CC BY
30
D. V. Sidorkevich
ILI RAN, St. Petersburg
ON DOMAINS OF ADESSIVE-ALLATIVE IN SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH1 1. The outline
This paper is dedicated to the usage of syncretic adessive-allative case in a Finnish language variety spoken by a small group of Ingrians of mixed Finnish-Izhorian descent residing in Ryzhkovo village in the Western Siberia. Hereinafter I will refer to this variety as the Siberian Ingrian Finnish. My research is based upon the field data recorded in Ryzhkovo and Mikhailovka settlements (Krutinsky District of the Omsk Oblast) in 2008-2011. The materials include both instances of natural-occurring speech and questionnaire-elicited data. I deal with the semantics of adessive-allative case in Siberian Ingrian Finnish with the implication that the language has been exposed to a strong and diverse contact influence. Therefore, syncretic adessive-allative case patterns of usage in my material are compared with those of adessive and allative in Standard Finnish, Estonian, Ingrian Finnish of Ingria and sometimes Votic and Izhorian. The results of the analysis are presented in the final part of the paper.
2. Preliminary notes
2.1. On the origin of Siberian Ingrian Finnish
The first Ingrians came to the Western Siberia in 1804 from the Lower Luga area about 200 km west from St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg province2. Some forty years later their first settlement, Ryzhkovo, became an official colony for all Lutheran settlers coming to the Western Siberia, including Estonians, Latvians and Finns from the Grand Duchy of Finland. Through the last decades of the 19th century Ingrians in Siberia were under strong influence of Finnish Lutheran
1 Supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities, project 11-04-00172a.
2 This area is also sometimes called Estonian Ingria.
clergy and, as a result, under considerable influence of Standard Finnish.
The situation changed after the Russian Revolution signifying the end for the cultural frame within which Ryzhkovo Ingrians were regarded as Finns. For a short period of approximately 10 years Ryzhkovo Ingrians had Estonian as the language of schooling. Later on, especially after the World War II, contacts with Russian-speaking community became an inevitable part of Ryzhkovo social life.
By the end of the 20th century a rapid language shift has taken place. Ethnic languages, such as Estonian, Latvian and Finnish are now spoken in Ryzhkovo only by elder generations. Nevertheless, the preservation degree for this variety of Ingrian Finnish is better than for other varieties of Ingrian Finnish spoken in Ingria, as long as Siberian Finns, despite the difficulties and political pressure of late 1930’s and war period, were not relocated or scattered.
Present-day Ryzhkovo is a multiethnic settlement where Ingrians, Estonians, Latvians and Russians live together. Although Ryzhkovo is not the only place in Siberia where Ingrians were historically present, today it is the last place where they still regard themselves as a group and still use their native language regularly.
The main dialectological traits of Ryzhkovo Finnish still make it possible to correlate it with the Lower Luga Ingrian Finnish variety presently spoken in several villages in the western part of Ingria. The language of Ryzhkovo Ingrians is considered a ‘mixed one’ by its speakers. Indeed, multiple traces of various language contacts can be found in it3.
2.2. Some notes on Siberian Ingrian Finnish phonology and morphology
There has been no systematic study of Siberian Ingrian Finnish before, thus, all my remarks on Siberian Ingrian Finnish phonology and morphosyntax should be regarded as a brief preliminary overview. Below I will mention only several traits of Siberian Ingrian Finnish phonology which are necessary for further description.
3
More information about Ingian Finns in Siberia and Ryzhkovo settlement can be found in [Granö J. 1893; Granö J. G. 1905; Granö P. 1914, 1926; Juntunen 1982, 1983; Korb 2003, 2007; Сидоркевич 2012]. Some information on the language of Ingrian Finns in Siberia is given in [Злобина 1971; Nirvi 1972; Zlobina 1972].
Together with Finnish and Izhorian varieties of the Lower Luga area, Siberian Ingrian Finnish demonstrates strong reductional tendencies in non-initial syllables including syncope and apocope. Syncope and apocope are rather widespread in the Lower Luga dialects as well [Кузнецова 2009]; however, in Siberian Ingrian Finnish apocope seems to be more regular, while syncope sometimes alternates with less intensive forms of reduction.
For example, for all types of disyllabic foot structures with an open second syllable except CVCV apocope of the final vowel, if it was short, has taken place regularly. Following the same rule, there is no apocope in cases like tuli (come-PST.3SG) > tul’, oli (be-PST.3SG) > ol’ in contrast to many varieties of Ingrian Finnish, where this change has taken place. These word final sound phenomena are quite peculiar and in this respect Siberian Ingrian Finnish strongly resembles south and south-western Lower Luga Izhorian dialects as described in [Кузнецова 2012].
As well as in the Lower Luga area, it is possible to postulate here the existence of the so-called voceless final vowels, which can be perceived as a form of strong aspiration of the preceding consonant. Other accomodational phenomena also manifest themselves. If the reduced short final vowel in a disyllabic foot was o, u, о or U, the now final consonant is labialized. If the final short vowel was U or о, apart for the aspiration and labialization, the final consonant is palatalized. For the reduced final short i, the traces of the previously existing vowel will be palatalization of the preceding consonant or of both components of the consonant cluster. The reduced final short a, a and e in most cases leave no trace at all. Aspiration can be heard only sometimes after plosives and sibilants, while m, n, l and r are followed by a schwa-like sound, which can be easily dropped in quick speech. Graphically I prefer to indicate the ‘voiceless’ as o, u, о, u and ‘, although their phonological status is ambiguous. The now reduced etymologically short a, a and e in my transcription are not reflected.
There is also another type of apocope that has affected non-stem morphemes. Case markers seem to have lost their final vowels completely, although some postpositions and adverbs with adherent case markers retain them in their full form. Ingrian Finnish of Ingria is also widely reported to have lost final vowels in certain inflectional forms, such as partitive, elative, inessive, essive etc. [Lehto 1996: 24]. Due to
this process in Siberian Ingrian Finnish, two cases, adessive and allative, merged together resulting in one new syncretic external local case marker -l/-l’ (the second allomorph used for the front vowel stems). Seemingly there is also no opposition of single -l as the possible marker of allative and geminated -ll as the marker of adessive. In this respect Siberian Ingrian Finnish is similar to Peski-Luzitsy variety of Votic and southern Lower Luga Izhorian [Маркус, Рожанский 2011; Кузнецова 2012].
2.3. The generalized adessive-allative and its counterpart in Ingrian Finnish
It is predictable that the syncretic adessive-allative case is likely to combine the semantics of both adessive and allative. My material shows that such a generalization indeed has taken place. Moreover, the patterns of usage for this new case are different from Standard Finnish and in many cases resemble some Estonian and Russian constructions. However, to postulate a change in the semantic domains we must have some material for comparison.
Although there has been no previous research dedicated to Siberian Ingrian Finnish morphosyntax, an in-depth analysis of the corresponding cases in Ingrian Finnish was presented by O. Kokko in [Kokko 2007]. Besides diachronic sources and characteristics of external local cases in related languages, his study focuses on present-day morphological variation of adessive and allative markers in Ingrian Finnish speech. In many idiolects of Ingrian Finnish a generalized adessive-allative marker is used. O. Kokko provides a short description of usage patterns for this syncretic adessive-allative case. Many of those, which are uncharacteristic of Standard Finnish, get explanation in neighboring languages, representing the results of language contact with Estonian, Izhorian or Russian. According to O. Kokko, in most cases syncretic adessive-allative case corresponds to the adessive, the ending of which became identical to the allative ending due to elision. Adessive in Ingrian Finnish demonstrates many traits of a generalized external local case.
Adessive generalized semantics encloses a mixture of static and dynamic components of meaning. It is used more frequently than in Standard Finnish. As O. Kokko states, in the spatial domain, adessive has a tendency to be used ‘any time when there is problem with the selection of a case marker’ [Kokko 2007: 123]. Although the ablative set
of meanings stands aside, some of its roles have also been taken over. At the same time, if adessive and allative have different markers in one’s idiolect, only adessive is possible in temporal constructions and instrumental domain.
