Partitive Exercise

[garoowood]

I got an idea, when you want to use the nominative plural as the predicative, you should somehow limit the range you refer to.

That’s a good starting point, at least when referring to a group of individuals who can hardly be viewed as a “uniform set”, uniformly sharing some common property as a set. So the basic rule would probably be: if it’s about individuals, and If in doubt, use the partitive.

Like: Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat Espoossa.

Still sounds a bit weird. Now it would appear to mean they’re rich in Espoo but not elsewhere.

This would work: Nuo viisi poikaa ovat ainoat rikkaat ihmiset Espoossa.
Or this: Nuo viisi poikaa ovat Espoon ainoat rikkaat ihmiset.

But
"Makuuhuoneen seinät ovat valkoiset."
means in the bedroom, the walls are the only white things, the floor, bookshelf and other things inside the bedroom are not in white? The range is the bedroom.

Not really. It just means they’re a set of white walls, sharing the property “white” in some uniform way.

Now why doesn’t this work with “Nuo miehet ovat japanilaiset”? I think it is because japanilainen can be thought of being, on one hand, an adjective, and on another, a noun. When referring to where people are from, and the word japanilaiset appears alone and not as an attribute to another word, the “nationality” (noun) interpretation takes precedence: “Nuo miehet ovat japanilaiset” gets interpreted as “Those men are the Japanese [people].” Whereas if you said “Nuo seinät ovat japanilaiset” the word japanilaiset would be taken as an adjective because the other interpretation (thinking walls as people) wouldn’t make any sense: “Those walls are [of] Japanese [origin or style].”

So what’s the deal with rikkaat, then? I think it is probably the same thing, in the end. Rikkaat could mean “rich” as a uniform property (adjective) applied to the entire “set” you’re talking about, or it could simply mean “the rich”; the entire social class of people who are categorized as being rich. The word rikkaat (in sense “the rich”) is actually often used this way (as a nominalized adjective) in Finnish, contrasting it with köyhät (“the poor”; another nominalized adjective.) So when it appears in a sentence alone – and not as an attribute to some other word – it is easy to interpret it as a reference to “the collective of rich people in general”.

Thx Jukka.

After thinking really hard again about your explanation above, something came out of my mind:
When using rikkaat, Japanilaiset as nouns, one should clarify more about the targets being referred to, e.g. Nuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat) jotka tulivat Suomeen viime vuona. But simply puttingNuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat)=those five boys are the Japs,the rich people would lead sb. to think that, somehow, they are the only Japs and rich people?
When using them as adjectives, one, on the contrary, does not have to specify them. Nämä lasit ovat Japanilaiset(kalliit). These glasses are Japanense(expensive). They share the common property.

[Rob A.]

Thx Jukka.

After thinking really hard again about your explanation above, something came out of my mind:
When using rikkaat, Japanilaiset as nouns, one should clarify more about the targets being referred to, e.g. Nuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat) jotka tulivat Suomeen viime vuona. But simply puttingNuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat)=those five boys are the Japs,the rich people would lead sb. to think that, somehow, they are the only Japs and rich people?
When using them as adjectives, one, on the contrary, does not have to specify them. Nämä lasit ovat Japanilaiset(kalliit). These glasses are Japanense(expensive). They share the common property.

I'll let Jukka address the finer grammatical points...I, too, am interested to see where this goes....

But a few minor points...first, in Finnish, nationality is in the lower case...i.e. japanilaiset ...only the actual name of the nation is capitalized...Japani...Suomi...or as in your sentence, Suomeen..."to Finland"...literally, "into-Finland" ....Englanti....

And second....I'm sure you don't realize this, but in English....at least in North America...the term, "Japs" is highly insulting.... Since the Second World War it has become a racist term.... Probably best not to try to abbreviate it...just say, "Japanese"....

Oh, and vuona is apparently a dialectical term for a "lamb"...I think you mean, vuonna...

