Part 1

Produced by Jonathan Ingram and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

Transcriber’s Note: _italics_, =bold=.

London

HENRY FROWDE

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE AMEN CORNER, E.C.

A FINNISH GRAMMAR

BY C. N. E. ELIOT, M.A. FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

Oxford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1890

[_All rights reserved_]

Oxford PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

PREFACE.

My object in writing this book has been to give an account of Finnish sufficient to enable any one to understand the grammatical structure of the written language, and also to place before the student of philology an account of the chief phenomena it presents. In this latter respect I am conscious that my treatment is very inadequate on account of my inability to make myself acquainted with the many dialects spoken by the peasantry in various parts, the importance of which for the scientific history of the language cannot be overrated. I trust, however, that I may meet with indulgence, as the present work is, to the best of my belief, the only grammar of Finnish in English, and the only syntax (except brief sketches) in any language more generally accessible than Swedish.

The Finnish language is still in so unsettled and fluid a condition, as regards both forms and style, that it is often hard to say what is correct and what not. A foreigner naturally cannot venture to decide what ought or ought not to be, and I have merely endeavoured to give an account of the forms and constructions found in existence. The examples are taken chiefly from the Kalevala and Bible (which are generally cited by references), from the Suomen Kansan Sananlaskuja of Ahlqwist, from various modern works, and some from the dictionaries of Lönnrot and Geitlin. The remainder have all been approved by natives, and will, hence, I trust, be found idiomatic.

I must acknowledge my obligations to the grammars of Genetz and Hämäläinen, to the Finska Språkets Satslära of Jahnsson, and especially to the excellent Suomen Kielen Lauseoppi of Setälä.

But more than to all of these I am indebted to the constant assistance and collaboration of my friend Mr. Putro of the Finnish School in St. Petersburg, to whose thorough knowledge of the language this work owes whatever accuracy it may possess. I have also to thank Mr. J. Marshall for several philological suggestions.

C. N. E. ELIOT.

_March 20, 1890._

HÄNEN KUNINKAALLISEN MAJESTETINSA

LÄHETTILÄÄLLE PIETARISSA

HÄNEN YLHÄISYYDELLENSÄ SIR R. MORIERILLE

KUNNIOITUKSELLA

OMISTAA

TEKIJÄ

INTRODUCTION.

In this book I have endeavoured to give a simple and clear account of the Finnish language, chiefly of that form of it which is now recognised as the ordinary vehicle of literary composition, and have thought it better to set aside as far as possible scientific disquisitions. I now proceed to briefly discuss from a purely theoretical point of view some of the phenomena presented by this curious tongue, in doing which I must express my special obligations to the various works of Professors Donner and Setälä, and also to the account of Die Sprachen der Uralischen Völker in the second volume of Dr. Friedrich Müller’s Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft.

The phonetic system of Finnish is characterized by a great paucity of consonants and a correspondingly great development of vowels. The alphabet has but thirteen of the former: =d=, =g=, =h=, =j=, =k=, =l=, =m=, =n=, =p=, =r=, =s=, =t=, =v=. Of these it must be observed that =d= is in modern times only a literary invention, though as it exists in Esthonian and other cognate languages there is no reason to object to its use. It always represents a =t= which has been weakened by phonetic laws, but in the mouths of the peasantry the sound is either entirely omitted, or else replaced by a cerebral letter (represented in writing by =l= or =r=) or by =v= or =j=. =G= also is only found in the combination =ng=, which has exactly the same sound as in English. The letter =h= is apparently never original in the middle of words. It appears to me to have really two sounds—as an initial or between vowels, it is simply the English =h=, but before =t= and =k=, it is =χ=. The other consonants offer no remarkable peculiarities; =v= appears to be pronounced as in English (labio-dental), and not to be a labio-labial (modern Greek β).

