Part 2

The prolative, ending in =-tse=, is not often used and is perhaps identical with the termination =-ten=, found in some adverbs (=täten=, =miten=, =siten=, etc.). The caritive has regularly the termination =-tta=, but in adverbs this sinks to =-ti= (=ääneti=, =huoleti=). Dialectically are found =tak=, =tah=, and =ta=, and a comparison of the cognate languages leaves no doubt that =taka= or =taχa= was the original form. It is quite clear that this ending is closely connected with the caritive adjectival suffix =-ttoma=, which has much the same form in all the cognate languages, except Ostiak, where it is wanting. In Mordvinian we have =vtomo= or =ftïma=, and in Lappish =täbme= or =tebme=. Otherwise the suffix seems to represent an original =tama=. Perhaps the =f= or =v= of Mordvinian may represent some element (e.g. =k=) added to the stem before the suffix, which has produced in Finnish =tt=. The termination of the abessive has been explained as the word =taka=, _back_. But if this is so, what becomes of the caritive adjective, which shows no trace of this syllable =ka=? The conclusion that the element denoting absence or negation is =ta=—perhaps with some other consonant before it—seems inevitable. =Ta= is used to denote motion from (the original meaning of the partitive), and the connection between this idea and absence is not impossible.

There remain several cases characterised by the letter =n=, with or without a vowel. We have (1) a genitive, with the termination =n= in the singular, and taking =t= as well in the plural; (2) an accusative, found only in the singular and identical in form with the genitive; (3) an instructive identical in the singular with the genitive, but without the element =t= in the plural; (4) a comitative, formed with the syllable =ne=. This last may be explained as a local case, related to the syllable =na= of the essive or locative as the =ta= of the 1st infinitive is to the =te= of the second. The instructive termination is probably in reality the same as that of the genitive. It does not seem unnatural that a case denoting relation should be used adverbially to denote the manner in which an action is performed. The case is used chiefly in the plural, in which it does not take the element =t=, doubtless to distinguish it from the genitive. The genitive seems either to have or to have had the termination =n= in all the Finno-Ugric languages. It is noticeable that it is strictly a case representing relation, and does not denote origin. Its regular place is before the word which depends on it. It is probably akin to the dative ending in =-ne=. The accusative ending in =n= plays only a very small part in Finnish, as it is never used except to denote the total object in the singular of a finite verb. The partial object (p. 126) is always in the partitive, whether singular or plural; the total object plural is in the nominative, and the total object singular of an imperative or impersonal (so-called passive) verb is also in the nominative. Usage with regard to the object of an infinitive is fluctuating, but the primitive rule seems to be that it was in the partitive or nominative. It would seem that when the agent is not defined (imperative, passive, infinitive) the simple nominative was regarded as sufficient, as there could be no confusion between the subject and object. But when the subject is expressed by a word or termination, it was felt necessary to emphasise the object by some termination. =T= in the plural was apparently enough, but in the singular we find =n=, which might be identified with the suffix of the genitive, but for the fact that Ostiak, Cheremissian, and Vogul have =m= or =me=, and Lappish =m=, =b=, =p=, or =w= pointing to an original =m=.

There is also a termination =t= occurring in the accusatives of the personal pronouns in Finnish, and found also in Hungarian, Mordvinian, and Syrjenian, which marks the determinate accusative. This is perhaps identical with the =t= of the plural. The nominative, as such, has no termination. In the plural it has the simple plural sign =t=; in the singular it is identical with the root, unless altered (as is often the case) by purely phonetic laws.

The Finnish adjective is not distinguished from the noun, but it presents this peculiarity that contrary to the usage of the cognate languages it agrees with its substantive in number and case. This is probably due to Aryan influences, and has on the whole been a misfortune, for as soon as it is possible to construct sentences in which the connection of adjectives and substantives, far removed from one another in place, can be indicated by similar terminations, it is inevitable that authors should construct complicated phrases of the German or Greek type, which so much disfigure contemporary Finnish literature.

