paarmoja

[Satish]

Rob A. talks about this in an other thread but the issue was too interesting on its own, so a new thread...

Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia, joista Suomessa 37.....Literally ...."Horse-fly [partitive plural] is in-world 2,500 species [partitive plural...this word is always plural in English], which-from [elative plural] in-Finland (is) 37."

This is an example of that grammatical construction known as the existential sentence.... where "paarmoja" appears to be the subject of the sentence, but is actually part of the direct object ...I think it's part of lthe direct object...??? The typical English way of say this would be:

"There are 2,500 species of horse-fly in the world, of which 37 are in Finland."

For me, the subject of the sentence is 2 500 with lajia and paarmoja being post modifiers. I wondered why paarmoja is put in the subject position and I came across this in my notes (Sorry, i don't have the exact reference):

The subject may occur in initial position, but only when it is in the partitive. Note that this form does not newly locate something in either space or time, just expresses an “universal truth”.
Vedessä ui kaloja There are fish swimming in the water
Kaloja ui vedessä Fish swim in the water

So my interpretation would be: 2,500 species of horse-fly exist, of which 37 are in Finland.

[Rob A.]

Rob A. talks about this in an other thread but the issue was too interesting on its own, so a new thread...

Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia, joista Suomessa 37.....Literally ...."Horse-fly [partitive plural] is in-world 2,500 species [partitive plural...this word is always plural in English], which-from [elative plural] in-Finland (is) 37."

This is an example of that grammatical construction known as the existential sentence.... where "paarmoja" appears to be the subject of the sentence, but is actually part of the direct object ...I think it's part of lthe direct object...??? The typical English way of say this would be:

"There are 2,500 species of horse-fly in the world, of which 37 are in Finland."

For me, the subject of the sentence is 2 500 with lajia and paarmoja being post modifiers. I wondered why paarmoja is put in the subject position and I came across this in my notes (Sorry, i don't have the exact reference):

The subject may occur in initial position, but only when it is in the partitive. Note that this form does not newly locate something in either space or time, just expresses an “universal truth”.
Vedessä ui kaloja There are fish swimming in the water
Kaloja ui vedessä Fish swim in the water

So my interpretation would be: 2,500 species of horse-fly exist, of which 37 are in Finland.

I've been looking around the 'net and have found a few interesting things....but, as usual, the initial outcome of this has been confusion... First confusion, then clarity...seems to be the way it has to be....

Suomen kieli ulkomaalaisille makes these two unequivocal statements:

1. The strong preference in English for SUBJECT to come before the VERB means that English puts the adverbial aspect at the end, whereas Finnish ALWAYS puts the adverbial place first when the sentence is introducing a new subject in an existential clause. So although Finnish is often more relaxed than English about word order, the existential clause word order is always ADVERB-VERB-SUBJECT.

2. English moves the verb according to the subject (IS or THERE ARE according to number). Finnish existential sentences the verb is ALWAYS IN THE THIRD PERSON SINGULAR even when there is more than one SUBJECT.

...So....here we have: Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia...[lajia despite what I might have said earlier is partitive singular]..., joista Suomessa 37. ...clearly we have something else going on here....and I found this very densely written paper by a Japanese linguist, which suggests that paarmoja is actually the subject of this sentence... it would be, according to him, a "quantifying" sentence....

At the moment, I'm thinking for our example to be an existential sentence, it would have to be written this way:

Maailmassa on 2 500 paarman (or maybe paarmojen...???) lajia, joista Suomessa 37.

Here is another "quantifying" sentence from this paper....:

Vettä on kaksi metriä. compared to: Vesi on lämmintä.

....in both cases the first word in the sentence is the subject...

Pihalla leikkii lapsia. compared to Lapset leikkivät pihalla.
....in this case the first sentence is an existential sentence, and the second, a standard definite quantity sentence... The author says that lapsia...an "indefinite" partitive noun is the subject....this sentence seems to perfectly fit the requirements of an existential sentence....

