Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Return of the Burning Spruce

There’s an Internet meme that pops up every so often on my Facebook feed that illustrates so perfectly what a maddeningly weird language Finnish can be.

Although this might be an extreme example, the language here is completely normal. The two words Kuusi palaa can and do mean all these various things.

Partly this can be explained by the fact that the Finnish word kuusi is a true homonym, in which the same spelling and pronunciation are used for different words, with different meanings.

Who knows exactly why it should be that kuusi means both “six” and “spruce”? 

Perhaps in the misty recesses of time, the towering tree so abundant throughout the boreal forests of Eurasia looked like a six to the ancient proto-Finns. Chances are, it’s much more complicated than that.

While having one word do the work of two can be extremely economical for a language, it seems a bit rare in otherwise economical Finnish. Only a few common examples come to mind.

There is the case of the cucumber. The word kurkku does double duty as both “cucumber” and “throat”. Again, who knows why, though you can see a certain similarity, or even logic to it, I guess.

And it’s generally not a problem, as there is no room for confusion when someone says “Minun kurkkuuni sattuu” ("My throat hurts."), unless that someone has such an unnaturally close attachment to his or her cucumber that they can sense its real or imagined pain. I don’t know anyone like that. At least, no one who will admit to it. Or is free to wander freely among the public.

By comparison, English seems to be rife with homonyms, such as “pike” (a fish or a sharp stick), “light” (not heavy or not dark), and “crane” (a bird or a construction machine). Finnish comes close to sharing this last one with English, since kurki, the word for the long-legged bird, is also used in nostokurki, the tall machine that is used to lift all kinds of heavy stuff.

As a side note, some people can be surprisingly touchy when it comes to homonyms. Or more to the point, homophones, which are words that sound alike regardless of how they’re spelled (“dye” versus “die”). A language school in Utah reportedly fired its social media specialist last August when he posted a blog about homophones, due to concerns that it might be seen as promoting the “homo-sex-ual agenda”. As they say, only in America.

Besides the homogenous nature of homonyms, what makes the extreme multiple meanings of “Kuusi palaa” possible is the fact that the Finnish word for “moon” is kuu. And if you happen to have a planetary satellite of your very own, you could very well stake your claim to it by adding the possessive suffix “-si” to form kuusi (“my moon”). Which, of course, also means “spruce” or “six”.

As to whether your moon (or anyone’s "spruce" or "six") is burning or returning can be, well, a matter of sheer interpretation because of a quirk in the conjugation of two Finnish verbs that are distinctly different. Or, as it turns out, maybe not quite distinctly different enough.

The Finnish verb “to burn” is palaa (verb type 1), while “to return” is palata (verb type 4). 

As a verb type 1, palaa conjugates to palaa in third-person singular. (The last vowel of the root pala- is simply repeated.) No real change, not even a pesky consonant gradation. So palaa means both “to burn” and “burns”.

Meanwhile, to do the same with palata, as with any type 4 verb, you lop off the last “–a” and change the “-t-“ to an “-a-“ before adding the personal ending -- which for third-person singular doesn’t exist. So you end up with palaa (“returns”).

To confuse matters even more, a completely different Finnish word pala (“piece”), takes the partitive form of palaa when used with a number like the numeral “spruce”, no sorry, make that the numeral “six”. That’s why when talking about “six pieces” of something, you say kuusi palaa

The quantum mechanics of palaa 
(apparently enclosed in some kind of metaphysical blueberry)

The close similarity doesn’t end there. For fun, I was wondering how confusing it might be when using partisiipit (participles) of palaa (“burns” and “return”, not “pieces”). 

Partisiipit in Finnish are derived from the third-person plural forms of verbs, in these cases palaavat (“they return”) and palavat (“they burn”). In both words, the “–vat” is replaced with ”–va". Or maybe it's simpler to just think that the “-t“ disappears. 

In any case, you end up with palaava (returning) and palava (burning).

