In this book I have endeavoured to give a simple and clear account of the Finnish language, chiefly of that form of it which is now recognised as the ordinary vehicle of literary composition, and have thought it better to set aside as far as possible scientific disquisitions. I now proceed to briefly discuss from a purely theoretical point of view some of the phenomena presented by this curious tongue, in doing which I must express my special obligations to the various works of Professors Donner and SetÄlÄ, and also to the account of Die Sprachen der Uralischen VÖlker in the second volume of Dr. Friedrich MÜller’s Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft.

The phonetic system of Finnish is characterized by a great paucity of consonants and a correspondingly great development of vowels. The alphabet has but thirteen of the former: d, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v. Of these it must be observed that d is in modern times only a literary invention, though as it exists in Esthonian and other cognate languages there is no reason to object to its use. It always represents a t which has been weakened by phonetic laws, but in the mouths of the peasantry the sound is either entirely omitted, or else replaced by a cerebral letter (represented in writing by l or r) or by v or j. G also is only found in the combination ng, which has exactly the same sound as in English. The letter h is apparently never original in the middle of words. It appears to me to have really two sounds—as an initial or between vowels, it is simply the English h, but before t and k, it is ?. The other consonants offer no remarkable peculiarities; v appears to be pronounced as in English (labio-dental), and not to be a labio-labial (modern Greek ).

The simple consonants are pronounced much more lightly than in English. T and k in the middle of a word when pronounced naturally by a native, who is not trying to speak distinctly to a foreigner, often seem almost inaudible, and it is noticeable that in foreign words, with which the language is overrun, German and Swedish k, t, p (when not initial) are always represented by kk, tt, pp. It is highly probable that Finnish (like Esthonian) once had the sounds b, d, g. In Agricola are found such forms as nÄghe for nÄe, virdhat for virrat. On the other hand, everything points to the fact that the original tongue from which the Finno-Ugric languages were developed had only ten or eleven consonants: k, t, p, s, j, r, l, n, m, v, and perhaps h or ?. For the many curious sounds found in Lapp, Syrjenian, Ostiak, etc., all look as if they were degenerations from a simpler original.

Finnish has eight simple vowels: a, Ä, e, i, o, Ö, u, y (Ü). All of these can be either short, or long, and in the latter case the letter is written double. These doubled letters appear to be genuine long vowels, and to contain no diphthongal element. There are no triphthongs, but sixteen diphthongs, though on the whole Finnish has more simple vowels than other languages of the same group, particularly Lappish.

Though no difference is made in writing between the different values of the vowel i, it appears that there really is a distinction between its value in words like otti, or oli, where the vowels are hard, and in words like nÄki where they are soft. The hard sound comes very near the Russian ? and the Turkish i_ in such a word as ?????????????? achmali_yi_di_ni_z.

The vocalization of words is governed by three laws. The first is well known under the name of vowel harmony. The essence of this is that the hard (a, o, u) and soft (Ä, Ö, y) vowels cannot coexist in the same word. Not only the Finno-Ugric languages, but also Samoyede, Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu, have this law at least in the rudimentary form that a root does not contain both hard and soft vowels; but there is much variety as to the degree in which the vowels of the suffixes are assimilated to those of the root to which they are added. The most highly developed form of the law is found in the Turkish dialects (particularly in Yakut), where the vowels of the root and suffix must not only not be discordant, but are as much as possible assimilated to one another. Thus ?????????? is pronounced pederiniz, your father, but ?????????? dostunuz, your friend. The same principle appears to prevail in Samoyede, from which are cited such forms as marg-an, tob-on, Üg-Ün, tŠel-en. The other extreme, where the harmony prevails only between the vowels of the root but not between those of the root and the suffixes, is found in nearly all the Finno-Ugric languages except Finnish and Hungarian. In some languages (e.g. Mordvinian) the harmony is not rigorously observed even in the root. It is doubtful if such languages really represent a more primitive phonetic system than Finnish. They may have become affected owing to Russian influence by an inability to accurately distinguish the hard and soft vowels, particularly a and Ä, for, though it is very probable that originally the vowel of the suffix was not necessarily the same as that of the root, one would expect those languages which retain the primitive system to distinguish the suffix more clearly than the others from the root, which does not seem to be the case. Finnish in this respect holds a midway position. The vowels of the suffixes are not assimilated, as in Turkish, but they are always of the same quality as those of the root. The suffix s—n or h—n, however, found in the illative and passive, seems to show an approach to the Turkish system, as its vowel is always the same as that which precedes it: kotihin, tyÖhÖn, tÖihin, kylÄhÄn, talohon, saa(d)ahan, saatihin, saatanehen, saataisihin.

The second vocalic law of Finnish is the exact opposite of the vowel harmony—viz. vowel differentiation. The occurrence of incongruous vowels in one word is discordant, but the excessive repetition of the same vowel is disagreeably monotonous. To avoid this a is often changed into o in words where a is the dominant vowel (pp. 9, 10 for the details), patoja for pataja, annoin for annain; but otin, sotia for ota-in, sota-ia. So also in the Eastern dialect kaloa for kalaa. On the same principle a and Ä change to e in comparatives and passives, and thus we have vanhempana and tapetaan instead of such monotonous forms as vanhampana and tapataan. Also two i’s meeting generally become ei.

The third rule relates to the disappearance of final or medial e, and the consequent shortening of words. The chief accent of Finnish, as now pronounced, is on the first syllable of a word, and it is therefore very natural that final vowels should be omitted. In the dialect spoken about S. Petersburg this phenomenon is very frequent and such forms as miss for missÄ, yks, kaks for yksi and kaksi are common in the mouths of the peasantry. This may, however, be due to the influence of Esthonian and Russian. In correct Finnish final e is omitted only in the nominative singular of polysyllabic stems, the consonantal groups which remain being simplified if the laws of euphony require it: so sisare, tantere, kysymykse become sisar, tanner, and kysymys. In the middle of words the final e of a stem disappears before nominal suffixes beginning with t (and sometimes n) and before verbal suffixes beginning with k or n, and this rule applies to dissyllables also. Now one would suppose on a priori grounds that the invariable accent on the first syllable is not original, but has replaced some older and less simple system, just as the variable accentuation of Russian is older than the stereotyped system of Polish. Even in modern Finnish I doubt if the rule that every word is accented on the first syllable is really true. An educated Finn will always maintain that in a word like revitÄÄn the main accent is on the first syllable, but to my ear it appears to be distinctly on the last (-tÄÄn), indeed, it is hard to see how this long syllable could be pronounced without an accent. What is undoubtedly true is that no syllables are slurred over as in Russian and English. There is, as far as I know, no historical proof that some of the suffixes were accented in Finnish; but it is highly probable on general grounds and explains many phenomena presented by both vowel and consonantal changes. For instance, the termination of the first infinitive, ta (representing an original tak or takse), when added to the stem tule, produces tulla, which is quite natural if the original form was tuletÁ, as the light vowel would drop out before the accented syllable; similarly syÖksenÉn becomes syÖsnen for syÖksnen. Sometimes a whole syllable is omitted, e.g. alenetÁ becomes aleta. For some reason the e is generally not omitted if it is preceded by k, p, v, or m. This is not an absolute rule, as one finds forms like tointa (st. toime), nÄhdÄ, tehdÄ (st. nÄhe, teke), but it is hard to see why if tule-tÁ becomes tulla, luketÁ should not become luhda. The length of the first vowel has nothing to do with the matter, as nouse makes nousta. A and Ä occasionally disappear in much the same way. Thus vieras stands for vierasa, lÖynnyt, tiennyt are formed from lÖytÄ, tietÄ; and superlatives regularly lose final a; suurin, for suurimpa.

The rules for the changes of consonants fall into three main groups. Firstly only n, r, s, or t are admitted as finals and only a few simple combinations occur in the middle of words. When the loss of a vowel produces groups which are euphonically disagreeable, they are simplified; veitstÄ, kolmant, suurimp, sÄkenÖitstÄ become veistÄ, kolmas, suurin, sÄkenÖitÄ.

