Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa
This paper provides a comparison of two varieties of the Votic language. Based on field materials collected between 2001 and 2012 from the last speakers of Votic, we compiled a list of the most important phonetic and grammatical features that distinguish between Jõgõperä and Luuditsa varieties. The...
Published in: | Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English Estonian |
Published: |
University of Tartu Press
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 https://doaj.org/article/87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 2023-05-15T18:42:56+02:00 Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa Fedor Rozhanskiy Elena Markus 2015-06-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 https://doaj.org/article/87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 EN ET eng est University of Tartu Press https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/15216 https://doaj.org/toc/1736-8987 https://doaj.org/toc/2228-1339 doi:10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 1736-8987 2228-1339 https://doaj.org/article/87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 Eesti ja Soome-ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri, Vol 6, Iss 1 (2015) Votic dialectal variation language contacts phonetics morphology Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Finnic. Baltic-Finnic PH91-98.5 article 2015 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 2022-12-31T06:04:28Z This paper provides a comparison of two varieties of the Votic language. Based on field materials collected between 2001 and 2012 from the last speakers of Votic, we compiled a list of the most important phonetic and grammatical features that distinguish between Jõgõperä and Luuditsa varieties. The ten features are: the degree of apocope, the initial h, merging of allative and adessive cases, secondary geminates, illative singular forms, genitive and partitive plural markers, imperfect forms, the active participle marker, conditional markers, and negative pronominal forms. The analysis has shown that many differences can be explained by the influence of the neighbouring Ingrian language. There are more contact induced changes in the Luuditsa variety, which is probably the result of more intensive contacts with the Ingrian population in this village. The contemporary Luuditsa variety is a vivid example demonstrating that language change in the Lower Luga area was driven by convergent developments in no lesser degree than by divergent processes. Article in Journal/Newspaper votic Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6 1 23 39 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English Estonian |
topic |
Votic dialectal variation language contacts phonetics morphology Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Finnic. Baltic-Finnic PH91-98.5 |
spellingShingle |
Votic dialectal variation language contacts phonetics morphology Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Finnic. Baltic-Finnic PH91-98.5 Fedor Rozhanskiy Elena Markus Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
topic_facet |
Votic dialectal variation language contacts phonetics morphology Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Finnic. Baltic-Finnic PH91-98.5 |
description |
This paper provides a comparison of two varieties of the Votic language. Based on field materials collected between 2001 and 2012 from the last speakers of Votic, we compiled a list of the most important phonetic and grammatical features that distinguish between Jõgõperä and Luuditsa varieties. The ten features are: the degree of apocope, the initial h, merging of allative and adessive cases, secondary geminates, illative singular forms, genitive and partitive plural markers, imperfect forms, the active participle marker, conditional markers, and negative pronominal forms. The analysis has shown that many differences can be explained by the influence of the neighbouring Ingrian language. There are more contact induced changes in the Luuditsa variety, which is probably the result of more intensive contacts with the Ingrian population in this village. The contemporary Luuditsa variety is a vivid example demonstrating that language change in the Lower Luga area was driven by convergent developments in no lesser degree than by divergent processes. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Fedor Rozhanskiy Elena Markus |
author_facet |
Fedor Rozhanskiy Elena Markus |
author_sort |
Fedor Rozhanskiy |
title |
Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
title_short |
Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
title_full |
Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
title_fullStr |
Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
title_full_unstemmed |
Dialectal variation in Votic: Jõgõperä vs. Luuditsa |
title_sort |
dialectal variation in votic: jõgõperä vs. luuditsa |
publisher |
University of Tartu Press |
publishDate |
2015 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 https://doaj.org/article/87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 |
genre |
votic |
genre_facet |
votic |
op_source |
Eesti ja Soome-ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri, Vol 6, Iss 1 (2015) |
op_relation |
https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/15216 https://doaj.org/toc/1736-8987 https://doaj.org/toc/2228-1339 doi:10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 1736-8987 2228-1339 https://doaj.org/article/87f0083588c7403baaa8692c9f86c192 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 |
container_title |
Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics |
container_volume |
6 |
container_issue |
1 |
container_start_page |
23 |
op_container_end_page |
39 |
_version_ |
1766232711468417024 |