another one problem

[Jukka Aho]

I was reading some books

Minä olin lukemassa kirjoja.

Or just:

Olin lukemassa kirjoja.

As far as the verb goes, theres then also "lueskella" - Minä lueskelin kirjaa., which means you were leafing/browsing a book but not reading it with high concentration. Works with other verbs, juosta - juoksennella. lapset juoksevat pihalla (as in having a competition) ve. Lapset juoksentelevat pihalla (just running around).
Not *all* verbs have such a diminutive though.

Those are frequentative verbs. The OP can find more about them on Wikipedia.

[Jukka Aho]

If partitive plural can both mean ongoing action and partial of something at the same time in the upper mentioned sentences, why can't vanhuksia means both partial and process emphasis at the same time?

Your sample sentences didn’t have enough context around them to support a strong “partial” interpretation. You referred to “those seniors” which probably means a distinct group of seniors which you’re pointing at with your finger or which are otherwise clearly identifiable...

If there are seniors in distress among a larger crowd of seniors and you want me to help “those seniors”, hand-waving in the general direction of them, pretty much the only “partial” way of interpreting that is offering the help only to those that actually seem to be in need of help and ignoring those that don’t need or want it... which is what reasonably thinking you’d be doing anyway. But you would still be trying to help all of them that appear to require your help... unless there are so many of them it is overwhelming and beyond your capability.

If, on the other hand, there is a small group of seniors, all equally in trouble – say, sailing on a raft after a shipwreck – a request “Auta noita vanhuksia!” means all of them, period. There’s no room for partial interpretation. But the partitive signals that the emphasis of the request is on the process of helping (getting help delivered; getting something done now), not the final outcome, whatever it will be.

So what you will make out of the “partial” aspect is context-dependent... it seems. Narrowing it down with words such as nuo : noita leaves little room for partial interpretation.

Or maybe we can turn this analysis on its head and say “those seniors” is the epitome of “partial”: specifically those seniors out of all the seniors in the world! :)

(The usage of the partitive is probably something that is easier to grasp in context, using actual sentences and paragraphs taken from magazines, tv shows and the like... instead of theorizing about fragments of sentences in isolation.)

[garoowood]

Kiitoksia, Jukka.

[garoowood]

Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvaa tätiäni.
Pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvaa koiraa.
Oletko koskaan nähnyt puhuvaa papukaijaa?

I could understand the sencond sentence why partitive is used(pelästyä requires partitive).

But I am a bit confused about the first and third sentences' usage about partitive. Is it because the process is important the the outcome?
Sb. helps, pls.

[Upphew]

Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvaa tätiäni.
Pelästyin vihaisesti haukkuvaa koiraa.
Oletko koskaan nähnyt puhuvaa papukaijaa?

I could understand the sencond sentence why partitive is used(pelästyä requires partitive).

But I am a bit confused about the first and third sentences' usage about partitive. Is it because the process is important the the outcome?
Sb. helps, pls.

Verb + partitive as object? http://donnerwetter.kielikeskus.helsink ... illoin.htm

[Jukka Aho]

Menin tapaamaan maalla asuvaa tätiäni.

Hey, that sounds familiar.... You’ve asked about this before... ;)

Oletko koskaan nähnyt puhuvaa papukaijaa?

Koskaan (“ever”) is a so-called negative-polarity adverb. Outside questions, it is normally only used in negative clauses: En ole koskaan nähnyt...

The built-in “negativity” of koskaan affects the usage of the partitive as well, even when it is used in a question and not in an actual negative clause. This document has some more information:

• Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian by Larisa Leisiö (p. 123, section The Finnish partitive of the object in negation)

[garoowood]

Yeap, I did ask it before but I could not find the link.
I will go through it again and thanks Juha.

[Rob A.]

...This document has some more information:

• Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian by Larisa Leisiö (p. 123, section The Finnish partitive of the object in negation)

Merci!!!....exactly what I like!!! ...ja myös englanniksi....

[Jukka Aho]

...This document has some more information:

• Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian by Larisa Leisiö (p. 123, section The Finnish partitive of the object in negation)

:thumbsup: Merci!!!....exactly what I like!!!

Well, of course. Who wouldn’t like some morphosyntactic convergence with their morning coffee!

[Rob A.]

...This document has some more information:

• Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian by Larisa Leisiö (p. 123, section The Finnish partitive of the object in negation)

Merci!!!....exactly what I like!!!

Well, of course. Who wouldn’t like some morphosyntactic convergence with their morning coffee!

Mutta...ei ole koiraa karvoihin katsominen........

Despite its rather pedantic title, this paper...presumably a doctoral thesis....is really quite fascinating....I've read a few bits and pieces from it.... its central theme is the influence of Finnish and Swedish on Russian language usage in parts of Finland that went back and forth between Russian, Swedish or Finnish control over the centuries....

The table of contents is good. There is a well-presented history of the particular area.... and interesting discussions on Finnish, Swedish and Russian grammar....

Here's an example:

"The Finnish partitive and Russian genitive originate from the ablative, the case of separation and differentiation, indicating that the referent does not participate in the situation signalled in the utterance. This ablative meaning is perceptible in many ways in the contemporary use of these cases.

a) Finnish:
Liisa on Pekkaa vanhempi

....and this interesting footnote:

"In some Finnish dialects, the elative is used, for instance with verbs of striving and separation which govern the partitive in standard Finnish."


