Cover not available
Article published In:
Partitives cross-linguistically: Dimensions of variation
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Petra Sleeman
[Linguistic Variation 23:1] 2023
► pp. 124–156

Diachronic bottlenecks of the Uralic (ablative-)partitive

ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
This article discusses the emergence of the partitive case in the three western-most branches of the Uralic language family, which are Saamic and Finnic in North Europe, and Mordvinic in Central Russia. The Finnic languages represent the outer edge of development in the partitive from an earlier ablative case, which used to manifest ‘source’, a specific property of spatial relations. In Finnic the partitive case is a multifunctional and conceptually distinct case, an inflectional category which has developed highly specific functions in object marking, negative phrase and as a case of non-canonical subject. Traces of this development are found in Saamic and Mordvinic as well, whereas other Uralic languages don’t share this kind of secondary development and functional extension. The development of this particular affix consists of several stages, special bottlenecks, enhancing functional properties and triggering the reanalysis of an inherited affix *-ta/-tä. This article focuses on the diachrony of this particular affix with special emphasis on western Uralic.
Keywords: Uralic, partitive, ablative, case, morphology, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Affixal morphology in space and time
  • 3.The erosion and restructuration of local case sets in Uralic
  • 4.(Ablative-)partitive *-ta/-tä as a morphological device
    • 4.1Archaic features: Retention of the inherited affix and its functions?
    • 4.2Western Uralic ablative-partitive
    • 4.3 ap in existential clauses
    • 4.4Archaic extension of ap in comparative constructions
    • 4.5 ap in adpositional phrases
    • 4.6 ap in quantified phrases
  • 5.Language-specific developments
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21003.gru
References (81)
References
Aikio, Ante & Jussi Ylikoski. 2007. Suopmelaš gielaid l-kásusiid álgovuođđu sáme- ja eará fuolkegielaid čuovggas. [The origin of l-cases in Finnic in the light of Saamic and other Uralic languages.] In Jussi Ylikoski & Ante Aikio (eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, 11–71. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Aikio, Ante. 2015. The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 951. 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1989. Suomen ja mordvan vanhat erosijat omilla teillään. [Finnish and Mordvin inherited ablative cases on their own paths.] Sananjalka 311. 21–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Über die alten und neuen Lokalkasussuffixe im Tscheremissischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 561. 95–115.Google Scholar
Ariztimuño López, Borja. 2014. The origin of the Basque partitive. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.) Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 323–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew and Greville Corbett. 2007. Linguistic typology: Morphology. Linguistic Typology 111. 115–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartens, Raija. 1996. Über die Deklinationen im Mordwinischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 531. 1–113.Google Scholar
. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. [The structure and development of the Mordvinic languages.] Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 232. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
. 2000. Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. [The structure and development of the Permic languages.] Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 238. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Budenz, József. 1877. Moksa- és erza-mordvin nyelvtan. Budapest.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2021-01-05.)
ÈKM = D. V. Cygankin. (ed.), N. A. Agafonova, M. D. Imajkina, M. V. Mosin, V. P. Cypkajkina, E. A. Abramova. Èryan’ kel’: Morfemika, valon’ tejevema dy morfologija. [Erzya language: Morphemes, word derivation and morphology.] Saransk 2000.Google Scholar
ÈKS = D. V. Cygankin (ed.), N. A. Agafonova, R. A. Aleškina, G. F. Bespalova, L. P. Vodjasova, E. F. Klement’eva, N. I. Ryabov, G. V. Ryabova, A. M. Xaritonova, V. P. Cypkajkina. Èryan’ kel’: Sintaksis. [Erzya language: Syntax.] Saransk: Izdatel’stvo mordovskogo universiteta 2011.Google Scholar
Erkkilä, Riku. 2019. Ersän illatiivin ja latiivin merkitykset. [The meanings of Erzya illative and lative.] M.A.Thesis. University of Helsinki. [URL]. Accessed 2021-07-02.
