definite, unique, complete set of people and things

[Jukka Aho]

So you mean for non living things, we can use norminative plural when refers to a set of things, but for living things(pojat, miehet, kissat etc.), norminative plural is not proper as each individual do not fall into same kind?

Yes. Or that’s my theory, anyway... until someone comes up with a counterexample. :P

As far as I can see, it only applies to this rather specific construction. “(The-set-X-in-plural) ovat      (adjective)     .” You can use all the grammatical tenses and moods for the predicate ovat.

I have a feeling there are probably lots of border cases where you could possibly think of using the nominative plural anyway, even if you’re using a word such as miehet and even if the partitive would be a “safer” choice... for example, when referring to the set of identical stone statues built into the front facade of the Central Railway Station in Helsinki:

Päivällä kivimiehet ovat väriltään harmaat, mutta ilta-auringon kajossa ne kylpevät punaruskeina.

In this example, the “stone men” are considered as a set whose members do not have individual colors: instead, the color gray is a uniform property of the set and it is “inherited” to each of its members, with no variation in shade. All the members of the set are painted with the same gray brush, so to speak, with no room for individuality: they’re gray in the same uniform way.

You could just as well use the partitive, though, and no-one would bat an eyelid:

Päivällä kivimiehet ovat väriltään harmaita, mutta ilta-auringon kajossa ne kylpevät punaruskeina.

Here, the usage of the partitive leaves room for the interpretation there might be some individual variation in the shades of gray from one statue to the next. Each statue, when considered individually, is “gray”, but since you can call many different shades of colors “gray”, and since it was not defined which exact shade of gray it is, theoretically speaking, they could have different shades. However, the sentence does not in any particular way imply them having different shades, so in this case, it’s a rather academical distinction: there’s no practical difference to the nominative plural.

[Rob A.]

I found this paper....in English....which explains this, though I haven't yet been able to get that there is a difference between animate and inanimate things.....maybe it's got something more to do with countable and uncountable....but. hey, I'm just learning.....

The Copula and Subject Complement Consturction in English and Its Equivalents in Finnish...by Eila Hämäläinen, University of Jyväskylä.....


....a major point made is that ..."The other copulas in Finnish require a particular case for the subject complement; thus the setnences are not formally similar and NOT congruent with the English sentences."....So I think, once again, one has to try to forget how it is done in English and "think Finnish"...

So what I'm getting out of this is that the subject complement will only be in the nominative if that makes sense within the context of the Finnish case declension regime....in English this obviously isn't an issue because most nouns and adjectives have only one form.... though I'm still trying to interpret what this might imply with English pronouns and the English possessive case .... ....

Here's an example:

a) Lapsi on enkeli
"The child is an angel."

b) Lapset ovat enkeleitä
"The children are angels."

....the paper explains why this is correct and there are plenty more examples....

[Jukka Aho]

I found this paper....

[ ...]

Here's an example:

a) Lapsi on enkeli
"The child is an angel."

b) Lapset ovat enkeleitä
"The children are angels."

....the paper explains why this is correct and there are plenty more examples....:D

“Angel” is a noun, though... and from a quick glance, I did not find any discussion about using ovat + what that paper calls “a predicate complement” in the nominative plural.

[Rob A.]

“Angel” is a noun, though... and from a quick glance, I did not find any discussion about using ovat + what that paper calls “a predicate complement” in the nominative plural.

....and yet another paper...."The partitive case in existential and copula clauses in Balto-Finnic".....


...and in the summary is this:

"The partitive complement in equational copula clauses is much more common in Finnish than in the other Balto-Finnic languages. The adjectival partitive complement is only found in Finnish and to a very limited extent in Karelian. The singular partitive complement in non-equational usage, indicating origin and quality, occurs, albeit infrequently, in all the languages as well as older tests, and hence appears to be of Proto-Finnic origin. The plural NP (Noun Phrase] and adjective partitive complement appear to have developed in Finnish mainly in the 19th century, although an occasional example appeared earlier."

....So I think this is saying you can't have a nominative plural subject and a nominative plural subject complement...whether noun or adjective.... in modern, standard Finnish.... I think...

