Inhalt Des 41. Bandes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INHALT DES 41. BANDES ORIGINALIA Bíró, Bernadett: From nouns into nominalizers and even further – Gram- maticalization processes in Northern Mansi .................................... 1 Bíró, Bernadett – Katalin Sipöcz: Ditransitivity in the Mansi language from typological perspective ........................................................... 25 Budzisch, Josefina: Locative, existential and possessive sentences in Selkup dialects ................................................................................ 45 Däbritz, Chris Lasse: Zur Markierung von Numerus an Nomina in den samojedischen Sprachen – Synchronie und mögliche Implikationen für die Rekonstruktion des Protosamojedischen und des Proto- uralischen ........................................................................................ 63 de Smit, Merlijn: Insular Etymologies: Indo-European and substrate coastal terminology on Finnic and Saami ........................................ 103 Gusev, Valentin: On the etymology of auditive in Samoyedic .............. 131 Harder, Anja: Grammaticalization of spatial expressions in Central and Southern Selkup .............................................................................. 153 Kahrs, Ulrike: Historische Ereignisse als Konstituente der kollektiven Identität: der Multan-Fall und seine Bedeutung für die udmurtische Identität ........................................................................................... 175 Rozhanskiy, Fedor – Elena Markus: Negation in Soikkola Ingrian ....... 189 Wegener, Hannah: On annotating information status in Kamas ............ 221 BERICHTE, MITTEILUNGEN, NACHRICHTEN Kowalik, Richard: InFUSE Turku 2017: Fünfte Winterschule der Finnougristik ................................................................................... 237 Negation in Soikkola Ingrian Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu – Moscow) – Elena Markus (Tartu – Moscow) Abstract This paper gives a detailed overview of negation in the Soikkola dialect of Ingrian, which is at present almost extinct. All the data come from field recordings (a corpus of spontaneous speech and elicitations) from the last decade. In Ingrian, the person and number of the negative construction is expressed by the negative auxiliary verb, while the lexical verb expresses tense and mood characteristics. Ingrian prohibitive shows asymmetry in the formation of singular and plural forms: the plural forms take the infinitive of the lexical verb. The article analyses different aspects of negation, including a specific system of negative pronouns, and the use of the abessive suffix only in verbal forms. Keywords: negation, verbal system, Ingrian, negative pronouns, abessive 1. Introduction In 2015, Benjamins published a volume on negation in the Uralic language family (Miestamo et al. 2015). The chapters in the book are based on a unified questionnaire and provide comprehensive, comparable descriptions of negation in 17 Uralic languages. This volume became a successful example of interge- netic typology, but it did not cover all the Uralic languages. In particular, the Ingrian language was not included in the book. This paper aims to add Ingrian data to the description of Uralic negation. The article is based on Soikkola Ingrian and is written according to the same scheme as implemented throughout the volume (Miestamo et al. 2015). We tried to follow the structure that we have used in the chapter on negation in Votic (Rozhanskiy, Markus 2015), since both Votic and Ingrian are minor unwritten Finnic languages located in close proximity and share many linguistic features. We used a similar methodology for collecting the language materials, but in the case of Ingrian we relied more on our corpus of collected narratives. 1.1 The Ingrian language The first official reference to Ingrians comes from the second half of the th12 century in a bull of Pope Alexander III to Uppsala Archbishop Stefan. In the 19th century, there were 17800 Ingrians in the Sankt-Petersburg province (Köppen 1867: 41). The census of 1926 did not show a significant change (16137 people Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 41 © Helmut Buske Verlag 2017 190 Fedor Rozhanskiy – Elena Markus according to the census as cited by Musaev (2004: 348)), but after the World War II the number of Ingrians decreased significantly (1062 people according to the 1959 census as cited by Musaev (2004: 348)). This decrease was the result of many factors including forced russification (a detailed analysis is given in (Rozhanskiy, Markus 2013)). Nowadays we estimate the number of Ingrian speakers as no more than 50. With rare exception, all of them are very aged people. In the 1930s, Ingrian written standard was developed, and the Ingrian language was