The second group of changes concerns the letters t, k, s, h. The group ti has always a tendency to become si in syllables which never had the accent. The letter h, which is suspected of never being original when a medial, represents t, k, and s. S between two vowels immediately before a termination always becomes h. Vierasa makes in the nominative vieras, a being lost owing to the accent being on the first syllable. But the genitive vierasan becomes vierahan, and in the ordinary language this is contracted to vieraan. So too t becomes h under similar circumstances, perhaps having passed through s. The nominatives kevÄt, terve, and vene appear to represent stems kevÄtÄ, tervete, and venete (for the partitives are kevÄttÄ, tervettÄ, venettÄ) and form the genitives kevÄhÄn, venehen, tervehen. The same change appears in the declension of past participles ending in -nyt or -nut. Again, kt before a termination which was presumably once accented becomes ht—a combination of which the language is very fond. Thus the roots, haakte, ykte, kakte produce such forms as haahden, yhtÄ, kahtena, in all of which the first syllable was probably not accented. But in the nominative the first syllable was accented and the words became first haakti, ykti, kakti (rule 15), and then haaksi, yksi, kaksi (rule 37).

The third rule is the most important and singular. It requires the softening in some way of the three hard consonants k, t, p, when they occur at the beginning of a short open syllable which becomes closed. It is stated in detail on pp. 13, 14, 15. These conventional rules are of great practical utility, for they are of almost universal application and can be used with perfect certainty in building up the most complicated forms. On the other hand, if one tries to explain them, they remain unique and mysterious, if considered only in reference to the closed syllable. Now there is one exception to their action: the addition of the pronominal suffixes produces no change in the consonants of a noun. But there are a good many cases where consonants are softened without the syllable being closed. Some of these cases (e.g. infinitives and negative verbs) are justly treated as closed syllables because a final consonant has been lost. But (1) we find forms like auringoita, palkinnoita from aurinko, palkinto; (2) many forms seem to waver between p and v, e.g. pi or vi in the 3rd sing. of verbs; pa or va in the participle.

In Esthonian, where an almost identical rule is found, it is obvious that in the present state of the language at any rate the theory of the closed syllable does not apply at all.

It has been already seen that, though there is no actual proof that terminations in Finnish received the accent, the supposition that they once did so is not only agreeable to analogy, but explains many phenomena in the phonetics of the language. On this principle the rule about the closed syllable might be restated in the form that when a syllable received the accent, owing to the addition of a suffix[1], the consonant at the beginning of that syllable was weakened. Thus aÚrinko remains with nk, aurinkÓn becomes auringon, but aurinkonÁ remains. The pronominal suffixes produce no change, because they are merely enclitic pronouns and have no accent. Auringoita can be easily explained by the tendency to accent a syllable containing a formative element and a diphthong. The advantage of this explanation of the weakening as due to change of accent is that, if true, it enables us to compare the phenomena presented by Finnish with laws accepted as prevailing in other languages, particularly with what is known in Teutonic philology as Werner’s law affecting non-initial soft spirants. By this law when ?, Þ, f, s close the syllable bearing the chief accent they remain; in all other cases they pass into the corresponding sonants ?, Ð, b, z. Thus an original wÓrÞe produces warÞ, but an original (we)wurÞmÉ produces wurÐÚm.

All Finnish accidence is concerned with the addition of suffixes to roots, subject to the above rules for the change of vowels and consonants. In the present state of the language these roots are mostly dissyllabic, though there are also plenty of monosyllables. There is reason to believe, however, that these dissyllabic roots are mostly the result of the combination of a monosyllable with very primitive suffixes, and it is probable that the original roots were of the form consonant + the vowel a + consonant. The root was differentiated in various ways by changing a to o, u, i, e, etc., by raising it to a diphthong or long vowel, or by altering the consonants within certain limits. Examples of this development of roots are contained in Donner’s Vergleichendes WÖrterbuch der Finno-Ugrischen Sprachen.

Finnish, like all the cognate languages, has no distinctions of gender. It possesses two numbers, the singular and plural, all traces of the dual which exists in Ostiak and Vogul having been lost. Three elements are used to form the plural—t, i, and loi. Of these t is found only in the nominative and genitive plural, in which latter case it appears variously as tt, d, or, like the t of the partitive and infinitive, is omitted. This suffix appears also in Esthonian (as d), Mordvinian, and Ostiak (tl). Vogul, Syrjenian, and Cheremissian have quite different suffixes, while Lappish and Hungarian employ the letter k, apparently identical with the g which characterises the dual in Ostiak and Vogul. It has been suggested that as k cannot be a final in Finnish, it has been changed to t; but Mordvinian, which has no objection to final k, also has t as a plural sign. The vowel i is used in all the cases except the nominative and genitive to mark the plural, being inserted immediately before the case termination. It is similarly used in Esthonian and Lappish, and there are traces of it in Hungarian. It has been explained as representing k weakened to j. In the Kalevala and many dialects (e.g. that of Savo) a suffix loi is found before the plural termination, chiefly in the partitive, essive, and translative: mahti-loi-ta, pilvi-lÖi-ksi, tÄhti-lÖi-nÄ. It is never found in the nominative, nor, for euphonic reasons, in the cases which otherwise contain l. The i is evidently the ordinary plural sign, and as pata + i + na becomes patoina, it is probable that this loi represents la + i. Ostiak has a suffix tl in the plural (but this appears to represent simple t), Cheremissian adds vlja or vila, and in Samoyede la appears to be used indifferently with t as a plural sign. The syllable la is used in Finnish to denote a place: e.g. setÄlÄ, uncle’s house, from setÄ, and lo is a diminutive termination. Possibly these forms should be treated as diminutives, but the analogy with Samoyede is curious. It is noticeable that according to our ideas the plural is not used very strictly; thus the numerals take a singular noun, the partitive when signifying many people likewise takes a singular verb; the verb on is used with the nominative plural, and in poems, proverbs, etc., a plural noun has as often as not a singular verb. On the other hand, the plural is often used where there seems to be no real idea of plurality. For instance, we find expressions like olla kylmillÄ, to be in the cold; omin luvin, of one’s own accord. The instructive, prolative, and comitative are generally used in the plural, even when one definite person is described, and there is no distinction between the singular and plural suffixes for the third person. Now, in some languages which appear to present the least developed type of the agglutinative principle, as for instance Manchu, the plural is not regularly distinguished from the singular, and though Finnish has advanced enormously beyond this stage, it appears to have developed a less acute sense of number than the Aryan languages. It is therefore very possible that some of the plural suffixes were in their origin not strictly plural. The t might thus be identical with that of the determinate accusative of pronouns (minut, etc.) and with the t or te, which characterises the definite declension in Mordvinian. Possibly the k of the other languages of the group may be connected with the suffixes -kko, -kkaha, which have an idea of quantity.

Nearly all the cases had originally a local meaning. On pp. 131-133 will be found some account of their relation to one another, and the development of their significations. As is there shown, there are three groups of cases which more or less correspond, the so-called interior and exterior groups, and another composed of the partitive, the essive, and the translative. These latter have simple suffixes, ta, na, and ksi. In the other groups another element is added to the suffix, in the interior cases s (supposed to represent sisÄ), and in the exterior l (supposed to represent luo). The terminations of the inessive (ssa), the elative (sta), the adessive (lla), and the ablative (lta) clearly stand for s + na, s + ta, l + na, l + ta. The combination n + ta is also used sporadically (p. 23) to form a case analogous to the elative and ablative. The relation of the three cases indicative of motion to is, however, less obvious. The termination of the translative is ksi (or kse), that of the illative sen or h-n (with the vowel of the previous syllable between the two consonants), and that of the allative -lle, sometimes pronounced llen. Now, Finnish contains clear traces of a dative in -ne or -nek (pp. 24 and 128). The illative shows a suffix -sen, but dialects give forms which represent he-sen or se-sen (which are supported by the analogy of other languages), which may be explained as the characteristic of the internal cases plus a case termination. The allative -lle(n) may therefore be explained as l + hen, though it can equally well represent l + ne. The termination sen, which is weakened to h-n, or merely n preceded by a long vowel, is perhaps for ksen, for the termination of the translative has a great tendency to be weakened and even disappear (alas, ulos, taa, ty’Ö, 1st infinitives, etc.). We thus get three groups exactly corresponding: (1) na, ta, kse; (2) s + na, s + ta, s + ksen; (3) l + na, l + ta, l + kse.

