Linguistica Uralica XXXIX 2003 4

Reviews * Obzory recenzii

Eberhard Winkler, Udmurt, München 2001 (Lan- guages of the World. Materials 212). 85 pp.

The book is the first relatively developed university level. Mention should be made Udmurt in English. To tell the also of the pedagogical colleges in Mozga,ç truth, the courage of the author living Debesy, Jar and Uva, which have played so far away from the native-speaking and still play a very important role in community to create such a work was the growth of national intellectuals. amazing for me at first. But reading the The Language Law bill, finally passed book — notwithstanding all the inevitable through the State Council (December mistakes and problematic interpretations 2001), was for a long time not approved — assured me that his attempt has been in , not or at least not only ”due successful. Since after the appearance of to the strong opposition of the majority of the standard (but not especially reliable) its inhabitants” (p. 6): first of all, such state- in Russian more than ments, though they may be found in many thirty years have passed, the appear- publications, have no proof, since no ance of any new book in this field is a attempt had been made to find out the great event. That is why my review on real public opinion about this subject. E. Winkler’s book happens to be long According to everyday observations, a and critical enough: for a bad book one general understanding of the necessity or two pages full of irony would be of establishing the official status of both enough, but a good and important book the Udmurt and the Russian languages, needs a thorough criticism to make it undoubtedly dominates in Udmurtia. The still better. Constitution of the Republic proclaims First of all, some comments about both languages (Udmurt and Russian) to the historical and sociological part of the be official state languages; in 1994 the book: State Programme on preservation and ”...in 360 schools .... is Udmurt teach- development of the and ing language and school subject, mostly the languages of peoples forming com- in first classes. Those schools are located pact communities in the Udmurt Repub- exclusively in rural areas” (p. 5). Accord- lic was adopted. ing to the annual report of the Ministry In no way are the Besermians ”udmur- of Education of the Udmurt Republic at tized Tatars” (p. 6): this old formula was the end of the 90s, there were 410 schools based on the traces of former presence with Udmurt language, which is the teach- of Islam among them. However, the traits ing language in the first four classes. of Islam should not obligatorily originate After that all other subjects are taught from the Tatars and there are no other in Russian and the Udmurt language evidences (linguistic, ethnological, histor- and literature are taught only as subjects. ical) of Tatar origin of the Besermians. Already at the time of preparing the Moreover, though the Besermians live and book, there had for years existed some lived before among the CeptsaÇ Tatars, schools (and kindergartens) with the they always stayed explicitly aloof of Udmurt language in the cities of the them. On the other hand, some traits in Udmurt Republic including Izevsk.ç How- their traditional culture, as well as infor- ever, to find precise information is not mation from written historical sources a simple task even for a person like me (they were still called Chuvash in the living in Içzevsk, to say nothing of a for- beginning of the 16th century) point to eigner. Not only the Udmurt State Uni- their old connection with the Chuvash. versity in Içzevsk (not the University of Taking into account all the facts, the Içzevsk) (p. 6) but also the Pedagogical Besermians should be considered either Institute in Glazov (Northern Udmurtia) the former Southern Udmurts living once offers a possibility to study the Udmurt in close contacts with the Muslims of language and literature on high-school/ Volga Bulgharia as a social group sub-

288 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii ordinated to the latter and thus adopted the pronunciation of and some prestigious traits of the Islamic vowels. Turkic culture, or originally a Turkic- According to the traditional scheme speaking group (a part of Bulghars), which E. Winkler dates the end of Udmurt-Chu- — as the forefathers of the Chuvash and vash and the beginning of the Udmurt- may be of the Christian Tatars — was contacts back to the 13th never fully muslimized and being a century, the time of Mongol invasion (p. group of relatively low social position, 6). However, though the Mongol inva- looking for saving their non-Islamic sion (first half of the 13th c.) was an identity later mixed with the Southern important historical event, there are Udmurts and adopted their language (for good grounds to suppose the contacts of more information see bibliographies in ancient Udmurt with Z-Turkic language(s) Íàïîëüñêèõ 1997 : 52—53; 1997a; Ïîïîâà of Kypchak (and probably Oghuz) type 1998). (later — Tatar and Bashkir) began already E. Winkler writes about eight sub- before the 13th century and the contacts of the peripheral Southern (not with R-Turkic (Volga Bulghar, later — simply ”peripheral” as in the book!) Chuvash) were still active in the second area (p. 6). The real number of them may half of the 14th century (Íàïîëüñêèõ be open for discussion, but, anyway, it is 1997 : 51). not eight: in V. K. KelÍmakov’s short course Historically utterly wrong is the (Êeëüìàêîâ 1998), seven are mentioned statement: ”during this time [9—13 cc.] (SoÇ smaç (in Tatarstan and Mari El), Kuk- the Udmurt paid tribute to the Chuvash” mor (in Tatarstan), Bavly (in Tatarstan and (p. 6): the ancient Southern Permians Bashkiria), Tatyçsly and Bui-Tanyp (both (ancestors of the Udmurts) depended on mainly in Bashkiria and partly in Perm the Volga Bulghars (whose direct lin- District), Kanly (in Bashkiria) and Kras- guistic, but only linguistic!, descendants noufimsk (in Sverdlovsk District) with are the Chuvash), and probably paid ”etc.” added after the list (a really strange tribute to them, but what the book says approach in a book written as introduc- sounds like, e.g., *”in the first century tion into dialectology!). After a more B.C. the Germans paid tribute to the accurate generalization by R. ÇS. Nasibul- Brazilians”. lin and S. A. Maksimov two small sub- Now — on to the linguistic part dialects are added: Taçskiçci (in Bashkiria) proper, where there are more subjects to and ÇSagirt-Gondyr (in Perm District) (the be discussed than there are points to be map first appeared in Ìàêñèìîâ 1999, corrected. published in Maksimov 2001; Íàñèáóë- ”All vowels occur in the first and the ëèí 2000, a new, revised version in non-first , in suffixes u is very Ìàêñèìîâ 2001) forming thus a list of rare and ≠e does not appear at all with nine. As it can be seen, the peripheral the exception of ≠ev≠el ’there is no’ ” (p. 8). Southern dialects are spread not only in Actually, ≠ev≠el ’there is not; no’ and ≠ejt≠ed Tatarstan and Bashkiria (after E. Wink- ’I don’t know’ contain no suffix being ler), but also in Perm and Sverdlovsk frozen forms of past tense (≠ej val ’was (Jekaterinburg) Districts and in Mari El not’ and ≠ej tod(≈i) ’I didn’t know’) and are Republic. the only two words, where ≠e, which nor- The statement ”lexicon, mally does not occur in non-first syllable, and syntax [of the Udmurt dialects] are appears in the non-first syllable at all. nearly identical” (p. 6) makes an impres- Writing about ”portmanteau-suffixes” sion that more important are the pho- with more than one function as - in netic differences, which is not true: the m≈ino ’I’ll go’ (FUT/1SG) or -i in m≈ini ’I differences in syntax, in some morpho- went’ (PRET/1SG) (p. 13) E. Winkler logical features and especially in lexi- does not take into consideration a pos- con among the Udmurt dialects are sibility of analyzing these words as very often more important for mutual m≈in-o-Ø and m≈in-i-Ø with ”zero-mor- understanding than the peculiarities in pheme” marking 1SG (E. Winkler recog-

