paarmoja

[Rob A.]

Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle is not about a hakattu tila into which new growth appears.

Perhaps the sentence becomes clearer if you add a metsän thus: Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun metsän tilalle. ( Though my ear wants to hear mettän )

So tilalle here means "into the place of, to replace, as a replacement for". It's part of the phrase jonkin tilalle.

Yes...thanks.... I understand....this is a rather subtle example of an existential sentence.... And apparently the reason the allative case is used is because the "theme"...the new forest appears here by coming into EXISTENCE here, not actively moving to the location from somewhere else.

"What is exceptional in these examples is that their locative modifiers are in the directional allative 'to' case rather than the static inessive of the earlier examples. Indeed, the static cases ('in', 'at') would not be appropriate in such examples. The allative case generally designates a goal, a location entered by a moving entity, but since (10) and (11) are existential sentences, the directionality of the allative also needs to be understood in the existential sense. The examples say that the subject APPEARS in the location by coming into existence there, not by transition from another place. In these examples the viewpoint clearly remains within the location in the sense of Ikola (1954). We do not mentally follow an entity into a location but fix our viewpoint in the location first and only then encounter the entity coming into existence there. "

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

Here is another complicated example from the same paper:

1. Uudet tietokoneohjelmat syntyvat firmassamme niin nopeasti, etta kilpailijoita huolestuttaa.
"New computer programs are produced so quickly in our firm that our competitors are getting worried."

...this is a straightforward statement of fact....

2. Uusia tietokoneohjelmia syntyy firmassamme niin nopeasti, etta kilpailijoita huolestuttaa.
"New computer programs are [being] produced so quickly in our
firm that our competitors are getting worried."

....this is the existential sentence....and I can see that it is "classic"...there is a decidedly different nuance of meaning bewteen the two sentences... the first is a direct, specific statement without a lot of subtlety... the second is more "nuanced", discussing computer programs in general and, essentially, is a general comment on the state of things.

I think the clues for the native speaker that this is an existential sentence ...[equivalent to ..."there are..."/"there is..." statements in English]...are the use of the plural partitive for the "subject"/"theme", the use of the third person singular verb even though the "subject"/"theme" is plural, and the presence of the locative element....

[AldenG]

Thanks to your reply, I believe I'm seeing more of the overall context of the discussion now.

But I think that in the paragraph you italicized, the author either chose the example with tilalle poorly to illustrate his point or else is reading too much into the choice of the allative. I feel certain that tilalle was used in the example sentence not to convey any nuance of meaning relative to tilalla but simply due to the collision of two strongly idiomatic constructions -- of which the one with tilalle is IMO the more strongly idiomatic (or formulaic, at least).

If King Kong and Godzilla had a baby together -- and I'm confident others will support me on this-- it would surely have both a gorilla chest and a lizard tail. That's just the way these things work.

Similarly, uusi vanhan tilalle (roughly) is such a fixed construct that it's not going to give up its allative just because it spends the night with some cute existential sentence, no matter how many partitive Gauloises he might ply her with.

[AldenG]

If I understand "locative element" correctly, I wouldn't agree that hakatun tilalle is a locative element in the way that firmassamme is. Rather, sen tilalle is more adverbial in that it doesn't refer to the geographical location but to absence versus presence. It describes how or why, loosely, the new growth appeared. It's the nature of sen tilalle that it says how to interpret the new replacement rather than designating exactly where it appeared. That can be heard ambiguously in this example because a forest does occupy a spot and physical space. But _____:n tilalle will always be heard to function as in Tuli uusi sortaja vanhan tilalle, where there's no particular location, merely an existential role. As such, it shouldn't be considered (re-)inflectable at all. It's much like the ordinary use of miksi in that respect.

[Rob A.]

Thanks to your reply, I believe I'm seeing more of the overall context of the discussion now.

