paljon a lot, PU *paljv thick, many (UEW ). 22 Lit. not many, which is a way of saying a few. 21

34 Peter S. Piispanen that ( ) vähene 23 üksik other muu toinen PFU *mu other, this, that ( ) muu teine none eará 26 16, 20, 35 nona lija one yksi PFU *ykte~*ikte one (81) 23 two kaksi PU *käktä~*kakta two ( ) 24 three kolme PFU *kolme~*kulme three ( ) üks 8 okta 20, 22 fkä, ifkä 12, 13, 36 kaks 8 guokte 17, 28 kafta 36 kolm 8 golbma 20, 28, 32 kolma 12? 25 four neljä PFU *ńeljä~*neljä four ( ) neli 8, 9 njeallje 16, 20, 27, 32 ńil'ä 5, 35, five viisi PU *witte five (577) viis 8 vihtta 20, 32 vet ä 1, 12, 19, big suuri iso PFV *śure porridge (779) PU *ićä father, big suur 8 stuoris 28 19, 35 oću From Proto-Saamic *väšä- a little, cf. Fin. vähän a little. 23 Cf. Fin. vähän a little. 24 Cf. Fin. yksi one, yksikkö unit. 26 Cf. Fin. erä- separate, eräs a certain. 27 Lija may be a Baltic borrowing. 28 From Proto-Germanic *stōra- big, large, i.e. a loanword. Alternatively, Fin. suuri big may be a separate invention from PFV *śure porridge (UEW 779), and thus would be a different cognate. 29 ińä big is also used, which originates from Proto-Uralic *enä big, much, many (UEW 74-75), a cognate of which is found in Finnish enää mehr, weiter, ferner. 22

35 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix (78) 28 long pitkä PU *piδe(-kä) high, pikk 3, 8 guhkki kuvaka 29, 36 pidi- long ( ), śeŕi *kåśi 29 wide leveä?pfv *lewedä wide lai 10 lávda 31 ládje 17?, 20?, 32? kel i 32 1, 35, thick paksu PFP *sakv~*sakka thick, dense (750) PFP *ičv~*üčv thick, big (627) paks 8 assái 35 tusta suohkat 33 eckä heavy painava raskas PU *pajna-~*pajńa- to press (348) raske 7 lossat staka small pieni 35 PFV *wäšä small, few ( ) väike 10 uhca, unni 35 jom(b)la 38 pisi- 36 smávis short lyhyt PFU *ona short (339) lühike 38 9 oatni, oanehaš 39 18?, 35 ńuŕχkäńä N. Saami guhkki long (<*kuukka <*kuwkka < *kuwakka; Aikio. A. 2000), cf. MM kuvaka long is related to Fin. kauka- far(away), lengthy, cf. PFU *kawka long (UEW 132). 31 While clearly the here compared Finnish (and its Karelian cognate levej wide ), Estonian and N. Saami items are relatively similar, sound change explanations would be phonologically too problematic to accept these as cognates.. Instead, N. Saami cognancy can safely be ascribed to Fin. lauti völlig, durch und durch; ungezügelt, frei on semantic and phonological grounds. 32 Cf. PFV *kiljä/küljä wide, broad (UEW 663), cf. N. Saami gâl lje llj- wide, roomy. 33 Cf. Fin. sakea thick, viscous, dense, packed. 34 From Proto-Saamic *lo`sē- heavy. N. Saami has a borrowing from Finnic in bai dne color, rub off, impress, dye 35 cf. Est. peenike thin, Kar. pieni small. 36 Cf. Fin. pisin longest? 37 From Proto-Saamic *smā`vḙ small, cf. Swe. små small, pl. 38 Cf. Kar. ljuhjut short. 23

36 Peter S. Piispanen 34 narrow ankea PFU *aŋke (to be) piirama 10 gárži 12, 17, 20?, ťäjńä 1, 35, 36 kapea narrow, oppressed, kitsas 28 distress (12)?PU *tijä narrow (523) 35 thin ohut PFU *čupa thin, lean õhuke 9 asehaš 8, 35 osal 36, 37 (63) peenike šuvańä 36 woman nainen PFU *naje woman, to marry (297) *näxi *ńiŋä *käd wä naine 7 nisu 40 19, 33, 34 ava man mies PU *koje man, human mees 41 6 dievdu 35 al ä (male) being ( ) PFU *urv man, human being ( ) 38 human being ihminen PFV *inše human being ( ) 44 inemine 9 almmái, 34 lomań olmmoš From Proto-Saamic *oa`nē- small. Finnish cognancy is found in one schwach; untauglich, unfähig; unheimlich. 40 From Proto-Saamic *nisōn-,*ni`sunḙ - woman. Fin. nainen woman, however, originates from PFU *naje woman, wife, to marry (UEW ), a different cognate. 41 Cf. Kar. mies man. 42 Cf. Fin. äijä guy, old man? 43 From Proto-Saamic *ḙlmḙńʒ e human being, cf. *ḙlmē air, world, cf. Fin. ilma air, ilminen man, archaic. 44 Cf. N. Saami almmái human being. Lymanj likely originates from an Old or Middle Iranian borrowing and is currently found in Ossetian lymæn human being. The cognate of Fin. ihminen human is found in MM inži guest. 24

37 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix PFU *ilma sky, weather, God (81-82) 39 child lapsi - laps 45 8 mánná id šaba wife vaimo PFV *wajmv heart ( ) abikaasa 10 áhkká 47 eamit 48 17, 32 ǝŕvä 31, husband aviomies mies - abielumees mees 1, 6 isit mird ä 50 10, 18, mother äiti 51 emä 52 (archaic) PU *emä mother (74) ema 2 eadni t äd ä 54 18, father isä PU *ićä father, big (78) isa 2, 9 áhčči 7, 16, 25, 27, 32 al ä animal eläin PU *elä- to live (73) loom 10 ealli 56 20, 27, 34 rakša Cf. Kar. lapsi child. 46 From Proto-Saamic *mā`nā, a borrowing. Cf. Swe. man man. 47 Cf.Fin. akka old woman, dial. wife. 48 From PU *emä mother, wife (UEW 74), cf. Fin. emäntä hostess. 49 From PU *ićä father (UEW 78), cf. Fin. isäntä master, isä father. 50 Mirde is likely a proto-indo-iranian loanword (*m~rtá- human ). 51 Fin. äiti mother is a Germanic borrowing. Cf. Gothic aithei mother. 52 The use of emä is semantically shifted to describe animals only in modern Finnish and considered archaic for humans. Hence it does not constitute a valid cognate pair with Est. ema mother. 53 From Proto-Saamic *ea`nnē, augmentation of *ea`nē- big. 54 Cf. Fin. täti aunt, Est. tädi Tante bes. Mutterschwester; Kusine. Possible proto-item is PFV *tätä a kind of female relative (UEW 794). 55 The cognate of Fin. isä father is found in EM oćä brother of father. 56 From Proto-Saamic *ea`lējē- animal?. 25

38 Peter S. Piispanen 45 fish kala PU *kala fish (119) kala none guolli 17, 27, 28 kal bird lintu PFU *linta bird (249) lind 1, 8 loddi 5, 29?, 30 narmǝń dog koira PU *kojera male ( ) koerasitt 9 beana 57 goairre 20, 28 pińä louse täi PFU *täje louse (515) PFU *täji louse (Aikio, A. 2012:235) täi none dihkki 16, 20, 27, 28, 32 śi snake käärme PU *kije~*küje snake ( ) madu gearpmaš 60 16?, 28, 32 kuj 61 ińǝkuj 32, worm mato - uss 10 máhtu 62 17, 32 suks 63 32, tree puu PU *puwe tree, wood ( ) PU *puxi (Janhunen, J. 1981) puu none muorra 64 18, 20, 27, 35 šufta forest metsä PFU *mećä edge, side of something (269- mets 8 vuovdi viŕ 29, 32, 35, From PFU *pene dog (UEW 371) and later Proto-Saamic *peaŋ ē, cf. Fin. peni dog puppy, pentu small child. North Saami goairre dog is an obvious Finnish borrowing. 58 Cf. Fin. peni dog puppy, and thus a different cognate. 59 Cf. Fin. mato worm. 60 Possibly from PFV *karmv~*karpv~*karwv fly (UEW ). Cf. Fin. kärpänen fly. 61 Cf. Fin. kyy a species of snake. 62 Cf. Est. madu snake, Kar. madojne worm ; apparently a Germanic borrowing, cf. German made maggot. 63 Cf. PFV *sokse worm (UEW 764), cf. N. Saami suok sâ larva of meat fly, maggot in fish or meat, cf. Mari šukš worm. 64 Cf. PFU *morз a kind of tree (UEW 281),?Hung. mórágy a species of tree. 65 Cf. Fin. huhta ager silvestris, a species of tree. 66 From Proto-Saamic *vuo`vdē forest, wood. The cognate of Fin. metsä forest is the N. Saami meahcci, which originates from Proto-Saamic *mea`hcē-, but now means backland or wilderness and thus is semantically shifted. 26

39 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 270) 53 stick keppi - kepp 67 8 čuukkohat 35 sard(ǝń)a fruit hedelmä PFV *marja berry ( ) 55 seed siemi PFV *śeeme sip, (to) drink, to swallow (773) vili 10 šaddu 35 maŕ 68 imǝž 69 31, 35 seeme 2, 7 siepman 20, 32 viďme leaf lehti PFV *lešte leaf (689) leht 8 lasta bláđđ 71 8, 20, 25 lopa root juuri PFP *jure root(end) (639) PU *wančv~*wačv root ( ) juur 8 ruohtas jur uŋks bark kaarna 73 *kari bark, shell (Aikio. A. 2012) koor 74 6, 8, 10 garra 75 20, 25, 27, bárku sud Probably a Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe. käpp stick. 68 Cf. Finnish marja berry 69 Imozh is likely a 13 th century Tatar borrowing. 70 Fin. siemen seed has a cognate in MM śimo- to drink. 71 Cf. Swe. blad leaf. 72 The word appears to be a Scandinavian borrowing, cf. Nor. and Swe. rot root. 73 Rédei considers Fin. kaarna bark a possible Baltic borrowing (UEW 139). 74 PU *kari bark, shell (Aikio. A. 2012), cf. Fin. kuori shell, layer. 75 Cognancy is found in Fin. keri outer layer (of Birch bark); snow crust. 76 Cf. Swe. bark bark. 77 Cf. Udm. sul bark and KZ so l-ko r tree bark. 27

40 Peter S. Piispanen PU *kopa skin, bark ( ) ostu 59 flower kukka 78 - lill 10 rássi 35 pańčf grass ruoho PFP *tarna grass, hay (792) PU *ńačv a kind of grass (311) PUg *pimv grass ( ) 61 rope köysi PFU *kälv~*kewδe string, cord (135) PU *piksv rope, string (380) rohi 6 rasse t išä 38 köis 8 kievđâ 80 16, 25, 32 piks skin iho PFP *(j)iša skin (636- nahk 8 náhkki 81 17, 20, 27, ked 82 30, 32, 35 nahka 637) liiki 32 kiśkä PFU *ńačkv wet, assi jož(a) moist, raw (311) PFU *keδ e skin, fur, leather, shell ( Cf. Kar. kukkajne flower. 79 The Fin., Est. and N. Saami items likely originate from *gruozo grass, a Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe. gräs grass. 80 While, for example, K. Saami kiudta string, rope is a cognate of PFU *kälv~*kewδe (UEW135) string, cord the case is not as clear with the Finnish and Estonian items, cognates to each other, which must here be considered unrelated to N. Saami kievđâ rope. 81 Cf. Kar. nahku skin, Fin. nahkea leathery. 82 cf. Fin. kesi Häutchen, Membrane. 28

41 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 143) 63 meat liha PFP *siwv-ĺv meat (763) liha 83 none biergu 35 sivǝĺ oažži 84 pal 85 29, blood veri vere- PFU *wire blood (576) PFU *weri (Sammallahti, P. 1988) *kem (PS) veri none varra 20, 25, 27 ver 29, bone luu PU *luwe bone ( ) PU *luxi bone (Janhunen, J. 1981) luu none dákti pakaŕ fat (noun) rasva PU *śilä fat ( ) PFU *kuje fat (195- rasv 88 8, 9 buoidi kujä 12 vuodja 90 vaj Cf. Kar. liha meat ; supposedly an old Nordic borrowing. 84 Cf. Fin. osua to hit. However, the word may instead be an Indo-European borrowing. 85 Cf. Mari šel meat, cf. Udm. si ĺ meat, cf. KZ ni r siĺan meat. 86 Cognancy is found in Fin. tähde (über)rest. 87 The cognate of Fin. luu bone is found in MM lovaža body, corpse. 88 Cf. Kar. rasv fat. 89 Buoidi fat appears to be a Germanic loanword. It appears to be cognate with Fin. paita Bauchfell; Magenwand. 90 Cognancy is found in Fin. voi butter, voidella to grease. 91 Cf. Fin. kuu tallow, cf. Hung. háj butter, fat. 92 Cf. PFU *woje fat matter (UEW ),?PFU *waji fat (Aikio. A. 2012:236), cf. Fin. voi butter. 29

42 Peter S. Piispanen 196) 67 egg muna PU *muna egg, testicle ( ) 68 horn sarvi PFU *śorwa horn ( ) 69 tail häntä 95 PFU *čänčä back (56) PFU *poĺa tail ( ) *ponci 70 feather sulka PFU *tulka feather (Aikio, A. 2012:245) muna none monni 22, 27, 29 al sarv 8, 9 čoarvi 7, 18 śura 94 36, 37, 39 saba 10 seaibi 96 16, 20, 28 pula 38, 39 sulg 1, 8 dolgi 22, 28, 29 tolga 4, hair karva hius, PFU *puna hair (402) PU *apte hair (14-15) karv 97 juuksed 8 vuokta 98 vuovttat 17, 20, 30, 32 pona 99 śäjäŕ tukka PFU *ïpti hair (Sammallahti, P. 1988) 72 head pää PFU *päŋe head ( ) pea 2 oaivi 18, 29 pe pŕä 101 3, The cognate of Fin. muna egg, testicle is found in MM and EM mona testicle. 94 PFU *śorwa horn is an ancient Indo-Iranian loanword into PFU. Cf. Proto-Indo-Iranian *śarva- horn. 95 Cf. Kar. hjandü tail. 96 Cf. PU *sejpä tail(not of birds) (UEW ). 97 cf. Kar. karvu hair. 98 Cf. PU *apte hair (UEW 14-15), cf. Fin. hapsi fine hair, and hence a different cognate than Fin. hius hair(strand), Fin. tukka human head hair and Fin. karva thicker hair, fur. 99 Cf. Fin. punainen red. 100 Cf. Hung. szőr hair. 101 Cf. PFU *perä behind, place behind (UEW 373). MM pe means both head and end point and hence is a cognate of Fin. pää head. 30

43 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix PFU *päŋi head (Aikio. A. 2012:235) PU *ojwa head ( ) 73 ear korva PFU *peljä ear ( ) PFU *korv leaf ( ) kõrv 8 beallji , 20, 27?, 28 pil ä 5 74 eye silmä PU *śilmä eye (479) silm 8, 9 čalbmi 103 7, 16, 25, nose nenä?pfv *nere nose nina 2 njunni 16, 27, 32, 34 śel'mä 1, 35, 37 šalχkal mouth suu PU *śuwe mouth ( ) PU *śuxi mouth (Janhunen, J. 1981) PFU *šule mouth, lip (903) suu 9 njálbmi kurga , tooth hammas PFU *piŋe tooth hammas 107 none bátni , 28, 32 pej 109 1, FromProto-saamic *pea`ljē, cf. Fin. pielus cushion. 103 Possible Finnic loanword. 104 The cognate of Fin. nenä nose is found in MM ńäŕ snout. 105 The cognate of Fin. suu mouth is found in N. Saami čoddâ-d dâg- throat. 106 Cf. PFV *kurk(k)v throat (UEW 676), Cf. Fin. kurkku throat, cf. Est. kurk throat. 107 Fin. and Est. hammas tooth are borrowed from Baltic *žambas tooth, cf. Lith. žambas edge, corner, Latv. zobs tooth, also: Rus. Зуб tooth. 31

44 Peter S. Piispanen (382) 78 tongue kieli PU *käxli tongue, keel 6, 8 giella, 20, 21, 27, käl 7, 32, 35, language (Janhunen, J. njuovčča ) PFU *keeli tongue, language (Sammallahti, P. 1988) PU *käli tongue, language (Aikio, A. 2012:234) 79 fingernai kynsi PU *künče~*kinče küüs 3, 8 gazza 10, 24, 25, keńžä 2, 12, 35, l nail, claw (157) 28, foot jalka PFU *jalka foot, leg (88-89) jalg 1, 8 juolgi , 28, 29 pil gä PFU *jïlkå foot, leg (Sammallahti, P. 1988) PU *pälkä thumb (363) 81 leg jalka PFU *jalka foot, leg (88-89) jalg 1,8 juolgi 17, 28, 29 pil gä From Proto-Saamic *pāŋ ē head. 109 PU *piŋe tooth (UEW 382), Cf. Hung. fog tooth, cf. Fin. pii tooth of a comb, pii-kivi flint stone 110 From Proto-Saamic *juo`lgē foot. 111 MM piĺge foot may be related to Mansi pɔ ĺkǝnt kleine Klaue bei der Kuh, dem Elentier, dem Rentier, in which case a possible proto-item would be PU?*pälkä thumb (UEW 363), although Rédei connects MM pilge foot to PFU *jalka foot, leg (UEW 88-89). The cognate of Fin. jalka foot, however, is found in MM jalga by foot, jakams to walk. 32

45 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix PFU *jïlkå foot, leg (Sammallahti, P. 1988) PU *pälkä thumb (363) 82 knee polvi PU *polwe knee (393) PU *po/u(x/wi)(-n)- luwi knee, i.e. knee s bone (Aikio, A. 2012:230) põlv 8 buolva čibbi 18, 25, 28 pǝlmańža 35, 36, hand käsi PFU *käte hand (140- käsi none giehta, 16, 20, 28, käď 18, 32, 35, 141) gieđa PFU *käti hand (Sammallahti, P. 1988) 84 wing siipi - tiib 112 1, 8 soadji 35 paćä belly maha vatsa PFU *waća stomach (547) magu 113 vats čoavji 35 pekä 115 1, 16 PFU *pikkä~*päkkä stomach, abdomen, 112 Cf. Kar. sijbi wing. 113 Fin. maha and Est. magu appear to be a Germanic borrowing (?*maga), cf. Swe. mage stomach. 114 Cognates of Fin. vatsa (dial. vatta) and Est. vats are found in EM vačo, vača &, MM vača hungry and EM vaće & MM vaćä dirt, feces. Also as a borrowing in N. Saami fatte dried and inflated stomach of reindeer. 115 MM pekä belly has a cognate in Fin. päkkä thick meat. 33

46 Peter S. Piispanen bulge ( ) 86 gut suoli PFU *śola ( ) söakus 10 čoalle 7?, 18, 27, 29? śula jorma 37, neck kaula PFU *śepä neck ( ) kael čeabet niehkki 7, 16, 20, 28 śaldaz 117 kǝrga back selkä PFV *śelkä back (772) PU *muka back (Janhunen, J. 1981) selg 1, 8 sealgi 7, 16, 20, 28 kopǝŕ breast rinta PFU *mälke~*mälγe rind 119 1, 8 čičči mälkä 12 breast (267) beađđi mäšt ä PFP *poŋi breast (Sammallahti, P. 1981) 90 heart sydän PU *śüδämv~*śiδämv heart (477) süda 7, 9 váibmu śeďi śezǝm 2, 30, 31, liver maksa PU *maksa liver (264) PU *mïkså (Sammallahti, P. 1988) maks 8 mueksie vuoivvas 17, 34 maksa none 116 Cf. Kar. kaglu neck ; apparently a Baltic borrowing (?*kakla), cf. Lith. kaklas neck. 117 The cognate of PFU *śepä neck (UEW ) is found in MM śivä Hemdkragen, Hemdleist. 118 Cf. Fin. kurkku throat 119 Cf. Kar. rindu breast. Possibly originates from a borrowing into Early Proto-Finnic or PFV. 120 Cf.?Fin. tissi female breast or?rus. Сиськи, титьки tits. 121 From Proto-Saamic *vā`jmō heart, cf. Fin. vaimo wife. 34

47 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 92 to drink juoda PFU *juγe-~*juke- to drink (103) PFU *juxi- to drink (Sammallahti, P. 1988) 93 to eat syödä PFU *sewe-~*seγe- to eat (440) jooma 4, 6 juhkat 31, 32 śimǝms 122 kopǝrdams sööma 4, 6 borrat , 25, 31 śivǝ(ńd ǝ)ms poŕǝms 124 jarχcams 33, 36 29, 33, 35, to bite purra PU *soske- to bite, to chew ( ) PU *pure- to bite ( ) PFP *kačka to bite, to gnaw, to chew (641) närimä 4, 10 gáskit 31, 35 poŕǝms 1, 4, 33, to suck imeä PU *ime- to suck (82-83) imema 4 njammat , 35 šokšǝms nozǝms poććǝms , to spit sylkeä PFU *śül ke-~* śil ke- sülgama 4, 10 čolgadit 7, 28, 31, śel'gǝms 2, 33, 34, (to) spit ( ) sülitama 34 35, to vomit oksentaa PFP *oksa-~*okse- to oksendama 1, 4 vuovssadit 18, 30, 31, uksǝndǝms 33, 34, 36, 122 Cf. Fin. siemi seed,?sima a brewed beverage, from PFV *śēme- to gulp, to drink, to swallow (UEW 773). 123 The cognate of Fin. syöda is likely N. Saami suoskat, from PU *soske- through 18, 25 and 31. N. Saami borrat to eat originates from PFU *pure- to bite (UEW ). 124 Cf. Fin. purra to bite, to chew. 125 N. Saami njammat to suck originates from Proto-Saamic *n'im-ǝjr- to suck, and while a difficult item to categorize it is here considered a different cognate than Fin. imeä to suck. 126 Likely an onomatopoetic word or a borrowing. 35

48 Peter S. Piispanen vomit, to spit ( ) to blow puhaltaa PU *pušv- to blow ( ) PU *puwa- to blow (Janhunen, J. 1981) puhuma 4 bossut 8, 22, 27, 28, 31 ufams , 33, to hengittää PFU *čeŋke steam, hingama 4 vuoigŋat 17, 31, 32 targams 12, 24, 33, breathe haze, warm (57) vajmä PU *wajŋe- (to) l äkǝvǝms- 129 breath, soul ( ) 100 to laugh nauraa LPF?*nagra- to naerma boagustit , 35 raχams 38 laugh čaibmat rakams 101 to see nähdä PFU *näke- (302) nägema 1, 4 geahččat 132 oaidnit , 27, 28, 31, 32, 34 ńäjǝms 33, 35, to hear kuulla PU *kule- ear, to hear kuulma 4 gullat 23, 27, 28, kul (ǝńd )ǝms 33, 35 ( ) 31 maŕśǝms 103 to know tietää, PU *tumte- to feel, to teadma 1, 4 dovdat, , 31, 32 sodams 33, While Fin. puhaltaa to blow, as well as puhua to speak, originate from PU *pušv- to blow (UEW ), MM ufams to blow instead originates from a similar item, PU *puwv-~*puγv- to blow (UEW 411). 128 Cf.?Fin. vainaja deceased, departed. 129 Cf. PFV *läkkä to breathe (UEW 685), cf. Fin. läkähtää des Atems berauben, ersticken machen. 130 Cf. Kar. nagrua to laugh. 131 From Proto-Saamic *poagōstē- to laugh. 132 Cf. PFP *kaće to see, look, notice (UEW 640), cf. Fin. katsoa to view, to look at. 133 Probably a Germanic borrowing. 134 From Proto-Saamic *to`mdḙ- to feel, to know (< *PU *tumte-). The use of Fin. tuntea for to know is considered archaic. 36

49 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix tuntea (archaic) touch ( ) tundma diehtit to think ajatella PU *ojwa head ( ) mõtlema 4, 10 jurddašit smiehtastit gáddit , 35 aŕś(ǝkšń)ǝms , 35, to smell haistaa *ipv~*ipvsv~*ipvśv taste, odor (83-84) 106 to fear pelätä PU *pele- to fear (370) haistma 4 haksit 25, 30, 31, 32 kartma 138 4, 10 ballat 20, 27, 28, 31 ńiksams 33, 38 pel ǝms 33, to sleep nukkua PFU *oδa- to sleep, to lie (334) magama 139 4, 10 oađđit 140 nagir 141 utćams 18, 27, 31 udǝms 30, 33, to live elää PU *elä- (73) elama 2, 4 eallit , 27, 31 eŕams 33, 35, 35, to die kuolla PU *kvxlv to die (Janhunen, J. surema 143 4, 10 jápmit , 31, 32 kulǝms 33, From Proto-Saamic *tie`tē- to know, cf. Fin. tietää to know. 136 From Proto-Saamic *kā`ndē- to think, to suppose. 137 Cf. PFU *arwa~*arγa price, value (UEW 16-17), cf. Fin. arvo worth, arvata to guess, arvella to suppose. Related to Fin. ajatella to think (and Kar. ajatella to think, semantically to use one s head ), cf. PU *ojwa head (UEW ), is also Fin. aivo brain. 138 Cf. Fin. karttaa to shun, to avoid. 139 Cf. Fin. maata to lie down, Kar. muata to lie down. 140 PFU *oδa- to sleep, to lie (UEW 334), Cf. Hung. álszik to sleep. The cognate to the Fin. nukkua to sleep is N. Saamic nohkkat to go to sleep, through sound changes 22, 27, 31 & 32, and is thus semantically shifted. Cf. Fin. nukahtaa to fall asleep. 141 From Proto-Saamic *nḙgēr to sleep. 142 From Proto-Saamic *ea`lê- to live. 143 Cf. Fin. surma death, and hence Est. surema to die is based on a different cognate. 144 From Proto-Saamic *jā`mē- to die, cf.?fin. jämä rest, remains of food. 37

50 Peter S. Piispanen 1981: ) PU *kola- to die (173) PU *kali- to die (Aikio, A. 2012) PU *śure- to die (489) PU *jama- to be sick, to die (89) 110 to kill tappaa PU *tappa- to stomp with feet, to beat, to knock ( ) PFU *weδv- to kill ( ) PU *widi- to beat, to kill (Aikio. A. 2013) PFU *ćappa to chop, to beat with popping sound (29) tapma 4 goddit , 30, 31 šavǝms 146 kulǝf tams 147 kulǝf ńǝms 33, to fight taistella torua PU *torv- quarrel, struggle, to argue, to võitlema 148 4, 10 doarrut 18, 27, 28, riidalit ťuŕ(ǝŋ kšń)ǝms , 35, From Proto-Saamic *ko`ndē- to kill. 146 The cognate of Fin. tappaa to kill is found in MM and EM tapa- to hit, to whip. 147 Cf. Fin. kuolettaa to kill (a plant, a card or a relationship etc.). 148 Est. võitlema to fight (and või- to be able to ) has cognates in Fin. voittaa to win, to defeat, to profit, voi- to be able to, voima force, strength. 38

51 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix (archaic) wrestle (531) PFU *woje- to be able to (579) 112 to hunt metsästä PFU *mećä edge, side jahtima 151 4, 10 bivdit , 34 kundams 33, 38 ä of something (269- kunćǝms 270) PU *piwtä- to follow the trail of wildlife (387) 113 to hit lyödä PFU *lewe- throw, lööma 4, 6 časkit , 35 ćapa- 22, 33 shoot (247) PFU *ćappv- to beat with popping sound, to hew (29) deaivat 154 fađđut 155 eŕχt ǝms pikś(śǝkšń)ǝms t äjǝms 114 to cut leikata PU *le(j)kka gap, crack, to cut, to cleave (244) lõikama 4 čuohppat , 31, 32 ker( )ǝms 33, Cf. Fin. riidellä to argue, riita dispute, quarrel. An apparent Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe strida to conflict, to fight, strid battle. 150 N. saami doarrut to fight and MM t uŕems to fight are cognates. However, the use of Fin. torua for to fight is considered archaic (and currently means to knock out), and hence is not an accepted cognate for our purposes. 151 Cf. Fin. jahdata to pursue, jahti hunt. Apparently a Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe jakt hunt. 152 cf. Fin. pyytää to request, to invite, to catch, to hunt, pyynti caught fish, game, bird. The cognate of Fin. metsä forest (and metsästää to hunt ) is found in N. Saami mæc ce pasture land, open country, waste country, wilds, wilderness, desert. 153 Cf. Fin. sitkain a marked stick inserted into the ground to mark sowed land? 154 From Proto-Saamic *tea`jvḙ- to hit, to meet. 155 Cf. PU *widi- beat, kill as per Aikio, A From Proto-Saamic *cuo jpḙ- to cut (> PFU *ćappv-), cf. Hung. csap- to strike. 39

52 Peter S. Piispanen PFU *ćappv- to beat with popping sound, to hew (29) 115 to split halkaista PFU *śale- to cut, to cleave ( ) lõnenema 4, 10 čallit 157 7, 16, 27, 31 lazǝms 33, to stab pistää PFV *pis(e)-tä to put, to set, to insert, to lay (733) torkama 4, 10 čuoggut 31, 35 pupams 33, to raapia PFU *reppv- to burst, kraapima 4, 10 ruohkastat 35 seńd ǝms 33, 38 scratch repiä to split, to tear (427) kǝrkśǝms kratsima 159 norgǝms aŋgǝrdams 118 to dig kaivaa PU *kojwa- to dig ( ) 119 to swim uida PU *uje-~*oje- to swim (542) kaevama 2, 4 roggat 31, 35 karams kavǝŕams šuvǝms ujuma 4 vuodjat 18, 31, 32 ujǝms äšǝl ams 33, to fly lentää PFU *rvppv to beat with wings, to fly lendama 1, 2, 4 girdit , 28, 31, 32 l ijǝms 162 5?, 33, Cf. Fin. sali- to splice. 158 Cf. Swe. skrapa to scratch. Possible independent Scandinavian/Germanic loanword, or of onomatopoetic origin, and therefore not a cognate. 159 Cf. Eng. scratch to scratch. Possible loanword or of onomatopoetic origin, and therefore not cognate. 160 The cognate of Fin. raapia or repiä in N. Saamic is râppât to open, through sound changes 17, 25, 27 & 31, and thus N. Saami čuohppat to cut is a different cognate. 161 From Proto-Saamic *ki`rdē- to fly, cf. Fin. kiire- to rush, to hurry. 162 Cf. Kar. lendiä to fly, a Slavic borrowing Cf. Rus. Летать (letat ) to fly? 40

53 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix (428) 121 to walk kävellä PFV *käwe- to go käima 4, 5 vázzit ?, 17, 30, jakams 33, 38 ( ) jalutama johtalit 31 šäjams PFU *wanča- to pass, to exceed (557) PU *juta- to go, to wander (106) 122 to come tulla PU *tule- to come (535) PU *saγe to obtain, to arrive, to come ( ) tulema 4 boahtit , 31, 32 sams , to lie maata PU *maγe land, earth ( ) PFU *kujv to lie (197) 124 to sit istua PFV *isv- to sit (down) (629) lebama 166 1, 2, 4, 10 veallát 31, 35 madǝms kožäŕams istuma 4 čohkkát 31, 35 ozams lańd ams 18, 33 33, to stand seistä PFU *saŋće- to stand seisma 4 čuožžut 7, 18, 30, śťams 24, 33, 35, ( ) čuoččut 31 36, From Proto-Saamic *vā`nzē- to walk (< PFU *wanča-). 164 From Proto- Saamic *poa`tē- to come. 165 Cognates are found in Fin. saapua to arrive, saada to get, to receive, saakka until. 166 Cf. Fin. levätä to rest. Fin. maata to lie (down) has a cognate in Kar. muata to lie (down). 41

54 Peter S. Piispanen 126 to turn kääntyä PFP *känčä to turn, to rotate (651) PFU *kerä round, rolling, to turn, to rotate ( ) PFU *peŋe(-rä) ring, circle, to rotate, to roll, to turn ( ) keerama 167 pöörama 168 4, 6, 10 botjnat 31, 35 šarǝms 169 šarftǝms 33, 35, to fall pudota PFP *pvra to fall down (742) 171 kukkuma 4, 10 gahččat, langema 170 goaikkehit 20, 28, 31 prams 172 apocope 128 to give antaa PFU *amta- to give (8) PU *mexi- to give, to sell (Janhunen, J. 1981) 129 to hold pitää PFU *pitä- to hold (386) PFV *kärte- to hold, to andma 1, 4 addit 28, 30, 31 maksoms pidama 1, 2, 4 gierda 31, 35 kiŕd ǝms , 33, 35, Cf. Fin. kiero crooked, kiertää to rotate, kiertyä to twist, etc. 168 Cf. Fin. pyöriä to rotate, to turn around, etc. 169 cf. POUg *sarv quickly, hurry, to rush, to turn fast (UEW 885)? 170 Cf. Fin. langeta to indulge, to let fall. 171 From Proto-Saamic *kḙ`hčḙ- to fall. N. Saami may have a cognate with Fin. pudota to fall in bođo irrelevant, deviating from the rest, separated from its natural connection, which keeps separate from the rest (UEW 399). 172 Cf. EM pra- to fall, to overthrow, Udm. pe r- umfallen, fallen, niederstürzen, einstürzen, etc. Fin. pudota to fall seems to be a late Finnic invention. 173 Cf. Fin. maksaa to pay for. The cognate of Fin. antaa to give is found in MM ando- nähren, ernähren, füttern. 174 Cf. Fin. kärsiä to suffer. The cognate of Fin. pitää to hold is found in EM peďa- sich anschließen, ankleben; eigensinnig anfangen. 42

55 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix bear ( ) 130 to squeeze puristaa - pigistama 4, 10 čárvut 31, 35 puvǝrdams 33, to rub hieroa PFP *šera~*šeera to rub, to grind, to whet, grindstone, whetstone ( ) hõõruma 4, 6 vasko, fasko 31, 35 nardams 33, to wash pestä PFV *pese- to wash the head (729) PU *muśke-~*mośke- to wash (289) pesema 4, 5 basadit 20, 28, 31 muśk(ǝńd )ǝms 175 štams 33, to wipe pyyhkiä - pühkima 4 sihkkut 31, 35 nardams 33, to pull vetää PFU *wetä- to lead, to guide, to pull ( ) 135 to push työntää PFV *tewe work (796) PFU *δ VkkV to sting, to bump (66) tõmbama 4, 10 geassit , 28, 31 targams uskǝms tõukama 177 4, 10 hoigat 31, 35 tolχmad ǝms ŕafcodims 33, 38 33, to throw heittää PFP *šajtta- to throw, heitma 4 sátti, sette, 8?, 20, 31 jordams 33, Cf. Est. mõskema to wash. 176 From Proto-saamic *kea`sē- to pull. 177 Cf. Fin. tokkaa- to stick, to peck? If Fin. työntää to push is related to PFV *tewe work (UEW 796) then a cognate is found in Est. töö work. 43

56 Peter S. Piispanen to fling (781) PFU *kaja- to throw ( ) sitte kajams to tie sitoa PFV *sitv to bind, to siduma 1, 4 čatnat 179 7, 25, 31, sotǝms 33, 36 solmia attach ( ) 32 kikams PFU *ćolme knot, bundle, to tie (38-39) 138 to sew ommella - õmblema 1, 4 goarrut 31, 35 stams 33, 38 neuloa 180 snims nõeluma to count laskea lukea (archaic) PU *luke- number, to count (253) lugema 1, 4, 10 lohkat , 31, 32 luvǝms 33, to say sanoa PFU *jukta- to speak, to tell (104) ütlema 183 4, 10 lohjat, cealkit fadjat, dadjat, fovddahit, muitalit to 31, 35 azoms Cf. Hung. hajít to throw. 179 Alternatively suggested to be from Pre-Proto-Saamic *śini-? < PIE *şhi-ne-h- to tie, in which case it would not be a cognate. 180 Cf. Kar. ommella to sew. 181 From Proto-Germanic *nēþla needle > Swe. nål needle, German Nadel needle, borrowed as: Kar. nieglu needle, N. Saami nallu needle. 182 From Proto-Saamic *lo`kḙ- to read, to count (< PU *luke number, to count (UEW 253)), cf. Est. lugema to count, cf. Fin. luke- to read, archaic for to count, cf. EM luvyms to count,?latin legere to read. Fin. lukea is considered archaic for use with counting, and this therefore counts as a semantic shift. 183 Cf. Fin. jutella to discuss', juttu conversation, narrative, tale (<*PFU*jukta- to speak, to tell (UEW 104)). 44

57 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix tell to sing laulaa PFU *mura- crying, singing, to cry, to sing ( ) laulma 4 lávlut , 31, 32 morams 187 4, to play leikkiä PFV *nalja game, joke (706) mängima 4, 10 stoahkat, maksit 31, 35 nalχk(ś)ǝms , to float kellua PU *uje-~*oje- to swim (542) 144 to flow virrata PFU *uŋa stream, to flow ( ) PFV *šooδ( )e- to penetrate (through a hole), to flow (786) ujutama 189 4, 10 govdut 31, 35 ujǝms 33 voolama 4, 10 golgat 31, 35 šuďims 33, to freeze jäätyä PFU *jäŋe ice (93) jäätuma 4 galbmot , 28, 31, äjǝnda(kšńǝ)ms 33, 36 PFP *külme~*kilme (to be) cold, frost, to kel mǝ(śǝ)ms MM azoms would seem to not be a cognate, although it could arguably, but unconvincingly, originate from a metathesis followed by voicing and elimination as per sound change 14 of a root like sano The cognate of Fin. sanoa to say (& Fin. sana word ) in N. Saamic is sátnet, but this seems to be an archaic word. 186 Cf. Kar. laulua to sing 187 Cf. Mari mǝ rǝ singing, cf. Khanty mora- bei der Ankunft im Dorf rufen die Ruderer. 188 Cf. Fin. nalja Scherz, Spaß, Spiel. Fin. leikkiä to play appears to be a Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe. leka to play. 189 Cf.?Fin. uideskella to swim around, which indicates a semantic shift. 190 From Proto-Saamic *kḙ`lmujḙ- to freeze, cf. Fin. kylmä cold. 191 While MM äjǝndakšńǝms - may seem very different from Fin. jääty-, the initial MM äjǝ- root does signify ice (being a cognate of Fin. jää ice ) and the original verb root seems to be subject to extensive grammaticalization while keeping the original root, followed by a verbal ending. The two words are thus cognates. 192 Cf. Fin. kylmä cold. 45

58 Peter S. Piispanen freeze (to death) (663) 146 to swell paisua PU *puwvlv- to swell (Aikio, A. 2012:244) kažakǝdǝms paisuma 4 báisat , 31 pajgǝt k šńǝms 194 pajgǝd ǝms targǝźǝms 4?, 33, sun aurinko PFP *umrv flame (804) PFU *päjwä fire (360) 148 moon kuu PU *kuŋe moon, month ( ) päike 10 beaivváš , 27, 28, 30 kuu none mánnu , 27, 33, 34, 35 ši 38 kov 4, 24, star tähti PFV *täštä sign, star ( ) täht 8 násti 35 ťäšťä 35, water vesi PU *wete water (570) vesi 9 čáhci 7, 10, 16, veď 18, 32 vete- PFU *śäčä water, 32 flooding (469) 151 to rain sataa PFV *śada to rain (Janhunen, J. 1981) PFV *pisa~*piśa to drip, to drop (732) sadama 4 arvit 31, 35 piźǝms , Possible Finnic loanword. 194 Item appears to be extensively grammaticalized. 195 From Proto-Saamic *peajvānʒḙ day, sun w/ diminutive suffix, cf. Fin. päivä day, sun, Est. päike sun. 196 From Proto-Scandinavian *mānan- moon, cf. Swe. måne moon. 197 Cf. Fin. pisara drop. 46

59 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 152 river joki PU *joke river (99-100), PU *juka river (Sammallahti, P. 1988) jõgi 1 johka , 32 l äj lake järvi PFV *järwä sea (633) järv 8 jávri 199 metathesis äŕχk ä 35, sea meri - meri none mearra , 25, 27 moŕa 201 ineved salt suola PFP *salv~*sala salt ( ) 156 stone kivi PFU *kiwe stone ( ) sool 6, 8 sálti sal 32 kivi none geaðgi , 28, 35 kev 1, sand hiekka PFU *liwa sand (250) liiv sáttu 35 šuvar päsok pisok dust tomu pöly - tolm 205 pulber jáffut 35 pul 32, 35, From Proto-Saamic *jo`kḙ river. 199 From Proto-Saamic *jā`vrē lake. 200 From Proto-Saamic *mea`rḙ sea. All items appear to be from a very early Slavic borrowing, cf. Rus. море sea. However, some of the items may be later, independent borrowings, which complicates the analysis. 201 Appears to be an early Russian loanword. 202 A Germanic borrowing as shown by the vowel and the -t-, cf. Swe. salt salt. 203 From Proto-Saamic *kea`δgē stone. 204 Cf. Fin. liiva gelatin. 205 Cf. Fin. tomu dust, Kar. tomu dust. Estonian tolm dust may be a cognate of Fin. tomu dust if the -l- is epenthetic. 206 A borrowing, cf. Swe. pulver powder. 47

60 Peter S. Piispanen 159 earth maa PFU *mïxi earth maa none eanan , 34 moda 208 4, 30 (Sammallahti, P. 1988) PU *maɣe land, earth ( ) 160 cloud pilvi PFU *pilwe~*pilŋe cloud (381) pilv 8 balva 25, 28 peĺ tućä 1, 31, 35, 36, fog sumu PFV *sume fog (767- udu sopmu , 32 suv 32, 36 utu 768) mierka tuman usva tusta 162 sky taivas PFU *mińv sky (276) PFU *ilma sky, weather, god (81-82) taevas albmi , 25, 32, 35 men ǝl 213 1, wind tuuli PFP *tule wind (800) tuul 8 biegga , 28, 30 varma snow lumi PFU *lume snow ( ) lumi none lopme, muohta , 32 lov 4, 32, ice jää PFU *jäŋe ice (93) jää 9 jieŋa 16, 20 (j)äj 24, From Proto-Saamic *ea`nḙmḙ land, ground, earth. While the last syllable of the proto-saamic item could perhaps constitute a cognate of Fin. maa earth, ground the N. Saami item cannot be considered a cognate. 208 Cf. PFV *muδ( )a dirt (UEW 705), cf. Fin. muta dirt, clay. MM moda is also a borrowing meaning fashion. 209 The cognate of Fin. sumu fog, mist is found in Est. sume cloudy, gentle, mild. 210 Very probable Finnic borrowing. The cognate of Fin. sumu fog is found in N. Saami sǫbmo~sâbmo -m-'dull, hazy atmosphere (in summer) with fine rain'. 211 A Baltic borrowing, cf. Lith. dievas god > Kar. tajvas sky. 212 From Proto-Saamic *ḙ`lmē air, world, cf. Fin. ilma air. 213 Cf. Hung. mënny sky, flash. 214 From Proto-Saamic *pie`ngḙ wind. 215 From Proto-Saamic *muohtḙk snow, cf. Est. matta- to cover. 48

61 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix PFU *jäŋi ice (Sammallahti, P. 1988) 166 smoke savu PFV *sawe smoke (754) PFP *kačkv smoke, smell ( ) suits 10 suovvâ , 20, 27 kačam , fire tuli PU *tule fire (535) PU *tulï fire (Sammallahti, P. 1981) tuli none dolla , 22, 27, 28 tol 4, ashes tuhka PFU *kuδ mv ashes ( ) tuhk gutna 35 kulu ?, to burn (INTR) palaa PFU *pal a ice crust, frost, to freeze (352) põlema~pa la , 5 buollit 17, 27, 28, palǝms road tie PFP *teje road (794) tee 6 luódda 222 bálggis 20, 30 ki kurǝńä mountain vuori PU *were~*woore mägi 223 1, 10 várri , 21, 27 panda From Proto-Saamic *suo`vḙ smoke, cf. Kar. savvu smoke. 217 Cf. Fin. katku stench, pungent odor, intense fire haze. The cognate of Fin. savu smoke & savuttaa to smoke (TR.) is found in MM sufta- to burn incense, to fumigate. 218 From Proto-Saamic *to`lḙ fire. 219 Cf. Kar. tuhku ashes. 220 Cognates are found in all the Ob-Ugric languages, i.e. Hung. hamu ashes, Khanty χɔjǝm ashes of wood and Mansi kōĺǝ. m id Also Fin. palele- to feel cold, polttaa to burn (TR.), N. Saami buollit to burn (INTR), to be on fire, to burn down, MM paloms also means to freeze (to death). Curiously, as stated the meanings of both to freeze and to burn are found originating from this Uralic root; the different vowels, while explainable by labialization, may instead suggest two different but very similar proto-items that had originated from one earlier etymon for extreme temperatures, i.e. very hot, very cold. Also compare with the footnote below for N. Saami báhkas warm which also exhibits similar semantic development. 222 From Proto-Saamic *luo`ndḙ track, road, trace. 49

62 Peter S. Piispanen mountain (571) PFU *mäke hill, mountain (266) PU wara mountain, hill (Aikio. A. 2012:233) PFU *wari forest, hill (Aikio. A. 2012:233) 172 red punainen PFU *puna hair (402) punane 225 6, 7 ruoksat jakśt ǝŕ green vihreä PU *piša gall, green, yellow ( ) PFP *wiša poison, green, yellow ( ) roheline ruonas 35 pižä śäŋ äŕä 10, 28? 174 yellow keltainen PFP *čoša yellow kollane 228 3, 6, 7 fiskat 35 ťužä , Cf. Fin. mäki hill. 224 Proto-Saamic *vā`rē, cf. Fin. vaara hill, cf. Mansi wur hill. However, Fin. vaara is archaic and found in place names; perhaps it has fallen out of use due to the homonym Fin. vaara danger, risk, an obvious Germanic borrowing, cf. Swe. fara danger (also found as N. Saami varra danger ). Fin. vuori mountain and vaara hill may originate in one common etymon. 225 Semantically it has been assumed that the hair of Balto-Finnic populations was often red(dish), the word for hair therefore also being the origin of the word for red color in Finnish and Estonian. 226 While commonly believed to be a Germanic borrowing, it could perhaps be related to Fin. ruskea brown. 227 However, contrary to what one could believe, Est. rohi grass (see semantics for Fin. punainen red above) and Fin. ruoho grass do not go back to the same root! The Fin. word is a Germanic borrowing, i.e. Proto-Germanic *grōsō-~*grōzō, cf. Swe. gräs grass, Middle Dutch groese young grass, while the Est. word is from the weak grade *rohδ- of roht (gen. rohu) grass, plant, etc. from an earlier IE word connected to Proto-Germanic *grōþu- growth; plant, etc. (Koivulehto, J. 1999:213). The PFP root is also the origin of Fin. viha hatred, anger, wrath, vihata to hate, vihainen angry, evil, vihanta green, vihava bitter, vigorous, burning & N. Saami vâšše hate, hatred, grudge. The cognate of Fin. vihreä green is found in Est. viha anger, hatred, poison, sharp, bitter, angry and Veps vihä snake venom, hatred, anger. 228 Cf. Kar. keldajne yellow, obviously a Baltic borrowing, cf. Lith. geltas yellow. 229 Cf. Udm. čuž yellow. 50

63 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix 175 white valkoine n ( ) PFU *walkv white, light, to shine ( ) PFU *ačka white (3-4) valge 1, 6 vielgat , 34 akša 25, metathesis 176 black musta - must čáhppat , 34, 35 ravža night yö PFU *eje~*üje night (72) öö 6 idja , 32 ve day päivä PFU *päjwä fire (360) päev 8 beaivi , 21, 28, 29 ši year vuosi (ikä) PFU *ōδe~*oδe year ( ) PU *ïde year, autumn (Aikio, A. 2012) PFU *(j)ikä age, year PFV *kesä summer ( ) aasta 10 jahki , 25, 32 kizä 236 5, From Proto-Saamic *vie`lgḙdē white, cf. Fin. valkea white, bright, luminous flame, light of the fire, valkaise-, valaise- to make bright, to enlighten, to bleach, to explain, to peel off, valko white ox or horse. 231 Cf. Kar. mustu black. 232 From Proto-Saamic *čā`hpḙdē black. 233 From Proto-Saamic *i`jḙ night (the N. Saami -d- appears to be epenthetic), cf. Fin. yö night, Kar. üö night, Hung. ej night. 234 From Proto-Saamic *pea`jvē day. 235 From Proto-Saamic *i`kē year, cf. Fin. ikä age, i.e. the cognates are semantically different. 236 Cf. Fin. kesä summer. 51

