How do people learn this?

[Rennon]

It has taken me a little while to think of what to write in this post but here goes. (also, I'm new, hey!)

I've been studying Finnish for about 7 months or so now but yet I still can't understand the most basic things. I've gone through a number of books but end up getting nowhere. I listen to audio again and again, and speak with my wife in Finnish, but outside basic sentence structures, e.g. "Käyn tänään kirjastossa" or "Mul on sulle kahvia", it's as if my brain blocks everything and I can understand nothing. For example, over the past week I have been listening to this same short dialogue which lasts for about a minute or so and my brain still can't seem to comprehend sentences (I've got the written dialogue here which I can "understand", my thoughts taking a few seconds to realize the structures and such).

But that's not my only problem, liitepartikkelit (which essentially make up the language) drive me insane and nobody seems to be able to explain how they're used in a coherent way. Let's take a small example which I've recently been having trouble with-

"Yyterissä onkin taas liian paljon väkeä"

Here -kin doesn't mean the traditional "too, also", but something tonal which people have said about is an "affirming suffix", whatever that means (does it emphasize the olla, e.g. really is, or... if that was the case, why not just use something like oikeasti?) and then there's taas, which I don't understand there.

Or perhaps something else-

"Paratiisi, sellaista tuskin on olemassakaan"

I won't even get started on how "tuskin" makes the sentence "sort of negative", and how the subject is seemingly in the partitive going against one of the first rules I learned. But -kaan here, my wife couldn't explain it to me, and other people have mixed ideas ("-kaan" adds an emphasis, possibly also a sentiment - from this sentence I could imagine the speaker being frustrated at people who believe paradise exist, or disappointed because it doesn't, whereas without the -kaan it would be just a neutral statement."). Seriously?

Just before my wife told me to just forget it and read on, and not worry about these suffixes, but almost every sentence is like this, when I move onto another sentence it's just the same thing, and the entire language is made up of suffixes so I can't just "not worry about them".

I'm not asking for help on those sentences up there but rather a general- "how does one learn this language?" I want so much to be able to communicate but I'm really getting nowhere and fast.

Any input would be great.

[Upphew]

You sound like a proper Finn... all or nothing: you either understand the sentence perfectly or not. For me when I was learning English, it was quite refreshing to realize that you don't have to understand everything 100%, especially if talking about prose.

then there's taas, which I don't understand there.

There is too much people in Yyteri, again. Okay, that translation puts too much emphasis on the again, but you get the point?

[Jukka Aho]

But that's not my only problem, liitepartikkelit (which essentially make up the language) drive me insane and nobody seems to be able to explain how they're used in a coherent way. Let's take a small example which I've recently been having trouble with-

"Yyterissä onkin taas liian paljon väkeä"

Here -kin doesn't mean the traditional "too, also", but something tonal which people have said about is an "affirming suffix", whatever that means (does it emphasize the olla, e.g. really is, or... if that was the case, why not just use something like oikeasti?) and then there's taas, which I don't understand there.

It would have been nice to get the context for this one, as it might affect the interpretation. But I suppose it was something like someone having a conversation about where to go on holiday. Some other place was suggested first but it is seen as too dull, with too few people. Then the second suggestion is Yyteri, but this time, there’s the opposite objection:

“In Yyteri, then again, there’s [actually, as you should well know] too much people.”

I took the liberty of translating taas, when functionin in this role, as “then again” (pretty straightforward) and the “affirmative” -kin in onkin as “acctually, as you should well know”. Context might change the interpretation somewhat, though.

"Paratiisi, sellaista tuskin on olemassakaan"

I won't even get started on how "tuskin" makes the sentence "sort of negative",

Just think of it as the equivalent of “hardly”.

“Paradise, that hardly exists (at all).”

and how the subject is seemingly in the partitive going against one of the first rules I learned.

It’s a negative existential sentence which calls for the usage of the partitive. See here.

But -kaan here, my wife couldn't explain it to me, and other people have mixed ideas ("-kaan" adds an emphasis, possibly also a sentiment - from this sentence I could imagine the speaker being frustrated at people who believe paradise exist, or disappointed because it doesn't, whereas without the -kaan it would be just a neutral statement."). Seriously?