The prolative, ending in -tse, is not often used and is perhaps identical with the termination -ten, found in some adverbs (tÄten, miten, siten, etc.). The caritive has regularly the termination -tta, but in adverbs this sinks to -ti (ÄÄneti, huoleti). Dialectically are found tak, tah, and ta, and a comparison of the cognate languages leaves no doubt that taka or ta?a was the original form. It is quite clear that this ending is closely connected with the caritive adjectival suffix -ttoma, which has much the same form in all the cognate languages, except Ostiak, where it is wanting. In Mordvinian we have vtomo or ftÏma, and in Lappish tÄbme or tebme. Otherwise the suffix seems to represent an original tama. Perhaps the f or v of Mordvinian may represent some element (e.g. k) added to the stem before the suffix, which has produced in Finnish tt. The termination of the abessive has been explained as the word taka, back. But if this is so, what becomes of the caritive adjective, which shows no trace of this syllable ka? The conclusion that the element denoting absence or negation is ta—perhaps with some other consonant before it—seems inevitable. Ta is used to denote motion from (the original meaning of the partitive), and the connection between this idea and absence is not impossible.

There remain several cases characterised by the letter n, with or without a vowel. We have (1) a genitive, with the termination n in the singular, and taking t as well in the plural; (2) an accusative, found only in the singular and identical in form with the genitive; (3) an instructive identical in the singular with the genitive, but without the element t in the plural; (4) a comitative, formed with the syllable ne. This last may be explained as a local case, related to the syllable na of the essive or locative as the ta of the 1st infinitive is to the te of the second. The instructive termination is probably in reality the same as that of the genitive. It does not seem unnatural that a case denoting relation should be used adverbially to denote the manner in which an action is performed. The case is used chiefly in the plural, in which it does not take the element t, doubtless to distinguish it from the genitive. The genitive seems either to have or to have had the termination n in all the Finno-Ugric languages. It is noticeable that it is strictly a case representing relation, and does not denote origin. Its regular place is before the word which depends on it. It is probably akin to the dative ending in -ne. The accusative ending in n plays only a very small part in Finnish, as it is never used except to denote the total object in the singular of a finite verb. The partial object (p. 126) is always in the partitive, whether singular or plural; the total object plural is in the nominative, and the total object singular of an imperative or impersonal (so-called passive) verb is also in the nominative. Usage with regard to the object of an infinitive is fluctuating, but the primitive rule seems to be that it was in the partitive or nominative. It would seem that when the agent is not defined (imperative, passive, infinitive) the simple nominative was regarded as sufficient, as there could be no confusion between the subject and object. But when the subject is expressed by a word or termination, it was felt necessary to emphasise the object by some termination. T in the plural was apparently enough, but in the singular we find n, which might be identified with the suffix of the genitive, but for the fact that Ostiak, Cheremissian, and Vogul have m or me, and Lappish m, b, p, or w pointing to an original m.

There is also a termination t occurring in the accusatives of the personal pronouns in Finnish, and found also in Hungarian, Mordvinian, and Syrjenian, which marks the determinate accusative. This is perhaps identical with the t of the plural. The nominative, as such, has no termination. In the plural it has the simple plural sign t; in the singular it is identical with the root, unless altered (as is often the case) by purely phonetic laws.

The Finnish adjective is not distinguished from the noun, but it presents this peculiarity that contrary to the usage of the cognate languages it agrees with its substantive in number and case. This is probably due to Aryan influences, and has on the whole been a misfortune, for as soon as it is possible to construct sentences in which the connection of adjectives and substantives, far removed from one another in place, can be indicated by similar terminations, it is inevitable that authors should construct complicated phrases of the German or Greek type, which so much disfigure contemporary Finnish literature.

Finnish possesses a comparative and superlative, both having the termination mpa, the comparative being distinguished by the addition of the letter i before this suffix. This i might possibly be identified with that which marks the oblique cases of the plural, on the supposition that it is a determinative element which gradually acquired a plural signification in nouns. The comparative ending is also found in the pronouns jompi, kumpi, and molempi. Though the present numerals of the Finno-Ugric languages are based on a decimal system, it is clear that the original base was seven. For in all the languages the numbers from one to seven are obviously identical, whereas the words for eight, nine, ten are different. Finnish, with the Baltic dialects, and Mordvinian, represents ten by kymmenen, kÜmme, or kemen; Lappish, Cheremissian, and Vogulian give lokke (or lo?e), lu, lau, which signify simply number (Finn. luku). Ostiak has jon, which recalls the Turkish on and Yakut uon, but which has also been explained as ljon (= luku). Cheremissian has das, which looks as if it had been borrowed from the Russian ??????, though this explanation can hardly be extended to the Magyar tiz. The numbers eight and nine clearly contain in most of the languages the numbers two and one, so that they must mean ten minus two, and ten minus one, but the element denoting ten is not clear: Finnish, kahdehsan, yhdeksÄn; Lappish, kaktse, aktse (kuekte, two; akte, one); Syrjenian kÖkja-mi_s, Ök-mi_s (ki_k, two; Ötik, one); Mordvinian, kafksa, vehksa (kafta, two; ifkÄ, one); Cheremissian, kÄnde?sje, inde?sje (kok, two; ik-tÄ, one). The Magyar, Ostiak, and Vogul for eight (nyole, njigedla?, njÅlÅ-lu) seems related, but not the words for nine. The word for a hundred is the same in all the languages.

The personal pronouns are declined almost exactly like nouns. MinÄ, sinÄ, hÄn appear to represent original forms mi-nÄ, ti-nÄ, sÄ-nÄ (? for tÄ-nÄ). The oblique cases in the singular of the 1st and 2nd person are formed either from the stems minu and sinu (which have been adopted by the literary language), or mu, su. The plural stems are me, te, he, apparently strengthened forms of mi, ti, hi, which take i in the oblique cases, but which (like the demonstrative pronouns) do not take t in the nominative.

The genitive of the personal pronoun is supplied by the pronominal affixes, which are added to nouns. They are for the singular ni, si, nsa; for the plural mme, nne, nsa. The 1st person singular ni is difficult to explain, for the pronominal root is mi. Probably final m was changed to n (cf. the verbs), and the i was a later addition. So too the 2nd person singular varies between si and s. It is clear that in the 3rd singular and all the persons of the plural an element, perhaps the n of the genitive, is added to the noun, so that nsa, mme, nne stand for n-sa, n-me, n-te. It is noticeable, however, that in Ostiak and Vogul the 2nd person is distinguished by the element n, and not t, in all three numbers: sing. nen, nÄn; plur. nen, nan; dual nin. These suffixes are added to the declined noun, after the case termination, whereas in Hungarian the case terminations are added after the pronominal affix. In Cheremissian either combination seems possible. It is a remarkable fact that when the pronominal affixes cause a syllable to be closed, the initial consonant of that syllable is not weakened as in other cases. Tapa + mme and tapa + nsa do not become tavamme, tavansa, but tapamme, tapansa. The explanation of this is very easy if the principles suggested above are correct. The pronominal affixes are enclitics, and hence tÁpa-nsa does not change its accent, while tapa-lla becomes tavÁ-lla. But what is much more curious is that while the simple genitive singular and nominative plural are tavan and tavat, the same cases with suffixes appear as tapamme or tapansa. If these forms are not due to analogy they must be explained on a principle which seems to prevail in Finnish, that it is unnecessary to add more than one suffix defining the relations of words, unless there is a question of local position. Thus in the plural the sign of number is considered a sufficient mark both of the nominative and accusative.