64 Peter S. Piispanen 180 warm lämmin PFV *lämpv warm, warmth (685) soe 10 báhkas 237 liekkas , 28, 35 l ämbä 35, 36, cold kylmä PFP *kilmä~*külmä cold, frost, to be cold, to freeze (to death) (663) külm 8 galmmas , 27, 28 kel mä jakšam(a) 1 or 2, full täysi PFU *täwδe~*tälke full (518) täis 8 dievva , 25, 27, 28 päškśä new uusi PFU *wuδ e new (587) uus 8 ođas , 22, 25 od 4, 29, 30, 32, old vanha PFP *wanša old (813) vana 5 boaris , 27, 28, śirä PFV *sirv straight, vuođđo 35 tašta tall (761) 185 good hyvä PFU *šeŋä good, healthy (499) PFP *para good (724) hea 2, 5 buorre , 27, 28 para 245 ćebäŕ none 186 bad paha - paha none bahá , 28 kal ďav From Proto-Saamic *pakka- hot, cold, cf. Fin. pakkanen frost, cold. 238 From Proto-Saamic *lieŋgḙs hot, cf.?fin. liekki open flame. 239 From Proto-Saamic *kḙ`lmḙ- cold. 240 cf. Kar. täüzi full. From Proto-Saamic *oe`vdḙ full. 241 From Proto-Saamic *o`δḙ- new. 242 From Proto-Saamic *poarēs old, cf. Aryan *paras old, cf. Swe. forn- old. 243 Cf. Fin. siro petite, slim, fine. 244 From Proto-Saamic *puo`rē. 245 Cf. Fin. parempi better & paras best. 52

65 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix huono neavri rotten laho PU *sexji pus, to rot mädä siedja 21, 25, 32 naksada 38 mätä (Sammallahti, P. 1988) guohka naksatks PU *säje pus, to rot (434) PFU *kačke bitter (641) 188 dirty likainen - räpane 249 ropp 6, 7, 10 loakke 25, 27, 34 lebǝńu ǝrdazu 1, 35, 36? 189 straight suora PFV *sirv straight, tall (761) PFU *ńïlki straight, open (Sammallahti, P. 1988) PFV *wojke straight ( ) sirge njuolga ?, 25, 28, beanta vid ä , 29, 34, round pyöreä PFU *peŋe(-rä) circle, ümber 254 1, 8, 10 jorbbas 35 pokaŕav 24, 35, Possible Finnic borrowing. Cf. Kar. paha bad. 247 From Proto-Saamic *nea`vrē bad, cf.?fin. nöyrä humble. 248 Also Est. mädanema to rot. Fin. laho rotten has a cognate in Kar. lahota to rot. 249 Cf. Fin. rapainen dirty from clay? Fin. likainen dirty, lika dirt have a cognate in Kar. liga dirt. The N. Saami and MM items are both very difficult to analyze regarding cognancy. 250 Cf. Fin. siro petite, slim, fine. 251 From Proto-Saamic *ńuo`lgḙ- straight, directly. 252 A likely borrowing, cf. Nor. bent straight. 253 Cf. Fin. oikea right, correct. 254 Cf. Fin. ympyrä circle, ympäri around, Kar. ümbari around. 53

66 Peter S. Piispanen ring, to rotate, to roll, to turn ( ) 191 sharp terävä PFU *terä- blade, edge (522) *kaća (end, point) terav 255 2, 8 bastil 35 orža dull tylsä PFP *nišv~*nüšv nüri 10 jorbbas? 35 noška 36 tylppä blunt (708) tuhm 193 smooth sileä, PU *tasa even, sile 8 duolba takǝr 38 lattea, exactly (513) aŕśä tasainen valaźä 194 wet märkä PFU *ńačkv wet, moist, raw (311) 195 dry kuiva PFU *kujwa dry ( ) PU *kuśka~*kośka (to be) dry ( ) märg 1, 8 njuoskkas 35 načka 257 none kuiv 8 goikkis 35 kośkä correct oikea PFV *wojke right, õige 1, 6 riekta , 30, 32, lac tif 38 correct ( ) 35 äχäŕ 197 near lähellä PFV *läse nearby lähe(-dal, - 1, 9 lahka , 32, 35 malasa Cf. Kar. terja sharp. 256 The cognate of the Fin. sileä smooth & Kar. silej smooth has, in N. Saami, semantically changed to šillju yard, field. 257 Cf. N. Saami njuosskas wet, cf. Fin. nahkea ledern; feuchtig, dumpfig. The MM item has undergone a possible depalatalization. 258 Cf.?Fin. kostea moist. 259 From Proto-Scandinavian *reht- right, cf. Swe. rätt right. 54

67 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix (687) dane) 260 bokte far kaukana PU *kuwakka long kaug- 1 olgas 17, 28, 32, ičkezä (Aikio, A. 2012:244) olkus 34 guhkás 263 guhkkin right oikea PFV *wojke right, correct ( ) 200 left vasen PU *wasa left hand, left (559) õige 1, 8 olge , 32 viďä 12, 29, 34, vasak 9 gurut 35 kéŕži at -lla/-llä - -l in -ssa/-ssä - -s with kanssa PFP *kansa people, comrade, friend (645) PU *ku-~*ko- who, which, what ( ) koos mielde marχta From Proto-Saamic *lḙ`kḙ near, from near, cf. Fin. suffix liki- near, close by. 260 Cf. Kar. ljahjajne near. 262 Cf. Meadow Mari βoktel luokse, viereen, laitaan, lähelle, sivulle. 263 From Proto-Saamic *kuhkāsḙ (going) far. 264 From Proto-Saamic *kuhkēnē- far, from far, cf. Fin. kaukana far away. 265 Cf. PFV *ečkä/*ečä + case suffix? cf. Fin. etäällä far away. 266 While clearly the here compared items are somewhat similar, a sound change explanation is phonologically too problematic to accept these as cognates. N. Saami olge right may be related to PFU *wolka shoulder (UEW 581), Fin. olkapää shoulder, lit. shoulder head and N. Saami oal ge shoulder. Semantically it makes sense since most people are right-handed. 267 PU *ko-~*ku- > Est. koos with. A cognate of Fin. kansa people, nation & kanssa (together) with is found in Est. kaasa comrade, companion, husband, wife & the suffix ga (together) with. 268 From Proto-Saamic *mie`ldē along. Apparently cognate with Fin. myö(tä)- with. 55

68 Peter S. Piispanen 204 and ja -- ja none ja 269 none i 270 (ä-)dǝ if jos PU *ku-~*ko- who, which, what ( ) kui 271 kas jos 273 none ďäŕäj kǝda because koska PU *ku-~*ko- who, tõttu 10 geažil 28, 34 śas mes , 38 sillä which, what ( ) sest?pu *će-~*ći- this, that, the (33-34) 207 name nimi PU *nime name (305) nimi none namma , 27 l em 276 1, 32, 35, 36 Clarifications: Words 201 and 202 are cases in Finnish, i.e. morphologic properties, which is why they are not used for cognate comparison in this study. Estonian, Northern Saamic and Moksha Mordvin words marked in blue are cognates of the Finnish words. Particular care has been taken in root analyses and sound changes. The proposed sound changes concern the uppermost item in the cell if several word alternatives are given. Possible, later Finnic loanwords in Northern Saami include items: 74, 146, 161, 186 & 204. Mokshan cognates marked by 37 also display noteworthy, semi-regular sound correspondences between Finnish and Moksha Mordvin (see the main text for details). 269 The N. Saami item is possibly a Finnic borrowing, but the word may originally have been an earlier Germanic borrowing, cf. Gothic jah and. 270 A likely borrowing from Russian и and. 271 Cf. Fin. kun when, as. 272 Kas is a common, semantically shifted interjection in Finnish. 273 Both the Finnish and N. Saami items may be related to N. Saami juo already and be a Germanic borrowing, cf. Gothic ju already. 274 Literarily equal to Fin. sillä mitä because of what, and used like Fin. sillä että in order that, provided that? 275 From Proto-Saamic *nḙ?mḙ name, cf.?pie*nōmn- name. 276 I suggest the possible pathway of: *nime->*ńime->*ńem ->*jem > ĺem. However, compare this to Meadow Mari lüm name and Hill Mari lǝm name, which there appear to have originated in a conditional development in inherited words only (since Russian, Chuvash or Tatar borrowings have not undergone this change) as n- > l-/_vm. It is thus possible that the Moksha word instead simply represents an areal influence (i.e. borrowing) instead of irregular, local phonological change. 56

69 Dating Finno-Mordvinic by statistics & sound laws: Appendix Sources of lexical data: Estonian cognates used in the table have been obtained from the UEW with additional data collected from Greenberg, J.H. (2002). Northern Saami cognates used in the table are in accordance with the UEW and the Àlgu teitokanta unless otherwise noted. Additional data has been collected from: Sammallahti, P., & Sammallahti, P., & Greenberg, J.H & Korhonen, M., 1981 and through personal communication with Prof. Mikael Svonni. Mokshan glossary was collected from: Herrala, E. & Feoktistov, A. (1998) Mokšalais-suomalainen sanakirja, Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja, 58, Turku & Abondolo, D. (1998) & Greenberg, J.H. (2002). Additional lexical data and proto-items unless otherwise specified have been collected from: Aikio. A (2000) Suomen kauka, Virittäjä, 104, p Aikio. A. (2012) On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x, Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia, 264, p Aikio, A. (2013) Studies in Uralic Etymology I: Saami Etymologies, Linguistica Uralica XLIX, 3, p Àlgu tietokanta: Janhunen, J. (1981) Koivulehto, J. (1999) Pohjan Poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, Helsinki p Rédei, K. (1988) Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (UEW), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 57

70 Peter S. Piispanen 58

71 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Sámi University of Applied Sciences & UiT The Arctic University of Norway The origin of the Finnic l-cases 1 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Abstract. The Finnic languages, among them Finnish and Estonian, are well known for their large inventories of cases. As large case systems tend to develop especially through agglutination of adpositions, it is noteworthy that none of the thirteen cases reconstructed for Proto-Finnic have traditionally been considered to derive from adpositional phrases. However, in this paper, such an explanation is presented for the origin of the Proto-Finnic external local cases or the so-called l-cases, i.e. the adessive (*-lla < *-l-na), the ablative (*-lta), and the allative (*-l-en). The element -l- has traditionally been equated with a derivational suffix indicating locality, but against the received view this paper argues that the endings emerged via agglutination of the Proto-Uralic postpositions *ül-nä [on-locative], *ül-tä [on-ablative] and *üli-ŋ [on-lative], based on the relational noun root *ül(i)- location on/above. The argumentation is based on rich comparative data from the Saami, Mordvin, Permic and Samoyed branches of the Uralic language family. Through a thorough analysis of phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic properties of the Finnic l- cases and their proposed cognates, it is argued that the received view on the origin of the l- cases must be rejected as an illegitimately canonized hypothesis that was never tested through systematic application of the comparative method. Instead, the comparative analysis strongly supports the new hypothesis of the postpositional origin of the l-cases. Keywords: Finnic languages, local cases, grammaticalization, Saami languages, Uralic languages 1 This paper is an expanded English version of a paper originally published in North Saami (Aikio & Ylikoski 2007), and ultimately based on a presentation at the meeting of the Finno-Ugrian Society in Helsinki on January 20 th, We wish to thank those present at the meeting for their questions and remarks, as well as the anonymous reviewer of Fenno-Ugrica Suecana and a number of colleagues for valuable comments on various versions of this paper over the years. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15 (2016) Aikio, A. & Ylikoski, J., 2016

72 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski 1. Introduction 2. A review of previous research 3. The origin of Finnic l-cases in light of the comparative method 3.1. A new functionally based hypothesis 3.2. l-cases compated against Saami al-postpositions A qualitative look at the material Quantitative analysis 3.3. Comparing l-cases to their Permic and Samoyed equivalents 3.4. On the phonological and morphological development of the l-cases 3.5. Additional evidence from Finnic 3.6. Parallels from other languages 3.7. Comparing the previous la-theory and the new ül-theory 4. On the secondary functions of the l-cases 4.1. The instrumental use of the adessive 4.2. The possessive use of the l-cases 5. What is left of the la-theory? 6. Discussion and conclusion 1. Introduction In linguistic literature the Uralic languages are well-known for their large case inventories. Extensive case systems consisting of over ten cases are found in Finnic, Mordvin and Permic languages and in Hungarian. Even though such case systems are characteristic of many modern Uralic languages, they are not considered primary to the language family: only six cases are traditionally reconstructed to Proto-Uralic (Janhunen 1982: 30 31), which is not a typologically unusual number. Hence, the question of how the extensive case systems characteristic of many branches of the family have developed has become a central research problem in Uralic historical morphology. In the western part of the language family the case system evidently became enriched already at an early period. Through a comparison of Saami, Finnic and Mordvin languages one can reconstruct as many as thirteen cases or case-like suffixes, which are reflected in at least two of these three language branches (see Table 1). The most important innovation common to these languages (and to Mari as well) involves a reorganization of the local case 60

73 Origin of Finnish l-cases system. It is assumed that Uralic originally had a tripartite system of local cases: a static locative case (*-na), an ablative case signifying movement away from a point of reference (*- ta) and a directional lative case signifying movement to a point of reference (*-ŋ). In the western branches of Uralic (Saami, Finnic, Mordvin, Mari) these cases are attested in predominantly grammatical functions, and the lative has largely lost its productivity; it is preserved as a productive case only in Mordvin. The local functions were apparently taken over by a new set of local cases built with a so-called coaffix *-s-: inessive *-s-na, elative *- s-ta, and illative *-s or *-s-in (perhaps from earlier *-s-iŋ; in Mordvin languages the illative ending is merely *-s). As recently argued by Ylikoski (2016), it is likely that the western Uralic coaffix *-s- ultimately goes back to Proto-Uralic and is cognate with the Samoyed local case coaffix *-ntə-. In any case, the development of these so-called s-cases evidently antedates the topic of the present paper, the emergence of the so-called l-cases in Proto- Finnic. Case Suffix Saami languages Finnic languages Mordvin languages nominative *-Ø (pl. *-t) genitive *-n accusative *-m essive *-na + + translative *-ksi (+) + + partitive/ablative *-ta lative *-ŋ (? ~ *-k, *-n) (+) (+) + prolative *-ko (+) + inessive *-sna elative *-sta illative *-s ~ *-sin comitative *-jnv abessive *-ptak + + Table 1. Reconstructed case endings in Saami, Finnic and Mordvin languages. The symbol (+) indicates that the ending is found only in adverbs or relic forms, but not as a productive part of the case system. There is also a crucial feature which distinguishes the local case systems of most Finnic languages from those of Saami and Mordvin (and almost all other Uralic languages): an opposition between the so-called internal and external local cases. In addition to the internal local cases formed with the coaffix *-s-, a series of external local cases that are 61

74 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski formed with the coaffix *-l- emerged in Proto-Finnic. In contrast to this traditional terminology we prefer to call these s-cases and l-cases according to the coaffix in each series. 2 The paradigm of local case endings reconstructed for Proto-Finnic can be seen in Table 2. CASE PROTO-FINNIC PRE-FINNIC S-CASES: LOCATIVE inessive *-ssa < *-s-na SEPARATIVE elative *-sta < *-s-ta DIRECTIONAL illative *-hvn < *-s-in L-CASES: LOCATIVE adessive *-lla < *-l-na SEPARATIVE ablative *-lta < *-l-ta DIRECTIONAL allative *-l(l)en < *-l(l)-in Table 2. The Proto-Finnic local case endings. For the sake of readers unacquainted with the case systems of Finnic languages, the semantic opposition between the s-cases and the l-cases can be illustrated with the following set of Finnish examples (see Table 3). vuode bed talo house S-CASES: INESSIVE vuoteessa in the bed talossa in the house ELATIVE vuoteesta out of the bed talosta out of the house ILLATIVE vuoteeseen into the bed taloon into the house L-CASES: ADESSIVE vuoteella on the bed talolla at the house ABLATIVE vuoteelta off the bed talolta from the house ALLATIVE vuoteelle onto the bed talolle to the house Table 3. The semantic opposition between s-cases and l-cases in Finnish. The six local cases are found in all Finnic languages, except for most dialects of Livonian, where l-case endings are attested in non-productive relic forms only. The extinct Salaca dialect of Livonian had a set of productive l-cases, which has sometimes been attributed to 2 Especially the traditional term internal local cases (Finnish sisäpaikallissijat) seems to be a misnomer, as the s-cases do not only signify a location inside or in the interior of something. Instead, the s-cases in Finnic languages can be seen as a semantically unmarked set of local cases, as opposed to the l-cases signifying a location in the exterior. 62

75 Origin of Finnish l-cases Estonian influence (for different points of view on this, see Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861: 37 38, 72 74; Itkonen 1957a: ; Kettunen 1957: ; Itkonen 1957b: ). 3 However, no clear cognates to the Finnic l-cases are found in more distantly related Uralic languages. Mari and Permic languages also have cases built with a coaffix *-l-, but their functions are possessive rather than local. Even though the Finnic and Mari-Permic l-cases have often been seen as historically related, they have usually been considered the result of convergent development; hence, no l-cases are normally reconstructed to the proto-language common to Finnic, Mari and Permic (i.e., Proto-Finno-Permic in the traditional taxonomical scheme). 4 In this study our aim is to examine the historical background of the Finnic l-cases, applying the received methods of comparative linguistics. As will be shown below, other Uralic languages especially Saami and Permic languages yield decisive evidence of the historical origins of these cases. In addition, we will also present some hypotheses of the possible origins of the l-cases in Mari and Permic languages, even though these are not the main object of our study. 2. A review of previous research Apparently the first scientific work in which Finnic l-cases have been compared to forms in other Uralic languages is Rasmus Rask s Saami grammar, Ræsonneret lappisk Sproglære efter den Sprogart, som bruges af Fjældlapperne i Porsangerfjorden i Finmarken (1832). Rask equated the Finnic l-cases with the North Saami postpositions alde on and ala onto, and also suggested that some North Saami adverbs built with the coaffix -l- (e.g. davil from north, olggul from outside ) had developed from the same source: [Finsk:] Tilf[ormen] tòlille panna, lægge på Stolen; Vedf[ormen] tòlilla istua, sidde på Stolen; [ ] Fraf[ormen] tòlilda ottá, tage bort af Stolen; [ ] 3 In Karelian, the allative (*-lle) has rather recently coalesced with the adessive in -lla. 4 The internal classification of Uralic languages is matter of ongoing dispute, and currently there is no consensus as to whether Finno-Permic forms a valid node within Uralic; see, e.g., Salminen (2002) for a critical view. 63

76 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski [ ] Til Bevis, at den også har været den oprindelige i Lappisk, må tjene: [ ] Tilf. vare-ala, op på Bjærget; davvele, mod Norden; vaʒe olggole uwsa! Gå udenfor Dören! Vedf. vare-ald (aldn), på Bjærget; davvelest, nord på; olggolest, uden for; Fraf. vare-ald, fra Bjærget; daveld, norden fra; olgold, uden fra; (Rask 1832: ) [Finnish:] to-f[orm] tòlille panna, put on the chair; at-f[orm] tòlilla istua, sit on the chair; [ ] from-f[orm] tòlilda ottá, take off the chair; [ ] [ ] For proof that this has also originally been the case in Saami serves: [ ] to-f. vare-ala, onto the mountain; davvele, northward; vaʒe olggole uwsa! go outside the door! at-f. vare-ald (aldn), on the mountain; davvelest, in the north; olggolest, outside; from-f. vare-ald, from the mountain; daveld, from north; olgold, from outside; Rask based this comparison on his observations of the functional similarity between Finnic l- cases and Saami al-postpositions. He hypothetisized that Saami also had originally had a set of l-cases, but the case endings had split off the nouns and become independent words, retaining their original suffixal status in only certain adverbs: De næste tre Former have unægtelig fundet Sted i Sproget, som er indlysende af d a v v e l e, d a v v e l e s t, d a v e l d, men disse Endelser bruges nu, som det synes, kun i nogle gamle No. der ere ufuldstændigen tilovers, som blotte Forholdsord eller Biord; f. E. b aʒj e ( p aʒje), som er oventil, haves i disse Former, aldeles overensstemmende med det finske pǽ (pææ), Hoved, der også i de samme Former bruges på samme Måde, således: Finsk. Lappisk. Tilf. pǽlle, bagjele, op over, op på; Vedf. pǽllæ, bagjelest, oven over, oven på; Fraf. pǽldæ, bajeld, ovenfra, nedenfra. [ ] Men disse Endelser forekomme, som sagt, kun i nogle enkelte Ord; i de fleste Tilfælde ere de blevne afrevne fra Ordene i en noget forskjellig Form, og betragtede som særegne Forholdsord, hos L[eem (1748)] findes kun to sådanne, nl. a l a, hen på, til [ ] og a l d, som L. oversætter på, [ ] (Rask 1832: ) 64

77 Origin of Finnish l-cases The next three forms [= l-cases] have undeniably occurred in the [Saami] language, which is obvious from d a v v e l e, d a v v e l e s t, d a v e l d, but these endings are now apparently only used in certain old nouns that remain defective, as bare adpositions or adverbs, e.g., b aʒj e ( p aʒje), that which is above, occurs in these forms, altogether analogous to Finnish pǽ (pææ), head, which is also used in the same manner in the same forms, thus: Finnish. Saami. to-f. pǽlle, bagjele, op over, op på; at-f. pǽllæ, bagjelest, oven over, oven på; from-f. pǽldæ, bajeld, from above, down from. [ ] But as said, these endings only occur in certain individual words; in most cases they have split off from words in a somewhat separate form, and regarded as separate adpositions, in L[eem (1748)] only two such are found, namely a l a, onto [ ] and a l d, which L[eem] translates as på [ on ], [ ] Rask s explanation was apparently adhered to by M. A. Castrén in his doctoral dissertation De affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica (1839). Castrén accepted the equivalence of l-cases and Saami al-postpositions at least on a synchronic level, and seems to maintain that the morphemes are also etymologically cognate: Casus, qui nominati sunt: Allativus, Adessivus, Ablativus e lingua Lapponica omnino fere evanuerunt, neque occurrunt, nisi in quibusdam adverbiis et praepositionibus, ex. gr. bagje -le (Fenn. pää -lle, Allat.), baje -ld (Fenn. pää -ltä, Ablat.), siskele, siskeld, davvele, davveld e. s. p. Adessivus in illis quoque vocibus compensatur Infinitivo. Allativum nominum compensat postpositio ala, Adessivum interdum aln (aldn, Rask), saepissime vero ald, quae proprie post Ablativum ponitur [5]. (Castrén 1839: 59.) The cases which were mentioned: allative, adessive, ablative have altogether disappeared in the Saami language, and do not occur, except in certain kinds of adverbs and prepositions [= postpositions], for example bagje -le (Finn. pää -lle, allat[ive]), baje -ld (Finn. pää-ltä, ablat[ive]), siskele, siskeld, davvele, davveld, etc. The adessive in those expressions is compensated for by the infinitive [= partitive]. The allative of nouns is compensated by the postposition ala, the adessive sometimes with aln (aldn, Rask), most often however ald, which is properly placed after the ablative. [5] Rask s explanation was also supported by Stockfleth (1840: 10), but after this the idea seems to have sunk into oblivion. In his later publications Castrén compared the Finnic l-cases to the l-cases in Mari and Permic languages as well as to Khanty adverbs containing an element -l-, [5] E. 28 apparet, illas postpositiones primitus fuisse casuum terminationes. [ According to. 28 it is clear that these postpositions originally were case endings ; such information cannot, however, be found in. 28.] 65

78 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski leaving Rask s hypothesis entirely unmentioned (Castrén 1844: vi, 17 22; 1854: ; 1858 [1849]: 28). And already before this Lönnrot (1841: 35 37) had proposed a different explanation, without making any reference to either Castrén (1839) or Rask: he equated the coaffix -l- with the Finnish word liki near; almost, and suggested that it had developed through attrition from this lexical root; the coaffix -s- in the endings of the s-cases he explained on the basis of the root sisä- inside. Other explanations based on relational nouns were also suggested in the latter half of the 19 th century. Hunfalvy (1864: 301) connected the coaffix -l- with the Finnic relational noun luo-, cf. luona at (= in the vicinity of), luota from (the vicinity of), luo ~ luokse to (the vicinity of). On the other hand, Ahlqvist (1863: 26 27; 1877: ) equated the -lwith the Finnic root ala- under-. Ahlqvist s idea involved an interesting etymological misunderstanding, which brought it somehow close to Rask s explanation: he also maintained that there is a relationship between Finnic l-cases and the Saami al-postpositions, but he mistakenly thought that the Saami postpositions were cognate with Finnish ala- under. It is true, the regular vowel correspondences between Finnish and Saami were only later worked out by Genetz (1896), but despite of this Sjögren (1828: 397) already had correctly analyzed Saami al- as the cognate of Finnish ylä- up, above- instead. But Ahlqvist thought the Finnish forms talolla at the house and talolta from the house were historically equivalent to the North Saami expressions dalo ala (= dálu ala) and dalo ald (= dálu alde); in reality, though, the latter two mean onto the house and on the house, respectively. Later this mistaken equation of l-cases with Finnish ala- under was also supported by Blomstedt (1869: 44). The early comparisons made by Lönnrot, Hunfalvy and Ahlqvist have been recognized by later research, but on the other hand, Donner s (1879: 84 93) extensive discussion on the relationships of l-cases and adverbs with an l-element in the Finno-Ugric languages seems to have gone almost entirely unnoticed. 6 This is interesting, as among the late 19 th century scholars Donner can be characterized as the only one who based their hypotheses concerning the origin of the l-cases on a genuine comparative analysis. Donner s treatment differs from the earlier (and also most of the later) discussions on the l-cases in that he systematically tried to show cognate forms between distantly related Finno-Ugric languages: e.g. Finnish tuolta 6 As far as we are aware, the only scholar who has referred to Donner s views on l-cases is Häkkinen (1984: 7, 9), who herself maintains that the system of l-cases would have developed in the Finnic-Saami proto-language ( Early Proto-Finnic ) already. 66

79 Origin of Finnish l-cases from there ~ Khanty <tolta> (? = Vakh Khanty taltǝɣ) id., Finnish edellä ahead ~ North Saami <auddal> (= ovddal) towards (from the opposite direction) ~ Mari <anzalna> (= West Mari anzǝ lnǝ ) ahead, Finnish veneellä at the boat; by boat, with a boat ~ Ter Saami <vansel> by boat, with a boat. According to present knowledge most of these etymological comparisons are erroneous, though. Donner saw possible diachronic connections between the l-cases and several Finno- Ugric word-roots, such as the Finnic relational noun roots ala- under, ete- front, ul-ko- outside and üle- up, above and their cognates. In this connection Donner also mentions the local derivational suffix *-la. Donner s wordings are, however, rather cautious and in fact difficult to interpret; he does not take a clear stance as to which of these elements would lie behind the formation of the l-cases, but instead states that any one of them could account for their origin: Wenn wir jetzt die frage über den ursprung der l-kasus vom finnischen standpunkte zu beantworten suchen, so haben wir kein criterium um sie entweder mit ete, vogul. el, magy. el, mit dem finnischen luo oder mit ala in verbindung zu setzen. Der bedeutung und der form nach können sie aus allen hergeleitet werden, [ ] (Donner 1879: 91.) If we seek to answer the question of the origin of the l-cases from the point of view of Finnish, then we do not have a criterion for connecting them with either [Finnish] ete-, Mansi el, Hungarian el [ front- ], or Finnish luo [ at- ], or ala [ under- ]. According to form and meaning they can be derived from all of them [ ] Die bedeutung, welche alle diese verschiedenen differenzirungen [= e.g., ala, ete, ul-ko, üle] mit einander verknüpft, ist aussenseite, fläche und hängt offenbar mit dem im finnischen und anderen sprachen vorkommenden ableitungssuffix la zusammen, welches lokalität, wohnplatz, aufenthaltsort bezeichnet und in nahem zusammenhang mit luo nähe steht. Aus dieser frühen periode der sprachbildung leite ich daher den ursprung der l-kasus durch ein suffix, welches in naher beziehung zu allen den genannten steht. (Donner 1879: 92.) The meaning that links all these varying differentiations [e.g., ala under-, ete front-, ul-ko outside-, üle top, above- ] with each other is exterior, surface, and it is obviously connected with the derivational suffix -la occurring in Finnish and other languages, which designates locality, place of residence, whereabouts and which stands in a close connection with luo near. From this early period of language formation I derive the origin of the l-cases via a suffix, which stands in a close relationship with all the elements mentioned. 67

80 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski After Donner a new phase began in the research history of the l-cases. According to a new view briefly presented by Budenz (1886: 464), the l-cases would have their origin exactly in the derivational suffix *-la that was already mentioned by Donner; the suffix is attested in such Finnish derivatives as, e.g., appela father-in-law s house ( appi father-in-law ) and pappila parsonage ( pappi pastor ). Budenz presented functional arguments for his analysis in the form of two brief usage examples: Jóformán egynek is vehető ezen -l képzővel, mellyel az említett casusok specialis tője alakúl, a finn «nomen loci»-képző -la, -lä, pl. appela domus soceri (appe), pappila domicilium sacerdotis (pappi), miehelä dom. virorum, mariti, mert eredeti jelentésűl ráillik a «mellék (mellette és körüle valóság)»-féle, azt tekintve, hogy pl. on miehelässä magyarúl így van: «férj n é l van», meg mennä miehelähän (Kalev. 23, 496) «férj h e z menni». (Budenz 1886: 464.) In fact the derivational suffix -l that underlies the special stem of the cases mentioned [= l-cases] can be equated with the Finnish «nomen loci» derivative -la, e.g. appela father-in-law s house (appe [appi fatherin-law ]), pappila parsonage (pappi [ pastor ]), miehelä husband s house, marriage [mies : miehe- man, husband ], because something like supplementary; lateral ( locating or existing beside and around ) suits as the original meaning, considering, e.g., on miehelässä: férjnél van [man.ade be.3sg] [ is married ], mennä miehelähän (Kalevala 23, 496) férjhez menni [man.all go.inf] [ to get married ]. Later Setälä (1890) commented on the origin of the l-cases, which he considered originating from the derivative *pääle- with a suffix -l(e)- (cf. Finnish pääl(l)ys cover(ing), pääl(l)ikkö chief; head, pääl(l)inen cover; upper ); a similar idea had already been presented by Lönnrot (1841), who maintained that the element -l(e)- was eventually a truncation of the word liki near; almost. Setälä refers to Budenz s explanation and considers it possible that the coaffix -l- is originally connected with the derivational suffix -la; he rejects explanations based on postpositional stems. Even so, Setälä s attitude is rather cautious: Suomalaiset muodot päällä < *pääl-nä, pääl-tä ovat siis katsottavat vain l(e)-johtoisen sanan sijamuodoiksi, ja koko ulkoinen paikallisryhmä on pidettävä tämmöisistä johdannaisista alkunsa saaneena, niin kuin LÖNNROT (Suomi 1841, 5 v., s. 36) ja BUDENZ (äsken main. p.) ovat olettaneet. Liian kauvas on menty, kun tahdotaan tätä l:ää panna liki sanan yhteyteen (LÖNNROT, Suomi 1841, 5 v. s. 37) tai johtaa sitä ala sanasta (AHLQVIST, Suomi II, 1, s. 27; BLOMSTEDT, Halotti Beszéd, s. 44); sitä vastoin voisi sillä ajatella olevan yhteyttä paikallisen la päätteen kanssa (vrt. QVIGSTAD [1881], Beitr. s. [1]36, BUDENZ, main. p.). (Setälä 1890: 409; emphasis added) 68

81 Origin of Finnish l-cases The Finnish forms päällä < *pääl-nä, pääl-tä must thus be seen merely as case forms of a word with a derivational suffix l(e), and the whole group of external local cases considered originating from such derivatives, as Lönnrot (Suomi 1841: 5, p. 36) and Budenz (op. cit.) have assumed. One has gone too far when one has wanted to connect this l with the word liki [ near; almost ] (LÖNNROT, Suomi 1841: 5, p. 37) or to derive it from the word ala [ under- ] (AHLQVIST, Suomi II: 1, p. 27; BLOMSTEDT, Halotti Beszéd, p. 44); instead, one could think that it has some connection to the local suffix la (cf. QVIGSTAD [1881], Beitr. p. [1]36, BUDENZ, op. cit.). Doubts apparently vanished soon, however. Szinnyei (1910: 73 75) presents the equation with the suffix -la laconically, as if it were unanimously accepted: Im Ostseefinnischen, im Tscheremissischen und in den permischen Sprachen gibt es eine Suffixgruppe, deren gemeinsames Element ein -l ist. Dieses -l war ursprünglich ein Bildungssuffix und hat sich als solches im Finnischen (-la, -lä) und in den permischen Sprachen (-la) bis jetzt erhalten, z. B. finn. pappila,pfarrhof, Pfarrhaus (pappi,priester ); appela,haus des Schwiegervaters (appe-); anoppila,haus der Schwiegermutter (anoppi); miehelä-,haus des Mannes (miehe-); [ ] (Szinnyei 1910: ) In the Finnic, Mari and Permic languages there is a group of suffixes, whose common element is -l. This -l was originally a derivational suffix and has been preserved as such in Finnish (-la, -lä) and in the Permic languages (-la), e.g. Finnish pappila parsonage (pappi pastor ); appela father-in-law s house (appe- [ father-in-law ]); anoppila mother-in-law s house (anoppi [ mother-in-law ]); miehelä- husband s house (miehe- [ man, husband ]); [ ] Budenz s explanation, which we will henceforth call the la-theory, seems to have become the commonly accepted view on the origin of the l-cases since then. Wichmann ( : 13 15) added another Finnic derivational type to the explanation, namely cases where the suffix -la is attached to a relational noun root: e.g., Finnish etelä south ete- front (the original meaning of etelä was probably area in front of the house or the like, as the front sides of houses used to face south; SSA s.v. etelä). In such formations the derivational suffix would supposedly have become reanalyzed as a part of a case ending because nouns referring to a locality most often occur in local case forms. Hakulinen (1941: 90 91) mentions three types of Finnic derivatives in connection with the la-theory: 1) derivatives based on relational noun roots, e.g. etelä south ; 2) oikonym derivatives, e.g. appela father-in-law s house, pappila parsonage ; 3) derivatives based on pronoun roots and the suffix combination *-kala-, e.g. *tä- this *täkälä täkäläinen local to this place, inhabitant of this area, täällä here (< *täkäl-nä), täältä from here (< *täkäl-tä). 69

82 260). 8 In spite of its almost universal acceptance the la-theory did not remain completely Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Since the publication of Hakulinen (1941) these three types of derivatives have been routinely mentioned in connection with the la-theory, and the explanation has become a piece of textbook knowledge that is constantly referred to but practically never subjected to critical discussion. The theory has been described as the old and certainly correct view ( vanha ja varmasti oikea käsitys ; Uotila 1945: 334), the traditional view (Tauli 1956: 214), the widespread, commonly accepted hypothesis ( распространенная, общепринятая гипотеза ; Serebrennikov 1962: 12; 1963: 47), and the accepted opinion (Anttila & Uotila 1984: 125), and since the 1930s it seems to have been accepted in nearly every publication in which the origin of the Finnic l-cases has been commented upon. 7 But despite recurrent expressions of support, extremely little new evidence for the la-theory has been presented after Hakulinen. The limited discussion on the issue has tended to concentrate on the interrelations of the Finnic l-cases (with primarily local functions) and the Mari and Permic l- cases (with primarily possessive functions), and they have usually been seen as results of convergent development (e.g., Ravila 1958: 13; Itkonen 1966: ; Rédei 1996: 259 without criticism. The studies by Serebrennikov (1962: 13; 1963: 47) are a notable exception to the communis opinio. He has paid attention to the fact that the semantics of the derivatives in *-la or *-l(v) are difficult to equate wit the functions of l-cases: Отсюда может быть сделан только один вывод: элемент -l мог послужить показателем внешнеместных падежей только в том случае, если он сам обладал какой-то сходной семантикой. Насколько известно, словообразовательный суффикс в таких образованиях, как финск. setälä дом дяди или коми-зыр. бӧрла (дор), задняя часть водзла (дор) передняя часть такой семантикой не обладает. Поэтому, если рассуждать чисто логически, становится совершенно непонятно, каким образом этот элемент мог стать показателем внешнеместных падежей. (Serebrennikov 1962: 13; emphasis added.) 7 In addition to the scholars already mentioned, proponents of the la-theory include at least Ravila (1935: 43 45, 1958: 13), Lehtisalo (1936: ), Collinder (1952: 11; 1960: 291), Tauli (1952: 32 35), Pajusalu (1957a: ), Oinas (1961: 8), Itkonen (1966: ), Rätsep (1979: 51 53), Korhonen (1979: 9 10; 1981: , ; 1991: 10), Laanest (1982: ), Häkkinen (1983: 75 76; 1985: 86 87; 2002: 82 83), Baker (1985: 144), Leino (1990: 126), Tikka (1992: 40), Kulonen (1993: 18 19, 80 81), Huumo (1995: 64 65), Rédei (1996: ), Alhoniemi (2001), Kracht (2005), and Huumo & Ojutkangas (2006: 17). 8 Bartens (2000: 82 83), however, does not share this opinion; her view will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 below. 70

83 Origin of Finnish l-cases Hence, only one conclusion can be drawn: the element -l could serve as a marker of the external local cases only in the case that the element itself possesses somehow similar semantics. As far as is known, the derivational suffix in such formations as Finnish setälä uncle s house or Komi-Zyryan бӧрла (дор) rear side, водзла (дор) front side does not possess such semantics. Therefore, if we think purely logically, it becomes entirely incomprehensible how this element could become a marker of the external local cases. On the other hand, Serebrennikov speculates that a Finno-Permic superessive -l might lie behind the l-cases, but fails to present clear evidence for this hypothesis. In spite of this, though, his criticism quite clearly demonstrates the basic weakness of the la-theory: it simply remains unexplained how the core functions of the Finnic (or the Mari-Permic) l-cases could be connected with the semantics of the derivational suffix -la. The comparison seems to be primarily based on mere similarity of form, and the semantic relationship remains vague; the l-cases and the derivational suffix -la show hardly any similarities of meaning beyond a loosely defined local function. Even so, Serebrennikov s arguments have gained little attention. Apparently, only Baker (1985) has tried to counter this criticism: Attempts to refute this theory [ ] by claiming an inflectional or postpositional source for the l morpheme have foundered upon the formidable weight of derivational collateral provided by the contemporary languages, and the absence of independent comparative evidence to support the existence of an original desinence or adposition featuring the l element, which could reasonably have provided the base for some or all of the cases. (Baker 1985: 144.) One must note that it remains quite unclear what the formidable weight of derivational collateral mentioned by Baker is supposed to be (cf. Baker 1985: ). It is true, of course, that the Uralic languages possess a variety of words formed with some kind of local suffix or suffixes of the shape *-l(v)- (and this is probably the case with many other language families, too). However, as pointed out by Serebrennikov already, the semantics of such formations do not show any clear correspondence to the functions of the l-cases and, it seems, none of the supporters of the la-theory have attempted to present a plausible account of how this functional gap between the forms could be bridged. Moreover, to Serebrennikov s criticism one can add that the likelihood of chance resemblance is significantly increased by the fact that the compared element consists of a single phoneme (l), which is moreover a typologically common and unmarked sound, and in such a case particularly strong arguments are required for an etymological equation to be established. 71

84 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Baker is quite right, though, in noting that so far there have not been any plausible attempts to equate the Finnic or the Mari-Permic l-cases with postpositions or other grammatical elements. In the next section we will show, however, that strong evidence for the postpositional origin of the l-cases can be found. 3. The origin of Finnic l-cases in light of the comparative method The analysis of previous research has revealed that the la-theory, despite of being generally accepted, has in fact never been substantiated with convincing semantic and functional arguments. This provides us a motive to approach the problem of the origin of the Finnic l- cases from a quite different perspective. In this study, the received methods of comparative linguistics form our methodological framework, and particular attention will be paid to the functions of cases. We will seek to first identify the historically primary semantic function of the Finnic l-cases, and then to compare the cases to those structures in other Uralic languages that exhibit the same semantic function. The benefit of such an approach lies in its potential to provide an answer to two distinct questions: it may both reveal potential but so far undetected cognate morphemes for the Finnic l-case suffixes and yield more information on the grammatical expressions of external locality prior to the development of the l-cases, in Pre- Proto-Finnic and even in Proto-Uralic. Indeed, it can be said that the weakness of the prevailing view ultimately stems from the lack of such a comparative approach: the essence of the la-theory is formed by arguments supporting the equation of the coaffix -l- with the derivational suffix -la, and it has never been expanded to include a detailed model of the development of expressions of external locality from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finnic. We will argue below that Rask (1832: 37 38) is the only scholar who has come close to the right solution of the problem. Of course, Rask s idea of original l-case endings developing into independent al-postpositions in Saami is erroneous in light of current knowledge of the etymology of these postpositions. Nevertheless, the basic assumption of a diachronic connection between Finnic l-cases and Saami al-postpositions is well motivated, as the two elements are not only similar in form but also show obvious functional affinities. Hence, we can modify Rask s explanation and postulate the hypothesis that l-case suffixes were grammaticalized from earlier postpositions that were retained in Saami. In what follows we seek to verify this hypothesis through a detailed comparative analysis. As the first step, the primary functions of the l-cases will be examined in more detail. 72

85 Origin of Finnish l-cases 3.1. A new functionally based hypothesis The functions of l-cases in Finnish have been explained in detail by, e.g., Alhoniemi (1979), Leino (1989; 1990) and Huumo (1995), and Estonian l-cases have been treated by Vainik (1995); for discussion on the functions of l-cases in Finnic languages in general see Pajusalu (1957b; 1958a; 1958b; 1960). The core function of Finnic l-cases is to express location in the proximity, the vicinity and especially on the upper surface of something. This has been aptly put by Alhoniemi: l-sijaa käytettäessä puhutaan paikallissijaisten sanojen tarkoitteista tai tarkoitteiden pinnoista ikään kuin kaksi ulottuvuutta omaavina lokaliteetteina, kun taas näiden sanojen vastaavia sisäpaikallissijoja käytettäessä tarkoitteet nähdään kolmiulotteisina olioina, joille on ominaista mm. tilavuus ja materia. Näin siis Varissuolla ilmaisee kaksiulotteisen lokaliteetin, kun taas Varissuossa-ilmausta käytettäessä suo nähdään myös syvyyttä omaavana elementtinä. Vastaavalla tavalla vuoteelle, matolle, kadulle, pöydälle ilmoittavat subjektin tai objektin tarkoitteen olinpaikaksi pelkän pinnan, kun taas vastaavat sisäiset paikallissijat suhteuttavat tarkoitteet kolmiulotteiseen maailmaan. (Alhoniemi 1979: 94.) When using an l-case, one speaks of the referents and their surfaces as if they were localities involving two dimensions, whereas when using a corresponding internal local case [s-case] the referents are seen as threedimensional objects, which are characterized by, e.g., volume and material. Thus, Varissuolla [crow-bog- ADE] expresses a two-dimensional locality [ on Crowbog ], whereas when the expression Varissuossa [crowbog-ine] is used, the bog is perceived as an element that also possesses depth [ in Crowbog ]. In the same way vuoteelle [bed-all], matolle [carpet-all], kadulle [street-all] and pöydälle [table-all] express the location of the subject s or object s referent merely in terms of a surface, whereas the corresponding internal local cases proportion the referents to the three-dimensional world. Such usage can be shown as primary on levels of both synchronic description and diachronic reconstruction. In addition to these strictly local functions, the main functions of l-cases include possessive use as well as instrumental use of the adessive case. However, only the local functions are fully shared by the Finnic languages. Possessive use is missing in Livonian (except for the Salaca dialect, whose l-cases may result from Estonian influence), and even across other Finnic languages possessive use is somewhat heterogeneous (Inaba 2001), which suggests its secondary origin (see 4.2. for further discussion). The instrumental use of the adessive, in turn, is characteristic of northern Finnic languages only. Laaksonen (2000) has compared the use of the adessive case in Finnish and Estonian, and found the correspondence to be highest in local functions, especially in the so-called ON-function (i.e., location on the 73

86 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski upper surface ). Hence, it is not surprising that this function has also been considered diachronically primary, as summed up by Vainik, for instance: l-käänded kui ajalooliselt hilisemad peavad ju olema kasutusele võetud mingi markeeritud situatsiooni tarvis. Eeldades, et areng toimub ikka konkreetselt abstraktsele, tuleb arvata, et l-käänete kasutuselevõtu ajal oli selleks markeeritud olukorraks tõenäoliselt pidepunkti 2-mõõtmelisus ja aluse funktsioon, kui kõige konkreetsem ja sätestatum VK-dega tähistatav suhe. (Vainik 1995: 146; emphasis in the original.) The diachronically more recent l-cases must have been taken into use for the needs of some kind of marked situation. Presupposing that development always takes place from the concrete to the abstract, one can believe that at the time when l-cases were taken into use that marked situation was probably the twodimensional nature of the point of reference and the function of underlying surface, as it is the most concrete and established relationship signified by the external local cases. Considering these findings, the study of the origin of the l-cases naturally must begin by examining what structures other Uralic languages use to express the same semantic function, i.e. location on the upper surface. In fact, we find it quite odd that this crucial question has almost never been addressed in previous studies on the subject. The comparative method shows quite unambiguously that Proto-Uralic had a series of local postpositions formed from the relational noun root *ül(i)- place up or above : *ül-nä on-loc, *ül-tä on-abl, and *üli-ŋ on-lat. These postpositions have retained their primary functions in Saami, Permic and Samoyed languages, and they are also reflected in a semantically slightly different Finnish series of adverbs and postpositions: yllä above, yltä from above, and ylle to above. As the reconstructed Proto-Uralic *ül-postpositions bear a close resemblance to the endings of the l-cases and the two share the same semantic function (see Table 4), the hypothesis that l-cases have emerged through agglutination of these postpositions appears very promising indeed. 74

87 Origin of Finnish l-cases Proto- Uralic Tundra Komi Udmurt Inari Nenets 9 Saami North Saami Lule Saami *ül-nä ńińa vi li n vi li n alne (alde) nanna -lla *ül-tä ńid (vi li ś) (vi liś) (alne) alde nalta -lta *üli-ŋ ńih vi le vi le oolâ ala nali -lle Finnish Table 4. The reflexes of Proto-Uralic ül-postpositions in some Uralic languages. The forms put in parentheses are functionally equivalent but not morphologically cognate with the other items in the row. Prototypical examples of the core local functions inherited from Proto-Uralic can be seen in the following Komi (1a 5a) and Tundra Nenets (6a 8a) 10 sentences; the examples derive from Rédei s (1962) and Mikola s (1975) studies on postpositions in Komi and Nenets, respectively. As our translations of these sentences into North Saami (1b 8b) and Finnish (1c 8c) reveal, there is quite a clear correspondence between Finnish l-cases and the reflexes of the Uralic *ül-postpositions in the core local functions: 9 The Tundra Nenets ńi- postpositions are indeed cognate with Saami (n)al- and Permic vi l- postpositions, despite the phonological dissimilarity. The Proto-Samoyed forms of the postpositions are reconstructed as *i-nä on-loc, *i-tə on-abl and *i-ŋ on-lat. The root *i- has developed from earlier *ij- < *üj- < *üľ- (< Proto- Uralic *üli-). The nasal prothesis in Nenets (*i- > *ŋi- > ńi-) is a regular sound change. The etymology and phonological development of the Samoyed root *i- is discussed by Janhunen (1981: 256). To his discussion we can add a possible explanation of the unexpected lack of the reflex of the lateral *l. In Uralic *i-stems the lateral was regularly palatalized and developed into the semivowel *j in Samoyed, and consequently, the expected reflex of the Proto-Uralic root *üli- is Proto-Samoyed *ij-. Janhunen suggests that the irregular reduction of *ijto *i- could have been caused by lack of stress due to frequent use of the root in postpositions. This is conceivable, but another explanation can also be proposed. The locative and ablative forms which also functioned as postpositions appear to have been formed from consonant stems (Proto-Uralic *ül-nä and *ül-tä, respectively), and it may well be that the loss of the lateral *l is regular before the apical consonants *n and *t. There seems to be at least one parallel example of the development *lt > *t in Samoyed, namely Proto-Samoyed *kåtå- kill < Proto-Uralic *kal-ta- (a causative derived from the consonant stem of the verb *kali- die ), so the development of Proto-Uralic *ül-tä to Proto-Samoyed *i-tə can be interpreted as regular. No other examples of the Proto-Uralic cluster *ln are known, but since such a cluster does not seem to occur in Samoyed, the regularity of the development *ül-nä > *i-nä seems at least a valid possibility. Thus, the anomalous root form *i- (instead of *ij-) could have been analogically generalized from the two forms reflecting Proto-Uralic consonant stem formations. 10 We are obliged to Tapani Salminen for converting the Tundra Nenets examples into phonological transcription. 75