A very peculiar example of semantic change is the appearance of adessive and syncretic adessive-allative markers in necessity and sympathetic constructions. In Standard Finnish and the dialects within the territory of Finland the case expected here is genitive as the marker of the so-called genitive subject which stands for the recipient or experiences Only in Kainu dialect adessive is also possible in the constructions of this type. In Ingrian Finnish the corresponding positions are marked with generalized -l ending or adessive -llA ending. Estonian-like necessity constructions with the verb pitää and nominative subject are sometimes used as well. However, O. Kokko notes that in his material adessive and adessive-allative for this purpose are used only if the ex-periencer or recipient is animate. The parallel necessity constructions also exist in Russian: мне надо ‘I must, I need to’ (with dative), without a restriction to use it for inanimate experiencers; Izhorian: meil piti [Laanest (toim.) 1966: 177] and Estonian: mul on vaja, mul tuleb (with adessive).
The replacement of the ablative by the adessive and syncretic adessive-allative markers takes place in the domain of ablativus in-commodi, i.e. for the situations of loss or alienation. This can be explained by Estonian, Votic or Izhorian influence, where constructions of this type also exist4. In Russian they correspond to the construction with the preposition у + genitive, which is used to describe situations of possession, appearance, change of state or loss of an object in someone’s sphere of control. Thus, Russian can also be regarded as the source of influence here.
O. Kokko reports that in Ingrian Finnish adessive is widely used in age-expressing constructions. The possessive aspect here is evident: the situation is interpreted as if the person in question possesses the years denoting his age as a kind of entity (the way it happens, for example, in French). This construction is possible in some dialects of Finland, while for Standard Finnish predicative constructions are typical. O. Kokko concludes that the above-mentioned types of usage
4 For more information on the ablative patterns of usage in Ingrian Finnish see [Федотов 2012].
support the idea that adessive in Ingrian Finnish has a tendency to intensify the possessive, habitive aspect of its meaning.
In the temporal domain adessive also demonstrates signs of generalization. It is used for ordinal numerals denoting dates and years,
i.e. in the constructions consisting of year and its attribute expressed by an ordinal numeral. In the dialects of Finland the inessive and essive are more common for this purpose. The dialects of Ingria differ in this respect most likely depending on the prevailing contact influence. O. Kokko notes that adessive in temporal domain is rather rare in Northern Ingria, appears a little bit more frequently in the central part of Ingria, and is widespread in Western Ingria and the so-called Estonian Ingria. However, in the latter two areas the constructions are different. In the idiolects of Estonian Ingria both the attribute and the head-word of the construction have the adessive marker (the way it happens in Estonian), while in Western Ingria there is a disagreement between the headword with a partitive marker and the attribute with the adessive marker. The concurrent construction is reported in Izhorian [Laanest (toim.) 1966: 186].
The instances listed by O. Kokko all find parallels in my material. There are also some cases which he does not list, but that seemingly belong to the manifestations of the same tendency. I also must add that my corpus of Siberian Ingrian Finnish speech is too small to make any far-reaching conclusions. I just try to list the examples that support the idea of a generalized external local case. For this purpose it is reasonable to have a closer look at the neighbouring languages. As it has been already said, Estonian was one of the major languages influencing Siberian Ingrian Finnish since the middle of the 19th century. The contacts with the speakers of various Finnish dialects and Standard Finnish took place mostly before 1920’s, while Votic and Izhorian could have left some substratum influence.
3. The functional domains of adessive and allative in Estonian and Standard Finnish
3.1. General notes
In general, there are four main functional domains for local cases in Finnic languages, both external and internal: spatial, temporal, possessive and instrumental, the last three being examples of semantic extension [Grünthal 2003: 128-131]. External local cases as compared
with internal ones have a stronger tendency to take grammatical roles. What will be described below can also be interpreted as a case of further development of the tendency when ‘concrete meanings serve as structural templates to denote more abstract meanings’ [Heine 1997: 36]. Below I try to summarize the general set of meanings for adessive and allative in Standard Finnish and Standard Estonian basing mainly on [Пялль 1955; Ыйспуу 1999; Viitso 2003; Erelt et al. 2007] for Estonian and [Серебренников, Керт (ред.). 1958; Penttilä 1963; Atkinson 1969; Karlsson 1999; Мосина 2004; Hakulinen et al. (toim.). 2004] for Standard Finnish. In some cases I will also give parallels from Votic and Izhorian. The meanings are distributed among the four main functional domains.
3.2. Adessive in Standard Finnish and Estonian The core spatial domain for adessive is the same in both languages. The principal difference between Finnish and Estonian manifests itself in the possessive and instrumental domains. Adessive set of meanings in instrumental domain in Finnish includes instrument and manner with various shades of meaning, while in Estonian instrumental domain is mostly maintained by comitative. At the same time, the number of verbs and constructions that commonly require adessive in Standard Estonian is bigger than in Finnish.
3.2.1. Spatial domain. In contrast to the internal local cases, adessive serves to denote a less intensive contact between the objects. It mainly denotes localization on the surface of an object without a penetration (1) or being in a certain situation or state (2), (3) [Erelt et al. 2007]. Adessive in Standard Finnish, as well as in Estonian, sometimes alternates with inessive and for many lexemes both cases can be used. As opposed to inessive, adessive often indicates that the place is not entered but rather approached. Adessive tends to be used more frequently for places that have vague borders.
ESTONIAN
(1) seina-l ripu-b pilt.
wall-AD hang-PRS.3SG picture
‘There is a picture on the wall.’
(2) mind ei ole homme töö-l.
1 SG.PRT NEG.3SG be tomorrow work-AD
‘Tomorrow I will not be at work.’
(3) naeru-l näo-ga laugh-AD face-COM
vaata-s Jüri meie poole.
look-PST.3SG Jüri 1PL.GEN at
‘With a smiling face Jüri looked at us.’
3.2.2. Possessive domain. Adessive in Standard Finnish and Estonian can mark personal space or possessor’s sphere of control. The main difference between Finnish and Estonian adessive is that adessive in Finnish is normally used for animate possessors, while inanimate possessor can only be marked with inessive. It is often stated that inessive in Finnish is used in possessive constructions when the possession is inalienable. Estonian adessive is able to express situations of possession for both animate (4) and inanimate objects (5). Moreover, adessive in Estonian can serve to denote an experiencer [Viitso 2003: 99-100]. Its meaning in the corresponding constructions (6), (7) can be attributed to the possessive domain, as if the state was a kind of entity possessed by the experiencer. In Finnish sympathetic constructions of the type (7) are also common, but adessive is not the only possible case here: genitive can be used as well (8).
ESTONIAN
(4) Jaagu-l on kolm last.
Jaak-AD be.PRS.3SG three child.PRT ‘Jaak has three children.’
(5) lambi-l on uus pirn.
lamp-AD be.PRS.3SG new bulb
‘There is a new bulb in the lamp.’
(6) mu-l on külm.
1SG-AD be.PRS.3SG cold
‘I am cold.’
(7) minu oe-l on kerge oppi-da.
1SG.GEN sister-AD be.PRS.3SG easy study-INF
‘It is easy to study for my sister.’
FINNISH
(8) minu-n ol-i lämmin.
1SG-GEN be-PST.3SG warm
‘I was warm.’
In Estonian, adessive can also be used in impersonal constructions when the described situation belongs to the experiencer’s personal space, sphere of control or concern (9). In this case the role of experiencer cannot be reduced to the role of beneficiary. It is rather used to describe the state of things at the experiencer’s disposal, both positive and negative. This type of usage is not typical for Finnish. In Finnish possessive constructions describing state of affairs at someone’s disposal cannot involve finite verb forms except copula. Only constructions with copula + inessive form of supine or an adverb are possible (10)5. Moreover, as it has been already stated, adessive is unlikely to be used in the situation of loss or alienation. The normal case for expressing this meaning in Finnish is ablative.