4 Linguistica Uralica 4 2003 289 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii nizes the existence of this kind of mor- (PL) did not understand him/her’ — kadÍ phemes in Udmurt (p. 13)), though this is put here between viçÉztem ’stupid’ and is obviously more correct, both syn- the plural marker -jos to form additional chronically (cf. the paradigm of future meaning of incomplete quality or indef- tense: m≈in-o-Ø ’I’ll go’, m≈in-o-d ’thou initeness (’not definitely stupid, but those willst go’, m≈in-o-z ’he/ she’ll go’ etc. who are like stupid or seem to be stupid’). where -o- is undoubtedly a marker of Saying that very often the later Rus- future tense; -i- has the same function sian (international) loan-words as konfe- in preterit) and diachronically (the old rencija ’conference’ etc. are agglutinating marker of 1SG in cited forms is supposed suffixes to the stem without -ja (IN: kon- to have fallen off in most cases, but ferenci≈in) and exceptions are ”personal appears in forms with question particle ” like EstoÉnija ’’ and Mari- -a: mon no m≈inom-a? ’shall I also go?’). ja ’Mary’ (p. 14), E. Winkler is not com- The forms of personal as, pletely right: personal names are often e.g., tilÍedl≈i ’(to) you (PL; DAT)’ can only declined with a full stem, but not always. historically be analyzed as tilÍ-e-d-l≈i and Some cases may be explained as depend- here -e- hardly marks the dative as -l≈i ing on the stress: (examples with dative) does (cf. p. 14). Synchronically tilÍed- is Maréıja — Maréıjal≈i ’(to) Mary’ but JÉulÍija here surely not analyzable supple- — JÉulÍil≈i etc. The names of countries tive stem of ti ’you (pl.)’ and the oftener obtain the same ”shortened” stem same suppletive stems have also other as, e.g. (IN) Estoni≈in ’in Estonia’, Udmur- personal pronouns (mon ’I’ — m≈in- and tÍi≈in ’in Udmirtia’, Rossiin≈ ’in ’ (here ton ’thou’ — t≈in- in dative, ablative and the form Rossija≈in may be used — prob- genitive, mi ’we’ — milÍem- and ti ’you’ ably again according to the stress) etc. — tilÍed- in dative and instrumental). It In language usage the choice of the stem seems, however, that E. Winkler does in these cases is not unified and seems also recognize these difficulties while to depend on idiolect or free will of the writing: ”in some cases [of pronominal speaker (one may say konferencija≈in, too) declination] a pleonastic PX forms a unit — though the tendency goes in the with the CX” (p. 33). direction of the shortened stem in gen- It is not true, that the PX/3SG -(j)ez eral. Only in the old orthographic rules in its nominalizer function can be added of the year 1936 (§13) an attempt was toevery form of a word to transform made to regulate this problem: the bor- it into a (p. 13): at least finite verbal rowed Russian and international stems forms and the main (in -ni≈ ) are in -a/-e should be declined with short- not nominalized with -(j)ez. ened stems (partÍija ’(political) party’ — A short comment is needed about partÍi≈in ’in the party’, broçsura ’brochure’ ”the plural marker -(j)os occurs outside — broçsur≈in etc.), except o f the words the area of the nouns, namely with post- in -Ceja, -Cja and -Cjo (çÉsemja ’family’ positions and particles as, for example, — çÉsemja≈in etc.). kadÍ ’like’: .... viçÉztem kadÍjos ≠ez valale soje Omonymy between mertçÉcem ’splin- stupid like-PL NV/PRET-3PL verstehen ter’ and ’(it) went into (PERF); gone into [sic! — V.N.]-NF/PRET DEM-ACC ’Such (PART)’ (p. 14) is an illusion: the matter stupids did not understand it’ ” (p. 14). is that both the languages which were First, the correct English translation of used to write the book (German) and to this example would be ’those seeming to publish it (English) have no difference be stupid did not understand him/her’. in the meanings of ’splinter as a small Second, using the suffix -(j)os with, e.g., sharp fragment of wood, glass etc.’ kadÍ is not possible without a noun fol- (Russ. ùeïêà, îñêîëîê, Udm. çselÍep, çÉcag, lowed by the postposition: kadÍjos itself çÉcalÍep) and ’splinter as a sharp fragment means nothing. To understand the real of wood etc. stuck under skin and cous- function of kadÍ(jos) in this phrase one ing pain’ (Russ. çàíîçà, Udm. mertçÉcem, should compare it with variant without sç irpu≈ ). Thus, Udm. mertcemÉç ’splinter’ (Russ. kadÍ: viçÉztemjos ≠ez valale soje ’the stupid çàíîçà) is simply substantivazed

290 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii mertçÉcem from mertçÉc≈in≈i ’to come ’cheek’ and ’face’ (the last is etymologi- into, to stick into’. cally older) and therefore a form with Whether the occurrence of plural the plural marker as, e.g., bamjosad ’in forms of nouns after numerals is ”a thy cheeks’ may be used to differentiate young phenomenon” (p. 15) or ”a sec- it from bamad ’in thy face’, though to say ondary phenomenon” (p. 38) nobody ’one cheek’ the form pal bam lit. ’half actually knows, but it is hardly ”due to cheek/ face’ cited in the book is used. Russian influence” (p. 15), because the Second, it is possible to find numerous use of two forms (with plural suffix and examples from texts of different kind without it) after numerals is important and age with preferring forms like, e.g., for expressing nuances as it can be seen, çÉsinjosad ’in thy eyes (PL)’ to çÉsinmad ’in e.g., in using the examples given (only thy eye(s) (SG)’ — again, the plural without plural suffix) in the book: vitÍ forms seem to be used to emphasize def- adÍami ’five men’ (better: ’five persons’) initeness, special attitude etc. (cf. also and tros pol ’many times’. If the persons çÉsinmaz uÉçck≈isa veran≈i ’to speak looking in mentioned are determined in any way, the eyes (SING)’, to speak directly — the plural marker is desirable if not çsinjosazÉ (PL) is hardly possible here) and obligatory. Cf. for example: vitÍ viçÉzmo should not be plainly explained only by adÍamios ’five clever persons’ or with Russian influence. names: vitÍ adÍamios l≈iktiz≈i: VaçÉsa, GalÍa, ”The suffixes of the local cases with- Apipa, Mekva no KuÉçzma ’five persons out a vowel are used, when nouns denot- came: VaçÉsa, GalÍa, Apipa, Mekva and ing a locality end in -a, cf. korka-n ’in KuÉçzma’ — the plural is better here. On the house’, korka ’into the house’, korka-çÉs the other hand, it can hardly be said tros ’out of the house’ ” (p. 17). Actually, this poljos at all — may be only (rather is true only for the words korka ’house’ theoretically) in case one would like to and kuala ’house of old type without a emphasize an enormously great number stove; traditional sanctuary’. of times. There is also a tiny difference While arguing that the use of the between the phrases like (ÃÑÓß I 75— marked accusative may not always be 76): ta bus≈i≈içÉs vitÍ tonna (SG) çÉ#eg aramin≈ explained only by definiteness ”in nar- ’there have been reaped five ton(s) (pre- row sense” but that it is also connected cisely) rye from this field’ and ta bus≈i≈içÉs with resultativity, totality and , vitÍ tonnaos (PL) çÉ#eg aram≈in ’there have E. Winkler draws an example: ”mon ç#uk/ been reaped five tons (approximately) ç#uk-ez çÉsi-i I porridge(-ACC)/-ACC eat- rye from this field’ which should have PRET/1SG ’I have eaten (the) porridge’ ” been mentioned in the grammar. (p. 20). First of all, the Udmurt ”first past It is questionable if one should at tense” in -i- (/-a- in the of ”second all speak about singularia tantum in conjugation”) has no perfective meaning Udmurt: certainly, the word v≠ej ’butter’ itself and, therefore, is not usually trans- (p. 15) is used, as a rule, in singular, but lated into English with perfect (’I have the form v≠ejos meaning ’oils’ (in chem- eaten’) but with simple past (’I ate’) — istry or in oil industry) or ’different sorts this mistake may be due to literal trans- of butter’ is just possible. As for pluralia lation of the original German text (’ich tantum, which according to E. Winkler habe gegessen’). Another problem is that are also absent in Udmurt (p. 15), some the phrase is interesting due to some com- cases may be added, e.g., moçzgaos ’inhab- ments (which probably were not appro- itants of Moçzga’ (moçzga in singular does priate in the concise grammar) to make not mean a person living in Moçzga). clear the possible role of the marked Ascribing the plural forms of nouns accusative and the use of the two past meaning paired things (incl. body parts tenses in Udmurt: E. Winkler is right etc.) to simply Russian influence (p. 16) when writing ”the marked accusative is is oversimplification. First, the word used if the object itself is focused, whereas bam given as an example in the book the unmarked is employed if the action (bamjos ’cheeks’) has two meanings: itself bears the logical accent” (p. 21), and

