Kysymyksiä, apua!

[weijie]

I have accumulated several questions, would any native speakers help me?

1. If I am walking on the street, some person would like to stop me for a while as he/she is gonna advertise some products or ask for donation. Then how could I respond in Finnish politely that 'I am in a rush', something like that?

2. Please teach me how to order drinks in the pub/bar, such as 'one beer/3 vodka/tequila, please' And what is the most popular strong liquor Finns like?

3. What's the subtle difference between 'voisitteko' ja 'voitteko'? Some one told me adding a 'si' in word roughly equals 'please', but I have already used 'voitteko' rather than 'voitko'? Is this even a more polite and soft request?

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä', which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

5. 'A quarter past 10', I can say 'viisitoista yli kymmenen', but I am wondering what's the word for 'quarter'? And is it right to use it as in English when telling time?

6. From textbook, I know when people says 'Kiitos paljon', I should respond 'Ei kestä' to show politeness, but I never hear any native speaker really use this phrase. So would you please tell me whether it is more natural and popular to use 'Ole hyvä' than 'Ei kestä'?

7. Why some verbs have 'kaa' in the end? Such as 'allekirjoittakaa', what's the usage of 'kaa'? Please give me more examples.

8. Would you please give a clear definition of 'sitä', I've seen it hundreds of times, I just could not understand how to use it.

9. In English we use 'one' to represent the object we mentioned once before, such as 'I have two nice books, the one with hardcover was written by Edgeworth'. Is there any similar word with the same function as 'one' in Finnish?

Kiitos!!

[Rip]

3. [What's the subtle difference between 'voisitteko' ja 'voitteko'? Some one told me adding a 'si' in word roughly equals 'please', but I have already used 'voitteko' rather than 'voitko'?] Is this even a more polite and soft request?

yes

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä',

kymmenen kysymystä. Check the text book again.

which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

You use plurals also without numerals. "The questions were difficult" = "kysymykset olivat vaikeita"

5. 'A quarter past 10', I can say 'viisitoista yli kymmenen', but I am wondering what's the word for 'quarter'? And is it right to use it as in English when telling time?

"vartin yli kymmenen". It's possible that is even bit more informal than the English version (my English isn't quite good enough to say for sure)

7. Why some verbs have 'kaa' in the end? Such as 'allekirjoittakaa', what's the usage of 'kaa'? Please give me more examples.

it is the imperative form in plural or polite form. 'Allekirjoita' would be same in singular.

[Upphew]

Kysymyksiä, apua!

So you are afraid of questions..?

1. If I am walking on the street, some person would like to stop me for a while as he/she is gonna advertise some products or ask for donation. Then how could I respond in Finnish politely that 'I am in a rush', something like that?

Anteeksi, mutta minulla on kiire.

2. Please teach me how to order drinks in the pub/bar, such as 'one beer/3 vodka/tequila, please' And what is the most popular strong liquor Finns like?

Moi, olut/kolme vodkaa/yks tekila. Most popular... the free one?

3. What's the subtle difference between 'voisitteko' ja 'voitteko'? Some one told me adding a 'si' in word roughly equals 'please', but I have already used 'voitteko' rather than 'voitko'? Is this even a more polite and soft request?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93 ... _languages

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä', which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

I'm bit stumped what you ask... kymmenen käskyä vs. kymmeniä käskyjä?

5. 'A quarter past 10', I can say 'viisitoista yli kymmenen', but I am wondering what's the word for 'quarter'? And is it right to use it as in English when telling time?

Vartti, tapaaminen on vartin yli kymmenen. Nähdään asemalla varttia vaille viisi.

6. From textbook, I know when people says 'Kiitos paljon', I should respond 'Ei kestä' to show politeness, but I never hear any native speaker really use this phrase. So would you please tell me whether it is more natural and popular to use 'Ole hyvä' than 'Ei kestä'?

Hmmm, I'd guess I would use ole hyvä when I gave something to you, as in sold, and ei kestä if I gave you directions/lift/change for bus ticket. I think that ei kestä is discussed here before... try also eipä kestä kiittää, when you search for it.