ESTONIAN
(9) ta-l vii-di vend haigla-sse.
3SG-AD take_away.IPS.PST brother hospital-ILL ‘His/her brother was taken to the hospital.’
FINNISH
(10) minu-lla on
1SG-AD be.PRS.3SG
‘My potato is boiling.’
3.2.3. Temporal domain. In temporal sphere adessive can alternate with inessive and essive in both languages. In Standard Finnish, adessive is normally used for periods of time, such as a week, decade, moment, hour, season or part of the day. Adessive mostly maintains the sphere of temporal expressions without attributes (11). If there is an attribute, then it is likely to be in nominative or partitive and the head noun receives adessive ending (12). Quite the reverse, Estonian adessive is mostly used for months, dates and noun phrases containing an attribute (an adjective or a pronoun). The agreement of the case markers in the latter situation is necessary (13).
FINNISH
(11) yö-llä pitä-isi night-AD have_to-CND.3SG ‘One must sleep at night.’
5 Special thanks to Natalia Kuznetsova who kindly checked constructions of this type with a native speaker of Finnish.
nukku-a.
sleep-INF
peruna-t kiehu-ma-ssa. potato-PL boil-SUP-IN
(12) viime tunni-lla puhu-i-mme objekti-sta.
last lesson-AD talk-PST-lPL object-EL
‘The last lesson we talked about the object.’
ESTONIAN
(13) se-l aasta-l tule-b soe suvi.
this-AD year-AD come-PRS.3SG warm summer
‘This year the summer will be warm.’
In Standard Finnish adessive can also denote the age of somebody or something in weeks, months or years with an ordinal number in a phrase consisting of the verb olla ‘to be’ as the predicate and a temporal NP as the attribute, both in adessive:
FINNISH
(14) lapsi on neljanne-lla vuode-lla.
child be.PRS.3SG fourth-AD year-AD
‘The child is on his fourth year.’
3.2.4. Instrumental domain. In Standard Finnish adessive has two additional domains, instrumental (adessivus instrumenti, (15)) and manner (adessivus modi, (16)). I include adessivus modi in this section since in many instances it is hard to distinguish instrument and mode (like it happens in (16)). Moreover, adessive can also indicate intensity and amount.
FINNISH
(15) han kirjoittaa kyna-lla.
3SG write.PRS.3SG pencil-AD ‘He writes with a pencil.’
(16) puhu-kaa kova-lla aane-lla.
speak-IMP.2PL strong-AD voice-AD
‘Speak loud.’
As it has been already said, adessive is not used in instrumental/manner domain in Estonian except for some peculiar cases. In [Erelt et al. 2007] one can find several very specific examples of adessive used to indicate instrument (17), means of transportation (18) and manner (19). However, it would be dubious to ascribe instrumental meaning to the adessive marker itself here. Example (17) rather represents a syntactic borrowing from Russian (играть на пианино, lit. ‘play on the piano’). In (18), adessive can be interpreted as denoting
position (a person indeed sits on top of the bike). The last example cited is likely to represent an ideomatic expression. With the exception of these cases, meanings included in instrumental domain in Standard Estonian are expressed by comitative.
ESTONIAN
(17) Mari mängi-b klaveri-l.
Mary play-PRS.3SG piano-AD ‘Mary plays the piano.’
(18) ta soiti-s jalgratta-l
3SG drive-PST.3SG bike-AD ‘S/he went to Pirita by bike.’
(19) Mari kuula-s kikkis
Mary listen-PST.3SG upright ‘Mary was all ears.’
3.2.5. Verbal phrase. In Estonian indirect objects of some verbs
can be in adessive, such as the verbs laskma ‘let’, lubama ‘allow’
and several others. The verb aitama ‘help’ can also have indirect object in adessive. It is hard to explain its appearance in cases like (20)-(23) using a single principle. There is a temptation to plead Russian influence keeping in mind that Russian translations of the phrases will all require indirect object in dative. However, such an explanation is disputable. Dative is more likely to be associated with a directional case, such as allative, not a static one. The indirect object of some of these verbs has the meaning of experiencer (23). The corresponding verbs in Standard Finnish have their indirect objects in genitive and the meaning of experiencer in general is not typical for Finnish adessive.
ESTONIAN
(20) lase ta-l minna.
let.IMP.2SG 3SG-AD go.INF
‘Let him/her go.’
(21) luba lapse-l oue
allow.IMP.2SG child-AD yard.ILL ‘Let the children go to play outside.’
(22) lapse-d aita-vad ema-l
child-PL help-PRS.3PL mother-AD
‘The children helped their mother to
mängi-ma minna. play-SUP go.INF
tube korista-da
room.PRT.PL clean-INF clean the room.’
Pirita-le.
Pirita-ALL
korvu-l.
ear.PL-AD
(23) see asi unune-s mu-l taielikult.
this thing be.forgotten-PST.3SG 1SG-AD completely ‘I have completely forgotten this thing.’
3.3. Allative in Standard Finnish and Estonian The general set of meanings for allative in Standard Finnish and Estonian is narrower as compared to adessive, and in many cases allative can alternate with illative. In general, allative usually denotes locations, more or less abstract, and other goals including states approached or gained in the process of action and, finally, personal space or sphere of control entered by something or someone. For those lexemes that permit both cases, allative and illative, illative is rather used to denote localization, while allative has an additional meaning of intentional presence (with a certain purpose).
3.3.1. Spatial domain. Allative in Estonian and Standard Finnish has approximately the same set of meanings, including the ability to denote more or less abstract locations and goals (24)-(28). The core meaning of allative is usually described as directedness towards external side of an object or its surface, without penetration or close contact. Situations serving as a goal and marked with allative are also typical for both languages. More abstract goals, such as states, are not so frequent, but, according to the same principle, can be attributed to the spatial domain perceived in more abstract sense. Semantics of Estonian allative in change of state cases (29), (30) is sometimes regarded as being close to the meaning of result [Erelt et al. 2007]. Finnish allative constructions of the type mennaan kahville / lounaalle / kaljalle ‘let’s go to have some coffee / for a dinner / for a drink’ can also be interpreted as examples of directedness towards a situation, not a target in space.
FINNISH
(24) lahde-mme-ko ostoks-i-lle ?
go-lPL-IMP purchase-PL-ALL
‘Shall we go shopping?’
(25) kuka vie koira-n kavely-lle?
who take_away.PRS.3SG dog-GEN walk-ALL ‘Who will take the dog for a walk?’
(26) Tapio lahtee matka-lle huomenna.
Tapio leave.PRS.3SG trip-ALL tomorrow ‘Tapio is going for a trip tomorrow.’
ESTONIAN
(27) lähe-n töö-le kell seitse.
go.PRS-1SG work-ALL clock seven
‘I go to work at 7 o’clock.’
(28) ode lähe-b mehe-le.
sister go-PRS.3SG man-ALL
‘Sister is getting married.’
(29) ilm lähe-b vihma-le.
weather go-PRS.3SG rain-ALL
‘The weather is going rainy.’
(30) tüdruku nägu läk-s naeru-le.
girl.GEN face go-PST.3SG smile-ALL
‘The girls face went smiling.’
3.3.2. Possessive domain. In possessive domain allative usually marks recipient, when the action is directed towards an addressee. As well as adessive, Estonian allative can be used for both animate (31) and inanimate (32) recipients. It also should be noted that the role of recipient here does not imply only positive gaining, i.e. the role of beneficiary. In Standard Finnish only an animate recipient can be marked with allative. Allative usage also implies the role of a beneficiary. Allative as well as adessive in Standard Finnish cannot be used in situations of loss or alienation, for which ablative is normally used.
