DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages SUOMALAIS-UGRILAISEN SEURAN TOIMITUKSIA MÉMOIRES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ FINNO-OUGRIENNE ❋ 262 ❋ Beáta Wagner-Nagy On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages SOCIÉTÉ FINNO-OUGRIENNE HELSINKI 2011 Beáta Wagner-Nagy: On the Typology of Negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic Languages Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 262 Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne Layout Anna Kurvinen Copyright © 2011 Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura — Société Finno-Ougrienne — Finno-Ugrian Society & Beáta Wagner-Nagy Orders — Tilaukset Tiedekirja Kirkkokatu 14 FI-00170 Helsinki www.tiedekirja.fi [email protected] FAX +358 9 635 017 ISBN Print 978-952-5667-29-5 ISBN Online 978-952-5667-30-1 ISSN 0355-0230 Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Sastamala 2011 Contents Abbreviations XIII List of Tables and Figures X Preface XV I. Introduction 1. Characterization of the Languages Studied 1 1.1. Typical Typological Characteristics 4 1.2. Sociolinguistic Data, Dialects 6 1.2.1. Nenets 6 1.2.2. Enets 7 1.2.3. Nganasan 9 1.2.4. Selkup 10 1.2.5. Mator 11 1.2.6. Kamas 12 1.2.7. Khanty 12 1.2.8. Mansi 14 2. Сorpora and Transcription 16 2.1. Transcription and Glossing 16 2.2. The Corpus 18 3. The Problem of Negation 19 3.1. The Concept of Negation 19 3.2. The Main Types of Negated Sentences 21 3.3. The Negative Sentence and its Elements 27 3.3.1. Finite Elements 27 3.3.2. Negative Markers 28 3.4. Auxiliary Verb Construction 37 3.5. Sentential Position of the Negative Element 43 VI ON THE TYPOLOGY OF NEGATION IN OB-UGRIC AND SAMOYEDIC LANGUAGES II. Standard Negation 1. On the Typology of Standard Negation 51 1.1. Symmetric Construction 53 1.2. Asymmetric Construction 54 2. On Standard Negation in Uralic Languages 58 3. Standard Negation in Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 64 3.1. Symmetric Negation 64 3.1.1. Selkup 65 3.1.1.1. Position of the Negative Particle in Selkup 70 3.1.2. Kamas 71 3.1.2.1. Position of the Negative Particle in Kamas 75 3.1.3. Khanty 75 3.1.3.1. Position of the Negative Particle in Khanty 77 3.1.4. Mansi 80 3.1.4.1. Position of the Negative Particle in Mansi 81 3.2. Asymmetric Construction: A/FIN/NEGVERB 83 3.2.1. Mator 84 3.2.2. Kamas 86 3.2.3. Nenets 88 3.2.3.1. Position of Negative Auxiliaries in Nenets 94 3.2.3.2. Inverse Word Order in Nenets 95 3.2.4. Enets 96 3.2.4.1. Inverse Word Order in Enets 100 3.2.5. Nganasan 101 3.2.5.1. Position of Negative Auxiliaries in Nganasan 107 3.2.5.2. Inverse Word Order in Nganasan 108 3.2.6. Selkup 109 3.2.7. Khanty 111 3.2.8. Mansi 112 CONTENTS VII III. Negation with Semantically not Empty Negative Auxiliaries 1. Selkup 113 2. Nenets 116 2.1. xańasʲ ‘almost not‘ 116 2.2. jaʔmasʲ ‘not able to‘ 117 3. Enets 119 3.1. loðeš ‘cannot‘ 120 3.2. ďamaš ‘cannot‘ 121 4. Nganasan 123 4.1. ləðiʔsʲi ‘cannot‘ 123 4.2. ŋuəlɨ- ’how could (I) not’ 125 5. Khanty 127 IV. Negation with