Help to translation.

Learn and discuss the Finnish language with Finn's and foreigners alike
Post Reply
trungthanthong
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:04 am

Help to translation.

Post by trungthanthong » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:09 pm

"Investointeja käytetään useana vuonna eikä niitä myydä asiakkaalle"

Hello, how should I understand the phrase "eikä niitä" in this sentence. I thought "eikä" means neither..nor.. and it ise used only with negative verbi. And why it must be partitiive "investointeja"? I think plural is enough.

Thanks friends.



Help to translation.

Sponsor:

Finland Forum Ad-O-Matic
 

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

Re: Help to translation.

Post by 007 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:42 am

trungthanthong wrote:"Investointeja käytetään useana vuonna eikä niitä myydä asiakkaalle"

Hello, how should I understand the phrase "eikä niitä" in this sentence. I thought "eikä" means neither..nor.. and it ise used only with negative verbi. And why it must be partitiive "investointeja"? I think plural is enough.

Thanks friends.
You got it right. Eikä means "neither..nor" and is used for negative statements. However, look at this example - I don't drink or smoke (I neither drink nor smoke) is translated as en juo enkä polta. This is what they call 'nuances of language'.

As for investointeja, it's a partiitivi plural form of investointi, and why partiitive? Well, it's a million dollar question :lol: however, in this case, it's due to a negative sentence.

With käyttää verb, you can use partiitive and be correct most of the times...if you are confused, that is. Reason being that you usually don't use up everything. See käytin rahaa vs käytin viimeisen pennin.

Edit: ahh..seems like I didn't read your post thoroughly...blame it on my sleepy eyes. Anyway, hope my post is helpful to you.

Edit: in your example, partiitivi is used because you cannot use all the investments. Investment word is uncountable. So, unless jou are talking about all the investments, you use partiitive there.
“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


trungthanthong
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Help to translation.

Post by trungthanthong » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:13 pm

Thanks a lot, friend 007. It would be good if admin can put a "thanks" button below any reply.


trungthanthong
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Help to translation.

Post by trungthanthong » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:56 pm

Hello, friend. Please some more help for this sentence:

"Liikevaihtoon kuuluvat ainoastaan yrityksen varsinaisesta liiketoiminnasta saadut tuotot."

I know that "ainoa = only, sole" but how the grammar works here, which makes it become "ainoastaan", and "saadut" also, I think it is formed somehow from "saada"?

Many thanks.


User avatar
Keravalainen
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Help to translation.

Post by Keravalainen » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:28 am

"Liikevaihtoon kuuluvat ainoastaan yrityksen varsinaisesta liiketoiminnasta saadut tuotot."

Only the revenue received from the company's ordinary operations is included in the net sales.
or
The net sales include only the income from the company's ordinary operations.
Image


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

Re: Help to translation.

Post by 007 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:31 am

trungthanthong wrote:Hello, friend. Please some more help for this sentence:

"Liikevaihtoon kuuluvat ainoastaan yrityksen varsinaisesta liiketoiminnasta saadut tuotot."

I know that "ainoa = only, sole" but how the grammar works here, which makes it become "ainoastaan", and "saadut" also, I think it is formed somehow from "saada"?

Many thanks.
ainoastaan is adverb whereas ainoa is adjective. So, you have to choose which one fits where. For me, it comes naturally as it seems I have had enough exposure to Finnish language. By that, I mean I don't have to usually wonder where the adjective or adverb form should be used.

Eg ainoa tyttö (Aadjective), ainoastaan hän tuli (adverb)

saada -》 saatu (passive) -》saadut (plural)
“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


trungthanthong
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Help to translation.

Post by trungthanthong » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:01 am

It is me again, friends.

"Osapuolten on tehtävä niin kuin on sovittu."

How should I understand this sentence. And why "osapuoli" is in Genetiivi form? Thanks.


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

Re: Help to translation.

Post by AldenG » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:16 am

trungthanthong wrote:It is me again, friends.

"Osapuolten on tehtävä niin kuin on sovittu."

How should I understand this sentence. And why "osapuoli" is in Genetiivi form? Thanks.
The parties [to an agreement] shall do/perform/act as agreed.

Hänen, sinun, meidän, minun, osapuolten ... on tehtävä, mentävä, tultava ... etc

Why?

