Using the Genitive

[AldenG]

John is feared murdered by a highwayman.

?

John is feared to have succumbed to the elements.

I used to enjoy making those little slanty diagrams in elementary school.

What's perverse in this last one IMO is that if "the elements" are the object of "to," how come John is the one who's dead? Doesn't seem quite fair...

[Rob A.]

So that's legit, then.

I wasn't sure whether there was discord between the amerikkalaisena/ulkomaalaisena and the strict subject of the sentence, as in this very typical (but incorrect) example from a recent Oregon Coast: "As a young boy during World War II, the Oregon coast seemed as remote as the far side of the moon; a place of 'trees, seas, and ocean breeze...' and perhaps 'cheese,' if you were headed for Tillamook." You know what it means, but it's a bit like a window frame where one corner doesn't meet.

To me, "He" is the subject in "As an American, he is expected...", just as it would be in "He is rich." These discussions go back and forth so much that I sometimes get lost, but is hänen not regarded as a genitive subject in hänen odotetaan valloittavan...? To me the point of the passive is that the verb form in isolation doesn't have a subject (or more properly, the subject is impersonal or universal), but that doesn't mean the sentence doesn't have a subject. I think it would be awfully ironic to cast hänen as an object in Finnish to compel conformity with Latinate analysis if actual Latinate languages treat it as a subject in their version of the construction.

Excuse me, Jukka, if I jump in ahead...

I think your analysis is very good. Of course, the sentence about the Oregon coast is poor English...a grammar Nazi would be all over that sentence...

Now, yes...hänen is the genitive subject of that complement...and amerikkalaisena would be, I believe an adjective phrase modifying it...it might also be viewed as a noun phrase in apposition to the pronoun ...but I'm not sure about that.... Because it is an additional "clause" I think it's form is grammatically correct considering the role it is playing....

I also think it brings clarity to the process to try to think of passive and imperative sentences as simply not having a subject...and NOT NEEDING ONE....one of the ways that Finnish grammar differs from "Latinate" and Germanic languages....

[Rob A.]

John is feared murdered by a highwayman.

?

Raising the ante...

It looks like a passive within a passive... Let me re-phrase it a bit to help clarify....

"John is feared by us to have been murdered by a highwayman."

A direct statement, then would be:

"We fear that a highwayman murdered John."

So I think your original statement has a passive main sentence without an agent and a passive clause with an agent.

[Edit: I see you added a little bit more after I had read it...I need a coffee ...so I'll come back later....

OK:....

John is feared to have succumbed to the elements.

Now it's really getting tough... If we "unscramble" it we get:

(Some unspecified "agent") fears that John has succumbed to the elements."

So in the original if "John" is the subject then "to have succumbed to the elements" is a complement of some sort modifying "John". ...."to the elements" is some sort of indirect object and "to have succumbed" is the verbal element....but that's it for me...I'm going to have study up on English passive sentences.... As I said parsing the English passive construction can get tricky...]

[AldenG]

I also think it brings clarity to the process to try to think of passive and imperative sentences as simply not having a subject...and NOT NEEDING ONE....one of the ways that Finnish grammar differs from "Latinate" and Germanic languages....

One man's clarity is another man's murk.

If you think of the simple imperative Tule!, I experience the subject as you. One can even say Tule, sinä!

I also treat the simple (2p sing) imperative as the truest "basic" form of a verb and almost certainly the first kinds of verbs that existed.

If we look at mainitse/mainita (mention), the simple imperative is mainitse, which is also the invariant stem for the present personal endings mainitse/n etc. (besides 3rd) and also the negative form as in älä mainitse sitä. And that one relationship is true of all verbs for which those forms exist at all, which is to say practically all verbs. As much as those forms hop around in behavior over different inflection types, that's a pretty remarkable fact, I think -- but understandable if you take as a given that the real core of the verb is mainitse.

If we put mainitse/mainita (mention) into passive imperative, mainittakoon, että, "Let it be mentioned that", (one of the more common passive imperative idioms) then I also agree that in Finnish, there is no subject.

But in present and past, I see three main types of passive. Let's dispose of the colloquial Mennään, "let's go," because it isn't really meant literally. It's not uncommon to state the me, though.

Then there is Senaatissa huhutaan, että hallitus kaatuu, It's rumored in the Senate that the government will fall. Clearly there's no subject there.

But Hänen oletetaan kuolleen seems different to me. Of course one can arbitrarily make the rule however one wishes, the way X^0 is defined to be 1 (even though it is a common-sensically meaningless quantity) because it's convenient for the arithmetic of exponents.

"He" is the object of the assumption but the subject of the dying and occupies the subject's traditional place in the sentence. I guess I have to go along with you to uphold the arithmetic of exponents because of sentences like Hänet tapettiin. Now just so I have this straight (fat chance) -- in "He was killed," 'he' is the grammatical subject. But in Hänet tapettiin, 'hän' is the grammatical object. Is that how the rules work?

If I seem dense sometimes, it's because I am sometimes.

[Rob A.]

One man's clarity is another man's murk.

