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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics
Main Authors: Fedor Rozhanskiy, Elena Markus
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