Mies ampui vaimonsa kännykän haulikolla

[Rob A.]

For some reason, I can’t view the inline image in the original thread-starter post any longer. (A hotlinking restriction?) However, a normal link to it would still appear to work.

Continuing on the same theme:

Jos ”krokotiili hyökkäsi kahden tyttärensä kanssa uimassa olleen miehen kimppuun”, onko a) krokotiililla 2 tytärtä b) miehellä 2 tytärtä, c) miehellä 1 tytär, jonka kanssa olivat kahdestaan uimassa, d) kahdella miehellä 1 yhteinen tytär?

I would interpret this to mean:

"A crocodile attacked a man who was swimming with his two daughters."

Krokotiili= clearly the subject in the nominative singular...the "doer" of the action...
hyökkäsi...kimppuun= a verbal phrase meaning: "attacked someone/something"...
...in this instance the object could theoretically be either...miehen in the genitive singular which this verbal phrase requires...or ....kahden tyttärensä kanssa uimassa olleen ......meaning: "...with his/her two daughters was swimming..."... which would suggest some convoluted meaning like: "A crocodile attacked with its/his/her two daughters a man who was swimming."

But, really, I think the noun closest to kimpuun ...that is, miehen, has to be the "thing" that was attacked...I don't think kahden could modify miehen because it is located too far away in the sentence...so that would eliminate "possibility (d)"....

I can't quite figure out how to eliminate "possibility (c)".... this would require interpreting kahden as a noun and as the object of the attack...and ...tyttärensä kanssa uimassa olleen miehen would be interpreted as: "a-with-his-daughter-who-was-swimming-man..." Hmmm...I'm getting lost...

I can't eliminate "possibility (a)" grammatically ...but general knowledge and context would have to suggest that crocodiles don't swim with their daughters....and even if they did: 1) how would you know they are female?....and 2) why would it be relevant?...Crocodiles are crocodiles...no one ever cares whether they are: 1) male or female; or, 2) a family group or not....

[AldenG]

I don't think kahden could modify miehen because it is located too far away in the sentence.

I would say that you come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

Suppose it were saying "two men who had slipped and fallen into the water." If you stick to the same kind of construction using lipsahtaneen and pudonneen to avoid the relative pronoun and relative clause, then whatever way you describe any arbitrarily complex set of circumstances, the kahden still has to come immediately after hyökkäsi -- before the detailed explanation -- and miehen kimppuun still has to come at the end of the whole mess.

I know you'll be surprised and disappointed to hear that I can't give you a "why." But (unless some radical alternative is slipping my mind) that's the way it works.

[Rob A.]

I don't think kahden could modify miehen because it is located too far away in the sentence.

I would say that you come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

... as usual...

I probably didn't explain myself that well....I think the postposition kanssa is the reason. kahden could probably stand on its own as a noun, but with kanssa between it and the noun, miehen, if kahden were interpeted as modifying something it would have to be a noun before kanssa.... Oh well...something like that, anyway....

Suppose it were saying "two men who had slipped and fallen into the water." If you stick to the same kind of construction using lipsahtaneen and pudonneen to avoid the relative pronoun and relative clause, then whatever way you describe any arbitrarily complex set of circumstances, the kahden still has to come immediately after hyökkäsi -- before the detailed explanation -- and miehen kimppuun still has to come at the end of the whole mess.

Good explanation.... these long adjective strings are definitely one of the tougher things to wrap one's mind around when learning this language...

I know you'll be surprised and disappointed to hear that I can't give you a "why." But (unless some radical alternative is slipping my mind) that's the way it works.

Who me?!? Wanting to know why?...Never!! And you're starting to sound just like a native speaker..."I can't tell you why, that's just the way it is!!"... A good sign I would say...approaching native fluency....

[j.petsku]

I can't eliminate "possibility (a)" grammatically ...but general knowledge and context would have to suggest that crocodiles don't swim with their daughters....and even if they did: 1) how would you know they are female?....and 2) why would it be relevant?...Crocodiles are crocodiles...no one ever cares whether they are: 1) male or female; or, 2) a family group or not....

So what if it was:
"Nainen hyökkäsi kahden tyttärensä kanssa uimassa olleen miehen kimppuun."

Is there one correct interpretation?

And if not, would this be a possible fifth interpretation?
e) A woman attacked two men who were swimming together with her daughter.

(I edited out "hullu" since she wouldn't necessarily have to be crazy in this instance.)

[Rob A.]

I can't eliminate "possibility (a)" grammatically ...but general knowledge and context would have to suggest that crocodiles don't swim with their daughters....and even if they did: 1) how would you know they are female?....and 2) why would it be relevant?...Crocodiles are crocodiles...no one ever cares whether they are: 1) male or female; or, 2) a family group or not....

So what if it was:
"Hullu nainen hyökkäsi kahden tyttärensä kanssa uimassa olleen miehen kimppuun."

Is there one correct interpretation?

Good one...

I don't have an answer, but I suspect that the sentence might have to be written in a different way to avoid an unintended interpretation....

1. "A mad woman attacked, with her two daughters, a man who was swimming."... Sounds good to me...??

2. "A mad woman attacked a man who was swimming with his two daughters>'...Seems okay...???h

3. "A mad woman attacked together [kahden=kahdestaan], a man who was swimming with his daughter."...I think this might be OK, if kahden really is the same as kahdestaan..

4. "A mad woman attacked both men who were swimming with their (one) daughter." ...I suppose it could be the step-daughter of one of them....though I'm not sure that miehen should be in the genitive singular in such an instance...??

[Aside: I did notice something about partitive use in these sentences......kahden tyttärensä kanssa ...... It seems that even though the phrase would be kaksi tytärtä without kanssa...it stays singular when both words are required to put in the genitive case.... Have I interpreted this correctly???...Probably obvious to a native speaker ... ]