The other pronouns call for little comment, but it is noticeable that the relative pronouns and adverbs are fully developed, so that, although many phrases which we should render by temporal and relative clauses are expressed by infinitives and participles (as in Turkish), they can also be expressed by sentences like those of Aryan languages. All the Finno-Ugric languages show an attempt to differentiate the verb from the noun, which is least successful in the Eastern languages, and most fully realized in Finnish. Yet here one can at once discard a mass of forms—the so-called infinitives and participles—which are simple substantives. Their use is explained on pp. 184-202. The infinitives are formed with two suffixes, ta and ma. The first appears in the 1st infinitive as ta, da, or a, and in the 2nd infinitive, in a weakened form, as te, de, or e. The second suffix ma appears in the 3rd infinitive in its proper form, and as a diminutive in the fourth and fifth infinitives, of which the latter is used only in one case. The present participle, active and passive, is formed by adding va, a common adjectival termination, to the simple or to the passive stem. The past participle active is formed by adding -nehe (nom. nut or nyt) to the stem (cf. such nominal stems as venehe, boat; puhehe, conversation), while the past participle passive is a simple noun with the suffix u or y, and identical with such forms as luku, itku, maksu (p. 45), except that it has the t which characterises the passive.

Setting aside these forms we have the finite verb, which shows two distinct formations, indicating two separate modes of thought. The 1st and 2nd persons singular and plural take suffixes obviously identical in origin with the pronominal affixes, while the 3rd person, singular and plural, is a simple predicate. The affixes for the verb are 1st sing n, 2nd sing. t, 1st plur. mme, 2nd plur. tte. In as far as these are not absolutely the same as the suffixes added to nouns, they show an attempt to differentiate the verb, but n is clearly the same as -ni; t is a more original form of the 2nd singular, which was once ?i, and mme is the same in nouns and verbs. The 2nd person plur. in nouns nne has been already explained as n-te; in the verb mme and tte perhaps represent k + me, k + te. Thus it is only in the 1st person plural that the nominal and verbal suffixes absolutely coincide. Toivomme means either we hope or our hope.

The formation of the 3rd persons is quite different. The plural termination is vat. In modern Finnish the singular, as a rule, takes no termination, but merely lengthens the final vowel, if not already long or a diphthong. But (as stated on pp. 62 and 63) the termination pi, which is found in monosyllabic verbs, and in the weakened form vi in others, is frequent in dialects, and used sometimes in the literary language. This suffix appears in all the Baltic dialects in the forms b, p for the singular, and vat, ba, va for the plural. In Lappish it does not occur in the 3rd person sing. or plur., but in the 1st person plural (p, be, or p), in the 2nd dual (bÄtte, ppe, bet, vette) and plural (bÄttet, ppet, bet, vetteÐ), and in the 3rd dual (ba, van, v). It also occurs sporadically in Cheremissian as the sign of the 3rd person. Now it is quite plain that the Finnish -va-t is the plural form of pi or vi. An analogy for final a sinking to i can be found in the nominative and comparatives (suurempi for suurempa), and it is therefore likely that the 3rd person singular and plural ended in pa and vat (p. 15). No doubt this pa or va is identical with the suffix of the present participle. In the plural indeed the two forms are absolutely identical even in the modern language: tuovat, antavat, tulevat are either the 3rd person plural present or nominative plural of the participle present. The 3rd person is thus simply a predicate, the verb substantive being, as often, omitted. Pa or va would thus be in its origin a suffix of the present: pi or vi does not appear in any of the other moods or tenses, but vat is the universal termination of the plural. Perhaps it was not original in any tense but the present, as SetÄlÄ quotes from old writers and dialects such forms as sanoit (sanoivat), nÄghitt (nÄkivÄt), olisit (olisivat), etc. But it must be remembered that the termination va has not a marked temporal signification, as it is used to form simple adjectives like lihava, fat; terÄvÄ, sharp. If then we regard saavat as a simple adjective from the root saa, denoting taking, there is no reason why saivat, saanevat, etc. should not be adjectives from sai, saane, which express modifications of that root. But this is a question of chronology, and it is more probable that when those stems were formed vat was accepted as a suffix of the 3rd plural. In Esthonian the va is sometimes added to the active past participle (tulnuva), and similar forms are quoted from Agricola. In modern Finnish the 3rd person singular generally ends simply in a long vowel, perhaps the remains of a diphthong ending in u, which occurs in some dialects.

Besides the personal terminations already discussed, we find in reflexive verbs (in some of which however the reflexive meaning is not very clear) me as the suffix of the 1st singular (annoime, luome, siirrime[2]), te for the 2nd person (weÄite, seisotaite, tungeite), ksen, kse, ihe for the 3rd person. These latter forms are carefully discussed by SetÄlÄ (Suom. Ug. Seuran Aikakauskirja, No. II, 1887, p. 33 ff.), and he seems to prove satisfactorily that they represent k + sen, of which the first element is a present suffix, found also in the imperative and negative, and the second the pronoun of the 3rd person, found also in the optative, passive, and other forms. The terminations me and te might be explained as the original forms, seeing that the roots of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are probably mi and ti, but they are more likely to be due to false analogy, the real meaning of he (= sen) in the 3rd person having been forgotten.

We have thus for terminations indicative of person the following:—

We have now to consider what are the other formative elements used in the Finnish verb, in doing which it is best to take first the finite affirmative conjugation, leaving aside the negative and passive forms. We may also leave aside the compound tenses which have doubtless arisen under foreign influences (cf. the Magyar forms).

We have seen that in nouns the possessive affixes n-sa, m-me, n-ne pointed to the fact that another element besides the strictly pronominal affix was added to the stem. The mme and tte of the plural verb are also best explained as k + me, k + te. This k occurs in many other verbal forms, and is of rather uncertain meaning, but apparently originally used in the present tense. It occurs in most of the cognate languages, particularly Lappish. The moods and tenses of the Finnish verb are very simple. The indicative has but two simple tenses (as in most of the cognate languages), a durative, which answers to both our present and future, and an aorist. There are three other moods, the potential or concessive, which represents an action as possible but not actual, the conditional, and the imperative, with which the optative may be taken to form one tense.

The present indicative adds the personal endings direct to the stem; the other forms add some element between the stem and terminations, which are the same as in the present (n, t, mme, tte, vat), except that the 3rd singular never takes pi or vi.

The past tense (generally called imperfect) is formed by adding the vowel i to the stem, which generally causes euphonic changes. Saa, to receive; sain, I received; anta, to give; annoin, I gave; tule, to come; tulin, I came. This suffix is used in Lappish in the forms je, ie, i, and traces of it occur in Magyar, Mordvinian, Cheremissian, Syrjenian, and Vogul. Ostiak is peculiar in using the simple stem for the past, and adding de to mark the present. The suffix i or je is perhaps the same as ja used to form nouns expressing the agent (e.g. kalastaja, a fisherman). Another termination used extensively in all the Baltic dialects is -si. This is quite regular in verbs whose root ends in ta, for lupat(a)i becomes naturally lupasi, and pyyt(Ä)i pyysi (v. p. 16 for detailed rules). But in Esthonian and the South Western dialect of Finnish this termination is added to a great many words which have no t in the stem. E.g. Esthonian: stem palu, pres. palun, pret. palusin; stem pÜhki, pres. pÜhin, pret. pÜhkizin. These forms are perhaps the result of analogy, which was particularly easy on account of the contracted verbs. A comparison of the present lupaan (from which t has been lost) and the imperfect lupasin naturally suggests that si is the characteristic suffix of the latter. On the other hand, Mordvinian, Cheremissian, Vogul, and some forms of Ostiak (as well as the Samoyede languages) all have s or Š as a sign of the preterite, so that si may possibly contain another tense element distinct from i.

The concessive is characterised by the syllable ne, or sometimes no in dialects. A conjunctive formed with this element occurs in most of Baltic dialects, Cheremissian, Vogul, and Ostiak.

The conditional has in Finnish a double suffix i + si. The i is doubtless identical with that of the imperfect. The syllable si is no doubt for ksi, for the Esthonian conditional is regularly formed with this suffix. Palu, wiska, pÜhki, s? form paluksin, wiskaksin, pÜhiksin, s?ksin. Esthonian generally has this suffix without i, but the other Baltic dialects employ the Finnish form. Lappish also has a subjunctive showing the syllable kci, cci, or ci, but the form is unknown in the Eastern languages. It is noticeable that both ne and se are found in dialects doubled (myysisin from myy, to sell; tullenen, for tulnenen, from tulla, to come), and also combined in the form neisi, which occurs several times in the Kalevala (e.g. xxiii. 219, 220. Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi Mies nuori nuristuneisi).

