Talk:Colloquial Finnish

message: This article is, indeed, bad. However, I'm only going to comment on the following
Onkse myyny sen talonsa? (poss. suffix present) "Has he sold his house?" This is definitely not the correct translation!
Onkse myyny sen talonsa? means "Has he sold that house of his". "Onkse myyny talonsa" would be " Has he sold his house?"
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. –Mysid(t) 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is bad 

message: - note that there is no pejorative sense in talking about people as 'it', unlike in English. [Actually there is. People just usually don't mind because using "hän" sounds overly fancy and fine to many. Finns have deep hate toward nobility perhaps from the times of Swedish oppression.]:
:This is a ridiculous claim. Also Swedish language is famous for its informality.  And there were nobles in Sweden-Finland of Finnish origin in the Middle Ages, so that refutes your theory, too. Informality isn't hate towards fineness. It is a different habit, a different culture. Do you order a drink by saying "Could it be possible to have..."? No. But it would be very parochial to describe people of such culture as snobs. Discussion about whether the Swedes oppressed the Finns belongs to the History of Finland .
::You're right in saying that it's a ridiculous claim. As any Finn knows, using "it" for people is used in everyday speech by almost all people (in more formal, e.g. business, talk it's of course omitted), but as a general rule (if indeed there is any), the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they will use "hän". "Se/ne" has been in use at least in the old Helsinki slang ("stadin slangi") for decades, and at least according to my knowledge has then spread to the rest of Finland from there (and possibly from other local/regional slangs and dialects as well). However, it is true, and an important point, that people, even young people, in southwestern Finland (e.g. Turku) use "hän" much more commonly in colloquial Finnish.
:::The initial claim was completely ridiculous. But it may be worth pointing out that there is an even deeper misunderstanding behind the whole issue. It is simply wrong to claim that in colloqual Finnish uses "it" for persons. The correct description would be to say that colloquial Finnish does not make a distinction between personal and demonstrative pronouns in the 3rd person. So in spoken Finnish se does not mean "it" - it means "he", "she", and "it". This is a very different thing. It is just absurd to claim that when a Finn utters a sentence like se ostaa leipää, he's really saying "it buys bread" and not "(s)he buys bread". The sentence means "(s)he buys bread", and that's all.
=== On the topic "se" vs. "hän" ===
On the topic of "se" vs. "hän", also note that the meaning of "se" is broader than English "it"; sometimes the word can also be translated as "that" (as in the pronouns tämä, tuo, se; nämä, nuo, ne). Consider the following:
:Ei se mitään tienny (lit. 'It didn't know anything') < Ei se tyyppi mitään tienny ('That guy didn't know anything') < Ei se mies mitään tiennyt ('That man didn't know anything')
The third sentence is proper Finnish, and the choice of pronoun is not impolite at all (using "hän" instead would be blatantly wrong here). The first sentence can be seen as a contraction of this, which may in part explain why calling people "se" sounds natural. Also the sentences "Se oli Anna" and "Hän oli Anna" are both correct in formal language and neither is more polite than the other, though there is a slight difference in the meaning (That was Anna vs. She was Anna).
::An example of the use described in the comment immediately above:
:: There is a knock on the door. The wife goes to answer, and later the man asks: "Who was at the door?" -"It was Anna," replies the wife. = Se oli Anna. (past tense) Here using hän would be as unacceptable as in the reply "She was Anna."
:: A beautiful girl goes past two men. One asks: "Who is that girl?" The other replies: "She is Anna." = Hän on Anna. (present tense) The form Se on Anna could be used as well with exactly the same meaning, only being more informal and more natural to the situation.
:: --Pxos (talk) 16:23 – 20:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  People as it 

