Mari Language

This article analyses the male personal names of the Volzhsk Mari in the Bol’shoy Karamas Volost (nowadays territory of the Karamas and Sotnur rural settlements). The research was carried out on the basis of the census book of the Galitskiy doroga, 1678. The structure of anthroponymic formulas in the census book and linguistic origin of names of the inhabitants of Bol’shoy Karamas are examined in the article. The author also explores how the principle of naming children with the initial or final element identical to a parent’s name is reflected in the anthroponymy of Bol’shoy Karamas Volost.

(Preprint)

Chuvash is the sole living representative of the Bulgharic branch, one of the two principal branches of the Turkic family. While extinct Bulgharic varieties are only limitedly accessible to linguists owing to the scarcity of written sources, Chuvash has attracted a lot of attention as the most divergent Turkic language, notable for both archaic features and innovations against the background of the Common Turkic branch. For a century, because of its salient features, Chuvash has played a key role in the Altaic and, further, Transeurasian debate. This chapter provides a historical overview and a grammar sketch of Chuvash as seen from both a genealogical and an areal perspective. As shown in the chapter, Chuvash exhibits numerous features that are typical of Transeurasian languages in general and Turkic in particular. At the same time, some other traits that can be found in modern Chuvash may have been adopted through contact with non-Transeurasian languages, most notably Uralic, such as Mari, and Indo-European, such as Russian.

The paper presents a comprehensive reappraisal of the origins of the so-called s-cases in Saami, Finnic, Mordvin and Mari. According to the received view, the element *-s- that is present in most of the basic local case markers in these languages originates in the so-called *s-lative whose origin has remained unknown. As the dominant theory suffers from various methodological shortcomings, alternative proposals have also been presented yet largely ignored. As the first functionally and typologically substantiated hypothesis on the issue, the paper proposes that the s-cases originate in Proto-Uralic postpositional phrases. Confronting the daunting task of identifying cognates of the s-cases elsewhere, it is proposed that they can be related to at least the Samoyed local cases with the element *-ntə-.

This paper is the third part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this third part new Uralic etymologies for the following Mari words are discussed: MariE jǝ̑me-, MariW jǝme- ’go numb’ (< PU *jämä-), MariE jičke-, MariW jǝčke- ’pick, pluck, pull’ (< PU *ńičkä-), MariE wüt-kowǝ̑, MariW koe, ko ’wave’ (< PU *kompa), MariE lewe, MariW liwe ’warm’ (< PU *lämpi), MariE nöńča- ’shape, form’ (< PU *ńi̮nča-/*ńanča- ’stretch’), MariE lüδa-, MariW lüδä- ’be afraid’ (< PU *li̮dV-), MariE pǝ̑ze-, MariW pǝze- ’hold, cling to’ (< PU *pitä-), MariE šuma-, MariW šǝ̑ma- ’become tired, languish’ (< PU *śoma-), MariE šüδa-, MariW šüδä- ’clear (wood, road, field, etc.)’ (< PU *si̮nti-), MariE tüž, tüjüž, MariW tüž ’pregnant (of animals)’ (< PU *tejniš). The principles of reconstruction and the citation of lexical material are explained in the first paper of the series (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte 2013). The reconstruction of Proto-Mari vocalism applied in this paper is argued in more detail by Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (2014).

This article analyses the Mari traditional pre-Christian baby-naming practices in the past. The following questions are considered in this article: the meaning of the name among the Mari, the period of the name bestowing, name givers, methods of selecting names, and the occurrence or absence of naming ceremonies.
The main part of the article is preceded by brief information about the Mari. The Mari are the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Volga Region in Russia. Nowadays nearly half of all Mari live in the Republic of Mari El, with significant populations in the Kama river catchment area.
There are regional and temporary variables in the naming practices of the Mari. A name in the Mari culture had great significance. On the whole, according to Mari tradition, a child was ordinarily named twice. The first name would be given immediately after birth, while the second (permanent) name would be given after one to three days or more had passed. A permanent name could be changed if the child cried often or was very sick. The parents, midwife or priest were usually the name givers. Ways of choosing a name varied greatly. The choice of a name was determined by beliefs (e.g. meaningful names, magic rituals for correct name choosing), traditions (e.g. patronymic linkage names) and for other reasons.

