inhalt des 35. bandes1094998/fulltext01.pdf · inhalt des 35. bandes originalia blokland, rogier:...

Inhalt des 35. Bandes

Originalia

Blokland, Rogier: Borrowability of pronouns: evidence from Uralic .. 1Fenyvesi, anna: hungarian Minorities in Romania, slovakia and serbia:

schoolchildren’s attitudes to their languages (minority vs. majority languages vs. eFl) and teaching these languages in school ............ 35

Keevallik, leelo: Pragmatics of the estonian heritage speakers in sweden 55Markus, elena – Rozhanskiy, Fedor: Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the

Kukkuzi variety ............................................................................... 77tamm, anne: Partitive objects and the partitive evidential marker -vat in

estonian express incomplete evidence .............................................. 97Venken, sarah: the afterlife of ‘the seven Brothers’. traces of aleksis

Kivi’s seitsemän Veljestä in Finnish culture ...................................... 141

DiskussiOn unD kritik

hasselblatt, Cornelius: Rezension Ulrike Kahrs, Monika schötschel: Literatursoziologische Entwicklungen bei Wolgafinnen und Permiern (1985-2008). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač 2011. 261 Seiten (Poetica. schriften zur literaturwissenschaft 113) ........................................ 167

Essay

laakso, Johanna: language contact in space and time: Perspectives and pitfalls in diachronic contact linguistics ............................................ 173

BErichtE, MittEilungEn, nachrichtEn

Bentlin, Mirkko: „Finnische sprache und literatur im europäischem Kontext – historische Perspektiven und aktuelle herausforderungen“, Greifswald, 6. – 7.10.2011 ............................................................. 189

Dobzhanskaya, Oksana: Kazimir Izidorovič Labanauskas .................. 193Knüppel, Michael: selkupisch und sumerisch .................................... 205

Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 35 © Helmut Buske Verlag 2012

Borrowability of pronouns: evidence from Uralic1

Rogier Blokland (Munich)

Abstract In borrowability hierarchies pronouns usually occupy a relatively low position, i.e. they are assumed not to borrowed very often. This is undoubtedly true, and therefore cases where it does occur may be of some interest with regard to the question what can be borrowed, and under what circumstances. Cases of borrowed non-personal pronouns are comparatively common, but personal pronouns are borrowed relatively rarely. Such instances can usually be divided into a number of categories, and they tend to occur mostly in languages where pronouns are open classes, in neighbouring languages with different clusivity strategies, in languages with avoidance styles, and in closely related languages. In a number of Uralic languages cases of borrowed pronouns are also found, though most of these do not come under any of the abovementioned categories. Borro-wed personal pronouns occur in Enets, Komi-Zyryan and Komi-Permyak and in Vote. In these languages, however, the reasons for borrowing such pronouns are different: in Enets and Vote it was probably paradigmatic systematicity, whilst in the Komi cases it is most likely due to identity of various pronominal case forms.

Keywords: personal pronouns, Uralic, borrowing

1. Introduction: the borrowing of pronounsIn linguistic literature the claim that personal pronouns are not easily borro-wed is often encountered (e.g. Nichols – Peterson 1996: 337; Greenberg 1997: 89–90; Winford 2003: 51; Aikhenvald 2006: 185), and in borrowing hierarchies (e.g. Thomason – Kaufman 1988: 74–76; Thomason 2001: 70–71; Matras 2009: 157) they usually figure relatively low on the scale of borrowability. In recent literature the borrowing of personal pronouns has gained more attention (see eg. Thomason – Everett 2005 and Campbell – Poser 2008: 212–125), and attested cases of borrowed personal pronouns are usually divided into one of five groups: open classes (e.g. in South-East Asian languages), closely related

1 Parts of this paper were read at the 2011 Hamburg conference ‘Uralic Languages and Multilingualism: Contexts and Manifestations in a Language Family’. Cornelius Hasselblatt (Groningen), László Honti (Budapest), Petar Kehayov (Tartu/Regensburg), Gerson Klumpp (Munich) and Remco van Pareren (Groningen) have been generous in offering comments and help.

languages (e.g. in English from Scandinavian), cases of gap-filling (as e.g. when languages which do not make an inclusive/exclusive distinction in the 1st person plural pronoun borrow a pronoun from a language that does; e.g. in Khoekhoe, cf. Siewierska – Bakker 2005: 164), paradigm reshaping under foreign influence (e.g. in Tucanoan, cf. Aikhenvald 2002: 64), and pronoun replacement in languages with avoidance styles (e.g. in Western Desert Lan-guage, cf. Blake 1991: 45).

It makes sense to make a distinction between cases occurring in languages such as those belonging to the Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European families, where personal pronouns form a closed class, and those belonging to e.g. many South-East Asian language families such as Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic and Austronesian where personal pronouns are an open class, and often show no syntactical features which would permit us to classify them as different from nouns (cf. Goddard 2005: 19–22), and can accordingly be more profitably seen as forms of address. In such languages where social distinctions play important roles, kinship terms and other nouns are commonly used in addressing people and also for self-referral. E.g. in Thai a child addressing a teacher or older sibling might use the word nǔu (lit. ‘mouse’) to refer to itself (Goddard 2005: 20); words like ‘slave’ or ‘servant’ are often borrowed and used as deferential 1st person forms: Sundanese abdi, borrowed from Arabic abd ‘slave’, Indonesian saya from Sanskrit sahaya ‘follower, slave’, and Japanese boku ‘manservant’ from Chinese (cf. Matras 2009: 205). They can variably be used as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd person pronoun according to the situation, and in order to avoid pitfalls in choosing the wrong form when addressing people senior in age or status, speakers often avail themselves of loans from other languages; the fact that the pronoun class, if one can call it such, is open also means that loans are used in addition to the existing forms: they do not replace the native pronouns.

In most Eurasian languages however, such as the Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages, where personal pronouns form a closed paradigmatic system, borrowing is much less common as there is scarcely any motivation to do so. If it does occur, it is most likely to happen between relatively clo-sely related languages: well-known examples from Indo-European include English (they, their and them from Old Norse; Howe 1996: 154–163), North Frisian (man one-3PSG.INDEF and sik oneself-3SG/PL.REFLEX from High/Low German; Parker 1993: 123–127) and certain varieties of Low German (hum he-3SG.OBL.M and hör she-3SG.GEN/OBL.F, they-3PL.GEN.OBL from East Frisian; Reershemius 2004: 23), though some borrowing has also occurred among languages that are not especially closely related, e.g. Polabian has borrowed from Germanic (jai you-2PL.NOM borrowed from Middle Low German jī; Polański 1993: 798), and many varieties of (Indo-Iranian) Romani have borrowed both complete personal pronouns (e.g. Molise Romani lor

2 Rogier Blokland

they-3PL.NOM from Italian loro they-3PL.NOM), as well as plural affixes which are only used to form plural pronoun forms (e.g. Hungarian Romani ov he-3SG.NOM ~ onk they-3PL.NOM, where the k-element in the plural form is borrowed from Hungarian, cf. Hungarian ő s/he-3SG.NOM ~ ők they-3PL.NOM; Matras 2009: 207). Jamaican English has solved the problem that standard English no longer distinguishes between the 2nd person singular and plural by borrowing únù you-2PL.NOM from Igbo (Cassidy – Le Page 2002: 457); the identity of the singular and plural 2nd persons in English has led to such colloquial 2nd person plural forms in English as you guys, ya’ll (United States), you mob (Australia) and you lot (United Kingdom).

In Altaic e.g. Turkish uses a number of borrowed non-pronominal elements of Perso-Arabic origin as pronouns, mostly in deferential and courtly language: e.g. bende ‘slave’ (< Pers. banda), furnished with the 2nd person plural pos-sessive suffix -niz, was used in courtly language as bendeniz as ‘your slave, I’ (where the similarity to ben ‘I’ is purely coincidental; cf. Lewis 1984: 68); other borrowed elements used as personal pronouns include zat ‘person, in-dividual’ (< Ar. ḍāt), e.g. zatiniz person-2PL.PX ‘you, your person’ and taraf ‘side; party’ (< Ar. ṭaraf), e.g. tarafınıza gönderdi ‘s/he came to you’ (lit. ‘s/he came to your side’; Kononov 1956: 175, 184). Karaim also does not use the 2nd person plural siz as a deferential singular, but has instead borrowed Hebrew kavod ‘honour’, inflected with 2nd and 3rd person pronoun suffixes -uzuj or -unuj; the resulting koduj (< kavoduj), kodujuz (< kavodujuz), kanuz (< kavodunuz) you-2PL.NOM are used as polite forms of address (Musaev 1977: 41), cf. Spanish usted ‘you-2SG (deferential)’ < vuestra merced and ustedes you-2PL (deferential)’ < vuestras mercedes ‘your honour’ (Penny 2002: 138). Gagauz uses žanabin(-iz) you-2SG.NOM (deferential) and žanabi(-si) s/he-3SG.NOM, sometimes also with the 2nd person plural or 3rd person singular personal suffix respectively (Pokrovskaya 1966: 119), ultimately a borrowing from Persian ǧān ‘soul’ (Räsänen 1969: 123b).

2. Borrowed pronouns in UralicIn the Uralic languages pronouns form a closed system as well, though pronouns, pronominal or other elements used as or in pronouns in the target languages are occasionally borrowed, mainly from Russian, Turkic or Scandinavian.2 The most common ones are those below (we have not aimed at giving examples of

2 Determiners (often also classified as pronouns) such as Russ. каждый (dial. кажный) ‘every, each’, всякий ‘anyone’ and весь ‘all’ are also commonly borrowed; e.g. Moksha Mordvin кажнай (Majtinskaja 1964: 47), Mansi kāšni (Kálmán 1961: 177), Khanty käšn- (Vértes 1967: 165), Veps säkei (Kettunen 1943: 413), Udmurt śakoj (Karpova 1997: 64, 127), Mansi vśak (Kálmán 1961: 268), Komi весь (SSKZD 346a), Selkup весь (Helimski 1983: 66); cf. also Mordvin E taki and M tag-kijä ‘somebody’, E tago-meźe M tag-meźä ‘something’ borrowed from Tat. tagï ‘another; again; besides; more’ (Bartens 1999: 117), but such forms will not be treated here. See Alvre (1975) for more examples.

Borrowability of pronouns: evidence from Uralic 3

all possible occurrences, exhaustive references, or commonly borrowed rela-tive pronouns; dashes are used to separate the borrowed elements); the source elements are listed by origin.

