• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• 2012-2021close
• Open Access close
• Publications close
• Research data close
• Other research products close
• EE close
• Lähivõrdlusi close

On expressing iterative or durative action in Russian and Estonian The article focuses on different ways for expressing iterative or durative action in Russian and Estonian. Comparing original Russian texts to their translation in Estonian, it is noticeable that in Estonian one has to use more linguistic features to express iterative or durative action than in Russian. In order to express those meanings in Russian it is very often enough to use a verb in the imperfect tense, while all other possible instruments (such as adverbs, reduplication of verbs, whole context, etc.) just have a supporting function. Meanwhile in Estonian, for example, adverbs can play the most significant role in expressing iterative or durative action and without them the sentence can be understood in more than one way. In the article numerous examples of iterative or durative action are presented and analysed. It is shown that both languages have some similar ways of expressing those meanings: for example, adverbials, context, reduplication of verbs, tenses, semantics of the verb etc. But there are also some tools that remain specific to one language; for Russian this is mainly verb tense, and for Estonian one can point to the object case and a construction of the verb to be (olema) + inessive form of the supine. The results of this analysis could be used in teaching Russian and Estonian, but also in the theory and practice of translation.

his year marks the 30th anniversary of the first Lahivertailuja (‘Close Comparisons’) proceedings and the publishing of the 25th issue of the journal Lahivordlusi. Lahivertailuja (now with a bilingual Estonian- Finnish title).