[Jukka Aho]

"The partitive complement in equational copula clauses is much more common in Finnish than in the other Balto-Finnic languages. The adjectival partitive complement is only found in Finnish and to a very limited extent in Karelian. The singular partitive complement in non-equational usage, indicating origin and quality, occurs, albeit infrequently, in all the languages as well as older tests, and hence appears to be of Proto-Finnic origin. The plural NP (Noun Phrase] and adjective partitive complement appear to have developed in Finnish mainly in the 19th century, although an occasional example appeared earlier."

....So I think this is saying you can't have a nominative plural subject and a nominative plural subject complement...whether noun or adjective.... in modern, standard Finnish.... I think... :ohno:

Sorry, I can’t get that sense from that text... and such conclusion would go against common usage. ;) Can you point me to the sentence that you think says that?

I took another hard look at Iso suomen kielioppi and it’s actually explained in there, if only in a bit complicated way.

Ҥ 946 Yleiskatsaus nominatiivin ja partitiivin valintaan

[...]

Predikatiivi on nominatiivissa, kun se luonnehtii jaotonta subjektia (a), ja partitiivissa, kun subjekti on jaollinen (b). Predikatiivi on monikossa sekä joukkotarkoitteista (c) että jaottomaksi tai yhteen kuuluvaksi kokonaisuudeksi ymmärrettävää monikollista subjektia luonnehtiessaan (d) (monikkosanoista ja predikatiivista tarkemmin » § 948).”

and

Ҥ 948 Jaollisuustulkinnat monikossa: Ne ovat vaikeat ~ vaikeita

Kun subjekti voi viitata joko jaottomaan entiteettiin tai entiteettien joukkoon, edellinen tulkinta osoitetaan predikatiivin nominatiivimuodolla (a) ja jälkimmäinen partitiivimuodolla (b). Tämä koskee sekä adjektiivi- että substantiivipredikatiiveja. Mitä eriytyneempää sanan käyttö on yksiköllisenä ja monikollisena, sitä selvemmin myös predikatiivin sija luo eri merkityksen (c). (Monikkosanoista eli monikollisiksi vakiintuneista substantiiveista » § 558 – 559.)”

The main point appears to be whether the subject is

1. An indivisible entity, or a (fixed) set of entities which are treated as one. Then the predicative takes the nominative.
   
   or
2. A divisible entity, such as a mass noun (or a noun that can occasionally be used as if it were a mass noun, such as pulla: “Pulla on hyvää.” – the cinnamon bun, or cinnamon buns in general, is delicious through-and-through; all pieces you can separate from that mass of dough are good), or a plurality (group) of entities which can not be treated as a (fixed) set, or whose members are currently being considered individually rather than broadly as a fixed set. Then the predicative takes the partitive.

Miehet, some random bunch of men, are not usually considered a (fixed) set but a group of individuals. This is at least one reason for the partitive: Miehet of japanilaisia.

Another, more potent reason might be that the hypothetical alternative, Miehet ovat japanilaiset, takes the form of an equational clause. It is as if you were saying “The (fixed/closed) Set A equals to the (fixed/closed) Set B” so the reverse should be true as well. But the reversal of that, Japanilaiset ovat [yhtä kuin] miehet makes equally little sense.

It should be noted that japanilainen : japanilaiset – when used in isolation and not as an attribute to some other word – is interpreted primarily as a noun indicating a person of certain nationality (“a Japanese citizen”), not as an adjective (“something of Japanese origin”). This might be an added, hidden complication here. It is a rather tall claim to suggest that some random group of men (considered as a fixed set) are “the” (fixed set of all) Japanese citizens (there are). But if you explain things more clearly – limiting the scope of the predicative to something reasonable – this form suddenly becomes possible:

Miehet ovat ne japanilaiset, jotka saapuivat tänne viime viikolla. (Here, japanilaiset is a noun.)

Miehet ovat tänne viime viikolla saapuneet japanilaiset. (Still a noun.)

Miehet ovat japanilaiset kisavieraat, jotka saapuivat tänne viime viikolla. (Here, japanilaiset is an adjective.)

[Rob A.]