88 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski (1) a. akań kujle Nasťa ki vi li n doll lie.3sg N. hand vi li n b. dohkká lea Nastja gieđa alde doll be.3sg N.GA hand.ga alde c. nukke on Nastjan kädellä doll be.3sg N.GEN hand.ade The doll is lying on Nastja s hand. (Rédei 1962: 15) (2) a. me taje s vi ľpe v lećće da ju vi le 1SG this.acc again take.1sg river vi le b. doalvvun dán ođđasit joga ala take.1sg this.ga again river.ga ala c. vien tämän uudestaan joelle take.1sg this.gen again river.all I will take this on the river again. (Rédei 1962: 18) (3) a. bi vi li n pe rt e šale fire vi li n cauldron hang.3sg b. dola alde heaŋgá ruitu fire.ga alde hang.3sg cauldron c. tulella riippuu pata fire.ade hang.3sg cauldron There is a cauldron hanging over the fire. (Rédei 1962: 14) (4) a. tuj vi li n caŕ me dis mužikli ś juaśni road vi li n tsar begin.pst.3sg man.abl ask.inf b. geainnu alde cára álggii jearahallat ádjás road.ga alde tsar begin.pst.3sg ask.inf man.loc c. tiellä tsaari kävi tiedustelemaan ukolta road.ade tsar begin.pst.3sg ask.inf man.abl On the road the tsar began to ask the old man. (Rédei 1962: 16) (5) a. a pi zan vi li n ńi-nem abu but table vi li n no-one NEG.EX 76

89 Origin of Finnish l-cases b. muhto beavddi alde ii leat mihkkege but table.ga alde NEG.3SG be.cng nothing c. mutta pöydällä ei ole mitään but table.ade NEG.3SG be.cng nothing.ptv But on the table there is nothing. (Rédei 1962: 15) (6) a. num ńīśaw solotej tol ńińa ŋamťowi n. father.1sg golden throne(.gen) ńińa sit-infr b. áhččán Num čohkkái golletruvnnu alde father.1sg N. sit.pst.3sg golden.throne.ga alde c. isäni Num istui kultaisella valtaistuimella father.1sg N. sit.pst.3sg golden.ade throne.ade My father Num sat on a golden throne. 11 (Mikola 1975: 48) (7) a. ŋar wen ńińa məń jad əm h toe.gen.1sg ńińa 1SG walk.1sg b. váccán juolgesuorpmaid alde walk.1sg toe.pl.ga alde c. kävelen varpaillani walk.1sg toe.pl.ade.1sg I walk on my toes. (Mikola 1975: 48) (8) a. ser ńin təney ńih ice.gen ńih step.1du b. moai lávkiime jieŋa ala 1DU step.pst.1du ice.ga ala c. astuimme jäälle step.pst.1pl ice.all We stepped on the ice. (Mikola 1975: 46) As the Finnic l-cases and Uralic *ül-postpositions show both functionally and phonologically such a transparent correspondence, it is quite surprising that very little attention has been paid 11 Num is the name of the Nenets supreme deity. 77

90 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski to this since Rask (1832). The fact has not gone completely unnoticed during the period of the la-theory, however. Leino (1990) and Tikka (1992) suggest that the Finnish postpositional series yllä, yltä, ylle above and, peculiarly, also alla, alta, alle below could have had a semantic influence on the development of the l-cases. Even so, they consider derivatives based on the suffix -la as the primary material source of the case forms: Here, internal reconstruction leads to the conclusion that precisely those C-predicates that profile vertical spatial relations, i.e. the alla and yllä sets of p-positions, may have strongly influenced the development of the l-cases. [ ] The alla and yllä sets seem to have offered a motivation for the fact that the l-cases acquired the meaning top surface contact, and, thus, are closely associated with the vertical dimension. (Leino 1990: , Footnote 12.) Koska nämä kuten edellä on tullut esille kuuluvat lähitienoita luotaaviin postpositioihin, ei ole lainkaan mahdotonta, että ne ovat olleet edesauttamassa ulkoisten paikallissijojen synnyssä. (Tikka 1992: 40.) Because these [i.e., the alla and yllä sets] as was noted earlier belong to postpositions charting the immediate vicinity, it is not at all impossible that they have contributed to the birth of the external local cases. One should note that Leino and Tikka are, in fact, the only scholars subscribing to the latheory who have ever even tried to explain how the l-cases acquired the function of location on the upper surface. However, their explanation can be significantly simplified by assuming that the yllä set of postpositions is the concrete source of the l-case forms and not a mere semantic catalyst in their development l-cases compated against Saami al-postpositions Even though the similarity between Finnic l-cases and Uralic *ül-postpositions is striking on a superficial examination, more detailed proof is naturally needed in order to establish their historical connection. In this subsection an empirical test is performed: we will examine how and to what extent the use of the North Saami reflexes of Uralic *ül-postpositions corresponds to the use of Finnic l-cases. As seen in Table 4 (see Section 3.1 above), North Saami has two postpositions inherited from the Uralic *ül-set, namely a directional postposition ala onto and the postposition alde which has both a locative function ( on ) and 78

91 Origin of Finnish l-cases a separative function ( off, from ). 12 Hence, our hypothesis predicts that the functions of North Saami ala will show a systematic resemblance to those of the Finnish allative case, and the functions of alde to those of the adessive and ablative cases. In order to test the hypothesis, we have made use of a North Saami text corpus consisting of 12 works of fiction, four non-fiction titles, the translation of The New Testament published in 1998, and approximately 150 issues of the newspaper Min Áigi from the years 1995 and 1997 (see the references for more details). The size of the corpus is over a million words, and it includes 2031 tokens of the words alde and ala 1963 instances of postpositions and 68 of adverbs. Even though we have chosen North Saami as the sole representative of the Saami languages in our analysis, this is highly unlikely to cause any serious bias in the results, becuase the usage of cognate postpositions in other Saami languages does not seem to differ much from North Saami. For example, on the basis of our own acquired L2 intuition it is clear that Inari Saami alne, oolâ and Skolt Saami â lnn, ool are used in a manner highly similar to North Saami alde and ala, and this intuitive judgment is confirmed by an examination of texts in these languages (e.g. IK; Sammallahti 2004; 2012). A more detailed study might, of course, still reveal some minor statistical differences A qualitative look at the material Before a more detailed quantitative investigation it is worth while to take a brief qualitative look at the material through a few selected examples. In the examples below we have provided the Saami sentences with both Finnish and English translations in order to illustrate the functional correspondences between the Saami al-postpositions and various Finnish constructions. Unless otherwise mentioned, all translations are our own. A part of the observations on the use of North Saami al-postpositions have already been published Ylikoski (2006). 12 The grammatical distinction between locative and separative forms has been lost in North Saami as well as in all Eastern Saami languages. Originally, the distinction was lost in the sigular forms of local cases due to sound change: the Proto-Saami inessive singular ending (*-snē) and elative singular ending (*-stē) merged into -s(t). Subsequently, the distinction was analogically obliterated also in the locative plural as well as in adverbs and postpositions (Korhonen 1981: ; Sammallahti 1998: 66 67). Etymologically North Saami alde on; off reflects the Uralic separative form *ül-tä, whereas in Eastern Saami the corresponding locative form was generalized instead (cf. Inari Saami alne, Skolt Saami â lnn on; off < Uralic *ül-nä). 79

92 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski In the material, the great majority of al-postpositions are used in a local function. In a typical case the postpositional phrase expresses location on the upper surface of a referent e.g. an artifact (9), (10), a natural place (11), (12), a natural object (13), (14), or a part of the body (15), (16). In such cases, the most natural Finnish translation for the phrase often involves an l-case form, as in the following quite prototypical examples: 13 (9) Nohkadeimmet filttiin ja ránuin duolji nalde fall.asleep.pst.3pl blanket.pl.loc and quilt.pl.loc hide.ga alde guolgabolsttar oaivve vuolde. fur.pillow head.ga under Nukahdimme vilteissä ja raanuissa taljalla fall.asleep.pst.3pl blanket.pl.ine and quilt.pl.ine hide.ade karvatyyny pään alla. fur.pillow head.gen under We fell asleep [tucked] in blankets and quilts on a hide, with a fur pillow under our heads. (Blind 1992: 59) (10) Na dan áhkus leai nieiddaš čohkkame áiddi alde. well it.ga old.woman.loc be.pst.3sg girl.dim sit.prog fence.ga alde No sillä eukolla oli pieni tyttö istumassa aidalla. well it.ade old.woman.ade be.pst.3sg little girl sit.prog fence.ade Well, that old woman had a little girl sitting on the fence. (Turi 1982: 91) (11) Mánát ieža goivo alcceseaset jieŋa ala skeittánsaji. child.pl REFL.PL dig.pst.3pl REFL.ILL.3PL ice.ga ala skating.place.ga Lapset itse kaivoivat itselleen jäälle luistelupaikan. child.pl REFL dig.pst.3pl REFL.ALL.3PL ice.ade skating.place.gen The children themselves dug a skating place for themselves on the ice. (MÁ 1995) 13 The examples also illustrate the variant forms in which these postpositions appear in North Saami: alde ~ al ~ nalde and ala ~ nala. The form al is merely an irregularly eroded form that is very common in spoken language, but less frequent in literary use. The origin of the secondary initial nasal in nalde and nala is explained in Section 3.6, and phonological erosion of these postpositions is discussed in more detail in Sections 3.6 and

93 Origin of Finnish l-cases (12) [ ] su ovddal bođii bálga al okta boares áhkku. 3SG.GA against come.pst.3sg path.ga alde one old.attr woman [ ] häntä vastaan tuli polulla yksi vanha eukko. 3SG.PTV against come.pst.3sg path.ade one old woman [ ] an old woman came towards him on the path. (Aikio & Aikio 1978a: 100; 1978b: 100) (13) [ ] oainnán mieđabealde muhtin geađggi alde goaskima čohkohaddamin. see.1sg under.the.wind some rock.ga alde eagle.ga sit.prog [ ] näen kotkan istuksivan tuulen alla jollain kivellä. see.1sg eagle.gen sit.inf wind.gen under some.ade rock.ade [ ] I see an eagle sitting on some rock under the wind. (Sombi 1996: 8) (14) Áhčči lebbii gártta sáddo ala [ ] father spread.pst.3sg map.ga sand.ga ala Isä levitti kartan hiekalle [ ] father spread.pst.3sg map.gen sand.all Father spread out the map on the sand [ ] (Jansson 1990: 24; 1979: 24) (15) De bajidii son su gieđas mu oalggi ala. then raise.pst.3sg 3SG 3SG.GA hand.ga.3sg 1SG.GA shoulder.ga ala [Sitten] hän nosti kätensä olkapäälleni. [then] 3SG raise.pst.3sg hand.gen.3sg shoulder.all.1sg Then he raised his hand on my shoulder. (Hætta & Bær 1982: 113; 1993: 153) (16) Geasset sáhtii bidjat cuoppolastta hávi nala. in.summer be.possible.pst.3sg put.inf pondweed.ga wound.ga ala Kesällä saattoi laittaa uistinvidan lehden haavalle. summer.ade be.possible.pst.3sg put.inf pondweed.gen leaf.gen wound.all In summer one could put a pondweed leaf on a wound (in order to disinfect it). (Blind 1992: 83) Occasionally the actual function of the al-phrase is not really local, but involves a transparent metaphor based on a local meaning, as in the following cases: 81

94 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski (17) [ ] de báhcá buot bargu dáppe Rainer hárduid ala. then remain.3sg all work here Rainer.GA shoulder.pl.ga ala [ ] sitten jää kaikki työ täällä Rainerin harteille. then remain.3sg all work here Rainer.GEN shoulder.pl.all [ ] then all work here is left as Rainer s responsibility ( on Rainer s shoulders ). (MÁ 1995) (18) Dan vuođu ala mii sáhttit hukset boahtteáiggi. it.ga foundation.ga ala 1PL can.1pl build.inf future.ga Sille pohjalle voimme rakentaa tulevaisuutta. it.all foundation.all can.1pl build.inf future.ptv On that foundation we can build the future. (MÁ 1995) Some cases involve a referent which lacks a concrete upper surface or top (19). In the case of body parts, the phrase most often expresses posture (20); similar use occasionally occurs with inanimate objects as well (21). Even in such cases the phrase can often be translated with an l- case form: (19) Na de olmmái válddii ja suddadii laju dola nalde [ ] well then man take.pst.3sg and melt.pst.3sg lead.ga fire.ga alde No sitten mies otti ja sulatti lyijyä tulella [ ] well then man take.pst.3sg and melt.pst.3sg lead.ptv fire.ade Then the man took and melted lead on the fire [ ] (Blind 1992: 120) (20) Báhppa Stockfleth maidda čohkka muohttat alde čippiid alde [ ] pastor Stockfleth also sit.3sg snow.ga alde knee.pl.ga alde Pappi Stockfleth myös istuu lumella polvillaan [ ] 14 pastor Stockfleth also sit.3sg snow.ade knee.pl.ade.3sg Pastor Stockfleth also sits on the snow on his knees [ ] (Hætta & Bær 1982: 53) 14 The passage in the published Finnish translation is not an exact equivalent: Pappi Stockfleth polvisteli muiden tavoin lumella [ ] Father Stockfleth sat like the others kneeling on the snow (Hætta & Bær 1993: 88 89). 82

95 Origin of Finnish l-cases (21) [ ] biila lea fierran moddii birra ovdal bisánii fas car be.3sg roll.pst.ptcp a.few.times around before stop.pst.3sg again juvllaid nala. wheel.pl.ga ala [ ] auto on pyörähtänyt muutaman kerran ympäri ennen kuin car be.3sg roll.pst.ptcp a.few.gen occasion.gen around before than pysähtyi taas renkailleen. stop.pst.3sg again wheel.pl.all.3sg [ ] the car has rolled over a few times before stopping on its wheels again. (MÁ 1995) Another type of semantic extension is the occasional use of Saami al-postpositions to designate a location not on (the upper surface), but merely next to or in the immediate vicinity of the referent. These kinds of examples resemble the use of Finnish l-cases in the ATfunction (e.g., Finnish talolla at the house ). Hence, they are often naturally translated with l- case forms, as in the case of (22 24) below. One can compare (22) and (23) against (4) and (2) in Section 3.1, in which the phrases geainnu alde on the road and joga ala onto the river appear in a more prototypical ON-function. (22) Bargostohpu leai min skuvlageainnu nalde. workshop be.pst.3sg 1PL.GA school.way.ga alde Työpaja oli meidän koulutiellämme. workshop be.pst.3sg 1PL.GEN school.way.ade.1pl The workshop was along our way to school. (Blind 1992: 71) (23) Dainna mielain son vulggii Giru gillái Avviljoga ala [ ] it.com mind.com 3SG leave.pst.3sg Giru.GA village.ill Avviljohka.GA ala Sillä mielellä hän lähti Kyrön kylään Ivalojoelle [ ] it.ade mind.ade 3SG leave.pst.3sg Kyrö.GEN village.ill Ivalojoki.ALL In that mood he left for the village of Giru along the river Avviljohka [ ] (Castrén 2005: 27) 83

96 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski (24) Dan botta skihpárat ledje joavdan unna it.ga while.ga companion.pl be.pst.3pl arrive.pst.ptcp small.attr ádjagačča ala [ ] brook.dim.ga ala Sillä välin kumppanit olivat saapuneet pienelle purolle [ ] it.ade while companion.pl be.pst.3pl arrive.pst.ptcp.pl small.all brook.all Meanwhile the companions had come upon a small brook [ ] (Castrén 2005: 22) As (9) (24) illustrate, the correspondences between Saami al-postpositions and Finnish l- cases are rather pervasive in local functions. Even so, there are of course also many instances where the Saami postpositional phrases cannot, despite of having a local function, be translated with a Finnish l-case form. As pointed out by Lauranto (1994: 49), Finnish l-cases are usually used in local functions only if the referent of the noun has a prominent upper surface, either in terms of the referent s form or its function. The local semantics of Saami alpostpositions are stronger, and hence their use is not as strictly limited by the nature of the referent of the complement of the postposition. For instance, the following examples involve referents that either have an upper surface that is not central to the function of the referent (a car [25]) or lack a coherent upper surface altogether (gas bottles [26]). In such cases it is more natural or even necessary to translate the Saami al-postposition with a Finnish postposition of the series pää-llä on-ade, pää-ltä on-abl, pää-lle on-all : 15 (25) Fáhkka almmái njuikii eret biilla alde [ ] suddenly man jump.pst.3sg away car.ga alde Yhtäkkiä mies hyppäsi auton päältä [ ] suddenly man jump.pst.3sg car.gen päältä Suddenly the man jumped off the car [ ] (Marastat 1990: 28) (26) Son bajidii guoros gássa, mii lei gássaboahtaliid alde 3SG raise.pst.3sg empty.attr box.ga which be.pst.3sg gas.bottle.pl.ga alde Hän nosti tyhjää laatikkoa, joka oli kaasupullojen 3SG raise.pst.3sg empty.ptv box.ptv which be.pst.3sg gas.bottle.pl.gen päällä [ ] 15 This historical background of this postpositional series is discussed in more detail in Section 5. 84

97 Origin of Finnish l-cases päällä He raised an empty box that was [placed] on the gas bottles [ ] (Jansson 1990: 195; 1979: 175) In the material, one can also observe other types of limitations to the use of l-cases in a local function. In al-phrases that involve animate referents the translation to a Finnish l-case form is impossible not only because of the lack of a coherent upper surface, but also due to the fact that the l-cases have possessive and dative functions associated with animate referents. Consider the following example: (27) Nisu, gii gohčoduvvo bolesiin boares oahpisin, njoarai woman who call.pass.3sg police.pl.loc old.attr acquaintance.ess pour.pst.3sg godena olbmá nala, ja cahkkehii su. moonshine.ga man.ga ala and ignite.pst.3sg 3SG.GA Nainen, jota poliisit kutsuvat vanhaksi tutuksi, woman which.ptv police.pl call.3pl old.transl acquaintance.transl kaatoi pontikkaa miehen päälle ja sytytti hänet. pour.pst.3sg moonshine.ptv man.gen päälle and ignite.pst.3sg 3SG.ACC A woman, who is called an old acquaintance by the police, poured moonshine on the man and set him on fire. (MÁ 1995) In (27), there is simply no possibility of translating Saami ala with the Finnish allative case, as in connection with a human referent the case has a dative function; it is naturally something altogether different to pour the man some moonshine (kaataa pontikkaa miehelle) than to pour moonshine on the man (kaataa pontikkaa miehen päälle). But it should be noted that such restrictions to the local use of l-cases have become necessary only when the possessive functions of these cases have first started to develop in Finnic. As already mentioned in 3.1, the possessive use must be interpreted as secondary; its development will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 below. In addition to the core local functions, al-postpositions are also encountered in various kinds of other uses. In particular, alde and ala often occur as postpositions governed by a variety of verbs. These kinds of cases make up over one tenth of the sentences in the research material, and their Finnish equivalents are quite heterogeneous. In the following examples, the verbs doarrut to fight (28), suhttat to get mad (29), and jurddahit to think (30) 85

98 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski govern either an alde phrase or an ala phrase; such usage is analyzed in more detail by Ylikoski (2006): (28) Ahte vel moaluid alde nai dárbbašit doarrut, dákkár rikkis, that still crumb.pl.ga alde also need.3pl fight.inf this.kind.of rich stuorra gávpogis. large.attr city.loc Että heidän vielä muruista=kin tarvitsee tapella, COMP 3PL.GEN still crumb.pl.ela=also need.3sg fight.inf tällaisessa rikkaassa, suuressa kaupungissa. this.kind.of.ine rich.ine big.ine city.ine [Imagine] that they must fight even for crumbs in such a rich and large city. (Vars 1990: 46) (29) [ ] Ovllá-viellja meinnii duođas suhttat mu ala, Ovllá.brother be.about.to.pst.3sg seriously get.mad.inf 1SG.GA ala vaikko mun in dadjan maidige. (Vest 1988: 28) even.though 1SG NEG.1SG say.cng.pst nothing.acc [ ] Oula-veli meinasi tosissaan suuttua minulle, Oula.brother be.about.to.pst.3sg seriously get.mad.inf 1SG.ALL vaikka minä en sanonut mitään. even.though 1SG NEG.1SG say.cng.pst nothing.ptv Brother Ovllá almost got mad at me for real, even though I didn t say anything. (Vest 1990: 28) (30) In mon gal jurddahan ruđa nala, mon ledjen dalle ain nu NEG.1SG 1SG really think.cng.pst money.ga ala 1SG be.pst.1sg then still so mánas. childish En minä kyllä ajatellut rahaa, olin silloin vielä niin NEG.1SG 1SG really think.cng.pst money.ptv be.pst.1sg then still so lapsellinen But notice that in Estonian the verb mõtelda to think can govern the allative case: 86

99 Origin of Finnish l-cases childish I didn t really think about money, I was still so childish back then. (Blind 1992: 23) Finally, it can be noted that al-postpositions occur in a number of fixed phrases and idioms. Even such cases can occasionally be translated with a Finnish l-case form, such as North Saami gozuid alde awake = Finnish hereillä. The underlying nominative forms *gohcu and *here do not occur as independent nouns in the languages (but cf. North Saami gohcit to be awake and Finnish herätä to awaken ): (31) Lean gozuid alde, muhto buot orru dego niegus be.1sg STEM.PL.GA alde but all seem.3sg like dream.loc dáhpáhuvvame. happen.prog Olen hereillä, mutta kaikki tuntuu tapahtuvan kuin unessa. be.1sg STEM.PL.ADE but all feel.3sg happen.inf like dream.ine I am awake, but everything seems to be happening as if in a dream. (MÁ 1995) It may be added that Finnic and Saami appear to have been close neighbors ever since their divergence from a common protolanguage, and as a result of millennia-long contacts, Finnic and Saami morphosyntaxes greatly resemble each other and the closest neighbors such as Finnish and North Saami are rather isomorphic indeed. One could hypothesize that this would also have resulted in a gradual convergence of the functions of the Finnic l-cases and the Saami postpositions. However, as will be shown below, even the most remote members of the two branches show significant similarities, and this in turn is not fundamentally different from the similarities with other, geographically more remote descendants of the Uralic postpositions. (i) Mina küll ei mõtelnud rahale, olin siis veel nii lapselik. 1SG really NEG think.cng.pst money.all be.pst.1sg then still so childish 87

100 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Quantitative analysis From a qualitative perspective there is a clear correspondence between Saami al-postpositions and Finnic l-cases, especially in core local functions, as showed in the previous subsection. Even more conclusive proof of their historical connection can be provided through a quantitative analysis of the material. According to our calculations, as many as out of the 1963 al-postpositions in our research material can be naturally translated into Finnish with an l-case form; this amounts to about two thirds of all tokens (65 67%). In order to see the frequency of various functions of the al-postpositions, and to study the correspondences with Finnish l-cases for each group of functions separately, we have divided the tokens into four broad semantic groups plus a residual group: a) Local expressions, including metaphoric use of local expressions (see Examples 9 19, 22 27). b) Expressions of posture (see Examples 20 21). c) Postpositions governed by various verbs and nouns (see Examples 28 30). d) Fixed phrases and idioms (see Example 31). Some other examples in the material include mátkki alde [trip.ga on] while travelling, on the journey, jurdagiid alde [thought.pl.ga on] lost in one s thoughts, olles mielaid alde [full mind.pl.ga on] in one s right mind, beassat niskki ala [get.inf neck.ga on] to get the upper hand. In this group we have also included fixed phrases where the postpositional phrase has some kind of idiomatic reading, even though the complement of the postposition may freely vary: examples include X:a ala in addition to X (e.g., buot dan ala in addition to all that ), X:a ala after completing X (e.g., dien beaivása ala after completing that day s trip ). e) Unclassified tokens. This residual group includes al-phrases with some kind of unusual reading which nevertheless does not seem to be an established idiom or fixed construction, and also a couple of cases where the meaning of the phrase simply remains unclear. The number of tokens in each category, as well as their correspondences to Finnish l-cases, is shown in Table 5 below. As the figures in the table reveal, the great majority of tokens involve expressions of locality (1562/1962 = 80%), and the correspondence in this core group 88

101 Origin of Finnish l-cases is very strong: as many as 71 74% of the tokens can be translated with l-case forms in Finnish. alde, ala ~ l-case alde, ala ~ other a) locality (71 74%) (26 29%) b) posture 68 (94%) 4 (6%) c) government (23 26%) (74 77%) d) fixed phrase, idiom (41 42%) (58 59%) e) unclassified (28 31%) (69 72%) Total (65 67%) (33 35%) Table 5. The correspondences between North Saami al-postpositions and Finnish l-cases in different functional domains. This kind of calculation naturally involves a certain degree of subjectivity. Indeed, the differences between minimum and maximum percentages result from borderline cases where it is hard to be sure whether the Finnish translation involving an l-case form is the most natural one, or where our native speaker s judgments of naturalness differ. However, as such unclear cases only amount to a few per cent of the material, they do not have a significant implication on the overall result in the local functions, the correspondence between Saami al-postpositions and Finnish l-cases is pervasive. Moreover, it is possible to conduct a more objective experiment by comparing texts that have been translated from North Saami to Finnish or vice versa. Our material includes four such translated works of fiction. From these we have also checked how often the North Saami al-phrase matches an l-case form in the Finnish text, ignoring our own intuition about possible translations altogether; the results can be seen in Table 4. 89

102 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Book l-cases / al-postpositions Tove Jansson: Áhčči ja mearra ( Muumipappa ja meri) / 170 (= 84.7%) Timo K. Mukka: Sipirjá ( Laulu Sipirjan lapsista) 77 / 110 (= 70%) Jovnna-Ánde Vest: Čáhcegáddái nohká boazobálggis ( 48 / 76 (= 63.2%) Poropolku sammaloituu) Annukka & Samuli Aikio: Girdinoaiddi bárdni ( 27 / 47 (= 57.4%) Lentonoidan poika) Total 296 / 403 (= 73.4%) Table 4. The correspondence rates between North Saami al-postpositions and Finnish l-cases in translated texts. As shown in table 4, the objective test verifies our results: in translated works, nearly three quarters of the North Saami al-postpositions correspond to an l-case form in the Finnish text. And one can add that this figure is still slightly lowered by discrepancies between the Saami and Finnish texts. In some cases the Finnish text does not contain an l-case even though such a translation would be perfectly possible because the original text and the translation do not exactly correspond to each other. Compare the Saami example (32a) against its equivalent in the Finnish translation (32b): (32) a. [ ] dat lea noidon mu oappa gollegoalsin it be.3sg conjure.pst.ptcp 1SG.GA sister.ga golden.merganser.ess guhte ferte ávi al vuodjat. which must.3sg open.sea.ga alde swim.inf [ ] she has conjured my sister into a golden merganser that must swim on the open sea. (Aikio & Aikio 1978a: 119) b. [ ] hän on noitunut sisareni kultaiseksi 3SG be.3sg conjure.pst.ptcp sister.gen.1sg golden.transl koskeloksi niin että hänen täytyy nyt uida meren merganser.transl so COMP 3SG.GEN must.3sg now swim.inf sea.gen sylissä. lap.ine 17 This book seems to have been, at least for the most part, translated from the Finnish version Muumipappa ja meri rather than from the Swedish original Pappan och havet. 90

103 Origin of Finnish l-cases [ ] she has conjured my sister into a golden merganser so that she must now swim on the bosom of the ocean. (Aikio & Aikio 1978b: 119) (cf. uida ulapalla [swim.inf open.sea.ade] swim on the open sea ) It is easy to compare the use of Finnish l-cases to North Saami in this manner, as there are plenty of texts that have been translated from one language to the other. It is more difficult to apply such a method to other Finnic and Saami languages, but a comparison of North and Lule Saami translations of the New Testament to the Finnish, Olonetsian, Estonian and Livonian translations yields a rough picture of the correspondences. In addition, this makes it possible to further match the material against the geographically and historically distantly related Permic language Udmurt. As shown in Table 6 below, the results of such a comparison are somewhat different. A major cause of the lower correspondence rates is the fact that source text of the translations of the New Testament has usually been the Greek original, in addition to which a variety of different translations to other majority languages have been used in each translation process. On the other hand, each translation may have its own theological bases, so that the outcomes are often not, and have not even meant to be, literal translations of the original text(s). Language Bible translation Matches % of matches Lule Saami Ådå Testamennta (2000) % Udmurt Выль Сӥзён (1997) % Finnish Uusi testamentti (1992) 74 29% Olonetsian Uuzi Sana (2003) % Estonian Uus Testament (1997) 72 28% Livonian Ūž Testament (1942) 0 0% Table 6. The 258 tokens of North Saami al-postpositions in Ođđa Testamentta (the New Testament; 1998) matched with Lule Saami nal-postpositions (nanna, nalta, nali), Udmurt vi l-postpositions (vi li n, vi li ś, vi le, vi lti, vi li śen), and Finnic l-cases. At first glance the figures in Table 6 seem very odd. It is unexpected that even between North Saami and Lule Saami the correspondence rate is as low as 48%, as these languages are so closely related that they are even to a fair extent mutually intelligible. Even more peculiarly, the correspondence rate between North Saami and Olonetsian is higher (53%) than that between North Saami and Lule Saami. The correspondence rates with Finnish and Estonian 91

104 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski are much lower, which is again surprising as Olonetsian is very closely related to Finnish. In Livonian no matches can be found, but this is simply due to the fact that l-cases do not even exist in this language as productive members of the case system. Quite strangely, the highest correspondence rate occurs between the two most distantly related languages: the match rate of North Saami al-postpositions and their Udmurt cognates vi l-postpositions is as high as 67%, despite that these two languages are both geographically and taxonomically very far from each other. One should note, though, that it is not the high rate of correspondence to Olonetsian and to Udmurt which is surprising; it was already shown that there is a very high rate of correspondence between North Saami al-postpositions and Finnish l-cases in local functions, and comparing North Saami to Olonetsian, one only expects the same result. The high rate of correspondence between North Saami and Udmurt also matches well with the previous observation that the basic local functions of these postpositions were inherited from Proto- Uralic already (see 3.1). Comparing these three translations to each other, one finds as many as 99 cases out of 258 (38%) where the North Saami al-postposition is matched by both an Olonetsian l-case and an Udmurt vi l-postposition in spite of three completely separate and independent translation processes. A great majority of these matches involve cases with a concrete local function, especially in the sense of location on the upper surface. This result provides a good statistic confirmation for the Uralic origin of this function, and reinforces the view that the Finnic l-cases are grammaticalized reflexes of the Uralic *ül-postpositions. Compared to Olonetsian, the significantly lower percentages of matches with Finnish and Estonian result of certain idiosyncratic features of biblical language. The dramatic difference results from the fact that the phrase eatnama alde [earth.ga alde] on earth has an abnormally high frequency in the New Testament: 49 cases out of 258, i.e., as many as 19% of all al-postpositional phrases. As a correspondent of this phrase one finds an l-case form in Olonetsian (mual), but a postpositional phrase in Finnish (maan päällä) and Estonian (maa peal). This is because the corresponding l-case forms of maa earth, land have become lexicalized into a different meaning: Finnish maalla, Estonian maal in countryside. Incidentally, the high frequency of eatnama alde is also responsible for a significant lowering of the match rate between North Saami and Lule Saami, as the Lule Saami translation employs the local case form ednamin [earth.ine] instead. Compare the following example: 92

105 Origin of Finnish l-cases (Luke 2:14) (33) North Saami (OT): a. Gudni lehkos Ipmilii allagasas ja ráfi eatnama alde glory be.imp.3sg God.ILL place.high.up.loc and peace earth.ga alde olbmuide geaid Ipmil árpmiha! person.pl.ill who.pl.ga God show.mercy.3sg Lule Saami (ÅT): b. Guddne Jubmelij allagisán ja ráfe suv gierugijda glory God.ILL place.high.up.ine and peace 3SG.GEN loved.one.pl.ill ednamin. earth.ine Udmurt (VS): c. «Dan vi li ś Inmarli, muzjem vi li n kańi lli k, aďamiosli ǯ eč erik». glory high God.DAT earth vi li n peace person.pl.dat good will Finnish (Raamattu): d. Jumalan on kunnia korkeuksissa, maan päällä rauha God.GEN be.3sg glory place.high.up.pl.ine earth.gen päällä peace ihmisillä, joita hän rakastaa. person.pl.ade who.pl.ptv 3SG love.3sg Olonetsian (US): e. Kunnivo Jumalale ülimäzes taivahas, i mual rauhus glory God.ALL high.sup.ine heaven.ine and earth.ade peace rahvahile, kudamii Häi suvaiččou. people(.pl).all who.pl.ptv 3SG love.3sg Estonian (Piibel): f. Au olgu Jumalale kõrges ja maa peal rahu, glory be.imp.3sg God.ALL place.high.up.ine and earth.gen peal peace inimestest hea meel! person.pl.ela good mood Livonian (UT): g. Ouv volgõ yļižis Jumalõn, ja mā pǟl arm, glory be.imp.3sg place.high.up.ine God.DAT and earth.gen pǟl peace rovvõn jõva mēļ. people.dat good mood 93

106 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests. If one removes the 49 tokens of eatnama alde from the material, the match rates for Finnish, Karelian and Olonetsian become more uniform. Still, it is noteworthy that the percentages are rather low compared to the translations of works of fiction listed in Table 5. In addition to the general differences between biblical translation procedures this is also caused by another peculiarity of biblical language, namely the high frequency of al-postpositions that have a complement with a human referent. Outside the Bible these kinds of phrases are at all not common in North Saami, and the few that occur in the rest of our material pertain to more or less unusual states of affairs: cf. njoarai godena olbmá nala poured moonshine on the man in (29). However, in the New Testament such cases are very common: Mun bijan Vuoigŋan su ala [ ] I will put my Spirit on him (Matthew 12:18), [ ] seavdnjat gahčai noidošeaddji ala [ ] darkness came over him [ over the sorcerer ] (Acts 13:11), [ ] bohkáid ja vuovssáid varra ja guigguid gunat mat riškkuhuvvojit buhtismeahttumiid ala [ ] The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean (Hebrews 9:13), [ ] almmis gahčče olbmuid ala stuora čuođibuddásaš čuorbmasat from the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men (Revelation 16:21). Due to the fact that l-case forms of nouns with human referents have possessive and dative functions, these kinds of Saami al-phrases can naturally not be translated with them (see the discussion on Example (29) above). There are as many as 53 al-phrases of this kind in the New Testament, i.e. 20.5% of all tokens. This can be considered highly atypical use of North Saami, because the rest of our material includes less than a dozen comparable examples. In total, the tokens involving either the phrase eatnama alde on earth or a noun with a human referent cover as many as 102 cases out of 258 in the New Testament (i.e., 39.5%). If these tokens which strongly deviate from normal use of North Saami al-postpositions are left out of the count, the remaining tokens correspond relatively well to the use of Finnic l-cases. For instance, the correspondence rate between Finnish and North Saami rises up to 47% (74 cases out of 156). Thus, one can say that despite a few peculiarities resulting from the idiosyncratic properties of biblical language, the material from the New Testament verifies the close correspondence between al-postpositions (and Udmurt vi l-postpositions) and the Finnic l-cases, at least as regards Finnish, Olonetsian and Estonian. 94

107 Origin of Finnish l-cases 3.3. Comparing l-cases to their Permic and Samoyed equivalents As the Saami al-postpositions and Finnic l-cases have been shown to correspond well in both form and function, we already have strong evidence for equating them etymologically. This argument can be further strengthened by examining the cognates of Saami al-postpositions in Permic and Samoyed languages. As already shown in Examples (1 8), the basic local use of corresponding Komi and Nenets postpositions is quite similar: Komi: ki vi li n ~ gieđa alde ~ kädellä on the hand (1), ju vi le ~ joga ala ~ joelle on(to) the river (2), etc. Tundra Nenets: ŋar wen ńińa ~ juolgesuorpmaid(an) alde ~ varpaillani on my toes (7), ser ńin ~ jieŋa ala ~ jäälle on(to) the ice (8), etc. As mentioned earlier, the Finnic l-cases have often been considered diachronically related to Permic l-cases. Quite like in Finnic, in the Permic languages there is a series of three cases formed with a coaffix -l- followed by a primary local case suffix: the genitive (Komi -le n, Udmurt -len), the ablative (Komi -li ś, Udmurt -leś) and the dative (-li in both languages). However, the functions of these cases are primarily possessive, and never local (see e.g. Baker 1985: , 147; Bartens 2000: 82 83, 94 98, 325, ), whereas in contrast the possessive use of Finnic l-cases is clearly secondary. As the primary local use of the Finnic l-cases is paralleled in Permic by vi l-postpositions instead, it is much more natural to assume that these two are historically connected. In the previous subsection it was shown that the use of Udmurt vi l-postpositions corresponds quite well to that of both Saami al-postpositions and Finnic l-cases. Bartens (1978: , , ) has paid attention to the functional similarity of Saami al- and Permic vi l-postpositions on a purely synchronic level. Some quite prototypical examples of such functions and their equivalents in Finnic can be seen in the following: (Matthew 16:18) (34) a. Ja mun cealkkán dutnje ahte don leat Biehtár; ja dán and 1SG say.1sg 2SG.ILL COMP 2SG be.2sg Peter and this.ga bávtti ala mun huksen girkon, ja jápmima riikka rock.ga ala 1SG build.1sg church.ga.1sg and death.ga kingdom.ga poarttat eai vuoitte dan. (OT) gate.pl NEG.3PL win.cng that.ga 95

108 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski b. Ja mån dunji javlav, dån le Petrus, Bákte, ja dan báktáj and 1SG 2SG.ILL say.1sg 2SG be.2sg Peter rock and that.gen rock.ill iehtjam girkkov tsieggiv, man badjel REFL.GEN.1SG church.acc raise.1sg what.gen over jábbmekájmo uvsa e goassak fámov oattjo. (ÅT) kingdom.of.the.dead.gen door.pl NEG.3PL ever that.ga authority.acc get.cng c. Mon ti ni d veraśko: ton Petr, ta iz vi le Mon Asleśti m 1SG 2SG.DAT say.1sg 2SG Peter this rock vi le 1SG REFL.ABL.1SG Č erkme ki ldi to, adlen kapkajez uz vormi church.acc.1sg found.fut.1sg hell.gen gate.def NEG.FUT.3SG win.cng soje. (VS) that.acc d. Ja minä sanon sinulle: Sinä olet Pietari, ja tälle kalliolle and 1SG say.1sg 2SG.ALL 2SG be.2sg Peter and this.all rock.all minä rakennan kirkkoni. Sitä eivät tuonelan 1SG build.1sg church.gen.1sg that.ptv NEG.3PL kingdom.of.the.dead.gen portit voita. (Raamattu) gate.pl win.cng e. I minä sanon sinule: sinä olet Pedri, Kallivo, i tälle and 1SG say.1sg 2SG.ALL 2SG be.2sg Peter rock and this.all kallivole minä püstütän oman uskojien kanzukunnan. rock.all 1SG raise.1sg REFL.GEN believer.pl.gen nation.gen Uadun vägi ei voita sidä. (US) hell.gen force NEG.3SG win.cng it.ptv f. Ja mina ütlen sulle: Sina oled Peetrus ja sellele kaljule and 1SG say.1sg 2SG.ALL 2SG be.2sg Peter and that.all rock.all ma ehitan oma koguduse, ja põrgu väravad ei 1SG build.1sg REFL.GEN congregation.gen and hell.gen gate.pl NEG saa sellest võitu. (Piibel) get.cng that.ela victory.ptv g. Aga ma kītõb ka sinnõn, ku sa ūod Petrus, ja sīe but 1SG say.1sg also 2SG.DAT COMP 2SG be.2sg Peter and that.gen kivmäg pǟl [!] ma tieb ylzõ entš lātkub, ja rock.gen pǟl 1SG make.1sg up REFL.GEN congregation.gen and 96

109 Origin of Finnish l-cases eļ vǟrõd äb võit vindõ tǟnda. (UT) hell.gen gate.pl NEG get.3pl win.inf that.ptv And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Mark 8:25) (35) a. Jesus bijai fas gieđaidis su čalmmiid ala; Jesus put.pst.3sg again hand.pl.ga.3sg 3SG.GA eye.pl.ga ala dál čielggai oaidnu, ja olmmái lei buoriduvvon ja now clear.pst.3sg sight and man be.pst.3sg heal.pass.pst.ptcp and oinnii buot čielgasit. (OT) see.pst.3sg all clear.adv b. Jesus ájn nuppádis giedajdis ålmmå tjalmij nali biejaj, Jesus again second.ela hand.pl.acc.3sg man.gen eye.pl.gen nali put.pst.3sg ja ålmmå tjalme dal tjielggin, buorránij ja gájkka and man.gen eye.pl now clear.pst.3pl get.well.pst.3sg and all.acc tjielggasit vuojnnegådij. (ÅT) clear.adv see.inch.pst.3sg c. Noš ik solen śin vi laz kize ponem no uč ki ni but DPT 3SG.GEN eye vi le.3sg hand.acc.3sg put.pst2.3sg and look.inf kosem. So burmem no vańze č i lki t adʒ i ni order.pst2.3sg 3SG be.healed.pst2.3sg and all.def.acc clear see.inf kutskem. (VS) begin.pst2.3sg d. Jeesus pani uudestaan kätensä miehen silmille, ja nyt Jesus put.pst.3sg again hand.pl.3sg man.gen eye.pl.all and now tämä näki tarkasti. (Raamattu) this see.pst.3sg precise.adv e. Iisus uvvessah pani käit miehen silmile, i mies Jesus again put.pst.3sg hand.pl man.gen eye.pl.all and man kačoi tarkazeh. Häi oli parandunnuh da look.pst.3sg precisely 3SG be.pst.3sg get.well.pst.ptcp and nägi kai selgiesti. (US) see.pst.3sg all clear.adv 97

110 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski f. Seejärel pani Jeesus uuesti käed ta silmadele ja ta thereupon put.pst.3sg Jesus again hand.pl 3SG.GEN eye.pl.all and 3SG sai täiesti terveks ja nägi kõike selgesti. (Piibel) get.pst.3sg fully healthy.transl and see.pst.3sg all.ptv clear.adv g. Siz ta tegiž paņ kädud täm sīlmad pǟlõ [!], ja se then 3SG again put.pst.3sg hand.pl 3SG.GEN eye.pl.gen pǟlõ and it vaņtliz ja voļ tierrõks tiedõt ja look.pst.3sg and be.pst.3sg healthy.transl make.pass.pst.ptcp and neiz ammõ sieldistiz. (UT) see.pst.3sg all.ptv clear.adv Once more Jesus put his hands on the man s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. (Acts 7:60) 18 (36) a. De son luoitádii čippiidis ala ja čuorvvui alla then 3SG descend.pst.3sg knee.pl.ga.3sg ala and shout.pst.3sg high jienain: [ ] (OT) voice.com b. Buolvatjij nali luojttádij ja jieddnát tjuorvoj: [ ] (ÅT) knee.dim.pl.gen nali descend.pst.3sg and loud.adv shout.pst.3sg c. Sobere pi ďes vi laz sultem no badʒ i m kuarajen thereupon knee vi le.3sg settle.pst.3sg and big voice.ins keśiśki sa veram: [ ] (VS) shout.cvb say.pst2.3sg d. Hän vaipui polvilleen ja huusi kovalla äänellä: [ ] (Raamattu) 3SG descend.pst.3sg knee.pl.all.3sg and shout.pst.3sg hard.ade voice.ade e. Häi pakui polvilleh da kirgai kovah: [ ] (US) 3SG fall.pst.3sg knee.pl.all.3sg and shout.pst.3sg hard.ill f. Ja ta laskus põlvili ning hüüdis suure and 3SG descend.pst.3sg on.one s.knees and shout.pst.3sg big.gen häälega: [ ] (Piibel) 18 The Estonian and Livonian adverbs põlvili (34f) and puoļļindžõl (34g) are explained in Section

111 Origin of Finnish l-cases voice.com g. Aga puoļļindžõl eitõn ōriz ta vegiz ȳölkõks: but on.one s.knees fall.pst.ptcp shout.pst.3sg 3SG forceful.gen voice.com [ ] (UT) Then he fell on his knees and cried out [ ] Besides the New Testament, as another point of comparison one can use the material Rédei (1962: 11 35) presents in his monograph study of Komi postpositions. Rédei cites a total of 169 usage examples of the postpositions vi li n on, vi li ś off from ja vi le onto in various local functions. According to our calculations, at least 96 (57%) of these can be naturally translated with an l-case form in Finnish. In addition to local functions, Rédei s study also includes numerous examples of postpositions in more marginal functions, such as postpositional phrases governed by various individual verbs. The set of examples Rédei has chosen for his study is naturally not statistically representative of the use of these postpositions, but even if one were to calculate all the cases listed, the resulting correspondence rate is 36%, 117 cases out of 321. Regrettably, from the Samoyed languages even less suitable material is available for comparison. However, Mikola (1975: 45 50) gives a total of 79 examples of the use of the Nenets postpositions ńińa on, ńid off from and ńih onto, and this material already gives a rough picture of their basic functions. Roughly two fifths (at least 31) of the examples can be naturally translated with a Finnic l-case form. Even though such a limited material does not give a statistically reliable picture of the use of Nenets ńi-postpositions, it still demonstrates that the basic local functions of the Uralic *ül-postpositions are quite similar not only between Saami and Permic languages, but also with Nenets. As Saami, Permic and Samoyed (Nenets) are only extremely remotely related branches of Uralic which have not been in any known areal contact with each other, these functions can be quite reliably reconstructed into Proto-Uralic. 19 Further, it may be noted that Uralic *ül- has also survived in Western Mari in which the functions of the postpositions βǝlnǝ on, βǝ(l)kǝ onto and βǝlec off largely correspond to those of their Saami, Permic and Samoyed equivalents 19 It is hardly necessary to mention that very recently certain dialects of Saami, Komi, and Nenets have come into contact in Northern Russia and on the Kola Peninsula. These recent contacts naturally cannot explain any similarities between the use of old Uralic postpositions in these languages. 99

112 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski discussed above (e.g., lə m βǝlnǝ on the snow, i βǝlnǝ on the ice, stöl βǝ(l)kǝ onto the table and tə l βǝlec off the fire etc.; see also Moisio & Saarinen 2008 s.v. βǝl-). The reconstruction presented above provides a very strong argument for equating the Finnic l-cases with Uralic *ül-postpositions. As it is recognized that Proto-Uralic already had the postpositions *ül-nä on, *ül-tä off from and *üli-ŋ onto, and in Proto-Finnic one finds the highly similar case suffixes *-l-na, *-l-ta and *-l(l)-en in the same function, it is easy to believe that these suffixes are originally agglutinated postpositions On the phonological and morphological development of the l-cases As strong functional arguments have now been presented in favor of the ül-theory, it is necessary to examine the phonological and morphological aspects of the new explanation. The development of Finnic l-case endings out of Uralic *ül-postpositions is not phonologically regular, but the suffixation of independent postpositions cannot even in theory be based on any sound law; a regular development could only have resulted in *ülpostpositions being retained as independent words. However, it is necessary to posit only three irregular changes: 1) univerbation of postpositional phrases by way of loss of the vowel *ü; 2) loss of the genitive ending *-n in the adessive and the allative; 3) adjustment to vowel harmony. The assumed development can be seen in Table 7. Pre-Finnic: *talja-n ülnä *talja-n ültä *talja-n üli-ŋ 1) loss of *ü (*taljanlnä) (*taljanltä) *taljanlen 2) loss of *-n- *taljalnä *taljaltä *taljanlen 3) vowel harmony *taljalla *taljalta *taljallen on the hide off/from the hide onto the hide Table 7. The phonological development of *ül-postpositions into *l-cases. In the scheme in table 7 one can also see other phonological developments, namely the assimilations *ln > *ll (in the adessive) and *nl > *ll (in the allative), the vowel lowering *i > *e in an unstressed syllable, and the shift of the lative ending *-ŋ into *-n in word-final position. These can be interpreted as regular. The change *ln > *ll is well-established in lexical items (e.g., Finnish halla night-frost < *šalna < Proto-Baltic *šalnā > Lithuanian šalnà). The change *-ŋ > *-n has not traditionally been considered a sound law due to the paucity of examples of a velar nasal in word-final position. However, the assumption of this 100

113 Origin of Finnish l-cases change makes it possible to equate the lative suffixes *-n and *-k and derive both of them from the earlier form *-ŋ, the lative suffix attested in Mordvin and Samoyed languages (Janhunen 1998: 469; Bartens 1999: 76; Ylikoski 2011: ). In Proto-Saami there was a sound change *-ŋ > *-k: cf. North Saami ala < Proto-Saami *e le -k < Proto-Uralic *üli-ŋ (cf. Sammallahti 1998: 226). 20 Regarding change 1), univerbation of the original postpositions and their complements has led to the situation in which the original initial vowel of the postpositions has become stressless and prone to loss. One can add that vowel reduction and loss is especially common in the case of close vowels, such as *ü. Unstressed close vowels become easily reduced and lost, apparently because their inherent phonetic duration is shorter than that of non-close vowels (Laver 1994: ). This process can be seen in the phonological history of some branches of Uralic as well: Proto-Uralic unstressed *i has become more frequently reduced or lost in daughter branches than the open vowels *a and *ä, e.g. in Proto-Mordvin (Bartens 1999: 64 65) and Proto-Samoyed (Janhunen 1981: ; Sammallahti 1988: 485), and even in certain eastern dialects of Finnish (cf. dialectal Finnish veś water < *vesi, but pesä nest unchanged). 21 Change 2), the loss of the genitive ending *-n, can be considered a direct consequence of change 1). The loss of *ü would have resulted in the awkward consonant clusters *nln and *nlt in the adessive and the allative, and due to phonotactic restrictions such clusters would have been simplified. In fact, it is doubtful whether forms such as *taljanlnä and *taljanltä even occurred in the language at any period; it would seem more natural to assume that the genitive ending *-n was lost at the same time with the vowel *ü. Notably, the earlier presence of the genitive ending *-n is revealed by the allative ending *-llen: the geminate lateral 20 Traditionally a large number of different Uralic directional case ( lative ) suffixes have been assumed; at least the latives *-ŋ, *-n, *-ń, *-k, *-s and *-j have been frequently reconstructed in studies on Uralic case systems. However, it is not natural to assume that any real language would have had such a multitude of directional case suffixes, especially as no distinction between these suffixes has been established in terms of either their function or their morphological distribution. In our opinion, it is much more plausible that the lative endings *-k, *-n and *-ń (and perhaps also *j) attested in various languages reflect an earlier *-ŋ. This question is, however, not relevant to the origin of the Finnic l-cases: our theory is not affected by whether the *-n in the allative suffix *- llen reflects an earlier *-ŋ or some other directional case suffix. 21 In fact, syncopes and apocopes seem to follow such a hierarchy that if non-close vowels are lost, close vowels must also be lost. For instance, in Estonian all final vowels were lost after long stressed syllables, as in *kaksi > kaks two, *paksu > paks thick, *maksa > maks liver. But in contrast, no Uralic language seems to have lost non-close vowels in positions where close vowels have been preserved. 101

