Finnish help

[garoowood]

What if I say: Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini. And Pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran?

Those are not correct but you could say "tapasin maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini" or "pelästyin, koska näin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran".

Actually Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini doesn't sound that bad (if you go and briefly meet your aunt at a specific time, specific place... for example at the door - to exchange young cousin hostages )... although normally you would use the partitive, to denote a non-specified length of the meeting - "menin tapaamaan maalla asuvaa Kaisa-tätiäni"... just as you might say "pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvaa koiraa".

Talking about this non-specific length of meeting, can I also say tapasin maalla asuvaa Kaisa-tätiäni(non-specific length of meeting) or tapasin maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini(specific length of meeting)?

[Jukka Aho]

Talking about this non-specific length of meeting, can I also say tapasin maalla asuvaa Kaisa-tätiäni(non-specific length of meeting) or tapasin maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini(specific length of meeting)?

Yep.

Olin tapaamassa maalla asuvaa Kaisa-tätiäni, kun salama iski yllättäen taloon.

Tapasin maalla asuvan Kaisa-tätini eilen. (No need to specify how much time you spent in her company, exactly, but the meeting was obviously of finite length and is now over.)

[Pursuivant]

Yes its a nuance of I was seeing her vs. I met her

[Rob A.]

.....

But yes, pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran is wrong.

The exact reason why the partitive is used escapes me... any expert grammarian advice?

Choosing -N accusative (koiran) would seem to imply that something (“a conclusive outcome affecting the object”) was being done to the dog, which is not the case here. So that’s probably why it sounds wrong.

pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran, can I understand it as I took fright at the dog barking angrily(I was frightened to certain degree), would that be conclusive?

Could you, maybe, say... Minua pelästyi vihaisesti haukkuva koira.......I don't think so, but just in case... I think we have to be sure we actually know what the verb means... pelästyä is translated as "to be scared " ...tand is an intransitive verb in both Finnish and English, and so it wouldn't take an object... In English you would say something like, "I was scared by the dog.".....which is in the passive voice...and, technically, "the dog" is the "subject" of the sentence...it's the doing the "scaring"..."The dog scared me..."....but I don't know if you can look at it that way in Finnish.

I also found this in wiktionary....

The difference between the verbs pelätä, pelotella and pelottaa:

pelätä refers always to the feelings of the person who is afraid
pelotella refers always to the activity of making others afraid
pelottaa may mean either of the two, depending on the case of the object

...and these tend to take the partitive, unless the "action" is completed.... The example given is:

Kissa pelotti linnut tiehensä.....clearly a "completed" action....but I assume if you say this...Kissa pelottaa lintuja tiehensä. ....then you need the partitive...in this case the plural partitive....

So to recap, it seems it's the partitve for the simple reason that the action is to be construed as ongoing, or incomplete.... if we are trying to create another sense, then I think we need to be sure of the actual meaning, in the Finnish way of thinking, of the verb.... If the verb has a natural sense of ongoing activity, then typically it will be the partitive... i.e Rakastan sinua....

But, of course, when it comes to merely being "fond" of someone...Pidän sinusta....

Oh, well....I starting to get "brain fade".... I suppose for a good several years, as long as you have a foreign accent, you will be forgiven for saying, Pidän sinua.. with the wrong meaning ...context will probably make it clear whether or not you are grammatically correct...

[Aside:...Also, while I'm thinking about it...why do we have sinä with the "a-umlaut", but then sinua and sinusta with the regular "a"... What about vowel harmony? ....Or, am I forgetting something obvious?...]

[Jukka Aho]

Could you, maybe, say... Minua pelästyi vihaisesti haukkuva koira....

Yes, you can, but that means “I (my presence/looks/actions) startled an angrily barking dog” or “An angrily barking dog was startled by me (my presence/looks/actions).” The usual word order would be Vihaisesti haukkuva koira pelästyi minua, unless you want to emphasize the word minua for some reason.

...I don't think so, but just in case... :D I think we have to be sure we actually know what the verb means... pelästyä is translated as "to be scared "

pelästyä = to get alarmed/frightened/scared/startled/shocked/freaked out over something; to enter that alarmed/frightened/startled state, usually all of a sudden, and as a direct reaction to some startling event... such as someone unexpectedly jumping from behind your armchair and shouting “BOO!” at you, or noticing that your toddler is just about to poke that screwdriver into the electrical outlet, or misinterpreting the dates and thinking for a moment that you’ve inadvertently overstayed your visa, or finding out that your wall clock has, for some reason, grown long, hairy legs.

