Die wepsische Sprache mit neuen Mitteln dargestellt

Riho Grünthal: Vepsän kielioppi [Grammatik des Wepsischen]. Hilfsmittel für das Studium der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen XVII. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Helsinki 2015. 332 Seiten + Sprachproben, insgesamt 347 Seiten

Osmo Ikola 1918–2016

Nekrolog Osmo Ikola 1918–201

Irrallinen genetiivi ja omistusrakenteen ongelma

Loose genitives and the problem of possessive constructions (englanti)1/1997 (101)Tuomas Huumo ([email protected]) Nobufumi Inaba ([email protected])LOOSE GENITIVES AND THE PROBLEM OF POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS An oft-repeated assumption in diachronic studies of Finno-Ugric languages is that the Finno-Ugric proto-language possessed a genitive case with the ending *-n. The genitive supposedly served an adnominal syntactic function as the case of noun modifiers (genitive attributes). It has also been assumed that the proto-language possessed another case with a similar ending (*-n), the lative, the syntactic function of which was adverbal, i.e. verb-modifying. The picture is further complicated by the existence of the formally identical instructive case, which has been etymologically connected with the genitive but nevertheless served a verb-modifying function. In Korhonen (1991), this traditional view was questioned and an alternative explanation offered, which proposed that the genitive in fact developed from the lative case via an intermediate stage where its function was that of dative; only later did it acquire the function of genitive and change from an adverbal into an adnominal case.The article examines the genitive case from the viewpoint of possessive constructions. In the present-day Finno-Ugric languages, the function of the genitive in indicating possession is twofold. On the one hand, it has the adnominal function of genitive attribute (directly connected with the old *-n genitive) in the Baltic-Finnic languages and in Lapp (Sami), Mordvin and Mari; on the other hand, it has special uses in verbal possessive constructions where a noun in the genitive case, indicating possessor, is separated by other constituents of the sentence from the noun indicating possessee. The writers refer to the latter type as the 'loose genitive'. To illustrate the loose genitive construction, consider the following Finnish examples: (a) Elmeri+n lompakko putosi jrve+en [Elmer+GENITIVE wallet fell lake+ILLATIVE], (b) Elmeri+n putosi lompakko jrve+en [Elmeri+GENITIVE fell wallet lake+ILLATIVE]. Both are possible expressions for 'Elmer's wallet fell into the lake'. In (b), the genitive is separated from its supposed head by the verb and is thus a loose genitive. In modern Finnish, the construction used in (b) is not perfectly productive because it is primarily used with the external locative cases (the adessive, the ablative and the allative). Furthermore, the genitive in this function is considered archaic and its use is constrained. It cannot, for instance, be used in expressing the most prototypical of possessive relations, the possession of a concrete entity: *Elmeri+n on talo [Elmer+GENITIVE is house] is impossible and has to be expressed as Elmeri+ll on talo [Elmer+ADESSIVE is house], 'Elmer has a house'.The article examines the uses of the loose genitive in Finnish, Mari and Mordvin. Evidence is produced in support of the argument that both the adnominal and the adverbal uses of the genitive are historically old, and the writers present an argument against the traditional view that the loose genitive is a historically young variant of the genitive attribute construction. According to this traditional view, the loose genitive came into being as a consequence of subject-verb inversion, where the verb was moved into the position between the genitive attribute and its head, the subject. It is shown, however, that the loose genitive is not always semantically connected with the subject of the sentence but is instead often connected with other nominal elements. Furthermore, the use of the loose genitive is semantically constrained to complex expressions of proper possession where the genitive ending is connected to an animate noun. The genitive attribute, on the other hand, can serve a much wider range of semantic functions, not all of which can be classified as possessive.The situation is similar in Mordvin and Mari, where the genitive form, indicating possessor, can either be located next to the word indicating possessee, or be separated from it. In these two languages the loose genitive is more productive than in Finnish: it is the primary way of indicating possession in both adnominal and adverbal possessive constructions. Moreover, unlike Finnish, in these languages the loose genitive is used even in the most prototypical possessive constructions where only possession of a concrete entity is indicated. The article adopts the view that this duality of uses for the genitive is evidence of its adverbal background, and supports Korhonen's hypothesis that the origin of the genitive was as an adverbal case

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

Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Player communities in the location-based games Pokémon GO and Ingress differ from most online multiplayer game communities in two major ways: (1) Interaction between players occurs mostly face-to-face and (2) teams are static, for example, currently in Pokémon GO, changing teams is possible only once a year. In addition, much of the interaction between teams is non-verbal and occurs in the game world. The current study investigates how these characteristics affect the forming of player communities and friendships, and how the team of Pokémon Go and Ingress players can be used to predict the usage and attitudes towards a slang-word “jym” i.e. gym. Five Pokémon GO chats (242852 messages) from South-Western Finland were analyzed. In addition, a questionnaire (N=178) was sent to players in the case community, asking about their opinions and attitudes towards the word “jym”. The results highlight the importance of the team in location-based games for the forming of friendships and raise an issue that the lack of verbal communication and cooperative opportunities can lead to negative attitudes and prejudice towards players on the opposing team. The study shows the influence of exclusive team chats on players’ attitudes and draws parallels to the polarization of opinions due to personalized search results and social media. Game mechanics which encourage players from different teams to cooperate with one another are proposed as a solution for the polarization.</p

Group polarisation among location-based game players: an analysis of use and attitudes towards game slang

Purpose – This study investigates how game design, which divides players into static teams, can reinforce group polarisation. The authors study this phenomenon from the perspective of social identity in the context of team-based location-based games, with a focus on game slang. Design/methodology/approach – The authors performed an exploratory data analysis on an original dataset of n 5 242,852 messages from five communication channels to find differences in game slang adoption between three teams in the location-based augmented reality game Pokemon GO. A divisive word “jym” (i.e. a Finnish slang derivative of the word “gym”) was discovered, and players’ attitudes towards the word were further probed with a survey (n 5 185). Finally, selected participants (n 5 25) were interviewed in person to discover any underlying reasons for the observed polarised attitudes. Findings – The players’ teams were correlated with attitudes towards “jym”. Face-to-face interviews revealed association of the word to a particular player subgroup and it being used with improper grammar as reasons for the observed negative attitudes. Conflict over (virtual) territorial resources reinforced the polarisation. Practical implications – Game design with static teams and inter-team conflict influences players’ social and linguistic identity, which subsequently may result in divisive stratification among otherwise cooperative or friendly player-base. Originality/value – The presented multi-method study connecting linguistic and social stratification is a novel approach to gaining insight on human social interactions, polarisation and group behaviour in the context of location-based games. Keywords Location-based games, Polarisation, Social identity theory, Language, Slang Paper type Research paper</p