114 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski reflects an earlier cluster *nl, which was assimilated in the same way as in compounds and on word boundaries: compare Finnish sellainen that kind of, tällainen this kind of (<< sen lajinen [it.gen kind.of], tän lajinen [this.gen kind.of]) and <talon luona> /talol luona/ at the house. In the context of the earlier la-theory the geminate had been explained as a result of influence of the adessive ending -lla, but in our theory there is no need to resort to such an explanation. However, it must be noted that the loss of the Proto-Finnic genitive ending *-n in constructions that would gradually develop into l-cases is conceptually independent of the later sound changes that have lead to the variegated development and partly complete loss of *-n in individual Finnic languages. One should note that in the plural forms the phonological leap from postpositions to case endings has been even smaller. The genitive plural ending was originally merely *-j, as still attested in Saami (Sammallahti 1998: 70); the genitive plural endings *-ten and *-iten attested in Finnic, which combine one or two plural markers with the genitive singular ending *-n, are later innovations. Hence, in the plural forms one only needs to postulate the loss of *ü and an adjustment to vowel harmony: e.g., *talja-j ül-nä [hide-pl.gen on-loc] > *talja-j-lnä > Finnish taljoilla on hides (note that the change *aj > *oi is regular in Finnic; see Kallio 2012a; 2012b: 234, Footnote 16). As *-j- became interpreted as a plural marker, such cliticized forms as *talja-j-lnä have probably offered a strong analogical model for a singular form *talja-lnä. At the stage when the *ül-postpositions had become phonologically reduced and cliticized through changes 1) and 2), their eventual adjustment to vowel harmony was only predictable. One can also observe this in some later suffixation processes, such as in the obscured Finnish compounds tälla(i)nen ~ tällä(i)nen this kind of (<< tän lajinen) and tämmö(i)nen id. (<< tän moinen). The same has happened to case suffixes that originate from postpositions in Hungarian, another Uralic language with harmony: e.g., the dative ending - nak ~ -nek has become adjusted to vowel harmony, but the original front vocalic form nekcan still be seen in postpositional forms such as nek-em to me, nek-ed to you, nek-i to him/her, etc. (on the etymology of the suffix, see Kulonen 1993: 85; Honti 2006). Even though the development of *ül-postpositions into case endings is phonologically quite a natural process, one can still add that also the previously existing local case endings have probably exerted an analogical influence. As seen in Table 8, the primary Uralic local case endings and especially the series of secondary s-cases have provided a model to which the series of cliticized *ül-postpositions could be naturally adapted. 102

115 Origin of Finnish l-cases Primary local cases s-cases *ül-postp. > l-cases *-na *-s-na *ül-nä > *-l-na *-ta *-s-ta *ül-tä > *-l-ta *-ŋ (? ~ *-n, *-k) *-s-en (? < *-s-iŋ) *üli-ŋ > *-ll-en Table 8. The analogical influence of Uralic primary local cases and s-cases in the development of the l-cases. The phonological irregularities that must be assumed in the development of l-cases are rather small, and can be plausibly accounted for. In fact, one can note that the reductive developments assumed here are rather minimal when compared against, for instance, the case forms that have later developed out of postpositions in Veps (Tikka 1992). It can be added that the earlier theory based on derivational suffix -la was not entirely free of phonological irregularities either. If l-cases had developed out of the derivational suffix *-la, one would have to postulate an irregular loss of the vowel *A before a primary case ending; but the socalled consonant-stems that developed through syncope in Uralic are regular only for Finnic e-stems, not for A-stems: compare Finnish kieli tongue : kiele-n GEN : kiel-tä PTV vs. kala fish : kala-n GEN : kala-a PTV (< *kala-ta, instead of *kal-ta). When estimating the plausibility of the development outlined above, it is essential to remember that the suffixation of independent postpositions is by definition an extraordinary process which cannot be based on any regular phonological changes whatsoever. A regular development could only have led to the maintenance of the postpositions as independent words. While the Komi postpositional phrase mu vi l-i n [earth on-ine] on the earth can be regarded as an expected reflex of its Uralic predecessor *mi xi-n ül(i)-nä, the Olonetsian mua-l [earth-ade] as well as the Southern Permyak superessive form mu-vi n id. (< *mu vi li n) to be discussed in Section 3.6 below are, from a purely phonological point of view, anomalous cognates of the Komi phrase. In addition to sound changes, also one morphological change must be postulated. If l- cases indeed developed from postpositions, the development probably had an intermediate phase where a possessive suffix preceded the case ending instead of following it. This is the case, for example, with the comitative plural in Saami, which developed from a postposition *guoimmi with. In all other case forms possessive suffixes follow the case suffix in North Saami, but in the comitative plural the order is the reverse. Compare North Saami máná-iguin [child-pl-com] with children vs. máná-id-an-guin [child-pl-1sg-com] with my children (< *máná-id-an guoimmi [child-pl.gen-1sg with]); expected forms such as *máná- 103

116 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski i-guin-an [child-pl-com-1sg] do not occur in the language, at least yet. Hence, one must assume that the development of the Finnic l-cases took place as shown in Table 9. on the back on his/her back 1. postpositional phrase *selkä-n ül-nä *selkä-n-sä ül-nä 2. suffixation *selkä-lnä *selkä-nsä-lnä 3. shift of suffix order *selkä-lnä *selkä-lnä-nsä 4. Proto-Finnic *selkä-llä *selkä-llä-nsä Table 9. The morphological development of the l-cases. It is noteworthy that Livonian where l-cases only occur as frozen relic morphemes certain adverbs seem to have preserved traces of the phase when the suffix order had not yet been reverted: e.g. sǟlganžõl, sǟlgandžõl on one s back < *sälkä-nsä-llä << *sälkä-n-sä ül-nä [back-gen-3sg on-loc] and pȯļļindžõl, pȯļļizõl on one s knees < *polvi-nsa-lla << *polwi(- j)-n-sa ül-nä [knee-(pl-)gen-3sg on-loc]. Mägiste (1928) has tried to explain these forms otherwise: as possessive suffixes lost their productivity in Livonian, Mägiste hypothesizes that in such cases a possessive form would first have become lexicalized, after which a case ending would have been added to this lexicalized form. This explanation is not convincing, however: it is very hard to see why inflected forms such as *sälkänsä his/her back and *polvinsa his/her knees would have become lexicalized in the first place, and why adessive forms would then have been formed from these lexicalized forms only to become lexicalized again in their turn. It is also worth noting that Estonian, where possessive suffixes likewise lost their productivity, has no such lexicalized possessive forms such as *selgas his/her back or *põlves his/her knee(s), or the like (põlves is, of course, a regular inessive singular form of põlv knee ). Instead, in Estonian there is an adverb type selili ~ seljali on one s back, põlvili on one s knees etc. (see [38], Section 3.3). Hence, the Livonian adverbs sǟlganžõl and pȯļļindžõl offer yet one more piece of evidence for the postpositional origin of the l-cases Additional evidence from Finnic If the Finnic l-cases developed through agglutination of *ül-postpositions, one expects that these postpositions were lost as independent words at the same time. For example, the Estonian comitative ending -ga and the Saami comitative plural ending -guin emerged when 104

117 Origin of Finnish l-cases an original postposition developed into a case ending (-ga < *kās; -guin < *guoimmi) they have not been preserved as independent postpositions. However, in Finnish there are both l- cases that developed from Uralic *ül-postpositions and in a slightly different function also a series of postpositions and adverbs inherited from the same root: yllä above; on (of clothes), yltä from above; off (of clothes) and ylle (to) above, over; (putting) on (of clothes). Below we will explain how this state of affairs can be accounted for. First, it is worth noting that even though Finnish has a series of yl-postpositions, their use only extremely rarely corresponds to that of Saami al-postpositions. In our entire material there are only a handful of examples of this kind: (37) Seavdnjat seaivvui sullo ala [ ] darkness land.pst.3sg island.ga ala Pimeys laskeutui saaren ylle [ ] darkness descend.pst.3sg island.gen ylle Darkness came down over the island [ ] (Jansson 1990: 144; 1979: 129) The extreme rarity of these kinds of correspondences already suggests that the use of the Finnish yl-series of postpositions in the above / over function is in some way secondary. This is, indeed, obvious also from the fact such a function is not prominent in the Permic and Nenets reflexes of the Uralic *ül-postpositions, either. It is noteworthy that while modern literary Finnish has yl-postpositions in phrases such as meren yllä over the sea and saaren yllä over the island, this is quite atypical of other Finnic languages and, in fact, also of the traditional Finnish dialects. According to the data in the Lexical Archive of Finnish Dialects, the words yllä, yltä and ylle are found mainly in the western dialects; in the eastern dialects they mostly occur just in idioms and fixed phrases such as olla yllä to be awake and yltä päältä X:ssA completely, altogether covered by / dirtied with X. Moreover, even in the western dialects the words yllä, yltä and ylle are traditionally not used as postpositions, but only as adverbs in reference to clothing: e.g., takki yllä with a jacket on. Examples of their use as postpositions are exceedingly rare in the Lexical Archive of Finnish Dialects. The following is apparently the only case which has a noun (a participle functioning as a noun) as the complement of the postposition: (38) silkki levitettiiv vihittävien ylle silk spread.pst.pass wed.pass.pst.pl.gen ylle A silk was spread over the bride and the bridegroom. (LAFD, Kankaanpää) 105

118 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski In addition one can find a couple of examples involving pronouns, such as the following: (39) seoŋ ka larrü sä mun ülläin it.be.3sg fish.gen.trap 1SG.GEN yllä.1sg It is a fish trap [which I have] on me. (i.e., I am wearing it as if it were a piece of clothing. ) (LAFD, Lohja) The situation is quite similar in other Finnic languages. In Estonian, the words üll on, ült off and ülle on(to) are used in a similar way, as adverbs in reference to clothing. On the other hand, in Karelian, Lude and Veps no cognates of these words are found at all they have been completely lost as adverbs as well. It is worth noting that even though the use of Finnish yllä, yltä and ylle as postpositions is extremely limited, the prolative form of the same root, yli ~ ylitse over, is an entirely common postposition. This can be compared to the use of the morphologically fully analogous postpositional series based on the root al- under : Finnish alla under.loc, alta under.abl, alle under.lat and ali ~ alitse under.prol. All members of the latter series frequently occur as postpositions. Leino (1990: 139) has paid attention to this discrepancy between the two postpositional series. He interprets the situation so that a new supplementary series of postpositions is developing in Finnish: päällä on.loc, päältä on.abl, päälle on.lat, yli ~ ylitse on.prol. This supplementation can, indeed, be quite clearly seen by comparing the relative frequencies of Finnish yl-, pääl-, and al-postpositions with the pronoun se it as their complement. The numbers of tokens in Table 10 are based on searches for the given character strings on the Google search engine on the World Wide Web. sen yllä 909 sen päällä sen alla sen yltä 28 sen päältä sen alta sen ylle 519 sen päälle (cf.) sen alle sen yli sen päälli sen ali 271 sen ylitse 988 sen päällitse 8 sen alitse 70 Table 10. The relative frequencies of Finnish yl-, pääl- and al-postpositions after the pronoun se it (Google ; the search was limited to the top-level domain.fi ). 106

119 Origin of Finnish l-cases The statistics in Table 10 verify Leino s main observation. It must be pointed out, however, that Leino does not even touch upon the possible reasons for the development of the supplementary postpositional series päällä, päältä, päälle, yli ~ ylitse. Moreover, contrary to Leino s claim, this series is no longer developing : even though yllä, yltä and ylle have limited use as postpositions in modern literary Finnish, in old literary Finnish the supplementation has been even more complete. This can be seen in Table 11, where we present the relative frequencies of yl-, pääl- and al-postpositions after words ending in the nasal -n in the Corpus of Old Literary Finnish (Vanhan kirjasuomen korpus); the majority of words ending in -n are genitive singular forms. -n yllä 1 -n päällä n alla n yltä 4 -n päältä 117 -n alta 92 -n ylle 1 -n päälle (cf.) -n alle 407 -n yli 145 -n päälli -n ali -n ylitse n päällitse 7 -n alitse 1 Table 11. The relative frequencies of yl-, pääl- and al-words after words ending in the nasal -n in old literary Finnish. The material derives from The Corpus of Old Literary Finnish (Vanhan kirjasuomen korpus; Research Institute for the Languages of Finland), containing approximately words since 1543 until the early 1800s. The orthographic variation in old literary Finnish has been normalized. In the entire material in the Corpus of Old Literary Finnish one can find only six instances where yllä, yltä or ylle is preceded by a word ending in -n, and none of these instances is in fact a postposition. Instead, all these tokens are adverbs that are coincidentally preceded by a word-form ending in -n, for example: (40) 2:xi On tarpellinen, että otetan ylle paxummat waattet, secondly be.3sg important COMP take.pass ylle thick.cmpv.pl garment.pl eli pannan yllä olewat waattet kiinni [ ] or put.pass yllä be.prs.ptcp.pl garment.pl closed Secondly, it is important that one puts on thicker clothes, or buttons up the clothes one has on. (Suomenkieliset Tieto-Sanomat 17/1776) 107

120 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski On the other hand, one can find some forms with possessive suffixes; these kinds of cases were already discussed above in connection with the use of yllä, yltä, and ylle in the Finnish dialects: (1 Kings 11:30) (41) Ja Ahia rupeis sijhen uten hameseen cuin hänen ylläns and A. grasp.pst.3sg it.ill new.ill dress.ill which 3SG.GEN yllä.3sg oli / ja rewäis cahdexitoistakymmenexi cappalexi [ ] be.pst.3sg and tear.pst.3sg twelve.transl piece.transl And Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. (Biblia 1642) (1 Samuel 17:5) (42) Ja hänellä oli waskilacki pääsäns / ja suomuxen caltainen and 3SG.ADE be.pst.3sg bronze.hat head.ine.3sg and scale.gen like panzari ylläns [ ] armor yllä.3sg He had a bronze helmet on his head and he wore a scale-like armor. (Biblia 1642) Thus, as regards the use of the yl-series, the Old Literary Finnish material thus yields quite exactly the same picture as the dialect materials in the Lexical Archive of Finnish Dialects: the words yllä, yltä and ylle have been primarily used as adverbs, especially in reference to clothing, but extremely rarely as postpositions. One can add that even the use of the Estonian ül- and peal-series conforms to this picture, as seen in Table 12 (the very high frequency of the phrases selle peale and selle üle is because these occur as fixed phrases with the meaning in addition to ). selle üll 6 selle peal selle all selle ült selle pealt selle alt selle ülle 17 selle peale (cf.) selle alla selle üle selle peali selle ala selle ülitsi/ületsi selle pealitsi selle alitsi/alatsi Table 12. The relative frequences of Estonian ül-, peal- and al-words after the pronoun form selle it.gen (Google ; the search was limited to the top-level domain.ee ). 108

121 Origin of Finnish l-cases On the basis of the discussion above one can conclude that the use of Finnish yllä, yltä and ylle as postpositions is not a direct inheritance from Proto-Uralic. Instead, these words were originally adverbs in Finnic, and they have only become reintroduced as postpositions in modern Finnish. The innovation seems to be characteristic of literary language in particular, as these postpositions seem to have a rather formal tone and are less used in colloquial speech. Merimaa (2002: 40 43) has pointed out that the words yllä, yltä and ylle are described as postpositions for the first time in Renvall s grammar (1840), even though the prolative postpositions yli and ylitse are mentioned in Finnish grammars since Petraeus (1649) already. It is also worth noting that both Renvall and the grammars from the late 19 th century only cite examples involving clothing, e.g. Riisun takin yltäni [undress.1sg coat.gen yltä.1sg] I take my coat off. Thus, leaving the innovations of modern literary Finnish aside, the original Uralic *ülpostpositions are attested in Finnic almost exclusively in prolative use. 22 The reason for this is that the postpositions based on the root *ül- developed into case suffixes, and only the prolative form yli ~ ylitse was preserved as an independent postposition. This raises an obvious question: why, then, did the prolative postposition not develop into a case suffix as well? The reason seems to be the analogical model provided by primary Uralic local cases (locative *-na, separative *-ta and lative *-ŋ) and especially the s-cases (inessive *-s-na, elative *-s-ta and illative *s-in). The tripartite structure of these case series provided a model for the development for three external local cases, but not for a superprolative case (see Table 6 in Section 3.4). The idea that *ül-words have been preserved when used as adverbs, but changed into case suffixes when used as postpositions, can be compared to the emergence of the Estonian comitative case. In this case, too, the original postposition *kaas developed into a case suffix, but was preserved as an independent adverb (see Figure 1). 22 The Livonian postposition i ļ has a much wider range in uses than its cognates elsewhere in Finnic, because the l-cases have not been preserved as productive case forms in this language (see, e.g., Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861: 37 38, 72 74; Itkonen 1957a: ; Kettunen 1957: ; Itkonen 1957b: ; Halling 1996, 1999). 109

122 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski postposition > case adverb preserved *isän kaas Isaga with father *isä kaas isa ka father also Figure 1. The development of the postposition and adverb *kaas in Estonian. The same kind of result can also been seen in the Saami comitative plural (North Saami -iguin), which has developed from a postposition *kuojmē(-n), cf. North Saami guoibmi companion, spouse (Korhonen 1981: ; Sammallahti 1998: 69 70). At least in most Saami languages the comitative plural ending is clearly a case suffix, even though the South Saami comitative plurals have also been analyzed as postpositional phrases (Bergsland 1946: 148). Even in South Saami, gujmie is clearly a marker of case regardless of whether it is analyzed as a suffix or postposition, because it is only used in connection of a plural form and it is thus in complementary distribution with the comitative singular suffix -ine ~ -inie. A very rare exception to this pattern is that gujmie can also be attached to a phrase with plural semantics but singular morphology, e.g. aehtjie gon tjidtjien gujmie [father and mother.gen gujmie] with father and mother (LS: 19); -n is the genitive singular suffix. Regardless of how South Saami comitative plurals are analyzed, it is quite evident that in most Saami languages the comitative plurals are true case forms that originated from a postpositional phrase. The postpositional background can be seen, for instance, in conjunction reduction (e.g. áhká-id ja máná-iguin [wife-pl.ga and child-pl.com] with wives and children ), and from the fact that possessive suffixes precede the case ending (e.g. máná-idan-guin [child-pl(.ga)-1sg-pl.com] with my children ) instead of following it as in other case forms. In older North Saami texts the ending is occasionally even spelt as a distinct word and attached to singular forms: 110

123 Origin of Finnish l-cases (43) [ ], moft Ibmel su oskaldasvuođaines, su vuoiŋas ja how God 3SG.GA faithfulness.com.3sg 3SG.GA spirit.ga.3sg and engelidis guim divc odæme bokte sin varjali angel.pl.ga.3sg guin take.care.an.ga by 3PL.GA protect.pst.3sg lokkamættom vaddoin ja oasetesvuođain [ ] countless difficulty.pl.loc and misfortune.pl.loc how God protected them from countless difficulties and misfortunes by taking care of them with his faithfulness, with his Spirit and angels. (Muitalægje 1/1873: 3) Even so, the use of this word as a true postposition is exceedingly rare in modern Saami languages, if the South Saami comitative plurals are analyzed as case forms rather than postpositional phrases. But in South Saami, gujmie is still used as an independent adverb in the meaning along, as in båetieh gujmie [come.imp.2sg along] come along!. The original postposition has thus developed into a case suffix, but the adverb has been preserved, exactly as in the case of the Estonian ga-comitative. Using the Estonian and Saami comitatives as parallels, the development of Uralic *ülpostpositions and adverbs in Finnic can be assumed to have taken place as shown in Figure 2. postposition > case adverb preserved *talja-n ül-nä taljalla on a hide *talja ül-nä talja yllä (with) a hide on Figure 2. The development of *ül-postpositions and adverbs in Finnic Parallels from other languages In addition to all the arguments above, the ül-theory receives further support from parallels in other branches of the Uralic family. A particularly illuminating parallel is provided by the case system in the Southern Permyak dialects of Komi. The original Komi vi l-series of postpositions i.e., the etymological cognates of Saami al-postpositions has developed into a set of case suffixes in Southern Permyak dialects (Batalova 1982: 91 98; Baker 1985:

124 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski 68, ). The agglutination process, which is evidently fairly recent, is illustrated in Table 13. superessive -l(l)i n ~ -v(v)i n < vi li n superlative -l(l)e ~ -v(v)e < vi le sublative -l(l)i ś ~ -l(l)iś < vi li ś ~ vi liś ~ -v(v)i ś ~ -v(v)iś perlative -l(l)e ť ~ -v(v)e ť < vi le ť superterminative -l(l)e ʒ ~ -v(v)e ʒ < vi le ʒ Table 13. The external local cases in the Southern Permyak dialects of Komi. Bartens (2000: 79) even calls these Southern Permyak case forms external local cases, and this choice of words indeed describes well their striking functional similarity to the Finnic l- cases. The basic local use of the Southern Permyak external local cases is quite like that of Finnish l-cases, as shown by the following examples: (44) a. gor-le [<< gor vi le ] kaj oven-le [ mene oven on.ill] go.imp.2sg uunille go.imp.2sg oven.all Go onto the oven! (Batalova 1982: 94) b. šonti śni gor-li n [<< gor vi li n] warm.oneself.inf oven-li n [ lämmitellä uunilla warm.oneself.inf oven.ade warm oneself on the oven (ibid.: 96) oven on.ine] c. gor-li ś [<< gor vi li ś] oz lećći oven-li ś [ oven on.ela] NEG.FUT.3SG descend.cng ei laskeudu uunilta NEG.3SG descend.cng oven.abl is not coming down from the oven (ibid.: 96) 112

125 Origin of Finnish l-cases (45) kajni te i bbesle [<< i bbes vi le ] go.inf.acc.2sg field.pl.le [ field.pl on.ill] mennä pelloille go.inf field.pl.all go (on)to the fields (ibid.: 95) (46) koklas [<< kok vi las] sulale foot-las [ foot on.ine.3sg] stand.3sg seisoo jaloillaan stand.3sg foot.pl.ade.3sg stands on his feet (ibid.: 94) (47) sulali prontlas [<< pront vi las] stand.pst.1sg front-las [ front on.ine.3sg] seisoin rintamalla stand.pst.1sg front.ade I stood on the front line [in battle]. (ibid.: 95) In addition to Komi dialects, the initial stages of such a development can be seen in Inari Saami and in the Eastern Finnmark dialects of North Saami. In these languages the alpostpositions (North Saami alde and ala, Inari Saami alne and oolâ) are often pronounced phonologically reduced and they tend to come cliticized to the preceding noun. Consider the following Inari Saami example: (48) [ ] jȧ nūut tot vaaldij tom stuorra keeđgi oalgg-ool and so it take.pst.3sg it.acc big.attr rock.acc shoulder.gen-oolâ jȧ kuodij tom stuorra geeđgi đoho njarggeij vuȧstȧ jȧ... and carry.pst.3sg it.acc big.attr rock.acc there cape.pl.gen against and đælle đot vaaldij oalgg-aln tom geeđgi mæddal [ ] then it take.pst.3sg shoulder.gen-alne it.acc rock.acc away And so he took that big rock on his shoulder, and carried that big rock over there, towards the land points, and... then he took that rock off his shoulder. (IK: 27) 113

126 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Similar cliticization of the postpositions alde and ala is also extremely common in the Eastern Finnmark dialects of North Saami, even though this is not commonly represented in literary usage: (49) /pälk al/ ~ /pälk âl/ (<bálgá alde> ) on the path /pälk ala/ ~ /pälk âla/ (<bálgá ala> ) onto the path The cliticization of these Saami postpositions is also discussed by Bartens (1978: ); see also IW (s.v. ale-). 23 One can still add that also in other Saami languages one finds evidence for the proneness of *ül-postpositions to become cliticized. In almost all western Saami languages, in an area reaching from South Saami to the Western Finnmark dialects of North Saami, the reflexes of *ül-postpositions show an initial nasal n-: cf. South Saami nelnie, nelhtie, nille, Lule Saami nanna, nalta, nali, North Saami (western Finnmark) nalde, nala. The nasal is originally the Proto-Saami genitive singular ending *-n, which was attached to the complement of the postposition. This shows that these postpositions have had a tendency of becoming prosodically attached to the preceding nouns, and offers yet one more argument for the idea that a similar process of agglutination process began also in Pre-Proto- Finnic Comparing the previous la-theory and the new ül-theory At this point, when we have already presented many kinds of evidence for the ül-theory, it is worthwhile to compare the new explanation against the previous la-theory. The traditional explanation and the assumptions implicit in it are illustrated in Figure According to Sammallahti (1977: 239), similar cliticizations also occur in the Eastern Eanodat dialects which belong to the Western Finnmark dialect group. Sammallahti cites the postpositional phrases /riepan-jok(aa) alaa/ onto the river Riebanjohka and /riepan-jok(aa) al'te/ on the river Riebanjohka, which he considers phrasal loans from the adjacent Eastern Finnmark dialects spoken in Anár. 114

127 Origin of Finnish l-cases Proto-Uralic *lumi-n ül-nä polwi-j ül-nä?? on the snow on one s knees (inherent ON-function) Pre-Finnic Ø *lume-l(a)-na polv-i-l(a)-na (no inherent ON-function) Finnish lumella polvilla(an) cf. South Saami: lopmen nelnie boelvi nelnie Figure 3. The marking of the ON-function from Proto-Uralic to modern Finnish according to la-theory. In comparison to the ül-theory, the major weakness of the la-theory is that it presupposes a much more complicated path of development. The comparative method shows that Proto- Uralic used a set of *ül-postpositions to mark the ON-function. Therefore, the la-theory forces one to assume that these postpositional phrases were replaced in Pre-Finnic with derivatives with the suffix -la-. The *ül-postpositions with an inherent ON-function would have become lost, and at the same time the function would have been taken over by la-derivatives even though such a function has never been attested in the derivational suffix itself. Such a path of development seems already in itself unlikely, and it is made all the more improbable by the fact that the Finnic l-cases and the Uralic *ül-postpositions show striking correspondence in both form and function. If one were to accept the la-theory, this correspondence would have to be interpreted as an odd coincidence. Also typological arguments favor the ül-theory. One should note that local cases with an ON-function are typologically quite rare; usually location on the vertical axis is expressed with adpositions but not with case endings (cf. Blake 2001: ; Levinson 2003: ; Ojutkangas 2005: ). In addition to Finnic languages, in the Uralic family only Hungarian and the Southern Permyak dialects have these kinds of local case forms. As already mentioned, the Southern Permyak case suffixes developed from postpositions, and as regards Hungarian, at least the endings of the sublative and the delative also have a postpositional background (Papp 1968: 154; Kulonen 1993: 84). The ending -en/-on/-ön of the superessive case may be an exception, as it has been considered to derive directly from the Proto-Uralic locative suffix *-na; but even though this view is commonly accepted, we must 115

128 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski point out that so far no one has presented an explanation to how the originally unmarked local case might have developed a more limited and highly marked ON-function. It may also be noted that probably the closest functional equivalent to the Finnic l-cases in Indo-European is the Ossetic adessive in -yl (Iron) ~ -bæl (Digor) (see, e.g., Thordarson 2009: ). For example, the adessive form zæxx-yl [earth-ade] on the earth goes back to the Proto-Indo- European words *(s-)h 1 upér(i) and *dhéĝhōm (yielding, e.g., Latin super humum id.) and it is therefore fully analogous to that of Finnic (e.g., Olonetsian mua-l id.) and the newly emerged superessive case in Southern Permyak (mu-vi n id. < *mu vi li n) discussed in Section 3.6 above. However, we must conclude that the putative development of external local functions from the derivational suffix -la is backed by no well-attested functional parallels in the other Uralic languages, and we are not aware of such parallels in any other languages either. On the other hand, there is at least one functional argument that could potentially support the traditional la-theory: it is not inconceivable that an oikonym suffix could develop into a local case marker, considering the etymologies of French chez at and Mainland Scandinavian hos id. that go back to Latin casa house and Scandinavian hus id., respectively. Further, it is not impossible that such locatives may later acquire possessive functions (cf. Section 4.2 below): As pointed out by Plank (2015: 81), the locative form gehi [house.loc] of Pāli geha house has developed via locative functions into the new genitive case suffixes -gē and -ge in Sinhalese and Maldivian, respectively (e.g., South Maldivian goviyā-ge daruvō [farmer-gen children] the children in the farmer s [house] > the children of the farmer ). However, such unheard-of typological parallels to support the received view on the origin of the Finnic l-cases do not alleviate the fact that the most original function of the l-cases is evidently identical to that of postpositions formed from the Proto- Uralic relational noun root *ül(i)- place up or above and their descendants in a number of modern Uralic languages. It is highly improbable and without typological parallels that oikonym derivatives in -la would have initially superseded the Proto-Uralic *ül(i)- postpositions in their concrete, highly specialized yet universal functions presumably also supported by the formally and functionally analogous Proto-Finnic relational noun root *al- (< Proto-Uralic *i l(a)-) under. From the perspective of both linguistic typology and the comparative method it is thus quite natural to assume that the Finnic l-cases developed from independent postpositions. This theory is also in accordance with Occam s Razor, as one can postulate a much less complicated path of development than is necessary in the la-theory. It is not necessary to 116

129 Origin of Finnish l-cases postulate any changes in the basic functions of the elements in Proto-Finnic, but only in their form: postpositions have changed into case endings (see Figure 4). Proto-Uralic Pre-Finnic Finnish *lumi-n ül-nä polwi-j ül-nä on the snow on one s knees *lume-l-na polv-i-l-na lumella polvilla(an) cf. South Saami: lopmen nelnie boelvi nelnie Figure 4. The marking of the ON-function from Proto-Uralic to modern Finnish according to ül-theory. In the same way, several quite prototypical Finnish l-case forms can be explained as directly inherited from Proto-Uralic postpositional phrases (see Figure 5). Proto-Uralic *jäŋi-n ül-nä on the ice *käti-n ül-nä on one s hand *wolka-n ül-nä on one s shoulder *tuli-n ül-nä on the fire Finnish jäällä kädellä olalla tulella cf. North Saami: jieŋa alde gieđa alde oalggi alde dola alde ~ jieŋ al ~ gieđ al ~ oalgg al ~ dol al cf. (8), (11) cf. (1) cf. (15), (44) cf. (3), (19) Figure 5. Some Finnish l-case forms that are directly inherited from Proto-Uralic postpositional clauses. 4. On the secondary functions of the l-cases At this point it is useful to examine the origin of the non-local functions of Finnic l-cases. We will demonstrate that the development of possessive and instrumental functions in Finnic can be quite naturally accounted for in framework of the ül-theory. Even so, the arguments and explanations presented in the following subsections have no real implication to our theory; 117

130 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski regardless of what the actual origin origin of the l-cases is, their possessive and instrumental functions have in any case been practically unanimously considered secondary The instrumental use of the adessive Especially in the Northern Finnic languages the adessive is used in an instrumental function. In Saami, al-phrases very rarely display similar semantics, but instrumental uses are not altogether unattested. Nielsen (1979 s.v. âl'de) and Nickel (1994: 168) mention the following example, which Nickel classifies as a metaphorical local phrase: (50) Dán biepmu alde ii eale gal guhká. this.ga food.ga alde NEG.3SG live.cng indeed for.a.long.time Tällä ruoalla ei elä kyllä kauaa. this.ade food.ade NEG.3SG live.cng indeed long.time.ptv One won t survive long on this food for sure. (Nickel 1994: 168) As pointed out by Ylikoski (2006: 44 45), these kinds of alde-phrases can be used interchangeably with comitative case forms, which are the most common way to express instrumentality in North Saami: cf. Dáinna biepmuin [this.com food.com] ii eale gal guhká. One can also find other types of examples where the functions of an al-phrase and a comitative form come close to each other: e.g., a thing on which someone or something is carried is usually simultaneously also an instrument for carrying, and in such a context it essentially irrelevant which form is used; a postpositional phrase (51a) and a comitative form (52a) are practically in a free variation with each other. It is worth noting that in the corresponding Lule Saami text the postpositional phrase (52b) and the comitative form (52b) are used in exactly opposite to North Saami: (Luke 5:18) (51) a. Muhtun olbmát gudde dohko lámis olbmá guoddinseaŋgga some man.pl carry.pst.3pl there lame man.ga carrying.bed.ga alde. (OT) alde b. De båhtin soabmása guoddemlátjujn gállnam then come.pst.3pl some.pl carrying.bed.com be.paralyzed.pst.ptcp 118

131 Origin of Finnish l-cases ålmmåv guotte [ ] (ÅT) man.acc carry.cvb c. Paikalle tuli miehiä, jotka kantoivat vuoteella place.all come.pst.3sg man.pl.ptv which.pl halvaantunutta. (Raamattu) carry.pst.3pl bed.ade be.paralyzed.pst.ptcp.ptv Some men came carrying a paralytic on a stretcher [ ] (Mark 6:55) (52) a. [ ] ja doapmaledje buot siidaguimmiid mielde ja and hurry.pst.3pl all neighbor.pl.ga with and guoddigohte buhcciid guoddinseaŋggaiguin dohko gos carry.inch.pst.3pl sick.pl.ga carrying.bed.pl.com there where gulle su leamen. (OT) hear.pst.3pl 3SG.GA be.prog b. [ ] ja gáhtjadin åbbå bájke skihppij lusi ja and hurry.pst.3pl whole place.gen sick.person.pl.gen to and de sijájt guoddin látjoj nanna dåhku, gånnå then 3PL.ACC carry.pst.3pl bed.pl.gen nanna there where gullin sån lij. (ÅT) hear.pst.3pl 3SG be.pst.3sg c. Sairaita alettiin kantaa vuoteillaan sinne, missä sick.pl.ptv begin.pst.pass carry.inf bed.pl.ade.3pl there where Jeesuksen kuultiin olevan. (Raamattu) Jesus.GEN hear.pst.pass be.inf They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on stretchers to wherever they heard he [Jesus] was. While North Saami guoddinseaŋgga alde on a stretcher (51a) is literally a local adverbial phrase, and guoddinseaŋggaiguin with stretchers (52a), in turn, an instrumental adverbial phrase, it is neither possible nor even necessary to determine whether vuoteella and vuoteilla in the corresponding Finnish passages have a local or an instrumental function, or even both. 119

132 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski As already seen in (50), alde-phrases occasionally occur also as more clearly non-local instrumental function. In our research material this can be seen in certain fixes phrases and idioms, such as the following (for more detailed discussion, see Ylikoski 2006: 44 45): (53) Ieš-Pieti čuovvolii árrat leastadialaš oskku ja šattai Ieš-Pieti begin.following.pst.3sg early Laestadian faith.ga and become.pst.3sg dovddus sárdnideaddjin guhte iežas burssa nalde finai famous preacher.ess which REFL.GA.3SG wallet.ga alde go.pst.3sg sárdnemátkkiin Suomas ja Norggas. preaching.tour.pl.loc Finland.LOC and Norway.LOC Ies-Pieti rupesi varhain seuraamaan lestadiolaista uskoa ja Ies-Pieti begin.pst.3sg early follow.inf Laestadian.PTV faith.ptv and hänestä tuli tunnettu saarnaaja, joka omalla kukkarollaan 3SG.ELA come.pst.3sg famous preacher who own.ade purse.ade.3sg kävi saarnamatkoilla Suomessa ja Norjassa. go.pst.3sg preaching.tour.pl.ade Finland.INE and Norway.INE Ieš-Pieti converted to Laestadianism at an early stage and he became a famous preacher who made preaching tours to Finland and Norway at his own cost ( on his own purse ). (Kristiansen 2004b: 39) More straightforward correspondents to the instrumental use of the adessive can be found in other Uralic languages, viz. in Mordvin. The Uralic *ül-postpositions have not been preserved in Mordvin in their original local functions; they have been replaced with new postpositions formed from a relational noun root lang-, which is of obscure origin (Saarinen 2005). Nevertheless, the original Uralic separative form *ül-tä is reflected in the Mordvin postposition veľďe (Erzya), veľďä (Moksha), which has a primarily instrumental function. The following examples which derive from Paasonen s Mordwinisches wörterbuch (MW s.v. veľďe) show that the function of veľďe is in many ways similar to the instrumental adessives (the examples have been converted into a phonological transcription): (54) piľgesur veľďe jakams (Cf. (7).) toe veľďe go.inf kulkea varpaillaan go.inf toe.pl.ade.3sg walk on one s toes 120

133 Origin of Finnish l-cases (55) mon piks veľďe valgiń 1SG rope veľďe descend.pst.1sg laskeuduin köydellä (/köyttä pitkin) descend.pst.1sg rope.ade (/rope.ptv along) I descended along a rope. (56) meľ veľďe mind vel'd'e mielellään mind.ade.3sg gladly; with pleasure (57) mon ramavtija sonze veľďe 1SG buy.caus.1sg>3sg 3SG.GEN ostatin sen hänellä buy.caus.pst.1sg it.gen 3SG.ADE I made him buy it. veľďe Example (57) is especially remarkable, as it employs veľďe as an agent marker in connection with a causative verb. Also the Finnish adessive case has developed the same function. In general, the Mordvin examples listed above can be compared to Leino s (1989: 211) entirely synchronic description of the use of the adessive case in Finnish: Ei ole vaikea konstruoida esimerkkisarjaa puhtaasti spatiaalisesta adessiivin käytöstä instrumentaalisen ja jopa toisen asteen agenttia osoittavaan [ ] ( It is not difficult to construct a series of examples from a purely local use of the adessive to the instrumental and even to one expressing a second-level agent ). As an example of such a continuum he gives the following set of sentences: (58) a. Pekka kuljetti lautalla Paavon saaresta. Pekka transport.pst.3sg raft.ade Paavo.GEN island.ela Pekka took Paavo off the island on a raft. b. Pekka kuljetti veneellä Paavon saaresta. Pekka transport.pst.3sg boat.ade Paavo.GEN island.ela Pekka took Paavo off the island on/with a boat. 121

134 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski c. Pekka ajoi reellä tukit metsästä. Pekka drive.pst.3sg sled.ade timber.pl forest.ela Pekka transported the timbers out of the woods on/with a sled. d. Pekka ajoi hevosella tukit metsästä. Pekka drive.pst.3sg horse.ade timber.pl forest.ela Pekka transported the timbers out of the woods with a horse. e. Pekka ajatti Paavolla tukit metsästä. Pekka drive.caus.pst.3sg Paavo.ADE timber.pl forest.ela Pekka made Paavo transport the timbers out of the woods. (cf. (57): ramavtija sonze veľďe.) The usage of the Mordvin postposition veľďe corresponds quite well to that of the Finnish adessive. Thus, the Mordvin examples offer good parallels for the development of instrumental and even agent functions in the Finnish adessive case. One should mention, though, that there is a slight morphological discrepancy: Mordvin veľďe reflects the Uralic ablative case (*ül-tä) and not the locative case (*ül-nä) like the Finnish adessive. This distinction is not too great, though, as also the ablative case has limited instrumental use in Finnic languages: cf. e.g. dialectal Finnish väkiseltään by force (väki crowd; strength ) and Estonian vaevalt with difficulty (vaev difficulty ). On the other hand, one could also surmise that the Mordvin form veľďe has some kind of irregular background; for example, the Uralic *i l- under word family has given in Mordvin in addition to the postpositions alo under.loc, aldo under.abl and alov ~ aloŋ under.lat the derivative aldoń located under / below [adjective] (Niemi & Mosin 1995 s.v.), even though the expected form would be *aloń instead The possessive use of the l-cases Possessive functions are one of the core functions of the l-cases in Finnic. As noted above in 3.2.1, l-cases are not used in a local function with nouns or pronouns with human referents, because in such cases their use is restricted to possessive functions. The complementary distribution of local and possessive functions can be illustrated with the following examples: 24 Note that there is a homonymous aloń, which is both a genitive form and an adjective derivative of the word al egg. 122

135 Origin of Finnish l-cases (59) a. Kirja on pöydällä. book be.3sg table.ade The book is on the table. b. Otin kirjan pöydältä. take.pst.1sg book.gen table.abl I took the book off the table. c. Panin kirjan pöydälle. put.pst.1sg book.gen table.all I put the book on the table. (60) a. Minulla on kirja. 1SG.ADE be.3sg book I have a book. b. Ota kirja minulta. take.imp.2sg book 1SG.ABL Take the book from me. c. Anna kirja minulle. give.imp.2sg book 1SG.ALL Give the book to me. Even though the al-postpositions in Saami are generally not used in possessive functions, there are nevertheless borderline cases that give some idea as to how the possessive functions might have developed in Finnic. Especially the postposition ala is sometimes used in a dativelike function, as in the following examples: (61) Dat mainna in leat duhtavaš lea, ahte eanaš it what.com NEG.1SG be.inf satisfied be.3sg COMP most ovddasvástádus gahččá moatti olbmo ala Kárášjogas. responsibility fall.3sg few.ga person.ga ala Kárášjohka.LOC Se, mihin en ole tyytyväinen on, että enin vastuu it what.ill NEG.1SG be.cng satisfied be.3sg COMP most responsibility lankeaa muutamalle ihmiselle Kaarasjoella. fall.3sg few.all person.all Kárášjohka.ADE 123

136 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski What I m not satisfied with is that most of the responsibility falls on a couple of people in Kárášjohka. (MÁ 1995) (62) [ ] Mathis M. Sara fas oaivvildii stáhta bidjat olu barggu Mathis M. Sara in.turn mean.pst.3sg state put.inf much work.ga orohagaid ala. herding.district.pl.ga ala Mathis M. Sara taas oli sitä mieltä, että valtio laittaa Mathis M. Sara in.turn be.pst.3sg it.ptv mind.ptv COMP state put.3sg paljon työtä paliskunnille. much work.ptv herding.district.pl.all Mathis M. Sara, in turn, was in the opinion that the state puts much work on the reindeer herding districts. (MÁ 1995) (Acts 1:26) (63) Sii vuorbádedje dan guoktása gaskkas, ja vuorbi gahčai they cast.lots.pst.3pl it.ga two.people.ga between and lot fall.3sg.pst Mattiasa ala. (OT) 25 Matthias.GA ala Sen jälkeen he heittivät miehistä arpaa, ja arpa lankesi it.gen after 3PL throw.pst.3pl man.pl.ela lot.ptv and lot fall.pst.3sg Mattiakselle. (Raamattu) Mattias.ALL Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias. 25 One can note that in the Greek original of the New Testament this passage contains the primarily local preposition epi, which has also been translated into Udmurt as vi le: (ii) [ ] και επεσεν ο κληρος επι Μαθθιαν [ ] (NTGr.) and fall.aor.3sg DEF.SG.M lot on Matthias.M.ACC (iii) Pussi Matfij vi le uśem. (VS) lot Matthias on.ill fall.pst2.3sg 124

137 Origin of Finnish l-cases It is also worth noting that in many Saami languages the reflexive pronoun shows a supplementary paradigm, where the local case forms diachronically reflect possessive forms of the words alde and ala. This is the case in North Saami as well, as can be seen from the following partial paradigm of the reflexive pronoun ieš: NOM SG ieš GEN 1SG iežan 2SG iežat 3SG iežas LOC 1SG alddán ILL 2SG alddát 3SG alddis 1SG alccen 2SG alccet 3SG alcces In the paradigm above, the locative forms are diachronically nothing other than the postposition alde on combined with possessive suffixes; hence, the use of a form such as alddán REFL.LOC.1SG has developed from the sense of on me. The background of the illative forms is morphologically somewhat more complex: a form such as alccen derives through an irregular phonological development form earlier *alla-sa-n, with the same postpositional root but a secondary possessive illative suffix -sa- preceding the possessive suffix. In the dialects one even finds forms such as alcce-sa-n, with yet another secondary illative suffix added. Semantically, though, the background of the illative forms is wholly analogous to the locative forms: alccen to myself developed its current function from an original meaning onto me. The local case forms of the reflexive pronoun are used precisely in possessive functions, as the following examples reveal: (64) Ja juos alddiineaset ii leat ruhta, de stáhtta=han gal and if REFL.LOC.3PL NEG.3SG be.cng money then state=for.sure indeed sidjiide addá. 3PL.ILL give.3sg Ja jos heillä itsellään ei ole rahaa, niin and if 3PL.ADE REFL.ADE.3PL NEG.3SG be.cng money.ptv then 125

138 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski valtio=han kyllä heille antaa. state=for.sure indeed 3PL.ALL give.3sg And if they have no money themselves, the state will give them for sure. (Marastat 1991: 19) (John 7: 17) (65) Dat guhte dáhttu dahkat su dáhtu, oažžu dovdat lea=go 3SG who want.3sg do.inf 3SG.GA will.ga get.3sg feel.inf be.3sg=q oahppu Ipmilis vai mus alddán. teaching God.LOC or 1SG.LOC REFL.LOC.1SG Hän, joka tahtoo tehdä hänen tahtonsa, saa tuntea, on=ko 3SG who want.3sg do.inf 3SG.GEN will.gen.3sg get.3sg feel.inf be.3sg=q opetus Jumalasta vai minulta itseltäni. teaching God.ELA or 1SG.ABL REFL.ABL.1SG If anyone wants to do God s will, he will get to know whether the teaching is from God or from me myself. (OT) (11) Mánát ieža goivo alcceseaset jieŋa ala skeittánsaji. child.pl REFL.PL dig.pst.3pl REFL.ILL.3PL ice.ga ala skating.place.ga Lapset itse kaivoivat itselleen jäälle luistelupaikan. child.pl REFL dig.pst.3pl REFL.ALL.3PL ice.ade skating.place.gen The children themselves dug a skating place for themselves on the ice. (MÁ 1995) The following dialectal example involving the reflexive pronoun, documented by Friis (1856: 69), comes especially close to the possessive use of the l-cases in Finnic; the phrase ješ aldam consists diachronically of the same morphemes as the Finnish l-case form itselläni: (66) ješ aldam læ girje REFL REFL.LOC.1SG be.3sg book Minulla itselläni on kirja. 1SG.ADE REFL.ADE.1SG be.3sg book I myself have a book. (Friis 1856: 69: jeg selv har en Bog ) 126

139 Origin of Finnish l-cases The attested albeit very limited possessive use of the Saami al-postpositions shows that it is by no means unnatural that the grammaticalized ül-postpositions have developed possessive functions in Finnic. In addition one can note that the development of local functions to possessive ones is cross-linguistically quite common. For instance, the Russian preposition u at is also used in possessive constructions: e.g. u menja jesť kniga [at 1SG.GEN be.3sg book] I have a book ( there is a book at me ). In most Saami languages, possession is indicated with the primarily local inessive or locative case: e.g. North Saami mus lea girji [1SG.LOC be.3sg book] I have a book. The starting point of such development can be seen in e.g. the Siberian language Kolyma Yukaghir, where the locative case suffix -ge is sometimes used metaphorically in constructions resembling grammatical possession, even though usually possession is indicated in other ways (Maslova 2003: 107, ): (67) šoromo-ge qojl ninge-j man-loc god many-intr.3sg Man has many gods. (Maslova 2003: 107) In this connection we can briefly return to the possessive l-cases in Mari and Permic languages, which were already discussed earlier. Mari has a dative case with the suffix -lan (in West Mari -lan / -län), and the easternmost dialects of the language also have an ablative case with the suffix -leč (Alhoniemi 1985: 44, 52 54, 61 62). The Permic languages, in turn, have developed a series of three possessive cases, consisting morphologically of the coaffix - l- followed by a primary local case suffix: the genitive (Komi -le n, Udmurt -len), the ablative (Komi -li ś, Udmurt -leś) and the dative (-li in both languages). In the framework of the latheory the Finnic, Mari and Permic l-cases have been seen the result of convergent development, but in all languages the cases would ultimately have their origin in the local derivational suffix *-la. The ül-theory, however, implies that the Finnic and the Mari-Permic l-cases cannot have a common background: the Mari and Permic l-cases could not have developed from *ül-postpositions, because these postpositions have been retained as independent words in these languages. Moreover, such an idea would also involve major semantic difficulties, as the Mari-Permic l-cases are almost exclusively possessive, and they do not show any trace whatsoever of an earlier ON-function that is inherent in ül-postpositions and the Finnic l-cases. Sometimes it has even been surmised that the possessive function of the Finnic l-cases would be primary, and they could thus be historically connected with the Mari-Permic l-cases. 127

