Mari is the titular and official language of its republic, alongsideRussian.
The Mari language today has three standard forms:Hill Mari,Northwestern Mari, andMeadow Mari. The latter is predominant and spans the continuum Meadow Mari to Eastern Mari from the Republic into the Ural dialects ofBashkortostan,Sverdlovsk Oblast andUdmurtia), whereas the former, Hill Mari, shares a stronger affiliation with the Northwestern dialect (spoken in theNizhny Novgorod Oblast and parts of theKirov Oblast). Both language forms use modified versions ofCyrillic script. For the non-native, Hill Mari, or Western Mari, can be recognised by its use of the special letters "ӓ" and "ӹ" in addition to the shared letters "ӱ" and "ӧ", while Eastern and Meadow Mari utilise a special letter "ҥ".
The use of two "variants", as opposed to two "languages", has been debated: Maris recognise the unity of the ethnic group, and the two forms are very close, but distinct enough to cause some problems with communication.[citation needed]
The Mari language and people were known as "Cheremis" (Russian:черемисы, черемисский язык,cheremisy,cheremisskiy yazyk). In medieval texts the variant forms Sarmys and Tsarmys are also found, as well asTatar:Чирмеш,romanized: Çirmeş; andChuvash:Ҫармӑс,Śarmăs before theRussian Revolution. The termMari comes from the Maris' autonymмарий (mari).
Most Maris live in rural areas with slightly more than a quarter living in cities. In the republic's capital,Yoshkar-Ola, the percentage of Maris is just over 23 percent. At the end of the 1980s (per the 1989 census) Maris numbered 670,868, of whom 80% (542,160) claimed Mari as their first language and 18.8% did not speak Mari. In the Mari Republic, 11.6% claimed Mari was not their first language. In a survey by the Mari Research Institute more than three quarters of Maris surveyed considered Mari language to be the most crucial marker of ethnic identity, followed by traditional culture (61%) and common historical past (22%), religion (16%), character and mentality (15%) and appearance (11%) (see Glukhov and Glukhov for details). A gradual downward trend towards assimilation to Russian has been noted for the Communist period: the 1926 census indicated more than 99% of Maris considered Mari their first language, declining to less than 81% in 1989. Some qualitative evidence of a reversal in recent years has been noted.
There was no state support for Mari language inImperial Russia, and with the exception of some enthusiasts and numerous ecclesiastical texts by theRussian Orthodox Church, there was almost no education in Mari language. After theOctober Revolution, there was a period of support of all lesser national cultures in theSoviet Union, but eventuallyRussification returned. While the development of Mari literary language continued, still, only elementary-school education was available in Mari in the Soviet period, with this policy ending in village schools in the 1970–1980s. The period ofglasnost andperestroika in the 1990s opened opportunities for a revival of efforts expand the use of Mari in education and the public sphere. In the 1990s, the Mari language, alongside Russian, was proclaimed in the republican constitution to be an official language of Mari El. By the beginning of the 21st century, Mari language and literature was taught in 226 schools. At the History and Philology Department of the Mari State University and theKrupskaya Teachers' Training Institute (Yoshkar-Ola), more than half of the subjects are taught in Mari. However, by 2024, only 9% of ethnic Mari children were being taught Mari in just 81 schools.[5]
The principal division between Mari varieties is the West and the East. According to the Soviet linguist Kovedyaeva (1976:9-15, 1993:163-164) the Mari macrolanguage is divided into four main dialects:
Hill Mari, spoken mainly on the right upper bank of the Volga River aroundKozmodemyansk (hence the name), but also on the left bank and in the mouth ofVetluga.
Each main dialect is divided into their own smaller local subdialects. Only Hill and Meadow Mari have their own literary written standard varieties, based on the dialects of Kozmodemyansk and Yoshkar-Ola respectively.
Eastern and Meadow Mari are often united as a Meadow-Easternsupra-dialect. Northwestern Mari is transitional between the Hill and Meadow dialects, and its phonology and morphology are closer to Hill Mari.
The schwa/ə/ and its fronted counterpart are usually transcribed inFinno-Ugric transcription asə̑ (reduced mid unrounded vowel) andə (reduced front unrounded vowel) respectively. The former has sometimes been transcribed in IPA as/ɤ/, but phonetically the vowel is most strongly distinguished by its short duration and reduced quality. Descriptions vary on the degree of backness and labialisation.[6]
The mid vowels/e/,/ø/,/o/ have more reduced allophones[e̽],[ø̽],[o̽] at the end of a word.
