By
Evar Saar
Linguistically,
the Võro language is the central part of the South Estonian
language. It has often been called the Ugandi language because
the language was spread over the territory of old county of
Ugandi up to 1220s (and further). South Estonian was one of seven
Balto-Finnic ancient dialects (Western Finnic, North Estonian,
South Estonian, Livonian, Votian/Votic, Old Karelian, Old Vepsian)
and is for comparative linguistics one of ten contemporary Balto-Finnic
languages. Those ten include Finnish, Estonian, South Estonian,
Livonian, Votian/Votic, Izhorian, White Sea Karelian (North
Karelian), Olonets Karelian Ludian, and Vepsian. According to
sociolinguistic criteria there are even more Balto-Finnic
languages (e.g. Tornedalian Finnish, Kven), but the distinction
of those ten is reasonable in terms of lingua-historical
developments.
The Võro
language has all the typical characteristics of South Estonian
and all the features distinguishing it from other Balto-Finnic
languages. The same may be said about the Seto language, which
has been traditionally looked at as a part of Võro dialect. The
situation of the Tartu and Mulgi (language) area on the border of
North Estonian has been determined by the greater proximity of
these variants to North Estonian. Nevertheless, the South
Estonian language historically serves as a basis for both the
Tartu and Mulgi dialects.
If two hundred
years ago the South Estonian language was represented in its
written form by the Tartu dialect and its popular name was the
Tartu language (‘tarto kiil’), then today the gravity of
action for their own language has carried to Võromaa.
Metaphorically, in the 11th hour the Võro people have come to
see that the local language/dialect has value and the undergoing
language shift should somehow be reversed. Contemporary South
Estonian is for its users primarily an emotionally close language
of the home and local landscape, which cannot be forced upon
other South Estonians. In general, it makes sense to talk
separately about the Mulgi language, the Tartu language, the
Võro language and the Seto language, to determine the language
of the text with one of those four words, even the difference
between two neighboring languages/codes may be insignificant. The
need to use/speak, develop and teach one’s native place tongue
has to originate from within the in-group and to the emancipation
of the Mulgi and Tartu languages should not set any obstacles.
The unique features of the Võro
language
What are those
linguistic traits, which make the variety spoken in historic
Võromaa a separate language, no matter how it is considered by
language policy? We list below the differences that have been
present in the entire old area of South Estonian and those which
do not exist in North Estonian dialects. Some features
characteristic to the Võro language are unique even in the whole
Balto-Finnic language area.
On the primary
level of the language – the phonetic (sound) level – the
Võro language has sounds, which do not exist in North Estonian:
the affricate, which may be either a strong (e.g. tsiga, leibä
kütsäq) or weak stop (e.g. köüds, tä küdsä), the glottal
stop, in the Võro standard q, like in the word of mõtõq, and
the raising õ-sound, marked as y in the Võro standard, like in
the word sys ‘then’.
In South
Estonian, there have been sound changes that locate according to
the sequence of phonetic laws to the earliest period and by which
South Estonian differs from all other Balto-Finnic languages: *koktu
> kõtt: kõtu, cf. Estonian kõht: kõhu and Finnish kohtu.
The similar is ‘foam’ vatt (Nom), ‘the second’ (Gen)
kattõ and ‘the second’ (Part) katõ (). Another ancient
change is ‘one’ üts (Nom): üte (Gen) against the rest of
Balto Finnic üks (Nom): ühe (Gen). Only South Estonian and
Livonian have instead of a dipthong ei-> ai: hain (‘grass’),
saisma (‘to stand’). On the basis of those and other old
changes, the researchers of historical phonetics have constructed
genealogical trees, where a distant ancestor of South Estonian
splits from the rest of Balto-Finnic varieties at least two
thousand years ago.