140 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Anttila and Uotila (1984: 127) maintain that possessive use could have developed via reanalysis of oikonym derivatives based on the suffix *-la, as follows: *setä-lä-nä on peltoja uncle s house has fields >> Finnish sedällä on peltoja uncle has fields (cf. Finnish setälä uncle s house setä uncle ). This suggestion is already made highly unlikely by the fact that the oikonym derivatives in -la have a marginal status and low frequency in the language, and if such a path of development is assumed, it becomes very difficult to understand how the concrete function of location on the upper surface could have developed from much more abstract possessive use. Both historically and typologically it is more natural to assume that the primary function of Finnic l-cases is local, and that the possessive functions have developed from metaphoric use of this local function and not from the reanalysis constructions involving oikonym derivatives. In fact, the ül-theory reveals that the previous idea of a connection between Finnic and Mari-Permic l-cases either as cognate forms or as the result of convergent development of the derivational suffix -la is based on circular reasoning. This becomes evident from the arguments that Bartens has presented in support of the equation of the Finnic and Permic l- case forms (cf. (59 60)): Ulkopaikallisuuden ilmoittaminen (esim. kirja on pöydällä, panin kirjan pöydälle, otin kirjan pöydältä) ei kuitenkaan ilmeisesti ole ainakaan vanhempi funktio kuin itämerensuomen l-sijojen habitiiviset ja datiiviset funktiot (minulla on kirja, anna kirja minulle, ota kirja minulta). Sukukielissä nimittäin ulkopaikallisuus ilmaistaan tyypillisesti postpositiorakenteilla (esim. komi kńigays pyzan vylyn kirja on pöydällä, pukti kńigasö pyzan vylö panin kirjan pöydälle, bośti kńigasö pyzan vylyś otin kirjan pöydältä ), ja on mahdollista olettaa, että alkuperäistä on juuri postpositiorakenteiden käyttö tässä funktiossa. (Bartens 2000: 83.) The expression of external locality (e.g., kirja on pöydällä, panin kirjan pöydälle, otin kirjan pöydältä) is, nevertheless, apparently not at least an older function than the possessive and dative functions of the l-cases (minulla on kirja, anna kirja minulle, ota kirja minulta) [cf. (59 60)]. In related languages external locality is typically expressed with pospositional constructions (e.g. Komi kńigays pyzan vylyn the book is on the table, pukti kńigasö pyzan vylö I put the book on the table, bośti kńigasö pyzan vylyś I took the book off the table ), and it is possible to assume that exactly the use of postpositions is original in this function. As one considers the issue from the perspective of the ül-theory, the latter sentence in the quote above contradicts the first one. Bartens is quite right in noting that the use of the Permic vi l-postpositions (and their cognates) to express external locality represents the historically primary construction type. Nevertheless, even internal reconstruction confirms that the 128

141 Origin of Finnish l-cases expression of external locality is the primary function of the Finnic l-cases (see 3.1); Bartens denies this, but apparently only because she considers it to contradict the evidence from Permic and other related languages. But there is no contradiction whatsoever when the Permic vi l-postpositions are properly analyzed as cognates of the Finnic l-case endings. Thus, there remain no valid arguments for connecting the primarily local l-cases in Finnic with the possessive l-cases in Permic. Indeed, such an equation is methodologically dubious in the first place: the compared morphemes possess merely one matching phonological segment (the consonant -l-) and a one similar function (possessive use), which can be quite clearly shown as secondary in Finnic. It becomes dangerously easy to find accidental matches for grammatical morphemes of the shape *-C- if cognates are sought over a broad semantic spectrum. For example, in the Kolyma Yukaghir language (already mentioned above in Section 4.2) there is an instrumental case with the suffix -le (Maslova 2003: 77 78; ), and it would be methodologically wholly analogous to connect this with the Finnic l-cases: there is one identical segment (the phoneme -l-) and one similar function (instrumental), which can be shown to be secondary in Finnic. One should note that chance resemblances of this kind can as easily come up between languages that are genetically related, not only between languages belonging to separate families like Finnish and Yukaghir. 26 The origin of the Mari and Permic l-cases remains unexplained, though; equating them with the derivational suffix -la is not based on any more solid evidence that of the Finnic l- cases, as pointed out by Serebrennikov (1962; 1963). Even though the question cannot be scrutinized in detail here, we can suggest a new hypothesis. As mentioned above, the development of possessive functions from earlier local functions is typologically natural, and hence one could surmise that also the Mari-Permic l-cases may derive from some kind of postpositions with local functions. A candidate for such a source would be the postpositional root reflected in North Saami lu-, Finnish luo- at : cf. Finnish luona at, in the vicinity of, luota from (the vicinity of), luo ~ luokse to (the vicinity of). No cognates for this root are known outside Finnic and Saami, but it is not at all impossible that its cognate is hiding in an agglutinated form in the Mari and Permic l-cases it is, in fact, necessary to assume that if 26 It is sometimes maintained that Yukaghir languages are related to Uralic (e.g. Nyikolajeva 2000: ; cf. also Nikolaeva 2006: viii & passim), but no plausible arguments for this view have ever been presented (see Aikio 2014 for discussion); and even if one subscribed to the idea of a Uralic-Yukaghir affinity, there would of course be no reason to assume a historical connection between the Finnic l-cases and the Yukaghir instrumental case. 129

142 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski these cases reflect earlier postpositions, the original postpositions underlying them have not been retained as independent words (cf 3.5). In other words, the Mari and Permic l-cases cannot derive from the Uralic *ül-postpositions, as these postpositions were retained as independent words in these languages. As regards the semantics of the Mari-Permic l-cases, their development could be compared, e.g., to the Russian postposition u which was discussed earlier. A particularly illuminating point of comparison is offered by the at -series of local case in Veps, which developed through the agglutination of postpositions based on the root lo-, the cognate of Finnish luo-. The semantics of these cases is predominantly local, but sometimes their usage comes close to possessive functions: (68) kaži goľu minu-лon, mei ďe-лon cat always 1SG.APPR1 1PL.APPR1 The cat is always at me, at us. (Kettunen 1943: 369) As also the Mordvin and Hungarian dative cases have similar postpositional backgrounds (see Bartens 1999: 79; Honti 2006; Ylikoski 2011), the development of local postpositions to possessive case endings seems to be relatively common process in the Uralic languages. Nevertheless, the explanation proposed for the Mari and Permic l-cases above is at this point naturally still a mere hypothesis which requires more thorough scrutiny. 5. What is left of the la-theory? Even though the ül-theory offers a convincing explanation of the origin of the l-cases, the earlier la-theory nevertheless includes some findings that can be incorporated in our new model. In addition to Finnic many other Uralic languages, too, possess derivatives based on a semantically indeterminate local suffix *-la or *-l(v). These kinds of derivatives are usually formed from either a relational noun root or a monosyllabic pronoun root followed by a coaffix. In this way, combinations of the suffix *-la and (local) case endings are used to form various adverbs, as in the following North Saami examples: 130

143 Origin of Finnish l-cases a) pronoun root + coaffix *-mpa- + suffix *-la- + local case ending: e.g., dábbelis closer to over here (< Proto-Saami *tā-mpē-lē-snē [this-mpa-la-ine]), dá-ppi-l from this direction (< Proto-Saami *tā-mpē-l-tē [this-mpa-la-abl]). b) relational noun root + suffix *-la- + local case ending: e.g., badje-l-is farther up, higher above (< Proto-Saami *pe jē-lē-snē [above-la-ine]), baji-l from above (< Proto-Saami *pe jē-l-tē [above-la-abl]) Similar adverbs are found in many other Uralic languages as well. As these kinds of forms can be reconstructed on the basis of languages related to Finnic, it is rather obvious that similar formations must have also existed in Pre-Finnic at the time when ül-postpositions became grammaticalized as case endings. During this suffixation process the endings of such adverbs coincided with the newly emerged l-case endings. In spite of this merger, one can still show that there are certain Finnic adverbs where a synchronic l-case ending probably does not diachronically reflect an earlier ül-postposition, but a derivative in *-la instead. Finnic languages have adverbs in which a locative or separative case ending has been added to a stem consisting of a pronoun root followed by a coaffix -ka- and the local suffix *-l(a)-: e.g. täällä (being) here, täältä from here (< *tä-kä-l-nä, *tä-kä-l-tä), siellä (being) there, sieltä from there (< *si-kä-l-nä, *si-kä-l-tä), muualla somewhere else, in another place, muualta from somewhere else, from another place (< *mū-ka-l-na, *mū-kal-ta). The same suffixal combination *-ka-la- is found in derivatives with the suffix -inen (e.g., täkäläinen a person from here, sikäläinen a person from there, muukalainen stranger ) and in such adverbs as mikäli if, in the case that and sikäli as far as, in that respect, which have originally had a prolative meaning: mikäli * through what and sikäli * through it, that way (Virtaranta 1962). Also series of postpositions and adverbs that have been formed from relational noun roots with l-case endings are common: e.g., sisällä (being) in, sisältä (coming) out from (the inside), sisälle (going) in ; edellä (being) ahead, edeltä (coming) from ahead, edelle (going) ahead ; lähellä (being) near, läheltä (coming) from near(by), lähelle (going) near (to). The existence of these kinds of derivatives has frequently been thought to support the la-theory (see Section 2). It is, indeed, quite probable that many of them contain the Uralic local derivational suffix *-la, and in some cases the derived stem even has potential cognates outside Finnic: behind the series lähellä, läheltä, lähelle one can postulate the derived stem *lähe-l(ä)- place nearby, which may be historically identical to Mari lišə-l near (ADJ). 131

144 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Alhoniemi, for instance, has brought up the Mari derivatives with the suffix -l as an argument supporting the la-theory: Die [Tscheremissische] Stämme, an die das Ableitungssuffix *-l(v) tritt, drücken durchweg ein spatiales Verhältnis aus, unter, auf, nahe, fern, neben, usw.. Das an diese Worte tretende Suffix *-l(v) brauchte also nicht mehr die Lokalität auszudrücken, sondern es konnte die Zugehörigkeit zu der durch das Stammwort ausgedrückten Lokalität od. etwas daran Anschließendes ausdrücken. Da jedoch dieses spatiale Verhältnis in diesen Ausdrücken speziell eine äußere Lokalität ist, blieb die Bedeutung des Äußeren natürlich bei den *lv- Ableitungen und deren Flexionsformen erhalten. Im Bewußtsein verknüpfte sich diese Bedeutung auch mit dem Ableitungsuffix *-lv. Als sich aus diesen Ausdrücken des Äußeren dann die zusammengesetzten Kasusendungen mit -l zu entwickeln begannen, war es natürlich, daß sie speziell die Bedeutung der äußeren Lokalität oder Habitivität erhielten, wie es einerseits im Ostseefinnischen, andererseits im Tscheremissischen und Permischen geschehen ist. (Alhoniemi 2001: 109) The [Mari] stems which the derivational suffix *-l(v) attaches to express essentially a spatial relationship, under, on, near, far, beside, etc.. The suffix *-l(v) that appears in these words did not need to express locality any longer, but it could express the affiliation to the locality expressed by the root word or something connected to it. Since, however, the spatial relationship in these expressions is particularly an external location, the meaning of the exterior was naturally obtained by the derivatives in *lv and their inflectional forms. In the [speakers ] consciousness this meaning became also attached to the derivational suffix *-lv. As the compounded case endings with -l began to develop from these expressions of the exterior, it is natural that they retained particularly the sense of exterior locality and possession, as it happened in Finnic on the one hand, and in Mari and Permic on the other. This argumentation is quite impressionistic, however: even though semantic similarities are pointed out, there is no real attempt to explain how a morpheme that supposedly signified something as vague as the affiliation to the locality expressed by the root word or something connected to it would have developed the actually attested local functions of the Finnic l- cases. It is far from obvious what such an explanation could be, as the concrete sense of location on the upper surface can be established as the core and primary function of these cases within Finnic (see 3.1). It is true that derivatives consisting of a relational noun root and a suffix *-l(a) can to some extent be reconstructed on the basis of correspondences such as Finnic *lähe-l- ~ Mari lišə-l, but nevertheless, such derivatives do not offer any clear evidence of the origin of the l-cases. The semantics of such formations of relational noun roots often do not agree with the specific sense of location on the upper surface, or even the more general sense of external locality. This is particularly obvious in the case of Finnish 132

145 Origin of Finnish l-cases sisällä ~ Livonian sizāl (being) in, Finnish sisältä (coming) out from (the inside), Finnish sisälle ~ Livonian sil'lõ (going) in. One can add that if such archaic sets of derivatives really represented the diachronic source of the Finnic l-cases, it would be quite odd that precisely in these sets one encounters a great deal of morphological variation and inconsistency. For instance, in modern Finnish the l-case form sisälle (going) in is more or less in free variation with sisään (going) in, which shows s-case morphology instead. The situation with adverbs based on pronoun roots is even more irregular: the directional forms in these series usually show an entirely different suffix *-nnek: e.g., tänne (coming) here, sinne (going) there instead of expected *täälle, *sielle (< *tä-kä-llen, *si-kä-llen). The directional form of muu- other has l-case morphology in modern standard Finnish (muualle (going) somewhere else ), but the form muuanne (< *mūka-nnek) is attested in dialects. The origin of the ending *-nnek is unclear, but in any case the morphological irregularity of series of the type tää-llä, tää-ltä, tä-nne is inconsistent with the idea that these series represent the source of l-case endings. It should be noted, however, that this by no means excludes the possibility that such series may have exerted some secondary influence on the development of these case forms; as both the mentioned adverbs and the nominal l-cases have coexisted in Finnic from its earliest stages on, they have probably affected each other ever since in ways that call for further research. In general one can say that the connection between the derivational suffix *-la and adverbs of the type täällä here and lähellä near offers no counterargument for the ültheory. Assuming that l-cases developed through agglutination of original postpositions, it is only predictable that the newly emerged case endings coincided with various adverb endings which originally contained the suffix *-la. In this connection, especially the postpositional series päällä on.loc, päältä on.abl and päälle on.lat is worth noting (cf ). These postpositions have traditionally been interpreted simply as l-case forms of the noun pää head; end (SSA s.v. pää; Häkkinen 2004 s.v. päällikkö), which in turn goes back to Proto- Uralic *päŋi (Sammallahti 1988: 548). One can hypothesize, however, that also the päällä series could reflect an l-derivative, because the same element -l(l)- is also found in the prolative form päällitse over and in derivatives such as pääl(l)ys coating, cover(ing), pääl(l)inen id., pääl(l)immäinen topmost, uppermost, and pääl(l)ikkö head, chief. Many such derivatives have a wide distribution in Finnic languages and can be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic already: cf. Veps päľiči over, päluz coating, cover(ing), päline id., pälembaine topmost, uppermost, and Estonian pealis coating, cover(ing), pääline id.; cream, pealmine topmost, uppermost (SSA s.v. päällä). 133

146 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski If päällä etc. really originally were l-case forms of pää head; end, one would have to think that the -l- in the case endings would have become analogically reinterpreted as a part of the stem in Proto-Finnic already, and then spread to derivatives. No clear parallels for such an analogical change seem to be found, however. Instead, it is worth noting that derivatives in *- la such as *sikälä- place there and *täkälä- place here have corresponding prolative forms with -l-, especially in Karelian, Lude and Veps: e.g. Karelian mikälittši by what, sikälittši by it, täkälittši by this (Suoniemi-Taipale 1994: , , 161). Cognate forms are attested even in Finnish, albeit marginally (see also Virtaranta 1962: ): (69) Oli=pa vauhtia. Tämä minun kansakoulukaverini be.pst.3sg=dpt speed.ptv this 1SG.GEN elementary.school.mate.1sg oli sikälitse eri maata, että hän puki be.pst.3sg insofar different country.ptv COMP 3SG dress.pst.3sg samalla päälleen toiset housut. - Tosin ei yhtä at.the.same.time päälle.3sg another.pl trousers.pl to.be.sure NEG.3SG as nopeasti. :) fast.adv Well, that was fast. This classmate of mine from the elementary school was different in the sense that he put on another pair of trousers at the same time. Not that fast, though. :) ( ) It is also interesting to note that the postpositions and adverbs in pääl(l)- rather closely resemble Saami adverbs and postpositions built from the Proto-Saami root *pe jē- with the coaffix *-l-: cf., e.g., North Saami bajil from above, badjel over, badjelis higher up, higher above (LOC), badjelii higher up, higher above (ILL). These Finnish and Saami word families were etymologically equated by Rask (1832: 37 38; see also Section 2), but in modern etymological references the comparison is rejected due to irregular sound correspondences. The Proto-Saami form can be reconstructed as *pe jē-l(ē)-, which would presuppose a Finnic cognate of the shape *pi(j)äl- or *pü(j)äl-, not *pääl-. In spite of this irregularity, the similarity is rather striking, and it is tempting to assume that there could be a historical connection between the two forms after all. The idea receives some support from the fact that there are derivatives which are widespread in both Finnic and Saami, and which share identical or similar morphology, as shown in Table

147 Origin of Finnish l-cases Finnic languages Finnish päällys, Veps päluz, Estonian pealis coating, cover(ing) Finnic päällekkäin, Veps päleti on top of each other Finnish päällitse, Vespian päliči over 27 Saami languages North Saami bajildus, South Saami bijjeldasse, Skolt Saami pââi ldõs coating, cover(ing) North Saami badjálaga(id), Skolt Saami pâjjlõõǥǥi ~ pâjjlõõžži on top of each other North Saami badjel over, South Saami bijjelen over; onto, Skolt Saami pâ jjel over Table 14. Some derivatives based on Finnic *pääl- and Saami *pe jē-l(ē)-. The cognation of the Finnic *pääl- and Saami *pe jē-l(ē)- is opposed by the irregular vowel correspondence, but the comparison could nevertheless be correct if the shape of the expected Finnic reflex *pi(j)äl- would have been secondarily transformed to *pääl- due to contamination with the noun pää head; end. One could also think of another motive for the irregular change: the expected form *pi(j)äl- would have become very close or even identical to another Finnish relational noun, pieli edge, side, which according to Janhunen (1981: 241) and Sammallahti (1988: 539) goes back to Proto-Uralic *pexli. It is perhaps not altogether irrelevant that in certain Finnic languages or dialects the reflexes of the expected form *pi(j)ä- would have completely merged with those of the noun *pää head; end. This is the case in certain eastern dialects of Finnish and in Karelian, where a diphthongization *ää > iä took place: cf. piä head; end, piällä on, on top of. A similar diphthongization *ää > ea has also taken place in Estonian, cf. pea head, end, peal on, on top of. The Estonian form peal could also theoretically be a reflex of earlier *pi(j)ällä, cf. Estonian seal there < *sial < *sikällä (~ Finnish siellä there ). Due to phonological irregularities the equation of Finnic *pääl- and Saami *pe jē-l(ē)- remains uncertain, but the possibility should not be entirely rejected as is done by modern etymological dictionaries (UEW: 365; SSA s.v. pää, päällä; Häkkinen 2004 s.v. pää) especially when one takes into account that many other irregular and even downright 27 In this case the prolative suffix -itse, -itši may be secondary, as there are several cases where this suffix more or less freely alternates with a shorter suffix *-i: cf. Finnish ali ~ alitse under.prol, yli ~ ylitse over.prol, läpi ~ lävitse through. 135

148 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski implausible etymological comparisons are accepted by the same dictionaries. 28 But whatever the case, the issue has no bearing on the origin of the Finnic l-cases: regardless of whether the Finnic pääl- word family is originally based on l-case forms of pää head; end or an earlier derivative *päŋi-l(ä)- or *pijä-l(ä)-, the l-case endings must still derive from Uralic *ülpostpositions. 6. Discussion and conclusion As has been shown above, the evidence presented for the earlier la-theory is quite unsystematic and insufficient. Instead, the correspondence between Finnic l-cases and Uralic *ül-postpositions is rather striking, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting their cognation. At this point, then, it is interesting to ponder why the la-theory nevertheless remained so widely accepted for almost a hundred years. Since the very beginning the la-theory suffered from the basic weakness that it was based on a kind of internal reconstruction of Finnish rather than a systematic comparison between cognate languages. After all, the whole idea was originally based on Budenz s observation that the coaffix -l- resembled the suffix -la, and that in the phrase olla miehellä to be married (of a woman) the l-case form had a function comparable to a derivative in -la: cf. olla miehelässä id. Even though additional arguments were presented by later scholars, the theory was never tested through systematic application of the comparative method. One can, in fact, say that Rask (1832: 35 38), Donner (1879: 84 93) and Bartens (2000: 83) are the only scholars who have chosen comparisons to other, non-finnic Uralic languages as a starting point in their attempts to explain the development of the Finnic l-cases. It is furthermore interesting that only Rask managed to come close to the right solution, even though he naturally did not even have the chance to apply the comparative method which was only developed decades later. Regardless of its weakness, the la-theory became widely accepted already in the early 20 th century, and it seems to have rather quickly turned into a piece of traditional academic knowledge copied from one reference to the other. This process can be understood in a wider perspective on research history: the tradition of research into Uralic historical morphology must be criticized of the fact that the semantics and functions of morphemes have often not 28 For example, UEW (365) compares Finnish pää and its Uralic cognates (< Proto-Uralic *päŋi) to Old Turkish mäŋi brain and Mongolian heki head; beginning. 136

149 Origin of Finnish l-cases played a central role. There has been a tendency to present hypotheses based primarily on the phonological shape of the suffixes in question; these kinds of comparisons are then supported with references to vague similarities of meaning. Thus also the local l-cases in Finnic languages came to be equated with the local derivational suffix *-la. As another example of this research tradition one can mention the line of thought which can be called the lative paradigm (see Footnote 20 in Section 3.4). In comparative Uralic linguistics there is a tradition of reconstructing a variety of different directional case endings, so-called latives ; frequently suggested lative suffixes include at least *-n, *-ń, *-ŋ, *-k, *-j, and *-s. Then, numerous inflectional and derivational suffixes in the Uralic languages are explained on the basis of these reconstructed latives. One can distinguish between at least two types of such lative explanations : a) The suffix is explained as a combination of two different lative suffixes. For example, the Finnic-Saami illative suffix *-sin has often been thought to consist of a combination of the lative suffixes *-s and *-n (e.g., Korhonen 1981: 219), and the translative suffix *-ksi has, in turn, been explained on the basis of the lative suffixes *-k and *-s (e.g., Bartens 1999: 77 78). In both cases *i would be an epenthetic vowel which was added to avoid a phonotactically illegal word-final consonant cluster. b) The suffix is explained as a combination of a lative (or several latives) and some other suffix. It has been widely maintained that the endings of the inessive (*-s-na) and the elative (*-s-ta) are based to the lative *-s, after which the locative (*-na) and ablative (*- ta) suffixes were added (e.g., Korhonen 1981: ; see Ylikoski 2011; 2016 for a detailed critique of this tradition). As another example one may mention the Proto-Saami modal suffix *-ktē, as in North Saami čehpe-t skillfully (< *čeappē-ktē) čeahppi skillful ; it has been proposed that this consists of the lative *-k and the ablative *-ta (Korhonen 1981: ). The Proto-Saami abessive suffix *-ptākek/n (which in North Saami was degrammaticalized into the independent postposition haga), on the other hand, is considered to derive from the Proto-Uralic abessive suffix *-pta with two lative suffixes added to it (ibid.: ). The lative paradigm, however, suffers from a fundamental weakness: the presented comparisons are nearly always semantically shallow and arbitrary. There have been very few serious attempts to show any functional connections between the various suffixes and the 137

150 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski purported latives underlying them, to say nothing of actual attempts to reconstruct the process of how the assumed combinations of latives and other suffixes arose and then developed. This is all the more problematic because the postulated combinations of suffixes often appear strange when viewed from a functional perspective. For example, it is not easy to see why the translative ending *-ksi would be based on two conjoined directional case endings. 29 One could hardly imagine, for instance, that the Finnish allative and illative case endings could become conjoined in this manner, and that the resulting combination would then have a translative-like function, as follows: (70) *Hän opiskeli opettaja-lle-seen. 3SG study.3sg.pst teacher-all-ill S/he studied to become a teacher. (pro opettaja-ksi [teacher-transl]) 29 It should be noted that more reasonable explanations of the origin of the translative ending *-ksi have been proposed, as well. Hakulinen (1979: ) considers the lative explanation methodologically dubious, and refers to Uotila s (1945: 335ff.) view that the ending could be equated with homonymous derivational suffix *- ksi material for X : cf. e.g. Finnish aida-kse-t stakes (for building a fence) aita fence. A particularly plausible explanation is provided by Janhunen s (1989: 301) suggestion, according to which the translative ending derives from Proto-Uralic and is cognate with the Proto-Samoyed marker of the predestinative declension *-tə-. This is reflected, e.g., in Tundra Nenets -də-: cf. xər knife xər -də-da [knife-predes-3sg] : xər -dəm-ta [knife-predes-acc-3sg] : xər -də-n-ta [knife-predes-gen-3sg] a knife for him (Salminen 1998: 539). Predestinative genitive forms come also functionally close to Finnish translatives, as discussed by Salminen (2014: ) and seen in (iv.a b): (iv) a. ťuku wæsakoh ńe ńūm ńe-d -n-ta me da this old.man.gen woman child woman. PREDES-GEN-3SG take.3sg>sg b. Hän otti tämän ukon tyttären vaimo-kse-nsa. 3SG take.pst.3sg this.gen old.man.gen daughter.gen wife-transl-3sg He took that old man s daughter as a wife for him. (Tereščenko 1965: 291; we are obliged to Tapani Salminen for this example.) The sound correspondence between the suffixes *-ksi and *-tə- is entirely regular; in Proto-Samoyed there was a change *-ks- > *-t- (cf. e.g. Proto-Uralic *mi ksa liver > Proto-Samoyed mi tə; Janhunen 1981: 251). 138

151 Origin of Finnish l-cases One has to stretch one s imagination even more to think of a combination of a directional and a separative case ending in a modal function, or that as many as two directional case endings would be added after an abessive suffix: (71) *Hän opetti taitava-lle-lta ja jopa palka-tta-lle-lle/seen. 3SG teach.3sg.pst skillful-all-abl and even salary-abe-all-all/ill S/he taught skillfully and even without salary. (pro taitava-sti ja jopa palka-tta [skillful-adv and even salary-abe]) As the two pseudo-finnish examples show, the creation of new derivational suffixes or case suffixes can hardly take place through mere unmotivated conjunction of two (or more) existing case endings. Such a development would be quite an extraordinary morphosyntactic innovation, and thus postulating that such an innovation has taken place in a reconstructed proto-language ought to require quite extraordinary evidence as well. (For more detailed discussions on the few somewhat plausible instances of different kinds of case stacking in Uralic, see Ylikoski 2011: , 263, 272; 2016: 36 41). Whatever the actual background of the suffixes discussed above may be, the loose suppositions that connect them with various latives serve as a good examples of the flaws of the lative paradigm: the explanations offered for the origin of suffixes are generally characterized by semantic opacity and absence of typological considerations (see also Ylikoski 2016). What is more, the phonological aspects of this method of explanation are also unconvincing. One merely needs to mechanically segment the suffixes and see if their components could correspond to some other suffixes, preferably to latives. Vowels can often be ignored, as they can be explained away as epenthetic: illative *-s-i-n = lative *-s + epenthetic vowel + lative *-n translative *-k-s-i = lative *-k + lative *-s + epenthetic vowel modal suffix *-k-ta = lative *-k + ablative *-ta Regarding phonology, it is crucial that only 17 consonant phonemes are reconstructed to Proto-Uralic (Janhunen 1981: 251; Sammallahti 1988: 482), and five of these (*c, *d, *ď, *r, *x) seem to have been confined to lexical roots and are not known to have occurred in suffixes. Hence, the six reconstructed lative suffixes *-n, *-ń, *-ŋ, *-k, *-j and *-s already cover half of the consonants that can be found in any suffix. When such an abundance of 139

152 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski phonological possibilities is combined with a nearly total lack of semantic constraints on the comparisons, it becomes an easy task indeed to discover latives wherever one looks for. The following thought experiment shows how seriously astray this kind of reasoning may lead. In the Eastern Finnmark dialects of North Saami the comitative plural ending -iguin has become reduced to the form /-jon/ ~ /-jan/, as in <mánáiguin> /määnääjon/ ~ /määnääjan/ with children. In this case it is well-known that the suffix has developed through the agglutination of an original postposition *guoimme (see 3.5.), but let us suppose instead that we had instead merely reconstructed a comitative ending *-jvn into a remote proto-language. In that case its postpositional background would obviously not be easy to deduce, but instead, one could easily maintain that the suffix was a combination of the latives *-j and *-n. Given the vagueness of the semantic criteria generally applied in such comparisons, there should be no semantic objection to such an analysis: after all, also the Finnish comitative-instructive (and genitive) ending *-n has been considered related to the lative ending *-n (e.g., Leino 2001). We will mention yet one more particularly curious example of such weakly argued and overoptimistic lative hypotheses. There has even been an attempt to explain the development of the Finnic l-cases on the basis of a lative; Alvre (1986) argues that they are originally based on Finno-Ugric lative suffix *-l. His main argument, however, is circular: Alvre maintains that because the s-cases have been explained on the basis of a lative suffix *-s, also the l-cases can be best explained on the basis of a lative. In addition to the general problems of the lative paradigm such an induction is illogical. Even if the s-cases were based on a lative suffix which has never been convincingly argued either (Ylikoski 2016) this would still not reveal anything about the origin of other case forms. Alvre naturally tries to substantiate his hypothesis by pointing out possible traces of this putative l-lative in various Finno-Ugric languages, but these comparisons are hardly convincing; moreover, he even resorts to speculation with long-range comparisons to the Yukaghir instrumental suffix -le (which was mentioned in 4.2) and certain suffixes in Tungusic languages. At this point it should be clear that one must categorically reject all morphological explanations based on such random comparisons of suffixes with various kinds of latives. Instead, Uralic historical morphology ought to start paying more attention to the functions of morphemes. It is not enough merely to explain the phonological shape of inflectional morphemes; in addition, it is necessary to reconstruct the paths along which their usage has developed. This kind of explanation naturally requires painstaking application of the comparative method to broad and representative sets of data, and cannot be achieved by 140

153 Origin of Finnish l-cases superficial comparisons of morphemes and analysis of individual forms and construtions selected at more or less random, which has characterized much of the work done within the context of the lative paradigm. One can add that the typological knowledge we have today offers a solid basis for the postulation of new hypotheses. It is, for instance, well-known that in the world s languages many suffixes have emerged through agglutination of originally independent words, but rarely indeed through the conjunction of various latives or other directional case endings. In Uralic linguistics, these kinds of thoughts have been brought up on a general level by Korhonen: As is known, there are quite a number of rather young an[d] therefore transparent case forms derived from postpositional constructions in the Uralic languages. The postpositions from which the case suffixes originate can mostly be traced back to nouns with concrete, usually local or spatial meanings, such as the inside, upper side, base, etc. It also seems that case suffixes can originate from combinations of two or more older case suffixes. However, some case suffixes that have traditionally been interpreted as suffix combinations may with more thorough research prove to be original, less transparent postpositions. (Korhonen 1991: 177; emphasis added.) In this connection we can propose yet another new hypothesis inspired by this kind of approach. Earlier we mentioned the possibility that the possessive l-cases in Mari and Permic languages might involve agglutinated cognates of postpositions based on a relational noun root cognate with North Saami lu-, Finnish luo- at (see 4.2). Ylikoski (2016) proposes that the western Uralic s-cases as well the Samoyed local cases with the element *-ntə-. may originate in Proto-Uralic postpositional phrases, possibly based on a relational noun *secv- (*sekä-, *seki- or *sexi-) for inside, interior. Another possible example of such grammaticalization is the Proto-Finnic prolative ending *-iccek (> Finnish -itse). This does not occur as a particularly productive case form in any Finnic language, but it is found in various adverbs such as Finnish maitse by land and meritse by sea. No acceptable cognates for this suffix have been shown from other Uralic languages (cf. Suoniemi-Taipale 1994: ; Larjavaara 1995: ). Thus, we propose that the prolative ending goes back to a postposition *śüδik, which has a cognate in Saami: North Saami čađa, South Saami tjïrrh, Skolt Saami čõõđ through, etc. (< Proto-Saami *če δe k). This word has been derived from the same Uralic root as the noun *śüδämi heart (> Skolt Saami čââ đ, Finnish sydän, Mari šüm, Komi śe le m, Hungarian szív, etc. heart ) (SSA s.v. sydän; UEW: 477). The equation of the prolative suffix *-iccek with the postposition *śüδik involves no notable phonological problems. The Pre-Proto-Finnic form of the suffix is reconstructed as *- 141

154 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski ńćek or *-ŋćek (cf. Suoniemi-Taipale 1994: ; Larjavaara 1995: ). The Proto- Finnic geminate affricate *-cc- is apparently a product of secondary gemination; a similar development is also widely attested in the Proto-Finnic deminutive and adjective suffix *-ise- ~ *-icce-. In modern Finnish the suffix mostly occurs in the form -(i)se-, e.g. kala-nen : SG.GEN kala-se-n little fish, villa-inen : SG.GEN villa-ise-n woollen. In dialects one can find vestigial forms pointing to a geminate affricate, such as Tavastian Finnish semmo-tte-t those kinds of, tämmö-tte-t these kinds of (-tt- < *-cc-), and in old literary Finnish such forms are common, e.g. Agricola synneitze-n sinful-gen ~ modern Finnish syntise-n (Hakulinen 1979: ). The South Estonian cognate of this suffix also points to a geminate affricate, as in villa-nõ : SG.GEN villa-dsõ : SG.ILL villa-tsõ-he woollen (~ Finnish villainen) (Keem 1997: 32). The Pre-Proto-Finnic form of the suffix *-ise- ~ *-icce- can be reconstructed as *-ńće-, which in turn derives from an even earlier form *-nśi; this is also the source of the Proto- Saami deminutive suffix *-ńče (> North Saami -š : -ž-, e.g. *kuolā-ńče > guolá-š : guolá-ž- little fish ) (Sammallahti 1998: 90). The suffix *-ise- ~ *-icce- provides a good phonological parallel for the development of the prolative suffix *-iccek. The oldest form of the suffix can be reconstructed as *-nśik, which already comes close the postposition *śüδik which can be reconstructed on the basis of Saami. The nasal *-n- was originally the genitive ending on the complement of the postposition, and *-śik can be quite naturally explained as a reduction of the form *śüδik: the development would have been approximately *meri-n śüδik >> *merińśüik >> *merińćik (> Finnish meritse by sea ). Both the vowel ü and the spirant δ are articulatorily weak sounds, and their loss in an unstressed position would be quite expected. For example, in the Eastern Finnmark dialects of North Saami the phoneme /δ/ shows the tendency to disappear between unstressed vowels, and hence forms such as <boradit> /pooraδeh/ ~ /poora.eh/ eat, have a meal are more or less in free variation. The loss of the vowel ü was already discussed in Section 3.4 above. In addition to phonological arguments, the equation of the Finnic prolative with the (North) Saami postposition čađa naturally also requires the establishment of a semanticfunctional corresponce between these elements. It is true, the usage of the prolative does not as exactly correspond to the postposition čađa as the usage of the l-cases does to the Saami al-postpositions. Instead, the Finnic prolative which is indeed not even a case form but instead a weakly productive and rather rare type of adverb derivative is often most naturally translated into North Saami with the postposition bokte rather than čađa: e.g., Finnish meritse by sea = North Saami meara bokte. One must note, however, that the meanings of the North 142

155 Origin of Finnish l-cases Saami postpositions bokte and čađa come rather close to each other; Sammallahti (1998: ) glosses them in English as via, through and through, respectively. Moreover, one can indeed find a few prolative forms that can be translated exactly into North Saami with čađa postpositional phrases, and vice versa. The following examples show that such correspondences can be found in both traditional (72 73) and modern (74 75) functions of the postposition čađa: (72) [ ] varsinkin, jos kuluneilla sormilla on especially if wear.pst.ptcp.pl.ade finger.pl.ade be.3sg vuosikausien turhana työnä ollut killingin köyhän multiple.years.pl.gen vain.ess work.ess be.pst.ptcp coin.gen poor.gen kuparin pyydystäminen, joka saavuttamattomana on liukunut copper.gen catch.an which unattainable.ess be.3sg slide.pst.ptcp koukistuvien raoitse, niinkuin vesi seulan reijitse! bend.prs.ptcp.pl.gen gap.prol like water sieve.gen hole.prol [ ] eandalitge jos nohkan suorpmain leamaš jahkemeriid especially if wear.pst.ptcp finger.pl.loc be.pst.ptcp multiple.years duššibargun háhpohallat váivváš veaikešilliŋggaid, mat vain.work.ess grope.inf poor copper.shilling.pl.ga which.pl juksameahttumin leat johtán suorbmalanjaid čađa, dego čáhci unattainable.ess be.3pl slip.pst.ptcp finger.gap.pl.ga čađa like water silleráiggiid čađa! sieve.hole.pl.ga čađa [ ] especially if one s worn fingers have for years been grasping in vain for scanty copper shillings that have unattainably slipped through the gaps of one s crooked fingers like water through holes of a sieve! (Kilpi 1993 [1933]: 121) (73) Ääni läheni lähenemistään, sillä talvitie kulki sound come.near.pst.3sg come.near.an.ela.3sg because winter.way go.pst.3sg Telkiän pihatse. Telkiä.GEN yard.prol Jietna lahkonii aht lahkonii, dasgo dálvemáđii sound come.near.pst.3sg COMP come.near.pst.3sg because winter.way manai Telkiä šilju čađa. 143

156 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski go.pst.3sg Telkiä.GA yard.ga čađa The sound came nearer and nearer, as the winter way went through Telkiä s yard. (Reijonen 1900: ) (74) [N. N.] lea váidán Guovdageainnu lagasrádio (GLR) N. N. be.3sg accuse.pst.ptcp Guovdageaidnu.GA local.radio.ga (GLR) leansmánnii. Daningo dikte muhtun boazosápmelačča soaibmat lensmann.ill because allow.pst.3pl some Saami.reindeer.herder.GA revile.inf su rádio čađa. 3SG.GA radio.ga čađa N. N. on tehnyt Koutokeinon paikallisradiosta (GLR) N. N. be.3sg make.pst.ptcp Guovdageaidnu.GEN local.radio.ela (GLR) valituksen nimismiehelle, koska erään porosaamelaisen complaint.gen lensmann.all because certain Saami.reindeer.herder.GEN sallittiin haukkua häntä radioitse. allow.pst.pass revile.inf 3SG.PTV radio.prol N. N. has filed a complaint against the Guovdageaidnu local radio station (GLR) at the Lensmann, because one Saami reindeer herder was allowed to revile him on the radio. (MÁ 1995) (75) Jearahallan 51 čearuid ságadoalliid gaskkas survey.an 51(.GA) reindeer.herding.district.pl.ga chairperson.pl.ga among vuoseha ahte stuorimus váttisvuohta lea oalle heajos vejolašvuođat show.3sg COMP great.sup difficulty be.3sg rather bad possibility.pl gulahallat telefuvnnaid čađa. communicate.inf telephone.pl.ga čađa Kysely 51 paliskunnan puheenjohtajien keskuudessa survey 51(.GEN) reindeer.herding.district.gen chairperson.pl.ga among osoittaa, että suurin ongelma ovat sangen huonot mahdollisuudet show.3sg COMP great.sup problem be.3pl rather bad.pl possibility.pl keskustella puhelimitse. communicate.inf telephone.prol 144

157 Origin of Finnish l-cases A survey of chairpersons of 51 reindeer herding districts shows that the greatest difficulty is posed by the very poor possibilities to communicate by telephone. ( ) The ül-theory presented in this paper and the new hypothesis of the origin of the Finnic prolative serve as examples of what kind of insights more remotely related Uralic languages can offer to the study of Finnic historical morphology. It was, after all, a fatal weakness of the earlier la-theory that it did not take evidence from languages outside the Finnic group into serious consideration. Because of this it is regrettable that it has already become a sort of a tradition to examine the history of Finnish from a narrow, language-internal perspective; diachronic hypotheses are often based on material collected from Finnish exclusively, often even neglecting material from other, closely related Finnic languages (e.g., Inaba 2002: and Ylikoski 2005 have noted that this kind of argumentation is becoming widespread). But when the study of the history of Finnish and Finnic is correctly viewed as one subfield of Uralic historical linguistics, the background of many linguistic phenomena in Finnish reveal themselves in an altogether different light. Abbreviations 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ABE ABL ACC ADE ADJ ADV ALL AN APPR1 ATTR CAUS abessive ablative accusative adessive adjective adverb allative action nominal first approximative (case) attributive causative CMPV CNG COM COMP CVB DAT DEF DIM DPT DU ELA ESS EX FUT comparative connegative comitative complement converb dative definite diminutive discourse particle dual elative essive existential future 145

158 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski GA GEN ILL IMP INCH INE INF INFR INS LAT LOC NEG NOM PASS PL genitive-accusative genitive illative imperative inchoative inessive infinitive inferential instrumental lative locative negative verb nominative passive plural PREDES predestinative PROG PROL PRS PST PST2 PTCP PTV Q REFL SG STEM SUP progressive prolative present tense past tense second past tense participle partitive question reflexive singular word stem superlative TRANSL translative References Corpus material Aikio, Annukka & Aikio, Samuli 1978a: Girdinoaiddi bárdni. Sápmelaš máidnasat. Porvoo Helsinki Juva: WSOY. 1978b: Lentonoidan poika. Saamelaisia satuja. Porvoo Helsinki Juva: WSOY. Blind, Ella Karin 1992: Eallima govat. Johkamohkki: Sámi Girjjit. Castrén, Matthias Alexander 2005: Sámi mátkkit ja Kárášjohka: ČálliidLágádus. Gaski, Harald & Solbakk, John T. & Solbakk, Aage (eds.) 2004: Min njálmmálaš árbevierru. Máidnasat, myhtat ja muitalusat. [Kárášjohka]: Davvi Girji o.s. Guttorm, Eino 1981: Árbeeatnan luohti. Deatnu: Jår galæd dji Å/s. Hætta, Lars Bær, Anders 1982 [1958]: Muitalusat. Tromsø Oslo Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. 146

159 Origin of Finnish l-cases 1993: Usko ja elämä. Koutokeinon saamelaisten hengellisestä elämästä, Lars Levi Laestadiuksen heräyksestä ja lestadiolaisuuden alkuvaiheista ennen vuotta Utsjoki: Girjegiisá. Jansson, Tove 1979 [1965]: Muumipappa ja meri. Porvoo Helsinki Juva: WSOY. Jansson, Tove 1990: Áhčči ja mearra. Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá. Kristiansen, Roald E. 2004a: Davviguovlluid eamiálbmogiid oskkut ja sámi dološ osku. Oahppogirji nuoraidskuvlla luohkáide. Kárášjohka: ČálliidLágádus. 2004b: Leastadianisma. Oahppogirji nuoraidskuvlii. Kárášjohka: ČálliidLágádus. Marastat, Mihkkal 1990: Máhkanvári gumppet. Guovdageaidnu: DAT. 1991: Siidavuomi golli. Guovdageaidnu: DAT. 1992: Darjeskáiddi čiehká. Guovdageaidnu: DAT. MÁ = Min Áigi. [Approximately 150 issues published in years 1995 and 1997, provided to the Giellagas Institute for Saami Studies (University of Oulu, Finland) by the Language Bank project of the Nordic Sami Institute (Guovdageaidnu, Norway).] Kárášjohka. Mukka, Timo K. 1966: Laulu Sipirjan lapsista. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. 2005: Sipirjá. Kárásjohka: Davvi Girji o.s. OT = Ođđa Testamenta. Oslo: Norgga Biibbalsearvi Piibel = Piibel. Vana ja Uus Testament. Tallinn: Eesti Piibliselts Raamattu = Raamattu. Suomen evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon kirkolliskokouksen vuonna 1992 käyttöön ottama suomennos. < Sombi, Ásllat 1996: Jávvásan goahtesajit. Dáhpáhusat dološ badjeeallimis. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji o.s. Turi, Klemet Nilsen 1982: Áiggit rivdet. [Deatnu]: Jår galæd dji Å/s. US = Uuzi Sana. Koitepainos. Helsinki: Biblienkiännändüinstituuttu UT = Ūž Testament. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Kirjapainon Oy Vars, Ellen Marie 1990: Arvedávggi mánát. [Kárášjohka]: Davvi Girji o.s. Vest, Jovnna-Ánde 1988: Čáhcegáddái nohká boazobálggis. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji o.s. 1990: Poropolku sammaloituu. Oulu: Pohjoinen. VS = Выль Сӥзён. Стокгольм Хельсинки: Библиез берыктонъя Институт ÅT = Ådå Testamennta. Uppsala: Svieriga rámátsiebrre

160 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Other sources of material Biblia 1642 = Vanhan testamentin II osa: Joosuan kirja, Tuomarien kirja, Ruutin kirja, Samuelin kirjat, Kuningasten kirjat, Aikakirjat, Esran kirja, Nehemian kirja ja Esterin kirja [text corpus]. Helsinki: Institute for the Languages of Finland. < Cuning:sen Maij:tin Säändö ja Asetus Palcollisist ja Palckawäest 1723 = 1700-luvun asetustekstejä [text corpus]. Helsinki: Institute for the Languages of Finland. < IK = Itkonen, Erkki 1992: Inarinsaamelaisia kielennäytteitä. Aanaarkiela čȧjttuzeh. Ed. by Lea Laitinen. Memoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 213. Helsinki: Société Finno- Ougrienne. Kilpi, Volter 1993 [1933]: Alastalon salissa. Kuvaus saaristosta. II. Helsinki: Otava. LAFD = Lexical Archive of Finnish Dialects (Suomen murteiden sana-arkisto). Institute for the Languages of Finland (Kotus), Helsinki. LS = Bull, Ella Holm & Bergsland, Knut 1993: Lohkede Saemien. Sørsamisk lesebok. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji o.s. OTGr. = The NRSV NIV parallel New Testament in Greek and English. With interlinear translation by Alfred Marshall. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House Reijonen, Juho 1900: Kertoelmia ja kuvauksia. Porvoo: Werner Söderström. Sammallahti, Pekka (ed.) 2004: Javrij jieŋah parguu. Anárašgiel lohkosat. Publications of the Giellagas Institute 2. Oulu: University of Oulu. (2012): Vuõ lǧǧe jåå tted ooudâs. Sää mǩiõllsaž lookkâmǩe rjj. Publications of the Giellagas Institute 14. Oulu: University of Oulu. Suomenkieliset Tieto-Sanomat 17/1776 = Lizelius, Antti: Suomalaiset Tieto-Sanomat 1775 ja 1776 [text corpus]. Helsinki: Institute for the Languages of Finland. < Vanhan kirjasuomen korpus. Helsinki: Institute for the Languages of Finland. <

161 Origin of Finnish l-cases Other references Ahlqvist, August 1863: Om Ungerska språkets förvandtskap med Finskan. Suomi II: 1: Helsinki. 1877: Suomen kielen rakennus. Vertaavia kieliopillisia tutkimuksia. I. Nominien Synty ja Taivutus. Suomalainen Runo-oppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Aikio, Ante 2014: The Uralic-Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or chance resemblance? Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 62: Aikio, Ante & Ylikoski, Jussi 2007: Suopmelaš gielaid l-kásusiid álgovuođđu sáme- ja eará fuolkegielaid čuovggas. Jussi Ylikoski & Ante Aikio (eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 253. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura Alhoniemi, Alho 1979: Suomen kielen l- ja s-sijojen oppositiosta. Kaisa Häkkinen, Jussi Kallio & Leena Kytömäki (eds.), Sanomia. Juhlakirja Eeva Kangasmaa-Minnin 60- vuotispäiväksi Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 9. Turku: Turun yliopisto : Marin kielioppi. Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten X. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 2001: Über den alten und neuen Lokalkasussuffixe im Tscheremissischen. Finnisch- Ugrische Forschungen 56: Alvre, Paul 1986: Zu den finnisch-ugrischen l-kasus. Советское финно-угроведение 22: Anttila, Raimo & Uotila, Eeva 1984: Finnish ovela sly, cunning and the Baltic Finnic outer local cases. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 56: Baker, Robin 1985: The development of the Komi case system. A dialectological investigation. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 189. Helsinki: Suomalais- Ugrilainen Seura. Bartens, Raija 1978: Synteettiset ja analyyttiset rakenteet lapin paikanilmauksissa. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 166. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 232. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 2000: Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 238. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 149