The simple consonants are pronounced much more lightly than in English. =T= and =k= in the middle of a word when pronounced naturally by a native, who is not trying to speak distinctly to a foreigner, often seem almost inaudible, and it is noticeable that in foreign words, with which the language is overrun, German and Swedish =k=, =t=, =p= (when not initial) are always represented by =kk=, =tt=, =pp=. It is highly probable that Finnish (like Esthonian) once had the sounds =b=, =d=, =g=. In Agricola are found such forms as =näghe= for =näe=, =virdhat= for =virrat=. On the other hand, everything points to the fact that the original tongue from which the Finno-Ugric languages were developed had only ten or eleven consonants: =k=, =t=, =p=, =s=, =j=, =r=, =l=, =n=, =m=, =v=, and perhaps =h= or =χ=. For the many curious sounds found in Lapp, Syrjenian, Ostiak, etc., all look as if they were degenerations from a simpler original.

Finnish has eight simple vowels: =a=, =ä=, =e=, =i=, =o=, =ö=, =u=, =y= (=ü=). All of these can be either short, or long, and in the latter case the letter is written double. These doubled letters appear to be genuine long vowels, and to contain no diphthongal element. There are no triphthongs, but sixteen diphthongs, though on the whole Finnish has more simple vowels than other languages of the same group, particularly Lappish.

Though no difference is made in writing between the different values of the vowel =i=, it appears that there really is a distinction between its value in words like =otti=, or =oli=, where the vowels are hard, and in words like =näki= where they are soft. The hard sound comes very near the Russian =ы= and the Turkish =i̱= in such a word as ‎‏اچملوايدكز‏‎ achmali̱yi̱di̱ni̱z.

The vocalization of words is governed by three laws. The first is well known under the name of vowel harmony. The essence of this is that the hard (=a=, =o=, =u=) and soft (=ä=, =ö=, =y=) vowels cannot coexist in the same word. Not only the Finno-Ugric languages, but also Samoyede, Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu, have this law at least in the rudimentary form that a root does not contain both hard and soft vowels; but there is much variety as to the degree in which the vowels of the suffixes are assimilated to those of the root to which they are added. The most highly developed form of the law is found in the Turkish dialects (particularly in Yakut), where the vowels of the root and suffix must not only not be discordant, but are as much as possible assimilated to one another. Thus ‎‏پدريكز‏‎ is pronounced pederiniz, _your father_, but ‎‏دوستكز‏‎ dostunuz, _your friend_. The same principle appears to prevail in Samoyede, from which are cited such forms as =marg-an=, =tob-on=, =üg-ün=, =tšel-en=. The other extreme, where the harmony prevails only between the vowels of the root but not between those of the root and the suffixes, is found in nearly all the Finno-Ugric languages except Finnish and Hungarian. In some languages (e.g. Mordvinian) the harmony is not rigorously observed even in the root. It is doubtful if such languages really represent a more primitive phonetic system than Finnish. They may have become affected owing to Russian influence by an inability to accurately distinguish the hard and soft vowels, particularly =a= and =ä=, for, though it is very probable that originally the vowel of the suffix was not necessarily the same as that of the root, one would expect those languages which retain the primitive system to distinguish the suffix more clearly than the others from the root, which does not seem to be the case. Finnish in this respect holds a midway position. The vowels of the suffixes are not assimilated, as in Turkish, but they are always of the same quality as those of the root. The suffix =s—n= or =h—n=, however, found in the illative and passive, seems to show an approach to the Turkish system, as its vowel is always the same as that which precedes it: =kotihin=, =työhön=, =töihin=, =kylähän=, =talohon=, =saa(d)ahan=, =saatihin=, =saatanehen=, =saataisihin=.

The second vocalic law of Finnish is the exact opposite of the vowel harmony—viz. vowel differentiation. The occurrence of incongruous vowels in one word is discordant, but the excessive repetition of the same vowel is disagreeably monotonous. To avoid this =a= is often changed into =o= in words where =a= is the dominant vowel (pp. 9, 10 for the details), =patoja= for =pataja=, =annoin= for =annain=; but =otin=, =sotia= for =ota-in=, =sota-ia=. So also in the Eastern dialect =kaloa= for =kalaa=. On the same principle =a= and =ä= change to =e= in comparatives and passives, and thus we have =vanhempana= and =tapetaan= instead of such monotonous forms as =vanhampana= and =tapataan=. Also two =i=’s meeting generally become =ei=.