7. Why some verbs have 'kaa' in the end? Such as 'allekirjoittakaa', what's the usage of 'kaa'? Please give me more examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood

8. Would you please give a clear definition of 'sitä', I've seen it hundreds of times, I just could not understand how to use it.

Partitive of se.

9. In English we use 'one' to represent the object we mentioned once before, such as 'I have two nice books, the one with hardcover was written by Edgeworth'. Is there any similar word with the same function as 'one' in Finnish?

I'll let someone else tackle this one.

[AldenG]

For "one...the other," Finnish uses "the other" for both: Huoneessa oli kaksi kirjaa, toinen pöydällä ja toinen hyllyssä. "There were two books in the room, one on the table and the other 'in' the shelf."

In examples more similar to yours, the closest literal translation for "the one" would be some form of se, joka | se, jolla | se, jossa depending on the object in question (a book, here) and the rest of the sentence. However, you wouldn't normally use a literally translated structure for this particular example. You'd say something like Minulla on kaksi kirjaa. Kovakantinen on Edgeworthin kirjoittama. "I have two books. The hard-covered one is written by Edgeworth." (literally "Edgeworth-written [book]")

[Rob A.]

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä', which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

I'll tackle just this question as I think has more to do with the difference in "thinking" between English and Finnish when it comes to plurals.....

The reason the partitive singular is used with numerals is that "conceptually" one is dealing with a portion, or "part", of a whole set...or whole "universe" of something. For example, viisi kirjaa....."five from the whole "set of books".... one of something is viewed as complete on its own and this is no different than in English ...."one book"/"a book"....yksi kirja/ kirja.... Minulla on yksi kirja/kirja....

[Aside: I won't get into when to use in the nominative form and the accusative....but with yksi kirja you can easily get to yhden kirjan, but with viisi kirjaa you won't find the accusative being used, though you could get viidet kirjat, but that would mean "the fives of books"....kind of a strange phrase....but not so strange if it's sadat kirjat..."the hundreds of books"... And this, grammatically, is probably in the accusative...but as the accusative plural marker and the nominative plural marker....the suffix, "-t"... are the same for nouns it's essentially moot for the language learner....though I guess the grammarians can argue about it ....

And you can also get the partitive plural ....satoja kirjoja....."hundreds of books"....but I'm starting to confuse myself now... ]

It might be helpful to know that the Finnish partitive case was developed from the older locative case ...the ablative.....which is the "from" case in modern Finnish.... so try thinking of viisi kirjaa as "five from set of books" ...

[Rob A.]

Here's a little more on the partitive...some examples I found:

Saan karhun/ kaksi karhua / karhut.
...."I will get the (a) bear / two bears / the bears."

{Aside: I notice that there are two accusative singular forms for "two"...kaksi/kahden....could it also be: Saan kahden karhua.....????... To me it doesn't look correct....but I don't know why... What am I overlooking???...]

The verb, saada, means in this instance, "to get"....and the statements above can only have a future orientation....the action can only be "completed" (past tense) or "anticipated to be completed" (in the future).

A single bear is a " complete" bear....therefore the accusative...."two bears" are two out of the set....therefore karhua must be in the partitive, although kaksi is in the accusative because the phrase itself is "complete"...and karhut refers to specific bears and so is in the plural...(I would say accusative...but it doesn't matter, the nominative and accusative plural for nouns is the same)... And note, the partitive is the "stronger" case and will always take precedence over the accusative if the sense requires it.

Now here is another verb, etsiä.

This time the verbal phrase can only have partitive nouns/adjective/etc., because the action can only be "incomplete"....

Etsin karhua / kahta karhua / karhuja
..."I am looking for the (a) bear / two bears / the bears."

[Aside: I'm not sure but I think Etsin karhuja. could also be translated as I am looking for some bears."....???...]

This seems straightforward, and the interesting thing here is that now, kahta, must be in the partitive because kahta karhua is fully "incomplete" where before kaksi was "complete"....