2.1. Elements borrowed from Russian

2.1.1. Particles The particle кое- ‘some-’, borrowed into Karelian (ken kajo ‘somebody’; ALFE: 435), Lude (e.g. kojo-kelлe ‘to some (people)’; Kujola 1944: 146a), Veps (e.g. kojo-ken ‘somebody’; Alvre 2002: 163), Vote (kojo mitä ‘something’; Alvre 2002: 163) and Erzya and Moksha Mordvin (e.g. E koj-kije M koj-kijä ‘somebody’, E koj-meźe, M koj-meźä ‘something’; Majtinskaja 1964: 36, 37; Bartens 1999: 117).

The particle -либо ‘-one, -body’ has been borrowed into Tver Karelian (e.g. miďä ľuwbo ‘something’; Alvre 2002: 162), Permyak Komi (e.g. kin-ľibo ‘some-body’; Batalova 1990; 104; Batalova 2002: 88). Partly due to the existence of the Russian conjunction либо ‘or’, in Olonets it has also been abstracted and used as a prefix (e.g. ľibo midä ‘something’; Alvre 2002: 163).

The negative (separable) particle ни- (cf. ни-кто ‘nobody’, ни-что ‘nothing’) has been borrowed as a negative (inseparable) prefix into Karelian (e.g. ńi-miďä ‘nothing’; Alvre 2002: 163), Olonets (e.g. ńi-kui ‘not at all’; Alvre 2002: 163), Lude (e.g. ni-midä ‘nothing’; Alvre 2002: 163), Veps (e.g. ńi-ken ‘nobody’; Kettunen 1943: 417–419; Savijärvi 1986; Alvre 2002: 163), Vote (e.g. ni-ken ‘nobody’; Alvre 2002: 163), Skolt Saami (e.g. (ij) ni ǩii ‘nobody’; Korhonen et al. 1973: 66), Akkala Saami (e.g. niki ‘nobody’; Zajkov 1987: 128), Kildin Saami (e.g. ni-ke ‘nobody’, ni-mī ‘nothing’; Kert 1971: 177; Rieß-ler 2007: 237–238), Ter Saami (e.g. nie-ki ‘somebody’; Itkonen 1958: 280a), Udmurt (e.g. ńe-kin ‘nobody’; Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 119), Zyrian Komi (e.g. ńe-kod ‘nobody’; Wichmann – Uotila 1942: 175a; Majtinskaja [1964: 84] and KESK [186–187] assume Uralic origin for this prefix), Permyak Komi (e.g. ńe-kin ‘nobody’; Rédei 1978: 194a), and Selkup (e.g. ni kuti ‘nobody’; Erdélyi 1970: 108b, 153ab). It also occurs as a suffix in Karelian (e.g. miľľä-ńi ‘with something’; Alvre 2002: 162), Lude (e.g. miťťe-ni ‘some kind of’; Gilojeva 2001: 43), Veps (e.g. ken-ńi ‘somebody’; Kettunen 1943: 419–420; Alvre 2002: 162), Ingrian (e.g. kel-ni ‘somebody (ADE)’; Alvre 2002: 162), and Vote (e.g. kuza-ni ‘somewhere’; Alvre 2002: 162; mitä-nì ‘something’; Tsvetkov 2008: 54), though here it may have been borrowed from the Russian construction кто был ни был ‘whoever it may be’, что был ни был ‘whatever it may be’ (Gilojeva 2001: 43).

The particle -нибудь ‘-one, -body’ has been borrowed into Karelian (e.g. ken-ńibuiť ‘somebody’; Alvre 2002: 162), Olonets (e.g. kui-ńibuť ‘somehow’; Alvre 2002: 162), Lude (e.g. miťťe-ńibuť ‘something’; Gilojeva 2001: 43),

4 Rogier Blokland

Ingrian (e.g. midü-nibuť ‘something’; Alvre 2002: 162), Vote (e.g. tšen-nibuit ‘somebody’; Ariste 1948: 68), Moksha Mordvin (e.g. kodamă-nǝbuť ‘some kind of’; Majtinskaja 1964: 36), Zyrian Komi (e.g. kin-ńebuď ‘somebody’; SSKZD 155a), Permyak Komi (kin-ńibuď ‘somebody’; Lytkin 1962: 241; Batalova 1990: 104) and Khanty (Vértes 1967: 162).

The post-positional particle -то has been borrowed into Karelian (e.g. ken-to ‘somebody’; Gilojeva 2001: 42), Olonets (e.g. mi-to ‘something’; Gilojeva 2001: 42) and Permyak (e.g. kin-to ‘somebody’; Cypanov 1990: 59).

The particle хоть ‘any-’, forming indefinite pronouns (e.g. Russ. хоть кто ‘anyone’), has been borrowed into Karelian (e.g. hoť-miďä ‘whatever’; Alvre 2002: 162), Olonets (e.g. hoz mi ‘whatever’; Alvre 2002: 162), Lude (e.g. hoď mi ‘whatever’; Kujola 1944: 75b), Ingrian (e.g. hot kuga ‘somebody’; Porkka 1885: 87), Vote (e.g. hot miltine ‘whatever it is’; Alvre 2002: 162), Moksha Mordvin (e.g. kati-kije ‘somebody’; Majtinskaja 1964: 39), Meadow Mari (e.g. koťš kö ‘anyone’; Majtinskaja 1964: 84, 85), Udmurt (e.g. koť-kin ‘anything’; Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 121) and Permyak Komi (e.g. keť kin ‘anybody’; Lytkin 1962: 243).

The emphatic particle -же is also widely borrowed, e.g. into Erzya and Moksha Mordvin (M ńɛkǝ t-ža ‘these ones’, śakǝ -ža ‘the same’, śijak-že ‘in the same way’, stama-že ‘the same’, ťakǝ ks-ža ‘exactly the same way’; Maj-tinskaja 1964: 17).

2.1.2. Demonstrative pronoun The genitive того of the demonstrative pronoun тот ‘that’ has been borrowed by the Lower Ińva, Oni and Hajduk dialects of Permyak (e.g. too-se śet ‘дай то самое’, oʒ miša tao kedzeni ‘рано, говорю, в этом году сеют’; Batalova 1975: 203). Batalova says its exact meaning is uncertain and claims it is a modal particle; the Russian translations, however, indicate that it functions as a demonstrative pronoun, where in the first example the Permyak 3rd person possessive accusative ending -se acts as a focalizer.

2.1.3. ConjunctionThe (dialectal) conjunction будe ‘if’, borrowed into Erzya and Moksha Mordvin (E kije-buťi, M kijä-bǝ ďi ‘something’; Majtinskaja 1964: 37; Bartens 1999: 117).

2.1.4. Adjective endingThe adjective ending -овoй (< -овый) has been borrowed into Permyak as -овöй, where it is actively used in the formation of adjectives (e.g. пу-овöй ‘wooden’, cf. пу ‘tree; wood’), but it also occurs in interrogative pronouns: мый-овöй ‘what kind’ (Batalova 1982: 131–132); cf. мый ‘what; what kind; how; why’.


2.2. Elements borrowed from Tatar

2.2.1. ParticlesThe particle ällä ‘some-’ (cf. Tat. ällä kajda ‘somewhere’, ällä kem ‘some-body’) has been borrowed into Meadow Mari (e.g. ala-kudo ‘some kind of’, ala-kušto ‘somewhere’; Majtinskaja 1964: 83); it has probably also been borrowed into Udmurt as a prefix in indefinite pronouns (e.g. olo-kin ‘some-body’; Csúcs 1990: 246); variants closer to the Tatar word occur in peripheral dialects, e.g. ollo-kin; problematic is that Tatar /ä/ is usually not substituted with /o/ in Udmurt; one proposed solution suggests that a Common Udmurt prefix olo- (for which, however, there is no other etymology) was influenced by the Tatar form (Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 121). The Tatar etymology is accepted by Tarakanov (1975: 174, 180). It has also been suggested (Beke 1954: 121) that Mansi ɛle- (Southern), ä l- (Eastern), aл- (Western) in forms such as ɛle-nēr ‘irgendein’ (DEWOS 70) is of Tatar origin, but DEWOS rejects the Tatar etymology.

The particle hič ‘no; not at all’ has been borrowed into (Bashkortostani) Udmurt, where it functions as an extra emphatic negation prefix in indefinite pronouns (e.g. eś-nokin ‘nobody’ < nokin ‘nobody’; eś-nokiče ‘no kind of’ < nokiče ‘no kind of’; Csúcs 1990: 172; Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 120).

2.2.2. Interrogative pronounThe distributive pronoun här ‘each’ has been borrowed into (Bashkortostani) Udmurt (e.g. är-kin ‘every’; Csúcs 1990: 169; Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 122) and Southern Mansi (e.g. år- ~ år-han ‘everybody’; Munkácsi – Kálmán 1986: 46b–47a) where it functions as a prefix. In Udmurt and Mansi it can also be used determinatively, and it has also been borrowed as a determiner into Erzya and Moksha Mordvin (e.g. E eŕ-va M jäŕ, äŕ ‘every’; Majtinskaja 1964: 46) and Mari (e.g. är ‘every’; Gordeev 1979: 125).

2.2.3. Interrogative pronounThe interrogative pronoun ni ‘what; why’ has been borrowed into Eastern Mansi: nė ~ ni ~ ne ‘what, what kind’ (Munkácsi – Kálmán 1986: 334b–335a).

2.2.4. CliticThe postpositional clitic -TEr (cf Tat. kem ‘who’ > kemder ‘somebody’) has been borrowed into eastern peripheral dialects of Udmurt (e.g. kin-dir ‘some-body’; Keľmakov–Saarinen 1994: 121).

6 Rogier Blokland

2.2.5. PrefixThe prefix teläsä ‘w-ever you like’ has been borrowed into (Bashkortostani) Udmurt (e.g. tilasa-kitin ‘wherever, everywhere’; Keľmakov – Saarinen 1994: 121).

2.3. Elements borrowed from Chuvash

2.3.1. ParticleThe particle kirek ‘any-’ (cf. kam ‘who’ > kirek kam ta ‘anybody’, mĕn ‘what’ > kirek mĕn te ‘anything’) has been borrowed into Hill Mari (e.g. kerek-kü ‘anyone’; Savatkova 2002: 165) and Meadow Mari (e.g. kerek-kudo ‘any’, kerek-kušto ‘anywhere’; Majtinskaja 1964: 83).