4* 291 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii the difference between mon ç#uk çÉsii and tioning as ”possessive modifiers” (p. 19, mon ç#ukez çÉsii is not merely ’I a t e por- 21) in constructions like zarniÉ zundes ’gold ridge’ and ’I ate t h e porridge’ ring; ring of gold’ (after E. Winkler) or (with definite object marked by ACC suf- n≈il derem ’girl’s dress’ (also after E. Wink- fix), the second version may also mean ler). Since the word to possess means ’to ’I have eaten (all) the porridge’! The hold as property, to own’, the construc- Udmurt ”first past tense” on -i- (/-a-) is tion ’golden ring’ (the right translation of actually not in classical sense Udm. zarÉni zundes) can hardly be con- — in the same way as the ”second past sidered as possessive. The same may be tense” in -em (/-am) is not perfect: the said about n≈il derem ’girl dress’, which first is used to mark only the action means, first of all not a dress possessed which took place in the past (either by a girl, but a dress made for girls (not finished or not) without any attention to for women) possessed probably still by a its results, the second — to mark the shop’s owner. Also constructions with existing result of the action without con- personal names as, e.g., Paçska Pedor ’Paçs- cerning if the action really took place ka’s (son) Pedor’ are not possessive: this and how, where and when. Therefore, does not mean that Pedor belongs to or e.g., the ”second past tense” often has is owned by Paçska — but that this Pedor perfective meaning: the results of the differs from any other person of the same action are evident; and at the same time name by the name of his father, Paçska. it is often used to mark indefiniteness So, the problem here is the definition of and is also called ”past indefinite tense” the noun and the (and the adver- (Russ. ï∂îøedøee íeî÷eâèdíîe â∂eìÿ) in bial) in Udmurt. The problem deserves : it is not known, if the action special discussion, but what is evident really took place. So, in our example mon for this review is that this kind of com- ç#uk(ez) çÉsii it is not the in the ”first posing of two substantives in Udmurt past tense” (çÉsii ’(I) ate’) which is respon- are erroneously attested as possessive: sible for perfectiveness/imperfectiveness these are a t t r i b u tive constructions. (the verb means only that the action took This mistake is, however, not E. Winkler’s place in the past), but the form of the — it occurs in other existing Udmurt object: when not marked the noun means grammars too (see, e.g. ÃÑÓß I 78). only the object to concretize the mean- The main function of terminative ing of the verb (what kind of meal was should be explained not as ”aim or des- eaten or has been eaten; therefore, this tination of an action” (p. 27) (for this case may be interpreted as a kind of there are illative and approximative in incorporation of the object: ’I porridge- Udmurt) but as the final point of an ate’ — if one wants to find incorporation action. in Udmurt — s. below on ”In the habeo-construction the con- and ergative), when marked with the stituent expressing possession obligato- accusative suffix the noun means a defi- rily bears the PX denoting the posses- nite object (or rather ”definitely the sor. If the denotation is different, another object”: the accusative affix breaks the con- structure must be used: kin dor≈in (~ ki≈in) nection between the nominal and verbal kÉnigaje? who side-IN (hand-IN) book- stems and, therefore, there is no way to 1SG ’Who has my book?’ ” (p. 31). On the speak about incorporation here) — the other hand, a construction of kind t≈inad concrete kind or amount of porridge ta kÉnigaje vaÉn-a? thou-GEN this book- which was eaten, differentiating the total 1SG is-IC ’have you got this my book object from the partial one (cf. — with (e.g. the book written by me or which the same example and terminology, belongs to me)?’ is just possible: kÉnigaje though with more superficial explanation ’(my) book’ does not obligatorily demand (Êîíd∂àòüeâa 2000 : 102)) and providing the presence of the personal thus the verb with perfective meaning. m≈inam ’my’, and the genitive in Udmurt It is a question if one may speak does not completely coincides with the about nominative forms of nouns func- genitive even in other FU languages like

292 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii

Finnish or Mari having also a function way: E. Winkler begins with just a state- which may be defined as adessive (’by ment ”definiteness can be marked mor- me’, ’at me’) — many scholars used to phologically in Udmurt” but does not do so (s., e.g. Eìeëüÿíîâ 1927 : 138—139; explain, in which way. Further on he Àëàòû∂eâ 1970, and others), cf. con- draws some examples on the use of «def- structions like m≈inam kÉniga vaÉn ’I have inite suffixes» (DEFs) -az, -jez, -ez: bad#Éç im-≈ got a book (not obligatorily my book)’, josaz gurtjos≈in ’in the large villages’; mon lit. ’by me a book is’ (therefore, while ta knigajez l≈idçÉ#i ’I have read the book’ speaking Russian the Udmurt very often (This would be simply a classical case of say åòî — ó ìeíÿ êíèãà ’this is a book the marked accusative (see above) — suffix by me’ instead of normal åòî — ìîÿ -jez is interpreted as ”ACC” by E. Wink- êíèãà ’this is my book’). ler too — if there were not the remark: ”If the postposition in question belongs ”In the field of the accusative object the to the group of declined/declineable ending is traditionally classified as a case postpositions, the PX is added in any suffix” (p. 32). Hence, E. Winkler finds the case to the postposition .... otherwise the suffix -jez to be primarily a definite PX is added to the noun: n≈ilpios≈i ponna being, merely traditionally classified as child-PL-1SG for ’for my children’ ” (pp. case suffix); guçzdor v≈il≈in tur≈inez çÉceber ’on 31—32). First, the postposition ponna ’for’ the meadow the grass is beautiful’; while being undeclineable can obtain kalikez≈ tros ’(there is) a lot of people’. possessive suffixes, cf. ponnam ’for me’, These examples deserve serious recon- ponnad ’for thou’ etc. E. Winkler’s thesis sideration. would be better illustrated by, e.g., çsurm≈i In mon ta knigajez l≈idçÉ#i ’I have read vamen ’across our river’ — with postpo- the book’ we have, without any doubt, sition vamen which can not bear posses- the normal accusative suffix. There is a sive suffixes — opposing to, e.g., çsur du- reliable hypothesis of its origin from the ram ’near my river, on the shore of my possessive suffix of 3rd person singular river’, where the possessive suffix is (ÎÔÓß III 146), but synchronically it is agglutinated to the postposition stem dur- nothing more than a normal case suffix. ’near, on shore of’. Second, if one would In guçzdor v≈il≈in tur≈inez çÉceber ’on the put another, declineable postposition in meadow the grass is beautiful’ -ez in the same phrase, e.g. n≈ilpios≈i dor≈in ’at tur≈inez ’(the) grass’ functions really as a (home of) my children’, one would also definite suffix (’this very grass’). But the find the possessive suffix (-≈i) attached to suffix completely coincides with the pos- the noun. The variant n≈ilpios doram can sessive suffix of 3rd person singular and mean only ’the children are at my home, is just understandable: it is actually a by me’ (and should thus rather be writ- possessive suffix! This can be proved ten n≈ilpios — doram denoting absence of also by putting of the possessive suffix ). The transformation of n≈ilpios≈i of 2nd person singular (-ed) instead of dor≈in into n≈ilpios doram with preserving it (guzdorç vil≈ in≈ turined≈ ceberçÉ with the same the meaning ’at (home of) my children’ meaning, the slight difference is that in seems to be unnatural, not because of the this case grass would be meant, which postposition (declineable/undeclineable) is just here, near, that may be pointed at but, to my mind, since the E. Winkler’s during the conversation): the latter may grammar is maybe the first publication be used as markers of definiteness too where such a problem is discussed, (Êeëüìàêîâ 1993 : 245), though in Udmurt because of person denoted by the not so often as in the related Komi lan- noun in ’at (home of) my children’. The guages. The well-known use of posses- noun denoting a person is more active sive suffixes of 3rd person singular for than in case of a thing or an animal and, marking definiteness in Udmurt is men- when put in the basic form (= nomina- tioned by E. Winkler too (p. 29) and one tive), is considered first as subject. of his examples occasionally illustrates Paragraph 2.3.1.4. Definiteness (pp. the use of the 2nd person possessive sin- 32—33) is described in a very strange gular suffix (-ed) in this function: kined

293 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii vaÉn korkad? ’who (+ PX2SG) is in your ”deictic” suffix (-ez in nominative) belong house’ (as translated by E. Winkler) (p. to the same category, e.g., gurt ’village’ 37), though at the same time this may — gurtlen ’of village’ (genitive) — gurtle- be translated as ’who of yours (e.g. chil- nez ’the one of the village’ — gurtlenez- dren) are in your house’. len ’belonging to the one of the village’ At first I found myself just amazed etc. E. Winkler considers the forms like and unable to understand comment con- gurtlenez as one of the types of derivative cerning kal≈ikez tros ’(there is) a lot of nouns, and the suffix -ez, which he finds people’: ”the last example reveals another to be in this case the possessive suffix function of definite suffix [sic! — V.N.], of 3rd person singular, as one of nom- namely a kind of partitive; literally ’of inal categorizers: ”by means of PX3SG the people much’ ” (p. 32): Udm. kal≈ikez declined nouns can be ”nominalized”. tros does in no way mean, literally or any- Semantically, they are shortened, synthetic way, anything of sort ’o f people expressions of complex expressions, the much’, this means literally ’his/her people nominalizer marking the known (from much’; therefore, there is no trace of any the context) part without designating it kind of partitive here! The only expla- explicitly: Ivanlen gurtez ’village of Ivan’ nation I can suggest is literal translation — Ivanlenez ’that of Ivan’ ”— and further of the Russian equivalent of this Udmurt on, in a footnote: ”the of those phrase: ìíîãî íà∂îdà lit. ’much of people’ nouns is equal to nouns + DEF deviat- (with genitive), but what has this to do ing in EL, EGR and TR from nouns + with Udmurt grammar? Putting aside PX/3SG” (p. 43). Above, to differ his ”DEF” this nonsense, it must be said that this suffix from possessive suffixes E. Wink- example does not differ from the previ- ler wrote: ”the declension of nouns with ous, and, in the same way, the alterna- the definite suffix is identical with that tive construction kal≈iked tros demon- of nouns + PX/3SG except the following strates the real meaning and affiliation cases: elative (here ez-içÉs vs -≈içÉst≈i-z), egres- of so-called ”definite suffix” here. sive (here -ez-≈içÉsen vs ≈içÉsen≈i-z) and tran- Thus, the above three examples do sitive (here -ez-eti vs -(j)eti-z)” (pp. 32— not contain anything what could be 33). First, the correct analysis of the men- attested as ”definite suffix”: there are one tioned compound suffixes is undoubt- accusative and two personal possessive edly -≈içÉst-≈iz and ≈içÉsen-≈iz. Second, what suffixes. Only in badçÉ#≈imjosaz gurtjos≈in ’in E. Winkler means here is actually the the big villages (only)’ we deal with so- declension of ”nominalized” (in his terms) called deictic declension (Russ. âûdeëè- nouns: gurtlenez ’the one of the village’ òeëüíî-óêàçàòeëüíîe ñêëîíeíèe), which (see above) — gurtlenez≈içÉs (after E. Wink- is used to mark the attribute of the ler) ’from the one of the village’ (elative) object(s) to separate them from other etc. The form gurtlenezi≈ çs,É as well as the objects of the same sort (ÃÑÓß I 129), so corresponding forms of egressive and in our example the meaning is some- transitive can appear only here — but thing like ’in those of villages, which are not in case of other E. Winkler’s ”defi- big’ or ’in the biggest villages only’ — nite suffix” examples (badçÉ#≈imjosaz gurt- therefore the term ”contrastive declen- jos≈in ’in the large villages’ or kal≈ikez tros sion” suggested by V. K. KelÍmakov is ’(there is) a lot of people’ — in both cases interesting (Êeëüìàêîâ 1993 : 247). The there should be just the normal order of tradition of defining the special ”deictic” suffixes (ÃÑÓß I 129): badçÉ#≈imjos≈içÉst≈iz gurt- category and suffix was established by jos≈içÉs ’from the large villages’ etc.). The V. I. Alatyrev (Àëàòû∂eâ 1970; 1983 : problem is, however, more complicate: 586—587), and E. Winkler’s position is forms like gurtlenez≈içÉs (instead of gurt- obviously based on the works of this len≈içÉst≈iz with the normal order of suffixes scholar. However, strangely enough he as in the possessive declension) occur does not completely follow V. I. Alaty- only in the mentioned works of V. I. Ala- rev’s theory, according to which the tyrev. Since such forms are rare enough declined forms of nouns with the same in real texts, I can’t suggest just now any