[Upphew]

Saan karhun/ kaksi karhua / karhut.
...."I will get the (a) bear / two bears / the bears."

Kaksi isoa ja yksi pieni karhu:

[David O.]

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä', which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

You use nominative plural in three situations:
1) Plural subject, with no quantifier. Lapset ovat kotona.
2) "Complete" plural object, with no quantifier. Isä vei lapset kotiin.
3) With the quantifiers monet, muutamat, harvat or useat (and probably some others which I can't think of at the moment). Useat ihmiset luulevat, että....

Note also that after a numeral, you need partitive singular: 10 kysymystä. After other quantifiers, generally, you'll have partitive plural: paljon kysymyksiä.

The reason the partitive singular is used with numerals is that "conceptually" one is dealing with a portion, or "part", of a whole set...or whole "universe" of something. For example, viisi kirjaa....."five from the whole "set of books".

I've never liked this explanation. First, because logically, there's no reason why five books should represent part of a set while one book doesn't (each individual book within the five is part of the set of five...). Second, and more importantly, because it has no connection to the way the brain actually produces language. No Finn thinks "well, I've got five books, which represent but a fraction of all the books in the world, so I need to use the partitive."

Think about numbers in English. When you hear any number other than "one", your brain primes itself for a plural noun. Similarly, when one hears any number in Finnish other than yksi, one primes oneself for a noun in the partitive singular. That's all there is to it - there is no "why". It's not a logic puzzle, it's just a reflex.

[Jukka Aho]

1. If I am walking on the street, some person would like to stop me for a while as he/she is gonna advertise some products or ask for donation. Then how could I respond in Finnish politely that 'I am in a rush', something like that?

Anteeks, (mut) mulla on kiire. (Anteeksi, (mutta) minulla on kiire.)
Sorry, (but) I’m busy.

Kiitos, mutta ei kiinnosta.
Thanks, but I’m not interested.

Ei kiinnosta. Painupas nyt tiehesi siitä.
I’m not interested. Now buzz off, will you.

Mene helvettiin siitä lappuinesi/ruusuinesi/kuppeinesi ja lakkaa häiritsemästä kunnon kansalaisia.
Go to hell with your notes/roses/cup and stop bothering proper citizens.

2. Please teach me how to order drinks in the pub/bar, such as 'one beer/3 vodka/tequila, please'

Pitkä kolmonen, kiitos. See here for some further suggestions.

(Pitkä refers to a tall glass, and also that you want the largest amount they serve – often 0.5 l or 0.6 l? Kolmonen (“a number three”) refers, in this context, to “regular” tax class III beer. As the law regarding the taxation of beer has changed, such “tax classes” don’t legally exist any longer... but the former “tax class III” used to refer to beer whose alcohol content ranged from 3.7 vol-% ... 4.7 vol-% – i.e., the so-called keskiolut: the most standard variety of Finnish lager you can get in the stores.)

And what is the most popular strong liquor Finns like?

Hmm... Hard to say. Koskenkorva and Finlandia Vodka are the two most well-known Finnish strong liquor brands. Koskenkorva, as a brand, has a more “folksy” air to it whereas Finlandia is deemed more prestigious, especially in international contexts. (The Finlandia brand is now owned by Brown-Forman but it is still distilled in Finland.)

3. What's the subtle difference between 'voisitteko' ja 'voitteko'? Some one told me adding a 'si' in word roughly equals 'please', but I have already used 'voitteko' rather than 'voitko'? Is this even a more polite and soft request?

It’s even more polite. The -isi- part is a marker for the conditional mood. (See here as well.)

4. What's the difference between partitive plural and nominative plural. I read from a textbook, it says that after numeral, always follows a partitive, such as '10 kysymyksiä', which means I almost have no chance to nominative plural, since plural should always be partitive?

Rob already answered some of this but I’m not sure if I understand the question. “10 kysymyksiä” is wrong, grammatically speaking. That should be “10 kysymystä” (the partitive singular, see here for more about this.)

