Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages Brill’S Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture

Home , Instructive case, Livonian grammar, Mari language, Seto dialect, Se Wsi Testamenti

Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture

Series Editors

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) R.M.W. Dixon (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) N.J. Enfield (University of Sydney)

VOLUME 13

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages

Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps

Aet Lees

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Old Town of Tallinn, Estonia. Picture courtesy of Ivar Leidus.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lees, Aet, 1938– author. Case alternations in five Finnic languages : Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps / by Aet Lees. pages cm — (Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture; 13) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-29634-3 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-29636-7 (e-book) 1. Finnic languages—Case grammar. 2. Finnic languages—Case. 3. Finnic languages—Grammar, comparative. 4. Finnic languages—Grammar, historical. 5. Finno-Ugrians—History. 6. Finnic languages— Texts. I. Title.

PH93.L44 2015 494’.54—dc23

2015012680

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1879-5412 isbn 978-90-04-29634-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-29636-7 (e-book)

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Preface ix Acknowledgments x Abbreviations xi

1 Introduction 1 1 The Aim of the Study 1 2 The Organization of the Present Study 2 3 Background Information Concerning the Languages 3 4 The Finnic Case System 7

2 Corpus and Methods 16 1 The Corpus 16 2 Methods 27

3 Object Case in Modern Finnic Languages 29 1 Introduction 29 2 Choice of Case Form from the Accusative Group 30 3 Negation 33 4 Alternation between Accusative and Partitive 35 5 Adverbial ‘Objects’ 48 6 Summary and Concluding Remarks 50

4 Synchronic Corpus Study of Object Case Alternation 52 1 Introduction 52 2 General Comments about the Languages 53 3 Results from the Synchronic Biblical Corpus 56 4 Summary and Concluding Remarks 91

5 Diachronic Study of Object Case 93 1 Introduction 93 2 Old Estonian Texts 94 3 Old Estonian Grammars 101 4 Estonian Secular Texts 103 5 Estonian Bible Texts 106 6 Finnish 134 7 Comparison of Old Finnish and Old Estonian 146 8 Karelian 148 vi contents

9 Livonian 156 10 Veps 162 11 Final Comments 166

6 The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 168 1 Introduction 168 2 Impersonal 169 3 Compound Tenses of Impersonal Verbs 174 4 Subjectless Verbs 174 5 Personal Passive 175 6 Non-finite Passive Verbs 178 7 The Undergoer 179 8 The Agent 182 9 Synchronic Studies from the Corpus 183 10 Diachronic Southern Estonian Study 193 11 Northern (Standard) Estonian 198 12 Summary of Estonian Impersonal and Periphrastic Passive 206 13 Finnish Diachronic Study 207 14 Comparison of Estonian and Finnish 218 15 Karelian 220 16 Livonian 223 17 Veps 224 18 General Summary 226

7 Object Case in Relation to Verb Form 229 1 Introduction 229 2 Imperative Verbs 229 3 Infinitives 246 4 Participles 290 5 Summary 309

8 Copula Clauses 311 1 Introduction 311 2 Noun Phrase Copula Complements 312 3 Adjectival Copula Complements 323 4 Diachronic Studies of Partitive Copula Complements 327 5 Summary 334 Contents vii

9 Existential and Related Clauses 336 1 Existential Clauses 336 2 Possessive Clauses 361 3 Comparison of Possessive and Canonical Existential Clauses 375 4 Other Related Clauses 377 5 Concluding Remarks 378

10 Summary and Conclusions 380 1 Synchronic Corpus Study of Objects (Chapter 4) 380 2 Diachronic Studies (Chapter 5) 382 3 Impersonal and Passive (Chapter 6) 385 4 Verb Form (Chapter 7) 386 5 Predicates (Chapter 8) 387 6 Existential Clauses (Chapter 9) 387 7 Future Trends 388 8 Final Summarizing Remarks 390

Corpus Bibliography 393 Bibles, New Testaments and Gospels in the Corpus 393 Bibles and New Testaments Consulted but not in the Corpus 395 References 396 Index 409

Preface

This study commenced in the mid-1990s, when the similarities and differences in the use of case between Finnish and my native language of Estonian aroused my interest and led to the decision to study this in greater detail. The initial studies compared just Finnish and Estonian, using the same texts from the New Testament. The idea was to compare these languages also with other Finnic languages, and as I gradually became aware of New Testament translations in the other languages, I extended the study. Although much has been written about case in the Finnic languages, a large proportion of the material is in Finnish or Estonian, and thus not readily available for those not conversant with these languages. One of my aims is to enable non-Finnic linguists, who are interested in typology and historical linguistics to have ready access to such material. Much of the material, in a qualitative sense, is familiar to Finnic linguists. Nevertheless, the corpus study contains findings of interest also for the Finnic speakers. The quantitative analysis of the data is new. Acknowledgments

I am grateful especially to Jane Simpson, who has encouraged and guided me throughout, even after she left the University of Sydney for Canberra, and also to Alexandra Aikhenvald for her constant advice and encouragement. When I began the project I was encouraged by a number of linguists, among them Lyle Campbell, who suggested that I study the languages also from a historical viewpoint. Anne Tamm has been a constant support to me and has provided me with some of the source material as well as helpful reference books. Aila Mielikäinen has been especially helpful in checking the Finnish sections of my manuscript and providing very helpful comments, as well as pointing me in the direction of finding further material for the corpus. She has also given me information about the history of Finnish Bible translation. Others who have given me much useful material for my study include Jaan Bärenson, Sirje Cook, Martin Ehala, Mati Erelt, Bill Foley, Külli Habicht, the late Orvokki Heinämäki, Annika Kilgi, Agu Künnap, Helle Metslang, Raimo Raag, Tiiu Salasoo, Virve Vihman and Jussi Ylikoski. Pastor (now Archbishop emeritus) Andres Põder guided me towards the Institute of Theology of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tallinn, which provided me with some old Bible material. Virve Raag pointed me in the direction of much early Estonian material in Uppsala. Lauri Carlson helped me understand some difficult aspects of Finnish grammar. I have also had help in that respect from Anders Ahlqvist, Maria Vilkuna and the Perendi family: Andres, Arja, Jüri and Sirje Perendi-Cook. I have had helpful discussions with Alexandra Aikhenvald, Bob Dixon, Mark Donohue, Nerida Jarkey, Helle Metslang and Virve Vihman.Toomas Pill helped me with the Greek source material before it became available on line. Baiba and Juris Liepins were helpful with Latvian grammar. I have received much support from members of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney, including Bill Foley, Toni Borovsky and Michael Walsh. I thank all these wonderful people. Thank you also to an anonymous reviewer for very helpful suggestions. Last, but not least, I want to thank my husband Boris Lees who has been extremely supportive in every way throughout this time. This study was carried out while holding the position of Honorary Associate in the Department of Linguistics, School of Letters, Arts and Media, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was not supported by any grants. Abbreviations

1,2,3 first, second and third person ABL ablative AC agent construction ACC accusative ADE adessive ADJ adjective/adjectival ALL allative APP approximative AUX auxiliary CAUS causative COM comitative COMP complement COND conditional CONNEG connegative COP copula DAT dative DIM diminutive E Estonian ELA elative EMP emphatic clitic/particle ES southern Estonian ESS essive EVID evidential F Finnish FREQ frequentative GEN genitive ILL illative IMP impersonal IMPV imperative INC inchoative INE inessive INF infinitive INST instructive INTR intransitive JUS jussive K Karelian L Livonian xii abbreviations

LE East Livonian LW West Livonian NEG negative auxiliary/particle NMLZ nominalization NOM nominative NP noun phrase NT New Testament O object PAR partitive PASS passive PL plural POT potential PPP passive past participle PPTCP past participle (active) PRS present PST past PTCL particle PTCP participle PX possessive suffix Q interrogative particle REFL reflexive S subject SBJV subjunctive SG singular TRA translative V Veps Vo Votic V(P) verb (phrase) X adjunct chapter 1 Introduction

1 The Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to compare and contrast the use of case in five Finnic languages, especially the alternations involving the partitive case, and also the different forms of the accusative case. The languages include Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian, Veps and to a minor extent Votic, with occasional reference to some others. The aim is to compare the use of case for objects, predicates and subjects, using parallel texts from the New Testament in these languages. I am not aware of any similar study comparing five Finnic languages, particularly as the New Testament translations into Karelian (2003) and Veps (2006) are fairly recent. In addition to comparing recent translations of the New Testament, a diachronic study has also been carried out for each language. Although there are other diachronic studies, especially in Estonian and Finnish, the present study provides new quantitative analysis, including some Estonian material which has only recently become generally available on line. In order to supplement the information gained from Bible texts some additional material from oral collections is used, especially in Veps and Votic, where the biblical material is limited. Some of the data presented here has been published previously in a more condensed form and including only a part of the present corpus, with earlier publications comparing only Estonian and Finnish. References to these publications are given in the various chapters concerned. Case alternations are found in many languages. Iemmolo (2013) discusses the classification of these into asymmetric and symmetric, depending on direct object encoding. In asymmetric alternations a case marker alternates with zero marking, while in the symmetric system, all alternations have a case marker. In Finnic languages the partitive-accusative case alternation is symmetric (Iemmolo 2013: 381). He does not mention the accusative alternation, which involves the zero-marked (nominative) form. The main area of interest here is the partitive case and its alternations, as well as the various forms of the accusative case. Tamm (2014: 98) points out the difference between the partitive concept (separative relationship), which can be expressed in various ways, and the linguistic partitive (the morphological case), which has evolved to uses not directly related to separation. She explores the relationship between the concept and the morphological case

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004296367_002 2 Chapter 1 in Uralic languages.The present study deals with the linguistic partitive. The partitive case is found in all the Finnic languages, but not as a separate morphologic case in most other languages. While there is mention of the partitive in Hungarian (Moravcsik 1978: 261), it is really the elative case being used in this sense. The partitive case has a number of different functions, the most common use being for objects. There is commonly mention of ‘partitive subjects’ in Finnic languages. These are found in existential clauses and there are differences of opinion as to whether these are really subjects or whether they are objects or something in between. With objects the partitive case alternates with the accusative, and in the case of subjects with the nominative case. These alternations, while similar in all the Finnic languages (Kont 1959a: 132), do show some significant differences from one language to the next. The factors governing the choice of case have also varied diachronically. As Grünthal (2003: 21) points out, the genetic relationship between the Finnic languages is so well accepted that much less attention has been paid to their differences. The aim of the present study is to look at the differences in the case alternations between the various languages and the factors conditioning them, as well as diachronic changes in individual languages. A number of features are involved in determining whether a clause is bounded, in which the object is accusative. These are related to the properties of the verb (aspect) and the object (quantification). There is a gradation from partitive to accusative and a grey area in between. There are some clauses which are partitive in all the languages and some which are accusative in all of them, but many vary from language to language. This variation forms an important part of this study. The different forms of the accusative case have also been studied in the various languages. The choice of form here is determined by syntax. A smaller section is devoted to the comparison of partitive predicates and arguments of existential clauses in the different languages.

2 The Organization of the Present Study

This chapter gives a background description of the Finnic languages as well as the related Saami. This is followed by a section explaining the Finnic case system and a special section, describing the historical development of the partitive and accusative cases. Details concerning the corpus and the general methods involved in carrying out this study are given in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 to 7 discuss the case selection for objects, Chapter 3 giving a general background from the literature, and the other chapters dealing with results from Introduction 3 the corpus. In each chapter there is also more specific background information concerning the particular area under observation. The synchronic study of the objects of active verbs is found in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the diachronic study of objects of active verbs, dealing with each language in suc- cession, with some comparative discussion. Chapter 6 contains a discussion of impersonal and passive verbs and their logical objects. The objects of different verb forms are considered in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 deals with copula clauses, where the main interest is in the case of the predicate, only partitive and nominative copula complements being considered. In Chapter 9 existential and possessive clauses are discussed, with special reference to the case alternation of the single argument. A diachronic section is included in Chapters 6–9. Finally there is a summary of the most significant findings and conclusions in Chapter 10.

3 Background Information Concerning the Languages

3.1 Finnic Languages The Finnic languages belong to the Uralic language family, which is divided into the Samoyed and Finno-Ugric language groups. However, not everyone accepts the relationship between these two (Künnap 2000, personal communication). The subsequent branching of the Finno-Ugric group is shown in Figure 1.1. There are various ways of grouping the Finnic languages, the most common being to divide them into a northern group comprising Finnish, Karelian, Veps and Ingrian (Izhorian), and a southern group including Estonian, Livonian and Votic. Finnish and Estonian are languages of independent nations and have a rich literary heritage. The other languages are spoken by smaller groups, some of which have some measure of autonomy. The boundaries are not always easily distinguishable, as dialects merge across national boundaries. Figure 1.2 shows the areas in which the languages are spoken. Karelian consists of a number of dialects: the northern or Viena group, the southern, which comprises a number of different subdialects, including the eastern Maaselkä dialect, which has been studied in detail by Ojajärvi (1950a), the Olonets (Aunus, Livvi) dialect further south, and several enclaves of Karelian in Russia, such as the the Tver (Kalinin) and Valdai dialects. The Tver dialect group was the largest in 1835, 1897 and 1926, comprising about 50% of the Karelian population (Õispuu 1998–1999: 137). Some classify Olonets as a separate language, e.g. Grünthal (2003: 19) and Salminen (2009). The autono- mous republic of Karelia lies to the east of Finland, stretching from the White Sea to Lake Ladoga. There are also dialects in eastern Finland, which are 4 Chapter 1

URALIC

FINNO-UGRIC SAMOYED

FINNO-PERMIC UGRIC

Hungarian OB-UGRIC

Vogul Ostyak

VOLGA-FINNIC PERMIC

Zyrian (Komi) Votyak (Udmurt)

EARLY PROTO-FINNIC VOLGAIC

Mordvin Cheremis (Mari)

LATE PROTO-FINNIC Saami

Estonian Livonian Votic

Finnish Karelian Veps Figure 1.1 Uralic languages closely related to Karelian. Ludian (Lude) is a dialect midway between Veps and Karelian. Different linguists attribute it either to Karelian (Õispuu 2004: 47) or Veps (Wikipedia 31/10/05), while others consider it a separate language, e.g. Denison (1957), Karlsson (1999: 1), Grünthal (2003: 19) and the Ethnologue Database (2014). According to the Ethnologue Database in the Russian Federation there are 26,600 Karelian speakers including Olonets and Ludian speakers, but widely varying figures can be found. They give as the total number of Karelian speakers in all countries as 35,600. Chude is a name formerly given to the language spoken in the area of southern Karelia and Veps, and would correspond roughly to Ludian. At various times the area has been extended to Introduction 5

Finnish Karelian HELSINKI L.Ladoga L. Onega LENINGRAD Veps TALLINN Estonian Votic Baltic Sea RIGA Izhorian V Livonian Tver olg Karelian a KALININ Finns MOSCOW Karelians Mordvin Vepsians Izhorians Livonian a lg Votians o V Estonians Livonians

Figure 1.2 Location of speakers of Finnic languages include even Estonian, but the spoken material collected by Lönnrot (1853) is closely related to Veps. Veps is spoken in an area to the south of Lake Onega, the number of speakers being 3610 (Ethnologue Database 2014). Votic and Livonian have virtually disappeared, with only an isolated speaker left. Salminen (2009) lists only one remaining speaker for Livonian, and 20 for Votic. Neither language is listed in the Ethnologue Database (2014). The last person with Livonian as his first language is said to have died in 2010, but recently the death of the possibly really last native Livonian speaker has been reported (URA-LIST 4/6/13). Votic is spoken to the east of Estonia in Russian territory and Livonian was spoken in Latvia, mainly on the Courland peninsula. Ingrian (Izhorian) is thought of as a separate language by most Estonian linguists (Kont 1963; Laanest 1975; Uibopuu 1984; Grünthal 2003: 19). There are several dialects, and those spoken in Finland are justifi- ably included under Finnish, while those spoken in Russia (just to the east of Estonia) can be considered separate. There is no Bible translation in Izhorian, 6 Chapter 1 and it has not been included in the present study. All the languages have multiple dialects. Two Finnish dialects have been accorded minority language status: Meänkieli (Torne Valley dialect) in northern Sweden in 2002, and Kven in northern Norway in 2005. According to Wikipedia (24/8/12) there are 40,000– 70,000 native speakers of Meänkieli and 2000–8000 native speakers of Kven. In Estonia the southern Võro dialect, with 70,000 speakers (Wikipedia 24/8/12) is trying to achieve minority language status. Iva (2008: 11) pictures the Võro as well as the Seto dialect as separate languages, but they are not officially accepted as such at this time. At the time of the first printed edition of the southern Estonian New Testament (Wastne Testament) in 1686 southern Estonian (with various subdialects) was spoken throughout southern Estonia, including the university town of Tartu. Later Tartu came to use the standard language based on the northern dialect, and the southern dialect became concentrated around the Võro region with some outliers. The Seto region in the southeast corner of Estonia has a somewhat different dialect related to that of Võro.

3.2 The Saami Language The Saami language is not part of the Finnic language family, but appears typo- logically similar. It will not be dealt with in detail here, but some reference will be made to it, hence this brief summary concerning it. The Saami language, whose origin is somewhat controversial, consists of a number of different dialects, not all mutually intelligible, and spread across a wide area including the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. On the one hand it is thought to be a branch from early Proto-Finnic-Saami, but others, on the grounds of the different physical appearance and genetic studies of the Saami people, consider that they are not genetically related to the Finnic people. Korhonen (1981: 22–28) has a detailed discussion of the relationship between the Saami and Finnic languages. He mentions three possibilities: firstly, that the Saami people originally spoke a different language, but this became sup- planted by Finnic; secondly, their language may have changed as a result of language contact and borrowing, with the change being more gradual from their original language; thirdly, they may be of Finno-Ugric origin. In that case they would have separated after the separation of Mari and Mordvin from Volga-Finnic. The partitive case is rudimentary in present-day Saami, and only occasional reference will be made to it in connection with the historical development of Finnic. Introduction 7

4 The Finnic Case System

Case-marking on nouns serves to indicate both their grammatical relations in a clause and their functions. The structural (grammatical ) cases indicate the grammatical relationships between the arguments of a verb. Across languages the nominative case usually marks the subject, the accusative the direct object. The genitive case marks the possessor. In Finnic languages the roles do not have a one-to-one relationship between morphology and function. Each grammatical function can be expressed by several different morphological cases, depending on the construction of the clause, and each structural case form has several different grammatical functions.The inherent (semantic) cases, although they have specified meanings, also often extend beyond a one-to-one relationship between form and function. The Finnic languages have a rich case system. Table 1.1. shows the case paradigm for nouns in Estonian and Finnish. Other languages are similar, but with some variations, the main ones of which are detailed below. There are three structural or grammatical cases. The partitive should probably be regarded as both a structural and an inherent case, having grammatical function as well as semantic content. The grammatical functions of the structural cases are indicated in the table. There is no specific morphological form for the accusative case of nouns and non-personal pronouns (see discussion in Section 4.2). An accusative case with distinctive morphology (‑t accusative) is found only in the personal pronoun paradigm in Finnish, some Karelian dialects and to a more limited extent in Votic (see Section 4.2.1). The inherent cases are semantic in that their meaning is invested in the case form. There are six locative cases, three internal and three external ones.There are some differences in the various languages, but in general the above applies to all. In addition to the strict locative use, these cases also have other uses, which will be touched on briefly as appropriate. Livonian is the only Finnic language with a morphological dative case, which is used like the adessive or allative in the other languages. The external locative cases are not productive in that language. Veps has additional locative cases: two approximative ‘up to’ and ‘at’ and egressive ‘from’, as well as prolative ‘along’ (Grünthal 2003: 29). The translative case is found in all the languages (in Livonian identical with the comitative), and so is the essive. In Finnish the abessive and comititative are not often used, being replaced by adpositional phrases, and the instructive case is very limited, being used in a few fixed expressions, and with some infinitives (see Chapter 7, Sections 3.2 and 3.3). In addition there are some other cases, which 8 Chapter 1

Table 1.1 Finnic noun declension paradigm

Estonian Finnish

Structural cases Nominative (subject, object) Nominative (subject, object) Genitive (possessor, object, rarely Genitive (possessor, object, subject) subject) Partitive (object, subject, complement) Partitive (object, subject, complement) — Accusative (personal pronoun object) Inherent cases Internal locative cases Illative (into) Illative (into) Inessive (in) Inessive (in) Elative (out of) Elative (out of) External locative cases Allative (on to) Allative (on to) Adessive (on) Adessive (on) Ablative (away from) Ablative (away from) Other cases Translative (change into) Translative (change into) Terminative (up to, until) — Essive (being as) Essive (being as) Abessive (without) Abessive (without) Comitative (with) Comitative (with) — Instructive

vary from language to language, as well as some case remnants, applying to a few words only, and which are not relevant to this study. In addition to nouns (including proper nouns) and pronouns, the cases apply to adjectives and numerals. Adjectives can be used alone as nouns with a meaning such as ‘the red one’. Such adjectives have been analysed as nouns in the present study. Numerals have also been counted with nouns. Verbal agent and action nominalizations are essentially nouns and take the full case paradigm, and are also included in this study. Infinitives and participles can have limited nominal case markers (see Chapter 7). Case-marked adverbs and adpositions are not considered here. The extension of nominal Introduction 9 case markers to other word categories has been discussed by Aikhenvald (2008: 565) and Tamm (2014: 130) The subject of a finite transitive clause is nominative in all the languages. There are some non-canonical subjects (Sands and Campbell 2001: 256) which include the genitive, which is common especially in Finnish, and accepted as such. In all the languages the partitive case can alternate with the nominative in existential clauses, in which the subject status of the argument is questionable. This is discussed in Chapter 9. In possessive clauses the adessive possessor (dative in Livonian) in the various languages is considered by some to be a subject. This also is discussed in Chapter 9. The object cases in all the Finnic languages are partitive, genitive and nominative (VISK §925). For personal pronouns there is a special accusative form, the ‑t accusative in Finnish. The genitive form is used for singular objects and the nominative for plural objects in bounded situations, and in some constructions also for singular ones, the partitive in unbounded situations. I have combined the non-partitive object cases under the term ‘accusative’ for ease of discussion, but where relevant, have shown the separate forms of the accusative. The historical development of the object cases are described below in the next two sections, and their function in more detail in Chapter 3.

4.1 The Partitive Case The morphologic partitive case is found in all the Finnic languages. It is considered the default case (Heinämäki 1984: 155; Schot-Saikku 1990: 54; Sands 2000: 71–2). If no other case is assigned to the complement of a head, then the partitive emerges (Vainikka 2003: 241). The use of the partitive case is similar, but not identical, in the Finnic languages (Kont 1959a: 132; Rätsep 1979: 26). In its use for objects the partitive alternates with the group of cases, which I am calling ‘accusative’, discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The partitive is used in unbounded clauses, where the action is not completed or only a part of the object has been affected. Its use has become grammaticalized in negative clauses. In the case of ‘subjects’ the partitive alternates with the nominative, as discussed in Chapter 9. The adverbial use of the partitive forms a heterogeneous group, which is often difficult to classify. As Kont (1959b: 284) points out, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish objects from adverbials. Kont (1959b) gives numerous examples of ‘objects of intransitive verbs’, which in some instances could be regarded as adverbial, but in other instances verbs which are usually considered intransitive function as transitive ones. Some mention is made of this in 10 Chapter 1

Chapter 3, Section 5. In some adverbial expressions the partitive can alternate with the accusative. These have not been studied in any detail here. Those functions of the partitive, which have become grammaticalized, and do not alternate with other cases include its use in negation, as complements of quantifiers, and of some adpositions, as well as the partitive forms of some non-finite verbs, (see Chapter 7, Section 4.4.1) In most of the languages, with the exception of modern Estonian and Livonian, it is also used in the expression of comparison, although alternative constructions are also common. Exclamations and greetings are often in the partitive case. Tamm (2014: 106) points out the diverse semantics of the morphological partitive: part-whole quantity, definiteness, boundedness, aspectual, epistemic modal, irrealis and evidential. Although the partitive appears in the earliest Finnish writings, it is not mentioned as a separate case in grammar books until Renvall (1815), quoted by Toivainen (1985: 12). The partitive case has developed from the separative case in Uralic, which denoted ‘away from something’. This development began in the Volga-Finnic period (Larjavaara 1991: 378), where the earliest examples of object function of the ablative are found. In Mordvin the separative appears as the ablative. As Harris and Campbell (1995: 55) point out, partitive constructions often develop from ablative or genitive constructions, and also in Finnish the partitive case can have an ablative function (Harris and Campbell 1995: 390, endnote 6). Kont (1963: 47) mentions the differentiation between partial and total objects in Mordvin, where the ablative is used like the partitive in Finnic, but only to a limited extent. An example of this, which Collinder (1965: 124) calls a partitive direct object is shown in example (1.1).

(1.1) Mordvin kše-de jarcy vina-do simi bread-ABL eats wine-ABL drinks ‘he eats bread, drinks wine’ (Collinder 1965: 125)

Kont (1961: 196) states that the Mordvin ablative occurs as the object case of a limited number of verbs, which are similar to those verbs in Finnic which regularly take a partitive object, but offers a caution that the ablative has not really moved into the object case role, which generally uses nominative for indefinite and genitive for definite objects. According to Wickman (1955: 16) the partitive displaced the nominative case for indefinite objects during the Proto-Finnic period. Beronka (1940: 161) suggests that the use of the partitive as an object case arose from its use in indicating the indefinite whole of which a part is under Introduction 11 consideration, that is in quantifier phrases, as illustrated by a Finnish example in (1.2)

(1.2) F hän ost-i tynnyri-n kauro-j-a he buy-PST.3SG barrel-SG.GEN/ACC oats-PL-PAR ‘he bought a barrel of oats’ (Beronka 1940: 161)

Although the syntactic object was tynnyrin, it was reinterpreted with kauroja as the object, presumably because ‘oats’ were bought rather than the quantifier ‘barrel’. Subsequently kauroja became an object without the quantifier, or with a null quantifier. Toivainen (1985: 33) mentions that the suggestion of a null quantifier was made already by von Becker (1824: 184), Kiparsky (2001: 343) postulates an omitted quantifier, which imparts partitivity to the quantified object, and Vainikka (2003: 242, footnote 4) in a similar vein suggests that there is an abstract Q head with the meaning ‘partial’. Itkonen (1971: 194) mentions that some verbs in Saami could take either a partitive or an accusative object, suggesting that aspect was playing a role in Saami. Korhonen (1981: 215) assumes that the partitive was once productive as an object case in Saami for quantitatively partial objects and as objects of certain verbs, such as ‘seek’, ‘hope’, ‘try’ and ‘follow’ among others. Larjavaara (1991: 380) makes a similar suggestion that the aspect-denoting function of the partitive case developed during the Proto-Finnic period, on the basis of its selection for objects of a number of irresultative (atelic) verbs in southern Saami. Hence that development must have occurred before the separation of Saami from Proto-Finnic-Saami. Nowhere in Saami is there any evidence of the partitive having been used for objects in negative clauses, so it appears that this use of the partitive was a later development in Finnic (Beronka 1940: 210). Nor does it appear in Mordvin (Larjavaara 1991: 397–399). Larjavaara suggests that this development occurred in the middle Proto-Finnic period, and may be due to foreign influence, as the genitive (corresponding to the Finnic partitive) does occur instead of the accusative in negative clauses in Balto-Slavic languages (Klaas 1996: 44). There is general agreement about the origin of the singular partitive object in the early Proto-Finnic period, but the time of the development of the plural partitive is more controversial. The suffix of the plural partitive in Finnish (-itA) is cognate with the plural accusative case in Saami (Ravila 1935: 54; Wickman 1955: 27), so by the time of Proto-Finnic-Saami this form must have been established as an object case also for plural nouns. Larsson (1983: 38), on the other hand first mentions the partitive plural in late Proto-Finnic. 12 Chapter 1

Denison (1957: 253–4) also gives a number of reasons why plural partitive forms should be considered a late development, based largely on findings by Ojajärvi. In the Karelian Maaselkä dialect the partitive is generally only used for singular nouns (Ojajärvi (1950b: 238), and the collective singular partitive is used generally for count nouns instead of the plural partitive (Ojajärvi 1950a: 167). Fairly often the plural nominative is used in situations where one would expect a partitive one (Ojajärvi 1950a: 40). In Lithuanian (and to some extent Russian and Latvian) the genitive case instead of accusative is used for objects where Finnic uses the partitive, especially in negative clauses (Klaas 1996: 44). Contact with Baltic languages in particular, which was close in the Proto-Finnic period (Uibopuu 1984: 71; Larsson 1983: 145), is thought to have influenced the way the partitive case is used in Finnic (Larsson 1983: 143). Both Larsson and Klaas point out a number of similarities in the usage of the Finnic partitive and the Lithuanian genitive case. Larsson (1983: 143) concludes that the aspectual usage of the partitive has developed mainly from Baltic influence. Harris and Campbell (1995: 142–3) on the other hand suggest that the Finnic construction influenced the development of a similar construction in Russian and the Baltic languages. Klaas (1996: 37) mentions mutual influence. As the use of the partitive case for objects in negative clauses appears to have been a later development than its use to indicate aspect in Finnic, perhaps this was due to Baltic and/or Russian influence.

4.2 The Accusative Case The accusative case is generally recognized as the prototypical object case in most languages. Finnic languages lack a unique form for the accusative case, the singular being homonymous with the genitive and the plural with the nominative. In some situations, detailed in Chapter 3, Section 2.3, singular objects may also have a nominative form. In Finnish and a few other languages there is a special accusative form for personal pronouns (see Section 4.2.1 below). Karlsson (1966: 21) mentions that Setälä in 1880 was the first to lump all object cases except the partitive together under the term ‘accusative’. The term ‘genitive object’ has sometimes been used to describe the non-partitive group, but leads to confusion in the case of plural nouns, where the form used is the same as that of the nominative. As the genitive case in Finnish, Karelian and Veps has the suffix ‑n, it is also sometimes called the ‑n accusative, but this is not appropriate for the southern group of Finnic languages. I will refer to the collective non-partitive object cases as accusative, or when it is necessary to specify the form, as nominative-accusative or genitive-accusative. The accusative case is used where the action is completed and the entire object is affected, otherwise the partitive is used. Introduction 13

It is thought that originally there was a separate accusative case in Proto- Finnic. The most widely accepted scenario is that in Uralic there was an accusative case for animate or specific nouns in the singular, ending in *‑m (Harris and Campbell 1995: 362). Inanimate and/or nonspecific singular and all plural objects were in the nominative case. According to Wickman (1955: 16) the nominative form was used for indefinite objects and objects of imperatives in Finno-Ugric. Itkonen (1971: 186) also states that in Volga-Finnic the opposition in singular was between the definite accusative object and the indefinite nominative object. In the plural there was only the nominative. A definite meaning could be obtained by using the singular collective. The accusative *-m changed to -n in the period of Proto-Finnic (Wickman 1955: 12), and thus became homonymous with the genitive. In southern Estonian the -n was lost around the end of the 16th century (Laanekask and Erelt 2007: 278), and soon thereafter in the northern dialect, with a few examples in relation to the pronoun se ‘it’ still found in the early 17th century (see Chapter 5, Section 2.2). It has also been lost in Livonian and Votic, while in Finnish, Karelian and Veps it persists. According to Collinder (1965: 122) and Itkonen (1971: 156; 178) the ‑m accusative is seen in some dialects of southern Saami. However, not everyone accepts this explanation. Künnap (2005) suggests that there was no -m accusative in Finno-Ugric. The most frequently quoted evidence of its existence relates to the -m accusative in the Mari language (Itkonen 1971: 156), but Künnap believes that this has not come from Proto- Finno-Ugric (Künnap 2005). There are also -m accusative endings in the Samoyed languages, but Künnap questions whether the Samoyed languages are related to the Finno-Ugric group of languages. There is no accusative case listed in traditional Estonian grammar. The Finnish grammar (VISK §1228) lists the accusative, but only for personal pronoun objects. Kettunen (1943: 90) in his Veps grammar mentions the accusative case, with the singular like the genitive in form, and the plural homonymous with the nominative. More recently in Wikipedia (accessed 07/02/2013) the term ‘accusative’ is found in the Veps case paradigm with homonymous forms as mentioned above. Ariste (1968: 19) reports a similar situation in Votic. Tsvetkov (2008: 13) does not list the accusative in the Votic case paradigm, but comments that it is homonymous with the genitive, without mentioning plural nouns. In Karelian the accusative case is listed for nouns in Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 44), with forms identical with Finnish total objects, but on p. 48, where plural examples are presented, the genitive form is shown as ‘Accusative I’, together with the nominative, labelled ‘Accusative II’. 14 Chapter 1

Kettunen (1938: xli) under the heading ‘accusative’ states that in Livonian the singular is like the genitive and the plural like the nominative. However, Livonian is exceptional in that nominative and genitive nouns are frequently syncretic in the singular and always so in the plural (Tveite 2004: 12), so it is difficult to decide which case is used. Pronouns and determiners do have different forms in these two cases. The Livonian grammar in Wikipedia (accessed 07/02/2013) has only pronominal paradigms for Livonian, without mention of accusative case. For a more detailed discussion of Livonian see Chapter 4, Section 2.2. The choice between the various forms of the accusative is discussed in Chapter 3, Section 2.

4.2.1 The ‑t Accusative There is a special form of the accusative, with a suffix ‑t, which is present in the Finnish personal pronoun paradigm and also for the interrogative kuka ‘who’ (kenet ‘whom’). The ‑t accusative is found also in some Karelian dialects. Zaikov (2002: 107) in his Viena Karelian grammar lists the ‑t accusative for all personal pronouns, singular and plural. It is found for plurals in the oral collections of the Kalinin (Tver) (Makarov 1963) and Valdai dialects of Karelian (Palmeos 1958) and in the older Karelian biblical corpus. Ojajärvi (1950a: 111) mentions its presence in the plural personal pronoun paradigm in the Maaselkä dialect, as well as in the Aunus (Olonets), Viena and Tver dialects, but not in Ludian or Veps (Ojajärvi 1950a: 113). However, Ojansuu (1910: 35) reports that Genetz did not mention this form in the Aunus (Olonets) dialect. Some dialects of Votic have ‑t accusatives, but only limited to 1st and 2nd person plural (see Chapter 4, Section 2.4). Ojansuu (1910: 35) also mentions its presence for plurals in Ingrian (Izhorian), and so does Laanest (1986: 120). Ojansuu points out that Ingrian is thought to have separated from Karelian in the 12th century, and suggests that the presence of the ‑t accusative in Ingrian as well as in Karelian is evidence of its existence already by that time. In the Estonian northeast coastal dialect, which is the closest to Finnish (Must 1995: 54), there are occasional examples of forms, which appear identical with the ‑t accusative of Finnish, for example minut, but these are actually likely to be partitive, as shown by their use in negative clauses.

(1.3) E sie minu-t ei tüitta-nd paľlo that.NOM 1SG-PAR NEG disturb-CONNEG.PST much ‘that did not disturb me much’ (Must 1995: 100) Introduction 15

According to Wickman (1955: 11) the ‑t suffix in the Finnish nominative plural and ‑t accusative is a direct descendant of the plural nominative *‑t of Uralic. Ojansuu (1910: 35) also states that the ‑t suffix is derived from the plural nominative suffix, and has come into Karelian some time after the beginning of the Proto-Finnic era. He mentions that in old Finnish plural personal pronouns with the ‑t suffix are occasionally found also as subjects (Ojansuu 1910: 36). Hakulinen and Karlsson (1975: 362) suggest that personal pronoun accusatives came about to disambiguate genitive possessive pronouns from genitive objects. The ‑t accusative case appears to have come into standard Finnish in the middle of the 19th century from the eastern Finnish dialects and Karelian. Jahnsson (1871: 15) mentions that the special accusative form for plural personal pronouns in eastern Finnish dialects was used for total objects in all constructions. In written Finnish it was becoming acceptable to use the plural forms meidät, teidät, heidät, except with passive verbs, where the nominative was still used. Later it was extended to the singular (Setälä 1880: 11). Although its use in standard Finnish was only developing in the 19th century, examples of the plural ‑t accusative are found in some of Agricola’s writings from the 16th century (see Chapter 5, Section 6.2.1). In modern standard Finnish and the present day eastern dialects the ‑t accusative is used for all persons in all instances where the action is bounded, including personal pronoun objects of imperative and impersonal verbs. In western dialects, for example Pori in southwest Finland (Eskola 1987: 204), there is no ‑t accusative and the accusative form of personal pronouns is the same as the genitive for both singular and plural, or else the partitive is used. chapter 2 Corpus and Methods

1 The Corpus

The main part of the corpus consists of texts from the New Testament in the various Finnic languages, from the most recent as well as older editions / translations. These biblical texts were chosen because of ease of comparison, although the various translations cannot always be compared sentence for sentence, as some of them are relatively free. However, the corresponding verses refer to the same situation or conversation in each language, so from the point of view of aspect and quantification they are mostly comparable, even if at times the syntactic construction or the choice of verb is different. As they are independent translations, they can be expected to be less influenced by each other than in the case of a direct translation from one language to another, although there is some evidence of reference to other translations, especially German, Swedish and Finnish. While the German translation by Martin Luther has been relied on considerably, and old Slavic for the older Karelian translations and perhaps Veps, most have also used the original Greek and the Latin Vulgate translations. They are likely to be reasonably consistent in language use, being subject to deliberation often by several people working in unison. However, there are also some drawbacks. Different people may be responsible for the translation of different chapters. Being translations, they do not reflect the local language as accurately as original data from L1 speakers. This is so especially in the case of the older Estonian Bible translations by L2 speakers. Religious language also tends to be rather conservative, more so than other written material, and especially when compared with the spoken language. The earliest written material in Estonian before the full translations of biblical texts consists mainly of religious material, catechisms and sermons, with some secular texts. Sections from these are included in order to look at the written language at an earlier stage. Because of some of the drawbacks of using biblical material, some oral collections have also been studied, but they have not been analysed in as great a detail as the biblical corpus. In some of the languages where there is little biblical material, such as Votic, and diachronically Veps, more use has been made of oral collections.

A description is given in this chapter of the various texts used. The biblio- graphic details are given in the Corpus Bibliography section.

1.1 New Testament Texts Although all New Testament (NT) translations ultimately go back to the same original Greek, the translations show considerable variation. Some, especially the 1989 Estonian NT, try to follow the original faithfully, but others try to make the content easier to read and understand. For example, in Veps, long sentences are broken down into shorter ones. For the comparison between the different languages the Estonian New Testament (Uus Testament), published in 1989, has been used. The Finnish Bible (Raamattu) was published in 1992, and is also a new translation. The Karelian NT (Uuzi Sana) was published in 2003 in the Olonets (Livvi) dialect. In Livonian the NT (Ūž Testament) appeared in 1942, and in Veps (Uz’ Zavet) in 2006. In Votic there are only Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (henceforth referred to as ‘St. Matthew’s gospel’ or ‘the gospel’) from 1883 (Matteuksen evankeljumia). St. Matthew’s gospel and St. Paul’s First letter to the Corinthians (henceforth referred to as ‘1 Corinthians’) are the main texts used. These two books of the New Testament represent different genres, and thus complement each other. These texts in the various languages comprise the synchronic Bible corpus. The various translations and editions used for the diachronic corpus (which include those from the synchronic list, but in some instances only the gospel) are listed under the different language sections below.

1.1.1 Estonian The history of Bible translation in Estonia has been described in detail by Paul (1999). Fragments of a catechism are the earliest examples of written Estonian and the first Bible translations were isolated sections of the NT among the sermons of Georg Müller and the writings of Heinrich Stahl in the 17th century, which are detailed in Section 1.2.1. A manuscript of a translation of St. Matthew’s gospel carried out by Johannes Gutslaff in 1648–1656 (the dates are somewhat uncertain) was transcribed by Göseken. It contains abbreviations of common words, and in a number of words letters have been omitted in the original, but have been inserted in brackets in the electronic version. This is in the southern dialect, but differs in many respects from subsequent southern Estonian translations of the NT (Wastne Testament). These texts and translations were written by L2 speakers of Estonian. Although many were born in Estonia, the language spoken in their homes was generally German. The source material 18 Chapter 2 was apparently mostly the Greek NT, albeit with some influence from Luther’s German translation (Kilgi 2012: 47). Later translations relied more heavily on Luther’s translation. The earliest published translation of the full New Testament (Wastne Testa ment) is in the southern dialect in 1686. Further editions of the Wastne Testament were published in 1857, 1886 and 1905, based on the original translation, but with some modifications of the language. All the gospels were published in the Seto dialect from south-eastern Estonia in 1926, and St. Matthew’s gospel is included in the corpus in the diachronic study of southern Estonian. Four different manuscripts of translations of St. Luke’s gospel from the period 1600–1705 in the northern Estonian dialect have recently been compiled by Kristiina Ross and edited by Reila et al. (2007). The history of these translations is given in the foreword of their publication, and in a more detailed discussion at the back of the book. The first is a preliminary version from 1680–1687, and the second is the finalised version of this from a Bible conference in Pilistvere in 1687. It is referred to as the Pilistvere manuscript. This final version is used here for comparison with the other two old translations of St. Luke’s gospel. The third manuscript (1694) is kept in München, and is hence referred to as the München manuscript, and the final manuscript (1705) is in Stockholm. As the Pilistvere manuscript only contains the first 18 chapters of St. Luke’s gospel, only these chapters have been compared from all three. A transcript of the entire München manuscript is now available electronically and from this St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians have been included in the northern Estonian diachronic corpus. The first publication of a translation of the NT in the northern dialect (Uus Testament) took place in 1715 with Johann Hornung’s translation thought to have been used as a basis (Ross 2009: 556). Hornung is thought to have been significantly involved with the production of the München manuscript (Reila 2007a and b) (See Chapter 5, Sections 3 and 5.4 for further details concerning Hornung). The full Bible translation (Pühha Kirri) was published in the northern dialect in 1739, and as a result the northern dialect developed into the standard language. Subsequent editions were based on this one until 1989. In the 17th century Estonia was under Swedish rule and in 1721 Russia took over after defeating Sweden, but throughout this time the feudal barons and the clergy, who were the main Bible translators, were mostly of German background as a result of previous German occupation of the country. Their education was mainly in German and it was often obtained abroad. German was their usual language at home, but most were born in Estonia and would have been exposed to some Estonian language also from an early age. Corpus and Methods 19

At intervals new editions of the Bible in the northern dialect (standard language) were published with some modifications. In the 1862 Bible (not included in the corpus) the text is still almost identical with that from 1739, but by 1903 a significant number of changes had been made. The 1903 Bible was published in Tartu, but by that time the standard written language was used in this university town, although in the Võro region and the rest of the southern part of the province, the southern dialects still persisted, and are spoken to this day. The Bible published in 1914 in Tallinn in northern Estonia is almost identical with the 1903 edition, with some minor differences. The 1914 edition is not included in the corpus. All the above editions were revised mainly by L2 speakers. Until the early 20th century there were two sociolects of Estonian, one spoken by the clergy, either of German origin, or highly influenced by German, considered the superior sociolect, and that spoken by the native Estonians, considered inferior (Ross 2003: 55). The difference between the two narrowed gradually during the 19th century, when more native Estonians gained access to education and national consciousness developed. In 1939 major revision was undertaken by L1 speakers with the view of pro- ducing a 200-year jubilee Bible. However, due to political developments only the NT was completed at that time. The Bible published in exile in 1945 appears to be a reprint of the one from 1914, and has not been used in the corpus. The 1947 NT published in exile incorporates the revision and is included here. In 1968 the full Bible was published in exile, with the New Testament somewhat modified from the 1947 edition. During the Soviet occupation no further editions were able to be published in Estonia until 1989, when the revised 1739 Bible finally appeared. This followed the original translation closely, but the orthography and grammar was modernized. This revised edition was compared with the original one in Lees (2005) and has not been included in the present corpus. Also in 1989 a new edition of the NT was published in Estonia, which is a new translation from the original Greek, independent of previous translations, with the language markedly modernized. The language is more formal than in other recent Bible editions. This 1989 NT has been used in the synchronic study for comparison with the other modern languages. Subsequently in 1997 the whole Bible was published, which incorporated material from the 1989 NT and from the 1968 Bible. Because that translation came to hand only after the study was underway, it has not been used for the synchronic study, but is included in the diachronic material. Of the southern Estonian NT editions, only the electronic version of Gutslaff’s manuscript and the Seto dialect gospel from 1926 are in the Latin script, the rest are all written in Gothic script. Of the northern editions the 20 Chapter 2

München manuscript and editions from the 1947 NT onwards use the Latin script, the other earlier ones the Gothic script. The following editions of the Estonian NT and Bible have been included in the corpus.

Southern Estonian Johannes Gutslaffi Uue Testamendi tõlge (The New Testament translation by Johannes Gutslaff) 1648?–1656? incomplete—St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24. (manuscript, now on-line) Wastne Testament (New Testament) 1686, 1857, 1886 and 1905 Evangeelium Pühä Matteusõ kirotõt (The gospel written by St. Matthew) in the Seto dialect from south-eastern Estonia 1926

Northern or standard Estonian Uus Testament (New Testament) 1694 (München manuscript) Uus Testament 1715 Jummala Sanna (The Word of God) 1739 Piibli Raamat (The Book of the Bible) 1903 Uus Testament 1947 Piibel (Bible) 1968 Uus Testament 1989 Piibel 1997

The Gospel of St. Luke (Northern Estonian) (in Reila et al. 2007) Final version of the Pilistvere manuscript 1687 München manuscript 1694 Stockholm manuscript 1705

1.1.2 Finnish The history of Finnish Bible translation and some of the characteristics of ‘religious language’ have been detailed by Mielikäinen (1999–2001). The first translation of the New Testament, by Mikael Agricola, appeared in 1548. Agricola was born in a Finnish-Swedish bilingual village on the south coast of Finland east of Helsinki. He was educated in Viipuri in south-eastern Finland, later studied in Wittenberg in Germany and became the bishop of Turku in western Finland. He was thus exposed to a number of Finnish dialects, but in his writings he used mainly the language spoken in Turku in the southwestern part of Finland. At the time Finland was under Swedish rule and according to Collinder (1965: 10) his native tongue was probably Swedish, although others differ. Corpus and Methods 21

The next translation, this time of the entire Bible, appeared in 1642, and differs considerably from that of 1548. The orthography of old Finnish is different from that of the modern language, which results in some ambiguities. A fresh translation was published in 1776 and is now available on-line, with Latin script rather than the original Gothic.The orthography has been modernised in this translation. Subsequent editions up to 1932/1938 were based on this. The 1880 Bible text is almost identical with the 1776 one, except for a major difference in the handling of personal pronouns. The Bible published in 1901 is similar to the 1880 one and has not been included in the corpus. The NT published in 1906 differs markedly. According to Keresztes (2010: 129) the translations were based on a mixture of Finnish dialects. Mielikäinen (1999–2001: 15) mentions that old written Finnish was greatly influenced by foreign languages, Swedish, German and Latin. A new translation of the New Testament was completed in 1933, and of the entire Bible in 1938. This translation still retains some of the archaic language (Mielikäinen 1999–2001: 13). A further new translation of the Bible appeared in 1992, where the language has been modified so as to be closer to the modern standard language. The following translations / editions of the Bible or NT in Finnish have been used for the corpus.

Se Wsi Testamenti (The New Testament) 1548 Uusi Testamentti 1906 Biblia (Bible) 1642, 1776 and 1880 Raamattu (Bible) 1938 and 1992

1.1.3 Karelian There are two early translations of St. Matthew’s gospel available in the Latin script. The earliest one in the Tver dialect was published in 1820 in the Cyrillic script, and romanized by Ahlqvist (1865). According to Ahlqvist (1865: 1) the original Karelian translation by priests (most likely L2 speakers) was from Old Slavic rather than Greek, but probably some German and Latin texts were used as well. The Tver dialect is one of the southern Karelian dialects, but is now spoken some distance away from the other southern dialects. The other translation of St. Matthew’s gospel is in the southern Karelian dialect, published in 1864. This follows the 1820 translation fairly closely, differing mainly ortho- graphically, but also in a few grammatical constructions. The publication does not give any details about the translator(s), except that the manuscript was reviewed by F.J. Wiedemann. 22 Chapter 2

The full New Testament was published in the Olonets (Livvi) dialect in 2003. The language of this translation is markedly different from the earlier ones. These three translations have been included in the corpus.

Tver dialect: Herrän miän sündüruohtinan Svätoi Jovangeli Matveista (St. Matthew’s Gospel of Our Saviour Lord) 1820. Southern Karelian dialect: Matveista Svjatoi Jovangeli (St. Matthew’s Gospel) 1864. Olonets dialect: Uuzi sana (New Testament) 2003.

1.1.4 Livonian The two earliest translations of St. Matthew’s gospel (Das Evangelium Matthäi) into Livonian both appeared in 1863. The translation into the western Livonian dialect in the Courland region was done by J. Prinz and sons, and the eastern dialect by N. Polman. The translators were native Livonians (L1 speakers), but both translations were reviewed by F.J. Wiedemann. Another translation of St. Matthew’s gospel was published in St. Petersburg in 1880 (Tveite 2004: 44; Pajusalu 2011: 4), which I have not accessed. The entire Livonian NT (Ūž Testament) was published in 1942. This translation was done chiefly by Kaarli Stalte (L1 speaker), with the help of Lauri Kettunen and several others. It was translated primarily from the original Greek, but with some reference to the translations in German, Latvian, Estonian and Finnish. The foreword by Pesonen in the 1942 NT details the history of the translation. According to Pajusalu (2011: 3) the 1863 eastern dialect gospel translation was also used by Stalte. Tveite (2004: 44) casts some doubt on the quality of the translation of the NT. The 1942 NT is part of the synchronic Bible corpus, and is compared with the two earlier gospels in the diachronic section (Chapter 5). The Livonian Bible texts in the corpus are as follows:

Das Evangelium Matthäi in den östlichen Dialect des Livischen (The Gospel of Matthew in the eastern Livonian dialect) 1863 Das Evangelium Matthäi in den westlichen Dialect des Livischen (The Gospel of Matthew in the western Livonian dialect) 1863 Ūž Testament (New Testament) 1942

1.1.5 Veps St. Matthew’s gospel (Evangelii Matvejan mödhe) in Veps was published in 1998. The New Testament (Uz’ Zavet) appeared in 2006. This was a group translation from the original Greek, under the leadership of Nina Zaiceva (L1 speaker). The Corpus and Methods 23 gospel in the NT is similar to the earlier version, but some changes have been made. St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians form part of the synchronic Bible corpus. The later gospel is compared with the earlier one in the diachronic section (Chapter 5).

1.1.6 Votic Only limited sections of St. Matthew’s gospel (Matteuksen evankeljumia), Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6, have been translated into Votic by August Ahlqvist, and published in 1883. Chapter 5 is a surprising omission, as it deals with some of the basic teachings of Jesus. It is also unfortunate from the point of view of language comparison. This small part of the gospel has been included in the synchronic corpus despite the early date, and compared with the corresponding chapters from the other languages.

1.1.7 Other Reference Material Reference has been made to the Greek New Testament and Martin Luther’s translation of it. The bibliographical details are given in the Corpus Bibliography.

1.2 Other Written Material 1.2.1 Estonian Although the first Estonian Bible translation appeared more than a century after the first Finnish New Testament, other religious writings were available from an earlier date. The earliest ones have been listed on-line by VAKK. All the early texts, certainly up to the beginning of the 19th century and in some cases beyond, have been influenced by German, as described in Section 1.1.1.

1.2.1.1 Kullamaa Manuscript (1524) and Wanradt-Koell Catechism (1535) These consist of small fragments of text, insufficient for quantitative analysis, but give some insight into the language at the time.

1.2.1.2 Georg Müller (about 1565–1608) A much larger volume of text exists in the form of sermons, penned by Georg Müller in 1600–1606, but not published until 1891, when Wilhelm Reiman organized their publication, under the heading Neununddreiszig Estnische Predigten (39 Estonian Sermons). The first 50 pages of this publication have been included in the corpus. The rest of the book is not included in the corpus, but when it became available electronically (VAKK, accessed 15/07/2005) I studied it without including it in the corpus. An example is drawn from that part. There are a number of quotations from the Bible in the sermons. Müller was born in Estonia, but there is some dissension about whether he was of 24 Chapter 2

Estonian or German parentage, the latest opinion leaning towards German. He gained his main education in Lübeck in Germany. At the time of writing the above sermons he was working as a pastor in Tallinn (Prillop 2009: 598). His language is far from modern Estonian, and much influenced by German. Indeed, the sermons often include passages in German. The analysis is difficult, because of the lack of a standardized language at the time, resulting in many ambiguities as far as case is concerned.

1.2.1.3 Heinrich Stahl (about 1600–1657) Heinrich Stahl (Stahel, Stahlius) was an authoritative figure in the history of early Estonian writing. Born in Tallinn of German parents, he received his education in Germany. Subsequently he was a pastor in various parts of Estonia (Raag 2003: 339). He translated religious texts (excerpts from the catechism, Bible passages, hymns, sermons and prayers). The texts analysed here include the Hand- und Hauszbuch, Part I (1632), pp. 1–51; Part II (1637b), pp. 62–82; and Leyen Spiegel, Part I (1641), pp. 1–44. These are referred to as HH I, HH2 and LS respectively. The language is strongly influenced by German, and the orthography also is largely that of German. Stahl’s writings had a great influence on the written Estonian language up to the 19th century. A detailed review of discussions concerning his work is found in Habicht (2001: 13–40). As with Müller’s work, there are many ambiguities because of the lack of a standardized language. Stahl’s Estonian text is accompanied by a German version, which presumably was composed initially and then translated into Estonian.

1.2.1.4 Friedrich Wilhelm Willmann (1746–1819) Willmann’s book Juttud ja Teggud ‘Tales and Deeds’ was published in 1782. The book was reprinted in 1975, with a postscript by A. Vinkel, which describes Willmann’s life and his work. He was born in Latvia and grew up in Riga. In 1772 he took up the position of pastor on the island of Saaremaa off the west coast of Estonia. His book, which is an example of early secular literature, consists mainly of fables, with each of those followed by a short admonition to the reader. This book has largely been based on a similar book by Latvian author Gotthard Friedrich Stender, published in 1766. The first 51 pages of the book only have been included in the corpus, except for the impersonal and passive (Chapter 6), where the study was extended to 101 pages due to the paucity of tokens.

1.2.1.5 Otto Wilhelm Masing (1763–1832) Masing was born in north-eastern Estonia near Lake Peipus, and studied theology at the University of Halle in Germany. He subsequently worked as a teacher Corpus and Methods 25 in the Tallinn district and later as a pastor in eastern Estonia. He is considered the best Estonian linguist of his time, and brought in several innovations. He issued weekly publications containing travel descriptions and news from around the world. Here some material has been analysed from Pühhapäewa Wahhe-luggemissed ‘Sunday Readings’ 1818, pp. 1–51, and from Marahwa Näddala-Leht ‘The People’s Weekly Journal’, pp. 9–48, with pp. 34–35 missing.

1.2.2 Finnish The first Finnish novel Seitsemän veljestä by Aleksis Kivi was originally published in 1870. A new edition, published in 2002, was used for the analysis, but this does not appear to have been modernized. The book consists largely of dialogue, and deals with the adventures of seven brothers in the Finnish countryside. The first two chapters (pp. 5–44) have been analysed for objects in the active voice, with the addition of the third chapter (pp. 45–68) for the analysis of the impersonal voice (Chapter 6), and the further addition of the fourth chapter (pp. 69–89) for copula clauses and existential clauses (Chapters 8 and 9).

1.3 Transcribed Oral Collections Only a few analyses of transcribed oral collections have been included in the corpus to supplement the biblical data, where this is limited. Texts with an accompanying translation (mostly Finnish, occasionally Estonian) only have been used. These translations vary considerably in how closely they follow the original passage. The case used for objects in the translation tends to follow the usage in the language used for translation, occasionally with an indication that the case is different in the original. Many sentence fragments, as well as corrections are found. Most of them deal with a description of the life in the community in the past, and a number are narratives, mainly local folk tales. Although these do not form true comparisons, they serve to give some idea of whether the oral language is similar to that used in the Bible corpus. They also give some historical perspective, especially in Veps, where the Bible translations are very recent. As Livonian differs most from the other languages, an oral collection has been studied to compare it with the Bible translations to see if the earlier spoken language is similar to the biblical ones. Livonian texts were published by Lauri Kettunen (1925a) from collections by Oskar Loorits and Antti Aarne. Folk tales from four different east Livonian dialects form the corpus. Pages 25–87 have been included. Two Karelian dialects have been studied, and some reference is made to these, but they have not been included in the corpus. One is the Tver (Kalinin) dialect, which was collected by Makarov in 1957–8 and published in 1963. 26 Chapter 2

It consists of folk tales related by three speakers, aged 55, 66 and 72. The other Karelian dialect is Valdai, the text consisting of folk tales collected and written down by Palmeos (1958). Southern Veps folk tales were collected by Lauri Kettunen in 1918 and published by Kettunen (1925b). This gives some idea of the spoken language at an earlier time than the Bible texts. Pages 1–50 have been used for this study, and are included in the diachronic section of the corpus. What is referred to as the Chude language covered an area in the region of Karelian, Ludian and Veps, but sometimes even including Estonia. The collection of spoken speech by Lönnrot (1853) comes from the northern Chude area and is closest to Veps. It has been included in Chapter 5 to give some idea of an earlier stage of that language. Pages 3–28 have been analysed. Lauri Kettunen and Lauri Posti (1932) collected folk tales from western and eastern Votic. Pages 2–57 of the western dialect have been analysed. The western oral collection comes mainly from the Kattila district. A parallel text is given by Dimitri Tsvetkov in the Joenperä dialect. There is not much difference syntactically between the two, the main differences being morphological, so only the Kattila collection has been used. The eastern dialect is from the Ikäpäivä district, from which pp. 118–142 have been analysed. Again Tsvetkov gives the equivalent in the Joenperä dialect.

1.4 Summary The main part of the synchronic corpus consists of texts from two books from the New Testament in Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps. St. Matthew’s gospel consisting of 28 chapters and 1 Corinthians of 16 chapters have been used for analysis, the latter providing a much smaller section of the corpus. In the biblical corpus over 57,000 transitive clauses have been examined The gospel contains both narrative and dialogue; 1 Corinthians is a letter. In Karelian, Livonian and Veps only St. Matthew’s gospel was available apart from the latest translation. Altogether 23 different versions of the gospel and 18 versions of 1 Corinthians comprise the main corpus. The original translators and editors of further issues were mainly L2 speakers in Estonian until the 20th century, while Agricola, the earliest Finnish translator, has variously been thought to have either Finnish or Swedish as his mother tongue, but certainly to have been fluent in both from an early age. For Livonian all the translations have been attributed to native speakers, but with the help of L2 linguists. Little information was available concerning the Karelian translators, while the Veps translators are native L1 speakers. The Votic translation was made by an L2 speaker. Corpus and Methods 27

Other written material is more fragmentary, and not directly comparable, but serves to add information concerning earlier stages of Estonian, written by L2 speakers.The first Finnish novel by Aleksis Kivi (1880) brings in some comparison with the spoken language of the day, as it consists largely of dialogue. The oral collections were transcribed by L2 speakers from recordings made from L1 informants, mostly born in the 19th century, and living in country areas. These have been used to provide a small window into an earlier stage of the languages concerned, especially in Veps, where the earliest gospel translation only goes back to 1998. Because of differences in dialects and register, these afford only a very rough comparison with the main corpus.

2 Methods

While the languages have much vocabulary and syntax in common, they have each been influenced by different languages, and direct comparison of sentences is often not possible. Although the translations are all based on the original Greek New Testament, there are a number of ways of expressing the same situation or event, using different constructions, which are not directly comparable, but are semantically equivalent. Different interpretations of the original text can be expected. Exact morpheme by morpheme correspondence in five languages is uncommon. Hence, the percentages of different cases used are shown for comparison. Where relevant, individual clauses have also been compared. The results from both St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians have been combined wherever both are available. For the diachronic data in languages other than Estonian and Finnish, only the gospel is used. The study has been carried out manually. All the texts in the corpus have been screened several times and all objects, personal and other pronouns and nouns, have been identified and categorized for case for Chapters 4–7. The percentage of objects in each category has been calculated. Nouns, personal pronouns and other pronouns have been analysed separately, although combined figures are also shown. Cardinal numbers and proper names are included under nouns in the sections dealing with objects. Non-declinable adverbial quantifiers, such as Estonian palju ‘much / many’, have been excluded. In Chapters 4 and 7 negative clauses have been excluded from the main statistics, because of the grammaticalized use of the partitive case for objects, but are mentioned separately where relevant. In the study of diachronic material (Chapter 5) and and the passive (Chapter 6), negative clauses have also been included in some sections, but are discussed separately. 28 Chapter 2

For Chapter 8 copula clauses have been identified and those with nominative or partitive copula complements, both noun phrases and adjectives, selected. The percentage of tokens in each case has been calculated. Complements in other cases have not been included in the study. Affirmative and negative clauses are included. For Chapter 9 all existential and related clauses have been found and the case of the existential argument (often labelled ‘subject’ in the literature) studied. Here quantifier phrases with cardinal numbers or invariable adverbs as heads have been excluded from the calculations. Negative clauses are included. The percentages of partitive and nominative cases of the single argument have been determined. In the setting out of the tables and the examples, the southern languages Estonian and Livonian are grouped together for easier comparison and the northern languages are in alphabetical order. Results from the limited corpus of Votic are added at the bottom. The language is indicated for all the examples by the first letter(s) of the name. The references are given as chapter and verse of either St Matthew’s gospel or 1 Corinthians, or in greater detail for those from other sources. Where no date is given the example comes from the edition used for the synchronic analysis. All the diachronic examples have the date indicated.Where no references are shown for some Estonian examples, they are my own, as a native speaker. Occasional Finnish examples, which have no reference, are also mine. For some examples from the literature, where the gloss is incomplete or lacking, I have modified or added it, and given the translation in English, if the original has it in another language. The translations of the examples from the Bible are my own. Where the emphasis is on the partitive-accusative alternation, only the partitive and the total accusative are listed in the table. However, most tables have the various forms of the accusative listed separately in order to point out differences between languages or various editions of the same language. Many of the tables limited to nouns only, show separate results also for singular and plural. In Livonian the reflexive pronoun entšta ‘self’, which only has the partitive form as object, and the relative pronoun mis ‘which, what’, which is only in the nominative form, have been excluded from all chapters. Some other limited exclusions are stated in the relevant sections. I have kept the original orthography for the examples wherever possible, except for changing the Gothic script into Latin script, and have not attempted any modernization. Occasionally some diacritics which mainly serve phonetic purposes in oral collections, have been omitted. CHAPTER 3 Object Case in Modern Finnic Languages

1 Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction from grammars and linguistic literature to the material in the present study, forming a basis for the subsequent direct comparison of the different languages in Chapter 4. Most of the material in this chapter will be well known to Finnic language speakers, but as a significant proportion of the literature is in Finnish or Estonian, it will not be readily accessible to non-speakers. In the Finnic languages there is no single distinct morphological form for the case of the object, the nominative, genitive, ‑t accusative and partitive case being used (VISK §925). In Finnish these cases are easily distinguished due to distinctive morphology. The only confusion which arises is between the nominative singular and plural and the genitive singular when a possessive suffix is added, when these cases are completely syncretic. In Estonian, on the other hand, there are a number of nouns, which have the same morphology in the genitive and partitive, and sometimes also nominative case. Here disambiguation is sometimes possible syntactically or by the case of a modifying adjective, which agrees with the noun it modifies, or simply by native knowledge of the language as to which case is possible. In a very small number of instances in modern Estonian, it is not obvious which case is meant. In Karelian the cases are distinct. In Veps the singular partitive and the plural nominative are often homonymous, and in Livonian the nominative and genitive are very often identical in the singular and always so in the plural. Votic also has ambiguities. Object case alternates between the partitive and the group of non-partitive object cases. The factors involved in this alternation are discussed in detail in Section 4. There is often a need to refer to the non-partitive object cases as a group. Most Estonian and many Finnish linguists use the term ‘total object’ to refer to this group (EKG II 1993: 46; VISK §925). The terms ‘total’ and ‘partial’ can be misleading. Rajandi and Metslang (1979: 28) have pointed out that while a total object presupposes a whole object, the partial object does not necessarily denote a part of the object. There are many situations where a non-divisible object is in the partitive case. The term ‘accusative’ is used by many linguists, for example Heinämäki (1984), Kiparsky (1998) and Sands and Campbell (2001) as a blanket term for the non-partitive object case. Karlsson (1966: 21) mentions in his detailed discussion of the accusative case in Finnish that Setälä

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004296367_004 30 CHAPTER 3 in 1880 was the first to lump all total objects together under the term ‘accusative’. However, this term is somewhat controversial, as there is no specific morphology for such a case, apart from the ‑t accusative for personal pronouns in Finnish. Tveite (2004: 13) has given good reasons for using the term ‘accusative’ for the non-partitive object case in his discussion of Livonian, and I will also use this term. Most Estonian linguists prefer to avoid it. Briefly, the accusative object occurs in situations where the action is finished and the whole object affected, otherwise the partitive is used. Before coming to the discussion of the factors involved in the partitive-accusative alternation, I will describe briefly how the various morphological forms of the accusative are used. The discussion in this chapter relies mainly on Estonian and Finnish, but brings in the other languages also.

2 Choice of Case Form from the Accusative Group

These choices are dependent on syntax, including word category, number, and verbal construction.

2.1 Word Category Personal pronouns in Finnish always appear in the ‑t accusative, and never in the genitive or nominative form in the modern language, as discussed in Chapter 1, Section 4.2.1. For the other languages the choices are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 2. Cardinal numbers greater than one as heads of a quantifier phrase in the object position are in the nominative singular form rather than the genitive. This may relate to the fact that although numbers are singular syntactically, they are semantically plural (Hakulinen and Karlsson 1975: 356, 363). They are declinable and can be used in the partitive case in appropriate environ- ments, such as negation, but the tendency is for them to be nominative also in unbounded situations. Itkonen (1971–2: 184) suggests that the use of the nominative case for numeral objects was probably of ancient origin. Non-declinable quantifiers have been excluded from the present study. Other quantifiers are mentioned in Section 2.3.3 below. Singular and plural noun objects differ in the accusative case form as discussed below. Proper names are declined like common nouns. Non-personal pronouns also mostly follow the same pattern. Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 31

2.2 Number The genitive form is used for singular noun objects of verbs in the indicative mood, and the nominative for plural ones, as exemplified in the following Estonian examples (3.1) and (3.2). This is so for the other languages also, with a few exceptions. Some differences in Karelian are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 2.1, and in Livonian in Chapter 4, Section 2.2.

(3.1) E Pani-n raamatu laua-le. put.PST-1SG book.SG.GEN/ACC table.SG-ALL ‘I put the book on the table.’

(3.2) E Pani-n raamatu-d lauale. put.PST-1SG book-PL.NOM/ACC table.SG-ALL ‘I put the books on the table’

2.3 Nominative-Accusative Case for Singular Nouns There are also situations, where the nominative-accusative form is used for a singular noun object instead of the genitive-accusative. These occur in clauses where there is no nominative subject, as was mentioned already by Jahnsson (1871: 14). Reime (1993: 89) links this phenomenon to various constructions of the verb itself rather than always the absence of a nominative subject. As one example, he gives the impersonal verb used with the 1st person plural subject, which takes a singular accusative object in the zero-marked form (Reime 1993: 106). See also Chapter 6, Section 2.2, example (6.2), and Chapter 7, Section 3.1.1.2.

2.3.1 Imperative Mood and Impersonal Voice In imperative and impersonal constructions there is no nominative subject expressed, and in Finnish and Estonian the accusative noun object has the nominative form in the singular as well as the plural.

(3.3) E Pane raamat/raamatu-d laua-le! put.IMPV.2SG. book.SG.NOM/ACC/book-PL.NOM/ACC table.SG-ALL ‘Put the book/books on the table!’

In Finnish, personal pronouns here also have the ‑t accusative form.

(3.4) F Ota minu-t kanssa-si! take.IMPV.2SG 1SG-tACC with-2SG.PX ‘Take me with you!’ 32 CHAPTER 3

Standard Estonian, on the other hand, uses only the partitive for all plural first and second person objects, and also singular ones in situations where a noun object would be in the nominative form. This is demonstrated by the Estonian examples (3.5) and (3.6). Third person pronouns can be in the nominative form (the singular homonymous with the genitive).

(3.5) E Võta mind/*mina kaasa! take.IMPV.2SG 1SG.PAR/*NOM with! ‘Take me along!’

(3.6) E Võta poiss/*poisi kaasa! take.IMPV.2SG boy.SG.NOM/*GEN with ‘Take the boy along!’

The pattern varies in the other languages, as shown in the results from the corpus (Chapters 6 and 7). Livonian is the only one of the languages in the modern language to have genitive-accusative objects of imperative verbs, as shown in (3.7) (Kettunen 1938: xli). As the nominative was present earlier in Proto-Finnic (Itkonen 1971–2: 184, Wickman 1955: 16) and is found in all the other Finnic languages, the appearance of the genitive in Livonian is a later development. The impersonal voice does not exist in Livonian.

(3.7) L Ve̮tta sie e̮biz! take.IMPV.2SG. this.GEN horse.SG.GEN ‘Take this horse!’ (Kettunen 1938: xli)

2.3.2 Some Objects of ‑ta Infinitives The nominative form is used instead of the genitive for singular accusative objects in necessive constructions with the ‑ta infinitive, where there is no nominative subject of the main verb, such as the Estonian example (3.8), and when the governing verb is imperative or impersonal. In Finnish similar constructions are found with the modals pitää and täytyy, with the subject in the genitive case. Necessive constructions in Finnic languages are discussed in Lees (2012).

(3.8) E Sinu-l tule-b võt-ta poiss/*poisi kaasa. 2SG-ADE must-3SG take-taINF boy.SG.NOM/*SG.GEN along ‘You must take the boy with you.’ Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 33

Other examples are shown in (3.9) and (3.10).

(3.9) F Anna Marja-n osta-a auto. let.IMPV.2SG Marja-GEN buy-taINF car.SG.NOM/ACC ‘Let Marja buy a car.’ (Sands and Campbell 2001: 280)

In this Finnish example Marjan is the genitive subject of ostaa, with auto the nominative-accusative object because of the imperative verb in the matrix clause. The same sentence in Estonian would have ‘Marja’ in the adessive case and ‘car’ in the nominative form. Another slightly different Finnish example is shown in (3.10a). If the object is a personal pronoun, the ‑t accusative is used (3.10b).

(3.10) a. F Minu-a pelotta-a ava-ta ovi 1SG-PAR scare-3SG open-taINF door.NOM/ACC ‘I’m afraid to open the door’ (Nelson 1998: 155)

b. F Minu-a pelotta-a näh-dä hei-dät 1SG-PAR scare-3SG see-taINF 3PL-tACC ‘I’m afraid to see them. (Nelson 1998: 155)

2.3.3 Quantifiers As mentioned in Section 2.1 cardinal numbers greater than one as heads of a quantifier phrase in the object position are in the nominative singular form rather than the genitive. In the analysis they have been included as nouns, as they are declinable. They are singular in form, but plural semantically. Syntactically they can act as singular or plural. Quantifiers, such as ‘half’, ‘a couple’ and others can also be in the nominative form as accusative objects, when forming a quantifier phrase with a partitive noun complement (Kont 1963: 183). However, genitive forms are also found, especially when ordinary nouns are used as quantifiers, such as cup, bucket, mouthful and others. Their complements are also partitive.

3 Negation

Negation is usually expressed by an auxiliary, which is invariable in Estonian, but conjugated in the other Finnic languages. In all the Finnic languages the 34 CHAPTER 3 object is canonically partitive in a negative clause, although in special circumstances there are exceptions (Heinämäki 1984: 167). The action has not been completed, because it never took place. However, rather than being regarded as aspectual, it is considered grammaticalized in all the languages. Nevertheless, as Heinämäki points out, exceptions occur because of semantic and pragmatic considerations, such as in a sentence, which is semantically affirmative, although syntactically negative, or in a negative question expecting an affirmative answer. Livonian is different in that it deviates more from the canonical pattern than the others, with some accusative objects (Tveite 2004: 33; Larsson 1983: 113; Kont 1958a: 239). Toivainen (1985: 34) suggests that the negative partitive is derived from the complement of a null quantifier. Kont (1958a: 240) points out that in the western districts of Latvia the accusative rather than the genitive is used in negative clauses, and thinks that this has influenced Livonian towards the use of accusative. In Russian, although the genitive (equivalent to partitive) is almost never incorrect as object case in a negative sentence, the accusative is being used with increasing frequency (Neidle 1988: 30). Kont (1958a: 240; 1963: 115) mentions that in some Estonian dialects, which have been heavily under foreign influence, the accusative object is sometimes used in negative clauses. Also, in some Finnish dialects the use of the accusative has spread to negative clauses (Kont (1958a: 240; 1963: 115). However, in the Porsanger dialect of Finnish in northern Norway, where the partitive object had largely disappeared under the influence of Saami and Norwegian, it persisted for longer in negative than affirmative clauses (Beronka 1922: 32). Regardless of some exceptions mentioned above, the use of the partitive in negative clauses is virtually grammaticalized in the Finnic languages. Even with a bounding particle the object is partitive. With non-finite constructions negation of the matrix verb usually affects the non-finite clause in all Finnic languages (Kont 1963: 112–3). A Finnish example is shown in (3.11).

(3.11) F E-n anta-nut sinu-n näh-dä karhu-a. NEG-1SG let-CONNEG.PST 2SG-GEN see-taINF bear-SG.PAR ‘I did not let you see the bear’ (Kiparsky 2001: 357)

Here sinun is syntactically the subject of nähdä rather than the object of en antanut. In an affirmative clause the verb nähda would take an accusative object. Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 35

4 Alternation between Accusative and Partitive

The alternation of the accusative and partitive case for objects depends on the boundedness of the clause. Boundedness is a term which takes into account both the verb and the object. In affirmative clauses, if the action is completed and the entire object is involved in the action, the situation is bounded, and the case used for the object is the accusative. Otherwise the partitive is used. As Kiparsky (1998: 285) puts it: “A VP predicate is unbounded if it has either an unbounded head, or an unbounded argument”. It is sometimes difficult to be certain whether the verbal aspect or the partial nature of the object is responsible for determining the case (Rajandi and Metslang 1979: 4). The context will often help. The partitive case is the default case. Most of the factors involved in the alternation are semantic, but Heinämäki (1984: 156) points out that object case is not always semantically determined, for example in negative sentences it is syntactic, and in some yes-no questions it is pragmatic. The basic criteria for the choice of the partitive or the accusative object case are stated to be broadly the same for Estonian (Erelt 2007: 96), Finnish (Karlsson 1999: 84–87), Karelian (Ojajärvi 1950a: 132), Veps (Kettunen 1943: 95), Votic (Denison 1957: 192), and indeed for all Finnic languages (Kont 1959a: 132). If the action is completed and the entire object affected, the object is accusative, otherwise partitive. However, Kont mentions that in Estonian and Livonian the partitive object is used more frequently than in the other Finnic languages and often where an accusative object might be expected (Kont 1959a: 135; Kont 1963: 98). Generally the object of a habitual action is partitive, but can be accusative if the action is seen as resultative (Kont 1959a: 134). Dahl (1985: 79) points out that a repeated total event can be thought of as bounded if each individual total event is stressed, or unbounded if unlimited repetition is considered more important. Ojajärvi (1950a: 40, 42, 137) mentions differences from Finnish in case alternation in Karelian, with partitive instead of accusative and vice versa. Tveite (2004: 19) refers to Livonian as well as Estonian as occasionally using the partitive when the action appears complete and the object totally affected, and attributes this to the greater effect of indefiniteness in these languages (see Section 4.3.2 below). Kettunen (1943: 104) discusses some of the unexpected uses of accusative case in Veps. Ojajärvi (1950a: 109), Denison (1957: 192) and Kont (1959a: 143) also point out that in Veps the accusative is used where other languages would have the partitive. The frequent identity of the singular partitive and the plural nominative is a likely factor here (Kettunen 1943: 107; Larsson 1983: 98). There are some good discussions in English concerning the object case alternation in Finnish (Heinämäki 1984 and Kiparsky 1998 among others). 36 CHAPTER 3

Larjavaara (1991: 373) mentions that the partitive case can be used due to quantitative or aspectual factors, or both in combination. Heinämäki (1984: 173) stresses the object as an aspectual marker in almost all cases, and the partitive as the basic, unmarked form. Sulkala (1996: 225) points out that in Finnish aspect is more often expressed by object alternation and more frequent use of various verbal constructions, while lexical means (bounding elements) are used more commonly in Estonian.

4.1 Bounding Elements In Estonian, more commonly than in Finnish, the completion of an event is indicated by an adverbial phrase or an oblique, indicating a change in the position or state of the object. In Finnish the presence of the accusative alone is usually sufficient, while in Estonian the sentence would often seem incomplete without the addition of some bounding element, the most commonly used one being ära ‘away’, as in example (3.12).

(3.12) E Ma sõi-n leiva ära. I eat.PST-1SG bread.SG.GEN/ACC away ‘I ate up the bread.’

Without ära the sentence would sound incomplete. Kont (1963: 94) mentions that Estonian has the most extensive use of bounding elements of any Finnic language. The particles ära and läbi ‘through’ are used often because the forms for the partitive, nominative and genitive are not always distinguishable (Metslang 2001: 444). The steps of grammaticalization of the particle ära have been described by Metslang (2001: 445), and Tamm (2004a; 2004b: 138) has elaborated the concept of the bounding particle further. A number of verbs have a slightly different meaning if ära is added, such as the verb tundma ‘know’, ära tundma ‘recognize’ (Metslang 2001: 452). Where the meaning is significantly different, both the basic verb and the verb combined with the particle need to be entered in the lexicon. The use of such a particle in a compound with an intransitive verb, increases the transitivity, so that the intransitive verb becomes transitive, e.g. käima ‘go, walk’ > läbi käima ‘walk through, visit’. Metslang (2001: 455) mentions that the language reformer and innovator Johannes Aavik opposed the overuse of particles as a German influence, and argued for a more extensive use of the total (accusative) object. Finnish has not developed many bounding elements. However, Finnish does have the adverb pois ‘away’, which is used more commonly in its directional sense, but occasionally also as a bounding particle (Metslang 2001: 445). Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 37

Votic uses bounding particles to a lesser extent than Estonian, but there are several, including vällä ‘out, away’ (Kont 1963: 95). In most cases these have retained their directional sense and the bounding function is secondary. In Veps bounding elements are unusual (Kont 1963: 97). Larsson (1984: 102) mentions that prefixes borrowed from Russian play an aspectual role in Veps. Larsson (1983: 115–6) points out that Livonian has borrowed a number of verbal prefixes from Latvian, which often have to do with aspect, and claims that therefore the case of the object is not needed to indicate aspect and this has resulted in a change in Livonian case selection. However, Livonian does use the adverb jara ‘away’ also. The adverbs described above have become or are becoming grammaticalized into pure bounding elements, and as such may be losing their directional meaning. However, there are a number of words in adverbial function which act as bounding elements, such as nouns in the inherent (semantic) cases, as they indicate a change in the state or location of the object. Bounding elements indicate a high degree of affectedness of the object, so that there cannot be any continuation of the action. If the object is totally affected, and the action is finished, the situation is bounded, and the object is accusative. If the action can continue the partitive is used. This is well illustrated in the Estonian example by the verb ‘hit’, which can be iterative, but may cause a change in the object’s state or position.

(3.13) E Juhan lõ-i mees-t. John hit-PST.3SG man-SG.PAR ‘John hit the/a man.’

(3.14) E Juhan lõ-i mehe maha. John hit-PST.3SG man.SG.GEN/ACC down ‘John knocked the man down’.

In (3.13) the object ‘man’ does not change in state or position, so the object is partitive. The action could have gone further in that the man could have been hit again. In (3.14) the resultative adverb maha ‘down’ indicates a change in position, i.e. a greater degree of affectedness and hence accusative case. In this situation it is also less likely that the hitting will continue, or even if the hitting continues, the man will not be knocked down again. In Finnish the verb lyöda ‘hit’ also takes the partitive case in most instances, but can govern the accusative in a similar situation to (3.14). 38 CHAPTER 3

4.2 The Nature of the Verb Some verbs are inherently atelic, and take the partitive case for their objects, as the action never reaches an endpoint. Some non-finite forms and some modalities also are more likely to be used for an unbounded event. The effect of different verb forms is discussed in Chapter 7.

4.2.1 The Inherent Aspect of the Verb There are a number of verbs in Finnic languages which preferentially take a partitive object, the so-called ‘partitive verbs’. These are mostly verbs which are atelic. These include verbs of mood and emotion, wanting and trying. Some of these verbs are comparable in the different languages, but there are some variations, especially among verbs of perception and cognition. In Estonian there are several lists of ‘partitive verbs’, which have been discussed in detail by Tamm (2004b: 59). Firstly, there are verbs which can only take the partitive case, secondly there are those which usually have a partitive object, but can take an accusative one if a bounding element is added, and thirdly, there are verbs which can take either object, depending on the boundedness of the event. The latter are termed ‘aspectual verbs’. Tamm (2004b: 81) gives a list of Estonian verbs which cannot be combined with a bounding element. Klaas (1999: 56) also points out that many of the verbs listed as ‘partitive’ in the standard Estonian grammar (EKG II 1993: 50) can have an accusative object, if a bounding element is added. It could be argued that these are in fact different verbs with a phrasal structure. Verbs with an iterative meaning, such as hit, strike and kick, take a partitive object even when one action is implied, unless an adjunct appears indicating a goal or endpoint (Sands 2000: 47). The endpoint entails total affectedness of the object. VISK §930, Denison (1957: 143–159) and Vainikka (1989: 322–324) among others have lists of Finnish verbs, indicating which case they usually take. In Finnish some verbs have a different meaning depending on object case, e.g. silittää with a partitive object means ‘to stroke’ and with accusative ‘to iron’ (Sands 2000: 47). Kont (1963) gives examples of atelic verbs, which take a partitive object, in different languages, with lists in Estonian (p. 76) and Finnish (p. 79). Tveite (2004: 154–157) has three lists for Livonian from the literature, and one of all the verbs in his corpus, with the percentage of partitive and accusative objects in Appendix B (Tveite 2004: 159–174). Zaitseva (2001: 84) has some examples of verbs taking a partitive object in Veps. Itkonen (1971: 191– 192) mentions about 20 verbs in Saami that take a partitive object, and about half of these also take the partitive in Finnish (Itkonen (1971: 194). In Mordvin the ablative case occurs on objects of certain verbs similar, but not all identical, to those taking a partitive object in Finnic languages (Kiparsky 1998: 302). Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 39

4.2.1.1 Verbs of Emotion Verbs of emotion, such as ‘love’, ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ generally take a partitive object in all the languages. This fact is well known for Estonian and Finnish, and has also been mentioned for Karelian (Larsson 1983: 92), Livonian (Tveite 2004: 159, 162) and Veps (Kettunen 1943: 101). However, there are some exceptions, and with a bounding element, the accusative is possible in Finnish (3.15). According to Tamm (2004b: 81) in Estonian these verbs cannot take a bounding adverb.

(3.15) F Rakasta-n sinu-t kuoliaa-ksi. love-1SG 2SG-ACC dead-TRA ‘I love you to death.’ (Sands 2000: 47)

Kuoliaaksi is in the translative case, and indicates a change in the state of the object, so the object is in the accusative case. Heinämäki (1984: 164) has a similar example with the verb ‘fear’.

(3.16) F Pelkä-si-n itse-ni puoli-kuoliaa-ksi fear-PST-1SG. self.ACC-1SG.PX half-dead-TRA ‘I scared myself half-dead’ (Heinämäki 1984: 164)

Kettunen (1943: 101) gives several examples in Veps of the verb ‘love’ with an accusative object, as in (3.17). The object is highly individuated, which possibly explains the accusative, but Kettunen does state that in Veps there are examples of inexplicable choice of object.

(3.17) V netse-n ďevotška-n armasta-b that-GEN/ACC daughter-SG.GEN/ACC love-3SG mam лujas mother.NOM strongly ‘that daughter the mother loves very much’ (Kettunen 1943: 101)

Kont (1963: 90) suggests that the partitive object of these verbs is derived from the adverbial partitive of reason. In Livonian the reason for ‘fear’ is sometimes expressed as an elative adjunct (Kont 1963: 77fn). 40 CHAPTER 3

4.2.1.2 Verbs of Perception and Cognition In the northern Finnic languages (Finnish, Karelian and Veps) verbs of perception (‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘notice’) and cognition (‘remember’, ‘understand’, ‘know’) have accusative objects Kont (1963: 191). However, Ojajärvi (1950a: 137) mentions that in the Maaselkä dialect of Karelian there are examples of partitive objects of such verbs where he would expect accusative. In many of these the object is quantitatively indefinite. In the southern Finnic languages (Estonian, Livonian and Votic) the object of these verbs is usually partitive, but there are exceptions. In Livonian ‘know’, ‘see’ and ‘hear’ take partitive objects (Larsson 1983: 108), but Tveite (2004: 99–101) lists a number of accusative objects of ‘see’, which he explains as implying ‘catch sight of’, i.e. an achievement, and also points out that the objects in those clauses are highly individuated. Votic generally has partitive objects for these verbs, although there are exceptions in some dialects and folk songs (Kont 1963: 86). In standard Estonian the partitive case is used with verbs of perception and cognition, but in some dialects the accusative is used with verbs of perception (Kont 1963: 85). This is quite prevalent in the north-east coastal dialect, which shows considerable affinity with Finnish, and also in the island dialects, and the southern Seto dialect, but occasional examples can be found in most dialects. Comparing the northern and southern Finnic language groups, it appears that there is a different interpretation of the inherent aspect of these verbs, with the northern ones regarding them as achievements and the southern as activities or states. Van Valin (1996: 287) considers ‘seeing’ a state, while Vendler (1967: 113) points out that it has some features of an achievement. (Heinämäki 1984: 165) states that verbs of cognition and perception can have the achievement interpretation and can indicate a resultant state. She is of the opinion that the accusative object results from their frequent use as achievement verbs (Heinämäki 1984: 166). Kiparsky (2001: 342) explains that these can be decomposed into an event plus a result state, where the event is an achievement rather than an accomplishment. They consist of a state and a potential initiating event, but their main predication is over the result state. Points in favour of the partitive case in the southern Finnic languages are that the subject of these verbs is a non-agentive experiencer, and that the object of seeing is not generally affected by the action. If the object is quantitatively indefinite, or if the state is not complete, a partitive object can be used even in Finnish. Heinämäki (1984: 165) quotes several examples in Finnish, such as (3.18). Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 41

(3.18) F Tunne-n (hiukan) si-tä mies-tä know-1SG slightly that-PAR man.SG-PAR ‘I know this man (slightly)’ (Leino 1982: 145, quoted by Heinämäki 1984: 165)

However, she also mentions that it is possible to have an accusative object even when completeness is explicitly denied (3.19).

(3.19) F Tunne-n häne-t hyvin epätäydellisesti know-1SG 3SG-tACC very incompletely ‘I know her very incompletely’ (Heinämäki 1984: 165)

Kont (1963: 87) also mentions other reasons for the exceptional use of the partitive in the northern Finnic languages. This can occur with general statements, interrogative statements or those expressing doubt, habitual action, or when the object is quantitatively indefinite or forms part of a phrasal verb. Kont (1963: 91, 191) is of the opinion that the objects of verbs of cognition were initially partitive, but have subsequently become accusative in the northern languages. In Mordvin ‘see’ and ‘hear’ have objects in the ablative case, from which the Finnic partitive developed (Kiparsky 1998: 302). Verbs ‘look at’ and ‘listen to’ take partitive objects in all languages.

4.2.1.3 Experiential Verbs In Finnish there are a number of verbs dealing with sensation which are in the 3rd person singular form and have a partitive experiencer, which is more like an object than a subject. Some examples are minua masentaa ‘I feel depressed’ (Schot-Saikku 1993: 219); minu-a (1SG-PAR) jano-tta-a (thirst-CAUS-3SG) ‘I am thirsty’ (Alvre 1971: 187). These verbs have the causative meaning ‘something makes me feel . . .’, and most have the causative morpheme ‑ttA. However there are other verbs, which are not overtly causative, such as minu-a (1SG-PAR) palele-e (be.cold-3SG) ‘I feel cold’ (Sands and Campbell 2001, 289). They point out that the same verb can be used with a nominative subject, with which it agrees, this construction being used in general or habitual circumstances. A similar construction can also be found in southern Karelian, also with a partitive experiencer: milma (1SG.PAR) värisy-ttä-y (shiver-CAUS-3SG) ‘I am shivering’ (Karjalan kielen sanakirja—värisytteä—accessed 13/5/11). There are examples in Veps with a genitive-accusative object, for example sinun (2SG.GEN) okseñzō-ťa-b (vomit-CAUS-3SG)‘you feel sick’ (Kettunen 1943: 122, 123), but there is also one with a partitive object min-dai-n (1SG-PAR-1SGPX) 42 CHAPTER 3

rügü-ta-b (cough-CAUS-3SG) ‘I feel like coughing’. Kettunen (1943: 122) considers the genitive forms as genitive-accusative. Kont (1963: 89) has a rare example in an Estonian dialect, but more commonly in Estonian completely different constructions are used. Kont mentions that there are no such examples in Livonian. Other kinds of experiential expressions are considered in Chapter 9, Section 2.4.

4.2.2 Phrasal Verbs A number of phrasal verbs are formed together with a particle, a noun or other part of speech. Tauli (1983: 49) gives a long list of Estonian periphrastic (phrasal) verbs with a verb-object combination, which forms a semantic whole. The noun complement in a phrasal verb is almost always in the partitive case in all the languages (Kont 1959a: 135). There are a number of phrasal verbs which are similar in all the languages, but they are most frequent in Estonian and Votic (Kont 1963: 72–73). Some examples are the Estonian anda suud / rinda / kätt / nõu ‘give mouth / breast / hand / advice’, meaning ‘kiss / breastfeed / shake hands / advise’. All of the above complements of the verbs are singular partitive nouns. Kont (1963: 73) suggests that such phrasal verbs developed in Proto-Finnic at the time when the partitive was developing into an object case. Many of these are borrowings from Baltic, German and Russian languages (Kont 1963: 73). In the northern group of languages phrasal verbs sometimes have an accusative complement, as shown in the Finnish example (3.20).

(3.20) F saa-da surma-nsa get-taINF death.GEN/ACC-3PX ‘die’ (Denison 1957: 115)

In the above example the possessive suffix individuates the object. There are also examples of phrasal intransitive verbs, where the associated noun has more of an adverbial function, modifying the verb, as discussed in Section 5.

4.2.3 Verb Form There is no specific verb form in Finnic to indicate progressive action, although the inessive case of the ‑ma infinitive together with the auxiliary ‘be’ is now starting to be used in this function in Finnish and to some extent also in Estonian (see Chapter 7, Section 3.2). However, mostly the simple present tense is used for this purpose with the case of the object being the main aspect Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 43 marker. Most completed events are indicated by the past or perfect tense. There is no separate form for the future tense in Finnic languages, and the present tense is used.1 An accusative object with a verb in the present tense can indicate that completion of the event is expected in the future. There are also other situations in which an accusative object may occur with a present tense verb, as with verbs of perception and cognition in the northern Finnic languages. Accusative objects are also found in narratives using historical present tense. Kont (1963: 118) discusses the objects of infinitives in great detail, pointing out the predominance of the partitive case of such objects in all the languages, although in Finnish there is often an accusative object of a non-finite verb where Estonian would use a partitive one (Kettunen 1926: 40). The relation between the form of the verb and the case of its object is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

4.3 The Nature of the Object The case of the object is influenced by a number of factors relating to the object itself, the most important being its quantification, whether the object is total or partial. Definiteness and individuation play a part. In some languages animacy makes a difference. The degree of affectedness of the object is also a factor, the greater it is, the greater the likelihood of accusative case. This is linked closely to the presence of a bounding element, especially in Estonian.

4.3.1 The Quantification of the Object The total-partial opposition determines the object case used. If an indefinite quantity of the object is affected by the action, the partitive case is used. This implies that the object is divisible, namely a singular mass or abstract noun, or a plural, as exemplified by an Estonian example (3.21).

(3.21) E Ma tap-si-n sääsk-i. I kill-PST-1SG. mosquito-PL.PAR ‘I killed/was killing (some) mosquitoes.’

Although the action of killing is resultative, in this instance it could go on, because only part of the total possible number of mosquitoes are killed. If a definite quantity is involved the accusative is used, as in (3.22).

1 A periphrastic construction can also be used to express the future, but is not favoured. 44 CHAPTER 3

(3.22) E Ma tap-si-n kõik need I kill-PST-1SG. all.NOM those.NOM sääse-d (ära) mosquito-PL.NOM/ACC (away) ‘I killed all those mosquitoes’

The effect of object quantification on case selection is evident in all the Finnic languages, for example in Veps (3.23).

(3.23) V mö śä mei-le vina-d sell.IMPV.2SG 2SG.NOM 1PL-ALL alcohol-PAR ‘sell us some alcohol’ (Kettunen 1943: 99)

Although singular count nouns are not quantitatively partitive, in the Maaselkä dialect of Karelian it is fairly common to have a partitive collective singular object rather than a plural partitive (Ojajärvi 1950a: 165).

(3.24) F maimo-a šoa-hā hienu-o kalo-a baby.fish-SG.PAR get-3PL. small-SG.PAR fish-SG.PAR ‘they get baby fish, small fish’ (Ojajärvi 1950a: 165)

According to Ojajärvi (1950a: 136) the partitive collective singular is also found commonly in the Olonets dialect of Karelian, and less commonly in the Viena dialect of Karelian and in Veps. It also occurs occasionally in Estonian, and Finnish, especially in dialects, mostly in connection with fishing and farming, but not in Livonian or Votic. Kiparsky (2001: 343) postulates an omitted quantifier, which imparts partitivity to the quantified object, and so does Vainikka (2003: 242, footnote 4).