The third rule relates to the disappearance of final or medial =e=, and the consequent shortening of words. The chief accent of Finnish, as now pronounced, is on the first syllable of a word, and it is therefore very natural that final vowels should be omitted. In the dialect spoken about S. Petersburg this phenomenon is very frequent and such forms as =miss= for =missä=, =yks=, =kaks= for =yksi= and =kaksi= are common in the mouths of the peasantry. This may, however, be due to the influence of Esthonian and Russian. In correct Finnish final =e= is omitted only in the nominative singular of polysyllabic stems, the consonantal groups which remain being simplified if the laws of euphony require it: so =sisare=, =tantere=, =kysymykse= become =sisar=, =tanner=, and =kysymys=. In the middle of words the final =e= of a stem disappears before nominal suffixes beginning with =t= (and sometimes =n=) and before verbal suffixes beginning with =k= or =n=, and this rule applies to dissyllables also. Now one would suppose on _a priori_ grounds that the invariable accent on the first syllable is not original, but has replaced some older and less simple system, just as the variable accentuation of Russian is older than the stereotyped system of Polish. Even in modern Finnish I doubt if the rule that every word is accented on the first syllable is really true. An educated Finn will always maintain that in a word like =revitään= the main accent is on the first syllable, but to my ear it appears to be distinctly on the last (=-tään=), indeed, it is hard to see how this long syllable could be pronounced without an accent. What is undoubtedly true is that no syllables are slurred over as in Russian and English. There is, as far as I know, no historical proof that some of the suffixes were accented in Finnish; but it is highly probable on general grounds and explains many phenomena presented by both vowel and consonantal changes. For instance, the termination of the first infinitive, =ta= (representing an original =tak= or =takse=), when added to the stem =tule=, produces =tulla=, which is quite natural if the original form was =tuletá=, as the light vowel would drop out before the accented syllable; similarly =syöksenén= becomes =syösnen= for =syöksnen=. Sometimes a whole syllable is omitted, e.g. =alenetá= becomes =aleta=. For some reason the =e= is generally not omitted if it is preceded by =k=, =p=, =v=, or =m=. This is not an absolute rule, as one finds forms like =tointa= (st. =toime=), =nähdä=, =tehdä= (st. =nähe=, =teke=), but it is hard to see why if =tule-tá= becomes =tulla=, =luketá= should not become =luhda=. The length of the first vowel has nothing to do with the matter, as =nouse= makes =nousta=. =A= and =ä= occasionally disappear in much the same way. Thus =vieras= stands for =vierasa=, =löynnyt=, =tiennyt= are formed from =löytä=, =tietä=; and superlatives regularly lose final =a=; =suurin=, for =suurimpa=.

The rules for the changes of consonants fall into three main groups. Firstly only =n=, =r=, =s=, or =t= are admitted as finals and only a few simple combinations occur in the middle of words. When the loss of a vowel produces groups which are euphonically disagreeable, they are simplified; =veitstä=, =kolmant=, =suurimp=, =säkenöitstä= become =veistä=, =kolmas=, =suurin=, =säkenöitä=.

The second group of changes concerns the letters =t=, =k=, =s=, =h=. The group =ti= has always a tendency to become =si= in syllables which never had the accent. The letter =h=, which is suspected of never being original when a medial, represents =t=, =k=, and =s=. =S= between two vowels immediately before a termination always becomes =h=. =Vierasa= makes in the nominative =vieras=, =a= being lost owing to the accent being on the first syllable. But the genitive =vierasan= becomes =vierahan=, and in the ordinary language this is contracted to =vieraan=. So too =t= becomes =h= under similar circumstances, perhaps having passed through =s=. The nominatives =kevät=, =terve=, and =vene= appear to represent stems =kevätä=, =tervete=, and =venete= (for the partitives are =kevättä=, =tervettä=, =venettä=) and form the genitives =kevähän=, =venehen=, =tervehen=. The same change appears in the declension of past participles ending in =-nyt= or =-nut=. Again, =kt= before a termination which was presumably once accented becomes =ht=—a combination of which the language is very fond. Thus the roots, =haakte=, =ykte=, =kakte= produce such forms as =haahden=, =yhtä=, =kahtena=, in all of which the first syllable was probably not accented. But in the nominative the first syllable was accented and the words became first =haakti=, =ykti=, =kakti= (rule =15=), and then =haaksi=, =yksi=, =kaksi= (rule =37=).

