The difference between: turhan takia, turhasta & turhaan

[pas]

Hyvää iltaa!

I have stumbled upon quite a few "turha-words" recently and I think the time has come for me to tackle them and learn them once and for all. Thus my question: is there any semantic difference between "turhan takia" and "turhasta", and can these two be compared with "turhaan"?

Over and out,
etukäteen kiittäen,
Adam

[Upphew]

Could you provide the sentences that has those?

[Jukka Aho]

I have stumbled upon quite a few "turha-words" recently and I think the time has come for me to tackle them and learn them once and for all. Thus my question: is there any semantic difference between "turhan takia" and "turhasta", and can these two be compared with "turhaan"?

turha (= “futile”, “gratuitous”, “needless”, “pointless”, “unnecessary”) is like any adjective and could appear in a number of cases, reflecting the case of its headword as part of a noun phrase. For example,

Turha häveliäisyys teki Pirjon elämästä vaikeaa.
Pirjo kärsi turhasta häveliäisyydestä.

When turhaan appears alone (as an adverb), it means “in vain”, “for nothing”, “for no (sensible) reason”, “unnecessarily”, “to no avail”, “needlessly”:

Pirjoa hävetti turhaan.

The expression turhan takia is pretty much the equivalent of the adverb turhaan:

Pirjoa hävetti turhan takia.

[pas]

Thanks for all the help!

The sentence with "turhasta" was:

Huolehdit turhasta.

It is obvious now, when I have the answer, that the subject of "huolehtia" always is in the elative case. However, when I was comparing this sentence with "Huolehdit turhaan" I could not see the difference. In this specific phrase I guess there is none, right?

By the way, is it possible to say:

Huolehdit turhan taka...

[Rob A.]

...It is obvious now, when I have the answer, that the subject of "huolehtia" always is in the elative case. However, when I was comparing this sentence with "Huolehdit turhaan" I could not see the difference. In this specific phrase I guess there is none, right?

I'm not sure what you are saying here....the subject of huolehtia is the implied pronoun, sinä.

turhaan is in the illative case and is an indirect object with the sense of "into uselessness".

However what I'm not sure of is whether or not huolehtia is an intransitive verb....??

I think it is probably intransitive and that any object will be indirect.... The clue to the exact meaning of the verb, in context, will be the case ending on the indirect object....Well, something like that....

[AldenG]

I think it is probably intransitive and that any object will be indirect.

Doesn't that depend on how you define transitive for Finnish? What kinds of "objects" qualify a verb to be transitive?

You take care of (feels transitive) or worry about (transitive?) something by [huolehtia] "of it" or "from it" which really mean "about it" in contexts like this. It's the same verb and case either way, though olla huolissaan asiasta is more common for worry in its common sense. A Finn can even say in English, "Would you take care about that for me?" But you can also use the verb without an elative object or any other object. (Is an elative object even an object?) So as resident grammar maven, why don't you tell us -- do either of the first two meet your definition of transitive?

In English, one can also blush about or blush over something, but that's not transitive. Still, it also lacks the type of interaction implicit in taking care of something.

I'm probably asking a dumb question by being a bit punchy tonight, but is transitive-or-not actually a useful question in Finnish or should it be replaced with a question about rection? In English we have three kinds of object: direct, indirect, and none. But the most useful thing to know about a Finnish verb is the cases it summons (I don't feel like saying "governs" tonight) and how they compare in meaning. So instead of three states there are over a dozen depending on how you count them.

By the way, Universe, where's my effin' Quote button? And where's my style sheet on the front page that keeps magically appearing and disappearing?

[jahasjahas]

I'm probably asking a dumb question by being a bit punchy tonight, but is transitive-or-not actually a useful question in Finnish or should it be replaced with a question about rection? In English we have three kinds of object: direct, indirect, and none. But the most useful thing to know about a Finnish verb is the cases it summons (I don't feel like saying "governs" tonight) and how they compare in meaning. So instead of three states there are over a dozen depending on how you count them.

Searching Iso suomen kielioppi for 'transitiivinen' tells us that it's mentioned in 29 chapters. But the fact that it's a necessary term for describing the whole of Finnish grammar doesn't tell us anything about how useful it is for a language learner.

[Jukka Aho]

(Is an elative object even an object?)

If we can place any trust on Suomi24 (I’m already feeling a bit queasy as I write this), “Aitojen kieliopillisten objektien sijat ovat akkusatiivi ja partitiivi. Paikallissijassa esiintyvä objektinkaltainen muoto katsotaan adverbiaaliksi (verbin rektion mukaiseksi obliikvitäydennykseksi, mikä se sitten lieneekin).”

So they’re forms/words/parts of speech which appear to fulfill a similar role as objects, but are categorized as adverbials (or as “oblique complements [?] adhering to the case government rules pertaining to a particular verb.”)