Stress is not phonemic in Mari, but a dynamic stress system is exhibited phonetically, the stressed syllable being higher in pitch and amplitude and greater in length than an unstressed syllable. Generally, there is one prominent syllable per word and prominence may be found in any syllable of the word. Post- and prefixes behave asclitics, i.e., they do not have their own stress. For example, пӧ́рт (pört, "house") гыч (gəč, "out of") ([ˈpørtɣɤt͡ʃ]); or му́ро (muro, "song") дене (dene, "with") ([ˈmuroðene]).
Only in Russian loanwords, in Hill Mari also onomatopoeia and Chuvashian loanwords.
Palatalisation is marked in different ways. A⟨у⟩ following a palatalised consonant is written as⟨ю⟩, and⟨а⟩ following a palatalised consonant is written as⟨я⟩. If the vowel following a palatalised consonant is an е or an и, palatalisation is not marked at all. In other cases, thesoft sign ь is used to mark palatalisation.
The modified Cyrillic letter for the velar nasal (ŋ) combines the Cyrillic letter⟨Н н⟩ with and⟨Г г⟩, where the rightmost post of Н is conflated with the vertical post of⟨Г⟩:⟨Ҥ, ҥ⟩. Although Hill Mari has this sound too, this character is only used in Meadow Mari.
In Russian loanwords and after nasals,/bdɡ/ are voiced stops. Word-finally and before a consonant, there is free variation between voiced fricatives ([βðɣ]) and voiceless stops[ptk].
Like several other Uralic languages, Mari hasvowel harmony. In addition to front/back harmony, Mari also features round/unround harmony. If the stressed vowel in the word isrounded, then the suffix will contain a rounded vowel: for example, кӱтӱ́ ([kyˈty] 'herd') becomes кӱтӱ́штӧ ([kyˈtyʃtø], 'in the herd'); if the stressed vowel is unrounded, then the suffix will contain an unrounded vowel: ки́д ([kid], 'hand') becomes ки́дыште ([ˈkidəʃte], 'in the hand'). If the stressed vowel is back, then the suffix will end in a back vowel: агу́р ([aˈgur], 'whirlpool') becomes агу́рышто ([aˈgurəʃto], 'in the whirlpool').[7]
Meadow Mari has 9productivecases, of which 3 arelocative cases. The usage of the latter ones is restricted to inanimate objects. These cases are all complemented bypostpositions, which are either going through or have gone through morphologisation. There are nonoun classes, and allinflected forms can be derived from thenominative singular.[8]
Many cases, aside from their basic function, are used in other situations, such as in expressions of time.
Nominative, used for subjects, predicatives and for other grammatical functions.
^The illative has a short form, equivalent to the long form in meaning.
If a locative statement was to be made about an animate object, postpositions would be used.
Additionally, terms denoting family members havevocative forms. These are, however, not created with a specific paradigm, and only exist in a few pre-defined cases.
Hill Mari has these cases, plus theabessive case (of the form -де), which is used to formadverbials stating without the involvement or influence of which an action happens.
Additional particles, falling into none of the categories above, can be added to the very end of a word, giving it some additional meaning. For example, the suffix -ат(-at), means 'also' or 'too'.
The arrangement of suffixes varies from case to case. Although the case suffixes are after the possessive suffixes in the genitive and the accusative, the opposite is the case for the locative cases. In the dative, both arrangements are possible.
Case
Singular
Example
Plural
Nominative
P
пӧртем – 'my house (subject)'
пӧртем-влак – 'my houses (subject)'
Genitive
P → C
пӧртемын – 'of my house'
пӧртем-влакын – 'of my houses'
Accusative
пӧртемым – 'my house (object)'
пӧртем-влакым – 'my houses (object)'
Comitative
пӧртемге – 'with my house'
пӧртем-влакге – 'with my houses'
Dative
P → C, C → P
пӧртемлан, пӧртланем – 'to my house'
пӧртем-влаклан – 'to my houses'
Comparative
P → C, C → P
пӧртемла, пӧртлам – 'like my house'
пӧртем-влакла – 'like my houses'
Inessive
C → P
пӧртыштем – 'in my house'
пӧрт-влакыштем – 'in my houses'
Illative
пӧртышкем – 'into my house'
пӧрт-влакышкем – 'into my houses'
Lative
пӧртешем – 'into my house'
пӧрт-влакешем – 'into my houses'
There are many other arrangements in theplural—the position of the plural particle is flexible. The arrangement here is one commonly used possibility.Allomorphy is generally transparent, with the realisation ofaffixes being predictable, with the exception of some cases.[8]
Comparison happens with adjectives and adverbs. Thecomparative is formed with the suffix -рак (-rak). Thesuperlative is formed by adding the word эн (en) in front.