Finnish possesses a comparative and superlative, both having the termination =mpa=, the comparative being distinguished by the addition of the letter =i= before this suffix. This =i= might possibly be identified with that which marks the oblique cases of the plural, on the supposition that it is a determinative element which gradually acquired a plural signification in nouns. The comparative ending is also found in the pronouns =jompi=, =kumpi=, and =molempi=. Though the present numerals of the Finno-Ugric languages are based on a decimal system, it is clear that the original base was seven. For in all the languages the numbers from one to seven are obviously identical, whereas the words for eight, nine, ten are different. Finnish, with the Baltic dialects, and Mordvinian, represents ten by =kymmenen=, =kümme=, or =kemen=; Lappish, Cheremissian, and Vogulian give =lokke= (or =loγe=), =lu=, =lau=, which signify simply _number_ (Finn. =luku=). Ostiak has =jon=, which recalls the Turkish =on= and Yakut =uon=, but which has also been explained as =ljon= (= =luku=). Cheremissian has =das=, which looks as if it had been borrowed from the Russian =десять=, though this explanation can hardly be extended to the Magyar =tiz=. The numbers eight and nine clearly contain in most of the languages the numbers two and one, so that they must mean ten minus two, and ten minus one, but the element denoting ten is not clear: Finnish, =kahdehsan=, =yhdeksän=; Lappish, =kaktse=, =aktse= (=kuekte=, _two_; =akte=, _one_); Syrjenian =kökja-mi̱s=, =ök-mi̱s= (=ki̱k=, _two_; =ötik=, _one_); Mordvinian, =kafksa=, =vehksa= (=kafta=, _two_; =ifkä=, _one_); Cheremissian, =kändeχsje=, =indeχsje= (=kok=, _two_; =ik-tä=, _one_). The Magyar, Ostiak, and Vogul for eight (=nyole=, =njigedlaχ=, =njålå-lu=) seems related, but not the words for nine. The word for a hundred is the same in all the languages.

The personal pronouns are declined almost exactly like nouns. =Minä=, =sinä=, =hän= appear to represent original forms =mi-nä=, =ti-nä=, =sä-nä= (? for =tä-nä=). The oblique cases in the singular of the 1st and 2nd person are formed either from the stems =minu= and =sinu= (which have been adopted by the literary language), or =mu=, =su=. The plural stems are =me=, =te=, =he=, apparently strengthened forms of =mi=, =ti=, =hi=, which take =i= in the oblique cases, but which (like the demonstrative pronouns) do not take =t= in the nominative.

The genitive of the personal pronoun is supplied by the pronominal affixes, which are added to nouns. They are for the singular =ni=, =si=, =nsa=; for the plural =mme=, =nne=, =nsa=. The 1st person singular =ni= is difficult to explain, for the pronominal root is =mi=. Probably final =m= was changed to =n= (cf. the verbs), and the =i= was a later addition. So too the 2nd person singular varies between =si= and =s=. It is clear that in the 3rd singular and all the persons of the plural an element, perhaps the =n= of the genitive, is added to the noun, so that =nsa=, =mme=, =nne= stand for =n-sa=, =n-me=, =n-te=. It is noticeable, however, that in Ostiak and Vogul the 2nd person is distinguished by the element =n=, and not =t=, in all three numbers: sing. =nen=, =nän=; plur. =nen=, =nan=; dual =nin=. These suffixes are added to the declined noun, after the case termination, whereas in Hungarian the case terminations are added after the pronominal affix. In Cheremissian either combination seems possible. It is a remarkable fact that when the pronominal affixes cause a syllable to be closed, the initial consonant of that syllable is not weakened as in other cases. =Tapa + mme= and =tapa + nsa= do not become =tavamme=, =tavansa=, but =tapamme=, =tapansa=. The explanation of this is very easy if the principles suggested above are correct. The pronominal affixes are enclitics, and hence =tápa-nsa= does not change its accent, while =tapa-lla= becomes =tavá-lla=. But what is much more curious is that while the simple genitive singular and nominative plural are =tavan= and =tavat=, the same cases with suffixes appear as =tapamme= or =tapansa=. If these forms are not due to analogy they must be explained on a principle which seems to prevail in Finnish, that it is unnecessary to add more than one suffix defining the relations of words, unless there is a question of local position. Thus in the plural the sign of number is considered a sufficient mark both of the nominative and accusative.