There are
numerous newer regular sound changes in both North and South
Estonian, whereas in the core of South Estonian, in the Võro
language, many changes of analogy, which have occurred in North
Estonian, did not happen. The i-plural and i-past and the
preservation of common Balto-Finnic word-stock create the
impression that the Võro language is closer to Finnish than
North Estonian. Every sentence in Võro has words, which reveal
the language’s vocal harmony – a phenomenon lost in North
Estonian. Actually, the similarity of Võro and Finnish
linguistic phenomena is determined by the relative conservatism
of those languages, compared to North Estonian, which has changed
faster. However, the vocal harmony of Võro differs from Finnish:
ö does not occur in successive syllables (nägo ‘face’,
käro ‘barrow’), the front vowel e determines successive ones
(kellä Gen ‘clock’, segämä ‘to mix’, ‘to disturb’)
and the successive vowels of the word with a back vowel have
turned õ-like (panõ ‘put’), hõbõhõnõ ’silver’).
If one moves to
the next level of the language, to morphology, then the use of
verbs in the Võro language is especially unique.
In the old South
Estonian, verbs are divided into two major conjugation classes,
the first, where the Present of Third Person Singular is without
ending: saa (‘is getting’), süü (‘is eating’), tege (‘is
doing’), tulõ (‘is coming’) – as is common in Balto-Finnic
languages – and the second there is an exceptional ending of s:
jutustas (‘is telling’), virisäs (‘is crumbling’). The
same continues also in Third Person Plural: jutustasõq,
virisäseq. The infinitive of all verbs with three or more
syllables ends in s, but this also includes jääs (‘is staying’),
eläs (‘is living’), kasus (‘is growing’), istus (‘is
sitting’) and other verbs with two syllables. Different verbs
came to bear the ending s in the Present for different reasons,
but the beginning of this phenomenon is probably hidden in the
idea that the suffix *ksen, similar to the third person personal
pronoun of *sen, was added to verbs, which signified the subject-centered
action (i.e. that kind of action, where the subject is entirely
invloved, takes place with him/her or which is important to him/her).
The South Estonian personal ending s has been compared to and
identified with the initial category of mediality existing in
many world languages (incl. Latin). The reflexive facet of this
category is undertandable for today’s Võro-speaker: murd ‘((s)he
is) breaking smth’, murrus ’it is breaking’, küdsä ’((s)he
is) baking’, küdsäs ’(the cake) is baking’. In a few
cases, there are parallel options – with s and without an
ending (e.g. makas and maka, opis and opp) – however there is
no special meaning or speakers have lost their ability to
perceive it. Anyway, it concerns a rather old, complex phenomenon,
which in the circle of cognate languages can be studied only
through South Estonian.
The South
Estonian verb paradigm resembles Finnish in its archaity, but
there are large, principal differences. The conjugating negation
verb is absent in Võro (cf. Finnish en, et, ei), but there is
the Present negation word ei and Past negation word es. If in
Northern Balto-Finnic languages and even in the Saami language
the difference between negation in the Present and in Imperfect
is the contrast between the verbal stem without ending and past
participle (Estonian: ei tee: ei teinud), then in Võro the verb
stem remains the same in both forms: ei tiiq: es tiiq. Thus, a
typical error of someone learning Voru is ma es *tennü
impressing instead negation in conditional mood.
The different
case endings from other Balto-Finnic languages are the most
striking (examples) in the morphology of nominals. Especially
interesting and various is the morphology of the Illative. The
ending –he of Illative, which exists only in Võro and Seto,
and –de, which is common to the Võro and the Tartu language,
correspond to the Estonian ending of –sse. The ending –le of
Allative is a local innovation marking the Illative. Thus, the
observation, that people en route from Võro to Tartu will buy
their bus tickets to Põlvahe, Põlvalõ and Põlvadõ,
corresponding to their point of origin, holds true. The Inessive
ending in Võro is either -h or -n. The ancient case ending of *-sna
has turned into -ssa or -s in other Balto-Finnic languages, only
in South Estonian and in a few (single) Finnish dialects has it
first changed to *-hna and then to -hn, -h or –n exceptional to
South Estonian: mõtsahn ~ mõtsah ~ mõtsan.