....and it explains these partitive constructions:

Lavasteita on vain yksi.
Vihkoja ostimme kaksi.

....and why this is grammatically correct Finnish:

Kouluja on hyviä ja huonoja....

....and at page 150...the development of the Finnish partitive...Alussa oli kolme sijamuotoa...ja kolme paikallissijaa.....

[Rob A.]

....and I read a little more on the finnish partitive...starting at page 150 ....

"According to Larjavaara (1991), the partitive as a marker of imperfective aspect started developing in the past tense clauses, in which the action was terminated but did not cover the entire object. Thus, the partitive expressed the partial quantification of the object. Further, the partitve began to be used in the progessive clauses and consequently has become a marker of imperfectivity of the aspect in a broad sense, including inherently low-transitive verbs, and the marker of object under the scope of negation."

...in other words, at it very essence, it always comes back to the broad idea of "incompleteness" ...something "not whole", something not "perfected".... whether it's in the past, present or future.... and if it doesn't fit this concept...in the broadest of senses, then, if it's not the subject or a predicate nominal; if it is not a noun modifiying a noun; and, if it is not a "locative", then it has to be in the accusative.... I think...

Oh well...it will eventually sink it....the neural pathways will eventually be properly wired....and like the native speakers, I will just "know" what sounds right and what sounds wrong....

[Jukka Aho]

Here’s another one for you:

• The Finnish Noun Phrase

[Rob A.]

Here’s another one for you:

• The Finnish Noun Phrase

....I've seen that one before....but thanks for the reminder....

....and as this seems to have become the "another one problem" thread, I'm curious about the following "scenario":

I was reading about a "Finnic" case called the "excessive", a locative case with the sense of transforming away from some state...a kind of opposite to the translative..... This case can be found, apparently, in some eastern dialects but not in standard Finnish...

Here's an example:

Hyväntä ystäväntä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksiu] muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi.

Now my question ....I was thinking how this would be handled in standard Finnish....maybe the following...???...:

Olemasta hyvää ystävää muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksia.

Does this sound correct grammatically????...also I'm wondering a bit about the word order...muuttui hän.....is this simply for emphasis??...

[Jukka Aho]

I was reading about a "Finnic" case called the "excessive", a locative case with the sense of transforming away from some state...a kind of opposite to the translative..... This case can be found, apparently, in some eastern dialects but not in standard Finnish...

Here's an example:

Hyväntä ystäväntä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksiu] muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi.

Hmm, I take it you mean Hyväntä ystäväntä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi. (That duplication at the end is just a copy-paste error, right?)

Now my question ....I was thinking how this would be handled in standard Finnish....maybe the following...???...:

Olemasta hyvää ystävää muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksia.

You can get the idea there but it’s not something a native speaker would say.

Does this sound correct grammatically????

If I were to say that, I’d probably drop the partitive: Olemasta hyvä ystävä muuttui hän....

It’s not an impossible construction, grammatically speaking – or at least I don’t think so – but it’s not idiomatic, either, and sounds rather clumsy. (There’s an extra “a” at the end of your vihamieheksi, by the way.)

Now, what would a Finn say?

Hyvästä ystävästä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi.

...also I'm wondering a bit about the word order...muuttui hän.....is this simply for emphasis??...:D

That word order does sound a bit dated. It has the earmarks of the style you could expect from, say, Juhani Aho (1861—1921) or Aleksis Kivi (1834—1872). (I think it might be Swedish influence.)

Normally you’d say:

Hän muuttui hyvästä ystävästä pahimmaksi vihamieheksi.

[Rob A.]

...Hmm, I take it you mean Hyväntä ystäväntä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi. (That duplication at the end is just a copy-paste error, right?)

Yes...apparently the u option confuses the heck out of me...

Now my question ....I was thinking how this would be handled in standard Finnish....maybe the following...???...:

Olemasta hyvää ystävää muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksia.

You can get the idea there but it’s not something a native speaker would say.

Does this sound correct grammatically????

If I were to say that, I’d probably drop the partitive: Olemasta hyvä ystävä muuttui hän....

It’s not an impossible construction, grammatically speaking – or at least I don’t think so – but it’s not idiomatic, either, and sounds rather clumsy. (There’s an extra “a” at the end of your vihamieheksi, by the way.)

Now, what would a Finn say?

Hyvästä ystävästä muuttui hän pahimmaksi vihamieheksi.

Thanks...so it seems the modern Finnish translative case applies only while in "the role of something"...with, shall I say, less emphasis on "becoming" that "something"...though it clearly retains the idea that this "state" is ongoing..... The "fact" that the previous friendship was also ongoing, though in the past, is less significant than the current "state"...which I suppose makes sense as modern languages have...or maybe tend to have, a foreward-looking bias....

I suppose you could also say.....pahimmalle vihamiehelle. .....though that might sound a bit "flat" to the ears of a native speaker????....the ongoing nature, if any, being unclear...???

Could it be said...or am I being presumptious here with my current level of knowledge.... ...that the translative case is, perhaps, of lesser importance than, say, the allative....???

...And, further, does the apparent use of this excessive case in some of the eastern dialects reflect, perhaps, a more retrospective cultural outlook....????....