A Finnish Grammar

by Charles Eliot

The third rule is the most important and singular. It requires the softening in some way of the three hard consonants k, t, p, when they occur at the beginning of a short open syllable which becomes closed. It is stated in detail on pp. [13], [14], [15]. These conventional rules are of great practical utility, for they are of almost universal application and can be used with perfect certainty in building up the most complicated forms. On the other hand, if one tries to explain them, they remain unique and mysterious, if considered only in reference to the closed syllable. Now there is one exception to their action: the addition of the pronominal suffixes produces no change in the consonants of a noun. But there are a good many cases where consonants are softened without the syllable being closed. Some of these cases (e.g. infinitives and negative verbs) are justly treated as closed syllables because a final consonant has been lost. But (1) we find forms like auringoita, palkinnoita from aurinko, palkinto; (2) many forms seem to waver between p and v, e.g. pi or vi in the 3rd sing. of verbs; pa or va in the participle.

In Esthonian, where an almost identical rule is found, it is obvious that in the present state of the language at any rate the theory of the closed syllable does not apply at all.

It has been already seen that, though there is no actual proof that terminations in Finnish received the accent, the supposition that they once did so is not only agreeable to analogy, but explains many phenomena in the phonetics of the language. On this principle the rule about the closed syllable might be restated in the form that when a syllable received the accent, owing to the addition of a suffix[1], the consonant at the beginning of that syllable was weakened. Thus aúrinko remains with nk, aurinkón becomes auringon, but aurinkoná remains. The pronominal suffixes produce no change, because they are merely enclitic pronouns and have no accent. Auringoita can be easily explained by the tendency to accent a syllable containing a formative element and a diphthong. The advantage of this explanation of the weakening as due to change of accent is that, if true, it enables us to compare the phenomena presented by Finnish with laws accepted as prevailing in other languages, particularly with what is known in Teutonic philology as Werner’s law affecting non-initial soft spirants. By this law when χ, þ, f, s close the syllable bearing the chief accent they remain; in all other cases they pass into the corresponding sonants ȝ, ð, ƀ, z. Thus an original wórþe produces warþ, but an original (we)wurþmé produces wurðúm.

All Finnish accidence is concerned with the addition of suffixes to roots, subject to the above rules for the change of vowels and consonants. In the present state of the language these roots are mostly dissyllabic, though there are also plenty of monosyllables. There is reason to believe, however, that these dissyllabic roots are mostly the result of the combination of a monosyllable with very primitive suffixes, and it is probable that the original roots were of the form consonant + the vowel a + consonant. The root was differentiated in various ways by changing a to o, u, i, e, etc., by raising it to a diphthong or long vowel, or by altering the consonants within certain limits. Examples of this development of roots are contained in Donner’s Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Finno-Ugrischen Sprachen.

Finnish, like all the cognate languages, has no distinctions of gender. It possesses two numbers, the singular and plural, all traces of the dual which exists in Ostiak and Vogul having been lost. Three elements are used to form the plural—t, i, and loi. Of these t is found only in the nominative and genitive plural, in which latter case it appears variously as tt, d, or, like the t of the partitive and infinitive, is omitted. This suffix appears also in Esthonian (as d), Mordvinian, and Ostiak (tl). Vogul, Syrjenian, and Cheremissian have quite different suffixes, while Lappish and Hungarian employ the letter k, apparently identical with the g which characterises the dual in Ostiak and Vogul. It has been suggested that as k cannot be a final in Finnish, it has been changed to t; but Mordvinian, which has no objection to final k, also has t as a plural sign. The vowel i is used in all the cases except the nominative and genitive to mark the plural, being inserted immediately before the case termination. It is similarly used in Esthonian and Lappish, and there are traces of it in Hungarian. It has been explained as representing k weakened to j. In the Kalevala and many dialects (e.g. that of Savo) a suffix loi is found before the plural termination, chiefly in the partitive, essive, and translative: mahti-loi-ta, pilvi-löi-ksi, tähti-löi-nä. It is never found in the nominative, nor, for euphonic reasons, in the cases which otherwise contain l. The i is evidently the ordinary plural sign, and as pata + i + na becomes patoina, it is probable that this loi represents la + i. Ostiak has a suffix tl in the plural (but this appears to represent simple t), Cheremissian adds vlja or vila, and in Samoyede la appears to be used indifferently with t as a plural sign. The syllable la is used in Finnish to denote a place: e.g. setälä, uncle’s house, from setä, and lo is a diminutive termination. Possibly these forms should be treated as diminutives, but the analogy with Samoyede is curious. It is noticeable that according to our ideas the plural is not used very strictly; thus the numerals take a singular noun, the partitive when signifying many people likewise takes a singular verb; the verb on is used with the nominative plural, and in poems, proverbs, etc., a plural noun has as often as not a singular verb. On the other hand, the plural is often used where there seems to be no real idea of plurality. For instance, we find expressions like olla kylmillä, to be in the cold; omin luvin, of one’s own accord. The instructive, prolative, and comitative are generally used in the plural, even when one definite person is described, and there is no distinction between the singular and plural suffixes for the third person. Now, in some languages which appear to present the least developed type of the agglutinative principle, as for instance Manchu, the plural is not regularly distinguished from the singular, and though Finnish has advanced enormously beyond this stage, it appears to have developed a less acute sense of number than the Aryan languages. It is therefore very possible that some of the plural suffixes were in their origin not strictly plural. The t might thus be identical with that of the determinate accusative of pronouns (minut, etc.) and with the t or te, which characterises the definite declension in Mordvinian. Possibly the k of the other languages of the group may be connected with the suffixes -kko, -kkaha, which have an idea of quantity.

