"Minulla on" ....partitive or not???

[Rob A.]

OK I have a few questions on the "Minulla, etc. on...." grammatical construction.....

Minulla on koira....Literally this is: "On/at me is a dog." or "There is a dog at/on me." So I would say that minulla is the indirect object of this sentence...???...

Minulla ei ole koiraa./ Minulla on kaksi koiraa.....I believe both of these are correct...????.. partitive with negative statements and partitve follwoing a number greater than one.

Minulla on nälkä. ...no partitive...why?? Because the "hunger" is viewed as complete??...However, according to uusikielemme, you would say, Minulla ei ole nälkä. ....again no partitive, but this time, I don't understand why that would be....normally a negative sentence would require a partitive direct object....???

But, according to uusi.kielemme....this "rule" only applies to living things...
Asunnossa on ikkuna....Asunnossa ei ole ikkunaa... which is what you would expect....

Would anyone like to suggest a reason for Minulla ei ole nälkä. not being in the partitive??...Or...is it a matter of "that's just the way it is"...

[Upphew]

Nykysuomen lauseopissa kuvataan peruslausetyyppien ohella muutamia marginaali-sia lausetyyppejä. Inkluusiolauseessa tämä kaupunki on Lappia predikatiivi-NP il-moittaa osa-joukkosuhdetta partitiivin perimmäisen merkityksen tavoin. Omistusrakenteesta erotetaan kokijalause, hänellä/hänen on jano/nälkä/kuuma, jossa lauseenalkuinen NP on elollinen ja yleensä myös inhimillinen. Allatiivi- tai genetii-visijainen NP on kokijana ja lopun NP tarkoitteeltaan fyysinen tai psyykkinen tila. Tauti-ilmaukset luokitellaan kokijalauseisiin, koska niiden lauseenloppuinen NP ei käyttäydy kielteisessä lauseessa kuten omistuslauseessa: hänellä on kylmä/hevonen, mutta hänellä ei ole kylmä/hevosta. Kvanttorilauseen Hakulinen ja Karlsson esittele-vät eräänlaisena eksistentiaali- ja predikatiivilauseen sulautumana, koska lauseenal-kuinen NP on partitiivissa ja kopulan jäljessä on kvanttori tai kvanttorimainen adverbi tai substantiivi, kuten oppilaita on kaksitoista / runsaasti / iso joukko. Kielto-testi osoittaa kvanttorin subjektiksi. Lisäksi Nykysuomen lauseopissa mainitaan tu-losrakenne, mutta passiivi ja nesessiivi-ilmaukset on jätetty erottamatta, koska ne nähdään vain pinnallisesti omaleimaisina mutta muista syvärakenteista johdettavissa olevina. (Hakulinen – Karlsson 1995: 98–99.)

https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/han ... sequence=1

Just starting the first GT of thee night, I'll probably need few more before I can grasp that one

[Rob A.]

....this and the link will keep me busy for a while....

Omistusrakenteesta erotetaan kokijalause, hänellä/hänen on jano/nälkä/kuuma, jossa lauseenalkuinen NP on elollinen ja yleensä myös inhimillinen.

....and

Tauti-ilmaukset luokitellaan kokijalauseisiin, koska niiden lauseenloppuinen NP ei käyttäydy kielteisessä lauseessa kuten omistuslauseessa: hänellä on kylmä/hevonen, mutta hänellä ei ole kylmä/hevosta.

....and I'll see what else I can find....

[EP]

I have no idea.

Minulla on nälkä = literally "I have hunger".

BUT

XXXmaassa on nälkää = There is hunger in XXXland.

[Jukka Aho]

Minulla on koira....Literally this is: "On/at me is a dog." or "There is a dog at/on me." So I would say that minulla is the indirect object of this sentence...???

See VISK § 923: Onko eksistentiaali- ja omistuslauseessa subjektia?

Minulla ei ole koiraa./ Minulla on kaksi koiraa.....I believe both of these are correct...????.. partitive with negative statements and partitve follwoing a number greater than one.

Both are correct.

Minulla on nälkä. ...no partitive...why?? Because the "hunger" is viewed as complete??