Negative Lexical Verbs 1. Nenets 130 2. Nganasan 131 3. Enets 135 VIII ON THE TYPOLOGY OF NEGATION IN OB-UGRIC AND SAMOYEDIC LANGUAGES V. Negation of Imperative 1. Negative Non-Indicative Constructions in Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 144 1.1. Symmetric Negation: Spec. Neg. Marker – Common Imperative Strategy (Type2) 144 1.1.1. Selkup 144 1.1.2. Mansi 147 1.1.3. Khanty 149 1.2. Asymmetric Negation: Spec. Neg. Marker + Common Imperative Strategy (Type 2) 153 1.2.1. Kamas 153 1.3. Asymmetric Negation: Spec. Neg. Marker + Special Imperative Strategy (Type 4) 157 1.3.1. Tundra Nenets 157 1.3.2. Enets 160 1.4. Asymmetric Negation: Stand. Neg. Marker + Common Strategy (Type 1) 164 1.4.1. Nganasan 164 1.5. Asymmetric Negation: Stand. Neg. Marker + Special Strategy (Type 3) 166 1.5.1. Forest Nenets 166 VI. Existential Sentences 1. Typology of Negated Existential Sentences 176 2. Negated Existential Sentences in Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 182 2.1. Type B 185 2.1.1. Mator 185 2.1.2. Kamas 186 2.1.3. Nganasan 187 2.2. Type A ~ B 195 2.2.1. Nenets 195 2.2.2. Enets 199 2.2.3. Mansi 202 2.2.4. Khanty 205 2.3. Type B ~ C 208 2.3.1. Selkup 208 CONTENTS IX VII. Predicate Possessive 1. Have-Possession 213 2. Intransitive Construction 214 3. Typology of Possession Negation 219 4. Data of the Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 221 5.1. Type A2 222 5.1.1. Kamas 222 5.1.2. Non-Northern Selkup Dialects 223 5.2. Type A3 225 5.2.1. Northern Selkup 225 5.2.2. Nenets 228 5.2.3. Enets 237 5.3. Type B1 241 5.3.1. Khanty 241 5.3.2. Mansi 246 5.4. Type B2 250 5.4.1. Nganasan 250 VIII. Non-Verbal Predicate 1. Negation of Non-Verbal Predicate Constructions 265 2. Data from Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 273 2.1. Two-Way Distinction 273 2.1.1. Nenets 273 2.1.2. Enets 280 2.1.3. Selkup 284 2.1.4. Kamas 289 2.1.5. Eastern Khanty 291 2.2. Three-Way Distinction 299 2.2.1. Northern Khanty 299 2.2.2. Northern Mansi 305 2.2.3. Nganasan 312 Summary 317 References 321 X ON THE TYPOLOGY OF NEGATION IN OB-UGRIC AND SAMOYEDIC LANGUAGES List of Tables and Figures Figures Figure 1. Janhunen’s Taxonomy of the Samoyedic Languages 2 Figure 2. Helimski’s Taxonomy of the Samoyedic Languages (2004) 2 Tables Table 1. Nenets Dialects 6 Table 2. Nenets’ Command of Nenets and Russian 7 Table 3. Nganasan Population and Language Retention 9 Table 4. Selkup Dialects 10 Table 5. Selkups’ Command of Selkup and Russian 11 Table 6. Khanty Dialects 13 Table 7. Khantys’ Command of Khanty and Russian 13 Table 8. Mansi Dialects 14 Table 9. Mansis’ Command of Mansi and Russian 15 Table 10. Notation of Vowels 17 Table 11. Notation of Consonants 17 Table 12. Auxiliaries in the Samoyedic and the Ob-Ugric Languages 32 Table 13. Feature Categories of Auxiliaries in the Samoyedic and Ob- Ugric Languages 36 Table 14. Form of the Lexical Verb Next to an Auxiliary in the Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric Languages 38 Table 15. Sentential Position of the Negative Element in the Uralic