[Edit: Sorry.... ....I'm wrong again.... "Pihalla leikki lapsia.", is NOT an existential sentence... "lapsia" is the subject and is in the partitive because it refers to an indefinite number....an example of an existential sentence would be: "Pihalla on lapsia."..."There are children in the yard."..... Oh well, it is complicated stuff....]


Finally here's another link....in this paper the author states that there are three types of existential sentence; locative, possessive, and part-whole (whatever this means...)

Locative is what I've been discussing above. An example of a possessive existential sentence would be, "Minulla on raha (...rahaa)." A part-whole existential sentence would be, "Pohjois-Kanadassa on lyhyet kesät." ....I'm still working on understanding what he is getting at with this last example....

[Edit: I'm still not sure that I fully understand the distinction the last author is trying to make... ....It seems to me both the "possessive" and the "part-whole" existential sentence could be viewed as a slight variation on the "locative" existential sentence.... "Minulla" is still a sort of "location", and "in-Northern Canada" could easily have been "at-Northern Canada", if Finnish were written that way....in other words there isn't always a material difference between being "in" a location and being "at" a location.....]

[Rob A.]

So it seems, in the end, I didn't quite respond to your suggestion.... I would say in the sentence as it was written, paarmoja is the subject and it is in the plural partitive form.

I'm not sure I can articulate the reason...I've gone through the paper by the Japanese linguist and I can barely follow the reasoning....

To make "practical" sense of this, I think it underlies the importance of having a good understanding of the application of the partitive case....with its fundamental rationale ...distinguishing between "completeness" and "incompleteness"....including the requirement that numbers must always be followed by a singular partitive.... Eventually, then, the proper use of partitive nouns...singular or plural, will be as it is with native speakers.... "knowing" when to use it and when not to...but, of course, not being able to explain why....

And here are some more examples:

1. Huoneita on kaikkiaan kolmekymmentä. ...the subject is huoneita and it must be in the partitive plural...this translates as: "Rooms are thirty in all."

2. *On kaikkiaan kolmekymmentä huoneita.....This is grammatically INCORRECT..the partitive must be singular after a number... the correct version follows....

3. On kaikkiaan kolmekymmentä huonetta.....this is directly equivalent to the English: "There are thirty rooms in all."


[Aside: ....and I see that the word, paarma is a very old Finno-Ugric word.... It seems that the "misery" of horseflies has been part of Finnish culture from time immemorial.... ]

[garoowood]

I was just about to ask things related to this topic and I saw this thread

Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia, joista Suomessa 37...
There are 2500 kinds of horsefly, from which 37 are in Finland.

I think it is called quantifier clauses, but it is hard to figure out the syntax. It says in "A grammar book of Finnish" that "The subject is always in the norminative case if: 1.there is an object in the clause; 2.there is a predicative in the clause".
Examples:
Meitä oli kolme.
This seems to be the way to express how many are we, and it is the only way I know.
Autoja oli pari kolme.
Kahvia oli liian vähän. (Kahvi on kuumaa.)
I would say Kahvi oli liian vähän, and can't point out the difference.

Subject can be in partitive case in: existential, possessive and change+result clauses.
Examples:
Pöydällä on kirjoja.
Minulla on palijon rahaa.
Heistä tulee lääkäreitä.

Now I wonder if "paarmoja", in partitive case, can really be considered as the subject in qualifier clauses.

Pihalla leikki lapsia. I think it is a typical existential clause otherwise partitive can not be considered as subject(Obvious it is not a quantifier clause).

My own question:
Kymmenet ihmiset marssivat kadulla. Easy to fingure out the syntax.
Onnettomudessa loukkaantui kymmeniä ihmisiä. Is "kymmeniä ihmisiä" the subject? Can I consider it as a existential clause? (Can I say: Kymmenet ihmiset loukkaantuivat onnettomudessa?)