Imagine that! They’re not completely identical! You can easily tell them apart! Palaava has an extra “a”, which you pronounce as if you’re having a doctor examine your throat (or kurkku, if you will), as in “ahhhh”.

No doubt, simply adding the words palava or palaava will spice up any conversation about spruces. 

You can mystify your spouse or friends or random strangers encountered in the street by solemnly intoning:

          Palava kuusi palaa.” (”The burning spruce returns.”)

Or make the heartfelt declaration (with an extra "a") that: 

          “Palaava kuusi palaa.” (“The returning spruce burns.”)

That, of course, could also mean “The returning spruce returns”. But, then again, that would just be a silly thing to say.

Friday, January 16, 2015

The Police

My first job in Finland, when I finally got one, was as an English teacher. Specifically, I taught English as a second language in one of the several commercial schools catering mostly to Finnish businessmen. This was back in the day when my native tongue wasn't nearly so ubiquitous here as it is today, and many of my students were sent by their companies to improve the English they sometimes needed in their work.  

Because I am an American, I would sometimes be assigned to give lessons to students who were about to embark on their first business trip to the States. In addition to helping them brush up on their English, I was also expected to give them a little orientation on how things work in America, for example how to identify coins that have no numbers on them (maybe a uniquely American approach to money), or how to make long-distant calls on pay phones (this was, after all, a long time ago), or why it’s often okay for drivers to make a right turn when the light is red. 

One piece of advice I remember passing on to these America-bound Finns concerned what to do if stopped by the police. If they are ever pulled over by a cop in America, I would tell them, first of all keep your hands on the steering wheel. Don’t make any sudden moves. Don’t reach for the glove compartment. Don’t get out of the car. To do otherwise, could be extremely dangerous. You could easily get shot.  

I’m sure to my blue-eyed (in every sense of that word) Finnish students, this all sounded like an exaggeration, unnecessarily alarming. And maybe the only reason it occurred to me to give this particular piece of advice is a small incident that took place in a little college town almost a decade before.

After high school, I attended a tiny junior college nestled in a North Georgia valley, almost in the shadow of Brasstown Bald, the state’s highest peak. There wasn’t much to the town of Young Harris, other than the college of the same name, a Methodist school with a student body of only 600 or so. The highway running through the town passed under a single blinking yellow, not even red, traffic light at the one intersection with another highway. It was, quite literally, less than a one-stoplight town. 

I don’t think I ever knew the real name of the town cop, but to us cheeky outsider students, he was “Barney”. Not that, I guess, anyone would ever have called him that to his face. This was, of course, a reference to Barney Fife, the hopelessly inept and self-important deputy sheriff in the classic 1960s American TV series “The Andy Griffith Show”. Besides being comically bumbling, the TV Barney, unlike the show's wise Sheriff Andy always, seemed overly eager to one day, someday, finally, use his gun. He was portrayed as a fool. 

Apparently, my fellow students didn’t hold the local constabulary in much higher regard than Barney Fife, though to be honest, our collective worldview was probably pretty narrow. Looking back, our isolated mountain campus wasn’t often much different than high school, and we students may have been a little excitable and impulsive. Epic impromptu water balloon fights would sometimes erupt between dorms.  

One night, a drama developed after midnight when one of my fraternity brothers took off from campus, apparently in a poisonous state of mind over a break up with a girl or some other romantic trouble. Whether he was about to do himself any harm in reality, I can’t say. But his friends were concerned enough that the alarm went out among the frat brothers to go look for him. 

Several of us were dispatched around the valley to different spots we thought he might have gone. With a friend, I headed off in my VW beetle for “The Mountain”, one of the places where students went to party off campus. It was a Methodist school, after all, and strictly “alcohol-free” even in those days when 18-year-old college students could legally drink. Other popular spots for swigging beer under the stars were “The Dam” and “The Beach”, sites no doubt still fondly remembered by aging alumni.  

Maybe the best of all of these places, The Mountain was an airy ridge top on a broad, wooded mountainside crisscrossed by some gravel roads a property developer had built to potential house sites. Probably, it’s some kind of gated community today.  

