The Finnish language is deteriorating, people often say, arguing that in the past speakers knew how to use language correctly.

Norms in the Finnish language did not come from thin air but are a result of long and arduous battles. Whether to use a genitive form as the first part of a compound word caused a raucous debate among linguists.

But is that really the case? As late as in the 1950s, language authorities engaged in heated discussions on whether verbs such as sekoittaa (to mix) and varoittaa (to warn) required the 'i' in the middle. And before that, the spelling of foreign loan words was wobbly for a long time, with for example diploomi often seen in writing, before diplomi became the standard form.

At the end of the 1940s, language professionals also had differing views on the acceptable hyphenation of compound words.

This goes to show that the current standards and norms of the Finnish language were not carved in stone before the dawn of time. Instead, many language rules have been revamped and tweaked over the centuries, and some fine-tuning has taken place even in the last couple of decades.

Taru Kolehmainen, a retired researcher from the Institute for the Languages of Finland, recently published a book on how the norms of the Finnish language and recommendations for correct usage have emerged.

According to Kolehmainen, inherent Finnish language norms, which speakers learn without the help of textbooks, include conjugations, for example verbs taking on a different ending depending on who the subject is. In contrast, many other language rules are conventions, which have arisen when a certain regional form was picked for general use.

Guidelines still good

Authorities and language professionals have tried to guide and control correct language usage since the 19th century. A wave of nationalism swept across Europe, giving rise to efforts in Finland, along with other European countries, to create a national language fit for all purposes in society.

"Norms help language users to make decisions on usage as they don't have to solve every single language problem themselves. This was the wish expressed by many people in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Having guidelines is still good, we do need some language norms," explains Kolehmainen.

But creating the rules for the Finnish language was not always child's play, with linguists in the past often prone to bickering and bearing grudges.

A real bone of contention proved to be verbs with either the –ottaa or –oittaa ending. The debate started in 1868, and linguists only finished dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the guidelines in 1953.

Language experts finally settled on the rule of thumb that verbs formed from a noun ending in an 'a' take an –oittaa ending, while verbs formed from a noun with an 'o' at the end take –ottaa as their ending. This decision failed to garner universal support among language users, some of whom would have preferred an 'i' in all the verbs, while others favoured leaving it out of all of them.

Based on gut feelings rather than scientific facts, the arguments for and against ranged from "verb forms with an 'i' are beautiful and refined" to "forms without an 'i' are more stylish and manly".

Another episode with almost comical undertones was the 1936 debate on whether the first part of a compound word should also be conjugated, which would give us such forms as happamankerman, instead of hapankerman, currently in use. Kolehmainen found 35 different arguments for and against the various usages in the minutes of the meeting.

Opposing views

Perhaps the bitterest linguistic squabble took place at the end of the 1940s when the renowned linguist E.A. Saarimaa published his language guidebook recommending the use of a genitive form as the first part of a compound word, for example hermonlepo instead of hermolepo, despite the nominative case having already become established as the standard.

Saarimaa's old sparring partner, Professor Lauri Kettunen waded in to attack the most glaring proposals for reforming the Finnish usage. A couple of years later, he published his own language book refuting a whole bunch of arguments and views expressed by Saarimaa.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country followed the melee, astounded: whose opinions could be trusted anymore? Newspaper offices were inundated with letters to the editor, and Helsingin Sanomat talked about the whole culture being in danger.

"If the written Finnish language is so difficult that only a very few people who have devoted their lives to the study of correct language usage can produce flawless text it cannot serve as a foundation for our culture," argued an editorial published in Helsingin Sanomat on 16 August 1949.

More liberal views also gained ground among linguists and language authorities. Everybody agreed that a new and emerging language needed guidance and monitoring, but there was no consensus on how stringent the guidelines should be.

With time, the prescriptive view of correct and incorrect language usage has taken a backseat. In recent years, language professionals have focussed on the tone and register of the language that is acceptable in different situations. Larger changes to the existing norms have been few and far between.

Taru Kolehmainen says this is partly because the Finnish language is pretty much a finished product.

"It is difficult to think of a language issue where a total overhaul would be needed, even though some tweaking will be required here and there."

Ville Eloranta – HS

Niina Woolley – HT

© HELSINGIN SANOMAT

Image: Klaus Welp