4.3.2 Definiteness and Individuation An indefinite nonspecific object is more likely to be in the partitive case than a definite individuated object, but a partitive object is not necessarily indefinite. The presence of a possessive suffix (which these days is found only in Finnish to any significant extent) or a genitive possessor individuates the object and increases the likelihood of the use of accusative case. Occasionally the choice of object case is the only way of indicating definiteness. The role of the partitive case in marking definiteness has been explored by Chesterman (1991: 138). An abstract object is more likely to be partitive than a concrete one (Schot- Saikku 1990: 63), as shown in 3.25. Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 45

(3.25) F Se vaati-i rohkeu-tta. This.NOM require-3SG courage-PAR ‘This requires courage.’ (Schot-Saikku 1990: 63)

The accusative is not acceptable unless specified in some way, such as with the possessive suffix in (3.26).

(3.26) F Se vaati-i kaike-n rohkeute-ni This.NOM require-3SG all.SG-GEN courage.GEN-1SG.PX ‘This requires all my courage.’ (Schot-Saikku 1990: 63)

Kont (1963: 99) states that in Estonian and in Livonian, more so than in Finnish, indefiniteness is an important factor in the choice of object case, and accounts for some of the instances where the case differs from the northern group of Finnic languages. However, he stresses that the total-partial opposition is more important than definiteness (Kont 1963: 74). Personal pronouns and proper names are the most highly individuated objects, yet these also are in the partitive case even in affirmative clauses, when the event is unbounded. In Finnish accusative personal pronoun objects are common, but in many other languages the partitive predominates (see Chapter 4, Section 3.2).

4.3.3 Animacy In modern Estonian and Finnish animacy generally does not play any part in deciding object case. However, in Finnish the verb ymmärtä ‘understand’ takes an accusative object if it is inanimate, but a partitive one if it is a person (Whitney 1973: 71). There is mention of the animacy factor in the Maaselkä dialect of Karelian, where Ojajärvi (1950a: 42) finds the partitive case where accusative would be more appropriate, and points out that such objects often refer to animate beings. Kont (1963: 101) also points out such usage in Karelian, as well as Veps and Votic and gives a number of examples. According to Ikola (1965: 189) animate nouns in Votic are likely to be partitive, especially in constructions where the nominative-accusative is usual, such as imperatives and impersonals. This is attributed to Russian influence, as in Russian genitive objects (equivalent to Finnic partitive) only refer to animate objects (Kettunen 1943: 108). The languages where animacy seems to be a factor are those which have been particularly influenced by Russian. The use of the partitive for personal pronouns in situations where a noun would be accusative, is found in most languages, except in Finnish, and this also has been attributed to the animacy feature and Russian influence (Ojajärvi 46 CHAPTER 3

1950a: 140). However, only nominative-accusative objects tend to be replaced by the partitive, so on the genitive-accusative ones animacy does not seem to have any influence. Perhaps the possibility of confusion of nominative-accusative objects with nominative subjects is an additional reason for the preference for the partitive case.

4.4 Pragmatic Factors Pragmatic factors can also influence case selection. Doubt and politeness can play a part in favouring the partitive case.

4.4.1 Doubt Concerning Result Halliday (1985: 86) points out that degrees of probability fall between positive and negative polarity. The partitive case tends to be used for the object if the result of the action is in doubt (Sadeniemi 1929: 315; Larsson 1983: 70). This is often the case with the modal use of verbs indicating trying, wanting and intention. Larsson gives an interrogative example in Finnish expressing doubt (3.27). The doubt overcomes the individuation of the object.

(3.27) F Myy-t-kö hevos-ta-si? sell-2SG-Q horse-PAR-2SG.PX ‘Will you (really) sell your horse’ (Larsson 1983: 70)

If a positive result is expected, the accusative is used. If it is not certain, the partitive is used. Ackerman and Moore (2001: 102) quote an Estonian example with the verb otsima ‘seek’, where a positive expectation of finding is associated with an accusative object, although more commonly this verb takes a partitive object.

4.4.2 The Intended Temporary Nature of the Resultant State The expected temporary nature of the result of an action can be indicated by the partitive. Kiparsky (1998: 273) gives four interpretations of the sentence in (3.28).

(3.28) F Hän ava-si ikkuna-a. 3SG.NOM open-PST.3SG. window.SG-PAR 1. ‘He was opening the window.’ 2. ‘He opened the window’ (for a while). 3. ‘He opened the window’ (partly). 4. ‘He opened the window’ (again and again). Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 47

In Estonian I would use the accusative for the last three translations of a corresponding sentence, and so would some, but not all of my fellow Estonians. A native Finnish language teacher also mentioned that she would only use the partitive for the first meaning in the Finnish. However, others would accept all of these. If the conditions, given in brackets above, are made explicit, the partitive is more natural. Heinämäki (1984: 166) mentions that in Finnish there are iterative sentences which are able to have either a partitive or accusative object depending on other factors. A Finnish example with a temporary implication is shown in (3.29).

(3.29) F He pist-i-vät matka-lla poika-a kaivo-ssa. 3PL.NOM put-PST-3PL journey-ADE boy.SG-PAR well-INE ‘they put the boy in the well on their journey’ (Sadeniemi 1929: 317)

Here the partitive appears strange, but presumably the intention was to get the boy out again, and he did indeed get out. Sadeniemi does not mention the source of this example, but it comes from Genesis 37: 24 in an older Bible edition, possibly from the beginning of the 20th century. In the 1938 and 1992 translation the object is accusative (3.30).

(3.30) F ja heitt-i-vät häne-t kaivo-on and throw-PST-3PL 3SG-tACC well-ILL ‘and (they) threw him into the well’ (Genesis 37:24)

There is an example in Veps very similar to (3.28) above, also with the object in the partitive case (3.31). Here the temporary nature of the result of the action is specified.

(3.31) V saupta nügüd ust vähǟžeks close.IMPV.2SG now door.SG.PAR for.a.moment ‘close the door for a moment’ (Kettunen 1943: 99)

4.4.3 Politeness Related to the above, when asking to borrow something, the partitive is more polite, because it implies that you will give it back. For example (3.32a). 48 CHAPTER 3

(3.32) a. F Lainaa kynä-ä-si! lend.IMPV.2SG pen.SG-PAR-2SG.PX ‘Lend me your pen (I will return it soon)!’

b. F Lainaa kynä-si! lend.IMPV.2SG. pen.SG.NOM/ACC-2SG.PX ‘Lend me your pen!’ (Kangasmaa-Minn 1993: 17)

The meaning of both versions is the same, but the version with the nominative-accusative object is more abrupt and less polite. In Estonian and Veps also the partitive object can be used with certain verbs of giving and lending to indicate short term duration of the result (Larsson 1983: 140). The partitive object is also considered more polite in other conversation situations, especially when referring to something the other should have done and perhaps forgot (Heinämäki 1984: 172).

4.4.4 Context The context can give further information about individuation and definiteness as well as verbal aspect, for example in showing that a present tense verb indicates a completed action in the future. Helasvuo (1996a: 30) points out that partitive objects tend not to be tracked in the discourse, because they are less individuated and less affected. In clauses with a partitive object it is not the object which is in focus but rather the process.

5 Adverbial ‘Objects’

While this chapter has so far dealt mainly with transitive verbs, there are intransitive verbs in all the Finnic languages which appear to have objects (Kont 1959b). Kont (1963: 7) mentions that the border between objects and adverbial adjuncts is often fuzzy. Some are object-like in that they occur in the object cases partitive and accusative and show the same alternation of these as typical objects. Intransitive verbs as well as transitive ones (discussed in section 4.2.2 above) can form phrasal verbs with nouns, which are usually in the partitive case, e.g. in Estonian kohut käima (court.PAR go) ‘go to court / litigate’, in Finnish käydä koulu-a (go school-PAR) ‘attend school’. Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 49

Verbs of movement can be used with a partitive noun to indicate the road travelled (Kont 1959b: 285). An Estonian example is shown below.

(3.33) E läk-si-n se-da tee-d go-PST-1SG this-PAR road.SG-PAR ‘I went along this road/I went this way’

This kind of expression is found in all the languages, but is more productive in the northern languages, except Veps (Kettunen 1943: 259). However, Kont (1959b: 285) has managed to find a couple of examples even in Veps, one with a partitive and the other with an accusative complement, both from folksongs. In Votic it is fairly rare. These days in Estonian it is more common to add the postposition mööda ‘along’, which governs the partitive case. Veps has a prolative case for ‘along’, with the suffix ‑mu, attached to a partitive stem. Intransitive verbs, mainly those of motion, forming a phrase with some additional component, such as Estonian läbi käima (through go) ‘go through’ behave like transitive verbs. The adverbial ‘object’ can be partitive or accusative, depending on whether the action is ongoing or completed. Kont (1963: 32) also mentions time phrases as ‘objects’, and gives an Estonian example ööd magama (night. PAR sleep) ‘sleep the night (somewhere)’. He concedes that most traditional grammars regard most of these as adverbials, but considers the above example to be an object. Heinämäki (1994: 215) points out that it is possible for an intransitive verb to have an unusual accusative ‘object’ with a resultative phrase. Without this phrase, such an object could not occur. The activity results in a particular state (3.34). The causative interpretation makes non-conventional objects possible.

(3.34) F Seiso-i-n jalka-ni jäyki-ksi stand-PST-1SG leg.PL.NOM/ACC-1SG.PX stiff-TRA ‘I stood my legs stiff’ (Heinämäki 1984: 164)

There are examples in various languages, where the adverbial object indicates a cause or reason, such as the Livonian example in (3.35).

(3.35) L ma mag-ìz bokkì-di 1SG.NOM sleep-PST.1SG. smallpox-PL.PAR ‘I suffered from smallpox’ (Kettunen 1938: 214, quoted by Kont 1958b: 157) 50 CHAPTER 3

This expression is borrowed from Latvian, where the verb ‘sleep’ is used together with the name of an illness. The partitive can indicate a reason for an emotion or feeling in Finnish (3.36) and in Karelian (3.37).

(3.36) F Minä murehdi-n häne-n kuolema-a-nsa 1SG.NOM grieve-1SG 3SG-GEN death.SG-PAR-3PX ‘I am grieving because of his death’ (Setälä 1927: 56)

(3.37) K mie igävöiťše-n koďi-e 1SG.NOM miss-1SG home-PAR ‘I am homesick’ (Ojajärvi 1950a: 151)

In some instances the ablative meaning is clearly evident, as in (3.38).

(3.38) F Jänis juoks-i koir-i-a pako-on rabbit.SG.NOM run-PST.3SG dog-PL-PAR flight-ILL ‘the rabbit fled from the dogs’ (Setälä 1927: 56)

In addition to the examples in this section, there are nouns which are used in an even more definite adverbial sense, particularly temporal nouns and nouns of measure, which also show case alternation similar to objects, and semantically help to determine aspect.

6 Summary and Concluding Remarks

The case of the object alternates between partitive and accusative. The morphological choice for the accusative object is dependent on syntax, including word category, number, and the type of construction involved, while alternation between the partitive and accusative is related to semantics and pragmat- ics, with the use of the partitive case for objects in negative clauses virtually grammaticalized in all the languages, but with some exceptions, especially in Livonian. There are a number of factors which influence the choice between the accusative and partitive case, which are similar in all the Finnic languages. In all the languages there are a number of verbs, which generally assign the partitive case Object Case In Modern Finnic Languages 51 to their objects, due to their inherent aspect, but differences occur between the languages. The most important difference is the use of the accusative for objects of perception and cognition in the northern group of Finnic languages and the partitive in the southern ones. The notion of boundedness of an event is important for the choice of case. Events which are completed, with the total object affected by the action, so that the action cannot continue any longer, are bounded. These have an accusative object. If there is ongoing action and partial involvement of the object the partitive is used. There are a number of events which fall between these two extremes for reasons such as doubtful action, expressed by modals followed by infinitives, iterative action, and variable affectedness of object. These form a grey area in the middle, where either case may be acceptable. The factors involved here are similar to those involved in transitivity, as described by Hopper and Thompson (1980). High transitivity calls for the accusative and low transitivity for the partitive case. This similarity was alluded to by Larsson (1983: 20), and discussed briefly in Lees (2003). Tveite (2004: 35) has also commented on this relationship. These days this opposition is usually discussed in terms of boundedness, but this term does not lend itself to gradation, as does transitivity. Aspect (boundedness of the verb) and the total-partial quantification (boundedness of the object) are the two important factors which are involved in the selection of object case. The effect of quantification is more constant across the different languages, with indefinite quantification requiring the partitive case. CHAPTER 4 Synchronic Corpus Study of Object Case Alternation

1 Introduction

While the alternation of object case between the partitive and accusative is said to be similar in all the Finnic languages, as explained in Chapter 3, there are some differences. In this chapter the differences between the languages are examined by using the corpus predominantly from St. Matthew’s gospel and the First letter to the Corinthians in recent editions of the New Testament. The results from these two books are combined, although there are some differ‑ ences due to difference in genre. The main texts compared are Estonian (1989), Finnish (1992), Karelian (Olonets) (2003), Livonian (1942) and Veps (2006). The diachronic study dealing with older translations, and also the most recent Estonian one from 1997, are presented in Chapter 5. Both St. Matthew’s gos‑ pel and 1 Corinthians are also available in the 1905 NT in the Võro dialect of Estonian, but have been omitted from this chapter, being instead discussed with the diachronic studies of southern Estonian in Chapter 5. St. Matthew’s gospel in the southern Estonian Seto dialect from 1926 is also included in Chapter 5. The small section of St. Matthew’s gospel in Votic, although this is an early translation from 1883, is compared here with the corresponding section from the other languages. Where relevant, some reference is made to other material, especially in Votic. The objects of all verb forms, except the impersonal (passive), are included in this chapter. Negative clauses, where the objects are all partitive, are omit‑ ted in the general results. Livonian does have some accusative objects in nega‑ tive clauses and these have been counted separately. As pronouns are often dealt with differently from full noun phrases, separate analyses of personal and other pronouns have been carried out. Included under personal pronouns are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, singular and plural. There is no grammatical gender. The situation is complicated some‑ what by the observation that in many instances inanimate objects are referred to by the 3rd person pronoun. These are included in the analysis of personal pronouns. The pronouns are mostly cognate in the various languages, but some variation is found with the 3rd person. The pronoun se/see ‘it’ in Estonian

* Some of the data in this chapter has been published in Lees (2003).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004296367_005 Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 53 and Livonian also covers the meanings ‘this’ and ‘that’. Other languages have other more specific demonstrative pronouns as well.In addition to differences between the various languages, there are also considerable dialectal differences, but these are mainly evident in the transcribed oral collections. The personal pronouns mostly have all the same cases as nouns, except for the additional ‑t accusative, but their usage differs in some respects.

2 General Comments about the Languages

Estonian and Finnish are standardized and reasonably well known. Information relevant to the present study has been given in Chapters 1 and 3. The com‑ ments concerning the other languages are based partly on the available gram‑ mars and partly on observations from the present corpus.

2.1 Karelian In Karelian the genitive is clearly distinguishable from the partitive, as in Finnish, with the ending -n. The partitive has a number of different endings, but these are generally fairly easy to distinguish. Karelian differs from the oth‑ ers in that it has the plural accusative case listed by Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 48) as homonymous with the genitive plural (AK I), as well as the nomi‑ native (AK II), while in other languages only the nominative form is used for the plural accusative object. However, in the corpus the Olonets dialect has no genitive plural objects of finite verbs. Singular accusative objects of 3rd person plural verbs are mostly in the nominative form rather than genitive. Such usage is also mentioned by Zaikov (2002: 58) in his grammar based on the Viena dialect of northern Karelian. This appears to be due to the fact that the 3rd person plural active verb form is cognate with the Finnish impersonal form. In Estonian and Finnish the undergoer (logical object) of impersonal verbs has the accusative object in the nominative form in the singular as well as the plural (Chapter 3, Section 2.3.1). Impersonal verbs are discussed in Chapter 6, but it needs to be said at this point that the impersonal voice in Karelian is difficult to distinguish from the active 3rd person plural, as subjects are often omitted. Some consider that there is no impersonal voice in Karelian (Zaikov 1999: 243). If there is no subject expressed or understood from the context, I have considered such forms to be impersonal, and have omitted them from the results in this chapter. It is of course possible to say that they are active 3rd person plural verbs with the understood subject ‘they’ or ‘people’. I have chosen to make this somewhat artificial separation into active and impersonal in order to provide a set of data comparable to the other languages. Kont (1963: 158) also states that the use of the nominative-accusative for singular objects of 54 CHAPTER 4 the 3rd person plural active verbs is common in Karelian, except in the Kalinin (Tver) dialect, where the genitive-accusative is used (Kont 1963: 159). The use of the nominative is prevalent in St. Matthew’s gospel in the corpus, but in 1 Corinthians there is only one dubious example. However, there are very few transitive 3rd person plural verbs in 1 Corinthians. An example from the gospel with a nominative-accusative object is shown in (4.1) and one with a genitive- accusative object from 1 Corinthians in (4.2).

(4.1) K hüö kerras jäte-ttih veneh dai they immediately leave-PST.3PL boat.SG.NOM/ACC and tuatto father.SG.NOM/ACC ‘they immediately left the boat and their father’ (Matt. 4:22)

(4.2) K enimä-t hei-s . . . sua-dih surma-n most-PL.NOM they-ELA receive-PST.3PL. death-GEN/ACC ‘most of them [did not please God, so they] were killed’ (1 Cor. 10:5)

Ojajärvi (1950a: 111) states that the ‑t accusative is used for plural personal pro‑ nouns in the Maaselkä and also in the Viena and Aunus (Olonets) dialects. Genetz (1885: 188), however, states that in the Aunus dialect plural personal pronoun objects are only in the partitive case. Despite Ojajärvi’s comments, there is no evidence of ‑t accusatives in the Olonets NT. However, they do appear in the earlier translations of St. Matthew’s gospel in other dialects (see chapter 5, Section 8.1). A Karelian grammar, based on Markianova’s 2002 grammar (accessed 16/1/2015) lists the accusative of plural personal pronouns as having the same morphology as genitive, so perhaps the partitive is mainly in the written language.

2.2 Livonian Livonian nouns have lost the genitive suffix -n, with the result that the singular nominative and genitive are very often homonymous. The partitive is generally distinguishable, except for a small number of nouns. Most pronouns are not ambiguous, but there are some peculiarities, which are discussed in Section 3.2. The plural partitive nouns have a separate form and can be easily identi‑ fied. The nominative and genitive plural forms are identical (Tveite 2004: 12), so it is not possible to state confidently which case is used as object. Because of these ambiguities the accusative noun objects are all labelled ‘accusative’, with no attempt to separate out the nominative and genitive ones. Separate Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 55 nominative and genitive plural forms exist for personal and demonstrative pronouns. Both partitive and genitive-accusative personal pronoun objects are found, including a few 1st and 2nd person singular and plural ones, but no nominative ones. The pronoun se ‘it’ is identical with the demonstrative pronoun, and its plural ne ‘they’ is also the 3rd person plural form. These are also used as definite articles. In the Livonian New Testament (1942) accusative plural objects have a genitive determiner (nänt) rather than nominative (ne), suggesting that the plural objects are genitive rather than nominative. Only numerals greater than one, which are syntactically singular and semantically plural, have the determiner in that situation as the nominative ne rather than the genitive nänt, although there is one exception. However, in the 1863 trans‑ lation of St. Matthew’s gospel in the East Livonian dialect the determiner for plural accusative objects is nominative (see Chapter 5, Section 9). This is so also in the oral collection by Kettunen (1925a). Cardinal numbers are all nomi‑ native as objects, although special genitive forms for these do exist (Mosely 2002: 46). Tveite (2004: 13) interprets the plural noun objects as nominative whatever the determiner. In the 1942 New Testament there are no examples of unambiguously nomi‑ native singular objects of imperative verbs, such as occur in the other Finnic languages.

2.3 Veps In Veps the partitive singular and nominative plural are often homonymous, resulting in some instances, where it is not possible to determine the case and number. This has resulted in an overuse of genitive-accusative case, especially in the past (Kettunen 1943: 107). However, disambiguation in the Bible texts can generally be achieved by comparison with other languages, or from the context.

2.4 Votic In Votic there is some homonymy between the genitive and partitive cases (Larsson 1983: 101) and sometimes also with the nominative, making analysis more difficult. The lack of a standardized language compounds the difficulty. However, an attempt has been made to compare the material that is available in Votic with the same material from the other languages. Ojajärvi (1950a: 139) mentions some unexpected partitive objects in Votic, but those same objects would also be partitive in Estonian, so they are only unexpected in compari‑ son with Finnish and Karelian. According to Ikola (1965: 189) animate nouns in Votic are more likely to be partitive, especially in constructions where the singular nominative-accusative is usual, such as imperatives and impersonals. Votic personal pronoun objects are mostly in the partitive case, especially 1st and 2nd person (Ikola 1965: 189). In the small biblical corpus the partitive 56 CHAPTER 4 is certainly predominant, but the available data is very limited. From the tran‑ scripts of oral data it is obvious, however, that the partitive case is not exclu‑ sive. There are ‑t accusatives in Votic. Ariste (1968: 55) mentions that in the Kattila district 1st and 2nd person plural have a ‑t accusative form, but the singular pronouns and 3rd person plural do not. Tsvetkov (2008: 57) does not include the ‑t accusative in his table of the cases of personal pronouns in the grammar originally written by him in the 1920s and brought to publication by Jüri Viikberg in 2008. This is despite the fact that in a collection of oral data mainly from the Kattila dialect, which Tsvetkov has translated into the west Votic Joenperä dialect for comparison, several of these forms are present in both dialects (Kettunen and Posti 1932: 23, 25, 41).

3 Results from the Synchronic Biblical Corpus

In the first section 3.1 all objects from the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus detailed in the Introduction (Section 1) of this chapter are combined, but in later sections personal pronouns, other pronouns and nouns are discussed separately. The Votic data has been included in the pronoun tables, but is of course not directly comparable to the rest. Noun objects in Votic have been compared with the results from a similar section of St. Matthew’s gospel in the other languages.

3.1 All Objects Table 4.1 shows the case distribution of all objects of active verbs in the five main Finnic languages. The genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative are combined in the one accusative column here. The detailed results for the pro‑ nouns are given in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.

Table 4.1 Case distribution of all objects of active verbs in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Estonian 1989 803 (59.4%) 548 (40.6%) 1351 Livonian 1942 805 (60.3%) 530 (39.7%) 1335 Finnish 1992 605 (39.6%) 923 (60.4%) 1528 Karelian 2003 720 (53.1%) 637 (46.9%) 1357 Veps 2006 689 (51.1%) 660 (48.9%) 1349 Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 57

As can be seen from the table, Estonian and Livonian group together in hav‑ ing more partitive objects than the other languages, although Karelian and Veps are not far behind. Finnish is distinguished by the lowest percentage of partitives. Tauli (1968: 216) in his analysis of object case in the first 50 pages of three different Estonian books from 1952–1966 (two novels and one non-fiction work, with a total of 1398 affirmative clauses) found 68.4% of partitive objects in affirmative clauses, somewhat more than in the present study. VISK §1229 reports the distribution of object case in two studies in Finnish. Of 16899 objects 56.3% are partitive, 0.8% are ‑t accusative, 24.1% nomina‑ tive, and 18.8% genitive. These results, however, include negative clauses. In fact, Hakulinen and Karlsson (1979: 182) mention in connection with a similar smaller series, that the most frequent reason for the use of the partitive is nega‑ tive polarity. In the next section, where personal pronouns are discussed, it becomes obvious that those results are skewing the overall results to a considerable extent in Karelian and Veps. For that reason the differences between the lan‑ guages in terms of case alternation are discussed in the section dealing with full noun phrase objects.

3.2 Personal Pronoun Objects In the Veps New Testament from 2006 all personal pronouns are partitive, and with one exception this is so also in the Karelian (Olonets) New Testament from 2003. Table 4.2 shows the results for personal pronouns, the various accu‑ sative forms shown separately.

Table 4.2 Case distribution of personal pronoun objects in the Finnic synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

Estonian 175 (65.8%) 51 (19.2%) 40 (15.0%) — 266 Livonian 198 (72.5%) 75 (27.5%) 0 — 273 Finnish 114 (46.5%) — — 131 (53.5%) 245 Karelian 200 (99.5%) 1 (0.5%) 0 — 201 Veps 220 (100%) 0 0 — 220 Votic* 17 (74%) 3 (13%) 1 (4%) 2 (9%) 23

* Votic data only from St. Matthew’s gospel, chapters 2–4, 6. 58 CHAPTER 4

Overall the partitive predominates. Finnish is an exception, where the -t accu‑ sative is more frequent. This accounts partly for Finnish having a lower propor‑ tion of partitive objects than the other languages in Table 4.1. Both Estonian and Livonian as well as Votic have genitive-accusative objects and Estonian also has nominative-accusative ones, which are 3rd person plu‑ ral, and as objects of imperative verbs, also 3rd person singular. The genitive and nominative 3rd person singular pronouns are homonymous in Estonian, but in line with singular noun objects they are assumed to be genitive-accusa‑ tive in indicative clauses and nominative-accusative in imperative clauses. All singular persons are represented in the genitive-accusative group in Estonian and in Livonian all persons, singular and plural, are found among the genitive- accusative objects. In Estonian 1st and 2nd person plural objects are only parti‑ tive, never nominative. In Veps all personal pronoun objects are partitive in the 2006 NT transla‑ tion. The Karelian NT has one genitive-accusative exception, which is shown in (4.3). This is probably not intentional.

(4.3) K tusku da ahtistus valda-i anxiety.NOM and distress.NOM overwhelm-PST.3SG Häne-n 3SG-GEN/ACC ‘anxiety and distress overwhelmed him’ (Matt. 26:37)

There are no ‑t accusatives in the Karelian Olonets 2003 corpus, despite the comments of Ojajärvi (1950a: 111), as discussed in Section 2.1. Even in this small Votic sample from St. Matthew’s gospel it is evident that, although most personal pronoun objects are partitive, genitive and nominative ones also do occur. The genitive and nominative forms of the accusative are all 3rd person pronouns, singular and plural respectively, and the ‑t accusatives 2nd person plural. In the Votic oral collections (Kettunen and Posti, 1932) eastern Votic has no ‑t accusatives in the section examined, while the western Votic corpus has two in the 1st and two in the 2nd person plural. In both eastern and western Votic there are occasional singular 1st and 2nd person objects in the genitive form. With the partitive predominance among personal pronoun objects it fol‑ lows that many are partitive where a noun would be accusative. Only Finnish distinguishes bounding fully with personal pronoun objects, although modern Estonian does so also to a considerable extent. Where all personal pronoun objects are partitive, there is no aspectual distinction due to the object case. Example (4.4) compares a clause from those languages where different cases are found. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 59

(4.4) a. E kui Sa mei-d välja kihuta-d if 2SG.NOM 1PL-PAR out drive-2SG

b. L až sa mäd ulzõ aja-d if 2SG.NOM 1PL.GEN/ACC out drive-2SG

c. F jos aja-t mei-dät pois if drive-2SG 1PL-tACC out ‘if you drive us out’ (Matt. 8:31)

The Estonian partitive in the bounded clause is there because this is the only object case for the 1st and 2nd person plural. The Livonian example shows the use of the genitive-accusative in that language for personal pronoun objects, even plural ones, in bounded clauses, but such use is not consistent, and some partitive ones are found, where accusative might be expected.

3.3 Non-Personal Pronoun Objects In Livonian the reflexive pronoun entšta, which as an object occurs only in the partitive case, and the relative pronoun mis ‘which, what’, which is only in the nominative case, have been excluded from the analysis, resulting in a smaller total number of pronouns, compared to the other languages. Table 4.3 shows all the non-personal pronouns in the synchronic Bible texts in the five main languages and Votic.

Table 4.3 Case distribution of non-personal pronoun objects in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 199 (65.2%) 52 (17.0%) 54 (17.7%) 305 Livonian 1942 89 (77.4%) 26 (22.6%) 0 115 Finnish 1992 144 (39.1%) 180 (48.9%) 44 (12.0%) 368 Karelian 2003 113 (47.3%) 66 (27.6%) 60 (25.1%) 239 Veps 2006 105 (43.9%) 111 (46.4%) 23 (9.6%) 239 Votic* 1883 19 (86%) 1 (5%) 2 (9%) 23

* Votic: St. Matthew’s gospel, chapters 2–4, 6 60 CHAPTER 4

The scanty Votic data indicates a marked preponderance of the partitive. Ikola (1965: 189) mentions the frequency of the partitive in Votic, and attributes this to animacy. In the oral Votic collections in the corpus (Kettunen and Posti 1932), however, a somewhat different pattern emerges, with 37.1% of parti‑ tive pronouns and the rest evenly divided between genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative in western Votic and a similar pattern in the smaller eastern Votic section. Estonian and Livonian have a preponderance of partitive pronoun objects. The absence of Livonian nominative pronoun objects (other than the omitted mis) is notable. However, two instances of amad ‘all’ plural, which could be either genitive or nominative, have been excluded from this table as ambiguous, although they have been included in Table 4.1 under accu‑ sative. The Estonian nominative numbers are bolstered by the nominative mis, but as other cases of this pronoun are also found, they are all included. The details concerning mis are given in Section 3.3.3. The relatively high proportion of nominative-accusative objects in Karelian is due to the use of this form for objects of 3rd person plural verbs.

3.3.1 Pronoun see/se ‘it’ Estonian see and Livonian se double as the demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and ‘that’. It is not always easy to tell which meaning is the relevant one, so they are all included here. In the other languages there is a different word for the demonstrative. In addition the demonstrative adjective se is sometimes used as a definite article. This is common especially in the older Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel and in old Estonian texts, but appears occasionally also in more recent material. There is in fact a suggestion that it is becoming more frequent again (Hiietam and Börjars 2003: 414). As a determiner it can some‑ times be of use in helping to determine the case of the noun which it modifies. Only the pronouns are included in Table 4.4, which shows the case distribution of this pronoun in the various languages. In Livonian the nominative and geni‑ tive forms of se are distinguished, so here the cases are not grouped together as accusative, but there are no examples of the nominative se in object function. The plural ne and cognates have not been included here, so the nominative forms in the table are all singular. With this pronoun the difference between the northern and southern Finnic languages is particularly pronounced. The small amount of data from the gos‑ pel in Votic suggests that it patterns with the southern group, but in the oral collections (Kettunen and Posti 1932) the genitive-accusative predominates in the ratio 5:2. As can be seen, Finnish has a very low number of partitives of this pronoun. Karelian and Veps have similar patterns, also with a low proportion of partitives. The relatively high number of nominative forms in the northern Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 61

Table 4.4 Distribution of object case of see/se ‘it’ in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 64 (66%) 32 (33%) 1 (1%) 97 Livonian 1942 76 (77%) 23 (23%) 0 99 Finnish 1992 15 (14%) 81 (74%) 13 (12%) 109 Karelian 2003 22 (22%) 57 (56%) 22 (22%) 101 Veps 2006 25 (27%) 55 (60%) 11 (12%) 91 Votic* 1883 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 5

* Votic: St. Matthew’s gospel, chapters 2–4 and 6 languages is interesting. In Karelian many of these are the objects of 3rd per‑ son plural verbs. Most in the other languages, and also some in Karelian, are objects of imperative verbs. In Estonian most imperatives in the corpus have a partitive object seda, and in Livonian accusative objects of imperatives have the genitive form. Example (4.5) illustrates differences in the languages.

(4.5) a. E pisut on nei-d, kes selle leia-vad few be.3SG 3PL-PAR who it.GEN/ACC find-3PL ‘there are few of those, who find it (the road, which leads to eternal life)’

b. L veitõ um nē-ḑi, kis nēḑ-i līeda-bõd few be.3SG 3PL-PAR who.NOM.PL 3PL-PAR find-3PL ‘there are few of those, who find them (the narrow gate and the road)’

c. F vain harva-t löytä-vät se-n only few-PL.NOM find-3PL it-GEN/ACC

d. K vai harva-t löü-täh se only few-PL.NOM find-3PL it.NOM/ACC

e. V vaiše harva-d löuda-ba si-dä only few-PL.NOM find-3PL it-PAR ‘only a few find it’ (Matt. 7:14) 62 CHAPTER 4

In Livonian the plural pronoun refers to the narrow road and the narrow gate, while in the other languages the clause in the example refers only to the nar‑ row road. The Karelian example shows the use of the nominative form as the object of a 3rd person plural verb, as has been described in Section 2.1 above. The use of the partitive in Livonian and Veps is unexpected, but can perhaps be explained by the use of ‘few’, which brings in a quantity and a measure of negativity. In the other languages, however, the clause is seen as bounded. Many of the instances of the accusative in the northern group of languages are objects of verbs of perception and cognition. Another frequently seen dif‑ ference is in the use of se as the object of ‘saying’, where the southern languages have the partitive and the northern ones the genitive-accusative (4.6).

(4.6) a. E se-da ma ütle-n this-PAR 1SG.NOM say-1SG

b. L sie-da ma kītõ-b this-PAR 1SG.NOM say-1SG

c. F,K se-n sano-n it-GEN/ACC say-1SG

d. V se-n sanu-n it-GEN/ACC say-1SG ‘This I say’ (1 Cor. 15:50)

As this is one of the commonest pronouns in the texts, the overall results seen in Table 4.3 are strongly influenced by this pronoun.

3.3.2 Demonstrative Pronouns In Finnish, Karelian and Veps there is a separate demonstrative pronoun: tämä in Finnish and Karelian, and nece in Veps. The case distribution of these as objects is shown in Table 4.5. The plural forms have not been included. The Finnish results are similar to those for se (Table 4.4), but both Karelian and Veps have a higher proportion of genitive-accusative objects of the demonstrative pronouns. This probably relates to these being highly individu‑ ated objects. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 63

Table 4.5 Case distribution of demonstrative pronouns as objects in the synchronic biblical corpus in the northern Finnic languages

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Finnish 1992 8 (21%) 28 (74%) 2 (5%) 38 Karelian 2003 2 (9%) 16 (70%) 5 (22%) 23 Veps 2006 4 (9%) 37 (84%) 3 (7%) 44

3.3.3 Interrogative and Relative Pronoun mis/mikä/mi ‘what’ The interrogative and relative pronouns have been grouped together, as there is mostly no difference in the handling of object case in these two positions. The vast majority are relative pronouns. These pronouns are generally used for inanimate objects, although there are some exceptions. The distribution of object case in the synchronic biblical corpus is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Distribution of object case of mis / mikä / mi in the synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 50 (61%) 10 (12%) 22 (27%) 82 Finnish 1992 54 (77%) 16 (23%) 0 70 Karelian 2003 56 (86%) 9 (14%) 0 65 Veps 2006 59 (88%) 8 (12%) 0 67 Votic* 1883 9 (100%) 0 0 9

* Votic: St. Matthew’s gospel chapters 2–4, 6

Estonian has a possible plural alternative to mis in the form milled, which is rarely used. Finnish has the nominative plural mitkä, of which there are no examples in the modern biblical corpus. As usual, Finnish has the greatest pro‑ portion of genitive-accusative objects, but the proportion of partitive objects 64 CHAPTER 4 is greater here than in the case of nouns. Livonian has just the invariable mis, which has been excluded from the statistics. As in the biblical Votic corpus, in the oral corpus (Kettunen and Posti 1932) only the partitive mitä is found, but with the limited data, it is not possible to conclude that other object cases could not occur. There are also other relative pronouns, which are less frequent in the texts. These are described in the next section.

3.3.4 Other Relative Pronouns The relative pronoun mis and its cognates are generally used for inanimate objects. In all the languages there is an alternative relative pronoun, mean‑ ing ‘who’, but also ‘which’ in many languages. In Finnish the common relative pronoun joka (partitive jota) ‘who, which’ is always used for humans, but also sometimes for inanimate objects, especially concrete ones, mikä being used particularly for abstract concepts (Karlsson 1999: 150). The Estonian kes (parti‑ tive keda) ‘who’ is used only for animates, and this is so also for the Livonian kis (partitive kīentõ). In the other languages the alternative (kudai in Karelian and kudamb in Veps) is used for both animate and inanimate relative pronouns. Finnish, Karelian and Veps have separate plural forms, which are in the nom‑ inative-accusative case like noun objects in bounded situations. In Estonian the plural kelled is rarely used. Table 4.7 shows the case distribution. There are no examples in the Votic text. The plural pronouns are included in this table.

Table 4.7 Case distribution of other relative pronoun objects in the synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 0 10 Livonian 1942 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Finnish 1992 9 (26%) 21 (62%) 4 (12%) 34 Karelian 2003 24 (50%) 16 (33%) 8 (17%) 48 Veps 2006 13 (43%) 14 (47%) 3 (10%) 30

In Livonian all are partitive, no examples of the genitive kīen as object have been found in the present corpus. The nominative-accusative objects in Finnish and Veps are all plural, in Karelian there are two singular nominative objects of 3rd person plural verbs and one in a necessive clause. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 65

3.3.5 Kõik / kaikki ‘all, everything’ Table 4.8 shows the distribution of the case of the pronoun ‘all’ as object. The numbers in the table include both singular and plural. Livonian has the same form for genitive and nominative (ama in the singular and amad in the plural). The partitive in Livonian is ammõ. These forms are quite different from those in the other Finnic languages, and are not cognate with the Latvian or Russian words either.

Table 4.8 Case distribution of ‘all’ as object in the Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 15 (48%) — 16 (52%) 31 Livonian 1942 23 (74%) 8 (26%) 31 Finnish 1992 6 (21%) 17 (59%) 6 (21%) 29 Karelian 2003 6 (17%) 3 (8%) 27 (75%) 36 Veps 2006 20 (51%) 18 (46%) 1 (3%) 39

Here all the languages are different. Finnish has predominantly genitive forms, with Veps also with a considerable proportion of genitive-accusatives, but they differ in the proportion of partitives. Estonian has almost equal proportions of partitive and nominative, and Karelian has mainly nominative forms. In Estonian a genitive form kõige exists, but is not used as a pronominal object, the nominative being used instead. The Karelian high frequency of the nom‑ inative-accusative relates to the use of the nominative form for objects of 3rd person plural verbs. Livonian has the highest proportion of partitives.

3.3.6 Reflexive Pronouns Cognate reflexive pronouns are found in all the languages. As objects they are used most frequently in Estonian and Livonian, the latter only using the partitive ēntšta. The Livonian pronoun has been excluded from most of the data, and is only included in Table 4.9. In his much larger and varied corpus, Tveite (2004: 46) also found that only the partitive reflexive is used as an object. Table 4.9 shows the numbers in the various languages. 66 CHAPTER 4

Table 4.9 Case distribution of reflexive pronoun objects in the modern biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive-Accusative Total

Estonian 1989 23 (92%) 2 (8%) 25 Livonian 1942 36 (100%) 0 36 Finnish 1992 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 9 Karelian 2003 13 (100%) 0 13 Veps 2006 12 (100%) 0 12

In Veps Kettunen (1943: 394) mentions the genitive case only in connection with the attributive possessive use of the reflexive pronoun in the sense of ‘one’s own’, and this is so also in the present corpus. Both Karelian and Veps have only partitive reflexive pronouns, and it is not certain whether genitive- accusative ones could also occur. The genitive case is used for the possessive ‘one’s own’. Finnish is the only language with more genitive-accusative than partitive reflexive pronouns. The overall use of the reflexive pronoun is lower in the northern languages than the southern ones, the reflexive feature often being a part of the verb itself in the former. Although the genitive-accusative is present in Estonian, it is not commonly used. Example (4.7) shows some of these findings.

(4.7) a. E ja poo-s enese üles and hang-PST.3SG self.GEN/ACC up

b. L ja pūg-iz ēntš-ta ylzõ and hang-PST.3SG self-PAR up

c. F ja hirttäyty-i and hang.REFL-PST.3SG

d. K da ripust-i-h and hang-PST-REFL.3SG

e. V i riput-i-he and hang-PST-REFL.3SG ‘and [Judas] hanged himself’ (Matt. 27:5) Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 67

This is obviously a bounded clause, yet in Livonian the partitive is used, because this is the only object case of the reflexive pronoun. The use of reflexive verbs in the northern Finnic languages is illustrated in these examples.

3.4 Noun Objects The noun objects are shown separately in Table 4.10, because they tend to dif‑ fer in their case distribution from pronouns. Finnish shows the least difference between the word categories, with the proportion of partitives of non-personal pronouns identical with nouns. The genitive group consists of genitive-accusa‑ tive singular nouns. The nominative-accusative group is more heterogeneous, including all plural accusative nouns, and of singular nouns nominative-accu‑ sative objects of imperative verbs, a small number of objects of jussive verbs in Estonian and Veps, and a few objects of ‑ta infinitives. Numerals greater than one, which are syntactically singular, although semantically plural are also included in this group. Karelian also has singular accusative-nominative objects of 3rd person plural verbs, as discussed in Section 2.1 above.

Table 4.10 Comparison of object case of nouns in the modern Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 429 (55.0%) 212 (27.2%) 139 (17.8%) 780 Livonian 469 (59.9%) 314 (40.1%) 783 Finnish 347 (37.9%) 366 (40.0%) 202 (22.1%) 915 Karelian 407 (44.4%) 265 (28.9%) 245 (26.7%) 917 Veps 364 (40.9%) 335 (37.6%) 191 (21.5%) 890

As can be seen from the table, Estonian and Livonian group together in having more partitive objects than the other languages, contrasting with the northern Finnic group. The Livonian results do not agree with the opinion of Larsson (1983: 113) that the accusative is on the way to becoming the sole object case in Livonian, which he based on the finding of negative clauses with an accusative object. Tveite’s (2004: 50) results show that there is a greater use of the partitive in more recent oral collections and all the written texts, including the 1942 New Testament, with my results from the latter being very similar to his (about 60% partitive). 68 CHAPTER 4

Table 4.11 Object case shown separately for singular and plural nouns

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Accusative Nominative Genitive Nominative

Estonian 305 (53%) 212 (37%) 59 (10%) 576 124 (61%) 80 (39%) 204 Livonian 366 (61%) 238 (39%)* 604 103 (58%) 76 (42%)* 179 Finnish 241 (35%) 366 (53%) 84 (12%) 691 106 (47%) 118 (53%) 224 Karelian 247 (39%) 265 (42%) 116 (18%) 628 160 (55%) 129 (45%) 289 Veps 203 (32%) 335 (54%) 88 (14%) 626 161 (61%) 103 (39%) 264

* The Livonian genitive and nominative are very frequently homonymous.

The larger number of nominative objects in Karelian is the result of the inclu‑ sion of 42 singular accusative noun objects of 3rd person plural verbs, which in the other languages would be in the genitive-accusative case. Also, Ojajärvi (1950a: 40) mentions that fairly often in the Maaselkä dialect the plural nomi‑ native is used in situations where in Finnish one would expect the partitive case. He states that this applies also to Aunus (Olonets) Karelian. In the pres‑ ent study, on the contrary, there are numerous partitive plural objects in the Olonets Karelian NT, which in other languages are nominative-accusative (see further discussion in Section 3.9 below). Veps is said to have more accusative objects than other languages, includ‑ ing some which are thought to be inappropriate (Kettunen 1943: 104; Denison 1957: 192; Kont 1959a: 143), but here the results are close to Finnish, with parti‑ tive objects even slightly more frequent than in Finnish. The 2006 translation is very recent, and there appears to have been a deliberate change in the case in a number of instances from genitive to partitive (see Chapter 5, Section 10). Example (4.8d), however, shows an accusative object in Veps, where all the other languages have the partitive case, except Livonian, which does not have a comparable construction.

(4.8) a. E kui pime juhi-b pimeda-t if blind.SG.NOM lead-3SG blind.SG-PAR

b. F kun sokea talutta-a tois-ta sokea-a if blind.SG.NOM lead-3SG other.SG-PAR blind.SG-PAR Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 69

c. K ku sogei viettelö-ü tos-tu sogie-du if blind.SG.NOM lead-3SG other.SG-PAR blind.SG-PAR

d. V ku soged taluta-b toiže-n if blind.SG.NOM lead-3SG other.SG-GEN/ACC sogeda-n blind.SG-GEN/ACC ‘if a blind man leads another blind man’ (Matt. 15:14)

The noun objects in the small section of Votic have been compared with the results from the same sections of the corpus in the other languages. These results are shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Distribution of the case of noun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel, chapters 2–4, 6

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 40 (60%) 11 (16%) 16 (24%) 67 Livonian 1942 41 (65%) 22 (35%) 63 Finnish 1992 25 (32%) 28 (35%) 26 (33%) 79 Karelian 2003 25 (34%) 17 (23%) 31 (43%) 73 Veps 2006 16 (24%) 26 (39%) 25 (37%) 67 Votic 1883 31 (46%) 15 (22%) 22 (32%) 68

These results are only a small sample and differ from those in Table 4.10, espe‑ cially in the case of Veps, but the overall comparative pattern is the same. Votic can be seen to fit somewhere between the northern and the southern groups of languages. In view of the small sample, an analysis was carried out also on some oral transcriptions from east and west Votic (Kettunen and Posti 1932). In the eastern and western dialects the proportion of partitive objects was 31.5% and 32.7% respectively, similar for both, and smaller than that in the biblical text, although the different registers and genres make direct comparison dif‑ ficult. All the Votic results show an accusative predominance, and thus in this respect differ from the other southern languages. 70 CHAPTER 4

The sections below show how the basic principles concerning object case alternation are applied in the corpus.

3.5 Boundedness The case alternation dependent on the boundedness of the clause is found in all the Finnic languages in the corpus, although Livonian deviates most from it. The following examples show bounded clauses with an accusative object in all the languages, with a singular genitive-accusative object (4.9) and a plural nominative-accusative object (4.10).

(4.9) a. E kes anna-b inimes-te-le säärase meelevalla who give-3SG man-PL-ALL such.GEN/ACC power.GEN/ACC

b. L kis seļļiz võimiz um rovstõ-n who such.GEN/ACC power.GEN/ACC be.3SG people.PL-DAT andõ-n give-PPTCP

c. F joka oli anta-nut ihmis-i-lle sellaise-n who be.PST.3SG give-PPTCP man-PL-ALL such-GEN/ACC valla-n power-GEN/ACC

d. K kudai ando-i ristikanza-le nengoze-n who give-PST.3SG. man.SG-ALL such-GEN/ACC valla-n power-GEN/ACC

e. V kudamb oli and-nu meh-i-le mugoma-n who be.PST.3SG. give-PPTCP man-PL-ALL such-GEN/ACC valda-n power-GEN/ACC ‘who gives/gave/has given/had given such a power to men’ (Matt. 9:8)

While ‘power’ is inherently divisible, in this instance it refers to the defined amount of power to do the particular deeds which had been witnessed. In the original Greek ‘power’ is definite. The beneficiary is plural in some languages, which suggests multiple acts of giving, but the power encompasses them all. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 71

(4.10) a. E Ta kihuta-s nei-st vaimu-d välja he drive-PST.3SG 3PL-ELA spirit-PL.NOM/ACC out sõna-ga word.SG-COM

b. L ta aj-iz vaimõ-d ulzõ leb sõna he drive-PST.3SG spirit-PL.ACC out through word.SG.GEN

c. F hän ajo-i sana-lla-an henge-t ulos he drive-PST.3SG word.SG-ADE-3PX spirit-PL.NOM/ACC out

d. K Häi ajo-i oma-l sana-l hei-s he drive-PST.3SG own.SG-ADE word.SG-ADE 3PL-ELA karu-t evil-PL.NOM/ACC

e. V hän küks-i sana-l paha-d he drive-PST.3SG word.SG-ADE evil-PL.NOM/ACC henge-d hei-špäi spirit-PL.NOM/ACC they-ELA ‘he drove the evil spirits out of them with his word’ (Matt. 8:16)

In the above example ‘spirits’ refers to the defined evil spirits which had dwelt in the people concerned. The clause refers to a number of completed actions. Example (4.11) has partitive objects in a non-bounded clause, in all five languages.

(4.11) a. E te otsi-te ristilöödud Jeesus-t 2PL.NOM seek-2PL crucified Jesus-PAR

b. L tēg votšõ-t rištõ rabdõt-õ Jēzus-õ 2PL.NOM seek-2PL cross.ILL nailed-PAR Jesus-PAR

c. F te etsi-tte ristiinnaulittu-a Jeesus-ta 2.PL.NOM seek-2PL crucified-PAR Jesus-PAR ‘you are seeking the crucified Jesus’

d. K tüö eči-ttö Iisussu-a rista-h nuaglittu-u 2PL.NOM seek-2PL Jesus-PAR cross-ILL nailed-PAR ‘you are seeking Jesus crucified’ 72 CHAPTER 4

e. V tö eci-t Iisusa-d kudamb oli nagloitu 2PL.NOM seek-2PL Jesus-PAR who.NOM was nailed rist-ha cross-ILL ‘you are seeking Jesus, who was nailed to the cross’ (Matt. 28:5)

Here they are seeking the body of Jesus, which could never be found, so the event is non-bounded, and object is partitive in all the five languages. Votic also has an example of a partitive object with ‘seek’ (4.12). Here also there is no guarantee that the seeking will take place and reach an endpoint.

(4.12) Vo õtsi-kaa eesit Jumala riiki-ä seek-IMPV.2PL first god.GEN kingdom-PAR ‘seek first the kingdom of God’ (Matt. 6:33)

In all these languages bounded clauses have accusative objects and non- bounded clauses partitive ones. However, there are situations where the boundedness of a clause is not clearly obvious and where interpretations dif‑ fer in the various languages. As mentioned earlier (Chapter 3, Section 4) in Estonian and Livonian the partitive is sometimes used, where it seems that the accusative would be more appropriate, as the action is completed and the object totally affected. The use of the partitive implies that the object is indefinite or non-concrete and not important, but this is not always so, as shown in (4.13b) for Livonian.

(4.13) a. E kes istuta-s viinamäe who plant-PST.3SG vineyard.SG.GEN/ACC

b. L kis pystat-iz vīnõmägg-õ who plant-PST.3SG vineyard.SG-PAR

c. F joka istutt-i viinitarha-n who plant-PST.3SG vineyard.SG-GEN/ACC

d. K kudai istutt-i viinumuarjupello-n who plant-PST.3SG vineyard.SG-GEN/ACC Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 73

e. V kudamb ištut-i vinpusadu-n who plant-PST.3SG vineyard.SG-GEN/ACC ‘who planted a vineyard’ (Matt. 21:33)

Certainly from the context and the other translations the action is completed, and an accusative object would be expected. In the 46 instances involving noun objects (not counting the genealogy, which is discussed below), where Livonian has a partitive object in what I consider to be a bounded situation, 17 had the accusative in the other four languages; in two instances all the other languages had a different construction, and in one instance only the Estonian agreed with the Livonian. The Karelian agreed with the partitive case in 5 instances. One example with the Livonian and Karelian partitive is shown below (4.14). In the other 20 instances there were different constructions in 1–3 languages, but no other partitives. Seven of the instances where all the other languages had the accusative, involved proper nouns. Clauses with verbs of perception and cognition were not included in these numbers, as these involve a well-recognized difference between the languages.

(4.14) a. E Heroodes oli ju Johannese kinni Herod be.PST.3SG EMP John.GEN/ACC PTCL võt-nud take-PPTCP ‘Herod had arrested John’

b. L Herodes võttõ-n Jaņ-õ vizzõ Herod take-PPTCP John-PAR PTCL ‘Herod, having arrested John’

c. F Heroodes oli pidättä-nyt Johannekse-n Herod be.PST.3SG arrest-PPTCP John-GEN/ACC ‘Herod had arrested John’

d. K Irodu oli käske-nüh ottu-a Iivanu-a Herod be.PST.3SG order-PPTCP take-taINF John-PAR kiini PTCL ‘Herod had given the order to arrest John’ 74 CHAPTER 4

e. V Irod oli käsk-nu taba-ta Herod be.PST.3SG order-PPTCP arrest-taINF Joanna-n John-GEN/ACC ‘Herod had given the order to arrest John’ (Matt. 14:3)

In the Karelian version the inclusion of the verb ‘order’ gives a slightly dubita‑ tive nuance in that the order may not be carried out, which would justify the use of the partitive case. However, that would be an unlikely scenario, and in Veps the same construction has the accusative. Karelian has partitive objects in 20 clauses which I consider to be bounded. All the objects are definite and most are highly individuated. There are some where the action has not been completed, but the verb is telic, and the action is likely to be completed. These have been compared with the corresponding clauses in the other languages. Karelian personal pronouns are not included as they are all partitive. Two plural objects are included here, as one is modified by ‘all’, the other has the determiner ‘those’, and the actions are completed. In all of these 20 clauses at least two other languages have an accusative object. Finnish has an accusative object in all of these. Livonian has 6 with a partitive object, Veps 4 and Estonian 2. There are 14 instances where Karelian inexplicably has a partitive proper noun. In this it appears similar to Tveite’s (2004: 123, 144) findings in Livonian. In Section 3.9 all divisible partitive objects in Karelian are compared with the corresponding objects in the other northern languages. An interesting group of clauses is found in the genealogy in the first chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel. There are altogether 39 clauses stating who fathered whom. In the modern Bible texts all the languages except Livonian have an expression meaning ‘to Abraham was born Isaac’. Livonian, however, has the father as the subject and the son as the object (4.15), with all the objects partitive.

(4.15) L Jākob syndt-iz Jūdas-õ ja täm Jacob.NOM beget-PST.3SG. Judah-PAR and his veļi-d-i brother-PL-PAR ‘Jacob begat Judah and his brothers’ (Matt. 1:2) Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 75

Birth is a completed event, so the partitive object is difficult to explain. Three possible explanations occur to me. It is possible that the form is used as a geni‑ tive also (the Livonian form is similar to the southern Estonian genitive), but in most instances the genitive of a proper noun in Livonian is the same as the nominative. Perhaps there is a desire to avoid possible confusion between the father and son, if the son were homonymous with the nominative. However, the partitive ‘brothers’ in (4.15) makes that unlikely to be the explanation. Tveite (2004: 123, 144) mentions that a proper noun may appear inappropriately in the partitive case in the Livonian New Testament for no apparent reason.

3.6 Negation As mentioned in Chapter 3, Section 3, in negated clauses the object is as a rule in the partitive case, and this has been borne out by the findings in most of the modern biblical texts, as shown in example (4.16).

(4.16) a. E keegi muu ei tunne Poega anyone.NOM other.NOM NEG know.CONNEG son.SG.PAR

b. L mitykš äb tund Puoig-õ nobody.NOM NEG.3SG know.CONNEG son.SG-PAR

c. F Poika-a ei tunne kukaan muu son.SG-PAR NEG.3SG know.CONNEG nobody.NOM other.NOM

d. K Poigu-a ei tunne niken son.SG-PAR NEG.3SG know.CONNEG nobody.NOM

e. V niken toine ei tunde nobody.NOM other.NOM NEG.3SG know.CONNEG Poiga-d son.SG-PAR ‘nobody (else) knows the Son’ (Matt. 11:27)

Livonian proved to have a number of exceptions to this rule. Of a total of 211 negative clauses 24 (11.4%) have an accusative object. In 126 negative clauses with noun objects 19 (15.1%) are accusative. Tveite (2004: 33, 150), Larsson (1983: 113) and Kont (1958a: 239) mention accusative objects in negative clauses, and the present results agree. Tveite (2004: 151) attributes the accusative object at least in some cases to high telic potential and individuation. A Livonian 76 CHAPTER 4

example with an accusative noun object together with a genitive-accusative modifier is shown below in (4.17b), compared with the other languages.

(4.17) a. E nii suur-t usku ma ei ole so great-PAR faith.PAR I NEG be.CONNEG leid-nud Iisraeli-s ühe-l-gi find-PPTCP Israel-INE anyone-ADE-EMP ‘such great faith I have not found in anyone in Israel’

b. L ma Izrael-s äb ūo lieudõ-n I Israel-INE NEG.1SG be.CONNEG find-PPTCP seļļiz usk such.ACC faith.ACC ‘I have not found such faith in Israel’

c. F näin vahva-a usko-a e-n ole so strong-PAR faith-PAR NEG-1SG be.CONNEG tavan-nut yhde-llä-kään Isrealilaise-lla meet-PPTCP one-ADE-NEG.EMP Israeli.SG-ADE ‘such strong faith I have not met in any Israeli’

d. K nengos-tu luju-a usku-o e-n ole such-PAR strong-PAR faith-PAR NEG-1SG be.CONNEG näh-nüh ni.ühte-l izraiľalaze-l see-PPTCP anyone-ADE Israeli.SG-ADE ‘such strong faith I have not seen in any Israeli’

e. V ningoš-t uskonda-d minä e-n vasttand such-PAR faith-PAR I NEG-1SG meet.CONNEG.PST Izraiľa-s-ki Israel-INE-EMP ‘such faith I did not meet even in Israel’ (Matt. 8:10)

3.7 The Inherent Aspect of the Verb The inherent aspect of the verb was discussed in Chapter 3, Section 4.2.1. Here those findings are applied to the present corpus. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 77

3.7.1 Verbs of Emotion Verbs of emotion, such as ‘love’, hate’ and ‘fear’ typically take a partitive object in all the Finnic languages, as the state is unbounded. Example (4.18) shows the five main languages with a partitive object of the verb ‘love’.

(4.18) a. E armasta oma ligimes-t love.IMPV.2SG own.GEN neighbour.SG-PAR

b. L ārmast entš ležglis-t love.IMPV.2SG self.GEN neighbour.SG-PAR

c. F rakasta lähimmäis-tä-si love.IMPV.2SG neighbour.SG-PAR-2SG.PX

d. K suvaiče lähimäs-tü love.IMPV.2SG neighbour.SG-PAR

e. V armasta ičeiž lähembaš-t love.IMPV.2SG self.GEN neighbour.SG-PAR ‘love your neighbour’ (Matt. 5:43)

In Votic also these verbs have partitive objects (4.19).

(4.19) Vo tämä viha-b tõissa ja suvaa-b tõissa 3SG.NOM hate-3SG other.SG.PAR and love-3SG other.SG.PAR ‘he hates one and loves the other’ (Matt. 6:24)

Examples with the verb ‘fear’ are shown in (4.20).

(4.20) a. E kart-is rahvas-t fear-PST.3SG people.SG-PAR

b. L kārt-iz rovš-ti fear-PST.3SG people-PL.PAR

c. F pelkä-si kansa-a fear-PST.3SG people.SG-PAR 78 CHAPTER 4

d. K vara-i rahvas-tu fear-PST.3SG people.SG-PAR

e. V vara-iži rahvas-t fear-PST.3SG. people.SG-PAR ‘(Herod) feared the people’ (Matt. 14:5)

3.7.2 Verbs of Perception and Cognition As mentioned in Chapter 3, Section 4.2.1.2 verbs of perception and cognition generally take an accusative object in Finnish, Karelian and Veps and a parti‑ tive one in Estonian and Livonian. Table 4.13. shows the distribution of object case of the verbs ‘see’ and ‘hear’ in the five languages. Only nouns are included in the numbers.

Table 4.13 Noun objects of verbs of perception in the synchronic Finnic corpus

Estonian Livonian Finnish Karelian Veps

‘to see’ Partitive 39 (100%) 28 (93%) 4 (13%) 11 (37%) 2 (7%) Accusative 0 2 (7%) 28 (88%) 19 (63%) 27 (93%)

‘to hear’ Partitive 12 (100%) 13 (87%) 2 (15%) 2 (15%) 1 (7%) Accusative 0 2 (13%) 11 (85%) 11 (85%) 14 (93%)

In Estonian and Livonian partitive objects are predominant, although in Livonian there are a few exceptions. Finnish and Veps have largely accusa‑ tive objects and Karelian a mixture of both. Of the partitive objects of ‘see’ in Karelian three are plural, clearly indefinite, and in one instance conjoined with a genitive-accusative object, as shown in (4.21). Here the quantitative indefi‑ niteness takes precedence over the inherent verbal aspect. In Finnish the ‘flute players’ are nominative-accusative, and partitive in Veps. Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 79

(4.21) K Häi nägi sie pillilsoittaj-i-i da hälizijä-n he saw there flute.player-PL-PAR and noisy-SG.GEN rahvasjouko-n crowd.SG-GEN ‘He saw there flute players and the noisy crowd’ (Matt. 9:23)

The object in four instances is God or Jesus, the latter referring to the end of the world (4.22), so their result could possibly be considered doubtful, although this would be less likely in a biblical text. The future does not in itself require a partitive object, if the action is expected to be bounded in the future. The verbs in the potential mood (expressing doubt) in the Karelian corpus have their objects equally distributed between partitive and accusative. Hence this explanation does not appear likely.

(4.22) K ku näh-täh Ristikanza-n Poigu-a tule-ma-s when see-3PL man.SG-GEN son.SG-PAR come-maINF-INE taivaha-n pilv-i-en piäl sky.SG-GEN cloud-PL-GEN on ‘they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky’ (Matt. 24:30)

Most other singular count noun objects are accusative, but there is one other partitive example:

(4.23) K Iisus nägi hänen muatkoi-du viru-ma-s . . . Jesus saw his mother.in.law.SG-PAR lie-maINF-INE suure-s žuaru-s large-INE fever-INE ‘Jesus [came into Peter’s house and] saw his mother-in-law lying [downstairs]in high fever.’ (Matt. 8:14)

In both of the previous examples the partitive object of the verb in the matrix clause could be considered the subject of the non-finite verb (inessive case of the ‑ma infinitive), but generally ‑ma infinitives are considered more adverbial in nature (similar to a location). In another similar construction, the object is genitive-accusative (4.24). Hence there is no obvious explanation for the varia‑ tion in case selection for the object of ‘see’ in Karelian. The data is too limited to suggest a language shift in progress. 80 CHAPTER 4

(4.24) K Häi nägi miehe-n istu-ma-s he saw man.SG-GEN/ACC sit-maINF-INE maksuloinkeriändükohta-s tax.collection.place-INE ‘He saw a man [named Matthew] sitting at the tax collection place’ (Matt. 9:9)

The two partitive objects of ‘see’ in Veps are both quantitatively indefinite. In the limited Votic material there are two partitive objects of ‘see’, one noun and one personal pronoun teit(ä) ‘you.PL’, as well as 5 accusative noun objects. There is inconsistent use of case, as shown in examples (4.25) and (4.26).

(4.25) Vo nämä ku nät̮-i-vat si-tä tähti-ä taivaa-ssa they when see-PST-3PL that-PAR star.SG-PAR sky-INE ‘when they saw that star in the sky’ (Matt. 2:10)

(4.26) Vo möö näim-mä tämä tähe päivänõisu-la we see.PST-1PL 3SG.GEN star.SG.GEN/ACC east-ADE ‘we saw his star in the east’ (Matt. 2:2)

Denison (1957: 193) suggests that these two examples indicate continuous ver‑ sus completed activity on the basis of the object case. He states that generally verbs ‘see’ and ‘hear’ take a partitive in Votic, although in the present limited study accusative objects predominated. The oral corpus does not help due to lack of suitable examples. The following set of examples (4.27) shows some of the differences in the various languages, including one of the two genitive-accusative objects of ‘see’ in Livonian.

(4.27) a. E Ta nägi üh-t viigipuu-d tee kõrval he saw one-PAR fig.tree.SG-PAR road.GEN beside

b. L ta neiz riekaiga-s ȳd vīgõpū he saw roadside-INE one.GEN/ACC fig.tree.ACC

c. F hän näki tie-n viere-llä viikunapuu-n he saw road-GEN edge-ADE fig.tree-GEN/ACC Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 81

d. K Häi nägi dorogupiele-s smokvupuu-n he saw roadside-INE fig.tree-GEN/ACC

e. V hän nägišti tevere-s smokvanpu-n he saw roadside-INE fig.tree-GEN/ACC ‘he saw a figtree beside the road’ (Matt. 21:19)

Here the genitive-accusative in Livonian could be explained as the object of ‘catch sight of’—an instantaneous action. Tveite (2004: 101) suggests such an explanation. An example of the partitive used in Finnish is shown in (4.28), where ‘see’ is not used in its literal meaning. The object is indefinite and the whole is idiomatic.

(4.28) F nälkä-ä näkev-i-lle hunger-PAR PRS.PTCP-PL-ALL ‘to those who see hunger’ (i.e. ‘those who hunger’) (1 Cor. 13:3)

Another example of the partitive used in Finnish is shown in (4.29), where the verb and its object form a phrasal verb.

(4.29) F näi-n paha-a un-ta see.PST-1SG bad.SG-PAR dream.SG-PAR ‘I had a nightmare’ (Matt. 27:19)

While ‘see’ in Estonian usually takes the partitive, in the combination und nägema ‘dream’ the noun complement can be accusative (4.30). Here it refers to a single completed act.

(4.30) E ma nägi-n . . . ühe huvitava I see.PST-1SG one.GEN/ACC interesting.GEN/ACC unenäo dream.GEN/ACC ‘I had an interesting dream’ (Tauli 1968:219) 82 CHAPTER 4

An example set with the verb ‘hear’ is shown in (4.31).

(4.31) a. E kes neid mu sõnu kuule-b who these.PAR 1SG.GEN word.PL.PAR hear-3SG ‘who hears these words of mine’

b. L kes min sõņ-ḑ-i kūlõ-b who 1SG.GEN word-PL-PAR hear-3SG ‘who hears my words’

c. F joka kuule-e nämä sana-ni who hear-3SG these.NOM/ACC word.PL.NOM/ACC-1SG.PX

d. K ken kuulo-u nämä minu-n sana-t who hear-3SG these.NOM/ACC 1SG-GEN word-PL.NOM/ACC

e. V ken kule-b nene minu-n sana-d who hear-3SG these.NOM/ACC 1SG-GEN word-PL.NOM/ACC who hears these words of mine’ (Matt. 7:24)

The definite object here is in the accusative case in Finnish, Karelian and Veps. In the Estonian and Livonian examples there are also definite objects, but the object is partitive, because the verb ‘hear’ inherently governs the partitive. Most of the Livonian objects of ‘hear’ are partitive, but there are two accusa‑ tive instances, both in the imperative mood, for example (4.32).

(4.32) L kūli-gid ȳd mū sǟdlõm hear-IMPV.2PL one.ACC other.ACC parable.ACC ‘hear another parable’ (Matt. 21:33)

If the verb is ‘listen to’, it is even more unexpected to have an accusative object, as the verbs ‘look at’ and ‘listen to’ govern the partitive case. There are exceptions when a bounding particle is added to ‘listen’, as with ära in Estonian (4.33).

(4.33) E tähetarga-d kuula-si-d kuninga astrologer-PL.NOM listen-PST-3PL. king.SG.GEN Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 83

jutu ära tale.SG.GEN/ACC away ‘the astrologers listened to (the whole) of the king’s tale’ (Matt. 2:9)

Verbs of cognition are similar in their object choice to those of perception. A set of examples is shown in (4.34), with Estonian and Livonian having partitive objects and the others accusative ones.

(4.34) a. E Jeesus, tea-des nende mõttemõlgutus-i Jesus.NOM know-eINF.INE 3PL.GEN thought-PL.PAR ‘Jesus, knowing their thoughts’

b. L ku ta nänt mõtki-di when 3SG.NOM 3PL.GEN thought-PL.PAR mūošt-iz understand-PST.3SG. ‘Jesus, understanding their thoughts’

c. F Jeesus tie-si hei-dän ajatukse-nsa J.NOM know-PST.3SG 3PL-GEN thought.PL.NOM/ACC-3PX

d. K Iisus tie-zi hei-jän miele-t J.NOM know-PST.3SG 3PL-GEN thought-PL.NOM/ACC

e. V Iisus te-zi hei-den meletuse-d J.NOM know-PST.3SG 3PL-GEN thoughts-PL.NOM/ACC ‘(when) Jesus knew their thoughts’ (Matt. 12:25)

The Livonian ku ‘when’ implies that Jesus became aware of their (the Pharisees’) thoughts at that particular time, a sudden realization (achievement), whereas the other languages may be referring to a knowledge of their thoughts in general. Hence in Livonian an accusative object might have been expected, except for the inherent aspect of the verb. In Estonian the cognate verb mõistis ‘understood’ would also take the partitive. Here the Estonian gerund (called the inessive case of the ‑e infinitive in the other languages) in addition implies an ongoing state of knowledge. Another set of examples showing the difference in object case is shown in (4.35). 84 CHAPTER 4

(4.35) a. E ja ma tea-ksi-n kõik-i saladus-i and I know-COND-1SG all-PL.PAR secret-PL.PAR

b. L ja tīeda-ks ama-d sala aža-d and know-COND all-PL.ACC secret thing-PL.ACC

c. F vaikka tunt-isi-n kaikki salaisuude-t if know-COND-1SG all.NOM/ACC secret-PL.NOM/ACC

d. K i minä tiedä-zi-n kai and I know-COND-1SG all.NOM peittodielo-t secret.thing-PL.NOM/ACC

e. V i hoť teda-iži-n kaik peitazja-d and if know-COND-1SG. all.NOM secret.thing-PL.NOM/ACC ‘and if I knew all secrets’ (1 Cor. 13:2)

Here only Estonian has the partitive. The object is definite and total, but because of the inherent aspect of the verb ‘know’, the partitive is used. It can be argued that knowing does not affect the object. Also, the irrealis sense of the conditional could suggest the use of the partitive case. Hence, in Estonian, the definiteness and totality of the object does not override the inherent verbal aspect, whereas in the other languages, except Livonian, the inherent verbal aspect is different and the accusative is used. Livonian has unexpected fluctua‑ tions in case. For example in (4.34b) the verb ‘know’ has a partitive object, but in that case the object is not clearly total as in (4.35b).

3.7.3 Miscellaneous Verbs Various other verbs also differ from language to language in the object case they usually take. Sometimes this is so even in the same language and in an otherwise identical clause, as in the Veps examples in (4.36) and (4.37).

(4.36) V siloi hän kosket-i hei-den siľm-id then 3SG.NOM touch-PST.3SG. 3PL-GEN eye-PL.PAR ‘then he touched their eyes’ (Matt. 9:29)

(4.37) V hän kosket-i hei-den siľmä-d 3SG.NOM touch-PST.3SG. 3PL-GEN eye-PL.NOM/ACC ‘he touched their eyes’ (Matt. 20:34) Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 85

In both instances Jesus touches the eyes of blind men and they recover their vision. Generally the verb ‘touch’ has a partitive object as there is no change in the state or position of the object. Although here it can be argued that there is a definite result and the accusative would be more appropriate, the result of the action is not given until the following sentence. In the other languages apart from Livonian, both these clauses have a partitive object. Livonian has a different construction with an adpositional phrase (4.38), which is the usual complement of ‘touch’.

(4.38) L siz pūt-iz ta nänt sīlma-dõ-n jūr then touch-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM 3PL.GEN eye-PL-DAT to ‘then he touched their eyes’ (Matt. 9:29)

Phrasal verbs, such as shown in Chapter 3, Section 4.2.2, with a partitive noun as part of the phrase, are found in the texts. Some examples are shown below. In Estonian particularly frequent is kohut (PAR) mõistma ‘judge’. On its own mõistma means ‘understand’. In Livonian there is a similar expression for ‘judge’ (4.39).

(4.39) L mikšpierast laz yļ min vaba volmiz why let over my free.GEN will.GEN kuod-õ kān-dag tuoiz sydam tundimi judgment-PAR bear-JUS other.SG.GEN heart.GEN feeling.NOM ‘why let someone else’s conscience judge my free will’ (1 Cor 10:29)

In Finnish and Veps we have the expression ‘care about’ (4.40). A similar expression exists in Estonian, but is not used in the corpus.

(4.40) a. F naimaton mies kanta-a huol-ta unmarried.SG.NOM man.SG.NOM bear-3SG care-PAR siitä that.ELA ‘an unmarried man takes care of that (which concerns the Lord)’

b. V naimatoi pidä-b hoľ-t Ižanda-n unmarried.SG.NOM keep-3SG care-PAR lord-GEN azjo-i-š thing-PL-ELA/INE ‘an unmarried person takes care of matters concerning the Lord’ (1 Cor 7:32) 86 CHAPTER 4

A common phrasal verb in several of the languages is ‘kiss’(4.41). In the 1992 Finnish Bible the verb suudella ‘kiss’ is used instead in the corresponding example, although the phrasal verb also exists. In the corresponding Veps text ‘greet’ is used instead of ‘kiss’.

(4.41) a. E ja and-is Ta-lle suu-d and give-PST.3SG 3SG-ALL mouth-PAR

b. L ja ānd-iz tämmõ-n sū-dõ and give-PST.3SG 3SG-DAT mouth-PAR

c. K da ando-i Häne-le suu-du and give-PST.3SG 3SG-ALL mouth-PAR ‘and kissed Him’ (Matt. 26:49)

As the partitive noun associated with the phrasal verb is an object, the ben‑ eficiary of the phrasal verb is in an inherent case, such as allative (or dative in Livonian) in the above examples. Some verbs, which take partitive objects in some languages, in others have some other case instead. These are often more like beneficiaries, which are indirectly affected by the verb. Many such verbs in non-Finnic languages also have indirect objects, with the dative the most common case. In this respect Livonian differs from the other Finnic languages. Table 4.14 lists some of the verbs from the corpus and shows the case of the objects/beneficiaries.

Table 4.14 Case of object assigned by various verbs in the Finnic biblical corpus

Verb E L F K V worship PAR PAR PAR ALL ALL believe in someone PAR/ILL DAT ILL ILL ALL believe something PAR PAR PAR/ACC* ILL ILL command PAR DAT PAR ALL ALL serve PAR DAT PAR ALL ALL help PAR DAT PAR ALL ALL

* The partitive is used when referring to a person (I believe him), the accusative when referring to a thing, story or an abstract entity (Sands and Campbell 2001: 294). Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 87

In Estonian ‘believe in someone’ often has an illative object as in Finnish, but this is not so in the 1989 NT. An example with the verb ‘worship / bow to’ is shown in (4.42).

(4.42) a. E nad . . . kummarda-si-d te-da 3PL.NOM worship-PST-3PL 3SG-PAR

b. L ne pallõs.pāl-is-t tǟn-da 3.PL.NOM worship-PST-3PL 3SG-PAR

c. F he . . . kumar-si-vat las-ta 3PL.NOM worship-PST-3PL child.SG-PAR

d. K hüö . . . kumardett-i-hes lapse-le 3PL.NOM worship-PST-REFL.3PL child.SG-ALL

e. V hö kumar-zi-he . . . lapse-le 3PL.NOM worship-PST-REFL.3PL child.SG-ALL

f. Vo nämä . . . kummartas-tii tä-lle 3PL.NOM worship-PST.3PL 3SG-ALL ‘they (bowed down and) worshipped him / the child’ (Matt. 2:11)

Here Estonian, Finnish and Livonian have a partitive object, while in the other languages the beneficiary is in the allative case, with Karelian and Veps using a reflexive verb. The Votic 3rd person plural verb here is cognate with the impersonal. Another verb, which is expressed in various ways, and has a different com‑ plement in the various languages is ‘follow’, where some languages use a prep‑ ositional phrase or an adverb in conjunction with a motion verb (4.43). Here only Finnish has a direct object.

(4.43) a. E ning järgne-s Ta-lle and follow-PST.3SG 3SG-ALL ‘and followed Him’

b. L ta kei tämmõ-n tagan he walk.PST.3SG 3SG-DAT behind ‘he walked behind him’ 88 CHAPTER 4

c. F ja läht-i seura-maan Jeesus-ta and go-PST.3SG follow-maINF Jesus-PAR ‘and went to follow Jesus’

d. K i läht-i Iisusa-le jälles and go-PST.3SG Jesus-ALL behind ‘and went behind Jesus’

e. V i läk-si Iisusan-ke and go-PST.3SG Jesus-COM ‘and (Matthew) went with Jesus’ (Matt. 9:9)

There are occasional examples of intransitive verbs with a quasi-object, such as the Finnish example (4.44).

(4.44) F kun Jeesus kulk-i Galileanjärven ranta-a when Jesus.NOM go-PST.3SG lake.of.Galilee.GEN shore-PAR ‘when Jesus was walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee’ (Matt. 4:18)

In the other languages an adpositional phrase or a locative case is used.

3.8 Verb Form In this chapter all active verbs are included. The impersonal and passive is dealt with in Chapter 6. The different verb forms, such as imperatives, infini‑ tives and participles, affect the choice of object case, and are discussed in detail in Chapter 7. In Olonets Karelian the 3rd person plural verb, which is cognate with the impersonal in Finnish and Estonian, has accusative singular noun and non- personal pronoun objects mostly in the nominative form, rather than genitive, as in the other languages. The 1st and 2nd singular and plural, and 3rd person singular verbs have singular genitive-accusative objects. Although Votic also has some 3rd person plural forms cognate with the impersonal, there is not enough data in the corpus to see whether singular accusative objects are in the nominative or genitive form.

3.9 The Nature of the Object The effect of the nature of the object itself on its case selection depends on several factors detailed in Chapter 3, Section 4.3. While the imperfective aspect Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 89 of the verb and negativity can be associated with a partitive count noun, only divisible objects can be quantitatively partial, i.e. mass nouns and plurals. In example (4.45) the use of different case is shown due to the different inter‑ pretation of the event. In the Karelian example (4.45b) the plural objects are partitive, the implication being that an indefinite number of the sheep were herded to the right and goats to the left, whereas the other languages have a nominative-accusative object, as exemplified in the Finnish example (4.45a), indicating that all the sheep went to the right and all the goats to the left. The Greek has definite articles here.

(4.45) a. F hän asetta-a lampaa-t oikea-lle ja he place-3SG sheep-PL.NOM/ACC right-ALL and vuohe-t vasemma-lle puole-lle-en goat-PL.NOM/ACC left-ALL side-ALL-3PX ‘he places the sheep on his right and the goats on his left side’

b. K lambah-i-i Häi pano-u oigie-le puole-le sheep-PL-PAR he put-3SG right-ALL side-ALL iče-s a koz-i-i hura-le self-ELA/INE but goat-PL-PAR left-ALL ‘sheep he puts on his right side but goats on the left’ (Matt. 25:33)

If the object is quantitatively indefinite or partial, the partitive is used, even if the action appears completed, because it would be possible for the action to continue to affect the entire set. There are a number of examples in Karelian with partitive plural objects which appear quantitatively indefinite, where other languages have accusative objects, suggesting that the entire group making up the object is involved. In view of this finding all divisible objects in Karelian have been compared with those in the corresponding clauses in Finnish and Veps to see how they compare with the other northern languages. Plural nouns and singular mass or abstract nouns have been analysed separately. Of 160 Karelian plural partitive objects 18 have no counterpart in either Finnish or Veps and are excluded. In Finnish there are 130 corresponding clauses, with 74% partitives. For Veps in 113 corresponding clauses there are 83% partitives, more than in Finnish. Of those 107 where both Finnish and Veps have corresponding constructions with the Karelian, 62.6% have partitive objects in both. Of the 103 singular divisible partitive objects in Karelian 17 have no cor‑ responding objects in either Finnish or Veps. Finnish has 74 corresponding 90 CHAPTER 4 objects with 92% partitive and Veps has 78 with 91% partitive. Of the 66 with a corresponding construction in both Finnish and Veps, both have partitive objects in 87%. This shows that the difference is more marked with plural nouns, where the interpretation concerning the involvement of a part versus the whole of the object differs between Karelian and both Finnish and Veps, but with a closer agreement with Veps. For singular divisible noun objects the differences are smaller. In both Karelian and Veps animacy is mentioned as a factor in choosing the partitive case. Plural nouns in the texts mostly refer to people, so perhaps this is an additional factor in these languages. (See Chapter 3, Section 4.3.3.) The finding of a high proportion of genitive-accusative noun objects overall in Veps, which has been attributed to homophony between the singular geni‑ tive and plural nominative, does not apply to mass nouns, because there is no plural. The use of the partitive often signifies that the object is indefinite or non-concrete, hence abstract noun objects are commonly partitive. In the case of a singular count noun the degree of affectedness of the object plays a part in the choice of object case. The affectedness is realized by a change in state or position, but lends itself to variable interpretations. The verb ‘hit’ provides an example from the corpus in all the languages (4.46).

(4.46) a. E ma löö-n maha karjase I hit-1SG down shepherd.SG.GEN/ACC ‘I will knock down the shepherd’

b. L ma rabu-b paint-õ I hit-1SG shepherd-SG.PAR ‘I will hit the shepherd’

c. F ma lyö-n paimene-n maa-han I hit-1SG shepherd.SG-GEN/ACC ground-ILL ‘I will kill the shepherd’

d. K minä lüö-n paimoi-du I hit-1SG shepherd.SG-PAR ‘I will hit the shepherd’

e. V Jumal riko-b paimne-n god.SG.NOM kill-3SG shepherd.SG-GEN/ACC ‘God will kill the shepherd’ (Matt. 26:31) Synchronic Corpus Study Of Object Case Alternation 91

In this clause Livonian and Karelian use the verb ‘hit’, implying that the shep‑ herd survived. Yet, from the context it is obvious that the shepherd (a specific one) is in fact killed. There is no suggestion that the hitting was repeated and went on for a while, but the text itself leaves that open. The bounding element in Estonian and Finnish is responsible for the accusative case of the object. The Veps translation is more specific with ‘kill’.

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

Overall the results of this study confirm what has been reported by others, but also provide some quantitative data of the differences in comparable texts. Veps and Finnish make the least use of the partitive case, while Estonian and Livonian use it more often. Karelian falls somewhere in between. Votic is closer to the northern ones, but the data is very limited. A considerable part of the difference can be attributed to the different view of the inherent aspect of verbs of perception and cognition, which take an accusative object in Finnish and Veps and to some extent in Karelian. Livonian has a number of partitive objects, where it seems that the accusative would be more appropriate. This is especially so with proper nouns. Some unexpected plural partitive nouns are found in Karelian, which in Finnish and Veps are nominative-accusative. The Olonets Karelian New Testament differs from the others in the use of the nominative case form for singular objects of 3rd person plural verbs, especially in St. Matthew’s gospel. This appears to be related to the fact that the 3rd per‑ son plural verbs are cognate with the impersonal Finnish and Estonian verbs, which have their singular noun objects in the nominative-accusative form. In 11.4% of negative clauses the Livonian New Testament has accusative objects, which is contrary to the norm in Finnic languages. In the other lan‑ guages there is an occasional negative clause which is semantically affirma‑ tive, with an accusative object, but otherwise all objects in negative clauses are partitive. On the basis of similar findings Larsson (1983: 113) has suggested that the accusative object is becoming the rule in Livonian, but other results here do not suggest that. Personal pronouns are overwhelmingly partitive in the latest Karelian and Veps texts. In Finnish the ‑t accusative is used for accusative personal pronoun objects in bounded clauses in a way similar to noun objects. In Estonian accu‑ sative 3rd person pronouns are in the genitive and nominative forms, while Livonian has no nominative personal pronoun objects. In all the languages the proportion of partitive personal pronoun objects is greater than that of parti‑ tive nouns. This is probably due to a number of factors. Homonymy of forms 92 CHAPTER 4 can lead to confusion about their function, animacy has been suggested for the languages influenced by Russian, and personal pronouns are less often com‑ pletely affected than inanimate objects. As subjects are nominative, and word order is relatively free, a nominative-accusative object could cause confusion. Other pronouns also favour the partitive case more than nouns, except in Finnish, where there is no difference. The pronoun se ‘it’ shows a marked dif‑ ference between the northern and southern languages, with the partitive pre‑ dominant in the southern group and the accusative in the northern group. CHAPTER 5 Diachronic Study of Object Case

1 Introduction

In this chapter the handling of object case is traced from the 16th century in Finnish and the 17th century in Estonian to the present time. In addition to the recent Karelian New Testament translation, there are also two translations of St. Matthew’s gospel, in the Tver dialect from 1820, and in the southern Karelian dialect from 1864. There are two translations of St. Matthew’s gospel in Livonian, one in the eastern and the other in the western dialect (both from the Courland district) from 1863. There is no old translation of Bible texts in Veps, but the translation of St. Matthew’s gospel from 1998 is compared with that in the New Testament from 2006. In addition an oral collection of the northern Chude language from 1842 (Lönnrot 1853), which in that collection is predominantly from a Veps-speaking area, and the oral collection of southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b) are shown as some earlier data for comparison. The details of the corpus are given in chapter 2. This chapter deals with the objects of active verbs only, although the boundary between active and passive is blurred in Karelian. Impersonal and passive clauses are considered separately in Chapter 6. Negative clauses have been excluded from the main statistical analysis, but are discussed separately where relevant. While the partitive case was obviously present in the Finnic languages from an early date, at the time when Estonian began to be written in the 16–17th centuries, its role was not clearly evident to the grammarians of the time, who were mostly of foreign extraction, or at least heavily influenced by Indo- European languages. Thus they had difficulty fitting the partitive case into their grammars, which were mainly based on Latin and German. The same applied to some extent to Finnish grammars, but the earliest Finnish Bible translator Agricola was a native Finnish speaker (although there is some argument about this) and had a much better knowledge of the local spoken language than the early clerics of German background had in Estonia. In Estonia there were two sociolects at the time, as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 1.1.1. The declension of proper nouns was a problem for the early writers, with the nominative form used sometimes when the genitive would be appropriate, and sometimes the Latin accusative suffix is found.

* Part of the data in this chapter has been published in Lees (2005).

2 Old Estonian Texts

The oldest Estonian texts are fragmentary and full of ambiguous forms where the case of nouns cannot be confidently determined. However, an attempt is made.

2.1 Kullamaa Manuscript and Wanradt-Koell Catechism These consist of small incomplete fragments only, but some observations can be made. In the Kullamaa manuscript from 1524 there are genitive forms still retaining the -n suffix, which soon thereafter disappeared from Estonian, but is still present in modern Finnish. Personal pronoun objects are in the partitive case, singular nouns in the genitive, with one singular nominative object in an imperative clause. Plural noun objects are in the nominative case. In the Wanradt-Koell catechism from 1535 the genitive -n suffix is still evident in many words. There are no unambiguous partitive nouns in this text, singular genitive objects being found in clauses, where modern Estonian would have the partitive. Plural nouns are nominative, and there are also a few singular nominative nouns, one in an imperative clause. Personal pronouns are all partitive. The pronoun se ‘it, this’ is found both as genitive sen or se and partitive sedda. The one example of sen is in a bounded clause.

(5.1) E Nynck and-is se-n temma sul[las-te]-le and give-PST.3SG it-GEN 3SG.GEN disciple-PL-ALL ‘and gave it to his disciples’ (Wanradt-Koell 1535: 10.21)

The sen ‘it’ refers to the bread at the Last Supper.

2.2 Georg Müller (~1565–1608) and Heinrich Stahl (~1600–1657) The language of both Müller and Stahl is far from modern Estonian, and much influenced by German. Müller’s sermons often contain segments of German. Stahl has a complete German parallel text, which was presumably written first and then translated into Estonian. The analysis is difficult, because of the lack of a standardized language at the time, resulting in many ambiguities as far as case is concerned. The German version of Stahl helps to differentiate in some cases. For the purposes of the analysis, if the determiner or modifying adjective is clearly partitive, genitive or nominative and the noun is ambiguous, the NP has been classified according to the modifier, as in (5.2). However, whereas in the modern language determiners and adjectives agree in number and case with the noun they modify, agreement is rather inconsistent in the writings of Müller and Stahl, and relying on determiners can be unreliable. If I could not Diachronic Study Of Object Case 95 be reasonably confident about the case, the NP was labelled ambiguous and excluded from the statistics. Only affirmative clauses are included in the main tables, with a separate section for negative ones at the end.

(5.2) E Jummal anna-p sed-da iggapeiwase Leiba god give-1SG this/the-PAR daily.GEN bread.PAR/GEN ‘God gives the daily bread’ (Stahl HH1 1632: 19)

Here the noun Leiba could be either genitive or partitive, as consonant gradation was not yet completely established or was unknown to Stahl, at least for this word; he has this form as accusative in his grammar (Stahl 1637a: 3). I have included this under genitive because of the unambiguous adjective, despite the partitive determiner. Finnic languages do not have definite articles, but in texts which have been heavily influenced by German, the demonstrative se ‘this/that’ is often used as a definite article. Müller uses the genitive sen, although not consistently, as shown in (5.3), while Stahl and later writers use se for both genitive and nominative. The partitive form sedda is used by both Müller and Stahl.

(5.3) E ninck leut-wat se Lapsu-kesse and find-3PL the.SG.GEN/ACC child-DIM.SG.GEN/ACC se-n Talli ninck Seuma siddes lessi-wa the-GEN stable.GEN and manger.GEN in lie-PRS.PTCP ‘and they find the little child lying in the stable and in a manger’ (Müller 1600: 32)

Ikola (1950: 87–96) has discussed the case of the object in Müller’s sermons in some detail. There are rare examples of a partitive object of an incomplete action, but some do occur. Partitive objects are generally uncommon, but where they are used, they mostly do refer to partial objects (Ikola 1950: 96). While Müller uses the genitive frequently and mostly correctly, the nominative object is often used wrongly, especially with words whose inflection appears to be difficult for him (Ikola 150: 95), as shown in example (5.4) from the present corpus.

(5.4) E et tæma pidda-b tæma Rickus errarick-ma that he.NOM must-3SG his realm.SG.NOM destroy-maINF ‘that he must destroy his realm’ (Müller 1600: 44) 96 CHAPTER 5

Here Rickus ‘realm’ has zero inflection, which makes it nominative singular, whereas a genitive form would be expected. Stahl in his writings generally uses the genitive form for singular noun objects and nominative for plural. In German the accusative plural is homonymous with the nominative, and this may well have influenced the choice of case for plural nouns. The use of the partitive for noun objects is very limited (Table 5.3). Some words, which were probably frequently used in the partitive case in speech, such as hehdt (modern head ~ hääd) ‘good’ in the sense of ‘doing some good’ do appear in the partitive. The partitive-accusative alternation, as found in the modern language, either aspectual or related to the total-partial opposition does not feature in Stahl’s writings. It appears that Stahl was not familiar with the partitive forms of most nouns and adjectives. The declension of biblical proper nouns is rather variable. Sometimes the Latin accusative is used, e.g Christum, but the genitive Christusse also occurs. At other times the name is left in the uninflected or nominative, as in (5.5).

(5.5) E ke Jsrael errapehst-ma sah-p who.NOM Israel.NOM save-maINF will-3SG ‘who will save Israel’ (Stahl HH2 1637b: 70)

The results of the case distribution of all the objects in the corpus from Müller and Stahl are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Case distribution of all objects in the Müller and Stahl corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

Müller 164 (36.9%) 143 (32.2%) 137 (30.9%) 444 Stahl HH1 80 (33.1%) 77 (31.8%) 85 (35.1%) 242 Stahl HH2 82 (48.2%) 51 (30.0%) 37 (21.8%) 170 Stahl LS 294 (47.3%) 175 (28.1%) 153 (24.6%) 622

While the overall results for both Müller and Stahl suggest that the object case is equally proportioned among partitive, genitive and nominative forms, parti- tioning them into various categories reveals a number of differences. Pronouns, especially personal ones, are much more frequently partitive than nouns. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 97

2.2.1 Personal Pronouns Personal pronoun objects are handled differently by Müller and Stahl. Müller has virtually all in the partitive case, with one example of a nominative 3rd person plural object in the present limited corpus (5.6).

(5.6) E kumma-st Jumal næmat olli errakeel-nuth which-ELA god.NOM 3PL.NOM be.PST.3SG forbid-PST.PTCP ‘which God had forbidden them’ (Müller 1600: 42)

In the Stahl corpus personal pronoun objects are mainly partitive for the 1st and 2nd person singular and plural (with a couple of exceptions in the singular), and mostly genitive for the 3rd person singular (although homonymous with the nominative) and nominative almost exclusively for the 3rd person plural. Table 5.2 shows a detailed analysis of the personal pronouns in the combined Stahl corpus.

Table 5.2 Personal pronoun object case in the Stahl corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

Sg 1&2 95 (98%) 2 (2%) 97 3 4 (7%) 50 (93%) 54 Pl 1&2 105 (100%) 105 3 1 (3%) 30 (97%) 31 Total 205 (71%) 52 (18%) 30 (11%) 287

2.2.2 Non-personal Pronouns The interrogative and relative pronoun mis ~ mea ‘what’ and the pronoun keik ‘all’, are here invariably nominative, while the majority of the partitive ones consist of reflexive pronouns and the partitive form of se ‘it, this, that’. In Stahl’s texts the reflexive pronoun is used very frequently with verbs of emotion, especially in Leyen Spiegel (1641), where there were 93 instances of hendes and 26 instances of hend. Both these forms occur in similar envi- ronments and as objects of the same verb, as shown below. The form hend is similar to the modern partitive end, while hendes is more like the alternative modern partitive ennast, so both are presumed to be partitive. 98 CHAPTER 5

(5.7) E sihs röhmusta-p temma hend then rejoice-3SG he self.PAR ‘then he rejoices/will rejoice’ (Stahl LS 1641: 28)

(5.8) E Jacob röhmusta-s hendes Jacob rejoice-PST.3SG self.PAR ‘Jacob rejoiced’ (Stahl LS 1641: 12)

Müller has 57 instances of hend in the present corpus. The frequent use of the reflexive pronoun with verbs of emotion is a calque from the German frewen sich ‘rejoice’. The pronoun se ‘it, this, that’ as object is almost exclusively partitive in the Stahl corpus, but occasional genitive forms are found. In the section of Müller in the present corpus the partitive and genitive are fairly equally distributed, but tokens overall are few. Müller still has one example of the old genitive sen as well as two of sensama ‘the same’ and three of sesama. When the genitive ending ‑n was dropped in Estonian generally, the genitive became homonymous with the nominative until the form selle came into use. Müller also has 7 objects as se.

2.2.3 Nouns The case distribution of noun objects in the Müller and Stahl corpus is shown in Table 5.3. The singular and plural nominative nouns are shown separately, as number has an influence on case selection. Valmet (1963: 64) states that in the written texts up to the 1690s, the nominative case is generally used for plural nouns instead of the partitive. The number of nouns ambiguous for case is shown in a separate column.

