[3] The following sketch of Esthonian is taken mainly from Wiedemann’s ‘Grammatik der Estnischen Sprache.’ Petersburg, 1875.
[4] Donner’s ‘Vergleichendes WÖrterbuch der Finnish-Ugrischen Sprachen’ also contains many comparisons with Samoyede.
[5] But suola, salt, and puola, bilberry, change the final a into o to distinguish them from suoli, an intestine, and puoli, half.
[6] It is noticeable that this rule does not apply in the rare case of a monosyllabic root ending in a short open vowel becoming closed. Ku, the root of the pronoun kuka, forms kun not gun.
[7] In the Kalevala dialect t always disappears instead of becoming d, and some traces of this remain in ordinary Finnish, (a) In the declensions of such roots as lyhyte, short: gen. lyhyen, and in some contracted substantives. (b) In the loss of t in the syllable ta used to form infinitives and partitives.
[8] In the Bible and old Finnish are found such forms as kaksitoistakymmentÄ.
[9] This suffix frequently loses its vowel and becomes simple s.
[10] The closing of the root and omission or weakening of t in the first and second forms of the infinitive is no doubt due to the extremely frequent use of the forms with suffixes. Thus saadakseni from saata is grammatically correct, as is also lukeakseni from luketa, according to the euphonic rules of the Kalevala or Old Karelian dialect. Such forms as saada are probably not nominatives, but shortened translatives.
[11] The first infinitive is occasionally found in the Bible, e.g. Psalm xliv. 12 SinÄ annat meitÄ syÖtÄÄ niinkuin lampaita.
[13] These forms are ably discussed by Mr. SetÄlÄ, in vol. II of the Journal de la SociÉtÉ Finne-Ugrienne, p. 29 ff. He endeavours to prove [and it seems to me with success] that k is a suffix of the present tense, and se a pronominal affix.
[14] Cf. kaikkialla, toisialla, kuusialla. Some consider these forms as compounds of the pronominal stem with the word ala, so that muualla stands for muu + ala + lla.
[15] It is noticeable that peasants frequently use the passive with the pronoun of the first person plural, as if it were a personal form. Jokohan mekin tuo lehmÄ myÖtÄisiin?Shall we not sell this cow too?
[16] Analogy has no doubt played a great part in the development of these constructions, but they clearly have their origin in the use of the participle as a substantive, just like the infinitive. Compare MinÄ toivon saada rahoja with MinÄ luulen saavani rahoja and Miehet nayttÄvÄt tulevan with Miehet taitavat tulla. Compare such Turkish constructions as ????????? ??????? geldiyimi bildiniz, you knew I had come.
[18] I should say that in this account I am deeply indebted to the Finnish introduction to the edition of the Kalevala, published in 1887 at Helsingfors.
[19] The word seems to imply low-lying marshy places.
[20] This is apparently a reference to some kind of costume in which a corpse was dressed.
[21] This passage seems a little confused. WÄinÄmÖinen was building a boat by means of magic spells, of whose efficacy so much is said in the Kalevala. During this process he lost (apparently forgot) three words which were necessary. The language in 350 ff. is metaphorical: the sledge of his song was broken, i.e. the spells did not run smoothly.
[22] It would seem that this is not the same personage as the ‘dwarfish daughter of Tuoni’ (also called Tuonetar in 263). But who this new character is, is not explained.
[23] This rather obscure remark appears to be a taunt. ‘Every body is a man, in the sense of adding to the male population. But one wants a good deal more to really deserve the name.’
