Modus Obliquus -- areális nyelvészet és alapnyelvi rekontsrukció = «Modus Obliquus» - Areal Linguistics and Reconstruction of the Protolanguage

Földvári, Sándor (2005) Modus Obliquus -- areális nyelvészet és alapnyelvi rekontsrukció = «Modus Obliquus» - Areal Linguistics and Reconstruction of the Protolanguage. In: Észt-magyar összevetés 4. Savaria University Press, Szombathely, pp. 52-70. ISBN 963 9531 44 8

Preview

Text Foldvari_2005_ModusObliqus_in_Pusztay_Eszt_magyar_u.pdf Download (697kB) | Preview

Abstract

«Modus Obliquus» - Areal Linguistics and Reconstruction of the Protolanguage. *The author of the paper supposes that the present audience on the conference also the readers of the printed version are familiar with the subject i.e. that the phenomenon modus obliquus or modus relativus. There is no room here for the introduction to the theme, more, we can recommend you so excellent studies on the field as AMBRAZAS, 1970 of the indoeuropean side and, in turn, IKOLA, 1953 from the Finno-Ugristics. We try here to summarize the results of the earlier works and to discuss the question of the Baltic language union. Since the modus obliquus (MO) exists only in Estonian and Livonian, no other Baltic Finnic langueges, and, from the other hand, since MO is more developed in Latvian than in Lithuanian, it seems to be very logical to say that the MO is a result of areal contacts, or, that the MO is a very special characteristic of Baltic language union. However the same Baltic language union is a very discussed subject of the comparative linguistics. We leave unregarded the opposers of the existing language unions. It is not already possible to disagree with the areal models thanks to the development of the areal lingiustics during the half-century period. so, according to the mattere in hand, that ias not a question if there is exists a Baltic lanuage union or not. The question is the follow> Which languages bolong to the Baltic language union (BLU) , where the boundaries of BLU must be established? There is usually summarized in the references of the areal lingiustics that Roman Jakobson established a large BLU from Norwy around the Baltic sea down to the south Lithuanian and nord Kashubian regions. (JAKOBSON, 1931b = JAKOBSON, 1971, 144-201.) After a half of century Gyula Décsy classifies the languages of Europe and languages of the large Jakobson model belong to three language unions: to Viking group, Peipus group and Rokitno group (DÉCSY, 1973). While his classification was severaly criticized by HAARMANN, 1976 and others, the areal classifications are more and more precision in a result of that the authors regard not only phonological isoglosses, but the morphosyntactical ones, too. It should be very simple to regard the different classifications as „personal” models of the author. JAKOBSON, 1931a,b and TROUBETZKOY, 1928 based the modern school of phonology that is why they established areal models on base of phonologic phenomena. In the latter time the analysis of morphosyntactic common characteristics generated the monographes on the field as STOLZ, 1991. He pays more attention to the morphological isoglosses than the phonological ones. It is remarkable that ARUMAA, 1935 analysed the morphosyntactical common characteristics of Estonian, Livonian and Latvian already at the Jakobson's time, and his conclusion is almost literally identical with closing words of AMBRAZAS, 1970 and 1990. Cf.: „Ei ole vist kahtlust, et neis Eesti piirile lähedais murdeis võime tuleviku vormi puudumist seletada eesti murrete hilisema mõjuga. Ühtlasi tõendab see juhtum aga, et modus relativus'e arengus läti ja eesti-liivi keele vahel ka vanemal ajajärgul ühised kokkupuuted olid täiesti võimalukud.“ (ARUMAA, 1935, 136.) The forms of MO were described already in Ferdinand johann Wiedemann's Grammar of Estonian as modus relativus (Wiedemann, 1835, 473-481.) The first who compred the MO with the other Baltic Finnic languages also the literary forms with dialects was AIRILA, M. 1933 but this work has given rise of criticism because of the inaccurate translating of Estonian examples to Finnish. MÄGISTE, 1934 criticized AIRILA also for reasons of missing review of the contemporary grammars as for instance Kettunen's work. It seems to be not so grave mistake the the negligant translating with regard to the fact, that AIRILA pays the attention to the dialects. As it is written in the preface the most of the grammars of the time considered the MO only in the literary language. There are grammars also in the recent time, too, considering only the literary forms of MO as PUSZTAY János, 1995. PUSZTAY's grammar is on the other hand a very correct work. The German influence should be regarded not only in the case of the literary MO but at the dialectical MO versions, too. Well, the above cited IKOLA, 1953 is more correct analysis of MO in dialects as AIRILA, 1933. but the researches on the phonological contacts are fare more developed as the study of morphological and syntactical commons. (VABA, 1997) It is very fortunate that there was published in the recent past PAJUSALU, 1996 which is on the level of the recent general linguistisc and dialactology. The MO has got there a short but correct analysis, as well. From the references on the Latvian MO we should pay attentions to DRÂVINÐ — RUÍE, 1958 in dialectological aspect. And, it is a very remarkable result of EICHE, 1983 with her statistical analysis. However the statistics of a few literary texts does not give an absolutely correct picture of the MO in dialects. It is fact, that the language interferences between Livonian and Latvian were a good basis for developing MO but, from the other hand, the MO is a result of language interferences between the common Baltic and common Baltic-Finnic languages. Do not forget that the MO is absent in Prussian so these interferences could rise only the the later time of indoeuropean and finnish language contacts. The next question is the analysis of MO in typoligical aspect. The language typology is very quickly developed in last years. It is alredy impossible to follow Christian STANG’s opinion written in his work „Baltic And Slavic Verb“ that the MO is not a „real“ verb modus because it has no morphological paradigm. This point of view is very old and absolutely out of using in contemporary language typology. Let us see tha Papua languages or, partly, tha Bantu languages and we can find verb systems absolutely different ones from the Classical European, Latin and Greek forms. However the Lithuanian is very ancient indoeuropean language, there is a special verb mode i.e. tha MO in Lithuanian is expressed by analogical but no synthetical morphological tools.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item