But I think that in the paragraph you italicized, the author either chose the example with tilalle poorly to illustrate his point or else is reading too much into the choice of the allative. I feel certain that tilalle was used in the example sentence not to convey any nuance of meaning relative to tilalla but simply due to the collision of two strongly idiomatic constructions -- of which the one with tilalle is IMO the more strongly idiomatic (or formulaic, at least).

If King Kong and Godzilla had a baby together -- and I'm confident others will support me on this-- it would surely have both a gorilla chest and a lizard tail. That's just the way these things work.

Similarly, uusi vanhan tilalle (roughly) is such a fixed construct that it's not going to give up its allative just because it spends the night with some cute existential sentence, no matter how many partitive Gauloises he might ply her with.

Nice allegory...you do have a way with words....

Though I think the point the author is trying to make is that existential sentences are intended to convey a static state of being. The allative case is a "movement" case and you would typically expect to encounter it with "action" verbs. The locative case more typically associated with an existential statement is the static inessive case.

Now, kasvoi is more usually thought of as an action verb... the "activity of gowing". But that is not how it is being used in this instance. The verb has a "softened" sense to it...the statement is not really focussed on the "gowing", but rather on the "appearing" of the new forest..., This would, I think, be "communicated" by the combination of a partitive "subject"/"theme" and a third person singular verb, even when the "theme" is more clearly plural that it is here.

And so although the allative has this movement sense to it, that is probably because as you say, "...(it) is such a fixed construct that it's not going to give up its allative just because it spends the night with some cute existential sentence, no matter how many partitive Gauloises he might ply her with." ....


I think you will probably agree that if the verb were, "olla"..."on"...you could only have this construction:

Utta metsää on hakatun tilassa.....a nice "static" existential sentence with an inessive locative element...
"There is a new forest in the cleared place."

....and the manner adverb, nopeasti, has to go, it simply is not compatible with the verb, olla..... So maybe it makes more sense to think that although the verb, kasvoi, is being used "statically".....it isn't going to be "push around" totally and demands that the allative remains ....

Well, maybe I'm still missing a few things....and this is all good pracitce for me ...

[Jukka Aho]

I think you will probably agree that if the verb were, "olla"..."on"...you could only have this construction:

Utta metsää on hakatun tilassa.....a nice "static" existential sentence with an inessive locative element...
"There is a new forest in the cleared place."

I’ve lost track on what’s the original issue we’re trying to resolve here, but “Uutta metsää on hakatun tilassa” doesn’t sound right. It’s like saying “There’s new forest (confined/packed/jammed) in the space/volume occupied by the cut forest.” The inessive triggers a literal interpretation of the word tila.

A more idiomatic way to express this idea:

Uutta metsää on hakatun tilalla.

or maybe rather:

Hakatun tilalla on uutta metsää.

jokin on jonkin tilassa = something is (with)in the space of something else; inside the volume of something else (a physical entity; the “space” and “volume” taken as physical properties – somewhat speculative/hypothethical as this kind of phrasing – incorporating the entity in the genitive – isn’t really normally used in the wild... I’d say.)

jokin on jonkin tilalla = something is in place of something else (possibly on purpose, functioning as a replacement, or just misplaced... but primarily in the abstract “replacement” sense)

jokin tulee/menee/kasvaa/laitetaan jonkin tilalle = something comes/goes/grows/is placed or assigned to replace something else; to take its former place, to take on its former role, to stand in for the entity that formerly used to be there (again, primarily in the abstract “replacement” sense.)

....and the manner adverb, nopeasti, has to go, it simply is not compatible with the verb, olla.....

Yes, you’re correct here. You can’t ”just be” or exist “quickly”, it doesn’t make sense.

[Rob A.]

I think you will probably agree that if the verb were, "olla"..."on"...you could only have this construction:

Utta metsää on hakatun tilassa.....a nice "static" existential sentence with an inessive locative element...
"There is a new forest in the cleared place."