Although it has long been recognized that the family tree model is too simplistic to  account for historical connections between languages, most computational studies of language history have concentrated on tree-building methods. Here, we employ computational network methods to assess the utility of network models in comparison with tree models in studying the subgrouping of Uralic languages. We also compare basic vocabulary data with words that are more easily borrowed and replaced crosslinguistically (less basic vocabulary) in order to find out how secondary connections affect computational analyses of this language family. In general, the networks support a treelike pattern of diversification, but also provide information about conflicting connections underlying some of the ambiguous divergences in the trees. These are seen as reflections of unclear divergence patterns (either in ancestral protolanguages or between languages closely related at present), which pose problems for a tree model. The networks also show that the relationships of closely related present-day languages are more complex than what the tree models suggest. When comparing less basic with basic vocabulary, we can detect the effect of borrowing between different branches (horizontal transfer) mostly between and within the Finnic and Saami subgroups. We argue that the trees obtained with basic vocabulary provide the primary pattern of the divergence of a language family, whereas networks, especially those constructed with less basic vocabulary, add reality to the picture by showing the effect of more complicated developments affecting the connections between the languages.

This paper presents a comprehensive reappraisal of the origins of the Mari lative case marker -(e)š. According to the received view, the suffix -(e)š originates in a Proto-Finno-Volgaic *s-lative, ultimate origin of which has not been explained. As the traditional theory of the origins of the so-called s-cases in Saami, Finnic, Mordvin and Mari suffers from various methodological shortcomings, alternative proposals have been presented, but the Mari lative continues to lack a plausible explanation. At the same time, the Finnic and Mordvin translatives in *-ksi are nowadays related to the Northern Samoyed predestinative in *-tə̑. This paper aims to present a functionally and phonologically sound theory of the origin of the Mari lative case marker -(e)š by relating the suffix to translatives and derivations in *-ksi, acknowledging that the hypothesis is not new, but actually predates the prevailing theory of the 20th century. At the same time, the paper presents the first familywide overview of the possible descendants *-ksi, a suffix that may have functioned as a case marker already in Proto-Uralic.

Two different theories regarding the Proto-Mari vowel system have been put forward by Erkki Itkonen and Gábor Bereczki. This paper critically evaluates these theories and aims to establish a solidly argued reconstruction of Proto-Mari initial-syllable vocalism. It is argued that 11 distinct vowel phonemes must be reconstructed for Proto-Mari, as opposed to 13 reconstructed by Itkonen and 7 reconstructed by Bereczki.

The aim of this study is to describe the impersonal constructions of six Finno-Ugric languages: Finnish, Mari, Udmurt, Komi-Permyak, Surgut Khanty, and Hungarian. Impersonality is considered in this work a complex syntactic-semantic category based on functional linguistic theories (e.g. Givón 1997, 2001). In this framework, the main function of impersonals is to defocus the causer, the initiator or the actor, so broadly speaking, the agent of the event (Siewierska 2008). Impersonal constructions are used when the agent of the action is not known, irrelevant to the utterance, or the speaker does not want to specify the identity of the actor of the event.
Comparative analyses of Finno-Ugric impersonal constructions have already been conducted (Stipa 1962, Schiefer 1981), but these approaches ignore typological considerations. On the other hand, comprehensive typological works have concentrated mainly on weather related expressions (Bartens 1995, Salo 2011). Some of the languages have a vast literature on impersonal constructions but these sources vary in quantity and quality. The Hungarian and the Finnish constructions were described in various linguistic frameworks (cf. Tóth 2000, Kádár 2006, Holmberg 2005, Helasvuo & Vilkuna 2008, Huumo & Helasvuo 2015), and contrastive studies were conducted targeting these two languages (e.g. Keresztes 1995). However, impersonals of smaller Finno-Ugric languages are lesser described, and the available resources are accessible mainly in Russian (for an exception, see Kalinina et al. 2006). Thus, the present research may enrich our knowledge about impersonal constructions of Finno-Ugric languages, and in the case of Surgut Khanty, the present study could be the first systematic analysis of impersonals.
The aim of the dissertation is to answer the following questions:
i) Which constructions suffice as impersonals in Finno-Ugric languages, based on the functional theoretical framework? What morphological, syntactic, and semantic features characterize these constructions?
ii) How are impersonal constructions used in the different Finno-Ugric languages? Are there any pragmatic factors which are specific to the different impersonal types?
iii) What similarities and differences are there among the Finno-Ugric impersonal constructions?
iv) How do the analyzed Finno-Ugric impersonal constructions relate to the impersonal constructions of other languages? Should we assume a special usage pattern or structural construction which is specific to Finno-Ugric languages?

