stordragon wrote:Does 1) + 2) + 3) lead to the exclusive conclusion you mentioned below that "Pre-1919 the word .. unknown or at least unused elsewhere in Estonia", instead of the author of that dictionary just listing those dialects where there're other spelling variants for exemplification purposes? Or do you have any further evidence that the author has explicitly indicated that exclusiveness?
Yes, the known range of the word's usage in dialects is precisely what the map is intended to show. The map comes from Väike murdesõnastik (Dialectological dictionary of Estonian), which is both limited and comprehensive (limited because it is the "small" version of the dialect dictionary, and comprehensive because it includes examples of all dialect types; so while it might not list every individual parish, it does give a clear picture of the overall regional usage of a word). You can search it here
or for example if you put in the word lebama
it gives you this:
73397 lines parsed. 4 matching items found.
This is how the intro to the dialect dictionary explains how to read that data:
Märksõnastiku artikkel koosneb neljast osast: l) märksõna; 2) selle murdevariandid; 3) levikuandmed; 4) andmed tähenduse kohta. Neist teine ja neljas ei tarvitse esineda kõikides sõnaartiklites.
So in this case the relevant part for us is Kuu VNg Lüg VJg Se
next to the word lebama
, which indicates the word's levikuandmed
or distribution data. The map just places that same distribution data in its geographical location and color-codes them by dialect type.
If we search instead for a word like pikutama
we can see it is more widely distributed in the dialects map
. Or if we take a truly widely distributed word like olema
, the resulting map
shows that it is found basically everywhere.
Different spellings are irrelevant here; for example the entry for pikutama
includes the form pitkutama
and the map unfortunately doesn't tell us which of those two forms was used at any given location.
Likewise for olema
it tells us that some dialects use the form õlema
and that different dialects use lots of different third person plural forms: on, one, om, um, ovad, onvad, oma, omma, omava, ommava, umma
! but on the map it lumps them all together because they're all forms of the verb olema/õlema
So for the locations of the different spellings/pronunciations, and for any dialects missing from the "small" dictionary, we have to go to the other source that I used, Eesti murrete sõnaraamat
. There if we search for lebama
we get this, which does tell us the different spellings, where they are used, give sample sentences, and even another related word and adds one more parish (Hlj = Haljala, which is right next to VNg on the map, and between VNg and Kuu).
Väike murdesõnastik (Dialectological dictionary of Estonian)
) Hlj VNg VJg Se/-ämä
Lüg lamama, (pärast söömist) pikali olema kulub vähä lebada
; `leivä `pääle pidäb lebämä, noja·h, `leibä `luusse `laskema juo
Kuu; kui `saavad `süönest, siis `viskavad `pitkäli lebämaie
Lüg; ega sest leiva miest ei sua, kes ei leba
VJg; Ma lebäsi lõuna aigu, veido suiksõ kah
Se Vrd lebästamma
(I actually started a thread with reference to this series of maps nearly 6 years ago: http://www.somdom.com/general1/t37806#read_139674
but that link is no longer valid so I can no longer to back to stat.ee to check the details) Does it have any explicit description to the map saying that the variants of "lebama" are exclusively used in those maa's or whatever?
Yes, again, showing the usage distribution in Estonian dialects is the purpose of the map. This
explains the sources of their data in more detail, and its relationship to the larger dialect dictionary, if you're interested. I consulted both of those works. (Both are from EKI, Eesti Keele Instituut.)
stordragon wrote:And I don't see any issue with "lebab laual" as is suggested by the Estonian-Latvian dictionary, where it states "raamat lebab laual" <> "grāmata guļ uz galda"
lebama v (atrasties) gulēt ∙ diivanil lebama gulēt uz dīvāna; raamat lebab laual grāmata guļ uz galda
I don't either, just be aware that it is less common (and, since you are interested in the history and origin of these words and language contacts, be aware that it was part of the deliberate language reform a century ago, except in a few northern and southeastern pockets where it meant "lie down after eating").
As for current usage: If you google the specific sentence ("raamat lebab laual") it gets only 49 google hits
, and among the top hits are the Estonian<>Latvian dictionary that you mentioned and a Russian<>Estonian dictionary (in other words, they are using it when they give direct translations of grāmata guļ uz galda
and книга лежит на столе
) and among the other hits are several machine-translated articles that use it incorrectly. The dictionary usage is of course correct, it's simply not that common compared to "raamat on laual" (2700 google hits)
Well, one has 8 and the other has 16, so that is twice as many. That does seem significant. And again I never said that it couldn't be used, only that it is less commonly used that way. By the way of the 8 hits for "raamat lebab laual" at *.ee sites, since that is the link you gave, half are translations from other languages (the 1st and the 8th from Russian, the 6th and the 7th from Swedish), two (the 3rd and the 4th) are relating to physics, and one (the 2nd) is referring to a book which is better able to lie flat on the table due to a broken spine (in other words it isn't saying "the book is on the table" but rather emphasizing its flat position). The remaining one (the 5th google hit) uses it to talk about a child seeing a book lying on the table and they are emphasizing that it is just lying there, that maybe the child will see the book there and pick it up and become interested in reading or maybe he won't, because it's just lying there, no one is doing anything with it. But the article
you linked to above has this relevant section, which shows that this usage we're discussing is correct too:
Paberist esemeid esines lebama-korpuses 20 ja lamama-korpuses 3. Kõige tüüpilisem subjekt oli raamat, mis lebades on oma kõige laiemal ja pikemal küljel pikali. Kuid lebasid ka sedelid, raha, eelnõud, artiklid – paberist esemed, millel seisev positsioon enam mõeldav ei olekski. Näiteks See sedel pidi praegugi lebama õmblustest kärisenud tviidpintsaku rinnataskus, samal ajal kui arved tuli alles üles otsida sekretäril valitsevast tohuvapohust. Paljudes keeltes on tavaline, et paberid lebavad, Lemmens toob hollandi keele uurimuses välja, et mittejäigad esemed kipuvadki asendiverbi lebama endaga siduma, olgu tegu kas siis vedelike, paberite või riietega (2002).
Anyway I don't have any argument with your usage of lebama
in Estonian, only that using it for things like books in Estonian doesn't seem to have originated the way you thought, and isn't widespread in Uralic or Finnic languages (in which I include pre-language-reform Estonian).