New CBB

oh poo! If we're to achieve some kind of understanding of anything, we need to look at it from all the evidence around. Your post here shows you don't want to do that, you want a predigested opinion which might just as well be based on bullshit claims. I detest that approach. And so should you. Others will read what you wrote regardless if I ignore it or not, and I don't want others to be misled.

1. If you want to dispute opinions of linguists that are far more qualified than you and I, be my guest.
2. If you really want to discuss something, please, do start providing something more than "It's bullshit" and "I'm not convinced".

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

Here is an article about PU. Other than this, I would like myself to find something better.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

Would help if what you quoted from your sources actually were what your sources said in the first place!

What do you mean? What my sources said that I misquoted?

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

I found that the Uralic verb inflection varies much between the languges.
All use the same deverbal nominal derivational inflectional suffixes as inflectional suffixes, as well. But they are used very differently.
/pa/ is SINGULAR third in Finnish (historically)
But DUAL third in Sami

how did this pa become doubling of the preceding vowel? is it somehow connected with V + e => VV

Not quite. The suffix *-pA itself didn't really contain any information about number; it was historically a present participle marker, and a suffix indicating number could be attached after it. It's just that the marker for singular number was zero, meaning that a form without any other suffix but *-pA would be assumed to be singular. Like this:

*teke-pä-̵Ø
do-PTCP-SG
'doing' (sg.)

*teke-pä-t
do-PTCP-PL
'doing' (pl.)

Reflexes of both of these forms (and thereby of the suffix *-pA in both the singular and the plural) actually survive in modern Finnish: *tekepä -> tekee 'does', *tekepät -> tekevät '(they) do'.

Sami also has a number of verb forms built on present participles; however, it also used the -jA participle for some of those, including the third person singular (*tekejä -> dahká). The -pA participle was used in the dual and plural, but with the extra twist that the plural form *tekepät became the form for first (instead of third) person. In addition, the dual and plural second person forms are also built on the -pA participle, with no less than three other suffixes stacked after the *-pA: first the personal suffix, then - curiously enough - the personal suffix again for good measure, and finally the number suffix *-n for dual or *-k (from earlier *-t) for plural. Thus, we get something like this (the modern-day forms being North Sami here):

*teke-pä-n -> *tǝk·ǝ-b ̥e:-n -> dahkaba 'they (du.) do'
*teke-pä-t -> *tǝk·ǝ-b ̥e:(-k) -> dahkat 'we (pl.) do' (I believe the earlier Nielsen orthography still had dâkkâp, showing the historical -p)
*teke-pä-te-n -> *tǝk·ǝ-b ̥ɛ:-t·e:-d̥e:-n -> dahkabeahtti 'you (du.) do'
*teke-pä-tä-k -> *tǝk·ǝ-b ̥ɛ:-t·e:-d̥e:-k -> dahkabehtet 'you (pl.) do'

_________________

So this is where the Estonian -b in the 3. person singular comes from! I always wondered.

Xonen, do you know if any Finnish dialects preserve the consonant in the 3s ending?

_________________
КЕРВЕНСКИЙ

Probably he knows, so I can answer.

Yes

For exmaple Savo

'suap' stand. 'saa', eng. 'gets'

That happens when the ending derives from the strong suffix {pA} after a stressed syllable
In bisyllabic words, I think, it doesn't appear. It derives from the weak grade suffix {βA}.

That's what I meant. The languges use the same participles (Im'm not sure if that's the original meaning) in their conjugations but not in the same places. Yes the ecample was bad, cos I didn't seeked an example.

Proto language of Finnic and Sami according to Sami evidence


Doesn't that differ quite much?

Furthermore, Savo has a verb form "menijä" 'You (pl.) went' The system isn't stabile even in Finnish.
So the use of the "participles" is quite random.

*tekepä -> *tekepi -> *tekeβi -> tekevi -> tekey -> tekee


Yeah, as described above, the ending has turned into a lengthening of the preceding vowel (plus labialization in some dialects: a typical Savonian form for standard Finnish tekee would be tekköö) - but only for verbs with bisyllabic stems. In verbs with monosyllabic stems, regular sound changes would have kept the ending as -pi, so we'd expect e.g. saapi instead of just saa. And indeed, such forms do occur, although it tends to be considered archaic or dialectal these days. The more typical zero-ending in modern-day standard Finnish is probably analogical.

And yes, there are dialects (mainly Savonian) that have kept the ending -pi or the shorter variant -p as the normal ending for verbs with monosyllabic stems.

The opposite kind of analogy has also happened occasionally, i.e. the ending -pi has spread to verbs with bisyllabic stems. Google gives 10 700 hits for tekeepi, and 2 980 and 355 for the dialectal forms tekkeepi and tekkeep, respectively.

In addition, forms like tekevi occur in poetry, probably due to influence from the Kalevala (which, incidentally, contains this exact form in its very first line). However, the language of the Kalevala was already archaic in the 19th century when it was published, and only slightly Finnishized from the original Viena Karelian songs the work was based on, so whether or not this counts as an example of the ending occurring in (modern) Finnish is disputable.


Yes, it does. No-one knows why.


That's not a participle, but a regular reflex of the original form *mene-j-tä (via *meniδä). The form menitte comes from analogy with the present-tense form.

_________________

Katos!
So it must be!