[Jukka Aho]

Kahvia oli liian vähän. (Kahvi on kuumaa.)
I would say Kahvi oli liian vähän, and can't point out the difference.

“X:ää on liian vähän.” – the X is in the partitive if you’re describing the supply of something. The partitive is the “of” in “supply of something”.

Kahvia on enää vain vähän jäljellä.
Bensaa on liian vähän.
Hyttysiä on aivan liian paljon!
Portaita on liian monta, en jaksa kiivetä huipulle.
Taistelukuntoisia miehiä on vain muutama.
Panoksia on enää yksi.
Maalia on kolme litraa.
Vettä ei ole riittävästi kaikille.
Olutta ei voi olla liikaa.

“Another hallmark of an existential clause is it allowing a partitive subject. When an existential subject is used in a divisible sense it usually occurs in the partitive: Lasissa on maitoa. (see the examples a–b as well). In such case, the partitive subject is interpreted as being quantitatively indefinite. (» § 1421).” (VISK § 893)

“X on liian vähän.” – the X is in the nominative if you’re evaluating the worth or value of something as a whole.

(Yksi) kahvi[kupillinen] on liian vähän. Haluan palkkioksi myös pullaa!
Satanen on liian paljon. Kaksikymppinen riittää. (Talking about money.)

“A nominative NP referring to a divisible concept is interpreted as meaning a specific portion of the matter or a group, which creates a definite interpretation: Tässä on maitosi.” (VISK § 893)

My own question:
Onnettomudessa loukkaantui kymmeniä ihmisiä. Is "kymmeniä ihmisiä" the subject? Can I consider it as a existential clause?

Yes. Loukkaantua is an intransitive verb. “Intransitive verbs can appear with a partitive subject in existential clauses.” (VISK § 459. See § 910 and § 919 as well.)

(Can I say: Kymmenet ihmiset loukkaantuivat onnettomudessa?)

Yep.

[garoowood]

Thx Jukka

Can I say:
Autoja on kadulla.
Pienijä lapsija on pihalla.
Although:
Kadulla on autoja.
Pihalla on pienijä lapsija. sound better.

I found this one from book:
Ihmisiä kuolee joka päivä.
Syntyi vaikeuksia.
Maybe I can say:Joka päivä kuolee ihmisiä. and Vaikeuksia syntyi.
It seems that except existential, possessive and change+result clauses. other clauses can take partitive as subject as long as the verb is intransitive?

Iso suomen kielioppi is really a good tool but it's completely written in Finnish, awesome for me! I guess it is meant for Finns to learn grammar?

[Jukka Aho]

Can I say:
Autoja on kadulla.

Yes.

Pienijä lapsija on pihalla.[/i]

Yes. Drop the j’s, though.

Although:
Kadulla on autoja.
Pihalla on pienijä lapsija. sound better.

Those are more neutral. The forms which begin with the subject are used for a different kind of emphasis. For example,

Autoja on yleensä kadulla.
“Cars are normally/generally/usually found in the street(s).”

Kadulla on yleensä autoja.
“In the street, you can normally/generally/usually find [some] cars.”

I found this one from book:
Ihmisiä kuolee joka päivä.
Syntyi vaikeuksia.
Maybe I can say:Joka päivä kuolee ihmisiä. and Vaikeuksia syntyi.

Yes.

It seems that except existential, possessive and change+result clauses. other clauses can take partitive as subject as long as the verb is intransitive?

Do you have some particular examples in mind?

Iso suomen kielioppi is really a good tool but it's completely written in Finnish, awesome for me! I guess it is meant for Finns to learn grammar?

It’s a descriptive Finnish grammar conceived as a research project by the Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies of the University of Helsinki and the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. It was originally published in book form but they later made it available online, free of charge. The online version is the 2nd edition with some minor corrections and changes as compared to the book.

Being descriptive in its nature, I believe it aims at recording the current state of modern Finnish rather than giving a presprictive guideline on how to use the language “correctly”. However, they do not go too deep into colloquial language or dialects, so it’s primarily the state of “standard” Finnish they’re describing there.