ESTONIAN
(31) ema-le saabu-s telegram.
mother-ALL arrive-PST.3SG telegram
‘There was a telegram for mother.’
(32) kirjuta-n selle-le laulu-le viisi.
write.PRS-1SG this-ALL song-ALL melody .PRT
‘I will write a melody for this song.’
3.3.3. Instrumental domain. Finnish allative, as well as adessive, has a type of usage which is not common for Estonian and seemingly belongs to the instrumental domain. It is the case of complements for such perception verbs as maistua ‘taste’, haista ‘smell’, kuulostaa ‘sound’, näyttää ‘seem’, tuntua ‘feel’ and some others.
FINNISH
(33) ruoka maistuu kala-lle.
food taste.PRS.3SG fish-ALL
‘The food savours of fish.’
(34) han nayttaa opettaja-lle.
3SG seem.PRS.3SG teacher-ALL
‘S/he looks like a teacher.’
3.3.4. Verbal phrases. In Standard Estonian, there are some verbs, such as andma ‘give’, hilinema ‘be late’, lubama ‘allow’, minema ‘go’ the indirect object of which is in allative [Erelt et al. 2007]. In Standard Finnish, the number of verbs like this is smaller and mostly includes verbs of mental and speech activity. Again, there is no single principle that could explain the broader range of verbs requiring allative in Estonian. However, these examples of allative usage can be logically distributed between the spatial and possessive domains. Impersonal constructions with the verbs meeldima ‘be pleasant (for someone)’ (35) and maitsema ‘be liked, please’ (about food and drinks) stand aside. The complement marked with allative here can be only interpreted as denoting experiencer. This is a type of usage not typical for Standard Finnish.
ESTONIAN
(35) venna-le meeldi-b siin ela-da.
brother-ALL be_pleasant-PRS.3SG here live-INF
‘The brother likes living here.’
After this rather brief summary of adessive and allative domains in Standard Finnish and Estonian, we will have a closer look at how they manifest themselves in Siberian Ingrian Finnish.
4. The functional domains of adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish
4.1. Spatial domain
The core set of meanings in spatial domain for syncretic ad-
essive-allative case in Siberian Ingrian Finnish does not differ a lot
from Standard Finnish and Estonian. It is used to denote (i) localization on the surface of an object or presence in a certain situation and (ii) directedness towards the external side of the object or its
surface. It is also widely used to express place of destination, both concrete (36) and abstract (37), such as a working place, situation or the area in immediate proximity to the object in question (38), (39):
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
Ua-l ’ mani
night-ADALL go-PST.3SG
tolka-l tUa-l’.
threshing_floor-ADALL work-ADALL
‘At night (she) went to work to the threshing floor.’
voi-b manno tantsu-l?
can-PRS.3SG go.INF dance ■-ADALL
‘Can I go to the dancing party?’
ota pank i mane
take.IMP.2SG bucket and go.IMP.2SG
‘Take the bucket and go to the well.’
joka Uks manno omm-i-l
each one go.PRS.3SG own-PL-ADALL
‘Each one goes to his or her graves.’
kaeva-l. well-ADALL
hauto-l.
grave.PL-ADALL
Sometimes adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish appears in contexts for which illative is more common (40)-(42). For example, in Ingrian Finnish varieties of the Lenigrad region a case normally used in phrases (40)-(42) is illative. In Standard Finnish illative as compared to allative is used in situations when more concrete and close spatial relations are implied. This can explain the case in (40), where no actual spatial relations are involved, but not the cases in (41), (42). One might suppose that this happens because adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish can be used more extensively for the meanings of goal or target, no matter to what extent the spatial relations are concrete or abstract.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(40) hä tul-i takas' pere-l'.
3SG come-PST.3SG back family-ADALL
‘He came back to his family.’
(41) miehe-l' visk-si-n kive-n.
man-ADALL throw-PST-1SG stone-GEN
‘I threw a stone at the man.’
(42) mie visk-si-n kive-n kukki-l’.
1SG throw-PST-1SG stone-GEN flower-PL-ADALL ‘I threw a stone at the flowers.’
In Siberian Ingrian Finnish, adessive-allative is sometimes used for the points of time and occasions by which or for which something is done, which can also be regarded as a kind of goal or target in time. For this purpose in Standard Finnish and Estonian translative is normally used. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish, there is a fluctuation between translative (43), (44) and adessive-allative in this domain, although the latter is less frequent. The appearance of adessive-allative here (45) can be explained, on the one hand, by Russian influence, as long as Russian equivalent of the phrase in question has a construction with preposition на (‘upon’) + N[ACC], which is likely to be copied by implementing adessive-allative. On the other hand, this can be viewed as an example of further development of the adessive-allative ability to express the meaning of spatial andIor temporal goal.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(43) tätä tuppa tökkö-t kiire,
this.PRT house.PRT make-PRS.3PL fast duuma-n et talve-ks tökkö-t.
think.PRS-1SG that winter-TRL make-PRS.3PL
‘They are building this house fast, I think by winter they will build it.’
(44) mie ompl-i-n plat’je-n pühä-ks.
1SG sew-PST-1SG dress-GEN celebration-TRL ‘I made a dress for the celebration.’
(45) nämä raha-t pulma-l.
this.PL money-PL wedding-ADALL ‘This is the money for the wedding.’
At the same time, the semantics of goal in (44) and (45) can partially correspond to the meaning mentioned for Estonian allative used
to denote a state entered by a person or an object. In my Siberian Ingrian Finnish materials there were several examples of adessive-allative in the meaning of state acquired by the subject (46). In this sphere ad-essive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish also competes with translative generally used for situations of changing states. Obviously, Estonian influence is also a possibility here.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(46) ni siis lapse-t käv-i-vät varka-l.
so then child-PL go-PST-3PL thief-ADALL
‘So the children went stealing.’
However, in Siberian Ingrian Finnish there is one more construction to express the meaning of goal or purpose. It consists of a noun in genitive + postpositions jäles (47), (48), ‘after’, ‘behind’. This looks like a case of direct syntactic transfer from Russian where a construction with preposition за ‘after, behind’ + N[INSTR] is used in the same context (‘to go somewhere to get the object’). But Russian influence is not the only possible explanation for this case. In Estonian, there are several postpositions able to express the same meaning: järele ‘behind, following’ andjaoks ‘under’, ‘for’. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish the postposition jaoks, seemingly a loanword from Estonian, is also occasionally used. These two postpositional constructions, with the postpositions jäles and jaoks respectively, seem to displace adessive-allative in situations when the motion is aimed at obtaining some concrete object.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(47) hä män-i vee-n jäles.
3SG go-PST.3SG water-GEN after
‘SIhe went to bring water.’
(48) käivi-ksi-t sie leivä-n jäles.
go-CND-2SG 2SG bread-GEN after
‘Would you go and buy some bread.’
We can suppose that adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish is gaining a more general meaning of directedness towards an object, point of time or a state. Due to its universality, adessive-allative sometimes replaces illative with its more concrete spatial semantics when there is
a choice between the two forms. At the same time, this tendency is not
unidirectional. Parallel Russian and Estonian analytical constructions are able to reduce the scope of meanings considered normal for adessive and allative in Standard Finnish, as it happens for example in (47), (48).
