New CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Sat 25 May 2013, 21:20

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 17:38 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Maximillian wrote:
I've read that Proto-Uralic and some modern Uralic languages don't mark number on nouns marked for case.
So that, singular and plural is only distinguished in nominative (and maybe accusative?) case, but not in other cases.
Can someone point me on further information about this feature?


Plural had two cases, nominative -t and oblique -j.
I have no idea of how the oblique was used, either it was used for the local functions or then the local cases were just used as in the singular.

I guess no one knows too much about it. That's what I found. Not the whole book. It has something about the cases/numbers, too.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10224/4083


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 17:43 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Skógvur wrote:
Apparently Russia's song for Eurovision this year is in Udmurt. Sounds like just another Slavic language to me. Dat influence from Mother Russia.


Many Uralic languages sound like the Slavonic languages, I guess it's palatalisation.
Actually, I have thought the Slavonic languages sound like the Uralic languages. Palatalisation is however not an Indo-European feature.

I saw a video clip that said 'a language closely related to Finnish'.
WTF, if when somebody sings in French, do they say it's closely related to English?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 17:48 
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2011, 14:58
Posts: 73
Location: kouvostoliitto
Omzinesý wrote:


I saw a video clip that said 'a language closely related to Finnish'.
WTF, if when somebody sings in French, do they say it's closely related to English?


kaikki on suhteellista, niinkuin sanotaan:DD Do you remember what video it was?

_________________
ɑɬœø

taylorS wrote:
Something about the word "child" seems to lend itself to attracting redundant pluralization.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 18:01 
greek
greek
User avatar

Joined: Wed 11 Apr 2012, 14:58
Posts: 414
AK-92 wrote:
Omzinesý wrote:


I saw a video clip that said 'a language closely related to Finnish'.
WTF, if when somebody sings in French, do they say it's closely related to English?


kaikki on suhteellista, niinkuin sanotaan:DD Do you remember what video it was?

everyone is relative as if it's said? What do you mean by relative?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 18:36 
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2011, 14:58
Posts: 73
Location: kouvostoliitto
nmn wrote:
AK-92 wrote:
Omzinesý wrote:


I saw a video clip that said 'a language closely related to Finnish'.
WTF, if when somebody sings in French, do they say it's closely related to English?


kaikki on suhteellista, niinkuin sanotaan:DD Do you remember what video it was?

everyone is relative as if it's said? What do you mean by relative?


everything is relative. kohtuullisen yleinen sanonta täälläpäin. Sitä voi, muummuassa, käyttää ylläolevan(See: omniksen viesti) kaltaisissa tilanteissa.

_________________
ɑɬœø

taylorS wrote:
Something about the word "child" seems to lend itself to attracting redundant pluralization.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 21:12 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Omzinesý wrote:
https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10224/4083

Either the link is broken, or it just won't open =\
Edit: False alarm, sorry. That was where I read it in the first place =]

Skógvur wrote:
Apparently Russia's song for Eurovision this year is in Udmurt.

WTF? Can you provide me with a link?

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 08 May 2012, 21:26 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2010, 03:04
Posts: 668
Maximillian wrote:
Omzinesý wrote:
Skógvur wrote:
Apparently Russia's song for Eurovision this year is in Udmurt.

WTF? Can you provide me with a link?

I'm not Sko, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J-7YWLyNo8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Wed 09 May 2012, 07:49 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
OMG, Cthulhu devour me now! I wonder if they even understand what they're singing in English...

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 10:40 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Maximillian in Macro Families wrote:
Finnish tenses: non-past, past, perfect, pluperfect.
Germanic tenses: non-past, past, perfect, pluperfect.
Also, Finnish perfect and pluperfect both are almost identical in structure and usage to their Germanic counterparts.
Moreover, Finnish has other structures similar (i.e. they are calques) to Swedish and Russian. In the latter case it is not yet known who affected whom. It's all so intertwined that it's hard to know the truth.

Russian is affected much more by Mari and Udmurt... in the core area of standard Russian in the environment or Moscow. There is much substrate effect:
- Nominal copula
- existentil possission structure
- The a>o change in unstressed syllables (It has a finer name?)

If the Uralic languages have affected Swidish, it must be an older event. "pojke" is a loan word. There is much more Swedish effect in Finnish, eg. the /d/ sound - the normal example how a sound can develop in a very odd way.
Swedish had so strong prestige in Finland. It's unnormal that Finnish even became the leading language in Finland. Nationalism relly made the upper class Swedish speakers to change their language for lower Status Finnish, be cause it shall be the national language of our young nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 12:49 
greek
greek
User avatar

Joined: Sun 22 Jan 2012, 19:33
Posts: 294
Cheesus, so much I need to share here. Where to begin?

1.Yes: French, and any Romance language sounds similar to English, but not because of palatalization but because of the Latin loan words in English.
2. Moscow is an "Russified" Uralic word. If I remember correctly "mosk" meaning "bear", but it was a while since I redd that.
3. Finnish /d/ was [D], in the begin.

_________________
When scientists in the future speak of our life-time they will say that most of the things, ideas that was possible for us to invent was never invented in our life-time because we hadn't yet invented the words to describe the components.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 15:46 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Shrdlu wrote:
Cheesus, so much I need to share here. Where to begin?