EVS = Eesti-võru sõnaraamat. [Estonian-Võro dictionary.] Koostanud Mariko Faster, Laivi Org, Urmas Kalla, Sulev Iva & Triin Iva. Võru: Võro instituut 2014.Google Scholar
GMJa = Grammatika mordovskix jazykov. [Grammar of Mordvinic languages.] Edited by D. V. Cygankina. Saransk: Ministerstvo vyščego i srednego special’nogo obrazovanija RSFSR 1980.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
. 2005. Miksi itämerensuomessa on prepositioita? [Why are there prepositions in Finnic?] Virittäjä 1091. 28–51.Google Scholar
. 2007. Morphological change and the influence of language contacts in Estonian. In Hans Fix (ed.), Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, baltisch, ostseefinnisch. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. 403–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Sijasynkretismi morfologian koetinkivenä [The morphological impact of case syncretism.] – ESUKA / JEFUL 21. 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Vepsän kielioppi. [Veps grammar.] Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
. 2019. Canonical and non-canonical patterns in the adposition phrase of Western Uralic: Constraints of borrowing. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 971. 11–36.Google Scholar
Hajdú, Péter. 1966. Bevezetés az uráli nyelvtudományba. [Introduction to Uralic linguistics.] Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Jaakko. 2012. After the protolanguage: Invisible convergence, false divergence and boundary shift. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 611. 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. [A big Finnish grammar.] Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist. Linguistic Typology 111. 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Daniel van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 83–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Differential place marking and differential object marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 721. 313–334.Google Scholar
Holopainen, Sampsa. 2019. Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic: Critical overview of the sound substitutions and distribution criterion. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics 41(3). 461–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The partitive A: On uses of the Finnish partitive subject in transitive clauses. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press. 423–453.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Liina Lindström. 2014. Partitives across constructions: on the range of uses of the Finnish and Estonian “partitive subjects”. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1971–1972. Über das Objekt in den finnisch-wolgaischen Sprachen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschunen 391. 153–213.Google Scholar
. 1973. Zur Geschichte des Partitivs. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 401. 279-339.Google Scholar
Jalava, Lotta & Riho Grünthal. 2020. Vanhimmat uralilaiset postpositiot kielen muutoksen ilmentäjinä. [The oldest Uralic postpositions evidencing language change.] In: Sampsa Holopainen, Janne Saarikivi & Susanna Virtanen (eds.), Ëmac сымы нэкве вōртур этпост самын патум: Scripta miscellanea in honorem Ulla-Maija Forsberg. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. 112–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 441. 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Samoyedic. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. 457–479.Google Scholar
. 2009. Proto-Uralic – what, where, and when? In Jussi Ylikoski (ed.), The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. 57–78.Google Scholar
Junttila, Santeri. 2012. The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages. In Riho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. 261–296.Google Scholar
. 2015. Tiedon kumuloituminen ja trendit lainasanatutkimuksessa. Kantasuomen balttilaislainojen tutkimushistoria 1869–2009. [Cumulative knowledge and trends in loanword research: The research history of Baltic loanwords in Proto-Finnic 1869–2009.] PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Kilby, David. 1983. Universal and particular properties of the Ewenki case system. Papers in Linguistics 16(3/4). 45–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo and Jussi Ylikoski. 2018. Some like it transitive: Remarks on verbs liking and the like in the Saami languages. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press. 455–480.Google Scholar
KKS = Karjalan kielen sanakirja 1–6. [Dictionary of Karelian language.] Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. 1968–2005.Google Scholar
Kont, Karl. 1963. Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes. [Nominal objects in the Finnic languages.] Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. [An introduction to the history of Lappish language.] Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
. 1991. Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 831. 163–180.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 2019. Partitiivin valinta. [The choice of the partitive.] Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1981. Studier i de östersjöfinska språkens partitivbruk. [Studies in the Finnic partitive.] Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