294 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii examples to check V. I. Alatyrev’s con- V. I. Alatyrev’s forms of ”deictic” declen- structions, but my own feeling and con- sion with the abnormal order of suffixes sultations with reliable native-speakers in elative, egressive and translative as makes me think that V. I. Alatyrev’s the only possible ones (which is not right abnormal forms are artificial enough or, in itself) and ascribes them also to other at least, e.g., gurtlenez≈içÉs is — if ever pos- cases with «definite» declension (which sible — far less preferable than gurt- is utterly wrong). All this creates a com- len≈içÉst≈iz etc. V. I. Alatyrev himself in his plicate mixture of evident mistakes and first work on ”deictic” declension (Àëà- unsolved problems. òû∂eâ 1970 : 25—28) mentioned both Even from this short review it is forms, gurtlenez≈içÉs and gurtlen≈içÉst≈iz, and evident that the problem of existence of only in the latest version (Àëàòû∂eâ 1983 special ”deictic” or ”definite” suffix in : 586—587) put the type gurtlenez≈içÉs as the Udmurt is not sufficiently solved and is only possible one without any explana- open for discussion. To my mind, since tion of this shift. Probably it was due to all these ”deictic” or ”definite” suffixes his wish to prove in this way the exis- coincide completely (in all case forms) tence of a special, differing from the pos- with the possessive suffixes of 3rd per- sessive, the ”deictic” suffix in Udmurt (in son singular, when one starts up from E. Winkler’s book this is the only argu- the actual forms of the Udmurt language, ment). It should be noted that in his first there is no need to speak about separate brochure V. I. Alatyrev ascribed his ”deictic” or ”definite” category in Udmurt: abnormal suffix order (-ez≈içÉs instead of it would be just enough to mention the -≈içÉst≈iz etc.) also to the so-called definite active use of the possessive suffix of 3rd declension of (Àëàòû∂eâ 1970 person (and for many cases also of the : 54) — this, however, is not accepted, 2nd person) singular in its special con- and is mentioned by E. Winkler (cf. ”the trastive, definite and deictic function serv- declension of adjectives + DEF is like that ing as the definite article. It was inter- of nouns + PX3SG” (p. 40), i.e. -≈içÉst≈iz etc.) preted so in, maybe, the best existing again without any explanation as to his grammar of Udmurt (Eìeëüÿíîâ 1927 : preferences. E. Winkler does not include 130), and the author of the ”deictic” the forms with -ez as ”nominalizer” into hypothesis did not suggest any argu- his examples of ”definite suffix”, so the ment against this interpretation except of reference to V. I. Alatyrev’s examples an inane statement (Àëàòû∂eâ 1970 : 2): here is of no use at all. On the other ”suffix -ez bearing clearly definite func- hand, what is important here is that tion is already not a personal suffix”. E. Winkler cites in his book the para- E. Winkler is right writing ”the reflex- digm of declension of demonstra- ive pronoun is always inflected with PX. tive (i.e. definite!) pronouns taiz ’this In the singular paradigm the endings are very’ etc. and concludes that the order largely identical with those of the per- of suffixes in all cases coincides with that sonal pronouns”, but I can’t understand of the nouns + PX3SG (p. 35). what follows it: ”(except ACC, here So, there are at least three weak without l....)” (p. 35): there is no trace of points in E. Winkler’s discussion: 1) he l in the accusative singular of personal does not follow the existing tradition of pronouns (mone, tone, soje)! Udmurt grammarians consecutively (i.e. ”Apart from this comparative func- the V. I. Alatyrev’s theory) about a special tion the suffix [comparative suffix -ges/ ”deictic” declension category in Udmurt; -gem] can also express just the opposite, maybe, he has his own, but he does not namely indicate the smaller degree of the explain it and, anyway, 2) he confuses the quality; in this case the syntactical con- Udmurt possessive suffix of 3rd person text differs from that of the real compar- singular -ez (and also the accusative ison in that is there is [sic!] no compared suffix -ez) in its function as definiteness constituent marked by the ablative or marker and so-called ”deictic” or con- nominative + postposition sarÉç i≈ sÉç ’of, about’ ” trastive suffix -ez; and 3) he accepts - (p. 41). This strange statement may be

295 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii found in other grammars, too, and is a probably val (first past tense, preterite) result of superficial interpretation, which had originated (*v≈il≈in≈i ’to be, to live’ — becomes clear with E. Winkler’s exam- s., e.g. ÓRÑ 102), has been kept in the ples reconsidered: Sand≈irlen çÉcag≈irges Éçsin- language in its different conjugational josaz ’in Sand≈ir’s bluish eyes’ (çÉcag≈ir ’blue’ forms, used as the counterpart to ul≈in≈i + -ges) — this may be interpreted as ’in ’to live’ in a pair-verb: ulom-v≈ilom ’we’ll the eyes that are rather blue (than, e.g., live, we’ll be’, ulilÍlÍam-vililÍlÍam≈ ’they lived, black; but not so bright-blue)’, alÍi mon they were once’, ulem-vilem≈ ’he/she lived, no viçÉsiçÉskoges ’now I’m a little bit ill too’ he/she was once’, ulon-vilon≈ ’life-existence’ (viçÉsiçÉsko ’I’m ill’ + -ges) — this means (nomen actionis) etc. It is interesting to ’now I am rather ill than well (= not so note that enumerating the morphologi- much ill)’. So, the suffix -ges (/-gem) does cal and lexical means used in Udmurt to not ”indicate the smaller degree of the form past tenses, E. Winkler does not quality” but rather presence of some / mention the verbal form vilem≈ among some additional quantity of the quality, ”petrified verbal forms” (p. 47) used in the inclination of the speaker to fix this very formation of past tense constructions, and quality, but not any other. rightfully attested this form as ”perfect Udm. jun mur ’very deep, really participle of the existential verb” (p. 51); deep’ and gord-gord ’very red, bright red’ to my mind, this should imply the exis- do mean ’deepest’ and ’reddest’ and are tence of such a verb itself. superlative forms (p. 42) only as far as, Personal conjugational suffixes of the e.g., English ’very good’ does mean ’best’ Udmurt verb are not ”identical” (p. 46) and may be considered as superlative. but similar to the corresponding per- Although the category of diminutive sonal possessive suffixes. is not developed in Udmurt, the state- E. Winkler’s classification of tenses ment ”there are no morphological means and moods of the Udmurt verb (p. 46— for marking.... diminutive” (p. 44) is not 54) represents one of the versions pos- utterly right: in personal names and with sible from the point of view of the pre- denotations of relatives there suffixes -ok sent stage of the study of grammar. The (n≈il ’girl, daughter’ > n≈ilok ’little/dear scholars’ ideas about the number and daughter’), -asç (pi ’boy, son’ > pijasç ’little/ kinds of tenses in Udmurt evolved, in dear boy’) and some others are used general, from two tenses (present and (they all seem to be of Russian and Tatar preterite) in F. J. Wiedemann’s grammar origin) (ÃÑÓß I 119) — though they may of 1851 to the standard set of four syn- be considered not only as diminutive thetical tenses (preterite on -i-, perfect on (Russ. óìeíüøèòeëüíî-ëàñêàòeëüíûe), but -em, presence, future), to which after the also as a kind of vocative suffixes. works of T. Aminoff, A. I. JemelÍjanov The equation mark in ”particles = and finally of B. A. Serebrennikov four infinite auxiliary verbs” (p. 44) is cer- ”real” (all four synthetical forms with the tainly nonsense; as it is clear from con- auxiliary petrified verb val) and four text, E. Winkler means ”frozen” verbal ”indefinite” or ”non-evident” (i.e., rather forms as vaÉn ’(there) is’, ≈ev≈el ’(there) is modal than temporal), with the auxiliary not’ etc., which hardly may be defined verb v≈ilem, analytical forms of past tense as particles. The statement that ”Udmurt were added (see reviews in Ñe∂eá∂eí- has no conjugateable verb ’to be’ ” (p. 45) íèêîâ 1959 : 93—96; Çàãóëÿeâà 1984 : is not completely right: there is the con- 45—46). In standard grammar (ÃÑÓß I jugateable verb luin≈ i≈ ’to be, to become, to 196—208) four synthetical tenses are happen’, though it is not used as copula described and without serious consider- (it does not exist in Udmurt) and in ation, eight analytical tenses with the existential clauses (where above-men- auxiliary petrified verbs val and vilem≈ are tioned ”frozen” verbal forms are used). mentioned. To this set R. ÇS. Nasibullin Also the verbal stem, from which these added six analytical forms, two of which ”frozen” forms or at least v≈ilem (second were considered by him as temporal past tense, ”perfect” in -em) and very (participle on -em + PX + vaÉn ’(there) is’,

