Chapter Outline American Culture in the 1970s B. C. D

35 www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol25http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol25/phrases.pdf

COMPILATION OF THE DATABASE OFESTONIAN PHRASES

Katre Õim, Asta Õim, Anne Hussar, Anneli Baran

The earliest entries of the kõnekäänud ‘(proverbial) phrase’ filesin the Estonian Folklore Archives presumably originate in the 17thand 18th century; most of the phrases have been collected in thelate 19th and 20th century. The material has been copied from theEstonian Folklore Archives as well as the manuscript cataloguesof the Estonian Cultural History Archives, the dialectal archivesof the Estonian Language Institute and the Estonian LanguageSociety, and also from various printed publications. In 1994 theestimated number of archival index cards was ca 200,000 (Baran1999: 2; Õim 1997: 3), whereas presently the number remains some-where below 150,000, and the total number of expressions is about160,000.

The accumulation of the material over a long period, the unevenquality of entries, the fact that proverbial expressions are sub-ject to improvisation, etc. create various problems at workingwith the files. The files include several texts of dubious authen-ticity. Similarly to the files of proverbs and riddles, the phraseentries often include duplicates from printed sources and earliermanuscripts, revisions made by collectors and even downrightfabrications. A more important problem, however, is the issue ofcategorising figures of speech among proverbial phrases, i.e. prob-lems related to distinguishing between variable and invariablecompounds (cf. aher naine ‘barren woman’ – variable metaphoriccompound, kadunud poeg ‘the lost son’ – proverbial phrase),1 butalso determining the obligatory/invariable and facultative/vari-able constituents of the phrase. The categorisation of phrases,therefore, must be based on the revision and systematisation ofarchival material. An important tool for this work will be theconstructed database of phrases, which main aim and also ad-vantage will be fast search options and browsing in the databasematerial.

diana

Text Box

doi:10.7592/FEJF2003.25.phrases

36www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol25

Õim & Õim & Hussar & Baran Folklore 25

1. ESTONIAN KÕNEKÄÄND ’PHRASE’

1.1. Kõnekäänd as a word, phrase, sentence

(Proverbial) phrase is very heterogeneous in that it encompassesphraseology in the strictest sense (in borderline cases compoundverbs, compound words, etc.) but also longer figurative expressions(dialogues consisting of several sentences, etc.). Some of these arerelated to the structure and lexica of language, i.e. they are purelylinguistic invariable compounds, some exist as speech-bound folk-loric texts, i.e. they are figures of speech. Hence the problems withfinding a uniform criterion, both linguistically and theoretically-methodologically, not to mention the theories of trope structure, inthe study of sayings.

For a satisfactory result in categorising the object of research, it isimportant to know it and to be able to determine it. The cognitivevalue of any categorisation depends on the significance of informa-tion about the object and on how the categorisation characteristicsdescribe it. Which characteristics should the classification be basedon? Paremiologists, with a tongue in cheek, say that a phrase issomething that is neither a proverb nor a riddle. In other words,kõnekäänd is a figure of speech that does not generalise the object(like proverb), nor is it an allegorical hidden description (like rid-dle). Obviously, this definition is not sufficient to explain the term(more on this issue, see: Krikmann 1997: 52–74, 151–171). The dis-tinction between sayings and other figurative means of expression,say, linguistic metaphors, is the classification of figures of speechon the basis of certain characteristics.

Language, a mechanism transforming thought into text, can func-tion only through the means of certain semantic units. In the text,each linguistic unit can be used only in a certain semantic context,syntactic position and in certain morphological forms. In its com-municative function primary significance is attached to the sen-tence, not any smaller linguistic units. When consisting of severalsentences, a saying functions as a syntactical constructor of a sen-tence: as a phrase, a noun phrase (soss-sepp ‘bungler’, kahe perekoer ‘a dog of two families’, ‘a hypocrite’, kadunud poeg ‘the lostson’), a verb phrase (kintsu kaapima ‘to bow and scrape’, kannab

37 www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol25

Compilatsion of the Database of Estonian Phrases

keelt ‘blows whistle’, pistis punuma ‘scampered away’) or a com-pound phrase (nael sülti ‘like a pound of jelly’ – ‘an effeminate (man)’,‘a sissy’, viies vesi taari peal ‘the fifth water on kvass’ – ‘a verydistant relative’), etc. Kõnekäänd as a phrase has an exocentricstructure, i.e. it is not equivalent with the basis nor the extensionof the phrase; the syntactic and the semantic function is carried bythe entire phrase. The components of the phrase cannot be omittedfrom the sentence (from the (proverbial) phrase) without a changein the contents and/or syntactic structure of the sentence (Fromthe (proverbial) phrase) (cf. Ta on kahe pere koer ‘He is “a dog of twofamilies”’ (i.e. a hypocrite). *Ta on koer *‘He is a dog’ *Ta on kahepere *‘He is of two families’), while substitution is possible (cf. Ta onkahe pere koer ‘He is a dog of two families’, Ta on mitme pere koer‘He is a dog of several families’, Ta on kahe talu koer ‘He is a dog oftwo farms’, Ta on mitme talu koer ‘He is a dog of several farms’).

Due to the versatility of phrase forms this definition (kõnekäänd asa phrase) can be applied only to the core of the genre. The periph-eral part of sayings, i.e. various speech formulae, wishes, greet-ings, comments of situations, etc. are incomplete, elliptical and com-plete sentences or units consisting of several sentences. Proverbialphrase as a typological category, therefore, consists of units of dif-ferent levels: on the one hand phrases that share characteristicswith words, and on the other hand sentences with characteristics ofa text. Or, if we use the terminology of Arvo Krikmann: kõnekäändis sometimes a figurative “building material”, sometimes a “work”(Krikmann 1997: 53). But as is often the case with other classifica-tions, the taxonomy of sayings leaves room for ambiguities. Theproblem does not necessarily lie in the inadequacy of categorisationcriteria. If we do not regard language as a static system but ratheras the result of a historical process and as the starting position offurther progress, we will once again realise that ambiguity in lan-guage is quite natural.

It is realistic to view any classes of language units, incl. sayings, asinfinite classes. They contain elements that belong undoubtedly tothe same class as well as those that rather belong to another. Thisis often the case with the border between the categories of sayingsand proverbs, and between sayings and linguistic metaphors. Some-times it is fairly difficult to decide whether it is a generalisation, a



regularity, a formulation of a norm (i.e. proverb) or a situation, afigurative characterisation of an irregularity (i.e. proverbial phrase).

Sayings, particularly the units lesser than the sentence are proneto change and transformation. At times they assume different formsin language and, similarly to word, they are easily derived, bor-rowed, assimilated, overused, forgotten and rediscovered, i.e. theyfunction as language units rather than folkloric texts. Ordinarily,this is not the case with proverbs and riddles.

1.2. Kõnekäänd as the characterisation of an irregularity

On the content level we should look for the characteristics of phraseas a class in the sentence. In the semantic aspect a sentence desig-nates a situation. The constructor of situation type sentences iscalled semantic predicate, the participants in the situation – actants(Erelt & Kasik & Metslang et al. 1993: 11 ff). These semantic func-tions can also be attributed to sayings, in case we regard it as theconstructor of a sentence, governing the characterisation of a givensituation as an irregularity. This is, in fact, the most general se-mantic characteristic of phrases. This characteristic, unfortunately,is far too general for defining the term, so we have to turn ourattention to pragmatics. In the pragmatic sense a sentence is amessage, something is known about something else. The part of asentence, which communicative function is to be the starting pointof the sentence is called theme, the rest of the sentence is calledrheme. A saying with its communicative function to inform of thequalitative and quantitative characteristics, special and temporalfeatures, modality, degree, locality, cause, etc. is clearly rhematic.In nominative function a phrase which names the object based onits characteristics, is generally expressive and conveys evaluation.

Due to the exocentric structure of a phrase, its meaning is formedas a result of the cooperation of syntactic structure, semantic func-tions and semantic transformation. In the Estonian language, forinstance, the word combination kärnane lammas ‘scabby sheep’ doesnot stand for an ordinary person, but for someone who’s “morallycorrupt”. Its specific meaning “unusual in the physical sense, un-like others”, i.e. scabby, mangy, has been transformed abstract; thesemantic transformation is governed by an attribute. The struc-



tural component ‘lammas’ (sheep) is not associated with a personas an ordinary prototype (“a bashful animal”), but materialises thestereotype “man is animal” and the meaning is determined by thesemantically transformed attribute of the content word. This couldalso be explained from the grammatical perspective, since the func-tion of the attributive complement component of the constructionis the in-depth explanation of the meaning.