"The partitive complement in equational copula clauses is much more common in Finnish than in the other Balto-Finnic languages. The adjectival partitive complement is only found in Finnish and to a very limited extent in Karelian. The singular partitive complement in non-equational usage, indicating origin and quality, occurs, albeit infrequently, in all the languages as well as older tests, and hence appears to be of Proto-Finnic origin. The plural NP (Noun Phrase] and adjective partitive complement appear to have developed in Finnish mainly in the 19th century, although an occasional example appeared earlier."

....So I think this is saying you can't have a nominative plural subject and a nominative plural subject complement...whether noun or adjective.... in modern, standard Finnish.... I think...

Sorry, I can’t get that sense from that text... and such conclusion would go against common usage. Can you point me to the sentence that you think says that?

I took another hard look at Iso suomen kielioppi and it’s actually explained in there, if only in a bit complicated way......

Well I'm the one having trouble with some aspects of the partitive....not you.... It seems that I think I get it, then it starts to slip away again.....

Maybe if I give a few really simple examples, then ask what they might mean to you in English...... Some of them might be nonsensical, but I think the main points would be whether or not they are grammatically correct and, then, what meaning or sense they may convey.... I'll just use nouns and the equational verb, olla.

OK...so are these grammatically correct and, if so, what meaning or sense do they carry???.....

Pojat ovat pojat.

Pojat ovat poikia.

Viisi lasta on pojat.

Viisi lasta on poikia.

....but I think you could only say:

Kahvi on kahvia.....never Kahvi on kahvi......

....and another partitive question....

I know that this....

1. Liisa on Pekkaa vanhempi.....means "Lisa is older than Pekka."

...however it could also be said this way:

2. Liisa on vanhempi kuin Pekka.

....obviously the second version is dead easy for any Germanic language speaker to grasp....the same basic construction is used. But as for the first version....what is it about the partitive that makes this version carry the sense of Lisa being older than Pekka, and not the other way around???.....

[Jukka Aho]

Maybe if I give a few really simple examples, then ask what they might mean to you in English...... Some of them might be nonsensical, but I think the main points would be whether or not they are grammatically correct and, then, what meaning or sense they may convey.... I'll just use nouns and the equational verb, olla.

OK...so are these grammatically correct and, if so, what meaning or sense do they carry???.....

Pojat ovat pojat.

Sounds awkward. It could only mean “These boys we’re talking about are these boys we’re talking about”, in a bizarre self-referential way, or “The boys are ‘the boys’” – which calls for the question who are ‘the boys’ and why aren’t they defined any better.

Pojat ovat poikia.

“Boys are boys.”

...or more analytically:

“These boys we’re talking about are like boys in general; they [or the individual members of that group] are a part [members] of the larger group ‘all boys in the world’ (and thus behave the same way.)”

Viisi lasta on pojat.

“Five children is the boys.” (?)

Viisi lasta on poikia.

“Five children is [some] boys.” (?)

....but I think you could only say:

Kahvi on kahvia.....never Kahvi on kahvi......

Correct.

....and another partitive question....:D

I know that this....

1. Liisa on Pekkaa vanhempi.....means "Lisa is older than Pekka."

...however it could also be said this way:

2. Liisa on vanhempi kuin Pekka.

....obviously the second version is dead easy for any Germanic language speaker to grasp....the same basic construction is used. But as for the first version....what is it about the partitive that makes this version carry the sense of Lisa being older than Pekka, and not the other way around???.....:D :D

The expression Pekkaa vanhempi, alone, means “older than Pekka”... so adding Liisa to the sentence just provides a subject to which that property can be attached. I’m not sure if there’s any further, more “logical” explanation to it.

[Rob A.]

OK, I can see that...but will I remember???... Until the "neural pathways" get hard-wired....I suppose, for any "equational" statement, the "default" setting should be "partitive" for any idea, concept, mass object, or plural thing, unless it's a natural set, when there is any sense at all of incompleteness, partialness, or "ongoing-ness".... And nominative for any definite object that is singular, or, if plural, where a high degree of specificity is intended, and, of course, such specificity is possible ....

Viisi lasta on pojat.

“Five children is the boys.” (?)

Viisi lasta on poikia.