message: On the topic of "se" vs. "hän", also note that the meaning of "se" is broader than English "it"; sometimes the word can also be translated as "that" (as in the pronouns tämä, tuo, se; nämä, nuo, ne). Consider the following:
:Ei se mitään tienny (lit. 'It didn't know anything') < Ei se tyyppi mitään tienny ('That guy didn't know anything') < Ei se mies mitään tiennyt ('That man didn't know anything')
The third sentence is proper Finnish, and the choice of pronoun is not impolite at all (using "hän" instead would be blatantly wrong here). The first sentence can be seen as a contraction of this, which may in part explain why calling people "se" sounds natural. Also the sentences "Se oli Anna" and "Hän oli Anna" are both correct in formal language and neither is more polite than the other, though there is a slight difference in the meaning (That was Anna vs. She was Anna).
::An example of the use described in the comment immediately above:
:: There is a knock on the door. The wife goes to answer, and later the man asks: "Who was at the door?" -"It was Anna," replies the wife. = Se oli Anna. (past tense) Here using hän would be as unacceptable as in the reply "She was Anna."
:: A beautiful girl goes past two men. One asks: "Who is that girl?" The other replies: "She is Anna." = Hän on Anna. (present tense) The form Se on Anna could be used as well with exactly the same meaning, only being more informal and more natural to the situation.
:: --Pxos (talk) 16:23 – 20:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the topic "se" vs. "hän" 

message: This page title doesn't make sense. Moving to "Spoken Finnish" Nohat 20:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title does not make sense 

message: This article looks rather long and comprehensive. Shouldn't the stub tag be removed? 193.167.132.66 08:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a stub any more? 

message: I recently bought the 2003 movie of the tv series RAID on DVD and in the first scenes there were several instances where the english translation indicated there was a question but the sentence carried neither a typical question word (mikä, kuka etc) or the -ko/-kö question suffix or any of its variations.
The examples I have are
"menet sä sen naisen luo?"  ="Are you going to that woman's place?", and 
"tulet sä takaisin?"    ="Are you coming back?" 
where one might have expected to have heard
"menetkö sä (or sinä) sen naisen luo?",  and
"tuletko sä (or sinä) takaisin?"
It seems to indicate to me that it is quite possible in spoken Finnish to reverse the order of pronoun and verb to make a question, rather as in French or English.  In no text books have I found this described, not even in Daniel Abondolo's book which covers the colloquial language.
I'd be grateful for someone who has more knowledge of the spoken language than me to think about this and if appropriate update the article on questions in the spoken language.
:This is not a grammatical change, but a sound change: mene+t+kö sä → menetkö sä → menetsä, -or- mene+t+kö+s sä → menetkös sä → menekkös sä → meneksä. The loss of meaning of the vowel of the clitic (ö) leads to its elision. In the example you give, a cluster such as -tks- is against the phonotactics, so the result is the elision of the -k-, giving -ts-. Another choice is the addition of a clitic -s (which is different from 'sä'), which in turn fuses with the following 'sä', giving meneksä.
:Loss of random morphemes is a special feature of Western (such as Helsinki) language. This is a good example. --Vuo 12:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I have been told that there is a form of the imperfect in finnish where the imperfect i is dropped.
Can someone with greater knowledge please determine if there are "rules" about this form amd how one can distinguish this spoken imperfect form from the present indicative?  Can you give some examples?
If it is true, is it worthy of an update to the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.235.37 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 Sep, 2005 (UTC)
:putosi -> putos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapsiainen (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 Sep, 2005 (UTC)
::That ("putosi", "it dropped") is a good example, yes. However, I feel that the "i" cannot always be dropped. Take, for example, käveli ("he walked"). "Kävel"? --ZeroOne 23:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nonspecific sound change, where word-final -si becomes -s, unless it's a part of a noun stem; for example, the second-person possessive suffix kirjas "your book", or a verb root ending -si as in putos "it dropped". Not, however, kasi "number eight", or vesi "water". (Some dialects permit ves via an unrelated etymology, where the palatalization of 's' before 'i' becomes phonemic as 'i' elides, then the palatalization is lost). Loss of word-final 'i' does not happen in generic spoken Finnish with other consonants than 's', but it is found in some dialects, particularly Savo with moottor. --Vuo 14:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken imperfect drops the "i" marker.  Is this true? 