162 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Batalova = Баталова, Р. М. 1982: Ареальные исследования по восточным финноугорским языкам (коми языки). Москва: Наука. Bergsland, Knut 1946: Røros-lappisk grammatikk. Et forsøk på strukturell språkbeskrivelse. Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B. Skrifter XLIII. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. Blake, Barry J. 2001: Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blomstedt, Oskar Aukusti Frithiof 1869: Halotti Beszéd ynnä sen johdosta Wertailevia Tutkimuksia Unkarin, Suomen ja Lapin kielissä. Helsinki: J. Kr. Frenckell. Budenz, József 1886: Az ugor nyelvek összehasonlító alaktana. Első rész: Az ugor nyelvek szóképzése II. Névszóképzés. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 20: Castr[é]n, Matthias Al[e]xander 1839: De affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica. Helsingforsiae: Typis Frenckellianis. Castrén, Matthias Alexander 1844: Elementa grammatices Syrjaenae. Helsingforsiae. Ex officina typographica heredum Simelii = M. Alexander Castrén s Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. Im Auftrage der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften herausgegeben von Anton Schiefner. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften [1849] = M. Alexander Castrén s Versuch einer ostjakischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss. Herausgegeben von Anton Schiefner. Zweite verbesserte Auflage. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Collinder, Björn 1952: Uralaltaisch. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 24: 3 4: : Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Donner, O. 1879: Die gegenseitige Verwandtschaft der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Abdruck aus den Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ. Tom. XI. Helsingfors: Druckerei der Finnischen Litteratur-Gesellschaft. Friis, J. A. 1856: Lappisk Grammatik. Udarbeidet efter den finmarkiske Hoveddialekt eller Sproget, saaledes som det almindeligst tales i norsk Finmarken. Christiania: J. W. Cappelen. Genetz, Arvid 1896: Ensi tavuun vokaalit suomen, lapin ja mordvan kaksi- ja useampitavuisissa sanoissa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura. Givón, Talmy 1979: Ute dictionary. Preliminary edition. Ignacio, Colorado: Ute Press. 1980: Ute reference grammar. First edition. Ignacio, Colorado: Ute Press. Häkkinen, Kaisa 1983: Suomen kielen vanhimmasta sanastosta ja sen tutkimisesta. Suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten etymologisen tutkimuksen perusteita ja metodiikkaa. 150

163 Origin of Finnish l-cases Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 17. Turku: Turun yliopisto. 1984: Wäre es schon an der Zeit, den Stammbaum zu fällen? Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue Folge 4: : Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenteen historiallista taustaa. Fennistica 6. Turku: Åbo Akademi. 2002: Suomen kielen historia 1. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenteen historiallista taustaa. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 69. Turku: Turun yliopisto. 2004: Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja. Juva: WSOY. Hakulinen, Lauri 1941: Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. Ensimmäinen osa. Äänne- ja muoto-oppia. Helsinki: Otava. 1979: Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. Neljäs, korjattu ja lisätty painos. Helsinki: Otava. Halling, Tiina 1996: Vaihtoehtoja ulkopaikallissijoille liivissä. Heikki Leskinen, Sándor Maticsák & Tõnu Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno- Ugristarum, Jyväskylä Pars III. Sessiones sectionum. Phonologia & Morphologia. Jyväskylä : About Livonian preposition iļ. Ago Künnap (ed.), Indo-European-Uralic- Siberian linguistic and cultural contacts. Fenno-Ugristica 22. Tartu Honti, László 2006: Eräästä ugrilaisten kielten postpositioperäisestä kaasussuffiksien perheestä. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 91: Hunfalvy, Pál 1864: A vogul föld és nép. Reguly Antal hagyományaiból kidolgozta Hunfalvy Pál. Pest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akademiai Könyvárus. Huumo, Tuomas 1995: Paikallissijan kieliopillistuminen datiivi-genetiivin funktioon: Uralilaisen n-sijan ja itämerensuomalaisen adessiivin kehityksen vertailua. Sananjalka 37: Huumo, Tuomas & Ojutkangas, Krista 2006: An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective. Case, space and person in Finnish Inaba, Nobufumi 2001: Elollistarkoitteinen lähde ja sen s-sijainen merkintä itämerensuomalaisissa kielissä: sijanmerkinnän ja sijajärjestelmän suhteesta II. Sananjalka 43:

164 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski 2002: Ensimmäisen suomenkielisen Biblian allatiivin käyttö modernin kuvausvälineen valossa. Sananjalka 44: Itkonen, Erkki 1957a: Lokatiivista ja genetiivistä ym. Virittäjä 61: b: Loppusanat prof. Kettuselle. Virittäjä 61: : Kieli ja sen tutkimus. Helsinki: WSOY. IW = Itkonen, Erkki : Inarilappisches Wörterbuch. Lexica Societatis Fenno- Ugricae XX. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Janhunen, Juha 1977: Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Castrenianumin toimitteita 17. Helsinki. 1981: Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 77: : On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44: : Samojedin predestinatiivisen deklinaation alkuperästä. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 82: : Samoyedic. Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages. London New York: Routledge Kallio, Petri 2012a: Jälkitavujen diftongit kantasuomessa. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 14: b: The prehistoric Germanic loanword strata in Finnic. Riho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne Keem, Hella 1997: Võru keel. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Emakeele Selts Võro Instituut. Kettunen, Lauri 1943: Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 86. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 1957: Vastinetta Erkki Itkoselle. Virittäjä 61: KKS = Virtaranta, Pertti & Raija Koponen (eds.) : Karjalan kielen sanakirja. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XVI, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 25. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Korhonen, Mikko 1979: Entwicklungstendenzen des finnisch-ugrischen Kasussystems. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 43: : Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 370. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 152

165 Origin of Finnish l-cases 1991: Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 83: Kracht, Marcus 2005: The Semantics of Locatives in the Uralic Languages. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest (ed.): Les Langues Ouraliennes aujourd'hui. Bibliothèque de l'ecole des Hautes-Etudes, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, No 340. Editions Honoré Champion Kulonen, Ulla-Maija 1993: Johdatus unkarin kielen historiaan. Suomi 170. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Laaksonen, Heli 2000: Adessiivi suomessa ja virossa funktiot, frekvenssit, yhtäläisyydet, erot, vastineet. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Turun yliopiston suomen kielen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitos. Turku. Laanest, Arvo 1982: Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Autorisierte Übertragung aus dem Estnischen von Hans-Hermann Bartens. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Larjavaara, Matti 1995: Prolatiivi ennen ja nyt. Virittäjä 99: Lauranto, Yrjö 1994: Sisä- ja ulkopaikallissijat: onko perinteinen opettamisjärjestys perusteltu? Minna Suni & Eija Aalto (eds.), Suuntaa suomenopetukseen tuntumaa tutkimukseen. Korkeakoulujen kielikeskuksen selosteita 4. Jyväskylä: Korkeakoulujen kielikeskus Laver, John 1994: Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leem, Knud 1748: En lappisk Grammatica efter den Dialect, som bruges af Field-Lapperne udi Porsanger-Fiorden. Kiøbenhavn: Gottman Friderich Kisel. Lehtisalo, T. 1936: Über die primären ururalischen Ableitungssuffixe. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 72. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 1956: Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XIII. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Leino, Pentti 1989: Paikallissijat ja suhdesääntö: kognitiivisen kieliopin näkökulma. Virittäjä 93: : Spatial relations in Finnish: a cognitive perspective. Ingrid Almqvist, Per-Erik Cederholm & Jarmo Lainio (eds.), Från Pohjolas pörten till kognitiv kontakt. Vänskrift till Erling Wande den 9 maj Stockholm studies in Finnish language and literature 6. Stockholm : Henkilöviitteinen allatiivi. Leino, Pentti & Herlin, Ilona & Honkanen, Suvi & Kotilainen, Lari & Leino, Jaakko & Vilkkumaa, Maija 2001: Roolit ja rakenteet. 153

166 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Henkilöviitteinen allatiivi Biblian verbikonstruktioissa. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 813. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003: Space in language and cognition. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lönnrot, Elias 1841: Bidrag till Finska Språkets Grammatik. (Forts. fr. 4:de Häftet.) Suomi I: 5: Helsingfors. LW = Kettunen, Lauri 1938: Livisches Wörterbuch mit grammatischer Einleitung. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae V. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Mägiste, Julius 1928: Eräitä liiviläisiä possessiivisuffiksin jäännöksiä. Virittäjä 32: Maslova, Elena 2003: A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Mouton Grammar Library 27. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Merimaa, Heidi 2002: Adpositiot suomen vanhoissa kieliopeissa. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitos. Turku. Mikola, Tibor 1975: Die alten Postpositionen des Nenzischen (Juraksamojedischen). Den Haag Paris: Mouton / Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Moisio, Arto & Saarinen, Sirkka 2008: Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch. Aufgezeichnet von Volmari Porkka, Arvid Genetz, Yrjö Wichmann, Martti Räsänen, T. E. Uotila und Erkki Itkonen. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 32, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 151. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. MW = H. Paasonens Mordwinisches Wörterbuch. Zusammengestellt von Kaino Heikkilä. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Martti Kahla. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XXIII. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura Nickel, Klaus Peter 1994: Samisk grammatikk. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Nielsen, Konrad 1979 [ ]: Lappisk (samisk) ordbok. Grunnet på dialektene i Polmak, Karasjok og Kautokeino. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Niemi, Jaana & Mosin, Mihail 1995: Ersäläis-suomalainen sanakirja. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 48. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Nikolaeva, Irina 2006: A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nyikolajeva, Irina 2000: Chrestomathia jucagirica. Urálisztikai Tanulmányok 10. Budapest: ELTE BTK, Finnugor Tanszék. 154

167 Origin of Finnish l-cases Oinas, Felix J. 1961: The development of some postpositional cases in Balto-Finnic languages. MSFOu 123. Ojutkangas, Krista 2005: Viittauskehykset ja tarkastelunäkökulma miten sijaintia perusakseleilla kuvataan? Virittäjä 109: Pajusalu, Elna 1957a: Soome-ugri l-käänetest. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 3: b: Ülevaade läänemere keelte ablatiivi funktsioonidest. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised VI. Ühiskonnateaduste seeria a: Adessiivi funktsioonid eesti murretes ja lähemates sugulaskeeltes. Keel ja Kirjandus 4 5/1958: Pajusalu = Паюсалу, Э 1958: Внешнеместные падежи в прибалтийско-финских языках (функции падежей). Автореферат диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Таллин: Академия наук Эстонской ССР, Институт языка и литературы. Pajusalu, Elna 1960: Läänemere keelte allatiivi funktsioonid. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused 5: Papp, István 1968: Unkarin kielen historia. Tietolipas 54. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Petræus, Æschillus 1649: Linguæ Finnicæ brevis institutio. Aboæ: Petrus Wald. Plank, Frans 2015: Time for change. Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Qvigstad, J. K. 1881: Beiträge zur Vergleichung des verwandten Wortvorrathes der lappischen und der finnischen Sprache. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ 12: Rask, Rasmus 1832: Ræsonneret lappisk Sproglære efter den Sprogart, som bruges af Fjældlapperne i Porsangerfjorden i Finmarken. En Omarbejdelse af Prof. Knud Leems Lappiske grammatica. København: J. H. Schubothes Boghandling. Rätsep, Huno 1979: Eesti keele ajalooline morfoloogia. II. Õpivahend eesti filoloogia osakonna üliõpilastele. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool. Ravila, Paavo 1935: Die stellung des lappischen innerhalb der finnisch-ugrischen sprachfamilie. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 23: : Die Ursprache als Grundbegriff der Sprachgeschichte. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 60, 6 : Rédei (Radanovics), Károly 1962: Die Postpositionen im Syrjänischen unter Berücksichtigung des Wotjakischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 155

168 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Rédei, Károly 1996: Zu der Geschichte des PU-PFU Kasussystems. Die Rolle der Koaffixe in der Herausbildung der Deklination. Lars-Gunnar Larsson (ed.), Lapponica et uralica. 100 Jahre finnisch-ugrischer Unterricht an der Universität Uppsala. Vorträge am Jubiläumssymposium April Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 26. Uppsala Renvall, Gustaf 1840: Finsk Språklära, Enligt den rena Vest-Finska, i Bokspråk vanliga Dialecten. Åbo: Christ. Ludv. Hjelt. Saarinen, Sirkka 2005: Mordwinisch lango/langa. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 28/29: Salminen, Tapani 1998: Nenets. Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages. London New York: Routledge : Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies. Лингвистический бепредел: сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой. Москва: Издательство Московского университета : Suomalais-samojedilaisia muotovertailuja. Nobufumi Inaba, Jorma Luutonen, Arja Hamari & Elina Ahola (eds.), Juuret marin murteissa, latvus yltää Uraliin. Juhlakirja Sirkka Saarisen 60-vuotispäiväksi Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 270. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura Sammallahti, Pekka 1977: Norjansaamen Itä-Enontekiön murteen äänneoppi. Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 160. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 1988: Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages. Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden New York København Köln: E. J. Brill : The Saami Languages. An Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Serebrennikov = Серебренников, Б. А. 1962: Из истории падежной системы пермских языков. В. И. Лыткин, К. Е. Майтинская & Б. А. Серебренников (eds.), Вопросы финно-угорского языкознания. К 70-летию со дня рождения членакорреспондента АН СССР Д. В. Бубриха. Москва Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР = Серебренников, Б. А. 1963: Историческая морфология пермских языков. Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. Setälä, E. N. 1890: Yhteissuomalaisten klusiilien historia. Luku yhteissuomalaisesta äännehistoriasta. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Sjögren, And. Joh. 1828: Anteckningar om församlingarne i Kemi-Lappmark. Helsingfors. 156

169 Origin of Finnish l-cases Sjögren, Joh. Andreas & Wiedemann, Ferdinand Joh = Joh. Andreas Sjögren s Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachproben. Im Auftrage der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften bearbeitet und mit einer historisch-etnographishen Einleitung versehen von Ferdinand Joh. Wiedemann. Joh. Andreas Sjögren s gesammelte Schriften. Band 2. Theil 1. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. SSA = Itkonen, Erkki & Ulla-Maija Kulonen (eds.) : Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 556, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 62. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Stockfleth, N. V. 1840: Grammatik i det lappiske Sprog, saaledes som det tales i Norsk- Finmarken. Förste Del. Bogstav- og Formlæren. Christiania: Chr. Gröndahl. Suoniemi-Taipale, Inga 1994: Itämerensuomalaisten kielten prolatiivi. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 616. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Szinnyei, Josef 1910: Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig: Göschen sche Verlagshandlung. Tauli, Valter 1952: Bemerkungen zum Ursprung der uralischen Kasussysteme. Ural- Altaische Jahrbücher 24: 3 4: : The origin of affixes. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 32: Tereščenko = Терещенко, Н. М. 1965: Ненецко-русский словарь. Москва: Советская Энциклопедия. Thordarson, Fridrik 2009: Ossetic grammatical studies. Edited by Sonja Fritz. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tikka, Toivo 1992: Vepsän suffiksoituneet postpositiot. Kieliopillisiin sijoihin liittyvä suffiksoituminen. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 22. Uppsala. UEW = Rédei, Károly (unter Mitarbeit von Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Sándor Csúcs, István Erdélyi, László Honti, Éva Korenchy, Éva K. Sal und Edit Vértes) : Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Uotila, T. E. 1945: Sijapäätteiden syntyhistoriaa. Virittäjä 49: , Vainik, Ene 1995: Eesti keele väliskohakäänete semantika kognitiivse grammatika vaatenurgast. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut. Wichmann, Yrjö : Beiträge zur tscheremissischen Nominalbildungslehre. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 30, 6 :

170 Ante Aikio & Jussi Ylikoski Virtaranta, Pertti 1962: Über die Partikeln auf -li in den ostseefi. Sprachen. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 125. Helsinki Ylikoski, Jussi 2005: Uusia näkökulmia suomen infiniittisiin rakenteisiin. Virittäjä 109: : Fuomášumit sámegiela adposišuvnnaid funkšuvnnain: ovdamearkan alde- ja alapostposišuvnnaid ii-lokála geavaheapmi. Sámi dieđalaš áigečála 1/2006: : A survey of the origins of directional case suffixes in European Uralic. Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins : The origins of the western Uralic s-cases revisited: historiographical, functionaltypological and Samoyedic perspectives. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 63: Contact information Ante Aikio Sámi University of Applied Sciences Hánnoluohkká 45 NO-9520 GUOVDAGEAIDNU ante.aikio@samiskhs.no Jussi Ylikoski Department of Language and Culture UiT The Arctic University of Norway PO Box 6050 Langnes NO-9037 TROMSØ jussi.ylikoski@uit.no 158

171 Håkan Rydving University of Bergen Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Södra Tärna i det samiska språklandskapet Håkan Rydving Abstract Among the Sami varieties, the indigenous subdialect of southern Tärna is considered to be the northernmost form of South Sami. This idea has, however, been called into question by Lars-Gunnar Larsson. Instead, he suggests that southern Tärna Sami represents the southernmost form of Ume Sami. In this paper, Larsson s conclusion is tested with the help of the Sami lexical material collected for Atlas Linguarum Europae (ALE) I. The results show that (1) from a lexical point of view, the Sami varieties of Southern Tärna are much closer to the varieties nearest to the north than to the ones nearest to the south, and (2) if one, therefore, has to draw a boundary between South Sami and Ume Sami on the basis of lexicon, that boundary has to be drawn south of southern Tärna, not north of it, i.e. the same conclusion that Larsson drew on the basis of other criteria. Sami Keywords: Atlas Linguarum Europae, dialect borders, lexicon, South Sami, Ume 1. Inledning Samiskan talas i en kontinuerlig serie varieteter från Engerdal (sas. Engerdaelie) i norra Hedmark i Norge och Idre (sas. Eajra) i norra Dalarna i Sverige till de östra delarna av Kolahalvön. 1 Med några få undantag är det möjligt för samisktalande att kommunicera med personer som talar de närmaste varieteterna, men möjligheterna att förstå minskar med avståndet. Det är bara små skillnader från varietet till varietet om man färdas från sydväst mot nordost och inga klara språkliga gränser utan snarare övergångsområden mellan det som uppfattas som centrala varianter av de olika 1 Översatt och bearbetad version av det föredrag jag höll vid den festlighet som Finsk-ugriska seminariet vid Georg-August-universitetet i Göttingen och Societas Uralo-Altaica anordnade för Lars-Gunnar Larsson på hans 65-årsdag den 12 november Då lanserades Larssons monografi Grenzen und Gruppierungen im Umesamischen (Larsson 2012) och festföremålet fick dessutom ta emot festskriften Lapponicae investigationes et uralicae (Winkler & Bartens & Hasselblatt (red.) 2012). Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15 (2016) Rydving, H., 2016

172 Håkan Rydving Fig. 1. Karta som visar en indelning av samiskan i tio huvuddialekter (eller språk). A = den ungefärliga gränsen för det så kallade traditionella samiska bosättningsområdet dras vanligen så här trots att exempelvis de syd-, ume- och lulesamiska språkområdena går helt ner till Bottenviken; B = ungefärliga gränser mellan huvuddialekterna (en av flera möjligheter); C = området på huvudkartan; S. = sydsamiska; U. = umesamiska; Arj. = arjeplogssamiska; L. = lulesamiska; N. = nordsamiska; I. = enaresamiska; Sk. = skoltsamiska; Akk. = akkalasamiska; Kld. = kildinsamiska; T. = tersamiska (Rydving 2004: 358). varieteterna. Trots det har forskare sedan 1600-talet delat in det samiska språkområdet i större och mindre delar: i dialektgrupper, huvuddialekter, dialekter, underdialekter och lokala dialekter, för att använda en av flera möjliga terminologier (jfr Rydving 2013: 88 f.). 160 Även om de olika områdena i huvudsak har definierats utifrån centrala drag, har man måst bestämma var gränserna ska gå mellan dem, till exempel på dialektkartor som ska fungera som pedagogiska hjälpmedel eller för att markera gränsen mellan områden där olika ortografier ska användas för ortnamnen. Gränserna på kartor får emellertid lätt den konsekvensen att de får oss att tro att de representerar tydliga språkliga gränser (jfr fig. 1). Det finns flera samiska dialektkartor, utarbetade av olika forskare från 1920-talet och senare. De är alla förvånansvärt lika. Gränserna är dragna på ungefär på samma ställen, med bara mindre variationer från karta till karta (jfr Rydving 2013: 41 77). I den här artikeln ska jag diskutera en sådan gräns, den mellan sydsamiska och

173 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? umesamiska, en gräns som brukar dras längs Umeälven (sas. Upmejenjeanoe; sau. Ubmejeiednuo). De samiska varieteter som traditionellt talats närmast söder om Umeälven, i södra delen av den gamla socknen Tärna (sas. Dearna, sau. Deärnná), brukar i dialektologiska sammanhang kallas södra Tärna, medan de som talas närmast norr om älven brukar kallas norra Tärna. 2 Naturligtvis finns det variation också inom exempelvis södra Tärna, men sådan lokal variation kommer jag inte att diskutera här, även om jag nämner en uppgift från Ullisjaure (sas. Ulliesjaevrie, sau. Ulliesjávrrie), en av de lokala varieteterna inom södra Tärna. Umeälven utgör alltså gräns mellan södra Tärna och norra Tärna. Enligt en i stort sett enstämmig tidigare forskning är älven också gräns mellan de två huvuddialekterna (eller språken) sydsamiska och umesamiska. Varieteterna i södra Tärna uppfattas som de nordligaste av de sydsamiska, och de i norra Tärna som de sydligaste av de umesamiska. Men som Lars-Gunnar Larsson påpekade redan i sitt plenarföredrag vid fennougristkongressen 2010 (Larsson 2010), och sedan ytterligare underbyggt i monografin Grenzen und Gruppierungen im Umesamischen (Larsson 2012: 14 f., 31 f., 146, ), är den analysen av förhållandet mellan varieteterna i gränsområdet mellan syd- och umesamiska inte så självklar som den verkar vara om man läser dialektöversikter och ser på dialektkartor (jfr nedan). De språkliga förhållandena är idag ännu mer komplicerade och jag måste därför göra en kort exkurs innan jag kommer tillbaka till frågan om var gränsen mellan sydoch umesamiska bör dras. 1.1 Exkurs: språket i den nuvarande Vapstens sameby Det område där de samiska varieteter traditionellt talats som i språkvetenskapliga sammanhang kallas södra Tärna är detsamma som renskötselområdet för Vapstens sameby, medan varieteterna som kallas norra Tärna traditionellt talats i renskötselområdet för Ubmeje Tjeälddie (tidigare: Umbyns sameby). Vapsten är alltså den sameby som använder området närmast söder om Umeälven för sin renskötsel, men det är viktigt att skilja mellan det geografiska området, alltså 2 Begreppen södra Tärna, norra Tärna etc. är tvetydiga eftersom de både kan beteckna den södra respektive norra delen av gamla Tärna socken och de samiska varieteter som traditionellt talats i de två sockendelarna. För att undvika missförstånd skriver jag södra Tärna och norra Tärna (utan citationstecken) när jag avser områdena, men använder södra Tärna och norra Tärna (med citationstecken) om de samiska varieteterna. 161

174 Håkan Rydving samebyns renskötselområde, och den ekonomiska föreningen Vapstens sameby och dess medlemmar. Inom Vapstens renskötselområde (= södra Tärna plus angränsande områden längre österut) bor det också andra samer än medlemmarna i samebyn, och det är de samerna som traditionellt talat de varieteter som kallas södra Tärna. Medlemmarna i Vapstens sameby talar däremot nordsamiska. Bakgrunden är tvångsförflyttningen av nordsamiska renskötargrupper från bland annat Karesuando (san. Gárasavvon) till sydligare delar av svenska Sápmi under 1900-talets första årtionden (jfr Åhren 1979; Aarseth 1989; Marainen 1996). På 1930-talet bosatte sig två nordsamiska familjer bland de lokala samerna i södra Tärna och togs upp som medlemmar i dåvarande Vapstens lappby. De nordsamiska immigranterna tog gradvis över samebyn, medan de inhemska samerna förlorade sin renskötselrätt så att Vapstens sameby så småningom blev helt nordsamisk (wikipedia-artikeln Vapstens sameby och de referenser det hänvisas till där). I andra områden dit tvångsförflyttade nordsamer kom, har de bildat egna renskötselgrupper inom de olika samebyarna (se Beach 1981 för ett lulesamiskt exempel), men de har däremot inte tagit över en hel sameby. Det har bara hänt i Vapsten. Även om den här artikeln handlar om språket hos de inhemska samerna i södra Tärna och de relationer de varieteter av samiska de talar har till de närmaste inhemska varieteterna, inte om språket som inflyttade nordsamisktalande talar, illustrerar exemplet hur komplex den nuvarande språksituationen är och hur viktigt det är att en dialekt inte bara definieras i rummet, men också i tiden (jfr Larsson 1985: 168). När man diskuterar samiskan i olika områden och språklig variation, tar man traditionellt utgångspunkten i de inhemska varieteterna i varje område. Det gör jag också i den här artikeln, även om jag menar att man i långt högre grad än man hittills gjort också borde ta hänsyn till det senaste dryga århundradets omflyttningar. På samma sätt som Mikko Korhonen och Pekka Sammallahti rastrerat områdena i norra Finland där både enare-, nord- och skoltsamiska talas och i norra Norge där både fjälloch kustsamiska varieteter av nordsamiskan talas (Korhonen 1967: karta; Sammallahti 1998: 5), borde liknande rastreringar göras i andra områden. Det gäller inte minst de delar av de syd-, ume-, arjeplogs- och lulesamiska områdena där det bor många nordsamisktalande. De utgör en viktig del av den samiska befolkningen i respektive område men är osynliggjorda när man talar om samisk språklig variation. Den här tematiken hoppas jag kunna återkomma till i ett annat sammanhang, men i 162

175 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? den här artikeln avgränsar jag mig alltså till att diskutera gränsen mellan sydsamiska och umesamiska, inte de nutida språkliga förhållandena Gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska enligt dialektöversikter Fram till 1940-talet fanns det ingen konsensus om var gränsen mellan sydsamiska och umesamiska skulle dras. Intressant nog menade Just Qvigstad (1893: 1 ff.) i översikten i sin doktorsavhandling att Tärna-dialekten (och det måste betyda både södra Tärna och norra Tärna ) är umesamisk. Han delade nämligen in de samiska varieteterna i området i (A) jämtlandsdialekten och (B) umeådialekten och den senare i sin tur i (A1) dialekten i Tärna och Hattfjelldal och (A2) dialekten i Sorsele och södra Rana (Qvigstad (1893: 1 ff.). Tre årtionden senare hade han ändrat uppfattning och drog gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska längre norrut, norr om södra Tärna i Sverige och Hattfjelldal på norsk sida (Qvigstad 1925: 3 f.). På 1940-talet hade gränsen etablerats norr om södra Tärna. Enligt Gustav Hasselbrink (1944: 2 f.) hör södra Tärna till västerbottenssamiskan, sydsamiskans norra underdialekt, och norra Tärna till umesamiskan. Knut Bergsland (1949: 375) räknade bland annat Hattfjelldal (sas. Aaborte), Vefsn (sas. Vaapste) och södra Tärna som sydsamiska områden och det har därefter har det varit den gängse uppfattningen (jfr Rydving 2013: 38 80). Det är därför helt följdriktigt att material från södra Tärna togs med i Gustav Hasselbrinks sydsamiska ordbok (Hasselbrink ) och i dialektöversikten i ordbokens första band (Hasselbrink , 1: 21 f.). 3. Gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska enligt dialektkartor Samiska dialektkartor visar samma bild som dialektöversikterna. På kartor som publicerades under 1960-talet drogs gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska längs Umeälvens dalgång (Décsy 1965; Korhonen 1967), alltså norr om södra Tärna, och Pekka Sammallahti (1998) gjorde på samma sätt trettio år senare, även om strecket som markerar gränsen på hans karta följer Umeälvens södra strand, inte den norra som på Korhonens karta (fig. 2 a c). Detsamma gäller de övriga dialektkartor där gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska är markerad. På både Olavi Korhonens (1997: 59), Georgij Kerts (2003: 50) och min egen karta (jfr fig. 1) dras gränsen längs 3 Därför ignorerar jag i det här sammanhanget dessutom både majoritetsspråket svenska och andra minoritetsspråk än samiska som talas i området. 163

176 Håkan Rydving Fig. 2a d. (a) Utsnitt ur Mikko Korhonens dialektkarta (Korhonen 1967). (b) Utsnitt ur Gyula Décsys dialektkarta (Décsy 1965: 86). (c) Utsnitt ur Pekka Sammallahtis dialektkarta (Sammallahti 1998: 5). (d) Utsnitt ur Nils Jernsletten och Pekka Sammallahtis dialektkarta (Jernsletten & Sammallahti 1985: 4). Umeälven. Det enda undantaget är den karta som Nils Jernsletten och Pekka Sammallahti (1985: 4) publicerade i läroboken Sámás 1 (fig. 2 d). Där går gränsen söder om södra Tärna. 4. Gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska: kriterier Det viktigaste kriteriet som man hänvisat till när man dragit gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska norr om södra Tärna har varit avsaknaden av stadieväxling där, medan varieteterna i norra Tärna har stadieväxling. Det är i alla fall så som kriteriet oftast har presenterats, men i verkligheten är förhållandena mycket mer komplicerade (jfr Larsson 2012: ). Man får lätt intrycket att det är fullständig stadieväxling i norra Tärna och ingen stadieväxling alls i södra Tärna, som om gränsenn mellan området utan stadieväxling och det med stadieväxling skulle vara skarp. Som Nils Moosberg visade redan i sin licentiatavhandling om stadieväxlingen i området finns det rester av stadieväxling i södra Tärna och i norra Tärna är, som han skriver, stadieväxlingen synnerligen oklar och förvirrande (Moosberg [1925]: 45). Många enskilda ord saknar till exempel stadieväxling även i grupper som vanligtvis har det. Om man kan lita på Nils Moosberg, och det bör man nog, så utgör Umeälven ingen klar gräns mellan ett område utan och ett område med stadieväxling. I stället ökar gradvis användningen av stadieväxling norr om älven, men stadieväxling är ett alltför 164

177 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? problematiskt kriterium om man vill ha hjälp att avgöra var man bör dra gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska. Dessutom är det ett problem i sig att basera en dialektgräns på ett enda kriterium. Det är först genom en sammanvägning av flera kriterier som man kan avgöra var en sådan gräns bör dras. När det gäller andra kriterier som brukar användas för att skilja mellan syd- och umesamiska, följer södra Tärna ofta umesamiskan. Som Lars-Gunnar Larsson påpekat har samiskan i Ullisjaure (sas. Ulliesjaevrie, sau. Ulliesjávrrie) en lokal varietet inom södra Tärna till exempel det nordliga -jv-, inte det sydliga -jj- i ord som biejvie ~ biejjie sol, och tvåstaviga substantiv har i södra Tärna den umesamiska ändelsen i illativ singularis, -je, inte den sydsamiska -se (Larsson 2010: 212; Larsson 2012: 101 f., ). Trots att det i den språkvetenskapliga litteraturen finns en överväldigande enighet om att dra gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska norr om södra Tärna, verkar det alltså finnas anledning att ifrågasätta den uppfattningen. Redan det förhållandet att gränsen dragits längs en älvdal borde ha gjort oss misstänksamma, eftersom det vore en märklig kulturell och språklig gräns. Älvar och sjöar skiljer inte, utan förenar. Det är berg och bergskedjor som förhindrar kommunikation, vatten gör det inte (jfr Larsson 2012: 81, 144, 178). Det är därför logiskt att den gamla sockengränsen och den nuvarande kommungränsen följer vattendelaren söder om södra Tärna, inte älvdalen (jfr Rydving 2013: 147 f. om ett liknande problem i gränsområdet mellan lulesamiska och nordsamiska). 5. Lexikon som kriterium Mot den här bakgrunden har jag jämfört ordförrådet i södra Tärna med ordförråden i angränsande varieteter. Uppgiften har varit att med hjälp av lexikala kriterier undersöka var det är lämpligt att dra gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska. Fastän det finns klara skillnader i lexikon mellan olika samiska områden, har studiet av språklig variation fram till publiceringen av Grenzen und Gruppierungen im Umesamischen (Larsson 2012) koncentrerat sig nästan uteslutande om fonologiska och morfologiska kriterier, medan lexikon diskuterats i långt mindre grad. Men eftersom språkets funktion är att kommunicera, utgör skillnader i ordförrådet större hinder för kommunikationen än skillnader i uttal och variationer i hur orden böjs. Fonologiska och morfologiska aspekter är viktiga när man analyserar ett språks 165

178 Håkan Rydving historiska utveckling, men är det knappast i lika hög grad i undersökningar av ömsesidig förståelse. I det senare fallet är fördelarna med att basera analysen på lexikon uppenbara. Eftersom varje ord i ett språk har sin egen geografiska distribution, kan en analys av många ord (många särdrag) hjälpa oss att förstå hur olika varieteter gradvis övergår i varandra mycket bättre än den traditionella typen av analys som baserades på några få fonologiska eller morfologiska kriterier. Vi vet dessutom att modersmålstalare uppfattar skillnader i ordförrådet som särskilt tydliga markörer av dialektskillnader, och det gäller naturligtvis också samiskan. För att ge tre exempel från tidigare forskning (efter Rydving 2013: 19), så noterade Just Qvigstad (1925: 2) att de samer som kommenterade dialektskillnader la större vikt på ordförrådet än på grammatiken; Kjell Kemi, som analyserat språkgränsen mellan västlig nordsamiska i Kautokeino (san. Guovdageaidnu) och östlig nordsamiska i Karasjok (san. Kárášjohka), hävdar att intonationen och val av ord var mycket viktigare för hans informanter än fonologiska och morfologiska skillnader (Kemi 1984: 83); och enligt Inger Marie Gaup Eira (2003: 92) betonade hennes informanter i Kåfjord (san. Gáivuotna) lexikala skillnader när de jämförde dialekter. 6. Europeisk språkatlas som källa Som källmaterial har jag använt det lexikaliska materialet för den första delen av Europeisk språkatlas (Atlas Linguarum Europae, ALE; Alinei et al ). Det samlades in med hjälp av en frågelista som avsåg att i så hög grad som möjligt täcka in olika delar av lexikon i de språk som skulle undersökas, alla europeiska språk från Atlanten till Uralbergen och från Norra Ishavet till Medelhavet, även om det bör observeras att de begrepp som man valde representerar centraleuropeiska förhållanden (jfr Kruijsen 1976). Flera av de djur och växter som man frågar efter förekommer inte i det samiska bosättningsområdet, och den terminologi som gäller boskapsskötsel avser nötkreatur- och fårskötsel, inte renskötsel. Det här problemet gäller i lika hög grad för hela det område där samiska talas. Det innebär att antalet begrepp som man kan utnyttja för en analys av samisk språkvariation är färre än om man gjorde en liknande undersökning av till exempel något område i Frankrike eller Tyskland, men materialet är ändå fullt tillräckligt (jfr Rydving 2013: ). För södra Tärna består det av svar på 281 frågor, ett antal som kan jämföras med korpusar som liknande undersökningar av andra språk baseras 166

179 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Fig. 3. Procentandelen gemensamt ordförråd i de sex samiska ALE-lokaler i Sverige som när det gäller lexikon (representerat av materialet insamlat för ALE I) överensstämmer mest med det från södra Tärna (sas. Dearna, sau. Deärnná): norra Tärna (sau. Deärnná) (90,2), Arvidsjaur (sau. Árviesjávrrie) (88,5), Sorsele (sau. Suorssá) (88,4), Arjeplog (sal. Árjepluovve) (86,3), Vilhelmina (sas. Vualtjere) (83,9) och Jokkmokk (sal. Jåhkåmåhkke) (83,2). på. När den österrikiske romanisten Hans Goebl testade hur litet ett material kan vara för den typen av dialektometrisk analys som jag gjort, fann han att redan ett så litet material som svar på 25 slumpmässigt valda frågor gav en ganska god bild av det allmänna mönstret, medan man för en detaljerad bild behöver svar på mellan 200 och 300 frågor (Goebl 1982: 790). Det betyder att materialet från södra Tärna är mer än tillräckligt. Vad jag har mätt är de lexikala relationerna, alltså hur stor del av ordförråden (representerade av det material som samlats in för ALE I) som är gemensamt, och kriteriet för likhet är därför etymologiskt. Jag har beräknat hur hög procentandel av svaren från södra Tärna som är (etymologiskt) identiska med svaren från var och en av de närliggande samiskaa lokalerna i Sverige som undersöktes i ALE I (för en presentation av källmaterial, källkritik och metod, se Rydving 2013: , ). 7. Södra Tärna : lexikala relationer till angränsande varieteter Av frågorna i SamALE I (= det samiska material som samlats in för ALE I) var det alltså 281 som kunde besvaras med hjälp av materialet från södra Tärna. De övriga ALE-lokaler i Sverige med störst andel av ordförrådet gemensamt med det i södra 167

180 Håkan Rydving Fig. 4. De sex samiska ALE-lokaler i Sverige som när det gäller lexikon (representerat av materialet insamlat för ALE I) överensstämmer mest med södra Tärna (det rastrerade området); sas. = sydsamiska; sau. = umesamiska. Tärna var de umesamiska norra Tärna, Arvidsjaur (sau. Árviesjávrrie) 4 och (skogsdialekten i) Sorsele (sau. Suorssá) med respektive 90,2, 88,5 och 88,4% gemensamt ordförråd. Så kommer den arjeplogssamiska lokalen Arjeplog (sal. Árjepluovve) med 86,3% och först därefter den norra sydsamiska lokalen i Vilhelmina (sas. Vualtjere) med 83,9%, nära följd av den lulesamiska lokalen Jokkmokk (sal. Jåhkåmåhkke) med 83,2% (jfr fig. 3 4). Det är alltså större överensstämmelse mellan lexikon (som det representeras av materialet för ALE I) i södra Tärna och Arjeplog än mellan det i södra Tärna och Vilhelmina, och ordförrådet i södra Tärna överensstämmer nästan lika mycket med det i Jokkmokk som med det i Vilhelmina. Det är desto mer överraskande om man betänker att avståndet fågelvägen mellan södra Tärna och centrala Vilhelmina bara är ca 60 km, medan det mellan södra Tärna och Arjeplog är nästan dubbelt så långt, ca 110 km. Om man jämför andelenn gemensamma lexem (i svaren på frågelistan för ALE I) mellan södra Tärna och Vilhelmina (83,9%), med andra delar av det samiska 4 Observera att Arvidsjaur i SamALE I representeras av material från Malmesjaure (sau. Málmiesjávrrie) inom Arvidsjaur, inte av material från Mausjaure (sau. Mávesjávrrie), den by inom Arvidsjaur som benämns Arvidsjaur i Larsson 2012 (jfr Larsson 2012: 53). 168

181 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Fig. 5. Förslag till hur gränsen mellan sydsamiska (sas.) och umesamiska (sau.) bör dras om gränsen baseras på lexikon (representerat av materialet insamlat för ALE I): söder om södra Tärna. språkområdet, kan man konstatera att den är ungefär lika stor som den mellan Arjeplog (Árjepluovve) och Norra Gällivare (sal. Girjes, san. Girjjis) (83,8%) (Rydving 2013: tabell 7.5) ), två varieteter inom två olika samiska huvuddialekter, arjeplogssamiska respektive nordlig lulesamiska eller sydlig nordsamiska, beroende på hur den senare varieteten klassificeras. 8. Slutsatser (1) Gränsen mellan sydsamiska och umesamiska är oklar, men om man av pedagogiska eller andra skäl behöver markera en gräns på en karta kan man om man utgår från lexikon (representerat av materialet för ALE I) konstatera är den inhemska lokala dialekten i södra Tärna är närmare relaterad till varieteter relativt långt norrut (som arjeplogssamiskan) än till den närmast söderut (vilhelminasamiskan). Det är en relativt stor skillnad mellan den lokalaa dialekten i södra Tärna och den i Vilhelmina närmast i söder, men mycket mindre lexikala skillnader norrut. (2) Om man vill dra en gräns mellan sydsamiska och umesamiska och bestämmer sig för att basera den gränsen på lexikala kriterier, bör den alltså (om man baserar sig på det material jag använt) dras söder om södra Tärna, inte norr om. Gränsen följer inte Umeälven utan vattendelaren söder om älven där den gamla sockengränsen 169

182 Håkan Rydving Fig. 6. Karta som visar en ndelning av samiskan i tio huvuddialekter (eller språk) och med gränsen mellan syd- och umesamiska dragen söder om södra Tärna (jfr fig. 1) ). A = den ungefärliga gränsen för det så kallade traditionella samiska bosättningsområdet; B = ungefärliga gränser mellan huvuddialekterna (en av flera möjligheter); C = området på huvudkartan; S. = sydsamiska; U. = umesamiska; Arj. = arjeplogssamiska; L. = lulesamiska; N. = nordsamiska; I. = enaresamiska; Sk. = skoltsamiska; Akk. = akkalasamiska; Kld. = kildinsamiska; T. = tersamiska (Rydving 2004: 358, reviderad). mellan Vilhelmina och Tärna gick, den gräns som nu är kommungräns mellan Vilhelmina och Storuman (jfr fig. 5). Den slutsatsen stämmer överens med hur gränsen dragits på Jernsletten & Sammallahtis (1985) kartaa i Sámás 1 och med hur Lars-Gunnar Larsson (2010; 2012) föreslagit att den ska dras, men det är viktigt att påpeka utifrån andra kriterier, med hjälp av andra metoder och i huvudsak annat källmaterial. Det är tydligen hög tid att vi börjar rita om våra samiska dialektkartor (jfr fig. 6). Förkortningar ALE I Atlas Linguarum Europae, del I saarj. arjeplogssamiska sal. lulesamiskaa 170

183 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? samale I san. sas. sau. det samiska materialet för ALE I nordsamiska sydsamiska umesamiska Källmaterial Det samiska materialet för Atlas Linguarum Europae (ALE) I, Dialekt- och folkminnesarkivet i Uppsala (DFU). Övriga referenser Aarseth, Bjørn Grenseoppgjørene og konsekvensene av disse for den nordsamiske bosetting i Norge. I: B. Aarseth, (red.), Grenser i Sameland (Samiske samlinger 13), Oslo: Norsk folkemuseum. Alinei, M. L. et al. (red.) Atlas Linguarum Europae. Volume 1, 1 9. Cartes, commentaires. Assen: Van Gorcum (vol. 1, 1 4); Roma: Istituto poligrafico e zecca della stato (vol. 1, 5 7); Bukarest: Institutul de lingvistica (vol. 1, 8 9). Beach, Hugh Reindeer-Herd Management in Transition: The Case of Tuorpon Saameby in Northern Sweden (Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology 3). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Bergsland, Knut Samemål på Rørosvidda. Rørosboka 1, Décsy, Gyula Einführung in die finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Eira, Inger Marie Gaup Giella vákkis vággái: Gáivuona dialeavtta suokkardallan (Dieđut 2003:2). Guovdageaidnu: Sámi instituhtta. Goebl, Hans Dialektometrie: Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie (Österreichisches Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 157). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hasselbrink, Gustav Vilhelminalapskans ljudlära med särskild hänsyn till första stavelsens vokaler. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. Hasselbrink, Gustav Südlappisches Wörterbuch / Oårj elsaamien baaguog ärjaa 1 3 (Skrifter utgivna genom Dialekt- och Folkminnesarkivet i 171

184 Håkan Rydving Uppsala C:4). Uppsala: Dialekt- och folkminnesarkivet. Jernsletten, Nils & Pekka Sammallahti Gárta: sámegiela guovllut. I: P. S. Labba & Aa. Solbakk & V. Holmberg, Sámás 1, 4. Stockholm: Utbildningsradion & Brevskolan. Kemi, Kjell Dialektgrensen mellom Kárášjohka og Guovdageaidnu. Opublicerad huvudämnesuppsats (hovedfagsoppgave) i samiska vid Universitetet i Oslo, våren Kert, Georgij M Saamskij yazyk. I: E. I. Klement ev & N. V. Šlygina (red.), Pribaltijsko-finskie narody Rossii (Narody i kul tury), Moskva: Nauka. Korhonen, Mikko Die Konjugation im Lappischen: morfologisch-historische Untersuchung 1 (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 143). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Korhonen, Olavi Samiskan som språk och traditionskälla. I: O. Korhonen & B. Winsa, Språkliga och kulturella gränser i Nordskandinavien: två uppsatser (Kulturens frontlinjer 7), Umeå: Kulturgräns norr. Kruijsen, Joep (red.) Atlas Linguarum Europae. Premier questionnaire. Assen: Van Gorcum. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar Ume Saami language variation. I: S. Csúcs et al. (red.), Congressus XI Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars 1: Orationes plenariae, Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar Grenzen und Gruppierungen in Umesamischen. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 83). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Marainen, Johannes Tvångsförflyttning av samer. Norrbotten 1996, Moosberg, Nils [1925]. Stadieväxlingen i Tärna och Sorsele. Uppsala universitetsbibliotek, MS R 669 d: 11. Qvigstad, Just Nordische Lehnwörter im Lappischen (Christiania Videnskabs- Selskabs Forhandlingar for 1893:1). Christiania: Jacob Dybwad. Qvigstad, Just Die lappischen Dialekte in Norwegen. I: J. Qvigstad, Zur Sprach- und Volkskunde der norwegischen Lappen 1 (Oslo Etnografiske Museums skrifter 1:1), Oslo: A. W. Brøgger. Rydving, Håkan Language proficiency and ethnicity: the Sami case. I: T. Irimoto & T. Yamada (red.), Circumpolar Ethnicity and Identity (Senri Ethnological Studies 65), Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. 172

185 Sydsamisk eller umesamisk? Rydving, Håkan Words and Varieties: Lexical Variation in Saami (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 269). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Sammallahti, Pekka The Saami Languages: An Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Vapstens sameby. I: Wikipedia: den fria encyklopedin, (tillgänglig ) Winkler, Eberhard & Hans-Hermann Bartens & Cornelius Hasselblatt (red.) Lapponicae investigationes et uralicae: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Lars- Gunnar Larsson (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 82). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Åhrén, Ingvar Tvångsförflyttning eller dislokation: nordsamernas förflyttning till södra Lappland. Norrbotten , Contact information: Håkan Rydving, Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies, and Religion, University of Bergen, P.O.B. 7805, NO-5020 Bergen, Norway

186 Håkan Rydving 174

187 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Uppsala University & University College London Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden kirjallisen tuotoksen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheanalyysia Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi, Uppsala universitet ja University College London Abstrakti: This study focuses on morphosyntax and vocabulary in the written production of heritage Finns living in Sweden after one term of Finnish language studies at university level. The data was collected from 2011 to 2014 on a course at Uppsala University aimed at improving language proficiency through reading and writing. The approach in the study is qualitative, and the method is error analysis. Texts from average heritage speakers of Finnish were chosen as the corpus, in which errors were identified and grouped. The errors can be explained with 1) influence from colloquial language, the main source of input for heritage speakers, 2) negative transfer from Swedish, 3) falling back on the use of a default form, and 4) analogical levelling. The results correlate with previous studies on heritage Finnish spoken in Sweden, although the effect of grammar revision and reading may be evident in the relatively low number of errors in main clause constituents and vocabulary. The results can be used to design specific exercises for the target group and improve L2 teaching of Finnish at university level. Avainsanat: ruotsinsuomi, siirtovaikutus, oletusmuoto, tunnusmerkillisyys, oppijan suomi, K2 Key words: Sweden Finnish, transfer, default form, markedness, learner Finnish, L2 1. Johdanto Tutkimukseni tarkoitus on esitellä ruotsinsuomalaisten suomen kielen yliopisto-opiskelijoiden kirjoittaman suomen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston erityispiirteitä. Ruotsinsuomella tarkoitetaan tässä Ruotsissa asuvien suomalaisten tai suomalaissukuisten säännöllisesti käyttämän suomen kielen varieteetteja, eli siis ensimmäisen, toisen ja kolmannenkin polven maahanmuuttajien kieltä. Ruotsinsuomea on pidetty usein rappeutuneena tai huonona suomena (Ehrnebo 1990: 10; Lainio 1996: , 2005; Huss 2000: 10-12). Sen asema on kuitenkin parantunut vuosien myötä. Suomesta tuli muun muassa yksi Ruotsin virallisista vähemmistökielistä Ruotsissa vuonna Omaksi kielekseen ruotsinsuomea ei yleensä kutsuta, vaikka sanasto, syntaksi ja käännöslainat ovatkin etäännyttäneet sen suomen kirjakielestä erityisesti toisen ja kolmannen sukupolven puhutussa kielenkäytössä (Lainio 1995a: 5-7; Ehrnebo 1995: 4; Andersson & Kangassalo 2003: 80-81). Yleisesti ajatellaan, että kirjoitetun ruotsinsuomen tulisi noudattaa suomen kirjakielen sääntöjä (Ehrnebo 1995: 4, 2000: 4, 2004: 10). Tutkimuskysymykseni ovat: Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15 (2016) Valijärvi, R-L., 2016