Table 5.3 Case distribution of noun objects in the Stahl and Müller corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Nominative Total Ambig. singular plural

Müller 10 (4%) 140 (57%) 50 (20%) 47 (19%) 247 74 Stahl HH1 8 (7%) 63 (51%) 13 (11%) 39 (32%) 123 26 Stahl HH2 2 (3%) 50 (65%) 0 25 (32%) 77 39 Stahl LS 18 (7%) 128 (53%) 1 (<1%) 97 (40%) 244 54 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 99

Nouns are mostly genitive in the singular and nominative in the plural, but Müller also has quite a number of singular nominative noun objects. Unequivocal partitive noun objects are very few. There are no plural partitive objects in the Stahl corpus, and only one in Müller. This is the common word assiu ‘things’, which he would probably have heard used in conversation. Habicht (2001: 213) also comments that both Müller and Stahl use the nominative case instead of the partitive for plural objects. An example is given in (5.9), where despite the ambiguous forms of the singular objects, the common denominator is genitive.

(5.9) E ninck önnista meije linna ninck and bless.IMPV.2SG our town.SG.PAR/GEN and mah land.SG.NOM/GEN ‘and bless our town and country’ (Stahl HH2 1637b: 75)

In modern Estonian both ‘town’ and ‘country’ would have been partitive, but linna ‘town’ would still have a form ambiguously partitive or genitive in writing, with syllable length indicating the difference in speech. While there are some differences between the three texts from Stahl, there do not appear to have been any significant developments over the years in his use of object case. The main difference is in the number of nominative singular nouns in the earliest text. Four of these are objects of imperative verbs. Neither Müller nor Stahl is using object case to indicate aspect, and as far as nouns are concerned the genitive is the norm for singular nouns and the nominative for plural, which would both be used for bounded situations in the modern language. While it could be tempting to label the ambiguous forms according to modern standards, it seems more likely that they are genitive in view of the paucity of distinctly partitive examples. Verbs which nowadays take the partitive object, such as verbs of perception, emotion and cognition, are mostly found with the object in the genitive case in the present corpus, such as in (5.10).

(5.10) E kumb Jummala karta-p who.SG.NOM god.GEN fear-3SG ‘who fears God’ (Stahl HH2 1637b: 64)

Habicht (2001: 215–216) in her extensive study of verbs and their objects in old Estonian lists some of these verbs. The object of mõtlema ‘think’ is never seen 100 CHAPTER 5 with a genitive object, but for kannatama ‘suffer’, kartma ‘fear’, tundma ‘feel’ and vaatama ‘look at’ the genitive is preferred both by Stahl and Müller, while in modern Estonian these all have partitive objects. (Habicht 2001: 216) gives a table of the frequency of the three object cases of a selected group of verbs in the entire corpus of Müller, Stahl HH1 and 2 combined, and LS, but does not state if both pronoun and noun objects are counted. She finds the partitive particularly predominant in Müller’s sermons and also in Stahl LS, but not in Stahl HH. The personal pronoun objects in Müller, which are overwhelmingly partitive, could account for the result there, and would also significantly affect the results in Stahl. Habicht’s table presumably includes objects of negative clauses, which in my study are more frequently partitive than those in affirmative clauses. In the short section of LS in the present corpus the partitive is also the most frequent object case when all objects are taken into account. I found numerous nouns ambiguous for case (Table 5.3). I expect that Habicht, with her larger corpus, was more confident in assigning a particular case to some of these.

2.2.4 Negative Clauses Non-partitive objects are found in negative clauses in both Müller and Stahl. The numbers are shown in Table 5.4. Kont (1963: 115) mentions this finding and Valmet (1962: 160) states that with negative polarity plural noun objects occur in the nominative rather than partitive case. Ikola (1950: 90) mentions partitive objects in negative clauses in Müller’s sermons, but all his examples involve pronouns. However, he does state that non-partitive objects predominate even in his negative clauses. In the present limited sample of Müller’s work there are more partitive noun objects in negative clauses, although the genitive and nominative ones together constitute a significant proportion.

Table 5.4 Case of noun objects in negative clauses in the Stahl and Müller corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

Müller 25 (60%) 6 (14%) 11 (26%) 42 Stahl HH1 12 (55%) 6 (27%) 4 (18%) 22 Stahl HH2 14 (67%) 6 (29%) 1 (5%) 21 Stahl LS 18 (37%) 16 (33%) 15 (31%) 49 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 101

An example of a negative clause with a plural nominative object is shown in (5.11).

(5.11) E Johannes ep kand-is pehme-t rihde-t John.NOM NEG wear-PST.3SG soft-PL.NOM clothes-PL.NOM ‘John did not wear soft clothes’ Stahl LS (1641: 37)

In the oldest Estonian texts the main verb does not have the modern connegative form, but shows the German influence of using the indicative inflected form. The negative is expressed by the negative particle, here ep. In general the negative auxiliary, which is found in the other languages, and which inflects for person and number, is only found in rare examples in old Estonian (Kilgi 2012: 123).

3 Old Estonian Grammars

The nomenclature of the noun cases was quite variable in the early grammars, with the term partitive not rating a mention. It was variously included under accusative or called infinitive (Wiedemann 1875), but the forms given in the examples are recognizable as the modern partitives. The first Estonian grammars were written in German or Latin, starting with Stahl in 1637, but most of them did not deal well with the idiosyncrasies of Estonian, basing their grammars on German. Stahl in his grammar (1637a) does not generally give two separate forms for the accusative case of nouns, as did the Finnish grammarians of the same period (see Section 6.1 below). Basing his grammar on that of the German language (with an admixture of Latin grammar) Stahl would not have looked for two alternating object cases. For noun objects mostly genitive singular and nominative plural forms are shown, with an occasional partitive form as an alternative. With the exception of personal pronouns, the partitive forms are largely ignored in his grammar, and the partitive case form is not discussed under any heading, although he does occasionally use it for objects of active transitive verbs (see Section 2.2). However, in the dictionary section he gives some phrasal verbs, which include a partitive object, e.g. werd laskma (blood.PAR let.INF) ‘to bleed/let blood’ (Stahl 1637a: 35) and lund saddama (snow.PAR rain.INF) ‘to snow’ (Stahl 1637a: 109). The southern grammar by Gutslaff (1648), (translated from Latin into Estonian by Marju Lepajõe in 1998), differs from the northern grammar of 102 CHAPTER 5

Stahl (1937a). Gutslaff was of foreign birth, but studied in Tartu and was a pastor in Urvaste in southern Estonia. In his grammar Gutslaff (1648 [1998]: 65) gives the singular partitive form under the label ‘Accusativus’, and a few others appear scattered throughout the grammar. Plural partitive forms appear more regularly (p. 67). In the northern dialect Hornung’s grammar (1693: 13–18) lists the partitive form for objects, which he labels ‘accusative’. Hornung (1693: 111) states that the nominative plural is used for definite objects, the genitive for singular when the definiteness is indeterminate (his examples include both definite and indefinite objects), and the ‘accusative’ (partitive) for indefinite objects. According to Valmet (1963: 64) plural partitives first began to appear in the northern dialect in the late 1690s under the influence of Hornung, Forselius and Virginius. However, even then publications from Tallinn (in northern Estonia) used the nominative plural instead of partitive, despite the publication of Hornung’s grammar in 1693 (Valmet 1963: 81). Hornung (1693: 111) lists a number of verbs taking an ‘accusative’ object, by which he understood the partitive form. These are verbs, which are mostly atelic and used in unbounded situations and which were recognized towards the end of the 17th century as generally taking a partitive object. Some examples are noudma ‘seek’, wotma ‘take’, nutma ‘weep’, söötma ‘feed’, kiitma ‘praise’, kartma ‘fear’, tännama ‘thank’ among others. With these verbs object case is determined lexically, with the inherent aspect playing a part. There is, however, no mention of the completeness or continuation of the action. In modern Estonian some of these verbs differ in that their objects can alternate between partitive and accusative. He made some changes to orthography, but much German influence remained. An Estonian grammar written by Anton Thor Helle, and edited by Eberhard Gutsleff was published in 1732. In this the morphological partitive is discussed at length under the name of ‘accusative’ (Valmet 1983: 20–21), with mention of its use in negative sentences and for indefinite objects. He gives the nominative form for plural and genitive for definite singular objects. Thor Helle was one of the main translators of the 1739 Bible. Peegel (2006: 53–71) presents numerous examples of partitive objects in the singular as well as plural in folksongs which, although recorded in later periods, go back considerably in time. Hence, we can assume that in the spoken language partitive plurals did exist in those times. Eduard Ahrens moved to bring written Estonian closer to the spoken language. His grammar Eesti keele Tallinna murde grammatika, first published in 1843, is best known for his orthographic innovations (Ross 2003: 53). Until that time Estonian was written using German or Latin orthography. Although Diachronic Study Of Object Case 103

Ahrens’ grammar was written in German, he used his modified orthography in his Estonian examples, especially in the next edition in 1853. In addition to his work with orthography, he also realised that Estonian grammar could not be described by using German or Latin paradigms, so he looked to Finnish instead for guidance (Ross 2003: 55). Wiedemann’s grammar (1875), written in German, is very thorough and deals with many of the problematic grammatical issues of Estonian, including dialectal differences. He states (p. 621) that previously the German accusative was translated by the partitive case, which is clearly evident in the southern NT (Section 5.1 below), but not for plural nouns in the northern dialect. However, at the time of his writing the object in the standard language had a definite (accusative) and indefinite (partitive, which he calls infinitive) form (p. 620), the choice between them depending on a number of factors: whether the sentence is affirmative or negative, the nature of the object and the nature of the action. Aspect and total-partial opposition are evident in his examples. He states that if the action is not completed the object is partitive (p. 626). Hermann’s grammar (1896) is the first written in the Estonian language. Hermann (1896: 16) discusses the case alternation of the object and emphasizes the need to consider the completeness of both the object and the action in the choice of object case. His work had a great influence on Estonian writing of his time.

4 Estonian Secular Texts

While the writings described in Section 2 deal with catechisms, prayers and sermons, there followed a number of secular writers over the next centuries, two of whom have been selected for analysis: Friedrich Wilhelm Willmann (1782) and Otto Wilhelm Masing. Details about these writers and the texts studied are given in chapter 2, Section 1.2.1. The material from Masing’s Pühhapäewa Wahhe-luggemissed ‘Sunday Readings’ 1818 and from Marahwa Näddala-Leht ‘The People’s Weekly’ 1825 is syntactically similar, so the results of the analyses have been combined.

4.1 Pronouns Willmann and Masing have all personal pronoun objects in the partitive case. Other pronouns also, like personal ones, are mainly partitive, except mis ‘what, which’ and keik~kõik ‘all’, which are always nominative. There are no genitive non-personal pronouns in Willmanm and only one in Masing. One of the commonest pronouns is se~see ‘it’, which in Estonian also doubles as the 104 CHAPTER 5

demonstrative pronoun ‘this/that’. While both Müller and Stahl use se as the genitive object case (homonymous with the nominative), Masing has only one example of genitive se out of 68 tokens. The reflexive pronoun, always partitive, remains frequent still in Willmann (1782), but much less so in Masing (1818, 1825) where only 9 tokens of the partitive ennast are found in each of the two sections of his work in the corpus.

4.2 Nouns As with the earlier writers, there are numerous nouns ambiguous for case. Masing uses an accent for extra-long syllables, which occur in the partitive case and this disambiguates some instances, but its use is not entirely consistent. The case distribution of noun objects in affirmative clauses is shown in Table 5.5, with the number of ambiguous ones also listed.

Table 5.5 Case distribution of noun objects in affirmative clauses in old Estonian secular texts

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total Ambiguous

Willmann 1782 81 (41%) 22 (11%) 94 (48%) 197 76 Masing 1818+1825 269 (84.%) 9 (3%) 41 (13%) 319 31

Willmann has a large number of nominative noun objects, with only 2 plural ones out of 82 partitive and the rest nominative. Here his syntax is similar to that of Stahl and Müller. However, he has more singular partitive objects than the earlier writers and fewer genitive ones. A number of times he has a singular object inappropriately in the nominative case, i.e. with zero inflection (5.12). The nominative singular is not normally an object case in an indicative clause. Here the genitive would be correct as it is a bounded situation.

(5.12) E agga temma leid-i-s tühhi koht but he find-PST-3SG empty.SG.NOM place.SG.NOM ‘but he found an empty spot’ (Willmann 1782: 18)

Masing has fewer genitive objects as well as nominative ones, with the partitive being markedly predominant. He does not have most of his plural objects in the nominative case like the earlier writers, but rather has 57% of 76 plurals in the partitive case. There is a slight change noted between the texts from 1818 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 105 and 1825 in that there are proportionately more plural nouns in the nominative case in 1818 (48%), with 33% in 1825. Of the 25 such nouns in 1818 five would nowadays have been in the partitive case. In the 1825 text there are 8 plural nouns in the nominative case, of which only one would have been partitive in the modern language.

4.3 Objects of Verbs of Perception and Cognition Willmann has numerous pronoun objects of verbs of perception in the partitive case, but the two unambiguous noun objects are genitive (5.13) and nominative (5.14).

(5.13) E üks kon . . . näggi härja one.NOM frog.SG.NOM see.PST.3SG ox.SG.GEN/ACC ‘a frog [who was in a field] saw an ox’ (Willmann 1782: 7)

(5.14) E et sa meite kaebamisse-d kuule-d that 2SG.NOM 1PL.GEN complaint-PL.NOM/ACC hear-2SG ‘that you hear our complaints’ (Willmann 1782: 5)

In the island dialects the genitive-accusative is often used with ‘see’ (Chapter 3, Section 4.2.1.2) and Willmann may well have been influenced by that. Masing (1818+1825) has all singular noun objects of ‘see’ as partitive, and only one plural one which could be either nominative or partitive.

4.4 Negative Clauses Willmann has a number of non-partitive objects in negative clauses, while Masing has only partitives. Table 5.6 shows the case distribution of the objects in such clauses in the corpus section of Willmann (1782).

Table 5.6 Object case in negative clauses in Willmann (1782)

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

Personal pronouns 4 (100%) 0 0 4 Other pronouns 19 (86%) 0 3 (14%) 22 Nouns singular 16 (89%) 1 (6%) 1(6%) 18 Nouns plural 1 (11%) 0 8 (89%) 9 Total 40 (75%) 1 (2%) 12 (23%) 53 106 CHAPTER 5

These results are similar to those in Stahl. There are another 15 nouns in negative clauses, which could be either partitive or genitive, which have been excluded from the table. As there is only one noun in the genitive form here, statistically it is likely that the ambiguous ones are partitive. The relative pronoun mis ‘what/which’ and keik ‘all’ have been omitted as invariably nominative at that time. Singular noun objects are partitive except one, while plural nouns tend to be nominative in negative as well as affirmative clauses.

5 Estonian Bible Texts

The corpus here includes St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians, except where indicated. In the earliest editions the southern dialect includes the Tartu district, but later it contracted to mainly the Võro region. The translation of St. Matthew’s gospel in the related Seto dialect from 1926 is also included here. A separate section (5.2) is devoted to some special material from St. Luke’s gospel (details in Chapter 2, Section 1.1.1), as this gives additional insight into the early northern Estonian language. A brief history of Bible translation into Estonian is given in Chapter 2, Section 1.1.1. The two main Estonian dialect groups differ considerably, but in both dialects a number of nouns have the same written form in the genitive and partitive case. In addition, in the modern language cases are often distinguished by consonant gradation, which is not consistent in the old written language, leading to further confusion. Habicht (2001: 212) points out that one often has to rely on a determiner, e.g. see ‘this’, (also used in old Estonian as the definite article) to decide the case of the NP, but because there are a number of instances with obvious lack of congruence in the earliest texts, I am not sure that it is justified to call all those NPs partitive, which have a partitive determiner, especially when the noun looks more like the genitive or nominative form. Valmet (1962: 165) also mentions lack of congruence. There are a number of verbs which prefer the partitive object (Hornung 1693: 111), but there are a number of exceptions in the older texts, so I have not assumed that the object is partitive, if it is morphologically ambiguous. While in the modern language it is mostly possible to decide which case is meant, it would not be reasonable to make the same assumptions for the old language. Hence in all the analyses of old Estonian there are a considerable number of ambiguous forms, which have been omitted from the statistics, but the numbers involved are listed separately in the column labelled ‘Ambiguous’ in Tables 5.7 and 5.13. In the 1686 southern New Testament (Wastne Testament) and all its subsequent editions, the partitive case is always used in negative clauses, so only affirmative clauses Diachronic Study Of Object Case 107 have been analysed in these texts. In the northern dialect there are a few negative clauses with non-partitive objects, which are listed separately from the main tables in Section 5.3.5.

5.1 Southern Estonian (Wastne Testament) (1648–1905) Table 5.7 shows the case distribution of all the objects, but mes~meä ‘which, what’ and kik > kiik > kõik ‘all’ which are not declined as objects have been omitted. The reflexive pronoun has also been excluded, because only the form henda~hendä has been used everywhere until 1905. The genealogy from the first chapter of the gospel has been included and accounts for a number of genitive objects in 1857 and 1886.

Table 5.7 Case distribution of all objects in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total Ambiguous

1648–1656* 566 (58.5%) 132 (13.7%) 269 (27.8%) 967 195 1686 1181 (97.0%) 10 (0.8%) 26 (2.1%) 1217 146 1857 1135 (93.1%) 50 (4.1%) 34 (2.8%) 1219 125 1886 1071 (88.3%) 80 (6.6%) 62 (5.1%) 1213 103 1905 852 (66.1%) 267 (20.7%) 170 (13.2%) 1289 12 Seto 1926** 681 (59.7%) 241 (21.1%) 218 (19.1%) 1140 7

* Gutslaff’s translation of St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Gutslaff writes in the southern dialect, but his writing differs considerably from the subsequent ones, which are not based on his translation. One major difference is that his nominative plural nouns have the ‑t suffix, which in the others is replaced by a glottal stop (not shown in writing). In his grammar, however, Gutslaff (1648 [1998]: 67) omits the plural suffix for the nominative, and gives the partitive form as the plural accusative. He states definitively that in his dialect, the ‑t suffix is not used (Gutslaff 1648 [1998]: 93). In the corpus he has a number of genitive objects, which then almost disappear for some centuries in the subsequent translations, and almost all his plural objects are nominative. One major problem is that agreement between the head noun and the modifier is very often lacking, the determiner being mostly in the partitive case and the noun genitive or nominative (5.15). Hence here the determiner cannot be used to determine the case of the NP, when the noun is ambiguous. 108 CHAPTER 5

(5.15) ES 1648 neiht tois-t Asia-t those.PL.PAR other-PL.NOM thing-PL.NOM tahha m. (pro minna) tallita-da want.1SG 1SG.NOM deal.with-taINF ‘those other things I want to deal with [when I come]’ (1 Cor 11:34)

The nominative form neht ‘the, these, those’ is used with nominative plural nouns as subjects, and the occasional object. The combination of a partitive determiner and genitive single or nominative plural noun occurs in 80 instances in the corpus. Gutslaff also differs from later translations in having some nominative and genitive objects in negative clauses. This is similar to Müller and Stahl. There is a significant number of these: 4 in the genitive and 25 in the nominative case, mainly plural. One example is shown in (5.16).

(5.16) ES 1648 eth meije ei pea himmutze-ma that 1PL.NOM NEG must.CONNEG desire-maINF Kurja-t Asia-t evil-PL.NOM thing-PL.NOM ‘that we must not desire evil things’ (1 Cor 10:6)

As early as 1686, with different translators, the language is very different. Subsequent editions are modifications of that one. It can be seen that the objects are overwhelmingly partitive in 1686, with more genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative ones emerging as the years go by, but particularly in 1905. The Seto dialect differs considerably from the Võro one, but the trend seems to persist also into that one. Although there are numerous morphologically ambiguous objects, most of them are probably partitive. In the southern dialects the nominative plural suffix -t for nouns has been replaced by a glottal stop, which is not indicated in the written text, making it homologous with the singular genitive. Only in the Seto text is the glottal stop indicated by an apostrophe. Generally it is possible to disambiguate the singular genitive from the plural, but the ambiguity may be a reason for the greater use of the partitive.

5.1.1 Personal Pronouns Gutslaff distinguishes between the partitive and genitive forms of the 1st and 2nd person pronouns (minno for partitive and minnu for genitive), but in the Diachronic Study Of Object Case 109

Wastne Testament these pronouns have the same form in both cases (minno, sinno) until the 1905 edition. As all other personal pronouns are partitive, it seems fair to assume that these are partitive also and have been counted as such. By 1905 the usage is much the same as for standard Estonian, and the 3rd person singular genitive and plural nominative appear as accusative objects, with the occasional 1st and 2nd person singular genitive mino and sino respectively, the partitive forms being minno and sinno. The 1st and 2nd person plural pronoun objects are always in the partitive case as in the modern standard language. The personal pronouns of the Seto southern dialect have minno and sinno partitive, and mu’ and su’ genitive. Table 5.8 shows the case distribution of personal pronoun objects.

Table 5.8 The case distribution of personal pronoun objects in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 140 (60%) 42 (18%) 51 (22%) 233 1686 300 (100%) 0 0 300 1857 299 (100%) 0 0 299 1886 278 (100%) 0 0 277 1905 247 (89%) 22 (8%) 9 (3%) 278 Seto 1926** 211 (88%) 21 (9%) 8 (3%) 240

* Gutslaff’s translation of St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Gutslaff immediately stands out as being different from the subsequent translations. His 1st and 2nd person pronouns are all partitive. The 3rd singular is homonymous for the genitive and nominative cases, but as singular objects are generally genitive in form, I am here assuming that they are genitive. All the genitive personal pronoun objects are 3rd person singular, but there are also 54 partitive 3rd person singular objects. All the nominative ones are 3rd person plural, but there are also 4 partitive ones. The cases appear to vary randomly without any attention to aspect. In his grammar Gutslaff (1648 [1998]: 93) has the partitive form tedda of the 3rd person pronoun singular listed as accusative, and for the 3rd person plural the partitive form neid, but his NT translation has many genitive and nominative forms respectively. 110 CHAPTER 5

Apart from Gutslaff, as Table 5.8 shows, only partitive personal pronoun objects are found until 1905, but even then the proportion of partitive personal pronoun objects is much greater than for other pronouns and nouns. The genitive pronouns in 1905 are largely 3rd person singular, but a couple of 1st person singular ones also appear. The nominative ones are all 3rd person singular in imperative clauses. In the Seto corpus the genitive pronouns are all 3rd person singular and so are most of the nominative ones, except for one 3rd person plural object.

5.1.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The other pronouns form a heterogeneous group. The pronouns mes and kik and their variants are present only in the nominative case as objects except for Seto 1926, and one partitive plural exception of kik in 1880 (5.17). In 1905 this example reverted to the nominative. These pronouns have been excluded from Tables 5.7 and 5.9.

(5.17) ES 1886 nink aije wälja kik-i kea and drive.PST.3SG out all-PL.PAR who.NOM mõije-wa sell.PST-3PL ‘and drove out all who were selling . . .’ (Matt. 21:12)

The reflexive pronoun occus mainly in the form henda~hendä in the earlier texts. According to Gutslaff (1648 [1998]: 97) the genitive form (called ‘rective’ at that time) is hennesse (enese in modern standard Estonian) and the partitive (called ‘accusative’) hendas (standard end, ennast). Although his grammar is mainly southern Estonian, according to Keem (1998: 326) the reflexive forms that he gives are those of northern Estonian. The frequency of henda has ranged from very high in the early texts, to much fewer ones in the later texts. In the southern Estonian NT henda~hendä is the only object form before 1905. It occurs frequently in the NT, as in the other earlier texts, where German influence is marked, with 43, 64, 66, 54 and 46 tokens from 1648 to 1905. In 1905 there is a differentiation of the plural partitive hendit, which comprises 14 tokens of the 46 reflexive pronouns. The singular remains as hendä. Example (5.18) shows the use of hendä in a bounded context. I have glossed it as PAR/ACC. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 111

(5.18) ES 1905 nink põi hendä üles and hang.PST.3SG self.PAR/ACC up ‘and hanged himself’ (Matt. 27:5)

The plural hendit is used both in non-bounded (5.19) and bounded (5.20) clauses. In (5.19) we still see the use of the reflexive with a verb of emotion, which later disappears from the language.

(5.19) ES 1905 nemä pahand-i-wa hend-it 3PL.NOM annoy-PST-3PL self-PL.PAR/ACC ‘they became annoyed’ (Matt. 13:57)

(5.20) ES 1905 keä esi hend-it omma who.NOM self.NOM self-PL.PAR/ACC be.3PL kohitse-nu castrate-PST.PTCP ‘who have castrated themselves’ (Matt. 19:12)

In the Seto text the two cases differ, with hinnäst in the partitive and hindä in the genitive, with two instances of the latter. These have been included in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Distribution of object case of non-personal pronouns in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 140 (85%) 14 (7%) 18 (8%) 172 1686 237 (100%) 0 0 237 1857 219 (100%) 0 0 219 1886 222 (100%) 0 0 222 1905 195 (94%) 7 (3%) 5 (2%) 207 Seto 1926** 180 (68%) 10 (4%) 73 (28%) 263

* Gutslaff’s translation of St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 ** St. Matthew’s gospel only 112 CHAPTER 5

In Seto there is case alternation of mis ~ miä and kõik as objects, so both have been included there. The partitive midä only occurs in ten instances (17%), with the rest nominative (83%). The partitive kõikõ is found three times and the nominative in 14 (82%). With the inclusion of both of these in their partitive and nominative cases in Table 5.9 the number of nominative pronouns is much larger for the gospel in the Seto dialect than for the various editions of the southern NT. Gutslaff again differs from the other early texts in having pronoun objects in the genitive and nominative form. The genitive ones are mostly se(h) ‘it/ that, and the nominative ones a variety, with instances of the plural relative pronoun kumbat ‘who, which’, mönnet ‘some’, and toist ‘others’. Apart from Gutslaff, the pronoun se>see ‘it, this’ as object is only partitive (sedda~ >sedä) until 1905, when there are two genitive-accusatives and one nominative-accusative out of a total of 165. In Seto there is one genitive- accusative out of 87.

5.1.3 Nouns The case distribution of all noun objects is shown in Table 5.10, and singular and plural ones separately in Table 5.11. The number of ambiguous ones are listed in Table 5.7 and have not been repeated.

Table 5.10 Case distribution of all noun objects in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 286 (50.9%) 76 (13.5%) 200 (35.6%) 562 1686 644 (94.6%) 10 (1.5%) 27 (4.0%) 681 1857 617 (88.0%) 50 (7.1%) 34 (4.9%) 701 1886 572 (80.1%) 80 (11.2%) 62 (8.7%) 714 1905 410 (51.0%) 238 (29.6%) 156 (19.4%) 804 Seto 1926** 290 (45.5%) 210 (33.0%) 137 (21.5%) 637

* Gutslaff’s translation of St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 ** St. Matthew’s gospel Diachronic Study Of Object Case 113

Table 5.11 Singular and plural noun objects in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Accusative Nominative Genitive Nominative

1648–1656 281 (72%) 76 (20%) 31 (8%) 388 5 (3%) 169 (97%) 174 1686 502 (93%) 10 (2%) 25 (5%) 537 142 (99%) 2 (1%) 144 1857 475 (85%) 50 (9%) 32 (6%) 557 142 (99%) 2 (1%) 144 1886 434 (77%) 80 (14%) 47 (8%) 561 138 (90%) 15 (10%) 153 1905 336 (52%) 238 (37%) 67 (10%) 641 74 (45%) 89 (55%) 163 Seto 1926 223 (45%) 210 (43%) 60 (12%) 493 69 (47%) 77 (53%) 146

Gutslaff stands out from the other early translations with numerous nominative objects, most of which are plural nouns. There is a lack of congruence between the genitive noun and its partitive determiner sedda in 17 instances and the nominative noun and its partitive determiner neiht in 64 instances. In 1686 under nominative nouns there are only two plural nouns, 23 are numerals, which are syntactically singular. Eight of these numerals have a partitive determiner. Of the 10 genitive noun objects in the 1686 NT nine are the same word Tähe ‘star, sign’ which is identical with the modern genitive tähe. There is a partitive form Tächte, which is similar to the modern partitive tähte, but in the several contexts in which it appears, it is obviously plural, as in (5.21)

(5.21) ES 1686 nink [sahwa] suhr-i Tächte nink and will.3PL great-PL.PAR sign.PL.PAR and Jmmetekko tegge-ma miracle.PL.PAR do-maINF ‘and will perform great signs and miracles’ (Matt. 24:24)

The form Tähe appears in contexts where a partitive might be expected in the modern language, particularly with verbs of perception, but in the old texts these verbs sometimes do have a genitive object. It is possible that these could be partitive, but I have included them under genitive because of the morphology. There are also 9 clauses from the genealogy section, which are ambiguous, 114 CHAPTER 5 and the objects could be partitive or genitive. The other 30 clauses from the genealogy have clearly partitive objects.There is only one completely unambiguously genitive object kihlveo ‘bet.gen’ (NOM kihlvedu). Gutslaff’s plural noun objects are similar to those of Stahl and Müller, being almost exclusively nominative, but in 57 instances with a partitive determiner. The 1686 NT differs from Gutslaff’s translation in having virtually all singular and plural noun objects in the partitive case. The genealogy boosts the number of genitive objects in subsequent editions. The number of genitive noun objects increases gradually over the centuries, but they only appear in reasonable numbers in the 1905 edition. By 1905 aspect is involved in the choice of case. On the basis of the plural partitive forms Valmet (1962: 166) considers that written southern Estonian corresponds more closely to the spoken language than the northern texts. In the genealogy lists (Matt. 1:2–16), where the offspring is expressed as an object, a genitive form would be expected, as birth is a completed event. In the 1905 NT and the Seto translation of St. Matthew’s gospel, all these objects are in the genitive-accusative case. In Gutslaff’s translation 29 are partitive and 9 (one has been omitted) are ambiguously genitive or nominative. In the 1686 NT 30 are partitive and 9 possibly genitive, in the 1857 NT 7 are partitive and 32 genitive, in 1886 38 genitive and 1 nominative. By 1886 there are no more partitive names in the genealogy.

5.2 Northern Estonian—St. Luke’s Gospel (1680–1705) The manuscripts of four serial translations of St. Luke’s gospel between 1680 and 1705 have been published by Reila et al. (2007), as detailed in Chapter 2, Section 1.1.1. The whole München manuscript, containing the entire NT, has been published on-line, so both St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians are available, and have been included in Section 5.3. Of the other manuscripts only St. Luke’s gospel is readily available. Only the final version of the Pilistvere manuscript is included in the corpus. As it only includes 18 chapters of St. Luke’s gospel, the comparison with the other manuscripts is also limited to the first 18 chapters of that gospel. In order to show the change in the use of object case between the final Pilistvere and the subsequent München and Stockholm manuscripts, 230 corresponding clauses have been compared in these three. Nouns and those pronouns which show case alternation have been included. The results are shown in Table 5.12. There is a clear difference between the final Pilistvere and the München manuscript. The München and Stockholm manuscripts are very similar , and also fairly similar to the 1715 NT in the use of object case. Although the translator of the München manuscript is given as Johann Hartmann Creidius, it is thought that he merely transcribed the manuscript (Reila 2007b: 556). Hornung is thought to have had a role in Diachronic Study Of Object Case 115 it, but whether he copied a previous manuscript or made significant amend- ments to it is debated. Reila (2007a) suggests that he had a decisive role in it.

Table 5.12 Case distribution of objects in 230 corresponding affirmative clauses in different translations of St. Luke’s gospel

Partitive Genitive Nominative

Pilistvere 1687 40 (17%) 117 (51%) 73 (32%) München 1694 150 (65%) 45 (20%) 35 (15%) Stockholm 1705 153 (67%) 39 (17.0%) 38 (17%)

The language of the Pilistvere manuscript is similar to that of Stahl, while the subsequent ones have many more partitive objects, and number is no longer the determining factor in the choice of object case. In (5.22a) we have a negative clause with a genitive object in 1687 (5.22a) with a partitive one in 1694 (5.22b).

(5.22) a. E 1687 nisugguse Usso ep olle such.SG.GEN faith.GEN NEG be.CONNEG minna Jsraelli sees mitte leud-nut 1SG.NOM Israel.GEN in NEG find-PST.PTCP

b. E 1694 seddasuggus-t usko ei olle such.SG-PAR faith.PAR NEG be.CONNEG minna israeli-s leid-nud 1SG.NOM Israel-INE find-PST.PTCP ‘such faith I have not found in Israel’ (Luke 7:9 in Reila et al. 2007)

5.3 Northern Estonian—St. Matthew’s Gospel and the First Letter to the Corinthians (1694–1997) The various translations and editions of the New Testament and the whole Bible are detailed in Chapter 2. The corpus consists of St. Matthew’s gospel combined with 1 Corinthians. The earliest translation is the München manuscript. This gives the impression of being closer to the modern language both in orthography and grammar than some of the later translations. The 1862 edition is almost the same as that from 1739, and has therefore not been included in the analysis. 116 CHAPTER 5

By 1903 the language is much closer to the modern language, but some anachro- nisms remain. The case distribution of objects is shown in the subsequent tables, beginning with all objects together (Table 5.13), and later shown separately for pronouns and nouns (Tables 5.14–5.19). Negative clauses have been excluded.

Table 5.13 Case distribution of all objects in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total Ambiguous

1694 NT* 814 (61.6%) 226 (17.1%) 281 (21.3%) 1321 144 1715 NT 919 (69.5%) 121 (9.2%) 282 (21.3%) 1322 156 1739 907 (65.7%) 157 (11.4%) 317 (23.0%) 1381 155 1903 900 (61.7%) 267 (18.3%) 292 (20.0%) 1459 16 1947 NT 781 (52.7%) 413 (27.9%) 287 (19.4%) 1481 11 1968 823 (57.2%) 340 (23.6%) 277 (19.2%) 1440 4 1989 NT 803 (59.4%) 315 (23.3%) 233 (17.2%) 1351 5 1997 783 (57.2%) 330 (24.1%) 257 (18.8%) 1370 4

* München manuscript

The nominative results are influenced by the inclusion of mis ‘which,what’ and kõik in its various spellings, which in the earlier texts only appeared in the nominative form as objects. They have been included, despite the fact that they skew the total results, because in the later texts (from 1903 onwards) the inflected forms gradually appear. Details concerning these pronouns are given below in Tables 5.16 and 5.17. In the earlier editions there are a large number of words whose case cannot be determined with certainty, as was the situation in the southern dialect. In some cases a modifier, such as a demonstrative, points to the case, but as in early southern Estonian, in the oldest texts this is not completely reliable. An example is shown in (5.23) where a partitive determiner occurs with a nominative/genitive noun.

(5.23) E 1715 sepärrast heit-ke teie sed-da therefore cast-IMPV.2PL 2PL.NOM this-PAR Kurjateggia ennese jurest wälja evil-doer.SG.NOM/GEN self.GEN from out ‘therefore cast this evil-doer out from among you’ (1 Cor. 5:13) Diachronic Study Of Object Case 117

Overall the partitive case is the predominant object case. The results for 1694 are very similar to those of 1903, but when these are separated into different word categories, differences appear. More genitive forms are used in the München manuscript than in the 1715 NT translation. Some of the genitive objects have been changed to partitive in the 1715 NT. In both 1694 and 1715 non-partitive singular noun objects of imperative verbs are in the genitive rather than nominative, and in 1739 there is a mixture of genitive and nominative forms. Non-partitive plural objects are nominative (see Chapter 7, Section 2.2.3). The results for the 1947 NT are interesting in that there are more genitive objects than at other times. Kont (1963: 100) mentions that there was a move in Estonia, especially by the language innovator Johannes Aavik in the 1930s to decrease the use of the partitive, which he considered excessive compared with Finnish. This seems to have taken place in the translation of the 1947 NT, but was changed back again in subsequent editions.

5.3.1 Personal Pronouns Personal pronoun objects are more often partitive than nouns, the 1st and 2nd person plural invariably so. The 1st and 2nd person singular objects appear in the partitive case in situations where singular noun objects would be nominative, as in imperative clauses.

Table 5.14 Case distribution of personal pronoun objects in the northern (standard) Estonian corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 NT* 235 (81.9%) 35 (12.2%) 17 (5.9%) 287 1715 NT 249 (85.0%) 18 (6.1%) 26 (8.9%) 293 1739 280 (99.6%) 0 1 (0.4%) 281 1903 280 (99.3%) 0 2 (0.7%) 282 1947 NT 205 (63.9%) 71 (22.1%) 45 (14.0%) 321 1968 221 (70.6%) 51 (16.3%) 41 (13.1%) 313 1989 NT 175 (65.8%) 51 (19.2%) 40 (15.0%) 266 1997 165 (65.0%) 50 (19.7%) 39 (15.4%) 254

* München manuscript 118 CHAPTER 5

The 1694 NT manuscript and the 1715 NT have a number of 3rd person singular objects in the genitive form and 3rd person plural ones in the nominative form. The genitive ones are all 3rd person singular. Although homonymous with the nominative these are counted as genitive, as singular non-partitive noun objects were mostly genitive rather than nominative in form at that time even in imperative clauses. The nominative pronouns are all 3rd person plural. An example of a genitive personal pronoun object in a bounded event is shown in (5.24). The case alternation is not always appropriate by modern standards, and example (5.25) shows a partitive pronoun in a bounded situation.

(5.24) E 1715 ja heit-is temma Wangitorni and throw-PST.3SG 3SG.GEN prison.tower.ILL ‘and threw him into the prison tower’ (Matt. 18:30)

(5.25) E 1715 ja tap-si-d ted-da ärra and kill-PST-3PL 3SG-PAR away ‘and killed him’ (Matt. 21:39)

In 1739 and 1903 only the partitive tedda~teda is used, but from 1947 onwards the genitive-accusative tema is again in evidence. The 1947 NT has a number of genitive-accusative personal pronouns, which subsequently revert to partitive (5.26).

(5.26) a. E 1947 et see tema risti-ks that that.NOM 3SG.GEN/ACC baptize-COND.3SG

b. E 1968 et see te-da ristiks 3SG-PAR ‘that he (lit. that person) would baptize him’ (Matt. 3:13)

There are a number of clauses where a noun object would be in the genitive or nominative form, but the personal pronoun is partitive. In the later Bible texts (1947 onwards) where genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative pronoun objects appear in reasonable numbers, all singular persons can be found in the genitive, but only the 3rd person in the nominative form. The Diachronic Study Of Object Case 119

3rd person singular is presumed to be nominative in imperative clauses from 1739 onwards, although in 1739 a few singular objects in such clauses are still genitive.

5.3.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The case distribution of all non-personal pronouns is shown in Table 5.15. The pronouns mis ‘what, which’ and keik>kõik ‘all’ are all in the nominative case as objects in the older texts, even in negative clauses, and make up the majority of the nominative objects in this table, especially in the earlier four texts. The partitive stem mida‑ occurs in the indefinite pronoun middakit > midagi ‘something, nothing’ from earliest times, often in its negative meaning.

Table 5.15 Case distribution of non-personal pronoun objects in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 NT* 199 (55.7%) 48 (13.4%) 110 (30.8%) 357 1715 NT 240 (66.9%) 6 (1.7%) 113 (31.5%) 359 1739 257 (66.2%) 6 (1.5%) 125 (32.2%) 388 1903 229 (62.7%) 13 (3.6%) 123 (33.7%) 365 1947 NT 185 (56.9%) 68 (20.9%) 72 (22.2%) 325 1968 193 (59.0%) 65 (19.9%) 69 (21.1%) 327 1989 NT 199 (65.2%) 52 (17.0%) 54 (17.7%) 305 1997 198 (62.9%) 60 (19.0%) 57 (18.1%) 315

* München manuscript

The partitive case predominates. Of the early texts only the 1694 München manuscript has significant numbers of genitive pronoun objects. The partitive is largely seda ‘it, that’ and reflexive henda. By 1903 a few more genitive pronouns appear, which become more plentiful by 1947. At the same time, while mis and kõik are still all nominative in 1903, partitive forms are predominant by 1947 and genitive forms are also appearing. These are detailed in Tables 5.16 and 5.17, starting from 1947. 120 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.16 Case distribution of the relative and interrogative pronoun mis ‘which, what’ in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus 1947–1997

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1947 NT 48 (52%) 9 (10%) 36 (39%) 93 1968 52 (57%) 7 (8%) 32 (35%) 91 1989 NT 50 (61%) 10 (12%) 22 (27%) 82 1997 51 (61%) 7 (8%) 26 (31%) 84

Throughout all the editions genitive forms are least common, mainly because they refer usually to concrete objects in bounded situations. Nominative ones are still common, but decreasing over the years, some of them referring to plural antecedents.

Table 5.17 Case distribution of kõik ‘all’ as object in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus 1947–1997

Partitive Nominative Total

1947 NT 8 (28%) 21 (72%) 29 1968 7 (24%) 22 (76%) 29 1989 NT 15 (48%) 16 (52%) 31 1997 12 (44%) 15 (56%) 27

The increase of the partitive kõike is seen clearly between 1968 and 1989. The pronoun see ‘it’, which in Estonian doubles as a demonstrative ‘this, that’, appears predominantly in the partitive case, as shown in Table 5.18. The plural nominative is need, which is not included here, so the nominative objects come mainly from imperative clauses. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 121

Table 5.18 Case distribution of the pronoun see ‘it, this, that’ as object in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 NT 119 (80%) 25 (17%) (se) 0 148 4 (3%) (selle) 1715 NT 154 (97%) 4 (3%) (se) 0 158 1739 164 (100%) 0 0 160 1903 151 (95%) 7 (4%) (selle) 1 (1%) (see) 159 1947 NT 85 (67%) 41 (32%) 1 (1%) 127 1968 82 (66%) 41 (33%) 2 (2%) 125 1989 NT 64 (66%) 32 (33%) 1 (1%) 97 1997 72 (64%) 39 (35%) 1 (1%) 112

In the 1694 NT manuscript there are quite a few genitive forms, even a few examples of the modern genitive selle, which form in old times was used for the allative case. In 1715 there are only a few examples of se and none of selle. There are a few genitive-accusative examples again in 1903. By 1947 the genitive ones are frequent, and remain at much the same level in the later editions. The reflexive pronouns are interesting from the point of view of their frequency. Except in the 1694 manuscript where the partitive form ennast appears, until the 1947 NT there is only the one form henda, which I have included under partitive. Generally the partitive predominates, even when the distinct genitive form enese comes into use.

Table 5.19 Case distribution of reflexive pronoun objects in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Total

1694 NT 46 (100%) 0 46 1715 NT 48 (100%) 0 48 1739 47 (100%) 0 47 1903 39 (100%) 0 39 1947 NT 12 (71%) 5 (29%) 17 1968 11 (85%) 2 (15%) 13 122 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.19 Case distribution of reflexive pronoun objects in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus (cont.)

Partitive Genitive Total

1989 23 (96%) 1 (4%) 24 1997 23 (92%) 2 (8%) 25

The small peak of genitives in 1947 reflects the general increased use of the genitive-accusative for objects in that edition, which subsequently decreases in the 1968 edition. The total number of reflexive pronouns is high up to and including 1903, then increases again after a decrease in 1947 and 1968, but not to levels seen in the early texts. The large number in the early editions is the result of the reflexive often being used with verbs of emotion, as seen in example (5.7) and (5.8) in Stahl, or in example (5.19) in southern Estonian. Until 1947 the different cases used for non-personal pronoun objects do not reflect aspect, but rather each pronoun has its favoured (almost fixed) case, with only a few instances of variation.

5.3.3 Nouns The results for all the noun objects are shown in Table 5.20. The nouns are also shown separately for singular and plural (Table 5.21) in view of the tendency of earlier texts to have plural noun objects predominantly in the nominative form, regardless of aspect or quantity (total or partial).

Table 5.20 Case distribution of all noun objects in affirmative clauses in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 NT 380 (56.1%) 143 (21.1%) 154 (22.7%) 677 1715 NT 430 (64.2%) 97 (14.5%) 143 (21.3%) 670 1739 370 (52.0% 151 (21.2%) 191 (26.8%) 712 1903 391 (48.2%) 254 (31.3%) 167 (20.6%) 812 1947 NT 391 (46.8%) 274 (32.8%) 170 (20.4%) 835 1968 409 (51.1%) 224 (28.0%) 167 (20.9%) 800 1989 NT 429 (55.0%) 212 (27.2%) 139 (17.8%) 780 1997 420 (52.4%) 220 (27.5%) 161 (20.1%) 801 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 123

Table 5.21 Case distribution of singular and plural noun objects in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nominative

Genitive Nominative

1694 331 (65%) 143 (28%) 32 (6%) 506 49 (29%) 122 (71%) 171 1715 372 (74%) 97 (19%) 34 (7%) 503 58 (5%) 109 (65%) 167 1739 329 (63%) 151 (29%) 39 (8%) 519 41 (21%) 152 (79%) 193 1903 306 (49%) 254 (41%) 67 (11%) 627 85 (46%) 100 (54%) 185 1947 291 (46%) 274 (43%) 72 (11%) 637 100 (51%) 98 (49%) 198 1968 308 (51%) 224 (37%) 72 (12%) 604 101 (52%) 95 (49%) 196 1989 305 (53%) 212 (37%) 59 (10%) 576 124 (61%) 80 (39%) 204 1997 300 (51%) 220 (37%) 73 (12%) 593 120 (58%) 88 (42%) 208

The singular nominative noun objects in the Table 5.21 are mainly either numerals, which are syntactically singular, although semantically plural, or objects of imperative verbs. In the 1694 and the 1715 NT singular objects of imperative verbs are partitive or genitive, and also the 1739 Bible, where both genitive and nominative singular objects are found in addition to partitive (see Chapter 7, Section 2.2.3). Also some singular objects in some constructions with ‑ta infinitives are nominative-accusative rather than genitive-accusative. These are discussed in Chapter 7, Section 3.1.1.2. In contradistinction to the findings in southern Estonian (except Gutslaff 1648), there are quite a number of genitive noun objects in 1694, falling in 1715. This proportion increases promptly in 1739, rising to a small peak in 1947, but falling again by 1968 and levelling out after that. In Stahl and Müller in the early part of the 17th century singular noun objects are almost all in the genitive form (Section 2.2.3), as also in the Pilistvere manuscript (Section 5.2), so the proportion in 1694 is actually a decrease from the previous years. The appearance of genitive forms of the pronoun se ‘it’ in 1694 (Table 5.18), which are almost entirely partitive in the earlier texts, suggests that the genitive forms in the 1694 translation are not just a relic of previous times, but deliberately chosen. The increase in singular nominative nouns in 1903 is the result of objects of imperative verbs being changed from genitive to nominative. 124 CHAPTER 5

Plural nouns are predominantly in the nominative case in the earlier texts, especially in the 1739 Bible, in the writings of Müller and Stahl, and in the Pilistvere manuscript of Luke’s gospel (Section 5.2). However, there are also significant numbers of plural nouns in the partitive case already in 1694. In some instances in the early texts the nominative noun has a partitive determiner, as in (5.27), but in others the nominative determiner is used (5.28).

(5.27) E 1715 siis hakka-s temma neid then begin-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM those.PAR Linna-d söitle-ma town-PL.NOM reproach-maINF ‘then he began to reproach those towns’ (Matt. 11:20)

(5.28) E 1715 ja koggu-wad need hää-d and gather-3PL the.PL.NOM good-PL.NOM Astja-de sisse container-PL.GEN into ‘and [they] gather the good ones (fish) into containers’ (Matt. 13:48)

In these two examples it appears that, if the NP in the first example is considered partitive because of the determiner, case in these two examples is used exactly as it would be in the modern language, with the second example being bounded and the first not. Example (5.27) still shows the tendency for plural nouns to be in the nominative form, whatever the aspect or definiteness. However, in the 1694 NT manuscript there are some partitive plurals indicating an indefinite quantity, as in (5.29).

(5.29) E 1694 ke . . . läk-s töteggij-i-d palga-ma who.NOM go-PST.3SG worker-PL-PAR hire-maINF ‘who [in the morning]went to hire workers’ (Matt. 20:1)

Yet, in another chapter the same noun is used in the nominative case in much the same context (5.30), giving the impression that ‘workers’ is definite, although this would not appear so from the context. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 125

(5.30) E 1694 et temma Töteggija-d omma leikamisse that he worker-PL.NOM own harvest.GEN päle aja-go on.to drive-JUS ‘that he would send (the) workers to his harvest’ (Matt. 9:38)

The 1694 and 1715 New Testaments have more plural partitive forms than the 1739 Bible, the nominative clearly dominating in 1739. Examples (5.31) and (5.32) illustrate the role of number in determining the case of the object, with the partitive case for a singular object and the nominative case for a plural one in an identical context.

(5.31) E 1739 kes woöras-t keel-t rägi-b who foreign.SG-PAR tongue.SG-PAR speak-3SG ‘who speaks (in) a foreign tongue’ (1 Cor. 14:4)

(5.32) E 1739 kes woöra-d kele-d rägi-b who foreign-PL.NOM tongue-PL.NOM speak-3SG ‘who speaks (in) foreign tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:5)

In 1903 the plural partitive is seen.

(5.33) E 1903 kes wõera-i-d keel-i räägi-b who foreign-PL-PAR tongue-PL.PAR speak-3SG ‘who speaks (in) foreign tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:5)

However, even in 1739 the plural partitive case is found in a negative clause (5.34).

(5.34) E 1739 ja ärge keelge mitte and NEG.IMPV.2PL forbid.CONNEG.IMPV.2PL NEG woöra-i-d kele-si-d räki-ma-st foreign-PL-PAR tongue-PL-PAR speak-maINF-ELA ‘and do not forbid (them) to speak (in) foreign tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:39) 126 CHAPTER 5

Before 1903, despite the fairly frequent use of the genitive for singular noun objects, there are examples of the partitive used in bounded clauses with a definite object, as shown in (5.35a). For comparison the 1903 version is shown in (5.35b). By that time the concept of aspect had come into the written language.

(5.35) a. E 1739 et ta Kristus-t on üllesärrata-nud that he Christ-PAR be.3SG resurrect-PST.PTCP

b. E 1903 et ta Kristuse on üles that he Christ.GEN/ACC be.3SG up ärata-nud resurrect-PST.PTCP ‘that he has resurrected Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:15)

Sometimes the partitive and genitive are conjoined in earlier texts, as in (5.36). This would not be seen in modern Estonian.

(5.36) E 1715 puhhasta esmalt seespiddi Karrika-t ja clean.IMPV.2SG first inside cup.SG-PAR and Waagna dish.SG.GEN ‘clean first the cup and the dish on the inside’ (Matt. 23:26)

The genitive-accusative is not used in imperative clauses in modern Estonian, and in the 1903 Bible and subsequent editions both the above objects are nominative. The partitive would imply that the cleaning is incomplete. The genealogy in Chapter 1 of St. Matthew’s gospel is either in a construction where the father is in the elative (1694 and 1715) or allative case (1968 onwards) and the son in the nominative case or, as in 1739, 1903 and 1947, where the father is the subject and the son the object. The 1739 Bible has 36 instances of the son in the genitive form and 3 in the partitive. The other two with objects have all the offspring in the genitive form.

5.3.4 Verbs Generally Selecting Partitive Objects Quite early it was known that there are a number of verbs which generally select a partitive object. Hornung (1693: 111) has a list, and Valmet (1983: 21) in Diachronic Study Of Object Case 127 her discussion of Thor Helle’s grammar, prepared for publication by Eberhard Gutsleff in 1732, mentions that there is a list of verbs which have their object in the partitive case (called accusative in the grammar). These include aitma ‘help’, käskma ‘order’, uskma ‘believe’, tenima ‘serve’, tännama ‘thank’. The verb ‘love’ is not in the list, but generally has been found with a partitive object. However, there are some exceptions (5.37) and lack of consistency.

(5.37) E 1715 sinna pea-d armasta-ma Jummala omma 2SG.NOM must-2SG love-maINF god.SG.GEN own Issanda lord.SG.GEN ‘you must love God your Lord’ (Matt. 22:37)

Yet a couple of verses later the partitive case is used with the same verb (5.38).

(5.38) E 1715 sinna pea-d omma Liggimes-t armasta-ma 2SG.NOM must-2SG own neighbour-SG.PAR love-maINF ‘you must love your neighbour’ (Matt. 22:39)

Such inconsistencies make it difficult to be sure of the case used when the form of the noun is ambiguous, even if the verb usually takes a particular case. Hence I have not assumed that objects of such verbs, when ambiguous for case, are necessarily partitive, although it is likely. Even in 1903 the use of object case is still not quite the same as in the modern language. The verb teadma ‘to know’ nowadays generally takes a partitive object, as knowing is an ongoing state. In example (5.39) progressive changes are demonstrated in corresponding clauses. In 1739 the plural noun is nominative and the singular one partitive, as is often the case in that edition. Later both objects are either accusative or partitive.

(5.39) a. E 1739 ja tea-ksi-n keik sallaja-d and know-COND-1SG all.NOM secret-PL.NOM asja-d ja keik tundmis-t thing.PL.NOM and all.NOM knowledge.SG-PAR 128 CHAPTER 5

b. E 1903 ja teaksi-n kõik salaja-d and know.COND-1SG all.NOM secret-PL.NOM asja-d ja kõik tundmise thing-PL.NOM and all.NOM knowledge.SG.GEN

c. E 1947 1968 ja ma teaksi-n kõik and I know.COND-1SG all.NOM saladuse-d ja kõik tunneta-tu secret-PL.NOM and all.NOM know-PPP.NMLZ.GEN

d. E 1989 1997 ja ma teaksi-n kõik-i and I know.COND-1SG all-PL.PAR saladu-si ja ma taipa-ksi-n secret-PL.PAR and I understand-COND-1SG kõik-e all.SG-PAR ‘and [if] I knew all secrets and understood everything’ (1 Cor. 13:2)

Note the use of keik~kõik in the nominative case with the partitive noun tundmist ‘knowledge’ in 1739, and with the genitive-accusative noun in 1947 and 1968. In 1989 it is partitive together with the rest of this NP. The word ‘all’ implies that there are no more secrets to be known, so the accusative would not be completely unacceptable, but as the inherent aspect of the verb is a state, and the object is not affected by the action, the partitive is favoured in the latest texts. While in modern Estonian verbs of perception generally take a partitive object, this is not always so in the older texts, where there are examples of objects of the verb ‘see’ in a genitive form, as shown below. In (5.40) ‘fig tree’ is genitive-accusative in all the editions up to and including 1947, and partitive thereafter. This could be interpreted as an instantaneous catching sight of the figtree.

(5.40) E 1903 tema nägi ühe wiigipuu he see.PST.3SG one-GEN/ACC fig.tree.SG.GEN/ACC ‘he saw a figtree’ (Matt. 21:19)

The case distribution of noun objects of the verb nägema ‘see’ in the diachronic study of the northern Estonian biblical corpus is shown in Table 5.22. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 129

Table 5.22 Case distribution of noun objects of nägema ‘see’ in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694* 17 (65%) 3 (12%) 6 (23%) 26 1715 NT 20 (69%) 5 (17%) 4 (14%) 29 1739 15 (48%) 11 (36%) 5 (16%) 31 1903 20 (65%) 9 (29%) 2 (6%) 31 1947 NT 25 (69%) 9 (25%) 2 (6%) 36 1968 32 (91%) 3 (9%) 0 35 1989 NT 37 (100%) 0 0 37 1997 39 (100%) 0 0 39

* München manuscript

The partitive certainly predominates, but even in 1968 there are still some genitive objects, and up to and including 1947 there are also nominative ones. Some of them, such as in (5.40) and (5.41), could be interpreted as ‘caught sight of’ and thus considered achievements, but in 1989 and 1997 only the partitive is used for these also. In the three earliest translations the plural nouns are mostly nominative here as elsewhere, with one exception in 1715, where a plural partitive is found. Example (5.41) shows a plural nominative conjoined with a singular partitive.

(5.41) E 1694 ning nägg-i need Pilli and see-PST.3SG the.NOM.PL flute.SG.GEN puhhuja-d n[ing] Rahwas-t mässa-wa blower-PL.NOM and crowd.SG-PAR riot-PRS.PTCP.GEN ‘and saw the flute-players and the crowd making a commotion’ (Matt. 9:23)

The same construction is found in 1739, while in 1715 the determiner is changed to the partitive neid, with the noun still in the nominative plural.

5.3.5 Negative Clauses Valmet (1983: 21) mentions that Thor Helle’s grammar from 1732 states that the accusative (morphological partitive) is used in negative sentences. This is again pointed out by Wiedemann (1875: 621). 130 CHAPTER 5

The vast majority of negative verbs in the corpus have a partitive object, but in the 1694 NT manuscript there are 3 genitive and 3 nominative objects (not counting mis), and in the 1715 NT there are 6 genitive and 8 nominative objects in negative clauses. The 1739 Bible has 2 genitive and 3 nominative examples. An example is shown (5.42).

(5.42) E 1715 kui teie . . . andeks ei anna . . . if 2PL.NOM PTCL NEG give.CONNEG temma Eksitusse-d 3SG.GEN sin-PL.NOM ‘if you [from your heart] do not forgive [your brother] his sins’ (Matt. 18:35)

There is also one syntactically negative clause in the 1997 Bible with a genitive- accusative object. This is a negative rhetorical question which expects an affirmative answer (5.43).

(5.43) E 1997 kas mitte Jumal p-ole Q NEG god.NOM NEG-be.CONNEG tei-nud maailma tarkuse narruse-ks? make-PST.PTCP world.GEN wisdom.GEN foolishness-TRA ‘has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish?’ (1 Cor. 1:20)

5.3.6 Adverbial ‘Objects’ There are a number of partitive nouns which are referred to as ‘objects of intransitive verbs’ (Kont 1959b). As such they are of an adverbial nature. These occur in early as well as later editions of the Bible. A common example is to indicate the road travelled (5.44).

(5.44) E 1739 . . . läk-si-d nemmad teis-t go-PST-3PL 3PL.NOM other.SG-PAR tee-d taggasi way.SG-PAR back ‘they went back another way’ (Matt. 2:12)

This construction can be regarded as having a postposition elided after teed. Indeed, in 1989 a postposition ‘along’ is inserted (5.45). Diachronic Study Of Object Case 131

(5.45) E 1989 läksid nad teist tee-d pidi tagasi went they other.SG.PAR way.SG-PAR along back ‘they went back along another way’ (Matt. 2:12)

An expression used from 1947 onwards is kohut käima (court.PAR go.INF), which is really a compound verb involving a partitive complement. In the earlier editions this is expressed as kohtus käima (court.INE go.INF), both expressions meaning ‘bring a case against’. Kont (1959b: 285) states that intransitive verbs can be associated with both partitive and genitive (accusative) objects. However, to have a genitive-accusative object the usually intransitive verb forms a compound or a phrasal verb with a bounding particle, which makes the verb transitive as seen in (5.46).

(5.46) E 1715 et teie Merre ja Ma that 2.PL.NOM sea.SG.GEN/ACC and land.SG.GEN/ACC läbbikäi-te go.through-2PL ‘that you wander throughout the sea and the land’ (Matt. 23:15)

5.4 Summary and Discussion of Estonian Over the centuries written Estonian has changed markedly. The German influence was marked in the earliest texts from the 17th century, and persisted until well into the 19th century, and even to some extent the 20th century. At earlier times there were two sociolects of Estonian, one spoken by the clergy and used in writing, and the other spoken by the common people, which was deemed to be inferior. The people were aware of the higher sociolect, and spoke it when communicating with the clergy (Ross 2003: 55). Gradually during the 19th century, the two sociolects began merging. Masing improved the written language, and Ahrens went even further in this respect. Other Estonian literature, poetry, and newspapers came to be written in language closer to that of the people. After independence was achieved in 1918, and even earlier, there were determined efforts to rid the language of much of the German influence. In dealing with old written texts I am looking at the written language, such as it was, with its faults and good points, pointing out that it was not the language spoken by the native people of the day. The development of this language produced largely by L2 speakers with variable language skills, has been followed through the centuries until it comes close to the spoken language in 132 CHAPTER 5 the latter part of the 20th century. Even the 1989 NT is much more formal than the 1997 Bible, which is meant for the general population. German grammar has only one direct object case, the accusative, and although there was some knowledge that alternative forms existed in Estonian, there seems to have been little concept of the reason for the two forms, and if the partitive was mentioned at all, it was appended to the genitive form under ‘accusative’. In the texts of Müller and Stahl singular noun objects are mostly in the genitive case and plural nouns in the nominative case. The Pilistvere manuscript is similar. Gutslaff’s southern dialect translation in 1648–1656 is still similar to these earlier texts, but the 1686 southern Estonian NT has almost all objects in the partitive case, and this pattern persists until a few genitive forms and some nominative plurals appear gradually, and become more frequent by 1905. There are a number of examples of lack of agreement between the nouns and the determiner in Gutslaff’s translation, suggesting that the correct object case of the determiner was thought to be the partitive form and that of the noun either genitive or nominative, depending on number. In the Bible texts in the northern dialect from the late 17th and 18th centuries, the singular noun objects are often partitive, a reversal from the genitive of Müller and Stahl, while the plurals are nominative, quite different from the southern NT. The 1715 NT shows a greater use of the partitive case for singular noun objects and also quite a number of plural ones, with the realization that there are a number of verbs which select partitive objects, but there is some lack of consistency. It is similar in many respects to the München manuscript. While there is some controversy about the nature of Hornung’s involvement in the München manuscript, it appears likely that he did not just copy the manuscript, as some have suggested, but had an active input (Reila 2007a: 144). According to Reila (2007a: 149) the München manuscript bears a greater similarity to the southern NT of 1686 than to the earlier manuscripts as far as sentence structure is concerned, and he draws the conclusion that Hornung made use of the southern NT when he wrote the München manuscript. However, the present results show that the München manuscript differs from the southern NT in its use of object case. The southern NT of 1686 has predominantly partitive noun objects, with practically no genitive and only a few nominative ones, while the München manuscript has a significant number of genitive singular noun objects and some nominative plural ones, although the partitive case is the most predominant one there also. The 1715 northern NT has fewer genitive noun objects and slightly fewer nominative plural noun objects than the München manuscript. The 1739 Bible is similar to the München manuscript in its use of object case, and the 1903 Bible even more so. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 133

Valmet (1962, 1963) has reviewed the use of the plural partitive case in the early Estonian grammars and various written texts and mentions occasional early appearances of partitive plural nouns. In northern written Estonian until the end of the 17th century plural partitive nouns are exceptional (Valmet 1963: 63–65). Stahl’s grammar (1637a) does not acknowledge the partitive, but Gutslaff (1648) in his southern Estonian grammar has partitive forms under ‘accusative’, without any comment about their function. Hornung (1693: 111) mentions that the partitive forms, listed under ‘accusative’, are used for indefinite objects and as the usual form for the objects of a number of different verbs. The München manuscript appears to apply these principles, but somewhat inconsistently. The use of the nominative was probably influenced by the identical forms in German for the nominative and accusative plural. However, the prevalence of nominative plural noun objects in the northern Estonian dialect has a counterpart in Karelian, where Ojajärvi (1950a: 40) mentions that in the Maaselkä dialect nominative plural noun objects are often used in what appears to be inappropriate situations, where standard Finnish would use the partitive. Similar findings are present also in other Karelian dialects, and are particularly common in Veps (Ojajärvi 1950a: 41). In those countries German influence was not prevalent. Even in the Finnish biblical corpus there is a slight trend to plural nouns being more frequently nominative (see Table 5.33 below). Thus the question is raised, whether this was the usage in spoken speech also in the northern parts of Estonia. Against this suggestion is the finding by Peegel (2006: 58) of plural partitive nouns in northern as well as southern folk songs, which are thought to date back in time, although collected in the 19th and 20th centuries. Ahrens in 1843, and especially 1853, was the first to make significant changes to the orthography, adapting it to spoken Estonian by following the example of Finnish rather than German or Latin, but also with respect to grammar, he attempted to bring the written language closer to that spoken by the people. Wiedemann (1875: 620), in addition to definiteness, discusses completed versus ongoing action with respect to choice of object case, and Hermann (1896: 16) also emphasizes aspect. By 1903 aspect definitely plays a part in case selection, although there are some differences from the present day language. In 1947 there was a surge in the use of the accusative, which was somewhat modified later. Most personal pronouns in old texts are partitive, with the exception of the 3rd person in the oldest texts, where there are genitive singular and nominative plural objects. Wiedemann (1875: 633) gives examples of genitive forms of personal pronoun objects and so does Hermann (1896: 22). The Bible 134 CHAPTER 5 translations have been slower in incorporating the genitive- and nominative- accusative pronouns, which were already used in the latter part of the 19th century in other texts. The use of the partitive for objects in negative clauses is seen quite early, but Stahl and Müller err often in this regard, as does Willman, especially with nominative plural objects. In the 1694 München manuscript, the 1715 NT and the 1739 Bible there are also a few examples of non-partitive objects in negative clauses. While the language skills of the early writers of Estonian are sometimes denigrated, they did their best in the absence of any grammar books to guide them, and established the basis for written Estonian, which was subsequently developed and improved.

6 Finnish

The Finnish corpus consists of Bible translations from the first New Testament translation by Mikael Agricola in 1548 to the 1992 Bible. In addition the novel Seitsemän veljestä by Aleksis Kivi (1880), which consists largely of dialogue, has been analysed to give an idea of the secular language from that time. Before the corpus analysis there is a commentary on some of the oldest Finnish grammars.

6.1 Old Finnish Grammars Wiik (1987, 1989) has provided facsimiles of a number of old Finnish grammars dating back to the 17th century. The first is that of Petraeus, published in 1649 (Wiik 1989: 13), which attempts to fit the Finnish case system into the Latin one. Therefore, there is only one object case, the accusative, for which he gives two forms, one homonymous with the genitive in the singular and the nominative in the plural, and the other partitive for both singular and plural. The personal pronouns are particularly interesting (Petraeus 1649: 23 in Wiik 1987). The partitive forms are all listed under accusative, together with the genitive forms for the singular and also 3rd person plural. However, for 1st person plural he also lists the nominative me, but not te for the 2nd person plural. No genitive forms are given for the 1st and 2nd person plural, although they are found in the early Bible texts. The grammar of Matthias Martinius from 1689 (Wiik 1989: 49) is virtually the same as that of Petraeus. Bartholdus Vhael from 1733 (Wiik 1989: 61) lists 14 cases rather than just the six from Latin, but gives only partitive case forms under the heading ‘accusative’. However, in examples of clauses he does show objects in both the partitive and genitive form Diachronic Study Of Object Case 135 in situations corresponding to modern ones and refers to ‘accusativus partia- lis’ and ‘accusativus totalis’ (Wiik 1989: 63). Johann Stråhlmann in 1816 (Wiik 1989: 106) has 13 cases, but omits the partitive from the paradigm. However, he has a separate heading unbeschränkt, ‘boundless’ or ‘unlimited’, which lies outside the normal paradigm. The partitive forms are listed under this heading (Stråhlmann 1816: 22, in Wiik 1987). He mentions that the object case is different for definite and indefinite nouns (Stråhlmann 1816: 177, 189, in Wiik 1987). Jahnsson (1871: 10) gives the accusative and partitive as object cases, depending on whether the object is total or partial. He also states that in a negative clause the object is partitive (p. 11). A definite point is made of aspect playing a role in the choice of case (p. 11). He deals with nominative objects separately as used in various grammatical constructions (p. 14), and mentions that numerals greater than one are nominative as objects (p. 10). He discusses verbs of feeling and emotion taking a partitive object, and gives a list of such verbs (p. 13). Setälä wrote the first Finnish grammar in Finnish (previous ones had been written in Latin, German and Swedish) in 1880, and numerous editions of this followed. The first one is very similar to that of Jahnsson (1871). The partitive case finds full recognition in his grammars.

6.2 Finnish Bible Texts (1548–1992) The orthography of old Finnish is quite different from the modern language, which results in some ambiguities. Rapola (1933 [1965]: 305) mentions that old partitive forms are often assimilated, e.g. lucuu instead of lucua ‘number’. The spelling of long vowels as a single one is usual in Agricola’s writings, and the full expression of these only began to appear towards the end of the 18th century (Häkkinen 1994: 188). For that reason the singular partitive forms are often indistinguishable from the nominative ones, as the suffix is often subsumed in the long single vowel (Magoun 1967: 31; Häkkinen 1994: 199). However, as these cases are used in different syntactic positions, this is not a major problem as far as objects without possessive suffixes are concerned, except in relation to imperative verbs, where the nominative-accusative object is used. However, with a possessive suffix the singular genitive and nominative and also the plural nominative are all identical. The singular partitive and genitive with a possessive suffix are also homonymous if the extra vowel of the partitive suffix is not shown. It is not possible to be certain, whether the additional vowel indicating the partitive has been masked, or whether all such nouns (which are definite because of the suffix) are in fact accusative. Such ambiguous forms, of which a common example is the reflexive pronoun itzensa ‘self’, also occur in negative clauses, whereas otherwise the accusative in its various forms is not used with negation. Hence it is likely that some of the ambiguous forms are in 136 CHAPTER 5 fact partitive. Those partitives, which have retained the -ta suffix, are clearly distinguishable, and an example is shown in (5.47).

(5.47) F 1548 odhotta-can toinen tois-ta-nsa wait-JUS one.NOM other-PAR-3PX ‘let them wait for each other’ (1 Cor. 11:33)

Magoun (1967: 31) also mentions that the partitive forms in Agricola’s writings often undergo apocopation of ‑a and ‑ä~e after ‑t as in woidhe-t instead of voidhe-tta ‘ointment’, resulting in the partitive singular becoming homonymous with the nominative plural. The first complete Finnish Bible translation was published in 1642. Here the spelling conventions are similar to those of Agricola, with the result that the partitive and nominative forms are not always distinguishable. By the 1776 edition of the Bible the orthography has been modernized and the partitive case is clearly distinct. Otherwise the 1776 edition is similar to, but not identical with the 1642 one, so it appears likely that where the case is ambiguous in the 1642 edition, it is in fact mostly the same as in 1776. I have not made this assumption, however, and where I cannot be sure, I have listed it as ambiguous. However, there are far fewer ambiguous forms in Finnish than in Estonian. The case distribution of the objects in St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians are shown in Table 5.23, where all objects are included. Objects in affirmative clauses only are included. Subsequent tables show separate results for personal pronouns, other pronouns and nouns.

Table 5.23 Case distribution of all objects in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total Ambiguous

1548 458 (30.7%) 1034 (69.3%) 1492 11 1642 529 (36.5%) 922 (63.5%) 1451 12 1776 551 (37.2%) 929 (62.8%) 1480 3 1880 552 (37.3%) 929 (62.7%) 1481 3 1906 571 (40.1%) 854 (59.9%) 1425 0 1938 545 (38.0%) 891 (62.0%) 1436 0 1992 605 (39.6%) 923 (60.4%) 1528 0 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 137

The overall results show a very slight rise in partitive objects in the 20th century, showing that case alternation was not markedly different even in 1548, with only a slightly greater proportion of accusatives.

6.2.1 Personal Pronouns Ikola (1965: 190) summarizes the development of the Finnish personal pronouns through the centuries, and states that Mikael Agricola, who in the 16th century laid the foundation for written Finnish, used only the partitive case for personal pronoun objects, yet the present data shows many genitive forms and a smattering of ‑t accusatives for plural personal pronouns. Denison (1957: 187) mentions an occasional ‑t accusative as well as genitive-accusative forms of plural and singular personal pronouns in old Finnish. The earliest mention I could find of the ‑t accusative in Finnish grammar books is in Jahnsson (1871: 15), who states that the plural forms are used in the spoken language of the eastern dialects, and are beginning to come into the written language. However, in the main grammatical description he gives the genitive forms for both singular and plural personal pronoun objects of bounded events, as well as the partitive for unbounded ones. The Finnish grammar by Setälä (1880: 2) contains ‑t accusative forms of all the personal pronouns, and in Setälä (1892: 11) he mentions that these occur in all constructions, but that with impersonal verbs the use of the nominative undergoer is more common. According to Ikola (1966: 28) the first Bible translation to use the accusative form meidät appeared in 1913. However, there are some examples of it also in the 1776 Bible. and in Agricola’s translation of the NT. Table 5.24 shows the case distribution of personal pronoun objects over the centuries in the present Finnish corpus.

Table 5.24 Case distribution of personal pronoun objects in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive tAccusative

1548 180 (53.1%) 155 (45.7%) 4 (1.2%) 339 1642 188 (56.3%) 146 (43.7%) 0 334 1776 184 (57.0%) 115 (35.6%) 24 (7.4%) 323 1880 185 (57.3%) 138 (42.7%) 0 323 1906 156 (54.2%) — 132 (45.8%) 288 1938 151 (52.2%) — 138 (47.8%) 289 1992 114 (46.5%) — 131 (53.5%) 245 138 CHAPTER 5

In the present corpus the greatest change has occurred in the personal pronouns, with the ‑t accusative being used for plural personal pronouns, especially 3rd person, in 1775 and more consistently in bounded situations for all persons from the 1906 NT onwards. Agricola has a few plural ‑t accusatives, but the majority of his personal pronouns, both singular and plural, are genitive or partitive. Ojansuu (1910: 36) mentions the ‑t accusative in the Viipuri dialect, and as Agricola received some of his education in Viipuri it is not surprising that he would be familiar with these forms. Lehtinen (1985: 275) mentions that genitive-accusative personal pronoun objects are still present in some dialects where there is no ‑t accusative. No nominative personal pronoun objects of active verbs are found in the corpus. Although in 1776 accusative plural personal pronouns occur as ‑t accusatives, rather than in the genitive form, in the 1880 edition, there is a reversion to the genitive form for all accusative personal pronouns, despite Jahnsson’s grammar having been published in 1871. Presumably the different dialects preferred by particular editors have influenced the selection of the form used for accusative personal pronouns. Although Agricola has only four ‑t accusatives (3rd person plural) in St. Matthew’s gospel and none at all in 1 Corinthians, in his translation of St. Mark’s gospel (Magoun 1967: 49–83) there are are 10 (4.2% of all personal pronouns), all of which are 3rd person plural. Of the 42 3rd person plural objects in St. Mark’s gospel 54.8% are partitive, 21.4% genitive and 23.8% are ‑t accusative, while in St. Matthew’s gospel there is one 2nd person plural (5.48) and three 3rd person plural ‑t accusatives.

(5.48) F 1548 ia saata-m tei-dhet syytöme-xi and send-1PL 2PL-tACC innocent-TRA ‘and we will declare you innocent’ (Matt. 28:14)

Agricola is quite inconsistent in his use of the ‑t accusative, and there appears to be free variation between it and the genitive form, as shown in (5.49), where in one sentence, there are three different cases for three separate objects of bounded activity: ‑t accusative, genitive and partitive:

(5.49) F nin hen heitt-i hei-dhet alimais-en Torn-ijn, so he cast-PST.3SG 3PL-tACC lower-ILL tower-ILL ia pan-i hei-te Jalcapuu-n, and put-PST.3SG 3PL-PAR stocks.SG-ILL carka-si hei-den Päle-ns, jump-PST.3SG 3PL-GEN on.to-3PX Diachronic Study Of Object Case 139

ia ylitzewoitt-i hei-te ia paiska-si and overcome-PST.3SG 3PL-PAR and throw-PST.3SG hei-den ala-nsa. 3PL-GEN/ACC down-3PX ‘so he cast them into the lower tower, and put them in stocks, jumped on them, and overcame them, and threw them down’ (Ikola 1966: 30, my gloss)

As can be seen from the above example, genitive-accusative personal pronoun objects, singular and plural, are found in old Finnish. This is also evident in the corpus (5.50).

(5.50) a. F 1548 hen paran-si hei-den he heal-PST.3SG 3PL-GEN/ACC

b. F 1642 hän paransi hei-tä he 3PL-PAR

c. F 1776 hän paransi hei-dät 3PL-tACC

d. F 1880 hän paransi hei-dän 3PL.GEN/ACC

e. F 1906 hän paransi hei-dät 3PL.ACC ‘he healed them’ (Matt. 15:30/31)

While in the 1642 Bible the partitive is used, in the others the clause is taken to be bounded and the accusative is used, in the genitive form in 1548 (despite the use of 3rd person plural ‑t accusatives elsewhere by Agricola) and also in 1880, and ‑t accusative in 1776 and 1906 onwards.

6.2.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The case distribution of all non-personal pronoun objects is shown in Table 5.25. The results of some of the more common ones are also shown separately in Tables 5.26–5.29. As in the overall results, there is a rise in partitive objects over time, but among the accusatives also a rise in genitive ones, with a drop in nominative objects, especially in 1992. In the texts prior to the 140 CHAPTER 5

20th century, there is a relative pronoun quin, which is not declined. It has not been included in the results, as it never develops into a declinable form (in contrast to the Estonian mis). It is later replaced by joka in the partitive or singular genitive-accusative and plural nominative-accusative cases.

Table 5.25 Case distribution of non-personal pronoun objects in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

1548 103 (30.4%) 156 (46.0%) 80 (23.6%) 339 1642 102 (31.8%) 143 (44.5%) 76 (23.7%) 321 1776 122 (34.5.%) 150 (42.4%) 82 (23.2%) 354 1880 123 (35.7%) 143 (41.4%) 79 (22.9%) 345 1906 123 (35.5%) 159 (46.0%) 64 (18.5%) 346 1938 113 (32.7%) 174 (50.3%) 59 (17.1%) 346 1992 144 (39.1%) 180 (48.9%) 44 (12.0%) 368

There is a slight trend towards an increase in the partitive with some fluc- tuations and a more distinct decrease in the nominative in the 20th century, especially 1992. Comparing individual plural pronouns in the 1548 NT with the same clause in 1992, it is apparent that a number of previously plural pronouns, especially ne ‘they’ inanimate and näme > nämä ‘those’ are later in the singular genitive-accusative in 1992 (5.51).

(5.51) a. F 1548 näme caiki Jesus puhu-i those.NOM all.NOM Jesus speak-PST.3SG ‘all those (things) Jesus spoke’

b. F 1992 kaike-n tämä-n Jeesus puhu-i all.SG-GEN that-GEN Jesus speak-PST.3SG ‘all that Jesus spoke’ (Matt. 13:34)

In Finnish the partitive site > sitä is in evidence in Agricola’s New Testament in 1548, but is much less frequent than the genitive-accusative sen. Table 5.26 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 141 shows the results of the diachronic study. The plural ne ‘they (inanimate) has not been included.

Table 5.26 Case of se ‘it’ as object in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

NT 1548 13 (11%) 110 (89%) 123 Bible 1642 12 (11%) 100 (89%) 112 Bible 1776 15 (13%) 101 (87%) 116 Bible 1880 15 (13%) 101 (87%) 116 NT 1906 14 (12%) 103 (88%) 117 Bible 1938 12 (10%) 104 (90%) 116 Bible 1992 15 (14%) 94 (86%) 109

The pronoun se is much more frequently genitive-accusative than other pronouns, especially as the object of saying and thinking. This usage is already evident in the earliest text (5.52).

(5.52) F 1548 se-n tunnusta-n mös mine that-GEN acknowledge-1SG also 1SG.NOM ‘that person I will also acknowledge’ (Matt. 10:32)

The relative and interrogative pronoun mikä is not as frequent as the Estonian mis, and differs in that the partitive form mite > mitä is the prevalent one in the earlier texts, with the genitive minkä being used in bounded situations in 1776 and from 1906 NT onwards. In Finnish the singular nominative form mikä does not appear as an object. There is one example of the nominative-accusative plural mitke in 1548 (5.53), and mitkä in 1776, but no further ones later.

(5.53) F 1548 ette-kö te luke-nuuat mitke NEG.2PL-Q 2PL.NOM read-PPTCP.PL what.PL.NOM Dauid tek-i? David.NOM do-PST.3SG ‘did you not read what David did?’ (Matt. 12:3) 142 CHAPTER 5

In the 1642 Bible mitke has been replaced by the singular mitä, which is more reasonable, as it refers to one action of David. However, being a completed action, the singular accusative minkä would seem more appropriate than the partitive. In Table 5.27 which shows the case distribution of mikä ‘what’ as object, the plural mitke > mitkä is included.

Table 5.27 Case of mikä ‘what’ as object in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

NT 1548 41 (98%) 1 (2%) 42 Bible 1642 41 (100%) 0 41 Bible 1776 46 (90%) 5 (10%) 51 Bible 1880 45 (100%) 0 45 NT 1906 50 (77%) 15 (23%) 65 Bible 1938 48 (67%) 24 (33%) 72 Bible 1992 54 (77%) 16 (23%) 70

The relative pronoun mitä is used more commonly with inanimate and especially abstract antecedents, while the relative pronoun joka is used in all kinds of circumstances. The case distribution of joka is shown in Table 5.28 below. The nominative-accusative plural jotka is included.

Table 5.28 Case distribution of joka ‘who, which’ as object in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

NT 1548 4 (11%) 33 (89%) 37 Bible 1642 4 (13%) 28 (88%) 32 Bible 1776 11 (26%) 32 (74%) 43 Bible 1880 7 (21%) 27 (79%) 34 NT 1906 4 (14%) 25 (86%) 29 Bible 1938 3 (13%) 21 (88%) 24 Bible 1992 9 (26%) 25 (74%) 34 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 143

The accusative object is the predominant one throughout all this time, with some fluctuation in the percentages, but less so in the actual numbers as they are fairly small. The larger number of tokens in 1776 is due to the replacement of the previous invariable relative pronoun quin by jota (partitive) or jonka (genitive-accusative). The 1880 text uses quin. The case distribution of caiki > kaikki ‘all’ is shown in Table 5.29. Here the distribution of the different forms of the accusative is shown, as there is a difference in the latest translation.

Table 5.29 Case distribution of caiki/kaikki ‘all’ as object in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

NT 1548 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 19 (91%) 21 Bible 1642 2 (7%) 1 (4%) 24 (89%) 27 Bible 1776 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 25 (83%) 30 Bible 1880 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 25 (83%) 30 NT 1906 3 (11%) 0 25 (89%) 28 Bible 1938 2 (7%) 8 (27%) 20 (67%) 30 Bible 1992 5 (18%) 17 (61%) 6 (21%) 28

The partitive and genitive-accusative cases of ‘all’ are present early in Finnish, but except in 1992 they are always very much less frequent than the nominative-accusative forms. Although there is an isolated instance of the genitive- accusative case in the early texts, it really does not come into its own until modern Finnish, as evident in the 1938 Bible, and even more so in the 1992 Bible, when the nominative-accusative drops off sharply.

6.2.3 Nouns The case distribution of singular and plural noun objects combined is shown in Table 5.30. 144 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.30 Case distribution of all noun objects in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

NT 1548 175 (21.5%) 639 (78.5%) 814 Bible 1642 239 (30.0%) 557 (70.0%) 796 Bible 1776 245 (30.2%) 565 (69.8%) 810 Bible 1880 246 (30.1%) 570 (69.9%) 816 NT 1906 292 (36.6%) 499 (63.4%) 791 Bible 1938 281 (35.1%) 520 (64.9%) 801 Bible 1992 347 (37.9%) 568 (62.1%) 915

All object cases are represented from an early time. In 1548 the accusative is more prevalent than at later times, the change being evident already by 1642. Subsequently the proportion of accusative objects decreases and the partitive increases further between 1880 and 1906. The general impression is that case alternation is used in a manner similar to modern Finnish, except with some plural nouns in 1548, where the nominative form is used, which in later editions is changed to partitive, as is the situation in Estonian. In order to see if a similar tendency is actually present in Finnish, singular and plural nouns were studied separately. The results are listed in Table 5.31.

Table 5.31 Case distribution of singular and plural noun objects in the Finnish biblical corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Accusative Nominative Genitive Nominative

1548 139 (23%) 364 (59%) 109 (18%) 612 36 (18%) 166 (82%) 202 1642 175 (29%) 361(60%) 68 (11%) 604 64 (33%) 128 (67%) 192 1776 176 (28%) 374 (60%) 71 (11%) 621 69 (37%) 120 (63%) 189 1880 176 (28%) 375 (60%) 74 (12%) 625 70 (37%) 121 (63%) 191 1906 196 (34%) 315 (55%) 60 (11%) 571 96 (44%) 124 (56%) 220 1938 199 (33%) 316 (53%) 83 (14%) 598 82 (40%) 121 (60%) 203 1992 241 (35%) 366 (53%) 84 (12%) 691 106 (47%) 118 (53%) 224 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 145

When plural nouns are looked at separately, it becomes obvious that there is a higher proportion of accusative plural nouns in 1548 decreasing gradually over the centuries, although 1938 has a slight reversal. Although the 1642 and 1776 editions are very similar, even there a slight tendency to a change from nominative to partitive is seen. This is exemplified in (5.54). The fact that he teaches an indefinite number of people is evident in the later version.

(5.54) a. F 1548 ia nein opetta-pi Jnhimise-t and so teach-3SG people-PL.NOM ‘and so teaches the people’

b. F 1642 ja näin ihmis-i-ä opetta and so people-PL-PAR teach.3SG ‘and so teaches people’ (Matt. 5:19)

In all texts the objects of perception and cognition are generally accusative as in modern Finnish. Objects of negative verbs are partitive even in Agricola’s writings, and I have not found any genitive or nominative ones in the present corpus. However, Kont (1958a: 240) mentions that in some Finnish dialects the use of the total (accusative) object has spread to negative clauses.

6.3 Seitsemän veljestä (Aleksis Kivi) 1870 The first two chapters of this novel (pp. 6–43) have been analysed for object case and the results are shown in Table 5.32. The accusative column includes two ‑t accusatives.

Table 5.32 Analysis of object case in the corpus section of Seitsemän veljestä

Partitive Accusative Total

All objects 258 (49.%) 264 (51%) 522 Personal pronouns 59 (74%) 21 (26%) 80 Other pronouns 35 (43%) 47 (57%) 82 Nouns 164 (46%) 196 (54%) 360 146 CHAPTER 5

The results are influenced by the genre of the text, so they are not directly comparable to the Bible texts. However, some comparisons can be made. The proportion of all partitive objects in the novel is greater than in the Bible editions at any time, where the highest incidence is 39.9% in 1906. This is largely accounted for by the higher incidence of partitive personal pronouns. Other pronouns and nouns in the novel are also found in somewhat greater proportions in the partitive case than in the Bible texts. Although the 1880 Bible edition did not use the ‑t accusative, this form does surface in the novel, but only a few examples are found, and the genitive forms, both singular and plural are more frequent in bounded situations. The two examples of the ‑t accusative in the corpus section of the novel are both singular: hänet (3SG) and sinut (2SG). Jahnsson (1871: 15) mentions plural personal pronouns appearing in the ‑t accusative case, but here we have singular ones. Plural examples are also found elsewhere in the book. Hence it appears to be coming into the language for all personal pronouns at this time.

7 Comparison of Old Finnish and Old Estonian

According to Hakulinen (1943: 50) the southwestern Finnish dialects in the 1500s were closer than modern Finnish to Estonian in lexicon, morphology and syntax., and that has been my impression also during the present study. A number of differences are evident in the way the two written languages developed. Savijärvi (1992) has compared the development of written Estonian and Finnish in great detail, mentioning that there are considerable differences due to the different foreign influences. Also, Estonian had two main dialects, which diverged considerably, and of which the northern became more prominent, while written Finnish was based more on the southwestern and Häme dialects (Savijärvi 1992: 53). In both languages the orthography was originally not suited to Finnic languages, but differed between Finnish and Estonian (Savijärvi 1992: 56). In the Finnish 1776 Bible there has been much improvement in the orthography. In Estonia Ahrens in the mid-19th century proposed a number of changes to bring the orthography to correspond better with the spoken language, and took Finnish as a guide. Opinions concerning the work of earlier Estonian writers vary considerably, with some regarding them very negatively with comments, admittedly true, that their language was far from that spoken by the people, and grammatically wrong (Savijärvi 1992: 60). Others have been more generous, pointing out that they had no grammar books to follow, and had to start from the beginning, with only Latin and German as examples to follow. The present study is empirical, showing the grammar as it was, without being judgmental. While Diachronic Study Of Object Case 147

Müller’s language appears better than Stahl’s, the latter’s grammar served as an example to others for a long time. Gradual improvements came with Masing, Ahrens, Hermann and others during the 19th century, and special efforts were made to improve the language in the 20th century. In Finland Agricola, thought variously to have Finnish or Swedish as his first language, would certainly have been bilingual at a very young age, and hence his Finnish appears closer to what was probably the spoken language at the time. However, Mielikäinen has traced the development of Finnish biblical language, and concludes that during the 19th century there was still a great disparity between the religious and secular sociolects (Mielikäinen 1999: 23). Even today spoken and written Finnish differ to some extent. Nonetheless, old Finnish appears certainly closer to modern Finnish than the Estonian writers’ language is to modern Estonian, especially with regard to grammar, the difference being the language status of the writers. The Estonian clergy were largely L2 speakers, while Agricola and other early Finnish writers were L1 speakers of the language in which they were writing. In the present study personal pronouns have shown the greatest difference, with mainly partitive case being used in Estonian biblical texts until 1947, except for the 3rd person in the earliest texts. In Finnish, on the other hand, genitive pronouns were common at the earliest times, in the plural as well as singular, with no nominative personal pronouns at any time. The ‑t accusative appeared to a limited extent in Agricola’s writings in the 16th century, and the 1776 Bible translation, but then there was a hiatus until its reappearance in the 19th century in grammar books and to a limited degree in Seitsemän veljestä. In biblical texts they surfaced fully in 1906. In the modern languages the ‑t accusative is one major difference from Estonian. Among the other pronouns, in Finnish the partitive relative pronoun mitä is already evident in the NT from 1548, while in Estonian mida is not seen in Bible texts before 1947, although it does appear in secular texts earlier. The Finnish nominative mikä is not seen as an object like the Estonian mis. The Finnish relative pronoun joka in its partitive form jota, genitive-accusative jonka and nominative-accusative jotka is more common than mikä in its various cases, and is used for both ‘who’ and ‘which’. As far as nouns are concerned, the southern Estonian dialect differs from both northern (standard) Estonian and Finnish in that the vast majority of all objects are partitive, except in the earliest southern Estonian NT translation by Gutslaff (1648–1656), the 1905 NT and St. Matthew’s gospel in Seto 1926. There is less difference across the centuries in the handling of object case of singular nouns in Finnish than in northern Estonian. In Estonian there is a marked change through the centuries in the way noun objects have been handled. In the earliest northern dialect Pilistvere translation of St. Luke’s gospel, and in 148 CHAPTER 5

Gutslaff, the initial object case selection for nouns is according to number, with singular nouns largely genitive and plural ones nominative. With plural nouns a smaller similar trend is evident in Finnish also, with more objects in the nominative form in the earliest texts. In Finnish the decrease is already seen in 1642, with only minor further changes in the remainder of the corpus, giving the impression that aspect has a bearing on case selection quite early, although the grammar books describe it clearly only in the 19th century. In northern Estonian the results fluctuate, with the 1715 NT having fewer plural nominative forms than the 1739 Bible. A subsequent decrease occurs in 1903 and a further one later. Aspect came into the picture later in Estonian, not until the beginning of the 20th century for Bible texts in both northern and southern dialects, although evident in some grammars in the 19th century. However, even in the 17th century some verbs (mostly atelic ones) were known to prefer partitive objects. Although objects of negative verbs are mostly in the partitive case, the early Estonian texts also have some genitive and especially plural nominative ones, while in Finnish they are consistently partitive. All the differences between the earliest Finnish and Estonian texts appear to be due to the fact that Agricola and later translators (L1 speakers) had a much better knowledge of Finnish than the early Estonian writers, mainly of German extraction (L2 speakers), had of Estonian.

8 Karelian

The earlier translations of St. Matthew’s Gospel in the Tver dialect in 1820 and in southern Karelian in 1864 are compared with St. Matthew’s gospel in the 2003 Olonets NT. The case distribution of all the objects in affirmative clauses is shown in Table 5.33.

Table 5.33 Case distribution of all objects in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Karelian biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

1820 (Tver) 400 (42.6%) 321 (34.2%) 183 (19.5%) 35 (3.7%) 939 1864 (Southern) 400 (42.2%) 330 (34.8%) 182 (19.2%) 35 (3.7%) 947 2003 (Olonets) 566 (50.9%) 274 (24.6%) 273 (24.5%) — 1113 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 149

The first two translations are almost identical in their use of case despite the different dialects, suggesting that the first one may have been used as the starting point for the second. The 2003 Olonets NT, however, is markedly different. The earlier translations are more sparing of words, and what can be understood, is often omitted. The larger proportion of partitive objects in 2003 is due mainly to the personal pronouns, which are virtually all partitive. The distribution of the different forms of the accusative is very similar in the earlier texts, but with more nominatives in 2003. This is due to the 3rd person plural verbs having a nominative-accusative singular object in 2003, but a genitive- accusative one in earlier translations (see Chapter 4, Section 2.1 for discussion). The distribution of case among the different parts of speech is shown in subsequent tables.

8.1 Personal Pronouns The case distribution of personal pronoun objects in the Karelian corpus is shown in Table 5.34.

Table 5.34 Case distribution of personal pronoun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Karelian biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive tAccusative

1820 (Tver) 117 (55.2%) 60 (28.3%) 35 (16.5%) 212 1864 (Southern) 120 (54.8%) 64 (29.2%) 35 (16.0%) 219 2003 (Olonets) 162 (99.4%) 1 (0.6%) — 163

The ‑t accusative is not used at all in the Olonets NT, and the one genitive, shown in Chapter 4, example (4.3), is probably unintentional, perhaps a relic of former usage, considering the genitive personal pronouns of the earlier translations. The ‑t accusatives are all plural and the genitive-accusatives singular. There are no nominative personal pronoun objects. Zaikov (2002: 107) in his Viena Karelian grammar lists the ‑t accusative for all personal pronouns, singular and plural. It is found for plurals in the oral collections of the Tver (Makarov 1963) and Valdai dialects of Karelian (Palmeos 1958). Ojajärvi (1950a: 113) mentions its presence for plural personal pronouns in the Aunus (Olonets) dialect, but Genetz (1885: 188) states that in the Aunus 150 CHAPTER 5 dialect plural personal pronoun objects are only in the partitive case. Despite Ojajärvi’s comments, there is no evidence of ‑t accusatives in the corpus section of the 2003 Olonets NT.

