What kind of construction is that?

[BoxerDanc]

Here is an excerpt from a dialogue:
"- Moi. Mä tarvitsisin lentolipun Espanjaan Malagaan. Lähtisin jo huomenna.
- Hmm, katsotaan... täällä löytyy kyllä tilaa. Lähtö on 19.50 Helsingistä."

And here's a translation from the same webpage:
"- Hello! I'd need a flight ticket to Spain, Malaga. I would leave already tomorrow.
- Hmm. Let's see... there are still seats availabe. The departure is 19.50 from Helsinki."

I would like to ask:
1. "Katsotaan" is present passive of "katsoa", is this particular form is used when we want to say "let's do something" or "let me do something" instead of imperative?
2. "täällä löytyy kyllä tilaa" - here is to be found yes room. How should one understand that?

Thanks in advance.

[EP]

1) The clerk is talking about herself, so you can hardly use imperative on yourself. "Katsotaan" sounds more relaxed than just "katson" (I will look).

2) That there is still room on the flight.

[AldenG]

You might be thinking the täällä (here) seems a bit funny, but she's referring to the computer screen she's consulting at the moment she says it. One might do a similar thing in English. "Hmm, let's see -- yes, here's a window seat available."

Similarly, katsotaan (let's have a look) might also occur in English -- once you understand that it's used as a less formal imperative, as you put it. By many estimates, the passive easily outnumbers present and imperative "me" forms in spoken occurrences. Mennään can mean both "let's go" and "we're going." In fact, it means that much more often than it means "one goes." Similarly, the past passive is frequently used as a substitute for me + past indicative. Thus mentiin means "we went" and even, when being really casual, "let's go."

[Jukka Aho]

1. "Katsotaan" is present passive of "katsoa", is this particular form is used when we want to say "let's do something" or "let me do something" instead of imperative?

Yes. The present passive is often used in situations where you would use “let’s... (do something)” in English.

2. "täällä löytyy kyllä tilaa" - here is to be found yes room. How should one understand that?

I have read a paper which suggested that thinking about kyllä and ei (especially kyllä) in terms of being the direct equivalents of “yes” and “no” is an oversimplification and does not really adequately explain how positive and negative expressions actually work in Finnish.

For example, when you ask a native Finn...

“Aiotko juosta tänään?”

...the positive answer is not likely to be “Kyllä”, but “Aion.”

Similarly, the question...

“Keitätkö kahvia?”

...gets the positive answer

“Keitän.”

According to the paper I read, the fact that you can also answer “Kyllä” or “Joo” or something like that to such questions is foreign (Indo-European) influence, trying to shoehorn Finnish conversations into a foreign mold, not the “original” Finnish way of expressing things.

This could also explain why the negative word ei is actually a verb in Finnish... even conjugated in personal forms.

What about the word kyllä, then? When used in other contexts than answering simple questions, it functions rather in the role of an intensifier than as a straight equivalent of “yes”. You could think of it being something of an equivalent for words such as “certainly”, “positively”, “definitely”, “actually”, “for sure” or “really”... maybe even “truly” or “after all”.

“Täällä löytyy kyllä tilaa.” = literally, “Here can be found, positively/certainly/actually/definitely, some room.”
“Yep, there’s some room in here all right.” (No worries – you’ll get your ticket. It’s not a problem, after all... even though I had to check to make sure.)
“Yep, there’s positively some room in here.”
“There actually is some room in here.”

(The exact interpretation might depend, to some degree, on the intonation as well...)

As the paper I recall reading argues, this is the original usage of kyllä before it was hijacked, violently beaten into submission, and made to double as the “equivalent” of the Indo-European “yes” as well.

Try and decipher this one:

“Hän ei kyllä voi juosta ensi viikon kilpailussa.”

[silk]

I have read a paper which suggested that thinking about kyllä and ei (especially kyllä) in terms of being the direct equivalents of “yes” and “no” is an oversimplification and does not really adequately explain how positive and negative expressions actually work in Finnish.

...

According to the paper I read, the fact that you can also answer “Kyllä” or “Joo” or something like that to such questions is foreign (Indo-European) influence, trying to shoehorn Finnish conversations into a foreign mold, not the “original” Finnish way of expressing things.

This could also explain why the negative word ei is actually a verb in Finnish... even conjugated in personal forms.

What about the word kyllä, then? When used in other contexts than answering simple questions, It’s more of an intensifier than a straight equivalent of “yes”. You could think of it being something of an equivalent of words such as “certainly”, “positively”, “definitely”, “actually”, “for sure” or “..., really”, maybe even “truly”, or “after all”.

That's interesting. Would you be able to find a link to that paper?

This would explain the verb kyllästää with all its related terms.

[BoxerDanc]

Jukka:
Hän ei kyllä voi juosta ensi viikon kilpailussa.

My guess would be:
He/she definitely can't run in the next week's race.

BTW thanks for replies, everyone. And Jukka, kielikoulu wouldn't be what it is without you. You should consider writing a book about Finnish grammar.

[Jukka Aho]

That's interesting. Would you be able to find a link to that paper?

Maybe with some luck and Google trickery but I wouldn’t count on that. I stumbled upon that paper a couple of years ago. Come to think of it, it might even have been a blog post or some little article published by Kotus. I never bookmarked or saved it.

[Jukka Aho]

Jukka:
Hän ei kyllä voi juosta ensi viikon kilpailussa.

My guess would be:
He/she definitely can't run in the next week's race.

Yes, something like that. It could also be translated as:

“He really can't run in the next week's race.” (He will not be able to, in my mind.)

Or depending on the context and emphasis, even:

Hän ei kyllä voi juosta ensi viikon kilpailussa!
“He can't (musn’t) possibly run in the next week's race!” (In my mind, he’s not eligible to run. He just can’t participate! It would be cheating or a breach of his contract or it’s impossible for some other reason.)

In any case, the speaker is emphatically of the opinion / assured that the discussed runner is not going to be able to participate in the next week’s competition.

And Jukka, kielikoulu wouldn't be what it is without you. You should consider writing a book about Finnish grammar.

Hey, thanks. I wouldn’t dare to... the actual linguists and grammar-nazis-with-degrees would tear me to shreds. ;)