That's just the paradigm. Various degrees of obligation are often expressed in this way or similar ways based on genitive -- this approach, one of several, uses the "passive present participle," in this case "to be done." Tekevä=doing, tehtävä="to be done." (It's not quite what you might expect from the smallest pieces of tehtävä, but that's how it is.) Microparsing like this generally isn't helpful with these idiomatic forms. You often won't get the meaning of the whole from the apparent meanings of the pieces. You just have to know the paradigm. After you use it enough times in reading and producing sentences, it will come to be second nature.

There is no genuine "reason" for this or other paradigms other than that over hundreds of years, people started talking that way. Later on, Agricola and his successors recognized this, described it, and smoothed out some of the dissimilarities among various groups of speakers across the country. The language is full of such things. Explanations of "why" are usually modern, after-the-fact justifications that have little to do with why common usage evolved in the directions it did.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.


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

Re: Help to translation.

Post by 007 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:56 am

trungthanthong wrote:It is me again, friends.

"Osapuolten on tehtävä niin kuin on sovittu."

How should I understand this sentence. And why "osapuoli" is in Genetiivi form? Thanks.
Yeah, it can be counter-productive if you get stuck at 'whys'. The best thing to do is just take it as is and memorize it.

Just remember - 'on tehtävä' kind of phrase takes genetiivi. Other examples: Minun/hänen/sinun etc on mentävä/syötävä/maskettava etc

However, don't get confused with statements like 'velka on maksettava'. Velka (object) is in nominaatiivi-akkusatiivi here. Eg minun (subject) on maskettava velka (not velan). [This one is really confusing and may require years of practice and exposure. So, don't feel bad if you don't get it right away.]
“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


ErikAskari
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: Help to translation.

Post by ErikAskari » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:34 pm

Hello, Dear Friends :)

I also have a Translation question. :D

I wanted to ask what's the difference between

Myönnän sinun olevan oikeassa.

and

Myönnän, että olet oikeassa.

I admit that you are right.

I think difference is between feelings, but how it works,


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

Re: Help to translation.

Post by AldenG » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:21 pm

ErikAskari wrote:Hello, Dear Friends :)

I also have a Translation question. :D

I wanted to ask what's the difference between

Myönnän sinun olevan oikeassa.

and

Myönnän, että olet oikeassa.

I admit that you are right.

I think difference is between feelings, but how it works,
I see that this remains unanswered. Summer aside, that may be because any difference is so minuscule that nobody wants to generalize about it.

In general, those two ways of saying a thing, including this thing, have exactly the same meaning. As to a difference in tone, I find it hard to say in this particular example. Sinun olevan just barely starts to be newspaper or literary style, but really only if you add things to make it more complicated. (The simple expository style of the second version more quickly gets tangled up as you progressively complicate the thought, making the first form easier to use in general.)

Despite what I said about the first version (newspaper/literary style), as long as the sentence remains this simple, that way of saying a thing is also very common in everyday speech. And in written language it is much more common than the 2nd version.

That's my observation, anyway.

The full set of these forms, which frequently occur after verbs of thinking, believing, telling, hearing, seeing, stating, reporting, etc, based on etsi/n, etsinyt, etsitään, etsitty, "look for, seek, search for" is:

ACTIVE
Luulen Irjan etsivän... "Irja's [possessive] looking for" quasi-literally
Luulen Irjan etsineen... "Irja's having looked for"

I believe Irja is looking for, will look for...
I believe Irja has looked for, had looked for, was looking for...

PASSIVE
Luulen Irjan etsittävän... "Irja's being looked for"
Luulen Irjan etsityn... "Irja's having been looked for"

I believe Irja is being looked for...
I believe Irja has/had been looked for, was being looked for...

Not that you would necessarily translate them this way, and both languages complicate translation with semantic interactions between the tense of "believe" and the tense of "look for" in this paradigm. But the quasi-literal translations show that there can be sensible if not always idiomatic ways of expressing these Finnish-language constructs, like many others that may at first seem odd to English-speaking minds, with closely analogous constructs in English.

TL;DR

From a translator's point of view, I don't see that it's worth trying to reflect a difference in style or tone here. In this sentence, I would claim the difference to be nothing more than an artifact.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.


Post Reply