2.3.2. Indefinite pronounThe indefinite pronominal prefix ta has been borrowed in Erzya and Moksha Mordvin (e.g. E ta-koso ‘somewhere’; Majtinskaja 1964: 38) and Hill Mari (e.g. ta-γǝštǝ ‘somewhere’; Majtinskaja 1964: 84).

2.4. Elements borrowed from Swedish

2.4.1. Indefinite pronounThe Swedish indefinite pronoun någon ‘some, any; somebody, anybody’ has been borrowed into (Malå) Ume Saami (e.g. naaga(n) ‘somebody’; Schlachter 1958: 98a).

2.5. CalquesThere are also a number of calqued pronominal forms; these include South Estonian edikea ‘somebody’, an allegro form of ei tea kea ~ kes ‘I don’t know who’, probably calqued from Latv. nezkas ‘somebody, I don’t know who’ (Alvre 1975: 240), the result of univerbation of nezinu kas ‘I don’t know who’, occa-sionally still written separately as nez kas. Leivu Estonian has calqued Latvian abi divi ‘both’ as keik mełèba ~ keik mełèba kaťš ‘tous deux’ (Niilus 1937: 72), but this is perhaps better classed as a determiner.

The Komi reflexive pronoun as, aś-, ać- ‘-self’ is used as a possessive pro-noun in Old Komi due to the influence of Old Church Slavonic, e.g. Genesis 18:3:

(1) as ver-id vil-ti i-n mun self servant-PX.2sg on-tra no-imPerf.imP.neg.2sg go-stem

‘do not pass by your servant’ («не мини раба своего») (Rédei 1993: 54).


Use of the adjective oma ‘own’ as a reflexive possessive pronoun in Livonian, Estonian, Vote, and Valdai and Djorža Karelian has been claimed to be due to Baltic (for southern Finnic) and Russian (for Karelian) influence (Nilsson 1988: 34; Stolz 1991: 56–58); e.g.:

Estonian(2) ma loe-n oma raamatu-t I read-Prs.1sg own book-Part

‘I’m reading my book.’ (p.k.)

Valdai Karelian (3) eľ-ī-n omaŋ-ke peŕeheŋ-ke live-Prt-1sg own-com family-com

‘I lived with my family.’ (Palmeos 1962: 47)

The Komi reciprocal compound jorta-jort ‘each other’ (KRS 223a), based on jort ‘friend’, is probably a calque of Russ. друг-друга ‘each other’, though in this reciprocal construction Russ. друг is a short form of другой ‘other’ and not of друг ‘friend’, as claimed by Heine & Kuteva (2002: 92–93), who mention a number of other languages where the concept ‘friend/comrade’ is used to create reciprocal markers (the two Russian words are, however, ultimately related).3

The prefix ok- in (Bashkortostani) Udmurt indefinite pronouns (e.g. ok-kin ‘nobody’, cf. lit. Udm. no-kin ‘nobody’) is an allegro form of odig ‘one’; the construction is calqued on Tatar (or possibly, but less likely, Bashkir), where the prefix ber- in e.g. berkem dä ‘nobody’ is similarly derived from ber ‘one’ (Kel’makov – Saarinen 1994: 119–120).

Bartens (2000: 162) claims that the use of Permic reflexive pronouns as in-tensifiers is due to Turkic influence, but as such polysemy is common in many languages, including English (cf. König – Gast 2008: 8), this could also have been an independent development.

As can be seen from the above examples, most commonly borrowed are elements functioning as prefixes in indefinite pronouns; least common are inter-rogatives. This corroborates the hierarchy set up by Matras (2009: 161), where values interfering or affecting what he calls the ‘presupposition domain’, i.e.

3 In Uralic reciprocals based on ‘friend/comrade’ also occurs in Saamic; e.g. North Saami (see example), Inari Saami (Itkonen, E. 1986: 436) and Skolt Saami (Itkonen T.I. 1958: 170b):

mo-ai dǫwˈd-i goabˈbâg guoiˈbma-me we-1du know-Pres.1du both comrade-acc.PX1du

‘We (two) know each other.’ (Nielsen 1926: 145; orthography retained)

We assume, however, that the Komi example is a separate development calqued from Russian.

8 Rogier Blokland

the set of items which the speaker and the hearer share knowledge of or which the hearer is assumed or hoped to know, are more likely to be borrowed. Such interference or impact creates a tension which can be resolved by bilingual or multilingual speakers (who assume that their hearer knows the language/s too) by borrowing. An indefinite pronoun does not specify the item which is the theme of the conversation, leading to tension and thus to borrowing, whilst an interrogative pronoun is used when the speaker presumes the hearer knows the answer, and therefore there is no tension. It is therefore no coincidence that there is, as far as we know, only one borrowing of an interrogative, namely the Mansi borrowing of Tatar ni ‘what; why’, whilst there are numerous cases of borrowed indefinite pronouns.

More unusual in languages with closed pronoun systems is the borrowing of personal pronouns; in Uralic there are closed singular-plural or singular-dual-plural systems with six or nine personal pronouns. Emphatic personal pronouns are not commonly borrowed in Uralic presumably due to the availa-bility of genuine Uralic emphatic personal pronouns or possessive suffixes, but a number of Khanty varieties have borrowed the Russian emphatic personal pronoun сам ‘self’: Šerkal, Kazym sam, Šerkal săm ‘selbst’, Šerkal săm jŏχtǝs ‘ist selbst gekommen’ (DEWOS 1338); Kazym sam ‘self’: лŭw sam ‘him-/herself’ (Honti 1986: 73); Obdorsk sam ‘self’: a sam mănl ‘he himself went out’ (Nikolaeva 1999: 36, 266), perhaps because especially in the northern varieties the simple personal pronoun instead of the emphatic personal pronoun is also used as an intensifier; such use is denoted solely through intonation (cf. Honti 1986: 73). Borrowing of an intensifier could therefore be explained as an attempt to highlight emphatic function. Russ. сам ‘self’ is also recorded in Estonian, though only in the obsolete jocular expression sam saks olema ‘selbst Herr sein’ (Wiedemann 1893: 1002; Blokland 2009: 43); it is not part of the Estonian pronominal system.

2.6. Code-switchesAs opposed to borrowed pronouns which become members of the pronominal system (to which we will turn below), there are also occasional examples of borrowed personal pronouns in instances of code-switching:

2.6.1. KhantyIn texts recorded by Irina Nikolaeva in Katravož (Obdorsk) in 1990, a form ɔńi, borrowed from Russ. они ‘they’, is found:


(4) met-s-ǝŋǝn pa śikǝńśa mŭnti pŏra-jna ɔńi tire-Pst-3du and after earlier time-Loc they măn-l-ǝŋǝn go-Prs-3du

‘They became tired, they had been walking for a long time.’ (Nikolaeva 1999: 13)

As the subject is accessible from the verbal personal endings, the Russian loan ɔńi is in principle superfluous.

2.6.2. KomiIn an Iźva Komi epic song, recorded in Kolva in 1966 by Erik Vászolyi-Vasse, the following line occurs: oχ ty aje, oχ ty mame, dum uśi veres saje munny! ‘Oh my father, oh my mother, I decided to wed!’ (Vászolyi-Vasse – Lázár 2010: 96); the forms oχ ty ‘oh you’ (< Russ. ох ты ‘oh you’), the Russian origin of which Vászolyi-Vasse already mentions (98), are instances of code-switching, and the Russian pronoun is not an element of the Iźva Komi personal pronoun system, unlike for example jeve- in Komi varieties (see 3.2. below). This same personal pronoun possibly also occurs in a Letka Komi text recorded by Fokos-Fuchs in 1916: ok ti rozbońńik... ‘Oh, der Schuft (eig. Räuber)...’ (Fokos-Fuchs 1951: 66). Popov, Fokos-Fuch’s informant, claimed that this ti was an instance of Russ. ты ‘you’ (71), but Fokos-Fuchs, pointing out that here a 3rd person would be expected, and alluding to a previously occurring ak, tɛ kazak ‘Ach, du Bursche!’ (54), where the expected Komi 2nd person singular personal pronoun occurs, assumes that the abovementioned ti is the Komi demonstrative pronoun ‘jener’, referring to Wichmann & Uotila (1942: 276b). However, Wichmann’s ti ‘jener’ is recorded only in Vyčegda and Sysola, and also does not occur in the dialect monograph on Luza-Letka (Žilina 1985), and so Russian origin is perhaps more probable.4

2.6.3. MordvinIn Mordvin there is also an instance of a Russian personal pronoun used si-milarly to the Komi case above: aχ, ti , polańaj, sediń kolajńaj ‘oh you, wife of mine, bewitcher of my heart’ (Juhász 1929: 299), where aχ, ti ‘oh you’ is Russian and the remaining part of the phrase Mordvin, i.e. the Russian pronoun is here part of a code-switch and not part of the Mordvin pronominal system.

3. Borrowed personal pronouns in UralicIn contrast to the relatively common cases of indefinite, calqued and code-switched pronouns, borrowed personal pronouns in Uralic replacing native

4 Genuine Permic те ‘you’ occurs e.g. in Zjuzdin Permyak ок те, милочка менам ‘ох ты, милочка моя’ (Nečaev 1930: 26).

10 Rogier Blokland

pronouns are relatively rare, but at least in Enets, Khanty, Zyrian Komi, Per-myak Komi and Vote a number of occurrences are found.5

3.1. EnetsCastrén (1854: 351–352), in his monumental grammar, noted that Enets has two different second (tod i, û, mod. тодди, у) and 3rd person singular pronouns (ńîtoda, bû, mod. ниитода, бу). Prokof’jev (1937: 76) showed that the first forms are used in Tundra (Madu) Enets, the second ones in Forest (Bai) Enets, and that the forms used in Forest Enets show striking similarities with the corre-sponding Ket pronouns (cf. Ket у, ук ‘ты’, бу ‘он, она’; Krejnovič 1968: 461). Since then their Ket origin has generally been accepted, but the odd thing is that otherwise Ket influence on Enets (or, indeed, vice-versa) seems to be slight to nonexistent, even though Castrén (1856: 279), although regrettably without adducing any possible instantiations of such influence, claims otherwise. The only explanation so far has been put forward by Siegl (2008), who devoted an article to the Enets pronouns where he, having dutifully ploughed through Werner 2002, suggests that even though Enets has otherwise borrowed hardly anything else from Ket, the borrowing of the pronouns could be explained by the suppletion of pronominal stems in Nenets and Enets; compare e.g. the 1st person singular forms in Nenets (after Siegl 2008: 125):

Tundra Nenets Forest NenetsNom мань mod´Acc (мань) си’’ми šii’’Loc нянани (mod´)nonyń

According to Siegl, the ‘weak paradigmatic strength’ of the pronouns made it attractive for Forest Enets to replace its suppletive series with a non-suppletive one borrowed from Ket. Siegl (2008: 125) also mentions the case of Nganasan, where the paradigmatic systematicity of the nominative, genitive and accusative of the personal pronouns has been maximized by equating the last two with the nominative (cf. Tereščenko 1966: 427). In comparison with the other cases of pronoun borrowing in Uralic the Enets case is unusual as it is not limited to the replacement or addition of a 3rd person pronominal form. Hajdú (1990)

5 The Uralic languages are not always on the receiving end: the Udmurt 1st person and 2nd person personal pronouns mon and ton occur in varieties of colloquial Russian spoken in Iževsk (Prokurovskaja 1990: 112), though they seem to be restricted to jocular use; Schönig (1995: 45) suggests the prothetic e- in Chuvash personal pronouns may have arisen due to Mari influence. Fedjuneva (2008: 147) also refers to possible Southern Finnic and/or Mari influence in the development of the Komi n–initial 3rd person plural pronouns. I intend to return to this at a later date.


also derives Nenets пыда ‘s/he’ via Enets bu from Ket, but this etymology is rejected by Siegl (2008: 122–123).