188 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi 1) Millaisia virheitä tai poikkeavuuksia ruotsinsuomalaisten yliopisto-opiskelijoiden suomesta löytyy verrattuna kirjoitetun suomensuomen morfosyntaksiin ja sanastoon peruskieliopin kertaamisen jälkeen? 2) Kuinka ruotsinsuomalaisten yliopisto-opiskelijoiden kirjallisen suomen morfosyntaksin virheet voidaan selittää? Näihin kahteen kysymykseen vastaaminen auttaa osaltaan kehittämään suomen kielen opetusta Ruotsissa yliopistotasolla sekä lisää edelleen vähemmistökielten piirteiden tuntemusta sekä tietoa kaksikielisyydestä ja kielikontakteista. Uutta tässä tutkimuksessa on toisen polven aikuisten ruotsinsuomalaisten kirjalliseen tuotokseen keskittyminen intensiivisen kieliopin kertaamisen ja kielen aktivoinnin yhteydessä. Tulokset näyttävät mitkä rakenteet ja sanasto vaativat vielä eksplisiittistä opetusta peruskieliopin kertaamisen jälkeen. Tulosten pohjalta voidaan esimerkiksi suunnitella ruotsinsuomalaisille opiskelijoille ongelmaalueisiin keskittyviä harjoituksia. Ruotsinsuomen historiaa ja yleispiirteitä ovat kuvanneet aiemmin Lainio (1995a, 1995b, 1996), Kangassalo (2000) sekä Andersson & Kangassalo (2003). Lisäksi on tutkittu ruotsinsuomalaisten lasten subjektin, objektin ja predikatiivin muotoja (Nesser 1983), paikallissijojen käyttöä (Nesser 1986) ja kysymyslauseiden hallintaa (Kangassalo 1995) sekä murteiden säilymistä Ruotsissa (Lainio 1989), ruotsinsuomalaisten kieliasenteita ja tyylin tuntemusta (Bijvoet 1998), ruotsinsuomen ja suomensuomen prosodian eroja (Lindqvist 2011) sekä koodinvaihtoa ruotsinsuomalaisissa nuorten radio-ohjelmissa (Muhonen 2014). Ilmari (2006) on analysoinut ensimmäisen sukupolven ruotsinsuomalaisten kielen ongelmakohtia, kuten uudissanaston puutetta, puhekielisyyttä sekä kirjallisen rekisterin heikkoutta, paluumuuttamista ja sopeuttamista ajatellen. Janulf (1998) taas on tutkinut eri tekijöiden, kuten koulupolitiikan, opetuksen ja kielen käyttömahdollisuuksien vaikutusta kouluikäisten ruotsinsuomalaisten kirjalliseen ja puhuttuun suomen kielen taitoon. Tuomelakin (2001) on keskittynyt ruotsinsuomalaisten lasten kaksikielisyyteen korreloiden suomen taidot eri opetusmetodeihin ja muihin tekijöihin. Ruotsinsuomalaisten lasten kielenkäytön on todettu Janulfin (1998) ja Tuomelan (2001) tutkimuksissa olevan hyvää, joskin kirjallisesta ilmaisusta löytyy puhekielisyyksiä. Lindner (2013) taas on analysoinut objektin sijoja ruotsinsuomessa toisen sukupolven puhutun aineiston perusteella ja todennut kielen olevan muuttumassa analyyttisempaan suuntaan, koska objektin sijana käytetään usein nominatiivia. Kangassalon (2000: 94) mukaan ruotsinsuomalaisia erityispiirteitä, kuten partikkeliverbejä, itse-sanan 176

189 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi liiallista refleksiivistä käyttöä tai ruotsalaista sanastoa, esiintyy lähinnä puheessa ja kirjoitetussa kielessä ei juurikaan; ruotsinsuomalaiset vaihtavat rekisteristä puhtaampaan suomeen. Wallenius (2012) kuitenkin listaa suomensuomen kirjakielestä poikkeavia piirteitä ruotsinsuomalaisten hallintokuntien verkkosivuilla: puhekielisyyksien, yksi-, se- ja tämä -sanojen käyttöä, ruotsalaista sanajärjestystä, sinuttelua, liiallista possessiivipronominien käyttöä possessiivisuffiksin sijaan ja tulla-futuuria. Nesser (2007) on tehnyt pilottitutkimuksen aikuisten ruotsinsuomalaisten kielitaidosta ennen suomen kurssia Mälardalenin ja Tukhoman yliopistoissa. Aineisto koottiin käyttämällä sanelutestiä, aukkotestiä, vapaata kirjoitelmaa ja haastattelua. Nesserin (2007) tutkimuksessa korreloidaan virheet opiskelijoiden aiemmin saamaan opetukseen. Pesonen (2005) taas on kuvannut suomenruotsalaista sanomalehtikieltä, joskin suppeammin. Oma tutkimukseni nojautuu vähemmistökielen tuntemukseen ja heritage language -käsitteeseen, jota käytetään erityisesti Yhdysvalloissa (esim. Van Deusen-Scholl 2003; Benmamoun et al. 2013). Heritage language -termillä viitataan yleensä toisen sukupolven siirtolaisten kieleen. Toisen sukupolven siirtolaiset ovat oppineet vähemmistökielen lapsina, mutta valtaväestön kielestä on sittemmin tullut heille vahvempi kieli. Heritage-kielen puhujat ovat enemmän tai vähemmän kaksikielisiä aikuisiällä; kielitaidot muodostavat jatkumon (Polinsky & Kagan 2007), kuten vaikkapa Nesserin (2007: 63-66) esimerkkitekstinpätkät eri asteisilta kirjoittajilta näyttävät. Tällaista hajontaa löytyy myös tutkimukseni Finska A - kurssilaisilta, minkä vuoksi Finska för finsktalande -tyyliset kurssit eivät välttämättä toimi. Erot eri suomalaistaustaisten opiskelijoiden välillä ovat liian suuret. Vähemmistökielen käyttäjän kirjalliset taidot ovat heikommat kuin puhuttu ilmaisu, koska he ovat useimmiten käyneet koulunsa maan enemmistön kielellä. Tällaisten vähemmistökielten puhujien kielitaito muistuttaa sekä natiivien eli K1-puhujien että toista kieltä oppivien eli K2- puhujien kielitaitoa. Suomalaistaustaiset puhujat ovat oppineet kielensä vajavaisesti, koska eivät ole saaneet tarpeeksi syötettä vanhemmiltaan ja perheeltään lapsuudessa ja eivät sittemmin ole omaksuneet kirjallisen kielen mallia koulun ja sosialisaation kautta. Tutkimuksessani tärkeää on myös kielikontaktien tutkimus, erityisesti negatiivinen transfer eli siirtovaikutus, tunnusmerkkisen sekä tunnusmerkittömän oletusmuodon kontrasti, ja analogian käsite. Muiden kielen vaikutusta oppijan suomeen on tutkittu mm. Järvenpään & Siitosen (2002) toimittamassa kokoelmassa, ja siihen ovat keskittyneet myös Ranua & Ruotsalainen (2007) sekä Nissilä (2011). Oppijansuomen virheet selittyvät osittain 177

190 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi negatiivisella siirtovaikutuksella oppijan ensimmäisestä kielestä toiseen kieleen. Oppijansuomessa on havaittu yleinen tendenssi siirtyä analyyttisempiin rakenteisiin. Ruotsinsuomessa näkyy luonnollisesti ruotsin vaikutus: analyyttisemman kielen, kuten ruotsin, ja morfologisesti rikkaan kielen, kuten suomen, kohtaamisessa morfologisesti rikas kieli yksinkertaistuu. Tunnusmerkkinen rakenne on morfologisesti tai syntaktisesti monimutkainen ja harvinaisempi, kun taas oletusmuoto on taajaan käytetty ja sen tuottaminen vaatii vähemmän ponnisteluja (esim. Grönholm 1998; Croft 2003: ). Analogialla taas tarkoitetaan kielessä prosessia, jossa muodostetaan jo kielessä olemassa olevien muotojen tai rakenteiden pohjalta uusia rakenteita; näin kieli ikään kuin tasaantuu (Itkonen 2005). 2. Aineisto ja metodi Tutkimuksen materiaali koostuu opiskelijoiden Uppsalan yliopiston Färdighetsträningkurssilla kirjoittamista teksteistä. Färdighetsträning-kurssi on osa etäopiskeluna toteutettua Finska A -kokonaisuutta, joka koostuu suomen alkeiskurssista Finska I, jatkokurssista Finska II, Suomen realian ja historian kurssista sekä Färdighetsträning-osakurssista. Färdighetsträning-kurssin tarkoitus on aktivoida Finska I ja II -kursseilla opittua kielioppia, saada opiskelijat lukemaan eri tyyppisiä tekstejä suomeksi, kartuttaa sanavarastoa ja käyttää suomen kieltä erityisesti kirjallisesti. Opiskelijoilla on tunti viikossa Adobe Connect Pro - ohjelman kautta ja tehtäviä Ping Pong tai Studentportalen -oppimisalustassa. Finska A -kurssille osallistuu vuosittain lukuisia suomalaistaustaisia opiskelijoita, jotka puhuvat suomea hyvin erityisesti arkisessa kontekstissa ja sukulaisten kesken. Nämä toisen sukupolven ruotsalaiset ovat kasvaneet Ruotsissa, saattaneet saada ns. kotikielen opetusta ja käyneet Suomessa lukuisia kertoja. Valtaosa heistä ei yleensä lue suomeksi. Samalla kurssilla on oikeita vasta-alkajia ja suomen alkeita kertaavia, mikä vaikeuttaa kurssin suunnittelua ja suomalaistaustaisten puhujien tarpeiden huomioon ottamista. Kurssille osallistuvien suomen kielen taidot vaihtelevat suuresti: osalla voi olla vaikeuksia perusrakenteiden kanssa suomalaisesta vanhemmasta huolimatta, kun taas jotkut opiskelijat kirjoittavat huoliteltua kaikin tavoin oikeaa ja normitettua kirjakieltä. Tutkimuksessani keskityn näiden kahden ääripään sijaan tyypilliseen suomalaistaustaiseen opiskelijaan, joka kirjoittaa hyvin ja ymmärrettävästi, mutta tekee ajoittain kielioppi- ja sanastovirheitä, ja jonka kirjoitetuista teksteistä löytyy puhekielisyyksiä. 178

191 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Kirjalliset tehtävät, joista aineistoni koostuu, on kirjoitettu samaan teemaan liittyvän autenttisen tekstin lukemisen jälkeen. Kurssilla luettiin esimerkiksi teksti esimerkiksi vegaanista, merivartijoista, akrobaatin työstä, deittaamisesta tai saamelaisten oikeuksista, minkä jälkeen opiskelijat vastasivat luetunymmärtämiskysymyksiin tai henkilökohtaisiin kysymyksiin samasta aiheesta. Kurssilla luettiin myös kaunokirjallisuutta, kuten Viivi ja Wagner -sarjakuvaa, Leena Lehtolaisen dekkaria ja Saarikosken ruonoja. Yksi kirjoitustehtävistä oli novellianalyysi. Färdighetsträning-kurssin opiskelijat saivat myös kirjoittaa lyhennelmiä, pieniä tietoiskuja ja mielipiteitä. Kielioppia ei ole tekstien ja kirjoitustehtävien yhteydessä Färdighetsträning-kurssilla opetettu, koska ennen kurssia kaikki opiskelijat ovat käyneet läpi Lepäsmaan & Silfverbergin (2010) Suomen kielen alkeisoppikirjan ja tehneet siihen liittyviä kielioppitehtäviä ja käännöksiä sekä kirjoittaneet lyhyempiä aineita itsestään, tyypillisestä päivästään, perheestään jne. Opiskelijat ovat siis kerranneet tai oppineet peruslausetyypit, kaikki aikamuodot sekä aktiivissa ja passiivissa, kaikki kieliopilliset sijat paikallissijat sekä yksikössä ja monikossa. Opiskelijoiden ei vielä oleteta osaavan komparatiivia ja superlatiivia, harvinaisempia sijoja (mukaan lukien essiivi ja translatiivi) tai ns. lauseenvastikkeita, joskin suomalaistaustaiset opiskelijat yleensä näitä rakenteita jo käyttävät. Opiskelijoille on kerrottu puhekielen ja kirjakielen eroista kieliopin opettelun yhteydessä. Aineiston anonyymiin tieteelliseen käyttöön on kysytty lupa kurssille osallistuneilta. Aineistoon ei ole otettu mukaan muiden kuin ruotsinsuomalaisten tekstejä, eli siitä on poistettu ruotsalaisten kirjoittamat tekstit, ahvenanmaalaisten opiskelijoiden kirjoitukset, meänkieltä käyttävien tuotokset ja muuta kuin ruotsia äidinkielenään puhuvien kirjoitukset, kuten esimerkiksi tanskansuomalaisen opiskelijan tekstit. Aineisto on kerätty vuosina Kirjoittajia on yhteensä yhdeksän, joista miehiä on yksi ja naisia kahdeksan. Tämä valitettavan vääristynyt jakauma vastaa Färdighetsträning-kurssille yleensäkin osallistuvien opiskelijoiden jakaumaan. Käytän kirjoittajista koodeja OP1, OP2, OP3 jne. esimerkkien jälkeen. OP-lyhenne tulee sanasta opiskelija. Kaikki kirjoittajat ovat syntyneet Ruotsissa tai muuttaneet Ruotsiin ennen murrosikää, ja heidän vanhemmistaan yksi tai molemmat ovat suomalaisia tai Suomessa syntyneitä. Tutkimukseen osallistuneet opiskelijat kertovat lukevansa ja kirjoittavansa hyvin vähän suomeksi. Osa heistä on saanut kotikielen opetusta peruskoulussa tai lukiossakin. Perustiedot kirjoittajista on koottu Taulukkoon

192 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Taulukko 1. Perustiedot opiskelijoista, jotka ovat kirjoittaneet tutkimuksessa analysoitavat tekstit vuosina Koodi Sukupuoli Syntymävuosi OP1 nainen 1991 OP2 mies 1990 OP3 nainen 1992 OP4 nainen 1993 OP5 nainen 1963 OP6 nainen 1987 OP7 nainen 1974 OP8 nainen 1992 OP9 nainen 1989 Tutkimuksessa käytetty metodi on kontrastiivinen kielentutkimus ja virheanalyysi (Ellis & Bacrkhuizen 2005; myös Sajavaara 1999: 104; Sajavaara 2006). Kontrastiivisessa kielentutkimuksessa verrataan oppijan äidinkieltä ja opittavaa kieltä. Tässä tapauksessa kontrastissa ovat oppijoiden kielet ruotsi ja ruotsinsuomi sekä opittava kieli kirjallinen suomen yleiskieli. Opiskelijoiden kirjallisista tehtävistä otan esille tyypillisimmät morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheet eli siis poikkeavuudet suomen yleiskielestä näillä alueilla. Jaottelen virheet ryhmiin ja selitän vihreitä aikaisempien tutkimusten, teorian, sekä ruotsin ja suomen puhekielen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston avulla. Tämä metodi seuraa Ellisin (1994: 48) listaamia vaiheita virheanalyysissa: 1) oppijakielen materiaalin kerääminen, 2) virheiden tunnistaminen, 3) virheiden kuvaaminen, 4) virheiden selittäminen, 5) virheiden arviointi. Lähestymistapa on kvalitatiivinen. Kvantitatiivisen analyysin esti tehtävänantojen muuttuminen vuodesta toiseen ja täten epätasainen materiaali. Tarkoitukseni on antaa yleiskuva virheistä ja selittää ne, eikä suinkaan korreloida virheitä kirjoittajien taustaan tai aikaisempaan suomen kielen käyttöön (vrt. Janulf 1998, Tuomola 2001, Nesser 2007). En analysoi morfologiaa, astevaihtelua tai oikeinkirjoitusta teksteissä (vrt. Nesser 2007). Kirjoitelmissa ei esiinny koodinvaihtoa, vaan niiden kieli on poikkeuksetta suomi. Ruotsinsuomelle tyypillisiä ruotsalaisia lainasanoja (ks. esim. Lainio1995b, Pesonen 2005:56) ei aineistossani käytetä, mikä johtuu todennäköisesti siitä, että kurssilla on ollut tavoitteena suomen kielen aktivointi, konteksti on ollut normatiivinen ja jokaisen tehtävän yhteydessä on 180

193 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi luettu teemaan liittyvä teksti, josta on opittu tarvittava sanasto. Lisäksi kirjoittaessa opiskelijoilla on aikaa harkita ja editoida tekstiään, ja täten poistaa ruotsalaiset sanat. 3. Analyysi 3.1. Konjunktiot Aineistossa mielenkiintoisia, väärin ja taajasti käytettyjä konjunktioita ovat kun/kuin, että ja jos. Kun-konjuktiolla on aineistossa temporaalinen ja kausatiivinen merkitys, kuten esimerkit 1 ja 2 näyttävät. Tämä vastaa kun-konjunktion käyttöä puhekielessä (ks. Herlin 1998). (1) Naiset näkee kun Reiska ottaa 10 markkaa. OP1 (2) Ei saa oikeisti tietää millaisia henkilöt ovat kun novelli on niin lyhyt. OP2 Kun-konjuktiota käytetään myös kuin- ja kuten -konjunktioiden sijaan. Esimerkeissä (3), (4) ja (5) kun vastaa suomen kirjakielen kuin-sanaa. Esimerkissä 6 kun-konjunktiota on käytetty kuten-sanan sijaan. (3) Kännykkä on kun rukousnauha koska nuoret käyttää sitä koko ajan. OP1 (4) Että ei mene hyvin, jos luulee että on viisaampi kun mitä on. OP8 (5) Voi myös olla noin, mutta minä luulen että aikataulut ovat nopeammat tänään, kun noin vuotta sitten. OP7 (6) Minä pidän HC Andersen satuista, ja myös aikuisten satuista kun Tarina sormusten herrasta. OP7 Kun-konjunktiolla on jopa ja siis- tai joten -konjunktioiden tyylistä käyttöä, kuten esimerkki 7 näyttää. (7) Luin aika paljon myös vanhemille lapsille, mutta nuoremmat ovat viellä liian pieniä kun he ei jaksa keskeytyä. OP7 Konjunktio kuin sekoittuu kun-konjunktion kanssa. Sitä on esimerkeissä 8 ja 9 käytetty temporaalisesti ja esimerkissä 10 kausatiivisesti. Esimerkissä 11 kuin vastaa kutenkonjunktiota. (8) Ajatuksissa en kerinnyt pitemmälle kuin puhelin taas soi. OP5 181

194 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi (9) Naisella on aikaa hauskaa tässä kuin junailija yrittää selittää Reiskalle että hän tarvitsee osta lipun. OP6 (10) He pärjävät hyvin kuin niillä on paksu turkki. OP6 (11) He ovat liika kuin yksi ihminen, kuin Catherinekin monta kertaa romaanissa kertoo Nellylle. OP8 Sekaannus voidaan selittää sillä, että puhekielessä käytetään kun- ja kuin -konjunktiosta lyhyttä muotoa ku; tämä nykyisen yleiskielen jako näiden kahden konjunktion välillä on keinotekoinen (Herlin 1998: 21). Kuten on usein puheessa niinku, jonka jotkut suomenruotsalaiset ovat liittäneet yhteen konjunktion ku kanssa. Kirjoittajalla 6 (OP6) kuinkonjunktiosta on tullut yleiskonjunktio, jota käytetään jopa että-konjunktion sijaan, kuten esimerkissä 12. (12) Minä tykkäsin siitä kuin se oli lyhyt mutta kuintenkin tosi fiksu. OP6 Että-konjunktiota käytetään materiaalissa aivan oikein, kuten esimerkki 13 näyttää. (13) Toivon että löydän sinisen puuvilla kaftaanin. OP5 Että-konjunktion käyttö on kun-konjunktion tapaan laajempi ja puhekielen mukainen. Ettäkonjunktiota käytetään myös finaalisesti jotta-konjunktion tapaan, kuten esimerkeissä 14 ja 15. (14) Minun mielestä pitää olla tunteita kumppaniin, että avioliitto voisi toimia. OP5 (15) Että ei pitäis mennä sinne koska eläimet kuolee että ihmiset saavat turkin. OP1 Että korvaa joten-konjunktion esimerkeissä 16 ja 17. Että tuntuu vastaavan ruotsin så att -rakennetta, kuten esimerkin 17 käännös näyttää: Jag har inte läst mycket på finska. Så att jag har inte en favorit. (16) Minä tykkään lihasta ja näistä muista ruoista, että en voisi olla ilman näitä. OP6 (17) Minä en ole lukenut paljon suomeksi. Että minulla ei ole suosikkia. OP8 Esimerkin 18 vaihtoehtoinen tulkinta voisi olla ja silloin. Esimerkissä 18 se on eräänlainen yleiskonjunktio. 182

195 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi (18) Jos nuoret myöhästyvät he soittavat, että myöhästyminen ei tunnu silloin yhtä vakavalta. OP2 Että aloittaa aineistossa subjektina toimivan sivulauseen ruotsin det att rakenteen tapaan. Esimerkissä 19 ote aineistoista. Ruotsiksi lause olisi: Det att Catherine valde en annan än Heathcliffe fick honom att vilja ta hämnd. (19) Että Catherine valitsikin toisen kun Heathcliffin sai hänet haluavan kostaa sen. OP8 Epäsuoraa kysymyslausetta ilmaistaan miltei aina jos-konjunktiolla, kuten esimerkeissä 21 ja 22. Tämäkin seuraa ruotsin antamaa mallia; esimerkin 22 käännös on: Han frågade om jag hade läst böcker skrivna av Paasilinna. (21) Että he voivat sen jälkeen päätä jos he vastaavat tai ei. OP2 (22) Hän kyseli jos olin lukenut Paasilinnan kirjoittamia kirjoja. OP Pronominit ja possessiivisuffiksit Puhekielen mukaan teksteissä käytetään joskus pronomineja se ja ne hän- ja he -pronominien sijaan, kuten esimerkeissä (23), (24) ja (25). Yksikössä hän-pronominia käytetään usein, monikossa puhekielistä ne-pronominia on useammin. (23) Salla juo vain tuoremehua jos menee kahvilaan kun ei se voi syödä kakkuja tai suklaata. OP1 (24) Monet sadat papit ja kardinaalit hylättiin koska ne eivät olleet lähettänyt rukouksia Jumalalle pitkään aikaan. OP5 (25) Minä antaisin niitten muuttaa 18-vuotiaisen ikäisenä jos niillä olisi työpaikka niin että pystyisivät maksamaan laskunsa. OP5 Eläimistä opiskelijat käyttävät mielellään hän- ja he -pronomineja. Esimerkissä 26 on kyse hylkeestä. Esimerkissä 27 puheenaiheena ovat porot ja esimerkissä 28 eläimet yleensä. (26) Helmikuussa hän saa poikasia pesäänsä. OP5 (27) Poroitten paino voi laskea, koska heille on talvisin vähän ruokaa. OP4 (28) Monet eläimet syövät lihaa ja syövät ihmisten eläimiä kun heidät pästetän vapaaksi. OP7 183

196 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Monikossa on materiaalissa he myös, kun on kyse esineistä ja asioista, kuten esimerkissä 29. (29) Koska kännykkät ovat monta kertaa tosi hyvää olla. Mutta he ovat myös aika turhaitta. OP3 Tämä vaikuttaa jonkinlaiselta sekaannukselta, jossa opiskelijat eivät ole oppineet rekistereiden eroa, vaan käyttävät kolmannen persoonan pronomineja sekaisin. Ruotsin pronomineja han ja hon voidaan käyttää kotieläimistä. Hän-pronominia käytetään liikaa tapauksissa, joissa suomeksi toistettaisiin nimi tai substantiivi. Referentti voi jäädä epäselväksi aineistossa, kuten esimerkissä 30. Tämä on ruotsin vaikutusta: pronomineja han ja hon käytetään enemmän. (30) Junailija tuntui vähän ihmiseltä joka ei oikein uskaltanut sanoa kunnolla, mitä hän tykkäsi. Kun antoi vain lopussa Reiskan ottaa rahan eikä vienyt häntä sinne, jossa hänen olisi lippu tarvinnut ostaa. Vain koska hän ei osannut kommunikoida hänen kanssa. OP8 Se-pronominia käytetään ruotsin det-pronominin mukaan muodollisena subjektina, kuten esimerkeissä 31, 32 ja 33. Käännös kuuluisi: Jag tycker att är det onödigt att kasta bort skinn och päls. Esimerkin 33 se toimii ruotsin cleft-rakenteena, esim. det var Ove som. (31) Minun mielestä se on turha heittä pois nahka ja turkkeja. OP3 (32) Nämä tiedot tiedetään tutkimuksesta joka tehtiin nyt keväällä ja se on myös ensimmäinen kerta kun semmoinen on tehty. OP7 (33) Se oli myös Ove, joka otti taistelun vastaan viranomaisia, kun he tulivat hakemaan Runen. OP4 Se-pronomini puolestaan puuttuu lauseista, joissa kirjakielessä sitä vaadittaisiin kantamaan verbin vaatimaa sijaa. Esimerkistä 34 puuttuu partitiivi sitä, esimerkeistä 35 ja 36 elatiivi siitä ja esimerkistä 37 akkusatiivi sen, jota tulisi seurata relatiivipronomini mikä. Ruotsin kielessä ei näitä tarvita. (34) Merivartijan työssä vaaditaan hyvää fyysistä ja henkistä kuntoa, että pitää merestä ja merellä liikumisesta. OP4 (35) Minä vaan en pidä kun en tiedä mitä minä syön. OP3 (36) Romaanissa kerrotan paljon että minkälaisia päähenkilöt ovat. OP8 184

197 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi (37) Lämpökamera löytää mitä on lämmintä, esimerkiksi ihmisiä. OP8 Possessiivisuffiksit puuttuvat teksteistä hyvin usein, kuten esimerkeissä 38, 39 ja 40. Tämä on puhekielen piirre. (38) Hänen sonetit koostuvat 154 runosta. OP8 (39) Minun mielestä hänen runoja pitää lukea monta kertaa [...]. OP5 (40) Minun täti ja serkut asuvat siellä, myös minun mieheni veli ja hänen tyttöystävä. OP Passiivi Opiskelijat käyttivät passiivia kirjoituksissaan pääasiassa oikein, morfologisista ongelmista ja huolimattomasta tavauksesta huolimatta. Passiivia käytetään jonkin verran materiaalissa puhekielisesti, kuten esimerkissä 41. (41) Me ostetaan silloin tällöin huonekaluja kirpputoreilta. OP5 Vaikeuksia tuottavat perfektin ja pluskvamperfektin passiivit, kuten esimerkki 42 ja 43 näyttävät. (42) Nyt ollaan alkaneet meditoida, se on aika hyvä, mutta myös vaikeata. OP3 (43) Hän ajattelee, että oikeudet ovat alkaneet vakavasti keskusteltu. OP9 On hyvin tavallista, että passiivin perfektin olla taipuu monikossa, kun subjekti on monikossa, kuten esimerkeissä (44) Kirjat ovat huumorisesti kirjoitettu. OP5 (45) Hän myös valitsee vaatteet sekä huonekalut jotka ovat ympäristömerkitty. OP5 (46) Hänen kirjat ovat käänetty noin 20 kieliin. OP7 Tämä muistuttaa ruotsia. Esimerkki 45 kääntyy ruotsiksi: Böckerna är humoristiskt skrivna. Lauseen predikatiivi on monikossa. Passiivilause ja ekvatiivilause ovat sekoittuneet opiskelijoiden suomessa: Kirjat on kirjoitettu humoristisesti. Kirjat ovat humoristisesti kirjoitettuja. Opiskelijat osaavat taivuttaa predikatiivia partitiivissa (esimerkki 47), joten vaikuttaa siltä, että perfektin passiivi olisi sekoitus suomea ja ruotsia. (47) Meidän lapset ovat usein liian lihavia. OP7 185

198 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Passiivin sijaan on myös muutaman kerran käytetty monikon kolmatta persoonaa, kuten esimerkeissä 48 ja 49. Tämäkin on kopioitu ruotsista: monikon kolmatta persoonaa voidaan käyttää näin. (48) Minä luin selkosanoman urheilupuolella, ja siinä ne kirjoittivat MM-kisoista. OP6 (49) Kännykällä kerrotaan toisilleen mihin he menevät bailaamaan. OP Infiniittiset verbit Infiniittiset rakenteet ovat opiskelijoille vaikeita, mikä näyttää, että suomen rikkaan verbisysteemin oppimiseen tarvitaan paljon syötettä. Ensimmäisen infinitiivin lyhyttä muotoa eli TA-infinitiiviä käytetään aineistossa ruotsin antaman mallin mukaan att-infinitiivin vastineena, tai sitten oletusmuotona. Tämä vastaa Grönholmin (1998: 122) tutkimuksen tuloksia: ruotsinsuomalaiset lapset käyttävät lähinnä TA-infiniitiviä ja välttävät muita tunnusmerkillisiä muotoja. Esimerkeissä tulisi olla kolmannen infinitiivin illatiivi eli maan-muoto. Tämä on yleisin infiniittisiin verbeihin liittyvä virhe aineistossa. (50) Pitäisikö kysyä naapurilta jos hän vois autta minua viedä laukun säilöön vinttikomeroon? OP7 (51) Salla uskoo että jokainen ihminen voi auttaa muutta maailmaa. OP1 (52) Mahassa on perhosia ja ei pysty ajatella muuta kun sitä ihmistä. OP7 (53) Suomalaiset ovat yhä ylpeitä siitä, että he onnistuivat puolustaa itseään. OP7 (54) Tieto on tärkeää ja lapset tulevat aina käydä koulua. OP4 (55) Kiitokseksi kissa onnistuu jahdata kassin peltopyitä kuninkaalle. OP4 (56) Nuori nainen on väsynyt kuulla sitä. OP1 Muutkin kolmannen infinitiivin muodot korvautuvat TA-infinitiivillä, kuten -matta esimerkissä (57) ja -masta esimerkissä (58). Esimerkissä 57 ruotsin vaikutus on ilmeisempi; esimerkin käännös on: Jag försöker att inte tänka på allt som är dåligt. Esimerkissä 58 infinitiivi (tapaa) on rakennettu uudelleen kolmannen persoonan pohjalta. (57) Yritän ei mietiä kaikki mitä on huonosti. OP3 (58) Minä en ole lopettanut tapaa kavereita siksi kun ostin känykkän. OP1 186

199 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Infiniittisiä rakenteita on käytetty, joskaan ei aivan oikein, esimerkeissä 59 ja 60. Huijaamisella sijaan lauseessa tulisi olla huijaamalla, kun taas hoitamaan-muodon voisi korvata hoitamiseen-muodolla. (59) Se on ovelasta pojasta, kuka huijaamisella pystyisi torjumaan jättiläisen. OP6 (60) Minä tykkään että saamelaiset saavat paljon apua valtiolta hoitamaan asioitaan. OP4 Aineiston referatiivirakenteissa on usein oikeanlainen infiniittinen verbi, mutta jos niissä esiintyy virheitä, niin silloinkin -van on korvattu TA-infinitiivillä, kuten esimerkeissä 61 ja 62. Tässäkin taustalla voi olla joko ruotsin vaikutus (verkar vara, verkar inte veta) tai sitten default-muotoon tukeutuminen. (61) Hän vaikuttaa myös olla vaativa ja huonomuistinen. OP4 (62) Julia ei näyttää tietää mitään tästä. OP6 Verbaalisubstantiivi -minen on ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden hallussa. Objektia ei kuitenkaan siirretä genetiiviin verbaalisubstantiivin eteen (esimerkit 63 ja 64). Tämä vastaa ruotsin verbaalinomin ja sen objektin sanajärjestystä: mottagandet av gudomliga krafter, användandet av korta meningar. (63) Siellä odotti häntä koulutus ja vastaanottaminen jumalallisia voimia. OP5 (64) Uskon että novellin teema on sen että käyttäminen lyhyitä lauseita osoittavat, että myös elämä on lyhyt. OP Rektio Rektio tuottaa vaikeuksia suomen opiskelijoille. Ranuan & Ruotsalaisen (2007: ) tutkimuksessa eri lähtökielen vaikutuksesta oppijoiden suomeen eniten virheitä löytyi juuri rektiosta. Finska A -kurssin ruotsinsuomalaisille opiskelijoillekin rektio on vaikea. Infiniittisten verbien tapaan tarvitaan rektionkin oppimiseen paljon syötettä, jota suomalaistaustaiset puhujat eivät välttämättä ole saaneet. Aluksi esittelen esimerkkejä verbeistä keskustella (65), korvata (66), nauttia (67), perustua (68), pitää (69), tuntua (70), uskoa (71) ja vaikuttaa (72, 73), joiden kaikkien kanssa on käytetty partitiivia. 187

200 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi (65) Kirjailijoita ja taiteilijoita tulivat hänen luokseen keskustelemaan monta tärkeää asiaa. OP4 (66) Maito ja munat voidaan korvata muita vaihtoehtoja. OP9 (67) Vaikka olin unohtanut kartan kotiin nautin kaupingin kapeita kujia. OP7 (68) Avioliitot eivät perustu tunteita, useimmissa tapauksissa, olisin uskalla sanoa. OP9 (69) En pidä ketjuja, jotka eivät laadi ruokaa, kun tilaat. OP9 (70) Se tuntuu turvallista. OP3 (71) Esimerkiksi en usko näitä isoa eläinten teollisuutta. OP3 (72) He ovat tutkineet miten kännykkä vaikuttaa nuorten elämää. OP6 (73) [...] mutta minä luulen, että nämä asiat vaikuttivat lopputulosta. OP4 Verbien diskutera keskustella, kännas tuntua ja verka vaikuttaa kanssa ei ruotsissa ole prepositiota vaan niiden kanssa käytetään suoraa objektia, joten niiden kohdalla voi olla kyse negatiivisesta siirtovaikutuksesta. Muiden ryhmän verbien kanssa ruotsissa käytetään prepositioita: ersätta med korvata, verbin njuta av nauttia, basera (sig) på perustua, tycka om pitää ja tro på uskoa. Näissä tapauksissa ei ole kopioitu ruotsin prepositiota, vaan partitiivi toimii yleissijana ja oletusmuotona johon turvaudutaan kun ei olla varmoja tai ei tiedetä verbin vaatimaa sijaa. Joissakin tapauksissa taas ruotsin antama malli tuntuu vaikuttavan verbin vaatiman sijan valintaan. Esimerkissä 74 on pitää-verbin kanssa käytetty kuin-konjunktiota (betrakta någon som någonting). Esimerkissä 75 on adessiivin ja inessiivin yhdistelmä löytää-verbin kanssa (hitta här i Sverige). Esimerkissä 76 on ottaa osaa -verbin kanssa on elatiivi (ta del av någonting). Esimerkissä 77 on uskoa-verbin kanssa inessiivi (tro på, vrt. på en restaurang ravintolassa ). Esimerkissä 78 on verrata-verbin seurana kanssa (jämföra med). (74) Kyllä minä kirjoitan vain heille ketkä minä pidään kuin ystäviä. OP3 (75) Minä en ole löytänyt hyvää salmiakkia täällä Ruotsissa. OP6 (76) Sosiaalisten medioiden kautta saa ottaa osaa muiden arkiasioista, vaikka ei mutten puhuisi tai tapaisi heitä. OP4 188

201 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi (77) Mutta en usko että se toimisi pitkän, jos hän ei usko jotkut samassa asioissa kun minä. OP3 (78) Kopomaa vertaa kännykkä rukousnauhan kansa. OP1 Joskus rektio on yksinkertaisesti valittu väärin, kuten esimerkissä 79, jossa kiinnostunut-sanan kanssa on elatiivin sijaan illatiivi. (79) Nuori nainen on kiinostunut ulkomaalaiseen mieheen. OP5 Mielenkiintoinen tendenssi on käyttää elatiivia verbien miettiä ja ajatella rektiona objektin sijaan. Samanlaisia esimerkkejä löytyy myös Nesserin (2007: 48) ja Linderin (2013: 28) aineistoista. (80) Nosturikuski Pirjeri Ryynänen mietti paljon maailman suurista huolenaiheista. OP5 (81) En oli niin paljon ajatellu tästä, mutta kyllä Sallan ajatus tästä on hyvä. OP Nesessiivilauseet Nesessiivilauseiden subjekti on erittäin usein genetiivin sijaan nominatiivissa. Tämä pätee substantiiveihin yksikössä (esimerkki 82) ja monikkoon (esimerkit 83 ja 84) sekä prononomineihin (esimerkit 85 ja 86). Pronomini voi opiskelijoilta jäädä pois ja pitää taipuu leksikaalisten verbien tapaan (esimerkki 87). Pitää on suosituin opiskelijoiden kirjoituksissa nesessiivisessä merkityksessä, mutta myös muita rakenteita käytetään, kuten esimerkin 82 on tiedettävä -rakenne, jota ei ole edes Finska A -kurssilla opetettu. (82) Sonja sanoi, että jokainen ihminen on tiedettävä, mitä hän taistelee. OP4 (83) Lapset pitäis leikkiä ulkona, ei pelata matopelejä kännykällä. OP1 (84) [...] vanhemat pitäisivät tietää minne pienet lapsensa ovat menneet kylästelemään. OP4 (85) Junailija yrittää tehdä työnsä niin kuin hän pitäisi. OP6 (86) Kaikki täytyy kävellä joka päivä. OP7 (87) Pitäisin kävellä useammin. OP9 Erityisiä vaikeuksia tuottaa verbi tarvita nesessiivisessä käytössä verbin kanssa. Useimmilla opiskelijoilla se käyttäytyy kuin mikä tahansa leksikaalinen verbi (esimerkit 87, 88 ja 89). 189

202 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi (88) Ei, mutta jos minulla on, sitten se on useasti vaan että tarvitsen juoda enemmän vettä. OP3 (89) Junailija yrittää selittää Reiskalle englaniksi että hän tarvitsee ostaa lipun. OP6 (90) Ihmiset eivät tarvi syödä niin paljon lihaa kuin melkein kaikki syövät nykyään. OP3 Nesessiivilauseiden subjekti on merkitty: se poikkeaa protyyppisistä subjekteista nominatiivissa ja subjekteista opiskelijoiden vahvemmassa kielessä, ruotsissa. Tämän vuoksi nominatiivisubjektit nesessiivilauseissa ovat yleinen virhe aineistossa. Pesosen (2005: 55) sanomalehtiaineistosta löytyy myös nominatiivisubjektinen nesessiivi, joskin enimmäkseen silloin kun subjekti on eloton Konditionaali Konditionaali on aineistossa pääasiassa oikein. Vain kerran ruotsin analyyttinen rakenne, siis erilliset sanat ei suffiksin käyttä (uskaltaisin sanoa vs. skulle våga säga), vaikuttaa suomen synteettiseen konditionaaliin. (91) Avioliitot eivät perustu tunteita, useimmissa tapauksissa, olisin uskalla sanoa. OP Objektin, subjektin ja predikatiivin sijat Objektin, subjektin ja predikatiivin sijat ovat tunnetusti vaikeita suomen oppijoille. Kurssilla keskityttiin siksi erityisesti niihin. Materiaalissani partitiiviobjektit ovat pääasiassa oikein sekä yksikössä että monikossa. Odottamaton ja verrattain tavallinen virhe kuitenkin on yksikön akkusatiivin käyttö nominatiivin sijaan. Esimerkeissä 92, 93 ja 94 akkusatiivin tulisi olla nominatiivi nesessiivisen rakenteen takia. Esimerkissä 95 objektin tulisi olla nominatiivissa, koska verbi on passiivissa. (92) Mielestäni sinun pitäisi vain antaa matkapuhelimen nuorille lapsille. OP9 (93) Eläimiä saa syödä, mutta meidän pitää antaa niille hyvän elämän ennen teurastusta. OP6 (94) Nuori nainen tykkää että junailian pitäisi olla kiltti ja päästää miehen matkustamaan ilmaiseksi tällä kertaa. OP5 (95) Heille opetetaan maltillisesti, rahan arvon, vastuu ja enemmän. OP9 Satunnaisesti negatiivisessa lauseessa ei ole partitiiviobjektia. Esimerkeissä 96 ja 97 on nesessiivirakenne, joka on vaikea opiskelijoille. 190

203 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi (96) Minusta ei kännykkä pitäisi kieltää koska tekniikka kuitenkin on iso apu arkielämässä. OP4 (97) Minusta kaikkien nuorten ei tarvitse maksaa itse omat kännykkälaskunsa. OP8 Negatiivisen lauseen objekti voi jäädä akkusatiivin muutenkin, kuten esimerkissä 98. (98) Mutta en valikoisi jonkun ihan erilaisen [ ]. OP7 Näiden objektivirheiden voisi ajatella johtuvan jonkinlaisesta analogiasta: oppija haluaa siistiä systeemin ja pitää objektit tietyssä muodossa myös erikoistapauksissa. Objektin sija puuttuu usein ruotsalaisista sanoista, kuten esimerkeissä 99 ja 100. (99) Nuorena luin paljon, Agent-X7, Fantomen ja Aku Ankka. OP7 (100) Viimeksi näin En julsaga Uppsalan teatterissa. OP6 Subjektit ovat edellä mainittuja formaalisia subjekteja (ks. osio 3.2) ja nesessiivilauseita (ks. osio 3.6) lukuun ottamatta pääasiallisesti oikein. Satunnaisia virheitä löytyy habitiivirakenteesta, kuten esimerkeissä 101 ja 102, joissa subjekti on jäänyt nominatiiviin. (101) Minulla ei ole lemmikki. OP5 (102) [ ] sinulla ei ole kumppani. OP6 Predikatiiveista löytyy vähän virheitä, kuten esimerkki 103 näyttää. (103) Minustakin eläinsuojelu on tärkeätä. Mutta minusta muitten pitäisi saada syödä ja metsästää niitä jos ei ole sellaisia jotka on uhanalaisia. OP8 Ongelmia tuottaa ainoastaan adjektiivien komparatiivi ja superlatiivi, jotka mieluummin halutaan joskus ruotsin mallin mukaan ilmaista analyyttisin keinoin, kuten esimerkissä 104, joissa muodon tulisi olla tärkeimpiä. (104) Rannan mukaan tunteet ovat eniten tärkeitä. OP Sanajärjestys Aikaisemmat esimerkit ovat näyttäneet, että sanajärjestys ei ole suuri ongelma ruotsinsuomalaisille opiskelijoille. Joskus kuitenkin ruotsin sanajärjestys vaikuttaa suomen sanajärjestykseen. Esimerkissä 105 muistuttaa lauseen sanajärjestys ruotsia, jossa predikaatti 191

204 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi on aina toisella sijalla lauseessa. Esimerkissä 106 sivulauseessa on ei paikassa, jossa inte olisi ruotsissa. Esimerkissä 107 on adverbi sijoitettu ennen negaatiota, kuten ruotsissakin (men ändå inte får). (105) Sen sijaan vei Ryynäsen aito rukous hänet suoraan finaaliin. OP5 (106) Salla juo vain tuoremehua jos menee kahvilaan kun ei se voi syödä kakkuja tai suklaata. OP2 (107) He ovat niin rakastuneita mutta kumminkaan eivät voi olla yhdessä. OP8 Pesosen (2005: 56) ruotsinsuomalaisessa sanomalehtikielessä käänteinen sanajärjestys on yleinen. Erityistapaus on ruotsin mukainen partisiipin sijoitus pääsanansa jälkeen (esimerkit 108 ja 109). Käännökset olisivat: en författare född 1942, saker gjorda av plast. (108) Arto Paasilinna on humoristikirjailija, syntynyt vuonna 1942 Kittilässä. OP4 (109) Koska tavarat tehty muovista on epätervellisiä. OP Kongruenssi Subjektin ja predikaatin kongruenssi muistuttaa puhekieltä. Kahden subjektin (esimerkit 110, 111) sekä monikollisten subjektien predikaatti on yksikössä (esimerkit 112 ja 113). (110) Roberto ja Ingrid sai kolme lasta yhdessä. OP7 (111) Mies ja jänis kiertää yhdessä Suomea. OP8 (112) Soittoäänet kertoo monta kertaa kuka soittaa. OP6 (113) [ ] saamelaiset lapset saa kestää paljon häirinnää koulussa. OP7 Kongruenssin puutetta löytyy myös Pesosen (2005: 56) sanomalehtiaineistosta. Ilmiö on vahvaa puhekielen vaikutusta Yksittäisiä sanoja Tähän osioon olen poiminut ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden sanaston erityispiirteitä eli siis sanoja, joita monet opiskelijat käyttävät suomen kirjakielestä poikkeavalla tavalla. Käyn läpi nämä sanat aakkosjärjestyksessä. 192

205 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Kanssa toimittaa myös-adverbin virkaa puhekielen mallin mukaan, kuten esimerkissä 114. (114) Tästä lapsesta, Cathy Linton, tulee kanssa lopussa tärkeä sivuhenkilö. OP8 Ruotsin med-preposition tapaan kanssa-postpositiota käytetään aineistossa instrumentaalisesti, kuten esimerkit 115, 116 ja 117 näyttävät. (115) Ove osaa ikivanhan tekniikan peruuttaa perävaunun kanssa. OP4 (116) Näytelmä kertoo junamatkasta jossa leikitään ihmisten ennakkoluulojen kanssa. OP4 (117) Toinen tärkeä kysymys on mitä me tehdään kaiken ruoan kanssa mitä heitämme pois päivittän. OP7 Puhekielisiä adverbeja kumminkin (esimerkki 118) käytetään paljon aineistossa. Kirjakieliset kuitenkin ja kuitenkaan ovat harvinaisia. (118) Ja he saavat varmaan paljon työtä kumminkin kun heillä on hyvä maine. OP7 Miten-sanaa käytetään millainen/millaista-kysymyssanan sijaan ruotsin hur-kysymyssanaan tapaan, kuten esimerkissä (119). (119) Vanha nainen aina puhuu nuorelle naiselle että hän on nuori ja että hän ei tiedä miten on kun tulee vanhaksi. OP1 Kvanttoria monta ja sen taivutettuja muotoja seuraa aineistossa usein monikon partitiivi, kuten esimerkit näyttävät. Tässä on kyseessä vahva ruotsin kielen vaikutus: mångakvanttoria seuraa monikko. (120) Meillä on monta muita hyviä vaihtoehtoja tässä. OP6 (121) Koska Suomessa on monta kännyköitä. OP3 (122) Monelle nuorille asunto on paikka jossa käydään vain nukkumassa, suihkussa ja vaihtamassa vaateita. OP5 Jotkut ruotsinsuomalaiset opiskelijat käyttävät adverbeja normaalisesti ja intiimisesti, (esimerkit 123 ja 124), joissa on adverbin suffiksiksi mielletty -sesti eikä -sti. Pääte -sesti on otettu monista nen-adjektiiveista rakennetuista advebeista, kuten iloisesti. Tässä virheen selittää analogia. 193

206 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi (123) Keskellä kaikkea tätä sotaa sotilaat yrittävät oleskella normaalisesti. OP7 (124) Oma auto on monen mielestä paras soittopaikka koska siellä saa olla yksin ja voi puhua intiimisesti. OP8 Nytten on frekventti aineistossa. Sitä käytetään puhekielen tapaan nyt-adverbin sijaan (esimerkki 125). (125) Nytten opiskelen suomea ja tämä on viimenen kurssi. OP2 Kirjakieltä parhaiten kirjoittavatkin opiskelijat saattavat joskus käyttää olevat-muotoa ovatmuodon sijaan (esimerkki 126). Epäsäännöllinen paradigma halutaan tasoittaa analogisesti. (126) He olevat liikkeellä aina kun saavat hälytyksen. OP5 Ottaa-verbiä käytetään ruotsin mallin mukaan viedä-verbin (esimerkit 127 ja 128) ja tehdäverbin sijaan (esimerkki 129). Ruotsiksi sanottaisiin ta energi, ta tid och ta samma val. Tämä on selvää siirtovaikutusta. (127) Älypuhelimet ottavat paljon energia. OP3 (128) Se on aina ottanut vähän enemmän aikaa minulle. OP6 (129) Mutta minä en usko siihen, että pitäisi yrittää toiset ottamaan saman valinnan vain koska minä tein sen. OP8 Tänään-adverbia käytetään aineistossa nykyään-adverbin sijaan, kuten esimerkeissä 130 ja 131. Ruotsin idag tänään, nykyisin, nykyään kattaa molemmat, kun taas suomeksi tänään on juuri tänä päivänä. (130) Tänään voi känykällä ottaa videon, jos jotakin tapahtuu. OP1 (131) Hän on tänään 32 vuotta. OP6 Vain-adverbin sijaan käytetään sanaa vaan suomen puhekielen tapaan (esimerkit 132 ja 133). (132) Nykyään kirjoittaan vaan tekstiviesti. OP3 (133) Kodin merkitys on muuttunut kännykkänuorten elämässä niin, että sinne vaan mennään kun haluaa nukkua, vaihtaa vaatteet ja käydä suihkussa. OP8 194