If a saying follows a sentence structure, then its characteristicsshould be searched from the aspect of communicative-modal mean-ing. The pragmatic meaning of complete, incomplete and ellipticalsentences is formulated in grammar. The communicative-modalmeanings of a sentence are statement, question, order, wish andexclamation. These are expressed with sentences of statement (Ahilagunes ära ‘The stove is broken.’), interrogative sentences (Kastunned tukivingu? ‘Can you smell the smoke?’), imperative sen-tences (Sõida seenele! ‘Go to hell!’), exclamatory sentences (Pühajumal!’Oh, god!’, Oh sa poiss!’Oh, boy!’) and sentences expressingwish (Et see sulle kurku kinni jääks! ‘That you would choke on it!’).Phrasal sentences (kõnekäänulised laused) are typical in that theyoften perform the secondary rather than the primary communica-tive-modal function of the sentence. E.g. the question in Kas saklaassepa poeg oled? ‘Are you the son of a glazier?’ covers severalcommunicative-modal stages in the Estonian language: a question;an order of dissapproval, so that the person would move out of theway; a statement that somebody’s blocking the light or view. Phrasalquestions are usually not intended to elicit a reply, they are rhe-torical questions. Imperative statements may express neutral, ap-proving, pejorative or slightly disapproving attitude (Lase käia!’ Goon!’, Mine metsa! ‘Go to hell!’, Olgu olla! ‘Make it sure!’). A jussivecommand (Sadagu või pussnuge! ‘Even if it rains cats and dogs!’)expresses an obligatory statement that in spite of all, you’ll have togo. The main purpose of the wishful sentence is to indicate that thespeaker finds the performing of the event necessary and positive,but does not seek to actually perform it. The wish expresses theattitude towards the event, which according to the speaker may butdoes not necessarily have to happen (Erelt & Kasik & Metslang etal. 1993: 178). Phrasal sentences expressing wish are complete im-perative sentences (Olgu muld sulle kerge! ‘May you rest in peace!’),incomplete sentences without a verb (Jõudu tööle! ‘Good luck!’ Jätku



leiba ~ leivale! ‘May your bread last’ – ‘Bon appetit!’), or ellipticalimperative sentences (Pipart sulle keele peale! ‘Pepper on you tongue!’i.e. ‘Touch wood!’ ‘Knock on wood!’). Negative attitude is often for-mulated as an unreal wish (Et vihmavari su kõhus lahti läheks!‘That an umbrella would open in your stomach!’). Exclamatory sen-tences indicate that the speaker is surprised and taken aback. Un-like the wish, the meaning of exclamation does not contain theevaluation of necessity or reality, but expresses an emotive evalua-tion on something that has already been given the evaluation ofreality (Erelt & Kasik & Metslang et al. 1993: 179). The constitu-ents of an exclamatory phrase have become desemanticised (Põrgupäralt! ‘For the hell with it!’, ‘What the hell?’ Sa sinine sitikas! ‘Youblue bug!’, ‘You bugger!’ Välk ja pauk!, ‘Bang and thunder!’, ‘Con-found it!’, Sa heldene aeg! ‘Oh, dear!’).

The meaning of phrasal sentences, therefore, depends largely onthe secondary communicative-modal functions of a given sentence.One ways to find a saying of a certain meaning in a corpus of phrasesis to designate phrasal sentences by communicative purposes, suchas statement and evaluation. Although phrases include all five com-municative sentence types, their communicative purpose is to makea statement or express attitude towards something, not to inquireor order.

Presently, however, phrases cannot be searched by their semanticmeaning. During the typological process we have attempted to as-semble expressions with closer semantic meaning, though presentlythe search by topics is possible only through a cross-type referencesystem (Aabramit näinud ‘drunk’ – see Aabramiga juttu ajanud‘drunk’). The entire files, however, does not include this informa-tion. Single words or word combinations can be found only if theyare entered as headwords.

2. ORGANISATION OF THE FILES

Before starting working at any larger body of material, the mate-rial has to be first systematised. This is also the case in turning anyextensive files into a database. The first step is to define the mate-rial, then form a structure for the database, and so on.



In the 1930s Rudolf Põldmäe initiated the compiling of the thematicfiles of the Estonian phrases, which was supposed to be analogousto the thematic files of the Estonian jokes. Unfortunately the projectcame to a halt during the world war. Even though the typologicalwork at the files of Estonian phrases was not restarted before 1994,the files were still quite actively used. The files were used for dif-ferent purposes by scholars and other people interested, althoughthe phrases were distinguished only by places of origin and search-ing within the material by lexical, semantic or other features wasextremely laborious. In the 1950s and 1960s the Estonian phraseswere studied mainly by Ingrid Sarv, who has published several arti-cles and maintained a doctoral thesis “On the Subcategories andFunctions of Estonian Phrases” (1964). Feliks Vakk, a scholar ofphraseology, and others have also made several references to thefiles in their research.

2.1. Authentication of phrases

The Estonian phrases included in the files are, naturally, not ofpurely Estonian origin. International phrases can be found in thetraditional as well as non-traditional material from publishedsources, such as utterances of literary origin, biblical expressions,translations. Also, we should keep in mind that all this materialoriginates in the same area of spread and usage – Estonian dialects,the oral or the written Estonian language.

Distinguishing authentic phrases from inauthentic ones has beenfacilitated by our previous experience in determining the authen-ticity of proverbs and riddles and by the additional files compiled inthe process. What we mean by the authentication process is deter-mining the ethnic authenticity of phrases as well as revising andsupplementing the original data of entries (collector, parish, year ofcollection, etc.).

Unlike working with riddles and proverbs, the work with phrases ismostly based on the electronic database. The compilation stories ofthe academic publications of proverbs, riddles and phrases form achronological line, in a sense, stretching from paper and pencil tothe electronic means. Parallelly to the typological work of proverbsand riddles, archival data was added to the entries and the ethnic



authenticity of the material was determined (this was the most time-consuming part of the preparatory stage of the publication).EstonianProverbs (“Eesti vanasõnad”) was based on a manuscript draft and atypewritten copy, which were twice revised during the printing proc-ess. The organisation of the riddle files was extremely thoroughand its compilers may pride themselves on having touched nearlyall the correspondence materials that include riddles. (In fact, sac-rificing the eyesight of the compilers, and in order to protect thecatalogues of Eisen and Hurt, microfilms were used.) Only after thefiles appeared to be organised the material was entered into thecomputer. The printed publication of the Estonian riddles Eestimõistatused, was based on the same electronic database.

The starting point of the database of Estonian phrases is principallydifferent. After the initial typological work on the files, it was de-cided to enter the information included to the database and onlythen determine the authenticity of the phrases and revising andsupplementing the original data, employing the electronic meansand solutions. Hopefully, it will speed up the entire work processand will help to avoid smaller errors. The search engine enableswidely different searches: the material of a collector or a corre-spondence, for example, can be easily traced in the entire corpus,and, if necessary, information on the collector; also, the year ofcollecting or geographical origin can be revised or specified. Analo-gous check of possible errors was also conducted on the database ofriddles (Hussar & Krikmann & Saukas & Voolaid 2001: 11).

2.2. Insufficient collecting data

People organising and supervising the collection of folklore, fromJakob Hurt to the present researchers at the Estonian FolkloreArchives, have always underlined the importance of writing downmerely the oral tradition, and not include any embellishments,improvements or added information from other sources by the col-lector (see e.g. Krikmann 2001: 29 ff).

The original card files, which were used for working with all thesethree folklore genres, have been compiled as a result of the workby numerous copyists during a long period of time, much like theFolklore Archives itself. Requirements for copying have changed in



times, and that explains the uneven quality and missing data ofcopied cards. Sometimes, information on original sources is alto-gether missing. The material has arrived at the archives in differ-ent ways: the archival sources include written drafts, copied pas-sages from books for personal use, and other sources that are clearlynot intended for preservation. Material has been found even fromsingle sheets with no information of its origin whatsoever. Regard-less of all our efforts a part of this material remains unidentified:the collector will be anonymous, the time and place of collectionunknown. Some of the inaccuracies in the riddle files could be cor-rected as a result of finding out the names of actual collectors. Somefiles, for instance, include expressions collected by school pupils,whereas the name that appears on the card is that of their teacher,who had sent the material to the archives. The same applies tomaterial collected on expeditions. In some cases the names of ac-tual collectors are revealed only in the foreword or preface of thesent material, where the sender has mentioned his/her assistants.After the original collectors have been determined, the mistakeshave been corrected.

As to the data about collection place, we can also rely on previouswork. If it has been decided, for example, that the proverb and rid-dle material sent by J. Sandra originates most likely in Vastseliinaor Setu, and the material by E. Poom on the border of Rapla andMärjamaa parish, then further checking is unnecessary. The originof folkloric material is usually determined to the accuracy of par-ish. The constant reforming of administrative units has moved theborders of parishes, and in cases where a village is mentioned asthe place of collection, it is quite difficult to determine which parishdid it actually belong to. In some files it cannot be traced from theregistered information: S. Karu (RKM II 188, 37), for example, com-ments the sent material as “heard from the Virumaa, Tartu andLäänemaa County”. It is inevitable that some material, especiallythe earlier recordings, lack precise data on the time of collection. Itwould definitely be more informative for a database user if materialwithout precise dating was divided analogously to the database ofriddles: period 1. Before 1876; period 2. 1877–1917; period 3. 1918–1940; and period 4. 1941 and later. Making this amendment elec-tronically would also not be too time-consuming.



2.3. Duplicates

One of the main objectives of the authentication process is to singleout fabrications and copies that duplicate a manuscript or a printedsource. The correspondence sent to the archives often include bothproverbs and phrases: if this is the case then the characteristic dataand authenticity of the given material has already been determinedin the course of the systematisation of proverbs. This also savesfrom thumbing through older original files. Moreover, in the 1970s–1980s the material sent by known “fabricators” (August Krikmann,J. Sõggel, H. Leoke) was deleted from the files. Here are someexamples of “the fabricated phrases” by J. Sõggel: vanatüdruk kõmabnagu õõnes mesipuu ‘The old maid rattles like a hollow beehive’;kerge nagu kelk lume peal ‘light as a sledge on the snow’; kisendabnagu karupoeg ‘yells like a bear cub’; pea kõigub nagu viie vedrupeal ‘head rocks as if on five springs’. Fortunately, there are consid-erably less printed sources containing the whole series of phrasesthan there are those containing proverbs or riddles. While workingthrough publications all those including phrases were first marked,then the phrases were copied. One possible explanation for the du-plications is that some collectors have sent their material both toHurt and to Eisen, later also to the Literary Museum as well as tothe files of Estonian Language Society. For a researcher, recurringmaterial based on the same manuscript is extremely troublesome.But even reliable collectors, especially when they reach a moreadvanced age, and no longer have the stamina to make longer col-lection expeditions, tend to resubmit their earlier material. Also,many draft manuscripts have been brought to the archives afterthe collector’s death by their heritors or someone who has foundthem by accident.