The other pronouns call for little comment, but it is noticeable that the relative pronouns and adverbs are fully developed, so that, although many phrases which we should render by temporal and relative clauses are expressed by infinitives and participles (as in Turkish), they can also be expressed by sentences like those of Aryan languages. All the Finno-Ugric languages show an attempt to differentiate the verb from the noun, which is least successful in the Eastern languages, and most fully realized in Finnish. Yet here one can at once discard a mass of forms—the so-called infinitives and participles—which are simple substantives. Their use is explained on pp. 184-202. The infinitives are formed with two suffixes, =ta= and =ma=. The first appears in the 1st infinitive as =ta=, =da=, or =a=, and in the 2nd infinitive, in a weakened form, as =te=, =de=, or =e=. The second suffix =ma= appears in the 3rd infinitive in its proper form, and as a diminutive in the fourth and fifth infinitives, of which the latter is used only in one case. The present participle, active and passive, is formed by adding =va=, a common adjectival termination, to the simple or to the passive stem. The past participle active is formed by adding =-nehe= (nom. =nut= or =nyt=) to the stem (cf. such nominal stems as =venehe=, _boat_; =puhehe=, _conversation_), while the past participle passive is a simple noun with the suffix =u= or =y=, and identical with such forms as =luku=, =itku=, =maksu= (p. 45), except that it has the =t= which characterises the passive.

Setting aside these forms we have the finite verb, which shows two distinct formations, indicating two separate modes of thought. The 1st and 2nd persons singular and plural take suffixes obviously identical in origin with the pronominal affixes, while the 3rd person, singular and plural, is a simple predicate. The affixes for the verb are 1st sing =n=, 2nd sing. =t=, 1st plur. =mme=, 2nd plur. =tte=. In as far as these are not absolutely the same as the suffixes added to nouns, they show an attempt to differentiate the verb, but =n= is clearly the same as =-ni=; =t= is a more original form of the 2nd singular, which was once =ṭi=, and =mme= is the same in nouns and verbs. The 2nd person plur. in nouns =nne= has been already explained as =n-te=; in the verb =mme= and =tte= perhaps represent =k + me=, =k + te=. Thus it is only in the 1st person plural that the nominal and verbal suffixes absolutely coincide. =Toivomme= means either _we hope_ or _our hope_.

The formation of the 3rd persons is quite different. The plural termination is =vat=. In modern Finnish the singular, as a rule, takes no termination, but merely lengthens the final vowel, if not already long or a diphthong. But (as stated on pp. 62 and 63) the termination =pi=, which is found in monosyllabic verbs, and in the weakened form =vi= in others, is frequent in dialects, and used sometimes in the literary language. This suffix appears in all the Baltic dialects in the forms =b=, =p= for the singular, and =vat=, =ba=, =va= for the plural. In Lappish it does not occur in the 3rd person sing. or plur., but in the 1st person plural (=p=, =be=, or =p=), in the 2nd dual (=bätte=, =ppe=, =bet=, =vette=) and plural (=bättet=, =ppet=, =bet=, =vetteð=), and in the 3rd dual (=ba=, =van=, =v=). It also occurs sporadically in Cheremissian as the sign of the 3rd person. Now it is quite plain that the Finnish =-va-t= is the plural form of =pi= or =vi=. An analogy for final =a= sinking to =i= can be found in the nominative and comparatives (=suurempi= for =suurempa=), and it is therefore likely that the 3rd person singular and plural ended in =pa= and =vat= (p. 15). No doubt this =pa= or =va= is identical with the suffix of the present participle. In the plural indeed the two forms are absolutely identical even in the modern language: =tuovat=, =antavat=, =tulevat= are either the 3rd person plural present or nominative plural of the participle present. The 3rd person is thus simply a predicate, the verb substantive being, as often, omitted. =Pa= or =va= would thus be in its origin a suffix of the present: =pi= or =vi= does not appear in any of the other moods or tenses, but =vat= is the universal termination of the plural. Perhaps it was not original in any tense but the present, as Setälä quotes from old writers and dialects such forms as =sanoit= (=sanoivat=), =näghitt= (=näkivät=), =olisit= (=olisivat=), etc. But it must be remembered that the termination =va= has not a marked temporal signification, as it is used to form simple adjectives like =lihava=, _fat_; =terävä=, _sharp_. If then we regard =saavat= as a simple adjective from the root =saa=, denoting _taking_, there is no reason why =saivat=, =saanevat=, etc. should not be adjectives from =sai=, =saane=, which express modifications of that root. But this is a question of chronology, and it is more probable that when those stems were formed =vat= was accepted as a suffix of the 3rd plural. In Esthonian the =va= is sometimes added to the active past participle (=tulnuva=), and similar forms are quoted from Agricola. In modern Finnish the 3rd person singular generally ends simply in a long vowel, perhaps the remains of a diphthong ending in =u=, which occurs in some dialects.