In Meadow Mari, verbs can conjugate according to two conjugation types. These differ from each other in all forms but the infinitive and the third-person plural of the imperative. Unfortunately, the infinitive is the form denoted in dictionaries and word lists. It is, thus, necessary to either mark verb infinitives by their conjugation type in word lists, or to include a form in which the conjugation class is visible—usually, the first-person singular present, which ends in -ам (or -ям) for verbs in the first category, and in -ем (or -эм) for second-type verbs.
Literary Meadow Mari has only two irregular verbs, the 'negative verb' and the word for 'to be'.[8]
Like nouns,nonfinite verb forms can also take person suffixes, reflecting the subject or possessor.[8]
Indicative: The indicative is used to express facts and positive beliefs. All intentions that a particular language does not categorise as another mood are classified as indicative. It can be formed in all persons, in all times.
Imperative: The imperative expresses direct commands, requests, and prohibitions. It only exists in the present tense, and exists in all persons but the first person singular.
Desiderative: The desiderative is used to express desires. It can be formed for all persons, in the present tense and in the two periphrastic imperfect.
The negation verb in its corresponding form is put in front of the negated verb in its second-person singular (the stem-only form), much as it is in Finnish andEstonian.
Person
Indicative present
Imperative present
Desiderative present
Indicative first preterite
First-person singular
ом (om)
-
ынем (ənem)
шым (šəm)
Second-person singular
от (ot)
ит (it)
ынет (ənet)
шыч (šəč)
Third-person singular
огеш (ogeš) / ок (ok)
ынже (ənže)
ынеж(е) (ənež(e))
ыш (əš)
First-person plural
огына (ogəna) / она (ona)
-
ынена (ənena)
ышна (əšna)
Second-person plural
огыда (ogəda) / ода (oda)
ида (ida)
ынеда (əneda)
ышда (əšda)
Third-person plural
огыт (ogət)
ынышт (ənəšt)
ынешт (ənešt)
ышт (əšt)
The verb улаш (ulaš) – to be – has its own negated forms.
In order to illustrate the conjugation in the respective moods and times, one verb of the first declination (лекташ – to go) and one verb of the second declination (мондаш – to forget) will be used.
Conjugation of the present indicative positive
Person
1st dec. pos.
2nd dec. pos.
1st singular
лектам (I go)
мондем (I forget)
2nd singular
лектат (You go)
мондет (You forget)
3rd singular
лектеш (He/she/it goes)
монда (He/she/it forgets)
1st plural
лектына (We go)
мондена (We forget)
2nd plural
лектыда (You go)
мондеда (You forget)
3rd plural
лектыт (They go)
мондат (They forget)
Conjugation of the present indicative negative
Person
1st dec. neg.
2nd dec. neg.
1st singular
ом лек2 (I don't go)
ом мондо1 (I don't forget)
2nd singular
от лек2 (You don't go)
от мондо1 (You don't forget)
3rd singular
огеш лек2 (He/she/it doesn't go)
огеш мондо1 (He/she/it doesn't forget)
1st plural
огына лек2 (We don't go)
огына мондо1 (We don't forget)
2nd plural
огыда лек2 (You don't go)
огыда мондо1 (You don't forget)
3rd plural
огыт лек2 (They don't go)
огыт мондо1 (They don't forget)
Bold letters are subject tovowel harmony—they can be е/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
Conjugation of the 1st preterite indicative positive
Person
1st dec. pos.
2nd dec. pos.
1st singular
лектым3 (I went)
мондышым (I forgot)
2nd singular
лектыч3 (You went)
мондышыч (You forgot)
3rd singular
лекте1, 3 (He/she/it went)
мондыш (He/she/it forgot)
1st plural
лекна2 (We went)
мондышна (We forget)
2nd plural
лекда2 (You went)
мондышда (You forgot)
3rd plural
лектыч3 (They went)
мондышт (They forgot)
Bold letters are subject to vowel harmony—they can be е/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
If the consonant prior to the ending can be palatalised—if it isл (l) orн (n)—it is palatalised in this position. Palatalisation is not marked if the vowel following a consonant is an е. колаш → кольым, кольыч, кольо, колна, колда, кольыч (to hear)
Conjugation of the 1st preterite indicative negative
Person
1st dec. neg.
2nd dec. neg.