3.4. Zyrian Komi and Permyak KomiPerhaps the best known case of a borrowed personal pronoun in a Uralic lan-guage is the case of the Russian genitive/accusative его of the masculine 3rd person singular personal pronoun он ‘he’, borrowed into Upper Sysola Komi: jeve ~ jeve (Lytkin 1930: 42, 43; Lytkin 1955: 76, 77, 118; SSKZD 469, 471; Serebrennikov 1963: 193; Žilina 1975: 100–106; Honti 2003: 34; Fedjuneva 2008: 155, 382–383). According to Žilina (1975: 102)6, in the Upper Sysola dialect of Zyrian Komi jeve (Kobra subdialect of Upper Sysola) jeve occurs in only in oblique cases:

(5) jeve-li panedaśa-s ruč s/he-dat meet-Prt.3sg fox. nom

‘He came upon a fox.’ («ему встретилась лиса») (Lytkin 1930: 42; 1955: 76)

(6) staruha jеj śôo jеve-liś old woman.nom meat.nom eat-Prs.3sg s/he-abL

‘The old woman eats his meat.’ («старуха его мясо ест») (Lytkin 1930: 43; Lytkin 1955: 77)

(7) kofta-is jeve-len ńojm-ema ńin jacket-PX.3sg s/he-gen wear.out-Perf.3sg already ‘Her jacket was already worn out.’ («кофта у нее уже прохудилась») (Žilina 1975: 104)

(8) me pe jeve-liś ńinem og I.nom they say s/he-abL nothing no-Prs.1sg

vered disturb-stem

‘They say I don’t disturb anything of hers.’ («я, говорит, у нее ничего не трогаю») (Žilina 1975: 104)

6 Fedjuneva (2008) is somewhat unclear on this issue: on page 156 she says that there is a nominative jeve ~ jeve in Upper Sysola, on page 382 she says there is not.

12 Rogier Blokland

(9) a te jeve-es e-n i but you.nom s/he-acc no-Prt.2sg even ľubit? love-stem

‘And you didn’t even love him?’ («а ты его и не любила?») (Žilina 1975: 104)

However, Žilina’s examples show that it is also used in postpositional construc-tions and possessive constructions (i.e. where standard Zyrian Komi usually uses the bare stem of the 3rd person singular personal pronoun сы-):

(10) jeve ji-liś s/he.nom top-abL

‘About him.’ («о нем») (Žilina 1975: 106)

(11) sija ńamed tujin ol-e s/he.nom dawdler.nom instead live-Prs.3sg

jeve dinin s/he.nom near ‘Living with him she suffers all kinds of humiliation.’ («живя с ним, она терпит вся кие унижения») (Žilina 1975: 145)

(12) jeve ďeńga vil-e ńeb-i s/he.nom money.nom on-iLL buy-Prt.3sg

‘Bought with his money.’ («купил на его деньги») (Žilina 1975: 106)

Apart from Lytkin (1955: 30), none of the above sources mention that this borrowed pronoun is also encountered in the Zjuzdin (or Upper Kama) dialect of Permyak, which is spoken in the Afanasjevsky district of the Kirov Oblast on the western border of the Perm Krai, and which is geographically relatively close to the Upper Sysola dialect area of Zyrian Komi. Zjuzdin Permyak is usually subsumed under Permyak, but it can be considered a link between Zyrian Komi and Permyak Komi, though they are now not contiguous (cf. Lytkin 1955: 29–30; Lytkin 1957: 60; Batalova 1975: 221–223; Tepljašina – Lytkin 1976: 114; Baker 1985: 14, 74, Sažina 2005: 227). To our knowledge the existence of this pronoun in Zjuzdin Permyak is first mentioned by Nečaev (1928: 21), though he does not point out its Russian origin; Lytkin (1955: 30) lists it as one of the characteristics shared by Zjuzdin Permyak and Upper Sysola Komi. In Zjuzdin Permyak the borrowed pronoun jeve occurs in the accusative as a direct object:


(13) tožno jev-e hezajka vart-is then s/he-acc mistress.nom hit-Prt.3sg

‘Then the mistress hit him.’ («тогда за это хозяйка его побила (била)») (Nečaev 1930: 23)

(14) što hezajka-len lokt-as zjať, that mistress-gen come-fut.3sg son-in-law.nom

mij-en pond-as poššovať what-instr because-ine.PX3sg entertain.inf

jev-e s/he-acc

‘Because the mistress’ son-in-law is coming, and what could she give him now?’ («что хозяйкин зять придет, чем она угощать его будет») (Nečaev 1930: 23)

(15) ńija jev-e ľeź-ise they.nom s/he-acc let.in-Prt.3PL

‘They let him in.’ («они его впустили») (Nečaev 1930: 24)

(16) isti-s jev-e koźol send.away-Prt.3sg s/he-acc goat-nom

‘The goat sent him away.’ («отослал его козел») (Nečaev 1930: 24)

As these fragments show, in Zjuzdin Permyak the accusative form of jeve used is slightly different to that of the Upper Sysola Komi form, where the texts only show an accusative with the accusative marker -es (see e.g. (9) above). In both Upper Sysola Komi and Zjuzdin Permyak the typical Komi/Permyak substitution of Russ. o with <ö> [e] (cf. Kalima 1911: 25–26) led to the pro-blem of the identity of the final vowel with the normal pronominal accusative marker-e , and the two varieties effected different solutions: in Upper Sysola Komi the general accusative marker -es, originally used in nouns, has been added, resulting in jevees ~ jevees ~ jeves (cf. Fedjuneva 2008: 382), whilst in Zjuzdin jeve seems to have been reanalyzed as jev-e, with the final vowel as the pronominal accusative marker -e. In principle this would mean that in Zjuzdin *jev could have been used as a nominative, but this does not occur. A nominative jeve is listed by Fedjuneva (2008: 156) for Upper Sysola, though it is not found in texts in Žilina 1975 (or anywhere else), who notes only sija as a nominative 3rd person singular personal pronoun (1975: 102); Rédei (quoted in Honti 2003: 34) also claims that jeve cannot exist without a case suffix.

In Nečaev’s texts the two other occurrences of a 3rd person singular personal pronoun are based on the Permic stem si -: e.g. the stem in si ulte ‘под него’

14 Rogier Blokland

(1930: 23) or the genitive in si-len vel-i imeńńe ‘у него было именье’ (1930: 23). Similarly, in Lytkin’s (1930: 42; 1955: 76) and Žilina’s (1975: 258–259) Upper Sysola texts from Kobra the only nominatives are based on the pronoun of Permic origin. Regrettably the paucity of texts in Zjuzdin Permyak does not allow us to obtain a more precise impression of the distribution and usage of jeve and genuine Permic si-, but Nečaev (1930: 21) informs us that for a direct object jeve is used instead of sije or sije-s, and the instrumental jeve-n is more common than si-en or sij-en.

The reason for the borrowing of a personal pronoun from Russian into Upper Sysola Komi and Zjuzdin Permyak is unlikely to be related to the fact that in all Komi varieties the direct object can also be in the nominative and the resulting potential identity of the subject and direct object, because this usually does not apply to pronouns. Comrie (1975: 10) claims that all Uralic languages distinguish nominative from accusative in pronouns, but this is not strictly true7: in the Middle Sysola dialect of Zyrian Komi two (sije ~ sije) of the five possible accusative forms of the 3rd person singular personal pronoun are identical to the nominative (Fedjuneva 2008: 382). Middle Sysola borders on Upper Sysola, and it is theoretically possible that identity of the nominative and accusative also obtained in Upper Sysola, an ambiguity which could have been resolved through the borrowing of a Russian pronoun for the direct object (as there was no such similarity between nominative and accusative forms of the 1st or 2nd person singular pronouns there was also no need to borrow re-placements for these pronouns, nor indeed, for plural personal pronouns). This, however, remains a hypothesis without any proof. As Zjuzdin Permyak and Upper Sysola Komi, the only Uralic varieties which have borrowed Russian его, are now separated by a smallish strip of territory but were formerly in close contact (cf. Baker 1985: 14), it is improbable that the borrowing of the Russian pronoun took place independently in the two varieties, notwithstanding Zjuzdin’s divergent remodeling of it.

3.3. Vote

3.3.1. Western VoteVote consists of four main dialects (Western Vote, Eastern Vote, Krevinian, and Kukkuzi), of which the last three are extinct; Western Vote probably has fewer than 10 native speakers. The origin of Vote has not yet been clarified to everyone’s satisfaction: though it is generally considered to be a ‘southern’

7 We have seen above that Nganasan does not differentiate among any cases in personal pronouns, and in Kamas (KW 142) the form of the direct object is not always different from other oblique forms of the personal pronouns; in Estonian the nominative and the genitive (which may be used as an object case) of the 3rd person singular and the 1st and 2nd person plural of the personal pronouns are identical.


