Part 3

It is noticeable that while the imperfects and other tenses are =tuotihin=, =sanotihim=, etc., the present has =tuodahan=, =sanotahan=, etc. This points to the syllable =tta= or =ta= having being closed originally by some element which has disappeared. Now the passive present in Esthonian is formed regularly with the syllable =kse= which is doubtless the present suffix =k= and the pronoun =se=. Thus the roots =palu=, =wiska=, and =pühki= form the passives =palutakse=, =wizatakse=, =pühitakse= corresponding very closely to an original Finnish =sano + ta + k + sen= which becomes =sanota’hen= and then =sanotaan=. Personal, neuter, or passive verbs are formed by the addition of the vowels =u= or =y=, with or without the addition of =t=, =nt=, or =p= (p. 111). Such verbs, however, are not counted as part of the regular conjugation, as they cannot be formed from all verbal stems.

On the same footing as these reflexive verbs stand the various derivative forms described p. 110 ff. Some of them—e.g. the causal suffixes—have so distinct a meaning and are used so frequently that they might almost be given among the regular forms of the verb; others are only added to comparatively few verbs and vary in their signification. Some of them are the same suffixes which occur in the regular conjugation; =ksi=, a frequentative or diminutive, is no doubt identical with the =si= of the conditional: =ne=, and perhaps the =n= of =nta=, is the suffix of the concessive; =ele=, or =le=, used in Finnish only to form frequentatives and diminutives, appears in Lappish as a sign of the subjunctive mood (Set. p. 158). It is thus clear that the verbal forms consist of a root (that is to say, a form which may be considered as a root for Finnish, without prejudice to the question how far it is absolutely primitive), to which are added certain formative affixes and a termination indicating person. Some of these formative affixes have been accepted as definitely indicating mood or tense, others have not been so accepted and have a vaguer signification. Thus =anta + i + si + n= is described as the 1st person singular of the conditional of =anta=, _to give_, =isi= being indicative of the mood, but =käärämöittelee=, which represents =käärä + mä + i + tta + ele=, is not regarded as having any modal or temporal suffix.

In Finnish, as in most of the cognate languages except Hungarian and Ostiak (where however there are traces of another system) there is no simple negative particle, and negation can only be expressed by means of the negative verb, =en=, =et=, =ei=, =emme=, =ette=, =eivät=, which is prefixed to the closed form of the root. There is no doubt that this form has lost a final =k=, and is therefore identical with the second person singular of the imperative, and is the simplest verbal form. In the past, the past participle is used with the negative verb, and in the other moods the tense stem. The imperative and optative add =ko= to the stem and the negative particle is formed from the root =äl= or =el= which is obviously closely akin to such forms as =ellen= (p. 69) and perhaps is the negative root combined with the suffix =le=.

Although the common opinion about Finnish is that it is hopelessly unlike any European language, it must be admitted by all who have studied it that it represents a very close approximation to the Aryan type, due no doubt to the strong and consistent foreign influence to which it has been subjected. As is well known, the vocabulary is overrun with German or Scandinavian words, often the equivalents of the simplest ideas, which have been borrowed, not lately, but before the earliest period of which we have any record. In the structure of the language itself this approximation is not less striking. It manifests itself in two ways—negatively and positively. As for the first, Finnish has abandoned many constructions which are found in the other languages of the group, but which are unknown to Aryan grammar. Thus we find no traces of the object being incorporated with the verb, or of the verb taking possessive as well as predicative suffixes. On the other hand, the positive resemblances are very numerous. It cannot be denied that the declensions, whatever be their origin, are in their present form very similar to those of Latin and Greek. The case suffix forms a whole with the noun; it influences the vowels and consonants of the latter; the pronominal suffixes must be added after it, and not between it and the stem. The only difference between Finnish and Greek or Latin declension is that the former is much more regular and transparent in its character, though, even here, some cases, as the partitive singular and genitive plural, show considerable diversity. The adjective is fully declined, agrees with its substantive, and takes degrees of comparison. The verb is clearly distinguished from the noun, and the scanty supply of primitive tenses has been supplemented by a number of forms combined with the auxiliary verb after the analogy of German or Swedish. There are a great many infinitival and participial constructions, which recall the Turkish; but, on the other hand, the relative pronouns and particles are fully developed. On the whole, it may be fairly said that Finnish really presents no great differences from Aryan languages except in its euphonic laws, the use of the pronominal suffixes, the infinitives and participles, and some syntactical peculiarities. Compared with such a language as Ostiak (or even Magyar) it shows the clearest traces of foreign influence, and of non-Aryan material recast in a western and Aryan mould.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that agglutinative languages represent a stage through which Aryan languages have doubtless past. The real difference between the forms presented by Finnish, and those of Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit, is that while the former has but a limited number of suffixes, and uses them regularly in the same sense, the latter had a superfluously rich store, and used sometimes one, sometimes another to express the same idea. Hence it is that we find different case endings for nouns, adjectives, and pronouns; and several ways of inflecting verbs and nouns.

