VENE KEELE MÕJUST EESTI KEELES. TAGASIVAATEID JA PERSPEKTIIVE

Artiklis uuritakse vene keele mõju eesti keele sõnavarale ja morfosüntaksile; venemõjulise sõnavara käsitluses võetakse kriitiliselt kokku varasemate uurimuste tulemusi, venemõjulise morfosüntaksi käsitluses aga esitatakse rida uusi vene mõju kandidaate eesti keele grammatika erinevates valdkondades. Artiklis väidetakse, et võõrmõjulise morfosüntaksi uuringute „mahajäämuse“ põhjused võrreldes sõnavaraga ei ole niivõrd ideoloogilised, kuivõrd ontoloogilised. Grammatikauuenduste tekkimine ja juurdumine ei saa kunagi olla ainult teise keele mõju tulemus. Seetõttu on väliseid uuenduste ajendeid raske uurida eraldi sisemistest ajenditest. Artiklis jõutakse järelduseni, et vene keele mõju eesti keelele positsioneerub oma ulatuselt Thomasoni ja Kaufmani (1988) laenuskaalal teise ja kolmanda intensiivsusastme vahel

Gert Sauer 1932–2021

Minnesord (Obituary)</p

Reflections of Russian dialect geography in Djorža Karelian

Can we pinpoint an Eastern Finnic dialect on the map, based exclusively on the Russian influence in its phonology and grammar? How precisely do differences between Russian (sub-)dialects manifest themselves in Eastern Finnic? Due to its unique location, far from its relatives, and its contacts with different Russian dialects, Djorža Karelian is a promising tool for answering these questions. We explore the distribution of three phonological features in Djorža Karelian vocabulary borrowed from Russian; all of them correspond to isoglosses on the Russian dialect map. In addition, we also shortly examine one syntactic feature in this Karelian variety: the distribution of two borrowed conjunctions with similar meaning and North-South divide in Russian dialects. We conclude that phonology is not the best detector of contact between non-cognate dialects, because of the small sound inventories of the contact varieties and the problems in distinguishing externally driven change from internally driven change. Syntax seems to be a better diagnostic for contact between non-cognate dialects, because of its complex relationship with meaning. We go on to demonstrate how syntactic evidence from a non-Slavic variety can also be suggestive for the occurrence of linguistic phenomena in Russian dialects.Can we place an Eastern Finnic dialect on the map, based exclusively on the Russian influence on its phonology and grammar? How precisely do differences between Russian (sub-)dialects manifest themselves in Eastern Finnic? Due to its unique location, far from its relatives, and its contacts with different Russian dialects, Djorža Karelian is a promising tool for answering these questions. We explore the distribution of three phonological features in Djorža Karelian vocabulary borrowed from Russian; all of them correspond to isoglosses on the Russian dialect map. In addition, we also briefly examine one syntactic feature in this Karelian variety: the distribution of two borrowed conjunctions with similar meaning and a North–South divide in Russian dialects. We conclude that phonology is not the best detector of contact between dialects of non-cognate languages, because of the relatively small sound inventory of the contact languages and the problems in distinguishing externally driven change from internally driven change. Syntax seems to be a better diagnostic for such contact, because of its complex relationship with meaning. We go on to demonstrate how syntactic evidence from a non-Slavic variety can be suggestive for the occurrence of linguistic phenomena in Russian dialects

Transforming Archived Resources with Language Technology : From Manuscripts to Language Documentation

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)Transcriptions in different languages are a ubiquitous data format in linguistics and in many other fields in the humanities. However, the majority of these resources remain both under-used and under-studied. This may be the case even when the materials have been published in print, but is certainly the case for the majority of unpublished transcriptions. Our paper presents a workflow adapted in the research project Language Documentation Meets Language Technology, which combines text recognition, automatic transliteration and forced alignment into a process which allows us to convert earlier transcribed documents to a structure that is comparable with contemporary language documentation corpora. This has complex practical and methodological considerations.Peer reviewe

The l-cases in Courland Livonian

Courland Livonian is the only Finnic language where the habitive expressions of giving, taking, and having do not use the so-called l-cases, but instead the dative, the elative or a postposition. As the l-cases mostly only occur in a number of fossilised expressions they have received less attention in the literature. In this article we summarise the functions of the l-cases in Courland Livonian on the basis of previous research and consider their status.Kokkuvõte. Rogier Blokland, Nobufumi Inaba: l-käänded Kuramaa liivi keeles. Kuramaa liivi keel on ainuke läänemeresoome keel, kus andmist, võtmist ja omamist väljendatakse mitte nn l-käänetega, vaid nende asemel kasutatakse daativi, elatiivi või postpositsiooni. Kuna l-käänded esinevad enamasti ainult kivinenud väljendites, on need kirjanduses vähe tähelepanu pälvinud. Käesolevas artiklis antakse ülevaade l-käänete funktsioonidest Kuramaa liivi keeles, tuginedes seejuures varasematele uurimustele.Märksõnad: käändesüsteem, väliskohakäänded, adverbid, liivi keelKubbõvõttõks. Rogier Blokland, Nobufumi Inaba: l-nõtkūd Kurāmō līvõ kīelsõ. Kurāmō līvõ kēļ um āinagi vāldamiersūomõ kēļ, kus āndamiz, võtāmiz ja eņtšõn vȱidamiz pierāst äb ūot kȭlbatõd l-nõtkūd. Nänt azmõl kȭlbatõbõd datīv, elatīv agā tagāsõnā. l-nõtkūd ātõ nǟdõb set vaņši kītimižis ja sīepierāst ne äb ūotõ nei jõvīst tuņšõltõd. Sīes kēras mēg vaņțlõm l-nõtkūd ilzandõkši Kurāmō līvõ kīelsõ, tiggõs sīejūs jedmilizt tuņšlimizt allizt pǟl.</p