| From soc.culture.baltics Fri Apr 21 19:30:14 1995 From: holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) Date: 21 Apr 1995 09:35:38 GMT Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics Subject: Re: Estonian and Finnish Status: RO In article <3n43pf$1mdu@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, UJZA56B@prodigy.com says... > >How different are the two languages? > Short answer: About as close as Danish and Swedish, or Portuguese and Spanish, with Estonian being Danish (Preotuguese) and Finnish being Swedish (Spanish). Long answer: Historical background: Up until approx. 1,000 years ago they were the same 'language'; i.e. a dialect continuum consisting of hundreds of local dialects (Late Proto-Baltic Finnic) with no standardized form. The south-western Finnish dialects and the northern Estonian coastal dialects have a particularly close relationship due to several periods of migration (from Estonia to Finland furing the first millennium B.C.) and tradition of everyday contacts (e.g. local trade and fishing) which were really only cut off during the Soviet period. Thus there are many words which the south-western dialects of Finnish and Estonian share, e.g. nisu 'wheat' (cf. vehnä in standard Finnish), suvi 'summer' (cf. kesä in standard Finnish where suvi is a poetic synonym), odav 'cheap' (= huotava, etc. in SW Finnish, cf. halpa in standard Finnish). Standard languages (SF = standard Finnish, SE = standard Estonian): The Finnish and Estonian literary languages date from the Reformation. Finnish dialects show a rather sharp division between east and west, the standard language is a compromise incorporating elements from both types of dialects, but favoring forms from the phonologically more conservative eastern dialects. Thus, many words in standard Finnish have forms which are quite different from their counterparts in standard Estonian, even if dialects spoken in the south-western part of the country have forms closer to Estonian, e.g. SF suomalainen 'Finn', south-western suamlane, SE soomlane, SF kalalla 'with the fish', kalasta 'from the fish', south-western kalal, kalast, SE kalal, kalast. Some SE forms also coincide with forms found in other Finnish dialects, e.g. SE käsi 'hand', käed 'hands', SF käsi, kädet but eastern Finnish (generally) ksi, käet; SE pea 'head', SF pää, eastern Finnish (typically) peä, piä. Estonian dialects show a sharp division between north and south, the standard language is heavily oriented towards the northern coastal dialects of the Tallinn region. Thus, comparing just standard Finnish with standard Estonian gives a distorted picture of the reality. The traditional spoken Estonian of the south-eastern part of the country is quite far from Finnish and rather distant from standard Estonian. The traditional dialects and everyday speech of the Estonian coastal islands, on the other hand, is rather close to Finnish, particularly south-western Finnish dialects. Comparing standard Finnish and standard Estonian In Finland and Estonia the standard languages are of relatively recent origin and have been superimposed on the traditional dialects. In this respect the standards are relatively artificial, everybody learns speech with dialectal features of the place where he was born or, in the case of urban dwellers, an urban koine (= dialect mixture) as his first 'language'; the standard language is really only first taught at school - not as a 'foreign' langauge, but as a set of norms which are relatively close or relatively far from childhood speech, depending on where an individual was born. Here, too, then, the question of the 'closeness' of the two languages depends on an individual's personal history: an inhabitant of Hiiumaa considers Finnish to be relatively close to his or her Estonian, and inhabitant of V6rumaa considers it quite far. Phonology: In general it can be said that Estonian has undergone many sound changes that Finnish has not. The collective result of them is that Estonian words are shorter than their Finnish counterparts: 1) Syncope (= loss of word-internal syllables) SF suomalainen (4 syllables) = SE soomlane (3 syllables) 'Finn' SF puolinen (3 syllables) = SE poolne (2 syll.) 