If you think of the simple imperative Tule!, I experience the subject as you. One can even say Tule, sinä!

I also treat the simple (2p sing) imperative as the truest "basic" form of a verb and almost certainly the first kinds of verbs that existed.

Indeed....and I'm trying not to be "murky"...

Please don't let me create any confusion...I'm trying to find ways to look at the grammar such that I can "predict" which case marking an object might take...

On reflection, I probably should have made a better distinction between the imperative and the "impersonal"/"passive"/"fourth person".... It seems to me a better word when discussing the imperative would be no "overt" subject, which is to some "degree" different from the "unstated" subject in a statement such as:

Olet suomalainen., where, sinä, is clearly implied and, perhaps, could be called "overt", even though "invisible".

The imperative: Ole suomalainen. has a subject that is clearly less "overt"....

...and the two statements clearly have different meanings.

Where it can get hairy is if the object of the sentence would be expected to be in the accusative... then, I think you would always find that an imperative statement would take a nominative form..... Or so I think...??...

[Edit: Perhaps my examples using olet/ole weren't the best...the first is a copula and you would expect a nominative predicate complement... The second I'm not sure if it would be the same....

Anyway, another example, then might be:
Näet talon/taloa v. Näe talo/taloa The context will tell you whether it should be partitive....but if it isn't, then the declarative sentence will have the object in the accusative and the imperative sentence will have the object in the nominative...or, if you like, the "endingless" accusative....]

[Jukka Aho]

Excuse me, Jukka, if I jump in ahead... :ohno:

No problem, I’m just sitting back and watching this unfold... never had much love for heavy-duty sentence analysis/diagramming (for the sake of mere diagramming) anyway! ;)

[Jukka Aho]

Now just so I have this straight (fat chance) -- in "He was killed," 'he' is the grammatical subject. But in Hänet tapettiin, 'hän' is the grammatical object. Is that how the rules work?

I’m not the best source for reliable definitions so I’ll just resort to VISK’s definition of things: akkusatiivi.

[Rob A.]

Excuse me, Jukka, if I jump in ahead...

No problem, I’m just sitting back and watching this unfold... never had much love for heavy-duty sentence analysis/diagramming (for the sake of mere diagramming) anyway!

OK...though I'm sure you'll "jump in" if you see some "logic" problems...in these sorts of things often the "logic" problem can be of the "180 degree variety"...

So far from this thread I think I've got it well in mind that the "accusative" is a complicated case ...and seemingly a bit "helter-skelter" compared to the other cases.... It is enough, I guess, for me to realize that the grammarians in their quest for the language's "Holy Grail"...or its "Organic Laws"...., do not agree when it comes to the accusative case.... Language teachers have developed "work-arounds" for these complexities ...and, in the end, I can live with that.... Just as the native speakers must do...whether they realize it or not...

I can also see that the genitive case can be used for a wider range of grammatical functions that I might have imagined even a few months ago.... So finding strings of words ending in "n" should alert me to genitive complements that, in English, might be subordinate clauses starting with "that" or "who", etc.... Distinguishing the "accusative" direct object nouns will remain one of the challenges....though, mercifully, the accusative pronouns, self-select....

[muhaha]

Here's something about strange usages of the genitive: http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?s=997.

[Rob A.]

Here's something about strange usages of the genitive: http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?s=997.

Yes...though, for me, trying to understand these fine grammatical points is hard enough when reading the material in English, let alone in Finnish...

From what I can understand some of these constructions with genitive subjects in the main part of the sentence are retained forms from Old Finnish, when the genitive had this indirect dative function....

For example...
Minun täytyy palata tänä vuonna which sort of literally translates as: "It is necessary for me to return....."

Minun/minulla on kylmä...... again literally: "It is to me...at me ....cold."

Apparently both forms are correct, though minulla is more common....I assume this is so....???

Here's a paper on this category of sort genitive use:

http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bits ... sakuma.pdf

[Rob A.]

I encountered this statement:

Älä anna minun odottaa koko päivää!="Don't make me wait all day."

Two main questions come out this for me...

1. Why is minun in the genitive?....What is the "thinking" that leads to using this form for minä?

2. Why is päivää in the partitive?....Could päivä be in the genitive/accusative or in the nominative?....I don't think so....Not in the nominative as päivä is part of the complement odottaa koko päivää and so is not directly related to the imperative form of antaa..... and probably not in the accusative because this is a negative statement, though I'm not sure if the negative can "reach" into this verbal complement.... Though aopparently it can...

Further, if one were to say:

"I was made to wait all day."...how would this look...

Annetiin ??minun?? ...odottaa koko päivää!.....??

[Jukka Aho]

I encountered this statement:

Älä anna minun odottaa koko päivää!="Don't make me wait all day."

Two main questions come out this for me...

1. Why is minun in the genitive?....What is the "thinking" that leads to using this form for minä?

It works the same way for non-pronouns as well:

Älä anna Jukan odottaa koko päivää!
Älä anna bussikuskin odottaa koko päivää!