В статье представлен анализ топонимов Ветлужско-Вятского междуречья, имеющих в своем составе лексемы, которые могут быть соотнесены как с ма-рийскими, так и с пермскими языковыми данными. В работе рассматриваются продуктивные в топонимии региона лексемы шVр, важ ~ вож, а также анализи-руются некоторые названия с компонентом вад / вод / вот. В ходе исследования выявляется языковая принадлежность топонимов с указанными компонентами, предлагаются возможные этимологии основ, детерминантов и названий в целом. одновременно с этимологическим анализом в публикации демонстрируется значимость некоторых общих и частных принципов топономастики для разгра-ничения марийских и пермских топонимических фактов в Ветлужско-Вятском междуречье. согласно результатам исследования, среди топонимов с компо-нентом шVр обнаруживаются названия как с марийскими, так и с удмуртскими истоками, последние сконцентрированы на северо-востоке Республики марий Эл и в сопредельных районах кировской области. Тополексема вож, как пока-зано в статье, не была активна в удмуртской топонимии в период пребывания удмуртских родоплеменных групп в правобережье Вятки. для ряда топонимов с компонентом вад / вод / вот, которые традиционно объяснялись на основе коми языка, автором установлены другие возможные языковые источники.

The article presents an analysis of place names of the Vetluga-Vyatka interfluve area
containing lexemes that can be of either Mari or Permic origin. The paper focuses on the roots shVr, vazh ~ vozh which are frequent in the toponymy of the area, and some names including the lexical component vad / vod / vot. The author establishes the linguistic attribution of the place names in question and suggests possible etymologies for the roots, determiners and names on the whole. In addition to the etymological analysis, the author shows the importance of some general and special principles of toponymic studies as applied to the differentiation of Mari and Permic place names of the Vetluga-Vyatka interfluve area. The author concludes that among
the place names containing the component shVr there are those of both Mari and Permic origin, the latter being concentrated in the North-East of the Republic of Mari El and in the adjacent districts of Kirov region. The author argues that the root vozh was not active in Udmurt toponymy when Udmurt clan groups lived on the right bank of the Vyatka. The article also suggests new hypotheses concerning the origin of some place names containing vad / vod / vot which used to be explained referring to the Komi language.

The article offers several new or revised Tatar, Chuvash, or Russian loan etymologies for Mari words: 1) MariE č́ükə̑ndə̑r etc. ‘beetroot’ < Tat. čögender id.; 2) MariE jŭɣo ‘heir’ < Cv. yăx(ă) ‘family, tribe’; 3) MariE juŋgo etc. ‘finger wound’ < Tat. yungï ‘splinter’; 4) MariE kalaŋga ‘rutabaga, Brassica napobrassica’ < Ru. dial. голанка id.; 5) MariE kolko ‘fishing float’ < Tat. *kalkï id.; 6) MariE meke ‘sack’ < Ru. мех id.; 7) MariE napala, lapla etc. ‘fishing float’ < Ru. dial. наплав id.; 8) MariE oroδo etc. ‘idiot’ < Ru. dial. урод id.; 9) MariE popə̑lδatem ‘yammer’ < Ru. поболтать id.; 10) MariE Nw sor ‘big; adult; a lot; for a long time’ < Tat. zur id.; 11) MariE šolaš‑ etc. ‘throatlatch on bridle of horse’ < Ru. dial. салазки ‘lower jaw’; 12) MariE ökə̑m etc. ‘by force, compulsory’ < Tat. xökem ‘verdict, authority’; 13) MariE titak etc. ‘blame, guilt, misdeed’ < Tat. titak id.; 14) MariE tutə̑nem ‘to stutter’ < Tat. *totïn id.

This paper deals with the Udmurt, Komi-Zyryan and Meadow Mari non-finite clauses headed by the suffix-m. These non-finite clauses can be used in relative, adjunct and argument position in the matrix clause. According to previous studies, the subject of these non-finite clauses can be either in the nominative or in the genitive, and this case alternation has to do with semantic and, partly, with syntactic factors. It has been observed that in Udmurt, the subject must bear the genitive if the non-finite clause is in argument position. In this study, I present some counterexamples to this generalisation. However, I argue that these are deverbal compounds. I try to extend the compound analysis to Komi-Zyryan and Meadow Mari as well. Additionally, I suggest that the position of the non-finite clause determines the case-marking of the subject. Finally, I briefly discuss the notion of the so-called " juxtaposed possessive construction ". Most of the presented (Udmurt) data come from own fieldwork.