“Five children is [some] boys.” (?)

Hmmmm...I guess I messed that up....ovat.... But that's OK, the same logic would apply as with the previous example.....

....and another partitive question....

I know that this....

1. Liisa on Pekkaa vanhempi.....means "Lisa is older than Pekka."

...however it could also be said this way:

2. Liisa on vanhempi kuin Pekka.

....obviously the second version is dead easy for any Germanic language speaker to grasp....the same basic construction is used. But as for the first version....what is it about the partitive that makes this version carry the sense of Lisa being older than Pekka, and not the other way around???.....

The expression Pekkaa vanhempi, alone, means “older than Pekka”... so adding Liisa to the sentence just provides a subject to which that property can be attached. I’m not sure if there’s any further, more “logical” explanation to it.

OK....would all of these comparative adjectives require the object to be in the partitive??...suurempi, pienempi, siistimpi, etc....???? Any idea why the partitive is used??? Is there a sense of "incompleteness"????

Also can other cases be substituted if the sentence construction requires it????

I found this example:

Naaras on koirasta kookkaampi ja otus painaa kahdesta neljään tonnia.....What is the distinction here???? Why the elative case??.....Or should I say ....sisäeronto sisäpaikallissija...

This is from a description of a kiinalainen leijonlohikäärme.....

[EP]

Rob A. wrote:
Viisi lasta on poikia.

But if you say viisi lapsista on poikia you get it right. Some family has seven kids and five are boys.

[Jukka Aho]

OK, I can see that...but will I remember???...:D

Well, at least in the two (four) examples above, the choice between the nominative and the partitive seems to correspond nicely with the presence or the absence of the article “the” in English... Maybe you could get something out of it in that sense. Although I’m sure there are some border cases where Finnish chooses to take a different path... again. ;)

I suppose, for any "equational" statement, the "default" setting should be "partitive" for any idea, concept, mass object, or plural thing, unless it's a natural set, when there is any sense at all of incompleteness, partialness, or "ongoing-ness".... And nominative for any definite object that is singular, or, if plural, where a high degree of specificity is intended, and, of course, such specificity is possible ....

Sounds good to me. That’s a real mouthful for a rule of thumb, though...

Viisi lasta on pojat.

“Five children is the boys.” (?)

Viisi lasta on poikia.

“Five children is [some] boys.” (?)

Hmmmm...I guess I messed that up....ovat.... But that's OK, the same logic would apply as with the previous example..... :D

Yes, in addition to them being awkward (grammatically incorrect, if you want to put it that way), there was that verb-predicative singularity-plurality disagreement... ;)

The expression Pekkaa vanhempi, alone, means “older than Pekka”... so adding Liisa to the sentence just provides a subject to which that property can be attached. I’m not sure if there’s any further, more “logical” explanation to it.

OK....would all of these comparative adjectives require the object to be in the partitive??...suurempi, pienempi, siistimpi, etc....????

Yes.

Hevonen on kissaa suurempi eläin ja vaatii siksi myös enemmän ruokaa.

Kärpänen on hiirtäkin pienempi.

Sinä olet siskoasi siistimpi.

Any idea why the partitive is used??? Is there a sense of "incompleteness"????

I could be wrong of course but I think it’s just a grammatical convention with no deeper meaning. Or perhaps it was originally something that made “partitive sense” when it was first used in some specific situation, but the usage has since been generalized?

Also can other cases be substituted if the sentence construction requires it????

Too general a question. ;) I would need to see an example of the kind of usage you mean...

I found this example:

Naaras on koirasta kookkaampi ja otus painaa kahdesta neljään tonnia.....What is the distinction here???? Why the elative case??.....Or should I say ....sisäeronto sisäpaikallissija... :ochesey:

I admit that’s confusing, but it’s not the elative... ;) it’s the partitive of koiras (look that up!)

[Rob A.]

Thanks

Also can other cases be substituted if the sentence construction requires it????

Too general a question. I would need to see an example of the kind of usage you mean...

Hmmmm....I'll see what I can find if anything....

I found this example:

Naaras on koirasta kookkaampi ja otus painaa kahdesta neljään tonnia.....What is the distinction here???? Why the elative case??.....Or should I say ....sisäeronto sisäpaikallissija...