8.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The case distribution of non-personal pronouns is shown in Table 5.35.

Table 5.35 Case distribution of non-personal pronouns in St. Matthew’s gospel in Karelian

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

1820 (Tver) 73 (56.2%) 37 (28.5%) 20 (15.4%) 130 1864 (Southern) 72 (52.6%) 39 (28.5%) 26 (19.0%) 137 2003 (Olonets) 113 (47.3%) 66 (27.6%) 60 (25.1%) 239

The number of non-personal pronouns is markedly greater in the 2003 NT than in the earlier translations. When individual pronoun objects are compared, many are absent in the earlier texts. Sometimes they are omitted completely, sometimes substituted by a noun or by a clause, sometimes the polarity differs, and sometimes an entirely different construction is found. Example set (5.55) illustrates one such instance.

(5.55) a. K 1864 i ši-dä üh-tä kūndele and that-PAR one-PAR obey.IMPV.2SG ‘and obey that one only’

b. K 2003 i vai Häne-le sluužie and only 3SG-ALL serve.IMPV.2SG ‘and serve only Him’ (Matt. 4:10)

The larger proportion of nominative pronouns in the 2003 NT includes the singular nominative-accusative objects of 3rd person plural verbs. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 151

8.2.1 Relative Pronoun—mi ‘which,what’ Although the incidence of genitive-accusative pronouns is fairly similar in all the translations, there are several instances where the 1864 translation has a genitive-accusative and the 2003 NT a partitive object, as shown in example (5.56).

(5.56) a. K 1864 mi-n luadi-v nī-lä savun-katšoj-i-la? what-GEN/ACC do-3SG those-ALL grower-PL-ALL ‘what will [he] do to those growers?’

b. K 2003 mi-dä häi sit luadi-u nämi-le? what-PAR 3SG.NOM then do-3SG those-ALL ‘what will he then do to them?’ (Matt. 21:40)

The first variant suggests a single definitive act, while the second is more vague. The proportion of the various cases of mi ‘what’ as object are shown in Table 5.36.

Table 5.36 Case distribution of mi as object in St. Matthew’s gospel in Karelian

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1820 (Tver) 29 (64%) 15 (33%) 1 (2%) 45 1864 (Southern) 27 (59%) 17 (37%) 2 (4%) 46 2003 (Olonets) 39 (87%) 6 (13%) 0 45

One nominative object is the same in 1820 and 1864. This is a necessive expression, shown compared with the 2003 version (5.57). Necessive expressions in Karelian are discussed in Lees (2012: 205).

(5.57) a. K 1864 mi miu-la luadi-e Jīsusa-la? what.NOM/ACC 1SG-ALL/ADE do-taINF Jesus-ALL/ADE ‘what must I do with Jesus?’ 152 CHAPTER 5 b. K 2003 mi-dä sit minu-l pidä-ü luadi-e Iisusa-le? what-PAR then 1SG-ADE must-3SG do-taINF Jesus-ALL ‘what must I do with Jesus?’ (Matt. 27:22)

The first expression leaves out ‘must’, and is an alternative way of expressing necessity, with either a partitive or a nominative-accusative object. The other example of a nominative mi is in a relative clause, where each translation has the object in a different case (5.58).

(5.58) a. K 1820 opašta-kkua hei-dä luadi-e kaiki-e teach-IMPV.2PL 3PL-PAR do-taINF all-PAR mi-n mie tei-lä käšši-n that-GEN 1SG.NOM 2PL-ALL command-1SG

b. K 1864 opašta-kua hei-dä luadi-e kaiki-e teach-IMPV.2PL 3PL-PAR do-taINF all-PAR mi mie tei-lä käšši-n that.NOM 1SG.NOM 2PL-ALL command-1SG ‘teach them to do everything that I command you’

c. K 2003 opasta-kkua hei-dü nouda-mah kaikki-e teach-IMPV.2PL 3PL-PAR follow-maINF all-PAR si-dä mi-dä minä käski-n that-PAR which-PAR I command-1SG tei-le noudu-a 2PL-ALL follow-taINF ‘teach them to follow all that which I command you to follow’ (Matt. 28:20)

In (5.58a) the genitive-accusative fits with ‘all’, indicating a total set of commands, although it might be expected that ‘all’ would also be accusative. Example (5.58b) is more difficult to explain, as it cannot refer to plural, as the plural would be mit, and the singular would be expected to be min. The partitive in (5.58c) appears reasonable, as commands are not concrete objects and are not affected by the action. The modern Finnish Bible (1992) also uses mitä in the corresponding clause.

8.2.2 Pronoun se/ze ‘it’ The partitive and genitive cases of se ‘it’, with slightly different spellings in the different texts, are present as objects in the old texts, but all object cases of this Diachronic Study Of Object Case 153 pronoun are much more frequent in the 2003 edition. The nominative is not found as an object in the older texts. (Table 5.37) shows the numbers.

Table 5.37 Case distribution of Karelian ze/se ‘it’ as object in St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1820 (Tver) 5 (63%) 3 (38%) 0 8 1864 (Southern) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 8 2003 (Olonets) 17 (22%) 40 (53%) 19 (25%) 76

Again the nominative is fairly frequent as objects of 3rd person plural verbs in the 2003 NT. Concerning the pronoun kaiki ‘all’, the early Karelian gospel from 1820 has six (30%) instances of the partitive kaikie and 14 (70%) instances of the nominative kaiki. In the 1864 text there are 4 (20%) partitives and 16 (80%) nominatives. Although the number of tokens is small, it is possible to say that the partitive form was certainly evident by 1820, but the genitive was not and only appears to a limited extent in 2003, with 7.9% in 1 Corinthians and none in St. Matthew’s gospel. The nominative predominates at all times. There are only very few examples of the reflexive pronoun, as there are special reflexive forms of verbs, which also serve in a passive role.

8.3 Nouns Noun object case distribution in the Karelian corpus is presented in Table 5.38, with the distribution of the singular and plural nouns shown separately in Table 5.39.

Table 5.38 Case distribution of Karelian noun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

1820 (Tver) 210 (35.1%) 225 (37.6%) 164 (27.4%) 599 1864 (Southern) 208 (35.2%) 228 (38.6%) 155 (26.2%) 591 2003 (Olonets) 291 (40.9%) 207 (29.1%) 213 (30.0%) 711 154 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.39 Case distribution of Karelian singular and plural noun objects

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nominative

Genitive Nominative

1820 (Tver) 142 (33%) 224 (52%) 63 (15%) 429 67 (40%) 100 (60%) 167 1864 (Southern) 147 (34%) 228 (53%) 58 (13%) 433 61 (36%) 97 (63%) 158 2003 (Olonets) 173 (36%) 204 (42%) 106 (22%) 483 121 (53%) 107 (47%) 228

There is again not much difference between the two earlier versions of St. Matthew’s gospel, but the gospel in the 2003 Olonets NT is quite different. The proportion of partitive objects is slightly greater in 2003, with the proportion of genitive-accusative ones much lower. These results also show a greater number of nominative-accusative noun objects in 2003 compared with the earlier ones, although not vastly different. This is due to 3rd person plural verbs having a nominative-accusative singular noun object in 2003 rather than genitive-accusative. This is clearly evident from Table 5.39. The number of partitive nouns, especially plural ones, has also increased in 2003. This has been discussed in Chapter 4, Section 3.4. A comparison between 1864 and 2003 is shown in (5.59).

(5.59) a. K 1864 hüö ši-dä kerdu-a hülä-tih 3PL.NOM that-PAR time-PAR forsake-PST.3PL venehe-n boat.SG-GEN/ACC

b. K 2003 hüö kerras jäte-ttih 3PL.NOM immediately leave-PST.3PL veneh boat.SG.NOM/ACC ‘they immediately left the boat’ (Matt. 4:22) Diachronic Study Of Object Case 155

8.4 Objects of Verbs of Perception In the 2003 Karelian NT there is a mixture of partitive and accusative objects of verbs of perception. A similar result is found in the earlier translations, with the partitive more prevalent than in the latest one. The results are listed in Table 5.40.

Table 5.40 The case of noun objects of the verb ‘see’ in St. Matthew’s gospel in Karelian

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

1820 (Tver) 21 (66%) 10 (31%) 1 (3%) 32 1864 (Southern) 20 (61%) 11 (33%) 2 (6%) 33 2003 (Olonets) 10 (34%) 10 (34%) 9 (31%) 29

Of the nominative nouns in 2003 six are singular objects of 3rd person plural verbs. While the first two translations are very nearly identical, there are three partitive objects in 1820, which have been changed to accusative in 1864. One example is shown in (5.60).

(5.60) a. K 1820 kuni nähä-h inehmize-n poigu-a until see-3PL man.SG-GEN son.SG-PAR tule-ma-šša come-maINF-INE

b. K 1864 kuni nähä-h inehmize-n poja-n until see-3PL man.SG-GEN son.SG-GEN/ACC tulo-ma-ša come-maINF-INE ‘until they see the Son of Man coming’ (Matt. 16:28)

The construction with ‘until’ in 2003 is different involving a negative verb. Overall, the 2003 NT translation is quite different, with a smaller proportion of partitive objects of ‘see’. Personal pronoun objects of ‘see’ are all partitive even in the earliest translations. 156 CHAPTER 5

8.5 Negation In the older texts there are some negative clauses with an accusative object: in 1820 four genitive-accusative, one nominative-accusative and one ‑t accusative, and in 1864 three genitive-accusative and one ‑t accusative (5.61).

(5.61) K 1864 ana hüö ei tallatais let 3PL.NOM NEG.3PL trample.CONNEG.COND hī-ät om-i-la jalo-i-la 3.PL-tACC own-PL-ALL/ADE foot-PL-ALL/ADE ‘so that they would not trample them underfoot’ (Matt. 7:6)

This example can be translated in an affirmative form, but still with a negative connotation ‘lest they trample them underfoot’.

9 Livonian

Two translations of St. Matthew’s gospel were published in 1863, one in the eastern dialect and the other in the western dialect, both with the help of Friedrich Johann Wiedemann. There are differences between the two, these being mainly lexical rather than syntactic. They have been compared with St. Matthew’s gospel in the 1942 NT, and both differ significantly from the later translation. The case distribution of all objects is shown in Table 5.41. In this table the genitive and nominative forms are combined as accusative, as most nouns are homonymous for these cases. The results for pronouns are tabled separately below, detailing the various cases. Only objects of affirmative clauses are included in the tables.

Table 5.41 Case distribution of all objects in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Livonian corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 528 (54.2%) 446 (45.8%) 974 West Livonian 1863 551 (53.9%) 471 (46.1%) 1022 Livonian 1942 610 (62.8%) 362 (37.2%) 972 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 157

It can be seen that the two earlier translations are very similar in their case distribution, although differences are found among the pronouns as shown below. The partitive is more predominant in 1942. In the corpus section of the eastern Livonian oral collection published by Kettunen (1925a) there is a lower proportion of partitive objects (140/300— 47%) than in the Bible texts. This finding agrees with that of Tveite (2004: 50) for older oral collections. The tendency for somewhat lower numbers of partitive objects in the older gospel translations here also suggests that the partitive has been increasing in frequency, although we are dealing with one main translator of the 1942 NT. In Livonian, as in all Finnic languages there are no definite and indefinite articles, but due to German influence (Latvian has no articles), the demonstrative is often used as the definite article. In the western Livonian and in the 1942 NT the genitive form nänt is found instead of the nominative form ne with plural noun objects, which have the same morphology in the nominative and genitive case (5.62a and b), while with subjects ne is used. In the eastern Livonian gospel translation the nominative ne is found with plural accusative objects as well as subjects (5.62c).

(5.62) a. L 1942 ku Jēzus voļ nänt when Jesus be.PST.3SG these.GEN/ACC sõna-d loptõ-n word-PL.ACC finish-PST.PTCP ‘when Jesus had finished these words’ (Matt. 7:28)

b. LW 1863 ku Jēzõs nänt sünā-d when Jesus these.GEN/ACC word-PL.ACC vuoľ loptõ-n rükānd be.PST.3SG finish-PST.PTCP speak.taINF ‘when Jesus had finished speaking these words’ (Matt. 7:28)

c. LE 1863 ku ta ne kädū-d that he the.PL.NOM/ACC hand-PL.ACC nänt pǟlõ panū-ks 3PL.GEN on.to put-COND ‘that he would put the (his) hands on them’ (Matt. 19:13) 158 CHAPTER 5

Kettunen (1925a) in the oral collection in the present corpus has 20 plural noun objects without any determiner, so the case could be nominative or genitive. There are 3 instances of the genitive nänt with a plural noun, and 9 instances of the nominative ne, including some in imperative clauses (5.63).

(5.63) LE 1863 vòida-gəd en̄tš ne keep-IMPV.2PL self.GEN these.NOM/ACC i’bbis-t iära horse-PL.ACC away ‘keep these horses of yours away’ (Kettunen 1925: 55)

Tveite (2004: 13) interprets the plural noun objects as nominative rather than genitive, although the forms are always identical, basing his opinion on the general findings in other Finnic languages, as well as the use of the nominative- accusative ne in some of his corpus, as in (5.62c). However, Livonian differs in other respects also from the Finnic standard by using the genitive instead of the nominative form for singular objects of imperative verbs in bounded situations. The western dialect translation is in many respects more similar to the 1942 NT than is the eastern dialect, so the use of the genitive nänt with a plural noun object may be a dialectal variant.

9.1 Personal Pronouns There are no nominative personal pronoun objects, the accusative for both singular and plural being in the genitive form. The case distribution is shown in Table 5.42.

Table 5.42 Case distribution of all Livonian personal pronoun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 145 (60.4%) 95 (39.6%) 240 West Livonian 1863 150 (73.2%) 55 (26.8%) 205 Livonian 1942 172 (70.5%) 72 (29.5%) 244 Diachronic Study Of Object Case 159

Eastern Livonian has more accusative pronouns than the other translations, the vast majority 3rd person singular and plural. Western Livonian has only one 2nd person plural accusative object. First and 2nd person pronouns have 13.2% accusatives in eastern Livonian and 15.6% in St. Matthew’s gospel in the 1942 NT.

9.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The results for non-personal pronouns are shown in Table 5.43, again omitting the reflexive pronoun entšta and the relative pronoun mis.

Table 5.43 Case distribution of Livonian non-personal pronoun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 105 (66.9%) 52 (33.1%) 157 West Livonian 1863 97 (57.7%) 71 (42.3%) 168 Livonian 1942 89 (76.1%) 28 (23.9%) 117

While the partitive predominates, significant numbers of genitive-accusative pronoun objects are also seen. Tveite (2004: 51), excluding mis and entšta, also found a predominance of the partitive case among pronoun objects (personal and other) at all times, but increasing slightly in more recent times. Tveite (2004: 44) quotes the most recent writings by Alfon Berthold, born in 1919, one of the last speakers of Livonian, published by Vääri (1986, 1987) in two parts, where all pronouns are partitive (Tveite 2004: 51). However, Tveite considers this last publication to be too small to be totally reliable, and feels that the case distribution of pronouns has not changed significantly over time, the partitive having always been predominant. The case distribution of the pronoun se ‘it, this, that’ is shown in Table 5.44. All the accusative objects are in the genitive form. There is a distinct increase of the partitive case in 1942. 160 CHAPTER 5

Table 5.44 Case distribution of Livonian se ‘it, this, that’ as object in St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Genitive-Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 75 (63%) 45 (38%) 120 West Livonian 1863 76 (54%) 64 (46%) 140 Livonian 1942 55 (79%) 15 (21%) 70

The translation of ‘all’ differs between the earlier and the 1942 versions. Both Livonian gospel translations from 1863 have very few examples of ‘all’ cognate with the word ama in the 1942 NT translation. In the 1863 West Livonian version there are two singular pronoun examples and one plural accusative one, and in East Livonian no examples of such pronouns at all. Instead, the non- inflected words tükkiš (East) and tükkis (West) are used.

9.3 Nouns As explained above, for noun objects the genitive and nominative are combined as the accusative. The results are shown in Table 5.45.

Table 5.45 Case distribution of noun objects in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Livonian corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 275 (48.8%) 289 (51.2%) 564 West Livonian 1863 301 (46.8%) 342 (53.2%) 643 Livonian 1942 469 (59.9%) 314 (40.1%) 783

Here the two earlier translations are syntactically very similar, which may partly be due to the influence of the linguist Friedrich Wiedemann. The partitive is predominant in 1942. Tveite (2004: 50) also found that the earlier collections, from informants born in the 19th century, had more accusative than partitive noun objects. These findings contradict Larsson’s prediction (1983: 113) that the accusative was becoming the predominant object case in Livonian. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 161

The genealogy in chapter 1 of the gospel is interesting in that all objects are partitive in 1942, where one would expect to have accusative. Tveite (2004: 123) also comments that proper nouns are sometimes inappropriately partitive. The genealogy in western Livonian in 1863 again had the objects mostly in the partitive (35 out of 39), but the remaining four were in the genitive/nominative form. As the genitive is the same as the nominative, perhaps the partitive is used to avoid confusion about who is the father and who the son. The eastern dialect has a completely different construction avoiding objects altogether. Example (5.64) shows the different expressions.

(5.64) a. LE 1863 Abraam-st sünd-is Izak Abraham-ELA be.born-PST.3SG Isaac.NOM ‘from Abraham was born Isaac’

b. LW 1863 Izāk sünt-is Jāk Isaac.NOM give.birth.to-PST.3SG Jacob.ACC ‘Isaac begat (fathered) Jacob’

c. L 1942 Abraam syndt-iz Izaak-õ Abraham.NOM give.birth.to-PST.3SG Isaac-PAR ‘Abraham begat (fathered) Isaac’ (Matt. 1:2)

9.4 Objects of Verbs of Perception Kont (1963: 76) and Larsson (1983: 108) state that the southern Finnic languages have the objects of verbs of perception in the partitive case, but Tveite (2004: 99) found 26% accusative non-pronoun objects of nǟ’dõ ‘see’ in affirmative clauses. Tveite (2004: 98–115) has a detailed discussion of numerous examples of sentences with nǟ’dõ. The accusative is more common in the older translations (Tveite 2004: 107). In the 1942 NT he found 13 in the book of Revelation, but only one in St. Matthew’s gospel. Of my two in St. Matthew’s gospel, one is the same as Tveite’s and the other is a number, which is nominative. While a partitive form of numbers also exists, as an object it is most commonly in the nominative form. This has been discussed in Chapter 3, section 2.1. Looking at noun objects (including numerals) only, I found 10 (31.3%) accusative objects of nǟ’dõ in the eastern dialect in 1863 and 10 (38.5%) in the western dialect, not all the same ones in the two 1863 translations. In the western dialect in two instances the verb ievańtlõ (Latvian prefix ie‑ ‘into’), ‘see’, ‘look at’, or ‘notice’ is used instead of nǟ’dõ, with a partitive object in one and a nominative-accusative one in the other. In some instances the accusative can imply ‘caught 162 CHAPTER 5 sight of’, but this does not appear to be so in all cases. From Tveite’s data, as well as my more limited corpus, it does seem that the partitive has become the preferred object of verbs of perception, but Tveite’s data from the book of Revelation in the 1942 NT suggests that the accusative is still used. This is seen particularly in examples where the object of ‘see’ is also the logical subject of a following infinitive. Such an example is shown in (5.65).

(5.65) lw 1863 ku ne näis-tõ nänt when 3PL.NOM see.PST-3PL the.PL.GEN/ACC mǟmõ-d rükāndõ-m mute-PL.ACC speak-maINF ‘when they saw the mute ones speaking’ (Matt. 15:31)

9.5 Negation The 1863 eastern dialect had 18/112 (16%) non-partitive objects in negative clauses, while the western dialect had 8/123 (7%). The pronouns entšta and mis are excluded from these figures, but all other pronouns are included. In the 1942 NT the proportion in St. Matthew’s gospel is 16/134 (12%).

10 Veps

St. Matthew’s gospel was published in the Veps language in 1998, and this was followed by the New Testament in 2006. During this relatively short time interval, there were a number of modifications made to the 1998 translation, mainly changing the genitive-accusative case of an object to partitive. Table 5.46 presents the comparative analysis of case distribution in St. Matthew’s gospel. In addition, to provide some idea of the Veps language at an earlier time, I have added some data from oral collections of southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b) and Chude (Lönnrot 1853). See Chapter 1, Section 3.1 for a discussion of the Chude language. These can only give a rough guide concerning the earlier Veps language and are of course not directly comparable with St. Matthew’s gospel. Diachronic Study Of Object Case 163

Table 5.46 Case distribution of all objects in the Veps corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Chude 1853 75 (28.4%) 156 (59.1%) 33 (12.5%) 264 Southern Veps 1925 71 (21.7%) 192 (58.7%) 64 (19.6%) 327 Veps 1998 476 (45.7%) 400 (38.4%) 166 (15.9%) 1042 Veps 2006 511 (47.2%) 380 (35.1%) 191 (17.7%) 1082

Despite the caveat mentioned, it is evident that in the oral collections the genitive-accusative case is the most prominent object case, while in the Bible texts the partitive is present in a greater proportion, although the accusative case forms together still predominate. Much of the difference between the oral and written material is due to personal pronouns as can be seen below.

10.1 Personal Pronouns In the Veps 1998 St. Matthew’s gospel there are 10 genitive-accusative personal pronouns of a total of 168 (6%), all 3rd person singular. Of all the 3rd person singular pronouns 17% were genitive-accusative. In 2006 these are all changed to partitive. An example of a genitive 3rd person object is shown in (5.66). In 2006 the genitive hänen has been replaced by the partitive händast.

(5.66) V 1998 hän tahto-i peito-s jät-ta 3SG.NOM want-PST.3SG secret-INE leave-taINF häne-n 3SG-GEN/ACC ‘he wanted to leave her secretly’ (Matt. 1:19)

In the portion of the Chude oral collection in the corpus there are 44 (85%) partitive personal pronoun objects and 8 (15%) genitive ones, with no nominative or ‑t accusative ones. One of the genitive ones is a 2nd person singular pronoun, the others are all 3rd person singular. In the corpus section of Kettunen’s (1925b) southern Veps collection there are 31 (56%) genitive-accusative singular personal pronoun objects. Plural ones are all partitive in the corpus, but Ikola (1965: 189) mentions also genitive 1st and 2nd person plural objects mīďen and tīďen, and suggests that these are a later development. 164 CHAPTER 5

10.2 Non-Personal Pronouns The results for non-personal pronoun objects are shown in Table 5.47. There are very few pronoun objects in the small oral samples, with the cases predominantly genitive-accusative in Chude and fairly evenly distributed in southern Veps. The nominative-accusative ones in southern Veps are mostly in necessive clauses.

Table 5.47 Case distribution of non-personal pronoun objects in the Veps corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Chude 1853 2 (10%) 17 (81%) 2 (10%) 21 South Veps 1925 9 (39%) 8 (35%) 6 (26%) 23 Veps 1998 102 (43%) 118 (49%) 20 (8%) 240 Veps 2006 106 (44%) 112 (47%) 23 (10%) 240

10.3 Nouns Noun objects, which are predominantly accusative, are shown in Table 5.48.

Table 5.48 Case distribution of noun objects in the Veps corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Chude 1853 29 (15%) 131 (69%) 31 (16%) 191 South Veps 1925 71 (22%) 192 (59%) 64 (20%) 327 Veps 1998 216 (34%) 272 (43%) 146 (23%) 634 Veps 2006 238 (35%) 268 (40%) 168 (25%) 674

The oral collections have proportionately more accusative objects than the biblical texts, which is especially marked in the Chude collection. Although the Bible texts are fairly similar and in many sections identical, it is notice- Diachronic Study Of Object Case 165 able that there are fewer nouns in the 1998 gospel. The texts were compared verse for verse to make sure that no nouns were overlooked in the 1998 text. It was found that in many instances different expressions were used, polarity was reversed, a noun was replaced by a clause, and other reasons were evident, but the difference in numbers is genuine. Several nouns and pronouns have been changed from genitive to partitive from 1998 to 2006. An example is shown in (5.67).

(5.67) a. V 1998 kene-lpäi nece-n ma-n kuningaha-d who-ABL this-GEN land-GEN king-PL.NOM ota-b maksu-n take-3PL tax.SG-GEN/ACC ‘from whom do the kings of this land collect the tax’ (Matt. 17:25)

b. V 2006 kene-späi miru-n kuningaha-d ota-ba who-ELA world-GEN king-PL.NOM take-3PL maksu-i-d tax-PL-PAR ‘from whom do the kings of this world collect taxes’ (Matt. 17:25)

The above is a question concerning something which occurs repeatedly, so the partitive is in order. Another example is shown in (5.68).

(5.68) V 1998 paha-d henge-d pakiče-škanz-i-ba evil-PL spirit-PL.NOM request-INC-PST-3PL Iisusa-n Jesus-GEN/ACC ‘the evil spirits began to request Jesus . . .’ (Matt. 8:31)

In 2006 the genitive-accusative Iisusan has been changed to the partitive Iisusad. Here there are several reasons for changing the object case to partitive: the action was only beginning, and asking does not directly affect the object. In the other languages this action is iterative. Furthermore, this object of the verb ‘ask, request’ is an indirect object and as such is partitive in the other languages. However, when the same verb, meaning ‘ask for’ has a direct object, this has been changed from partitive to genitive-accusative, the accusative object also having the implication that the request was granted (5.69). 166 CHAPTER 5

(5.69) a. V 1998 i pakič-i Iisusa-n hibjä-d and request-PST.3SG Jesus-GEN body-PAR

b. V 2006 i pakiči Iisusan hibja-n and request.PST.3SG Jesus.GEN body-GEN/ACC ‘and (he) asked for Jesus’ body’ (Matt. 27:58)

In the next example (5.70) the first clause has a partitive object of ‘touch’ and the second has a genitive-accusative one. This can be explained by the fact that the touching in the first clause may not have been allowed to take place, whereas in the second clause it was completed. Touching, of course, does not affect the hem of the garment, so there is an argument for the partitive also in the second clause.

(5.70) V 2006 hö pakič-i-ba hoť kosketa-da hänen they ask-PST-3SG only touch-taINF his sädo-n röuna-d i kaik garment.SG-GEN hem.SG-PAR and all.NOM ke-d se-n kosket-i-ba, tegihe who-PL.NOM it-GEN/ACC touch-PST-3PL became tervhi-kš healthy-TRA ‘They asked only to touch the hem of his garment, and all who touched it, were healed.’ (Matt. 14:36)

11 Final Comments

Estonian and Finnish both have a long tradition of written language, while the other languages are much more limited. Especially in the case of Veps the time difference between the two versions of St. Matthew’s gospel is only eight years, and the Chude and southern Veps oral material only provides a rough comparison of what the language was like previously. The Livonian translations are largely the product of one or two related persons, with some other input, so they may not reflect the language in general. Tveite (2004) has done an extensive review of object case in Livonian, with comparison of a number of sources, and has found a greater incidence of partitive objects in more recent Diachronic Study Of Object Case 167 texts. Kont (1959a: 146) states that in Livonian and Estonian the partitive has increased over time and the accusative decreased, while in Veps the opposite has occurred. However, in the present study the partitive even in relation to noun objects appears to be edging ahead in Karelian and Veps. The Livonian findings here agree with those of Tveite (2004) and Kont (1959). In southern Estonian the partitive is particularly prevalent from 1686 until 1886, and then gradually some accusative objects appear, by 1905 showing that the factors requiring the accusative are taken into consideration. In the northern Estonian biblical corpus the results are influenced by partitive pronouns in the earlier texts, but also singular nouns are predominantly partitive, while plural ones are mostly nominative. Gradually some of the nominative ones are changed to partitive, as quantity and aspect come to be involved rather than word category and number, as in the writings of Stahl and Müller in the 17th century. This is evident in the 1903 Bible. In 1947 there is a peak of accusative objects, due to the efforts of the language innovator Johannes Aavik to bring Estonian grammar closer to Finnish. This decreases somewhat in the later editions. The distribution of object case in Finnish has remained fairly steady after 1548 having the fewest partitives. Finnish shows its accusative predominance from the earliest times, and so does Veps in the small volume of data available. Veps and Olonets Karelian have largely gone over to using the partitive case for all personal pronoun objects, while in Estonian the situation is reversed, with the earlier ones being more frequently, and at times exclusively, partitive. Other pronouns have shown variable changes in the different languages over the centuries. The German influence is very marked in the early Estonian texts, whereas Finnish shows less foreign influence. Karelian and Veps have been influenced by Russian, and Livonian by Latvian, as well as German. Chapter 6 The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs

1 Introduction

While the main purpose of this chapter is to compare the partitive / nominative case alternation as it involves the undergoer (logical object, patient) of impersonal and passive verbs, the whole situation of the passive is somewhat controversial, so it is first necessary to discuss briefly the terminology of those constructions, which are often referred to as passive in the Finnic languages. A number of linguists feel that the term should not be used at all in the Finnic languages. Kangasmaa-Minn (1979: 99) postulates that if initial Finnish grammars had not been based on Latin, Greek and Swedish, the word ‘passive’ would never have surfaced. Nevertheless, the word does appear in a number of grammars (Karlsson 1999: 172; VISK §1313; EKG II 1993: 30). The constructions involved in Estonian and Finnish have been defined in grammar books and discussed in some detail in the linguistic literature. Other Finnic languages have received less attention. The nature of the passive construction has been discussed in detail by Blevins (2003). He (as well as many others) makes the point that there are two distinct constructions, passive and impersonal. Vihman (2002: 2) has a good classification of the two constructions in Estonian, and Table 6.1 is based on her paper, with the addition of the corresponding Finnish forms in brackets. There is obviously an overlap between the perfect and pluperfect tenses of the impersonal and the present and past tenses of the personal passive. There is a further overlap between the personal passive and copula clauses. While in Estonian there is a gradation from personal passive into copula clauses, for different linguists the point of transition differs. This has been discussed by Rajandi (1999: 64) for Estonian.

* Some of the material in this chapter relating to Estonian and Finnish has been published in Lees (2006).

Table 6.1 Passive paradigm in Estonian and Finnish (in brackets)

Impersonal (Indefinite, Personal passive (Copula clause, unipersonal passive) multipersonal passive)

Present tehakse (tehdään) on tehtud (on tehty) Past tehti (tehtiin) oli tehtud (oli tehty) Perfect on tehtud (on tehty) on olnud tehtud (on ollut tehty) Pluperfect oli tehtud (oli tehty) oli olnud tehtud (oli ollut tehty)

2 Impersonal

In Finnish some prefer the term ‘indefinite’ to ‘impersonal’ (Kangasmaa-Minn 1979: 100; Shore 1988: 151). VISK §1313 refers to yksipersoonainen passiivi ‘unipersonal passive’. Here I shall use the term ‘impersonal’, which is used in Estonian. Although often translated into English as passive, the impersonal differs from the passive in several respects. The subject is suppressed rather than demoted or deleted (Blevins 2003: 485). For this reason Pihlak (1993) suggests that this construction be called ‘suppressive’, but this term has not come into general use. There is no object promotion, and the undergoer (logical object, patient) remains an object (Blevins 2003: 485). This fact is also evident from the present data. Intransitive verbs can occur in the impersonal form, with the meaning ‘one does’ or ‘there is doing’. The copula can be impersonalized, but there are some verbs which cannot. These are particularly those which are subjectless in the active voice, because there is no subject to suppress. A more detailed discussion of these problems can be found in Rajandi (1999), Vihman (2002), Torn (2002) and Blevins (2003). As seen from Table 6.1, there is a special form of the verb in the impersonal present and past tenses with no auxiliary involved. Lehtinen (1984) has traced the historical development of the impersonal ‑(t)tA morpheme, which has undergone different phonological changes in the various languages. The present tense forms are traced back to forms such as *tehtäksen ‘being done’. The ‑k in Estonian is thought to be a present tense marker and -sen > ‑se a personal ending, which has disappeared in the other languages and some Estonian dialects. Viitso (2007: 216, 218, 222) details some of the diachronic changes that have occurred in Estonian. The past tense marker is ‑i. The ‑kse suffix (and related endings in other languages) entails a human agent. Although the 170 Chapter 6 impersonal form dates back to the Proto-Finnic period (Viitso 1998: 112) there is no impersonal form in Livonian, and occasionally the active 3rd person plural verb without an explicit subject is used to express the equivalent of a passive, as shown in (6.1).

(6.1) L nūor-dõ vīn-õ vala-bõd ūd nāgi-st young-PAR wine-PAR pour-3PL new.PL.GEN leather-ELA rīstõ-d sizzõl vessel-PL.GEN into ‘new wine is poured into new leather wineskins’ (Matt. 9:17)

Manninen and Nelson (2004) have presented arguments that the impersonal is in fact a true passive, but this is not the general opinion (see Section 7 below).

2.1 Estonian The forms given in Table 6.1 are in common use in Estonian. There is a clear distinction between the impersonal forms discussed here and the active voice, although there are some additional constructions which are more difficult to categorize. Some mention will be made of these below in Section 4.

2.1.1 Southern Estonian Dialects The Võro dialect, at least in some districts, has an impersonal stem with 3rd person endings agreeing with the undergoer in number (Viitso 2007b: 219), and I have also heard it in the speech of people from that dialect area. Peegel (2006: 180) mentions that evidence from folk songs suggests that such forms with personal endings were prevalent in earlier times. Historically such a complete paradigm with person as well as number agreement is listed by Wiedemann (1875: 475) for the Tartu (southern) dialect and mentioned in Wiedemann (1864 [2002]: 93, fn 38) for spoken Võro. Keem (1998: 330), in her discussion of Gutslaff’s grammar (1648 [1998]) gives the full paradigm, with slightly different forms from Urvaste, a different part of the southern dialect area. However, the actual impersonal stems with personal suffixes are not shown in Gutslaff’s grammar. Pajusalu (2007: 258) mentions that in the Kambja subdialect of the Tartu dialect, which borders on the Võro dialect area, this kind of construction also occurs, which he calls ‘personal passive’. According to Viitso (2007b: 219) there is a move to revive the full passive paradigm. Viitso refers to this construction as the only true passive in Estonian, but as ‘passive’ tends to be used as a blanket term, and ‘personal passive’ is used for periphrastic constructions, The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 171

I will use the lengthy descriptive term ‘impersonal stem with personal suffixes’. There are a couple of examples in the 1686 Southern Estonian New Testament (see Section 10.2) and several in an oral collection of the Võro dialect (Keem and Käsi 2002).

2.2 Finnish The Finnish impersonal forms are shown in brackets in Table 6.1. In the spoken language the impersonal form is commonly used for the 1st person plural active, initially as an imperative, but now also as declarative, when it can have the expressed nominative subject me ‘we’ (Karlsson 1999: 248), as shown in (6.2).

(6.2) F me ote-taan auto mukaan 1PL.NOM take-IMP car.SG.NOM/ACC along ‘we’ll take the car along’ (Hakulinen and Karlsson 1979: 187)

The object in (6.2) is in the nominative-accusative case, as in impersonal sen‑ tences (Section 7.1), rather than genitive-accusative as in the usual active sentence. The more formal, and usual written variant would be as in (6.3).

(6.3) F me otam-me auto-n mukaan 1PL.NOM take-PRS.1PL car.SG-GEN/ACC along ‘we will take the car along’

According to Häkkinen (1994: 290) Renvall mentions the use of the impersonal form for the 1st person plural in active sentences in the early part of the 19th century. There are also examples in the novel Seitsemän veljestä by Aleksis Kivi.

2.3 Karelian In Karelian the verb form cognate with the Finnish impersonal is used as the 3rd person plural in the active present and past tenses, as shown in (6.4) and (6.5).

(6.4) K hüö jäte-ttih verko-t 3PL.NOM leave-PST.3PL net-PL.NOM/ACC ‘they left the nets’ (Matt. 4:20) 172 Chapter 6

(6.5) K joga puu . . . leika-tah every tree.SG.NOM cut-PRS.3PL/IMP ‘every tree [which does not bear good fruit] will be cut down / they will cut down’ (Matt. 3:10)

In (6.4) there is an overt 3rd person plural subject, while in (6.5) there is not. Where no overt or an absent subject obvious from the context is found, I have classified the verb somewhat arbitrarily as impersonal. This has been done in order to facilitate comparison of the texts with Finnish and Estonian. Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 59) in their Karelian grammar state that there is no passive, and it is not mentioned in the grammar of the northern Viena dialect (Zaikov 2002). Zaikov (1999) deals with the question of the passive voice in Karelian and points out its identity with the 3rd person plural active in all the dialects ranging from Viena in the north to Aunus (Olonets) in the south and even Ludian. This identity was already noted in the Aunus dialect by Genetz (1885: 191), so it is pervasive and well-established. There is no trace in the Karelian corpus of the 3rd person plural active verbal suffix found in other Finnic languages. As the form is cognate with the Finnish impersonal, it is thought that the 3rd person plural forms in Karelian are derived from the impersonal (Zaikov 1999: 244). The same form can be used actively with a subject and passively without a subject. The use of the impersonal form as the 3rd person plural active verb has been attributed to Russian influence (Kangasmaa-Minn 1979: 101; Laakso 2001: 189). Ojajärvi (1950a: 36, 108) states that in the Tver dialect the genitive-accusative is used for singular noun objects of the impersonal form, whether used actively or passively, while in the Maaselkä, Viena and Aunus (Olonets) dialects the nominative object is used. In the Maaselkä dialect Ojajärvi (1950a: 112–113) mentions that partitive personal pronouns are usually used in constructions where the noun object would be in the nominative-accusative case, such as objects of impersonal and imperative verbs. He includes the Aunus (Olonets) and Viena dialects in this observation. In Karelian reflexive forms of verbs are often used to translate the passive, in which case the undergoer (patient) is the subject of the clause and in the nominative case. The 1864 clause corresponding to (6.5) from 2003 is shown in (6.6).

(6.6) K 1864 jogo pū . . . leikuatšo-v every tree.SG.NOM cut.REFL-3SG ‘every tree [which does not bear good fruit] will be cut down’ (Matt. 3:10) The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 173

2.4 Veps Ritter (1989: 19) points out that in Veps the choice of form for the 3rd person plural verb depends on the dialect. In some dialects the form cognate with the impersonal of Finnish is used, and in others the form cognate with the Finnish active 3rd person plural verb. Kettunen (1943: 427) also mentions that sometimes a 3rd person plural subject is used with the impersonal form, and at other times it is used without a subject. Example (6.7) shows the impersonal morphology used impersonally with a nominative undergoer, while in (6.8) the impersonal form is used as a 3rd person plural form with a subject, the object being in the genitive-accusative case.

(6.7) V kaikutte pu . . . čap-tas every tree.SG.NOM cut.down-IMP ‘every tree [which does not bring good fruit] will be cut down’ (Matt. 3:10)

(6.8) V końďī da häńďīkaz hebōže͔-ñ sei-ďhe bear.SG.NOM and wolf.SG.NOM horse.SG-GEN/ACC eat.PST-3PL ‘the bear and wolf ate the horse’ (Kettunen 1925b: 29)

In the biblical corpus it is not easy to find an impersonal form used with a subject, but in the oral collection (Kettunen 1925b) this is more frequent. More commonly the form of the verb used for the 3rd person plural in active clauses is cognate with the 3rd person plural form in Finnish as exemplified in (6.9).

(6.9) V hö siď-žo jät-i-ba verko-d 3PL.NOM immediately leave-PST-3PL net-PL.NOM/ACC ‘they immediately left the nets’ (Matt. 4:20)

In Veps, as in Karelian, the border is blurred between impersonal and reflexive verbs (Kettunen 1943: 425, 429), with reflexives used, where the other languages would have an impersonal. Kettunen attributes such usage to Russian influence.

2.5 Votic In Votic there is an impersonal marker separate from the active voice (Ariste 1968: 74), with some morphological variation in different sub-dialects. Tsvetkov (2008: 87) lists the impersonal paradigm with the personal pronoun 174 Chapter 6

undergoers in the partitive case. Kont (1963: 156) mentions that in Votic the impersonal is used also for the 3rd person plural in the active voice, but less so than in Karelian or Veps. Ojajärvi (1950a: 108) also mentions such use in Votic as well as Veps, and Tsvetkov (2008: 65, endnote 47, p. 117) points out that it is common in Votic.

3 Compound Tenses of Impersonal Verbs

The compound tenses of impersonal verbs constitute a particular problem with regard to classification. They can be formed in all the languages, but examples are fairly rare, except in Finnish and to some extent in Estonian. As shown in Table 6.1 these are formed with the auxiliary olema (olla) ‘be’ with a past participle, which differs from the active past participle and is still often called the passive past participle, although Viitso (2007b: 214) refers to it as the impersonal past participle and Shore (1988: 155) as the indefinite past participle. Because of the difficulties of nomenclature, some Estonian linguists are simply calling it the -tud participle (Rajandi 1999: 64). This is fine when discussing a single language, but when comparing different languages with slight variations in the suffix, it becomes cumbersome. Hence I have chosen to refer to this participle as the passive past participle (PPP). As can be seen from Table 6.1 exactly the same construction occurs in the last two rows of the first column and the first two rows of the second column, where it is labelled personal passive. The latter is often considered a copula clause, with the participle being the complement of the verb olema (olla), which in this situation is regarded as a copula rather than an auxiliary. There are some differences between the compound tenses of the impersonal voice and the passive, but not all clauses allow differentiation. This problem is discussed in Section 5.

4 Subjectless Verbs

An additional problem for the nomenclature is the occurrence of verbs, used without a subject, but with active voice morphology. These are also sometimes called impersonal. These include meteorological verbs, such as Estonian sajab ‘it is raining’, and many necessive verbs. Shore (1988: 156) also includes existential clauses and clauses expressing a psychological or physiological state, such as the following example (6.10) under subjectless verbs. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 175

(6.10) F minu-a janotta-a 1SG-PAR make.thirsty-3SG ‘I am thirsty’ (Shore 1988: 156)

Such verbs do not have an impersonal (passive) counterpart, as there has to be a suppressed subject entailed in the impersonal verb. Some grammarians discuss these active verbs together with the prototypical impersonal verbs under the heading ‘impersonal’ (Mihkla et al. 1974: 85). VISK §1313 labels the subjectless verbs as nullapersoonainen ‘null person’. Torn (2002: 81) refers to weather verbs as ‘deep impersonals’. The necessive verbs in both Estonian, such as tuleb teha and Finnish pitää tehdä (must.3SG do‑taINF) ‘it is necessary to do’, although without an expressed agent, are understood to apply to a human agent. Such an agent, however, can be expressed as an adessive in Estonian or as a genitive subject in Finnish. The objects of these verbs are not included in the corpus analysis of undergoers (logical objects) of impersonal and passive verbs.

5 Personal Passive

5.1 Estonian and Finnish The right hand column of Table 6.1 shows what is in Estonian called the ‘personal passive’ (Mihkla et al. 1974: 87), passive (Vihman 2002: 2), resultative (stative) passive (Erelt 2007: 103), or passive adjectivization (EKG II 1993: 30), consisting of the verb olema ‘to be’ and the passive past participle of transitive verbs. Finnish has a similar construction, which some Finnish linguists regard as a copula clause, with the passive past participle acting as an adjectival copula complement (Kangasmaa-Minn 1979: 99). In Finnish the participle agrees with the undergoer in number, in Estonian it does not. The personal passive indicates the resultant state of an action, while the impersonal is more dynamic, relating to the action itself. Shore (1988) does not consider the personal passive at all in her discussion of Finnish passive. Kangasmaa-Minn (1979: 106) does not accept the personal passive construction as a distinct category in Finnish. Karlsson (1999: 196) in his Finnish grammar discusses the passive present participle, but largely glosses over the passive past participle, only mentioning the form in the list of past participles (p. 198). VISK §1313 distinguishes between yksipersoonainen passiivi ‘unipersonal passive’ and monipersoonainen pas‑ siivi ‘multipersonal passive’. The personal passive is the construction that most closely resembles the Indo-European passive, and is felt by some to be 176 Chapter 6 a foreign innovation and hence there seems to be a great reluctance to call it passive. For the purposes of comparison, I will refer to the construction in the second column of Table 6.1 as the personal passive. However, in the sections where compound tense impersonal and the personal passive forms are considered together, I refer to them as periphrastic passive, as it is not possible to classify them all. In Estonian the auxiliary saama ‘become, get,’ can be used with the passive past participle instead of olema, in the present tense with the implication of future completion of action, and in the past indicating completion of the action, implying that some time or effort was necessary. In Finnish tulla ‘come, become’ can be used in the same way in the present tense, but with the participle in the translative case. In standard Estonian the participle is usually invariable, although occasionally a translative example is seen with saama. In the Võro and Seto dialects of Estonian saama is always used with the passive past participle in the translative case.

5.2 Other Finnic Languages In all the other Finnic languages a similar periphrastic construction occurs with the verb ‘be’, and is particularly prevalent in Livonian, which does not have an impersonal voice. In Livonian the verb sād~sōd ‘become, get’ is also used like Estonian saama, in the present tense indicating future completion of the action. In Karelian Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 106) mention the passive past participle. They give most examples with its attributive rather than predicative use, but also some with an auxiliary. Zaikov (2002: 133), in his Viena grammar, states that the passive past participle is used in semantically passive constructions, as well as in active ones to form the 3rd person plural perfect and pluperfect tenses. Both the auxiliary and the passive past participle are in the 3rd person singular form, and do not show agreement with the undergoer. In Karelian rodieu ‘becomes’ is used like tulee in Finnish. Veps also has periphrastic constructions with the passive past participle (Kettunen 1943: 466). The auxiliary olla ‘be’, including its potential form are used as auxiliaries. The compound tenses of the passive in Votic are formed as in the other languages with the auxiliary ‘be’, or nõisõma ‘begin’ for the future (Tsvetkov 2008: 87). The passive paradigm is listed with all the personal pronoun undergoers in the partitive case, and the auxiliary invariably in the 3rd person singular form. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 177

5.3 Differentiating Periphrastic Passives Although the compound tenses of the impersonal and the personal passive constructions are superficially similar, there are several differences between them. In the latter the auxiliary agrees with the undergoer in person and number, while in the impersonal it remains in the 3rd person singular form. However, with a 3rd person singular undergoer it is difficult to differentiate between the two. In Estonian olema has the same form for 3rd person singular and plural in the present tense, further increasing the difficulty. In Finnish the passive past participle remains invariable in the impersonal paradigm, but agrees in number with the undergoer in the personal passive. In Estonian it is invariable also in the personal passive. Word order can help, in that the impersonal clause more often begins with the verb. Intransitive verbs cannot occur in the personal passive form. The case of the undergoer is also of major importance, as discussed in Section 6.7, with the partitive never occurring with the personal passive. Sometimes it is possible to differentiate semantically between the dynamic impersonal and the static personal passive, but that is a subjective decision in many instances, with a gradation from one to the other. Rajandi gives an example with a semantic difference. Although the sentences are identical in (6.11a) and (b), the interpretation differs.

(6.11) a. E Teie püksi-d on varasta-tud. 2PL.GEN pants-PL.NOM be(AUX).3SG/PL steal-PPP ‘Your pants have been stolen’

b. E Teie püksi-d on varasta-tud. 2PL.GEN pants-PL.NOM be(COP).3PL steal-PPP (ADJ.COMP) ‘Your pants are stolen’ (‘You are wearing a pair of stolen pants’) (Rajandi 1999: 72)

Example (6.11a) is interpreted as compound tense impersonal or personal passive, while (6.11b) is clearly a copula clause, with the passive past participle used as an adjectival complement. This example shows how the personal passive merges into the copula clause. Even in (6.11b) ‘pants’ has been subjected to the activity of stealing at some time in the past, although we are now merely seeing the result of it. In the present tense the form on is the same for singular and plural. I have glossed the auxiliary as SG/PL in (6.11a) . In the past tense in actual speech the plural 3rd person olid is much more likely to be used than the singular oli. In (6.11b) the plural copula is the only correct form. 178 Chapter 6

6 Non-finite Passive Verbs

Both present and past participles occur with passive morphology. Here again I will use the word ‘passive’, although in some constructions they are semantically active. The use of the participles without an auxiliary to form participial clauses is discussed in chapter 7, Section 4. Some infinitives also have a passive form, but these are uncommon in the modern languages, and are discussed mainly in the diachronic sections below.

6.1 Passive Past Participle (PPP) The use of the passive past participle in the compound tenses of the impersonal and (personal) passive has been mentioned above in Sections 3 and 5. As an adjective, it is used either predicatively, resulting in a construction similar to the personal passive (Table 6.1), or attributively. In Estonian in both situations it is invariable (except for the translative case in some constructions in southern Estonian), while in Finnish it is inflected. In the personal passive construction it can have an agent, which is in the genitive case or as an adposition phrase. Even when used attributively, it has verbal properties. The noun which the participle modifies, is of course its undergoer (logical object), but the NP can occupy any role in the clause and the noun takes the appropriate case for the situation. The participle can also be modified by adverbs which typically modify verbs, e.g. well, rapidly etc., as shown for Estonian in (6.12).

(6.12) E minu hästi teh-tud töö 1SG.GEN well do-PPP work.NOM ‘work well done by me’

In Karelian there are a number of other uses for this participle, called the passive second participle by Zaikov (2002: 133). He points out its use as a connegative in active past tense clauses with a 3rd person plural subject (6.13). For other person subjects the connegative is the active past participle.

(6.13) K Poja-t ei syöty ruoku-a boy-PL.NOM NEG.3PL eat.CONNEG.PST.3PL (PPP) food-SG.PAR ‘The boys did not eat the/any food’ (Zaikov 2002: 133)

6.2 Passive Present Participle This participle is discussed in Chapter 7, Section 4.2. The objects of this participle are not included in the tables in this chapter. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 179

6.3 Passive Infinitives In Estonian there is a passive form of the ‑ma infinitive in the illative case, which is found commonly in old Estonian texts, but only rarely in modern Estonian. Wiedemann (1864 [2002]: 90) mentions passive ‑ma infinitives in the southern Võro dialect. In old Finnish there are some examples of the passive forms of both -ma and ‑ta infinitives. In the Votic translation of St. Matthew’s gospel there is an example of a passive ‑ma infinitive in a necessive clause with piäb ‘must’ (Matt. 6: 33). In Finnish the ‑ma infinitive is in the instructive case. The ‑e infinitive also has a passive form in Finnish, but this too is uncommon. The passive infinitives are discussed further in the diachronic sections 9.3, 10.4, 11.2.3, 13.4 and 13.5.

7 The Undergoer

The term ‘undergoer’ is used for the logical object or patient affected by the action.

7.1 The Undergoer in Impersonal Clauses In active clauses the case of the object of a transitive verb alternates between accusative for bounded situations in affirmative clauses, and the partitive elsewhere, and so does the case of the undergoer of impersonal verbs. The genitive form is not used for the undergoer of impersonal verbs in the Estonian, Finnish or Olonets Karelian corpus, the accusative having the nominative form, or for Finnish personal pronouns the ‑t accusative. In Estonian the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns never occur in the nominative form as objects, and are only in the partitive case as undergoers of impersonal verbs. The partitive is used in negative clauses and for unbounded situations. Example (6.14) contrasts a negative and an affirmative clause. Although wine is a mass noun, the undergoer is nominative in the affirmative clause because the statement is generic and quantity is irrelevant, but the negation still requires the partitive case.

(6.14) E ei kallata värske-t veini vana-de-sse NEG pour.CONNEG.IMP fresh-PAR wine.PAR old-PL-ILL nahklähkri-te-sse vaid värske vein kalla-takse wineskin-PL-ILL rather fresh.NOM wine.NOM pour-IMP uu-te-sse lähkri-te-sse new-PL-ILL wineskin-PL-ILL ‘young wine is not poured into old wineskins . . . rather young wine is poured into new wineskins’ (Matt. 9:17) 180 Chapter 6

In Veps there are some examples of a genitive undergoer of impersonal verbs (6.15).

(6.15) V vina-m mi-Лā paki-tas vodka-GEN/ACC 1SG-ADE/ABL ask-IMP ‘I am asked for vodka’ (lit. vodka is asked from me’) (Kettunen 1943: 107)

The genitive suffix is ‑m due to sandhi effect, normally it would be ‑n. Kettunen translates this sentence into Finnish, using the partitive viinaa. While in the English passive the subject is deleted and the object promoted to subject, in the Finnic impersonal voice the subject is suppressed, being entailed in the impersonal morpheme, but the object remains an object. The evidence for that is the case alternation, typical of objects, the use of the partitive in negative clauses, and the use of the ‑t accusative personal pronouns in Finnish. Manninen and Nelson (2004) argue that the Finnish impersonal is really a passive, and as such, has the subject of the corresponding active verb deleted rather than demoted, and the object promoted to subject. They suggest that, because the nominative form instead of the genitive is used for the singular noun, and because it appears in the subject position, this is a subject (Manninen and Nelson 2004: 240–243), but the lack of agreement of the auxiliary verb with the plural nominative undergoer in the compound tenses is a point against that view, as is the finding of ‑t accusative personal pronouns in Finnish. Manninen and Nelson (2004: 243) explain the ‑t accusatives by split ergativity. Certainly it is occasionally possible to find the nominative subject of an active clause being understood as the object of an impersonal verb in a conjoined clause. Kiparsky (2001: 319) on this basis also regards the nominative object as true nominative rather than nominative-accusative. However, this view has not been generally accepted. In this short discussion, it is not possible to go into the arguments fully and the reader is referred to the papers by Manninen and Nelson (2004), Kiparsky (2001), Shore (1988) and Blevins (2003) among others.

7.2 The Undergoer in Personal Passive Clauses With the personal passive the situation is quite different. Häkkinen (1994: 249) points out that in periphrastic forms, it is difficult to differentiate between the undergoer being the object of the compound tense impersonal verb or the subject of a copula clause with the participle as the copula complement. There are no ‑t accusative undergoers of personal passive verbs. Any ‑t accusatives in The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 181 periphrastic passives belong to the compound tenses of the impersonal verbs. Viitso (2007a: 64) considers that only clauses with a partitive undergoer of a compound tense with the passive past participle can be called impersonal, and all others are copula clauses. Rajandi (1999: 65) states that clauses with a partitive undergoer must be impersonal, but also allows impersonals with nominative undergoers except 1st and 2nd personal pronouns (p. 67). In negative clauses a nominative undergoer can only appear in the personal passive. In the personal passive the auxiliary agrees with the undergoer. Where there is no agreement, the construction is impersonal. However, as the majority of undergoers are singular nouns, the auxiliary is mostly 3rd person singular, which does not help in the classification. In Estonian a plural nominative undergoer with lack of agreement is rather questionable and, especially if the undergoer is in the subject position, it would appear grammatically wrong to most Estonians. Rajandi (1999: 73) gives an example (6.16) and suggests that editors would correct any lack of agreement, changing the auxiliary to the plural form olid and thus change the impersonal to a personal passive.

(6.16) E Õhtu-l kell 22.30 oli mõlema-d evening-ADE clock be.PST.3SG both-PL.NOM õhuklapi-d sule-tud air.valve-PL.NOM close-PPP ‘At 10.30 in the evening both air valves had been closed’ (Rajandi 1999: 73)

In Finnish it is easier to find examples where a singular verb occurs with a plural undergoer, as in (6.17). Here the passive past participle also shows lack of agreement. Therefore, this is impersonal.

(6.17) F härä-t ja syöttövasika-t on teurastet-tu ox-PL.NOM and fattened.calf-PL.NOM be.3SG slaughter-PPP.SG ‘the oxen and fattened calves have been slaughtered’ (Matt. 22:4)

In summary, undergoers of personal passive verbs are always nominative in negative as well as affirmative clauses, and the auxiliary agrees in person and number with the undergoer. Intransitive verbs cannot have a personal passive form. Thus the construction is similar to the passive in English, and the undergoer is a subject. 182 Chapter 6

8 The Agent

The ‑kse (Estonian) and ‑an/‑än (Finnish) suffixes of the impersonal verb entail a human (or at least animate) agent, although there are some exceptions (Shore 1988: 160; Rajandi 1999: 88). Active clauses with an inanimate subject (unless personified) cannot usually be converted into felicitous impersonal clauses. The agent can be an antecedent for a reflexive (6.18), and is mostly thought of as plural, shown in Finnish by number agreement with a predicative adjective, as in (6.19). In Estonian the reflexive can be singular, referring to each individual of the group.

(6.18) E Sauna-s pes-takse ennas-t/end-i-d. sauna-INE wash-IMP self-SG/self-PL-PAR ‘In a/the sauna one washes oneself / people wash themselves.’

(6.19) F Suome-ssa ol-laan niin totis-i-a Finland-INE be-IMP so serious-PL-PAR ‘In Finland people are so serious’ (Shore 1988: 159)

As an agent is already implied in the impersonal verb suffix, it should not be possible to express it as an adpositional phrase or semantic case, such as the ablative, but in actual fact it does appear, especially in older writings, but also to some extent in modern literature. Manninen and Nelson (2004: 246) mention that agents are expressed fairly frequently. Nemvalts (2008: 42) points out that, in recent times in Estonian, because of English influence, the impersonal with an agent is often used where the active voice would be more suitable. In the Bible translations there is the problem of translating the agent in the source material. Kangasmaa-Minn (1979: 104) gives an example with an adpositional phrase (6.20). Such agents mostly constitute an agency or a group, rather than an individual.

(6.20) F Poliisi-n tahol-ta ei anneta police.SG-GEN side-ABL NEG.3SG give.CONNEG.IMP lausunto-a. statement.SG-PAR ‘A statement is not / will not be given by the police.’

A similar construction can be used in Estonian. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 183

(6.21) E Politsei poolt ei anta police.SG.GEN side.ABL NEG give.CONNEG.IMP aruanne-t. statement.SG-PAR ‘A statement is not / will not be given by the police.’

The personal passive does not entail an agent, and active clauses with an inanimate agent can be passivized. On the other hand it is not possible to passivize an intransitive verb. It is also readily possible to have an expressed agent in the personal passive, mostly in the genitive case in Estonian or as an adpositional phrase. Rajandi (1999: 72) mentions that there is a tendency for Estonian linguists to call all personal passive clauses copula clauses, but if there is an agent present, as in (6.22), Rajandi stresses that the clause can in no way be considered a copula clause, because here the passive past participle cannot be thought of as adjectivized. The agent here is in the genitive case.

(6.22) E Puu on Oskari istuta-tud. tree.SG.NOM be.3SG(AUX) Oscar.GEN plant-PPP ‘The tree has been planted by Oscar.’ (Rajandi 1999: 72)

9 Synchronic Studies from the Corpus

The main analysis involves St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians, but oral collections have also been studied to provide additional information, especially in languages such as Votic, where the biblical material is very limited and in the case of Karelian, where other dialects are also of interest, as Olonets differs somewhat. The impersonal data consists of affirmative clauses, unless otherwise indicated. In the case of the periphrastic passive, as well as in the diachronic section, negative clauses are also taken into account, but listed separately. Where no date is given for an example the data comes from the edition of the Bible or New Testament used in the synchronic corpus, as detailed in Chapter 4, Section 1.

9.1 Impersonal The case of the undergoer is noted in present and past tense impersonal clauses in the various Finnic languages. For Karelian, where the boundary 184 Chapter 6 between active and passive is blurred, all the clauses with a 3rd person plural verb cognate with the Finnish impersonal have been included here, if there is no overt or understood subject. In Livonian the impersonal is lacking. Table 6.2 shows the case distribution of all undergoers, including personal and other pronouns, in four languages. The different forms of the accusative have been shown because of the Veps data. All the undergoers of negative simple tense impersonal verbs are partitive and have been omitted from Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Table 6.2 Case distribution of all undergoers in affirmative simple tense impersonal clauses in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

Estonian 69 (52%) – 64 (48%) – 133 Finnish 34 (29%) – 63 (53%) 22 (18%) 119 Karelian 75 (58%) – 54 (42%) – 129 Veps 59 (50%) 8 (7%) 52 (44%) – 119

Many of the partitive undergoers are personal pronouns, which in Karelian and Veps are all partitive and in Estonian predominantly so. Finnish stands out in having the ‑t accusative for pronoun undergoers in bounded situations. Together with the nominative-accusative the total proportion of accusative undergoers (71.4%) is markedly greater in Finnish than in any other language. It is necessary to look at nouns separately, as shown in Table 6.3, because of the overwhelming use of the partitive for personal pronoun objects in Karelian and Veps. Estonian stands out with the most partitives, while Karelian and Veps are closer to Finnish. Compared with objects of verbs in the active voice, the proportion of partitive noun undergoers of impersonal verbs is considerably smaller than that of active verbs, the difference being greatest in Veps and least in Finnish. The nominative form predominates in all the languages, with the genitive-accusative being found only in Veps in the synchronic corpus. Kont (1963: 155) mentions that in Estonian the nominative object may occur, where partitive might be expected. The impersonal brings the undergoer into The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 185

Table 6.3 Case of noun undergoers in affirmative simple tense impersonal clauses in the synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 19 (32%) – 40 (68%) 59 Finnish 1992 14 (26%) – 40 (74%) 54 Karelian 2003 14 (29%) – 35 (71%) 49 Veps 2006 10 (21%) 5 (11%) 32 (68%) 47

focus, so it is more often definite and individuated, and the statement is often generic. In Veps there is a higher proportion of accusative cases (79%) than in any of the others, when only nouns are taken into account. It has a few genitive- accusative undergoers (nouns and also some relative pronouns), which have not been found in any of the other languages in the synchronic biblical corpus. Kont (1963: 159) states that in northern Veps singular noun undergoers are nominative-accusative, whereas in southern Veps they are genitive-accusative. This is presumably because of the impersonal form is also used as a 3rd person plural active verb (Kettunen 1943: 427). An example of a genitive undergoer in Veps is shown in example (6.23).

(6.23) V ku perti-n ižanda-n kuc-tas Veľzevul if house.SG-GEN master-GEN/ACC call-IMP Belzebul.NOM ‘if the master of the house is called Belzebul’ (Matt 10:25)

The genitive undergoer appears especially with the verb kuctas ‘is called’. It is of course possible to interpret such verbs as active 3rd person plural, with the meaning ‘people / they call’, as there is no expressed subject, but in the Veps biblical texts the impersonal morphology is not commonly used for an active verb. Most of the undergoers, singular and plural in bounded impersonal clauses are nominative-accusative in Veps. In the other languages the verb ‘call’ takes a partitive object. In the oral collection from southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b), all three impersonal verbs have genitive undergoers. One is 186 Chapter 6 shown in (6.24a), with a corresponding clause (6.24b) from Zaitseva (2001: 83) with a partitive undergoer and the present tense impersonal. (6.42a) implies that the name was given at a particular instant. In Kettunen (1925b) this verb form is also used as the active past 3rd person plural.

(6.24) a. V tütre-ŋ kutsu-ťhe Daŕi̯a-ks daughter.SG-GEN call-IMP.PST Darja-TRA ‘the daughter was called Darja’ (Kettunen 1925b: 4)

b. V tütär-t kuc-tas Darja-ks daughter.SG-PAR call-IMP.PRS Darja-TRA ‘the daughter is called Darja’ (Zaitseva 2001: 83)

In the Karelian Tver dialect oral collection (Makarov 1963) there are 11/21 genitive undergoers (52%). In the Valdai dialect (Palmeos 1958) the numbers are very small, but one out of the three is genitive. See also Section 15.1 below for the results from the older translations of St. Matthew’s gospel. In the four chapters of St. Matthew’s gospel which are available in Votic, there are only eight impersonal verbs in simple tenses. Both partitive and nominative undergoers are present in equal numbers. No genitive or ‑t accusative undergoers are found, but there are no examples of 1st or 2nd person plural pronouns, which are the only ones that could occur in the ‑t accusative case in Votic. In the oral collections (Kettunen and Posti 1932) eastern Votic has 6/11 (55%) partitive undergoers, and western Votic has 23/62 (37%) partitives. An example of a ‑t accusative is found in the western Votic oral corpus (6.25). The use of the t-accusative supports the notion that the undergoer is a grammatical object.

(6.25) Vo pan-tī meď-ďed makā-mā put-IMP.PST 1PL-tACC sleep-maINF.ILL ‘we were put to bed’ (Kettunen and Posti 1932: 10)

In the western Votic there is an example of the nominative-accusative used for a 1st person plural object of an impersonal verb (6.26). The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 187

(6.26) Vo mö jäte-ttī saunā 1PL.NOM leave-IMP.PST sauna.ILL ‘we were left in the sauna’ (Kettunen and Posti 1932: 10)

In the oral western Votic corpus two genitive-accusative objects (3%) are found, contradicting Ojajärvi (1950a: 108), who states that in Votic the accusative object of a verb with impersonal morphology, even if used with a 3rd person plural subject, is always in the nominative form. The finding of genitive undergoers in several of the languages, but particularly in the Tver dialect of Karelian is contrary to the rules of grammar in Estonian and Finnish. The Karelian use of the impersonal form for the 3rd person plural active verbs is presumably responsible for the use of the genitive case for the undergoer in the Tver dialect even when there is no subject, either overt or understood from the discourse. All the genitive-accusative undergoers are singular, while the nominative-accusative ones are all plural, as in bounded active clauses. This finding differs from the Olonets biblical texts. The Olonets Bible translation in fact goes the other way and uses the nominative rather than the genitive form for singular undergoers of 3rd person plural verbs in bounded clauses even in the active voice, thus following the common Finnic practice for the undergoers of impersonal verbs. See also the Karelian diachronic study in Section 15.1. The finding of the genitive objects is a point against separating the impersonal from the 3rd person plural active verbs in Karelian. Zaikov (1999: 243) is of the opinion that the form cognate with the impersonal is a 3rd person plural form, which is used also as a passive, but mentions others who hold a different opinion. In Veps the situation is more complicated, with either the impersonal or the active 3rd person plural verb, cognate with that in most of the other Finnic languages, being found in clauses with impersonal semantics. Dialectal differences are found. In all the Finnic languages the undergoer in the impersonal construction has the characteristics of an object, i.e. the partitive-accusative case alternation, the use of the partitive in negative clauses, the use of ‑t accusative personal pronouns in Finnish, and avoidance of the nominative form of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns in Estonian.

9.2 Periphrastic Passive These studies include all forms, both impersonal and personal passive, constructed with the auxiliaries olema (olla) ‘be’, including the potential forms, or saama ‘become’ in Estonian, with corresponding auxiliaries in the other languages together with the passive past participle. It is impossible in many 188 Chapter 6 instances to decide whether a construction is an impersonal perfect tense one or personal passive, although some attempt has been made to do so. The constructions with the present tense of saama and related auxiliaries are dynamic, indicating future action, and would fit better into the impersonal group. In the present study I have not used semantics to classify these clauses. Here negative clauses are more relevant, as they help to distinguish between some compound tense impersonal and personal passives, so they are also included. As Livonian does have a periphrastic passive, it is included in this section. The results for noun and pronoun undergoers in St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians are shown in Table 6.4. Here all clauses are included where there is an auxiliary (although sometimes not expressed, especially in Veps) and a passive past participle. Clauses with the relative pronoun mis are excluded in Livonian.

Table 6.4 The case distribution of all undergoers of periphrastic passives in the synchronic biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative t Accusative Partitive Nominative

Estonian 11 (13%) 75 (87%) – 7 (58%) 5 (42%) Livonian 0 192 (100%) – 0 33 (100%) Finnish 5 (8%) 56 (85%) 5 (8%) 9 (82%) 2 (18%) Karelian 2 (3%) 64 (97%) – 3 (30%) 7 (70%) Veps 7 (11%) 59 (89%) – 2 (14%) 12 (86%)

As can be seen from the tables, the undergoer is predominantly nominative, and this is so even in negative clauses, except in Estonian and Finnish. The absence of the impersonal accounts for the much greater number of personal passives in Livonian. There is one clause in Livonian (6.27), with a partitive subject and a passive past participle as a copula complement. As impersonal verbs are not found in Livonian, it cannot be considered an impersonal perfect tense. Its static nature is consistent with it being a copula clause. Indefinite pronouns, especially when negative, are found in the partitive case as subjects of copula clauses (see Chapter 8). The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 189

(6.27) L ku mittõ midagid äb ūo sala-tõt that NEG something.PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG hide-PPP ‘that nothing is hidden’ (Matt 10:26)

In the limited Votic gospel there are seven periphrastic passive examples, all with nominative undergoers, all singular, so no comment can be made concerning agreement. In some cases the auxiliary is omitted. Some examples follow in (6.28), showing the similarity of the construction in the various languages, with a nominative undergoer.

(6.28) a. E kirves on juba pan-dud puu-de axe.SG.NOM be.3SG already put-PPP tree-PL.GEN juur-te külge root-PL.GEN side.ILL

b. L kīraz um juba pū-dõ-n jūr pan-dõt axe.SG.NOM be.3SG already tree-PL-DAT to put-PPP

c. F kirves on jo pan-tu puu-n juure-le

d. K kirves on jo pan-du puu-n juure-le

e. V kirvez om jo pan-dud pu-n axe.SG.NOM be.3SG already put-PPP tree.SG-GEN jure-le root.SG-ALL

f. Vo t̮irves on kaas jo pu-ďje tüve axe.SG.NOM be.3SG also already tree-PL.GEN to pan-tu put-PPP ‘The axe has already been put to the root(s) of the tree(s)’ (Matt. 3:10)

On syntactic grounds the above example in all the languages could be a compound tense impersonal or a personal passive. Examples of impersonal compound tense with a partitive undergoer are fewer, but one, where the undergoer is quantitatively indefinite occurs in three of the languages, and is shown in (6.29). 190 Chapter 6

(6.29) a. F jo-hon oli sekoite-ttu sappe-a which-ILL be.PST.3SG mix-PPP bile-PAR

b. K kudama-h oli sevoite-ttu sappi-i which-ILL be.PST.3SG mix-PPP bile-PAR

c. V kudamba-ha oli vala-tud sapi-d which-ILL be.PST.3SG pour-PPP bile-PAR ‘into which bile had been mixed /poured’ (Matt. 27:34)

Example (6.30) illustrates the use of the partitive in a negative perfect tense impersonal clause in all except Livonian and Veps, where the personal passive has a nominative undergoer promoted to subject.

(6.30) a. E kui aga Kristus-t ei ole üles ärata-tud if but Christ-PAR NEG be.CONNEG up wake-PPP

b. L aga až Kristus äb ūo virg-tõt but if Christ.NOM NEG.3SG be.CONNEG wake-PPP

c. F mutta ell-ei Kristus-ta ole heräte-tty but if-NEG.3SG Christ-PAR be.CONNEG wake-PPP ‘but if Christ has not been resurrected’

d. K no ku Hristossu-a ei lienne nostate-ttu but if Christ-PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG.POT raise-PPP kuollielo-i-s dead-PL-ELA ‘but if Christ has not been raised from the dead’

e. V no ku Hristos ei oliži but if Christ.NOM NEG.3SG be.CONNEG.COND eläbzoi-ttud resurrect-PPP ‘but if Christ has not been resurrected’ (1 Cor. 15:14)

In clauses with periphrastic passive verbs the partitive undergoer is much less frequent than in clauses with simple tenses. It is possible to state that all clauses The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 191 with partitive or ‑t accusative personal pronoun undergoers are impersonal, as are all with lack of agreement between undergoer and auxiliary. If there is definite agreement between the undergoer and the verb, the construction is a personal passive, or a copula clause with a passive past participle complement. This is also the case if a nominative undergoer occurs in a negative clause. In Finnish, if a personal pronoun undergoer is nominative rather than ‑t accusative, it is a subject in a personal passive clause. All these characteristics show that the undergoer in the personal passive is grammatically a subject. Table 6.5 shows the results of an attempt to classify the periphrastic constructions into impersonal and personal passive on the basis of syntactic evidence. Semantics has not been considered as this forms a continuum and clear cut-off points are difficult to determine. The more dynamic a clause, the more likely it is to be impersonal. Negative clauses are included here, as they give evidence of impersonal or personal passive constructions.

Table 6.5 Classification of periphrastic passive constructions in the modern biblical corpus

Impersonal Personal Passive Total Ambiguous

Estonian 17 (45%) 21 (55%) 38 60 Livonian – 225 (100%) 225 – Finnish 27 (84%) 5 (16%) 32 45 Karelian 16 (64%) 9 (36%) 25 51 Veps 18 (47%) 20 (53%) 38 42

Of the 225 instances in Livonian, 107 are definitely personal passive on the basis of criteria described above, while the remaining 118 are assumed to be personal, as there is no impersonal voice in Livonian. The one clause with a partitive indefinite pronoun subject is considered a copula clause rather than impersonal (6.27), and is excluded from this table. From Table 6.5 it can be seen that in all except Livonian a considerable proportion of periphrastic passive forms are impersonal, especially in Finnish, with the fewest definite personal passives in Finnish. Interestingly, Veps is very similar to Estonian here.The limited material in the Votic St. Matthew’s gospel has seven instances of periphrastic passive, all with nominative undergoers, one being a negative clause. It is not possible to classify Votic on the basis of so few tokens. The oral collections (Kettunen and Posti 1932) do not provide 192 Chapter 6 much help. All undergoers are nominative, and often the auxiliary is omitted althogether. In summary, in the clauses with compound tense impersonal, as in those with simple tense impersonal verbs, the undergoer has the characteristics of an object. In the personal passive the undergoer is a subject, being nominative and agreeing with the verb in person and number.

9.3 Passive Infinitives In the synchronic biblical corpus the Estonian 1989 NT is the only one to have a passive ‑ma infinitive (6.31).

(6.31) E et Ta pea-b mine-ma Jeruusalemma ning that 3SG.NOM must-3SG go-maINF.ILL Jerusalem.ILL and tape-ta-ma ja kolmanda-l päeva-l üles kill-PASS-maINF.ILL and third-ADE day-ADE up ärata-ta-ma wake-PASS-maINF.ILL ‘that he must go to Jerusalem (and suffer at the hands of the high priests and the scribes) and be killed and on the third day resurrected’ (Matt. 16: 21)

The same clause in the Estonian 1997 Bible is identical. Here the undergoer of the passive infinitives is at the same time the agent of the active infinitive, but the two are linked by the necessive modal peab. With a passive ‑ma infinitive the modal can only be in the 3rd person singular form, but in Estonian pidama ‘must’ with an active infinitive inflects for person and number. If example (6.31) involved the 1st or 2nd person, the pronouns would be in the nominative case in the first clause with the modal agreeing, and would need to be repeated in the partitive case in the second clause with the 3rd person singular modal peab. Votic also has an example of a passive ‑ma infinitive (6.32).

(6.32) Vo si-tä kõikkõ-a piä-b tei-le pääle sene that-PAR all-SG.PAR must-3SG 2PL-ALL on this.GEN annõ-tta-ma give-PASS-maINF ‘all that will be given to you on top of this’ (Matt. 6:33) The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 193

10 Diachronic Southern Estonian Study

The four editions of the southern New Testament (Wastne Testament) have been analysed, together with the incomplete portion from Gutslaff’s NT translation (1648–1656) and St. Matthew’s gospel from 1926 in the Seto dialect, which differs significantly from the 1905 NT in the Võro dialect. Despite the dialectal differences the Seto text may indicate some later changes in southern Estonian.

10.1 Impersonal Table 6.6 shows all undergoers of impersonal verbs in the present and past tenses. The relative and interrogative pronoun mis ‘which, what’, and kik~keik ‘all’, which always occur in their nominative form, have been excluded from this study. So has the reflexive pronoun henda, which is its only object form until 1905. In Seto there is case alternation of these pronouns and all have been included.

Table 6.6 Case distribution of all undergoers of impersonal verbs in the southern Estonian corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1648–1656* 0 31 (100%) 31 0 0 1686 23 (43%) 30 (57%) 53 3 3 1857 32 (52%) 30 (48%) 62 5 3 1886 42 (63%) 25 (37%) 67 5 1 1905 31 (46%) 37 (54%) 68 11 4 Seto 1926** 52 (56%) 41 (44%) 93 8 2

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Gutslaff’s translation differs from the others in avoiding partitive undergoers altogether. This follows the same pattern as the earlier texts in the northern dialect (see Section 11.1), but has more instances of impersonal forms. The 194 Chapter 6 rest of the results show fluctuation rather than any progressive pattern over the centuries, whereas for objects of verbs in the active voice the partitive is overwhelming as the object case until the 1905 edition (Chapter 5, Section 5.1). A number of partitive undergoers from 1886 appear as nominative in 1905. The number of partitive undergoers in 1857 and 1905 are very similar, but the actual instances are not all identical. Although the Seto corpus is limited to the gospel, it has more transitive impersonal verbs than the other southern Estonian New Testaments. Contrary to findings in modern standard Estonian there are some clauses with a nominative undergoer of a negative impersonal verb as in example (6.33a). In the 1886 edition the nominative has been changed to partitive.

(6.33) a. ES 1686 kühnal ei leüdeta candle.SG.NOM NEG light.CONNEG.IMP

b. ES 1886 künal-t ei läüdeta candle.SG-PAR NEG light.CONNEG.IMP ‘a candle is not lit’ (Matt. 5:15)

In the 1905 NT both negative clauses with a nominative undergoer are semantically affirmative; one is shown in (6.34).

(6.34) ES 1905 kas temä emä ei kutsuta Q 3SG.GEN mother.NOM NEG call.CONNEG.IMP Maria-s? Maria-TRA ‘Is his mother not called Mary?’ (Matt. 13:55)

While in standard Estonian ema ‘mother’ has the same form in the nominative, genitive and partitive, in the 1905 southern Estonian NT the partitive form emmä is quite distinct, so there is no confusion about the case in (6.34). While most personal pronoun undergoers are partitive, in the 1686 NT there are two nominative 3rd person singular undergoers, one in a negative clause (6.35). The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 195

(6.35) ES 1686 ent essi ei sunnita temmä but self.NOM NEG judge.CONNEG.IMP 3SG.NOM kenki-st anyone-ELA ‘but he himself will not be judged by anyone’ (1 Cor 2:15)

Because the total results are heavily influenced by the large number of personal pronouns, the number of noun undergoers is shown in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Case of noun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1648–1656* 0 18 (100%) 18 0 0 1686 6 (26%) 17 (74%) 23 1 2 1857 10 (37%) 17 (63%) 27 2 3 1886 16 (52%) 15 (48%) 31 2 1 1905 6 (25%) 18 (75%) 24 4 2 Seto 1926** 15 (33%) 30 (67%) 45 5 2

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

There is considerable fluctuation of the percentages because of the small numbers, but some partitive noun undergoers are certainly found at all times, except in Gutslaff. In the 1857 revised edition some of the nominative undergoers from 1686 have been changed to partitive, as shown in (6.36).

(6.36) a. ES 1686 ku ütz Luhlihkminne auwuste-tas when one.NOM limb.SG.NOM honour-IMP

b. ES 1857 kui üt-te luliikmis-t auwuste-das when one-PAR limb.SG-PAR honour-IMP ‘when one limb is honoured’ (1 Cor. 12:26) 196 Chapter 6

The verb ‘honour’ generally takes a partitive object.

10. 2 Impersonal Stem with Personal Suffixes The unusual passive construction with an impersonal verb stem with personal suffixes, agreeing in person and number with a nominative undergoer, has been mentioned in Section 2.1.1. This construction is discussed further in conjunction with similar results from old Finnish in Section 13.2 below. Ikola (1950: 58) mentions an occasional ‑t suffix on the impersonal verb form in Müller’s sermons, and suggests that this is a 3rd person plural ending. In the 1686 NT only there are two identical examples of this construction with the passive verb agreeing with a 1st person nominative undergoer. This is shown in (6.37), with the change in 1857 and subsequent editions.

(6.37) a. ES 1686 kumma ga minna risti-ta which.GEN with 1SG.NOM baptize-PASS.1SG ‘with which I will be baptized’

b. ES 1857 mink-ga minno risti-tas which-COM 1SG.PAR baptize-IMP ‘with which I will be baptized’ (Matt. 20:22)

10.3 Periphrastic Passive There are several types of periphrastic passive constructions in the southern Estonian corpus:

(a) auxiliary olema ‘be’ with the passive past participle (b) auxiliary saama ‘become, get’ with the passive past participle in the translative case (c) auxiliary saama with the passive ‑ma infinitive (d) modal verb pidama ‘must’ with the passive ‑ma infinitive

Table 6.8 gives the results for (a) and (b). It can be seen that the use of the auxiliary saama decreases between 1857 and 1886. In Gutslaff’s text it is markedly prominent, especially when considering that this text is not complete. Kilgi (2012: 31) has also shown the greater incidence of the construction with saama in the early biblical texts. In the Seto text it is very limited, but as it is a different dialect and different time, there are various possible reasons for this. Even in the 1886 NT its use is decreasing, so The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 197

Table 6.8 Case distribution of the undergoer of periphrastic passive with olema and PPP, and with saama and PPP in brackets in the southern Estonian corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Partitive Nominative

1648–1656* 0 (1) 67 (129) 1 (1) 4 (10) 1686 0 (0) 91 (81) 3 (0) 5 (10) 1857 0 (2) 87 (81) 3 (0) 5 (10) 1886 1 (3) 90 (62) 2 (1) 5 (8) 1905 1 (2) 85 (61) 2 (1) 10 (6) Seto 1926** 0 (0) 56 (4) 1 (0) 1 (2)

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15 to 16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

the modernisation of the language may be the explanation. Certainly in the standard language it is limited and almost non-existent in the later texts in the corpus. The undergoers are predominantly nominative, with marginally more partitive ones with saama in affirmative clauses. The undergoer agrees in person and number with the auxiliary, except in those instances where there is a partitive undergoer. The partitive undergoers are very few, but indicate that there are some compound tense impersonal verbs among these. Although there are numerous instances which cannot be classified, it is likely that these are personal passives. The undergoer of the personal passive has the features of a subject.

10.4 Passive ‑ma Infinitive with pidama or saama The modal verb pidama ‘must’ together with the passive ‑ma infinitive forms an impersonal necessive construction. However, pidama is also often used in the old texts to translate the future in the original Greek and sollen or werden in the German translation. With saama the future is indicated, or in the past tense completion of the action, with stress on the process.Both of these auxiliary / modal verbs are only found in the 3rd person singular form in this construction. The distribution of the case of the undergoer in the corpus is shown in Table 6.9. The results are fairly similar for both auxiliaries, but the numbers are fewer with saama. 198 Chapter 6

Table 6.9 Case distribution of the undergoer of the passive ‑ma infinitive with pidama (saama in brackets) in the southern Estonian corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Partitive

1686 NT 4 (3) 4 (2) 0 (1) 1857 NT 3 (4) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1886 NT 5 (7) 2 (1) 1 (0) 1905 NT 7 (6) 7 (1) 3 (0)

There are no nominative undergoers in negative clauses. In the partial Gutslaff NT translation and the Seto corpus there are no passive ‑ma infinitives. Gutslaff uses saama with the translative case of the PPP instead of the passive ‑ma infinitive. Although this passive infinitive is a very marked form in modern standard Estonian, there is no sign of its decrease over time in the southern Estonian NT up to and including 1905, but none are present in the Seto gospel from 1926.

11 Northern (Standard) Estonian

11.1 Oldest Estonian Texts The first section deals with the oldest Estonian texts, Müller (1600–1606) and Stahl (1632, 1637b and 1641). Details of this part of the corpus are given in Chapter 2, Section 1.2.1. There is also brief mention of subsequent secular texts.

11.1.1 Impersonal The book of sermons by Müller from 1600–1606 has no examples of impersonal forms in the first 50 pages, but Ikola (1950: 58, 60) from the entire work quotes some present tense examples and three past tense ones. (Ikola 1950: 93) has some examples with a nominative undergoer. Looking through the rest of the text not included in the corpus I found a past tense negative impersonal verb with a nominative personal pronoun undergoer (6.38). The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 199

(6.38) E sÿß is leü-ti tæma mitte then NEG.PST find-IMP.PST 3SG.NOM NEG ‘then he was not found’ (Müller 1600–1606: 37: 14. 21–22, VAKK)

In this example, the undergoer tæma ‘he’ is nominative( homonymous with genitive), whereas partitive would be expected. In early texts the past tense impersonal connegative is often the affirmative impersonal verb rather than the passive past participle (Kilgi 2012: 35). Ikola (1950: 58) mentions an occasional ‑t suffix on the impersonal form in Müller’s sermons, and suggests that this is a 3rd person plural ending (see Section 2.1.1 for a discussion of impersonal verbs with personal suffixes). No such forms have been identified in the section included in the present corpus. In the Stahl corpus there are 18 clauses with impersonal verbs, which have a nominative undergoer in all 16 affirmative ones, and a partitive and a nominative one in the two negative ones. The partitive one is shown in (6.39).

(6.39) E kus ep and-taxe Jummala sullase-lle sihn where NEG give-IMP.PRS god.GEN servant.SG-ALL here ilma sees mah-dt world.GEN in land-PAR ‘where land is not given to God’s servant here in the world’ (Stahl LS 1641: 36)

While in his grammar Stahl (1637a: 9) divides verbs into impersonal and personal, and the personal ones further into active and passive, he writes nothing more about the impersonal. For the passive he gives only periphrastic forms with saama and olema (Stahl 1637a: 22–23). Willmann (1782), like Stahl, has very few impersonal verbs, even when the search is extended to 100 pages. Both partitive and nominative undergoers are represented, including a couple of partitive nouns. Masing (1818+1825) has 62/95 (65%) with partitive undergoers, including a few plural nouns, and 33 (35%) with nominative undergoers, so the partitive is certainly coming into its own at that time.

11.1.2 Periphrastic Passive The periphrastic passive is much more common than the impersonal, especially in Müller and Stahl. Stahl (1637a: 22–23) in his grammar gives five tenses for the personal passive, the present with sahma (saama), the imperfect with 200 Chapter 6 the past tense of sahma, and the perfect and pluperfect with ollema (olema). For the future tense he gives sahb sahma. All these auxiliaries govern the passive past participle. Table 6.10 shows the results from the corpus up to and including Masing.

Table 6.10 Case distribution of all undergoers of periphrastic passive verbs in the Estonian non-biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

Wanradt-Koell 1535 0 6 (100%) 6 0 0 Müller 1600–1608 0 109 (100%) 109 0 11 Stahl 1632+1641 4 (3%) 118 (97%) 122 4 11 Willmann 1782 4 (4%) 89 (96%) 93 1 5 Masing 1818+1825 9 (17%) 43 (83%) 52 0 2

The nominative undergoer is obviously the most common. If only nouns are taken into account, Stahl has no partitive noun undergoers, Willman has 4, and Masing 3 in affirmative clauses. All partitive undergoers in negative clauses are pronouns.

11.2 Northern Estonian Bible Texts St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians have been analysed for all impersonal and passive constructions, both affirmative and negative clauses being taken into consideration.

11.2.1 Impersonal The case distribution of all undergoers of impersonal verbs, including the interrogative and relative pronoun mis ‘which, what’ and keik~kõik ‘all’, is shown in Table 6.11. Table 6.12 shows noun undergoers only. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 201

Table 6.11 Case distribution of all undergoers of impersonal verbs in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1694 23 (31%) 52 (69%) 75 6 0 1715 34 (38%) 55 (62%) 89 6 3 1739 60 (58%) 44 (42%) 104 6 6 1903 56 (51%) 53 (49%) 109 4 2 1947 59 (40%) 87 (60%) 146 15 0 1968 59 (41%) 86 (59%) 145 20 0 1989 69 (52%) 64 (48%) 133 18 0 1997 68 (49%) 70 (51%) 138 22 0

Personal pronouns are almost exclusively partitive. There is one nominative 3rd person singular pronoun undergoer in the 1739 Bible where the undergoer is the subject of a preceding conjoined clause (6.40).

(6.40) E 1739 et temma kutöbbine on ja kurjaste that 3SG.NOM epileptic.SG.NOM be.3SG and cruelly waewa-takse torment-IMP ‘that he is epileptic and cruelly tormented’ (Matt. 17:15)

Even the earliest Bible translation has noun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the partitive case. The total number of transitive impersonal verbs increases across the early centuries, and flattens out after a peak in 1947, but there is no clear trend in the proportion of partitive undergoers, which fluctuates. Compared with the active voice, at all times there are fewer partitive undergoers among the impersonals. This difference is quite marked in the case of nouns. A possible explanation is the fact that the undergoer of an impersonal is focused, often occupies the subject position, and is more likely to be definite or specific. All these features favour the nominative case. 202 Chapter 6

Table 6.12 Case of noun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the northern (standard) Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1694 7 (22%) 25 (78%) 32 2 0 1715 13 (30%) 31 (70%) 44 4 1 1739 15 (34%) 29 (66%) 44 3 5 1903 17 (33%) 35 (67%) 52 6 1 1947 20 (29%) 48 (71%) 68 11 0 1968 15 (24%) 47 (76%) 62 19 0 1989 19 (32%) 40 (68%) 59 9 0 1997 19 (32%) 40 (68%) 59 14 0

In the early editions there are some negative clauses with a nominative undergoer, which are changed to partitive in 1903 (6.41). In (6.41a) the connegative has the active form, but semantically the clause is passive.

(6.41) a. E 1739 kui surnu-d ülles ei ärrata if dead-PL.NOM up NEG resurrect.CONNEG

b. E 1903 kui surnu-i-d üles ei äratata if dead-PL-PAR up NEG resurrect.CONNEG.PASS ‘if the dead are not resurrected’ (1 Cor. 15:15)

11.2.2 Periphrastic Passives The same constructions are found in the northern dialect as in the southern, except that there are no examples of saama ‘become’ with the passive ‑ma infinitive. Under the heading of periphrastic passives are included both the compound tense impersonal and the personal passives. The use of saama is much less frequent in northern than southern Estonian, with a peak of 14 tokens in 1715, down to 10 in 1903, and almost disappearing in the 1947 and subsequent editions. There is also a difference in the passive past participle, which in the northern dialect remains uninflected, but in the southern is in The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 203 the translative case with saama. Table 6.13 shows all undergoers of periphrastic passives with both olema and saama, including the relative pronoun mis and keik > kõik ‘all’.

Table 6.13 Case distribution of all undergoers of periphrastic passive verbs with olema and saama in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1694 1 (1%) 135 (99%) 136 2 14 1715 1 (1%) 123 (99%) 124 2 6 1739 1 (1%) 129 (99%) 130 2 13 1903 6 (5%) 119 (95%) 125 2 9 1947 1 (1%) 85 (99%) 86 3 8 1968 1 (1%) 83 (99%) 84 5 7 1989 11 (13%) 75 (87%) 86 7 5 1997 9 (9%) 87 (91%) 96 6 6

The earlier texts have more periphrastic passive verbs than the later ones, the inverse of the findings with the impersonal. This reflects the greater German influence in earlier times, where the German passive was more likely to be translated by the personal passive. Later, when German influence decreased with the rise of national consciousness in Estonia, the impersonal became more prominent than before, but the periphrastic passive certainly has not disappeared. By 1947 the number of impersonal verbs exceeds that of the periphrastic passive. It is obvious from these results that the periphrastic passives have far fewer partitive undergoers than the simple tense impersonal forms. While personal pronoun objects of active verbs are almost all partitive in the 1739 and 1903 editions, the undergoers of personal passives include quite a number of nominative personal and other pronouns. Because of the large number of pronoun undergoers, the results have been calculated also for nouns alone. Both auxiliaries are again combined in Table 6.14. 204 Chapter 6

Table 6.14 Case of noun undergoers of periphrastic passives with both auxiliaries in northern (standard) Estonian biblical texts

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Partitive Nominative

1694 0 42 0 8 1715 1 36 0 3 1739 1 32 0 10 1903 1 31 0 2 1947 1 27 2 4 1968 1 25 2 4 1989 1 29 7 5 1997 1 32 5 6

Nominative undergoers predominate. The one partitive noun undergoer is the same in 1715–1903, and a different one in the last four. In the Estonian corpus all verbs in the periphrastic constructions agree in person and number with the nominative undergoer. However, in the present tense the verb ‘be’ has the same form for 3rd person singular and plural, so on the basis of syntax alone, most clauses could be either impersonal or personal. The only ones which are definitely compound tense impersonal are those with a partitive undergoer, whether affirmative or negative. The only ones that can be called definitely personal passive are those with nominative undergoers in negative clauses and those with agreement of the auxiliary. Table 6.15 shows the classification into impersonal versus personal passive, as far as it can be done. This table includes affirmative and negative clauses, and those with both auxiliaries. By 1989 the definitely impersonal group has increased and the definitely personal has decreased, but the bulk are still unclassifiable.

11.2.3 Passive ‑ma Infinitive The passive ‑ma infinitive in Estonian is only found in the illative case. In the northern Estonian corpus there are no examples of this infinitive with saama ‘get, become’, except for three instances in 1694, all others having the modal pidama ‘must’, which, as well as indicating obligation, is also frequently used in the old texts to translate the future in the original Greek and sollen or werden The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 205

Table 6.15 Classification of periphrastic passives in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Impersonal Personal Ambiguous

1694 3 (5%) 52 (95%) 97 1715 4 (10%) 38 (90%) 90 1739 3 (6%) 50 (94%) 92 1903 8 (19%) 34 (81%) 94 1947 4 (15%) 22 (85%) 71 1968 6 (20%) 24 (80%) 66 1989 18 (49%) 19 (51%) 61 1997 15 (39%) 23 (61%) 70

in the German translation. Table 6.16 shows the case distribution of the undergoers of the passive ‑ma infinitive. The relative pronoun mis, which is only in the nominative form as object at this time has been excluded.