4.2. Possessive domain
Possessive relations represent a more grammatical sphere of local cases semantics. Adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish has a tendency to take over some functions which were previously rendered
by genitive, the way it also happens in Estonian as compared to Standard Finnish. M. Hint in [Hint 1999] points out that under Indo-European pressure colloquial Estonian demonstrates a shift from the left-branching nominal attributive constructions of the type N[GEN] + N[NOM] towards the right-branching adverbial constructions with adverbial modifiers (e.g. N[NOM] + N[ALL] where N[ALL] can be regarded as a kind of adverbial modifier). Although constructions of the second type are considered stylistically inferior, they cannot be ignored as long as they seemingly represent a new grammatical trend. In my Siberian Ingrian Finnish materials there are examples of the same kind (49). However, some of them have retained non-inverted left-branching word order (50), (51). At the same time, in some situations it was obvious that adessive-allative appeared in my materials when the informant was experiencing difficulties trying to produce the genitive plural forms. Due to many syntactic reasons genitive plural is a relatively rare form and thus it can get lost in the process of language
attrition. An easily generated adessive-allative form seemingly helps the informant to fill in the paradigmatic gap with no damage to the general sense of the phrase.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(49) kato müö-tävä-l’ tua-l.
roof sell -PTCP_PR S_IPS- ADALL house-ADALL
‘The roof of the house on sale.’
(50) maanteki-l illa-t on ikävä-t.
Monday-ADALL evening-PL be.PRS.3SG dull-PL
‘Monday evenings are dull.’
(51) tämä tupa seiso vas san mei-l tuppa.
this house stand.PRS.3SG opposite 1PL-ADALL house.PRT
’This house is across the street from our house.’
In Estonian, as H. K. Rätsep notes in [Рятсеп 1974: 30-31], possessive forms of adessive and allative can be used when the possession is alienated, while for inalienated possession genitive is more common. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish (52)-(56), the type of possession seems to be irrelevant. Adessive-allative in sentences listed below can, on the one hand, be interpreted in its normal possessive meaning analogous to Estonian and Finnish in phrases of the type (4). On the other hand, the way it happens in Estonian, Siberian Ingrian Finnish adessive-allative is
seemingly used to describe the state of affairs in one’s sphere of control or concern without actual possession. Moreover, the phrases of this type can contain finite verbal forms (53)-(55). As it has been already said, this is possible in Estonian, mainly with impersonal verbal forms, but restricted in Finnish. At the same time, in Russian there is a parallel construction with preposition у + N[GEN] to describe the state of affairs in one’s sphere of control with finite verbal forms, which probably gets copied here. In this respect the situation in Siberian Ingrian Finnish is very similar to other Ingrian Finnish varieties described in [Kokko 2007; Федотов 2012], where adessive commonly replaces ablative in the situations of loss or alienation in one’s sphere of control or concern. See, for example, instances (55), (56) requiring ablative in Standard Finnish, and frequently used with adessive in Ingrian Finnish of the Leningrad region.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(52) mamm ol-i mei-l' hüvä tüömies.
mother be-PST.3SG 1PL-ADALL good worker ‘Our mother was a hardworking person.’
(53) mamm näk-i mei-l’ pallij vaiva meje-ykä.
mother see-PST.3SG 1PL-ADALL many difficulty.PRT 1PL-COM
‘Our mother saw many troubles with us.’
(54) miu-l tarelka-s ujju kärpen.
1SG-ADALL plate-IN swim.PRS.3SG fly
‘I have a fly in my plate.’
(55) miu-l ensmäin poikain ja kual’.
1 SG-ADALL first son also die.PST.3SG
‘My first son also died.’
(56) häne-l vanemma-t kual-i-vat Riskova-s.
3SG-ADALL parent-PL die-PST-3PL Ryzhkovo-IN
‘His/her parents died in Ryzhkovo.’
Another type of possessive constructions with adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish belongs to the type ‘be somebody for someone’. This also has an equivalent in Russian, i.e. он мне друг, lit. ‘he is a friend for me’ (57), (58). Most likely, this is one more example of syntactic transfer, although the usage of adessive-allative in its possessive function here is quite predictable.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(57) ol-i ha druk, podrusk siu-l vai tovariss,
be-PST.3SG 3SG friend girlfriend 2SG-ADALL or comrade
vai mika ha siu-l ol-i?
or what 3SG 2SG-ADALL be-PST.3SG
‘Was she your friend, girlfriend or comrade, or who she was for
you?’
(58) ha miu-l enne ei ole druk.
3SG 1SG-ADALL any_more NEG.3SG be friend
‘S/he is no longer a friend of mine.’
Moreover, adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish frequently marks experiencer, beneficiary or ‘maleficiary’ of some situation. Constructions of this kind are widespread in Estonian (59) but never occur in Finnish (60) because, as R. Grunthal points out, adessive in Finnish can also mark an instrument [Grunthal 2003]. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish, where instrumentality is expressed by comitative in compliance with the Estonian model and possessive markers are absent, there is no risk that experiencer and instrument get confused (61).
ESTONIAN
(59) ema pes-i ohtu-l las-te-l jalgu.
mother wash-PST.SG3 evening-AD child-PL-AD foot.PL.PRT ‘The mother washed the children’s feet in the evening.’
FINNISH
(60) aiti pes-i illa-lla las-te-nsa jala-t.
mother wash-PST.SG3 evening-AD child-PL-SG3 foot-PL
‘The mother washed her children’s feet in the evening.’
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(61) karu-l lask-i-vet jala-n.
bear-ADALL shoot-PST-3PL leg-GEN ‘The bear’s paw was shot.’
4.3. Temporal domain
As it has been already said, in Standard Finnish essive is regularly used in time expressions with reference to festivals and days of the week or when there is an attribute preceding the headword of the temporal NP. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish essive is regularly used
for the days of the week, but as concerns temporal expressions with attributes, essive is commonly displaced by adessive-allative (67)-(71).
R. Grunthal states that it is rather erroneous to attribute temporal semantics in temporal expressions to the local cases per se, as long as temporality here may result solely from the semantics of the nouns used, such as ‘week’, ‘year’, ‘month’ etc. [Grunthal 2003: 136]. Semantics of cases used for periods of time can be indeed interpreted as more grammatical. For Siberian Ingrian Finnish this statement can be supported by the fact that in noun phrases with modifiers the head noun and its modifier can get different case markers, which means it is not the case responsible for expression of temporal relations. This can happen even when the head of the NP gets the so-called terminative ending (62):
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(62) ha ei tule toise-l’ pUhha-ssa.
3SG NEG.3SG go second-ADALL Sunday .ILL-TRM
‘He will not come back till the next Sunday.’
(63) mie han-t e-n ole nah-t
1SG 3SG-PRT NEG-1SG be see.PTCP_PST_ACT
man-ne-l ’ talve.
last-PTCP_PST_ACT- ADALL winter.PRT ‘I have not seen him last winter.’
(64) tama-l' aastaika ha noiso ost-ma poik-ij.
this-ADALL year.PRT 3SG begin.PRS.3SG buy-SUP son-PRT.PL
‘This year s/he is going to buy chickens.’
(65) kumpase-l aika sie tul-i-t?
what-ADALL time.PRT 2SG come-PST-2SG ‘When did he come?’
At the same time, in my material there was an example of analogous disagreement in case between the complement and the head noun, though the meaning of the construction was not temporal (66):
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(66) mane vijjente-l’ tuppa i ha siel’ ella.
go.IMP.2SG fifth-ADALL house.ILL and 3SG there live.PRS.3SG ‘Go to the fifth house, and s/he lives there.’
O. Kokko reports that this kind of disagreement in temporal constructions (the head in partitive and the modifier in adessive) is
common for Ingrian Finnish of the Western Ingria. From this point of view, a shift towards adessive-allative accompanied by modifier disagreement is just a trace inherited by Siberian Ingrian Finnish from the dialects of the Western Ingria. Moreover, as it has been stated above, similar constructions are also possible in Izhorian [Kokko 2007]. Considering the fact that at least part of the first settlers who came to Siberia were of Izhorian descent, it is justified to suppose that this can be a trace of Izhorian substratum influence or a contact-induced feature which existed in the group’s language prior to relocation. The question is how to interpret cases like (66). Disagreement in constructions belonging to the spatial domain is common for adnominal demonstrative pronouns in Ingrian Finnish. It is also possible in Siberian Ingrian Finnish, however, (66) is not the case. Probably, disagreement between the internal and external case markers with the headwords and the attributes first took place in the sphere of adnominal demonstratives and now is occasionally spreading onto the other types of attributes, supported by the analogous disagreement in temporal sphere.
