Kuukkeli kookkaammat.....

[Rob A.]

The first part basically says when there’s a genitive attribute, its location in relation to the numeral gives way to either an indefinite or a definite interpretation:

Genitive attribute after the numeral:

    Kolme Sibeliuksen laulua.
    “Three Sibelius’ songs.”
    (Somewhat indefinite at least without further context... could be any three songs written by him.)

Genitive attribute in front of the numeral:

    Sibeliuksen kolme laulua.
    “The three songs of [by] Sibelius”
    (Certainly definite – the speaker knows which songs they’re referring to.)

• • •

The second part says when the subject is a (grammatically) singular NP containing a numeral, the singularity or plurality of the verb affects to the interpretation of the definitiveness or indefinitiveness:

A grammatically singular NP + a singular verb:

    Kolme miestä ryösti pankin.
    “Three men robbed a bank.”
    (Some three men. This is probably new information mentioned the first time.)

A grammatically singular NP + a plural verb:

    Edellämainitut kolme viiksekästä miestä ryöstivät pankin viime vuonna.
    “The aforementioned three men robbed a bank last year.”
    (They’re definite three men now, and usually peppered with attributes – or at
    least pronouns such as “these” – which further underline their definitiveness.)

Yes...this seems fairly straightforward once it's explained ...

Should I be assuming Finnish is more precise than English when dealing with these "congruency" type statements??? Or, maybe I just don't know Finnish well enough yet.... Could you maybe give us a simple example where it would be totally unclear whether the verb should be singular or plural???

There are rules in English, for example, for uncountable nouns, which as I recall are more or less similar in Finnish....Uncountable nouns will be singular...

"Some of the coffee is missing" v. "Some of the dogs are missing."

And words like, "each" are, apparently, always singular, though in practice this "rule" is, at least from what I can tell, typically broken...

"Each of the cars IS white." v. "*Each of the cars ARE white." Though, in pracice I think most of us native speakers would say the later...

Then there are the "proximity' issues....

"Are the dogs or the cat fat.?"
"Is the cat or the dogs fat.".....

"Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavaa?"
"Onko kissa vai koirat lihavaa?"....Are both of these sentences grammatically correct?...

[Edit: Typos corrected....and I think the first lihavaa, at least, should be in the plural partitive.]

[EP]

"Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavaa?"

Yes, it should be Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavia?

I guess I would say lihavia also in the second case.

[Jukka Aho]

Yes...this seems fairly straightforward once it's explained ... :ochesey:

I found a yet more relevant VISK article:

• § 1276 Kaksi miestä tulee ~ tulevat, Nämä kaksi tulevat

Numeral in front of the subject makes the verb agree with the plurality/singularity of itself:

Kaksi miestä lojui sohvalla.
Pari kukkaa pilkisti maljakosta.
Neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsii 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

...except if there’s a pronoun in plural, making it a definite expression. Then the verb agrees with the plurality of the pronoun:

Ne kaksi miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Nuo pari kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Nämä neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Definity can also be based on a genitive attiribute:

Vaimon kaksi miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Mummon pari kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Suurperheen neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Or the definity can be based on a superlative, elative or other construction that defines or limits the scope of the group we’re talking about:

Kaksi suurinta miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Pari muuta kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Neljä perheen tytöistä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Should I be assuming Finnish is more precise than English when dealing with these "congruency" type statements??? Or, maybe I just don't know Finnish well enough yet....:D Could you maybe give us a simple example where it would be totally unclear whether the verb should be singular or plural???

I think the last three examples could all use a singular verb just as well...

Then there are the "proximity' issues....

"Are the dogs or the cat fat.?"
"Is the cat or the dogs fat.".....

"Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavaa?"
"Onko kissa vai koirat lihavaa?"....Are both of these sentences grammatically correct?...:D

[Edit: Typos corrected....and I think the first lihavaa, at least, should be in the plural partitive.]

Yes, Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavia?

But the question is a bit strange... you’re comparing one cat to a plurality of dogs and asking which one (?) of them is fatter?

[Rob A.]

Yes...this seems fairly straightforward once it's explained ...