After climbing the steep road in my VW, we arrived at The Mountain to find that not only was it completely deserted, but the surrounding forest was on fire. Well, maybe not “the forest” exactly. A campfire from that night’s party had gotten out of control and set ablaze the nearby forest floor, the thick layer of dry leaves on the ground that was now burning in a widening semi-circle. Maybe alcohol, young people, and an open fire don’t always mix well.

My friend and I jumped out of the car and started stomping out the flames, not even bothering to turn off my headlights, which in any case gave us enough light to see what we were doing. It took us a little while to get the blaze completely under control. When we were finally satisfied there was no danger of the fire reigniting, we got back in the car to leave. No such luck. The battery was dead, drained by burning the headlights too long.  

There was nothing else to do but start walking back to campus. We hadn’t gone far down the road in the dark when we were met by a car coming up the mountain. A police car. It wasn’t Barney the city cop, more like a county deputy sheriff, I think. I assume someone had noticed the fire and called the police. If he deputy had any suspicions that we had set the fire ourselves, he must have dismissed it. He gave my friend and I a ride back to town, the only time I’ve ever sat in the back of a police car. Unless I’ve sanitized it in my memory, the whole encounter was friendly enough.  

Not so for another encounter that took place that night. While I had gone to The Mountain to search for our friend, my roommate Pete was among those who were frantically rushing around to other locations. The car he was riding in, tearing down the empty highway in the middle of town, didn’t escape the notice of Barney. He was on the case in an instant and, after a short chase, pulled my friend's car over. As Barney stepped out of his cruiser to approach the stopped car, my roommate Pete, filled with the urgency of the search for our missing friend and not wanting to delay it for a mere speeding ticket, jumped out from the passenger side to explain to Barney why they were in such a hurry. It was a mistake. Barney immediately pulled his gun, pointing it at Pete. At least, that’s how I remember hearing about it later.

Luckily, Barney didn’t shoot. Luckily, he wasn’t as trigger happy as we might have thought. Still, he was twitchy enough to draw his weapon on a young college student springing out of a stopped car in the middle of the night. The fact that this could happen to someone I knew made a deep impression on me.  

(And to be fair to “Barney”, it had been only a year earlier that the county sheriff at the time had been shot to death during a similar traffic stop at a lonely crossroads in the middle of the night. Maybe, Barney had reason to be nervous.) 

Anyway, this little incident has been on my mind in light of last year’s rash of high-profile killings by American cops.  

I have a British friend who a few years ago expressed his concern that if he traveled to the US, he could be killed by the police. I was surprised by that. This was around the time that two British tourists had been murdered in a seedy neighborhood near Tampa, Florida, a story that apparently got a huge amount of alarmed coverage in the UK press.  

I would have thought that my friend instead would have feared American criminals, not American law enforcement. Maybe he had already been seeing on the Internet some of the stories of police abuse that have now become depressingly frequent.  

I have no idea whether hasty shootings, justified or not, of citizens by the police were as frequent back in the 80s as they seem to be now. What I do know is that my roommate didn’t get a bullet to the chest on that night. In the current environment, that almost seems amazing.  

Some might chalk that happy outcome up to “white privilege”, by which a white man -- especially in a rural mountain town -- isn’t reflectively seen by the police as a “real” threat in the same way that an African-American might be. I’m willing to believe that things might have been different if Pete had been black. 

Still, maybe those were just simpler times. Something that I think contributes to the way recent encounters with the police seem to escalate too often to tragedy is the pervasive gun culture in America. When cops can rightly assume that anyone they meet on the street might be armed, it’s perhaps no surprise they become trigger happy.  

That doesn’t mean they aren’t even more trigger happy when encountering blacks, but the underlying climate of lawlessness and fear is certainly a dismal background to begin with. Add to that the general animosity between black communities and the police, and the climate becomes even more toxic.  

Not that animosity toward the police is solely an issue for African-Americans or liberals. Some folks on the far right are also no fans of law enforcement. 