207 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Tykätä-verbillä ilmaistaan mielipiteitä (esimerkit 134 ja 135) ja se korvaa usein ajatellaverbin (esimerkit 136 ja 137). Tämä vastaa ruotsin tykätä-verbin käyttöä. (134) Minä tykkään että on suurempi ongelma sinä romussa mitä ihmiset ostavat yllinkyllin melkein joka päivä. OP4 (135) Salla ei tykkää että eläimiä saa syödä metsässä eikä kasvattaa tarhassa. OP2 (136) Että saa koko ajan vain tietää, minkälaisia kertojat tykkäävät että he ovat. OP8 (137) Tykkään myös ettei ihminen tarvitse metsästää enemmän kun omaan käyttöön. OP4 4. Yhteenveto Analyysini näyttää, että morfosyntaksin ja sanaston virheiden syyt voidaan jakaa neljään ryhmään: 1) puhekielen piirteiden esiintyminen kirjakielessä, esim. kun/kuin/kuten, se/ne (ihmisistä), possessiivisuffiksien puuttuminen, passiivi monikon ensimmäisen persoonan sijaan, subjekti monikossa - verbi yksikössä, kanssa myös, kumminkin, nytten, vain/vaan 2) siirtovaikutus ruotsin kielestä, esim. että, jos, hän/he (eläimistä), hän (nimen tai substantiivin sijaan), se (formaalinen subjekti), se (puuttuu kun verbin rektio sitä vaatii), ovat passiivissa, monikon kolmas persoona passiivin sijaan, TA-infinitiivin liiallinen käyttö, sanajärjestys tietyissä rakenteissa, rektion kopiointi ruotsista verbin vaatiman sijan mukaan, nesessiivilauseiden subjekti nominatiivissa, komparatiivi, konditionaali, kanssa instrumenttia ilmaisemassa, miten merkityksessä millainen, monta + monikko, tänään merkityksessä nykyään, verbien ottaa ja tykätä käyttö 3) merkittyjen muotojen korvautuminen oletusmuodolla, esim. TA-infinitiivi tai maan-muoto muiden infiniittisten verbien sijaan, partitiivi verbin rektion vaatiman sijan sijaan 4) analogia, esim. olevat, he (esineistä ja asioista), akkusatiivi objektin sijana nominatiivin sijaan, partitiiviobjektin puuttuminen negatiivisessa nesessiivilauseessa, normaalisesti 195

208 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Tulokset vastaavat Janulfin (1998) ja Tuomolan (2001) tuloksia mitä tulee seuraaviin puhekielisyyksiin: passiivin käyttö monikon ensimmäisessä persoonassa (me mennään pro me menemme), ne yhdistettynä verbiin yksikössä (ne menee pro he menevät) ja possessiivisuffiksien puuttuminen. Ruotsin tapainen postpositioiden suosiminen (esim. kanssa-postposition med-sanan mukainen käyttö) näkyy myös materiaalissani. Janulfin (1998) ja Tuomolan (2001) tuloksista poiketen ei yksi- ja se -sanoja materiaalissani juurikaan käytetä ruotsin artikkeleiden tavoin. Nominatiivia käytetään aineistossani nesessiivilauseiden subjektina, mikä vastaa Janulfin (1998) ja Tuomolan (2001) tuloksia nominatiivin suosimisesta kieliopillisena sijana. Kongruenssin puute ja käänteinen sanajärjestys ovat Pesosenkin (2005) mainitsemia virheitä. Tapa- ja aikaluokat eli modukset ja tempukset ovat pääasiallisesti oikein mikä vastaa Grönholmin (1998: ) tuloksia ruotsinsuomalaisten lasten kielestä. Grönholm (1998) on myös huomannut TA-infinitiivin toimivan oletusmuotona. Omassa materiaalissani partitiivia käytetään oletusmuotona samaan tapaan. Tuloksia tulkittaessa täytyy ottaa huomioon, että puhekielisyydet leviävät suomensuomenkin kirjakieleen (esim. Makkonen-Craig 1996). Analogia ja oletusmuoto ovat luonnollisia keinoja kielitaidossa olevien aukkojen ja vajavaisen syötteen kompensoimiseksi. Merkityn subjektin ja objektin (esim. nesessiivilauseissa) sekä rektion väärät muodot selittyvät sillä, että niissä suomalaistaustaisten oppijoiden tai ruotsinsuomalaisten puhujien tulee operoida kielen kahdella eri tasolla, siis hallita sekä syntaksia että morfologiaa (ks. Benmamoun et al. 2013: ). Pitää myös muistaa, että sanasto, aikamuodot ja päälauseenjäsenet olivat pääasiallisesti oikein, mikä voidaan mahdollisesti selittää kieliopin kertaamisen, autenttisten tekstien lukemisen ja normatiivisen lähestymistavan vaikutuksella. Virheanalyysin tulosten pohjalta voidaan valita morfosyntaktiset ongelmakohdat sekä yksittäisiä hankalia sanoja, ja kirjoittaa niistä kohderyhmälle eli ruotsinsuomalaisille suomen kielen yliopisto-opiskelijoille tehtäviä, jotka edelleen parantavat heidän kirjallista ilmaisuaan. Pelkkä virheiden esittely ja niistä tiedottaminen voivat auttaa ruotsinsuomalaista oppijaa varomaan virheitä suomea kirjoittaessaan. Lähteet Andersson, P. & Kangassalo, R. 2003: Suomi ja meänkieli Ruotsissa. Teoksessa: H. Jönsson- Korhola & A.-R. Lindgren (toim.), Monena suomi maailmalla, Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 196

209 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Bijvoet, E. 1998: Sverigefinnar tycker och talar. Om språkattityder och stilistisk känslighet hos två generationer sverigefinnar. Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska språk vid Uppsala Universitet 44. Uppsala. Benmamoun E., Montrul S. & Polinsky M. 2013: Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39, Viitattu Croft, W. 2003: Typology and Universals. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrnebo, P. 1990: Kelpaako ruotsinsuomi? Kieliviesti 1/1990, Ehrnebo, P. 2000: Sverigefinskt språkvård sedan Språkbruk 4/2000, 3 7. Forskningscentralen för de inhemska språken. Helsinki. Ehrnebo, P. 2004: Ruotsinsuomalaisen kielilautakunnan vaikutus ruotsinsuomeen. Kieliviesti 2/2004, Ellis, R. 1994: The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2005: Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grönholm, M. 1998: The influence of Language Typology and Markedness on Second Language Acquisition. Teoksessa: T. Haukioja (toim.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Turku/Åbo November 14 16, 1996, Turun yliopiston yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 60. Turku. Herlin, I. 1998: Suomen kun. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Huss, L. 2000: Who is to say what my language is worth? Linguistic purism vs. minority language maintenance and revitalization. Teoksessa: A.-R. Lindgren & M. Norman (toim.), Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics, no 29, Det humanistiske fakultet, Universitetet i Tromsø. 197

210 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi Ilmasti, L. 2006: Ruotsinsuomen ominaispiirteitä: Näkökulmana mahdollisten paluumuuttajien sopeutuminen ja sen tukeminen. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Turun yliopisto. Viitattu Itkonen, E. 2005: Analogy as Structure and Process: Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Janulf, P. 1998: Kommer finskan i Sverige att fortleva? Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Fennica Stockholmiensia 7. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell International. Järvenpää, M. & K. Siitonen (toim.), 2002: Matkalla toiseen kieleen. Viisi praktikumtyötä äidinkielen ja opittavan kielen siirtovaikutuksista. Opetuksen ja tutkimuksen apuneuvoja 4. Turku: Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitos. Jönsson-Korhola, H. 1989: Amerikansuomen kaasussyntaksin erityispiirteitä. Lisensiaatintyö. Åbo Akademi. Kangassalo, R. 1995: Mastering the Question. The Acquisition of Interrogative Clauses by Finnish-Speaking Children. Acta Universitatis Umensis. Umeå Studies in the Humanities 126. Kangassalo, R. 2000: Kohti ruotsinsuomea. Teoksessa: N. Määttä & H. Sulkala (toim.), Tutkielmia vähemmistökielistä Jäämereltä Liivinrantaan. Vähemmistökielten tutkimus- ja koulutusverkoston raportti I, Suomen ja saamen kielen ja logopedian laitoksen julkaisuja 15. Oulun yliopisto. Lainio, J Spoken Finnish in urban Sweden. Uppsala: Uppasala University. Lainio, J Syntactic Consequences of Varietal Contact among Sweden Finns. Teoksessa: H. A. Sigurdsson, P.-G. Ingridason & E. Röngvaldsson, E. (toim.), Twelfth Scandinavian conference of Linguistics. Reykjavik, June , Linguistic Institute, University of Iceland Reykjavik. Lainio, J. 1995a. Ruotsinsuomesta ja sen muutoksista. Kieliviesti 1/1995, Lainio, J. 1995b. Ruotsinsuomesta ja sen muutoksista II. Kieliviesti 2/1995, Lainio, J Finskans ställning in Sverige och dess betydelse för sverigefinnarna. Teoksessa: J. Lainio (toim.) Finnarnas historia i Sverige 3, Finska historiska samfundet/nordiska museet. Helsingfors 198

211 Ruotsinsuomalaisten opiskelijoiden virheanalyysi Lepäsmaa, A.-L. & Silfverberg, L. 2010: Suomen kielen alkeisoppikirja. Helsinki: Finn Lectura. Lindner, I. 2013: mää piän lippis päässä vaan. Ruotsinsuomen objektisijan valinnasta. Stockholms Universitet, Institutionen för baltiska språk, finska och tyska, Avdelning för Finska. Uppsats för Delkurs Finska Kandidatkurs/Examensarbete. Viitattu Lindqvist, K. 2011: Yksi- ja kaksikielistä prosodiaa: Lausepainotuksen ilmiöitä ruotsinsuomessa ja suomensuomessa. Pro gradu -tutkielma, Helsingin yliopisto, Suomen kieli. Lähdemäki, E. 1995: Mikä meni pieleen? Ruotsinkielisten virheet suomen ainekirjoituksessa. Fennistica 11. Åbo Akademi, Finska Institutionen, Åbo. Makkonen-Craig, H. 1996: Yleispuhekielisyydet lehtikielessä. Pro gradu tutkielma. Helsingin yliopisto, suomen kielen laitos, Helsinki. Muhonen, A. 2014: Error error lataa patteri: from language alternation to global multilingual repertoires in Finnish youth radio programs in Finland and Sweden. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Nesser, A.1983: Subject, objekt och predikativ i Sverigefinska barns uppsatser, Fuskis // Fidus 5. Finsk-Ugriska Institutionen, Uppsala universitet. Nesser, A. 1986: Se oli kurja käyä koulusa: Bruket av inre och yttre lokalkasus i sverigefinska skolbarns sprak. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala. Nesser, A. 2007: Pilotstudien Finskspråkiga studenters och elevers språkliga reproduktion. Ett Skolverksprojekt. Mälardalens Högskola, Finskt språk- och kulturcentrum. Viitattu Nissilä, L. 2011: Viron kielen vaikutus suomen kielen verbien ja niiden rektioiden oppimiseen. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B 99. Oulu, Oulun yliopisto. Viitattu Paunonen, H. 1990: Se on hän suomeksi. Huomioita kaksikielisten helsinkiläisten suomesta. Teoksessa: I. Almqvist, P.-E. Cederholm & J. Lainio (toim.): Från Pohjolas pörten 199

212 Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi till kognitiv kontakt. Vänskrift till Erling Wande den 9 maj 1990, Stockholm Studies in Finnish Language and Literature 6, Stockholm. Polinsky, M. & Kagan, O. 2007: Heritage languages: In the wild and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5), Pesonen, S. 2005: Selviän arkiasioissa suomeksi, mutta täytyy myöntää, että kieli on vähän ruosteessa Ruotsinsuomalaisten julkaisujen syntaksista. Teoksessa: O. Haurinen & H. Sulkala (toim.), Tutkielmia vähemmistökielistä jäämereltä Liivinrantaan, Vähemmistökielten tutkimus- ja koulutusverkoston raportti IV, Oulun yliopisto, Oulu. Ranua, M.-M. & Ruotsalainen, M, 2007: Syntaktisten virheiden vertailua suomi toisena ja suomi vieraana kielenä -oppijoiden teksteissä. Teoksessa: H. Sulkala, M.-L. Halme & H. Holmi (toim.), Tutkielmia oppijankielestä iii, Oulu: Oulun yliopisto. Sajavaara, K. 1999: Kontrastiivinen kielentutkimus ja virheanalyysi. Teoksessa: K. Sajavaara & A. Piirainen-Marsh (toim.), 1999: Kielenoppimisen kysymyksiä, Jyväskylä: Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus, Jyväskylä universitet. Sajavaara, K. 2006: Kontrastiivinen analyysi, transfer ja toisen kielen oppiminen. Teoksessa: A. Kaivapalu (toim.), 2006: Lähivertailuja 17, Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto. Tuomela, V. 2001: Tvåspråkig utveckling i skolåldern. En jämförelse av sverigefinska elever i tre undervisningsmodeller. Centrum för tvåspråkighetsforskning Stockholms universitet. Edsbruk: Akademitryck AB. Wallenius, K. 2012: Hallintoaluekuntien suomenkieliset verkkosivut. Kieliviesti 4/2012, 4 8. Van Deusen-Scholl, N. 2003: Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2,

213 REPORTS Lasse Vuorsola: Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten, p

214

215 Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten Lasse Vuorsola Stockholm University Artikeln är en omarbetad version av den svenska sammanfattningen i Lasse Vuorsolas pro gradu -avhandling Ilmapiirinmuutos ilmastokeskustelussa. Kriittinen diskurssianalyysi ilmastonmuutokseen liittyvästä kielenkäytöstä (Åbo Akademi, 2014). Klimatförändringen är ett hot som berör oss alla. Klimatförändringen har diskuterats i vetenskapen i flera århundraden och i flera årtionden i massmedia. Trots att problemet har diskuterats så brett så länge har man varken nått konsensus om orsakerna bakom klimatförändringen eller om framtid handlingsmodeller. Den omfattande diskussionen om orsakerna och lösningsförslagen samt även om de facto existensen av klimatförändringen har lett till en distansering från själva frågan. Detta i sin tur har lett till att diskussionen om klimatförändringen i själva verket är en diskussion om diskussionen om klimatförändringen. Syftet med min undersökning är att kartlägga både den globala och den finska diskussionen om klimatförändring. Min hypotes är att klimatförändringsdiskussionen är karikerad och präglas av subjektiva och känsloladdade ställningstaganden. Jag anser att klimatdiskussionen har spårat ur och inte längre handlar om själva klimatfrågan. Istället har diskussionen förvandlats från en konstruktiv diskussion till en dispyt som för uppmärksamheten bort från det egentliga problemet. Jag analyserar klimatförändringen både på internationell makronivå och också finsk mikronivå som jag jämför med varandra. Därför kan undersökningen metodologiskt sett karakteriseras som en kontrastiv textanalys. Primärmaterialet består av verk som intar olika positioner i klimatförändringsdiskussionen. Jag använder mig av James Rodger Flemings Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (1998) som källmaterial för den historiska redogörelsen av klimatförändringsdiskussionen. Makroanalysens undersökningsmaterial består av Roy W. Spencers Climate Confusion (2009), Patrick J. Michaels och Robert C. Balling JR:s Climate of Extremes (2010) samt James Hansens Storms of My Grandchildren (2011). I makroanalysen använder jag mig även av sammanfattningen Summary for policymakers ur klimatrapporten som FN:s klimatpanel Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publicerade år Efter att jag har undersökt klimatförändringsdiskussionen på den internationella makronivån undersöker jag finländska kontexten i mera detalj. Det finländska primärmaterialet är Ilmastoasenteiden muutos ja muuttajat selvitys Vanhasen II Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15 (2016) Vuorsola, L., 2016

216 Lasse Vuorsola hallituksen tulevaisuusselontekoa varten och är publicerad år 2008 av Statsrådets kansli (hädanefter används förkortningen VNK). Materialet är producerat av Demos Helsinki. Jag jämför resultaten från makro- och mikroanalysen med varandra. Som teoretisk utgångspunkt använder jag kritisk diskursanalys. Jag tillämpar dock inte någon färdig modell utan sammanställer delar av olika teorier och skapar så en egen analysmodell. Denna modell är uppbyggd från delar av följande verk: Teun A. van Dijk Discourse and power (2008), Noman Fairclough Discourse analysis (1997) och Theo van Leeuwen Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Analysis (2008). Dessutom har jag tillämpat delar M. A. K Hallidays terminologi som presenteras i verket System and function in language (1976). Mina teorival baserar sig på funktionalitet: jag kombinerar olika teoridelar för att kunna analysera mitt huvudmaterial heltäckande på både samhällelig och lingvistisk nivå. Kritisk diskursanalys är ytterst tillämplig inom detta sammanhang, eftersom klimatdiskussionens deltagarparter är varandras ideologiska motpoler. Detta innebär att klimatdiskussionen är ofta en maktkamp mellan de deltagande parterna. Maktstrukturen fungerar som en slags schablon för mitt teorikapitel. Social och diskursiv makt baserar sig på konkurrens mellan två eller flera grupper. Norman Fairclough kallar detta för Ideological discourse formation (hädanefter IDF). Dessa IDF-grupper är oftast ideologiskt sett varandras motpoler, och försöker uppnå en hegemonisk status. Maktkampen kan analyseras på tre nivåer. M. A. K Hallidays kategorisering av språkets olika funktioner fungerar som basis för nivåindelningen. Hallidays kategorier är den interpersonella, den ideationella och den textuella metafunktionen. Den interpersonella metafunktionen innefattar de maktförhållanden som kan finnas i analysmaterialet. Norman Faircloughs beskrivning om IDF-kategorierna är en del av den interpersonella nivån. Inom den ideationella nivån analyseras sedan beskrivningar av olika aktörer och instanser. På den textuella nivån analyseras slutligen ur en lingvistisk synvinkel hur argumentationen och legitimeringen av ideologin framförs. Som teoretisk bakgrund för analysen på det språkliga planet använder jag mig av Theo van Leeuwens legitimeringskategorier. Van Leeuwens kategorier är rollmodell och auktoritet, moral, förnuft samt mytopoesis. I mikroanalys-delen tillämpar jag alla tre nivåer, medan jag i makroanalys-delen enbart använder mig av analyskategorierna 202

217 Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten på den interpersonella och ideationella nivån. Makroanalysens syfte är att påvisa den karikerade naturen i klimatförändringsdiskussionen och inte de språkliga tillvägagångssätten vilket jag senare gör i mikroanalysen. Femings verk Historical Perspectives on Climate Change beskriver hur klimatet har undersökts genom tiderna med fokus på händelserna som lett till forskningens nuläge. Fleming påpekar att man började uppmärksamma förändringar i klimatet vilket ledde till förnyade forskningsmetoder och slutligen till vetenskapen klimatologi. Dessutom Fleming redogör för den förändring som vårt förhållande till klimatet genomgått: hur rädslan för det okontrollerbara klimatet har övergått från oro över det svalnande klimatet till oro över uppvärmning av klimatet. Min avsikt med att beskriva klimatförändringen och dess historiska skeden är att poängtera att åsikterna gällande klimatförändringen har varit splittrade under flera århundraden. Detta betyder att IDFdikotomin inte är något nytt. IDF-dikotomin i nuläge är tudelad. Den första IDF-gruppen anser att klimatförändringen är antropogenisk, det vill säga en följd av människornas koldioxidutsläpp. Jag har valt att kalla denna grupp för förespråkarnas IDF. Jag exemplifierar detta med hjälp av Hansens bok Storms of my grandchildren. Hansens argumentationssätt varierar, men man kan se vissa tydliga trender. Hansen kopplar samman den motsatta IDF-gruppen, det vill säga den som jag har valt att kalla motståndarnas IDF, med personer som nekar Förintelsen. Hansen gör det genom att kalla motståndarnas IDF för climate change deniers, vilket refererar till termen holocaust deniers (Reiche 2008: 37, Spencer 2009: 93). Utöver detta använder Hansen känsloladdade formuleringar för att framkalla en skuldkänsla hos läsaren. Ett bra exempel på detta är underrubriken till hans monografi: The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity. Till och med FN:s klimatpanel IPCC, som jag inkluderar i gruppen förespråkarnas IDF, tenderar att bli påverkad av överdrift. I sammanfattningen för beslutsfattare i IPCC:s klimatrapport från år 2007 kan man notera att klimatvetenskapen presenteras som något som inte kan förnekas och det ges inget utrymme för kritik. IPCC presenterar klimatvetenskapen på detta vis så att det inte ska finnas tvetydigheter och således pressas beslutsfattarna till att skapa lösningar på klimatförändringsproblemet. 203

218 Lasse Vuorsola I jämförelse med förespråkarnas IDF har motståndarnas IDF mera akademiska tillvägagångssätt för att legitimera och sprida sin ideologi. Både Spencers Climate confusion och Climate of extremes av Michaels och Balling försöker förneka i synnerhet de vetenskapliga metoderna som används för att mäta klimatförändringen. Skribenterna hävdar att paleoklimatologin som analytisk metod inte är pålitlig eftersom mätningarna inte kan motbevisas. Dessutom anklagar motståndarnas IDF att klimatvetenskapliga publikationerna är partiska, i och med att motståndarnas artiklar inte publiceras i dem. Motståndarna noterar också att klimatdebatten är ekonomiskt lönsam för forskarna, vilket innebär att forskarnas resultat kan påverkas av finansiärer. Till slut förlöjligar Michaels och Balling även utseendet av vissa tabeller. Sammanfattningsvis kan konstateras att båda IDF-grupperna använder extrema argumentationsmetoder i sin maktkamp. Min analys visar att förespråkarna vädjar till känslor medan motståndarna förhåller sig till akademiska argumentationsmetoder. Jag för vidare diskussionen om makroanalysens resultat och tillämpar den på det finländska fältet. VNK:s rapport är uttryckligen skriven för att aktivera Finlands befolkning i kampen mot klimatförändringens följder och dessvärre strävar till att påverka läsarna. På den interpersonella nivån kommer jag fram till att enligt rapporten kan klimatförändringen inte motverkas om alla inte deltar. Med denna iakttagelse motiveras rapportens strävan till att använda diskursiv makt för att förstärka förespråkarnas IDF:s ställning Under analysen på den ideationella nivån kartlägger jag hur folket, politiken och klimatförändringen konstrueras språkligt. Rapporten konstruerar tre olika IDFgrupper inom begreppet folk. Dessa grupper är motståndarnas IDF och förespråkarnas aktiva och passiva del. Eftersom förespråkarnas aktiva del redan agerar enligt de principer som VNK:s rapport anser vara ideala är gruppen inte representerad i en vid utsträckning i rapporten. Motståndarnas IDF får inte heller stort utrymme. Genom att inte ta motståndarnas IDF i beaktande skapar man en bild av gruppen som mindre samt mindre hotfull än vad den är. VNK:s rapport följer makroanalysens tendenser i den bemärkelsen att den ger gruppen ett namn med negativa konnotationer. Namnet som gruppen förknippas med är vastaanhangoittelijat, som på svenska motsvarar en nominaliserad version av verbfrasen att streta emot. Namnet är inte lika tillspetsat 204

219 Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten som i makroanalysen tillämpade lexikaliserade varianten deniers, men den har ändå en negativ klang (VNK 2008:25). VNK:s rapport lägger mest fokus på den passiva sidan av förespråkargruppen, eventuellt eftersom det ligger i rapportens intressen att söka handlingsmodeller för att kunna påverka denna grupp som är varken starkt emot eller starkt för. Gruppen kallas för sivustakatsojat, åskådarna på svenska, vilket också har negativa konnotationer (VNK 2008: 10). Den passiva gruppen beskrivs dock även som en grupp som är kapabel att förändras med rätt handledning. Folk-begreppets analys visar att tillspetsade argument förkommer i samma utstäckning på både makrooch mikronivå. Den bild som ges i VNK:s rapport om själva klimatförändringen som ett fenomen motsvarar också den som presenterades i makroanalysen. Klimatdebattens vetenskapliga sida presenteras inte vittomfattande i VNK:s rapport för att rapporten beskriver klimatvetenskapen som samstämmig och, som rapporten beskriver det, färdig. (VNK 2008: 13). Klimatförändringen presenteras som oförneklig för att förstärka förespråkarnas argument. De språkliga konstruktionerna på den ideationella nivån är uppbyggda så att de strävar till att stärka förespråkarnas IDF:s ställning i maktkampen. Mikroanalysen på den textuella nivån är indelad i fyra delar. Dessa fyra delar baserar sig på Theo van Leeuwens legitimationskategorier av vilka den första handlar om auktoritet och kan uppdelas ytterligare i kategorierna expertauktoritet och rollmodellauktoritet. Båda underkategorierna är representerade i VNK:s dokument. Underkategorierna förlitar sig på externa auktoriteter som sedan hänvisas till för att förstärka argumenten. Personerna i VNK:s rapport var alla valda antingen med tanke på deras titel eller på deras status som kända personer, men inte som experter på klimatfrågor. Jag anser därför att användningen av auktoritetsbaserad legitimering i rapporten är vilseledande. Texten är också vilseledande då van Leeuwens andra legitimeringskategori, moralkategorin, används. I VNK:s rapport hittade jag två exempel där det hänvisas till läsarnas moralkänsla. Båda exemplen har en positiv klang, de är alltså inte moraliserande. I det första exemplet jämförs kampen mot klimatförändringen med att göra en film. Arbetet presenteras som ett samarbete där medarbetarnas, till och med 205

220 Lasse Vuorsola statisternas, roll i processen är lika viktig för slutprodukten. I det andra exemplet jämförs finländarnas bekymmer över klimatförändringen med andra länder. Resultatet beskrivs som lika positivt som om alla flickor i en finsk skola skulle hoppa två meter över världsrekordet i längdhopp. Båda exemplen ämnar förstärka förespråkarnas samhörighet och på detta vis förstärka deras ställning. Den tredje legitimeringskategorin, rationaliseringen, var inte representerad i VNK:s rapport. Den fjärde legitimeringskategorin mytopoesis används däremot. Mytopoesis är en argumentationsteknik där antingen en positiv eller en negativ berättelse kombineras med det man vill argumentera för. I min analys av VNK:s rapport finns tre exempel på sådana mytopoetiska berättelser. Två av dessa är anekdoter om människor som har samarbetat för att kunna minimera sina koldioxidutsläpp. Dessa exempel är väldigt lyckade eftersom de kombinerar gruppstyrka och konkreta åtgärder. Det tredje mytopoesis-fallet är däremot ett negativt exempel på missbruk av social makt. I exemplet framhäver VNK:s rapport att man skall använda skådespelare och idrottare i presentationen av klimatvänliga livsstilar i den så kallade livsstilsmedian på TV. Resultaten av min analys för fram att de karikerade och tillspetsade trenderna är något som förekommer vidsträckt inom klimatförändringsdebatten, både på internationell och på nationell nivå. Till och med mitt primärmaterial, som är direkt kopplat med Finlands regering och därför konkret har makten att påverka landets befolkning, deltar i maktkampen mellan de olika IDF-grupperna. För att nå framsteg i klimatfrågan måste fokusen flyttas från den diskursiva maktkampen till att hitta konkreta lösningar. 206

221 Atmosfärförändring inom klimatdebatten KÄLLOR: Fairclough, Norman Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Fleming, James Rodger Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K Halliday: System and Function in Language. Kress, Gunther (red.). London: Oxford University Press. Hansen, James Storms of My Grandchildren. The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity. London: Bloomsbury. Hiidenmaa, Pirjo Lingvistinen tekstintutkimus, I: SAJAVAARA, KARI PIIRAINEN-MARCH, ARJA 2009: Kieli, diskurssi & yhteisö 21 s INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: Summary for policymakers [SOLOMON, S. QIN D. MANNING, M. CHEN Z. MARQUIS, M AVERYT K. B. TIGNOR, M. MILLER, H. L.] (red.), Climate change The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ( ). Jokinen, Arja, Juhila, Kirsi & Suoninen, Eero Diskurssianalyysin aakkoset. Tampere: Vastapaino. Jokinen, Arja, Juhila, Kirsi & Suoninen, Eero Diskurssianalyysi liikkeessä. Tampere: Vastapaino. Michaels, Patrick J. & Balling Jr., Robert C Climate of Extremes. Global Warming Science They Don t Want You to Know. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute. Mills, Sara Discourse. The New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge. Spencer, Roy W Climate Confusion. How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor. New York, NY: Encounter Books. Van Dijk, Teun A Discourse and Power. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Van Leeuwen, Theo Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Analysis. Oxford Scholarship Online chapter-6 ( ) VNK: Kuittinen, Outi, Neuvonen, Aleksi, Mokka, Roope, Riala, Maria & Sivonen, Riku. DEMOS HELSINKI 2008: Ilmastoasenteiden muutos ja muuttajat. Valtioneuvoston kanslian julkaisusarja 9/2008. Valtioneuvoston kanslia. ( ) 207

222 Fenno-Ugrica Suecana - Nova Series INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS Fenno-Ugrica Suecana is an international journal published by the Department of Baltic Languages, Finnish and German at Stockholm University, Sweden, originally between 1978 and The newly re-launched journal, named Fenno-Ugrica Suecana - Nova Series, is a peer-reviewed journal which will be published irregularly from The journal aims to cover the same scientific fields as during the earlier publication period, namely the following: Finno-Ugric Languages, Fennistics, Meänkieli Studies, Sámi Studies and other related languages situated in Sweden and Scandinavia, but also other scientific fields that in various ways are connected to the study of the aforementioned languages and their cultures, including their literature. We welcome contributions of the following types: - scientific articles (example: original linguistic research etc.) - review/survey articles (example: of a relevant research field etc.) - reports (examples: planned Ph.D. projects, (non-)commented reports by authorities etc.) - reviews (example: books etc.) - discussion papers (example: a critical assessment of another paper or hypothesis) Language: The language of the paper can be Swedish (Norwegian and Danish may also be accepted), Finnish, Meänkieli, English, German and possibly other Finno-Ugric languages which the editorial board may be competent in. In all cases, an English abstract should be attached to the articles. It is the author's task to finalize the proof-read and language-checked contributions accepted for publication. Text Format: The manuscript text should preferably be in Times New Roman, the main text block in 12 pts font and headings in 14 pts font. Text format should be in 1.5 times line spacing (except for the Abstract section which uses single line spacing only), with chapters and subchapters separated either by one single additional line space or a page break. A header and (sub-)number may be given to each section. Page margins should be set to include 2,5 centimeters on both left and right margins. Tables, Diagrams and Figures can be incorporated directly in the flowing text, following the standard layout found in scientific literature, and should be referred to in the text unless figureheads make the meaning obvious in the context. Figures may be in any of the commonly recognized graphic formats, such as.bmp,.jpg and.tiff. See recent articles in the journal for more examples of proper formatting. Authors: The manuscript author(s) will provide their name(s) after the work Title which is then commonly followed by an Abstract section (of at most 200 words), a list of (at most five) Keywords, and, optionally, a tentative Short Title for the work right before the Introduction. Full contact details are given at the very end of the paper after the Summary, Abbreviations (if applicable) and References sections under the heading Contact Information. References: References are made in the text and, when applicable, in Footnote text, according to the Harvard Referencing System. Page numbering: Page numbering should not be included since accepted papers will be renumbered upon publication. Abbreviations: Abbreviations should be defined where they first appear in the text. A list of Abbreviations may additionally be summarized at the end of the paper, before the Reference section, if applicable.

223 Transliteration: Transliterations of Cyrillic or other non-roman scripts must be done in a consistent manner according to established scholarly traditions (e.g. the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA)/Finno-Ugric Transcription (FUT)) and official standards (example: the International Scholarly System or IPA). Submission Manuscripts are submitted electronically by to the Editor-in-Chief: jarmo.lainio@finska.su.se. If you have any questions regarding suitability for publication or technical details please consult the Editor before submission. Manuscripts should be submitted in one of the following formats:.doc (MS Word) or, preferably,.rtf (Rich Text Format). An initial acknowledgement of a received manuscript will be sent to the submitter, followed by correspondence after the completed review process. Evaluation All submitted manuscripts will as a first step be read by the Editorial Board. Second, being a peer-reviewed journal, all submitted scientific and review/survey articles will be evaluated by anonymous, external referees, while other manuscripts are peer-reviewed by the Editorial Board. The decision regarding their publication, with respect to scientific value and terminology, will be acknowledged by the Editorial Board. Proposals for improvements and a final evaluation will be forwarded to the author(s), who then may have to submit final versions. All accepted papers will be page-numbered and published online in.pdf-format in the next issue if the submission deadline for that issue was met. The Editorial Board Fenno-Ugrica Suecana - Nova Series Jarmo Lainio: jarmo.lainio@finska.su.se Peter S. Piispanen: peter.piispanen@finska.su.se Merlijn de Smit: merlijn.de.smit@finska.su.se Old printed issues and paper copies or scans of old articles can be ordered by a payment covering mailing costs.

224 Fenno-Ugrica Suecana - Nova Series SCIENTIFIC BOARD The scientific board of Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series consists of the following scholars from the field of Finno-Ugric studies and linguistics: Arja Hamari, University of Helsinki, Ph.D. Finno-Ugric Languages Leena Huss, Hugo Valentin-Centrum, Uppsala University, Professor, Finno-Ugric Languages Nobufumi Inaba, University of Turku, Researcher Päivi Juvonen, Stockholm University, Associate Professor, Linguistics Petri Kallio, University of Helsinki, Associate Professor Lars-Gunnar Larsson, Uppsala University, Professor Emeritus Outi Oja, Stockholm University, Ph.D. Finnish Literature Mikael Svonni, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Professor, Saami Linguistics Erling Wande, Stockholm University, Professor Emeritus Jussi Ylikoski, UiT The Arctic University of Norway & Giellagas Institute for Saami Studies, Professor, Indigenous languages Additionally, Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series relies on other experts in the relevant fields when needed.

225

226 Fenno-Ugrica Suecana CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS VOLUMES FUS #1, 1978 Osmo Hormia: Ruotsin suomalaisen kielenhuollon peruskysymyksiä, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Det fina i kråksången "Hienoa kapakkalaulussa", p Oscar Lazar: Ungersk ordföljd: Finns det en genväg till behärskandet av den? p Eivor Nylund-Torstensson: Kepposen veljekset och kuukhainen ja kenkäjalka. Två uttryck i tornedalsfinskan, p Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Perception of Quantity in Finnish among Groups with Varying Language Background, p Tryggve Sköld: Två kvinnor i Aleksis Kivis 'Olviretki Schleusingenissä', p Valev Uibopuu: Allativ eller adessiv? p Erling Vande: Ackusativmarkering i högfinskan och tornedalsfinskan, p Bo Wickman: Grammatical Homonymy in Lappish, p FUS #2, 1979 Knut Bergland: The comparison of Eskimo-Aleut and Uralic, p Péter Hajdú: Language Contacts in North-West Siberia, p Nils Erik Hansegård: Scandinavian as a Second Language in the Educational Policy among Lapps and Finns, p Åke Hultcrantz: Lapp Shamanism from a Comparative Point of View, p Mikko Korhonen: Über die vorgeschichtlichen beziehungen der Lappen unde Ostseefinnen, p György Lakó: Von der Frage nach Beziehungen der Eskimosprache zum Ungarischen bis zur Erschliessung der ungarisch-lappischen Sprachverwandtschaft, p C.F. Meinander: Innovation Centres in the Arctic, p Asbjörn Nesheim: Cultural Contact of the Lapps with their Neighbours, p Tryggve Sköld: The Earliest Linguistic Contacts between Lapps and Scandinavians, p J. Garth Taylor: A Northern Heritage: Recording the Native Languages and Cultures of Canada, p FUS #3, 1980 Anna Sågvall-Hein: An outline of a Computer Model of Finnish Word Recognition, p Kimmo Koskenniemi: On Automatic Lemmatisation of Finnish, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Till växlingen l~n, p Aarand Roos: Förekommer analytisk komparativ i estniskan?, p

227 Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Partitiv av finskans gamla tvåstaviga e-stammar, p Per-Erik Cederholm: Kuvakielestä Jyrki Pellisen Kesän maassa, p Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Göran Karlsson: Finsk formlära, p FUS #4, 1981 Axel Groundstroem: Till bruket av finskans possessivsuffix efter kroppsdelsbeteckningar, p Pirjo Janulf: Om tvåspråkighet bland finlandssvenska och sverigefinska skolelever, p Raimo Raag: Some Aspects of Swedish Estonian, p Tibor Klaniczay: Humanism and Renaissance in the Hungarian Literature, p Gunnar Pellijeff: Jouko Vahtola: Tornionjoki- ja Kemijokilaakson asetuksen synty. Nimistötieteellinen ja historiallinen tutkimus. STUDIA HISTORICA SEPTENTRIONALIS 3. Kuusamo 1980, 563s., p Bo Wickman: Mikko Korhonen: Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Sueran toimituksia 370.) Helsingfors s. + karta, p FUS #5, In Honorem Bo Wickman Loránd Benkö: Mittelalterliche ungarische Siedlungsnamentypen, p Seung-bog Cho: The Koreans in China and their Language, p Tuuli Forsberg: Har du haft en kolare med bilen?, p Axel Groundstroem: Hur många deklinationer och konjugationer har estniskan?, p Nils-Erik Hansegård: Some Figures Concerning the Lexicon of Northern Lappish, p Folke Hedblom: Om ethnicitet, i Sverige och America, p Elina Helander: Utomspråkliga faktorer som påverkar minoritetsspråkens ställning - aspekter på språkbevarandet hos samerna, p László Huszár: The Symbolical Importance of Using Aces of Various Kinds by Finno-Ugric Peoples, p Maijaliisa Jokinen: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden matriarkkoja - p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Some Remarks on the Hypothesis of an Uralo-Dravidian Genetic Linguistic Relationship, p Eva Martins: On Graphotactic Problems and Visual Interference, p Eivor Nylund-Torstensson: Lapin sananalkuiset ^c-äänteen vastineista suomalaisissa lainasanoissa ja paikannimissä, p Raimo Raag: Lexical Variation in Swedish Estonian, p Virve Raag: A Dictionary of Votic, p Frithiof Rundgren: The Computational Paradigm, p Israel Ruong: En sägen från Barturte i Arjeplog, p Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Tässä nyt sitten istua mökötetään, p Nils Simonsson: On the Concept of Sentence in Ancient Indian and Tibetan Theory and on the Function of Case Particles in Tibetan According to Tibetan Grammarians, p Tryggve Sköld: Finnish valjaat 'harness' a Baltic Loanword, p Sven Söderström: Från en sydsamisk ordbok, p

228 Valter Tauli: Standardization of Estonian Language, p Jorma Toivainen: Suomen puhekielen suhdesanojen luokittelusta, p Erling Wande: Niin minun oli kruunu, p Sakari Vaapasalo: Vem är Iku-Turso?, p A Bibliography of Bo Wickman's Scientific Contributions, p FUS #6, 1983 Mária Dugántsy: Mordvinerna förr och nu, p Mária Dugántsy: Om mordvinernas trosföreställningar och rituella klagovisor, p Axel Groundstroem: Verbalnomen på -minen i translativ i stället för finalkonstruktion, p Raimo Raag: German Importations in Estonian Surveyed. (Review Article: R. Hinderling, Die deutschestnischen Lehnwortbeziehungen im Rahmen einer europäischen Lehnwortgeographie, 258 pages.), p Aimo Seppänen: On the Functional Analysis of Finnish Perception Verbs, p Ingvar Svanberg: Samer i mellansverige under 1600-talet, p Maijaliisa Jokinen: Fred Karlsson Suomi vieraana kielenä 195 sidor., p Jarmo Lainio: M.K. Suojanen & P. Suojanen (red.) Sosiolingvistiikan näkymiä, 239 sidor., p Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Fred Karlsson, Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne, 410 sidor., p Björn Collinder In Memoriam, p Osmo Hormia In Memoriam, p FUS #7, in honorem Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson 5. december 1984, 215 p. Per-Erik Cederholm: Berättaren-texten-läsaren, p Paula Ehrnebo: Tukholman Yliopiston suomen kielen laitoksessa järjestettävä tulkkikoulutus, p Pirkko Forsman-Svensson: Translatiivi vanhan kirjasuomen ja nykysuomen ei-finiittisten rakenteiden predikaatin sijana, p Inger Fredriksson: Mikael Agricolas svenska brev, p Axel Groundstroem: Lokalkasusattribut efter abstrakta i modern finska, p Olavi Korhonen: Ledvattnet, ett sel i Skellefteälven, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Estnisch piim und finnisch piimä - en baltisches Lehnwort? p Eivor Nylund-Torstensson: Ortnamnsutredningen och våra tornedalsfinska ortsnamn, p Raija Sandström: Civilståndets inverkan på anteckningar av kvinnors tillnamn i 1800-talets kyrkböcker på Nedertorneå landsbyggd i norra Sverige, p Tryggve Sköld: FI. Mato, p Erling Wande: Finskkunnigheten och valet av frivillig finska bland gymnasister vid läroverket i Haparanda enligt skolkatalogerna , p Bo Wickman: Patriotism och språkvetenskap, p

229 FUS #8, 1986 Lars Borin: Is Hungarian a case language?, p Maijaliisa Jokinen: Aleksis Kivi's Women, p Maijaliisa Jokinen: Leevataan liivet oikein kunnolla, p Ulla Lundgren: Suomen predikatiiviadverbiaalin kategorian ongelmallisuudesta, p Virve Raag: Voterna - snart In Memoriam, p Håkan Rydving: Samiska sjönamn på -hau'ree, p Siiri Sahlman-Karlsson: Några iakttagelser rörande amerikafinnarnas finska och engelska, p Bent Soendergaard: Code switching-ilmiö suomenkielisissä olosuhteissa, p Sally Boyd: Elina Helander: Om trespråkighet. En undersökning av språkvalet bland samerna i Övre Soppero. Acta Universitatis Umensis. Studies in the Humanities 67. Umeå. 247 pp, p Kerstin Eidlitz Kuoljok: V.N. Basilov: Izbranniki duchov. Izdatel'stvo politi^ceskoj literatury. Moskva pp, p Tage Boström: Okänd soldat och kända soldater. Beteenden, attityder och struktur i Väinö Linnas krigsroman. Acta Universitatis Umensis 52. Umeå pp., p György Lako: Symposium in memoriam János Lotz ( ). Föredrag hållna vid minnessymposiet den 27 september 1983 vid Stockholms universitet. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studica Hungarica Stockholmiensia 4. Edidit Bo Wickman. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International pp, p Gunnar Pellijeff: Raija Sandström: Finska och icke-finska tillnamn i Nedertorneås kyrkböcker på talet. Anthroponymica Suecana 11. Umeå pp., p Raimo Raag: Valev ibopuu: Meie ja meie hõimud. Peatükke soomeugrilaste minevikust ja olevikust. Eesti Kirjanike Kooperativ. Lund pp., p Bo Wickman: Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen. Herausgegeben von Péter Hajdú und Lászlo Honti. Bibliotheca Uralica 7, Budapest pp., p Bo Wickman: Gustav Hasselbrink: Südlappisches Wörterbuch I-III (Skrifter utgivna genom Dialekt- och folkminnesarkivet i Uppsala, Ser. C:4) pp. Uppsala , p Lauri Hakulinen: In Memoriam, p Valter Tauli In Memoriam, p Sakari Vapaasalo In Memoriam, p. 197 FUS #9, 1988 Ingrid Almqvist: Om predikatsfyllnadens kasus i finskans negerade predikativa satser med infinitiv, p Per-Erik Cederholm: De De Amicitia, p Pirkko Forsman-Svensson: Eerik Justanderin riimikronikka Ultima Justa, p Gábor Harrer: Substantivens pluralbildning i ungerskan, p Matti Punttila: Suomen yleiskielen murteellisuuksia, p Raija Sandström: Tillnamn och språktillhörighet i Nedertorneå och Haparanda, p Erling Wande: Tornedalsfinskans ljudsystem kring sekelskiftet 1900, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Moderna läroböcker i Tjeremissiska, p

230 Maijaliisa Jokinen: Per-Erik Cederholm: Silmät ja järki yhtä haavaa samassa paikassa - niin kuin alastalolla, p Rune Ingo: Tuuli Forsgren: Finska participattribut i svensk översättning, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Hungarian Studies - Ny tidskrift för hungarologisk forskning, p Sven Söderström: Nore Johansson: Ord ur tornedalsfinskan, p Virve Raag: Lauri Kettunen: A Vodian dialect dictionary, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Mikko korhonen: Finsk-Ugrisk Vetenskapshistoria, p Tryggve Sköld: Mauno Koski: Finska färgnamn, p Bo Wickman: György Lakó: A Lappish chrestomathy for Hungarians, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Károly Rédei: En uralisk etymologisk ordbok, p FUS #10, 1991 Ingrid Almqvist: Pöydällä vai television päällä? Användingen av kasus adessiv och postpositionen päällä i finskan, p Nore Johansson: saura 'hässja' och saura 'flitig, uthållig' i finska dialekter, p Jarmo Lainio & Erling Wande: Pronominet minä 'jag' i urban sverigefinska, p Kai Laitinen: Livet och solen: Sillanpää och hans tid, p Heikki Paunonen: Till en ny indelning av de finska dialekterna, p Sirkka Saarinen: Karaktäristiska drag i tjeremissiskan, p Raija Sandström: Om försvenskningen av efternamnen i Pajalatrakten och dess orsaker, p László Szabó: Negative Constructions in Kola Lappish, p Nils-Erik Hansegård: Marjut Aikio: Saamer och språkbyte, p Orvokki Heinämäki: Ingrid Almqvist: On Object Marking in Negated Sentences in Finnish, p Lena Huss: Lenore Arnberg: Vägledning till tvåspråkighet, p Pirkko Nuolijärvi: Klaus Laalo: Suomen murteiden imperfektivarianttien suhteita, p Marika Tandefeldt: Liisa Paavola: Talar ni svenska vai puhunko suomea? p Sally Boyd: Marika Tandefelt: Between Two Languages, p Sulo Huovinen: Valev Uibopuu: Om fennougrierna och deras språk, p Per-Erik Cederholm: Pirjo Vaittinen: Finlands litteratur i Sverige, p Tuuli Forsgren & Britta Klockars: Översättarutbildning vid Vasa högskola, p FUS #11, 1992 Pirkko Forsman-Svensson: Karl XI:s minnesskrift - kanslisvenska i finsk översättning, p Maija Grönholm: Den morfologiska anspassningen hos svenska låneord i finska språket, p Maijaliisa Jokinen: Käännetyt merkitykset, p Silva Kiuru: Michael Agricolan puhekielisyyksistä, p Jüri Viikberg: Estonians in Siberia, p Marja Weckström: Ympäristöjen ja henkilöiden esikuvat Veijo Meren romaaneissa ja novelleissa, p Osmo Nikkilä: Pirkko Forsman-Svensson:1600-luvun teonnimien selvittelyä, p

231 Pirkko Forsman-Svensson: Osmo Ikola, Ulla Palomäki & Anna-Kaisa Koitto: Dialektsyntax och textgrammatik, p Gunnar Magnusson: Rune Ingo: Översättningsvetenskap - ur skandinavisk synvinkel, p Ingrid Almqvist: Jyrki Kalliokoski: Samordning i finskan, p Ingrid Almqvist: Maria Vilkuna: Ordföljden i finskan, p Lars-Gunnar Larsson: Irene Wichmann: Reseanteckningar från forskningsresor, p Jarmo Lainio: Birger Winsa: Dialektologiska ordstudier och språkhistoria i Tornedalen, p Mikko Korhonen In Memoriam, p Toivo Tikka In Memoriam, p FUS #12, 1994 Kaisu Juusela: Variation as a theme in Finnish dialectology and sociolinguistics in recent years, p Torbjörn K. Nilsson: Semantical considerations of the alleged Germanic etymology of Finnish pursto~pyrstö 'tail', p Toivo Tikka: Lampisjärven sanan etymologiaa, p Irene Virtala: Metafor, metonymi och textens subject, p Tuula Vosthenko: Synkän yksinpuhelun kuvakieltä: Erään tutkimuksen lähtökohtia, p Erling Wande: Metaphor and Cognitive Conflict, p Nils-Erik Hansegård: Mikael Svonni: Samebarns modersmålskunskaper, p Helena Sulkala: Ulla Lundgren: Predikativadverbialet och dess numeruskongruens i finskan, p Torbjörn Söder: Tamás Kis: Bakaduma - Ungersk soldatslang, p Östen Dahl, Lars-Gunnar Larsson & Erling Wande: Report on Estonian research within the language sciences, p FUS #13, not produced FUS #14, 2012 Mikko Heikkilä: Varhaisen kantasuomen vokaaliston ja fonotaksin uudennoksista sekä niiden ajoituksesta, p Petri Kallio: Jälkitavujen diftongit kantasuomessa, p Jarmo Kallio, Carla Jonsson & Anu Muhonen: Flerspråkiga ungas identiteter och diskurser om dessa ett internationellt projekt som börjar ge avkasta resultat, p Mikko Heikkilä: Beskrivning av forskningsämne för doktorsavhandling i nordiska språk på Fakulteten för språk, översättning och litteratur vid Tammerfors universitet, p Peter Piispanen: Statistical Dating of Uralic Proto-Languages through Comparative Linguistics with added sound change law analyses, p Igor Anatolievich Vintin: Finno-Ugric Studies as One of the Priority Directions of Development of the N.P. Ogarev Mordovian State University, p

232

233 Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Att.: Jarmo Lainio Finska avdelningen Institutionen för slaviska och baltiska språk, finska, nederländska och tyska Universitetsvägen 10 E Stockholm Sverige ISSN ISBN