In most (all?) languages people talk about time in spatial metaphors. We have things like "a long time". Events in the future are "ahead" or "in front", and things in the past are... in the "past" or "behind". In the Finnish language the very words "future" and "past" are based on the spatial verbs 'come' and 'go': tulevaisuus 'that which is coming' and menneisyys 'that which has gone'.
This tendency of looking at time is also inter-connected with the metaphor of life as a journey ("I'm at a crossroads") and other Lakoffian "conceptual metaphors".
What I want to know is, are these tendencies just useful analogies that make sense and thus occur a lot in different languages, or are they inevitabilities built into the very fabric of the Chomskyan Universal Grammar? Is there a language that has no or very little overlap between concepts of spatial and temporal "long"? After all, even in English and Finnish we have pairs like further along / later, here / now and kauempana / myöhemmin.
Computers, photos, vegan food, existential angst, linguistics, all things queer.
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste language. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste language. Näytä kaikki tekstit
28.2.2009
Negative correlation
Finno-Ugric languages seem to have a very interesting tendency to erode the phrase "is not" into one word.
Examples:
Most of these examples are direct historically related equivalents of each other. Negation in Uralic languages is expressed with a negative verb conjugated for person (sometimes also tense) + the head verb in a "connegative" form. There seems to be a tendency to erode this, perhaps quite heavy, construction in the very common case "is not".
Running into such similarities is a big part of my fascination with Fenno-Ugric languages. The fundamental basics of grammar and things going on "beneath the surface" are very much the same across the board.
Examples:
- Estonian pole (< *eipä ole)
- Hungarian nincs
- and, I believe, further sincs (< is nincs) 'also is not'
- Karelian eu ~ eule (< ei ole)
- Komi abu
- Skolt Sámi i´lla ~ i´lleäkku ~ i´llää ~ i´llä (< ij leäk)
- Udmurt övöl
Most of these examples are direct historically related equivalents of each other. Negation in Uralic languages is expressed with a negative verb conjugated for person (sometimes also tense) + the head verb in a "connegative" form. There seems to be a tendency to erode this, perhaps quite heavy, construction in the very common case "is not".
Running into such similarities is a big part of my fascination with Fenno-Ugric languages. The fundamental basics of grammar and things going on "beneath the surface" are very much the same across the board.
11.11.2008
Academic Intrusion?
During the last year I've been studying some minority languages: mostly Saami languages, but also Veps and lately Nenets. The people who speak these languages are minority groups living in Scandinavia and Russia, and their languages and cultures are quite endangered.
Now, my connection with these people and their languages is very superficial. Frankly, I am only interested in them in a purely academic, linguistic context. I don't particularly care to visit Nenetsia in Siberia or some stagnant villages somewhere upstream the Svir River in Southern Karelia. I know very little about the way these people live their lives, and while I, naturally, harbour a certain academic concern for their future, I don't particularly seek to befriend them.
This situation got me thinking: am I stepping on any toes when I go about my business learning these languages while still keeping a distance to the cultures where they are spoken? Is it hypocritical to sit on my butt in Helsinki and learn Saami but not also actively participate in promoting the Saami culture or securing their wellbeing in a larger societal context? Sometimes I feel as though I should either somehow ask for permission to use the language of a small minority group, or "go all in" and embrace the culture more fully (meaning literature, history, folklore, customs etc.)
I wrote a text called "Gii oažžu sámástit?" ("Who is allowed to speak Saami?") in North Saami last month. It deals with much of the same questions I have pondered here. Many elements of the Saami culture, such as their craft, folklore and especially the traditional costumes, are given a great deal of respect, and often I wonder whether the language is one of these protected elements. Is it taboo for me, as a member of the majority demographic, as an outsider, to speak their language? If yes, that would make me quite sad. I would much rather look at languages as neutral resources that anyone can tap into. I think Saami should be a language for everybody. But that is not for me to decide. Is it for anyone, though?
Originally it was my intention to translate "Gii oažžu sámástit?" to Finnish, but as I have a while ago decided to broaden my horizons to embrace a potential global readership, I took a wider approach to this issue and wrote about it in English. In fact, if a linguist working with (for instance) North American Indian languages happens to stumble upon this text, I would like to hear their comments. How do Native American communities respond to academic curiosity concerning their language? Are there any general guidelines in place for approaching those communities, avoiding confrontation and things like that? Is this a question at all for any other linguists or aspiring students of linguistics elsewhere in the world?
Now, my connection with these people and their languages is very superficial. Frankly, I am only interested in them in a purely academic, linguistic context. I don't particularly care to visit Nenetsia in Siberia or some stagnant villages somewhere upstream the Svir River in Southern Karelia. I know very little about the way these people live their lives, and while I, naturally, harbour a certain academic concern for their future, I don't particularly seek to befriend them.
This situation got me thinking: am I stepping on any toes when I go about my business learning these languages while still keeping a distance to the cultures where they are spoken? Is it hypocritical to sit on my butt in Helsinki and learn Saami but not also actively participate in promoting the Saami culture or securing their wellbeing in a larger societal context? Sometimes I feel as though I should either somehow ask for permission to use the language of a small minority group, or "go all in" and embrace the culture more fully (meaning literature, history, folklore, customs etc.)
I wrote a text called "Gii oažžu sámástit?" ("Who is allowed to speak Saami?") in North Saami last month. It deals with much of the same questions I have pondered here. Many elements of the Saami culture, such as their craft, folklore and especially the traditional costumes, are given a great deal of respect, and often I wonder whether the language is one of these protected elements. Is it taboo for me, as a member of the majority demographic, as an outsider, to speak their language? If yes, that would make me quite sad. I would much rather look at languages as neutral resources that anyone can tap into. I think Saami should be a language for everybody. But that is not for me to decide. Is it for anyone, though?
Originally it was my intention to translate "Gii oažžu sámástit?" to Finnish, but as I have a while ago decided to broaden my horizons to embrace a potential global readership, I took a wider approach to this issue and wrote about it in English. In fact, if a linguist working with (for instance) North American Indian languages happens to stumble upon this text, I would like to hear their comments. How do Native American communities respond to academic curiosity concerning their language? Are there any general guidelines in place for approaching those communities, avoiding confrontation and things like that? Is this a question at all for any other linguists or aspiring students of linguistics elsewhere in the world?
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)