When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was illegally grazing his cattle on public land, resisted police attempts last April to confiscate the cattle, he was lauded as a hero by some conservatives, while the police officers confronting him were vilified.  

That armed standoff, ended peacefully when the police backed down and allowed Bundy to continue committing his crime. Though, in the long run, perhaps not entirely peacefully. A couple of months later, two anti-government extremists, a married couple who had joined Bundy’s standoff with the law, murdered a pair of Las Vegas police officers, unprovoked and without warning, much like the recent ambush killing of two patrolmen in New York by a deranged man outraged over the recent highly publicized killings of unarmed blacks. 

Meanwhile, in Finland police last year discharged a total of six bullets while on duty. In the whole country. For the whole year. And three of those were warning shots. If that sounds like a more civilized society, it is. 

And I believe this is true, despite the sad fact that this week poliisi in Oulu were forced to use their weapons against a maniac with a hatchet who had just murdered two people. The man died, the first police-related killing since 2009 and the second since 2000. Though not a good way to start off the year, it's clearly a much rarer thing in this country than in America. 

That is something I hope never changes. 

Monday, January 5, 2015

Dark as Utsjoki

Back in college, I had a good friend and roommate who had a knack for coming up with funny, off-the-cuff expressions. He often had a quirky way of putting things. One of the phrases he used regularly was “dark as Egypt”, as in “It’s dark as Egypt in here.”  

I always thought this was just his own idiosyncratic creation, and maybe it was. But, I’ve recently come to realize that this expression might have a long history of its own.  

I’ve been reading the journal of beaver trapper Osborne Russell, a fascinating account of his life as a woodsman and hunter in the Rocky Mountains of the 1830s. Not long ago, I ran across a familiar-sounding phrase in a passage where Russell describes how – when traveling with a companion up the Rocky Fork of the Yellowstone in the autumn of 1837 he became surrounded after nightfall by a stampeding herd of spooked bison.

“…we proceeded on our journey until sometime after dark when we found ourselves on a sudden in the midst of an immense band of Buffaloe who getting the scent of us ran helter skelter around us in every direction rushing to and fro like the waves of the ocean, approaching sometimes within 10 ft. of us We stood still for we dare not retreat or advance until this storm of brutes took a general course and rolled away with a noise like distant thunder and then we hurried on thro. egyptian darkness a few 100 paces when we found a bunch of willows where we concluded to stop for the night rather than risk our lives any further among such whirlwinds of beef” (emphasis mine).
It struck me how strange that an itinerant hunter enveloped in pitch-blackness on the high plains of North America would be reminded of faraway Egypt, unless this was a common expression of the day. 

If this was, in fact, a 19th century cliché, I have discovered (thanks to Google) a plausible source for the saying “Egyptian darkness”. A Biblical source, naturally.  

When Moses was lobbying Pharaoh to let the Israelites depart from Egypt, he got some supernatural assistance in the form of a series of plagues, as in this passage:

“Yahweh then said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand towards heaven, and let darkness, darkness so thick that it can be felt, cover Egypt.’ So Moses stretched out his hand towards heaven, and for three days there was thick darkness over the whole of Egypt.” (Exodus 10:21-22)
Three days? If’s that’s the Biblical standard for oppressive darkness (in Egyptian terms), then there’s no doubt Finns are made of sturdier stuff than the ancient residents of the Nile Valley. Three days is nothing. The short, cloudy days of the Finnish autumn, though not continuously pitch-black, can be much more oppressive than any three days of darkness.  

And, though autumn is behind us and today, for a change, Helsinki is enjoying some brilliant winter sunshine (all six hours of it), right now in northern Lapland, where the sun set in late November and won’t rise until mid-January, there really is darkness around the clock. Okay, maybe it’s more a faint twilight, what the Finns call kaamos. But, still it lasts for more than three days.  

So, I would suggest my college buddy should replace his old expression with something else, something like “It’s as dark as Utsjoki in here.” Not as romantically evocative as ancient Egypt maybe, but certainly more factually correct.