Through the mediation of third persons the archives have receivedeven the material written down for the collectors’ own amusement.While working with riddles we were surprised to discover that evenproverb collectors of impeccable reputation have slipped. At the sametime several authors of inauthentic proverbs (J. Kuldkepp, T. Saks,K. J. Haus, etc.) have sent fine riddles representating local tradi-tion. Some correspondents, however, have claimed incapable ofchanging their “collection methods” (A. Hiiemägi, H. Karro, J.Sandra, A. Suurkask).



The authentication of both proverbs and riddles is based on thetypological arrangement, i.e. we proceed from the concept of typeas an entirety. It is believed that the same method can be used fordetermining the authenticity of phrases. For example, how to com-bine the phrases translated into the South- Estonian dialect by D.Lepson with their original counterparts from the publications byEisen? There is no reason to disregard all the phrases written downby D. Lepson, as there are some that the collector has rememberedoriginating from the authentic South-East Estonian tradition. Theauthenticity of a phrase type can be assessed only in this broaderview: when all the expressions of the same type have been assem-bled, it becomes clear whose material should be compared. Thesame problem arises with some other collectors, who have slightlyaltered some expressions during copying. It is a common knowl-edge that F.J.Wiedemann had worked through all the earlier fictionand folklore files for his Aus dem inneren und äusseren Leben derEhsten (1876), but had correspondents that have remained anony-mous till the present day. In such cases we have regards the sourcementioned in Wiedemann’s work as authentic.

As to phrases, omitting the authentication phase has also been atopic of consideration. We do not consider necessary to review allthe correspondence that include phrases, like it is done with rid-dles. The issue of ethnic authenticity with phrases copied from thedialectal archives of the Estonian Language Instutute and the Esto-nian Language Society is less problematic, since the collectors havebeen renowned linguists and dialect researchers. At times it seemsthat the collectors have been too attached to the Wiedemann’s dic-tionary, or, to the contrary, have interpreted it too loosely. E.g. theexpression see jutt ei anna öömaja ‘this won’t give you a night’slodging’ is undoubtedly traditional in Lüganuse, though the numberof times it was recorded on a field trip (S. Tanning, 1943 – 4; M.Must, 1949 – 2) definitely raises questions. Its traditionality is con-firmed by an earlier recording from 1939 by H. Reitsnik. At thesame time the entries of the dialect sector of the Estonian Lan-guage Institute may constitute a “solid” type with observable vari-ability as well as local distribution and doubtless authenticity. Let’sgive some example phrases. The tradition of visiting the lasses wascalled: “poisi käüvä jõõsa pääl” (I. Kilk, Plv, 1925), “jõõsa pääl käümä”



(L. Unt, Plv, 1929), “poisi läävä jõõsa pale” (H. Keem, Plv, 1937).When something is completed swiftly and with determination thenyou can say: ühe joonega valmis tehtud ‘done all at once, without abreak’ (A. Anni, KJn, 1922), sööme ühe joonega ära ‘we will eat it allat once’ (T. Kaljo, Jäm, 1925/6), lätt üte joonega ‘went [was done]without a break’ (H. Kasvandik, Plv, 1922/3), läksi joonelt ‘went [wasdone] without a break’ (E. Küttim, Rei, 1977). Both types occur onlyin dialectal texts. Or, consider the following example: lammas lähebvähi käest villa saama ‘The sheep goes to crayfish for wool’, i.e. ‘willget nothing’ (cf. EV 14450), which originates in Meelejahutaja (1885),where K. J. Haus and J. A. Veltmann have copied expressionsfrom.This type includes phrases from the publication by Eisen, alsofrom D. Lepson, but in the view of his inaccuracy these recordscannot be considered authentic. J. Gutves from Rõuge has sentmaterials copied from Stein (1875). In Eisen’s work the phrase jumalaviljast väsinud ‘tired of God’s creation’ is attributed to J. Hünersonfrom Karksi (Eisen 1913: 65). The general picture of the type isconfirmed by the records of M. Sarv (1938) and S. Tanning (1938,1939), also from Karksi. The inauthentic texts of this type are thetexts by D. Lepson, arguably from Räpina, which originate in Eisen’smaterial. This gives us the solid Karksi type.

A separate group of phrase types are those that originate in”the oldsources” (Helle 1732; Hupel 1780). The type laiska petma ‘to fool anidle’ contains a formula ma püüan laiska petta ‘I will try to fool anidle’, ei lase laiska ennast petta ‘I will not let an idle to fool me’,originating from A. Thor Helle, which is the only reliable text forthis type. There are other printed sources, of course, but these arealso traceable back to Helle, as well as six manuscriptal texts, whichare traceable to Helle through Hupel or Wiedemann. The authenti-cation process should therefore take relatively little time in com-parison with the authentication of other short forms. Moreover,the number of large and old types that appear in many printed sourcesis relatively small.

3. TYPOLOGY OF PHRASES

In 1994 the grant project The typology and systematisation of Esto-nian phrases of the Estonian Science Foundation was launched by



Arvo Krikmann, the grant holder, and the original executors AnneliBaran, Tiit Konsand and Katre Õim. The typological work of thephrases that was started eight years ago at the paremiology depart-ment of the Estonian Language Institute was principally completedin 2000. All the different formulation variants of each phrase havebeen assembled; the most frequent and most characteristic of themare the type titles, or the headwords, where the literary form ispreferred (naar niu hamba pill suust maha ‘laughed his/her teethout’, hambad kukkusid naermisega suhu ‘laughed so that the teethfell in’ – ‘(title)). The number of entries and their popularity are notreally associable. The popularity of a proverbial phrase can, in fact,be inferred from the abundance of its variations: it is commonlyknown that phrases are known to have a large number of varia-tions rather than entries. A figure of speech, often used even today,lehma lellepoeg ‘cow’s cousin’, i.e. ‘a distant relative’, occurs only inthree records (incl. meie lehma lellepoeg’our cow’s cousin, ema lehmalellepoeg’mother’s cow’s cousin’), but in the total of 12 semanticallyclose records: lehma vennapoeg ‘cow’s nephew’, ema lehmavennapoeg, ema lehma vellepoeg ‘mother’s cow’s nephew’, ema lehmatädipoeg ‘mother’s cow’s cousin’, ema venna lehma vader ‘mother’sbrother’s cow’s godfather’, isa lehma lelletütar ‘father’s cow’s cousin’,oina onupoeg ‘ram’s cousin’, sinu isa velle vaderi kits oli minu isaema käes aasta aega lüpsta ‘your father’s brother’s godfather’s goatwas given to my father’s mother to milk’, isa venna vaderi poeg‘father’s brother’s godfather’s son’, ühe isa-ema venna vaderi ristipojatütred ja pojad ‘father’s-mother’s brother’s godfather’s godson’sdaughters and sons’, minu vanaisa naise tütrepoeg ‘my grandfather’swife’s daughter’s son’, minu onupoja tädipoeg ‘my cousin’s cousin’.

The main criteria for the single-typedness of proverbs, after M.Kuusi, are the similarity of idea and core, i.e. the variants of aproverb are formed of formulations that are semantically and lexi-cally as close as possible, while the type is formed of formulationsclose in content and form (Hussar & Krikmann & Normann et al.1980: 63). These criteria are largely applicable also to phrases.

In the course of the typological work on phrases we have outlinedthe subcategories of phrases, the total number of types, significantvariations as well as vagueness in the structure, function, mean-ing, etc. of phrases. In order to facilitate the typologisation we first



grouped the phrases by their most prominent structural and se-mantic features: similes; end-rhymed and dialogical phrases; greet-ings, formulae expressing gratitude and reviling; rhetorical exclama-tory questions; word pairs; single word metaphors; intensifying con-structs. The expressions of the same figure are therefore classifiedunder different types. It would be ideal if the occurrence of anyfigure could be observed through all the phrases. For example, thefigure saksa sool occurs both as a metaphoric notion saksa sool‘ashes’ as well as in the expression saksa soola kukkuma ‘the foodfell down’; the asyndetic word pair suud-silmad ’eyes-mouths’ oc-curs in several hyperbolic expressions: suud-silmad ammuli peas‘eyes-mouths open’, suud-silmad pärani lahti ‘eyes-mouths wideopen’, suud-silmad laiali ‘eyes-mouths wide’, suud-silmad häbi täis‘eyes-mouths full of shame’, tehti suud-silmad häbi täis ‘eyes-mouthswere filled with shame’, valetab suud-silmad täis ‘lies fill eyes-mouths’, lakkus suud-silmad täis ‘drank his eyes-mouths full’ (ofalcohol), vikkis kõik suud-silmad lund täis ‘cheated all the eyes-mouths full of snow’. One and the same figure, for example, naistetahk, kana ninarätt (both meaning “the floor”) often crosses thegenre limits naiste tahk ja kana ninarätik, naiste tahk – phrases;naiste tahk ja kana ninarätt om vanapaganal teadmata, naiste tahkja kana suurätt on üks, naise tahk ja kana suurätik on põrand –proverbs; Mis on naiste tahk ja kana ninarätt? – riddle. This is alsoone reason why the organisation of phrases cannot be based onriddles. A solution here would be references to other short forms,i.e. to the corresponding type numbers in the publication of Esto-nian proverbs Eesti vanasõnad and that of the Estonian riddles Eestimõistatused.

3.1. The limits of phrase type

Phrases are subject to extensive variations in the lexical, the syn-tactic as well as the semantic plane. While the total number ofphrase types is close to that of proverbs and riddles, the phrasesdiffer quite considerably in the other aspects: the number of entriesin a type is smaller and the number of types with the same formu-lation variants is probably the largest (Krikmann 1997: 185). Theborders between different phrase types are particularly vague.