The other unique
case endings are the –s, sporadically –st, of Translative,
like in the expression võtt´ naasõs ~ võtt´ naasõst ‘took
a wife (married), and the endings with a glottal stop in the
Terminative, Abessive, and Comitative, like huunõniq, huunõldaq,
huunõgaq ‘building’. In the Võro language, the nominative
plural is not marked with a –d, but instead a glottal stop –
kala : kalaq, illos : ilosaq. In the genitive plural and the
cases, which have been made up by this model, (in the Võro
language) de-chracteristic is used to add to the independent
plural stem (often made up by i-characteristic), but not to the
stem in the singular like in North Estonian: naisi, kallo,
ilosidõ.
The Võro
language differs a lot from the north Estonian in its vocabulary.
One encounters suprising differences in the most basic vocabulary.
Newer cultural vocabulary is common and when “loans” are
taken from the common Estonian language significant limitations
do not occur in spoken language. In a comparison of the three,
Võro, North Estonian and Finnish, it becomes clear that only a
part of the vocabulary is common in Võro and Finnish, e.g.
kooldaq (‘to die’), sysar (‘sister’), lämmi (‘warm’),
kõiv (‘birch’). There are a similar number of South Estonian
words, which differ completely from both North Estonian and
Finnish, e.g. mõskma (‘to wash’), kaema (‘to watch’),
kesv (‘barley’), hahk (‘grey’). There is no exact
parallel to the distribution of meaning of demonstrative
pronomens seo, taa and tuu in any of other Balto Finnic languages.
It is not
possible to demonstrate big differences between Võro and North
Estonian on the syntax level. The differences are concentrated on
the level of government: vanaimä murõhtas vas´kat – *vanaema
muretseb vasikat ‘the grandmother is worrying because of the
calf’, käve seeneh ja mar´ah – *käisin seenes ja marjas
‘I went to pick mushrooms and berries, ma pakõ sinno – *ma
põgenen sind ‘I am running away from you’. One of the most
well known differences is that the negation word comes after the
verb in Võro: olõ eiq ‘do not, ütle es ‘did not say’.
The
Võro language area
The South
Estonian language area, with few exceptions, is clearly defined:
the border of the North and South Estonian traditional dialects
proceeds from Mõisaküla to the closest surroundings of Viljandi,
from there to the northern point of Võrtsjärv and further on to
the north of Tartu to the mouth of Emajõgi. This was the
situation in the beginning of 20th century. Today South Estonian
has receeded the northern part of its historic territory, so that
Tartu and Mulgi speakers in this area do not form a speech
community in the usual sense.
Historically,
the Võro dialect area of South Estonian was limited using a
rather simple method: it was agreed to include in the Võro
dialect all the subdialects which were spoken in historical
Võromaa, Petserimaa and linguistic enclaves, and in the Tartu
dialect all South Estonian dialects spoken in historical Tartumaa
and Luke parish of Valgamaa. When dialectology has reached to its
generalizations, it became clear that the distinction based on
previous work and probably on the self-identification of South
Estonians in the beginning of 20th century has justified itself
well: a rather large part of isoglosses in the South Estonian
language have concentrated next to the border of Võromaa and
Tartumaa. At the same time, however, there are few differences,
for example, between the Räpina subdialect (Võro) and Võnnu
subdialect (Tartu), thus the border of old Võromaa has been not
a very important language border. The administrative borders that
have changed several times throughout modern history have
influenced language attitudes and the language itself. For
example, the South Estonian language environment has been
preserved everywhere in Põlvamaa, be it historical Võromaa or
Tartumaa.
Instead of
drawing distinct borders, it should be concluded that the Võro
language is, by large, spoken in an area the same size as
historical Võromaa, whereas some areas of Tartumaa have been
turned into the Võro-speaking and some areas in Võromaa (towns
and bigger settlements) have changed to mostly Estonian-speaking.
