A Finnish Grammar

by Charles Eliot

It is noticeable that while the imperfects and other tenses are tuotihin, sanotihim, etc., the present has tuodahan, sanotahan, etc. This points to the syllable tta or ta having being closed originally by some element which has disappeared. Now the passive present in Esthonian is formed regularly with the syllable kse which is doubtless the present suffix k and the pronoun se. Thus the roots palu, wiska, and pühki form the passives palutakse, wizatakse, pühitakse corresponding very closely to an original Finnish sano + ta + k + sen which becomes sanota’hen and then sanotaan. Personal, neuter, or passive verbs are formed by the addition of the vowels u or y, with or without the addition of t, nt, or p (p. [111]). Such verbs, however, are not counted as part of the regular conjugation, as they cannot be formed from all verbal stems.

On the same footing as these reflexive verbs stand the various derivative forms described p. [110 ff.] Some of them—e.g. the causal suffixes—have so distinct a meaning and are used so frequently that they might almost be given among the regular forms of the verb; others are only added to comparatively few verbs and vary in their signification. Some of them are the same suffixes which occur in the regular conjugation; ksi, a frequentative or diminutive, is no doubt identical with the si of the conditional: ne, and perhaps the n of nta, is the suffix of the concessive; ele, or le, used in Finnish only to form frequentatives and diminutives, appears in Lappish as a sign of the subjunctive mood (Set. p. 158). It is thus clear that the verbal forms consist of a root (that is to say, a form which may be considered as a root for Finnish, without prejudice to the question how far it is absolutely primitive), to which are added certain formative affixes and a termination indicating person. Some of these formative affixes have been accepted as definitely indicating mood or tense, others have not been so accepted and have a vaguer signification. Thus anta + i + si + n is described as the 1st person singular of the conditional of anta, to give, isi being indicative of the mood, but käärämöittelee, which represents käärä + mä + i + tta + ele, is not regarded as having any modal or temporal suffix.

In Finnish, as in most of the cognate languages except Hungarian and Ostiak (where however there are traces of another system) there is no simple negative particle, and negation can only be expressed by means of the negative verb, en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät, which is prefixed to the closed form of the root. There is no doubt that this form has lost a final k, and is therefore identical with the second person singular of the imperative, and is the simplest verbal form. In the past, the past participle is used with the negative verb, and in the other moods the tense stem. The imperative and optative add ko to the stem and the negative particle is formed from the root äl or el which is obviously closely akin to such forms as ellen (p. [69]) and perhaps is the negative root combined with the suffix le.

Although the common opinion about Finnish is that it is hopelessly unlike any European language, it must be admitted by all who have studied it that it represents a very close approximation to the Aryan type, due no doubt to the strong and consistent foreign influence to which it has been subjected. As is well known, the vocabulary is overrun with German or Scandinavian words, often the equivalents of the simplest ideas, which have been borrowed, not lately, but before the earliest period of which we have any record. In the structure of the language itself this approximation is not less striking. It manifests itself in two ways—negatively and positively. As for the first, Finnish has abandoned many constructions which are found in the other languages of the group, but which are unknown to Aryan grammar. Thus we find no traces of the object being incorporated with the verb, or of the verb taking possessive as well as predicative suffixes. On the other hand, the positive resemblances are very numerous. It cannot be denied that the declensions, whatever be their origin, are in their present form very similar to those of Latin and Greek. The case suffix forms a whole with the noun; it influences the vowels and consonants of the latter; the pronominal suffixes must be added after it, and not between it and the stem. The only difference between Finnish and Greek or Latin declension is that the former is much more regular and transparent in its character, though, even here, some cases, as the partitive singular and genitive plural, show considerable diversity. The adjective is fully declined, agrees with its substantive, and takes degrees of comparison. The verb is clearly distinguished from the noun, and the scanty supply of primitive tenses has been supplemented by a number of forms combined with the auxiliary verb after the analogy of German or Swedish. There are a great many infinitival and participial constructions, which recall the Turkish; but, on the other hand, the relative pronouns and particles are fully developed. On the whole, it may be fairly said that Finnish really presents no great differences from Aryan languages except in its euphonic laws, the use of the pronominal suffixes, the infinitives and participles, and some syntactical peculiarities. Compared with such a language as Ostiak (or even Magyar) it shows the clearest traces of foreign influence, and of non-Aryan material recast in a western and Aryan mould.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that agglutinative languages represent a stage through which Aryan languages have doubtless past. The real difference between the forms presented by Finnish, and those of Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit, is that while the former has but a limited number of suffixes, and uses them regularly in the same sense, the latter had a superfluously rich store, and used sometimes one, sometimes another to express the same idea. Hence it is that we find different case endings for nouns, adjectives, and pronouns; and several ways of inflecting verbs and nouns.

