Kirsikoihin?

[Fasianos]

Could someone perhaps explain why it's Kirsikoihin instead of Kirsikkoihin? I don't know why it has consonant gradation (astevaihtelu)! Google has more Kirsikoihin (1800+) than Kirsikkoihin (just 7) so I'm really curious.

Again, it's not important to the overall understanding of Finnish, but I'm a curious person.

[EP]

No idea. That is one of the rare examples where even native speakers can make a mistake. Same with some words that grammatically end in "a" when your ear hears "ä".

[Fasianos]

Come to think of it, it seems to be happening in Palikka and Kalikka too.. Palikoihin and Kalikoihin instead of what I would imagine, Palikkoihin and Kalikkoihin. Seems to be a common thing..

[Fasianos]

Wow, I finally got it here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: ... es/solakka

So grammatical and complicated! Hahah.

"Three-or-more-syllable nominals ending with a long consonant followed by -a/-ä; quantitative consonant gradation.
Essentially the same as the gradationless katiska, except that the illative plural has two forms using either the strong or weak stem.
-a/-ä of stem changes to -o-/-ö- before plural marker -i-, as for kala. Partitive singular -a/-ä, partitive plural -ta/-tä or -a/-ä, and multiple genitive plural endings."

I always seem to uncover these things in the end!

[Rob A.]

Wow, I finally got it here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: ... es/solakka

So grammatical and complicated! Hahah.

"Three-or-more-syllable nominals ending with a long consonant followed by -a/-ä; quantitative consonant gradation.
Essentially the same as the gradationless katiska, except that the illative plural has two forms using either the strong or weak stem.
-a/-ä of stem changes to -o-/-ö- before plural marker -i-, as for kala. Partitive singular -a/-ä, partitive plural -ta/-tä or -a/-ä, and multiple genitive plural endings."

I always seem to uncover these things in the end!

You've picked on a pretty complex subject.... It would seem that your example, kirsikka, has many optional forms....

Genitive:
kirsikoiden
kirsikoitten
kirsikkojen
kirsikkain

Partitive:
kirsikoita
kirsikkoja

Illative:
kirsikkoihin
kirsikoihin

It has to do with the interplay of the syllable number, secondary syllabic stress, obligatory dropping of letters and consonant gradation... some of these "features" are optional, but if you choose one you can't have the other....

You can read about all this here, but unless you enjoy densely written academic papers, I wouldn't bother... Just learn one of the acceptable forms and stick with it...

I suspect most native speakers won't understand all this, but they will "know" one of the "correct" versions which they will probably use fairly consistently. They will likely recongize some of the optional variations and may, or may not, think of them as: "oldfashioned", "regional", or somehow just "odd"....

[Jukka Aho]

Just learn one of the acceptable forms and stick with it...

Yes, in this case, you can truly “cherry-pick”. ;)

I suspect most native speakers won't understand all this, but they will "know" one of the "correct" versions which they will probably use fairly consistently. They will likely recongize some of the optional variations and may, or may not, think of them as: "oldfashioned", "regional", or somehow just "odd"....:D

Kirsikkain would be the “old-fashioned”, or “poetic” one. The others are pretty much OK. I would personally prefer the single-k form in the partitive and the illative, though... the double-k version just sounds awkward to me. But maybe there are people for whom it is just the other way around.

[Rob A.]

I suspect most native speakers won't understand all this, but they will "know" one of the "correct" versions which they will probably use fairly consistently. They will likely recongize some of the optional variations and may, or may not, think of them as: "oldfashioned", "regional", or somehow just "odd"....

Kirsikkain would be the “old-fashioned”, or “poetic” one. The others are pretty much OK. I would personally prefer the single-k form in the partitive and the illative, though... the double-k version just sounds awkward to me. But maybe there are people for whom it is just the other way around.

I suppose for us language learners the appropriate approach is to learn the fundamental rules of Finnish grammar ....and morphology.....including the recognition that there will be words that don't "play by the rules"....certain conventions have developed to handle this, and one of the conventions where two rules could apply will be that you may ...or may not.... ....have "options"....

Sometimes, the choice of one of these options will preclude the application of some other rule.....

And there are certain overarching rules....one of these is that Finnish is essentially a "bisyllabic" language....whereas as English is essentially a "monosyllabic" language....this means that Finnish words are built up of bisyllabic "units".... All Finnish words must be stressed on the first syllable...this is "sacred"...then secondary stresses fall, ideally, on the first syllable of the following bisyllabic unit....but this isn't always possible....and so conventions have been developed...