Besides the personal terminations already discussed, we find in reflexive verbs (in some of which however the reflexive meaning is not very clear) =me= as the suffix of the 1st singular (=annoime=, =luome=, =siirrime=[2]), =te= for the 2nd person (=weäite=, =seisotaite=, =tungeite=), =ksen=, =kse=, =ihe= for the 3rd person. These latter forms are carefully discussed by Setälä (Suom. Ug. Seuran Aikakauskirja, No. II, 1887, p. 33 ff.), and he seems to prove satisfactorily that they represent =k + sen=, of which the first element is a present suffix, found also in the imperative and negative, and the second the pronoun of the 3rd person, found also in the optative, passive, and other forms. The terminations =me= and =te= might be explained as the original forms, seeing that the roots of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are probably =mi= and =ti=, but they are more likely to be due to false analogy, the real meaning of =he= (= =sen=) in the 3rd person having been forgotten.

We have thus for terminations indicative of person the following:—

Sing. Plur.

1. =n= (=me=) =m + me=

2. =t= (=te=) =t + te=

3. (a) =pi=, =vi=, long vowel =vat= or simple =t=. (b) =sen=, =hen=, =se=, =he=.

We have now to consider what are the other formative elements used in the Finnish verb, in doing which it is best to take first the finite affirmative conjugation, leaving aside the negative and passive forms. We may also leave aside the compound tenses which have doubtless arisen under foreign influences (cf. the Magyar forms).

We have seen that in nouns the possessive affixes =n-sa=, =m-me=, =n-ne= pointed to the fact that another element besides the strictly pronominal affix was added to the stem. The =mme= and =tte= of the plural verb are also best explained as =k + me=, =k + te=. This =k= occurs in many other verbal forms, and is of rather uncertain meaning, but apparently originally used in the present tense. It occurs in most of the cognate languages, particularly Lappish. The moods and tenses of the Finnish verb are very simple. The indicative has but two simple tenses (as in most of the cognate languages), a durative, which answers to both our present and future, and an aorist. There are three other moods, the potential or concessive, which represents an action as possible but not actual, the conditional, and the imperative, with which the optative may be taken to form one tense.

The present indicative adds the personal endings direct to the stem; the other forms add some element between the stem and terminations, which are the same as in the present (=n=, =t=, =mme=, =tte=, =vat=), except that the 3rd singular never takes =pi= or =vi=.

The past tense (generally called imperfect) is formed by adding the vowel =i= to the stem, which generally causes euphonic changes. =Saa=, _to receive_; =sain=, _I received_; =anta=, _to give_; =annoin=, _I gave_; =tule=, _to come_; =tulin=, _I came_. This suffix is used in Lappish in the forms =je=, =ie=, =i=, and traces of it occur in Magyar, Mordvinian, Cheremissian, Syrjenian, and Vogul. Ostiak is peculiar in using the simple stem for the past, and adding =de= to mark the present. The suffix =i= or =je= is perhaps the same as =ja= used to form nouns expressing the agent (e.g. =kalastaja=, _a fisherman_). Another termination used extensively in all the Baltic dialects is =-si=. This is quite regular in verbs whose root ends in =ta=, for =lupat(a)i= becomes naturally =lupasi=, and =pyyt(ä)i= =pyysi= (_v._ p. 16 for detailed rules). But in Esthonian and the South Western dialect of Finnish this termination is added to a great many words which have no =t= in the stem. E.g. Esthonian: stem =palu=, pres. =palun=, pret. =palusin=; stem =pühki=, pres. =pühin=, pret. =pühkizin=. These forms are perhaps the result of analogy, which was particularly easy on account of the contracted verbs. A comparison of the present =lupaan= (from which =t= has been lost) and the imperfect =lupasin= naturally suggests that =si= is the characteristic suffix of the latter. On the other hand, Mordvinian, Cheremissian, Vogul, and some forms of Ostiak (as well as the Samoyede languages) all have =s= or =š= as a sign of the preterite, so that =si= may possibly contain another tense element distinct from =i=.

The concessive is characterised by the syllable =ne=, or sometimes =no= in dialects. A conjunctive formed with this element occurs in most of Baltic dialects, Cheremissian, Vogul, and Ostiak.