The tendency to advance from the primitive forms and constructions of the Ugro-Altaic languages to a mode of expression more in harmony with western thought reaches its height in the modern literary Finnish. It is no reproach to this language to say that it is artificial. Nearly all modern languages have the same origin. Out of a mass of dialects one is selected by circumstances as representative, and becomes a language while the others remain dialects. A number of such dialects are spoken in Finland, and no doubt if any of them had received an independent literary development, it might have produced a language almost as different from written Finnish as is Esthonian. Neither can one be surprised at the number of newly invented words in Finnish. All the languages of modern Europe have borrowed the vocabulary of mediaeval Latin, either by taking the words as they found them, or by translating the component parts of them into equivalents supplied from their own grammar. English has generally adopted the former, German the latter method. Finnish has followed boldly in the same track, and endeavoured to find native equivalents for the chief modern ideas. It is perhaps presumptuous for a foreigner to judge whether the result is successful. One is inclined to think that the change has been a little too sudden. Finnish is an admirable vehicle for such poetry as the Kalevala or for simple narrative. It had not advanced at all beyond this state when it was used to represent the most complicated forms of European thought, and, as it still keeps its homely native character, the combination sometimes appears rather odd. Besides, as there is no authority to determine exactly what are the accepted phrases for the literary dialect, or the proper equivalents of foreign words, a good deal of confusion reigns, and even natives have occasionally some difficulty in understanding modern authors. It is a great pity that writers do not adopt a simpler style. As it is, they have chosen German models, and the combination of exceedingly involved phrases with manifold inflectional forms distinguished only by slight differences produces sentences which rival in difficulty ancient Greek, a language which was generally obscure except in the hand of a master. Yet though Finnish deserves its undesirable reputation of being the most difficult language spoken in Europe, except perhaps Basque, it seems to be an undoubted fact that the area over which it is spoken is being enlarged at the expense of Russian and Swedish.

The group of languages to which Finnish belongs is at present spoken by tribes scattered over the more northern parts of European Russia and immediately to the east of the Ural. In Siberia we have Ostiak, spoken by tribes about the river Obi (for the Ostiak of the Yenisei appears to be a different language), and Vogul, spoken by scattered tribes on either side of the Ural. With these languages is connected Magyar, though owing to foreign influences and its great literary development, comparable only to that of Finnish, it presents many peculiarities. Though both the grammar and vocabulary of these languages leave no doubt of their relation to the rest of the group, they differ from them in many points of detail. The case terminations present few resemblances; Vogul and Ostiak have a dual, and they all more or less employ constructions rejected by most of the other languages, such as the incorporation of the object in the verb, the distinction between predicative and possessive suffixes in the verb, etc. Also it is remarkable that they have not developed fully the peculiar negative constructions of Finnish and the more western languages.

East of the Voguls dwell a race called Syryenians or Zyrjenians (Russian =Зыряне=), whose head quarters are at the town of Ishma, on the Pechora; south of these again are the Votiaks, mostly in the government of Viatka. On the north bank of the Volga, to the west of Kazan, live the Cheremissians, speaking two dialects, some scattered settlements of whom are found further east, while to the south of these again, mostly about the rivers Oka and Sura, are numerous scattered settlements of Mordvinians, who have likewise two dialects. None of these are literary languages. Besides them we have Lappish, in three dialects spoken in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden, and Russia, and the various Baltic idioms, with Suomi or Finnish.

The relation of these languages to one another have been ably described in Dr. Donner’s work, ‘Die gegenseitige Verwandschaft der Finnish-Ugrischen Sprachen.’ He divides the whole group into two divisions, the first called Ugric, and comprising only Ostiak, Vogul, and Magyar; the second called Finnish, including all the other languages. This second or Finnish division is divided into two groups, the Permian and Volga-Baltic, the former including only the Syrjenians, Permians, and Votiaks, the latter again in two sub-divisions, the Volga group or Mordvinian and Cheremissian, and the West Finnish group including Lappish, Esthonian, and Finnish.

This classification may be represented thus in a table:—

Finno-Ugrian Languages

{1. Ostiak. A. Ugrian. {2. Vogul. {3. Magyar.

{i. Permian { Syrjenians, Permians, Votiaks. { { {_a._ Volga group {Cheremissian, Mordvinian. B. Finnish. { { {ii. Volga { {1. Lappish. { Baltic {_b._ West Finnish {2. Esthonian, Livish, { { { Votish, Vepsish. { {3. Finnish.