message: I'm not fully familiar with IPA symbols, but shouldn't the first ŋ in japistääŋoveŋkii be a glottal stop (ʔʔ or ʔ) instead? Now it would sound like "ja pistääng oven kii". Mysid (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA of a velar nasal vs. glottal stop 

message: It is true that there is no regular N to NN consonant gradation in Finnish but I am inclined to think that this is a form of consonant gradation as the original author (I am guessing) probably implied.
Think about it... the regular forms are mene- or meni- and the one thing that characterises all first inifitive forms is that the end in -a or -ä.  As -eä and -ea are only seen in adjectives (I think) the implication is that the -e just got dropped when adding the infinitive -a or -ä marker.  But because the letters N L R AND S to be rather 'sticky' and cause all sorts of adjacent consonant effects I think that it was rather natural for Finnish to adopt a long pronounciation of these letters when followed by -a or -ä. Hence the verb forms -lla/llä from -le stems, -nnä from -ne personal stems, -rra from -re stems, and even -sta/-stä forms in the infinitives from personal stem forms ending -se. Finnish has a strong tendency towards long final consonants when the final syllable is open.
:Modern consonant gradation is a different phenomenon. This is assimilation, which is very common in Finnish, standard or not. It does function in a way similar to modern synchronic consonant gradation, and is diachronically consonant gradation. The infinitive suffix is -ta, but it assimilates: *men+ta → mennä. --Vuo 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MENE to MENNÄ etc.. 

message: "Ruoan" and "ruuan" are both legit and standard genitive cases of "ruoka"; the latter one is NOT exclusive to "spoken Finnish". --nlitement [talk] 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruoka 

