3. (a) =pi=, =vi=, long vowel =vat= or simple =t=.
(b) =sen=, =hen=, =se=, =he=.
We have now to consider what are the other formative elements used in
the Finnish verb, in doing which it is best to take first the finite
affirmative conjugation, leaving aside the negative and passive forms.
We may also leave aside the compound tenses which have doubtless arisen
under foreign influences (cf. the Magyar forms).
We have seen that in nouns the possessive affixes =n-sa=, =m-me=, =n-ne=
pointed to the fact that another element besides the strictly pronominal
affix was added to the stem. The =mme= and =tte= of the plural verb
are also best explained as =k + me=, =k + te=. This =k= occurs in many
other verbal forms, and is of rather uncertain meaning, but apparently
originally used in the present tense. It occurs in most of the cognate
languages, particularly Lappish. The moods and tenses of the Finnish verb
are very simple. The indicative has but two simple tenses (as in most of
the cognate languages), a durative, which answers to both our present
and future, and an aorist. There are three other moods, the potential or
concessive, which represents an action as possible but not actual, the
conditional, and the imperative, with which the optative may be taken to
form one tense.
The present indicative adds the personal endings direct to the stem; the
other forms add some element between the stem and terminations, which are
the same as in the present (=n=, =t=, =mme=, =tte=, =vat=), except that
the 3rd singular never takes =pi= or =vi=.
The past tense (generally called imperfect) is formed by adding the vowel
=i= to the stem, which generally causes euphonic changes. =Saa=, _to
receive_; =sain=, _I received_; =anta=, _to give_; =annoin=, _I gave_;
=tule=, _to come_; =tulin=, _I came_. This suffix is used in Lappish in
the forms =je=, =ie=, =i=, and traces of it occur in Magyar, Mordvinian,
Cheremissian, Syrjenian, and Vogul. Ostiak is peculiar in using the
simple stem for the past, and adding =de= to mark the present. The suffix
=i= or =je= is perhaps the same as =ja= used to form nouns expressing
the agent (e.g. =kalastaja=, _a fisherman_). Another termination used
extensively in all the Baltic dialects is =-si=. This is quite regular
in verbs whose root ends in =ta=, for =lupat(a)i= becomes naturally
=lupasi=, and =pyyt(ä)i= =pyysi= (_v._ p. 16 for detailed rules). But
in Esthonian and the South Western dialect of Finnish this termination
is added to a great many words which have no =t= in the stem. E.g.
Esthonian: stem =palu=, pres. =palun=, pret. =palusin=; stem =pühki=,
pres. =pühin=, pret. =pühkizin=. These forms are perhaps the result
of analogy, which was particularly easy on account of the contracted
verbs. A comparison of the present =lupaan= (from which =t= has been
lost) and the imperfect =lupasin= naturally suggests that =si= is the
characteristic suffix of the latter. On the other hand, Mordvinian,
Cheremissian, Vogul, and some forms of Ostiak (as well as the Samoyede
languages) all have =s= or =š= as a sign of the preterite, so that =si=
may possibly contain another tense element distinct from =i=.
The concessive is characterised by the syllable =ne=, or sometimes =no=
in dialects. A conjunctive formed with this element occurs in most of
Baltic dialects, Cheremissian, Vogul, and Ostiak.
The conditional has in Finnish a double suffix =i + si=. The =i= is
doubtless identical with that of the imperfect. The syllable =si= is no
doubt for =ksi=, for the Esthonian conditional is regularly formed with
this suffix. =Palu=, =wiska=, =pühki=, =sȫ= form =paluksin=, =wiskaksin=,
=pühiksin=, =sȫksin=. Esthonian generally has this suffix without =i=,
but the other Baltic dialects employ the Finnish form. Lappish also has
a subjunctive showing the syllable =kči=, =čči=, or =či=, but the form
is unknown in the Eastern languages. It is noticeable that both =ne= and
=se= are found in dialects doubled (=myysisin= from =myy=, _to sell_;
=tullenen=, for =tulnenen=, from =tulla=, _to come_), and also combined
in the form =neisi=, which occurs several times in the Kalevala (e.g.
xxiii. 219, 220. =Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi Mies nuori nuristuneisi=).