The most problematic aspect of the limits is the synonymity of phraseconstituents. It is difficult to delineate the border between the for-mulation variants of the same phrase and synonymous expressions.Feliks Vakk mentions phraseological variants of semantic, struc-tural and lexical unity. Differences are only in the lexical and gram-matical formulation of single components. F. Vakk basically distin-guishes between synonymous (structural synonyms) and semanti-cally differentiated variants (Vakk 1970: 268). The lexical compo-nents of phrases, however, are often not linguistic synonyms butsynonyms based on context, which manifests both on the level ofmeaning as well as of form. The speaker’s freedom of choice inmodifying and substituting, etc. phrase constituents is quite consid-erable. Here lie the roots of most problems related to defining aphrase, namely, whether an expression is another variant of thesame phrase or an independent, though synonymous expression.

The following phrase type demonstrates the variation of grain (‘iva’)–substantive (iva > iva-mari > mari > tera > tang > tangutera > tilk jatang > raasuke > leivaraasuke > teraraasuke): pole ivagi hamba allasaanud ‘have not gotten a grain under the teeth (have got nothingto eat)’, pole veel mitte iva suhe pistnd ‘have not put a grain in themouth’, ei olõ viil jumala üvvä suuhtõ saanu ‘have not yet gotten aGod’s grain in the mouth’; ei ole iva marja hamba alla saanud‘have not gotten a grain’s berry under the teeth’, põle veel ammaalla saand ei iva ega marja ‘have not gotten neither grain norberry under teeth’, miu suhu ei ole mitte iva marja ka saanu ‘nograin berry has gotten into my mouth’, ei olnud iva marja kahnäinud ‘have not seen a grain berry’; ei ole veel üvvä ei marjamaitsanu ‘have tasted neither grain nor berry’; ei ole veel marjagihamba pääle panden ‘have not put a berry on the teeth’, ei ole veelmarja suhu saanud ‘have not gotten a berry in mouth’, mette marjamaitsend ‘have not tasted a berry’; olõ-õi terräge hamba pääle panda‘no grain to put under the teeth’, en süönd terägi ‘have not eaten agrain’, põle mitte teragi süüa ‘not a seed to eat’, mitte teragi eijäetud ‘no seed was left’, mitte üts jumala tera ‘not one God’s seed;põle mette tangogi suho sand have not gotten a grain in the mouth’,mitte taevalist tangu suhu pista ‘not a heavenly grain to put in themouth’, mitte jumala tangu ‘no God’s grain’, ei antant mulle mittetanku terägi ampa pale ‘I wasn’t given even a grain’s seed under



my teeth’, pole veel tilka tangu sohe sand ‘have not gotten a dropof grain in the mouth’; mitte raasukestki ‘not a crumb’, põle leeva-raasukest amma alla suand ‘havenot gotten a bread’s crumb un-der the teeth’, võttis ära viimase kui teraraasukese ‘took awaythe last grain crumb’. Also, this is a case of verb substitution: polesaanud > ei ole pandud > ei andnud > ei ole näinud > ei ole maitsnud> ei ole söönud > ei ole jäetud > ei ole pista > võttis ära ‘have notgotten >have not been put > have not given > have not seen > havenot tasted > have not eaten > have not been left > have nothing toeat > took away’, also the structure of the expression and the sub-ject of the activity: en süönd terägi > põle mitte teragi süüa > võttisära viimase kui teraraasukese ‘did not eat a grain > have not a grainto eat > took away the last grain crumb’.

The following phrase type is one of the ten sayings with the largestnumber of variants. Semantically close expressions about takingconfirmation differ both in the lexical as well as syntactic aspect,the dominant formulation here is papi sigu söötma ‘feed the minis-ter’s pigs’: papi sead söödetud ‘the minister’s pigs are fed’, kirgusead öpetaja juures äe söötnd’church’s pigs fed at the minister’s’,kerik-ärra sigu söötmas ‘church minister feeding the pigs’, käis kirikussigu söötmas ‘went to the church to feed pigs’, õpetaja sead ää söötud‘minister’s pigs are fed’, köstre sigu söötma ‘to feed parish clerk’spigs, köstre tsiku lugema ‘to read parish clerk’s pigs’, aja inne papitsia lauta ‘first drive the minister’s pigs into the sty’, jooda köstrivasikad ära ‘water the parish clerk’s calves’, papi sead alles söötmata‘minister’s pigs are not yet fed’, papi tsia pahta ajamada ‘minister’spigs are not driven to the sty’, köstre kapuste alle söömäde parishclerk’s cabbages are still not eaten’, alles köstri sead söötmata japapi kapsad söömata ‘parish clerk’s pigs are still not fed and minis-ter’s cabbages not eaten’. The second split concerns the figureseaküna ümber lükkama ‘to push over the pig trough’: läks seakünaümber lükkama ‘went to push over the pig trough’; lükka enneseaküna umber ‘first push over the pig trough’, lükka enne kirikuherra seaküna umber ‘first push over the minister’s pig trough’;Kas said papi seaküna ümber? ‘Have you pushed over the pig trough?’;Kas sul juba kirikärra sead söödetud ja küna ümmer lükatud? ‘Haveyou fed the minister’s pigs and pushed over the trough?’; nüüd onpapi seaküna püsti ‘the minister’s pig trough is now up’, õpetaja



seaküna ümber lükand ‘pushed over the minister’s pig trough’; köstriseaküna püsti aamata ‘parish clerk’s pig trough is left pushed over’,seaküna alles ümber lükkamata ‘pig trough not yet pushed over’,seaküna ots on kergitamata ‘the end of the pig trough is not lifted’,seamold alles ümber lükkamata ‘pig tray still not pushed over’; siasabaon sirutamata ‘pig’s tail is not straightened’; aja enne siasaba sirgeks‘first straighten the pig’s tail’. Similar extensive clusters often seemto require the division into smaller units, even into different types.

An altogether different problem is longer expressions containingtwo or more type rudiments: Mis saab sest Murile murda või hallileanda! ‘What’s there for Buddy to kill or a wolf to give!’, Mis sestsaab Murile murda või hallile anda või kirju koerale enesele süüa!‘What’s there for Buddy to kill or a wolf to give or a spotted dog toeat!’, Ei sest saa Murile murda ega hallile anda, kui omalgi peenikenepihus ‘There’s nothing for Buddy to kill or a wolf to give, if you’re ina pinch yourself ’. Single texts that first appear as contaminous proveto be random accumulations of traditional phrases: omal alleskõrvatagused märjad, piimahambad suus ja nokk kollane, aga tahabteistest targem olla ‘still wet behind the ears, milk teeth in his mouthand green horns, but thinks he’s smarter than others’; keerutab niija naa, võlsip suu-silma täis ja lätt esi kos tuhat ‘tells things in aroundabout way, fakes your eyes-mouths full and ; panõ koli kotti,hamba varna ja asi tahe ‘put his things together, “hung up histeeth”(i.e. had nothing to eat) and that was it’. Simultaneously, setphrases may occur as independent types (pane vai jänessega juuskma‘let him run with hares’, näie ära, kui kihulane kerku tornin aegutja kuulse tolle kah ärä, kui kirp üüse sängikoti õlgi sissä kusse (‘hecould see when a midge yawned at the church tower, and couldeven hear when a flea pissed into the straws of the pallet at night’)or as contaminations: Kui mina nuur olli, kül mina olli virk: joosijänessele järgi, kuulin kui kirp õlgi sisse kuss, näie ära kui kihulanekirko tornin haigut. ‘When I was young, I was so deft: ran after ahare, heard a flea pissing in the straw, saw how a midge yawned atthe church tower’ Kül ma olle latsen tragi, ma joosi nii kõvaste, etjala es putu maa külge, ja kui teräne ma olle, ma näie ära kui kihulanekerku tornin aegut ja kuulse tolle kah ärä, kui kirp üüse sängi kotiõlgi sissä kusse. ‘I was so nimble when I was a child, I ran so hardthat my feet never touched the ground, and I was so smart that I



saw how a midge yawned at the church tower and even heard, howa flea pissed into the straws of the pallet at night.’)

Since typologisation is largely negotiable and the result often sub-jective and the variation range of phrases relatively wide, a ques-tion rises: is it really necessary to group together expressions ofthe least similarity and fit them under types? (Well, unless typologyis a goal in itself.) While dealing with card files the grouping ofexpressions into types is definitely justified, since this would be theonly way to find expressions of similar structure and meaning. Anelectronic database also enables searches by other criteria.

3.2. Headword

A headword is the first meaningful single word granomen of anexpression that functions as a title text. Due to the peculiarities ofthe material we have presently realised that a headword selectedby this principle cannot fulfil its purpose and function as the centralfigure of the expression. This principle of defining a headword can-not comprise semantically and lexically similar expressions, theysimply cannot be found. The following expressions of similar syn-tactic structure and lexical constituents, for example, have beengiven a different headword: ta oli juba külm – headword külm; temakannad on siis külmad – headword kand; tal omma juba käe külmä– headword käsi; sel joba külmakenga jalan – headword külmakingad.The type aja kui väsinud hobust hange is located under the head-word hobune, the type nagu veohobune under headword veohobune,the type nagu hobuse selg – headword hobuse selg, the type otsibhobuse seljast – headword hobuse seljast. This poses a question ofthe efficiency of such headwords. Considering the structure of thefuture electronic database, it hardly seems to have any need for alexical headword. The existing semantic slots could, in principle, bekept together by the entitling of expressions with the figure, i.e. bydecomposing it, e.g. the expression kannad on külmad ’heels arecold’ is decomposed to kannad külmad ‘heels cold’.