[garoowood]

Do you have some particular examples in mind?

Well, I thought:

Ihmisiä kuolee joka päivä.
Syntyi vaikeuksia.

do not belong to the group.

[Jukka Aho]

Do you have some particular examples [of non-existential, non-possessive and non-change+result clauses using a partitive subject] in mind?

Well, I thought:

Ihmisiä kuolee joka päivä.
Syntyi vaikeuksia.

do not belong to the group.

VISK lists “prototypical” and “alternative” features of existential clauses in table 141 (§ 893).

Below that table, they characterize “alternative” existential sentences as follows: “Prototypical existential clauses use the verb olla, which is by far the most common verb for a clause with a partitive subject in all types of text. Besides the verb olla, an existential clause may also use another intransitive verb, typically existential in its nature – that is: expressing existence or coming to existence – such as tulla[/i], [/i]ilmestyä, aiheutua. The mold [to which existential clauses typically conform] nonetheless allows for clauses where the verb does not express existence or where the subject appears before the verb.”

The same article also states, near the bottom, “Note: The term ‘existential clause’ has originally been used for fixed grammatical structures such as there is in English, det finns in Swedish, es gibt in German and il y a in French. The term was first used by Jespersen (1924: 155). It was introduced to Finnish by Ikola (1954: 226). The Finnish existentical clause cannot be defined as clearly as the aforementioned structures in other languages, which feature what can be described as a grammatical subject. Penttilä (1962: 623–629) describes it in a verb-centric way; Ikola puts emphasis on the typical form and structure of the clause. Tiainen (1997) has compiled a summary of the discussion about [Finnish] existential clauses.”

So this leaves me thinking the difference between existential clauses and “normal” intransitive clauses featuring a partitive subject might be somewhat vague in Finnish.

[Rob A.]

....
So this leaves me thinking the difference between existential clauses and “normal” intransitive clauses featuring a partitive subject might be somewhat vague in Finnish.

....and that, I think, is the best view to take.... I've read through the paper by Sakuma again... re-reading improves its understanding... ...And I'll re-read it once again before I respond fully.

The intent of his paper is to offer suggestions as to the grammatical significance of sentence-initial partitive nouns. He advises that there is still controversy among linguists on how to view these things. The existential sentence in Finnish is not as clear as in some other languages.

It seems though that partitive-initial sentences have either certain kinds of qualifying adjectives or are quantified by a numeric expression.... We are also into the realm of collective nouns... He also cautions that not all initial nouns in the partitive can be viewed as the subject...some are the object of the sentence...

[Aside: For those who are still reading this and are "turned off" by all this "minutiae" ...I think the "take-away" message is that the partitive is a very important case to understand when learning Finnish....making the distinction between "completeness" and "incompleteness" is critical to being properly understood.... Native speakers absorb this early; adult learners have to ...one way or another...get this into their thinking....]

Anyway, more later...

[Rob A.]

I was just about to ask things related to this topic and I saw this thread

Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia, joista Suomessa 37...
There are 2500 kinds of horsefly, from which 37 are in Finland.

I think it is called quantifier clauses, but it is hard to figure out the syntax. It says in "A grammar book of Finnish" that "The subject is always in the norminative case if: 1.there is an object in the clause; 2.there is a predicative in the clause".
Examples:
Meitä oli kolme.
This seems to be the way to express how many are we, and it is the only way I know.
Autoja oli pari kolme.
Kahvia oli liian vähän. (Kahvi on kuumaa.)
I would say Kahvi oli liian vähän, and can't point out the difference.

Subject can be in partitive case in: existential, possessive and change+result clauses.
Examples:
Pöydällä on kirjoja.
Minulla on palijon rahaa.
Heistä tulee lääkäreitä.

Now I wonder if "paarmoja", in partitive case, can really be considered as the subject in qualifier clauses.