5. 'A quarter past 10', I can say 'viisitoista yli kymmenen', but I am wondering what's the word for 'quarter'?

Vartti, in the context of telling the time. Neljännes when you’re referring to amounts in general.

And is it right to use it as in English when telling time?

Yes. You can commonly hear expressions such as “vartin yli kaksitoista” or “varttia vaille yksi”. Or “Hän lupasi tulla vartin päästä/kuluttua/sisällä.”

6. From textbook, I know when people says 'Kiitos paljon', I should respond 'Ei kestä' to show politeness, but I never hear any native speaker really use this phrase. So would you please tell me whether it is more natural and popular to use 'Ole hyvä' than 'Ei kestä'?

Both can be used. Ei kestä has more of that “it was nothing, don’t mention it” sense whereas ole hyvä acknowledges that you actually did something for the benefit of the other person.

7. Why some verbs have 'kaa' in the end? Such as 'allekirjoittakaa', what's the usage of 'kaa'? Please give me more examples.

That’s the imperative mood. (See here as well.)

8. Would you please give a clear definition of 'sitä', I've seen it hundreds of times, I just could not understand how to use it.

Sitä is the partitive of the pronoun se (“it”). See here for a full declension chart (click on the light blue “declension” box on the page.)

9. In English we use 'one' to represent the object we mentioned once before, such as 'I have two nice books, the one with hardcover was written by Edgeworth'. Is there any similar word with the same function as 'one' in Finnish?

The pronoun se is often used in a similar way.

Minulla on kaksi kirjaa. Se, jossa on kovat kannet, on Edgeworthin kirjoittama.

You could think of that being a shortening of “se niistä” or “se äsken mainituista kirjoista”.

[weijie]

Kiitos paljon!!! All of you provide a wonderful lesson here!

[AldenG]

I usually try to stay out of discussions of partitive -- I have enough on my hands just to use it correctly much of the time.

But to augment Rob's explanation, yet another way you can rationalize viisi kirjaa to yourself is to think of it as "five of a book". It still doesn't fundamentally explain why it is used as it is and not some other way, but at least it's another way of showing that the same formulation can be used in English and more or less make sense.

The oddest thing about numbers, fun in a way, is when you talk about two of a thing that is already plural, as in Otan kahdet ranskalaiset. (We're requesting french fries here, not a pair of French twins.) Again that's not as different from English as first glance might suggest. When you say "I'll take two fries with that," you don't literally mean you want two little slivers of fried potato, you mean two orders of multiple fries each. Finnish is able to make that distinction through grammar where English makes it only through semantics.

[Rob A.]

Note also that after a numeral, you need partitive singular: 10 kysymystä. After other quantifiers, generally, you'll have partitive plural: paljon kysymyksiä.

The reason the partitive singular is used with numerals is that "conceptually" one is dealing with a portion, or "part", of a whole set...or whole "universe" of something. For example, viisi kirjaa....."five from the whole "set of books".

I've never liked this explanation. First, because logically, there's no reason why five books should represent part of a set while one book doesn't (each individual book within the five is part of the set of five...). Second, and more importantly, because it has no connection to the way the brain actually produces language. No Finn thinks "well, I've got five books, which represent but a fraction of all the books in the world, so I need to use the partitive."

Think about numbers in English. When you hear any number other than "one", your brain primes itself for a plural noun. Similarly, when one hears any number in Finnish other than yksi, one primes oneself for a noun in the partitive singular. That's all there is to it - there is no "why". It's not a logic puzzle, it's just a reflex.

I certainly agree that once one realizes that the partitive is used for plurals in Finnish it becomes a reflex....and, of course, native speakers who learned the language eons ago don't need to think about why the partitive is used...they just "know".... Further, as a language learner, the objective is to get to the point where it does become a "reflex"...

Yet I wrestled with the partitive and numerals "issue", and the partitive and negation "issue" for quite a while.... I knew what the "rules" called for, but the logic of it escaped me..... The "light went on" when I realized that with numbers greater than one you are dealing with a "portion" of the total number of all that could be.... and it was "cinched" when I found out the partitive was developed in ancient times from the ablative ...the "from" ...case.....

