Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

[Linguaphile]

About the usage of suits, I think I had never heard it. At least the first time I read your sentences, I thought "What the hell?", and only understood what it means after I had read your explanation.

This meaning is present in EKSS, though, so it must be a thing. Although the authors of the example sentences over there, were born in the beginning of the previous and at the end of the "over-previous" (üle-eelmine?) century.

It is in the Sünonüümisõnastik too.

born in the beginning of the previous and at the end of the "over-previous" (üle-eelmine?) century.

I love that Estonian has so many words like these to refer to time that has past and time in the future. My favorites are mullu and tunamullu. We don't even have üleeile or ülehomme in English; so we also have nothing for üle-eelmine sajand either. To say your sentence above in English it just has to be "the beginning of the previous (or last) century and the end of the century before last." (Or in a more general sense, "they were born around the turn of the last century").

[Naava]

What even is tunamullu? It sounds like something I shouldn't say around kids.

[Linguaphile]

What even is tunamullu?

It means the same as ülemöödunud aastal or ülemullu: "year before last".

It sounds like something I shouldn't say around kids.

It does have a somewhat "odd" sound to it, doesn't it?
Apparently, etymologically mullu comes from muu ("other") ("mullu on vanast alalütlevavormilisest määrsõnast moodustatud viisiütleva vorm" .... something about being constructed from an old adessive adjective form?? I plugged that into google translate, but it went off on some weird tangent about "recipe-shaped greetings"...).
So I'll just leave it at "it comes from the word muu".
Etymologically tuna- is related to toona ("some time ago, a while back").
BTW, one of my dictionaries unhelpfully offers these translations for toona: (1) "long ago" (2) "not long ago"
You can also say tunaeile in place of üleeile for "the day before yesterday," although üleeile is far more common. (And my dictionary says you can also say tunahomme in place of ülehomme, although I have never heard that. In practice I've only heard tuna- used to refer to times in the past.)

[Naava]

It sounds like something I shouldn't say around kids.

It does have a somewhat "odd" sound to it, doesn't it?

It does! It doesn't help that it rhymes with a few words that come to my mind in Finnish and which definitely are not something to say to your kids. It also kinda reminds me of my mum who likes to change the name of the bird punatulkku to tunapulkku.

("mullu on vanast alalütlevavormilisest määrsõnast moodustatud viisiütleva vorm" .... something about being constructed from an old adessive adjective form?? I plugged that into google translate, but it went off on some weird tangent about "recipe-shaped greetings"...).

Adjective? Wikipedia says määrsõna is adverb. And Wiktionary says viisiütlev is instructive. So it would be an instructive that used to be an adverb in adessive? Could it be the same word as Finnish muulloin? That means 'at another time'. It's in instructive and it does look a lot like adessive, too...

(Also thanks to the link that you gave, I realised that muinainen and muinais- come from muu and now I'm like MINDBLOWN and my whole life is a lie and whaaaaaaaaaaaaat! We even have the phrase muina miehinä (something like 'negligently') and I knew it's literally "as/like other men" but I never noticed the connection between muina and muinainen and I'm just. Shocked. How did I not see this!! )

Etymologically tuna- is related to toona ("some time ago, a while back").

Is toona too + na? If it is, I could see how it changed to mean "some time ago".

[ainurakne]

To say your sentence above in English it just has to be "the beginning of the previous (or last) century and the end of the century before last." (Or in a more general sense, "they were born around the turn of the last century").

And it's that simple I don't know why I tried to think up such a complicated sentence that I gave up and settled for "over-previous".

Thanks!

(And my dictionary says you can also say tunahomme in place of ülehomme, although I have never heard that. In practice I've only heard tuna- used to refer to times in the past.)

I haven't heard it used with future either.

[Linguaphile]

("mullu on vanast alalütlevavormilisest määrsõnast moodustatud viisiütleva vorm" .... something about being constructed from an old adessive adjective form?? I plugged that into google translate, but it went off on some weird tangent about "recipe-shaped greetings"...).