Languages 45 Table 16. The Order of the Negative Particle and the Verb 46 Table 17. The Position of the Auxiliaries 47 Table 18. The Order of the Negative Auxiliary and the Main Verb 48 Table 19. The Order of Lexical Verb and Negative Auxiliary (Dryer 1992: 100) 48 Table 20. Word Order Distribution 49 Table 21. Miestamo’s Typological Classifi cation 52 Table 22. Negation Constructions in Uralic Languages I 60 Table 23. Negation Constructions in Uralic Languages II 61 Table 24. Paradigm of the Negative Auxiliary in the Uralic Languages 63 Table 25. Types of Negated Constructions in Samoyedic and Ob- Ugric Languages 64 Table 26. Correlation Between Tense and Negation Type in Selkup 66 Table 27. Correlation Between Tense and Negation Type in Kamas 74 Table 28. Distribution of Present-Tense Markers in Mator Negation 85 Table 29. The Paradigm of Negative Auxiliary in Kamas 87 Table 30. Negative Auxiliaries in Nenets 89 Table 31. The Paradigm of the Negative Auxiliary ńiisʲ + xărwasʲ ‘to want’ 90 Table 32. Distribution of Tense and Derivational Marking on the Negative Auxiliaries in Nenets 93 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES XI Table 33. Affi rmative and Negative Paradigms in Forest and Tundra Enets 99 Table 34. The Paradigm of the Negative Auxiliary ńisɨ 102 Table 35. Distribution of Grammatical Category Markers in Nganasan Negation 103 Table 36. Semantically not Empty Auxiliaries in Nenets 116 Table 37. Negative Auxiliaries and the Syntactical Structure in Nenets 119 Table 38. Semantically not Empty Auxiliaries in Enets 119 Table 39. Semantically not Empty Negative Auxiliaries in Nganasan 123 Table 40. Paradigm of ŋuəlɨ- in Nganasan 125 Table 41. Negative Lexical Verbs in Samoyedic Languages 129 Table 42. Prohibitive Constructions in the Uralic Languages 142 Table 43. Negation of Non-Indicative Constructions in Some Uralic Languages 143 Table 44. Suffi xes of the Imperative Mood and the Indicative Mood in Northern Selkup (Taz Dialect) 145 Table 45. Imperative Suffi xes in Mansi 147 Table 46. Imperative Suffi xes in Eastern Khanty 149 Table 47. The Imperative Suffi xes in Kamas 153 Table 48. The Kamas Prohibitive and Optative Verb 154 Table 49. Kamas Negative Constructions in Morphologically Marked Moods 156 Table 50. Imperative Suffi xes in Tundra Nenets 157 Table 51. Forest Enets Imperative Suffi xes 160 Table 52. The Imperative Paradigm for the Negative Auxiliary in Forest Enets 161 Table 53. The Imperative Paradigm of the Enets Negative Auxiliary According to Castrén 162 Table 54. Imperative Suffi xes in Nganasan 165 Table 55. Imperative and Indicative Person Suffi xes in Forest Nenets 167 Table 56. The Imperative and Indicative Forms of the Negative Auxiliary in Forest Nenets 168 Table 57. Characteristics of the Locational, Existential and Predicative Possessive Sentences in Finnish and in Hungarian 174 Table 58. Correlation Between the Basic Word Order in Existential Sentences and the Order of the Semantic Constituents 175 Table 59.
Recommended publications
  • Migracijske Teme 4/1988