Clearly, the observation of the structure and meaning, single wordor word combinations of the phrases in this corpus (the phrase files)is only possible by manual browsing through the whole material.Presently, the search by the phrase structure only gives the follow-



ing similes (helde nagu Helde-Mari poeg ‘generous as the son ofgenerous Mary’; justkui koer heinakuhja otsas: ei söö ise, ei laseteist süüa ‘like a dog on haystack: does not eat himself and does notlet the others either; kaalub kui kulda ‘weighs as much as gold’; olekui küpsiküüsilaste juures; seab ja sordib nagu juut loeb omakasukopikaid ‘sets and sorts like a Jew counting his coins’) and in-tensifying constructs (kõht on nii tühi et sööks kas või pool huntikorraga ‘I’m so hungry, I could eat half a wolf ’; läheb nii et kivikuuleb, teine näeb ‘treads so that a stone can hear and another onecan see’; valetab nii et suu suitseb ‘lies so that his mouth smokes’)that, as was previously mentioned, were set apart before the typo-logical work for purely technical reasons. Less productive struc-tural phenomena can be observed only when the phrases with nec-essary features are searched individually in the files. Nominativephrases like ike seljas ‘yoke on the shoulders’, kananahk seljas ‘goose-flesh on the back’, karvad turris ‘hairs [standing] up’, keel sõlmes‘tongue tied’, keel suus ‘tongue in the mouth’, kilk kaelas ‘cricketaround the neck’, kirp kõrvas ‘flea in the ear’, kirves kotis ‘axe inthe bag’, kits kotis ‘goat in the bag’, kitsed orasel ‘goats in the plantshoots’, kolk kaelas ‘swingletree around the neck’, koorem küljes ‘aburden attached’, krapp kaelas ‘cowbell around the neck’, kuri karjas‘fat is in the fire’, kõlkad kõhus ‘chaff in the stomach’, hammasverel ‘bleeding teeth’, lambanahk seljas ‘sheepskin on’, maik suus‘taste in the mouth’ are related in that they all indicate to the ob-ject’s condition or one of its characteristics (kits kotis “out of money”,nälg näpus “in low water”, kilk peas “drunk”). One of the phrasecomponents, substantive in nominative, functions as a subject, theother as an adverbial; the adverbial component often occurs inlocatives (Baran 1999: 59). Since nominative phrases are positionedunder different headwords far apart in the files, the study of (phrasesof) certain structure in the whole material is relatively problematicand time-consuming. Here are some examples of conditional phrases:hakkab ujuma, kui vesi perse puutub ‘he will swim, when his assgets wet’; kui hurdast saab karjakoer, siis saab temast ka inimene ‘ifa greyhound becomes a herding dog, it will also become human’;kui jumal pole lätlane, läheb see korda ‘if God is not a Latvian, allwill work out’; küll siis nägijaist saavad, kui silmad pähe tulevad‘they will see, when eyes will grow on them’; küll siis teeb, kui omadkirbud sööma hakkavad ‘he will do it, when his own fleas start eat-



ing him’; kui sa mu uksest välja ajad, tulen aknast tagasi ‘drive meout the door, I will come back through the window’; kui sai tarre,siis tahtis juba tareharja ‘was let into the house, already wantedthe roof ’ (for other examples see, Baran 1999: 64). Obviously, wedon’t need to add that in conditional sentences like this the desig-nation of a headword is extremely problematic, if not impossible.Not to mention the fact that often the somewhat randomly chosencontent-lexical headword fails in grouping phrases of similar struc-ture.

The frequency study of single word or word combination is possibleif a certain word or word combination acts as the core of expres-sion, the central figurative element, figure of speech or a set ofnotions (see Hussar & Krikmann & Normann et al. 1980: 63), andalso as the headword. In order to be able to observe words that areless significant in the expression as a whole, the material has to bedesignated syntactically, semantically or in some other way.

4. THE DATABASE OF THE ESTONIAN PHRASES

According to ISO a database is a collection of data organised accord-ing to a conceptual structure describing the characteristics of thesedata and the relationships among their corresponding entities, sup-porting application area(s) (Estonian Standard EVS-ISO 2382). Thedatabase of the Estonian phrases is a composite of different catego-ries within the material which enables to acquire various kinds ofinformation on the phrases; one of the aims of establishing the da-tabase was also making preparations for the draft of the printedpublication of the Estonian phrases.

In a sense the database was being constructed already during thetypological work of phrases – the type titles and common formula-tions were entered into the initial database. The latter formed thebasis for the electronic search engine at http://haldjas.folklore.ee/rl/date/robotid/leht3.html (programmed by Sander Vesik, the Esto-nian Literary Museum), which provides information for nearly 25.400Estonian phrases. The material is copied from the dictionary ofphraseology Fraseoloogiasõnaraamat (1993) by Asta Õim (nearly7.300 expressions) and the manuscript materials of the Estonian



Folklore Archives and the dialectal archives of the Estonian Lan-guage Institute (nearly 18.100 expressions altogether, incl. approx.10.600 similes). The search can be conducted by a part of the word,the string kass may give results kassi, kassa as well as okassiga,but also by the matching word: (kass), the search engine also ena-bles the use of alternative letters in search: nai[ns]e. To search forcombination of different words requires the use of markers of logi-cal expressions: & ’and’, | ’or’, i.e. the search for nai[ns]e & kassfinds all the expressions that contain the words kass ja naine (naise);the search nai[ns]e | kass gives all the expressions that containthe words kass or naine (naise). In order to find phrases that wouldcontain words like kass or koer and nagu, the string that you needto insert is: {kass | koer} & nagu. The search engine relies onformulations and carries no information on archival data; similarlyto the paper files the structure, meanings, etc. of phrases cannot bestudied before singling out the expressions one by one.

4.1. Database structure

In order to decide which information must be included in the data-base, we first have to choose the criteria and characteristics bywhich the expressions can be found, treated and analysed. The mosteasily accessible information should be the data on the phrase dis-tribution and productivity, as these data have already been includedon the index cards or can be directly derived from them. In order tocommunicate information on the form, structure, figurative seman-tics, meaning, etc. each phrase type must be studied from a certainaspect and marked accordingly. The presentation of the material inthe database has to be good enough to be successfully used, say, bya scholar interested in expressions of certain structure, as well asanyone, who wishes to find expressions of the established meaning.In other words, the search engine must find all the expressionsthat include, say, a substantive, verb and illocative: kali läheb kaevu‘kvass goes to the well’ – , leib hakkab jalgu ‘bread goes to the feet’,mõte kargas pähe ‘an idea came to the head’, mokk ulatub klaasipõhja‘mouth reaches all the way to the bottom of the glass’ – ‘a heavydrinker’, nälg tuleb näppu ‘hunger will come to the fingers’, näpudpuutuvad põhja ‘fingers touch the bottom’ – ‘to be broke’, pada lähebpajusse ‘pot will go to the willows’, päevad lähevad sulase poole ‘days



will go to the farmhand’ – ‘days are drawing to an end’, silm läheblooja ‘the eyes will set’ – ‘doze off ’, silmad jäid õue ‘eyes were leftoutside’ i.e. coming from the bright light the eyes take time to ad-just to the darker room, silmad löövad sirklisse, suu jäi lukku ‘mouthwas locked up’ – ‘became silent’, suu läks hukka ‘mouth went bad’(see Baran 1999: 50), or those expressing ignorance: targad kuiSaaremaa varesed ‘smart as the crows in Saaremaa’ , tark kui sandikark ‘wise as a lame man’s crotch’, pea nagu sõel ‘head like a sieve’,ei tea midagi nagu siga pühapäevast ‘knows nothing like a pig knowsabout Sunday’, nagu siga ajab molli umber ‘pushes over the troughlike a pig’, nagu siga joob igast porilombist ‘drinks from every pud-dle like a pig’, nagu siga sööb soolaga ube ‘eats salted beans like apig’, nagu siga taevatänavasuus ‘like a pig on the heavenly street’,nagu siga tuhnib põlluhunniku asemel ‘grubs in the field like a pig’.

A good example here would be a formulation jalad justkui hanelestad ‘feet like goose webs’ that belongs under the simile type naguhane jalad ‘like goose feet. Data may be tentatively divided in two:objective data and subjective data. Objective data comprise all theinformation included on the index cards (unfortunately often in-complete):

- archive reference: RKM II 340, 305 (478),- place of collection: Emmaste parish- collector: J. Kõmmus- informant: missing (like in most of the records)- year of collection: 1979- “the main part”, i.e. the phrase formulation independently, usu-ally also in context

comments, meaning, etc: hanelest: Jälad just’kut ane-lestad(Öeldakse lapse kohta kelle jalad on külmetamisest punased). Gooseweb: Feet like goose webs (indicating to a child’s feet, which are redof cold.)

Subjective data is based on information not directly included on theindex card, but which have been learned or established on the struc-ture, lexica, semantics, etc. of phrases. Typological and descriptivedata belong here.

- Headword: hani (‘goose’)



We have already learned that due to the peculiarity of the materialas well as the relatively randomly selected criteria of selection theheadword as such cannot be efficient and function as the centralfigure of the expression. Headword also fails to bind semanticallyand lexically similar expressions, the search of which within thewhole corpus is presently extremely time-consuming. Different se-mantic slots could be grouped more closely by designating the ex-pressions by the figure, i.e. decomposing the figurative headword(e.g. kannad külmad ’heels cold’ in the expression kannad on külmad‘heels are cold’).

- Title text of the phrase type: nagu hane jalad ‘like goosefeet’, i.e. the most characteristic, frequently occurring formu-lation among the members of the phrase type.