Adjective? Wikipedia says määrsõna is adverb.

Whoops. Yes, I meant to type "adverb".

(Also thanks to the link that you gave, I realised that muinainen and muinais- come from muu and now I'm like MINDBLOWN and my whole life is a lie and whaaaaaaaaaaaaat! We even have the phrase muina miehinä (something like 'negligently') and I knew it's literally "as/like other men" but I never noticed the connection between muina and muinainen and I'm just. Shocked. How did I not see this!! )

Cool! Same for Estonian muinane, muinas- and muistne then; I hadn't realized that either!

Etymologically tuna- is related to toona ("some time ago, a while back").

Is toona too + na? If it is, I could see how it changed to mean "some time ago".

Yes!

[aaakknu]

Mida tähendab "põlu alla sattuma" lauses "Nõukogude ajal oli tal alguses väga raske - avaldamisvõimalused ja seega ka elujärg väga piiratud, sest ta oli sattunud riigi põlu alla"? Kui sa saad, kirjuta ka selle väljendi inglise ja/või venekeelset tõlget.
Kas "elujärg" = "elutase"?

[ainurakne]

Ma arvan, et inglise keeles võiks seda tõlkida kui "to get on the bad side of". Tolles lauses siis "to get on the bad side of the government".

Kui sattusid Nõukogude ajal riigi põlu alla ning sind nii ohtlikuks ei peetud, et kohe hukata või vangilaagrisse saata, siis olid sinu võimalused ikkagi suhteliselt piiratud (kus võisid töötada ja kus mitte, kuhu võisid minna/reisida ja kuhu mitte, kellega võisid suhelda ja kellega mitte) ning arvatavasti hoidis kõigil sinu tegemistel silma peal ka KGB.

Kas "elujärg" = "elutase"?

Jah, enam-vähem. See, kui hästi või halvasti elus läheb ning millised (materjaalsed ja muud) võimalused inimesel on.

[Linguaphile]

Mida tähendab "põlu alla sattuma" lauses "Nõukogude ajal oli tal alguses väga raske - avaldamisvõimalused ja seega ka elujärg väga piiratud, sest ta oli sattunud riigi põlu alla"? Kui sa saad, kirjuta ka selle väljendi inglise ja/või venekeelset tõlget.

Sõnaraamatu järgi põlu alla tähendab in disgrace, out of favor ja põlu alla panema = to ostracize, nii et põlu alla sattuma = to get ostracized, fall out of favor
[Edit: jah, "to get on the bad side of" ka!]

Kas "elujärg" = "elutase"?

elujärg = elutase = standard of living, living conditions

[aaakknu]

Suur aitäh teile mõlemale!

[Linguaphile]

I found this video of "Möödakuuldud laulusõnad" and thought others here might enjoy it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hRMa_QLWMQ
Seeing that they have "Elada Paides, käia tööl" in place of "Elada vaid, et käia tööl" made me wonder if confusing /p/ for /v/ is a common problem? Because I do that all the time and it's always puzzled me.... I don't think /v/ and /p/ really sound all that much the same in Estonian, and yet I've repeatedly misheard Estonian words starting with /v/ as starting with /p/. For example when I first learned the word vildikas I thought it was pildikas (it does make some sense that way, doesn't it? You can use it for drawing pictures after all...) Anyway seeing Paide for vaid et here made me think confusing those two phonemes might be a common problem. (Plus there is also Taarapita/Taara avita so maybe this p/v issue has been causing language-learners confusion for a thousand years already....) And I thought it was just me!

[ainurakne]

"Ahv keedab õunamoosi"

I think the main problem with Estonian is having three distinctive sound lengths which doesn't always play nice with lyrics and rhymes. Making things rhyme, often messes up stress and sound lengths, making it difficult to recognize words when not paying attention to the meaning.
The brain may just consider the placement and intensity of stressed syllables and sound lengths, and then automatically find the most suitable match (or what it thinks is the most suitable match), while mostly ignoring the actual sounds.

