Participles - Why?

Learn and discuss the Finnish language with Finn's and foreigners alike
Post Reply
Rekkari
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:11 pm

Participles - Why?

Post by Rekkari » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:42 pm

I found the following sentence under 'aiemmin' in Wiktionary:

Kukaan ei ollut aiemmin onnistunut lentämään miehitettyä, ohjailtavaa ja ilmaa raskaampaa ilma-alusta.

In this sentence, why don't the two modifying participles agree in tense? The first participle is past passive while the second is present passive. Is it grammatically correct? I would have thought that past participles were called for in both instances since the sentence refers to an event that took place in the past: flying a manned and controlled aircraft.

Would it alter the meaning much if one used past partciples for both instead?

Kukaan ei ollut aiemmin onnistunut lentämään miehitettyä, ohjailtua ja ilmaa raskaampaa ilma-alusta.

Just wondering...



Participles - Why?

Sponsor:

Finland Forum Ad-O-Matic
 

AldenG
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by AldenG » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:21 pm

It's the difference between "controlled" and "controllable." Ohjailtava(a) is thus not about the fact of being controlled in a particular past or present moment but about the general attribute of being controllable.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:31 pm

Because its not mannable and steerable, its manned and steerable :wink:
You need to do a "direct translation"... and yes, "heavier-than-air able" makes perfect sense in Finnish, as being steerable or heavier than air are properties
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


AldenG
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by AldenG » Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:13 am

BTW, the reason I stuck with control- rather than steer-, like probably the reason Rekkari used it in the first place, is just that "controlled flight" is an idiom or convention or whatever... in any case, the term that is always used to describe what the Wright brothers achieved, as opposed to what I achieve with pieces of balsa or folded office paper. For some reason it's different from cars or bicycles.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:22 am

In Finnish its the same :twisted:

You really need to end yourself burning jazz tobacco :lol:
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


Rekkari
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Rekkari » Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:16 pm

AldenG explained:
...is an idiom or convention or whatever... in any case, the term that is always used...
and

Pursuivant added:
In Finnish its the same :twisted:
Because everything in Finnish probably sounds normal :oops: to my English trained ears and 'manned and controlled aircraft' sounds normal by convention to me, I would (incorrectly, I suppose) attempt the matching past participle construct in Finnish:

miehitetty ja ohjailtu ilma-alus

It wouldn't be wrong, but it would sound a bit off, right?

Another example, then (I think), would be 'radio-ohjattava helikopteri' vs. 'radio-ohjattu helikopteri'. In English, I would say 'radio controlled helicopter' rather than the still-perfectly-understandable but sounds-slightly-off equivalent 'radio controllable helicopter'.

So, as in English, while all of the four possible combinations of participles are grammatically correct and convey essentially the same meaning, only one sounds correct:

miehitettävä/miehitetty ja ohjailtava/ohjailtu ilma-alus

Do I have that right?


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:08 pm

Yes.

Theres kind of two levels of language you need to deal with here. The idiomatic and the grammatic. And sometimes its "direct translated" totally the opposite of what is correct in the other language.

Say like:
Its forbidden to smoke in front of the door. Now idiomatically you must know that Finns "smoke" fish or ham, they "burn tobacco" or "are tobaccoing" to make a translation. But then for the grammar part in Finnish you can't rely on any comparison as the verb is different. Tupakointi ulko-oven edessä kielletty. Tobaccoing outside-door's front (is) forbidden.

So sometimes the "why" is "just is" :twisted:
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


ml14
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by ml14 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:41 am

If you were to convert the highlighted phrases into participles, would you use -tu or -tava?

Riisi on jyvä, jota syödään erityisen paljon Kaukoidässä.

Näettekö tuon naisen, jota talutetaan käsiraudoissa poliisiautoon?

Mutteri on kappale, joka asetetaan ruuvin pään alle.

Kiitos

(Edit: corrections added)
Last edited by ml14 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:13 am

I'd say you need the pronouns right
Riisi is jota as its a "many as one" and the eating is at a present or coming present.
The nainen also is jota... it is a specific woman, but its got to do with happening now. If you talk of the woman tomorrow and say muistatko naisen, joka talutettiin poliisiautoon... as its a specific woman at a specific time.
Mutteri is a joka, its a specific happening at a specified time.
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


007
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:01 pm

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by 007 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:37 pm

ml14 wrote:If you were to convert the highlighted phrases into participles, would you use -tu or -tava?

Riisi on jyvä, jota syödään erityisen paljon Kaukoidässä.

Näettekö tuon naisen, jota talutetaan käsiraudoissa poliisiautoon?

Mutteri on kappale, joka asetetaan ruuvin pään alle.

Kiitos

(Edit: corrections added)
1. Riisi on erityisen paljon Kaukoidässä syötävä jyvä.
2. Näettekö käsiraudoissa poliisiautoon talutettavan naisen?
3. Mutteri on ruuvin pään alle asetettava kappale.

can't explain.. how and why but it's just my guess and... don't see any of them requiring 'tu/ty' as it seems to change the whole action into something that's been done, not yet to be done.
“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:15 pm

I'd say " Kaukoidässä syöty jyvä"... Syötävä is correct but sounds slightly... off
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


Jukka Aho
Posts: 5238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:46 am
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Jukka Aho » Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:39 pm

007 wrote:1. Riisi on erityisen paljon Kaukoidässä syötävä jyvä.
Pursuivant wrote:I'd say " Kaukoidässä syöty jyvä"... Syötävä is correct but sounds slightly... off
On [...] syötävä” makes it sound a bit like an obligation. People in Far East are, for some reason, obliged to eat this grain, rice. Compare to “Lasku on maksettava ajallaan.”

Also, that erityisen paljon needs to go — it just doesn’t sound native. You could say erityisesti Kaukoidässä.
znark


User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15094
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: Participles - Why?

Post by Pursuivant » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:51 am

I'd say the common tense would be kaukoidässä syödään paljon riisiä
Also, I think you direct translated it a bit wrong, jyvä being "a single grain", the word for speaking of "grain" as in wheat or rice as a concept is "vilja"
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


Post Reply