You can get some hits by searching the term obliikvi in Finnish (“oblique” in English.)

In English we have three kinds of object: direct, indirect, and none. But the most useful thing to know about a Finnish verb is the cases it summons (I don't feel like saying "governs" tonight) and how they compare in meaning. So instead of three states there are over a dozen depending on how you count them.

Again, I would like to point out the concept of rection, or case government, is essentially similar to the phrasal verbs in English. It’s just that instead of memorizing (sometimes somewhat arbitrary) prepositions, you need to memorize (sometimes somewhat arbitrary) case endings in Finnish. Picking a wrong preposition in English or a wrong case in Finnish can totally change the interpretation of the verb.

[AldenG]

It's hard for me to think clearly about how to distinguish which (or when) Latinate terms like transitive and adverbial are applied to Finnish because it makes inherent sense to do so versus doing so only for congruence with discussion of other languages while fitting poorly and perhaps even misrepresenting how Finnish naturally works in the brain.

In the case of verb pairs like taittaa and taittua, regardless of what case usages might have evolved to go with the verbs, there is a clear conceptual difference. But then again ISK has other words that make a better partitioning of the various types of verbs than merely transitive and intransitive. In particular there are a variety of named and systematic ways for a verb to be intransitive in Finnish. Two terms that come to mind from relatively recent discussions are automative and reflexive.

When we start talking about forms like siitä in huolehtia siitä as adverbial in character, that's where I strongly suspect we're being made to hammer too hard to fit the square peg into the round hole -- going through complex contortions that possibly harm our understanding of how some cases actually work in the brain, just so we don't have to admit that the sun doesn't actually revolve around the earth and Finnish never revolved around Rome.

[AldenG]

you need to memorize (sometimes somewhat arbitrary) case endings in Finnish.

And much too late I've concluded that is the best way to learn or teach them instead of studying the supposed inherent logic of all the individual cases themselves and then expecting to know based on that logic alone which one will apply with a certain verb and a certain meaning.

That conclusion is actually obvious about phrasal verbs and prepositions in English, but somehow we foreigners get the impression that Finnish cases are more *scientific* and systematic, that if only we truly understand each case, we'll always use them correctly. In truth, cases are artificial constructions created to generalize about how word endings have come to be used in many different contexts. There's no such thing as "case" to a ten year-old, only words and phrases and at most endings to sprinkle through them. No cases. Just imitation and reflexes. Seriously. And not much connection, if any, between Pidän siitä and Siitä vain.

[Jukka Aho]

And not much connection, if any, between Pidän siitä and Siitä vain.

Better not pronounce the latter with gemination at the word boundary: /siitæʋʋɑin/!

[pas]

...It is obvious now, when I have the answer, that the subject of "huolehtia" always is in the elative case. However, when I was comparing this sentence with "Huolehdit turhaan" I could not see the difference. In this specific phrase I guess there is none, right?

I'm not sure what you are saying here....the subject of huolehtia is the implied pronoun, sinä.

I think that was late night confusion! I meant object, and not subject. Thanks though!

[Rob A.]

When we start talking about forms like siitä in huolehtia siitä as adverbial in character, that's where I strongly suspect we're being made to hammer too hard to fit the square peg into the round hole -- going through complex contortions that possibly harm our understanding of how some cases actually work in the brain, just so we don't have to admit that the sun doesn't actually revolve around the earth and Finnish never revolved around Rome.

Heh, heh...Yes...it's always good to remember that the various "tools" and terminology that has been developed over the eons to understand how language works, and how it is used, had their origins with ancient Greek and Roman grammarians...Aristophanes...Donatus....etc. If subsequent grammarians have come up with additional ways of analyzing and explaining languages that evolved outside of the orbit of ancient Greece and/or Rome, then ....after the obligatory and lengthy period of "peer review"....there is no good reason not to use such tools....

There's no such thing as "case" to a ten year-old, only words and phrases and at most endings to sprinkle through them. No cases. Just imitation and reflexes. Seriously. And not much connection, if any, between Pidän siitä and Siitä vain.

Nor was there such a thing as case ..or arcane rules of grammar... in the minds of the ancients who first started speaking "Proto-Finnic" or whatever.... The "rules" came later as academics tried to explain how and why the language works....as usual the vast majority of speakers just knew what to say...and later, what to write in order to be properly understood....

I think one problem for English speakers learning Finnish is that stringing words together in a typical English language fashion is not so workable with FInnish.... I think your usual advice of practice, practice, practice...learning the language in phrase- and sentence-like chunks is excellent advice....

[AldenG]

And not much connection, if any, between Pidän siitä and Siitä vain.

Better not pronounce the latter with gemination at the word boundary: /siitæʋʋɑin/!

There's an app for that now. Or at least an application of that now.