Well... that’s one way to look at it!

Minulla on nälkä = “I have hunger” (I’m hungry; I have the state/condition of being hungry.)
Minulla on nälkää = “I have some hunger” (As if “hunger” was some larger, independent entity – separate from you – and you possessed only some of it. This is an unidiomatic expression and sounds strange.)

Would anyone like to suggest a reason for Minulla ei ole nälkä. not being in the partitive??...Or...is it a matter of "that's just the way it is"...:D

The link quoted by Upphew uses the term kokijalause, literally “experiencer sentence”... referring to sentences in which someone is experiencing (having) some state or condition.

[Pursuivant]

Apropos the worms you need to eat from the can you just opened there:

Minulla on nälkä. = I am hungry ( I have hunger)
Minä näen nälkää. = I am starving. ( its an idiom/figure of speech, yes, literally "I see hunger")

Haitin maanjäristyksen jälkeen, monet Port-au-Princen asukkaat näkivät nälkää
And it doesn't mean they were seeing hungry people.

[Fasianos]

Hi there!

According to my (really old but extremely useful) Finnish book, it says that there are five exceptions to the rule where you don't add a partitive when it is in the minulla on construction. These are special constructions that describe a physical state of a person. The five are:

Minulla on/ei ole nälkä, jano, kiirre, kylmä and kuuma.

So I've just taken that as the gospel and questioned it no more.

[j.petsku]

Here's another question related to these "sensory" type sentences. If I want to say "my fingers are cold," can I say "sormillani on kylmä?"

[Rob A.]

Here's another question related to these "sensory" type sentences. If I want to say "my fingers are cold," can I say "sormillani on kylmä?"

I'll let a native speaker answer that directly, but I suppose you could just say:

Minulla on kylmiä sormet........

[Edit: Gee, I just noticed this error...I'm not sure what I might have been thinking, but I meant: Minulla on kylmät sormet....]

[Rob A.]

Hi there!

According to my (really old but extremely useful) Finnish book, it says that there are five exceptions to the rule where you don't add a partitive when it is in the minulla on construction. These are special constructions that describe a physical state of a person. The five are:

Minulla on/ei ole nälkä, jano, kiirre, kylmä and kuuma.

So I've just taken that as the gospel and questioned it no more.

That seems to be the approach taken by language teachers....

http://www.uusikielemme.fi/tohave.html

...at the bottom of section 2.

So ...I wonder...would you say:

Minulla on lämmin...or Minulla on lämmintä....??? ...Google hits suggest the former.... So I suppose the overall rule is if it seems to fit as a kokijalause then it will be in the nominative....

[sammy]

Here's another question related to these "sensory" type sentences. If I want to say "my fingers are cold," can I say "sormillani on kylmä?"

Well... it's *correct* but you'd more likely hear something like sormiani paleltaa... sormillani on kylmä is somehow strange, to me it sounds almost as if your fingers were separate creatures from the rest of you

Sormia kylmää would also convey the meaning of "my fingers are cold".

Sormeni ovat kylmät, on the other hand, would just mean you have cold fingers (as opposed to the feeling of your fingers freezing).

[sammy]

So ...I wonder...would you say:

Minulla on lämmin...or Minulla on lämmintä....???

No, sorry it's not quite the same... if you say "minulla on lämmintä..." then people would expect you to continue, they'd ask, what have you got that's warm? Like... "minulla on lämmintä juomaa" > I've got some hot drink.

[j.petsku]

Sormeni ovat kylmät, on the other hand, would just mean you have cold fingers (as opposed to the feeling of your fingers freezing).

Interesting! So...if I'm expressing that my hands are cold, not in the sense that they feel cold to me, but that I'm embarrassed to shake someone's hand because they feel cold to others, would "käteni ovat kylmät" sound natural?

[sammy]

Sormeni ovat kylmät, on the other hand, would just mean you have cold fingers (as opposed to the feeling of your fingers freezing).

Interesting! So...if I'm expressing that my hands are cold, not in the sense that they feel cold to me, but that I'm embarrassed to shake someone's hand because they feel cold to others, would "käteni ovat kylmät" sound natural?

Yep, that's it more or less