Finally, it is not clear enough how often adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish is used with reference to church holidays. In my material there were only several examples of this type (67). The meaning of adessive-allative in this situation is very close to the target object marking described before, where adessive-allative can be interpreted as denoting a point of time by which something happens or until which something is postponed:
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(67) siis kresenje-l kaU-ti mejje-n
then Epiphany-AD ALL go-IPS.PST 1PL-GEN
kaik vaki sinn, hei-l’.
all people there 3PL-ADALL
‘Then on Epiphany they went, all our people went to them.’
4.4. Instrumental domain
As it has been already said, in Standard Finnish instrumental function can be carried out by adessive and, in a limited number of contexts, by allative (with perception verbs, see (33), (34)). In contrast, in Estonian there is another relatively new case able to express the corresponding set of meanings - ga-comitative. I have no evidence that adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish retained its instrumental
function, although this may be explained by the lack of corresponding examples in my material. In general, almost the whole range of instrumental relations in Siberian Ingrian Finnish seems to be expressed by a new ‘semi-case’ - ykA-comitative. This can be regarded as a certain degree of Estonian influence, but in Izhorian and Ingrian Finnish of the Lower Luga area the comitative of this type is also widely used in the instrumental domain.
Moreover, the ykA-comitative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish can express the periods of time required to accomplish an action, just like it happens in Estonian with the ga-comitative. In this respect, periods of time can be interpreted in instrumental sense, as if they were a ‘tool’ necessary to achieve the final stage of an action. In Standard Finnish, inessive (68), (69) or illative (in negative constructions, like in (70) are expected in the same position, while in Siberian Ingrian Finnish only comitative is possible (71), (72):
FINNISH
(68) lu-i-n kirja-n tunni-ssa.
read-PST-1SG book-GEN hour-IN ‘I read the book in an hour.’
(69) han luk-i laakari-ksi viide-ssa
3SG read-PST.3SG doctor-TRL five-IN
‘He qualified as a doctor in five years.’
(70) kahteen vuoteen e-n ole
two.ILL year.ILL NEG-1SG be kuul-lut sinu-sta mitaan.
hear-PTCP_PST_ACT 2SG-EL what-NEG
‘I have not heard about you for two years.’
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(71) kolme-n paeva-yka ha mittaki
three-GEN day-COM 3SG nothing
ei teh-nUt.
NEG.3SG make -PTCP_PST_ACT ‘He has not done anything in these three days.’
(72) tama piirikk saa-b valmi-ks kahe-n tunni-yka.
this pie get-PRS.3SG ready-TRL two-GEN hour-COM
‘This pie will be ready in two hours.’
vuode-ssa.
year-IN
4.5. Postpositions and adverbial phrases
The most common cases historically used in postposition and preposition constructions in Finnic languages are genitive and partitive. In some specific cases illative, allative, ablative and elative are also possible. In modern Estonian the status of postpositions that get combined with other cases than partitive and genitive is reconsidered. Constructions of the following type (with allative and elative respectively) are usually described as adverbial:
ESTONIAN
(73) koer jooks-is auto-le ette.
dog run-PST.3SG car-ALL in_front
‘A dog appeared in front of the car.’
(74) puu kukku-s auto-le peale.
tree fall-PST.3SG car-ALL onto
‘A tree fell over the car.’
Words like ette, peale, juurde, üle, mooda and labi in this context are considered adverbs [Рятсеп 1974]. However, there is an alternative way to interpret them. We can handle these constructions as postpositional phrases demonstrating further development of local cases towards a more syntactic role. However, this interpretation must be supported by usage of the corresponding local cases in possessive constructions.
At the same time, examples of the locative cases in constructions the semantics of which is close to possession are not so uncommon. As it has been already said, in colloquial Estonian, as well as in Veps, Votic and Karelian, attributive noun phrases with cases other than nominative, genitive and partitive are possible [Лаанест 1959]. A. Laanest lists four major types: (1) elative attribute denoting material or a substance; (2) inessive attribute denoting state; (3) comitative attribute denoting possession; (4) elative or ablative attribute denoting origin of the object expressed by the had noun. He also mentions that in Standard Estonian elative, translative and allative attributes are possible, but the word order in phrases like this is often reversed. Of course, this does not prove that local cases are on their way to take over genitive functions, but these two phenomena - nominal constructions and adverbial phrases with adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish - in my opinion, should be handled together.
Examples of possessive constructions with adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish have been already given in section 4.2. Here are some examples of adessive-allative adverbial phrases (85)-(91). In fact, they are not numerous in my materials, outnumbered by canonical genitive postposition constructions, but the fact of their existence, in my opinion, deserves certain attention:
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(75) hä seiso miu-l vasta.
3SG stand.PRS.3SG 1SG-ADALL opposite
‘He stands in front of me.’
(76) jabloka-n puu-l iest on
apple-GEN tree-ADALL in_front_of be.PRS.3SG pallu valmi-j jablakk-oi.
many ripe-PRT.PL apple-PRT.PL
‘There are many ripe apples in front of the apple tree.’
(77) hä istu koko aik ümper vanaemä-l’.
3SG sit.PRS.3SG all time around grandmother-ADALL
‘He sits all the time near his grandmother.’
4.6. Impersonal constructions
In Siberian Ingrian Finnish, the adessive-allative case is regularly used in impersonal constructions. Equivalent constructions in Russian involve dative. Their parallel employment seems to be quite predictable, as long as adessive-allative semantics is in some points rather close to the semantics of Russian dative (i.e. adessive-allative and dative are both used to express beneficiary). M. Rießler in [Rießler 2007] reports that in Kildin Saami several impersonal constructions make use of illative instead of expected genitive, partitive or nominative. He explains this as an example of grammatical borrowing from Russian. My examples of impersonal constructions with adessive-allative, most likely, are of the same contact-induced origin.
Adessive-allative is widely used in impersonal constructions expressing necessity or obligation, the way it also happens in Ingrian Finnish of the Leningrad region as described in [Kokko 2007]. Namely they are the constructions with the verbs pittä (have_to.PRS.3SG) I pit-i (have_to.PST.3SG) and täütü (have_to.PRS.3SG) I täüti (have_to.PST.3SG) and the adverb tarvis ‘necessary’. In Standard Finnish, both the verbs
pitää and täytyä require genitive (partitive is also possible for the verb pitää) [Karlsson 1999]. Analogous Estonian construction with the verb pidama is not impersonal with the subject in nominative. In Siberian Ingrian Finnish respectively both pittä (78)-(80) and täüti (81), (82) constructions are impersonal and in most cases require adessive-allative:
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH siu-l pittä männ sua-n
2SG-ADALL need.PRS.3SG go.INF bog-GEN
‘You need to go to the bog.’
häne-l’ pit-i männ sinn.
3SG-ADALL need-PST.3SG go.INF there
‘SIhe has to go there.’
mamma-l maito pit-i anta
mother-ADALL milk need-PST.3SG
‘Mother had to give away the milk.’
miu-l nütt täüt-i
1 SG-ADALL then need-PST.3SG häne-ykä vaiva nähä palij.
3SG-COM difficulty .PRT see.INF much ‘Then I had to see many difficulties with him.’
sisse.
into
vällä.
give.INF away
(82)
täütü
siu-l
2SG-ADALL must.PRS.3SG ‘You must taste this.’
otta sitä maista.
take.INF this.PRT taste.INF
The suggestion of Russian influence here is supported by the fact that respective constructions with tarvis in Siberian Ingrian Finnish appear without copula (83), (84):
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(83) linna miu-l viis tunti tarvis männ.
city.ILL 1 SG-ADALL five hour.PRT necessary go.INF
‘It takes me five hours to get to the city.’
