Re: 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).

Insert 'partially' in my previous statement.

> >> 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 do you base that claim on?

> >>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 ;-) ?

How so?

> > 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.

>

As I said.

> 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.
>

Yes, if you believe phonetic processes are not goal-directed. The
optionality of Dutch final -n makes it much easier to learn for a
foreigner like myself than German which is much more literal-minded
about same final -n.

> >> 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.

> 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.

In other words the imet´-construction belongs to a higher sphere
stylistically that the at-me construction. Just as Nordwestblock
words in p- belong to a lower stylistic sphere in Germanic.


Torsten