I’ve lost track on what’s the original issue we’re trying to resolve here, but “Uutta metsää on hakatun tilassa” doesn’t sound right. It’s like saying “There’s new forest (confined/packed/jammed) in the space/volume occupied by the cut forest.” The inessive triggers a literal interpretation of the word tila.

A more idiomatic way to express this idea:

Uutta metsää on hakatun tilalla....

Yes...I follow this....tila has two dimensional sense to it, rather than three dimensional as would typically be implied by the inessive case.... It's hard to remember everything....like "trying to walk and chew gum at the same time".... Yritin kävellä jauhaen samalla purukumia.....well...something like that...

Here's a better example, I think:

Uusia mattoja on talossa./ Uusia mattoja on lattialla.
"There are new carpets in the house."/ "There are new carpets on the floor."

Or, Pihalla leikkii lapsia./ Talossa leikkii lapsia.

[Jukka Aho]

Yes...I follow this....tila has two dimensional sense to it, rather than three dimensional as would typically be implied by the inessive case....

You could say...

Tässä tilassa kaikuu.

...where tila would be interpreted as being a confined space of some sort. Usually a room in a house but maybe also a cave, a length of a tunnel, and open hallway or stairway, or something similar.

An interior designer could say:

Tässä tilassa päädyimme käyttämään paljon keltaista väriä, mikä antoi sille pirteän yleisilmeen. (päätyä tekemään jotain = to end up doing something; usually as a result of some kind of a thinking process and a final decision)

Using the word tila perhaps sounds a bit more “professional” than the mundane word huone... or sometimes it is actually called for when it’s an architecturally complex open-plan space possibly spanning multiple stories and featuring various wings, corners, and corridors – and when it can’t really be defined in terms of being “just a room”. Such as a lobby in a large commercial or public building.

Some related expressions:

Vuokrataan hallitilaa. (See: teollisuushalli.)

Esitys alkaa kello kuusi. Väliajalla kahvitarjoilu aulatilassa. Tervetuloa!

Makuuhuoneessa on paljon kaappitilaa.

Varastossa on aivan liian vähän hyllytilaa.

Yrityksen varastotilat paloivat maan tasalle.

Petrin mielestä talon pesutilat ovat ahtaat.

Yritin kävellä jauhaen samalla purukumia.
Uusia mattoja on talossa./ Uusia mattoja on lattialla.
Pihalla leikkii lapsia./ Talossa leikkii lapsia.

Those are all correct. :)

[AldenG]

On further reflection, I think I was ignoring the rection of the verbs in question, or if not the formal grammatical rection then at least the logic of the sentence. I described sen tilalle as non-re-inflectable but (as implied by some of Jukka's examples) that's not entirely true. Of course tila itself, when you break it out of that "molecule," is always inflectable, but even the idiomatic special meaning of _____n tilalle can also exist in ______n tilalla -- just not in the sentence originally being discussed, with the verb(s) on offer, because it was a question of growing/coming/becoming rather than being.

Joimme viinin tilalla mehua. Or joimme mehua viinin tilalla.

It's my perception this isn't nearly as common a form of ____n tilall_, but that would naturally depend on what kind of sentences you're using more often. I can't think of an inevitable rectional argument for why it needs to be tilalla and not tilalle. That is, I can as easily concoct arguments for as against. I don't know how one would choose without knowing in advance. The juice is moving, just not in the same sense as the new forest. And if it were ostaa, you'd say Ostimme mehua viinin tilalle after the wine had been stolen from the back of someone's car and the nearest place to buy wine was 200 km from the cottage.

On edit: I asked a second opinion (which maybe I should do more often) and am told, "Proper Finnish would be viinin sijasta."

Followed a moment later by: "But I would probably say viinin tilalla."

(Sija normally connotes position in the sense of location, placement, or rank order.)

