In this book I have endeavoured to give a simple and clear account of
the Finnish language, chiefly of that form of it which is now recognised
as the ordinary vehicle of literary composition, and have thought it
better to set aside as far as possible scientific disquisitions. I now
proceed to briefly discuss from a purely theoretical point of view some
of the phenomena presented by this curious tongue, in doing which I
must express my special obligations to the various works of Professors
Donner and Setälä, and also to the account of Die Sprachen der Uralischen
Völker in the second volume of Dr. Friedrich Müller’s Grundriss der
Sprachwissenschaft.
The phonetic system of Finnish is characterized by a great paucity
of consonants and a correspondingly great development of vowels. The
alphabet has but thirteen of the former: =d=, =g=, =h=, =j=, =k=, =l=,
=m=, =n=, =p=, =r=, =s=, =t=, =v=. Of these it must be observed that =d=
is in modern times only a literary invention, though as it exists in
Esthonian and other cognate languages there is no reason to object to
its use. It always represents a =t= which has been weakened by phonetic
laws, but in the mouths of the peasantry the sound is either entirely
omitted, or else replaced by a cerebral letter (represented in writing by
=l= or =r=) or by =v= or =j=. =G= also is only found in the combination
=ng=, which has exactly the same sound as in English. The letter =h= is
apparently never original in the middle of words. It appears to me to
have really two sounds—as an initial or between vowels, it is simply the
English =h=, but before =t= and =k=, it is =χ=. The other consonants
offer no remarkable peculiarities; =v= appears to be pronounced as in
English (labio-dental), and not to be a labio-labial (modern Greek β).
The simple consonants are pronounced much more lightly than in English.
=T= and =k= in the middle of a word when pronounced naturally by a
native, who is not trying to speak distinctly to a foreigner, often
seem almost inaudible, and it is noticeable that in foreign words, with
which the language is overrun, German and Swedish =k=, =t=, =p= (when
not initial) are always represented by =kk=, =tt=, =pp=. It is highly
probable that Finnish (like Esthonian) once had the sounds =b=, =d=,
=g=. In Agricola are found such forms as =näghe= for =näe=, =virdhat=
for =virrat=. On the other hand, everything points to the fact that the
original tongue from which the Finno-Ugric languages were developed had
only ten or eleven consonants: =k=, =t=, =p=, =s=, =j=, =r=, =l=, =n=,
=m=, =v=, and perhaps =h= or =χ=. For the many curious sounds found in
Lapp, Syrjenian, Ostiak, etc., all look as if they were degenerations
from a simpler original.
Finnish has eight simple vowels: =a=, =ä=, =e=, =i=, =o=, =ö=, =u=, =y=
(=ü=). All of these can be either short, or long, and in the latter
case the letter is written double. These doubled letters appear to be
genuine long vowels, and to contain no diphthongal element. There are
no triphthongs, but sixteen diphthongs, though on the whole Finnish has
more simple vowels than other languages of the same group, particularly
Lappish.
Though no difference is made in writing between the different values of
the vowel =i=, it appears that there really is a distinction between its
value in words like =otti=, or =oli=, where the vowels are hard, and in
words like =näki= where they are soft. The hard sound comes very near
the Russian =ы= and the Turkish =i̱= in such a word as اچملوايدكز
achmali̱yi̱di̱ni̱z.
The vocalization of words is governed by three laws. The first is well
known under the name of vowel harmony. The essence of this is that the
hard (=a=, =o=, =u=) and soft (=ä=, =ö=, =y=) vowels cannot coexist in
the same word. Not only the Finno-Ugric languages, but also Samoyede,
Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu, have this law at least in the rudimentary
form that a root does not contain both hard and soft vowels; but there
is much variety as to the degree in which the vowels of the suffixes
are assimilated to those of the root to which they are added. The most
highly developed form of the law is found in the Turkish dialects
(particularly in Yakut), where the vowels of the root and suffix must
not only not be discordant, but are as much as possible assimilated to
one another. Thus پدريكز is pronounced pederiniz, _your father_, but
دوستكز dostunuz, _your friend_. The same principle appears to prevail
in Samoyede, from which are cited such forms as =marg-an=, =tob-on=,
=üg-ün=, =tšel-en=. The other extreme, where the harmony prevails only
between the vowels of the root but not between those of the root and the
suffixes, is found in nearly all the Finno-Ugric languages except Finnish
and Hungarian. In some languages (e.g. Mordvinian) the harmony is not
rigorously observed even in the root. It is doubtful if such languages
really represent a more primitive phonetic system than Finnish. They
may have become affected owing to Russian influence by an inability
to accurately distinguish the hard and soft vowels, particularly =a=
and =ä=, for, though it is very probable that originally the vowel of
the suffix was not necessarily the same as that of the root, one would
expect those languages which retain the primitive system to distinguish
the suffix more clearly than the others from the root, which does not
seem to be the case. Finnish in this respect holds a midway position.