Well... that’s one way to put it. :)

Typical usage of olla olemassa + kaan:

Jumalaa ei ole olemassa! = “God does not exist!”
Jumalaa ei ole olemassakaan! = “God does not exist! (There’s no such thing, don’t you get it!)”

The suffixes -kaan and -kin can be used in several different ways. See here for a pretty good overview.

I'm not asking for help on those sentences up there but rather a general- "how do learn this language?"

I’ll leave that question for the others. But if you’re out of ideas, you might want to give a try to Mnemosyne. (See the other posts in that discussion as well.)

[Rennon]

You sound like a proper Finn... all or nothing: you either understand the sentence perfectly or not. For me when I was learning English, it was quite refreshing to realize that you don't have to understand everything 100%, especially if talking about prose.

Haha, thanks! But yes, my learning is like this, but at the same time, it's not as if the liitepartikkelit just add "small tone here and there", they're really essential to meaning.

There is too much people in Yyteri, again. Okay, that translation puts too much emphasis on the again, but you get the point?

Someone said it could be like "as usual" because of the context but this is not what this thread is about anyway. Thanks though!

It would have been nice to get the context for this one,

It's just a exercise dialogue in Assimil's Le Finnois sans peine, the two people are going home and the woman says "Minusta on kiva lähteä jo kotiin" (here jo is used differently than the standard meaning for "already", I had trouble with that too until I came to the conclusion it meant something like viimeinkin).

I took the liberty of translating taas, when functionin in this role, as “then again”

This frustrates me too, because it couldn't mean "then again" (in the context), as they're coming home from Yyteri, someone else said it could be "as usual", so taas has yet another meaning "via context"... very stressful.

It’s a negative existential sentence which calls for the usage of the partitive.

I understand negative existential sentences, e.g. Kadulla ei ole autoa, Hänellä ei ole kissaa, etc...but sellainen here is the subject so I have no idea why it's in the partitive.

Jumalaa ei ole olemassa! = “God does not exist!”
Jumalaa ei ole olemassakaan! = “God does not exist! (There’s no such thing, don’t you get it!)”

This is all well and good, but when I made a random similar sentence (to the Paratiisi one I read) for my wife using the same construction she said it didn't work- Karhu tuskin on kirahvikaan.

I’ll leave that question for the others. But if you’re out of ideas, you might want to give a try to Mnemosyne. (See the other posts in that discussion as well.)

I've been using Anki but with individual words. Doesn't seem to be super successful so far. But perhaps I'll give this one a try.

Also, I've heard about the sentence method and it seems interesting, but can't seem to find anything about it on that allJapananeseallthetime website (from that other thread you linked). Do you know any good sites about it?

Thanks.

[AnnikaL]

Typical usage of olla olemassa + kaan:

Jumalaa ei ole olemassa! = “God does not exist!”
Jumalaa ei ole olemassakaan! = “God does not exist! (There’s no such thing, don’t you get it!)”

Out of curiosity, then, could a better translation of the second case be. "God does simply not exist" ?

Rennon: as for learning the language, I would suggest you're going to do your head in trying to understand complex sentences perfectly having only been learning for 7 months, even if you're a fantastic language learner (and it looks to me like you're doing pretty well with your comprehension). ALL languages are incredibly complex when spoken by native speakers. I'd suggest it's a good idea to start learning from and trying to use simple cases, speak like a child even, but at the same time looking at the complex language and seeing what you can find out, without yet putting pressure to fully understand/learn/use those bits. Come at it from both ends, but only really try to learn and use the simple end and add the rest in later as your curiosity will lead you to want to know how to "emphasise x", or to construct a certain sentence. Then things you've seen will hopefully start to make sense.

Otherwise I suspect you'll get nowhere.

As for your problem with talking/generating sentences. I'm also trying to learn to speak Finnish. Bizarrely, I've grown up understanding a certain amount without being able to construct a single sentence. I've recently heard from others this is pretty common for children of Finns brought up in England. There's something about Finnish which must make it particularly hard to construct.

Does anyone else here have that experience, out of interest?

[kalmisto]

Out of curiosity, then, could a better translation of the second case be. "God does simply not exist" ?