'on the side' 2) Apocope (= loss of word-final syllables in certain environments) SF koira = SE koer 'dog' SF musta = SE must 'black' SF saari = SE saar 'island' BUT SF = SE käsi 'hand' SF = SE kala 'fish' 3) Loss of most word-final -n's: SF kahdeksan = SE kaheksa 'eight' SF koiran = SE koera 'of the dog' SF venäjänkielisen = SE venekeelse 'of the Russophone' SF juotiin = SE jooti 'people drank' BUT SF = SE olen 'I am' SF = SE olin 'I was' 4) Change of unstressed short -o to -u: SF talo = SE talu 'house; originally farm, the meanining it has in Estonian' SF vanhoja = SE vanu '(some) old' Because of these and many other innovations in its sound system the Finns regard Estonian as 'kuluneempi' - 'more worn down' (as having undergone more phonological attrition) than Finnish. Thus, when dealing with words that are cognate Finns find if difficult to 'get a grasp' on the Estonian word, in its spoken form because so much of it has been lost. For Estonians, on the other hand, the longer Finnish forms are similar to the ones they know from Estonian folklore and certain dialects (cf. thou givest. he giveth in English). They sound quaint and slightly amusing to the Estonian. Finnish has also undergone some changes of its own which further differentiate it from Estonian, the most important being the diphthongization of three important Late Proto-Finnic long vowels: (ö = o") SF tie = SE tee 'road' SF työ = SE töö 'work' SF suo = SE soo 'swamp' These diphthongs occur quite frequently in Finnish, so we have another important set of systematic differentiating features. Finally, Estonian has evolved a complex system of grade alternation having no counterpart in Finnish. This system has assumed the function of signalling some of the grammatical information which Finnish can signal using contrasts between long and short vowels in unstressed syllables. Estonian no longer uses contrasts between long and short vowels in unstressed syllables to signal grammatical information. The matter is made even more complex by the fact that standard Estonian spelling does not indicate the changes in question - you just have to know. SF koira = SE koer 'dog' Nominative (subject) SF koira = SE koer /koeer/ Genitive (possessor) SF koiran = SE koera /koera'/ Partitive (indefiniteness) Sf koiraa = SE koera /koeera/ The loss of the second syllable in the nominative sing. in Estonian has been 'compensated for' by a lengthening and modification of the second sound in the diphthong. In the genitive form possession is signalled by the shortness of the diphthong and the presence of a (slightly lengthened) vowel, rather than by the addition of an ending, as in Finnish; the partitive is signalled by the length of the diphthong and by the presence of a (slightly shortened) vowel, rather than by a contrast between a long vowel and the short vowel of the nominative, as in Finnish. Note that in Estonian spelling the genitive and partivie singular for words of this type have the same spelling, but different pronuncations. Grammar: Nouns: The grammar of nouns is essentially the same in both languages. The distinctive features are: 1) no grammatical gender, 2) no articles, 3) essentially the same case system, 4) use of the partitive singular form with numerals higher than 1: SF kaksi koiraa = SE kaks koera 'two dogs' cf. SF koirat = SE koerad 'dogs'). The case system is similar but not identical: SF jalka = SE jalg 'foot, leg' Finnish Estonian NOMINATIVE jalka jalg ACCUSATIVE 1 jalan - ACCUSATIVE 2 jalka - GENITIVE jalan jala PARTITIVE 'indefinite, etc. jalkaa jalga ILLATIVE 'into' jalkaan jalasse, jalga INESSIVE 'in' jalassa jalas ELATIVE 'from out of' jalasta jalast ALLATIVE '(up) to' jalalle jalale ADESSIVE 'on, at' jalalla jalal ABLATIVE '(away) from' jalalta jalalt TRANSLATIVE 'becomes a' jalaksi jalaks ESSIVE 'as' jalkana jalana ABESSIVE 'without' jalatta jalata COMITATIVE 'with' jalkoine- jalaga INSTRUCTIVE 'by means of' jalan (jala) TERMINATIVE 'up to' - jalani Although there are differences with respect to formation and usage, most of the Estonian system can be understood historiucally as a simplification of the Finnish system. Perhaps the greatest