The vowels of the suffixes are not assimilated, as in Turkish, but they
are always of the same quality as those of the root. The suffix =s—n=
or =h—n=, however, found in the illative and passive, seems to show an
approach to the Turkish system, as its vowel is always the same as that
which precedes it: =kotihin=, =työhön=, =töihin=, =kylähän=, =talohon=,
=saa(d)ahan=, =saatihin=, =saatanehen=, =saataisihin=.
The second vocalic law of Finnish is the exact opposite of the vowel
harmony—viz. vowel differentiation. The occurrence of incongruous vowels
in one word is discordant, but the excessive repetition of the same vowel
is disagreeably monotonous. To avoid this =a= is often changed into =o=
in words where =a= is the dominant vowel (pp. 9, 10 for the details),
=patoja= for =pataja=, =annoin= for =annain=; but =otin=, =sotia= for
=ota-in=, =sota-ia=. So also in the Eastern dialect =kaloa= for =kalaa=.
On the same principle =a= and =ä= change to =e= in comparatives and
passives, and thus we have =vanhempana= and =tapetaan= instead of such
monotonous forms as =vanhampana= and =tapataan=. Also two =i=’s meeting
generally become =ei=.
The third rule relates to the disappearance of final or medial =e=, and
the consequent shortening of words. The chief accent of Finnish, as now
pronounced, is on the first syllable of a word, and it is therefore
very natural that final vowels should be omitted. In the dialect spoken
about S. Petersburg this phenomenon is very frequent and such forms as
=miss= for =missä=, =yks=, =kaks= for =yksi= and =kaksi= are common in
the mouths of the peasantry. This may, however, be due to the influence
of Esthonian and Russian. In correct Finnish final =e= is omitted only
in the nominative singular of polysyllabic stems, the consonantal
groups which remain being simplified if the laws of euphony require
it: so =sisare=, =tantere=, =kysymykse= become =sisar=, =tanner=, and
=kysymys=. In the middle of words the final =e= of a stem disappears
before nominal suffixes beginning with =t= (and sometimes =n=) and before
verbal suffixes beginning with =k= or =n=, and this rule applies to
dissyllables also. Now one would suppose on _a priori_ grounds that the
invariable accent on the first syllable is not original, but has replaced
some older and less simple system, just as the variable accentuation of
Russian is older than the stereotyped system of Polish. Even in modern
Finnish I doubt if the rule that every word is accented on the first
syllable is really true. An educated Finn will always maintain that in
a word like =revitään= the main accent is on the first syllable, but to
my ear it appears to be distinctly on the last (=-tään=), indeed, it
is hard to see how this long syllable could be pronounced without an
accent. What is undoubtedly true is that no syllables are slurred over
as in Russian and English. There is, as far as I know, no historical
proof that some of the suffixes were accented in Finnish; but it is
highly probable on general grounds and explains many phenomena presented
by both vowel and consonantal changes. For instance, the termination of
the first infinitive, =ta= (representing an original =tak= or =takse=),
when added to the stem =tule=, produces =tulla=, which is quite natural
if the original form was =tuletá=, as the light vowel would drop out
before the accented syllable; similarly =syöksenén= becomes =syösnen=
for =syöksnen=. Sometimes a whole syllable is omitted, e.g. =alenetá=
becomes =aleta=. For some reason the =e= is generally not omitted if
it is preceded by =k=, =p=, =v=, or =m=. This is not an absolute rule,
as one finds forms like =tointa= (st. =toime=), =nähdä=, =tehdä= (st.
=nähe=, =teke=), but it is hard to see why if =tule-tá= becomes =tulla=,
=luketá= should not become =luhda=. The length of the first vowel has
nothing to do with the matter, as =nouse= makes =nousta=. =A= and =ä=
occasionally disappear in much the same way. Thus =vieras= stands for
=vierasa=, =löynnyt=, =tiennyt= are formed from =löytä=, =tietä=; and
superlatives regularly lose final =a=; =suurin=, for =suurimpa=.