Finnic language, it also evinces a number of features typical of the ‘eastern’ Finnic languages such as Karelian and its dialects, and Veps: e.g. the so-called 1st or eastern genitive plural which goes back to a genitive plural suffix with one plural marker (*-δ-en; cf. western Finnish kalain < *kala-δ-en fish-gen.PL) instead of the 2nd or western type which derives from a genitive plural suffix with two plural markers (*-i-δ-en; cf. eastern Finnish kalojen, Vote kalojē < *kala-i-δ-en fish-gen.PL), the e- in the negative imperative verb elä- /älä- ‘do not’ (both occur in Vote), and the 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns mȫ and tȫ (cf. western Finnish me, te, eastern Finnish myö, työ). Vote has therefore often been characterized as a mixed language (Sjögren 1833: 34; Kettunen 1957: 127; Kettunen 1960: 231; Salo 1997: 384); Itkonen (1983: 214, 216), choosing his words more carefully, writes that Vote is basically a ‘western’ Finnic language in the formation of which the ‘eastern’ group has also played a role. Lauerma (1993a), however, has shown that all eastern elements in Vote may be either independent innovations (the 1st genitive plural) or borrowings (the negative imperative and the 1st and 2nd person plural personal pronouns), and he assumes that the 3rd person singular and plural pronoun forms (tämä ‘s/he’ and nämä ~ nämäd ~ näväd ‘they’) in Vote are genuine ‘southern’ elements, positing that the 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns mȫ and tȫ are evidence of early influence from ‘eastern’ Finnic languages, varieties of which have been spoken in Ingria since at least the 11th century when the forebears of the Ingrians arrived from around Lake Ladoga. As already mentioned above, in all varieties of Vote except Kukkuzi, to which we will turn later, there is a dichotomy between on the one hand the 1st and 2nd person pronouns, which are typical of the eastern Finnic languages, and the 3rd person pronouns, which are similar to those found in the southern Finnic languages Estonian and Livonian, on the other. Below follows an overview of the personal pronouns in the nominative in all varieties of Vote:

Table 1. Western Vote, Kattila (Ahlqvist 1856: 43)Singular Plural

1 miä mö2 siä tö3 tämä nämä

Table 2. Western Vote, Kattila (Ariste 1948: 60) Singular Plural

1 miä mȫ ~ mǖ2 siä tȫ ~ tǖ 3 tämä nämä ~ nämäd ~ näväd

16 Rogier Blokland

Table 3. Eastern Vote, Mahu (Kettunen 1986: 78, 82, 89, 122, 146, 147; VKS 3: 399; 6: 353)

Singular Plural1 miä mȫ ~ mǖ2 siä tȫ ~ tǖ3 tämä näväd

Table 4. Krevinian (Winkler 1997: 262–263)8

Singular Plural1 mie me ~ met ~ mȫt8

2 sie ~ se sȫt3 tämä ~ täm näve

A comparison of the Kattila (Western Vote) pronouns as recorded by Ahlqvist (1856) and Ariste (1948) show that 20th century Kattila Vote has gained alterna-tive forms of the 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns with higher vowels; here it is difficult to say whether Kattila has actually borrowed the pronouns with the higher vowel from a variety of Ingrian (see Table 5 below; less common variants in brackets) or simply phonetically adapted its own pronouns to Ingrian ones.

Table 5. Ingrian (Porkka 1885: 78–79; Laanest 1986: 119)Singular Plural

1 miä mȫ ~ mǖ (~ mȫi)2 siä tȫ ~ tǖ (~ tȫi)3 hǟ ~ hǟn hȫ ~ hǖ (~ hȫi ~ hȫn ~ hȫt)

Kettunen (1930: 132; 1960: 59) proposes that it is the raising itself in Eastern Vote which is due to Ingrian influence; that this raise from ȫ to ǖ occurs in Western Vote too can be seen in the texts from Jegēperä in e.g. Kettunen & Posti 1932, and we can therefore also handily accept Lauerma’s aforementio-ned suggestion that the ‘easternness’ of the 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns is simply due to language contact without the need to postulate the existence of a ‘mixed’ language.

3.3.2. Kukkuzi VoteAnother problem is posed by the fourth variety of Vote, Kukkuzi Vote, formerly spoken to the southwest of the main Vote area (cf. e.g. the map in Kettunen 1930: 206). Kukkuzi is generally seen as the most divergent of Vote varieties, and the two main characteristics which separate it from Western and Eastern Vote varieties are the lack of typically Vote affricatization of initial k- anterior

8 The final -t in the Krevinian 1st person plural forms met and mȫt is a secondary plural marker; the initial s- in the 2nd person plural sȫt is the result of analogy with the 2nd person singular sie (cf. Winkler 1997: 263).


to front vowels (cf. Vote čäsi ‘hand’ ~ Kukkuzi käsi ‘id.’), and the existence of ‘non-southern’ 3rd person personal pronouns:

Table 6. Kukkuzi (Posti – Suhonen 1980: 81, 83, 287, 299, 473, 542)Singular Plural

1 miä mǖ2 siä tśǖ3 hän ~ hǟn hǖ

The preservation of k- in Kukkuzi has been thought to be due to its isolation from the other Vote areas (Posti 1958: 8), and two explanations have been posited for the existence of the non-southern 3rd person personal pronouns: Kukkuzi borrowed them from Ingrian (e.g. VKS I: 271), or Kukkuzi is ori-ginally a ‘northern’ variety of Finnic which has been strongly influenced by Vote (e.g. Viitso 1998: 99).9 Suhonen claims (1985: 140) that Laanest in his monograph on Ingrian dialects (Laanest 1966) declares Kukkuzi to be an Ingrian dialect, but, as Ariste (1957: 119) mentions, there has been a language shift from Ingrianized Vote to Ingrian in Kukkuzi, and Laanest records Kukkuzi as a bilingual Vote-Ingrian village (p. 6): when he mentions ‘Kukkuzi’ (p. 15) he is referring to the (Lower Luga) Ingrian spoken there at present and not to the Vote variety strongly influenced by Ingrian (and probably Lower Luga Finnish), which is now, however, probably no longer spoken (cf. Adler 1966: 118; cf. Suhonen 1985 for an enumeration and comparison of the Ingrian and Vote elements in Kukkuzi).

The borrowing of the ‘non-southern’ 3rd person personal pronouns from Ingri-an is in fact the most likely explanation, for two reasons: first, the Vote personal pronoun system (excluding Kukkuzi) in any event contains both southern and non-southern elements (as pointed out again recently by Lauerma 1993: 49), and second, it can be shown that borrowing of 3rd person personal pronouns is common in Vote, as it is also at present occurring in e.g. the Jegēperä variety of Western Vote. Tsvetkov recorded the following typical Vote system in the 1920s:

Table 7. Western Vote, Jegēperä (Tsvetkov 2008: 54–55)10

Singular Plural1 miä müü2 siä tüü3 tämä10 nämäd

9 “Kukkosi Votic was originally a North Fennic dialect that was first influenced by Votic proper and later by Lower Luga Ingrian.” Viitso does not claim with so many words that hän and hǖ are native pronouns in Kukkuzi, but it would fit with his postulation that it is originally a North Finnic variety.

10 Vote tämä is also used as a demonstrative pronoun (cf. VKS 6: 340)

18 Rogier Blokland

However, Agranat (2007: 80–81), in her grammar of Western Vote, the material of which was recorded between 1995 and 2006, notes two slightly different pronominal systems for Luuditsa and for Jegēperä:

Table 8. Western Vote, Luuditsa (Agranat 2008: 80–81)Singular Plural

1 miä müü2 siä tüü3 tämä nämä ~ nämäd

Table 9. Western Vote, Jegēperä (Agranat 2008: 80–81)Singular Plural

1 miä müü2 siä tüü3 tämä hüü

It can be seen that a significant change has occurred in the Western Vote variety of Jegēperä: the Vote 3rd person plural pronoun has been replaced by the Ingri-an 3rd person plural personal pronoun hǖ, though the Vote 3rd person singular pronoun tämä has been retained. Heinsoo & Kuusk (2002: 118) state that this is the situation now obtaining in Jegēperä, and according to Agranat’s pronoun table, this system is typical for Jegēperä only, but in actual fact this change is not restricted to Jegēperä; though Agranat’s table does not show it, in her texts (a number of which can also be found in Agranat 2008 with interlinear glosses) from Luuditsa (2007: 172, 173, 176, 177, 181) the Ingrian variants hüü (nominative) and heil (adessive) occur (with no instances of the genuine Vote 3rd person plural pronoun), e.g.:

(17) a hei-l õлл-ti üvä-t but they-ade be-imPers.Prt good-nom.PL

hüü linnǝ-ssǝ they.nom city-eLa

‘But they had good (ones) – they were from the city.’ (Agranat 2007: 177)

A number of the texts were recorded from the Jegēperä-born Zinaida Saveljeva, resident in Luuditsa, and whose Ingrianisms could therefore be explained by her place of birth, but hüü also occurs in texts from the Luuditsa-born Tatjana Prokopenko. Kettunen (1945: 255) already refers to the many Ingrianisms in Luuditsa Vote. Heinsoo & Kuusk and Agranat state that only the (borrowed) 3rd person plural personal pronoun hüü is used in Jegēperä (and in Luuditsa too, as we have seen), but the 3rd person singular personal pronoun hän (< In-grian hǟn ‘s/he’) is also found in a number of Western Vote texts. The earliest


occurrence seems to be in a text collected by Julius Mägiste in 1943, where both types of 3rd person singular personal pronoun, tämä (southern Finnic) and hän (non-southern Finnic), occur in the speech of an informant from Jegēperä (the transcription has been slightly simplified):

(18) sīs tämä tetš-i takàz aďďe-n11

then s/he make-Prt.3sg again fence-gen

‘Then he made a new fence again.’ («Dann errichtete er wieder einen (neuen) Zaun») (Mägiste 1959: 166)

(19) häne-l aлk-o süäme-z niku mato s/he-ade begin-Prt.3sg heart-ine as snake pur-rĕ bite-inf ‘it felt as if a snake was biting his heart’ («...fing (es) in seinem [ihm] Herz an, gleich einer Schlange zu beissen») (Mägiste 1959: 166)

(20) hǟñ sīz ott-i püsǜ s/he then take-Prt.3sg gun.gen

‘he then took the gun ...’ («er nahm die Flinte ...») (Mägiste 1959: 166)

The Ingrian borrowing hän only occurs a couple of times, with Vote tämä being much more common, and there seems to be no specific reason why hän is chosen in the examples above. As the following extract shows, both pronouns may even occur in two consecutive sentences:

(21) ja tuл-tì häne-lt tšüsü-mä etti men-nä and come-Pass.Prt s/he-abL ask-iLL that go-inf

tōv-và nahkĕ vällä no tämä neuvvo bring-inf skin out well s/he advise.Prt.3sg

kuza kehtà on karu where place be.Prs.3sg bear ‘... and they came to ask him to go and bring the skin. Well, he told them where the bear was.’ («... und kamen, (um sich) bei [von] ihm zu erkundigen [fragen], um das Fell (des Bären) holen zu gehen [man geht, man holt weg]. Er belehrte sie [gab den Rat], also, an [im] welcher Stelle der Bär liege [ist]») (Mägiste 1959: 169)

11 The form aďďe-n here is unclear; the final –n is not Vote. The expected Jegēperä genitive would be aďā (cf. VKS 1: 85).