Then there is the rule about three vowels in a row; then,the basic rule of consonant gradation, which is that the "closing" of a syllable with a consonant "weakens" it; then the "mysteries" of ghost consonants....And there is more, but OK, OK ...enough for now....

[Bavarian]

Kirsikkain would be the “old-fashioned”, or “poetic” one.

Would kirsikkain also be the instructive plural?

I came across the instructive plural when I was trying to parse punaisia päin as in this HS article, and couldn't figure out whether päin was the same form as appears in the phrase näin päin, which came up on Finland Forum about a year ago, or whether it was some form of pää. As I think I understand it now, the punaisia refers to a red (traffic) light?

[Jukka Aho]

Kirsikkain would be the “old-fashioned”, or “poetic” one.

Would kirsikkain also be the instructive plural?

The instructive plural is kirsikoin. As in “Kakku oli koristeltu kirsikoin.”

(The instructive is typically used in plural. Instructive singulars are quite rare – jalka (n.sg.) : jalan (i.sg.) : jaloin (i.pl.). Forming new instructive singulars or using them in a phrase is no longer obvious or natural even for a native speaker.)

I came across the instructive plural when I was trying to parse punaisia päin as in this HS article, and couldn't figure out whether päin was the same form as appears in the phrase näin päin, which came up on Finland Forum about a year ago, or whether it was some form of pää. As I think I understand it now, the punaisia refers to a red (traffic) light?

That’s correct. Ajaa punaisia päin is the usual idiom for “running the red light” in Finnish.

In the expression jotakin päin, the word päin is an adverb... meaning “towards something”, ”at something”.

Hän ei edes katsonut minuun päin.
Heitin lumipallon opettajaa päin.

If the verb indicates moving, the subject is the one who moves, and the “target” attribute for the adverb päin is in the partitive, päin often suggests a head-on collision... either one that has happened or will happen, or one that will likely result if the movement indicated by the verb will continue in that direction.

Polkupyöräilijä ajoi päin tolppaa.
Mies juoksi päin puuta.

The phrase...

Auto ajoi punaisia päin.

...is also of the same type, but here the “collision” is more abstract: you’re colliding with the imaginary barrier that a red traffic light creates in front of an intersection. (Or actually, passing through several of such barriers, as there is usually at least one traffic light pole on your side of the intersection and another one on the opposite side of the intersection, facing you as well. Which is why punainen is in the plural, I guess. You’re heading forward and going “against” a multitude of red lights that were trying to stop you; at least two.)

[Rob A.]

I suspect most native speakers won't understand all this, but they will "know" one of the "correct" versions which they will probably use fairly consistently. They will likely recongize some of the optional variations and may, or may not, think of them as: "oldfashioned", "regional", or somehow just "odd"....

Kirsikkain would be the “old-fashioned”, or “poetic” one. The others are pretty much OK. I would personally prefer the single-k form in the partitive and the illative, though... the double-k version just sounds awkward to me. But maybe there are people for whom it is just the other way around.

I suppose for us language learners the appropriate approach is to learn the fundamental rules of Finnish grammar ....and morphology.....including the recognition that there will be words that don't "play by the rules"....certain conventions have developed to handle this, and one of the conventions where two rules could apply will be that you may ...or may not.... ....have "options"....

Sometimes, the choice of one of these options will preclude the application of some other rule.....

And there are certain overarching rules....one of these is that Finnish is essentially a "bisyllabic" language....whereas as English is essentially a "monosyllabic" language....this means that Finnish words are built up of bisyllabic "units".... All Finnish words must be stressed on the first syllable...this is "sacred"...then secondary stresses fall, ideally, on the first syllable of the following bisyllabic unit....but this isn't always possible....and so conventions have been developed...

Then there is the rule about three vowels in a row; then,the basic rule of consonant gradation, which is that the "closing" of a syllable with a consonant "weakens" it; then the "mysteries" of ghost consonants....And there is more, but OK, OK ...enough for now....

...And another interesting point I pulled out of this paper.....

Sometimes vowel harmony in a non-compound word can appear to shift suddenly for no apparent reason.... Well...actually there is an "apparent" reason.... the secondary stress can...optionally...initiate a new vowel harmony sequence.

For example, these are both correct grammatically....arkkitehdilla/arkkitehdillä.... the key here is that this is a fixed word and that it has the "appearance" of being a compound word....a "quasi-compound"..... The series of neutral vowels serve to allow a shift to "front" harmony..... but this won't happen unless the word has the "appearance" of being a compound word; unless there are a series of neutral vowels, and unless the word is considered "fixed" from a syllabic stress point of view....

So I guess the message here is not to jump to the automatic conclusion that, in "longish" words, certain departures from the "normal" rules of vowel harmony are errors....