The rules for the changes of consonants fall into three main groups.
Firstly only =n=, =r=, =s=, or =t= are admitted as finals and only a
few simple combinations occur in the middle of words. When the loss
of a vowel produces groups which are euphonically disagreeable, they
are simplified; =veitstä=, =kolmant=, =suurimp=, =säkenöitstä= become
=veistä=, =kolmas=, =suurin=, =säkenöitä=.
The second group of changes concerns the letters =t=, =k=, =s=, =h=.
The group =ti= has always a tendency to become =si= in syllables which
never had the accent. The letter =h=, which is suspected of never being
original when a medial, represents =t=, =k=, and =s=. =S= between two
vowels immediately before a termination always becomes =h=. =Vierasa=
makes in the nominative =vieras=, =a= being lost owing to the accent
being on the first syllable. But the genitive =vierasan= becomes
=vierahan=, and in the ordinary language this is contracted to =vieraan=.
So too =t= becomes =h= under similar circumstances, perhaps having
passed through =s=. The nominatives =kevät=, =terve=, and =vene= appear
to represent stems =kevätä=, =tervete=, and =venete= (for the partitives
are =kevättä=, =tervettä=, =venettä=) and form the genitives =kevähän=,
=venehen=, =tervehen=. The same change appears in the declension of past
participles ending in =-nyt= or =-nut=. Again, =kt= before a termination
which was presumably once accented becomes =ht=—a combination of which
the language is very fond. Thus the roots, =haakte=, =ykte=, =kakte=
produce such forms as =haahden=, =yhtä=, =kahtena=, in all of which the
first syllable was probably not accented. But in the nominative the
first syllable was accented and the words became first =haakti=, =ykti=,
=kakti= (rule =15=), and then =haaksi=, =yksi=, =kaksi= (rule =37=).
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.
The Finnish adjective is not distinguished from the noun, but it presents
this peculiarity that contrary to the usage of the cognate languages it
agrees with its substantive in number and case. This is probably due
to Aryan influences, and has on the whole been a misfortune, for as
soon as it is possible to construct sentences in which the connection
of adjectives and substantives, far removed from one another in place,
can be indicated by similar terminations, it is inevitable that authors
should construct complicated phrases of the German or Greek type, which
so much disfigure contemporary Finnish literature.
Finnish possesses a comparative and superlative, both having the
termination =mpa=, the comparative being distinguished by the addition of
the letter =i= before this suffix. This =i= might possibly be identified
with that which marks the oblique cases of the plural, on the supposition
that it is a determinative element which gradually acquired a plural
signification in nouns. The comparative ending is also found in the
pronouns =jompi=, =kumpi=, and =molempi=. Though the present numerals of
the Finno-Ugric languages are based on a decimal system, it is clear that
the original base was seven. For in all the languages the numbers from
one to seven are obviously identical, whereas the words for eight, nine,
ten are different. Finnish, with the Baltic dialects, and Mordvinian,
represents ten by =kymmenen=, =kümme=, or =kemen=; Lappish, Cheremissian,
and Vogulian give =lokke= (or =loγe=), =lu=, =lau=, which signify simply
_number_ (Finn. =luku=). Ostiak has =jon=, which recalls the Turkish =on=
and Yakut =uon=, but which has also been explained as =ljon= (= =luku=).
Cheremissian has =das=, which looks as if it had been borrowed from the
Russian =десять=, though this explanation can hardly be extended to the
Magyar =tiz=. The numbers eight and nine clearly contain in most of the
languages the numbers two and one, so that they must mean ten minus two,
and ten minus one, but the element denoting ten is not clear: Finnish,
=kahdehsan=, =yhdeksän=; Lappish, =kaktse=, =aktse= (=kuekte=, _two_;
=akte=, _one_); Syrjenian =kökja-mi̱s=, =ök-mi̱s= (=ki̱k=, _two_; =ötik=,
_one_); Mordvinian, =kafksa=, =vehksa= (=kafta=, _two_; =ifkä=, _one_);
Cheremissian, =kändeχsje=, =indeχsje= (=kok=, _two_; =ik-tä=, _one_). The
Magyar, Ostiak, and Vogul for eight (=nyole=, =njigedlaχ=, =njålå-lu=)
seems related, but not the words for nine. The word for a hundred is the
same in all the languages.