I found a yet more relevant VISK article:

• § 1276 Kaksi miestä tulee ~ tulevat, Nämä kaksi tulevat

Numeral in front of the subject makes the verb agree with the plurality/singularity of itself:

Kaksi miestä lojui sohvalla.
Pari kukkaa pilkisti maljakosta.
Neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsii 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

...except if there’s a pronoun in plural, making it a definite expression. Then the verb agrees with the plurality of the pronoun:

Ne kaksi miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Nuo pari kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Nämä neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Definity can also be based on a genitive attiribute:

Vaimon kaksi miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Mummon pari kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Suurperheen neljä työssäkäyvää tyttöä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Or the definity can be based on a superlative, elative or other construction that defines or limits the scope of the group we’re talking about:

Kaksi suurinta miestä lojuivat sohvalla.
Pari muuta kukkaa pilkistivät maljakosta.
Neljä perheen tytöistä etsivät 4 h+k asuntoa Helsingistä.

Thanks....and I'm having fun slowly translating the VISK explanation...

So, then, I think the key to this stuff is the degree of "definiteness" ....the more definite and specific the numeric group, then the more likely the verb will be plural....this seems to be the rule in English, though I probably can't always "see the forest for the trees" when in comes to English.... You know ....sloppy habits developed at a young age tend to continue....

....Though, I can't think of any example in English were you would say something such as ..."*Four working girls seeks an apartment with four rooms and kitchen in Helsinki.".... It would always be ...."Four working girls seek...... even if it were shortened to..."Four seek....."

Should I be assuming Finnish is more precise than English when dealing with these "congruency" type statements??? Or, maybe I just don't know Finnish well enough yet.... Could you maybe give us a simple example where it would be totally unclear whether the verb should be singular or plural???

I think the last three examples could all use a singular verb just as well...

Then there are the "proximity' issues....

"Are the dogs or the cat fat.?"
"Is the cat or the dogs fat.".....

"Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavaa?"
"Onko kissa vai koirat lihavaa?"....Are both of these sentences grammatically correct?...

[Edit: Typos corrected....and I think the first lihavaa, at least, should be in the plural partitive.]

Yes, Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavia?

But the question is a bit strange... you’re comparing one cat to a plurality of dogs and asking which one (?) of them is fatter?

I suppose this could only realisically be a discussion about some specific, definte koirat ja kissa.... I was trying to ask if all the dogs in the group were fat, or if the only cat is fat.... Maybe it would be better in English to include the word, "either"....

"Are either the dogs or the cat fat?" v. "Is either the cat or the dogs fat?"....Still a bit awkward sounding........How might this be expressed in Finnish?... The grammatical concept here is supposed to be "proximity"....the noun/noun phrase closest to the verb governs its number...I'm sure, despite my convoluted attempts, it will somehow be similar in Finnish....

And I suppose my examples might seem a bit pedantic to others, though I follow the theory of trying to "overlearn" the language, and then of course, settle back later to a more reasonable level...

[Jukka Aho]

Thanks....and I'm having fun slowly translating the VISK explanation...:D

Some people would probably consider that very strange kind of fun...

So, then, I think the key to this stuff is the degree of "definiteness" ....the more definite and specific the numeric group, then the more likely the verb will be plural...

Something like that, yes.

Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavia?

But the question is a bit strange... you’re comparing one cat to a plurality of dogs and asking which one (?) of them is fatter?

I suppose this could only realisically be a discussion about some specific, definte koirat ja kissa.... I was trying to ask if all the dogs in the group were fat, or if the only cat is fat.... Maybe it would be better in English to include the word, "either"....

Come to think of it...

    Ovatko koirat tai kissa lihavia?

...sounds better. If you use vai, as in...

    Ovatko koirat vai kissa lihavia?

...it kind of assumes that either one of them must be fat – it’s a “done deal” already – and now we just need to find out which one of them is the fat party. Tai makes no such assumption; it’s just a simple enquiry on whether either of them might be fat.

These don’t work:

    Onko koirat tai kissa...
    Onko kissa tai koirat...

If there’s a plural subject in this kind of a clause it appears the verb (and the adjective) must be in plural as well.