296 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii val ’(there) was’, mentioned already in in English it is statal perfect, in Udmurt Eìeëüÿíîâ 1927 : 89, and others — rather this would be actional perfect. All this as modals (e.g., participle in -em + PX + would be possible if R. S.Ç Nasibullin’s forms of lu≈in≈i ’to be’ in all four synthet- forms could be really considered as tem- ical tenses — a kind of optative) (Íàñè- poral: the problem is that they do not áóëëèí 1984). In addition to this diver- differ formally from normal habeo-con- sity of forms there exists a chaotic structions: m≈inam so çÉsar≈içÉs k≈ileme vaÉn ’I variety of definitions (preterite, imper- have heard about it’, lit. ’by me it-about fect, perfect, , preteritum perfect, heard (my) is’ ~ m≈inam so çÉsar≈içÉs kÉnigaje preteritum imperfect, historical imperfect, vaÉn ’I have a book about it’, so the past non-finite, past continuos etc.). subject in this constructions is not the E. Winkler enumerates three syn- in genitive, but the thetical tenses: future, present, ”preterite nominalized participle on -(e)m (”nomen I” in -i- (called usually ”first past tense”), status” — s. below): mar vaÉn t≈inad? lit. and five analytical ones: ”perfective - ’what is by thou?’ — m≈inam k≈ileme vaÉn preterite II” (R. ÇS. Nasibullin’s participle lit. ’heard (my) is by me’, and the verb in -em + PX + vaÉn ’(there) is’), ”indifferent (vaÉn) is not declined here (cf. in the pluperfect I” (”preterite I” in -i- + val), English perfect the subject is pronoun: ”perfective pluperfect II” (R. ÇS. Nasibul- who has heard? — I have heard). There- lin’s participle in -em + PX + val ’(there) fore, there is a great doubt if these con- was’), ”iterative pluperfect III” (future + structions should be considered temporal val), ”durative pluperfect IV” (presence verbal forms at all. + val) (p. 49). There are at least three Second, one more ”pluperfect” of points to discuss here. those considered by B. A. Serebren- First, there is the problem of termi- nikov has been left out, the forms of so- nology. E. Winkler’s set of and called second past tense + val, e.g.: so pluperfects looks a bit strange: this baçÉstem val ’he/she had taken (before)’, implies the existence of perfect, too. At which, according to B. A. Serebrennikov least two of R. S.Ç Nasibullin’s forms mean- (Ñe∂eá∂eííèêîâ 1959 : 98), coincides in ing that ”general action has already its function and usage with E. Winkler’s taken place” (p. 48) would be pure ”indifferent pluperfect I” (”preterite I” in perfects and might be called ”present -i- + val). Actually, this is the only one perfect” (participle in -em + PX + vaÉn of the analytical past tenses to which the ’(there) is’: so çÉsar≈içÉs k≈ileme vaÉn ’I have perfective meaning may be ascribed — already heard about it’, i.e. at the current other constructions with val (s. above) moment I have already the results of are in no way perfects, and, therefore, hearing about it) and ”past perfect” (par- may hardly be called pluperfects. The ticiple in -em + PX + val ’(there) was’: so omission of this form by E. Winkler çÉsar≈içÉs k≈ileme val ’I had already heard might be due to the third point. about it’, i.e. to a moment in the past I Third, the most questionable point is had already the results of hearing about that E. Winkler does not include so- it) by analogy with, e.g., corresponding called ”second past tense” (in -em/-am) English forms. The difference between into his list of Udmurt tempora. It is con- English and Udmurt forms becomes clear sidered in the book as evidential mood with the examples of a (or — after terminology of other scholars with a definite direct object: Eng. he has — narrative or indirective or modus killed the bear — the Udmurt equivalent obliquus) (pp. 49—51). This E. Winkler’s should be so gond≈irez vijem, with ”second impact into the Udmurt grammar is past tense” in -em, Udm. solen gond≈ir vi- utterly new and has no predecessors jemez vanÉ (with analytical ”present perfect”, (except of, maybe, B. A. Serebrennikov’s and probably only with the unmarked attestation of the synthetic forms with accusative) should be translated into v≈ilem (s. above) as ”forms of non-evi- English as ’he already killed bears’ (he dential mood” (Ñe∂eá∂eííèêîâ 1959 : 96, has an experience in killing bears). So, 100) — but these synthetic forms are just

297 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii another thing and should be considered Udmurt ”second past tense” is, thus, separately, cf., for example the use of the determined by context, not by the verbal verb lu≈in≈i for formation of irreal modal form itself. Besides, be it evidential, indi- forms mentioned above). Actually, the rective or modus obliquus — in any case Udmurt ”second past tense” denotes an the forms of the first person marking just action which is known only by its results evident and real action would look and these results are what is evident and extremely strange. E. Winkler does not actual for the speaker. Therefore, at least consider any one of them (only gives four possibilities of concrete interpreta- them in a paradigm table), but, e.g.: in tion of an expression with ”second past a fairy tale the fox says to the wolf and tense” appear: 1) pure perfective (statal the bear mon j≠egumes p≈itsan≈i vunetiçÉskem perfect in this case) marking simply an ’I forgot to close our ice-hole’ to explain action already completed, e.g.: tol vuem the need to return home — the action is iÉni ’winter has already come’; 2) mira- evident, the «second past tense» is used tive (after E. Winkler (p. 50)), marking an here to show that the fox suddenly unexpected result, a kind of surprise — remembered that it really forgot to close as in E. Winkler’s example: vot vedÍ, k≈içce the ice-hole. ton adÍami vilemed≈ ! ’well, that’s what a sort So, I can’t agree with E. Winkler’s of man you are!’ (i.e. ’now I see — after very interesting interpretation of ”second your deed’ or ’you appeared to be in this past tense” as modal category, though it case’); 3) inferential (after E. Winkler (p. should be noted that the problem of its 50)), when one can suppose a former place in the system of Udmurt verbal action from its results kapkajez uçÉstem≈in, categories, as well as the real number so bertem lesaÉç ’the gate os open, he should and meanings of these categories deserve have come back’; 4) evidential proper further discussion. The general approach (after E. Winkler) or narrative — there is to the description of a language is impor- a source witnessed or presumed to have tant: whether one describes it starting from been witnessed — this case is widely its own forms and internal nature, or one used in folklore genres like fairy tales etc.: tries to put it into Procrustean bed of pre- odig kreÉçstÍjan bazare m≈in≈in≈i daÉçsaçÉskem ’one supposed scheme (very often depending peasant prepared to go to the market’. on current fashionable trends which So, as it can be seen, E. Winkler took change once a decade). Following the into account three possible interpreta- second approach one could find in tions of ”second past tense” (2., 3. and 4) Udmurt not only evidential mood but but did not mention its main, perfective also, e.g., ergative — cf.: soiz das meaning. At the same time, if one takes gond≈i r vijem, taiz — vitÍ gine ’that the above three examples and changes one killed ten bears, this one — only five’ the context a bit, one will find the forms (agens marked with suffix and unmarked of ”second past tense” meaning some- direct object of transitive verb) and so thing different: k≈it≈in ton v≈ilemed? ’where kulem ’that one died’ (unmarked agens have you been?’ (before that moment), by intransitive verb) — s. also about so bertem ’he has come back’ (already), ”incorporation” above. so bazare m≈in≈in≈i daÉçsaçÉskem ’he is ready to The verbal forms on -a- opposing to go to market’ (already) etc. What remains the parallel on -≈i- (loban≈i ’to fly (here and in all contexts is the temporal meaning: there)’ ~ lob≈in≈i ’to fly (at the moment, in the action took place in the past and has one direction etc.)’) and the verbs with (or is supposed to have) brought about suffixes -l≈i- and -lÍlÍa- should be defined actual results. If one compares this situ- not as irresultative (which is preferred ation with other Udmurt moods, be it by E. Winkler), but rather as iterative or indicative, imperative or conditional, one (which is only mentioned would always find that in any context as possible) (p. 55), since, e.g., g≈ir≈il≈in≈i (< the essence of the form is the estimation g≈ir≈in≈i ’to plough’) means ’plough some of the reality of action by the speaker. places here and now’ (E. Winkler’s trans- The so-called evidentiality in case of the lation) and so ta bus≈ios g≈ir≈ilem is ’he has