The personal pronouns are declined almost exactly like nouns. =Minä=,
=sinä=, =hän= appear to represent original forms =mi-nä=, =ti-nä=,
=sä-nä= (? for =tä-nä=). The oblique cases in the singular of the 1st and
2nd person are formed either from the stems =minu= and =sinu= (which have
been adopted by the literary language), or =mu=, =su=. The plural stems
are =me=, =te=, =he=, apparently strengthened forms of =mi=, =ti=, =hi=,
which take =i= in the oblique cases, but which (like the demonstrative
pronouns) do not take =t= in the nominative.
The genitive of the personal pronoun is supplied by the pronominal
affixes, which are added to nouns. They are for the singular =ni=, =si=,
=nsa=; for the plural =mme=, =nne=, =nsa=. The 1st person singular =ni=
is difficult to explain, for the pronominal root is =mi=. Probably final
=m= was changed to =n= (cf. the verbs), and the =i= was a later addition.
So too the 2nd person singular varies between =si= and =s=. It is clear
that in the 3rd singular and all the persons of the plural an element,
perhaps the =n= of the genitive, is added to the noun, so that =nsa=,
=mme=, =nne= stand for =n-sa=, =n-me=, =n-te=. It is noticeable, however,
that in Ostiak and Vogul the 2nd person is distinguished by the element
=n=, and not =t=, in all three numbers: sing. =nen=, =nän=; plur. =nen=,
=nan=; dual =nin=. These suffixes are added to the declined noun, after
the case termination, whereas in Hungarian the case terminations are
added after the pronominal affix. In Cheremissian either combination
seems possible. It is a remarkable fact that when the pronominal affixes
cause a syllable to be closed, the initial consonant of that syllable
is not weakened as in other cases. =Tapa + mme= and =tapa + nsa= do not
become =tavamme=, =tavansa=, but =tapamme=, =tapansa=. The explanation
of this is very easy if the principles suggested above are correct.
The pronominal affixes are enclitics, and hence =tápa-nsa= does not
change its accent, while =tapa-lla= becomes =tavá-lla=. But what is much
more curious is that while the simple genitive singular and nominative
plural are =tavan= and =tavat=, the same cases with suffixes appear as
=tapamme= or =tapansa=. If these forms are not due to analogy they must
be explained on a principle which seems to prevail in Finnish, that it
is unnecessary to add more than one suffix defining the relations of
words, unless there is a question of local position. Thus in the plural
the sign of number is considered a sufficient mark both of the nominative
and accusative.
The other pronouns call for little comment, but it is noticeable that
the relative pronouns and adverbs are fully developed, so that, although
many phrases which we should render by temporal and relative clauses
are expressed by infinitives and participles (as in Turkish), they can
also be expressed by sentences like those of Aryan languages. All the
Finno-Ugric languages show an attempt to differentiate the verb from
the noun, which is least successful in the Eastern languages, and most
fully realized in Finnish. Yet here one can at once discard a mass
of forms—the so-called infinitives and participles—which are simple
substantives. Their use is explained on pp. 184-202. The infinitives
are formed with two suffixes, =ta= and =ma=. The first appears in the
1st infinitive as =ta=, =da=, or =a=, and in the 2nd infinitive, in a
weakened form, as =te=, =de=, or =e=. The second suffix =ma= appears in
the 3rd infinitive in its proper form, and as a diminutive in the fourth
and fifth infinitives, of which the latter is used only in one case.
The present participle, active and passive, is formed by adding =va=,
a common adjectival termination, to the simple or to the passive stem.
The past participle active is formed by adding =-nehe= (nom. =nut= or
=nyt=) to the stem (cf. such nominal stems as =venehe=, _boat_; =puhehe=,
_conversation_), while the past participle passive is a simple noun with
the suffix =u= or =y=, and identical with such forms as =luku=, =itku=,
=maksu= (p. 45), except that it has the =t= which characterises the
passive.