Yes, I would think so and I think that Jukka would agree with me.

[AldenG]

I agree that for seven months, it sounds like maybe you're actually doing well.

You have to remember that these words and sentences are more than the sums of their parts. Particles can be tricky and I don't believe you can learn them by translation -- especially not by translation of each individual piece. They often impart a mood or flavor to a sentence that is difficult to translate to English or French even when you understand the sentence perfectly well. The replies above seem to demonstrate that. Translating from Finnish to French or English is a much messier activity than translating French or English to each other.

Languages are not merely different encodings of identical thoughts. The thoughts themselves are somewhat different in different languages, especially languages as unrelated as Finnish and English or Finnish and French.

The more you learn of Finnish, the more it will be possible to absorb and use Finnish expressions with minimal reference to translated words. My advice is to focus on that. For instance, you are now able to use Mulla on sulle kahvia. (That's more than some people who've been a few years in Finland, I think.) That means you can also say:

Mulla on sulle maitoa.
Mulla on sulle voileipä.
Onko sulla kahvia minulle?

This is the natural way to learn Finnish and there is only so much acceleration one can accomplish using shortcuts like books of instruction. The difficult phase of learning is the phase where you are still thinking maito=lait. At some point you will realize that you know enough of the language that you're learning new words and new expressions without thinking what they mean in French. You're thinking what they mean in the Finnish you already know.

Words and particles are the pieces you get when you take sentences apart. But that does not mean that you normally put sentences together from those little parts. As you learn more and more, you will find that you create sentences simply by repeating things (with small changes) that are much like phrases and sentences you have said before. Most of the time, that's what native speakers do, too.

[Rob A.]

OK...First of all, DON'T GET FRUSTRATED!! It is a slow and gradual process... In the short run I would try for comprehension without worrying too much about the exact nuances being communicated...that will come later.

You have to remember that these words and sentences are more than the sums of their parts. Particles can be tricky and I don't believe you can learn them by translation -- especially not by translation of each individual piece. They often impart a mood or flavor to a sentence that is difficult to translate to English or French even when you understand the sentence perfectly well. The replies above seem to demonstrate that. Translating from Finnish to French or English is a much messier activity than translating French or English to each other.

Languages are not merely different encodings of identical thoughts. The thoughts themselves are somewhat different in different languages, especially languages as unrelated as Finnish and English or Finnish and French.

This is good....Constantly remind yourself that Finnish is not English....the objective is not translation, but to understand the language itself.... I think you might be "filtering" things a little too much through your knowledge of how English "works".

The "rules of grammar" as they are generally applied to English, do not apply in precisely the same way to Finnish. Although the "general rule" is that the subject of the sentence is in the nominative and that the subject is the "doer" of the action that convention doesn't apply quite the same way, in every instance, in Finnish. The result is that you can have words in the partitive at the beginning of a sentence that actually look like the subject, though it isn't entirely clear that they really are the subject...it is more that they are the "theme" of the sentence. The nature of a Finnish existential sentence is that it is being written from the point of view of an external observer, while a simple declarative sentence is just that...it is not from anyone's "point-of-view"

For example, using the sentences above:

Jumalaa ei ole olemassa! = “God does not exist!”
Jumalaa ei ole olemassakaan! = “God does not exist! (There’s no such thing, don’t you get it!)”

...try thinking of them in English as:

"There is not existing God."
"There is not existing, at all, God" ...Now I think you'll agree that it is clear why jumalaa is in the partitive...

Here's another set of sentences:

Lapset leikkivät pihalla.=The children are playing in the yard."
Lapsia leikkii pihalla.="There are (some) children playing in the yard."

This paper might help a bit....you seem sufficiently "academic" that you would get something out of it:

http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bits ... %96%93.pdf

[kalmisto]

Is Finnish a difficult language ? ( by Professor Andrew Chesterman ) :
http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/uh/499l.html

[KHalli]

Dear Rennon,

After having studied this language for only seven months, it would appear that you have made remarkable progress. However, I get the feeling that you are trying to run before you know how to walk and for that reason, the absolute best grounding is to sign up for the excellent Finnish language courses provided by Helsinki University. Like you, my wife helped me at the beginning and it ended up in me turning into a pretty acurate thrower of exercise books! The reason being that as native speakers, the Finns are taught their language in a different way from us foreigners and many grammatical questions that we stumble across are , in many cases, impossible for them to answer.