Nearly all the cases had originally a local meaning. On pp. [131-133] will be found some account of their relation to one another, and the development of their significations. As is there shown, there are three groups of cases which more or less correspond, the so-called interior and exterior groups, and another composed of the partitive, the essive, and the translative. These latter have simple suffixes, ta, na, and ksi. In the other groups another element is added to the suffix, in the interior cases s (supposed to represent sisä), and in the exterior l (supposed to represent luo). The terminations of the inessive (ssa), the elative (sta), the adessive (lla), and the ablative (lta) clearly stand for s + na, s + ta, l + na, l + ta. The combination n + ta is also used sporadically (p. [23]) to form a case analogous to the elative and ablative. The relation of the three cases indicative of motion to is, however, less obvious. The termination of the translative is ksi (or kse), that of the illative sen or h-n (with the vowel of the previous syllable between the two consonants), and that of the allative -lle, sometimes pronounced llen. Now, Finnish contains clear traces of a dative in -ne or -nek (pp. [24] and [128]). The illative shows a suffix -sen, but dialects give forms which represent he-sen or se-sen (which are supported by the analogy of other languages), which may be explained as the characteristic of the internal cases plus a case termination. The allative -lle(n) may therefore be explained as l + hen, though it can equally well represent l + ne. The termination sen, which is weakened to h-n, or merely n preceded by a long vowel, is perhaps for ksen, for the termination of the translative has a great tendency to be weakened and even disappear (alas, ulos, taa, ty’ö, 1st infinitives, etc.). We thus get three groups exactly corresponding: (1) na, ta, kse; (2) s + na, s + ta, s + ksen; (3) l + na, l + ta, l + kse.

The prolative, ending in -tse, is not often used and is perhaps identical with the termination -ten, found in some adverbs (täten, miten, siten, etc.). The caritive has regularly the termination -tta, but in adverbs this sinks to -ti (ääneti, huoleti). Dialectically are found tak, tah, and ta, and a comparison of the cognate languages leaves no doubt that taka or taχa was the original form. It is quite clear that this ending is closely connected with the caritive adjectival suffix -ttoma, which has much the same form in all the cognate languages, except Ostiak, where it is wanting. In Mordvinian we have vtomo or ftïma, and in Lappish täbme or tebme. Otherwise the suffix seems to represent an original tama. Perhaps the f or v of Mordvinian may represent some element (e.g. k) added to the stem before the suffix, which has produced in Finnish tt. The termination of the abessive has been explained as the word taka, back. But if this is so, what becomes of the caritive adjective, which shows no trace of this syllable ka? The conclusion that the element denoting absence or negation is ta—perhaps with some other consonant before it—seems inevitable. Ta is used to denote motion from (the original meaning of the partitive), and the connection between this idea and absence is not impossible.

There remain several cases characterised by the letter n, with or without a vowel. We have (1) a genitive, with the termination n in the singular, and taking t as well in the plural; (2) an accusative, found only in the singular and identical in form with the genitive; (3) an instructive identical in the singular with the genitive, but without the element t in the plural; (4) a comitative, formed with the syllable ne. This last may be explained as a local case, related to the syllable na of the essive or locative as the ta of the 1st infinitive is to the te of the second. The instructive termination is probably in reality the same as that of the genitive. It does not seem unnatural that a case denoting relation should be used adverbially to denote the manner in which an action is performed. The case is used chiefly in the plural, in which it does not take the element t, doubtless to distinguish it from the genitive. The genitive seems either to have or to have had the termination n in all the Finno-Ugric languages. It is noticeable that it is strictly a case representing relation, and does not denote origin. Its regular place is before the word which depends on it. It is probably akin to the dative ending in -ne. The accusative ending in n plays only a very small part in Finnish, as it is never used except to denote the total object in the singular of a finite verb. The partial object (p. [126]) is always in the partitive, whether singular or plural; the total object plural is in the nominative, and the total object singular of an imperative or impersonal (so-called passive) verb is also in the nominative. Usage with regard to the object of an infinitive is fluctuating, but the primitive rule seems to be that it was in the partitive or nominative. It would seem that when the agent is not defined (imperative, passive, infinitive) the simple nominative was regarded as sufficient, as there could be no confusion between the subject and object. But when the subject is expressed by a word or termination, it was felt necessary to emphasise the object by some termination. T in the plural was apparently enough, but in the singular we find n, which might be identified with the suffix of the genitive, but for the fact that Ostiak, Cheremissian, and Vogul have m or me, and Lappish m, b, p, or w pointing to an original m.

There is also a termination t occurring in the accusatives of the personal pronouns in Finnish, and found also in Hungarian, Mordvinian, and Syrjenian, which marks the determinate accusative. This is perhaps identical with the t of the plural. The nominative, as such, has no termination. In the plural it has the simple plural sign t; in the singular it is identical with the root, unless altered (as is often the case) by purely phonetic laws.