message: [ML], lue viitteet ennen kuin teet lisää muokkauksia. Johdannon teksti on Mielikäisen tieteellisen tutkimuksen mukainen eikä mikään mutu-mielipide. Vaikka Jyväskylässä puhutaan perinteisesti savolaismurteen alatyyppiä, on Jyväskylä tutkimuksen mukaan eniten "yleiskielistyineiden" kaupunkien joukossa. --Vuo 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Olen omaan kokemukseen nojaten eri mieltä siitä, että jyväskyläläiset käytännössäkään puhuisivat samoja hämäläismurteita kuin noissa muissa kaupungeissa, vaan Jyväskylän enemmistö tuntuu yhä puhuvan sitä "käet taskuun"-murretta. Mutta se ei ehkä ole olennaista. Kummallisin juttu on Jyväskylän ja Suur-Helsingin yms. sitä ympäröivien hämäläismurteiden kaupunkien niputtaminen jonkin omituisen "Central Finnish"-käsitteen alle. Edes jotenkin käsitettä vastaa todellinen vastine voisi olla savolaismurteisiin kuuluvat keskisuomalaismurteet, mutta niitä ei todellakaan puhuta noista kaupungeista muualla kuin Jyväskylässä. Mielikäisen lähteessä puhuttiin näemmä kyselytutkimuksesta; suomalaisten mielikuvissa yleiskieltä puhutaan sekä E-Suomessa ja Keski-Suomessa. Moisella ei ole tässä mitään relevanssia. --ML 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yleiskieli pohjautuu pitkälle keskisuomalaisiin murteisiin (Central Finnish dialects), erityisesti Keuruun murteeseen, koska näissä on nähty itä-, ja länsimurteiden sulautuneen niin, että siitä kehitetystä yleiskielestä on saatu alueellisesti neutraali. Mielikäisen yksi argumentti on juuri se, että "valmis" yleiskieli on vaikuttanut myös toiseen suuntaan. Ei siis ole enää olemassa mitään tarkkaa rajaa aluemurteen ja virkakielen välillä, vaan on syntynyt juurikin keskisuomalaisista ja hämäläisistä murteista vaikutteita ottanut yleispuhekieli. Artikkeli kuvaa yleispuhekieltä, eikä siis sen helsinkiläistä tai jyväskyläläistä aluevarianttia. Paitsi että puhutaan yleispuhekieltä, puhujat yhdistävät myös omaan murteeseensa yleispuhekieltä, jolloin saadaan aluepuhekieli. Kyselytutkimus — joka ei perustu ainoastaan yhteen mielipiteeseen kuten itse kunkin oma havainto — osoittaa, että juuri Keski-Suomessa, erityisesti listatuissa kaupungeissa, havaitaan eniten yleispuhekielen käyttöä. --Vuo 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yleiskieli pohjautuu pitkälle keskisuomalaisiin murteisiin (Central Finnish dialects), erityisesti Keuruun murteeseen, koska näissä on nähty itä-, ja länsimurteiden sulautuneen niin, että siitä kehitetystä yleiskielestä on saatu alueellisesti neutraali. " Lähde? Mutupohjalta tuntuu uskomattomalta, että yleiskieli "perustuisi" noin pienen alueen murteeseen. Käsitettä 'Central Finnish' ei pitäisi käyttää, mikäli kyseessä on ad hoc- eikä vakiinut käännös, jos silloinkaan. Keskisuomalaiset murteet ovat vain savolaismurteiden suppeahkolla alueella puhuttava alaryhmä, tuommoinen sana antaa ymmärtää kuin kyseessä olisi jokin laaja murrealue (tyyliin länsimurteet). Missään tapauksesssa hämäläismurteiden alueita ei pidä laittaa jonkun 'Central Finnish':in alle, koska se on täysin tuulesta temmattua. "Kyselytutkimus — joka ei perustu ainoastaan yhteen mielipiteeseen kuten itse kunkin oma havainto — osoittaa, että juuri Keski-Suomessa, erityisesti listatuissa kaupungeissa, havaitaan eniten yleispuhekielen käyttöä." Lainauksen mukaan käsitys periytyy jo maamme-kirjasta ja siihen on vaikuttanut ajatus Jkl:stä erityisen suomenkielisenä paikkana (seminaarit, koulut, lehdistö) ja Keuruun seudun murre, josta puuttuu idempänä käytettyjä savolaispiirteitä. Kyse on siis lähinnä kivettyneestä kansanuskomuksesta.--ML 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ML 

message: Frankly, the Important regional variations section seems to be quite off-place here. Most of it is about features of certain Finnish dialects. However, this article is supposed to deal with standard Spoken Finnish, which essentialy is non-dialectal. Most of the contents of this section would belong to an article like Finnish dialects. --BishkekRocks 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned, there is no standard, non-dialectal spoken Finnish. –mysid☎ 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one could claim the colloquial language spoken in Helsinki area (which of course is dialectal, as for itself) is gaining ground as some kind "standard spoken variety". If it were like you said it, where would be the difference between "spoken Finnish" (puhekieli) and "dialects" (murteet)? For me features like mie or palavelu quite clearly seem to pertain to the realm of Finnish dialects. --BishkekRocks 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important regional variations 

message: Considered dialectless by who? The people who speak it? 130.230.4.13 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than compare this variant of Finnish to General American or RP (lol) I'd rather call this "Estuary Finnish" (though the Vantaa has no estuary!). But that would be neologism. ;-) Calling this a standard spoken variant of Finnish is just Helsinki chauvinism. 130.230.4.13 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considered dialectless? 