- The original formulation: jälad just’kut ane-lestad ‘feet likegoose webs’. One might wonder why formulation has been clas-sified as typological data if it’s already included among the ob-jective data. There are many reasons for it: firstly, isolatingthe formulation from the context makes the analysis techni-cally simpler. Secondly and more importantly, the limit of aphrase may be very vague and diffusive – unless the formula-tion appears independently (i.e. without the context) on thecard, then the beginning and end of the phrase may not befully recognised. For example, whether the formulation of thesentence Pueb nindägu porsas pohust väljä, touseb magamastüles ja jädäb vuodi kohendamada ‘Crawls out of bedding strawlike a pig, wakes up and leaves the bed unmade’ is nindäguporsas pohus ‘like a pig in the bedding straw’ or pueb nindäguporsas pohust väljä ‘crawls out from the bedding straw like apig’, i.e. is the verb välja pugema ‘crawl out’ a constituent ofthe phrase or belongs to the context? Since the defining of for-mulations is often a matter of negotiation, similarly to the head-words and type titles described above, then the user of thedatabase should be aware of their (partial) subjectivity.

- Cross-references between phrase types and/or formula-tions: see punased kui pardi jalad ‘red like duck’s feet’, seepunased kui kure jalad ‘red like stork’s feet’.



- The sequence of a given formulation within the phrasetype to describe the interrelations of the different formula-tions of the same phrase type on the basis of their lexical, syn-tactic and/or other characteristics (see also EV 1980: 68, 69).

Descriptive data comprises the characteristics of the phrase in itsentirety, as well as those of its constituents – the following list,however, is hardly finite. Descriptive data should also include infor-mation on the figure of a phrase.

- Description of formulation structure

- The meaning, explanations and comments of formula-tion: lapse kohta, kelle jalad on külmetamisest punased (Abouta child whose feet are red of cold).

- The different semantic description of formulation con-stituents: hani ‘goose’: + animate, - man; lestad ‘webs’: - ani-mate, etc.

4.2. Application of the database of phrases

The establishing of the concise database of phrases was initiated in1998. Presently, the material has been entered into the computer,also the objective and most of the typological data (incl. originallyformulation, title text and headword of a given phrase type, refer-ences to analogous formulations or types) has been added withoutmajor revisions. Additional descriptive data includes the meaningof formulations, in case it is presented or explained in the indexcard text. Similes are supplemented with the description of the titletext structure of each type and the semantic description of title textconstituents, also the meaning of less known (dialectal) words informulations; on some occasions the sequence of formulations insimile types has been established.

The electronic database of the Estonian phrases is financed by theEstonian Science Foundation and the Estonian Culture Founda-tion. The search engine, which meets the present needs for analy-sis and aims for the nearest future, has been completed (pro-grammed by Indrek Kiissel – Estonian Language Institute). Thedatabase provides a user interface, enabling to edit archival data,



check the authenticity of phrases, approximate typology, definethe structure of phrases, etc. The basic functions of the databaseare the following:

- Communication of data. The database communicates datadepending on the search type (multiple searches and logicalexpressions), enabling searches based on the data as well asthe collector. The search can be conducted through one or sev-eral fields and results arranged in a certain order.

- Adding, editing, deleting of data in real time. The enter-ing of data for operating or saving, editing. This function ena-bles to add and remove entries, edit archival data and, if neces-sary, upgrade/add, revise and synchronise title texts/formula-tions of types, synchronise the marking of dialectal peculiari-ties, detect spelling errors, etc. The use of the database in realtime enables several users to simultaneously edit data and con-duct searches.

4.3. The quantity or data and the quality of search results

We have already emphasised that the idea of the database is not topreserve data, but it is intended to present as much additional in-formation as possible, i.e. it should include directly or indirectlythe different results of syntactic, semantic, etc. analysis.

The access to complete and objective information in the database islargely obstructed by the use of dialect and the quality of formula-tion, which no longer meet the rules of contemporary Estonian or-thography. Obviously, the search for expressions containing, say,the word harakas ‘magpie’, results in exact matches of the phone-mic sequence: edev nagu harakas, harakaseks minemä, kalts-harakas, kädsatab nagu harakas, laseb saksa keelt kui harakas,nagu kõrbend harakas, pajuharakas. The rest of the entries con-taining a declension, dialectal form, misspelling, etc. of the sameword, such as kerge kui harak, kirju jusgu nougiharak, naguharaka pesä; armastab nagu kiitsarakas läikivaid asju, kisendabjustkui arakas aiateibas, kädistab ku arakas, lendab kui arakas,nigu arakas üppab, naerdasse nagu arakast ajateibasse; kiitsagasnidagu arak aiateibäs, kädsäts ku tuliarak, nagu arakud aiateibas,



paioarak, pallas nigu arak, pelglik ku arak, vahib arakaviisi otsacannot be found. In other words, the search is hardly accurate.

Which descriptive data should then be needed for a fully functionaldatabase? Does the search word have to be perfectly accurate (i.e.correspond to the result), or should the dialectal formulations (i.e.all the phrase constituents) be provided with “translations” into theliterary language? Below we will present some solutions.

If the original formulation in each entry is provided a correspond-ing literary form (senusuguine sagataja pane vai arakaga paari –sinusugune sagataja pane või harakaga paari, kuiv nagu kiitsakatiiv – kuiv nagu haraka tiib), then the work would become ex-tremely laborious. One of the problems encountered is the lack ofcorresponding literary words: nagu Kristuse piibukriiska. Also,making such amendments requires much routine work; the ex-amples above indicate that very many amendments must be madeon similar words. Moreover, (dialectal) words that are unfamiliarto the modern user require translations. This means defining thewords and presenting the meaning (it has been done with somesimiles); as to the polysemic words a reference should be made tothe more accurate meaning, cf. sagattab nindagu aragas aia teibäss:sagatama ‘kädistama’ (cackle) (Pall 1989: 377), ‘jutuga vaheletulema, vahele segama’(intefere), vareste vaakumine, harakatesagatamine (Saareste 1958: col. 220, 610); must nagu aanikas:aanikas ‘kännutüügas; langetamisel tüve kännupoolne ots’(treestump), ‘langetamisel tüvesse raiutud sälk’(notch hacked into thetreetrunk at felling), ‘leotus-, keedu- või pesuvesi’, ‘õllevirre,õlu’ (Juhkam & Must & Mäger 1994: 53–54) (light beer, beer),‘tüügas’ (Pall 1989: 12) (stump). The easiest solution would be ref-erences to the electronic publications, like the index of the dialec-tal dictionary Väike murdesõnastik and the semantic dictionary ofthe Estonian language Eesti keele mõisteline sõnaraamat by A. Saa-reste. The idea of presenting parallels in the literary language isto give objective results to the search in contemporary Estonian.At the same time, is this intermediate level that calls for copiousextra work really necessary, especially if some of the words do notseem to require parallels in literary language: jusku emmis: sööbisi oma põrsad ära, käib järel nagu eilane päev, rumal kui iesel,röögib nigu eläjäs (‘like a sow: devours her own piglets, follows



like “yesterday”, dumb as a donkey, growls like a beast’) And alsoremains the problem of formulations, i.e. the search of expressionsincluding the word jalg ‘foot’, ‘leg’ results in both

jalg (SgN): jalg nindägu kassi kaul ‘foot as a cat’s neck’, kena kuikeripuujalg ‘lovely as a swift foot’, suur jalg nagu hobusel ‘bigfoot like a horse’s’, nagu arkialg ‘foot like astride’

as well as

jalga (SgP): läks jänesejalga ‘went like with a hare’s foot’;jalge (PlG): pitk ja kitsas noagu jalgenarts ’lean and lank like afoot cloth’;jalgu (PlP): kõht täis nagu Nõva mehel jõululaupäevaõhtu oravapäid-jalgu ’stomach is full like a Nõva man’s stomach of squir-rel heads and legs on a Christmas Eve’;jalgus (PlIn): nagu kana jalgus takkud ei soaa emmale egakummale ‚like a hen with tow in its feet cannot have either’.

In order to find a word in any possible form, the expressions shouldbe divided into grammatical units and entered into an index oforiginal words: nouns with the singular nominative root, verbs withthe ma-infinitive. (Otherwise the search would have to cover thewhole paradigm and even then might not yield objective results).From the index the search would take the user to the originalformulations. A search by the word jalg (‘foot’, ‘leg’) would give theresults above and the following:

jalaga (SgKom): laisk nigu kolme jalaga vana obene ‘lazy as anold horse with three legs’;jalad (PlN): jalad kanged nindagu ange aetud obusel ‘legs stifflike a horse’s in a snowdrift’, jalad nagu jahumatid ‘legs likemats of flour’, jusku jalad all ‘like has feet’, nao va ane jalad‘like goose feet’, sesab jalad laijali nagu ark ‘stands legs astridelike a fork’, vereva kui hani jala ‘red as goose feet’.

The main advantage of search by the word index would be thepossibility to disregard spelling errors and the morphological formof a word.



Important information on grammar could be added to the databaseby adding a morphological index to the words of the word index. Ofthe possible components of a morphological index used in A ConciseMorphological Dictionary of Estonian (1992) by Ülle Viks it wouldbe practical to use the marker of the word class and type numbersfor variable words, suggesting the need for type description in thechapter dealing with grammar. Generally speaking, the phrasescould be handled as follows: sagattab nindagu aragas aia teibäss >sagatama V(erb) type no. 27, harakas S(ubstantive) 2, aed S 22, teivasS 7.

In order to find a specific word form, the words in expression needan additional individual morphological index describing the givenform of transformation: lapsi kui järijalgu ‘[has many] children likeseat legs’ > laps ‘child’ S 14 PlP, järi ‘seat’ S 17 SgG, jalg ‘foot’, ‘leg’S 22 PlP. In this case the search should include the word in itsoriginal form (laps) and the morphological description of the searchedform: PlP.