1.Yes: French, and any Romance language sounds similar to English, but not because of palatalization but because of the Latin loan words in English.
2. Moscow is an "Russified" Uralic word. If I remember correctly "mosk" meaning "bear", but it was a while since I redd that.
3. Finnish /d/ was [D], in the begin.


1. Maybe I just cannot understand words in a foreign language. I have to really know it to recognize anything.
2. Funny, in Finnish there isn't a word like that. But that bear thingh sound plausible.
3. That's quite normal a sound change, but how it arised is the funny thing.
Finnish had /D/ in the dialects Agricola began to write. He chose <d> or <dh> to be the letter for it. Very few people used written Finnish or spoke the standard language and most of then spoke Swedish as their first language. So, they began to pronounce <d> as [d]. But the funny thing is Sweish doesn't have the alveolar /d/ but an dental /d/. So Finnish got its only voiced stop, that isn't even a pair of the dental /t/.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 16:53 
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2011, 14:58
Posts: 73
Location: kouvostoliitto
Omzinesý wrote:
3. That's quite normal a sound change, but how it arised is the funny thing.
Finnish had /D/ in the dialects Agricola began to write. He chose <d> or <dh> to be the letter for it. Very few people used written Finnish or spoke the standard language and most of then spoke Swedish as their first language. So, they began to pronounce <d> as [d]. But the funny thing is Sweish doesn't have the alveolar /d/ but an dental /d/. So Finnish got its only voiced stop, that isn't even a pair of the dental /t/.


And because of that, funny things happen to it in dialects:D

_________________
ɑɬœø

taylorS wrote:
Something about the word "child" seems to lend itself to attracting redundant pluralization.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 14:08 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Omzinesý wrote:
- The a>o change in unstressed syllables (It has a finer name?)

/a/ never changes to /o/ in unstressed syllables in Moscow dialect. Instead the two phonemes merge into schwa-like vowel; it's called "akanye".
Shrdlu wrote:
2. Moscow is an "Russified" Uralic word. If I remember correctly "mosk" meaning "bear", but it was a while since I redd that.

That is only one of the many theories concerning the origin of this name.
Shrdlu wrote:
3. Finnish /d/ was [D], in the begin.

Yes, but it was only an allophone of /t/. It became a full phoneme under Swedish influence.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 18:26 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Yes, but it was only an allophone of /t/. It became a full phoneme under Swedish influence.

Source?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 19:32 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
Source?

Finnish Sound Structure (KARI SUOMI, JUHANI TOIVANEN & RIIKKA YLITALO):
When Finnish was first written down, the mostly Swedish-speaking
clerks symbolised /ð/ variably, e.g. with the grapheme sequence <dh>. When the
(mostly religious) texts were read aloud, again usually by educated people whose
native tongue was Swedish, <dh> was pronounced as it would be pronounced in
Swedish. At the same time, /ð/ kept vanishing from the vernacular, and it was
either replaced by other consonants, or simply disappeared. Today, /ð/ has
vanished, and /d/ does not occur in most of the vernacular varieties in which the
former /ð/ is represented by a number of other consonants or by complete loss.
But /d/ does occur in modern SSF [=Standard Spoken Finnish], as a result of conscious normative attempts to
promote “good speaking”.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 20:04 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Source?

Finnish Sound Structure (KARI SUOMI, JUHANI TOIVANEN & RIIKKA YLITALO):
When Finnish was first written down, the mostly Swedish-speaking
clerks symbolised /ð/ variably, e.g. with the grapheme sequence <dh>. When the
(mostly religious) texts were read aloud, again usually by educated people whose
native tongue was Swedish, <dh> was pronounced as it would be pronounced in
Swedish. At the same time, /ð/ kept vanishing from the vernacular, and it was
either replaced by other consonants, or simply disappeared. Today, /ð/ has
vanished, and /d/ does not occur in most of the vernacular varieties in which the
former /ð/ is represented by a number of other consonants or by complete loss.
But /d/ does occur in modern SSF [=Standard Spoken Finnish], as a result of conscious normative attempts to
promote “good speaking”.

Sorry, does not say what you said!

It says /ð/ existed as a phoneme already at that time. With phonemes, we can pick any letter, really, so using, say, <d> for that wouldn't be wrong. [d] entered Finnish from Swedish, /ð/ didn't become a phoneme due to Swedish influence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 14:49 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 15:58 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

What about how it behaves is "weird"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 16:16 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

Consonant graduation (let's call "astevaihtelu" so) has got phonemic in all Finnic languages.
First, there were two phonemic lengths is Proto-Finnish (the name is used variusly, I mean the language BEFORE the Finnic proto-language) /t/ and /tt/.
Second, those get PHONETIC allophones /t/ [t],[ð] - /tt/ [t:],[t;] (t; marking halflong geminate found in eg. Estonian)
Thrird, during the own devolopment of Finnish, in Finnish [t;] -> [t] deleting the distinction.
In nowaday Finnish they vary
mato -madot 'worm - worms'
matto - matot 'carpet - carpets'
In forms madot and matot /t/ and /d/ have a distinction.
We don't need to suppose Swedish influence to make that meaningful.


Last edited by Omzinesý on Tue 15 May 2012, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 16:26 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
I, by the way, loaned the dook "Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan" 'Introduction to the History of Lapp Language'.
Baybe I'm at least gonna understant the vowel shift.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group