20 Rogier Blokland

As both hän and tämä refer to the same person there can be no question of different referential properties. It is possible that this is a sporadic occurrence in the speech of Mägiste’s informant Ivan Borisov12, but it is not restricted to him, as hän can also be found in a text recorded by Heinsoo & Kuusk in 1995 from an informant whose Vote was supposed to be very good:

(22) hän on vaďďa s/he be.Prs.3sg Vote ‘She is Vote.’ (Heinsoo – Kuusk 2002: 114)

The borrowed pronoun hän also occurs in a text of an informant recorded by Heinsoo & Kuusk (2005: passim), whose Vote, however, was very strongly influenced by Ingrian (so much that Heinsoo & Kuusk suggest she basically speaks ‘Finnic’). In this informant’s Vote, hän dominates, though tämä also occurs occasionally:

(23) sōrok vaśmom godū hän tul-i kottī forty eight year s/he come-Prt.3sg home.iLL

‘She came home in 1948.’ (Heinsoo – Kuusk 2005: 76)

This sentence is a good illustration of why Heinsoo & Kuusk consider the informant’s speech ‘Finnic’, as it contains no specifically Vote elements: the year is in Russian, the pronoun is Ingrian, the verb form can be Vote, Ingrian, Finnish or Estonian, and the adverb is Ingrian. This is followed in the narrative by the following sentence:

(24) tämä el-i rohkēp kümmē āstaik-ā s/he live-Prt.3sg more ten year-Part

‘She lived another ten years.’ (Heinsoo – Kuusk 2005: 76)

Here the pronoun is Vote, the verb Ingrian (though the informant can also have simply substituted e for typically Vote e , which she does regularly, making it identical to the Ingrian form; cf. Heinsoo – Kuusk 2005: 70), the cardinal Vote but with the typically Vote affricatization of initial k- anterior to front vowels eliminated through Ingrian influence (cf. Ingr. kümmenän, Vote tšümmē ‘ten’), rohkēp seems to be a Vote adaptation (in the comparative) of Ingr. rohkia ‘bold;

12 Ivan Borisov, who was 62 when Mägiste interviewed him in 1943, is the father of Aleksandr Ivanovitš Borisov, born in Jegēperä in 1931, whom Ariste claimed to speak ‘Soikkola Ingrian with Vote elements’ (2005: 56), though ‘good Vote’ when he met him 24 years later (2005: 133). See Heinsoo & Kuusk (2002) for a sample of Aleksandr Borisov’s Vote as recorded in 1995.


more’ (itself a partial calque from Est. rohkem ‘more’; Nirvi 1971: 484b), and the attribute of the cardinal is Vote.

Recent Vote texts seem to show that hän is most likely an occasional In-grianism used by good speakers of Vote, only occurring as the main 3rd per-son singular personal pronoun in the language of the informant recorded by Heinsoo & Kuusk mentioned above whose heavily Ingrianized Vote is well on the way to becoming Ingrian with some Vote influence, and that only hüü has become an integral element of the Western Vote pronominal system.13 Though the genuine Vote personal pronouns still prevail in relatively recent texts from Jegēperä (e.g. Mägiste 1959: passim; Ariste 1974: passim; Heinsoo 2005: 227), the very latest (admittedly not very plentiful) material from Jegēperä (Heinsoo – Kuusk 2005; Agranat 2007) and Luuditsa (Agranat 2007) show that the original Vote 3rd person plural personal pronoun nämä ~ nämäd seems to have been displaced by the borrowed Ingrian pronoun hüü. It is often said that the Finnic people of Ingria in general did not learn each other’s language, as they were so similar this was not necessary (e.g. Kettunen 1945: 237; Ariste 1957: 122), but it is also a well-known fact that many speakers mix(ed) their varieties (cf. e.g. Kettunen 1945: 204, 227–228; Ariste 1960: 206-207; Ariste 1968; Ariste 1980: 209; Heinsoo 2005: 233; Heinsoo 2006), where especially most, if not all, varieties of Vote were under strong Ingrian influence (cf. e.g. Kettunen 1945: 204, 237, 244, 255); Talve (1990: 63) notes it specifically for Jegēperä in 1942, and it can be exemplified by the above extract from Heinsoo & Kuusk. In addition to the general Ingrianization of many Vote varieties, faci-litated by their close genetic relationship and typological similarity, a possible reason for the adoption of Ingrian hüü as a replacement for Vote nämä ~ nämäd is paradigmatic systematicity in the plural pronoun series: müü, tüü, nämä ~ nämäd > müü, tüü, hüü. For the singular pronouns this was perhaps not as necessary, as the phonetic shape of Ingrian hän ~ hǟn ~ hǟ is not especially similar to the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns miä and siä. With regard to the replacement of nämä ~ nämäd with hüü, not only would the paradigmatic systematicity within the Vote pronominal system itself increase, but borrowing would also bring about a concomitant reduction in memory load, caused by the need to operate in at least three (Russian is also spoken by all Votes, often Finnish and/or Estonia too) linguistic systems, through convergence of the Vote and Ingrian pronominal systems.

For the record it must be mentioned that the Vote 3rd person singular pro-noun tämä ‘s/he’ is recorded once in the aberrant Kukkuzi variety (where hän is the only 3rd person singular pronoun), but this occurs in a sentence where

13 The 3rd person pronoun hän also occurs once in a text recorded in 1901 by Vihtori Alava in Kattila (Alava 1909: 49; cf. also VKS 1: 271), but it occurs only in the introduction to a song, and so it is probably a sporadic Ingrianism.

22 Rogier Blokland

the informant repeats the (non-native) interviewer’s question in (Western) Vote, and as soon as the informant needs to refer a 3rd person again she uses the Kukkuzi form hän, and tämä is therefore probably not part of her personal pronoun system:

Interviewer: (25) tämä e-b näh-nü? s/he no-Prs.3sg see-Perf.act.Part

‘She couldn’t see?’ (Ariste 1977: 136)

Informant: (26) tämä‿ b näh-nüd, miä ēz s/he no-Prs.3sg see-Perf.act.Part i front johsū pan-i-n a hän jälēs pan-i run.iLL put-Prt-1sg but s/he after run-Prt.3sg

johsū run.iLL

‘She couldn’t see, I started running, but she started to run after me’ (Ariste 1977: 136)

4. ConclusionsThe Uralic languages spoken in Russia have borrowed a large number of pronouns or pronominal elements, mostly from Russian, but also from Turkic languages or from related Uralic languages. It was mentioned that in Uralic, as in most other Eurasian languages, pronouns form a closed class, but within this class some are more closed than others: e.g. demonstrative or interrogati-ve pronouns can be relatively easily added to, whilst personal and possessive pronouns are the most ‘closed’. As the above examples show, however, even these subclasses can borrow, though the Enets, Komi/Permyak and Vote cases are, however, all different: paradigmatic systematicity was probably the driving force behind the Enets and Vote cases, though the actual language contact si-tuations could not have been more different. As the Enets example show, there does not necessarily need to be extensive and intense language contact, as it borrowed its pronouns and basically nothing else from Ket, a language with which it had only slight contact. In Vote the reason for borrowing was most likely the same, but here the donor language was one with which Vote has been in very close contact and which is genetically closely related and typologically similar; Kettunen (1909: 107–108) already pointed out that speakers of such closely related languages readily borrow from each other. Pressure from the pronominal paradigm played no role in the cases of Upper Sysola Komi or Zjuzdin Permyak, where the reason for borrowing Russian его is perhaps due


to a possible identity of the nominative and accusative of the 3rd person perso-nal pronoun, and though the actual borrowing in both Upper Sysola Komi or Zjuzdin Permyak undoubtedly goes back to when these two varieties were in close contact, their adaptation of it diverged.

In the Permic varieties and Vote the Russian pronouns have been borrowed relatively recently, which is evinced both by the fact that only the 3rd person pronoun has been borrowed (the singular in Komi and Permyak and the plural in Vote) and that the genuine pronoun also still occurs. In Forest Enets the Ket pronouns have probably been borrowed earlier, as pronouns for two persons (3rd person and 2nd person singular) have been borrowed, which in addition have completely supplanted the genuine pronouns.

Abbreviations:ABL ablativeACC accusativeADE adessiveCOM comitativeDAT dativeDU dualELA elativeF feminineFUT futureGEN genitiveILL illativeIMP imperativeIMPERS impersonalIMPERF imperfectINDEF indefiniteINE inessiveINF infinitiveINSTR instrumentalLOC locativeM masculineNEG negation/negativeNOM nominativeOBL obliquePART partitivePERF perfectPL pluralPX possessive suffixPRS present

24 Rogier Blokland

PST pastREFLEX reflexiveSG singularTRA transitive (case)

5. LiteratureAdler, Elna [Адлер, Эльна] 1966: Водский язык. In Лыткин, Василий И.

– Клара Майтинская (eds): Языки народов СССР. Том третий. Финно-угoрские и самодийские языки. Москва: Наука. 118–137.

Agranat, Tat’jana B. [Агранат, Татьяна Б.] 2007: Западный диалект водского языка. Mitteilungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Heft 26. Moskva – Gro-ningen.

Agranat, Tat’jana B. [Агранат, Татьяна Б.] 2008: Водский язык. In Кибрик, Алекдандр, Е. (ed.): Малые языки и традиции: существование на грани. Выпуск 2. Тексты и словарные материалы. Москва: Институт мировой культуры МГУ. 90–129.

Ahlqvist, August 1856: Wotisk Grammatik jemte språkprof och ordförteckning. Acta societatis scientiarum fennicae V. 1–162.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002: Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006: Areal Diffusion, Genetic Inheritance, and Problems of Subgrouping: A North Arawak Case Study. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. – Robert M. W. Dixon: Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheri-tance. Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 167–194.

Alava, Vihtori 1909: Vatjalaisia häätapoja. Häälauluja ja –itkuja. Vähäisiä kirjelmiä 42. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

ALFE = Tuomi, Tuomo (ed.) 2004: Atlas linguarum fennicarum. Itämeren-suomalainen kielikartasto. Läänemeresoome keeleatlas. Ostseefinnischer Sprachatlas. Лингвистический атлас прибалтийско-финских языков. I. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Alvre, Paul 1975: Über eine Neubildung in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen (auf dem Hintergrunde der pronominalen Typologie). Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 11. 235–41.