298 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii ploughed these field many times’ or ’he The statement (in case of the passive used to plough / to have ploughed this attributive use [of the in -(e)m field’. — V.N.] the agent appears in the GEN The paragraph 2.4.5.2. Participles (p. and ABL: solen/soleÉçs l≈idçÉ#em kÉniga ’the 57—59) contains a number of misinter- book read by him/her’ (p. 57—58)” is at pretations. First, E. Winkler considers least not complete, since very often the participles in -çÉs,-(e)m, (with those in agent stays in intrumentalis: ta adÍamijen -(e)m≈in as a variant of this), -(o)no and ≈ibem gond≈ir ’the bear shot by this man -mon — evidently after ÃÑÓß I 260—269. (INSTR)’ and the construction solen lid≈ #emÉç However, there is another, and, maybe, kÉniga looks rather as an attributive (or the most important participle in Udmurt possessive) construction and, therefore, — the forms in -(o)n : kare m≈inon çÉsures the correct form is solen l≈idçÉ#em kÉnigajez ’way going to the town / way to go to (with possessive suffix) and, correspond- the town’ (< m≈in≈in≈i ’to go’). In ÃÑÓß I ingly, the form with agent in ablative 111—114 these forms are considered as (E. Winkler does not explain why two cases nouns and actually they can be and, as a may be used and what the difference rule, are nominalized and appear as between them is) implies the accusative nomina actionis: ul≈in≈i ’to live’ > ulon ’life’, of the object (or, of the possessed), e.g. kul≈in≈i ’to die’ > kulon ’death’ etc., but the soleÉçs l≈idçÉ#em kÉnigaze t≈in≈id çÉsotiçÉsko ’I give original affiliation of these forms with you the book read by him/her’. The participles was brilliantly demonstrated example so l≈iktem ’he/she has come’ con- in a special article (Êàëèíèíà 1984). The tains undoubtedly no participle, but the facility of nominalization of these par- finite form of the second past tense. So ticiples does not yet lead to the final E. Winkler’s comment ”this form of the disappearance of the participle meaning PART is identical with the 3SG of the of forms in -(o)n but provides a scholar s[o-]c[alled] PERF having evidential mean- with a unique possibility to observe the ing” (p. 58) has no sense. The same evolution of a pure morphological suffix should be said about the next example into the word-building one. The same so ber k≈ilÍemed kadÍ ’he probably came situation applies to the participles in -çÉs: late’ — translated (i.e. as finite form) by almost every one of them can be and is E. Winkler himself and without any nominalized and functions as nomen comment (p. 58), but there is a mistake, agentis; according to E. Winkler ”there it should be either ton ber k≈ilÍemed kadÍ are cases [only? — V.N.] of nominaliz- ’thou probably hast come late’ or so ber ing” (p. 57), which is not right. Besides, k≈ilÍem kadÍ ’he probably has come late’. his example ”l≈iktiçÉs luoz = liktoz≈ ’he will Writing that the participles in -(e)m come’ ” (p. 57) is also wrong: this is may be declined (p. 58, 61) E. Winkler actually a classical case of nomen agentis means actually not the participles but in -çÉs, and l≈iktiÉçs luoz does not mean ’he their nominalized counterparts (these par- will come’ as (so) l≈iktoz, but ’there will ticiples are also very often nominalized be a coming person; somebody will and E. Winkler mentions this (p. 58); come’. their nominalized forms may be put into The participles in -(e)m, although they the system of other nominalized adverbs may, as a rule, possess passive meaning and defined as nomina status: uçzan≈i ’to with transitive verbs, should hardly be work’ > uçzaçÉs ’worker’ — nomen agentis, defined as ”PART PERFECT/PASS” (p. uçzan ’work (in general)’ — nomen actio- 57): there is no passive/active opposition nis, uçzam ’worked, something already in Udmurt participles and very probably worked up’ — nomen status). To under- in the Udmurt verb at all (also the stand the real attribution of the viçÉsem ’ill- verbs in -çÉsk- are rightfully described as ness’ (< viçÉs- ’to be ill’ + -em) in E. Wink- reflexive but not passive (p. 55)), cf.: vu ler’s example viçÉsemen≈im ta uçzez ≠ej leÉçst≈i vajem n≈il ’the girl, who brought water’, ’because of my illness I didn’t do this where vu ’water’, vajem ’brought (part. work’ (p. 61) the form considered by perf.)’ (< vaj- ’to bring’+ -em), n≈il ’girl’. E. Winkler as participle may just be

299 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii replaced by a normal noun: silÍt≠elen (se- solen l≈idçÉ#ono kniga on p. 58 — solen l≈idçÉ#em ren) ta uçzez ≠ej leçÉst≈i ’because of the storm knigaÉ ’the book read by him/her’ discussed (silÍt≠el) I didn’t do this work’. In the same above) is translated as ’the book which way E. Winkler considers so-called par- must be read by him/her’ on p. 58, where ticiples in -(e)m≈in as inessive (-≈in) forms E. Winkler tries to prove his definition of the participles in -(e)m (p. 58). These of the future participle, but as ’the book special forms are used only as predicates which will be read by him/her’ on p. 70, (E. Winkler notes this, but without ”only” where he probably forgets, that this (p. 58)) and are traditionally considered participle is ”present”, — both transla- as a separate kind of participles (ÃÑÓß tions are right and the future action is I 268—269), that l ooks a bit artificial. what is in common in them. E. Winkler’s suggestion (”participles” in An evident mistake, but not E. Wink- -(e)m≈in = inessive of forms in -(e)m) being ler’s own, is the statement that the neg- more preferable than the traditional ative form of the future participle in -(o)no approach may be accepted but only with are forms in -(o)ntem (p. 58). For example, one correction: these are already nomi- l≈idçÉ#ontem kÉniga ’unreadable book’ is not nalized forms, not proper participles: cf. a form opposite to l≈idçÉ#ono kÉniga ’a book E. Winkler’s example d≈içsetiçÉs l≈iktem≈in ’the to be read’ but to l≈idçÉ#≈imon kÉniga ’a book teacher has come’ (better, than ’arrived’ able to be read’. Only in special contexts as in the book (p. 58)), lit. ’the teacher is of appraising may lid≈ #onoÉç knigaÉ mean ’the in the status of having come’ — and book deserved or recommended to be d≈içsetiçÉs klass≈in ’the teacher (is) in the class- read’: ta tuzç umoj, odno ik lid≈ #onoÉç knigaÉ ’this room’, with a normal noun in the ines- is a very good book, obligatorily to be sive. Therefore, it is also clear that the read’, and in such cases they may form negative form is here not -(≈i)mte (l≈iktem an opposition to l≈idçÉ#ontem kÉniga : ta tuçz ’come (part. perf.)’ ~ l≈ikt≈imte ’not come’), urod, vokçÉso l≈idçÉ#ontem kÉniga ’this is a very but the analytical form with ≠ev≠el ’no, bad, utterly unreadable book’, but the not’: (E. Winkler’s example) çsuresÉ tupate- original difference of their functions can min≈ ev≠ el≠ ’the road (better, than ’path’ as be seen also here. Obviously the men- in the book (p. 58)) is not repaired’ — cf. tioned cases made the authors of standard ta Éçsures Énulesk≈in ≠ev≠el ’this road is not in Udmurt grammar (ÃÑÓß I 264) consider the forest’. the forms in -(o)ntem to be the negative The participles in -(o)no are defined forms of the participles in -(o)no,and as PART PRS PASS (p. 58), which is E. Winkler here follows the tradition. hardly acceptable: s. above the impossi- Historically the forms in -(o)ntem are pro- bility of dividing the category of passive bably negative forms of the participles in in Udmurt. Although in this case the -(o)n (s. above), which is clear from their passive meaning of transitive verb stems morphological analysis (-(o)n + -tem, is more evident, but cf., for example, v≈ilÍ abessive suffix of adjectives). Taking into zavod≈in uçzano adÍamios ’the people who account all the possibilities without crit- are to work in new plant’ or v≈içz tupatono ical analysis, V. K. KelÍmakov simply con- uçzaçÉsjos ’workers who are to repair the siders the forms in -(o)ntem as negative bridge’ etc. Most important is the temporal counterparts of all the three kinds of attestation: if it can be made at all, these participles, in -(o)n, -(o)no and -mon should be defined as future participles, (Êeëüìàêîâ 1998 : 155). since the coming, need, desire, i.e. the However, some short comments and future of the action is, what remains in corrections are also needed: the meaning of any expression with Concerning the Udmurt Cyrillic alpha- these forms. This is implicitly recognized bet, it is written ”Five sounds lacking in by E. Winkler, too: one and the same Russian are indicated with diacritical example solen lid≈ #onoÉç knigajez (this variant, marks” (p. 8). This is not completely given on p. 70, as also a corresponding right: the letter Ú is used for the sound form with ablative-accusative soleÉçs l≈idçÉ#o- i, which is present also in Russian: the no knigaze on p. 77, is more correct than letter different from the normal u (=