Then again, these would be fine:

    Onko kissa tai koira lihava?
    Ovatko kissa ja koira lihavia?

[Rob A.]

Thanks
........the distinction between tai and vai... tai when it's a statement of fact...vai when there is some "uncertainty" about the "either/or" options....I think....??...

...it kind of assumes that either one of them must be fat – it’s a “done deal” already – and now we just need to find out which one of them is the fat party. Tai makes no such assumption; it’s just a simple enquiry on whether either of them might be fat.

But is it a simple enquiry ...or simply a statement of fact that would compel the use of tai...???

[Aside...interesting word..."enquiry"....I never use it myself...so I checked wiktionary and found this:
"According to Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), inquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning. Many (though not all) British writers maintain this distinction; the Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, lists inquiry and enquiry as equal alternatives, in that order."]..... I didn't know this.....

These don’t work:

    Onko koirat tai kissa...
    Onko kissa tai koirat...

If there’s a plural subject in this kind of a clause it appears the verb (and the adjective) must be in plural as well.

How about these?:

Kissa tai koirat ovat lihavia.
Koirat tai kissa on lihavia.....probably not...
Koirat tai kissa ovat lihavia....if the verb is correct...this is likely OK??
Koirat tai kissa on lihava.

[Jukka Aho]

the distinction between tai and vai... tai when it's a statement of fact...vai when there is some "uncertainty" about the "either/or" options....I think....??...:D

I think VISK will help here, again:

• § 1098 Tai, vai ja eli

“The conjunctions tai and vai have a division of duties. Vai is exclusive in its meaning. It is only used in queries (a). Tai, on the other hand, is used for introducing alternative possibilities where it does not matter which or what will get chosen. Tai is most commonly used in other contexts than queries but it does occur in queries, too. However, it is most commonly used when connecting compound words or other kind of phrases which have a common part that the writer or speaker does not want to repeat (b). Tai is also commonly used together with the word sitten, which emphasizes an alternative viewpoint (c).”

There’s also a reference to the following VISK articles which discuss the conjunction vai in more depth:

• § 1698 Tyttö vai poika -tyyppisten kysymysrakenteiden käyttöä
• § 1699 Vai-alkuinen kysymyslause väitelauseen jatkeena
• § 1700 Vai-kysymys hakukysymyksen jäljessä

...it kind of assumes that either one of them must be fat – it’s a “done deal” already – and now we just need to find out which one of them is the fat party. Tai makes no such assumption; it’s just a simple enquiry on whether either of them might be fat.

But is it a simple enquiry ...or simply a statement of fact that would compel the use of tai...???

I guess it depends on what kind of assumptions you are making when asking the question. If you’re convinced that one or the other must be fat (there’s no doubt about that), you’d use vai when asking about it. But if you’re just curious about whether one or the other is fat (but will also accept for an answer that neither of them might be, after all), you’d use tai.

[Aside...interesting word..."enquiry"....I never use it myself...so I checked wiktionary and found this:
"According to Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), inquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning. Many (though not all) British writers maintain this distinction; the Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, lists inquiry and enquiry as equal alternatives, in that order."]..... I didn't know this..... :D

I guess that might be why Firefox, by default, marked it with a squiggly red underline...

How about these?:

Kissa tai koirat ovat lihavia.

Correct.

Koirat tai kissa on lihavia.....probably not...:D

You’re right, a singular verb (on) with a plural subject (koirat) and a plural predicative (lihavia) doesn’t work. (Except in casual speech which is much more relaxed about these kind of things.)

Koirat tai kissa ovat lihavia....if the verb is correct...this is likely OK??

Correct.

Koirat tai kissa on lihava.

Nope. It’s logical in the sense that the singularity of the verb agrees with the singularity of the predicative but since there’s a plural subject, koirat, there’s that mismatch again.

[Rob A.]

Kiitos

[Rob A.]

I was thinking a bit more about this....let's try it from a slightly different angle..... Nyt ....kuluttamaan (??) ajanjaksoa (partitive or accusative??) tilalla.......

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyneet.

v.