Alvre, Paul 2002: Russische Lehnelemente in Indefinitpronomen und -adverbien der ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Linguistica Uralica 38. 161–164.

Ariste, Paul 1957: Vatjalaisten nykyisyydestä. Virittäjä 61. 119–123.Ariste, Paul 1960: Tänapäeva vadjalastest. Etnograafia Muuseumi Aastaraamat

XVII. 203–224.Ariste, Paul 1968: Welche Sprache spricht die ostseefinnische Bevölkerung in

Vaipooli? In Fenno-Ugrica. Juhlakirja Lauri Postin kuusikymmenvuotispä-


iväksi 17.3.1968. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 145. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 12–19.

Ariste, Paul 1974: Vadjalane kätkist kalmuni. Emakeele Seltsi Toimetised 10. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.

Ariste, Paul 1977: Vadja muistendeid. Emakeele Seltsi Toimetised 12. Tallinn: Valgus.

Ariste, Paul 1980: Die Veränderungen im Wortschatz des Wotischen. Congressus Quintus Fenno-Ugristarum III. 207–212.

Ariste 2005 = Västrik, Ergo-Hart (ed.): Paul Ariste.Vadja päevikud 1942-1980. Litteraria. Eesti kirjandusloo allikmaterjale, vihik 22. Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum.

Baker, Robin 1985: The Development of the Komi Case System. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 189. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Bartens, Raija 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 232. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Bartens, Raija 2000: Permiläiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Mémoires de la So-ciété Finno-Ougrienne 238. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Batalova, Raisa M. [Баталова, Раиса М.] 1975: Коми-пермяцкая диалектология. Москва: Наука.

Batalova, Raisa M. [Баталова, Раиса М.] 1982: Ареальные исследования по восточным финно-угорским языкам. Москва: Наука.

Batalova, Raisa M. [Баталова, Раиса М.] 1990: Оньковский диалект коми-пермяцкого языка. Москва: Институт Языкознания АН СССР.

Batalova, Raisa M. [Баталова, Раиса М.] 2002: Кудымкарско-иньвенский диалект коми-пермяцкого языка. Mitteilungen de Societas Uralo-Altaica. Heft 23. Moskva – Groningen: Fac. der Letteren, Finoegristiek, Rijksuni-versiteit Groningen.

Beke, Ödön 1911: Cseremisz nyelvtan. Finnugor füzetek 16. Budapest.Beke, Ödön 1954: Neuere finnisch-ugrische morphologische Untersuchungen.

Acta Linguistica Hungarica 4. 95–131.Blake, Barry 1991: Australian Aboriginal Languages: A General Introduction.

St.Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Blokland, Rogier 2009: The Russian Loanwords in Literary Estonian.Veröf-

fentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Campbell, Lyle – William J. Poser 2008: Language Classification: History and

Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cassidy, Frederic G. – Robert B. Le Page (eds) 2002: Dictionary of Jamaican

English. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press.Castrén 1854 = Schiefner, Anton (ed.): Nordische Reisen und Forschungen von

Dr. M. Alexander Castrén. M. Alexander Castrén’s Grammatik der samoje-dischen Sprachen. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

26 Rogier Blokland

Castrén 1856 = Schiefner, Anton (ed.): Nordische Reisen und Forschungen von Dr. M. Alexander Castrén. M. Alexander Castrén’s Reiseberichte und Briefe aus den Jahren 1845-1849. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Comrie, Bernard 1975: Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: a functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes 12: 5–17.

Csúcs, Sándor 1990: Die tatarischen Lehnwörter des Wotjakischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Cypanov, Jevgenij [Цыпанов, Евгений] 1990: Кама йывса комияс дорын. Войвыв кодзув 3. 56–62.

DEWOS = Steinitz, Wolfgang et al. 1966-1993: Dialektologisches und etymo-logisches Wörterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache. 1–15. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Fedjuneva, Galina V. [Федюнева, Галина В.] 2008: Первичные местоимения в пермиских языках. Екатеринбург: УрО РАН.

Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid Rafael 1916: Zürjén szövegek. Ugor füzetek 19. Budapest.Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid Rafael 1951: Volksdichtung der Komi (Syrjänen). Budapest.Gilojeva, Natalja 2001: Karjalan kielen indefiniittisten pronominien muodostu-

minen. In Pajusalu, Karl – Jan Rahman (eds): Õdagumeresoomõ ütistüseq. Läänemeresoome ühendusteed. Võro Instituudi Toimõndusõq 11. 38–46

Goddard, Cliff 2005: The Languages of East and Southeast Asia. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Gordeev, Fedor I. [Гордеев, Федор И.] 1979: Этимологический словарь марийского языка. Том 1. А-Б. Йошкар-Oла: Марийские книжное издательство.

Greenberg, Joseph 1997: Does Altaic exist? In Hegedűs, Irén et al. (eds): Indo-European, Nostratic and Beyond: Festschrift for Vitalij V. Shevorosh-kin. Journal of Indo-European Studies/Monograph 22. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. 88–93.

Hajdú, Péter 1990: Einiges über Fürwörter. Linguistica Uralica 26. 1–11.Heine, Bernd – Tania Kuteva 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heinsoo, Heinike 2005: Paul Ariste ja Vaipoole vadjalased. Emakeele Seltsi

Aastaraamat 51. 222–238.Heinsoo, Heinike 2006: Vadjalaste keelevahetusest. In Koks, Helen – Jan

Rahman (eds): Mitmõkeelisüs ja keelevaihtus õdagumeresoomõ maiõ pääl. Võro Instituudi Toimõndusõq 18. Võro: Võro Instituut. 85–98.

Heinsoo, Heinike – Margit Kuusk 2002: Jõgõperä vadjalaste keelekasutus 20. sajandi lõpus. Fenno-Ugristica 24. 95–119.


Heinsoo, Heinike – Margit Kuusk 2005: No jo vanemat kōlla keik aikā vällǟ, sis jo kēli mūttū, ni, kēli mūttū. Vobštšem, vsjo bīlo. ne dai boh. Fenno-Ugristica 27. 69–85.

Helimski, Eugen 1983: The Language of the First Selkup Books. Studia Uralo-Altaica 22. Szeged: Attila József University.

Honti, László 1986: Chrestomathia ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Honti, László 2003: Über eine mögliche Zwischenstufe in der Geschichte der

russisch-uralischen Sprachkontakte. In Klumpp, Gerson – Michael Knüppel (eds): Die ural-altaischen Völker. Identität im Wandel zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Vorträge des Symposiums der Societas Uralo-Altaica vom 13. bis 15. Oktober 2002. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 63. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 29–37.

Howe, Stephen 1996: The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages: a study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic langua-ges from the first records to the present day. Studia Linguistica Germanica, vol. 43. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Itkonen, Erkki (ed) 1986: Inarilappisches Wörterbuch I. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XX,1. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Itkonen, Terho 1983: Välikatsaus suomen kielen juuriin. Virittäjä 87. 190–229, 349–386.

Itkonen, Toivo Immanuel 1958: Koltan- ja Kuolanlapin sanakirja. Wörterbuch des Kolta- und Kolalappischen. I. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XV. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Juhász, Jenő 1929: A moksamordvín-orosz nyelvkeveredés. Nyelvtudomány Közlemények 47. 296–300.

Kalima, Jalo 1911: Die russischen Lehnwörter im Syrjänischen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne XXIX. Helsingfors: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

Kálmán, Béla 1961: Die russischen Lehnwörter im Wogulischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Karpova, Ludmila [Карпова, Людмила] 1997: Фонетика и морфология срендечепецкого диалекта удмуртского языка. Dissertationes Philologiae Uralicae Universitatis Tartuensis 2. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.

Keľmakov, Valentin – Sirkka Saarinen 1994: Udmurtin murteet. Turun Ylio-piston Suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 47. Turku – Iževsk: Turun Yliopisto.

Kert, Georgij M. [Керт, Георгий М.] 1971: Саамский язык (кильдинский диалект).Фонетика, морфология, синтаксис. Ленинград: Наука.

KESK = Lytkin, Vasilij I. – Guljaev, Evgenij S. [Лыткин, Василий И. – Евгений С. Гуляев] 1970: Краткий этимологический словарь коми языка. Москва: Наука.

28 Rogier Blokland

Kettunen, Lauri 1909: Descendenttis-äännehistoriallinen katsaus Keski-Skandinavian metsä- suomalaisten kieleen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjal-lisuuden Seura.

Kettunen, Lauri 1930 [1915]: Vatjan kielen äännehistoria. Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Kettunen, Lauri 1943: Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 86. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Kettunen, Lauri 1945: Tieteen matkamiehenä. Kaksitoista ensimmäistä retkeä 1907–1918. Porvoo – Helsinki: Werner Söderström.

Kettunen, Lauri 1957: »Isuri keel». Virittäjä 61. 124–131.Kettunen, Lauri 1960: Suomen lähisukukielten luonteenomaiset piirteet. Mé-

moires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 119. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Kettunen, Lauri 1986: Vatjan kielen Mahun murteen sanasto. Toimittaneet Jar-mo Elomaa, Eino Koponen ja Leena Silfverberg. Castrenianumin Toimitteita 27. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Kettunen, Lauri – Lauri Posti 1932: Näytteitä vatjan kielestä. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 43. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

König, Ekkehard – Volker Gast 2008: Reciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology and theory. In König, Ekkehard – Volker Gast (eds): Recipro-cals and Reflexives. Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 192. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–31.

Kononov, Andrej N. [Кононов, Андрей Н.] 1956: Грамматика современного турецкого литературного языка. Москва – Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

Korhonen, Mikko – Jouni Mosnikoff – Pekka Sammallahti 1973: Koltansaamen opas. Castrenianiumin Toimitteita 4. Helsinki: Castrenianum.

Krejnovič, Eruhim A. [Крейнович, Ерухим А.] 1968: Кетский язык. In Скорик, Петр Я. (ed.): Языки народов СССР. Том пятый. Монгольские, тунгусо-маньчжурские и палоеазаитские языки. Ленинград: Наука. 453–473.

Kujola, Juho (ed.) 1944: Lyydiläismurteiden sanakirja. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae IX. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

KW = Joki, Aulis J. (ed.) 1944: Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae VIII. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Laanes t , Arvo [Лаане ст, Арво] 1966 : Ижорские диал екты. Лингвогеографическое исследование. Таллин: Академия наук Эстоской ССР, Институт языка и литературы.