[EP]

vuona is apparently a dialectical term for a "lamb

Not so much dialectical, more like biblical.

I leave grammar to Jukka.

[Rob A.]

vuona is apparently a dialectical term for a "lamb

Not so much dialectical, more like biblical.

I leave grammar to Jukka.

You mean like this:

Älkööt vahingoittaa vuona!!....(I made this up...maybe there's a better way to say it...)

[EP]

Älkööt vahingoittaa vuona!!

Just like that. Except in that sentence it would be vuonaa with two a´s.

Jos yksikin vuona minun katraastani joutuu kadotukseen...

[Rob A.]

Älkööt vahingoittaa vuona!!

Just like that. Except in that sentence it would be vuonaa with two a´s.

Jos yksikin vuona minun katraastani joutuu kadotukseen...

Ahhhh....now this is truly biblical..."If one lamb from my flock strays...."...

[garoowood]

I did mean vuonna and I didn't know that story with Japs, I just wanted to make it short, thx for that

If one sheep from my flock gets damned...?

Apparently Jokka is enjoying his beers like other Finns now

[Jukka Aho]

To beer or not to beer...

After thinking really hard again about your explanation above, something came out of my mind:
When using rikkaat, Japanilaiset as nouns, one should clarify more about the targets being referred to, e.g. Nuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat) jotka tulivat Suomeen viime vuona. But simply puttingNuo viisi poikaa ovat Japanilaiset(rikkaat)=those five boys are the Japs,the rich people would lead sb. to think that, somehow, they are the only Japs and rich people?
When using them as adjectives, one, on the contrary, does not have to specify them. Nämä lasit ovat Japanilaiset(kalliit). These glasses are Japanense(expensive). They share the common property.

Yes, I think you’ve got it. When dealing with simple equational copula clauses where the subject is in the nominative plural and its complement appears alone as a single word and is in the nominative plural too, the tricky part is figuring out when an adjectival complement might get interpreted as a noun (that is, as a nominalization of that adjective) instead.

An adjectival nominative plural complement does not always invoke a nominalized interpretation. But when it does, the effect is pretty much the same as adding the article “the” in front of an English adjective.

When the subject of an equational copula clause is a living creature, and the complement is a nationality adjective, it gets interpreted as the nominalized version of itself, instead:

Miehet ovat japanilaiset.

“The men are the Japanese [people/persons].” Here, the complement to the subject, japanilainen, does not get interpreted as an adjective, “[of] Japanese [origin]”, but as a noun: “Japanese person”. And since the word is in the nominative plural, instead of being in the partitive, the “set-interpretation” rules suggest miehet equals to the complete set of “the Japanese” [people/persons]. Now, what might this “complete set” be comprised of? It is not narrowed down in any way so a native speaker gets the sense someone is referring to the “complete set” of all Japanese persons in existence; “the Japanese”.

Seinät ovat japanilaiset.

“The walls are [of] Japanese [origin, style].” The subject is not a living creature. Equating a set of inanimate objects with the complete set of [all] Japanese people/persons is a bit far-fetched thought. Hence, the complement gets interpreted simply as an adjective. Usually the context will help here too: Näyttelyssä vallitsee aasialainen tunnelma. Seinät ovat japanilaiset. Valo kuultaa kauniisti riisipaperin läpi.

What about other kinds of adjectives then? Those which have nothing to do with nationalities? Again, it depends on whether the subject is a living creature and whether the adjective used as a complement can plausibly be nominalized.

Miehet ovat rikkaat.

When you compare “the poor” and “the rich” in Finnish – the “haves” and “have-nots” as different classes of people – the words you would normally use in such comparisons are rikkaat and köyhät, which are nominalized adjectives. Rikkaat = “the [complete set of] rich [people]”, köyhät = “the [complete set of] poor [people]”. These two nominalizations are used very commonly as labels for these two different classes of people, so much so that when you encounter those words alone, you will immediately be thinking about “the rich [class of people]” and “the poor [class of people]”. Now, saying something like “The men are the rich class of people” or “The men are the complete set of rich people” does not really make much sense...

