Salamanisku tuhosi saunan

[Jukka Aho]

Just a simple, straightforward piece of news, good for exercise:

• Salamanisku tuhosi saunan

Can you spot the grammatical mistake that the original writer made? (Not in the headline but in the actual story.)

[Pursuivant]

I have a slight inkling, but as a native I don't pay much attention...

[Rob A.]

Just a simple, straightforward piece of news, good for exercise:

• Salamanisku tuhosi saunan

Can you spot the grammatical mistake that the original writer made? (Not in the headline but in the actual story.)

I'm working on it... "Lightening (Strike) Destroys Sauna"... I've translated the article but so far...????.... But don't let that stop anyone else.... I have the feeling I'm not going to find the "offending bit of grammar" anyway...

[Rob A.]

Just a simple, straightforward piece of news, good for exercise:

• Salamanisku tuhosi saunan

Can you spot the grammatical mistake that the original writer made? (Not in the headline but in the actual story.)

Here's my translation:

Salamanisku tuhosi saunan ..."Lightning Strike Destroys Sauna"
15.07.2010 22:05

Maatilan yhteydessä ollut erillinen saunarakennus paloi salamaniskun seurauksena torstai-iltana Asikkalan Keltaniemessä.
"A detached sauna building on a farm was burnt following a lightning strike Thursday evening in Asikkala, Keltaniemi." ....I don't think this is quite right...I couldn't get the proper idea for what, Maatilan yhteydessä, means...

Salama iski sähköjohtoon ja eteni niiden kautta sähkökeskukseen, josta tulipalo sai alkunsa. Pelastuslaitos sai palosta hälytyksen klo 20.18.
“Lightning struck electric wires and travelled through them to the power panel from which the destructive fire got its start. The rescue centre got the fire alarm at 20:18.”

Saunassa ei ollut ketään sisällä, eikä henkilövahinkoja sattunut.
"No one was inside the sauna, nor was anyone injured."

Noin 15 neliömetrin sauna oli etäällä muista kiinteistöistä, joten palo ei aiheuttanut vaaraa maatilan rakennuksille. Rankan sateen vuoksi tuli ei levinnyt myöskään maastoon.
“The sauna, about 15 square metres in area, was separated from the other buildings, therefore the fire did not endanger the rest of the farm’s buildings. Because of a hard rain, the fire did not spread to the land."

Pelastuslaitoksesta kerrotaan, että saunan seinät jäivät pystyyn, mutta rakennus tuhoutui käyttökelvottomaksi.
“The rescue centre advises that the sauna walls remained upright, but the building was made unuseable.”

...but I don't really have any idea where the grammatical mistake is ....unless it's the word sisällä...but I don't think that's it...and anyway for all I know it's grammatical correct in Finnish to say: "In the sauna was no one inside."....

[Mangrove]

...but I don't really have any idea where the grammatical mistake is...

I believe "salamaniskun seurauksena" should be "salamaniskusta" or something like that. "Seurauksena" or "toimesta" are bad Finnish?

[Keravalainen]

Hi!

The grammatical mistake seems to be here here:
"Salama iski sähköjohtoon ja eteni niiden kautta sähkökeskukseen"
"Niiden" is plural form and it should refer to a plural word.

The correct sentence would be ""Salama iski sähköjohtoihin ja eteni niiden kautta sähkökeskukseen"
or "Salama iski sähköjohtoon ja eteni johtojen kautta sähkökeskukseen"

OK?

If a word has singular and plural forms the same, it works. But there you need to pay attention that you refer the right thing.
There's a confusion in this old song, where the guy obviously has a girlfriend with many heads:
"Vähän ennen kyyneleitä pääsi poispäin käännä, etten niitä nää"

[Jukka Aho]

"Niiden" is plural form and it should refer to a plural word.

Correct. That was the mistake I was referring to. Probably just a case of sloppy editing... but worth mentioning in order not to leave anyone scratching their head about it.

As for what Mangrove suggested, I haven't heard of seurauksena being deemed a "frowned-upon" expression in Finnish, stylistically speaking. Is it really?

[Pursuivant]

I think that would be a "svetisismi" ?

[Rob A.]

"Niiden" is plural form and it should refer to a plural word.

Correct. That was the mistake I was referring to. Probably just a case of sloppy editing... but worth mentioning in order not to leave anyone scratching their head about it.

As for what Mangrove suggested, I haven't heard of seurauksena being deemed a "frowned-upon" expression in Finnish, stylistically speaking. Is it really?

Well...I was "scratching my head about it"....and assumed that sähköjohtoon, though singular, had a plural sense to it in Finnish....but then maybe I know too much about electricity.... [Unless it's a really "basic" farm it would likely have three-phase, 600 amp. service.....or the nearest Finnish equivalent...which means three wires..... ]

[Pursuivant]

Well, its a singular usually that has a plural inside

[Rob A.]

Well, its a singular usually that has a plural inside

Yeah....probably three wires bundled together and looking like one to the newspaper reporter...but he/she was probably told it was three-phase wiring....and so got totally confused ...

[Upphew]

[Unless it's a really "basic" farm it would likely have three-phase, 600 amp. service.....or the nearest Finnish equivalent...which means three wires..... ]

More volts, less amperage.