Considering that throughout history, /p/ sounds have changed into /v/ sounds, and strong and weak grades of words may alternate between /p/ and /v/, I don't think confusing /p/ and /v/ is so surprising.

[Linguaphile]

"Ahv keedab õunamoosi"

"Ma olen supp, ole tee"
või isegi ka "Ma olen supp, pole tee"

I think the main problem with Estonian is having three distinctive sound lengths which doesn't always play nice with lyrics and rhymes. Making things rhyme, often messes up stress and sound lengths, making it difficult to recognize words when not paying attention to the meaning.
The brain may just consider the placement and intensity of stressed syllables and sound lengths, and then automatically find the most suitable match (or what it thinks is the most suitable match), while mostly ignoring the actual sounds.

Considering that throughout history, /p/ sounds have changed into /v/ sounds, and strong and weak grades of words may alternate between /p/ and /v/, I don't think confusing /p/ and /v/ is so surprising.

Are there many words that historically changed from /p/ to /v/ (or vice-versa)?

Veel üks küsimus: kas ikka ja jälle sama reha otsa astuma tähendab "to make the same mistake again and again"?

[ainurakne]

Are there many words that historically changed from /p/ to /v/ (or vice-versa)?

There was a post Proto-Finnic change where *b/β merged with *v. Actually, it seems that there wasn't a /p/ - /v/ gradation in Proto-Finnic at all, it emerged with the *b/β merging with *v.

An example I had in mind, though, was the changing of present active participle:
*tuleba (I have also seen it as *tulepa) -> tuleva -> tulev

On the other hand, this change didn't occur in third person singular form:
*tuleba (*tulepa) -> *tulebi (*tulepi) -> tuleb

Veel üks küsimus: kas ikka ja jälle sama reha otsa astuma tähendab "to make the same mistake again and again"?

Jah!

[Naava]

Almost off-topic but I'm popping in here in case you're interested.

An example I had in mind, though, was the changing of present active participle:
*tuleba (I have also seen it as *tulepa) -> tuleva -> tulev

It used to be part of the consonant gradation so that after a stressed syllable, you got -pA, and after an unstressed syllable, you got -vA. You can see traces of this in Finnish eg. 'almighty' is kaikkivoipa and 'decent, acceptable' is käypä (literally 'going'). I guess you don't have anything similar in Estonian?

On the other hand, this change didn't occur in third person singular form:
*tuleba (*tulepa) -> *tulebi (*tulepi) -> tuleb

But in Finnish it did: the third person form can be either tuleepi or tulevi. However, the dialects prefer -p(i). I don't think I've ever seen -vi elsewhere than in old literature, poetry and in some proverbs.

[ainurakne]

It used to be part of the consonant gradation so that after a stressed syllable, you got -pA, and after an unstressed syllable, you got -vA. You can see traces of this in Finnish eg. 'almighty' is kaikkivoipa and 'decent, acceptable' is käypä (literally 'going'). I guess you don't have anything similar in Estonian?

I see, so -vA was extended by analogy to all verbs (except for some relics)?

No, I think I haven't seen anything like this in Estonian. But one can never be sure about some obscure dialects.

But in Finnish it did: the third person form can be either tuleepi or tulevi. However, the dialects prefer -p(i). I don't think I've ever seen -vi elsewhere than in old literature, poetry and in some proverbs.

I guess, since b -> v happened after Finnish and Estonian had diverged, the word-final i-s could have disappeared in Estonian before any other changes, making the b -> v change impossible in that case.


Do you know anything about Proto-Finnic -vA suffix, before the b -> v change?
I think I saw that in Wiktionary before, and I could still find it as a suffix that forms adjectives from nouns, indicating the possession or abundance of something (like terävä, lihava, verevä). But now this category is empty and in the adjectives section, I see words like *ikäbä and *lihaba now. Both referring to the -pa suffix for the verbs. I guess someone is currently refactoring things there. I think something has changed every time I check out the Proto-Finnic section in Wiktionary.