Basically, the verb pelästyä has its focus fixed on the exact moment when you (suddenly) change your mental state from “not scared, normal” to “scared, frightened, freaked out” – when you flinch and your heart skips a beat.

...tand is an intransitive verb in both Finnish and English, and so it wouldn't take an object... In English you would say something like, "I was scared by the dog.".....which is in the passive voice...and, technically, "the dog" is the "subject" of the sentence...it's the doing the "scaring"..."The dog scared me..."....but I don't know if you can look at it that way in Finnish.

“I was scared by the dog” would typically be translated just as Koira säikäytti minut or Koira pelästytti minut. Or if it wasn’t a one-off frightening/startling event but the dog just generally makes you feel scared/nervous, Koira pelottaa minua.

There is an equivalent for the English passive voice “by+agent” structure in Finnish but it is considered stilted, awkward style: Minua pelotettiin koiran toimesta; “I was (being made) scared by the (action(s) of the) dog”. But that just sounds awfully, ridiculously contrived. There’s no need for that kind of indirection. Finnish teachers usually warn against using the agent + toimesta pattern, and the whole thing is sometimes said to be a bastard loan from some other language, and hence not “needed” for the Finnish language anyway. But bureaucrats and politicians of course love anything and everything that will further obfuscate the true meaning (or emptiness) of their texts and speeches...

...and these tend to take the partitive, unless the "action" is completed.... The example given is:

Kissa pelotti linnut tiehensä.....clearly a "completed" action....but I assume if you say this...Kissa pelottaa lintuja tiehensä. ....then you need the partitive...in this case the plural partitive....

The latter would sound better as a general statement, without the word tiehensä (“off on their way”) which is usually only used with completed actions... But yes.

So to recap, it seems it's the partitve for the simple reason that the action is to be construed as ongoing, or incomplete...

Yes, that’s the basic rule with objects, I think.

But, of course, when it comes to merely being "fond" of someone...Pidän sinusta....

Again, this might be because the verb pitää has many different meanings and the partitive has already been “taken” for one of them. But it’s also discussed here.

[Rob A.]

Could you, maybe, say... Minua pelästyi vihaisesti haukkuva koira....

Yes, you can, but that means “I (my presence/looks/actions) startled an angrily barking dog” or “An angrily barking dog was startled by me (my presence/looks/actions).” The usual word order would be Vihaisesti haukkuva koira pelästyi minua, unless you want to emphasize the word minua for some reason.

Thanks Jukka...just before I fell asleep last night...it suddenly popped into my mind that I probably had turned this around.... But ...further to your discussion below about the instantaneous nature of pelästyä, would minua be correct?? I assume it must be, or you wouldn't have written the sentence that way, so I guess the question becomes..."Why would it be correct??...

...I don't think so, but just in case... I think we have to be sure we actually know what the verb means... pelästyä is translated as "to be scared "

pelästyä = to get alarmed/frightened/scared/startled/shocked/freaked out over something; to enter that alarmed/frightened/startled state, usually all of a sudden, and as a direct reaction to some startling event... such as someone unexpectedly jumping from behind your armchair and shouting “BOO!” at you, or noticing that your toddler is just about to poke that screwdriver into the electrical outlet, or misinterpreting the dates and thinking for a moment that you’ve inadvertently overstayed your visa, or finding out that your wall clock has, for some reason, grown long, hairy legs.

Basically, the verb pelästyä has its focus fixed on the exact moment when you (suddenly) change your mental state from “not scared, normal” to “scared, frightened, freaked out” – when you flinch and your heart skips a beat.

This discussion reminds me that we have to be careful we really know what the Finnish verbs actually mean and how they are used....a while ago we had a bit of a discussion about verbs that indicate ongoing actions; sudden single-time actions, and repeated sudden actions....

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34717

...verbs may have markers imbedded which once the code is known will alert you to how they are being used....and I think with this knowledge, the use of the partitive will often be obvious...though I guess there is still the matter of "transitivity" and "intransitivity" to figure out...

Oh yes..thanks for the link... Minulla ei ole hämähäkkikammoa, mutta teen poikeuksen jos näkisi jahtihämähäkkiä....

...tand is an intransitive verb in both Finnish and English, and so it wouldn't take an object... In English you would say something like, "I was scared by the dog.".....which is in the passive voice...and, technically, "the dog" is the "subject" of the sentence...it's the doing the "scaring"..."The dog scared me..."....but I don't know if you can look at it that way in Finnish.

“I was scared by the dog” would typically be translated just as Koira säikäytti minut or Koira pelästytti minut. Or if it wasn’t a one-off frightening/startling event but the dog just generally makes you feel scared/nervous, Koira pelottaa minua.

