Re: [tied] Substrate in the Baltic

----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Substrate in the Baltic



>> 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.

It is not so. It depends on number, declension type and gender, and only
next on animacy, whether Acc is equal to Nom or not. So, this phenomenon has
nothing to do with Finnish.

Namely, in Polish, Acc = Nom for inanimate masculina and neutra (the latter
is characteristic for all IE) in both numbers, for animate impersonal
masculina in plural, for feminina of consonantal stems in both numbers, and
for all feminines in plural.

It means that, for example, an inanimate object of feminine gender and of
the -a: stem has a special accusative form in singular, contrary to what you
have said (in fact, the same about the word "satelita" = "satellite" which
is masculine). On the other hands, many animate objects have their
accusative equal to nominative as well.

Russian differs in some details (e.g. only inanimate feminina have Acc = Nom
in plural) but it does not follow your rule as well. The same about other
Slavic languages (except Bulgarian and Macedonian because of serious
reduction of case systems there).

>> 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.

OK, but the BF partitive is genetically ablative.

>>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.

I see two problems here. The first is whether those -tA forms can be direct
objects outside Baltic-Finnic (regardless we call them ablatives,
separatives, partitives, etc.). But there is also one more serious problem:
don't we go too far away from the subject of this group ;-) ?


> But so is PIE ablative, with a similar suffix. That doesn't argue
> against a common substrate origin.

Yes, but can the (genetical) ablative be used for direct object outside
Slavic? I see the problem just here. If Uralic languages use
ablative/partitive/separative for partial direct object, and IE languages do
not, the state as can be observed in Slavic is probably of Uralic origin. If
traces of the phenomenon are known in other IE, it may be a relic of the
past in Slavic. And finally, if only Finnic, and only Slavic, know this
construction, the hypothesis of a common substrate becomes really plausible.

All the other phenomena, including Acc = Gen in Finnish (except some
pronouns), and Acc = Nom for some noun classes in Slavic, look like
independently developed. It seems like simple phonetic rules, and not
reciprocal influence, were the reason of them.

>> 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

There is no evidence for such thesis, as all old Slavic texts use "have"
normally. Russian and other East Slavic languages also knows and uses the
common Slavic word for "have" (Russ. imet', Polish miec' etc.), especially
when speaking about abstract things (ex. imet' pravo = have the right) and
in the "higher", "scientific" style of speech. Which is more, the "have"
verb is even more vivid than "be" in Russian because it is used (in
reflexive voice, "it has itself") for "there is X on/in Y" constructions.

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html