The imperative consists of a 2nd person singular, which in literary Finnish is merely the root in a closed form (anna, ota from anta, otta), but which in dialects is found ending in k (annak, otak, etc.), and of a 1st and 2nd plural ending in kaamme, kaatte (or kaa) in the literary language, though kama, kamme, katte are also found. A 3rd person singular in kaan also occurs, but rarely. The optative consists of a 2nd person singular ending in os, of a 3rd person singular in koon, and a 3rd person plural in koot. These forms have been generally explained as weakenings of suffixes kasa (kaha) and koso (koho), and as representing kasamme, kasatte, koso, koson, and kosot. It appears to me that the evidence brought forward by SetÄlÄ (p. 111 ff.) disproves this theory. He points out (1) that the forms kaha, koho never occur in those dialects which otherwise preserve h between vowels, e.g. in the illative and passive; (2) that the Eastern dialects change the kaa or kÄÄ of the imperative into koa, keÄ, which change never occurs when an h has been lost. Besides no particular explanation has ever been offered of the suffixes kasa, koso. The proper suffixes then of the imperative and optative are ka, ko, which are obviously related (cf. ne, dialect no, in the concessive). These suffixes appear in Esthonian as ga (dial) and gu, and a suffix ka, k, or traces of it, occurs not only in the Baltic languages, but in all the other members of the group. It seems to be identical with the k which appears in the negative conjugation and elsewhere, and which is the least definite in signification of suffixes merely indicating the verbal character of the root. Thus the 2nd person singular of the imperative is an elementary verbal form without a personal termination. The forms kaamme, kaatte have evidently added to this suffix the personal termination. The long vowel appears to be an invention of the modern literary dialect. In poetry and dialects we find the forms kÄmme, kÄme, and kÄte.

The termination os of the optative is doubtless for ko + s where s represents the 2nd person singular. In Kalevala xxxiii. 257-8 we find a form in kosi, Kun on kuollet kuolkosipa, kaotkosi kun kaonnet, cf. Kanteletar (p. 14, 2nd ed., 1884) TehkÖs liito lintuseni. The 3rd person singular ending in koon is undoubtedly for kohon, where the second element represents the 3rd personal pronoun hÄn or sen. The assimilation of the vowel to the o of ko resembles the phenomena presented by the illative. The plural koot is similarly for kohot, where the second element represents het or set, that is the 3rd personal pronoun with the plural suffix. The terminations kaan and kaat, which occur dialectically, show similar formations with the ka of the imperative.

Besides the forms of the finite active verb discussed above, Finnish also possesses what is called a passive, but is no doubt really an impersonal verb, used in all the tenses but the imperative. From the root tuo come the present tuodahan, imperf. tuotahin, concessive tuotanehen, conditional tuotaisihin. But the root ending in a short vowel like repi makes revitÄhÄn, revittihin, revittÄnehen, revittÄisihin. In all these forms the last element is obviously a termination h-n, which is vocalized analogously to the illative. This is probably the 3rd personal pronoun hÄn or sen. Besides this termination there is added to the root the element tta after a short vowel, and ta after a long one. This suffix is probably identical with the causal and transitive terminations ta, tta (p. 110). Thus the passive forms are really causal verbs used impersonally in the 3rd person singular.

It is noticeable that while the imperfects and other tenses are tuotihin, sanotihim, etc., the present has tuodahan, sanotahan, etc. This points to the syllable tta or ta having being closed originally by some element which has disappeared. Now the passive present in Esthonian is formed regularly with the syllable kse which is doubtless the present suffix k and the pronoun se. Thus the roots palu, wiska, and pÜhki form the passives palutakse, wizatakse, pÜhitakse corresponding very closely to an original Finnish sano + ta + k + sen which becomes sanota’hen and then sanotaan. Personal, neuter, or passive verbs are formed by the addition of the vowels u or y, with or without the addition of t, nt, or p (p. 111). Such verbs, however, are not counted as part of the regular conjugation, as they cannot be formed from all verbal stems.

On the same footing as these reflexive verbs stand the various derivative forms described p. 110 ff. Some of them—e.g. the causal suffixes—have so distinct a meaning and are used so frequently that they might almost be given among the regular forms of the verb; others are only added to comparatively few verbs and vary in their signification. Some of them are the same suffixes which occur in the regular conjugation; ksi, a frequentative or diminutive, is no doubt identical with the si of the conditional: ne, and perhaps the n of nta, is the suffix of the concessive; ele, or le, used in Finnish only to form frequentatives and diminutives, appears in Lappish as a sign of the subjunctive mood (Set. p. 158). It is thus clear that the verbal forms consist of a root (that is to say, a form which may be considered as a root for Finnish, without prejudice to the question how far it is absolutely primitive), to which are added certain formative affixes and a termination indicating person. Some of these formative affixes have been accepted as definitely indicating mood or tense, others have not been so accepted and have a vaguer signification. Thus anta + i + si + n is described as the 1st person singular of the conditional of anta, to give, isi being indicative of the mood, but kÄÄrÄmÖittelee, which represents kÄÄrÄ + mÄ + i + tta + ele, is not regarded as having any modal or temporal suffix.

In Finnish, as in most of the cognate languages except Hungarian and Ostiak (where however there are traces of another system) there is no simple negative particle, and negation can only be expressed by means of the negative verb, en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivÄt, which is prefixed to the closed form of the root. There is no doubt that this form has lost a final k, and is therefore identical with the second person singular of the imperative, and is the simplest verbal form. In the past, the past participle is used with the negative verb, and in the other moods the tense stem. The imperative and optative add ko to the stem and the negative particle is formed from the root Äl or el which is obviously closely akin to such forms as ellen (p. 69) and perhaps is the negative root combined with the suffix le.

Although the common opinion about Finnish is that it is hopelessly unlike any European language, it must be admitted by all who have studied it that it represents a very close approximation to the Aryan type, due no doubt to the strong and consistent foreign influence to which it has been subjected. As is well known, the vocabulary is overrun with German or Scandinavian words, often the equivalents of the simplest ideas, which have been borrowed, not lately, but before the earliest period of which we have any record. In the structure of the language itself this approximation is not less striking. It manifests itself in two ways—negatively and positively. As for the first, Finnish has abandoned many constructions which are found in the other languages of the group, but which are unknown to Aryan grammar. Thus we find no traces of the object being incorporated with the verb, or of the verb taking possessive as well as predicative suffixes. On the other hand, the positive resemblances are very numerous. It cannot be denied that the declensions, whatever be their origin, are in their present form very similar to those of Latin and Greek. The case suffix forms a whole with the noun; it influences the vowels and consonants of the latter; the pronominal suffixes must be added after it, and not between it and the stem. The only difference between Finnish and Greek or Latin declension is that the former is much more regular and transparent in its character, though, even here, some cases, as the partitive singular and genitive plural, show considerable diversity. The adjective is fully declined, agrees with its substantive, and takes degrees of comparison. The verb is clearly distinguished from the noun, and the scanty supply of primitive tenses has been supplemented by a number of forms combined with the auxiliary verb after the analogy of German or Swedish. There are a great many infinitival and participial constructions, which recall the Turkish; but, on the other hand, the relative pronouns and particles are fully developed. On the whole, it may be fairly said that Finnish really presents no great differences from Aryan languages except in its euphonic laws, the use of the pronominal suffixes, the infinitives and participles, and some syntactical peculiarities. Compared with such a language as Ostiak (or even Magyar) it shows the clearest traces of foreign influence, and of non-Aryan material recast in a western and Aryan mould.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that agglutinative languages represent a stage through which Aryan languages have doubtless past. The real difference between the forms presented by Finnish, and those of Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit, is that while the former has but a limited number of suffixes, and uses them regularly in the same sense, the latter had a superfluously rich store, and used sometimes one, sometimes another to express the same idea. Hence it is that we find different case endings for nouns, adjectives, and pronouns; and several ways of inflecting verbs and nouns.