Pihalla leikki lapsia. I think it is a typical existential clause otherwise partitive can not be considered as subject(Obvious it is not a quantifier clause).

My own question:
Kymmenet ihmiset marssivat kadulla. Easy to fingure out the syntax.
Onnettomudessa loukkaantui kymmeniä ihmisiä. Is "kymmeniä ihmisiä" the subject? Can I consider it as a existential clause? (Can I say: Kymmenet ihmiset loukkaantuivat onnettomudessa?)

I've read through Sakuma's paper for the third time....... this paper is aimed at his fellow linguists, but I think "amateurs" can get something out of it if they are patient and work their way through it slowly and carefully.... Some of these concepts are not fully agrreed on by grammarians, though.

[Aside: I think it's useful to reflect on the idea that languages are not created by grammarians and linguists....languages are created over the eons by the users of the language. They develop following essentially a logical and "cause and effect" approach.... If things are said in certain ways there will be "communication", if not, then, there will be "confusion". This process is fine-tuned over the centuries, resulting in a subtle and complex communication "tool"..... grammarians and linguists, then come along and analyze the result and develop the various "rules of grammar"....]

Sakuma, in his paper, is offering explanations regarding the nature of partitive-initial sentences. Essentially, he is saying that if you are dealing with certain kinds of post-verbal adjectives, and with quantifying expressions, then you can expect to see sentence-initial partitive nouns.... The key seems to be that such nouns must have an indefinite sense about them.... Also, not all partitive-initial nouns can be viewed as the subject....some depending on the other elements in the sentence will be an object....

And, yes, these types of sentences are called "quantifying" ....kvanttorilause....

And, no, I don't think Pihalla leikki lapsia., can be viewed as an existential sentence... Such sentences seem to require a "there are..." quality to them...certainly it could be changed into one....Pihalla on leikkiviä lapsia. [corrected]...???...I hope I haven't hit some other grammatical pitfall with this example.... ...maybe Jukka can advise....

[Rob A.]

I found this interesting paper discussing existential sentences:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Increment ... 0102656424

They are complicated to analyze, though the key features seem to be a locational element, a "theme" in the partitive and a 3rd person singular verb. Apparently the verb can be other than olla, but this verbs will have a "state of being" sense to them...and, as well, a somewhat muted sense ot them

So it seems:

Pihalla leikki lapsia, in my previous post, is an existential sentence.

Here is a more complicated set:

1. Asiakkaat istuivat huonekaluliikkeen sohvilla.
..."The customers sat/were sitting on the sofas of the furniture
store."'

2. Asiakkaita istui huonekaluliikkeen sohvilla.
..."There were customers sitting on the sofas of the furniture
store."

Do these English translations capture the proper sense of the Finnish sentences? To me the first sentence is quite direct and "activity" oriented. I have the idea that the customers are checking out the sofas, and that a time element is implied....moving around over time from sofa to sofa. ... which is how the authors of the paper seem to interpret it.

The second sentence is much more vague and indefinite. You have a mental image of some non-specific customers scattered around on the sofas. And as the paper says this seems to be written from an external perspective...the customers are the "theme" rather than the subject.....and it seems to be a "snapshot" with no ongoing activity, just simply the state of things at that moment. ...and this because the partitive and a fixed 3rd person singular verb have been used....

I curious if native speakers would see these two sentences this way....????

[Upphew]

1. Asiakkaat istuivat huonekaluliikkeen sohvilla.
..."The customers sat/were sitting on the sofas of the furniture
store."'

2. Asiakkaita istui huonekaluliikkeen sohvilla.
..."There were customers sitting on the sofas of the furniture
store."

Do these English translations capture the proper sense of the Finnish sentences? To me the first sentence is quite direct and "activity" oriented. I have the idea that the customers are checking out the sofas, and that a time element is implied....moving around over time from sofa to sofa. ... which is how the authors of the paper seem to interpret it.