300 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii sound i) marks only the non-palatal junction should be better translated not character of the preceding consonant. as ’when’ (p. 15) but ’since, as far as’. Since the English to finish means ’to koçske ’leave!’ IMP. 2SG (p. 11) = IMP. bring or come to an end, to complete, to 2PL; since the English word leave has the cease’ and Udm. dugd≈in≈i — ’to stop, to meaning ’to go away’ (Udm. koçsk≈in≈i) and interrupt, to pause, to break’ the sentence ’cause to remain, abandon’ (Udm. kelÍt≈in≈i, mon uzamç i≈ sçÉ dugdi should not be translated analt≈in≈i) the translation ’go away!’ would as ’I finished my work’ (p. 26), which be more preferable. implicitly means ’I completed my work’ og-ogm≈i dor≈in does not mean ’we (something like mon uzmeç bidti≈ in Udmurt), together’ (= Udm. mi çcoçs(en)) (p. 37), but but ’I stopped/interrupted my work’ (= ’we by us / at home of one another of ’I am not working now, but the work us’. may be not yet completed’). The same: mon ton dor≈i p≈iriÉçsko val, no ton gur- kopam≈içÉs digdiz ’he finished digging’ (p. tad v≈il≈imtejed ’I wanted to visit you, but 61) = ’he stopped digging’. it seemed, that you haven’t been at home’ The phrase d≈içsetiçÉse d≈içsetski should (p. 48) = ’I was about to visit you, but you be translated not as ’I became a teacher’ was not at home’ (Russ. ’ÿ áûëî çàøeë ê (p. 26) but rather ’I (have) studied to òeáe, íî òeáÿ íe îêàçàëîñü dîìà’) — here become / to be a teacher’. E. Winkler understands the form of the The example so.... m≈ini is translated ”second past tense” as ”evidential mood”, as ’he/she go-PRET/1SG’ and ’he/she and hence the mistake: in his translation went’ (p. 22). Actually, mini≈ means ’I went’, the speaker is not sure whether the person for so ’he/she’ form PRET/3SG m≈in≈iz was at home or not (therefore the mean- should be used (or mon m≈ini ’I went’). ing of the phrase is a bit strange), whereas The same: mon sol≈i ukçÉso çÉsotiz ’I gave him the real situation, as it is described by money’ (p. 59) = mon sol≈i ukçÉso çÉsoti. the sentence, is: I wanted to visit you and Udm. anaj n≈ilze kitiz voçÉziz is cor- I even came (and may be entered the rectly translated into English as ’the house), but it happened so, that you was mother took her daughter by the hand’ not at home (I had not known about it (p. 27). However, I can’t agree with the beforehand) and therefore my visit failed. literal translation of the phrase, where Thus, the meaning of ”second past” tense the verb voçÉziz is interpreted as ’take- is pure resultative or statal perfect here. PRET-3SG’: Udm. voçÉz≈in≈i (infinitive) does mon ug çÉsiiçÉsk≈i ÉnaÉnez ’I do not eat that not mean ’to take’ but ’to hold, to keep’ bread’ (p. 54) may be better translated (sometimes also ’to have’!). The wrong as ’the bread I do not eat’ (e.g., I eat only translation here concerns phraseology: in cheese); ’I do not eat that bread’ would Udmurt it is said kiti voçÉz≈in≈i lit. ’to hold be something as so ÉnaÉnez mon ug çÉsiiçÉsk≈i. along hand’, in English — to take by hand. Udm. goçzt≈it≈in≈i, from goçzt≈in≈i Udm. t≈inad p≈iramed bere kuno vuiz na ’to write’ should not be translated into is translated lit. ’after your gone in, guest English ’to let write’ (p. 45, 56, 65) (main came yet’, ’After you had come in, there meaning of English to let is ’allow to’) arrived still guests’ (p. 62). The correct but ’to make (somebody) write’ — the translation is ’after your visit there were Udmurt causative forms, as a rule, mean other guests too’ (p≈iramed < p≈iran≈i ’to actually forcing some other person to come in (many times), to visit’). carry out the action, not only a permis- ton vetliçÉskod bere, mon no m≈ino ’When sion to do something. The source of this you go, I’ll go too’ [p. 62] = rather ’since/ mistake is obviously the translation: cf., if/as far as you go, I’ll go too’. English e.g., German schreiben lassen with mean- when can also be used in sense of ’if’, but ing a bit closer to the one of Udm. in this case such translation may be goçzt≈it≈in≈i than the English to let write. interpreted in another way (when = ’at çzugiçÉsk≈isa k≈ilÍlÍ≈in≈i ’fight (often, con- the moment, when’). The mistake came stantly)’ (p. 60) with the verb k≈ilÍlÍ≈in≈i ’to probably from the translation from Ger- lie’ is a special dialectal southern con- man (German wenn ’if’); bere as con- struction, which from the point of view

301 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii of standard language sounds comical = ni≈ ’remain’ vs kilÍlÍ≈ in≈ i≈ ’lie’; kart ’man’ (p. 15, Udm. çzugiçÉsk≈isa ul≈in≈i ’to live fighting’. 24, 64, 68) = ’husband’ (obviously a result içÉz≈isa vu≈in≈i ’have a good night’s of translation from German: Mann ’man; sleep’ (p. 60) should be rather translated husband’); ki≈ snoç can mean ’woman’, but in ’to sleep until (a moment)’ or ’to have slept pair with kart ’husband’ (s. above): k≈içsno- enough, to have had enough time to sleep’. jen karten etc. (p. 15, 24, 64, 68); this word The ”preposition” (after ÃÑÓß I 316, has its main meaning ’wife’ (obviously actually an adverb) og should be better a result of translation from German: Frau translated not ’about’ (p. 62), which allows ’woman; wife’); kureg ’chicken’ (p. 15) = many interpretations, but ’approximately’, ’hen’; d≈içset≈içÉs ’teacher’ (p. 19) = d≈içsetiçÉs that is the only meaning of the Udmurt ’teacher’; arÉna ’year’ (p. 21) = ’week’ (ar word. ’year’); gazet≈içÉs ’from a newspaper’ (p. 26) val ≠ev≠el is not the negative form of = gaçÉzet≈içÉs; v≈in ’sister’ (p. 28, 31) = ’brother’ val ’(there) was’ (p. 65), val ≠ev≠el means (better ’little brother’, elder brother is agaj), actually ’(there is) no horse’, negative of ’sister’ (’little sister’) is suzer; troz ’much’ val ’(there) was’ is ≠ej val. (p. 32) = tros; m≈inamezleÉn gurteleÉn (p. 34) korka ≠es ’the door of the house, front = m≈inamezlen gurtelen; kudizl≈i pijedl≈i kor- door’ (p. 71) = ’house (main) door’. There ka puktid? ’for which one of your did you is no marker of definiteness here. build a house?’ (p. 37) = ’for which of ton vaçÉz valad, kin luono t≈in≈id ’you your sons did you build a house?’; b≈ides early have understood, who will be nec- ’all’ (p. 38) = ’whole, complete’; vaÉn ’all’ essary for you’ (p. 75) = ’you early have and vaÉn ’there is/are’ are not ”identical” understood, who should you become’ (p. 38), these are homonymous, as it is (i.e., what profession or education should correctly written in a footnote on p. 45; you choice) — there is no trace of ’be n≈ilmos ’quarter’ (p. 39) = Én≈ilÍmos; trosges necessary for you’ in the phrase. ’very’ (p. 41) means actually ’much more’ The name of paragraph 2.4.4.4 Fik- (tros ’much’ + comparative suffix -ges) tivnost comes obviously from a working and tros is in no way a ”particle” (p. 41). version of the manuscript — the Russian E. Winkler’s thesis (use of the compara- word in this case has no sense, since in tive suffix with particles) could better be may be replaced by the English form of illustrated by something like mon soje tuçz the same Latin stem (fictivity — ?). jaratiçÉsko ’I love her very much’ ~ mon so- For the Udmurt consonant (actually je tuçzges jaratiçÉsko ’I love her much more’ Fremdkonsonant that occurs only in the (tuzç ’very’); çÉsintem-pelÍtem ’careless’ (p. 43) latest Russian loan-words) ˛chis used = ’breakneck’; v≈ilem ≠ev≠el negative form (kolchoz (p. 22, 71), kolchoznik (p. 57), be- for v≈ilem (p. 45) = ≠ev≠el v≈ilem; ≠ev≠eltem sides, the right transcription of the last ’lacking’ (p. 45) = ’person lacking pos- word should be kol˛ozÉnik). sessions, pauper; nonsense, small and On p. 51 the examples of the imper- unimportant thing’; çÉ#us vadÍs≈içÉs ’opposite ative are the introduces like ”Examples the plank’ (p. 50) = ’above the bench’; (likt≈ in≈ i≈ ’to come’)” — and there are given pot≈in≈i ’leave’ (p. 53) = ’to go out’ (’leave’ examples of verbs min≈ in≈ i≈ ’to go’, l≈ikt≈in≈i ’to — Udm. kelÍt≈in≈i); ≠ej 3SG PRET of nega- come’, uzanç i≈ ’to work’ without translation. tion verb (p. 54) = 1SG PRET; pereÉçsman≈i The verb luin≈ i≈ is interpreted as ’to get, ’to get older’ (p. 55) = pereÉçsm≈in≈i; porjaz to become’ (p. 52) and even ’can’ (p. 53), ’talk a walk-PRET/3SG’ (p. 59) = ’stroll- but the main meaning of the verb is ’to PRET/3SG’; çcirdÉ ≈in≈i ’to sing’ (p. 60) = ’to be, to become’ (as on p. 65), all other mean- sing (of birds)’; ben ’surely not (in yes/no ing depend on concrete constructions. sentences)’ (p. 62) = ’yes, And finally, here are corrections of well, so it is’ (probably, the mistake some mistakes in translation and misprints: comes from the English translation of kuas ’in his skin’ (p. 8) = kuaz (in con- German doch, which itself is a very good trast to kuas˚ ’ski’); vui ’come (3SG/PRET)’ equivalent for Udm. ben); sultono ’to (p. 8) = 1SG/PRET (or vuiz 3SG/PRET); stand-PART’ (p. 73) = ’to stand up- kilÍ≈ in≈ i≈ ’lie’ vs kilÍlÍ≈ in≈ i≈ ’remain’ (p. 10) = kilÍ≈ i-≈ PART’ (’to stand’ is s≈il≈in≈i in Udmurt); s≈içce