    Migracijske Teme 4/1988

    Migracijske teme 15 (1999), 1-2: 63-153 UDK: 809.45-0 Izvorni znanstveni rad Primljeno: 17. 11. 1998. Paolo Agostini University of Padova [email protected] LANGUAGE RECONSTRUCTION – APPLIED TO THE URALIC LANGUAGES* SUMMARY After pointing out the shortcomings and methodological weakness of the general theory of linguistic reconstruction, the author disputes the alleged antiquity of Uralic. Proto-Uralic as recon- structed by the scholars seems to be the sum of a set of features belonging to several distinct language families. The paper examines a number of lexical concordances with historically attested languages and comes to the conclusion that the Proto-Uralic word-stock is the result of a sum of borrowings that took place from the most disparate languages: Balto-Slavic, Old Swedish, several Turkic dialects, Mongolic, Tunguz, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, late Middle Persian dialects, Byzantine Greek and Latin. Yet, other languages may also come into account: Chinese, Caucasian languages as well as lan- guages unknown in present day are possible candidates. A large number of bases of the Uralic word- stock can be easily identified by following a few phonological constraints. The linguistic features of the Uralic daughter-languages seem to show that they originated from a pidgin language spoken along the merchant routes that connected the Silk Road to North- and East-European trade. It is a well-known phenomenon that sometimes, when groups of people speaking different languages come into contact for the first time, a new restricted language system (lingua franca or pidgin) comes into being in order to cater to essential common needs.
  • On the Article-Like Use of the Px2sg in Dolgan, Nganasan and Some Other Languages in an Areal Siberian Context1

    On the Article-Like Use of the Px2sg in Dolgan, Nganasan and Some Other Languages in an Areal Siberian Context1

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository On the Article-like Use of the Px2Sg in Dolgan, Nganasan and Some Other Languages in an Areal Siberian Context1 Marek Stachowski (Kraków) In Stachowski 1998 wurde gezeigt, dass das Possessivsuffix der 2. Person Sg. im Norddialekt des Dolganischen unter nganasanischem Einfluss die Funktion eines bestimmten Artikels erfüllen kann. Im vorliegenden Artikel wird B. Pakendorfs (2007) These, dass dieser Gebrauch des Possessivsuffixes auf ewenkischen Ein- fluss beruhe, sowie dass die Erscheinung im Dolganischen wie im Jakutischen eine gemeinsame Quelle habe, diskutiert. Zum Schluss wird nahegelegt, dass dieses Phänomen, das einerseits das Jakutische mit dem Selkupischen und an- dererseits das Dolganische mit dem Nganasanischen verbindet, möglicherweise zur Festlegung von zwei Spracharealen beitragen kann: „Tajmyr-Areal“ und „(Ur)Selkupisch-(Ur)Jakutisches“ Areal. Ten years ago I published a short article (Stachowski 1998) showing that the Px2Sg (= possessive suffix of the second person singular) can be used with the function of the definite article in the Northern dialect of Dolgan. Since the construction is completely untypical of a Turkic language, I suggested that it was developed under the influence of Nganasan. Some months ago, B. Pakendorf (2007) published a study addressing the same problem, and it is to her merit that she was able to present four Yakut sentences in which the Px2Sg was also used as a definite article.2 This material was unknown to me earlier, and it makes the phenomenon even more interesting. Pakendorf is of course quite right when she says that the Nganasan adstratum cannot be used to explain the origins of the phenomenon in Yakut because of the geographical distance between the two languages.
  • Izhorians: a Disappearing Ethnic Group Indigenous to the Leningrad Region

    Izhorians: a Disappearing Ethnic Group Indigenous to the Leningrad Region

    Acta Baltico-Slavica, 43 Warszawa 2019 DOI: 10.11649/abs.2019.010 Elena Fell Tomsk Polytechnic University Tomsk [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7606-7696 Izhorians: A disappearing ethnic group indigenous to the Leningrad region This review article presents a concise overview of selected research findings rela- ted to various issues concerning the study of Izhorians, including works by A. I. Kir′ianen, A. V. Labudin and A. A. Samodurov (Кирьянен et al., 2017); A. I. Kir′ianen, (Кирьянен, 2016); N. Kuznetsova, E. Markus and M. Muslimov (Kuznetsova, Markus, & Muslimov, 2015); M. Muslimov (Муслимов, 2005); A. P. Chush′′ialova (Чушъялова, 2010); F. I. Rozhanskiĭ and E. B. Markus (Рожанский & Маркус, 2013); and V. I. Mirenkov (Миренков, 2000). The evolution of the term Izhorians The earliest confirmed record of Izhorians (also known as Ingrians), a Finno-Ugrian ethnic group native to the Leningrad region,1 appears in thirteenth-century Russian 1 Whilst the city of Leningrad became the city of Saint Petersburg in 1991, reverting to its pre-So- viet name, the Leningrad region (also known as the Leningrad oblast) retained its Soviet name after the collapse of the USSR. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 PL License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/), which permits redistribution, commercial and non- -commercial, provided that the article is properly cited. © The Author(s) 2019. Publisher: Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences [Wydawca: Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk] Elena Fell Izhorians: A disappearing ethnic group indigenous to the Leningrad region chronicles, where, according to Chistiakov (Чистяков, 2006), “Izhora” people were mentioned as early as 1228.
  • The Cassidy Code