taught at school. Unfortunately, by 1938 the teaching of Ingrian was banned, and the teachers were repressed. Traditionally, four Ingrian dialects are distinguished. Oredeži and Hevaha dialects are already extinct; Soikkola and Lower Luga dialects are on the verge of extinction. The last speakers live on the Soikkola peninsula and in the lower course of the Luga river. Lower Luga Ingrian is significantly different from other Ingrian varieties. In fact, it is a convergent language that developed as a language of interethnic communication between Finnic nations living in close proximity: Ingrians and Votes, but also Ingrian Finns and Estonians (Rozhan- skiy, Markus 2014). In this chapter we rely on the data collected during our fieldwork with the speakers of Soikkola Ingrian in 2006–2017 (see Appendix 1 for a list of speak- ers). Our corpus of elicited questionnaires contains more than 500 hours of recordings; the corpus of narratives and other samples of spontaneous speech is about 4 hours. We indicate the source of each example in brackets. For the narratives, we give the text title and the index of the speaker (e.g. [Kala_AI]). For elicited examples, we give the index of the audio file in our database and the index of the speaker (e.g. 967_AG). In this paper, we use the following transcription principles. a. Consonants. Consonants have a ternary length opposition: single consonants vs. short gem- inates vs. (full) geminates. There is no phonological opposition of voiceless and voiced, but depending on the idiolect and the phonetic context, single consonants can be pronounced as voiceless, half-voiced or voiced. We tran- scribe them with voiced characters, except word-initially (šuži ‘wolf’), and in consonant clusters containing p, t, k, š, f or h (itkiä ‘cry’). Short geminates are transcribed with double characters with a breve (p̆ p, l̆ l, etc.). Full geminates are transcribed as double characters (pp, ll, etc.). b. Vowels. In the first syllable, the original longee , oo and öö have shifted up and are often pronounced as e̯ e̯ , o̯ o̯ , ö̯ ö̯ , or even as ii, uu, üü (see more details in Kuznetsova 2009), e.g. [hoomeen] ~ [ho̯ o̯ meen] ~ [huumeen] ‘tomorrow’, [töö] ~ [tö̯ ö̯ ] ~ Negation in Soikkola Ingrian 191 [tüü] ‘work’, [meež] ~ [me̯ e̯ ž] ~ [miiž] ‘man’. In this chapter, we transcribe them as e̯ e̯ , o̯ o̯ and ö̯ ö̯ irrespective of the features of a particular idiolect. 2. Clausal negation 2.1. Standard negation 2.1.1. Ingrian verbal system The conjugation of Ingrian finite verb forms is based on the categories of tense (present, past, perfect and pluperfect), mood (indicative, conditional and impe- rative), person (1, 2 or 3), number (singular and plural) and polarity (affirmative and negative). In addition to personal, there is a set of impersonal forms. The non-finite forms – the infinitive, supine, and participles (active singular, active plural and passive) – do not have polarity. The system of finite forms is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. The system of finite verbal forms in Soikkola Ingrian 192 Fedor Rozhanskiy – Elena Markus In addition to the forms listed in Table 1, other analytical forms may hypotheti- cally exist. Among the elicited examples, we have a sentence (1) that can be interpreted as containing the impersonal perfect conditional form1. (1) ku ol̆ l-iiž ol-d praažnikka if be-COND.3SG be-PRTACT feast ol̆ l-iiž tabe-ttu šiga be-COND.3SG kill-PRTPAss pig ‘If there had been a feast, a pig would have been slaughtered’. [789_AI] We have no similar examples from the narratives; this is a single elicited example with such a form, and we have no examples of the impersonal in other perfect/pluperfect forms. For these reasons, we consider this example as occasional and do not include the impersonal perfect conditional (or other marginal analytic constructions) in the paradigm. As in other Finnic languages, standard negation in Soikkola Ingrian is ex- pressed analytically with a personal form of the negative auxiliary (see 2.1.2) and the connegative or active participle of the main verb (see 2.1.3). (2) miä e-n tiije mi-dä 1SG NEG-1SG know.CNG what-PART tei-le veel pit̆tää lää-dä 2PL-ALL anymore have.to.PRS.3SG speak-INF ‘I do not know what else I should tell you’. [Kala_AI] (3) a hää ei tiit̆tää-nd and 3SG NEG.3SG know-PRTACT ‘And she did not know’. [Ätti_püüdämäz_GI] 2.1.2. Negative auxiliary verb The negative auxiliary verb has six indicative and two imperative forms, see Table 2. 1 Morphologically, ol̆ liiž tabettu (be.COND.3SG slaughter.PRTPAss) can also be interpreted as the present conditional of the passive construction šiga on tabettu ‘A pig is slaughtered’. However, the word order with the verbal form preceding the noun (ol̆ liiž tabettu šiga), and the 3Sg perfect conditional form in the first clause (ol̆ liiž old), make the impersonal