Known linguistic enclaves in Latvia and Pskov area have
disappeared, but Võro-Latvian bilinguals can be found to some
extent close to the Estonian-Latvian border in Korneti, Hopa and
Alūksne. There are a number of Võro-speakers in the bigger
Estonian cities of Tallinn and Tartu. The most ancient Võro
speech can be found in Siberia in the villages of immigrant Võro
people.
The eastern
border of the Võro language parallels the border of the old
western and Eastern Church, the border of Livonia and Pskov
guberniya. The South Estonians originating from the eastern side
are known as the Seto people and they name their own language
definitely as the Seto, not the Võro language.
Due to the
clearly distinct identity of Võro and Seto people, the members
of those ethnic groups notice the minutest differences in
neighbors’ speech. This trend applies especially to the Võro
people. Although the main structure of eastern dialect of the
Võro language and the Seto language spoken in the first half of
20th century has been similar, one can observe a now well-established
renewal of the language on the basis of identity: the Setos
preserve and stress linguistic units perceived as Seto-like, the
Võro people from eastern part ignore those and adjust their
language to western Võro speech (e.g. the ending of Elative case
-n instead of earlier –h, the spread of strong grade in the
types of kerik (Nom) : kerigu (Gen.) and kants (Nom) : kands (En)).
According to the popular view, it is possible to perceive a
difference between the Võro and Seto languages on the basis of
pronunciation, but that statement may hold true only in some
phrases when the basis of articulation has shifted. The speech of
the Võro people on old records has a more recognizable rearward
articulation than middle-aged Setos today – in the environment
of Estonian standard language, the basis of articulation is
necessarily shifting towards “Estonian average”.
Võro
speakers
Among today’s
Balto-Finnic languages, the Võro language has a medium number of
speakers: according to different estimations, between 50,000 to
70, 000 people speak the language. The figure 70,000 is
calculated on the basis of a South-eastern Estonian inquiry
conducted by the Võro Institute (1998) and the share of
respondents, who claimed using the Võro language either on
everyday basis or in some established situations. The share of
people living near the old borders of Võromaa has been added to
an estimated number of Võro-speakers in bigger Estonian towns.
In some way or other, the number of 70,000 is the most optimistic
estimation of Võro-speakers. Having in mind that people tend to
overestimate their language command, the realistic number of
Võro-speakers in 1998 might have been 50,000.
In spite of this
rather big number of speakers, the Võro language is also an
endangered language because almost all Võro-people are
bilinguals and the bulk of them try to speak Estonian to their
children. This means a decline in the number of speakers of Võro
as a mother tongue with every leaving generation by a factor of
ten.
The learning of
a language in this situation, where the will of transmission of
the language is weak, but the language is a majority language for
older generations, differs in some respects from other situations.
Usually parents speak Estonian when communicating with children,
but use the Võro language between adults; in this situation, a
child develops early a passive command of Võro. In school, the
child does not use Voru in communicating with peers, but when
starting her/his working career, one frequently finds her/himself
in a Võro-speaking environment. In a situation like this, s/he
often turns her/his passive knowledge into an active one, with
skills that gradually gain steadiness with years. In many work
environments, the use of Võro is a rule not an exception. This
phenomenon has differently influenced the acquirement of the
language by gender: teenage boys are more interested in the world
of adult men than the school and life expectations, accordingly
the “adult men’s code” has a considerable prestige among
boys. For girls the after school perspective has been
traditionally either continuation of education or creating a
family, and in both alternatives do not have considerable place
for the Võro language. In such families, Estonian becomes the
means of communication and children’s possibilities to hear the
Võro language will become even more occasional.
The current
information society excalerates the language shift of the Võro
people, because mass media occupies with Estonian and English
even this part of the day, which earlier remained untouched from
societal pressure. On the other hand, the ability of the Võro
people to notice and value their own language has grown thanks to
the information society. Toady there are families who have
consciously chosen the Võro language as their home language,
avoiding the road of being monolingual Estonian-speakers. Thanks
to the fact that using contemporary Võro language does not
create any barrier of understanding in the Estonian society, it
can be used as an expression and distinguishing mark of local
uniqueness. In continuation of contemporary developments, the
Võro language may become a Kulturdialekt, which is used on the
stage (theatre), and literature, anniversary speeches and
advertisements, with the bulk of its users consisting of those
who consider common Estonian as their mother tongue.