The tendency to advance from the primitive forms and constructions of the Ugro-Altaic languages to a mode of expression more in harmony with western thought reaches its height in the modern literary Finnish. It is no reproach to this language to say that it is artificial. Nearly all modern languages have the same origin. Out of a mass of dialects one is selected by circumstances as representative, and becomes a language while the others remain dialects. A number of such dialects are spoken in Finland, and no doubt if any of them had received an independent literary development, it might have produced a language almost as different from written Finnish as is Esthonian. Neither can one be surprised at the number of newly invented words in Finnish. All the languages of modern Europe have borrowed the vocabulary of mediaeval Latin, either by taking the words as they found them, or by translating the component parts of them into equivalents supplied from their own grammar. English has generally adopted the former, German the latter method. Finnish has followed boldly in the same track, and endeavoured to find native equivalents for the chief modern ideas. It is perhaps presumptuous for a foreigner to judge whether the result is successful. One is inclined to think that the change has been a little too sudden. Finnish is an admirable vehicle for such poetry as the Kalevala or for simple narrative. It had not advanced at all beyond this state when it was used to represent the most complicated forms of European thought, and, as it still keeps its homely native character, the combination sometimes appears rather odd. Besides, as there is no authority to determine exactly what are the accepted phrases for the literary dialect, or the proper equivalents of foreign words, a good deal of confusion reigns, and even natives have occasionally some difficulty in understanding modern authors. It is a great pity that writers do not adopt a simpler style. As it is, they have chosen German models, and the combination of exceedingly involved phrases with manifold inflectional forms distinguished only by slight differences produces sentences which rival in difficulty ancient Greek, a language which was generally obscure except in the hand of a master. Yet though Finnish deserves its undesirable reputation of being the most difficult language spoken in Europe, except perhaps Basque, it seems to be an undoubted fact that the area over which it is spoken is being enlarged at the expense of Russian and Swedish.

The group of languages to which Finnish belongs is at present spoken by tribes scattered over the more northern parts of European Russia and immediately to the east of the Ural. In Siberia we have Ostiak, spoken by tribes about the river Obi (for the Ostiak of the Yenisei appears to be a different language), and Vogul, spoken by scattered tribes on either side of the Ural. With these languages is connected Magyar, though owing to foreign influences and its great literary development, comparable only to that of Finnish, it presents many peculiarities. Though both the grammar and vocabulary of these languages leave no doubt of their relation to the rest of the group, they differ from them in many points of detail. The case terminations present few resemblances; Vogul and Ostiak have a dual, and they all more or less employ constructions rejected by most of the other languages, such as the incorporation of the object in the verb, the distinction between predicative and possessive suffixes in the verb, etc. Also it is remarkable that they have not developed fully the peculiar negative constructions of Finnish and the more western languages.

East of the Voguls dwell a race called Syryenians or Zyrjenians (Russian ??????), whose head quarters are at the town of Ishma, on the Pechora; south of these again are the Votiaks, mostly in the government of Viatka. On the north bank of the Volga, to the west of Kazan, live the Cheremissians, speaking two dialects, some scattered settlements of whom are found further east, while to the south of these again, mostly about the rivers Oka and Sura, are numerous scattered settlements of Mordvinians, who have likewise two dialects. None of these are literary languages. Besides them we have Lappish, in three dialects spoken in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden, and Russia, and the various Baltic idioms, with Suomi or Finnish.

The relation of these languages to one another have been ably described in Dr. Donner’s work, ‘Die gegenseitige Verwandschaft der Finnish-Ugrischen Sprachen.’ He divides the whole group into two divisions, the first called Ugric, and comprising only Ostiak, Vogul, and Magyar; the second called Finnish, including all the other languages. This second or Finnish division is divided into two groups, the Permian and Volga-Baltic, the former including only the Syrjenians, Permians, and Votiaks, the latter again in two sub-divisions, the Volga group or Mordvinian and Cheremissian, and the West Finnish group including Lappish, Esthonian, and Finnish.

This classification may be represented thus in a table:—

All these languages have a certain common vocabulary, and a common grammatical substratum, though many of them possess constructions unknown to the others. The pronouns, numerals, and in a less obvious degree the pronominal affixes of nouns and verbs are also identical. The Ugrian languages however, seem to have parted company with the rest before a system of declension had been fixed. Their nominal suffixes seem to be mostly later formations, though we find t, tl, or k for the plural, and traces of l as a local element. Corresponding phenomena appear in the conjugation of verbs, as noticed above.

The remaining languages—or Finnish group—have not developed any striking differences from the Ugric division, but they show greater resemblance to one another in details. They all have local cases characterised by the letter s (unknown in the Ugric group), others characterised by l, an abessive ending in ta or tak, and negative adjectives characterised by the syllable tem, or tom. They mostly agree in having a peculiar form for the negative conjugation. The present of the positive conjugation has p (or v) regularly or sporadically in certain persons, and the remaining verbal forms, though far from agreeing absolutely, show a sufficient resemblance to warrant us in regarding them as the results of a common development.

From the accounts given of Syrjenian and Votiak it would seem that they were the first to cease to participate in this common development. They appear to be characterised by few striking peculiarities, but to show a less degree of conformity to a common standard than the remaining languages. The phonetic system of Syrjenian seems to be much the same as that of Cheremissian or Mordvinian, except that it has a great fondness for the sound of i_. The pronouns of both numbers, and the pronominal affixes of the singular, show much more resemblance to the Finnish than to the Ugrian, but the pronominal affixes of the plural (ni_m, ni_d, ni_s) are curious, and obviously represent the singular affixes in combination with a syllable ni_, which may perhaps be akin to the Finnish plural demonstrative ne. In the verb, the 1st person singular has no personal termination. In the plural we find m, ni_d, ni_s, as in nouns. Generally Syrjenian seems to be more thoroughly agglutinative, as opposed to inflected, than the Finnish language. In this it may be compared with Cheremissian, where the plural is formed by the syllable vlja (or vi_lÄ) added between the stem and case termination, just like jas in Syrjenian. The Permian languages have some close analogies in detail with the Ugrian group. Thus twenty is ki_s in Syrjenian, kos or ?us in Ostiak, husz in Magyar; the reflexive pronoun is as or ats in Syrjenian and Votiak, at in Ostiak.

Of the remaining languages Mordvinian is in many ways the most remarkable. Though generally admitted to be nearly akin to Cheremissian, it has many constructions peculiar to itself. Thus it has a fully developed object conjugation and two forms of declension, the definite and indefinite. It has a great fondness for the letter f. On the other hand, such phenomena as the suffix n-za for the 3rd person, the word kemen, ten, the regular formation of the imperfect with i, infinitives in ma, and participles in f (Finn. va) show a near approach to Finnish. Cheremissian has also developed some new singular negative forms, by which the verbal root is negatived (in the preterite) by a suffix te + l, after which the personal suffixes are added.

The connection of the West Finnish languages is much more striking than that of those which have already been discussed. The resemblance of Lappish to Finnish and Esthonian is a little disguised owing to the elaborate phonetic system of this language, which has an extraordinary fondness for diphthongs, and also a very extensive provision of consonants, including some (e.g. ?, ?, d) which do not occur in any of the cognate languages. The nominal declension is very similar to that of Finnish. Compare the singular forms tŠalme, tŠalmen, tŠalmesn, tŠalmest, tŠalmetaka with silmÄ, silmÄnÄ, silmÄssÄ, silmÄstÄ, silmÄttÄ. In the singular the genitive and partitive have lost their termination (cf. the Esthonian forms, nom. silm, gen. and part. silma). The analogy in the plural is still closer; the nominative ends in h or k, but the other cases are characterised by the insertion of i, tŠalmeh or tŠalmek, tŠalmiti, tŠalmi, tŠalmin, tŠalmisne, tŠalmist, tŠalmita?a corresponding to silmÄt, silmiÄ, sÍlmien, silminÄ, silmissÄ, silmistÄ, silmittÄ. There are also forms in l, le, lt, or ld. The partitive case appears to be peculiar to the West Finnish languages. The pronouns of Lappish point the other way, and are all but identical with those of Mordvinian, mon, ton or don, son, mi, ti or di, si; Mordvinian mon, son, ton, min, sin, tin. The singular affixes are m, d, s (Mordv. n, t, nza), but those of the plural take the characteristic k (mek, dek, sek). There are also dual forms. The verb is peculiar in using different affixes for the present and preterite. Otherwise it is much the same as the Finnish forms. We have b or p as a sign of the present, je or i for the preterite, ket, kus, etc. in the imperative; comparatives formed with fc-, kc-, c- (ksi), or le. The negative conjugation also shows close analogies. Lappish has thus a great resemblance to Finnish, but is much nearer than the remaining western languages to Cheremissian and Mordvinian, thus connecting these latter with Finnish and the Esthonian languages.