Table 6.16 Case distribution of the undergoer of periphrastic forms with a passive ‑ma infinitive in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1694 27 (68%) 13 (33%) 40 3 1 1715 27 (71%) 11 (29%) 38 5 0 1739 40 (83%) 8 (17%) 48 6 0 1903 34 (79%) 9 (21%) 43 4 0 1947 3 2 5 0 0 1968 3 2 5 0 0 1989 0 1 1 0 0 1997 0 1 1 0 0

It can be seen from the Table 6.16 that the partitive undergoer is much more frequent with this construction than for the periphrastic forms with the 206 Chapter 6

passive past participle. This indicates that these are impersonal constructions. This conclusion is further strengthened by the lack of nominative undergoers in negative clauses, except for the one example in the München manuscript (6.42a). The infinitive does of course also carry the impersonal morpheme ‑ta. By 1739 this construction with the passive ‑ma infinitive has been replaced by the simple tense impersonal (6.42b), but still with a nominative undergoer.

(6.42) a. E 1694 se Teotaminne Pühha waimo wasto the.NOM blasphemy.NOM holy.GEN spirit.GEN against ei sa mitte andeks.anne-ta-ma NEG become.CONNEG NEG forgive-PASS-maINF.ILL

b. E 1739 agga teotaminne pühha Waimo wasto but blasphemy.NOM holy.GEN spirit.GEN against ei anta mitte andeks NEG give.CONNEG.IMP NEG PTCL ‘but (the) blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven’ (Matt. 12:31)

By the time of the 1947 edition these constructions had decreased considerably, but the construction is still grammatical with the modal peab ‘must’ in the modern language, as shown by example (6.31) in Section 9.3, which is the same in the 1997 text.

12 Summary of Estonian Impersonal and Periphrastic Passive

In the oldest texts from the 17th century (Müller and Stahl), as well as Willmann in 1782 there are very few impersonal verbs. The impersonal construction with specific morphology would obviously present a difficulty for L2 speakers, as there is no comparable form in German, although Latin has something similar. However, in the biblical texts, even the southern Estonian NT from 1686 and the northern München manuscript from 1694, there are quite a few impersonal clauses, which increase slowly in number until the 1903 Bible. After that there is a moderate rise between 1903 and the 1947 NT, which then levels off. In the earliest non-biblical texts there are no partitive undergoers of impersonal verbs, but by the time of Masing in 1818 they are predominant. In the southern Estonian corpus the results contrast with those in the active voice where objects are almost exclusively partitive in the earliest biblical texts. Gutslaff (1648–1656) has no partitive undergoers of impersonal verbs, but the 1686 translation and later editions of the southern NT have 25–52% of partitive The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 207 noun undergoers. In the northern biblical corpus there are 22–34% partitives. Both dialects show some fluctuation in the proportion of partitives. As in the active voice, some negative clauses have nominative undergoers in the early texts, which are not seen later. The 1686 southern NT has a couple of examples where the impersonal verb has a personal ending agreeing in person and number with the nominative undergoer. Remnants of this are found in the present-day southern Võro dialect for the 3rd person plural. The periphrastic passive is particularly frequent in the earliest non-biblical texts, decreasing gradually over the centuries. The same trend is evident in the biblical texts. This shows the initial marked German influence which decreases over time. It is difficult to determine whether a periphrastic passive is a compound tense impersonal verb or a personal passive, due to the large number of clauses which could be either, but of those which can be classified the overwhelming proportion in Estonian is personal. The passive ‑ma infinitive is found in southern Estonian with both saama ‘get’ and pidama ‘must’, but only with pidama in the northern corpus, except for the München manuscript. It is still present in the latest editions of the standard language Bibles, but only very rarely. It is mentioned by Viitso (2007a: 64) in the modern language as the passive supine, used only with the verb pidama in its 3rd person singular form.

13 Finnish Diachronic Study

The Finnish corpus consists of seven editions of Bible texts (1548–1992), using St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians. In addition the first three chapters of the Finnish novel Seitsemän veljestä by Kivi (1870) have been included in the corpus, although transitive impersonal verbs are few in number.

13.1 Impersonal The results of the Finnish diachronic study of the undergoers of impersonal verbs are shown in Table 6.17. The case analysis is complicated by the fact that the singular nominative and partitive are not always distinguished in the written Finnish of that time. The few ambiguous forms found have been excluded. Impersonal verbs are commonly used from the earliest texts onwards, with the accusative (in the nominative form, and ‑t accusative for personal pronouns from 1906 onwards) markedly predominant as the case of the undergoer up to and including 1880. However, partitive ones are also found, most of which are pronouns. 208 Chapter 6

Table 6.17 Case distribution of all undergoers of impersonal verbs in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Accusative Total Partitive Nominative

1548 8 (6%) 119 (94%) 127 3 7 1642 12 (8%) 130 (92%) 142 6 7 1776 13 (9%) 131 (91%) 144 3 8 1880 11 (8%) 133 (92%) 144 3 8 1906 27 (26%) 76 (74%) 103 9 0 1938 31 (29%) 63 (71%) 108 15 0 1992 34 (29%) 85 (71%) 119 14 0 Kivi 1870 12 (39%) 19 (61%) 31 3 0

13.1.1 Pronouns The case distribution of personal pronoun undergoers is shown separately in Table 6.18. Here the alternation is between partitive and nominative-accusative (and later ‑t accusative) rather than partitive and genitive-accusative, which is found with active verbs in the early texts. Although Agricola uses plural ‑t accusatives, there are no examples of their use with impersonal verbs in the corpus or in St. Mark’s gospel, published by Magoun (1967). This is also so in the 1776 Bible, which regularly has plural ‑t accusative objects of verbs in the active voice. Häkkinen (1994: 249) comments on the finding of nominative personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs in old Finnish, and states that this was common until the 19th century. Such usage is current also for impersonal verbs in some present-day Finnish dialects, which use the genitive-accusative rather than the ‑t accusative for personal pronoun objects of active verbs (Lehtinen 1985: 270). Despite the findings in the old texts Lehtinen (1985: 275) suggests that these nominative forms have developed more recently due to analogy with singular noun objects. He regards the nominative personal pronouns as objects and not subjects. Contrary to some others he feels that the nominative personal pronouns are not due to Swedish influence, as they are found also in dialects not directly influenced by Swedish. The question of whether the nominative personal pronoun undergoer is the original form or whether it has come into the language due to foreign influence is discussed by deSmit (2006: 89). Jahnsson (1871: 15) The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 209

Table 6.18 Case distribution of personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nom-Acc

Nominative tAccusative

1548 3 (9%) 31 (91%) 0 0 2 1642 5 (13%) 34 (87%) – 1 1 1776 6 (15%) 34 (85%) 0 1 3 1880 5 (13%) 34 (87%) – 1 3 1906 9 (43%) 3 (14%) 9 (43%) 3 0 1938 12 (46%) – 14 (54%) 3 0 1992 9 (29%) – 22 (71%) 6 0 Kivi 1870 4 2 0 1 0 mentions the use of ‑t accusative objects of impersonal verbs in eastern Finnish dialects, but not in the written language. The examples he gives, however, are with a nominative or partitive personal pronoun. An example of a nominative personal pronoun undergoer from the corpus is shown in (6.43).

(6.43) F 1880 jo-lla minä kaste-taan which-ADE 1SG.NOM baptize-IMP ‘with which I will be baptized’ (Matt. 20:22)

After 1906 the ‑t accusative is the main case for personal pronoun objects of impersonal verbs in bounded clauses, and the nominative has disappeared from the standard written language. The results from Kivi’s novel are shown as an example of a different genre of writing, and are of course not directly comparable with the results from the biblical texts. There are no ‑t accusatives among the undergoers of impersonal verbs in the section in the corpus, although they are found inconsistently among objects of active verbs. Instead the nominative case of personal pronouns is used. Both examples involve the 3rd person, as in (6.44). The partitive is also found, but the numbers are too small to give any meaningful proportions. 210 Chapter 6

(6.44) F pois he kanne-ttiin away 3PL.NOM carry-IMP.PST ‘they were carried away’ (Kivi 1870 [2002]: 63)

Of non-personal pronoun undergoers, the most common partitive one in the biblical corpus is the relative pronoun mitä ‘which’, of which there are no nominative examples in the corpus, joka (NOM) ‘who, which’ being used instead.

13.1.2 Nouns The case distribution of noun undergoers is presented in Table 6.19.

Table 6.19 Case distribution of noun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1548 0 46 (100%) 46 3 4 1642 1 (2%) 53 (98%) 54 3 4 1776 3 (6%) 51 (94%) 54 2 4 1880 2 (4%) 53 (96%) 55 2 4 1906 6 (13%) 41 (87%) 47 13 0 1938 5 (11%) 40 (89%) 45 12 0 1992 14 (26%) 40 (74%) 54 11 0 Kivi 1870 8 (35%) 15 (65%) 23 1 0

Partitive noun undergoers of impersonal verbs are proportionately much fewer than those of active verbs, the difference being least in 1992. Most of the negative clauses containing nominative noun undergoers are questions expecting an affirmative answer as in (6.45). The form äitinsä could also be genitive singular, but the genitive form does not occur as the case of the undergoer of impersonal verbs in Finnish. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 211

(6.45) F 1880 ei-kö häne-n äiti-nsä NEG.3SG-Q 3SG-GEN mother.SG.NOM-3PX kutsuta Maria-ksi? call.CONNEG.IMP Maria-TRA is his mother not called Maria? (Matt. 13:55)

There is a gradual increase in the proportion of partitive undergoers over time, with a peak reached in 1992, but the accusative remains predominant throughout. The first Finnish novel by Kivi (1870), differs from the Bible of 1880 in having more partitive noun undergoers (34.8%), and shows a pattern closer to that of the 1992 Bible, but the number of tokens in the novel is smaller, and the genre different.

13.2 Impersonal Stem with Personal Suffixes As in Estonian, there are some examples in the oldest Finnish text, where the impersonal stem has personal suffixes. There is agreement in person and number with the nominative undergoer in all three instances of such impersonal forms in the 1548 NT corpus, which have been changed to the usual impersonal in 1642, but still with a nominative personal pronoun undergoer, as shown in (6.46b). I have glossed (6.46a) simply as passive. The corresponding clause from 1906 has the middle form muutua ‘change (INTR)’. The corresponding clause in the 1868 southern Estonian NT has a construction with the passive ‑ma infinitive.

(6.46) a. F 1548 waan caiki me mwte-ta-ma but all.NOM 1PL.NOM change-PASS.PRS-1PL

b. F 1642 waan caiki me muute-tan but all.NOM 1PL.NOM change-IMP.PRS ‘but we will all be changed’

c. F 1906 mutta kaikki me muutu-mme but all.NOM 1PL.NOM change.INTR-PRS.1PL ‘but we will all change’ (1 Cor. 15:51)

13.3 Periphrastic Passive All periphrastic forms are combined together due to the difficulty of separating the impersonal compound tenses from the personal passive or copula clauses 212 Chapter 6 with a passive past participle copula complement. The results with both olla ‘be’ and tulla ‘become’ are combined in Table 6.20. The auxiliary tulla takes the translative case of the passive past participle. There are only a few examples with tulla, four in the earlier texts and fewer in the later ones, with none in 1992.

Table 6.20 Case distribution of all undergoers of periphrastic passive verbs in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative -t Acc Total Partitive Nominative

1548 6 (5%) 110 (95%) 0 116 2 8 1642 6 (6%) 101 (94%) – 107 3 8 1776 11 (9%) 110 (91%) 0 121 2 10 1880 7 (6%) 103 (94%) – 110 2 10 1906 3 (4%) 75 (94%) 2 (3%) 80 3 10 1938 2 (2%) 82 (95%) 2 (2%) 86 5 10 1992 5 (8%) 56 (85%) 5 (8%) 66 9 2 Kivi 1870 3 (14%) 19 (86%) 0 22 0 0

Overall numbers of periphrastic passives are somewhat smaller than those of impersonal ones. The number has decreased by the 20th century, but there is no increase in the impersonal ones, suggesting that other constructions have taken the place of the previous passive ones, perhaps as a result of wanting to avoid foreign influence. The nominative case predominates at all times. The ‑t accusative first appears in 1906, but to a limited extent. The results for noun undergoers are shown separately in Table 6.21. As can be seen, the noun undergoers are overwhelmingly nominative. The partitive ones in Table 6.20 are entirely pronouns in the two earliest texts, and mostly so also later. The proportion of partitives in negative clauses, especially of nouns, is minimal until 1992. A large number of clauses cannot be classified into impersonal and personal passive because of singular nominative undergoers and the 3rd person singular of olla. Table 6.22 shows the classification of the periphrastic passive clauses. This table includes both affirmative and negative clauses. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 213

Table 6.21 The case of noun undergoers of periphrastic passive verbs in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Nominative Partitive Nominative

1548 0 32 (100%) 0 4 1642 0 31 (100%) 0 4 1776 2 (5%) 36 (95%) 0 5 1880 2 (5%) 36 (95%) 0 5 1906 2 (7%) 28 (93%) 1 6 1938 1 (3%) 28 (97%) 2 6 1992 2 (6%) 34 (94%) 6 2 Kivi 1870 0 10 (100%) 0 0

Table 6.22 Classification of periphrastic passive clauses in the Finnish corpus

Impersonal Personal Ambiguous

1548 8 (12%) 60 (88%) 58 1642 9 (14%) 54 (86%) 55 1776 12 (17%) 57 (83%) 64 1880 8 (13%) 56 (88%) 58 1906 8 (19%) 34 (81%) 51 1938 9 (19%) 38 (81%) 54 1992 27 (90%) 3 (10%) 47

The results are very similar until 1992 with the personal passive predominant and definitely impersonal ones very few. Although there are still many unclassifiable clauses in 1992, it does appear that the personal passive is now less frequent than in earlier times, presumably due to a deliberate avoidance of foreign influence.

13.3.1 Periphrastic Passive Necessive Constructions There are some special instances in the corpus which combine a necessive construction with a periphrastic passive one, where the complement of pite ~ 214 Chapter 6 pitää ‘must’ is the active instructive ‑ma infinitive oleman of the auxiliary olla, combined with a passive past participle. The apparent subject of pitää is at the same time the undergoer of the compound tense passive, and hence it cannot be agentive. Unlike the auxiliary ‘be’, pitää in its necessive sense is always invariable in the 3rd person singular form. The case of the undergoer varies in the corpus. Example (6.47) illustrates the variation. The passive past participle agrees in number with its undergoer, and in (6.47b and c) also in case, but not so in (6.47a).

(6.47) a. F 1880 että waimo-n pitä-is that woman.SG-GEN must-COND 3SG keri-tty eli ajel-tu close.crop-PPP.SG.NOM or shave-PPP.SG.NOM ole-ma-n be-maINF-INST ‘that a woman should be (have her hair) closely cropped or shaved’ (1 Cor. 11:6)

b. F 1880 se-n pitä-ä ole-ma-n that-GEN must-3SG be-maINF-INST pääste-ty-n taiwa-i-ssa release-PPP.SG-GEN heaven-PL-INE ‘that (person) must be released in heaven’ (Matt. 16:19)

c. F 1880 kaikki . . . pitä-ä ole-ma-n all.PL.NOM must-3SG be-maINF-INST pääste-ty-t release-PPP-PL.NOM ‘all . . . must be released’ (Matt. 18:18)

With an active infinitive with pitää (in the modern language the ‑ta infinitive) the agentive subject is genitive, although non-agentive ones (which are also objects of the infinitive) are sometimes nominative (Laitinen 1993: 154). DeSmit (2006: 117) has pointed out that in old Finnish the case-marking of the argument of pitää resembles the accusative case-marking of that time, with all singular and plural personal pronouns and singular non-personal pronouns and nouns in the genitive form, and plural nouns and non-personal pronouns in the nominative form, which he explains by assuming a merger of the subject The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 215 of pitää + an active infinitival complement, and the patient (object) of pitää + a passive past participle. The above results fit with that suggestion, where the auxiliary oleman (be.maINF.INST) is an active infinitival complement of pitää together with a passive past participle.

13.4 Passive ‑ma Infinitives with pitää There are necessive constructions where pitää governs a passive ‑ma infinitive in the instructive case, with the suffix ‑t(t)aman. The passive ‑ma infinitive occurs only with pitää, and is found in the older section of the corpus. Häkkinen (1994: 313) mentions this construction in Agricola’s writings. The case of the undergoer is variable, but the nominative form predominates. A small number of partitive ones are found. In the 1548 NT there are a number of genitive pronoun undergoers, of which only one remains in 1642 and 1880. In 1906 there are no examples, but in the 1938 translation a small number with nominative undergoers is again present. There are none in the 1992 translation, but the passive ‑ma infinitive in the instructive case is still mentioned in the modern Finnish grammar (VISK §121 and §1313). Some ambiguous ones with possessive suffixes have been omitted from the table. There are 4 in 1548, 1642 and 1880, and 2 in 1776. Table 6.23 sets out the case distribution of the undergoers of the passive ‑ma infinitive.

Table 6.23 Case of the undergoer of the passive ‑ma infinitive in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Genitive Nominative Partitive Genitive Nominative

1548 2 (6%) 10 (31%) 20 (63%) 1 1 2 1642 3 (14%) 0 18 (86%) 2 0 1 1776 4 (17%) 0 20 (83%) 4 0 1 1880 4 (17%) 1 (4%) 18 (78%) 4 0 1 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 1938 0 0 4 (100%) 0 0 0

Except for one singular noun, the genitive undergoers in 1548 are all singular or plural personal pronouns and other singular pronouns. Some examples of this 216 Chapter 6 construction are shown in (6.48) and (6.49) with the change in a later edition to a simple tense impersonal and an active clause respectively.

(6.48) a. F 1548 Jumala-n waldakunda pite tei-lde god-GEN kingdom.NOM must.3SG 2PL-ABL poisote-tta-ma-n away.take-PASS-maINF-INST ‘the kingdom of God must / will be taken away from you’

b. F 1906 Jumala-n valtakunta ote-taan tei-ltä pois god-GEN kingdom.NOM take-IMP.PRS 2PL-ABL away ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you’ (Matt. 21:43)

(6.49) a. F 1548 että tei-den pite hei-lde that 2PL-GEN must.3SG 3PL-ABL näch-te-me-n see-PASS-maINF-INST ‘that you would be seen by them’

b. F 1906 että he tei-tä katsel-isi-vat that 3PL.NOM 2PL-PAR look.at-COND-3PL ‘that they would look at you’ (Matt. 6:1)

Example (6.48a) has waldakunda (undergoer of pite + passive ‑ma infinitive) in the nominative, as is the norm for accusative undergoers of impersonal passive verbs. The personal pronoun undergoer in (6.49a), on the other hand, is in the genitive form, as is common for subjects of pitää as well as for objects of nähdä ‘see’.

13.5 Passive -ta Infinitives Passive ‑ta infinitives are not found in modern Finnish, but a form which is similar to the causative does occur in the early biblical texts. Ylikoski (2005: 617) in his review of Elävä kielioppi. Suomen infiniitisten rakenteiden dynamiikkaa (eds Ilona Herlin and Laura Visapää) discusses the chapter by Jaakko Leino, mentioning the existence of the passive ‑ta infinitive in written old Finnish. The occurrence of passive ‑ta infinitives is also mentioned by Jääskeläinen (2011). According to Jääskeläinen, Jaakko Leino states that this form disappeared from biblical texts in 1938, but in the present limited corpus it is no longer evident The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 217 in 1906 or in the later translations. Like the active ‑ta infinitive it is governed by modals such as voida or taita ‘be able’ and also in the construction with antaa ‘let’. The passive ‑ta infinitive has a causative meaning and morphologically also it resembles causatives, but with passive semantics. In a number of instances the passive ‑ta infinitive is found as an adjunct rather than the complement of a modal verb. Those examples are not included among the undergoers in the Table 6.24.

Table 6.24 Case of undergoers of passive ‑ta infinitives in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative

Partitive Genitive Nominative Partitive Genitive Nominative

1548 1 2 4 3 1 2 1642 0 2 4 3 0 1 1776 0 3 4 4 0 1 1880 0 3 4 4 0 1

The undergoer is at the same time the subject of the modal and the undergoer of the passive infinitive. (6.50)–(6.52).

(6.50) F 1548 woi-tta-co . . . ia caste-tta si-lle be.able-2.PL-Q and baptize-PASS.taINF that-ADE caste-l baptism-ADE ‘will you be able [to drink the cup,which I must drink] and to be baptized with that baptism [which I will be baptized with]’ (Matt. 20:22)

In (6.50) the modal verb agrees with a dropped nominative 2nd person plural pronoun.

(6.51) a. F 1642 Jesuxe-n ando-i hän ruoski-tta Jesus-GEN/ACC let-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM whip-PASS.taINF ja ristiinnauli-tta and crucify-PASS.taINF ‘Jesus he let be/gave to be whipped and crucified’ 218 Chapter 6

b. F 1906 Jeesukse-n hän ruoskitt-i ja Jesus-GEN/ACC he whip-PST.3SG and anto-i ristiinnauli-tta-va-ksi let-PST.3SG crucify-PASS-PRS.PTCP-TRA ‘Jesus he whipped and let be crucified’ (Matt. 27:26)

(6.52) a. F 1642 äl-kät te anda-co NEG.IMPV-2PL 2PL.NOM let.CONNEG.IMPV-2PL tei-tä-n cudzu-tta Rabbixi 2PL-PAR-2PL.PX call-PASS.taINF rabbi.SG.TRA ‘don’t let yourselves be called rabbi’

b. F 1992 äl-kää te anta-ko NEG.IMPV-2PL 2PL.NOM let.CONNEG.IMPV-2PL kutsu-a itse-ä-nne rabbi-ksi call-taINF self-PAR-2PL.PX rabbi-SG.TRA ‘don’t let yourselves be called rabbi’ (Matt. 23:8)

In the older texts the reflexive itse is often replaced by the relevant personal pronoun in the object case + the corresponding possessive suffix, which is commonly abbreviated, as in (6.52a). In (6.52a) we have a negative clause where the object of both älkät andaco and the passive infinitive is partitive. In 1992 the passive ‑ta infinitive has been replaced by the active.

14 Comparison of Estonian and Finnish

A comparison of the language situation in Estonian and Finland in the 16th and 17th century and beyond has been made by Savijärvi (1992) as well as others. This has been summarized in Chapter 5, Section 7. The present study shows that in early Finnish texts there are more impersonal than periphrastic passives, while the reverse is found in Estonian. Impersonal verbs in both languages have a smaller proportion of partitive undergoers (logical objects) than is found among objects of active verbs. In Finnish the early texts up to and including 1880 have few partitive undergoers of impersonal verbs (6–8%), whereas later the proportion of partitives rises. However, the nominative undergoer of the impersonal passive is always predominant. In southern Estonian, except for Gottschalk (1648–1656), the The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 219 partitive undergoers of impersonal verbs fluctuate between 43 and 63%, in northern Estonian between 38 and 58%. Both Estonian dialects have a higher proportion of partitives than Finnish. Such is also the finding with verbs in the active voice. In early texts in both languages a few nominative undergoers are found in negative clauses. The southern Estonian NT (1686) and Agricola’s Finnish NT translation (1548) have a few examples of the impersonal form with personal suffixes agreeing in person and number with the undergoer, which is nominative and which thus appears to be functioning as a subject. Häkkinen (1994: 251) also gives examples from Agricola’s writings. Kangasmaa-Minn (1979: 99) mentions the finding of such forms in old Finnish, and suggests that these arose in Agricola’s writings from Indo-European contact, as such forms are not found in Finnish dialects. Lehtinen (1985: 285) expresses a similar opinion. DeSmit (2006: 89), on the other hand, quoting various sources, suggests that it could be a relic of a previous personal passive rather than due to contact. Southern Estonian even today has similar forms showing agreement, but only with the 3rd person plural. Personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs in the nominative case with no verbal agreement are common in the Finnish corpus up to and including the 1880 Bible. Although the 1776 has plural ‑t accusatives, the personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs in bounded situations are all nominative. The 1906 NT has more partitive ones, and the ‑t accusative is taking over from the nominative-accusative. In 1938 there are no more nominative personal pronoun undergoers. Kivi (1870) is closer to the 1938 than the 1880 Bible. Estonian is quite different in that partitive personal pronouns are predominant throughout the impersonal paradigm with only a few 3rd person pronouns in the nominative form. The periphrastic passives are prominent in the early texts in both languages, and in the early Estonian non-biblical texts are almost exclusive. This can be attributed to the marked German influence in those texts. The greater use of the impersonal by Agricola in the 1548 New Testament may be due to Swedish influence, and probably also to a good native knowledge of Finnish. The knowledge of Estonian by the German pastors in the early part of the 17th century was limited. Partitive undergoers are found only in the impersonal and are somewhat less frequent than in active clauses. The compound tenses of the impersonal and the whole personal passive paradigm have a similar structure, consisting of an auxiliary and the passive past participle, and are often not able to be distinguished from each other. The partitive undergoer is much less frequent in this combined group, but all with partitive undergoers are impersonal. Of the 220 Chapter 6 periphrastic passives in modern Finnish, it appears that the compound tenses of the impersonal are more frequent than in Estonian, where the personal passive appears to dominate, although in both languages there are many clauses where the differentiation cannot be made. Both Estonian and Finnish have passive ‑ma infinitives, the Estonian in the illative case and the Finnish in the instructive case. These are found in necessive constructions with pidama / pitää ‘must’, and also with saama ‘become’ in southern Estonian. Finnish also has occasional passive ‑ta infinitives in the texts up to and including 1880 in the corpus. There is no evidence of such infinitives in Estonian.

15 Karelian

The older translations of St. Matthew’s gospel from 1820 and 1864 are compared with the gospel in the Olonets NT from 2003. As with the 2003 translation, the older ones also have the 3rd person plural active verb cognate with the impersonal in other Finnic languages. As I have done elsewhere (in Chapters 4 and 5) I have somewhat arbitrarily divided the examples into those where there is an expressed or clearly understood subject from a previous clause or the context, which are discussed under the active voice, and those where there is no obvious subject, although it could be rendered in English by the anonymous ‘they’. The latter I have termed impersonal. As in the other languages the passive past participle combines with the verb ‘be’ to form periphrastic passives.

15.1 Impersonal The older texts differ from the Olonets one in that non-partitive undergoers of the impersonal verbs are genitive-accusative for singular nouns and nominative- accusative for plural nouns and numerals greater than one. It is thus easier to regard the verbs as active, but in order to compare with the Olonets I have not grouped them together with the active ones. Genetz (1885: 191) mentions that in Aunus (Olonets) the 3rd person plural verb is that of the impersonal voice, and no other form is used. Table 6.25 shows the case distribution of the undergoers of simple tense impersonal verbs. Ojajärvi (1950a: 112) points out that the partitive is mostly used for personal pronouns in situations where noun objects are nominative, for example as undergoers of impersonal verbs. This is so also in the Olonets (2003) NT, where all the personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs are parti- The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 221

Table 6.25 Case distribution of all undergoers of impersonal verbs in St. Matthew’s gospel in Karelian

Partitive Genitive Nominative tAccusative Total

1820 Tver 12 (26%) 23 (49%) 10 (21%) 2 (4%) 47 1864 South Karelian 13 (26%) 24 (48%) 11 (22%) 2 (4%) 50 2003 Olonets 54 (55%) 0 44 (45%) – 98

tive, but so are personal pronoun objects in all constructions. In the other two gospel translations, 5 were partitive, 2 singular ones genitive and 2 plural ones ‑t accusative. Example (6.53) shows a relative pronoun undergoer, which is nominative in 1820 and genitive in 1864 and in the corresponding active clause in 2003. This is the only singular undergoer of an impersonal verb in the nominative form in the 1820 gospel.

(6.53) a. K 1820 kumbane kavpa-ttiih Izruaeli-n poij-i-sta which.SG.NOM sell-IMP.PST Israel-GEN son-PL-ELA

b. K 1864 kumbaze-n kaupa-tih Izruaeli-n poj-i-sta which.SG-GEN sell-IMP.PST Israel-GEN son-PL-ELA ‘(the price) for which He was sold by the sons of Israel’

c. K 2003 kudama-n Izraiľa-n rahvas pan-i which.SG-GEN Israel-GEN people.SG.NOM put-3SG Häne-le 3SG-ALL ‘(the price) which the people of Israel put on him’ (Matt. 27:9)

Noun undergoers are listed in Table 6.26. The genitive singular noun objects in the earlier translations are all nominative in 2003 or expressed in other ways. Thus, in the earlier two texts, the accusative case forms of undergoers of impersonal verb forms, even when there is no expressed subject, have the same morphological forms as those of objects of active verbs, while in St. Matthew’s gospel in the 2003 Olonets NT singular 222 Chapter 6

Table 6.26 Case distribution of noun undergoers of impersonal verbs in St. Matthew’s gospel in Karelian

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1820 Tver 5 (18%) 14 (50%) 9 (32%) 28 1864 South Karelian 6 (19%) 14 (45%) 11 (36%) 31 2003 Olonets 12 (29%) 0 29 (71%) 41

noun accusative undergoers are in the nominative form as for Finnish and Estonian objects of the cognate impersonal verbs.

15.2 Periphrastic Passive The periphrastic passives are formed with the auxiliary olla ‘be’, including its potential form, and the passive past participle. The total number of periphrastic passive forms is similar in all three translations: 31 affirmative clauses in each of the earlier texts and 33 in 2003, with 2–4 negative clauses.The periphrastic passives in 1820 and 1864 all have nominative undergoers in negative as well as affirmative clauses, with the auxiliary mostly agreeing in number with the undergoer. In 1820 the agreement in number between the undergoer and the passive past participle is inconsistent, in 1864 all the plurals are con- gruent. Singular nouns and non-personal pronouns have the default 3rd person singular auxiliary and singular PPP, so it is not possible to decide whether these belong to the compound tense impersonal or the personal passive paradigms. However, from the general agreement of the plural and personal pronoun undergoers with the auxiliary, as well as the nominative undergoers in negative clauses, it appears that the majority of the periphrastic passives are personal ones. The results are quite different in 2003, where there are two partitive undergoers in affirmative clauses and one in a negative clause. There is lack of agreement between the undergoer and the auxiliary in 7 instances. Thus there are 10 clauses where the undergoer appears to be the object and the verb must be impersonal. There were no instances of definite agreement, and the rest were all ambiguous. (In 1 Corinthians 2003 there were some examples of agreement—see Section 9.2 for the combined results of the gospel and the letter in the 2003 NT). The early texts favour the personal passive, but the 2003 Olonets translation appears to have more impersonal periphrastic passives. However, the number The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 223 of these is relatively small, so it appears that Karelian has not followed the example of Estonian and Livonian, where foreign influence resulted in a large number of personal passives. In Karelian there is more Slavic influence, where the passive semantics is often rendered by the impersonal use of the 3rd person plural or by the use of a reflexive form.

16 Livonian

In Livonian there is no impersonal voice in either of the older texts from 1863, just as there is none in the 1942 New Testament. There are a few examples of the active 3rd person verb being used without a subject in all three translations, as in (6.54).

(6.54) L 1942 ja tǟn-da nuta-bõd . . . Emanuel and 3SG-PAR call-3PL Immanuel.NOM ‘and they will call him . . . Immanuel / he will be called Immanuel’ (Matt. 1:23)

The personal passive is present in all three translations, formed with the verb volda ‘be’ or sād(õ)~sōd(õ) ‘become’ and the passive past participle. The undergoer is nominative and agrees in person and number with the auxiliary, and is grammatically a subject. In this respect it resembles the English passive. In some cases the construction could also be interpreted as a copula clause with the passive past participle as the copula complement. There is one clause with a partitive undergoer, which occurs in all the translations (6.55).

(6.55) LW 1863 äb midāgid äb uo NEG.3SG something.PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG jera vaŕ-dõd away hide-PPP ‘nothing is hidden away’ (Matt. 10:26)

Such a clause in the other languages might be called a compound tense impersonal, but as Livonian does not have an impersonal construction, this is either a personal passive or a copula clause. Although partitive subjects are not generally found in copula clauses, the indefinite pronoun ‘something, nothing’ can occur as the subject of a copula clause in any of the languages, especially in 224 Chapter 6 older editions (see Chapter 8, Section 1). The constructions with sādõ are very numerous, and have a dynamic force, with something about to be done or having been done, so for those the passive interpretation is more appropriate, as in (6.56).

(6.56) LW 1863 se jumāl vālištõks sā-b tei-šti the.NOM god.GEN kingdom.NOM shall-3SG 2PL-ELA jera vut-tõd away take-PPP ‘the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you’ (Matt. 21:43)

In the earlier texts sādõ is more frequent than volda, with 68% of 164 passives in the eastern dialect and 66% of 180 in the western, while in the 1942 New Testament volda has the edge with 56% of 153. In the oral collection periphrastic passives are much less frequent than in the written texts, which are translations from Indo-European languages. The undergoer is overwhelmingly nominative. In the East Livonian oral collection there are two partitive undergoers in negative clauses, which is interesting, as Livonian does not otherwise have an impersonal voice. The negative polarity is possibly the main factor here, even though Livonian is not as strict as other Finnic languages about using the partitive for objects of negative verbs. In (6.57) the object leibə ‘bread’ is quantitatively indefinite, but in (6.58) there is a count noun.

(6.57) L leib-ə mä’ddə-n is sō ant-tət bread-SG.PAR 1PL-DAT NEG.PST.3SG get.CONNEG give-PPP ‘we were not given bread’ (lit. ‘did not get given bread’) (Kettunen 1925a: 59)

(6.58) L is sō ant-tət vagòn-ttə NEG.PST.3SG get.CONNEG give-PPP wagon.SG-PAR ‘a wagon was not given’ (lit. ‘did not get given’) (Kettunen 1925a: 57)

17 Veps

The two versions of St. Matthew’s gospel available in Veps are only separated by eight years, but they are not identical. The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 225

17.1 Impersonal Impersonal verbs are found in both in much the same numbers. Genitive- accusative undergoers are more frequent in the 1998 translation than in 2006. As in Karelian, although to a lesser extent, this relates to the confusion between true impersonals and 3rd person plural active verbs. The vast majority of the nominative noun objects are singular. All negative clauses of the simple tenses of the impersonal have a partitive undergoer. Table 6.27 shows the case distribution overall and separately for noun undergoers in affirmative clauses.

Table 6.27 Case distribution of undergoers of affirmative impersonal verbs in the Veps corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

All objects 1998 35 (36%) 15 (15%) 47 (48%) 97 2006 34 (38%) 6 (7%) 50 (56%) 90 Nouns 1998 9 (19%) 5 (11%) 33 (70%) 47 2006 7 (17%) 3 (7%) 31 (76%) 41

An example of a genitive undergoer is given in (6.59). This clause could be considered as having a 3rd person plural active verb, with the meaning ‘they call’, but most 3rd person plural verbs have the suffix ‑ba, cognate with the Finnish -vat.

(6.59) V 1998 se-n pöudo-n kuc-tas Veripöudo-ks this-GEN field.SG-GEN call-IMP field.of.blood-TRA ‘this field is called the Field of Blood’ (Matt. 27:8)

The Chude corpus (Lönnrot 1853) gives some idea of earlier Veps. In that part of the corpus the impersonal form of the verb is used for the 3rd person plural active, as in Karelian. There are only two examples where there are no expressed subjects, one with a genitive and one with a partitive object. The oral collection of southern Veps (Kettunen (1925b) has three impersonal verbs (without evident subjects) with genitive objects. In this collection there is a mixture of the impersonal form and the form cognate with the Finnish active -vat used as the active 3rd person plural active verb. 226 Chapter 6

17.2 Periphrastic Passive Periphrastic passives are formed with the verb ‘be’ in its usual indicative mood as well as in the potential mood. Both are combined in Table 6.28.

Table 6.28 Case distribution of the undergoer of periphrastic passive forms in the Veps corpus

Partitive Nominative Total

1998 3 (7%) 40 (93%) 43 2006 2 (6%) 33 (94%) 35

There is not a great deal of difference between the two translations, as far as periphrastic passives are concerned. The total number is lower in 2006. The periphrastic passive is also found in Chude, formed with the verb ‘be’ in both the indicative and potential mood, but the auxiliary often omitted. The undergoer is nominative. The same applies to the oral collection of southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b).

18 General Summary

The passive in Estonian and Finnish is divided broadly into two groups: impersonal and personal passive. There is an overlap between the personal passive and the compound tenses of the impersonal, which have been analysed together under the label of ‘periphrastic passive’. There is also an overlap between the personal passive and copula clauses with a passive past participle as the copula complement. Impersonal constructions are found in all the languages studied, except Livonian, which only has the personal passive. Karelian uses the form cognate with the Finnish impersonal for the 3rd person plural active voice, thus blurring the distinction between active and passive. There are different opinions about whether the passive exists in Karelian, but the form in question is often used without a subject to translate the passive in the source language. The case of the undergoer (patient, logical object) alternates between partitive and accusative, as do objects of active verbs, but the accusative is mostly in the nominative form for singular as well as plural nouns. The older Karelian texts are exceptions to this, having singular genitive-accusative undergoers The Undergoer (Logical Object) of Impersonal and Passive Verbs 227 of verbs with impersonal morphology, with or without a subject, while in the 2003 Olonets translation the majority are nominative in form. This points to the older texts not having an impersonal voice, but rather using the 3rd person plural form without a subject, with the meaning ‘they do’. The latest Olonets text in most instances treats the singular noun undergoers of 3rd person plural verbs in a manner similar to Finnish and Estonian impersonals, whether there is a subject or not. For the sake of comparing the languages I have made an arbitrary division between 3rd person plural verbs with a subject and those without, calling the latter impersonal. In Veps also, there is an overlap between 3rd person plural active verbs and the impersonal voice, with the genitive form being used for some accusative undergoers of impersonals. However, most 3rd person plural active verbs are cognate with those in Finnish in the biblical corpus. Karelian and Veps under Russian influence also make use of reflexive verbs to translate the passive in the source language. When personal pronoun undergoers of impersonal verbs are taken into account, Finnish has a smaller proportion of partitives than the other languages, with both Karelian and Veps having only partitive objects. In Finnish accusative personal pronouns are in the ‑t accusative case. However, looking at nouns only, Estonian stands out as having a higher proportion of partitives, with the others closer to Finnish. In all the languages impersonal verbs have fewer partitive objects than active verbs. The most likely explanation is that in the impersonal construction the subject is suppressed, and thus the object has greater prominence, and is more often definite or at least specific, thus favouring the nominative-accusative case over the partitive. Viitso (1998: 112) places the origin of the impersonal form in the Proto-Finnic period. Historically in Finnish there is some evidence that the impersonal in the past had personal features, and that the undergoer was previously more like a subject, with personal pronouns being nominative. Accusative personal pronoun objects of active verbs are in the genitive form in old Finnish texts, but not undergoers of impersonal verbs. In the early texts (Finnish NT 1548 and southern Estonian NT 1686) there are a few instances of impersonal verb stems having personal suffixes, agreeing in person and number with the nominative undergoer. Otherwise in Estonian the personal pronoun undergoers are predominantly partitive in the older texts, as are personal pronoun objects of verbs in the active voice. The development of object features has been noted, including the nominative-partitive alternation, with the partitive used in negative clauses, and the use of the ‑t accusative for personal pronoun undergoers in Finnish. Nowadays most linguists consider the undergoer of an impersonal verb to be an object. 228 Chapter 6

Passive ‑ma and ‑ta infinitives are found in old Finnish. They have disappeared from the 1906 NT, but a few have resurfaced in 1938, only to disappear again in 1992. In Estonian passive ‑ma infinitives are numerous in older texts, but an occasional instance is found also in the modern language. These are used mainly in necessive constructions as complements of pidama / pitää ‘must’ to translate the German werden and sollen, but also with saama ‘get’ in old southern Estonian, with the meaning ‘will be done’. As a result of foreign influence, the personal passive is more prevalent in the older texts than in the recent ones, especially in Estonian. The early Estonian writers used very few impersonal forms, but even their limited appearance indicates that they were present in the speech of the people at the time. In Finnish, however, impersonal forms are seen to be more frequent than personal passive ones even in the earliest Bible translations. In Livonian the personal passive is particularly prevalent, as it is the only passive construction in that language. The total number of periphrastic passives is similar in Finnish, Karelian and Veps, but of those able to be classified into personal passive and compound tense impersonal, modern Finnish has more impersonals than the other languages. CHAPTER 7 Object Case in Relation to Verb Form

1 Introduction

As case alternation depends on boundedness, an important constituent of which is the form of the verb, a study was carried out looking at objects of imperative verbs, infinitives and participles. It is expected that objects of infin‑ itives and present participles would be more likely to be in the partitive case, and this has been the finding for the ‑ma infinitive by Kont (1963: 119). The present study has been carried out to look at this quantitatively, and to show any differences between the various Finnic languages. Passive infinitives have been discussed in Chapter 6. Passive participles are described in this chap‑ ter in Sections 4.2 and 4.4. All the synchronic and the Estonian and Finnish diachronic data come from St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians, while the diachronic data in the other languages comes only from the gospel. Some sec‑ ular material is used in addition for Veps to get some historical perspective. Affirmative clauses only have been included in the tables, although some men‑ tion of negative ones is made in Livonian.

2 Imperative Verbs

2.1 Synchronic Study Canonically in Finnic languages the accusative noun object of imperative verbs is expressed by the nominative form in the singular and plural. The main exception is Livonian, where the singular non-partitive object is in the genitive case (Kettunen 1938: XLI), although for many nouns it has the same form as the nominative. The following example shows an object in the genitive-accusative case, where the morphology is different from the nominative (7.1).

(7.1) L ēta-gid äbkȭlbatõb pālkaliz ulzõ throw-IMPV.2PL useless servant.SG.GEN/ACC out ‘throw the useless servant out’ (Matt. 25:30)

* Some of the material in this chapter has been published in Lees (2010).

Plural nominative and genitive nouns are always homonymous, so any plu‑ ral object could also be considered genitive. In the 1942 New Testament the determiner is genitive for plural noun objects in the genitive / nominative case, suggesting this possibility (see Chapter 4, Section 2.2 for a detailed discussion). There are no instances in the 1942 NT of plural objects of imperative verbs with a genitive determiner which is not a possessive pronoun, nor are there any nominative determiners. Accusative 3rd person plural pronouns as objects are in the genitive form. There are no 1st person objects of imperative verbs in the Livonian corpus. Example (7.2) illustrates the difference between Livonian and the other languages.

(7.2) a. E kisu ta välja tear.IMPV.2SG 3SG.NOM/ACC out

b. L kīsk täm ulzõ tear.IMPV.2SG 3SG.GEN/ACC out

c. F repäise se irti tear.IMPV.2SG it.NOM/ACC loose

d. K kiško se tear.IMPV.2SG it.NOM/ACC

e. V ratkaida se tear.IMPV.2SG it.NOM/ACC ‘tear it out’ (Matt. 5:29)

The above set of examples shows the use of the genitive-accusative object of an imperative verb in Livonian. Estonian and Livonian need a bounding par‑ ticle, but for the other languages the sense is complete just with the use of the accusative, although Finnish does have a bounding element in this instance. It also illustrates the use of the animate 3rd person pronoun for non-animate objects in Estonian and Livonian. A 3rd person pronoun plural object is also in the genitive-accusative form in Livonian (7.3).

(7.3) L tūo-gid nänt min jūr bring-IMPV.2PL 3PL.GEN/ACC 1SG.GEN to ‘bring them to me’ (Matt. 21:2) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 231

When the situation is not bounded, the object is expected to be partitive in all the languages. In Finnish the ‑t accusative is used for personal pronoun objects of impera‑ tives in bounded situations. In Estonian 3rd person objects can be nominative- accusative, but 1st and 2nd person singular and plural are only in the partitive case, whether the clause is bounded or not. In the corpus the latest Karelian and Veps texts have only partitive personal pronoun objects. Lehtinen (1985: 271) mentions that in some Finnish dialects, which do not have a ‑t accusative, nominative personal pronouns can be found as objects of imperative verbs, although the partitive is more common. Ojajärvi (1950a: 112), in discussing the Maaselkä dialect of Karelian, points out that partitive personal pronouns are often used where a noun object would be in the nominative-accusative case. In Estonian the 1st and 3rd person imperatives are termed jussive (Viitso 2007b: 222). Karlsson (1999: 166) lists these forms as imperatives in Finnish, but here all the languages are discussed under the heading jussive (Section 2.3). Table 7.1 shows the case distribution of all objects of affirmative 2nd per‑ son imperative verbs in the synchronic biblical corpus. The noun objects are listed separately in addition. I have included the Finnish ‑t accusative and the Livonian genitive and genitive / nominative forms under accusative. In the other languages all entries under accusative are in the nominative form.

Table 7.1 Case distribution of all objects and separately listed noun objects of imperative verbs in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

All objects Noun objects

Partitive Accusative Total Partitive Accusative Total

Estonian 1989 68 (56%) 54 (44%) 122 38 (49%) 40 (51%) 78 Livonian 1942 50 (49%) 53 (51%) 103 29 (45%) 36 (55%) 65 Finnish 1992 57 (42%) 80 (58%)* 137 39 (44%) 49 (56%) 88 Karelian 2003 60 (46%) 72 (54%) 132 32 (41%) 47 (59%) 79 Veps 2006 50 (43%) 67 (57%) 117 24 (33%) 49 (67%) 73

* includes 10 ‑t accusatives

Considering just nouns, the accusative object predominates in all languages, but more so in Karelian and Veps. When the noun objects of imperative verbs 232 CHAPTER 7 are compared with those of all verbs in the active voice as shown in Chapter 4, Table 4.10 (p. 67), the objects of imperatives are more often accusative, except in Finnish (62.1% accusative in Table 4.10). This could indicate that commands are often meant to be fulfilled. The case distribution of noun objects of impera‑ tive verbs in Livonian is surprisingly close to Finnish. Livonian often has an inexplicable case for the objects of indicative verbs, and this is so also for imperative verbs. Some examples illustrate the difference of case in Livonian.

(7.4) a. E valmista-ge Issanda tee prepare-IMPV.2PL lord.GEN way.SG.NOM/ACC

b. L vaļmõsti-gid Izandõ-n riekk-õ prepare-IMPV.2PL lord-DAT way-SG.PAR

c. F raivat-kaa Herra-lle tie clear-IMPV.2PL lord-ALL way.SG.NOM/ACC

d. K valmista-kkua Ižändä-le dorogu prepare-IMPV.2PL lord-ALL way.SG.NOM/ACC

e. V puhtasta-gat Ižanda-le te clear-IMPV.2PL lord-ALL way.SG.NOM/ACC ‘Prepare/clear a/the way for the Lord’ (Matt. 3:3)

The Livonian partitive is indefinite and nonspecific, and perhaps also implies that the action will be ongoing, whereas in the other languages completion of the activity is suggested. In the Greek and German texts the object is definite. Another example (7.5b) shows the Livonian with an accusative object, while the other languages have a partitive one.

(7.5) a. E teh-ke terve-ks haige-id make-IMPV.2PL healthy-TRA sick-PL.PAR

b. L tie-gid ruja-d tierrõ-ks make-IMPV.2PL sick-PL.ACC healthy-TRA

c. F paranta-kaa saira-i-ta heal-IMPV.2PL sick-PL-PAR Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 233

d. K piästä-kkiä voimattom-i-i save/heal-IMPV.2PL sick-PL-PAR

e. V teh-kat tervhi-kš läžuj-i-d make-IMPV.2PL healthy-TRA sick-PL-PAR ‘heal the sick’ (Matt. 10:8)

Here Livonian implies that all the sick (presumably all of those brought to the disciples) should be healed, whereas the others suggest that only some of all the possible sick (including those not brought to them) will be healed, and also that the action is iterative. The original Greek is indefinite, the German defi‑ nite. Whether these differences are truly due to differences in interpretation of the original text or whether it results from somewhat loose use of object case is not certain. While the Livonian example is perfectly acceptable grammatically, it differs from the others semantically. Negative imperative verbs have partitive objects as a rule, except for Livonian, where again nominative / genitive ones can be found (7.6).

(7.6) L al-gid ēta-gid entš pērlõ-d NEG-IMPV.2PL throw-IMPV.2PL self.GEN pearl-PL.GEN/NOM/ACC siga-dõ-n jeddõ pig-PL-DAT in.front.of ‘don’t throw your pearls in front of pigs’ (Matt. 7:6)

In the corpus, in both the biblical and the oral Livonian collection, there are no unambiguously genitive objects of negative imperative verbs, but Kettunen gives an example (7.7).

(7.7) L Alà ve̮ttà sìe e̮bìz NEG.IMPV.2SG take.IMPV.2SG this.GEN/ACC horse.SG.GEN/ACC ‘Don’t take this horse’ (Kettunen 1938: XLI)

Kettunen (1938: XL) gives the nominative form of ‘horse’ as e̮’bbi. Votic is similar to most other Finnic languages in that the accusative noun objects of imperative verbs are in the nominative form. In the small bibli‑ cal corpus partitive and nominative-accusative objects are almost equal in 234 CHAPTER 7

numbers, eight and ten instances respectively. The oral Votic corpus is similar in this respect.

2.2 Diachronic Studies

2.2.1 Earliest Estonian In the oldest northern Estonian texts, the Müller corpus has some genitive objects of imperatives, all of which are singular nouns (7.8).

(7.8) E kule minu heel-e hear.IMPV.2SG 1SG.GEN voice-SG.GEN ‘hear my voice’ (Müller 1600: 21)

Ikola (1950: 93) also gives some examples of Müller’s genitive objects of imper‑ ative verbs. The Stahl HH1 (1632) corpus has personal pronouns (which happen to be all 1st person), and sedda ‘it, this, that’ in the partitive case, and singular nouns evenly divided between genitive and nominative, plural nouns all being nomi‑ native. In the corpus section of Stahl HH2 (1637b) and LS (1641) all partitive objects are either 1st person pronouns or reflexive pronouns, all genitive objects are singular nouns and possibly 3rd person singular pronouns, which however have the same form in the nominative case. All nominative objects are plural nouns or plural 3rd person pronouns. Even in negative clauses the nominative plural noun object prevails (7.9). Hence objects of imperative verbs appear to be similar to those of indicative verbs.

(7.9) E erra tech-ket pattu-t NEG.IMPV do-IMPV.2PL sin-PL.NOM ‘don’t sin’ (Stahl LS 1641: 40)

Hornung’s grammar (1693: 111) mentions nominative objects of imperative verbs, but not genitive. Willmann (1782) has the objects of imperatives in the corpus fairly evenly divided between partitive and nominative, but no genitive ones.

2.2.2 Southern Estonian The case of all objects (the reflexive pronoun henda ~ hendast and keik ‘all’excluded) of affirmative imperative verbs in the southern Estonian biblical corpus is shown in Table 7.2, with noun objects shown separately in Table 7.3. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 235

Table 7.2 Case distribution of all objects of imperative verbs in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 58 (68%) 2 (2%) 25 (29%) 85 1686 107 (97.%) 0 3 (3%) 110 1857 105 (96%) 0 4 (4%) 109 1886 94 (85%) 0 17 (15%) 111 1905 63 (56.%) 0 49 (44%) 112 Seto 1926** 61 (55.%) 0 50 (45%) 111

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Table 7.3 Case distribution of noun objects of imperative verbs in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 28 (58%) 2 (4%) 18 (38%) 48 1686 70 (99%) 0 1 (1%) 71 1857 67 (94%) 0 4 (6%) 71 1886 54 (76%) 0 17 (24%) 71 1905 36 (48%) 0 39 (52%) 75 Seto 1926** 38 (49%) 0 40 (51%) 78

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Gutslaff differs considerably from the later translations. It is similar to the northern Estonian text of Stahl LS (1641), with 3rd person plural pronouns and plural nouns in the nominative case, but differs in having singular nouns mostly partitive, but also a couple of genitive and a number of nominative ones. Third person singular pronouns are homonymous in the genitive and nominative cases. In the first two editions of the next translation there are very few nominative objects, but they gradually increase and by 1905 are predomi‑ nant for nouns. The southern Estonian New Testaments apart from Gutslaff do not have any genitive objects of imperatives. The accusative (in the nominative 236 CHAPTER 7 form) is more frequent among all objects of imperative verbs than in the entire active verb corpus from 1886 onwards.

2.2.3 Northern Estonian The results from the northern Estonian dialect are shown in Table 7.4 for all objects of imperative verbs and Table 7.5 for nouns.

Table 7.4 Case distribution of all objects of imperative verbs in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 * 64 (53%) 37 (31) 19 (16%) 120 1715 78 (72%) 17 (16%) 14 (13%) 109 1739 74 (70%) 7 (7%) 25 (24%) 106 1903 70 (58%) – 50 (42%) 120 1947 69 (47%) – 78 (53%) 147 1968 63 (50%) – 63 (50%) 126 1989 68 (56%) – 54 (44%) 122 1997 69 (55%) – 56 (45%) 125

* München manuscript

Table 7.5 Case distribution of noun objects of imperative verbs in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 * 29 (47%) 22 (35%) 11 (18%) 62 1715 35 (64%) 9 (16%) 11 (20%) 55 1739 31 (52%) 7 (12%) 22 (37%) 60 1903 35 (44%) – 44 (56%) 79 1947 35 (43%) – 47 (57%) 82 1968 32 (41%) – 46 (59%) 78 1989 38 (49%) – 40 (51%) 78 1997 35 (45%) – 42 (55%) 77

* München manuscript Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 237

Comparing noun objects of imperative verbs with the noun objects of the entire active verb corpus (Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3, p. 122), the proportion of partitive objects of imperative verbs is smaller at all times. If pronouns are included the results are more fluctuating due to the high proportion of par‑ titive pronouns in the early texts. The most obvious change over the time period is the presence of genitive objects of imperative verbs in the three earli‑ est texts, with a progressive decrease. In the 1694 and 1715 NTs the 3rd person pronoun temma, with the same form in the genitive and nominative case, has been included under genitive, as other singular non-partitive objects are geni‑ tive. There are 9 instances of temma in 1694 and 8 in 1715. In the 1739 Bible all personal pronoun objects of imperative verbs are partitive. An example of a genitive object is shown in (7.10).

(7.10) E 1694 selle wot-ke kinni that.GEN take-IMPV.2PL closed ‘take hold of (arrest) that man’ (Matt. 26:48)

The genitive form selle is rarely used in the old texts, where it usually appears in the form se, homonymous with the nominative, as in example (7.11), also from the same manuscript. The form selle is more often found as the allative case in old Estonian. In Table 7.4 I have included se under genitive for those texts where there are genitive singular objects of imperative verbs. There are 4 instances of se in 1694 and none in 1715 or 1739.

(7.11) E 1694 wot-ke se temma kää-st take-IMPV.2PL it.GEN/NOM 3SG.GEN hand-ELA ‘take it from him’ (Matt. 25:28)

There is a shift from partitive as well as genitive to nominative objects by 1903. A significant difference is shown between the northern and southern Estonian dialects, with the partitive more frequent in the southern dialect, especially in the earliest texts, apart from Gutslaff (1648–1656).

2.2.4 Finnish In the earliest Finnish texts there are some personal pronoun objects, as well as the reflexive pronoun itse, which have a possessive suffix attached to indicate reflexive use (7.12a). In 1548 only there are also plural 2nd and 3rd person pro‑ nouns in the genitive-accusative case (7.12b). 238 CHAPTER 7

(7.12) a. F 1548 heite sinu-s mere-en throw.IMPV.2SG 2SG.ACC-2SG.PX sea-ILL ‘throw yourself into the sea’ (Matt. 21:21)

b. F 1548 cauatta-cat tei-den nij-lde beware-IMPV.2PL 2PL-GEN/ACC these-ABL Jnhimis-i-lde human-PL-ABL ‘beware of these people’ (Matt. 10:17)

With itse there is also the question of whether the partitive ending has been written as a single vowel (pronounced long) rather than geminate, and whether the object is in fact partitive (7.13).

(7.13) F 1642 auta idze-s help.IMPV.2SG self.GEN/PAR-2SG.PX ‘help yourself’ (Matt. 27:40)

In 1776 and 1880 the clause corresponding to (7.13) has the clearly partitive itsiäs / itseäs. The case distribution of objects of affirmative imperative verbs in the Finnish biblical corpus is shown in Tables 7.6 and 7.7 for all objects and nouns respectively. The various forms of the accusative are shown separately as there is a change over the centuries. With the exception of 1906, there are proportionately slightly more partitive objects of imperative verbs than of all the active verb forms, shown in Table 5.23 in Chapter 5. This is the opposite of the findings in Estonian. The genitive objects listed in Table 7.6 are personal pronouns or reflexives, as shown in example (7.12) and (7.13). With the possessive suffix the form used could be singular nominative or genitive or plural nominative, but as personal and reflexive pronouns are not used in the nominative case as objects, I take the form to be genitive. The single such object in 1906 and the following trans‑ lations is itsesi, and is now referred to as accusative. From 1906 onwards ‑t accu‑ satives appear for personal pronouns. Although ‑t accusatives are present in the 1776 translation, and to a smaller extent in 1548, there are none as objects of imperative verbs in these. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 239

Table 7.6 Case distribution of all objects of imperative verbs in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

1548 57 (40%) 9 (6%) 76 (54%) 0 142 1642 67 (51%) 6 (5%) 58 (44%) – 131 1776 67 (47%) 3 (2%) 72 (51%) 0 142 1880 66 (47%) 3 (2%) 72 (51%) – 141 1906 51 (39%) 1(1%) 71 (54%) 9 (7%) 132 1938 55 (41%) 1 (1%) 71 (53%) 6 (5%) 133 1992 57 (42%) 1 (1%) 69 (50%) 10 (7%) 137

Table 7.7 Case distribution of noun objects of imperative verbs in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Nominative-Accusative Total

1548 22 (28%) 56 (72%) 78 1642 33 (46%) 38 (54%) 71 1776 27 (35%) 51 (65%) 78 1880 27 (35%) 51 (65%) 78 1906 33 (39%) 52 (61%) 85 1938 35 (40%) 52 (60%) 87 1992 39 (44%) 49 (56%) 88

In contrast to the early Estonian texts, there are no genitive noun objects of imperatives and nominative objects are quite frequent. At all times the pro‑ portion of partitive objects of imperative verbs is smaller than that of noun objects of all active verbs (shown in Table 5.30 in chapter 5, p. 144).

2.2.5 Karelian In the 1820 and 1864 Karelian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel there are a few genitive-accusative objects of imperative verbs, which are either 3rd person singular pronouns or singular nouns (7.14). However, the majority of 240 CHAPTER 7

singular noun objects of imperatives are nominative. In the 2003 gospel there are no objects of imperatives in the genitive form.

(7.14) K 1820 ota itše-š-kera yhe-n take.IMPV.2SG self.GEN-2SG.PX-with one-GEN/ACC miehe-n man.SG-GEN/ACC ‘take a man with you’ (Matt. 18:16)

The case distribution of all the objects of the imperative verbs in the Karelian St. Matthew’s gospel corpus is shown in Table 7.8. The findings in 1 Corinthians in the 2003 text are excluded in order to provide a better comparison.

Table 7.8 Case distribution of all objects of imperative verbs in the Karelian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

1820 (Tver) 30 (35%) 2 (2%) 50 (59%) 3 (4%) 85 1864 (Southern) 33 (47%) 4 (6%) 30 (43%) 3 (4%) 70 2003 (Olonets) 48 (43%) 0 63 (57%) – 111

There are considerably more imperative verbs in the latest text. The main find‑ ings are the occurrence of an occasional genitive-accusative object and also the ‑t accusative in the two earliest translations. Most of the genitive objects are nouns, with one 3rd person singular pronoun in 1864. The accusative is more frequent than the partitive throughout, even in 2003, where all personal pronoun objects are partitive. Compared with the results of objects of all verbs from Table 5.33 in Chapter 5 (p. 148), both the 1820 and 2003 translations have a greater proportion of accusative objects of imperative verbs than all active verbs combined, while the 1864 has the reverse. Ojajärvi (1950a: 112–113) mentions that partitive personal pronouns are usu‑ ally used in constructions where the noun object would be in the nominative- accusative case, such as objects of imperative verbs. He includes the Aunus (Olonets) and Viena as well as Maaselkä dialects in this observation. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 241

2.2.6 Livonian Livonian differs from the other languages in that many of the accusative objects of imperative verbs are in the genitive form, and others are ambiguous for genitive and nominative, while in the other languages occasional genitive ones only appear in the older texts. Table 7.9 shows the distribution of such objects. For the sake of comparison only St. Matthew’s gospel is included from the 1942 NT. The genitive column includes only personal and other pronouns. All nouns, most of which have the same form for the genitive and nominative case, are included under accusative, and so is the occasional pronoun where case cannot be distinguished, such as amad ‘all (PL)’ As the partitive column includes pronouns and nouns, the number of partitive noun objects and their percentages are shown separately.

Table 7.9 Case distribution of objects of imperative verbs in St. Matthew’s gospel in Livonian

All objects Noun objects

Partitive Gen-Acc Accusative Total Partitive Total

East 1863 33 (37%) 23 (26%) 34 (38%) 90 18 (35%) 52 West 1863 31 (33%) 15 (16%) 48 (51%) 94 20 (30%) 68 1942 39 (45%) 11 (13%) 36 (42%) 86 28 (44%) 64

Many of the noun objects have determiners or modifying adjectives which are genitive. There are also occasional nouns, especially those derived from verbs, which do have a separate genitive form, but in Table 7.9 they are also included under the accusative label. In the East Livonian corpus plural objects have a nominative determiner ne, while in the others the genitive nänt is used (7.15).

(7.15) a. LE 1863 kuts ne tõö1 call.IMPV.2SG the.PL.NOM work.GEN mie-d man-PL.NOM/GEN ‘call the workmen’

1 The combination õö is most unusual, and indicates diphthongisation of the long vowel öö. In the original õ is indicated by three dots in a triangular pattern and ö by two dots, both below o. 242 CHAPTER 7

b. LW 1863 nuta kubbõ nänt tõö call.IMPV.2SG together the.PL.GEN work.GEN mie-d man-PL.NOM/GEN ‘call together the workmen’ (Matt. 20:8)

However, as a personal pronoun object nänt is used for objects of imperative verbs even in East Livonian (7.16).

(7.16) LE 1863 túo-gid minnõ-n nänt tǟnõ bring-IMPV.2PL 1SG-DAT 3PL.GEN here ‘bring them here to me’ (Matt. 14:18)

The oral collections by Kettunen (1925a) in the East Livonian dialect are simi‑ lar to the East Livonian gospel, with the nominative determiner ne for plural noun objects of imperative as well as other verbs. The results generally fit with the overall increase in the use of the parti‑ tive in 1942 as seen in Chapter 5, Section 9 (Table 5.41), although the objects of imperative verbs at all times have a smaller proportion of partitive objects than the sum of all the active verbs. The partitive ones are often objects of verbs which regularly take a partitive object, such as ‘love’ and ‘praise’.

2.2.7 Veps Although there are only eight years between the publication of St. Matthew’s gospel and the entire New Testament in Veps, there are some differences between the texts. The 1998 translation has no genitive noun objects of imper‑ ative verbs, but there are four singular pronoun objects in the genitive form, while in the 2006 version of St. Matthew’s gospel there are none. The propor‑ tion of partitives is only slightly higher in the later text, with 37.4% in 1998 and 40.2% in the 2006 gospel. These figures are both lower than the result for all active verbs in Table 5.46 in Chapter 5. There are no genitive objects of impera‑ tive verbs in the oral collections. The nominative is more frequent than parti‑ tive (26/16) in Kettunen (1925).

2.3 Objects of Jussive Verbs Under jussive are included 1st person plural and 3rd person imperative verbs, although the 1st person plural imperative does not always differ from the indic‑ ative declarative. In Estonian the suffix ‑gu/ku which is used for the 3rd person can also be used for 1st person. In older Estonian, there is a separate form for Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 243 the 1st person plural with the suffix ‑kem~gem, which is still occasionally used in very formal language, e.g. during church liturgy. In Finnish, although there is a special 1st person plural imperative form ‑kAAmme, this is often replaced by the indicative or impersonal present tense. It is never used in spoken Finnish. The 2nd person imperative has a singular accusative noun object in the nominative form, while the 3rd person imperative with the suffix ‑kOOn in the singular and ‑kOOt in the plural takes a genitive-accusative singular object. In Karelian also the 1st person plural indicative is used in the jussive sense. For the 3rd person singular and plural there is the suffix ‑kah~gah. Veps has ‑kam~gam for 1st person plural and ‑kaha~gaha for 3rd person. Livonian uses the indicative first person plural form (Kont 1963: 152) or a construction with laz ‘let’ for 1st and 3rd persons. In Votic only the indicative present tense is used, and there is no separate form for the 1st person plural jussive (Kont 1963: 152). Ojajärvi (1950a: 105) states that the accusative singular object of the 3rd per‑ son imperative is in the genitive rather than nominative form in all the Finnic languages except standard Estonian and most of its dialects, where the nomi‑ native form is used. Kettunen (1943: 115) also points out that singular accu‑ sative objects are in the genitive form in Veps. However, in the Veps 2006 NT corpus these are in the nominative form. The results for languages other than Livonian are shown in Table 7.10.

Table 7.10 Case distribution of objects of jussive verbs in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

Estonian 1989 4 0 4 – Finnish 1992 2 5 0 1 Karelian 2003 2 6 1 – Veps 2006 5 0 5 –

The Finnish ‑t accusative example is shown in (7.17).

(7.17) F pelasta-koon Jumala nyt häne-t save-JUS.3SG god.NOM now 3SG-tACC ‘let God save him now’ (Matt. 27:43) 244 CHAPTER 7

Karelian has singular genitive-accusative objects (7.18).

(7.18) K häi . . . otta-kah oma-n rista-n 3SG.NOM take-JUS.3SG self-GEN/ACC cross.SG-GEN/ACC ‘let him take his own cross’ (Matt. 16:24)

The Veps nominative-accusative singular object is illustrated in (7.19).

(7.19) V rik-kam poig i ot-kam kaik kill-JUS.1PL son.SG.NOM/ACC and take-JUS.1PL all.NOM/ACC häne-n ma 3SG-GEN land.SG.NOM/ACC ‘let us kill the son and take all his land’ (Matt. 21:38)

In Livonian there is a form of the verb with the suffix ‑g plus personal endings, which is termed subjunctive mood by Moseley (2002: 55) and 1st person plural and 3rd person imperative by Laanest (1975: 154). Viitso (2007b: 222) refers to this form as jussive, and points out that it has singular and plural forms. This mostly forms a construction with laz, as in (7.20).

(7.20) L laz kūolõ-nd entš kūoli-nḑi let dead-PST.PTCP.PL.NOM self.GEN dead-PST.PTCP.PL.PAR mata-gõ-d bury-JUS-3PL ‘let the dead bury their own dead’ (Matt. 8:22)

However, there is one example without laz, as in (7.21)

(7.21) L Jumal vōi-dag sīn-da God.NOM keep-JUS-3SG 2SG-PAR ‘God keep you’ (Matt. 16:22)

There are 49 examples of constructions with laz in Livonian, 39 (79.6%) of them with partitive objects and 10 accusative. This Livonian construction is also used to express purpose: ‘so that something will happen’. I have included all such constructions here irrespective of semantics. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 245

2.3.1 Diachronic Studies In the southern Estonian corpus objects of jussive verbs are mainly partitive until 1905 when 5/12 are nominative. In northern Estonian also in 1715–1903 most objects are partitive, whereafter the partitive and nominative are equal in numbers or the partitive slightly more frequent. There are no genitive- accusative objects of jussive verbs in Estonian. In Finnish the accusative objects of jussive verbs are expressed like those of indicative verbs, the proportion of accusatives mostly slightly greater than that of partitives. There is not a great deal of difference across the centuries. The two older Karelian translations differ in the way they express the 3rd person imperative (jussive). The 1864 translation is similar to the Olonets 2003 translation in having a separate jussive form of the verb. In the 1820 text jussive constructions are formed with the word ana ‘let’ (7.22).

(7.22) a. K 1820 ana nyt hiän piäštä-v häne-n let now 3SG.NOM save-PRS.3SG 3SG-GEN/ACC

b. K 1864 nüt hiän piäštä-käh häne-n now 3SG.NOM save-JUS.3SG 3SG-GEN/ACC ‘let him save him now’

c. K 2003 anna Jumal piästä-ü hän-dü nügöi let god.NOM save-3SG 3SG-PAR now ‘let God save him now’ (Matt. 27:43)

While the 2003 edition has a number of examples of the jussive forms, this par‑ ticular clause is translated with anna ‘let’, followed by a present tense indica‑ tive verb, similar to that of 1820. In Finnish a corresponding construction with anna would govern a ‑ta infinitive with a genitive subject of the infinitive. The objects of the jussive verbs in Karelian are similar to those of indicative verbs, as in Finnish. There is one partitive, four singular genitive-accusative and one plural nominative-accusative object in the 1864 translation. While the singular accusative objects of jussive verbs in the Veps 2006 NT are in the nominative form, in the 1998 translation of St. Matthew’s gospel there is an example of genitive-accusative (7.23a), which in 2006 is rendered by a declarative clause (7.23b). 246 CHAPTER 7

(7.23) a. V 1998 mužik jätka-ha ičeze tata-n man.SG.NOM leave-JUS.3SG self.GEN father-GEN/ACC ‘let a man leave his father’

b. V 2006 mužik jäta-b ičeze tata-n man.SG.NOM leave-PRS.3SG self.GEN father-GEN/ACC ‘a man leaves his father’ (Matt. 19:5)

In the oral Veps collection in the corpus (Kettunen 1925b) there are four transi‑ tive 1st person plural jussive examples, all with a singular noun nominative- accusative object.

3 Infinitives

The system of infinitives is complex in the Finnic languages. Descriptions are found for Estonian in Viitso (2007a: 65; 2007b: 212–213) and EKG II: 233–264, and for Finnish in VISK §492. Kettunen (1943: 484–503) describes Veps infini‑ tives. For Karelian Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 96–99) has a section on infinitives. Kettunen (1938: LXV–LXVIII) discusses infinitive verbs in Livonian. Saukkonen (1965, 1966) has discussed the Finnish infinitive system in great detail, with some comparisons with other Finnic languages. Kont (1963: 118– 144) has a detailed discussion of objects of infinitive verbs in the various Finnic languages. The system of infinitive verbs varies considerably from language to lan‑ guage. There are up to four infinitives and they occur with various noun case markers. This phenomenon is called versatile case by Aikhenvald (2008: 565) and cross-categorial case by Tamm (2014: 130). The most common infinitives are those with underlying ‑ma and ‑ta forms. The nomenclature differs, espe‑ cially between Estonian and Finnish. The other languages follow the previous Finnish system of naming them numerically from the first to the fourth. A description of the old system is found in Karlsson (1999: 182–193). The latest Finnish grammar (VISK §492) describes them according to morphology. For ease of comparison, I will here refer to them as the ‑ta, ‑ma, ‑e and fourth infini‑ tive. There is also a fifth infinitive in Finnish (Ylikoski 2003: 43), which is rarely seen and there are no examples of it in the corpus. The use of ‑ta and ‑ma infinitives is not the same in all Finnic languages. The selection of infinitive is determined lexically, depending on the governing Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 247 word. The necessive verb pidama ‘must’ governs the ‑ma infinitive in Estonian and the ‑ta infinitive in most of the others. The verb ‘begin’ takes the ‑ma infini‑ tive in Estonian and Karelian and the ‑ta infinitive in the others as shown in (7.24), but there are also other expressions, as in Veps (7.24e).

(7.24) a. E hakka-si-d nad järjestikku Ta-lle begin-PST-3PL they one.after.another 3SG-ALL ütle-ma say-maINF.ILL

b. L ȳrg-iz jegaȳkš rõkan-dõ täm pǟl begin-PST.3SG everyone say-taINF 3SG.GEN on

c. F he alko-i-vat toinen toise-nsa jälkeen they begin-PST-3PL one.NOM another.GEN-3PX after kyse-l-lä ask-FREQ-taINF

d. K hüö ruve-ttih küze-le-mäh toine they begin-PST.3PL ask-FREQ-maINF one.NOM toize-le jälles another-ALL after

e. V hö küze-le-škanz-i-ba toine toiže-n they ask-FREQ-INC-PST-3PL one.NOM another-GEN jäľghe after ‘one after another they began to ask / say to him’ (Matt. 26:22)

The suffix ‑škande- in Veps, which with the stem forms a finite verb, indicates repetitive action as well as inchoative (Kettunen 1943: 450). There is also a verb zavoda ‘begin’ in Veps, which selects the ‑ta infinitive. In Finnish there is another verb ryhtyä ‘begin’, which governs the illative -ma infinitive. This study concentrates on transitive verbs and their objects. More informa‑ tion can be found concerning total numbers of infinitives, including intransi‑ tive ones, in Lees (2010) and necessive constructions are discussed in detail in Lees (2012). 248 CHAPTER 7

3.1 The -ta Infinitive The ‑ta infinitive is called the first infinitive in most languages, including older Finnish grammars, but in VISK §120 it is named the ‑A infinitive, and in Estonian it is considered to be the only infinitive (Viitso 2007b: 212), also named the ‑da infinitive. The original *‑k suffix on the ‑ta infinitive was the lative suffix, and some linguists refer to it as being in the lative case (Kont 1963: 131). Hermann (1896: 23) calls the ‑ta infinitive partitive because of its suffix, and because it is often governed by a verb, which usually assigns the partitive case to its object. In Votic also Tsvetkov (2008: 85) lists it as partitive. In all the languages the underlying ‑ta infinitive has undergone phonologi‑ cal changes, especially assimilation, with the resultant loss of t in many verbs and emergence of very variable morphology, particularly in Karelian. Due to vowel harmony in Finnish and Karelian, a alternates with ä. In Livonian it usu‑ ally ends in ‑da/ta or ‑dõ/tõ, but sometimes the final vowel is deleted. The ‑ta infinitive can be governed by modals as well as other verbs, nouns, or adjec‑ tives , and can occur independently as a subject. Kont (1963: 131) points out that a large number of verbs which can take a ‑ta infinitive complement can also take a direct object. The ‑ta infinitive in Estonian is regarded syntactically as a subject or object (Viitso 2007a: 65). Penjam (2008: 47) has indicated other roles in which it can occur in Estonian, for example as attributes and predicates. She also mentions necessive and assessment constructions. The ‑ ta infinitive can be an object also in other Finnic languages (Kont 1963: 179). Kettunen (1943: 484–490) discusses its syntactic functions in Veps. An example is shown in (7.25).

(7.25) V mahta-mā i rauda-t para-ta be.able-1PL also trap-PL.NOM/ACC set-taINF ‘we can also set traps’ (Kettunen 1943: 486)

Here Kettunen calls parata the object of mahtamā and raudat the accusative object of parata. In Finnish there is a translative case of the ‑ta infinitive, with the meaning ‘for the purpose of’, which has a possessive suffix agreeing with the subject of the matrix clause. This differs from Estonian, where the translative case with the same meaning is found on the -ma infinitive. However, Peegel (2006: 156) in his study of Estonian folksongs mentions the translative case of the ‑ta infini‑ tive in the north-east coastal dialect with an added possessive suffix, but points Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 249 out that there are also other interpretations of that example. Ariste (1968: 77) mentions a similar construction in Votic folksongs. The objects of ‑ta infinitives can be partitive or accusative. The semantics and syntax of the combined matrix verb and infinitive are involved in the assignment of case to the infinitive (Kont 1963: 132). If the governing verb is negative, the object of the infinitive is partitive. If the governing verb is atelic, such as ‘love’, the object is partitive (Kont 1963: 135). Verbs of wanting and com‑ manding can indicate that the action is meant to be carried out, and hence there can be an accusative object. The partial or total nature of the object itself also needs to be considered. As in finite clauses, boundedness is a factor. The case of objects of ‑ta infinitives in assessment constructions in Estonian has been discussed in detail by Ogren (2013). In these the ‑ta infinitive is depen‑ dent on an adjective, and, in addition to boundedness, the case of its object is related to the semantics of the adjective (Ogren 2013: 174). He found that adjec‑ tives like ‘impossible’,with a negative connotation, have a high association with a partitive object, while adjectives such as ‘important’ or ‘better’ are commonly associated with an accusative (total) object. Ogren (2013: 177) has shown that word order also makes a difference in that an object after an infinitive gov‑ erned by an adjective is more likely to be accusative, an object preceding the infinitive being mostly partitive. If the governing verb is impersonal or subjectless the singular accusative object of the ‑ta infinitive has the nominative form in Finnic languages (Kont 1963: 167). In those situations there is no nominative subject in the matrix clause which is coreferential with the understood subject of the infinitive. These constructions are discussed further in Section 3.1.1.2. Some Estonian sources (Saareste 1952: 36; Kont 1963: 138) list the ‑des form as the inessive of the ‑ta infinitive and so does Tsvetkov (2008: 85) for Votic. In Finnish it is called the inessive case of the ‑e infinitive, and I have discussed it under that heading in Section 3.3. Peegel (2006: 155) mentions the adessive case of the -ta infinitive in Seto folk songs, with the suffix ‑el, but this also cor‑ responds to the -e infinitive.

3.1.1 Synchronic Study The case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the synchronic biblical corpus are shown in Table 7.11. An obvious difference is the paucity of tokens in Livonian and the greater numbers in Karelian and Veps. The results of Veps can be explained by the fact that in that language the ‑ta infinitive is often used where other languages use the ‑ma infinitive, probably due to Russian influence (Kettunen 1943: 487). 250 CHAPTER 7

Table 7.11 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative t-Accusative

Estonian 96 (72%) 22 (16%) 16 (13%) – 134 Livonian 41 (71%) 17 (29%) – 58 Finnish 66 (49%) 38 (28%) 20 (15%) 10 (7%) 134 Karelian 109 (62%) 31 (18%) 34 (20%) – 174 Veps 115 (65%) 36 (21%) 25 (14%) – 176

In Karelian, however, the number of ‑ma infinitives is not reduced in compari‑ son with other languages. In Livonian both infinitives are few in number. There the construction with laz ‘let’ and the subjunctive is sometimes found where other languages would have a ‑ta infinitive. In the short segment of St. Matthew’s gospel in Votic, of the six transitive ‑ta infinitives only two have partitive objects, but the data is too limited to draw any firm conclusions from this observation. In the oral western Votic cor‑ pus there are more tokens and there is a definite preponderance of partitive objects (13/20), while in the eastern corpus there are 3/8 partitive objects. The percentage of all partitive objects is similar in Estonian and Livonian on the one hand, and Karelian and Veps on the other. Finnish has the greatest number of non-partitive objects. This is mostly explained by the presence of considerable numbers of personal pronouns, which are all partitive in the lat‑ est Karelian and Veps New Testaments. Among the nominative-accusative objects there are a number which are singular, where a finite verb would have a genitive-accusative object. The num‑ bers of these are for Estonian 5, Finnish 12, Karelian 20 and Veps 14. These are found where there is no verb with a nominative subject governing the infini‑ tive. Most common among these are necessive constructions with a subject‑ less verb in all these languages. The governing verb may also be an imperative, another infinitive or an impersonal (passive) verb. The infinitive may follow a noun, adjective or conjunction, or form a clausal subject. Karelian is inter‑ esting in that where the governing verb is a 3rd person plural one (cognate with impersonal in Finnish), the singular object of the ‑ta infinitive is nomina‑ tive-accusative rather than genitive-accusative. Livonian is not relevant here, Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 251 because it is very often difficult to differentiate genitive and nominative nouns. Also, necessive constructions are commonly formed with the 4th infinitive. The results for nouns are shown in Table 7.12 with the separation into singu‑ lar and plural in Table 7.13.

Table 7.12 Case distribution of noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative

Estonian 58 (70%) 25 (30%) 83 Livonian 23 (62%) 14 (38%) 37 Finnish 45 (51%) 44 (49%) 89 Karelian 66 (57%) 49 (43%) 115 Veps 61 (56%) 48 (44%) 109

For nouns the differences are not as great. Finnish shows the lowest proportion of partitives, just over 50%, with Estonian the highest, followed by Livonian. In all instances the proportion of partitive objects of ‑ta infinitives is greater than in the all-inclusive active verb corpus (Chapter 4, Table 4.1 for all objects and 4.10 for nouns), the difference being smallest in Livonian.

Table 7.13 Case distribution of singular and plural noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nominative

Genitive Nominative

Estonian 40 (66%) 16 (26%) 5 (8%) 61 18 (82%) 4 (18%) 22 Livonian 13(57%) 10 (43%) 23 10 (71%) 4 (29%) 14 Finnish 30 (44%) 26 (38%) 12 (18%) 68 15 (71%) 6 (29%) 21 Karelian 36 (48%) 21 (28%) 18 (24%) 75 30 (75%) 10 (25%) 40 Veps 36 (47%) 25 (33%) 15 (20%) 76 25 (76%) 8 (24%) 33 252 CHAPTER 7

The interesting finding here is the number of singular objects in the nomina‑ tive form. These are further analysed below in Table 7.14 in Section 3.1.1.2. A set of examples of ‑ta infinitives from the various languages is shown in (7.26).

(7.26) a. E Inimese Poja-l on meelevald patt-e human.GEN son-ADE be.3SG power.NOM sin-PL.PAR andeks.an-da forgive-taINF

b. L Rišting Pūoga-n um võimi patu-d human.GEN son-DAT be.3SG power.NOM sin-PL.ACC andõks.an-dõ forgive-taINF

c. F Ihmise-n Poja-lla on valta anta-a human-GEN son-ADE be.3SG power.NOM give-taINF synte-j-ä anteeksi sin-PL-PAR PTCL

d. K Ristikanza-n Poija-l on valdu prosti-e human-GEN son-ADE be.3SG power.NOM forgive-taINF riähk-i-i sin-PL-PAR

e. V Mehe-n Poiga-l om vald päst-ta man-GEN son-ADE be.3SG power.NOM forgive-taINF grähkä-d sin-PL.NOM/ACC ‘the Son of Man has the power [on earth] to forgive sins’ (Matt. 9:6)

The object of ‘forgive’ is partitive in Estonian, Finnish and Karelian, but accusa‑ tive in Livonian and Veps. The noun grähkäd in Veps has the same morphology as the singular partitive, but as ‘sins’ is plural in all the other Finnic languages, as well as in the Greek and Martin Luther’s German translation, I have assumed that it is also plural here. The partitive appears more logical, as the action is not said to have taken place, but is merely able to take place, and the number of sins is indefinite. With Livonian it is sometimes difficult to explain the choice of case. In Veps the accusative is particularly prevalent, and is used often where Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 253 other languages have the partitive (Kont 1963: 107; Kettunen 1943: 101), although this tendency appears less in the later NT translation of 2006. Necessive constructions with the modal verb pidama ‘must’ and corre‑ sponding verbs in the other languages mostly govern the ‑ta infinitive, except in Estonian and possibly in Livonian, but this construction is very rare in the Livonian corpus. In the limited Votic corpus both infinitives are found, as shown below (7.27).

(7.27) a. Vo sinu piä-b Herra-a sinu Jumala-a-s 2SG.GEN must-3SG lord-PAR 2SG.GEN god-PAR-2SG.PX palvo-a i tä-tä üh-tä kummarta-a serve-taINF and 3SG-PAR one-PAR worship-taINF ‘you must serve the Lord your God and worship him alone’ (Matt. 4:10)

b. Vo mi-tä teďje piä-b söö-mä what-PAR 2PL.GEN must-3SG eat-maINF.ILL ‘what you must eat’ (Matt. 6:25)

c. Vo mi-tä piäm-mä möö söö-mä? what must-1PL 1PL.NOM eat-maINF.ILL ‘what must we eat?’ (Matt. 6:31)

Here are three different necessive constructions with the same modal verb. The first two have the modal in the 3rd person singular form, and the subject genitive, but the first has a ‑ta infinitive and the other two a ‑ma infinitive. The third has a nominative subject with the modal verb agreeing in person and number, which has probably been influenced by the similar construction in Estonian. The objects are all partitive in these examples. Ariste (1968: 76) men‑ tions only the ‑ta infinitive with piäp ‘must’. In addition to the basic (lative) form of the ‑ta infinitive, there are 18 tran‑ sitive instances of the translative case of the infinitive in Finnish, 8 with a partitive object, and 10 with an accusative object, including two with a ‑t accu‑ sative pronoun. An example is given in (7.28). A possessive suffix is added to the infinitive to indicate its genitive subject. In some instances the partitive object itself is quantitatively indefinite, or the verb preferentially takes a parti‑ tive object (7.29). 254 CHAPTER 7

(7.28) F hän ets-i tilaisuu-tta kavalta-a-kse-en he seek-PST.3SG opportunity-PAR betray-taINF-TRA-3PX Jeesukse-n Jesus-GEN/ACC ‘he was seeking an opportunity to betray Jesus’ (Matt. 26:16)

(7.29) F tämä-n sano-n . . . autta-a-kse-ni tei-tä that-GEN say-1SG help-taINF-TRA-1SG.PX 2PL-PAR elä-mään kunniallisesti live-maINF.ILL honorably ‘I say this . . . to help you live honorably’ (1 Cor. 7:35)

3.1.1.2 Singular Nominative-Accusative Objects The conditions requiring a singular accusative noun in the nominative form as the object of a ‑ta infinitive have been analysed further, the results shown in Table 7.14.

Table 7.14 Conditions for singular nominative objects of ‑ta infinitives in the synchronic Finnic corpus

Reason for singular NOM object Estonian Finnish Karelian Veps

Cardinal numbers 1 2 Governing verb factors—Imperative 1 1 Governing verb factors—Impersonal 1 Necessive constructions 1 8 8 5 No direct verbal government 1 3 7 7 Serial infinitive 1 3rd plural verb 2 ? verb lexeme 1

Livonian has been omitted from this table because the singular nominative nouns cannot be differentialted from the genitive ones. Cardinal numbers are always in the nominative form as accusative objects. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 255

It has already been mentioned that if there is no nominative subject in the matrix clause, the accusative singular object of the infinitive is in the nomi‑ native rather than genitive form. Necessive constructions commonly have a subjectless verb in Finnic languages (Lees 2012). In Estonian the most common necessive construction uses the fully declined verb pidama with the ‑ma infini‑ tive (see Section 3.2), but there are also some constructions with a subjectless verb. In the above table necessive constructions are the most frequent, fol‑ lowed by a mixed group, where the infinitival phrase is a subject or an adjunct, for example in the assessment constructions described by Ogren (2013). In Karelian there is a nominative object if the governing verb is in the 3rd person plural, even with an expressed subject. This supports Reime’s postulation that the verbal construction is more important than the missing nominative sub‑ ject (Reime 1993: 89). An example of a necessive construction in Veps is shown in example (7.30)

(7.30) V taŕiz armasta-da ťütar i necessary love-taINF daughter.SG.NOM/ACC and poig son.SG.NOM/ACC ‘one must love one’s daughter and son’ (Kettunen 1943: 101)

Here there is no subject, so the accusative objects of the infinitive are in the nom‑ inative form. It is usual in Finnic languages for the verb ‘love’ to have a partitive object, but Veps does have accusative objects where other languages do not. A Karelian clause with a 3rd person plural verb is shown in (7.31).

(7.31) K kudama-t tahto-ttih tappu-a lapsi who-PL want-PST.3PL kill-taINF child.SG.NOM ‘who wanted to kill the child’ (Matt. 2:20)

Examples of of an assessment construction from the 1947 Estonian NT and the Finnish Bible 1992 can be seen in (7.32).

(7.32) a. E 1947 ei ole ilus võt-ta las-te NEG be.CONNEG nice.NOM take-taINF child-PL-GEN leib bread.SG.NOM/ACC ‘it is not nice to take the children’s bread’ 256 CHAPTER 7

b. F 1992 ei ole oikein otta-a laps-i-lta Neg.3SG be.CONNEG right take-taINF child-PL-ABL leipä bread.SG.NOM/ACC ‘it is not right to take the bread away from the children’ (Matt. 15:26)

Although the sentence is negative, there is a nominative-accusative object. This is justified by considering the infinitival verb phrase to be the subject of the sentence. Being the subject the phrase is not strictly under the scope of the negative. The object could still be partitive if it is considered partial, i.e. taking part of the children’s bread, but it is not obligatorily partitive. With the nominative object here the quantity is irrelevant. In the 1989 and 1997 Estonian editions the partitive is used here. In Estonian there are some verbs which can take either a nominative-accu‑ sative or genitive-accusative object of the ‑ta infinitve. One of these appears to be jätta ‘leave’, as in example (7.33).

(7.33) E ta on otsusta-nud jät-ta oma 3SG.NOM be.3SG decide-PST.PTCP leave-taINF self.GEN kaaslane neitsi-ks companion.SG.NOM virgin-TRA ‘he has decided to leave his companion a virgin’ (1 Cor. 7:37)

3.1.2 Diachronic Studies 3.1.2.1 Estonian Old Non-Biblical Texts Habicht (2001: 177–207) gives a detailed discussion of infinitives in the work of Müller and Stahl, particularly relating to the choice of infinitive, but not concentrating on the case of objects. Penjam (2008: 251) in her extensive study of Estonian infinitives concludes that Müller’s handling of infinitives is similar to that of the present time, whereas Stahl’s work shows considerable variation. In the present corpus Müller has a total of 93 transitive ‑ta infinitives, of which 45 have partitive objects. These objects are predominantly personal pronouns (35) and other pronouns, with no nouns. Of 20 genitive objects, all are singular nouns. Among the 28 nominative objects there are 4 pronouns apart from the relative pronoun mea, 14 singular nouns and 9 plural nouns, with one numeral. An example is shown in (7.34). This is not like those described in Section 3.1.1.2 above, and is ungrammatical by present day conventions. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 257

(7.34) E se arm ninck wegky taha-x this.NOM grace.NOM and power.NOM want-COND.3SG Jumal mei-le an-da god.NOM 1PL-ALL give-taINF this grace and power God would want to give us’ (Müller 1600: 20)

Most of these infinitives are governed by the same verbs as in modern Estonian, but there is one exception in the corpus (7.35).

(7.35) E kumb teye olle-te kul-nut lugge-da which.NOM 2PL.NOM be-2PL hear-PST.PTCP read-taINF ‘which you have heard read’ (Müller 1600: 2)

In modern Estonian the infinitive would be replaced by the ‑vat participle (see Section 4.1.2.1), and the object would be partitive, except that the nominative form of the relative pronoun mis could also be used. In the combined Stahl corpus there are few transitive ‑ta infinitives, a total of 24. Half of these have partitive objects. Most of the noun objects are ambiguous for case. There are five partitive 1st and 2nd person pronouns, five partitive non- personal pronoun objects and four genitive 3rd person singular pronouns. The nominative objects include a few plural nouns and the invariably nominative pronouns mea and keik. This distribution is according to word category rather than any aspectual considerations, as discussed in Chapter 5. Both the ‑ta and ‑ma infinitives are used by Stahl in free variation, as exemplified in (7.36).

(7.36) E eth Jummal mei-d taha-x hoi-da ninck that god.NOM 1PL-PAR want-COND.3SG guard-taINF and pidda-ma keep-maINF ‘that God would want to guard us and keep us’ (Stahl HH1 1632: 20)

Willmann (1782) differs from Stahl in that he has more ‑ta than ‑ma infinitives, but like Stahl has some of the same verbs governing either infinitive. In the corpus there are 53 transitive ‑ta infinitives, with almost all pronoun objects partitive. He differs from Stahl in having singular noun objects mostly parti‑ tive rather than genitive, while plural ones are nominative as in most early Estonian texts. An example is shown below (7.37). 258 CHAPTER 7

(7.37) E kui sa wälja lähhe-d kanna-d warrasta-da when 2SG.NOM out go-2SG hen-PL.NOM steal-taINF ‘when you go out to steal hens’ (Willmann 1782: 38)

In modern Estonian the verb ‘go’ takes an illative ‑ma infinitive, and the object would be partitive, as the action is about to start, and the object is quantita‑ tively indefinite. The partitive would be used even if the object is a definite set of hens. Although there are a number of singular genitive objects of finite verbs in Willmann, there are no examples among the non-finite ones. In the Masing corpus (1818 + 1825) the use of infinitives is similar to that of the modern language. The vast majority of objects are partitive.

Southern Estonian Bible Texts The case distribution of the objects of ‑ta infinitives in the southern Estonian biblical corpus is presented in Table 7.15. The pronoun keik~kõik and the rela‑ tive pronoun mis, which are almost invariably nominative, and the reflexive pronoun henda~hendast have been excluded, except in Seto, where they are declined.

Table 7.15 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 65 (62%) 14 (13%) 26 (25%) 105 1686 83 (97%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 86 1857 79 (99%) 0 1 (1%) 80 1886 75 (99%) 0 1 (1%) 76 1905 68 (79%) 13 (15%) 5 (6%) 86 Seto 1926** 74 (81%) 12 (13%) 5 (6%) 91

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Except for Gutslaff, the southern Estonian biblical corpus shows a greater prominence of the partitive than the northern biblical corpus of the same time period. Gutslaff uses the genitive / nominative case for the 3rd person singular Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 259 and the nominative for 3rd person plural objects, while all other personal pronouns are in the partitive case. Like Stahl his choice of infinitives appears random. The greatest difficulty appears to be with saama, which is used in the modern language with a ‑ta infinitive with the meaning ‘be able to’ or rarely as a future auxiliary with a ‑ma infinitive. Example (7.38) shows the ‑ta infinitive used for the future by Gutslaff. There is also a genitive singular noun object, where one would expect the partitive.

(7.38) E 1648 minnu poja sah-wat nem.(pro nemmat) 1SG.GEN son.SG.GEN will-3PL 3PL.NOM pelje-da fear-taINF ‘my son they will fear’ (Matt. 21:37)

Objects of all verb forms are predominantly partitive in southern Estonian from 1686 to 1886 inclusive, and this is of course reflected also in the objects of infinitive verbs, with genitive- and nominative-accusative objects appearing in significant numbers only in 1905, except for Gutslaff, where word category and number determines the case. The results for Seto are very similar to those of the 1905 southern NT in numbers even though only the gospel is available in the corpus.