The second sentence is much more vague and indefinite. You have a mental image of some non-specific customers scattered around on the sofas. And as the paper says this seems to be written from an external perspective...the customers are the "theme" rather than the subject.....and it seems to be a "snapshot" with no ongoing activity, just simply the state of things at that moment. ...and this because the partitive and a fixed 3rd person singular verb have been used....

I curious if native speakers would see these two sentences this way....????

I'd agree with the translations, except the first one I understand as All the customers... and thus there were no moving nor much checking. They were sitting when the earthquake hit or they sat while the company's CEO gave talk or something like that.

[Rob A.]

Thanks

I also found this in the same paper....

1. Poika on pihalla....the simple direct statement.
..."The boy is in the yard."

Could this be interpeted as: "A boy...."? And if not, what would have to be written?

2. Pihalla on poika.....This, the authors claim, is an existential sentence and although Finnish is relatively free with word order, this sentence would be interpreted as:
..."There is a boy in the yard."
Is this the "default" interpretation?

They also state in the text following, that negative statements would actually make this existential construction clearer....

Poika ei ole pihalla.
and Pihalla ei ole poikaa.

I suppose the logical question I should ask is if, Pihalla ei ole poika, is also grammatically correct. And if so, I assume it would simply be a declarative sentence emphasizing the yard...??

Finally, here is a sentence that confuses me even more....apparently it is an existential sentence:

Utta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle nopeasti.

Despite what the paper says I think you would have to interpret this as:
..."There quickly grew a new forest in the cleared space."

...apparently using the allative case ending ...tilalle... is significant, and that somehow this implies that the verb ....kasvoi is about coming into existence, rather than actually growing in an incremental way....????

If I understand this properly, then the direct statement would have to be:
Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti....in other words, tilalla in the adessive case....

Also the paper does seem to have a lot of typos ...though I think this might not be the fault of the author...probably just the way it was transcribed into "free library"...

[Upphew]

1. Poika on pihalla....the simple direct statement.
..."The boy is in the yard."

Could this be interpeted as: "A boy...."? And if not, what would have to be written?

Not really. You would use Pihalla on poika, if you want to imply a boy, not the boy/son.
Caveat, I just write from my first impression and won't necessarily think the sentence/situation from all the angles, so there might be situations where it would be interpreted differently.

2. Pihalla on poika.....This, the authors claim, is an existential sentence and although Finnish is relatively free with word order, this sentence would be interpreted as:
..."There is a boy in the yard."
Is this the "default" interpretation?

Yes, that would be the default. You look outside and see a boy: "Pihalla on poika", you watch him to lick the metal railing and declare: "Poika on ihan pihalla!"

They also state in the text following, that negative statements would actually make this existential construction clearer....

Poika ei ole pihalla.
and Pihalla ei ole poikaa.

I suppose the logical question I should ask is if, Pihalla ei ole poika, is also grammatically correct. And if so, I assume it would simply be a declarative sentence emphasizing the yard...??

Pihalla ei ole poika isn't enoug by itself, Pihalla ei ole poika vaan X, X being something you thought to be a boy is OK.

Finally, here is a sentence that confuses me even more....apparently it is an existential sentence:

Utta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle nopeasti.

Despite what the paper says I think you would have to interpret this as:
..."There quickly grew a new forest in the cleared space."

...apparently using the allative case ending ...tilalle... is significant, and that somehow this implies that the verb ....kasvoi is about coming into existence, rather than actually growing in an incremental way....????

Well, if you think about it, once you cut all the trees there isn't forest anymore. After 10 years you come back and see that on the same place there grows something you can already call trees. Thus new forest came into existence, there was nothing gradual about that, first: no forest, next: forest. New forest grew instead of the old one, and it did it fast!

If I understand this properly, then the direct statement would have to be:
Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti....in other words, tilalla in the adessive case....

You could understand that as New forest grew fast at the farm of the beaten one. Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun paikalla nopeasti. Now the forest grew fast at the place where some other forest were cut down.