Laanest, Arvo 1986: Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia. Tallinn: Valgus.

Lauerma, Petri 1993: Vatjan vokaalisointu. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 214. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Lauerma, Petri 1993a: Vatjan kielen eräät itäiset piirteet lainakosketusten valossa. Virittäjä 97. 339–344.

Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1984: Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lytkin, Vasilij I. [Лыткин, Василий И.] 1930: Диалект Кобры. In Сборник

комиссии по собиранию словаря и изучению диалектов коми языка. Выпуск I. Сыктывкар: Общества Изучения Коми края. 29–47.

Lytkin, Vasilij I. [Лыткин, Василий И.] 1955: Диалектолигеческая хрестоматия по пермским языкам: с обзором диалектов и диалектологическим словарем. Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

Lytkin, Vasilij I. [Лыткин, Василий И.] 1957: Историческая грамматик коми языка. Часть первая. Введение. Фонетика. Сыктывкар: Коми книжное издательство.

Mägiste, Julius 1959: Woten erzählen. Wotische Sprachproben. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 118. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Majtinskaja, Klara E. [Майтинская, Клара Е.] 1964: Местоимения в мордовских и марийских языках. Москва: Наука.

Matras, Yaron 2009: Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Munkácsi, Bernát – Béla Kálmán 1986: Wogulisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Musaev, Kenesbaj M. [Мусаев, Кенесбай М.] 1977: Краткий грамматический очерк караимского языка. Москва: Наука.

Nečaev, Grigorij A. [Нечаев, Григорий А.] 1930: Характеристика Зюздинского диалекта Коми языка. In Сборник комиссии по собиранию словаря и изучению диалектов коми языка. Выпуск I. Сыктывкар: Общества Изучения Коми края. 7–27.

Nichols, Johanna – David A. Peterson 1996: The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72. 336–371.

Nielsen, Konrad 1926: Lærebok i lappisk I. Grammatik. Oslo: Brøgger.Niilus, Valter 1937: Valimik leivu murdetekste. Akadeemilise Emakeele Seltsi

Toimetised XXXI. Tartu: Akadeemilise Emakeele Seltsi Kirjastus.Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999: Ostyak Texts in the Obdorsk Dialect. Studia Uralica

9. Wiesbaden.Nilsson, Torbjörn 1988: Reflexive Possessive Pronouns in the East Baltic Area.

Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher (Neue Folge) 8. 18–37.

30 Rogier Blokland

Nirvi, Reuben E. 1971: Inkeroismurteiden sanakirja. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XVIII. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Parker, Timothy S. 1993: Modern North Frisian and North German: a case study in language variation and language change between languages in contact. Kiel – Amsterdam.

Penny, Ralph 2002: A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pokrovskaja, Ljudmila A. [Покровская, Людмила А.] 1966: Гагаузский язык. In Баскаков, Николай А. (ed.): Языки народов СССР. Том второй. Тюркские языки. Москва: Издательство Наука. 112–138.

Polański, Kazimierz 1993: Polabian. In Comrie, Bernard – Graham Corbett (eds): The Slavonic Languages. London – New York: Routledge. 795–824.

Porkka, Volmari 1885: Ueber den ingrischen Dialekt mit Berücksichtigung der übrigen finnisch-ingermanländischen Dialekte. Helsingfors: Frenckell & Sohn.

Posti, Lauri 1958: Zur Geschichte des Wandels k > tš im Wotischen. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 60/8. 1–22

Prokofjev, Georgij N. [Прокофьев, Георгий, Н.] 1937: Энецкий (енисейско-самоедский) диалект. In Проковьев, Герогий Н. (ed.): Языки и письменность народов севера. Часть I. Языки и письменность самоедских и финно-угорских народов. Москва – Ленинград: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство. 75–90.

Prokurovskaja, Nina A. 1990: [Прокуровская, Нина А.] 1990: К вопросу о влиянии удмуртского языка на разговорную речь русских. In Ушаков, Геннадий А. (ed.): Вопросы грамматики и контактирования языков. Ижевск: УрО АН СССР. 111–114.

Räsänen, Martti 1969: Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türk-sprachen. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XVII,1. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Rédei, Károly 1978: Syrjänische Chrestomathie. Studia Uralica, Band 1. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.

Rédei, Károly 1993: Óegyházi szláv szemantikai és szintaktikai hatás az ózürjén nyelvben. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Reershemius, Gertrud 2004: Niederdeutsch in Ostfriesland: zwischen Sprach-kontakt, Sprachveränderung und Sprachwechsel. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Rießler, Michael 2007: Grammatical borrowing in Kildin Saami. In Matras, Yaron – Jeanette Sakel (eds): Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38. Berlin: Mou-ton de Gruyter. 229–244.

Salo, Merja 1997: Die Sprache stirbt - das Wissen über sie nimmt zu [Review of Lauerma 1993]. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 54. 384–389.


Savatkova, Anna A. [Саваткова, Анна А.] 2002: Горное наречие марийского языка. Bibliotheca Ceremissica Tomus V. Savariae: Berzsenyi Dániel Főiskola.

Savijärvi, Ilkka 1986: Venäjän partikkeli ni karjalassa ja vepsässä. In Heikkinen, Ritva et al. (eds): Rusistica II. Tutkielmia venäjän kielen ja itämerensuo-malaisten kielten kontakteista. Studies in Russo-Finnic Contacts. Kielitie-teellisiä tutkimuksia. Studies in Languages 6. Joensuu: Joensuun Yliopisto.

Sažina, Svetlana A. [Сажина, Светлана А.] 2005: Язык кировских пермяков в системе коми диалектов. In Дерянбин, Валерий С. (ed.): Коми-пермяккез да финно-угорскöй мир. Межрегиональнöй научно-практическöй конферен-циялöн материаллэз, 2005 год, июн 30 июл 1 луннэзö. Кудымкар: Алекс-принт. 223–227.

Schlachter, Wolfgang 1958: Wörterbuch des Waldlappendialektes von Malå und Texte zur Ethnographie. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 14. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Schönig, Claus 1995: Bemerkungen zu den „altaischen‟ Personalpronomina. Türk dilleri araştırmaları. Cilt 5. 33–64.

Serebrennikov, Boris A. [Серебренников, Борис А.] 1963: Историческая морфология пермских языков. Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР.

Siegl, Florian 2008: A note on personal pronouns in Enets and Northern Sa-moyedic. Linguistica Uralica XLIV. 119–130.

Siewierska, Anna – Dik Bakker 2005: Inclusive and exclusive in free and bound pronoun forms. In Filimonova, Elena (ed.): Clusivity. Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 63. Amsterdam–Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 151–178.

Sjögren, Anders J. 1833: Über die Finnische Bevölkerung des St. Peterburg-schen Gouvernements und über den Ursprung des Namens Ingermann-land. Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIe Série, Tome II. SSKZD = Сорвачева, Валентина А. (ed.) 1961: Сравнительный словарь коми-зырянских диалектов. Сыктывкар: Коми книжное издательство.

Suhonen, Seppo 1985: Wotisch oder Ingrisch? In Veenker, Wolfgang (ed.): Dialectologia Uralica. Materialien des ersten Symposions zur Dialektologie der uralischen Sprachen 4.-7. September 1984 in Hamburg. Veröffentli-chungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica Band 20. Hamburg: Otto Harrassowitz. 139–148.

Talve, Ilmar 1990: Matka vatjalaisiin - Inkerin teillä. Kalevalaseuran Vuosikirja 69/70. 46–66.

Tarakanov, Ivan V. [Тараканов, Иван В.] 1975: Служебные слова тюркского происхождения в диалектах удмуртского языка. In Вахрушев, Василий

32 Rogier Blokland

М. (ed.): Вопросы удмуртского языкознания 3. Ижевск: Удмуртский научно-исследовательний институт истории, экономики, литературы и языка при Совете Министров Удмуртской АССР. 169–190.

Tepljašina, Tamara I. – Vasilij I. Lytkin [Тепляшина, Тамара И. – Василий И. Лыткин] 1976: Пермские языки. In Лыткин, Василий И. (et al.): Основы финно-угорского языкознания. Марийский, пермские и угорские языки. Москва: Наука. 97–228.

Tereščenko, Natal’ja M. [Терещенко, Наталья М.] 1966: Нганасанский язык. In Лыткин, Василий И. – Клара Майтинская (eds): Языки народов СССР. Том третий. Финно-угoрские и самодийские языки. Москва: Наука. 416–437.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001: Language Contact. An Introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Thomason, Sarah G. – Daniel L. Everett 2005: Pronoun borrowing. In Chang, Charles et al. (eds): Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Ber-keley Linguistics Society, February 16-18, 2001. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 301–315.

Thomason, Sarah G. – Terrence Kaufman 1988: Language Contact, Creoli-zation, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tsvetkov 2008 = Viikberg, Jüri (ed.) 2008: Dmitri Tsvetkov. Vadja keele gram-matika. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Vászolyi-Vasse, Erik – Katalin Lázár 2010: Songs from Komiland. Solymár: Reguly Társaság.

Vértes, Edit 1967: Die ostjakischen Pronomina. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Viitso, Tiit-Rein 1998: Fennic. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.): The Uralic Langua-

ges. Routledge: London. 96–114.VKS = Adler, Elna – Merle Leppik (eds) 1990-2011: Vadja keele sõnaraamat

I-VII. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia. Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Werner, Heinrich 2002: Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen.

I-III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Wichmann, Yrjö – Toivo Emil Uotila 1942: Syrjänischer Wortschatz nebst

Hauptzügen der Formenlehre. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae VII. Hel-sinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann 1893: Ehstnisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Eggers.

Winford, Donald 2003: An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Winkler, Eberhard 1997: Krewinisch. Zur Erschließung einer ausgestorbenen ostseefinnischen Sprache. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 49. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


Zajkov, Pekka M. [Зайков, Пекка М.] 1987: Бабинский диалект саамского языка.Петрозаводск: Карелия.

Žilina, Tat’jana I. [Жилина, Татьяна И.] 1975: Верхнесысольский диалект коми языка. Москва: Наука.

Žilina, Tat’jana I. [Жилина, Татьяна И.] 1975: Лузско-летский диалект коми языка. Москва: Наука.

34 Rogier Blokland

inhalt des 35. bandes1094998/fulltext01.pdf · inhalt des 35. bandes originalia blokland, rogier:...

Documents