message: I once corrected a fellow non-native speaker for once pronouncing this word as MJÖS as though the Y were the same as Y in English.  However, I have later heard that many Finns in the area where I live also tend to pronounce this word as MJÖS.  Is this common?
:I have some similar while not identical effects occasionally in my own speech -  for "hyvä", or  for "terve", for two examples. I suspect there might be the beginnings of a sound change or two here, but it's too erly to say for sure. At any rate, "myös" is a clause-level unstressed function word where a stress shift like that wouldn't be too out of place; but generally, the opening difthongs remain falling in all dialects AFAIK.
::I see that as parodying the Russian accent. ›mysid (☎∆) 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would take several hundred years anyway. English spelling is accurate for the language as spoken in the 1400s or therearound... We do have an authority for suggestions on (but not dictation of!) what good Finnish grammar is, too — Kielitoimisto — they'd likely intervene before it could get that bad. --Tropylium 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myös 

message: Could somebody translate this for me?  It was put on my talk page, and after doing some searches on the first word, I was led to the Finnish language page.  A person over there said it was an insult in spoken Finnish.  And though I'm aware it's probably very nasty, I'd still like a translation.
"dorka ukko säkin oot Vittu säkin oot vaan yksi saatann tyhmä pelle ja luulet olevas jotain suurtaki"
(The bolded part was the title given on my talk page) --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "one jerk you are Goddamn you're one fucking stupid asshole thinking you are something great" ›mysid (☎∆) 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, pelle literally means "clown". Could be translate better as "dimwit", "freak" or "geek". "Asshole" would be translated as kusipää. --Vuo 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I add, as a Finn, not to mislead any readers, that the construction and wording are typically of a teenager or suchlike. It is more an eruption than a serious insult as such. Regards, Pxos (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, as an apology on behalf of the original asshole of a countryman, I could provide the readers with another translation: "You're a bloody old geezer, you are just a fucking old clown who thinks too much of himself." I am trying to point out the fact that even out of context, the phrase cannot be translated as a serious insult. "dorka ukko" is best translated as "stupid old man", and "tyhmä pelle as "dimwit" rather than "a fucking stupid asshole". --Pxos (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translate 

message: The difference between "se otti lakkinsa ja lähti" and "se otti sen lakin ja lähti" is the same as the difference between standard Finnish "hän otti lakkinsa ja lähti" and "hän otti hänen lakkinsa ja lähti". It is not related to repetition of pronouns but rather to the actual meaning. In the first version, the subject of the sentence took his/her own cap. in the second version, he/she took the cap of another previously mentioned person. This is made evidently clear in basic Finnish grammar lessons. JIP | Talk 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...it is decidedly odd to correct a fellow Finn, but I have to say that the examples given above are quite misleading, even ungrammatical. I shall elaborate using she for hän (actually he or she) and hat for lakki (actually lakki means a cap):
# se otti lakkinsa ja lähti = she took her own hat and left
# se otti sen lakin ja lähti = she took the hat (some hat, her own or someone else's) and left
# hän otti lakkinsa ja lähti = she took her own hat and left
# *hän otti hänen lakkinsa ja lähti This construction is not used as it is unnatural and bordering on the ungrammatical. Theoretically it means that she took someone else's hat and left, as in the English sentence "She took his hat and left" but as there are two instances of hän, this form is not natural Finnish. In written (literary) Finnish, this would be constructed as Hän otti tämän lakin ja lähti, where hän refers to the person who leaves the house and tämä refers to the person who will be missing his hat. I hope that I have managed to confuse you even further! --Pxos (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you are correct. The construct hän... tämä is so rare in modern colloquial Finnish that I didn't remember it at the time. But in properly grammatical Finnish, that is of course indeed correct. JIP | Talk 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in spoken Finnish you could do very well without any reference to possession. If you say se otti lakin ja lähti this translates as she took [a/the/0] hat and left or literally "she took hat and left" without defining the hat at all. But this is rather a question of the lack of articles in Finnish, I merely brought it up here to point out that in spoken Finnish se (the second se) in sentences like se otti sen lakin resembles the definite article and can either define the hat itself or that the hat belongs to the subject of the sentence (the first se). Do you agree, JIP? --Pxos (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think something like this might be the case. Finnish still doesn't have definitely grammatised articles, but spoken Finnish has used yksi ("one", "some") and se ("that") for a similar purpose for decades now. As a native Finnish speaker, I understand that the actual meaning is different from actual articles, but the usage is the same. I remember the teacher in my Hungarian course (of which I remember very little, due to lack of usage) mentioning this phenomenon in Finnish, as the same thing has also happened in Hungarian, where it went as far as to have egy ("one") and a/az ("that") become grammatised articles. JIP | Talk 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive suffix 