The tendency to advance from the primitive forms and constructions of the Ugro-Altaic languages to a mode of expression more in harmony with western thought reaches its height in the modern literary Finnish. It is no reproach to this language to say that it is artificial. Nearly all modern languages have the same origin. Out of a mass of dialects one is selected by circumstances as representative, and becomes a language while the others remain dialects. A number of such dialects are spoken in Finland, and no doubt if any of them had received an independent literary development, it might have produced a language almost as different from written Finnish as is Esthonian. Neither can one be surprised at the number of newly invented words in Finnish. All the languages of modern Europe have borrowed the vocabulary of mediaeval Latin, either by taking the words as they found them, or by translating the component parts of them into equivalents supplied from their own grammar. English has generally adopted the former, German the latter method. Finnish has followed boldly in the same track, and endeavoured to find native equivalents for the chief modern ideas. It is perhaps presumptuous for a foreigner to judge whether the result is successful. One is inclined to think that the change has been a little too sudden. Finnish is an admirable vehicle for such poetry as the Kalevala or for simple narrative. It had not advanced at all beyond this state when it was used to represent the most complicated forms of European thought, and, as it still keeps its homely native character, the combination sometimes appears rather odd. Besides, as there is no authority to determine exactly what are the accepted phrases for the literary dialect, or the proper equivalents of foreign words, a good deal of confusion reigns, and even natives have occasionally some difficulty in understanding modern authors. It is a great pity that writers do not adopt a simpler style. As it is, they have chosen German models, and the combination of exceedingly involved phrases with manifold inflectional forms distinguished only by slight differences produces sentences which rival in difficulty ancient Greek, a language which was generally obscure except in the hand of a master. Yet though Finnish deserves its undesirable reputation of being the most difficult language spoken in Europe, except perhaps Basque, it seems to be an undoubted fact that the area over which it is spoken is being enlarged at the expense of Russian and Swedish.

The group of languages to which Finnish belongs is at present spoken by tribes scattered over the more northern parts of European Russia and immediately to the east of the Ural. In Siberia we have Ostiak, spoken by tribes about the river Obi (for the Ostiak of the Yenisei appears to be a different language), and Vogul, spoken by scattered tribes on either side of the Ural. With these languages is connected Magyar, though owing to foreign influences and its great literary development, comparable only to that of Finnish, it presents many peculiarities. Though both the grammar and vocabulary of these languages leave no doubt of their relation to the rest of the group, they differ from them in many points of detail. The case terminations present few resemblances; Vogul and Ostiak have a dual, and they all more or less employ constructions rejected by most of the other languages, such as the incorporation of the object in the verb, the distinction between predicative and possessive suffixes in the verb, etc. Also it is remarkable that they have not developed fully the peculiar negative constructions of Finnish and the more western languages.

East of the Voguls dwell a race called Syryenians or Zyrjenians (Russian Зыряне), whose head quarters are at the town of Ishma, on the Pechora; south of these again are the Votiaks, mostly in the government of Viatka. On the north bank of the Volga, to the west of Kazan, live the Cheremissians, speaking two dialects, some scattered settlements of whom are found further east, while to the south of these again, mostly about the rivers Oka and Sura, are numerous scattered settlements of Mordvinians, who have likewise two dialects. None of these are literary languages. Besides them we have Lappish, in three dialects spoken in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden, and Russia, and the various Baltic idioms, with Suomi or Finnish.

The relation of these languages to one another have been ably described in Dr. Donner’s work, ‘Die gegenseitige Verwandschaft der Finnish-Ugrischen Sprachen.’ He divides the whole group into two divisions, the first called Ugric, and comprising only Ostiak, Vogul, and Magyar; the second called Finnish, including all the other languages. This second or Finnish division is divided into two groups, the Permian and Volga-Baltic, the former including only the Syrjenians, Permians, and Votiaks, the latter again in two sub-divisions, the Volga group or Mordvinian and Cheremissian, and the West Finnish group including Lappish, Esthonian, and Finnish.