Participles - Why?

[Rekkari]

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...

[AldenG]

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.

[Pursuivant]

Because its not mannable and steerable, its manned and steerable
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

[AldenG]

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.

[Pursuivant]

In Finnish its the same

You really need to end yourself burning jazz tobacco

[Rekkari]

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

Because everything in Finnish probably sounds normal 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?

[Pursuivant]

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"

[ml14]

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)

[Pursuivant]

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.

[007]

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.

[Pursuivant]

I'd say " Kaukoidässä syöty jyvä"... Syötävä is correct but sounds slightly... off

[Jukka Aho]

1. Riisi on erityisen paljon Kaukoidässä syötävä jyvä.

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.

[Pursuivant]

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"