    The Cassidy Code

    2019 THE CASSIDY CODE ZAHMOUL, Noureddine ABD/USA/США ABSTRACT Awareness about Basic Guttural Consonants, BGC, perdurable presence, since illo-tempore, in Hamito-Semitic languages, and conspicuous absence among Indo-European and Uralic languages, raises a case of interest. Tunsi Long Range Comparison, LRC, with the English and the Suomi languages entails discovery of regular differences, alternations, and reversal patterns hidden in the data. A brand new approach emerges facilitating languages LRC, and easing Language Origins Research, LOR. My first claim is about an unvoiced consonant gamut available to ofset eache missing BGC. My second claim covers the useful, notrivial, unobtrusive orijinal consonantal reversal phenomenon. The Cassidy Code is Sumerian. Grimm and Verner Laws sequel, alternating BGS with mostly unvoiced consonants or apocope entailing a forward shift of articulation basis, due finer pronunciation, and adding the tran mogrifying reversals. The idea is to put forward a paralel code, in LRC of language and LOR quest, to the focus on separate wide swaths of straight cognations. Key Words: Cassidy code, Sumerian, Language Origins Research (LOR), Basic Guttural Consonants (BGC), Long Range Comparison (LRC), Indo- European languages, Uralic languages. 2020 2021 2022 2023 Annex I: The Precession and the Forgotten Ice Age Jane B. Sellers sought during her sixty years of research to assess and demonstrate that: “Archeologists, by and large, lack an understanding of the precession and this affects their conclusions concerning ancient myths, ancient gods and ancient temple alignments. Philologists, too, ignore the accusation that certain problems are not going to be solved as long as they imagine that familiarity with grammar replaces scientific knowledge of astronomy.
  • A Grammar of Tundra Nenets Mouton Grammar Library

    A Grammar of Tundra Nenets Mouton Grammar Library

    Irina Nikolaeva A Grammar of Tundra Nenets Mouton Grammar Library Edited by Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie Matthew Dryer Patience L. Epps Volume 65 Irina Nikolaeva A Grammar of Tundra Nenets ISBN 978-3-11-032047-3 e-ISBN 978-3-11-032064-0 ISSN 0933-7636 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 6 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing and binding: CPI buch bücher.de GmbH, Birkach ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Acknowledgment This grammar is the result of many years of cooperation with members of the Tundra Nenets community, whose linguistic intuitions, passion for language, and, last but not least, extraordinary patience in dealing with me made it all possible. I am greatly indebted to all of you. Ңули” сава! I owe a great debt of gratitude to the colleagues with whom I have had the opportunity to work and discuss various intriguing aspects of Tundra Nenets grammar, especially to Farrell Ackerman, Larisa Leisiö and Tapani Salminen. I really miss our joint elicitation sessions; it was a lot of fun! Tapani Salminen was the first to intro- duce me to the language, and his own work on Tundra Nenets has always been a source of inspiration for me. I also thank Tapani and Larisa for their assistance in the practical aspects of my fieldwork.
  • Reconstructing Proto-Ugric and Proto-Uralic Object Marking Katalin É