There is no need to insist on the close connection of Livish, Votish, Vepsish, and Esthonian with Finnish. The grammatical structure and vocabulary of these languages is so alike that the fact is obvious not only to a philologist, but to the most casual learner. Esthonian is now far the most important of these languages, and has a certain amount of literary culture. It has two chief dialects, that of Revel and that of Dorpat[3].

In a few cases Esthonian shows older forms than Finnish, but on the whole it is less primitive. Besides the Finnish consonants it possesses b, g, z, and ?. The accent is on the first syllable, and has led to weakening or loss of final syllables. The vowel harmony is known only in the Dorpat dialect, and there not perfectly. Consonants are weakened in much the same way as in Finnish, pp, tt, kk are reduced to single consonants; p, t, k, s become b, d, g, z; b becomes w or disappears, and d, g, z disappear. These changes, however, do not in the present state of the language take place only when syllables are closed, although the original form generally ended with a consonant. Thus tib, urk, rind, toit, rid form the genitives tiwa, urga, rinna, toidu, riu; and the verbs pÜhkima, uskuma, prukima, hoidma form pÜhin, uzun, prugin, hoian. The noun has only eleven cases, the six local (exterior and interior) the genitive, partitive, abessive, and translative, all almost identical in form with Finnish, except that the genitive has lost the n of the termination, and the other cases the final vowel. The plural takes d in the nominative and i in the other cases. The pronouns resemble Finnish, but the 3rd person singular and plural is the demonstrative tema or nema in Esthonian, Livonian, and Votish, but Vepsish has hÄn, hÖ. Esthonian has almost lost the pronominal affixes, which are used only in adverbial forms, and replaced in most cases by the genitive of the personal pronoun.

The affirmative verb closely resembles Finnish, except that the concessive formed with ne has, except in the Dorpat dialect, been almost entirely lost. The 3rd person singular present ends regularly in b, and the 3rd plural in wad. The preterite is sometimes formed with simple i, but generally with si, and the conditional with ksi. The imperative 2nd singular has no termination, but as in Finnish the root is weakened. The other persons are characterised by gu or ge. The passive is formed by affixing ta + k + se in the present, and ta + i (ti) in the preterite. The negative verb for the imperative is ÄrÄ, Ärgu, Ärge, but in the other forms Esthonian does not affix personal endings to the negative, but uses ei with all persons. Similarly Livish has Äb or ab for all persons except the second, where ad is sometimes used. Votish and Vepsish follow Finnish. It will thus be seen that Esthonian, closely allied as it is to Finnish, has lost many peculiarities which it once no doubt possessed, but occasionally (e.g. the passive present in takse and the conditional in kse) preserves forms which in Finnish have been weakened or disguised.

It is easier to discuss the relations of the Finno-Ugric languages to one another than to decide what are their affinities with other groups. They are generally considered to be connected with the Samoyede, Turkish, Mandchu, and Mongolian languages, that is to say, the ancestor of each of these groups was related to the ancestor of the Finno-Ugrian languages. When, however, identity of vocabulary cannot be proved, it is dangerous to make comparisons on the ground of general grammatical resemblances, because the grammar of agglutinative languages offers few striking peculiarities, and represents a stage of development through which may other languages, certainly the Aryan, have passed. The only general description which can be given of the Finno-Ugric group is that they are languages without gender, whose grammatical structure consists entirely in appending suffixes. To these characteristics is generally added another, the vowel harmony, but this exists very partially in the Finnish group. Now without denying the possible relationship of Turkish, Mongol, and Mandchu to Finnish, it must be admitted that they have only a very general resemblance, and very many and precise differences. Mandchu and Mongol, with their uninflected verbs, would have been put into quite another class were they not undoubtedly akin to languages with a more developed system. And why should Japanese be excluded? It presents no phenomena incongruous with the grammar of the languages above cited, and the want of vowel harmony cannot be alleged as a difficulty.

If, however, we turn to the Samoyede languages the case is very different. They are usually mentioned as if they stood no nearer to the Finno-Ugric group than Turkish or Mandchu, and yet the resemblances in detail are numerous and striking.

They possess the vowel harmony, and apparently a law for the weakening of consonants analogous to that of Finnish and Esthonian, e.g. kinta, kindan; mat, maden; sok, sogon. The noun is strikingly like Finnish. We find a genitive in n, an accusative in m or p (cf. Lappish), a dative in ni or n, a locative in nan (cf. Finnish na), and an instrumental in se. There are three numbers, the dual is characterised by g or ha (cf. gen. in Ostiak, ag in Vogul), and the plural is formed with la or t (d). The pronouns show a good deal of variety, and it is evident that some forms (e.g. pudar, thou; puda, he) are not real pronouns but substantives used as pronouns. Still we find a general consensus for man as the 1st person singular, and some form of the same word for the plural; tan for the second singular, and te, ten, or Ši for the plural (cf. Lappish, Cheremissian, Syrjenian, and Mordvinian). The 3rd person exists in several forms, tep, sete, di, etc., which may perhaps be compared with the Ostiak ten, Cheremissian tidÄ, and Syrjenian si_a. The pronominal affixes are also extraordinarily numerous and varied, but they seem to include m for the 1st singular, t or d for the 2nd, jea (cf. Magyar ja) for the 3rd; mu or met for the 1st plural, and ta or tet for the 2nd. The interrogative pronouns are kutÖ, hÜbea, hoke, etc., who, and ma, mi, what. The verb and noun are not sharply distinguished. The verb takes two sets of pronominal suffixes, the predicative, with which an intransitive verb is always conjugated, and the possessive, which are used with both transitive and intransitive verbs. The preterite is formed by adding s, which occurs as a preterite suffix in Cheremissian, Mordvinian, Vogul, and Ostiak. The conjunctive is formed with nji, ne, na (cf. the Finnish ne). The imperative is formed with the syllable kar, gar, har (cf. Finnish ka). There is also an optative with the suffix rava, so perhaps kar is ka-ra.

Besides this similarity of grammatical forms there is a large common vocabulary. The following examples are taken at haphazard out of Castren’s lexicon:—River, jaha, joha (Finn. joki); hill, pirda (Finn. vuori); dark, paebi, paevuda (pimeÄ); to blow, pu’u (puhua); half, pealea, fealla (puoli); good, sava, sova (hyvÄ); fire, tu (tuli); fish, kole, hale (kala); tree, po, pe, pea (puu); bear, korg, kuerg (karhu); earth, mon (maa); narrow, small, tÎjea (tyhjÄ, empty); to place, puenan (panna); live, jileadm (eleÄ); come, tÛ’am, tÖak (tulla)[4].

On the other hand, the Samoyede languages differ in many ways from the Ugro-Altaic group. The numbers are entirely different. The Ostiak Samoyede oker, one, shows a faint resemblance to yhte, and sidea, or sede, two, has been compared with kahte, but such analogies are doubtful. Only the number seven, sin, sjelde, sjaibua shows a resemblance with the Finno-Ugric forms. But it is clear that the Samoyede numbers represent very primitive attempts at numeration (e.g. Jurak. hÂsava-ju, Samoyede big number, for nine, lutsa-ju, Russian big number for ten), and that in many cases Turkish numbers have been borrowed (cf. tjet, tet, four, with Yakut tÜÖrt and kamass, khera 40, ili? 50, althon 60, with Turkish kirk, elli, altmish). Samoyede is also more like the Turkish than the Finno-Ugric language in its power of adding predicative and temporal suffixes to nouns (which implies a want of distinction between the verb and noun). Thus lutsa means a Russian; lutsam, I am a Russian; lutsams?, I was a Russian.