В статье предлагается интерпретация некоторых сложных моментов, связанных со сценарием контактов между чувашским и марийским языком. Дается оценка высказывавшимся предположениям о ранних связях между прамарийским и булгарским. Обсуждается исторический контекст, в рамках которого уже в послемонгольский период в марийский попал основной пласт заимствований из чувашского. Дается культурная реконструкция для этого пласта контактной лексики. Особое внимание уделено северо-западным говорам чувашского языка - обоснованию для них статуса отдельного архаичного диалекта и роли языка-донора в ранних контактах с марийским. Наконец, в статье обсуждается возможность предварительного выделения позднего слоя чувашских заимствований в горномарийском.

В статье осуществляется анализ фонетической и морфологической адаптации христианских личных имен в марийском языке. К анализу в работе привлекаются личные имена, зафиксированные на разных территориях проживания мари. Объем анализируемого материала не является исчерпывающим, но позволяет выявить общие особенности усвоения христианских имен. Основная часть статьи предварена краткими сведениями о христианизации Марийского края и контактах мари с русскоязычным населением, а также об особенностях местных говоров русского языка. В марийский антропонимикон вошло значительное количество русских имен. Источником заимствований послужили не только церковные формы имен, но и развившиеся в русских говорах многочисленные варианты. В ходе исследования выявлены фонетические, морфологические изменения христианских имен в марийском языке, установлены причины большинства этих преобразований. Автор также обращает внимание на роль соседних тюркских языков в проникновении русских имен в марийский язык. Изменения в заимствованных именах произошли под влиянием внутренних законов марийского языка, а также диалектных черт местных русских говоров. Выявление системных фонетических и словообразовательных трансформаций помогает установить происхождение ряда антропонимов.

This article analyses the phonetic and morphological adaptation of Christian personal
names in the Mari language. The work examines personal names recorded in different regions among the Mari. The composition of the presented data is not exhaustive; it does, however, allow one to observe some general patterns of the adaptation process. The main part of the article is preceded by a brief overview of the Christianization of the Mari region and the contacts between the Mari and the Russian-speaking population; the features of the local dialects of the Russian language are briefly stated. The Mari language incorporated a significant number of Russian names. The source of loans included, besides the standard church name forms, also the numerous varieties found in the Russian dialects. As part of the study, phonetic, structural changes of Christian names in the Mari language are revealed and the reasons for the majority of these transformations are identified. The author also pays attention to the intermediary role of the neighboring Turkic languages in the penetration of Russian names into the Mari language. Changes in borrowed names were induced by internal Mari linguistic rules, as well as dialectal features of the local Russian dialects. The identification of systematic phonetic and structural transformations helps to determine the origin of obscure anthroponyms.

Írásunkban a magyar osztályozós szerkezet kialakulásának kérdésével foglalkozunk; arra keressük a választ, mikor és hogyan jelent meg a 'számnév/kvantor > egyéni osztályozó > főnév' mintázat a magyar nyelvben. Amellett érvelünk, hogy az osztályozós szerkezet az ótörök-ősmagyar együttélés során, nyelvi kontaktus hatására mintamásolással került a magyarba. Kimutatjuk továbbá, hogy mind a csuvasban, mind az udmurtban és a mariban megvan az osztályozós mintázat, és amellett érvelünk, hogy a Volga-Káma areában beszélt, osztályozóval rendelkezdő finnugor nyelvek szintén törökségi nyelvekből másolták az osztályozós szerkezetet.

The article deals with the semantics of the focus particle =ok in Hill Mari. The author argues that the particle introduces two presuppositions: that of exhaustivity and that of givenness of the focal referent. This assumption allows us to describe many uses =ok which at first glance could have seemed heterogeneous.

Институт финно-угроведения в Венском университете был создан в 1974 году, и за более чем 40 лет в нем многие из уральских (финно-угорских) языков преподавали некоторые из самых известных ученых в этой области. В результате таких исторических изменений, как падение железного занавеса, глобализация, развитие академического обмена и мобильности произошла и смена парадигм в области преподава-
ния языков. Преподавание марийского языка может служить примером такого развития, когда оно сосредоточено не только на усвоении базового словарного запаса и основ грамматики, но и на развитии четырех важных способностей и умений: восприятие речи на слух, чтение, говорение и письмо. В первых десятилетиях истории института такая цель была только в преподавании венгерского, финского и эстонского языков.