    Reconstructing Proto-Ugric and Proto-Uralic Object Marking Katalin É

    Reconstructing Proto-Ugric and Proto-Uralic Object Marking Katalin É. Kiss ([email protected]) Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy and Pázmány P. University Abstract This paper demonstrates that syntactic changes in the feature specifications of functional heads can be traced back to undocumented stages of languages. It reconstructs the object–verb relation in Proto-Uralic – by means of the comparative method adapted to syntax. Present-day Uralic languages display differential object–verb agreement and/or differential accusative marking. In double-marking languages, the head licensing object–verb agreement may be different from that licensing accusative-marking. The licensing conditions of object marking are also different across languages. It is argued that the Uralic parent language had both object-verb agreement and accusative assignment licensed by a TP-external functional head with a [topic] feature. The [topic] feature of this head has been reanalyzed as [specific] in Udmurt, and as [definite] in Hungarian – via a natural extention of the content of the notion of topicality. In languages with generalized accusative assignment, i.e., in Hungarian and Tundra Nenets, the licensing of object agreement and accusative marking have been divorced; the latter has come to be associated with v. Keywords: differential object marking (DOM), object–verb agreement, accusative, syntactic reconstruction, comparative method 1. Introduction According to the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (Borer 1984), the parametric values of grammars are expressed in the functional lexicon. Under this assumption, syntactic changes involve changes in the feature specifications of functional heads. It is an open question whether changes of this type, affecting features of morphologically real or abstract syntactic heads, can be traced back to undocumented stages of languages (cf.
  • URALIC MIGRATIONS: the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Václav

    URALIC MIGRATIONS: the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Václav

    URALIC MIGRATIONS: THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Václav Blažek For the classification of Fenno-Ugric/Uralic languages the following scenarios have been proposed: (1) Mari, Mordvin and Fenno-Saamic as coordinate sub-branches (Setälä 1890) Saamic Fenno- -Saamic Balto-Fennic Fenno- -Volgaic Mordvin Fenno- Mari -Permic Udmurt Fenno-Ugric Permic Komi Hungarian Ugric Mansi. Xanty (2) Mordvin and Mari in a Volgaic group (Collinder 1960, 11; Hajdú 1985, 173; OFUJ 1974, 39) Saamic North, East, South Saami Baltic Finnic Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Olonets, Ludic, Fenno-Volgaic end of the 1st mill. BC Vepsian, Votic, Estonian, Livonian 1st mill BC Mordvin Fenno- -Permic Volgaic Mari mid 2nd mill. BC Udmurt Finno-Ugric Permic end of the 8th cent. AD Komi 3rd mill. BC Hungarian Uralic Ugric 4th mill. BC mid 2st mill. BC Mansi, Xanty North Nenets, Enets, Nganasan Samoyedic end of the 1st mill. BC South Selkup; Kamasin (3) A model of a series of sequential separations by Viitso (1996, 261-66): Mordvin and Mari represent different separations from the mainstream, formed by Ugric. Fenno-Saamic Finno- Mordvin -Ugric Mari Uralic Permic Ugric (‘Core’) Samoyedic (4) The first application of a so-called ‘recalibrated’ glottochronology to Uralic languages was realized by the team of S. Starostin in 2004. -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 +500 +1000 +1500 +2000 Selkup Mator Samojedic -720 -210 Kamasin -550 Nganasan -340 Enets +130 Nenets Uralic Khanty -3430 Ugric Ob- +130 Mansi -1340 -Ugric Hungarian Komi Fenno-Ugric Permic +570 Udmurt -2180 Volgaic -1370 Mari -1880 Mordva -1730 Balto-Fennic Veps +220 Estonian +670 Finnish -1300 Saamic Note: G.
  • Drastic Demographic Events Triggered the Uralic Spread to Appear in Diachronica

