Module talk:izh-conj

Perfect potential mood

@Thadh, looks like that there's no perfect potential mood in Junus' kirjakieli as apparently it went out of use long ago. Instead there's futurum ("tuleva aika") for which "leene-" is used as an auxiliary verb. There's not much info about potential mood in Junus' book, but there's a section on impersonal potential and some mention of personal potential elsewhere. Future tense doesn't have its own section as well, but is referred to in various sections with multiple examples. Some description of the current situation is provided by Rožanskij in https://iling.spb.ru/people/rozhanskiy/izhorskiy_yazyk.pdf (p. 83).

I'm not sure if this is a correct place for the discussion and sorry for my "seagull" approach — lots of things are happening.

KirillW (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@KirillW: I purposefully didn't add the future sense considering Junus interchangeably uses a wide range of auxiliary verbs for that function (leen-, noissa, pittää...), do you think we need it?

I didn't know about the perfect potential not existing; I just assumed that since all other constructed moods corresponded with Finnish, this one would as well, and considering Junus didn't mention the potential at all (unlike Laanest), I didn't think its inexistance in kirjakeeli was a problem. I guess we can remove it if it's really not in use. Thadh (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, leen- and noissa/käyvvä have different meaning, with first being a form of "to be" and the latter being "to commence". I don't know why Junus considers "noissa" an auxiliary verb for the future tense (now I see it in the book) and I'm not sure how to put it correctly (I'll check it with Mehmet), but with this logic one can extrapolate that any verb of this kind is an aux verb for that function.

I haven't seen pittää used for that purpose. I believe "Kiiree pitäs olla laageri" could be translated as "Скоро уже должен [must] быть лагерь". I.e. translation #2 from the current list in Wiktionary (btw it reads "subject in allative", should be "+ 1st infinitive" instead, I guess?).

Junus mentions potential briefly (p. 115 and p. 130). Laanest doesn't mention perfect potential either (p. 280), so even mentioning it would be too farfetched: it's gone for good :)

KirillW (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@KirillW: Alright, I'll remove the perfect potential. Still not sure about including the future tense, so I'll wait on you getting more information.

Hm, your analysis of pittää makes sense, although I think that it's rather "should" (#4). And it's "subject in allative" because it's "pittää miulle tehä", but sure, I'll add the "+ 1st infinitive" as well. Thadh (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, indeed there's "tuleva aika", which is formed using "noissa" (in most dialects and "standard" language) or "käyvvä" (Hevaha). See p. 121 and p. 125 of Junus' Grammatikka. Still, "noissa" retains the original sense of "to commence", so it's not possible to tell without additional context, whether "noisen lukemaa" means "I will read" or "I begin reading".

Also there are two special traits to verb "olla" (p. 121): 1) "leen-" turned into a form for the future tense; 2) there's no interrogative form.

KirillW (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

3rd person plural

@Thadh & @Surjection, Mehmet Muslimov has pointed out that -vat ending in preesens exists only for käyvva verbs. I don't have a good source for it so far, but searching through the books, I can't find any other verb types conjugated like this. Do you have any? — This unsigned comment was added by KirillW (talk • contribs).

@KirillW: Hmm... Grammatikka p. 106 does mention the form; I'm guessing your question only pertains to the present tense (since past tense is easily verifiable). I couldn't find an example just now, but I'll take another look tomorrow. Thadh (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh: could be some over-generalization by Junus. I wonder what we should do in such cases. On one hand, it makes sense to stick with the source, but on the other hand what's the point to multiple a mistake?

There's another dubious example: the singular conditional forms for olla in both dialects have geminated l and a "long" i: olliisin, olliisit, olliis. For some reason Junus didn't take this into account and used standard Finnish forms (even not Inkeri Finnish, as those are ois-). KirillW (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@KirillW: Okay, so they are rare, but I have found some examples:

• "Sitovat höö neet trengit" - Lukukirja 2
• "I painovat juttua, ko lapset," - Lukukirja 2
• "Höö kiljuvat Şarin takas" - Lukukirja 2
• "Punastuvat i pomidorat." - Lukukirja 2
• "Ikä paikkaa ilmahtuvat suuret partit mustija variksia." - Lukukirja 1
• "Kaikin kiljuvat 'urraa!'" - Lukukirja 1

I think we should let these stay, but label them just so, as rare and probably also obsolete, if as you say Ala-Laukaa doesn't use these forms (anymore?). In any case they were widespread enough in the written language to warrant their inclusion in the inflection tables. Thadh (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for examples! Your suggestion also makes sense to me. KirillW (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)