The conditional has in Finnish a double suffix =i + si=. The =i= is doubtless identical with that of the imperfect. The syllable =si= is no doubt for =ksi=, for the Esthonian conditional is regularly formed with this suffix. =Palu=, =wiska=, =pühki=, =sȫ= form =paluksin=, =wiskaksin=, =pühiksin=, =sȫksin=. Esthonian generally has this suffix without =i=, but the other Baltic dialects employ the Finnish form. Lappish also has a subjunctive showing the syllable =kči=, =čči=, or =či=, but the form is unknown in the Eastern languages. It is noticeable that both =ne= and =se= are found in dialects doubled (=myysisin= from =myy=, _to sell_; =tullenen=, for =tulnenen=, from =tulla=, _to come_), and also combined in the form =neisi=, which occurs several times in the Kalevala (e.g. xxiii. 219, 220. =Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi Mies nuori nuristuneisi=).

The imperative consists of a 2nd person singular, which in literary Finnish is merely the root in a closed form (=anna=, =ota= from =anta=, =otta=), but which in dialects is found ending in =k= (=annak=, =otak=, etc.), and of a 1st and 2nd plural ending in =kaamme=, =kaatte= (or =kaa=) in the literary language, though =kama=, =kamme=, =katte= are also found. A 3rd person singular in =kaan= also occurs, but rarely. The optative consists of a 2nd person singular ending in =os=, of a 3rd person singular in =koon=, and a 3rd person plural in =koot=. These forms have been generally explained as weakenings of suffixes =kasa= (=kaha=) and =koso= (=koho=), and as representing =kasamme=, =kasatte=, =koso=, =koson=, and =kosot=. It appears to me that the evidence brought forward by Setälä (p. 111 ff.) disproves this theory. He points out (1) that the forms =kaha=, =koho= never occur in those dialects which otherwise preserve =h= between vowels, e.g. in the illative and passive; (2) that the Eastern dialects change the =kaa= or =kää= of the imperative into =koa=, =keä=, which change never occurs when an =h= has been lost. Besides no particular explanation has ever been offered of the suffixes =kasa=, =koso=. The proper suffixes then of the imperative and optative are =ka=, =ko=, which are obviously related (cf. =ne=, dialect =no=, in the concessive). These suffixes appear in Esthonian as =gā= (_dial_) and =gu=, and a suffix =ka=, =k=, or traces of it, occurs not only in the Baltic languages, but in all the other members of the group. It seems to be identical with the =k= which appears in the negative conjugation and elsewhere, and which is the least definite in signification of suffixes merely indicating the verbal character of the root. Thus the 2nd person singular of the imperative is an elementary verbal form without a personal termination. The forms =kaamme=, =kaatte= have evidently added to this suffix the personal termination. The long vowel appears to be an invention of the modern literary dialect. In poetry and dialects we find the forms =kämme=, =käme=, and =käte=.

The termination =os= of the optative is doubtless for =ko + s= where =s= represents the 2nd person singular. In Kalevala xxxiii. 257-8 we find a form in =kosi=, =Kun on kuollet kuolkosipa, kaotkosi kun kaonnet=, cf. Kanteletar (p. 14, 2nd ed., 1884) =Tehkös liito lintuseni=. The 3rd person singular ending in =koon= is undoubtedly for =kohon=, where the second element represents the 3rd personal pronoun =hän= or =sen=. The assimilation of the vowel to the =o= of =ko= resembles the phenomena presented by the illative. The plural =koot= is similarly for =kohot=, where the second element represents =het= or =set=, that is the 3rd personal pronoun with the plural suffix. The terminations =kaan= and =kaat=, which occur dialectically, show similar formations with the =ka= of the imperative.

Besides the forms of the finite active verb discussed above, Finnish also possesses what is called a passive, but is no doubt really an impersonal verb, used in all the tenses but the imperative. From the root =tuo= come the present =tuodahan=, imperf. =tuotahin=, concessive =tuotanehen=, conditional =tuotaisihin=. But the root ending in a short vowel like =repi= makes =revitähän=, =revittihin=, =revittänehen=, =revittäisihin=. In all these forms the last element is obviously a termination =h-n=, which is vocalized analogously to the illative. This is probably the 3rd personal pronoun =hän= or =sen=. Besides this termination there is added to the root the element =tta= after a short vowel, and =ta= after a long one. This suffix is probably identical with the causal and transitive terminations =ta=, =tta= (p. 110). Thus the passive forms are really causal verbs used impersonally in the 3rd person singular.