    Drastic Demographic Events Triggered the Uralic Spread to Appear in Diachronica

    Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread To appear in Diachronica Riho Grünthal (University of Helsinki) Volker Heyd (University of Helsinki) Sampsa Holopainen (University of Helsinki) Juha Janhunen (University of Helsinki) Olesya Khanina (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) Matti Miestamo (University of Helsinki) Johanna Nichols (University of California, Berkeley; University of Helsinki; Higher School of Economics, Moscow) Janne Saarikivi (University of Helsinki) Kaius Sinnemäki (University of Helsinki) Abstract: The widespread Uralic family offers several advantages for tracing prehistory: a firm absolute chronological anchor point in an ancient contact episode with well-dated Indo-Iranian; other points of intersection or diagnostic non-intersection with early Indo-European (the Late PIE-speaking Yamnaya culture of the western steppe, the Afanasievo culture of the upper Yenisei, and the Fatyanovo culture of the middle Volga); lexical and morphological reconstruction sufficient to establish critical absences of sharings and contacts. We add information on climate, linguistic geography, typology, and cognate frequency distributions to reconstruct the Uralic origin and spread. We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European. The spread was rapid and without widespread shared substratal effects. We reconstruct its cause as the interconnected reactions of early Uralic and Indo-European populations to a catastrophic climate change episode and interregionalization opportunities which advantaged riverine hunter-fishers over herders. Keywords Uralic; Finno-Ugric; Indo-European; Yamnaya; Indo-Iranian; Siberia; Eurasia; Seima-Turbino, 4.2 ka event; linguistic homeland Note: In-text references have not yet been fully deanonymized. 2 Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread (Contents, for convenience) Main text (pp.
  • Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia

    Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia

    Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia SUOMALAIS-UGRILAISEN SEURAN TOIMITUKSIA MÉMOIRES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ FINNO-OUGRIENNE ❋ 267 ❋ Florian Siegl Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia SOCIÉTÉ FINNO-OUGRIENNE HELSINKI 2013 Florian Siegl: Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 267 Copyright © 2013 Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura — Société Finno-Ougrienne — Finno-Ugrian Society & Florian Siegl Layout Anna Kurvinen, Niko Partanen Language supervision Alexandra Kellner This study has been supported by Volkswagen Foundation. ISBN 978-952-5667-45-5 (print) MÉMOIRES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ FINNO-OUGRIENNE ISBN 978-952-5667-46-2 (online) SUOMALAIS-UGRILAISEN SEURAN TOIMITUKSIA ISSN 0355-0230 Editor-in-chief Riho Grünthal (Helsinki) Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Editorial board Sastamala 2013 Marianne Bakró-Nagy (Szeged), Márta Csepregi (Budapest), Ulla-Maija Forsberg (Helsinki), Kaisa Häkkinen (Turku), Tilaukset — Orders Gerson Klumpp (Tartu), Johanna Laakso (Wien), Tiedekirja Lars-Gunnar Larsson (Uppsala), Kirkkokatu 14 Matti Miestamo (Stockholm), FI-00170 Helsinki Sirkka Saarinen (Turku), www.tiedekirja.fi Elena Skribnik (München), Trond Trosterud (Tromsø), [email protected] Berhard Wälchli (Stockholm), FAX +358 9 635 017 Jussi Ylikoski (Kautokeino) He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,” he used to say. “You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to […]” (The Fellowship of the Ring, New York: Ballantine Books, 1982, 102).
  • Finland's Context and Configuration