302 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii kuraÉçsk≈isa ’asking for it’ (p. 75) = ’begging mutual compliments and, therefore, most in this way’. of the problems remain unsolved and To finish this review I’d like to under- new ones produced by historiographical line that all the noted mistakes and deficiencies permanently appear, and this shortcomings do not deminish the con- can be seen also from this review. Here, tents and importance of E. Winkler’s first, I hope to have made all the neces- book. Many of these weak points have sary corrections to free the readers of their origin not in the author’s poor E. Winkler’s book from the need to deal knowledge of the subject, but in bad trans- with bothersome trifles and thus, second, lation, insufficient literature and existing to reveal real problems existing in Udmurt erroneous tradition. The criticism and linguistics, and wish the new ideas sug- spirit of discussion are oxygen for real gested in the book might start a discus- science. Unfortunately, in the Udmurt sion. The reviewed book forms a good linguistics they are traditionally replaced background for making new steps in the by silent acceptation of everything written study of Udmurt grammar. by those belonging to the club or by

REFERENCES Àëàòû∂eâ Â. È. 1970, Âûdeëè- Ï∂îáëeìû ñèíõ∂îíèè è dèàõ∂î- òeëüíî-óêàçàòeëüíàÿ êàòeãî∂èÿ íèè ïe∂ìñêèõ ÿçûêîâ è èõ dèà- â ódìó∂òñêîì ÿçûêe. (Ràñøè- ëeêòîâ, Èæeâñê (Ïe∂ìèñòèêà 6). ∂eííûé dîêëàd íà III Ìeædóíà- Ìàêñèìîâ Ñ. À. 1999, Ñeâe∂íî- ∂îdíîì êîíã∂eññe ôèííî-óã∂î- ódìó∂òñêî-êîìè à∂eàëüíûe ëeê- âedîâ â Òàëëèíe), Èæeâñê. ñèêî-ñeìàíòè÷eñêèe ïà∂àëëeëè. —— 1983, Ê∂àòêèé ã∂àììàòè÷eñêèé Dèññe∂òàcèÿ na soiskanie uäe- î÷e∂ê ódìó∂òñêîãî ÿçûêà. — noj stepeni êàídèdàòà ôèëîëî- ÓRÑ. ãè÷eñêèõ íàóê, Èæeâñê. Ã∂àììàòèêà ñîâ∂eìeííîãî ódìó∂òñêîãî —— 2001, Ñîîòíîøeíèe èñòî∂è÷eñêèõ ÿçûêà I. Ôîíeòèêà è ìî∂ôîëîãèÿ, ïëàñòîâ ëeêñèêè â ódìó∂òñêèõ Èæeâñê 1962; II. Sèíòàêñèñ ï∂îñ- dèàëeêòàõ ïî dàííûì I âîï∂îñ- òîãî ï∂edëîæeíèÿ, Èæeâñê 1970; íèêà DÀÓß. — Ñáî∂íèê ê 225- III. Sèíòàêñèñ ñëîæíîãî ï∂edëî- ëeòèœ âûõîdà â ñâeò ïe∂âîé ód- æeíèÿ. Èæeâñê 1974 (= ÃÑÓß I— ìó∂òñêîé ã∂àììàòèêè, Èæeâñê. III). Íàïîëüñêèõ Â. Â. 1997, Ââede- Eìeëüÿíîâ À. È. 1927, Ã∂àììà- íèe â èñòî∂è÷eñêóœ ó∂àëèñòè- òèêà âîòñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ëeíèí- êó, Èæeâñê. ã∂àd. —— 1997a, ”Áèñe∂ìèíû”. — Î áeñe∂- Çàãóëÿeâà Á. Ø. 1984, Ñëîæíûe ìÿíàõ, Èæeâñê. ôî∂ìû dàâíîï∂îøedøeãî â∂eìe- Íàñèáóëëèí R. Ø. 1984, Î íe- íè â íeêîòî∂ûõ ódìó∂òñêèõ dèà- êîòî∂ûõ àíàëèòè÷eñêèõ ôî∂ìàõ ëeêòàõ. — Âîï∂îñû ã∂àììàòèêè ãëàãîëà â ódìó∂òñêîì ÿçûêe. — ódìó∂òñêîãî ÿçûêà, Èæeâñê. Âîï∂îñû ã∂àììàòèêè ódìó∂ò- Êàëèíèíà Ë. È. 1984, Êàòeãî- ñêîãî ÿçûêà, Èæeâñê. ∂èàëüíàÿ ñóùíîñòü ï∂è÷àñòèé —— 2000, Ódìó∂òñêèe dèàëeêòû — íà -(î)í. — Âîï∂îñû ã∂àììàòèêè èdeàëüíûé îáúeêò dëÿ ëèíãâî- ódìó∂òñêîãî ÿçûêà, Èæeâñê. ãeîã∂àôè÷eñêèõ èññëedîâàíèé. Êeëüìàêîâ Â. Ê. 1993, Ódìó∂ò- — Studia ad geographiam lingua- ñêèé ÿçûê. — ßçûêè ìè∂à. Ó∂àëü- rum pertinentia, Tallinn (Eesti Kee- ñêèe ÿçûêè, Ìîñêâà. le Instituudi toimetised 6). —— 1998, Ê∂àòêèé êó∂ñ ódìó∂ò- Îñíîâû ôèííî-óãî∂ñêîãî ÿçûêîçíàíèÿ, ñêîé dèàëeêòîëîãèè, Èæeâñê. t. 1—3, Ìîñêâa 1974—1976 (= Êîíd∂àòüeâà Í. Â. 2000, Îñî- ÎÔÓß I—III). áeííîñòè âû∂àæeíèÿ ï∂ÿìîãî Ïîïîâà E. Â. 1998, Ñeìeéíûe îáû- îáúeêòà â ódìó∂òñêîì ÿçûêe â ÷àè è îá∂ÿdû áeñe∂ìÿí, Èæeâñê. çàâèñèìîñòè îò õà∂àêòe∂à ãëà- Ñe∂eáe∂eííèêîâ Á. À. 1959, ãîëà îáúeêòà [sic! — V.N.]. — Î deéñòâèòeëüíîì êîëè÷eñòâe

303 Reviews * Obzory i recenzii

ãëàãîëüíûõ â∂eìeí â ódìó∂òñêîì Maksimov S. A. 2001, Pohjoisud- ÿçûêe. — ÇÓdìNII, vûï. 19. murtin murteiden ja komin kielen Ódìó∂ò-zuä¥ slovarx. Ódìó∂òñêî-∂óññêèé areaalisia leksikaalisia yhtäläisyyk- ñëîâà∂ü, Ìîñêâà 1983 (= ÓRÑ). siä. — JSFOu 89. VLADIMIR NAPOLÍSKICH (Içzevsk)

304