1st singular
шым лек2 (I didn't go)
шым мондо1 (I didn't forget)
2nd singular
шыч лек2 (You didn't go)
шыч мондо1 (You didn't forget)
3rd singular
ыш лек2 (He/she/it didn't go)
ыш мондо1 (He/she/it didn't forget)
1st plural
ышна лек2 (We didn't go)
ышна мондо1 (We don't forget)
2nd plural
ышда лек2 (You didn't go)
ышда мондо1 (You didn't forget)
3rd plural
ышт лек2 (They didn't go)
ышт мондо1 (They didn't forget)
Bold letters are subject to vowel harmony—they can be е/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
Conjugation of the 2nd preterite indicative positive
Person
1st dec. pos.
2nd dec. pos.
1st singular
лектынам (I went)
монденам (I forgot)
2nd singular
лектынат (You went)
монденат (You forgot)
3rd singular
лектын (He/she/it went)
монден (He/she/it forgot)
1st plural
лектынна (We went)
монденна (We forget)
2nd plural
лектында (You went)
монденда (You forgot)
3rd plural
лектыныт (They went)
монденыт (They forgot)
Conjugation of the 2nd preterite indicative negative
Person
1st dec. neg.
2nd dec. neg.
1st singular
лектын омыл (I didn't go)
монден омыл (I didn't forget)
2nd singular
лектын отыл (You didn't go)
монден отыл (You didn't forget)
3rd singular
лектын огыл (He/she/it didn't go)
монден огыл (He/she/it didn't forget)
1st plural
лектын огынал (We didn't go)
монден огынал (We don't forget)
2nd plural
лектын огыдал (You didn't go)
монден огыдал (You didn't forget)
3rd plural
лектын огытыл (They didn't go)
монден огытыл (They didn't forget)
Conjugation of the imperative positive
Person
1st dec. pos.
2nd dec. pos.
1st singular
–
–
2nd singular
лек3 (Go!)
мондо1 (Forget!)
3rd singular
лекше2 (He/She/It should go)
мондыжо1 (He/She/It should forget)
1st plural
лектына (Let's go)
мондена (Let's forget)
2nd plural
лекса2 (Go!)
мондыза (Forget!)
3rd plural
лекытшт (They should go)
мондышт (They should forget)
Bold letters are subject to vowel harmony—they can beе/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative.
In the first conjugation, the imperative second-person singular is formed by removing the-аш ending from the infinitive. Four consonant combinations are not allowed at the end of an imperative, and are thus simplified—one consonant is lost. кт →к,нч →ч,чк →ч,шк →ш
Conjugation of the imperative negative
Person
1st dec. neg.
2nd dec. neg.
1st singular
-
-
2nd singular
ит лек2 (Don't go!)
ит мондо1 (Don't forget!)
3rd singular
ынже лек2 (He/She/It shouldn't go)
ынже мондо1 (He/She/It shouldn't forget)
1st plural
огына лек2 (Let's not go)
огына мондо1 (Let's not forget)
2nd plural
ида лек2 (Don't go!)
ида мондо1 (Don't forget!)
3rd plural
ынышт лек2 (They shouldn't go)
ынышт мондо1 (They shouldn't forget)
Bold letters are subject to vowel harmony—they can beе/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
Conjugation of the present desiderative positive
Person
1st dec. pos.
2nd dec. pos.
1st singular
лекнем2 (I want to go)
мондынем (I want to forget)
2nd singular
лекнет2 (You want to go)
мондынет (You want to forget)
3rd singular
лекнеже2 (He/she/it wants to go)
мондынеже (He/she/it wants to forget)
1st plural
лекнена2 (We want to go)
мондынена (We want to forget)
2nd plural
лекнеда2 (You want to go)
мондынеда (You want to forget)
3rd plural
лекнешт2 (They want to go)
мондынешт (They want to forget)
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
Conjugation of the present desiderative negative
Person
1st dec. neg.
2nd dec. neg.
1st singular
ынем лек2 (I don't want to go)
ынем мондо1 (I don't want to forget)
2nd singular
ынет лек2 (You don't want to go)
ынет мондо1 (You don't want to forget)
3rd singular
ынеже лек2 (He/she/it doesn't want to go)
ынеже мондо1 (He/she/it doesn't want to forget)
1st plural
ынена лек2 (We don't want to go)
ынена мондо1 (We don't want to forget)
2nd plural
ынеда лек2 (You don't want to go)
ынеда мондо1 (You don't want to forget)
3rd plural
ынешт лек2 (They don't want to go)
ынешт мондо1 (They don't want to forget)
Bold letters are subject to vowel harmony—they can beе/о/ӧ, depending on the preceding full vowel.