Setting aside these forms we have the finite verb, which shows two
distinct formations, indicating two separate modes of thought. The 1st
and 2nd persons singular and plural take suffixes obviously identical
in origin with the pronominal affixes, while the 3rd person, singular
and plural, is a simple predicate. The affixes for the verb are 1st sing
=n=, 2nd sing. =t=, 1st plur. =mme=, 2nd plur. =tte=. In as far as these
are not absolutely the same as the suffixes added to nouns, they show an
attempt to differentiate the verb, but =n= is clearly the same as =-ni=;
=t= is a more original form of the 2nd singular, which was once =ṭi=, and
=mme= is the same in nouns and verbs. The 2nd person plur. in nouns =nne=
has been already explained as =n-te=; in the verb =mme= and =tte= perhaps
represent =k + me=, =k + te=. Thus it is only in the 1st person plural
that the nominal and verbal suffixes absolutely coincide. =Toivomme=
means either _we hope_ or _our hope_.
The formation of the 3rd persons is quite different. The plural
termination is =vat=. In modern Finnish the singular, as a rule, takes
no termination, but merely lengthens the final vowel, if not already
long or a diphthong. But (as stated on pp. 62 and 63) the termination
=pi=, which is found in monosyllabic verbs, and in the weakened form
=vi= in others, is frequent in dialects, and used sometimes in the
literary language. This suffix appears in all the Baltic dialects in the
forms =b=, =p= for the singular, and =vat=, =ba=, =va= for the plural.
In Lappish it does not occur in the 3rd person sing. or plur., but in
the 1st person plural (=p=, =be=, or =p=), in the 2nd dual (=bätte=,
=ppe=, =bet=, =vette=) and plural (=bättet=, =ppet=, =bet=, =vetteð=),
and in the 3rd dual (=ba=, =van=, =v=). It also occurs sporadically in
Cheremissian as the sign of the 3rd person. Now it is quite plain that
the Finnish =-va-t= is the plural form of =pi= or =vi=. An analogy for
final =a= sinking to =i= can be found in the nominative and comparatives
(=suurempi= for =suurempa=), and it is therefore likely that the 3rd
person singular and plural ended in =pa= and =vat= (p. 15). No doubt this
=pa= or =va= is identical with the suffix of the present participle.
In the plural indeed the two forms are absolutely identical even in
the modern language: =tuovat=, =antavat=, =tulevat= are either the 3rd
person plural present or nominative plural of the participle present.
The 3rd person is thus simply a predicate, the verb substantive being,
as often, omitted. =Pa= or =va= would thus be in its origin a suffix of
the present: =pi= or =vi= does not appear in any of the other moods or
tenses, but =vat= is the universal termination of the plural. Perhaps
it was not original in any tense but the present, as Setälä quotes from
old writers and dialects such forms as =sanoit= (=sanoivat=), =näghitt=
(=näkivät=), =olisit= (=olisivat=), etc. But it must be remembered that
the termination =va= has not a marked temporal signification, as it is
used to form simple adjectives like =lihava=, _fat_; =terävä=, _sharp_.
If then we regard =saavat= as a simple adjective from the root =saa=,
denoting _taking_, there is no reason why =saivat=, =saanevat=, etc.
should not be adjectives from =sai=, =saane=, which express modifications
of that root. But this is a question of chronology, and it is more
probable that when those stems were formed =vat= was accepted as a suffix
of the 3rd plural. In Esthonian the =va= is sometimes added to the active
past participle (=tulnuva=), and similar forms are quoted from Agricola.
In modern Finnish the 3rd person singular generally ends simply in a long
vowel, perhaps the remains of a diphthong ending in =u=, which occurs in
some dialects.
Besides the personal terminations already discussed, we find in reflexive
verbs (in some of which however the reflexive meaning is not very
clear) =me= as the suffix of the 1st singular (=annoime=, =luome=,
=siirrime=[2]), =te= for the 2nd person (=weäite=, =seisotaite=,
=tungeite=), =ksen=, =kse=, =ihe= for the 3rd person. These latter forms
are carefully discussed by Setälä (Suom. Ug. Seuran Aikakauskirja, No.
II, 1887, p. 33 ff.), and he seems to prove satisfactorily that they
represent =k + sen=, of which the first element is a present suffix,
found also in the imperative and negative, and the second the pronoun of
the 3rd person, found also in the optative, passive, and other forms.
The terminations =me= and =te= might be explained as the original forms,
seeing that the roots of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are probably
=mi= and =ti=, but they are more likely to be due to false analogy, the
real meaning of =he= (= =sen=) in the 3rd person having been forgotten.