[Linguaphile]

There was a post Proto-Finnic change where *b/β merged with *v. Actually, it seems that there wasn't a /p/ - /v/ gradation in Proto-Finnic at all, it emerged with the *b/β merging with *v.

An example I had in mind, though, was the changing of present active participle:
*tuleba (I have also seen it as *tulepa) -> tuleva -> tulev

On the other hand, this change didn't occur in third person singular form:
*tuleba (*tulepa) -> *tulebi (*tulepi) -> tuleb

It used to be part of the consonant gradation so that after a stressed syllable, you got -pA, and after an unstressed syllable, you got -vA. You can see traces of this in Finnish eg. 'almighty' is kaikkivoipa and 'decent, acceptable' is käypä (literally 'going'). I guess you don't have anything similar in Estonian?

the third person form can be either tuleepi or tulevi. However, the dialects prefer -p(i). I don't think I've ever seen -vi elsewhere than in old literature, poetry and in some proverbs.

Aitäh teile mõlemale!

[Naava]

It used to be part of the consonant gradation so that after a stressed syllable, you got -pA, and after an unstressed syllable, you got -vA. You can see traces of this in Finnish eg. 'almighty' is kaikkivoipa and 'decent, acceptable' is käypä (literally 'going'). I guess you don't have anything similar in Estonian?

I see, so -vA was extended by analogy to all verbs (except for some relics)?

Yes. Suffixal gradation is pretty much gone by now.

But one can never be sure about some obscure dialects.

I guess, since b -> v happened after Finnish and Estonian had diverged, the word-final i-s could have disappeared in Estonian before any other changes, making the b -> v change impossible in that case.

Maybe! I've heard -p without the i in Finnish dialects, but I've never seen *tulev or anything like that. It's quite hard to pronounce, too.

Do you know anything about Proto-Finnic -vA suffix, before the b -> v change?

The little I could find with a quick search in Finnish says it was voiceless stop -> fricative, whereas in English it says it was voiceless stop -> voiced stop. That's how it is even in Wikipedia:

English:

*p → *b
*t → *d
*k → *g

Finnish:

p → β
t → δ
k → γ

I also found this, page 6:

The single voiceless stops and geminates were shortened before a closed weak syllable,
then gradually the shortened single stops became voiced stops (Ravila 1960, etc.) or spirants
(Décsy 1965; Hakulinen 1961; Pikamäe 1957, etc.) in most languages; thus early pBFS *p,*t, *k >
late pBFS *p*,*t*,*k* > (pre)-modern *b (*B), *d (D), *g (V)

In other words, either fricatives or voiced stops are possible and nobody knows which one is 'true'. I can't remember if we were taught that the order was voiceless stops > voiced stops > fricatives or voiceless stops > fricatives, but I do remember that fricatives didn't happen in consonant clusters*: ranta > randan, not *ranδan.

*or maybe it was 'no fricatives with nasals'. It's been 2 years, idk. I could check the lecture powerpoints but they're on my old computer, which is slow to start and hard to work with in general so I haven't been too motivated to copy the old files to my new computer.

I think something has changed every time I check out the Proto-Finnic section in Wiktionary.

That's like the game where you must memorize the things you have on a table, then close your eyes while someone removes one or more of the things, and then you try to remember what's missing.

[Prantsis]

And also:

prii <- low german vri

proua <- low german vrouwe, german Frau

prantsuse <- low german franzōs, german Franzose

[aaakknu]

And also:

prii <- low german vri

proua <- low german vrouwe, german Frau

prantsuse <- low german franzōs, german Franzose

I always thought it was because the sound "f" does not exist in native Estonian words, so it was changed to "p" in early borrowings.