All these languages have a certain common vocabulary, and a common grammatical substratum, though many of them possess constructions unknown to the others. The pronouns, numerals, and in a less obvious degree the pronominal affixes of nouns and verbs are also identical. The Ugrian languages however, seem to have parted company with the rest before a system of declension had been fixed. Their nominal suffixes seem to be mostly later formations, though we find =t=, =tl=, or =k= for the plural, and traces of =l= as a local element. Corresponding phenomena appear in the conjugation of verbs, as noticed above.

The remaining languages—or Finnish group—have not developed any striking differences from the Ugric division, but they show greater resemblance to one another in details. They all have local cases characterised by the letter =s= (unknown in the Ugric group), others characterised by =l=, an abessive ending in =ta= or =tak=, and negative adjectives characterised by the syllable =tem=, or =tom=. They mostly agree in having a peculiar form for the negative conjugation. The present of the positive conjugation has =p= (or =v=) regularly or sporadically in certain persons, and the remaining verbal forms, though far from agreeing absolutely, show a sufficient resemblance to warrant us in regarding them as the results of a common development.

From the accounts given of Syrjenian and Votiak it would seem that they were the first to cease to participate in this common development. They appear to be characterised by few striking peculiarities, but to show a less degree of conformity to a common standard than the remaining languages. The phonetic system of Syrjenian seems to be much the same as that of Cheremissian or Mordvinian, except that it has a great fondness for the sound of =i̱=. The pronouns of both numbers, and the pronominal affixes of the singular, show much more resemblance to the Finnish than to the Ugrian, but the pronominal affixes of the plural (=ni̱m=, =ni̱d=, =ni̱s=) are curious, and obviously represent the singular affixes in combination with a syllable =ni̱=, which may perhaps be akin to the Finnish plural demonstrative =ne=. In the verb, the 1st person singular has no personal termination. In the plural we find =m=, =ni̱d=, =ni̱s=, as in nouns. Generally Syrjenian seems to be more thoroughly agglutinative, as opposed to inflected, than the Finnish language. In this it may be compared with Cheremissian, where the plural is formed by the syllable =vlja= (or =vi̱lä=) added between the stem and case termination, just like =jas= in Syrjenian. The Permian languages have some close analogies in detail with the Ugrian group. Thus twenty is =ki̱s= in Syrjenian, =kōs= or =χūs= in Ostiak, =husz= in Magyar; the reflexive pronoun is =as= or =ats= in Syrjenian and Votiak, =at= in Ostiak.

Of the remaining languages Mordvinian is in many ways the most remarkable. Though generally admitted to be nearly akin to Cheremissian, it has many constructions peculiar to itself. Thus it has a fully developed object conjugation and two forms of declension, the definite and indefinite. It has a great fondness for the letter =f=. On the other hand, such phenomena as the suffix =n-za= for the 3rd person, the word =kemen=, _ten_, the regular formation of the imperfect with =i=, infinitives in =ma=, and participles in =f= (Finn. =va=) show a near approach to Finnish. Cheremissian has also developed some new singular negative forms, by which the verbal root is negatived (in the preterite) by a suffix =te + l=, after which the personal suffixes are added.

The connection of the West Finnish languages is much more striking than that of those which have already been discussed. The resemblance of Lappish to Finnish and Esthonian is a little disguised owing to the elaborate phonetic system of this language, which has an extraordinary fondness for diphthongs, and also a very extensive provision of consonants, including some (e.g. =γ=, =θ=, =δ=) which do not occur in any of the cognate languages. The nominal declension is very similar to that of Finnish. Compare the singular forms =tšalme=, =tšalmen=, =tšalmesn=, =tšalmest=, =tšalmetaka= with =silmä=, =silmänä=, =silmässä=, =silmästä=, =silmättä=. In the singular the genitive and partitive have lost their termination (cf. the Esthonian forms, nom. =silm=, gen. and part. =silma=). The analogy in the plural is still closer; the nominative ends in =h= or =k=, but the other cases are characterised by the insertion of =i=, =tšalmeh= or =tšalmek=, =tšalmiti=, =tšalmi=, =tšalmin=, =tšalmisne=, =tšalmist=, =tšalmitaγa= corresponding to =silmät=, =silmiä=, =sílmien=, =silminä=, =silmissä=, =silmistä=, =silmittä=. There are also forms in =l=, =le=, =lt=, or =ld=. The partitive case appears to be peculiar to the West Finnish languages. The pronouns of Lappish point the other way, and are all but identical with those of Mordvinian, =mon=, =ton= or =don=, =son=, =mi=, =ti= or =di=, =si=; Mordvinian =mon=, =son=, =ton=, =min=, =sin=, =tin=. The singular affixes are =m=, =d=, =s= (Mordv. =n=, =t=, =nza=), but those of the plural take the characteristic =k= (=mek=, =dek=, =sek=). There are also dual forms. The verb is peculiar in using different affixes for the present and preterite. Otherwise it is much the same as the Finnish forms. We have =b= or =p= as a sign of the present, =je= or =i= for the preterite, =ket=, =kus=, etc. in the imperative; comparatives formed with =fč-=, =kč-=, =č-= (=ksi=), or =le=. The negative conjugation also shows close analogies. Lappish has thus a great resemblance to Finnish, but is much nearer than the remaining western languages to Cheremissian and Mordvinian, thus connecting these latter with Finnish and the Esthonian languages.

