E. Setelos laiškas J. Endzelynui

E. SETELA’S LETTER TO J. ENDZELYNAS Prepared by N. Čepienė The manuscript collection of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences contains, in the K. Būga collection (Call number F 7—35), a letter from the Finnish linguist E. Setelä (E. N. Setälä, 1864—1935). Judging from its contents, it is addressed not to K. Būga, but probably to the Latvian linguist J. Endzelīns. This may be inferred from the fact that E. Setelä informs the addressee that he will soon send to the printer the review the latter had written of K. Būga’s work. We know that J. Endzelīns published a review of K. Būga’s “Aistiškos studijos” in the Finnish journal “Anzeiger der Finnisch-ugrischen Forschungen”. Helsinki, 2 January 1910. Highly esteemed colleague, I must be thoroughly ashamed that I did not express my heartfelt thanks to you sooner for your review of Būga’s work. I have been very busy lately, and have also made many trips; before our Christmas I was ill again. The issues of Finnisch-ugrischen Forschungen have also been delayed for many reasons. In any case, I shall send your review to the printer in the next few days. However, I would like to know the Lithuanian title of the book, as well as some other details (publisher, format, extent, price), and therefore ask you to fill in the enclosed slip. Would you like to look over the proof yourself? Is Būga’s work available in bookshops? The work interests me greatly—to judge from your review. I hope that in the future, too, you will send us reports on Fennica in the Baltic region. The beginning was, of course, not very encouraging on our part, but we are confident that we shall soon be able to bring our journal up to date. You ask me whether, in my view, Jaunis-Būga’s interpretation—that the Baltic loanwords in Finnish show traces of a twofold accent—can in any way be considered probable. As far as I can judge from your review, the Jaunis-Būga hypotheses are certainly worth attention and closer examination, but alongside what is interesting there always seems to be something that does not stand up. There is hardly a reliable example of b, d, g having become pp, tt, kk in Finnish. The author gives takkiainen, ‘burdock’, but the word is usually takkiainen and its geminate kk, where it occurs, 52 to the influence of other words; likewise, Finnish metti(a'i)nen ‘wood pigeon’ is hardly a Lithuanian loanword, since the corresponding word also occurs in Mordvin and presupposes an original medial ě. I do not venture to decide what may be the case with words containing Lithuanian p, t, k (Finnish pp, tt, kk, or more commonly p, t, k); the examples are somewhat few in number if the b, d, g examples are excluded (Finnish luokka is probably not <Latvian lūks, but Russian лукъ; Finnish mänttä ‘whisk’ does not exist; the word is mäntä), and none of them accords with the author’s hypothesis. Wishing you a merry Christmas and a good, happy New Year, I remain your most devoted Emil Setälä Helsingforsas, [19]10.I.2: Highly esteemed colleague, I am truly ashamed that I did not express my sincere thanks to you sooner for your review of Buga’s work. Recently I have been very busy and have also traveled a great deal; shortly before our Christmas I was ill again. The fascicles of Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen were also delayed for various reasons. Nevertheless, I shall send your review to the printer in the next few days. But I would gladly like to know the Lithuanian title of the book, as well as a few other details (publisher, format, extent, price), and therefore ask you to fill out the enclosed slip. You will probably want to check the proofs yourself? Can Buga’s work be obtained at a bookshop? Judging by your report, the work interests me greatly. I hope that in the future as well you will inform us about Fennica in the Baltic region. The beginning, of course, was not very encouraging on our part, but we are certain that we shall soon be able to be à jour with our journal. You ask me whether, in my opinion, Jaunius—Buga’s view that Baltic loanwords in Finnish show traces of two kinds of accent is plausible. As far as I can judge from your report, Jaunius—Buga’s hypotheses are in general worthy of attention and more detailed investigation, but it seems that alongside what is interesting there is always something unfounded. There is hardly a single genuine example showing that Finnish b, d, g became pp, tt, kk. The author calls vainašė takkainen, but this word is usually called takkiainen, and its doubled kk, where it occurs, probably results from the influence of other words; likewise, Finnish metti(ái)nen ‘wood pigeon’ is hardly a Lithuanian loanword; the corresponding word also occurs in Mordvin and suggests an original medial ě. I do not venture to decide what may be the case with words containing Lithuanian p, t, k (Finnish pp, tt, kk, or more commonly p, t, k); there are too few examples if the examples with b, d, g are excluded—Finnish luokka is probably not <Latvian lūks, but from Russian лукъ; Finnish mänttä ‘whisk’ does not exist; the word is pronounced mäntä—and none of them accords with the author’s hypothesis. I wish you a merry Christmas and a good, happy New Year. Yours respectfully, Emilis Setela Translated by N. Čepienė 53