difference concerning the grammer of nouns in the two languages concerns the use of possessive suffixes. Standard Finnish indicates personal possession ('my', 'your', etc.) by means of suffixes, Estonian uses personal pronouns. In many types of spoken Finnish, however, a possessive structure analogous to the Estonian one is used. (CF colloquial Finnish): SF koirani (CF minun koira) = SE minu koer SF koiramme (CF meiän koira) = SE meie koer VERBS The grammar of the verb differs in several important respects, even if the system is essentially the same: Present: SF lukea = SE lugema 'to read' 'I read, etc.' minä luen mina loen 'you' sinä luet sina loet '(s)he' hän lukee tema loeb 'we' me luemme meie loeme 'you pl.' te luette teie loete 'they' he lukevat nemad loevad Here, Finnish has a complication, consonant gradation (lue- in the 1st and 2nd persons, luke- in the third person), which Estonian has regularized. In the negative present Finnish uses a conjugated negative verb and a stripped down verb base, Estonian no longer conjugates the negator: 'I don't read, etc' minä en lue mina ei loe 'you' sinä et lue sina ei loe '(s)he hän ei lue tema ei loe etc. The Estonian impersonal present forms of the verb are built using a different element than the Finnish: SF luetaan = SE loetakse 'people read' SF keitetään = SE keedetakse 'people cook' The formation of the past tense and of the conditional mood differ considerably in both languages; additionally, Finnish has a potential mood, which Estonian lacks, while Estonian has a narrative mood which Finnish lacks. SYNTAX The basic rules of sentence structure are the same in both languages. But because Estonian often lacks the means to express certain grammatical information which Finnish can express by opposing one form to another, Estonian has developed some interesting innovations. Probably the best known is the manner for distinguishing 'total' from 'partial' objects. In Finnish, the difference between an action which has affected the object completely, and one which has affected it partially is expressed by opposing the forms in the partitive and the accusative case: (õ = o~) 1F) Poika lukee kirjaa. 'The boy is reading the book.' 2F) Poika lukee kirjan. 'The boy will read (and finish) the book.' 3F) Isä söi kalaa. 'Father was eating (some) fish.' 4F) Isä söi kalan. 'Father ate the fish (up).' Historically, Estonian has had the same system, but since many of its nouns no longer have distinct genitive (=historical accusative) and partitive forms, it has developed a system of particles tro ensure that the difference is made: 1E) Poiss loeb raamatut. 'The boy is reading the book.' 2E) Poiss loeb raamatu läbi. 'The boy is reading the book (through).' 3E) Isa sõi kala. 'Father was eating (some) fish.' 4E) Isa sõi kala ära. 'Father ate the fish up. Note that in both Finnish pairs the 'total' and 'partial' objects are distinct (kirjaa vs. kirjan in 1F and 2F, kalaa vs. kalan in 3F and 4F). For many Estonian nouns the object forms are also distinct (raamatut vs. raamatu in 1E and 2E, but for a disturbingly large number of nouns they are identical (kala = kala in 3E and 4E). This means that Estonian has developed a complex system of aspectual particles - mush like the English 'eat up', 'shoot dead', etc. - to ensure that the distinction is mantained. Otherwise; Finnish syntax tends to be more synthetic (uses long words with complex meanings) while Estonian is more analytical (prefers short, grammatically simpler words). 5F) Poika ilmoitti olevansa sairas. 'The boy announced that he was sick.' boy announced being-his sick Estonian would prefer: 5E) Poiss teatas, et ta oli haige. 'The boy announed that he was sick.' boy announced that he was sick Both Finnish and Estonian have both options available: 6F) Poika ilmoitti, että hän oli sairas. 6E) Poiss teatus ennast haige olnud olevat. But I don't think I'm overstating the case if I say that even spoken Finnish often uses structures like those found in 5F, while an Estonian sentence such as 6E would be extremely unusual. Finally, with respect to syntax it should be mentioned that Finnish has been strongly influenced by Swedish and, recently English. There are many examples of loan translations of idioms, expressions, and images from these languages in journalistic and other informal styles, e.g 7F) Hän oli niin vihainen, että paskansi tiiliskivejä. 