Finnish help

[garoowood]

Hi,

Why you say: Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvaa Kaisa-tätiäni. why is partitive used here?
And also Pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvaa koiraa. and Oletko koskaan nähnyt puhuvaa papukaijaa? Is it because verb pelästyä and nähdä need to use partitive?

Kiitos

[Pursuivant]

Well how would you say it otherwise?

[garoowood]

can I use accusative here instead of partitve?

[Pursuivant]

Give an example.

[garoowood]

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

[Timbeh]

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".

[Timbeh]

[deleted double-post]

[sammy]

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".

But yes, pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran is wrong.

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

[Jukka Aho]

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.

Some interesting (superficially related) articles which I found:

• The choice of case for the object in a sentence (the same article to which I already linked in the above)
• The “bizarre” valency behaviour of Finnish verbs: How a specific context gives rise to valency alternation patterns
• The Finnish Noun Phrase
• Uusi kielemme: The partitive
• Uusi kielemme: Partitive verbs
• Transitive and Intransitive Verbs

[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".

But yes, pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran is wrong.

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

Thanks，non-specified length of the meeting really helps.

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?

[sammy]

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?

Erm, no - "pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvan koiran" is just not correct, you can't say it and be grammatical at the same time (it was different with that other example, starring the famous Kaisa-täti).

You can only say pelästyä koiraa, pelästyä tätiä, pelästyä jotakin.

It's a different sort of verb. Again I can't explain it better - I just know it's not correct to say "pelästyin koiran" if you mean that you were frightened by the dog. You could only see that combination in sentences like pelästyin koiran lailla - I was frightened like a dog. But that's a different thing altogether.

[Jukka Aho]

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?

Note the bit about “affecting the object”. The dog is the grammatical object in that sentence. You – the grammatical subject of that sentence – got frightened, but the dog – the grammatical object of that sentence – was not affected by this “action” of yours (a change in your mental state) in any way. Hence, you can’t use the -N accusative (as it would imply some “conclusive outcome” for the dog as a result of your action, and nothing like that happened.)

[Tuonelan Joutsen]

That's interesting because of the other verbs whose objects are also not affected by the action, but which take the elative. "I like the dog" and "I fear the dog" have the same structure and semantic roles, but it's "pidän koirasta" and "pelkään koiraa" (right?).

[Jukka Aho]

That's interesting because of the other verbs whose objects are also not affected by the action, but which take the elative. "I like the dog" and "I fear the dog" have the same structure and semantic roles, but it's "pidän koirasta" and "pelkään koiraa" (right?).

These differ from pelästyä in that they’re on-going (irresultative) actions or activity verbs, and pitää is something of a special case as it has many different meanings denoted by the use of different cases (perhaps in some ways comparable to phrasal verbs in English.)
 

[garoowood]

Note the bit about “affecting the object”. The dog is the grammatical object in that sentence. You – the grammatical subject of that sentence – got frightened, but the dog – the grammatical object of that sentence – was not affected by this “action” of yours (a change in your mental state) in any way. Hence, you can’t use the -N accusative (as it would imply some “conclusive outcome” for the dog as a result of your action, and nothing like that happened.)

Yes, that is the problem, thank you.