The third rule is the most important and singular. It requires the softening in some way of the three hard consonants =k=, =t=, =p=, when they occur at the beginning of a short open syllable which becomes closed. It is stated in detail on pp. 13, 14, 15. These conventional rules are of great practical utility, for they are of almost universal application and can be used with perfect certainty in building up the most complicated forms. On the other hand, if one tries to explain them, they remain unique and mysterious, if considered only in reference to the closed syllable. Now there is one exception to their action: the addition of the pronominal suffixes produces no change in the consonants of a noun. But there are a good many cases where consonants are softened without the syllable being closed. Some of these cases (e.g. infinitives and negative verbs) are justly treated as closed syllables because a final consonant has been lost. But (1) we find forms like =auringoita=, =palkinnoita= from =aurinko=, =palkinto=; (2) many forms seem to waver between =p= and =v=, e.g. =pi= or =vi= in the 3rd sing. of verbs; =pa= or =va= in the participle.

In Esthonian, where an almost identical rule is found, it is obvious that in the present state of the language at any rate the theory of the closed syllable does not apply at all.

It has been already seen that, though there is no actual proof that terminations in Finnish received the accent, the supposition that they once did so is not only agreeable to analogy, but explains many phenomena in the phonetics of the language. On this principle the rule about the closed syllable might be restated in the form that when a syllable received the accent, owing to the addition of a suffix[1], the consonant at the beginning of that syllable was weakened. Thus =aúrinko= remains with =nk=, =aurinkón= becomes =auringon=, but =aurinkoná= remains. The pronominal suffixes produce no change, because they are merely enclitic pronouns and have no accent. =Auringoita= can be easily explained by the tendency to accent a syllable containing a formative element and a diphthong. The advantage of this explanation of the weakening as due to change of accent is that, if true, it enables us to compare the phenomena presented by Finnish with laws accepted as prevailing in other languages, particularly with what is known in Teutonic philology as Werner’s law affecting non-initial soft spirants. By this law when =χ=, =þ=, =f=, =s= close the syllable bearing the chief accent they remain; in all other cases they pass into the corresponding sonants =ȝ=, =ð=, =ƀ=, =z=. Thus an original =wórþe= produces =warþ=, but an original =(we)wurþmé= produces =wurðúm=.

All Finnish accidence is concerned with the addition of suffixes to roots, subject to the above rules for the change of vowels and consonants. In the present state of the language these roots are mostly dissyllabic, though there are also plenty of monosyllables. There is reason to believe, however, that these dissyllabic roots are mostly the result of the combination of a monosyllable with very primitive suffixes, and it is probable that the original roots were of the form consonant + the vowel =a= + consonant. The root was differentiated in various ways by changing =a= to =o=, =u=, =i=, =e=, etc., by raising it to a diphthong or long vowel, or by altering the consonants within certain limits. Examples of this development of roots are contained in Donner’s Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Finno-Ugrischen Sprachen.

