According to my grammar:
kir-sik-ka - kir-sik-oi-hin (into the cherries)
Why?
Is the -h- supposed to be part of the second to last and not the last syllable?
Same question about:
va-sik-ka - va-si-koi-hin (to the calves)
Moderator:Naava
Naava wrote:Please tell me I got it right. So many rules...
Naava wrote:this site says that a syllable that ends in Vi-diphthong (ai, ei, oi etc.) is in weak grade if this syllable has a secondary stress, if the word has 4 syllables in total, and if the word is in plural partitive, genitive, essive, illative, or comitative.
Naava wrote:It also says that you can use the strong grade in plural essive, illative, and comitative if you like.
I'm sorry if I've misled you. Consonant gradation in modern Finnish has strayed far from its original form where the underlying principle was strong grade in open syllable and weak grade in closed syllable. There are many exceptions and instances where analogy has obfuscated the previously valid rules; words ending in -kkO and -kkA are one of them.Woods wrote:I naïvely believed that Virankannos's rule about breaking the word into syllables would be enough for handling the consonant gradation, but no…
In these types of words, genitive and partitive plural forms are in weak grade when the plural substem...Woods wrote:Should all three conditions be met (secondary stress, four syllables and one of the mentioned cases) or is one of them enough?
Woods wrote:I’m looking at the other forms in the Sanakirja as well:
kir-sik-kaan (ill.sing.) – has strong grade even though the syllable is closed (no clue why)
kir-si-koi-den (gen.pl.) – same thing as the one we’ve been discussing – but the here the strong grade is not allowed
kir-si-koit-ten (gen.pl.) – here it makes sense – actually, what is more common – this form or the previous one?
kir-sik-kain – what is this and why does it have the strong grade? I guess it should be some slang…
You're right on the money. I don't find either variant old-fashioned or worse than the other, but these kinds of judgments is always subjective. And not even all Finns are aware of the variation within their language if they e.g. come from an area where a certain variant isn't used or just haven't been exposed to it before. It doesn't mean it's wrong even if someone says so. It may well be but you should check it with Kielitoimiston sanakirja, at least.Woods wrote:So, my conclusion so far would be that the rule you found (which I am yet to remember) is mandatory for the partitive and genitive, and for the illative, essive and comitative I can ignore it when I write, but I should be aware of it when I read so that I don’t think the text is misspelt… Unless you tell me that using the strong grade in these cases is really old-fashioned and rather worse than the weak one?
By the way I discussed this briefly with one Finn (who is by no means a linguist like you) and he said the word is kir-si-koi-hin. He didn’t seem to have heard of kir-sik-koi-hin as an alternative.
Woods wrote:Naava wrote:Please tell me I got it right. So many rules...
You’re asking me to tell you?
I’m indeed amazed how you’re always able to find the rule that explains the thing that makes no sense
Woods wrote:I naïvely believed that Virankannos's rule about breaking the word into syllables would be enough for handling the consonant gradation, but no…
Virankannos wrote:kirsikkaan has strong grade because of historical reasons: the illative ending used to be -*hen (so kirsikkaan << *kir-sik-ka-hen) which then developed to -hVn (and even later > -Vn) where the vowel was assimilated to the preceding vowel. The strong grade remains to show that the syllable was originally open.
Virankannos wrote:kirsikoiden ~ kirsikoitten (see previous explanation). About the frequency: I surmise that the former is more common at least in Standard written Finnish, although both are allowed. I personally prefer the latter as it's more common in my home dialect.
Virankannos wrote:The -in in kirsikkain is an old-fashioned variant of the genitive plural ending and ultimately goes back to -*δen, so the syllable was originally open here as well.
Virankannos wrote:It doesn't mean it's wrong even if someone says so.
sa wulfs wrote:Speaking of this, what's the deal with the passive forms in -tAAn but with a weak grade vs the past forms with -ttiin, but -tiin in verbs of types 2 & 3 (and the same with the passive participle endings -tU vs -ttU)?
-- --
I'm also curious about those genitive pl. forms in -tten.
Yes, the reason is diachronic. The Finnish (and Karelian) passive present tense form ending is actually an analogy derived from the past tense forms. The original passive present ending was -*DAksen ~ -*tAksen which is still retained in Estonian:sa wulfs wrote:Speaking of this, what's the deal with the passive forms in -tAAn but with a weak grade vs the past forms with -ttiin, but -tiin in verbs of types 2 & 3 (and the same with the passive participle endings -tU vs -ttU)? Is there a diachronic reason for this alternation that seemingly breaks the usual pattern? Most other exceptions to the open vs closed syllable thing have pretty straightforward explanations, but with these ones I'm lost.
I'm also curious about those genitive pl. forms in -tten.
English | Late Proto-Finnic | modern Finnish | cf. modern Estonian |
'is/was eaten' | *sööδäksen : *söötihen | syödään : syötiin | süüakse : söödi |
'is/was given' | *anδet̆taksen : *anδettihen | annetaan : annettiin | antakse : anti |
'is/was come' | *tulδaksen : *tultihen | tullaan : tultiin | tullakse : tuldi |
LPF | Modern Finnish | ||
present | *sööδäksen | >>| | syödään |
past | *söötihen | >> | syötiin |
conditional | *söötäisihen | >> | syötäisiin |
potential | *söötänehen | >> | syötäneen |
imperative | *söötäköhen | >> | syötäköön |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests