Using the Essive Case...??..

[Rob A.]

I came across this sentence written by a native speaker in another forum....I know more or less what it means but I'm puzzled by a few things:
Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta.

Literally, I think it is says:
"This consequently...???...for example "cross-science research" does not appear to me very reliable."

Another alternative may be:
"[It} does not appear to me the consequence of this, for example "cross-science research" very reliable."

I'm inclined to think the second aternative is closer...???... Which would mean that the subject is an understood "it" and tämän is in the genitive modifying the noun, seurauksena, which is in the essive case ...signifying a state of being....

And is there a better translation for poikkitieteellinen?
...

The same writer also came up with this delightful little sentence:
Kävellessäni kadulla jouduin joka kerta vastaamaan tuntemattomien ihmisten tervehdyksiin.

I think this is written in a very Finnish way, literally:
"While walking-me on street (I) was forced every time to respond to unknown person's greetings."

*Kävellessäni has a second infinitive form in the inessive with a first person possessive ending.
*kadulla has an adessive ending, equivalent to the preposition "on".
*jouduin is the first person singular past tense form of the intransitive verb, joutua
*joka kerta....joka is an indefinite pronoun modifying, kerta
*vastaamaan....I'm having a bit of trouble with this word. It appears to be in the agent participle form with a third person possessive ending. Does it mean, "respond to them"...?
*tuntemattomien ihmisten tervehdyksiin....this phrase is a fairly typical string...two genitive nouns modifying the main noun in the illative because it refers back to the agent participle, vastaamaan...vastata....

I thought it was rather funny....pohjimmainen suomalaisen painajainen.......or maybe someone recalling the "misery" of a trip to rural Arkansas...

[skandagupta]

Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta

Resulting from / on account of this,for example, cross-science research didn`t sound too reliable to me.

[Rob A.]

Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta

Resulting from / on account of this,for example, cross-science research didn`t sound too reliable to me.

Thanks...that sounds better....

To clarify ...for me.... esimerkki is referring to tämän....and tutkimus is the subject of the sentence. I suppose in English the commas would be expected for clarity.... [.....and had, tutkimus, been in the plural ....tutkimukset...the negation verb, ei, would have been, eivät, and the past participle, kuulostanut, would change to, kuulostaneet ]

I understand now why it is in the essive case..... To take this a little further how then would this English sentence be written:
"It does not appear very reliable to me as a result of this "cross-science research".

This, of course, changes the whole "favour" of the remark. Originally, I was thinking that the "cross-science research" was showing that something, previously defined, was unreliable....but in the original statement, it's the "research" itself that is considered unreliable.

[Jukka Aho]

I came across this sentence written by a native speaker in another forum....I know more or less what it means but I'm puzzled by a few things:
Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta.

Literally, I think it is says:
"This consequently...???...for example "cross-science research" does not appear to me very reliable."

Tämän seurauksena = “resulting from this”, “due to this (fact/thingamajick/whatever)”

“Due to this, cross-scientific (interdisciplinary) research, for instance, did not sound too reliable to me.”

The same writer also came up with this delightful little sentence:
Kävellessäni kadulla jouduin joka kerta vastaamaan tuntemattomien ihmisten tervehdyksiin.

I think this is written in a very Finnish way, literally:
"While walking-me on street (I) was forced every time to respond to unknown person's greetings."

*Kävellessäni has a second infinitive form in the inessive with a first person possessive ending.

Better learn to mentally map (and expand!) common nominal forms such as kävellessäni, juostessani etc. immediately to the equivalent English phrases “while(/as) I was walking”, “while(/as) I was running”, etc.

*jouduin is the first person singular past tense form of the intransitive verb, joutua
*vastaamaan....I'm having a bit of trouble with this word. It appears to be in the agent participle form with a third person possessive ending. Does it mean, "respond to them"...?

Not the third person possessive ending but the illative ending. (3rd infinitive in the illative case)

joutua vastaamaan (johonkin/jollekin) = to have to answer/respond (to something/to someone)
joutua juoksemaan = to have to run
joutua hyppäämään = to have to jump

Jouduin hyppäämään kaiteen yli. = I had to jump over the railing.
Jouduin juoksemaan kotiin. = I had to run home.
Jouduin vastaamaan puhelimeen. = I had to answer the phone.
Jouduin vastaamaan tervehdykseen. = I had to respond to the greeting.
Jouduin vastaamaan teoistani. = I had to answer for my deeds.

I thought it was rather funny....pohjimmainen suomalaisen painajainen.......or maybe someone recalling the "misery" of a trip to rural Arkansas... :wink:

I guess the most idiomatic translation for “the ultimate Finnish nightmare” would simply be suomalaisen pahin painajainen... See pahin painajainen...
 

[Rob A.]

Thanks Jukka

Well, I was almost there with the word, vastaamaan.... It was obvious once it was explained.... I have to remember that the agent participle and the third infinitive can look very similar....

"A form of the verb which is called the third infinitive is used when two verbs are combined. This is particularly common when a verb of motion like "tulla" (to come), "mennä" (to go) or "olla" (to be) appears together with another verb. You also use it in the so called agent structure."

[AldenG]

While I agree with Jukka that "while I was walking" is the best conversationally correct translation, and thus a helpful stepping-stone, it may also be helpful to think of the word pseudo-literally as "in my [state of] walking". That should help you understand how it means "while I was walking." For those who insist on knowing how or why, I mean.

But ultimately, and I mean preferably weeks from now, not months or years from now, you will see or hear any verb in -essani and not think anything in English -- you will simply recognize it as representing your being in the midst of a verb/activity.

The two sanoe- forms (sanoessa and sanoen) are closely related to the sanoma- forms. They are all inflected infinitives and all mean "say-ing". Compare Olin sanomassa and Sanoessani. Contextually, the first one requires olen and the second one begins a subordinate clause, and that is in large part why they need different particles in the middle (-ma- versus -e-). It's not really deeper than that unless we insist on making it so.

Olin sanomassa 'Päivää' naapurille, kun huomasin koiran juoksevan kadun yli. I was saying good day to the neighbor when I noticed a dog running across the street.

Sanoessani 'Päivää' naapurille, houmasin koiran juoksevan kadun yli. While I was saying (in [my] saying) good day to the neighbor, I noticed a dog running across the street.

Koira juoksi korvat läpätellen. The dog was running ears a-flap. (Literally "the ears flapping.")

I had to change verbs (or possibly "adapt" one, I'm not sure) to come up with a more plausible use for a form like sanoen to contrast with sanoessa. The -e- form is more incidental but it still means "ing". You use it to make a comment very much in passing. The -essa- form wants a completion to the sentence, "As I was in the middle of saying something, I (verb) ((object))." Depending on how concerned you are about style, you can often use an -en form to inject an aside into the middle of an otherwise stand-alone sentence. (Whereas a sanoessani clause precedes an otherwise complete sentence.)

Koira juoksi kotiin. Koira juoksi korvat läpättäen kotiin. The dog ran home. The dog ran ears-a-flapping home.
(Läpättää is the non-frequentative form of the verb to flap, the form that I know exists.)

In a parallel universe, you could just say (X) "Sanomassani 'päivää' napurille, huomasin..." except that in this universe, you can't. I say that to emphasize that these distinctions between sanomassa, sanoessa, and sanoen are mere surface conventions partitioning shades of a single meaning, which is "saying." Most of all they distinguish how saying "connects" to the rest of the sentence. You can think of them as adapter gadgets.

There's probably something in the Bible about Enkeli ilmestyi paimenille sanoen ... The angel appeared to the sheperds saying...

Somehow it comes across as more majestic than "Enkeli kävi sanomassa paimenille, että..." That makes it sound a bit more like a beer run, doesn't it?

These forms "in the back of the book" are not arcane, complicated things. You just have to devote a little one-on-one time getting acquainted with each one. And they're well worth it.

[AldenG]

One way to remember -en is to associate it with in'. He came walkin' down the street. Hän tuli kävellen meitä vastaan. (came walking towards us).

I should have said something about koiran juoksevan kadun yli.

Most literally it is [saw] "the dog's running over the street" or "the running of the dog over the street." It breaks down as [näin] (koiran juoksevan) + (kadun yli). So there's another "ing" form: the dog's running.

There's a lot that hangs up in the air when reading or hearing a sentence, but there are certain points that cue you to assemble what you have heard so far, or at least part of what you have heard so far.

When you come to verb+en, you can process the word or two that came before it. Yleisesti ottaen, generally speaking (taking). Ohi mennen, in passing (going over). Korvat läpättäen, ears flapping. Something like this tends to break up any long chain of pending elements, putting a limit to how much you have to remember before you have enough to make sense of part of a sentence.

With koiran juoksevan kadun yli, you see or hear three ___n in a row. But when you recognize that it is verb+van, that is a cue that the _____ns that came before it end here. Näin ison likaisen koiran juoksevan kadun yli. If you happen to know that iso and likainen are adjectives and koira is a noun, you can assemble those when you hear 'koira'. But even if you don't know that, juoksevan should be recognizable as a milestone. Of course it can occasionally still be confusing if it's something like Näin ison likaisen murisevan koiran juoksevan kadun yli. I saw a big, dirty, growling dog running across the street.

Of course you can ask about the dog, 'is it really genitive there?' But to do that is really to miss the point, I think. You're getting too translative if you ask is it, "I saw the running of the dog across the street" or is it "I saw the dog running across the street." Depending on the main verb, you could very well think ison, likaisen, and koiran are accusative until you notice juoksevan after them. You could also ask, "Well why doesn't juokseva have a different ending here?" But I say, just don't. You're hearing about a big, dirty, dog and then you find out it was running. Deeper analysis muddies rather than clarifies.

The point is that if you see something running or walking across the street, and you tell somebody about it later, you automatically fetch Näin _____n juoksevan (kävelevän) kadun yli. And if you hear that, you associate it with the correct meaning without any deliberate parsing.

I suspect that the ubiquitous nature of phrases like this and the ambiguity I just noted about -n endings may have contributed, historically, to the evolution of the language to a point where genetive and accusative look so close to each other. But who knows?

Of course there are a couple of additional ways to say you saw a dog running across the street, but they also need to occur spontaneously, not by assembling nuts and bolts. And the way that happens, even if one is a beginner, is to practice little things for a few days at a time until they mean what they say.

[AldenG]

And one other comment. (Though the -essa and -en forms of the 2nd infinitive, inessive and instructive respectively, are nearly like peas in a pod.)

In modern Finnish, the verb+en forms (kävellen, juosten) are used to describe manner, how something is done, which is why it felt too awkward for me to cobble something together with sanoen. Yes, the Bible does say enkeli ilmestyi sanoen, but in modern Finnish, it's more like Jussi tuli kävellen eikä juosten meitä vastaan. Kävellen describes his manner of approach: walkin' not runnin'.

A common application of juosten is a sentence like Tuo johto on kuin juosten kustu, meaning it's not very straight. That also illustrates that it doesn't have to be ______ verb+en (like ohi mennen, yleisesti ottaen) but can for instance be verb+en verb+tu, (in this manner) (done).

[Upphew]

I understand now why it is in the essive case..... To take this a little further how then would this English sentence be written:
"It does not appear very reliable to me as a result of this "cross-science research".

Se ei vaikuta minusta kovin luotettavalta, poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen. or Poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen, se ei vaikuta miunusta kovin luotettavalta.
Väitöskirja on vihdoin valmis. Poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen, se ei vaikuta miunusta kovin luotettavalta.

This, of course, changes the whole "favour" of the remark. Originally, I was thinking that the "cross-science research" was showing that something, previously defined, was unreliable....but in the original statement, it's the "research" itself that is considered unreliable.

Kaikki oppilaat ja opettajat olivat kännissä tai huumeissa 24/7. Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta.
All the students and faculty where drunk or high 24/7. Due to that e.g. cross-science research didn't sound very reliable to me.
Understanding or knowing the preceding sentence helps a lot.

Btw. isn't poikkitieteellinen = crossdisciplinary?

[Rob A.]

I understand now why it is in the essive case..... To take this a little further how then would this English sentence be written:
"It does not appear very reliable to me as a result of this "cross-science research".

Se ei vaikuta minusta kovin luotettavalta, poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen. or Poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen, se ei vaikuta miunusta kovin luotettavalta.
Väitöskirja on vihdoin valmis. Poikkitieteellisestä tutkimuksesta johtuen, se ei vaikuta miunusta kovin luotettavalta.

This, of course, changes the whole "favour" of the remark. Originally, I was thinking that the "cross-science research" was showing that something, previously defined, was unreliable....but in the original statement, it's the "research" itself that is considered unreliable.

Kaikki oppilaat ja opettajat olivat kännissä tai huumeissa 24/7. Tämän seurauksena esim. poikkitieteellinen tutkimus ei kuulostanut minusta kovin luotettavalta.
All the students and faculty where drunk or high 24/7. Due to that e.g. cross-science research didn't sound very reliable to me.
Understanding or knowing the preceding sentence helps a lot.

Btw. isn't poikkitieteellinen = crossdisciplinary?

Thanks.... and I think poikkitieteellinen would typically be equivalent to "interdisciplinary science", though I'm sure I have heard the expression "crossdisciplinary" as well.... Is there other terminology in Finnish that might have slightly different meanings?

[Rob A.]

Thanks Alden....lots to digest.... I've gotten to the point where I can generally recognize the various "verbal bits" ....participles, verbal nouns, adjectives, etc....but properly interpreting the role they play....particularly the participles, is, to say the least, a bit challenging...

I suspect that the ubiquitous nature of phrases like this and the ambiguity I just noted about -n endings may have contributed, historically, to the evolution of the language to a point where genetive and accusative look so close to each other. But who knows?

Well...actually some academics think they know....

The accusative in Old Finnish had an "m" ending... But in modern Finnish "m" is a "forbidden sound" at the end of a word....[except, of course, some borrowed words.] I believe this change must have been prior to Agricola, so there presumably are no inscriptions, or whatever, showing this. Thus, I'm not sure how the academics would have figured this out. Maybe there are some inscriptions using Cyrillic in some of the Finnic languages...???...

Here are a few examples of Old Finnish:

....from this link ...Page 285

Näen miehem tulevam.
...in which miehem was interpreted as the direct object of the sentence and tulevam as the participle modifying miehem. Effectively, equivalent in English to: "I see the man who is coming."

In modern Finnish this is:

Näen miehen tulevan.....and the grammatical interpretation has changed as well... Now miehen can be viewed as a genitive form...and the subject of the participle, tulevan

Equivalent to....
" I see the man's coming."

Well, that one was easy...here's another"

Old Finnish: Näen veneet purjehtivat.
Modern Finnish: Näen veneiden purjehtivan.

In English, they both have the same meaning, but I believe the first version would be incomprehensible to modern Finns...

I thought you might be interested......Far better, of course, just to learn which phrases result in "communication", and which don't... but I find it all interesting, nevertheless....

[AldenG]

I did a bad job yesterday of saying the kind of context sanomassa can appear in. With what we were talking about, I said it needed olin sanomassa to be as comparable as possible to sanoessa. Of course you could -- and more often do -- say kävin _____massa.

I suspected you might be able to shed some light on the history of the accusative and I was not disappointed.

[Upphew]

Old Finnish: Näen veneet purjehtivat.
In English, they both have the same meaning, but I believe the first version would be incomprehensible to modern Finns...

Fine in poem or lyrics of a song and fully understandable.

[Jukka Aho]

Old Finnish: Näen veneet purjehtivat.
In English, they both have the same meaning, but I believe the first version would be incomprehensible to modern Finns...:D

Fine in poem or lyrics of a song and fully understandable.

Yeah, if interpreted as “Näen purjehtivat veneet”, which is standard Finnish. Not sure if such a straightforward and modern interpretation was what Rob actually meant by that, though.

[Rob A.]

Old Finnish: Näen veneet purjehtivat.
In English, they both have the same meaning, but I believe the first version would be incomprehensible to modern Finns...

Fine in poem or lyrics of a song and fully understandable.

Yeah, if interpreted as “Näen purjehtivat veneet”, which is standard Finnish. Not sure if such a straightforward and modern interpretation was what Rob actually meant by that, though.

The point of the paper in the link that I posted was that the accusative case...the nature of which modern grammarians view as "unsettled", has been interpreted differently in the past. The ancient sound shift that resulted in native words ending in "m", changing to "n", resulted in a re-interpretation of the grammar as well.... The contention is that this started with the singular accusative ( except for pronouns) in situations such as in the examples given.

In the example given, miehem was viewed as the direct object with the participle, tulevam, having the role of a verbal adjective modifying miehem. In English something like: "I saw the coming man." But the shift to the "n" suffix made it possible to re-interpret this as a genitive case and the "grammar" shifted such that tulevan became a verbal noun and the direct object of the sentence and miehen became an adjectival noun in the genitive case. And now the English meaning became: "I see the man's coming."

However such a re-interpretation was not possible with the plural situation between old Finnish and modern Finnish, because there was no spelling change.... so, according to the paper, the plural situation was changed for the sake of consistency with the singular such that the plural genitive case would be used, instead of the old, UNCHANGED, plural accusative case. [Aside: And I suppose things like this are why the grammarians continue to debate the "status" of the accusative case in the Finnish language...].

Now the authors of the article purposely used a simple example to explain their point.....I would have to leave it to the native speakers to provide examples of more complex situations were this "m" to "n" change might be utterly confusing...

OK, enough, enough! ... and Welcome to Rob's "Faculty of Applied Tetrapyloctomy" ...