There is no need to insist on the close connection of Livish, Votish, Vepsish, and Esthonian with Finnish. The grammatical structure and vocabulary of these languages is so alike that the fact is obvious not only to a philologist, but to the most casual learner. Esthonian is now far the most important of these languages, and has a certain amount of literary culture. It has two chief dialects, that of Revel and that of Dorpat[3].

In a few cases Esthonian shows older forms than Finnish, but on the whole it is less primitive. Besides the Finnish consonants it possesses =b=, =g=, =z=, and =ṅ=. The accent is on the first syllable, and has led to weakening or loss of final syllables. The vowel harmony is known only in the Dorpat dialect, and there not perfectly. Consonants are weakened in much the same way as in Finnish, =pp=, =tt=, =kk= are reduced to single consonants; =p=, =t=, =k=, =s= become =b=, =d=, =g=, =z=; =b= becomes =w= or disappears, and =d=, =g=, =z= disappear. These changes, however, do not in the present state of the language take place only when syllables are closed, although the original form generally ended with a consonant. Thus =tīb=, =urk=, =rind=, =toit=, =rid= form the genitives =tīwa=, =urga=, =rinna=, =toidu=, =riu=; and the verbs =pühkima=, =uskuma=, =prūkima=, =hoidma= form =pühin=, =uzun=, =prūgin=, =hoian=. The noun has only eleven cases, the six local (exterior and interior) the genitive, partitive, abessive, and translative, all almost identical in form with Finnish, except that the genitive has lost the =n= of the termination, and the other cases the final vowel. The plural takes =d= in the nominative and =i= in the other cases. The pronouns resemble Finnish, but the 3rd person singular and plural is the demonstrative =tema= or =nema= in Esthonian, Livonian, and Votish, but Vepsish has =hän=, =hö=. Esthonian has almost lost the pronominal affixes, which are used only in adverbial forms, and replaced in most cases by the genitive of the personal pronoun.

The affirmative verb closely resembles Finnish, except that the concessive formed with =ne= has, except in the Dorpat dialect, been almost entirely lost. The 3rd person singular present ends regularly in =b=, and the 3rd plural in =wad=. The preterite is sometimes formed with simple =i=, but generally with =si=, and the conditional with =ksi=. The imperative 2nd singular has no termination, but as in Finnish the root is weakened. The other persons are characterised by =gu= or =ge=. The passive is formed by affixing =ta + k + se= in the present, and =ta + i= (=ti=) in the preterite. The negative verb for the imperative is =ärä=, =ärgu=, =ärge=, but in the other forms Esthonian does not affix personal endings to the negative, but uses =ei= with all persons. Similarly Livish has =äb= or =ab= for all persons except the second, where =ad= is sometimes used. Votish and Vepsish follow Finnish. It will thus be seen that Esthonian, closely allied as it is to Finnish, has lost many peculiarities which it once no doubt possessed, but occasionally (e.g. the passive present in =takse= and the conditional in =kse=) preserves forms which in Finnish have been weakened or disguised.

It is easier to discuss the relations of the Finno-Ugric languages to one another than to decide what are their affinities with other groups. They are generally considered to be connected with the Samoyede, Turkish, Mandchu, and Mongolian languages, that is to say, the ancestor of each of these groups was related to the ancestor of the Finno-Ugrian languages. When, however, identity of vocabulary cannot be proved, it is dangerous to make comparisons on the ground of general grammatical resemblances, because the grammar of agglutinative languages offers few striking peculiarities, and represents a stage of development through which may other languages, certainly the Aryan, have passed. The only general description which can be given of the Finno-Ugric group is that they are languages without gender, whose grammatical structure consists entirely in appending suffixes. To these characteristics is generally added another, the vowel harmony, but this exists very partially in the Finnish group. Now without denying the possible relationship of Turkish, Mongol, and Mandchu to Finnish, it must be admitted that they have only a very general resemblance, and very many and precise differences. Mandchu and Mongol, with their uninflected verbs, would have been put into quite another class were they not undoubtedly akin to languages with a more developed system. And why should Japanese be excluded? It presents no phenomena incongruous with the grammar of the languages above cited, and the want of vowel harmony cannot be alleged as a difficulty.

If, however, we turn to the Samoyede languages the case is very different. They are usually mentioned as if they stood no nearer to the Finno-Ugric group than Turkish or Mandchu, and yet the resemblances in detail are numerous and striking.