I. Kiissel, the informatics administrator of the Estonian LanguageInstitute conducted an experiment that included nearly 40.000formulations. A morphological analyser compared the wordsautomatically with the material of the dictionary of form. The resultwas the total of 39.035 different language variants consisting on theaverage of 7 letters. Owing to the dialectal peculiarities and spellingmistakes mentioned above, the number of variants included in theanalysed phrases is considerable. Cf. ‘horse’

hobune (SgN) – hobene, hobõnõ, hobu, hobbo, hobus, hobes,hobos, hobbus, hobbos;hobuse (SgG) – hobbuse, hobose, hobbose, hobese, hobõsõ;hobust (SgP) – hobõst;hobusele (SgAll) – hobõsõlõ;hobusel (SgAd) – hobõsõl;hobusega (SgKom) – hobõsõga;hobuste (PlG) – hobbuste, hobeste;hobuseid (PlP) – hobesit, hobusi;hobustega (PlKom) – hobõstõga.



In the contemporary Estonian language the word is known to have33 variation forms (Viks 1992: 7). This indicates that the number oforiginal forms in the future word index as well as the lexica of thematerial of the Estonian Folklore Archives is limited. The same isconfirmed by the analysis of a hundred randomly selected variants,which is reduced down to 40 words in original form. The originalforms should be supplemented with a morphological index (wordclass marker + type number).

a I 41: juut oll kauplema a härrä oll masma; oledki sina see a jaoaaberjuut S 22: aaberjuut siakõru, siakõruAabraham A 2: aabrahamme nännö; Abrahaame nännü;aabrahammiga kuohAabram A 2: Aabrami sülem; Aabramid jälle näind; Abramidnäind; Aabramist nännu; aabramet nännu; Aabramit nägema;näitas teisel Abramit; aabrammi näind; Abrami näind; aabramigaka kokku juhtundAadam A 2: Aadam ja Eeva läksid üle Neeva; Aadama ajal;aadami ülikond; aatami kahvlid; aatama orkid; aadamast jaiidamastaadamaaegne A 2: Aadamaaegne; aadama-aeksedaadamakahvel S 22 ~ S 2: Aadamakahvel; aadamakahvlegaaader S 2: aadred laskma; aadrid laskmasaamen I 41 ~ S 2: aamen konks ja hapud silgudaanispits S 22: aanispitsid tehaaarabard S 22: Ats Aarabard ja Juks Jõuluvorstaarna S 1 ~ V 29: astume Aarnale, müttame Möksi, tuleme Tilleleaas S 22: pole veel aasa peele saandaaspuk S 2: aaspuk; aaspuukaasta S 1: aasta selgas juba; aastad kipuvad õhtuleaastak S 2: aastak ja ase, kuu ja kortinabakukk S 22: abakukabi S 17: abi oli kohe marjast; abi saa kennei arva, tuge saakennei tunne



abi-armu S 22 ~ V 27: abi-armu pole kohegilt tulemas ühtabukasukas A 2 ~ S 16: abukasukasabus S 17: aastud abusader S 24: adra alla teindadramadrus S 9: adramadrusadramees S 15 ~ S 13: adramees; adramies; adramiis; adra-miisadru S 16: adru ainitiae I 41: Hans, ae aja härjad koju, homme kroonupühaaed S 22: pannasse sabapidi aateivasse; meie räägime aeda sinaräägid aea auku; kärner aedas; tapu aeast läbi tulnudaeg S 22: aeg oo ümber; elud aa tuule vallal; Onts sul natukeaega? – Jah on küll. Mis siis? – Pane oma püksiauk kinni; ei oleaegu tseapahan; aast ja arustaegne A 2: enneaegneahh S 22: ach ty psia krew Martyna Luteraais S 22 ~ 23 S: alt aesa kaeru andmaajaja S 1: suksutajid pallu, aga päitse pähä aajit mitte ütegiajama V 27 ~ S 2: ahka aama; ahka aema; a’ada hambasse; aantalle Käojaani; aad vaska lassi; mis sa aat tühjä kotte püstü; aesdoma jönni; aest jähimihe jüttu; ae jälad köhu-alt välja; tühja kottiaead püsti; ära aea oma ambid irevile; töö aa sene kee lahti; aabeesa nena püsti; aap nigu ahka; kops aeab üle maksa; aeap peele;aeb kangut; aas Tedre Antsu; aase tesele kärpsit silmä; isi ta kusija kudus sukka, üleaea aeas naabriga juttu; aes päkad püsd; aameküläle kõrra pääle; aage käe kõtust vällä; aavad nina kiiva; aasidvanamehega isi jalad segi; aeasid mo ka kargama; aedi aja jaange vahelehaamer S 2: aambri alla panemahabe S 4: abe itsis ees; abä issa puälä; annab vasta abet; abemessepomisema; abenasse rääkima; habemega kärtsi pärandat pühkima;abenega jütthaigus S 22 ~ S 9 ~ S 11: aegos oo ea korra maha võtndhea A 26: küll sul on ia nena



häda S 17: adä ristminolema V 36 ~ S 2: mihel oo kroonupühaäär S 13: ei sel sanal ollu aara ega otsa; kes tiedab kus sen aaradja otsad jo on.

We will hereby point out a few problems that may be encounteredduring the compilation of the word index. If we begin determiningthe original forms from the alphabetically arranged variants, theword initial ‘h’ or the lack of it in dialects complicates the associa-tion of different forms of the same word. The word haamer, for ex-ample, is sometimes written aamer, and also haamer, haamert.Determining the original form of the words of ambiguous meaningone must consider the context and consult the corresponding en-tries in the database. E.g. are all the linguistic variants aa, aab,aad, a’ada, aage, aama, aame, aan, aap, aas, aase, aasid, aat, aavad,ae, aea, aeab, aead, aeap, aeas, aeasid, aeb, aedi, aema, aes, aesd,aest traceable to the original form ajama? Is it necessary to inter-pret the obviously unfamiliar (dialect) words for a modern languageuser, is it the responsibility of the database at all? How far shouldwe trace the presence of words in dialectal sources? Should theword index refer to the list of formulations containing the givenword or the list of type titles? These questions have yet remainedunanswered. As the word index is presumably in the literary lan-guage, the revision of the morphological index is basically the sin-gling out of the most accurate or suitable of the issued descriptions.The morphological analyser describes the word haigus, or ‘illness’for instance, as follows: 1) haigu SgIn > haik S 22; 2) haigus SgN >haigus S 9; 3) haigus SgN > haigus S 11.

Regardless of the potential finite scope of the original forms, thecompilation of the word index will undoubtedly be complicated andtime-consuming, particularly so because most of the work has to bedone manually. Then again, if we use a simple structure descriptionlike word class markers in certain positions for all type heads orformulations, such as S + Adv + V: susse püsti lööma ‘kick up theslippers’ – ‘to die’, silmi kinni maksma ‘pay the eyes shut’, suudkinni panema ‘shut the mouth’, suud lahti kiskuma ‘pull the mouthopen’, südant rahule jätma ‘leave the heart be’, nahka lõhki lööma‘crack the skin open’, it will give us rather flexible alternatives for



studying the structure of expressions (see also: Baran 1999: 49 ff).This would enable to register all the expressions of similar struc-ture, resulting in an exhaustive survey of structures represented inthe Estonian Folklore Archives or the database, their productivity oruniqueness, etc. It would also enable to follow the frequency of theestablished structures, like S + V + Adv in the given material.

As a result of the previously mentioned experiment, a little morethan a fourth of the 39.035 linguistic variants could be analysed onthe basis of the dictionary of form with the morphological analyser(+ in Table); more than half of the variants did not have a counter-part in the dictionary, but the speculated morphological descriptionwas issued (?); about a tenth of the words could not be analysed (-);an asterisk (*) marks incorrect descriptions, correct descriptions(with certain reservations) appear in bold. We will hereby give anexample analysis of fifty variants (the morphological descriptionincludes the description of the variable form, supposed original form,word class marker and type number, divider of compound words).

Variant Corresp.word in the dict. of form

Morphological description

A –aa + *ID > aa I 41aab ? *SgN > aab S 22aaberjuut ? SgN > aaberjuut S 22Aabrahamme ? *PlP > aabrahamm S 22Aabrahammiga ? SgKom > aabrahamm S 22Aabramet –Aabrami ? *SgN > aabrami S 1; *SgG > aabrami S 1;

*SgG > aabram A 2Aabramid ? *PlN > aabrami S 1; *PlN > aabram A 2Aabramiga ? *SgKom > aabrami S 1; *SgKom > aabram

A 2Aabramist ? *SgEl > aabrami S 1; *SgEl > aabram A 2;

*SgP > aabramis S 11; *SgP > aabramine S 12; *SgN > aabramist S 22

Aabramit ? *SgP > aabrami S 1; *SgP > aabrami A 2





Aabrammi ? *SgN > aabrammi S 1; *SgG > aabrammi S 1; *SgG > aabramm S 22; SgP > aabramm S 22; *SgAdt > aabrammi S 22; *IndPrPs > aabrammima V 28; *ImpPrSg2 > aabrammima V 28

aad ? *SgN > aad S 22A’ada ? *SgN > aada S 16; *SgG > aada S 16;

*IndPrPs > aadama V 29; *ImpPrSg2 > aadama V 29

Aadam ? SgN > aadam A 2Aadama ? *Sup > aadama V 29aadamaaegne ? SgN > aadama+aegne A 2aadama-aeksed ? *PlN > aadamaaekne A 2; PlN >

aadama+aekne A 2; *PlN > aadama+aekse S 6; *SgN > aadama+aeksed S 2

aadamakahvel ? *PlAd > aadama+kahv S 22; SgN > aadama+kahvel S 2

aadamakahvlega ? *SgKom > aadama+kahvle S 6aadamakahvliga SgKom > aadama+kahvel S 2 Aadamast ? *SupEl > aadama V 29; *SgP > aadamane