The conscious
learning of the Võro language at an adult age will become a
significant possibility to acquire it and interactive media will
become the significant arena of communication. The natural
transmission of the Võro language from parents to children
occurs only in those families who have consciously made that
choice. The growth of prestige in the public use of the language
should enforce that choice in any case.
The status and
domains of the Võro language
The Võro
language does not have any official status at the moment. The
Võro people, who are, as a rule, Võro-Estonian bilinguals, do
not consider themselves a minority, but primarily as ethnic
Estonians, belonging to the majority. At the local level, they
consider themselves the Võro people and recognise the Võro
language as the main bearer of the Võro identity. However, a
feeling of belonging to a linguistic minority does not emerge on
this basis as well today – the Võro language is used in its
living environment and because of its proximity to Estonian the
consistent use of it or – on the contrary – its
incomprehension does not create any communication problems.
Thus, the claim
for an official status of minority language is not congruent with
the identification of this variety. The Võro language has had
the socio-cultutural (not legal) status of dialect for a long
time and the Võro people together with other South Estonians
have had a significant role in building the Estonian state, in
its cultural, economic and social development. For the better
recognition of today’s, developing Võro language, which has
gained sympathizers across Estonia, it is reasonable to give up
the old myth of dialect, saturated with contradictions and to
make use of the notion of a regional language. Many languages,
which have their own history as literary languages, have users
who are characterized by bilingualism and multiple identities,
and are similar to state languages are included among regional
languages in Europe (e.g. Kashubian in Poland and Low German in
Germany). In Estonian society, the discussion of it has yet to
be robust, therefore, giving politicians the chance to ignore it.
Missing legal
protection/law acts have not set obstacles in the establishment
of R&D activities on the state level. Instead of primary
education in South Estonian (the Tartu language), which stopped
in 1890s, the formal education is now conducted in Estonian.
However the school is not any more the organization, which is
cultivating inflexible switching into North Estonian-like, but
the Võro language in the status of dialect has its on position
here. Under the guidance of enthusiasts-teachers there are
optional and hobby classes of the Võro language, it is used in
the instruction of local cultural history in 26 schools of old
Võromaa.
It is possible
to study the Võro language in the University of Tartu for two
semesters; there have been courses for adult learners in Võro
Institute, too.
The state
supports the publication of the Võro-language newspaper, “Uma
Leht (‘Our own paper’), which, according to media research
done by Saar Poll, is read by over 30,000 people. There are radio
and TV programs in Võro on a project basis, which targets not
only local Voru speakers but other Estonians and Võro people
living outside Võromaa. There are computer programs and games
on the internet, and it is common to find internet comments made
using the Võro language.
On average, the
five books of fiction (belles lettres) are published annually.
Remarkable is the role of young authors in the newer production
of the Võro literature and the phenomenon that the Võro people
have always played an important part in shaping Estonian
literature, writing in Estonian in the beginning of 20th century,
but lately more and more in Võro.
The publishing
of the Võro-Estonian dictionary in 2002 has been the most
important event in the corpus planning of the Võro language.
There is ongoing work on compiling the Estonian-Võro dictionary,
which role in enforcing the written usage of the language could
be times bigger. The entire/thorough descriptive grammar is not
yet published.
The important
role of South Estonian in the Lutheran church, which was one of
the last protectors and users of the Tartu language, has not been
restored/re-established. The potential of the Võro language in
geriatrics has also yet to be recognized – the communication
with the seniors in hospitals and elderly homes in their mother
tongue may definitely improve their life quality. At the same
time, the pop culture in Võro in the form of music and poetry is
successful and has popularity across Estonia. Both the Võro and
Seto people have the equal role in the stererotypes which play
with uniqueness and anciency and in the domain of self-myths the
whole Estonian anti-globalising wing gets support from the Võro
language