The institute of Finno-Ugric Studies at the University of Vienna was founded in 1974 and in the course of over forty years a wide range of Uralic (Finno-Ugric) languages was taught by some of the most renowned scholars of Finno-Ugric Studies. Due to historical changes like the fall of the iron curtain, globalization and increased academic mobility a paradigm shift in the teaching of the Uralic languages took place. Mari language tuition can serve as an example of this, which not only focuses on the study of elementary lexicon and basic grammar, but also aims at conveying the four abilities of speaking, reading, listening and writing — which were only the aim of Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian tuition in the first few decades of the institute's history.

The paper summarizes recent advances in explaining the origins of Finnic l-cases and western Uralic s-cases as deriving from the grammaticalization of postpositions. The paper presents a new hypothesis for the source of western Uralic s-cases and Samoyedic *ntə- cases: the Uralic noun root *sorśi ‘span, quarter’ (measurement). This root’s reflexes and local / spatial meanings in the three Ugric branches and in Mari are presented. The significance of initial š in the Mari reflex and initial *s in the Khanty reflex, based on a known and regular Khanty sound law, are discussed. The paper then presents and discusses the postpositions Komi (Permic) šör-, Mansi tār(ä)-, Surgut (Eastern) Khanty surə-, and Shuryshkar (Northern) Khanty sur(ə)-, explaining their likely derivation from *sorśi and providing numerous examples of their functional usage. It is argued that the local and spatial functions of these postpositions are quite similar to those of the western Uralic s-cases. The paper thus proposes that these Permic and Ugric postpositions are cognate to the western Uralic s-cases and Samoyedic *ntə- cases. The conclusion also recognizes the alternate possibility that the previously proposed source *seCV- ‘inside, interior’ may be the origin of the Saami, Finnic, and Mordvinic s-cases, while *sorśi may be the origin of the Mari “lative” case -(e)š, the Mari s-cases, and/or the Samoyedic *ntə- cases. The point is made that if the Proto-Finno-Volgaic stage did not exist, then the s-cases of the four western Uralic branches did not necessarily have to develop from the same source.

This paper analyses the system of accentuation in Mari. Based on the data collected in the village of Staryj Torjal, the author argues that Mari stress cannot be described only on the phonetic/phonological level. The author proposes a rule that defines the position of stress on the level of morphophonology. The core of the rule is an opposition of two types of formatives (units of morphophonlogical representation): accentually weak and accentually strong. The final section of the article argues for the Uralic origin of Mari stress, which should not be considered as something alien for the Uralic family as both the opposition of weak and strong units and the close tie between prosodic and morphological levels is typical for Uralic languages.

This is the first of several proposed Iranian loan etymologies for Mari vocabulary. Besides the Mari etymologies themselves, I aim to show that examining Mari and Ossetic in tandem can shed light on the prehistory of the Ossetic lexicon (before so much inherited Iranian material was lost) and also on the relative and absolute chronologies of the two languages’ sound changes.

The " Linguarum Totius Orbis Vocabularia comparativa " of Peter Simon Pallas published in 1787—1789 is a prominent early record of the Mari language, containing Mari translations of 273 Russian headwords. This material has been examined by Thomas A. Sebeok in an ample commentary published in 1960, and by Alho Alhoniemi two decades later, but they were unable to identify all words. Using recent lexical resources on Mari and studies of the original manuscripts, the present contribution identifies further words and corrects some errors in earlier interpretations. The result is a more complete picture of Pallas and 18th-century Mari.

This paper introduces a rudimentary infrastructure for a searchable corpus of Mari, a highly agglutinative Uralic language spoken in the Volga and Ural regions of the Russian Federation. This infrastructure allows users to search the corpus by syntactic and morphological patterns. It makes use of the University of Vienna's digital Mari-English dictionary, published under a Creative Commons License in 2014, and a morphological analyser following a simple item-and-arrangement approach. Texts fed into the corpus are subjected to a morphological analysis, the results of which are saved into the application's database with the corpus materials and are accessed by the search algorithm. A demonstration of this open-source tool, covering 994,097 tokens taken from works not subject to copyright, can be found at corpus.mari-language.com, the source code at source.mari-language.com. While a non-representative text collection of this scope can only serve demonstrative purposes, the infrastructure could enable quantitative diachronic or sociolinguistic comparisons, if fed with a sufficiently wide text collection annotated with adequate metadata.

The goal of this paper is to compare Hungarian 3Pl and non-finite impersonals with the corresponding Surgut Khanty, Meadow Mari, Udmurt and Finnish constructions focusing on the usage of impersonals. I assume that the speaker’s choice between the two types is motivated by the windowing of attention: the demoted Agent is encoded by the 3Pl on the one hand, while an elaborated Agent is expressed by some non-finite from, on the other hand.