How about using them with an inanimate subject, then?

Seinät ovat rikkaat.

Well, you no longer get the “class of people” sense from that... but what does it mean? “The walls are rich.” Rich in which way? How can a set of inanimate objects be “rich”? (Or “poor”, for that matter?) It does not make sense.

So is there really any simple adjective in the nominative plural that we could use as a complement for a nominative plural animate subject in an equative copular sentence?

Maybe this would do:

Miehet ovat väsyneet.

But wait... while väsynyt could be interpreted as being an adjective, it is actually a -nut/-nyt participle of the verb väsyä, “to tire” (to get tired). So is it really an equative copular clause at all? It could be taken to be just as a statement of a fact in the perfect tense... there’s this peculiar sort of overlap in the definitions and interpretations here.

So, if the subject is a living creature, and you want to invoke the adjectival interpretation of the complement instead of the nominalized one, put that complement in the partitive. (Miehet ovat japanilaisia.) That’s the safest thing to do. Or if you actually want the nominalized interpretation, make sure to narrow it down in some sensible way. (Miehet ovat ne japanilaiset, jotka lauloivat eilen karaokea.) Or if you want to create a sense of a uniformly applied property for the entire set, at least define the reason for things being that way, so you can “force” the adjectival interpretation: Miehet ovat tulipunaiset raskaasta ponnistelusta. Hiki virtaa vuolaasti pitkin heidän kasvojaan.

[Rob A.]

.....

If one sheep from my flock gets damned...?

That may be better...I guess I was thinking of "stray" in the biblical sense...

Literally... "If but-one lamb from my flock ends up into-eternal damnation"....

[Rob A.]

To beer or not to beer...

Your post above is excellent...very clear and concise for such a complex subject....


I'll go through it slowly and see if any "issues" arise...

[garoowood]

So, if the subject is a living creature, and you want to invoke the adjectival interpretation of the complement instead of the nominalized one, put that complement in the partitive. (Miehet ovat japanilaisia.)

Is japanilaisia here an adjective? I used to consider it as a noun. The men are Japanese.

[Jukka Aho]

So, if the subject is a living creature, and you want to invoke the adjectival interpretation of the complement instead of the nominalized one, put that complement in the partitive. (Miehet ovat japanilaisia.)

Is japanilaisia here an adjective? I used to consider it as a noun. The men are Japanese.

Hmm. I guess you could interpret it either way. In the end, all these fancy schmancy grammatical categorizations, explanations, "rules", terms , definitions and names are just our feeble attempt to make sense of the language and help refer to its various features in an orderly fashion... not the underlying "essence" of the language. ;)

[Rob A.]

So, if the subject is a living creature, and you want to invoke the adjectival interpretation of the complement instead of the nominalized one, put that complement in the partitive. (Miehet ovat japanilaisia.)

Is japanilaisia here an adjective? I used to consider it as a noun. The men are Japanese.

I think it is laid out fairly clearly in Jukka's post a couple above..... And it is much the same in English....adjectives referring to people are often nominalized....they become both adjectives and nouns, with context indicating the role the word is playing in any given sentence. But English is more variable than Finnish with regard to the nominalization process and some nationality words are clearly nouns.... you can say, "He is a German, or ...an Estonian, a Russian...", but then it goes to ....a Dutchman, ...a Frenchman, ...a Finn, ....a Scot...etc.

The -lainen suffix is built up from the word laji..."kind", "sort", "species".......and the adjectival suffix ...(the suffix that turns nouns into adjectives)... -inen..... Suomi....suoma- ....suomalaji-.....suomalainen...

So there it is...essentially an adjective referring to nationality, but nominalized when referring to living things....