Northern (Standard) Estonian Biblical Texts The results for the biblical corpus in the northern Estonian dialect are shown in Table 7.16. In this table the pronoun keik~kõik ‘all’ and the relative pronoun mis have all been included. The partitive case predominates at all times and is more frequent for objects of ‑ta infinitives than for the entire active verb corpus. There are a number of singular nominative objects, due to different constructions. As the nominative case includes a mixture of invariably nominative pronouns in the earlier texts, and there are also many partitive personal pronouns, the case distribution for noun objects is shown separately in Table 7.17. The number of singular parti‑ tive and nominative objects are shown in brackets after the percentages in the appropriate columns. The genitive objects are of course all singular. The 1997 edition has more singular nominative objects than the others. There is a difference in the interpretation of boundedness in some clauses whose objects are accusative in 1997 and partitive in 1989. Example (7.39) shows one example of the different use of case between these two translations. 260 CHAPTER 7

Table 7.16 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694* 91 (80%) 2 (2%) 21 (18%) 114 1715 95 (81%) 5 (4%) 17 (15%) 117 1739 87 (71%) 13 (11%) 23 (19%) 123 1903 89 (74%) 17 (14%) 15 (12%) 121 1947 72 (67%) 18 (17%) 18 (17%) 108 1968 77 (69%) 17 (15%) 17 (15%) 111 1989 96 (71%) 22 (16%) 18 (13%) 136 1997 86 (66%) 23 (18%) 22 (17%) 131

* München manuscript

Table 7.17 Case distribution of noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in the northern Estonian biblical corpus (singular nouns in brackets)

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694* 46 (75%) (36) 2 (3%) 13 (21%) (2) 61 1715 45 (76%) (34) 5 (8%) 9 (15%) (2) 59 1739 42 (61%) (32) 12 (17%) 15 (22%) (3) 69 1903 50 (68%) (38) 16 (22%) 8 (11%) (1) 74 1947 42 (68%) (30) 12 (19%) 8 (13%) (3) 62 1968 44 (68%) (31) 12 (18%) 9 (14%) (3) 65 1989 60 (71%) (40) 16 (19%) 8 (10%) (4) 84 1997 54 (64%) (35) 17 (20%) 13 (15%) (10) 84

* München manuscript

(7.39) E 1989 et pööra-ta kasvõi üh-te oma usku to convert-taINF even one-PAR own religion.SG.ILL ‘to convert even one to your religion’ (Matt. 23:15) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 261

In the 1997 edition the partitive ühte is replaced by the nominative-accusative üks. While conversion can be a completed act with the entire object affected, there can be some doubt in the present context as to whether it actually happens. Hence the difference in case is due to the different interpretations of the result of the action. In this instance there is no verb directly governing the infinitive, so the object is nominative. In the 1997 Bible there is an example of serial infinitives (7.40).

(7.40) E 1997 et las-ta ennas-t Johannese-l in.order.to let-taINF self-PAR John-ADE risti-da baptize-taINF ‘in order to let John baptize him’ (Matt. 3:13)

3.1.2.2 Finnish In the Finnish biblical corpus the total number of transitive ‑ta infinitives increases in 1906 and further in 1992. All the objects of this infinitive are shown in Table 7.18 and noun objects in Table 7.19. The separation of noun objects into singular and plural is presented in Table 7.20.

Table 7.18 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

1548 28 (38%) 36 (49%) 10 (14%) 0 74 1642 34 (46%) 32 (43%) 8 (11%) – 74 1776 33 (42%) 34 (44%) 10 (13%) 1 (1%) 78 1880 35 (46%) 31 (41%) 10 (13%) – 76 1906 40 (47%) 29 (34%) 11 (13%) 6 (7%) 86 1938 36 (43%) 27 (32%) 14 (17%) 7 (8%) 84 1992 65 (49%) 39 (29%) 20 (15%) 10 (7%) 134 262 CHAPTER 7

Table 7.19 Case distribution of all noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in the Finnish Bible corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

1548 16 (37%) 27 (63%) 43 1642 16 (39%) 25 (61%) 41 1776 19 (43%) 25 (57%) 44 1880 18 (44%) 23 (56%) 41 1906 29 (50%) 29 (50%) 58 1938 25 (44%) 32 (56%) 57 1992 45 (51%) 44 (49%) 89

At all times the proportion of partitive objects of ‑ta infinitives is greater than that in the whole active verb corpus, as shown in Chapter 5, Table 5.23 for all objects and 5.30 for noun objects. The nouns show a gradual increase in the proportion of partitive objects, with a somewhat lower proportion in 1938. When the individual ‑ta infinitives in 1992 are compared against the same sen‑ tences in 1938, it is shown that in a considerable number of instances various other expressions are used in 1938. The proportions of partitive case are lower throughout than in the Estonian diachronic corpus. The ‑t accusatives appear as objects of ‑ta infinitives first in 1906, with the exception of one instance in 1776. An example of the change from nominative to partitive is shown in (7.41).

(7.41) a. F 1548 ol-i-t he wnochta-nuua-t be-PST-3PL 3PL.NOM forget-PST.PTCP-PL leiue-t otta möte-ns bread-PL.NOM take.taINF with-3PX

b. F 1642 ol-i-t he unhotta-net be-PST-3PL 3PL.NOM forget-PST.PTCP.PL otta leipä myötä-ns take.taINF bread.SG.PAR with-3PX ‘they had forgotten to take bread loaves / bread with them’ (Matt. 16:5)

In (7.41a) leiuet can be taken to be definite: ‘the (flat) breads’, whereas (7.41b) has bread as a mass item. In the Greek ‘breads’ is plural but indefinite. The German translation has it as a mass noun as in (7.41b). In both of these Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 263

examples the infinitive lacks the suffix -a, the geminate vowels being fused, and supposedly pronounced long. This is common in old Finnish orthography (Häkkinen 1994: 199). Some of the increase in the total number of ‑ta infinitives in 1906 is due to the change in necessive constructions with pitää ‘must’ from the instructive case of the ‑ma to the ‑ta infinitive, or to other constructions, some of which also use the ‑ta infinitive. Necessive constructions, which do not have a nomi‑ native subject, also account for the larger number of nominative-accusative objects in 1992.

Table 7.20 Singular and plural noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in the Finnish Bible corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nominative

Genitive Nominative

1548 12 (39%) 18 (58%) 1 (3%) 31 4 (33% 8 (67%) 12 1642 10 (33%) 19 (63%) 1 (3%) 30 6 (55%) 5 (45%) 11 1776 11 (34%) 19 (59%) 2 (6%) 32 8 (62%) 5 (38%) 13 1880 11 (38%) 16 (55%) 2 (7%) 29 8 (62%) 5 (38%) 13 1906 16 (37%) 20 (47%) 7 (16%) 43 13 (87%) 2 (13%) 15 1938 14 (33%) 19 (44%) 10 (23%) 43 11 (79%) 3 (21%) 14 1992 30 (44%) 26 (38%) 12 (18%) 68 15 (71%) 6 (29%) 21

The singular nominative objects are cardinal numbers in 1548 and 1642. In 1776 there is one necessive construction in addition and in 1906 the necessives pre‑ dominate, with some imperative governing verbs. In 1938 there is a mixture of constructions, several necessive ones, others with an impersonal or imperative verb. Most of the 1992 examples are necessive. The passive ‑ta infinitive found in early Finnish has been discussed in Chapter 6, Section 13.5.

3.1.2.3 Karelian St. Matthew’s gospel translations from 1820 and 1864 are compared with the gospel from the 2003 NT. There are more transitive ‑ta infinitives in the 2003 264 CHAPTER 7

NT than in the earlier translations. The case distribution of all objects is shown in Table 7.21. There are no ‑t accusative objects of ‑ta infinitives in the earlier Karelian translations. Whether any plural personal pronoun objects could have appeared as ‑t accusatives in this situation is not possible to conclude from the present study, but it would appear likely.

Table 7.21 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Karelian biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

1820 48 (64%) 14 (19%) 13 (17%) 75 1864 58 (72%) 18 (22%) 5 (6%) 81 2003 70 (59%) 24 (20%) 24 (20%) 118

The proportion of partitive objects (pronouns included) is greater than the overall average of objects of all active verbs for each translation, shown in Chapter 5, Table 5.33. As the two earlier translations are very similar generally, it is surprising to find such a difference in the nominative objects. To look for an explanation, singular and plural nouns were also analysed separately, with the results displayed in Table 7.22.

Table 7.22 Case distribution of singular and plural noun objects of ‑ta infinitives in St. Matthew’s gospel in the Karelian biblical corpus

Singular Total Plural Total

Partitive Accusative Partitive Nominative

Genitive Nominative

1820 14 (42%) 10 (30%) 9 (27%) 33 14 (78%) 4 (22%) 18 1864 30 (65%) 16 (35%) 0 (0%) 46 5 (63%) 3 (38%) 8 2003 28 (51%) 18 (33%) 9 (16%) 55 15 (68%) 7 (32%) 22 Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 265

The difference lies mainly in the handling of singular nominative noun objects, 9 of which are nominative in 1820, many inexplicably so from the canonical Finnic point of view. Of these 7 are partitive and 2 genitive-accusative in 1864. Interestingly, in 1864 objects in necessive constructions with piteä, are genitive, while in 2003 they are again nominative, which is the usual form in Finnish. Example (7.42) shows the change of object case in a necessive construction.

(7.42) a. K 1820 noin pid-i šiv-la andu-a so must-PST.3SG 2SG-ALL/ADE give-taINF miv-n hobie kavpitšij-i-llä 1SG-GEN silver.SG.NOM merchant-PL-ALL

b. K 1864 nīn pid-i šiu-la andu-a so must-PST.3SG 2SG-ALL/ADE give-taINF miu-n hobie-n kaupitšij-i-lä 1SG-GEN silver-SG.GEN merchant-PL-ALL ‘so you should have given my silver (money) to the merchants’

c. K 2003 sit sinu-l pidänüs pan-na minu-n then 2SG-ADE must.COND put-taINF 1SG-GEN ďengu banka-h money.SG.NOM bank-ILL ‘then you should have put my money in the bank’ (Matt. 25:27)

In (7.43) there are two objects of ‑ta infinitives governed by the same verb ‘ordered’, with their objects in different accusative case forms. In the 1864 trans‑ lation the nominative naine has been changed to genitive naizen. The subject Moisei is not coreferential with the subject of andua and laskie, who is ‘he’ (the husband), hence the nominative naine. Perhaps the inanimate character of the letter is responsible for the genitive case form.

(7.43) K 1820 min-täh Moisei käšk-i häne-llä andu-a why Moses order-PST.3SG 3SG-ALL give-taINF lašku-kirja-n i laški-e naine letter.of.divorce-GEN and divorce-taINF wife.NOM ‘why did Moses order him to give her a letter of divorce and divorce his wife’ (Matt. 19:7) 266 CHAPTER 7

No passive infinitives are found in the Karelian corpus.

3.1.2.4 Livonian The case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives is given in Table 7.23. All non-partitive objects are counted together, even when the genitive and nomi‑ native case forms could be separated, such as with pronoun objects.

Table 7.23 The case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the Livonian St. Matthew’s gospel corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

East Livonian 1863 67 (66%) 35 (34%) 102 West Livonian 1863 68 (72%) 27 (28%) 95 1942 30 (68%) 14 (32%) 44

There are far fewer objects of ‑ta infinitives in the 1942 translation. Some have been replaced by laz constructions, and some necessive constructions by the 4th infinitive (see Section 3.4). The proportion of partitives is greater than that of the objects of all active verbs in the Livonian diachronic section (Chapter 5, Table 5.41).

3.1.2.5 Veps Veps has a greater proportion of partitive objects of ‑ta infinitives in St. Matthew’s gospel in 2006 than in 1998, when all objects are taken into con‑ sideration. Again the proportion of partitive objects here is greater than in the entire active verb corpus, but there are quite a number of accusatives. As men‑ tioned in Chapter 5, some objects have been changed from accusative to parti‑ tive in the later edition. The results in Table 7.24 include the data from Chude (Lönnrot 1853) and oral southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b) in order to gain some historical perspective, even though the results are of course not directly com‑ parable to those from the biblical texts. Despite the different genres studied, there appears to be a general increase in the use of the partitive case in the later texts, as for objects of all active verbs. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 267

Table 7.24 Case distribution of all objects of ‑ta infinitives in the Veps corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative

Chude 1853 6 (40%) 5 (33%) 4 (27%) 15 South Veps 1925 15 (46%) 6 (18%) 12 (36%) 33 1998 57 (49%) 41 (35%) 18 (16%) 116 2006 64 (57%) 31 (27%) 18 (16%) 113

3.2 The ‑ma Infinitive The ‑ma infinitive is known as the third infinitive in most languages, recently as the ‑MA infinitive in Finnish (VISK §120) and as the supine (previously ‑ma infinitive) in Estonian (Viitso 2007a: 64). It appears in all the languages in several different cases, the most common being the illative. The illative case occurs mostly in conjunction with verbs of coming, going or beginning, indi‑ cating going into an activity. The inessive form is associated with being in the process of an activity and the elative coming out of or ceasing an activity. The abessive means ‘without doing something’, the translative ‘for the purpose of’. The ‑ma infinitives function as adverbials (Viitso 2007a: 64). Table 7.25 shows the cases in the different languages.

Table 7.25 The various cases of the -ma infinitive in Finnic languages

Estonian Finnish Karelian Livonian Veps Votic

Illative -ma -mAAn -mAh -(a/õ)m -mha -mA Inessive -mas -mAssA -mAs -mõs -mas -mAzA Elative -mast -mAstA -mAs(päi) -mõst -maspǟ -mAssA Adessive -mAllA -mAl -mal ? Abessive -mata -mAttA -mAttAh -mõt -mata -mAttA Translative -maks Instructive -mAn Partitive -mUA 268 CHAPTER 7

The Votic forms are those given by Ariste (1968: 77–78), and the same are found in the biblical corpus. Tsvetkov (2008: 85) gives slightly different forms for ines‑ sive (‑mes), elative (‑mmes), and abessive (‑mett). Although the adessive is a locative case, meaning ‘on’, it is also often used to indicate the means by which something is done, and this is the meaning of the adessive here. According to Kettunen (1943: 500) the adessive case of this infinitive does not occur in Veps, but one example was found in St. Matthew’s gospel in both the 1998 and 2006 versions (7.44), perhaps due to Finnish influ‑ ence. The object is partitive.

(7.44) V tac-ma-l arba-d cast-ma.INF-ADE lot.SG-PAR ‘by casting lots’ (Matt. 27:35)

Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 99) have six cases for the third (‑ma) infini‑ tive in Karelian (shown in Table 7.25), but mention that the partitive case is rare. Zaikov (2002: 124), whose grammar is based on the northern Viena dia‑ lect of Karelian, lists the illative, inessive and elative cases of the third (‑ma) infinitive. Kont (1963: 119) discusses the case of the object of the various cases of the ‑ma infinitive, pointing out that the objects are predominantly partitive. However, he does mention that there are a number of accusative objects in the various Finnic languages (Kont 1963: 124), and states that these are seen mostly with infinitives governed by such verbs as forcing and allowing (Kont 1963: 123). In Estonian the accusative can be found in necessive constructions with pidama ‘must’, which takes the ‑ma infinitive.

3.2.1 Synchronic Study Table 7.26 shows the case of all objects of the illative -ma infinitive in the syn‑ chronic biblical corpus in the various Finnic languages. In the limited Votic corpus the majority of objects are pronouns. In Veps there are fewer illative ‑ma infinitives than in the other languages. At the same time there are many more ‑ta infinitives (Lees 2010: 7). Kettunen (1943: 491) points out that the first (‑ta) infinitive is sometimes used in Veps where Finnish would use the third (‑ma) infinitive, and attributes this to Russian influence. A greater proportion of the objects of ‑ma infinitives are partitive than of the ‑ta infinitives. As ‑ma infinitives are commonly governed by verbs of motion and beginning, such a result is not unexpected, as the action will be progres‑ sive. In Estonian the modal verb pidama ‘must’ governs the ‑ma infinitive, Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 269

Table 7.26 Case distribution of all objects of illative ‑ma infinitives in the synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative t Accusative

Estonian 49 (90.7%) 3 (5.6%) 2 (3.7%) – 54 Livonian 39 (78.0%) 11 (22.0%) – 50 Finnish 45 (68.2%) 15 (22.7%) 5 (7.6%) 1 (1.5%) 66 Karelian 64 (97.0%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) – 66 Veps 22 (68.8%) 7 (21.9%) 3 (9.4%) – 32 Votic* 14 (100%) 0 0 0 14

* St. Matthew’s gospel, chapters 2–4, 6 only whereas in the other languages, except Livonian, necessive constructions involve the ‑ta infinitive. The three genitive-accusative objects in Estonian are in necessive constructions; the two nominative-accusative ones involve the relative pronoun mis. Most of the Livonian accusative objects are consistent with a bounded interpretation. Some clauses include the bounding particle jara ‘away’. Others have the verb pānda ‘put, command’ governing the infinitive. There is a clear distinction in the proportion of partitive objects between Estonian and Karelian on the one hand and Finnish and Veps on the other, with Livonian in between. There are very few accusative objects in Estonian and Karelian. In the others also partitive objects predominate, but there are significant numbers of accusatives. It is unusual for Estonian and Karelian to show so much similarity. The results are influenced by the number of partitive personal pronouns in Karelian and Veps, but Karelian has most noun objects also in the partitive case. An example of the use of ‑ma infinitives is given in (7.45). In these examples the object ‘peace / mercy’ is partitive in all the languages.

(7.45) a. E et ma ole-n tul-nud rahu that I be-1SG come-PST.PTCP peace.PAR too-ma bring-maINF.ILL 270 CHAPTER 7

b. L ku ma ūo-b tu-nd arm-õ that I be-1SG come-PST.PTCP mercy-PAR tūo-m bring-maINF.ILL

c. F että minä ole-n tul-lut tuo-ma-an that I be-1SG come-PST.PTCP bring-maINF-ILL rauha-a peace-PAR

d. K minä tul-i-n tuo-ma-h rauhua I come-PST-1SG bring-maINF-ILL peace.PAR

e. V miše minä ole-n tul-nu . . . to-mha that I be-1SG come-PST.PTCP bring-maINF.ILL miru-d peace-PAR ‘that I came / have come to bring peace / mercy’ (Matt. 10:34)

There are a number of reasons for the choice of the partitive case. ‘Peace’ is an abstract mass noun and ‘bringing peace’ is progressive rather than an instan‑ taneous action. The features involved in determining the boundedness of an action take into account the nature of the infinitive verb, but include features of the governing verb. In (7.45) all the languages concur. There are a several instances, where Finnish has an accusative object and Karelian a partitive one (7.46).

(7.46) a. F mene sitten vasta anta-ma-an go.IMPV.2SG then only give-maINF-ILL lahja-si gift.SG.ACC-2SG.PX ‘go only then to give your gift’

b. K vaste sit mene anda-ma-h lahju-a only then go.IMPV.2SG give-maINF-ILL gift-SG.PAR Jumala-le god-ALL ‘only then go and give a gift to God’ (Matt. 5:24) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 271

The difference in the above example is that in Finnish the object is definite and in Karelian indefinite, and perhaps in the latter there is also doubt whether the gift will be given. In the Greek original the object is definite, and also in German. The context certainly suggests a definite gift. The one Karelian genitive-accusative object implies that the activity will be carried to completion (7.47).

(7.47) K Häi tul-i . . . anda-mah oma-n 3SG.NOM come-PST.3SG give-maINF.ILL own-GEN henge-n life-GEN/ACC ‘He came [to serve and] to give His own life’ (Matt. 20:28)

The results for noun objects are given in Table 7.27. The relative proportions of partitive noun objects in the different languages are similar to those for all objects shown in Table 7.26, except that the results for Veps have been influ‑ enced by the large number of partitive personal pronouns in Table 7.26, and show a lower proportion of partitive noun objects than Finnish.

Table 7.27 Case distribution of noun objects of illative ‑ma infinitives in the Finnic synchronic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Estonian 35 (92%) 3 (8%) 38 Livonian 25 (74%) 9 (26%) 34 Finnish 30 (63%) 18 (38%) 48 Karelian 43 (98%) 1 (2%) 44 Veps 13 (57%) 10 (43%) 23

The proportion of partitive noun objects of ‑ma infinitives is greater than that of ‑ta infinitives, except in Veps. Finnish and Veps remain true to form in hav‑ ing more accusative objects than the other languages. The Votic translation of St. Matthew’s gospel has all 14 objects (5 nouns and 9 pronouns) of illative ‑ma infinitives in the partitive case. In the oral western Votic corpus the partitive objects are also markedly predominant at 30/34 (88%). Excluding pronouns, 272 CHAPTER 7 there are 24/26 (92%) partitives. The oral eastern Votic corpus has all objects of illative ‑ma infinitives (11 nouns, 2 pronouns) in the partitive case. Other cases of transitive -ma infinitive are few in the corpus, most of them being the inessive ‑mas /-massa forms. Their objects are partitive except in Finnish, where there is one accusative object of an inessive infinitive and two of adessive infinitives. In the Livonian corpus there are very few examples of the inessive ‑mõs, and in the examples corresponding to those with the inessive infinitive in other languages the infinitives are mostly identical with the illative, as in example (7.52) further below. According to Metslang (1993: 326) in Estonian the interpretation of the ‑mas form as a locative adverbial or as an aspectual indicator of continuing activity depends to some extent on the lexical semantics of the verb. For continuing activity this form is used for processes rather than activities. The locative mean‑ ing is dependent on previously going somewhere to do something. Tamm (2011: 244) discusses the locative function as having an absentive component, the action being away from the point of deixis. When used for a process it indicates continuation, with other verbs its meaning is mostly momentary: ‘be on the on the point of happening’. However, in Finnish there is now an increasing ten‑ dency to use the inessive form as a simple progressive (Sulkala 1996: 196), and it is beginning to be so also in Estonian (Metslang 2006b: 9). Some other newer uses of this form, which are expanding, are reported by Metslang (2006a: 714), including the sense of a gradual change of a condition, and in a narrative in an existential sense of something happening somewhere, with no expressed agent. Nemvalts (2008: 41) comments that in Estonian nowadays, because of English influence, many examples appear of the ‑mas form being used inap‑ propriately for a progressive present. According to Metslang (2006a: 717), if the ‑mas form begins to be used as a progressive with an agentive subject, it will be another step in the grammaticalization of this construction. Some exam‑ ples of the inessive case of the ‑ma infinitive in the corpus are shown in (7.48) and (7.49).

(7.48) F jos siis ole-t vie-mä-ssä uhrilahja-a-si if then be-2SG take-maINF-INE offering-PAR-2SG.PX altari-lle altar-ALL ‘if you are taking your offering to the altar’ (Matt. 5:23) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 273

(7.49) L kis . . . voļ-t Jesuz-õ vaŗtõ-mõ-s who be.PST-3PL Jesus-PAR guard-maINF-INE ‘who were guarding Jesus’ (Matt. 27:54)

These examples do indicate actions in progress, but also have a locative impli‑ cation, for (7.48) ‘if you are on the way to the altar’. In the Estonian 1989 NT the clauses corresponding to those above are rendered with the simple present tense. The inessive can also be used adverbially, again with a sense of location, commonly as a complement of the verb ‘see’. Most such examples have an intransitive infinitive, but a couple of examples follow with a transitive infini‑ tive in Karelian (7.50) and Votic (7.51).

(7.50) K Iisus näg-i verku-o järve-h laske-ma-s Jesus.NOM see-PST.3SG net.SG-PAR lake-ILL cast-maINF-INE kah-tu velles-tü two-PAR brother.SG-PAR ‘Jesus saw two brothers casting a net into the lake’ (Matt. 4:18)

(7.51) Vo nät̬-i tämä kahsi muu-ta see-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM two.NOM other.SG-PAR velvü-ä venee-zä praavihutta-ma-za võrkk-õi brother-SG.PAR boat.SG-INE mend-maINF-INE net-PL.PAR ‘he saw two other brothers . . . in a boat mending nets’ (Matt. 4:21)

In Livonian the illative case of the ‑ma infinitive is used instead (7.52). In this example ‘nets’ is partitive despite the modifier entš making it definite, the continuing activity and the possibility that only some of their nets are being mended eliciting the partitive case.

(7.52) L ta ne-iz tūois-ta kaks veļļ-õ 3SG.NOM see-PST.3SG other-SG.PAR two.NOM brother.SG-PAR lāja-s entš võrgi-di paikõ-m boat-INE self.GEN net-PL.PAR mend-maINF.ILL ‘he saw two other brothers in a boat mending their nets’ (Matt. 4:21) 274 CHAPTER 7

This construction with the inessive ‑ma infinitive is also found in Estonian and Finnish, but is less common than the ‑vat / ‑van construction used in a similar context, described in Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2 below. In Veps the sentences corresponding to (7.51) and (7.52) are constructed slightly differently, with the auxiliary or copula ‘be’ (7.53). This could be analysed in two ways: they were in a boat mending nets’ or ‘they were mending nets in their boat’. The first interpretation has oliba as a copula and the infinitival clause as an adverbial adjunct, and the other has oliba as an auxiliary. The difference lies in the focus, whether the activity or the location is more important.

(7.53) V hö ol-i-ba venehe-s verko-id 3PL.NOM be-PST-3PL boat-INE net-PL.PAR kohenda-ma-s mend-maINF-INE ‘they were in a boat mending nets’ (Matt. 4:21)

Kont (1963: 127–131) discusses the objects of the different cases of the ‑ma infinitive in the Finnic languages, giving numerous examples, mentioning that the partitive predominance is even greater with cases other than illative. He does point out that in Finnish, more than in the other languages, accusative objects occur occasionally. Veps he tends to dismiss, saying that the distinction between the partitive and accusative is blurred (Kont 1963: 136). (Kont 1963: 130) mentions the instructive case of the ‑ma infinitive, with the suffix ‑man, present only in Finnish, and used mainly in old Finnish in necessive construc‑ tions with pitää ‘must’. This is also listed in VISK §121, but is not in common use nowadays. In recent times the instructive ‑ma infinitive has been replaced by the ‑ta infinitive in Finnish necessive constructions (Lees 2012: 199). Kettunen (1938: LXVII) mentions ‑mõst for the elative in Livonian, and points out that this form is the same as the partitive case of the fourth infini‑ tive (see Section 3.4). There are no examples of it as the elative case of the ‑ma infinitive with an object in the present corpus. In conclusion, with the -ma infinitive in all its cases, the partitive is particu‑ larly prominent as the case of its object, but the numbers are small for cases other than the illative.

3.2.2 Diachronic Studies 3.2.2.1 Estonian In the oldest Estonian texts in the corpus (except for Willmann 1782) the ‑ma infinitive is more common than the ‑ta infinitive. In the southern Estonian Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 275 biblical corpus Gutslaff (1648–1656) differs from the subsequent translations in having more ‑ta than ‑ma infinitives. Otherwise the ‑ma infinitive is the pre‑ dominant one. This is largely governed by pidama ‘must’, or saama ‘become’ used as a future marker. Gutslaff tends to use the ‑ta infinitive with saama, even when indicating future action, but is not consistent in this. The case dis‑ tribution of the objects of ‑ma infinitives is shown in Table 7.28. The relative pronoun mis and keik ‘all’, which only occur in their nominative form in these texts, except Seto, are excluded. Gutslaff is using object case according to word category and number like the early northern dialect writers, and has quite a number of genitive and nominative objects. The objects of ‑ma infinitives are mostly partitive in the next three editions, with genitive-accusative and nomi‑ native-accusative ones appearing in significant numbers only in 1905. The rela‑ tively few genitive and nominative objects in 1905 are almost all formed with the verb saama ‘become, get’ in the present tense, suggesting that the action will be completed in the future. The genitive objects are singular and the nomi‑ native ones plural. Seto, where only St. Matthew’s gospel is available from 1926, is closer to the modern standard Estonian in its case distribution.

Table 7.28 Case distribution of all objects of illative ‑ma infinitives in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1648–1656* 48 (63.2%) 8 (10.5%) 20 (26.3%) 76 1686 159 (100%) 0 0 159 1857 157 (99.4%) 1 (0.6%) 0 158 1886 142 (97.9%) 3 (2.1%) 0 145 1905 117 (76.0%) 26 (16.9%) 11 (7.1%) 154 Seto 1926** 34 (94%) 2 (6%) 0 36

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7:15–16:24 (Gutslaff) ** St. Matthew’s gospel only

Regarding transitive ‑ma infinitives in the northern Estonian corpus, the dif‑ ferent editions form two separate groups with a definite change between 1903 and 1947. The results are shown in Table 7.29. Here also mis and keik ‘all’ are excluded, although inflected forms occur in the later texts. 276 CHAPTER 7

Table 7.29 Case distribution of all objects of the illative ‑ma infinitive in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694* 73 (82%) 7 (8%) 9 (10%) 89 1715 85 (83%) 4 (4%) 13 (13%) 102 1739 84 (87%) 5 (5%) 8 (8%) 97 1903 80 (71%) 25 (22%) 7 (6%) 112 1947 49 (86%) 5 (9%) 3 (5%) 57 1968 53 (90%) 3 (5%) 3 (5%) 59 1989 49 (94%) 3 (6%) 0 52 1997 52 (96%) 2 (4%) 0 54

* München manuscript

The greater number of transitive ‑ma infinitives in the early editions is mainly due to the frequent use of necessive constructions with pidama governing the illative ‑ma infinitive to translate the German sollen ‘should’ and werden ‘will’ (Lees 2012: 203). In northern Estonian the use of saama ‘become’, used as a future marker, is less frequent than in southern Estonian. Resulting from German influence, these have been removed from later editions. The larger number of nominative objects initially is due to the nominative being the pre‑ ferred case for plural noun objects, rather than any aspectual consideration. Although it would also fit in with the fact that an action deemed necessary is likely to be carried to completion, such a consideration should also call forth the genitive form for singular nouns. The number of genitive-accusative objects in 1903 suggests that aspect has become a factor in the choice of case by that time. All are necessive expressions with pidama, where the implication is that the actions will be carried out. The majority of corresponding objects in 1739 are partitive, and some are ambiguous in the earlier texts. The necessive constructions in the early editions in both the southern and northern (standard) dialects also make use of the passive ‑ma infinitive in the illative case, which is still used in the present day, but only infrequently and only with pidama in the invariable 3rd person singular form (see Chapter 6, Section 10.4). Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 277

3.2.2.2 Finnish Finnish has two frequently used cases of the ‑ma infinitives in the older texts, the illative and the instructive. In the two earliest texts both cases have the suffix ‑man, the long a of the illative written as -maan by 1776, with the instruc‑ tive remaining ‑man, and almost disappearing by 1906. In modern Finnish the illative is the most common case of the ‑ma infinitive. Table 7.30 shows the case distribution of the objects of the illative form.

Table 7.30 Case distribution of all objects of illative ‑ma infinitives in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

1548 30 (77%) 9 (23%) 39 1642 41 (91%) 4 (9%) 45 1776 42 (89%) 5 (11%) 47 1880 39 (87%) 6 (13%) 45 1906 45 (76%) 14 (24%) 59 1938 34 (69%) 15 (31%) 49 1992 45 (68%) 21 (32%) 66

The number of transitive ‑ma infinitives in the illative case increases with time. This is contrary to the Estonian findings, where the number decreases with time. While partitive objects are always predominant, there is a smaller proportion in 1548 and then again from 1906 onwards. The instructive case of the ‑ma infinitive, used with pite~pitää, as men‑ tioned by Häkkinen (1994: 313), and also found in the present corpus, accounts for the lower number of illative ‑ma infinitives compared with Estonian, where the illative case is used for necessive clauses. The use of the instructive in a necessive construction is illustrated in example (7.54).

(7.54) a. F 1548 että Jnhimise-t pite tei-den that people-PL.NOM must.3SG 2PL-GEN teke-men do-maINF.INST 278 CHAPTER 7

b. F 1880 että ihmise-t pitää tei-lle that people-PL.NOM must.3SG 2PL-ALL teke-män do-maINF.INST ‘(what you want) that people should do to you’ (Matt. 7:12)

The plural subject would be genitive in the standard modern language. The verb pitää ‘must’ does not agree with the subject. The case of the subject in necessive constructions has been discussed in more detail in Lees (2012: 198). Although the instructive is still mentioned in Visk §121, it is not in common use in modern Finnish, as the construction with pitää now takes the ‑ta infini‑ tive. In the corpus it is found only once in the 1906 NT, but in 1938 there are four instances of it. As in Estonian, this necessive construction is used in the earli‑ est texts to translate the German werden and sollen, without there always being a sense of necessity. Sometimes it is used to translate the plain future in the original Greek (especially where the German has werden), but there is often a sense that the event is predestined to happen. Mielikäinen (1999: 14) mentions that pitää with an instructive ‑ma infinitive originated in the western dialects, while its use with the ‑ta infinitive came from the eastern dialects. Example (7.55) illustrates the changes in the choice of infinitive by the modal pitää, with a partitive object throughout. In 1906 (7.55d) the 4th infinitive is used, but in 1938 the construction reverts to pitää, again with an instructive ‑ma infinitive. In 1992 the ‑ta infinitive is used.

(7.55) a. F 1548 taicka pite-kö mei-den tois-ta odhotta-man

b. F 1642 eli pitä-kö mei-dän tois-ta odotta-man

c. F 1880 eli pitää-kö mei-dän tois-ta or must.3SG-Q 3PL-GEN other-SG.PAR odotta-man await-maINF.INST

d. F 1906 vai toista-ko mei-dän on or other.SG.PAR-Q 3PL-GEN be.3SG odotta-minen await-4INF.NOM Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 279

e. F 1938 vai pitää-kö mei-dän tois-ta or must.3SG-Q 3PL-GEN other.SG-PAR odotta-man wait-maINF.INST

f. F 1992 vai pitää-kö mei-dän odotta-a tois-ta or must.3SG-Q 3PL-GEN await-taINF other-SG.PAR ‘or must we wait for someone else’ (Matt. 11:3)

The case distribution of the objects of instructive ‑ma infinitives is shown in Table 7.31, with the different forms of the accusative also detailed. There is a dramatic change between 1880 and 1906, with only one remaining example of a transitive instructive ‑ma infinitive in 1906 and none in 1992. The form of the singular accusative object has also changed from genitive to nomina‑ tive. However, in 1938 the instructive ‑ma infinitive is again seen, again with a nominative-accusative object. The table includes several singular objects in the earlier years with possessive suffixes where the case form is homonymous for nominative and genitive (labeled Gen/Nom), but as there are no clear sin‑ gular nominative objects in those years, the actual case form is presumably genitive.

Table 7.31 Case distribution of all objects of the instructive ‑ma infinitives in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Gen/Nom Nom Sg Nom Pl

1548 18 (28%) 34 (53%) 5 (8%) 0 7 (11%) 64 1642 14 (39%) 20 (56%) 0 0 2 (6%) 36 1776 19 (42%) 21 (47%) 3 (7%) 0 2 (4%) 45 1880 19 (42%) 21 (47%) 3 (7%) 0 2 (4%) 45 1906 0 0 0 1 (100%) 0 1 1938 4 (80%) 0 0 1 (20%) 0 5 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 CHAPTER 7

The accusative is dominant, except in 1938. Example (7.56) shows the one example in 1906 listed in Table 7.31 with the instructive ‑ma infinitive and (7.57) one of the three necessive constructions with pitää and the ‑ta infini‑ tive in the 1906 NT. The object in (7.56) is a singular noun in the nominative- accusative case. The noun rahani in (7.57) is homonymous for nominative and genitive singular as well as nominative plural. Today it would be nominative- accusative because of the absence of a nominative subject, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.2 above.

(7.56) F 1906 jokaise-sta turha-sta sana-sta pitä-ä every.SG-ELA useless.SG-ELA word.SG-ELA must-3SG hei-dän teke-män tili 3PL-GEN do-maINF.INST account.SG.NOM ‘they must give account of every useless word’ (Matt. 12:36)

(7.57) F 1906 ol-isi-han sinu-n siis pitä-nyt be-COND.3SG-EMP 2SG-GEN then must-PST.PTCP jättä-ä raha-ni leave-taINF money.SG.GEN/NOM-1PX rahakauppia-i-lle money.merchants-PL-ALL ‘you should then have left my money [in the hands of] the money merchants’ (Matt. 25:27)

As in old Estonian, in Finnish there is a passive form of the ‑ma infinitive, but in Finnish it is in the instructive case like the active infinitive, with the neces‑ sive verb pitää. This has been discussed in Chapter 6, Section 13.4.

3.2.2.3 Karelian There is little difference between the three Karelian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel as far as the case of the object of ‑ma infinitives is concerned. The num‑ ber of transitive ‑ma infinitives is greatest at 53 in 2003, compared with 32 and 38 in 1820 and 1864 respectively. The percentage of partitive objects is very high in all, ranging from 95 to 98%, with only 1 or 2 accusative objects.

3.2.2.4 Livonian There is a difference in the number of transitive ‑ma infinitives between the two Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel from 1863. The eastern dialect has a total of 31 tokens (77% partitive objects), the western 23 (83% Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 281 partitive objects). In St. Matthew’s gospel in the 1942 NT there are 41 (69% partitive objects). Most of the accusatives are objects of infinitives of verbs, which are inherently telic, where the completion of the action is anticipated, but has not yet occurred.

3.2.2.5 Veps As far as the objects of ‑ma infinitives are concerned there is practically no difference between the two temporally close translations of St. Matthew’s gos‑ pel in 1998 and 2006. Both have 30 transitive ‑ma infinitives, with 67% and 70% partitive objects respectively. This is very similar to the Finnish 1992 Bible. In the Chude text (Lönnrot 1853) one out of 9 objects is accusative and in southern Veps (Kettunen 1925b) one out of 17. The results from the oral collec‑ tions, where objects are otherwise predominantly accusative, show clearly the greater use of the partitive object for ‑ma infinitives.

3.3 The ‑e Infinitive The infinitive with an ‑e stem has been called the second infinitive in all the Finnic languages except Estonian, where a similar form in the inessive case exists under the name of gerund (Viitso 2007a: 65). In Estonian it is also com‑ monly referred to as the ‑des form. Peegel (2006: 151) points out that in those southern Estonian dialects, where the inessive has the suffix ‑n, the ‑des suf‑ fix becomes ‑den, and this is so in the present southern Estonian corpus. In Finnish nowadays it is called the E-infinitive (VISK §120). It is in the inessive case in all the languages, and also in the instructive case in Finnish, Karelian and Veps. Some Estonian linguists (Saareste 1952: 36; Kont 1963: 138) refer to the inessive ‑e infinitive as the inessive case of the ‑ta infinitive, and so does Tsvetkov (2008: 85) for Votic. In Finnish the inessive has a possessive suffix to mark the subject of the infinitive if it is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause. If the subjects differ, the subject of the infinitive is in the geni‑ tive case. The latter applies also to Estonian, but from the present data, it is not possible to say whether it is also so in Livonian. The ‑e infinitive is not used with an auxiliary or as an attribute. The inessive infinitive forms the head of a non-finite clause, which is used as an alternative to a ‘when’ clause, linking two activities which occur simultaneously. The instructive case indicates the manner of the action of the matrix verb. In Estonian, Livonian and Votic the inessive form can also be used to indicate manner. In Finnish there is a passive ‑e infinitive, but there are no examples of this in the present corpus. Ylikoski (2004: 233) mentions other uses of the inessive ‑e infinitive in Veps: a purposive function and also its use in constructions similar to the -van construction in Finnish (see Section 4.1.2.2 below). 282 CHAPTER 7

3.3.1 Synchronic Studies Table 7.32 gives the distribution of the case of the objects of inessive ‑e infini‑ tives in the synchronic biblical corpus.

Table 7.32 Case distribution of all objects of the inessive ‑e infinitive in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

Estonian 1989 57 (95%) 3 (5%) 60 Livonian 1942 49 (88%) 7 (13%) 56 Finnish 1992 5 (33%) 10 (67%) 15 Karelian 2003 3 (100%) 0 3 Veps 2006 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 9

As can be seen, the inessive ‑e infinitive is uncommon in Karelian and Veps, but particularly common in Estonian and Livonian, where intransitive ‑e infinitives are even more common (Lees 2010: 13). In general the ‑e infinitive marks an activity continuing during the action of the main verb, but it can also indicate completed activity, preceding the main action, perhaps most clearly seen with verbs of perception. The accusative objects in Finnish and Veps in the corpus are almost exclusively those of verbs of perception, which generally take an accusative object. There is some logic to the use of the accusative, as the onset of seeing has already occurred, when the next action takes place, although pre‑ sumably seeing continues. The Karelian expresses this most clearly by using the passive past participle in the partitive form, which functions as the past tense of the inessive ‑e infinitive or gerund. Although in the Karelian example (7.58d) the object looks like the ordinary genitive-accusative object of ‘see’, it is in fact genitive, not genitive/accusative, as shown in Section 4.4.1. Estonian and Livonian have verbs of perception preferring partitive objects, and this is also so with the ‑e infinitive. Examples with the verb ‘see’ are shown in (7.58).

(7.58) a. E se-da näh-es this-PAR see-eINF.INE

b. L sie-da nǟd-s this-PAR see-eINF.INE Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 283

c. F tämä-n näh-de-ssä-än this-GEN/ACC see-eINF-INE-3PX ‘seeing this’

d. K tämä-n näh-tü-ü this-GEN see-PPP-PAR ‘having seen this’

e. V nece-n nägišta-des this-GEN/ACC see-eINF.INE ‘seeing this, (the Pharisees said to his disciples)’ (Matt. 9:11)

Example (7.59) shows the contrast between the two cases of the ‑e infinitive in Finnish.

(7.59) F joka sanoma-n kuul-le-ssa-an, who.SG.NOM message-SG.GEN/ACC hear-eINF-INE-3PX heti otta-a se-n iloit-en vastaan immediately take-3SG it-GEN/ACC rejoice-eINF.INST against ‘who, hearing the message, immediately accepts it with rejoicing’ (Matt. 13:20)

The object of ‘hearing’ is genitive-accusative, as ‘hear’ takes an accusative object and ‘rejoicing’ is intransitive. The action of hearing is completed, while the rejoicing continues and describes the manner of accepting the message. In the same text in Karelian the partitive passive past participle is used instead of the illative ‑e infinitive. One of the genitive-accusative objects in Estonian is shown in (7.60).

(7.60) E siruta-des käe stretch-eINF.INE hand.SG.GEN/ACC ‘stretching out his hand . . . [he said]’ (Matt. 12:49)

While the saying occurs simultaneously with the stretching out of the hand, the stretching reaches an endpoint, the resultant state of the stretched hand, which justifies the accusative. The other two examples with a genitive object are both with the verb ‘leave’, resulting in the state of having been left. 284 CHAPTER 7

Genetz (1885: 192), writing about the Aunus (Olonets) dialect, states that the object of the inessive form is always in the genitive case, and never accusative or partitive, and gives some examples, such as (7.61).

(7.61) K sob-ien pes-tes clothes-PL.GEN wash-eINF.INE ‘washing clothes’ (Genetz 1885: 192)

Since the object of ‘washing’ is plural, the genitive is a true genitive case and not genitive-accusative, since for plural nouns the accusative is in a nomina‑ tive form. In (7.61) the infinitive appears to be a nominalization, modified by a genitive attribute. There appears to have been a change from this interpreta‑ tion, as in the present Olonets Karelian corpus the inessive ‑e infinitive does take partitive objects (7.62), and hence shows the case alternation character‑ istic of objects.

(7.62) K tüö voit-to paho-i hein-i-i kütkij-e-s 2PL.NOM can-2PL bad-PL.PAR grass-PL-PAR gather-eINF-INE n’ühti-e nižu-t-gi pull-taINF wheat-PL.NOM-EMP ‘while gathering the weeds you might pull out the wheat as well’ (Matt. 13:29)

There is only one transitive ‑e infinitive (in the instructive case) in the Karelian Valdai oral collection in the corpus, with the genitive object hänen ‘him’. As sin‑ gular personal pronouns in Karelian do not have ‑t accusative case, this could be either a genitive-accusative or a true genitive. There are no ‑e infinitives in the Tver oral corpus. In Estonian and Livonian manner is expressed by the inessive case of the infinitive, as shown for Livonian in (7.63).

(7.63) L tyjald ne palkõ-bõd minnõ-n opat-õs rovšti in.vain they serve-3PL 1SG-DAT teach-eINF.INE people.ELA käsk-tõt opatikš-i command-PPP doctrine-PL.PAR ‘in vain they serve me, teaching doctrines commanded by people’ (Matt. 15:9) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 285

Objects of instructive ‑e infinitives are few in the corpus, all partitive in the biblical section. There are two in Finnish, one in Karelian and two in Veps. A Finnish (7.64) and a Veps example (7.65) are shown.

(7.64) F pää-tä-än nyökyttä-e-n he sano-i-vat head.SG-PAR-3PX nod-eINF-INST they say-PST-3PL ‘nodding their heads, they said’ (Matt. 27:39)

(7.65) V tacelt-e-n kivid surmita-d nen-id throw-eINF-INST stone.PL.PAR kill-2SG those-PAR ‘by stoning you kill those’ (Matt. 23:37)

3.3.2 Diachronic Studies 3.3.2.1 Estonian In the southern Estonian corpus there are few examples of transitive ‑e infini‑ tives, none in Gutslaff (1648), 6 in 1686 and 1827, 7 in 1886 and 10 in 1905. All objects are partitive. In the Seto dialect the three objects in St. Matthew’s gos‑ pel (1926) are also partitive. These findings are to be expected in view of the overall predominance of partitive objects, especially in the earlier editions. The northern dialect shows quite a difference across the centuries, as regards the frequency of the ‑e infinitive. The results are shown in Table 7.33.

Table 7.33 Diachronic study of objects of ‑e infinitives in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Partitive Genitive Nominative Total

1694 4 (100%) 0 0 4 1715 2 (100%) 0 0 2 1739 4 (100%) 0 0 4 1903 7 (100%) 0 0 7 1947 22 (88%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 25 1968 22 (88%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 25 1989 57 (97%) 2 (3%) 0 59 1997 57 (92%) 2 (3%) 3 (5%) 62 286 CHAPTER 7

There are three separate steps in the progression of the frequency of use of transitive ‑e infinitives. Very few examples are found in the years up to and including 1903, then a definite increase in 1947 and 1968, with a further increase in 1989 and 1997. Most objects are partitive, but a few accusative ones do appear from 1947 onwards. Some examples of the variation are shown in (7.66).

(7.66) a. E 1968 ja ütle-s jälle needsama-d and say-PST.3SG again same-PL.NOM/ACC sõna-d word-PL.NOM/ACC ‘and said again the same words’

b. E 1989 lausu-des uuesti neidsamu sõnu utter-eINF again same.PL.PAR word.PL.PAR

c. E 1997 lausu-des uuesti needsama-d utter-eINF again same-PL.NOM/ACC sõna-d word-PL.NOM/ACC ‘uttering again the same words’ (Matt. 26:44)

The object ‘words’ is definite, as indicated by its modifier, and forms a com‑ plete entity, which is one factor in choosing the accusative. However, verbs of speaking tend to take a partitive object, as the object is not affected, and the ‑e infinitive suggests action in progress, so there is perhaps more justification for using the partitive case. Neither choice is grammatically wrong, but there is a slight semantic difference. The Greek has a definite singular noun, the German has a definite plural.

3.3.2.2 Finnish The Finnish corpus, like the northern Estonian one, has few examples of transitive inessive ‑e infinitives in the earliest translations, but a number of instructive ones. There is a transition from predominantly instructive to ines‑ sive between 1880 and 1906, with the instructive waning further by 1992. The case distribution of their objects is shown in Table 7.34. Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 287

Table 7.34 Case distribution of all objects of inessive and instructive ‑e infinitives in the Finnish biblical corpus

Inessive Instructive

Partitive Accusative Total Partitive Accusative Total

1548 0 0 0 12 (75%) 4 (25%) 16 1642 1 (100%) 0 1 8 (100%) 0 8 1776 2 (100%) 2 6 (100%) 0 6 1880 2 (100%) 0 2 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 1906 7 (35%) 13 (65%) 20 10 (91%) 1 (9%) 11 1938 3 (27%) 8 (73%) 11 7 (100%) 0 7 1992 5 (33%) 10 (67%) 15 2 (100%) 0 2

The instructive infinitives have predominantly partitive objects and the ines‑ sive infinitives a greater proportion of accusative ones after they become more frequent in 1906. The inessive infinitives are mostly verbs of perception, which usually have accusative objects. None of the older instructive infinitives are replaced by the inessive in 1992, being mostly translated by a conjoint finite clause.

3.3.2.3 Karelian The diachronic study of the Karelian corpus includes only St. Matthew’s gos‑ pel, as only the gospel is available from 1820 and 1864. Karelian has more exam‑ ples of transitive inessive ‑e infinitives in the older translations than in the 2003 version, with total numbers gradually decreasing from 8>5>1. All objects are partitive, so they do not fit with Genetz’ statement that ‑e infinitives only have genitive objects. There are no instructive ‑e infinitives in the older texts in the corpus.

3.3.2.4 Livonian In Livonian also the diachronic study is based on St. Matthew’s gospel alone. The older Livonian translations have a number of transitive ‑e infinitives, but considerably fewer than the 1942 NT. The two 1863 translations differ signifi‑ cantly, with 14 tokens in the eastern dialect and 23 tokens in the western. The objects are predominantly partitive, with only one genitive-accusative per‑ sonal pronoun in the eastern and 2 accusative nouns in the western dialect. 288 CHAPTER 7

In the 1942 St. Matthew’s gospel there are 55 tokens with 5 accusative objects. Hence, as in Estonian, the ‑e infinitive is most frequent in the latest translation, with predominantly partitive objects.

3.3.2.5 Veps The two versions of St. Matthew’s gospel in Veps are similar in their use of the inessive transitive ‑e infinitive. There are 5 transitive ‑e infinitives in 1998 and 7 in 2006. All have accusative objects and all but one, which is not present in the 1998 text, involve the verbs ‘see’ or ‘hear’. There are no instructive ‑e infinitives in the 1998 translation, and one in 2006 with a partitive object. There are no ‑e infinitives in the Chude or the southern Veps oral corpus. According to Kettunen (1943: 496) in Veps the inessive of the ‑e infinitive is also used in a construction similar to the -vat / ‑van construction described in Section 4.1.2. This has the subject of the infinitive in the genitive case, as in Finnish. Ylikoski (2004: 233) also mentions this use of the ‑e infinitive. There are no such examples in the Veps corpus.

3.4 The Fourth Infinitive The fourth infinitive is described in older Finnish grammars (Karlsson 1999: 192) with the suffix -minen, but is no longer included as such in VISK. Karlsson (1999: 193) differentiates between the form ‑minen as an infinitive and as an action nominalization, pointing out that the infinitive in Finnish occurs in only two cases, nominative and partitive, while the action nominalization is declined like any noun. Kettunen (1938: LXVI) has the form ‑mi for Livonian, and Kettunen (1943: 501) mentions ‑mīńe in Veps. It is not included under infinitives in the Karelian grammar by Markianova and Mensonen (2006). In Estonian the form with ‑mine is not considered an infinitive, but rather an action nominalization, although occasionally its use can be similar to that of the Finnish infinitive. In Karelian the action nominalization has a cognate form with the suffix ‑mine, as in süömine (NOM) ‘eating’ (Matt 6:25) or a differ‑ ent suffix ‑nda, as in luajinda (NOM), luajindua (PAR) ‘creation’ (Matt 13:35). In Veps also ‑nda is more common. As an infinitive in Finnish it mostly has the sense of obligation, most com‑ monly in the negative as prohibition, when the infinitive is in the partitive case, as in example (7.67).

(7.67) F Sinne ei ole mene-mis-tä there NEG.3SG be.CONNEG go-4INF-PAR ‘One must not go there’ (Karlsson 1999: 193) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 289

In Livonian this infinitive appears commonly in necessive constructions, always in the partitive case ‑mist/mõst (Kettunen 1938: 67). Moseley (2002: 51) calls the partitive form the ‘infinitive of obligation’ and suggests that the Livonian construction has been borrowed from Latvian. However, the Latvian necessive construction consists of a verb with the prefix jā‑ attached to the 3rd person singular of the main verb. The verb ‘be’ is not involved (Budiņa-Lazdiņa 1979: 211). The subject is in the dative case in both Livonian and Latvian, but there the similarity ends. Latvian does not use an action nominalization simi‑ lar to the Livonian fourth infinitive to indicate obligation. The Livonian struc‑ ture is that of a possessive clause, with the verb ‘be’, and the possessor (agent in necessive clauses) in the dative case (see Chapter 9, Section 2). Livonian is the only language in which there are numerous examples of the fourth infinitive. In the 1942 NT corpus there are 18 transitive ones, 12 of which have a partitive object. An example is shown in (7.68).

(7.68) L kīe-n um vaļmõstõ-mõ-st sin riekk-õ who-DAT be.3SG prepare-4INF-PAR 2SG.GEN way.SG-PAR sin jeds 2SG.GEN before ‘who must prepare your way before you’ (Matt 11:10)

The form kīen is used both for the genitive and the dative case, and kīngan also appears. The form kīendõn seems to be plural. Both forms appear in possessive constructions. In the older Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel there are fewer examples of transitive fourth infinitives, in the eastern dialect 6, of which 4 have partitive objects, and in the western dialect only 3, two having partitive objects. Instead of the fourth infinitive, the older translations more commonly use the verb ‘be’ with the ‑ta infinitive for necessive constructions (Lees 2012: 207). In Finnish the 1906 NT has four necessive constructions and 1938 has three with transitive fourth infinitives, all with partitive objects. One from 1906 is shown in example (7.55d) in Section 3.2.2.2. In Veps the fourth infinitive can also be used to indicate mild obligation, where it is expressed in a form analogous to a possessive construction, similar to Livonian, as shown in (7.69). The copula (or auxiliary) ‘be’ is often omitted in Veps (Kettunen 1943: 74). There are no examples in the corpus. 290 CHAPTER 7

(7.69) V homen miлāń tap-mīńe tomorrow 1SG.ADE threshing-4INF.NOM ‘tomorrow I must do the threshing’ (Kettunen 1943: 501)

Similar constructions can occasionally be found also in Estonian with obliga‑ tory overtones, but there are no examples in the corpus. Peegel (2006: 239) has some examples from folksongs. In the Karelian corpus there are no examples of necessive constructions with a form cognate with the fourth infinitive of the other languages.

4 Participles

Participles are present and past, both active and passive. They can be used attributively as adjectives and as copula complements. The past tenses form compound tenses with the auxiliary ‘be’. Participles can also act as heads of a participial phrase. A description of Finnish participles can be found in VISK §521 and Karlsson (1999: 194–210), Estonian in Viitso (2007a: 63) and EKG II: 265–269, Livonian in Kettunen (1938: LXVIII), Karelian in Markianova and Mensonen (2006: 100–108) and Veps in Kettunen (1943: 504–515).

4.1 Active Present Participles Active present participles occur in all the languages, but in the corpus are most common in Finnish. The suffix is -v(A)/‑b, except in Karelian where it is ‑i, ‑jA or ‑jU, which is related to the agent (actor) nominalization. Occasional examples of forms cognate with the others are found in the Karelian corpus. Tsvetkov (2008: 81) gives a form with the suffix ‑jõ both for the active present participle and the agent nominalization in Votic, but Ariste (1968: 78) men‑ tions ‑va. Metsmägi (2011: 293) points out the close relationship between the ‑v and the ‑ja form in Estonian, including the oldest Estonian texts, as well as in other Finnic languages. While a present participle may be the complement of ‘be’, it is not used to mark a present tense progressive. In Finnish there is a special construction described in Section 4.1.1. In the other languages these participles function mainly as adjectives, mostly attributively, when they sub‑ stitute for a relative clause. In this function they are inflected in various cases like adjectives, agreeing with the noun they modify in number and case. They can occasionally have an object, and can be modified by verb modifiers, for example those of manner. An Estonian example is shown in (7.70). Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 291

(7.70) E hääl-t and-va-te2 hingetu-te sound.SG-PAR give-PRS.PTCP-PL.GEN inanimate-PL.GEN asja-de-ga thing-PL-COM ‘with inanimate objects giving out a sound’ (1 Cor. 14:7)

In the Finnish corpus also there are a couple of similar constructions, as in (7.71).

(7.71) F Joosef oli laki-a kunnioitta-va Joseph be.PST.3SG law-SG.PAR honour-PRS.PTCP.SG.NOM mies man.SG.NOM ‘Joseph was a law-abiding man’ (Matt. 1:19)

In Karelian it appears that the object of an attributive present participle is obligatorily genitive (and not genitive-accusative). Karelian examples with objects are shown in (7.72) and (7.73).

(7.72) K karjalaze-t ol-lah ruavo-n suvačči-ja-t Karelian-PL.NOM be-3PL work.SG-GEN love-PRS.PTCP-PL.NOM rahvas people.NOM ‘Karelians are people who love working (lit. work-loving)’ (Markianova and Mensonen 2006: 100)

(7.73) K oma-n iče-n müö-jä-t naize-t own-GEN self-GEN sell-PRS.PTCP-PL.NOM woman-PL.NOM ‘women who sell themselves’ (Matt. 21:31)

The objects here are in the genitive case. From examples in the singular, it is not possible to be sure whether in this situation all objects are genitive (as

2 In Estonian nouns in the comitative case have their modifying adjectives in the genitive rather than comitative case. 292 CHAPTER 7 opposed to genitive-accusative) or whether there is alternation with partitive. However, as the verb in (7.72) is ‘love’, which typically takes a partitive object, it appears likely that in the above examples the case of the object is genitive rather than genitive-accusative. As the same suffix in Karelian is also used for agent nominalization, the verbs in examples (7.72) and (7.73) could be glossed as nominalizations instead of present participles. In Livonian the present participle (‑b) does exist (Kettunen 1938: LXVIII), but both Kettunen and Mosely (2002: 57) state that it is not common. There are none in the corpus with objects. According to Kettunen (1943: 504) in Veps the present participle (‑pa/‑va) is rare and the ‑ja form is taking over this function. The latter can occur attribu‑ tively and then agrees in number and case with the noun it modifies. Diachronically there are few examples in the corpus. Metsmägi (2011: 293) mentions that in old Estonian both the ‑v and the ‑ja form are found, but there are no transitive ones in the present corpus. In Finnish there are a number of examples of the olla + va construction discussed below.

4.1.1 Active Present Participle Indicating Future in Finnish (olla + va) The construction of olla ‘be’ + the active present participle can be used to indi‑ cate the future, although other ways of expressing future are more common (Roos and Tamm 1981: 184). Mielikäinen (personal communication) points out that it is used predominantly in religious texts with a sense of prophesy. The subject is nominative and the verb ‘be’ agrees with the subject in person and number. The participle can be transitive, as in (7.74).

(7.74) F minä ole-n anta-va sinu-lle taivas-ten 1SG.NOM be-1SG give-PRS.PTCP.NOM 2SG-ALL heaven-PL.GEN valtakunna-n avaime-t kingdom-SG.GEN key-PL.NOM/ACC ‘I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 16:19)

This construction is present even in 1548, but is most prevalent in the 1906 NT and the 1938 Bible, and then decreases again. The figures are shown in Table 7.35. The sudden increase in 1906 is partly related to the decrease in the use of the necessive expression with pitää ‘must’, which in the earliest editions is fre‑ quently used to translate the future tense, constructed with werden in Martin Luther’s German translation. Nine of the on ‑va constructions in 1906 have Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 293

Table 7.35 Case distribution of the objects of the olla + va construction in the Finnish biblical corpus

Partitive Accusative Total

1548 0 1 (100%) 1 1642 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4 1776 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 7 1880 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 6 1906 4 (21%) 15 (79%) 19 1938 6 (32%) 13 (68%) 19 1992 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 9

replaced previous pitää constructions. This prevalence is continued in the 1938 translation. In Martin Luther’s translation four of these constructions used werden, and two sollen. In a number of instances the earlier editions had the finite indicative present tense, and in the 1992 Bible also most of the construc‑ tions previously with on ‑va are expressed as the finite present tense or with the passive present participle with the suffix ‑ttava replacing the ‑va participle The frequent use of the accusative case for the object rather than the partitive possibly relates to the fact that many of the events are prophetic and thus pre‑ destined to occur and therefore are seen as bounded. Example (7.75) shows the change across the years.

(7.75) a. F 1880 hänen pitä-ä tuomio-n 3SG.GEN must-3SG judgment.SG-GEN/ACC pakano-i-lle julista-ma-n gentile-PL-ALL pronounce-maINF-INST ‘he must/will pronounce judgment on the gentiles’

b. F 1906 hän on julista-va 3SG.NOM be.3SG pronounce-PRS.PTCP oikeut-ta pakano-i-lle judgment-PAR gentile-PL-ALL ‘he will pronounce judgment on the gentiles’ 294 CHAPTER 7

c. F 1992 hän julista-a kanso-i-lle 3SG.NOM pronounce-3SG people-PL-ALL oikeude-n judgment-GEN/ACC ‘he will pronounce judgment on the nations’ (Matt. 12:18)

Different constructions are used, and the case of the object also varies, with the partitive in 1906 and the genitive-accusative in the other two. The genitive- accusative, as in the 1992 translation, implies that the action will definitely take place in the future and will be complete. The partitive in 1906 could be explained by several factors: the indefiniteness of the object and repeated proclamation to different people. In the original Greek the object is indefinite.

4.1.2 Active Present Participial Clause Constructions These are constructed with the active present participle in the partitive case in Estonian and genitive case in Finnish, the clause being mostly a complement of verbs of perception. In Votic there is one example with the ‑va form of the pres‑ ent participle. In the other languages this kind of construction uses the ines‑ sive case of the ‑ma infinitive (illative in Livonian), and this can also be found in Estonian, especially with the verb ‘see’, and occasionally also in Finnish.

4.1.2.1 Estonian In these constructions in Estonian the participle is now referred to as the ‑vat participle (Erelt 2007: 120). In most instances the participle is intransitive, with only a few transitive examples in the corpus. One is shown in (7.76).

(7.76) E 1989 . . . nägi Jeesus kah-t venda see.PST.3SG Jesus.NOM two-PAR brother.SG.PAR noo-ta heit-va-t net-SG.PAR cast-PRS.PTCP-PAR ‘Jesus saw two brothers . . . casting a net’ (Matt. 4:18)

In example (7.76) the partitive object of ‘see’ is the subject of the participle, and the participle itself is transitive. The object of the participle can be expected to be partitive, as the action is ongoing. A small number (2–6) of such constructions with transitive participles are found in the diachronic southern Estonian corpus and 1–4 in the northern Estonian one, with partitive objects, except for one nominative plural object in Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 295 the southern 1648 NT, and also in the same verse in the northern 1739 Bible, as shown in example (7.77).

(7.77) a. ES 1648 . . . neggi t.(pro temma) Katte wellitze-t see.PST.3SG 3SG.NOM two.PAR brother-SG.PAR . . . o[mm]a wörcku-t paicKa-wa-t own net-PL.NOM mend-PRS.PTCP-PAR

b. E 1739 näggi temma teis-t kaks see.PST.3SG 3SG.NOM other.SG-PAR two.NOM wenda omma-d wörgu-d brother.SG.PAR own-PL.NOM net-PL.NOM parranda-wad mend-PRS.PTCP.PAR . . . ‘he saw two (other) brothers . . . mending their nets’ (Matt. 4:21)

The form wörckut seen in (7.77a) occurs with a plural determiner elsewhere in Gutslaff’s manuscript, but in most instances omma has the plural form ommat, so there is some doubt about the number and case of this NP. However, lack of agreement is seen in the older texts. In the 1715 northern Estonian NT the object ‘net’ is singular and partitive, which corresponds with the original Greek but not Martin Luther’s German translation, which has the plural. The nomi‑ native case is commonly used for plural noun objects in Gutslaff (1648) and the 1739 Bible irrespective of aspect or definiteness (see Chapter 5). In all instances of this construction in southern Estonian the participle has the suffix ‑wat~wät. In northern Estonian the suffix in 1694 and 1715 is ‑wa, which is the genitive form. Going back further in time and comparing the vari‑ ous manuscripts of the translation of St. Luke’s gospel (Reila et al. 2007), it is evident that this construction does not appear in the earliest Pilistvere manu‑ script from 1680–1687. However the final version of the Pilistvere manuscript from 1687 has a number of examples, mostly intransitive. In these examples the participle has the genitive suffix ‑wa. While mostly in Estonian the verb ‘see’ takes a partitive object, among the Pilistvere manuscript examples there are some with genitive objects (singular noun objects at that time were usu‑ ally genitive, see Chapter 5, Section 5.2). Perhaps this had some bearing on the genitive form being chosen for the participle at that time. However, in the München manuscript the case of the object of ‘see’ is generally partitive, yet the participle remains genitive. In the 1705 Stockholm manuscript the object is also genitive. This is illustrated in the following example (7.78). 296 CHAPTER 7

(7.78) a. E 1680 nink neggiβ ühhe Tölneri . . . and see.PST.3SG one.GEN tax.collector.GEN ist-ma sit-maINF

b. E 1687 nink neggiβ ühhe Tölneri . . . and saw one.GEN tax.collector.GEN ist-wa sit-PRS.PTCP.GEN

c. E 1694 ning näggi üh-t tölneri-d . . . and saw one-PAR tax.collector-PAR ist-wa sit-PRS.PTCP.GEN

d. E 1705 ning näggi ühhe Tölneri . . . and saw one.GEN tax.collector.GEN ist-wa sit-PRS.PTCP.GEN ‘and saw a tax collector [named Levi] sitting [at the toll booth]’ (Luke 5:27; Reila et al. 2007: 54–55)

After 1739 the suffix is ‑wat > vat. The 1989 NT and the 1997 Bible only have one example each of this construction, with a partitive object. Most of the matrix verbs involved in such constructions nowadays take a partitive object in Estonian, and this may be the reason why this particular form of the participle has become grammaticalized. Most of the examples of this construction in the corpus involve an intransi‑ tive participle. In Estonian the object of the matrix verb retains its object case when it is at the same time the subject of the participle (7.79). This differs from Finnish as shown below. The participial clause qualifies the object, and could be replaced by a relative clause.

(7.79) E 1989 . . . nägi Jeesus mees-t . . . saw Jesus.NOM man.SG-PAR istu-va-t sit-PRS.PTCP-PAR ‘Jesus saw a man sitting [at the toll booth]’ (Matt. 9:9) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 297

The form with the suffix ‑vat is also used as a main verb in the evidential (quota‑ tive or oblique) mood, the evidential having developed from the partitive case of the present participle (Campbell 1991: 286; Tamm 2008: 476; Tamm 2014: 106).

4.1.2.2 Finnish In Finnish there is a similar construction, but with the genitive case of the present participle (7.80). Karlsson (1999: 202) describes the -van construction, including the use of the possessive suffix on the participle when the subject of the participle is coreferential with the subject of the matrix verb. Here Ihmisen Pojan is the genitive subject of ‘coming’.

(7.80) F kun näke-vät Ihmise-n Poja-n tule-va-n when see.3PL man-GEN son-GEN come-PRS.PTCP-GEN when they see the Son of Man coming’ (Matt. 24:30)

According to Anttila (1989: 103) historically the participle as an attribute of the object of the matrix verb agreed with it in number and case, but as the objects of verbs of perception in Finnish take a genitive-accusative object in the sin‑ gular, the object became reanalyzed as the genitive subject of the participle. He suggests that when the object of the matrix verb was plural with a ‑t suffix, the participle could originally have had a ‑vat suffix. However, he gives no concrete examples of this. Harris and Campbell (1995: 356) mention a similar development, but although the ‑n suffix of the singular accusative object cor‑ responded to the suffix of the participle, the ‑t suffix of the plural object did not. They do not suggest any historical participles with a ‑vat suffix, and give examples from folk poems with a plural nominative-accusative object and a participle with a ‑van suffix. Genitive subjects of non-finite verbs are usual in Finnish, so the genitive-accusative object of the matrix verb was reinterpreted as the genitive grammatical subject of the participle. Subsequently those objects of the matrix verb which had different accusative morphology were changed also to genitive. This is shown in example (7.81), where the personal pronoun is the genitive hänen, rather than the ‑t accusative hänet.

(7.81) F kun he näki-vät häne-n kävele-vä-n when they see-3PL 3SG-GEN walk-PRS.PTCP-GEN järve-n aallo-i-lla lake-GEN wave-PL-ADE ‘when they saw him walking on the waves of the lake’ (Matt. 14:26) 298 CHAPTER 7

The participle in this construction can have an object, which can be partitive or accusative (7.82).

(7.82) F sillä he luul-i-vat näke-vä-nsä because they think-PST-3PL see-PRS.PTCP.GEN-3PX aavee-n ghost-SG.GEN/ACC ‘because they thought they were seeing a ghost’ (Matt. 14:26)

The case of the object of the participle depends partly on the participle itself, taking into account the aspect of the situation, as well as the total or partial nature of the object, although the form of the matrix verb also contributes. The verb ‘see’ generally takes an accusative object, and that is also so in (7.82). The possessive suffix on the participle denotes its genitive subject, which is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause. There are three examples in the Finnish corpus with the relative pronoun mitä being the object of both the matrix verb and the participle, but the participle itself remains in the genitive case (7.83). Although the verb ‘see’ usually has an accusative object, there are exceptions, and ‘expect’ would generally have a partitive one.

(7.83) F mi-tä odot-i-tte näke-vä-nne what-PAR expect-PST-2PL see-PRS.PTCP.GEN-2PL.PX ‘what did you expect to see?’ (Matt. 11:8)

In Finnish this construction in its genitive form is found already in the earli‑ est translations, and is more plentiful than in Estonian, instances with objects ranging from 4 to 7, which in 1642 and 1880 all are partitive, with the occasional genitive-accusative one in the other translations, but with the partitive pre‑ dominating. Some examples follow from the 1548 NT, one with an accusative object (7.84) and another with a partitive one (7.85).

(7.84) F 1548 näk-i hen caxi welies-t see-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM two.NOM brother.SG-PAR laske-ua-n wercko-ns meren lower-PRS.PTCP-GEN net.SG.GEN/PL.NOM-3PX sea.ILL ‘he saw two brothers lowering their net/nets into the sea’ (Matt. 4:18) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 299

The word werckons with the possessive suffix could be either singular genitive or plural nominative. Different Finnic translations vary in their interpretation, but in either case here the object is accusative.

(7.85) F 1548 ios iocu lwle hene-ns if anyone.NOM think.3SG 3SG.GEN-3PX iotakin tiete-ue-n something.PAR know-PRS.PTCP-GEN ‘if anyone thinks that he knows something’ (1 Cor. 8:2)

Although ‘know’ usually has an accusative object, the indefinite nature of the pronoun is responsible for its case. Here the subject of ‘know’ is the genitive henen with an abbreviated 3rd person possessive suffix to indicate that it is a reflexive pronoun coreferential with the antecedent iocu in the matrix clause. There is an example of an intransitive participial clause, where the logical plural subject of the participle is nominative in 1548 (7.86a) and remains nomi‑ native in 1776 and 1880. Here the nominative-accusative case of the object of the matrix verb ‘see’ is retained, but later the grammatical object is changed to the grammatical subject in the genitive case, which is now characteristic of the subjects of non-finite verbs (7.86c).

(7.86) a. F 1548 he neij-t ne myke-t 3PL.NOM see.PST-3PL the.PL.NOM dumb-PL.NOM puhu-ua-n speak-PRS.PTCP-GEN

b. F 1776 he näk-i-vät mykä-t 3PL.NOM see-PST-3PL dumb-PL.NOM puhu-va-n speak-PRS.PTCP-GEN ‘they saw the dumb ones speaking’

c. F 1906 näh-de-ssä-än mykkä-i-n puhu-va-n see-eINF-INE-3PX dumb-PL-GEN speak-PRS.PTCP-GEN ‘seeing dumb ones speaking’ (Matt. 15:31) 300 CHAPTER 7

The case of the subject of the ‑van participle in the 1548, 1642, 1776 and 1880 translations corresponds to accusative case-marking at that time, where the subject of the participle is also the accusative object of the matrix verb.

4.1.2.3 Votic A Votic example (7.87) from the corpus has ‑va in this kind of construction. Ariste (1968: 78) gives an example with the partitive ‑vā suffix of the participle, but in the gospel translation viskaava appears nominative, and so is another intransitive example. Perhaps this is similar to the writing of the geminate vowel as a single vowel, as found in old Finnish (see Chapter 5, Section 6.2)., although there is another geminate vowel in the word. The object of the parti‑ ciple in (7.87) is partitive.

(7.87) Vo . . . nät̬-i tämä kahõ veľľä see-PST.3SG 3SG.NOM two.PAR brother.SG.PAR võrkkõ-i merree viskaa-va net-PL.PAR sea.ILL throw-PRS.PTCP ‘he saw two brothers casting nets into the sea’ (Matt. 4:18)

In Votic there is also an example of a similar construction with the inessive of the ‑ma infinitive in Section 3.21, example (7.51).

4.2 Passive Present Participles Passive present participles are found in all the languages, but are uncommon in Livonian, and in Veps practically non-existent, except for a few fossilized words (Kettunen 1943: 504). The suffix is ‑t(t)Av(A), which in Livonian appears as ‑tõb~dõb. They function as adjectives, and when used attributively mostly agree in number and case with the noun which they modify. In Livonian they don’t seem to agree (Kettunen 1938: LXVIII). Karlsson (1999: 196) states that in Finnish this participle has several possible meanings: ‘can be done’, ‘will be done’, ‘must be done’, ‘is done’. In Livonian also the sense of obligation can be found (Kettunen 1938: LXVIII), while in Estonian it generally means ‘can be done’. A common use in Finnish is to indicate obligation. Although the partici‑ ple is morphologically passive, semantically the construction is often active. The agent is in the genitive case and the object is accusative or partitive. In this situation, as with necessive constructions generally, as well as impersonal passive ones, the singular noun object is nominative-accusative rather than Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 301

genitive-accusative, while any personal pronoun is in the -t accusative case, as shown in (7.88). The verb ‘be’ is in the 3rd person singular form.

(7.88) F että häne-t häne-n vaimo-nsa ja that he-tACC 3SG-GEN wife.SG.NOM/ACC-3PX and lapse-nsa ol-i myy-tä-vä child.PL.NOM/ACC-3PX be-PST.3SG sell-PASS-PRS.PTCP ‘that he, his wife and his children had to be sold’ (Matt. 18:25)

Here the objects are all accusative. If the agent is expressed, it is in the genitive case, and the singular noun object nominative, as shown below (7.89). In both of these examples the action is expected to be carried out to completion.

(7.89) F häne-n on anne-tta-va tä-lle 3SG-GEN be.3SG give-PASS-PRS.PTCP 3SG-ALL erokirja divorce.letter.SG.NOM/ACC ‘he must give her a letter of divorce’ (Matt. 5:31)

Altogether there are 11 instances of this construction with a transitive partici‑ ple in the 1992 Finnish Bible, all of which have nominative-accusative objects, except for the one ‑t accusative shown in (7.88) above. In the 1938 Bible there are also 11 instances, with two having partitive objects and the others nomi‑ native-accusative. In the corpus this construction appears first in 1906, where there are 20 instances, of which 6 have partitive objects, one of which is shown in (7.90).

(7.90) F 1906 mi-tä hyvä-ä minu-n on teh-tä-vä what-PAR good-PAR 1SG-GEN be.3SG do-PASS-PRS.PTCP ‘what good must I do’ (Matt. 19:16)

It is noteworthy that all accusative personal pronoun objects in this construc‑ tion in the 1906 NT are in the nominative form (7.91a), although the ‑t accusa‑ tive is used for personal pronoun objects of active finite as well as impersonal verbs. The 1992 version is shown in (7.91b). 302 CHAPTER 7

(7.91) a. F 1906 hän on sano-tta-va 3SG.NOM be.3SG call-PASS-PRS.PTCP pienimmä-ksi smallest-TRA ‘he must/will be called the least’

b. F 1992 si-tä . . . kutsu-taan . . . vähäisimmä-ksi that-PAR call-IMP least-TRA ‘he will be called the least’ (Matt. 5:19)

The Karelian corpus does not have any examples analogous to the Finnish ones above. There is a possessive clause, with the participle as an adjunct in the essive case (7.92).

(7.92) K ke-l on jügei takku who-ADE be.3SG heavy.SG.NOM burden.SG.NOM kanne-tta-van-nu bear-PASS-PRS.PTCP-ESS ‘who has a heavy burden to bear’ (Matt. 11:28)

There are a number of examples of the translative case of the passive past par‑ ticiple as an adjunct, indicating the purpose of the matrix verb. These occur in Finnish and Karelian (7.93).

(7.93) a. F veli anta-a velje-nsä brother.NOM give-3SG brother.SG.GEN/ACC-3PX surma-tta-va-ksi kill-PASS-PRS.PTCP-TRA

b. K velli anda-u velle-n brother.NOM give-3SG brother.SG-GEN/ACC tape-tta-va-kse kill-PASS-PRS.PTCP-TRA ‘a brother will give his brother to be killed’ (Matt. 10:21)

In such constructions the object is that of the matrix verb, and is allocated its case accordingly, although it is also the undergoer of the participle. The Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 303

corresponding clause in Estonian has the illative surma ‘into death’ instead of a participle, Veps has the plain ‑ta infinitive, and Livonian has a prepositional phrase, although it does have a number of other examples of the participle in the translative case. Pekkarinen (2011: 102, 107) mentions quite a number of passive present par‑ ticiples in both Agricola’s writings and the 1642 Bible, but she includes attribu‑ tive, intransitive and predicative-adverbial ones, which I have not counted. One of the most frequent verbs in this form found by her in the oldest writings is tiettävä ‘known’, which also appears in my corpus as an adjunct.

4.3 Active Past Participles Active past participles are found in all the languages, with the suffix ‑nU(t) (‑n in Livonian). They form the compound tenses perfect and pluperfect, with the auxiliary verb ‘be’. Past participles can also function as adjectives or nouns, in some languages with derived forms, with variable inflection. In the Karelian corpus only one example of an adjectival past participle is found with an object, which is genitive (7.94).

(7.94) K Jumala-n hüllä-nüh polvi god-GEN forsake-PST.PTCP.NOM generation.SG.NOM ‘the generation which has forsaken God’ (Matt 16:4)

The above example could also be interpreted with Jumalan the subject of hül- länüh, meaning ‘the generation which God has forsaken’, but comparing this text with that in other languages, the meaning given in (7.94) is the correct one. In Finnish there is one example of the past participle functioning as a noun, with an object in the genitive form (7.95).

(7.95) F kutsu-n saa-nee-t ei-vät invitation.SG-GEN/ACC receive-PST.PTCP-PL.NOM NEG-3PL tahto-nee-t tul-la want-PST.PTCP-PL come-taINF ‘those who had received the invitation did not want to come’ (Matt. 22:3)

As there are no examples of partitive objects of the participles in this func‑ tion, it is not possible to say from the corpus data, whether the objects are obligatorily genitive or genitive-accusative. In Estonian there can be a partitive object. 304 CHAPTER 7

4.3.1 Active Past Participial Clauses The active past participle can function as the head of a participial clause. In Estonian there are four examples of such participles with objects, all of which are accusative. One has the auxiliary olles ‘be (eINF.INE) with the past parti‑ ciple. An example is given in (7.96).

(7.96) E ja punu-nud kibuvits-te-st pärja and twist-PST.PTCP brier-PL-ELA garland.SG.GEN/ACC pan-i-d selle Ta-lle pähe put-PST-3PL it.GEN/ACC 3SG-ALL head.ILL ‘and having twisted a garland of briers, they put it on his head’ (Matt. 27:29)

The past participle in these constructions can be considered a gerund, like the ‑e infinitive, but referring to an action which precedes the main action. The ‑e infinitive of the verb ‘be’ in the inessive case (olles), could precede the past par‑ ticiple in Estonian, forming a compound gerund, but is usually omitted. There are no examples of participial clauses with transitive active past participles in the Finnish or Karelian corpus, where instead the partitive form of the pas‑ sive past participle (‑tua /‑tuu construction) is used, discussed in Section 4.4.1 below. In the Veps corpus also this kind of clause is absent. Livonian, however, stands out in having numerous clauses with transitive active past participle heads in the narrative St. Matthew’s gospel, but very few, and no transitive ones in 1 Corinthians. In the 1942 gospel there are 35 with partitive objects (of which 12 are personal pronouns, 5 other pronouns and 18 nouns), and 29 accu‑ sative objects (one personal pronoun, 2 other pronouns and 26 nouns). This is the only construction with a non-finite verb where there is a predominance of accusative noun objects in Livonian (59%), although with pronouns included, the percentage of accusatives is only 45%, with the partitive dominating at 55%. These findings are not unexpected, as we are here dealing with an action that is already finished, although the object is not necessarily totally affected, which accounts for the partitive objects. An example is shown below (7.97).

(7.97) L kä-ta vientõ-n ta pūt-iz tämmõ-n hand-SG.PAR stretch-PST.PTCP he touch-PST.3SG 3SG-DAT jūr to ‘having stretched out his hand, he touched him’ (Matt. 8:3) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 305

In a similar Estonian clause (7.60) in Section 3.3.1 with a present tense ger‑ und (inessive ‑e infinitive) the object is in the accusative case. In Livonian, the temporary nature of the action, although completed, could explain the parti‑ tive case. There are three examples of a construction with the active past participle in the genitive case in Finnish, similar in function to those with the ‑van form (Section 4.1.2), with only a tense difference, as shown in (7.98). The objects of two of these are accusative, including a ‑t accusative, when the clause is bounded, but can be partitive if the object is quantitatively indefinite, as in (7.99).

(7.98) F kun olem-me väittä-nee-t häne-n if be-1PL claim-PST.PTCP-PL 3SG-GEN herättä-nee-n Kristukse-n resurrect-PST.PTCP-GEN Christ-GEN/ACC ‘if we have claimed that he resurrected Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:15)

(7.99) F jos joku usko-o ole-va-nsa if anyone.NOM believe-3SG be-PRS.PTCP.GEN-3PX profeetta tai saa-nee-nsa mu-i-ta prophet.NOM or receive-PST.PTCP.GEN-3PX other-PL-PAR Henge-n lahjo-j-a spirit.SG-GEN gift-PL-PAR ‘if anyone believes himself to be a prophet or having received other gifts of the Spirit’ (1 Cor. 14:35)

The subject of the participle is in the genitive case, as with the ‑van construc‑ tion, expressed by the genitive personal pronoun hänen in (7.98) and the pos‑ sessive suffix on the participle in (7.99) indicating coreference with the subject joku of the matrix clause. Example (7.99) combines the use of the ‑van and the ‑neen participles as complements of uskoo, illustrating the tense difference.

4.4 Passive Past Participles These participles have the ‑t(t) morpheme characteristic of the impersonal voice. The most common function of these is in the formation of the peri‑ phrastic passive in all the languages, which has been discussed in chapter 6. In Karelian the third person plural active perfect and pluperfect tenses are 306 CHAPTER 7 formed with the passive past participle and the auxiliary ‘be’, while in all the other persons the active past participle is used. The passive past participle also functions as an adjective, both attributive and predicative. As discusssed in Chapter 6, Section 5, when used predica‑ tively, it is often difficult to be sure whether the clause should be analysed as a periphrastic passive or as a copula clause, with the passive past participle as the copula complement.

4.4.1 Participial Clauses with the Partitive Case of the Passive Past Participle Passive past participles in the partitive case can be used without an auxiliary to form participial clauses in Finnish and Karelian. These are referred to as the -tua /‑tuu construction. Like the active past participial clause in Estonian and Livonian, these appear to function similarly to the inessive ‑e infinitive, but with the action of the matrix verb occurring after the participial action, rather than simultaneously. Indeed, in Finnish this ‑tua construction is discussed together with the ‑e infinitive (VISK §544). Morphologically these participles are passive, but often semantically active. In Finnish, if the subject is the same in the matrix and the participial clause, it is marked by a possessive suffix on the participle, agreeing with the subject of the matrix verb, and if the subject is different, by a genitive noun or pronoun. In Karelian there is no possessive suffix, but if the subject of the participle is different from that of the matrix clause, it is also in the genitive case. A difference between Finnish and the 2003 Karelian is that in the latter the objects of the participle are all genitive rather than genitive-accusative, whereas in Finnish they are accusative, shown by the presence of nominative-accusative objects in the corpus. Example (7.100) compares this construction in the two languages.

(7.100) a. F kuninkaa-n sana-t kuul-tu-a-an, king-GEN word-PL.NOM/ACC hear-PPP-PAR-3PX tietäjä-t läht-i-vät matka-an wise.man-PL.NOM go-PST-3PL journey-ILL

b. K suari-n sano-in kuul-tu-u, tiedäjä-t king-GEN word-PL.GEN hear-PPP-PAR wise.man-PL.NOM lähtie-ttih matka-h go-PST.3PL journey-ILL ‘having heard the king’s words (lit. the king’s words heard), the wise men went on their way’ (Matt. 2:9) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 307

Accusative plural noun objects surface as the nominative-accusative, so the Karelian plural genitive form is not accusative. As mentioned above in Section 3.3.1 Genetz (1885: 192) states that in Aunus (Olonets) the ‑e infinitive always takes a genitive object, but this is not borne out in the present Olonets Karelian biblical corpus. However, it appears that such a rule may apply to the ‑tuu construction, as the two function in a similar way, with only a tense difference. In the Finnish corpus the 1906 NT has 9 such transitive constructions, and the 1938 and 1992 Bibles have 7 each, all with accusative objects. There are no examples of partitive objects of this construction in the Finnish corpus, as the action indicated by the participle is completed before the main event occurs. Furthermore, most of the verbs involved are verbs of perception, which take an accusative object. In addition to the 15 transitive ‑tuu constructions in the Karelian St. Matthew’s gospel 2003 there are also two ‑huu constructions, also all with genitive under‑ goers. One example of the ‑huu construction was also found in 1 Corinthians in 2003, with a genitive object. These two forms always occur with different verbs, and appear to have the same function, suggesting that they are allomorphs. In both of the older translations of St. Matthew’s gospel both forms (‑huo and ‑tuo) are plentiful, with ‑huo being predominant. There the accusative objects occur in all possible forms. The case distribution of the objects (in St. Matthew’s gospel only) are shown in Table 7.36, with the accusative ones subdivided.

Table 7.36 Case distribution of all objects of ‑huu and -tuu constructions in the Karelian St. Matthew’s gospel

‑hUO~hUU Partitive Accusative Total

Genitive Nominative tAccusative

1820 8 (17%) 27 (56%) 10 (21%) 3 (6%) 48 1864 5 (10%) 29 (60%) 12 (25%) 2 (4%) 48 2003 2 (100%)* 2 ‑tUO~tUU 1820 10 (43%) 8 (35%) 4 (17%) 1 (4%) 23 1864 7 (32%) 9 (41%) 5 (23%) 1 (5%) 22 2003 15 (100%)* 15

* Although the 2003 results are included in the genitive section of the accusative, they are not genitive-accusative, but rather true genitive. 308 CHAPTER 7

The 2003 translation in the Olonets dialect is markedly different from the ear‑ lier translations in different dialects. The ‑huu forms, which are plentiful in the earlier translations, have almost disappeared, and the ‑tuu constructions also are fewer. In 2003 the participle appears more nominal than verbal in this construction, with the undergoer (patient) syntactically a noun modifier, lack‑ ing the typical object feature of case alternation. Where case alternation does occur in the older translations, the accusative is predominant, especially with the ‑huo forms. The ‑tuo~tuu forms mostly occur with verbs of perception, with a few others. A Karelian example from 1820 with a ‑t accusative object is shown (7.101).

(7.101) K 1820 jättähy-ö hii-jät pois läk-si leave.PPP-PAR 3PL-tACC away go-3SG.PST ‘having left them, he went away’ (Matt. 16:4)

4.5 Finnish Agent Construction In Finnish when there is an expressed agent of the past participle, a differ‑ ent participle with the suffix ‑mA with a stem like that of the -ma infinitive is used. This functions as an adjective, agreeing with the noun which it modifies. It effectively replaces a relative clause. This is called the agent construction (Karlsson 1999: 207). Three examples are found in the corpus, one used attribu‑ tively (7.102) and the others predicatively (7.103).

(7.102) F hän vei saa-ma-nsa kolmekymmentä he take.PST.3SG receive-AC.NOM/ACC-3PX thirty.NOM/ACC hopearaha-a takaisin ylipape-i-lle silver.coin.SG-PAR back high.priest-PL-ALL ‘he took the thirty silver coins, which he had received, back to the high priests’ (Matt. 27:3)

(7.103) F mies . . . on usko-va-n vaimo-nsa husband.NOM be.3SG believe-PRS.PTCP-GEN wife.GEN-3PX pyhittä-mä sanctify-AC.NOM ‘a husband [who does not believe] is sanctified through his believing wife’ (1 Cor. 7:14) Object Case In Relation To Verb Form 309

This construction can be substituted for a relative clause. The subject ‘he’ of ‘receive’, which in (7.102) is coreferential with that of the matrix clause, is indicated by the possessive suffix. If the subject of the participle differs from that in the matrix clause, it is in the genitive case. In (7.103) the possessive suffix indicates that the wife belongs to the husband, and the genitive case of vaimonsa shows it to be the subject of pyhittämä.

5 Summary

The noun objects of imperative verbs are more often accusative than the aver‑ age of all the active verbs in the entire corpus, except in Finnish, where the partitive occurs in 44% of noun objects of imperative verbs compared to 38% of noun objects of all active verbs. Accusative singular noun objects are nomi‑ native in form rather than genitive, except in Livonian. Genitive forms are also found in old Estonian texts. In Estonian 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are not in the nominative form, the partitive being used instead also in bounded clauses, but 3rd person pronouns do occur in the nominative form. In Finnish the ‑t accusative is used. Livonian has genitive-accusative 3rd person objects, singular and plural. In the synchronic corpus Karelian and Veps personal pro‑ nouns are all partitive. In the older Karelian gospel translations there are sin‑ gular genitive-accusative and plural ‑t accusative personal pronoun objects of imperative verbs. The syntax of infinitives and participles is complicated in the Finnic lan‑ guages. There are many similarities, but also differences between the various languages. In Finnish the use of non-finite verbs is particularly common. All the infinitives and participles have verbal and nominal features in varying degrees. Syntactically they can occupy positions characteristic of noun phrases and can be inflected like nouns to a varying, but often limited degree, exempli‑ fying the extension of nominal case markers to verbs (Aikhenvald 2008: 565) and Tamm (2014: 130). At the same time they can take objects and be modified by adverbs. Participles have tense and voice. Some passive infinitives are also found. There are many instances where a non-finite clause can substitute for a temporal subordinate clause. Participles often replace a relative clause. In Finnish passive participles are used in constructions, some of which are semantically active. Present tense gerundive function is expressed by the ines‑ sive ‑e infinitive, which is particularly frequent in Estonian and Livonian. For the past tense a participial clause with the active past participle is found in Estonian and Livonian, while in Finnish and Karelian past tense constructions make use of the passive past participle in the partitive case. 310 CHAPTER 7

The objects of infinitives show case alternation between the partitive and accusative, but the form of the accusative of singular nouns in some construc‑ tions involving the ‑ta infinitive (those without a nominative subject in the matrix clause) is nominative rather than genitive. The objects of infinitives are more frequently partitive than those in the corpus as a whole, especially objects of illative ‑ma infinitives and inessive ‑e infinitives, as these usually refer to ongoing activities. The past tense active participles in participial clauses have their noun objects mainly in the accusative case. The objects of partitive pas‑ sive past participles (‑tuu construction) in the Olonets Karelian 2003 NT are obligatorily genitive, but in the earlier translations of St. Matthew’s gospel the typical object case alternation is found. In the corresponding Finnish ‑tua con‑ struction there is object case alternation, with the accusative predominating. The main changes diachronically in Estonian have involved the disappear‑ ance of genitive objects of imperative verbs, and the involvement of aspect in case selection from 1903 onwards. There has also been a great increase in the use of the inessive ‑e infinitive in recent times. In Finnish the greatest change has involved necessive constructions, where the instructive case of the ‑ma infinitive with pitää must has been replaced by the ‑ta infinitive. Other necessive constructions have also become more common. The use of the ‑t accusative has changed the pattern of use of the personal pronouns, with a greater proportion of accusative ones, where other languages would use a partitive. In other languages, where the time period studied is of shorter duration there are fewer changes noted. Livonian necessive constructions have under‑ gone changes, with the fourth infinitive coming into greater prominence in 1942. In Karelian there has been a change in the passive past participial con‑ structions, with a change from the predominantly ‑huo form in the earlier translations to the ‑tuu form in 2003, together with a general decrease of these constructions. chapter 8 Copula Clauses

1 Introduction

The verb olema ‘be’ in Estonian, and the cognate verb in the other Finnic languages, has several functions, which are shown in the following Estonian examples.

1. Auxiliary: Ta on söömas (eat-maINF.INE) ‘He is in the process of eating’. Ta on söönud (eat.PST.PTCP) ‘He has eaten’. See on söödud (eat.PASS.PST. PTCP) ‘It is/has been eaten’. The sentence with the passive past participle has variously been considered a passive or a copula clause, and has been discussed in Chapter 6. This function will not be discussed further. 2. Existential verb: On olemas (be.maINF.INE) taevas. (lit. is being heaven) ‘Heaven exists’. Maailmas on palju keeli (language.PL.PAR)(lit. in the world are many languages) ‘There are many languages in the world’. This Pustet (2003: 5) calls a semi-copula, because of its semantic content of existence. Existential clauses are discussed in Chapter 9. 3. Copula: See on Jaan ‘This is John.’ Taevas on sinine ‘The sky is blue’. As a copula, the verb olema has no semantic content, and only serves as a link. A copula clause consists of the subject, the copula and the complement. The copula may sometimes be omitted, which according to Kettunen (1943: 74) is especially common in southern and central Veps. Harris and Campbell (1995: 368) mention that formerly Finnic had no copula, which was adopted later.

There is another copular verb, which has the meaning of ‘become’. In Estonian this verb is saama ‘become, get’, in Finnish the corresponding verb is tulla, which, in addition to being used as ‘become’, means ‘come’. Both of these verbs can also be used in the past tense. Karelian has the verb roita ‘become’. In Livonian līb, the potential form of olla ‘be’, is used for the future. In Veps also linda, the future-potential of ‘be’ occurs (Kettunen 1943: 74), as well as tegese ‘becomes’, teghe ‘became’.