"Either the pigs or the horse was sold."
Joka siat tai hevonen on myynyt.

I found this link ....in English a clean answer to this sort of grammar issue apparently doesn't exist.... See the disucssion on "Proximity Rule" near the bottom of the page.... Maybe in Finnish the grammatical convention is "long established and settled"....

[Rob A.]

I was thinking a bit more about this....let's try it from a slightly different angle..... Nyt ....kuluttamaan (..I've been told that it should be kulutetaan) aikaa tilalla.......

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyty.

v.

"Either the pigs or the horse was sold."
Joka siat tai hevonen on myyty.

I found this link ....in English a clean answer to this sort of grammar issue apparently doesn't exist.... See the disucssion on "Proximity Rule" near the bottom of the page.... Maybe in Finnish the grammatical convention is "long established and settled"....

{Edit: A few corrections made so as not to obscure the main theme of the post...]n

[Jukka Aho]

I was thinking a bit more about this....let's try it from a slightly different angle..... Nyt ....kuluttamaan (??) ajanjaksoa (partitive or accusative??) tilalla.......:D

Hmm... “Now to consume a period / an era in place of”? ;)

Note that unless the context makes it clear were talking about a maatila, mere tila is a rather ambiguous word as it can also mean a number of other, unrelated things.

For example, “a status”, “a condition”:

    Potilaan tila huonontui.

Or “a (reserved) space (for something)”:

    Kun taloa rakennettiin, oli kylpyhuoneeseen varattu tila pyykinpesukoneelle.

Or the adessive, tilalla, which is oftend used as an adverb; a lexicalization which means “in place of”:

    Hammaskeiju oli käynyt vierailulla. Hampaan tilalla vesilasissa oli kolikko.

So if in doubt, use the word maatila when referring to a farm, at least when introducing the the topic for the first time:

    Siirrytäänpä hetkeksi maatilalle.

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyneet.

Correct, except it says “Either the horse or the pigs have sold.” Sold what? (But maybe our equestrian or porcine fellows are really avid entrepreneurs and merchants at heart...)

"Either the pigs or the horse was sold."
Joka siat tai hevonen on myynyt.

Well, now the first word is a relative pronoun, joka. There’s a slight problem with hevonen; it should be in the genitive (-N accusative):

    Joka siat tai hevosen on myynyt.
    “[He,] who has sold the pigs or a horse.” (...should do what, exactly?)

[EP]

""Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyneet.

v.

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joka siat tai hevonen on myynyt..

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat oli myyty.

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko siat tai hevonen oli myyty.

(or for the both cases: myytiin instead of oli myyty. Oli myyty sounds more final, they are definitely gone.

[EP]

Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyneet.

THAT would need something more: Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyneet kissan/koiran/lehmän/isännän/emännän. So the horse and pigs (either or) have started their own trading business selling other animals or their owners.

[Jukka Aho]

Edit: A few corrections made so as not to obscure the main theme of the post...:D]

Too late for that! ;)

"Either the horse or the pigs were sold."
Joko hevonen tai siat ovat myyty.
Joka siat tai hevonen on myyty.

The latter, correcting the typo in the first word:

    Joko hevonen tai siat on myyty.

Why? Because on myyty is a passive (fourth person) construction. We’re not mentioning a subject who does the selling here (as per definition of the Finnish passive) and so in passive sentences you just use the passive verb form: there’s nothing for the verb to agree with in singular/plural sense.

As a curiosity, note that this exact same sentence could also be understood differently; as a question:

    Joko hevonen tai siat on myyty?
    “Has the horse or the pigs been sold already?”

In other words, the first syllable of the first word, joko, can be understood as the word jo, “already”, and the suffix -ko makes it a question word which you can use for beginning your question. Already-ko?

[Rob A.]

Hmmmm....I kind of made a botch of that post....

I was trying to make a few edits, but didn't get in there fast enough....kuluttamaan ...should be, I've been told...kulutetaan....ajanjaksoa s/b aikaa and I shouldn't use the word nyt... Also that I should have used ovat myyty and on myyty.... And joka should be joko.....


....but it looks like you've already figured all that out.....