I think the alternative using sija illustrates even better the semi-rigidity of these idioms, though. By far the most common with sija is sen sijaan, että (also ____n sijaan), but in the right contexts _____n sijasta is not uncommon. And yet elative is not inherently an obvious choice at all in joimme mehua viinin sijasta. Without knowledge of the idiom, inessive might feel more natural. You could make a sub-rule about elative and say it is sometimes used to show replacement, but I think it is more natural to consider this meaning not to be about elative per se, but only about ____n sijasta in particular (and maybe one or two similar constructs with other words that I may be overlooking in the moment).

[AldenG]

And of course one can always quibble about when ____ til____ is a form of ___n tilalle and when it's just putting some words together to mean something.

It's like the difference betwen "in hospital" (a non-US usage, don't know about Canada) and "in a hospital".

Or (US usage) "John is in the hospital" versus "John is in(side) the hospital refilling the soda machine."

[Rob A.]

And of course one can always quibble about when ____ til____ is a form of ___n tilalle and when it's just putting some words together to mean something.

It's like the difference betwen "in hospital" (a non-US usage, don't know about Canada) and "in a hospital".

Or (US usage) "John is in the hospital" versus "John is in(side) the hospital refilling the soda machine."

Very good example...First, though, it's always best to remember standard Canadian English is a mix of US and British uses...and with many fixed expressions you will probably encounter both.... Most Canadians pronounce "z" as "zed"....but for a significant minority it's "zee'.... Virtually all Canadians pronounce, "missile" as "miss-ill", but "hostile" as "hos-tile"....and so it goes....

[Aside: Don't forget that historically Canada was formed, essentially, by an amalgamation of "Americans" who came north because they didn't want to be independent (UEL's= United Empire Loyalists) from Britain ....and French speaking colonists "abandoned" by France as the Old Regime was in the process of collapsing.... ]

Back to the main point...I would say almost always if you say "John is in hospital." It will certainly be construed as him being in there as a patient. If you say; "John is in the hospital.", it too, will mostly like be construed as, "....as a patient", though other options will be entertained if the context allows. You would never hear, "John is in hospital refilling the soda machine."....

[Rob A.]

Yes...I follow this....tila has two dimensional sense to it, rather than three dimensional as would typically be implied by the inessive case....

You could say...

Tässä tilassa kaikuu.

...where tila would be interpreted as being a confined space of some sort. Usually a room in a house but maybe also a cave, a length of a tunnel, and open hallway or stairway, or something similar.

An interior designer could say:

Tässä tilassa päädyimme käyttämään paljon keltaista väriä, mikä antoi sille pirteän yleisilmeen. (päätyä tekemään jotain = to end up doing something; usually as a result of some kind of a thinking process and a final decision)

Using the word tila perhaps sounds a bit more “professional” than the mundane word huone... or sometimes it is actually called for when it’s an architecturally complex open-plan space possibly spanning multiple stories and featuring various wings, corners, and corridors – and when it can’t really be defined in terms of being “just a room”. Such as a lobby in a large commercial or public building.

Well...I guess that makes it easier for the English speaker...the usage options are almost identical...."space" can have a two dimensional or a three dimensional sense. Context will give you the clue as to whether or not the locative suffix "makes sense" or "sounds weird". Now back to the "new forest" growing quickly "on/to the space" of the "old forest".... With the existential sentence the "coming into existence" is the critical message...and , hence, the allative suffix, "-lle", because as constrained as it might be, there is a "hint" of movement ..

And, with the simple declarative sentence, it is the activity of "growing", and, futhermore, the activity of "growing on the space", hence the adessive.."-lla".....

Of course, English can make all of these distinctions, as well, but the translation to Finnish can be problematic....In English "on" as a preposition typically means "on top of"...similar to "-lla. But the English preposition, "in", is not so easy to interpret. It is typically equivalent to "-ssa", but it can also be used in same sense as "-lla"...only context will make it clear when to use "on" , and when to use "in"....

