Re: Some more Madzhi grammar

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Talpas Tim wrote:

> # Both Mansi, the language which Madzhi is descended from, and Hungarian,
> # the closest language to Mansi, are like this (and Hungarian has 24 cases,
> # 48 if you count plurals). For example:
> #
> # Kilenc nagy kutya'tol elloptam   a    csontokat.
> # nine   big  dog-ABL   stole-1sg  the  bones-ACC
> # I stole the bones from nine big dogs.
> #
>
> On a related note, I've read some articles proposing that Hungarian
> has not 24, but only 2 (Nom and Acc)... the rest are just post-positions
> which happen to be written attached to the noun. As a native speaker, what
> is your opinion?
Hm. Only two? What about the Dative (reszeshatarozo - suffix -nek/-nak)?
That is a proper case. Personally, I think they are indeed cases now; I
know in the past they were postpositions:

Old Hungarian: hodu utu  rea  mene
Sampa          xodu utu  rea  mene:
               army road onto went
               The army went onto the road (ie on an expedition, mission)

Modern Hungarian has this as "had utra ment", though 19th century
Hungarian "had utra mene'" would be possible too.

>
> There seem to be good arguments for each side. For example in pronouns,
> only Nom and Acc are attached to the pronoun (diacritics not marked):
>
> en - engem
> te - teged
> ok - oket
>
> but postpositions take the possessive suffixes
>
> -vel  - velem, veled, vele
> -nek  - nekem, neked, neke
>
> Also, post-positions which are considered seperate words can be subject
> to vowel harmony... like 'felul/folul'
>
Well, from what I know of Old Hungarian (I've been recently working with
the Halotti Beszed), the postpositions were not subject to vowel harmony,
and it is only since then, I would guess around the 15th century (based on
the Mariasiralom).

>
> # > > Verbs hav an indefinite and a definite conjugation.
> # >
> # > What's the difference?  Why would someone use indefinite instead of
> # > definite conjugation?  I've heard of definite and indefinite nouns, but
> # > not verbs.
> # >
> #
> # This exists in all the Ugric languages. In a sentence like "Tommorrow I
> # will buy a dog", one would use the indefinite conjugation, whereas if the
> # sentence is "Tommorow I will buy the dog (that I spoke of earlier)", one
> # would use the definite conjugation. Since Madzhi, Mansi and Ostyak do not
> # have articles (and Hungarian has them due to influence from other
> # languages), this is a way to distinguish between definite and indefinite,
> # "a dog" vs. "the dog".
>
> I was under the impression that Hungarian is the only Uralic language
> to have developed this way. The definite/indefinite tenses having evolved
> from a subjective (indefinite, focus on subject) and objective (definite,
> focus on object) verb system.
>
> I can't remember much about the Ob-Ugric (khanty and mansi) verb systems, but
> I thought they all lacked a definite/indefinite distinction.
All the Ungric languages have this.

>
> If you have any links to online resources for mansi (and/or khanty), i'd
> definitely be interested in seeing them.
Well I just did a google search and came up blank. I have in my library
"Chrestomathia Vogulica", "Northern Ostyak Chrestomathy" and "Eastern
Ostyak Chrestomathy". I could copy these for you if you want.

---ferko