. 2001. Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages 1: Past and present. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LL = Pertti Virtaranta. 1967. Lähisukukielten lukemisto. [A Finnic reader.] Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo (eds.). 2014. Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Seppo Kittilä. 2014. Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia, Merlijn de Smit & Iván Igartua. 2020. Contact-induced change in the languages of Europe: The rise and development of partitive cases and determiners in Finnic and Basque. Linguistics 58(3). 869–903. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majtinskaja, Klára. 1979. Istoriko-sopostavitel’naja morfologija finno-ugorskix jazykov. [Historical-comparative morphology of Finno-Ugric languages.] Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 2017. Sihitis. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks. [Estonian syntax.] Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. 258–277.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2014. Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. In Silvia Luraghi and Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikola, Tibor. 2004. Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen. Studia uralo-altaica 45. Szeged: SzTE Finnisch-Ugrisches Institut.Google Scholar
MKM = N. S. Aljamkin. Mokšen’ käl’: Morfologija. [Moksha language: Morphology.] Saransk 2000.Google Scholar
MSFOu 63 = Näytteitä vatjan kielestä. [Sample of the Votic language.] Julkaisseet Lauri Kettunen & Lauri Posti. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 53. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 1932.Google Scholar
MSFOu 86 = Lauri Kettunen: Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus . [A syntactic analysis of Veps dialects.] Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 86. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 1943.Google Scholar
MSFOu 100 = Näytteitä äänis- ja keskivepsän murteista. [Sample of North and Central Veps dialects.] Collected by E. N. Setälä & J. H. Kala. Translated into Finnish by E. A. Tunkelo apunaan Reino Peltola. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 1951.Google Scholar
MSFOu 106 = Näytteitä liivin kielestä. [Sample of Livonian language.] Collected by E. N. Setälä. Translated into Finnish by Väinö Kyrölä. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 106. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 1953.Google Scholar
MSFOu 250 = Muistoja Liivinrannasta: Liivin kieltä Ruotsista. [Memories from the Livonian coast: Livonian language in Sweden.] Collected by Julius Mägiste. Translated into Finnish by Anneli Honko. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 250. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society 2006.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parpola, Asko. 2012. Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated ‘total’ correlations. In Riho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds.), A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. 119–184.Google Scholar
Raun, Alo. 1988. Proto-Uralic comparative-historical morphosyntax. In Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic languages. Leiden: Brill. 555–571.Google Scholar
Rijk, Rudolf P. G. de. 1996. On the origin of the partitive determiner. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 30:1. 145–158.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages. In Denis Sinor, (ed.), The Uralic languages: Description, history scription, history, and foreign influences. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 478–554.Google Scholar
. 1998. The Saami languages: An introduction. Ocejohka: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka & Jouni Mosnikoff. 1991. Suomi-koltansaame sanakirja. [Finnish – Skolt Saami dictionary.] Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka & Matti Morottaja. 1993. Säämi-suomâ sänikirje. Inarinsaamelais-suomalainen sanakirja. [Inari Saami – Finnish dictionary.] Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2015. The independent partitive as an Eastern Circum-Baltic isogloss. Journal of Language Contact 81. 341–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suhonen, Seppo. 1975. Liivin kielen näytteitä. [Sample of Livonian language.] Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. 1997. The History of Basque. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tveite, Tor. 2004. The case of the object in Livonian. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
VKS = Elna Adler, Merle Leppik & Silja Grünberg (eds.), Vadja keele sõnaraamat 1–7. [Dictionary of Votic language.] Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut 1990–2011.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann. 1865. Grammatik der ersa-mordwinischen Sprache. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. The origins of the western Uralic s-cases revisited: historiographical, functional-typological and Samoyedic perspectives. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 631. 6–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yurayong, Chingduang. 2020. Postposed demonstratives in Finnic and North Russian dialects. PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [[URL]]
Zaicz, Gábor. 1998. Mordva. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. 184–218.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ivaska, Ilmari & Anne Tamm
2024. Same yet different. Linguistic Variation DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.