* Part of the material in this chapter has been published in Lees (2008).

In the copula clause the subject is nominative. It can also be a clause. There are a few examples of partitive forms of indefinite pronouns occurring as subjects, such as ‘something’ or more commonly ‘nothing’. The nominative form of these pronouns is less commonly used, especially in older texts. The copula complement can be a noun, adjective, adverb, or a non-finite verb. The noun complement is very variable. It may be in most of the standard cases of Estonian or corresponding ones in the other languages, which vary slightly from the Estonian list. The Finnish ‑t accusative of personal pronouns does not occur as a copula complement. The translative case is usual with ‘become’. In this chapter only the nominal and adjectival complements in the nominative and partitive cases are discussed. It makes no difference to the case of the subject or complement whether the clause is affirmative or negative, and both are included in the tables.

2 Noun Phrase Copula Complements

Table 8.1 shows the number of instances of nominative and partitive complements in the synchronic biblical corpus, nouns and pronouns shown separately. Partitive pronoun complements are more plentiful than nouns in Estonian and Livonian, which have no partitive noun copula complements in the synchronic biblical corpus, but at least one example is found in all the other languages. The table includes the complements of both identifying and ascriptive clauses. Negative clauses are included. For Finnish VISK §1229 gives the results from two studies of case distribution of predicates (copula complements) as 41% and 63.8% partitive, with an occasional genitive (less than 1%) and the rest nominative.

Table 8.1 The distribution of nominative and partitive case of copula complements in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Nouns Pronouns Nominative Partitive Nominative Partitive

Estonian 172 (100%) 0 23 (88%) 3 (12%) Livonian 155 (100%) 0 21 (68%) 10 (32%) Finnish 123 (73%) 46 (27%) 14 (61%) 9 (39%) Karelian 161 (99%) 1 (1%) 25 (96%) 1 (4%) Veps 168 (98%) 4 (2%) 20 (91%) 2 (9%) Copula clauses 313

2.1 Pronoun Complements All the partitive pronoun complements are indefinite and many are found in negative clauses, as shown in (8.1). The partitive case is associated with indefiniteness, and indefinite pronouns are commonly partitive in any syntactic function, even occasionally as subjects of transitive clauses. The Livonian ones are all midagid ‘something, nothing’. The Finnish are more varied.

(8.1) F istuttaja ei ole siis mitään planter.SG.NOM NEG.3SG be.CONNEG then nothing.PAR ‘A/the planter is then nothing’ (1 Cor. 3:7)

There are also a number of affirmative clauses in all the languages where the pronoun complement is partitive. In example (8.2) the Karelian (8.2.d) is the exception in having a nominative complement.

(8.2) a. E kes midagi on who.NOM something.PAR be.3SG

b. L mis midagid um which.NOM something.PAR be.3SG

c. F mikä on jotakin which.NOM be.3SG something.PAR

d. K mi on mitahto which.NOM be.3SG anything.NOM

e. V mi midä-ni om which.NOM something.PAR be.3SG ‘who / which is something’ (1 Cor. 1:28)

2.2 Noun Complements Copula clauses with a noun complement can be divided into identifying and ascriptive clauses.

2.2.1 Identifying Clauses Identifying clauses are those where the complement identifies the subject, and the two can be reversed without altering the meaning, for example ‘John is the man’, ‘the man is John’. The complement in an identifying clause is always 314 Chapter 8 definite. As there are no definite or indefinite articles in Finnic, the classification may need to depend on the context. A determiner or possessive may clar- ify the situation, or a relative clause may define the complement. Identifying clauses, including negative ones, always have a nominative complement. The following set of examples (8.3) shows an identifying clause in the various languages from the corpus.

(8.3) a. E sina ole-d Messias

b. L sa ūo-d Kristus

c. F sinä ole-t Messias

d. K sinä ole-t Messii

e. V sinä ole-d Messia 2SG.NOM be-2SG Messiah.NOM ‘you are the Messiah (Christ)’ (Matt. 16:16)

An example of a metaphorical complement is shown in (8.4). Although the complement is a mass noun, it is definite, and the subject and complement could be reversed, so the clause can be considered identifying in nature.

(8.4) F te ole-tte maa-n suola you.PL.NOM be-2PL earth-GEN salt.NOM ‘you are the salt of the earth’ (Matt. 5:13)

2.2.2 Ascriptive Clauses In ascriptive clauses the complement characterizes the subject, for example ‘he is a good man’, ‘he is a teacher’. These can have nominative or partitive complements. Sadeniemi (1950: 47–48) divides the clauses with partitive complements into three classes: partitive, distributive or a mixture of both. His partitive group is one where the subject is non-divisible and forms part of the divisible complement, which is often something that the subject has been derived from or something characterising the subject. The distributive complement is one where both subject and complement are divisible and the scope is identical, with the quality of the complement attributed to each of the actual or imaginable parts of the subject. Under the mixed form Sadeniemi Copula clauses 315

(1950: 48) puts a divisible subject, which belongs to the same item or group of items as the complement, but the scope may or may not be identical. Karlsson (1999: 87–89) has a simpler description for Finnish, and does not mention the word ‘distributive’. He states that if the complement expresses an indefinite quantity of a substance, group or species, it is partitive, thus combining all of Sadeniemi’s divisions. Nemvalts (1996: 141–142) refers to separative, where an item or items form a part of a group, which characterizes the item. This corresponds to Sadeniemi’s mixed group. Of the Finnish partitive noun complements in Table 8.1 there are 16 singular mass or abstract nouns and 24 plural nouns. Of the other six singular ones two refer to a group of people. One has a singular subject, and fits into the separative classification (8.17), p. 320, and the other has a plural subject (8.6), and could be either distributive or separative. Two could be either count or mass nouns, but as partitive complements they must be divisible, and hence can only be considered as mass. The remaining two are essentially count nouns, but are used in an unusual hypothetical situation. One such example is shown in (8.22), p. 322 in Section 2.2.3. All of the plural partitive complements charac- terize plural subjects and are distributive or separative.

2.2.2.1 Divisible Subject and Complement An example of a distributive partitive complement is quoted by Denison from Mika Waltari’s novel Sinuhe Egyptiläinen1 (8.5a). In Estonian the same sentence would have a nominative complement (8.5b).

(8.5) a. F tuli on tul-ta fire.NOM be.3SG fire-PAR ‘fire is fire’ (Waltari 1951: 404, quoted by Denison 1957: 211)

b. E tuli on tuli fire.NOM be.3SG fire.NOM

In the present corpus the plural partitive copula complement is found only in Finnish, except for one example in the Votic corpus, shown in (8.11f). In the other languages, such complements are nominative. In some cases a sentence can be interpreted as either distributive or separative.

1 Waltari, Mika (1951). Sinuhe Egyptiläinen. Porvoo: Söderström. 316 Chapter 8

An example is shown in (8.6) with a plural subject and collective singular complement. This is separative if only some of the people of the household are enemies or distributive if all of them are.

(8.6) F vihollise-t o-vat oma-n talo-n väke-ä enemy-PL.NOM be-3PL own-GEN house.SG-GEN group.SG-PAR ‘The enemies are of your own household’ (Matt. 10:36)

Examples with a singular subject and singular complement, both being divisible, are common in Finnish. Corresponding clauses in Finnish and Estonian are shown in (8.7), with Finnish having a partitive complement, and Estonian as well as the other languages a nominative one.

(8.7) a. F sillä se on häne-n miele-stä-än because it.NOM is 3SG-GEN mind.SG-ELA-3PX hulluu-tta foolishness-PAR ‘because in his mind it is foolishness’

b. E tema-le on see totrus 3SG-ALL is it.NOM foolishness.NOM ‘for him it is foolishness’ (1 Cor 2:14)

While a singular count noun complement is nominative, some nouns can be either count or mass nouns, such as ‘fish’. In Finnish Schot-Saikku (1990: 25) has an example where she points out how the use of the partitive case makes clear the difference in meaning between the two.

(8.8) a. F se on kala it.NOM is fish.SG.NOM ‘it is a fish’

b. F se on kala-a it.NOM is fish.SG-PAR ‘it is fish’ (Schot-Saikku 1990: 25) Copula clauses 317

Example (8.8a) describes what ‘it’ is as an item, while (8.8b) states that ‘it’ belongs to the class of animals or consists of a substance called ‘fish’. In (a) se is an entire item and non-divisible, and so is the complement (a count noun). In (b) the singular fish complement is taken to be a mass noun. The (b) variant would be used for example in a restaurant in answer to a question as to the nature of a meal, while the (a) version would be asked about an entire fish. Schot-Saikku (1990) has a very detailed discussion of the use of the partitive case in Finnish. Her translations are in German (the English one is mine), and sometimes it is difficult to understand the fine nuances of the Finnish partitive translated into an Indo-European language. Even the other Finnic languages would not always be able to give the exact meaning. Spoelmann (2013) has shown that Estonian speakers, although better than German or Dutch speakers, also have problems with some of the finer shades of meaning of the Finnish partitive. Ojajärvi (1950a: 146) suggests that the singular partitive complement involving a mass noun was the original form, with gradual spread to the collective singular, such as the Karelian example, which is from the Pusamalahti district in the southern Karelian Maaselkä dialect area (8.9).

(8.9) K ole-mma müö iťše lüuvvikkü-ö (sic) be-1PL 1PL.NOM self.NOM livvian.SG-PAR ‘we ourselves are Livvian (Olonetsian)’ (Ojajärvi 1950a: 146)

Genetz (1885: 188) gives a similar example in the Olonets dialect, but with a nominative plural complement, stating that the predicate is always nominative.

(8.10) K livviköi-d ole-mmo livvian-PL.NOM be-1PL ‘we are Livvian’ (Genetz 1885: 188)

The plural partitive complement is frequent in Finnish. The examples in the corpus all have a plural subject. The differences between Finnish (and Votic) and the other languages are shown in (8.11). 318 Chapter 8

(8.11) a. E nad ol-i-d ju kaluri-d 3PL.NOM be-PST-3PL EMP fisherman-PL.NOM

b. L sīepierast ku ne voļ-t kalamie-d because that 3PL.NOM be.PST-3PL fisherman-PL.NOM

c. F sillä he ol-i-vat kalastaj-i-a because 3PL.NOM be-PST-3PL fisherman-PL-PAR

d. K hüö ol-dih kalastaja-t 3PL.NOM be-PST.3PL fisherman-PL.NOM

e. V sikš ku ol-i-ba kalanika-d since that be-PST-3PL fisherman-PL.NOM

f. Vo siittä neet õl-tii kalapüütäj-i-ä since 3PL.NOM be-PST.3PL fisherman-PL-PAR ‘since they were fishermen’ (Matt. 4: 18)

The Votic here also has a plural partitive complement, but with the limited material available, it is difficult to know from the present data whether the Finnish translator August Ahlqvist was influenced by Finnish here, or whether this construction really was productive in Votic at some stage. There are no other examples of partitive complements in the small Votic biblical corpus, and in the oral collection corpus there is only one indefinite partitive pronoun complement in a negative clause. The general opinion is that there is no distributive partitive in Votic. The older Karelian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel in the corpus (1820 and 1864) also have the complement in the nominative case in the clause corresponding to that in (8.11). Sadeniemi (1950: 51) has an example of a plural subject with a plural partitive complement in the Karelian Salmi dialect, shown in (8.12). This question asks to what group the men belong, and the answer is ‘we are some of your brothers’, so it is separative.

(8.12) K mit tüö mieh-ī ole-tto? what.PL you.PL men-PL.PAR be-2PL ‘what men are you?’ (Sadeniemi 1950: 51) Copula clauses 319

Ojajärvi (1950a: 26) points out that in the Maaselkä dialect of southern Karelian the complement is generally nominative where Finnish would have partitive. Ojajärvi (1950a: 28) also comments that unexpectedly in northern Karelian (Viena dialect group), which syntactically is closer to Finnish than the more southern dialects, the nominative plural complement is the norm. In a number of Finnish dialects also the nominative plural complement is found instead of the partitive (Sadeniemi 1950: 53; Ojajärvi 1950a: 27; Denison 1957: 206; Räsänen 1972: 132). In Veps such clauses have a nominative complement (Kettunen 1943: 84), and similarly in Livonian (Denison 1957: 245). (Larsson 1983: 60) points out that in Estonian there is no distributive meaning. Separative examples do appear in Estonian, as in (8.13) from the novel “. . . ja sõdurid laulavad” by Lindsaar.2

(8.13) E ole-me Saaremaa mehi be-1PL Saaremaa.GEN man.PL.PAR ‘we are men from Saaremaa’ (Lindsaar 1959: 43)

This example is separative, ‘we’ being part of an indefinite group indicated by the partitive case.

2.2.2.2 Non-Divisible Subject and Plural Partitive Complement Clauses with a singular subject and plural partitive complement are slightly different, being more clearly separative. These are more common in Estonian than those with a plural subject, with the meaning ‘one of a group’. Nemvalts (1996: 142) gives the following example.

(8.14) E Peeter on meie kooli poiss-e Peter.NOM be.3SG our school.GEN boy-PL.PAR ‘Peter is a boy from our school’

Raun and Saareste (1965: 76) state that the kind of example shown in (8.14) was deliberately introduced into Estonian in the 1920s by the language reformer and innovator Johannes Aavik, who was influenced by Finnish. Such clauses are certainly found in subsequent Estonian literature. The above sentence could be paraphrased in two following ways, by insert- ing the numeral ‘one’, with the total group either in the plural partitive or

2 Lindsaar, Peeter. 1959 . . . ja sõdurid laulavad. Lund: Kirjanike Kooperatiiv. 320 Chapter 8 elative case. The numeral does alter the meaning slightly, especially with the elative, stressing that he is just one of the boys. The elative is more common these days, especially in the spoken language.

(8.15) E Peeter on üks meie kooli poiss-e/ pois-te-st Peter is one our school.GEN boy-PL.PAR/ boy-PL-ELA ‘Peter is one of the boys from our school’

Kettunen (1924: 30) proposes that there is an underlying quantifier, as indicated in example (8.16), and suggests that this was an earlier construction which has waned in Estonian due to German influence. The construction with the singular partitive complement is now uncommon, except for occasional ones of the kind discussed in the Section 2.2.3 below.

(8.16) E see on (osa/ tükk) Soomemaa-d this.NOM be.3SG part.NOM piece.NOM Finland-PAR ‘This is (a part/a piece of) Finland’ (Kettunen 1924: 30)

Apart from two hypothetical clauses, there are only two clearly separative examples in the Finnish biblical corpus, with a singular subject belonging to a group. One is shown in (8.17).

(8.17) F sinä ole-t varmasti sama-a joukko-a 2SG.NOM be-2SG certainly same-SG.PAR group.SG-PAR ‘you are certainly from the same group’ (Matt. 26:73)

Ojajärvi (1950a: 143) has examples of such clauses also in Karelian (8.18).

(8.18) K vezilindo-j-a vielä on hanhi waterfowl-PL-PAR also be.3SG goose.SG.NOM ‘the goose is also one of the waterfowl’ (Ojajärvi 1950a: 143)

There are no examples of separative partitive complements in the other Finnic Bible texts in the corpus. Kettunen has an example from his oral collection in Livonian (8.19). Copula clauses 321

(8.19) L se um veel nee-di suoda àiga this is still those-PAR war.SG.GEN time.SG.PAR ibiž-i horse-PL.PAR ‘This is still one of those wartime horses’. (Kettunen 1924: 29 fn 1)

2.2.3 Singular Count Noun Subject with a Mass Noun Complement Denoting a Characteristic of the Subject The examples in the previous section have all been of an equational nature, i.e. the entity comprising the subject is the same as that of the partitive complement of which it is a part, such as persons being part of a group of people. There is a different group of clauses, where the complement is an entirely different entity from the subject. Sadeniemi’s (1950: 47) group labelled ‘partitive’ consists of such examples. They are all ones with a singular partitive noun complement describing a characteristic of the subject, such as origin, quality and material. This has an adjectival or adverbial connotation (Schot-Saikku 1990: 47). In the synchronic corpus there are no such examples in Estonian and Livonian, Karelian has one, Veps has 5 and Finnish 6. All the Veps examples are identical or similar to (8.20c).

(8.20) a. F mi-tä miel-tä ole-t?

b. K mi-dä miel-dü ole-t? what-PAR mind-PAR be-2SG ‘of what mind are you?’ (Matt. 17:25)

c. V mittuš-t meľ-t ole-d? what.kind.PAR mind-PAR be-2SG ‘of what kind of mind are you’ = ‘what do you think?’ (Matt. 22:17)

In the corresponding verses in the Estonian and Livonian New Testaments, and also some instances in Karelian, the expression ‘What do you think?’ is used instead. The expression in Estonian (8.21) seems somewhat oldfashioned, 322 Chapter 8 but I have heard it spoken recently and seen it in print. In Estonian the partitive mida is not used attributively.

(8.21) E mis meel-t sa ole-d what mind-PAR. 2SG be-2SG ‘what do you think’

In the Finnish Bible texts there are two rather unusual instances of non- equational partitives, which are nominative in the other languages in corresponding verses. One of these is shown in the following example (8.22).

(8.22) F jos koko ruumis ol-isi pelkkä-ä if whole body.SG.NOM be-COND.3SG only-SG.PAR silmä-ä eye.SG-PAR ‘if the whole body were only an eye’ (1 Cor 12:17)

In this hypothetical statement the ‘eye’ could be considered as the material of which the ‘body’ might consist. The other example is similar. The use of the partitive, characterizing the subject, indicating origin, quality, material and appearance, exists also in the other Finnic languages, although examples are few. The following examples come from various sources.

(8.23) K üh-tä muamu-o ol-lah lapsed da one-PAR mother-PAR be-3PL child.PL.NOM and ize-ä kah-ta father.SG-PAR two-PAR ‘the children are from one mother and two fathers’ (Ojajärvi 1950a: 142) (Maaselkä dialect, Pusamalahti district)

(8.24) V hän on ńeťi-d mama-d 3SG.NOM be.3SG this-PAR mother.SG-PAR ‘he/she is from this mother’ (Kettunen 1943: 84)

(8.25) F häne-n vuotee-nsa ol-i norsunluu-ta 3SG-GEN bed.SG.NOM-3PX be-PST.3SG ivory.SG-PAR ‘her bed was of ivory’ (Waltari 1951: 203, quoted by Denison 1957: 203) Copula clauses 323

(8.26) Vo tütär e̮-li ke̮rke̮a-t kazvu-a daughter.SG.NOM be-PST.3SG tall.SG-PAR stature.SG-PAR ‘the daughter was of tall stature’ (Ariste 1968: 21)

The predicates of origin and material, of which something is made, are now usually in the elative case in Estonian, while those relating to appearance, e.g. colour and stature, are still mostly in the partitive. The partitive noun in such instances refers to the particular feature and must be modified by a partitive adjective, as in (8.26). The partitive indicating the character of something can also be used attributively. Again the adjective is essential.

(8.27) E hea-d sort-i kartuli-d good.SG-PAR sort.SG-PAR potato-PL.NOM ‘potatoes of a good sort’ (Laanest 1958: 214)

Laanest (1958: 214) also has examples in Livonian and Votic.

3 Adjectival Copula Complements

Finnish has numerous partitive adjectival complements in the biblical corpus (41% of a total of 206, both affirmative and negative), but in the other languages there are only a couple of questionable ones. Denison (1957: 239–240) does have a couple of examples in Olonets Karelian, although he makes the point that it is rare. According to Ojajärvi (1950a: 144) partitive adjectival complements do not exist in Olonets, but states that in the Viena as well as the Maaselkä dialect of Karelian adjectival partitive complements do occasionally occur, but are not common (Ojajärvi 1950a: 143). Kettunen (1943: 80) mentions that they occur only with partitive subjects in Veps, i.e. in existential rather than copula clauses. They are not found at all in Estonian, Livonian and Votic. Example (8.28) shows the difference in Finnish compared with the other languages.

(8.28) a. E muidu ole-ksi-d teie lapse-d otherwise be-COND-3PL 2PL.GEN child-PL.NOM roojase-d unclean-PL.NOM 324 Chapter 8

b. L muitiz vol-ks-t täd laps-t otherwise be-COND-3PL 2PL.GEN child-PL.NOM äbpūdis-t unclean-PL.NOM

c. F muuten-han tei-dän lapse-nne ol-isi-vat otherwise-EMP 2PL-GEN child.PL.NOM-3PX be-COND-3PL epäpuhta-i-ta unclean-PL-PAR

d. K muite-häi tei-jän lapse-t ei otherwise-EMP 2PL-GEN child-PL.NOM NEG.3PL olda-s puhtaha-t be-COND clean-PL.NOM

e. V muite tei-den lapse-d ei ol-iži otherwise 2PL.GEN child-NOM.PL NEG.3PL be-COND puhtha-d clean-PL.NOM ‘otherwise your children would be unclean / would not be clean’ (1 Cor. 7:14)

‘In Finnish if an adjectival copula complement indicates a property of a subject which is abstract or collective, divisible and nonspecific, it is partitive. A nominative complement shows an abstract or mass subject to be quantitatively bounded (Huumo 2007: 6). A singular count noun subject generally has a nominative copula complement, and so do nouns which are invariably plural, and hence non-divisible, such as sakset ‘scissors’ (VISK §946). Body part subjects have nominative copula complements (VISK §948). Partitive adjectival complements are common in clauses where the subject is an infinitive or a clause (VISK §954). A number of adjectives can be either partitive or nominative in such situations, but hyvä ‘good’ and paha ‘bad’ and a number of other common adjectives are almost always nominative. Adjectives with the suffixes ‑inen, ‑ton and ‑kas are usually partitive as copula complements. Schot-Saikku (1990: 42–47) discusses partitive adjectival complements in some detail, showing different meanings of nominative versus partitive complements, as in (8.29).

(8.29) a. F (se) on turvallis-ta it.NOM be.3SG safe.SG-PAR ‘it is safe (pleonastic ‘it’, which can be omitted) Copula clauses 325

b. F se on turvallinen it is safe.SG.NOM ‘it is safe’ (‘it’ referring to a definite entity, e.g. car, road etc.) (Schot-Saikku 1990: 44)

The more abstract or indefinite meaning, as ‘it is safe to go swimming’, is expressed by the partitive, but when the adjective describes a definite entity, the nominative is used. Huumo (2007: 7) discusses the aspectual use of the partitive adjectival copula complement. He points out that the partitive adjective can be used for a property which changes over time (Huumo 2007: 6). Such fine differences in meaning are difficult for non-Finnish speakers to grasp. In the 2003 Karelian NT corpus there are three examples of partitive adjectival predicates, one of which borders on the existential. Existential clauses are discussed in Chapter 9. I have included example (8.30) in this chapter because of the nominative case of the relative pronoun subject mi ‘what’ and the word order, with the verb preceding the location, which are features more suggestive of copula clauses than existential ones.

(8.30) K kai mi on minu-s lapsellis-tu all that be.3SG 1SG-INE childish.PAR ‘all that is childish in me’ (1 Cor. 13:11)

The fact that the nominative of lapsellistu is lapsellinen, and Finnish adjectives ending in ‑inen are mostly partitive when used predicatively, may have had something to do with the choice of the partitive here. Perhaps Finnish influence has been involved. In the present corpus in Karelian and Veps as well as Finnish there is one sentence with two partitive adjectival complements, which are shown in (8.31c, d and e) with the corresponding sentences in the other languages.

(8.31) a. E viis nende seast oli-d rumala-d five.NOM 3PL.GEN among.ELA be-PST.3PL foolish-PL.NOM ja viis aruka-d and five.NOM wise-PL.NOM

b. L vīž voļ-t nē-šti lōļõ-d ja five.NOM be.PST-3PL 3PL-ELA foolish-PL.NOM and vīž koval-d five.NOM wise-PL.NOM 326 Chapter 8

c. F viisi hei-stä oli tyhmä-ä ja five.NOM 3PL-ELA be.PST.3SG foolish.SG-PAR and viisi viisas-ta five.NOM wise.SG-PAR

d. K viizi hei-s oli tolkuttomu-a a five.NOM 3PL-ELA be.PST.3SG foolish.SG-PAR but viizi oli tolkukas-tu five.NOM be.3.SG.PST wise.SG-PAR

e. V viž hei-špäi oli meleton-t i five.NOM 3PL-ELA be.PST.3SG foolish.SG-PAR and viž melekas-t five.NOM wise.SG-PAR ‘five of them were foolish and five were wise’ (Matt. 25:2)

In this example the Karelian and Veps match the Finnish. These border on the existential. The use of the singular copula is usual with quantifier phrases, with the numeral head being singular syntactically although plural semantically. Estonian and Livonian both treat the quantifier as a definite total item in this sentence and have both the copula and its adjectival complement agreeing in number and case with the semantically plural nominative numeral. These examples could also be rephrased in an existential form (8.32), with of course a slightly different meaning. In that form even Estonian and probably Livonian would have the adjective in the partitive case, used as a noun. These adjective- nouns are then the partitive complements of the numeral. See also Chapter 9, Section 1.1 concerning quantifier phrase arguments of existential verbs.

(8.32) a. E seal oli viis rumala-t ja here be.3SG.PST five.NOM foolish.SG-PAR and viis aruka-t five.NOM wise.SG-PAR ‘there were five foolish and five wise ones’

b. F hei-stä oli viisi tyhmä-ä ja 3PL-ELA be.3SG.PST five.NOM foolish.SG-PAR and viisi viisas-ta five.NOM wise.SG-PAR ‘of them there were five foolish and five wise’ Copula clauses 327

Although most Finnic languages do not have partitive adjectival complements, a related construction exists in Estonian (8.33), although no examples are found in the present corpus.

(8.33) E see on midagi kohutava-t this.NOM be.3SG something.PAR terrible-PAR ‘this is something terrible’

Here the indefinite pronoun heads the complement NP and the adjective agrees with the partitive pronoun. With a nominative complement it is definite (8.34).

(8.34) E see on (miski) kohutav asi this.NOM be.3SG some.NOM terrible.SG.NOM thing.SG.NOM ‘this is a / (some) terrible thing’

The Finnish Bible of 1992 has a similar example (8.35).

(8.35) F että epäjumala-t ol-isi-vat jotakin todellis-ta that idol-PL.NOM be-COND-3PL something.PAR real.SG-PAR ‘that idols would be something real’ (1 Cor 10:19)

4 Diachronic Studies of Partitive Copula Complements

4.1 Noun Phrase Copula Complements 4.1.1 Pronoun Complements In the oldest Estonian texts partitive indefinite pronoun complements occur in both affirmative and negative clauses. The old Estonian non-biblical corpus has one example of a partitive pronoun complement in a negative clause (8.36).

(8.36) E nüit eb olle sesinane Ilm muh-d now NEG be.CONNEG this.NOM world.NOM other.SG-PAR mitte kudt NEG than ‘now this world is nothing other than . . .’ (Müller 1600 [1891]: 36) 328 Chapter 8

Occasional partitive pronoun complements also occur in the biblical corpus of both southern and northern dialects from earliest times, as in the northern example (8.37).

(8.37) E 1715 mis ühtekit ep olle which.NOM something.PAR NEG be.CONNEG ‘which is nothing’ (1 Cor. 1:28)

In old Estonian a partitive indefinite pronoun on its own without any negative particle can indicate negation (Kilgi 2012: 135), and an occasional such example is also present in the older texts of the Estonian corpus. In old Finnish the partitive noun copula complement is quite unusual, but some indefinite pronouns are found (Sadeniemi 1950: 51; Denison 1957: 228). In the present corpus there are a number of indefinite pronouns in the early biblical texts, especially in negative clauses, for example (8.38)

(8.38) F 1548 ei se miten ole NEG.3SG it.NOM nothing.PAR be.CONNEG ‘it is nothing’ (Matt. 23:16)

Similar partitive pronoun complements are found in all the Finnish biblical texts throughout the centuries, and there is one example in the first four chapters (89 pages) of Aleksis Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä (1870). In the older Karelian gospel corpus, there are no examples of partitive pronoun copula complements. In Livonian both the eastern and western dialect translations of St. Matthew’s gospel from 1863 do have a couple of examples each, which are the same as in the 1942 translation (8.2b), p. 313. In Veps pronoun copula complements are nominative, with the exception of a couple in interrogative clauses. There are no examples in the small Votic corpus, biblical or oral.

4.1.2 Noun Complements There are very few partitive complements apart from pronouns in the Estonian biblical corpus. In the southern Estonian NT from 1686 there is one example describing a characteristic attributed to the subject. Copula clauses 329

(8.39) ES 1686 minna olle Pahwli Usku 1SG.NOM be.1SG Paul.GEN religion.SG.PAR ‘I am of Paul’s religion’ (1 Cor. 3:4)

In subsequent editions a different construction is used without a partitive complement. In the northern dialect biblical corpus I have not come across this kind of example, but that does not mean that it did not exist in the language at that time, and it is still used in the present-day language. Masing (1818) has four examples in the corpus section with a descriptive noun complement in the partitive case. One is shown in (8.40).

(8.40) E agga temma sarwe-d on teis-t but it.GEN horn.PL.NOM be.3PL other.SG-PAR wisi mode.SG.PAR ‘but its horns are different’ (Masing 1818: 16)

Wiedemann, in his Estonian grammar also mentions this kind of construction.

(8.41) E tema on sūr-t sugu he is great.SG-PAR family.SG.PAR ‘he is from a noble family’ (Wiedemann 1875: 601)

I have not been able to find any partitive noun complements in the corpus section of the Finnish NT from 1548 nor the Bible translation from 1642 although Denison (1957: 228) quotes an example from the 1642 Bible, possibly from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 8: 17.

(8.42) F jos me sijs Jumala-n sucu-a ole-mme if we then God-GEN family.SG-PAR be-1PL ‘if we then are God’s kin’ (Bible 1642: 635, quoted by Denison 1957: 228)

Even in the 1776 and 1880 Bibles, where the partitive forms are clearly distinguished, there are hardly any partitive NP complements. They appear first in the 1906 NT, almost to the same extent as in modern editions. The language of the Bible is well known for being conservative, so a look at other literature is in 330 Chapter 8 order. Indeed, according to Toivainen (1985: 13) such forms are mentioned in von Becker’s Finsk Grammatik (1824: 185–186), as shown in (8.43).

(8.43) F het o-vat mei-än pitäjä-n mieh-i-ä 3PL be-3PL 1PL-GEN parish-GEN man-PL-PAR ‘they are men from our parish’

Jahnsson (1871: 7–8) in his Finnish grammar discusses the choice between nominative and partitive copula complements, and includes all kinds of partitive complements ranging from partitives of origin and material to what appears identical with the modern distributive partitive. The proportion of partitive NP copula complements, both pronoun and noun, in the Finnish corpus is shown in Table 8.2. The earlier years before 1906 are not included, as there are only occasional indefinite pronouns, which are partitive.The first four chapters of Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä are shown for comparison. Negative as well as affirmative clauses are included in the table.

Table 8.2 Case distribution of NP copula complements in part of the Finnish corpus

Nominative Partitive Total

Kivi 1870 100 (84.0%) 19 (16.0%) 119 1906 NT 152 (75.6%) 49 (24.4%) 201 1938 Bible 155 (77.1%) 46 (22.9%) 201 1992 Bible 123 (72.8%) 46 (27.2%) 163

The proportion of partitive complements has been fairly similar in the Bible translations since they first appeared in the 1906 NT. Most of the partitive NP complements in Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä are plural, as in (8.44).

(8.44) F ja ole-mme naimattom-i-a mieh-i-ä and be-1PL unmarried-PL-PAR man-PL-PAR ‘and we are unmarried men’ (Kivi 1870 [2002]: 14) Copula clauses 331

However, there are some singular ones, contrary to Ojajärvi’s (1950b: 241) statement, that all Kivi’s partitive predicates are plural. An example is given (8.45). The singular partitive complement here is divisible, as are all the others.

(8.45) F oppi jonka ilmoit-i-t on teaching.NOM which.GEN/ACC proclaim-PST-2SG be.3SG pahanhenge-n oppi-a devil-GEN teaching.SG-PAR ‘the teaching, which you proclaimed, is the devil’s teaching’ (Kivi 1870 [2002]: 79)

In Livonian the partitive complement denoting a characteristic of the subject has been recorded from the 19th century, an example being shown in (8.46), but there are no examples in the corpus.

(8.46) L Ni’emə-d um-āt tūois-ta kaŕŕə. cow.PL.NOM be-3PL other.SG-PAR colour.SG.PAR ‘The cows are of another colour.’ (Sjögren and Wiedemann 1861: 238, quoted by Larsson 1983: 62)

In view of the finding that distributive partitive complements are only found to any extent in standard Finnish, with occasional examples in Karelian, it is evident that this does not go back far in history, and that such complements were originally nominative (Ojajärvi 1950a: 28–29). Denison (1957: 246) concludes that the partitive which indicates the origin of someone or something is the earliest use of the partitive predicate, as it is found in all the languages, and is the only partitive predicate found in old Finnish, apart from a very rare exception. He suggests that it goes back to Proto-Finnic, as there may also be some traces of it in Saami. Larsson (1983: 68) thinks that it may be derived from the Mordvin use of the ablative for the material that something is made of. However, he has not found any evidence of the use of the Mordvin ablative to indicate the origin of someone (Larsson 1983: 64). Once the partitive of origin came into the language, there is a small step towards the separative, and then the distributive in Finnish, but other languages have not developed to that last stage, perhaps due to foreign influence (Ojajärvi 1950a: 28).

4.2 Adjectival Copula Complements Table 8.3 shows the case distribution of adjectival copula complements in the Finnish corpus. Affirmative and negative clauses are included. With the exception of one quantitative sentence, there are no partitive adjectival copula 332 Chapter 8 complements in the older Finnish texts or in the other languages, so these are a new development in Finnish, which in the biblical texts appears only in 1906, and in secular literature earlier in the 19th century.

Table 8.3 Case distribution of adjectival copula complements in the Finnish corpus

Nominative Partitive Total

Kivi 1870 75 (85%) 13 (15%) 88 1906 NT 159 (65.7%) 83 (34.3%) 242 1938 Bible 152 (67.3%) 74 (32.7%) 226 1992 Bible 122 (59.2%) 84 (40.8%) 206

There is only one sentence in the corpus, which has partitive adjectival copula complements in 1642, 1880, and probably also in 1548, shown in (8.47). This is the same sentence shown in (8.31), p. 325 in Section 3 above.

(8.47) a. F 1548 wijsi hei-ste oli-t five.NOM 3PL-ELA be.PST-3PL tyhmet ia wijsi foolish.SG.PAR?/PL.NOM? and five.NOM wijsas-t wise.SG-PAR

b. F 1642 wijsi heistä oli tyhmä five.NOM 3PL.ELA be.PST.3SG foolish.SG.PAR ja wijsi taitawa-ta and five.NOM wise.SG-PAR ‘five of them were foolish and five wise’

c. F 1776 viisi heistä oli taitava-a ja five.NOM 3PL.ELA be.PST.3SG wise.SG-PAR and viisi tyhmä-ä five.NOM foolish.SG-PAR ‘five of them were wise and five foolish’ Copula clauses 333

d. F 1906 viisi heistä oli tyhmä-ä five.NOM 3PL.ELA be.PST.3SG foolish.SG-PAR ja viisi älykäs-tä and five.NOM wise.SG-PAR ‘five of them were foolish and five wise’ (Matt. 25:2)

In 1548 the copula is plural, agreeing with the plural semantics of the numeral, but wijsast is partitive, while tyhmet appears nominative plural, but it is likely that it is an abbreviated form of a singular partitive tyhmettä. By 1642 the verb is 3rd person singular and the adjectives partitive. While tyhmä looks nominative, in old Finnish the geminate vowel is often written as a single one (Häkkinen 1994: 199). The other adjective is clearly partitive, and from 1776 onwards both are obviously partitive. With the exception of the above quantitative sentences, the present Finnish corpus does not have any partitive adjectival copula complements before Seitsemän veljestä (1870), one example from which is shown in (8.48).

(8.48) F me oli-mme kovin mahdottom-i-a 1PL.NOM be.PST-1PL completely impossible-PL-PAR ‘we were completely impossible’ (Kivi 1870 [2002]: 33)

The plural partitive adjectival complements are most plentiful in 1992. In all three of the latest texts there are some partitive forms of adjectives ending in ‑inen, and some partitives in clauses where the subject is a non-finite verb. There are some examples, where in 1906 there is a nominative complement and in 1992 a partitive one, as illustrated by (8.49).

(8.49) a. F 1906 ol-kaa väkevä-t be-IMPV.2PL. strong-PL.NOM ‘be strong’

b. F 1992 ol-kaa vahvo-j-a be-IMPV.2PL. strong-PL-PAR ‘be strong’ (1 Cor. 16:13) 334 Chapter 8

However, there are some rare examples of partitive adjectival complements in other older Finnish texts. Sadeniemi (1950: 51) quotes from a facsimile of Agricola’s works (1931: 605–606), as shown in (8.50).

(8.50) F Joinenga Caunistos ei pidhe whose beauty.NOM NEG.3SG must.CONNEG ole-ma-n wlconais-ta be-maINF-INST superficial-PAR ‘whose beauty must not be superficial’

Apart from this example, Denison’s earliest example (1957: 229) is one from a proclamation in 1788 with on tarpellista (PAR) ‘it is necessary’, with a clausal subject. Jahnsson (1871: 7–8) in his Finnish grammar gives a number of examples of partitive adjectival complements. The Tver Karelian gospel from 1820 and the southern Karelian translation from 1864 have singular partitive adjectives in the clause corresponding to (8.47), with a 3rd person singular copula, as does the 2003 translation (8.31d).

(8.51) K 1820 viizi heistä oli mielövi-ä i five.NOM 3PL.ELA be.PST.3SG wise.SG-PAR and viizi hajuttomu-a five.NOM foolish.SG-PAR ‘five of them were wise and five foolish’ (Matt. 25:2)

The 1998 translation of the gospel into Veps has the same construction as the 2006 translation, shown in (8.31e), with partitive adjectives. Denison (1957: 236) suggests that initially the adjectival partitive was really the complement of a quantifier, as also suggested by (8.47) and (8.51). It then spread to the plural predicative adjective in the separative, and finally purely distributive function in Finnish, but not in the other languages. Denison (1957: 235) states that the transition to modern usage seems to have begun mostly from the 1830s, although religious texts continued in the oldfashioned way longer.

5 Summary

The main observation from these results is the frequency of the partitive copula complement in Finnish, compared to other Finnic languages. In the Copula clauses 335 corpus, apart from Finnish, most of the partitive NP complements are pronouns. Occasional noun complements are present in the other languages in the corpus, except in Livonian. The earliest partitive nouns as copula complements have been those indicating the origin, character or appearance of the subject. Although these are very few in the present corpus, they have been found in early material from all the Finnic languages, including Livonian, and are thought to date back to Proto-Finnic. Complements indicating origin have developed into the type, where a singular count subject belongs to a group of the same entity, expressed as a plural or collective singular partitive noun. In the corpus there are only very few of these in Finnish and none in the other languages. Denison (1957: 241, 245) did not find any examples in Veps or Livonian. However, they exist in Estonian and Karelian. The divisible subject with the divisible NP or adjectival partitive complement with an identical scope (distributive complement) developed in Finnish in the mid-19th century, although an occasional example appears earlier. This development has not occurred in the other languages. chapter 9 Existential and Related Clauses

1 Existential Clauses

1.1 Introduction An existential clause is one which predicates the existence of something, usually in a definite location. This is a topic about which there are a number of different opinions. Most of the Finnic literature deals with either Finnish or Estonian. Nemvalts (1996: 18) has compared the two languages. Less information is available about the other languages, although examples of existential clauses are certainly to be found. Hakanen (1973: 68) concludes from his observations that the existential clause is basically the same in all Finnic languages. Much of the older linguistic literature does not differentiate between existential and copula clauses. Huumo and Perko (1993: 399) consider that there is a continuum with no strict boundary between existential and non-existential clauses. Häkkinen (1994: 333) comments that the existential clause is not clearly defined in modern Finnish and it was even less clear previously. Tiainen (1997) has summarized the problems and various opinions that have been expressed in the Finnish linguistic literature, and concludes that the problem of the existential clause has not yet been solved. Metslang (2013) has carried out quantitative analysis relating to existential and similar clauses in Estonian and has presented new insights into the problem, studying the relationship between subjects and objects with respect to their case-marking. For Finnish a description of existential clauses is found in VISK §893. It divides the clauses into prototypical ones and others less typical. For the prototypical ones there are a number of features listed, which are characteristic of an existential clause:

1. The verb is ‘be’ 2. The theme is a location 3. The divisible subject is partitive. 4. In a negative clause all subjects are partitive. 5. The verb does not show agreement with the subject. 6. The subject has not been mentioned previously.

* Part of the material in this chapter has been published in Lees (2008).

A canonical existential sentence in Estonian and its Finnish equivalent are shown below.

(9.1) a. E Laua-l ol-i raamatu-id

b. F Pöydä-llä ol-i kirjo-ja table-ADE be-PST.3SG book-PL.PAR ‘There were some books on the table.’

For the less typical existential clauses virtually each of the above features can be the converse according to VISK §893.

1. Other verbs 2. The subject in theme position 3. The divisible subject in nominative case 4. Nominative subject in a negative clause 5. Verbal agreement 6. Subject mentioned previously

The list refers to the ‘subject’ of the existential clause. This is the traditional way in both Estonian and Finnish grammars of referring to the noun whose existence is predicated. There has been considerable discussion about the nature of this argument, which I shall mention further in Section 3. VISK §910 calls it the e-subject. I prefer to refer to it as the e‑argument. The list of features pertaining to less typical existential clauses negates every feature of the prototypical list, resulting in the question of where should the line be drawn. Would one feature from the prototypical list be sufficient? The following sentence (9.2) with the verb ‘be’ can in no way be classified as existential, so this one feature alone would certainly not be sufficient.

(9.2) E Raamatu-d oli-d laua-l. book-PL.NOM be.PST-3PL table-ADE ‘The books were on the table’

The sentence in (9.1) tells us what existed on the table, (9.2) makes a statement about the location of a known set of books. Metslang (2013: 80) comments on the difficulty of distinguishing between existential and intransitive clauses when doing a corpus-based analysis. In the multitude of papers written on this subject, there are differences as to what 338 Chapter 9 each linguist sees as acceptable for the classification of a clause as existential. It is natural that the subject expresses something unknown, except when a change of location is the main point of the clause. The list from the Finnish grammar (VISK §893) does not include semantics. An existential clause semantically indicates the existence, the coming into existence or the cessa- tion of existence of something generally or in a particular location in place or time, or movement to another place of existence (Hakanen 1972: 51; Häkkinen 1994: 333). Ikola (1972: 5) also mentions change into another state. Some writers, for example Häkkinen (1994: 333), put the semantics first, but mention various syntactic features in addition. Hakanen (1973: 72) considers that on the basis of semantics, some existential-looking clauses may be classified as non-existential and vice versa. Hakanen (1973: 54) states that the best criterion is that if the clause is negated, the argument must be in the partitive case. Metslang (2012: 162) also stresses the question of polarity as the most important factor in determining the case of the e-argument. According to Nemvalts (1996: 19) the primary task of an existential sentence is to propose the existence or absence of something. In the corpus there are numerous existential clauses with a quantifier phrase as the argument, referring to a quantity of whatever exists. The quantified expressions are not counted in the tables. The quantifier is either an adverb, which is invariable in form, a numeral, which has many of the features of a noun, including case, or a noun of measure (a litre, a cup, a hand- ful). The quantifier is usually nominative, except in negative clauses, where a declinable quantifier would often, but not invariably, be in the partitive case (9.3). The item which is counted or measured is in the partitive case and singular.

(9.3) E siin ei ole kahte raamatu-t here NEG be.CONNEG two.PAR book-SG.PAR ‘there aren’t two books here’

If the quantity is contrasted, the quantifier is in the nominative case.

(9.4) E siin ei ole kaks raamatu-t vaid kolm here NEG be.CONNEG two.NOM book.SG-PAR but three.NOM ‘there are not two books here but three’

Some examples of existential clauses with quantifier phrases are shown in the following examples from the corpus. Existential and Related Clauses 339

(9.5) E teie seas on vähe tark-u 2PL.GEN among be.3SG few wise-PL.PAR ‘there are few wise men among you’ (1 Cor. 1:26)

(9.6) a. L sǟl voļ pǟgiņ naiž-i there be.PST.3SG many woman-PL.PAR

b. V sigä oli mugažo äi naiž-id there be.PST.3SG also many woman-PL.PAR ‘there were also many women there’ (Matt. 27:55)

Similar quantified clauses occur in all the languages. The verb is 3rd person singular. The various features of existential clauses, as found in the corpus, are discussed after the general presentation of the results of the case distribution of the e‑argument from the corpus.

1.2 Results from the Synchronic Biblical Corpus The present study is limited to clauses with the existential verb ‘be’ in view of the difficulty in distinguishing clauses with other verbs from typical non- existential intransitive clauses. Table 9.1 shows the case distribution of the e-argument in the various languages, all pronouns and nouns being included. The alternation here is between partitive and nominative case. The e‑arguments consisting of quantifier phrases with numbers or adverbial quantifiers are omitted from the tables. They are similar in all the languages.

Table 9.1 Case of the argument in existential clauses in the Finnic synchronic biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

Estonian 1989 17 (50%) 17 (50%) 34 14 (100%) 0 Livonian 1942 6 (18%) 28 (82%) 34 9 (90%) 1 (10%) Finnish 1992 26 (59%) 18 (41%) 44 14 (100%) 0 Karelian 2003 19 (53%) 17 (47%) 36 23 (100%) 0 Veps 2006 18 (45%) 22 (55%) 40 30 (100%) 0 340 Chapter 9

There are a number of divisible nominative arguments: in Estonian 11 (9 singular, 2 plural), Livonian 16 (9 singular, 7 plural), Finnish 0, Karelian 0, Veps 5 (all plural). Some of these are repetions of the same clause. Clauses which in some languages have several or even all of the features of an existential clause, are in other languages often expressed in different ways, have too few existential features for inclusion (a subjective assessment), or are not semantically existential. Negative clauses have a partitive e-argument, with just the one exception in Livonian (9.7). Regarding affirmative clauses, the Livonian data shows a different case distribution pattern from the others, with the nominative case much more frequent, and is the most difficult to classify.

(9.7) L algõ volgõ set siz andõ-d NEG.JUS be.CONNEG.JUS only then donation-PL.GEN kuoŗŗimi collection.NOM ‘let there not be a collection of donations only [when I come]’ (1 Cor. 16:2)

The question arises, whether this should be classified as an existential clause. The nominative case indicates definiteness, as the collection of money has been mentioned earlier. Semantically it appears existential, although the other languages express the same idea by non-existential constructions. In affirmative clauses there is often a nominative argument in Livonian, where the other languages would have a partitive one. This could be Latvian influence. Example (9.8) compares the different languages, showing a nominative argument in Livonian, contrasting with a partitive in the others.

(9.8) a. E teie seas kuulu-kse ole-vat hoorus-t 2PL.GEN among hear-IMP be-EVID fornication-PAR

b. L ku täd vail voļļi puortimi that you.PL.GEN between be.EVID fornication.NOM

c. F että tei-dän keskuudessa-nne on haureu-tta that 2PL-GEN among-2PL.PX be.3SG fornication-PAR

d. K buite tei-jän keskes on karguandu-a that 2PL-GEN among be.3SG fornication-PAR Existential and Related Clauses 341

e. V miše tei-den keskes om vedelus-t that 2PL-GEN among be.3SG fornication-PAR ‘(one hears) that there is fornication among you’ (1 Cor. 5:1)

Of the nominative e-arguments in the corpus, most are singular count nouns. There are also occasional plural nouns, in which case the plural is considered as a complete set. It is sometimes definite, especially when a defining relative clause follows. The small section of the gospel in Votic does not contain any existential clauses. In the oral Votic corpus (Kettunen and Posti 1932) there are 10 affirmative existential clauses in the eastern dialect, with only one partitive argument, and 26 in the western dialect, with 6 partitive arguments. Of the negative ones, all 4 in eastern Votic have partitive arguments, and in western Votic there are 2/14 with nominative ones.

1.3 The Existential Verb The most common by far is the verb ‘be’, but a number of other intransitive verbs are also found: come, go, appear, occur, grow etc. Nemvalts (1996: 76) quotes Varik (1974) that 542 Estonian verbs allow a partitive subject, but four of these do not form existential clauses. Metslang (2013: 99) also mentions 500 Estonian verbs. Siro (1974: 38) includes 300 Finnish verbs. Hakanen (1973: 16ff) gives a number of Finnish examples of clauses with verbs other than olla, which are existential. Ritter (1989: 46) states that the number of verbs in Veps which can take a partitive subject is less than in Finnish with only a few in addition to ‘be’. As a partitive subject can generally (there are very few exceptions) be found only in existential clauses (Ikola 1954: 226; Mihkla 1964: 65), it follows that most clauses with a partitive subject, whatever the verb, are existential clauses. The verb in this situation is concerned with existence, usually in a particular location, the activity itself being relatively unimport- ant. Therefore, apart from location, any expansion of the verb phrase is not common. Even if the e‑argument is plural, the verb is in 3rd person singular in Finnish. Agreement is usually found where the argument is nominative plural in Estonian (Nemvalts 1996: 18), Livonian and Veps, but it is questionable, as to whether such clauses should be classified as existential. In the corpus there are a few examples with other verbs, mostly those of coming, appearing and happening. Clauses with a quantifier phrase with a numeral or adverbial head have not been counted. Table 9.2 shows the numbers found in the synchronic biblical corpus. Only partitive e‑arguments are 342 Chapter 9

Table 9.2 Existential clauses with partitive e-arguments of verbs other than ‘be’ in the synchronic biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative

Estonian 1989 9 3 Livonian 1942 1 1 Finnish 1992 16 2 Karelian 2003 18 4 Veps 2006 17 1

listed, as many clauses with nominative arguments are difficult to classify. Pronouns are included, if the clause is semantically existential. The same verbs are repeated, and the numbers here are not indicative of the number of different verbs in existential clauses. Livonian stands out in having practically none. There are also some partitive subjects in clauses which are not semantically existential. These are usually indefinite pronouns, which rarely occur in the nominative case and which are found in some instances even as subjects of transitive verbs, but these have not been included in the above table. A Livonian example is shown in (9.9).

(9.9) L mittõ midagid äb volks täddõ-n NEG anything.PAR 3SG.NEG be.CONNEG.COND 2PL-DAT võimõt impossible ‘nothing would be impossible for you’ (Matt. 17:20)

There are also some Livonian examples with the plural partitive mūḑi ‘others’ with verbs, which are clearly not existential and agree in number with the partitive subject (9.10), which is quite irregular in Finnic languages.

(9.10) L aga mū-ḑi kādl-is-t but other-PL.PAR doubt-PST-3PL ‘but others doubted’ (Matt. 28:17) Existential and Related Clauses 343

Typically the verb is in the 3rd person singular form. This is always so with a partitive subject, although (9.10) is an exception. As most of the nominative e‑arguments are singular count nouns, the verb, even if agreeing, is still in the 3rd person singular. Most divisible nouns, including plurals, are partitive in existential clauses. There is just one clause in the modern Finnish biblical corpus, where the argument consists of several conjoint names, and the verb ‘be’ is plural (9.11).

(9.11) F hei-dän jouko-ssa-an ol-i-vat Magdalan Maria, 3PL-GEN group-INE-3PX be-PST-3PL Magdala.GEN Mary Jaakobin ja Joosefin äiti Maria ja James.GEN and Joseph.GEN mother.NOM Mary.NOM and Sebedeuksen poik-i-en äiti Zebedee.GEN son-PL-GEN mother.NOM ‘in their group were Mary Magdalene, James’ and Joseph’s mother Mary and the mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (Matt. 27:56)

Veps also has a plural verb in the corresponding clause. It can be argued whether this clause is truly existential. The conjoint arguments are not completely new, but they are in a new location, and there is a theme at the onset of the clause, so there are some existential features. The very long conjoint subject (e-argument?) may of course be responsible for the word order. In Livonian there is a clause with plural conjoint nominative arguments and a verb showing agreement (9.12).

(9.12) L ja lībõ-d nǟlga-d ja mā and be.POT-3PL famine-PL.NOM and earth.GEN dõržimis-t quake-PL.NOM ‘and there will be famines and earthquakes’ (Matt. 24:7)

In the other languages these arguments are partitive. The word dõržimist could be partitive singular, but as it is plural in the other translations and the original Greek, it is most probably also plural nominative here. The lack of agreement is most easily seen in possessive clauses, which are discussed in Section 2.2. I have not been able to find any examples of existential clauses with verbal agreement in Karelian. If the argument precedes the verb and is nominative, the verb agrees in person and number even in Finnish, 344 Chapter 9 but the clause is then usually no longer considered existential, especially if the adverbial follows.

1.4 The Theme and Word Order Canonically the theme at the beginning of the clause is a location in space or time (Huumo and Perko (1993: 384), either an adverb or a noun in one of the inherent cases. Siro (1974: 40) does not accept temporal adverbials as part of an existential clause, while Hakanen (1973: 23) does, but only if they are in a local case. Hakanen (1973: 30) also includes existential clauses with a habitive (possessor) location. Although much has been made of word order as a criterion, Hakanen (1973: 63) points out that variation is allowed in cases of special stress or focus. Huumo and Perko (1993: 399) regard (X)VS word order as the main criterion of an existential clause, together with the existentiality of the verb. If the argument is nominative in clause-initial position, in most instances the clause is not an existential one, but rather a copula clause, predicating the location of the subject, such as (9.2) above. If the subject is partitive, the clause is almost always existential, even if the word order is not canonical. In subordinate clauses, especially relative ones, where the relative pronoun is the e-argument, the pronoun is the initial word in the clause, but can be followed by the location (9.13). In some clauses the verb follows a conjunction with the location at the end, as in example (9.14), where the stress is on the verb.

(9.13) F jotka käyttä-vät hyödy-kse-en si-tä mi-tä who.PL use-3PL good-TRA-3PX that-PAR which-PAR tä-ssä maailma-ssa on this-INE world-INE be.3SG ‘who make good use of what there is in this world’ (1 Cor. 7:31)

(9.14) E kui ole-ks-ki nõndanimetatud “jumala-id” if be-COND.3SG-EMP so-called god-PL.PAR taeva-s heaven-INE ‘even if there were so-called “gods” in heaven [or on earth]’ (1 Cor. 8:5)

1.5 Absolute Existence In a number of instances the location is omitted completely and semantically there is absolute existence. In these clauses the e-argument may be Existential and Related Clauses 345 clause-initial, especially if it is partitive or the clause may begin with the verb, as shown in (9.15).

(9.15) a. E on taevalikke ihu-sid ja be.3SG heavenly.PL.PAR body-PL.PAR and maapealse-id ihu-sid earthly-PL.PAR body-PL.PAR

b. L āt touvilis-t leja-d ja āt be.3PL heavenly-PL.NOM body-PL.NOM and be.3PL mūldalis-t leja-d earthly-PL.NOM body-PL.NOM

c. F on taivaallis-i-a ja maallis-i-a ruumi-i-ta be.3SG heavenly-PL-PAR and earthly-PL-PAR body-PL-PAR

d. K on taivahallis-tu dai muallis-tu rungu-a be.3SG heavenly.SG-PAR and earthly.SG-PAR body.SG-PAR

e. V völ oma maiže-d i taivhaliže-d also be.3PL earthly-PL.NOM and heavenly-PL.NOM hibja-d body-PL.NOM ‘there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies’ (1 Cor. 15:40)

In this set the Livonian and Veps translations are similar, with nominative e‑arguments and the agreeing plural of the verb ‘be’. In those two the arguments are generic, where quantity is irrelevant. In the others they are quantitatively indefinite. In all instances there is no location, but semantically they are existential. Karelian, with the singular noun rungua ‘body’, has a collective singular partitive. Even if there is no adverbial theme, the verb tends to precede the argument. If it does not, there is sometimes an added inessive form of the ‑ma infinitive of the verb ‘be’—olemas (E), olemassa (F), and similar forms in the other languages. This has a locative connotation ‘in existence’. Hakanen (1972: 52) feels uneasy about the classification of clauses with olemassa, and gives a number of examples, which he considers to be normal clauses, mainly because of word order, olemassa in that context being considered similar to any other location, as in example (9.2). Siro (1974: 39) stresses that an adverbial is 346 Chapter 9 essential, but feels that sometimes an underlying location may be suppressed. One can consider olemassa or a suppressed ‘in existence’ as the default ‘loca tive adverbial’. VISK §891 lists this kind of clause separately. In (9.16) some languages have a suppressed location, others a location either before or after the verb.

(9.16) a. E et maailma-s ei ole ole-ma-s that world-INE NEG be.CONNEG be-maINF-INE üh-te-gi ebajumala-t one-PAR-EMP false.god.SG-PAR ‘that there does not exist a single false god in the world’

b. L ku mit-ȳ-tõ lȭigajumal-t māīlma-s äb that not-one-PAR false.god.SG-PAR world-INE NEG.3SG ūo be.CONNEG ‘that there is not one false god in the world’

c. F ett-ei epäjumal-i-a ole ole-ma-ssa that-NEG.3SG false.god-PL-PAR be.CONNEG be-maINF-INE ‘that there are no false gods in existence’

d. K valejumalo-i ni ole-ma-s ei ole false.god-PL.PAR EMP be-maINF-INE NEG.3SG be.CONNEG ‘there are no false gods in existence’

e. V miše tühj-id jumalo-id ei ole that false-PL.PAR god-PL.PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG ‘that there are no false gods’ (1 Cor. 8:4)

Here Estonian has a typical existential clause. In the Finnish the negative auxiliary precedes the argument, while the rest of the verb follows. There are a number of such examples in the Finnish corpus. Karelian begins with the e-argument, and so do the Livonian and Veps, but the e-arguments are all partitive. Related to the above examples there is another group of clauses which are often misclassified as copula clauses, whereas they are in fact existential, as exemplified below. VISK §891 classifies these separately as quantifier clauses (kvanttorilause). Existential and Related Clauses 347

(9.17) F armolahjo-j-a on monenlais-i-a talent-PL-PAR be.3SG many.kind-PL-PAR ‘there are talents of many kinds’ (1 Cor. 12:4)

The word order could be changed to that shown in (9.18) without any significant change in meaning.

(9.18) F on monenlaisia armolahjoja ‘there are many kinds of talents’

Both the noun and the adjective, whether it precedes or follows the noun are in the partitive case. If in (9.17) there was a nominative subject and complement with the same word order, it would not be an existential but a typical copula clause, as in the corresponding Karelian clause (9.19), where the adjective is predicated of the subject n̕erot.

(9.19) K n̕ero-t ol-lah kaikenjüttümä-t talent-PL.NOM be-3PL various-PL.NOM ‘(the) talents are of many kinds’ (1 Cor 12:4)

Slightly further in the Karelian text there is an existential clause (9.20) similar to the Finnish one in (9.17).

(9.20) K ruadu-o on kaikenjüttümi-ä work.SG-PAR be.3SG various.SG-PAR ‘there is every kind of work’ (1 Cor. 12:6)

Existential clauses without an expressed location, either spatial or temporal are relatively frequent in all the languages in the corpus, with the fewest in Estonian at 14, in Finnish 21, Karelian 24, Livonian 17 and Veps 24. These figures include affirmative and negative clauses, and those with partitive or nominative e‑arguments.

1.6 The Case of the e-Argument The third criterion in the list is that a divisible subject (e-argument) should be in the partitive case, while singular count nouns in affirmative clauses are nominative. Metslang (2012: 178) points out that some abstract nouns, 348 Chapter 9 although divisible, can only take nominative case as e-arguments in affirmative clauses. Hakanen (1972: 56) refers to the case of the e‑argument as nominative-accusative or partitive. Huumo and Perko (1993: 399) claim that the presence of partitive case is not a decisive criterion of existential clauses, but is primarily related to quantification. Siro (1976: 36), on the other hand, thinks that the partitive subject is the most important criterion. Ikola (1954: 226) goes even further, suggesting that all clauses with a partitive subject are existential, but Penttilä (1956: 41) does not agree. Sadeniemi (1955: 11) contrasts a partitive argument clause-initially with one coming after the location and the verb. He places those clauses with an initial partitive argument together with copula clauses, as predicating something of that argument rather than of the location. Concerning Estonian, Mihkla (1964: 65) regards all clauses with a partitive argument as existential, although in Mihkla et al. (1974: 70) he allows a partitive subject in some quantified clauses, which he does not regard as existential. Erelt and Metslang (2006: 261) also mention some other related clause types, where a partitive subject can be found, such as negative source-marking constructions. These Mihkla (1964: 54) classifies with existential clauses, and so does Hakanen (1973: 54) for Finnish. In the present corpus, there are a number of divisible nominative arguments, mostly in Estonian and Livonian, and a few in Veps (Section 1.2). There are none in Finnish and Karelian. Erelt and Metslang (2006: 257) point out that in Estonian it is possible to have plural nominative e‑arguments, while in Finnish it is not. Agreement of the verb with a nominative plural noun is variable, but common in Estonian, Livonian (9.21) and Veps (9.22).

(9.21) L āt mitmõsuglis-t andõ-d be.3PL various-PL.NOM talents-PL.NOM ‘there are many kinds of talents’ (1 Cor. 12:4)

(9.22) V mihe tei-den südäim-i-š oma paha-d why 2PL-GEN heart-PL-INE be.3PL bad-PL.NOM meletuse-d? thought-PL.NOM ‘why are there bad thoughts in your hearts?’ (Matt. 9:4)

Despite the nominative arguments, I have still regarded the above examples as existential clauses. The Veps example refers to thoughts that are apparent because of previous actions, and could thus be considered as preexisting, but Existential and Related Clauses 349 the word order is typical of an existential clause. Sadeniemi (1955: 14) has suggested that plural phrases in some situations could be thought of as a single set of items, and hence be treated as nondivisible. In generic statements the e-arguments are in the nominative case in Estonian and, judging by the present data, also in Livonian. Kettunen’s examples (1943: 46) suggest that this is so also in Veps. Most of the clauses in the corpus with mass noun e‑arguments come under this category (9.23a and b). However, in Karelian this argument is seen as quantitatively indefinite (9.23c). Of the 9 Estonian and 9 Livonian singular nominative divisible e‑arguments, 6 in each language are identical with or very similar to (9.23). Here the arguments are seen as generic with neutral quantity, rather than quantitatively indefinite.

(9.23) a. E seal on ulgumine ja hammas-te there be.3SG/PL howling.NOM and tooth-PL.GEN kiristamine gnashing.NOM

b. L kus līb räukimi ja ambõ-d where be.POT.3SG howling.NOM and tooth-PL.GEN kīerimi gnashing.NOM

c. K sit sie on itku-u da hambah-i-en then there be.3SG crying-PAR and tooth-PL-GEN križaitus-tu gnashing-PAR ‘(then) there will be howling and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 13:42)

Hakanen (1973: 49) accepts the nominative argument in affirmative existential clauses as indicating totality, but points out that if the clause is negated such an argument becomes partitive. Aspect is not a determining factor in the choice of case of the e‑argument, quantitative indefiniteness being the factor. However, Heinämäki (1994: 227) mentions that quantified subjects can have an effect on the aspect of a sentence. This is also the opinion of Metslang (2013: 95). Verbs other than ‘be’ are more likely to bring in aspect, but one of the criteria of existential clauses is that the semantics of the verb should not be prominent, and should concentrate on existence, and perhaps such clauses should not be considered existential. 350 Chapter 9

Metslang (2012) has carried out a detailed study of case-marking of the e-argument, and has compiled a hierarchy of the factors involved (p. 162). The most important is polarity, with negation resulting in a partitive e-argument. This overrides all other factors. Next there are special clause constructions which allow only partitive or only nominative case for the e-argument (p. 168ff). In her corpus she identified 12 constructions which only allow the partitive and 7 which only allow the nominative (p. 171). The next level of case assignment relates to head noun semantics, which she divides into two groups: existential nominatives and existential partitives. The nominative group includes singular count nouns, set nouns, some abstract nouns, such as vaikus ‘quietness’ and pluralia tantum, such as ‘scissors’. The partitive group includes some abstract nouns, e.g. jõudu ‘strength’. At the lowest level, she brings in the notion of inclusivity of divisible e-arguments (p. 183). Inclusivity relates to quantitative definiteness. With inclusive involvement the case is nominative, with non-inclusive it is partitive.(See examples in Section 1.9.1.). Inclusivity may be irrelevant, as in generic statements, in which case the e-argument is nominative. There are suggestions (Jahnson 1871: 7; Wiedemann 1875: 594) that any partitive argument is governed by a null quantifier, such as ‘some’ or ‘zero’, which is the actual subject, the partitive being a complement of the quantifier. The use of the nominative case for a divisible e‑argument indicates that the item in question is quantitatively definite or generic. It is generally accepted that transitive verbs cannot have partitive subjects. However, Kettunen (1943: 50) gives a number of examples in Veps of partitive subjects of transitive verbs, suggesting that this is an original construction. Denison (1957: 128) on the other hand thinks it is a later development in Veps. Vilkuna (1989: 260), quoted by Sands and Campbell (2001: 266) mentions that there is now a tendency towards partitive subjects, even nouns, to be used in transitive clauses, the subject being quantitatively indefinite. Jahnsson’s (1871: 7) suggestion of a null quantifier being the true subject seems apt in this connection.

1.7 Negative Existential Clauses Negative existential clauses are said always to have a partitive argument. Hakanen (1973: 54) claims that this is the best criterion. It is certainly the feature that is most consistent in the present corpus, and the one feature that appears in the earliest writings (see Section 1.9). Existential and Related Clauses 351

(9.24) a. E kui aga ei ole surnu-i-st if but NEG be.CONNEG dead-PL-ELA ülestõusmis-t resurrection.SG-PAR

b L aga až kūolõn-d ylznūzimis-t äb but if dead-PL.GEN resurrection.SG-PAR NEG.3SG ūo be.CONNEG

c. F jos ei ole kuolle-i-den ylösnousemus-ta if NEG.3SG be.CONNEG dead-PL-GEN resurrection.SG-PAR

d. K gu kuolluz-i-en nouzendu-a ei olle if dead-PL-GEN resurrection.SG-PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG

e. V a ku ei ole eläbzoitus-t but if NEG.3SG be.CONNEG resurrection.SG-PAR ‘but if there is no resurrection of the dead’ (1 Cor. 15:13)

In Livonian there is a sentence, which is semantically existential (with a verb other than ‘be’) and negative, but with a nominative argument (9.25a). In Karelian (9.25b) and Veps there is a partitive e‑argument in this clause, while in Estonian and Finnish a different construction is used.

(9.25) a. L algõ rov vail vastonūzimi NEG.JUS people.SG.GEN among uprising.SG.NOM suggõg occur.CONNEG.JUS ‘so that there will not occur any uprising among the people’

b. K gu rahvaha-n keskes ei that people-SG.GEN among NEG.3SG rodies hälü-ü develop.CONNEG.COND uproar-PAR ‘that no uproar will develop among the people’ (Matt. 26:5) 352 Chapter 9

1.8 The Argument as New Information The final criterion of a typical existential clause, according to VISK §893 is that the argument should be presented for the first time in the existential clause. This raises the question, whether relative clauses can be included, because the antecedent of the relative pronoun has already been mentioned. This feature is one that seems to me the least reliable criterion. If we look at movement of existence from one location to another, which Häkkinen (1994: 333) accepts as a criterion of existentiality, it does often presuppose existence. Itkonen (1979: 80), however, is quite adamant that where the existence of the subject is presupposed, the clause is not existential. This would appear to pre- clude the occurrence of a personal or demonstrative pronoun, yet these can be found in existential clauses, mostly in negative ones. Corresponding examples in Estonian, Karelian and Veps of a partitive personal pronoun e‑argument are shown in (9.26).

(9.26) a. E Te-da ei ole siin 3SG-PAR NEG be.CONNEG here

b. K ei Hän-dü ole tiä NEG.3SG 3SG-PAR be.CONNEG here

c. V hän-dast ei ole tägä 3SG-PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG here ‘he is not here’ (lit. there is no ‘he’ here; he doesn’t exist here). (Matt. 28:6)

It is a statement about what is not there, rather than a statement about where he is not. If it is a statement about him, it is expressed by the nominative, as in the corresponding clause in Finnish (9.27) and Livonian and is not existential.

(9.27) F ei hän ole täällä NEG.3SG 3SG.NOM be.CONNEG here ‘he is not here’ (Matt. 28:6)

Kiparsky (2001: 351), writing about Finnish, states that personal pronouns cannot be subjects in existential clauses, but in Estonian, Karelian and Veps this does appear possible. Hakanen (1973) carried out a comparative study of existential clauses in Finnish, including Old Finnish, and Estonian, using the New Testament Book Existential and Related Clauses 353 of Revelations, with a small number of examples from other Bible texts, which also included Livonian. My results have been very similar to his, showing that the basic pattern of existential clauses is essentially the same for all Finnic languages, but with the greatest deviations from the prototypical occurring in Livonian.

1.9 Diachronic Studies Ravila (1944: 123) points out that the partitive subject is not known in Mordvin or Saami, and concludes that it goes back to Proto-Finnic, but no further. Denison (1957: 128) and Itkonen (1979: 90) are of the same opinion. Certainly the finding of a similar structure of the existential clause in all the languages studied, with predominantly partitive arguments in negative clauses and many also in the affirmative ones, supports the Proto-Finnic origin for this construction, after the separation of Saami.

1.9.1 Estonian Even in the oldest southern and northern Estonian Bible translations, the partitive appears to have been used in much the same way in negative existential clauses except for Gutslaff (1648), while in affirmative clauses the e-argument is often nominative in the case of divisible items, especially plurals. The results from the southern Estonian Bible corpus are shown in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Case of the e-argument in the southern Estonian Bible corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1648–1656* 1 (4%) 27 (96%) 28 0 7 1686 NT 13 (43%) 17 (57%) 30 8 0 1857 NT 14 (44%) 18 (56%) 32 8 0 1886 NT 12 (39%) 19 (61%) 31 9 0 1905 NT 16 (52%) 15 (48%) 31 8 0 Seto 1926** 5 (25%) 15 (75%) 20 4 0

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7: 15–16: 24 (Gutslaff). ** St. Matthew’s gospel only.

Gutslaff’s translation stands out in having nominative e‑arguments in negative clauses (9.28) as well as almost all affirmative ones. 354 Chapter 9

(9.28) ES 1648 eth ei olle neihn-de kohl[ii]-te that NEG be.CONNEG 3PL-GEN dead.PL-GEN üllestouwsminne resurrection.NOM ‘that there is no resurrection of the dead’ (1 Cor. 15:12)

St. Matthew’s gospel in the Seto dialect has a much smaller percentage of partitive e‑arguments than the other southern Estonian New Testaments (except Gutslaff), and indeed, fewer than other languages apart from Livonian. This is mainly due to the absence of 1 Corinthians, where many of the partitive e-arguments are found. Gutslaff’s handling of existential clauses is similar to that of Stahl (see below). The nominative arguments include some divisible ones, especially in the earlier texts, as in (9.29a). In 1857 and 1886 the nominative still occurs, with the verb agreeing with the plural argument, while in 1905 the partitive is used (9.29b). The nominative e‑argument appears to refer to a definite group of soldiers, while in later editions the partitive indicates an indefinite number of soldiers (the inclusiveness factor of Metslang (2012: 183)). In the Greek, as well as the German translation, ‘soldiers’ is indefinite.

(9.29) a. ES 1686 minno al omma Söamehe SG.GEN under be.3PL soldier.PL.NOM

b. ES 1905 mino all om sõameh-i 1SG.GEN under be.3SG soldier-PL.PAR ‘there are soldiers under my command’ (Matt. 8:9)

Regarding the northern Estonian dialect, going back earlier to the works of Müller and Stahl, there are very few partitive e‑arguments in affirmative clauses, but in negative clauses there are occasional ones. An example from Stahl with a nominative e‑argument in a negative clause is shown in (9.30).

(9.30) E kescku sees ep olle hingminne echk command.GEN in NEG be.CONNEG rest.NOM or rahwo peace.NOM/PAR ‘in the law there is no rest or peace’ (Stahl HH2 1637b: 80) Existential and Related Clauses 355

In his later work Leyen Spiegel (1641–1649), where the partitive is still not much used for object case for nouns, there are some examples of partitive forms of the e‑argument in negative existential clauses (9.31).

(9.31) E ep olle mui-to ohta-mis-t NEG be.CONNEG other-SG.PAR wait-NMLZ-PAR ‘there is no waiting for anyone else’ (Stahl LS 1641: 22)

This example is very similar to the necessive constructions in Livonian with partitive objects of the fourth infinitive (see Chapter 7, Section 3.4). In modern Estonian such nominalizations have a genitive undergoer in the plural as well as singular, whereas here we have muito in the partitive. Willmann (1782) has all e-arguments in the nominative case, whether the clause is affirmative or negative. In Masing’s writings (1818 and 1825) there are 25 partitive and 30 nominative e‑arguments in affirmative clauses. There are a few plural nominative arguments which would nowadays be partitive, but there are others which, being definite, could be considered to form one non- divisible item. All 15 negative existential clauses have a partitive e-argument. The results from the northern Estonian biblical corpus are listed in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4 Case of the e-argument in the northern Estonian Bible corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive

NT 1694* 6 (19%) 25 (81%) 31 9 NT 1715 2 (8%) 23 (92%) 25 9 Bible 1739 7 (21%) 26 (79%) 33 10 Bible 1903 13 (43%) 17 (57%) 30 10 NT 1947 12 (38%) 20 (63%) 32 14 Bible 1968 12 (35%) 22 (65%) 34 17 NT 1989 17 (50%) 17 (50%) 34 14 Bible 1997 18 (49%) 19 (51%) 37 15

* München manuscript.

While in the earliest southern Estonian Bible texts (except for Gutslaff) existential clauses have similar numbers of partitive e-arguments throughout 356 Chapter 9 most of the period of study, with an increase in 1905, in northern Estonian the earliest ones have considerably fewer, with an increase in 1903, followed by a further increase in 1989. There are no nominative e‑arguments in negative clauses, even in the earliest translation from 1694. The problems relating to the classification of a clause as existential are evident in the 1694 translation, as shown in the following examples (9.32) to (9.34).

(9.32) E 1694 et teie säas Rido on that 2PL.GEN among quarrelling.SG.PAR be.3SG ‘that there is quarrelling among you’ (1 Cor. 1:11)

(9.33) E 1694 et Lahkomisse-d teie säas omma-d that division-PL.NOM 2PL.GEN among be-3PL ‘that (when you come together in God’s congregation) there are divisions among you’ (1 Cor. 11:18)

(9.34) E 1694 siis on jo nüüd üks sü then be.3SG EMP now one.NOM sin.SG.NOM teie säas 2PL.GEN among ‘then there is now a sin among you’ (1 Cor. 6:7)

All the above examples are semantically existential, and all present the existence of new information. However, in each there is at least one feature which is non-canonical. In (9.32) the verb follows rather than precedes the e‑argument, but the location precedes. In (9.33) the location follows the argument, and so does the verb, which agrees with the plural nominative argument. The semantics, the position of the adverbial before the verb, and the new information are supportive of its existential nature. This is an example of the nominative case being generally used for plural nouns in old Estonian, even when quantitatively indefinite. The last example (9.34) has a nominative e‑argument, which is the norm for singular nouns, but does not help in classification. The verb precedes it, but the word order can be attributed to the initial adverb ‘then’, which does not quite have the force of a temporal location, so here we have only the semantics and the new information to label it existential. The 1715 NT has fewer partitive e‑arguments than the 1694 NT in affirmative clauses. Indeed, as in the example (9.33) from the 1694 NT above, the e-argument is often the theme, followed by the verb and location, so there is Existential and Related Clauses 357 only the semantics, and the presentation of new information to suggest that these are existential clauses. With time the proportion of partitive arguments increases, and clauses with the more typical structure emerge. An example of this change, similar to that in southern Estonian in (9.29), but with an earlier change to partitive, is seen in (9.35).

(9.35) a. E 1715 minno al omma-d Söddamehhe-d 1SG.GEN under be-3PL soldier-PL.NOM

b. E 1739 minno al on söamehh-i 1SG.GEN under be.3SG soldier-PL.PAR ‘under my command there are soldiers’ (Matt. 8:9)

Erelt and Metslang (2006: 257) have observed that during the period 1995–2000 there has been a relative increase in the number of nominative subjects in existential clauses, which suggests a return of Indo-European influence, now most likely to be English.

1.9.2 Finnish The results from the Finnish corpus, including the first four chapters of Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä are shown in Table 9.5. There are a number of nouns ambiguous for case, as the final geminate vowel of a partitive is often not shown in the two earliest translations. These have been omitted from the table, although it is likely that the ones in negative clauses are partitive. Noun and pronoun arguments are included.

Table 9.5 Case of the e-argument in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1548 NT 4 (13%) 27 (87%) 31 7 2 1642 Bible 6 (20%) 24 (80%) 30 8 2 1776 Bible 5 (15%) 29 (85%) 34 8 3 1880 Bible 5 (16%) 27 (84%) 32 8 2 1906 NT 15 (34%) 29 (66%) 44 11 1 1938 Bible 17 (41%) 24 (59%) 41 13 0 1992 Bible 26 (62%) 16 (38%) 42 14 0 Kivi 1870 15 (29%) 37 (71%) 52 7 0 358 Chapter 9

Some clauses which are existential in the more recent texts, have a different structure in the earlier ones. The number of partitive e‑arguments rises with time both in affirmative and negative clauses. The four earliest Finnish texts have similar numbers of partitive e‑arguments, but nominative ones predominate, and occasional nominatives are found in negative clauses, as in (9.36). This clause has a partitive e‑argument in 1642 and subsequent translations.

(9.36) F 1548 ett-ei tei-den seasa-n that-NEG.3SG 2PL-GEN among-2PL.PX Eriseura-t olisi dissension-PL.NOM be.CONNEG.COND ‘that there would not be dissensions among you’ (1 Cor 1:10)

In Agricola’s writing word order is mostly SV, and the verb agrees with the plural partitive subject (Häkkinen 1994: 334). The verb also agrees with a following nominative subject. Denison (1957: 119) mentions that in the oldest Finnish texts the partitive subject is far less frequent than in modern Finnish, but does give quite a number of partitive examples. According to Wiik (1989: 19) the subject of a sentence such as Miehia tulee (man.PL.PAR come.3SG) ‘(some) men are coming’ would have been interpreted as nominative by Petraeus in 1649. Denison (1957: 129) gives a couple of examples in old Finnish, which involve a quantifier. Jahnsson (1871: 7) mentions partitive subjects, and suggests that these are not really subjects, but that there is a null quantifier, which would be the actual subject, governing a partitive noun complement. He also points out that the verb is singular because it agrees with the understood quantifier and not with any partitive plural complement. The results from Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä, although not strictly comparable, fit between those from the 1880 and 1906 NTs. Negation is the strongest factor in the use of the partitive case, so it is somewhat surprising to find a number of nominative arguments in negative clauses in the early texts. In affirmative clauses all the partitive plural e‑arguments in the corpus are quantitatively indefinite, so quantification is an early factor in the use of the partitive case.

1.9.3 Karelian The translations of St. Matthew’s gospel in the Tver dialect (1820) and the southern Karelian dialect (1864) are very similar in their handling of existential Existential and Related Clauses 359 clauses. In both of these the 13 negative existential clauses have partitive arguments, while in the 30 affirmative clauses they are all nominative. In comparison St. Matthew’s gospel in the 2003 NT has 7 partitive e‑arguments in affirmative clauses and 13 nominative ones, with all 11 negative clauses having partitive arguments. In the older gospel translations plural nominative arguments have the verb agreeing in number, as shown in (9.37), but agreement in 2003 is variable.

(9.37) K 1864 miu-n valla-ša ol-lah salduata-t 1SG-GEN power-INE be-3PL soldier-PL.NOM ‘under my command there are soldiers’ (Matt. 8:9)

1.9.4 Livonian The results for the analysis of the case of the e‑argument in the translations of the gospel of St. Matthew in two Livonian dialects from 1863 are shown in Table 9.6 together with the results from St. Matthew’s gospel in the 1942 NT.

Table 9.6 Case of the e-argument in Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Partitive Nominative

Livonian East 1863 6 (27%) 16 (73%) 3 1 Livonian West 1863 5 (24%) 16 (76%) 4 1 Livonian 1942 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 2 0

The two 1863 translations, although in many respects quite different from each other, have a similar case distribution for the e‑argument, and only differ slightly in this respect from the 1942 NT, with a lower proportion of partitives in the latest. There are some partitive arguments in affirmative clauses, but most are nominative. There is only one negative clause with a nominative e-argument in each of the older translations (9.38) and (9.39), none in the latest gospel (although there is one (9.7.) in 1 Corinthians in the 1942 NT). 360 Chapter 9

(9.38) LE 1863 kus lōlatõks murtõks äb where marriage.GEN breaking.NOM NEG.3SG uo be.CONNEG ‘where there is no adultery’ (Matt. 5:32)

(9.39) LW 1863 jo ne äb uo jembit EMP 3PL.NOM NEG.3SG/PL be.CONNEG more ‘they are no more’ (Matt. 2:18)

In both of these negative clauses the location is vague or absent, but semantically they predicate absolute existence. The word order is not typical of an existential clause, so the classification of these can be questioned. the main reason for including them here is semantic. In other languages the clause corresponding to (9.38) is expressed quite differently, and (9.39) has a partitive argument or a completely different construction.

1.9.5 Veps There are only a few differences between the 1998 and 2006 translations of St. Matthew’s gospel. In one clause the nominative e‑argument was changed to partitive (9.40), and in two others the other way around.

(9.40) a. V 1998 kaikjal linne-b näľg i everywhere be.POT-3SG hunger.NOM and ma-n rehkaiduse-d earth-GEN quake-PL.NOM ‘everywhere there will be hunger and earthquakes’

b. V 2006 äj-i-š sijo-i-š linne-b many-PL-INE place-PL-INE be.POT-3SG nǟľgä-d i manrehkaidu-sid hunger.SG-PAR and earthquake-PL.PAR ‘in many places there will be famine [and plagues] and earthquakes’ (Matt. 24:7)

One of the clauses where the e-argument changed from partitive to nominative became a copula clause in 2006 and the other an intransitive clause with a nominative subject (9.41). In (9.41b) there is a definite subject, which is clearly Existential and Related Clauses 361 the main theme of the clause. The argument is known from the context, and is definite also in (9.41a), but the partitive case marks it as existential.

(9.41) a. V 1998 ižanda-d ei linne völ hätken master.SG-PAR NEG.3SG be.CONNEG.POT yet awhile ‘the master will not be [here] for a while yet’

b. V 2006 minu-n ižand völ hätken ei 1SG-GEN master.SG.NOM yet awhile NEG.3SG tule come.CONNEG ‘my master will not come for yet awhile’ (Matt. 24:48)

The Chude oral corpus (Lönnrot 1853) gives some idea of earlier practice. There are 6 affirmative clauses with a nominative argument and 8 negative ones with a partitive argument. The nominative ones are mostly singular count nouns. The southern Veps oral corpus (Kettunen 1925) has 27 affirmative existential clauses, with 8 of them having partitive e-arguments and 19 nominative ones. All 8 negative clauses have partitive e-arguments.

2 Possessive Clauses

2.1 Introduction Possession can be indicated in a number of different ways. One way is using a copula clause with a genitive copula complement (dative in Livonian), with the meaning such as ‘this is yours’. The possessor may precede the possessum for emphasis. This is common in the biblical corpus, in expressions such as ‘yours is the kingdom’. Metslang (2006a: 720) mentions that transitive ‘have’ constructions, using the verb omama or evima ‘to own’, were brought into Estonian by the language innovator Johannes Aavik in the 1930s. For a while they languished, but lately this construction is becoming more frequent. In Finnish also such transitive constructions exist, but are not frequently used. There are no such examples in the corpus. Here the discussion deals with those possessive clauses which are related to the existential ones. Hakanen (1973: 30) includes these under existential clauses with a habitive (possessor) location. EKG II (1993: 14) and VISK (§891) classify it as a separate type of clause. 362 Chapter 9

Estonian examples in the affirmative and negative are shown in (9.42) and (9.43).

(9.42) E Minu-l on raamat. 1SG-ADE be.3SG book.SG.NOM ‘I have a/the book.’

(9.43) E Minu-l ei ole raamatu-t. 1SG-ADE NEG be.CONNEG book.SG-PAR ‘I don’t have a/the book.’

The construction with the possessor in the adessive case can be regarded as a subgroup of existential clauses in view of its similar structure, although there are obvious differences. Like the e‑argument in canonical existential clauses, the possessum becomes partitive in the negative clause, as shown in (9.43). The possessor, as the location of the possessum, is commonly, but not necessarily in the theme position. Other Finnic languages except Livonian, have similar constructions. Livonian differs in having a dative case, due to Latvian influence. The dative is used instead of the adessive in possessive constructions. In Livonian the adessive case is non-productive. The fact that the adessive is also used to indicate location can sometimes lead to ambiguity in Estonian (9.44).

(9.44) E laua-l on neli jalga table.SG-ADE be.3SG four.NOM foot/leg.SG.PAR ‘the table has four legs’ or ‘there are four feet/legs on the table’

To disambiguate one may have to use a postpositional phrase laua peal (table. GEN on.ADE), which cannot have a possessive meaning. In Finnish this construction is not used for parts of a whole in the case of inanimate objects (Metslang 2009: 65). Grünthal (2003: 131) mentions that one may occasionally find an elative or ablative possessor in Veps.

2.2 Results From the Synchronic Corpus Table 9.7 shows the case distribution of the possessum (nouns and pronouns) in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus. Quantifier phrases with numerals and adverbs as quantifiers are excluded. The Livonian necessive construction, which has the same structure as the possessive clause, with the 4th infinitive as the possessum (Chapter 7, Section 3.4), has been omitted from this table. Existential and Related Clauses 363

Table 9.7 Case of the possessum in the synchronic Finnic biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

Estonian 13 (22%) 45 (78%) 58 30 (100%) 0 Livonian 5 (7%) 64 (93%) 69 23 (68%) 11 (32%) Finnish 19 (32%) 41(68%) 60 19 (100%) 0 Karelian 7 (11%) 57 (89%) 64 20 (95%) 1 (5%) Veps 17 (27%) 47 (73%) 64 32 (100%) 0

The data in the table includes only those clauses where the possessor is in the adessive case (in Livonian dative). In the texts there are a number of clauses with the possessor in the genitive case, but those have been excluded from the statistics. Such clauses are most frequent in Finnish, but also occur in Estonian,Veps and Karelian. For nouns in Livonian there is only the dative, which sometimes occurs after the verb. Some of those clauses have a meaning such as ‘this is mine’, which in the other languages is expressed with a genitive possessor. Those, of which there are five, have been excluded from the table. Pronouns in Livonian sometimes have the genitive form used instead of the dative in otherwise identical clauses, where with nouns the dative would be used. The most consistent finding is the partitive case for the possessum in negative clauses, but Livonian differs from the others in having more examples with a nominative possessum. Example (9.45) shows the partitive possessum in a negative clause in all five languages.

(9.45) a. E neitsi-te kohta mu-l ei ole virgin-PL.GEN regarding 1SG-ADE NEG be.CONNEG Issanda käsku lord.SG.GEN command.SG.PAR ‘regarding virgins, I don’t have a command from the Lord’

b. L yļ neitsõ-d minnõ-n äb ūo about virgin-PL.GEN 1SG-DAT NEG.3SG be.CONNEG Izand käsk-õ lord.GEN command.SG-PAR ‘concerning virgins I don’t have a command from the Lord’ 364 Chapter 9

c. F naimattom-i-sta nais-i-sta minu-lla ei unmarried-PL-ELA woman-PL-ELA 1SG-ADE NEG.3SG ole Herra-n anta-ma-a käsky-ä be.CONNEG lord-GEN give-AC.SG-PAR command.SG-PAR ‘about unmarried women I don’t have a command given by the Lord’

d. K miehelemenemättöm-i-h naiz-i-h näh minu-l unmarried-PL-ILL woman-PL-ILL about 1SG-ADE ei ole Ižändä-n anne-ttu-u NEG.3SG be.CONNEG lord-GEN give-PPP-PAR käskü-ü command.SG-PAR ‘about unmarried women I don’t have a command given by the Lord’

e. V nainda-n polhe minai ei ole marriage-GEN about 1SG.ADE NEG.3SG be Ižanda-n käskö-d lord-GEN command.SG-PAR ‘concerning marriage I don’t have a command from the Lord’ (1 Cor 7:25)

An example of a nominative possessum in Livonian is shown in (9.46). In this case the possessum, although abstract, is definite, which may explain the choice of case. However, usually even singular count nouns are partitive in negative clauses.

(9.46) L aga äb ama-dõ-n ūo se but NEG.3SG all-PL-DAT be.CONNEG this.NOM tundimi understanding.NOM ‘but not everyone has this understanding’ (1 Cor 8:7)

In all the languages in affirmative clauses, while there are a number of partitive arguments, there are also many instances of nominative divisible arguments, more so than in prototypical existential clauses. This relates to definiteness and specificity, and is the rule with inalienable possession, as shown in (9.47), where ‘lairs’ appears to be inalienable. There is a possessive suffix on the Finnish possessum. The Finnish example could be translated: ‘Foxes have their lairs.’ Existential and Related Clauses 365

(9.47) a. E rebas-te-l on uru-d fox-PL-ADE be.3PL lair-PL.NOM

b. L rebbis-t-õn āt ōkõ-d fox-PL-DAT be.3PL lair-PL.NOM

c. F ketu-i-lla on luola-nsa fox-PL-ADE be.3SG lair.PL.NOM-3PX

d. K rebolo-i-l on kolo-t fox-PL-ADE be.3SG lair-PL.NOM

e. V rebo-i-l oma uru-d fox-PL-ADE be.3PL lair-PL.NOM ‘foxes have lairs’ (Matt. 8:20)

Both the Finnish and the Karelian have the verb in the 3rd person singular, the others in the plural. Maling (1993: 52) points out that in Finnish there is never agreement with a postverbal plural nominative argument, but if the nominative plural possessum is at the beginning of the clause, the verb agrees with it in person and number. Parts of a specific person’s body are inalienable, and hence nominative (Shore 1992: 300). In negative clauses, however, even inalienable possessions are partitive, although there are special situations, where a nominative is used, for example with contrast. The one negative clause in Karelian with a nominative plural possessum involves contrast (9.48). The verb here agrees with the plural possessum.

(9.48) K sinu-l ei olla Jumala-n miele-t 2SG-ADE NEG.3PL be.CONNEG.3PL god-GEN thought-PL.NOM a ollah ristikanzo-i-n miele-t but be.3PL human-PL-GEN thought-PL.NOM ‘you do not have the thoughts of God but the thoughts of man’ (Matt. 16:23)

Example (9.47d) shows lack of agreement of the verb with a nominative possessum in Karelian, but in (9.48) there is agreement, and also in (9.49). 366 Chapter 9

(9.49) K süömizen-nü häne-l ol-dih čirka-t eating-ESS 3SG-ADE be-PST.3PL grasshopper-PL.NOM ‘as food he had grasshoppers’ (Matt. 3:4)

Partitive arguments are found also in affirmative clauses in all the languages, as shown in examples (9.50) to (9.54), but Livonian and Karelian have fewer than than the rest. The following examples show a partitive possessum from each of the languages.

(9.50) E mõne-de-l on vaid umbtaip-u some-PL-ADE be.3SG only poor.understanding.SG-PAR ‘some only have poor understanding’ (1 Cor. 15:34)

(9.51) L laz täddõ-n volg aig-õ Jumal-t pal-lõ let 2PL-DAT be.SBJV.SG time-PAR god-PAR pray-taINF ‘so that you would have time to pray’ (1 Cor. 7:5)

(9.52) F jo-lla on tieto-a who.SG-ADE be.3SG knowledge-PAR ‘who has knowledge’ (1 Cor. 8:10)

(9.53) K buite tei-l on riidu-a keskenäh that 2PL-ADE be.3SG quarrel.SG-PAR among ‘that you have quarrelling among you’ (1 Cor. 1:11)

(9.54) V ku tei-l ol-iži uskonda-d if 2PL-ADE be-COND.3SG faith-PAR ‘if you had faith’ (Matt. 17:20)

A difference between the various languages is shown in the following example (9.55), where Livonian and Karelian have an abstract possessum in the nominative and Estonian and Finnish in the partitive case. The southern Estonian Seto dialect sides with Livonian. Veps does not have a corresponding Existential and Related Clauses 367 expression in the same verse, but (9.54) above is very similar and has a partitive possessum. The nominative indicates that quantity is not relevant. The partitive indicates indefinite quantity.

(9.55) a. E kui tei-l ole-ks usk-u if 2PL-ADE be-COND.3SG faith-PAR

b. L až täddõ-n um usk if 2PL-DAT be.3SG faith.NOM

c. F jos tei-llä ol-isi usko-a if 2.PL-ADE be-COND.3SG faith-PAR

d. K ku tei-l ol-is usko if 2PL-ADE be-COND.3SG faith.NOM

e. ES(Seto) 1926 ku tei-l usk olõ-si’ if 2PL-ADE faith.NOM be-COND.3SG ‘if you had faith’ (Matt. 21:21)

In the Finnish data there is one example of a possessum modified by an indefinite numeral in the partitive case (9.56). Mostly numerals are in the nominative case, although they can be partitive in negative clauses, as in the Veps example (9.57).