The university courses focus on "kirjakieli" or "properly" written Finnish. This is where the grammar is explained and although the result is somewhat awkward and sterile, it makes the transition from Minulla to m'ulla more logical. Those grammatical questions that you have about "kin" and "kaan" are dealt with only towards the end of a two year course. In fact the language that you hear everyday is not a part of the courses until you have suffucient knowledge of the real structure of the written language. This is also the language of literature and helps in reading newspapers and magazines for example. Check out how often the agent participle ( which replaces the realtive pronoun "joka") is used in newspaper articles (Tuon lukevan tytön)

This has many advantages later on, for example, my wife who is from Savo speaks with a particular dialect that very few Finns who live outside of Savo can understand. I can though, converse and be understood by most Finns because I speak basic "kirjakieli" Finnish, Of course, over the years, I have learned to mimic different accents, use slang terms and my vocabulary continues to grow year to year.

Somebody posted earlier that this is also a question of style and this is true. You can only grasp this after many years of study, so I would at this stage, concentrate on the basics and build from there. I wish you good luck. Keith Hall

[Rennon]

Rennon: as for learning the language, I would suggest you're going to do your head in trying to understand complex sentences perfectly having only been learning for 7 months, even if you're a fantastic language learner (and it looks to me like you're doing pretty well with your comprehension). ALL languages are incredibly complex when spoken by native speakers.

I agree definitely. For example I have a habit of getting complicated books which I want to read and decide I'll work it out on a sentence-by-sentence basis but will end up spending, literally, days on each sentence trying to understand every feeling and meaning conveyed. But as for comprehension. I can understand the most basic sentences, as I said- something like "ei kaikesta voi kirjoittaa" whose construction in English differs a lot "you can't write about everything", I can't understand at all, my brain shuts down (although I do "understand" it written, after half an hour of thinking).

You have to remember that these words and sentences are more than the sums of their parts. Particles can be tricky and I don't believe you can learn them by translation -- especially not by translation of each individual piece. They often impart a mood or flavor to a sentence that is difficult to translate to English or French even when you understand the sentence perfectly well. The replies above seem to demonstrate that. Translating from Finnish to French or English is a much messier activity than translating French or English to each other.

I agree. Finnish tends to be entrenched so deep in it's own context and feeling.

Languages are not merely different encodings of identical thoughts. The thoughts themselves are somewhat different in different languages, especially languages as unrelated as Finnish and English or Finnish and French.

Yes, I'd really like to read about linguistic-psychology in Finnish (I'm not sure if that's what it's really called), from what I've read so far, it's fascinating to see the differences in thought that languages build. Often when I ask my wife what she did when I was away she says "I just was", and in English you wouldn't really say that, rather something like "I didn't do anything special or exciting", as if people should be doing something special exciting with their spare time. (thanks to kalmisto who linked me the article which made me think about this!).

This is the natural way to learn Finnish and there is only so much acceleration one can accomplish using shortcuts like books of instruction. The difficult phase of learning is the phase where you are still thinking maito=lait. At some point you will realize that you know enough of the language that you're learning new words and new expressions without thinking what they mean in French.

Hehe, I'm not a native French speaker, I do know a little tiny bit (enough to understand stuff in Assimil's series), but rather a native anglophone.

Words and particles are the pieces you get when you take sentences apart. But that does not mean that you normally put sentences together from those little parts. As you learn more and more, you will find that you create sentences simply by repeating things (with small changes) that are much like phrases and sentences you have said before. Most of the time, that's what native speakers do, too.

How do you recommend I practice whole sentences? what do you do? Something like "Tarkoitttaako se noiden ihmisen laulamaan liittymistä?" (despite knowing the translation and construction) makes my mind collapse when I see it...