It’s so-called “permissive structure” (permissiivirakenne, see VISK § 502). According to VISK, “permissive structure is an infinitive phrase [complement] functioning as an object, and taking a subject [on its own] in the genitive. The head verb is antaa, sallia, suoda, luvata or käskeä.”

There was another discussion thread about the same topic a while ago... which you might recall as you commented it yourself.

2. Why is päivää in the partitive?....

Hmm... that’s a trickier one. Maybe because of the activity verbs rule or the negation rule? In any case, at the time of speaking it is not conclusive that the whole day will actually be spent waiting and it is even requested that waiting be made to stop before that.

Could päivä be in the genitive/accusative or in the nominative?....I don't think so....Not in the nominative as päivä is part of the complement odottaa koko päivää and so is not directly related to the imperative form of antaa..... and probably not in the accusative because this is a negative statement, though I'm not sure if the negative can "reach" into this verbal complement.... Though aopparently it can... :?

Neither päivä nor päivän sound right in this example.

Further, if one were to say:

"I was made to wait all day."...how would this look...

Annetiin ??minun?? ...odottaa koko päivää!.....??

Minun annettiin odottaa koko päivä!
Minut pantiin odottamaan koko päivä!

The latter has more emphasis on not only “letting” you wait but making you do something with you having no say in the matter.

[Rob A.]

I encountered this statement:

Älä anna minun odottaa koko päivää!="Don't make me wait all day."

Two main questions come out this for me...

1. Why is minun in the genitive?....What is the "thinking" that leads to using this form for minä?

It works the same way for non-pronouns as well:

Älä anna Jukan odottaa koko päivää!
Älä anna bussikuskin odottaa koko päivää!

It’s so-called “permissive structure” (permissiivirakenne, see VISK § 502). According to VISK, “permissive structure is an infinitive phrase [complement] functioning as an object, and taking a subject [on its own] in the genitive. The head verb is antaa, sallia, suoda, luvata or käskeä.”

Thanks... And to think that I have recently been reading about the persmissive construction....but I didn't "detect" it here... Gosh...it's tough to wrap your mind around some of these subtle grammatical constructions....I can "see" it again now that you have explained it.... And I think had a "non-partitive" sense been required, though as you say, probably not with an expression like koko päivää...then it would have to been in the accusative-genitive.....

There was another discussion thread about the same topic a while ago... which you might recall as you commented it yourself.

Yes...I do recall that...though I've learn a bit since then...

Could päivä be in the genitive/accusative or in the nominative?....I don't think so....Not in the nominative as päivä is part of the complement odottaa koko päivää and so is not directly related to the imperative form of antaa..... and probably not in the accusative because this is a negative statement, though I'm not sure if the negative can "reach" into this verbal complement.... Though aopparently it can...

Neither päivä nor päivän sound right in this example.

OK....and I think it is probably simply that the sense requires the partitive and the imperative verb is not really a factor.....

Further, if one were to say:

"I was made to wait all day."...how would this look...

Annetiin ??minun?? ...odottaa koko päivää!.....??

Minun annettiin odottaa koko päivä!
Minut pantiin odottamaan koko päivä!

The latter has more emphasis on not only “letting” you wait but making you do something with you having no say in the matter.

Thanks
....and I note here that you have used the nominative. I believe with passive/impersonal constructions the view is that there is no overt subject and that in some fashion, minun and odottaa koko päivä are a different grammatical construction than the permissive construction in my previous imperative example....I'll review this some more.....

[Aside: While I was reviewing some material I encountered this example of Old Finnish....1642 "Biblical" Finnish ...

*Herodes anda Johannexen caulan leicata.

....I'm curious how modern Finns would translate this.....I'm not sure what this is grammatically but the author suggests that there is no overt subject...[despite how it looks Herodes is not the subject...he is not the "doer" of the action....in English this would be an "agentless passive]....and that the verbal complement is considered to be in the passive voice... ]

[Upphew]

Further, if one were to say:

"I was made to wait all day."...how would this look...

Annetiin ??minun?? ...odottaa koko päivää!.....??

Minun annettiin odottaa koko päivä!
Minut pantiin odottamaan koko päivä!

The latter has more emphasis on not only “letting” you wait but making you do something with you having no say in the matter.

Thanks
....and I note here that you have used the nominative. I believe with passive/impersonal constructions the view is that there is no overt subject and that in some fashion, minun and odottaa koko päivä are a different grammatical construction than the permissive construction in my previous imperative example....I'll review this some more.....

The nominative is used as it is known that the whole day was spent waiting.

[Rob A.]

The nominative is used as it is known that the whole day was spent waiting.

....and apparently there is a "rule"

Jahnsson's Rule:
"Verbs which have no overt subjects govern the endlingless accusative, verbs with overt subjects govern the -n accusative."

...which means, apparently, that "passive"/"impersonal" verbs will have a nominative object, unless the partitive or some other case is required.

...A. W. Jahnsson was a 19th century Finnish grammarian.

Some modern grammarians are suggesting other ways to look at this, but for language learners the end result remains the same.... Imperative and "passive"/"impersonal" constructions will have a nominative form if "completeness" or "wholeness" is indicated.....