Re: [tied] Substrate in the Baltic

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

>
> Torsten, your hypotheses sound quite sensible for me but, as I

believe, they

> need some less important remarks and corrections.
>
>
> > In Estonian (probably also in Finnish) (grammatical) objects
> > are either whole or partial. Objects are partial in negative
> > and in imperfective sentences. Whole objects are
> > in the nominative in imperative sentences,
> > otherwise in the genitive.
>
> (your correction has already been taken here)
>
> The things seem to be even more complicated. First, you naturally

mean

> Direct Objects, not Indirect Objects (which can be expressed with

other

> cases). I am not sure what kind of DObjects are in use in

imperfective

> sentences in Estonian but such an aspect dependency is not present

in Slavic

> for sure. Instead, some (Slavic) direct objects are just partial

by their

> nature (which has nothing to do with the aspect of the verb). For

example,

> the Polish sentence "dal/em mu wino" means "I gave him (the)

wine", is

> perfective and uses Acc for DObj. But also "dal/em mu wina" = "I

gave him

> some wine" is also perfective even if it uses Gen for DObj.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.

>
> > In Slavonian and East Baltic (Lit., Latv.), but not Prussian,
> > the old IE genitive is replaced with the ablative.
> > The PIE ablative is constructed with a suffix *-od
>
> Yes, but only in the -o- stems, and only in singular (it's about

the

> replacement). In other declension models, the old genitive has

survived, and

> it is hard to guess if the old ablative has also survived there

(and has

> mixed with yet another case) or not because there are no good
> reconstructions of this case (you know one?). Especially, if the

Latin -e

> for ablative in the consonantal declension is original, the Slavic
> locative -e in some consonantal declension models may be an old

ablative.

>
> > In Slavonian (at least in Russian, to my knowledge) the

genitive, ie.

> > the old ablative, is used with partial objects, including in

negative

> > sentences.
>
> Using genitive for some types of DObj is characteristic for all

Slavic

> languages. Genitive in negative sentences is also less or more

popular, and

> it is almost unexceptional in Polish (while in other Sl. languages

a less or

> more strong process of eliminating the "negative genitive" has

occured).

>
> > What does one make of this? Finno-Ugric substrate in Slavic and
> > East Baltic? Or common pre-IE substrate in Baltic Fennic, East

Baltic

> > and Slavonian?
>
> But what are arguments for the common substrate? Is the ablative

(partitive)

> construction limited to Baltic-Finnic, or does it also occur in

other Uralic

> languages?

Uralic languages outside of Baltic Fennic have no partitive, it
appears from Abondolo.

>What is the probability that the state as can be seen in Finnish
> is the result of internal development?

It's constructed with -tA which is a separative suffix known
elsewhere in Uralic, so it's internal. But so is PIE ablative, with
a similar suffix. That doesn't argue against a common substrate
origin.

> > Another thing: the East Slavonian have-sentence is said to be
> > of the 'mihi est' type.
>
> Incorrect, you are right.
>
> > But the Russian is 'u menya kniga' "at me (is)
> > book", not *'mnye kniga';
>
> Indeed. And you may be right that this phenomenon could have FUgr

source as

> well. But as it has comprised East Slavic only, it should be

emphasized that

> the genitive-ablative matter and the have matter are rather

independent from

> one another. The first process had to occur before the second one

as its

> results are seen in all Slavic lngs. Nothing strange in it, but

Slavic and

> FUgric must have been neighbours for centuries.
>

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


Torsten