(84) häne-l ain mitä-le tarvis.
3SG-ADALL constantly what.PRT-ever necessary ‘He needs something all the time.’
The form tarvis in the examples listed above is an independent predicate. Moreover, sometimes in necessity constructions there is no
copula or predicate-like unit at all, the way it can happen in Russian. Thus, the copula-less example (85) is, probably, the result of direct Russian influence:
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(85) ku laps-ij ei opetta-s ei saa-tta-s
if child-PRT.PL NEG.3SG teach.IPS-CND NEG.3SG get-IPS-CND arvo mita hei-l’ teha, mita ei.
mind.PRT what.PRT 3PL-ADALL do.INF what.PRT NEG
‘If the children are not taught, they do not know what to do and what not to do.’
In phrases with the verb naytta ‘seem’ elative is also often replaced by adessive-allative. This can be explained by comparing it to the corresponding Russian expressions мне нравится (N[DAT] + V), мне кажется (N[DAT] + V). The verb tahto can also become a part of impersonal construction analogous to the Russian expression мне хочется (N[DAT] + V). I suppose that ability of the adessive to express experiencer with the verbs like meeldima in Estonian additionally prompts the rise of such constructions in Siberian Ingrian Finnish. At the same time, impersonal constructions with adessive are rather widespread in Votic [Маркус, Рожанский 2011]. Possibly, there is some degree of Votic influence brought by the first settlers from the Lower Luga area, where contacts between Ingrian Finnish, Izhorian and Votic were rather intensive. The third possible explanation is that Russian independently influenced the three languages, Votic, Siberian Ingrian Finnish and, to some extent, Estonian, in the same direction.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(86) miu-l passi maito.
1SG-ADALL suit.PRS.3SG milk ‘I like milk.’
(87) ha-l’ itse-l’ tama tUo ei pass.
3SG-ADALL self-ADALL this work NEG.3SG suit
‘S/he does not like this work.’
(88) miu-l naUtta kene-lle kolista us-t.
1 SG-ADALL seem.PRS.3SG who-ever knock.PRS.3SG door.PRT ‘It seems to me that somebody is knocking on the door.’
(89) uvve-t naapri-t näüttä-t miu-l
new-PL neighbor-PL seem-PRS.3PL 1 SG-ADALL
hüv-i-ks ihmis-i-ks.
good-PL-TRL human-PL-TRL
‘New neighbors seem like good people.’
(90) hä-l’ ikä aik mitä-le tahto.
3SG-ADALL every time what.PRT-ever want.PRS.3SG
‘S/he wants something all the time.’
Estonian state-denoting constructions where experiencer is also encoded by adessive also have equivalents in Siberian Ingrian Finnish. In Standard Finnish, the corresponding case for the experiencer is genitive. At the same time these state-denoting expressions in Estonian and Standard Finnish usually have a copula, while in Siberian Ingrian Finnish it is possible to omit it or use another verb instead:
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(91) hä-l’ ol-i egl’ paha.
3SG-ADALL be-PST.3SG yesterday bad
‘S/he felt awful yesterday.’
(92) hä siel’t tul-i,
3SG from_there come-PST.3SG
häne-l’ jo pare-mp.
3SG-ADALL already well-CMP
‘S/he came from there, s/he felt better.’
(93) ke-l’ ei ol-t lehm-ij kanesna
who-ADALL NEG.3SG be.PTCP_PST_ACT cow-PRT.PL of_course
se-l’ ol-i kera rank.
this-ADALL be-PST.3SG also difficult
‘Those who did not have cows also faced difficulties.’
(94) hei-l’ sa-i vähä pare-mpi.
3PL-ADALL get-PST.3SG a_little well-CMP
‘They started feeling a little better.’
Against this background, it is not surprising that age-expressing constructions in Siberian Ingrian Finnish are also impersonal and equally based upon the Russian model with the only difference of the copula being still present (95), (96). The age-expressing constructions with
the verb männ ‘go’ (97) are used as well (cf. Russian мне пошел четырнадцатый год lit. ‘the fourteenth year has started to go to me’):
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(95) miu-l kui ol-i pal’l’ü siin,
1 SG-ADALL how be-PST.3SG many there
kakstoist aastaika.
twelve year.PRT
‘How old was I then? I was 12.’
(96) kolt aastaika hä-l’ ol-i.
three year.PRT 3SG-ADALL be-PST.3SG ‘SIhe was three years old.’
(97) nellästoist aastaik miu-l män-i.
fourteen year 1 SG-ADALL go-PST.3SG ‘I entered my fourteenth year.’
4.7. Grammatical cases displacement
Most likely due to the general broadening of adessive-allative domains, the complements of some verbs in Siberian Ingrian Finnish occasionally get the adessive-allative ending. This does not have a regular basis and the examples of this kind can be regarded as mere ‘slips of tongue’. Even the verb avitta ‘help’, the equivalent of which in Estonian can have complements both in partitive and adessive, in Siberian Ingrian Finnish still sometimes has its complement in partitive in compliance with the original Finnic model, although, under the Russian influence, it would be predictable if adessive-allative completely replaced partitive here (cf. (98) and (99)). At the same time, the complement of the verb laske ‘let’ is always in adessive-allative, just as in Estonian (100). Finally, the examples (101)-(103) have no explanation at all besides the general idea that the spreading domains of adessive-allative make it occasionally appear in contexts where only syntactic cases are normally used.
SIBERIAN INGRIAN FINNISH
(98) jesli tüö toin toise-l’ avita-t (...)
if 2PL other other-ADALL help.PRS-2PL
‘If you help each other (...)’
(99) kene-ki ei voi minnu avitta.
who-EMPH NEG.3SG can 1SG.PRT help.INF
‘Nobody can help me.’
(100) mie ol-isi-n maa-nt kui miu-l
1SG be-CND-lSG sleep-PTCP_PST_ACT if 1 SG-ADALL
ol-is’ lase-t.
be-CND.3SG let-PTCP_PST_ACT ‘I would sleep if they let me do this.’
(101) mie siu-l sirano näe-n.
lSG 2SG-ADALL anyway see.PRS-1SG
‘I still see you.’
(102) mie ajjo-n vällä häne-l’.
1SG force.PST-1SG away 3 SG-ADALL
‘I drove him/her away.’
(103) hän sis män-i ühe-l’ nuore-l’ naise-l’,
3SG then go-PST.3SG one-ADALL young-ADALL woman-ADALL
kene havit’ peremiehe-l’.
who bury.PST.3SG host-ADALL
‘It (the house) was given to one young woman whose husband died.’
Most likely, the patterns like in (101)—(103) have no place in the language system of Siberian Ingrian Finnish. Nevertheless, I believe that ‘slips of tongue’ such as these are sometimes capable of betraying hidden tendencies. For adessive-allative this tendency can be identified as a growing inclination towards a more syntactic role.
5. Conclusion
The usage patterns for adessive-allative in Siberian Ingrian Finnish demonstrate more similarity with Estonian than with Standard Finnish. This is not surprising keeping in mind that Ingrians in Siberia had been exposed to Estonian influence even before they were relocated and once again came under it in the middle of the 19th century. At the same time, many of the examples in my material can be explained by the Russian influence as well. This is supported by the fact that the same tendencies manifest themselves in Ingrian Finnish of the Leningrad region, the speakers of which mostly have had scarce contacts with Estonian. In general, adessive-allative shows an inclination towards a universal ‘goal case’ alongside with increasing ability to implement some syntactic roles. Hypothetical reasons for this can be divided in two groups, internal and external.
The main internal reasons are the following: (1) favored syn-creticity of adessive and allative which helps to combine both locational and directional meanings in concrete and abstract spheres;
(2) the ykA-comitative taking up the instrumental domain and thus reducing the scope of cases which allow non-favoured double reading;
(3) defective paradigm in the case of genitive plural which is easily filled in by the respective adessive-allative form.
