Re: Substrate in the Baltic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
> <grzegorj2000@> wrote:

...

> > AFAIK, a similar state is in Finno-Ugric (at least in some of
> them), which
> > would make your model even more probable (unless I were wrong).
> >
> > Namely, there exist two forms of Accusative in Finnish (if to
> believe to
> > Czesl/aw Kudzinowski who is the author of a Finnish grammar
> written in
> > Polish). The first form is formally equal to Genitive (-n) and it
> is used
> > for expressing the whole object, independently on the aspect (for
> example:
> > "Vanha juoppo joi viinan" = "The old drunkard has drunk the
> whisky",
> > perfective, and "Otan kirjan pöydältä" = "I am taking the book
> from the
> > table", imperfective).
> >
> > The second form of Accusative is formally equal to Nominative
> (without an
> > ending) and it is used in positive imperative sentences. Personal
> pronouns
> > do not seem to distinguish those 2 forms of Accusative. Instead,
> they have a
> > special form which is different from both Nominative and Genitive
> (and this
> > is the basis to talk about Accusative at all).
> >

I am not so sure that the accusative is well understood in Finnish.
Some will argue that it doesn't even exist for nouns, since the
endings are shared with either the nominative or genitive. However
shared endings are not new.

"Vanha juoppo joi viinan" - The old drunkard drank the shot (of any
hard liquor). 'Viina-n', certainly looks like a genitive, but is it
really? If we put the sentence into the plural we have "Vanha juoppo
joi viinat" - The old drunkard drank the shots. Here 'viina-t' looks
like a nominative plural. Note that "vanha juoppo joi viinojen" (gen.
plur.) is impossible. So should the case change between singular and
plural? I would not think so. Also 7 personal pronouns definitely
appear in the accusative with an ending equivalent to the nominative
plural, -t. In fact this is a test. If one of these pronouns in the
accusative can be substituted for the noun in question then the case
is accusative, not genitive or nominative.

nom s. viina p. viinat
gen s. viinan p. viinojen
ac1 s. viinan p. (does not exist)
ac2 s. viina p. viinat
part s. viinaa p. viinoja

The personal pronouns in the accusative;

minut - me
hänet - him/her
sinut - you
kenet - whom
meidät - us
teidät - thee
heidät - them

> > If the direct object is partial, the third possibility occurs -
> and
> > Partitive is applied. Partitive has the -ta/-tä ending which is
> believed to
> > be ablative in the past. Partitive (so: not Genitive) is also used
> with a
> > negative form of the verb, and when the DObj is partial,
> independently on
> > the aspect, ex. "Vanha juoppo joi viinaa" = "The old drunkard has
> drunk some
> > whisky", which has the same aspect as in the example described
> above.
> >
> > It is worth emphasizing that both Finnish sentences have exact
> translations
> > in Polish (and, I believe, also in other Slavic languages), one
> with
> > Accusative for Finnish Genitive-Accusative (-n), and another with
> Slavic
> > Genitive (genetically: Ablative) for Finnish Partitive (-ta/-tä,
> > genetically: Ablative). The third Finnish construction, the one
> with
> > Nominative-Accusative (used with imperative) has no formal
> equivalent in
> > Slavic.
>
> Except that non-animate objects are in the (formal) nominative.
>
>

.....

>
> Or else the at-me-is construction was common Slavic and the have-
> construction is recent in West and South Slavic.
>

Finnish has exited for a long time without a word for 'have' (and
still does). In the singular it's allways 'on me there is' - Minulla
(allative case) on 'there is'.

>
> Torsten
>

Peter P