First-conjugation verb forms using the imperative second-person singular as their stem are subject to the same stem changes as the imperative – see imperative second-person singular.
Conjugation of улаш –to be – in the indicative mood
Verbs have twoinfinitive forms: the standard infinitive and the necessive infinitive, used when a person must do something. The person needing to do something is put in the dative in such a situation.
Word order in Mari issubject–object–verb.[9] This means that the object appears directly before the predicate.[9] Word order in Mari is affected by information structure.[9] However, the position of the verb is not affected.[9] The focus position is directly before the verb.[9] Subjects, objects, adverbial, and secondary predicate can appear in this position.[9] The examples below quoted in Saarinen (2022)[9] show the different elements that can appear in the focus position.
Two nouns can be put against each other to form nominal predication.[12] According to Saarinen (2022) both nouns and adjectives appear in the nominative case and do not agree with the subject in number in nominal predication.[9] Saarinen (2022) notes that when the sentence is in the indicative mood with 3sg, acopula is not used.[9] However, acopula is obligatory and appears clause-final and in other persons, tenses, and moods.[9]
Saarinen (2022) points out that the object is marked with the accusative in transitive clauses.[9] However, the object can appear in the nominative case in non-finite constructions.[9] When the clause is ditransitive, the direct object appears in the accusative case and the indirect takes the dative case.[9] However, Saarinen (2022) notes that in dialects and with verbs such as йӱкты- /jyktə-/ 'water' and пукшы- /pukʃə-/ 'feed' both objects appear in the accusative case.[9]
Ingemann, F. J. and T. A. Sebeok, An Eastern Cheremis Manual: Phonology, Grammar, Texts and Glossary (= American Council of Learned Societies, Research and Studies in Uralic and Altaic languages, project nos. 6 and 31), Bloomington, 1961 (Meadow);
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages, 219-248. London: Routledge.
Lewy E., Tscheremissische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1922 (Meadow);
Ramstedt G. J., Bergtscheremissische Sprachstudien, Helsinki, 1902 (Hill);
Räsänen M., Die tschuwassischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen, Helsinki, 1920;
Räsänen M., Die tatarischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen, Helsinki, 1923.
Sebeok, T. A. and A. Raun. (eds.), The First Cheremis Grammar (1775): A Facsimile Edition, Chicago, 1956.
Szilasi M., Cseremisz szótár, Budapest, 1901 (Mari [Hill and Meadow], Hungarian, German);
Wichmann Y., Tscheremissische Texte mit Wörterverzeichnis und grammatikalischem Abriss, Helsingfors, 1923 (Hill and Meadow);
Wiedemann F., Versuch einer Grammatik der tscheremissischen Sprache, Saint Petersburg, 1847 (Hill);
Васильев В. М., Записки по грамматике народа мари, Kazan', 1918 (Hill and Meadow);
Васильев В. М., Марий Мутэр, Moscow, 1929 (Hill and Meadow);
Галкин, И. С., Историческая грамматика марийского языка, vol. I, II, Yoshkar-Ola, 1964, 1966;
Галкин, И. С., "Происхождение и развитие марийского языка", Марийцы. Историко-этнографические очерки/Марий калык. Историй сынан этнографий очерк-влак, Yoshkar-Ola, 2005: 43-46.
Зорина, З. Г., Г. С. Крылова, and Э. С. Якимова. Марийский язык для всех, ч. 1. Йошкар-Ола: Марийское книжное издательство, * Кармазин Г. Г., Материалы к изучению марийского языка, Krasnokokshajsk, 1925 (Meadow);
Иванов И. Г., История марийского литературного языка, Yoshkar-Ola, 1975;
Иванов И. Г., Марий диалектологий, Yoshkar-Ola, 1981;
Кармазин Г. Г., Учебник марийского языка лугово-восточного наречия, Yoshkar-Ola, 1929 (Meadow);
Коведяева Е. И. "Марийский язык", Основы финно-угорского языкознания. Т.3. Moscow, 1976: 3-96.
Коведяева Е. И. "Марийский язык", Языки мира: Уральские языки. Moscow, 1993: 148-164.
Коведяева Е. И. "Горномарийский вариант литературного марийского языка", Языки мира: Уральские языки. Moscow, 1993: 164-173.
Шорин В. С., Маро-русский словарь горного наречия, Kazan', 1920 (Hill);
Троицкий В. П., Черемисско-русский словарь, Kazan', 1894 (Hill and Meadow);
^abcdefAbondolo, Daniel Mario, ed. (2006).The Uralic languages. Routledge language family descriptions (Repr ed.). London: Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-08198-6.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
.png)