The external reasons belong to the scope of contact-induced phenomena. First of all, this is the Estonian influence in the Estonian Ingria and Siberia. Votic and Izhorian traces are also possible here but this requires further investigation and comparison with present-day and archive Izhorian and Votic materials. Finally, syntactic transfer from Russian is also possible. On the one hand, it could lead to emergence of new constructions. On the other hand, the frequency ratio for the constructions that existed in the language prior to the most intensive contact could increase under the influence of their Russian counterparts. I believe that adessive-allative patterns of usage in Siberian Ingrian Finnish have most likely emerged as a result of combined influence of all the above-mentioned factors.
Abbreviations
1, 2, 3 — person; acc — accusative (in Russian); act — active; ad — adessive (in Finnish and Estonian); adall — adessive-allative (in Siberian Ingrian Finnish); all — allative (in Finnish and Estonian); cmp — comparative; cnd — conditional; com — comitative; DAT — dative (in Russian); el — elative; emph — emphatic; gen — genitive; ill — illative; imp — imperative; in — in-essive; inf — infinitive (1st infinitive for Finnish. da-infinitive for Estonian, a / a / i-infinitive for Siberian Ingrian Finnish); instr — instrumental (in Russian); IPS — impersonal; neg — negation; nom — nominative; pl — plural; prs — present; prt — partitive; pst — past; ptcp — participle; sg — singular; sup — supine (3rd infinitive for Finnish, ma-infinitive for Estonian, ma / ma-infinitive for Siberian Ingrian Finnish); trl — translative; trm — terminative.
Bibliography
Злобина 1971 — В. Е. Злобина. Кто такие корлаки? // Советское финноугроведение 2, 1971. C. 87-91.
Кузнецова 2009 — Н. В. Кузнецова. Фонологические системы ижорских диалектов. Дисс. ... канд. филол. наук, ИЛИ РАН, СПб, 2009. Кузнецова 2012 — Н. В. Кузнецова. Просодика словоформы в нижнелуж-ском диалекте ижорского языка // Acta Linguistica Petropolitana.
Труды Института лингвистических исследований РАН VIII, 1, 2012, в печати.
Лаанест 1959 — А. Лаанест. Субстантивный атрибут в прибалтийско-финских языках. Автореферат дисс. ... канд. филол. наук. Таллин: Академия Наук Эстонской ССР. Институт языка и литературы, 1959.
Маркус, Рожанский 2011 — Е. Б. Маркус, Ф. И. Рожанский. Современный водский язык. Тексты и грамматический очерк. Том II. СПб: Нестор-История, 2011.
Мосина 2004 — Н. М. Мосина. Структура финского языка: Фонетика и морфология имен. Саранск: Красный октябрь, 2004.
Пялль 1955 — Э. Пялль. Учебник эстонского языка. Таллин: Эстонское государственное издательство, 1955.
Рятсеп 1974 — Х. К. Рятсеп. Структура простого предложения в эстонском языке: ориентированные на глагол модели предложения. Автореферат дисс. ... докт. филол. наук. Тартуский государственный университет, Тарту, 1974.
Серебренников, Керт (ред.). 1958 — Б. А. Серебренников, Г. М. Керт (ред.). Грамматика финского языка: фонетика и морфология. Москва — Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР, 1958.
Сидоркевич 2012 — Д. В. Сидоркевич. Ингерманландцы в Сибири: этническая идентичность в многоэтничном окружении // Acta Lingüistica Petropolitana. Труды Института лингвистических исследований РАН VIII, 1, 2012, в печати.
Федотов 2012 — М. Л. Федотов. Полисемия показателей аблатива и элатива в финских говорах Центральной Ингерманландии // Acta Lingüistica Petropolitana. Труды Института лингвистических исследований РАН VIII, 1, 2012, в печати.
Ыйспуу 1999 — Й. Ыйспуу. Справочник по эстонскому языку. Таллинн: Коолибри, 1999.
Atkinson 1969 — J. Atkinson. Finnish Grammar. Turku: The Finnish Literature Society, 1969.
Erelt et al. 2007 — M. Erelt, T. Erelt, K. Ross. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Kolmas, täiendatud trükk. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 2007. (http://www.eki.ee/ books/ekk09)
Granö J. 1893 — J. Granö. Kuusi vuotta Siperiassa. Helsinki: Weil & Göös, 1893.
Granö J. G. 1905 — J. G. Granö. Siperian suomalaiset siirtolat. Helsinki — Kuopio: K. Malmströmin kirjapaino, 1905.
Granö P. 1914 — P. Granö. Siperian suomalaiset // Kansanvalistusseuran Kalenteri 1915. Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura, 1914. S. 27-46.
Granö P. 1926 — P. Granö. Siperian suomalaiset // A. Kannisto, E. N. Setälä, U. T. Sirelius, Y. Wichman (toim.). Suomen suku. Helsinki: Otava, 1926. S. 288-293.
Grünthal 2003 — R. Grünthal. Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change. Helsinki: Société finno-ougrienne, 2003.
Hakulinen et al. (toim.). 2004 — A. Hakulinen, M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T. Heinonen, I. Alho (toim.). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2004. (http://scripta.kotus.fi/ visk/etusivu.php)
Heine 1997 — B. Heine. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP, 1997.
Hint 1999 — M. Hint. The Estonian noun under Indo-European pressure // Grammaticalisation aréale et sémantique cognitive: des langues finniques et sames [Actes du Colloque International du C. N. R. S. tenu les 9 et 10 avril 1999 en Sorbonne]. Paris: Sorbonne, 1999. P. 169-177.
Juntunen 1982 — A. Juntunen. Länsi-Siperian inkeriläiset siirtolat // Turun Historiallinen Arkisto 38, 1982. S. 350-367.
Juntunen 1983 — A. Juntunen. Suomalaisten karkottaminen Siperiaan auto-nomian aikana ja karkotetut Siperiassa [Suomen vankeinhoidon historiaa 3]. Helsinki, 1983.
Karlsson 1999 — F. Karlsson. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge, 1999.
Kokko 2007 — O. Kokko. Inkerinsuomen pirstaleisuus. Eräiden sijojen kehitys murteen yksilöllistymisen kuvastajana [Joensuun yliopiston humanisti-sia julkaisuja 48]. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto, 2007.
Korb 2003 — A. Korb. Virulased, a multiethnic and multicultural communitiy in Ryzhkovo village, West-Siberia // Pro-Ethnologia 15, 2003. P. 29-47.
Korb 2007 — A. Korb. Rözkovo virulased pärimuskultuuri kandjaina. Tartu: Eesti kirjandusmuuseum, 2007.
Laanest (toim.) 1966 — A. Laanest (toim.). Isuri murdetekste. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste akadeemia keele ja kirjanduse instituut, 1996.
Lehto 1996 — M. I. Lehto. Ingrian Finnish: Dialect Preservation and Change [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 23]. Uppsala— Stockholm: Gotab, 1996.
Nirvi 1972 — R. E. Nirvi. Siperian inkeriläisten murteesta ja alkuperästä // Kotiseutu 2, 3, 1972. S. 92-95.
Penttilä 1963 — A. Penttilä. Suomen kielioppi. Toinen, tarkistettu painos. Porvoo: WSOY, 1963.
Rießler 2007 — M. Rießler. Grammatical borrowing in Kildin Saami // Y. Matras, J. Sakel (eds.). Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. P. 229-245.
Viitso 2003 — T.-R. Viitso. Structure of the Estonian language // M. Erelt (ed.). Estonian Language [Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary series 1]. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. P. 9-129.
Zlobina 1972 — V. Zlobina. Mitä alkujuurta Siperian suomalaiset ja korlakat ovat // Kotiseutu 2, 3, 1972. S. 86-92.