[Upphew]

You would never hear, "John is in hospital refilling the soda machine."....

But would you hear "Jane is in hospital refilling the milk machines."..?

[AldenG]

You would never hear, "John is in hospital refilling the soda machine."....

But would you hear "Jane is in hospital refilling the milk machines."..?

In Finland, you quite likely would. Or "at hospital refilling milk machines."

[AldenG]

Rob, can you think of any context in English where we would use "space" in the meaning of place or stead? Whether we were talking about the forest or the juice-and-wine or any kind of substitution or 1st place, 2nd place, etc., those almost always turn into something like "in its place," or "instead" or "in its stead," don't they? Or maybe I'm just drawing a blank today.

So in the idiomatic meanings of tilalle, tilalla, sijasta, sijaan, we'd have to use "place" or "stead," do you think?

Replacement, rather than the refilling of space, seems to me the necessary interpretation of the sentence Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle. Then again, maybe Jukka will say I'm mistaken. Or the author citing Hakanen and Itkonen would say so. At the very least, this sentence seems really poorly chosen to illustrate his point. Even if the physical space is a viable interpretation, it surely cannot be the default interpretation. (?) And usage wouldn't have changed that much in 30 years, would it? He seems to go out of his way to say the sentence is about re-occupying the physical location rather than replacing the existence of the cleared trees. Personally I see nothing in the sentence that contradicts the possibility that 1 acre was cut on th edge of the woods and a new acre grew up, halfway but not fully overlapping the original acre. The main point is that there is a replacement acre, not its precise location. I can even imagine a scenario where the sentence is talking about two physically disjoint patches in a single large holding. I just don't see that tila=space is the default interpretation in that sentence. So the spatial argument that follows is a bit perpendicular. It needed to use an example that didn't incorporate such a fixed idiom that changed the frame of reference to an abstract one.

But to emphasize that the clearing is no longer empty and spacious because new growth has filled it, in English we would need to use "space" to avoid confusion about the exact meaning. "New trees appeared in place of the cleared ones" isn't ambiguous in meaning. It talks about existential replacement, not location. To get the other meaning, we'd have to say "New trees grew in the space the cleared ones had occupied" or "New trees popped up in the same place the old ones had been cut."

I just re-read all of page 1 and some of the linked material and I am more confused (while blissfully indifferent) about the true definition of an existential sentence than before. And about why it should matter.

[Rob A.]

You would never hear, "John is in hospital refilling the soda machine."....

But would you hear "Jane is in hospital refilling the milk machines."..?

In Finland, you quite likely would. Or "at hospital refilling milk machines."

I decided to check wikipedia...and lo!! ....there it is:

Grammar of the word differs slightly depending on the dialect. In the U.S., hospital usually requires an article; in Britain and elsewhere, the word normally is used without an article when it is the object of a preposition and when referring to a patient ("in/to the hospital" vs. "in/to hospital"); in Canada, both uses are found.

Interesting word ...."hospital"..... Not always what it seems....the modern English useage is pretty well the obvious one.... but there are exceptions... the venerable "Royal Hospital Chlesea"...a retirement and nursing home for old and seriously injured British soldiers....the well known "Chelsea pensioners"....I hadn't really thought about this before and I would have assumed it was a hospital in the modern sense.

The word comes from Latin and has a base meaning of "stranger" which leads to a range (....host... )... of words some positive...."hospitality", "hotel", ...some negative..."hostile"...and some going both ways..."host"..."one who sponsors a guest", and a "large army"....

So it seems that some languages emphasize the idea of "hosting" a stranger and use variations of the original Latin word, "hospes"....and others emphasize the idea of a place for the ill....Finnish, "sairaala"; Swedish, "sjukhus"; German, "Krankenhaus"....

Now what would be the Finnish word for a facility that offers charitable "care" to those who may not be able to reasonably fend for themselves???