Ahhh...another "scare" verb...säikähtää... ...and I assume this will typically be used with the accusative...because it typically would not have the sense of being a "partial or ongoing" action...

There is an equivalent for the English passive voice “by+agent” structure in Finnish but it is considered stilted, awkward style: Minua pelotettiin koiran toimesta; “I was (being made) scared by the (action(s) of the) dog”. But that just sounds awfully, ridiculously contrived. There’s no need for that kind of indirection. Finnish teachers usually warn against using the agent + toimesta pattern, and the whole thing is sometimes said to be a bastard loan from some other language, and hence not “needed” for the Finnish language anyway. But bureaucrats and politicians of course love anything and everything that will further obfuscate the true meaning (or emptiness) of their texts and speeches...

Ah yes...I think we have been here before....but I can't remember the thread... .... A "construction" that came into Finnish from a Germanic language...and probably the usual suspect .......but I guess it should not be a surprise that native English speakers would also have to work through this "passive voice" stuff as well... .... In English-language "effective writing courses", the instructors continually try to perusade us to avoid using the passive voice as much as possible.... It generally does not create a "dynamic" impression....but most of us seem to drift towards it, I guess...

...and these tend to take the partitive, unless the "action" is completed.... The example given is:

Kissa pelotti linnut tiehensä.....clearly a "completed" action....but I assume if you say this...Kissa pelottaa lintuja tiehensä. ....then you need the partitive...in this case the plural partitive....

The latter would sound better as a general statement, without the word tiehensä (“off on their way”) which is usually only used with completed actions... But yes.

So to recap, it seems it's the partitve for the simple reason that the action is to be construed as ongoing, or incomplete...

Yes, that’s the basic rule with objects, I think.

But, of course, when it comes to merely being "fond" of someone...Pidän sinusta....

Again, this might be because the verb pitää has many different meanings and the partitive has already been “taken” for one of them. But it’s also discussed here.

Thanks for the discussion....and thanks for the excellent link you "tucked" in there right at the end... It's a "gold mine"... well, for someone like me, anyway....it's already answered a few of my long-term questions....and I've only read the first little bit of it....

[Rob A.]

.....

[Aside:...Also, while I'm thinking about it...why do we have sinä with the "a-umlaut", but then sinua and sinusta with the regular "a"... What about vowel harmony? ....Or, am I forgetting something obvious?...]

No one has picked up on this yet....It is, of course, a matter of "vowel harmony"... I had kind of forgotten that the u is the reason for this change. In the Finnish vowel harmony scheme the i (...along with the e) ...is "neutral"...and doesn't matter.

[garoowood]

Thanks Jukka...just before I fell asleep last night...it suddenly popped into my mind that I probably had turned this around.... But ...further to your discussion below about the instantaneous nature of pelästyä, would minua be correct?? I assume it must be, or you wouldn't have written the sentence that way, so I guess the question becomes..."Why would it be correct??..

Jukka has explained quite well. In this case, minua is kind of object, Vihaisesti haukkuva koira is the subject, it is because of my sudden presence or actions, the dog gets frightened. Putting minua in front of the sentence show your emphysis is minua, not the vihaisesti haukkuva koira.

[garoowood]

There is an equivalent for the English passive voice “by+agent” structure in Finnish but it is considered stilted, awkward style: Minua pelotettiin koiran toimesta; “I was (being made) scared by the (action(s) of the) dog”. But that just sounds awfully, ridiculously contrived. There’s no need for that kind of indirection. Finnish teachers usually warn against using the agent + toimesta pattern, and the whole thing is sometimes said to be a bastard loan from some other language, and hence not “needed” for the Finnish language anyway. But bureaucrats and politicians of course love anything and everything that will further obfuscate the true meaning (or emptiness) of their texts and speeches...

It seems that you do not use passive voice the same way as they usually do in English. I am a bit confused about this "by+agent" structure(do you use agent participle +-ma/-mä). How do you say "I was scared by the dog"? Just "Koira säikäytti minut" or "Koira pelästytti minut"? Do you use passive to express this?
If I would like to say "The bills have been paid by sb." can I express like "laskut on maksettu", but how to say by automatic teller machine, by hands, by Liisa? can "Liisan maksama laskut" be used here?

[Pursuivant]

Liisan automaatilla maksamat laskut/maksama lasku.
means at the machine or with the machine...

[sammy]

Yes, you can say "koira säikäytti/pelästytti minut" but usually (I guess) people would say "säikähdin/pelästyin koiraa". Depends a bit on the context, and what you wish to emphasise.