The imperative consists of a 2nd person singular, which in literary
Finnish is merely the root in a closed form (=anna=, =ota= from =anta=,
=otta=), but which in dialects is found ending in =k= (=annak=, =otak=,
etc.), and of a 1st and 2nd plural ending in =kaamme=, =kaatte= (or
=kaa=) in the literary language, though =kama=, =kamme=, =katte= are
also found. A 3rd person singular in =kaan= also occurs, but rarely.
The optative consists of a 2nd person singular ending in =os=, of a 3rd
person singular in =koon=, and a 3rd person plural in =koot=. These forms
have been generally explained as weakenings of suffixes =kasa= (=kaha=)
and =koso= (=koho=), and as representing =kasamme=, =kasatte=, =koso=,
=koson=, and =kosot=. It appears to me that the evidence brought forward
by Setälä (p. 111 ff.) disproves this theory. He points out (1) that
the forms =kaha=, =koho= never occur in those dialects which otherwise
preserve =h= between vowels, e.g. in the illative and passive; (2) that
the Eastern dialects change the =kaa= or =kää= of the imperative into
=koa=, =keä=, which change never occurs when an =h= has been lost.
Besides no particular explanation has ever been offered of the suffixes
=kasa=, =koso=. The proper suffixes then of the imperative and optative
are =ka=, =ko=, which are obviously related (cf. =ne=, dialect =no=, in
the concessive). These suffixes appear in Esthonian as =gā= (_dial_) and
=gu=, and a suffix =ka=, =k=, or traces of it, occurs not only in the
Baltic languages, but in all the other members of the group. It seems
to be identical with the =k= which appears in the negative conjugation
and elsewhere, and which is the least definite in signification of
suffixes merely indicating the verbal character of the root. Thus the 2nd
person singular of the imperative is an elementary verbal form without a
personal termination. The forms =kaamme=, =kaatte= have evidently added
to this suffix the personal termination. The long vowel appears to be an
invention of the modern literary dialect. In poetry and dialects we find
the forms =kämme=, =käme=, and =käte=.
The termination =os= of the optative is doubtless for =ko + s= where =s=
represents the 2nd person singular. In Kalevala xxxiii. 257-8 we find
a form in =kosi=, =Kun on kuollet kuolkosipa, kaotkosi kun kaonnet=,
cf. Kanteletar (p. 14, 2nd ed., 1884) =Tehkös liito lintuseni=. The 3rd
person singular ending in =koon= is undoubtedly for =kohon=, where the
second element represents the 3rd personal pronoun =hän= or =sen=. The
assimilation of the vowel to the =o= of =ko= resembles the phenomena
presented by the illative. The plural =koot= is similarly for =kohot=,
where the second element represents =het= or =set=, that is the 3rd
personal pronoun with the plural suffix. The terminations =kaan= and
=kaat=, which occur dialectically, show similar formations with the =ka=
of the imperative.
Besides the forms of the finite active verb discussed above, Finnish also
possesses what is called a passive, but is no doubt really an impersonal
verb, used in all the tenses but the imperative. From the root =tuo= come
the present =tuodahan=, imperf. =tuotahin=, concessive =tuotanehen=,
conditional =tuotaisihin=. But the root ending in a short vowel like
=repi= makes =revitähän=, =revittihin=, =revittänehen=, =revittäisihin=.
In all these forms the last element is obviously a termination =h-n=,
which is vocalized analogously to the illative. This is probably the 3rd
personal pronoun =hän= or =sen=. Besides this termination there is added
to the root the element =tta= after a short vowel, and =ta= after a long
one. This suffix is probably identical with the causal and transitive
terminations =ta=, =tta= (p. 110). Thus the passive forms are really
causal verbs used impersonally in the 3rd person singular.
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.