(9.56) F vaikka tei-llä ol-isi tuhans-i-a even.if 2PL-ADE be-COND.3SG thousand-PL-PAR kasvataj-i-a teacher-PL-PAR ‘even if you had thousands of teachers’ (1 Cor. 4:15)

(9.57) V tei-l ei voi ühte-l aiga-l 2PL-ADE NEG.3SG can.CONNEG one-ADE time-ADE ol-da kah-t ižanda-d be-taINF two-PAR master.SG-PAR ‘you cannot have two masters at the same time’ (Matt. 6:24) 368 Chapter 9

The limited Votic translation of St. Matthew’s gospel from 1883 has 6 affirmative possessive clauses and no negative ones. In all instances the possessum is nominative. In the oral Votic corpus (Kettunen and Posti 1932) the western dialect has a partitive possessum in 3/16 affirmative clauses, and all 4 in negative clauses are partitive. In the eastern dialect there are 7 affirmative clauses, all with a nominative possessum. The only negative clause has a partitive possessum.

2.3 Diachronic Studies Going back in history, like the prototypical existential clause, possessive clauses with partitive arguments are found in the earliest texts, but the usage of the partitive case is less consistent, with a number of nominative arguments in negative clauses.

2.3.1 Estonian In some old texts the possessor is occasionally in the allative instead of the adessive case. Peegel (2006: 98) has found this also in folk songs. If the clause is clearly a possessive one rather than a typical existential clause, it has been counted in the statistics here even with an allative possessor. The results from the southern Estonian biblical corpus are shown in Table 9.8. Possessive constructions have basically the same structure in the oldest texts as the more recent ones. Gutslaff (1648–1656) has numerous nominative arguments in negative possessive clauses, but after that they are rare. In the next two tables I have excluded the relative pronoun mis and cognates.

Table 9.8 Case of the possessum in the southern Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1648–1656* 3 (6%) 46 (94%) 49 2 (11%) 16 (89%) 1686 NT 20 (31%) 45 (69%) 65 30 (97%) 1 (3%) 1857 NT 21 (27%) 57 (73%) 78 27 (93%) 2 (7%) 1886 NT 17 (24%) 53 (76%) 70 29 (100%) 0 1905 NT 22 (28%) 57 (72%) 79 29 (100%) 0 1926 Seto** 10 (17%) 48 (83%) 58 11 (100%) 0

* St. Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7: 15–16: 24 (Gutslaff). **St. Matthew’s gospel only. Existential and Related Clauses 369

As was seen in the results of Gutslaff’s existential clauses, his possessive clauses also are closer to those of Stahl than to the other southern Estonian biblical texts. Particularly prominent are the nominatives in negative clauses (9.58).

(9.58) ES 1648 kumb-i-ll ei olle Karius who-PL-ADE NEG be.CONNEG shepherd.SG.NOM ‘who do not have a shepherd’ (Matt. 9:36)

In the subsequent southern New Testaments this clause has a partitive possessum. In the earliest northern Estonian texts Müller (1600–1606), Stahl (1632–1641), and Willman (1782) all have the possessum in affirmative clauses in the nominative case, with the exception of one indefinite pronoun in Stahl. There are some partitive ones in negative clauses, but also nominatives. The Masing corpus (1818–1825) has 6 partitives and 17 nominatives in affirmative clauses, and all 22 in negative clauses in the partitive case. The results from the northern Estonian biblical corpus are presented in Table 9.9. Nouns and pronouns are included, except for mis.

Table 9.9 Case of the possessum in the northern Estonian biblical corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1694* 23 (25%) 70 (75%) 93 23 (92. %) 2 (8%) 1715 NT 7 (8%) 77 (92%) 84 31 (97%) 1 (3%) 1739 Bible 7 (9%) 72 (91%) 79 33 (100%) 0 1903 Bible 15 (20%) 61 (80%) 76 33 (100%) 0 1947 NT 10 (15%) 58 (85%) 68 42 (100%) 0 1968 Bible 12 (18%) 56 (82%) 68 40 (100%) 0 1989 NT 13 (22%) 45 (78%) 58 30 (100%) 0 1997 Bible 8 (15%) 45 (85%) 53 33 (100%) 0

* München manuscript.

With time the total number of affirmative possessive constructions decreases quite markedly. Some of these are experiential expressions with a possessive clause structure. The 1694 München manuscript stands out in the total number 370 Chapter 9 of possessive clauses, and particularly in the number of partitive arguments, when compared with Gutslaff with just a short time earlier, but different dialect, and with the same dialect a short time later. In 1715 and 1739 there are few partitive arguments in affirmative clauses, with a rise in the 1903 Bible. In negative clauses all have only partitives by 1739, and even before that there are very few nominatives.

2.3.2 Finnish The case distribution of the e‑arguments in possessive clauses in the Finnish corpus, including the novel by Kivi (1870), are shown in Table 9.10. Noun and pronoun arguments are all included.

Table 9.10 Case of the possessum in the Finnish corpus

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

1548 9 (17%) 45 (83%) 54 13 (81%) 3 (19%) 1642 8 (17%) 37 (83%) 45 13 (93%) 1 (7%) 1776 8 (13%) 56 (88%) 64 22 (92%) 2 (8%) 1880 8 (14%) 51 (86%) 59 22 (92%) 2 (8%) 1906 16 (26%) 45 (74%) 61 25 (100%) 0 1938 14 (25%) 41 (75%) 55 26 (93%) 2 (7%) 1992 19 (32%) 41 (68%) 60 19 (100%) 0 Kivi (1870) 11 (32%) 23 (68%) 34 2 1

The partitive possessum is evident from the earliest times in the corpus in both affirmative and negative clauses, but becomes more frequent by 1906. In the earliest texts there are a few nouns ambiguous for case, but probably most of the ones in negative clauses are partitive. They have been excluded from the table. An example of a nominative possessum in a negative clause in 1548, with a change to partitive in 1642 is shown in (9.59).

(9.59) a. F 1548 ett-ei hei-lle ollut that-NEG.3SG 3PL-ALL/ADE be.CONNEG.PST sywe maa deep.NOM soil.NOM Existential and Related Clauses 371

b. F 1642 ett-ei hei-llä ollut syvä that-NEG.3SG 3PL-ADE be.CONNEG.PST deep.PAR maa-ta soil-PAR

c. F 1880 ett-ei hei-llä ollut syvä-ä that-NEG.3SG 3PL-ADE be.CONNEG.PST deep-PAR maa-ta soil-PAR ‘that they did not have deep soil’ (Matt. 13:5)

In 1548 heille could be either adessive and allative, since in Agricola’s writings ä is commonly replaced by e. In 1642 the form syvä is nominative, but at that time still the second of geminate vowels is often omitted, so the partitive and nominative become homonymous. It is presumably partitive to agree with the partitive noun maata. In the 1938 Bible the two nominatives in negative clauses are interogatives clauses, expecting an affirmative answer, similar to example (9.60). The results from Kivi’s novel Seitsemän veljestä show that the partitive is clearly in use in possessive clauses, with the percentages closer to those in the 1992 Bible rather than the earlier biblical texts. There was one nominative possessum in a negative interrogative clause with an expected affirmative answer (9.60). In the other two negative clauses the possessum was partitive.

(9.60) F ei-kö ole miehe-llä valta NEG.3SG-Q be.CONNEG man.SG-ADE power.NOM elä-ä rauha-ssa? live-taINF peace-INE ‘does a man not have the power to live in peace?’ (Kivi 1870 [2002]: 86)

2.3.3 Karelian There is only one negative possessive clause in each of the earlier Karelian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel (1820 Tver dialect and 1864 southern Karelian dialect), both with a partitive possessum. This paucity is explained by the use of other constructions than in the 2003 NT. In each of these early translations there is also one affirmative clause with a partitive possessum. In all the other 23 affirmative clauses in each translation, the possessum is nominative. The 2003 New Testament in the Olonets dialect differs considerably from the 372 Chapter 9 earlier translations. In St. Matthew’s gospel, there are 3 partitive arguments in affirmative possessive clauses and 7 in negative ones. There are 28 nominative arguments in affirmative clauses, and one nominative one in a negative clause, which was shown in example (9.48) in Section 2.2. In both earlier gospel translations the verb agrees with a plural possessum.

2.3.4 Livonian The results of the case analysis in possessive clauses in the two older translations of St. Matthew’s gospel are shown in Table 9.11, and compared with the results from the gospel in the 1942 NT. Throughout the corpus the dative case is used for the possessor, which may be placed at the beginning of the clause or may come later. Those clauses which are clearly translated as ‘this is mine’ have been excluded.

Table 9.11 Case of the possessum in Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel

Affirmative Negative Partitive Nominative Total Partitive Nominative

LE 1863 10 (24%) 31 (76%) 41 13 (100%) 0 LW 1863 4 (15%) 22 (85%) 26 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 1942 3 (9%) 30 (91%) 33 12 (80%) 3 (20%)

Eastern Livonian from 1863 follows most closely the typical choice of case for the possessum, with partitive in all negative clauses, and also more in affirmative ones. The latest translation is furthest removed from the typical construction, but not markedly different from the 1863 western dialect one. The possessive construction is used in Livonian also for necessive clauses, using the 4th infinitive as the possessum in the partitive case and the possessor as the agent.

2.3.5 Veps In St. Matthew’s gospel 2006 there are slightly fewer possessive clauses than in 1998, with some being expressed in other ways. The possessum is partitive in 7/34 affirmative clauses (21%) in 1998 and 10/31 (32%) in 2006. There are 9 negative possessive clauses in each, all with a partitive possessum. Existential and Related Clauses 373

An example with a nominative plural possessum in 1998 and a partitive plural e‑argument in an existential clause with the verb ‘suffice’ in 2006 are given in (9.61).

(9.61) a. V 1998 migo päivä-l oma ičeze hole-d every day-ADE be.3PL self.GEN trouble-PL.NOM ‘every day has its own troubles’

b. V 2006 migo päivä-le täudu-b ičeze hol-id every day-ALL suffice-3SG self.GEN trouble-PL.PAR ‘for every day there are enough of its own troubles’ (Matt. 6:34)

In (9.61a) the possessor is adessive, in (9.61b) the theme is allative. The verb is different and in 1998 it agrees in number with the nominative possessum. Another example where a nominative argument in 1998 is changed to a partitive one in 2006 is shown in (9.62). The noun kaľhuz ‘treasure’ can be a count noun, while bohatus ‘wealth’ is clearly a mass noun.

(9.62) a. V 1998 siloi sinai linne-b kaľhuz then 2SG.ADE be.POT-3SG treasure.SG.NOM taivha-s heaven-INE ‘then you will have a treasure in heaven’

b. V 2006 siloi sinai linne-b bohatus-t taivha-s then 2SG.ADE be.POT-3SG wealth-PAR heaven-INE ‘then you will have wealth (treasure) in heaven’ (Matt. 19:21)

2.4 Experiential Clauses The pattern of the possessive construction is used for several different purposes apart from typical possession. One such usage is for experiential constructions, which express bodily sensations, such as hunger and thirst, temperature, pain, compassion and satisfaction. The sensation is nominative and even the negative clause does not usually have the sensation in the partitive case, but sometimes can do so. Metslang (2013: 74) found that the experiencer in an experiential clause has fewer subjecthood properties than the possessum in a possessive clause. Some examples follow (9.63). 374 Chapter 9

(9.63) a. E mu-l ol-i nälg/ janu 1SG-ADE be-PST.3SG hunger.NOM/ thirst.NOM

b. L minnõ-n voļ sȳömiz nǟlga/ 1SG-DAT be.PST.3SG eating.GEN hunger.NOM/ jūomiz nǟlga drinking.GEN hunger.NOM

c. F minu-n ol-i nälkä/ jano 1SG-GEN be-PST.3SG hunger.NOM/ thirst.NOM

d. K minu-l oli n̕älgü/ minu-u 1SG-ADE be.PST.3SG hunger.NOM/ 1SG-PAR juotatt-i make.thirsty-PST.3SG.

e. V minai ol-i näľg/ vezinäľg 1SG.ADE be-PST.3SG hunger.NOM/ thirst.NOM ‘I was hungry / thirsty’ (Matt. 25:35)

In all instances, except for ‘thirsty’ in Karelian, a possessive type of construction is used. In Finnish thirst can also be expressed as minua janottaa (1SG.PAR make.thirsty.3SG). Finnish usually has a genitive experiencer in such possessive constructions (9.63c), and Livonian a dative one (9.63b), while the others have an adessive one. However, in Finnish it is also possible to have an adessive experiencer (Sands and Campbell 2001: 288). In Estonian and Livonian a feeling of being pleased can be expressed by a possessive pattern (9.64), but in the other languages this is expressed differently.

(9.64) a. E kelle-st minu-l on hea meel who-ABL 1SG-ADE be.3SG good.NOM feeling.NOM

b. L kīen pǟl minnõ-n um jõva mēļ who.GEN on 1SG-DAT be.3SG good.NOM feeling.NOM ‘with whom I am pleased’ (Matt. 3:17)

The feeling of pity is also expressed in a similar way in several of the languages (9.65). Existential and Related Clauses 375

(9.65) a. E mu-l on hale meel rahva-st 1SG-ADE be.3SG sad.NOM feeling.NOM people-SG.ELA

b. K minu-l on žiäli nämi-i rahvah-i-i 1SG-ADE be.3SG pity.NOM those-PAR people-PL-PAR

c. V minei om žaľ neci-dä rahvas-t 1SG.ALL be.3SG pity.NOM that-PAR people.SG-PAR ‘I feel sorry for those people’ (Matt. 15:32)

Here Estonian and Karelian have an adessive experiencer and a nominative feeling. Although in the usual possessive construction Veps has an adessive possessor, here the experiencer is allative. The object of the pity is partitive in Karelian and Veps and elative in Estonian. Finnish and Livonian use other constructions. Similar experiential clauses are also found in the older texts. In Livonian a possessive construction with the ‘possessum’ being the partitive case of the fourth infinitive is used to express necessity (Chapter 7, section 3.4)

3 Comparison of Possessive and Canonical Existential Clauses

When corresponding clauses in the various languages are compared, it is apparent that in a number of instances what is a typical existential clause in one language is a possessive clause in another. Example (9.66) illustrates this point, where Estonian, Livonian and Veps have a typical existential clause, while Finnish and Karelian have a possessive one. In both kinds of clauses the e‑argument here is partitive, except in Livonian.

(9.66) a. E et teie seas on riidu that 2PL.GEN among be.3SG quarrelling.SG.PAR

b. L ku täd vail voļļi sõnšlimi that 2PL.GEN between be.EVID quarreling.SG.NOM

c. F että tei-llä on keskenä-nne riito-j-a that 2PL-ADE be.3SG among-2PL.PX quarrel-PL-PAR

d. K buite tei-l on riidu-a keskenäh that 2PL-ADE be.3SG quarrelling.SG-PAR among 376 Chapter 9

e. V miše tei-den keskes om rido-id that 2PL-GEN among be.3SG quarrel-PL.PAR ‘that among you there is quarrelling / that you have quarrelling among you’ (1 Cor. 1:11)

While the possessive clause is often classified as a subgroup of existential, there are obvious differences. The similarities include the use of the partitive case for the possessum, especially in negative clauses, the adverbial theme (the possessor being regarded as a location), and the use of the verb ‘be’. In Finnish and to a variable extent in Karelian there is lack of agreement in person and number between the verb and the possessum. The differences are that the adverbial theme is not a physical location, but a possessor, and the possessum is more often in the nominative case (even when plural) than the prototypical e‑argument, and may occasionally be so also in a negative clause, although there the partitive is far more common. The possessum can easily be definite, as it does not necessarily have to be new information, for example when referring to body parts and other inalienable possessions. In Finnish the possessor may be the antecedent of a possessive suffix, as in example (9.47c). Hakanen (1972: 48) gives several examples with such possessive suffixes. Personal pronouns can be possessed, and in Finnish these are then in the t‑accusative case (9.67).

(9.67) F niin kauan kuin minu-lla on sinu-t as long as 1SG-ADE be.3SG 2SG-tACC ‘as long as I have you’ (Itkonen 1979: 83)

This differs from the Estonian, where the nominative is used with agreement (9.68).

(9.68) E nii kaua kui minu-l ole-d sina as long as 1SG-ADE be-2SG 2SG.NOM ‘as long as I have you’

However, Sands and Campbell (2001: 293) also give the alternative Minulla olet sinä in Finnish, syntactically identical to the Estonian in (9.68), as a possibility. While the possessor appears to be the logical subject, they conclude that neither the possessum nor the possessor is really the subject of the clause, and that there is no clear subject. They suggest that the genitive / adessive argument is better Existential and Related Clauses 377 seen as a dative / possessive adverbial than as a non-canonical subject (Sands and Campbell 2001: 288). Compared with the prototypical existential clause, the possessum is less like a subject and more like an object than the e‑argument of a canonical existential clause. Metslang (2013: 74) has done a quantitative assessment of subjecthood properties, finding that a possessum is lower in ranking as a subject than the typical e-argument and a possessor is lower still.

4 Other Related Clauses

Apart from existential and possessive clauses, Erelt and Metslang (2006: 261) mention source-marking resultative clauses in Estonian, in which the resultative noun is partitive in negative clauses. Hakanen (1973: 54) counts these as existential clauses. In the quantitative anaysis of subjecthood, Metslang (2013: 74) found that the goal (resultative noun) ranks equal with the e-argument. In Finnish these can have a partitive resultative even when affirmative, and the verb does not agree with a nominative plural. An example from the corpus is shown in (9.69).

(9.69) F 1938 tei-stä on tul-lut kuninka-i-ta 2PL-ELA be.3SG come-PST.PTCP.SG king-PL-PAR ‘you have become kings’ (1 Cor 4:8)

Meteorological verbs are also sometimes considered to belong to the existential group (EKG II 1993: 45). VISK §891 makes a separate list of clauses similar to existential ones, such as possessive, those of existence without location, meteorological, quantified, source-derived resultative and experiential. Hakanen (1972: 73) includes the absolute nominative or partitive also among clauses related to existential. Nominative examples from the Finnish and Veps corpus are shown in (9.70). A partitive would be used if the item is divisible and quantitatively indefinite.

(9.70) a. F tule-n-ko luokse-nne piiska käde-ssä? come-1SG-Q to-2PL.PX whip.SG.NOM hand.SG-INE

b. V tule-n-ik teiden-noks batog käde-s come-1SG-Q 2PL-APP whip.SG.NOM hand.SG-INE ‘will I come to you, whip in hand?’ (1 Cor 4:21) 378 Chapter 9

5 Concluding Remarks

Existential clauses are similar in all the Finnic languages and are thought to go back to Proto-Finnic. Possessive clauses form a subgroup of these, but have more atypical features. The single e‑argument has features of both subject and object, and is partitive or nominative. Generally the argument is partitive in a negative clause. Livonian differs most from the others in having some nominative arguments in situations where other languages have the partitive. This is probably a result of Latvian influence. However, the possessum in Latvian negative clauses is genitive (corresponding to Finnic partitive), yet Livonian has a number of negative possessive clauses with a nominative possessum. In the diachronic study the earliest Estonian texts tend to have mainly nominative e‑arguments in affirmative clauses, but mostly partitive in negative clauses. The 1694 München manuscript of the NT in the northern Estonian dialect is an exception in that it presents the greatest number and the highest frequency of partitive e‑arguments in affirmative clauses in the entire northern Estonian biblical corpus in the present study. The Finnish corpus also tends to have more nominative e‑arguments in the earlier biblical translations, with a gradual increase of partitive ones across the centuries. In the other languages the data is much less extensive, but in Karelian the 2003 NT is the first to have partitive e‑arguments in affirmative clauses. The earlier ones have only nominative arguments in affirmative clauses, but in all negative clauses the e‑argument is partitive. The three Livonian translations of St. Matthew’s gospel are similar in their results regarding existential clauses, but with regard to possessive clauses, the 1863 eastern dialect translation is closest to the Finnic standard, with the 1942 translation differing to the greatest degree. The tradition in Estonian and Finnish linguistics is to refer to the existential argument as a subject, but it is obviously different from a canonical subject, which is sentence-initial and in the nominative case, with the verb agreeing in person and number. The existential argument can be in the partitive or nominative case, and in Finnish there is no verb agreement. Nemvalts (1996: 26) has no doubt that in Estonian the nominative e‑argument is a subject, because of its agreement with the verb, but that the partitive e‑argument could be considered an object. EKG II (1993: 39) calls the e‑argument the subject. Erelt and Metslang (2006: 257) point out that in Estonian the e‑argument is more subject-like than in Finnish. Some writers, e.g. Hakanen (1972; 1973) and Vainikka (2003: 237), refer to the case of the e‑argument as nominative- accusative rather than plain nominative. Itkonen (1979: 83) also suggests that the singular nominative e‑argument can be interpreted as the nominative Existential and Related Clauses 379 allomorph of the accusative, because there is no other nominative subject. He also points out the use of accusative case for personal pronouns in possessive clauses. Another who has criticized the labelling of the argument as a subject, and thinks it is better to think of it as an object, is Wiik (1974: 19). Shore (1986: 29) discusses the similarity between the undergoer (logical object) of the indefinite (passive) construction and the existential e‑argument. Helasvuo (1996b: 355) has found that the discourse function of the existential argument is quite different from either subject or object. On p. 351 she quotes Fred Karlsson (1982), who proposed the name ‘ject’, saying that in the existential argument the differences between subject and object have been neutralized. Shore (1986: 29) also mentions the term ‘ject’. Jahnsson (1871: 1) in his Finnish grammar considers that the partitive in existential clauses is not actually a subject, but that the logical subject is omitted. He postulates that the omitted real subject is a quantifier, such as ‘some’ (Jahnsson (1871: 7). (Metslang 2012: 200) concludes that on the basis of her evidence the e-argument can be regarded a non-canonical subject. Hakanen (1973: 81) suggests that the e-argument arises within the VP, as does Kiparsky (1998: 297). Kiparsky (1998: 300) points out that partitive case is assigned only inside the VP. As a VP in Finnish can contain only a single direct internal NP argument, partitive subjects are restricted to intransitive verbs. The subject is partitive if it is unbounded, but the unboundedness is not at the VP level. On subjects, partitive case marks the unboundedness of the NP itself. VP‑internal subjects are partitive if they are quantitatively indeterminate or in the scope of negation. Kiparsky (2001: 349) gives reasons why he does not consider the existential argument an object, and prefers to call it a VP-internal subject. He concludes that the sole argument of an existential clause is a subject in object position. chapter 10 Summary and Conclusions

The aim of the study, as stated in Chapter 1, has been to show similarities and particularly differences in the use of the partitive case, especially the partitive- accusative alternation for objects, but also the partitive-nominative alternation for copula complements and the argument (subject) in existential clauses in the various Finnic languages. Differences in the choice of the form of the accusative have also been explored. The study is both synchronic and diachronic. For the synchronic study comparable texts from recent translations of the New Testament (Estonian 1989, Livonian 1942, Finnish 1992, Karelian 2003 and Veps 2006, with a small section of St. Matthew’s gospel in Votic 1883), have provided quantitative data to back up many of the previous empirical observations. Additional material from non-biblical sources has helped to amplify the findings from the main texts. Diachronic studies, using older Bible translations, have traced the changes in each of the main languages, with Estonian and Finnish providing the most material for study. St. Matthew’s gospel and St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians have been used for the synchronic corpus and the diachronic study of Estonian and Finnish, and St. Matthew’s gospel alone for the diachronic study of Livonian, Karelian and Veps. For both Estonian and Finnish early grammar books have been included in the study, and for Estonian some early non-biblical (religious as well as secular) material has also been analysed. A section from the first Finnish novel by Aleksis Kivi (1870) has been included. The main conclusions have been summarized at the end of each chapter, so the present summary is a brief reiteration of special points. The close relationship between the Finnic languages is evident from this study. Livonian has been found to deviate most from the grammatical rules that have been established in Finnish and Estonian. The results fit with the division of the Finnic languages into the northern (Finnish, Karelian and Veps) and southern (Estonian and Livonian) groups. However, both Karelian and Veps show differences from Finnish, Karelian more so.

1 Synchronic Corpus Study of Objects (Chapter 4)

Objects in negative clauses are partitive, and are thought to have been so from the Proto-Finnic period, after the separation of Saami. This usage has become grammaticalized, but exceptions are found in Livonian.

The choice of the case form of the accusative is dependent on syntax. As a rule the genitive form is used for singular nouns and the nominative for plural ones in indicative clauses. In imperative and impersonal clauses the nominative form is used for singular nouns instead of the genitive. An exception to this is found in Livonian, where singular objects of imperative verbs are genitive in form. The nominative and genitive cases in Livonian are often homonymous in the singular and always so in the plural. For this reason in the present analysis there has not been any attempt to separate the various forms of the accusative in this language. Consideration has been given to the possibility that in Livonian all accusative objects are genitive in form in the 1942 NT. In the Olonets Karelian 2003 NT accusative singular objects of 3rd person plural verbs in the active voice are in the nominative form rather than genitive, presumably influenced by that verb form being cognate with the impersonal in Finnish and Estonian. In affirmative clauses the alternation of object case between accusative and partitive is dependent on semantics, related to (un)boundedness. This includes boundedness of the verb and the object, as explained by Kiparsky (1998: 305). The accusative is used in bounded situations and the partitive otherwise. Boundedness is a composite of many features with varying degrees of influence in the different languages. When noun objects only are taken into account, in Finnish and Veps the accusative predominates, in Estonian and Livonian the partitive, with Karelian in between, but closer to Veps and Finnish. These findings fit well with the generally accepted differences between the languages. The well-known difference between the northern and southern languages in the interpretation of the inherent aspect of verbs of perception and cognition is evident in the present corpus, and accounts for a considerable part of the difference in the results between the two groups. The northern languages consider these verbs as accomplishments, with bounded clauses and the southern ones as states, with unbounded clauses, although both Karelian and Livonian tend to have a mixture of accusative and partitive objects. In Livonian the partitive case is fairly often used in situations where the accusative would seem more appropriate and vice versa. Personal pronoun objects show the greatest variation between languages, with Finnish the only language to have a special accusative form (‑t accusative) in the section of the present corpus used for the synchronic study. All Finnish accusative personal pronoun objects are in this form. The Votic biblical text dating back to 1883, as well as the later oral collections do have some ‑t accusatives for the 1st and 2nd person plural. In the Olonets Karelian (2003) and the Veps NT (2006) all personal pronoun objects are partitive. Whether this is now also so in the spoken language is not clear, but I expect there to be dialectal 382 Chapter 10 variations. No nominative personal pronoun objects are found in the corpus of these two languages. In Livonian accusative personal pronoun objects are always in the genitive form, never nominative. Estonian has 3rd person plural accusative objects in the nominative form. Non-personal pronouns generally follow the pattern for nouns, but tend to be partitive more often than nouns. In Livonian accusative pronoun objects are almost always in the genitive form, whether singular or plural, but the reflexive pronoun as an object is always partitive and the relative pronoun mis is not declined.

2 Diachronic Studies (Chapter 5)

The diachronic material is most extensive in Estonian and Finnish, and several differences between the development of the two languages emerge. Both Estonian and Finnish old grammars have problems with the case paradigm, but Finnish grammarians have recognized early the difference between total (accusative) and partial (partitive) objects (Vhael 1733, in Wiik 1989: 63). Finnish appears to be involving quantification as well as aspect in the assignment of case from an early period, while in Estonian it is only evident in the 1903 Bible in northern (standard) Estonian and the 1905 NT in southern Estonian. Partitive objects are mostly found in negative clauses in all the languages from earliest times, with exceptions in Estonian before 1903, and in all Livonian biblical texts. The first southern Estonian NT (Gutslaff’s translation 1648–1657) in the corpus differs considerably from the subsequent ones in having a number of grammatical features more similar to those in the earliest northern Estonian texts. In the subsequent southern Estonian NT translations the partitive is the predominant object case, with the accusative only becoming reasonably frequent in 1905. In the earliest northern Estonian texts from the 17th century (Müller, Stahl and the Pilistvere manuscript) object case is dependent mainly on word category and number, with personal pronouns mainly partitive, with some exceptions for 3rd person. Singular noun objects are mostly in the genitive form and plural ones nominative, with very few partitives, but by the end of the 17th century the northern Estonian biblical translations, beginning with the München manuscript from 1694, and through to 1739, have a greater proportion of singular noun objects in the partitive case than the later editions. The use of the nominative for most plural objects begins to decrease only by 1903, but there are also quite a few partitive plural noun objects before that time in the Bible translations. Summary and Conclusions 383

The preponderance of nominative forms for plural noun objects is seen to some extent also in the 16th century Finnish of Agricola. In Estonian this finding has been attributed to German influence, but as a similar tendency has been reported in Karelian by Ojajärvi (1950a: 40), perhaps to some extent it also reflects the spoken language of the time. There appears to be far less foreign influence in Agricola’s Finnish than in old Estonian texts. This can be attributed to Agricola’s good knowledge of Finnish. Many of the clerics in Estonia who were involved in Bible translation were of German extraction and had a somewhat limited knowledge of Estonian, which was not standardized at that time and varied considerably from one district to the next, especially between the north and south. In the Estonian 1947 NT edition there is evidence of Finnish influence, with an increase in accusative objects, which decreases in subsequent editions. In the other languages the time depth of data is much shallower. In Livonian there is greater use of the partitive case for objects in the 1942 NT than in the earlier translations. The nominative and genitive forms are often homonymous in the singular and invariably so in the plural. The determiner is always in the genitive form with an accusative plural noun object in the 1942 NT and the western dialect translation of St. Matthew’s gospel in 1863, suggesting that the plural noun objects may also be genitive, which is against the norm in Finnic languages. However, in the eastern dialect translation, also from 1863, the determiner of plural objects is nominative. It appears that in the western dialect and the 1942 NT all accusative objects could be considered to be genitive in form. In Veps some of the accusative objects in the 1998 gospel translation have been changed to partitive in the latest NT only eight years after the previous translation. The 2006 Veps NT is closer to Finnish in its handling of the partitive-accusative alternation. The older Veps texts in the corpus from oral collections have a much greater proportion of accusative objects than the Bible translations. This can be attributed to many words being homonymous with regard to the singular partitive and plural nominative, the use of the accusative defining the number as singular. Objects of verbs of perception show some variation across the centuries. In Finnish the accusative is found throughout the diachronic study, with only a few partitive ones. In the older Estonian texts there are a number of accusative objects of these verbs, which in later texts are partitive. Livonian has more accusative objects of these verbs in the older texts in the corpus than in the latest one. These findings, although limited, would suggest that the accusative case was the original object case of verbs of perception. Only the Karelian data 384 Chapter 10 in the present corpus would be in opposition to this, where the older gospel translations have more partitive objects of the verb ‘see’ than the 2003 Olonets Karelian NT. Kont (1963: 91) takes the view that these objects were originally partitive, but perception came to be regarded as an accomplishment at its initial moment in the northern group of Finnic languages, and thus now has an accusative object in these. While in the Olonets Karelian 2003 NT accusative singular objects of 3rd person plural verbs in the active voice (which are cognate with the impersonal forms in Finnish) are in the nominative form rather than genitive, in the older translations of St Matthew’s gospel in the Tver dialect in 1820 and southern Karelian in 1864 singular noun objects are genitive-accusative in this situation. The earlier usage provides an argument against regarding these verb forms as true impersonal, but rather as active 3rd person plural, even without an expressed subject. In the early Finnish texts accusative personal pronouns were mainly in the genitive case, both in the singular and plural, with occasional plural ‑t accusatives in Agricola’s translation of the NT in 1548, but none in 1642 or 1880. However in the 1776 Finnish Bible translation there are no genitive plural personal pronoun objects, all of which are in the ‑t accusative case, with the singular ones still genitive, but the 1880 edition reverts to the previous genitive for all. The novel by Kivi from 1870 does include a few ‑t accusatives, both singular and plural, but also many genitives, including plural ones. By the 1906 NT all are replaced by the ‑t accusative. Nominative personal pronouns are found only as undergoers (logical objects) of impersonal verbs until the coming into general use of the ‑t accusative. Dialectal differences have influenced the variation in the accusative personal pronouns. In both Karelian and Veps the use of the partitive for personal pronoun objects has become virtually universal in the latest New Testaments. The old Karelian translations of the gospel have the ‑t accusative case for plural personal pronouns in bounded situations, with the accusative singular ones being in the genitive form. In Votic only the 1st and 2nd plural personal pronouns have a ‑t accusative form, seen in the limited gospel translation as well as oral collections. Votic accusative singular personal pronouns are genitive in form, but most plural ones are partitive rather than accusative. No nominative personal pronoun objects of active verbs are found in any language other than for 3rd person plural in Estonian and Votic. In Estonian, except for the early texts, including the 1694 and 1715 NTs, where there are some genitive singular 3rd person pronoun objects and some nominative 3rd person plural ones, the partitive is used exclusively for personal pronoun objects until the 1947 NT. Summary and Conclusions 385

After that the genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative are used in bounded situations, but still with the partitive predominant. First and second person pronoun objects are never in the nominative form.

3 Impersonal and Passive (Chapter 6)

Impersonal (passive) constructions are found to the greatest extent in Estonian and Finnish. In Karelian the cognate verb form is used as the 3rd person plural active verb. For the present discussion I have separated out those which have a subject, either explicit or understood, from those where there is no clear subject. Those without a subject are analysed as impersonal in order to compare them with the other languages. It is argued as to whether Karelian has a passive at all. The passive constructions in the source language have sometimes been translated by a reflexive verb, as in Russian. The same tendency is evident in Veps, although it does have an active 3rd person plural verb as well, cognate with Finnish, but some verbs with impersonal morphology are used also in the active sense with a 3rd person plural subject. There are dialectal differences in this respect. The undergoer (logical object, patient) of the impersonal verb is generally accepted as a grammatical object. In Estonian and Finnish the object is nominative-accusative (‑t accusative for Finnish personal pronouns) or partitive, depending on boundedness as for active verbs. In the 2003 Olonets Karelian the accusative undergoer is nominative-accusative (personal pronouns are all partitive), whether there is a 3rd person plural nominative subject or not, but in the older Karelian gospel translations singular objects are genitive-accusative. This latter finding suggests that there is no impersonal voice in Karelian, but the opposite seems to be the case in 2003 Olonets. Russian influence is presumably involved here, as in Russian the impersonal meaning is often rendered by the 3rd person plural verb without a subject. In Veps there are a few genitive-accusative objects, mainly non-personal pronouns, but also an occasional noun. The periphrastic passive constructions are found in all the languages, and include the compound tenses of the impersonal and the personal passive. The latter is similar to the English passive, in that the subject is deleted rather than suppressed and the object is promoted to subject. This construction is the only passive construction in Livonian, which has no impersonal, and is quite common in Estonian. Periphrastic passives are also quite frequent in Finnish, where more of them are compound tense impersonal than in Estonian. It is 386 Chapter 10 often difficult to differentiate between the compound impersonal and personal constructions, and there is also an overlap between personal passive and copula clauses, where the passive past participle is the copula complement.

4 Verb Form (Chapter 7)

Accusative noun objects of imperative verbs are usually nominative-accusative in Finnic languages, but the genitive-accusative is regularly found for singular nouns in Livonian, and also appears in the earliest non-biblical Estonian texts and the early northern Estonian NT translations. Non-finite verbs are generally known to have more partitive objects than finite verbs, as in the case of many constructions the action is not completed. In Finnish and Veps there are more accusative objects than in the other languages. The objects of ‑ma infinitives are more frequently partitive than those of ‑ta infinitives. The instructive ‑e infinitives are most common in old Finnish, generally with partitive objects, and are nonexistent in Estonian and Livonian. The inessive ‑e infinitives (gerunds), which are most numerous in Estonian and Livonian, have predominantly partitive objects, as the action is concurrent with the action of the matrix verb. However, Finnish and Veps have a number of exceptions in this respect, mainly as objects of verbs of perception. Livonian also has some accusative objects. The past tense gerunds in the form of the participial constructions with the active past participle in Estonian and Livonian mostly have accusative objects, as the event is completed before the action in the matrix clause. In Finnish and Karelian the past tense gerunds are formed with the passive past participle in the partitive case (‑tua and ‑tuu ~huu constructions). These have mainly accusative objects in Finnish, but obligatorily genitive objects in the Olonets Karelian NT. In the earlier Karelian gospel translations these constructions are more common, and both accusative and partitive objects are found, with an accusative preponderance. The fourth infinitive is only found to any great extent in Livonian, where it is used in the partitive case in a possessive construction to indicate necessity. In Finnish there are some special constructions involving present participles, which are either not found or are marginal in the other languages. The active present participle ‑va with the verb ‘be’ is used to indicate the future with prophetic overtones, especially in the 1906 NT and the 1938 Bible, but the future is usually expressed by other means. The passive present participle ‑ttava with the verb ‘be’ is often used to express necessity, but also has other meanings. Summary and Conclusions 387

Active and passive ‑ma infinitives, in the illative case in Estonian and the instructive case in Finnish, are found in necessive constructions with the verb pidama / pitää ‘must’ in the old Bible translations. This is due to the translations of the German werden and sollen in this manner. In many instances this construction was used to indicate the future, with sometimes a sense of inevitabil- ity, but often with no strictly necessive meaning. Subsequently in Finnish this gave way to other constructions by the beginning of the 20th century, although a small number of passive ‑ma infinitives reappeared in the 1938 Bible. In Estonian the passive ‑ma infinitive is still used in the modern language, albeit infrequently, and in Finnish it is still mentioned in VISK, but would be rarely used nowadays. The Finnish necessive constructions have undergone marked changes over the centuries, with the ‑ma infinitive yielding to the ‑ta infinitive, while in Estonian the construction with pidama with an active ‑ma infinitive is much the same now, but never now used purely to indicate the future. In the other languages there are no passive ‑ma infinitives, except for one example in Votic. Only Finnish has instructive ‑ma infinitives. In the older Finnish Bible translations there are also some examples of a passive ‑ta infinitive, with a causative implication.

5 Predicates (Chapter 8)

Distributive partitive predicates, nominal and adjectival, are found only in Finnish, and are a late development, appearing towards the middle of the 19th century, and in biblical texts only in the early part of the 20th century. In some of the languages there are instances of a plural partitive copula complement with a singular or plural subject to indicate a group to which the subject belongs, but there are few examples in the present corpus. There are remnants in all the languages of the use of singular partitive nouns as copula complements to indicate the source, material, colour and other qualities attributable to the subject. These are thought to have arisen in the Proto-Finnic period. There are very few of these in the corpus, partly because of the particular genre of the biblical texts.

6 Existential Clauses (Chapter 9)

An existential clause predicates the existence of something, usually in a particular location. Typically it consists of a locative theme, an existential verb, 388 Chapter 10 most commonly ‘be’, and a single argument, which is often called a subject, and sometimes an object, or something in between, which is either in the nominative or partitive case. I have called it the e‑argument. Existential clauses are found in all the Finnic languages. Typically single count nouns are nominative and divisible e-arguments are partitive. Livonian differs in having many fewer partitive e‑arguments than the other languages, but even in that language all negative clauses with one exception have partitive arguments. The earliest texts in most of the languages have few, if any, partitive e‑arguments in affirmative clauses, but they are almost always found in negative clauses. Some of the affirmative clauses, which in later editions are clearly existential, cannot really be labelled as such in the older texts. Early southern Estonian apart from Gutslaff (1648) does use the partitive case also in affirmative clauses. The Livonian 1942 NT existential clauses differ more from the Finnic norm than the ones in the earlier Livonian translations, although the differences are not marked. Presumably Latvian influence is involved. The existential verb ‘be’ is always in the 3rd person singular in Finnish, but in Estonian, Livonian and Veps agrees in number with a nominative plural argument. However, in Estonian the verb ‘be’ has the same form for 3rd person singular and plural in the present tense. The Karelian corpus has no nominative divisible e‑arguments. The e‑arguments have features of both subject and object, and in their discourse function differ from both. Kiparsky (2001: 349) analyses them as subjects in object position, generated in the VP. Metslang (2012: 200) regards them as non-canonical subjects. Possessive clauses, considered by many linguists as a subset of existential clauses, do differ in some respects, with the e‑argument (possessum) being more object-like and the theme (possessor) more subject-like than in canonical existential clauses. In these also the partitive is most evident in negative clauses. Possessive clauses have the same structure from the earliest to the latest texts, with a partitive possessum found in most negative clauses. In affirmative clauses the nominative case for the possessum, even when divisible, is common, especially in the early texts. It is the rule for inalienable possession. The verb ‘be’ remains in the 3rd person singular form in Finnish and sometimes in Karelian, but agrees in number with the nominative possessum in Estonian, Livonian and Veps.

7 Future Trends

The partitive case and its alternation with the accusative is one of the hardest aspects of the Estonian and Finnish languages for foreign language learners to Summary and Conclusions 389 master. In Estonia there are a number of people of other nationalities, predominantly Russian, who struggle with the language. Ehala (2009: 198) has shown that among Russian teenagers living in Estonia the use of partitive objects instead of accusative in bounded situations is frequent. It is somewhat less among bilingual students, but this trend is affecting also native Estonian teen- age speakers, especially boys. Another observation made by Ehala (2009: 198) is that in negative impersonal clauses the use of the partitive undergoer is being replaced by the nominative, again most prominently by Russian teenagers, less by fully bilingual students, but even to some extent by native Estonian teenagers, mainly those with a better knowledge of or closer contact with Russian. These days the greatest influence on Estonian comes from English. Metslang (2006) lists several constructions, which are undergoing a change, among them the inessive case of the ‑ma infinitive coming to be used for progressive action, the use of a periphrastic future tense, and some constructions related to existential ones. Nemvalts (2008: 41) deplores some of the changes which English has brought about in the Estonian language, especially the overuse of impersonal verbs. A large number of Estonians have been scattered throughout the world since World War II, and many of their descendants are trying to maintain or learn Estonian, and some return to live in Estonia. Some studies have been carried out concerning their ability to use object case. Lehiste and Kitching (1998) report a study of the handling of object case by three different age groups of Estonians living in English-speaking countries, who were given a series of English sentences to be translated into Estonian. They found that the group born between 1911–1940 (in Estonia) did not deviate from the norm, except very minimally. Those born between 1941–1960 understood case alternation, but were uncertain about the choice of the form of the accusative. The young- est group did not have any real idea about the choice of object case. Torn (2003: 126) describes three Estonian-English bilingual children with respect to their use of object case in Estonian. She found that they all used mainly the partitive case, even when the situation was bounded. Although there is a suggestion from these studies that perhaps the partitive case may become even more prominent for objects of active verbs in the Estonian language, the grammatical norms are fairly well entrenched, and any change would be expected to be gradual. The use of the partitive for undergoers (patients, logical objects) of impersonal verbs and the argument in existential sentences could well decline due to a greater influence from Indo-European languages, especially English. As there are no native Livonian speakers left, it is not possible to follow the further development of that language, although there is a renewed interest in Livonian culture, which could extend also to the language. There is certainly 390 Chapter 10 a considerable amount of literature in Livonian which could form a base for reconstruction. Votic also is almost defunct. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in Karelian and Veps, as evidenced by the recent translations of the NT, language courses becoming available, and grammars being printed. Whether the trend towards using only the partitive case for personal pronoun objects in the latest Veps and Olonets Karelian NTs is or will be found in the spoken language and in other publications also, cannot be predicted from the present data. Veps appears to be approaching the Finnish pattern in its use of case alternation for noun objects, with a decrease of the previously excessive use of the accusative. The standard written Finnish language appears stable, with no major trend detected in the parameters in this study. However, changes are occurring in the spoken language (Karlsson 1999: 244), which may ultimately pass into the written language.

8 Final Summarizing Remarks

The close relationship between the different Finnic languages is evident in the study, but Livonian shows deviations from the accepted grammatical norm in most areas: object case alternation; inconsistent use of partitive case in negative clauses; genitive rather than nominative morphology for accusative pronoun objects, and possibly also for noun objects, at least in some biblical translations; genitive-accusative objects of imperative verbs; absence of impersonal voice. Karelian also has its differences. Although verbs cognate with the Finnish impersonal are present, they are used as 3rd person plural active verbs, albeit with some of the syntactic characteristics of true impersonals, such as the use of nominative-accusative objects for singular nouns. The singular nominative- accusative is not present in this situation in earlier translations, so perhaps it is a new development, or perhaps it reflects dialectal differences. Personal pronoun objects are all partitive in the latest Karelian Olonets translation, but this may be a trend only in the written language. A similar trend has been noted in Veps. The latest Veps NT translation shows a decrease in the use of accusative case, especially for singular nouns, now becoming comparable to Finnish. The historical studies have concentrated on Estonian and Finnish due to the availablity of much old written material. While it is understood that the written language of olden times was not the same as that spoken by the people, it nevertheless provided a base from which gradually the present day written Summary and Conclusions 391 language developed.The effect of foreign languages is evident especially in the earlier translations, the German influence especially marked in Estonian, less in Finnish. Latvian has had considerable effect on Livonian, where the Bible translations have been done mainly by L1 speakers, so presumably the effect was mainly on the language of the native speakers. Karelian and Veps have been considerably influenced by Russian. Although Livonian and Votic are largely extinct, people of Karelian and Veps origin appear to be showing a renewed interest in their language heritage.

Corpus Bibliography

The old Estonian non-biblical religious and secular texts are detailed in the main reference section under their authors. The details of the transliterations of the oral collections are listed in the main reference section under the authors.

Bibles, New Testaments and Gospels in the Corpus

1 Southern Estonian Johannes Gutslaffi Uue Testamendi tõlge [The New Testament Translation by Johannes Gutslaff]. 1648?–1656?. incomplete—St. Matthew’s gospel and 1Corinthians 7: 15–16: 25. Manuscript, now on-line (accessed 28/7/12). Wastne Testament [New Testament]. 1686. Riga. Wastne Testament. 1857. Tartu. Wastne Testament. 1886. Tartu. Wastne Testament. 1905. Tartu. Evangeelium Pühä Matteusõ kirotõt [The gospel written by St. Matthew]. 1926. Akadeemilise Emakeele Seltsi toimetised 14. evangeeliumid.

2 Northern (Later Standard Estonian) Uus Testament [New Testament]. 1694. (München manuscript). (accessed 8/10/12). Uus Testament [New Testament]. 1715. Tallinn. Jummala Sanna [The Word of God]. 1739. Tallinn. Piibli raamat [The Book of the Bible]. 1903. Tartu. Uus Testament. 1947. London: British and Foreign Bible Society. Piibel [Bible]. 1968. London: British and Foreign Bible Society. Uus Testament ja Psalmid [New Testament and Psalms]. 1989. Tallinn: EELK Konsistoorium. Piibel 1997. Tallinn. Eesti Piibliselts. 394 Corpus Bibliography

3 Northern Estonian (The Gospel of St. Luke) (in Reila et al. 2007) Final version of the Pilistvere manuscript 1687 München manuscript 1694 Stockholm manuscript 1705

4 Finnish Se Wsi Testamentti [New Testament]. 1548. Stockholm. Biblia [Bible]. 1642. Stockholm. Biblia. 1776. (accessed 21/4/14). Biblia. 1880. Berlin: British and Foreign Bible Society. Uusi Testamentti. 1906. Porvoo: WSOY. Raamattu [Bible]. 1933/1938. (accessed 21/4/14). Pyhä Raamattu [Holy Bible]. 1992. Helsinki: Suomen Pipliaseura.

5 Karelian Herrän miän sündüruohtinan Svätoi Jovangeli Matveista [Our Lord’s Holy Gospel of Matthew]. 1820 (Transliterated into Latin script by August Ahlqvist) Suomi 1865 (4): 1–113. Das Evangelium des Matthäus in süd-karelischen Mundart revidiert von F.J. Wiedemann. [The Gospel of Matthew in the southern Karelian dialect revised by F.J. Wiedemann]. 1864. London. Uuzi Sana [New Testament]. 2003. Helsinki: Bible Translation Institute.

6 Livonian Das Evangelium Matthäi in den westlichen Dialect des Livischen. [The Gospel of Matthew in the western Livonian dialect]. 1863. London. Das Evangelium Matthäi in den östlichen Dialect des Livischen. [The Gospel of Matthew in the eastern Livonian dialect]. 1863. London. Už Testament [New Testament]. 1942. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

7 Veps Evangelii Matvejan mödhe [The Gospel according to Matthew]. 1998. Stockholm & Helsinki: Bible Translation Institute. Uz’ Zavet [New Testament]. 2006. Helsinki: Bible Translation Institute.

8 Votic Mateuksen evankeliumin [Matthew’s Gospel]. 1883. Virittäjä 1: 151–157. (Chapters 2–4, 6). Corpus Bibliography 395

Bibles and New Testaments Consulted but not in the Corpus

1 Estonian Jummala Sanna [The Word of God] 1862. Tartu. Jumala Sõna [The word of God] 1914. Tallinn. Piibli Raamat [The Book of the Bible] 1945. Stockholm: British and Foreign Bible Society.

2 German Das Neue Testament unsers Herrn und Heilandes Jesu Christi nach der deutschen Übersetzung D. Martin Luthers. 1940. [The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the German translation by Dr. Martin Luther]. Stuttgart: Privileg. Württemb. Bibelanstalt.

3 Greek Greek Interlinear Bible (NT). . References

Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Agricola, Mikael. [1931]. Mikael Agricolan Teokset II (complete works in facsimile). Porvoo: W. Söderström O.Y. Ahlqvist, August. 1865. Mateuksen Evankeliumi Karjalan kielillä, selitysten kanssa toisinkirjoituksella ulosantanut. Suomi (4): 1–113. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Versatile cases. Journal of Linguistics 44 (3): 565–603. Alvre, Paul. 1971. Soome keele õpik iseõppijaile. Tallinn: Kirjastus “Valgus”. Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 68. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Becker, Reinhold von. 1824. Finsk grammatik. Åbo. (quoted by Toivainen 1985: 33) Beronka, Johan. 1922. Syntaktiske iagttagelser fra de finska dialekter i Vadsø og Porsanger. Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad. ———. 1940. Lappische Kasusstudien II: Zur Geschichte des Nominativs, des Akkusativs, den allgemeinen und der äusseren Lokalkasus. Oslo: A.W. Brøggers Boktrykkeri. Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39: 473–520. Budiņa-Lazdiņa, Terēze. 1979. Teach yourself Latvian. Grand Haven, Michigan: Gauja. Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implica- tions. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I. eds Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 285–299. Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On Definiteness. A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collinder, Björn. 1965. An Introduction to the Uralic Languages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems: Aspectual categories. Oxford; New York: B. Blackwell. Denison, Norman. 1957. The Partitive in Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakademian Toimituksia, Ser. B, Vol. 108. Ehala, Martin. 2009. Keelekontakti mõju eesti sihitiskäänete kasutamisele. Keel ja Kirjandus 2009 (3): 182–204. EKG II 1993 (see Erelt, Mati et al.) Erelt, Mati. 2007. Structure of the Estonian language. Syntax. In Estonian Language. ed. Mati Erelt. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series, Vol. 1. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. pp. 93–129. References 397

Erelt, Mati and Helle Metslang. 2006. Estonian clause-pattern—from Finno-Ugric to SAE. Linguistica Uralica XLII (4) 254–266. Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael and Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Eskola, Paula. 1987. Porin murrekirja. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 472. Vammala: Vammalan Kirjapaino. Ethnologue Database (accessed 13/12/14). Genetz, Arvid. 1885. Tutkimus aunuksen kielestä. Kielen näytteitä, sanakirja ja kieleoppi. Suomi II, 17, 1–194. Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 244. Helsinki. Gutslaff, Johannes. 1648. Observationes Grammaticae circa Linguam Esthonicum. Dorpat. [Facsimile: Gutslaff, Johannes. 1998. Grammatilisi vaatlusi eesti keelest. eds Marju Lepajõe and Jaak Peebo. 1998. Tartu Ülikooli Eesti Keele Õppetooli Toimetised 10. Tartu: Johannes Vogel.] Habicht, Külli. 2001. Eesti vanema kirjakeele leksikaalsest ja morfosüntaktilisest arengust ning Heinrich Stahli keele eripärast selle taustal. Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis 10. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Hakanen, Aimo. 1972. Normaalilause ja eksistentiaalilause. Sananjalka 14: 36–76. ———. 1973. Kontrastiivista Lauseanalyysia. Eksistentiaalilauseet. Turun Yliopiston Suomen Kielen Laitoksen Julkaisuja 1. Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1994. Agricolasta Nykykieleen: Suomen kirjakielen historia. Porvoo, Helsinki, Juva: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö. Hakulinen, Auli and Fred Karlsson. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi: funktsionaalinen näkökulma. Virittäjä 79: 339–363. ———. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 350. Jyväskylä. Hakulinen, Lauri. 1943. Agricolan kieli ja viro. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura. Suomi-kirjan eripainoksia, Uusi sarja 6. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In Aspect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology. eds Casper DeGroot and Hannu Tommola. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 153–177. ———. 1994. Aspect as boundedness in Finnish. In Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical Approach to Language Typology. eds Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll and Carl-Erik Lindberg. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207–233. 398 References

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1996a. A discourse perspective on the grammaticization of the partitive case in Finnish. SKY 1996 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, pp. 7–34. ———. 1996b. Ollako vai eikä olla—eksistentiaalilauseen subjektin kohtalonkysymys. Virittäjä 100, 340–356. Hermann, Karl August. 1896. Eesti keele lause-õpetus. Tartu: Self-published. Hiietam, Katrin and Kersti Börjars. 2003. The emergence of a definite article in Estonian. In Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics. eds Diane Nelson and Satu Manninen. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, pp. 383–417. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251–299. Hornung, Johannes. 1693. Grammatica Esthonica, brevi, Perspicua tamen methodo ad Dialectum Revaliensem. Riga: Joh. Georg Wilck. Huumo, Tuomas. 2007. Kvantiteeti ja aika II. Nominaalinen aspekti ja suomen predikatiivin sijanvaihtelu. Virittäjä 111: 3–23. Huumo, Tuomas and Jari Perko. 1993. Eksistentiaalilause lokaalisuuden ilmaisijana. Virittäjä 97: 380–399. Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (Language Typology and Universals) 66 (4): 378–403. Ikola, Osmo. 1950. Lauseopillisia havaintoja Georg Müllerin saarnojen kielestä. Uppsala: Manuscript (held in the Department of Finno-Ugric Studies, Helsinki University). ———. 1954. Suomen lauseopin ongelmia. Virittäjä 58: 209–245. ———. 1965. Zum Object in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. In Congressus secundus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Helsingae habitus 23–28. VIII. 1965. Part I: Acta Linguistica. ed Paavo Ravila. Helsinki: Societas Fenno-Ugrica (Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seuran). ———. 1966. “Päästä meitä pahasta”. Sananjalka 8: 28–38. ———. 1972. Partitiivi subjektin, objektin ja predikatiivin sijana. Kielokello 5: 4–12. Itkonen, Erkki. 1971–2. Über das Objekt in den finnisch-wolgaischen Sprachen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 39: 153–213. Itkonen, Terho. 1979. Subject and object marking in Finnish: An inverted ergative system and and “ideal” ergative sub-system. In Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. ed Plank, Frans. London: Academic Press, pp. 79–102. Iva, Sulev. 2008. Lõunaeesti ja võru keel: mõisted ja keelepuu. Oma Keel (2) 5–12. Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2011. Arkisuomeen yrittää artikkeli. Tiede. 04.01.2011. (accessed 2/07/12). Jahnsson, Adolf W. 1871. Finska Språkets Satslära. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratur- sällskapets Tryckeri. References 399

Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1979. On personal passive constructions in Finnish. In Explanationes et tractationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Hans Fromm. ed. Erhard F. Schiefer. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 99–108. ———. 1993. Aspektista ja sen sukulaisilmiöistä suomalais-ugrilasissa kielissä. In Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimusta syntaksin ja prag- masyntaksin alalta. ed. Valma Yli-Vakkuri. Turku: Turun yliopiston offsetpaino, pp. 13–23. Karjalan kielen sanakirja . Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish. An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Karlsson, Göran. 1966. ‘Akkusatiivi’ suomen kieliopin terminä. Virittäjä 70: 16–28. Keem, Hella. 1998. Johannes Gutslaffi grammatica eesti keel ja Urvaste murrak. In [Facsimile: Gutslaff, Johannes. 1998. Observationes Grammaticae circa Linguam Esthonicum. Grammatilisi vaatlusi eesti keelest. eds Marju Lepajõe and Jaak Peebo. 1998. Tartu Ülikooli Eesti Keele Õppetooli Toimetised 10. Tartu: Johannes Vogel.], pp. 317–338. Keem, Hella and Inge Käsi. 2002 Eesti murded VI. Võru murde tekstid. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut. Keresztes, László. 2010. The questions of Finno-Ugric literary languages in the light of the latest Bible translations. Congressus XI Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Piliscsaba, 9‑14. VIII. 2010. Pars I: 127–168. eds Sándor Csúcs, Nóra Falk, Viktória Tóth and Gábor Zaicz. Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság. Kettunen, Lauri. 1924. Lauseliikmed eesti keeles. Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Selts. ———. 1925a. Untersuchung über die livische Sprache I. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Dorpatensis B VIII-3. Tartu: EKÜ “Postimehe” trükk. ———. 1925b. Näytteitä etelävepsästä II. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. ———. 1926. Oppikirja eestin ja suomen eroavaisuuksista sekä tekstinkäänöksiä selityk- sineen. Helsinki: Osakeyhtiö valistus. ———. 1938. Livisches Wörterbuch mit grammatischer Einleitung. Helsinki: Suomalais- ugrilaisen Seura. ———. 1943. Vepsan Murteiden Lauseopillinen Tutkimus. Helsinki: Suomalais- ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia LXXXVI. Kettunen, Lauri and Lauri Posti. 1932. Näytteitä Vatjan Kielestä. Helsinki: Suomalais- ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia LXIII. Kilgi, Annika. 2012. Tõlkekeele dünaamika piibliesmaeestinduse käigus: verbi morfo süntaksi areng ja lõplik toimetamisfaas. Tallinna Ülikool: Humanitaarteaduste dissertatsioonid 27. Tallinn: Eesti keele ja kultuuri instituut. Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. eds Butt, Miriam and Geuder, William. Stanford: CSLI pp. 265–307. 400 References

———. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376. Kivi, Aleksis. 1870 [2002]. Seitsemän veljestä. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Klaas, Birute. 1996. Similarities in case marking of syntactic relations in Estonian and Lithuanian. In Estonian Typological Studies I. Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4. ed. Mati Erelt, pp. 37–67. ———. 1999. Dependence of the object case on the semantics of the verb in Estonian, Finnish, and Lithuanian. In Estonian Typological Studies III. Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu. 11. ed. Mati Erelt, pp. 47–83. Kont, Karl. 1958a. Lause eitavast sisust sõltuv object läänemeresoome keeltes. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 4, 233–246. ———. 1958b. Läänemeresoome keelte objekti probleeme. Keel ja Kirjandus 1958 (3) 155–163. ———. 1959a. Eriarenguist totaal- ja partsiaalobjekti kasutamises läänemeresoome keeltes. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 5, 132–148. ———. 1959b. Liikumist tähistavate verbide objektist läänemeresoome keeltes. Keel ja Kirjandus 1959 (5), 283–294. ———. 1961. Läänemeresoome partitiivist, mordva ablatiivist ja balti-slaavi genitiivist. Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi Uurimused VI: 190–199. ———. 1963. Käänd-sõnaline objekt läänemere-soome keeltes. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi Uurimused IX. Tallinn. Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 370. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kullamaa manuscript 1524 (see VAKK). Künnap, A. 2005. On the Origin of the Mari m-accusative. Manuscript. Laakso, Johanna. 2001. The Finnic Languages. In Circum-Baltic Languages Past and Present: Typology and Contact. Vol. 1. eds Östen Dahl, and Maria Koptjevskaja- Tamm. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 179–212. Laanekask, Heli and Tiiu Erelt. 2007. Written Estonian. In Estonian Language. ed. Mati Erelt. Linguistica Uralica Supplementary Series 1. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, pp. 342–273. Laanest, Arvo. 1958. Partitiivi abil väljendatud substantiivsest atribuudist lääneme- resoome keeltes. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 4: 214–230. ———. 1975. Sissejuhatus Läänemere-soome Keeltesse. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. ———. 1986. Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia. Tallinn: Valgus. Laitinen, Lea. 1993. Nesessiivirakenne, kielliopillistuminen ja subjektiivisus. Virittäjä 97: 149–170. Larjavaara, Matti. 1991. Aspektuaalisen objektin synty. Virittäjä 95:372–408. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15. References 401

———. 1984. The role of Baltic influence in the aspectual system of Finnish. In. Aspect Bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology. eds Casper DeGroot and Hannu Tommola. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 97–109. Lees, Aet. 2004. Partitive-accusative alternations in Balto-Finnic Languages. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society (ed.) Christo Moskovsky. . ———. 2005. The case of the object in early Estonian and Finnish texts. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. ed. Ilana Mushin. . ———. 2006. The undergoer in passive clauses in Estonian and Finnish. In Selected Papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. ed. Keith Allan. . ———. 2008. The partitive case in existential and copula clauses in Balto-Finnic. In Selected papers from the 2007 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. ed. Timothy Jowan Curnow. . ———. 2010. Nonfinite verbs and their objects in Finnic. In Selected papers from the 2009 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. eds. Yvonne Treis and Rik De Busser. . ———. 2012. Necessive constructions in Finnic Bible texts. In Shall We Play the Festschrift Game? Essays on the Occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th Birthday. eds Diana Santos, Krister Lindén and Ng’aug’a Wanjik. Berlin, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, New York: Springer Verlag. pp. 181–214. Lehiste, Ilse and Juta Kitching. 1998. Sihitise käänete kasutamisest väliseestlaste poolt. In Lindström, Linda (ed.). Tartu Ülikooli Eesti Keele Õppetooli toimetised 9: 67–73. Lehtinen, Tapani. 1984. Itämerensuomen passiivin alkuperästä. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Suomi 129. Helsinki. ———. 1985. Vanhan persoonallisen passiivin jatkajiako? Virittäjä 89: 270. Leino, Pentti. 1982. Lauseet ja tilanteet. Suomen objektin ongelmia II. Helsinki. Unpublished mimeograph (quoted by Heinämäki 1984: 165). Lepajõe, Marju and Jaak Peebo. 1998. (eds) Facsimile: Gutslaff, Johannes. 1648 [1998]. Observationes Grammaticae circa Linguam Esthonicum. Grammatilisi vaatlusi eesti keelest. Tartu Ülikooli Eesti Keele Õppetooli Toimetised 10. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. Lönnrot, Elias. 1853. Om det nord-tschudiska språket. Helsingfors. Magoun, Francis P. Jr. (ed.) 1967. Mikael Agricola’s Gospel according to St. Mark, with foreword, an outline of the language, glossary and appendix. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 286. Makarov, G.N. 1963. Kalinini-Karjala murdenäiteid. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat IX: 151–162. 402 References

Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical cases in Finnish. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. eds Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 49–74. Manninen, Satu and Diane Nelson. 2004. What is a passive? The case of Finnish. Studia Linguistica 58 (3): 212–251. Markianova, Ľudmila and Aaro Mensonen. 2006. Opastummo karjalakse. Karjalan Kielen Seuran Julkaisuja 2. Petroskoi: Verso. Martinius, Matthias. 1689. Hodegus Finnicus. [Facsimile in Wiik 1987, 1989]. Masing, Otto Willem. 1918. Pühhapäwa wahhe-luggemised. Tartu: Schünmann. ———. 1825. Marahwa Näddala-Leht 2–6. Metslang, Helena. 2012. On the case-marking of existential subjects in Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 25: 151–204. ———. 2013. Grammatical relations in Estonian: subject, object and beyond. Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis. Tartu: University of Tartu Press. Metslang, Helle. 1993. Kas eesti keeles on olemas progressiiv? Keel ja Kirjandus 38(6): 326–334. ———. 2001. On the developments of the Estonian aspect. The verbal particle ära. In Circum-Baltic Languages 2: Grammar and Typology. eds Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 443–479. ———. 2006a. Predikaat ajastut kogemas. Keel ja Kirjandus 49 (9): 714–727. ———. 2006b. Grammatika ei saa kunagi valmis. Oma Keel 2006 (1): 1–11. ———. 2009. Estonian grammar between Finnic and SAE: some comparisons. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (Language Typology and Universals) 62 (1/2): 49–71. Metsmägi, Iris. 2011. Some issues of the Estonian present participle. Congressus XI Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 2010. Piliscsaba, 9–14. VIII. 2010. Pars IV. eds Sándor Csúcs, Nóra Falk, Viktória Tóth and Gábor Zaicz. Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság, pp. 290–296. Mielikäinen, Aila. 1999–2001. Biblical language and standard written Finnish. Annali Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”. Studi Finno-Ugrici. Napoli: Departimento di Studi dell’Europa orientale. Mihkla, Karl. 1964. Eesti keele süntaks I. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Mihkla, Karl, Lehte Rannut, Elli Riikoja and Aino Admann. 1974. Eesti Keele Lauseõpe tuse Põhijooned I. Lihtlause. Tallinn: Valgus. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On the case marking of objects. In Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4. Syntax. ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 249–289. Moseley, Christopher. 2002. Livonian. München: Lincom Europa. References 403

Müller, Georg 1600–1606. [1891]. In Neunnunddreissig Estnische Predigten von Georg Müller aus dem Jahren 1600–1606. ed. Willem Reiman. Verhandlungen der gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat. Fünfzehnter Band. Dorpat. Must, Mari. 1995. Eesti Murded V. Kirderanniku murde tekstid. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut. Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Nelson, Diane. 1998. Case competition in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21: 145–178. Nemvalts, Peep. 1996. Case Marking of Subject Phrases in Modern Standard Estonian. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 25. ———. 2008. Võõrastav eesti keel. Oma Keel 2008 (2): 39–42. Ogren, David. 2013. Objekti kääne hinnangukonstruktsioonis: Kas on võimalik osta auto või autot? Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 59: 171–192. Õispuu, Jaan. 1998–1999. Karjalased, karjala keel ja karjala keeleseadus. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 44–45: 136–168. ———. 2004. Läänemeresoomlane ja ta keel. Oma Keel 2004 (2), 40–50. Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950a. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. ———. 1950b. Partitiivista ja sen käyttöalan laajentumisesta. Virittäjä 54: 236–242. Ojansuu, Heikki. 1910. Lisiä persoonapronominien taivutusoppiin. Virittäjä 14: 30–38. Pajusalu, Karl. 2007. Estonian dialects. In Estonian Language. ed Mati Erelt. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series, Vol. 1. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, pp. 231–272. ———. 2011. Liivikeelsest vaimulikust kirjandusest. Hõimurahvaste Aeg 6: 3–4. Palmeos, Paula. 1958. Tekste karjala valdai murdest. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat IV: 263–273. Paul, Toomas. 1999. Eesti Piiblitõlke Ajalugu. Tallinn: Emakeele Selts. Peegel, Juhan. 2006. Eesti vanade rahvalaulude keel. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Pekkarinen, Heli. 2011. Monikasvoinen TAVA-partisiippi: Tutkimus suomen TAVA- partisiipin käyttökonteksteista ja verbiliitojen kieliopillistumisesta. Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy. Penjam, Pille. 2008. Eesti kirjakeele da- ja ma-infinitiiviga konstruktsioonid. Dissertatsiones Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 23. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Penttilä, Aarni. 1956. Subjektin totaalisuudesta ja partiaalisuudesta. Virittäjä 60: 28–49. Petraeus, Aeschillus (1649). Linguae Finnicae Brevis Institutio. [facsimile in Wiik 1987, 1989]. Pihlak, Ants. 1993. A comparative study of voice in Estonian. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy for Public Safety 1. 404 References

Prillop, Külli. 2009. Järgsilpide o ja u varieerumine ning traditsioonid vanas kirjakeeles. Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (8–9): 595–601. Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raag, Raimo. 2003. Henricus Stahell: Geistlicher und Sprachkodifizierer in Estland. In Kulturgeschichte der baltischen Länder in der Frühen Neuzeit. 87: 337–362. Rajandi, Henno. 1999. Eesti impersonaali ja passiivi süntaks. Eesti Keele Instituudi Toimetised 3. Tallinn. ———. and Helle Metslang. 1979. Määramata ja määratud objekt. Tallinn: Valgus. Rapola, Martti. 1933 [1965]. Suomen kirjakielen historia I. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Toimituksia 197. Helsinki. Räsänen, Seppo. 1972. Kainuun murteiden kaasussyntaksi. Suomalaisen Kirjallissuuden Seuran Toimituksia 308. Helsinki: Forssa. Rätsep, Huno. 1979. Eesti Keele Ajalooline Morfoloogia 2. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool. Raun, Alo. and Andrus Saareste. 1965. Introduction to Estonian Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Ravila, Paavo. 1935. Die Stellung des Lappischen innerhalb der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachfamilie. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 23: 20–65. ———. 1944. Lauseopin periaatekysymysiä. Virittäjä 48: 105–131. Reila, Heiki. 2007a. Uue Testamendi Hornungi tõlke kohast vaimuliku eesti keele kujunemisloos. Keel ja Kirjandus (2): 143–151. ———. 2007b. Müncheni käsikirjast ja selle seostest Johann Hornungi tõlkega: keele- lisi tähelepanekuid. In Põhjaeestikeelsed Uue Testamendi tõlked 1680–1705. eds Heiki Reila, Kristiina Ross and Kai Tafenau. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, pp. 556–566. Reila, Heiki, Kristiina Ross and Kai Tafenau (eds). 2007. Põhjaeestikeelsed Uue Testamendi tõlked 1680–1705. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Reiman, Wilhelm. 1891. Neunnunddreissig Estnische Predigten von Georg Müller aus dem Jahren 1600–1606. ed. Willem Reiman. Verhandlungen der gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat. Fünfzehnter Band. Dorpat. Reime, Hannu. 1993. Accusative marking in Finnish. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. eds Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 89–109. Renvall, Gustaf. 1815. De signis relationum nominalium in lingua Fennica. Aboae. (quoted by Toivainen 1985: 12) Ritter, Ralf-Peter. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Roos, Taimi and Inger Tamm. 1981. Puhutteko Suomea? Tallinn: Valgus. Ross, Kristiina. 2003. Eduard Ahrens 200. Oma Keel 2003 (2): 53–59. ———. 2009. Eesti keel Henrikust Anton Thor Helleni. Keel ja Kirjandus 52 (8–9): 553–558. Saareste, Andrus. 1952. Kaunis Emakeel. Lund: Eesti Kirjanike Kooperatiiv. References 405

Sadeniemi, Matti. 1929. Objektin totaalisuudesta ja partiaalisuudesta. Virittäjä: 33: 315–320. ———. 1950. Totallisesta ja partiaalisesta predikatiivista. Virittäjä 54: 46–53. ———. 1955 Subjektin totaalisuudesta ja partiaalisuudesta. Virittäjä 59: 10–17. Salminen, Tapani 2009. Finno-ugrian Languages. (accessed 4/6/13). Sands, Kristina. 2000. Complement Clauses and Grammatical Relations in Finnish. Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra. Sands, Kristina and Lyle Campbell. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. (eds) Alexandra. Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Saukkonen, Pauli. 1965. Itämeresuomalaisten kielten tulosijainfinitiivrakenteiden historiaa I. Johdanto adverbiaali infinitiivi. SUST 137. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. ———. 1966. Itämeresuomalaisten kielten tulosijainfinitiivrakenteiden historiaa II. SUST 140. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Savijärvi, Ilkka. 1992. Viron kielen varhaisvaiheet suomen peilissä. Lähivertailuja 6. Suomalais-virolainen kontrastiivinen seminaari Mekrijärvellä 10.–11.4.1992. (Kielitieteellisiä tutkimuksia 27). Joensuun yliopisto. pp. 53–78. (accessed 10/12/14). Schot-Saikku, Päivi. 1990. Der Partitiv und die Kasusalternation. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. ———. 1993. What makes Finnish different? Remarks on a sentence type theory of Finnish. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. (eds) Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207–224. Setälä, Emil N. 1880. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran: Helsinki. ———. 1892. Finska språkets satslära. Helsingfors: Söderström. ———. 1927. Finska språkets satslära. 6th edition. Helsingfors: Söderström. Shore, Susanna. 1986. Onko suomessa passiivia? Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura 133. Helsinki. ———. 1988. On the so-called Finnish passive. Word 39: 151–176. ———. 1992. Aspects of a Systemic-Functional Grammar of Finnish. Ph.D. Thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney. Siro, Paavo. 1974. Eksistentiaalilauseen hämähäkinverkkoa. Virittäjä 78: 35–45. Sjögren, Johan A. and Friedrich J. Wiedemann. 1861. Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachproben. St. Petersburg (quoted by Larsson 1983: 62). Smit, Merlijn de. 2006. Language Contact and Structural Change. An Old Finnish Case Study. Doktorsavhandling. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm: Studia Fennica Stockholmiensis 9. Spoelmann, Marianne. 2013. Prior linguistic knowledge matters: the use of the partitive case in Finnish learner language. Dissertation. University of Oulu. 406 References

Stahl, Heinrich. 1632. Hand- vnd Hauszbuches für die Pfarherren vnd Hauszväter Ehstnischen Fürstenthumbs, Part I (HH1). Riga: Gerhard Schröder. ———. 1637a. Anführung zu der Esthnischen Sprach auff Wohlgemeinten Rath und Bittliches Ersuchen. Revall: Christoff Reusner der älter. ———. 1637b. Hand- vnd Hauszbuches für die Pfarherren vnd Hauszväter Ehstnischen Fürstenthumbs, Part II (HH2). Revall: Christoff Reusner der älter. ———. 1641. Leyen Spiegel (LS). Revall: Heinrich Westphal. Stråhlmann, Johann. 1816. Finnische Sprachlehre für Finnen und Nicht-Finnen. [facsimile in Wiik 1987]. Sulkala, Helena. 1996. Expression of aspectual meanings in Finnish and Estonian. In Estonian Typological Studies I. Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4. ed. Mati Erelt, pp. 165–225. Tamm, Anne. 2004a. On the grammaticalization of the Estonian perfective particles. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51 (1–2): 143–169. ———. 2004b. Relations between Estonian Verbs, Aspect, and Case. Ph.D. Thesis. Budapest. ———. 2008. Partitive morphosemantics across Estonian grammatical categories, and case variation with equi and raising. In Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference. eds Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. CSLI Publications . ———. 2011. The case denoting within denotes locative relationships with more noun- like non-finites and aspectual relationships in more verb-like non-finites in Finnic. In Congressus XI Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Piliscsaba, 9–14. VIII. 2010. Pars VI. eds Sándor Csúcs, Nóra Falk, Viktória Tóth and Gábor Zaicz. Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság, pp. 242–249. ———. 2012. Scalar Verb Classes. Scalarity, Thematic Roles, and Arguments in the Estonian Aspectual Lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press (Biblioteca di Studi Filologia Moderna 14). ———. 2014. The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. In Partitive Cases and Related Cat- egories (eds) Luraghi, Silvia and Tuomas Huumo. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 89–152. Tauli, Valter. 1968. Totaalobjekt eesti kirjakeeles. Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 145: 216–224. ———. 1983. Standard Estonian Grammar. Part II. Syntax. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 14. Uppsala. Tiainen, Outi. 1997. Suomen eksistentiaalilause—päätymätön tarina. Virittäjä 101(4): 563–564. Toivainen, Jorma. 1985. Partitiivin syntaksi. Turku: Turun Yliopilaston Suomalaisen ja Yleisen Kielitieden Julkaisuja. References 407

Torn, Reeli. 2002. The status of the passive in English and Estonian. RCEAL Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics (Cambridge) 7: 81–106. (accessed 3/03/05). ———. 2003. Object case marking: English influence on the use of Estonian by three Estonian-English bilingual children. Kalbotyra 53(3): 126–134. Tsvetkov, Dmitri. 1922 [2008]. Vadja keele grammatika. (ed. Jüri Viikberg 2008). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Tveite, Tor. 2004. The Case of the Object in Livonian. A corpus based study. Castrenianu- min Toimetteita 62. Helsinki: The Finno-Ugrian Department of Helsinki University. Uibopuu, Valev. 1984. Meie ja meie hõimud. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm. Vääri, Eduard. 1986. Alfon Bertholdi kirjapanekuid liivlaste varasemast elust I. Tartu: Fenno-ugristika 13: 174–179 (quoted by Tveite 2004: 45). ———. 1987. Alfon Bertholdi kirjapanekuid liivlaste varasemast elust II. Tartu: Fenno- ugristika 14: 150–160 (quoted by Tveite 2004: 45). Vainikka, Anne M. 1989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. ———. 2003. Postverbal case realization in Finnish. In Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics. (eds) Diane Nelson and Satu Manninen. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 235–266. VAKK [Study Group for Old Written Estonian at the University of Tartu] . Valmet, Aino. 1962. Pluurali partitiiv eesti kirjakeele algusperioodil (1524–1686). Eesti Riikliku Ülikooli Toimetised 117, 156–170. ———. 1963. Pluurali partitiiv XVII sajandi lõpu eesti kirjakeeles. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat IX: 63–84. ———. 1983. Grammatikapeatükk Anton Thor Helle eesti keele õpetuses. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 29: 12–24. Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1996. Role and reference grammar. In Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. eds Keith Brown and Jim Miller. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 281–294. Varik, Krista. 1974. Osaalus tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Unpublished degree paper. Tartu. (quoted by Nemvalts 1996: 76). Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vhael, Bartholdus. 1733. Grammatica fennica. [Facsimile in Wiik 1987, 1989]. Vihman, Virve. 2002. Impersonalized impersonals. Argument structure and language change. In Proceedings of the 2002 TAAL Postgraduate Conference, University of Edinburgh . Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1998. Fennic. In The Uralic Languages. ed. Abondolo, Daniel. London: Routledge, pp. 97–114. 408 References

———. 2007a. Structure of the Estonian language. Phonology, morphology and word formation. In Estonian Language. Linguistica Uralica, Supplement Series, vol. 1. ed. Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, pp. 9–92. ———. 2007b. Rise and development of the Estonian language. In Estonian Language. Linguistica Uralica, Supplement Series, vol. 1. ed. Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, pp. 130–226. Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Hel- sinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. (quoted by Sands and Campbell 2001: 266). VISK (verkkoversio Iso suomi kieleoppi) . Wanradt-Koell catechism. 1535. In VAKK [Study Group for Old Written Estonian at the University of Tartu] . Whitney, Arthur H. 1973. Finnish. London: Teach Yourself Books: St. Paul’s House. Wickman, B. 1955. The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Wiedemann, Friedrich J. 1864 [2002] Versuch ueber den werroehstnischen Dialekt. In Uurimus Võru murdest. eds Külli Habicht and Karl Pajusalu. (Translated by Inge Annom). Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. ———. 1875. Grammatik der ehstnischen Sprache, zunächst wie sie in Mittelehstland gesprochen wird, mit Berücksichtigung der anderen Dialekte. St. Petersburg: L’Académie Impériale des Sciences. Wiik, Kalevi. 1974. Suomen eksistentiaalilauseiden “subjekti”. Publications of the Phonetics Department of the University of Turku 13. ———. 1987. Suomen Wanhat Kieliopit Nide 1: 1649–1816. Turun Ylopisto Fonetiika. ———. 1989. Suomen kielen morfonologian historia I: Nominien taivutus 1649–1820. Turku: Painosalama. Willmann, Reedik Willem (Friedrich Wilhelm). 1782 [1975] Juttud ja Teggud. Tallinn: Lindworsse kirjad. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2003. Remarks on the use of the proximative verb form (the so-called 5th infinitive) in Finnish. Sananjalka 45: 7–44. ———. 2004. Remarks on Veps purposive non-finites. SUST Aikakauskirja 90: 231–276. Ylikoski, J. 2005. Uusia näkökulmia suomen infiniittisiin verbirakenteisiin. Virittäjä 109 (4): 611–622. (Review of I. Herlin and L.Visapää (eds). Elävä kielioppi. Suomen infiniitisten rakenteiden dynaamikkaa). Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 1021. Helsinki. Zaikov, Pekka. 1999. Onko karjalassa passiivia? Õdagumeresoomõ veeremaaq. Läänemeresoome perifeeriad. Võro Instituudi toimõtiseq 6, 243–248. ———. 2002. Karjalan kielioppi 5–9. Petroskoi: Periodika. Zaitseva, Maria. 2001. Vepsän kielen lauseoppia. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 241. Helsinki. Index

Aavik, Johannes 36, 117, 167, 319, 361 corpus ablative 8, 10, 38, 50, 182, 331 Chude 26 absolute nominative 377 diachronic 17 absolute partitive 377 Estonian 17–20, 23–25 accusative 9, 12–15, 29–33, 50–51, 381 Finnish 20–21, 25 (see also t accusative) Karelian 21–22, 25–26 accusative-partitive case alternation 1, 2, 10, Livonian 22, 25 35–48, 50–51, 96, 179, 381 New Testaments 17–23 accusative singular nominative objects oral collections, transcribed 25–26 31–33, 254–256 other written material 23–25 adverbial ‘objects’ 9, 48–50, 88, 130–131 synchronic 17 affectedness 37, 38, 43, 51, 90–91 Veps 22–23, 26 agent 169, 175, 178, 182–183, 272, 289, 300, Votic 23, 26 301, 308, 372 agent construction 308–309 dative 7, 9, 86, 289, 361, 362 Agricola, Mikael 15, 20, 26, 93, 135–140, 145, definiteness 10, 13, 35, 44–45, 48, 84, 102, 147, 208, 219, 303, 334, 358, 371, 383 124, 133, 295, 313, 340, 364 Ahrens, Eduard 102–103, 133, 146–147 diachronic study, active verbs (see also noun animacy 45–46, 55, 60, 90, 92 objects of active verbs) ascriptive clauses 314–321 Estonian 94–134 aspect 2, 10–12, 16, 34–38, 42, 51, 58, 88, 99, Estonian north 114–134 103, 122, 133, 135, 148, 167, 257, 272, 276, Estonian south 107–114 298, 325, 349, 382 (see also verbs, Finnish 134–148 inherent aspect) Karelian 148–156 Aunus (see Karelian dialects, Olonets) Livonian 156–162 non-personal pronouns 97–98, 103–104, boundedness 10, 35, 38, 51, 70–75, 229, 249, 110–112, 119–122, 139–143, 150–153, 259, 270, 379, 381, 385 159–160, 164 bounding elements 36–37 personal pronouns 97, 103, 108–110, 117–119, 137–139, 149–150, 158–159, 163 cardinal numbers 27, 28, 30, 33, 55, 254, 263 Veps 162–166 case paradigms 8 discourse 48, 379, 388 Chude 4, 26, 225, 361 (see also Veps) comparison, Estonian and Finnish 146–148, e-argument (see existential clauses, 218–220 e-argument) comparison, possessive and existential e infinitive 281–288 clauses 375–377, 388 diachronic study 285–288 copula 311 Estonian 281, 284, 285–286 copula complement 312 Finnish 283, 286–287 adjective 323–327, 331–334 instructive 281, 284, 285, 287 diachronic study 327–334 Karelian 281, 284, 287 distributive 314–316 Livonian 281, 284, 287–288 noun 313–323, 328–331 synchronic study 282–285 pronoun 313, 327–328 Veps 281, 288 synchronic study 312 Votic 281 410 Index

English 182, 357, 385, 389 genealogy 74–75, 107, 113–114, 126, 161 Estonian German 18–19, 21, 24, 36, 42, 93–96, 98, 101, Bible translation 17–20 131–133, 157, 167, 207, 228, 278, 391 old grammars 101–103, 133 (see also Gutslaff, Johannes 17, 101–102, 107–109, old Estonian grammars) 132, 133 vat construction 294–297 Estonian dialects Hermann, Karl August 103, 133 northeast coastal 14 homonymy 29 Seto 6 Estonian 94–95, 106 Võro 6, 170 Finnish 135–136 existential clauses 336–361, 375–377, Livonian 14, 54 387–388 Veps 55, 90 absolute existence 344–347 Votic 55 diachronic study 353–361 Hornung, Johannes 18, 102, 106, 114, 126, e-argument 337, 347–350, 352–353, 132–133, 234 378–379, 388 Hungarian 2, 4 Estonian non-biblical 354–355 Estonian north 355–357 identifying clauses 313–314 Estonian south 353–354 imperative 31–32, 229–246, 309 features 336–339 diachronic study 234–242 Finnish 357–358 Estonian non-biblical 234 Karelian 358–359 Estonian north 236–237 Livonian 359–360 Estonian south 234–236 negation 350–351 Finnish 237–239 new information 352–353 Karelian 239–240 synchronic study 339–341 Livonian 32, 229–230, 233, 241–242 theme 344 synchronic study 229–234 Veps 360–361 Veps 242 verb 336, 341–344 impersonal 169–174, 206–207, 226–228 word order 344 agent 169, 182–183 experiential clauses 41–42, 373–375 compound tenses (see also periphrastic passive) 169, 174, 191 Finnic 3–15 diachronic study 234–242 case system 7–15 Estonian 169–171, 198–199, 200–202, northern 3, 380 206–207 southern 3, 380 Estonian north 200–202 Finnish Estonian south 170–171, 193–196 agent construction 308–309 Finnish 169, 171, 207–211 Bible translation 20–21 Karelian 53, 171–172, 187, 220–222 old grammars 134–135 stem with personal suffixes 170–171, 196, olla va construction 292–294 207, 211 tua construction 306–307 synchronic study 183–187 van construction 297–300 undergoer 169, 179–180 Finno-Ugric 3, 4, 13 Veps 173, 225 fourth infinitive 288–290 Votic 173–4 Finnish 288–289 individuation 44–45 Livonian 289, 372 infinitive 246–290, 309–310 Veps 289–290 e (see e infinitive) Index 411

fourth (see fourth infinitive) diachronic study 274–281 ma (see ma infinitive) Estonian north 275–276 nomenclature 246 Estonian south 274–275 passive (see passive infinitives) Finnish 277–280 ta (see ta infinitive) illative 267–272 Ingrian (Izhorian) 3, 5 , 14 inessive 272–274 instructive 274, 277–280 Jahnsson, Adolf 15, 31, 135, 137, 146, 208, 330, Karelian 280 334, 350, 358, 379 Livonian 280–281 jussive 231, 242–246 passive (see passive ma infinitive) diachronic study 245–246 synchronic study 268–274 Livonian 244 Veps 281 synchronic study 243–244 Martinius, Matthias 134 Masing, Otto Wilhelm 24–25, 103–105, 131, Karelian 3, 5, 21–22 , 53–54, 88–90, 133 147, 199, 206, 258, 329, 355, 369 huu~tuu constructions 306–308 Meänkieli 6 oral collections 25–26 meteorological verbs 174, 377 Karelian dialects 3 Mordvin 4, 5, 6, 10–11, 38, 41, 331, 353 Maaselkä 12, 14, 40, 44, 45, 54, 68, 133, Müller, Georg 23–24, 94–101, 132, 134, 147, 172, 231, 240, 317, 319, 322, 323 196, 198–200, 206, 234, 256–257, 327, Olonets (Aunus, Livvi) 3 354, 369 (see also Karelian) München manuscript 18, 114–115, 132, 134 Tver (Kalinin) 3, 5, 14, 21–22, 25, (included in Estonian north) 54, 172, 186, 187, 358–9, 371 (see also Karelian) necessive constructions 32, 175, 197–198, Valdai 3, 14, 26, 149, 186, 284 (see also 213–216, 247, 253, 254–255, 265, 274, Karelian) 275–280, 289–290, 300, 310 Viena 3, 14, 44, 53, 54, 149, 172, 176, 240, negation 11, 12, 33–34, 75–76, 91, 100–101, 268, 319, 323 105–106, 129–130, 145, 156, 162, 233, Kivi, Aleksis 25 (see also Seitsemän veljestä) 350–351, 363 Kullamaa manuscript 23, 94 nominative-partitive case alternation 9, Kven 6 339 noun objects of active verbs Latvian 12, 22, 34, 37, 50, 65, 157, 161, 167, diachronic study 98–99, 104–105, 112–114, 289, 340, 362, 378, 388, 391 122–126, 143–145, 153–154, 160–161, Lithuanian 12 164–166 Livonian 4, 5, 22, 54–55 synchronic study 67–69 necessive 289, 372, null quantifier 11, 34, 44, 379 negation 34, 75–76, 162 objects of verbs of perception 161–162 old Estonian grammars 101–103, 133 oral collections 25 Ahrens 102–3, 133 passive 170, 223–224 Gutslaff 101–102, 107, 109, 133 possessive 362, 372 Hermann 103, 133 Livvi (see Olonets) Hornung 102, 133 Ludian 4, 14, 26, 172 Stahl 101, 133, 199 Thor Helle 102, 127 ma infinitive 267–281 Wiedemann 101, 103, 133 adessive 268 old Estonian orthography 19, 21, 24, 28, case 267–268 102–3, 115, 133, 146 412 Index old Finnish Livonian 176, 223–224 grammars 134–135 necessive 213–216 orthography 135–6, 146, 263 synchronic study 187–192 olla +va construction 292–294 Veps 176, 226 Olonets (Aunus, Livvi) 3–4, 17 Votic 176 (see also Karelian) personal passive 169, 175–176, 191, 205, 213 oral collections, transcribed 25–26 (see also periphrastic passive) agent 183 partial object 29 undergoer 175, 176, 180–181 participial clauses Petraeus, Aeschillus 134 active past 304–305 Pilistvere manuscript 18, 114–115 active present 294–300 possessive clauses 361–373, 388 passive past 306–308 comparison with existential clauses participles 290–310 375–377, 388 active past 303–305 diachronic study 368–373 active present 290–300 Estonian north 369–370 passive past 178, 305–308 Estonian south 368–369 passive present 300–303 Finnish 370–371 partitive 9–12 Karelian 371–372 collective singular 12, 44 Livonian 372 partitive-accusative alternation 1, 2, 10, negation 362, 363, 365, 367 35–48, 50–51, 96, 179, 381 synchronic study 362–368 partitive-nominative alternation 9, 339 Veps 372–373 passive 168–169, 218–220, 226–228 pragmatic factors 46–48 (see also impersonal) pronouns, non-personal, objects of active agent 169, 175, 178, 182–183 verbs infinitives 179, 192, 197–198, 204–206, diachronic study 97–98, 103–104, 207, 215–216, 220 110–112, 119–122, 139–143, 150–153, Karelian 171–172 159–160, 164 past participial clauses 306–308 synchronic study 59–67 past participles 178, 305–308 pronouns, personal, objects of active verbs present participles 300–303 diachronic study 97, 103, 108–110, ta infinitives 216–218, 220 117–119, 137–139, 149–150, 158–159, terminology 168–169 163 undergoer 168, 179–181 synchronic study 57–59 Veps 173 Proto-Finnic 4, 6, 10–13, 15, 32, 42, 170, 227, Votic 173–174 331, 335, 353, 378, 380, 387 passive ma infinitives Estonian 179, 192, 197–198, 204–206, quantification 2, 16, 43–44, 51, 89–90, 326, 207, 220 348, 358, 382 Finnish 179, 215–216, 220 quantifier clause 346–347 Votic 192 quantifier phrase 11, 28, 30, 33, 326, 338–339, periphrastic passive 176–177, 187–192 362 Estonian 219–220 quantifiers 11, 27, 30, 33, 326, 334, 338, 358 Estonian north 202–204 (see also null quantifier) Estonian south 196–197 Finnish 211–215, 219–220 Russian 12, 34, 37, 42, 45, 167, 172, 173, 227, Karelian 176, 222–223 249, 268, 385, 389 Index 413

Saami 4, 6, 11, 13, 34, 38, 331, 353, 380 total-partial opposition 43–44, 45, 51, 96, 103 Seitsemän veljestä 25, 134, 145–147, 171, 207, tua/tuu construction 306–308 209–211, 328, 330, 333, 357, 371 separative 1, 10, 315–320, 331, 334 undergoer (patient) 168, 179–181 Setälä, Emil 12, 15, 29, 135, 137 impersonal 169, 179–180 Seto 6, 18, 20, 40, 106, 176, 249, 367 personal passive 175, 180–181 (included in Estonian south) Uralic 2–4, 10, 13, 15 sociolects old Estonian 19, 131 va construction (Vo) 300 old Finnish 147 van construction (F) 297–300 source-marking resultative clauses 377 va olla construction (F) 292–294 Stahl, Heinrich 24, 94–101, 104, 123–124, vat construction (E) 294–297 132–134, 147, 199–200, 206, 234, Veps 3–5, 22–23, 55, 89–90, 162–166 256–257, 354–355, 369, 382 oral collections 26 St. Luke’s gospel 18, 106, 114–115, 147, 295 southern dialect 26, 361 (see also Veps) Stockholm manuscript 18, 114–115, 295 verbs Stråhlmann, Johann 135 ‘aspectual’ 38 subjectless verbs 41–42, 169, 174–175, 250 existential (see existential clauses, verb) synchronic study, active verbs experiential 41–42 all objects combined 56–57 inherent aspect 38–41, 51, 76–85, 91, 102, non-personal pronouns 59–67 128, 381 nouns 67–69 intransitive (see adverbial ‘objects’) personal pronouns 57–59 miscellaneous 84–88 syncretism (see homonymy) of emotion 38, 39, 77–78, 99, 127 of perception and cognition 38, 40–41, t accusative 14–15, 29, 30, 54, 56–58, 91, 51, 78–84, 99, 105, 127–129, 155, 161–162, 137–139, 145–147, 179–180, 207–209, 219, 381 240, 309–310, 312, 376, 384 ‘partitive’ 38, 126–127 ta infinitives 32–33, 246–247, 248–267 phrasal 42, 48, 85–86, 101 diachronic study 256–267 subjectless 41–42, 169, 174–175, 250 Estonian non-biblical 256–258 Vhael, Bartholdus 134–135, 382 Estonian north 259–261 Volga-Finnic 4, 10, 13 Estonian south 258–259 Votic 1, 3–5, 7, 13, 23, 26, 55–58, 69, 88, 174, Finnish 261–263 192, 249, 273 Karelian 263–266 oral collections 26 Livonian 266 va construction 300 singular nominative objects 32–33, 254–256 Wanradt-Koell catechism 23, 94 synchronic study 249–256 Wiedemann, Friedrich J. 21, 22, 101, 103, 129, translative case 253–254 133, 156, 160, 170, 179, 329 Veps 266–267 Willmann, Friedrich Wilhelm 24, 103–106, Thor Helle, Anton 102, 127, 129 134, 199–200, 206, 234, 257–258, 274, total object 10, 13, 15, 29–30, 51, 249 355, 369