    Finland's Context and Configuration

    CHAPTER 2 The Backdrop for Success: Finland’s Context and Configuration 1 Introduction Finland’s context plays a strong role in its outcomes in PISA. Following Phillips and Schweisfurth (2006) and Halls’ (1970) approaches to comparative educa- tion, this chapter explores Finland’s historical and social context in order to better understand the country’s educational achievements. An education sys- tem, as a “living thing,” according to Sadler (in Higginson, 1979, p. 49), merits investigation within its context. The Finns need and deserve more than a brief description to explain and clarify their unique qualities. The question, “Who are the Finns?” necessitates a long answer: But where does Finland belong? Is it a Baltic state, like Estonia? Is it part of Scandinavia, like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, with which it is linked and with which it has such close ties? Is it really a part of Russia? Or is it something different from all these? A great part of Finnish history has been devoted to trying to solve this problem. (Bacon, 1970, p. 16) This chapter strives to clarify the Finnish context, and therefore how this even- tually influenced high PISA outcomes in all administrations of the survey. It also explains the Finnish education system after exploration of “things out- side the school system” (Sadler, in Higginson, 1979, p. 49). This approach will enlighten the context in which the education system lies. 2 History of Finland to Independence The Finnish people kept to themselves throughout their early history. “Due partly to the size of the country and their own small numbers, the Finns have striven throughout their history to live their own lives, avoid assimilation with their neighbours and remain aside from the quarrels of the rest of the world” (Juva, 1968, p.
  • [.35 **Natural Language Processing Class Here Computational Linguistics See Manual at 006.35 Vs

    [.35 **Natural Language Processing Class Here Computational Linguistics See Manual at 006.35 Vs

    006 006 006 DeweyiDecimaliClassification006 006 [.35 **Natural language processing Class here computational linguistics See Manual at 006.35 vs. 410.285 *Use notation 019 from Table 1 as modified at 004.019 400 DeweyiDecimaliClassification 400 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 [400 [400 *‡Language Class here interdisciplinary works on language and literature For literature, see 800; for rhetoric, see 808. For the language of a specific discipline or subject, see the discipline or subject, plus notation 014 from Table 1, e.g., language of science 501.4 (Option A: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, class in 410, where full instructions appear (Option B: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, place before 420 through use of a letter or other symbol. Full instructions appear under 420–490) 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 SUMMARY [401–409 Standard subdivisions and bilingualism [410 Linguistics [420 English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) [430 German and related languages [440 French and related Romance languages [450 Italian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaetian, Sardinian, Corsican [460 Spanish, Portuguese, Galician [470 Latin and related Italic languages [480 Classical Greek and related Hellenic languages [490 Other languages 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [401 *‡Philosophy and theory See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [.3 *‡International languages Class here universal languages; general
  • ESTONIAN LANGUAGE Kala on Puu Juures ‘A Fish Is Near the Tree’ Literally: ‘A Fish Is in the Root of a Tree’

    ESTONIAN LANGUAGE Kala on Puu Juures ‘A Fish Is Near the Tree’ Literally: ‘A Fish Is in the Root of a Tree’

    ESTONIAN LANGUAGE Kala on puu juures A fish is near the tree Literally: A fish is in the root of a tree ISBN 9985-9341-9-9 / Published by the Estonian Institute 2004 / Illustrations: Jaagup Roomet / Design: Aadam Kaarma LABOR Estonian Language Urmas Sutrop Estonian is used in the army... aviation... theatre The Estonian language The ancestors of the Estonians arrived at Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian are the the Baltic Sea 13 000 years ago when the best known of the Finno-Ugric languages; mainland glaciers of the last Ice Age had rather less known are the following retreated from the area now designated smaller languages of the same language as Estonia. The first settlers who followed group: South Estonian, Votian, Livonian, the reindeer herds came here from south, Izhorian, Vepsian, Karelian, Sami, Erzya, from Central Europe. Although the vocab- Moksha, Mari, Udmurt and Komi, spoken ulary and grammar of the language used from Scandinavia to Siberia. by people in those days have changed beyond recognition, the mentality of the Estonian differs from its closest large tundra hunters of thousands of years ago related language, Finnish, at least as can be still perceived in modern Estonian. much as English differs from Frisian. The difference between Estonian and Hungar- The majority of European languages ian is about as significant as between belong to the Indo-European language German and Persian. group (e.g. Spanish, Polish, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Albanian, Romany, Greek or Along with Icelandic, Estonian is at Welsh). Of the ancient European langua- present one of the smallest languages in ges, once so widespread throughout the the world that fulfils all the functions continent, Basque in the Pyrenees, the necessary for an independent state to Finno-Ugric languages in the North and perform linguistically.