Bills - I guess you're asking how to say "these bills have been paid by Liisa"?

Again, depends on the situation. It's possible to say

Nämä laskut ovat Liisan maksamia (if e.g. there are many bills, of which only some have been paid by Liisa and you're referring to those particular ones)

but then it's also possible to just say

Liisa on maksanut nämä laskut

Another, quite 'bureaucratic' way of putting it would be

Nämä laskut on maksettu Liisan toimesta.

(best not to use that sort of speech in everyday conversations though

[sammy]

Luoja on luonut lumen...

[Jukka Aho]

But ...further to your discussion below about the instantaneous nature of pelästyä, would minua be correct?? I assume it must be, or you wouldn't have written the sentence that way, so I guess the question becomes..."Why would it be correct??...:D

Well, why wouldn’t it be? >:) But I see garoowood already explained that one.

This discussion reminds me that we have to be careful we really know what the Finnish verbs actually mean and how they are used....a while ago we had a bit of a discussion about verbs that indicate ongoing actions; sudden single-time actions, and repeated sudden actions....

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34717

Yes, pelästyä and säikähtää would probably both fall into the “sudden single-time action” category.

Oh yes..thanks for the link... Minulla ei ole hämähäkkikammoa, mutta teen poikeuksen jos näkisi jahtihämähäkkiä....

Minulla ei ole hämähäkkikammoa, mutta tekisin poikkeuksen, jos näkisin jahtihämähäkin.

or

Minulla ei ole hämähäkkikammoa, mutta teen poikkeuksen, jos näen jahtihämähäkin.

The latter sounds better, in my opinion.

Ahhh...another "scare" verb...säikähtää... :lol:...and I assume this will typically be used with the accusative...because it typically would not have the sense of being a "partial or ongoing" action... :?:

No, actually it’s pretty much a synonym for pelästyä – both in meaning and usage.

[garoowood]

so there is usually no clear subject in Finnish passive voice, you just do not mention it normally? If one does want to do so, then we put like liisan toimesta there?
But käsin kudotut puserot maksavat paljon, it seems in passive voic we can also put genetive in front of the passive verb to express sth. made by sb.(or some place etc.)? Or is käsin an accusative case? For example, how do you say jumpers made by Finns in Finland cost a lot? Suomessa suomalaisin kudotut puserot maksavat paljon? Or Suomessa suomalaisin kutomat puserot maksavat paljon?
Äidin tekemät puserot maksavat paljon. Äidin tehdyt puserot maksavat paljon. Are the the same?

[Jukka Aho]

so there is usually no clear subject in Finnish passive voice, you just do not mention it normally?

Some grammarians argue the Finnish passive voice should not be called that at all, but “fourth person”:

• Grammatical person / Additional persons (Wikipedia)
• Finnish grammar / Verbs forms / Voices / Indefinite voice (Wikipedia)
• Grammatical voice /( The fourth person in Baltic-Finnic languages (Wikipedia)

If one does want to do so, then we put like liisan toimesta there?

Not really. As one of the above-linked Wikipedia articles puts it,

“There is a calque, evidently from Swedish, toimesta "from the action of", that can be used to introduce the agent: Taloa maalataan Jimin toimesta, approximately "One paints the house from Jim's action". This expression is grammatically incorrect, but it may be found wherever direct translation from Swedish, English, etc. has been attempted, especially in legal texts.”

I.e. you may see it but don’t use it yourself. :)

But käsin kudotut puserot maksavat paljon, it seems in passive voic we can also put genetive in front of the passive verb to express sth. made by sb.(or some place etc.)?

That’s not a “passive/indefinite voice” or “fourth person” sentence at all. Puserot (or käsin kudotut puserot if you want to be inclusive) is the subject. The verb is in the 3rd person plural.

Or is käsin an accusative case?

This is actually the instructive case.

For example, how do you say jumpers made by Finns in Finland cost a lot? Suomessa suomalaisin kudotut puserot maksavat paljon? Or Suomessa suomalaisin kutomat puserot maksavat paljon?

Suomalaisten Suomessa kutomat puserot maksavat paljon.

You could also say...

Suomessa suomalaisten kutomat puserot maksavat paljon.

...but that’s ambiguous as to whether you mean they cost a lot (when bought) in Finland or that they were made in Finland.

Äidin tekemät puserot maksavat paljon. Äidin tehdyt puserot maksavat paljon. Are the the same?

The latter sentence is grammatically incorrect... tehdyt just doesn’t fit together with äidin.