message: The article claimed that the colloquial forms of kolme '3' and neljä '4' are "kol" and "nel". This is absolutely incorrect, so I changed this. The shortened forms "kol" and "nel" can only occur when counting, they cannot occur as independent numerals in a sentence: e.g. Mulla on kolme autoa (not *kol autoa) 'I have three cars', or Ostin kolme (not *Ostin kol) 'I bought three'.130.231.117.40 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloquial forms of numerals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Colloquial Finnish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130213102320/http://savo.kolhoos.ee/stories/storyReader$15 to http://savo.kolhoos.ee/stories/storyReader%2415
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125044824/http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~tojan/rlang/finn2.htm to http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~tojan/rlang/finn2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This first paragraph gives some context:
Finnish has two phonemic vowel lengths, short and long. These are written with single and double vowel letters respectively. Long vowels are about two times the length of short ones. Thus, the length of a short vowel can be characterised with the numeral 1 and the length of a long vowel with 2. However, in non-initial syllables the short vowel has different-length allophones based on the phonetic environment. If the preceding syllable is open, the short vowel is realised as "half-long", with the length of approximately 1.5 whereas if the preceding syllable is closed or has a long vowel it is "half-short" with the length of about 0.5.
So:
latu = length of 1 
laatu = length of 2 
latu = length of 1.5 
laatu = length of 0.5 
and
lastu= length of 0.5 
The article claims that forms like "isoo" in the place of "iso" in Ostrobothnian variants of spoken Finnish would be the result of half-long vowels (1.5) lengthening to long ones (2). This is not the case. While some dialects, namely the Southwestern ones, do lengthen half-long vowels to be as long as long vowels this does not occur in Ostrobothnia.
These Ostrobothnian long vowels are actually a reflex of a historical diphthong ending in "-i". In most dialects the "-i" has simply disappeared but in the Ostrobothnian ones they have assimilated to the preceding vowel producing long vowels.
So older forms like "isoi" (meaning: big) and "keltainen" (yellow) have evolved to Ostrobothnian "isoo" and "keltaanen".
So the evolution of these forms looks like this:
isoi > isoo
keltainen > keltaanen
In most dialects these are "iso" and "keltane(n)" through an evolution like this:
isoi > iso
keltainen > keltane(n)
As explained earlier, the Southwestern dialects also have a form similair to "isoo" but this has evolved from an earlier short/half-long vowel. The article claims this would also be the origin of the Ostrobothnian "isoo"-like long vowels but -as demonstrated above- this is not the case.
The evolution of the Southwestern forms are:
isoi > iso > isóó
and has also effected short vowels without a historical i-diphthong like the noun "kala" (meaning: fish):
kala > kala > kaláá
The article claims this process would also be the origin of the Ostrobothnian "isoo"-like long vowels but -as demonstrated before- this is not the case. The Ostrobothnian dialects do not have "kaláá" or "kalaa", they have "kala".
Notice the accents on those lengthened Southwestern vowels. I added them because these vowels have a characteristic high or rising tone. Thus the last vowel in the Southwestern "isóó" will sound a bit funny to speakers of other dialects but the Ostrobothnian "isoo" has a falling tone and sounds like a normal Finnish long vowel.
I didn't just remove this mistake myself because I've never edited Wikipedia before and am not familiar with it. Adding new information with the help of a source sounds pretty simple but just deleting information, especially if done by a new account, might appear as sabotage.
I slightly edited this because some already deleted paragraphs were showing up. 
NööttiK (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in "Ostrobothnian variant"