Finnish, like all the cognate languages, has no distinctions of gender. It possesses two numbers, the singular and plural, all traces of the dual which exists in Ostiak and Vogul having been lost. Three elements are used to form the plural—=t=, =i=, and =loi=. Of these =t= is found only in the nominative and genitive plural, in which latter case it appears variously as =tt=, =d=, or, like the =t= of the partitive and infinitive, is omitted. This suffix appears also in Esthonian (as =d=), Mordvinian, and Ostiak (=tl=). Vogul, Syrjenian, and Cheremissian have quite different suffixes, while Lappish and Hungarian employ the letter =k=, apparently identical with the =g= which characterises the dual in Ostiak and Vogul. It has been suggested that as =k= cannot be a final in Finnish, it has been changed to =t=; but Mordvinian, which has no objection to final =k=, also has =t= as a plural sign. The vowel =i= is used in all the cases except the nominative and genitive to mark the plural, being inserted immediately before the case termination. It is similarly used in Esthonian and Lappish, and there are traces of it in Hungarian. It has been explained as representing =k= weakened to =j=. In the Kalevala and many dialects (e.g. that of Savo) a suffix =loi= is found before the plural termination, chiefly in the partitive, essive, and translative: =mahti-loi-ta=, =pilvi-löi-ksi=, =tähti-löi-nä=. It is never found in the nominative, nor, for euphonic reasons, in the cases which otherwise contain =l=. The =i= is evidently the ordinary plural sign, and as =pata + i + na= becomes =patoina=, it is probable that this =loi= represents =la + i=. Ostiak has a suffix =tl= in the plural (but this appears to represent simple =t=), Cheremissian adds =vlja= or =vila=, and in Samoyede =la= appears to be used indifferently with =t= as a plural sign. The syllable =la= is used in Finnish to denote a place: e.g. =setälä=, _uncle’s house_, from =setä=, and =lo= is a diminutive termination. Possibly these forms should be treated as diminutives, but the analogy with Samoyede is curious. It is noticeable that according to our ideas the plural is not used very strictly; thus the numerals take a singular noun, the partitive when signifying many people likewise takes a singular verb; the verb =on= is used with the nominative plural, and in poems, proverbs, etc., a plural noun has as often as not a singular verb. On the other hand, the plural is often used where there seems to be no real idea of plurality. For instance, we find expressions like =olla kylmillä=, _to be in the cold_; =omin luvin=, _of one’s own accord_. The instructive, prolative, and comitative are generally used in the plural, even when one definite person is described, and there is no distinction between the singular and plural suffixes for the third person. Now, in some languages which appear to present the least developed type of the agglutinative principle, as for instance Manchu, the plural is not regularly distinguished from the singular, and though Finnish has advanced enormously beyond this stage, it appears to have developed a less acute sense of number than the Aryan languages. It is therefore very possible that some of the plural suffixes were in their origin not strictly plural. The =t= might thus be identical with that of the determinate accusative of pronouns (=minut=, etc.) and with the =t= or =te=, which characterises the definite declension in Mordvinian. Possibly the =k= of the other languages of the group may be connected with the suffixes =-kko=, =-kkaha=, which have an idea of quantity.

Nearly all the cases had originally a local meaning. On pp. 131-133 will be found some account of their relation to one another, and the development of their significations. As is there shown, there are three groups of cases which more or less correspond, the so-called interior and exterior groups, and another composed of the partitive, the essive, and the translative. These latter have simple suffixes, =ta=, =na=, and =ksi=. In the other groups another element is added to the suffix, in the interior cases =s= (supposed to represent =sisä=), and in the exterior =l= (supposed to represent =luo=). The terminations of the inessive (=ssa=), the elative (=sta=), the adessive (=lla=), and the ablative (=lta=) clearly stand for =s + na=, =s + ta=, =l + na=, =l + ta=. The combination =n + ta= is also used sporadically (p. 23) to form a case analogous to the elative and ablative. The relation of the three cases indicative of motion to is, however, less obvious. The termination of the translative is =ksi= (or =kse=), that of the illative =sen= or =h-n= (with the vowel of the previous syllable between the two consonants), and that of the allative =-lle=, sometimes pronounced =llen=. Now, Finnish contains clear traces of a dative in =-ne= or =-nek= (pp. 24 and 128). The illative shows a suffix =-sen=, but dialects give forms which represent =he-sen= or =se-sen= (which are supported by the analogy of other languages), which may be explained as the characteristic of the internal cases plus a case termination. The allative =-lle(n)= may therefore be explained as =l + hen=, though it can equally well represent =l + ne=. The termination =sen=, which is weakened to =h-n=, or merely =n= preceded by a long vowel, is perhaps for =ksen=, for the termination of the translative has a great tendency to be weakened and even disappear (=alas=, =ulos=, =taa=, =ty’ö=, 1st infinitives, etc.). We thus get three groups exactly corresponding: (1) =na=, =ta=, =kse=; (2) =s + na=, =s + ta=, =s + ksen=; (3) =l + na=, =l + ta=, =l + kse=.