That "one" of something doesn't fit this pattern now makes complete sense to me, as well.... With "one" you are dealing with a "singularity"...a discrete unit of the category and, thus, it, in itself, is "complete".

For me, anyway, this is difficult to clearly articulate. Nevertheless it makes sense.....and it also helps in my overall understanding of how to use the partitive.

Partitive and negation... The concept is "no part of the whole".... Partitive and fractions..... a portion of the "singularity".

Here's a little "mental test" I stumbled on recently which, again, drives home the difference between the accusative-genitive and the partitive:

Consider the word, ympäri.... it can be both a postposition and a preposition...

...kaupungin ympäri ...with the genitive (arguably the "accusative") ...carries the sense of going around the city in a circular, "defined" pattern.

...ympäri kaupunkia....with the partitive....implies a vaguer, less well-defined, "all over" sense....

I think you'll find that native speakers will always be picking up on these kinds of distinctions between partitive use and genitive-accusative use.....and most of them will just "know"... Unless they are unusually well-trained in grammar, they probably won't be able to explain it very well....

[Aside: Here's something I've just been thinking about:

"We saw infinite dogs."...admittedly not the best English.... Somehow this implies to me, emotionally, "all dogs" ...though, intellectually, it actually doesn't mean that...it's an unspecified, unbounded number....

I'm sure in Finnish the translation would be:

Katsoimme ääretön koiraa......

...How about this....

"There are 1,000,000 elephants in the universe. We saw 1,000,000 elephants."

Maailmankaikkeudessa on miljoona norsua / norsut. Katsoimme miljoona norsua/norsut..... OK, OK....even though we "saw" the complete set of elephants, I simply just "know" that the partitive, norsua, would be used here.... ]

[Edit: Here's another little "twist" ...if you want to say there was an elephant in the refrigerator you would have to say it this way:

Jääkaapissa on norsu......you couldn't say....*Jääkaapissa on norsun.....This is an example of a Finnish existential sentence...there is no "overt" verb and so you need the nominative form....but, in a sense, it still implies "completeness" and is considered an accusative form.... If it were milk maito....an "uncountable" noun.... You would have a choice.........Jääkaapissa on maitoa ...tai....Jääkaapissa on maito. ...they have slightly different meanings....and with a non-existential sentence ....Ostan maitoa.....Ostan maidon. ..."I bought some some milk"....."I bought the milk."]

[Rob A.]

I usually try to stay out of discussions of partitive -- I have enough on my hands just to use it correctly much of the time.

But to augment Rob's explanation, yet another way you can rationalize viisi kirjaa to yourself is to think of it as "five of a book". It still doesn't fundamentally explain why it is used as it is and not some other way, but at least it's another way of showing that the same formulation can be used in English and more or less make sense.

The oddest thing about numbers, fun in a way, is when you talk about two of a thing that is already plural, as in Otan kahdet ranskalaiset. (We're requesting french fries here, not a pair of French twins.) Again that's not as different from English as first glance might suggest. When you say "I'll take two fries with that," you don't literally mean you want two little slivers of fried potato, you mean two orders of multiple fries each. Finnish is able to make that distinction through grammar where English makes it only through semantics.

Though I suppose it could be argued that saying: "I'll take two fries with that."....is modern, shorthand, colloquial English....it assumes that the parties to the conversation share the same cultural context.

I would imagine that if you were transported back to the time of Chaucer you might have to be a little more wordy:

"Squire....I should be desirous of obtaining two side plates of sliced potatoes cooked in vegetable oil in the exquisite fashion frequently encountered in the Kingdom of France, but, alas, generally unobtainable in our fair Realm...."

Oh...and, of course, I haven't bothered to find out when "French fries" were invented and, indeed, if they are actually "French"....probably an American invention.....Ronald McDonald??....

[AldenG]

Or you could just catch her by the quim and say, "Oh, never mind those apples of the earth, thine orbs are wondrous fair."

[AldenG]

They're Belgian, by the way.