I admit that’s confusing, but it’s not the elative... it’s the partitive of koiras (look that up!)

Well...."Gosh darn it!!! or, "What the Sam Hill!!", as the old folks used to say.... The pitfalls never cease!!!..... I thought the sentence said: "The female is larger than from a dog and the creature weighs from two to four tonnes....."

I guess I thought the elative of "dog" was used here for some peculiar "Finnish" reason... So koiras means "a male animal".... But I'm sure you would never say...except as a joke....*ihmiskoiras....though I see that ihmisapina is a Finnish word....

So only the context ....and perhaps a better knowledge of Finnish grammar than I have....would prevent someone from thinking this was the elative of koira....

[Jukka Aho]

I admit that’s confusing, but it’s not the elative... ;) it’s the partitive of koiras (look that up!)

[...]

So koiras means "a male animal".... But I'm sure you would never say...except as a joke....*ihmiskoiras....though I see that ihmisapina is a Finnish word.... :D

There are actually two generic words for referring to male animals:

1. koiras: Used primarily for insects, fish (?), birds, and the like. (So you’re not too likely to hear the word koirakoiras or koiraskoira in the wild, I’m afraid...)
2. uros: Used primarily for mammals; also sometimes for human males, but usually only in a jocular/sarcastic sense (Hän on todellinen uroiden uros! or Testosteronin riivaamat uroot olivat baarissa naisen kimpussa. Or maybe with a David Attenborough style voiceover: Ihmisuros nousee kohta sohvalta ja lähtee metsästämään olutta jääkaapista.)

In addition to koiras, uros and naaras, there are probably dozens of specific words for referring to the females, males and young offspring of various species... especially the domesticated ones.

So only the context ....and perhaps a better knowledge of Finnish grammar than I have....would prevent someone from thinking this was the elative of koira.... :D

I guess it could be a baffling sentence even for a native who for some reason doesn’t happen to know the word koiras... but then they probably wouldn’t know the word naaras, either.

Nainen taisteli lastensa puolesta kuin naarasleijona.

[Rob A.]

....Or maybe with a David Attenborough style voiceover: Ihmisuros nousee kohta sohvalta ja lähtee metsästämään olutta jääkaapista.

[Rob A.]

I was thinking a little more about comparatives:

Here is the previous example:

Liisa on Pekkaa vanhempi.
Liisa on vanhempi kuin Pekka.

.....meaning "Lisa is older than Pekka."

....as to the first version, the conclusion I have reached...right or wrong....... is that this statement is saying, that, "Lisa is older."..."Lisa" is the subject and "older" is the subject complement. "Pekka" is the indirect object and is in the partitive because we are dealing with an ongoing process.... I think that probably captures it...

In the second instance...Liisa on vanhempi kuin Pekka.... , a construction an English speaker would be much more comfortable with, is saying: "Lisa is older than Pekka (is)." ...."than" or "kuin" is a conjunction joining a subordinate clause...I think it would be called an adjectival clause in this instance, modifying the subject complement...and it has an implied verb, "is" or "on. Pekka is the subject of this clause, and therefore must be in the nominative.

Now I'm curious how this might be translated:

"He likes you more than her."

...in this case this is what is actually being said:

"He likes you more than (he likes) her."

I think it would be translated as:

Hän pitää sinusta enemmän kuin häntä.

"Häntä" being in the partitive because of the ongoing nature of the action.....and also because it is the object of this subordinate clause.

Is there any other way to say this in Finnish???

[Upphew]

"He likes you more than her."

...in this case this is what is actually being said:

"He likes you more than (he likes) her."

I think it would be translated as:

Hän pitää sinusta enemmän kuin häntä.

"Häntä" being in the partitive because of the ongoing nature of the action.....and also because it is the object of this subordinate clause.

Is there any other way to say this in Finnish???

Of course, the correct way
Hän pitää sinusta enemmän kuin hänestä.
You said: He likes you more than tail does.

edit. hän pitää sinusta enemmän kuin hänestä has too much hän in it, doesn't sound nice and is hard to parse