Kuusalu pastor Eduard Ahrens (1803–1863) esitas oma eesti keele grammatikates 1843 ja 1853 nn uue kirjaviisi, mille eeskujuks oli soome keele ortograafia. Ahrensi taotluseks oli silbipikkuste adekvaatne edasiandmine. Soome keele eeskuju oli pohjendatud, sest soome ja eesti keele haalikususteemides, aga ka morfofonoloogias (astmevaheldus) on keeleajaloolistel pohjustel suur uhisosa. Koige olulisem erinevus soome ja eesti keele haalikususteemides seisneb eesti keeles pikkade rohuliste silpide prosoodias – selliseid silpe saab haaldada kahe erineva silbikvantiteediga (nn II ja III valde), millega ei kaasne silpide segmentaalkoostise muutust. Ahrensi ortograafia seda eesti keele prosoodilist eriarengut (soome keelega vorreldes) ei kajasta. Vaga vaikeste muudatustega on Ahrensi ortograafia teeninud eesti rahvast ja kultuuri 1870-ndatest aastatest alates. Ajavahemikus 1840–1875 pandi eesti keele uurimisele uldkeeleteaduslikult tugev alus (Fr. R. Faehlmann, Eduard Ahrens, Jakob Hurt, F. J. Wiedemann). Onnetuseks sundis 1870–1880. aastatel eesti haalikususteemi teooria (Mihkel Veske 1879, seejarel K. A. Hermann 1884), mis tolgendas silpide prosoodilist kvantiteeti segmentaalhaalikute kolme erineva kestustena (luhike, pikk, ulipikk) ning diftongide ja konsonantuhendite kahe erineva kestusena (pikk ja ulipikk). Silbiprosoodiat tolgendati segmentaalselt. Selline vaade jai valitsema umbes sajaks aastaks. Ahrensi ortograafia tolgendati umber, maarates haalikud luhikeseks, pikaks voi ulipikaks. Kogu eesti oigekirja opetamine on tanapaevani allutatud kolme haalikuvalte valeteooriale, kuigi teoreetilistes kasitlustes hakkas Jakob Hurdale ja F. J. Wiedemannile toetuv silbiprosoodiline kasitlus tagasi tulema 1960. aastatest alates. Tanapaeval valitseb eesti haalikususteemi kasitlustes skisofreeniline olukord: deklaratiivselt on akadeemilistel tasanditel kolme haalikuvalte teooriast lahti oeldud, aga praktikas (aabitsad, oigekirjaopetuse metoodika, monedki fonoloogilised tolgendused) elab kolme haalikuvalte teooria edasi. *** On the shoulders of Ahrens. The orthography by Eduard Ahrens in the past and nowadays In his grammars of Estonian (1843 and 1853), Eduard Ahrens (1803–1863), the pastor of Kuusalu, created a new orthography for the Estonian language. Ahrens intended to more adequately render the structure of short and long syllables in Estonian. Finnish orthography served as a model for Ahrens, thanks to the many similarities between the phonetic and morphophonemic (grade alternation) systems of both languages. Th e most important di ff erence between the phonetic systems of Finnish and Estonian is in the prosody of Estonian: it is possible to pronounce long stressed syllables with two distinctive syllable quantities (traditionally called the second and the third degree of quantity) without any change in the segmental structure of the syllable. Th is extra prosodic means of Estonian was not rendered in the orthography proposal made by Ahrens, because he concentrated on the segmental structure of syllables. Th is was a prescient decision, as it provided the new orthography with stability, and due to it this orthography has served the Estonian nation and the Estonian culture well since the 1870s. In the years 1840–1875 the foundations for the investigation of Estonian in accordance with the principles and theories of general linguistics were created (Fr. R. Faehlmann, Eduard Ahrens, Jakob Hurt, F. J. Wiedemann). Unfortunately, in the 1870–1880s a new theory of Estonian phonetics was formed (in 1879 Mihkel Veske created an original theory of the Estonian sound system; in 1884 Karl August Hermann used this new theory in his popular grammar of Estonian). In this theory the prosodic quantity of long syllables was interpreted as the quantity degrees of segmental sounds: both vowels and consonants were described as having three distinctive degrees of length (short, long, and overlong), and diphthongs and consonant clusters as having two distinctive degrees of length (long and overlong). Th e phonetic system of Estonian was looked at as totally di ff erent from any other phonetic system. Ahrens’s orthography was reinterpreted in a way that required any sound in a stressed syllable to be determined to have one of three quantity degrees (short, long, overlong), and the diphthongs and consonant clusters to have long or overlong quantity. This view dominated in Estonian linguistics without any real opposition for about a hundred years (1880s–1980s). The theory of three quantity degrees is totally incompatible with any phonemic theory. Despite it, up to now, the methods and rules for learning orthography are based on the false assumption that Ahrens’s orthography should be complemented with decisions about the quantity degree of any vowel or consonant or of so-called compound sound. This makes the rules for orthography schizophrenic, for in order to achieve the orthography as it is, a series of unnecessary steps must be taken. However, from the 1960s to the present day, the theory of three quantity degrees has lost ground step by step, and the views of Jakob Hurt and F. J. Wiedemann have made their way back to scienti fi c discussion. In scienti fi c discussion of Estonian phonetics and phonology, and in orthographic dictionaries, the theory of three quantity degrees in declarations has been abandoned, but in practice (A-B-C books, popular overviews of Estonian phonetics, the methods for teaching and learning orthography, some phonological interpretations) the treatment of Estonian as a language with a very peculiar phonological quantity system is still active. However, the ice is breaking.

Suurte korpuste automaatsel tootlemisel kasutatakse erinevat keeletarkvara ja statistilist analuusi, mille valik ning kombineerimisvoimalused soltuvad keelest, uurimisobjektist ja eesmarkidest. Artiklis tutvustame teksti keelekasutusmustrite otsimiseks moeldud integreeritud tarkvararakendust Klastrileidja ja selle toimesusteemi, anname ulevaate lingvistilise klasteranaluusi abil saadud uurimistulemustest. Eesmark on seletada, mida selle meetodi rakendamine loomuliku keele tootluse kaigus voimaldab avastada eesti keele ja oppija keelekasutuse kohta ning kuidas neid teadmisi pedagoogilistel vajadustel rakendada. *** Patterns of language use and linguistic cluster analysis For automatic processing of large electronic corpora, di ff erent language analysis tools and statistical methods are applied, the choice and combination of which depend on the language, the object and goals of study. In this article, we introduce an integrated so ft ware tool Klastrileidja (Cluster Catcher), which has been developed for fi nding language use patterns, and we give an overview of the study results obtained, using linguistic cluster analysis. Th e purpose is to explain the possibilities that this method o ff ers for natural language processing, exploring Estonian and learner language use as well as for pedagogical needs.