A 12Aadami ? *SgN > aadami S 1; *SgG > aadami S 1;

SgG > aadam A 2aadred ? *PlN > aadre S 6; *IndPrSg2 > aadrema V

27; *SgN > aadred S 2aadrid + *PlN > aader S 2aage ? *SgN > aage S 6; *PlP > aag S 22; IndPrPs

> aagema V 27; *ImpPrSg2 > aagema V 27

aajit ? *SgP > aaji S 16; *SgN > aajit S 2aama ? *SgN > aama S 16; *SgG > aama S 16;

*IndPrPs > aamama V 29; *ImpPrSg2 > aamama V 29







aambri ? *SgN > aambri S 16; SgG > aamber S 2; *SgG > aambri S 16; *IndPrPs > aambrima V 28; *ImpPrSg2 > aambrima V 28

aame + *PlP > aam S 22aamen + ID > aamen I 41; SgN > aamen S 2aan ? *SgN > aan S 22aanispitsid ? PlN > aanispits S 22; *IndPrSg2 >

aanispitsima V 28aap ? *SgN > aap S 22aara + *SgN > aara S 16; *SgG > aara S 16aarabard ? SgN > aarabard S 22aarad + *PlN > aara S 16aarnale ? SgAll > aarna S 1; *IndPrPs > aarnalema

V 27; *ImpPrSg2 > aarnalema V 27

aas + *SgN > aas S 22aasa + *SgG > aas S 22; *SgP > aas S 22; *SgAdt >

aas S 22; *IndPrPs > aasama V 29; *ImpPrSg2 > aasama V 29

aase + *PlP > aas S 22aasid + *PlN > aas S 22; *IndPrSg2 > aasima V 28

aaspuk ? SgN > aaspuk S 2aaspuuk ? SgN > aaspuk S 22aast ? *SgP > aane A 10; *SgN > aast S 22aasta + SgN > aasta S 1; SgG > aasta S 1aastad + PlN > aasta S 1aastak + SgN > aastak S 2aast-arust + SgEl > aast-aru S 17; *PlEl > aast-arg A

22; *SgP > aast-arune A 10



THE MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTICVARIANTS

The reasons for such poor results are not merely the quality ofthe collection materials, but also the abundance of archaisms inthe material. Since most of the variants are presented with morethan one morphological description, it is necessary to single outthe right one(s), which, again, has to be done manually.

The index of forms is efficient only if it is bound to the word indexand only with the original forms of the words. For instance:aadamakahvel S 9 SgN SgKom, i.e. aadamakahvel ‘Adam’s fork’-‘hand’ is a noun belonging to the 9th variable type, appears in thedatabase of phrases in singular nominative: aadamakahvel andsingular comitative case (in Estonian): aadamakahvlega, aadama-kahvliga; the word does not appear in any other form.

In addition to finding certain word forms in the database, the formindex would also prove useful at observing different grammaticalcategories. Cf. the expressions where the main word of the simileis substantive in comitative, performing the syntactic function ofthe means or subordinate adverbial: haarab kui hammastega ‘grabslike with teeth’, käänab kui pulgaga ‘bends like with a stick’, lasebkui rabapüssiga ‘shoots like with a shotgun’ – ‘farts’, lõikab nagukreissaega ‘cuts like with a disk saw’, lõikab nagu noaga ‘cuts likewith a knife’ i.e. ‘very sharp’, otsi nagu tulega ‘look for like with afire’ i.e. ‘to look very hard for something’, raiub nagu kirvega ‘hackslike with an axe’ i.e.‘carelessly, roughly’, torkab nagu nõelaga‘pricks like with a needle’, i.e. ‘suddenly, very quickly’, võtab kuikahvaga ‘takes like with a scoopnet’ i.e. ‘takes a lot’; laseb naguratsahobusega ‘rides like with a riding horse’, laseb kui veoga ‘rideslike with a long pulling’, läheb nagu viie paari härgiga ‘goes likewith five pairs of oxen’, läheb nagu lepase reega ‘goes like with analder sleigh’ i.e. ‘very smoothly’, läheb nagu masinaga ‘goes likewith a machine’, läheb kui rohega – nagu emis põrsastega ‘goeslike a sow with her piglets’, nagu Kiki Jüri oma kanaga ‘like KikiJüri with his hen’, justkui Kärsa Krõõt oma tegevusega ‘like KärsaKrõõt with her work’, tuleb välja kui Tuhalaane mees leivaga ‘comes



out like a man from Tuhalaane with his bread’ (see also Õim 1997:49).

The organisation and systematisation of the Estonian phrase fileswas started manually, the same basically applies to the typologicalwork. Presently, nearly all the material of the files has been en-tered into the database. Certainly, the typology based on the filesrequires additional revision and synchronisation, also archival datahas to be edited; in the nearest future we will begin segregatingnon-authentic expressions. The most laborious task is definitelyascertaining the meaning(s) of expressions. Hopefully the estab-lished indices will help to solve many problems. But most impor-tantly, the practical significance of the database of phrases is that inthe years to come everyone interested is guaranteed an easy accessto the bank of Estonian phrases.

Comments

This article was written with support from the ETF grant No. 4945.

1 All example texts here and below have either literal or literal andsemantic translations.

References

Baran, Anneli 1999. Eesti fraseoloogia põhijoontest ja struktuurist [Onthe Principles and Structure of Estonian Phraseology]. MA thesis. Tartu:The Estonian and Comparative Folklore Department of the University ofTartu.

Eisen, Matthias Johann 1913. Meie vanahõbe. Sarjatäis Eesti rahvaendist tarkust, kõnekäänusid ja ütlusi [Our Old Silver. A Series of EstonianFolk Wisdom, Phrases and Sayings]. Tartu: Hermann.

Erelt, Mati & Kasik, Reet & Metslang, Helle & Rajandi, Henno &Ross, Kristiina & Saari, Henn &. Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi 1993. Eestikeele grammatika II: Süntaks [The Grammar of the Esotnian LanguageII: Syntax]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja KirjanduseInstituut.



Estonian Standard EVS-ISO 2382 = Eesti standard EVS-ISO/IEC 2382.Infotehnoloogia. Sõnastik [Estonian Standard EVS-ISO 2382. Informationtechnology. Dictionary] http://ee.www.ee/ITterminid/ (20 December 2003).

Helle, Anton Thor 1732. Kurtzgefasste Anweisung zur EhstnischenSprache. Tallinn: Eestimaa Konsistooriumi kirjastuskassa.

Hupel, August Wilhelm 1780. Ehstnische Sprachlehre für beide Haupt-dialekte, den revalschen und dörptschen, nebst einem vollständigen Wörter-buch. Riga & Leipzig: Hartknoch.

Hussar, Anne & Krikmann, Arvo & Normann, Erna & Pino, Veera &Sarv, Ingrid & Saukas, Rein 1980. Eesti vanasõnad 1. 1–5000 [vanasõna]= Proverbia Estonica. Monumenta Estoniae Antiquae, III. Tallinn: EestiRaamat.

Hussar, Anne & Krikmann, Arvo & Saukas, Rein & Voolaid, Piret 2001.Eesti mõistatused I. 1–1350 [mõistatust] = Aenigmata Estonica I. 1–1350.Monumenta Estoniae antique, IV. Tartu: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Juhkam, Evi & Must, Mari & Mäger, Mart & Neetar, Helmi & Nigol,Salme & Niit, Ellen & Oja, Vilja & Pall, Valdek & Ross, Eevi & Univere,Aili & Viires, Helmi (koost.) 1994. Eesti murrete sõnaraamat I: 1 (A–J).[The Dictionary of Estonian Dialects I: 1] Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.

Krikmann, Arvo 1997. Sissevaateid folkloori lühivormidesse I [Insightsinto the Short Forms of Folklore]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.

Krikmann, Arvo 2001. Viimane pikk pilk “Proverbia septentrionalia”valmimisloole [One Last Look at the Compilation of ”Proverbia Sep-tentrionalia”]. Paar sammukest XVIII. Eesti Kirjandusmuuseumi Aasta-raamat. Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum.

Õim, Katre 1997. Eesti võrdluste struktuur [The Structure of EstonianSimiles]. MA thesis. Tartu: The Estonian Language Department of theUniversity of Tartu.

Pall, Valdek (ed.) 1982. Väike murdesõnastik 1 [The Small DialectDictionary 1]. Tallinn: Valgus.

Pall, Valdek (ed.) 1989. Väike murdesõnastik 2 [The Small DialectDictionary 2]. Tallinn: Valgus.

Saareste, Andrus 1958. Eesti keele mõisteline sõnaraamat, II = Dic-tionnaire analogique de la langue estonienne: Avec un index pourvu destraductions en francais. Eesti Teadusliku Seltsi Rootsis väljaanne, 3. Stock-holm: Vaba Eesti.

Stein, Victor Julius 1875. Üks kubu Vanu-sõnu ja vanu könekombeid[A Bundle of Proverbs and Old Speaking Customs]. Tartu: H. Laakmann,1875.

Vakk, Feliks 1970. Suured ninad murdsid päid...: (Pea ja selle osadrahvalike ütluste peeglis) [Big Noses Were Craking Heads... The Head andits Parts in Folk Sayings]. Tallinn: Valgus.



Viks, Ülle 1992. Väike vormisõnastik 1: Sissejuhatus ja Grammatika[The Form Dictionary 1: Introduction and Grammar]. Tallinn: EestiTeaduste Akadeemia.

Documents

Chapter Outline American Culture in the 1970s B. C. D