This paper might help a bit....you seem sufficiently "academic" that you would get something out of it:

http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bits ... %96%93.pdf

Thank you so much. This article was wonderful! ...However there was a sentence I was looking at earlier, I still don't understand why the subject is in partitive ("Paratiisi, sellaista tuskin on olemassakaan")

(also I'm not really that bright, never-mind an academic! haha)

Is Finnish a difficult language ? ( by Professor Andrew Chesterman ) :
http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/uh/499l.html

This too! It made me really think about things and realize my wife often talks in a Finnish-minded manner, not incorrectly but the way she says things sometimes isn't the most common way things are said in English.

I get the feeling that you are trying to run before you know how to walk and for that reason, the absolute best grounding is to sign up for the excellent Finnish language courses provided by Helsinki University.

Unfortunately, I live in Joensuu. I wonder if Joensuun Yliopisto offers such courses (I'm still waiting for my residency permit so can't do anything yet).

[schneemie]

When you get your residency permit there might be a possibility, that you can join the immigration programme of the employment office. They will "offer" you language courses and these are organized by the local university or the local aikuisopisto. I'm not sure about he availability of language courses in other places (which you would have to pay by yourself) as it is nearly three years since my last language course.
The university courses were quite ok, I managed to learn enough to be able to go to an ammattikoulu...

[Jukka Aho]

There is too much people in Yyteri, again. Okay, that translation puts too much emphasis on the again, but you get the point?

Someone said it could be like "as usual" because of the context but this is not what this thread is about anyway. Thanks though!

It would have been nice to get the context for this one,

It's just a exercise dialogue in Assimil's Le Finnois sans peine, the two people are going home and the woman says "Minusta on kiva lähteä jo kotiin" (here jo is used differently than the standard meaning for "already", I had trouble with that too until I came to the conclusion it meant something like viimeinkin).

I took the liberty of translating taas, when functionin in this role, as “then again”

This frustrates me too, because it couldn't mean "then again" (in the context), as they're coming home from Yyteri, someone else said it could be "as usual",

OK, so the actual dialog goes:

Nainen: “Minusta on kiva lähteä jo kotiin.”
Mies: “Yyterissä onkin taas liian paljon väkeä!”

or

Woman: “I think it is (will be) nice to leave for home already (at this point in time; at this stage; as early as it might seem.)” (She was beginning to feel it was about time!)
Man: “Yes, (I agree (with your sentiment;)) there’s once again too much people in Yyteri.” (The beach is too crowded. The -kin in onkin adds a sense of affirmation, confirmation, agreement. Yes, I agree, it’s actually true honey, that’s how it is in my opinion too, I feel much the same about this as you – and let me say the crowds are the reason for this feeling!)

so taas has yet another meaning "via context"... very stressful.

All languages have words and expressions whose interpretation is rather context-dependent. Or words which function in quite different roles in differently structured expressions. Not to say knowing that would make it any easier. ;)

This is all well and good, but when I made a random similar sentence (to the Paratiisi one I read) for my wife using the same construction she said it didn't work- Karhu tuskin on kirahvikaan.

That would be understood as something like “A bear is hardly a giraffe, either.” Note that the ending -kaan has several uses (described in the link I gave) and in the paradise sentence it was used with a participle (a verbal adjective), not with a random noun, which might change things a bit.

Also, I've heard about the sentence method and it seems interesting, but can't seem to find anything about it on that allJapananeseallthetime website (from that other thread you linked). Do you know any good sites about it?

Sorry, no idea about that one. But if you read the entire thread in the link I gave, people discuss their personal “sentence methods” there. (See page 2 in that discussion thread as well.)

[j.petsku]

It seems to me that with your attention to detail and the fact that you live in Finland, it's only a matter of time. You just have to grit your teeth and bear being sloppy for a while. Insist on speaking Finnish. When the Finns switch to English at the first inkling of an accent, say, in your most butchered English possible, "Me no speek Inglis."

Time and patience. It's HUGE that you live in Finland, but speaking Finnish as a second language there can be a contest of wills.

[kalmisto]

When the Finns switch to English at the first inkling of an accent, say, in your most butchered English possible, "Me no speek Inglis."

And you should say it like this :
http://tinyurl.com/3h62y7u



Click on "PUHU" ( speak ! ) if you want to hear it again !