The above sketch of Samoyede has no pretence to be exhaustive, and may be charged with inaccuracy, inasmuch as words and forms are cited indifferently from all the dialects. For a proper investigation of the question it is no doubt necessary to thoroughly study the relations of the Samoyede languages to one another, to establish the original forms, and in particular to determine the influence of foreign languages, whether Turkish or Finno-Ugric, on the Samoyede vocabulary. But unless there is something strangely misleading in the superficial character of these dialects, it appears to me that they undoubtedly stand far nearer to Finno-Ugric than do Turkish or Mongolian, and should indeed be classed as outlying members of the Finno-Ugric group. The want of similarity in the numbers is certainly very strange, but the other resemblances in vocabulary seem to me to be conclusive, unless all the words in question are borrowed.

A FINNISH GRAMMAR.

The Finnish Alphabet consists of 21 letters, viz.: a, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v (or w), y, Ä, Ö.

German characters are sometimes used, in which case w always represents the v sound. In the Roman character v and w are used indifferently to express the sound of the English v.

The pronunciation of the consonants offers little difficulty. Most of them have the same sounds as in English.

D. In true Finnish words this letter is never found at the beginning or end, and in the middle always represents a softened t (vide changes of consonants p. 13). Even in this position it is hardly ever heard in the language as spoken by peasants, but replaced in the West Finnish dialect by a sound between r and l, and in the Eastern dialect entirely omitted. Educated people, however, pronounce it as in English. Thus the educated pronunciation of the genitive case of sota is sodan; but in dialects the forms soran, solan, or soan are found. The letter d is always omitted in the Kalevala, which is written in the Karelian dialect.

G, except in a few foreign words, is only found in the combination ng, representing an original nk, pronounced as in English. In the neighbourhood of St. Petersburg this letter is never used, k taking its place.

H is a stronger aspirate than in English, and is almost the Russian x or German ch. It is heard very distinctly at the end of syllables, e.g. in tehdÄ.

J is the English y in yes or yard.

The remaining letters of the Roman Alphabet b, c, f, q, x, z, and the Swedish Å (pronounced o) are sometimes met with in foreign words, but an uneducated Finn will always pronounce b and f as p and v, and is also incapable of producing such sounds as the English ch and sh, which when occurring in Russian names are generally represented in a Finnish mouth by simple s.

There is also a slight aspiration found at the end of some words, as vene?, a boat, syÖdÄ?, to eat. It is not usually written, and hardly heard except in some dialects, though it has a grammatical importance, and in some educational works is marked, as above, by an inverted comma.

It will be seen that there is a great paucity of consonants in the Finnish language; the alphabet contains but 13, and of these g and d are never found at the beginning of native words. Further no word can begin with two consonants, and foreign words, commencing with such combinations, always lose one or more letters, for instance the Swedish words strand (shore), and spel (game), appear as ranta, peli.

On the other hand there is an extraordinary wealth of vowel sounds, and it is of capital importance to learn the exact pronunciation of them all.

The simple sounds are eight in number.

A is the Italian a (English a in rather or father), but pronounced quicker. It is always short.

E is the English e in met.

I is the English i in bit.

O is the English o in hot.

U is the English u in bull.

Y is the German Ü in Über.

Ä, which must be carefully distinguished from A, is the short English a heard in hat, or trap, and must not be pronounced as the English a in late. Thus hÄn, he, is pronounced exactly like hand without the final d. At the end of words (e.g. tyÖtÄ) Ä is more difficult for an Englishman to pronounce, as the sound is not found in English as a final.

Ö is like the French eu.

It is very important to observe that the simple vowels are all short sounds. The corresponding long sounds are written by doubling the vowel.

Aa is a long Italian a, like the a in rather, whereas the sound of simple a is shorter than that which we (generally) give to the vowel in this word.

Ee is like the English a in pale, late.

Ii is the English ee in keen, three.

Oo is the English o in hope.

Uu is the English oo in boot.

Yy is the German Ü, pronounced long.

ÄÄ is the a in had, but long. It is a rather difficult sound, but can be obtained by lingering over the vowel of had or man, taking care not to change its quality.

ÖÖ is the sound of the simple Ö lengthened.

Besides these simple and double vowels there are also 16 diphthongs, in which both vowels should be sounded but so rapidly and continuously as to form one syllable. They may be divided into two classes.

(1) Those in which the stress is on the second vowel. uo, yÖ, ie, e.g. tuo, this, tie, a way, yÖ, night.

(2) Those in which the stress is on the first vowel. Of these there are—

(a) Four ending in u. au, ou, iu, eu. Kauppa, sale, koulu, school, hiukka, a grain, leuka, chin.

(b) Two ending in y: Äy, Öy. VÄylÄ, river bed, hÖyhen, feather.

(c) Seven ending in i: ai, oi, ui, ei, Äi, Öi, yi. E.g. nai, he married, koi, a moth, pui, he threshed, vei, he led, pÄivÄ, day, lÖi, he struck, myi, he sold.

These diphthongs, with the exception of those ending in i, are found only in the first syllable of words, otherwise the two vowels form two syllables: e.g. tapa-us, not tapa?us, kope-us, not kope?us, but talko?issa, pape?illa.

The pronunciation of these diphthongs offers no difficulties when that of the simple vowels has been mastered. It must be remembered that they are real diphthongs where both vowels sounds are heard, but pronounced rapidly, so that au, though very near the ow in the English how, is not quite like it. The pronunciation of Äy and Öy requires attention, but is, like that of all the diphthongs, merely the result of pronouncing the simple vowels rapidly.

The chief accent in Finnish is always on the first syllable of every word. TÁlo, mÍnÄ, pÁrempi, kÍvettÄ.

There is a secondary accent, generally on the third, fifth, ... syllables, but occasionally on the fourth, sixth, ... e.g. op-pi-mÁt-to-mÚu-des-sÁn-sa (in his ability to learn).

But Ó-pet-ta-mÁt-to-mÚu-des-sÁn-sa (in his ignorance).

But in no case is the second or last syllable accented, so that such sounds as howÉver, delÁy, are impossible.

The pronunciation of Finnish is generally described as easy, but this is by no means the case. It is true that the language contains no sound which is really difficult for an Englishman, but on the other hand extreme care is necessary to pronounce even the simplest words correctly. For instance, in the word menemme (we come), three things are to be observed. The accent is on the first syllable, the n is single and not double, and the m is doubled. An Englishman, who has not learned how to pronounce, will in all probability say not menemme, but menneme. This is because he finds it natural to double the n after the accented syllable and hard to double the m, without accenting the second syllable. It must be observed, that:—

(1) The simple consonants are pronounced very lightly; tuli, fire, nearly rhymes to the English fully, but the l is lighter.

(2) The double consonants must be pronounced distinctly twice, as in Italian. Kuk-ka, flower, kyl-lÄ, enough, pap-pi, priest.

(3) The simple vowels are very short, the long vowels are to be dwelt on, but the length of a vowel has nothing to do with the accent. PÚhuu must not be pronounced as if it were PuhÚu, or puÚhu.

The observance of these rules is necessary, not only to insure a correct pronunciation, but to prevent absolute confusion, for the paucity of consonants in Finnish results in the existence of a mass of words, which though very distinct to a native, are liable to be confounded by a stranger, and the natural tendency of an Englishman or Russian to slur over unaccented syllables results in complete unintelligibility. For instance, tuli is a fire, or, he came, tulli, a tax, tulla, to come (infinitive), tule, come (imperative and root), tulee, he comes: tullee, the concessive of the same verb, tuuli, a wind, tuulla, to blow. KylÄ is a village, but kyllÄ, enough. PitÄÄ, to hold, pyytÄÄ, to ask, peittÄÄ, to cover, peite, a covering, pÖytÄ, a table.