'He was so angry that he shit bricks.' Estonian, on the other hand, has been more under the influence of German and Russian, and it is influences from these languages that we see in syntax: 8E) Tore on terve olla. 'It's nice to be healthy.' wonderful is healthy to-be (cf. German: Es ist wunderbar, gesund zu sein.) it is wonderful healthy to be Finnish would have: 8F) Ihanaa on olla terve. wonderful is to-be healthy Eugene Holman (To continue) VOCABULARY The close resemblance between the two languages is immediately obvious, particularly if one learns the systematic sound correspondences discussed in a previous section. Basic vocabulary such as numbers, body parts, family members, the verbs for basic activities and states, the basic adjectives, and the grammatical/lexical for indicated spatial and temporal relationships is essentially the same. Both Finnish and Estonian preschool children shout sentence like Ei! 'No', Tule! 'Come', Anna! 'Give (me)' with exactly the same pronunciation and intonation. Speakers of both languages, though, are aware that many words have developed somewhat different meanings. These 'false friends' are the source of much amusement and humor. A few examples: SF maja 'cottage' = SE maja 'house' SF huone 'room' = SE hoone 'building' SF tupa 'farmhouse living room' = SE 'room' SF halpa 'cheap' = SE halb 'bad, poor quality' SF ilma 'air' = SE ilm 'weather' SF kirja 'book' = SE kiri 'letter' SF raamattu 'bible' = SE raamat 'book' SF huvittava 'amusing' = SE huvitav 'interesting' SF emä 'mother /figuratively, emävalhe 'whopper of a lie'' = SE ema 'mother' SF kuori 'peel' = SE koor 'cream' SF kehno 'miserable' = SE kõhn 'thin, weak' Many others are compounds that just sound absurdly funny to speakers of the other language: SE kaubamaja (cf. German Kaufhaus) 'department store' to a Finn sounds like *kauppamaja 'purchase cottage' SE jalgratas 'bicycle' (lit. foot-wheel) sounds as absurd to a Finn as its Finnish equivalent polkupyörä (suggesting SE pöörane 'silly') does to an Estonian. Often one will see a sentence in one language which makes seems to make sense, but which is absurd, such as the advertisement I once saw on a boat between Helsinki and Tallinn: Miks raiskad oma raha? 'Why do you waste your own money?' To a Finn it looks like (and, etymologically, is): Miksi raiskaat omaa rahaasi? 'Why are you raping your own money?' As a final note, Estonian has traditionally been more outward looking than Finnish with respect to increasing its vocabulary. It has been more receptive to foreign borrowings and loan translations than Finnish is, for which reason its vocabulary is somewhat more accessible to someone with a knowledge of German and Latin than Finnish is. A few examples: SE sissejuhatus 'introduction' is a direct translation of a word that goes back through German Einführing and Latin introductio to Greek eisagoge. The same word is found either as a direct borrowing (cf. English introduction, Italian introduzzione) or as a loan-translation (cf. Hungarian bevezetés, Russian vvedenie, Swedish innföring) in virutally every European language except Finnish, which has two words for the concept: johdatus and johdanto, neither of which bears the kind of direct relationship to the Greek original that Estonian etc. has. Many Estonian words, e.g. ettevaatlik 'careful' (cf. German vorsichtig), ettevalmistis 'preparation' (cf. German Vorbereitung), ülesanne 'assignment' (cf. German Aufgabe) reveal themselves to be part of our common European lexical stock, while their Finnish equivalents varovainen, valmistelu, and tehtävä, even though motivated by the high degree of systematicity characteristic of Finnish grammar and thus easily understandable, are nevertheless quite far from their more cosmopolitan estonian counterparts. I'm sorry to have written so much about this, but the question is interesting and the answer is not easily accessible to the non-specialist. Regards, Eugene Holman University of Helsinki | |
|
