A recent acquisition of mine has been the not long ago released dialectal atlas of Karelian: Диалектологический атлас карельского языка / Karjalan kielen murrekartasto, Helsinki 2007; based on data collected in the 1930s. Covering 209 traits — many of them with some half a dozen possible values, for on the order of 1000 data series altogether — and almost 200 individual varieties from the Republic of Karelia (thus including also Ludian), this will sure come useful e.g. for assessing which Eastern Finnic innovations should be considered historically indicative of original dialect divisions and which have later diffused between varieties. Results of this sort will in turn also inform how to interpret conflicting isoglosses in other situations.
There however appear to be some annoying errors in the material. So far I’ve noticed one larger issue: several maps that trace the development of secondary long vowels seem to mix the Olonetsian (Livvi) varieties and the central Karelian varieties of Paatene. The latter group is correctly shown in the early maps as characteristically reflecting Proto-Finnic and post-Proto-Finnic *aa and *ää as /oo/ and /ee/. However, in later maps tracing the development of long vowels contracted from e.g. *a(i)+e, *ä+e (after the loss of *d or *g), long mid reflexes are instead attributed for Olonetsian, while the Paatene dialect is claimed to have /ai/ or /äi/.
The map data per se seems correct though, and I guess it’s rather the map legends that’s the problem, since in most cases this error comes in the exact same typographical form: the symbols square with black right half (◨) and circle with black upper left and black lower right quadrants (for which I can’t seem to find a Unicode glyph) appear to have been switched on the following maps:
- Map 16 (reflexes of *käde-, weak oblique stem of *käci ‘hand’)
cf. the examples for käsi @ KKS: Paatene sg.gen. kɛɛn, Nekkula/Riipuskala sg.iness. käiz
- Map 18 (reflexes of *näge-, weak stem of *nähtäk ‘to see’)
cf. the examples for nähä @ KKS: Paatene 1p.sg. ńɛɛn, Nekkula/Riipuskala 2p.sg. näit~näid
- Map 19 (reflexes of *avaideldak, frequentative of ‘to open’)
cf. the examples for availla @ KKS: Nekkula/Riipuskala 2p.sg. availed
- Map 20 (reflexes of *lainoideldak, frequentative of ‘to swallow’)
cf. the examples for lainoilla @ KKS: Nekkula/Riipuskala inf. lainoilla
In the last case, the “swapped” dialects are rather Livvi and Kuuďäŕv́ Ludian, with ˣuu rather than /oi/ attributed to the former, and ˣoi rather than /uu/ attributed to the latter. (At Paatene no special development applies to “Proto-Karelian” *oo, which is reflected as /uo/, same as everywhere else.)
Also incorrect is Map 17 (reflexes of *pagettak ‘to escape’), though here the swapped symbols are rather black triangle (▲) and circle with black left half (◐).
The rather similar Map 15 (reflexes of *lage-, weak oblique stem of *laki ‘top, ceiling’) and Map 21 (reflexes of *lukkudeldak, frequentative of ‘to lock’) appear to be however correct.
A second, lesser problem appears on Map 24 (reflexes of *habukka ‘hawk’), where a symbol ▲ is marked for the apparently heavily divergent Vaśiľiskoi dialect of Tver Karelian — but no such symbol appears on the legend. I have no idea if this is a typographical error or an omission from the legend.
Freelance reconstruction
Errata for the Karelian dialectal atlas
A recent acquisition of mine has been the not long ago released dialectal atlas of Karelian: Диалектологический атлас карельского языка / Karjalan kielen murrekartasto, Helsinki 2007; based on data collected in the 1930s. Covering 209 traits — many of them with some half a dozen possible values, for on the order of 1000 data series altogether — and almost 200 individual varieties from the Republic of Karelia (thus including also Ludian), this will sure come useful e.g. for assessing which Eastern Finnic innovations should be considered historically indicative of original dialect divisions and which have later diffused between varieties. Results of this sort will in turn also inform how to interpret conflicting isoglosses in other situations.
There however appear to be some annoying errors in the material. So far I’ve noticed one larger issue: several maps that trace the development of secondary long vowels seem to mix the Olonetsian (Livvi) varieties and the central Karelian varieties of Paatene. The latter group is correctly shown in the early maps as characteristically reflecting Proto-Finnic and post-Proto-Finnic *aa and *ää as /oo/ and /ee/. However, in later maps tracing the development of long vowels contracted from e.g. *a(i)+e, *ä+e (after the loss of *d or *g), long mid reflexes are instead attributed for Olonetsian, while the Paatene dialect is claimed to have /ai/ or /äi/.
The map data per se seems correct though, and I guess it’s rather the map legends that’s the problem, since in most cases this error comes in the exact same typographical form: the symbols square with black right half (◨) and circle with black upper left and black lower right quadrants (for which I can’t seem to find a Unicode glyph) appear to have been switched on the following maps:
cf. the examples for käsi @ KKS: Paatene sg.gen. kɛɛn, Nekkula/Riipuskala sg.iness. käiz
cf. the examples for nähä @ KKS: Paatene 1p.sg. ńɛɛn, Nekkula/Riipuskala 2p.sg. näit~näid
cf. the examples for availla @ KKS: Nekkula/Riipuskala 2p.sg. availed
cf. the examples for lainoilla @ KKS: Nekkula/Riipuskala inf. lainoilla
In the last case, the “swapped” dialects are rather Livvi and Kuuďäŕv́ Ludian, with ˣuu rather than /oi/ attributed to the former, and ˣoi rather than /uu/ attributed to the latter. (At Paatene no special development applies to “Proto-Karelian” *oo, which is reflected as /uo/, same as everywhere else.)
Also incorrect is Map 17 (reflexes of *pagettak ‘to escape’), though here the swapped symbols are rather black triangle (▲) and circle with black left half (◐).
The rather similar Map 15 (reflexes of *lage-, weak oblique stem of *laki ‘top, ceiling’) and Map 21 (reflexes of *lukkudeldak, frequentative of ‘to lock’) appear to be however correct.
A second, lesser problem appears on Map 24 (reflexes of *habukka ‘hawk’), where a symbol ▲ is marked for the apparently heavily divergent Vaśiľiskoi dialect of Tver Karelian — but no such symbol appears on the legend. I have no idea if this is a typographical error or an omission from the legend.
Related
Posted in Commentary